Mount Hope Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management

Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement DOI-BLM-NV-B010-2017-0031-EIS

August 2019 MOUNT HOPE PROJECT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

File Numbers: NVN-082096 | NVN-084632

U.S. Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office 50 Bastian Road Battle Mountain, Nevada 89820

The estimated lead agency total costs associated with developing and producing this Draft SEIS are $132,000.00. The estimated proponent total costs associated with developing and producing this Draft SEIS are $214,561.00. MOUNT HOPE PROJECT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Lead Agency: United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office

Cooperating Agencies: Eureka County

Project Location: Eureka County, Nevada

FSEIS Number: DOI-BLM-NV-B010-2017-0031-EIS Plans of Operation Numbers: NVN-082096 NVN-084632

Correspondence on this FSEIS Kevin Hurrell Should be Directed to: Planning and Environmental Coordinator Bureau of Land Management Battle Mountain District 50 Bastian Road Battle Mountain, Nevada 89820 (775) 635-4000

ABSTRACT

The Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office authorized the Mount Hope Project Record of Decision, Plan of Operations Approval, and Approval of Issuance of Right-of-Way Grants on November 16, 2012. The Mount Hope Project (Project) is located in Eureka County, Nevada, approximately 23 miles northwest of the town of Eureka, Nevada, and consists of a proposed molybdenum mine including a power transmission line, a water well field, and all associated facilities to be located on public land administered by the BLM Mount Lewis Field Office and on private land controlled by Eureka Moly, LLC. The Project will utilize an open pit mining method and will process the mined ore using a flotation and roasting process. When completed, a total of 8,618 acres of disturbance would occur within the 23,065-acre Project area. Of the 8,618 acres, 8,359 acres are on public land and 259 acres are on private land.

The BLM has prepared this Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) as a response to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remand decision for further action on issues identified in its December 28, 2016 decision. This FSEIS includes the following: 1) an explanation of the usage of baseline values of zero for several air pollutants; 2) a quantitative cumulative air quality impacts analysis; and 3) a clarification of the status of certain springs and water holes under Executive Order Public Water Reserve No. 107.

Authorized Officer for FSEIS: Jon D. Sherve Field Manager Mount Lewis Field Office

i MOUNT HOPE PROJECT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION...... 1 1.1 Project Overview ...... 1 1.2 Overview of Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision ...... 1 1.3 Status of the Mount Hope Project ...... 4 1.4 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 4 1.5 Authorized Officer ...... 4 1.6 Organization of the FSEIS ...... 4 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ...... 7 2.1 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives ...... 7 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES .... 10 3.2 Water Resources – Water Quantity ...... 10 3.2.2 Affected Environment ...... 10 3.6 Air and Atmospheric Values ...... 24 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND IRREVERSIBLE/IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES ...... 36 4.1.1 Air Resources ...... 36 5 CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, AND THE LIST OF PREPARERS FOR PREPARATION OF THE FSEIS ...... 38 5.1 Public Scoping ...... 38 5.2 Native American Consultation...... 38 5.3 List of Preparers ...... 38 5.3.1 Bureau of Land Management FSEIS Team ...... 38 5.3.2 Third Party Contractors ...... 38 5.3.3 Partner Agencies ...... 38 6 REFERENCES ...... 39

ii EUREKA MOLY, LLC MOUNT HOPE PROJECT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1-1: Impact Summary and Comparison of the Approved Project and Other Alternatives ...... 7 Table 3.2-1: Springs that May be Affected by Project Activities ...... 16 Table 3.2-2: Springs Evaluated for PWR Status ...... 22 Table 3.6-1: BAPC-Recommended Background Values for Criteria Pollutants ...... 24 Table 3.6-2: CO, NO2, and SO2 Monitoring Stations in Nevada ...... 29 Table 3.6-3: Rural CO, NO2, and SO2 Monitoring Stations in Neighboring States ...... 32 Table 3.6-4: Yosemite and White Mountain Monitored Concentrations ...... 34 Table 4.1-1: Mount Hope Project Cumulative Modeling Analysis (µg/m3) ...... 37

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.3.1: Year 44 (Life-of-Mine) Proposed Disturbance ...... 6 Figure 3.2.1: Project Simulated Ten-Foot Water Table Drawdown Contours During 400 Years of Post-Mining Recovery ...... 19 Figure 3.2.2: Water Rights within the Proposed Action Simulated Maximum Extent of Ten-Foot Water Table Drawdown ...... 20 Figure 3.2.3: Potentially Impacted Springs and PWR Filings in the Project Area ...... 21 Figure 3.6.1: CO, NO2, and SO2 Monitoring Stations in Nevada ...... 28 Figure 3.6.2: Rural CO, NO2, and SO2 Ambient Monitoring Stations in Neighboring States ...... 33

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: Photographs of PWR 107 Springs Appendix B: BLM Checklists for PWR 107 Springs Appendix C: Nevada Division of Environmental Protection Correspondence Regarding Background Concentrations for Air Dispersion Modeling Appendix D: Public Comments and Responses

iii EUREKA MOLY, LLC MOUNT HOPE PROJECT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

µg/m3 microgram per cubic meter afy acre feet per year amsl above mean sea level BAPC Bureau of Air Pollution Control BAQP Bureau of Air Quality Planning BLM Bureau of Land Management CESA cumulative effect study area CFR Code of Federal Regulations CO carbon monoxide CR County Road DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement DSEIS Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement EA Environmental Assessment EML Eureka Moly, LLC EO Executive Order EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FR Federal Register FSEIS Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement gpm gallons per minute I-15 Interstate 15 KVCWF Kobeh Valley Central Well Field MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NDEP Nevada Division of Environmental Protection NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NDWR Nevada Division of Water Resources

NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOA Notice of Availability NOI Notice of Intent OLM Ozone Limiting Method Pb lead Plan Mount Hope Project Plan of Operations Plan Mount Hope Project Plan of Operations Amendment and Application for Amendment Reclamation Permit Modification PM10 particulate matter less than ten micrometers in aerodynamic diameter

PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter ppb parts per billion

iv EUREKA MOLY, LLC MOUNT HOPE PROJECT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Project Mount Hope Project PWR 107 Public Water Reserve No. 107 RFFAs reasonably foreseeable future actions Mount Hope Project Record of Decision, Plan of Operations Approval, and ROD Approval of Issuance of Right-of-Way Grants SEIS Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement SER Significant Emission Rates

SO2 sulfur dioxide SR State Route SRK SRK Consulting tpy tons per year US United States US 50 US Highway 50 US 93 US Highway 93 US 95 US Highway 95

v 1 INTRODUCTION

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Battle Mountain District, Mount Lewis Field Office, has prepared this Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) for the Mount Hope Project (Project) to refine and clarify certain air quality baseline values, the analysis of quantitative cumulative air quality impacts, and BLM’s determination and analysis of lands and water resources subject to Public Water Reserve No. 107 (PWR 107) in the Mount Hope Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).

The BLM prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Project in December 2011 (BLM 2011) and FEIS in October 2012 (BLM 2012a). The BLM issued the Mount Hope Project Record of Decision, Plan of Operations Approval, and Approval of Issuance of Right-of- Way Grants (ROD) on November 16, 2012 (BLM 2012b).

Great Basin Resource Watch and Western Shoshone Defense Project petitioned for review of the ROD with the BLM’s State Director for Nevada, who rejected the petition in January 2013. The plaintiffs then filed a complaint with the United States (US) Federal District Court for the District of Nevada. In 2014, the District Court granted summary judgment to the BLM on all claims. Plaintiffs then appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In 2016, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court, in part, but reversed on two issues and remanded the decision back to the BLM. Specifically, the court held that “the BLM’s analysis of air impacts in the FEIS was inadequate because the agency did not provide any support for its use of baseline values of ‘zero’ for several air pollutants” and that “the cumulative impacts portion of the FEIS does not comply with NEPA [National Environmental Policy Act of 1969]” because it failed to quantify or fully discuss effects of certain other actions that potentially affect the air resource.

The plaintiffs also raised on appeal the issue of whether the BLM had adequately considered impacts on land withdrawals and reserved water rights associated with PWR 107. The Court declined to address this claim before BLM had an opportunity to address the NEPA air quality issues but noted that the FEIS was “internally contradictory” and asked BLM to clarify its position.

This FSEIS responds to the remand by clarifying the basis for the air quality baseline values, updating air quality cumulative impact analysis with quantitative data, and updating BLM’s approach and consideration of the applicability of PWR 107 to certain springs in the Project area.

1.1 Project Overview

Eureka Moly, LLC (EML) proposed to construct and operate the Project, which included the development of an open pit molybdenum mine and associated facilities. The Project is located in Eureka County, Nevada, approximately 23 miles northwest of the town of Eureka, Nevada (Figure 1.1.1). In response to EML’s submittal of the Mount Hope Project Plan of Operations (Plan), the BLM prepared the DEIS (BLM 2011), the FEIS (BLM 2012a), and ROD (BLM 2012b).

1.2 Overview of Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision

The BLM initiated the scoping process for the DEIS by publishing a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a DEIS in the Federal Register (FR) on March 2, 2007 (Volume 72, No. 41, Friday,

1 EUREKA MOLY, LLC MOUNT HOPE PROJECT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

March 2, 2007, Page 9579). The NOI invited scoping comments to be received by the BLM through April 6, 2007. Public scoping meetings were held in Eureka and Battle Mountain, Nevada, in March 2007. The comments received during the scoping process were considered when developing the DEIS. In addition, as identified in Section 5.2 of the FEIS (BLM 2012a), the BLM communicated with and received input from various, federal, state, and local agencies during the preparation of the DEIS and FEIS.

A 90-day public comment period for the Mount Hope Project DEIS commenced on December 2, 2011, with the publication of the DEIS Notice of Availability (NOA) in the FR (Volume 76, No. 232, Friday, December 2, 2011, Page 75554). The public comment period ended on March 1, 2012. Public meetings were held for the DEIS in Eureka and Crescent Valley, Nevada, in January 2012. The comments received during the DEIS public comment period were considered in preparing the FEIS. The NOA for the FEIS was published in the FR (Volume 77, No. 198, Friday, October 12, 2012, Page 62256) on October 12, 2012, releasing the FEIS for public review.

2 EUREKA MOLY, LLC MOUNT HOPE PROJECT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 1.1.1: General Location Map

3 EUREKA MOLY, LLC MOUNT HOPE PROJECT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The BLM signed the ROD for the Project on November 16, 2012 (BLM 2012b). In the ROD, the BLM selected the Proposed Action, along with the applicant committed practices included in the Plan and the mitigation measures outlined in Sections 3.2 through 3.25 of the FEIS, as the BLM’s Preferred Alternative.

1.3 Status of the Mount Hope Project

During the pendency of litigation while the ROD remained effective, EML began Project activities and created approximately 1,652 acres of surface disturbance related to mine development and construction. This disturbance typically consisted of topsoil clearing and grubbing in some areas, and only brush and vegetation clearing in others.

In November 2013, the BLM issued a Noncompliance Order to EML for surface disturbance that occurred outside of the approved surface disturbance footprint, but still within the approved 2012 Plan boundary. The unauthorized disturbance totaled 153 acres and was generally associated with earthworks where powerlines, water lines, roads, collection channels, and ancillary facilities would be constructed.

In response to the noncompliance order, and to address updated engineering designs for the Project, EML submitted an amendment to its approved Plan of Operations - The Mount Hope Project Plan of Operations Amendment and Application for Reclamation Permit Modification (Plan Amendment) (EML 2014). Complete details of the Plan Amendment are provided in Chapter 2 of the Mount Hope Project Amendment Environmental Assessment (EA) (BLM 2015a). In general, the amendment provided for sufficient additional surface disturbance acreage to account for the noncompliance issue and to facilitate minor realignments/modifications to certain Project-related facilities. The acreage subject to surface disturbance within the Project boundary was increased by 365 acres to 8,618, and the Project boundary was increased by 180 acres to accommodate a repeater tower and associated access road (Figure 1.3.1).

The BLM issued a Decision Record and Finding of No Significant Impact on April 23, 2015, for the Mount Hope Project Amendment EA (BLM 2015b).

1.4 Purpose and Need for Action

The purpose and need remain the same as identified in Section 1.4 of the FEIS (BLM 2012a), with the addition of supplementing certain environmental analyses in the FSEIS in response to the Project-related December 2016 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

1.5 Authorized Officer

The Mount Lewis Field Manager is the Authorized Officer for the FSEIS. The Authorized Officer would evaluate the additional air quality and PWR 107 analyses in the FSEIS to assess whether the Project ROD and Plan of Operations approval of November 2012 (BLM 2012b), with subsequent amendment in 2015 (BLM 2015b), should be further amended or modified.

1.6 Organization of the FSEIS

This FSEIS tiers from and updates the FEIS (BLM 2012a); as such, the FSEIS chapter numbers follow the organization of the FEIS. This FSEIS also tiers from the 2015 Plan Amendment EA

4 EUREKA MOLY, LLC MOUNT HOPE PROJECT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

(BLM 2015a) to the extent necessary to reflect minor boundary and design changes in the Project Plan of Operations. This FSEIS only includes information that has been added or revised to address the specific air quality and PWR 107 analyses identified above in Chapter 1.0. Chapter 2.0 provides a brief overview of the Proposed Action as approved in the ROD as the BLM’s Preferred Alternative, and also the acreage adjustment attributable to the approved Plan Amendment in 2015 (BLM 2015b). Chapter 3.0 presents the revised air quality and PWR 107 analyses associated with the Proposed Action. Chapter 4.0 presents the revised cumulative air quality analyses. Chapter 5.0 outlines the public coordination activities associated with the preparation of the FSEIS. Chapter 6.0 identifies the reference documents used in preparation of the FSEIS.

5 EUREKA MOLY, LLC MOUNT HOPE PROJECT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 1.3.1: Year 44 (Life-of-Mine) Proposed Disturbance

6 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

As discussed in Section 1.6 above, this document tiers from the 2012 FEIS and, to a limited extent, the 2015 Plan Amendment EA. A full description of the Project and alternatives are provided in Chapter 2 of the FEIS (BLM 2012a), with minor variations in the Project boundary and facilities provided in Chapter 2 of the 2015 Plan Amendment EA (BLM 2015a). The full project description is not repeated here. For convenience, however, and to assist in the review of this limited FSEIS, the following is a general project description.

The Project is located on both public land administered by the BLM and on private land controlled by EML in Eureka County, Nevada. It is proposed as an 80-year project with 44 years of mining and ore processing, 30 years of reclamation, and five years of post-closure monitoring. The Mount Hope ore body contains approximately 966 million tons of molybdenite (molybdenum disulfide) ore that would produce approximately 1.1 billion pounds of recoverable molybdenite during the ore processing time frame, 1.7 billion tons of waste rock by the end of the 32-year mine life, and one billion tons of tailings by the end of the 44 years of ore processing. Development of the molybdenite deposit would utilize an open pit mining method followed by ore processing using a flotation and roasting process. Standard Project-related facilities associated with this type of mining project include waste rock disposal facilities, tailing storage facilities, milling facilities (crushers, conveyors, etc.), ore roaster/packaging plant, water supply developments (wells, pipelines, etc.), electric power supply lines, ancillary roads, etc. The general Project boundary is 23,065 acres with 8,618 acres of actual disturbance (Figure 1.3.1).

2.1 Comparative Analysis of Alternatives

As a result of the additional analysis conducted in this FSEIS, no substantive additional impacts were identified for the Proposed Action and action alternatives as described in the FEIS (BLM 2012a).

Table 2.1-1 summarizes and compares the environmental impacts analyzed in this FSEIS to the approved Project identified in the ROD and the Proposed Action, other action alternatives, and No Action Alternative identified in the FEIS (BLM 2012a). Descriptions of the impacts are presented in Chapter 3 of this FSEIS.

Table 2.1-1: Impact Summary and Comparison of the Approved Project and Other Alternatives

7 EUREKA MOLY, LLC MOUNT HOPE PROJECT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Off-Site Transfer of Slower, Partial Ore Proposed Longer No Action Backfill Concentrate Approved Action Project Alternative Resource Alternative for Project (ROD (FEIS Alternative (FEIS Area/Issue (FEIS Processing [BLM 2012b]) [BLM (FEIS [BLM [BLM Alternative 2012a]) [BLM 2012a]) 2012a]) (FEIS 2012a]) [BLM 2012a]) Effects of Mitigation The Ground measures, impacts Water implementation from the Drawdown of mitigation, analysis of on and the No Streams, effectiveness Action Springs, of mitigation Alterative and are described in the FEIS Surface in Section do not Water 3.2.3.3.1 of the change Resources FEIS. The with the evaluation of Same as Same as Same as Same as evaluation PWR water approved approved approved approved of PWR rights did not Project. Project. Project. Project. water rights change the in this impact FSEIS. conclusions, mitigation measures, implementation of mitigation, and effectiveness of mitigation from the FEIS.

8 EUREKA MOLY, LLC MOUNT HOPE PROJECT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Off-Site Transfer of Slower, Partial Ore Approved Proposed Longer No Action Backfill Concentrate Project Action Project Alternative Resource Alternative for (ROD (FEIS Alternative (FEIS Area/Issue (FEIS Processing [BLM [BLM (FEIS [BLM [BLM Alternative 2012b]) 2012a]) [BLM 2012a]) 2012a]) (FEIS 2012a]) [BLM 2012a]) Air and Atmospheric Values The The cumulative impacts air from the modeling analysis of conducted the No for the Action FSEIS Alterative included in the FEIS the do not approved change Project, with the Gold Bar, revision of Ruby Hill, Same as Same as Same as Same as the Cumulative and approved approved approved approved cumulative Impacts Prospect Project. Project. Project. Project. impacts Mountain analysis in Mine this FSEIS. projects. This showed the levels of criteria pollutants were below the applicable standards.

9 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This Chapter includes information that supplements Sections 3.2.2.7, 3.2.3.3, and 3.6.1.1.1 of the FEIS (BLM 2012a). The supplemental information and associated analyses presented in this chapter apply to the approved project from 2012 (BLM 2012b) and its action alternatives, unless otherwise noted. Additionally, the analyses are applicable to the 2015 Plan Amendment as the EA for that amendment tiered to the 2012 FEIS and documented the continuing applicability of the water and air resource analyses. The minor variations proposed in the 2015 Plan Amendment did not result in notable additional air quality and water quality/quantity resource impacts beyond those analyzed within the 2012 FEIS.

3.2 Water Resources – Water Quantity

3.2.2 Affected Environment

Full details of the Affected Environment can be found in Section 3.2.2 of the FEIS (BLM 2012a). Supplemental information is provided below.

3.2.2.7 Water Rights

As provided in the FEIS (BLM 2012a), water rights and applications for water rights were reviewed by Interflow Hydrology, Inc. and are summarized in Montgomery et al. (2010, Appendix C). The data were collected from the Nevada Division of Water Resources (NDWR) records in January 2010. The summary identified all water rights and applications for water rights for points of diversion within the Hydrographic Study Area and within a 30-mile radius of Mount Hope, including those owned by EML or any of its subsidiaries (Montgomery et al. 2010, Appendix C).

In the further context of federal water rights, BLM provided a short summary of the origin and nature of PWR 107. As provided below, that summary has been updated to clarify the FEIS information on the status of PWR 107 water sites in response to the Ninth Circuit’s 2016 decision. It now reflects a more consistent BLM perspective of PWR 107 water right issues throughout the state of Nevada, and also includes a more accurate description of the methodology used by the agency to conservatively assess the eligibility of potential PWR 107 water sources.

In 1926, a Federal reserved water right was created through an Executive Order (EO) by President Coolidge entitled "Public Water Reserves No. 107." The EO was issued under the authority of the Stockraising Homestead Act of 1916 and the Pickett Act of 1910. The Pickett Act of 1910 provided the President with authority to withdraw lands associated with springs or water holes located on unsurveyed public land. As stated in the Pickett Act, “[T]he President, may, at any time in his discretion, temporarily withdraw from settlement, location, sale, or entry any of the public lands of the United States…and reserve the same for water-power sites, irrigation, classification of lands, or other public purposes to be specified in the order of withdrawals, and such withdrawals or reservations shall remain in force until revoked by him or an Act of Congress.” This Act was amended in 1912 to partially limit the scope of such withdrawals, providing “that all lands withdrawn under the provisions of this Act shall at all times be open to exploration, discovery, occupation and purchase under the mining laws of the United States so far as the same apply to metalliferous minerals.”

10 EUREKA MOLY, LLC MOUNT HOPE PROJECT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The purpose of PWR 107 was to reserve natural springs and water holes in order to prevent monopolization of the public range. This order states, in part, that "every smallest legal subdivision of the public land surveys which is vacant, unappropriated, unreserved public land and contains a spring or water hole, and all land within one quarter of a mile of every spring or water be reserved for public use." The quantity of water reserved is that amount necessary to fulfill the purposes of the reservation and not always the entire flow of the spring. PWR 107 is a federal reserved water right for the purposes of human and animal consumption, which includes stockwatering. In general, water rights in Nevada are administered by the Nevada State Engineer.

11 EUREKA MOLY, LLC MOUNT HOPE PROJECT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

In contemplation of the above authorities, the BLM uses the following criteria to assess the PWR 107 eligibility of springs and waterholes. BLM asks whether:

• Private control of the spring or waterhole would monopolize the public resources; • The source supplies a sufficient quantity of water for public watering purposes; • The spring or waterhole came into existence prior to October 21, 1976; • A private water right does not exist on this source; • The land on which the source is located was not acquired after April 17, 1926; • The source is not artificially developed (i.e., well or reservoir); and • The source is important. One or more of the following circumstances must be applied for the source to be important.

o The spring or waterhole is used or needed by the public for watering purposes; o The spring or waterhole is located so that it is of utility and benefit to the general public; o The availability of the spring or waterhole for public watering purposes affects the use of surrounding lands, water uses and users, habitat, and/or inhabitants of the surrounding lands; o The distance to the next nearest PWR or available source of water is such that there is no readily available, suitable alternative source of water; and o Competing private interests could obtain water rights under State law for this water source if it were not reserved.

The following seven springs were re-evaluated for PWR eligibility pursuant to these criteria. In addition to the data and reports considered with the 2012 FEIS, BLM also conducted additional site visits to use in this re-evaluation.

The springs were partly selected based upon the Ninth Circuit’s 2016 decision, where it recommended BLM clarify its position related to whether springs 597, 612, 619, and 742 were PWR 107 sites. The Court’s concern regarding the status of these springs stems from PWR notifications BLM filed in 1994 with the Nevada State Engineer for these springs. BLM has since confirmed that it also filed a notification on spring 604 in 1994.

In light of the Ninth Circuit Court’s decision, the BLM began a more thorough examination of certain springs, which included the four springs recommended by the Ninth Circuit, and three additional springs with potential PWR status given their close proximity to the Project, their likelihood of direct impact from Project-related facilities, and/or their previous filing status as PWRs in 1994. The three additional springs include springs 604, 639, and 646. In the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS), Spring 646 was associated with PWR claims R06941, V10903, and 9441. After further review, springs V10903 and 9441 are the same source (Call Spring), Spring 646 is a unique source and is associated with SP-7 (unnamed spring), and Spring R06941 is a third unique spring source associated with V10888 (unnamed spring).

When the Diamond Valley Adjudication reopened for claims in October 2015, a claim deadline was set for May 31, 2016. This was a McCarran Amendment adjudication, thus the BLM was

12 EUREKA MOLY, LLC MOUNT HOPE PROJECT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

required to file claims by the State Engineer deadline. The BLM is prohibited from filing new claims or revised claims after the deadline. The BLM requested and was denied an extension of time to file claims, therefore, the BLM had a very limited amount of time to field verify and update or file new claims by the deadline. The BLM revisited all of its existing PWR claims in April and May 2016 to determine if they were still valid. There were certain claims, including Spring 612 and R06941, for which there were insufficient data, and these were eventually withdrawn and are no longer valid PWRs. Springs 639 and 646 never had claims filed on them and are therefore not valid PWRs.

Springs 597, 604, 612, 619, 639, 646, and 742 were closely examined for PWR status in accordance with BLM checklists (Appendix B). Between the DSEIS and FSEIS, the BLM PWR checklists were corrected where necessary to be more consistent with BLM policy. Descriptions of the seven springs are below (see Appendix A for photographs of the springs). • Garden Spring (Spring 597): This spring is located approximately 1.5 miles northwest of State Route (SR) 278 at an elevation of approximately 6,468 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The Garden Spring site consists of two adjacent ponded sources of water. There is evidence that one pond has been developed, but the other has not. Assuming the water level of the ponds is relatively stable, the spring discharge is approximately equal to the rate of evapotranspiration. The primary vegetative community within the spring’s riparian corridor consists of Mexican rush (Juncus mexicanus), Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis), Great Basin wild rye (Elymus cinereus), and Nebraska sedge (Carex nebraskensis).

• Unnamed (Spring 604): This spring is located approximately 1,500 feet south of Garden Spring and 1.5 miles west of SR 278 between Garden Pass and the Mount Hope road turnoff at an elevation of approximately 6,400 feet amsl. The source of the spring has been developed into a large dugout pond that is fed by ground water. Assuming the water level of the pond is relatively stable, the spring discharge is approximately equal to the rate of evapotranspiration. The site is dominated by rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosus), with an understory of Great Basin wild rye.

• McBrides Spring (Spring 612): This spring is located approximately 150 feet east of SR 278, between Garden Pass and the Mount Hope road turnoff at an elevation of about 6,389 feet amsl. A PWR claim on this spring was filed on December 9, 1994, by the BLM with the State Engineer. When the site was visited by the BLM in 2016 as part of the Diamond Valley Adjudication, the field crew did find the area where the spring was located, however, it appeared to have either been excavated or scoured out by flood. The crew could not determine the existence of a valid PWR claim. In the Preliminary Order of Determination, the claim for Spring 612 was determined by the State Engineer as not valid. Based on the above information, the BLM withdrew the claim during the administrative adjudication proceeding, thus this spring is no longer a valid PWR. Table 3.2-2 has been updated to accurately describe this source.

• Mount Hope Spring (Spring 619): This spring is located west of the preceding spring (Spring 604) and SR 278 between Garden Pass and the Mount Hope road turnoff at an elevation of approximately 7,175 feet amsl. The site has been developed and consists of a buried steel pipe that daylights out of the hillside under a tree and runs above ground for about 30 feet to a cattle trough. The pipe is a permanent source of water for a partially buried cattle trough, which fully captures the inflow of water. Based on the discharge sampling, the spring has an average discharge of 0.019 gallon per minute. The

13 EUREKA MOLY, LLC MOUNT HOPE PROJECT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

site vegetation community consists primarily of singleleaf piñon (Pinus monophylla), Utah juniper (Juniperus osteosperma), and Wyoming big sagebrush.

• Zinc Adit (Spring 639): This spring is located approximately 985 feet northeast of the Mount Hope Mine office building at approximately 6,650 feet amsl. This land is not owned by the BLM, and therefore this spring does not qualify as a PWR. For additional information on this spring see the Mount Hope Project FEIS (2012), page 3-102. The BLM never filed a PWR claim on this source.

• Unnamed (Spring 646): This spring is located south of the Mount Hope Mine office building and core shed, approximately one mile due south of monitoring well IGM-169 at an elevation of approximately 6,819 feet amsl. This spring was never filed on for a PWR claim by BLM in the Diamond Valley Adjudication, and since the claim filing deadline has passed, this spring is not a valid PWR. For additional information on this spring see the Mount Hope Project FEIS (2012), page 3-103. Because it has been determined that this is not a PWR, this entry has been removed from Table 3.2-2.

