United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management

Environmental Assessment UTU-87863 DOI-BLM-UT-C030-2010-0010-EA

April 2012

GEM MINE Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine

Location: Washington County, Utah

Applicant/Address: Good Earth Minerals, LLC 600 17th Street, Ste. 2800 South Denver, Colorado 80202-5428

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management St. George Field Office 345 East Riverside Drive St. George, Utah 84790 Phone: 435-688-3200 FAX: 435-688-3252

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine Environmental Assessment UTU-87863

Table of Contents 1.0 PURPOSE & NEED ...... 1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.2 Background ...... 3 1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ...... 3 1.4 Conformance with BLM Land Use Plan(s) ...... 3 1.5 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, or other Plans ...... 3 1.6 Identification of Issues ...... 4 1.6.1 Air Quality ...... 5 1.6.2 Cultural and Historical Resources ...... 5 1.6.3 Fish and Wildlife ...... 5 1.6.4 Geology/Mineral Resources ...... 5 1.6.5 Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds ...... 5 1.6.6 Lands/Access ...... 5 1.6.7 Livestock Grazing ...... 5 1.6.8 Soils ...... 5 1.6.9 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Animal Species ...... 6 1.6.10 Vegetation ...... 6 1.6.11 Visual ...... 6 1.7 Issues Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis ...... 6 1.8 Summary...... 8 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION ...... 9 2.1 Introduction ...... 9 2.2 Alternative A – Proposed Action ...... 9 2.2.1 Proposed Mine Operations ...... 9 2.2.2 Access and Haul Route ...... 13 2.2.3 Reclamation ...... 14 2.2.4 Applicant Committed Environmental Protection Measures ...... 15 2.3 Alternative B – Widen Haul Route ...... 18

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA i 2.4 Alternative C – No Action ...... 18 2.5 Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated from Further Analysis ...... 18 3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...... 20 3.1 Introduction ...... 20 3.2 General Setting ...... 20 3.3 Resources/Issues Brought Forward for Analysis ...... 21 3.3.1 Air Quality ...... 21 3.3.2 Cultural and Historic Resources ...... 21 3.3.3 Fish and Wildlife ...... 23 3.3.4 Geology/Mineral Resources ...... 24 3.3.5 Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds ...... 24 3.3.6 Lands/Access ...... 24 3.3.7 Livestock Grazing ...... 25 3.3.8 Soils ...... 25 3.3.9 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species ...... 26 3.3.10 Vegetation ...... 26 3.3.11 Visual ...... 26 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...... 28 4.1 Introduction ...... 28 4.2 Direct/Indirect Impacts ...... 28 4.2.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action ...... 28 4.2.2 Alternative B – Widen Haul Route ...... 33 4.2.3 Alternative C – No Action ...... 35 4.3 Cumulative Impacts Analysis ...... 35 4.3.1 Past and Present Actions ...... 36 4.3.2 Reasonably Foreseeable Action Scenario (RFAS) ...... 37 4.3.3 Cumulative Impacts ...... 37 5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ...... 40 5.1 Introduction ...... 40 5.2 Persons, Groups, and Agencies Consulted ...... 40 5.3 Summary of Public Participation ...... 41 5.4 List of Preparers ...... 61 5.4.1 BLM ...... 61

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA ii 5.4.2 Non-BLM Preparers ...... 61 6.0 REFERENCES AND ACRONYMS ...... 62 6.1 References Cited ...... 62 6.2 List of Acronyms Used in this EA ...... 63

Appendix A – Interdisciplinary Team Analysis Record Checklist Appendix B – Study Area Vegetation List Appendix C – Visual Contrast Rating Evaluation Appendix D – Fugitive Dust Control Plan and Small Source Exemption Registration Appendix E – Biological Opinion

List of Tables Table 1 Alternative A - Proposed Action Disturbances ...... 14 Table 2 Alternative B Disturbances ...... 18 Table 3 Cultural Phases of the Region ...... 22 Table 4 Cultural Resource Sites ...... 22 Table 5 BLM-Approved Seed Mix ...... 32 Table 6 List of all Persons, Agencies and Organizations Consulted for Purposes of this EA ...... 40 Table 7 Summary of Public Concerns on the Draft EA and BLM Responses ...... 44

List of Figures Figure 1 – General Location and Land Ownership ...... 2 Figure 2 – Proposed Mine Area and Haul Route ...... 11 Figure 3 – Proposed Mine Operations...... 12

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA iii Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine Environmental Assessment U-87863

1.0 PURPOSE & NEED

1.1 Introduct ion Good Earth Minerals, LLC (GEM) proposes to mine 800,000 tons of high purity gypsum from the Blakes Lambing Ground area located in southwestern Washington County, Utah (Figure 1). The project would be located on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), St. George Field Office. GEM holds mining claims on the proposed mine site. A Notice of Intention (NOI) to Commence Large Mining Operations has been submitted to the Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining (UDOGM). Also, GEM submitted a Plan of Operations (Plan) to the BLM, St. George Field Office for the construction and operation of a gypsum mine and associated haul route (the Project). Consistent with the surface management regulations in 43 CFR 3809.411, the BLM has reviewed the Plan and has determined that it meets the content requirements of 43 CFR 3809.401(b). This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to disclose and analyze the environmental consequences of the Project. GEM is the Proponent for this Project. An EA is a site-specific analysis of potential impacts that could result with the implementation of a Proposed Action or alternatives to the Proposed Action. The EA assists the BLM in project planning and ensuring compliance with the NEPA, and in making a determination as to whether any “significant” impacts could result from the analyzed actions. “Significance” is defined by NEPA and is found in regulation 40 CFR 1508.27. An EA provides evidence for determining whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or a statement of “Finding of No Significant Impact” (FONSI). If the decision maker determines that this project has “significant” impacts following the analysis in the EA, then an EIS would be prepared for the Project. If not, a Decision Record (DR) may be signed for the EA approving the selected alternative, whether the Proposed Action or another alternative. A DR, including a FONSI statement, documents the reasons why implementation of the selected alternative would not result in “significant” environmental impacts (effects) beyond those already addressed in St. George Field Office Resource Management Plan (RMP; BLM 1999).

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 1 File Path: C:\Users\stopham\Documents\PROJECTS\GoodEarthMinerals_GypMine\GIS\MXD\Working\Figure1_2012|GoodEarthMinerals_Figure1.mxd no guarantees to the accuracy of the data contained herein or any loss resulting therefrom. resulting loss any or herein contained data the of makes accuracy JBR the to document. legal guarantees no a as used be not should and only purposes reference for is document This BASE MAP:NAIP IMAGRY (USDA 2009) (USDA IMAGRY MAP:NAIP BASE Slope ACEC Slope Dam Beaver

Slope ACEC Slope Dam Beaver

State Park State State Private IndianReservation Management Land Bureau of MineOperations Road Haul

Wash NCA Wash Beaver Dam Dam Beaver 2 Paiute Wilderness Paiute 1 Paiute Wilderness Paiute 0 National Conservation Area Conservation National (ACEC) Concern Environmental of Area Critical Wilderness !( 91

Bulldog Pass/Apex Road 2 Miles

B

lo

o

m

i

n g

Red Mountain Wilderness Mountain Red

t

o

n

M

i n

B e

la

V

k a

e l l

e

L y

a R o

m a

d

b

i

n g

Corridor ACEC Corridor River Virgin

ACEC Hill Sand Clara Santa R

o

a d GENERAL LOCATION AND LAND OWNERSHIP LAND AND LOCATION GENERAL Red Bluff ACEC Bluff Red MINE OPERATIONS MINE River ACEC River Virgin Lower GOODMINERALS EARTH $ GEM GypsumMine GEM Red Mountain ACEC

FIGURE 1 FIGURE Washington County, Utah County, Washington CALE SC BY AWN DR

ST Mohave County, Arizona County, Mohave Red Cliffs NCA Cliffs Red 1 in = 3 miles 3 = 1 in RAWN DR DATE 03/27/12 1.2 Background Under the Project, gypsum would be mined and later milled to produce plastic fillers and fire retardants that require high purity gypsum and calcium sulfate. Expanding technology has developed applications for gypsum in plastics, paper, paint, coatings, rubber, and adhesives, as well as pharmaceuticals, food, and other uses. GEM holds three mining claims (UMC 411809, UMC 411810, and UMC 409917) in the general mine operations area. The Project would occur within the NE¼ NW¼ of Section 24, Township 43 South (T. 43 S.), Range 17 West (R. 17 W.), Salt Lake Meridian (SLM).

1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action The BLM’s underlying need is to respond to GEM application to mine gypsum on its three mining claims. The BLM must decide whether or not to approve GEMs mining plan, and if so, under what terms and conditions. In addition, BLM must concur with the placement, construction, or maintenance of enclosures, gates, fences, or signs. BLM is considering approval of private mineral resource development (i.e. mining) from Federal mine claims because the activity is an integral part of BLM’s program under authority of the Mining Law as amended. Additionally, mineral resource development is recognized as an appropriate use of public lands in the St. George Field Office RMP (1999) that provides management direction for the mine claim area.

1.4 Conformance with BLM Land Use Plan(s) The Project would occur on public lands administered by the BLM, St. George Field Office. The Project is in conformance with the St. George Field Office’s RMP management objective to “provide continued opportunity for exploration and development under the mining and mineral leasing laws... [this] objective is intended to support national goals for energy and strategic minerals independence and local and state goals for economic health and diversity (BLM 1999:2.7).” The Project conforms to the following St. George RMP land use decisions: MI-07 (BLM 1999:2.8) - Public lands in Washington County will remain available to mining location under the General Mining Act of 1872 and applicable regulations on 427,910 acres. The updated Locatable Mineral Management Map depicts mineral areas that will remain open (353,647 acres), open with restrictions (34,130 acres), and open with a plan of operation (40,452 acres). Restricted areas are those lands where mining locations are subject to special requirements of law and regulation primarily as a result of split-estate created under the Stockraising Homestead Act (BLM GIS data 2011).

1.5 Relationship to Statutes, Regulations, or other Plans This EA is being prepared in accordance with NEPA for projects involving Federal lands. The Proposed Action and alternatives are consistent with other plans, programs, and policies of affiliated Tribes, other Federal agencies, State agencies, and local governments to the extent practical, including but not limited to the following:

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 3 Federal Compliance (legislation): • Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (43 U.S.C.1701 et seq.) • Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq.), as amended and recodified (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.). • Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) • Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) • Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.) • National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) • Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 and 43 CFR Part 10 • American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, as amended Federal Compliance (regulation): • Rangeland Health Standards as developed by the Secretary of the Interior on February 22, 1995 • Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations • Protection of Historic Properties (36 CFR 800) • Native American Trust Resource Policy standards are presented in the Department of the Interior Comprehensive Trust Management Plan dated March 28, 2003 State of Utah and Local Compliance: • Washington County General Plan • Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining • Utah Division of Air Quality No specific State management plans apply to the Blakes Lambing Ground area. The Project would comply with all other applicable Federal and State of Utah statutes and regulations, agency policy, and local ordinances.

1.6 Identification of Issues Public scoping was formally initiated by the BLM on October 25, 2010 with the Project being listed on the Environmental Notification Bulletin Board (ENBB). The BLM Interdisciplinary Team (ID Team) completed a checklist (Appendix A) which identifies the issues and concerns expressed by resource specialists. It is the

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 4 foundation for the Identification of Issues as well as Issues Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis as presented in Section 1.8 . The following issues are carried forward for analysis in this EA; also see the ID Team checklist (Appendix A).

1.6.1 Air Quality • Implementation of the Project would involve new surface disturbance, travel on dirt roads, and use of combustion engines which would create dust and exhaust and could impact air quality.

1.6.2 Cultural and Historical Resources • Implementation of the Project would involve new surface disturbance that could impact National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-eligible cultural resource sites. Several eligible sites are known within the Area of Potential Effect (APE) involving segments of the road.

1.6.3 Fish and Wildlife • During mining and hauling, some small mammals, birds, and reptiles could be disturbed or killed and some dens or nests destroyed. Larger animals could be temporarily disturbed and displaced into adjacent habitats.

1.6.4 Geology/Mineral Resources • The Project would remove 800,000 tons of gypsum.

1.6.5 Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds • The proposed amount of disturbance and traffic to and from the site could provide a likely place for noxious weeds to develop. Invasive species could also spread within the disturbed areas.

1.6.6 Lands/Access • The Project could impact existing rights-of-way (ROW) and other land uses in the area; including Reliance Connects, formerly Rio Virgin Telephone, Dixie Escalante Rural Telephone Association, Washington County Roads Department, State Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA), and private property.

1.6.7 Livestock Grazing • Open pits or trenches associated with the Project could pose a hazard to livestock and road traffic and mine operation could cause some inconveniences to livestock operators.

1.6.8 Soils • Implementation of the Project would involve new surface disturbance to existing soils.

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 5 1.6.9 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Animal Species • Implementation of the Project could impact the Mojave desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii).

1.6.10 Vegetation • Implementation of the Project would include new surface disturbance and removal of existing vegetation.

1.6.11 Visual • Mining operations have the potential to impact visual resources.

1.7 Issues Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis The BLM is required to consider many authorities when considering a Federal action. Those elements of the human environment that are subject to the requirements specified in statute, regulation, or executive order (BLM H-1790-1, Appendix 1) and have been determined by BLM resource specialists to be not present in the area or not be affected are eliminated from further analysis. Through development of the ID Team Checklist (Appendix A ) and associated resource clearance documents, BLM determined that the following resources and supplemental authorities are not present in the area potentially affected by the Proposed Action or they would not be affected to a degree that detailed analysis is required. Concerns regarding air quality were raised by the public and this resource is carried forward for analysis. • Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) - There are no ACECs in the Project Area. • BLM Natural Areas - There are no BLM Natural Areas in the Project Area. • Greenhouse Gas Emissions - Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the Proposed Action, or Alternatives, are anticipate to be extremely minor. • Environmental Justice - No disproportionately high or adverse health or environmental effects would result to minority or low income populations as a result of implementing the Proposed Action. • Farmlands - No Prime and Unique Farmlands exist in the Project Area. • Floodplains - No Floodplains exist in the Project Area. • Fuels/Fire Management - The Project Area is managed for immediate suppression of all wildfires. The Proposed Action or Alternatives would not alter that objective. Also see Applicant Committed Environmental Protection Measures (2.2.4). • Hydrologic Conditions - The Proposed Action or Alternatives would create only minor and isolated soil disturbance. No drilling, pumping, or other actions that could affect aquifers or result in subsidence are proposed. No specific hydrologic issues relating to subsidence or flooding of underground facilities exist.

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 6 • Migratory Birds - The Project Area is located in low priority migratory bird habitat and would not significantly affect migratory bird species. • Native American Concerns - Consultation has been conducted with the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, under the terms of the MOU signed in 1999 and other American Indian Tribes that claim affiliation to southwestern Utah. • Noise - Pursuant to 43 CFR 3809.401 (4), a monitoring plan for noise in this area is not appropriate at this time. Although noise levels will be increased from present background during all phases of mining, the area is remote and does not have a high visitation level. Based on a noise attenuation by distance model, the Proposed Action (heavy equipment at 110 dBa) would generate 21 dBa at five miles, similar to a whisper and noticeably less than city traffic, normal conversation, or a refrigerator humming (http://www.engineeringpage.com/calculators/noise/distance_dB(A).html and http://www.hearingaidknow.com/2007/03/07/how-loud-is-too-loud-decibel-levels- of-common-sounds/). • Paleontology - There are no known paleontological sites in the Project Area. • Rangeland Health Standards - The Proposed Action and Alternatives are consistent with Rangeland Health: Standards and Guidelines for Healthy Rangelands (BLM 1997). The Proposed Action would not impact any of the four Fundamentals of Rangeland Health (i.e., watershed function, ecological processes, water quality, and special status species’ habitats). • Recreation - The Proposed Action or Alternatives would not impact the overall recreation setting. The Proposed Action or Alternatives would also be in compliance with VRM objectives, see Section 4.2.1.10. • Socioeconomics - By its scope and nature, the Proposed Action or Alternatives would not result in significant or adverse impacts on the regional economy of Washington County or of local communities. It would provide a small number of jobs from the local community. • Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate Plant Species - There are no Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate plant species in the Project Area. • Wastes (Hazardous or Solid) - There are no known hazardous or solid waste sites present within the Project Area and no hazardous waste would be generated by the Project or stored on site. • Water Resources/Quality - Although some sediment might be removed from this site during high rain fall events, it would not be expected to impact the closest water resource, which is the Virgin River, located approximately three miles south of the Project Area. • Wetlands/Riparian Zones - There are no wetlands or riparian zones located within or near the Project Area. • Wild and Scenic Rivers - There are no Wild and Scenic Rivers located within or near the Project Area.

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 7 • Woodland/Forestry - Woodland and forestry resources are not present in the Project Area. • Wild Horses and Burros - The Project Area is not within or adjacent to any wild horse Herd Management Areas or Herd Areas.Wilderness/Wilderness Study Areas/Areas with Wilderness Characteristics - There are no Wilderness, Wilderness Study Areas, or areas with Wilderness Characteristics within the Project Area.

1.8 Summar y This chapter has presented the purpose and need of the Project, as well as the relevant issues, i.e., those elements of the human environment that could be affected by the implementation of the Project. In order to meet the purpose and need of the Project in a way that resolves the issues, the BLM has considered a range of action alternatives. These alternatives, as well as a no action alternative, are presented in Chapter 2. Current baseline conditions for potentially affected resources and issues identified in Section 1.7 are presented in Chapter 3. Critical elements of the human environment (BLM H-1790-1, Appendix 5) subject to the requirements specified in statute, regulation, or executive order are also considered in Chapter 3. The potential environmental impacts or consequences resulting from the implementation of each alternative are then analyzed in Chapter 4 for each of the identified issues. Additional information on the scoping process is in Chapter 5, Consultation and Coordination.

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 8 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIV ES, INCLUDING PROPOSE D ACTION

2.1 Introduct ion GEM proposes to mine 800,000 tons of high purity gypsum for the plastic filler and fire retardant markets over a 20-year period from the Blakes Lambing Ground area (Figure 2). The mine operations would encompass approximately 11.3 acres of BLM administered lands located in T. 43 S., R. 17 W., NE¼ NW¼ section 24. The haul route would utilize existing roads and improve some of them by either constructing turnouts (Alternative A - Proposed Action) or widening the roadway (Alternative B). The Project is comprised of the mine operations area and the haul route.

2.2 Alternative A – Proposed Action The gypsum would be mined using open-quarry methods on 8.4 acres (Figure 3 ). Conventional drill-blast and loader/dozer operations would be used for hard overburden removal. A continuous miner type machine would be used for selective mining of the flat dipping high-grade gypsum horizons from the top down. Gypsum processing on site would be limited to basic crushing and screening when necessary. Mined gypsum would be transported to the staging area for crushing and sizing prior to loading on haul trucks for transportation to Utah Highway 91. The gypsum would be transported to an off-site milling operation by off-road/on-road 20 – 25-ton haul trucks via existing county roads and State and Federal highways. County roads would be upgraded for safe travel with turnouts where necessary. Quarry operation and hauling would occur during daylight hours and be conducted under a 5-day work week from Monday through Friday, except on holidays. Mining may be sporadic in response to market demand. Gypsum located on the property is layered in the Harrisburg member of the upper Kaibab formation. In the proposed mine area, this formation contains several thick layers of very high-grade gypsum (pure 90–95-plus percent gypsum) that range from 5- to 35-feet thick.

2.2.1 Proposed Mine Operations GEM estimates an operational mine life of approximately 20 years with a proposed starting date of operation immediately upon permitting and meeting required stipulations of BLM, Utah DOGM, and Washington County, Utah. GEM projects an initial production of 20,000 tons per year with a possible increase up to 100,000 tons within a couple of years dependent upon market demands. Initially, access directly into the staging area and into the proposed mining area (on the east side) would be made from the northwest-southeast road (Figure 3) that adjoins Blake Lambing Road (RD270182) in the NW¼ of section 24. Access to the top and near an old bulldozer channel cut would be made from east to west through the flat proposed staging area. Initial clearing of the mining areas, using a loader, would save topsoil (top 12 inches) for reclamation. Mining with dozer, loader, and drill-blast methods would progress to strip the hard overburden where necessary to expose the gypsum. Mining with loader and a continuous miner type machine would be from the top down to allow separation of high-grade gypsum

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 9 beds. The thin separable inter-beds (interburden) of limestone and silt, and the limestone cap material (overburden) would be stockpiled and later used as fill where needed to attain reclamation slopes. Waste rock retained on the site would be under 5 percent of the mined material. Interburden and overburden that remains after reclamation grades are met would be distributed on scarified, sloped benches. Stockpiled topsoil would be placed on the prepared surfaces, followed by seeding. Where possible, reclamation would be done concurrently. Mining operations would require the following equipment: • 1 large motor-grader for clearing overburden and piling topsoil to store in flat areas and for road maintenance; • contracted 20-25 ton haul trucks to transport ore; • 1 Air–Track Drill; • 1 980 to 988 Cat type loader; • 2 Cat-type 235 Trackhoes with continuous miner milling heads or AM-75; • 1 D-9 Cat-type bulldozer (temporary use rental) for overburden removal; • 1 AM-75 or like-type roadheader; or 2 Excavators with continuous miner heads • 1 portable generator with trailer housing; and • 1 or 2 pickup trucks for personnel transportation.

A primary jaw and/or cone crushing spread would be set up in the staging area (Figure 3) to allow primary sorting of material before trucking. All mining and processing equipment would be portable (rolling stock) and no permanent structures would be placed on the mine site. Primary crushing and screening to 3/8-inch to 2-inch size would be done on-site in the staging area using portable/movable crushing and screening equipment. Additional processing to reach customer specifications would be done off-site. The portable primary crushing equipment would have the proper Utah Division of Air Quality permits that address diesel, fugitive dust, and PM-10 emissions. The proposed type of on-site processing requires water to control traffic dust and dust generated by mining and processing equipment. A 4,000-gallon water truck would haul water to control dust on the site and another water truck would haul water to control dust on the haulage road. No water supply lines, power, or utility services would be used in mining. A portable generator would generate all necessary power (43 CFR 3809.401 (2)). The continuous miner and crusher would use water sprays to control dust. Pursuant to 43 CFR 3809.420 (2) GEM would follow a reasonable and customary development, mining, and reclamation sequence. Concurrent reclamation is planned as areas are mined; however, actual mining and development of the ore body would determine advancing sequences of operation to minimize disturbance in advance of mining. This type of flexibility is necessary when selectively mining to maintain high standards of ore control. Generally mining would progress from north to south and from the top down. Mining is not planned below the present general alluvial slope. Hillside (slope) mining would widen the canyon and slopes.

