Roca Honda Mine SDEIS Draft Scoping Reporta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...U.S. Forest Service Roca Honda Mine Cibola National Forest Supplemental Draft EIS Scoping

September 2015

Scoping Report for the Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement Proposed Roca Honda Mine Mt. Taylor Ranger District Prepared for: Cibola National Forest Albuquerque, New Mexico

Prepared by:

8201 Greensboro Drive, Suite 700 McLean, VA 22102 (703) 760-4801

U.S. Forest Service Roca Honda Mine Cibola National Forest Supplemental Draft EIS

Scoping Report i September 2015

CONTENTS Page

1.0 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1 2.0 Project Overview .................................................................................................................2

2.1 Proposed Action and Draft Environmental Impact Statement .................................2 2.2 New Alternative (4) .................................................................................................3 2.3 Permitting for New Alternative (4) ..........................................................................4 2.4 Scope of this Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement ......................5

3.0 Notification of Scoping Meetings ........................................................................................6 3.1 Newspapers ..............................................................................................................6 3.2 Interested Parties and Tribal Consultation ...............................................................6

4.0 Public Scoping Meetings .....................................................................................................7 4.1 Meeting Date and Location ......................................................................................7 4.2 Purpose .....................................................................................................................7 4.3 Open House Format .................................................................................................7

5.0 Public Scoping Meeting Comments...................................................................................10 5.1 Collecting Comments.............................................................................................10 5.2 Summary of Commenters ......................................................................................10 5.3 Issues Identified During Scoping ...........................................................................10 5.4 Summary of Comments by Category .....................................................................17

5.4.1 Alternative 4...............................................................................................17 5.4.2 Air Quality .................................................................................................17 5.4.3 Cultural and Historic Resources ................................................................18 5.4.4 Cooperating Agencies ................................................................................18 5.4.5 Cumulative Impacts ...................................................................................19 5.4.6 Environmental Justice ................................................................................20 5.4.7 Forest Service Management .......................................................................20 5.4.8 Geology and Soils ......................................................................................20 5.4.9 Groundwater Resources .............................................................................20 5.4.10 Human Health and Safety ..........................................................................21 5.4.11 Information ................................................................................................21 5.4.12 Land Use ....................................................................................................22 5.4.13 Legacy Issues .............................................................................................22 5.4.14 Milling Facilities ........................................................................................22 5.4.15 Monitoring .................................................................................................23 5.4.16 NEPA Process ............................................................................................23 5.4.17 Proposed Action .........................................................................................24 5.4.18 Public Involvement ....................................................................................24 5.4.19 Regulatory Compliance .............................................................................25 5.4.20 Scope of SDEIS .........................................................................................25 5.4.21 Socioeconomics .........................................................................................25 5.4.22 Surface Water Resources ...........................................................................26 5.4.23 Transportation ............................................................................................27 5.4.24 Vegetation ..................................................................................................27 5.4.25 Visual Resources ........................................................................................27


Scoping Report ii September 2015

5.4.26 Waste Management ....................................................................................27 5.4.27 Water Rights ..............................................................................................28

6.0 Conclusion .........................................................................................................................33 7.0 List of Preparers .................................................................................................................34 Appendix A: Newspaper Notice, Proof of Publication, and News release ................................ A-1 Appendix B: Letter to Interested Parties .....................................................................................B-1 Appendix C: Scoping Meeting Sign-In Sheets ...........................................................................C-1 Appendix D: Maps of New Alternative ..................................................................................... D-1 Appendix E: Public Scoping Poster Display .............................................................................. E-1 Appendix F: Public Scoping Handout (FAQs) ........................................................................... F-1 Appendix G: Scoping Comment Form ...................................................................................... G-1 Appendix H: Transcript of March 11th Scoping Meeting .......................................................... H-1 Appendix I: Index of Public and Agency Comments by Source and Date .................................. I-1 Appendix J: Index of Public and Agency Comments by Category ............................................. J-1


Scoping Report iii September 2015

TABLES: Page

Table 1. Summary of Scoping Comments for the Roca Honda Mine SDEIS ..............................12 Table 2. Roca Honda Mine SDEIS Scoping Comments by Commenter and Category ...............29

FIGURES: Page

Figure 1. Location Map of the New Alternative (4) .......................................................................4 Figure 2. Welcome and Sign-In Table at Milan Public Scoping Meeting ......................................7 Figure 3. Diane Tafoya (USFS Project Manager) ..........................................................................8 Figure 4. Milan Scoping Meeting ...................................................................................................9


Scoping Report iv September 2015

Acronyms and Abbreviations APE Area of Potential Effect BLM Bureau of Land Management CAA Clean Air Act CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CWA Clean Water Act DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement DOT Department of Transportation EIS Environmental Impact Statement ESA Endangered Species Act FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FLPMA Federal Land Policy Management Act HDPE High-density Polyethylene LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NESHAP National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants NGO Non-Governmental Organization NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NMDOT New Mexico Department of Transportation NMED New Mexico Environment Department NMMMD New Mexico Minerals and Mining Division NOI Notice of Intent NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRHP National Register of Historic Places POO Plan of Operations PVC Polyvinyl Chloride RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RHR Roca Honda Resources, LLC ROW Right of Way SDEIS Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement SUP Special Use Permit TCP Traditional Cultural Property THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Officer USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USDA United States Department of Agriculture USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFS United States Forest Service


Scoping Report v September 2015

This page intentionally left blank.


Scoping Report 1 September 2015

1.0 INTRODUCTION In 2009, Roca Honda Resources, LLC (RHR) submitted a Plan of Operations (POO) to the Cibola National Forest proposing to develop and conduct underground uranium mining operations on their mining claims on and near Jesus Mesa in the Mount Taylor Ranger District. The proposed mine is located within portions of Sections 9, 10, and 16, Township 13 North, Range 8 West, and New Mexico Principal Meridian. These sections are located in McKinley County, New Mexico, approximately three miles northwest of San Mateo and 22 miles northeast of Grants. In March 2013, the Cibola National Forest published a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) to assess the development of a uranium mining operation on the Mount Taylor Ranger District. In response to public comments on the DEIS, a new Alternative was developed. As with the two action alternatives analyzed in the DEIS, mine operation would require the continuous removal of large volumes of water from the subterranean formation – the Westwater Canyon Member of the Morrison Formation (an aquifer) – where the uranium ore is found. Under this new Alternative (4), once brought to the surface, the water would be treated to State of New Mexico drinking water standards, then further tested for contaminants before being piped from the mine site south to Milan, NM, within Cibola County. The water would then be released into the Rio San Jose, where it could be available to downstream users. The Rio San Jose is a water resource used by Milan, Grants and the Acoma and Laguna Pueblos. On March 11th, 2015, the Cibola National Forest hosted a public scoping meeting in Milan, NM to share information about the new Alternative (4) for the proposed Roca Honda Mine EIS. The new proposal will be evaluated as an additional Alternative (Alternative 4) in a supplemental draft environmental impact statement (SDEIS). After a comment period for the SDEIS, it will be included in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). This report describes the new Alternative for the Roca Honda Mine, describes public scoping meeting materials, and summarizes substantive public comments received during the public scoping period held from March 11 through April 25, 2015. This document includes 10 appendices, as follows:

• Appendix A: Newspaper Notice, Proof of Publication, and News Release; • Appendix B: Letter to Interested Parties; • Appendix C: Scoping Meeting Sign-In Sheets; • Appendix D: Maps of New Alternative; • Appendix E: Public Scoping Poster Display; • Appendix F: Scoping Handout (FAQs); • Appendix G: Scoping Comment Form; • Appendix H: Transcript of March 11th Scoping Meeting; • Appendix I: Index of Public and Agency Comments by Source, Date and Category; and • Appendix J: Index of Public and Agency Comments by Category.



2.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW 2.1 PROPOSED ACTION AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT STATEMENT In 2009, Roca Honda Resources, LLC (RHR) submitted a Plan of Operations (POO) to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service for uranium mining at the Roca Honda mining claims, located on National Forest System land within the Mount Taylor Ranger District of the Cibola National Forest about 22 miles northeast of the town of Grants, New Mexico. RHR proposes to conduct mining operations for the period of approximately 18-19 years, including mine development, operations and reclamation.

• Mine development includes baseline data gathering, initial site development, construction, and depressurizing activities, which would be conducted to facilitate mine shaft construction.

• Mine operation consists of the activities related to production of uranium ore from the underground mine, and transport of the ore offsite for mineral processing. The production phase would last approximately 13 years.

• Mine reclamation is designed to remove surface facilities, plug the mine shafts, re-contour the disturbed area, replace stockpiled soil, and establish vegetation suitable for the post-mining land use of grazing.

The Forest Service, Cibola National Forest, Mount Taylor Ranger District issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register on November 24, 2010 to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this project in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ’s) regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500–1508), and Forest Service mining regulations which state that “operations shall be conducted so as, where feasible, to minimize adverse environmental effects on National Forest System surface resources” (36 CFR 228.8), providing such regulation does not endanger or materially interfere with prospecting, mining, or processing operations or reasonably incidental uses (1955 Multiple Use Mining Act and case law). On March 15, 2013, the Forest Service released a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Roca Honda uranium mine. In the DEIS, the following alternatives were analyzed:

• Alternative 1: No Action Alternative;

• Alternative 2: Two Shaft Alternative (as initially proposed by RHR); and

• Alternative 3: One Shaft Alternative (mine consolidated around one shaft, pipeline routed north).

The original October 2009 mine proposed would have released the treated water directly into San Mateo Creek from the Roca Honda Mine. The New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) soon noted that water discharge might mobilize contaminants remaining in the creek bed from legacy uranium mining. The discharge point was then proposed for a location on private land north of the mine. This is the pipeline route described in the March 2013 DEIS. The water was to



be used for crop and/or livestock forage irrigation with any excess water discharged into San Lucas Arroyo. Numerous commenters wrote that the water should not be poured out and “wasted,” but be available for community use given the pervasive lack of water resources in an arid climate.

