Mines Management Inc. Montanore Project, Kootenai National Forest, Lincoln County, MT, 41192-41195 [2011-17653]

Download as PDF 41192 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Notices mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES fewer products positive with serotypes of human health concern. FSIS notes that completed sample set results have always been available through FOIA, but the Agency has not seen any marked increases in foreign FOIA requests for such data. Given these facts, FSIS does not believe that establishments have significant grounds for concern because of Web publication of completed sample set results. Paperwork Reduction Act FSIS has reviewed the paperwork and recordkeeping requirements in this notice in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) and has determined that the paperwork requirements constitute a new information collection. Title: Salmonella Initiative Program (SIP). Type of Collection: New. Abstract: Currently, nine establishments are operating under SIP. The information collection burden incurred by these nine establishments is covered under the Procedures for the Notification of New Technology information collection currently approved by OMB (0583–0127). The Agency is selecting no more than five establishments that applied in 2008 to receive waivers of regulations restricting line speeds. If necessary, FSIS will re-open the application process until five establishments have been selected. The information collection burdens incurred by these establishments will also be included under 0583–0127. This notice opens SIP to all slaughter establishments, and all establishments receiving a waiver must participate in SIP. Data collected by the additional number of establishments coming under the expanded SIP program will constitute a new information collection. SIP offers incentives to meat and poultry slaughter establishments to control Salmonella in their operations. SIP does this by granting waivers of regulatory requirements with the condition that establishments test for Salmonella, Campylobacter (if applicable), and generic E. coli or other indicator organisms and share all sample results with FSIS. If the establishment’s results show it is not meeting the Agency’s current performance standards for turkeys or young chickens, it is to increase testing, determine whether its waiver is affecting its public health protection performance, and take steps to regain process control to minimize the presence of pathogens of public health concern. Establishments currently operating under regulatory waivers will VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:36 Jul 12, 2011 Jkt 223001 have to participate in SIP or drop their waivers. Establishments operating under waivers through the HACCP-based Inspection Models Project (HIMP) will continue to operate as HIMP establishments but will have to conduct new testing under SIP. SIP is now open to all slaughter establishments. Establishments that have received waivers under SIP terms and conditions are to begin submitting microbial testing data to FSIS within 60 days of this notice. Establishments currently operating under waivers for on-line reprocessing or HIMP or any other slaughter process will have 120 days from publication of this notice to participate in SIP or else drop their waivers and return to conventional inspection. FSIS will begin evaluating young chicken and turkey slaughter establishments operating with SIP waivers under new performance standards with sample sets beginning in or after July 2011. Estimate of Burden: FSIS estimates that annually it will take approximately 686.6 hours per respondent. Respondents: Official slaughter establishments that are under a waiver. Estimated number of Respondents: 300 Estimated number of Responses per Respondent: 2,081 Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 206,000 hours. Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained from John O’Connell, Paperwork Reduction Act Coordinator, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 6065, South Building, Washington, DC 20250, (202) 720–0345. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FSIS’s functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of FSIS’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to both FSIS, at the addresses provided above, and the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20253. Responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Additional Public Notification Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, in an effort to ensure that minorities, women, and persons with disabilities are aware of this document, FSIS will announce it online through the FSIS Web page located at https://www.fsis.usda.gov/ regulations_&_policies/ Federal_Register_Notices/index.asp. FSIS will also make copies of this Federal Register publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register notices, FSIS public meetings, recalls, and other types of information that could affect or would be of interest to constituents and stakeholders. The Update is communicated via Listserv, a free electronic mail subscription service for industry, trade and farm groups, consumer interest groups, health professionals, and other individuals who have asked to be included. The Update is available on the FSIS Web page. Through the Listserv and the Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader and more diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an e-mail subscription service that provides automatic and customized access to selected food safety news and information. This service is available at https://www.fsis.usda.gov/ news_and_events/email_subscription/. Options range from recalls to export information, regulations, directives and notices. Customers can add or delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password-protect their accounts. Done at Washington, DC, on July 8, 2011. Alfred V. Almanza, Administrator. [FR Doc. 2011–17625 Filed 