rt> 220(^6’T61 BLM LIBRARY ,)4 3 £45 United States Department of the Interior ^LO02>k> Bureau of Land Management Elko Field Office 3900 East Idaho Street Elko, NV 89801 RECORD OF DECISION April 1, 2003 BARRICK GOLDSTRIKE MINES INC. BETZE PROJECT DEWATERING N16-88-002P/NVN-70708 INTRODUCTION Barrick Goldstrike Mines Inc. (Barrick) owns and operates the Goldstrike property, which is located in Elko and Eureka Counties, Nevada. In 1989, Barrick submitted a Plan of Operations (Plan) pursuant to the Surface Management Regulations, 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 3809, to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the Betze Project. As provided by Section 102(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), BLM prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS) with respect to Barrick's proposed Plan. The Final EIS and Record of Decision (ROD) for the Betze Project were issued on June 10, 1991. The Final EIS included a description of the environmental impacts projected to result from Barrick’s ground water pumping to lower the local ground water elevations below the proposed Betze mining operations. Since the Betze EIS was issued, Barrick's implementation of the ground water pumping and water management operations and monitoring of ground water elevations have provided new information regarding the pumping requirements and potential environmental impacts. Upon noting that dewatering rates and hydrologic conditions were substantially different from those anticipated in the June 1991 Final EIS and ROD for the Betze Project, the BLM raised concerns about the environmental impacts in a letter to Barrick dated December 17, 1992. By letter of December 22, 1992, Barrick agreed to underwrite the reasonable cost of conducting an analysis of the potential impacts of Barrick’s dewatering operations. Barrick and the BLM also proposed to use the analysis to refine or add appropriate mitigation measures in keeping with the Betze Project ROD. The proposed analysis would become a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). Work on the analysis began to move forward. In July 1996 the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) issued a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, NPDES Permit NV0022675, to Barrick authorizing the discharge of up to 70,000 gallons of water per minute (gpm) to the Flumboldt River. Barrick completed construction of a treatment plant and conveyance system on private land in August 1997 and began discharging water to the Flumboldt River in September 1997 as irrigation demand declined. In May 1997 Barrick and Elko Land and Livestock Company (ELLCO) submitted an application to the BLM to amend an existing right-of-way (ROW) to authorize the installation of an additional buried pipeline across public domain land administered by the BLM, as part of the existing water conveyance system for the dewatering operation. Installation of the additional buried pipeline would enhance the operational flexibility of the water distribution system established in Boulder Valley by Barrick and ELLCO. Because other significant dewatering operations were ongoing or proposed in the area of the Barrick dewatering, the BLM also prepared a Cumulative Impact Analysis report, in 2000, to address potential cumulative dewatering and discharge impacts associated with Barrick’s Betze Project and Newmont Gold Company’s (Newmont’s) proposed South Operations Area Project Amendment and Leeville Project. This information was used to help prepare the Draft SEIS. The BLM issued the Draft SEIS on September 15, 2000. The Draft SEIS evaluated the environmental effects of Barrick's ongoing water management operations, including the discharge of dewatering water to the Humboldt River. The proposed additional buried pipeline was also analyzed in the Draft SEIS. ELLCO and Barrick subsequently withdrew the application to amend the existing ROW for this water pipeline and thus the pipeline is no longer under consideration. BLM solicited comments on the Draft SEIS until November 14, 2000. In response to the Draft SEIS and the associated comments, Barrick and the BLM prepared an abbreviated Final SEIS which included a Mitigation Plan to eliminate or reduce the potential direct and cumulative environmental impacts from dewatering in conjunction with mitigation measures from the 1991 EIS. The new Mitigation Plan included Barrick’s proposal for the Upper Willow Creek Habitat Enhancement Plan (UWCHEP). The purpose of the UWCHEP is to mitigate potential direct and cumulative impacts from dewatering by improving aquatic and riparian environments in existing degraded watersheds near but outside the dewatering cone of depression. DECISION As stated above, the application submitted by ELLCO and Barrick for a ROW grant amendment for a second buried pipeline was the Proposed Action addressed in the Draft SEIS. As this application has been withdrawn, there is currently no Proposed Action upon which the BLM will make a decision. Therefore, the purpose of this Record of Decision (ROD) is to document completion and acceptance of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis conducted in the SEIS and the mitigation measures agreed to by the BLM and Barrick. Based on the Draft SEIS and Final SEIS, I have approved the SEIS analyzing Barrick’s ongoing water management operations, which incorporates Barrick’s Mitigation Plan (Appendix A of the Final SEIS) and the Upper Willow Creek Habitat Enhancement Plan (Appendix B of the Final SEIS). ALTERNATIVES As ELLCO and Barrick