• Unnamed (Spring R06941): A PWR claim on this spring was filed on December 9, 1994, by the BLM with the State Engineer. When the site was visited by BLM in 2016 as part of the Diamond Valley Adjudication, the area had already been disturbed by mining activities and the spring source could not be located. In the Preliminary Order of Determination, the claim for R06941 was determined by the State Engineer as not valid. Based on the above information, the BLM withdrew the claim during the administrative adjudication proceeding, thus this spring is no longer a valid PWR. This spring source is also associated with V10888. Table 3.2-2 has been updated to accurately describe this source.

• Call Spring (V10903; 9441): This spring was never filed on for a PWR claim by BLM in the Diamond Valley Adjudication, and since the claim filing deadline has passed, this spring is not a valid PWR. Because it has been determined that this is not a PWR, this entry has been removed from Table 3.2-2.

• Lone Mountain Spring (Spring 742): This spring is located approximately two miles northwest of Lone Mountain at an elevation of approximately 6,120 feet amsl. This spring emerges from the alluvium creating a pond in the valley. Given the size of the pond, and assuming the pond depth is relatively stable, the spring discharge would be equal to the rate of evapotranspiration. Riparian vegetation at this site includes speedwell, Nebraska sedge, saltgrass (Distichlis spicata), common spikerush, smallwing sedge (Carex microptera), monkeyflower (Mimulus spp.), and Baltic rush.

BLM’s recent re-evaluation under the agency criteria is described above and is summarized in Table 3.2-2 and Appendix B. Springs 597, 604, 619, and 742 do have prior PWR notifications filed with the State Engineer and remain PWR sites. When Spring 612 was visited in 2016 as part of the Diamond Valley Adjudication, the field crew was not able to locate the valve box or the water trough. The crew did find the area where the spring was located, however, it appeared to have either been excavated or scoured out by a flood. There was no active flow at the spring and, looking down the standpipe that was in the ground, the water level was below land surface. The crew could not determine the existence of a valid PWR. The claim was found invalid by the State Engineer in the Preliminary Order of Determination and the BLM withdrew the claim during the administrative adjudication proceeding due to insufficient data to support a valid

14 EUREKA MOLY, LLC MOUNT HOPE PROJECT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

PWR. The impact analysis related to these springs are addressed in the following section on effects to surface water resources.

3.2.3.3 Proposed Action

3.2.3.3.1 Surface Water Resources

Effects of Ground Water Drawdown on Streams, Springs, and Surface Water Resources

Dewatering would be required in the open pit during the mining phase of the Project. The open pit dewatering would be achieved with in-pit sumps and, if necessary, horizontal drains and perimeter wells would also be used. The average pit inflow rate is estimated to range between 60 to 460 gallons per minute (gpm) (100 to 750 acre feet per year [afy]), commencing in Year 1 of the Project and continuing through Year 32. In addition, ground water pumping in the Kobeh Valley Central Well Field (KVCWF) area for process-water supply would be achieved with high capacity production wells completed in the basin-fill and carbonate bedrock aquifers. The average total combined pumping rate of the well field is estimated to range between 6,540 to 7,000 gpm (10,550 to 11,300 afy), commencing in Year 1 of the Project (2012) and continuing through Year 44 (2055). The open pit dewatering activities and KVCWF pumping would lower (draw down) the water table in the vicinity of those facilities. The predicted maximum drawdown in the bedrock of the open pit area is approximately 2,250 feet, whereas in central Kobeh Valley, the predicted maximum drawdown is approximately 120 feet near the center of the well field after 44 years of pumping. See Section 3.2.3.3.1, pages 3-74 through 3-106 of the FEIS for the full analysis of surface water resources.

After dewatering ceases, the ground water would begin to recover in the open pit area. Similarly, ground water in the basin-fill and bedrock aquifers of Kobeh Valley would begin to recover when production water pumping in the KVCWF ceases (Year 42). The limits of ground water drawdown surrounding the open pit and KVCWF would continue to expand in the perimeter areas after open pit dewatering and production well pumping cease, as the open pit and dewatered portions of the aquifers fill with ground water that is derived from storage as well as natural recharge. Due to aquifer geometry and heterogeneity, the rate and ultimate extent of continued lateral expansion of drawdown would not be the same in all directions. Figure 3.2.1 shows the simulated ten-foot water table drawdown contours at ten, 50, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 350, and 400 years of post-Project recovery, which were used to establish the composite maximum-extent-of-drawdown. The boundary of the maximum-extent-of-drawdown encompasses all of the areas that are predicted to experience more than ten feet of drawdown at any time in the future due to the Proposed Action.

The BLM previously found that there were no PWR 107 sites within the ten-foot drawdown contour. Through this re-evaluation of the six springs within this contour subject to prior PWR notifications as described in Section 3.2.2.7 above, four of the springs (Garden Spring [Spring 597], Unnamed Spring [Spring 604], Mount Hope Spring [Spring 619], and Lone Mountain Spring [Spring 742]) meet PWR eligibility criteria.

Even with these corrections to PWR 107 spring status, the overall effects analysis for water rights does not change from the conclusion noted in the 2012 FEIS. This result occurs because two of the springs (612 and 646), as previously discussed above, do not meet BLM’s PWR eligibility criteria. For three of the additional springs (597, 604, and 619) that do continue to

15 EUREKA MOLY, LLC MOUNT HOPE PROJECT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

meet PWR 107 criteria, and are within the Project boundary, the lands associated with these springs are subject to the exception under the Pickett Act which lifts the withdrawal associated with PWR 107 for mining of metalliferous minerals such as molybdenite. Such lands are not withdrawn from location of claims for molybdenite or from the occupation of such lands for molybdenite mining in compliance with the mining law. To the extent federal reserved water rights could potentially be impacted, those impacts would result from activity exempted from the scope of the withdrawal under the Pickett Act and were analyzed and addressed through monitoring and mitigation measures. Spring 742 also remains a PWR 107 site but is located outside the Project boundary. The impacts associated with spring 742 do not change from the impact discussion in the 2012 FEIS as they have been considered and addressed through monitoring and mitigation.

The identified potentially-impacted springs and streams are all located at high elevations in the Roberts Mountains and on the flanks of Mount Hope, and within approximately four miles of the proposed open pit. The source of these springs is believed to be the fractured bedrock aquifer, which receives recharge from the higher elevations as infiltration of snowmelt and rainfall.

The maximum extent of the ten-foot drawdown contour encompasses 24 springs (this includes four springs not identified during the 2012 FEIS analysis and occur outside the Project boundary), two perennial stream segments (Roberts Creek and Henderson Creek), and portions of four intermittent and ephemeral stream drainages (Coils Creek, Rutabaga Creek, U’ans-in- dame Creek, and Garden Pass Creek), as shown in Figure 3.2.2. Five springs (619, 639, 646, R06941, and Call Spring) would be directly affected by Project components.

Table 3.2-1: Springs that May be Affected by Project Activities

Spring Spring Name Basin Flow (gpm) Use Number Livestock, 578 Unnamed Kobeh Valley - Wildlife, and Wild Horses Livestock, 583 Unnamed Pine Valley - Wildlife, and Wild Horses Livestock, 587 Unnamed Kobeh Valley - Wildlife, and Wild Horses Livestock, 592 Unnamed (OT-2) Pine Valley 9.03 Wildlife, and Wild Horses Livestock, 597 Garden Spring Pine Valley <0.1 Wildlife, and Wild Horses Livestock, 600 Unnamed Kobeh Valley - Wildlife, and Wild Horses Livestock, 601 Unnamed Kobeh Valley - Wildlife, and Wild Horses

16 EUREKA MOLY, LLC MOUNT HOPE PROJECT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Spring Spring Name Basin Flow (gpm) Use Number Livestock, Diamond 604 Unnamed <0.1 Wildlife, and Valley Wild Horses Livestock, 605 Unnamed Kobeh Valley - Wildlife, and Wild Horses Livestock, 608 Unnamed Kobeh Valley - Wildlife, and Wild Horses Livestock, 609 Unnamed (OT-5) Pine Valley - Wildlife, and Wild Horses Livestock, 610 Unnamed (OT-3) Pine Valley 1.53 Wildlife, and Wild Horses Livestock, Diamond 612 McBrides Spring 1.8 Wildlife, and Valley Wild Horses Livestock, 617 Unnamed Kobeh Valley - Wildlife, and Wild Horses Livestock, Diamond 619 Mount Hope Spring 0.03 Wildlife, and Valley Wild Horses Livestock, 630 Unnamed (OT-8) Kobeh Valley 6.97 Wildlife, and Wild Horses Livestock, 634 Farrington Spring Kobeh Valley <1 Wildlife, and Wild Horses Livestock, Diamond 639 Zinc Adit 8 Wildlife, and Valley Wild Horses Livestock, 641 Unnamed (OT-7) Kobeh Valley 2.36 Wildlife, and Wild Horses Livestock, Diamond 646 Unnamed (SP-7) - Wildlife, and Valley Wild Horses Livestock, 721 Mud Spring Kobeh Valley <1 Wildlife, and Wild Horses Livestock, 742 Lone Mountain Spring Kobeh Valley - Wildlife, and Wild Horses

17 EUREKA MOLY, LLC MOUNT HOPE PROJECT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Spring Spring Name Basin Flow (gpm) Use Number Livestock, Diamond R06941 Unnamed - Wildlife, and Valley Wild Horses Livestock, Diamond V10903; 9441 Call Spring - Wildlife, and Valley Wild Horses

EML would be required to monitor surface and ground water to assess the extent of drawdown from open pit dewatering and ground water production over time and the potential effects to surface and ground water resources in the vicinity of the Project. EML’s proposed monitoring program is outlined in Section 2.1.15 and Appendix C of the FEIS (BLM 2012a). If monitoring indicates that there are adverse effects to surface and ground water resources that the BLM determines can be attributed to the mining operation, then specific mitigation would be implemented, as described in Section 3.2.3.3.1 of the FEIS (BLM 2012a). The proposed monitoring and mitigation program outlined in the FEIS would not change as a result of the re- evaluation of the springs in this FSEIS.

18 EUREKA MOLY, LLC MOUNT HOPE PROJECT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 3.2.1: Project Simulated Ten-Foot Water Table Drawdown Contours During 400 Years of Post-Mining Recovery

19 EUREKA MOLY, LLC MOUNT HOPE PROJECT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 3.2.2: Water Rights within the Proposed Action Simulated Maximum Extent of Ten-Foot Water Table Drawdown

20 EUREKA MOLY, LLC MOUNT HOPE PROJECT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 3.2.3: Potentially Impacted Springs and PWR Filings in the Project Area

21 EUREKA MOLY, LLC MOUNT HOPE PROJECT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 3.2-2: Springs Evaluated for PWR Status

22 EUREKA MOLY, LLC MOUNT HOPE PROJECT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

PWR Checklist Statements (1 – 7) The This land The source A on source is L supplie Private The priva which The important Spring a s a control of spring te the source is ? One or Number n sufficie Meets Permit/ this or water source not more of Average in d nt BLM Average ID Spring Spring spring or waterhol right is artificial the Discharge Use Baseline Basin O quantit PWR Discharge 6 Number Number Name waterhole e came does locate ly following 5 (gallons 1 Reports w y of criteria (gpm) 5 would into not d was develope circumsta per day) and 2012 n water ? monopoli existence exist not d (i.e., nces must FEIS e for ze the prior to on acquir well or be applied r public public October this ed reservoi for the waterin resources 21, 1976 sourc after r) source to g e April be purpos 17, important4 es 1926 Diam R069413 B Unnam ond ; L ------ed Valle V10888 M y Lone Kobe B L, Mount h R06951 742 -- L Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Ponded -- W, ain Valle M WH Spring y 1V – vested claim; R – BLM reserve 2Not a valid PWR; see discussion above 3Not a valid PWR; see discussion above 4One or more of the following circumstances must be applied for the source to be important: a) The spring or waterhole is used or needed by the public for watering purposes. b)The spring or waterhole is located so that it is of utility to the general public. c) The availability of the spring or waterhole for public watering purposes affects the use of surrounding lands, water uses and users, habitat, and/or inhabitants of the surrounding lands. d) The distance to the next nearest PWR or available source of water is such that there is no readily available, suitable alternative source of water. e) Competing private interests could obtain water rights under State law for this water source if it were not reserved. 5JBR Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2011 6Use: L – livestock; W – wildlife; WH – wild horses

23 EUREKA MOLY, LLC MOUNT HOPE PROJECT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

3.6 Air and Atmospheric Values

Details of the Regulatory Framework, Affected Environment, and the following sections of Environmental Consequences and Mitigation Measures can be found in Section 3.6 of the FEIS: 3.6.3.1 Significance Criteria; 3.6.3.2 Assessment Methodology (Section 3.6.3.2.1 Model Selection and Options through Section 3.6.3.2.5 Applicable Air Quality Standards); and Section 3.6.3.3 Proposed Action (BLM 2012a).

3.6.1.1.1 Background Concentrations

The discussion of background concentrations has been revised (Air Sciences, Inc. 2017, revised 2018) to respond to the remand from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which directed BLM to further explain its reliance on the zero baseline background concentration values for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), one- and three-hour time-averaged sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb).

To assess the impact of the Project on the ambient air quality, it was necessary to account for existing, or background, levels for each pollutant. No monitoring has been performed within the Project Area for ambient concentrations of CO, NO2, ozone, or SO2, nor does the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) Bureau of Air Pollution Control (BAPC) specify background concentrations for these pollutants. However, background values are necessary for the purpose of comparing modeled results to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and Nevada State Ambient Air Quality Standards. The BAPC was contacted to obtain representative background concentrations for the modeling analysis. The BAPC recommended background concentrations are presented in Table 3.6-1.

Table 3.6-1: BAPC-Recommended Background Values for Criteria Pollutants

Pollutant Averagi Monitor Location Year Backgroun Reference d NV Rural Area Default, 24-Hour N/A 10.2 BAPC PM10 Great Basin NP Annual NV Rural Area Default N/A 9.0 BAPC 2005- 24-Hour3 Great Basin NP 7.0 BAPC 1 2007 PM2.5 2005- Annual4 Great Basin NP 2.4 BAPC 2007 1-Hour N/A N/A 0 BAPC 2 CO 8-Hour N/A N/A 0 BAPC 2 1-Hour N/A N/A 0 BAPC 2 NO2 Annual N/A N/A 0 BAPC 2 1-Hour N/A N/A 0 BAPC 2 SO2 3-Hour N/A N/A 0 BAPC 2

24 EUREKA MOLY, LLC MOUNT HOPE PROJECT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Pollutant Averagi Monitor Location Year Backgroun Reference d Boulder City, Clark Co., 2001- EPA Air 24-Hour 13.1 NV 2003 Data* Boulder City, Clark Co., 2001- EPA Air Annual 2.6 NV 2003 Data* Quarterl Pb N/A N/A 0 BAPC y * http:///www.epa.gov/air/data/index.html; EPA – United States Environmental Protection Agency 1 Randy Philips, BAPC, March 19, 2008 3 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour measurements 2 Greg Remer, BAPC, March 19, 2007 4 3-year average of the weighted annual mean measurements

The particulate matter less than ten micrometers in aerodynamic diameter (PM10) background concentrations are the default Nevada values recommended by the BAPC for unmonitored rural areas like the Project Area. For the particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers in aerodynamic diameter (PM2.5) background, monitoring aerosol data from Great Basin National Park were used. As further described below, the BAPC recommends assuming zero background for CO, NO2, and SO2 for unmonitored rural areas similar to the Project Area (Air Sciences Inc. 2012).

25 EUREKA MOLY, LLC MOUNT HOPE PROJECT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Pb Analysis

The EPA has established pollutant-specific Significant Emission Rates (SER) in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 52.21(b)(23) to determine the scope of air quality analyses for regulatory purposes. Facility-wide non-fugitive emissions with less than applicable SERs are considered insignificant and not required to be modeled for air quality analyses. The estimated facility-wide non-fugitive Pb emissions from the Project are less than 0.05 tons per year (tpy), which is well below the applicable SER of 0.6 tpy; therefore, these emissions are not subject to modeling review per 40 CFR 52.21(m)(a). However, Pb modeling analysis was conducted for the 2012 Project air quality analysis and shows that the conservatively estimated maximum one- month concentration was significantly below the three-month standard. In fact, the maximum modeled one-month average (which would be higher than the maximum three-month average) was less than five percent of the standard.

Furthermore, the available Pb monitoring data was reviewed and it was determined that the Sunrise Manor station, located in Las Vegas, a major urban center, collected Pb ambient concentrations from 2012 to 2016. This dataset shows the highest three-month Pb monitored concentration over 2012 to 2016 was 0.003 micrograms per cubic meter (µg/m3), which rounded to one-hundredth to be consistent with the format of the standard (0.15 µg/m3) yields a value of zero. Based on this analysis, it is reasonable to assume that the Pb background in a remote rural area like the Project site is expected to be zero.

CO, NO2, and SO2 Background Concentrations

The Project Area is located in a rural area with no development or major roads (which are potential sources of CO, NO2, and SO2 emissions) within the immediate vicinity (Figure 1.1.1). The Project Area elevations vary from approximately 1,800 to over 2,500 meters (5,900 to over 8,200 feet) amsl. The nearest major road to the Project Area is Nevada SR 278 located approximately five miles to the east from the southern edge of the Project Area and approximately one-quarter mile to the east from the northeastern edge of the Project Area. The 2015 traffic data from the Nevada Department of Transportation shows that the average traffic at this section of SR 278 is 65 vehicles per day. The next-nearest major road is US Highway 50 (US 50) with an average traffic of 95 vehicles per day, located approximately ten miles to the south of the Project Area. Interstate 80 runs approximately 60 miles north of the Project Area. The town of Eureka (population 610) is approximately 16 miles to the southeast of the Project Area. The closest city is Elko (population 18,300) in Elko County, approximately 75 miles northeast of the Project Area.

In the absence of major population centers, commercial activity, or highways near the Project, the background concentrations of CO, NO2, and SO2 at the Project boundary are expected to be minimal, which is functionally equivalent to zero for modeling purposes. In addition to the BAPC-recommended background concentrations of zero baseline for certain criteria pollutants, BLM also reviewed additional data available to confirm the applicability of those baseline values.

Ambient monitoring stations collecting CO, NO2, and SO2 data in Nevada were reviewed to determine if representative background monitoring sites for rural areas in Nevada similar to the Project Area were available. Both active and inactive monitoring stations maintained by the EPA or Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) BAPC that have collected ambient CO,

26 EUREKA MOLY, LLC MOUNT HOPE PROJECT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

NO2, or SO2 concentrations in Nevada since the year 2000 are presented in Figure 3.6.1, and details on these stations are provided in Table 3.6-2.

Table 3.6-2 reveals that most of the CO, NO2, and SO2 monitoring stations in Nevada are in urban settings located within or near relatively highly populated or urban areas (i.e., Las Vegas Metropolitan Statistical Area [MSA], Reno-Sparks MSA, Carson City) or along highway corridors that potentially capture emissions from a multitude of sources (domestic, industrial, commercial, vehicular, etc.). Therefore, measurements from these monitoring stations do not provide representative background concentrations for rural settings like the Project.

27 EUREKA MOLY, LLC MOUNT HOPE PROJECT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 3.6.1: CO, NO2, and SO2 Monitoring Stations in Nevada

28 EUREKA MOLY, LLC MOUNT HOPE PROJECT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 3.6-2: CO, NO2, and SO2 Monitoring Stations in Nevada

Urban Exposure: Distance Traffic Exposure: Station Pollutants City to Location Setting Highway/Distance Code Monitored (population)/Distance Project (miles) (miles) (miles) 32- Las Vegas MSA (1.95 003- Henderson CO Urban I-15/0.8 267 million)/0 0007 32- Las Vegas MSA (1.95 003- Las Vegas CO Urban I-15/0.7; US 95/0.1 255 million)/0 0016 32- North Las Las Vegas MSA (1.95 003- CO Urban I-15/0.1 251 Vegas million)/0 0020 32- Not in a Las Vegas MSA (1.95 003- NO2, SO2 Rural I-15/1; US 93/0.1 244 city million)/15 0022 32- Mesquite (17.5 SR 144/0.2; I- 003- Mesquite NO2 Urban 235 thousand)/0 15/0.3 0023 32- Spring Las Vegas MSA (1.95 003- CO Urban I-15/4 258 Valley million)/0 0043 32- Las Vegas MSA (1.95 003- Las Vegas NO2 Urban CR-215/0.2; I-15/9 253 million)/0 0073 32- Las Vegas MSA (1.95 CR-215/0.1; US 003- Las Vegas NO2 Urban 248 million)/0 95/1; I-15/7 0075 32- Searchlight (539)/0; 003- Searchlight NO2, SO2 Rural Las Vegas MSA (1.95 US 95/0 306 0078 million)/40 32- Las Vegas MSA (1.95 SR 582/0; I- 003- Henderson CO Urban 265 million)/0 215/1.7; US 93/1.7 0107 32- Las Vegas MSA (1.95 I-215/1.2; US 003- Henderson CO Urban 265 million)/0 93/1.5 0298 32- Sunrise Las Vegas MSA (1.95 SR 589/0.2; I- 003- CO Urban 258 Manor million)/0 515/2; US 95/2 0538 32- Las Vegas MSA (1.95 SR 589/0; I- 003- Las Vegas NO2, SO2 Urban 258 million)/0 515/0.2; US 95/0.2 0539 32- SR 589/0.2; US Sunrise Las Vegas MSA (1.95 003- CO, SO2 Urban 93/0.7; SR 258 Manor million)/0 0540 612/0.8; US 95/1.7

29 EUREKA MOLY, LLC MOUNT HOPE PROJECT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Urban Exposure: Distance Traffic Exposure: Station Pollutants City to Location Setting Highway/Distance Code Monitored (population)/Distance Project (miles) (miles) (miles) 32- I-515/0.3; US Las Vegas MSA (1.95 003- Las Vegas CO, NO2 Urban 93/0.3; SR 582; 256 million)/0 0561 0.4; I-15/2 32- SR 159/ 0.3; SR Las Vegas MSA (1.95 003- Las Vegas CO Urban 582/0.5; I-515/0.9; 257 million)/0 0562 US 93/0.9; I-15/1.9 32- SR 578/0.3; I- Las Vegas MSA (1.95 003- Las Vegas CO, NO2 Urban 515/0.6; US 255 million)/0 0563 93/0.6; I-515/2.3 32- Boulder CO, NO2, Las Vegas MSA (1.95 003- Urban US 93/0.1 272 City SO2 million)/0 0601 32- Jean (0)/0; Las Vegas SR 161/0.7; I- 003- Jean NO2 Rural 279 MSA (1.95 million)/0 15/1.5 1019 32- SR 592/0.3; SR Las Vegas MSA (1.95 003- Las Vegas CO Urban 589/1.7; US 259 million)/0 1021 93/2.3; I-15/2.8 32- Las Vegas MSA (1.95 003- Las Vegas CO Urban SR 592/0.1; I-15/1 259 million)/0 1022 32- Las Vegas MSA (1.95 SR 594/0.1; I- 003- Las Vegas CO Urban 260 million)/0 15/0.5 1023 32- Las Vegas MSA (1.95 003- Las Vegas NO2 Urban I-15/0; SR 589/0.3 257 million)/0 1501 32- Las Vegas MSA (1.95 003- Las Vegas NO2 Urban US 93/0; I-15/0.5 255 million)/0 1502 32- SR 604/0.5; SR North Las Las Vegas MSA (1.95 003- CO, NO2 Urban 578/0.7; I-15/1; 254 Vegas million)/0 2002 US 95/1.5 32- Stateline (842)/0; US 50/0; SR 005- Stateline CO Urban South Lake Tahoe 209 207/0.5 0009 (21,000)/1 32- CO, NO2, Reno-Sparks MSA 031- Reno Urban I-80/0.7; I-580/1.3 194 SO2 (425,000)/0 0016 32- Reno-Sparks MSA SR 671/0.3; SR 031- Reno CO Urban 193 (425,000)/0 659/0.5; I-580/0.7 0020

30 EUREKA MOLY, LLC MOUNT HOPE PROJECT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Urban Exposure: Distance Traffic Exposure: Station Pollutants City to Location Setting Highway/Distance Code Monitored (population)/Distance Project (miles) (miles) (miles) 32- Reno-Sparks MSA SR 667/0; I- 031- Reno CO Urban 193 (425,000)/0 580/0.1; I-80/0.4 0022 32- Reno-Sparks MSA SR 341/0; US 031- Reno CO Urban 192 (425,000)/0 395/0.2; I-580/0.9 0025 32- Reno-Sparks MSA SR 647/0.1; I- 031- Sparks CO Urban 191 (425,000)/0 80/0.5; SR 659/0.6 1005 Incline 32- Incline Village SR 431/0.6; SR Village – 031- CO, NO2 Rural (8,800)/0; South Lake 28/0.2; US 395/7; 205 Crystal 2002 Tahoe (21,000)/20 I-80/10 Bay Lemmon Valley – Golden Valley Lemmon 32- (6,800)/0; Reno- Valley – 031- CO Urban Sparks MSA US 395/2 195 Golden 2009 (425,000)/7; Spanish Valley Springs (15,000)/7; Cold Springs (8,500)/7 32- SR 520/0.2; US Carson Carson City 510- CO Urban 395/0.4; I-580/1; 196 City (55,000)/0 0004 US 50/1 I-15 – Interstate 15 US 95 – United States Highway 95 US 93 – United States Highway 93 CR – County Road

The following stations in Nevada are located relatively far away from major population centers (Las Vegas MSA, Reno-Sparks MSA, Carson City) and can be considered rural: 32-003-0022 (Apex), 32-003-0078 (Searchlight), 32-003-1019 (Jean), and 32-031-2002 (Incline Village). The Apex station is located in the Apex Industrial Park along US 93, approximately one mile northwest of I-15 and approximately 15 miles northeast of the Las Vegas MSA, with a population of over 1.95 million. This station is within one mile of the Chuck Lenzie Generating Station and within four miles of the Silverhawk Generating Station. Therefore, data at this station are influenced by urban activities, traffic, and power plant emissions, and are thus not representative of rural settings. The Searchlight station is located along US 95, approximately 40 miles south of the Las Vegas MSA. The average traffic on this section of US 95 comprises approximately 7,000 vehicles per day. The Jean station is located approximately 20 miles south of the Las Vegas MSA, approximately 1.5 miles west of I-15, with an average of 6,500 vehicles per day. The Incline Village (population 8,800) station is located along SR 28 with an average of 10,000 vehicles per day. It is also affected by heavy traffic on SR 431 (4,600 vehicles per day) and US Highway 395 (35,000 vehicles per day) located in the vicinity. Therefore, the Searchlight, Jean, and Incline Village monitoring stations are also exposed to heavy traffic and/or urban emissions, and thus are not representative of rural settings like the Project.

31 EUREKA MOLY, LLC MOUNT HOPE PROJECT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

In an effort to determine representative background concentrations for rural areas in Nevada, CO, NO2, and SO2 monitoring stations located away from population centers in neighboring states within a reasonable distance (100 miles) of the Nevada border were reviewed. These stations are presented in Figure 3.6.2 and listed in Table 3.6-3.

