BLM
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Battle Mountain District Office
Gold Bar Exploration Project
Resource Report 4 Water DOI-BLM-NV-B010-2018-0038-EA
Preparing Office Battle Mountain District Office 50 Bastian Road Battle Mountain, NV 89820
March 2019 Resource Report 4 – Water Resources
Table of Contents
4.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ...... 1 4.1.1 AREA OF ANALYSIS FOR DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS ...... 1 4.1.2 DATA SOURCES AND METHODOLOGY ...... 3 4.1.3 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ...... 3 4.1.4 EXISTING CONDITIONS ...... 4 4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 20 4.2.1 PROPOSED ACTION ...... 21 4.2.1.1 Environmental Consequences ...... 22 4.2.2 NO ACTION ...... 22 4.2.3 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ...... 23 4.3 REFERENCES ...... 24
List of Tables
Table 4.1-1 Mean Annual Precipitation at Weather Stations within 60 Miles of the EPO Area ...... 7 Table 4.1-2 Water Level Data ...... 14 Table 4.1-3 Kobeh Valley Water Quality Data ...... 16 Table 4.1-4 Average Project Groundwater Quality Results ...... 18
List of Figures
Figure 4.1-1 Proposed Action Location and Hydrologic Study Area ...... 2 Figure 4.1-2 Generalized Hydrogeologic Map of the HAS ...... 6 Figure 4.1-3 Hydrologic Study Area Groundwater Elevations – 2014 Data ...... 12
List of Acronyms & Abbreviations
ARMPA Approved Resource Management Plan Amendment BLM Bureau of Land Management BMP Best Management Practices BMRR Bureau of Mining Regulation and Reclamation CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CESA Cumulative Effects Study Area DOI Department of the Interior EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPM Environmental Protection Measures EPO Exploration Plan of Operations ER Environmental Report ET Evapo-transpiration FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FLPMA Federal land Policy Management Act of 1976 FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact HSA Hydrologic Study Area HUC Hydrologic Unit Code MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MLFO Mount Lewis Field Office MMI McEwen Mining Inc. MMPA Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970 MSHA Mine Safety and Health Administration NAC Nevada Administrative Code NDEP Nevada Department of Environmental Protection NDOW Nevada Department of Wildlife NDWR Nevada Department of Water Resources NEPA National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NOI Notice of Intent NRHP National Register of Historic Places NRS Nevada Revised Statutes NWIS National Water Information System QAP Quality Assurance Plan RC Reverse Circulation RDPC Reclaimed Desired Plant Communities RFFA Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions RMP Resource Management Plan ROD Record of Decision SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention TD Total Depth TDS Total Dissolved Solids UNR University of Nevada Reno USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological UUD Unnecessary or Undue Degradation WOUS Waters of the United States WRCC Western Regional Climate Center RESOURCE REPORT 4 – WATER RESOURCES
4.1 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
This section describes surface water (streams), springs, and groundwater resources of the areas that may be affected by the Proposed Action, as well as the geochemistry. Wetlands are discussed separately in Resource Report 6 – Vegetation. The Kobeh Valley Hydrographic Basin (Nevada Hydrographic Basin 139) is considered the hydrologic study area (HSA) for water resources with a minor amount of extreme southern Pine Valley HSA on the NW portion of the EPO boundary. This hydrographic basin includes Kobeh Valley and the southern Roberts Mountains up to the ridge line separating Kobeh Valley hydrologically from adjacent Pine valley to the north.
4.1.1 Area of Analysis for Direct and Indirect Effects
The Proposed Action hydrologic study area for water resources is the Kobeh Valley Hydrographic Basin (Nevada Hydrographic Basin 139 and the northwestern portion of HUC 8 [16060005]) and encompasses Kobeh Valley and the southern part of the Roberts Mountains (Figure 4.1-1). The Proposed Action is located within the northern part of Proposed Action HSA and potentially impacts surface and groundwater resources in the alluvial basin of Kobeh Valley and the bedrock highland areas of the Roberts Mountain at the north end of Kobeh Valley.
Two major watersheds located in the northern Kobeh Valley section of the HSA, Coils Creek (HUC 10 [1606000507]) and Roberts Creek (HUC 10 [1606000508]), are pertinent to the Proposed Action. In Kobeh Valley, surface drainage is directed generally from the mountains to the central valley floor and then eastward toward Devil’s Gate, where flow occasionally passes into Diamond Valley via Slough Creek. During dry years, Slough Creek infiltrates into the alluvium of Kobeh Valley. Coils Creek is an intermittent drainage with headwaters in the Simpson Park Mountains, thirteen miles north of the EPO Area. Roberts Creek is a perennial stream that drains the east side of the EPO Area and flows south into Kobeh Valley, where perennial flow ceases as the stream infiltrates into the alluvium of Kobeh Valley (Figure 4.1-1).
Gold Bar Exploration Project 1 Resource Report 4 – Water Project^_ Area
EE EE E E!. E E EEE EE E E EEEE EEE E E EEE EEEEEE E EEE EEE E ! EE EE E EEEEE EEE E E E EE EE EE ! EE E E E EE!. E !.!. E EE E E !. EE !.!. ! !. UV278 E E !. !. E E E !.!.!. !. E !. !! !. EEE E !! !. EEE E !. !. !. !. EEE E! !.!. Atlas Haul Road !. !. EEE !. !. ! E E !. Roberts Creek Road !. E E !. !. EEE !. E ! !. EE !. ! !. E EE !. !. E E !. !. !. E !. !. EE !. E !. E !. !. EEE E 3 Bars Road! !. E E E !. !.E!.! E EEE!. E ! EEE E E EEE E E E !. E !. 50 EE !. ¤£ EEE !. !. E E !. !.!. E !. !.!. E!. !. !.!. !. !.!. !. !. !. E E !. E !. Proposed Use !. E EE !. Monitoring Well ! EEEE !. Test Well EE E EEEE ! Industrial EEE EEE ! Domestic E E EE EE EE ! Public Supply E EE EEEE !. Irrigation !. Stock E 0 2.5 5 10 Seeps and Springs Km Perennial Stream Gold Bar Project Miles or Perennial Proposed Action Location and 0 2 4 8 Intermittent Stream Hydrologic Study Area Gold Bar Exploration Plan Area Figure 4.1-1 Date: 10/22/2018 Scale: 1:380,000 / Hydrologic Study Area Drawn by: M.S. Datum: NAD 1983, UTM Zone 11 Gold Bar EPO Figure 4.1-1 Hydrologic Study Area 4.1.2 Data Sources and Methodology
Data sources used for the surface water and groundwater analysis are listed below for the Proposed Action. The Mount Hope Project FEIS includes recent analysis and current and complete data on the hydrology of the southern part of the Roberts Mountains and the valley adjacent to Mount Hope, including Kobeh Valley. For this reason, data and figures from the Mount Hope Project FEIS are used throughout the analysis of surface water and groundwater.
Surface Water Resources Hydrologic data for surface water resources of Kobeh Valley and the southern Roberts Mountains were taken mainly from the MGold Bar Project FEIS (BLM, 2017) and the USGS National Water Information System (USGS, 2013).
