Mines Management Inc. Montanore Project, Kootenai National Forest, Lincoln County, MT, 40686-40688 [05-13846]
Download as PDF
40686
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 134 / Thursday, July 14, 2005 / Notices
ANNEX—QUANTITY-BASED SAFEGUARD TRIGGER
Product
Trigger level
Edam/Gouda Cheese .....................................
Italian-Type Cheese .......................................
Swiss Cheese with Eye Formation ................
Gruyere Process Cheese ...............................
Lowfat Cheese ...............................................
NSPF Cheese ................................................
Peanuts ..........................................................
Peanut Butter Paste .......................................
Raw Cane Sugar ............................................
6,660,467 kilograms ......................................
22,661,375 kilograms ....................................
35,579,750 kilograms ....................................
8,484,500 kilograms ......................................
4,227,750 kilograms ......................................
54,338,417 kilograms ....................................
56,596 mt .......................................................
2,841 mt .........................................................
1,297,851 mt ..................................................
1,096,324 .......................................................
95,785 mt .......................................................
36,661 mt .......................................................
8 mt ................................................................
59 mt ..............................................................
23 mt ..............................................................
170 mt ............................................................
80,886 mt .......................................................
12,067 mt .......................................................
531 mt ............................................................
660 mt ............................................................
9,239,208 kilograms ......................................
127,708 kilograms .........................................
22,708 kilograms ...........................................
6,757 mt .........................................................
78 mt ..............................................................
402 mt ............................................................
98 mt ..............................................................
795,143 liters .................................................
254,958 kilograms .........................................
94,717 kilograms ...........................................
20,042 kilograms ...........................................
0 mt ................................................................
0 mt ................................................................
485,971 kilograms .........................................
1,571,375 kilograms ......................................
8,982,620 kilograms ......................................
9,736,417 kilograms ......................................
0 kilograms ....................................................
5,125 kilograms .............................................
5,343 kilograms .............................................
80,208 kilograms ...........................................
Refined Sugar and Syrups .............................
Blended Syrups ..............................................
Articles Over 65% Sugar ................................
Articles Over 10% Sugar ................................
Sweetened Cocoa Powder .............................
Chocolate Crumb ...........................................
Lowfat Chocolate Crumb ................................
Infant Formula Containing Oligosaccharides
Mixes and Doughs .........................................
Mixed Condiments and Seasonings ..............
Ice Cream .......................................................
Animal Feed Containing Milk .........................
Short Staple Cotton ........................................
Harsh or Rough Cotton ..................................
Medium Staple Cotton ....................................
Extra Long Staple Cotton ...............................
Cotton Waste ..................................................
Cotton, Processed Not Spun .........................
[FR Doc. 05–13828 Filed 7–13–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–10–M
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Mines Management Inc. Montanore
Project, Kootenai National Forest,
Lincoln County, MT
Forest Service, USDA.
Notice of intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, Kootenai
National Forest, in conjunction with
Montana Department of Environmental
Quality, will prepare an environmental
impact statement (EIS) to document the
analysis and disclose the environmental
impacts of the proposed action to permit
the construction, operation and
reclamation of the Montanore silver/
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:32 Jul 13, 2005
Jkt 205001
Period
January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005.
January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005.
January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005.
January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005.
January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005.
January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005.
April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2006.
January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005.
October 1, 2004 to September 30, 2005.
October 1, 2005 to September 30, 2006.
Ocober 1, 2004 to September 30, 2005.
October 1,2005 to September 30, 2006.
October 1, 2004 to September 30, 2005.
October 1, 2005 to September 30, 2006.
October 1, 2004 to September 30, 2005.
October 1, 2005 to September 30, 2006.
October 1, 2004 to September 30, 2005.
October 1, 2005 to September 30, 2006.
October 1, 2004 to September 30, 2005.
October 1, 2005 to September 30, 2006.
January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005.
January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005.
January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005.
October 1, 2004 to September 30, 2005.
October 1, 2005 to September 30, 2006.
October 1, 2004 to September 30, 2005.
October 1, 2005 to September 30, 2006.
January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005.
January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005.
September 20, 2004 to September 19, 2005.
September 20, 2005 to September 19, 2006.
August 1, 2004 to July 31, 2005.
August 1, 2005 to July 31, 2006.
August 1, 2004 to July 31, 2005.
August 1, 2005 to July 31, 2006.