2.2 NEW ALTERNATIVE (4) Energy Fuels Resources Inc., as operator of the proposed Roca Honda Mine, has since submitted an alternate pipeline route and discharge location for water which would be pumped from the mine. Operating the RHR mine would require the operator to de-water the 2,000-foot deep sandstone formation where the uranium is found. Once brought to the surface, the water would be treated in a reverse osmosis water treatment plant to State of New Mexico drinking water standards, and tested for contaminants before being piped from the mine site. This alternative proposes to route the water south to Milan, New Mexico, within Cibola County. The water would be piped south from the mine and discharged into the Rio San Jose, where it could be available to downstream users. The Rio San Jose is a water resource used by Milan, Grants, and the Acoma and Laguna Pueblos. The 20-inch diameter PVC (polyvinyl chloride) or HDPE (high-density polyethylene) pipe would be sized to accommodate a maximum flow of 4,500 gallons per minute during development of the mine. After mining operations began, the volume of flow would drop to approximately 2,000 gallons per minute. The pipeline would be buried in the Department of Transportation (DOT) right of way (ROW) along State Highway 605 with a portion buried in an existing ROW along County Road 75. Besides private land and/or National Forest Lands at the upper end, the pipeline would cross State Land, DOT, and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) surface before reaching Milan. The pipeline would be buried on the south and east side of Highway 605 for most of its length, but at the south end it would cross under the highway near the discharge point. From there it would be routed west through the Village of Milan and discharge into the Rio San Jose near Skytop Community Park. Under the new proposal, the water would leave the mine site either by a direct route south over private land to State Highway 605, or would follow an access road west across public National Forest System Lands to tie into Route 75 south-bound to San Mateo, NM. Both routes would tie into State Hwy 605 (see Figure 1. Location Map of the New Alternative 4). Additional maps of the new Alternative are included in Appendix D. The length of the pipeline would be 20.4 to 26.4 miles, depending on the route of the pipeline leaving the mine, and would be buried everywhere except across portions on the Forest Service lands.



Figure 1. Location Map of the New Alternative (4)

2.3 PERMITTING FOR NEW ALTERNATIVE (4) A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit would be required from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in order to discharge the water. NMED would require that the pipeline be included in the pending discharge permit. The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) would require a permit to address changes to the Rio San Jose channel in order to protect the channel from erosion. New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT) has issued an Environmental Permit to allow RHR to conduct baseline studies along the proposed route, and would require a construction permit prior to building the pipeline. As data are collected and analyses are completed, this information will be submitted by RHR to the various regulatory agencies where it will be made publically available. A draft Discharge Permit would also be issued by NMED for public review and comment.



2.4 SCOPE OF THIS SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

The proposed new route will be evaluated as an additional alternative to the DEIS and will be appended as a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS). It will be considered Alternative 4 (mine consolidated around one shaft, pipeline routed south to the Rio San Jose). Other than the new pipeline route, all other aspects of Alternative 4 are those described and analyzed under Alternative 3 of the DEIS. The purpose of the SDEIS is to determine the environmental impacts of the construction and operation of the pipeline as described for the new Alternative (4). That SDEIS will be issued in a draft for review and comment by the public. Analysis and comments on the SDEIS will then be incorporated into the Final EIS (FEIS) before a Record of Decision can be signed. The pipeline route, as well as the mine itself, would then need to be approved in a Forest Service Plan of Operations.



3.0 NOTIFICATION OF SCOPING MEETINGS 3.1 NEWSPAPERS Two notices were printed in the legal section of the Cibola Beacon on March 3 and 6, 2015. The Public Display Ads included an advertisement that identified the purpose as well as meeting time and location. Copies of the newspaper advertisements and proof of publication are included in Appendix, as is a Cibola National Forest news release.

3.2 INTERESTED PARTIES AND TRIBAL CONSULTATION A letter dated February 20, 2015 was distributed to agencies; non-government organizations (NGOs); interested parties; and those who have requested to be informed of project updates. The letter included a description of the new Alternative (4) as well as maps and other background information. A copy is included in Appendix B. Tribal leaders and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) received letters with similar information as well as information on the Section 106 consultation process. The Pueblos of Acoma, Laguna, and Zuni, as well as the Hopi and Navajo Tribes will continue to be part of Section 106 consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).



4.0 PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS 4.1 MEETING DATE AND LOCATION The Cibola National Forest hosted a public open house at the Milan Village Parks and Recreation Building, at 405A Airport Rd. in Milan on Wednesday, March 11, from 6-8 p.m. Attendees were greeted at the entrance, asked to sign-in, and provided a Scoping Handout and Scoping Comment Form (included in Appendices F and G, respectively).

Figure 2. Welcome and Sign-In Table at Milan Public Scoping Meeting

4.2 PURPOSE The purpose of the public scoping meetings is to provide the public with information regarding the new Alternative (4), answer questions, identify concerns regarding the potential environmental impacts that may result from construction and operation of the new pipeline, and gather information to determine the scope of issues to be addressed in the SDEIS.

4.3 OPEN HOUSE FORMAT An open house format was used to encourage discussion and information sharing and to ensure that the public had opportunities to speak with representatives of the U.S. Forest Service, Cibola National Forest and Grasslands, Mount Taylor Ranger District, State of New Mexico, and RHR (the mining company). Several display stations with exhibits, maps and other project information were staffed by representatives of the U.S. Forest Service, Energy Fuels, and Solv, LLC. Maps



of the new Alternative (4), including an Overview, Start Point of Pipeline, and Discharge Point of Pipeline, are included in Appendix D. Information stations at the public scoping meetings included the following poster display, and are included in Appendix E:

• Sign-in and Welcome Sign; • National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Process; • Alternatives; • Supplemental Draft EIS – New Alternative (4); and • Scoping Comments.

Copies of “Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Roca Honda Proposed Water Pipeline to the Rio San Jose” (Appendix F) and Scoping Comment Forms (Appendix G) were made available to all scoping meeting attendees at several locations in the meeting location.

Figure 3. Diane Tafoya (USFS Project Manager)



Figure 4. Milan Scoping Meeting, March 11, 2015

A court reporter was available for the duration of the Scoping Meeting to transcribe comments from the public. No comments were submitted orally. The transcript is included in Appendix H.



5.0 PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING COMMENTS 5.1 COLLECTING COMMENTS No oral comments were made for the record; and no comments were submitted using the comment form. Written comments were submitted using letters and emails. All comments were directly delivered to the Cibola National Forest. A summary of the public comments received and organized by category is provided in Table 1. The items were indexed based on the source of the comments including federal, state, or local agency (A), Tribe (T), non-government organization (NGO), or public (P). Appendix I includes an index of comments by source and date. Each comment submission was cataloged with a code based on the source of the comment (e.g., P) and the order in which it was received. For example, P13 was the 13th comment submission received from a member of the Public. Each comment in a comment submission was given a code correlating to the topic, resource area or category (e.g. EJ, or environmental justice). Many of the comments pertain to more than one category. For example, a commenter noting that the EIS should evaluate the cumulative effects of transportation and deposition of radium and uranium in the river bed pertains to five categories: Alternative 4, Geology and Soils, Cumulative Impacts, Surface Water Resources, and Groundwater Resources. Appendix J is an index of comments by category.

5.2 SUMMARY OF COMMENTERS Of the 60 total commenters, 27 used a form letter and 22 were signatories to a petition. (The person who drafted the petition also counted as one signatory, though he did not actually sign the petition with the other signatories). Those who submitted a comment using a form letter were catalogued as P1-P27 in Table 2 and Appendix I, while those who signed the petition were catalogued as P32-53. A form letter indicates a pre-drafted set of comments that were forwarded or sent to the Cibola National Forest during the Scoping Period. Some variation existed between form letters, with individual commenters adding more or less of the pre-drafted set of comments. Due to technical issues, 27 form letters were received, but it is possible that more than 27 commenters attempted to forward or send comments using the form letter. Each form letter submitted was counted as one commenter. One petition was received with 22 signatories (including the person who drafted the petition but did not actually sign it), each of the 22 counting as one commenter. The petition included a set of comments with 21 names, signatures, and addresses below. The petition included 22 comments from 22 commenters.

5.3 ISSUES IDENTIFIED DURING SCOPING Each concern or question associated within a comment submission a commenter was categorized by resource area or topic. The 27 comment categories, discussed in the following sections, include Alternative 4; Air Quality, Cultural and Historic Resources; Cooperating Agencies; Cumulative Impacts; Environmental Justice; Forest Service Management; Geology and Soils; Groundwater Resources; Human Health and Safety; Information; Land Use; Legacy Issues;



Milling Facilities; Monitoring; National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Process; Proposed Action; Public Involvement; Regulatory Compliance; Scope of Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS); Socioeconomics; Surface Water Resources; Transportation; Vegetation; Visual Resources; Waste Management; Water Rights. An overview of the most common or substantive comments is provided in the pursuant sections and shown in Table 2. A total of 552 comments were received during the Scoping Period from March 11-April 25, 2015. If a commenter provided the same or very similar input more than once, this comment was only counted once. Each comment in the form letter was counted once, and those comment categories are indicated with an asterisk in Table 1 below. As with the form letter, each comment in the petition was counted once, and those comment categories are italicized in Table 1 below.

USFS Roca Honda Mine Cibola National Forest Supplemental Draft EIS


Table 1. Summary of Scoping Comments for the Roca Honda Mine SDEIS

Category Number of Comments

Number of Commenters Summary of Issues

Alternative 4* 88 56

Alternative 4 would eliminate the Village of Milan’s current reliance on underground pumping in the immediate area for its municipal supply and would address some of the concerns that tribes expressed during the Section 106 Process of the DEIS. Evaluate the transportation and deposition of radium and uranium, where the uranium would flow and accumulate; and long-term and cumulative effects of deposition in the river bed.

Air Quality 6 3 Evaluate levels of radon emissions and other radioactive and toxic pollutants that would be released during processing of uranium at White Mesa Mill.

Cultural and Historic 12 5

Proposed Action would adversely impact those qualities and characteristics of Mt. Taylor that make it eligible for listing on the NRHP as a TCP. Concerned with archaeological impacts from eventual tailing impoundments at White Mesa; include Ute Mountain Ute Tribe in Section 106 Consultation process.

Cooperating Agencies 4 1

BLM needs to ensure that all mandates of the FLPMA Title V and its implementing regulations are adhered to. USEPA and NRC should be involved with issues regarding the handling or transportation of radioactive and toxic solid waste streams, where neither the BLM nor USFS have jurisdiction.

Cumulative Impacts* 51 32

• Evaluate contamination at the Rio San Jose and analyze connected actions associated with the White Mesa Mill in Blanding, Utah.

• Consider additional uranium from the Mt. Taylor Mine that would be processed at the White Mesa Mill.

• Potential for mobilization of existing contaminants in the sediments of the Rio San Jose as a result of the discharge of the Roca Honda Mine treated mine water over time.

• Consider how much radium and uranium would be deposited, where the radium and uranium would flow and accumulate, and effects of deposition in the river bed from discharged mine waters.

Environmental Justice 4 2 Restarting uranium mining in NM would create psychological impacts, specifically

to Native Americans in surrounding communities that consider Mt. Taylor sacred. Forest Service Management* 28 28 Revision of the 1985 Cibola National Forest LRMP should have been completed

prior to consideration of the Roca Honda Mine application; and therefore the USFS





must not approve the final EIS until completion of the new LRMP.

