[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 77 (Friday, April 21, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20640-20642]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-3782]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Tracy Placer Mine, Rogue River--Siskiyou National Forest, 
Josephine County, OR

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

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

SUMMARY: The Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact 
statement (EIS), to examine surface resource impacts connected with 
extracting gold from placer deposits within a 4.25-acre (approx.) area, 
in response to a mining claimant's proposed plan of operations. 
Proposed mining would occur along the south bank of Sucker Creek, about 
11 miles southeast of Cave Junction, Oregon. During previous placer 
operations in the area, an existing but steeply inclined road provided 
vehicle access to several nearby sites. Because the placer deposit the 
claimant proposes to mine is located on the stream bank opposite from 
the road, the proponent proposes to use the existing road but would 
traverse Sucker Creek to reach the mine site by means of a low water 
crossing (ford).
    The purpose for preparing this EIS is to forecast and disclose 
environmental consequences to surface resources, resulting from road 
use and mine operations, as well as to ascertain reasonable operational 
terms and conditions needed during development of locatable mineral 
resources of the United States (as authorized by the Mining Law of 
1872, as amended). Although this is an action having ``effects 
primarily of local concern (40 CFR 1506.6(3)),'' the Forest Service is 
nonetheless publishing this notice in the Federal Register to make 
diligent effort at involving the public, agencies, organizations, 
Indian tribes and other interested parties in preparation of this EIS.

DATES: The EIS Team Leader (at the address below) should receive 
written comments concerning the scope of this analysis, identification 
of significant issues or both within 30 days following publication of 
this notice in the Federal Register. Once the scope of analysis is 
established, and significant issues identified, the Forest Service will 
prepare a draft EIS to document alternatives considered and to disclose 
anticipated environmental consequences. The draft EIS is expected to be 
filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and to be 
available for public comment during July 2006. Following issuance of 
the draft EIS, and receipt of public comments related to the draft, 
completion of a final EIS is scheduled for November 2006.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments or inquiries regarding this proposal 
to Howard Jubas, EIS Team Leader, care of USDA Forest Service, Grants 
Pass Interagency Office, 2164 NE Spalding Ave., Grants Pass, Oregon 
97526. If electronic submission of written correspondence is preferred, 
send electronic documents to the following e-mail address: comments-pacificnorthwest-siskiyou-galice-illinoisvalley@fs.fed.us. The subject 
line must contain the name of the project for which you are submitting 
comments.
    The responsible official, Pamela Bode, District Ranger, may be 
contacted at the following mailing address: Illinois Valley Ranger 
District, Rogue River--Siskiyou National Forest, 26568 Redwood Highway, 
Cave Junction, Oregon 97523.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information or 
questions, contact Howard Jubas, EIS Team Leader, at (541) 471-6760.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: As set forth in the provisions of the 1872 
Mining Law (as amended), a mining claimant (proponent) proposes to 
exercise his exclusive right to mine for gold within his placer mining 
claim (ORMC 159735). The location of the proposed placer mining 
operation is in the NW 1/4 of Section 19, Township 40 South, Range 6 
West, Willamette Meridian, Josephine County, Oregon. The proposed mine 
site is located approximately 11 air miles southeast of Cave Junction, 
Oregon, at an elevation approximately 2400 feet above sea level. The 
proclaimed boundary of the Siskiyou National Forest encompasses all 
proposed mining excavations within the claim, as well as the access 
road to the mine site, and all operations would be conducted on 
National Forest System lands.
     Proposed Action: The claimant proposes to mine gold from a 4.25-
acre (approx.) placer deposit during a five-year period, beginning in 
2007. Mine work would be suspended during

[[Page 20641]]

