Kaibab National Forest Scoping Report VANE Uranium...

Scoping Report

VANE Uranium Exploratory Drilling Project

Environmental Impact Statement

March 26, 2010

Kaibab National Forest

This page intentionally left blank.

i

VANE Uranium Exploratory Drilling Project March 2010 Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Report

CONTENTS Acronyms and Abbreviations ....................................................................................................................... v

1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Overview.......................................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Background...................................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 PLANNING AREA .............................................................................................................................. 3 2.1 Location ........................................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 Description....................................................................................................................................... 3

3.0 SCOPING PROCESS .......................................................................................................................... 5 3.1 Objectives ........................................................................................................................................ 5 3.2 Description of Scoping Process ....................................................................................................... 5 3.3 Announcements ............................................................................................................................... 6

News Release................................................................................................................................... 6 Public Mailings ................................................................................................................................ 6 Information Stations......................................................................................................................... 6 Project-Specific Website.................................................................................................................. 7

3.4 Public Scoping Meetings ................................................................................................................. 7 3.5 Opportunities for Public Comment .................................................................................................. 8 3.6 Collaborative Planning..................................................................................................................... 8

Agency Coordination....................................................................................................................... 8 Tribal Consultation .......................................................................................................................... 9

4.0 COMMENT SUMMARY.................................................................................................................... 9 4.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 9 4.2 Comment Compilation................................................................................................................... 10 4.3 Comment Review and Coding ....................................................................................................... 11 4.4 Comment Themes .......................................................................................................................... 13

Alternatives.................................................................................................................................... 13 Air Quality ..................................................................................................................................... 13 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................................... 13 Cumulative Effects......................................................................................................................... 13 Environmental Justice.................................................................................................................... 13 Fire and Fuels................................................................................................................................. 14 Hazardous Materials ...................................................................................................................... 14 Lands.............................................................................................................................................. 14 Legal .............................................................................................................................................. 14 Livestock Grazing.......................................................................................................................... 15 Mineral Resources ......................................................................................................................... 15 Miscellaneous ................................................................................................................................ 15 Natural Environment...................................................................................................................... 15 Noise .............................................................................................................................................. 15 Public Health and Safety................................................................................................................ 16 Proposed Action............................................................................................................................. 16

ii

March 2010 VANE Uranium Exploratory Drilling Project Environmental Impact Statement

Scoping Report

Process ........................................................................................................................................... 16 Reclamation ................................................................................................................................... 17 Recreation ...................................................................................................................................... 17 Requests ......................................................................................................................................... 17 Soils and Geology.......................................................................................................................... 17 Socioeconomics ............................................................................................................................. 17 Threatened and Endangered Species.............................................................................................. 18 Transportation................................................................................................................................ 18 Tribal.............................................................................................................................................. 18 Vegetation...................................................................................................................................... 18 Visual Resources............................................................................................................................ 19 Wildlife .......................................................................................................................................... 19 Water Resources ............................................................................................................................ 19

5.0 PRELIMINARY ISSUES AND CONCERNS ................................................................................. 20 5.1 Process Issues ................................................................................................................................ 20 5.2 Proposed Action Issues .................................................................................................................. 20 5.3 Alternative Issues........................................................................................................................... 20 5.4 Legal Issues.................................................................................................................................... 21 5.5 Resource and Impact Analysis Issues ............................................................................................ 21

Air Quality Issues .......................................................................................................................... 21 Cultural Resources Issues .............................................................................................................. 21 Environmental Justice Issues ......................................................................................................... 21 Fuels and Fire Management Issues ................................................................................................ 21 Hazardous Materials Issues............................................................................................................ 22 Land Use Issues ............................................................................................................................. 22 Livestock Issues ............................................................................................................................. 22 Mineral Resource Issues ................................................................................................................ 22 Natural Environment Issues........................................................................................................... 22 Noise Issues ................................................................................................................................... 22 Public Health and Safety Issues..................................................................................................... 22 Reclamation Issues......................................................................................................................... 23 Recreation Issues ........................................................................................................................... 23 Socioeconomic Issues .................................................................................................................... 23 Soils and Geology Issues ............................................................................................................... 24 Transportation Issues ..................................................................................................................... 24 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Issues ................................................................. 25 Tribal Issues................................................................................................................................... 25 Vegetation Issues ........................................................................................................................... 25 Visual Resources Issues................................................................................................................. 25 Water Resources Issues.................................................................................................................. 25 Wildlife Issues ............................................................................................................................... 26 Cumulative Impact Issues .............................................................................................................. 26 Miscellaneous Issues...................................................................................................................... 26

5.6 Forest Supervisor Concurrence...................................................................................................... 35

6.0 SUMMARY OF FUTURE STEPS IN THE EIS PROCESS.......................................................... 35

iii


Appendices

A. Federal Register Notice of Intent B. Media and Press Releases C. Materials Set-up at Information Booths D. Scoping Meeting Display Boards and Handouts

Figure 1. Project location map.............................................................................................................................. 4�

Tables 1. Public Scoping Meeting Dates, Locations, and Attendance ................................................................ 7 2. Agencies Contacted to Initiate Coordination ........................................................................................ 9 3. Submittal Types .................................................................................................................................. 10 4. Agencies, Organizations, and Businesses that Submitted Scoping Comments .................................. 11 5. Categories and Subcategories Identified during Comment Analysis.................................................. 12 6. Preliminary Disposition of Issues and Concerns................................................................................. 27

iv


Scoping Report


v


ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS CFR Code of Federal Regulations DVD digital video disk EA environmental assessment EIS environmental impact statement ESA Endangered Species Act FLPMA Federal Land Policy and Management Act Forest Service U.S. Forest Service KNF Kaibab National Forest NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFMA National Forest Management Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NOI Notice of Intent PoO Plan of Operations USC United States Code USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture VANE VANE Minerals, Inc.

vi


Scoping Report


1


1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview

The Kaibab National Forest (KNF) is preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) to analyze the impact of exploratory drilling to the Tusayan Ranger District. The applicant, VANE Minerals (US) LLC. (VANE), has submitted a Plan of Operations (PoO) to KNF to perform exploratory drilling at 24 drill site locations. VANE proposes to perform only exploratory drilling and does not propose any uranium mining at this time.

From 2006 through 2008, VANE submitted a PoO to the KNF for 24 drill site locations, requesting approval to conduct exploratory drilling on 24 dill sites on National Forest System land. The PoO was accepted by the KNF, although a decision on approval will not be made until a thorough environmental review has been completed. . This EIS is being prepared as a condition to a settlement of a lawsuit over exploratory drilling.

The EIS is being prepared to analyze and disclose to the public the environmental, social, and economic impacts of VANE’s proposed exploratory drilling. The EIS will be prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing NEPA, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976, and other associated regulations. The Forest Service decision will be based on the results of this NEPA process (i.e., the findings of the impacts analyses reported in the EIS) and, further, on the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) determination regarding the consistency of the proposed use with the parameters specified in the KNF Forest Plan.

Exploratory drilling proposed by VANE seeks to locate economically feasible uranium deposits within solution-collapse breccias pipes on 24 mining claim sites. Breccia pipes are geologic features found on the Colorado Plateau that can contain concentrations of uranium. Each mining claim site would contain a series of drilling holes that range from less than 500 feet (shallow) to 2,000 feet (deep). Initial “shallow” drill holes would be drilled to determine whether breccia pipes occur at the site. Subsequent “deep” drill holes would be drilled to gather information regarding the uranium concentrations found in these pipes. Drill holes would be 6 inches in diameter. No toxic substances would be used in drilling. Upon completion of drilling operations, the drilling holes would be backfilled, and the site would be restored to the approximate original contours and revegetated.

VANE has proposed to use existing roads; however, depending on the site, access may require the building of temporary, low-impact, minimal roads entailing the removal of small trees. Improvements may be necessary to certain sections of existing Forest Service roads to ensure access and safety but will generally be limited to minor grading, filling ruts, and cutting limbs from trees only where needed.

1.2 Background

The requirement for the KNF to prepare an EIS for the proposed uranium exploratory drilling is a result of settlement of a lawsuit stemming from a previous uranium exploratory drilling proposal. In 2006, VANE submitted a PoO to the Forest Service to drill exploration holes for uranium at a total of 10 sites within the Tusayan Ranger District, KNF. Public scoping was conducted through direct mailings to 30 interested individuals on March 13, 2007, a legal notice published in the Arizona Daily Sun on March 14, 2007, and a press release submitted to local and regional media outlets.

2


Scoping Report

The Forest Service also conducted government-to-government consultation with the Havasupai Tribe, Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, Hualapai Tribe, Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe, and Pueblo of Zuni and conducted public scoping of tribal communities represented by the Bodaway-Gap, Cameron, Coalmine, Coppermine, Lechee, Leupp, and To’Nanees’Dizi Chapter Houses of the Western Navajo Agency. This coordination was conducted to solicit concerns that the tribes had regarding the drilling proposal. As a result of tribal concerns and comments, the proponent dropped three of the proposed drill sites, and additional mitigation measures were developed for the proposal.

On the basis of review and analysis of the drilling proposal, resource issues, and public comments received, the Tusayan District Ranger determined that the analysis could be categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental assessment (EA) or EIS. The Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Chapter 30, Part 31.2 states that routine, proposed actions within any of several categories may be excluded from documentation in an EA or an EIS. The category used for the original project was Category 8, “Short-term (one year or less) mineral, energy, or geophysical investigations and their incidental support activities that may require cross-country travel by vehicles and equipment, construction of less than one mile of low standard road (Service Level D, FSH 7709.56), or use and minor repair of existing roads.” A Categorical Exclusion Decision Memo under NEPA was completed in December 2007, and KNF approved VANE’s plan to drill on the seven remaining sites. Exploratory drill operations began in March 2008, and one site was completed.

A lawsuit was filed against the agency’s use of a Categorical Exclusion, and a Preliminary Injunction was ordered against any further uranium exploratory drilling. The original agency decision has been withdrawn, and an EIS will be completed on the original sites, including the three previously dropped sites, and on the additional proposed sites VANE submitted to the Forest Service in 2007 and 2008.

From 1978 to 1992, more than 900 exploration holes were completed on the Tusayan Ranger District in search of uranium in breccia pipes. One underground mine, the Canyon Mine, was proposed and approved on the district in the late 1980s in this same area.

The principal means of acquiring mining rights on federal lands is location of mining claims under the Mining Law of 1872. That statute, enacted when the West was being settled and federal policy encouraged development of public domain lands, still governs the location of metallic minerals such as gold, silver, tin, and copper, as well as other minerals, including uranium, building stone other than common varieties, and diamonds.

Location of mining claims under the Mining Law of 1872 (30 United States Code [USC] §§22–42) is a self-initiation system under which a person physically stakes an unpatented mining claim on public land that is open to location, posts a location notice, monuments the boundaries of the claim in compliance with federal laws and regulations and with state location laws, and files notice of that location in the county records and with the Bureau of Land Management. Discovery of a valuable mineral deposit, as defined under federal law, is essential to the validity of an unpatented mining claim and is required on each mining claim individually. The location is made as a lode claim for mineral deposits found as veins or rock in place, or as a placer claim for other deposits. While the maximum size and shape of lode claims and placer claims are established by statute, there are no limits on the number of claims one person may locate or own. The holder of a valid unpatented mining claim has possessory title to the land covered thereby, which gives the claimant exclusive possession of the surface for mining purposes and the right to mine and remove minerals from the claim. Legal title to land encompassed by an unpatented mining claim remains in the United States, and the government can contest the validity of a mining claim. The Mining Law requires the performance of annual assessment work for each claim, and subsequent to enactment of the

3


Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 USC §1201 et seq.), mining claims are invalidated if evidence of assessment work is not filed in a timely manner with the appropriate federal agency. However, in 1993, Congress enacted a provision requiring payment of $140 per year claim maintenance fee in lieu of performing assessment work, subject to an exception for small miners having fewer than 10 claims.

2.0 PLANNING AREA

2.1 Location

The proposed VANE Uranium Exploratory Drilling Project is located southeast, south, and west of Tusayan, Coconino County, Arizona. The project is located within Townships 27, 28, 29, and 30 North, Ranges 2, 3, 4, and 5 East, Gila and Salt River Baseline and Meridian (Figure 1). The project is located on the west and east sides of State Route 64, south of Grand Canyon National Park. VANE’s proposal to conduct exploratory drilling at 24 sites would potentially encompass approximately 72 acres of lands administered by the KNF. The acreage is an approximation based on the estimated size of breccia pipes at each drill site and represents the maximum area of operations. This number will be refined through the EIS process.

2.2 Description

The EIS, in compliance with NEPA, will disclose the potential environmental and social impacts of approval by the Forest Service of a PoO that addresses exploratory drilling on claims held by VANE. Connected actions related to the PoO (e.g., construction of roads, utilities) will also be evaluated in the EIS, regardless of whether they are proposed to be undertaken on National Forest System land.

The Forest Service proposes to authorize VANE to perform exploratory drilling at 24 drill sites. This proposed action would constitute exploratory drilling only. No mining extraction or transporting of uranium minerals for processing would be contemplated or permitted by this proposal. The proposed drill sites are located on mining claims owned by VANE and Uranium One Exploration U.S.A., Inc.; all exploratory drilling would be conducted by VANE. VANE has proposed to use existing roads; however, depending on the site, some road maintenance may be needed, such as spot surfacing, blading, and erosion control. Depending on access, some small trees may need to be trimmed or removed.

4


Scoping Report

Figure 1. Project location map.

5


3.0 SCOPING PROCESS

This section describes the objectives of the scoping process and the scoping process itself, identifies the techniques that were used to notify the public about the opportunity to be involved in scoping, and gives a brief summary of the public scoping meetings.

3.1 Objectives

Scoping is the first step and an integral part of the EIS process. It is an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to the proposed action (40 CFR 1501.7). The objectives of the scoping process are as follows:

• Increase public awareness and understanding of public lands stewardship through meaningful and productive constituent and local stakeholder involvement in the development of the EIS;

• Engage federal, state, local, and tribal governments and the public in the early identification of concerns, potential impacts, and possible alternative actions;

• Determine the scope and the significant issues to be analyzed in depth in the EIS;

• Identify potentially significant issues related to the proposed action;

• Identify and eliminate issues that are not significant or that have been covered by prior environmental review;

• Identify the scope of issues to be addressed and integrate analyses required by other environmental laws (e.g., Endangered Species Act [ESA], National Historic Preservation Act [NHPA]);

• Identify technical studies needed to adequately address potential impacts of the project.

3.2 Description of Scoping Process

On October 10, 2008, the KNF published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS for the VANE Uranium Exploratory Drilling Project in the Federal Register (73:60233–60234). The NOI summarized the proposed action, identified the purpose of and need for the action, and identified the public involvement process (Appendix A). The NOI announced a 30-day scoping period from the date of publication.

Although the NOI announced a 30-day scoping period, the KNF continued taking scoping comments and held public scoping meetings after the 30-day period. Any scoping comments received prior to publication of this Scoping Report were analyzed and taken into account. The KNF will continue to take comments on the proposed project until publication of the Draft EIS.