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 10 C:\D\My Documents\Good Earth Minerals\GIS\MXD\Final\JonesWaldoGypMine_Fig2_8_11v4 BASE MAP:NAIP (USDAMAP:NAIP 2009) BASE Mine ValleyMine . ! . ! . ! B l a k e s L a m b i n g G r o u n d s d n u o r G Li b s g e n Bm a l k a . ! Mine Operations Mine Road Existing Turnout Proposed ^ _ . ! . ! . ! . ! ^ _ ^ _ . ! TortoiseCarcass TortoiseLive . !

. ! Curly $ SCALE . ! PROPOSED MINE AREA AND HAUL ROUTE HAUL AREA MINE AND PROPOSED 1 in = 2,565 feet 1 2,565 = in GOOD EARTH MINERALS EARTH GOOD . ! 0.5

GEM Gypsum Mine Gypsum GEM

West Mountain West Hollow 0.25 FIGURE 2 FIGURE . ! . ! ^ _ 0 BY DRAWN CLG DRAWN DATE 0.5 8/11/11 Miles C:\D\My Documents\Good Earth Minerals\GIS\MXD\Final\JonesWaldoGypMine_Fig3_8_11v4 BASE MAP:NAIP (USDAMAP:NAIP 2009) BASE Truck Access Topsoil Area) (Staging Area Storage Mining Area (Staging Sizing Area Area) & Crushing Boundary Operations Mine Road Existing Turn-around , , , & TemporaryStockpile Mining Area Mining 200 Storage Area (Staging (Staging Area) Area Storage 100 0 Area Storage Topsoil and Sizing andSizing Crushing Staging, Staging, Area 200 Feet

Truck Access, Turn Around, Temporary Stockpile, and

$ Storage Area GOOD EARTH MINERALS EARTH GOOD PROPOSED MINE OPERATIONS MINE PROPOSED GEM Gypsum Mine Gypsum GEM FIGURE 3 FIGURE SCALE BY DRAWN CLG 1 in = 210 feet 1 210 = in DRAWN DATE 4/20/11 GEM would comply with all applicable Federal and State regulations, including the implementation of a Quality Assurance Plan pursuant to 43 CFR 3809.401 (2). Implementation consists of daily inspections by the mine foreman to ensure the structural integrity of existing mine slopes and walls, and to maintain compliance with internal safety and operating procedures. GEM would employ the services of a licensed blasting contractor who would comply with all applicable regulations and standards established by the regulating agencies, codes, and professional societies including the rules and regulations for storage, transportation, delivery, and use of explosives. No explosives would be stored on-site and blasting would only occur during the work week (Monday – Friday) and during daylight hours. Only minor, infrequent blasting is anticipated and it is not anticipated that road closures would be required. Pursuant to 43 CFR 3809.401 (5), an informal interim management plan would be in place and would be implemented during any extended periods when mining operations are shut down. This plan would include: removing mobile equipment from the site, installing closure signs, and maintaining a daily presence on the site to ensure site safety and security. An on-site office building is not needed for the project; however, the mining contractor may require a small, on-site trailer for a security guard. Port-a-potties would be used to contain sewage.

2.2.2 Access and Haul Route GEM proposes to use portions of the Bloomington Mine Valley Road, the Blake Lambing Road, and the Bulldog Pass/Apex Mine Road for hauling ore from the GEM mine. The gypsum would be transported to Old Utah Highway 91 by off-road/on-road 20 – 25-ton haul trucks via these existing dirt roads. The Blake Lambing and Bloomington Mine Valley roads would be upgraded for safe travel. The Bulldog Pass/Apex Road is a wide, county-maintained road that also serves as access to the Apex Mine. At the 20,000 tons per year production level, hauling 5 days per week, 3 to 4 truckloads would be transported per day along these roads. At the 100,000 tons per year production level, hauling 5 days per week, 15 to 19 truckloads per day would haul ore from the GEM mine to the highway and the off-site milling facility. All haul trucks would adhere to a speed limit of 20 miles per hour while traveling on unpaved surfaces where no speed limit is delineated. The Proposed Action includes construction of road turnouts along the Blake Lambing and the Bloomington Mine Valley roads. Fourteen truck turnouts positioned at locations where on-coming traffic can be seen for significant distances would allow for safe travel on the access/haul route (Figure 2). The turnouts would be approximately 15 feet wide in addition to the existing road width and about 70 feet long (0.024 acres each) ramping in and out of the main road. A system of turnouts would entail 0.34 acres of disturbance. They, along with good visibility from the crests along the road and road signs at appropriate places, would facilitate traffic safety. Much of the access road and adjacent areas were disturbed during the placement of buried cable in 2008 and 2009. GEM would consult with Washington County Road Department, SITLA, Rio Virgin fiber

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 13 optic company, the Dixie Rural Electric Association (REA) power company, and the private land owner prior to any road work. The road improvements could either be left in place at the end of mining or reclaimed, depending upon County and BLM preference. No improvements, including widening or construction of pull outs, would be needed to the County-maintained, Bulldog Pass/Apex Road, including on the Shivwits Indian Reservation. Haul trucks, construction vehicles,and personnel would limit activities on the Bulldog/Apex Road to the existing road way, including on the Shivwits Indian Reservation. Grading following inclement weather would be coordinated with Washington County. Table 1 presents the Project components and associated disturbances. Table 1 Alternative A - Proposed Action Disturbances Acres of Project Component Description Disturbance Mine Area 8.40 Topsoil Storage Area 0.82 Staging, Crushing, and Sizing Area 0.58 Truck Access, Turnaround, Temporary 1.50 Stockpile, and Storage Area Turnouts along Haul Route 15 feet x 70 feet each x 14 0.34 Total 11.64

2.2.3 Reclamation Roads within the mine and staging areas would be reclaimed within the 11.3-acre mine operations area. An average of 12 inches of topsoil would be removed from the mining area with a loader and/or excavator and moved to the topsoil storage area (Figure 3). Concrete (or other material-type) berms would be placed to separate and protect the topsoil. No more than 6,700 cubic yards of topsoil would be stored in the noted area before it would be used in reclamation activities concurrent with mining activities. Waste rock (interburden and overburden) would be used to contour and slope the ground prior to scarification and topsoil placement. As reclamation is conducted after each mining area is finished from north to south, the mined ground would be scarified, topsoil would be placed 6- to 12-inches deep (depending on conditions), and the area would then be seeded with a certified weed-free and a BLM-determined seed mix; see Table 5. No waste rock dumps would remain as all material would be used in reclamation; however, if any waste rock mounds were left, they would be regraded to 3h:1v and covered with topsoil and reseeded. Waste rock material would be the removed overburden and interburden, which are a limestone and gypsum mix that is consistent with the existing surface bedrock and soil character. Some crushed limestone waste rock would be used for conditioning/filling on the access road.

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 14 The haul route improvements (i.e., turnouts) could be left in place, depending upon County and BLM preference, to facilitate safe travel for utility companies that use the road to reach power lines and buried cables. There would be no highwalls left in the mining area.

2.2.4 Applicant Committed Environmental Protection Measures The Project, including haulage through BLM public land and the Shivwits Indian Reservation, would comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and local zoning ordinances. Best Management Practices (BMPs) approved by the BLM would be utilized to minimize the potential for soil erosion and the introduction of non-native, invasive plant species on public lands. The Project would comply with BLM’s Standard Procedures Applied to Surface Disturbing Activities (BLM 1999: A1.1, A1.3-A1.4). All companies involved would comply with any mitigation measures or stipulations associated with the Project. In addition, the following project design features and construction protocols would be in effect during the Project and haulage through BLM public land and the Shivwits Indian Reservation. Monitoring of design features, construction protocols, and revegetation activities would be conducted by the appropriate regulatory agency (e.g., BLM, State of Utah, etc.) and/or an approved and qualified contractor. Soils • Water bars would be installed on roads where slopes exceed 10 percent.

Non-native Invasive Species and Noxious Weeds • Prior to Project initiation, all construction-related equipment would be cleaned of soils, seeds, vegetative matter, or other debris or matter that could contain or hold non-native invasive and noxious weed seeds. Equipment would also be cleaned any time thereafter if the equipment leaves the Project Area, is used on another project, and reenters the Project Area. • A certified weed-free seed mix, determined by the BLM (see Table 5 ), would be used during reclamation activities. • Mine management would conduct weekly inspections for noxious weeds , followed with control efforts when needed. Routine BLM inspections should also include invasive species to ensure compliance with these requirements. Stabilization and Rehabilitation • Any topsoil (top 12 inches of soil) excavations would be scraped and stockpiled and conserved for revegetation efforts following construction. Upon completion of mining activities, the disturbed areas would be reclaimed by re-contouring to minimize erosion and compaction, replacing stockpiled topsoil, restoring natural ground cover, reestablishing plant growth, and allowing natural surface drainage. • Restoration and reclamation of disturbed areas would be in accordance with the standards specified by the BLM and would follow a BLM-approved Reclamation Plan for the Project.

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 15 • All trash and refuse would be cleaned up from the Project Area daily, and fuel/oil spills would be immediately, within the day, cleaned up and removed from the Project Area to an approved disposal site. Air Quality • All loads would be covered and, when needed, water would be applied during the construction period to control fugitive dust levels on access roads and the mine site. Dust would be controlled using 2 water trucks to supply water for the operation. One 4,000-gallon water truck would be used at the mine site for road and pad watering and to supply spraying mechanisms for mining and crushing equipment. Another 4,000-gallon water truck would be used to supply dust control water to the haul route on a daily basis when hauling rock; also see Fugitive Dust Control Plan and Small Source Exemption Registration (Appendix D); • Pursuant to Federal 43CFR 3809.401 (4) and State, County, and local regulations, air quality requirements will be met. The portable primary crushing equipment will have the proper Utah Division of Air Quality permits concerning diesel, fugitive dust, and PM-10 emissions. The type of on-site processing proposed would require water to control traffic dust and dust generated by mining and processing equipment. A 4000-gallon water truck would haul water to control dust on the site and another water truck would haul water to control dust on the haulage road. A water source for the project has not yet been determined; but, water would either be purchased from Washington County, a near-by City, private source, or the Shivwits Band of Paiutes. Water would not be obtained from the Virgin River or any stream, creek, river, or spring. If needed to meet requirements, magnesium chloride would be applied to the roads with BLM approval. Livestock Protection • The integrity of livestock gates, fence, cattle guards, and water pipes would be maintained during mining and hauling activities. Wildfire • All construction personnel would have fire-fighting tools and extinguishers available in or on all equipment including haul trucks at all times for use if the occasion arises. • All construction personnel would be trained in basic fire control procedures. • Construction personnel would adhere to any BLM fire prevention requirements. These requirements would be presented by the mine foreman to all personnel working on the Project and would be available onsite at all times. • All vehicles and equipment, including haul trucks, would be in proper working order, which would minimize the potential emission of flammable debris. Cultural Resources • Known NRHP-eligible cultural resources would be avoided by haul route improvements (i.e. turnouts or widening). An archaeological monitor would be present for any activities in the vicinity of NRHP-eligible sites. If NRHP-eligible sites

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 16 • Although not anticipated, if previously undocumented cultural or historic objects are discovered during mining activities, the BLM would be notified and work in the area would halt until documentation and evaluation by a professionally trained archeologist could be conducted. Public Safety • Appropriate warning signs would be posted in locations where public access to the mining areas is adjacent and readily available. The area would not pose a threat to public health and safety because the minerals mined are non-toxic and the reclamation slopes would actually be less steep than many slopes on the surrounding terrain. The area would be signed (posted) to advise the public as to the existence of the mining operation. These signs would be removed upon completion of reclamation when all hazards are removed. Mine personnel would remain on site to monitor equipment and facilities during weekends and other periods of non- operation. Hazardous Materials and Wastes • Covered dumpsters located on-site would contain all refuse. Refuse would be removed on a regular (weekly to bi – weekly) basis to an approved County landfill. • Diesel and engine oil products would be the only hazardous material liquids proposed for use on site. On-site dual lined fuel tanks would be on elevated structures placed on impermeable surfaces (liner) within bermed areas to prevent seepage and ensure containment from spillage and possible surface water contact. • GEM would have a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan pursuant to 43 CFR 3809.401 prior to mining. Any above ground diesel tank (if needed by the mine contractors) proposed for placement in the mine operations area would be double walled to prevent spillage or leaks. Any leaks from the primary tank shell would be fully contained with the outer tank shell. The only other significant source of potential petroleum spills would be from mobile equipment. As part of normal work practice, any spills from mobile equipment would be promptly reported internally, per the SPCC Plan. Subsequently, contractors to GEM would actively clean up any such spills and dispose of them appropriately according to applicable Federal, State, and County regulations. • Port-a-potties would be used to contain sewage. Desert Tortoise • In order to minimize effects to desert tortoises, GEM would comply with the conservation measures included in the Biological Opinion (BO) for this Project (USFWS 2012, Appendix E). Termination • If the Project is to be terminated or abandoned, an inspection would be held with the BLM in order to agree upon an acceptable rehabilitation plan for the area.

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 17 • Successful reclamation would be determined by the BLM and UDOGM.

2.3 Alternative B – Widen Haul Route Alternative B would include the proposed mine operations (Figure 3 ) as they were described in the Proposed Action (Section 2.2). However, instead of constructing the 14 turnouts along the proposed haul route, Alternative B would widen the entire length of the roads to be utilized as the haul route, with the exception of those area having NRHP-eligible cultural resources. Increasing the road widths an average of 3 to 4 feet throughout the 5-mile haul route would add about 2 acres of disturbance (Table 2).

Table 2 Alternative B Disturbances Acres of Project Component Description Disturbance Mine Area 8.40 Topsoil Storage Area 0.82 Crushing and Sizing Area 0.58 Truck Access Turnaround & 1.50 Temporary Stockpile Storage Area Haul Route Widening Improvements ~3.5 feet x 5 miles 2.12 Total 13.42

2.4 Alternative C – No Action The no action alternative is considered and analyzed to provide a baseline for comparison of the impacts of the Proposed Action. Under the no action alternative, the proposed Plan would not be approved.

2.5 Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated from Further Analysis Applicable design features have been incorporated into the Proposed Action and Alternative B to avoid or minimize disturbance to resources present within and near the Project Area. There have been no other mining alternatives suggested that would meet the purpose and need for the Project while lessening the impact on the resources identified. Further, the Project was designed to recover the specific mineral deposit. For these reasons, the EA focuses on the Proposed Action and Alternative B, in addition to the no action alternative (Alternative C), as described above in Sections 2.2 through 2.4. The proposed haul route would cross private property, lands administered by the BLM and SITLA, and the Shivwits Indian Reservation. Two alternate haul routes were also considered but eliminated from further analysis, as described below.. The Bloomington route would utilize the Blake Lambing Road east of the mine site to access city streets in the Bloomington area of St. George. Although shorter in length, this alternative was eliminated due to safety and other issues related to driving haul trucks through residential areas. A small portion of this route would also pass through the Red Bluff ACEC. This ACEC was designated to provide special management

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 18 attention to scenic values, cryptogrammic and erosive soils, and endangered plants, including the dwarf bear-claw poppy (Arctomecon humilis). Populations of dwarf bear- claw poppy are known to occur adjacent to this route. The Bulldog Pass route would utilize the Bulldog Pass road from its intersection with the Bloomington Mine Valley road to access Old Utah Highway 91. Although similar in length, this alternative was eliminated from further analysis due to topographic constraints that would require major road construction work (cuts, fills, and realignments) and new disturbance in order to make the road passable by haul trucks. This existing route would also pass through Designated Critical Habitat for the desert tortoise and the Beaver Dam Slope ACEC.

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 19

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.1 Introduct ion This chapter presents the potentially affected existing environment (i.e., the physical, biological, social, and economic values and resources) of the impact area as identified in the ID Team Analysis Record Checklist found in Appendix A. The checklist indicates which resources of concern are either not present in the Project Area or would not be impacted to a degree that requires detailed analysis. Resources which could be impacted to a level requiring further analysis are described in Chapter 3 and impacts on these resources are analyzed in Chapter 4. This chapter provides the baseline for comparison of impacts/consequences described in Chapter 4.

3.2 General Setting The Project Area is located in the Beaver Dam Mountains in Washington County, Utah, situated within the St. George Basin and Beaver Dam Range physiographic subdivisions at elevations between 3,320 and 3,490 feet above mean sea level (amsl). Surficial deposits in this area consist primarily of Permian-age limestones. The regional climate is characterized by low precipitation and humidity, with hot summers and cool winters. Average rainfall is approximately 8 inches per year, the majority of which occurs in late summer and during winter months (Western Regional Climate Center 2011). Soils are composed of light gray/tan sands with numerous small rock fragments and boulders. Plants in the area are adapted to deal with shallow soil and scant water. Slow-growing desert scrub vegetation and fragile ephemeral species take advantage of winter and late summer rain. Common plants like creosote (Larrea tridentata) survive the hot dry desert conditions using a variety of adaptations. Recent fires, namely the 50,697-acre Jarvis Complex fire of 2006, have impacted much of the vegetation within and adjacent to the Project Area and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) is the dominant species in many portions of the area. Land uses include utility ROWs, recreation, hunting, and livestock grazing. Numerous roads crisscross the general area surrounding the Project Area, and portions receive medium or moderate off-highway vehicle (OHV) use. The Project Area is located in a remote setting and air quality is generally considered good to excellent. Air quality in the area is periodically affected by vehicle emissions, fugitive dust as a result of motorized travel on dirt roads, nearby mining activities, and occasional wildfire smoke. The Project Area is in an area classified as Open for locatable minerals (BLM 1999).

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 20 3.3 Resources/Issues Brought Forward for Analysis

3.3.1 Air Quality Based on Federal regulations, Washington County is classified as attainment for all criteria pollutants and air quality is generally considered to be good.

3.3.2 Cultural and Historic Resources Decisions regarding the management of cultural resources are dependent on determinations of significance in their evaluation for the NRHP. In order for a cultural resource site to be eligible for the NRHP, the site must meet certain criteria and retain aspects of integrity including location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Cultural resource sites are evaluated for significance against the following NRHP criteria (36 CFR 60.4): a. association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or b. association with the lives of persons significant in our past; or c. embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic value, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or d. have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history. Cultural Context Based on evidence from regional archeological sites, human use and occupation of southern Utah dates back thousands of years, during which time there were many changes in the technologies, economies, settlement patterns, social systems, and worldviews. These people left evidence of their occupation in the form of lithic scatters, campsites, rock shelters, constructed features, and rock art. Detailed accounts of the prehistoric cultural history of the southern Utah region (e.g., Altschul & Fairley 1989; Geib 1996; Lyneis 1995) have been published and provide additional information. The Washington County area was settled by Euro-Americans in the 1850s (Alder and Brooks 1996). Washington County was designated in 1852 with St. George as the county seat (Utah State Historical Society 1988). Evidence of historic activities includes roads, mine sites, evidence of agricultural and ranching activities, as well as settlement and domestic structures/features. Histories of Washington County and its communities have been documented and are provide additional information (e.g., Alder and Brooks 1996). Table 3 presents the prehistoric and historic cultural phases and associated time periods.

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 21 Table 3 Cultural Phases of the Region Approximate Time Cultural Phase Sub-Phase Period Paleoindian 11000 – 7000 BC Early Archaic 7000-4200 BC Archaic Middle Archaic 4200 – 2600 BC Late Archaic 2600 – 100 BC Basketmaker II 100 BC – AD 450 Basketmaker III AD 450 - 750 Formative (Virgin Anasazi) Pueblo I AD 700 – 900 Pueblo II/III AD 900 – 1300 Late Prehistoric AD 1200 – 1700 Late Prehistoric (Southern Protohistoric AD 1700 – 1850 Paiute / Ute) Historic Post AD 1850 Early Exploration AD 1776 – 1858 Historic (Euro-American) Mormon Settlement AD 1858 – 1870 Farming & Ranching AD 1870 - 1880

Previous Research As required by the National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470), an intensive archeological field investigation was conducted on the proposed mine area and haul route (Gourley 2010, Gourley et al. 2007). Prior to the fieldwork, a literature review and file search for reported projects and previously recorded cultural sites was performed at the BLM, St. George Field Office and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). This search revealed five previous cultural resource inventories within one mile of the Project Area. Those inventories indicate five previously recorded cultural resource sites within one mile of the mining operations area and six cultural resource sites located along the haul route portion of the Project Area (Gourley 2010). Cultural Resource Sites The project specific inventory (Gourley 2010) documented one new cultural resource site and six previously documented cultural resource sites. No NRHP-eligible sites are located within or near the mining operations area. However, three NRHP-eligible sites are present along the haul route (Table 4). These sites were evaluated as retaining sufficient integrity and scientific data potential to be eligible for NRHP inclusion under listing criterion “a” and/or “d.” Table 4 Cultural Resource Sites Site Cultural NRHP Site Type Location Recommendation Number Affiliation Eligibility Prehistoric Lithic Unknown Not Mining 42KA5402 None Scatter Aboriginal Eligible Area Prehistoric Lithic Not Haul 42WS2156 Procurement Middle Archaic None Eligible Route Area Prehistoric Lithic Late Archaic, Haul 42WS2157 Eligible Avoid Procurement Euro-American Route

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 22 Area & Rock Shelter / Historic Trash Scatter Prehistoric Lithic Unknown Not Haul 42WS3299 None Scatter Aboriginal Eligible Route Prehistoric Lithic Unknown Not Haul 42WS5022 None Scatter Aboriginal Eligible Route Haul 42WS5031 Historic Road Euro-American Eligible Avoid Route Prehistoric Late Archaic, Campsite & Virgin Anasazi, Haul 42WS5034 Processing Area / Southern Eligible Avoid Route Historic Artifact Paiute, Scatter Euro-American

3.3.3 Fish and Wildlife Although the existing post-burn habitat does not support a typical density and diversity of wildlife species, wildlife that typically would be found in this area include: badgers (Taxidea taxus), antelope ground squirrels (Ammospermophilus leucurus), kangaroo rats (Dipodomys deserti), deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), desert wood rats (Neotoma lepida), Gambel’s quail (Callipepla gambelii), mourning doves (Zenaida macroura), common ravens (Corvus corax), wrens, house finches (Carpodacus mexicanus), side-blotched lizards (Uta stansburiana), and western whiptails (Cnemidophorus tigris). Infrequently, larger animals such as raptors, coyotes (Canis latrans), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), and mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) may pass through the area. During spring 2011 surveys, the following were observed in or near the Project Area: coach whip (Masticophis flagellum), desert horned lizard (Phrynosoma platyrhinos), western whiptail, great basin collard lizard (Crotaphytus bicinctores), and long-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia wislizenii). The only bird species observed during the survey were the common raven and black throated sparrow (Amphispiza bilineata). Due to the lack of mature perennial vegetation, the Project Area provides limited nesting habitat for most migratory bird species and no nests were discovered during spring 2011 surveys. The Project Area supports low densities of small mammals, birds, and reptiles that are generally concentrated in the larger washes. There is no fish habitat in the Project Area. BLM Sensitive Species The following BLM Sensitive Species may occur in the Project Area: burrowing owl (permanent resident, uncommon), Ferruginous hawk (transient, fairly common), Fringed myotis (permanent resident, uncommon), kit fox (permanent resident, uncommon), Spotted bat (permanent resident, rare), Townsend’s big-eared bat (permanent resident, fairly common), and Zebra-tailed lizard (permanent resident, fairly common). During the field survey, all predator burrows were examined for burrowing owls and their sign. No BLM Sensitive Species were observed in the Project Area.

