[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 145 (Friday, July 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39138-39140]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-18754]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Stillwater Mining Company's Boe Ranch LAD Alternative, Removing 
Production Cap, and Post-Closure Water Treatment, Stillwater County and 
Sweet Grass County, MT

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice: intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service proposes to amend Stillwater Mining 
Company's (SMC) Plan of Operation pertaining to production limits and 
water treatment methods. Briefly, SMC is requesting Forest Service and 
State approval to: (1) Construct a land application system (LAD) for 
treated mine water coming from the East Boulder Mine to its Boe Ranch 
property, approximately seven miles to the north; (2) remove the 
production cap for the East Boulder Mine; and, (3) develop a post-
closure water treatment plan for adit water and tailings impoundment 
water that would be discharged into the East Boulder River and Mountain 
View creek using structures and conveyances, and percolation ponds to 
discharge into groundwater.
    The Forest Supervisors have the authority for regulating all 
activities and uses of National Forest System lands. The Cluster 
National Forest Supervisor and the Gallatin National Forest Supervisor 
will decide whether to approve Stillwater Mining Company's amendment to 
their approval Plan of Operations, as detailed in the Proposed Actions, 
or whether to approve an alternative to the Proposed Actions. The 
Forest Supervisors also have the ability to prescribe mitigation 
measures as conditions of approval.
    The areas involved in these proposals include: federal land 
administered by the Gallatin National Forest and Montana Department of 
Environmental Quality for the East Boulder Mine and Custer National 
Forest and Montana Department of Environmental Quality for the 
Stillwater Mine; State Land, administered by the Montana Department of 
Natural Resources and Conservation; private land, administered by the 
Montana Department of Environmental Quality for the Boe Ranch property. 
Thus, the USDA, Forest Service, as a cooperating agency with the 
Montana Departments of Environmental Quality and Natural Resources and 
Conservation will participate in the preparation of an environmental 
impact statement (EIS).
    The EIS will disclose the environmental effects of the proposed 
actions. The Stillwater Mining Company has submitted the following 
proposals to the Forest Service and the Montana Department of 
Environmental Quality and Montana Department of Natural Resources and 
Conservation:

--Construction of a new road for access from the East Boulder Road to 
the Boe Ranch LAD site. The adit water would be stored on the Boe Ranch 
LAD site in a constructed storage pond before being applied using one 
of three different disposal methods: (1) Distribution through a center 
pivot irrigation system; or, (2) using enhanced evaporation sprayers 
around the storage pond; or, (3) using snow makers upstream of the 
storage pond.
--Removal of the ore production cap of 2,000 tons of ore per day at the 
East Boulder Mine.
--Development of a post-closure water treatment plan for the East 
Boulder and Stillwater Mines that will describes how mine water will be 
managed until it meets non-degradation standards and can then be either 
percolated to groundwater or conveyed and discharged into the East

[[Page 39139]]

Boulder River and Mountain View creek.

    The Directors of the Montana Department of Environmental Quality 
and Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, the 
Gallatin National Forest Supervisor, and the Custer National Forest 
Supervisor are the officials responsible for approving these proposals.

DATES: A public meeting will be held in Absarokee, MT on July 18, 2001 
and in Big Timber, MT on July 19, 2001 in order to identify issues to 
be addressed in this environmental analysis. Written comments 
concerning the scope of these proposals must be received by August 20, 
2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments concerning this analysis should be sent to: 
Patrick Plantenberg, Department of Environmental Quality, Environmental 
Management Bureau, PO Box 200901, Helena, MT 59620-0901, FAX (406) 444-
1374; and/or Pat Pierson, Beartooth Ranger District, HC49, Box 3420, 
Red Lodge, MT 59068; and/or Lars Halstrom, Big Timber Ranger District, 
PO Box 1130, Big Timber, MT 59011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions about the proposed action 
and EIS should be directed to Patrick Plantenberg. MT-DEQ, (406) 444-
4960; and/or Pat Pierson, Beartooth Ranger District (406) 446-2103; 
and/or Lars Halstrom, Big Timber Ranger District, (406) 932-5155.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose and Need for Action