August 1, 2004 to July 31, 2005.
August 1, 2005 to July 31, 2006.
September 20, 2004 to September 19, 2005.
September 20, 2005 to September 19, 2006.
September 11, 2004 to September 10, 2005.
September 11, 2005 to September 10, 2006.
copper mine project and associated
power transmission line. The project is
located on public and private islands
approximately 18 miles south of Libby,
Montana. Mines Management, Inc.
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. A single EIS
evaluating all components of the
proposed project will be prepared.
DATES: Comments concerning the
proposed action must be postmarked by
September 15, 2005, to be considered in
the draft EIS. The draft EIS is expected
May 2006 and the final EIS is expected
by January 2007.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments
concerning the Proposed Action to Bob
Castaneda, Forest Supervisor,
Montanore Project, Kootenai National
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Forest, 1101 U.S. Hwy 2 West, Libby,
MT 59923, or e-mail your comments to
rl_montanore@fs.fed.us. All comments
received must contain: name of
commenter, post service mailing
address, and date of comment.
Comments sent as an e-mail message
should be sent as an attachment to the
message. A copy on computer-generated
disc, should accompany all comments
over one page in length.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bobbie Lacklen, Project Coordinator,
Canoe Gulch Ranger Station, 12557 Hwy
37, Libby, Montana 59923. Phone (406)
293–7773, or e-mail at
blacklen@fs.fed.us, or consult https://
www.fs.fed.us/rl/kootenai/projects/
montanore.
Mines
Management Inc. owns two patented
mining claims (HR 133 & HR 134) with
mineral rights that extend beneath the
Cabinet Mountains Wilderness. On
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM
14JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 134 / Thursday, July 14, 2005 / Notices
January 3, 2005, Mines Management Inc.
submitted to the Kootenai National
Forest and Montana Department of
Environmental Quality an application
for a Hard Rock Operating Permit and a
proposed Plan of Operations for the
Montanore Project. The ore body is
located beneath the Cabinet Mountains
Wilderness. All surface disturbances
including mill facilities, transmission
lines, across roads, and the tailings
disposal impoundment would be
located outside the Cabinet Mountains
Wilderness area.
Proposed Action
The Montanore Project, as proposed
by Mines Management, Inc. would
consist initially of a 12,500 tons per
underground mining operation that
would expand 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. Mines
Management, Inc. 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
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:32 Jul 13, 2005
Jkt 205001
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. Mines
Management, Inc.’s 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. Mines
Management, Inc. has developed a
reclamation plan to rehabilitate the
disturbed areas following the phases
associated with exploration,
construction, operation, and ultimately,
mine closure.
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 participate in
the scoping process, which is designed
to obtain input and to identify potential
issues relating to the proposed project.
Responsible Officials
Bob Castaneda, Forest Supervisor,
Kootenai National Forest, 1101 U.S.
Hwy 2 West, 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
agencies 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.
Preliminary Issues and Alternatives
The EIS will consider a range of
alternatives based on the issues,
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
40687
concerns, and opportunities associated
with the Montanore Project.
A preliminary identification of issues,
concerns, and opportunities are:
• What effect would the proposed
project have on the Cabinet Mountains
Wilderness?
• How would the project affect
wildlife, especially grizzly bear and bull
trout?
• How might the quantity and quality
of water in the project area be affected?
• How stable would the proposed
tailings impoundment facility be, and to
what degree would the site be reclaimed
following mine closure?
• What would be the social and
economic effects to local communities?
• What would be the cumulative
effects of the Montanore Project and
other past, present and reasonably
foreseeable activities including the
permitted Rock Creek Mine?
Two primary alternatives will be
considered: A No Action Alternative
and an alternative to approve the project
as Proposed. Other alternatives will be
developed that consist of modifications
of, or changes to various elements
comprising the proposal.
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. 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) Denial of the Plan of Operations if
no alternative can be developed that is
in compliance with applicable laws,
regulations and policy.
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
• Hardrock Mine Operating Permit
from the Montana Department of
Environmental Quality
• Air Quality Permit from the
Montana Department of Environmental
Quality
E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM
14JYN1
40688
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 134 / Thursday, July 14, 2005 / Notices
• 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.
Comment Requested
This Notice of Intent initiates the
scoping process, which guides the
development of the EIS. At this stage of
the planning process, site-specific
public comments are being requested to
determine the scope of the analysis, and
identify significant issues and
alternatives to the Proposed Action. The
estimated date for issuance of the draft
environmental impact statement is May
2006.