Table 3.6-3: Rural CO, NO2, and SO2 Monitoring Stations in Neighboring States

Distance Distance Station Elevation Pollutants to Nevada Location State to Project Code (feet) Monitored border (miles) (miles) 04-012- 1,234 Wenden Arizona NO2, SO2 80 423 8000 49-053- 2,776 Santa Clara Utah NO2 23 254 0006 49-053- 2,776 Hurricane Utah NO2 41 268 0007 06-017- 7,382 Echo Summit California CO, NO2 11 274 0012 White Mountains Research 06-027- 4,052 Center – California CO, SO2 24 224 0002 Owens Valley Laboratory Yosemite National 06-043- 5,272 Park, California CO, NO2 56 282 0003 Turtleback Dome 06-071- Searles 1,788 California NO2, SO2 70 290 1234 Valley 16-039- Mountain 3,182 Idaho NO2 80 234 0002 Home 41-035- Klamath 4,173 Oregon CO 90 418 0006 Falls

32 EUREKA MOLY, LLC MOUNT HOPE PROJECT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Figure 3.6.2: Rural CO, NO2, and SO2 Ambient Monitoring Stations in Neighboring States

33 EUREKA MOLY, LLC MOUNT HOPE PROJECT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Based on the information provided in Table 3.6-3 and taking into consideration the surrounding settings (terrain, land use, and proximity of sources), the ambient monitoring data collected at station 06-043-0003 (Yosemite National Park – Turtleback Dome [Yosemite]) in California might be used to provide conservative background concentrations for rural areas like the Project.

This station has collected CO and NO2 ambient concentrations in 2006 and 2007, but no SO2 data were collected. Monitoring station 06-027-0002 (White Mountain Research Center – Owens Valley Lab [White Mountain]) in California is representative of a rural setting for conservative background SO2 values. Both stations (Yosemite and White Mountain in California) are in a relatively rural setting in terms of nearby population centers and traffic activity.

The Yosemite station 06-043-0003 is located inside Yosemite National Park at an elevation of 5,272 feet, approximately two miles northeast of the Arch Rock entrance on US Highway 40, which receives over 1,000 vehicles per day on average. The nearest town is El Portal (population 474), located approximately five miles southwest of the station. Other population centers in the vicinity include Wawona (population 169), 12 miles south, and Midpines (population 1,204), 16 miles southwest. The White Mountain station 06-027-0002 (elevation 4,052 feet) is also located in a rural setting along Poleta Road, approximately three miles east of Bishop (population 2,600). Other emission sources affecting this station include the Bishop Airport (two miles northwest) and US Highway 6 (three miles west).

The monitored CO, NO2, and SO2 background concentrations from the Yosemite and White Mountain stations are provided in Table 3.6-4.

Table 3.6-4: Yosemite and White Mountain Monitored Concentrations

Monitored Averaging Pollutant NAAQS Concentration Data Source Period ppb µg/m3 Yosemite 2006-2007 8-hour 10,000 700 801.4 (highest 2nd high) CO Yosemite 2006-2007 1-hour 40,000 900 1,030.4 (highest 2nd high) Yosemite 2006-2007 Annual 100 1.02 1.9 (annual mean) NO2 Yosemite 2006-2007 1-hour 188 4.90 9.2 (average 98th percentile) White Mountain 2015-16 3-hour 1,300 0.20 0.5 (highest 2nd high) SO2 White Mountain 2015-16 1-hour 196 0.25 0.7 (average 99th percentile) Source: EPA 2017a ppb – parts per billion

In consideration of the concentration data provided in Table 3.6-4, these concentration values illustrate why estimating a zero baseline concentration for CO, NO2, and SO2 standards for rural Nevada, in accordance with guidance from NDEP Bureau of Air Quality Planning (BAQP), is reasonably justified by the best available representative monitoring data and trends (NDEP BAQP 2017; Appendix C). Using the Yosemite and White Mountain background concentrations,

34 EUREKA MOLY, LLC MOUNT HOPE PROJECT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

when added to the modeled impacts for the Project (Table 3.6-9, BLM 2012a), the total concentrations are still well below the NAAQS. In addition, the EPA trends data (EPA 2017b) show that CO and NO2 concentrations in the western region (Nevada and California) decreased by 61 and 36 percent, respectively, from 2000 to 2015, further supporting the use of zero as baseline for rural Nevada.

35 4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS AND IRREVERSIBLE/IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

4.1.1 Air Resources

The discussion of air quality cumulative impacts has been revised to respond to the remand from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which directed BLM to more fully explain and/or adequately represent the quantitative cumulative impacts of emission sources within the Cumulative Effects Study Area (CESA), such as the Ruby Hill Mine, and to further explain the cumulative impacts in correlation to the zero baseline values as discussed in the preceding section. Reasonably foreseeable future actions (RFFAs) are described in Section 4.4.4 of the FEIS (BLM 2012a).

Past Actions - Prior to the implementation of the Clean Air Act, few if any measures to control or minimize impacts to air quality were required. Most mining operations were of smaller scale and consisted of underground operations with small disturbance footprints. Most air quality impacts from these operations consisted of the generation of fugitive dust during exploration road building, trenching, and mining operations, as well as agricultural operations and travel on dirt roads. An exception to this was the mineral processing operation in the Eureka area, which included furnaces that were fueled with locally produced charcoal. Air quality impacts from these operations were substantial, consisting of heavy particulates and metal emissions. In addition, the locally produced charcoal was generated by burning (baking) cut and stacked piñon and juniper trees, which generated particulate and volatile organic compound emissions. Another action that affects Air Resources is wildland fires, which contribute substantial amounts of particulates.

Present Actions - All the present emissions, including the Proposed Action, are located within the Diamond Valley, Kobeh Valley, and Pine Valley air basins. Impacts to air quality from mining-related activities would include the generation of fugitive dust from blasting, exploration drilling, road building, haul truck operations, and mining operations. Other air emissions would be generated from processing facilities and the burning of fossil fuels by heavy equipment and other vehicles, travel on dirt roads, recreation, and wildland fires. Agricultural operations and commercial operations also generate fugitive dust and combustion emissions. In response to the remand from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the BLM confirmed that there are no oil and gas developments in the CESA, and vehicular emissions are generally considered included in background concentrations and are not specifically included in air models for NEPA analysis. The State has determined that the background values for NO2, SO2, and CO in this part of Nevada are zero due to the very dispersed nature of emission sources.

Each of the identified individual projects within the CESA, including existing and proposed mining operations, emit air pollutants. The existing and proposed mining operations are the major sources of criteria pollutants within the CESA. A modeling analysis was conducted to determine the cumulative impacts of the combined emissions from the Proposed Action (i.e., Project-related emissions including heavy-duty mobile equipment [e.g., haul trucks, dozers, graders, water trucks, etc.]), the present actions of the Gold Bar Project and the Ruby Hill Mine Project, and the RFFA of the Prospect Mountain Mine Project (Gulsil, LLC). The emissions for this analysis were taken from the SEIS for the Ruby Hill Mine Expansion – East Archimedes Project (BLM 2005) and recent NEPA analyses completed for the Gold Bar Project and Prospect Mountain Mine Project (Gulsil, LLC). The model (using AERMOD version 16216r) was run with emissions and source parameters for all four projects (Table 4.1-1).

36 EUREKA MOLY, LLC MOUNT HOPE PROJECT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Table 4.1-1: Mount Hope Project Cumulative Modeling Analysis (µg/m3)

Mount Total Averaging Cumulative Background Pollutant Hope Ambient NAAQS Period Impact* Concentration Impact Concentration 8-hour (2nd 82.8 82.9 0 82.9 10,000 high) CO 1-hour (2nd 369.2 369.2 0 369.2 40,000 high) Annual 11.0 11.1 0 11.1 100 th NO2 1-hour (8 116.7 116.7 0 116.7 188 high) Annual 3.6 3.6 2.4 6.0 12 PM2.5 24-hour 9.3 9.4 7.0 16.4 35 (8th high) 24-hour PM10 31.7 32.7 10.2 42.9 150 (2nd high) 3-hour (2nd 37.9 37.9 0 37.9 1,300 high) SO2 1-hour (4th 65.3 65.3 0 65.3 196 high) *Combined impact from Mount Hope, Gold Bar, Ruby Hill, and Prospect Mountain Mine (Gulsil, LLC) projects Source: Air Sciences, Inc. 2017

Table 4.1-1 shows that the total ambient concentrations that include the Project impacts, the nearby Gold Bar, Ruby Hill, and Prospect Mountain (Gulsil, LLC) impacts, and background concentrations, are below the NAAQS for each pollutant and averaging period. The table also shows that the impacts from sources within the CESA are cumulatively negligible due to the relative distance to the other projects and the localized nature of the emissions.

Pb impacts were not evaluated for this cumulative analysis as these emissions are less than the applicable SER and therefore not subject to an air quality analysis, as described in Section 3.6.3.2.6 of this FSEIS.

It is important to note that the Mount Hope impacts shown in Table 4.1-1 are different than the results provided in the 2012 Mount Hope air quality analysis. These differences result from model enhancements made in the latest version (16216r) of the AERMOD modeling system, including the newer default options of adjusted friction velocity, and the Ozone Limiting Method (OLM) for nitrogen oxide chemistry. For example, the Mount Hope NO2 impacts have decreased from the 2012 Mount Hope air quality analysis due to use of the current EPA-adopted default OLM option.

Air impacts from the Proposed Action, in combination with air impacts from past and present actions, and RFFAs, would result in total impacts below the NAAQS. This conclusion is consistent with the cumulative air impacts analysis in the FEIS (BLM 2012a).

37 5 CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, AND THE LIST OF PREPARERS FOR PREPARATION OF THE SEIS

5.1 Public Scoping

The BLM published a NOI to prepare a DSEIS for the Mount Hope Mine Project in the FR on July 19, 2017 (Volume 82, Number 137).

5.2 Native American Consultation

On August 24, 2017, the BLM Mount Lewis Field Office mailed certified consultation initiation letters to four recognized Tribal governments: Yomba Shoshone Tribe; Ely Shoshone Tribe; Duckwater Shoshone Tribe; and South Fork Band of Western Shoshone. These four Tribes have indicated they have ancestral home lands in the vicinity of the Project Area; therefore, consultation letters were not sent to all the same Tribes that were consulted for the 2012 FEIS. A second round of letters were sent to these four Tribes on July 27, 2018.

5.3 List of Preparers

5.3.1 Bureau of Land Management FSEIS Team

Kevin Hurrell – Project Manager, NEPA Compliance Joseph Moskiewicz – Assistant Field Manager, Minerals, Mount Lewis Field Office Justin Ferris – Water Quality, Surface and Ground Water Hydrology Juan Martinez – Native American Coordination and Consultation Leesa Marine, Rick Singer – Mining Law Administration Jim Harris – Ground Water Hydrology Craig Nichols – Air Quality Kyle Hendrix – Public Outreach Sarah Peterson – Hydrology Erica Anderson – Solicitor

5.3.2 Third Party Contractors

5.3.2.1 EM Strategies, Inc.

Richard DeLong – FSEIS Manager, Technical Review Catherine Lee – Senior NEPA Specialist Gail Liebler – GIS Specialist Ellen Farley – Editorial Review

5.3.2.2 Air Sciences, Inc.

Ejaz Memon – Senior Air Quality Engineer Kevin Lewis – Principal Air Quality Engineer

5.3.3 Cooperating Agency

Eureka County

6 REFERENCES

Air Sciences, Inc. 2012. NEPA Air Quality Impact Analysis. Mount Hope Project. Prepared for Eureka Moly LLC. March 2012.

_____. 2017. Mt. Hope Project – Supplemental Analyses Consistent with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals December 28, 2016, Opinion Summary. Revised May 18, 2018.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2005. Ruby Hill Mine Expansion – East Archimedes Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Battle Mountain Field Office, NV063-EIS04-34. July 2005.

_____. 2011. Mount Hope Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Mount Lewis Field Office, NV063-EIS-07-019. December 2011.

_____. 2012a. Mount Hope Project Final Environmental Impact Statement. Mount Lewis Field Office, NV063-EIS-07-019. October 2012.

_____. 2012b. Mount Hope Project Record of Decision, Plan of Operations Approval, and Approval of Issuance of Right-of-Way Grants. Mount Lewis Field Office, NV063-EIS- 07-019. November 2012.

_____. 2015a. Mount Hope Project Amendment Environmental Assessment. Mount Lewis Field Office, DOI-BLM-NV-B010-2015-0015-EA. April 2015.

_____. 2015b. Mount Hope Project Plan of Operations Amendment and Application for Reclamation Permit Modification Approval and Finding of No Significant Impact. April 23, 2015.

Eureka Moly LLC (EML). 2014. Mount Hope Project Plan of Operations Amendment and Application for Reclamation Permit Modification. Prepared by SRK Consulting, Inc. Elko, Nevada.

JBR Environmental Consultants, Inc. 2011. Technical Memorandum, Mount Hope Project Seep and Spring Summary. Prepared for Eureka Moly, LLC. July 27, 2011.

Montgomery & Associates, Interflow Hydrology, and Barranca Group. 2010. Hydrogeology and Numerical Flow Modeling, Mount Hope Project, Eureka County, Nevada. Report prepared for Eureka Moly, Inc., July 2010.

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection Bureau of Air Quality Planning (NDEP BAQP). 2017. Background Concentrations for Air Dispersion Modeling. Personal communication between Danilo Dragoni, BAQP Chief, and Tom Coulter, BLM Air Quality Modeling Specialist. April 17, 2017.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017a. Air Quality System Data Mart: Pre-Generated Data Files. http://aqsdr1.epa.gov/aqsweb/aqstmp/airdata/download_files.html.

39 EUREKA MOLY, LLC MOUNT HOPE PROJECT FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

_____. 2017b. National Air Quality: Status and Trends of Key Air Pollutants. https://www.epa.gov/air-trends.

40 APPENDIX A

Photographs of PWR 107 Springs Mount Hope Project Appendix A Photographs of PWR 107 Springs

Photo 1: Spring 597 (Garden Spring) Source: JBR 2011

Photo 2: Spring 604 (Unnamed spring) Source: JBR 2011

1 Photo 3: Spring 619 (Mount Hope Spring) Source: JBR 2011

Photo 4: Spring 639 (Zinc Adit) Source: JBR 2011

2 Photo 5: Spring 742 (Lone Mountain Spring) Source: JBR 2011

3 APPENDIX B

BLM Checklists for PWR 107 Springs

APPENDIX C

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection Correspondence Regarding Background Concentrations for Air Dispersion Modeling

NEVADADIVISION OF STATEOF NEVADA Department of Conservation & Natural 5our5 ENVIRON MENTAL Bradiey Crowell, Director PROTECTION Greg tovato, Administrator

April 17, 2017

Tom Coulter Air Quality Modeling Specialist DOT/Bureauof Land Management National Operations Center Division of Resource Services (OC-520) Denver federal Center Denver, CO 80225-0047

RE: Background Concentrations for Air Dispersion Modeling

Dear Mr. Coulter:

Per our discussions, please find below an explanation for the background concentrations selected by the Bureau of Air Quality Planning (BAQP) for NO2, $02, and CO, for air dispersion modeling in the State of Nevada for permitting of stationary sources with regards to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

The determination of appropriate background concentrations is a complex issue especially in the remote areas of Nevada. first, ambient monitoring is sparse and seldom representative on large spatial scales. The BAQP maintains a monitoring network for the State of Nevada; however, there are no monitors for these pollutants in remote areas. Second, human activities in the remote areas of Nevada are considered to be an insignificant influence to ambient air quality. To the extent that these pollutants are generated by anthropogenic activities, their background concentrations are not significantly different from zero when used for modeling purposes. Based on these reasons, the BAQP has selected zero background concentrations for NO2, SO2 and CO for air dispersion modeling in remote areas of the State. Alternatively, background concentrations could be obtained from representative sites, taking into account terrain and microclimatic conditions, and a technical justification should be submitted with any analysis. Caution should be exercised in looking at sites far away (e.g. in adjacent states) for background concentrations because they may not be representative.

The background concentrations currently utilized by the BAQP for these pollutants have successfully been used in the air dispersion modeling for permitted stationary sources within Nevada for many years. The BAQP has an affirmative responsibility under its State Implementation Plan (SIP) to improve air quality in any designated nonattainment areas and to maintain air quality in designated attainment areas. The BAQP has successfully managed this responsibility using zero background concentrations for NO2, $02, and CO, for air dispersion modeling in remote areas of the State. Nevada is currently designated unclassifiable/attainment for these pollutants across the entire state.

901 S. Stewart Street, Suite 4001 • Carson City, Nevada 89701 • p: 775.687.4670 • 1:775.687.5856 • ndep.nv.gov Printed on recycled oooer Letter to Tom Coulter Page 2 of 2 RE: Background Concentrations for Air Dispersion Modeling April 18, 2017

The BAQP may revise the background levels for these pollutants as ambient conditions change and/or new and better information becomes available.

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at (775) 687-9340.

Sincerely,

Dani agoni, Ph.D. Chief, reau of Air Quality Planning Nevada ivision of Environmental Protection

APPENDIX D

Public Comments and Responses

Mount Hope Project Appendix D Public Comments and Responses

1 INTRODUCTION

According to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations of commenting on EIS documents, 40 CFR §1503.3 states that comments on an EIS or on a proposed action shall be as specific as possible and may address either the adequacy of the statement or the merits of the alternatives discussed or both. When responding to comments, 40 CFR §1503.4 states the following:

a) An agency preparing a final environmental impact statement shall assess and consider comments both individually and collectively, and shall respond by one or more of the means listed below, stating its response in the final statement. Possible responses are to:

1) Modify alternatives including the proposed action. 2) Develop and evaluate alternatives not previously given serious consideration by the agency. 3) Supplement, improve, or modify its analyses. 4) Make factual corrections. 5) Explain why the comments do not warrant further agency response, citing the sources, authorities, or reasons which support the agency’s position and, if appropriate, indicate those circumstances which would trigger agency reappraisal or further response.

Each public comment letter is listed below, with the lengthier comment letters being assigned a letter code. Each issued raised in the letter has been given a number (e.g., Comment Letter A, comment 1: A-1). All comments are displayed in the response to comment table.

Individual or Signatory Affiliation Date Scott Raine Eureka resident March 11, 2019 Craig Benson Diamond Valley resident April 18, 2019 Sharon Bardin Eureka County resident April 21, 2019 Eureka County Board of J.J. Goicoechea, Chairman April 19, 2019 Commissioners Connell Dunning, Acting Manager United States Environmental April 22, 2019 Environmental Review Section Protection Agency Carolyn Bailey Diamond Valley resident April 20, 2019 Katie Fite Wildlands Defense April 5, 2019 John Hadder, Director Great Basin Resource Watch April 22, 2019 Mount Hope Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement BLM Responses to Public Comments

Letter Code Comment Number Commenter Comment Response Scott Raine How I know the Mount Hope area: Comment noted. Thank you for your comments. As a resident of Eureka, NV I have lived in the immediate vicinity of Mount Hope for over 4 decades, I have personally hunted, hiked, driven, participated in areal wildlife surveys, and fought wild fires on and/or in the immediate vicinity of Mount Hope and have been in contact with may others who have done so.

I am a past Commissioner on the Nevada Board of Wildlife Commissioners, including past Chair and past vice Chair of that Commission. I am a business owner in Eureka, a hunter, I have ranching family roots in Eureka County that go back to the 1860’s. I am a historian who has studied and documented much of the history of the area. I have been a member for 20+ years on the Eureka Volunteer Fire Department and before that on the Diamond Valley Volunteer Fire Department in which capacity I have personally fought the majority of wildfires in the greater Mount Hope area since 1990.

It is my studied opinion that the Mount Hope project will not significantly impact the long term habitat of any species of animal or plant. The project has already been of significant benefit in reducing the danger of catastrophic wildfire by thinning and removing unhealthy amounts of pinon/juniper from areas. The disturbance created has already shown to be beneficial to wildlife, specifically mule deer – which are known to thrive in areas that have received significant disturbance and not thrive in areas which have decadent old undisturbed vegetation.

It is my studied opinion that the Mount Hope project will provide a stabilizing influence on the economy of this area which has been subject to large economic boom and bust cycle based almost exclusively on single resource mining – gold – for a century. The introduction of additional minerals like Molybdenum to mine in the area can only help in reducing the severity of economic bust periods following the inevitable price collapse of individual mineral products.

Summary: Mount Hope project will: Be a benefit in reducing wildfire danger. Not harm any wildlife species, specifically will not harm the sage grouse population – which is minimal/negligible on this mountain but exist in good numbers in adjacent mountains and valleys that have seen significant disturbance. Help certain species that thrive on vegetation disturbance – specifically mule deer, likely others. Not harm historical aspects of our County. Benefit the area by providing a broader economic base, reducing the economic bust cycles. Provide mineral products in demand world wide. Not provide lasting environmental harm to our area.

For the good of all Americans, specifically those of use who live in the vicinity of Mount Hope, please approve the Mount Hope project and assist them in any way possible in getting their mine into production. Letter Code Comment Number Commenter Comment Response Craig Benson I represent the 5th generation of my family to make a living in production agriculture as residents of Eureka Thank you for your comments. The BLM will consider your county. I fear that the Mt Hope project will bring and end to my way of life. comments while making a decision on the Project.

I am opposed to the use of precious groundwater for the purposes of processing ore mined at this site. As a holder of water rights in Diamond Valley, I feel I will be harmed by the massive withdrawal of groundwater in Kobeh Valley which is linked to the Diamond Valley flow system. I also fear that we will be negatively affected by dust and particulate matter from mining activities at Mt Hope as we live downwind of the site. We are also at risk due to potential flooding and subsequent contamination of our own precious aquifer. The potential evaporation of toxic chemicals from the tailings also exposes residents of Diamond Valley to detrimental health affects.

The increased burden on local resources, infrastructure, and emergency response personnel due to increased mine traffic and employees will overwhelm our small community and the volunteers who serve as first responders. The additional workforce will have negative impacts on roads, public and private lands, and county services. There will be an increase of vandalism, littering, and destruction of local outdoor recreational areas.

The principals behind the Mt Hope project has demonstrated contempt and disregard for the values, rights, and livelihoods of farmers and ranchers in Eureka County. They have also operated in bad faith with regards to infrastructure and planning at the local government level. These actions have cost the County Treasury millions of dollars and continue to be a burden on public finances.

Lastly and perhaps most importantly, the ongoing and lasting detrimental effects to the environment due to the Mt Hope project cannot be overlooked or simply mitigated. Wildlife habitat and behavior will be permanently and negatively impacted by this project. As an avid outdoorsman and hunter, I am very concerned about the impacts to water sources and animal habitat due to mining operations and groundwater withdrawals which have been modeled to permanently alter stream flows and springs in the area.

Water is the most precious resource in our arid State. The Mt Hope project is fundamentally designed to exploit and pollute groundwater on a massive scale. The principals of Mt. Hope have repeatedly failed to address critical environmental issues and the potential for irreparable harm to the air, water, and lands of Eureka County.

I urge you to consider my plea to deny the permit for mining at the Mt Hope site. Many of these issues simply cannot be mitigated. The only appropriate action must be the denial of permit and a complete overhaul of the ore recovery operation that precludes the use of water on such a vast scale. Sharon Bardin This letters intent is to comment on the Mount Hope Project in Eureka County, Nevada. I Sharon W. Bardin The formal scoping period for the Mount Hope Project was as the closest landowner to the Mount Hope Project. My land is located on SR 278 at mile marker 26, which initiated in March 2007, with news releases in the Elko Daily Free is only 3 miles from the proposed mine site. At the time of the final EIS I was not living in Eureka County. I Press, Battle Mountain Bugle, and Reno Gazette Journal, and was never notified of the Mount Hope Project. I never saw any published notices. No mine official, its’ publication of a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register (Volume representatives, or government official tried to contact me. I was unaware of the final EIS, so I was unable to 72, No. 41, Friday, March 2, 2007, Page 9579). Two public comment on it…I cannot find the final EIS available online, and do not know what issues it address’s. I am meetings were held in March 2007 in Eureka, Nevada, and Battle also concerned as to how this, or any proposed project can proceed without following guide lines, such as to Mountain, Nevada. The public comment period for the Mount notification, as required. My tax information and mailing address is easily obtained from, either the county Hope Project Draft EIS commenced in December 2011, with directly, or via the county website. With this understanding, how can any project proceed without following publication of a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register required steps to complete said project? Therefore, I have already been denied one of my rights to be (Volume 76, No. 232, Friday, December 2, 2011, Page 75554). informed of possible detriments to my property value, as well as my right to quiet enjoyment of my property. Two public meetings were held in January 2012 in Eureka, Following are just a few of my concerns about the project: Nevada, and Crescent Valley, Nevada (2012 Final EIS, Sections 5.1 and 5.3, pages 5-1 and 5-2). 1 – Water Issues – Why were only the owners of water rights were reviewed? I might not have any water rights, but my water is just as important to me for survival as the next person. The potential impacted springs The BLM published a NOI to prepare a SEIS for the Mount Hope all flow down toward my property. I do have a domestic water well and Henderson Creek runs right through Project in the Federal Register on July 19, 2017 (Volume 82, the middle of my property. Currently these springs seem to be in pristine condition. They also provide water Number 137). for diverse wildlife, ranging from eagles to mountain lions to sage grouse. What will happen when the slag reaches into the ground and runs off into the ponds and streams? Will the slag piles eventually leach into my Impacts to the springs were discussed in the 2012 Final EIS, well? Will runoff of these slag piles run into Henderson Creek, and surrounding creeks? We all know, unless Section 3.2.3.3.1, pages 3-74 through 3-106. Air quality impacts the slag piles are lined underneath completely, and runoff from natural sources are contained, it will were discussed in the 2012 Final EIS, Section 3.6.3, pages 3-279 eventually contaminate the surrounding area. Nothing is foolproof. And I will be the one most affected above through 3-304. anyone else. The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS associated with your 2 – Air Quality. Unless you have a water truck behind every heavy equipment, every truck, every vehicle comments has not changed in the Draft SEIS in response to the traveling the area, there is no way to completely control dust. The sediment here is very fine, like baby Ninth Circuit December 2016 remand decision. No additional powder. Me being North of the mine, and the main wind pattern comes from the South, will see the increase supplement is necessary because no new circumstances or Letter Code Comment Number Commenter Comment Response of dust and particles in the air. The valley will develop a haze floating in it. As for pollutants, there is a major information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on road within the vicinity. SR 278 is the main road for traffic in and out of Eureka. SR 278 connects to I-80 with the Proposed Action or its impacts have been identified. See 40 it being a major thorough fare for 18 wheel trucks and private vehicles. All the new traffic the mine will bring, CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). will also increase the air pollutants. With the increase of mine traffic, buses carrying workers, and puffs of dust from blasting will definitively have an impact on air quality. Were any of these considered in the study? Mount Hope Project is much bigger than the other local mines it is compared to. Will air quality monitor stations be installed around the project area? Safety on SR 278 is a concern. The vehicle number counter does not include the many farm equipment, ranch trucks, work trucks, and private vehicles that traveled between the vehicle counter. SR 278 is just a 2 lane road with long stretches of no shoulder. It is dangerous enough at present, just wait til the mine traffic increases.

The mine in general will affect me in many ways. I am the only person who it has the most affect on. The blasting. Will it eventually shake my house off it’s piers? Will it shake my walls? Traffic will increase tremendously. It will run 24/7.

