[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41192-41195]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17653]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Mines Management Inc. Montanore Project, Kootenai National 
Forest, Lincoln County, MT

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

[[Page 41193]]


ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a Supplemental Draft Environmental 
Impact Statement.

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

SUMMARY: In February of 2009, The Department of Agriculture, Forest 
Service, Kootenai National Forest, in conjunction with Montana 
Department of Environmental Quality, issued a Draft Environmental 
Impact Statement for the Montanore Project. In response to public 
comment, the agencies revised the agencies' mine alternatives 
(Alternatives 3 and 4), and transmission line alignments (Alternatives 
C, D, and E). Most of the revisions to the mine alternatives addressed 
issues associated with water quality. The agencies' proposed monitoring 
and mitigation plans were also revised. Additional information and 
analyses concerning these alternatives and their effects on resources 
are contained in a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement 
(SDEIS). The project is located on public and private lands 
approximately 18 miles south of Libby, Montana. Mines Management, Inc. 
(MMI) submitted a proposed Plan of Operations and an application for a 
Hard Rock Operating Permit on January 3, 2005, pursuant to Forest 
Service locatable mineral regulations 36 CFR Part 228, Subpart A, and 
the State of Montana Metal Mine Reclamation Act MCA 82-4-301 et.seq.

DATES: Under 40 CFR 1502.9(c)(4), there is no formal scoping period for 
the proposed action. The Supplemental Draft EIS is expected to be 
available for public review and comment in July, 2011 and the Final EIS 
is expected in 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lynn Hagarty, Project Coordinator, 
Kootenai National Forest, Supervisor's Office, 31374 U.S. Highway 2, 
Libby, Montana 59923. Phone (406) 293-6211, or e-mail at lhagarty@ 
fs.fed.us, or consult http://www.fs.fed.usda.gov/goto/kootenai/projects.
    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) 
may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.

Additional Information

    The 2009 Draft EIS can be reviewed at: http://www.fs.fed.usda.gov/goto/kootenai/projects.
    Mines Management Inc. owns two patented mining claims (HR 133 & HR 
134) with mineral rights that extend beneath the Cabinet Mountains 
Wilderness.
    All surface disturbances including mill facilities, transmission 
lines, access roads, and the tailings disposal impoundment would be 
located outside the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness area.
    MMI proposes to construct the copper and silver underground mine 
and associated facilities, including the transmission line. Montanore 
Minerals Corp. (MMC), a wholly owned subsidiary of MMI, would be the 
project operator of the proposed Montanore Project. MMI has requested 
the KNF to approve a Plan of Operations for the Montanore Project. From 
the perspective of the DEQ, the mining operation is covered by a DEQ 
Operating Permit first issued to Noranda Minerals Corp. MMC has applied 
to the DEQ for a modification of the existing permit to incorporate 
aspects of the Plan of Operations submitted to the KNF that are 
different from the DEQ Operating Permit.
    The Montanore Project Supplemental Draft EIS will provide 
additional information and disclosures concerning:
     Agency Mitigated Poorman Impoundment Alternative.
     Water use and management, Air Quality, Aquatic Life, and 
Financial Assurance.
     Revised Monitoring and Mitigation Plans for Alternatives 3 
and 4.
     Geology, Groundwater Hydrology, Surface Water Hydrology, 
and Water Quality.
     Wetlands, Grizzly Bear Impacts.
     Discussion of those Resources Affected by a Change in the 
Transmission Line Alignments or where Additional Analysis was 
Completed.

Mine Alternatives

Alternative 1--No Action--No Mine

    In this alternative, MMC would not develop the Montanore Project, 
although it is approved under DEQ Operating Permit 00150. The 
Montanore Project, as proposed, cannot be implemented without a 
corresponding Forest Service approval of a Plan of Operations.