Groundwater Resources Information, studies, and data related to groundwater in Kobeh Valley, the southern Roberts Mountains, and the EPO Area included the Gold Bar Project FEIS (BLM, 2017).
4.1.3 Regulatory Framework
The regulation, appropriation, and preservation of water in Nevada falls under both state and federal jurisdiction. Surface water and groundwater use are regulated in Nevada by the NDWR. The NDEP and BMRR are responsible for surface water quality and groundwater protection. Approval of the Proposed Action may require authorizing actions from state agencies and federal agencies with jurisdiction over water resources within the EPO Area.
WOUS are defined by 33 CFR 328.3 as: all waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; all interstate waters including interstate wetlands; all other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes, or from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce, or which are used or could be used for industrial purpose by industries in interstate commerce; impoundments of waters otherwise defined as WOUS under the definition; tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a)(1)-(4) of this section; the territorial seas; and wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (1)-(6) of this section. A Non-Jurisdictional Determination was issued for all surface waters in the EPO area by the US Army Corps of Engineers in 2012 that was reissued again in 2017.
Waters of the State of Nevada are defined in NRS Chapter 445, Section 445.191. These waters include: 1) all streams, lakes, ponds, impounding reservoirs, marshes, water courses, waterways, wells, springs, irrigation systems, and drainage systems; and 2) all bodies of accumulations of water, surface and underground, natural or artificial. Such defined waters have water quality standards established by the State of Nevada under NAC 445A.117 - 445A.128, with numeric standards located at NAC 445A.144. As an exploration project, the Proposed Action would not involve the creation of waterbodies (e.g., pit lakes).
To protect water quality, NDEP must approve and issue Water Pollution Control Plans for mine facilities involving water. Requirements include stormwater diversions, liners to reduce seepage to groundwater, Gold Bar Exploration Project 3 Resource Report 4 – Water and leak detection systems. Where needed or required under administrative regulations, the NDEP may include requirements for discharge quantity/quality that involve constructing a zero-discharge facility. This NDEP regulatory framework minimizes impacts to water resources from the mining activities in the State. As an exploration project, this would not apply to the Proposed Action.
Exploration drill holes are subject to the plugging and abandonment requirements found in NAC 534.4369 through 534.4371. BLM 3809 and NDEP 519A regulations also require both abandonment and bonding for all open drill holes.
Water rights are regulated by the NDWR, Water Rights Section, under NRS Chapter 533. This state agency is responsible for water rights appropriations, changes to water rights, and other activities involving water appropriation and water use. Water rights carry the responsibility to protect the ability of adjacent water rights holders to utilize water allotted to them under their respective permits. No additional water rights would be required for this project.
4.1.4 Existing Conditions
The HSA for water resources consists of the Kobeh Valley Hydrographic Basin (Nevada Hydrographic Basin 139), as discussed in Section 4.1.1. This hydrographic basin is part of the Diamond Valley Hydrologic Flow System (Tumbusch and Plume, 2006) (Figure 4.1-1). Hydrologic communication between Kobeh Valley and the other basins in the flow system is limited due to groundwater and surface water divides created by the mountain ranges that surround the basins. Kobeh Valley has occasional surface water flow to Diamond Valley through Devil’s Gate via Slough Creek but mainly during wet years (Rush and Everett, 1964). Kobeh Valley receives some groundwater underflow from Monitor Valley through basin alluvium. Groundwater flow between Antelope Valley and Kobeh Valley is restricted by faults (Rush and Everett, 1964). The divide between Kobeh Valley and Pine Valley is along a surface and groundwater divide, so there is likely limited direct hydrologic communication with Kobeh Valley.
Kobeh Valley is a large basin with a drainage area of approximately 860 square miles. The valley is approximately 35 miles across in both the east-west and north-south directions (Figure 4.1-1). The Kobeh Valley Hydrographic Basin is bounded by mountain ridgelines that serve as hydrologic boundaries on the north by the Roberts Mountains; on the west by the Simpson Park Mountains; on the east by Whistler Mountain; and on the south by the Monitor Range and Monitor and Antelope Valleys (Figure 4.1- 1). A surface water divide in the Simpson Park Mountains separates Kobeh Valley from Grass Valley, and a surface water divide in the Roberts Mountains separates Kobeh Valley from Pine Valley. Kobeh Valley communicates with Diamond Valley to the east through Devil’s Gate via surface water flow of around 40 acre feet per year during wet years (Rush and Everett, 1964). Recent groundwater modeling (Montgomery, 2010) has indicated inter-basin flow between Kobeh Valley and Diamond Valley ranging from 810 to 1,393 AFY. Elevations in Kobeh Valley range from 6,400 feet amsl on the west side of the basin to approximately 6,000 feet amsl at Devil’s Gate on the east side of the valley. Elevations within the HSA range up to 10,138 feet amsl in the Roberts Mountains.
Kobeh Valley along with the other basins of the Diamond Valley Regional Flow System is typical of basins found in Nevada. The mountain ranges are composed of uplifted, faulted, and folded Paleozoic sedimentary rocks with widespread occurrences of Jurassic, Cretaceous, and Tertiary intrusive rocks and Tertiary volcanic rocks. Volcanic rocks locally overlie the older hydrogeologic units. The basins are structural depressions that are often closed or nearly closed topographic features filled with Tertiary and Quaternary alluvial and lacustrine sediments that are often poorly consolidated to semi-consolidated (BLM, 2012). Kobeh Valley and adjacent valleys are filled with more consolidated older late Tertiary Gold Bar Exploration Project 4 Resource Report 4 – Water sediments and sedimentary rocks that are overlain by unconsolidated to semi-consolidated Quaternary alluvial and lacustrine sediments. The detailed geologic framework of Kobeh Valley is presented in Resource Report 3 – Geology and Minerals. Figure 4.1-2 shows the general distribution of hydrogeologic units around Kobeh Valley and adjacent valleys.
Gold Bar Exploration Project 5 Resource Report 4 – Water E u r e k a
L a n d e r E l k o Project^_ Area
Pine Valley
W h i t e P i n e
Diamond Valley UV278
Kobeh Valley
¤£50 Eureka
Hydrolithologic Units Young Valley Fill (VF1 (Qp)) Older Valley Fill (VF1 (Qa)) Antelope Tuffaceous Deposits (VF2) Valley Playa/Lacustrine Desposits (VF3) Extrusive Igneous Rocks (VOL1) Intrusive Rocks (VOL2) Siliciclastics (AQT1) N y e Carbonate Units (CA1: CA2) Dolomitic Units (CA3) Mixed Carbonates & Siliciclastics (CA4)
0 5 10 20 Northern Nevada Rift (Ponce and Glen, 2002) Km Battle Mountain BLM District Gold Bar Project Miles Generalized Hydrogeologic 0 4 8 16 Hydrologic Study Area Boundary (HSA) Map of the HSA Gold Bar Hydrographic Basin Boundary Figure 4.1-2 Date: 5/23/2018 Scale: 1:800,000 / Gold Bar Exploration Plan Area Drawn by: M.S. Datum: NAD 1983, UTM Zone 11 Gold Bar EPO Hydrogeologic Map of the HSA Figure 4.1-2 Climate in Kobeh Valley and the adjacent valleys is characterized as mid-latitude steppe in the basin lowlands and as subhumid continental in the mountainous regions (BLM, 2012). The mid-latitude steppe zone is semiarid, with warm to hot summers and cold winters. The subhumid continental zone has cool to mild summers and cold winters, with most precipitation occurring as snow (Houghton et al.,1975). Most precipitation in Kobeh Valley and the surrounding mountainous areas comes from winter storms. Summer thunderstorms can produce intense rain over a short period of time, but the effects of the storms are usually local in nature and do not contribute significantly to total annual precipitation.