The KNF knew in advance that there was considerable interest in the EIS and the scoping process. Seven tribes were contacted prior to scoping for their input through the government to government consultation process. Tribes contacted included the Hopi, Navajo Nation, Hualapai, Havasupai, Pueblo of Zuni, Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, and Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. The Hualapai, Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, and Pueblo of Zuni participated in pre-scoping interviews to contribute ideas and information on scoping efforts directed to tribal communities. The KNF also conducted pre-scoping interviews with the Sierra Club, Grand Canyon Trust, and Center for Biological Diversity to solicit ideas and information on how to best involve the public in the scoping process. The information and ideas received from these interviews were incorporated in the plan for scoping. For example, the KNF decided to hold two of its

6


Scoping Report

four public scoping meetings on tribal land, deliver informational displays to each Tribal Office based on pre-scoping interviews, provide a court reporter at the public scoping meetings to record comments provided by the public at the scoping meetings, and have resource specialists present at the public scoping meetings to answer resource-specific questions.

3.3 Announcements

The EIS and scoping meetings were announced through a news release, public mailings, and postings to the KNF website (http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/kai/vane/index.shtml).

News Release

The Forest Service prepared a news release announcement (Appendix B) to introduce the project, provide information about the proposed action, announce scoping meetings and locations, and provide information on submitting comments. Information about the scoping meetings and public hearings was published in the Arizona Daily Sun on July 31, 2009.

Public Mailings

A mailing list identifying individuals (as points of contact) in organizations, agencies, and interest groups was used to provide information about the public meetings, scoping period deadlines, and other key milestones. The KNF mailing list was used as the foundation but was periodically revised, updated, and expanded throughout the scoping period and will be further updated throughout the entire NEPA process. The first direct mailing, which occurred on August 3, 2009, and included 172 recipients (52 federal, state, local government; 49 non-government organizations; 35 tribal entities; and 35 individuals), provided information about the proposed action, announced scoping meetings and locations, and provided information on submitting comments.

Information Stations

Information regarding the project was provided to the public via information stations set up at the following locations:

• Hopi Tribe Tribal Office

• Havasupai Tribe Tribal Office

• Hualapai Tribe Tribal Office

• Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe Tribal Office

• Pueblo of Zuni Tribal Office

• Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians Tribal Office

• Tusayan Ranger District Office

• Navajo Nation Chapter Houses: o Bodaway-Gap Chapter House o Cameron Chapter House o Coalmine Canyon Chapter House o Coppermine Chapter House o Lechee Chapter House

7


o Leupp Chapter House o To’Nanees’Dizi Chapter House

The information provided included announcement details for upcoming public meetings, public meeting handouts, comment-period duration, Forest Service comments forms, and two map posters that display the project area location in detail and in context (Appendix C).

In addition to these information stations, the Forest Service Navajo Nation tribal liaison, attended Navajo Nation Chapter meetings to provide updates, field questions, distribute scoping materials to community members, and relay questions and concerns to the KNF.

Project-Specific Website

KNF hosts a website specifically for the VANE Uranium Exploratory Drilling Project EIS that is used to provide information to the public regarding the NEPA process, EIS schedule, public scoping, and other information pertinent to the project. It conforms to KNF guidelines for “look and feel” as recommended by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Washington Office. Website content includes fact sheets, bulletins, announcements, notices, maps, and documents appropriate for public release. The website was used to capture and compile public comments during the scoping period, as well as for updating the mailing list. The website complies with federal accessibility guidelines, including USDA guidelines.

3.4 Public Scoping Meetings

The Forest Service hosted four public meetings in August 2009, as shown in Table 1. The meetings were conducted in an open house format. However, at the outset of each meeting, the project leaders provided brief summaries about the NEPA process and proposed project and took questions from meeting attendees. The open house format was designed to allow attendees to view informational displays, ask specialists about the VANE Uranium Exploratory Drilling Project and the EIS process, and submit written or verbal comments on-site. Members of the public were provided with comment forms, fact sheets, and visual displays to learn about the proposed project details. Participants were also encouraged to join the mailing list. Copies of the meeting posters and handouts are provided in Appendix D. The fact sheets and displays provided information about the following:

• NEPA process • Scoping process • How to comment effectively • Location maps • Proposed action

Table 1. Public Scoping Meeting Dates, Locations, and Attendance

Meeting Location in Arizona Meeting Date in 2008 Time of Meeting Number of People Who Signed In

Flagstaff August 11 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. 40

Tuba City August 12 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. 17

Tusayan August 13 6:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m. 17

Supai August 17 11:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. 69

8


Scoping Report

3.5 Opportunities for Public Comment

Members of the public were afforded several methods for providing comments during the scoping period:

• Comments could be recorded on comment forms at the scoping meetings. Comment forms (see Appendix D) were provided to all meeting attendees and were also available throughout the meeting room and at an information station where attendees could write and submit comments during the meeting.

• Comments could be submitted verbally and recorded by a court reporter at the scoping meetings.

• E-mailed comments could be sent to a dedicated e-mail address: [email protected].

• Individual letters and comment forms could be mailed via U.S. Postal Service to Kaibab National Forest, ATTN: VANE Minerals Uranium Exploratory Drilling Project, 800 South 6th Street, Williams, Arizona 86046.

• The KNF provided a toll-free telephone number for persons to call and provide recorded verbal comments. The toll-free line was available for comment from July 31, 2009, through October 31, 2009. After receiving only one verbal comment using this method, the line was disconnected. It may be reinstated for comment on the Draft EIS.

3.6 Collaborative Planning

The term ‘collaboration’ may be used to describe a wide range of external and internal working relationships. The collaborative process essentially allows the community to communicate to the Forest Service how public lands should be managed from the public’s perspective. The final goal of the process should be that communities and agencies work together toward a common understanding on the future management of the public lands.

Agency coordination is an important step in a successful collaborative process for several reasons. First, early involvement with other federal, tribal, state, and local governments establishes a solid working relationship with each agency. Next, it also builds trust and credibility among agencies that can then be transferred to the public. Finally, it helps to ensure that the Forest Service develops land use decisions that are supported by other interested agencies.

Active involvement by the public early in the process helps to ensure consideration of alternatives that address the diversity of public interests, build trust between the Forest Service and the public, and create public understanding and acceptance of the eventual decision.

Agency Coordination

Early and frequent coordination with affected agencies is emphasized in the Council on Environmental Quality regulations and is directed by KNF guidance. The KNF is also required by law and regulation to consult with specific agencies and entities because of jurisdictional responsibilities.

Although no specific agency scoping meetings were held, the Forest Service has contacted key federal, state, county, and local agencies, as well as American Indian Tribes, to initiate coordination throughout the EIS process. Table 2 lists the agencies that KNF has contacted as of the date of this report.

9


Table 2. Agencies Contacted to Initiate Coordination

Grand Canyon National Park

Prescott National Forest

U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Bureau of Land Management

Federal Aviation Administration

Federal

Rocky Mountain Research Station

Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources

Arizona Game and Fish Department

Arizona State Mine Inspector

State Historic Preservation Office

Arizona Department of Water Resources

State

Utah Rural Development Council

Kane County

Coconino County

Mohave County

County

Five-County Association of Governments

City of Tusayan

City of Flagstaff

City of Williams

Local

City of Phoenix

Tribal Consultation

The KNF is currently consulting with tribes on a government to government level. This consultation was initiated prior to the scoping period and is ongoing throughout the development of the EIS. The KNF consults with seven tribes on a regular basis and is including updated information on this EIS in ongoing consultation meetings. The tribes consulted on this EIS include the Hopi, Navajo Nation, Hualapai, Havasupai, Pueblo of Zuni, Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, and Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. A summary of this tribal consultation process will be included in the NEPA documentation.

4.0 COMMENT SUMMARY

4.1 Introduction

For this scoping report, comments received following the publication of the NOI on October 10, 2008, have been considered and analyzed. The KNF requested that comments on the proposed action be submitted by September 2, 2009; however, the KNF accepted comments on the proposed action until mid-September. During scoping, the KNF received 232 submittals, including unique letters, Forest Service comment forms, emails, faxes, and oral comments presented at the public meetings and on the toll-free telephone line. The Forest Service also received digital video disk (DVD) recordings as comment submittals of two public meetings. The Havasupai Tribe recorded the public scoping meeting held on

10


Scoping Report

August 17, 2009, and submitted the proceedings as their comment. The Hualapai Tribe held a meeting on August 19, 2009, in Peach Springs, Arizona, and submitted the recorded proceeding as a comment. The DVD recordings were professionally transcribed to paper documents and analyzed along with all other comment submittals.

4.2 Comment Compilation The majority of the comment submittals were Forest Service comment forms; 148 Forest Service comment forms were submitted (64% of submittals). A copy of this form is included in Appendix C. Percentages of the other submittal types are outlined in Table 3. The names of the agencies and other organizations that submitted comments are listed below. (Please note that in some cases more than one letter was sent to the KNF by an agency or organization.)

Table 3. Submittal Types

Submission Type Number of Submittals % of Submittals

Email 48 20.69

Facsimile 1 0.43

Forest Service Comment Form 148 63.79

Flagstaff Scoping Meeting 0

Tuba City Scoping Meeting 9

Tusayan Scoping Meeting 0

Supai Scoping Meeting 21

Mailed-in 118

Toll-free Telephone Line 1 0.43

Verbal Comment 12 5.17

Unique Letter 20 8.62

Video 2 0.86

Supai Meeting 1

Hualapai Meeting 1

Total 232 100%

Submittals were received from 13 states. From Arizona, comment submittals were received from Navajo, Yavapai, Coconino, Maricopa, Mohave, Pima, and La Paz counties, with Coconino County accounting for 32% of submittals. Four governmental agencies submitted comments, including two from federal agencies and two from state agencies. Three tribes and one tribal organization submitted comments. In addition, six organizations and four business submitted comments during scoping. Table 4 lists all government agencies, organizations, and businesses that submitted comments.

11


Table 4. Agencies, Organizations, and Businesses that Submitted Scoping Comments

Government • National Park Service

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• Arizona Game and Fish Department

• State of Arizona Department of Mines and Mineral Resources

Tribal • Hopi Tribe

• Hualapai Tribe

• Havasupai Tribe

• Inter-Tribal Council of New Mexico

Organizations • Center for Biological Diversity

• Grand Canyon Trust

• Sierra Club, Grand Canyon Chapter

• Sierra Club, Toiyabe Chapter

• The Forgotten People

• WildEarth Guardians

Businesses • DIR Exploration, Inc.

• Arizona Daily Sun

• Tusayan Land and Cattle

• Ash Fork Water Services

4.3 Comment Review and Coding

The methodology used for comment coding included a three-step process: 1) every submittal was assigned a unique identifying number; 2) individual comments were identified numerically in order of appearance in the submittal; and 3) individual comments were assigned to one category and subcategory. Subcategories were developed based on the categories and on the subject matter contained in the comment.

Comments identified were categorized according to 29 topic categories. Table 5 lists these categories and their subcategories. In addition, “cumulative impacts” was also included as a subcategory for each category.

All the comments were organized, reviewed, and analyzed to identify the preliminary issues that will be addressed during preparation of the EIS. The comment submittals and each comment were entered into an electronic database system that facilitated organization, sorting, and management of the comments in several different ways, such as topic of concern and geographic origination of comment.

12


Scoping Report

Table 5. Categories and Subcategories Identified during Comment Analysis

Category Subcategory Code Category Subcategory Code

Alternative 01 General Process 01 General Air Quality 01 General 02 NEPA Process 02 Dust 03 Agency Coordination 03 Emissions 04 Tribal Coordination 04 Climate Change 05 Public Coordination Cultural Resources 01 General 06 Monitoring/Mitigation Cumulative Effects 01 General 07 Forest Service 02 Future Mining 08 Requested Analyses 03 Past Mining Reclamation 01 General 04 Mining Claims 02 Bonding 05 Tribal Land Contamination Recreation 01 General Environmental Justice 01 General Requests 01 Copy of EIS Fire and Fuels 01 General 02 Copy of Cultural Reports Grazing 01 General Soils and Geology 01 General Hazardous Materials 01 General 02 Soils 02 Disposal 03 Erosion 03 Storage 04 Seismic Activity 04 Contamination 05 Paleontology Lands 01 General Socioeconomics 01 General 02 Land Use 02 Tourism 03 Special Designations 03 Economy Legal 01 General 05 Employment 02 Mining Law of 1872 03 Federal Law

Threatened and Endangered Species 01 General

04 State Law Transportation 01 General 05 Tribal Law 02 Off-Highway Vehicles 06 Withdrawal 03 Road Maintenance 07 Segregation 04 Ore Transportation 08 Violation Tribal 01 General Mineral Resources 01 General 02 Native American use of Public Lands 02 Risk of Uranium 03 Traditional Cultural Properties 03 Mining Claims 04 Sacred Lands/Uses 04 Quality of Uranium Vegetation 01 General 05 Uranium Ore Storage 02 Noxious or Non-native plants 06 Need for Uranium 03 Medicinal Plants Miscellaneous 01 Oppose 05 Contamination 02 Support Visual Resources 01 General 03 Long-term Impacts Wildlife 01 General 04 Alternative Energy Sources 02 Habitat Fragmentation 05 Public Controversy 05 Aquatic Wildlife Natural Environment 01 General 06 Invasive Species Noise 01 General 07 Contamination Public Health and 01 General 08 Uranium Ore Storage Safety 02 Radiation Water Resources 01 General 03 Workers’ Safety 02 Quality 04 Uranium Ore Storage 03 Quantity Proposed Action 01 General 04 Contamination 02 Edits 05 Surface Water 03 Exploratory Drilling Process 06 Groundwater 04 Time Frames 07 Use of Water 08 Uranium Ore Storage 09 Springs 10 Regional Drinking Water

13


4.4 Comment Themes

Individual comments were assigned to one of 29 resource categories (see Table 5) on the basis of the overall theme of the comment. Below is a summary of these themes.

Alternatives Comments that address any alternative to the proposed action were coded ALT. For example, if a commenter made a comment about a different access route, the comment would be coded ALT-01.

Air Quality

Comments coded AQ-01 address concerns about general air quality in the area.

Comments coded AQ-02 address concerns about the dust that may be generated from the construction and operation of the exploratory drilling as well as the use of unpaved roads for access.

Comments coded AQ-03 address concerns about the emissions associated with the additional traffic as a result of the exploratory drilling.

Comments coded AQ-04 address concerns about greenhouse gas emissions from project traffic and the potential for drilling operations to contribute to global warming.

Cultural Resources

Comments that address the disturbance or removal of significant prehistoric or Historic period sites were coded CR-01. This included comments addressing potential mitigation measures to be considered concerning the disturbance to archaeological sites.

Cumulative Effects

Comments coded CUM-02 address 1) the concern that after the exploratory drilling is complete VANE will likely want to put in a uranium mine; or 2) concerns about potential future mines that may be built in the area.

Comments that address the past mining in the area, positive or critical, were coded CUM-03.

Comments that address the number of mining claims that have been staked in the area were coded CUM-04.

Comments that address the development of other sacred areas to Native Americans were coded CUM-05. This includes the Snowbowl snow-making case and previous mines on Native American Reservation lands.

Environmental Justice

Comments coded EJ-01 address the theme of disproportionate impacts to low-income and minority populations in the area, including many Native American tribes.

14


Scoping Report

Fire and Fuels

Comments that address increased wildfire danger, for example, as a result of vehicle sparks or cigarettes, were coded FIR-01.

Hazardous Materials

Comments coded HAZ-01 address how and where hazardous waste resulting from mine operations would be disposed of, impacts of dumping toxins into the ground, potential health and safety issues resulting from direct or indirect contact with hazardous waste, and potential long-term impacts that contamination may have to the area.

Comments coded HAZ-02 address how the hazardous material resulting from the construction and operation of exploratory drilling will be disposed of, including backfilling and disposal off-site.