Alternative 2--Proposed Action--MMC's Proposed Mine

    The Montanore Project, as proposed by MMC, would consist initially 
of a 12,500 tons per day underground mining operation that would expand 
to a 20,000 tons per day rate. The surface mill would be located on 
National Forest System lands outside of the Cabinet Mountains 
Wilderness in the Ramsey Creek drainage. The ore body would be accessed 
from two portals located adjacent to the mill. Two ventilation portals, 
both located on private lands, would be utilized during the project. 
One ventilation portal would be located in the upper Libby Creek 
drainage; the other would be located in the upper Rock Creek drainage 
near Rock Lake.
    A 230-kilovolt electric transmission line would be constructed from 
Pleasant Valley (Sedlak Park) along U.S. Highway 2, and then routed up 
Miller Creek drainage to the project site.
    The size of the ore body is approximately 135 million tons. Ore 
would be crushed underground and conveyed to the surface mill located 
near the Ramsey Creek portals. Copper and silver minerals would be 
removed from the ore by a flotation process. Tailings from the milling 
process would be transported through a pipeline to the tailings 
disposal impoundment located in the Little Cherry Creek drainage, a 
distance of about four miles from the proposed mill site.
    Access to the mine and all surface facilities would be via U.S. 
Highway 2 and the existing Bear Creek road. MMC would upgrade an 
estimated 11 miles of the Bear Creek road to standards specified by the 
agencies. Silver/copper concentrate from the mill would be shipped by 
truck to a rail siding in Libby, Montana. The concentrate would then be 
transported by rail to an out-of-state smelting facility.
    Mining operations are projected to continue for an estimated 15 
years once facility development is completed and actual mining 
operations commence. The mill and mine would operate on a three shifts 
per day, seven days per week, yearlong schedule.
    An estimated seven million tons of ore would be produced annually 
during a 350-day production year. Employment numbers are estimated to 
be 450 people when at full production. An annual payroll of $12 million 
is projected for full production periods. MMC's proposed permit area 
utilizes approximately 3,000 acres of National Forest System land and 
approximately 200 acres of private land for the proposed mine and 
associated facilities including the power transmission line. All 
surface activities would be outside designated wilderness. MMC has 
developed a reclamation plan to rehabilitate the disturbed areas 
following the phases associated with exploration, construction, 
operation, and ultimately, mine closure.

Alternative 3--Agency Mitigated Poorman Impoundment Alternative

    Alternative 3 would incorporate modifications and mitigating 
measures proposed by the agencies to reduce or eliminate adverse 
environmental impacts. These measures are in addition to, or instead of 
the mitigations

[[Page 41194]]

proposed by MMC. The Libby Adit evaluation program would be the initial 
phase of the project and would be completed before construction of any 
other project facility. All other aspects of MMC's mine proposal would 
remain as described in Alternative 2. Alternative 3 involves changes to 
four major mine facilities: location of tailings disposal site changed 
from the Little Cherry drainage to the Poorman drainage, processing 
plant site changed from Ramsey Creek to the area between Libby Creek 
and Ramsey Creek, the addition of two more adit sites up Libby Creek, 
treatment of water from the adits by water treatment facility instead 
of by land application disposal (LAD). MMC would use the same roads as 
Alternative 2 to access operations. A new road, 3.2 miles in length, 
would be constructed near the tailings impoundment parallel to the Bear 
Creek Road 278 to allow for public traffic separate from haul 
traffic in that area.

Alternative 4--Agency Mitigated Little Cherry Impoundment Alternative

    Alternative 4 would be similar to Alternative 3, but would have 
modifications to MMC's proposed Little Cherry Creek Tailings 
Impoundment as part of the alternative. All other modifications and 
mitigations described in Alternative 3, other than those associated 
with the Poorman Tailings Impoundment Site, would be part of 
Alternative 4. As in Alternative 3, the Libby Adit evaluation program 
would be the initial phase of the project and would be completed before 
construction of any other project facility.

Transmission Line Alternatives

Alternative A--No Transmission Line, No Mine

Alternative B--MMC's Proposed Transmission Line (North Miller Creek 
Alternative)

Alternative C-R--Modified North Miller Creek Transmission Line 
Alternative

    The route under Alternative C-R alternative has been modified in 
response to comment on the Draft EIS. This modification would use an 
alignment up and over a ridge between West Fisher Creek and Miller 
Creek, would increase the use of public land and reduce the length of 
line on private land.

Alternative D-R--Miller Creek Transmission Line Alternative

    This modification was also developed following comment on the Draft 
EIS. The same alignment would be used as in Alternative C-R into the 
Miller Creek drainage, and then along NFS road 4724 on the 
south side of Miller Creek to increase the use of public land and 
reduce the use of private land. Routing the alignment along Miller 
Creek addressed the issue of effects on threatened and endangered 
species.