In conclusion, BLM and it’s tenant, will deprive me of my rights to quiet enjoyment on my land. The mine & it’s development will have an impact on the surrounding area, it’s environment, and it’s neighbor(me) with no accountability. J.J. Goicoechea, As you are aware, Eureka County, as a previous cooperating agency on the Mt. Hope Project EIS process, While it is BLM's position that the analysis for PWR 107s satisfies Chairman, reviewed and provided comment on the Administrative Draft Supplemental EIS (DSEIS) on August 9, 2018. NEPA and that the metalliferous exception is applicable, the BLM Eureka County We have no additional comments on the public Draft Supplemental EIS. has also initiated a process to determine whether to revoke any Board of withdrawal and reservation created by an Executive Order which Commissioners While we are not providing any additional comments on the DSEIS, we reserve and do not preclude or established Public Water Reserve No. 107. If it is determined that prejudice our objections, contentions, arguments or other legal challenges related to the Public Water the land is no longer needed for the purpose for which it was Reserves 107 also part of the current Diamond Valley water rights Adjudication (an adjudication under the withdrawn, the resulting Public Land Order could potentially McCarran Amendment, 43 USC § 666). revoke any withdrawal and reservation insofar as it affects Garden Spring (Spring 597) Unnamed Spring (Spring 604), Mount Hope Spring (Spring 619), and Lone Mountain Spring (Spring 742), which would include a termination of the associated reserved water rights as well as of the associated withdrawal of the public land. 3 Connell Dunning, In the 2012 FEIS, BLM used a background value of zero 0.0 µg/m for CO, NO2, and SO2 to model the The BLM prepared this SEIS as a response to the United States Acting Manager project’s direct and cumulative impacts to air quality, as recommended by Nevada Department of Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit December 28, 2016, remand Environmental Environmental Protection (NDEP). EPA had recommended a different approach through our comments on decision for further action on issues. As noted by the Ninth Circuit, Review Section, the FEIS. Specifically, EPA recommended that BLM examine alternate monitor locations, considering the “BLM’s analysis of air impacts in the FEIS was inadequate United States density of emissions sources, terrain, and meteorological factors, and consider is such background because the agency did not provide any support for its use of Environmental concentrations would affect the potential significance of the project’s air quality impacts. In this DSEIS, BLM baseline values of zero for several air pollutants.” In accordance 3 Protection continues to use the value of zero 0.0 µg/m for CO, NO2, and SO2 to model the project’s direct and with the court’s remand, the Draft SEIS explains why the use of Agency cumulative impacts to air quality. BLM extensively considered data from 43 other monitored locations, both baseline values of zero for several air pollutants (CO, NO2, and urban and rural; however, BLM determined that the data was not appropriate for analysis due to differences SO2) is appropriate (Draft SEIS Section 3.6.1.1.1, pages 15 in terrain, land use and proximity to emission sources (DSEIS, pp. 16-19). through 21, and Appendix C).

The analysis of potential impacts to air quality would be improved by using the best available data from The Draft SEIS includes an evaluation of 34 air monitoring stations monitoring stations, located not just in Nevada but in the similarly situated locations throughout the western in Nevada and determined that, although four of those stations United States, to estimate representative concentrations with values greater than zero for gaseous air (Apex, Searchlight, Jean, and Incline Village) were considered to pollutants CO, NO2, and SO2. Because BLM’s 2011 DEIS used numbers larger than zero from monitoring be located in rural settings, none of the stations were samples taken from representative stations in Boulder City, Nevada and Jean, Nevada to model air quality representative of rural settings similar to the Project. Specifically, impacts, those values, as well as others from more pristine areas, are available to be added to the Mt. Hope the Apex site was influenced by urban activities, traffic and power modeled values in the DSEIS, as cumulative impact values were included in Table 4.1-1 to the DSEIS (to plant emissions. The remaining three Nevada sites are exposed to represent the sum of the modeled Mt. Hope values plus the modeled foreseeable future values). We note that heavy traffic and/or urban emissions and are not representative of a 2017 study by EPA confirms that although there may be reductions in CO, NO2, and SO2 concentrations in the Project site (Draft SEIS Section 3.6.1.1.1, pages 16 through Nevada and California by 60, 38, and 65 percent, respectively, over the last 17 years, pollutants remain in 19). background air. As suggested by the comment, the Draft SEIS does include the Recommendations: Yosemite and White Mountain locations (Draft SEIS Table 3.6.4, EPA recommends that the FSEIS include the representative Yosemite and White Mountain monitored page 21). In total, the Draft SEIS looked at nine monitoring sites background concentrations (or any other geographically representative numbers that are above zero), in located in rural areas and within 100 miles of the Nevada border. clear table form. Based on this review, two of the sites (Yosemite National Park – Turtle Dome [Yosemite] and White Mountain Research Center – An example of an air quality analysis which presented a table including modelled air pollutant concentrations Owens Valley Laboratory [White Mountain]) were found to be in for these three pollutants using baselines from both reasonably representative sites, in addition to the zero- rural settings in terms of nearby population centers and traffic. The background concentrations recommended by NDEP, can be found in the Gold Rock Mine project (Gold Rock CO and NO2 data from the Yosemite site and the 3-hour and 1- Letter Code Comment Number Commenter Comment Response Mine FEIS, p. 3-75). That document states that even in pristine areas, like National Parks, background hour concentrations from the White Mountain site were reported in concentrations are not likely to be exactly 0.0 µg/m3 due to natural emissions, such as lightning strikes, and the Draft SEIS. In consideration of the data, BLM determined that dispersal of human sources emissions into these areas by winds and air currents. the use of a zero baseline concentration is justified. Furthermore, when the background values from the Yosemite and White Mountain stations are added to the modeled impacts for the Project, the resulting concentrations are still well below National Ambient Air Quality Standards (Draft SEIS Table 3-6-4, page 21).

The Draft SEIS also includes a letter from the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection that further explains the rationale for the zero background concentrations selected by the Bureau of Air Quality Planning (BAQP) for NO2, CO2, and CO, for air dispersion modeling in the State of Nevada for permitting of stationary sources with regards to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (Draft SEIS Appendix C). The DSEIS discussed springs and watering holes in the context of the need to protect the public’s right to The Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office uses these scarce water resources (Public Water Reserve, PWR 107). In the DSEIS, BLM examined and prepared this SEIS as a response to the United States Court of applied PWR 107 eligibility requirements to several springs and found that four of the seven springs filed with Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remand decision for further action on the State Engineer are PWR 107 claims and within the project area. The identified potentially-impacted issues identified in its December 28, 2016, decision. This SEIS springs and streams are all located at high elevations in the Roberts Mountains and on the flanks of Mount includes the following: 1) an explanation of the usage of baseline Hope, and within approximately four miles of the proposed open pit. The source of these springs is believed values of zero for several air pollutants; 2) a quantitative to be the fractured bedrock aquifer, which receives recharge from the higher elevations as infiltration of cumulative air quality impacts analysis; and 3) a clarification of the snowmelt and rainfall. Further, BLM found that the PWR 107 springs are subject to a Pickett Act exemption status of certain springs and water holes under Executive Order which lifts the withdrawal associated with PWR 107 springs for mining of metalliferous minerals, such as PWR 107. Molybdenum. Page 10 of the SDEIS states that “[t]o the extent federal reserved water rights could potentially be impacted, those impacts would result from activity exempted from the scope of the withdrawal under the The 2012 Final EIS (2012 Final EIS Section 3.2.3.1.2, page 3-65 Pickett Act and were analyzed and addressed through monitoring and mitigation measures.” (p. 10) and Section 3.2.3.2.4, page 3-73) describes why the ten-foot drawdown contour was used as the reference point for It is not clear from the DSEIS, or prior 2012 DEIS and FEIS, what direct and cumulative impacts the project determining potential impacts and why a smaller drawdown pumping of groundwater will have on these protected springs and other water resources. BLM concluded that number was not used. the proposed monitoring and mitigation program outlined in the Final EIS would not change because of the re-evaluation of the springs in the DSEIS (p. 11). However, as stated in the FEIS on page 3-73, a The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in groundwater decline of 10 feet or more was identified to establish the general area of drawdown impacts, the Draft SEIS in response to the Ninth Circuit December 2016 since natural fluctuations in water levels, particularly in fractured rock aquifers, commonly exceed 10 feet. remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary because Although BLM previously found that there were no PWR 107 sites within the ten-foot groundwater drawdown no new circumstances or information relevant to the environmental contour within the project boundary, new information in the SDEIS indicates the presence of these sites, and concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts have others may still be within the 10-foot drawdown contour (p. 10-11). Although EPA understands that analysis been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). of a groundwater table drawdown contour less than 10 feet may present modeling challenges, such uncertainty alone should not preclude the consideration of potentially significant environmental impacts.

Recommendations: In the Supplemental FEIS, discuss whether it is reasonable to use a model of less than 10 feet if it could predict significant impacts to protected springs (PWR 107 and other spring flows). If so, evaluate the effects of groundwater drawdown of less than 10 feet on protected springs and other spring flows, define the contours of the drawdown boundaries, and the significance of the impacts to other water resources. As identified in EPA’s comment letter on the 2012 DEIS and 2012 FEIS, it is unclear whether there is enough Thank you for your comments. The Bureau of Land Management water necessary for the proposed surface and spring water mitigation to replace surface supplies, and Mount Lewis Field Office prepared this SEIS as a response to the whether using Eureka Moly’s existing groundwater allotment for replacement purposes is feasible, effectual, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remand or viable over the long term. The DSEIS does not appear to address the estimated shortfall needed to decision for further action on issues identified in its December 28, replace depleted spring and stream water, or the source of this replacement supply. 2016, decision. This SEIS includes the following: 1) an explanation of the usage of baseline values of zero for several air pollutants; 2) Section 3.2.3 of the FEIS evaluated the approximate environmental impacts associated with the a quantitative cumulative air quality impacts analysis; and 3) a implementation of proposed water quantity mitigation measures. The impacts identified only consider surface clarification of the status of certain springs and water holes under disturbance for infrastructure construction. The 2012 FEIS stated that the water supply for the up to 302-acre Executive Order PWR 107. feet per year (afy) (or 100 million gallons) of mitigation water would come from EML’s current groundwater allocation of 11,300 afy until an alternative source for this water is identified. It is likely that any alternative The 2012 Final EIS states that the 302 acre-feet of water would source would also be groundwater. Neither the FEIS or this DSEIS discuss the additional impact that this initially come from EML’s existing water rights (2012 Final EIS, mitigation would have upon groundwater levels should the entire 302 afy be supplied by groundwater Section 3.2.3.6.1, Mitigation Measure 3.2.3.6-2a, page 3-147 and extraction in excess of EML’s current allocation. 3-148). Mitigation measure 3.2.3.6-2b outlines measures that will be taken if monitoring activities described in Mitigation Measure Recommendations: EPA recommends that the SFEIS include the results of revised groundwater modeling 3.2.3.6-2a indicate that flow reductions of perennial surface waters showing the additional groundwater drawdown impacts that would result from the up to 302 afy of additional were to Letter Code Comment Number Commenter Comment Response groundwater extraction required to replace the lost surface water flows. Unless alternative mitigation water occur (2012 Final EIS, Section 3.2.3.6.1, Mitigation would come from a different groundwater basin, EPA recommends that the SFEIS include a restriction that all Measure 3.2.3.6-2b, pages 3-148 and 3-149). mitigation water be diverted from EML’s existing 11,300 afy water rights.

Discuss in the SFEIS whether the time lag between when the monitored flows produce impacts, to when measures will be taken to replace the water, is effective and viable. A A-1 Carolyn Bailey Please find enclosed my comments regarding the Mount Hope project in Eureka County. We have the closest The Bailey North Ranch and Bailey South Ranch were added to private property to the project in two directions so it will have a profound impact on our family. I am resubmitting the 2012 Final EIS as sensitive receptors (2012 Final EIS Table my comments from the DEIS, since I feel that my concerns remain the same as when the DEIS was released 3.6-4, Section 3.6.3.2.2, page 3-281). for comment. I have noted BLM responses to my original comments. Please find my follow on responses in boldface and italic to BLM’s original response. I would very much appreciate a response from BLM on these in addition to my original concerns. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you for the time and resources you have committed to carefully planning the resource management of the United States in Eureka County. My name is Carolyn Bailey. I am a member of the Bailey family. This family has a rich legacy in ranching and agriculture in Eureka County with many generations of the family currently thriving in the area. The Bailey ranching business in Diamond Valley was established in 1863 and is listed as the sixth oldest Pioneer Company in Nevada by the Nevada Business Journal (Foley, 2003, pg. 16). The five older companies in the state are: the Fulstone Ranch (Smith and Mason Valley) and the T Quarter Circle Ranch (Winnemucca), The Genoa Bar, the Gold Hill Hotel and the Washoe Health System (Foley, 2003 pg. 16). The Bailey Ranch on the Sadler Brown Road was purchased by the company in 1875 and was honored by the Governor of Nevada as one of the Historic Centennial Ranches in the state of Nevada (Price, 2011). We also own farming operations in Diamond Valley. We own the closest private property to the Mount Hope Mine project in two directions. I would like to bring up the following issues regarding the Mt. Hope Supplemental Environmental lmpact Statement: 1. The Bailey Ranch should be considered a Sensitive Receptor and be included in the maps and studies used in the Environmental lmpact Statement. BLM claimed that the sensitive receptor analysis was modified but I could not find this in the FEIS, so I am resubmitting this comment. A good illustration of this is (my Figure 1) on page 3 -267 of the text (United States, 2011, Volume 1, pg.3 -267, figure 3.6.2). The only Sensitive Receptor used for the study that is within this figure is the Roberts Ranch. However, the Bailey Ranch is also within that area near the northeast corner of the nested Cartesian receptor grids. Our farm and four residences on our farm are also within the grid a little more than half way down the east side of the figure. The next page, p. 3 -269 (my Figure 2), shows which way the wind blows (United States, 2011, volume 1, pg.3 -269, figure 3.6.3). Clearly, it blows directly towards the Bailey Ranch from the project area. The four residences are close, three plus miles due east from the tailings, but are not recognized as such. 2. Idaho General Mines, lnc., General Moly, lnc., Eureka Moly, LLC, Kobeh Valley Ranches LL and any The 2012 Final EIS addressed this comment in the group other entities that are clearly connected to the Mt. Hope project should be included in the maps and response CC-093 – Private Property Impacted by the Project studies of the land that the mine owns or controls. On page 1 -1 of the DEIS the last sentence on the page (2012 Final EIS, Appendix H, page 462). states, In determining the scope of the Proposed Action, the BLM has determined that actions on private lands are The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in connected actions with those proposed on public lands (40 CFR 1502.4 (2) and 40 CFR 1508.22(a)). This EIS the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December will also analyze impacts from private land activities (United States, 2011, Volume 1, pgs. 1 -1 – 1 -2). 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary An example of this is on page ES -13 of the DEIS which does not include the Romano Ranch as Project Land because no new circumstances or information relevant to the Ownership (United States, 2011, Volume 1, pg. ES -13, figure ES -2). There are other lands owned under environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its various names also not shown in Diamond Valley, Kobeh Valley and the Town of Eureka (United States, 2011, impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). Volume 1, pg. ES -13, figure ES -2). Figure 1.1.2 has the same issues (United States, 2011, Volume 1, pg. 1 - 5, figure 1.1.2). What the mine does at the Romano Ranch or the Dubrey Farm will definitely affect us as well as other properties currently owned or purchased by mining interests in the future. I believe that some of the major issues have not been studied where I live. This action on public and The 2012 Final EIS responded to this comment as being outside private land will significantly affect private land owners and residents in Diamond Valley and Eureka the scope of the analysis (2012 Final EIS, Appendix H, page 257). County. The surface water at both the Bailey Ranch and the Romano Ranch already have gone dry from over -appropriation making any further dewatering or pumping a serious issue. With the decline of the water table The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in and global warming issues, the trading of water, air quality, soil and forage for mineral wealth and urban the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December populations may create a possible shortage of agriculture in the future. Currently the ranching and agricultural 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary resources in this county raise enough beef to feed every person in the county beef every day, sustainably. because no new circumstances or information relevant to the Hopefully we will be able to continue the western legacy of ranching and agriculture at the Bailey Ranch as environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its well as in Eureka County’s Natural Resource Portfolio for generations to come. impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). Water Quality The 2012 Final EIS addressed this comment in the group My figure 3 shows Private Property Ownership in Diamond Valley. Mount Hope Mine is located on Highway response CC-064 – Scope/Scale of Impacts in EIS (2012 Final 278. On the Sadler/Brown Road is a ranch owned by Idaho General Mines, Inc. (Mount Hope Mine). The next EIS, Appendix H, page 453). ranch is owned by our family. Directly south of Mount Hope Mine on Hwy 278, the first farm is owned by our family. Both properties are close enough to Mount Hope Mine to be affected by dust, drainage, smoke, traffic, Letter Code Comment Number Commenter Comment Response noise, and the possibility of damage to our business from any drawdown, cone of depression, or any drop in The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in the static level from the added use of water by the mine. The farms and ranches in Diamond Valley are not the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December represented fully in the DEIS. 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary because no new circumstances or information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). My figure 4 shows a Serious Drainage Issue. This is because it drains from the proposed Potentially Acid The 2012 Final EIS responded to this comment as comment noted Generating Waste Rock Disposal Facility elevation of 7,550 feet (United States, 2011, pg. 2 -23) and the pit (2012 Final EIS, Appendix H, page 258). directly toward the farms and residents in Diamond Valley at 5,800 feet elevation (Eureka County, 2004). The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary because no new circumstances or information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). Mt. Hope Potentially Acid Generating Waste Rock Disposal Facility is in a Flash Flood area. Mt. Hope The 2012 Final EIS provided a response to this comment (2012 DEIS uses 24 hours 100 year event data for planning (United States, 2004). A 24 hour 100 year event is very Final EIS, Appendix H, page 259). different than a flash flood. The 100 year data is basically if the weather station at Eureka Airport collected data for 100 years, what their highest rainfall in a 24 hour period was (U.S. Geological, 2011). Then it is said that The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in there is a 1% probability that there will be that much rain this year (a new highest rainfall amount could be the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December added this year, or it can happen two years in a row). There are also 1 hour 100 year events, 100 year drought 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary levels, 50 year, 500 year, 48 hour, and so forth (U.S. Geological, 2011). The USGS states that: because no new circumstances or information relevant to the during intensely localized storms, rainfall amounts throughout the basin can differ greatly from the rainfall environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its amount measured at the location of the rain gauge. Some prats of the basin may even remain dry… Another impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). factor to consider is the relation between the duration of the storm and the size of the stream basin in which the storm occurs. For example, 1 100 -year storm of 30 - minutes duration in a 1 -square -mile basin will have a more significant effect on stream flow than the same storm in a 50 -mile basin (U.S. Geological, 2011, pg. 2). According to the National Weather Service, floods are the most common weather -related natural disasters and “flash floods are the most dangerous kinds of floods, because they combine the destructive power of a flood with incredible speed and unpredictability (National Weather, 2011, pg. 1).” in the mountains, where terrain channels the flow of water, rocky, dry packed soil or bedrock keeps precipitation from percolating into the ground. Thunderstorm precipitation rates can be high as well over mountainous terrain, so that the combination can lead to flash floods with rainfall of only an inch or two (National Weather, 2011, pg. 1). There have been flash floods observed in Garden Pass including events that have partially and totally washed out the Sadler Brown Road (Figure 4). One flash flood washed a pickup and horse trailer off of Highway 278 causing the owners to rescue the pinned horses (Parman -Dempsey, 2011). According to the National Weather Service, in order to monitor storms in Eureka, a beam is sent from Battle Mountain (personal communication, December 18, 2011). Mountains are in the path of the beam between Battle Mountain and Eureka. Consequently, the beam is sent at 6000’ higher, to clear the mountains, creating a situation where only the strongest storms are visible (personal communication, December 18, 2011). Even with data considered sparse in the area, there were Flash Flood warnings issued for Central Nevada on the following dates: September 16, 2011 at 1:56pm July 31st, 2011 at 5:01pm July 31st, 2011 at 4:48pm June 15th, 2009 at 7:01pm August 1st, 2007 at 5:22pm July 31st, 2007 at 2:30pm (personal communication, December 18, 2011, and NOAA weather) The FEIS did not clarify the fate of the water runoff from Garden Pass. Will this water remain in the Diamond Valley basin? This runoff is recharge for the basin and should remain in the same basin. A Flash Flood warning "is issued when a hazardous weather or hydrologic event or is occurring, imminent has a very high probability of occurring (The city of, 2012, pg. 1).” Some dirt work has been done at the mine that may disguise this fact, but the evidence is there on satellite photos and on the Sadler Brown Road. On one side where the road washes out, the ditches have been filled with dirt and reclaimed, thereby erasing the ditch. On the other side of the road, someone has tried to fill the ditch with a huge pile of used wire, a refrigerator, etc., to hold the road from washing out again. The projected changes in climate (increases ¡n temperature, reductions in soil moisture, and more intense The 2012 Final EIS responded to this comment as being outside rainfall events) could increase the possibility of these events. This data should be studied in reference to the scope of the analysis (2012 Final EIS, Appendix H, page 259). uncontrolled acid rock drainage, or other contaminants moving through the down gradient water system causing impacts to the waters of Diamond Valley and the State of Nevada. The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary Letter Code Comment Number Commenter Comment Response because no new circumstances or information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). Acid Mine Drainage can occur from under the “low permeability base layer” of the PAG WRDF (United States, The 2012 Final EIS addressed this comment in the group 2011). Acid Mine Drainage can occur from Flash Floods breaching the collection channels and collection response CC-015 – WRDF Cover Design (2012 Final EIS, ponds. Acid Mine Drainage could occur from a breach in the .06 inch liner under 966 million tons of tailings. Appendix H, page 434). Acid Mine Drainage can occur when the pond liners are cut at closing (United States, 2011, p. 2 -85). Acid Mine Drainage can occur from a landslide, earthquake or pipeline rupture. Evapotranspiration cells for storm The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in discharge may be difficult to install because of the volume of waste and the steep slope (United States, 2011, the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December pg. 2 -86). Leached constituents including remobilization of heavy metals into the soil and water supply would 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary be very hard to mitigate. In addition, page 3 -595 of the DEIS states: because no new circumstances or information relevant to the “Post-mining pit lake is potentially predicted to exceed the calculated screening level toxicity criteria (United environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its States, 2011, pg. 3 -595)." impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). Millions of gallons of water will fill the pit where 2.7 billion tons of ore were removed. Through flow that infiltrates the pit wall will move through and into the downgradient ground water system and gradually evolve as the readily soluble chemical mass and be rinsed out in to Diamond Valley (United States, 2011, p. 3 -221). Proponents of the mine may confuse pit lake toxins to be low because they are not intended for livestock or humans and there will be a permanent fence to barricade the pit forever (United States, 2011, p. 3 -402, 3 - 424, 3 -206, 3 -219). This information provided in the DEIS contradicts what Mount Hope Mine tells the public. Eureka Moly touts “Satisfactory water quality in post -mining pit lake (Eureka Moly, 2011, pg. 1).” There could be a huge economic burden if the mine company files bankruptcy or refuses to cover treatment The 2012 Final EIS addressed this comment in the group costs. The mine project is likely to require very long -term treatment of toxic drainage. The FEIS does response CC-117 – Reclamation after Project completion (2012 have some information about a long -term funding mechanism, but there is not detail to fully Final EIS, Appendix H, page 470). understand whether there is adequate planning to ensure that funding is available to handle the long - term management of this mine. The Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council Mining Waste Team The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in identified two general problems: the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December • Mining -impacted waters are difficult to treat cost -effectively to levels protective of human health and 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary the environment. because no new circumstances or information relevant to the • Solid mining waste is not a specifically regulated waste and involves huge volumes of material. The environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its volume of material alone makes some of the techniques for minimizing the risk unreasonably costly. impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). On the other hand, the exposure posed by direct and indirect ingestion of some of this waste is a major health and ecological concern (ITRC, 2008, pg. iv). I believe that by the time the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection could detect a health risk at a well The 2012 Final EIS provided a response to this comment (2012 in Diamond Valley, the situation would be irreversible and irretrievable. The BLM includes goals to manage and Final EIS, Appendix H, page 260). treat discharges from process components (United States, 2011, p. 1 -9). This project puts human health and the environment at risk. FIGURE 4 shows the drainage from Mount Hope Mine directly toward Diamond Valley The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in residents. I believe Figure 4 showing the drainage from Mount Hope into Diamond Valley demonstrates the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December Significant Criteria (p. 3 -196) for significant impact. 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary BLM’s response to my comment above is that there will sufficient monitoring and the pit lake will be because no new circumstances or information relevant to the terminal. However, I still remain concerned about this issue. environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). Water Quantity Comment noted. The Bureau of Land Management as well as the Nevada Division of Water Resources has policies designed to protect water rights. In response to the scarcity of water in the western United States, the doctrine of "first in time -first in right" evolved. It is the Prior Appropriation Doctrine. To quote the BLM Water Rights Policy (United States, 1984): The final essential feature of the prior appropriation doctrine is the priority of a water right...the first appropriator on a water source has the right to use all the water in the system necessary to fulfill his water right. A junior appropriator cannot use water to satisfy his water right if it will injure the senior appropriator. A senior appropriator may "place a call" on a river. A call required that the institution which manages the water source shut down a junior diverter in order to satisfy the senior right. Senior appropriators, however, cannot change any component of the water right if it will injure a junior appropriator. Therefore, if a senior wants to change his place of use and this change will adversely affect a junior’s interest, the junior can stop the senior from changing the water right. Any change of a water right (time of use, purpose of use, point of diversion, etc.) cannot cause harm to another water user, regardless of priority (United States, 1984, p. 5 -92). In My Figure 5, I have circled where the Bailey family owns vested water rights on the DEIS map. I have also marked where the Mount Hope pit and dewatering will occur. The dewatering will occur in the Diamond Valley water basin. My figure 6 lists some of the Bailey family's water rights in Diamond Valley. Diamond Valley is a closed basin that was over appropriated when farmers settled here. Consequently, The 2012 Final EIS addressed this comment in the group Diamond Valley is in a deficit of inflows vs. outflows. The state engineer committed 133,000 acre feet of water response CC-007 – Regional Hydrological Model (2012 Final EIS, before it was known that the recharge is only 30,000 acre feet (my figure 7). This has caused the water table Appendix H, page 430). in Diamond Valley to drop between one and two feet per year depending on location. Ln 2006, the U.S. Letter Code Comment Number Commenter Comment Response Geological Survey reported drops in the water table of 26 to 90 feet at 67 wells (Tumbusch & Plume, 2006) The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in (my figure 8 and 9). There is a lot of concern among the farmers and ranchers that adding a huge water the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December consumer will exacerbate our already serious problem. 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary because no new circumstances or information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). There have been times when there have been chances to help remediate the situation which have gone unused The 2012 Final EIS addressed this comment in the group but not unrecognized. The use of water for Mount Hope Mine will clearly exacerbate the problem with the response CC-082 – Mitigation to Water Resource Impacts (2012 obvious predictability of impact. BLM’s response here was that the analysis was modified, but again its Final EIS, Appendix H, page 459). not clear how so. Please clarify how the analysis was modified. Discussion and mitigation about a five foot or ten foot drawdown, does not address the rate that the actual The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in water table (static level) is currently dropping every year. lf the water table continues to drop two feet per year, the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December that will add an additional 140 foot drop during the mine's 70 year life (the water needed for mitigation is not 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary discussed in the DEIS). This is without Mount Hope Mine. With global warming issues, changes in weather because no new circumstances or information relevant to the patterns, the possibility of a drought event, a fissure, ground subsidence, or a crack from blasting (United environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its States, 2011, p. 3 -456), inflows to Diamond Valley could be even less, causing a more serious drop to the impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). actual water table. This is without considering drawdown at all. The amount of water Mount Hope Mine will use is significant. The result is predictable. Harm will come to the The 2012 Final EIS addressed this comment in the group current users. The drop in the static level will be exacerbated causing wells to go dry. This is a desert. It is even response CC-009 – Water Rights (2012 Final EIS, Appendix H, possible the underground water source we use may even be totally exhaustible. The drawdown from pumping pages 431 and 432). and dewatering will certainly add to the problem, especially considering that the mine will be using the water all year without e chance to turn the pumps off for recharge, but the water table (static level) drop hos shown The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in to be permanent. the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December Definitions: 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary Static level - The level of water in a well when no water is being pumped. It is usually expressed as the because no new circumstances or information relevant to the distance from the ground surface to the water level (Lytle & Markowski, 1989). environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its Drawdown - The drop in level of water in a well when water is being pumped. Drawdown is the difference impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). between the static level (water table) and the pumping level (Lytle & Markowski, 1989). Well recovery - The time required for the aquifer to stabilize at the static level (water table) once pumping has stopped (Lytle & Markowski, 1989). How can a five foot or ten foot drawdown be measured when the static level is dropping at the same time and The 2012 Final EIS addressed this comment in the group the wells and dewatering at the mine are continuous? The Mine will be pumping for years without stopping for response CC-082 – Mitigation to Water Resource Impacts (2012 well recovery. What about the dropping static level (actual water table) because of over appropriation? Current Final EIS, Appendix H, page 459). users may be put out of business and mine mitigation could become difficult if water is unavailable or in short supply. The static level will NEVER recover in 400 years with the current, pre mine, inflows vs. outflows. The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in This is critical because p. ES -21 of the DEIS states there will be mitigation for a water right holder if the the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December drawdown is more than ten feet (United States, 2011). Diamond Valley farms irrigate onto the surface where 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary some water percolates back into the water table. They typically turn the irrigation pumps off for six months' because no new circumstances or information relevant to the Does mitigation begin when the static level, in spring when drawdown from agricultural irrigation has recovered environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its for six months, has dropped ten feet at the Bailey farm? impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). P. 3 -401 and page 3 -388 of the DEIS both say: The 2012 Final EIS addressed this comment in the group Mine dewatering and ground water pumping subsequent recovery of the water table is expected to draw down response CC-009 – Water Rights (2012 Final EIS, Appendix H, the ground water table in an area surrounding the open pit. As discussed in section 3.2, modeling results show pages 431 and 432). Responses related to the groundwater table significant water table drawdown in the aquifer would occur in an area measuring approximately 232 square can also be found in the group response CC-007 – Regional miles around the Project Area. (United States, 2011, pg. 3 -401) (United States, 2011, pg. 3 -388). Hydrological Model (2012 Final EIS, Appendix H, page 430). What a confusing statement. Drawdown, well recovery and static level are different things. The static level (water table) will never recover at the current, pre -mine inflows vs. outflows. At current pre -mine inflows vs. The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in outflows, the static level will drop in areas of Diamond Valley 140 feet in a 70 year mine life. Pumping and the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December dewatering for Mount Hope Mine will exacerbate the already serious problem. 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary Here again BLM says the analysis was modified, but did not clarify how. because no new circumstances or information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). The pit is located in Diamond Valley. The DEIS states, “modeling (by the mine) results show a significant water The 2012 Final EIS addressed this comment in the group table drawdown in the aquifer would occur in an area measuring approximately 232 square miles around the response CC-007 – Regional Hydrological Model (2012 Final EIS, Project Area, including the northeast quadrant of Kobeh Valley and the southernmost fringe of Roberts Appendix H, page 430). Mountains (United States, 2011, p. 3 -401)”, yet page 2 -18 of the DEIS says, "80 percent of the pit dewatering water would be from Diamond Valley” (United States, 2011, pg. 2 -18). It does not make sense that Diamond The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in Valley would not be affected at all. Isn’t the significant drawdown at Roberts Mountain, because of dewatering the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December in Diamond valley? Is the mitigation water for Roberts Creek in Pine Valley supposed to come from Kobeh 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary Valley? I know Kobeh Valley and Roberts Mountain are both in the Diamond Valley Flow System. because no new circumstances or information relevant to the There has been much discussion about how the mine water use will not affect Diamond valley because it is a environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its different water basin. P' 3 -55 shows inflows to Diamond valley from Kobeh and Pine Valleys. The mine will be impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). Letter Code Comment Number Commenter Comment Response pumping water at a different time (year round) and at a much closer location. The dewatering is in Diamond Valley. How much water will be required to fill the pit at closing? 44 years of removing 2.7 billion tons of ore will leave The 2012 Final EIS provided a response to this comment (2012 a gigantic pit lake. How many gallons of water from Diamond Valley will be lost from beneficial use to become Final EIS, Appendix H, page 261). toxic pit water? I did not read in the DEIS how much water will be lost to evaporation from the pit lake. The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary because no new circumstances or information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). I did read in the DEIS on p. 3 -96 and 3 -97 that 9000 gallons per minute will be required for mitigation of The 2012 Final EIS addressed this comment in the group Roberts Mountain and Henderson Creek for the proposed pipeline. This water usage should be accounted for, response CC-062 – Mitigation of Diminished Water Flows (2012 and mitigated. I am concerned about how all of this will affect our springs and wells. Final EIS, Appendix H, page 452). BLM’s response to the volume of water in the pit lake was “The total amount of water in the pit lake has not been calculated because the value does not affect the analysis of the potential impacts” This is The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in rubbish. I am sure that the volume must have been calculated, it is very important to us since this is the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December water that will be unusable and loss from the basin. Diamond Valley is a critical managment basin, and 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary it is vital that the amount of water lost from the basin to the pit lake be known. because no new circumstances or information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). Many of the maps and studies do not include the Bailey ranch or farm in Diamond Valley. The surface water of The 2012 Final EIS provided a response to this comment (2012 our ranch as well as the Romano Ranch listed in Figure 3 as Idaho General Mines, Inc. has already dried up. Final EIS, Appendix H, page 262). This is significant. We are a significant water right holder in Diamond Valley and will be affected (Figure 5). I see the drawdown zone as it overlaps with Diamond Valley, but again as a critical management basin The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in how can there be any justification of drawing water from the Diamond Valley Basin. Eureka Moly LLC the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December is a junior water user and the drawdown will affect senior water rights, which is a violation of Nevada 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary Water Law. because no new circumstances or information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). Also, the plan to artificially recharge the natural springs and streams that Mount Hope assumes will go dry, The 2012 Final EIS addressed this comment in the group from their dewatering actions, will certainly change the flora and fauna in the area. If the efforts are not timely, response CC-011 – Monitoring and Mitigation (2012 Final EIS, destruction will occur. The water intended to be piped to the streams could be water captured from the same Appendix H, pages 432 and 433). source. If the source is pumped dry, mitigation becomes impossible. A water modeler told me that, “there are better uses for water than surface forage (personal communication, January 4, 2007).” I disagree. The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in BLM in response to my comment above stated that the analysis was modified, but doe not clearify the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December specifically how. Please elaborate. 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary because no new circumstances or information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). Why should Diamond Valley farmers work so hard trying to remediate over appropriation of water by forfeiting The 2012 Final EIS provided a response to this comment (2012 their water rights, or even taking a cut across the board? Why add a gigantic water user to the Diamond Valley Final EIS, Appendix H, page 262). Flow System causing further harm? It would be different if we were not already over appropriated. It would be different if water flowed from Diamond Valley to Kobeh Valley. As a senior water right holder, I am making this The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in “call” to do no further damage to the senior water rights. The ranches surrounding the Mount Hope Project are the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December the senior right holders. The farms in Diamond Valley are second in line. The mount Hope Mine has purchased 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary water from these senior right holders with the intention of changing their time, place and purpose of use. The because no new circumstances or information relevant to the changes in the uses of the water in Diamond Valley Flow System, including Kobeh Valley, will have adverse environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its effects to the senior water right holders. Farmers and ranchers are rightly concerned. I believe the project would impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). violate the Water Rights Policies of the Nevada Division of Water and the Water Policies of the Bureau of Land Management regarding the prior appropriation doctrine. Air Quality, Fugitive Dust, Roaster Flue Dust and Greenhouse Gases The 2012 Final EIS addressed this comment in the group How much water would it take to wet 8,318 acres of disturbed Nevada surface so that it is not dusty during response CC-120 – Dust Control Mitigation (2012 Final EIS, mine operation? The Tailings Storage Facility is three plus miles east of the Bailey Farm. What is the mitigation? Appendix H, page 471).

