300D05901A
Lead Agencies:

    U.S.D.A.
   Forest Service
                 DRAFT
                 ENVIRONMENTAL

 ._—.-«       IMPACT  STATEMENT
   ECOLOGY


  JUNE 1995
                       CROWN  JEWEL  MINE
                        Okanogan  County, Washington
  VOLUME I                                       Assembled By:
                                                   & Environment*! Services

-------
 U.S.D.A. Forest Service                                                      Department of Ecology
 Tonasket Ranger District                                                         Washington State
 1 West Winesap                                                                   P.O. Box 47703
 Tonasket, Washington 98855                                          Olympia, Washington 98504


                          DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
                                      CROWN JEWEL MINE
                                         June 30, 1995

 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:

 Enclosed for your review is the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Crown Jewel Mine
 Project (Crown Jewel Project) proposed by Battle Mountain Gold Company and  Crown Resource
 Corporation (jointly referred to as the "Proponent").  This document describes the environmental effects
 of the  Proponent's plan to construct and operate a gold and silver mining and milling project near
 Chesaw, in  Okanogan County, Washington and alternatives to that plan.

 The U.S.D.A. Forest Service (Forest Service) and the Washington Department of Ecology (WADOE) are
 appreciative of all of the comments, suggestions, and ideas received during scoping. To aid in the
 preparation  of the draft EIS, we held a series of public meetings in 1992, 1993, and 1994.  We have
 scheduled additional public meetings in July and August of 1995.  We want to thank you for your
 participation in this Project and hope that you find the analysis responsive to your concerns.

 Besides the  No-Action Alternative (Alternative A) and the Proponent's Plan (Alternative B), we  examined
 5 other alternatives (Alternatives C through G) in the completion of the draft EIS.  In these other
 alternatives, we analyzed underground mining, a combination of underground and surface mining, partial
 and complete backfilling of the mine pit, differing locations for waste rock and tailings, a decreased
 production and operating schedule, and a non-cyanide milling process known as flotation.  This wide
 array of alternatives was designed to respond to comments received during the  scoping  process.

 Some of the key issues for this proposal include:  the potential for cyanide and other harmful chemicals
 to enter the  environment; the potential effects on water availability; changes in  land use which affect
 wildlife, timber production, grazing and recreation; changes to the local social and economic structure;
 and assessing the short-term  losses of existing uses of the land and the ability to reclaim the land in the
 long-term to approximate pre-Project uses.

 The Forest Service and Bureau of Land  Management (BLM) prefer a modified  Alternative E utilizing an
 open-pit mine that would be partially backfilled during operations; operate year-around,  24 hours per
 day, 7 days  per week, lasting about 10 years; utilizing a tank cyanidation ore processing method with
 INCO process cyanide destruction; a north waste rock disposal  area at 3H:1 V slopes for reclamation;
 and a tailings facility in the Marias Creek drainage. This alternative would be closest to Alternative E
 except all waste rock would be placed to the north of the pit similar to Alternative G. This alternative is
 estimated to physically disturb about 840 acres, decreasing the area of disturbance of Alternative E by
 about 85 acres. Because the modifications to Alternative E were not identified until late in the  draft EIS
 process, and because the modified components in the new alternative are part of other alternatives, the
 draft EIS does not display a separate modified Alternative E. This alternative will be a stand alone
 alternative in the final EIS.  Selection of the preferred alternative in the final EIS  will be made with
 consideration given to public input on the draft EIS and any additional analysis undertaken between the
 draft EIS and final EIS.

 WADOE has decided not to select a preferred alternative in the draft EIS. This decision is based on
WADOE's desire to assure an objective analysis of all alternatives and information from comments
during  the remainder of the environmental review process. Ultimately the WADOE (and other
Washington  State and local agencies) will use information from  the final EIS during decision making for
state and local permits for the Crown Jewel Project.

-------
Draft EIS
Crown Jewel Project
June 30, 1995
Page 2
The U.-S. Army Corp of Engineers is focused on eliminating or minimizing impacts to wetlands and
waters of the U.S.

Copies of the draft EIS will be available for review in local libraries in Omak, Tonasket, Oroville,
Brewster, Seattle  (main branch), Chelan, Colville, Grand Coulee, Wenatchee, Republic, Twisp, and
Winthrop. Further locations where copies of the draft EIS will also be available for review include BLM
offices in Spokane and Wenatchee; the British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks office
in Victoria, British Columbia; Environment Canada in North Vancouver, British Columbia; and the Village
Office in Midway, British Columbia.

With the release of the draft EIS, we again invite your comments, suggestions, and ideas regarding this
document.  We will take comments on the draft EIS for 60 days (45 days plus the 15 day extension
that can be granted under NEPA and SEPA). Comments  must be  postmarked by August 29,  1995.
Please include your name, address, telephone number, organization, title of project on which you are
commenting, and  specific facts and supporting reasons for the decision makers to consider.

We plan to hold 2 public information meetings to explain the proposal, a formal public hearing to receive
comments on the  proposal, and  2 field trips to the Crown Jewel Project site.  The public information
meetings are scheduled for July  26,  1995 in Oroville, Washington; and July 27, 1995 in Tonasket,
Washington  from  6:00 to 9:00 p.m.  The formal public hearing, to take comments on the draft EIS, is
scheduled for August 17, 1995  in Tonasket at 7:00 p.m.  The field  trips are scheduled for July 29 and
August 5, 1995 starting from  the Oroville high school parking lot  at 9:00 a.m. and lasting about 6
hours.  Please bring a sack lunch for the field trips.

Further information on the Crown Jewel Project can be obtained by contacting the Project leaders, Phil
Christy, at the Forest Service Tonasket Ranger District Office, 1 West Winesap, Tonasket, Washington,
98855,  phone (509) 486-5137 or Patricia Belts, at the Olympfa office of WADOE, P.O. Box 47703,
Olympia, Washington, 98504, phone (360) 407-6925.  Please leave a message if these individuals are
not available.

Respectfully submitted,
SAM GEHR                                 PAT SPt
Forest Supervisor                           Regional Director
Okanogan National Forest                    Central Region
U.S.D.A. Forest Service                     Washington Department of Ecology

-------
                                  Draft Environmental Impact  Statement
                         Crown Jewel Mine Okanogan County,  Washington
                                                   June  1995

Lead Agencies:                     U.S.D.A. Forest Service - Okanogan National Forest
                                   Washington State Department of Ecology
Cooperating
Agencies:                          U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management
                                   U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
                                   Washington State Department of Natural Resources

Responsible Officials:               Mr. Sam Gehr, Forest Supervisor      Mr. Pat Spurgin, Regional Director
                                   Okanogan National Forest            Central Regional Office
                                   1240 South Second Avenue          106 South 6th Avenue
                                   Okanogan, Washington 98840       Yakima, Washington  98902

For Further Information              Phil Christy, NEPA Coordinator       Patricia Belts, SEPA Coordinator
Contact:                           1 West Winesap                    P.O. Box 47703
                                   Tonasket, Washington  98855       Olympia, Washington  98504
                                   Telephone: (509)486-5137           Telephone: (360)407-6925

Abstract: The Crown Jewel Project draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) describes the physical, biological, social, and
economic resources that would potentially be affected by the proposed Project.  The primary state and federal action consists
of the approval of all necessary permits to construct and operate the Crown Jewel Project mine and mill.  Some of the key
issues for this proposal include: the potential for cyanide and  other  harmful chemicals to enter  the environment; the potential
effects on water availability; changes in land use which affect wildlife, timber production, grazing  and recreation; changes to
the local social and economic structure; and assessing the short-term loss of existing uses of the  land and the ability to
reclaim the land in the long-term to approximate pre-Project uses.  The Project, as  proposed  by Battle Mountain Gold
Company, would consist of a surface mine, a  mill to process  the ore using tank cyanidation, 2 waste rock disposal areas,
miscellaneous surface support facilities, a tailings retention impoundment  in  Marias Creek, access  roads, new power
transmission lines, water pipelines, and a  water supply reservoir in  Starrem  Creek.  Alternatives have been developed in this
draft EIS to alter,  eliminate, or mitigate environmental impacts resulting from the proposed Project. These alternatives
include: a no-action  alternative (Alternative A); Battle Mountain's proposed action (Alternative  B);  an underground mining
alternative with above ground crushing and tailings disposal in Marias Creek (Alternative C);  an alternative that proposes to
use both underground mining techniques and a surface mine with tailings  disposal  in Marias Creek (Alternative D); an
alternative with a surface mine, Marias Creek tailings impoundment, 2 waste rock  disposal areas and partial back-fill of the pit
(Alternative E); an alternative with a surface mine,  Nicholson  Creek tailings impoundment, a  temporary north waste rock
disposal area, complete backfill of the pit  and  12 hour per day mining operations (Alternative F); and an alternative consisting
of a surface mine, Nicholson Creek tailings facility and on-site flotation milling (Alternative G).  Project components that vary
between alternatives include tailings impoundment  locations,  waste rock disposal area locations, underground and surface
mining, different milling processes, and reclamation options, including complete or  partial backfilling of the mine pit.

The Forest Service and BLM  prefer a modified  Alternative E utilizing an open-pit mine that would be partially backfilled during
operations; operate year-around, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, lasting about 10 years; utilizing a tank cyanidation ore
processing method with INCO process cyanide destruction; a north waste rock disposal area at 3H:1V slopes for reclamation;
and a tailings impoundment in the Marias  Creek drainage.  This alternative would be closest to Alternative E except all waste
would be placed to the north of the pit similar  to Alternative G.

Comment Period:  The comment period on the draft EIS will be 60 days (45 +15  day extension that can be granted under
NEPA and SEPA) from the  date the EPA publishes the Notice  of Availability  in the Federal Register and public notice is given
in newspapers of  local circulation.  Comments must be postmarked no later  than August 29, 1995.

Important Notice: Reviewers should provide the Forest Service  (or  the Washington Department of Ecology) with their
comments during  the review period of the draft EIS.  This will enable the Forest Service and  the Washington  Department of
Ecology to analyze and respond to the comments at one time and to use information acquired in the preparation of the  final
EIS, thus avoiding undue delay in the decision  making process.  Reviewers have an obligation to structure their participation in
the National  Environmental Policy Act process  so that it is meaningful and alerts the agency to the reviewers' position and
contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. vs. NRDC 435  U.S. 519.  553  (1978). Environmental objections that
could have been raised at the draft stage may  be waived if not raised until after completion of  the final EIS.   City of Angoon
vs. Hodel (9th Circuit, 1966) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. vs. Harris, 490f. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980).
Comments on the draft EIS should be specific  and should address the adequacy of the statement  and the merits of the
alternatives discussed (40  CFR1503.3).

The State's Environmental  Policy  Act provides similar guidelines regarding commenting (WAC 197-1 1-545 and WAC 197-11-
550).

Comments to the  Crown Jewel Mine draft EIS should be sent to the Tonasket Ranger District,  1 West Winesap, Tonasket,
Washington  98855, and should be postmarked no later than  August 29,  1995.

-------

-------
                                              FACT SHEET

Project Title:     Crown Jewel Mine

Name and Address of Proponent (With Proposed Date for Implementation):

        Battle Mountain Gold Company            Crown Resource Corporation
        P.O. Box 1243                           1225 17th Street, Suite 1500
        624 Central Avenue                      Denver, CO 80202
        Oroville, Washington  98844

Battle Mountain Gold Company proposes to begin construction in late spring of 1996 with mill start-up in 1997.

Name and Address of Lead Agency Responsible Officials:

        Mr. Pat Spurgin,  Regional Director         Mr. Sam Gehr, Forest Supervisor
        Washington Department of Ecology        U.S.D.A. Forest Service
        Central Regional  Office                   Okanogan National Forest
        106 South 6th Avenue                   1240 South  Second  Ave.
        Yakima, Washington  98902               Okanogan, Washington 98840

Contact Persons for Lead  Agencies:

        Ms. Patricia Betts, SEPA Coordinator       Mr. Phillip Christy, NEPA Coordinator
        Washington Department of Ecology        Tonasket Ranger District
        P.O. Box 47703                         1 West Winesap
        Olympia, Washington 98504-7703         Tonasket, Washington 98855
        Telephone: (360)407-6925               Telephone: (509)486-5137


List of Tentative and Potential Permits and Approvals:

Forest Service

  1.     Plan of Operations
  2.     Special Use Permits (Right-of-Ways)

Bureau of  Land Management (BLM)

  1.     Plan of Operations
  2.     Special Use Permits (Right-of-Ways)

Army Corps of Engineers

  1.     Section 404 Permit -  Federal Clean Water Act (Dredge and Fill)

Environmental Protection Agency

  1.     Spill Prevention  Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan
  2.     Review of Section 404 Permit
  3.     Notification of Hazardous Waste Activity

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

  1.     Threatened and  Endangered Species Consultation (Section 7)
  2.     Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Consultation

Federal Communications Commission

  1.     Radio Authorizations

Treasury Department (Department of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms)

  1.     Explosives User Permit

-------
Mine Safety and Health Administration

  1.     Mine Identification Number
  2.     Legal Identity Report
  3.     Miner Training Plan Approval

Washington Department of Ecology (WADOE)

  1.     National Pollutant  Discharge Elimination  System (NPDES)
  2.     State Waste Discharge Permit
  3.     General Industrial Stormwater Permit
  4.     Water Quality Standards  Modification
  5.     Authorization to Change  Existing Water  Rights
  6.     Water Right Permits (Surface and Ground Water)
  7.     Reservoir Permit
  8.     Dam Safety Permits
  9.     Water Quality Certification (Section 401  - Federal Clean Water Act)
 10.    Notice of Construction Approval (Air Quality)
 11.    Air Contaminant Source Operating Permit
 12.    Prevention of Significant  Deterioration (PSD) - (Air Quality)
 13.    Dangerous Waste Permit
 14.    Burning Permit

Washington Department of Natural Resources  (WADNR)

  1.     Surface Mine Reclamation Permit
  2.     Forest Practices Application (Private and State lands)
  3.     Burning Permit (Fire Protection and Slash Disposal)

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WADFW)

  1.     Hydraulic Project Approval

Washington Department of Community  Development, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation

  1.     Historic and Archaeological Review (Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966)

Washington Department of Health

  1.     Sewage Disposal Permit
  2.     Public Water Supply Approval

Okanoqan County

  1.     Shoreline Permit
  2.     Conditional Use Permit
  3.     Zoning Requirements
  4.     Building Permits
  5.     Maximum  Environmental  Noise Levels
  6.     Road Construction and/or Realignment

Okanogan  County  Health District

  1.    Solid Waste Handling
  2.     Sewage Disposal Permit

Okanogan  Public Utility District (PUD)

  1.     Power Service Contact

-------
Authors and Principal Contributors:

The following are Agency individuals who were either reviewers or principal contributors to the preparation of the
Crown Jewel  Project draft EIS:

Forest Service

Mel Bennett - Forest Hydrologist
Craig Bobzien - District Ranger
William Butler - Engineer
Jessie Childs  Dole - Landscape Architect, Recreation
Phil Christy - NEPA Coordinator
Dick Coppock - Mineral Field Inspector
Mark Deleon  - Cultural Resources
Oren B. Erickson  - Forest Landscape Architect
Jan Flatten - Forest NEPA Coordinator
George Halekas - Wildlife Biologist
Jean A. Lavell - Wildlife Biologist
Rod Lentz  - Area  Mining Geologist
Larry Loftis - Botanist
Don Lyon - Planning/Minerals Staff  Okanogan National Forest
Kenneth J. Radek - Forest Soil Scientist
William Randall -  Supervisory Forestry Technician
John Ridlington - Mineral Coordinator
Don Rose - District Silviculturist, District Ranger
Joe Sanchez  - Timber Management, Ranger,  Soils, Water Air Quality and Lands Staff Officer
Pete Soderquist - District Ranger
James V. Spotts  - Fisheries Biologist
Kent Woodruff - Wildlife Biologist
Elaine Zieroth - Wildlife Biologist,  District Ranger

Washington Department of Ecology  (WADOE)

William Bafus - Economist
Bob Barwin - Water Quality Supervisor
Patricia Betts  - SEPA Coordinator
Jerald LaVassar - Geotechnical Engineer
Tom Luster - Water Quality  Certification
Tom Mackie - Hydrogeology
Katherine March - Wetlands Specialist
Andy McMillan - Wetlands Specialist
Robert L. Raforth -  Hydrogeologist
Fred Rajala - Water Resources
Robert D. Swackhamer - Air Quality
Polly Zehm - Hazardous Waste Reduction and Management

Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

Rich Baily - Archaeologist
George Brown - Geologist (Asst. Project Manager BLM)
Pamela Camp  - Botanist
Ralph Cornwall - District Forester
Kelly Courtright -  District Mining Engineer
Brent Cunderla - Geologist (Team Leader BLM)
Al Gardner - Silviculturist
Neal Hedges - Wildlife Biologist
Joel "Jake" Jakabosky - Environmental Protection Specialist
Tom Olsen - Geological Engineer (Hydrology)
Dana Peterson - Range Conservationist
Judy Thompson - Archaeologist
Bob Troiano -  Hydrologist
Gary Yeager -  Planning and Environmental Coordinator

-------
Washington Department of Natural Rosourc&s (W A PA I •'.

Ray Lasmanis - Manager of Mining, Geology & Reclamation
David Norman - Reclamation

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Tim Erkel - NEPA Compliance & Permitting
Tom Mueller - Chief, Regulatory Branch

The following are Contract individuals who were either reviewers or principal contributors to the preparation of the
Crown Jewel Project draft EIS:

TerraMatrix Inc.