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 23 3.3.4 Geology/Mineral Resources The regional geologic setting across southwestern Utah includes the boundary between the Permian Period of the Paleozoic Era and the Triassic Period of the Mesozoic Era. Regionally, this boundary combined with a change in the crustal tectonic framework gives rise to the geographic and geomorphic transition zone between the Basin and Range Province and the Colorado Plateau. Permian Period marine rocks in the region contain several evaporate deposits. Evaporites, like gypsum, were deposited during regressions of the Permian seas. The Permian Period rocks in the area are thick marine accumulations in contrast to the overlying thinner accumulation of lower Triassic non-marine clastic red-bed rocks. The gypsum deposit in the Project Area is located in the thicker gypsum beds of the Permian Harrisburg member of the Kaibab (limestone) formation (Johnson 2010). The Project Area is in an area classified as “Open” for locatable minerals (BLM 2011 GIS data). GEM holds three locatable mineral claims in the proposed mining area including UMC 411809, UMC 411810, and UMC 409917.

3.3.5 Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds Mature perennial vegetation is extremely sparse throughout the Project Area as vegetation was burned during the Jarvis Fire in 2006. No Utah listed noxious weeds were observed during the biological survey (JBR 2010). While cheat grass, filaree (Erodium cicutarium), and tumble weed (Salsola sp.) are not listed on the Utah Noxious Weed List, they are exotic and invasive plant species that occur in great density in the post-burn Project Area. A complete vegetation list is included as Appendix B.

3.3.6 Lands/Access The proposed mine operations portion of the Project Area is entirely on lands administered by the BLM, St. George Field Office. The proposed haul route includes portions of the Blake Lambing Road (RD270182) and the Bloomington Mine Valley Road (RD270178), which are crowned and ditched. These roads are considered collector and special use roads as identified in the Washington County General Plan (2010). From the western end of the Bloomington Mine Valley Road to Old Utah Highway 91, the haul route also includes the Bulldog Pass/Apex Road. This road crosses the Shivwits Indian Reservation, SITLA, and private lands. The Bloomington Mine Valley Road includes private, SITLA, and BLM-administered lands and the Blake Lambing Road includes SITLA and BLM-administered lands. In addition to these roads, there are a number of unnamed, unimproved dirt roads in the area. The portion of the Bulldog Pass/Apex Road that occurs on the Shivwits Indian Reservation measures approximately 3.2 miles. Including Old Utah Highway 91, a total of approximately 7.0 miles of the haul route would occur on the Shivwits Indian Reservation. The Paiutes, including the Shivwits Band, settled in Utah around 1100 AD (Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah 2012). They practiced diversified subsistence including hunting, gathering, and farming along the Santa Clara River and Virgin River. The

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 24 Shivwits Band of Paiute Indians originally received federal recognition on March 3, 1891 and the 100-acre Shivwits Indian was established. At that time there was a population of 194 persons on the reservation. Along with other Utah Paiute tribes, the Shivwits' status as a federally recognized tribe was terminated by Congress in the 1950s. Unlike other Paiute groups, the Shivwits retained ownership of their lands after termination and leased them to ranchers instead of selling them outright. In April 1980 President Carter signed legislation that restored federal recognition for the Paiute tribes. The Shivwits reservation currently measures approximately 28,000 acres. Most, if not all, people living on the Shivwits Reservation reside in a little community located adjacent to Old Utah Highway 91, 3.8 road miles east of its intersection with Bulldog Pass/Apex Road. Two existing ROWs are present along portions of the proposed haul route including an overhead transmission line (Dixie REA) and a fiber optic cable (Rio Virgin Telephone) that is buried along the Blakes Lambing Road and the Bloomington Mine Valley Road. The Project Area is zoned Open Space Conservation (OSC-20) by Washington County. Mining is not a permitted use in this zone but does fall under the conditional uses and requires a conditional use permit (Washington County 2010). Current land uses in the Project Area are consistent with the provisions of the OSC zone.

3.3.7 Livestock Grazing Livestock grazing occurs in the Project Area, which is located within the 7,250-acre Mine Valley allotment (#4109). This allotment is used by one permittee. Allotments are managed with the goal of maintaining vegetation productivity and proper ecologic functions. This allotment is designated under the Intensive management category. Livestock use levels are measured in Animal Unit Months (AUMs). An AUM is the amount of forage it takes to support one cow/calf pair, one bull, five sheep, or one horse for one month. The Mine Valley Allotment provides 375 AUMs for 54 cattle from Fall to Spring, a 7- month period. The allotment is not fenced, therefore it is open range. For the purposes of analysis, it will be assumed that each acre of an allotment produces an equal amount of forage; therefore in the Mine Valley allotment it takes 19.33 acres to support 1 AUM.

3.3.8 Soils The primary soils, as described in the Soil Survey Washington County Area, Utah (NRCS 2010), in the mine operations portion of the Project Area are considered Winkel Rock outcrop complex. It is found on mesas and is a calcareous material weathered from basalt, limestone, and wind-deposited sand. It is found between 2,800 to 4,000 feet amsl with 8 to 30 percent slope. It is classified as well-drained. The primary soils (SCS 1977) along Blake Lambing Road portion of the haul route are considered Badland. Badland consists of steep escarpments and desert hills of barren, multicolored layers of shale. Erosion is active and sediment potential is very high during intense precipitation events. Curly Hollow rock outcrop, rough broken land, and Winkel- rock outcrop associations are also present along the Blake Lambing Road.

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 25 The dominant soils along the Bloomington Mine Valley Road are Chilton gravelly loam soils (SCS 1977). The Chilton gravelly loam is less erodible than the Badland series with a medium runoff potential and slight hazard for erosion. Other soil associations along this portion of the haul route include badland, Cave gravely sandy loam, eroded land-Shalet complex, Hobog-rock land, Pastura-Esplin complex, rock land, rock land- Hobog, Tortugas-rock land, Winkel rock outcrop, and a small area of St. George silt loam at the intersection with Highway 91.

3.3.9 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species The US Fish and Wildlife Service lists 14 fish, wildlife, and plant species as Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate that could occur in Washington County, Utah. Of these, only the Mojave desert tortoise has the potential to occur within the Action Area. The desert tortoise is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act and low-density populations are known in the general area. The Project Area is not Designated Critical habitat for the species but it is located in or near the Upper Virgin River Recovery Unit (USFWS 2011). As tortoises could occur in the Project Area, a protocol (USFWS 2010) desert tortoise survey of the proposed mine site was conducted (JBR 2010); no tortoises or tortoise sign (e.g., burrows, scat, carcasses, etc.) were observed. However, a tortoise was recently discovered along the proposed haul route approximately 3 miles northwest of the mine operations area and a tortoise carcass is known approximately 1,000 feet south of the mine operations area. More information on the desert tortoise can be found in the BO for this Project (USFWS 2012).

3.3.10 Vegetation The biological survey (JBR 2010) included documentation of vegetation and special status plant species. The natural vegetation in small portions of the Project Area and surrounding areas unaffected by the 2006 fire is composed of one dominant vegetation community consisting of indigo bush (Psorothamnus arborescens), globe mallow (Sphaeralcea ambigua), and creosote bush. This mature perennial vegetation is extremely sparse throughout the Project Area, as cheatgrass has become established in the post-burn area. Several special status plant species are known to inhabit badland soils like those found in the Project Area, including the dwarf bear-claw poppy (Arctomecon humilis), Holmgren milkvetch (Astragalus holmgreniorum), Siler pincushion (Sclerocactus sileri), Pary’s sandpaper plant (Petalonyx parryi), and Gierisch globemallow (Sphaeralcea gierischii). No special status plants were observed during the survey.

3.3.11 Visual The Project Area would occur within areas designated as Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class III (BLM 1999, A5.1). The objective of 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 and allow moderate changes to the characteristic landscape while partially retaining basic elements and features of the

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 26 existing character of the landscape. Under this class, most surface disturbing activities could be authorized subject to the reclamation standards noted in the RMP (BLM 1999). To analyze the potential visual impacts from the proposed Project, a visual contrast rating evaluation was conducted (Appendix C). This rating system is used to evaluate a project and how a project will change the basic form, line, color, and texture in the observer’s viewshed. This rating is conducted from the most critical viewpoints as determined by number of viewers, length of view time, and nearby communities. In general, the terrain in the Project Area is rolling with open expanses and little vegetation. Dirt roads, utility lines, and some mining activity are evident in the viewshed surrounding the Project Area.

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 27 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

4.1 Introduct ion This section describes the potential environmental effects of Alternative A - Proposed Action, Alternative B – Widen Haul Route, and Alternative C - No Action Alternative on the physical, biological, and other resources in the Project Area described above in Chapter 3. In consideration of environmental protection measures and mitigating measures included in the Proposed Action, the remaining environmental consequences described below are unavoidable.

4.2 Direct/Indirect Impacts

4.2.1 Alternative A – Proposed Action 4.2.1.1 Air Quality Impacts to air quality would be in the form of emissions and dust as a result of vehicular traffic on dirt roads, use of combustion engines (vehicles and equipment), earthwork, ore handling, and other mine operations. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan and Small Source Exemption Registration are included as Appendix D and are incorporated by reference. The Project is eligible for a Small Source Exemption through the Utah Department of Air Quality because calculated emissions rates are below thresholds (see Appendix D ). For example, regarding fugitive dust, it was calculated that the project would create 4.92 tons/year Particulate Matter (PM10), less than the 5 tons/year threshold. Implementation of the Fugitive Dust Control Plan and environmental protection measures (Section 2.2.4) would minimize potential impacts to air quality. Impacts to air quality would be long term and negligible. Project-related activities on the Shivwits Indian Reservation would be limited to driving on Bulldog Pass/Apex Road and Old Utah Highway 91. Impacts to air quality from driving across the Reservation would be as described above.

4.2.1.2 Cultural and Historic Resources As designed the proposed mine operations would have no direct effect on historic properties (i.e., NRHP-eligible sites). The proposed turnouts along the haul route would be located to avoid areas with NRHP-eligible cultural resources. Should design plans change and necessitate disturbance of eligible sites, appropriate data recovery measures would need to be initiated in consultation with the BLM, the SHPO, and the Public Lands Policy Coordination Office prior to ground disturbing activities. If required, additional cultural resource work may include development of an approved treatment plan outlining mitigation measures to offset the adverse nature of the effects, implementation of the treatment plan, and reporting of the results.

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 28 As noted in Section 2.2.4, in the unlikely event that additional archaeological remains were encountered during project construction or operations, all ground disturbing activities in the immediate vicinity would cease and a representative of the BLM would be contacted within 24 hours of the discovery to evaluate the find. Improved access roads into the general area could increase recreational use and casual visitation to the area. This could result in indirect impacts to cultural resources such as unauthorized collection of artifacts, vandalism, and OHV disturbance. Project-related activities on the Shivwits Indian Reservation would be limited to driving on Bulldog Pass/Apex Road and Old Utah Highway 91. Driving on existing roads would have No Effect on historic properties. 4.2.1.3 Fish and Wildlife Overall impacts to small mammals, birds, and reptiles would be minor to populations in the general area. Larger animals would be temporarily disturbed and displaced to adjacent habitats. Mining and hauling of materials would be conducted periodically, and once mining and hauling activities are done for a while, larger animals would return to the area. Any disturbance to small mammals, birds, and reptiles would be short term (lasting several years). Impacts to Special Status Species would be similar to impacts to general wildlife in the area. This mining operation would disturb approximately 11 acres of general habitat in the mine area and an additional 0.34 acres of habitat along the haul route (due to construction of road turnouts, and maintenance). This disturbance would be within habitat containing a low diversity of wildlife (low priority area), and would be spread out over a 20 year period. Wildlife could be affected by haul trucks on the roads accessing the mine. This impact would be long term and minor at the initial mine production level. As the number of haul trips increases, the potential for traffic-related wildlife incidents may also increase. Project-related activities on the Shivwits Indian Reservation would be limited to driving on Bulldog Pass/Apex Road and Old Utah Highway 91. Impacts to wildlife from driving across the Reservation would be as described above. 4.2.1.4 Geology/Mineral Resources The Proposed Action would remove 800,000 tons of gypsum from the mineral base. The mine operations would impact an 8.4-acre area within the mining claims. GEM projects an initial production of 20,000 tons per year with a possible increase up to 100,000 tons within a couple of years dependent upon market demands. The contribution of 800,000 tons of high grade gypsum would constitute a positive minerals benefit to the public/industry. Impacts to locatable mineral resources in this area would be long-term and irreversible because the gypsum would be permanently removed from the site during the mining process. However the removal of 800,000 tons would represent a minor impact considering the scale of the operation and the prevalence of gypsum-bearing rock in the region. The additional 2.9 acres of disturbance from the associated mine facilities and 0.34 acres of disturbance from the 14 road turnouts would be surficial and would not impact mineral resources.

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 29 Project-related activities on the Shivwits Indian Reservation would be limited to driving on Bulldog Pass/Apex Road and Old Utah Highway 91. Driving on existing roads would have no effect on geology/mineral resources. 4.2.1.5 Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds There are no State-listed noxious weeds in the Project Area. Non-native species including cheat grass, filaree, and tumbleweed are dominant in the Project Area. These species would be reduced temporarily when areas are cleared for mine development. The Proposed Action would disturb 11.3 acres of soil through mining operations and an additional 0.34 acres from construction of road turnouts along the haul route; soil disturbance and equipment and vehicle movement onto and off the Project Area over the project life of 20 years would increase the potential for spread and establishment of invasive plant species. Implementation of BMPs described in Section 2.2.4, seeding of topsoil storage piles, and prompt reclamation of areas not needed for operations would reduce the likelihood that invasive species would spread further in the Project Area as a result of mining activities. Project-related activities on the Shivwits Indian Reservation would be limited to driving on Bulldog Pass/Apex Road and Old Utah Highway 91. Driving on existing roads over the project life of 20 years would increase the potential for spread and establishment of invasive plant species on the Reservation. Implementation of BMPs described in Section 2.2.4 would reduce the likelihood that invasive species would spread further on the Reservation as a result of mining activities. 4.2.1.6 Lands/Access Disturbance associated with mining activities would remove 11.3 acres from public recreation and livestock grazing during mining activities. This would be a long-term and negligible impact. The additional 0.34 acres of disturbance would be associated with road improvements (i.e., turnouts) in an area along the existing roads that is generally already disturbed. The Proposed Action would require a Conditional Use Permit to be consistent with OSC zoning requirements (Washington County 2010). Land use surrounding the Project Area would not be affected. GEM would coordinate with the Washington County Road Department, Dixie REA, and Rio Virgin Telephone. The proposed Project would not affect any existing ROWs. There would be no conflicts with other land use authorizations. At the 20,000 tons per year production level, hauling 5 days per week, 3 to 4 truckloads of ore would be transported per day along the Blake Lambing and Bloomington Mine Valley roads. At the 100,000 tons per year production level, hauling 5 days per week, 15 to 19 truckloads per day would haul ore from the GEM mine to the off-site milling facility. With the proposed 14 turnouts along the haul route facilitating traffic, this would be a minor, long-term impact to access in the area. Project-related activities on the Shivwits Indian Reservation would be limited to driving on Bulldog Pass/Apex Road and Old Utah Highway 91. Driving on existing roads would have no effect on Reservation lands. However, traveling on these roads would increase

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 30 traffic levels on the Reservation as described above. This increase over current use would be negligible on Old Utah Highway 91 and moderate to major on the Bulldog Pass/Apex Road. The Bulldog Pass/Apex Mine Road is a wide (approximately 30+ feet), public access, county-maintained road capable of supporting increased traffic, including that from haul trucks. 4.2.1.7 Livestock Grazing Under the Proposed Action, the Mine Valley Allotment would be disturbed by mine operations. Assuming that each acre of the allotment (7,250 acres) provides similar amounts of forage, it takes approximately 19.33 acres to provide 1 AUM. Thus, the 11.3 acre mine disturbance and 0.34 acre road improvement disturbance to the allotment under the Proposed Action would eliminate roughly 0.6 AUM out of 375 AUMs. This is less than 1 percent of the AUMs in the allotment. This would be a short-term and negligible impact. Further, the vegetation in the Project Area has been affected by the 2006 Jarvis Fire; seeding with the BLM-approved seed mix during reclamation and monitoring for revegetation success would eventually result in native forage rather than the non-native, invasive species that are currently populating the area. Increased traffic associated with mining activity on the roads could increase the potential for livestock-vehicle collision. However, the terrain is rolling with open expanses on the ridgetops providing good visibility for potential livestock on the roadway. Livestock could wander into the mine operations area, as it would not be fenced; grazing permittees may have to more actively manage their animals in that area so as to prevent them from wandering on to the mine site (e.g., placement of salt licks or stock tanks). Impacts to livestock safety would be long-term (i.e., 20 year life of mine) and negligible to minor. The increased traffic on the roads from mining operations could cause inconveniences to livestock operators who may need to coordinate livestock hauling with mine hauling. As mine production and the number of haul trips increases, the potential for traffic- related livestock incidents may also increase. Project-related activities on the Shivwits Indian Reservation would be limited to driving on Bulldog Pass/Apex Road and Old Utah Highway 91. Driving on existing roads would have no effect on livestock grazing. 4.2.1.8 Soils The 11.3 acres of soils disturbed (Table 1) by the Proposed Action mine operations and 0.34 acres of soils disturbed by construction of road turnouts along the haul route would be vulnerable to accelerated wind and water erosion both during and after disturbance. Mining and road construction would expose soils to wind. Soils stockpiled for reclamation use would also be exposed to wind and water. Soil loss would be minimized with proper road improvement construction (crowning and berming). Two water trucks would be utilized on a daily basis; one along the haul route and one at the mine operations area. Water would be used to control traffic dust and dust generated by mining and processing equipment. In addition, concurrent

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 31 reclamation would be conducted and disturbed areas would be reclaimed as soon as feasible. Implementation of BMPs (Section 2.2.4) would help to reduce soils impacts. The impacts to soils would be long term and minor for the mine site and long-term and negligible if the road improvements were not reclaimed. Project-related activities on the Shivwits Indian Reservation would be limited to driving on Bulldog Pass/Apex Road and Old Utah Highway 91. Driving on existing roads would have no effect on soils. 4.2.1.9 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species A BO was prepared for this Project and it is incorporated by reference. In summary, if a tortoise came through the Project Area during operation it could be disturbed, harmed, or killed. It was determined that the project would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of the Mojave desert tortoise in the Upper Virgin River Recover unit and would not adversely modify or destroy critical habitat (USFWS 2012, Appendix E). The Project would have No Effect on any other Threatened, Endangered, or Candidate species. Project-related activities on the Shivwits Indian Reservation would be limited to driving on Bulldog Pass/Apex Road and Old Utah Highway 91. Driving on existing roads would have No Effect on Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species. 4.2.1.10 Vegetation Approximately 11.3 acres of mostly weedy (cheatgrass) and sparse perennial vegetation would be removed or disturbed during mining activities and an additional 0.34 acres from construction of road turnouts along the haul route. As mining progresses from north to south in the mine area, the disturbed areas would be restored concurrently to approximate pre-mining contours or to surrounding landforms and planted with BLM-specified (native) seed mix. This would control invasive species and noxious weeds. Reclamation standards for success would be met before areas are released from the bond requirement. As a result, impacts to vegetation communities would be short term and ongoing reclamation activities would eventually restore the site to better than pre-mining condition. The following native seed mix (Table 5 ), which includes dominant shrubs, forbs, and perennial grasses is suggested. Table 5 BLM-Approved Seed Mix Seed Amount Prostrate summer cypress (Kochia prostrata) 2 lbs./acre Four wing saltbush (Atriplex canescens) 2 lbs./acre Yellow sweetclover (Melilotus officinalis) 2 lbs./acre Sideoats gramma (Bouteloua curtipendula) 2 lbs./acre Brittle Bush (Encellia farinose) 2 lbs./acre Total 10 lbs./acre

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 32 Project-related activities on the Shivwits Indian Reservation would be limited to driving on Bulldog Pass/Apex Road and Old Utah Highway 91. Driving on existing roads would have no effect on vegetation. 4.2.1.11 Visual A visual contrast rating evaluation was completed (Appendix C), and it was determined that the Project would meet VRM Class III objectives. Overall impacts to visual resources would be long term and minor. However, at Key Observation Point (KOP) 2, which is located next to the proposed mine operations area, the impacts would be greater. There would be moderate changes, within VRM Class III objectives, to the form, line, color, and texture of the viewshed. Observers within this viewshed are usually using this road on OHVs, 4X4 vehicles, or utility vehicles and the amount of time the mine would be in view would be under a few minutes, thus reducing the impacts of the Project. All slopes created during mining and at the end of mining would be consistent with stable natural slopes that surround the mining area. Mining from the top down on flat beds would minimize bench heights and negate any long-term exposure of highwalls. No highwalls would remain after reclamation. Constructing 14 turnouts along the haul route would meet VRM Class III objectives; impacts would be long term and minor. Appendix C includes a visual simulation of the Proposed Action turnout. Project-related activities on the Shivwits Indian Reservation would be limited to driving on Bulldog Pass/Apex Road and Old Utah Highway 91. Impacts to visual resources on the Reservation would be limited to an increase in the number of vehicles visible on the roads and to increased dust levels on Bulldog Pass/Apex Road. Pursuant to Federal 43CFR 3809.401 (4), impacts to air quality would be managed. A water truck would haul water to control dust on the haul route. Also see Section 2.2.4, Applicant Committed Environmental Protection Measures and Appendix D, Fugitive Dust Control Plan and Small Source Exemption Registration

4.2.2 Alternative B – Widen Haul Route 4.2.2.1 Air Quality Potential impacts to air quality would be the same as under the Proposed Action over the long term. Widening the haul route would require more initial earth work than under the Proposed Action. However, additional impacts to air quality would be short term and negligible. 4.2.2.2 Cultural Resources Under Alternative B, the proposed mine operations would have No Effect on historic properties (i.e., NRHP-eligible sites). NRHP-eligible cultural resources would be avoided; therefore road-widening activities would have No Adverse Effect on historic properties. If necessary, turnouts would be constructed before and after eligible cultural areas that are not widened to facilitate safe travel. Should design plans change and necessitate disturbance of eligible sites, appropriate data recovery measures would

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 33 need to be initiated in consultation with the BLM, the SHPO, and the Public Lands Policy Coordination Office prior to ground disturbing activities. If required, additional cultural resource work may include development of an approved treatment plan outlining mitigation measures to offset the adverse nature of the effects, implementation of the treatment plan, and reporting of the results. Potential indirect impacts to cultural resources would be the same as under the Proposed Action. 4.2.2.3 Fish and Wildlife Under Alternative B, mine operations would disturb 11.3 acres and widening of the haul route would disturb an additional 2.12 acres. As stated under the Proposed Action, the Project Area provides limited habitat to wildlife as the entire area burned during the 2006 Jarvis Fire. Impacts would be similar to the Proposed Action. 4.2.2.4 Geology/Mineral Resources Impacts to geology/mineral resources would be the same as the Proposed Action. 4.2.2.5 Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds Under Alternative B, mine operations would disturb 11.3 acres and widening of the haul route would disturb an additional 2.12 acres. Impacts would be similar to the Proposed Action. 4.2.2.6 Lands/Access Under Alternative B, the haul route would be widened an additional 3-4 feet for about 5 miles, which would improve the roads for all users. Impacts would be similar to the Proposed Action. 4.2.2.7 Livestock Grazing Assuming that each acre of the Mine Valley allotment (7,250 acres) provides similar amounts of forage, it takes approximately 19.33 acres to provide 1 AUM. Thus, the 13.42 acre disturbance to the allotment under the Proposed Action would eliminate roughly 0.7 AUM out of 375 AUMs. This is less than 1 percent of the AUMs in the allotment. This would be a long-term and negligible impact. Further, the vegetation in the Project Area has been affected by the 2006 Jarvis Fire; seeding with the BLM- approved seed mix during reclamation and monitoring for revegetation success would eventually result in native forage rather than the non-native, invasive species that are currently populating the area. 4.2.2.8 Soils Under Alternative B, mine operations would disturb 11.3 acres and widening of the haul route would disturb an additional 2.12 acres. Impacts would be similar to the Proposed Action. 4.2.2.9 Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species Under Alternative B, mine operations would disturb 11.3 acres and widening of the haul route would disturb an additional 2.12 acres. Compared to the Proposed Action, an

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 34 additional 1.78 acres of marginally suitable, roadside desert tortoise habitat would be lost. Overall, impacts would be similar to the Proposed Action. 4.2.2.10 Vegetation Approximately 13.42 acres (11.3 acres from mine operations, 2.12 acres from road widening) of vegetation would be removed or disturbed during mining activities. Impacts to vegetation would be similar to the Proposed Action. The native seed mix (Table 5) presented under the Proposed Action, which includes dominant shrubs, forbs, and perennial grasses, would be used for revegetation. 4.2.2.11 Visual Visual impacts of the proposed mine operations would be the same as the Proposed Action. Widening of the haul route would meet VRM Class III objectives and impacts would be long term and minor. A visual simulation of Alternative B road widening is provided in Appendix C.