Scoping Process
The Forest Service, in conjunction
with Montana State agencies, will hold
public scoping meetings in Libby,
Montana, Bonners Ferry, Idaho; and
noxon, Montana during the week of
August 15, 2005. Specific location and
time of the meetings will be published
in the local newspapers approximately
one week prior to the meeting date. A
scoping document is available upon
request or an electronic copy may be
viewed at: https://www.fs.fed.us/rl/
kootenai/projects/montanore.
Early Notice of Importance of Public
Participation in Subsequent
Environmental Review
A draft EIS will be prepared for
comment. The comment period on the
draft EIS ends 60 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 the 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,
VerDate jul<14>2003
18:32 Jul 13, 2005
Jkt 205001
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 60 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 Proposed Action,
comments on the draft EIS should be as
specific as possible. It is also helpful if
comments refer to specific pages or
chapters of the draft EIS. Comments
may also address the adequacy of the
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: July 7, 2005.
Cami Winslow,
Acting Forest Supervisor, Kootenai National
Forest.
[FR Doc. 05–13846 Filed 7–13–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–M
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
Fleet Alternative Fuel Use and Vehicle
Acquisition Report for Fiscal Years
2004 and 2005 (Through June 2005)
Central Intelligence Agency.
Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Energy Policy
Act of 1992 (EPAct) (42 U.S.C. 13218(b))
and Executive Order 13149, the Central
Intelligence Agency gives notice of its
intention to make its Fleet Alternative
Fuel Use and Vehicle Acquisition
Report for Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005
(through June 2005) available on-line as
of July 14, 2005, at https://www.cia.gov/
cia/reports/afvreports/2005/
and at https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/
afvreports/2005/report.pdf.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Public Communications Branch, Central
Intelligence Agency, telephone (703)
482–0623.
Dated: July 8, 2005.
Edmund Cohen,
Director, Information Management Services.
[FR Doc. 05–13890 Filed 7–13–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6310–02–M
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A–588–804]
Antifriction Bearings (Other Than
Tapered Roller Bearings) and Parts
Thereof from Japan: Notice of Court
Decision Not in Harmony
Import Administration,
International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce
SUMMARY: On June 27, 2005, the United
States Court of International Trade (CIT)
affirmed the Department of Commerce’s
(the Department’s) redetermination on
remand of the final results of the
antidumping duty administrative
reviews on antifriction bearings (other
than tapered roller bearings) and parts
thereof from Japan. See NSK Ltd. v.
United States, Consol. Court No. 98–07–
02527, slip op. 05–77 (CIT 2005). The
Department is now issuing this notice of
court decision not in harmony.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 14, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Yang Jin
Chun or Richard Rimlinger, AD/CVD
Operations, Office 5, Import
Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230;
telephone: (202) 482–5760 or (202) 482–
4477, respectively.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
AGENCY:
Background
On June 18, 1998, the Department
published the final results of
administrative reviews of the
antidumping duty orders on antifriction
bearings (other than tapered roller
bearings) and parts thereof from Japan
for the period May 1, 1996, through
April 30, 1997. See Antifriction Bearings
(Other Than Tapered Roller Bearings)
and Parts Thereof from France, et al.;
Final Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews, 63 FR 33320
(June 18, 1998). NSK Ltd. and NSK
Corporation (hereafter ‘‘NSK’’) filed a
lawsuit challenging the final results. On
July 8, 2002, the CIT affirmed the
Department’s decision to classify NSK’s
repacking expenses as a selling expense
E:\FR\FM\14JYN1.SGM
14JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 134 (Thursday, July 14, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40686-40688]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-13846]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Mines Management Inc. Montanore Project, Kootenai National
Forest, Lincoln County, MT
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Kootenai
National Forest, in conjunction with Montana Department of
Environmental Quality, will prepare an environmental impact statement
(EIS) to document the analysis and disclose the environmental impacts
of the proposed action to permit the construction, operation and
reclamation of the Montanore silver/copper mine project and associated
power transmission line. The project is located on public and private
islands approximately 18 miles south of Libby, Montana. Mines
Management, Inc. 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. A single EIS evaluating all components of the
proposed project will be prepared.