Geology & Soils 4 2 Concerned with the mobilization of existing contaminants in the sediments of the Rio San Jose and the long-term effects of the radium and uranium deposition in the river bed from discharged, treated mine water.

Groundwater* 65 54

• Consider how much radium and uranium would be deposited, where it would flow and accumulate, and long-term effects of deposition in the river bed from discharged mine waters.

• Concerned with legality of issuing a ROW due to the severe, long-lasting impact on groundwater from dewatering.

• Include the potential for the mobilization of existing contaminants in the sediments of the Rio San Jose as a result of the discharged mine water in cumulative impacts analysis.

Human Health and Safety* 59 52

Consider public health and safety as it relates to particulate and radon emissions at the White Mesa Mill, especially surrounding communities. Concerned with legacy issues related to the historic uranium industry in the area - restarting uranium mining in New Mexico would create psychological impacts.

Information 11 3 Provided White Mesa Archeological Sites report and information; Mt. Taylor application to NMMMD to re-start uranium production; supporting documentation or information. Requests to include Sampling and Analysis Plan, Baseline Data Report, Mine Operations, and Reclamation Plan associated with Alternative 4.

Land Use 3 1 Discuss the required easements for pipeline crossing private lands and SUP/ROW permits crossing BLM land.

Legacy Issues 2 1 Restarting uranium mining in NM would create psychological impacts, especially to Native Americans in surrounding communities that consider Mt. Taylor sacred and/or whose families or communities suffered impacts from historical uranium mining.

Milling Facilities* 40 29

• Identify the operation of the White Mesa Mill as a connected action and characterize and evaluate the impacts associated with the transportation, storage, processing, and disposal of uranium and related wastes.

• Evaluate levels of radon emissions and other radioactive and toxic pollutants that would be released during processing of uranium. Explain how actions would or would not comply with NESHAP.





• Water treatment plan does not mention disposal methods for the concentrated uranium or the other waste stream(s) created by the ion exchange process.

• Consider impacts from other mines that feed into the White Mesa Mill.

Monitoring 3 3 Include monitoring plan for water before entering the pipeline, at various levels underground along the water’s path, and at the discharge point.

NEPA Process* 90 52

• In light of the new Alternative 4, a new DEIS should be developed and made available for public review (instead of a SDEIS).

• USFS should have issued a NOI in the Federal Register announcing the opportunity to submit comments on the SDEIS.

• Cooperating agencies should be more directly involved in the development of the SDEIS.

• USFS must not approve the final EIS for the Roca Honda Mine until the completion of the new LRMP.

Proposed Action 10 5

• Supporters of the Proposed Action cited economic reasons. • Discuss emergency response planning for problems with the pipeline and

bonding for the pipeline and use of the pipeline during periods of cessation of the mine operation.

• Prove that the technology to be used to clean mine wastewater to drinking water standards is viable and has precedence; provide a contingency plan for system failures.

• Discuss all the waste streams of the mine water, how the waste will be handled onsite, the eventual disposal location, the permits or licenses required to dispose of these wastes, the impacts from the disposal of the waste, and other aspects of the handling and disposal of wastes from the mine water treatment processes.

Public Involvement* 107 52

• USFS should have issued a NOI in the Federal Register announcing the opportunity to submit comments on the SDEIS.

• Publish original and supplementary application documents on the USFS website.

Regulatory Compliance 9 3

• Roca Honda Mina and White Mesa Mill need comply with the CAA, CWA, ESA, NHPA, RCRA, NESHAP, and the FLPMA as well as all state and local laws.





• BLM must adhere to the FLPMA’s SUP/ROW provisions to issue permits that are in the best interest of the public.

Scope of SDEIS 13 4 Many comments applied to the published DEIS as opposed to the upcoming SDEIS. Comments pertaining to the White Mesa Mill are outside the scope of this EIS.

Socioeconomics* 65 65 EIS must consider and analyze potential impacts to communities in close proximity to White Mesa Mill. Consider psychological impact on those who suffered economic impacts from historical uranium mining. A report submitted cited issues with the economic impacts analysis conducted by RHR as well as in the DEIS.

Surface Water 16 5

• Having flowing water would eliminate pools of stagnant, smelly water that provide mosquito breeding habitat in the stream channel.

• Include emergency response planning for problems with the pipeline and emergency plan for flood events in the Rio San Jose.

• Consider how much radium and uranium would be deposited, where it would flow and accumulate, and long-term effects of deposition in the river bed from discharged mine waters.

• Consider temperature of the water that will be discharged. • Cumulative impacts analysis should include discharge into unnamed arroyo in

San Lucas Canyon from Mt. Taylor Mine on surface water hydrology.

Transportation* 37 30 USFS should evaluate the mill as a connected action in the cumulative impacts analysis, and consider the movement of uranium shipments through the towns en route to the mill from Roca Honda as well as the other mines.

Vegetation 2 2 Concerned with impacts on native flora and fauna from non-radiological constituents in the mine water and transport and deposition of those constituents.

Visual Resources 2 2 A year-round steady flow through the Rio San Jose would make the City of Grants’ existing Riverwalk more aesthetically pleasing and appealing.

Waste Management 6 3

• Identify all waste streams from IX column, barium chloride treatment, and reverse osmosis treatment of the mine water; how those wastes would be handled onsite; the eventual disposal location, the permits or licenses required to dispose of these wastes, the impacts from the disposal of the waste.

• SDEIS should mention disposal methods for the concentrated uranium or the other waste stream(s) created by the ion exchange process, likely be subject to RCRA.





• USEPA should review and analyze the potential impacts of disposing solid wastes from the ion exchange process.

Water Rights 4 2

• Rio San Jose water rights have yet to be adjudicated - effects from dewatering would solve, complicate, confuse, or impair the ongoing process

• Need to clarify who would have access to the water at and downstream of the discharge point.

Total 741 497



5.4 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS BY CATEGORY 5.4.1 Alternative 4 Eighty-eight (88) comments were received from 56 commenters regarding Alternative 4. Twenty-nine (29) of the 88 comments received were from form letters, and 42 were from the petition. Some commenters expressed support for Alternative 4 as opposed to the other action alternatives, as it would eliminate the Village of Milan’s current reliance on underground pumping in the immediate area for its municipal water supply to its residents and businesses and would address some of the concerns that tribes expressed during the Section 106 Process of the DEIS. Some commenters opposed Alternative 4, as the pumping of vast amounts of water from a subterranean aquifer would adversely affect the qualities and characteristics of Mt. Taylor that make it a traditional cultural property (TCP) and have severe, long-lasting, and permanent impacts on Native American resources. Several recommended that specific items be evaluated in the SDEIS, including:

• Cumulative impacts of discharge into unnamed arroyo in San Lucas Canyon from Mt. Taylor Mine on local ground and surface water hydrology.

• The transportation and deposition of the radium and uranium content of the discharged mine waters in the Rio San Jose over the life of the mine and beyond, including how much radium and uranium would be deposited; where the radium and uranium would flow and accumulate; and the long-term effects of the radium and uranium deposition in the river bed.

• Impacts from the construction of the pipeline on public, municipal, and private lands.

• Emergency plan for flood events in the Rio San Jose. Many requested that more information be made available on the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) webpage, including a description of the new alternative route and the data that it is submitted to the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED).

5.4.2 Air Quality Six (6) comments were received from three (3) commenters. Nearly all of the concerns regarded potential air quality impacts at the White Mesa Mill, requesting that the revised DEIS or SDEIS evaluate levels of radon emissions and other radioactive and toxic pollutants that would be released during processing of uranium at this mill. A few commenters stated that in the past, dust and radiological and non-radiological contaminants have been dispersed both on and offsite due to wind and water when stored for extended periods of time when the mill is not operational. And that in light of recent and ongoing violations or unregulated levels of radon emissions from the liquid impoundments at the White Mesa Mill, the EIS should explain how actions would or would not comply with National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). It should be noted that most of these comments are not within the scope of the EIS since the proposed mill is not on National Forest System lands. Uranium mills are under the regulatory



jurisdiction of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), so no analysis of the milling is being conducted by the USFS.

5.4.3 Cultural and Historic Resources Twelve (12) comments were received from five commenters. Commenters expressed general concern that the Proposed Action would adversely impact those qualities and characteristics of Mt. Taylor that make it eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as a traditional cultural property (TCP). Some were concerned that because of legacy issues associated with the historical uranium industry, a new uranium mine would exacerbate these issues – in particular to Native Americans who consider the proposed mining location sacred. These commenters requested that cumulative adverse cultural, spiritual, and psychological impacts to the community be acknowledged and assessed. Some were concerned that transportation of the uranium for processing and disposal at the White Mesa Mill would have a direct impact on the Ute Mountain Ute tribal land and tribal members; and therefore that the Ute Mountain Ute Tribe of Towaoc, Colorado should be involved in Section 106 Consultation. Others were concerned that the processing of uranium at the White Mesa Mill and eventual construction of one or more tailings impoundments at White Mesa would cause the destruction of archeological sites that are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP as well as unique and significant cultural resources on White Mesa. One commenter provided the White Mesa Archaeological Sites report and information on cultural resources that have been found eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The Zuni Pueblo expressed concern that the proposed pipeline associated with Alternative 4 has the potential to negatively impact ancestral sites and other places of traditional cultural importance to the Zuni; and therefore Zuni cultural advisors should provide support for the physical inspection of the Alternative 4 pipeline route to identify outstanding properties and/or resources of importance. The Zuni Pueblo requested the opportunity to review the archaeological survey report of the area of potential effect (APE) for Alternative 4.

5.4.4 Cooperating Agencies Four (4) comments were received from one commenter. This commenter stated that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) must require the company to submit right of way or other special use permit authorizations. Others stated that because the approval of a pipeline and associated facilities is not a right covered by the 1872 Mining Law, the BLM need ensure that all mandates of the Federal Land Policy Management Act (FLPMA) Title V and its implementing regulations are adhered to (e.g., no permit can be issued unless it can be shown that the issuance of the permits is in the best interests of the public, payment of fair market value, etc.). As such, due to the severe, long-lasting, and permanent impacts from the mine on Native American resources, any issuance of a right of way (ROW) would be illegal. The commenter also stated that the USEPA should review and analyze the potential impacts of transporting or disposing solid wastes from the ion exchange process, a radioactive material likely subject to the requirements of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The



commenter emphasized that the USEPA and NRC should be involved with issues regarding the handling or transportation of radioactive and toxic solid waste streams, where neither the BLM nor USFS have jurisdiction.