Comments coded HAZ-03 address how the hazardous material resulting from the construction and operation of exploratory drilling will be stored, including mud pits and containment structures.

Comments coded HAZ-04 address the potential contamination of surrounding resources if hazardous materials are not stored, handled, or disposed of properly.

Lands

General comments about protecting public lands were coded LA-01.

Comments about multiple use of Forest Service land and land use in the surrounding area were coded LA-02.

Comments about special designations in the area, including Grand Canyon National Park, were coded LA-03.

Legal

Comments coded LEG-01 address whether the Forest Service is meeting all applicable laws and whether these laws adequately protect the area.

Comments coded LEG-02 address the Mining Law of 1872. This includes comments that request that this law be revised and updated.

Comments coded LEG-03 address federal laws that must be met. This includes comments about the NFMA, NEPA, ESA, Executive Order 13207, Clean Air Act, and Clean Water Act, among others.

Comments coded LEG-04 address state and county laws that must be met. This includes a resolution that Coconino County Board of Supervisors passed opposing uranium development in the vicinity of the Grand Canyon.

Comments coded LEG-05 address the tribal treaties that must be considered, including the Dine’ Natural Resources Protection Act, which outlaws uranium mining and processing on the Navajo Nation.

Comments coded LEG-06 address the Watershed Protection Act and its implications for this proposal.

15


Comments coded LEG-07 address the 2-year segregation of approximately 1 million acres around the Grand Canyon that Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar implemented on July 21, 2009. This includes comments requesting that VANE show “valid existing rights” for their claims.

Comments that address concerns that this proposal violates laws were coded LEG-08. For example, if a comment said, “This proposal will be violating the Clean Air Act,” the comment would be coded LEG-08.

Livestock Grazing

Comments coded GRA-01 address loss of rangeland for livestock grazing and potential contamination of livestock that drink from contaminated water or eat contaminated vegetation surrounding the project area.

Mineral Resources

Comments that concern the use of uranium were coded MR-01.

Comments that address the risks of drilling for uranium were coded MR-02.

Comments that address VANE’s claims for the exploration sites were coded MR-03. This includes comments that question whether VANE has patented claims for all proposed sites, comments that question the grade of uranium in the area, and comments that request a validity exam of the claims.

Miscellaneous

Comments coded MS-01 address opposition to the exploratory drilling. For example, if a commenter wrote, “I do not want this exploratory drilling to be conducted here,” the comment would be coded MS-01.

Comments coded MS-02 express support for the exploratory drilling.

Comments coded MS-03 address concerns about the long-term impacts of exploratory drilling and how these impacts will affect future generations.

Comments coded MS-04 address the need for alternative sources of energy. This includes comments requesting that solar, wind, and hydropower be investigated before nuclear energy, comments requesting that other sources of uranium be exhausted before the Grand Canyon area, and comments encouraging nuclear power plants.

Comments coded MS-05 request that the EIS plainly and fully disclose the widespread opposition and public controversy surrounding this uranium exploration proposal from the public, tribes, county, state, downstream communities, National Park Service, and Congress.

Natural Environment

Comments that address the general environmental impacts associated with exploratory drilling were coded NAT-01.

Noise

Comments that address impacts machine noise from the drill rigs, compressor, and other equipment associated with exploration will have to the noise levels in the area were coded NOS-01.

16


Scoping Report

Public Health and Safety

Comments coded PHS-01 generally address concerns about the impacts the exploratory drilling will have to the health of the surrounding residents and visitors. This includes concerns about which potential health issues could arise, such as cancer, birth defects, kidney damage, and death.

Comments coded PHS-02 address the risks associated with exposure to radiation and the implications of radiation exposure for human health.

Comments coded PHS-03 address concerns about the safety of the employees conducting the exploratory drilling.

Comments coded PHS-04 concern how the people will be protected from contact with the drilling waste.

Proposed Action

Comments coded PN-02 concern revisions that the commenter feels should be made to the proposed action that will be used for the EIS.

Comments coded PN-03 concern what is involved with exploratory drilling. This includes concerns about what the footprint will look like, what the distribution of activities will be throughout the project area, and what the supporting activities, such as access roads and work areas, involve.

Process

Comments coded PRO-01 contained questions about the process of approving the PoO or whether approval of the mine is a foregone conclusion.

Comments coded PRO-02 address the NEPA process and question whether the NEPA process is being followed correctly.

Comments coded PRO-03 address agency coordination. This includes requests that certain agencies be included in the EIS review process and requests from agencies to be included as cooperating agencies.

Comments coded PRO-04 address tribal coordination. This includes requests that the tribe be involved in the EIS process and the need for continued consultation by the Forest Service.

Comments coded PRO-05 address concerns about the public coordination. This includes comments about uninformative scoping meetings, comments that additional meetings that should have been held at other locations, requests that the scoping period be extended to give more people the opportunity to comment, requests that communities downstream be informed of the process, including California and Nevada communities, and suggestions about better ways to conduct scoping meetings.

Comments coded PRO-06 concern who will monitor the drilling sites during operation to ensure VANE is complying with required mitigation measures, who will monitor the site after operations have ceased to ensure that reclamation is taking place, and the need for mitigation measures.

Comments coded PRO-08 concern whether the Forest Service is trustworthy. This includes comments that address whether the Forest Service is meeting their responsibility to represent the best use of the land.

17


Comments coded PRP-09 are requests for additional analyses to be conducted. This includes requests for baseline data to be collected on water quality and quantity, requests to see VANE credentials, and requests for surveys of resources in the area.

Reclamation

Comments addressing reclamation of the exploratory drilling site once operations have ceased were coded RCL-01. These include comments that address the success of past reclamation efforts, difficulty of successfully reclaiming the site, and potential long-term safety hazards in the area.

Comments coded RCL-02 address the cost and bonding of reclamation. These include comments expressing concern that VANE would not have enough money to successfully reclaim the site and those questioning how the Forest Service would ensure VANE has money set aside for site reclamation after exploratory drilling operations have ceased.

Recreation

Comments that address the potential displacement of recreationists that frequent the area, loss of access to recreational land, loss of recreational opportunities in the area, and decreased recreational value of the area were coded REC-01.

Requests

Comments that request a copy of the EIS when it is completed were coded REQ-01.

Comments that request copies of the cultural reports were coded REQ-02.

Soils and Geology

Comments coded SG-01 generally address the geological impacts associated with exploratory drilling. This includes comments about breccia pipe geology.

Comments coded SG-02 address the loss of topsoil and potential soil contamination from uranium and heavy metals as well as potentially from vehicle oil drips.

Comments coded SG-03 address concerns about how the soil will be stabilized to prevent erosion in the area.

Comments coded SG-04 address concerns about seismic activity in the area and the potential for earthquakes.

Comments coded SG-05 address concerns about impacts to fossils that potentially are located in the area.

Socioeconomics

Comments coded SOC-01 address general socioeconomic concerns associated with the construction and operation of the exploratory drilling sites.

Comments coded SOC-02 address the impacts the project may have to local and regional tourism. These include comments regarding visitor experience, potential conflicts between tourist and mining associated development, and the distress this may cause local businesses that rely on tourism.

18


Scoping Report

Comments coded SOC-03 address how the project might impact the local and regional economy, both beneficially and adversely. These include comments about the impacts additional people in the area may have to the local economy.

Comments coded SOC-05 address potential impacts to employment in the area. These include comments that construction- and operation-related jobs would be created.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Comments that address the loss of suitable habitat for special-status species, fragmentation of habitat for special-status species, and displacement of special-status species were coded TES-01. This includes comments specifically addressing California condors, black-footed ferrets, and Gunnison’s prairie dogs.

Transportation

Comments coded TRA-01 concern increased heavy vehicle traffic to and from the exploratory drilling sites.

Comments coded TRA-02 address concerns of increased off-highway-vehicle use in the area as a result of roads that are not improved or that have not been adequately decommissioned.

Comments coded TRA-03 address concerns about who will pay from upgrading roads so that they can handle heavy equipment and concerns about how roads construction and reconstruction will be handled.

Comments coded TRA-04 concern ore transportation from the drilling site.

Tribal

Comments that address tribal concerns were coded TRI-01. Comments include tribal cultural values, historical and religious resources, and adverse impacts to the health of tribal communities and traditional practices.

Comments that address the potential impacts to tribal traditional use of forest resources were coded TRI-02.

Comments that address the potential impacts to Traditional Cultural Properties, such as Red Butte, were coded TRI-03.

Comments that address the potential impacts to sacred lands, including the Grand Canyon, were coded TRI-04.

Vegetation

Comments coded VEG-01 address the general loss of vegetation, loss of wildlife habitat, and loss of native vegetation.

Comments coded VEG-02 address the potential increase in noxious and invasive plants from movement of vehicles and equipment.

Comments coded VEG-03 address the potential loss of medicinal and culturally significant plants.

19


Comments coded VEG-04 address the potential contamination of vegetation through airborne or water transmission of dust and chemicals.

Visual Resources

Comments coded VR-01 address the decrease in aesthetics in the area, decreased visibility, and impacts to the viewshed in and around the Grand Canyon.

Wildlife

Comments that address general concerns about wildlife species and habitats were coded WLF-01.

Comments that address the fragmentation of habitat that may result from the construction and operation of the exploratory drill sites were coded WLF-02.

Comments that address concerns about the impact to aquatic species if the Colorado River is contaminated were coded WLF-05.

Comments that address concerns about the potential for increased invasive animal species in the surrounding area, including Grand Canyon National Park, were coded WLF-06.

Comments that address the potential contamination of habitat from activities associated with uranium exploratory drilling were coded WLF-07. This includes comments that address potential wildlife impacts if the Colorado River were contaminated and animals were exposed to heavy metal and uranium exposure at drilling sites and along transportation routes.

Comments that address concerns about how wildlife will be protected from contact with drilling waste and ore and potential contamination of wildlife at drilling sites were coded WLF-08. This includes concerns about how open fluid pits will be mitigated.

Water Resources

Comments coded WR-01 address the general impacts to water resources in the area as a result of the exploratory drilling.

Comments coded WR-02 address how the exploratory drilling may impact water quality in the area.

Comments coded WR-03 address how the exploratory drilling may impact water quantity in the area if water is used in construction- or operation-related activities.

Comments coded WR-04 address how the exploratory drilling may contaminate the water in the Colorado River and surrounding area. This includes potential contamination from uranium, heavy metals, fuels, lubricants, solvents, and other toxic chemicals and related impacts resulting from the contamination to livestock, wildlife, and residents in the area.

Comments coded WR-05 address contamination of surface water, depletion of surface water, and related impacts resulting from the contamination and depletion of surface water to livestock, wildlife, and residents in the area.

Comments coded WR-06 address concerns about the impacts the exploratory drilling will have to groundwater and aquifers in the region. This includes impacts to the recharge of the Coconino Sandstone aquifer.

20


Scoping Report

Comments coded WR-07 address how the exploratory drilling and potential water contamination and depletion may impact how residents and visitors use the water in the region. This includes concerns about swimming in the Colorado River if it is contaminated, using water for irrigation, drinking the water, and use of the water for cultural ceremonies.

Comments coded WR-08 address concerns about how the drilling waste will be protected from rain.

Comments coded WR-09 address concerns about how exploratory drilling will impact springs and seeps in the surrounding area and how these springs and seeps will be protected against contamination.

Comments coded WR-10 address concerns potential contamination and/or depletion of the Colorado River, which supplies millions of people with water throughout the Southwest. This includes the effects in the Southwest if the Colorado River were to be contaminated and the cumulative impact of over-allocation of the Colorado River.

5.0 PRELIMINARY ISSUES AND CONCERNS

The following is a preliminary list of issues and concerns for the Forest Service to address in the Draft EIS. These are based on the above comments, received during the public scoping process. These issues and concerns will be used to assist in the data collection and analyses for the EIS. The disposition of these issues and concerns (how they will be addressed in the EIS) is provided in Table 6.

5.1 Process Issues

Issue: The KNF should invite the Arizona Game and Fish Department, Grand Canyon National Park, Bureau of Land Management, and any affected tribes to be involved throughout the EIS process for the purpose of determining and analyzing the effects of the proposed action on resources under the jurisdiction of these entities and keeping the NEPA process consistent across agencies, in particular, technical assistance, development of alternatives, and assessment of associated resource impacts.

Issue: The KNF should ensure that VANE does not modify the proposal and is consistent with the scope of work approved in the EIS process.

5.2 Proposed Action Issues

Issue: Uranium exploratory drilling has the potential to have environmental impacts associated with the requirements of supporting activities, such as access roads and work areas.

Issue: Uranium exploratory drilling has the potential to disturb the ground around the drilling sites and in the surrounding area; therefore, construction and operation activities should be confined to previously disturbed areas and existing roads.

5.3 Alternative Issues

Issue: The EIS should consider a variety of alternatives, including the mineral withdrawal alternative, no-action alternative, and alternatives that restrict or prohibit access to exploratory activities in specific areas as a result of ecological, recreational, hydrological, cultural, or other resource management objectives that take precedence over mineral development.

21


5.4 Legal Issues

Issue: The EIS must disclose and describe how the Forest Service is meeting its obligations under all applicable state, tribal, and federal laws for the proposed and connected actions. This includes but is not limited to

• Northern Arizona Proposed Mineral Withdrawal EIS

• 1872 Mining Law • NFMA • 36 CFR 219.19 • 16 USC 1604(g)(3)(B) • 16 USC 1604 (i) • NHPA

• Religious Freedom Restoration Act • Executive Order No. 13207 • July 21, 2009, proposed mining withdrawal • FLPMA • Executive Order No. 12898 • Atomic Energy Act • ESA Section 7

5.5 Resource and Impact Analysis Issues

Air Quality Issues

Issue: Uranium exploratory drilling may impact air quality resources at drill sites and within the surrounding area, including Grand Canyon National Park, from dust created by drilling and transportation on dirt roads and vehicle and equipment emissions, as well as that carried by prevailing winds in the region.

Issue: Uranium exploratory drilling has the potential to contribute to global warming through the carbon footprint of the exploratory drilling and associated activities.

Cultural Resources Issues

Issue: Uranium exploratory drilling may impact cultural resources at the drill sites and within the surrounding area, including Grand Canyon National Park. This includes the potential for the following:

• disturbance and removal of significant and/or National Register of Historic Places–eligible prehistoric and Historic period sites;

• loss of cultural practice opportunities for Native Americans (e.g., traditional plant gathering, traditional sacred places, travel routes);

• loss of scientific data and research potential; • loss of Native American cultural heritage and values; and/or • loss of historic viewshed and Native American cultural heritage and values.

Environmental Justice Issues

Issue: Uranium exploratory drilling and related activities may disproportionately impact minority populations and low-income populations, including potential impacts to indigenous lifestyles and economics of Native American populations.

Fuels and Fire Management Issues

Issue: Uranium exploratory drilling may increase wildfire danger from drilling operation activities and persons working at the drill sites.

22


Scoping Report

Hazardous Materials Issues

Issue: Uranium exploratory drilling has the potential to increase the radioactivity levels above and below the ground surface.

Issue: Hazardous materials used during construction and operation of exploratory drilling, including diesel fuel, grease, oil, etc., may cause contamination of drill site areas.

Land Use Issues

Issue: Uranium exploratory drilling may impact public land use at the drill sites and within the surrounding area, including Grand Canyon National Park, Tusayan Ranger District, and Native American Tribal Lands and Reservations.

Livestock Issues

Issue: Uranium exploratory drilling may impact livestock resources at the drill sites and within the surrounding area, including Grand Canyon National Park. This includes the potential for contamination of food and water sources on which livestock in the region depend.