have withdrawn their application for a ROW grant amendment for a buried water pipeline, which was the Proposed Action addressed in the Draft SEIS, there is no longer a Proposed Action upon which the BLM will make a decision. Consequently, there are no alternatives to the Proposed Action considered in the Final SEIS. The SEIS evaluates the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of Barrick’s ongoing water management operations and proposes appropriate additional mitigation measures. MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS Barrick’s ongoing water management operations for the Goldstrike Mine, including the mitigation measures approved by this ROD, as well as mitigation measures established as a result of the 1991 EIS, enable continued mining in an area where mining has been identified as an appropriate land use by the BLM Elko Resource Management Plan. The mine area is not included in any areas of designated national, regional, or local significance. Mining, by law, is a valid use on public lands; it is inherently site- specific and does not lend itself to relocation. Past operations by Barrick and other mining companies in the vicinity of the Goldstrike Mine have established mining as a principal land use for the near term. The dewatering program itself has been approved by the state of Nevada and said approval is not under review. The purpose of this SEIS is to fully analyze the potential impacts of dewatering and to identify appropriate mitigation measures. MONITORING AND MITIGATION This Decision expressly incorporates the following monitoring and mitigation measures. 1. The monitoring and mitigation measures identified in the SEIS Mitigation Plan in Appendix A of the Final SEIS. 2. The Upper Willow Creek Habitat Enhancement Plan in Appendix B of the Final SEIS. The monitoring and mitigation measures will: • Assist Barrick and the BLM in identifying and avoiding or mitigating unforeseen environmental impacts that may occur. • Minimize the adverse environmental impacts identified in the Draft and Final SEIS. • Ensure that all practicable means to avoid or reduce environmental impacts have been incorporated into the project • Provide additional protection and periodic opportunities for the BLM to refine its analysis of potential project impacts. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The BLM published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare the SEIS for Barrick’s ground water pumping and water management operations in the Federal Register on August 31, 1994, and mailed a Dear Interested Party letter dated September 2, 1994, announcing the preparation of the SEIS to 465 people. Formal public scoping meetings were held in Elko, and Reno, Nevada on September 14 and 15, 1994, respectively. BLM received written comments from 11 individuals and groups, and 9 oral comments. All appropriate news media and the public were notified of the periods available for comment. Following receipt of Barrick’s and ELLCO’s application to amend the right-of-way for the proposed buried pipeline, the BLM published a second NOI in the Federal Register on January 7, 1998, and mailed a second Dear Interested Party letter dated January 14, 1998, to 284 people. In response to the second scoping notice, the BLM received six written comments. A mailing list of interested persons was assembled from previous mining-related EIS mailing lists and specific requests for the SEIS. The list was included in the Draft SEIS (Chapter 4.0). This list was continuously updated as needed throughout the SEIS process. The Draft SEIS was distributed to interested parties on the BLM's SEIS mailing list. The BLM published a Notice of Availability of the Draft SEIS in the Federal Register on September 15, 2000, and published a news release announcing the 60-day Draft SEIS comment period. The 60-day public comment period on the Betze Project Draft SEIS began on September 15, 2000, and ended on November 14, 2000. During the public comment period, the BLM received 19 comment letters. On September 26, 2000, the BLM held a public meeting at the BLM Elko Field Office in Elko, Nevada. Approximately 11 people attended the public meeting. No written or verbal comments were submitted at the public meeting. Comments that were received during the public comment period were reviewed in their entirety, published in the Final SEIS, and considered by the BLM in preparation of this Record of Decision. Throughout the preparation of the Betze Project SEIS, Native American consultation was conducted with the Te-Moak Tribe, the Duck Valley Tribe, the Fort Hall Tribe, the Battle Mountain Band, the Elko Band, the Wells Band, the South Fork Band, the Western Shoshone Historic Preservation Society and the Western Shoshone Defense Project. The possibility of effects to two Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP) was analyzed. Analysis concluded there would be no effect to the Tosawihi TCP and that effects to the Rock Creek TCP would be extremely unlikely. However, to provide additional protection, Barrick has added mitigation as described in the Mitigation Plan (Appendix A to the SEIS) at pages 9-12. APPEALS This Record of Decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 43 CFR 3809.800. A party that is adversely affected may file such an appeal in accordance with the procedures in 43 CRR Part 4. An appeal shall be filed not later than 30 days after the date of publication of the Notice of Availability of the Record of Decision in the Federal Register. See 43 CFR Part 4. APPROVAL Helen