4.2.3 Alternative C – No Action Under the No Action alternative, the proposal would be rejected; there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts from the Proposed Action or Alternative B. The Proponent would still hold the mining claim in which the Project Area is located. Any future proposed mining would be subject to its own NEPA analysis. Alternative scenarios would have to be considered for GEM to develop the minerals on their mining claims pursuant to the Mining Law as amended and 43 CFR 3809 regulations. Other activities in the area would continue, such as utility maintenance, livestock grazing, and recreational use.

4.3 Cumulative Impacts Analysis “Cumulative impacts” are those impacts resulting from the incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts could only occur for those resources that are 1) affected by the Project and 2) affected by other actions whose impacts occur within the same area and timeframe. The resources analyzed above in Section 4.3.1 that have the potential to be adversely impacted by the Proposed Action or Alternative B include cultural resources, fish and wildlife, geology/minerals, invasive species/noxious weeds, lands/access, livestock grazing, soils, and vegetation. The cumulative impacts area (CIA) is typically a resource-based area. For this EA, CIAs are defined as follows: The CIA for cultural resources is defined as a 1-mile buffer surrounding the Project Area (mine operations area and haul route). The CIA for geology/mineral resources is defined as an 8-mile area surrounding the mine area. The livestock grazing CIA is defined as the one allotment that would be affected by the Proposed Action, which is the Mine Valley allotment. This is also the CIA for invasive species/noxious weeds, vegetation, and soils.

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 35 The CIA for lands/access and fish and wildlife is defined as 5 miles in all direction generally surrounding the Proposed Action. The CIA for visuals resources is defined as 6 miles in all direction generally surrounding the Proposed Action and containing the KOPs. The purpose of this cumulative impacts analysis is to describe the interaction among the effects of the Project and the various past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions.

4.3.1 Past and Present Actions The portion of Washington County where the Project Area is located is very remote and undeveloped. Past or ongoing actions that affect the same components of the environment as the Project are:

• Livestock grazing. This is and has for many years been a primary land use in the Blakes Lambing Grounds area.

• Apex Mine . The Apex Mine, located approximately 6 miles west-northwest of the proposed mine operations area, is inactive and reclamation was completed in 2011. Work at the Apex Mine (also known as the Dixie Mine), originally a copper mine, began in 1890 and continued intermittently until World War II (Alder and Brooks 1996). It produced approximately 100,000 tons of ore. The mine more recently consisted of underground workings and a processing facility for the primary extraction of gallium and germanium with byproduct of copper, zinc, and silver. The mine is located in a 100-acre area with 9 acres of disturbance. Activities at the mine were suspended in May of 1990 due to economic conditions (Hecla Mining Company 1991). The mine is currently owned by Teck- American Inc.

• Recreation including campin g, OHV use, and hunting . Though dispersed, these past and present activities use the existing roads and travel ways, as well as off-road travel. In 2011, the BLM installed a sign at the intersection of Old Utah Highway 91 and the Bulldog Pass/Apex Mine Road directing visitors to the Joshua Tree Scenic Byway and the Bloomington Cave. Traffic on Bulldog Pass/Apex Road could increase above current levels as a result.

• Power lines and other utilities. There is an overhead power line (Dixie REA) that runs northwest-southeast through the area. In addition, there is a Rio Virgin Telephone buried fiber optic cable along the Bloomington Mine Valley Road and Blakes Lambing Road.

• Wilderness proposals. The Utah Wilderness Coalition has proposed one Wilderness expansion unit in the vicinity of the Project Area (Figure 1 ), the Beaver Dam Wilderness expansion unit to the west and south of, but not directly

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 36 adjacent to, the Project Area. However, BLM determined there are no areas with wilderness characteristics locatedin the Project Area (see Appendix A).

• Wildland Fire. Wildland fire (2006 Jarvis Fire) has affected grazing and wildlife habitat use in the CIA.

4.3.2 Reasonably Foreseeable Action Scenario (RFAS) The following RFAS identifies reasonably foreseeable future actions that would cumulatively affect the same resources in the cumulative impact area as the Proposed Action and alternatives. Any future Federal action within the CIAs would be subject to NEPA and the full array of Federal laws that address environmental protection. As required by law, resources would be protected or appropriately mitigated.

• Livestock grazing . Livestock grazing in the Mine Valley allotment would be expected to continue.

• Beaver Dam Mountain Wildlife Guzzlers. BLM is considering and analyzing installment of 21 bird-size and 1 big game-size guzzlers in 3 clusters southwest of St. George on public lands. One of the proposed clusters would be in the vicinity of the Apex Mine, about 6 miles from the Project Area. This guzzler cluster would have a maximum disturbance area of less than 0.75 acre. Soils and vegetation would be temporarily impacted but the project would provide benefits to wildlife. • Power Lines. PacifiCorp recently (October 2011) submitted an Application for a Utility Systems on Federal Lands to the BLM to construct a 7.2 kV overhead distribution line from the old OMG Plant, located adjacent to the Bulldog Pass/Apex Road near its intersection with Old Utah Highway 91, on the Shivwits Indian Reservation to a Federal Aviation Administration air traffic control facility approximately 6.0 miles south adjacent to Old Utah Highway 91 on BLM- administered lands. The proposed project also includes the removal of the existing line that services the air traffic control facility from Santa Clara to the old OMG plant.

4.3.3 Cumulative Impacts Air Quality: The proposed Project, along with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions would have negligible cumulative impacts to air quality. Cultural resources: Most cultural properties tend to degrade over time due to natural forces but many survive for thousands of years. Modern human activity can exacerbate the damage and as a consequence cultural resources are disappearing at an ever increasing rate. Most of the recorded cultural resources in the CIA exhibit impacts resulting from historic and modern use of the land. The potential impacts of the proposed mining activities would be mitigated through implementing protective measures (e.g., avoidance) described in the cultural resource section. Similar measures would be implemented for other types of Federal undertakings and would also limit cumulative impacts to cultural resources.

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 37 Fish and Wildlife: The proposed Project, along with other past present and reasonably foreseeable actions would not substantially impact available wildlife or fish habitat in the CIA. Fire has affected the largest amount of habitat compared to impacts resulting from other disturbances within the CIA. The establishment of invasive weeds in burned-out areas has lowered the quality of wildlife habitat in portions of the CIA. Of the acres of land burned in 2006, the majority has returned to weedy or other herbaceous cover while the shrub component is in the process of recovery. Geology/Mineral Resources: The removal of 800,000 tons of gypsum on 8.4 acres combined with past (Apex Mine) and RFAS disturbances would be a cumulative loss to mineral resources in the CIA, but a gain to local and regional economies. Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds: The Project combined with past, present, and RFAS disturbances within the CIA has the potential to create conditions favorable for the establishment/invasion of invasive non-native species and noxious weeds, and other undesirable plants. Future occurrence of a large wildland fire poses the greatest risk for invasion of weeds in the area. Consistent with BLM policy, use of suitable seed mixes with only certified weed-free and tested seed, combined with implementation of prompt and appropriate revegetation techniques would reduce the potential for undesired weeds to invade burned and otherwise disturbed areas. The Environmental Protection Measures discussed in Section 2.2.4 and standard operating procedures that are applied to all BLM actions would help to minimize weed species from spreading and dominating disturbed sites. Lands/Access: The long-term commitment of an additional 0.34 or 2.12 acres of road improvements (i.e., turnouts or widening) would be beneficial to users accessing the area for recreation, utility maintenance, and livestock activities etc. This combined with past, present, and RFAS would be a beneficial cumulative impact to lands/access. Livestock Grazing: Reclamation of mining disturbances would occur after mining is completed. That, along with the relatively small acreages of disturbance from the RFAS when compared to the overall allotment size, would result in negligible cumulative impacts to livestock grazing. Soils: The cumulative disturbance to soils in the CIA has the potential to contribute to soil loss due to erosion. Fire has likely contributed the most to soil erosion in the CIA compared to impacts from other projects. The long-term disturbance associated with the Project would total about 0.34 or 2.12 acres if the road improvements are not reclaimed. Use of Environmental Protection Measures and standard BLM stipulations for surface disturbing activities during mining activities, and concurrent reclamation, assures that temporary soil disturbance would be short-term and minor. Similar measures would be implemented for other types of Federal undertakings and would also limit soil impacts. When combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future disturbance, cumulative impacts to soils would be negligible to minor. Vegetation: If uncontrolled, invasive plant species could continue their spread and establishment in the area. Projects under Federal oversight would be required to monitor and treat any project-related occurrences/spread of invasive plant species. The long-term loss of approximately 0.34 or 2.12 acres, if road improvements are not reclaimed, when combined with past, present, and RFAS disturbances to vegetation

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 38 would be negligible. If a major fire were to occur in the CIA, BLM would assess impacts of the loss of vegetation and wildlife habitat, and propose measures needed to stabilize and rehabilitate the burned area. Visual: There could be a minor to moderate cumulative effect to visual resources if additional mining exploration and development projects were conducted concurrently in the area. However, with limited casual public use of the area, and the likelihood that similar environmental protection measures would be required, the cumulative visual impacts would be minimized.

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 39 5.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

5.1 Introduct ion The issue identification section of Chapter 1 identifies those issues analyzed in detail in Chapter 4. Appendix A provides the rationale for issues that were considered but not analyzed further. The issues were identified through the public and agency involvement process described in Sections 5.2 and 5.3 below.

5.2 Persons, Groups, and Agencies Consulted During the preparation of the EA, consultation and coordination was conducted as needed for various aspects of the proposed Project. Table 6 List of all Persons, Agencies and Organizations Consulted for Purposes of this EA Purpose & Authorities for Name Consultation or Findings & Conclusions Coordination Section 7 formal ESA Consultation initiated on February 23, 2012, and the USF&WS concurred with BLM’s determination on March 13, 2012. The Mojave desert tortoise habitat is only marginally suitable, and because the Information on Consultation, U.S. Fish & tortoise population is suspected to be of under Section 7 of the Wildlife Service low density, the project is thus unlikely to Endangered Species Act (16 (US FWS) injure or kill any tortoises. However, as USC 1531) incidental take is possible over the 20- year life of the mine, the project May Affect, and Would Likely Adversely Affect the desert tortoise. The project would have No Affect on Designated Critical Habitat for the Mojave desert tortoise. Consultation for Utah State Historic undertakings, as required by Concurrence of No Effect on historic Preservation Office the National Historic properties received on August 19, 2010. (SHPO) Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 USC 470) Indian Peak Band of Paiutes Kaibab-Paiute Tribe Consultation as required by Danosh Band of the American Indian Consultation was initiated on March 2, Paiutes Religious Freedom Act of 2012. No response was received. Koosharem Band 1978 (42 USC 1531) and of Paiutes NHPA (16 USC 1531) Navajo Nation Pahrump Paiute Tribe

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 40 Paiute Tribe of Utah Shivwits Band of Paiutes Havasupai Tribe Chemehuevi Indian Tribe Hopi Tribe Hualapai Tribe Las Vegas Paiute Tribe Coordination with GEM has contacted the County and will Washington Washington County Planning coordinate road improvement activities. County and Zoning Department and CUP will be necessary. Transportation Department Dixie Rural Electric Have been notified and GEM will Existing ROW Association coordinate road improvement activities. Rio Virgin Have been notified and GEM will Existing ROW Telephone coordinate road improvement activities. Has been notified and GEM will Private Landowner coordinate road improvement activities.

5.3 Summary of Public Participation An initial introductory project meeting was held at the BLM St. George Field Office on March 15, 2010; resource issues and concerns were discussed during this meeting. The ID Team resource checklist was initiated, and is provided in Appendix A. Several resources were dismissed from further analysis in this EA for the reasons provided in the checklist. The GEM Gypsum Mine Project was posted on the BLM’s ENBB on October 25, 2010. One scoping response letter was received from the Southern Utah Wilderness Association (SUWA) regarding a number of resource issues. These issues were separated into six public concern statements (PCSs), and are addressed below.

PCS-1 BLM must comply with Secretarial Order 3310. The St. George RMP was completed prior to the issuance of Order 3310 and the RMP’s treatment of wilderness character lands has not yet been determined to be consistent with the Secretarial Order. BLM must protect the lands that have already been identified as having wilderness character. In addition, BLM must make a determination that the lands that would be affected by this proposed mining operation but have not been identified as having wilderness character in the existing RMP are “clearly lacking” in wilderness characteristics based on “extensive surface disturbance and/or do not meet the size criterion” or defer this decision until such time as such a determination has been made, or until BLM inventories the area in accordance with BLM’s forthcoming guidance and amends the RMP as appropriate.

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 41 BLM Response: Secretarial Order 3310 has been placed in abeyance. Instruction Memorandum WO 2011-154 contains guidance on conducting and maintaining wilderness inventories and considering lands with wilderness characteristics in the lands use planning process. The ID team found that “there are no areas with wilderness characteristics located within the Project Area” (see Appendix A ). The proposed mining operation does not fall within the Utah Wilderness Coalition’s proposed Beaver Dam Wilderness Expansion unit. The Beaver Dam Wilderness Expansion unit is about one quarter-mile southwest of the Project Area and does overlap with the GEM mining claim block.

PCS-2 BLM must comply with FLPMA and protect the natural resources, which would include conducting an inventory of the visual resources if the visual inventory is not current. BLM Response: The entire Project Area has a VRM Class III rating, and is in a low sensitivity VRM rating as well as a Class C (low) Scenic Quality rating. A visual contrast rating and road simulations have been performed in order to disclose the visibility of the Project Area itself from the adjacent travel route, and to ensure adequate mitigation if required (see Sections 3.3.9 and 4.2.1.9, and Appendix C).

PCS-3 Pursuant to FLPMA, BLM must comply with the federal Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and state air and water quality statutes and standards. BLM Response: The Project will comply with all federal and state air and water quality standards. The BLM ID Team determined that there would be no impacts to air (also see Appendix D ) or water resources in the Project Area due to 1) dust abatement measures, and 2) the distance to the nearest water body (Virgin River is 3 miles south of the mine operations area; see Appendix A).

PCS-4 BLM must perform a detailed evaluation of the impacts to natural and cultural resources, including impacts to wilderness characteristics, air quality, water quality, wildlife, soils, and visitor conflicts from approval of this proposed plan of operations. BLM Response: The EA contains a detailed evaluation of impacts to natural and cultural resources from the proposed mining operation. Please refer to Sections 3.3.1 and 4.2.1.1 (Cultural and Historic Resources), 3.3.2 and 4.2.1.2 (Fish and Wildlife), 3.3.7 and 4.2.1.7 (Soils), and 3.3.5 and 4.2.1.5 (Lands and Access). Air quality and water quality were determined to be “present, but not affected to a degree that detailed analysis is required” (see Appendix A).

PCS-5 BLM must analyze a range of alternatives including a no action alternative and an alternative that would fully protect the lands with wilderness characteristics, air quality, water quality, soils, and other resources. BLM Response: The EA will analyze the no action alternative, the Proposed Action, and Alternative B which includes widening the entire haul route. No other alternative was

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 42 developed that could meet the purpose and need of the Project while providing more protection to natural resources in the Project Area. See Section 2.4.

PCS-6 BLM must comply with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), conduct a Class III survey of archaeological resources of the area of potential effect from the proposed mine’s plan of operations, consult with the SHPO and appropriate tribal entities, and protect the archaeological resources of the area. BLM Response: Impacts to archaeological resources will be analyzed in the EA (see Cultural and Historic Resources, Sections 3.3.1 and 4.2.1.1. A Project specific Class III inventory did not identify any NRHP-eligible cultural resources within the proposed mine operations area. A Class III inventory was completed on the access roads to be utilized for the haul route during the Rio Virgin Bloomington to Beaver Dam fiber optic corridor project, and several eligible sites were found. The EA will describe any potential impacts and, if needed, a mitigation plan for minimizing impacts to these properties, through Section 106 consultation between the BLM, SHPO, and other parties.

The EA was posted on the BLM website (http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/st__george/planning2/eas_under_review.html)on August 18, 2011. Twenty-two Notice of Availability letters were sent to the State of Utah, Washington County, The Shivwits Band of Paiutes Tribe, the City of St George, the City of Ivins, the City of Washington, and various parties or individuals. The proposed project was also featured in The Spectrum on September 15, 2011 and was presented to residents of SunRiver on September 23, 2011. During the public review period, 138 pieces of correspondence were received from the public identifying various potential resource issues. These issues were separated into 91 PCSs, and are addressed below:

# Code Public Concern Category 1 LAW Legal (NEPA) 2 GEN OP Mining Operations and Proposal 3 GEN IMP Direct/Indirect Impacts of Mining 4 CUM Cumulative Effects of Mining 5 AIR Air Quality Resources 6 CULT Cultural and Historical Resources 7 F&W Fish and Wildlife Resources 8 GEO Geology and Mineral Resources 9 L&A Lands and Access 10 REC Recreation Resources 11 SOC Socio-Economics 12 SOIL Soil Resources 13 VEG Vegetation Resources

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 43 14 VIS Visual Resources 15 WTR Water Resources

Note: Form letter received via SRSG Hiking Club contained five comments, addressed in Table 7 as “FORM-1” through “FORM-5”

Table 7 Summary of Public Concerns on the Draft EA and BLM Responses

# PUBLIC CONCERN COMMENT # BLM RESPONSE LEGAL (NEPA) 1.01 Does GEM intend to avoid an EIS 72.01; 80.12 The additional mining claims owned by with a piecemeal application GEM in the Cumulative Impact Area (an process for each individual 8-mile radius from the proposed mine claim/LLC? Is this not discouraged area) are addressed in the Reasonable under NEPA? Foreseeable Action Scenario (EA Page 34) as GEM has no current plans to develop these claims although it is reasonable to expect they will be developed. The BLM will use the analysis in the EA to determine whether or not the project “is related to other actions with individually insignificant, but cumulatively significant impacts.” 1.02 The EA does not property assess 72.03; 80.14 The rock crusher was analyzed in the impacts to SunRiver residents from EA; see Page 10, 2nd to last paragraph. dust or noise because a rock Material processing activities in the crusher was not analyzed, even Fugitive Dust Control Plan (Page 4) though it is part of a ‘contingency include the crushing and screening of plan’ and may be used. mined rock on-site. A Utah Department of Air Quality approval order would be required to process beyond allowable exemption limits. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan and Small Source Exemption Registration is included as Appendix D and is incorporated by reference. Also see Applicant Committed Environmental Protection Measures (2.2.4) Based on noise attenuation by distance model, the Proposed Action (continuous miner operating at 110 dBa) would generate 21 dBa at five miles, similar to a whisper and noticeably less than city traffic, normal conversation, or a refrigerator humming. 1.03 EA page 3: In order to achieve 73.02 NEPA does not elevate any law above objective NEPA compliance the EA another and is supplementary to all should acknowledge that the existing laws (NEPA Section 106). The Endangered Species Act is non- Endangered Species Act (ESA) is a law

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 44 discretionary just like the 1872 that influences the scope of this EA and Mining Law. is acknowledged in Section 1.6. The EA states that the BLM intends the Proposed Action and Alternatives are consistent with the ESA and the other laws listed. The 1872 Mining Law was invoked in the Need for Action (EA Section 1.3) because it triggered NEPA and not because it takes precedence over the laws of any other Federal agency. The BLM will use the analyses in the EA to determine whether or not the project threatens a violation of Federal, State, local or tribal law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment. 1.04 Future hearings should present a 74.08 As stated in Chapter 2, “… operation clear reference to what GEM can and hauling would be conducted under legally do in terms of hours of a 5-day work week from Monday operation, days of operation, noise through Friday, except on holidays. . All limits, operational restrictions, operations would occur during daylight blasting, dust standards, and hours.” Blasting is discussed in visibility of operations from the east. Chapter 2 of the EA. Noise impacts would be insignificant (see Section 1.8). A visuals analysis was completed (see Appendix C and the EA). Regarding dust, the Project would meet all applicable regulations; see EA and Appendix D, incorporated by reference. The suggestion for better organizing data for future public meetings is noted. BLM would work with proponents to present clearly defined outlines for future public meetings. 1.05 The only fair way to proceed, given 80.17 The BLM will determine whether the the unknowns in this proposal, is to evidence as presented in the EA shows require a full EIS in order to make that impacts to the environment are of the best decision. sufficient significance to trigger an EIS (Environmental Impact Statement).