Mineral Resource Issues

Issue: The proposed drill sites are located within an area currently segregated to mining exploration and development. Under the segregation, uranium exploratory drilling can occur only on “valid claims.” VANE must disclose the validity of all proposed claims.

Natural Environment Issues

Issue: Uranium exploratory drilling may impact natural resources at the drill sites and within the surrounding area, including Grand Canyon National Park, Tusayan Ranger District, and Kaibab National Forest. This includes potential impacts to wilderness areas and areas with wilderness qualities. Noise Issues

Issue: Uranium exploratory drilling may impact the soundscape at drill sites and the surrounding area from drilling rigs, compressors, and other equipment and activities associated with exploration. These increases in ambient sound levels may impact the following:

• recreationists; • wildlife and special-status species; and/or • local residents and visitors.

Public Health and Safety Issues

Issue: Uranium exploratory drilling may affect the public health and safety of drilling operation workers, residents, visitors, and recreationists at the drill sites and within the surrounding area, including Grand Canyon National Park and Supai Village. Potential impacts include the following:

• contamination of food and water supply; • exposure to radioactive materials; and/or

23


• health concerns that could include but are not limited to kidney damage, cancer, birth defects, and changes in DNA.

Reclamation Issues

Issue: Uranium exploratory drilling has the potential to result in long-term alteration of the area and subsequent land use changes. A Reclamation Plan must be designed to achieve the following long-term, fundamental goals:

• physical and chemical stabilization of the site; and • mitigation of long-term natural resource and social impacts.

Recreation Issues

Issue: Uranium exploratory drilling may result in the restriction, disturbance, or direct loss of recreational opportunities, values, and safety at the drill sites and within the surrounding area, including Grand Canyon National Park. Recreational opportunities that may be limited, disturbed, or lost include but are not limited to hiking, backpacking, hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, camping, bird watching, and running. This also includes the potential for a loss of spirituality, remoteness, solitude, wilderness, and naturalness in the area.

Socioeconomic Issues

Issue: Uranium exploratory drilling may impact the local and regional economy and quality of life. Direct and indirect adverse impacts may include the following:

• loss of recreational opportunities; • alteration of visitor experience in the region, including but not limited to tourists visiting Grand

Canyon National Park and Havasupai Falls; • alteration of the scenic quality of the area; • impaired public health and safety; • emotional distress to local residents, business owners, and tourists; • disproportionate impacts to low-income and minority populations; • lost tourism revenue; • undermining local economic stability; • inability of local emergency services to respond to incidents; and/or • inability of local schools to accommodate additional students from workers’ families.

Issue: Uranium exploratory drilling has the potential to beneficially impact the local economy and quality of life. Direct and indirect beneficial impacts may include the following:

• increased employment from employment needs; • positive change in regional employment opportunities; • increased economic output to the region from drilling activities; and/or • increased taxes to the region from construction and operation.

24


Scoping Report

Soils and Geology Issues

Issue: Uranium exploratory drilling may impact soil and geological resources at the drill sites and within the surrounding area, including Grand Canyon National Park and the Colorado Plateau. Impacts to soils and geological resources may include the following:

• contamination of soils within the drill sites; • contamination of soils outside the drill sites, including directly adjacent to and along

transportation routes; • increased soil erosion; • impacts to surface water quality resulting from sediments generated by erosion; • loss of topsoil; and/or • impacts to paleontological resources.

Transportation Issues

Issue: Transportation of supplies for construction, operation, reclamation, and post-reclamation of the drilling sites and transportation of personnel/employees responsible for construction, operation, reclamation, and post-reclamation and monitoring of the drill sites may result in the following impacts:

• traffic congestion on U.S. 180; • increased dust, noise, light, and litter pollution on and adjacent to roadways; • increased traffic exhaust emissions; • accelerated road and rail deterioration and increased maintenance requirements; • increased traffic on routes to and from the drilling sites; • increased vehicle/wildlife collisions; • spread of invasive and noxious weed species; and/or • conflicts between tourists and drilling operations traffic.

Issue: Road construction and road infrastructure upgrades associated with uranium exploratory drilling operations may directly result in the following impacts:

• reduced scenic quality; • decreased wildlife habitat connectivity; • loss of habitat and vegetation; • altered military training routes; • increased windborne dust generation and/or water consumption to control dust originating from

unpaved roadway surfaces (including shoulders, ditches, and clear zones); and/or • increased waterborne sediment generation originating from unpaved roadway surfaces (including

shoulders, ditches, and clear zones).

Issue: Transportation of hazardous materials on local and regional roadways may directly result in the following impacts:

• reduced safety for road users along roadways associated with exploratory drilling–related traffic; • reduced safety for residents along roadways associated with exploratory drilling–related

hazardous materials transport traffic; and/or • hazardous materials spills along roadways.

25


Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Issues

Issue: Uranium exploratory drilling may result in impacts to sensitive, threatened, and endangered species or protected habitat occurring within the drill sites and within the surrounding area, including Grand Canyon National Park. Species that may be impacted include but are not limited to California condors, black-footed ferrets, Mexican spotted owls, Sentry milk vetch, and Gunnison’s prairie dogs.

Tribal Issues

Issue: Uranium exploratory drilling has potential to adversely impact Native American cultural, historical, and religious resources at the drill sites and in the surrounding area, including impacts to the following:

• Traditional Cultural Properties, including Red Butte; • archaeological sites; • traditional practices and beliefs of regional Native Americans; • tribal traditional use of forest resources; and/or • lands and resources that are considered sacred by Native Americans in the region.

Vegetation Issues

Issue: Uranium exploratory drilling may affect vegetation at the drill sites and surrounding areas, including the following:

• loss of vegetation cover; • loss of native plants; • loss of medicinal and culturally significant plants; and/or • increased potential for establishment and/or expansion of non-native species.

Visual Resources Issues

Issue: Presence of drilling-related equipment and vehicles (e.g., drills, loading units, trucks, bulldozers, etc.) at the drill sites may impact visual resources in the area. Impacts may include decreased aesthetics for Grand Canyon National Park, including visibility within the park as a result of dust generated by drilling activities and dirt roads and impacts in the viewshed of Red Butte (a Traditional Cultural Property).

Water Resources Issues

Issue: Uranium exploratory drilling may impact water resources at the drill sites and within the surrounding area, such as the Colorado River and its tributaries, including the following:

• impacts to water quantity in the region; • impacts to Redwall-Muav Limestone aquifer and the Coconino Sandstone aquifer, including

contamination from uranium, heavy metals, fuels, lubricants, solvents, and other toxic chemicals; • impacts to the critical zone of recharge to the groundwater systems that feed the springs and on

which many of the ecosystems of the region depend; • contamination and depletion of surface water in the region; • impacts of exploration and road use on the watershed;

26


Scoping Report

• contamination of water used for ceremonies, agriculture, irrigation, cooking, drinking, and recreation in the area; and/or

• contamination, depletion, and over-allocation of the Colorado River, which supplies millions of people with water.

Wildlife Issues

Issue: Uranium exploratory drilling operation and construction may affect wildlife species and their habitats, including the following:

• disruption of mating, foraging, and other behaviors; • conflicts with existing conservation plans and recovery goals; • reduced forage and available water for wildlife; • increased vehicle/wildlife collisions; • loss or fragmentation of wildlife habitat as a result of road construction or reconstruction, vehicle

traffic, machinery operation, impassible fences such as net-wire or barbed wire, and other ground-disturbing activities;

• increased potential for establishment and/or expansion of non-native species; and/or • direct or indirect exposure to drilling waste.

Cumulative Impact Issues

Issue: Uranium exploratory drilling may cause cumulative impacts in relation to past, present, and future uranium exploration, mining, and transportation in the Grand Canyon and Four Corners region, including but not limited to the following:

• number of mining claims in the surrounding area; • past mining operations, including the Orphan Mine, Canyon Mine, and Pinenut Mine; • livestock grazing; • timber harvest; • fuel break construction; • thinning; • prescribed fire; • road development; • regional health; • other exploratory drilling proposals; and/or • future development of drilling sites into mines.

Miscellaneous Issues

Issue: Widespread opposition and public controversy directed toward this uranium exploration proposal exists. Opposition has been expressed from the public, tribes, county, state, downstream communities, National Park Service, and Congress.

Issue: Uranium exploratory drilling may cause long-term impacts to future generations.

27


Table 6. Preliminary Disposition of Issues and Concerns

Disposition

Issue/Concern Alternatives or

Mitigation1 Effects

Analysis 2

Existing Regulation and/or current NEPA

Process 3

Out of Scope 4

The KNF should invite the Arizona Game and Fish Department, Grand Canyon National Park, Bureau of Land Management, and any affected Tribes to be involved throughout the EIS process for the purpose of determining and analyzing the effects of the proposed action on resources under these entities jurisdiction and keeping the NEPA process consistent across agencies, in particular, technical assistance, development of alternatives, and assessment of associated resource impacts.

X

The KNF should ensure that VANE does not modify the proposal and is consistent with the scope of work approved in the EIS process.

X

Uranium exploratory drilling has the potential to have environmental impacts associated with the requirements of supporting activities, such as access roads and work areas.

X X

Uranium exploratory drilling has the potential to disturb the ground around the drilling sites and in the surrounding area; therefore, construction and operation activities should be confined to previously disturbed areas and existing roads.

X X

The EIS should consider a variety of alternatives, including the mineral withdrawal alternative, no-action alternative, and alternatives that restrict or prohibit access to exploratory activities in specific areas as a result of ecological, recreational, hydrological, cultural, or other resource management objectives that take precedence over mineral development.

X

The EIS must disclose and describe how the Forest Service is meeting its obligations under all applicable state, tribal, and federal laws for the proposed and connected actions.

X

Uranium exploratory drilling may impact air quality resources at drill sites and within the surrounding area, including Grand Canyon National Park, from dust created by drilling and transportation on dirt roads and vehicle and equipment emissions, as well as that carried by prevailing winds in the region.

X X

Uranium exploratory drilling has the potential to contribute to global warming through the carbon footprint of the exploratory drilling and associated activities.

X

1 issues/concerns that will be used to formulate alternatives that will be analyzed in the EIS and/or formulate mitigation measures that will be prescribed to minimize impacts resulting from the project activities. 2 issues/concerns that focus on the description of the potential impacts resulting from project activities. These will be used to determine which resources will be analyzed in the EIS. 3 issues/concerns that are already required by existing laws/regulations and/or that address the requirements under existing laws and regulations, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 4 issues/concerns that were determined to be 1) conjectural in nature and/or not supported by scientific evidence; 2) outside the authority of the deciding official (i.e., Kaibab Forest Supervisor); 3) outside the geographic boundary, and/or timeframe of this project; or 4) an opinion or position statement.

28


Scoping Report

Table 6. Preliminary Disposition of Issues and Concerns (Continued)

Disposition


Mitigation1 Effects

Analysis 2


Process 3

Out of Scope 4

Uranium exploratory drilling may impact cultural resources at the drill sites and within the surrounding area, including Grand Canyon National Park. This includes the potential for

• disturbance and removal of significant and/or National Register of Historic Places–eligible prehistoric and Historic period sites;

• loss of cultural practice opportunities for Native Americans (e.g., traditional plant gathering, traditional sacred places, travel routes);

• loss of scientific data and research potential; • loss of Native American cultural heritage and values; and/or • loss of historic viewshed and Native American cultural heritage and values.

X X

Uranium exploratory drilling and related activities may disproportionately impact minority populations and low-income populations, including potential impacts to indigenous lifestyles and economics of Native American populations.

X

Uranium exploratory drilling may cause an increased wildfire danger from drilling operation activities and persons working at the drill sites.

X X

Uranium exploratory drilling has the potential to increase the radioactivity levels above and below the ground surface.

X X

Hazardous materials used during construction and operation of exploratory drilling, including diesel fuel, grease, oil, etc., may cause contamination of drill site areas.

X X

Uranium exploratory drilling may impact public land use at the drill sites and within the surrounding area, including Grand Canyon National Park, Tusayan Ranger District, and Native American Tribal Lands and Reservations.

X

Uranium exploratory drilling may impact livestock resources at the drill sites and within the surrounding area, including Grand Canyon National Park. This includes the potential for contamination of food and water sources on which livestock in the region depend.

X X

Widespread opposition and public controversy directed toward this uranium exploration proposal exists. Opposition has been expressed from the public, tribes, county, state, downstream communities, National Park Service, and Congress.

X


29



Disposition


Mitigation1 Effects

Analysis 2


Process 3

Out of Scope 4

Uranium exploratory drilling may cause long-term impacts to future generations. X

The proposed drill sites are located within an area currently segregated to mining exploration and development. Under the segregation, uranium exploratory drilling can occur only on “valid claims.” VANE must disclose the validity of all proposed claims.

X

Uranium exploratory drilling may impact natural resources at the drill sites and within the surrounding area, including Grand Canyon National Park, Tusayan Ranger District, and Kaibab National Forest. This includes potential impacts to wilderness areas and areas with wilderness qualities.

X

Uranium exploratory drilling may impact the soundscape at drill sites and the surrounding area from drilling rigs, compressors, and other equipment and activities associated with exploration. These increases in ambient sound levels may impact the following:

• recreationists; • wildlife and special-status species; and/or • local residents and visitors.

X X

Uranium exploratory drilling may affect the public health and safety of drilling operations workers, residents, visitors, and recreationists at the drill sites and within the surrounding area, including Grand Canyon National Park and Supai Village. Potential impacts include the following:

• contamination of food and water supply; • exposure to radioactive materials; and/or • health concerns that could include but are not limited to kidney damage, cancer, birth defects, and changes

in DNA.

X X

Uranium exploratory drilling has the potential to result in long-term alteration of the area and subsequent land use changes. A Reclamation Plan must be designed to achieve the following long-term, fundamental goals:

• physical and chemical stabilization of the site; and • mitigation of long-term natural resource and social impacts.

X

Uranium exploratory drilling may result in the restriction, disturbance, or direct loss of recreational opportunities, values, and safety at the drill sites and within the surrounding area, including Grand Canyon National Park.

X


30


Scoping Report


Disposition


Mitigation1 Effects

Analysis 2


Process 3

Out of Scope 4

Uranium exploratory drilling may impact the local and regional economy and quality of life. Direct and indirect adverse impacts may include:

• loss of recreational opportunities; • alteration of visitor experience in the region, including but not limited to tourists visiting the Grand Canyon

National Park and Havasupai Falls; • alteration of the scenic quality of the area; • impaired public health and safety; • emotional distress to local residents, business owners, and tourists; • disproportionate impacts to low-income and minority populations; • lost tourism revenue; • undermining local economic stability; • inability of local emergency services to respond to incidents; and/or • inability of local schools to accommodate additional students from workers’ families.

X

Uranium exploratory drilling has the potential to beneficially impact the local economy and quality of life. Direct and indirect beneficial impacts may include:

• increased employment from employment needs; • positive change in regional employment opportunities; • increased economic output to the region from drilling activities; and/or • increased taxes to the region from construction and operation.

X


31



Disposition


Mitigation1 Effects

Analysis 2


Process 3

Out of Scope 4

Uranium exploratory drilling may impact soil and geological resources at the drill sites and within the surrounding area, including Grand Canyon National Park and the Colorado Plateau. Impacts to soils and geological resources may include the following:

• contamination of soils within the drill sites; • contamination of soils outside the drill sites, including directly adjacent to and along transportation routes; • increased soil erosion; • impacts to surface water quality resulting from sediments generated by erosion; • loss of topsoil; and/or • impacts to paleontological resources.