Rich Burtell - Geochemistry/Hydrology
Karen Conrath - Graphics
Susan  Corser - Visuals, Recreation and Land Use
Alan Czarnowsky - Project Manager
Jay James - Assistant Project Manger
Alan Krause - Principal-in-Charge, Geotechnical
Suzanne Maddux  - Document Coordination/Word  Processing
Joe Nagengast  - Graphics
Tim Smith -  Graphics/Maps

Archaeological and Historical Services

Keo Boreson - Historical and Cultural
Dr. Jerry Galm - Archeology, Historical and Cultural
Charles Luttrell - Archaeology,  Historical and Cultural

A.G. Crook Company

George Berscheid - Vegetation and Wetlands, Streams and Fisheries
Philip Lee - Wildlife
Thomas Melville Sr. - Fisheries Programs Director
Rita Mroczek - Wetlands Program Manager

Cedar Creek Associates

Steve Long - Soils
Mike Phelan - Wildlife Biologist

ENSR Environmental

James Wilder - Air Quality/Meteorology and Noise

Hydro-Geo Consultants

Joe Frank - Surface Water Hydrology
Janet Shangraw - Water Quality/Water Rights
Vladimir Straskraba - Hydrogeology

Schafer and Associates

William M. Schafer  - Principal,  Soil Scientist
Ed Spotts - Senior Soil Chemist/Geochemist

E.D. Hovee and Company

Eric Hovee - Socioeconomics
John Koleda - Socioeconomics

-------
 Cascade Environmental Services

 John Blum - Fisheries Biologist
 Jean Caldwell - Fisheries Biologist

 Beak Consultants Incorporated

 Susan Barnes - Wildlife Biologist
 Randy Floyd - Wildlife Biologist
 Chuck Howe - Biologist/Forester
 Paul Whitney - Terrestrial Ecologist

 A listing of these individuals pertinent experience is set forth in Chapter 5.0, List of Preparers.

 Date of Issue of Draft EIS: June  30,  1995

 Date Comments Due:  August 29, 1995

 Public Meetings:

 Two  public information meetings to explain the proposal,  a formal public hearing to receive comments on the proposal,
 and 2 field trips to the Project site are planned during July and August. The public information meetings are scheduled
 for July 26, 1995 in Oroville, Washington; and July 27, 1995 in Tonasket, Washington from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. The
 formal public hearing,  to take comments on the draft  EIS, is scheduled for August 17, 1995 in Tonasket, Washington
 at 7:00 p.m.  The field trips are scheduled for July 29 and August 5, 1995  starting at 9:00 a.m. from the Oroville high
 school parking lot and lasting about 6 hours.  Bring a sack lunch for the field trips.

 Date of Issue of Final EIS:

 Projected  for March 1996.

 Agency Action:

 The primary State and Federal actions consists of the approval of necessary plans and permits to construct and
 operate the Crown Jewel  Project  mine an(J mill.  Permit application processing is proceeding  concurrently with
 preparation of this draft EIS.  No  State permits may be issued prior to 7 days after the final EIS is published.  No
 Federal approvals can  be issued or Federal permits approved until a minimum of 50 days after the publication of the
 Records of Decision (36 CFR 215).

 Subsequent Environmental Review:

 To  avoid unnecessary  duplication, this draft EIS is being prepared under requirements  of both the Washington State
 Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and  the National Environmental  Policy Act (NEPA). Lead agencies (WADOE & Forest
 Service) in coordination with cooperating agencies WADNR,  BLM, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) have worked
 together in order  that this document would contain the information they need to evaluate and  address environmental
 effects during decision making and  meet their statutory requirements.

 EIS Availability:

 Single copies of this draft EIS are available from the WADOE offices in Olympia and Yakima, Washington and the
 Forest Service offices in Tonasket and Okanogan, Washington.

The WADOE is an equal opportunity agency and does not  discriminate  on the basis of race, creed, color, disability,
age, religion,  national  origin, sex,  marital status, disabled veteran's status, Vietnam Era veteran's status or sexual
orientation.

If you have special accommodation  needs or require this document in alternative format, please contact Patricia Belts
at (360) 407-6925 (voice) or (360) 407-6006 (TDD).

-------

-------
                       Prepared by:

  U.S.D.A. Forest Service                  Department of Ecology
  Tonasket Ranger District                 Washington State
  1 West Winesap                        P.O. Box 47703
  Tonasket, Washington 98855             Olympia, Washington 98504-7703
                 CROWN JEWEL MINE

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

                       June 1995
                      Assembled by:

                TerraMatrix (formerly ACZ Inc.)
                     P.O. Box 774018
                   1475 Pine Grove Road
                Steamboat Springs, CO 80477

-------

-------
 June 1995      	             CROWN JEWEL MINE	                  page i

                                   TABLE OF CONTENTS
 1.0  PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION	       1-1
         1.1     INTRODUCTION	'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.  1-1
         1.2     BACKGROUND	        	  !-1
         1.3     PROPOSED ACTION	\	  1 _1
         1.4     PURPOSE AND NEED 	   ' '  ' '  1.3
         1.5     DECISIONS TO BE MADE	  1-3
         1.6     OKANOGAN FOREST PLAN COMPLIANCE	  1-5
         1.7     SPOKANE DISTRICT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN COMPLIANCE  ....         1-6
         1.8     PERMITS AND APPROVALS NEEDED 	  1-7
                1.8.1    Performance Standards  	  1-7
         1.9     SCOPING AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT	'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.  1-7
                1.9.1    Agency Meetings and Scoping  	  1-9
                1.9.2    Public Scoping  	  1-9
                1.9.3    Interdisciplinary Team  	     1-10
         1.10    ISSUES AND CONCERNS  	'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.  1-10
                1.10.1   Air Quality  	  1 _11
                1.10.2   Heritage Resources and Native American Issues	  1-11
                1.10.3   Geology and Geotechnical (Key Issue)  	  1-11
                1.10.4   Geochemistry (Key Issue)	  1-11
                1.10.5   Energy	  1_11
                1.10.6   Noise	'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.  1-12
                1.10.7   Soils (Key Issue)  	' '     1-12
                1.10.8   Surface Water and Ground Water (Key Issue)  	  1-12
                1.10.9   Reclamation (Key Issue)	  1-12
                1.10.10  Use of Hazardous Chemicals (Key Issue)	  1-12
                1.10.11  Vegetation (Key Issue)	  1-13
                1.10.12  Wetlands (Key Issue)	' ^  1-13
                1.10.13  Wildlife Habitat and Populations (Key Issue)  	  1-13
                1.10.14  Fish Habitat and Populations	  1-13
                1.10.15  Recreation  	  1_14
                1.10.16  Land Use 	'.'.'.'.'.'.'.  1-14
                1.10.17  Socioeconomics (Key Issue)  	  1-14
                1.10.18  Scenic Resources 	       1-14
                1.10.19  Health/Safety  	'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.  1-14
                1.10.20  Transportation  	  1-15
        1.11     ISSUES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS EIS/NO VARIATION BETWEEN
                ALTERNATIVES	  1 _1 5
                1.11.1   Eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers  	  1-15
                1.11.2   Trails  (Protection, Maintenance, and Expansion of the Trail Network) ....  1-15

2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION  	             1
        2.1      FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES  	'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.  2
                2.1.1    Identification of Project Components  	  2
                2.1.2    Development of Options	  2
                2.1.3    Selection of Options   	  3
                2.1.4    Management, Mitigation and Monitoring	  3
                2.1.5    Project Alternative Comparison  	                     3
        2.2      PROJECT COMPONENTS AND OPTIONS	  8
                2.2.1   Project Location  	  8
                2.2.2   Mining Methods  	       8
                2.2.3   Operating Schedule	   10
                    Crown Jewel Mine $ Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page ii                                TABLE OF CON Ti-i  :• :'

                 2.2.4    Production Schedule  	   11
                 2.2.5    Waste Rock Disposal	   13
                 2.2.6    Ore Processing  	   17
                 2.2.7    Grinding	   17
                 2.2.8    Ore Processing Methods	   19
                 2.2.9    Off-Site Processing 	   24
                 2.2.10  Gold Recovery  	   24
                 2.2.11   Cyanide Destruction	   26
                 2.2.12  Tailings Disposal	   31
                 2.2.13  Tailings Disposal Locations	   34
                 2.2.14  Tailings Embankment Design and Construction  	   38
                 2.2.15  Tailings Liner System Design	   38
                 2.2.16  Employee Transportation  	   40
                 2.2.17  Supply Transportation  	   41
                 2.2.18  Water Use  	   44
                 2.2.19  Water Supply  	   46
                 2.2.20  Water Storage	   47
                 2.2.21   Power Supply	   49
                 2.2.22  Fuel Storage	   50
                 2.2.23  Sanitary Waste Disposal	   50
                 2.2.24  Solid Waste Disposal	   50
                 2.2.25  Reclamation  	   51
        2.3      PROJECT ALTERNATIVES	   53
        2.4      ALTERNATIVE A - NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE	   53
        2.5      ALTERNATIVE B - PROPOSED ACTION	   54
                 2.5.1    Mining Techniques	   54
                 2.5.2    Waste Rock Disposal	   54
                 2.5.3    Ore Processing  	   54
                 2.5.4    Tailings Disposal	   54
                 2.5.5    Area of Disturbance	   54
                 2.5.6    Project Life	   57
                 2.5.7    Employment	   57
                 2.5.8    Supply Transportation  	   57
                 2.5.9    Reclamation  	   57
                 2.5.10  Ore Recovery  	   57
        2.6      ALTERNATIVE C   	   57
                 2.6.1    Underground Mining Techniques  	   59
                 2.6.2    Underground Development Exploration	   61
                 2.6.3    General Mine Development	   61
                 2.6.4   Underground Development Rock  Disposal	   61
                 2.6.5    Surface Quarries	   61
                 2.6.6   Mine Ventilation 	   61
                 2.6.7    Ore Processing  	   62
                 2.6.8   Tailings Disposal	   62
                 2.6.9   Area of Disturbance	   62
                 2.6.10  Project Life	   62
                 2.6.11  Employment	   62
                 2.6.12  Supply Transportation  	   62
                 2.6.13  Reclamation   	   62
                 2.6.14  Ore Recovery  	   63
        2.7      ALTERNATIVE D  	   63
                 2.7.1    Mining Techniques	   63
                 2.7.2   Waste Rock Disposal	   63
                 2.7.3   Mine Ventilation  	   63
                 2.7.4   Ore Processing 	   66

-------
June 1995                            CROWN JEWEL MINE                                Page Hi
                 2.7.5    Tailings Disposal	   66
                 2.7.6    Area of Disturbance	   66
                 2.7.7    Project Life	   66
                 2.7.8    Employment	   66
                 2.7.9    Supply Transportation  	   66
                 2.7.10   Reclamation 	   66
                 2.7.11   Ore Recovery 	   67
        2.8      ALTERNATIVE E	   67
                 2.8.1    Mining Techniques	   67
                 2.8.2    Waste Rock Disposal	   67
                 2.8.3    Ore Processing 	   70
                 2.8.4    Tailings Disposal	   70
                 2.8.5    Area of Disturbance	   70
                 2.8.6    Project Life	   70
                 2.8.7    Employment	   70
                 2.8.8    Supply Transportation  	   70
                 2.8.9    Reclamation 	   70
                 2.8.10   Ore Recovery 	   71
        2.9      ALTERNATIVE F	\   71
                 2.9.1    Mining Techniques	   71
                 2.9.2    Waste Rock Disposal	   71
                 2.9.3    Ore Processing 	   71
                 2.9.4    Tailings Disposal	   74
                 2.9.5    Area of Disturbance	   74
                 2.9.6    Project Life	   74
                 2.9.7    Employment	   74
                 2.9.8    Supply Transportation  	   74
                 2.9.9    Reclamation  	   74
                 2.9.10   Ore Recovery 	   75
        2.10     ALTERNATIVE G  	\\   75
                 2.10.1    Mining Techniques	   75
                 2.10.2   Waste Rock Disposal	   75
                 2.10.3   Ore Processing 	   75
                 2.10.4   Off-Site Shipment of Flotation Concentrates  	   78
                 2.10.5   Tailings Disposal	   78
                 2.10.6   Area of Disturbance	   78
                 2.10.7   Project Life	   73
                 2.10.8   Employment	   78
                 2.10.9   Supply Transportation   	   79
                 2.10.10  Reclamation  	   79
                 2.10.11  Ore Recovery  	         79
        2.11      RECLAMATION MEASURES	'.'.'.'.'.'.'.   79
                 2.11.1    Introduction  	   80
                 2.11.2    Reclamation Goals and Objectives  	   80
                 2.11.3    Reclamation Schedule   	   80
                2.11.4    General Reclamation Procedures  	   81
                2.11.5    Reclamation Guarantees	  85
        2.12     MANAGEMENT AND MITIGATION  	'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.  85
                2.12.1    Air Quality   	\\\\  86
                2.12.2    Heritage Resources  	  87
                2.12.3    Cyanide and Other Chemicals 	  87
                2.12.4    Spill Prevention, Hazardous Materials, Fire Prevention and First Aid  	  87
                2.12.5    Geochemistry - Acid or Toxic Forming Capability	  89
                2.12.6    Geology and Geotechnical	             90
                2.12.7    Land Use  	'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.  90

-------
Page iv                               TABLE OF CONTENTS

                 2.12.8   Noise	   91
                 2.12.9   Permitting and Financial Assurances  	   91
                 2.12.10  Recreation  	   91
                 2.12.11  Socioeconomics  	   92
                 2.12.12  Soils 	   92
                 2.12.13  Surface Water and Ground Water - Quality and Quantity	   92
                 2.12.14  Transportation  	   94
                 2.12.15  Vegetation 	   95
                 2.12.16  Wetlands 	   96
                 2.12.17  Scenic Resources  	   99
                 2.12.18  Wildlife and Fish 	100
                 2.12.19  Employee Training	103
                 2.12.20  Waste Management	103
                 2.12.21  Showcase Agreement 	104
        2.13     MONITORING MEASURES	104
                 2.13.1   Water Resources	104
                 2.13.2   Air Quality Monitoring 	105
                 2.13.3   Geotechnical  Monitoring	106
                 2.13.4   Geochemical  Monitoring	106
                 2.13.5   Wildlife and Fish Monitoring  	106
                 2.13.6   Timber  Monitoring	107
                 2.13.7   Noxious Weed Monitoring	107
                 2.13.8   Transportation Monitoring	  107
                 2.12.9   Reclamation Monitoring  	  107
                 2.13.10  Soil Replacement Monitoring	108
                 2.13.11  Reporting	108
        2.14     COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES	  108

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT	  3-1
        3.1      AIR QUALITY/CLIMATE	  3-1
                 3.1.1    Introduction  	  3-1
                 3.1.2    Air Quality 	  3-1
                 3.1.3    Climate  	  3-2
        3.2      TOPOGRAPHY/PHYSIOGRAPHY	  3-5
        3.3      GEOLOGY/GEOCHEMISTRY	  3-5
                 3.3.1    Introduction  	  3-5
                 3.3.2    Site Geology	  3-7
                 3.3.3    Geochemistry	  3-7
        3.4      GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS	  3-26
        3.5      SOILS	  3-26
                 3.5.1    Introduction  	  3-26
                 3.5.2    General Soil Properties	  3-26
                 3.5.3    Reclamation Suitability of Soils of the Study Area  	  3-33
                 3.5.4    Erosion Hazard of Soils of the Study Area	  3-33
        3.6      SURFACE WATER 	  3-33
                 3.6.1    Introduction  	  3-33
                 3.6.2    Regional Surface Water Hydrology . . ,	  3-33
                 3.6.3    Regional Surface Water Quality	  3-37
                 3.6.4    Project Area Surface Water Hydrology  	  3-37
                 3.6.5    Site Surface Water Quality 	  3-48
        3.7      SPRINGS AND SEEPS	  3-53
                 3.7.1    Introduction  	  3-53
                 3.7.2    Location and  Description  	  3-55
                 3.7.3    Water Quantity	  3-59
                 3.7.4    Water Quality	  3-59
                      Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995                          CROWN JEWEL MINE                             Page v
3.7.5 Origin 	
3.8 GROUND WATER 	
3.8.1 Introduction 	
3.8.2 Regional Hydrogeology 	
3.8.3 Project Area Hydrogeology 	
3.8.4 Ground Water Quality 	
3.8.5 Seasonal Trends In Ground Water Quality 	
3.8.6 Influence of Past Mining on Ground Water 	
3.8.7 Relation of Ground Water and Surface Water Systems 	
3.9 WATER SUPPLY RESOURCES 	
3.9.1 Introduction 	
3.9.2 Ground Water 	
3.9.3 Surface Water 	
3.10 VEGETATION 	
3.10.1 Introduction 	
3.10.2 Upland Plant Community 	
3.10.3 Forest Resource 	
3.10.4 Noxious Weeds 	
3.10.5 Threatened and Endangered Plant Species 	
3.10.6 Range Resource 	
3.1 1 WETLANDS 	
3.11.1 Introduction 	
3.1 1 .2 Wetland Plant Community 	
3.12 AQUATIC RESOURCES 	
3.12.1 Introduction 	
3.12.2 Survey Methodology 	
3.12.3 Myers Creek 	
3.12.4 Gold Creek 	
3.12.5 Marias Creek 	
3.12.6 Nicholson Creek 	
3.12.7 North Fork of Nicholson Creek 	
3.12.8 Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Fisheries Species 	
3.12.9 Benthic Macro-Invertebrates 	
3.12.10 Instream Flow Incremental Methodology 	
3.13 WILDLIFE 	
3.13.1 Introduction 	
3.13.2 Habitat Overview 	
3.13.3 Land Use/Disturbance 	
3.13.4 Other Aspects of the Biological Environment 	
3.13.5 Wildlife Species 	
3.13.6 Endangered, Threatened, Candidate, and Sensitive Species ....
3.14 NOISE 	
3.14.1 Introduction 	
3.14.2 Baseline Noise Levels 	
3.14.3 Temperature Inversion Study 	
3.14.4 Noise Regulations 	
3. 1 5 RECREATION 	
3.15.1 Introduction 	
3.15.2 Current Management Direction 	
3.15.3 Recreation Resources 	
3.1 5.4 Recreation Activities 	
3.16 SCENIC RESOURCES 	
3.16.1 Introduction 	
3.16.2 Visual Management System 	
3.16.3 Project Area Description 	
	 3-61
	 3-61
	 3-61
	 3-61
	 3-63
	 3-69
	 3-73
	 3-73
	 3-77
	 3-81
	 3-81
	 3-81
	 3-81
	 3-82
	 3-82
	 3-82
	 3-84
	 3-84
	 3-84
	 3-86
	 3-86
	 3-86
	 3-86
	 3-87
	 3-87
	 3-87
	 3-91
	 3-93
	 3-93
	 3-95
	 3-95
	 3-96
	 3-96
	 3-100
	 3-102
	 3-102
	 3-108
	 3-113
	 3-115
	 3-116
	 3-131
	 3-142
	 3-142
	 3-142
	 3-144
	 3-147
	 3-149
	 3-149
	 3-149
	 3-149
	 3-151
	 3-155
	 3-155
	 3-156
	 3-159
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page vi                               TABLE OF CONTENTS                             June 1995
                 3.16.4  View Corridors and Viewpoints	3-159
                 3.16.5  Summary	3-168
         3.17    HERITAGE RESOURCES  	3-168
                 3.17.1  Introduction  	3-168
                 3.17.2  Prehistory	3-170
                 3.17.3  History	3-171
                 3.17.4  Known Heritage Resources in Project Area  	3-171
         3.18    TRANSPORTATION  	3-174
                 3.18.1  Introduction  	3-174
                 3.18.2  Major Transportation Routes	3-174
                 3.18.3  Project Access Routes	3-180
                 3.18.4  On-Site  Roads	3-182
         3.19    LAND USE	3-182
                 3.19.1  Introduction  	3-182
                 3.19.2  Crown Jewel Exploration Activities  	3-182
                 3.19.3  Historic  and Present Timber Operations  	3-184
                 3.19.4  Proposed Timber Operations	3-184
                 3.19.5  Agricultural Activities	3-191
                 3.19.6  Residential Activities 	3-191
                 3.19.7  Recreation  	3-191
                 3.19.8  Patenting of Crown Jewel Mining Claims  	3-191
         3.20    SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT	3-193
                 3.20.1  Introduction  	3-193
                 3.20.2  Population &  Demographics  	3-193
                 3.20.3  Housing	3-196
                 3.20.4  Employment	3-1 99
                 3.20.5  Income	3-1 99
                 3.20.6  Community & Public Services  	3-203
                 3.20.7  Fiscal Conditions	3-207
                 3.20.8  Social Values  	3-214
                 3.20.9  Land Ownership & Values	3-216