DATES: Comments concerning the proposed action must be postmarked by
September 15, 2005, to be considered in the draft EIS. The draft EIS is
expected May 2006 and the final EIS is expected by January 2007.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments concerning the Proposed Action to Bob
Castaneda, Forest Supervisor, Montanore Project, Kootenai National
Forest, 1101 U.S. Hwy 2 West, Libby, MT 59923, or e-mail your comments
to rl_montanore@fs.fed.us. All comments received must contain: name of
commenter, post service mailing address, and date of comment. Comments
sent as an e-mail message should be sent as an attachment to the
message. A copy on computer-generated disc, should accompany all
comments over one page in length.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bobbie Lacklen, Project Coordinator,
Canoe Gulch Ranger Station, 12557 Hwy 37, Libby, Montana 59923. Phone
(406) 293-7773, or e-mail at blacklen@fs.fed.us, or consult https://
www.fs.fed.us/rl/kootenai/projects/montanore.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Mines Management Inc. owns two patented
mining claims (HR 133 & HR 134) with mineral rights that extend beneath
the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness. On
[[Page 40687]]
January 3, 2005, Mines Management Inc. submitted to the Kootenai
National Forest and Montana Department of Environmental Quality an
application for a Hard Rock Operating Permit and a proposed Plan of
Operations for the Montanore Project. The ore body is located beneath
the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness. All surface disturbances including
mill facilities, transmission lines, across roads, and the tailings
disposal impoundment would be located outside the Cabinet Mountains
Wilderness area.
Proposed Action
The Montanore Project, as proposed by Mines Management, Inc. would
consist initially of a 12,500 tons per underground mining operation
that would expand 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. Mines Management, Inc.
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. Mines Management, Inc.'s
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. Mines Management, Inc. has developed a reclamation plan to
rehabilitate the disturbed areas following the phases associated with
exploration, construction, operation, and ultimately, mine closure.
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 participate in the scoping
process, which is designed to obtain input and to identify potential
issues relating to the proposed project.
Responsible Officials
Bob Castaneda, Forest Supervisor, Kootenai National Forest, 1101
U.S. Hwy 2 West, 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 agencies 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.
Preliminary Issues and Alternatives
The EIS will consider a range of alternatives based on the issues,
concerns, and opportunities associated with the Montanore Project.
A preliminary identification of issues, concerns, and opportunities
are:
What effect would the proposed project have on the Cabinet
Mountains Wilderness?
How would the project affect wildlife, especially grizzly
bear and bull trout?
How might the quantity and quality of water in the project
area be affected?
How stable would the proposed tailings impoundment
facility be, and to what degree would the site be reclaimed following
mine closure?
What would be the social and economic effects to local
communities?
What would be the cumulative effects of the Montanore
Project and other past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities
including the permitted Rock Creek Mine?
Two primary alternatives will be considered: A No Action
Alternative and an alternative to approve the project as Proposed.
Other alternatives will be developed that consist of modifications of,
or changes to various elements comprising the proposal.
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. 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) Denial of the Plan of Operations if no alternative can be
developed that is in compliance with applicable laws, regulations and
policy.
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
Hardrock Mine Operating Permit from the Montana Department
of Environmental Quality
Air Quality Permit from the Montana Department of
Environmental Quality
[[Page 40688]]
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.
Comment Requested
This Notice of Intent initiates the scoping process, which guides
the development of the EIS. At this stage of the planning process,
site-specific public comments are being requested to determine the
scope of the analysis, and identify significant issues and alternatives
to the Proposed Action. The estimated date for issuance of the draft
environmental impact statement is May 2006.
Scoping Process
The Forest Service, in conjunction with Montana State agencies,
will hold public scoping meetings in Libby, Montana, Bonners Ferry,
Idaho; and noxon, Montana during the week of August 15, 2005. Specific
location and time of the meetings will be published in the local
newspapers approximately one week prior to the meeting date. A scoping
document is available upon request or an electronic copy may be viewed
at: https://www.fs.fed.us/rl/kootenai/projects/montanore.
Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent
Environmental Review
A draft EIS will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the
draft EIS ends 60 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 the 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 60 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 Proposed Action, comments on the draft EIS should
be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to
specific pages or chapters of the draft EIS. Comments may also address
the adequacy of the 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: July 7, 2005.
Cami Winslow,
Acting Forest Supervisor, Kootenai National Forest.
[FR Doc. 05-13846 Filed 7-13-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M