Summary of the environmental impact statement for the proposed Cooke City area mineral withdrawal : draft

48 Pages·1997·14 MB·English

by  United States. Forest Service. Northern Region

DRAFT
United States Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Montana State Office
USDA
United States Department of Agriculture
Forest Service
Northern Region March 1997
SUMMARY OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
FOR THE PROPOSED
COOKE CITY AREA MINERAL WITHDRAWAL
TheBureauofLandManagementisresponsibleforthestewardshipofourpubliclands. Itiscommitted
tomanage,protect,andimprovetheselandsinamannertoservetheneedsoftheAmericanpeoplefor
all times. Management is based on the principles of multiple use and sustained yield of our nation's
resourceswithinaframeworkofenvironmentalresponsibilityandscientifictechnology. Theseresources
includerecreation;rangelands;timber;minerals;watershed;fishandwildlife;wilderness;air;andscenic,
scientific, and culturalvalues.
TheUnitedStatesDepartmentofAgriculture(USDA)ForestServiceisadiverseorganizationcommitted
toequalopportunityinemploymentandprogramdelivery. USDAprohibitsdiscriminationonthebasisof
race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political affiliation and familial status. Persons
believing they have been discriminated against should contact the Secretary, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250, orcall202-720-7327(voice), or202-720-1127 (TDD).
BLM/MT/PL-97/005+1430
Coverphoto: RepublicMountain, GallatinNationalForest, withCooke Cityintheforeground.
Cooke City Area Mineral Withdrawal Team
222North 32nd Street
P.O. Box 36800
Billings, Montana 59107-6800
2300 (CCAM)
DearReader,
Enclosed foryourreview is the Summary, and ifrequested, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) forthe Proposed
Cooke CityArea Mineral Withdrawal. The Summary provides an overview ofthe analysis while the Draft EIS includes a
more detailed analysis ofthe two alternatives underconsideration. The two alternatives include continued minerals manage-
ment underthe current mining laws (NoAction) and the proposed mineral withdrawal ofapproximately 22,000 acres of
federal lands nearCooke City, Montana.
A one page "Readers Guide" is included to provide aneasy reference forthe alternatives and to assist you in understanding
each alternative. The Guide displays maps ofthe alternatives and summarizes in table form federal and private lands avail-
able for mining. The Guide also identifies anticipated mineral development foreach alternative.
Any person orgroup may comment on the Draft EIS during the 45-day public comment period. The45-day comment period
is open from March 7 through April 28, 1997. Please submit written comments to the above address.
Comments are most helpful when they point out inconsistencies orerrors, provide additional information pertinent tothe
analysis, orprovide rationale for support ofan alternative. We welcome questions on the Draft EIS.
Public meetings are scheduled at the following locations:
Cooke City, Montana Cooke City Fire Hall April 2
Livingston, Montana Yellowstone Motor Inn April 3
Cody, Wyoming Cody Club April 9
Red Lodge, Montana Lupine Inn April 10
Each meeting will run from 4to 8 p.m., using an open house format. You will have an opportunity to visit with team leaders
and resource specialists, to ask questions and submitcomments on the Draft EIS.
Any changes to the Draft EIS made as aresultofpublic comments will be available forpublic review in the Final EIS.
Copies ofthe Summary and Draft EIS will be available forreview at Bureau ofLand Management offices in Billings and
Cody, and at Forest Service offices in the following towns: Billings, Bozeman, Gardiner, Helena, Livingston, Missoula, and
Red Lodge, Montana and in Cody and Powell, Wyoming. Copies will also be available at the Cooke City School and at
libraries in Billings, Bozeman, Livingston, and Red Lodge, Montana, and in Cody and Powell,Wyoming.
We want topersonally thank those ofyou whohave participated in the development ofthis Draft EIS. We hope yourinvolve-
ment will continue as we move forward with the analysis forthe Final EIS.
Foradditional information, please contact Larry Timchak (FS), orJohnThompson (BLM), at [phone].