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES  	   4-1
         4.1      AIR QUALITY	   4-1
                 4.1.1    Summary	   4-1
                 4.1.2    Air  Quality Regulations Applicable to All Alternatives  	   4-2
                 4.1.3    Effects of Alternative A (No Action)	   4-3
                 4.1.4    Effects Common to All Action Alternatives  	   4-3
                 4.1.5    Effects of Alternatives B and E  	   4-5
                 4.1.6    Effects of Alternative C  	   4-8
                 4.1.7    Effects of Alternative D  	   4-8
                 4.1.8    Effects of Alternative F	   4-8
                 4.1.9    Effects of Alternative G  	   4-8
                 4.1.10  Cumulative Effects	   4-8
                 4.1.11  Climate   	   4-8
         4.2      TOPOGRAPHY/PHYSIOGRAPHY	   4-9
                 4.2.1    Summary	   4-9
                 4.2.2    Effects of Alternative A (No Action)	   4-9
                 4.2.3    Effects Common to All Action Alternatives  	   4-9
                 4.2.4    Effects of Alternative B  	  4-10
                 4.2.5    Effects of Alternative C  	  4-10
                 4.2.6    Effects of Alternative D  	  4-10
                 4.2.7    Effects of Alternative E	  4-10
                 4.2.8    Effects of Alternative F	  4-11
                 4.2.9    Effects of Alternative G  	  4-11
                      Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995    	^	CROWN JEWEL MINE	              Page vii

         4.3      GEOLOGY	  4-11
                 4.3.1    Summary	  4-11
                 4.3.2    Effects of Alternative A (No Action)	  4-11
                 4.3.3    Effects Common to All Action Alternatives  	  4-11
         4.4      GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS	  4-12
                 4.4.1    Summary	  4-12
                 4.4.2    Effects of Alternative A (No Action)	  4-12
                 4.4.3    Effects Common to All Action Alternatives  	  4-12
                 4.4.4    Effects of Alternative B  	  4-17
                 4.4.5    Effects of Alternative C  	  4-17
                 4.4.6    Effects of Alternative D  	  4-18
                 4.4.7    Effects of Alternative E  	  4-18
                 4.4.8    Effects of Alternative F  	  4-18
                 4.4.9    Effects of Alternative G  	  4-18
         4.5      SOILS	  4-18
                 4.5.1    Summary	  4-18
                 4.5.2    Effects of Alternative A (No Action)	  4-19
                 4.5.3    Effects Common to All Action Alternatives  	  4-19
                 4.5.4    Effects of Alternative B  	  4-22
                 4.5.5    Effects of Alternative C  	  4-23
                 4.5.6    Effects of Alternative D  	  4-23
                 4.5.7    Effects of Alternative E	  4-24
                 4.5.8    Effects of Alternative F	  4-24
                 4.5.9    Effects of Alternative G  	  4-24
         4.6      GROUND WATER, SPRINGS AND SEEPS	  4-25
                 4.6.1    Summary	  4_25
                 4.6.2    Effects of Alternative A (No Action)  	  4-25
                 4.6.3    Effects Common to All Action Alternatives  	  4-26
                 4.6.4    Effects of Alternative B  	  4-32
                 4.6.5    Effects of Alternative C  	  4-38
                 4.6.6    Effects of Alternative D  	  4.39
                 4.6.7    Effects of Alternative E	  4-40
                 4.6.8    Effects of Alternative F	  4-41
                 4.6.9    Effects of Alternative G  	  4-43
        4.7      SURFACE WATER 	'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.  4-43
                 4.7.1    Summary	  4-43
                 4.7.2    Effects of Alternative A (No Action)	  4-44
                 4.7.3    Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 	  4-46
                 4.7.4    Effects of Alternative B  	  4-50
                 4.7.5    Effects of Alternative C  	  4-51
                 4.7.6   Effects of Alternative D  	  4.53
                 4.7.7   Effects of Alternative E	  4.53
                 4.7.8   Effects of Alternative F	  4.54
                 4.7.9   Effects of Alternative G  	               4.55
        4.8      WATER SUPPLY RESOURCES AND WATER RIGHTS	               ' '  4-56
        4.9      VEGETATION	  4.57
                 4.9.1    Summary	  4-57
                 4.9.2   Effects of Alternative A (No Action)	  4-58
                 4.9.3   Effects Common to All Action Alternatives  	  4-58
                 4.9.4   Effects of Alternative B  	  4-61
                 4.9.5   Effects of Alternative C  	   4-62
                 4.9.6   Effects of Alternative D  	   4-62
                 4.9.7   Effects of Alternative E	   4-62
                 4.9.8   Effects of Alternative F	   4-62
                 4.9.9   Effects of Alternative G 	   4-62
                      Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page viii                               TABLE OF CONTENTS                             June 1995

         4.10    WETLANDS	  4-63
                 4.10.1   Summary	  4-63
                 4.10.2   Effects of Alternative A (No Action)	  4-63
                 4.10.3   Effects Common to All Action Alternatives  	  4-64
                 4.10.4   Effects of Alternative B  	  4-65
                 4.10.5   Effects of Alternative C  	  4-65
                 4.10.6   Effects of Alternative D  	  4-66
                 4.10.7   Effects of Alternative E	  4-66
                 4.10.8   Effects of Alternative F	  4-66
                 4.10.9   Effects of Alternative G  	  4-66
         4.11    AQUATIC HABITATS AND POPULATIONS	  4-66
                 4.11.1   Summary	  4-66
                 4.11.2   Effects of Alternative A (No Action)	  4-67
                 4.11.3   Effects Common to All Action Alternatives  	  4-67
                 4.11.4   Effects of Alternatives B, C, D, and E	  4-70
                 4.11.5   Effects of Alternative F  	  4-70
                 4.11.6   Effects of Alternative G  	  4-70
                 4.11.7   Instream Flow Incremental
         Methodology  	  4-70
         4.12    WILDLIFE HABITATS AND POPULATIONS	  4-71
                 4.12.1   Summary	  4-71
                 4.12.2   Effects of Alternative A  	  4-73
                 4.12.3   Effects Common to All Alternatives 	  4-74
                 4.12.4   Toxics	  4-87
                 4.12.5   Cumulative Effects	  4-91
                 4.12.6   Forest Plan Compliance  	  4-93
                 4.12.7   Proposed,  Endangered,  Threatened and Sensitive Species	  4-99
                 4.12.8   HEP  Consequences	4-100
         4.13    NOISE	4-101
                 4.13.1   Summary	4-101
                 4.13.2   Affects of Alternative A (No Action)	4-104
                 4.13.3   Effects Common to All Action Alternatives  	4-104
                 4.13.4   Effects of Alternative B  	4-110
                 4.13.5   Effects of Alternative C  	4-114
                 4.13.6   Effects of Alternative D  	4-116
                 4.13.7   Effects of Alternative E	4-116
                 4.13.8   Effects of Alternative F	4-116
                 4.13.9   Effects of Alternative G  	4-117
         4.14    RECREATION	4-117
                 4.14.1   Summary	4-117
                 4.14.2   Effects of Alternative A (No Action)	4-118
                 4.14.3   Effects Common to All Alternatives 	4-118
                 4.14.4   Effects of Alternative B  	4-120
                 4.14.5   Effects of Alternative C  	4-121
                 4.14.6   Effects of Alternative D  	4-121
                 4.14.7   Effects of Alternative E	4-121
                 4.14.8   Effects of Alternative F	4-122
                 4.14.9   Effects of Alternative G  	4-122
         4.1 5    SCENIC RESOURCES  	4-1 22
                 4.15.1   Summary	4-123
                 4.15.2   Effects of Alternative A (No Action)	4-123
                 4.15.3   Effects Common to All Action Alternatives  	4-123
                 4.15.4   Effects of Alternative B  	4-125
                 4.15.5   Effects of Alternative C  	4-130
                 4.15.6   Effects of Alternative D  	4-130
                                   ' Mine * Draft Etiviranmgntai Impact Statement

-------
 June 1995	CROWN JEWEL MINE    	      Page ix

                 4.15.7  Effects of Alternative E	4-132
                 4.15.8  Effects of Alternative F	4-132
                 4.15.9  Effects of Alternative G  	4-136
         4.16    HERITAGE RESOURCES  	4-136
                 4.16.1   Summary	4-136
                 4.16.2  Effects of Alternative A (No Action)	4-136
                 4.16.3  Effects Common to All Action Alternatives  	4-136
                 4.16.4  Effects of Alternatives B, C, and D	4-138
                 4.16.5  Effects of Alternative E, F, and G	4-138
         4.17    TRANSPORTATION  	4-138
                 4.17.1   Summary	4-138
                 4.17.2  Effects of Alternative A (No Action)	4-141
                 4.17.3  Effects Common to All Action Alternatives  	4-142
                 4.17.4  Effects of Alternative B  	4-145
                 4.17.5  Effects of Alternative C  	4-146
                 4.17.6  Effects of Alternative D  	4-147
                 4.17.7  Effects of Alternative E	4-148
                 4.17.8  Effects of Alternative F	4-149
                 4.17.9  Effects of Alternative G  	4-150
         4.18    LAND USE/RECLAMATION 	4-151
                 4.18.1   Summary	4-151
                 4.18.2   Effects of Alternative A (No Action)	4-151
                 4.18.3   Effects Common to All Action Alternatives  	4-151
                 4.18.4   Effects of Alternative B  	4-1 53
                 4.18.5   Effects of Alternative C  	4-153
                 4.1 8.6   Effects of Alternative D  	4-1 53
                 4.18.7   Effects of Alternative E	4-153
                 4.18.8   Effects of Alternative F	4-154
                 4.18.9   Effects of Alternative G  	4-154
         4.19     SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT	4-154
                 4.19.1   Summary	4-154
                 4.19.2   Effects of Alternative A (No Action)  	4-1 54
                 4.19.3   Comparative Effects  Common to All Action Alternatives   	4-157
         4.20     ENERGY  CONSUMPTION AND CONSERVATION	4-174
         4.21     MINING ECONOMICS 	4-174
                 4.21.1   Introduction 	4-1 74
                 4.21.2   Mine Expansion  	4-177
                 4.21.3   Economic Analysis of the Alternatives 	      4-177
         4.22     ACCIDENTS AND SPILLS  	4-178
                 4.22.1   Water Reservoir Rupture	4-180
                 4.22.2   Tailings Dam Failure	4-180
                 4.22.3   Transportation Spill  	4-182
        4.23     IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE  COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES	4-185
                 4.23.1    Irreversible Resource Commitment	4-185
                 4.23.2   Irretrievable Resource Commitments	4-185
        4.24     UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS  	4-186
        4.25     SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY	'.'.'.'. 4-186

5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 	     5.1
        5.1       INTRODUCTION	  5-1
        5.2     U.S.D.A.  FOREST SERVICE	'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.  5-1
        5.3     WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY  	      5-2
        5.4     BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT	'.'.'.'.'.'.  5-3
        5.5     WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES  	  5-4
        5.6     U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS  	  5-4

-------
Page x                              TABLE OF CONTENTS                           June 1995

        5.7     TERRAMATRIX INC	  5-5
        5.8     ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL SERVICES	  5-5
        5.9     A.G. CROOK COMPANY	  5-6
        5.10    CEDAR CREEK ASSOCIATES	  5-6
        5.11    ENSR CONSULTING AND ENGINEERING	  5-6
        5.12    HYDRO-GEO CONSULTANTS	  5-6
        5.13    SCHAFER AND ASSOCIATES   	  5-7
        5.14    E.D. HOVEE & COMPANY	  5-7
        5.1 5    BEAK CONSULTANTS	  5-7
        5.16    CASCADES ENVIRONMENTAL  SERVICES	  5-7

6.0  REFERENCES  	  6-1

7.0  GLOSSARY	  7-1

8.0  LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS & INDIVIDUALS
     TO WHOM COPIES OF THE  DEIS WERE SENT  	  8-1
        8.1     FEDERAL AGENCIES	  8-2
        8.2     STATE  GOVERNMENT 	  8-3
        8.3     COUNTY & LOCAL GOVERNMENT	  8-3
        8.4     TRIBAL OFFICIALS	  8-3
        8.5     CANADIAN  GOVERNMENT 	  8-3
        8.6     ELECTED OFFICIALS	  8-4
        8.7     BUSINESS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS  	  8-4

9.0  INDEX 	  9-1


                                     LIST OF TABLES
Number         Title                                                                      Page

1.1     List of Tentative and Potential Permits and Approvals	  1-8
2.1     Alternative Comparison Summary  	  2-4
2.2     Summary of Cyanide Treatment Processes  	  2-32
2.3     Results of Treatability Testing	  2-33
2.4     Materials and Supplies	  2-43
2.5     Consumables Estimate - Underground Mining  	  2-44
2.6     Estimated Water Use Requirements  	  2-45
2.7     Summary of Alternative B	  2-56
2.8     Summary of Alternative C	  2-60
2.9     Summary of Alternative D	  2-65
2.10    Summary of Alternative E	  2-69
2.11    Summary of Alternative F	  2-73
2.12    Summary of Alternative G	  2-77
2.13    Flotation Reagents	  2-78
2.14    Summary of Impacts by Alternative for Each Issue	2-109
3.1.1    Weather Data  	  3-4
3.1.2   Predicted Rainfall  Intensities 	  3-7
3.3.1    Waste Rock Percentages for the EIS Alternatives	  3-12
3.3.2   Average and Range of ABA Values for Waste Rock 	  3-15
3.3.3   Average Total  Waste Rock ABA Values for the Crown Jewel Project  	  3-16
3.3.4   Summary of Additional HCT Leachate Analyses	  3-19
3.3.5   ABA Results for Ore Samples 	  3-21
                     Crown Jewel Mine t Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 7995                             CROWN JEWEL MINE                                Page xi