The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary because no new circumstances or information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). Letter Code Comment Number Commenter Comment Response When we are trailing a herd of cattle nearby or horseback riding in our yard, will the dust we breathe contain The 2012 Final EIS addressed this comment in the group toxic fugitive dust from the tailings facility? I do not understand the use of tailings drain water as a means of response CC-120 – Dust Control Mitigation (2012 Final EIS, dust control. Is it toxic? Will it dry and become airborne particulates to be deposited onto soil and vegetation Appendix H, page 471). surfaces? The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary because no new circumstances or information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). It seems to be that the best available data for air quality is from Ely and Elko. Wind direction data is from The 2012 Final EIS addressed this comment in the group Mercury. If the air quality degradation from Mount Hope’s roaster were to be measured at the Bailey Ranch or response CC-120 – Dust Control Mitigation (2012 Final EIS, farm, would the air quality there make it considered a “Minor Stationary Source”? In my Figure 1, I have added Appendix H, page 471). the location of The Bailey Ranch and Farm as well as the Romano Ranch, (owned by Idaho General Mines) to DEIS Figure 3.6.2. My Figure 1 shows the location of the Bailey Ranch and Farm. My Figure 2 shows the wind As noted by the Ninth Circuit, “BLM’s analysis of air impacts in the direction according to the DEIS Figure 3.6.3. The Bailey property is so close to, and in the direction the wind FEIS was inadequate because the agency did not provide any would take the roaster/smelter smoke, that the impacts should be studied for this location and the location support for its use of baseline values of zero for several air considered a Sensitive Receptor. None of the Sensitive Receptors used for the DEIS are downwind from the pollutants.” In accordance with the court’s remand, the Draft SEIS roaster (United States, 2011). Meaningful monitoring should be required at a place that is actually downwind explains why the use of baseline values of zero for several air from the facility. pollutants (CO, NO2, and SO2) is appropriate (Draft SEIS Section BLM’s response here is that the analysis was modified, but as I understand BLM’s air quality analysis 3.6.1.1.1, pages 15 through 21, and Appendix C). was deemed inadequate by the courts. The DSES contains no discussion of dust mitigation, and the analysis for other air pollutants uses a zero baseline value for CO, NO2, SO2,and Pb but this is not justified, since it is not based on local data. What does it mean to say that: The 2012 Final EIS provided a response to this comment (2012 “Fugitive emissions would be adverse but not irreversible (United States, 2011, pg. 3 -291).” Final EIS, Appendix H, page 263). The plan is to accept toll roasting in order to keep the roaster consistently working (United States, 2011). In 44 years, that is adverse to my parents, me, my children, my grandchildren and my great - grandchildren. The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary because no new circumstances or information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). Will the 600,000 tons of Greenhouse Gases per year (United States, 2011, p. 3 -294), and other Particle The 2012 Final EIS addressed this comment in the group Pollutions (sulfur dioxide, arsenic, lead, cadmium, mercury), come down as wet or dry acid rain and affect the response CC-105 – Modeled Air Quality Impacts (2012 Final EIS, surface forage, including the aspen groves that capture more rainfall because of their elevation? What about Appendix H, page 467). the forage we grow at the Diamond Valley farms and feed our livestock? Are we considering the range and soil outside the project area? Does Eureka County plan to monitor air quality locally, and what will Eureka County The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in do if the air quality is considered unhealthy at night or in the morning when the mixing heights are low? Toxic the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December metals from Molybdenum roaster flue dust could be carried into watersheds and soil by wind and be capable 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary of disrupting essential physiological processes causing human illness and impacting vegetation. because no new circumstances or information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). Where would the toll roasting come from? Would it be restricted to molybdenum? The 2012 Final EIS provided a response to this comment (2012 Final EIS, Appendix H, page 263).

The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary because no new circumstances or information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). How can Mount Hope tout the facility as “Designed as zero -discharge facility (United States, 2011, p. 2 - 66, The 2012 Final EIS provided a response to this comment (2012 DEIS and Eureka Moly, 2011, pg. 1)”? 600,000 tons per year is not zero. According to the DEIS there are no Final EIS, Appendix H, page 263). air quality standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (United States, 2011, p. 3 -293). This does not mean the same as zero pollutants. It means there is no limit to exposure. The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary because no new circumstances or information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). Letter Code Comment Number Commenter Comment Response The Environmental Protection Agency engaged expert scientists to assess particle pollution and published The 2012 Final EIS addressed these comments in the group research with the following findings: responses CC-105 – Modeled Air Quality Impacts (2012 Final EIS, EPA Concludes Fin Particle Pollution Poses Serious Health Threats Appendix H, page 467), and CC-107 – Air Quality Monitoring and Causes early death (both short term and long -term exposure) Mitigation (2012 Final EIS, Appendix H, page 467). Causes cardiovascular harm (e.g. heart attacks, strokes, heart disease, congestive heart failure) Likely to cause respiratory harm (e.g. worsened asthma, worsened COPD, inflammation) The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in May cause cancer the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December May cause reproductive and developmental harm (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency cited in American 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary Lung Associated, 2009) because no new circumstances or information relevant to the All three sizes of particles are toxic. Health issues are significant for my family, Diamond Valley residents, and environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its other down winders. The cumulative air impacts for the study (p. 3 -294 DEIS) do not include 600,000 tons of impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). Greenhouse Gases or any other airborne metal flue dust particulates. The Eureka Moly LLC (Mount Hope Mine) Tailings Siting Evaluation (Appendix A, DEIS) does not discuss Fugitive Dust from tailings outside the project area. What are the combustion emissions for the roaster and will it heat up Diamond Valley? There are no mitigations for these issues. The impact from Air Pollutant Concentrations are not considered significant because they do not include any The 2012 Final EIS addressed this comment in the group Sensitive Receptors downwind from the project and because there are no standards for Hazardous Air response CC-105 – Modeled Air Quality Impacts (2012 Final EIS, Pollutants. We consider impacts to the health of Diamond Valley residents, the surface forage, soil and, Appendix H, page 467). watersheds to be significant, and we are concerned. The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary because no new circumstances or information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). The DEIS states, “the Clean Air Act delegates primary responsibility for air pollution control to state The 2012 Final EIS provided a response to this comment (2012 governments, which in turn often delegate this responsibility to local or regional organizations (United States, Final EIS, Appendix H, page 264). 2011, pg. 3 -257). How will Eureka County mitigate Mount Hope Mine’s emissions? The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary because no new circumstances or information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). Soil and Vegetation The 2012 Final EIS addressed these comments in the group • Cumulative impacts to soils (p. 4 -55, DEIS) do not include impacts from flash floods or seepage responses CC-110 –Impacts to Soils (2012 Final EIS, Appendix H, underneath the Potentially Acid Generating Waste Rock Storage Facility at Mount Hope Mine. page 468), and CC-108 – Scope of Cumulative Impacts (2012 • Cumulative impacts to soils (p. 4 -55, DEIS) do not include impacts from 600,000 tons of Greenhouse Final EIS, Appendix H, page 467). Gases per year or other metal flue dust particles landing on soils outside the project area from Mount Hope Mine. The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in • Cumulative impacts to soils (p. 4 -55, DEIS) do not include fugitive dust prior to capping or leakage the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December from Tailings Storage Facilities at Mount Hope Mine landing in or on soils in Diamond Valley. 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary • Cumulative impacts to vegetation (p. 4 -57, DEIS) do not include impacts to vegetation from fugitive because no new circumstances or information relevant to the dust or water shortages in Diamond Valley from Mount Hope Mine. environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its • Cumulative impacts to soils and vegetation do not include impacts from all the mines already existing impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). in Eureka County or Nevada. Impacts to soils and vegetation could be significant and are not included for where I live or Diamond Valley. Visual Impacts, Noise, Traffic The 2012 Final EIS addressed this comment in the group Light Pollution in the Mount Hope area is minimal and primarily limited to dispersed pinpoints of light associated response CC-019 – Roads and Traffic (2012 Final EIS, Appendix with ranches. The town of Eureka, 23 miles south of the Project Area, is the largest source of light pollution in H, page 436). the immediate area (United States, 2011, pg. 3 -301). That is a quote from pg. 3 -301, DEIS. The existing landscape elements are pinpoints that are ranches (United The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in States, 2011). What a contract to the noise and visual impact of haul trucks driving by our residence. We do the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December not have air pollution at our home now. Our skies are beautiful. If we were to have smoke, it would be a stark 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary contrast. We experienced a large number of haul trucks on Highway 278 for the first time a couple of months because no new circumstances or information relevant to the ago. Barrick’s Ruby Hill Mine sent a large amount of ore down the highway for the first time. At the same time, environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its there was a highway repair job in progress requiring numerous asphalt trucks. This was the first time I impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). remember experiencing a large amount of truck traffic going by our residences. However, it was temporary. During this one -time event, it became clear that the two -lane Highway 278, is not safe for large numbers of trucks. There were five accidents in Pine Valley in a very short period of time, including a tanker spill in front of the barn at the Hay Ranch on Highway 278. This was not even in the winter when ice and snow add to accidents. There are no passing lanes from Eureka to Carlin: the entire length of Highway 278. There are Letter Code Comment Number Commenter Comment Response school bus stops throughout Diamond Valley and Pine Valley where there are no pull outs. Haul trucks speed by residences and school bus stops with a 70 mile per hour speed limit on a two lane road. Nevada Department of Transportation requested Mount Hope Mine building a new turn lane at the entrance to the mine on Highway 278. Would Mount Hope Mine pay a sufficient amount of taxes to add passing lanes and bus safety pullouts? How many deaths would be required before the infrastructure is installed? BLM’s response was that the analysis was modified, how so?

In the several weeks the haul trucks moved on Highway 278, the trash on the highway increased dramatically. The 2012 Final EIS addressed this comment in the group Who is going to be responsible for picking up the new trash on Highway 278? response CC-069 – Mitigation for Impacts to Highways (2012 Final EIS, Appendix H, page 454).

The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary because no new circumstances or information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). Mount Hope Mine made a gravel pit at the Romano Ranch and plans to use the gravel for construction. I am The 2012 Final EIS provided a response to this comment (2012 concerned about trucks hauling on the Sadler Brown Road in Diamond Valley. Final EIS, Appendix H, page 265). BLM’s response was that the analysis was modified, how so? The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary because no new circumstances or information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). How can Mount Hope tout the facility as “Designed as zero -discharge facility” (United States, 2011, p. 2 - 66, The 2012 Final EIS provided a response to this comment (2012 and Eureka Moly, 2011, pg.1) when the DEIS estimates probabilities of releases and spills resulting from Final EIS, Appendix H, page 266). probable truck accidents on page 3 -547 (United States, 2011)? The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary because no new circumstances or information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). Mount Hope is the view from my kitchen window. Just as important to me is the fact that my residence and The 2012 Final EIS provided a response to this comment (2012 many others are directly adjacent to Highway 278. P. 4 -55 of the DEIS, Cumulative Impacts to Visual Final EIS, Appendix H, page 266). Resources, does not include traffic through the “dispersed pinpoints of light that are ranches” (United States, 2011, pg. 4 -55). Highway 278 appears peaceful and safe today. This would be a significant impact from the The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in Mount Hope Mine. The change from an agricultural setting to an industrial one would be a significant concern. the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary because no new circumstances or information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). The DEIS says, “The predicted changes in hourly ambient noise levels at the nearest ranch houses are 1dB or The 2012 Final EIS addressed this comment in the group less” (United States, 2011, pg. 3 -46). I believe this is a false statement and my home is not represented. response CC-095 – Noise Impacts to Residents (2012 Final EIS, Appendix H, page 463).

The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary because no new circumstances or information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). P. 4 -65 of the DEIS Cumulative Impacts to auditory resources does not effectively represent the impacts form The 2012 Final EIS addressed this comment in the group traffic noise at my home from Mount Hope Mine traffic on Highway 278. response CC-095 – Noise Impacts to Residents (2012 Final EIS, Appendix H, page 463).

