Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest; Mountain City Ranger District, Big Springs Exploration Drilling Project, 37182-37183 [07-3307]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Forest Service

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 130 (Monday, July 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37182-37183]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-3307]


========================================================================
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. 72, No. 130 / Monday, July 9, 2007 / 
Notices

[[Page 37182]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest; Mountain City Ranger District, 
Big Springs Exploration Drilling Project

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.

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

SUMMARY: Gateway Gold Corporation has submitted a Plan of Operations to 
explore for, locate, and delineate precious metals on National Forest 
System lands within the Big Springs Mine area. In response to that 
proposed plan of operations, the Mountain City Ranger District of the 
Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest will prepare an Environmental Impact 
Statement for the Big Springs Exploration Drilling Project. This 
proposal is for the drilling on up to 1000 drill sites over a five year 
period on National Forest System (NFS) lands. The Project Area is 
located in Elko County, Nevada. Analysis for this project was initiated 
in 2005 with the preparation of an Environmental Assessment. In late 
October 2006, two lakes that had formed in existing mine pits (pit 
lakes) and the surrounding aquifer began draining. The pit lakes are 
now dry and the aquifer level has dropped about 150 feet below previous 
levels measured prior to October 2006. It is unknown where the aquifer 
is draining to or what the impacts, if any, would be to water quality 
and surface and groundwater resources. Based upon these changed 
environmental conditions of the hydrology at the site, the Forest 
Service has decided to document the analysis in an Environmental Impact 
Statement.

DATES: To be most effective, comments concerning the scope of the 
proposed analysis should be received within 30 days from the date that 
this Notice of Intent is published in the Federal Register. The draft 
EIS is expected to be completed in October 2007, and the final EIS is 
expected to be completed in March 2008.

ADDRESSES: Send written scoping comments to: District Ranger, Mountain 
City Ranger District, 2035 Last Chance Road, Elko, NV 89801.
    Electronic scoping comments may be sent via e-mail to: comments-
intermtn-humboldt-toiyabe-mtncity@fs.fed.us. Please put ``Big Springs 
EIS'' in the subject line of e-mail transmissions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Will Wilson, Project Coordinator, 
Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, 2035 Last Chance Road, Elko, NV 
89801, Telephone: 775-778-6132.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose of and Need for Action

    The purpose and need for this proposed action is to authorize 
occupancy and use to Gateway Gold to explore for, locate, and delineate 
precious metals on National Forest System lands within the Big Springs 
Mine area. The statutory right of Gateway Gold to explore for and 
develop mineral resources on federally administered lands is recognized 
in the General Mining Law of 1872, and is consistent with the Humboldt 
National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan of 1986.

Proposed Action

    The operator proposes construction of up to 1000 drill sites and 
associated temporary roads over a 5-year period. Approximately 200 
drill sites would be constructed each year, with the drilling of up to 
three drill holes per drill site. Each drill site would occupy 
approximately 0.2 acres. Up to thirty miles of new exploration road (90 
acres) would be constructed in total over five years. Each year, the 
operator would keep approximately 5 to 7 miles of the newly constructed 
road (15 to 21 acres) open to provide primary access to exploration 
targets within the area. In addition, the operator would annually 
construct 3 to 5 additional miles (9 to 15 acres) of drill site access 
road that would be slated for reclamation each year. Overland travel 
would be 2 miles in length; at least one-mile of overland access would 
be slated for reclamation at the end of each drilling season. Total 
acreage disturbed over five years would not exceed 220 acres. Seasonal 
reclamation would be completed each year, along with concurrent 
reclamation to stabilize and reduce the overall amount of disturbance. 
Final reclamation would require that all disturbances by the operator 
be recontoured to natural slope, and seeded with native weed-free seed 
species.

Other Possible Alternatives

    Currently, two alternatives have been identified to be analyzed in 
detail with further analysis potentially generating other alternatives:
    No Action Alternative: The plan of operations submitted by Gateway 
Gold would not be approved. Conditions at the project area would remain 
as they are now.
    Proposed Action with Additional Mitigation and Monitoring: This 
alternative is identical to the Proposed Action Alternative with the 
exception of added mitigation and monitoring measures for protection of 
wildlife and water quality. These additional measures were identified 
during scoping, issue development, and identification of potential 
impacts during the initial analysis. These measures are in addition to 
the environmental protection measures already included in the Proposed 
Action Alternative and include Best Management Practices, Forest 
Service standard operating procedures for mineral exploration projects, 
and mitigation measures tailored specifically for this Project.
    Responsible Official: The responsible official is: Forest 
Supervisor, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, 1200 Franklin Way, 
Sparks, NV 89431.
    Nature of Decision To Be Made: Based on the environmental analysis 
presented in the EIS, the Forest Supervisor will decide (1) Whether or 
not to approve actions as proposed or modified, or as described in an 
alternative; (2) what mitigation measures are needed; and (3) what 
monitoring is required.