Precipitation varies widely between seasons and from year to year, as well as with elevation. The variation in average annual precipitation for weather stations within 60 miles of Kobeh Valley is summarized in Table 4.1-1. Three stations are within 25 miles of the EPO Area: Beowawe UNR Ranch, Eureka, and Diamond Valley USDA. Average annual precipitation taken from WRCC (WRCC, 2016) data is 10.23 inches at the Beowawe UNR Ranch station (5,740 feet amsl), 11.83 inches at the Eureka station (6,540 feet amsl), and 9.37 inches at the Diamond Valley USDA station (5,970 feet amsl) (WRCC, 2016). The Diamond Valley station is the closest to Kobeh Valley in terms of average elevation.
Table 4.1-1 Mean Annual Precipitation at Weather Stations within 60 Miles of the EPO Area
WRCC Mean Approximate Approximate Distance and Annual Period of Station Name Elevation Direction from Precipitation Record (feet amsl) EPO Area (inches)
51 miles Austin 6,600 12.47 1890-2015 southwest
58 miles Beowawe 4,700 8.02 1949-2015 northwest
Beowawe UNR Ranch 23 miles west 5,740 10.23 1972-2015
10 miles Diamond Valley USDA 5,970 9.37 1979-2015 southeast
21 miles Eureka 6,540 11.83 1880-2015 southeast
37 miles Fish Creek Ranch 6,050 5.2 1948-1969 southeast
54 miles Jiggs 5,420 11.15 1948-1972 northeast
50 miles Jiggs Zaga 5,800 14.01 1978-2015 northeast
Pine Valley Bailey 45 miles north 5,050 10.63 1982-2015
46 miles Ruby Lake 6,010 13.17 1940-2015 northeast
Snowball Ranch 51 miles south 7,160 8.92 1966-2002
Source: WRCC, 2016.
Gold Bar Exploration Project 7 Resource Report 4 – Water
The BLM operated three flow-recording stations and 20 bulk precipitation collection stations in the Coils Creek watershed, a 50-square mile area in the northwestern part of Kobeh Valley from 1963 to 1980 (Houng-Ming et al., 1983). Precipitation data collected showed an average annual precipitation of 11.4 inches for the period of record. These data did not show the expected elevation-precipitation trend common in Nevada and may indicate storm–related precipitation.
Two weather stations near the EPO Area measure pan evaporation. The Ruby Lake station, located 46 miles from the EPO Area at an elevation of 6,010 feet amsl measured an average pan evaporation of 51.5 inches per year from 1948 through 2002 (BLM, 2012). The Beowawe UNR Ranch station, located at an elevation of 5,740 feet amsl and 23 miles from the EPO Area, measured an average pan evaporation of 51.2 inches per year from 1972 through 2002. Applying a pan conversion coefficient of 0.7 to the pan evaporation rates, the estimated mean annual standing water evaporation rate for the EPO Area is approximately 36 inches per year. Annual average evapo-transpiration (ET) is related to plant transpiration and differs from pan evaporation (BLM, 2012). Estimates of ET for Kobeh Valley are discussed below in the Basin Groundwater Balance section.
Surface Water
Kobeh Valley and the adjacent basins in the Diamond Valley Regional Flow System are mountain-block watersheds that consist of closed to semi-closed basins where streams originating in the surrounding mountains drain onto broad alluvial fans that border the mountains and eventually to valley bottoms where surface water flow infiltrates into the valley alluvium. Perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral stream reaches are found in the bedrock-dominated mountainous areas, and flows out of the mountains toward the valleys typically dissipate into the alluvial fans or drain toward playas near the basin centers. Playas have formed in the topographically low areas of Kobeh and Diamond valleys. The playa in Kobeh Valley is situated just west of Devil’s Gate (not shown on maps because of scale). The playa in Diamond Valley covers a large portion of the northern end of the basin. Saline groundwater is often discharged at these playas.
The location of streams and creeks and inventoried springs and seeps for Kobeh Valley are shown on Figure 4.1-1. Most of the springs in Kobeh Valley are in the Simpson Park Mountains and the Roberts Mountains. Most of the springs within the basin are found near the Bartine Ranch (Bartine Hot Springs) (Figure 4.1-1) or along Willow and Peltier Creeks. Surface water drainage in Kobeh Valley is from the surrounding mountains to the central valley floor and then eastward toward Devil’s Gate, where flow occasionally passes into Diamond Valley via Slough Creek during wet years. Surface water flows into the southern part of Kobeh Valley from Antelope Valley via Antelope Wash and from Monitor Valley via Stoneberger Creek. Stoneberger Creek flows into the Bean Flat area and eventually merges with Coils Creek and Roberts Creek near Bartine Hot Springs (Figure 4.1-1). Antelope Wash enters Kobeh Valley from the south and joins Coils Creek and Roberts Creek to form Slough Creek. Slough Creek drains the southeastern part of Kobeh Valley and flows into Diamond Valley via Devil’s Gate. Reported flows in Slough Creek ranged from 670 to 1,120 gpm (1.5 to 2.5 cfs) during peak flow in a wet year (Robinson et al., 1967).
The two main internal drainages within Kobeh Valley include Coils Creek in the western part of the basin, which drains the east side of the Simpson Park Mountains and the western side of the Roberts Mountains, and Roberts Creek, which drains the central and southeastern part of the Roberts Mountains (Figure 4.1-1). Rutabaga Creek lies between these two drainages and drains the southern part of the Roberts Mountains.
Gold Bar Exploration Project 8 Resource Report 4 – Water
Roberts Creek is identified as being perennial from the headwaters of its middle and east fork tributaries to near the mountain front (BLM, 2012). A segment of the Cottonwood Canyon drainage, on the southwest side of the Roberts Mountains, is also identified as containing perennial flow upstream of its confluence with the Coils Creek drainage. The only other identified perennial stream reaches in Kobeh Valley include Snow Water Canyon and Ferguson Creek on the east side of the Simpson Park Mountains along with Ackerman Creek, Basin Creek, Coils Creek, Dry Canyon, Dry Creek, Kelly Creek, Jackass Creek, and Meadow Canyon in the Simpson Park Mountains. A small segment of U’ans-in-dame Creek to the east-northeast of Lone Mountain may be perennial (BLM, 2012). However, based on field observations and review of Landsat imagery by Montgomery et al. (2010), this small segment may not be perennial. There are no perennial drainages or reaches of perennial creeks within the EPO Area (MMI, 2016a).