5.4.5 Cumulative Impacts Fifty-one (51) comments were received from 32 commenters. Twenty-seven of these comments were from commenters who submitted a form letter. Most expressed the need to evaluate cumulative impacts from contamination at the Rio San Jose and analyze connected actions associated with the White Mesa Mill in Blanding, Utah. One stated that the EIS should consider cumulative impacts of the additional uranium from the Mt. Taylor Mine that would be processed at the White Mesa Mill. Another more generally expressed the need for a comprehensive evaluation of cumulative impacts from all mining activities in the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future. Most comments urged the USFS to consider connected actions at the White Mesa Mill from transportation, processing, and milling activities. Specific comments included:

• Determine whether additional tailings cells will need to be constructed to accommodate the tailings from the processing of the uranium from the Roca Honda Mine.

• Characterize and analyze current and foreseeable impacts from the known, monitored, and controlled, and unknown, unmonitored, and uncontrolled levels of radon and other radioactive and toxic pollutants that would be released at the White Mesa Mill.

• Evaluate potential impacts related to the movement of uranium shipments through the towns en route to the mill from the Roca Honda Mine


• Scope of the cumulative impacts analysis should include government ownership and care of the radioactive tailings created by processing the ore from the Roca Honda Mine.

• The Proposed Action would eventually lead to the construction of one or more tailings impoundments at the White Mesa Mill and cause the destruction of archeological sites that are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

• Connected actions on private land does not eliminate the need for their analysis. Note that because uranium mills are under the regulatory jurisdiction of the NRC and the White Mesa Mill is not on National Forest System land, potential impacts from milling activities will not be analyzed in this EIS. Some discussed the potential cumulative impact from legacy issues related to the historic uranium industry in the area, and that cumulative adverse economic, health, cultural, spiritual, psychological, and environmental impacts to the community should be considered in the EIS. Specific to Alternative 4, several commenters were concerned with the mobilization of existing contaminants in the sediments of the Rio San Jose as a result of the discharge of the treated mine water over time. More than one commenter stated that the cumulative impacts analysis should consider how much radium and uranium would be deposited, where the radium and uranium



would flow and accumulate, and the long-term effects of the radium and uranium deposition in the river bed from discharged mine waters.

5.4.6 Environmental Justice Four (4) comments were received from two (2) commenters. Several commenters were concerned that in light of legacy issues related to the historical uranium industry in the area, restarting uranium mining in New Mexico would create psychological impacts - specifically to Native Americans in the surrounding communities that consider Mt. Taylor sacred and/or to the larger Navajo Nation. Said differently, the Proposed Action would exacerbate the current and ongoing psychological consequences from historical mining in the region. One commenter urged the USFS to acknowledge and assess cumulative adverse economic, health, cultural, spiritual, psychological, and environmental impacts to the community.

5.4.7 Forest Service Management Twenty-eight (28) comments were received from 28 commenters. Twenty-seven of these comments were from commenters who submitted a form letter. The commenter stated that the revision of the 1985 Cibola National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) should have been completed prior to consideration of the Roca Honda Uranium Mine application; and therefore the USFS must not approve the final EIS for the Roca Honda Project until the completion of the new LRMP. Additionally, the public should have the opportunity to comment on the draft EIS after the completion of the LRMP.

5.4.8 Geology and Soils Four (4) comments were received from two (2) commenters. As discussed under Cumulative Impacts, several commenters were concerned with the mobilization of existing contaminants in the sediments of the Rio San Jose as a result of the discharge of the treated mine water over time. More than one commenter was concerned with the long-term effects of the radium and uranium deposition in the river bed from discharged mine waters. One commenter wondered if preexisting uranium or other contamination in the Rio San Jose could be picked up and carried downstream. A general request was made to consider all relevant seismic data be considered in the EIS.

5.4.9 Groundwater Resources Sixty-five (65) comments were received from 54 commenters. Twenty-seven of these comments were from commenters who submitted a form letter, and 21 were from signatories of the petition. Commenters requested that the SDEIS consider issues of water quality and quantity, including:

• How much radium and uranium would be deposited, where it would flow and accumulate, and long-term effects of deposition in the river bed from discharged mine waters.

• Temperature of the water that would be discharged.

• Transport and deposition of non-radiological constituents in the mine water and the impacts from its consumption for agricultural purposes and by native flora and fauna.



• Monitor water before entering the pipeline, at various levels underground along the water’s path, and at the discharge point.

• The legality of issuing a ROW due to the severe, long-lasting impact on groundwater from dewatering.

Several requested that the SDEIS cumulative impacts analysis consider the potential for the mobilization of existing contaminants in the sediments of the Rio San Jose as a result of the discharged mine water. More generally, several stated that the EIS cumulative impacts analysis consider the pumping rates and discharge in unnamed arroyo in San Lucas Canyon from the Mt. Taylor Mine. Many commenters requested that the EIS consider current groundwater characteristics at the White Mesa Mill and analyze the potential cumulative impact from the Roca Honda Mine during operations and beyond.

5.4.10 Human Health and Safety Sixty-five (65) comments from 54 commenters concerned human health and safety. Twenty-seven of these comments were from commenters who submitted a form letter, and 21 were from signatories of the petition. Most requested that the EIS consider the degree to which the Proposed Action would affect public health and safety as it relates to particulate and radon emissions at the White Mesa Mill. One commenter specifically expressed concern for the White Mesa Community of the Ute Mountain tribal nation, the City of Blanding, Utah, and the City of Bluff, Utah since all three communities fall within a 80 km radius of the White Mesa Mill. Several commenters discussed legacy issues related to the historical uranium industry in the area, as well as their concerns that restarting uranium mining in NM would create psychological impacts. The commenters stated that many workers died of cancer or other illnesses from working in mines and the mills, and family members also suffered from diseases associated with the uranium industry.

5.4.11 Information Eleven (11) comments from three (3) commenters either requested or provided information to be included in the EIS. Examples of the information provided includes: • White Mesa Archaeological Sites report and information on cultural resources that have been

found eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. • Mt. Taylor application to New Mexico Minerals and Mining Division (NMMMD) to re-start

uranium production. • Letter determining that ion exchange waste from electroplating process is subject to RCRA • A photograph of a White Mesa Mill ore truck. • Legacy issues described in The Navajo People and Uranium Mining, by Doug Brugge,

Timothy Benally, and Ester Yazzie-Lewis, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, 2006.

Others requested certain information be considered in the EIS or made public as part of the NEPA process, including supplemental information for Sampling and Analysis Plan, Baseline Data Report, Mine Operations, and Reclamation Plan associated with Alternative 4.



5.4.12 Land Use Three (3) comments were received from one (1) commenter addressing land use. The commenter requested that the SDEIS discuss the issues related to the pipeline’s crossing of private lands (e.g., required easements) as well as the crossing of public land (e.g., BLM’s issuance of a ROW permit). The commenter was also concerned with how use of the additional water in the Rio San Jose – for irrigation, livestock waters, native flora and fauna, recreation (such as swimming) – would affect land use in the area.

5.4.13 Legacy Issues Two (2) comments were received from one (1) commenter addressing legacy issues. As discussed under Cumulative Impacts, Environmental Justice, and Human Health and Safety, the commenter expressed concern with legacy issues related to the historical uranium industry in the area. Restarting uranium mining in New Mexico (NM) would create psychological impacts – especially to Native Americans in the surrounding communities that consider Mt. Taylor sacred and/or whose families or communities suffered from economic, health, cultural, spiritual, psychological, and environmental impacts from historical uranium mining.

5.4.14 Milling Facilities Forty (40) comments were received from 29 commenters regarding the milling facility (White Mesa Mill) as they relate to air quality, cultural and historic resources, groundwater and surface water, transportation, and socioeconomics. Twenty-seven of these comments were from commenters who submitted a form letter. Examples of recurring or unique comments include [Commenters Statements]:


• Evaluate levels of radon emissions and other radioactive and toxic pollutants that would be released during processing of uranium.

• In the past, dust and radiological and non-radiological contaminants have been dispersed both on and offsite due to wind and water when stored for extended periods of time when the mill is not operational.

• In light of recent and ongoing violations or unregulated levels of radon emissions from the liquid impoundments at the White Mesa Mill, the EIS should explain how actions would or would not comply with NESHAP.

• Evaluate potential impacts related to the movement of uranium shipments through the towns en route to the mill from the Roca Honda Mine.

• Transportation of the uranium would directly impact Ute Mountain Ute tribal members.

• Determine whether additional tailings cells will need to be constructed to accommodate the tailings from the processing of the uranium from the Roca Honda Mine.



• The Proposed Action would lead eventually to the construction of one or more tailings impoundments at White Mesa and cause the destruction of archeological sites that are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

• Characterize and analyze current and foreseeable impacts from the known, monitored, and controlled, and unknown, unmonitored, and uncontrolled levels of radon and other radioactive and toxic pollutants that would be released at the White Mesa Mill.



• Consider current groundwater characteristics at the White Mesa Mill and analyze the potential cumulative impact from the Roca Honda Mine during operations and beyond.

It should be noted that these comments are beyond the scope of the EIS. Since uranium mills are under the regulatory jurisdiction of the NRC and the White Mesa Mill is not on National Forest System land, potential impacts from milling and milling-related activities will not be analyzed in this EIS.

5.4.15 Monitoring All three (3) comments from the three (3) commenters requested that a continuous monitoring plan for water before entering the pipeline, at various levels underground along the water’s path, and at the discharge point be included in the SDEIS.

5.4.16 NEPA Process Ninety (90) comments from 52 commenters regarding the NEPA Process were received. Twenty-seven of these comments were from commenters who submitted a form letter, and 42 were from signatories of the petition. Many requesting that in light of the new Alternative 4, a new DEIS be developed and made available for public review (instead of a SDEIS). Commenters stated that the USFS/BLM cannot rely on the likely issuance of permits as a substitute for NEPA compliance. One commenter thought that since the new pipeline would cross BLM land it should conduct its own review under various environmental and public land law requirements. One commenter stated that the USFS should have issued a NOI in the Federal Register announcing the opportunity to submit comments on the SDEIS. Others requested that the USFS publish the data submitted to the NMED available as part of the NEPA Process, and stated that this information should have been made available to the public prior to the initiation of the scoping process. One commenter urged cooperating agencies to be more directly involved in the development of the SDEIS; more specifically, the USEPA and NRC should be involved with issues regarding the handling or transportation of radioactive and toxic solid waste streams, where neither the BLM nor USFS have jurisdiction and expertise. As discussed under Forest Service Management, commenters stated that the revision of the 1985 Cibola National Forest LRMP should have been completed prior to consideration of the Roca



Honda Mine application; and therefore the USFS must not approve the final EIS for the Roca Honda Mine until the completion of the new LRMP.

