[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 64 (Friday, April 2, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17387-17389]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-7433]


 ========================================================================
 Notices
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
 or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
 and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
 delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
 statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
 appearing in this section.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 64 / Friday, April 2, 2004 / 
Notices  

[[Page 17387]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Buckhorn Mountain Project a Supplement to the Final Environmental 
Impact Statement for Crown Jewel Mine, Okanogan and Wenatchee National 
Forests, Okanogan and Ferry Counties, Washington

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Revised notice of intent to prepare a Supplemental 
Environmental Impact Statement.

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

SUMMARY: On September 5, 2003, the USDA Forest Service and Washington 
State Department of Ecology published a notice of intent to jointly 
prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for a 
proposal by Crown Resources Corporation (Crown) to develop a mine and 
mill for precious mineral extraction in the vicinity of Chesaw, 
Washington (Federal Register, Volume 68, No. 172, page 52736). The 
Buckhorn Mountain Project will supplement the Final environmental 
impact statement (FEIS) for Crown Jewel Mine, which was released 
February 7, 1997. Since publication of the notice of intent, Crown 
Resources has submitted a revised plan of operations that mills the ore 
and disposes the tailings at Echo Bay Mineral Corporation's existing 
Kettle River facility east of Republic in Ferry County. The agencies 
have accepted the new plan of operations as the proposed action for the 
project and are re-scoping this new proposal. Crown proposes to develop 
an underground gold mine on Buckhorn Mountain approximately 3.5 air 
miles east of Chesaw, Washington in sections 24 ad 25, Township 40 
North, Range 30 East, W.M. and transport ore by road to the existing 
Kettle River milling facility 8 miles east of Republic, Washington in 
Section 26, Township 37 North, Range 33 East, W.M. Milling and tailings 
disposal would occur at the Kettle River facility. Additionally rock 
would be quarried for backfill materials at a location approximately 
one mile west of Curlew on the south side of the West Kettle River 
Road, in Sections 14 and 15, Township 39 North, Range 33 East, W.M. The 
SEIS will evaluate an underground mining and milling configuration that 
is different from the underground mining operation proposed in the 
Crown Jewel Mine FEIS. The proposed project will comply with the 
direction in the December 1989 Okanogan National Forest Land and 
Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), as amended. The Forest Plan 
provides the overall guidance for management of NFS lands included in 
this proposal. The agencies invite written comments on the scope of 
this project. In addition, the agencies give notice of this analysis so 
that interested and affected individuals are aware of how they may 
participate and contribute to the final decision.

DATES: Comments concerning the scope of this analysis must be received 
by May 17, 2004. A public information and scoping meeting will be held 
on April 22, 2004 at the Republic Elementary School, 30306 E. Highway 
20 from 5-7:30 p.m. to provide information about the project to the 
public and to allow people to comment on the project. The Draft SEIS is 
expected to be filed in January 2005. The final SEIS is expected to be 
filed in June 2005.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments and suggestions concerning the scope 
of the analysis to Phil Christy, Project Coordinator, Tonasket Ranger 
District, 1 West Winesap, Tonasket, Washington 98855 [Phone: (509) 486-
5137].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct questions about the proposed 
action and SEIS to Phil Christy, Project Coordinator, Tonasket Ranger 
District, 1 West Winesap, Tonasket, Washington 98855 [Phone: (509) 486-
5137].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose and Need for Action

    The purpose and need for this action is to respond to the revised 
plan of operations and other permit applications submitted by Crown to 
construct and operate a mine of the specific body of ore on Buckhorn 
Mountain, along with processing facilities, while protecting surface 
resources.