3.3.6    ABA Results for Tailings Solids	  3-22
3.3.7    Analysis of Tailings Liquid	  3-23
3.5.1     Soil Characteristics Summary 	  3-31
3.5.2    Soil Salvage Depth Summary 	  3-34
3.6.1     Regional Surface Water Discharge Summary	  3-36
3.6.2    Stream Classification Summary	  3-42
3.6.3    Summary of Hydrologic Flow Data	  3-43
3.6.4    Flow Monitoring History	  3-47
3.6.5    Water Quality Monitoring History	  3-49
3.6.6    Water Quality Analytical Methods 	  3-50
3.7.1     Spring and Seep Investigation Summary	  3-56
3.8.1     Summary of Historic Mine Workings	  3-75
3.10.1   Plant Associations in Crown Jewel Vegetation Study Area  	  3-85
3.10.2   Estimated Timber Volume	  3-85
3.11.1   Summary of Wetland Areas  	  3-90
3.12.1   Stream Habitat Units and Description	  3-91
3.12.2   Benthic Macroinvertebrate Biological Integrity Assessment Parameters  	  3-98
3.12.3   Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Comparison	  3-99
3.12.4   IFIM Transects and Habitat Description	3-102
3.13.1   Acreages of Cover Types and Land Types  in the Crown Jewel Core and Analysis Areas  .... 3-112
3.13.2   Wildlife Species List	3-118
3.13.3   Bat Detection  in or Near the Analysis Area  	3-124
3.14.1   Measured Background Noise Levels	3-147
3.14.2   Allowable Noise Levels at Residential and Non-Residential Receiving  Property  	3-148
3.14.3   Recommended Maximum Noise Impacts at Recreational Areas	3-148
3.1 5.1   Recreation Use - Forest Service Facilities  	3-155
3.17.1   Buckhorn Mountain Mining Properties Identified by Survey and Historic Research	3-172
3.17.2   Buckhorn Mountain Mining Properties Identified by Historic Research	3-178
3.17.3   Heritage Resources Identified by Survey at Powerline Route and Related
         Construction Feature	3-179
3.19.1   Crown Jewel Exploration Summary  	3-188
3.19.2   Past Timber Sales in the Crown Jewel Project Area 	3-190
3.20.1   Population Trends (1970-1992)	3-195
3.20.2   1990 Housing Characteristics	3-197
3.20.3   1990 Labor Force and Employment Data	3-202
3.20.4   1990 Household Income Data	3-202
3.20.5   1990 Employment and Wages Paid by Industry (Okanogan and Ferry County)  	3-204
3.20.6   1992 School Enrollment by Grade	3-204
3.20.7   Okanogan and Ferry County Electric Utility Data  	3-208
3.20.8   County Government Revenues and Expenditures  	3-211
4.1.1     Summary of Fugitive Dust Emmissions by  Alternative	   4-2
4.1.2    Peak-Year Emissions for the Operations Phase (Alternative B)  	   4-4
4.1.3    Comparison of PM-10 Emissions for Project Alternatives	   4-6
4.2.1     Acreage Impacts of Major Facilities  	  4-10
4.4.1     Waste Rock Disposal Areas - Calculated Factors of Safety	  4-14
4.4.2     Flow Failure Consequences - Waste Rock Disposal Areas  	  4-15
4.4.3     Slope Angle Versus Erosion Potential	  4-16
4.5.1     Summary of Resoiling Considerations  	  4-20
4.5.2     Summary of Mine Component Erosion Rates by Alternative	  4-20
4.6.1     Springs and Seeps with Potential Flow Reductions from Mining Operations	  4-29
4.6.2     Comparison of Predicted Water Quality Conditions in the
         Proposed Open Pit to Washington Ground  Water Quality Criteria  	  4-35
4.6.3     Predicted Ground Water Contaminant Concentrations Downgradient
         of a Release from the Tailings Impoundment Assuming Worst Case Conditions  	  4-37
4.7.1     Summary of Impacts of Mining on Buckhorn  Mountain	  4-45
                      Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page xii                               TABLE OF CONTENTS
4.7.2   Comparison of Predicted Water Quality Conditions in the Proposed
        Open Pit to Washington Aquatic Life Criteria	  4-52
4.8.1   Water Right Applications for Crown Jewel Project	  4-57
4.9.1   Sensitive Plants Impacted by Alternative	  4-59
4.10.1  Wetlands Direct Impact Acreage  	  4-64
4.12.1  Status of Reclamation Within the Alternative Footprints  	  4-76
4.12.2  Loss of Cover Types (Acres) in the Core Area by Alternative	  4-76
4.12.3  Comparison of Forest Succession on Buckhorn Mountain Under Reclaimed
        and Natural Scenarios  	  4-78
4.12.4  Impacts to Habitat within the Core Area by Selected Wildlife Species
        and Alternative	  4-81
4.12.5  Risk or  Probability of Toxic  Impact at the Tailings Pond	  4-89
4.12.6  Summary of Forest Plan Compliance by Alternative  	  4-95
4.12.7  Crown Jewel Project HU and AAHU  Net Impact Summary	4-102
4.13.1  Comparison of Noise Impacts for All Alternatives	4-103
4.13.2  Noise Sources Used for Modeling  	4-111
4.13.3  Alternative B: Modeled Noise Levels  at Residential Areas and Comparison
        with Nighttime Background  L-eq  	4-113
4.13.4  Alternative B: Modeled Noise at Nearest Private Land and Comparison With
        Nighttime L-25 Edna Limits	4-114
4.13.5  Alternative B: Modeled Noise at Nearest Private Land and
        Comparison with  Nighttime  L-25 Edna  Limits	4-114
4.13.6  Alternative B: Modeled Blasting Noise and Comparison with
        Daytime L-02 eq Levels 	4-115
4.14.1  Recreation Impacts Comparison of Alternatives	4-118
4.16.1  Summary of Effects to Cultural Resources	4-139
4.17.1  Average Daily Traffic Comparison by Alternative 	4-140
4.17.2  Traffic Summary  By Road	4-142
4.17.3  Summary of Environmentally Hazardous Materials  	4-142
4.18.1  Land Status Disturbance	4-152
4.19.1  Socioeconomic Assumptions For The Action Alternatives 	4-155
4.19.2  Anticipated Population Increase	4-1 55
4.19.3  Forecast Annual Employment and Payrolls  	4-162
4.19.4   Multi-Year Employment and Payrolls	4-162
4.19.5  Anticipated School Enrollment  Effects  	4-165
4.19.6  Anticipated Permanent Housing Demand	4-168
4.19.7  Anticipated Multi-Year Fiscal Effects  	4-170
4.20.1   Energy Consumption  	4-176


                                        LIST OF FIGURES

Number             Title                                                                        paqe

1.1       General Location Map	  1 ~2
1.2       Land Status Map	  1 -4
2.1       Management Prescription  27	  2-6
2.2       Waste Rock Disposal Area Options	   2-14
2.3       Below Ground Crushing  	   2-18
2.4       Gold Recovery Through Carbon Adsorption	   2-23
2.5       Gold Recovery Through Zinc  Precipitation	   2-25
2.6       Tailings Facility Options  	   2-35
2.7       Tailings Dam Construction Design  	   2-39
2.8       Employee Transport Routes	   2-42
2.9       Water Storage Reservoir Locations	   2-48
                       Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 June 1995	CROWN JEWEL MINE                                Page xiii

 2.10      Alternative B - Site Plan 	  2-55
 2.11      Alternative C - Site Plan	  2-58
 2.12      Alternative D - Site Plan	  2-64
 2.13      Alternative E - Site Plan 	  2-68
 2.14      Alternative F - Site Plan 	  2-72
 2.15      Alternative G - Site Plan	  2-76
 2.16      Proposed Power Pole Design	2-102
 3.1.1      Location of On-Site Weather Station	  3-3
 3.1.2      Wind Roses From On-Site Weather Station  	  3-6
 3.3.1      Geologic Map of the Proposed Crown Jewel Project Site	  3-8
 3.3.2      Location of Drill Holes Used for Geochemical Testing  	  3-10
 3.3.3      Waste Rock Types Exposed in Final Pit Walls (Alternatives B & G)  	  3-17
 3.4.1      Earthquake Epicenters  	  3-27
 3.4.2      Seismic Risk Zone Map of the United States 	  3-28
 3.5.1      Soil Map Units - Mine Area	  3-29
 3.5.2      Soil Map Units - Starrem Reservoir Site	  3-30
 3.6.1      Regional Stream Network	  3-35
 3.6.2      Estimated Mean Annual Hydrograph of Myers Creek (International Boundary)	  3-38
 3.6.3      Watershed Location Map  	  3-40
 3.6.4      Site Stream  Network  	  3-41
 3.6.5      Surface Water Monitoring Stations	  3-45
 3.7.1      Spring and Seep Locations  	  3-54
 3.8.1      Regional Geologic Map  of Northeastern Okanogan County	  3-62
 3.8.2      Potentiometric Surface  Map, General Project Area, Annual Low Level (February 1993)  ....  3-65
 3.8.3      Potentiometric Surface  Map, Mine Area, Annual Low Level  (February 1993)	  3-66
 3.8.4      Potentiometric Surface  Map, General Project Area, Annual High Level (May  1993)	  3-67
 3.8.5      Potentiometric Surface  Map, Mine Area, Annual High Level (May 1993)  	  3-68
 3.8.6      Hydrogeologic Cross-Section A-A'	  3-70
 3.8.7      Hydrogeologic Cross-Section B-B'  	  3-71
 3.8.8      Location of Regional Ground Water Monitoring  Sites	  3-74
 3.8.9      Comparison  of Ground Water Levels and Surface Water Flows
          in the Proposed Mine Area   	   3.73
 3.8.10    Comparison  of Ground Water Levels and Surface Water Flows Near
          Nicholson Creek Headwaters	   3-79
 3.8.11    Trilinear Diagram for Crown  Jewel Site Waters   	   3-80
 3.10.1    Plant Association Map   	   3-83
 3.11.1    Project Associated Wetland  Locations	   3-88
 3.12.1    Regional Drainages  	   3-89
 3.12.2    Myers Creek Stream Survey Locations  	  3-92
 3.12.3    Marias and Nicholson Stream and Fisheries Survey Locations	  3-94
 3.12.4    Benthic  Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Station Location  Map  	  3-97
 3.12.5    IFIM Study Sites  	3-101
 3.12.6    IFIM Final Weighted Usable Area Versus Flow	3-103
 3.12.7    Myers Creek Winter Trout Habitat - Weighted Useable Area Versus Flow	3-104
 3.13.1    Project Area  Map	3-105
 3.13.2    Land Type Map	3-106
 3.13.3    Cover Type Map  	3-107
 3.13.4    National Forest Management Areas in the Core  and Analysis Areas  	3-109
 3.13.5    Riparian, Deciduous, and Ridgetop Habitat Map	3-110
 3.13.6    Successional Stage Diversity	3-111
 3.13.7    Deer Winter Cover	3-117
 3.13.8    Successional Stage Map	3-123
3.14.1     Typical Range of Common Sounds	3-143
3.14.2    Noise Monitoring Station Locations  	3-145
3.14.3    Noise Source Locations  and Baseline Monitoring Locations  	3-146
                      Crown Jewel Mine $ Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page xsv
3.15.1    Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Inventory	3-150
3.15.2    Dispersed Recreation Sites - Primary Study Area 	3-152
3.15.3    Existing Developed Recreation Facilities  	3-153
3.16.1    Visual Significance Designation	3-157
3.16.2    Scenic Viewsheds and Key Viewpoints	3-158
3.16.3    Oroville - Toroda Creek Viewpoint  	3-161
3.16.4    Nealy Road Viewpoint  	3-162
3.16.5    Toroda Creek Road Viewpoint	3-163
3.16.6    Highway 3 Viewpoint	3-165
3.16.7    Forest Road 3575-125 Viewpoint  	3-166
3.16.8    Mt. Bonaparte Viewpoint	3-167
3.16.9    Existing Conditions Within the Project Site  	3-169
3.17.1    Locations of  Sites and Features Along Powerline Corridor	3-175
3.17.2    Project Area  Sites and Features	3-176
3.18.1    Traffic Counts and Road Systems  	3-177
3.18.2    Forest Roads	3-183
3.19.1    Historic Mining Sites  	3-185
3.19.2    Consolidated Ramrod Exploration Site	3-186
3.19.3    Historic Timber Sales	3-187
3.19.4    Claim Patent Application Location Map	3-192
3.20.1    Socioeconomic Study Area Location	3-194
3.20.2    Comparative Employment Distributions for Ferry County	3-200
3.20.3    Comparative Employment Distributions for Okanogan County  	3-201
3.20.4    County General Fund Revenues by Source Illustrated Revenue	3-209
3.20.5    County General Fund Expenditures by Source Illustrated Expenditure  	3-210
3.20.6    1991  Total Expenditures for Study Area Cities	3-212
3.20.7    1991  Expenditures per Capita for Study Area Cities	3-213
4.1.1     Air Quality TSP Modeling  	   4-7
4.6.1     Area of Influence / Surface and Ground Water	  4-28
4.6.2     Schematic Hydrogeologic Cross-Section at Conclusion of Mining  	  4-33
4.13.1    Modeled Results: Summer,  West Wind	4-105
4.13.2    Modeled Results: Summer,  East Wind	4-106
4.13.3    Modeled Results: Winter, East Wind	4-107
4.13.4    Modeled Results: Blasting, Winter, East Wind  	4-108
4.13.5    Modeled Results: Blasting, Summer, West Wind	4-109
4.15.1    Toroda Creek, Viewpoint Alternative B	4-126
4.1 5.2    Highway 3 Viewpoint, Alternative B	4-128
4.15.3    Mt. Bonaparte Viewpoint, Alternative B  	4-129
4.15.4    Toroda Creek Viewpoint, Alternative D	4-131
4.1 5.5    Highway 3 Viewpoint, Alternative E	4-133
4.15.6    Toroda Creek Viewpoint, Alternative F	4-134
4.15.7    Highway 3 Viewpoint, Alternative F	4-135
4.15.8    Highway 3 Viewpoint, Alternative G	4-137
4.19.1    Employment  Effects of Action Alternatives  	4-159
4.19.2    Maximum Population Effect Versus Baseline Forecast Growth  	4-160
4.21.1    Generalized Interactive Procedure for Mine Evaluation	4-175
4.21.2    Comparison of NPV (1 5%) of Crown Jewel Alternatives to Alternative B	4-179

-------
                                        C -70 'AW ,J£ WfL MINt'

                                       LIST OF APPENDICES
                    Title

A         List of Unpublished Appendices
B         Agency Responsibilities (Permits and Approvals)
C         Hydrologic Summary Statistics
D         Soil Erosion Rates
E         Geochemistry
F         Slope Stability
G         Traffic Assumptions
H         Draft Wildlife Biological Assessment
I          Draft Fisheries Aquatic Habitat Biological Evaluation
J         Biological Evaluation for Proposed, Endangered Threatened, and Sensitive Plants
K         Tailings Site Selection

-------

-------
                       Chapter 7
Purpose Of And Need For Action

-------

-------
 June 1995
                            CROWN JEWEL MINE
                                                                                       Page 1-1
                        1.0  PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
 1.1
INTRODUCTION
 This environmental impact statement (EIS)
 documents the environmental analysis of the
 Proposed Action and alternatives in accordance
 with the National Environmental Policy Act
 (NEPA) and the Washington State Environmental
 Policy Act (SEPA). This document will provide
 the decision-makers with information needed to
 make a Project decision that is fully informed
 and relevant to the specifics of the Project
 proposal. The EIS documents the process used
 to analyze the Proposed Action and alternatives
 to the Proposed Action, the environmental
 impacts, and mitigation measures associated
 with the alternatives.  The EIS process also
 provides a forum for public review and comment
 on the Crown Jewel Mine Project (Crown Jewel
 Project), the associated relevant issues, and the
 environmental analysis.
 1.2
BACKGROUND
Renewed interest in the Myers Creek Mining
District surfaced in the late 1 970's with
exploration to the north of the proposed Project.
In early August of 1988, Crown Resources
Corporation submitted a Notice of Operations to
conduct exploration work to the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM). The notice outlined a
proposal to drill 5 exploration  holes in the
vicinity of the abandoned  Magnetic Mine near
Buckhorn Mountain.  Crown Resources
Corporation continued with exploration activities
in this area through  1989.

In early 1 990, Battle Mountain Gold Company
(BMGC) acquired an option from Crown
Resources Corporation to  become a partner in
the continuation and expansion of exploration
activities in the area around Buckhorn Mountain.
With this option agreement, BMGC assumed the
responsibility for directing and overseeing the
exploration activities. Also, in accordance with
the agreement between the 2 firms, if a viable
ore deposit was identified, BMGC would be the
operator of any developed mine and mill.  BMGC
represents the joint venture and hereafter is
referred to as the "Proponent".

In April of  1990, representatives of the
Proponent  met with  Officials of the U.S.D.A.
Forest Service, Okanogan National Forest
(Forest Service) to outline plans for continued
exploration activities, in particular additional
drilling, in the area. Based on this meeting and
subsequent discussions, an environmental
assessment (EA) was prepared, and a Decision
Notice was signed by the Okanogan Forest
Supervisor in June of 1990 approving continued
exploration activities.  The EA resulted in a
"finding of no significant impact" by Forest
Service Officials and exploration activities
continued.

In January of 1992, the Proponent submitted a
plan of operations to the Forest Service, BLM,
Washington Department of Ecology (WADOE)
and Washington Department of Natural
Resources (WADNR); this plan involved a
proposal to develop, construct, and operate a
surface mining and milling operation for gold
recovery and production.  The Project was
identified as the Crown Jewel Joint Venture
Project. Supplemental plans of operation were
submitted to the involved agencies by
Proponent in February, April and September of
1992 and in March 1993.  The supplemental
plans further defined, clarified or refined the
original January 1992 submittal.
                                          1.3
        PROPOSED ACTION
                                          The Proponent has submitted an Integrated Plan
                                          of Operations,  (BMGC, 1993a), and a
                                          Reclamation Plan,  (BMGC, 1993b).  The
                                          Proponent's proposal is to develop, construct
                                          and operate a surface mining and milling
                                          operation with associated facilities known as
                                          the Crown Jewel Project.  This proposed action
                                          includes the use of tank cyanidation for gold
                                          recovery. The development is  designated as  the
                                          Crown Jewel Mine (Crown Jewel Project). The
                                          Project site is located on and near the summit of
                                          Buckhorn Mountain,  approximately 3.5 air miles
                                          east of the community of Chesaw in
                                          northeastern Okanogan County, Washington  in
                                          T 39 & 40 N, R 30 & 31 E, as shown on Figure
                                          1.1, General Location Map.

                                          As proposed by the Proponent, the mine would
                                          process about 3,000 tons of ore and handle an
                                          average of 34,000 tons of waste rock per day
                   Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
   BRITISH  COLUMBIA
                                 CROWN JEWEL  PROJECT
                                        BRITISH COLUMBIA
                        FERRY
                       COUNTY
                                                        FERRY
                                                       COUNTY
                                  OKANOGAN
                                   COUNTY
         OREGON
                  FIGURE 1.1, GENERAL LOCATION MAP
Filename CJ1-1 DWG

-------
 June 1995
                            CROWN JEWEL MINE
                                     Page 1-3
 for approximately 8 years.  Expected gold
 production is about 180,000 ounces per year.

 The work force would consist of about 150
 people during full production. The Project
 would directly disturb 766 acres during the life
 of the Crown Jewel  Project.  An estimated 61 %
 (470 acres) of that disturbance  would be on
 lands administered by the Forest Service, 24%
 (184 acres) would be on lands administered by
 the BLM, 3% (20 acres) would  be on land
 administered by WADNR, and 12%  (92 acres)
 would be on private  lands controlled by the
 Proponent.  Figure 1.2,  Land Status Map,
 shows the property ownership in the general
 area.