Stream discharge measurements taken by Interflow during 2007 (BLM, 2012) along Roberts Creek indicated that most of the flow originated from the East Fork of Roberts Creek, with flow measured at 108 gpm (0.24 cfs). Flow in the East Fork area originates from springs along the west and south to southeast flanks of Roberts Mountains (BLM, 2012). The West and Middle forks of Roberts Creek contributed little flow in 2007, with the West Fork being dry and the Middle Fork discharging 4.5 gpm (0.01 cfs) (Montgomery et al., 2010). Flow measurements reported by USGS (2015) for the period from 2010 to 2015 range from 121 gpm to 1,935 gpm (0.27 to 4.3 cfs). Measured discharge below the confluence of the three forks of Roberts Creek consistently decreases with distance downstream, indicating that Roberts Creek is a losing stream over most of its length. These stream losses are assumed to be the result of infiltration into the local alluvium (BLM, 2012). This stream recharge to the local alluvium along Roberts Creek may be utilized by riparian vegetation adjacent to the stream and lost as evaporation and ET, especially during the late spring and early summer growing season.
Coils Creek is interpreted by Rush and Everett (1964) to be the principal tributary to Slough Creek. They reported a flow of approximately 3,600 gpm (8.0 cfs) during May of 1964 at a location in Section 27, T22 North, R49 East. Intermittent reaches of upper Coils Creek are fed by spring flow and are often used for irrigation (BLM, 2012). The USGS (2015) reported an average discharge of 495 gpm (1.1 cfs) for upper Coils Creek above Horse Creek for the period from 2011 to 2013.
For Rutabaga Creek, Interflow measured a flow of 9.0 gpm (0.02 cfs) in August of 2007 for the creek along the southern flanks of the Roberts Mountains (Montgomery et al., 2010). Along the east slope of the Simpson Park Mountains, which border the west side of Kobeh Valley, Interflow (2010) reported the following: (1) no surface flow in Snow Water Canyon in June and December of 2007 and also April of 2008; (2) no flow in Ackerman Canyon in April and flow of 27 gpm (0.06 cfs) in May of 2008; (3) an estimated flow of less than 112 gpm (0.25 cfs) in Ferguson Creek in May and no flow in August of 2007; and (4) no flow in Dry Canyon in June of 2007. For Roberts Creek in 2008, Interflow measured flows of 561 gpm and 1,872 gpm (1.25 and 4.17 cfs) in April and May, respectively. Reported flows in Willow Creek and Dagget Creek, which drain the north end of the Monitor Range in southern Kobeh Valley, were approximately 450 and 670 gpm (1.0 and 1.5 cfs) respectively in May 1964 (Robinson et al., 1967). No other drainages in Kobeh Valley have recorded stream flows (BLM, 2012).
Springs and seeps in the Kobeh Valley hydrographic basin are shown on Figure 4.1-1. Springs and seeps within the EPO Area were surveyed in 2012 (JBR, 2013), Montgomery et al. analyzed seeps and springs in the Kobeh Valley (Montgomery et al., 2010; BLM, 2012). The majority of the springs are in the mountain ranges and occur along contacts between bedrock units of differing lithologic character or along faults. Many springs are seasonal and flow mostly during the late spring and early summer as a result of Gold Bar Exploration Project 9 Resource Report 4 – Water snow melt in the mountains. Springs found along mountain fronts or within the alluvial fans that border the mountains are related to groundwater levels. Springs higher in the mountains are generally meteoric springs and are perched, thus they are not connected to groundwater. Springs within the Roberts Mountains near the EPO Area are found mostly west of Rutabaga Creek or east of Roberts Creek.
Seeps and springs within the HSA are shown on Figure 4.1-1. These springs range in elevation from 6,650 feet amsl to 7,572 feet amsl and have flow rates ranging from 0.1 to 13.6 gpm (SRK, 2008). Vegetation consisting of Mexican rush (Juncus mexicanus), Kentucky bluegrass, Great Basin wildrye, stinging nettles (Urtica dioica), and Nebraska sedge (Carex nebrascensis) is often found associated with the springs. Water from the springs is either used for stock watering, or dissipates downgradient from the spring in a meadow area (BLM, 2012).
Within Kobeh Valley, springs are found along Willow Creek at the southern end of the valley and along Horse Creek above Coils Creek in the northwestern part of the valley. Springs have also been found along Slough Creek east of Lone Mountain (Lone Mountain and Mud springs). No flow measurements have been reported (BLM, 2012). The Roberts Creek Ranch has an impoundment along Roberts Creek providing stock water.
Flooding can occur during winter rainstorms as well as during the spring snow melt in the mountainous areas surrounding Kobeh Valley. This flooding could continue down the major drainages and impact the valley. In the desert basins of Nevada, major flood events can deposit large volumes of debris and sediment along valley floors and in playas.
Localized flooding is possible at lower elevations on the alluvial fans and along the lower reaches of streams in Kobeh and Diamond valleys. The EPO Area may be affected by localized flooding along Roberts Creek during periods of heavy rainfall or runoff.
Flow and water quality in Roberts Creek in the EPO Area were evaluated by JBR in 2012 and 2013 (JBR, 2013). Roberts Creek is divided into Nevada Class A waters above the Roberts Creek Reservoir and Nevada Class B waters below the reservoir. Class A waters are not affected by human activity, while Class B waters have the potential to be affected by light to moderate human activity (JBR, 2013). Flow in Roberts Creek, based on data from USGS (2013) stream gage data for a gage located 1.9 miles upstream from Roberts Creek Reservoir (Roberts Creek 1), ranges from a low of 0.00 gpm (dry conditions) to a maximum annual mean of 237 gpm (0.53 cfs). The mean flow from 2011 to 2015 (period of record) was 113.5 gpm (0.253 cfs).
During field investigations completed during June, July, and September 2012, no seeps or springs were identified within the EPO Area (JBR, 2012a and 2013). Drainages associated with the EPO Area are identified in the 2012 WOUS Jurisdictional Determination (JBR, 2012). Only one drainage within the EPO Area, Rutabaga Creek, exhibited ordinary high watermark (OHWM) indicators (JBR, 2012). Rutabaga Creek, immediately to the west of the EPO Area has a spring in the lower section of the drainage just above where the creek exits the Roberts Mountains and enters the alluvial fan bordering the mountain front. This spring, Rutabaga Spring, had a measured flow of 0.50 gpm (0.001 cfs) and an associated wetland that showed heavy use by wild horses (JBR, 2013). Vegetation near the spring consisted of willow (Salix sp.), woods rose, Kentucky bluegrass, common dandelion (Taraxacum officinulum), Arctic rush (Juncus arcticus), Nebraska sedge, and nodding plumeless thistle.
Gold Bar Exploration Project 10 Resource Report 4 – Water The EPO Area was evaluated the potential for WOUS (JBR, 2012). The evaluation found no WOUS within the EPO Area. The USACE, Sacramento District issued a formal non-jurisdictional determination on July 22, 2013, which concurred with these findings (JBR, 2012; USACE, 2013). The formal non- jurisdictional determination was renewed by the USACE in January, 2017.