5.4.17 Proposed Action Ten (10) comments generally related to the Proposed Action (of all alternatives) were received from five (5) commenters. Supporters of the Proposed Action cited economic benefits – the region is in need of the jobs, economic development, and new businesses that would be associated with the mine. One commenter stated that the Plan of Operations (POO) suggests the mine would be feasible if uranium is selling at $55/lb; and that at this price the mine would not be feasible. Several comments concerned planning, maintenance, and operation of the pipeline, and requested that the following be discussed:

• The emergency response planning for problems with the pipeline, including leaks and spills.

• Discuss bonding for the pipeline and use of the pipeline during periods of cessation of the mine operation.

• Prove that the technology to be used to clean mine wastewater to drinking water standards is viable and has precedence; provide a contingency plan for system failures.

• All the waste streams of the mine water, how the waste will be handled onsite, the eventual disposal location, the permits or licenses required to dispose of these wastes, the impacts from the disposal of the waste, and other aspects of the handling and disposal of wastes from the mine water treatment processes.

Several other comments related to the White Mesa Mill, and are summarized above as they relate to the Milling Facility, Cultural and Historic Resources, Cumulative Impacts, Groundwater, and Air Quality. All comments related to the White Mesa Mill are outside the scope for this EIS and as such are not discussed further.

5.4.18 Public Involvement One hundred seven (107) comments from 52 commenters were submitted regarding Public Involvement. Twenty-seven of these comments were from commenters who submitted a form letter, and 42 were from signatories of the petition. One commenter stated that the USFS should have issued a NOI in the Federal Register announcing the opportunity to submit comments on the SDEIS. Others requested that the USFS publish the original and supplementary application documents on their website. Specific documents include the Sampling and Analysis Plan, Baseline Data Report, Mine Operations, and Reclamation Plan associated with Alternative 4. It was stated that these documents should have been made available to the public prior to the initiation of the scoping process. As discussed under Forest Service Management, one commenter stated that the public should have the opportunity to comment on the draft EIS after the completion of the LRMP.



5.4.19 Regulatory Compliance Nine (9) comments were received from three (3) commenters. Many commenters were concerned that the Roca Honda Mina and White Mesa Mill comply with the Clean Air Act (CAA), Clean Water Act (CWA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), RCRA, NESHAP, and the FLPMA as well as all state and local laws. Several commenters cited BLM’s mandatory duty to impose conditions that will minimize damage to scenic and aesthetic values and fish and wildlife habitat and not cause unnecessary damage to the environment. One commenter stated that the approval of a pipeline and associated facilities is not a right covered by the 1872 Mining Law, and therefore urged adherence to the FLPMA’s Special Use Permit (SUP)/ROW provisions to issue permits that are in the best interest of the public. One commenter stated that any license issued by the state of Utah to possess, receive, and process spent ion exchange resins and uranium concentrates, such a license cannot be extended to cover the proposed activities in NM, where uranium processing is directly licensed by NRC.

5.4.20 Scope of SDEIS Thirteen (13) comments were received from four (4) commenters that are outside the scope of this EIS. Many comments applied to the published DEIS as opposed to the upcoming SDEIS; these are summarized throughout this Scoping Report. However, still others are outside the scoping of the EIS, including, as explaining throughout this Scoping Report, comments pertaining to the White Mesa Mill. One commenter stated that EPA Subpart W regulations have not yet been reviewed and revised, and their concern is that the regulations that remain in effect do not ensure adequate monitoring, reporting, and control of the radon emissions from the liquid impoundments or ponds at White Mesa; the commenter stated the USFS should wait for the revised regulations before proceeding with the SDEIS.

5.4.21 Socioeconomics Sixty-five (65) comments were received from 65 commenters regarding impacts to jobs, estimating economic impacts, public health, and socioeconomic impacts due to legacy issues. Twenty-seven of these comments were from commenters who submitted a form letter, and 21 were from signatories of the petition. A few commenters stated that the Ute Mountain tribal nation, the City of Blanding, Utah and the City of Bluff, Utah are within an 80 km radius of the White Mesa Mill, and therefore the EIS must consider and analyze potential impacts to these communities. As discussed under Cumulative Impacts, Environmental Justice, and Human Health and Safety, the commenter expressed concern with legacy issues related to the historical uranium industry in the area. Further, the expressed concern was that restarting uranium mining in NM would create psychological impacts – especially to those whose families or communities suffered from economic impacts from historical uranium mining. An unsolicited economic analysis and report was submitted in scoping which questioned the economics of the mine as a whole. The report cited issues with the economic impacts analysis



conducted by RHR as well as the economic section in the DEIS. The commenter put forward the following report conclusions which expressed concern with the economics of the proposed mine. The unsolicited report stated:

• The positive economic impacts directly associated with the proposed Roca Honda mine will be modest;

• Because the region around the proposed mine is largely rural, the ripple or multiplier impacts associated with the proposed mine will be relatively small;

• The positive economic impacts estimated based on RHR’s information are over-estimated;

• The unstable uranium market and fluctuating uranium prices triggers wide swings in uranium employment, payroll, and payments to governments since all of these positive impacts are associated with the level of uranium production;

• Assuming stable uranium prices and stable employment, payroll, and payments to state and local governments is unrealistic and misleading, and tends to exaggerate the estimated positive economic impacts associated with uranium mining.

Note: The submitted information will be considered, however, the USFS is not endorsing the report by its inclusion here.

5.4.22 Surface Water Resources Sixteen (16) comments were received from five (5) commenters. Many of the comments overlap with those described under Groundwater Resources, Alternative 4, Cumulative Impacts, and the Proposed Action and request that the following be considered in the EIS:

• The emergency response planning for problems with the pipeline, including leaks and spills.

• Emergency plan for flood events in the Rio San Jose.

• How much radium and uranium would be deposited, where it would flow and accumulate, and long-term effects of deposition in the river bed from discharged mine waters.

• Temperature of the water that would be discharged.

• Transport and deposition of non-radiological constituents in the mine water and the impacts from its consumption for agricultural purposes and by native flora and fauna.

• Cumulative impacts of discharge into unnamed arroyo in San Lucas Canyon from Mt. Taylor Mine on local ground and surface water hydrology, when combined with proposed Alternative 4.

• Cumulative impacts from the potential for the mobilization of existing contaminants in the sediments of the Rio San Jose as a result of the discharged mine water.

One commenter stated that having flowing water would also eliminate some of the undesirable aspects of the existing stream channel which includes pools of stagnant, smelly water that provide mosquito breeding habitat.



5.4.23 Transportation Thirty-seven (37) comments from 30 commenters addressed transportation of uranium to the White Mesa Mill. Twenty-seven of these comments were from commenters who submitted a form letter. All urged the USFS to evaluate the mill as a connected action in the cumulative impacts analysis, and to consider the movement of uranium shipments through the towns en route to the mill from Roca Honda as well as the other mines.

5.4.24 Vegetation Two (2) comments were received from two (2) commenters addressing vegetation. Commenters were concerned with impacts on native flora and fauna from non-radiological constituents in the mine water and transport and deposition of those constituents.

5.4.25 Visual Resources Two (2) comments were received from two (2) commenters regarding visual resources, stating that a year-round steady flow through the Rio San Jose would make the City of Grants’ existing Riverwalk more aesthetically pleasing and appealing.

5.4.26 Waste Management Six (6) comments were received from three (3) commenters addressing waste management and disposal at the White Mesa Mill, many of which are described under Milling Facility. Comments specific to waste management include:


• In light of recent and ongoing violations or unregulated levels of radon emissions from the liquid impoundments at the White Mesa Mill, the EIS should explain how actions would or would not comply with NESHAP.

• Determine whether additional tailings cells would need to be constructed to accommodate the tailings from the processing of the uranium from the Roca Honda Mine.


• USEPA should review and analyze the potential impacts of transporting or disposing solid wastes from the ion exchange process, a radioactive material likely subject to the requirements of RCRA.

• Water treatment plan does not mention disposal methods for the concentrated uranium or the other waste stream(s) created by the ion exchange process.

It should be noted that these comments are beyond the scope of the EIS. Since uranium mills are under the regulatory jurisdiction of the NRC and the White Mesa Mill is not on National Forest System land, potential impacts from milling and milling-related activities will not be analyzed in this EIS.



A few commenters expressed the need to identify all waste streams from the IX column, barium chloride treatment, and reverse osmosis treatment of the mine water; how those wastes would be handled onsite; the eventual disposal location; the permits or licenses required to dispose of these wastes; and the impacts from the disposal of the waste. One commenter stated that the water treatment plan describes a multi-step process that goes beyond simple water treatment, and would likely be subject to RCRA, because the process first creates a RCRA waste stream composed of radium and other radionuclides and toxic constituents removed by barium chloride precipitation and is followed by an ion exchange process designed to concentrate uranium. As such, the SDEIS should mention disposal methods for the concentrated uranium or the other waste stream(s) created by the ion exchange process. The commenter further stated that the USEPA should review and analyze the potential impacts of disposing solid wastes from the ion exchange process.

5.4.27 Water Rights Four (4) comments were received from two (2) commenters regarding water rights as they relate to the additional water that would be discharged in the Rio San Jose under Alternative 4. One commenter stated that the Village of Milan is currently involved in litigation over its water rights, and that Alternative 4 would provide an appropriate source to provide municipal drinking water to residents and businesses, and avoid the continued reliance on underground pumping in the immediate area. Another commenter stated that effects on water rights in the Rio San Jose Basin would be particularly relevant because they have yet to be adjudicated - effects from dewatering would likely complicate and confuse the ongoing adjudication or impair yet to be determined water rights. A few commenters stated there is a need to clarify who would have access to the water downstream of the discharge point. While some have interpreted Alternative 4 to mean that additional water would be injected into the current water rights allocation system; others have interpreted it to mean that the mine water would be conveyed to specific users via water leases that would bypass current water rights holders. Specific clarification was requested for the following questions:

• Which water rights holders may be eligible to divert and appropriate these waters?

• What rights are attached to the water at the point of discharge?

• Can the federal agencies and/or mine operator lease the water and avoid current asserted water rights?

• What is the extent of water rights holders in the downstream Rio Grande and Rio San Jose Basins that might have claims on any available water in the region?

• What are the uses of these waters (industrial, agricultural, etc.)?