    Stillwater Mining Company's Water Management Plan was approved on 
June 28, 1998 for land application disposal (LAD) of treated mine 
waters on Gallatin National Forest lands. SMC's new proposal would 
transport treated mine water through a pipeline in the East Boulder 
Road from the East Boulder Mine to their Boe Ranch property, 
approximately seven miles to the north. SMC believes the new location 
would better suite for a LAD system because of its windier, drier, and 
warmer environment that would increase evaporation of the treated mine 
water through an irrigation system and through evapotranspiration of 
rangeland plants. The purpose of this action is to provide additional 
operating flexibility, optimize treatment and disposal options, and 
allow mine water to be beneficially used in an agricultural setting.
    Removal of the production cap at the East Boulder Mine is also 
proposed. SMC's current permitted production cap is 2,000 tons of ore 
per day. SMC argues that removal of the production cap would have no 
environmental impact to other surface resources. The East Boulder 
Mine's production would still be controlled by other permit constraints 
and requirements for air quality, water quality, water treatment 
capacity, and impoundment size. An increase in production would trigger 
changes in employment, etc. This would trigger a change to the Hard 
Rock Impact Plan, which would have to be approved before the action 
could be put into place. The purpose of this action is to allow SMC 
flexibility in production as changes occur in the market and grade of 
the ore encountered.
    Previous Environmental Analyses for Stillwater's Nye operation have 
analyzed and approved operational water management plans during the 
life of the mine. However, long-term, post-mine closure water 
management has not been previously considered. When post-closure audit 
discharge water no longer requires treatment in order to meet water 
quality non-degradation standards, it is proposed that audit water will 
be discharged into the East Boulder River and Mountain View Creek 
through the use of structures and conveyances and tailings impoundment 
water be discharged to groundwater through percolation ponds.
    SMC has submitted proposals to amend its plan of operations in 
accordance with Federal and State regulations. The General Mining Law 
of 1872 grants all U.S. citizens the right to explore, develop, and 
produce mineral resources on Federal lands open to mineral entry. SMC 
currently operates the only economically viable platinum/palladium mine 
in the western hemisphere and accounts for five percent of world 
production. Thirty-five percent of U.S. consumption of platinum/
palladium is accounted for by the automotive industry in catalytic 
converters, required as a result of the Clean Air Act of 1990; 32 
percent by electronics; nine percent is used for medical/dental 
purposes; six percent by the chemical industry; and 18 percent is used 
for a variety of purposes, based on their chemical inertness and 
refractory properties (USDI, 1991).
    The purpose of this environmental analysis is to disclose the 
environmental effects of Stillwater Mining Company's proposals 
described above, and, cumulative effects of other potential activities 
within the Stillwater Complex will be considered in this analysis

Forest Plan Direction

    The proposals are within two National Forests, Montana State land 
and private land. The applicable direction of each Forest Plan is as 
follows.

Custer National Forest

    The area involved in the post-closure water treatment proposal for 
the Stillwater Mine is within Management Area E as described in the 
Custer National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1986). The 
management goal for Management Area E is:
    ``To facilitate and encourage the exploration, development, and 
production of energy and mineral resources from the National Forest 
System lands. Other resources will be considered, and impacts will be 
mitigated to the extent possible through standard operating procedures 
and, on a limited basis, through special lease stipulations necessary 
to manage key surface resources. Energy/mineral development will not be 
precluded by these resource concerns within legal constraints. Efforts 
will be made to avoid or mitigate resources conflicts. If the 
responsible official determines that conflicts cannot be adequately 
mitigated, she/he will resolve the conflict in accordance with the 
management goal and, if necessary, in consultation with affected 
parties.'' (Forest Plan, pg. 58)

Gallatin National Forest

    The area involved in the post-closure water treatment proposal and 
the lifting of the production cap at the East Boulder Miner lies within 
Management Areas 8 and 12 as described in the Gallatin National Forest 
Land and Resource Management Plan (1987). The management goals for 
minerals in Management Areas 8 and 12 are to:
    ``Provide for orderly and environmentally acceptable exploration 
and development of minerals, oils and gas, and geothermal resources.'' 
(Forest Plan, pg. II-1) ``Forest-wide standards established for these 
proposals will be monitored for compliance with approved operating 
plans and management area direction.'' (Forest Plan, p. II-24, 11,a,5) 
``Meet State water quality standards and maintain channel stability.'' 
(Forest Plan, pg. III-24, 4.)