The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary because no new circumstances or information relevant to the Letter Code Comment Number Commenter Comment Response environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). “Visual, noise, or atmospheric elements that are out of character with a property alter its setting” (United States, The 2012 Final EIS responded to this comment as comment noted 2011, p. 3 -579). Right now we live near “the Loneliest Town on the Loneliest Road in America”, and We Love (2012 Final EIS, Appendix H, page 258). Lonely (reference title of original artwork by Larry Bute). The increase in traffic will generally degrade the quality of life here. The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary because no new circumstances or information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). Culture, Economics, Employment and Environmental Impacts The 2012 Final EIS responded to this comment as comment noted P. 4 -66 of the DEIS, Cumulative Impacts to Socioeconomic Resources, incorrectly represents that the increase (2012 Final EIS, Appendix H, page 258). in tax revenues to Eureka County would likely outweigh any adverse effects on social and economic values in Eureka County (United States, 2011). The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary because no new circumstances or information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). With the mines in the north end of Eureka County and the small population, Eureka County is financially stable The 2012 Final EIS responded to this comment as comment noted without Mount Hope Mine Eureka does not need jobs (United States, 2011, p. 3 -501); we will not be able to fill (2012 Final EIS, Appendix H, page 258). our own jobs (United States, 2011, p. 3 -502). Those persons in Eureka County that are unemployed are either unemployed by choice or are unemployable. They will not be any more employable for Mount Hope Mine than The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in they would be for Barrick Mines or Newmont Mines. the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary because no new circumstances or information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). The school system in southern Eureka is high achieving and the education of our children will be compromised. The 2012 Final EIS addressed this comment in the group New students entering the system typically are behind as soon as they enter because of Eureka’s current high response CC-066 – Impacts to Schools in Eureka (2012 Final EIS, achievement. The system will be inundated with new students compromising the quality of the small school Appendix H, page 453). system, and the quality of education currently enjoyed. The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary because no new circumstances or information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). Crime will increase, especially since the mine would bring 600 new employees for construction instantly, who The 2012 Final EIS provided a response to this comment (2012 have nowhere to live. Mount Hope Mine is not clear about where they would house all of those people. We are Final EIS, Appendix H, page 267). very concerned that a man camp at the Romano Ranch would definitely reduce the integrity of the setting at the Bailey Ranch. The Eureka Canyon Project is not complete and would not have enough units. The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary because no new circumstances or information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). It feels like an Environmental Injustice to possibly displace the “weaker section” of agriculture, for mining. The 2012 Final EIS responded to this comment as being outside Farmers and ranchers may not be considered “Low -Income Populations” or “Minority Populations”, but they the scope of the analysis (2012 Final EIS, Appendix H, page 259). certainly do not have the resources to vie for natural resources against multi - national mining interests. Eureka County has a tiny population that can be taken advantage of without representation. How can agriculture The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in survive in Diamond Valley, when China reportedly invested 600 million dollars in the Mount Hope project? The the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December community, people, and their affairs are being artificially “engineered” by foreign bankers. 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary The politics of Eureka County will change because the population in the community will double specifically with because no new circumstances or information relevant to the mining constituents where now 71% of Eureka’s mining employees live and vote in Elko County (United States, environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its 2011). Agriculture has a strong political position in local politics now. impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). The impact to our cultural resources would be irreversible and irretrievable. The Western Shoshone say that: Impacts to water sources impact all other resources as well as animals that utilize the water and plant foods for survival. Once the water is gone, then life is gone (United States, 2011, Pg. 3 - 581). Environmental injustice and the affects to our culture are significant to the residents of southern Eureka County. Legacy Management: Yours, Mine or the Mine’s? Comment noted. Letter Code Comment Number Commenter Comment Response Legacy is defined as: • a gift that you arrange for someone to have after you die. • something transmitted by or received from an ancestor or predecessor or from the past • something such as a tradition or problem that exists as a result of something that happened in the past The Bailey family has a rich legacy in ranching and agriculture in Eureka County. Established in 1863, and listed as the sixth oldest Pioneer Company in Nevada by the Nevada Business Journal (Foley, 2013, pg. 16), the Bailey Ranch on the Sadler Brown Road was purchased by the company in 1875 and was honored by the Governor of Nevada as one of the Historic Centennial Ranches in the state of Nevada (Price, 2011). We also own farming operations in Diamond Valley. We feel like we are temporary stewards of this legacy, keeping the knowledge, culture and property for future generations of our family to enjoy and pass on. If we destroy the productivity of the land or have no one who knows how to nurture life from the land, there will be no future for humanity (Ikerd, 2005, pg. 2). The quiet desperation of today's farmers is in no small part a realization that they may be incapable of passing on the essential legacy of agriculture, not just for future generations of farmers and ranchers, but also, for future generations of Americans and of humanity (lkerd, 2005, pg. 3). How can agriculture meet the food and fiber needs of a growing population ¡f we destroy the natural productivity and regenerative capacity of the land? Economists generally assume that we will find substitutes for anything we use up and will fix any ecological or social problems we create; but these are simple beliefs with no logical or scientific support in fact... Economists simply don't consider the social, psychological, or ethical consequences of the things people do to make money"' Economics credits no value to the legacy of agriculture in terms of either land or people (Ikerd, 2005, pg.4). ln farming and ranching, there are cultures of the land and people that must be nurtured and passed on from one generation to the next. The regenerative capacity of land and people is essential to the sustainability of human food production, and thus human life on earth (lkerd, 2005, pg. S). The agricultural practices performed by the Bailey family include knowledge from ancestors who have nurtured the arid soils and watersheds of Nevada to produce high protein food products sustainably the in driest state in America for nearly a century and a half. They have learned and passed down the amazing knowledge about water, plants, animals, fires, how to survive the depression, surviving 100 year storm events and droughts, family values and western cowboy culture. The Baileys have experienced many changes in Diamond Valley, Pine Valley and Eureka, but some changes could be irreversible, irretrievable and totally destructive. Mining may be essential to the economy of the United States, but historical mining practices and the absence of routine mine -land reclamation, remediation, and restoration have led to legacy sites with significant environmental and human hearth impacts. Typical remedial solutions are often lengthy, expensive, and unacceptable… communities continue to embrace economic prosperity along with dynamic environment(s). Although traditional mining practices and regulations have changed, new mining operations continue to have severe waste ¡issues that must be addressed during and after the actual mining operation (ITRC, 2008, pg. iii). "Mining impacted water, occurring from mine drainage, can last for tens to hundreds of years. Undoubtedly, the potential liability for states on any of these properties is a major issue (ITRC, 2008, pg. iv). Perhaps the local, statewide, national, and global planners have a legacy plan for Nevada that includes the elimination of agriculture and ranching, the exhaustion of the mineral resources, the contamination of limited water resources, the use of Nevada as a receptacle for depositing mining and nuclear wastes and underground military bases. I am concerned that they believe the legacy of agricultural culture in Eureka County and Diamond Valley is expendable. My father -in -law asked me to say one thing in my comments (too bad I couldn’t keep my comments this short). He said, “It is very simple. A glass of milk could be a luxury to those miner’s grandchildren.” It is possible that in the future, people may invent ways to handle Acid Mine Drainage, Greenhouse Gases and Particle Pollution. Mineral deposits are like money in the bank, they would be there later if proper techniques were invented to protect human health and resources. Who Inspects, Monitors or Punishes? Is there any actual Mitigation? Comment noted. Compliance with Toxic Release Inventory This process feels like a divide and conquer scenario. There seem to be numerous agencies all of which only Reporting relative to State water quality compliance is beyond the accept responsibility for some part of the Mount Hope Mine Project. As the next door neighbor to the project, I scope of this SEIS. feel baffled. It seems like some aspects of the project just have no actual standards for human health, for example: air quality or toxic waste storage facilities. When I contacted the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection asking about releases, the answer was that: Current regulations do not allow for a mine to discharge contaminants that may degrade waters of the state for both surface and groundwater. The Bureau of Mining Regulation and Reclamation has the authority to issue water pollution control permits to mining operations that are able to provide the required scientific and engineering information to show that no discharge will occur to the environment (personal communication, December 30, 2011). Every year, mines are required to file Toxics Release Inventory reports. In an article titled EPA: Nevada's toxic releases up 161 percent, it states, “Toxic releases in Nevada were up in 2010 to 477 million pounds, a 161 Letter Code Comment Number Commenter Comment Response percent increase over the nearly 183 million released in 2009... Newmont's Phoenix site south of Battle Mountain released a little more than 208 million pounds” (Harding, 2012, pg. A1). How do these mines remain in compliance with the Division of Environmental Protection? That is not the same as "no discharge." What are the cumulative effects and were those mines shut down and the releases mitigated? When I tried to contact the Nevada Bureau of Health Protection Services about Mount Hope Mine's Radioactive The 2012 Final EIS provided a response to this comment (2012 Material License (p. 1 -11 DEIS), the Bureau didn't seem to exist (how much radioactive material is going to be Final EIS, Appendix H, page 267). used at the mine, what is the half -life and where will it end up?). BLM’s response here seems to be indicating how radioactivity will be determined, but what I was asking The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in is if there is an estimate of the radioactive contact and kind are the kinds of radioactive materials. Is the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December this uranium? 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary because no new circumstances or information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). I think the theme of the DEIS is 'The impact is not considered significant." Nearly every single study ended with The 2012 Final EIS responded to this comment as comment noted that phrase. I honestly appreciate the effort put into the study and application process, but it feels like there will (2012 Final EIS, Appendix H, page 258). be "zero releases” “Designed as zero -discharge facility” (United States, 2011, p, 2 - 66, and Eureka Moly, 2011, pg. 1) and “The impact is not considered significant” really means that there are no releases nor are The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in there any significant impacts to anything or anyone that is not considered expendable. the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary because no new circumstances or information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). Environmental justice is about social transformation directed towards meeting basic human needs and Comment noted. The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has enhancing our quality of life, economic quality, health care, housing, human rights, environmental protection, not changed in the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit and democracy. In linking environmental and social justice issues the environmental justice approach seeks to December 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is challenge the abuse of power which results in poor people having to suffer the effects of environmental damage necessary because no new circumstances or information relevant caused by the greed of others (McDonald, 2002). to the environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed I believe this project does not use environmentally sound techniques, does not pass sustainability criteria, uses Action or its impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 unfair subsidies to distort prices and that the importer will not bear the environmental and social costs. Those (c)(ii). costs would be irretrievable and irreparable and be borne by the local community. Is it feasible or realistic for farmers and ranchers in Diamond Valley and in America to be able to trust our system to sustain the laws and regulations and sustain their future? I believe this project does not use environmentally sound techniques, does not pass sustainability criteria, uses unfair subsidies to distort prices and that the importer will not bear the environmental and social costs. Those costs would be irretrievable and irreparable and be borne by the local community. Is it feasible or realistic for farmers and ranchers in Diamond Valley and in America to be able to trust our system to sustain the laws and regulations and sustain their future? Thank you for your consideration, Carolyn Bailey P.O. Box 29 Eureka, Nevada 89316 B B-1 Katie Fite, Here are initial comments of WildLands Defense on the 2019 Mount Hope Mine Draft Supplemental EIS, BLM The 2012 Final EIS analyzed impacts to the following: loss of Wildlands letter of March 6, 2019. WLD carries forward all comments and concerns previously submitted by Public Lands migratory bird and raptor habitat in Section 3.23.3.3.2, pages 3- Defense Director Katie Fite for another environmental organization. These comments are part of the public record. We 665 through 3-667); greater sage-grouse (2012 Final EIS, Section see no reason to re-invent the wheel. BLM should re-scope this project in its entirety. 3.23.3.3.2, pages 3-664 and 3-665, and Attachment 3 of Appendix Comprehensive new data and systematic sensitive species, aquifer studies and other baseline information D – Mount Hope Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Measures); must be collected. BLM cannot rely on old, outdated information. Since these earlier comments were submitted, and loss of vegetation communities (2012 Final EIS, Section the serious threat and stresses posed by climate change have gained prominence and must be fully considered 3.9.3.3.1, pages 3-387 through 3-391). in this 2019 effort, Climate change and hotter, drier, conditions and more extreme weather events increase stress on arid lands, watersheds and rare species. They also elevate weed risk. Grazing makes matters worse. The Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office Beschta et al. 2012. prepared this SEIS as a response to the United States Court of There is simply not sufficient water available for this giant mine. It will destroy irreplaceable wildlife habitats, Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remand decision for further action on historical and cultural sites. issues identified in its December 28, 2016, decision. This SEIS Since this project was Scoped long ago and the past analysis took place there has been large-scale expansion includes the following: 1) an explanation of the usage of baseline of gold mining ion the region, destroying and fragmenting many species habitats. There is serious concern for values of zero for several air pollutants; 2) a quantitative the viability of populations of many sensitive species. cumulative air quality impacts analysis; and 3) a clarification of the There has also been large-scale loss and purposeful destruction of tens if not hundreds of thousands of acres status of certain springs and water holes under Executive Order of Pinyon Jay and other sensitive and important species habitat in central Nevada as the result of rapacious PWR 107. PJ “treatments” wiping out and fragmenting habitats. Further, lawless public lands ranchers in the Argenta allotment refused to adjust livestock during a severe The data provided in the comments do not address the impacts drought and those lands and sage-grouse and other sensitive species habitats have become further degraded. analyzed in the Draft SEIS. Letter Code Comment Number Commenter Comment Response Are there any current Rangeland Health assessments for the Mount Hope affected allotments and surroundings? Or for the remainder of the Field Office (other than the flawed Argenta/BM Complex assessments based on The National Riparian Team rigging monitoring sites by fencing them inside exclosures and other shenanigans???). Please also fully incorporate WLD’s comments and Appeal of the Eureka Gold Bar mine. This giant mine will have very significant long-term and irreparable adverse direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to sagebrush and pinyon-juniper wild land habitats that are critical for a host of native wildlife species. It will also deplete scarce aquifers and reduce or kill altogether the surface expression of springs and streams in this very water limited landscape. This will impact every component of the landscape - sage-grouse breeding, brood rearing, nesting and wintering habitats; habitats critical to pygmy rabbit populations; a Lahontan cutthroat trout stream and other intermittent and perennial flows; important untrammeled and highly scenic WSA lands; food, cover and space for wild horses; important cultural sites – and many other important elements of the environment. All the roads, transmission lines, increased human use and disturbance, as well as the impacts from the mine excavation and activity site, will radically alter this landscape and the habitat and viability of the biota that depend upon it. We are very concerned that many of the issues raised in Scoping comments for Three Bar EIS are not adequately examined in the Mount Hope DEIS. We have included these Three Bar comments, and the many concerns about elements of the environment and values of public lands that in Mount Hope, too, must grapple with. These concerns are especially pertinent to understanding all of the direct, indirect and cumulative adverse impacts associated with livestock grazing activities and management. Sage-grouse habitats and populations, pygmy rabbits, watersheds, springs, seeps, streams, upland vegetation communities – all are under great stress from the adverse impacts to soils, waters, watersheds, microbiotic crusts, native vegetation communities that are caused by the combined effects of historical and ongoing chronic grazing disturbances and other activities. See Connelly et al. (2004), Knick and Connelly (2009). Cultural sites are being altered and destroyed due to excessive erosion livestock trampling, etc. – and these processes expose artifacts to human vandalism, as well. Now the mine will impose a tremendous and intrusive human presence in the Eureka area. Wild landscape and tranquil areas are being destroyed by roads, night lights, transmission lines, noise. Wild space free from human disturbance is shrinking. These Great Basin lands are under great stress from BLM vegetation treatments” that kill or alter native vegetation, further desertify the landscape, and provide inroads for weeds like cheatgrass to flourish. These weeds promote frequent fires, and a highly altered unnatural fire cycle. This all plays out in an arid landscape facing additional stresses from climate change processes. The New Hope mine will amplify all of these adverse effects. A full accurate environmental baseline of the current setting, and the threats the Great Basin ecosystem faces, are just not provided in the Mount Hope EIS. It does not accurately or adequately portray the severity of degradation that exists, the extensive desertification caused by livestock grazing, or the risk that continued grazing and other disturbances pose to the native vegetation, native biota, and watersheds of this landscape. The DEIS’s cumulative impacts analysis and land area encompassed is not adequate forunder standing the full impacts to sage-grouse habitats and populations, as well as for many other rare, declining, and imperiled species. What, for example, is the current population of sage-grouse – including number of birds? How much connectivity exists between habitats and populations? How does this compare to conditions for all periods for which records were kept? How have active, historic, undetermined leks, lek locations bird numbers, etc. changed over time? What degree of interaction occurs between various PMUs here? Is this part of any Key habitat? Core habitat? Will the full footprint (noise, weeds, visual, water flow declines at springs many miles away, etc.) be considered for mitigation – or merely the acres bulldozed? It is not adequate for understanding groundwater depletion/aquifer drawdown. It is not adequate for understanding all of the other mining, oil and gas, geothermal, transmission and other activities that the affected sage-grouse habitats and populations, big game habitats and populations, and affected aquifers and watersheds face - both now, or that are foreseeable in the near future. A SEIS should be prepared to fully provide an accurate baseline and risk assessment, and to develop suitable alternatives and mitigation. Unless the full impact of the mine development and activity is clearly understood, it will be impossible to determine: 1) Is mitigation even possible? For example, can these watersheds and aquifers really withstand even more stress and depletion without killing flows at springs? 2) How much, and what kind, of mitigation must be applied to maintain healthy, viable populations of sage-grouse, pinyon jay, ferruginous hawk, and other rare species over time? In addressing mitigation for sage-grouse, for example, BLM must fully require analysis of the full range of threats (see Connelly et al. 2004, Knick and Connelly Studies in AvianBiology - the Sage -Grouse Monograph 2009, USFWS March 2010 Warranted But Precluded Finding for Greater Sage-grouse). What toll are the current battery of fences, roads, livestock water developments and pipelines, chronic livestock degradation of understories – taking on habitats now facing a mining and energy boom (Falcon-Gonder transmission and other lines, geothermal and just to the SE in Railroad Valley an oil and gas boom that may increase)? Letter Code Comment Number Commenter Comment Response How can this project be compatible with all the conservation promises BLM leadership has been making about sensitive species, including sage-grouse that warrant ESA Listing??? Especially with all the impacts of the mining, geothermal and other booms that are right now occurring in this livestock-degraded landscape? C C-1 John Hadder, Since 2012 GBRW has documented four of the PWR’s to validate their status, and as best as possible The BLM acknowledges the comments provided by Great Basin Director, Great confirm spring flow. In the summers of 2017 and 2018 GBRW identified and validated the following springs: Resource Watch (GBRW) regarding springs 597 (Garden Spring), Basin Resource (Table 1) 612 (McBride’s Spring), 619 (Mt. Hope Spring), and 742 (Lone Watch Mountain Spring). The BLM also acknowledges that GBRW McBrides Spring concurs with the Draft SEIS for springs 597, 619, and 742. Regarding Spring 612, the Draft SEIS noted that a buried pipe GBRW/WSDP/PLAN disagrees strongly with BLM’s analysis of the McBride Spring. The DSEIS states that, collected water and conveyed it to a cattle trough approximately “During the most recent visit to the site, all infrastructure and evidence of a spring was gone, and it is one mile south of the surface expression area for that spring. The assumed to have been destroyed.” (DSEIS p. 9) Based on Photo 3 in Appendix A in the DSEIS it is clear that Draft SEIS also noted that all infrastructure and evidence of a BLM did not locate the source of this spring. Our reconnaissance illustrates a much different looking site that spring was gone during the most recent visit to the site at the is upstream from the location shown in the DSEIS, which is the source of McBrides Spring. The conveyance McBride’s Spring location identified in the Draft SEIS (Draft SEIS, piping from the source to the water trough location shown in the DSEIS has not been maintained, and is Section 3.2.2.7, page 9). The BLM subsequently visited the blocked. This is why there was no flow at the trough location. However, the damaged trough location is not location of McBride’s Spring in April 2019 and sourced the location the source of the actual Spring. We found a ~ 4-inch diameter standing pipe with a clear water level and of the trough. The spring source was also located with a new seepage mostly north of the pipe supporting abundant plant life (Figure 1 below), and a spring box about 30 spring box present. Upon examination, the spring box extends feet downstream from the standing pipe (Figure 2). There was clear evidence of cattle hooves (Figure 3), so several feet below ground surface, so it can capture water well the spring serves livestock and most likely wildlife in the area. There was also discernable water flow (Figure beneath the surface expression of the spring. The text has been 4). revised in the Final SEIS to address these differences.

GBRW also estimated the flow in the spring. Our estimate is most likely lower than the actual flow, since the Based on all the evidence associated with this source, this is a flow and wetting zone was quite wide and would have required significant excavation to capture the entire naturally occurring spring and not an artificially developed source. flow (Figure 5). At a narrow portion of the flow zone we formed a simple weir in the soft earth of the flow bed, However, when the spring was visited in 2016 as part of the and captured flow from that point. As can be seen from Figure 5 the flow bed was wider than our capture Diamond Valley Adjudication, the field crew was not able to locate area, so our estimate is less than the actual flow. The actual flow could be as much as twice our estimate. A the valve box or the water trough. The crew did find the area timed capture of the water from this simple weir was performed using a plastic bottle, and then the volume of where the spring was located, however, it appeared to have either water was measured with a 100 ml standard laboratory graduated cylinder (Figures 6-7). Using this method been excavated or scoured out by a flood. There was no active GBRW estimated the flow at that point to be 56 ml/sec (0.88 gpm) which is equal to 1,267 gallons per day flow at the spring and, looking down the standpipe that was in the with an experimental deviation of +/- 190 gallons. ground, the water level was below land surface. The crew could not determine the existence of a valid PWR. The claim was found The spring flow value reported in Table 3.2-1 in the DSEIS for McBride Spring is 660 gallons per day, but invalid by the State Engineer in the Preliminary Order of there is no footnote on the origin of this value. In the Final EIS for Mt. Hope,3data is cited from a survey by Determination and the BLM withdrew the claim during the SRK, which dates to 2006, and states that the flow was 1.8 gpm. This is about 2,600 gallons per day. Our administrative adjudication proceeding due to insufficient data to method of measuring was only able to capture a portion of the flow, so this figure is not inconsistent with the support a valid PWR. GBRW flow estimation. BLM needs to find the location of the Spring source itself, where GBRW sampled, and confirm that McBrides Spring does indeed still exist with considerable flow and thus qualifies under PWR 107.

Garden Spring

Garden Spring had upper and lower portions that were ponded with no water flowing over the lip of either pond, so flow measurements were not possible. This location is the same as pictured in the DSEIS. The upper pond (Figure 8) had a semicircular shape with a diameter of about 12 feet, so the area was roughly 110 square feet with an average depth in the center of about6 inches (Figures 9 and 10). There was footprint evidence of use of this spring by livestock and wildlife. The lower pond (Figure 11) appeared to be another expression of the same spring below these micircular pond which also showed evidence of use by livestock and wildlife.

Mt Hope Spring

GBRW found the same spring expression as is pictured DSEIS. A pipe was running into the hillside and emptying into a trough (Figure 12). We were able to get good flow estimates by timing the capture from the pipe into a 100 ml graduated cylinder (Figure 13). Using this method we determined the flow to be 28.6 ± 1.3 gallons per day, which is consistent with the flow reported in the DSEIS of 27 gallons per day. With the trough to allow for spring capture overnight this spring is viable for livestock and wildlife.

Lone Mountain Spring

GBRW reconnaissance is consistent with the DSEIS in the location of this spring, which is a roughly circular ponded spring with no straightforward way to measure flow (Figure 14). A tour arrival at the spring there were about two dozen cattle using the spring with only a couple remaining as we approached the spring (Figure Letter Code Comment Number Commenter Comment Response 15), and it is estimated by local ranchers that this spring could support on the order of a couple hundred cattle. The perimeter was estimated to be about 390 feet with an estimated area of 12,000 ft. However, much of the pond had vegetative growth. Around the perimeter of the spring the water depth ranged from 3 to 5 inches. Near to the center of the pond there was a deeper zone with clear water, which appeared to be source. The source area averaged about 9 inches in depth. C-2 Public Water Reserve #107 (PWR 107) The BLM acknowledges the comments provided by Great Basin Resource Watch (GBRW) regarding springs 597 (Garden Spring), In response to the Ninth Circuit’s decision, BLM reviewed the status of its water rights reserved under PWR 612 (McBride’s Spring), 619 (Mt. Hope Spring), and 742 (Lone 107. “[T]the proper analysis of the PWR 107 claim turns in large part on whether four springs in the area of Mountain Spring). The BLM also acknowledges that GBRW concurs the Project are ‘covered’ by PWR 107—that is, whether those four springs are located on lands that were with the Draft EIS for springs 597, 619, and 742. Regarding Spring withdrawn by PWR 107.” 844 F.3d at 1111. The DSEIS determined that: “Through this re-evaluation of the six 612, the Draft EIS noted that a buried pipe collected water and springs within this contour subject to prior PWR notifications as described in Section 3.2.2.7 above, four of conveyed it to a cattle trough approximately one mile south of the the springs (Garden Spring [Spring 597], Unnamed Spring [Spring 604], Mount Hope Spring [Spring 619], surface expression area for that spring. The Draft EIS also noted and Lone Mountain Spring [Spring 742]) meet PWR eligibility criteria. The two remaining springs (McBrides that all infrastructure and evidence of a spring was gone during the Spring [Spring 612] and Unnamed Spring [Spring 646]) have been determined by the BLM not to meet PWR most recent visit to the site at the McBride’s Spring location eligibility criteria and their associated notifications would be withdrawn from the Nevada State Engineer.” identified in the Draft EIS (Draft SEIS, Section 3.2.2.7, page 9). The DSEIS at 10. BLM subsequently visited the location of McBride’s Spring in April 2019 and sourced the location of the trough. The spring source was GBRW/WSDP/PLAN agree that the four springs (#s 597, 604, 619, and 742) are PWR107 springs, and also located with a new spring box present. Upon examination, the subject to the original land withdrawal and reservation of water rights. The attached photos and descriptions spring box extends several feet below ground surface, so it can provide evidence in addition to the DSEIS that supports the application of PWR 107’s land withdrawal and capture water well beneath the surface expression of the spring. water rights to these springs. The text has been revised in the Final SEIS to address these differences. Regarding the two springs not found by the DSEIS to qualify for PWR 107 status, GBRW/WSDP/PLAN disagree with this conclusion and offer the attached photos and observations for McBrides Spring (612) as Based on all the evidence associated with this source, this is a discussed above. As for Cali Spring (646) GBRW/WSDP/PLAN seriously question whether the basis in naturally occurring spring and not an artificially developed source. disqualifying this spring suffers from the same error as the BLM’s conclusion of McBrides Spring in not However, when the spring was visited in 2016 as part of the properly estimating the availability of water. BLM needs to explicitly show that the location discussed in the Diamond Valley Adjudication, the field crew was not able to locate DSEIS is indeed the source and only source. Thus, at a minimum, McBrides Spring qualifies under PWR 107 the valve box or the water trough. The crew did find the area and further research is needed to determine the status of the Cali Spring. where the spring was located, however, it appeared to have either been excavated or scoured out by a flood. There was no active flow at the spring and, looking down the standpipe that was in the ground, the water level was below land surface. The crew could not determine the existence of a valid PWR. The claim was found invalid by the State Engineer in the Preliminary Order of Determination and the BLM withdrew the claim during the administrative adjudication proceeding due to insufficient data to support a valid PWR.

Spring 646 is located south of the Mount Hope Mine office building and core shed, approximately one mile due south of monitoring well IGM-169 at an elevation of approximately 6,819 feet amsl. This spring was never filed on for a PWR claim by BLM in the Diamond Valley Adjudication, and the claim filing deadline has passed, and therefore this spring is not a valid PWR. Text in the Final SEIS has been revised to reflect this comment (Final SEIS pages 8 and 10). Spring 646 has also been removed from Table 3.2-1 (changed to Table 3.2-2 in the Final SEIS).

With regards to Spring R06941, a PWR claim on this spring was filed on December 9, 1994, by the BLM with the State Engineer. When the site was visited by BLM in 2016 as part of the Diamond Valley Adjudication, the area had already been disturbed by mining activities and the spring source could not be located. In the Preliminary Order of Determination, the claim for R06941 was determined by the State Engineer as not valid. Based on the above information, BLM withdrew the claim during the administrative adjudication proceeding, thus this spring is no longer a valid PWR. This spring source is also associated with V10888. Text in the Final SEIS has been revised to reflect this comment (Final SEIS page 10 and Table 3.2-2). Letter Code Comment Number Commenter Comment Response With regards to Call Spring (V10903; 9441), this spring was never filed on for a PWR claim by BLM in the Diamond Valley Adjudication, and the claim filing deadline has passed, and therefore this spring is not a valid PWR. Text in the Final SEIS has been revised to reflect this comment (Final SEIS page 10 and Table 3.2-2). C-3 For any spring qualifying under PWR 107, the lands around each spring has been withdrawn from entry Text for the Final SEIS has been revised to reflect reevaluation of under the 1926 Executive Order. the PWR 107 status of the springs (Final SEIS pages 8, 9, and 10, and Table 3.2-2). [I]t is hereby ordered that every smallest legal subdivision of public land surveys which is vacant, unappropriated, unreserved public land and contains a spring or water hole, and all land within one quarter of While it is BLM's position that the analysis for PWR 107s satisfies a mile of every spring or water hole located on unsurveyed public land, be, and the same is hereby, NEPA and that the metalliferous exception is applicable, the BLM withdrawn from settlement, location, sale, or entry, and reserved for public use in accordance with the has also initiated a process to determine whether to revoke any provisions of Section 10 of the Act of December 29, 1916. withdrawal and reservation created by an Executive Order which established Public Water Reserve No. 107. If it is determined that Executive Order of Apr. 17, 1926 (Addendum), quoted in Great Basin Mine Watch v. Hankins, 456 F.3d 955, the land is no longer needed for the purpose for which it was 966 (9th Cir. 2006). The reserved water rights and associated land withdrawals were promulgated under the withdrawn, the resulting Public Land Order could potentially authority of Section 10 of the Stock-Raising Homestead Act of 1916, 39 Stat. 865 (“SRHA”), which provided revoke any withdrawal and reservation insofar as it affects Garden that withdrawn “lands containing water holes or other bodies of water needed or used by the public for Spring (Spring 597) Unnamed Spring (Spring 604), Mount Hope watering purposes … shall, while so reserved, be kept and held open to the public use for such purposes….” Spring (Spring 619), and Lone Mountain Spring (Spring 742), As stated by the Interior Department shortly thereafter: “The above order was designed to preserve for which would include a termination of the associated reserved general public use and benefit unreserved public lands containing water holes or other bodies of water water rights as well as of the associated withdrawal of the public needed or used by the public for watering purposes.” Selections, Filings, or Entries of Lands Containing land. Springs or Water Holes, Circular No. 1066, 51 I.D. 457, 1926 I.D. LEXIS 45, **1-2. See also Desert Survivors, 80 IBLA 111, 115 (1984), 1984 WL 51633, **4 (BLM required to consider and protect PWR 107 waters). “[I]t is well established that the SHRA and PWR 107 provide a valid basis upon which the federal government can support claims to reserved water rights.” Claimant U.S. v. Objectors Barthelmess Ranch Corp., 386 P.3d 952, 961 (Mont. 2016) (citations omitted).

In addition to creating federal reserved water rights, PWR 107 also withdrew from entry all lands within a certain area surrounding the reserved springs – precluding development on these lands that would interfere with the “public uses” protected by PWR 107. Regarding the lands withdrawn by PWR 107, if the lands had been surveyed by 1926, PWR 107 reserved the “smallest legal subdivision,” or 40 acres, around the spring. If the lands were unsurveyed, PWR 107 withdrew all lands “within one quarter of a mile of every spring or waterhole” or a circle encompassing roughly 300 acres. In this case, it is not known whether the lands containing the PWR springs were surveyed by 1926, the date PWR 107 established the reserved water rights and withdrew these lands. In any event, BLM illegally approved the waste dumps and other project facilities/activities within the 40 acres, or within ¼ mile, of the PWR 107 springs.

There is no dispute that all of EML’s mining claims post-date the establishment of the PWR reserved water rights and associated withdrawn lands in 1926. “Mining claims located on lands not open to appropriation are null and void ab initio.” Mount Royal Joint Venture v. Kempthorne, 477 F.3d 745, 756 (D.C. Cir. 2007), citing Shiny Rock Mining Corp. v. United States, 825 F.2d 216, 219 (9th Cir. 1987) (same).

As justification for approving the location of the waste dumps at and adjacent to the springs, BLM/EML rely on the Pickett Act to argue that the “mining of metalliferous minerals” eliminates the land withdrawal and reserved water right provisions of PWR 107. Pickett Act of June 25, 1910, c. 421, 36 Stat. 847, as amended by the Act of August 24, 1912, c. 369, 37 Stat. 497. The DSEIS states:

For three of the additional springs (597, 604, and 619) that do continue to meet PWR 107 criteria, and are within the Project boundary, the lands associated with these springs are subject to the exception under the Pickett Act which lifts the withdrawal associated with PWR 107 for mining of metalliferous minerals such as Mo. Such lands are not withdrawn from location of claims for Mo or from the occupation of such lands for Mo mining in compliance with the mining law. To the extent federal reserved water rights could potentially be impacted, those impacts would result from activity exempted from the scope of the withdrawal under the Pickett Act and were analyzed and addressed through monitoring and mitigation measures. Spring 742 also remains a PWR 107 site but is located outside the Project boundary. The impacts associated with spring 742 do not change from the impact discussion in the 2012 Final EIS as they have been considered and addressed through monitoring and mitigation.