winter when snow precludes access to the area. However, the miner 
proposes to access the mine and complete some work during the other 
three seasons, as is practical, although excavation and placer mining 
operations would be a predominantly summer activity.
    The placer deposit borders the south bank of Sucker Creek, a 
tributary to the East Fork Illinois River, for approximately 1000 feet. 
The entire area where mining activity would occur consists mostly of 
gravel- to cobble-sized rocks, sands and subsoil materials. The entire 
deposit was turned over and worked extensively during hydraulic mining 
operations conducted in the later 1800s.
    To provide access to the mine site for trucks and earth moving 
machinery, the miner proposes to repair and partially re-construct an 
existing road. Presently, a gate blocks this road and the spur is now 
impassable to large vehicles. The existing road is steeply inclined, 
narrow and native surface. Originally constructed decades ago, the road 
is used periodically to transport mining equipment, tools and supplies 
to several placer claims adjoining Sucker Creek. While the existing 
road template was certainly constructed with most attention given to 
short length and low cost, and it is ill-suited to anything except 
high-clearance trucks and excavation equipment, the road is well 
integrated into the landscape and stable in its existing location.
    In his plan of operations, the claimant proposes to begin 
operations by clearing second-growth Douglas-firs, several Port-Orford-
cedars and understory vegetation from a portion of the mine site using 
a tracked excavator and crawler tractor. At the same time that land 
clearing occurs, the site would be leveled. No less than two acres 
would be cleared initially but about two acres also would be left 
intact until after mining is complete in the original entry area. This 
initial clearing and leveling would result in felling of approximately 
50 to 100 trees having breast height diameters ranging from 15 to 
nearly 45 inches. Cleared trees and other vegetation would be piled on 
the periphery of the placer deposit and out of the path of mining 
excavations, to the extent practicable.
    Following site preparation, the excavator, crawler tractor and a 
dump truck would be used to dig, move or pile loose rocks and sand that 
form the placer deposit. To begin mining, the claimant proposes to 
excavate a four-to eight-foot deep depression and afterward fill it 
with water to create a temporary pond. The pond would be sufficiently 
sized to contain a (6-inch or 8-inch) suction dredge, plus a materials 
collection hopper, while also impounding enough water for the dredge to 
wash (sluice) excavated materials. Nearly all placer cobbles (less than 
6 inches in diameter), gravels and sands would be ``wet processed'' on 
site by using the dredge to separate embedded gold from its substrate.
    Pond water would continuously re-circulate through the operating 
suction dredge during the gold separation process. Stones, sands and 
muddy water discharged from the apparatus would drop directly into the 
pond. No processed waste rocks, sands or muddy water discharged from 
the dredge would be deposited onto ground surface surrounding the pond 
or into Sucker Creek. As processing of placer substrate materials 
proceeds, the location of the water-storage pond would be progressively 
shifted across the site. The trailing end of the pond would be filled 
with processed rocks and sands as the leading perimeter of the pond is 
excavated.
    Water to fill the pond would be diverted from a nearby small 
perennial creek named Cedar Gulch; however, the pond would be only 
filled to its operating levels and then the water intake would be 
closed. There would be no outlet from the impoundment, leading toward 
Sucker Creek, so there would be no water flowing out of the pond on the 
ground surface and directly into Sucker Creek. Water would be depleted 
from the pond only by infiltration through substrate materials or by 
evaporation.
    Once mining of the placer deposit is completed, the area would be 
re-contoured using the waste rock excavated on site. Loose cobbles, 
gravels and fine-grained earthen materials would be shaped to leave 
gentle relief and a smoothed profile. Some (or perhaps all) of the 
previsouly felled trees and other vegetative debris would be placed 
over the distributed area. Since no toxic compounds (such as mercury or 
cyanide) would be used to separate gold from parent materials, and no 
hardwork load mining would occur, there would be no hazardous waste, 
leachates, mill tailings or refuse ores to contend with on the site.
    Scope of Environmental Analysis: The scope of this environmental 
analysis is limited to a review of proposed placer mine operations, 
including road access to the mine, with regard to potential 
environmental impacts to affected surface resources. The Forest 
Service, in implementing the Mining Law of 1872, does not have 
discretion to deny otherwise lawful locatable minerals mining (entry) 
where a reasonable plan of operations is proposed. However, Forest 
Service resource specialists working on this project do aim to fulfill 
all legally mandated environmental analysis and statement requirements, 
including thorough consideration of operating terms and conditions that 
decrease environmental effects. The application of operational terms 
and conditions are intended to direct mining operations and reclamation 
activities that minimize adverse effects on National Forest System 
surface resources (36 CFR 228.1).
    Preliminary Issues: The interdisciplinary team assigned to this 
project has completed an initial review of the claimant's plan of 
operations and did identify two prospective significant issues. One of 
these issues, regarding potential for degradation of Sucker Creek water 
quality, validated the merit of preparing an EIS. The two significant 
issues heretofore identified are:
    (1) The degree of impact from proposed mine operations related to 
species listed as threatened under the Endangered Special Act, as 
amended (specifically coho salmon and the northern spotted owl) and
    (2) The degree to which proposed mine operations might increase 
water temperature, turbidity or both in Sucker Creek (especially with 
regard to the potential for a threatened violation of Clean Water Act 
requirements).
    Preliminary Alternatives: Three alternatives are readily evident 
for consideration in the forthcoming draft EIS: 1), the no action 
alternative (as required by the National Environmental Policy Act, 
NEPA), 2), the miner's (claimant's) proposed action (plan of 
operations), and 3), an alternative mining plan incorporating 
reasonable terms and conditions that would minimize adverse 
environmental impacts on National Forest System surface resources.
    Responsible Official: Pamela Bode, District Ranger, Illinois Valley 
Ranger District, is the Forest Service official responsible for 
decision-making.
    Nature of Decision to Be Made: The responsible official will be 
accountable for disclosing important environmental consequences, 
identifying the environmentally preferable alternative, and selecting 
an alternative to implement. She will review the analysis contained in 
the Tracy Placer Mine EIS and make a decision regarding the terms and 
conditions that shall be required to operate, identifying especially 
where, when and to what extent such terms and conditions are essential 
to protect surface resources.
    The responsible official will consider public comments/reactions to 
the