Draft Scoping Report 29 July 2015

Table 2. Roca Honda Mine SDEIS Scoping Comments by Commenter and Category (Scoping Period March 11th-April 25th 2015)

Com

men

ter

Alte

rnat

ive

4

Air

Qua

lity

Cul

tura

l and

Hist

oric

Coo

pera

ting

Age

ncie

s

Cum

ulat

ive

Impa

cts

Env

iron

men

tal J

ustic

e

Geo

logy

& S

oils

Gro

undw

ater

Res

ourc

es

Fore

st S

ervi

ce M

anag

emen

t

Hum

an H

ealth

& S

afet

y

Info

rmat

ion

Lan

d U

se

Leg

acy

Issu

es

Mill

ing

Faci

litie

s

Mon

itori

ng

NE

PA P

roce

ss

Prop

osed

Act

ion

Publ

ic In

volv

emen

t

Reg

ulat

ory

Com

plia

nce

Scop

e of

SD

EIS

Soci

oeco

nom

ics

Surf

ace

Wat

er

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Veg

etat

ion

Visu

al R

esou

rces

Was

te M

anag

emen

t

Wat

er R

ight

s

A1 X X A2 X X X X NGO1 X X NGO2 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X NGO3 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X NGO4 X X T1 X X X X P1 X X X X X X X X X P2 X X X X X X X X X P3 X X X X X X X X X P4 X X X X X X X X X P5 X X X X X X X X X P6 X X X X X X X X X P7 X X X X X X X X X P8 X X X X X X X X X P9 X X X X X X X X X



Com

men

ter

Alte

rnat

ive

4

Air

Qua

lity

Cul

tura

l and

Hist

oric

Coo

pera

ting

Age

ncie

s

Cum

ulat

ive

Impa

cts

Env

iron

men

tal J

ustic

e

Geo

logy

& S

oils

Gro

undw

ater

Res

ourc

es

Fore

st S

ervi

ce M

anag

emen

t

Hum

an H

ealth

& S

afet

y

Info

rmat

ion

Lan

d U

se

Leg

acy

Issu

es

Mill

ing

Faci

litie

s

Mon

itori

ng

NE

PA P

roce

ss

Prop

osed

Act

ion

Publ

ic In

volv

emen

t

Reg

ulat

ory

Com

plia

nce

Scop

e of

SD

EIS

Soci

oeco

nom

ics

Surf

ace

Wat

er

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Veg

etat

ion

Visu

al R

esou

rces

Was

te M

anag

emen

t

Wat

er R

ight

s

P10 X X X X X X X X X P11 X X X X X X X X X P12 X X X X X X X X X P13 X X X X X X X X X P14 X X X X X X X X X P15 X X X X X X X X X P16 X X X X X X X X X P17 X X X X X X X X X P18 X X X X X X X X X P19 X X X X X X X X X P20 X X X X X X X X X P21 X X X X X X X X X P22 X X X X X X X X X P23 X X X X X X X X X P24 X X X X X X X X X P25 X X X X X X X X X P26 X X X X X X X X X P27 X X X X X X X X X



Com

men

ter

Alte

rnat

ive

4

Air

Qua

lity

Cul

tura

l and

Hist

oric

Coo

pera

ting

Age

ncie

s

Cum

ulat

ive

Impa

cts

Env

iron

men

tal J

ustic

e

Geo

logy

& S

oils

Gro

undw

ater

Res

ourc

es

Fore

st S

ervi

ce M

anag

emen

t

Hum

an H

ealth

& S

afet

y

Info

rmat

ion

Lan

d U

se

Leg

acy

Issu

es

Mill

ing

Faci

litie

s

Mon

itori

ng

NE

PA P

roce

ss

Prop

osed

Act

ion

Publ

ic In

volv

emen

t

Reg

ulat

ory

Com

plia

nce

Scop

e of

SD

EIS

Soci

oeco

nom

ics

Surf

ace

Wat

er

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Veg

etat

ion

Visu

al R

esou

rces

Was

te M

anag

emen

t

Wat

er R

ight

s

P28 X X X X X X X P29 X X X X X X X P30 X X X X X X X X X P31 X X X X P32 X X X X X X P33 X X X X X X P34 X X X X X X P35 X X X X X X P36 X X X X X X P37 X X X X X X P38 X X X X X X P39 X X X X X X P40 X X X X X X P41 X X X X X X P42 X X X X X X P43 X X X X X X P44 X X X X X X P45 X X X X X X



Com

men

ter

Alte

rnat

ive

4

Air

Qua

lity

Cul

tura

l and

Hist

oric

Coo

pera

ting

Age

ncie

s

Cum

ulat

ive

Impa

cts

Env

iron

men

tal J

ustic

e

Geo

logy

& S

oils

Gro

undw

ater

Res

ourc

es

Fore

st S

ervi

ce M

anag

emen

t

Hum

an H

ealth

& S

afet

y

Info

rmat

ion

Lan

d U

se

Leg

acy

Issu

es

Mill

ing

Faci

litie

s

Mon

itori

ng

NE

PA P

roce

ss

Prop

osed

Act

ion

Publ

ic In

volv

emen

t

Reg

ulat

ory

Com

plia

nce

Scop

e of

SD

EIS

Soci

oeco

nom

ics

Surf

ace

Wat

er

Tra

nspo

rtat

ion

Veg

etat

ion

Visu

al R

esou

rces

Was

te M

anag

emen

t

Wat

er R

ight

s

P46 X X X X X X P47 X X X X X X P48 X X X X X X P49 X X X X X X P50 X X X X X X P51 X X X X X X P52 X X X X X X P53 X X X X X X



6.0 CONCLUSION The scoping feedback from participating stakeholders – including agency, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and members of the public – included a majority of comments opposing the proposed Roca Honda mine as a whole. However, the purpose of the scoping was not to open another comment period on the mine or the completed DEIS. Rather, the current scoping was to obtain comments on the proposed Alternative 4 to pipe de-watering water from the mine to Milan, NM. The purpose of scoping Alternative 4 is to provide input into a SDEIS. Concerns about specific elements of Alternative 4 included impacts to the Mt. Taylor Traditional Cultural Property (TCP), groundwater and surface water quantity and quality, and cumulative impacts from other mines in the area. A large number of commenters were concerned with impacts to air quality, human health and safety, groundwater and surface water, and cultural and historic resources from processing and disposal activities associated with the White Mesa Mill. It should be noted that these comments are beyond the scope of the SDEIS and the forthcoming FEIS. Since uranium mills are under the regulatory jurisdiction of the NRC and the White Mesa Mill is not on National Forest System land, potential impacts from milling and milling-related activities will not be analyzed in this EIS. Commenters suggested a number of issues that they feel should be assessed in the SDEIS, in some cases providing information or references to consider.



7.0 LIST OF PREPARERS The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) prepared the various Scoping Materials and the Scoping Report with contractual assistance from Solv LLC. The following individuals were primarily responsible for the development, drafting, and review of the scoping materials and Scoping Report: Diane Tafoya (USFS) USFS Project Manager/Reviewer Leon Kolankiewicz (Solv) Solv Project Manager/Author/Reviewer Years of Experience: 30 Nathalie Jacque (Solv) Environmental Scientist/Author Years of Experience: 6 Pam Sarlouis (Solv) Document Manager Years of Experience: 20


Scoping Report A-1 September 2015

APPENDIX A: NEWSPAPER NOTICE, PROOF OF PUBLICATION, AND NEWS RELEASE








Scoping Report B-1 September 2015

APPENDIX B: LETTER TO INTERESTED PARTIES


Scoping Report C-1 September 2015

APPENDIX C: SCOPING MEETING SIGN-IN SHEETS

Roca Honda Mine SDEIS Public Scoping MeetingSign-In Sheet

Milan, NM March 11th, 2015

Name Mailing Address E-mail addressWould you like to be notified

when the FEIS is released?


Scoping Report D-1 September 2015

APPENDIX D: MAPS OF NEW ALTERNATIVE

""

""

"

Water TreatmentPlant - Discharge

into Pipeline

San Mateo

¬«605

")75

Tunnel or New/ImprovedRoad Segment*

9

3

8

45 2

11

22

15

21

16

10

2320

1417

6

7

00

18

19

13

32

24

33 34

26

35

12

27

31

2530 2829

2758000 2760000 2762000 2764000 2766000 2768000 2770000 2772000 2774000 2776000 2778000 2780000

1578

000

1580

000

1582

000

1584

000

1586

000

1588

000

1590

000

1592

000

1594

000

1596

000

1598

000

N E W M E X I C ON E W M E X I C O

Box Shows Location and Extentof Map to Left

0 ½ 1¼Miles

0 ½ 1¼Kilometers

¨1 inch = 3,000 feet

State Plane Coordinate SystemNew Mexico, Western Zone, US Foot

NAD 83

Pipeline Route - ForestService/Private AccessPipeline Route - Private AccessPipeline Route - Forest ServiceAccess

"Pipeline Route - Forest ServiceAccess (New Disturbance)Roca Honda Permit AreaOne Shaft Alternative DisturbedArea (Public Land)Section Line

Roca Honda ProjectSouthern Pipeline Alternative

Point of Origin Map

*Note: Disturbance acreage and impacts associated with this option will be addressed in Draft SEIS

Land OwnershipPrivate Land (No Color)Cibola National ForestBLMState Land

Pipeline Crosses toWest Side of State Highway 605

Pipeline Discharges into Rio San Jose

in Village of Milan NearSkytop Community Park

Rio San Jose

§̈¦40

T12NT11N

T11NT10N

63 515 2

2

9

4 15 3

4

6 5

877

6

34

30

33

29

31

16

32

25

19

27

20 22

11

20

32

24

29

1713 18

28

15

21

17 14

36

26

35

23

10

6

12

19

30

18

31

3231363534333231

8

2695000 2700000 2705000 2710000 2715000 2720000 2725000 2730000

1500

000

1505

000

1510

000

1515

000

1520

000

1525

000

1530

000

1535

000



0 1 2½Miles

0 1 2½Kilometers

¨1 inch = 5,000 feet


NAD 83

Pipeline Route - ForestService/Private AccessProposed Discharge ZoneGrants & Milan City BoundaryTownship/RangeSection LineGrants

MilanRoca Honda Project

Southern Pipeline AlternativeDischarge Point Map

¬«605

Rio San Jose

R10W

R09W


#

Water TreatmentPlant - Discharge

into Pipeline

Pipeline Crosses toSouth Side of State Highway 605

Buried Pipeline followsSouth/East State Highway 605

Right-of-Way

Pipeline Crosses toWest Side of State Highway 605

Pipeline Discharges into Rio San Josein Village of Milan

Mt. Taylor

San Mateo

¬«509

¬«605

Ri o SanJose

§̈¦40

")75

1 6

24

3231

2710000 2720000 2730000 2740000 2750000 2760000 2770000 2780000 2790000

1510

000

1520

000

1530

000

1540

000

1550

000

1560

000

1570

000

1580

000

1590

000



0 2 41Miles

0 2 41Kilometers

¨1 inch = 11,000 feet


NAD 83

Roca Honda ProjectSouthern Pipeline Alternative

Overview Map of Pipeline Route

Pipeline Route - ForestService/Private AccessPipeline Route - PrivateAccessPipeline Route - ForestService Land AccessRio San JoseGrants & Milan City BoundaryRoca Honda Permit Area

Pipeline SpecificationsSize: 20" DiameterMaterial: PVC or HDPELength: 20.4 - 26.4 milesFlow: 2,000 - 4,500 GPM



Scoping Report E-1 September 2015

APPENDIX E: PUBLIC SCOPING POSTER DISPLAY


Scoping Report F-1 September 2015

APPENDIX F: PUBLIC SCOPING HANDOUT (FAQS)

Frequently Asked Questions Regarding Roca Honda Proposed Water Pipeline to the Rio San Jose

1

1. Why must the mine use so much water to operate? The uranium ore is located in a 2000’ deep aquifer.

Working the mine would require continual and significant volumes of de-watering during operations, or the

workings would flood. Water would be pumped to the surface, treated to drinking water standards through a

water treatment plant to remove radionuclides and then piped to a discharge point off of the mine site.