DSEIS at 10. Letter Code Comment Number Commenter Comment Response As detailed in GBRW/WSDP arguments and documents submitted to the district court and Ninth Circuit (adopted and incorporated by reference herein), because the lands containing the PWR 107 springs have not been shown to contain the requisite discovery of valuable mineral deposits (nor has BLM even inquired into this factor), the Pickett Act proviso for the “mining of metalliferous minerals” cannot be used to override the PWR 107 withdrawal of lands around the PWR 107 springs nor the creation of federal reserved water rights in these springs. C-4 The PWR 107 Reserved Rights are predicted to be either completely dewatered or suffer substantial losses. The 2012 Final EIS (2012 Final EIS Section 3.2.3.1.2, page 3-65 “[W]ater rights occurring within the ten-foot drawdown area may experience negative impacts including a and Section 3.2.3.2.4, page 3-73) describes why the ten-foot reduction in available water or complete water loss as a result of ground water drawdown associated with the drawdown contour was used as the reference point for Proposed Action.” FEIS 3-424 to -425. The likely impacts will be even greater, as the groundwater depletion determining potential impacts and why a smaller drawdown will be far worse than 10 feet. “The predicted maximum drawdown in the bedrock of the open pit area is number was not used. approximately 2,250 feet.” FEIS 3-74. See also Figures 3.2.18 and .20. The Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office prepared this SEIS as a response to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remand decision for further action on issues identified in its December 28, 2016, decision. This SEIS includes the following: 1) an explanation of the usage of baseline values of zero for several air pollutants; 2) a quantitative cumulative air quality impacts analysis; and 3) a clarification of the status of certain springs and water holes under Executive Order PWR 107.

The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in the Draft SEIS in response to the Ninth Circuit December 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary because no new circumstances or information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). C-5 In addition to the loss of the reserved waters from the groundwater pumping, some of these springs will be Text for the Final SEIS has been revised to reflect reevaluation of completely and physically eliminated due their burial under Project facilities. BLM proposes to approve the the PWR 107 status of the springs (Final SEIS pages 8, 9, and 10, construction or location of mine facilities within one quarter mile of Springs 597, 604, 619, and 646, or at a and Table 3.2-2). minimum within the 40 acres surrounding each spring withdrawn by PWR107, whichever is applicable. 2012 FEIS Figure 2.1.5. Construction or location of mine facilities such as the massive waste rock dumps will be In the 2012 Final EIS, the BLM identified three major impacts to located/constructed either right on top of, and/or immediately adjacent to, these springs. “[S]prings (619, 639, surface water quantity (2012 Final EIS, Section 3.2.3.1.1, page 3- 646) would also be directly affected by construction of Project components.” FEIS 3-79. 62). The mitigation proposed in the Final EIS (2012 Final EIS, Section 3.2.3.3.1, Table 3.2-9, pages 3-93 through 3-106) were Notably, BLM’s duty to protect the reserved waters is not eliminated by the Pickett Act’s provision that designed to address those identified impacts. . withdrawn lands are open for the actual mining of “metalliferous minerals.” Nothing in that provision, even if it applied in this case (which it does not as shown herein and in GBRW/WSDP’s previous submittals), The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in eliminates the federal reserved water rights, or BLM’s duty to protect them from injury. As the Interior the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December Department has held, “if this is a public water reserve of the class contemplated by Executive Order of April 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary 17, 1926, a mineral entryman cannot legally divert or make inaccessible the water.” Memorandum, Interior because no new circumstances or information relevant to the Dept. Regional Counsel to Manager, Land & Survey Office, Subject: “Conflict—Mining Claim and public water environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its reserve,” September 24, 1953 (District Court Docket # 5-13). See also 2 AMERICAN LAW OF MINING § impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). 14.06[11][a]; Study of Withdrawals and Reservations of Public Domain Lands, which was submitted as part of the Report of the Public Land Law Review Commission established by Congress in 1964 and which formed a significant basis for the eventual passage of FLPMA in 1976.

BLM’s purported “mitigation” for the elimination or significant loss of the springs is largely a plan to monitor the predicted drop in the water table and only then develop a plan to pipe water to some of the impacted springs. FEIS 3-88 to -106. Thus, any mitigation plan will not even be considered, let alone implemented, until noticeable drops in the water table (and associated loss of spring waters) have already occurred. For many of the affected springs, this “mitigation” consists of pumping additional water and installing a series of pipes and infrastructure to purportedly replenish some of the lost water. Table 3.2.9 (listing mitigation measures), FEIS 3-93 to -106; Figure 3.2.21 (map of pipes and springs).

Despite this purported “mitigation” of some of the water losses to some of the affected waters, other springs will be permanently lost (including PWR 107 springs), as noted above, due to the location of the Project’s waste dumps and other facilities. For example, Springs 619, 639, and 646 (and likely 612), will no longer exist and the only “mitigation” for their complete loss is a plan to “install a guzzler designed for large game.” Table 3.2.9 (McBride’s Spring), 348 (Mount Hope Spring). It also appears that other springs will be unusable due to Letter Code Comment Number Commenter Comment Response the location of Project facilities (Springs 597 and 604). Compare Figure 3.2.21 (spring location), with Figure 2.1.5 (facilities map).

For the springs to be covered and destroyed by Project facilities, no mention is made of keeping these lands open for stockwatering or public use, as required by the SRHA and PWR 107. The “mitigation” plan to “install a guzzler for large game” fails to protect livestock use, which is acknowledged to be a current use of these springs. See FEIS Table 3.2.9. Although the FEIS claims that all of these mitigation measures will be “effective,” or “highly effective,” no supporting scientific analysis is provided. Id. C-6 As noted above, in addition to creating federal reserved water rights, PWR 107 withdrew all lands within a certain area surrounding the reserved springs – precluding development on these lands that would interfere Text for the Final SEIS has been revised to reflect reevaluation of with the “public uses” protected by PWR 107. BLM erroneously believes that the Pickett Act’s provision the PWR 107 status of the springs (Final SEIS pages 8, 9, and 10, opening the withdrawn lands for the mining of “metalliferous minerals” overrides the withdrawal and and Table 3.2-2). protection of these lands. DSEIS at 10. Yet this ignores the rule that, under federal mining laws, only if one makes a “discovery of a valuable mineral deposit” on each claim does one hold any rights against the United In the 2012 Final EIS, the BLM identified three major impacts to States to mine the metalliferous minerals within the withdrawn lands. Only “valuable mineral deposits” are surface water quantity (2012 Final EIS, Section 3.2.3.1.1, page 3- considered the type of metalliferous minerals that can be claimed under the mining laws. 62). The mitigation proposed in the Final EIS (2012 Final EIS, Section 3.2.3.3.1, Table 3.2-9, pages 3-93 through 3-106) were Thus, the mere filing (or “location”) of a mining claim does not give the presumption of a discovery and does designed to address those identified impacts. not open the lands to the mining of metalliferous minerals under the Pickett Act. Here, there is no evidence in the record that EML has discovered valuable deposits of metalliferous minerals on the claims within the The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in withdrawn lands. Indeed, based on the fact that the only claims to be mined are located within the confines of the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December the mine pit located a mile or more away, it is unreasonable to assume that the claims within the withdrawn 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary lands (especially those to be used only for waste dumps and other infrastructure) contain the requisite because no new circumstances or information relevant to the discovery of valuable mineral deposits. environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). Without evidence that the mining claims covering the withdrawn lands contain the discovery of valuable deposits of metalliferous minerals, as required by controlling precedent, the mere fact that EML has filed While it is BLM's position that the analysis for PWR 107s satisfies mining claims on these lands does not mean that these lands and waters are exempt from the PWR 107 NEPA and that the metalliferous exception is applicable, the BLM withdrawals and protections. Indeed, BLM admits to the lack of “suitable mining reserves underneath the has also initiated a process to determine whether to revoke any waste rock disposal facilities.” FEIS ES-7. At a minimum, BLM should determine whether these lands contain withdrawal and reservation created by an Executive Order which mere “common variety” minerals, which would not under any interpretation of the Pickett Act and federal established Public Water Reserve No. 107. If it is determined that mining law qualify as “metalliferous minerals.” BLM’s assumption that these lands are exempt from the PWR the land is no longer needed for the purpose for which it was 107 withdrawal, based on EML’s location of claims on them (far from the mine pit that may arguably contain withdrawn, the resulting Public Land Order could potentially metalliferous minerals), is legally incorrect, without the required consideration of the relevant factors, contrary revoke any withdrawal and reservation insofar as it affects Garden to the record, and thus arbitrary and capricious. Spring (Spring 597) Unnamed Spring (Spring 604), Mount Hope Spring (Spring 619), and Lone Mountain Spring (Spring 742), BLM failed to comply with these requirements, as these withdrawn lands will be either buried by the Project’s which would include a termination of the associated reserved massive waste dumps or other facilities, and will be completely fenced-off to public use. Thus, instead of water rights as well as of the associated withdrawal of the public being kept and held open for public use, they will be forever covered by mine waste and other facilities, or for land. those that may survive this fate, fenced-off from public use for 70+ years. In short, BLM failed to protect these lands and waters as required by PWR 107, the SRHA, and FLPMA. Letter Code Comment Number Commenter Comment Response C-7 DSEIS and FEIS Unreasonably Only Considers the Ten-foot Drawdown The 2012 Final EIS (2012 Final EIS Section 3.2.3.1.2, page 3-65 and Section 3.2.3.2.4, page 3-73) describes why the ten-foot The effects of drawdown on surface water resources are commonly shown as a risk to resources within a drawdown contour was used as the reference point for certain drawdown. In the FEIS and used in the SDEIS that is the ten-foot drawdown. Once the water table is determining potential impacts and why a smaller drawdown drawn beneath a surface water resource dependent on the water table, it does not affect the surface resource number was not used. any more to draw the water table down further. Therefore, it is reasonable to consider that a small drawdown can affect surface resources. A spring or seep that depends on the water table will go dry if the water table The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in drops below that intersection of the water table with the surface. Therefore, it is unreasonable for the the Draft SEIS in response to the Ninth Circuit December 2016 FEIS/DSEIS to only consider the ten-foot drawdown for its consideration of effects (DSEIS Figure 3.2.2); a remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary because spring is just as dry for a one-foot drawdown as for a ten-foot drawdown. Additionally, the discharge from a no new circumstances or information relevant to the environmental spring would be reduced if the gradient controlling the discharge reduces without regard to there being any concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts have actual drawdown at the spring. The one-mile buffer zone around the 10-foot drawdown is meaningless been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). without knowing what drawdown occurs in that area.

BLM has claimed that “[c]hanges in groundwater levels of less than 10 feet often are difficult to distinguish from natural seasonal and annual fluctuations in groundwater levels” While there are natural fluctuations, drawdown caused by dewatering is simply imposed on top of the natural water table and its fluctuations. In areas with significant natural fluctuation, drawdown may simply increase the time that the stream or spring is dry, which is just as important as causing a perennial source to go dry.

Many other EISs for mining projects have used a much lower drawdown for the consideration of impacts. The following is a small sample of those documents drawn from different states: Copper Flat Copper Mine: Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Sierra County, New Mexico, BLM/NM/ES- 16-02-1793 – 2015. The DEIS considers drawdown to 1 foot. https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-frontoffice/ eplanning/planAndProjectSite.do?methodName=dispatchToPatternPage¤tPa geId=112704 Donlin Gold Project, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Alaska, 2015. This EIS considers drawdown to 0.1 feet due to the nearby wetlands that could be dried. https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa- II/public/action/eis/details?eisId=247774 Haile Gold Mine Project, Final Environmental Impact Statement, 2014, SAC 1992-24122- 41A The FEIS considers drawdown to 1 foot. https://docplayer.net/54614426- Volume-i-final-eis-final-environmental-impact-statementfor- the-haile-gold-mine-project-sac-ia-july-2014.html

The SDEIS/FEIS therefore errs in not considering drawdown less than ten feet. Consideration of drawdown to one-foot would account for some variability in the estimate intended to be accommodated by the one-mile buffer zone. The SDEIS/FEIS clearly underestimates the potential effects of drawdown on surface water resources. BLM needs to reevaluate the effects on drawdown based on the more realistic impact parameter of a one foot drawdown. C-8 Air Quality The BLM prepared this SEIS as a response to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit December 28, 2016, remand The DSEIS fails to fully comply with the Ninth Circuit’s decision. DSEIS at 15-23. First, the continued use of decision for further action on issues. As noted by the Ninth Circuit, zero for background concentrations is not supported by the required detailed analysis. As one example, in “BLM’s analysis of air impacts in the FEIS was inadequate making this assumption, the DSEIS states “[t]he Project Area is located in a rural area with no development because the agency did not provide any support for its use of or major roads (which are potential sources of CO, NO2 and SO2 emissions). SDEIS at 16. But this is baseline values of zero for several air pollutants.” In accordance misleading, as the same paragraph admits that “[t]he nearest major road to the Project Area is Nevada SR with the court’s remand, the Draft SEIS explains why the use of 278” which is located only five miles from the site. Id. As shown in the FEIS, the Cumulative Effects Study baseline values of zero for several air pollutants (CO, NO2, and Area for Air Quality (AQ CESA) includes lands crossed by SR 278 as well as U.S. Highway 50 and other SO2) is appropriate (Draft SEIS, Section 3.6.1.1.1 and roads. FEIS Figure 4.3.5. BLM cannot avoid calculating the emissions from all activities occurring, or that will Appendix C). occur, within the Air Quality CESA. The Draft SEIS includes an evaluation of 34 air monitoring stations in Nevada and determined that, although four of those stations (Apex, Searchlight, Jean, and Incline Village) were considered to be located in rural settings, none of the stations were representative of rural settings similar to the Project. Specifically, the Apex site was influenced by urban activities, traffic and power plant emissions. The remaining three Nevada sites are exposed to heavy traffic and/or urban emissions and are not representative of the Project site.

The Draft SEIS next looked at nine monitoring sites located in rural areas and within 100 miles of the Nevada border. Based on this review, two of the sites (Yosemite National Park – Turtle Dome [Yosemite] and White Mountain Research Center – Owens Valley Laboratory [White Mountain]) were found to be in rural settings in terms of nearby population centers and traffic. The CO and NO2 Letter Code Comment Number Commenter Comment Response data from the Yosemite site and the 3-hour and 1-hour concentrations from the White Mountain site were reported in the Draft SEIS. After considering all of the data, BLM determined that the use of a zero baseline concentration is justified. Furthermore, when the background values from the Yosemite and White Mountain stations are added to the modeled impacts for the Project, the resulting concentrations are still well below National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

In the Draft SEIS, the BLM adequately explained why it used zero for background concentrations of several air pollutants and therefore has complied with the Ninth Circuit’s earlier opinion (Draft SEIS, Section 3.6.1.1.1). C-9 In addition to failing to adequately calculate direct and indirect air emissions within the AQ CESA, the DSEIS As stated in the Draft SEIS, Section 4.1.1, page 22, the discussion fails to adequately calculate cumulative air emissions within the AQ CESA, particularly the air emissions from of air quality cumulative impacts has been revised to respond to the all reasonably foreseeable future actions (RFFAs) such as oil and gas operations, notice-level mineral remand from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which directed operations, gravel mines, and other activities within the AQ CESA. The DEIS does not include any analysis of BLM to more fully explain and/or adequately represent the air emissions from all of the RFFAs, except possibly from “the RFFA of the Prospect Mountain Mine Project.” quantitative cumulative impacts of emission sources within the DSEIS at 22.4 Cumulative Effects Study Area (CESA), such as the Ruby Hill Mine, and to further explain the cumulative impacts in correlation to BLM is under the mistaken belief that the only inadequacy found by the Ninth Circuit on cumulative air the zero baseline values. emissions was the failure to include the air emissions from the mining projects noted in the DSEIS. The Court found that the FEIS’s “discussion of cumulative air impacts is insufficient.” 844 F.3d at 1105. The Court then In response to the remand from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, quoted from FEIS section 4.4.4 to support its NEPA inadequacy ruling. Id. Yet the new DSEIS merely relies the BLM confirmed that there are no oil and gas developments in upon that same section 4.4.4 to calculate the cumulative air emissions. “Reasonably foreseeable future the CESA, and vehicular emissions are generally considered actions (RFFAs) are described in Section 4.4.4 of the Final EIS.” DSEIS at 22. included in background concentrations and are not specifically included in air models for NEPA analysis. The Court specifically determined that BLM was required to conduct a complete analysis of the air emissions from all RFFAs in the AQ CESA – not just from the Ruby Hill and Prospect Mountain mines: The following text will be added to the Final SEIS to address this [T]he BLM in this case did not provide sufficiently detailed information in its cumulative air impacts analysis. comment: “The State has determined that the background values The BLM made no attempt to quantify the cumulative air impacts of the Project together with the Ruby Hill for NO2, SO2, and CO in this part of Nevada are zero due to the Mine and vehicle emissions. Nor did the BLM attempt to quantify or discuss in any detail the effects of other very dispersed nature of emission sources." activities, such as oil and gas development, that are identified elsewhere in the FEIS as potentially affecting air resources. The BLM confirmed, through the lack of any Applications for Permit … to Drill since 2012, that there were no oil and gas developments The cumulative air impacts portion of the FEIS fails to “enumerate the environmental effects of [other] within the Air Quality CESA. The lack of Applications for Permit to projects” or “consider the interaction of multiple activities.” Or. Nat. Res. Council Fund v. Brong, 492 F.3d Drill leads the agency to conclude that it is unlikely that oil and gas 1120, 1133 (9th Cir. 2007). Accordingly, we hold that the cumulative impacts portion of the FEIS does not development will occur within the Air Quality CESA in the future. comply with NEPA. Although the 2012 Final EIS stated there was a moderate to high potential for oil and gas development, the BLM has now revised its 844 F.3d at 1105-06. opinion to conclude that there is a low probability and thus the BLM did not include such in the revised air quality modeling for the Final The DSEIS, and apparently also the new 2017 Air Sciences report (which the public has never seen), does SEIS. not analyze all of the cumulative air emissions from “other activities, such as oil and gas development, that are identified elsewhere in the FEIS as potentially affecting air resources.” Id. This is despite the FEIS’s conclusions that such development is likely. The FEIS acknowledges that: “the overall potential for oil and gas exploration and development within the CESAs would be moderate to high because it is on a trend between the Pine Valley and Railroad Valley production wells. In addition, oil and gas interest has been increasing in the area. In the assessment area for EA NV063-EA06-092, an average of one exploration well was drilled per year between the years of 1980 and 2004 versus a total of 13 exploration wells drilled in the 33 years prior.” FEIS at 4-47.

The FEIS determined that, based on a nearby/overlapping oil and gas leasing EA issued in 2006 (NV063- EA06-092), there would be substantial oil and gas activities within just the first ten years. FEIS 4-47/48. That EA only covered the “eastern portion of the Shoshone-Eureka Planning Area with lands in the southern Letter Code Comment Number Commenter Comment Response CESA portions of Eureka and Nye Counties,” FEIS 4- 47, but did not analyze oil and gas leasing in Elko County, which covers a large portion of the Mt. Hope AQ CESA. See FEIS Figure 4.3.5. The FEIS estimated that, during the initial ten-year period (no estimates were given for later years of the Mt. Hope Project, which should have been done), and just on the leases covered in the 2006 EA: “Surface disturbance from oil and gas exploration could total a maximum of 572.5 acres.” FEIS 4-47. “Surface disturbance from oil and gas production over the ten-year planning period could total a maximum of 54.5 acres.” FEIS 4- 47/48.

Despite predicting that there will be both oil and gas exploration and development on BLM-issued leases in the area, and estimating the amount of ground disturbance from these activities, BLM failed to analyze the cumulative air emissions from exploration/development on these leases – as required by the Ninth Circuit’s order. Based on FEIS Figure 4.3.5, there are well over 100 “Authorized Oil and Gas Leases” within the Mt. Hope AQ CESA. Yet neither the FEIS (found legally inadequate under NEPA by the Ninth Circuit) or the new DSEIS (which relies on Section 4.4.4 of the same FEIS) contain any analysis of potential cumulative air pollutant emissions from exploration and/or development on these leases, or from any other potential sources.

Instead, BLM merely concluded that “[i]n response to the remand from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the BLM confirmed that there are no oil and gas developments in the CESA, and vehicular emissions are generally considered included in background concentrations and are not specifically included in air models for NEPA analysis.” DSEIS at 22.5 This ignores the Ninth Circuit’s order that BLM analyze the future potential air emissions from oil and gas activity within the AQ CESA – not just the present situation. Under NEPA, cumulative impacts necessarily include air emissions from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 40 CFR §1508.7.

Federal courts require BLM to analyze potential future air emissions that may result from oil and gas leasing, including both the indirect and cumulative emissions. See, e.g., San Juan Citizens Alliance v. BLM, 326 F.Supp.3d 1227 (D.N.M. 2018); Wild Earth Guardians v. Zinke, 2019 WL 1273181 (D.D.C. 2019). Further, recent BLM NEPA analysis for oil and gas leases include an estimate of potential air pollutant emissions from future exploration/development of these leases. See attached BLM EAs for leasing in Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, and New Mexico. Thus, for Mt. Hope, BLM must, at a minimum, analyze/estimate the potential air emissions from exploration/development of each of the leases in the Mt. Hope AQ CESA, alone and cumulatively, and include such calculations in a NEPA-complaint revised Draft SEIS for public review. Also, as noted by BLM in these other EAs, BLM is also capable of analyzing/estimating the indirect and cumulative impacts to water quantity/dewatering, water quality, and other resources resulting from activities on the leases (as well as actually measuring background levels of air pollutants in the area). The fact that BLM’s review of the Mt. Hope Project does not authorize oil and gas leasing does not mean that BLM can ignore the indirect and cumulative impacts that may result from activities on these current BLM leases, which BLM is fully capable of doing. C-10 Regarding other deficiencies in BLM’s air quality analysis, it appears that the DSEIS and supporting 2017 Air The public does not have access to the trail south of the Non-PAG Sciences document incorrectly calculates the compliance point for Clean Air Act, FLPMA, and NEPA at the waste rock dump. Section 2.20.3.3.2 (page 3-592) states that the Project boundary, not at the nearest public access point to the actual emissions, which is the public use of the proposed action would eliminate access to that portion of the Pony Express Trail running just south of the Non-PAG waste rock dump. FEIS Figure 2.1.5. BLM modeled historic trail within the project exclusion fence. The fenceline is the compliance at the Project fenceline, Figure 3.6.4, which is what BLM considered the limit of “public access.” nearest point of public access as defined by the Clean Air Act. The FEIS 3-292. But under the Clean Air Act, compliance should be measured at the nearest point of public Final EIS included Mitigation Measure 3.20.3.3-2 (2012 Final EIS, access. See 40 C.F.R. § 50.1(e) (EPA regulations defining “ambient air” as “that portion of the atmosphere, Section 3.20.3.3.2, page 3-593) stating that EML would provide external to buildings, to which the general public has access.”). Because “the general public has access” at access through the Project Area during the annual Pony Express these points along the Trail, the determination of whether the Project complies with all air quality standards, re-ride, which generally occurs in June. The mitigation measure as required by the Clean Air Act, FLPMA, and the 43 CFR Part 3809 regulations, must be based on these would also allow for independent re-riders to follow the trail through points, not far away at the boundary. This is also true under BLM’s duty pursuant to NEPA to analyze the the Project Area at other times of the year, subject to 30-day potential impacts of air pollution on members of the public at the nearest point of public access. The fact that advance notice and certain safety restrictions, and subject to the public may not have access throughout the year does not eliminate these requirements. EML’s approval, and to provide for an alternative route for trail riders during other times of the year, weather permitting. Since these activities would be temporary with a very short duration, the model was based on the Project fenceline, which was a more permanent stationary source.

The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in the Draft SEIS in response to the Ninth Circuit December 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary because no new circumstances or information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). Letter Code Comment Number Commenter Comment Response C-11 Water Mitigation In the 2012 Final EIS, the BLM identified three major impacts to surface water quantity (2012 Final EIS, Section 3.2.3.1.1, page 3- In addition to BLM’s failure to protect the withdrawn lands and water rights under PWR 107, the DSEIS fails 62). The mitigation proposed in the Final EIS (2012 Final EIS, to fully analyze the mitigation, and its effectiveness, of the purported plan to replace the waters lost at the Section 3.2.3.3.1, Table 3.2-9, pages 3-93 through 3-106) were various springs that will be adversely affected by the Project’s pumping and dewatering. The Ninth Circuit designed to address those identified impacts. noted that “the analysis of ground water pumping in the FEIS does not take into account the roughly 200 gallons per minute needed to replace depleted spring and stream water.” 844 F.3d at 1110 (emphasis in The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in original). The Court did not rule on whether the FEIS’s failure to include full analysis of mitigation for the lost the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December waters violated NEPA, though, “because the BLM’s NEPA analysis is deficient in other respects.” Id. at 1111. 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary because no new circumstances or information relevant to the The fact that the amount of replacement waters may be small, as compared to the Project’s pumping rates, environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its however, does not excuse this failure, especially when the replacement waters would be needed in impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). perpetuity, as compared to the pumping which will only last during the active mining period. BLM still has not fully analyzed the source of, or impacts from, using 100 million gallons per year of replacement water. Simply saying that it would come from EML’s existing water rights (even if those rights were secured, which BLM has not shown) without an analysis of the actual source and impacts, does not satisfy BLM’s duty to take the required “hard look” at these issues/impacts.

BLM needs to fully analyze the effectiveness of each mitigation for all the springs and streams. In the case of springs, piping water to the spring location does not address the need to protect the riparian area that has formed as a result of the spring. As water reaches the surface a mini wetland is created with all of the wildlife associated with that moist zone. Supplying water by way of piping is not adequate to simulate the surface expression of a spring. In addition, given the long time frame that the spring will be naturally dry, the effect to the riparian area is likely to be permanent. BLM needs to evaluate the long-term effect of permanent losses of riparian areas for all the springs expected to be affected by dewatering including all of the PWRs. Also, as noted above, because the lands around the PWR 107 springs were withdrawn from entry and use (except for public watering uses), mitigation/project infrastructure is not allowed within the withdrawn areas. C-12 Waste Rock Management Plan The Final EIS discussed waste rock management in Section 2.1.3.2 (pages 2-35 through 2-37. GBRW/WSDP/PLAN expects the Mt Hope mine as proposed to become a long-term management site requiring perpetual treatment of toxic drainage. In addition to our comments on the Final EIS, we have The Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office completed additional analysis that only solidifies our concerns on the need for perpetual care, which is not prepared this SEIS as a response to the United States Court of accounted for in the mining plan and closure plan. Appeals for the Ninth Circuit remand decision for further action on issues identified in its December 28, 2016, decision. This SEIS 1. The Potentially Acid Generating Waste Rock Facility will be a long-term source of acidic leachate to includes the following: 1) an explanation of the usage of baseline bedrock groundwater and the storm water collection ponds. values of zero for several air pollutants; 2) a quantitative cumulative air quality impacts analysis; and 3) a clarification of the The data available, despite being sparse, do indicate a significant potential for acid generation, but with very status of certain springs and water holes under Executive Order little neutralizing capacity. For example, Figure 3.3.5 (FEIS, Figure 16 below), Net Acid Generation Versus PWR 107. Net Acid Generation pH, shows that 29% of the samples to be net acid generating and another 16% in the questionable category, so the conservative approach would be to assume that 45% or almost half could be The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in acid forming to various extents. the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary Thus, GBRW/WSDP/PLAN foresees significant acid drainage from, and a potentially larger footprint for, the because no new circumstances or information relevant to the PAG WRDF. A larger footprint could be very problematic, since the existing footprint is dangerously close to environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its two springs, SP-4 and SP-3. (As noted above, however, the waste dumps and other project facilities cannot impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). be located within the PWR 107 withdrawn areas). Cleary, EML is also anticipating some acid drainage by installing a drainage system at the bottom of the PAG WRDF to collect substandard water. What is not in the management plan is a discussion of the possibility of long-term treatment (possibly in perpetuity) of acidic drainage. This scenario needs to be addressed in the revised DSEIS and before BLM can authorize any activities. EML needs to amend the management plan to evaluate long-term treatment of acid mine drainage including a credible estimation of the timeframe for treatment and potential increased treatment costs (current bonding model does not include this possibility to our knowledge).

