[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 120 (Tuesday, June 23, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34193-34194]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16617]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[AZ-020-05-3809-00; AZA 29237]


Notice of Availability of Draft Environmental Impact Statement 
for the Proposed Yarnell Mining Project, Arizona

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Availability and Notice of Public Hearings.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environment 
Policy Act of 1969, the Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix Field 
Office, has prepared a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) that 
describes the impacts of a proposed surface gold mine and ore 
processing facility, known as the Yarnell Mining Project, that would be 
located on public, private, and state lands near the town of Yarnell in 
Yavapai County in central Arizona.

DATES: The DEIS is available for public review and comment for the next 
60 days. Written comments on the DEIS must be postmarked on or before 
August 25, 1998. Public hearings will be held on July 28, 29, and 30, 
1998, at the times and locations listed under Supplementary 
Information.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to the Project Manager for 
the Yarnell Mining Project EIS, Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix 
Field Office, 2015 West Deer Valley Road, Phoenix, AZ 85027.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Connie Stone, EIS Project Manager, (602) 580-5517.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The DEIS was prepared in response to a 
proposed mining plan of operations submitted by the Yarnell Mining 
Company, a subsidiary of Bema Gold (U.S.) Inc. The impact analysis in 
the DEIS includes proposed mitigation measures and alternatives to the 
proposed project. The Environmental Protection Agency,

[[Page 34194]]

Region IX, is serving as a cooperating agency.

Description of the Proposed Action

    The proposed project facilities would include an open pit mine, two 
waste rock dumps, ore crushing and cyanide heap leaching facilities, 
laboratories, an office, and a water supply system of four wells or 
well fields and two pipelines. Facilities would be constructed on 118 
acres of BLM-administered land, 75 acres of private land, and 8 acres 
of state land that would be part of the water supply system. The mine 
would operate for 6 years, followed by a 7-year period of closure and 
reclamation.

Alternatives Analyzed

    The following three alternatives to the proposed action were 
analyzed: (1) No Action alternative; (2) Alternative 2--Elimination of 
the South Waste Rock Dump and Consolidation of Waste Rock Into the 
North Waste Rock Dump; and (3) Alternative 3--Elimination of the North 
Waste Rock Dump and Consolidation of Waste Rock Into the South Waste 
Rock Dump.

Other Relevant Information

    Copies of the DEIS have been mailed to all individuals and 
organizations that requested them, and executive summaries have been 
mailed to all on the project mailing list. A copy of the DEIS or 
summary may be obtained upon request by contacting Connie Stone at the 
BLM Phoenix Field Office. PublicUnited States reading copies are also 
being kept at the BLM Phoenix Field Office, the BLM Arizona State 
Office (222 N. Central Avenue in Phoenix), and the Public Libraries in 
Yarnell, Wickenburg, and Prescott.

Public Hearings

    Three public hearings will be held, the location and schedules for 
which are as follows:

July 28, 1998, 6:00 to 9:00 p.m., at the Wickenburg Community Center, 
160 N. Valentine St., Wickenburg, Arizona.
July 29, 1998, 4:00 to 8:00 p.m., at the Yarnell Senior Center, 136 
Broadway St., Yarnell, Arizona.
July 30, 1998, 6:00 to 9:00 p.m., at the Prescott Resort Conference 
Center, 1500 Highway 69, Prescott, Arizona.

Public Input Requested

    Comments on the alternatives and the adequacy of the impact 
analyses are most useful when they address one or more of the 
following:
      Errors in the analysis,
      New information affecting the analysis,
      Misinformation that could affect the outcome of the 
analysis,
      Requests for clarification,
      A substantive new alternative that differs from any of 
the existing alternatives.

    Dated: June 17, 1998.
Michael A. Taylor,
Field Manager.
[FR Doc. 98-16617 Filed 6-22-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-32-M