1. Why is this particular pipeline route(s) proposed? The pipeline route under discussion was proposed in part

because of numerous comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Roca Honda

Mine. Many comments stated that under the pipeline proposal, which anticipated irrigation on private land or

discharging into the San Lucas drainage, the mine water would 1) only benefit a single rancher; and 2) be

discharged into a different surface water basin than from which it was being withdrawn. Further, commenters

wrote that the water should not be poured out and “wasted”, but be available for community uses, given the

pervasive lack of water resources in an arid climate. To address these comments, Roca Honda Resources

(RHR) made a proposal for a new pipeline route which would run south to Milan, New Mexico. Under this

alternative plan, the treated water would be piped south from the mine and discharged into the Rio San Jose,

where the water could be available to downstream uses. The Rio San Jose is a water resource used by Milan,

Grants and the Acoma and Laguna Pueblos.

At the beginning of the project, Roca Honda Resources (RHR) had initially proposed discharging water into

San Mateo Creek, which is a tributary to the Rio San Jose. During Scoping for the Draft EIS, comments from

the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) indicated that they were concerned about the possibility of

remobilizing legacy contamination in the creek. In response to the concerns raised by NMED, a route

discharging to an irrigation system to the north was proposed. That route was analyzed in the Draft EIS. Once

comments to the Draft EIS were received, RHR, under new direction by Energy Fuels Resources, investigated

other discharge options. RHR determined that discharging into the Rio San Jose was possible but that the water

would need to be conveyed by a pipeline rather than discharging directly into San Mateo Creek. RHR then

proposed using the existing right-of-way (ROW) along State Highway 605 for the pipeline route. Placing the

pipeline in the disturbed area along the existing ROW would involve the least new surface disturbance; and

would eliminate the need for pumping the water and for negotiating access agreements with numerous private

land owners.

2. What is the proposed capacity of the pipeline, and what is the basis for that capacity? The pipeline would

have an internal diameter of 20- inches and a capacity of 4,500 gallons of water per minute. That volume is the

maximum which would occur during development of the mine. Once mining, the water discharge would drop

to 2,000 gallons per minute.


2

3. What is the length of the proposed pipeline? The pipeline will be 20.4 or 26.4, depending on whether the

pipeline crosses Forest Service land or private land. If the 20.4 mile route across private land is not available,

the pipeline would cross the National Forest and tie into County Road 75, which adds an additional 6 miles.

4. Who are the owners of the land underlying the pipeline route? The pipeline will originate on Sec 16, T13N,

R08W, which is New Mexico State Land and part of the Roca Honda Mine permit area. From there, the

pipeline will either head west and south where it will cross private land to the junction with State Highway 605.

If the private land route can’t be used, the pipeline will head north and east through USFS land to County Road

75 where it will follow an existing ROW to State Highway 605. In either case, once the pipeline intersects State

Highway 605 it will follow in the ROW which is controlled for most of the length of the pipeline by the New

Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT). There are two small parcels of BLM and State Land along

this ROW, which the pipeline will cross. Both of those agencies have been notified about the pipeline and

described their respective approval processes. The current plan assumes that the water will be discharged on a

parcel of land owned by the Village of Milan.

5. Would the pipeline be on the surface? The pipeline would be buried everywhere except across National

Forest Land. The pipeline would be buried in the right-of-way along County Road 75 and along State Highway

605, as well as where it crosses under Highway 605 to the discharge point.

6. What testing and treatment of the water is proposed? All water will be treated prior to leaving the mine

site. Roca Honda has an application filed with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA)

which requires a non-point-source discharge elimination system (NPDES) permit. Roca Honda must comply

with the water quality standards set forth in that permit. The water would be treated to the strictest standards set

forth by the US EPA and NMED for different use categories such as irrigation or livestock use, and the water

treatment plant would be designed to meet that criteria. Laboratory testing (bench scale) with water from the

site (encountered during sampling) has confirmed the water treatment process as designed does achieve

applicable water quality standards. The two constituents of primary concern are radium, which would be

removed via barium chloride co-precipitation, and uranium, which will be removed via ion-exchange. These

two removal methods are proven and commonly used in both industrial and municipal water treatment facilities.

7. Will water rights be sought or claimed by the project proponents for the water supply? The New Mexico

statues specifically prohibit the establishment of water rights to water pumped under the Mine Dewatering Act.

8. Is any additional hydrologic modeling planned to analyze the impacts of the discharge to the stream

system or the use of the water from the pipeline? It has yet to be determined exactly what will require

analysis, including the scope of analysis. Any groundwater modeling would use a model recommended by the

cooperating state and federal agencies and the results of that study would be made public once it is complete.


3

9. What are the proposed end uses of the water from the pipeline, and who are the proposed users? Because

RHR will be pumping the water under a permit granted under the Mine Dewatering Act, RHR cannot establish

water rights to the discharge or otherwise control who uses the water. As a practical matter, if the water is

discharged into the Rio San Jose, then anyone downstream of the discharge point will be able use the water so

long as it is available.

10. How does the USFS propose to address the use of the water from the pipeline in the supplement to the

EIS process? The proposed pipeline is an alternative pipeline to the one originally proposed by RHR and

addressed in the draft EIS. The USFS will consider the proposed pipeline as a fourth alternative to the EIS

process and will consider additional impacts as part of a Supplemental DEIS.

11. Who would own the pipeline? RHR would be the owner of the pipeline.

12. Would the pipeline be available to convey water from dewatering of other mines and/or from wells? This

is unknown at present. As owner of the pipeline, RHR can specify who uses the pipeline. RHR has stated they

would only consider contracting for the transport of clean water.

13. Are there any other partners in the pipeline proposal? RHR is a joint venture between Strathmore

Resources (a wholly owned subsidiary of Energy Fuels) and Sumitomo Corporation of Japan. To date, no

additional entities have partnered with RHR on the pipeline.

14. Who would be responsible for the operations, maintenance and replacement of the pipeline? RHR will

operate and maintain the pipeline as far as the point of discharge into the Rio San Jose so long as the mine is

being dewatered.

15. What would be the funding sources for the pipeline construction and operation and maintenance? RHR

is anticipating paying for the full cost of the pipeline and has built those costs into the overall economic

feasibility analyses of the Roca Honda Mine Project.

16. What additional permits and approvals will be necessary for the pipeline? RHR is responsible for

obtaining all applicable approvals and permits. The USFS will complete a Supplemental DEIS (SDEIS) to

address the pipeline as an additional Alternative to the Roca Honda mine EIS. The purpose of the SDEIS is to

determine the environmental impacts of the construction and operation of the pipeline as described in this

Alternative. That SDEIS will be issued in a draft for review and comment by the public. Analysis and

comments on the SDEIS will then be rolled into the final EIS (FEIS) -with the entire project- before a Record of

Decision can be signed. The pipeline route, as well as the mine itself, must then be approved in a Forest Service


4

Plan of Operations. RHR has offered the following information: an NPDES permit will be required from the US

EPA in order to discharge the water. NMED will require that the pipeline be included in the pending discharge

permit. The US Army Corp of Engineers will require a permit to address changes to the Rio San Jose channel

in order to protect the channel from erosion. NMDOT has issued an Environmental Permit to allow RHR to

conduct baseline studies along the proposed route, and will require a construction permit prior to building the

pipeline. As data are collected and analyses are done, this information will be submitted by RHR to the various

regulatory agencies where it will be made publically available. A draft Discharge Permit will also be issued by

NMED for public review and comment. RHR welcomes input and recommendations regarding additional

analyses related to the pipeline proposal from Laguna Pueblo.

17. What information has been provided to the Congressional Delegation and members of the Legislature?

U.S. Congressional representatives and/or their staffs, as well as State officials and elected leaders, have been

briefed and informed to various degrees about the project by RHR, Acoma Pueblo, or both. Congressional

support for the concept of discharging clean water that would benefit multiple entities has generally been very

favorable.

18. Why is the Forest Service allowing mining? Decision Space of the Cibola National Forest

United States Mining Laws - Permits persons entering upon national forests for all proper and lawful

purposes, including that of prospecting, locating, and developing the mineral resources. Such persons must

comply with the rules and regulations covering such national forests. In addition, those persons also are

entitled to the use of NFS lands for purposes reasonably incidental to such mining operations.

Organic Administration Act of June 4, 1897 - The Secretary of Agriculture shall make rules and regulations

and establish such service as will insure the objects of such reservations, namely, to regulate their

occupancy and use and to preserve the forests from destruction. However, in the same Act the Secretary

shall not prohibit any person from entering upon such National Forests for all proper and lawful purposes

including that of prospecting, locating and developing the mineral resources.

The United States Mining Laws confer a statutory right upon persons to enter certain National Forest

System (NFS) lands reserved from the public domain in the search for locatable minerals present on those

lands. Those persons also are entitled to locate mining claims and independently to mine and remove the

locatable minerals present on those lands. The Forest Service is responsible for regulating locatable

mineral operations conducted on NFS lands in order to protect those lands. Accordingly, the Forest Service

requires locatable mineral operators to minimize adverse environmental impacts of their operations and to

reclaim disturbed NFS surface resources. While the Forest Service can require reasonable mitigation of the

adverse impacts of the proposed project, the agency does not have the authority to disapprove a proposed

plan of operation if the operations will be conducted in a reasonable and environmentally responsible

manner, including compliance with federal laws and regulations.