[[Page 20642]]

proposal, opinions from advisory/regulatory government agencies having 
a role in this action, environmental consequences disclosed in the 
final EIS and applicable laws, regulations or policies in making this 
decision. The responsible official will document the decision and 
rationale for the decision in the Record of Decision (ROD). However, 
the ROD, which is tied to the final EIS, would not directly result in 
approval of the claimants' plan of operations. Rather, the ROD would 
fulfill statutory requirements for environmental review while also 
providing rationale for establishing reasonable terms and conditions. 
Once issued, the Record of Decision will be subject to Forest Service 
Appeal Regulations as promulgated at 36 CFR part 215.
    Comment Requested: This notice of intent commences the Forest 
Service's obligation to determine the ``scope of issues to be addressed 
and for identifying the significant issues related to the proposed 
action [40 CFR 1501.7].'' Written comment suggesting the scope (span) 
of the analysis to be undertaken, as well as significant issues related 
to proposed placer mining along Sucker Creek, should be mailed to the 
EIS Team Leader within 30 days following publication of this notice. 
Comments submitted to the Forest Service that are associated with this 
Federal Register notice will be used to guide preparation of the draft 
EIS.
    Following completion of the draft EIS, a comment period of no less 
than 45 calendar days will be allotted beginning on the day after the 
date EPA publishes the Notice of Availability in the Federal Register. 
At the end of this period, comments submitted to the Forest Service, 
together with names and addresses of those who responded, will be 
included in the public record for this proposal and as such will be 
available for public review. Forest Service officials will analyze, 
consider and respond to substantive comments submitted for the draft 
EIS and will then publish substantive comments and accompanying 
responses in the final EIS.
    To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering 
substantive critique of the environmental analysis documented in the 
draft EIS, comments should be as specific as possible. In particular, 
Forest Service officials welcome comments that address the adequacy of 
the draft EIS in disclosing environmental consequences or defining the 
alternatives formulated and discussed in the statement. Wherever 
possible, respondents should reference a specific page or chapter in 
the draft EIS to identify where a fault, omission or question arises. 
Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality 
Regulations (at 40 CFR 1503.3) implementing the procedural provisions 
of NEPA in addressing these points.
    Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and considered; 
however, those who submit anonymous comments will not have standing to 
appeal the subsequent decision (as authorized by 36 CFR part 215). 
However, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request the agency 
to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how the 
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality. Persons 
requesting such confidentiality should be aware that, under the FOIA, 
confidentiality may be granted in only very limited circumstances (for 
example, to protect trade secrets). The Forest Service will inform the 
requester of the agency's decision regarding the request for 
confidentiality and, in situations where the request is denied, the 
agency will return the submission and notify the requester the comments 
may be resubmitted with or without name and address within a specified 
number of days.
    The Forest Service wishes to give reviewers notice, at this first 
stage of EIS preparation, of several key court rulings that relate to 
standards for public participation in the entire environmental review 
process. First, reviewers of a draft EIS must structure their 
participation in the environmental review so that it is meaningful and 
alerts the Forest Service to the reviewer's position and contentions. 
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). 
Additionally, environmental objections that could have been raised at 
the draft EIS, but that were not raised until completion of the final 
EIS, may be waived or dismissed by the court. 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). therefore, it is 
important for persons interested in this proposed action to make 
available to the Forest Service their comments at a time when those 
responses can be meaningfully considered (that is, in response to this 
notice and subsequent to release of the draft EIS). Such timely 
submissions of information permits Forest Service analysts to correct, 
revise or supplement disclosures made in the draft environmental 
analysis and thus improve overall decision-making.

    Dated: April 6, 2006.
Pamela W. Bode,
District Ranger.
[FR Doc. 06-3782 Filed 4-20-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M