State and Private Lands

    The Boe Ranch LAD proposal is located on SMC's ranch property and 
Montana State land under the jurisdiction of State laws and regulations 
for land management decisions.

Preliminary Issues

    The Forest Service and Department of Environmental Quality and 
Department

[[Page 39140]]

of Natural Resources and Conservation Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) have 
preliminarily identified two potential issues to consider in the 
environmental analysis. These issues have been identified due to the 
possibility that the existing environmental conditions may change as a 
result of the proposed activities. The potential issues include long-
term surface and groundwater quality and long-term surface and 
groundwater quantity. Aspects related to these issues that likely will 
be considered in the analysis are: operation and maintenance of the 
long-term water management system; effectiveness of long-term water 
treatment; management and monitoring systems (including LAD) to avoid 
violations of water quality standards; modifications to existing 
Montana Pollution Discharge Elimination Systems (MPDES) at the Nye and 
East Boulder sites; long-term discharge from tailings impoundment under 
drains and from tailing impoundment caps; length of required long-term 
treatment to meet water quality standards; maintenance of water system 
pipelines at the Hertzler and Boe Ranch sites; and, effects (e.g., 
shorter mine life, employment level changes, Hard Rock Impact Plan 
amendment, and impoundment Stages 2 thru 5 construction schedule) of 
lifting the production cap at the East Boulder site.

Preliminary Alternatives

--No Action
--Proposed Action
--An alternative to the Boe Ranch proposal would be use of the 
permitted proposals for water treatment entirely on the Gallatin 
National Forest as originally planned and leaving the production cap at 
2,000 tons of ore per day.
--Proposed Action with Appropriate Mitigation

EIS Availability

    The draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) is expected to be 
available for public review by mid-February 2002. After a 45-day public 
comment period, the comments received will be analyzed and considered 
by the Forest Service and Montana Department of Environmental Quality 
and Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation during the 
preparation of the final environmental impact statement (FEIS). The 
FEIS is scheduled to be completed by the end of May 2002. The 
regulatory agencies will respond to the comments received in the 
FEIS.The Custer National Forest Supervisor, the Gallatin National 
Forest Supervisor, and the Directors of the Montana Department of 
Environmental Quality and the Montana Department of Natural Resources 
and Conservation are the responsible officials for the EIS and will 
make decisions regarding this proposal considering the comments and 
responses, environmental consequences discussed in the DEIS, and 
applicable laws, regulations, and policies. The decision and reasons 
for the decision will be documented in a Record of Decision.
    The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will 
be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes 
the notice of availability in the Federal Register.
    The Forest Service believes it is important to give reviewers 
notice at this early stage of several court rulings related to public 
participation in the environmental review process. First, commenters 
and reviewers of environmental impact statements must structure their 
participation in the environmental review of the proposal so that it is 
meaningful and alerts the agencies to the reviewers' positions and 
contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435U.S. 
519,553 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at 
the draft environmental impact statement stage but that are not raised 
until after completion of the final environmental impact statement may 
be waived or dismissed by the courts. Wisconsin Heritages, Inc,  v. 
Harris, 490 F.Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court 
rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed 
action participate by the close of the 45-day comment period so that 
substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest 
Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to 
them in the final environmental impact statement.
    To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues 
and concerns on the proposed action, comments should be as specific as 
possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or 
chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the adequacy 
of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of the 
alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Reviewers may 
wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for 
implementing the procedural provisions of the national Environmental 
Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points.

    Dated: May 30, 2001.
Nancy T. Curriden,
Forest Supervisor, Custer National Forest.
    Dated: June 1, 2001.
Rich Inman,
Acting Forest Supervisor, Gallatin National Forest.
[FR Doc. 01-18754 Filed 7-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M