7–12–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Mines Management Inc. Montanore Project, Kootenai National Forest, Lincoln County, MT AGENCY: E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM Forest Service, USDA. 13JYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Notices Notice of intent to prepare a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement. ACTION: 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 https://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. mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: Additional Information The 2009 Draft EIS can be reviewed at: https://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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:36 Jul 12, 2011 Jkt 223001 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 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 41193 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-ofstate 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 E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM 13JYN1 41194 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Notices 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 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 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 VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:36 Jul 12, 2011 Jkt 223001 #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 Hframe 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 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM 13JYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Notices mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES 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. Dated: June 28, 2011. Paul Bradford, Forest Supervisor, Kootenai National Forest. 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. Medbow-Routt Resource Advisory Committee Authority: 40 CFR 1501.7 and 1508.22; Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 21. VerDate Mar<15>2010 17:36 Jul 12, 2011 Jkt 223001 [FR Doc. 2011–17653 Filed 7–12–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–11–P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service before or after the meeting. Public input sessions will be provided and individuals who made written requests by July 15, 2011 will have the opportunity to address the Committee at those sessions. Dated: July 5, 2011. Phil Cruz, Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. 2011–17582 Filed 7–12–11; 8:45 am] Forest Service, USDA. Notice of meeting. AGENCY: ACTION: 41195 The MedBow-Routt Resource Advisory Committee will meet in Laramie, Wyoming. The committee is meeting as authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community SelfDetermination Act (Pub. L. 110–343) and in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the meeting is to review new project proposals and update RAC members on the progress of previously approved projects. BILLING CODE 3410–11–P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service SUMMARY: The meeting will be held July 28, 2011 from 10:30 a.m.–3:30 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Forest Supervisor’s Office, 2468 Jackson Street, Laramie, Wyoming. Written comments should be sent to Phil Cruz, RAC DFO, 2468 Jackson Street, Laramie, Wyoming 82070. Comments may also be sent via email to pcruz@fs.fed.us, or via facsimile to 307–745–2467. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Forest Supervisor’s Office, 2468 Jackson Street, Laramie, Wyoming. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Aaron Voos, RAC Coordinator, 2468 Jackson Street, Laramie, Wyoming 82070, 307–745–2323 or atvoos@fs.fed.us 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 Standard Time, Monday through Friday. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. The following business will be conducted: Review of the status of approved projects; discussion of travel reimbursement, review and discussion of new project proposal and public forum discussion. Persons who wish to bring related matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements with the Committee staff DATES: PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 National Forests In Mississippi, Tombigbee and Holly Springs Resource Advisory Committee Forest Service, USDA. Notice of meeting. AGENCY: ACTION: The Tombigbee and Holly Springs National Forests Resource Advisory Committee will meet in Starkville, MS. The committee is meeting as authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community SelfDetermination Act (Pub. L. 110–343) and in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. DATES: The meeting will be held on August 11, 2011, and will begin at 6 p.m. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Mississippi State University College of Forest Resources, Tulley Auditorium, Thompson Hall, 775 Stone Blvd., Mississippi State, MS, 39762–9690. Written comments should be sent to Robert Claybrook, Tombigbee National Forest, P.O. Box 912, Ackerman, MS 39735. Comments may also be sent via e-mail to rclaybrook@fs.fed.us, or via facsimile to 662–285–3608. All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received at Tombigbee National Forest, 6052 Hwy 15, South Ackerman, MS 39735. Visitors are encouraged to call ahead to 662– 285–3264 to facilitate entry into the building. SUMMARY: FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Claybrook, RAC coordinator, USDA, Tombigbee National Forest, P.O. Box 912, Ackerman, MS 39735; (662) 285–3264; e-mail rclaybrook@fs.fed.us. 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 Standard Time, Monday through Friday. E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM 13JYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41192-41195]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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 https://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: https://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
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.