Groundwater
The EPO Area is located within the Kobeh Valley Hydrographic Basin (Nevada Hydrographic Basin 139). As discussed earlier, this basin is part of the Diamond Valley Regional Flow System (Harrill et al.,1988; Berger et al., 2016). Groundwater flow in the basins of the Diamond Valley Regional Flow System is probably hydraulically interconnected through the carbonate bedrock aquifer that underlies the basins and is found throughout the mountainous regions that border the basins (Harrill et al., 1988; Berger et al., 2016). USGS has recognized that there may be additional subsurface flow in underlying carbonate or volcanic rocks (Berger et al., 2016; Tumbusch and Plume, 2006) and Montgomery (2010) calculates, and the Eureka County Water Resources Master Plan references, groundwater flow through bedrock between 810 to 1,393 AFY. Modeling updates in 2016 by Interflow Hydrology (2017) suggest that interbasin transfer of groundwater in bedrock and alluvium from Kobeh Valley to Diamond Valley is higher, approximately 2,300 AFY. Groundwater flow in the alluvial aquifers of Kobeh Valley and adjacent basins is often interconnected through gaps in the mountain ranges that border the basins. Alluvial groundwater in Kobeh Valley is connected to alluvial groundwater in North Monitor Valley, Diamond Valley, and Antelope Valley (BLM, 2012).
Groundwater Elevations and Flow Directions
Groundwater elevations in Kobeh Valley and surrounding basins were compiled by Montgomery et al. (2010) from the USGS National Water Information System database (NWIS, 2007) as well as from Rush and Everett (1964) and Tumbusch and Plume (2006). Groundwater levels for the alluvial aquifers in Kobeh Valley as of 2014 are shown on Figure 4.1-3. As described by Montgomery et al. (2010) and in the Mount Hope Project FEIS (BLM, 2012), groundwater levels in Kobeh Valley have not changed much from the predevelopment conditions (circa 1955) to 2005.
Gold Bar Exploration Project 11 Resource Report 4 – Water Project^_ Area «¬278
6875 ! 6375 ! 6775 ! 6675 68 25 6800 6750 6350 6575 25 ! ! 6700 67 6650 6625 6525 ! 6300 6500 ! ! ! 6600 ! 6550 ! 0 ! 0 ! 6475 65 0 625 ! 6450 !!! 6 !! 6 425 6400 !! 375 ! !! !! ! 6325 63 625 75 6275 !6250 0 ! 612!5 6225 6200 ! ! ! 6100 ! 6150 6075 ! ! ! 6175 50 62 ! 050 !6 6125 ! ! 6025 ! 5 12 ! ! ! ! 6 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !
! ! ¤£50
!
0 3 6 12 Kilometers ! Groundwater Wells Groundwater Elevation Contours (25-ft intervals) Miles Gold Bar Project 0 2.5 5 10 Gold Bar Exploration Plan Area Hydrologic Study Area Groundwater Elevations - 2014 Data Hydrologic Study Area Figure 4.1-3 Scale: 1:260,000 / Date: 5/24/2018 Drawn by: M.S. Datum: NAD 1983, UTM Zone 11 Gold Bar EPO Figure 4.1-3 Groundwater Elevations Groundwater flow in the alluvial basin material of Kobeh Valley is generally from west to east. Groundwater elevations range from 6,200 to 6,250 feet amsl on the west side of the basin to approximately 6,025 feet amsl on the east side of Kobeh Valley near Devil’s Gate. In the center of the basin groundwater levels are in the range of 6,100 feet amsl and in the EPO Area groundwater levels are in the 6,500 to 6,700 feet amsl range. Groundwater flow in the southern Roberts Mountains within the vicinity of the EPO Area is from north to south, from the mountain front into the basin.
EPO Area Groundwater Resources Groundwater resources in Kobeh Valley include the bedrock groundwater resources within the EPO Area and alluvial groundwater resources south of the EPO Area in Kobeh Valley along Roberts Creek to the area of the Roberts Creek Ranch (Figure 4.1-1).
Groundwater Levels and Flow Directions Figure 4.1-3 shows the location of wells within the EPO Area and contoured groundwater levels, along with information on screened interval and the lithology screened by the well. Water levels in the bedrock geologic units were measured by SRK (2014a) primarily in carbonate rock units and show groundwater flow from northeast to southwest at a gradient of 0.066 to 0.033 feet per feet with the gradient decreasing as the alluvial/bedrock contact zone is approached. Groundwater levels range from 6,700 feet amsl to 6,350 feet amsl. Groundwater levels in the alluvial aquifer from the EPO Area to the production wells area range in elevation from 6,350 feet amsl to 6,200 feet amsl and have an average gradient approximately 0.02 feet per feet to the south. Table 4.1-2 summarizes the well installation and groundwater level data for the EPO Area.
Gold Bar Exploration Project 13 Resource Report 4 – Water Table 4.1-2 Water Level Data
Gold Bar Exploration Project 14 Resource Report 4 – Water Water Quality
Kobeh Valley Water Quality
Water quality data for Kobeh Valley and within the EPO Area are available in reports by Rush and Everett (1964), JBR (2013), SRK (2008), and USGS (2015). Most of the available data are from sampling of springs in Kobeh Valley and in the Roberts Mountains. Two streams, Roberts Creek and Coils Creek above Horse Creek, have water quality data available. Surface water quality data and spring water quality for Kobeh Valley and within the EPO Area are presented in Table 4.1-4.
Surface Water Quality
Roberts Creek runs from the Roberts Mountains southward into Kobeh Valley along the eastern side of the Project Area. The water is calcium-magnesium bicarbonate water with a pH in the range of 8.1 to 8.65 and total dissolved solids (TDS) in the range of 269 to 395 milligrams per liter (mg/L). Bicarbonate ranges from 125 to 260 mg/L and both sulfate and chloride are relatively low. The water has a dissolved oxygen content around 21 mg/L, making the water oxygenated (USGS, 2015).
Coils Creek runs along the northwestern side of Kobeh Valley and flows southward to join Slough Creek near the center of the valley. Coils Creek is somewhat alkaline with a pH of 8.8 to 9.3 and TDS of 269 to 284 mg/L. The water is dominated by calcium-magnesium bicarbonate and both sulfate and chloride are low. Dissolved oxygen is relatively low, in the range of 7.5 to 8.5 mg/L (USGS, 2015).
Gold Bar Exploration Project 15 Resource Report 4 – Water Table 4.1-3 Kobeh Valley Water Quality Data
Gold Bar Exploration Project 16 Resource Report 4 – Water Gold Bar Exploration Project 17 Resource Report 4 – Water EPO Area Water Quality
Surface Water Quality
There are two perennial surface water features within the EPO Area. Rutabaga Spring is located on the west side of the EPO Area and Roberts Creek flows along the eastern side of the EPO Area (Figures 4.1-2 and 4.1-3). Both of these features are discussed under Kobeh Valley water quality (Tables 4.1-3 and 4.1-4).
