```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 5, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30158-30159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14049]

[[Page 30158]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

North Fork Burnt River Watershed-Mining Projects; Wallowa-Whitman 
National Forest, Baker County, Oregon

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

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

SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service will prepare an environmental impact 
statement (EIS) on a proposed action to approve Proposed Plans of 
Operations on mining claims located on the North Fork of the Burnt 
River and its tributaries, located in the North Fork Burnt River 
Watershed. The project area is located on the Unity Ranger District, 
approximately 20 air miles northwest of Unity, Oregon.
    The proposed action is a compilation of plans submitted by 
claimants operating within the analysis area. These plans describe the 
type of mining operations proposed and how they would be conducted, the 
type and standard of access routes, the means of transportation to be 
used, the period during which the proposed mining activity will take 
place and measures to be taken to meet the requirements for 
environmental protection. Operations include the exploration and 
extraction of valuable minerals from placer and lode deposits. Methods 
range from the hand panning to more complex operations utilizing 
mechanical equipment. The 1990 Land and Resource Management Plan final 
EIS for the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, as amended, provides 
overall guidance for management of this area. Some of the operations 
planned in the proposed action may not be in compliance with this plan.

DATES: Written comments concerning the scope of the analysis should be 
received by July 15, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments and suggestions to Jean Lavell, Unity 
District Ranger, P.O. Box 38, Unity, Oregon 97884.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katie Countryman, Project Team Leader, 
Wallowa-Whitman National Forest Supervisor's Office. Phone: (541) 523-
1264.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The planning area is within the boundary of 
the North Fork Burnt River Watershed. The legal description of the 
decision area is as follows: T9-11S, R35E, 35-1/2E, 36E, W.M. surveyed.
    Since 1996, sections of the North Fork of the Burnt River and its 
tributaries have been listed as water quality impaired under section 
303(d) of the Clean Water Act. The Forest Service has determined that 
mining operations have the potential to affect water quality. 
Accordingly, the effects of new, existing, or modified Plans of 
Operations prepared under regulations at 36 CFR 228.4 and 228.5, will 
be analyzed in the EIS.
    Mining operations are associated with the extraction of precious 
metals from placer and lode deposits. A number of different practices 
are being proposed on the various claims within the analysis area. 
These may include one or more of the following practices:
    Suction Dredging: Portable suction dredges would be used in streams 
during the period specified by the State of Oregon, generally July 1 to 
October 31.
    Test Pits: Holes are dug either by hand or mechanical equipment to 
sample sub-surface deposits.
    Drilling: Portable drills are used as part of the exploration 
process to sample sub-surface mineral deposits.
    Placer Mining: This includes a wide variety of practices to extract 
minerals from placer deposits. The techniques include handwork with 
shovels and pans, small sluice boxes and more complex operations that 
use mechanical equipment. On the more heavily worked claims backhoes 
and front end loaders are used for digging, and power trommels for 
separation and extraction. Water, to varying degrees, is used in all 
these techniques. Some minor road maintenance and maintenance of 
existing structures is also planned.
    Lode Mining: This includes tunneling or other mechanical methods 
used to extract lode deposits.
    Activities, which would occur in association with mining operation, 
include mitigation practices such as construction or maintenance of 
settling ponds, and reclamation activities such as recontouring, 
seeding, and treatment of noxious weeds.
    Preliminary issues include effects of proposed activities on--water 
quality and fish habitat.
    The Forest Service will consider a full range of alternatives, 
including a ``no-action''alternative. The no-action alternative is 
evaluated in order to establish a baseline condition of existing and 
future environmental conditions in the project area. Based on the 
issues gathered through scoping, the action alternatives may vary in 
the type of operations permitted, the timing of permitted operations 
and the types of mitigation required. Action alternatives include--the 
proposed mining activities and alternatives that modify the proposed 
plans with additional mitigation to address effects of mining on water 
quality and fisheries habitat.
    Public participation will be especially important at several points 
during the analysis, beginning with the scoping process (40 CFR 
1501.7). This environmental analysis and decision making process will 
enable additional interested and affected people to participate and 
contribute to the final decision. The public is encouraged to take part 
in the process and is encouraged to visit with Forest Service officials 
at any time during the analysis and prior to the decision. The Forest 
Service will be seeking information, comments, and assistance from 
Federal, State, local agencies, tribes, and other individuals or 
organizations that may be interested in, or affected by the proposal. 
This input will be used in preparation of the draft EIS. The scoping 
process includes:

Identifying potential issues;
Identifying major issues to be analyzed in depth;
Identifying issues which have covered by a relevant previous 
environmental analysis;
Considering additional alternatives based on themes which will be 
derived from issues recognized during scoping activities; and
Identifying potential environmental effects to this project and 
alternatives (i.e. direct, indirect, and cumulative effects and 
connected actions).

    The draft EIS is expected to be filed with the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) and to be available to the public for a review 
by December 2001. The comment period on the draft EIS will be 45 days 
from the date the EPA publishes the Notice of Availability in the 
Federal Register. It is important that those interested in the 
management of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest participate at that 
time.
    Comments received in response to this notice, including names and 
addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the public 
record on this proposed action and will be available for public 
inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and 
considered; however, those who submit anonymous comments will not have 
standing to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR Parts 215. 
Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may request the 
agency to withhold a submission from the public record by showing how 
the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) permits such confidentiality. 
Persons requesting such confidentiality should be aware that,

[[Page 30159]]

under the FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very limited 
circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Forest Service 
will inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding the 
request for confidentiality, and where the request is denied, the 
agency will return the submission and notify the requester that the 
comments may be resubmitted with or without name and address within a 
specified number of days.
    The Forest Service believes it is important to give reviewers 
notice, at this early stage, of several court rulings related to public 
participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of 
draft EIS's must structure their participation in the environmental 
review of the proposal so that it is meaningful and alerts the 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 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 the 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 
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 
EIS or 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).
    The final EIS is scheduled for completion July 2002. In the final 
EIS, the Forest Service is required to respond to comments and 
responses received during the comment period that pertain to the 
environmental consequences discussed in the draft EIS and applicable 
laws, regulations, and policies considered in making a decision 
regarding the proposal.
    The Forest Service is the lead agency. Jean Lavell, District 
Ranger, is the Responsible Official. As the Responsible Official, she 
will decide which, if any, of the proposed plans will be implemented. 
She will document the decision and reasons for the decision in the 
Record of Decision. That decision will be subject to Forest Service 
Appeal Regulations (36 CFR Part 215).

    Dated: May 30, 2001.
Karyn L. Wood,
Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 01-14049 Filed 6-4-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
```