Sincerely,
Larry Hamilton Hal Salwasser
BLM State Director, Montana Regional Forester, Northern Region

READERS
GUIDE
YellowstoneNationalPark StudyAreaBoundary
Wilderness Streams
* Trails
M Privatelands(notsubject
towithdrawal) Roads
NationalForestLand NationalForestBoundary
READERS GUIDE
Cooke City Area Proposed Mineral Withdrawal EIS - Draft
SUMMARY COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE A: NO MINERALWITHDRAWAL ALT B: PROPOSED MINERALWITHDRAWAL
22,000 acres of federal minerals would remain open to 22,000 acres of federal minerals, subject to valid
mineral location and entry subject to management existing rights (VER), would be withdrawn from mineral
guidelines and applicable law. location and entry for 20 years. Lands acquired by the
Exploration and mining on federal lands would be federal government would be subject to the terms and
subject to federal surface management regulations and conditions of the withdrawal.
other applicable state and federal laws. Bonding would Exploration and mining for beatable minerals and
be required. leasable hardrock minerals would be prohibited on
Forest plans would not be amended regarding beat- federal lands withoutVER. On federal lands with VER
able mineral management. management would be same as in Alternative A.
Forest plans would be amended to be consistent with
the terms and conditions of the mineral withdrawal.
BASIS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
NWM NWM NWM NWM
Scenario A-1 Scenario A-2: Scenario B-1: Scenario B-2:
Agreement Agreement Agreement Agreement
Not Implemented Implemented Not Implemented Implemented
26,160 acres (22,000 20,240 acres (17,280 8,400 acres (4,240 acres 2,480 acres (60 acres of
acres offederal land; acres of federal land and of federal unpatented unpatented federal
4,160 acres of private 2,420 acres of private mining claims and 4,160 mining claims and 2,420
land) would be available land)would be available acres of private land) acres of private land)
for mineral develop- for mining. Interests would be available for would be available for
NWM
ment. acquired under the mining. 17,760 acres of mining. 17,769 acres of
Agreement (4,180 acres federal minerals would be federal minerals and
Mineral development of unpatented mining immediately withdrawn interests acquired under
NWM
forecast includes: claims and 1,740 acres of from mineral entry. the Agreement
3 Mines (the NWM, private land) would not be Assumes 4,240 acres of (4,180 acres of federal
another underground mine available for mining. federal land with VER. unpatented mining claims
of similar size [2% prob- and 1,740 acres of private
ability], and a surface Mineral development Mineral development land) would be withdrawn.
mine of similar size [10% forecast includes: forecast includes:
probability]); 10 explor- 1 Mine (an underground 3 mines (the NWM, Mineral development
atory drilling operations; mine [2% probability]); 5 another underground mine forecast includes:
mine reclamation; work exploratory drilling opera- of similar size [2% prob- No mines; 1 exploratory
camp for each mine; tions; mine reclamation; ability], and a surface drilling operation
construction of a 69 kV work camp for the mine; mine of similar size [10%
powerline between Cody construction of a 69 kV probability]); 7 exploratory Mining activity would
and Cooke City; plowing powerline between Cody drilling operations; mine occur on private land.
US 212 east of Cooke City and Cooke City; plowing reclamation; work camp
during the winter; em- US 212 east of Cooke City for each mine; construc-
ployee residency in during the winter; em- tion of a 69 kV powerline
surrounding communities ployee residency in between Cody and Cooke
surrounding communities. City; plowing US 212 east
Mining activity would Most mining would occur of Cooke City during the
occur on private and on federal land. winter; employee resi-
federal land. dency in surrounding
communities
Most mining would occur
on private land.
Other reasonably foreseeable independent activities include: Highway construction and maintenance, in-
creased recreation inYellowstone NP and surrounding areas, and continued residential development.