Scoping Report G-1 September 2015

APPENDIX G: SCOPING COMMENT FORM

Place

Stamp

Here

Forest Supervisor

Cibola National Forest

2113 Osuna Road, NE

Albuquerque, NM 87113

____________________________________________________

Thank you for your participation!

Please comment by either mailing to the address

provided; dictating to the court reporter; or

submitting online at:

[email protected].

Please reference Roca Honda Mine SEIS in the

subject line of the letter or email. After a

comment period for the Supplemental Draft EIS,

it will be included in the Final EIS.

Roca Honda Mine SEISPublic Scoping Comment Form

Tape Here

Public participation is an essential component of

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

process, and the Forest Service welcomes

comments on the Roca Honda Mine Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS).

Please fill out the following form to ensure that

the analysis, and ultimately the decision,

considers the affected communities’ opinions.

What do you think of the new pipeline route as

described in the New Alternative (4)?

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

mailto:[email protected]

Which key issues should be addressed when

assessing the potential impacts of the New

Alternative (4) in the SEIS?

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

In your opinion, what potentially adverse and/or

beneficial impacts would the New Alternative (4)

have on the social and natural environment?

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

Please provide any other comments you may have

below. Attach additional sheets as needed.

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

If you would like to be added to the mailing list

and receive information about the project, please

provide your email or mailing address.

Name: ___________________________________

Affiliation (Optional):_______________________

Mailing Address:___________________________

City: ___________ State:_______ Zip Code:_____

Email: ___________________________________

Please check the box below if you would like to be

notified when the FEIS is released.

Yes, notify me.


Scoping Report H-1 September 2015

APPENDIX H: TRANSCRIPT OF MARCH 11TH SCOPING MEETING

Note: No comments were made to the court reporter retained by the Forest Service to record and transcribe verbal remarks by any of the attendees at the

March 11, 2015 at the scoping meeting in Milan, New Mexico.


Scoping Report I-1 September 2015

APPENDIX I: INDEX OF PUBLIC AND AGENCY COMMENTS BY SOURCE AND DATE



Agencies

Comment Code Date Name Affiliation

A1 3/30/2015 Theresa A. Garcia

Village of Milan

A2 4/3/2015 Martin W. Hicks

City of Grants

Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)


NGO1 3/5/2015 Amy Cole National Trust for Historic Preservation

NGO2 4/17/2015 Roger Flynn

Western Mining Action Project on behalf of

Multicultural Alliance for a Safe Environment

NGO3 4/22/2015 Sarah Fields Uranium Watch

NGO4 4/22/2015 Susan Gordon

Multicultural Alliance for a Safe Environment

(Report prepared by Power Consulting)

Tribes

Comment Code Date Name Tribe

T1 3/3/2015 Val R. Panteah Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Indian Reservation



Members of the Public (Citizenry)


P1 4/18/2015 Michael Delongchamp Sierra Club

P2 4/18/2015 Terry Mulcahy Sierra Club

P3 4/21/2015 Dr. Claudio Henriques Sierra Club

P4 4/21/2015 Lynn R. Anner-Bolieu Sierra Club

P5 4/21/2015 Gary Patton Sierra Club

P6 4/21/2015 Dwight Capshaw Sierra Club

P7 4/21/2015 Mandy Hanifen Sierra Club

P8 4/22/2015 Dianne Carrell Sierra Club

P9 4/22/2015 Jan Jeffries Sierra Club

P10 4/22/2015 Dianne Carrell Sierra Club

P11 4/22/2015 Hilary Newman Sierra Club

P12 4/22/2015 Francisco Soto Sierra Club

P13 4/22/2015 Taryn Cardwell Sierra Club

P14 4/22/2015 Daisy Cox Sierra Club

P15 4/22/2015 Ramona Evans Sierra Club

P16 4/22/2015 Monika Laendle Sierra Club

P17 4/22/2015 James Fellrath Sierra Club

P18 4/22/2015 Ed Doler Sierra Club

P19 4/22/2015 Pat Wolff Sierra Club

P20 4/22/2015 Cynthia Weber Sierra Club

P21 4/22/2015 Janice Hoffman Sierra Club

P22 4/22/2015 Paul Dougherty Sierra Club

P23 4/22/2015 Nadine Padilla Sierra Club



P24 4/22/2015 Rod Guinn Sierra Club

P25 4/22/2015 Jeff Hopkins Sierra Club

P26 4/22/2015 Ted Grudowski Sierra Club

P27 4/22/2015 Claire Ayers Sierra Club

P28 4/22/2015 Candace Head-Dylla

Bluewater Valley Downstream

Alliance and the Multicultural

Alliance for a Safe Environment

P29 4/24/2015 Helen Shoup Sierra Club

P30 4/25/2015 Leona Morgan Dine No Nukes

P31 4/25/2015 Charles Sparks Sierra Club

P32 4/27/2015 Robert Tohe Petition

P33 4/22/2015 Ivan Benally Petition

P34 4/22/2015 Don Hyde Petition

P35 4/22/2015 Linda Popelish Petition

P36 4/22/2015 Betsy Windisch Petition

P37 4/22/2015 Autumn Chacon Petition

P38 4/22/2015 Cheryl Gorder Petition

P39 4/22/2015 Nisha Vekaria Petition

P40 4/22/2015 Karen Storneli Petition

P41 4/23/2015 Mashiro Urabe Petition

P42 No Date Kawazoe Yuki Petition

P43 No Date Nishioka Yukio Petition

P44 No Date Fujimoto Yasunari Petition

P45 No Date Konishi Kiyokazu Petition



P46 No Date Phil Harrison Petition

P47 4/23/2015 Leona Morgan Petition

P48 4/23/2015 Tomojo Tamayama Petition

P49 4/22/2015 Alex Froom Petition

P50 4/22/2015 Elizabeth Barriga Petition

P51 4/22/2015 Faye Gillespie Petition

P52 4/22/2015 Lionel Williams Petition

P53 4/23/2015 Katsumi Furitsu Petition


Scoping Report J-1 September 2015

APPENDIX J: INDEX OF PUBLIC AND AGENCY COMMENTS BY CATEGORY



Agencies

Comment Code

Comment Categor(ies) File Name

A1 ALT4; WRT; A1 - Village of Milan

A2 PA; SE; VIS; SW A2 - City of Grants

Non-Government Organizations (NGOs)

Comment Code Comment Category File Name

NGO1 ALT4; C&H NGO1 - NTHP

NGO2

NEPA; CUM; PA; WRT; GW; SW; TRANS; MILL; INFO; AQ; HH&S; C&H; SCOPE;

G&S; COOP; WM; REG

NGO2 - WMAP on behalf of MASE

NGO3

NEPA; PI; MILL; TRANS; PA; LU; GW; CUM; SW; VEG; G&S; INFO; ALT4;

WM; AQ; C&H; FSM; HH&S; EJ; LEG; SE

NGO3 - Uranium Watch; NGO 3 - Uranium Watch

Attachments

NGO4 SE; SCOPE NGO4 - MASE by Power Consulting (Scanned)

Tribes


T1 C&H; ALT4; GW; INFO; NEPA T1 - Pueblo of Zuni



Members of the Public (Citizenry)


P1

SIERRA CLUB FORM LETTER (NEPA; PI; CUM; FSM; HH&S; SE; TRANS;

MILL; ALT4)

P1 - Michael Delongchamp (Sierra Club)

P2 SIERRA CLUB FORM LETTER P2 - Terry Mulcahy (Sierra Club)

P3 SIERRA CLUB FORM LETTER

P3 - Claudio Henriques (Sierra Club)


P4 - Lynn Anner-Bolieu (Sierra Club)

P5 SIERRA CLUB FORM LETTER P5 - Gary Patton (Sierra Club)

P6 SIERRA CLUB FORM LETTER P6 - Dwight Capshaw (Sierra Club)

P7 SIERRA CLUB FORM LETTER P7 - Mandy Hanifen (Sierra Club)

P8 SIERRA CLUB FORM LETTER P8 - Dianne Carrell (Sierra Club)

P9 SIERRA CLUB FORM LETTER P9 - Jan Jeffries (Sierra Club)

P10 SIERRA CLUB FORM LETTER P10 - Dianne Carrell (Sierra Club)

P11 SIERRA CLUB FORM LETTER P11 - Hilary Newman (Sierra Club)

P12 SIERRA CLUB FORM LETTER P12 - Francisco Soto (Sierra Club)



P13 SIERRA CLUB FORM LETTER P13 - Taryn Caldwell (Sierra Club)

P14 SIERRA CLUB FORM LETTER P14 - Daisy Cox (Sierra Club)

P15 SIERRA CLUB FORM LETTER P15 - Ramona Evans (Sierra Club)


P16 - Monika Laendle (Sierra Club)

P17 SIERRA CLUB FORM LETTER P17 - James Fellrath (Sierra Club)

P18 SIERRA CLUB FORM LETTER P18 - Ed Doler (Sierra Club)

P19 SIERRA CLUB FORM LETTER P19 - Pat Wolff (Sierra Club)

P20 SIERRA CLUB FORM LETTER P20 - Cynthia Weber (Sierra Club)

P21 SIERRA CLUB FORM LETTER P21 - Janice Hoffman (Sierra Club)

P22 SIERRA CLUB FORM LETTER P22 - Paul Dougherty (Sierra Club)

P23 SIERRA CLUB FORM LETTER P23 - Nadine Padilla (Sierra Club)

P24 SIERRA CLUB FORM LETTER P24 - Rod Guinn (Sierra Club)

P25 SIERRA CLUB FORM LETTER P25 - Jeff Hopkins (Sierra Club)

P26 SIERRA CLUB FORM LETTER P26 - Ted Grudowski (Sierra Club)

P27 SIERRA CLUB FORM LETTER P27 - Claire Ayers (Sierra Club)



P28 PA; SE; SCOPE; GW; SW; MON P28 - Candace Head-Dylla

P29 SE; SCOPE; PA; EJ; CUM; NEPA; PI P29 - Helen Shoup

P30 C&H; SW; GW; SE; TRANS;

CUM; WL; HH&S; AQ; NEPA; ALT4

P30 - Leona Morgan

P31 PA; HH&S; SE P31 - Charles Sparks

P32 GW; PI; SE; HH&S; NEPA; ALT4; PI P32_P53 - Petition


























Roca Honda Mine SDEIS Draft Scoping Reporta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...U.S. Forest Service Roca Honda Mine Cibola National Forest Supplemental Draft EIS Scoping

Documents