Groundwater Quality
There are five groundwater monitoring wells within or adjacent to the EPO Area that are part of the Gold Bar Mine Project, but are not part of the Proposed Action. These Gold Bar Mine wells are designed to monitor groundwater quality around and downgradient of the pits, leach pad, and waste rock facilities (SRK, 2014a and 2014b). Monitor wells GBMW-01 and GBMW-02 are screened in silicified dolomite at depths of 750 to 850 feet and 400 to 500 feet bgs, respectively. Monitor wells GBMW-03 and GBMW-04 are screened in alluvium at depths of 270 to 360 feet and 350 to 400 feet bgs, respectively. The fifth water quality monitoring well is the production well GBPW-210, which is screened in alluvium at 455 to 715 feet bgs.
Water quality data from the monitoring wells within the EPO Area are presented in Table 4.1-3 (SRK, 2014a). The monitoring wells screened in silicified dolomite (GBMW-01 and GBMW-02) intercept groundwater with a pH in the range of 7.4 to 7.7 and a TDS in the range of 260 to 480 mg/L. The alkalinity ranges from 230 to 410 mg/L and sulfate and chloride are low, making the water bicarbonate dominated. The groundwater in GBMW-01 is calcium-sodium bicarbonate water and the groundwater in GBMW-02 is calcium-magnesium bicarbonate water. Well GBMW-01 shows exceedences of NDEP reference values for iron and manganese.
Monitor well GBMW-03 is screened in alluvium and the groundwater has a pH of 7.8, TDS of 260 mg/L, and an alkalinity of 220 mg/L. The water is calcium-magnesium-sodium bicarbonate water with no exceedences of NDEP reference values. The alluvial groundwater in production well GBPW-210 is more alkaline with a pH of 8.36, TDS of 280 mg/L, and an alkalinity of 230 mg/L. This groundwater is calcium- magnesium bicarbonate water and shows no exceedences of NDEP reference values (SRK, 2014a). No water quality information was available for GBMW-04 at the time of the SRK geochemical characterization reporting (SRK, 2014a). Overall, the alluvial groundwater within the EPO Area is similar to that found in the alluvial aquifer of Kobeh Valley (Table 4.1-3 and Table 4.1-4).
Table 4.1-4 Average Project Groundwater Quality Results
NDEP GBPW-210 GBMW-1 GBMW-2 GBMW-3 Parameter Reference Value n = 1 n = 5 n = 5 n = 2
Alkalinity, Total - 230 410 230 220
Aluminum 0.2 <0.045 <0.05 <0.05 <0.002
Antimony 0.006 <0.0025 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002
Arsenic 0.01 <0.005 0.0026 0.0022 0.003
Gold Bar Exploration Project 18 Resource Report 4 – Water
NDEP GBPW-210 GBMW-1 GBMW-2 GBMW-3 Parameter Reference Value n = 1 n = 5 n = 5 n = 2
Barium 2 0.13 0.18 0.12 0.17
Beryllium 0.004 <0.001 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002
Cadmium 0.005 <0.001 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002
Calcium - 52 74 60 57
Chloride 400 7.1 18 4.8 6.9
Chromium 0.1 <0.005 0.002 <0.002 <0.002
Copper 1.3 <0.05 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002
Cyanide, WAD 0.2 <0.05 0.038 0.0056 <0.005
Fluoride 4 <0.1 0.5 0.1 0.15
Iron 0.6 <0.01 2.4 <0.05 <0.05
Lead 0.015 <0.0025 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002
Magnesium 150 20 25 22 19
Manganese 0.1 <0.005 1.5 0.0024 <0.002
Mercury 0.002 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001 <0.0001
Nickel 0.1 <0.01 0.0028 0.0024 0.002
Nitrate-N - - 2.2 1.4 3.7
Nitrite-N - - <0.5 <0.5 <0.5
NO3 + NO2 10 0.8 2.3 1.5 3.7
Kjeldahl Nitrogen - <0.2 20 18 <0.1
Total Nitrogen as N - - 22 1.7 3.9 pH (s.u.) 6.5-8.5 8.36 7.4 7.7 7.8
Potassium - 2.7 2.2 1 1.4
Selenium 0.05 <0.005 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
Silver 0.1 <0.005 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002
Sodium - 13 72 7.9 13
Sulfate 500 23 19 23 22
Thallium 0.002 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001
Total Dissolved 1000 280 480 260 260 Solids
Zinc 5 <0.01 0.032 0.028 0.035
Gold Bar Exploration Project 19 Resource Report 4 – Water
Source: SRK, 2014b.
Metals reported as dissolved constituents in mg/L.
< Indicated less than the respective method detection limit.
Parameters in mg/L, unless noted otherwise.
4.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Surface Water Effect Indicators Indicators used to assess the potential environmental effects to surface water resources include the following:
A reduction in base flow to perennial streams;
A reduction in flow to perennial springs;
Degradation in stream or spring water quality that can be directly or indirectly linked to activities associated with the Proposed Action. These changes might include releases of hydrocarbons through spills or accelerated erosion or sedimentation caused by Proposed Action activities;
Effects to surface water rights resulting in potential loss of beneficial water use; or
Effects to water-related resources, such as floodplains.
Groundwater Effect Indicators Indicators used to assess potential environmental effects to groundwater resources from the Proposed Action may include the following:
Changes in groundwater levels in either the alluvial or bedrock groundwater aquifers of the HSA that have the potential to affect other water rights holders’ beneficial use of groundwater; or
Degradation of groundwater quality in these aquifers resulting from project activities such that one or more water quality parameters exceed Nevada or federal primary water quality standards or Nevada secondary, enforceable maximum contaminant levels to a degree that would render those waters unsuitable for other existing or potential beneficial uses.
Effect Context for Water Quality and Quantity Localized: Effects would occur inside the EPO Area.
Regional: Effects would occur outside of the EPO Area to the larger region.
Duration of Effects Definitions for Water Quality and Quantity Short-term: One day or less for surface water quality, one month or less for groundwater quality; with the localized hydrology returning to pre-disturbance condition within 10 years.
Long-term: Greater than one day for surface water quality, greater than one month for groundwater quality; greater than ten years for hydrologic conditions. Gold Bar Exploration Project 20 Resource Report 4 – Water
Intensity of Effects Definitions for Water Quality and Quantity Negligible: Hydrology of the area would not be affected, or effects would not be readily discernible. Effects on the hydrologic regime would be slight and short-term. Water quality would not be affected, or effects would not exceed water quality standards and would not affect beneficial uses of receiving waters. Effects would be minimized with implementation of applicant-committed EPMs, BMPs, and reclamation of the Proposed Action.
Minor: Effects on hydrology, such as an increase or decrease in surface or groundwater flow, would be discernible. Effects on water quality would not exceed water quality standards and would not affect beneficial uses of receiving waters. Effects would be minimized with implementation of applicant- committed EPMs, BMPs, and reclamation of the Proposed Action.
Moderate: Effects on hydrology, such as an increase or decrease in surface or groundwater flow, would be readily apparent. Effects on water quality would exceed water quality standards and may affect beneficial uses of receiving waters. Mitigation beyond the applicant-committed EPMs and BMPs may be necessary, but these measures would most likely be effective.