 On National Forest land, a new  temporary
 management prescription, designated as MA
 27, and associated standards and guidelines
 would be developed  for  the area within the
 Project area security fence, if the Crown Jewel
 Project is approved.  This EIS will consider the
 environmental effects of that action.
 1.4
PURPOSE AND NEED
The purpose and need for the EIS is to respond
to the Proponent's Plan of Operations to
develop and operate a mine within the claim
boundaries of the Crown  Jewel Project as
controlled by the Proponent. The Proponent's
purpose and objectives for the Crown Jewel
Project are to recover as much of the Crown
Jewel mineral deposit as  is technically and
economically possible, at  a maximum rate of
return for its investors, consistent with
applicable company, state, federal, and local
environmental permitting  and operations
requirements.

There are no feasible location alternatives for
the proposed mine area.  The location of the
defined deposit necessarily controls the location
of the mine. The geology and mineral deposits
associated with the Crown Jewel  Project have
been extensively explored and studied since
1988.

U.S. Mining Laws recognize the statutory right
of mining claim  holders to explore and/or
develop mineral resources and encourage such
activity consistent with the Mining and Mineral
Policy Act and the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act.  These  regulations require
 responsible federal agencies to review the
 Proponent's Plan of Operation to ensure that:

 1.       Adequate provisions are included to
         minimize, to the extent practical,
         adverse environmental impacts on
         public land surface resources;

 2.       Measures are included to provide for
         reclamation, where practicable; and

 3.       The proposed operation will comply
         with other applicable federal and state
         laws and regulations.

 Under Washington State Mining Laws, metal
 mining/milling as an industry is allowable, if it
 can be accomplished in an environmentally
 sensitive manner. It is the intent of state laws
 to insure a high degree of environmental
 protection while allowing the proper
 development and use of the state's natural
 resources, including its mineral resources.  The
 1993 Washington Surface Mining Reclamation
 Act (RCW 78.44) and the 1 994 Washington
 Metals Mining and Milling Act (RCW 78.56)
 specifically address mining activities in the State
 of Washington.  In addition, many state laws
 address particular areas (i.e. water, air, fish,
 transportation) of the environment and regulate
 mining as it affects that area.

This EIS is tiered to the Okanogan National
 Forest, Land and Resource Management Plan,
as amended,  (Forest Plan), and the Project
would require a Forest Plan  Amendment to be
consistent with the Forest Plan (Forest Service,
 1989a).  This EIS is also tiered to the BLM,
Spokane  Resource Management Plan (RMP),
 1985 (amended 1992), and the Project would
be consistent with this plan.
                                           1.5
         DECISIONS TO BE MADE
                                          The Forest Service and the WADOE are the
                                          co-lead agencies responsible for completion of
                                          the Crown Jewel Project EIS.  These agencies
                                          are following specific procedures that began
                                          with  scoping and data collection and continued
                                          with  analysis of data and evaluation of
                                          alternatives.  The results of this analysis are
                                          documented  in this EIS and will form the basis
                                          for decisions on the Crown Jewel Project.

                                          After the close of the Draft EIS review and
                                          comment period, the Forest Service and
                    Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
                  BRI TISH_CCLUMBIA_
                     WASHINGTON )     \

                                 3
      LEGEND

       USF.S. LANDS
       STATE  LANDS
       BLM LANDS
       PRIVATE/FEE LANDS
25-18 U.SF.S. MANAGEMENT  AREA
 — — MANAGEMENT AREA BOUNDARY
       MINE  PIT AREA


    U.S.F.S. MANAGEMENT AREAS
  U -  Provide  a diversity of wildlife habitat,
      including deer winter  range, while
      growing  and producing merchantable
      wood fiber
                                                                                                                                                 25 - Intensively manage the timber and range
                                                                                                                                                     resources using both even-aged and
                                                                                                                                                     uneven-aged Silvicultural practices
                                                                                                                                                     Manage to achieve a high present net
                                                                                                                                                     value and a high level of timber and
                                                                                                                                                     range outputs while protecting the basic
                                                                                                                                                     productivity of the land and providing
                                                                                                                                                     for the  production of wildlife, recreation
                                                                                                                                                     opportunities, and other resources
                                                                                                                                                     Manage deer winter range and fawmrig
                                                                                                                                                     habitats to provide conditions which
                                                                                                                                                     can sustain  optimal numbers of deer
                                                                                                                                                     indefinitely, without degrading habitat
                                                                                                                                                     characteristics such as forage, cover,
                                                                                                                                                     and soil
                                                        FIGURE   1.2,   LAND   STATUS  MAP
FILE NAME  CJ1-2 DWG

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 1-5
WADOE will consider comments submitted by
the public, interested organizations and
government agencies and respond to those
comments in the Final EIS.  Cooperating
agencies (BLM, Army Corps of Engineers, and
WADNR) will assist with responses to
comments pertinent to areas of their jurisdiction
and expertise as requested by the Forest
Service and the WADOE.  In accordance  with
40 CFR 1 503.4 and WAC 197-11 -560, the lead
agencies will consider comments and respond to
these comments by: (1) modifying alternatives;
(2) developing new alternatives; (3) modifying
the analysis; (4) making corrections; or (5)
explaining why comments do not warrant
further agency response.

Upon acceptance and approval of the final EIS
by the lead and cooperating agencies, the
Forest Service, and BLM will jointly select a
preferred alternative and will each individually
issue a Record of Decision.  SEPA does not
require the WADOE to issue a Record of
Decision.

The Forest Supervisor for the Okanogan
National Forest is the NEPA Responsible  Official
for the Forest Service. The District Manager for
the Spokane District of the BLM is the  NEPA
Responsible Official for the BLM.  The Central
Regional  Director of the WADOE is the SEPA
Responsible Official for the State of
Washington.

In the Record of Decision, the responsible
officials may decide to:

•        Adopt the no action alternative;
•        Adopt one of the action alternatives;
•        Adopt an  alternative that combines
         features of more than one alternative;
         or,
•        Adopt one of the action alternatives
         with additional mitigation measures.

If the proposal changes beyond that which is
analyzed  in this EIS, additional environmental
analysis may be required.

1.6     OKANOGAN FOREST  PLAN
        COMPLIANCE

In excess of 50% (between 273 and 574 acres)
of the proposed Crown Jewel operations  will be
located on public lands in the Okanogan
National Forest, which are managed by the
              Forest Service under direction described in the
              1 989 Okanogan National Forest Plan and under
              the National Forest Management Act.  Forest
              Plan Standards and Guidelines provide general
              direction and guidance on how certain segments
              of Okanogan National Forest lands should be
              administered.  These segments are designated
              as "Management Areas"  in  the Okanogan Forest
              Plan. The Project site is presently located
              within Management Areas 14, 25 and 26, as
              shown on Figure 1.2, Land Status Map.

              Each Management Area has its own set of goals
              and  objectives, standards and guidelines, and
              desired future condition that must be met.
              Detailed information on Management Areas 14,
              25 and 26 can be found in  Chapter 4 of the
              Forest Plan. The prescription goal statements
              and  desired future conditions for the Forest
              Service management areas  that  would be
              affected by the proposed Crown Jewel Project
              are as follows:

              •       Management Area 14:  Goal - "Provide
                       a diversity of wildlife habitat, including
                       deer winter range, while growing and
                       producing merchantable wood fiber"
                       Desired Future Condition - "Deer
                       winter ranges will provide habitat
                       conditions including proper
                       juxta-position of forage and cover
                       areas, to sustain desired deer
                       population levels.  Dead tree habitat
                       will be provided at a moderate level to
                       support cavity dependent species.
                       Even-age stands, and stands
                       representing different age classes,
                       species mix, and with variable
                       structure will be found across the
                       Forest." (Forest Service, 1989a, 4-83).
                       Management Area 25: Goal -
                       "Intensively manage the timber and
                       range resources using both even-aged
                       and uneven-aged Silvicultural
                       practices. Manage to achieve a high
                       present net value and a high level of
                       timber and range outputs while
                       protecting basic productivity of the
                       land and providing for the production
                       of wildlife, recreation opportunities,
                       and other resources."  Desired Future
                       Condition - "On suitable lands in the
                       Moist Productive and Dry Productive
                       Working Group that are capable of
                   Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 Page 1-6
CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
June 1995
         producing 20 cubic feet per acre
         CMAI, stands will be well stocked and
         thrifty.  Even-aged stands, and stands
         representing different age classes,
         species mix, and with variable
         structure will be found across the
         Forest.  Suitable, non-transitory range
         will be in good condition. Transitory
         range will be managed in a manner
         compatible with silvicultural
         objectives." (Forest Service, 1989a,
         4-103).

 •       Management Area 26:  Goal -
         "Manage deer winter range and
         fawning habitats to provide conditions
         which can sustain optimal numbers of
         deer indefinitely, without degrading
         habitat characteristics such as forage,
         cover, and soil." Desired Future
         Condition - "Deer winter range  will be
         managed to provide optimum habitat
         conditions for deer by maintaining well
         distributed winter thermal and
         snow/intercept thermal cover and
         foraging areas.  Wood product outputs
         will be provided at a reduced level.
         Winter recreation activities will  be
         encouraged outside of deer winter
         range.  Access to these areas will be
         provided on designated through routes
         to reduce disturbance to wintering
         deer.  Motorized access will be
         restricted to maintain wildlife habitat
         effectiveness at higher levels.
         Even-aged stands and stands
         representing different age classes,
         species mix, and with variable
         structure will be found across the
         Forest. The spatial distribution of
         cover and forage areas on the winter
         ranges is very important to reduce the
         distances deer are required to move
         between habitat components."  (Forest
         Service, 1989a, 4-107).

Due to the structure of mineral laws and
regulations, the Forest Service  and BLM's
Minerals Management Programs are largely
responsive in nature. A major  part of this job is
responding to applications and  proposals
submitted from outside the agencies.  Federal
responsibilities for such proposals lie mainly in
providing reasonable surface protection and
reclamation requirements  with  specific time
frames and in assuring compliance of the same.
                              Management implications for the Forest Service
                              and BLM require that mineral exploration and
                              development be facilitated on federal lands
                              while accommodating the needs and
                              conservation of other resources to the fullest
                              extent possible.

                              The Forest Plan could not predict specifics as to
                              where, when, and what kind of mineral
                              development might be proposed, nor specific
                              needs of that development in terms  of surface
                              resources.  Since Forest Plan Standards and
                              Guidelines were developed mainly in context of
                              typical Forest Service projects  (timber sales,
                              small recreation developments, or mineral
                              exploration), it  was expected that the intensive
                              surface use required  for large mineral
                              development projects would require  Forest Plan
                              amendments (Forest  Service, 1 989a, 4-21).

                              On National Forest land, a new temporary
                              management prescription, designated as MA
                              27, and associated standards and guidelines
                              would be an integral  part of each of  the action
                              alternatives. The Forest Service would  manage
                              the operation according to the  proposed
                              temporary Management Area 27 standards and
                              guidelines which are  outlined in Chapter 2 of
                              this EIS.  Once mining and milling activities
                              have ceased, the Forest Service would return
                              the reclaimed areas to management  under the
                              goals and objectives  of the underlying
                              Management Areas or replacement Management
                              Areas in any future Forest Plan. The goal of
                              reclamation will be to return  the land, as near as
                              practical, to the underlying Management Area
                              goals and objectives.

                              1.7      SPOKANE DISTRICT  RESOURCE
                                      MANAGEMENT PLAN COMPLIANCE

                              In excess of 20% (between 78 and 198 acres)
                              of the proposed Crown Jewel operations will be
                              located on public lands administered  by the
                              Spokane District of the BLM, which are
                              managed by the BLM under the guidelines
                              described in the 1985 (amended 1992) RMP.
                             The RMP provides general direction and
                              guidance on how certain segments of Spokane
                              District lands should  be administered. The
                              Project area is  part of the North Ferry
                              Management Area. The Forest Management
                             Goal is - "Manage a timber production base of
                             7,499 acres. Acquire permanent access to all
                             public lands to enhance forest management and
                             multiple use."  The Wildlife Habitat Management
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4  Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 June 1995
                            CROWN JEWEL MINE
                                     Page 1-7
 Goal is - "Emphasize maintenance or
 improvement of key species habitat areas
 identified through previous planning, public
 input, and/or issues analysis.  Protect and
 improve riparian habitat on BLM administered
 land along 7 miles of perennial streams, and the
 Kettle River." The Recreation Management Goal
 is - "Emphasize maintenance or improvement of
 recreation opportunities in key areas identified
 through previous planning, public input, and/or
 issues analysis. Designate 13,000 acres open to
 off-road vehicle use."
 1.8
PERMITS AND APPROVALS NEEDED
 A number of federal, state and local permits and
 approvals would be required for the Crown
 Jewel Project, as indicated in  Table 1.1, List of
 Tentative and Potential Permits and Approvals.

 Preparation of an EIS and the actual permitting
 process are related but distinctly separate.  An
 EIS is designed to explore Project alternatives
 and discuss environmental impacts. The
 permitting process gives individual government
 decision makers the authority to grant
 (conditionally grant or deny) individual permit
 applications with requirements and conditions to
 eliminate  and/or mitigate specific adverse
 environmental impacts which are identified in
 the EIS. At a minimum, mitigation identified in
 Chapter 2 will be imposed upon the preferred
 alternative.  (See Appendix B,  Agency
 Responsibilities (Permits and Approvals), for the
 details of each permit and approval).

 No state permits can be approved until a
 minimum  of 7 days after the issuance of the
 final EIS (Chapter 197-11 -WAC).  No federal
 permits can be approved until a minimum of 50
 days after the publication of the Records of
 Decision (36 CFR 215).

 1.8.1    Performance Standards

 Besides the EIS that will be completed and the
 various permits and approvals that are required,
 there  will be regulatory performance standards
 that would apply to the activities at the Crown
 Jewel Project.

 A performance standard is a government
 criterion, generally set by regulation, that must
 be observed.  Although the EIS and various
 permits may discuss performance standards for
the Crown Jewel Project and set forth
                                           compliance measures, many performance
                                           standards do not require an individual or specific
                                           permit.

                                           For example, the Crown Jewel Project must
                                           comply with noise level limits (performance
                                           standards) set forth by regulations of the
                                           Okanogan County Planning Department and
                                           WADOE, even though a specific permit is not
                                           required.
                                           1.9
         SCOPING AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
 On January 23, 1 992, the Proponent presented
 an Initial Plan of Operations for mine
 development to representatives of the Forest
 Service, the WADOE, and the BLM. Submittal
 of this plan initiated action under both NEPA
 and SEPA regulations. This plan has been
 supplemented as described in Section  1.7 of
 this EIS document.

 As required by NEPA  (CEQ 1 501.7) and SEPA
 (RCW 43.21C), the Forest Service and WADOE
 have provided for an early and open process to
 determine the scope of issues to be addressed
 and the extent  of the  environmental analysis
 necessary for an informed decision on the
 Project. Elements in the scoping process include
 the following:

 •        The description of the proposed action
         including the nature  of the decisions  to
         be made;
 •        The identification of potential effects
         caused by the Project;
 •        The collection of existing data and
         information to address the Project and
         general area;
 •        The initiation of public and government
         participation  in the EIS process;
 •        The determination of the type and
         extent of analysis to be used in the
         preparation of the EIS;
•       The identification of  government
        agencies involved and  appropriate
        responsible officials from the lead and
        cooperating agencies; and,
•       The  plans for the preparation of the
        EIS, including selection of a format for
        the document and development of a
        tentative schedule for EIS completion
        and  publication.
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 1-8
CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
June 1395
TABLE 1.1. LIST OF TENTATIVE AND POTENTIAL PERMITS AND APPROVALS
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Forest Service
Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal Communications Commission
Treasury Department (Dept. of Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms)
Mine Safety and Health Administration
• Plan of Operations
• Special Use Permits (Right-of-Ways, Dam Permit, etc.)
• Plan of Operations
• Special Use Permits (Right-of-Ways)
• Section 404 Permit - Federal Clean Water Act (Dredge and Fill)
• Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan
• Review of Section 404 Permit
• Notification of Hazardous Waste Activity
• Threatened and Endangered Species Consultation (Section 7
Consultation)
• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Consultation
• Radio Authorizations
• Explosives User Permit
• Mine Identification Number
• Legal Identity Report
• Miner Training Plan Approval
STATE OF WASHINGTON
Washington Department of Ecology
Washington Department of Natural
Resources
Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife
Washington Department of Community
Development, Office of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation
Washington Department of Health
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Burning Permit
Reservoir Permit
Dam Safety Permits
Water Right Permits (Surface & Ground Water)
Water Quality Standards Modification
Changes to Existing Water Rights
Water Rights Preliminary Permits
State Waste Discharge Permit
Water Quality Certification (Section 401 -Federal Clean Water Act)
Notice of Construction Approval (Air Quality)
Air Contaminant Source Operating Permit
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) - (Air Quality)
Dangerous Waste Permit
Surface Mine Reclamation Permit
Forest Practice Application
Burning Permit (Fire Protection)
• Hydraulic Project Approval
• Historic and Archaeological Review (Section 106 National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966)
• Sewage Disposal Permit
• Public Water Supply Approval
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Okanogan County Planning Department
Okanogan County Health District
Okanogan County Public Works Department
Okanogan Public Utility District (PUD)
Shoreline Permit
Conditional Use Permit
Zoning Requirements
Building Permits
Maximum Environmental Noise Levels
• Solid Waste Handling
• Road Construction and/or Realignment
• Power Service Contract
                  Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 1-9
1.9.1   Agency Meetings and Scoping

A series of meetings were held by the various
federal and state agencies involved with the
Crown Jewel Project EIS. A preliminary
coordination meeting was held on December 11,
1991 with representatives present from the
WADOE, BLM and Forest Service. The purpose
of that meeting was to discuss possible
jurisdictional procedures  and policies should the
Proponent file an operational plan for mining and
milling activities. A multitude of additional
meetings have been held throughout the
development of the EIS documents involving
agencies technical and administrative
specialists. These meetings were dedicated to
various aspects of the  proposed Crown Jewel
Project EIS including discussions on issues,
alternatives,  environmental baseline  data,  and
environmental consequences.