PROPOSED COOKE CITY AREA MINERAL WITHDRAWAL
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SUMMARY
PURPOSE AND NEED FORACTION
1
INTRODUCTION
1
BACKGROUND
1
GENERAL LOCATION AND GEOGRAPHIC SETTING 2
PROPOSED ACTION 2
PURPOSEAND NEED 2
NWM
Relationship to the Agreement 2
SCOPEOFTHEANALYSIS 4
DECISIONS TO BEMADE 4
Nature ofthe Withdrawal Decision 4
Withdrawal Decision Process 4
Forest Plan Amendments 4
Decisions Beyond the Scope ofthis Analysis 4
ISSUES AND CONCERNS 5
Public Comment 5
Issues 5
ALTERNATIVES 6
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL 6
Alternative A: No Mineral Withdrawal 6
Alternative A Scenarios 6
Alternative B: Mineral Withdrawal Implemented 9
Alternative B Scenarios 9
Management Common to All Alternatives 9
Preferred Alternative 13
ALTERNATIVES ELIMINATED FROM DETAILED STUDY 13
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 13
INTRODUCTION 13
Nature ofEffects Analysis 13
Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Not Related to Mining 14
ISSUES, AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 14
WaterQuantity and Quality, Wetlands, and Floodplains 14
Aquatic Resources 16
v
Recreation, Scenic Integrity, Yellowstone National Park, Special Areas, Air Quality 16
Recreation and Scenic Integrity 16
Yellowstone National Park 16
Wilderness 20
Roadless Areas 22
Wild and Scenic Rivers 23
AirQuality 24
Land Uses, Mining, and Private Property 25
Economics 28
Social 28
Cultural 28
Wildlife 31
CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 34
PUBLIC NOTICES, EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL SCOPING 34
CHRONOLOGY OFPUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACTIVITIES (Agencies andGeneral Public) 34
DISTRIBUTION AND REVIEW OFTHE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT AND SUMMARY 36

-a g t>vrf'H
,c
f
PROPOSED COOKE CITY AREA 7
MINERAL WITHDRAWAL
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SUMMARY
PURPOSE AND NEED FOR BACKGROUND
ACTION
OnAugust25, 1995,PresidentClintontouredthesiteofthe
then-proposed New World Mine near Cooke City, Mon-
tana, and expressed concerns about potential effects of
INTRODUCTION
mining on the area's outstanding natural resources. Fol-
lowingthattour,thePresidentdeclaredatwo-yearmorato-
This Summary provides an "overview" of the potential riumon any new miningclaims within the area. The two-
yearperiodprovidestimefortheleadagenciestocomplete
environmental consequences ofimplementing various al-
an environmental study of a longer term mineral with-
ternatives for managing federal locatable and leasable
drawal.
hardrock mineral resources on National Forest System
landsnearCookeCity,Montana. Whilemuchofthedetail
Amineralwithdrawalpreventsfilingofnewminingclaims
presented in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
on federal lands under the General Mining Law of 1872.
(DEIS) for the Cooke City Area Mineral Withdrawal
(CCAMW)hasbeeneliminatedtoproducethisdocument, Withdrawals are a management tool that may be imple-
theSummaryismeanttoprovidethereaderwithsufficient mentedtolimit mineral-relatedactivities inordertomain-
tain otherresource values in the area (43 Code ofFederal
information to understand:
Regulations (CFR) 2310).
• Whattheproposedmineralwithdrawalwoulddoand
why it has been proposed; Thepetitiontopursueamineralwithdrawalwas approved
• What alternatives to the withdrawal have been con- by the Secretary ofthe Interior on August 28, 1995. The
"Notice of Proposed Withdrawal" was published in the
sidered;
• What the setting is like and whatresource uses and FederalRegisteron September 1, 1995, at which time the
two-yearmoratorium on new claims went into effect.
conditions are present in the proposed withdrawal
area; and
The proposed mineral withdrawal was amended on Sep-
• Whatchangesorrisksofchangeinexistingenviron-
mentalconditions,resources,orusesmayoccurasa t(eNmWbeMr)1A6g,re1e9m96e,ntionfrAeusgpuosntse12t.o19t9h6e.NTehweNWWorMldAgMrienee-
result of implementing the proposed action or the
mentbetween the United States, Crown Butte Mines, Inc.
alternatives considered in detail in the analysis.
(Crown Butte), and the Greater Yellowstone Coalition,
The USDA Forest Service (FS) and the USDI Bureau of providesforcessationofthepermitapplicationprocessfor
LandManagement(BLM)areco-leadagenciesresponsible the proposed New World Mine, and acquisition (by ex-
forpreparationoftheEIS. TheSecretaryoftheInteriorwill change) of property interests held by Crown Butte in the
use the information in this FEIS asthebasisforadecision New World Mining District. The proposed mineral with-
on future management ofthe federal mineral resource. drawal(whichoriginallyappliedto 19,100acresoffederal
land),wasexpandedtoinclude: 1)anadditional2,960acres
ofNational Forestinthe KerseyLakearea, 2)anylandsor
minerals acquired inthe areainthefutureby theU.S., and
3) leasable hardrock minerals. The Kersey Lake addition
was alsomadeinresponsetopublicconcernsexpressedin Anyprivatemineralsinthestudyareathatmaybeacquired
the initial stages ofscoping forthe proposed withdrawal. bythe United States wouldalsobe subjecttotheproposed
mineral withdrawal. For example, if the U.S. were to
NWM
Unless amineral withdrawal is approved by the Secretary acquire minerals in this area as a result of the
oftheInteriorbyAugust31, 1997,federal landswithinthe Agreement,thesemineralswouldbewithdrawnfrommin-
area will reopen to filing ofnew mining claims. eral entry under the General Mining Law of 1872 (30
United States Code (USC) 21-54). In addition, any ac-
quired minerals would be withdrawn from hardrock min-
GENERAL LOCATION AND eralleasingundertheAcquiredLandsMineralLeasingAct
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING of 1947 (30 USC 351-359).