Proposed Action

    The proposed action is the proposal described in Crown's February 
9, 2004, Amended Plan of Operation which can be viewed on-line at 
http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/okanogan/ (click on Bulletin Board). The 
proposal would consist of an underground mine and associated surface 
facilities on private lands and on public lands administered by the 
Forest Service (See Figure 4). Milling of the extracted ore and 
tailings disposal would be accomplished at the Echo Bay Mineral 
Corporation's Kettle River Mill located near Republic in Ferry County, 
Washington.
    The proposed mine would result in 31 acres of disturbed area 
surrounding fenced surface facilities above the ore deposit. There will 
be up to 55 acres of additional disturbance related to haul roads for 
the project. Approximately 8 months of underground development work is 
required prior to initial ore production. The 88,000 tons of 
development rock generated during this initial period would be 
temporarily staged on the round surface until returned underground as 
backfill. Construction of the administrative office and other 
associated surface facilities would occur concurrently. Full-scale 
production of fifteen hundred tons of ore per day is likely to begin 
twelve months after project initiation. Commercial production is 
projected to continue for approximately 90 months (7.5 years). Active 
physical decommissioning of site facilities would continue for 
approximately 2 additional years upon mining cessation, followed by 
three to five years of reclamation monitoring and final closure.
    The majority of underground mine openings would be backfilled upon 
completion of mining. The backfill would consist of development rock 
from the mine and gravel excavated from existing mines and/or a new 
gravel mine or mines. The Amended Plan of Operations identifies a large 
quarry site located about one mile west of Curlew as a significant 
source of backfill materials. Backfill will consist of approximately 
900,000 cubic yards of uncemented materials and 700,00 cubic yards of 
materials with a cement additive.
    The proposed supply route to the mine would extend from the city of 
Oroville east on Oroville-Toroda Creek Road through the community of

[[Page 17388]]

Chesaw, then continue on Pontiac Ridge Road to FS Road 120. 
Approximately one mile of new road would be constructed to connect FS 
Road 120 to oh proposed mine site (See Figure 5).
    Mineral ore extracted from the mine would be hauled to the Kettle 
River Mill and tailings disposal facility by road in highway-legal 
trucks. The haul route would be approximately 47 miles in length and 
would traverse a combination of FS roads, county roads and state 
highways. Approximately three miles of new road would need to be 
constructed to connect the mine with FS Road 3550 (Marias Creek Road). 
The haul route would follow FS Road 3550 east to its intersection with 
Toroda Creek Road (See Figure 6). The Amended Plan of Operations 
identifies the following three alternative routes to connect the mine 
with Toroda Creek Road:
    (1) FS Road 120 south to Pontiac Ridge Road then east to Toroda 
Creek Road on Oroville Toroda Creek (Beaver Lake) Road (Labeled as 
Alternative Route A on Figure 5);
    (2) FS Road 120 south to Pontiac Ridge Road then east to Toroda 
Creek Road on Pontiac Ridge Road (Labeled as Alternative Route B on 
Figure 5); and
    (3) FS Road 120 north to FS Road 100 then east to Toroda Creek Road 
on FS Road 3575 (Nicholson Creek Road) (Labeled as Alternative Route D 
on Figure 5).
    The haul route would extend north on Toroda Creek Road, then east 
on West Kettle River Road to its intersection with State Route (SR) 21 
near the community of Curlew. The road would follow SR 21 south through 
the community of Malo to its intersection with Cook Mountain Road. The 
route would continue eastbound on Cook Mountain Road, then turn on Jack 
May's Road, and then on to Fish Hatchery Road were it would enter the 
existing mill and tailings disposal site. On their return trip from the 
mill to the mine, haul trucks would transport backfill from the gravel 
quarry near Curlew (described above) to the mine site.
    The mill and tailings disposal site are approximately four miles 
east of SR 21 and eight miles east of Republic. The key steps in the 
milling process will include ore crushing and grinding, carbon in-leach 
precious mineral extraction, cyanide detoxification and disposal of 
tailings, and gold and silver recovery. In order to accommodate ore 
from the Buckhorn mine, the tailings disposal facility at the Kettle 
River Mill would need to be expanded. The amended proposal calls for 
increasing the height of the existing tailings impoundment to maintain 
the expansion within the disposal facility's current footprint (See 
Figure 7).
    Under the amended proposal, about 100 employees would be employed 
at the mine at the peak of initial construction activities and 120 
employees at full mine operation. Approximately 30 employees would be 
employed for ore hauling activities, while about 40 employees would be 
employed at the milling and tailings facility.
    All project activities must be in compliance with Chapter 78.56 RCW 
(Metals Mining and Milling Operations) and Chapter 78.44 RCW (Surface 
Mining). A reclamation plan that meets the standard of Chapter 78.44 
RCW will be required for any surface mining of sands and gravels 
associated with the project.

Possible Alternatives

    The Crown Jewel Mine FEIS analyzed a reasonable range of 
alternatives. The new underground mine proposal differs from the 
underground mine presented in the Crown Jewel Mine Final EIS, although 
some components remain the same. Because a reasonable range was 
established in the preceding FEIS, possible alternatives will be 
limited to alternative components to the underground mining/milling 
operation and will be based on the response to scoping. The agencies 
may still analyze the original July 2003 proposal by Crown Resources 
for a mill and tailings facility at Dry Gulch, with haul down the 
Pontiac Ridge road.