Hankins Field Manager United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Elko Field Office 3900 East Idaho Street Elko, NV 89801 RECORD OF DECISION April 1, 2003 BARRICK GOLDSTRIKE MINES INC. BETZE PROJECT DEWATERING N16-88-002P/NVN-70708 INTRODUCTION Barrick Goldstrike Mines Inc. (Barrick) owns and operates the Goldstrike property, which is located in Elko and Eureka Counties, Nevada. In 1989, Barrick submitted a Plan of Operations (Plan) pursuant to the Surface Management Regulations, 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 3809, to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) for the Betze Project. As provided by Section 102(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), BLM prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS) with respect to Barrick's proposed Plan. The Final EIS and Record of Decision (ROD) for the Betze Project were issued on June 10, 1991. The Final EIS included a description of the environmental impacts projected to result from Barrick’s ground water pumping to lower the local ground water elevations below the proposed Betze mining operations. Since the Betze EIS was issued, Barrick's implementation of the ground water pumping and water management operations and monitoring of ground water elevations have provided new information regarding the pumping requirements and potential environmental impacts. Upon noting that dewatering rates and hydrologic conditions were substantially different from those anticipated in the June 1991 Final EIS and ROD for the Betze Project, the BLM raised concerns about the environmental impacts in a letter to Barrick dated December 17, 1992. By letter of December 22, 1992, Barrick agreed to underwrite the reasonable cost of conducting an analysis of the potential impacts of Barrick’s dewatering operations. Barrick and the BLM also proposed to use the analysis to refine or add appropriate mitigation measures in keeping with the Betze Project ROD. The proposed analysis would become a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS). Work on the analysis began to move forward. In July 1996 the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) issued a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, NPDES Permit NV0022675, to Barrick authorizing the discharge of up to 70,000 gallons of water per minute (gpm) to the Humboldt River. Barrick completed construction of a treatment plant and conveyance system on private land in August 1997 and began discharging water to the Humboldt River in September 1997 as irrigation demand declined. In May 1997 Barrick and Elko Land and Livestock Company (ELLCO) submitted an application to the BLM to amend an existing right-of-way (ROW) to authorize the installation of an additional buried pipeline across public domain land administered by the BLM, as part of the existing water conveyance system for the dewatering operation. Installation of the additional buried pipeline would enhance the operational flexibility of the water distribution system established in Boulder Valley by Barrick and ELLCO. Because other significant dewatering operations were ongoing or proposed in the area of the Barrick dewatering, the BLM also prepared a Cumulative Impact Analysis report, in 2000, to address potential cumulative dewatering and discharge impacts associated with Barrick’s Betze Project and Newmont Gold Company’s (Newmont’s) proposed South Operations Area Project Amendment and Leeville Project. This information was used to help prepare the Draft SEIS. The BLM issued the Draft SEIS on September 15, 2000. The Draft SEIS evaluated the environmental effects of Barrick's ongoing water management operations, including the discharge of dewatering water to the Humboldt River. The proposed additional buried pipeline was also analyzed in the Draft SEIS. ELLCO and Barrick subsequently withdrew the application to amend the existing ROW for this water pipeline and thus the pipeline is no longer under consideration. BLM solicited comments on the Draft SEIS until November 14, 2000. In response to the Draft SEIS and the associated comments, Barrick and the BLM prepared an abbreviated Final SEIS which included a Mitigation Plan to eliminate or reduce the potential direct and cumulative environmental impacts from dewatering in conjunction with mitigation measures from the 1991 EIS. The new Mitigation Plan included Barrick’s proposal for the Upper Willow Creek Habitat Enhancement Plan (UWCHEP). The purpose of the UWCHEP is to mitigate potential direct and cumulative impacts from dewatering by improving aquatic and riparian environments in existing degraded watersheds near but outside the dewatering cone of depression. DECISION As stated above, the application submitted by ELLCO and Barrick for a ROW grant amendment for a second buried pipeline was the Proposed Action addressed in the Draft SEIS. As this application has been withdrawn, there is currently no Proposed Action upon which the BLM will make a decision. Therefore, the purpose of this Record of Decision (ROD) is to document completion and acceptance of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis conducted in the SEIS and the mitigation measures agreed to by the BLM and Barrick. Based on the Draft SEIS and Final SEIS, I have approved the SEIS analyzing Barrick’s ongoing water management operations, which incorporates Barrick’s Mitigation Plan (Appendix A of the Final SEIS) and the Upper Willow Creek Habitat Enhancement Plan (Appendix B of the Final SEIS). ALTERNATIVES As ELLCO and Barrick have withdrawn their