PURPOSE AND NEED
The proposed mineral withdrawal area (study area) is
locatedintheGallatinandtheCusterNationalForestsnear
CookeCity, Montana(Map 1). The study areais adjacent
President Clinton expressed concern about the effects of
tothenortheastcornerofYellowstoneNationalPark(NP),
Wyoming, and is bordered on the west, north, and east by mining on the area's outstanding natural resources. The
the Absaroka-Beartooth (A-B) Wilderness in Montana. primary purpose ofthe proposed mineral withdrawal isto
ThestateboundarybetweenMontanaandWyomingforms protect water quality and fresh water fishery resources
within the watersheds of Soda Butte Creek, Clarks Fork
the southern boundary ofthe study area. Adjacent to the
River, and Stillwater River from the effects of potential
southernboundaryistheNorthAbsarokaWildernessanda
non-wildernesscorridoralongUS212andtheClarksFork future hardrock mining activities that could occuron fed-
eral lands in the headwaters ofthese streams.
of the Yellowstone (Clarks Fork) River. Portions ofthe
headwaters of three rivers - the Clarks Fork of the
Yellowstone,theStillwater,andtheLamar(viaSodaButte Based on public comments received during the initial
stagesofscoping,thepurposehasbeenexpandedtoaddress
Creek) - originate in the study area.
protection of surrounding wilderness areas, scenic integ-
The study area comprises approximately 26,160 acres of rity,recreationopportunities,culturalresources,andwild-
bothprivateandfederallands. Ofthis, about22,000acres life fromtheeffectsofmining activity thatcouldoccuron
federal lands in the study area.
are National Forest administered lands on the Custer and
GallatinNationalForests. Scatteredthroughouttheareaare
The study area includes the headwaters of Outstanding
about 4,160 acres of private land consisting primarily of
Natural Resource Waters, including streams which flow
patentedminingclaims. PriortoSeptember 1, 1995,there throughYellowstoneNPandwildernessareas. TheClarks
were 470unpatented mining claims filed in the area.
ForkandStillwaterRiversandSodaButteCreekareeither
designated or eligible Wild and Scenic rivers. Certain
PROPOSED ACTION mining-related activities pose risks to these watersheds.
These risks include the potential for increased acid-rock
drainage, the potential for ground-water contamination
TheDepartmentoftheInteriorproposestowithdrawfrom fromundergroundmines,thepotentialforfailureoftailings
locatable hardrock mineral entry National Forest System impoundments andthe uncertainty ofmitigatingeffectsto
landsnearCookeCity,Montana,andYellowstoneNP. The wetlands. Withdrawaloftheselandswouldhelpensurethat
proposed mineral withdrawal is for up to 22,000 acres of the physical and biological integrity of these important
federal lands, subject to valid existing rights associated downstreamwatershedismaintained. Therisksanduncer-
with the existing unpatented mining claims in the study taintiesassociatedwithmining-relatedactivitiesonfederal
area. The withdrawal would have an immediate effect on lands would be reduced.
17,760 acres of currently unclaimed federal land. The
mineral withdrawal may or may not affect the remaining NWM
acreage (approximately 4,240 acres ofunpatented mining Relationship to the Agreement
claims), depending upon valid existing rights. If these
unpatented mining claims were abandoned or determined The proposed mineral withdrawal would help achieve the
tobeinvalid,the mineralwithdrawal wouldlimitmineral- objectivesofthe NWM Agreement by precluding mineral
related activities at that time. The mineral withdrawal developmentonpropertyinterestsintheareaacquiredfrom
wouldbesubjecttoreviewattheendof20yearsaccording Crown Butte. Under the terms ofthe NWM Agreement,
to federal regulations. private minerals and unpatented mining claims controlled