Lead and Cooperating Agencies

    The Forest Service and the Washington State Department of Ecology 
will be joint lead agencies in accordance with 40 CFR 1501.5(b), and 
are responsible for preparation of the SEIS. The Washington State 
Department of Natural Resources will be a cooperating agency in 
accordance with 40 CFR 1501.6. Scoping will determine if additional 
cooperating agencies are needed.

Nature of the Decision To Be Made

    The Forest Supervisor for the Okanogan and Wenatchee National 
Forests will decide whether or not to permit a mining operation on 
Buckhorn Mountain, and if it is permitted, what mitigation measures and 
monitoring will be required. The Forest Supervisor will only be making 
a decision regarding operations on NFS lands.

Scoping Process

    Public participation will be especially important at several points 
during the analysis. The participating agencies will be seeking 
information, comments, and assistance from Federal, State, local 
agencies, Native American Tribe and other individuals and organizations 
who may be interested in or affected by the proposed project. This 
input will be used in preparation of the Draft SEIS. The scoping 
process includes:
     Identifying potential issues not addressed in 
the Crown Jewel Mine EIS.
     Identifying major issues to be analyzed in 
depth.
     Identifying issues, which have been addressed by 
a relevant previous environmental analysis include the Crown Jewel Mine 
EIS.
     Exploring additional potential components of an 
underground mine/mill alternative, which will be derived from issues 
recognized during scoping activities.
     Identifying potential environmental effects of 
this project.
     Determining potential cooperating agencies and 
task assignments.
     Notifying interested members of the public of 
opportunities to participate through meetings, personal contacts, or 
written comment. Keeping the public informed through the media and/or 
written material (e.g. newsletters, correspondence, etc.).

Preliminary Issues

    A number of issues were identified in the Crown Jewel Mine EIS. The 
major issues identified concerned the effects of the proposal on water 
quality and quantity, wildlife habitat, and visual quality, and the 
potential for increased traffic, the use of toxic materials for 
processing the ore, extraction impacts, potential spills, and social/
economic impacts. Because of the very limited impacts to NFS lands, the 
current proposal minimizes the issues of wildlife habitat impacts, 
extraction impacts, potential spills, visual quality impacts, and the 
use of toxic materials on NFS lands.

Permits or Licenses Required

    Numerous permits and licenses are required for this project. A list 
of these can be requested at the contact address above.

Comment Requested

    This notice of re-intent initiates the scoping process, which 
guides development of the SEIS. The Forest Service is seeking public 
and agency comment on the proposed action to determine if any 
additional issues arise which were not already addressed in the Crown 
Jewel Mine EIS. Additional issues may lead either to other 
alternatives, or additional mitigation measures and monitoring 
requirements.

[[Page 17389]]

Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent 
Environmental Review

    A Draft SEIS will be prepared for comment. Copies will be 
distributed to interested and affected agencies, organizations, and 
members of the public for their review and comment. The comment period 
on the Draft SEIS will be 45 days from the date the Environmental 
Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal 
Register.
    The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important 
to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public 
participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of 
a Draft SEIS must structure their participation in the environmental 
review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to 
the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power 
Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Also, environmental objections 
that could be raised at the Draft SEIS stage but that are not raised 
until after the completion of the Final SEIS may be waived or dismissed 
by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d. 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 
1986) and 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 participating agencies at a time 
when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the Final 
SEIS.
    To assist the participating agencies in identifying and considering 
issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the Draft SEIS 
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 SEIS 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.
    In the Final SEIS, the participating agencies are required to 
respond to comments and responses received during the comment period 
that pertain to the environmental consequences discussed in the Draft 
SEIS and applicable laws, regulations, and policies considered in 
making a decision regarding the proposal.
    Comments received including the names and addresses of those who 
comment, will be considered part of the public record on this proposal 
and will be available for public inspection.
    The Forest Supervisor for the Okanogan and Wenatchee National 
Forest will be the responsible official for this SEIS and its Record of 
Decision. As the responsible official, the Forest Supervisor will 
document the decision and reasons for the decision in the Record of 
Decision. That decision will be subject to Forest Service Appeal 
Regulations (36 CFR Part 215).

    Dated: March 29, 2004.
Alan M. Quan,
Deputy Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 04-7433 Filed 4-01-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M