1.9.2   Public Scoping

As required by NEPA (40 CFR  Part 1503)  and
by SEPA (RCW43.21C and WAC 197-11-360),
the general public, business, special interest
groups, and government  agencies were provided
the opportunity to become informed and
comment on the  proposed Crown Jewel Project.
The Forest Service and WADOE accomplished
these goals by holding agency and public
scoping meetings; public mailings; publishing of
Notices of Intent in the Federal Register;
forming an Interdisciplinary (ID) Team; preparing
a Scoping Summary Document (Scoping
Information,  Crown Jewel Project, Okanogan
National Forest,  Volumes 1A, 1B, 1C and  1D);
and making baseline resource reports available
in public locations and to government agencies
(Technical Information, Crown Jewel Project,
Okanogan National Forest,  Volumes 2A, 2B, 2C,
2D, and 2E.

The formal scoping process began on February
14,  1992 and was scheduled to end on March
31,  1992. Several requests were received
asking for additional detailed information and to
extend the scoping period to provide adequate
response time. With concurrence from the
Proponent, the lead agencies extended the
formal scoping comment period until April 24,
1992. The lead agencies  held 4 public meetings
to allow the general public the opportunity to
ask questions concerning the Crown Jewel
Project. At 3 of these  meetings, formal oral
              comments were taken.  The fourth meeting was
              an open-house.

              Throughout the entire EIS process and even
              following publication of the Scoping Summary
              Document, the Forest Service and WADOE have
              continued to consider written statements and
              comments at public meetings to help in the
              preparation of this EIS document. Issues and
              concerns addressed in this EIS document were
              raised by the public, cooperating agencies, other
              government agencies, and Forest Service and
              WADOE technical specialists.

              Formal Public Scoping Meetings were held  on:

              •        February 26, 1992, Okanogan,
                       Washington, PUD Auditorium;
              •        February 27, 1992, Oroville,
                       Washington, The Depot;
              •        April 13, 1992,Oroville, Washington,
                       Oroville Elementary School Gym,
                       (Open House); and,
              •        April 20, 1992,Tonasket, Washington,
                       High School.

              An additional meeting on the Crown Jewel
              Project was held  on July 27, 1992 at the
              Community Center in Midway, British Columbia,
              Canada, after interest was expressed by some
              Canadian citizens.

              The Forest Service and the WADOE also held
              frequent public meetings beginning in
              September 1992 to keep the public informed on
              the progress of the EIS, to solicit any comments
              or questions regarding the Project, and to
              highlight  specific aspects of the Project.  The
              following list identifies the date of the public
              meeting and the special topics discussed at the
              meeting:
                      September 21, 1992 Permitting
                      Requirements;
                      October 15, 1992 Hydrology and
                      Water Rights;
                      November 16, 1992 Mineral Patenting;
                      December 17, 1992 Socioeconomics;
                      January 19, 1993 Wildlife;
                      February 17, 1993 Cyanide;
                      March 8, 1993 Reclamation;
                      April  15, 1993 Tailings Pond
                      Construction, Cyanide Destruction
                      Techniques, and  Dam Safety Division
                      Requirements;
                      May 19,  1993 Water Quality;
                   Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 1-10
CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTtOfJ
•        June 15, 1993 Noise and Forest
         Service Showcase Program;
•        July 14, 1993 Water Rights;
•        August 18, 1993 Wetlands;
•        October 20, 1993 EIS Alternatives;
         and,
•        August 17, 1994 Project Update, HEP
         (wildlife) and IFIM (fisheries).

These public meetings were held  at the
Tonasket Ranger District office or the Tonasket
Elementary School gym, in Tonasket,
Washington.

The WADOE has provided speakers discussing
the SEPA process at an additional public interest
group meeting on the Project held in Okanogan
County in June 1994.

From input at the public scoping meetings and
from written comments, issues specific to the
proposed Crown Jewel Project were
summarized and used as part of the criteria for
completing this EIS document. Issues were
used by the ID Team for developing and
screening alternatives, and evaluating
consequences of this Project.  A synopsis of the
significant issues identified for the proposed
Crown Jewel Project is set forth in Section 1.10
of this EIS document.

Between July 1992 and January  1995, 9
newsletters were sent to people on the Crown
Jewel Project mailing list to inform them on
progress of the EIS and provide relevant
technical information.

1.9.3    interdisciplinary Team

Section 102 (2)(A) of NEPA requires agencies
involved  in the preparation of an EIS to use an
interdisciplinary approach to analyze the
proposed action to ensure the integrated use of
natural and social sciences and the
environmental design arts in planning and
decision  making.  The Forest Service, WADOE,
and the other cooperating agencies contributed
technical specialists to participate on an ID
Team to  comply with NEPA requirements.
These government specialists  are listed in
Chapter 5.  One of the primary purposes of
bringing these government specialists together
was to establish the  scope of  the EIS,  review
Project work by contracted technical specialists,
as well as provide input into alternative
development, and to review the internal working
drafts of the EIS document.
                              1.10
ISSUES AND CONCERNS
                              Scoping for the Crown Jewel Project was
                              conducted to focus the EIS on those issues
                              considered important to the public and various
                              government agencies. A Scoping Summary was
                              prepared and released to the public in July of
                              1993.

                              Issues are areas of discussion, debate or dispute
                              about effects of proposed activities on
                              resources. Scoping  is the procedure used to
                              determine the extent of the analysis necessary
                              for an informed decision on a project proposal.

                              The key issues are the issues that come up
                              most frequently in public and agency comment
                              and over which there were widely differing
                              opinions. The  lead agencies chose  the key
                              issues after agency and public input.  The
                              alternatives were designed to respond in
                              different ways  to these issues.  The other
                              issues are also important, but did not drive
                              differences in the design of the alternatives.
                              They are addressed by provisions that would be
                              applied in each of the alternatives.

                              Associated with the  issues are "Primary
                              Comparison Criteria." These are quantitative
                              and qualitative measures that reflect the issue,
                              and indicate how the alternatives respond to the
                              issue. For example,  the acres of wetlands
                              impacted under a particular alternative is one
                              criteria of how that alternative would respond to
                              the wetlands issue.  The Primary Comparison
                              Criteria are used in Chapters 2 and  4 as ways of
                              comparing the  different alternatives and their
                              environmental effects. The following pages
                              discuss  in more detail the issues considered in
                              this analysis.

                              The following list of  issues are addressed in this
                              plan:

                              •       Air Quality;
                              •       Heritage Resources and Native
                                      American Issues;
                              •       Geology and Geotechnical (Key Issue);
                              •       Geochemistry (Key Issue);
                              •       Energy;
                              •       Noise;
                              •       Soils  (Key Issue);
                              •       Surface Water and Ground Water (Key
                                      Issue);
                              •       Reclamation (Key Issue);
                              •       Use of Hazardous Chemicals (Key
                                      Issue);
                    Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 111
         Vegetation (Key Issue);
         Wetlands (Key Issue);
         Wildlife Habitat and Populations (Key
         Issue);
         Fish Habitat and Populations;
         Recreation;
         Land Use;
         Socioeconomics (Key Issue);
         Scenic Resources;
         Health/Safety ; and,
         Transportation;
 1.10.1   Air Quality

 Identify and minimize the air quality impacts
 caused by the Project.  Areas of concern include
 the effects on air quality from fugitive dust and
 gaseous emissions, air quality impacts (visibility,
 depositional) on nearby Class  I airsheds,
 including the Pasayten Wilderness, and
 cumulative air quality effects.

 Primary Comparison Criteria:
 •        Tons per year/cumulative total
         suspended particulates (TSP) created;
 •        Tons per year/cumulative particles less
         than PM 10 created;
 •        Tons per year/cumulative cyanide gas
         released to the atmosphere;
 •        Tons per year/cumulative nitrogen
         oxide emissions released to the
         atmosphere; and,
 •        Changes in visibility model screening
         parameters and plume contrast from
         the Pasayten Wilderness.

 1.10.2   Heritage Resources and Native
         American Issues

 Identify cultural resources and minimize
 disturbance impacts.  Areas of concern include:
 effects to historic properties listed or eligible for
 listing on the National Register of Historic
 Places and the potential to  affect cultural
 resources, treaty rights, trust issues and
 responsibilities to the Colville Confederated
Tribes.

 Primary Comparison Criteria:
 •        Number of known historic sites
         physically disturbed or destroyed by
         the Project; and,
 •        Number of acres not available to
         Colville Confederated Tribe members.
               1.10.3   Geology and Geotechnical (Key Issue)

               Identify geologic hazards on the site and
               minimize  the potential for failure of any Project
               facility. Areas of concern include the potential
               influence  of geologic hazards, potential for and
               consequences of failures within waste rock
               disposal areas, tailings impoundments, pit walls
               or pond liners, and the effects of blasting on
               area geology.

               Primary Comparison Criteria:
               •        Safety factors of waste rock slopes
                        and tailings embankment;
               •        Acres of potential  ground subsidence
                        through underground mining;
               •        Potential for rock slides (loose rock
                        areas) or exposure of unstable rock
                        sections in the pit  wall; and,
               •        Proximity of ground  water to the
                        bottom of the tailings liner.

               1.10.4   Geochemistry (Key Issue)

               Identify the potential for acid-rock drainage and
               metals transport from the mine pit and the
               waste rock disposal areas.  Identify and
               minimize the potential impacts from the tailings
               material.  Areas of concern  include the
               downgradient water uses, potential short-term
               and long-term impacts to humans, wildlife, and
               fish, the potential for acid rock drainage, the
               ability to mitigate acid rock  drainage if it occurs,
               possible releases of radioactive materials
               resulting from moving large  quantities of earth,
               and the ability to isolate  potential pollutants in
               both the short-term and long-term.

               Primary Comparison Criteria:
               •       Potential for acid rock drainage from
                       waste rock disposal areas;
               •       Potential for release of radioactive
                       materials (alpha and  beta emissions);
               •       Potential for metals transport;  and,
               •       Potential for release of tailings
                       materials or interstitial liquids into
                       ground and  surface waters.

               1.10.5   Energy

               Identify the potential impacts to energy supplies
               (i.e. electricity, diesel, propane and other
               petroleum based products) and minimize the use
               of nonrenewable energy resources. Areas of
              concern include the quantity of electricity
               needed and how it may impact the county, and
              the quantity of diesel, other  petroleum based
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 1-12
CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
                                                                                       June 1995
 products and propane to be used during
 operations.

 Primary Comparison Criteria:
 •       Gallons of petroleum products used
         per year/life of Project; and,
 •       kWh of electricity used per year/life of
         Project.

 1.10.6   Noise

 Identify and minimize noise impacts. Areas of
 concern include: worker health and  safety, and
 disruptions to  the normal activities of adjacent
 residents/communities and wildlife populations.

 Primary Comparison Criteria:
 •       Daytime decibel (Db) increase at
         property boundary, communities of
         Chesaw, Bolster;
 •       Nighttime Db increase at property
         boundary, communities of Chesaw,
         Bolster;
 •       Level of blasting noise able to be heard
         by the general  public;
 •       Noise effects on wildlife; and,
 •       Effects of on-site noise level on worker
         health and safety.

 1.10.7   Soils (Key Issue)

 Identify Project site soil resources and the
 adequacy of soil for reclamation.  The expressed
 concerns regarding soil include the identification
 of soil resources in terms of quantity and
 quality, and their use and adequacy for final
 reclamation, and the potential for any soil
 erosion and loss of soil productivity.

 Primary Comparison Criteria:
 •       Percent of soil  available for
         reclamation at  12-inch and 18-inch
         depths;
 •       Changes in soil productivity; and,
 •       Acres of topsoil disturbance.

 1.10.8   Surface  Water and Ground Water (Key
         Issue)

 Identify and minimize impacts to water  quality
and hydrology to  maintain the  integrity  of
affected watersheds. Maintain adequate flows
to protect the underlying resources. Areas of
concern include the potential to alter the
characteristics of existing hydrologic systems by
direct disturbances of stream courses, increased
sediment loads, alteration of downstream flow
                              rates, alteration of existing springs and seeps
                              and changes in water chemistry as a result of
                              mining and milling operations.  Impacts to water
                              rights on Toroda Creek and Myers Creek,
                              including Canadian water rights is another area
                              of concern.

                              Primary Comparison Criteria:
                              •        Changes in stream flow rates within
                                       Project area;
                              •        Changes in numbers of springs and
                                       seeps in the Project area;
                              •        Lineal feet of existing stream channels
                                       impacted (Gold Bowl Creek, Marias
                                       Creek, and Nicholson Creek);
                              •        Predicted changes to ground water
                                       and surface water chemistry from pit
                                       water, waste rock, and tailings;
                              •        Predicted increases in stream sediment
                                       loads; and,
                              •        Estimated life-of-mine water use (acre
                                       feet).

                              1.10.9   Reclamation  (Key Issue)

                              Minimize the size of the disturbed area and
                              provide for reclamation of  all disturbed areas.
                              Areas of concern include the successful
                              short-term soil stability and long-term
                              revegetation to a primarily forested environment
                              and the ability  to prevent or control damage to
                              the environment.

                              Primary Comparison Criteria:
                              •        Acres/percentage of slopes steeper
                                       than 2H:V, at 2H:1 V, at 2.5H:1 V, and
                                       3H.-1V or flatter;
                              •        Acres/percentage of south-facing
                                       slopes needing reclamation; and,
                              •        Acres of disturbance needing
                                       reclamation;
                              •        Percentages/acres of slopes which can
                                       be successfully reclaimed with timber
                                       (greater than 100, well scattered, live
                                       and healthy trees per acre);
                              •        Percentages  of slopes which can  be
                                       successfully  reclaimed with grasses
                                       and shrubs.

                              1.10.10  Use of Hazardous Chemicals (Key
                                       Issue)

                              Address impacts of chemicals, cyanide in
                              particular, used in mining and milling. Areas «f
                              concern include the form these chemicals would
                              be if released to the environment,  the potential
                              of these chemicals to affect humans and
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
                                                                                        Page 1-13
 animals, the long-term health effects of the use
 of these chemicals, the effectiveness and
 reliability of the detoxification process  in
 removing hazardous chemicals or depositing
 these chemicals in a stable form in the tailings
 pond, and the prevention of contamination at
 the site.

 Primary Comparison Criteria:
 •        Estimated annual/total tons used of
          sodium cyanide, cement/lime, lead
          nitrate, sodium nitrate, ammonium
          nitrate, hydrochloric acid, caustic,
          copper sulfate, and diesel fuel; and,
 •        Fate and transport of  key toxic
          substances.

 1.10.11 Vegetation (Key Issue)

 Address the impacts to vegetation in the Project
 area. Areas of concern include the potential
 effects on threatened, endangered, or sensitive
 plants,  and control of noxious weeds.

 Primary Comparison Criteria:
 •       Number of threatened and endangered
         plants  lost;
 •       Number of sensitive plants affected;
 •       Timber removed (board feet);  and,
 •       Annual/total AUMs (animal unit
         months) of grazing lost.

 1.10.12 Wetlands (Key Issue)

 Identify and minimize impacts to wetlands of
 the Project. Areas of concern include the acres
 of wetlands lost, changes in functions and
 values of  wetlands on and off-site (as a result of
 the Project), and the potential effects from the
 creation and dewatering of the pit.

 Primary Comparison Criteria:
 •       Acres of wetlands with changed
         functions (i.e. stormwater retention,
         filtering capability) and values
         (potential habitat diversity, potential
         wildlife corridors) due to the Project;
 •       Acres and types of wetlands lost; and,
 •       Acres and types of new wetlands
         created.

 1.10.13 Wildlife Habitat and Populations (Key
        Issue)

Minimize the disruption to wildlife habitats and
populations.  Areas of concern include the
impacts to threatened, endangered, or candidate
               species, impacts to deer habitat, impacts
               associated with increased human activity, loss
               of habitat and habitat effectiveness, wildlife
               exposure to toxic substances, effects on
               migratory birds and raptors, effects on
               "Management Indicator Species" identified in
               the Okanogan National Forest Land and
               Resource Management Plan,  photo periodic
               effects, and reduction of habitat diversity.

               Primary Comparison Criteria:
               •       Acres/percent of deer winter range
                       (snow intercept thermal cover and
                       thermal cover) in analysis area lost;
               •       Acres/percent of existing old growth
                       harvested;
               •       Fragmentation of mature and
                       old-growth habitat;
               •       Comparison of the balance of forage,
                       hiding cover, thermal cover, and snow
                       intercept thermal cover;
               •       Comparison of the balance of
                       grasslands, shrub, early successional,
                       mixed conifer pole,  mixed conifer
                       young and mature, old growth,
                       deciduous,  riparian/wetland,
                       agriculture, lake/pond, and disturbed;
               •       Comparison of total and open road
                       densities;
               •       Acres/ percentage of habitat of
                       Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive
                       Species lost in the Project analysis
                       area;
               •       Acres of deer summer thermal cover
                       lost;
               •       Acres/percentage of habitat lost for
                       "Management Indicator Species"
               •       Impacts on  migratory birds and
                       raptors;
               •       Acres/percent of cover types lost; and,
              •        Loss of other habitat structures such
                       as snaps, downed logs, cliffs, caves,
                       and talus slopes.

              1.10.14  Fish Habitat and Populations

              Minimize disruption to fish habitat and fish
              populations. The Project has  the potential to
              alter fisheries habitat thus having a negative
              impact on fish populations.  Of particular
              concern are decreased flows in Nicholson,
              Marias and Myers Creeks stream sedimentation,
              the impacts of changes in stream chemistry and
              temperature on fish, and the potential for a
              toxic chemical release entering Nicholson and/or
              Marias Creek or other streams.
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 1-14
CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
Primary Comparison Criteria:
•        Predicted changes in stream
         temperature; and,
•        Predicted changes in spawning habitat.