X X

Transportation of supplies for construction, operation, reclamation, and post-reclamation of the drilling sites and transportation of personnel/employees responsible for construction, operation, reclamation, and post-reclamation and monitoring of the drill sites may result in the following impacts:

• traffic congestion on U.S. 180; • increased dust, noise, light, and litter pollution on and adjacent to roadways; • increased traffic exhaust emissions; • accelerated road and rail deterioration and increased maintenance requirements; • increased traffic on routes to and from the drilling sites; • increased vehicle/wildlife collisions; • spread of invasive and noxious weed species; and/or • conflicts between tourists and drilling operations traffic.

X X


32


Scoping Report


Disposition


Mitigation1 Effects

Analysis 2


Process 3

Out of Scope 4

Road construction and road infrastructure upgrades associated with uranium exploratory drilling operations may directly result in the following impacts:

• reduced scenic quality; • decreased wildlife habitat connectivity; • loss of habitat and vegetation; • altered military training routes; • increased windborne dust generation and/or water consumption to control dust originating from unpaved

roadway surfaces (including shoulders, ditches, and clear zones); and/or • increased waterborne sediment generation originating from unpaved roadway surfaces (including shoulders,

ditches, and clear zones).

X X

Transportation of hazardous materials on local and regional roadways may directly result in the following impacts:

• reduced safety for road users along roadways associated with exploratory drilling–related traffic; • reduced safety for residents along roadways associated with exploratory drilling–related hazardous

materials transport traffic; and/or • hazardous materials spills along roadways.

X X

Uranium exploratory drilling may result in impacts to sensitive, threatened, and endangered species or protected habitat occurring within the drill sites and within the surrounding area, including Grand Canyon National Park. Species that may be impacted include but are not limited to California condors, black-footed ferrets, Mexican spotted owls, Sentry milk vetch, and Gunnison’s prairie dogs.

X X

Uranium exploratory drilling has potential to adversely impact Native American cultural, historical, and religious resources at the drill sites and in the surrounding area, including impacts to the following:

• Traditional Cultural Properties, including Red Butte; • archaeological sites; • traditional practices and beliefs of regional Native Americans; • tribal traditional use of forest resources; and/or • lands and resources that are considered sacred by Native Americans in the region.

X X


33



Disposition


Mitigation1 Effects

Analysis 2


Process 3

Out of Scope 4

Uranium exploratory drilling may affect vegetation at the drill sites and surrounding areas, including: • loss of vegetation cover; • loss of native plants; • loss of medicinal and culturally significant plants; and/or • increased potential for establishment and/or expansion of non-native species.

X X

Presence of drilling-related equipment and vehicles (e.g., drills, loading units, trucks, bulldozers, etc.) at the drill sites may impact visual resources in the area. Impacts may include decreased aesthetics for the Grand Canyon National Park, including visibility within the park as a result of dust generated by drilling activities and dirt roads and impacts in the viewshed of Red Butte (a Traditional Cultural Property).

X X

Uranium exploratory drilling may cause impacts to water resources at the drill sites and within the surrounding area, including the Colorado River and its tributaries, including

• impacts to water quantity in the region; • impacts to Redwall-Muav Limestone aquifer and the Coconino Sandstone aquifer, including contamination

from uranium, heavy metals, fuels, lubricants, solvents, and other toxic chemicals; • impacts to the critical zone of recharge to the groundwater systems that feed the springs and on which many

of the ecosystems of the region depend; • contamination and depletion of surface water in the region; • impacts of exploration and road use on the watershed; • contamination of water used for ceremonies, agriculture, irrigation, cooking, drinking, and recreation in the

area; and/or • contamination, depletion, and over-allocation of the Colorado River, which supplies millions of people with

water.

X X


34


Scoping Report


Disposition


Mitigation1 Effects

Analysis 2


Process 3

Out of Scope 4

Uranium exploratory drilling operation and construction may affect wildlife species and their habitats, including the following:

• disruption of mating, foraging, and other behaviors; • conflicts with existing conservation plans and recovery goals; • reduced forage and available water for wildlife; • increased vehicle/wildlife collisions; • loss or fragmentation of wildlife habitat as a result of road construction or reconstruction, vehicle traffic,

machinery operation, impassible fences such as net-wire or barbed wire, and other ground-disturbing activities;

• increased potential for establishment and/or expansion of non-native species; and/or • direct or indirect exposure to drilling waste.

X X

Uranium exploratory drilling may cause cumulative impacts in relation to past, present, and future uranium exploration, mining, and transportation in the Grand Canyon and Four Corners region, including but not limited to the following:

• number of mining claims in the surrounding area; • past mining operations, including the Orphan Mine, Canyon Mine, and Pinenut Mine; • livestock grazing; • timber harvest; • fuel break construction; • thinning; • prescribed fire; • road development; • regional health; • other exploratory drilling proposals and/or • future development of drilling sites into mines.

X


35


5.6 Forest Supervisor Concurrence

I concur with the design issues/concerns as listed above and direct the IDT to address them during the NEPA process, and, as appropriate, in the formulation of alternatives. Should further analysis determine that an issue needs to be adjusted or refined, the IDT may do so with my review and approval.

Prepared by: _________________________________ Date: ___________________

6.0 SUMMARY OF FUTURE STEPS IN THE EIS PROCESS

In considering public comments, the Forest Service will develop a range of preliminary reasonable alternatives that will be evaluated to determine which alternatives should be studied in detail in the EIS. Once the alternatives have been developed, the studies and level of detail to be addressed for each of the issues will be determined. Data and information will be compiled from existing sources, and, in some cases, new data will be collected. Then, the impacts that could result from implementing any of the alternatives will be analyzed, and measures to mitigate those impacts will be identified. The findings will be documented in a Draft EIS. The Draft EIS will be made available for public review and is currently scheduled for publication in July 2010. The availability of the Draft EIS will be announced in the Federal Register and advertised in the local and regional media. Public comments will be accepted for a minimum of 45 days, during which public meetings or hearings will be held to receive comments on the adequacy of the Draft EIS. The Forest Service will review the comments and prepare responses to each. The document may or may not be modified based on public comments. In any case, all comments and responses will be incorporated into the Final EIS.

The Final EIS will also be made available for the public to review for a period of 30 days, expected in October 2010. The availability of the Final EIS will be announced in the Federal Register and advertised in local and regional media. Following the 30-day period, the KNF will issue a Record of Decision.

36


Scoping Report


APPENDIX A

Federal Register Notice of Intent



[3410-11]

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Kaibab National Forest; Arizona; Uranium Exploratory Drilling Project

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

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

SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS) to consider and disclose the effects of proposed exploratory drilling for uranium on

National Forest System (NFS) land. The proposed exploratory drilling project would occur

on mining claims held by VANE Minerals, Inc. and Uranium One (with all exploratory

drilling to be completed by VANE Minerals, Inc.) in the Tusayan Ranger District, Kaibab

National Forest within Townships 27, 28, 29 and 30 North, Ranges 2, 3, 4 and 5 East, Gila

and Salt River Meridian, Coconino County, Arizona. Exploration is proposed by VANE

Minerals, Inc. to determine whether uranium deposits exist on these mining claims. A total

of 25 drill sites are planned by VANE Minerals, Inc. Shallow drill holes would be drilled to

determine whether or not “breccia pipes” occur at the site. Breccia pipes are the geologic

formations found in the Colorado Plateau region that can contain uranium minerals. Deep

drill holes would be drilled to confirm the presence and extent of the breccia pipes and to

gather additional information regarding the uranium concentrations found in these pipes.

This EIS will include analyses and will disclose the potential environmental effects for future

exploratory uranium drilling and accompanying ground-disturbing activities at the seven sites

2

that were part of the VANE project challenged in Center for Biological Diversity v. Stahn,

Civ. No. 08-8031-PCT-MHM (D. Ariz.).

DATES: Comments on this proposal must be received by the Kaibab National Forest

(Forest) within 30 days following the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The

Draft EIS (DEIS) for the VANE Minerals Uranium Exploratory Drilling Project (Project) is

expected to be available for public review in March 2009. At that time, the Environmental

Protection Agency will publish a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the DEIS in the Federal

Register. The NOA will begin a period of public review that will extend 45 days from the

date of publication of the NOA in the Federal Register. The Final EIS (FEIS) and a Record

of Decision (ROD) are scheduled to be completed in December 2009.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this notice may be mailed or hand-delivered to Kaibab

National Forest, ATTN: VANE Minerals Uranium Exploratory Drilling Project, 800 S. 6th

St., Williams, AZ 86046. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (928) 635-8208

and by electronic mail (e-mail) to [email protected]. E-mail and

facsimile comments must include the words “VANE Minerals Uranium Exploratory Drilling

Project.”

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the VANE

Minerals Uranium Exploratory Drilling Project (Project), please contact Tom Mutz, Lands

and Minerals Staff Officer, in writing at Williams and Tusayan Ranger Districts, 742 S.

Clover Rd., Williams AZ 86046 or by telephone at (928) 635-5600. Questions regarding the

Forest Service NEPA process may be directed to Alvin Brown, Forest NEPA Coordinator, at

800 S. 6th St., Williams, AZ 86046 and telephone (928) 635-8200.

3

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this notice is

included to help reviewers determine if they are interested in or potentially affected by the

proposed action.

Purpose and Need for Action

In 2006, VANE Minerals, Inc. submitted a Plan of Operations to the Forest Service to

drill exploration holes for uranium at a total of ten (10) sites within the Tusayan Ranger

District, Kaibab National Forest. A categorical exclusion from documentation under the

National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) was completed in December 2007, and the

Forest Service approved VANE Minerals, Inc.’s plan to drill on seven (7) of the ten (10)

sites, in areas accessible by Forest Service roads. Exploratory drill operations began in

March 2008, and one site was completed.

A lawsuit was filed against the agency’s use of a categorical exclusion and a

Preliminary Injuction (PI) was ordered on further uranium exploratory drilling. The original

agency decision has been withdrawn and an environmental impact statement will be

completed on the balance of the original ten (10) sites (one site had exploratory drilling on it

and was rehabilitated before the PI was instituted by the court), plus additional proposed sites

VANE Minerals, Inc. submitted to the Forest Service in 2007.

The agency’s purpose is to analyze the proposals from VANE Minerals, Inc., and any

reasonable alternatives, including any mitigation measures to protect the surface resources in

the areas of exploratory drilling in order to approve a plan of operations for exploration. The

agency’s need for action is based on statutes and policy that govern mining on NFS land.

Most NFS land is subject to the location of certain minerals under the Mining Law of

1872, as amended (30 U.S.C. 21-54, et seq.), and the directives in Forest Service Manual

4

2800. Prospecting, locating and developing the mineral resources on NFS land are also

subject to other rules and regulations. These include, but are not limited to, the 1897 Organic

Administration Act, the 1960 Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act, the 1970 Mining and

Minerals Policy Act, and Regulations at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, part 228A

which sets forth rules and procedures governing the use of NFS lands in conjunction with

operations authorized by general mining laws.

Proposed Action

The Forest Service proposes to authorize VANE Minerals, Inc. to perform

exploratory drilling at the 25 drill sites proposed. This Proposed Action would constitute

exploratory drilling only. No mining extraction or transporting of uranium minerals for

processing would be contemplated or permitted by this proposal.

Public Involvement

This notice of intent initiates the scoping process which guides the development

of the environmental impact statement. The Forest received several comments during the

categorical exclusion analysis in 2007 which will be considered in this analysis. The

Forest Service encourages the public to express issues, concerns, and suggestions they

may have about this proposed action. Comments should be directly related to issues

associated with the proposed action, rather than general advocacy of or opposition to the

project, to best assist us in the NEPA analysis. Although comments are welcome at any

time during this NEPA analysis, they will be most useful to us if they are received within

30 days following the publication of this notice.

Responsible Official

The Forest Supervisor for the Kaibab National Forest of the Southwestern Region of

5

the USDA Forest Service is the Responsible Official.

Nature of Decision To Be Made

The decision to be made is what plan of operations to approve for exploration,

including any requirements for surface resource protection. VANE Minerals, Inc. has a

statutory right to explore for locatable minerals under the 1872 Mining Law.

Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent Environmental

Review

A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for comment. The comment

period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date the

Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal

Register. The Forest Service believes, at this early state, 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 statement stage but that are not raised

until after the 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

6

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 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)

_/s/ Michael R. Williams_ October 2, 2008

Michael R. Williams (Date) Forest Supervisor

60233 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Notices

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 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, 36 CFR 220.5(b) and Forest Service Handbook 1909.15, Section 21.

Dated: October 1, 2008. Roberto Martinez, District Ranger/Field Office Manager. [FR Doc. E8–24112 Filed 10–9–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–11–P


Forest Service

Kaibab National Forest; AZ; Uranium Exploratory Drilling Project

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.

SUMMARY: The USDA Forest Service is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to consider and disclose the effects of proposed exploratory drilling for uranium on National Forest System (NFS) land. The proposed exploratory drilling project would occur on mining claims held by VANE Minerals, Inc. and Uranium One (with all exploratory drilling to be completed by VANE Minerals, Inc.) in the Tusayan Ranger District, Kaibab National Forest

within Townships 27, 28, 29 and 30 North, Ranges 2, 3, 4 and 5 East, Gila and Salt River Meridian, Coconino County, Arizona. Exploration is proposed by VANE Minerals, Inc. to determine whether uranium deposits exist on these mining claims. A total of 25 drill sites are planned by VANE Minerals, Inc. Shallow drill holes would be drilled to determine whether or not ‘‘breccia pipes’’ occur at the site. Breccia pipes are the geologic formations found in the Colorado Plateau region that can contain uranium minerals. Deep drill holes would be drilled to confirm the presence and extent of the breccia pipes and to gather additional information regarding the uranium concentrations found in these pipes. This EIS will include analyses and will disclose the potential environmental effects for future exploratory uranium drilling and accompanying ground-disturbing activities at the seven sites that were part of the VANE project challenged in Center for Biological Diversity v. Stahn, Civ. No. 08–8031–PCT–MHM (D. Ariz.). DATES: Comments on this proposal must be received by the Kaibab National Forest (Forest) within 30 days following the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The Draft EIS (DEIS) for the VANE Minerals Uranium Exploratory Drilling Project (Project) is expected to be available for public review in March 2009. At that time, the Environmental Protection Agency will publish a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the DEIS in the Federal Register. The NOA will begin a period of public review that will extend 45 days from the date of publication of the NOA in the Federal Register. The Final EIS (EElS) and a Record of Decision (ROD) are scheduled to be completed in December 2009. ADDRESSES: Written comments on this notice may be mailed or hand-delivered to Kaibab National Forest, Attn: VANE Minerals Uranium Exploratory Drilling Project, 800 S. 6th St., Williams, AZ 86046. Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (928) 635– 8208 and by electronic mail (e-mail) to comments-southwestern- [email protected]. E-mail and facsimile comments must include the words ‘‘VANE Minerals Uranium Exploratory Drilling Project.’’ FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information on the VANE Minerals Uranium Exploratory Drilling Project (Project), please contact Tom Mutz, Lands and Minerals Staff Officer, in writing at Williams and Tusayan Ranger Districts, 742 S. Clover Rd., Williams AZ 86046 or by telephone at (928) 635–5600. Questions regarding the

Forest Service NEPA process may be directed to Alvin Brown, Forest NEPA Coordinator, at 800 S. 6th St., Williams, AZ 86046 and telephone (928) 635– 8200.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information presented in this notice is included to help reviewers determine if they are interested in or potentially affected by the proposed action.