application for a ROW grant amendment for a buried water pipeline, which was the Proposed Action addressed in the Draft SEIS, there is no longer a Proposed Action upon which the BLM will make a decision. Consequently, there are no alternatives to the Proposed Action considered in the Final SEIS. The SEIS evaluates the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of Barrick’s ongoing water management operations and proposes appropriate additional mitigation measures. MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS Barrick’s ongoing water management operations for the Goldstrike Mine, including the mitigation measures approved by this ROD, as well as mitigation measures established as a result of the 1991 EIS, enable continued mining in an area where mining has been identified as an appropriate land use by the BLM Elko Resource Management Plan. The mine area is not included in any areas of designated national, regional, or local significance. Mining, by law, is a valid use on public lands; it is inherently site- specific and does not lend itself to relocation. Past operations by Barrick and other mining companies in the vicinity of the Goldstrike Mine have established mining as a principal land use for the near term. The dewatering program itself has been approved by the state of Nevada and said approval is not under review. The purpose of this SEIS is to fully analyze the potential impacts of dewatering and to identify appropriate mitigation measures. MONITORING AND MITIGATION This Decision expressly incorporates the following monitoring and mitigation measures. 1. The monitoring and mitigation measures identified in the SEIS Mitigation Plan in Appendix A of the Final SEIS. 2. The Upper Willow Creek Habitat Enhancement Plan in Appendix B of the Final SEIS. The monitoring and mitigation measures will: • Assist Barrick and the BLM in identifying and avoiding or mitigating unforeseen environmental impacts that may occur. • Minimize the adverse environmental impacts identified in the Draft and Final SEIS. • Ensure that all practicable means to avoid or reduce environmental impacts have been incorporated into the project • Provide additional protection and periodic opportunities for the BLM to refine its analysis of potential project impacts. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT The BLM published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare the SEIS for Barrick’s ground water pumping and water management operations in the Federal Register on August 31, 1994, and mailed a Dear Interested Party letter dated September 2, 1994, announcing the preparation of the SEIS to 465 people. Formal public scoping meetings were held in Elko, and Reno, Nevada on September 14 and 15, 1994, respectively. BLM received written comments from 11 individuals and groups, and 9 oral comments. All appropriate news media and the public were notified of the periods available for comment. Following receipt of Barrick’s and ELLCO’s application to amend the right-of-way for the proposed buried pipeline, the BLM published a second NOI in the Federal Register on January 7, 1998, and mailed a second Dear Interested Party letter dated January 14, 1998, to 284 people. In response to the second scoping notice, the BLM received six written comments. A mailing list of interested persons was assembled from previous mining-related EIS mailing lists and specific requests for the SEIS. The list was included in the Draft SEIS (Chapter 4.0). This list was continuously updated as needed throughout the SEIS process. The Draft SEIS was distributed to interested parties on the BLM’s SEIS mailing list. The BLM published a Notice of Availability of the Draft SEIS in the Federal Register on September 15, 2000, and published a news release announcing the 60-day Draft SEIS comment period. The 60-day public comment period on the Betze Project Draft SEIS began on September 15, 2000, and ended on November 14, 2000. During the public comment period, the BLM received 19 comment letters. On September 26, 2000, the BLM held a public meeting at the BLM Elko Field Office in Elko, Nevada. Approximately 11 people attended the public meeting. No written or verbal comments were submitted at the public meeting. Comments that were received during the public comment period were reviewed in their entirety, published in the Final SEIS, and considered by the BLM in preparation of this Record of Decision. Throughout the preparation of the Betze Project SEIS, Native American consultation was conducted with the Te-Moak Tribe, the Duck Valley Tribe, the Fort Hall Tribe, the Battle Mountain Band, the Elko Band, the Wells Band, the South Fork Band, the Western Shoshone Historic Preservation Society, and the Western Shoshone Defense Project. The possibility of effects to two Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP) was analyzed. Analysis concluded there would be no effect to the Tosawihi TCP and that effects to the Rock Creek TCP would be extremely unlikely. However, to provide additional protection, Barrick has added mitigation as described in the Mitigation Plan (Appendix A to the SEIS) at pages 9-12. APPEALS This Record of Decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 43 CFR 3809.800. A party that is adversely affected may file such an appeal in accordance with the procedures in 43 CRR Part 4. An appeal shall be filed not later than 30 days after the date of publication of the Notice of Availability of the Record of Decision in the Federal Register. See 43 CFR Part 4. APPROVAL Helen Hankins Field Manager