1.10.15 Recreation

Minimize disturbance to recreational
opportunities.  The facilities developed for the
proposed Project should be designed,
constructed and maintained to minimize
disruption to recreational opportunities in the
area by minimizing impacts to scenery, noise,
traffic and reductions in access.  Transportation
of Project materials past Beth and Beaver Lakes
is a concern since it could decrease the
recreational  experience of this high use area.
Also of concern are whether there will be
opportunities for public education on mining as
part of the Project. The Project is expected to
cause changes in the use of the nearby Jackson
Creek and Graphite Mountain unroaded areas
due to impacts to scenery and noise (loss of
solitude).  Important recreational uses of the
area including driving for pleasure, hunting,
cross country skiing and snowmobiling.

Primary Comparison Criteria:
•        Changes in recreational access;
•        Increases in vehicles, and changes in
         kinds of vehicles, past Beth and
         Beaver Lakes;
•        Acres  no longer available for
         recreational use;
•        Db increase in noise to  Graphite
         Mountain; and,
•        Facilities visible from Graphite
         Mountain.

1.10.16 Land Use

Minimize disturbance by maintaining a compact
operation. The  Forest Service and BLM
management plans for federal lands in the area
of the Project are to be managed to protect
wildlife  habitat and other resources while
managing for timber and range use and the
inclusion of reasonable measures to
accommodate the claimant's rights under U.S.
Mining Laws. WADNR land in the Project area
is to be managed mostly for timber harvest
which provides  funds for school construction.
Patenting would represent a change in land use
from public to private land.
                              Primary Comparison Criteria:
                              •        Acres of disturbance by ownership;
                              •        Changes in land use from existing land
                                       management plans; and,
                              •        Number of acres of public lands which
                                       could be patented and become private
                                       land.

                              1.10.17 Socioeconomics (Key Issue)

                              Address the social, lifestyle, and economic
                              impacts on local residents of Okanogan and
                              Ferry Counties.  Concerns include
                              socioeconomic impacts to the nearby
                              communities such as housing, utilities, and
                              employment the influx of workers and their
                              families, the Project's effect on housing
                              demand, public and community services, and
                              present lifestyles, and the effects of temporary
                              and permanent mine shutdown.

                              Primary Comparison Criteria:
                              •        Person-years of employment,
                                       annual/life of Project;
                              •        Payroll, annual/life of Project;
                              •        Anticipated population increase,
                                       Project related/cumulative;
                              •        Anticipated school enrollment effects,
                                       Project related/cumulative;
                              •        Anticipated permanent housing
                                       demand, Project related/cumulative;
                                       and,
                              •        Anticipated tax revenues, annual/life of
                                       the Project.

                              1.10.18 Scenic Resources

                              Minimize the impacts to scenery of the Project
                              from both surrounding viewpoints and on-site.
                              The concerns include the impacts to scenery of
                              the mine pit, waste rock disposal areas, tailings
                              impoundment, and  other Project related facilities
                              (including off-site facilities) during the Project
                              and for the long-term.  Another concern is the
                              impacts of lights from operating at night.

                              Primary Comparison Criteria:
                              •        Night visibility of the Project from the
                                       Oroville-Toroda road and Canadian
                                       Highway 3 west of Rock Creek; and,
                              •        Visual Quality Objectives met by the
                                       Project.

                              1.10.19 Health/Safety

                              Protect worker health and safety.  Concerns for
                              worker health and safety  include risks from  the
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995                           CROWN JEWEL MINE                            Page 1-15

use of chemicals, explosives, underground
operations and heavy equipment.

Identify the emergency response measures that
would be available in the event of chemical
spills, fire or explosion.  The expressed
concerns for the Project include the possibility
of an accident that would necessitate an
emergency response and the potential for
chemical spills, fire, explosion.

Primary Comparison Criteria:
•        Likelihood of a chemical spill; and,
•        Predicted number of industrial
         accidents.

1.10.20 Transportation

Address traffic impacts created by  the Project
and the potential for accidents. Transportation
of employees and supplies to the site would
need to be assessed and the benefits and
disadvantages of using the different possible
routes.  The potential for accidents and spills of
materials in transit should be assessed, as well
as the risks and advantages of using particular
travel routes.

Primary Comparison Criteria:
•        Additional number of vehicles per day;
         and,
•        Percent increase in traffic;

1.11     ISSUES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF
         THIS EIS/NO VARIATION  BETWEEN
         ALTERNATIVES

1.11.1   Eligible Wild  and Scenic Rivers

The Project is not located in or adjacent to a
corridor of an eligible, suitable, or designated
wild  and scenic river.

1.11.2   Trails (Protection, Maintenance, and
         Expansion of the Trail Network)

There are no effects anticipated on the
presently maintained trail network.
                   Crown Jewel Mine  + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------

-------
                                  Chapter 2
Alternatives Including The Proposed Action

-------

-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-1
                2.0  ALTERNATIVES  INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
The discussion of alternatives is the foundation
of the EIS process (40 CFR 1 502.14 and
Chapter 197-11-400 WAC). This foundation
consists of the development of a reasonable
range of alternatives.  The agencies have
explored and objectively evaluated numerous
Project components during the selection and
development of the alternatives which include
the No Action alternative and the  Proposed
Action.  In total, 7 alternatives (6  action and the
no action) have been developed for evaluation in
this EIS.

Chapter 2 also describes reclamation
management, mitigation, and monitoring
measures  which are associated with the
implementation of any of the action alternatives.
The environmental consequences  associated
with each of the action alternatives are analyzed
in Chapter 4 of this document.

Many engineering, reclamation, and
environmental studies were used in the
development of this EIS document (for further
information  refer to Appendix A for a list of
engineering, reclamation, and environmental
studies used). There have been many visits to
the Crown Jewel Project area by both agency
personnel  and the general public; these visits
have facilitated a familiarity with the area and
an insight regarding the  Project as proposed,  as
well as a working understanding regarding the
range of possible alternatives.

Three important terms used in this chapter are
defined below:

Project Components:   the major activities or
facilities which, together, form the Crown Jewel
Project.

Options:  possible location,  design, operational,
or reclamation methods available for each
Project component.

Project Alternatives:  developed by linking
groups of  options into Project configurations.

This chapter is organized into sections which
describe and discuss  the process utilized to
analyze the Crown Jewel Project.  These
sections include:
              Formulation of Alternatives.  The process used
              to develop and compare alternatives is
              described, including the No Action alternative.
              The agencies developed alternatives that alter or
              reduce the magnitude of the  potential effects of
              the Proposed Action on local environmental
              conditions, or chose to eliminate a component
              option from  further consideration.  (See Section
              2.1).

              Project Components  and Options.  The
              description of Project components which were
              evaluated in detail and those which were
              considered but eliminated from further analysis
              is set forth in this section. A number of
              component options were formulated; some were
              screened from further consideration  if they
              clearly could not meet the proposal objectives or
              address the  issues.  However, in response to
              agency and  public input, some options were
              retained for  further evaluation despite questions
              regarding technical and economic feasibility.
              (See Section 2.2).

              It is recognized that certain options and Project
              alternatives, because of their economic and
              legal implications may not be considered
              reasonable alternatives as specified by 40 CFR
              1502.14.  Specific issues of  concern under the
              federal general mining laws include:

              1)       Does the option or  alternative meet
                       the purpose and objectives, to protect
                       the surface resources while allowing
                       the Proponent to recover available
                       gold resources from their claims?

              2)       Is  the option or alternative technically
                       and economically feasible?

              3)       Does the option or  alternative allow
                       the claimant full expression of their
                       rights granted under the General
                       Mining  Laws?

              Under SEPA (197-11-440.5(b)), alternatives can
              be evaluated that reasonably attain or
              approximate a proposal's objective, but at a
              lower environmental cost or decreased level of
              environmental degradation.
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 Page 22
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A \
                                                                             u.ie J:
Project Alternatives.  Descriptions of the Project
alternatives which were assembled from the
remaining component options are included.
(See Section 2.3 through 2.10).

Reclamation.  A discussion is included that
describes reclamation planning, construction
and interim reclamation, temporary cessation of
operations, final reclamation  activities, and
reclamation guarantees. (See Section  2.11).

Management, Mitigation and Monitoring.  These
sections  include an identification of
management requirements and constraints for
action alternatives.  Mitigation measures and
monitoring programs are discussed as
components of the management requirements
for the Project. (See Section 2.12 and 2.13).
2.1
FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives have been developed and analyzed
in this EIS document to address social and
environmental issues, to respond to public and
agency concerns and input, and to satisfy
regulations of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) and  the Washington State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).  Both federal
and state regulations require that an EIS discuss
alternatives, including the No-Action Alternative.
The objective of developing and reviewing the
alternatives for the Crown Jewel Project is to
provide various agency decision makers and the
public with a broad range of Project alternatives
for consideration.

2.1.1    Identification of Project Components

The first step in  developing alternatives involves
identifying the Project components for the
Crown Jewel Project.  Components (facilities or
activities) are:
   Mining Methods;
   Operating Schedule;
   Production Schedule;
   Waste Rock Disposal;
   Ore Processing;
   Cyanide Destruction;
   Tailings Disposal;
   Tailings Embankment Construction;
   Tailings Liner Design;
   Employee Transportation;
   Supply Transportation;
   Water Supply;
                                             Water Storage;
                                             Water Use;
                                             Power Supply;
                                             Fuel Storage;
                                             Sanitary Waste Disposal;
                                             Solid Waste Disposal; and,
                                             Reclamation.
                   2.1.2     Development of Options

                   The second step in developing alternatives
                   consists of describing options for Project
                   components.  The options considered for each
                   facility are based on location, design, operation,
                   or reclamation methods,  and are discussed
                   further below:

                   Location

                   Each Project facility has technical,
                   environmental and economic location criteria
                   which must be met. For example, the locations
                   of waste rock disposal areas should minimize
                   impacts  to sensitive resources, be near the pit,
                   and have adequate capacity to hold the waste
                   rock.

                   Design

                   In any given location, there  are often a number
                   of feasible design alternatives for facilities.  An
                   example is the various design methods for
                   construction of a tailings embankment.  Another
                   example involves placement of fuel storage
                   tanks  on the surface or burying them
                   underground.

                   Operation

                   Production rates and operating schedule are
                   examples of operation options that were
                   considered.

                   Reclamation

                   Reclamation of  surface disturbance can take
                   many forms.  Examples of different alternatives
                   for reclamation of a surface mine include
                   creation of a  lake in the final mine pit; partial pit
                   backfill or complete backfill  of the pit; and/or
                   revegetation to grassland/shrub/steppe or forest
                   habitat.
                     Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-3
2.1.3    Selection of Options

Numerous meetings were held amongst federal
and state agencies in 1992, 1993, and  1994 to
discuss the various options and to form Project
alternatives for the Crown Jewel  Project.  A
variety of options were identified for each
component by agency personnel. As a  result of
these agency meetings, certain options  were
screened, altered, or eliminated from further
consideration if they did not produce a
substantially different environmental response
to the issues identified for the Project.

Surviving options were assembled into Project
alternatives and compared to the No Action
Alternative (Alternative A) and the Proponent's
proposal (Alternative B).

2.1.4    Management, Mitigation and
         Monitoring

There have been numerous discussions
regarding management, mitigation and
monitoring measures for the Crown Jewel
Project. Environmental management and
mitigation guidelines as well as monitoring and
control measures must ensure that the final
actions conform  to the applicable laws relating
to the Crown Jewel Project.  The intent of these
constraints, guidelines, and mitigation measures
is to ensure that adverse environmental impacts
are  avoided, minimized or reasonably mitigated
during construction, operation and closure of
the  Crown Jewel Project.

Following completion of the NEPA and SEPA
processes, and the Preferred Alternative is
selected, the Proponent must provide final
engineering design and final reclamation and
closure plans for the selected alternative to the
appropriate agencies involved.  Also, as
necessary, the Proponent would be required to
modify the Plan of Operations to  incorporate
any stipulations set forth in the Record of
Decision for this  EIS.  Any design, operational or
reclamation alterations must meet individual
agency permitting regulations and guidelines.
This work would be required to secure the
necessary permits and approvals  as explained  in
Chapter 1.  In  addition, certain agencies would
require reclamation performance securities
(bonds) prior to any final approval.  The WADNR
will  hold the State performance security for
surface reclamation.  The WADOE will also hold
              a State performance security.  It is proposed to
              have either the Forest Service or the BLM hold
              all Federally required performance security or
              work out a Memorandum of Understanding
              between the State and Federal agencies for one
              agency to hold all required performance
              security.

              2.1.5    Project Alternative Comparison

              Project alternatives were developed as a result
              of numerous meetings and discussions  amongst
              federal and state agencies, beginning in 1992
              as scoping comments were received and issues
              established. The issues and comments received
              from both the  public and government agencies
              formed the basis for the selection of the Project
              alternatives in  this EIS document.

              A brief summary of the Project alternatives
              assembled by  the lead agencies (Forest Service
              and WADOE) is included in this section.  Table
              2.1, Alternative Comparison Summary, portrays
              a comparison of the Project alternatives.
              Additional details concerning these Project
              alternatives, including representative figures and
              tables, are found in Sections 2.3 through 2.10
              of this EIS document.

              Alternative A (No Action) and Alternative B
              (Proposed Action)  are required to be analyzed
              by NEPA and SEPA. Alternatives C through G
              were developed by the lead agencies to address
              issues and concerns identified during the
              scoping portion of the EIS process and  to alter
              or reduce the magnitude of the potential
              effects.

              All  of the Action Alternatives would require an
              amendment to the Okanogan Forest Plan which
              would be part  of this NEPA document.

              Due to the structure of mineral laws and
              regulations, the Forest Service's and BLM's
              Minerals Management Programs  are largely
              responsive in nature.  A major part of this job
              will be responding  to applications and proposals
              submitted from outside the agency. Forest
              Service and BLM responsibility for such
              proposals  lies  mainly in providing reasonable
              surface protection  and reclamation requirements
              within specified time frames and in assuring
              compliance of  the same.  Management
              implications for the Forest Service and BLM
              require that mineral exploration and
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 2-4
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
June 1995
TABLE 2.1, ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON SUMMARY

Mining Method
Operating
Schedule
! Production
Schedule
Project Life
LmpKyrr.opt
Local Hire (%)
Area of
Disturbance
Mill Process
Ore Reserve '
Reserve Basa (oz)
Minable Ounces
Grade (oz/ton)
Mill Recove'y <%)
Recovered (oz>
Tailings Location
Waste Rock
Disposal'2
Supply Route
Alternative A
Reciamai'Cn Only
Daylight hours.
Summer months
Not Applicable
1 year
Const: 0
Oper; 0
R»<-: 1
Const: 0
Oper 0
K,~;j ~ •i pecole
Const: 0
Oper. C
Rec: 100
-- 55 acres
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
N(,t Applicable

Alternative B
Surface (open pit!
Year-Round;
24 hours/day
3.000 tons/day
10 y u a i S
Const' 1
Oper: 8
Rec: 1
Const: 250 neopie
Oper: 1 50 people
Rec: 50 peoj>le
Const 40
Oper. 80
Rec: 95
766 acres
Tank Cyanidation
1,567,440
1,567,440
0 18
87
= 1,363,670 oz
Marias Creek
54 mm yd3
2 disposal areas:
North (A) and South
(B) of Pit
From Wauconda - CR
9495 - CR 9480 - CR
4895 - FS 1 20 - Site
P,t Ic't open: FdC'l;ti°°,
'•"moved, S'te
'
Alternative C
Underground
Year-Round;
24 hours/day
3,000 tons/day
6 years
Const: 1
Opei: 4
Rec: 1
Const 250 people
Oper. 225 people
Rec: 50 people
Const: 25
Oper 40
Rec- 95
440 acres
Tank Cyanidation
1,355,569
934,300
0.25
89
= 831,530 oz
Marias Creek
= 500,000 yd3
I disposal area:
North of Adits
within Area A
From Oroville CR
9480 - CR 4895 -
FS 120 - Site
Possible
subsidence;
Facilities removed;
Site revegetated.
Alternative D
Surface (open pit) /
Underground
Year-Round;
24 hours/day
3,000 tons/day
8 years
Const: 1
Oper: 6
Rec: 1
Const: 250 people
Oper: 225 people
Rec: 50 people
Const: 30
Oper: 50
Rec: 95
562 acres
Tank Cyanidation
1,520,149
1,261,600
0.20
88
= 1,1 10,200 oz
Marias Creek
27 mm yd3
1 disposal area:
North of Pit within
Area A
From Wauconda - CR
9495 - CR 9480 - CR
4895 - FS 120 - Site
Pit left open; possible
subsidence; Facilities
removed; Site
revegetated
Alternative E
Surface (open pit)
Year-Round;
24 hours/day
3,000 tons/day
10 years
Const: 1
Oper: 8
Rec: 1
Const: 250 people
Oper: 1 50 people
Rec: 50 people
Const: 40
Oper: 80
Rec: 95
927 acres
Tank Cyanidation
1,567,440
1,567,440
0.18
87
= 1,363,670 oz
Marias Creek
48 mm yd3
2 disposal areas:
North (I) and South (C)
of Pit
From Wauconda - CR
9495 - CR 9480 - CR
4895 - FS 120 - Site
Pit partially backfilled;
Facilities removed; Site
revegetated.
Alternative F
Surface (open pit)
Year-Round;
Mill 24 hours/day
Mine 1 2 hours/day
1 ,500 tons/day
33 years
Const: 1
Oper: 16
Rec: 16
Const: 250 people
Oper: 1 25 people
Rec: 75 people
Const: 40
Oper: 80
Rec: 95
822 acres
Tank Cyanidation
1,567,440
1,567,440
0.18
87
= 1,363,670 oz
Nicholson Creek
54 mm yd3
1 (temp) stockpile:
North (1) of Pit
From Wauconda - CR
9495 - CR 9480 - CR
4895 - FS 120 - Site
Pit backfilled;
Facilities removed;
Site revegetated.
Alternative G
Surface (open pit)
Year-Round;
24 hours/day
3,000 tons/day
10 years
Const: 1
Oper: 8
Rec: 1
Const: 250 people
Oper: 210 people
Rec: 50 people
Const: 40
Oper: 80
Rec: 95
896 acres
Flotation
1,567,440
1,567,440
0.18
52{flot) + 87(CN)
= 709,000 oz
Nicholson Creek
54 mm yd3
1 disposal area:
North (J) of Pit
From Oroville CR
9480 - CR 4895 -
FS 120 - Site
Pit left open;
Facilities removed;
Site revegetated.
i N>-:te- 1 ~.\ -cj -,'i o',n r.;,ii.-.-jt--"j trom the Pro lonent, Battle Mountain Gold Company Crown Jewel Project Draft Alternative: Request For Additional
l-t-.r'ii .-tir>r u,/ 7 1993
|i
2 h.-f'ir ' -, ,<"-.,; iro / 2. Vi-'s'-T" Rock Disposal Area Opt'ons, for general locations.
;

-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-5
 development be facilitated while
 accommodating the needs and conservation of
 other resources to the fullest extent possible.

