[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 8, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7518-7519]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3077]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Zaca Mine Project; Toiyabe National Forest, Alpine County, CA
agency: Forest Service, USDA.
action: Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
summary: The Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Alpine
County Planning Department will be jointly preparing an Environmental
Impact Statement/Report (EIS/EIR) for the proposed development of an
open pit/heap leach gold and silver mining project in Alpine County,
California. Preparation of the EIS will be assisted by a third party
contractor, funded by the proponent, Western States Minerals
Corporation (WSM).
dates: Comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be received
in writing no later than March 27, 1995.
addresses: Send written comments to: R.M. ``Jim'' Nelson, Forest
Supervisor, Toiyabe National Forest, 1200 Franklin Way, Sparks, Nevada
89431.
for further information contact: Direct questions about the proposed
project and preparation of the EIS to Maureen Joplin, Project Team
Leader, Toiyabe National Forest. Telephone: 702-355-5394.
supplementary information: Western States Minerals Corporation (WSM)
has filed a proposed Plan of Operations (POO) for an open pit/cyanide
heap leach gold/silver mine in Alpine County, California. The project
is located approximately four miles southeast of Markleeville in
sections 29,30,31 and 32, T10N R21E, M.D.M. Total area of proposed
disturbance is [[Page 7519]] 228 acres. Forest Service review of the
project is required to minimize impacts to natural resources, to
develop an approved plan of operations pursuant to regulations at 36
CFR 228, and to coordinate permitting with other state and federal
agencies. Alpine County will review the proposal for a Conditional Use
Permit consistent with planning and zoning and for consistency with
California's Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. Alpine County and
Forest Service will act as joint lead agencies for the project review.
Scoping of interested agencies began with a meeting on January 24,
1995. Public comments will be requested through notices published in
the Reno Gazette-Journal, Douglas County Record-Courier, Alpine
Enterprise, Nevada Appeal, and Tahoe Daily Tribune, through direct
mailings, and through a public meeting to be held at Turtle Rock Park,
Alpine County on February 22, 1995. Copies of the proposed operating
plan may be viewed at the Carson and Bridgeport Ranger District offices
(Carson City, NV and Bridgeport, CA), and at the Forest Supervisor's
office (Sparks, NV). Forest Service and Alpine County evaluated a
similar project at the same location in 1982. An environmental
assessment/environmental (EA/EIR) impact report was written, and the
project approved but never implemented. Copies of the 1982 EA/EIR are
available for review at the Forest Supervisor's office, and at the
Carson and Bridgeport Ranger Districts. Preliminary issues associated
with the project are water quality in Monitor Creek and the East Fork
of the Carson River, impacts to wetlands, reclamation of disturbed
areas, public safety, and socioeconomic impacts. Alternatives will be
formulated which address these and any other issues generated by
scoping; the no action alternative will also be analyzed. A draft EIS/
EIR is anticipated for release in January of 1996.
Several government agencies will be invited to participate in this
project as cooperating or participating agencies. These agencies
include, but are not limited to, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Dept. of
Fish and Game and California Dept. of Transportation. Additional
federal, state, and local permits and licenses may be required to
implement the proposed action. These may include, but are not limited
to, a Section 404 permit, Water Pollution Control Permit, Reclamation
Permit for Mining Operations, and a General Discharge Permit for
Stormwater.
The Forest Service is the lead federal agency for this project and
R.M. ``Jim'' Nelson, Forest Supervisor of the Toiyabe National Forest
is the responsible official. The Draft EIS is expected to be filed with
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and be available for
review in January of 1996. At that time, EPA will publish a Notice of
Availability of the Draft EIS in the Federal Register. The comment
period on the Draft EIS will be at least 45 days from the date the
EPA's notice of availability appears 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 public
participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of
draft environmental impact statements 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 environmental impact stage but that are not raised until after
completion of the final environmental impact statement 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 them and respond to them in the final
environmental impact statement. To assist the Forest Service in
identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action,
comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be as
specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific
pages or chapters of the draft statement. Comments may also address the
adequacy of the draft environmental impact statement or the merits of
the alternatives formulated or 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.
Dated: January 31, 1995.
Gary Sayer,
Deputy Forest Supervisor, Toiyabe National Forest.
[FR Doc. 95-3077 Filed 2-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