Scoping Process

    Scoping of the Proposed Action commenced in 2005 and is continuing 
at this time. Initial public input was invited through the mailing of a 
scoping letter on January 13, 2005. Letters initiating consultation 
were also sent to American Indian tribes. The Forest Service will again 
mail information to interested and/or affected parties. The project has 
been listed in the Humboldt-

[[Page 37183]]

Toiyabe National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions since April of 
2005. In 2005 the Forest Service received scoping responses, including 
letters from the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, Nevada 
Historic Preservation Office, Nevada Department of Wildlife and Western 
Watersheds Projects. Comments were also received from Elko County 
Commissioners and Elko County Roads Department. Relevant responses were 
used to synthesize and develop issues. There are currently no scoping 
meetings planned for the EIS.

Preliminary Issues

    The following are the significant issues identified through the 
analysis conducted to date. We are asking you to help us further refine 
the existing issues, as well as identify other issues or concerns 
relevant to the Proposed Action.
    Water Quality--Drilling and associated activities could result in 
(1) Cross contamination of aquifers by providing conduits; (2) impacts 
to existing engineered mine features (embankments); (3) interactions 
and effects to water quality; and (4) increased sedimentation and 
erosion from ground disturbing activities.
    Water Quantity and Flows--Drilling through geologic structures can 
intercept aquifers and alter groundwater flow.
    Wildlife--Exploration activities have the potential to disrupt 
seasonal use by a variety of wildlife species (mule deer, sage grouse, 
various raptors and other species) in and around the project area, and 
to affect quality and quantity of habitat for these species.
    Special Status Species (Wildlife)--Proposed surface disturbance and 
human activity associated with exploration activities may cause short- 
and long-term adverse effects to habitats used by Northern goshawk, 
sage-grouse, neo-tropical migratory birds, pygmy rabbit, and several 
species of bats with potential to occur in the Project area.
    Special Status Species (Aquatics and Fisheries)--Increased sediment 
from disturbance by the proposed exploration could adversely affect 
threatened Lahontan cutthroat trout and Columbia spotted frog 
(candidate species), which inhabit the North Fork Humboldt River.
    Recreation--Exploration activities and effects including noise, 
increased traffic on the access road, and road maintenance could affect 
recreation opportunities and the quality of the recreational 
experience.
    Livestock--Surface disturbance would alter the vegetation, which 
has the potential to change the carrying capacity within the pasture in 
both the short-term and long-term.
    Vegetation--Surface disturbance may (1) Affect specific plant 
communities, such as aspen, riparian vegetation and sub-alpine fir; (2) 
promote the spread and establishment of noxious weeds, such as hoary 
cress and Canada thistle, and other non-native invasive species, and 
(3) affect sensitive plants).
    Other issues that will also be addressed in the analysis include 
the potential impacts this project may have on the McAffee Peak 
Inventoried Roadless Area which is partly within the project area. As 
proposed a small amount of exploration activities would be within this 
roadless area. Approximately 12 drill sites and less than 1,000 feet to 
the drill road are located slightly within or on the northern boundary 
of the McAffee Peak Inventoried Roadless Area. The portion of the 
roadless area impacted is a small ``finger'' that was created through a 
mapping error in 1998/1999 when the latest inventory for roadless areas 
was adopted. This is the inventory that was made part of the 2001 
Roadless Area Conservation Rule. This finger in question has reclaimed 
mining and exploration roads within its boundaries and lacks roadless 
characteristics. This type of activity fits within an exemption 
category for allowing road construction within the IRA tied to 
outstanding or existing valid rights. Because no portion of the project 
area within or adjacent to the McAffee IRA exhibits roadless 
characteristics, effects of the Proposed Action upon the McAffee IRA 
have not been identified as a significant issue.

Comment Requested

    This NOI continues the scoping process which will guide the 
development of the Environmental Impact Statement. The public is 
invited to submit scoping comments, stating concerns and issues 
relevant to the proposed project. These comments will be used to help 
establish the scope of study and analysis for the EIS.

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 will be 45 days from the date that the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) publishes the notice of availability (NOA) in 
the Federal Register.
    The Forest Service believes that, 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 draft EISs 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 have been 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 comments and objections are made available to the Forest 
Service at a time when it can consider them and respond to them in a 
meaningful manner within the final EIS.
    To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues 
and concerns regarding the Proposed Action, comments on the draft EIS 
should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if the comments 
refer to specific pages, sections, or chapters of the draft document. 
Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft EIS or the merits 
of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the document. Reviewers 
may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 
Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 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 of 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 27, 2007.
Edward C. Monnig,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 07-3307 Filed 7-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M