Purpose and Need for Action

In 2006, VANE Minerals, Inc. submitted a Plan of Operations to the Forest Service to drill exploration holes for uranium at a total of (10) sites within the Tusayan Ranger District, Kaibab National Forest. A categorical exclusion from documentation under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) was completed in December 2007, and the Forest Service approved VANE Minerals, Inc.’s plan to drill on seven (7) of the ten (10) sites, in areas accessible by Forest Service roads. Exploratory drill operations began in March 2008, and one site was completed.

A lawsuit was filed against the agency’s use of a categorical exclusion and a Preliminary Injunction (PI) was ordered on further uranium exploratory drilling. The original agency decision has been withdrawn and an environmental impact statement will be completed on the balance of the original ten (10) sites (one site had exploratory drilling on it and was rehabilitated before the PI was instituted by the court), plus additional proposed sites VANE Minerals, Inc. submitted to the Forest Service in 2007.

The agency’s purpose is to analyze the proposals from VANE Minerals, Inc. and any reasonable alternatives, including any mitigation measures to protect the surface resources in the areas of exploratory drilling in order to approve a plan of operations for exploration. The agency’s need for action is based on statutes and policy that govern mining on NFS land.

Most NFS land is subject to the location of certain minerals under the Mining Law of 1872, as amended (30 U.S.C. 21–54, et seq.), and the directives in Forest Service Manual 2800. Prospecting, locating and developing the mineral resources on NFS land are also subject to other rules and regulations. These include, but are not limited to, the 1897 Organic Administration Act, the 1960 Multiple- Use Sustained-Yield Act, the 1970 Mining and Minerals Policy Act, and Regulations at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, part 228A which sets forth rules and procedures governing the use of NFS lands in conjunction with

VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:11 Oct 09, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM 10OCN1mst

ocks

till o

n P

RO

D1P

C66

with

NO

TIC

ES

60234 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 198 / Friday, October 10, 2008 / Notices

operations authorized by general mining laws.

Proposed Action The Forest Service proposes to

authorize VANE Minerals, Inc. to perform exploratory drilling at the 25 drill sites proposed. This Proposed Action would constitute exploratory drilling only. No mining extraction or transporting of uranium minerals for processing would be contemplated or permitted by this proposal.

Public Involvement This notice of intent initiates the

scoping process which guides the development of the environmental impact statement. The Forest received several comments during the categorical exclusion analysis in 2007 which will be considered in this analysis. The Forest Service encourages the public to express issues, concerns, and suggestions they may have about this proposed action. Comments should be directly related to issues associated with the proposed action, rather than general advocacy of or opposition to the project, to best assist us in the NEPA analysis. Although comments are welcome at any time during this NEPA analysis, they will be most useful to us if they are received within 30 days following the publication of this notice.

Responsible Official The Forest Supervisor for the Kaibab

National Forest of the Southwestern Region of the USDA Forest Service is the Responsible Official.

Nature of Decision To Be Made The decision to be made is what plan

of operations to approve for exploration, including any requirements for surface resource protection. VANE Minerals, Inc. has a statutory right to explore for locatable minerals under the 1872 Mining Law.

Early Notice of Importance of Public Participation in Subsequent Environmental Review

A draft environmental impact statement will be prepared for comment. The comment period on the draft environmental impact statement will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency publishes the notice of availability in the Federal Register. The Forest Service believes, at this early state, 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 statement stage but that are not raised until after the 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 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: October 2, 2008. Michael P. Williams, Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. E8–23993 Filed 10–9–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410–11–M


Forest Service

Notice of Meeting; Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (Title VIII, Pub. L. 108–447)

AGENCY: Black Hills National Forest, Rocky Mountain Region.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

SUMMARY: The Black Hills National Forest Advisory Board, acting in its capacity as the Black Hills National Forest Recreation Resource Advisory Committee (RRAC), will meet in Rapid City, SD. The purpose of the meeting is for the Committee to consider recommending special recreation permit fees to use the Black Hills National Forest’s designated, motorized, off- highway vehicle trail system. Fees would include a $20.00 weekly permit, a $40.00 annual permit, and a $100.00 commercial vehicle annual permit. The fees would be established pursuant to Public Law 108–447 (H.R. 48 118), September 8, 2004, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, Title Vill- Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, Section 803 Recreation Fee Authority, (h) Special Recreation Permit Fee.

DATES: The meeting(s) will tentatively be held October 15 from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. This meeting will only be held if a quorum of the Committee is present.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Rushmore Plaza Civic Center; LaCroix Hall, in Rapid City, South Dakota. Details will be published prior to the meeting on the Black Hills National Forest Web site at http:// www.fs.fed.us/r2/blackhills, and in the news media. Send written comments to Craig Bobzien, Designated Federal Official, 1019 N. 5th St., Custer, SD, 57730 or e-mail [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Willems, Black Hills National Forest Travel Planner at 605–673–9217 or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. There will be time on the agenda for timed verbal comments (at the discretion of the Chair) and the Chair may ask for comments from the public at any time during the meeting. People wishing to speak at the meeting are asked to sign in at the door with a name and contact information. Public comments will be taken based first-come, first-served. The public may provide written comments to the Committee staff. Check for the status of the meeting, the final agenda, and a special recreation permit fee proposal at: http://wwwfs.fed.us/r2/ blackhills. The Recreation RAC is authorized by the Federal Land Recreation Enhancement Act, which was signed into law by President Bush in December 2004.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 20:11 Oct 09, 2008 Jkt 217001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\10OCN1.SGM 10OCN1mst

ocks

till o

n P

RO

D1P

C66

with

NO

TIC

ES

APPENDIX B

Media and Press Releases



NEWS RELEASE Kaibab National Forest www.fs.fed.us/r3/kai

For Immediate Release Contact: Jackie Banks July 31, 2009 928-635-8314

Public Invited to Meetings on Proposed Uranium Exploration TUSAYAN, Ariz. – The Kaibab National Forest will host four public meetings in August to provide information and accept comments on a proposed uranium exploratory drilling project. The purpose of the meetings is to provide information and allow the public to comment on the proposed VANE Minerals, Inc. Uranium Exploratory Drilling Project, which would be undertaken on the Tusayan Ranger District. The Kaibab National Forest is preparing an environmental impact statement for the proposed project and is looking for comments on the scope and direction of the EIS. The meetings will be held at the following locations and times: • August 11, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., Coconino Community College Lone Tree Campus, Board Room, 2800

South Lone Tree Road, Flagstaff, Arizona • August 12, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. (MDT), Tuba City High School Gymnasium, 67 Warrior Drive, Tuba

City, Arizona • August 13, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., Best Western Grand Canyon Squire Inn, 100 Highway 64, Tusayan,

Arizona • August 17, 11 a.m. to 1 p.m., Supai, Arizona A Kaibab National Forest representative will present a brief summary of the proposed project at the beginning of the meetings, approximately 15 minutes after the start of each meeting. Kaibab National Forest is seeking public input during a 30-day comment period, which will begin Aug. 3 and end Sept. 2. The comment period is intended to provide local residents and the public with an early and meaningful opportunity to learn about the proposed project and participate in the process. VANE’s proposed project is to conduct uranium exploratory drilling at 24 sites on the Tusayan Ranger District. All drilling would be strictly limited to exploration holes. No actual mining of ore would occur at this time. For comments to be most informative to the analysis, they should be postmarked or received by the Kaibab National Forest no later than Sept. 2. However, comments will also be accepted during the period following the release of the Draft EIS. Written comments may be mailed or hand-delivered to:

Kaibab National Forest ATTN: VANE Minerals Uranium Exploratory Drilling Project 800 South 6th Street Williams, Arizona 86046

Page 1 of 2

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/kai

Page 2 of 2

Comments may be submitted by facsimile to (928) 635-8208 or by e-mail to [email protected]. E-mail and facsimile comments must include the words “VANE Minerals Uranium Exploratory Drilling Project.” Comments may also be submitted and additional information obtained through the project website at www.fs.fed.us/r3/kai/vane/index.shtml. A toll-free comment phone line has been set up to record comments at 1-888-494-4940. For further information on the VANE Minerals Uranium Exploratory Drilling Project, please contact Tom Mutz, Lands and Minerals Staff Officer, in writing at Williams and Tusayan Ranger Districts, 742 South Clover Road, Williams, AZ 86046 or by telephone at (928) 635-5600. Questions regarding the Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act process may be directed to Alvin Brown, Forest NEPA Coordinator, at 800 South 6th Street, Williams, AZ 86046 or by telephone at (928) 635-8200.

-USFS-

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/kai/vane/index.shtml

APPENDIX C

Materials Set-up at Information Booths



VANE Uranium Exploratory Drilling Environmental Impact Statement Kaibab National Forest

Exploratory Drilling Operation Description

The project proposes to drill exploration holes for uranium at a total of 24 drill sites on the Tusayan Ranger District, Coconino County, Arizona. Several boreholes would be drilled at each of the 24 drill sites (Table 1). The expected duration of drilling activities varies at each location, but initial-phase drilling is expected to take anywhere between 7 and 30 days. Depending on results, some additional exploration drilling may occur at the same claim sites. The overall project is expected to take approximately 3 years from project commencement to reclamation.

The drilling operation is described below: • The initial drilling process consists of multiple holes drilled to a shallow depth (500 feet or less) to accurately

define the breccia pipe target. The number of initial shallow holes varies by drill site and ranges from 0 to 12. Upon completion of the shallow exploration holes, multiple deep exploration holes (up to 2,000 feet) may be drilled to test the breccia pipe target for uranium mineralization. The number of deep drill holes varies by drill site and ranges from 1 to 6.

• Boreholes would be 6 inches in diameter, with an 8-inch-diameter collar for surface casing. • The drilling medium would be air, or water if necessary in wet formations, using industry-standard hole-

stabilizing additives, such as bentonite and polymer. • No toxic substances would be used in drilling. • Drilling in wet formations may require up to 5,000 gallons of water per day, which would be purchased from a

local ranch or nearby community, whichever is most readily available. • Fluid pits, if necessary, would be excavated to a maximum size of 20 × 15 × 6 feet deep using a backhoe, and

these soils and drill cuttings would be set aside on-site for later backfilling and reclamation. • Work will be suspended during poor weather conditions or during evaluation of data.

Drilling equipment used on-site would consist of the following: • One truck-mounted (10-wheel) drill rig would remain on-site during operation; • Two water trucks (10-wheel) would make an average of two trips per day to and from the site; • One pipe truck (10-wheel); • One air compressor or booster; • One or more ¾-ton pickup trucks for access to and from the site as needed; • Backhoe would be present on-site during initial site work and reclamation; • Fuel trailer for hauling fuel to the site would remain on-site during operations; • Flatbed trailer for hauling miscellaneous equipment would remain on-site during operations; and • Self-contained travel trailer for drill crew and site security (no permanent structures are proposed).

Improvements may be necessary to certain sections of existing U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) roads to ensure access and safety, but would generally be limited to minor grading, filling of ruts, and limb cutting and tree removal only where needed. Drilling area locations are described in the table below.

Once drilling operations are complete at any one site, reclamation would begin with return of drill cuttings to the open borehole, as much as practical. Holes would then be plugged at the surface with 20-feet of concrete and marked, and pits used for fluid containment (if present) would be filled with stockpiled soils once the fluid in the pit dries.

All drill sites and roads would be recontoured to approximate the original (predrilling) shape of the ground to blend with the surrounding area. The area would be reseeded with a Forest Service–approved certified weed free seed mix at the appropriate time of year and at an application rate that facilitates optimum seed sprouting and plant growth. Seeding would be completed using the broadcast method and hand or machine raked to a textured or rough condition. Seeded areas would be monitored for stability and revegetation success for a minimum of 3 years or until attainment of Forest Service revegetation standards have been met.

1

Table 1. VANE Plan of Operation Proposed Drill Site Description

Claim Name

Number of Drill Sites

Location (Township, Range, Section)

Number of Claims

(20 acres each)

Number of Initial Drill

Holes (500 feet deep)

Number of Follow-up Drill

Holes (2,000 feet deep)

Site Access

CP 1 1 T28N, R2E, S1 and 12 2 8 2 Existing road: Forest Road

(FR) 305

CP 2 1 T30N, R5E, S11–14 2 0 2 Existing road: FR 682

CP 4 1 T29N, R5E, S34 T28N, R5E, S3 3 7 2–3 Existing road: FR 320

CP 6 1 T27N, R5E, S5 2 4 2–3 Existing road: FR 2739

CP 8 1 T30N, R5E, S22 and 23 1 3 2–3 Existing road: FRs 682,

2807, and 627


CP 11 1 T28N, R5E, S14, 15, 22, and 23 3 8 2–3 Existing road: FRs 320,

305, 776, 305b, and 313

CP 14 1 T29N, R2E, S27 2 4 2 Existing road: FRs 347 and 2620

CP 17 2 T29N, R2E, S17 and 20 4 8 2–3 Existing road: FR 306

CP 18 2 T29N, R2E, S8, 9, 16, and 17 3 8 2–3 Existing road: FR 306


Antelope Project 1 T28N, R4E, S11 1 3–5 3–5 Existing road: FR 320

Antelope Tank 1 T28N, R4E, S3 and

10 3 8 2 Existing road: FRs 305 and 320

Auto Pipe Project 1 T28N, R4E, S20,

21, 27, and 28 5 12 6 Existing road: FRs 305 and 776

Black Box 1 T28N, R3E, S6 3 8 4 Existing road: FR 305

BNE Project 1 T28N, R3E, S4 8 12 6 Existing road: FR 305

New Year 1 T29N, R3E, S31 10 6 2 Existing road: FR 305

Peterson Flat Project 1 T28N, R6E, S6 6 12 6 Existing road: FRs 305,

305B, and 313

Rattlesnake Project 2 T30N, R2E, S29

and 32 9 8 2–3 Existing road: FRs 328, 335, and 2612

Shale Project 1 T29N, R3E, S21 9 6 2 Existing road: FRs 305, 305A, and 343

WE 11 Project 1 T28N, R4E, S22 2 12 6 Existing road: FRs 305,

776, and 305B

2

3


Make Your Comment Count! (Based on Citizen's Guide to NEPA, located at www.nepa.gov/nepa/nepanet.htm)

Effective Comments Public comments are one of the most important contributions that citizens can offer to an agency's NEPA process.

• To be most useful, comments should be clear, concise, and focused on issues related directly to the proposed action. Take time to organize your thoughts and express your concerns in a polite and respectful manner.

• Comments that are solution-oriented and provide specific examples of issues and alternatives are

of much greater help to the agency than those that simply oppose or advocate a proposed action. • The identification of alternatives to an agency proposal is essential early in the NEPA process to

ensure that all reasonable alternatives are evaluated in the environmental impacts analysis. Comments that assist an agency in identifying alternatives to a proposed action are welcomed. Remember, when you suggest alternatives to a proposed action, you must ensure that they satisfy both the purpose of and need for the proposed action.

• Commenting is not a form of “voting” on an alternative. The number of negative comments an

agency receives does not prevent an action from moving forward. • Numerous comments that repeat the same basic message of support or opposition will typically be

responded to collectively. • General comments that state an action will have “significant environmental effects” will not help

an agency make a better decision unless the relevant causes and environmental effects are explained.