By its design, the PAG WRDF will contain ~0.45 billion tons of net-acid generating rock7 where the “PAG” classification is based on material containing >0.3 % sulfur and the demonstrated production of acidic leachate in empirical oxidative weathering tests (i.e., the rock produced a leachate with pH < 4.5, and leached > 10 kg H2SO4 / ton rock).8 In addition, this formation of acidic conditions is associated with increased concentrations of dissolved heavy metals, including cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc.9 The problem is that the design for the PAG WRDF will not prevent atmospheric oxygen from diffusing into the facility, and will not prevent water from percolating through the cover and the underlying PAG waste. As a result, the PAG WRDF will discharge acidic metal-laden leachate to groundwater and/or surface seeps for Letter Code Comment Number Commenter Comment Response centuries to millennia as it weathers into the future. Under FLPMA and the Part 3809 regulations, BLM cannot allow such conditions, or any of the adverse water quality impacts noted herein, to develop.

Regarding oxidation and associated acid production, the proposed PAG WRDF includes a 24-inch thick “store-and-release cover constructed of salvaged growth media” placed on the top and sides slopes.10 This type of soil cover remains unsaturated by design, and such soil covers with aerated pore spaces will not reduce the diffusion and/or advection of oxygen into the underlying waste rock enough to appreciably stop oxidation and the associated release of sulfate, acidity, and metals.

Regarding water infiltration, the current proposed cover (a working version that may be modified before closure) is designed to remove most water by evapotranspiration, but will not prevent some water flow through the PAG waste rock. The design “is based on infiltration modeling using the HYDROUS-1D computer code,” where in selecting “the saturated and unsaturated parameter values, the model used hydraulic testing data from the Golden Butte Mine,” (based on it’s similar grain size distribution to that of onsite soils). Parameters from an analog site were used because “at this stage of the planning process, site specific hydrogeologic parameters are not required and are typically reserved for detailed cover modeling for inclusion in a final closure design.”

In order to estimate a high but reasonable value for “net infiltration” (i.e., the flux of water the flows out the base of the evapotranspiration layer, which is thus the flux that passes through the PAG waste rock), the base-case simulation that assumed that the wettest year on record was repeated for three consecutive years. The 24-inch cover was proposed because model results indicated that “the majority of the infiltration reduction is achieved with a 24-inch thick alluvial cover.) Results of this 3-year simulation indicated that netinfiltration through the 24-inch cover would be 2.6x103 cm/day, or ~2.5% of mean annual precipitation (an average flow rate of 12 gallons per minute from the entire 610 acre PAG WRDF design footprint.

The waste rock management plan refers to this water-balance simulation of the waste-rock cover as “conservative,” by which it means that because it is has assumed sequential wetter than average years, it has probably overestimated the actual future long-term infiltration through the proposed cover. The overriding point, however, is that long-term water flux through any vegetated store-and-release cover can not be estimated reliably using historic climatic patterns because the future climate expected in the upcoming decades and centuries is poorly constrained. Thus, the PAG WRDF is not designed to stop water or oxygen from reaching waste, and closure planning needs to assume that the facility will discharge acidic leachate.

As important, the proposed cover, even if it is successful at reducing average net infiltration to 2.5% of precipitation, may have little effect on reducing the load of pollutants to surface seeps or groundwater. This is because in acidic pore waters, many of the chemical effects that cap solute concentrations, such as mineral solubility and metal adsorption to mineral surfaces, are reduced or eliminated. That is, acid and metals are solubilized by the rate of oxidation, not the water flow, so that absent a cap on the dissolved concentrations, as water flow decreases, pollutant concentrations just increase proportionally and the load remains the same. The limited effectiveness of reducing water flow in PAG waste was identified over 20 years ago in field studies of net acid-generating waste, where researches noted that the neutralization capacity will eventually be exhausted, after which “the load exiting the base of the dump... will be independent of the rate water infiltrates.”

The waste rock management plan acknowledges the possibility of perpetual capture and management of acidic leachate from the PAG WRDF, with removal by evaporation, i.e.: “If seepage occurs in the long term, the flow rate would be at levels that are low enough for the solution to be removed by evaporation. In the unlikely case that seepage occurs, the stormwater pond could be converted into an evaporation and/or evapotranspiration cell to manage long term flow from the PAG WRDF. The cell would be designed and constructed to limit the access and exposure of wildlife to potential seepage.”

This above acknowledgement of “the unlikely case that seepage occurs” needs to be changed so that closure planning and associated bonding for the PAG WRDF explicitly assume the need to provide perpetual care of acidic seepage. The Mt. Hope project proposes to create a 450-million-ton pile of waste rock that will undoubtedly contain acidic pore water. The waste rock management plan has used sensible modeling to approximate the unsaturated flow through the proposed store-and-release cover under current conditions. However, given the uncertainties in future temperatures, surface-vegetation type, soil-cover integrity and continuity, and the frequency, intensity, and annual amount of precipitation, the PAG WRDF is virtually certain to produce intermittent or continuous discharge of acidic metal-bearing to the underlying groundwater and surface capture system. Mt. Hope Mine planning needs to incorporate an explicit acknowledgement of this condition of long-term future management, and provide a reliable funding based on quantitative estimates for what is essentially perpetual care. Further, perpetual care essentially admits to a perpetually problematic Letter Code Comment Number Commenter Comment Response and un-reclaimed pollution source, which does not comply with BLM’s duty to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation under FLPMA.

2. The basal layers in the proposed PAG WRDF design will not prevent acidic leached from percolating down through the bottom of the facility and into the underlying bedrock water table below.

Two design features are included to reduce unsaturated flow out of the base of the WRDF: • “A 12-inch thick engineered subgrade (1x10-5 cm/sec) and a five-foot thick NAG base layer for the foundation of the facility”; and • “Six-inch diameter corrugated perforated polyethylene (CPeP) piping with geomembrane under the pipe to promote drainage from the base of the facility to a collection channel at the toe of the facility.”

Regarding the perforated polyethylene drain pipes, these appear to be designed to capture water from rock placed under much wetter conditions. While this design should work to capture saturated or near-saturated water that flows down from the area directly above the drain pipes or underlying geomembrane layer, unsaturated flow that is outside of the drain liners will pass on into the 12-inch compacted low-permeability drain layer.

Regarding the “12-inch compacted low-permeability base layer,” the design hydraulic conductivity of this layer, 1x10-5 cm/s, is too high to impede the expected flow of acidic leachate from the PAG WRDF. Specifically, results of the example simulation of net infiltration through the PAG WRDF cover over a 3-year period that assumes repeated wet years indicated a water flux of 2.6x10-3 cm/d (which equals 3.8x10-8 cm/s, or 0.37 inches/yr). Thus, the hydraulic conductivity of the low-permeability base layer (1x10-5 cm/s) is ~330 times higher than would be required to transmit the expected flux of water through the PAG WRDF (3.8x10-8 cm/s). That is, there is no reason to expect that the compacted low-permeability base layer under the proposed PAG WRDF would alter at all the downward flow of acidic water as it percolates through the waste.

3. The PAG Waste Rock Management Plan needs to acknowledge that the onset of acidic seepage may be delayed for years to decades, but that it is then expected to be a long-term condition.

The Mt. Hope Mine Waste Rock Management Plan states that the calculated rate of water discharge from the PAG WRDF “assumes that any water that infiltrates through the cover would report as drainage to the toe of the waste rock facility. In reality, a significant volume of water would be retained as moisture within the waste rock.”

This indicates short-term thinking to a long-term condition. Indeed, waste rock facilities in semi-arid climates typically do not immediately produce discharge from toe-seeps or out the base of the facility. This is because the hydraulic conductivity of waste rock decreases with decreasing moisture content. Under semi-arid conditions, waste rock facilities generally show a wetting front, with wetter conditions near the surface recharge-zone, and dryer conditions below the wetting front. But eventually, the wetting front reaches the base of the waste rock, and beyond this time, the water discharged from the base of the facility approximately equals the netinfiltration into the facility from above. (An intuitive way to think of unsaturated water flow in waste rock is that the rock “wets up” until the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity is equal to the net infiltration rate. Thus, in a waste rock pile that receives 1 inch per year net infiltration, it will reach a steady state condition, and measuring the average moisture content in the rock would indicate the amount of saturation required to produce a hydraulic conductivity of 1 inch per year.) This is another example of where the Mt. Hope waste rock management plans implies, incorrectly, that the PAG WRDF will probably not be a perpetual source of acidic leachate. In fact, the proposed PAG waste rock would transmit some water through the vegetated cover, would be subaerial and thus produce acidic pore water as it reacts with atmospheric oxygen, and is effectively unlimed, so that it will be a long-term source of acidic leachate to surface seeps and underlying groundwater. A plan to perpetually capture and evaporate the seepage could work, but this needs to describe in detail the financial and institutional mechanisms that will be required to maintain this perpetual water management system.

The risk to the nearby community and environment from acid mine drainage is greatly underestimated at Mt. Hope. The Rain Mine site just a bit north and west of Mt Hope has been producing acidic drainage for over 20 years. At the Rain Mine precipitation levels are comparable to the Mt. Hope area and the problematic waste rock dump at Rain is much smaller than the PAG WRDF proposed for Mt. Hope. Thus, the PAG WRDF is likely to capture much more water, and will likely be a larger footprint that proposed (see arguments above). In terms of reclamation, the two-foot cover is probably not sufficient to prevent infiltration and acid drainage, and at volumes much greater than at the Rain site. GBRW/WSD/PLAN strongly recommend a thicker cover to decrease infiltration further.

Letter Code Comment Number Commenter Comment Response We also note that there is discussion in the waste rock management plan18 to encapsulate PAG material with neutralizing material or develop layers of neutralizing rock between PAG rock. This would seem a reasonable best practice. The management plan needs to be amended to discuss this as a mitigation measure and how this kind of procedure would be achieved. Again, GBRW/WSDP/PLAN is concerned if there is a false confidence – overly optimistic perspective on how the site will evolve. Once the waste rock facility is built the region is stuck with it, and adaptive management will be limited as to how to handle unexpected consequences. It is better to implement best practices when there is a luxury of options than after the fact. C-13 Pit Lake Water Quality The Final EIS discussed pit lake water quality in Section 3.3.3.2.1 (pages 3-210 through 3-217). The predicted water quality for the pit lake is very problematic. Under FLPMA and the Part 3809 regulations, BLM cannot authorize any operations that may result in an exceedance of any water quality protection The Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office requirement, and under NEPA, must ensure that all technical and scientific data/analysis is of the highest authorized the Mount Hope Project Record of Decision, Plan of quality and verified as accurate. Since the Final EIS, GBRW has also taken a closer look at the determination Operations Approval, and Approval of Issuance of Right-of-Way of pit lake water quality. We still do not view the underlying model used as being correct. This same model Grants on November 16, 2012. The November 16, 2012, incorrectly predicted pit lake water quality for the Lone Tree Mine, and even updates to the Lone Tree Pit authorization remains in full force and effect. The BLM prepared Lake model unsuccessfully predicted pit lake chemistry as the pit has been filing. Nevada is host to another this SEIS as a response to the United States Court of Appeals for molybdenum mine near Tonapah called the Liberty Mine site, where the pit lake is of very poor quality. Table the Ninth Circuit remand decision for further action on issues 2 below shows the analytical results in the first quarter of 2017 for the Moly Pit Lake, and Table 3 shows the identified in its December 28, 2016, decision. This SEIS includes water quality in the surrounding aquifer. Thus, the water from the aquifer becomes very degraded as it flows the following: 1) an explanation of the usage of baseline values of into the Moly Pit Lake. Compared to the groundwater quality all of the following constituents are elevated and zero for several air pollutants; 2) a quantitative cumulative air some very elevated: aluminum, beryllium, boron, cadmium, calcium, chloride, chromium, copper, fluoride, quality impacts analysis; and 3) a clarification of the status of magnesium, molybdenum, manganese, nickel, potassium, sodium, sulfate, total dissolved solids, and zinc.19 certain springs and water holes under Executive Order PWR 107. In addition the pH is low at 4.93 despite the use of additives to the pit lake to raise the pH,20 There are other examples such as Golden Sunlight in Montana, Climax mine in Colorado, and the Questa mine in New The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in Mexico that all have already demonstrated poor water quality (see Table 4). GBRW acknowledges the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December differences in geology and the physical environment of the different mines; however, the predicted water 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary quality for the Mt Hope pit like is much better than what is seen at existing molybdenum mines and because no new circumstances or information relevant to the predictions for others under development. BLM needs use information from other molybdenum mines and environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its conduct a comparative analysis to better understand how the Mt Hope site will evolve in time and reduce impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). uncertainty.

In addition to our concern regarding the underlying conceptual model of the pit lake evolution is the lack of sufficient data to extrapolate water quality in time. The FEIS stated that little sampling data was available from expected pit wall material. In justification the FEIS stated, “There were little sampling data from some of the pit wall areas because of the relatively cylindrical nature of the orebody (p. 3-315). This statement leaves GBRW/WSDP/PLAN to question how well PAG rock areas on the final pit surface are estimated as shown in Figure 3.3.10 of the FEIS, and to what extent these areas are expected to be acid generating. The Waste Rock and Pit Wall report clarifies the situation by stating, “… because this PAG shape is based on data from historic assay pulps from the Exxon drill holes, approximately 30% of the pit material is undefined with respect to acid generating potential. For these undefined areas, the PAG shape had to be extrapolated to the edge of the final proposed pit.” The results are presented in Table 9.1 indicating that about 14.5% of the final pit wall is PAG rock. It appears as though the 30% “undefined” material pertains largely from material associated with the pit wall, since the historic samples were primarily to determine the nature of the resource. Therefore, GBRW/WSDP/PLAN suspect that characterization of material associated with final pit wall amount to very few actual samples as indicated in the FEIS. The FEIS goes on to state, “Where there was a lack of data, a nearest neighbor approach was used to conservatively assign the ABA characteristics of the pit wall. The choice of extrapolating to the pit wall from the core of the ore deposit is believed to be conservative, as the geologic work on the orebody indicates that mineralization becomes more diffuse at the fringes of the deposit, making a lower potential for acid generating material in these areas.” As far as the extrapolation using the nearest neighbor approach from the ore body sample data as being conservative, GBRW/WSDP/PLAN do not agree. There is nothing more conservative than the real data. Even if the pit lake model is conceptually correct, there does not appear to be enough actual data to predict with any confidence the water quality in the pit lake.

Even given the overly optimistic analysis of the pit lake there are still expected exceedences in Nevada water quality standards, in cadmium, manganese, fluoride, and antimony with cadmium at 10 times the Nevada reference standard. Based on data presented in section 3.3.2.2.2 Ground Water Quality of the FEIS groundwater entering the pit lake will be degraded, certainly for cadmium and possibly other constituents as well. Thus, “good quality” groundwater will become poor quality surface water, which amounts to undue and unnecessary degradation of the water prohibited by FLPMA.

Letter Code Comment Number Commenter Comment Response The calculation models used to estimate water-quality degradation from mine waste are inherently challenging to understand because the mass of available pollution actually varies over time. That is, the primary source of pollutants from mine waste - mainly sulfate, acidity, and heavy metals - is initially in sulfide minerals, such as pyrite (FeS2). But these sulfide minerals are essentially insoluble in water. The pollutants are thus not converted into a mobile water-soluble form until the sulfide minerals react with atmospheric oxygen and water. Only then are the pollutants mobilized in the form of aqueous leachate, where then can be carried in water, such as into a pit lake, down to groundwater, or in surface flow to a stream.

The amount of pollutants release from sulfide minerals in mine wall rock (or from waste rock or from tailings) thus depends directly on how long the rock is exposed to the atmosphere and allowed to oxidizing. In the case of mine pit walls, this duration over which the sulfide rock is exposed to the atmosphere is almost always many years, and can be many centuries. As an additional chemical complication, in mine waste that contains insufficient acid-buffering minerals, the sulfuric acid produced by the oxidation of the sulfide minerals can produce acidic pore water. In the terminology used in the Mt. Hope pit lake study, this is the potentially acid generation, or "PAG" rock.

In the Mt. Hope mine pit lake, the primary source of pollution will be the sulfate and metals that are liberated from the wall rock during the time when these sulfide minerals are exposed to atmospheric oxygen and meteoric water that percolates into the pit benches. A logical sequence for estimating the load of pollutants to a mine pit lake is typically: 1) Estimate the rate at which sulfide S minerals in the exposed wall rock react with oxygen from the air (e.g., Kg sulfate produce per meter-squared wall rock per year). These calculations often consider the rate at which oxygen diffuses into wall rock, as well as the sulfide sulfur concentration in the wall rock. The results provide estimates of the mass of sulfide mineral that oxidize in a unit area of wall rock over a given amount of time. There are many examples of these wall-rock-reaction-rate estimates in Nevada mine lake studies, but initial values are typically between ~2 and 20 Kg sulfate produced per meter-square wall rock per year. The calculations generally predict that this rate will decrease over time as the sulfide minerals near the pit wall are completely reacted away and oxygen must travel farther into the wall rock to reach sulfide minerals. An important component in the estimates of wall rock reaction is often the thickness of the "damaged wall rock zone," or depth affected by blasting. The value used for the Mount Hope Mine lake model, 1.8 meters, is on the extreme low end of what has been measured in open pit mines (i.e, range between ~1.1 to 15 meters). 2) Estimate the rate at which other pollutants (metals and acidity) are produced, based on association with the amount of sulfide minerals are oxidized. This is typically where "humidity cell" tests come in - among the important results from these is an estimate for the ratio of acid and metals released from the wall rock relative to the amount of sulfide mineral that has oxidized. 3) Use this general behavior of pollution release (i.e., Kg sulfate produce per metersquared wall rock per year) in conjunction with the area of rock exposed in pit walls, to estimate a total amount of sulfate, metals, and acidity that is released from the entire pit wall in each year of mining. 4) Make an estimate of the transport and fate of the pollutants that are released from wall rock. Some of these soluble pollutants may dissolve in run off into the pit during mining, being pumped out during mining, or flowing into the pit lake after closure. Some may remain as concentrated water or salt minerals in the pores of the wall rock until they are leached by percolating water. Once an area of wall rock is submerged below the lake, inflowing groundwater will almost certainly cause these pollutants to flow into the lake. 5) Estimate the chemical reactions that occur in the pit lake as pollutants leached from wall rock mix with lake water. Importantly, it is only at this stage, after the main assumptions about pollution production and transport into the lake are complete, would a public domain equilibrium model, such as the USGS model PHREEQC, come into use.

The huge deficiency in the Mount Hope mine pit lake prediction study is that it does not present their estimate of mine lake water quality in terms of these very standard mine-lake model components.

Specifically, the Slumberger, April 2010, Final Pit Lake Geochemistry Report, Mount Hope Project, does not: • Present estimates for the wall-rock oxidation rate (and thus the rate of production of soluble pollutants) over time, • Present in table or graph estimates for the rate at which the primary pollutant in the wall rock (i.e., soluble sulfate) is produced over time. • Provide a quantitative estimate for the fate of the soluble pollutants that are produced by oxygen reaction with sulfide minerals in the wall rock (e.g., what is the mass of pollutants that, in each year, either percolate down through the pit benches and seep to the pit bottom, reach the pit lake in water percolating through pit walls or as runoff over the pit benches, or wind up flushed into the lake when a region of wall rock is submerged below the water table.

Letter Code Comment Number Commenter Comment Response The result is that it is not possible to understand the exact methods used to estimate water quality in the Mt. Hope pit lake, and thus not possible to make a quantitative confirmation of the predicted water quality. Therefore, predictions of ecological risk are invalid and represent a NEPA and FLPMA failure. C-14 The Pit Lake Will Violate Nevada Law and FLPMA The Final EIS discussed pit lake water quality in Section 3.3.3.2.1 (pages 3-210 through 3-217). Nevada regulations, NAC 445A.429(3) require that “Bodies of water which are a result of mine pits penetrating the water table must not create an impoundment which; (a) Has the potential to degrade The Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office groundwaters of the State or (b) Has the potential to affect adversely the health of human, terrestrial, or avian authorized the Mount Hope Project Record of Decision, Plan of life.” Therefore, under Nevada Water Pollution Control Law, mine operations must not create a pit lake that Operations Approval, and Approval of Issuance of Right-of-Way have the potential to adversely the health of human, terrestrial, or avian life. Grants on November 16, 2012. The November 16, 2012, authorization remains in full force and effect. The BLM prepared The pit lake analysis presented in the Mt Hope FEIS even taken at face value does show that the pit lake will this SEIS as a response to the United States Court of Appeals for contain elevated constituents. The FEIS makes the following finding: "Initial pit lake water quality is predicted the Ninth Circuit remand decision for further action on issues to be good and would meet Nevada enforceable Nevada enforceable DWS. As evaporation from the lake identified in its December 28, 2016, decision. This SEIS includes surface concentrates the dissolved minerals, some water quality constituent concentrations would be the following: 1) an explanation of the usage of baseline values of predicted to increase over time relative to baseline concentrations and to exceed the present Nevada water zero for several air pollutants; 2) a quantitative cumulative air quality standards." However, as evaporation form the pit lake concentrates dissolves minerals, some water quality impacts analysis; and 3) a clarification of the status of quality constituents concentrations are predicted to increase relative to baseline conditions and to exceed certain springs and water holes under Executive Order PWR 107. Nevada water quality standards. The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in A Screening-Level Ecological Risk Assessment (SLERA) was prepared using the results of the pit lake study the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December for water quality as discussed in the Nevada Bureau of Mining Regulation and Reclamation Fact Sheet (p. 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary 26). The Fact Sheet finds: “The SLERA results indicate the overall ecological risk to livestock and wildlife that because no new circumstances or information relevant to the might inhabit the site or could use the pit lake as a drinking water source is considered to be low. Given the environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its low risks identified, mitigation of the Mount Hope Project pit lake does not appear to be necessary at the impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). time.”

Any risk, even if low, indicates a potential of adverse effects on terrestrial or avian life. The Fact Sheet, the SLERA, and the FEIS all conclude that terrestrial or avian life may be affected by the concentration of toxic materials or ecological risks presented in the pit lake. NAC 445A.429(3) prescribes a mandate that a mine operation “must not” create a pit lake that have the “potential to adversely the health of human, terrestrial, or avian life.”

The term “groundwater” means “all subsurface water comprising the zone of saturation, including perched zones of saturation, which could produce usable water.” NAC 445A.361. Here the Nevada Fact Sheet states that groundwater inflow will be the primary source of water for the formation of the pit lake (p. 25-26). Thus, the pit lake is composed of groundwater.

EML’s application materials state: “A comparison of the maximum concentrations for groundwater to Nevada beneficial use standards, reveals that the groundwater within the area demonstrates wide range of beneficial uses. The majority of the groundwater locations can be used for municipal or domestic supply, watering of livestock and industrial uses.” “Domestic use means “culinary and household purposes.” NRS 534.013. Culinary purposes include drinking water.

BLM is aware that drinking water quality or near so groundwater will flow into the open pit, creating a pit lake. The groundwater will then become degraded at a minimum because of evaporation from the pit, leaving the groundwater contaminants in higher concentrations. Additionally, pit wall material will influence the degradation of the pit lake as mentioned in the Nevada Fact Sheet (p. 25-26) by recognizing a “secondary influence” from the pit wall material.

Nothing in Nevada law states that groundwater ceases to be groundwater once it flows into a mine pit. Moreover, NDEP has not granted any exemption to EML under NAC 445A.424 that would allow EML to create a facility that will degrade groundwater. Good quality groundwater that generally meets drinking water quality standards will flow into the mine pit, creating a pit lake. Due to the mine facilities, that groundwater will then become degraded below applicable drinking water quality standards. That degradation is prohibited by Nevada’s Water Pollution Control Law and FLPMA.

In addition, as discussed above the pit lake is likely to be of much lower quality than predicted due to the faulty pit lake modeling by EML contractors. A realistic pit lake analysis would undoubtedly anticipate much lower water quality resulting in an even higher ecological risk and greater groundwater degradation. Letter Code Comment Number Commenter Comment Response C-15 Water Management Recharge to Diamond Valley and Kobeh Valley was addressed in the 2012 Final EIS responses to public comments (2012 Final EIS, The fate of water runoff from the east side of Mt Hope that is within Diamond Valley is unclear in the DSEIS Appendix H, page 193. and FEIS. The Garden Pass area has a history of flash flooding, and runoff from precipitation is to be captured in diversion channels. Currently (without the mine) water runoff in the Garden Pass area south of The Bureau of Land Management Mount Lewis Field Office the pass drains generally into Diamond Valley. However, it is not clear what will be the fate of this water in the authorized the Mount Hope Project Record of Decision, Plan of mine plan. The runoff is recharge for Diamond Valley, so BLM needs to clarify that the water management Operations Approval, and Approval of Issuance of Right-of-Way plan will ultimately allow this water to recharge Diamond Valley. If this runoff is used for mine operations Grants on November 16, 2012. The November 16, 2012, generally the fate of the water could be Kobeh Valley, which would amount to an interbasin transfer, and authorization remains in full force and effect. The BLM prepared would require an interbasin transfer permit from the state of Nevada. Diamond Valley is a critical this SEIS as a response to the United States Court of Appeals for management area, and it is unacceptable to direct any flows that would be recharge for Diamond Valley into the Ninth Circuit remand decision for further action on issues adjacent hydrographic basins. identified in its December 28, 2016, decision. This SEIS includes the following: 1) an explanation of the usage of baseline values of zero for several air pollutants; 2) a quantitative cumulative air quality impacts analysis; and 3) a clarification of the status of certain springs and water holes under Executive Order PWR 107.

The analysis presented in the 2012 Final EIS has not changed in the Draft SEIS as the response to the Ninth Circuit December 2016 remand decision. No additional supplement is necessary because no new circumstances or information relevant to the environmental concerns and bearing on the Proposed Action or its impacts have been identified. See 40 CFR 1502.9 (c)(ii). C-16 Conclusion Thank you for your comments. Overall, GBRW/WSDP/PLAN have all the same concerns that we raised in our previous comments, plus the additional issues raised herein: • incomplete geochemical characterization due to undersampling with an implication of the need for an expanded PAG waster rock dump and increased acid mine drainage • incorrect pit lake conceptual model and faulty analysis resulting in predictions of vastly better water quality in the pit lake than is generally likely • inadequate waste rock and fluid management plan that neither acknowledges nor plan for the need for perpetual management • faulty air quality analysis based on erroneous zero baseline assumptions and incomplete cumulative analysis • errors in evaluation of Public Water Reserves that will be affected by the mine • spring and surface water mitigation that has not been demonstrated to be feasible and does not address the full impacts of the dewatering • unclear stormwater management The Mt Hope Mine will result in excessive environmental damage and an unacceptable negative effect on the nearby community. BLM needs to reevaluate the Project, issued a revised Draft SEIS for public review, and prohibit any operations that are not in strict compliance with all laws, as noted herein and in previous submittals.