Major: Effects on hydrology would be readily apparent and would substantially change the hydrologic regime of the area. Similarly, effects on water quality would be readily apparent and would substantially change beneficial uses of surface or groundwater. EPMs and BMPs may be necessary to reduce adverse effects, and these measures would need to be monitored to determine their effectiveness.
4.2.1 Proposed Action
The Proposed Action has a limited areal footprint in the lower part of the Roberts Mountains in the Kobeh Valley hydrographic basin. Exploration activities (including reclamation) associated with the Proposed Action would not alter the distribution of snow and the snowmelt runoff to ephemeral drainages. Similarly, surface disturbance activities associated with the Proposed Action would be very localized and the terrain would be reclaimed to approximate the original contours and, therefore, would not alter surface water runoff and would not change the amount of spring runoff that each ephemeral drainage receives.
The Proposed Action is expected to have a negligible effect on snowmelt recharge to shallow groundwater within EPO Area. This effect to shallow bedrock groundwater would be very minor and probably not measurable, making the effect negligible to the overall water balance in shallow bedrock groundwater.
The only anticipated water management activities are associated with the drilling and fugitive dust suppression on roads. Produced water from the Gold Bar Mine would be used for these purposes and transported to the EPO Area by water trucks. No fresh surface water or groundwater would be used additional to what was proposed in the Gold Bar EIS. The Proposed Action would therefore also have no effects on water rights. As summarized in the EPO, MMI would use BMPs to control stormwater, sediment erosion, and protect surface water resources from pollution related to surface disturbance activities. As a result, potential effects to surface water resources within or adjacent to the EPO Area from the Proposed Action are anticipated to be local, short-term, and negligible.
Groundwater Effects No additional groundwater extraction would be needed for the Proposed Action.
Gold Bar Exploration Project 21 Resource Report 4 – Water
Drilling activities associated with exploration may potentially come into contact with groundwater. Drill hole depths would range between 300 and 1,000 feet below ground surface (bgs) with an average depth of about 600 feet bgs. The depth to groundwater is generally estimated to range between 400 and 800 feet bgs, though the depth to groundwater in the area of the Roberts Creek Ranch is around 190 to 196 feet bgs (SRK, 2014b). The reverse rotary drilling may extract an inconsequential amount of groundwater. All water either used or encountered during drilling is captured in the drilling sump that allows reinfiltration of the water and capture of any drill cuttings.
Following evaluation of geological materials from the drill cores, drill holes will be plugged and abandoned in accordance with applicable NAC 534.4369 through 534.4371. Exploration drill holes will be plugged and abandoned immediately after obtaining necessary data from the drill hole. A drill hole may be left open for a period of time following the initial drilling if it is anticipated that the hole may be re-entered to drill deeper or to use down-hole geophysical techniques. In the annual summary report to the BLM, MMI will identify which drill holes were left open and the reason for this action.
Given the depth to groundwater in the exploration target areas, MMI anticipates most of the drill holes would not reach the water table. To avoid creating a direct connection between groundwater and surface runoff, MMI would comply with the abandonment methods described for wet holes, filling the hole from the Total Depth (TD) with bentonite to completely seal the drill hole with a 10-ft. cement seal from 10 feet below the surface to the top of the hole.
4.2.1.1 Environmental Consequences
Surface Water Effects Changes in runoff distribution due to the Proposed Action would be negligible and the overall effect on surface water resource would be negligible. The Proposed Action is expected to have a negligible effect on snowmelt recharge to shallow groundwater within EPO Area. BMPs to control stormwater, sediment erosion, and protect surface water resources from pollution related to surface disturbance activities would be implemented to reduce the potential for temporary effects to water quality. Water required for the Proposed Action would be produced water from the Gold Bar Mine and therefore no surface or groundwater would be used. No water rights would be affected. Consequently, effects to surface water resources within or adjacent to the EPO Area from the Proposed Action are anticipated to be local, short- term, and negligible. In conclusion, short-term adverse effects on surface water quality would be localized and negligible; beneficial long-term effects on surface water quality would be localized and minor to moderate from the reclamation of up to 50 acres of existing disturbance.
Groundwater Effects No additional groundwater extraction would be needed for the Proposed Action. Drilling activities are expected to be less than the depth to groundwater. Nevertheless, MMI EMPs would ensure that the drill holes do not become conduits for surface runoff to groundwater by filling the holes with bentonite and cement. In conclusion, no adverse effects to groundwater from the Proposed Action would occur since groundwater would not be extracted.
4.2.2 No Action
The existing conditions for the Proposed Action would be the same as described under the Proposed Action for the Kobeh Valley surface water and groundwater resources. Approximately 2.3 acres of surface disturbance would persist within the analysis area under authorized Notice-level activities described in
Gold Bar Exploration Project 22 Resource Report 4 – Water
Resource Report 2 – Proposed Action. The existing conditions would include the existing approximately 332 acres of disturbance from the old Atlas mining operations.
4.2.3 Cumulative Effects
Proposed Action
The CESA for water resources is presented in Figure 4.23-1 in the Gold Bar FEIS. Table 2.4-1 in Resource Report 2 provides the cumulative effects from past, present, and RFFAs in combination with the Proposed Action.
The CESA includes the Kobeh Valley Hydrographic Basin (#139) and the Diamond Valley Hydrographic Basin (#153), and extends six miles (10 kilometers) north of the Kobeh Valley Hydrographic Basin. The total area of the CESA encompasses approximately 1,120,249 acres.
Past and present disturbance within the water quality and quantity CESA includes mineral exploration and development (5,335 acres), sand and gravel operations (3,400 acres), roads (4,438 acres), livestock grazing, and wildland fire (13,765 acres).
RFFAs within the water quality and quantity CESA includes mineral exploration and development (8,199 acres) and sand and gravel operations (614 acres). Wildland fires in this CESA are also expected to occur in the future, as would livestock grazing and dispersed recreation. These activities would lead to similar effects as stated for past and present actions.
Of the 1,120,249 acres covered by the CESA, approximately 35,751 acres of disturbance are associated with past, present, and RFFAs, which is a disturbance of 3.2 percent of the CESA. The Proposed Action would increase the disturbance within the CESA by up to 200 acres, which is approximately 0.02 percent of the CESA.
Considering past, present, and RFFAs within the CESA that may affect water quality and quantity, cumulative effects would include increased water use within the CESA which may result in a reduction of base flow to perennial streams or springs, and may affect groundwater wells and water rights within the CESA. The Proposed Action would not contribute to these types of cumulative effects. Cumulative effects may be increased erosion and sedimentation effecting surface water quality. The Proposed Action does not include dewatering and effects to surface water resources within or adjacent to the EPO Area are not expected. The Proposed Action is not anticipated to effect surface water quantity in Roberts Creek or Rutabaga Creek.
While there may be cumulative effects to groundwater from past, present, and RFFAs, the Proposed Action would not extract groundwater and therefore would not contribute to cumulative groundwater effects. Cumulative effects from the Proposed Action on groundwater quality or surface water quality are not expected.