Alternative E-R--West Fisher Creek Transmission Line Alternative

    The primary difference between Alternative E-R and Alternative B is 
routing the line on the north side of West Fisher Creek to minimize 
effects to core grizzly bear habitat. As in Alternative D-R, this 
alternative would follow an alignment approximately 0.5 miles east of 
Howard Lake. Wooden H-frame structures would be utilized on this 
alternative in most locations. These wooden H-frames allow for longer 
spans resulting in fewer structures and access roads, which would 
minimize visibility from Howard Lake.

Lead and Cooperating Agencies

    The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana Department of Natural 
Resources and Conservation, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, 
Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, and the Bonneville Power Administration have 
either jurisdiction or interest and will participate as cooperating 
agencies or government entities in the preparation of this EIS. The 
USDA Forest Service and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality 
have agreed to be the Lead Agencies for this project. Other 
governmental agencies and any public that may be interested in or 
affected by the proposal are invited to comment on the Supplemental 
Draft EIS when it is released for comment.

Responsible Officials

    Paul Bradford, Forest Supervisor, Kootenai National Forest, 31374 
U.S. Hwy 2, Libby, MT 59923, and Richard Opper, Director, Montana 
Department of Environmental Quality, Director's Office, 1520 E 6th 
Ave., Helena, MT 59620-9601, will be jointly responsible for the EIS. 
These two officials will make a decision regarding this proposal after 
considering comments and responses pertaining to environmental 
consequences discussed in the Final EIS and all applicable laws 
regulations, and policies. The decision of a selected alternative and 
supporting reasoning will be documented in a Record of Decision.

Nature of Decision To Be Made

    The nature of the decision to be made is to select an action that 
meets the legal rights of the proponent, while protecting the 
environment in compliance with applicable laws, regulations and policy. 
The Forest Supervisor will use the EIS process to develop the necessary 
information to make an informed decision as required by 36 CFR Part 228 
Subpart A. The Director of DEQ will use the EIS process in a similar 
fashion to make informed decisions on a number of state permits and 
permit modifications according to state laws and regulations. Based on 
the alternatives developed in the EIS, the following are possible 
decisions:
    (1) An approval of the Plan of Operations as submitted;
    (2) An approval of the Plan of Operations with changes, and the 
incorporation of mitigations and stipulations that meet the mandates of 
applicable laws, regulations, and policy
    (3) Notification to MMC that the KNF Supervisor will not approve 
the Plan of Operations until a revision to the proposed Plan of 
Operations that meets the mandates of applicable laws and regulations 
is submitted

Permits or Licenses Required

    Various permits and licenses are needed prior to implementation of 
this project. Permits or licenses required by the issuing agencies 
identified for this proposal are:
     Approval of Plan of Operations from the Kootenai National 
Forest.
     Modification to Hardrock Operating Permit 00150 
from the Montana Department of Environmental Quality.
     Air Quality Permit from the Montana Department of 
Environmental Quality.
     Storm Water Permit and Montana Pollution Discharge 
Elimination System (MPDES) Permit from the Montana Department of 
Environmental Quality.
     404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
     Water Rights Permit from the Montana Department of Natural 
Resources and Conservation.
     310 Permit from the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife 
and Parks and Lincoln County Conservation District.
     Special Use Permits from the Kootenai National Forest.
     Major Facility Siting Act (MFSA) Certificate of Compliance 
from the Montana Department of Environmental Quality.

Public Comment Process

    A Supplemental Draft EIS will be prepared for comment. The comment 
period on the Supplemental Draft EIS ends 45 days from the date the 
Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in

[[Page 41195]]

the Federal Register. This is estimated to occur in July of 2011. The 
Forest Service, in conjunction with Montana State agencies, will hold a 
public meeting in Libby, Montana, during August or September of 2011. 
Specific location and time of the meetings will be published in the 
local newspapers approximately one week prior to the meeting date.

Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent 
Environmental Review

    The Forest Service believes 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 EIS 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 EIS stage but that are not raised until 
after completion of the final EIS 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 Forest Service at a time when it can 
meaningfully consider and respond to them in the final EIS.
    To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues 
and concerns on the information in the Supplemental Draft EIS, comments 
should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer 
to specific pages or chapters of the Supplemental Draft EIS. Comments 
may also address the adequacy of the Supplemental Draft EIS 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.
    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.

    Authority:  40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 
1909.15, Section 21.

    Dated: June 28, 2011.
Paul Bradford,
Forest Supervisor, Kootenai National Forest.
[FR Doc. 2011-17653 Filed 7-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P