How to Submit Comments Comments may be submitted at public meetings or by mail, FAX, email, or telephone. Please visit the project website, located at �� , to provide comments and get updated information on the project. Written comments on the proposed project may be mailed or hand-delivered to:

Kaibab National Forest ATTN: VANE Minerals Uranium Exploratory Drilling Project 800 South 6th Street, Williams, Arizona 86046

Comments may also be submitted by facsimile to (928) 635-8208 and by electronic mail (e-mail) to [email protected]. E-mail and facsimile comments must include the words “VANE Minerals Uranium Exploratory Drilling Project.” To submit comments via a toll-free telephone line please call 1-888-494-4940. For further information on the VANE Minerals Uranium Exploratory Drilling Project, please contact Tom Mutz, Lands and Minerals Staff Officer, in writing at Williams and Tusayan Ranger Districts, 742 South Clover Road, Williams, AZ 86046 or by telephone at (928) 635-5600. Questions regarding the Forest Service NEPA process may be directed to Alvin Brown, Forest NEPA Coordinator, at 800 South 6th Street, Williams, AZ 86046 and by telephone (928) 635-8200.

Supai North Rim

Jacob Lake

Page

FredoniaColorado City

Peach Springs

Tusayan

Valle

Gray Mountain

Cameron

Tuba City

Leupp

Flagstaff

ParksWilliams

Ash Fork

Seligman

KaibitoKAIBAB NATIONAL FOREST

GRAND

COCONINO NATIONAL FOREST

HOPIINDIAN

RESERVATION

NAVAJOINDIAN

RESERVATION

HUALAPAIINDIAN

RESERVATION

HAVASUINDIAN

RESERVATION

KAIBABINDIAN

RESERVATION

Second Mesa

SUNSET CRATERNAT'L MON

WUPATKINAT'L MON

GLEN CANYON NAT'L REC AREA

KAIBAB NATIONAL FOREST

CANYO N

PARK

GRAND CANYONNAT'L PARK

YAVA

PAI C

OUNT

YMO

HAVE

COU

NTY

NAVA

JO C

OUNT

YCO

CONI

NO C

OUNT

Y

See Figure 2

Grand CanyonVillage


NAT IO NAL

Figure 1. General location of the project area.

RATTLESNAKE

CP 14

CP 18CP 19

CP 17 SHALE

BNENEW YEAR

CP 1BLACK BOX ANTELOPE

TANK CP 10

WEAUTO PIPE

CP 4PETERSON

FLAT

CP 11

CP 6

ANTELOPE

CP 8

CP 2

Grand Canyon Village

Tusayan

Red Butte

Skinner Ridge

Sinking Ship

Desert View

Co l o ra d o R i v e r

K A I B A B N A T I O N A L F O R E S T

GR A N D

C AN YO N

N A T I O N A L

PA R K

Uranium Exploratory Drilling EIS

Figure 2.

0 1.5 3Miles

0 3 6Kilometers

1:250,000

Location of the project area.

Claim Location

National Forest

National Park

Private

State Trust

Approx. Drill Hole Location

1


Resource Protection Actions

These actions would be taken to minimize potential negative impacts that may occur as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action. All exploration activities would be required to follow the Health and Safety Radiation Protection Guidelines for Forest Service Personnel Involved with the Administration of Uranium Exploration Operations. (The “guidelines” are currently in final review as Proposed Health and Safety Plan Amendment to Forest Service Health and Safety Handbook, FSH 6709.11, Chapter 20, Section 22.8 Minerals and Geology). Further mitigation measures may be developed to address issues raised during the analysis and/or the public involvement process. They are:

1. Project sites are to be kept clean at all times. Operators shall comply with applicable federal and state standards for the disposal and treatment of solid wastes. All garbage, refuse, or waste shall either be removed from NFS lands or disposed of or treated in order to minimize, so far as practicable, its impact to the environment and forest surface resources. All tailings, dumps, deleterious materials, or substances and other waste produced by operations shall be deployed, arranged, disposed of, or treated in order to minimize adverse impacts to the environment and forest surface resources.

2. In the event that fuel or waste fluids are spilled, the Forest Service will be notified and the affected soil will be removed for disposal off-site.

3. Vehicles will stay on designated driving routes to avoid excessive soil and vegetation disturbance.

4. Work will be suspended during poor weather conditions or when soils are wet and saturated.

5. Drilling fluid and cuttings would be confined to fluid pits or portable tanks.

6. Portable tanks will be used in place of fluid pits in areas of shallow soils, and in areas where suitable sites (5% slope or less) cannot be located. In areas with highly erosive soils, certified weed-free straw wattles will be placed around the fluid pit and secured with rebar stakes to prevent water from running into the pit while in use. After filling the pit, certified weed-free mulch (e.g., straw) will be spread across the disturbed soil, and the area will be reseeded with native plants. The straw wattles will be kept around the pit to prevent runoff from eroding the soil or removing the mulch and seed from the reclaimed area.

7. Mud pits will be covered with a minimum of 3 feet of topsoil so that radioactivity levels are returned to background levels.

8. Operators shall take all practicable measures to maintain and protect wildlife and wildlife habitat that may be affected by the operations. Fencing is to be placed around fluid/mud pits to protect wildlife and livestock. Open fluid pits will be not only fenced but netted to prevent access into the pit by birds and bats.

9. Operators shall maintain all roads in order to ensure adequate drainage and minimize or, where practicable, eliminate damage to soil, water, and other resource values.

10. To prevent fire, all equipment, including small gas engines for generators and water pumps, will have spark arresters. All equipment that is on-site or entering or exiting the site will have chemical fire extinguishers which are to be readily accessible during drilling operations. Drill rigs and water pumps will have hoses with nozzles with pressure suitable for use in the event of a fire. Seasonal fire restrictions (if implemented) will be followed by the operator.

11. To prevent the importation and/or spread of noxious and invasive exotic weed species, all heavy equipment will be washed before being taken into project areas. To avoid the spread of weeds, vehicles must be cleaned of all plant material when moving from an area of infestation. (Note: no noxious or invasive exotic weed populations were found during surveys of the drilling sites in 2007.)

12. New locations of noxious or invasive exotic weed populations will be documented. Existing weed populations will be treated at each project site before drilling. Ground disturbance at project sites will be minimized in order to prevent new weed populations.

2

13. Surveys will be conducted during the appropriate season for detection and identification of noxious or invasive exotic weeds for at least 3 years following project completion. New weed populations will be controlled as necessary.

14. VANE will notify the Forest Service when uranium ore deposits are located so that interested tribal communities can be notified by the Forest Service.

15. Archaeological surveys will be conducted in advance of all project activities to identify heritage properties that may be affected by the project. Site specific mitigation measures for the protection of heritage properties will be developed according to the Section 106 process of the National Historic Preservation Act.

16. Operators will permanently mark individual claim boundary corners with a T-post and 4-inch × 4-foot piece of white plastic pipe. Each corner will be identified with the claim number, name, and description (i.e., CP 3, NE corner).

17. Seasonal restrictions will be imposed at certain drill sites if it is determined that exploratory drilling operations could negatively affect sensitive wildlife species.

18. If condors are sighted at a drill site, the Forest Service will be contacted immediately and any project-related activity likely to harm the condor will halt immediately until the condor flies away or is driven away by permitted personnel (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or Peregrine Fund personnel). Project personnel will be instructed to avoid interfering with condors.

Drill site (VANE, CP 8) during drilling operations. Drill site (VANE, CP 8) post-reclamation.

Drill site during drilling operations. Exploratory drill hole post-reclamation.

1


National Environmental Policy Act Process Decision-Making and Environmental Impact Statement Process

• The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a process that provides an opportunity for the public and agencies to help clearly identify and define environmental issues and alternatives to be examined for a Proposed Action.

• The NEPA process is intended to help public officials make decisions based on an understanding of the environmental consequences.

• The environmental impact statement (EIS) process begins with the publication of the Notice of Intent, which describes the proposed project and the public comment period.

How Is the Public Involved?

The public is involved at three stages of the EIS process.

• First, the public is invited to make comments and suggest alternatives to the project during project scoping (see Public and Agency Scoping below).

• Second, the public is asked to comment on the results of the environmental analyses described in the Draft EIS.

• Third, the public is allowed to comment on the Final EIS, in particular on the manner in which comments on the Draft EIS were addressed.

Public and Agency Scoping

• The purpose of scoping is to identify significant environmental issues deserving further study in the EIS.

• The public and agencies are invited to review the proposed project and provide comments on issues identified.

• The public comments collected during scoping will be used to identify issues, develop alternatives, and assess impacts in the Draft EIS.

• The Uranium Exploratory Drilling scoping period began on October 10, 2008, with publication of the Notice of Intent. The scoping period will extend through September 2, 2009.

Draft EIS

• The Draft EIS will include a complete description of the proposed project and identify reasonable project alternatives, environmental and cultural resource impacts of all alternatives, and any mitigation measures to protect resources.

• The general public and federal and state agencies are invited to provide comments on the Draft EIS. The comment period is 45 days.

Final EIS

• The Final EIS considers and is shaped by comments collected on the Draft EIS and identifies a preferred alterative.

• The general public and federal and state agencies are invited to provide comments on the Final EIS. Record of Decision

• The Record of Decision presents the agency’s decision on the proposed project.

2

Applicable Laws and Regulations The NEPA process requires compliance with the following laws and regulations. All decisions and documentation will comply with existing regulations. The following includes a list of pertinent federal regulations and State of Arizona regulations and required permits.

Federal Laws and Regulations National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Endangered Species Act Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970 Mining Law of 1872 Clean Air Act Clean Water Act Safe Drinking Water Act American Indian Religious Freedom Act Religious Freedom Restoration Act Archaeological Resources Protection Act Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act National Forest Management Act of 1976 National Historic Preservation Act Organic Administration Act of 1897 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1986 Executive Order 11593 – Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management Executive Order 11990 – Protection of Wetlands Executive Order 12898 – Environmental Justice Executive Order 13007 – Indian Sacred Sites Other federal and state statutes that apply Executive Order on Invasive Species 1999

BLM Regulations

State of Arizona Laws and Required Permits Arizona Mining Law Arizona Aquifer Protection Permit – Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 49-241 through 49-252, and Arizona Administrative Code R18-9-101 through R18-9-403 for statutes and rules related to aquifer protection permit.

The Mining Law of 1872 and Forest Service Regulation

• The Mining Law of 1872 confers a statutory right to the public to enter open National Forest System lands to search for and develop locatable minerals.

• The Forest Service has adopted regulations (36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 228A) that set rules and procedures governing the use of National Forest System lands in conjunction with operations authorized by general mining laws. It requires that all locatable mineral operations be conducted to minimize, prevent, or mitigate adverse environmental impacts to surface resources, including impacts to surrounding lands, under the jurisdiction of other federal agencies.

• Under the existing regulatory framework, the U.S. Forest Service is required to consider a “no-action” alternative, which serves as a baseline against which to assess impacts of all other alternatives. The agency cannot legally choose the no-action alternative if an action alternative meets all state and federal requirements.

Your Comments are Important! Public Comments

for theVANE Uranium Exploratory Drilling EIS

If you would like to make a comment or be added to our mailing list, please fill out this form and hand it to any of our staff or mail it to the address provided. You are also welcome to write a letter or send e-mail to: [email protected]. Thank you!

Please be advised that comments and personal information associated with them, such as names and addresses, become part of the Administrative Record for this NEPA review. As such, they may be made available to a third-party upon request under the authority of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Personal identifying information is protected by the Privacy Act. If you do not wish for your personal information to be released under the FOIA, you may choose not to include it with your comments. Alternatively, you may request an exemption from FOIA with your comment submittal. Should you choose the latter, you would be informed by the Forest Service as to whether or not your request qualifies for an exemption. If it does not, you would be afforded the opportunity to resubmit your comments without personal information or to withhold them altogether.

COMMENT:

NAME: ..................................................................................................................................................................................

EMAIL: ..................................................................................................................................................................................

ADDRESS: ............................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

PLEASE ADD ME TO THE MAILING LIST (circle one): YES NO

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

Kaibab National ForestAttn: VANE Minerals

Uranium Exploratory Drilling Project800 South 6th. StreetWilliams, AZ 86046

How to Comment Effectively

Public comments are one of the most important contributions that citizens can offer to an agency’s NEPA process.


• Commentsthataresolution-orientedandprovidespecificexamplesofissuesandalternativesareofmuchgreaterhelp to the agency than those that simply oppose or advocate a proposed action.

• TheidentificationofalternativestoanagencyproposalisessentialearlyintheNEPAprocesstoensurethatallreasonable alternatives are evaluated in the environmental impacts analysis. Comments that assist an agency in identifying alternatives to a proposed action are welcomed. Remember, when you suggest alternatives to a proposed action, you must ensure that they satisfy both the purpose of and need for the proposed action.

• Commenting is not a form of “voting” on an alternative. The number of negative comments an agency receives does not prevent an action from moving forward.

• Numerous comments that repeat the same basic message of support or opposition will typically be responded to collectively.

• Generalcommentsthatstateanactionwillhave“significantenvironmentaleffects”willnothelpanagencymakeabetter decision unless the relevant causes and environmental effects are explained.

The public comment period is the beginning of the EIS process and represents the foundation of the analysis. Your comments are an important input to the analysis of the social and natural environment.

PLACE FIRST CLASS

STAMP HERE

Fold Here

RATTLESNAKE

CP 14

CP 18CP 19

CP 17 SHALE

BNENEW YEAR

CP 1BLACK BOX ANTELOPE

TANK CP 10

WEAUTO PIPE

CP 4PETERSON

FLAT

CP 11

CP 6

ANTELOPE

CP 8

CP 2

Grand Canyon Village

Tusayan

Red Butte

Skinner Ridge

Sinking Ship

Desert View

Co l o ra d o R i v e r

K A I B A B N A T I O N A L F O R E S T

GR A N D

C AN YO N

N A T I O N A L

PA R K

Uranium Exploratory Drilling EIS

Figure 2.

0 1.5 3Miles

0 3 6Kilometers

1:250,000

Location of the project area.

Claim Location

National Forest

National Park

Private

State Trust

Approx. Drill Hole Location

Supai North Rim

Jacob Lake

Page

FredoniaColorado City

Peach Springs

Tusayan

Valle

Gray Mountain

Cameron

Tuba City

Leupp

Flagstaff

ParksWilliams

Ash Fork

Seligman

KaibitoKAIBAB NATIONAL FOREST

GRAND

COCONINO NATIONAL FOREST

HOPIINDIAN

RESERVATION

NAVAJOINDIAN

RESERVATION

HUALAPAIINDIAN

RESERVATION

HAVASUINDIAN

RESERVATION

KAIBABINDIAN

RESERVATION

Second Mesa

SUNSET CRATERNAT'L MON

WUPATKINAT'L MON

GLEN CANYON NAT'L REC AREA


CANYO N

PARK

GRAND CANYONNAT'L PARK

YAVA

PAI C

OUNT

YMO

HAVE

COU

NTY

NAVA

JO C

OUNT

YCO

CONI

NO C

OUNT

Y

See Figure 2

Grand CanyonVillage


NAT IO NAL

Figure 1. General location of the project area.

APPENDIX D

Scoping Meeting Display Boards and Meeting Handouts



1


National Environmental Policy Act Process Decision-Making and Environmental Impact Statement Process

• The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a process that provides an opportunity for the public and agencies to help clearly identify and define environmental issues and alternatives to be examined for a Proposed Action.

• The NEPA process is intended to help public officials make decisions based on an understanding of the environmental consequences.

• The environmental impact statement (EIS) process begins with the publication of the Notice of Intent, which describes the proposed project and the public comment period.

How Is the Public Involved?