No Action Alternative
Adverse cumulative effects from past, present, and RFFAs would be similar to the Proposed Action except that effects from the Proposed Action would not occur and up to 50 acres of existing disturbance would not contribute to beneficial long-term effects to surface water quality from reclamation.
Gold Bar Exploration Project 23 Resource Report 4 – Water 4.3 REFERENCES
Berger, D.L., Mayers, C.J., Garcia, C.A., Buto, S.G., and J.M. Huntington. 2016. Budgets and chemical characterization of groundwater for the Diamond Valley flow system, central Nevada, 2011–12: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2016–5055, 83 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/sir20165055.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2012. Mount Hope Project Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volumes I, II, and III. NV063-EIS07-019. U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Mount Lewis Field Office. October 2012.
Dohrenwend, R.C., B.A. Schell, C.M. Menges, B.C. Moring, and M.A. McKittrick. 1996. Reconnaissance Photogeologic Map of Young (Quaternary and Late Tertiary) Faults in Nevada. Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Open-File Report 96-2, Plate 9-1.
Eureka County. 2016. Eureka County Water Resources Master Plan. September 2016. Available online at: http://www.co.eureka.nv.us/natres/Water%20Resources%20Master%20Plan%20FINAL.pdf.
French, G.M., Fenne, F.K., Maus, D.A., Rennebaum, T.D., and T.A. Jennings. 1996. Geology and mineralization of the Gold Bar District, Southern Roberts Mountains in Green, Steven M., and E. Struhsacker, eds., Geology and Ore Deposits of the American Cordillera: Geological Society of Nevada Field Trip Guidebook Compendium, Reno, Nevada, 1996, pp. 309-315.
Harrill, J.R., J.S. Gates, and J.M. Thomas. 1988. Major Groundwater Flow Systems in the Great Basin Region of Nevada, Utah, and Adjacent States. U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigation Atlas HA-694C.
Houghton, J.G., M. Sakamoto, and R.O. Gifford. 1975. Nevada Weather and Climate. Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology Special Publication 2, 78p.
Houng-Ming, J.J.H. Trimmer, and R. Jewell. 1983. Nevada Watershed Studies 1963-1980. U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Technical Publication BLMNVPT830014340.
Interflow Hydrology. 2017. Technical Memorandum from D.L. Smith to PR. Rogers, Eureka Moly LLC. Documentation of Numerical Flow Model Update, Mt. Hope Project, Eureka County, Nevada. May 30, 2018.
JBR Environmental Consultants, Inc. (JBR). 2012. Letter Regarding: Results of the Seeps and Springs, Riparian, and Noxious Weed Survey. Gold Bar Project, Eureka County, Nevada. November 8, 2012.
JBR Environmental Consultants, Inc. (JBR). 2013. Supplemental Seep and Spring, Riparian Vegetation, and Noxious Weed Survey. Gold Bar Project, Eureka County, Nevada. September 18, 2013.
Maxey, G.B, and T.E. Eakin. 1949. Ground Water in the White River Valley, White Pine, Nye, and Lincoln Counties, Nevada. Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources Bulletin 8.
McEwen Mining, Inc. (MMI). 2016a. Gold Bar Project Mine Plan of Operations and Nevada Reclamation Permit Application, Eureka County, Nevada. Prepared by SRK Consulting for McEwen Mining Inc. December 2013, Revised February 2014, Revised December 2015, Revised May 2016.
Montgomery and Associates, Interflow Hydrology, and Barranca Group. 2010. Hydrogeology and Numerical Flow Modeling, Mount Hope Project, Eureka County, Nevada. Report prepared for Eureka Moly LLC, July 2010.
Mt. Wheeler Power (Mt. Wheeler). 2014. Plan of Development for Machacek to Gold Bar 25kV Overhead Distribution Line Project. Submitted to BLM Battle Mountain District. Jan. 2015.
Gold Bar Exploration Project 24 Resource Report 4 – Water
Nevada Division of Water Resources (NDWR). 2016. NDWR-Water Rights Database Advance Search (Special Hydrographic Abstract). Accessed multiple days in May 2016 online at: http://water.nv.gov/data/hydrographic/.
Plume, R.W. and S.M. Carlton. 1988. Hydrogeology of the Great Basin Region of Nevada, Utah, and Adjacent States. U.S. Geological Survey Hydrological Investigation Atlas HA – 64.
Ponce, D.A. and J.M.G. Glen. 2002. Relationship of Epithermal Gold Deposits to Large-Scale Fractures in Northern Nevada. Economic Geology, V. 97, No. 1, p 3-9.
Robinson, B.P., W. Thordarson, and W.A. Bretam. 1967. Hydrologic and Chemical Data for Wells, Springs, and Streams in Central Nevada, Townships 1-21 North, Ranges 41-57 East. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report TEI-871. 61p.
Rush, E.F. and D.E. Everett. 1964. Ground-Water Appraisal of Monitor, Antelope, and Kobeh Valleys, Nevada. Nevada Ground-Water Resources – Reconnaissance Series, Report 30.
Sharp, Z. 2007. Principles of Stable Isotope Geochemistry. Prentice Hall. First Edition. 344 pages
SRK Consulting (U.S.) Inc. (SRK). 2007a. Baseline Studies for the Mt. Hope Project. Prep, for Idaho General Mines, Inc. January 2007.
SRK Consulting (U.S.) Inc. (SRK). 2007b. Delineation of Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. and Wetlands. Mt. Hope Project, Eureka County, Nevada. Prep, for Idaho General Mines, Inc. May 2007. SRK Consulting (U.S.) Inc. (SRK). 2007c. Baseline Studies for Mt. Hope Project – Wellfield, Powerline, and Transmission Line. Prep, for Idaho General Mines, Inc. September 2007.
SRK Consulting (U.S.) Inc. (SRK). 2008. Mount Hope Project Baseline Surface and Groundwater Report. Prepared for General Moly.
SRK Consulting (U.S.) Inc. (SRK). 2014a. Final Waste Rock and Ore Geochemical Characterization Report for the Gold Bar Project. Revised February 2014.
SRK Consulting (U.S.) Inc. (SRK). 2014b. Gold Bar Revised Water Supply Evaluation and Impact Analysis. Technical Memorandum to MMI dated July 22, 2014.
Theis, C.V. 1935. The Relationship between Lowering of the Piezometric Surface and the Rate and Duration of Discharge of a Well using Groundwater Storage. Trans. American Geophysical Union, vol. 16, pp 519-524.
Tumbusch, M. and R.W. Plume. 2006. Hydrogeological Framework and Groundwater in Basin-Fill Deposits of the Diamond Valley Flow System. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigation Series SIR 2006-5249.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2013. Letter Regarding jurisdictional determination for the Gold Bar Mine project. Regulatory Division SPK-2012-01282. January 22, 2013.
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2013. USGS Stream Gauge Data for USGS Site 10245970 Roberts Creek Near Eureka. Accessed August 2013 online at: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nv/nwis/uv?site_no=10245970
United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2015. Nevada water data –National Water Information System. Accessed September 2015 online at: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nv/nwis
Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2016. Climate Summary of Nevada. Accessed online at: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmnv.html.
Gold Bar Exploration Project 25 Resource Report 4 – Water