MINING OPERATIONS AND PROPOSAL 2.01 Heavy equipment carries the risk of 6.06 See EA Section 2.2.4: GEM would have oil leaks and fuel spills that could a Spill Prevention Control and damage the environment. Countermeasures Plan pursuant to 43 CFR 3809.401 prior to mining. Refer to third bullet under Hazardous Materials and Wastes. 2.02 How many times per day will 16.05; 115.01 No trucks would use Sun River Parkway SunRiver residents be exposed to to access the mine. As stated on Page blasting and trucks on SunRiver 13 of the EA, blasting would only occur Parkway? during the work week (Monday – Friday) and during daylight hours. It is

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 45 not known how many blasts per day would occur but only minor and infrequent blasting is needed to remove cap rock or any hard interbedded rock units. Blasting is not the preferred method of mining this gypsum deposit. 2.03 BLM should consider Magnesium 70.03 Magnesium chloride would be applied Chloride solution on roads to control to the roads on an as-needed basis and dust because this would reduce the only with BLM approval (see Fugitive need for water as well as save fuel Dust Control Plan, Page 6). and vehicle maintenance costs. 2.04 Limited drilling and blasting will 70.04 Drilling and blasting activities would be reduce the amount of dust and minimal and would be used only as other environmental concerns. needed to remove the cap rock (see BLM Response in 2.02). 2.05 Air and noise monitoring should be 72.06; 80.02; Air quality and noise were considered in required as a condition of approval. 80.03; 80.16 the NEPA process and it was Air monitoring should be combined determined that monitoring would not with pre-set benchmarks that would be required to ensure compliance with allow the Washington County any Federal, State, County, or local Health Department to notify GEM in regulations, As stated in the response real time when particulates exceed to Public Concern 2.02, infrequent the standard. A noise simulation blasting would only occur during the should be done at the site and work week (Monday – Friday) and measured at SunRiver, in an effort during daylight hours. Blasting is not the to mitigate the concerns of citizens. preferred method of mining this gypsum deposit. 2.06 The EA should contain a description 73.01; 74.01 http://www.infomine.com/properties/ of the applicant’s history and exchange/listings/1558/property.aspx experience in gypsum mining, contains some background information compliance with previous mitigation, on GEM and their holdings. This is the and previous reclamation success. first gypsum mining venture for GEM The fact that GEM is not Utah- and thus they have no prior history and based and have never conducted a experience. However, GEM and any mining operation is a red flag. other mine operator are required to pay a State approved and recommended reclamation bond to the Utah DOGM before any mining to assure the necessary funds are available for reclamation. Operators are also required to register and be in good standing with the Department of Commerce to do business within the state. 2.07 EA Page 10: Necessary equipment 73.07 No explosives would be stored on-site was not mentioned including an (EA Page 13). A trash dumpster and explosives bunker to store the fuel storage tank are listed in the explosives, a large trash dumpster, Environmental Protection Measures, and a large diesel fuel storage tank. see Hazardous Materials and Wastes In addition it seems some office (EA Page 16). Although an on-site buildings will be needed and port-a- office building is not needed for the potties were not mentioned. project, the mining contractor (equipment owner) may require a small

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 46 on-site trailer for a security guard. Port- a-potties would be used to contain sewage. All equipment would be located within the disturbance footprint analyzed in the EA. 2.08 EA Page 10: Where will water for 73.09; 111.03 Water would either be purchased from the dust control come from and be Washington County, a near-by City, stored? Would a water truck be private source, or the Shivwits Band of used to haul water to the mine site? Paiutes How will the BLM monitor the Two water trucks would be used to haul efficacy of dust control operations? water. One 4,000-gallon water truck would be used at the mine site for road and pad watering and to supply spraying mechanisms for mining and crushing equipment. Another 4,000- gallon water truck would be used to supply dust control water to the haul route when hauling rock (see EA Page 15). No water storage would occur on site. The Fugitive Dust Control Plan and Small Source Exemption Registration (Appendix D) provides additional information regarding water spraying to control dust. GEM is fully responsible for dust control (see Attachment 1 to Appendix D, incorporated by reference). The use of Magnesium Chloride solution to coat the roads would help control dust and decrease truck traffic on the roads (see Public Concern 2.03). 2.09 EA Page 17 (Widen Haul Road): 73.15 Water trucks would not use the route The area of disturbance should be (Navajo Drive) through Bloomington to increased to cover the water truck access the mine. GEM would purchase hauling routes, if water trucks will water at a city, county, or private need to travel through Bloomington location. The access route shown on several times per day to get water, EA Figure 2 and discussed in EA and water the road if necessary? Section 2.2.2 (Page 13) and Highway 91 would be used to haul water. It is likely that a few trips per day would be made on these roads to refill. The use of Magnesium Chloride solution to coat the roads would help control dust and decrease truck traffic on the roads (see Public Concern 2.03). 2.10 EA Page 31 (Livestock Grazing): 73.24 Concern noted. GEM is responsible for ‘Seeding.. MAY..’, not ‘would’, result the success of reclaimed vegetation, in native forage. Seeding does not and as such is not released from equal establishment and success. responsibility after seeding but when vegetation has established. 2.11 Where does a loaded haul truck 73.32 Gypsum processing on-site would be unload? Is the gypsum stored by limited to basic crushing and screening Highway 91 and why was the and temporary storage in designated on-site storage areas. Large stockpiles

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 47 storage not included in the EA? would not be stored on-site or along Highway 91. Ore would be transported on haul trucks via Highway 91 to off-site storage and milling operations. 2.12 The small size of the area to be 74.02 Proposed production rates and market mined wouldn’t appear to support sales that guide ramping production ten or more jobs for 20 years unless from low levels to higher levels through the operation will be going very the years usually dictate mine life and deep, which is not mentioned in the necessary work forces. 800,000 tons of EA. mining production could keep a 40,000 ton per year operation active for 20 years. See EA 2.2 Alternative A – Proposed Action 2.2.1 Proposed Mine Operations. Tweny years is an outside flexible timeframe for operations. The proposed surface mining operation would be conducted so that slopes left at the end of mining would be consistent with stable natural slopes (See BLM Response 2.18).

Based on proposed production rates, it is estimated that during the first few years (1-5 years) of operations, that approximately 5-15 workers could be on site at any one time. If the operation were to ramp up (i.e., ore were mined at a faster rate), it is estimated that approximately 15-25 workers could be on site at any one time. 2.13 The $60,000 bond does not 74.04; 99.09 The $60,000 plus bond rough estimate accurately reflect the risks involved that was mentioned has not been and should be in the millions. finalized but does reflect the general Bonding should be sufficient to size and scope of the operation as cover all reclamation and cleanup determined and reviewed by the Utah costs. DOGM using a standard calculation process. By law all mining operations regardless of size need to be bonded to ensure reclamation. 2.14 The EA contained too many 74.05 “Maybe,” “probably,” “possibly,” and imprecise words such as if, maybe, “hopefully” were not used in the EA. probably, possibly, and hopefully. The EA includes predicted effects. This suggests that the project has not been fully understood and planned. 2.15 How will the mine get electricity? If 74.09 One portable generator would be used from generators, will they be heard and would not be audible to nearby in nearby communities? communities due to distance and as it would be contained within a trailer housing (EA Page 10). 2.16 Who is accountable for ensuring 74.11 BLM is responsible for ensuring operational compliance and how? operational compliance and that the

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 48 The BLM should insist on a quality terms and conditions of the permit are control plan due to GEM’s lack of being met. The State also requires a experience. mining permit, conducts inspections, and will take action when operational plans are not followed. A bond must be posted to insure that reclamation of the site is completed. GEM is also required to have County Conditional Use and State Air Quality permits. 2.17 How many drill holes were drilled to 77.02 A combination of geologic mapping and delineate the 800,000 tons of ore drilling of 8 holes delineated mineable discovered? When and by whom ore in the project area. GEM conducted were they drilled? drilling operations from September to November of 2010 under a Notice approved by Utah DOGM and BLM. 2.18 The BLM should require that 80.07 All slopes created during mining and at reclamation return the ground to its the end of mining would be consistent original contours and visual with stable natural slopes that surround appearance to preserve vistas over the mining area (EA Page 30). the long term. 2.19 How would GEM ensure that 109.02 Levels of radiation present in soil in potentially radioactive topsoil is southwestern Utah are well below EPA contained from erosion, not leeched contamination limits meant to limit further into the soil, and prevented public exposure to radiation (Bentley from becoming airborne? 2008). Soil loss in the Project Area would be minimized with proper road improvement construction, the use of water trucks, and concurrent reclamation (EA Page 29). 2.20 How would GEM contain the dust 110.01; 110.02 Soils disturbed by construction and from the mine and haul roads when stockpiled for reclamation on the mine it is windy? site and haul roads would be exposed to wind. However, soil loss would be minimized with proper road improvement construction, the use of water trucks and potentially magnesium chloride, and concurrent reclamation (EA Page 29). GEM would also implement an awareness-level program with a site supervisor as monitor to determine the level of control needed to minimize dust. GEM has agreed to abide by the limits of the St. George dust control ordinance, in particular, ceasing operations when a sustained wind event of 30 miles per hour occurs. 2.21 Studies should be conducted as 111.04 The BLM will determine whether the part of the analysis such as an evidence as presented in the EA shows Environmental Impact Study, and that impacts to the environment are those by the Center for Disease significant, and if so, an EIS Control and Prevention and (Environmental Impact Statement) Department of Transportation would be prepared. Potential adverse regarding impacts to human health impacts to human health from mining

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 49 and haul trucks on residential dust and related hazards are well roads. known, and the discussion of these impacts in the Decision Record would be scientifically sound utilizing existing information. GEM haul trucks would not use residential roads. 2.22 All precautions should be taken to 116.02; 134.01 GEM would employ, if needed, the ensure no noise impacts or damage services of a licensed blasting to nearby homes is caused by contractor who would comply with all dynamiting, if it is necessary. applicable regulations and standards established by the regulating agencies, codes, and professional societies including the rules and regulations for the use of explosives. Only minor, infrequent blasting is anticipated Small mineral operations are subject to regulations by the Utah Division of Oil Gas and Mining (DOGM) and the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). Blasting would only occur during the work week (Monday – Friday) and during daylight hours. Only minor and infrequent blasting is anticipated as blasting is not the preferred method of mining the gypsum deposit. Vibrations from such infrequent blasting are highly unlikely to reach SunRiver (the closest residential area to the mine site is 4.5 miles away). 2.23 If there will be no dust why does 122.01 Impacts to air quality, specifically dust, GEM need water trucks? would be managed using water. Refer to the Fugitive Dust Control Plan (EA Appendix D).

DIRECT/INDIRECT IMPACTS OF MINING 3.01 It is unacceptable to expose the FORM-5; The Federal Land Management and residents of any community to the Policy Act of 1976 establishes that the 3.01; 6.07; impacts of mining, such as noise BLM’s mandate is one of “multiple-use.” 16.01; 16.04; from blasting and truck traffic. The term multiple use, as defined in 16.06; 18.01; Mining has dangerous/negative FLMPA Section 103(c), refers to “the 23.05; 34.01; effects on people’s health and well- management of public lands and their 41.01; 41.02; being, particularly those with health various resource values so that they are 46.01; 72.05; issues, and mines should not be utilized in the combination that will best 80.08; 80.09; near these people or residential meet the present and future needs of 80.10; 83.03; areas in general. the American people,” using a 84.01; 84.08; “combination of balanced and diverse 84.09; 85.01; resource uses that takes into account 89.01; 90.01; the long-term needs of future 95.03; 99.01; generations for renewable and non- 99.05; 99.06; renewable resources,” as well as 101.01; 102.01; “harmonious and coordinated 108.01; 117.02; management of the various resources 119.02; 123.01;

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 50 125.02; 127.01; without permanent impairment of the 127.03; 134.02 productivity of the land and the quality of the environment with consideration being given to the relative values of the resources and not necessarily to the combination of uses that would give the greatest economic return or the greatest unit output.” By this mandate, the BLM is considering GEM’s proposal for a gypsum mine in the proposed location and taking into account the long-term resources needs of citizens as well as the overall quality of the environment. The BLM will use the analyses in the EA to determine whether the project affects public health and safety and whether or not the effects from the project on the quality of the human environment are likely to be significant. 3.02 The mine will have a positive impact 71.01 Comment noted. The EA is a site- on the community. specific analysis of potential impacts that could result from the implementation of the Project (EA Page 1). 3.03 The EA needs to address impacts 84.04; 84.07; See response to Public Concern #2.22. to nearby homes from blasting such 84.10; 124.02 as shaking, cracking foundations, and breaking window seals. GEM should be required to pay for these repairs if they are necessary. 3.04 Residents need to be assured that 87.02; 90.03; The Black Rock operation covers dust and noise from this mine will approximately a 300-acre area and thus not be as apparent as that coming is at least 30 times larger than the from Black Rock. proposed gypsum mine. The production during recent high activity years was on the order of 750,000 tons/year, almost the total tonnage to be produced under the current GEM plan of operations over a twenty year period. Blasting at the GEM mine would be minimal and used on an as-needed basis only. Dust within the mine site and haul roads would be controlled by water trucks. The BLM will use the analyses in the EA to determine whether or not the project’s effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be significant. 3.05 The location of the mine away from 94.05 Comment noted. The project was populated areas will mitigate any designed at the proposed location to noise concerns. recover the specific mineral deposit. 3.06 Gypsum has an absorption rate of 102.03 Gypsum dust is an inert material and is 30% and no one knows the effects considered a nuisance dust by the

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 51 of this absorption in a senior MSHA. Gypsum is not chemically active population. For this reason it is in the lungs. It is not likely that a inappropriate to approve a mine so measurable amount of gypsum dust close to SunRiver. from the mine would be carried to SunRiver considering distance (4+ miles) and dust control measures that would be in place (see Appendix D, Fugitive Dust Control Plan). 3.07 Traffic pattern and noise level 102.04 No vehicles would use Sun River studies should be conducted before Parkway to access the mine. The mine large trucks and heavy equipment is not accessible via Sun River Parkway are to be moved through SunRiver. because there is no bridge across the Virgin River. 3.08 The BLM needs to assure SunRiver 103.01; 105.01 The BLM will use the analyses in the residents that their air quality, EA to determine whether or not the peace and quiet, and lifestyle will effects from the project on the quality of not be negatively impacted by the the human environment are likely to be mine. significant. 3.09 Commenter has no problem with 118.01 No vehicles would use Sun River the mine as long as trucks are not Parkway to access the mine. using Sun River Parkway.

CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF MINING 4.01 Permitting this mine so close to a 99.08 The BLM will determine whether or not residential area sets a poor the action “may establish a precedent precedent, as there are many other for future actions with significant effects claims in the vicinity that will be or represents a decision in principle impossible to deny if this goes about a future consideration.” Refer to forward. This would be a potentially BLM’s response to Public Concern devastating cumulative (future) #1.01. impact on the SunRiver community.

AIR QUALITY RESOURCES 5.01 The mining operation will be in FORM-2; GEM is responsible for dust control. close proximity to the retirement The Fugitive Dust Control Plan details 6.02; 16.02; community of SunRiver St. George, actions GEM would take to control 23.02; 74.07; and will thus create objectionable fugitive dust, to maintain compliance 80.01; 84.02; dust that residents will have to with the Utah Administrative Code 85.02; 89.02; endure for the life of the operation. R307-309. 99.02; 99.03; Dust is a health issue for people 108.01; 111.01; with asthma and respiratory issues 121.01; 124.01; and should be analyzed in the EA. 133.01 Dust should also be monitored at the mine and on the haul roads on a regular basis to ensure it is being controlled effectively. 5.02 Gypsum mining operations create FORM-4; The mine operation would not increase dust. If soil in these areas is the likelihood of residents of St. George 16.03; 23.04; contaminated with the fungus or SunRiver contracting Valley Fever 34.02; 74.06; Coccidiodes immitis and carried by contained in dust particles. It is not 86.01; 95.01; the wind and inhaled, a person likely that a measurable amount of

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 52 could contract Coccidioidomycosis 99.04; 128.01 gypsum dust from the mine would be disease (“Valley Fever”), which carried to SunRiver considering dust could progress to a persistent control measures that would be in place infection and even death. Valley (see EA Appendix D, Fugitive Dust Fever should be addressed in the Control Plan). EA. 5.03 Dust created from mining would be 6.04 Dust control actions would be detrimental to trees, plants, and implemented by GEM in accordance wildlife. with Utah Administrative Code R307- 309 and 43 CFR 3809.401(4 – Monitoring Plan). Impacts to vegetation and wildlife resources are discussed in Section 4.2.1.8 and 4.2.1.2, respectively. 5.04 Mining could stir up latent 34.03; 80.06; Levels of radiation present in soil in radioactivity that would be carried 84.06; 117.01 southwestern Utah are well below EPA on the prevailing winds toward contamination limits meant to limit SunRiver. The soil at the mine site public exposure to radiation (Bentley should at least be tested for 2008). radioactivity. 5.05 Can gypsum dust from digging, 72.04; 75.01; Gypsum dust is an inert material that is mining, and transportation of 80.15; 83.02; not chemically active in the lungs. White gypsum lead to environmental 129.01 dust from mining operations is gypsum. emphysema in the elderly or those It is not likely that a measurable amount with respiratory issues? of gypsum dust from the mine would be carried to SunRiver considering dust control measures that would be in place (see EA Appendix D, Fugitive Dust Control Plan) 5.06 Air Quality should have been 73.03 The BLM determined that air quality included as an issue in the analysis was not affected to a degree that because it significantly affects detailed analysis was required in the human health and the economy EA, if dust abatement measures are through tourism, and it could be closely followed as outlined in the negatively affected by the mine. proposed action and in the Fugitive Dust Control Plan (EA Appendix D). Due to public concern, air quality, including the particulate matter calculation, was brought forward in Section 4.2 Direct/Indirect Impacts. The BLM also determined that the proposal would not result in measurable or adverse impacts on the regional economy of Washington County or of local communities (EA Appendix A). 5.07 EA Page 10: We believe air quality 73.08 EPA changed the 24-hour particulate standards re particulate emissions emissions standard for PM 2.5 to 35 have been changed to 2.5 microns. micrograms per cubic meter in 2006 and this standard went into effect in 2009. State of Utah permitting requirements do not apply to stationary sources that emit 5 tons per year or fewer of any criteria pollutant (see Small

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 53 Source Exemption Registration Form at end of EA). Furthermore, Washington County is in attainment for this pollutant under the new standard. 5.08 EA Page 15, last paragraph: The 73.11 The EA states that “water would be statement that ‘water would be applied during the construction period to applied during construction and control fugitive dust levels on access when hauling rock’ should be roads and the mine site.” (EA Page 15) changed to be clear that dust Water would indeed be used wherever abatement should occur whenever dust control is needed and related to dust is generated, including on any the mine, including on roads where roads where mine workers are mine workers drive to work if this driving to work. becomes necessary. 5.09 EA Page 39 (PCS-3): We disagree 73.26 Fugitive dust would be managed under that the project will comply with all the Fugitive Dust Control Plan and GEM air and water standards because is the only responsible party for fugitive dust will be created. BLM should dust control. As stated in the BLM say they will monitor the air quality response to PCS-3, BLM must comply at the mine site to ensure that with the federal Clean Air Act, Clean standards are met. GEM can buy Water Act, and all state air and water the monitoring devices and BLM or quality standards. DAQ should do the monitoring. 5.10 Fugitive Dust Control Plan: The use 73.28 Blasting is addressed in the Fugitive of explosives for blasting was not Dust Control Plan under Fugitive Dust addressed. Blasting creates dust Emission Activities (Part III). See Public and days/times should be Concern and BLM Response 2.22. coordinated with nearby communities. 5.11 Small Source Exemption 73.29 This is the most recent Small Source Registration: This form does not Exemption Registration form available appear current as it is missing PM from the Utah Division of Air Quality. 2.5 and the date is 2006. PM 2.5 emissions are included in the haul road emissions calculations included as an attachment. Refer to BLM response to Public Concern #73.08. 5.12 Will the EA address potential sulfur 74.10 White gypsum dust (CaSO4) from the odors from gypsum (which is a mine would not have a sulfur odor that sulfate)? would be detectable. Sulfur odors are typically due to the production of hydrogen sulfide gas (H2S). No hydrogen sulfide gas is to be produced by this operation. 5.13 The proposed project may require 79.01 A Small Source Exemption Registration an Approval Order permit from the was filed for this project as the Utah AQ Board if PM 10 and other operation is expected to emit less than emissions exceed five tons per five tons per year of emissions. GEM year. A permit application should be and BLM recognize that in some cases submitted to UDAQ. an approval order or temporary relocation permit may be required for the project.

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 54 5.14 If crushers and screens are used, 79.02 Comment Noted. On-site crushing and this project may be subject to the screening may require an approval New Source Performance order or other air permit and may be Standards Subpart OOO. subject to Subpart OOO (Standards of Performance for Nonmetallic Mineral Processing Plants). 5.15 The proposed project will be subject 79.03 The Fugitive Dust Control Plan details to R307-205-5: Fugitive Dust, which the various project activities that would apply to construction activities that create fugitive dust and the actions for disturb more than 0.25 acres. Steps controlling fugitive dust (EA Appendix need to be taken to minimize D). fugitive dust. 5.16 In any modern mine, dust is 94.04 The Fugitive Dust Control Plan details mitigated to the point that no one the various project activities that would notices it. create fugitive dust and the actions for controlling fugitive dust (EA Appendix D). 5.17 An entire series of studies reported 102.02 The majority of studies of gypsum chronic nonspecific respiratory workers have reported no lung fibrosis diseases in gypsum industry or pneumoconiosis except when workers. For this reason the mine gypsum was contaminated (NIH 2006). should not be allowed near a The minor amounts of white dust that retirement community where people may arise from the mining is gypsum. have respiratory issues. The gypsum deposit proposed to be mined is extremely high grade and relatively free of other minerals.

CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL RESOURCES 6.01 There are numerous artifacts and 97.03 Cultural resources are described in cultural resources in the proposed Section 3.3.1 and impacts to cultural mine area that should be avoided. resources are described in Section 4.2.1.1 of the EA. As the project is currently designed, the three NRHP- eligible sites along the haul road would be avoided (EA Table 4).

FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES 7.01 TEC Plants and TEC Wildlife should 73.04; 73.12; Mojave desert tortoise was analyzed in be analyzed in the document 73.19 the document and is the only TEC because both resources could wildlife species that may be present in occur in areas of the mining claims the area. See Sections 3.3.2 and or access roads and could be 4.2.1.2 of the EA. Although several TEC negatively affected. plants are known to inhabit badland soils like those found in the Project Area (see Section 3.3.8), none were observed during surveys and thus these species would not be negatively affected. 7.02 EA Page 21: Need to add cotton- 73.17 Comment noted. Adding these species tailed jackrabbits, Great Basin to the list would not change the analysis

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 55 Rattlesnakes, and gopher snakes to of impacts to wildlife (discussed in species list. Section 4.2.1.2 of the EA). 7.03 EA Page 22 and 37 (Tortoise): Has 73.18; 73.25 Formal consultation was Initiated and USFWS been notified of the tortoise the USF&WS concurred with BLM’S findings along the haul road? Does determination on March 13, 2012. GEM GEM have an incidental take permit has an incidental take permit. Tortoises for this mine? We believe at least are present in the area at low densities informal consultation should be in marginal, low quality habitat and not initiated because tortoises are in the within Critical Habitat or within the Red area and could be impacted by Cliffs NCA. trucks. 7.04 EA Page 27: “Impacts to special 73.23 The BLM will determine whether or not status species would be similar to the action may adversely affect an wildlife…” should be rewritten to endangered or threatened species or its reflect ESA and take provisions that habitat, based on information in the EA distinguish these species. regarding which species may be present in the area (Section 3.3.2) and what the impacts to those species would be (Section 4.2.1.2).

GEOLOGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 8.01 Do the other lease areas include 77.01; 77.03 GEM holds the mineral interests in the any proven or probable ore deposits proposed mine area with mining claims in addition to the 800,000 tons rather than leases. The 800,000 tons described in the EA? If so what is referred to in the EA is what was the grade and tonnage and where proposed for mining. The disclosure of are they located? What are GEM’s potentially confidential grades and plans for mining these? Are there tonnages of other mineral rights any as-yet-untested ore-bearing belonging to GEM or other claimants in areas on the GEM property besides the area do not fall under the purview of the 800,000 tons described? this EA. Presently, BLM has not received any other mining plans from GEM. 8.02 Commenter believes there are more 100.01 See BLM’s response to Public Concern easily reached gypsum deposits #1.01. elsewhere, further away from SunRiver.

LANDS AND ACCESS 9.01 The mining operation will be in FORM-1; Haul trucks would not use Sun River close proximity to the retirement Parkway to access the mine. See 6.01; 23.01; community of SunRiver St George, BLM’s response to Public Concern 87.01 and will thus create objectionable #3.01. noise and traffic conditions that residents will have to endure for the life of the operation. 9.02 Only two roads could be used to FORM-3; Haul trucks would not use roads transport the gypsum, through through Bloomington or SunRiver, or 6.03; 23.03; Bloomington or through SunRiver St any other residential road, to access the 34.04; 73.30; George, and both these roads are mine. The proposed access road is 80.04; 81.01; through residential areas. The use discussed in Section 2.2.2 and shown in 84.03; 84.05;

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 56 of large trucks on these residential 85.03; 87.03; Figure 2 of the EA. roads would create hazardous 89.03; 95.02; traffic conditions and would expose 111.02; 116.01; residents to danger as well as 121.02; 128.02; noise. It should be a condition of 136.01 approval that no hauling will be done through these areas. An extension of SunRiver Parkway across the Virgin River would only benefit the mine. 9.03 EA Page 9: Our calculations show 73.05 The 11.3 acres on Page 9 includes only that the 11.3 acres of road the mine area, not the haul road disturbance is inaccurate if the road turnouts. Refer to Table 1 in the EA for is 14 miles long and 40 feet wide. a breakdown of acres. 9.04 Are there existing rights of way 73.06; 73.20 Existing rights of way are discussed in across BLM land, Shivwitz, SITLA, Lands and Access, Section 3.3.5 of the and private lands for the roads to be EA, and impacts to Lands and Access widening and improved? Does are discussed in Section 4.2.1.5 of the county hold rights of way or will EA. The proposed project would not GEM? Will culverts and water bars affect any existing right of ways. Water be installed? Who will do the road bars would be installed on roads were construction and maintenance? Will slopes exceed 10 percent. Construction the improved roads conform to BLM and maintenance of the road turnouts Manual requirements? would be performed by GEM. No other road improvements are necessary. All improvements would conform to BLM standards. 9.05 EA Page 13: It is unclear from the 73.10 Comment noted. Bloomington Mine map where Bloomington Mine Valley Road is not labeled but is shown Valley Road is located. on Figure 2. 9.06 EA Page 16: the Public Safety 73.13 All haul truck loads would be covered section should be rewritten to and haul trucks would not create include road safety regarding haul hazardous dust conditions on Highway trucks and the hazards posed by 91 or Interstate 15. Compliance for safe dust on Highway 91 and Interstate transportation on public highways off 15. BLM managed land is controlled by local and state law enforcement and the State Departments of Transportation. 9.07 EA Small Source Exemption 73.31 The 34 miles in one round trip is the Registration, Page 4: It is unclear if haul road length from Highway 91 to 68 miles per day per truck is all on GEM Mine as noted on maps in the EA. the haul road as the haul road length was described as only 5 miles long. 9.08 How much will the road 74.03 GEM would pay for all road modifications cost and will GEM pay modifications. for them? 9.09 “Southern Parkway” was mentioned 78.01 Southern Parkway is not being as an access alternative to a considered as an possible access route commenter over the phone. Is this for this mine and thus was not included Sun River Parkway? Why was this in the EA. alternative not mentioned in the

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 57 EA? 9.10 Black Rock Road could be used 91.01 Black Rock Road would not provide a instead of Sun River Parkway as feasible access route to the mine. access to I-15. 9.11 The proposed access route is ideal 94.02; 94.06 The access route was chosen to avoid because it keeps mine traffic away populated areas and not interfere with from populated areas and will not local traffic. impact local traffic. 9.12 Commenters support any road 96.02 The Blake Lambing and Bloomington improvements that will make roads Mine Valley roads would be upgraded safer for public use. for safe travel. 9.13 The proposed mine road 97.01; 97.02 GEM has and would coordinate with Rio construction (widening) could pose Virgin Telephone (Reliance Connects) a hazard to the fiber optic cable before construction and the proposed splice locations installed by Rio project would not affect any existing Virgin. rights of way.

RECREATION 10.01 EA Section 3.2: Land uses in the 73.16 Recreation, including the presence of area should include target shooting numerous roads that crisscross the and bonfires/parties at night. Roads area and receive recreational use, was west of Bloomington get heavy mentioned in this section as a land use recreation traffic seven days a week and would be considered in the and when it rains these roads are decision. Roads west of Bloomington impassable. would not be used for the project except possibly for mine workers driving to work. 10.02 A mine would detract from the 128.04 Recreation opportunities were recreation opportunities to the west mentioned in Section 3.2 as a land use and south of SunRiver such as and would be considered in the hiking, biking, and 4-wheeling. decision. No existing roads or trails would be closed by the Proposed Action or Alternatives. The BLM determined that as long as VRM objectives are met (see Visual Impacts, EA Section 4.2.1.9) there would be no significant impact to recreation users.

SOCIO-ECONOMICS 11.01 The presence of the mine will 18.02; 74.12; There is no evidence that scope and devalue the homes in SunRiver. 75.03; 85.04; nature of the project would result in 105.02; 119.01; measurable or adverse impacts on the 126.01 regional economy of Washington County or local communities, including SunRiver. The much larger Black Rock mine has not devalued homes in SunRiver. Visual impacts of the mine would not detract from the overall views to the west (see Section 4.2.1.9). 11.02 The influx of residents to SunRiver 34.05; 74.12; See BLM response above. It is highly has helped the economy greatly in 80.11; 90.02 unlikely that this small mine would be St. George and should be balanced noticeable enough from SunRiver to

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 58 against any positive economic slow the influx of residents to this area impact of the mine, because the and further development. mine would slow this influx and further development. 11.03 The mine is beneficial because it 70.01; 70.02; The mine would create jobs directly and will create jobs and investor 82.01; 94.03; indirectly. The BLM will take the time opportunities. GEM has received 96.01; 120.01 necessary to determine whether to several requests for jobs and approve the mine; approve with contracts from local and state modification; or defer authorization residents, thus approval should be pending NEPA analyses. expedited so people can start working. 11.04 A mine representative claimed the 72.02; 80.13 The representative misspoke when he mine would create 100 jobs but the said the mine would create 100 jobs. EA does not describe this large an Based on proposed production rates, it operation. is estimated that during the first few years (1-5 years) of operations, that approximately 5-15 workers could be on site at any one time. If the operation were to ramp up (i.e., ore were mined at a faster rate), it is estimated that approximately 15-25 workers could be on site at any one time. In addition to direct, on-site employment, the operation would also create a relatively smaller (approximately 3-7) amount of indirect, off-site jobs.

SOIL RESOURCES 12.01 Were soil tests for radioactivity 109.01 A comprehensive study of radioactivity taken in the mining area? If so how (Cesium 137) levels in soils in were they taken and what were Washington County, Utah, was there results? If not, why were they published in 2008. Over one hundred not performed? Was an EPA impact soil samples were taken and showed study done and are the results that levels of radiation present in soil in available? If not, why was it not southwestern Utah are well below EPA performed? What are GEM’s plans contamination limits meant to limit for stored topsoil that may be public exposure to radiation (Bentley radioactive? 2008).

VEGETATION RESOURCES 13.01 Successful reclamation of 73.14 GEM is responsible for the success of vegetation needs to be based on reclaimed vegetation, and as such is results, i.e., what grows and not released from responsibility after becomes established, because this seeding but when vegetation has is an arid region where seeding established. needs to be monitored. Seeding alone does not equal success. 13.02 EA Page 24 (Vegetation): This 73.21 All special status plants mentioned are section should have a table with either endangered, threatened, or species’ status, and should note candidate. Although many are known to that Gierish globemallow is about to inhabit badland soils like those found in undergo a status review. the Project Area (see Section 3.3.8),

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 59 none were observed during surveys. The status of Gierish globemallow from candidate to either threatened or endangered would not change the impact assessment to this species. The BLM will determine whether or not the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat. 13.03 EA Page 24 (Vegetation): Were the 73.22 The haul roads were surveyed for road widening/turnout areas special status plants and none were surveyed for special status plants? found. If a special status plant is found Will emergency consultation be at a later time during project activities, initiated if a TEC plant is found the USFWS would be notified and there? project activities that affect that area would be suspended until appropriate action is determined by USFWS.

VISUAL RESOURCES 14.01 Appendix KOP photo 3 is of the RV 73.27 Comment noted. This distinction does Storage Area, not the RV Park. not change the analysis in the EA. 14.02 The mine will destroy the beautiful 75.02; 83.01; A visual contrast rating evaluation was views to the west from SunRiver. 125.01 completed (see EA Appendix C) and the view from SunRiver was analyzed (KOP #4). Overall impacts to views from this KOP would be long term and minor. As VRM Class III objectives would be maintained, the mine may attract attention but would not dominate the view of the casual observer. Basic elements and features of the existing character of the landscape would be maintained (EA Sections 3.3.9 and 4.2.1.9). 14.03 The mine will not be noticeable for 94.01 A visual contrast rating evaluation was the vast majority of people living in completed (see EA Appendix C) from Washington County. the most critical viewpoints to the project site as determined by the number of viewers, length of view time, and nearby communities.

WATER RESOURCES 15.01 Runoff from open excavations and 6.05 The closest natural waterway (the Virgin tailings must be contained and River) is three miles away from the processed to prevent entry into project site so it is highly unlikely that natural waterways. runoff would reach a natural waterway. BMPs approved by the BLM would minimize the potential for soil erosion on excavated areas and the project would comply with BLM’s Standard Procedures Applied to Surface Disturbing Activities.

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 60 15.02 Local residents need assurance 76.01 Water would be purchased from a water that the municipal water supply will source in the city, county, or private not be affected by the mine. Who is source. See BLM response to Public GEM negotiating with on this issue? Concern 2.09. 15.03 The BLM should require a condition 80.05 Local aquifers would not be affected by of approval to provide the mine. compensation for the event that the Bloomington Aquifer is negatively affected by the mine.

5.4 List of Preparers

5.4.1 BLM Responsible for the Following Section(s) Name Title of this Document St. George Field Office Russell Schreiner Geologist Project Lead, Geology/Mineral Resources Archaeological Cultural Resources, Native American Geralyn McEwen Technician Consultation Robert Douglas Biologist Fish and Wildlife Tim Croissant Biologist Fish and Wildlife Rangeland Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds, Livestock Kim Leany Management Grazing, Vegetation Specialist Kathy Abbott Realty Specialist Lands/Access Natural Resource Dave Corry Soils Specialist Outdoor Recreation Kyle Voyles Areas with Wilderness Characteristics Planner Outdoor Recreation Dave Kiel Areas with Wilderness Characteristics Planner

5.4.2 Non-BLM Preparers Responsible for the Following Section(s) Name Title of this Document Project Manager, Eric Holt Project Management, NEPA review Biologist Wildlife, Invasive Species/Noxious Weeds, Laura Arneson Biologist Vegetation Jenni Prince- NEPA Specialist, Cultural Resources, Lands/Access, Livestock Mahoney Archaeologist Grazing, Geology/Mineral Resources, Soils Biologist, NEPA Greg Sharp Visuals Resources Specialist

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 61

6.0 REFERENCES AND ACRONYMS

6.1 References Cited Alder, Douglas D. and Karl F. Brooks. 1996. A History of Washington County. Utah Centennial History Suite. Utah State Historical Society, Salt Lake City, Utah Altschul, J. H. and H. C. Fairley. 1989. Man, models, and management: an overview of the archaeology of the Arizona strip and the management of its cultural resources. Report submitted to United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management by Staticistical Research, Plateau Archaeology, and Dames and Moore, Salt Lake City, Utah. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1999. St. George Field Office Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan. US Department of Interior, BLM, St. George Field Office. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2008. National Environmental Policy Act Handbook H-1790-1. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Environmental Policy Act Program, Office of the Assistant Director, Renewable Resources and Planning (WO-200), Washington, DC. Geib, Phil R. 1996. Glen Canyon Revisited. Anthropological Paper No. 119, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah Gourley, Dale. 2010. A Cultural Resource Inventory of the GEM Beaver Dam Mountains Gypsum Mine, Washington County, Utah. Bighorn Archaeological Consultants, LLC. Santa Clara, Utah. Gourley, Dale R., Tom Jones, and Steven M. Hall. 2007. A Cultural Resource Inventory of the Rio Virgin Bloomington to Beaver Dam Fiber-optic Corridor, Mohave County, Arizona and Washington County, Utah. Report Number 07-03. Bighorn Archaeological Consultants, LLC. Santa Clara, Utah. Hecla Mining Company. 1991. Annual Report of Mining Operations: Apex Mine. Filed with the Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining. Available online at: https://fs.ogm.utah.gov/FILES/MINERALS/PERMITS/053/M0530004/1991/Incoming /01111991.pdf. Accessed February 7, 2011. JBR Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2010. Biological Survey Report for the Good Earth Minerals Beaver Dam Mountain Gypsum Mine. Jennings, J. D. 1978. Prehistory of Utah and the eastern Great Basin. University of Utah Anthropological Papers No. 98. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Johnson, Frederic. 2010. Geology in Good Earth Minerals’ Notice of Intent to Commence Large Mining Operations. Industrial Mineral Developments Inc. July. Lyneis, M. M. 1995. The Virgin Anasazi, Far Western Puebloans. Journal of World Prehistory 9(2):199-241.

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 62 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992. Field survey protocol for any federal action that may occur within the range of the desert tortoise. Ventura Office. Ventura, California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2010. Preparing for any action that may occur within the range of the Mojave desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii). 2009 field season. Ventura Office. Ventura, California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. Revised recovery plan for the Mojave population of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Sacramento, California. 222 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012. Biological Opinion, Good Earth Minerals 20-year gypsum mine construction and operation, Bloomington Valley Area Utah. West Valley City, Utah. March 9, 2012. Utah State Historical Society (USHS). 1988. Beehive History 14: Utah Counties. Utah State Historical Society, 300 Rio Grande, Salt Lake City, Utah. Washington County. 2010. Washington County General Plan of 2010. Washington County, Utah. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2010. Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary: St. George, Utah (427516) 1862-2010. Available online at: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ut7516. Accessed February 8, 2011.

6.2 List of Acronyms Used in this EA ACEC Area of Critical Environmental Concern amsl Above Mean Sea Level AUM Animal Unit Month BO Biological Opinion BLM Bureau of Land Management BMP Best Management Practice CIA Cumulative Impact Area CFR Code of Federal Regulations DR Decision Record EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement ENBB Environmental Notification Bulletin Board FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact GEM Good Earth Minerals, LLC ID Interdisciplinary

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 63 NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NOI Notice of Intention NRHP National Register of Historic Places OHV Off-Highway Vehicle OSC Open Space Conservation PCS Public Concern Statement REA Rural Electric Association RFAS Reasonably Foreseeable Action Scenario RMP Resource Management Plan ROW Right of Way SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SLM Salt Lake Meridian SPCC Spill Prevention, Countermeasures, and Control Plan SUWA Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance TEC Threatened, Endangered and Candidate UDOGM Utah Division of Oil, Gas and Mining USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service VRM Visual Resource Management WRCC Western Regional Climate Center

Good Earth Minerals Gypsum Mine – EA 64

APPENDIX A Interdisciplinary Team Analysis Record Checklist

INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM CHECKLIST

Project Title: Good Earth Minerals Plan of Operations NEPA Log Number: DOI-BLM-UT-C030-2010-0007 -EA File/Serial Number: U-87863 Project Leader: Russell Schreiner

Project Description: Good Earth Minerals, LLC proposes to mine 800,000 tons of high purity gypsum for the plastic filler and fire retardant markets over a 20 year period from the Blakes Lambing Ground area, T 43 S R 17 W sec. 24 NW1/4 . The gypsum would be mined using open-pit methods from 8.4 acres of a proposed 11.3 acre operations area. Convention drill-blast and loader/dozer operations would be used for overburden removal. A continuous miner would be used for selective mining of the flat dipping high grade gypsum horizons from the top down. Gypsum processing on site would be limited to basic crushing and screening when necessary. Mined gypsum would be transported to the staging area for crushing and sizing prior to loading on haul trucks for transportation to Utah Highway 91. The gypsum would be transported to an off-site milling operation by off-road/on-road 20 – 25 ton haul trucks via existing county roads and State and Federal highways. County roads would be upgraded for safe travel with turnouts and/or widening where necessary. An additional 1 to 2 acres of disturbance would be required for these road upgrades depending on the option selected. Pit operation and hauling would be done under a five-day work week from Monday through Friday, except on Holidays. Mining may be sporadic in response to market demand. Gypsum located on the property is layered in the Harrisburg member of the upper Kaibab formation. In Section 24, this formation contains several thick layers of very high-grade gypsum (pure 90–95+% gypsum) that ranges from 5- to 35-feet thick.

Proposed Surface Operations: GEM estimates an operational mine life of approximately 20 years with a proposed starting date of operation immediately upon permitting and meeting required stipulations of Utah Division of Oil Gas and Mining, U.S. BLM, and Washington County, Utah. GEM projects an initial production of 20,000 tons per year with a possible ramp up to 100,000 tons within a couple of years dependent upon market demands. Initially, access directly into the staging area and into the proposed mining area would be made from the northwest-southeast road that adjoins Blake Lambing Road in the northwest quarter of Section 24. Access to the top and near an old bulldozer channel cut would be made from east to west through the flat proposed staging area noted on Map 7. Initial clearing of the mining areas would save topsoil for reclamation of the area. Concurrent reclamation with fill and topsoil placement is proposed to follow mining that would be done in a top down sequence from north to south. Mining with dozer, loader, and drill-

blast methods would progress to strip the hard overburden where necessary and just a loader would be used to remove and transport up to one foot of topsoil for reclamation use storage. Mining with loader and continuous miner would be from the top down to allow separation of high-grade gypsum beds. The thin separable inter-beds of limestone and silt, and the limestone cap material would be used as fill where needed to attain reclamation slopes. Waste retained on the site would be under 5% of the mined material. This mixed rock and soil from mining would be distributed on sloped benches during reclamation, after scarification and prior to saved topsoil placement, and seeding. Mining operations would require one (1) large motor-grader for clearing overburden and piling topsoil to store in flat areas and for road maintenance, contracted 20-25 ton haul trucks to transport ore, one (1) Air–Track Drill, one (1) 980 to 988 Cat type loader, one (2) Cat Type 235 Trackhoes with continuous miner cutter heads, one (1) D-9 Cat type bulldozer (temporary use rental) for limestone cap removal, one AM-75 or like type roadheader, one (1) portable generator with trailer housing, and one (1) or two (2) pickup trucks for personnel transportation. A primary jaw and/or cone crushing spread would be set up in the noted staging area to allow primary sorting of material before trucking. All mining and processing equipment would be portable (rolling stock”) and no permanent structures would be used on the mine site. Primary crushing and screening to 3/8” to 2” size would be done on-site in the staging area using portable/movable crushing and screening equipment. Further processing to reach customer specifications would be done off-site. Pursuant to Federal 43CFR 3809.401 (4), air quality would be addressed. The portable primary crushing equipment would have the proper Utah Division of Air Quality permits concerning diesel, fugitive dust, and PM-10 emissions. This type of on-site processing requires water to control traffic dust and dust generated by mining and processing equipment. A 4000-gallon water truck would haul water to control dust on the site and another water truck would haul water to control dust on the haulage road. No water supply lines, power, or utility services would be used in mining. A portable generator would generate all necessary power (43 CFR 3809.401 (2). The continuous miner and crusher would contain water sprays to contain dust. Pursuant to CFR 3809.401 (2) and 3809.420 (2) GEM would follow a reasonable and customary development, mining, and reclamation sequence. Concurrent reclamation is planned as areas are mined; however, actual mining and development of the ore body would determine advancing sequences of operation to minimize disturbance in advance of mining. This type of flexibility through mining within the Project Area is necessary when selectively mining to maintain high standards of ore control. Generally mining would progress from north to south and from the top down. Mining is not planned below the present general alluvial slope. Hillside (slope) mining would widen the canyon and slopes. Pursuant to 43 CFR 3809.401 (5) an informal interim management plan would be in place and would be implemented during extended periods of mining operations shut down. This plan would include: removing mobile equipment from the site, installing

closure signs, and maintaining a daily presence on the site to ensure site safety and security. In addition to complying with all applicable state and federal regulations, GEM plans to informally implement a Quality Assurance Plan pursuant to 43 CFR 3809.401 (2). Implementation consists of daily inspections by the mine foreman to ensure the structural integrity of existing mine slopes and walls, and to maintain compliance with internal safety and operating procedures. Good Earth Minerals, LLC would employ the services of a licensed blasting contractor who would comply with all applicable regulations and standards established by the regulating agencies, codes, and professional societies including the rules and regulations for storage, transportation, delivery, and use of explosives. No explosives would be stored on-site.