The public is involved at three stages of the EIS process.

• First, the public is invited to make comments and suggest alternatives to the project during project scoping (see Public and Agency Scoping below).

• Second, the public is asked to comment on the results of the environmental analyses described in the Draft EIS.

• Third, the public is allowed to comment on the Final EIS, in particular on the manner in which comments on the Draft EIS were addressed.

Public and Agency Scoping

• The purpose of scoping is to identify significant environmental issues deserving further study in the EIS.

• The public and agencies are invited to review the proposed project and provide comments on issues identified.

• The public comments collected during scoping will be used to identify issues, develop alternatives, and assess impacts in the Draft EIS.

• The Uranium Exploratory Drilling scoping period began on October 10, 2008, with publication of the Notice of Intent. The scoping period will extend through September 2, 2009.

Draft EIS

• The Draft EIS will include a complete description of the proposed project and identify reasonable project alternatives, environmental and cultural resource impacts of all alternatives, and any mitigation measures to protect resources.

• The general public and federal and state agencies are invited to provide comments on the Draft EIS. The comment period is 45 days.

Final EIS

• The Final EIS considers and is shaped by comments collected on the Draft EIS and identifies a preferred alterative.

• The general public and federal and state agencies are invited to provide comments on the Final EIS. Record of Decision

• The Record of Decision presents the agency’s decision on the proposed project.

2

Applicable Laws and Regulations The NEPA process requires compliance with the following laws and regulations. All decisions and documentation will comply with existing regulations. The following includes a list of pertinent federal regulations and State of Arizona regulations and required permits.

Federal Laws and Regulations National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Endangered Species Act Mining and Mineral Policy Act of 1970 Mining Law of 1872 Clean Air Act Clean Water Act Safe Drinking Water Act American Indian Religious Freedom Act Religious Freedom Restoration Act Archaeological Resources Protection Act Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act National Forest Management Act of 1976 National Historic Preservation Act Organic Administration Act of 1897 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1986 Executive Order 11593 – Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management Executive Order 11990 – Protection of Wetlands Executive Order 12898 – Environmental Justice Executive Order 13007 – Indian Sacred Sites Other federal and state statutes that apply Executive Order on Invasive Species 1999

BLM Regulations

State of Arizona Laws and Required Permits Arizona Mining Law Arizona Aquifer Protection Permit – Arizona Revised Statutes §§ 49-241 through 49-252, and Arizona Administrative Code R18-9-101 through R18-9-403 for statutes and rules related to aquifer protection permit.

The Mining Law of 1872 and Forest Service Regulation

• The Mining Law of 1872 confers a statutory right to the public to enter open National Forest System lands to search for and develop locatable minerals.

• The Forest Service has adopted regulations (36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 228A) that set rules and procedures governing the use of National Forest System lands in conjunction with operations authorized by general mining laws. It requires that all locatable mineral operations be conducted to minimize, prevent, or mitigate adverse environmental impacts to surface resources, including impacts to surrounding lands, under the jurisdiction of other federal agencies.

• Under the existing regulatory framework, the U.S. Forest Service is required to consider a “no-action” alternative, which serves as a baseline against which to assess impacts of all other alternatives. The agency cannot legally choose the no-action alternative if an action alternative meets all state and federal requirements.


Exploratory Drilling Operation Description

The project proposes to drill exploration holes for uranium at a total of 24 drill sites on the Tusayan Ranger District, Coconino County, Arizona. Several boreholes would be drilled at each of the 24 drill sites (Table 1). The expected duration of drilling activities varies at each location, but initial-phase drilling is expected to take anywhere between 7 and 30 days. Depending on results, some additional exploration drilling may occur at the same claim sites. The overall project is expected to take approximately 3 years from project commencement to reclamation.

The drilling operation is described below: • The initial drilling process consists of multiple holes drilled to a shallow depth (500 feet or less) to accurately

define the breccia pipe target. The number of initial shallow holes varies by drill site and ranges from 0 to 12. Upon completion of the shallow exploration holes, multiple deep exploration holes (up to 2,000 feet) may be drilled to test the breccia pipe target for uranium mineralization. The number of deep drill holes varies by drill site and ranges from 1 to 6.

• Boreholes would be 6 inches in diameter, with an 8-inch-diameter collar for surface casing. • The drilling medium would be air, or water if necessary in wet formations, using industry-standard hole-

stabilizing additives, such as bentonite and polymer. • No toxic substances would be used in drilling. • Drilling in wet formations may require up to 5,000 gallons of water per day, which would be purchased from a

local ranch or nearby community, whichever is most readily available. • Fluid pits, if necessary, would be excavated to a maximum size of 20 × 15 × 6 feet deep using a backhoe, and

these soils and drill cuttings would be set aside on-site for later backfilling and reclamation. • Work will be suspended during poor weather conditions or during evaluation of data.

Drilling equipment used on-site would consist of the following: • One truck-mounted (10-wheel) drill rig would remain on-site during operation; • Two water trucks (10-wheel) would make an average of two trips per day to and from the site; • One pipe truck (10-wheel); • One air compressor or booster; • One or more ¾-ton pickup trucks for access to and from the site as needed; • Backhoe would be present on-site during initial site work and reclamation; • Fuel trailer for hauling fuel to the site would remain on-site during operations; • Flatbed trailer for hauling miscellaneous equipment would remain on-site during operations; and • Self-contained travel trailer for drill crew and site security (no permanent structures are proposed).

Improvements may be necessary to certain sections of existing U.S. Forest Service (Forest Service) roads to ensure access and safety, but would generally be limited to minor grading, filling of ruts, and limb cutting and tree removal only where needed. Drilling area locations are described in the table below.

Once drilling operations are complete at any one site, reclamation would begin with return of drill cuttings to the open borehole, as much as practical. Holes would then be plugged at the surface with 20-feet of concrete and marked, and pits used for fluid containment (if present) would be filled with stockpiled soils once the fluid in the pit dries.

All drill sites and roads would be recontoured to approximate the original (predrilling) shape of the ground to blend with the surrounding area. The area would be reseeded with a Forest Service–approved certified weed free seed mix at the appropriate time of year and at an application rate that facilitates optimum seed sprouting and plant growth. Seeding would be completed using the broadcast method and hand or machine raked to a textured or rough condition. Seeded areas would be monitored for stability and revegetation success for a minimum of 3 years or until attainment of Forest Service revegetation standards have been met.

1

Table 1. VANE Plan of Operation Proposed Drill Site Description

Claim Name

Number of Drill Sites

Location (Township, Range, Section)

Number of Claims

(20 acres each)

Number of Initial Drill

Holes (500 feet deep)

Number of Follow-up Drill

Holes (2,000 feet deep)

Site Access

CP 1 1 T28N, R2E, S1 and 12 2 8 2 Existing road: Forest Road

(FR) 305

CP 2 1 T30N, R5E, S11–14 2 0 2 Existing road: FR 682

CP 4 1 T29N, R5E, S34 T28N, R5E, S3 3 7 2–3 Existing road: FR 320


CP 8 1 T30N, R5E, S22 and 23 1 3 2–3 Existing road: FRs 682,

2807, and 627


CP 11 1 T28N, R5E, S14, 15, 22, and 23 3 8 2–3 Existing road: FRs 320,

305, 776, 305b, and 313

CP 14 1 T29N, R2E, S27 2 4 2 Existing road: FRs 347 and 2620

CP 17 2 T29N, R2E, S17 and 20 4 8 2–3 Existing road: FR 306

CP 18 2 T29N, R2E, S8, 9, 16, and 17 3 8 2–3 Existing road: FR 306


Antelope Project 1 T28N, R4E, S11 1 3–5 3–5 Existing road: FR 320

Antelope Tank 1 T28N, R4E, S3 and

10 3 8 2 Existing road: FRs 305 and 320

Auto Pipe Project 1 T28N, R4E, S20,

21, 27, and 28 5 12 6 Existing road: FRs 305 and 776

Black Box 1 T28N, R3E, S6 3 8 4 Existing road: FR 305

BNE Project 1 T28N, R3E, S4 8 12 6 Existing road: FR 305

New Year 1 T29N, R3E, S31 10 6 2 Existing road: FR 305

Peterson Flat Project 1 T28N, R6E, S6 6 12 6 Existing road: FRs 305,

305B, and 313

Rattlesnake Project 2 T30N, R2E, S29

and 32 9 8 2–3 Existing road: FRs 328, 335, and 2612

Shale Project 1 T29N, R3E, S21 9 6 2 Existing road: FRs 305, 305A, and 343

WE 11 Project 1 T28N, R4E, S22 2 12 6 Existing road: FRs 305,

776, and 305B

2

3

1


Resource Protection Actions

These actions would be taken to minimize potential negative impacts that may occur as a result of implementation of the Proposed Action. All exploration activities would be required to follow the Health and Safety Radiation Protection Guidelines for Forest Service Personnel Involved with the Administration of Uranium Exploration Operations. (The “guidelines” are currently in final review as Proposed Health and Safety Plan Amendment to Forest Service Health and Safety Handbook, FSH 6709.11, Chapter 20, Section 22.8 Minerals and Geology). Further mitigation measures may be developed to address issues raised during the analysis and/or the public involvement process. They are:

1. Project sites are to be kept clean at all times. Operators shall comply with applicable federal and state standards for the disposal and treatment of solid wastes. All garbage, refuse, or waste shall either be removed from NFS lands or disposed of or treated in order to minimize, so far as practicable, its impact to the environment and forest surface resources. All tailings, dumps, deleterious materials, or substances and other waste produced by operations shall be deployed, arranged, disposed of, or treated in order to minimize adverse impacts to the environment and forest surface resources.

2. In the event that fuel or waste fluids are spilled, the Forest Service will be notified and the affected soil will be removed for disposal off-site.

3. Vehicles will stay on designated driving routes to avoid excessive soil and vegetation disturbance.

4. Work will be suspended during poor weather conditions or when soils are wet and saturated.

5. Drilling fluid and cuttings would be confined to fluid pits or portable tanks.

6. Portable tanks will be used in place of fluid pits in areas of shallow soils, and in areas where suitable sites (5% slope or less) cannot be located. In areas with highly erosive soils, certified weed-free straw wattles will be placed around the fluid pit and secured with rebar stakes to prevent water from running into the pit while in use. After filling the pit, certified weed-free mulch (e.g., straw) will be spread across the disturbed soil, and the area will be reseeded with native plants. The straw wattles will be kept around the pit to prevent runoff from eroding the soil or removing the mulch and seed from the reclaimed area.

7. Mud pits will be covered with a minimum of 3 feet of topsoil so that radioactivity levels are returned to background levels.

8. Operators shall take all practicable measures to maintain and protect wildlife and wildlife habitat that may be affected by the operations. Fencing is to be placed around fluid/mud pits to protect wildlife and livestock. Open fluid pits will be not only fenced but netted to prevent access into the pit by birds and bats.

9. Operators shall maintain all roads in order to ensure adequate drainage and minimize or, where practicable, eliminate damage to soil, water, and other resource values.

10. To prevent fire, all equipment, including small gas engines for generators and water pumps, will have spark arresters. All equipment that is on-site or entering or exiting the site will have chemical fire extinguishers which are to be readily accessible during drilling operations. Drill rigs and water pumps will have hoses with nozzles with pressure suitable for use in the event of a fire. Seasonal fire restrictions (if implemented) will be followed by the operator.

11. To prevent the importation and/or spread of noxious and invasive exotic weed species, all heavy equipment will be washed before being taken into project areas. To avoid the spread of weeds, vehicles must be cleaned of all plant material when moving from an area of infestation. (Note: no noxious or invasive exotic weed populations were found during surveys of the drilling sites in 2007.)

12. New locations of noxious or invasive exotic weed populations will be documented. Existing weed populations will be treated at each project site before drilling. Ground disturbance at project sites will be minimized in order to prevent new weed populations.

2

13. Surveys will be conducted during the appropriate season for detection and identification of noxious or invasive exotic weeds for at least 3 years following project completion. New weed populations will be controlled as necessary.

14. VANE will notify the Forest Service when uranium ore deposits are located so that interested tribal communities can be notified by the Forest Service.

15. Archaeological surveys will be conducted in advance of all project activities to identify heritage properties that may be affected by the project. Site specific mitigation measures for the protection of heritage properties will be developed according to the Section 106 process of the National Historic Preservation Act.

16. Operators will permanently mark individual claim boundary corners with a T-post and 4-inch × 4-foot piece of white plastic pipe. Each corner will be identified with the claim number, name, and description (i.e., CP 3, NE corner).

17. Seasonal restrictions will be imposed at certain drill sites if it is determined that exploratory drilling operations could negatively affect sensitive wildlife species.

18. If condors are sighted at a drill site, the Forest Service will be contacted immediately and any project-related activity likely to harm the condor will halt immediately until the condor flies away or is driven away by permitted personnel (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or Peregrine Fund personnel). Project personnel will be instructed to avoid interfering with condors.

Drill site (VANE, CP 8) during drilling operations. Drill site (VANE, CP 8) post-reclamation.

Drill site during drilling operations. Exploratory drill hole post-reclamation.

Your Comments are Important! Public Comments

for theVANE Uranium Exploratory Drilling EIS

If you would like to make a comment or be added to our mailing list, please fill out this form and hand it to any of our staff or mail it to the address provided. You are also welcome to write a letter or send e-mail to: [email protected]. Thank you!

Please be advised that comments and personal information associated with them, such as names and addresses, become part of the Administrative Record for this NEPA review. As such, they may be made available to a third-party upon request under the authority of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Personal identifying information is protected by the Privacy Act. If you do not wish for your personal information to be released under the FOIA, you may choose not to include it with your comments. Alternatively, you may request an exemption from FOIA with your comment submittal. Should you choose the latter, you would be informed by the Forest Service as to whether or not your request qualifies for an exemption. If it does not, you would be afforded the opportunity to resubmit your comments without personal information or to withhold them altogether.

COMMENT:

NAME: ..................................................................................................................................................................................

EMAIL: ..................................................................................................................................................................................

ADDRESS: ............................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

PLEASE ADD ME TO THE MAILING LIST (circle one): YES NO

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................

Kaibab National ForestAttn: VANE Minerals

Uranium Exploratory Drilling Project800 South 6th. StreetWilliams, AZ 86046

How to Comment Effectively

Public comments are one of the most important contributions that citizens can offer to an agency’s NEPA process.


• Commentsthataresolution-orientedandprovidespecificexamplesofissuesandalternativesareofmuchgreaterhelp to the agency than those that simply oppose or advocate a proposed action.

• TheidentificationofalternativestoanagencyproposalisessentialearlyintheNEPAprocesstoensurethatallreasonable alternatives are evaluated in the environmental impacts analysis. Comments that assist an agency in identifying alternatives to a proposed action are welcomed. Remember, when you suggest alternatives to a proposed action, you must ensure that they satisfy both the purpose of and need for the proposed action.

• Commenting is not a form of “voting” on an alternative. The number of negative comments an agency receives does not prevent an action from moving forward.

• Numerous comments that repeat the same basic message of support or opposition will typically be responded to collectively.

• Generalcommentsthatstateanactionwillhave“significantenvironmentaleffects”willnothelpanagencymakeabetter decision unless the relevant causes and environmental effects are explained.

The public comment period is the beginning of the EIS process and represents the foundation of the analysis. Your comments are an important input to the analysis of the social and natural environment.

PLACE FIRST CLASS

STAMP HERE

Fold Here

Date post:	18-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Kaibab National Forest Scoping Report VANE Uranium...

Documents