Access and Hauling: Good Earth Minerals, LLC (GEM) proposes to use portions of the Mine Valley (Apex) Road and the Blakes Lambing road for hauling ore from the GEM mine. The gypsum would be transported to an off-site milling operation by off-road/on-road 20 – 25 ton haul trucks via the existing unimproved Blakes Lambing Road that would be upgraded for safe travel with turnouts and/or widening. Good Earth Minerals considered turnouts and/or widening and proposes to implement one of these options when decisions are finalized at the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and the Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining. Increasing the access road width an average of 3 to 4 ft throughout the 5-mile route would add an additional two acres of disturbance. Fourteen truck turnouts positioned at locations where on-coming traffic can be seen for significant distances would also allow for safe travel on the access road. The turnouts would be approximately 15 feet wide in addition to the existing road width and about 70 ft. long. A system of turnouts would entail one less acre of disturbance and would be facilitated by the good visibility from the crests along the road and road signs at appropriate places. At least two significant archeological finds along the haul route suggest that turnouts outside these areas rather than widening would continue to protect the resource values. Much of the access road and the proposed widths of the GEM haul road were disturbed during the placement of buried cable in 2008 and 2009. GEM would consult with Rio Virgin fiber optic company and the Dixie Escalante power company prior to implementation of road work. Although GEM is including reclamation of the road work in the mine plan, GEM proposes to leave improvements to the road in place at the end of mining.

DETERMINATION OF STAFF: (Choose one of the following abbreviated options for the left column) NP = not present in the area impacted by the proposed or alternative actions NI = present, but not affected to a degree that detailed analysis is required PI = present with potential for relevant impact that need to be analyzed in detail in the EA NC = (DNAs only) actions and impacts not changed from those disclosed in the existing NEPA documents cited in Section D of the DNA form. The Rationale column may include NI and NP discussions.

Determination Resource Rationale for Determination* Signature Date

RESOURCES AND ISSUES CONSIDERED (INCLUDES SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITIES APPENDIX 1 H-1790-1) This project is considered NI for Air Quality if dust NI Air Quality abatement measures are closely followed as outlined in D. Corry 11/1/10 the Proposed Action of this EA. Areas of Critical NP Environmental There are no ACEC’s in the proposed Project Area. K. Voyles 11-2-10 Concern There are no natural areas in the proposed Project NP BLM Natural Areas Area. K. Voyles 11-2-10 A Class III inventory was completed during the Rio Virgin Bloomington to Beaver Dam Fiber-optic Corridor, report number U-07-HO-244b,p,s. Several eligible sites are known within the APE involving segments of the road. These sites would need to be treated or mitigated PI Cultural Resources through the development and implementation of an G. McEwen 11/22/10 approved Treatment Plan for these properties, through Section 106 consultations between BLM, the Utah SHPO, and other affected parties. NEPA will need to be completed to fulfill our responsibilities under the NEPA process. Ongoing scientific research has identified the potential impacts of anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and changes in biological carbon sequestration due to land management activities on global climate. However, there are currently no Greenhouse Gas NI "credible scientific" methods to predict the potential R. Schreiner 10/25/10 Emissions climate change impacts from project specific GHG emissions. GHG emissions from the Proposed Action are anticipated to be extremely minor; therefore, it is not necessary to complete detailed quantification or modeling. No disproportionately high or adverse health or Environmental environmental effects would result to minority or low NP Justice income populations as a result of implementing the K. Voyles 11-2-10 Proposed Action. Farmlands (Prime This action would not impact Prime and Unique NP D. Corry 11/1/10 or Unique) Farmlands.

Determination Resource Rationale for Determination* Signature Date The following Special Status Species may occur in the Project Area: Burrowing owl (permanent resident, uncommon), Ferruginous hawk (transient, fairly common), Fringed myotis (permanent resident, uncommon), kit fox (permanent resident, uncommon), Spotted bat (permanent resident, rare), Townsend’s big- eared bat (permanent resident, fairly common), and Zebra-tailed lizard (permanent resident, fairly common). The Project Area supports low densities of small mammals, birds, and reptiles that are generally concentrated in the larger washes. Wildlife that typically would be found in this area include: badgers, antelope ground squirrels, kangaroo rats, deer mice, desert wood rats, Gambel’s quail, mourning doves, common ravens, wrens, house finches, side-blotched lizards, and Western whiptails. Infrequently, larger animals such as raptors, coyotes, gray fox, and mule deer may pass through the area. Fish and Wildlife During mining and hauling, some small mammals, birds, Excluding USFW PI and reptiles could be disturbed or killed and some dens R. Douglas 11-08-10 Designated or nests destroyed. Species Overall impacts to small mammals, birds, and reptiles would be insignificant to populations in the general area. Larger animals would be temporarily disturbed and displaced to adjacent habitats. Mining and hauling of materials would be conducted periodically, and once mining and hauling activities are done for a while, larger animals would return to the area. Any disturbance to small mammals, birds, and reptiles would be short-term (lasting several years). Impacts to Special Status Species would be similar to impacts to general wildlife in the area. This mining operation would disturb approximately 8 acres of general habitat in the mine area and an additional 2 acres habitat along existing access and hauling roads (due to road widening, and maintenance). This disturbance would be within habitat containing a low diversity of wildlife (low priority area), and would be spread out over a 20 year period.

NP Floodplains There are no Floodplains in this area. D. Corry 11/1/10

This area is managed for immediate suppression of all Fuels/Fire wildfires. Equipment and facilities would not alter that NI K Leany 11-18-10 Management objective. No fuels mgt projects are currently planned or in place within the Project Area. Geology / Mineral Good Earth Minerals proposes to mine 800,000 tons of PI Resources/Energy gypsum from an 11.3 acre area and a detailed analysis R. Schreiner 10/25/10 Production will be included in the environmental document. The proposed open pit mine would create only minor and isolated soil disturbance. No drilling, pumping or Hydrologic other actions that could affect aquifers or result in NP R. Schreiner 10/25/10 Conditions subsidence are proposed. No specific hydrologic issues relating to subsidence or flooding of underground facilities exist.

Determination Resource Rationale for Determination* Signature Date This amount of disturbance and traffic to and from the site would provide a likely place for noxious weeds to develop. Invasive species are also very likely to spread within the disturbed areas. Periodic inspections for Invasive noxious weeds followed with control efforts when PI Species/Noxious needed should be included in the operations plan and K Leany 11-18-10 Weeds be the responsibility of Good Earth Minerals. Routine BLM inspections should also include invasive species to ensure compliance with these requirements. Successful reclamation would be critical regarding the long term nature of this problem. Need to notify/consult Rio Virgin Telephone as turn outs/widening could affect the existing fiber optic right- PI Lands/Access of-way. Need to notify/consult with Dixie REA, K Abbott 10/25/10 Washington County Roads Dept., SITLA, Private land owner Mine Valley Will the Project Area be fenced? Would there be open pits or trenches that might be a hazard to livestock? The forage lost would not be significant enough to PI Livestock Grazing K Leany 11-18-10 require an adjustment in the grazing permit for this area. The road traffic and mine operation would likely cause some inconveniences to the livestock operator.

This mining operation is located in low priority habitat, R. Douglas NI Migratory Birds. 11-08-10 and would not significantly affect migratory bird species. Consultation will be conducted with the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah, under the terms of the MOU signed in 1999 and other American Indian Tribes that claim Native American affiliation to southwestern Utah. Should resources or NI G. McEwen 11/22/10 Religious Concerns concerns be identified, these would be addressed by project modifications or other appropriate measures developed during consultations. To date, no such concerns have been identified. There are no known paleontological sites on the proposed mine site. The Kaibab Limestone is rated as NP Paleontology moderate potential for fossil resources and the gypsum R Schreiner 10/25/10 beds in the Harrisburg Member would be considered very low potential. Rangeland Health NP K Leany 11/18/10 Standards The project is adjacent to a popular ATV route which is also used by the Tri-State ATV Jamboree. However, if Recreation K. Voyles 11-2-10 NI the VRM objectives are met, there would be no significant impacts to recreational users. By its scope and nature, this proposal would not result in measurable or adverse impacts on the regional NI Socio-Economics economy of Washington County or of local K. Voyles 11-2-10 communities. It may provide a small number of jobs from the local community.

Determination Resource Rationale for Determination* Signature Date It appears that approximately 11-12 areas would be disturbed as a result of this action. The operations plan address in the Proposed Action addresses the majority PI Soils D. Corry 11/1/10 issues associated with the soil Resources. Recommend that soil erosion structures ie water bars be installed on areas where slopes exceed 10%. Threatened, Threatened, endangered, or candidate plant species do Endangered or not occur in this proposed mining area. This mining R. Douglas NP 11-08-10 Candidate Plant operation would have no effect on threatened, Species endangered, or candidate plant species. The only threatened, endangered, or candidate animal species to occur in the proposed mining area is the Mojave desert tortoise. The Mojave desert tortoise habitat is only marginally suitable, and because the Threatened, R. Douglas/ tortoise population is suspected to be of low density, the Endangered or PI project is thus unlikely to injure or kill any tortoises. T. Croissant 2-25-12 Candidate Animal However, as incidental take is possible over the 20-year Species life of the mine, the project May Affect, and Would Likely Adversely Affect the desert tortoise. The project would have No Affect on Designated Critical Habitat for the Mojave desert tortoise. There are no known hazardous or solid waste sites Wastes present within the proposed mine area. No hazardous NP waste would be generated by the proposed project or R Schreiner 10/25/10 (hazardous or solid) stored on site. Dynamite used for blasting would not be stored on site Although some sediment might be removed from this Water site during high rain fall events, it is not expected to Resources/Quality NI impact the closest water resource which is the Virgin D. Corry 11/1/10 (drinking/surface/gr River, which is approximately 3 miles south of the ound) project site. Wetlands/Riparian There are no Riparian areas on or close to this NP D. Corry 11/1/10 Zones Proposed Action. Wild and Scenic There are no Wild and Scenic Rivers in the proposed NP Rivers area. K. Voyles 11-2-10 The Proposed Action does not take place in or have any NP Wilderness/WSA impact on any Wilderness area. K. Voyles 11-2-10 Woodland / NP K Leany 11-18-10 Forestry Vegetation Vegetation would be removed over a substantial area Excluding USFW (5+ acres or so). Reclamation standards should require PI K Leany 11-18-10 Designated that the area be successful re-vegetated before Good Species Earth is released from their responsibility.

Determination Resource Rationale for Determination* Signature Date The entire project site as well as the surrounding area, has a Visual Resource Management Class III rating. The management objectives for VRM Class III are: 1) The level of change to the landscape can be moderate. 2) Management activities may attract attention, but should not dominate the view of the casual observer. 3) Any changes should repeat the basic elements found in the natural landscape – form, line, color, & texture. NI Visual Resources K. Voyles 11-2-10 This project is in a LOW sensitivity VRM rating as well as a Class C (low) Scenic Quality rating. Based on the description, this is a fairly large project, impacting 11 acres and creating the potential for visual contrast. A visual contrast rating will need to be performed in order to disclose the visibility (or lack thereof) of the Project Area itself (and the turn outs if the option is chosen) from the adjacent travel route and to ensure adequate mitigation if required. A visual simulation is recommended.

Wild Horses and NP K Leany 11-18-10 Burros There are no areas with wilderness characteristics, Areas with either from the Red Rock Wilderness proposal, or the NP Wilderness K. Voyles 11-2-10 Characteristics 1999 BLM re-inventory, located within the Project Area.

FINAL REVIEW:

Reviewer Title Signature Date Comments

Environmental Coordinator

Authorized Officer

APPENDIX B Study Area Vegetation List

Plant Species List Gypsum Mine Study Area

Common Name Genus Species Golden Head Acamptopappus sphaerocephalus Burrow- Bush Ambrosia dumosa 4 Wing Salt Brush Atriplex canescens Desert Marigold Baileya multiradiata Cheat Grass Bromus tectorum Yellow Cups Camissonia Spp. Rattlesnake Weed Chamaesyce albomarginata Yellow Rabbitbrush Chrysothamnus viscidiflorus Black Brush Coleogyne ramosissima Hedge-Hog Cactus Echinocereus engelmannii Mormon Tea Ephedra nevadensis Desert Trumpet Eriogonum Inflatum Buckwheat Eriogonum deflexum Fluff Grass Erioneuron pulchellum Filaree Erodium cicutarium Hopsage Grayia spinosa Sticky Snakeweed Gutierrezia microcephala Broom Snakeweed Gutierrezia sarothrae Cheese Bush Hymenoclea salsola Winter Fat Krascheninnikovia lanata Creosote Larrea tridentata Mountain Pepperweed Lepidium montanum Anderson Boxthorn Lycium andersonii Hoary Aster Machaenthera canescens Many-Spined Fish Hook Mammillaria tetrancistra Desert Blazing Star Mentzelia Spp. Mojave Prickly-Pear Opuntia erinacea Notch -Leaved Phacelia Phacelia crenulata Curly Grass Pleuraphis jamesii Indigo Bush Psorothamnus arborescens Globemallow Sphaeralcea ambigua Wire Lettuce Stephanomeria pauciflora Cottonthorn Tetradymia axillaris

Appendix C Visual Contrast Rating Evaluation

Six Key Observation Points (KOPs) were chosen in order to conduct the visual contrast rating evaluation. KOP 1 (Photo 1 ) was taken from the existing Washington County maintained gravel road (Blake Lambing Road) looking west. In the background are the Beaver Dam Mountains. The middleground includes the Project site and sparsely vegetated rolling hills. The primary observers of this landscape are recreationists, ranchers, utility workers, and other travelers along the Blake Lambing Road that runs from Navajo Drive in Bloomington west toward Highway 91.

Photo 1 View from KOP 1 Looking West toward Project Area

KOP 2 (Photo 2 ) was taken from the existing Blake Lambing Road looking west, approximately 500 feet from the proposed mine area. In the background are the Beaver Dam Mountains. The middleground includes the project site and sparsely vegetated rolling hills. The primary observers of this landscape are recreationists and travelers along the Blake Lambing Road.

Photo 2 View from KOP 2 Looking West at the Proposed Mine Area KOP 3 (Photo 3) is located at W 3780 S Street in Bloomington, near the waste water treatment facility. The foreground includes the paved road and an RV park. The Beaver Dam Mountains are in the background. The middleground includes the project site and sparsely vegetated rolling hills. The primary observers of this landscape are travelers and residents of the area. KOP 4 (Photo 4 ) was taken at the entrance to the community of Sun River, west of Interstate 15 exit 2. In the background are the Beaver Dam Mountains. The middleground includes the Project Area and sparsely vegetated rolling hills. The primary observers of this landscape are travelers and residents of the community.

Photo 3 View from KOP 3 Looking West toward Project Area

Photo 4 View from KOP 4 Located at the Community of Sun River

Photo 5 View from KOP 5 Looking Toward the Project Area

KOP 5 (Photo 5) is located north of the Black Rock exit off of Interstate 15 in Arizona. This area is used by recreationists, mainly OHV riders that use the many roads in the area. In the background are the Beaver Dam Mountains. The middleground includes the project site and sparsely vegetated rolling hills. An existing gypsum mine, two cows, power lines, and roads are present in the foreground, representing the different land uses in the area. KOP 6 (Photo 6) was taken along the Blake Lambing Road that would be used for the haul route. This KOP is approximately half way between the proposed mine operations area and Mine Valley. In the background are prominent steep mountains (Starvation Point) with rolling hills in the middle and foregrounds. Recent fires have removed most of the vegetation along this route. The existing road adds a prominent vertical manmade feature in the viewshed.

Photo 6 View from KOP 6 Looking East toward the Proposed Mine Area

Visual Simulations

Road As-is

Road with Turnout

Road As-is

Road Widened

APPENDIX D Fugitive Dust Control Plan and Small Source Exemption Registration

Fugitive Dust Control Plan Document

The intent of the Fugitive Dust Control Plan (FDCP) Document is to provide a FDCP for the Good Earth Minerals, LLC,(GEM) mine site on which GEM is the owner and operator. The plan has been written so the site will have a site specific plan for the types of activities creating fugitive dust, and thus the actions for controlling fugitive dust. This document has been prepared to offer flexibility yet maintain compliance with the Utah Administrative Code (UAC) R307-309. The primary purpose of this approach is to ensure an FDCP is in place for all projects, including those that are short-term, while only requiring minimal administrative effort.

Directions to complete the Fugitive Dust Control Plan Document

1. Make a hard copy of the plan.

2. Contractually require any and all subcontracting companies to sign the “Fugitive Dust Management, Acknowledgement and Certification,” given in Attachment 2.

3. Make copies of the signed agreements and place them in Attachment 2 on-site as part of the plan.

4. After any and all contracting companies have signed the acknowledgement, make two copies of the plan.

a. Keep one of those copies on-site to use and to follow.

b. Send one complete copy of the FDCP to the Compliance Section of the Utah Division of Air Quality, at:

Utah Division of Air Quality ATTN: Compliance Section 150 N. 1950 West P.O. Box 144820 Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4820

5. Now that the plan is complete and enforceable by UDAQ make sure that the plan is followed.

GOOD EARTH MINERALS, LLC 600 17th Street, Suite 2800 South Denver, Colorado 80202-5428

Fugitive Dust Control Plan For the GEM Mine Located at:

NE¼NW¼ Section 24, Township 43S, Range 17W, Salt Lake Base & Meridian Washington County, Utah

for questions regarding this plan contact Frederic Johnson, Professional Geologist

at

(435)-635-2026

CONTENTS

I. Introduction ...... 1

II. Regulatory Applicability ...... 1

III. Source Information ...... 2

IV. Fugitive Dust Emission Activities ...... 3

V. Fugitive Dust Controls ...... 6 i. Road Activity Fugitive Dust Control ...... 6 ii. Activity Specific On-Site Fugitive Dust Control ...... 6 iii. Off-Site Fugitive Dust Control ...... 9

Attachment 1 Responsible Parties for Fugitive Dust Control

Attachment 2 Fugitive Dust Management, Acknowledgement and Certification

Attachment 3 Map of Mine and Concentrator Mill Area

http://www.airquality.utah.gov/PERMITS/dust/index.htm

I. Introduction

Good Earth Minerals, LLC. (GEM) proposes to operate a facility to mine gypsum. This process would involve mining equipment and operations, crushing equipment, and hauling crushed mineral material to a mill.

The intent of this Fugitive Dust Control Plan (FDCP) is to maintain compliance, with ease, of site-specific requirements for a FDCP. The plan has been written so that each area of the facility will have a plan for the types of activities creating fugitive dust, and thus the actions for controlling fugitive dust. This document has been prepared to offer flexibility yet maintain compliance with the Utah Administrative Code (UAC) R307-309. The primary purpose of this approach is to ensure an FDCP is in place for all projects, including those that are short-term, while requiring minimal administrative effort.

II. Regulatory Applicability

Although the GEM Mine is not subject to the requirements of UAC R307-309, Non-attainment and Maintenance Areas for PM10: Fugitive Emissions and Fugitive Dust, as they are not in a non-attainment area or maintenance area, the mines are subject to R307-205, Emission Standards: Fugitive Emissions and Fugitive Dust. The purpose of R307-205 is to establish minimum work practices and emission standards for sources of fugitive emissions and fugitive dust located in all areas of the state, except those listed in the state implementation plan or non-attainment areas (UAC R307-205-1). While R307-205 does not require the implementation of a FDCP, GEM has prepared this FDCP to ensure the requirements of R307-205 are met.

The UAC R307-309-2 defines material as, “sand, gravel, soil, minerals, other matter that may create fugitive dust.” For this FDCP, material is used and defined in the same way. The following activities of concern to the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Air Quality (DAQ), will take place:

YES NO ACTIVITY ⌧ □ Storage, hauling or handling of tar sands, overburden, or sand and gravel ⌧ □ Clearing or leveling of land one-quarter acre or greater in size Earthmoving, excavation, or movement of trucks or construction equipment over ⌧ □ cleared land one-quarter acre size or greater ⌧ □ Haul road access and activity Engaging in demolition activities including razing homes, buildings or other □ ⌧ structures

GEM recognizes that in some cases, an approval order or temporary relocation permit will be required for the project, especially in cases of equipment use such as crushers or screens. This document in no way releases GEM from the requirements of air quality permits.

GEM – FDCP – July 2011 Page 1 III. Source Information

This section supplies site-specific information regarding the project. Although not required by the UAC, the Utah Division of Air Quality (UDAQ) suggests the FDCP to contain the following source specific information. Therefore, the information provided in this section is not to be used for determining compliance with any applicable permits, rather to give an overall understanding of the project for fugitive dust applications only.

SOURCE INFORMATION

Name of Operation: GEM Mine

Address or Approximate 7 Miles Southwest of St. George, Utah, Washington County Location: Approximate Length 20 years maximum of Project:

Strip and stockpile topsoil from mine area, remove and stockpile Description of overburden, mine gypsum, haul gypsum to crushing system, and load Process or Activity: haul trucks to deliver crushed gypsum to mill.

- Topsoil and sagebrush-grassland vegetation is removed and stockpiled. Type of Material - Overburden is removed and is placed in a nearby waste dump with Processed or dozers and trucks. Disturbed: -Gypsum is hauled to the crushing plant - Crushed gypsum is sent to mill via haul trucks

Amount of Material Gypsum will be mined at a rate of approximately 10,000 to 50,000 cubic Processed or yards per year. Disturbed:

In all cases, the responsible parties for fugitive dust control are the owner and/or operator.

Attachment 1 identifies the owner and operators of this project, and the contact information of the individuals responsible for implementation and maintenance of the FDCP.

At this time there will be no subcontractors on the project. If at any time during the life of this FDCP subcontractors are present, they will enter into an agreement of shared responsibility regarding fugitive dust control. Attachment 2 identifies any subcontractors operating on site and the duration of subcontractor activity on the project. Also included in Attachment 2 is a signed acknowledgement by each subcontracting company. Included in that acknowledgement is: awareness of the FDCP, intent to comply with the FDCP, obligation of reporting to the owner and/or operator any problems with fugitive

GEM – FDCP – July 2011 Page 2 dust control, and shared responsibility of any fines incurred from subcontractor negligence regarding fugitive dust control.

III. Fugitive Dust Emission Activities

The section fulfills the requirements set for the UAC R307-309-6(1)(a)-(k), by further addressing the specific project activities generating fugitive dust.

ACTIVITY YES NO ACTIVITY DETAILS List the type of material, how many storage piles and area used for storage piles.

TOPSOIL & OVERBURDEN STORAGE PILES MATERIAL WILL BE STABILIZED BY RESEEDING AND STORAGE ⌧ □ OCCUPY APPROXIMATELY 0.82 ACRE OF LAND.

PRODUCT STORAGE PILES WILL CONSUME APPROXIMATELY 1.5 ACRES OF LAND.

List the type of material that will be handled, transferred, loaded, hauled and/or dumped and the equipment that will be used for these activities. MATERIAL HANDLING, TOPSOIL, OVERBURDEN WILL BE HANDLED TRANSFER, WITH LOADERS, GRADERS, AND TRUCKS HAULING ⌧ □ LOADING, OR DUMPING GYPSUM WILL BE HANDLED WITH LOADERS, CONTINUOUS MINER (ROADHEADER), TRUCKS, SCREENS, AND CRUSHERS

List vehicles, equipment, and frequency of driving on the haul roads, roadways, or yard areas. List approximate HAUL ROADS, lengths of road or areas these items will take up. ROADWAYS, OR ⌧ □ ROADS WILL BE TRAVELED BY HAUL TRUCKS, YARD AREAS INCLUDING 17 MILES OF COUNTY HAUL ROAD. ALL HAUL ROADS WILL HAVE MARKED SPEED LIMITS List the acreage of land being cleared or leveled.

CLEARING, 11.4 ACRES WILL BE INCREMENTALLY LEVELING, ⌧ □ CLEARED FOR THE MINING ACTIVITIES

List the areas of earthmoving, excavation or trenching.

EARTH MOVING, THE QUARRY & STORAGE AREA EXCAVATION ⌧ □

GEM – FDCP – July 2011 Page 3 ACTIVITY YES NO ACTIVITY DETAILS ACTIVITY DETAILS ACTIVITY YES NO

List the structures that will be demolished or constructed and the areas associated with those activities. CONSTRUCTION, DEMOLITION □ ⌧

List frequency of drilling blasting and pushing operations, DRILLING, (hours per day, days per week, weeks per year) BLASTING, PUSHING ⌧ □ MINIMAL DRILL-BLAST OPERATIONS OCCUR OPERATIONS AS NEEDED TO REMOVE CAP ROCK Explain any material processing activities that will take place.

MATERIAL APPROXIMATELY 20% OF MINE ROCK WILL PROCESSING** ⌧ □ BE CRUSHED AND SCREENED ON-SITE

Are there any other sources that could create dust that were not already addressed? If so, list and explain. OTHER □ ⌧

**Material processing will require an approval order or other air permit. This order has been approved by the DAQ.

V. Fugitive Dust Controls

There are various aspects of fugitive dust control that must be addressed • Road Activity – Fugitive Dust Control • Activity-Specific On-Site Fugitive Dust Control • Off-Site Fugitive Dust Control

Road Activity – Fugitive Dust Control

The following are requirements specific to road use that must be implemented during all projects, as indicated by the UAC. The UAC specifically identify activities that require prompt mitigation for control of fugitive dust. Due to the nature of GEM’s business, these activities will always apply to a project, therefore, these techniques will be implemented for duration the project.

UAC R307-309-7. Storage, Hauling, and Handling of Ore and Waste Rock. Any person owning, operating or maintaining a new or existing material storage, handling, or hauling operation shall prevent, to the maximum extent possible, material from being deposited onto any paved road other than a designated deposit site. Any such person who deposits materials that may create fugitive dust on a public or private paved road shall clean the road promptly.

GEM – FDCP – July 2011 Page 4 UAC R307-309-7. Construction and Demolition Activities. Any person engaging in clearing or leveling of land with an area of one-quarter acre or more, earthmoving, excavating, construction, demolition, or moving trucks or construction equipment over cleared land or access haul roads, shall prevent, to the maximum extent possible, material from being deposited onto any paved road other than a designated deposit site. Any such person who deposits materials that may create fugitive dust on a public or private paved road shall clean the road promptly.

UAC R307-309-9. Roads. (1) Any person responsible for construction or maintenance of any existing road, or having right-of-way easement, or possessing the right to use the same, whose activities result in fugitive dust from the road shall minimize fugitive dust to the maximum extent possible. Any such person who deposits material that may create fugitive dust on a public or private paved road shall clean the road promptly. (2) Unpaved Roads. Any person responsible for construction or maintenance of any new or existing paved road shall prevent, to the maximum extent possible, the deposit of material from the unpaved road onto any intersecting paved road during construction or maintenance. Any person who deposits material that may create fugitive dust on a public or private paved road shall clean the road promptly.

Activity-Specific On-Site Fugitive Dust Control

For each activity that was described in IV. Fugitive Dust Emission Activities, a control strategy or strategies are listed. The strategies are listed in a staged approach, meaning that if the first approach of control, Stage 1, is not satisfactory, then the next approach of control, Stage 2 will be attempted. Stage 3 is the final stage. If Stage 3 is unsuccessful in mitigating fugitive dust, this plan requires ceasing operation to control fugitive dust.

It is the owner/operator’s responsibility to ensure that each these control strategies are implemented and maintained on-site and that all subcontractors are aware of their obligation regarding these control strategies. Additional space has intentionally been included to allow the site supervisor to include any additional control strategies at each stage.

ACTIVITY CONTROL STRATEGY Inherent moisture with water sprays only on an as-needed Stage 1: basis.

Increase use of water sprays until fugitive dust is controlled. MATERIAL STORAGE Stage 2:

Use a synthetic cover for all storage material. Stage 3:

Inherent moisture with water sprays only on an as-needed Stage 1: basis. All loads covered. GYPSUM HANDLING, TRANSFER, HAULING OR Increase use of water sprays until fugitive dust is controlled. Stage 2: LOADING Minimize or reduce operations. Stage 3:

GEM – FDCP – July 2011 Page 5 ACTIVITY CONTROL STRATEGY

Seeding and inherent moisture. Stage 1:

OVERBURDEN HANDLING, Minimize or reduce operations. TRANSFER, HAULING Stage 2: LOADING, OR DUMPING Use of tackifier on dumps as material is laid down to control Stage 3: fugitive dust.

Use of water sprays until fugitive dust is controlled. Stage 1:

HAUL ROADS, ROADWAYS, Minimize or reduce travel/speed on these areas. OR YARD AREAS Stage 2:

Road base will be applied to the road. Magnesium chloride Stage 3: will be applied to roads on an as-needed basis.

Inherent moisture with water sprays only on an as-needed Stage 1: basis.

Increase use of water sprays until fugitive dust is controlled. CLEARING, LEVELING, Stage 2:

Minimize and reduce operations. Stage 3:

ACTIVITY CONTROL STRATEGY Inherent moisture with water sprays only on an as-needed Stage 1: basis. EARTH MOVING, EXCAVATION, PUSHING Increase use of water sprays until fugitive dust is controlled. Stage 2: OPERATIONS Minimize or reduce operations. Stage 3:

Inherent moisture with water sprays only on an as-needed Stage 1: basis. Crusher has built-in water sprayer.

GYPSUM CRUSHING Increase use of water sprays until fugitive dust is controlled. Stage 2:

Minimize or reduce operations. Stage 3:

Utilize water sprayer built in to continuous miner Stage 1:

Increase use of water sprays until dust is controlled Stage 2: GYPSUM MINING

Minimize or reduce operations. Stage 3:

GEM – FDCP – July 2011 Page 6 ACTIVITY CONTROL STRATEGY Inherent moisture with water sprays only on an as-needed Stage 1: basis.

OVERBURDEN DUMPING Increase use of water sprays until fugitive dust is controlled. Stage 2:

Minimize or reduce operations. Stage 3:

GEM will also implement an awareness level program to minimize fugitive dust due to grading and haul road traffic on the Blakes Lambing Road. The site supervisor, (or authorized representative) will periodically observe the dust throughout each shift to determine the level of control needed to minimize the dust. The following levels of awareness and control will be used:

Level 0 – No dust present; current dust control measures are adequate.

Level 1 – Weather or production causing dust at 0-5% opacity at the property boundary; increase dust control measures necessary. Watering frequency on the haul road will be increased until Level 0 is reached.

Level 2 - Weather or production causing dust at 5-10% opacity at the property boundary; increase dust control measures necessary. Watering frequency on the haul road will be increased until Level 0 is reached. Production reduced until evident that these measures are controlling the dust.

Level 3 - Weather or production causing dust > 10% opacity at the property boundary; increase dust control measures necessary. Production stopped until Level 2 is reached. Level 2 activities conducted until Level 0 is reached.

Watering records will be maintained to show the dust control measures taken.

Activity Specific Off-Site Fugitive Dust Control

GEM will control off-site fugitive dust, which includes track-out, with the following control strategies:

OFF-SITE ACTIVITY CONTROL STRATEGY Access roads that are not part of the mine permit area Stage 1: will be maintained on a regular basis. Water will be applied to mine and access roads on an as-needed basis. TRACK-OUT Use of water sprays on mine roads and access roads Stage 2: until fugitive dust is controlled.

Stage 3: Minimize or reduce travel from mine.

GEM – FDCP – July 2011 Page 7

ATTACHMENT 1

Responsible Parties for Fugitive Dust Control

GEM – FDCP – July 2011 Page 8 Responsible Parties for Fugitive Dust Control

OPERATOR: Good Earth Minerals, LLC

Contact Name: Janice A. Jones

Position:

Phone Number: (303) 804-0100

OWNER: Same

Contact Name:

Position:

Phone Number:

GEM – FDCP – July 2011 Page 9

ATTACHMENT 2

Fugitive Dust Management, Acknowledgement and Certification

GEM – FDCP – July 2011 Page 10 Fugitive Dust Management, Acknowledgement and Certification

Contractor: Not Yet Determined

Contact Name:

Position:

Phone Number:

Start Date on Project:

Finish Date on Project:

I certify that I have reviewed the Fugitive Dust Control Plan and understand the requirements of this Plan, required under the Utah Administrative Code R307-309, and will instruct all employees of the Contractor on site to follow guidelines set for in the plan to control fugitive dust. The Contractor is equally responsible for fugitive dust maintenance and any fugitive dust violations from the Utah Division of Air Quality that may be directly related to the Contractor or its employees. Any and all subsequent violations due to fugitive dust non-compliance that can be attributed to the Contractor may be monetarily assessed to the Contractor by the owner and/or operator receiving the fine. The Contractor will report any fugitive dust control non-compliance to the owner and/or operator listed in this document.

Contractor

______Company Name (Printed)

______Name (Printed)

______Signature Date

Good Earth Minerals, LLC

______Name (Printed)

______Signature Date

GEM – FDCP – July 2011 Page 11

ATTACHMENT 3

Map of GEM Mine

GEM – FDCP – July 2011 Page 12 Utah Division of Air Quality Revised: 6/21/06 SMALL SOURCE EXEMPTION REGISTRATION

Businesses eligible for this exemption shall not: 1) emit more than 5 tons per year of each of the following pollutants: sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter (PM10), ozone (O3), or volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or 2) emit more than 500 pounds per year of any single hazardous air pollutant (HAP), and emit more than 2000 pounds per year for any combination of HAPs, or 3) emit less than 500 pounds per year of any air contaminant not listed in (1)( or (2) above and less than 2000 pounds per year of any combination of air contaminants not listed in (1) or (2) above.

Please keep copies of the registration notice and worksheets on site at your business to verify your permit exemption status. Please be aware that the small source exemption only exempts your business from the permitting requirements of R307-401-5 through 8 of the Utah Administrative Code, not other applicable air quality regulations.

1. Business Name and Mailing Address: 2. Business Contact for Air Quality Issues: Good Earth Minerals, LLC Dr. Janice Jones (Manager) 600 17th Street Ste 2800 South 600 17th Street Ste 2800 South Denver, Colorado 80202 Denver, Colorado 80202 ______Phone # ( 303 ) 804 - 0100 Phone # ( 303 ) 804 - 0100 Fax # ( 720 ) 283-1857 Fax # ( 720 ) 283 - 1857

3. Owners Name and Mailing Address: 4. Business Location (street address if Good Earth Minerals, LLC different from above and directions to site): 600 17th Street Ste 2800 South Travel to the West End of paved Navajo Road Denver, Colorado 80202 in Bloomington, Utah. Then travel 6 miles ______west on Blakes Lambing Road RS-2477 Phone # ( 303 ) 804 - 0100 #RD270182 to the Mine Site Fax # ( 720 ) 804 - 0100

5. County where business is located: 6. Start-up Date of Business: Washington County, Utah Month: October Year: 2011

7. Briefly describe your process by describing end products, raw materials, and process equipment used at your business. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Good Earth Minerals, LLC (GEM) proposes to mine 800,000 tons of high purity gypsum from the Blakes Lambing Ground area located in southwestern Washington County, Utah (Figure 1). The project would be located on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), St. George Field Office. GEM holds mining claims on the proposed mine site. A Notice of Intention (NOI) to Commence Large Mining Operations has been submitted to the Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining (UDOGM). Also, GEM submitted a Plan of Operations (Plan) to the BLM, St. George Field Office for the construction and operation of a gypsum mine and associated haul route (the Project). See additional Sheets on the Project. 8. List any pollution control equipment: Continuous Miner equipment and crushing equipment

will have water sprays to contain dust and water trucks will work to contain dust on haul routes. 9. Typical operating Schedule: Operating schedule is proposed from Monday through Friday for 8 to 10 hours per day. The only stationary source will be the generator for the continuous miner c;;;!"""" Att""h""A "h""""t" 1 O. Annual Emission Rates: Provide an estimate of the actual annual emissions of the following air contaminants from your business. Emission calculation worksheets are available for some common processes. Please attach all worksheets and calculations. See attached worksheet for Project Sulfur Dioxide (S02) 18 Ibs I year Particulate Matter (PM1o) 9840 Ibs I year

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8740 Ibs I year Ozone (03) 0.00040 PPM I year

Nitrogen Oxides (No.) 8740 Ibs I year Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 1040 Ibs I year

Other Air Contaminants __ NA Ibs I year Describe __ NA. _

HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS: Complete Attachment C before selecting one of the following emission estimate ranges. For an individual hazardous air pollutant: o - 250 Ibs/year: __ 60_ 250-350 Ibs/year: _ 350-500 Ibs/year: _ For a combination of hazardous air pollutants: 0-1000Ibs/year: 1000-1500 Ibs/year: _ 1500-2000 Ibs/year: _

11. 0 By checking this box, I hereby certify that the information and data submitted in this notice fully describes this site and only this site and is true, accurate, and complete, based on reasonable inquiry and to the best of my knowledge. I recognize that falsification of the information and data submitted in this notice is a violation of R19-2-115, Utah Administrative Code.

o By checking this box, I understand that I am responsible for determining whether I remain eligible for this exemption before making operational or process changes in the future and agree to notify the Division of Air Quality when this business is no longer eligible for this exemption.

Division Reviewer: Date: _

Small Source Applicable Yes_ No _ PROPOSED GEM MINE SECTION 24, T43S, R17W, MDBM

Emissions from Crushing and Screening

Emission Factor Calculated Emissions Operating Hours Material Process Rate Control Technology Source ID # Source Description lb/ton lb/hr ton/yr Emission Factor Reference

hrs/day day/yr hr/yr ton/hr ton/yr PM PM-10 Type % Efficiency PM PM10 PM PM10 System 01 Crushing and Screening Loader transfer to Hopper 10 50 500 20 10,000 0.003 0.0011 None 0% 0.060 0.022 0.015 0.006 AP-42;11.19.2-2 Uncontrolled EF Hopper transfer to Crusher 10 50 500 20 10,000 0.00014 0.000046 Water Sprays 0% 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.000 AP-42;11.19.2-2 Controlled EF Crusher 10 50 500 25 12,500 0.0054 0.0024 Water Sprays 0% 0.135 0.060 0.034 0.015 AP-42;11.19.2-2 Controlled EF Crusher transfer to Conveyor C1 10 50 500 25 12,500 0.00014 0.000046 Water Sprays 0% 0.004 0.001 0.001 0.000 AP-42;11.19.2-2 Controlled EF Conveyor C1 transfer to Screen 10 50 500 25 12,500 0.00014 0.000046 Water Sprays 0% 0.004 0.001 0.001 0.000 AP-42;11.19.2-2 Controlled EF Screen 10 50 500 25 12,500 0.0022 0.00074 Water Sprays 0% 0.055 0.019 0.014 0.005 AP-42;11.19.2-2 Controlled EF Screen transfer to Conveyor C2 10 50 500 5 2,500 0.00014 0.000046 Water Sprays 0% 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 AP-42;11.19.2-2 Controlled EF Screen transfer to Conveyor C3 10 50 500 20 10,000 0.00014 0.000046 Water Sprays 0% 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.000 AP-42;11.19.2-2 Controlled EF Conveyor C2 transfer to Conveyor C4 10 50 500 5 2,500 0.00014 0.000046 Water Sprays 0% 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 AP-42;11.19.2-2 Controlled EF Conveyor C4 transfer to Crusher 10 50 500 5 2,500 0.00014 0.000046 Water Sprays 0% 0.001 0.000 0.000 0.000 AP-42;11.19.2-2 Controlled EF Conveyor C3 transfer to Stockpile 10 50 500 20 10,000 0.00014 0.000046 Water Sprays 0% 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.000 AP-42;11.19.2-2 Controlled EF System Totals: 0.268 0.106 0.067 0.027

Operating Hours Diesel Fuel Input Input/Output Emission Factor Calculated Emissions Source ID # Source Description Emission Factor Reference hrs/day day/yr hr/yr gal/hr gal/yr MMBtu/hr hp Pollutant lb/MMBtu lb/hr ton/yr System 02 Generator PM 0.0697 0.322 0.403 AP-42;3.4-2 PM10 0.0573 0.265 0.331 AP-42;3.4-2 SO2 0.001515 0.007 0.009 AP-42;3.4-1 455 kW Generator 10 250 2,500 33.0 82,500 4.620 610 VOC 0.09 0.416 0.520 AP-42;3.4-1 g/hp-hr Nox 2.6 3.497 4.372 Manufacturer guarantee CO 2.6 3.497 4.372 Manufacturer guarantee

HAPS Emission Factor Calculated Emissions Emission Factor Reference Pollutant lb/MMBtu lb/hr ton/yr

Benzene 7.76E-04 0.004 0.004 AP-42;3.4-3 Toluene 2.81E-04 0.001 0.002 AP-42;3.4-3 Xylene 1.93E-04 0.001 0.001 AP-42;3.4-3 Propylene 2.79E-03 0.013 0.016 AP-42;3.4-3 Formaldehyde 7.89E-05 0.000 0.000 AP-42;3.4-3 Acetaldehyde 2.52E-05 0.000 0.000 AP-42;3.4-3 Acrolein 7.88E-06 0.000 0.000 AP-42;3.4-3 Total PAH 2.12E-04 0.001 0.001 AP-42;3.4-4

Total HAPS: 0.020 0.025

AUGUST 2, 2011 GOOD EARTH MINERALS, LLC ] PROPOSED GEM MINE SECTION 24, T43S, R17W, MDBM

Haul Road Emissions

AP-42, 13.2.2, Equation 1a E=k(s/12)a(W/3)b

E = Size specific emission factor (lb/VMT) VMT = Vehicle Mile Traveled

s = Surface material silt content (%) From Table 13.2.2-1 s = 4.8 Sand and gravel processing plant road.

W = mean vehicle weight (tons) Haul truck maximum (tons) 40 Haul truck empty (tons) 20

k, a, and b are constants from Table 13.2.2-2 Constant PM2.5 PM10 TSP k = 0.15 0.15 4.9 a = 0.9 0.9 0.7 b = 0.45 0.45 0.45

Emission Factor (lb/VMT) PM2.5 PM10 TSP E (loaded) = 0.211 0.211 8.277 E (empty) = 0.154 0.154 6.059

mile/haul trips/day miles/day Loaded Haul Truck 17 4 68 Empty Haul Truck 17 4 68

Total trucks working 7 hours per day 10 days per year 210

Total lb/hr Emissions ton/yr Emissions Emissions PM2.5 PM10 TSP PM2.5 PM10 TSP Loaded Haul Trucks 10.04 10.04 393.97 10.54 10.54 413.67 Empty Haul Trucks 7.35 7.35 288.41 7.72 7.72 302.83

Totals 17.39 17.39 682.38 18.26 18.26 716.50 Total with 75% control efficiency from basic 4.35 4.35 170.59 4.57 4.57 179.12 watering and road base

AUGUST 2, 2011 GOOD EARTH MINERALS, LLC PROPOSED GEM MINE SECTION 24, T43S, R17W, MDBM

Scheffe Ozone Screening Model

Information Input for Screening Calculation Scheffe Screening Table (9/88) Classification of Area RURAL Rural O3 Increment Table pphm Annual NMOC Emissions for Facility 0.52 ST/yr Max NMOC NMOC/NOx Ratio Annual NOx Emissions for Facility 4.37 ST/yr Tons/yr >20.7 20.7 - 5.2 <5.2 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Maximum NMOC Emission Rate 9.98 LB/day 50 0.4 0.4 1.1 1.8 ST/yr 75 0.4 0.4 1.2 100 0.4 0.5 1.4 Calculations & Output 300 0.8 1.0 1.7 NMOC/NOx Ratio 0.12 500 1.1 1.4 1.9 750 1.6 1.9 2.3 Lower Bound Max. NMOC Emiss. Rate 0 1000 2.0 2.4 2.7 Upper Bound Max. NMOC Emiss. Rate 50 1500 2.7 3.0 3.3 2000 3.4 3.8 3.7 Lower Increment Value (pphm) 0.0 3000 4.8 5.2 4.3 Upper Increment Value (pphm) 1.1 5000 7.0 7.5 4.8 7500 9.8 10.1 5.1 Interpolated Increment Value (pphm) 0.040 10000 12.2 12.9 5.4

Ozone Increment (pphm / 100) 0.00040

Ambient Air Quality Standard (1-hour, ppm) 0.12

% of Standard 0.33

AUGUST 2, 2011 GOOD EARTH MINERALS, LLC PROPOSED GEM MINE SECTION 24, T43S, R17W, MDBM

Calculated Emission Totals ton/yr PM10 Nox SO2 CO VOC HAPS O3

4.92 4.37 0.01 4.37 0.52 0.03 0.00040 ppm

AUGUST 2, 2011 GOOD EARTH MINERALS, LLC APPENDIX E Biological Opinion