 To accommodate the proposed mining
 operation, if approved, the Forest Service has
 decided to develop a new temporary
 management prescription, designated as  MA
 27, and associated standards  and guidelines for
 the new management area.  The Forest Service
 would manage the operation according to the
 proposed Management Area 27 standards and
 guidelines outlined in Figure 2. 1 , Management
 Prescription 27.

 Once mining and reclamation activities have
 ceased, the Forest Service would return the
 reclaimed areas to management under the goals
 and objectives of Management Areas  14, 25
 and 26 of the existing or a subsequent Forest
 Plan, as appropriate. These objectives for long-
 term management would include the guidelines
 established for desired future conditions.  If an
 action alternative is selected, the boundary of
 this management area would be the actual
 fence surrounding the Project  and 50 feet each
 side of the powerline corridor  and water supply
 pipeline.

 Alternative A - No Action

 This alternative, required by both NEPA and
 SEPA, would preclude Project development, but
 would not change previous decisions regarding
 mineral exploration.  Reclamation of the Project
 site from impacts of previous exploration
 activities would begin as soon as feasible as
 described in previous NEPA documents. This
 alternative provides the basis and existing
 condition  against which the other action
 alternatives are compared.  Alternative A  is
 discussed in further detail in Section 2.4.
         f-' 6 - Proposed Ar.tion
This alternative proposes an open pit mine with
2 waste rock disposal areas located to the north
and south of the pit area.  The facility would
operate 24 hours per day, employ approximately
1 50 people during operations, and produce an
average of 3,000 tons of ore per day. The life
of the operation would be 10 years: 1 year for
construction, 8 years of operation, and  1 year
for completion of most reclamation.  Crushing
would be conducted below ground level;
              grinding and milling would be above ground in
              an enclosed building.  Gold extraction would use
              conventional milling with the tank cyanidation
              process and carbon-in-leach (CIL) gold recovery.
              Residual cyanide in the tailings would be
              reduced using the  cyanide destruction process
              consisting of S02/Air/02 (INCO Process). The
              tailings would  be placed in a designed facility at
              the head of the Marias Creek drainage.  Final
              reclamation would leave the north part of the
              ultimate pit open to partially fill with water, and
              eventually discharge to the Nicholson Creek
              drainage (Gold Bowl Creek). Employees would
              be bused to the site from locations in or near
              Oroville.  The supply route would access the
              Project from the south through Wauconda,
              Toroda Creek Road and Beaver Canyon.
              Alternative B is discussed in further detail in
              Section 2.5.

              Alternative C

              This alternative proposes that ore be extracted
              by underground methods.  The facility would
              operate 24 hours per day, employ 225 people
              during operations,  and produce an average of
              3,000 tons of ore per day.  The life of the
              operation would be 6 years:  1 year for
              construction, 4 years of operation, and 1 year
              for the completion  of most reclamation.
              Crushing, grinding, and milling would be
              conducted above ground.  Gold extraction
              would use conventional milling with the tank
              cyanidation process and CIL gold recovery.
              Residual cyanide in the tailings would be
              reduced using the cyanide destruct process
              consisting of S02/Air/02 (INCO Process).  Waste
              rock from underground development would be
              placed in a  north disposal area. A surface
              quarry would be required for rock material to
              construct tailings embankments located in the
              Marias Creek drainage and for backfill in  the
              mine.  Employees would be bused to the site
              from location in or  near Oroville.  Supplies
              would be hauled from  Oroville to  Chesaw and
              then via a south access route to the Project
              site.  This alternative would produce about 60%
              of the gold that would be available if surface
              (open pit) mining were used. In response to
              agency and public input, it was decided to
              consider this alternative for comparative
              purposes.  Alternative  C is discussed in further
              detail in Section 2.6.
                    Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statenwut

-------
Page 26
                                       CHAPTER
                                      FIGURE 2 1, MANAGEMENT- pf=i :-CRiP"HOfV
GOAL STATEMENT: Provide for minerals development, intensive inuvr ;!<  ox-
protecting other resource values to the extent reasonable and feasible

DESCRIPTION:  This applies to Management Area 27.  The area allocate.'! to  this use im.ludf.s only the ^
minerals development or intensive exploration.
                                                                                                        io areas of
   DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION: Minerals development and intensive minerals exploration activities are I mited to the area
   necessary for their efficient, economic, and orderly progression.  The activities are carried out so that eny effects on other
   resources are minimized to the extent reasonable and  feasible, and all legal resource protection requirements are met.
   Other resources uses and  activities may be permitted  where activities are compatible with public safety and efficient and
   safe mining and related operations.  Sites will be rehabilitated following exploration or development to provide geomorphic
   and hydrologic stability, habitat values, scenic values, and other uses of the National Forest  The goal of rehabilitation will
   be to allow the return of the land  to the former management emphasis.
      ACTIVITY
                                                      STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
   Recreation        MA27-8A The visual quality objectives may not be met during mineral operations.  The VQO will be
                    determined by the Project NEPA document, with a long-term or post-rehabilitation goal of achieving a
                    visual quality objective that considers the goals and objectives of the former management emphasis.

                    MA27-8B Roaded modified recreation opportunities may be provided where compatible with public safety
                    and efficient and safe mining operations.

   Wildlife           MA27-6A Cover standards applicable to discrete MA27 shall  be determined  in the  Project NEPA decision
                    document.

   Range            MA27-1 1 A Manage commercial livestock to reduce conflicts  with mineral activities

                    MA27-1 1B revegetation activities during site  rehabilitation shall be designated to reestablish vegetation
                    having long-term stability   Use locally adapted native species where ever feasible.

   Timber           MA27-20A Scheduled timber harvest shall not occur.

                    MA27-20B Unscheduled timber harvest activities may occur when necessaiy for mineral exploration and
                    development, and when necessary to prevent the spread of disease or insects to adjacent areas and
                    ownerships, or meet other resource needs.

                    MA27-20C Reforestation of formerly forested sites shall occur with locally adapted native species and
                    seed sources to the extent feasible.

   Minerals         MA27-15A NEF'A analysis and decision documents shall address site rehabilitation aid reclamation
                    activities.

   Roads            MA27-17A Roads shall be constructed or reconstructed to appropriate standards wr^ere necessary to
                    provide access for minerals exploration and development.  Public use of roads may be restricted or
                    prohibited for reasons of safety, or to avoid conflict with mining operations.  Project NEPA Decision
                    Documents shall provide for road management, and reclamation requirements  for roc'ds at the close of
                    operations.

   Facilities         MA27-18A Facilities necessary to mineral operations are allowed. Design, placemen:, construction, and
                    closure of all facilities shall be in accordance  with the Project NEPA Decision Documents.

                    MA27-18B Fac lilies shall be designed, constructed, and operated to contain hazardous substances.
                    Facilities shall be  designed and operated to minimize human, wildlife, or domestic hvsstock exposure to
                    hazardous substances.

                    MA27-18C With the exception of facilities identified in the NEPA Decision Document for retention,
                    facilities shall be removed or dismantled upon completion of intended use, and evidence of their presence
                    shall be obliterated during rehabilitation of the site.

                    MA27-18D Hazardous substances, mining residues and tailings shall be removed from the site and/or
                    appropriately trsated and left on-site in accordance with the NEPA Decision  Document.

                    MA27-18E Solid wastes produced incidentally to the management of mineral exploration or development
                    shall be disposed of in accordance with direction in the NEPA Decision Document.

   Protection        MA27-19A The preferred suppression strategy is control.

                    MA27-19B Permittees shall assume  responsibility for securing fire protection of structures and mining
                    facilities from structural fires
                          Crown Jewel Mine  *  Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-7
Alternative D

This alternative would extract ore from the
north portion of the ore body by surface mining
and would mine the southern portion of the ore
zone by underground methods.  The operation
would run 24 hours per day, employ about 225
people during operations, and produce an
average of 3,000 tons of ore per day. The life
of the operation would be 8 years:  1 year for
construction, 6 years for  operation, and  1 year
for the completion of most  reclamation.
Crushing would be conducted below ground
level. Grinding and milling would be above
ground.  Gold extraction would  use conventional
milling with the tank cyanidation process and
CIL gold  recovery. Residual cyanide in the
tailings would be  reduced using the cyanide
destruction process consisting of SO2/Air/02
(INCO Process). The tailings would be placed in
a designed facility in the Marias Creek drainage.
Waste rock would be placed in a north disposal
area location.  Some waste rock would be used
for backfill in the  underground mine.  Final
reclamation would include leaving the  north part
of the ultimate pit open to partially fill  with
water, and eventually discharge to the
Nicholson Creek drainage (Gold  Bowl Creek).
Employees would be bused  to the site from
location in or near Oroville.  The supply route
would access the Crown  Jewel  Project from the
south through Wauconda, Toroda Creek, and
Beaver Canyon. This alternative would recover
about 80% of the gold reserve available to
strictly surface  mining. Alternative D is
discussed in further detail in Section 2.7.

Alternative E

This alternative proposes an open pit mine with
2 waste  rock disposal areas located in the same
general areas as Alternative B, but they were
reconfigured to have gentler slopes and to avoid
placement of waste rock  on some steeper
slopes.  Although this may  limit the Proponent's
operational flexibility, the lead agencies would
require the Proponent to schedule the  operation
to completely mine out the  north pit before
finishing  the south pit so  that waste rock from
the south pit could be used  to partially refill the
north pit to eliminate the  formation  of  a post-
mining lake. Approximately 10.5 million tons of
waste rock from the south pit would be used to
partially refill the north pit so no permanent
post-mining lake would be formed.  The
              operation would run 24 hours per day, employ
              150 people during operation and produce an
              average of 3,000 tons of ore per day.  The life
              of the operation would be 10 years: 1 year for
              construction, 8 years of operation, and 1 year
              to complete most reclamation.  Crushing would
              be conducted below ground level.  Grinding and
              milling would be above ground. Gold extraction
              would use conventional milling with the tank
              cyanidation process and CIL gold recovery.
              Residual cyanide in the tailings would be
              reduced using the cyanide destruction process
              consisting of S02/Air/02 (INCO Process). The
              tailings would be placed in a designed facility in
              the Marias Creek drainage.  Final reclamation
              would include partially backfilling the final  pit  to
              achieve drainage and reestablish desirable
              topography.  Employees would be bused to the
              site from  locations in or near Oroville. The
              supply route would access the Project from the
              south through Wauconda, Toroda Creek and
              Beaver Canyon.  Alternative E is discussed in
              further detail in Section 2.8.

              Alternative F

              This alternative consists of an open pit mine
              with  1 temporary waste rock disposal area
              located to the north of the pit area.  The mine
              would operate 1 (12 hour) shift per day
              producing an average of 1,500 tons of ore per
              shift. The mill would operate 24 hours per day
              to process the 1,500 tons of ore extracted per
              day.  The life of the operation would be 33
              years: 1  year for construction, 16 years of
              operation, and 16 years to complete
              reclamation, that would primarily involve the
              backfilling of the mine pit. About 125 people
              would be employed during operations.  Gold
              extraction would use conventional milling
              employing tank cyanidation process and CIL
              gold recovery.  Residual cyanide in the tailings
              would be reduced using the cyanide destruction
              process consisting of S02/Air/02 (INCO
              Process).  The tailings would be placed in a
              designed  facility in the Nicholson Creek
              drainage.  Final reclamation would include
              returning  about 54 million cubic yards of waste
              rock to the final  pit.  Employees would be  bused
              to the site from a location in or near Oroville.
              The supply route would access the Project from
              the south through Wauconda, Toroda Creek
              Road, and Beaver Canyon.
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 Page 2-8
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIVES
                                                                                      June 1995
This alternative would require a smaller mill than
proposed in Alternatives 6, C,  D, and E.
Complete backfilling upon the final extraction of
gold values would require a considerable
investment in equipment and personnel during
periods where there will be no monetary return
from the sale of the gold values. There would
be substantially increased operating costs during
gold production years to  develop a sinking fund
to pay for the backfilling  activities.  Given
economic feasibility considerations, totally
different ore reserves may result.  This
alternative is  being considered to respond to
agency and public input.   Alternative F is
discussed in further detail in Section 2.9.

Alternative G

This alternative consists of an open pit mine
with 1 permanent waste rock disposal area
located to the north of the pit  area. The
operation would run  24 hours per day, employ
about 210 people during operations, and
produce an average of 3,000 tons of ore per
day.  The life of the operation would be 10
years: 1 year of construction,  8 years of
operation, and 1  year to  complete  most
reclamation.  Crushing would be conducted
below ground level.  Grinding and  milling would
be conducted above ground.  The  gold bearing
material would be concentrated using a flotation
process. The concentrate would be transported
off-site to undergo cyanidation processing to
recover the gold  values.  The non-concentrate
from the flotation process would be placed in a
designed tailings  impoundment located in the
Nicholson Creek  drainage. Final reclamation
would include leaving the north part of the
ultimate pit open to partially fill with water, and
eventually discharge into a tributary to
Nicholson Creek  (Gold Bowl drainage).
Employees would be bused to the site from
locations in or near Oroville.  Supplies would be
hauled from Oroville to Chesaw and then via the
south access route to the Project site.

This alternative will require a different mill than
proposed in the other action alternatives.
Preliminary analytical work completed for a
flotation process on the  Crown Jewel
mineralized zones indicated that 45% of the
gold values can be recovered versus 87%
recoverable utilizing conventional cyanidization
processing.  This reduction would affect the
economic feasibility of this alternative.  In
                   response to public input, it was decided to
                   consider an alternative involving non-cyanide
                   processing. Alternative G is discussed in further
                   detail in Section 2.10.

                   2.2      PROJECT COMPONENTS AND
                            OPTIONS

                   The following discussion describes options to
                   the various Project components and identifies
                   those options considered in detail in the
                   development of 1  or more of the  Project
                   alternatives. This section also presents the
                   rationale for the elimination of other options
                   from further study.  From these options, Project
                   alternatives were developed and evaluated.

                   The various Project components examined
                   include the following:
                      Mining Methods;
                      Operating Schedule;
                      Production Schedule;
                      Waste Rock Disposal;
                      Ore Processing;
                      Cyanide Destruction;
                      Tailings Disposal;
                      Tailings Embankment Construction;
                      Tailings Liner System Design;
                      Employee Transportation;
                      Supply Transportation;
                      Water Supply;
                      Water Storage;
                      Water Use;
                      Power Supply;
                      Fuel Storage;
                      Sanitary Waste  Disposal;
                      Solid Waste Disposal; and,
                      Reclamation.
                   2.2.1    Project Location

                   There are no feasible locational options for the
                   proposed mine area. The location of the defined
                   ore deposit necessarily controls the location of
                   the mine. The geology and mineral deposits
                   associated with the Crown Jewel Project have
                   been extensively explored and studied since
                   1988.
                   2.2.2
Mining Methods
                   There are 3 primary methods of mineral
                   extraction:
                      Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-9
 •        Surface mining;
 •        Underground mining; and,
 •        Combination of surface and
          underground mining

 Each method has various positive and negative
 environmental impacts.  Each method has
 various techniques and combinations of
 techniques which can be selected to meet
 specific site conditions.  Selecting a mining
 method is a complex process involving
 consideration of a number of factors:

 •        The spatial characteristics of the
          deposit (size, shape, attitude and
          depth).

 •        The physical properties of the mineral
          deposit and the surrounding rock.

 •        Ground water and hydraulic
          conditions.

 •        Economic factors, including grade of
          the ore, comparative mining costs,
          maximum resource recovery and
          desired production rates.

 •        Environmental factors, including air,
          water, and wildlife impacts, as well as
          reclamation goals.

 Of these factors, the spatial characteristics of
 the deposit, the physical properties of the rock,
 and the grade of the ore  are usually the primary
 factors in selecting a mining method.

 Underground mining is usually conducted when
 the ore occurs in veins or tabular bodies, the
 grade is relatively high and  is located deeper
 than can be reached by surface methods.

 Surface mining  is generally  used for extraction
 of disseminated type or bulk minable ore
 deposits that are irregularly shaped or
 distributed and  that occur at shallow depth.

The Crown Jewel deposit consists of irregularly
shaped areas of garnetite ore occurring at or
near the surface and magnetite ore at depth.
These areas of disseminated ore vary
significantly in shape, distribution, grade and
depth. As described in Battle Mountain Gold
Company's Integrated Plan  of Operation (BMGC,
 1993a), approximately 8.7 million tons of ore
               has been delineated at a cutoff grade of 0.034
               oz/ton.

               Open Pit Mining

               This is a surface mining technique that allows
               the extraction of shallow ores.  This method
               uses a sequenced set of operations to maximize
               the recovery of the ore.

               Initially, a portion of a bench or level is drilled
               on a pre-set pattern. The cuttings from
               representative blast holes are collected and
               assayed to determine whether it is ore or waste
               rock material. The blast holes are loaded with
               explosives and detonated  to promote breakup or
               fracturing of the rock.

               Next, the material is picked up with an
               excavator, such as a front end loader or a
               hydraulic shovel, and loaded into a haul truck
               for transport to the crusher, if the material is
               ore, or to a waste rock disposal area if not ore.
               While this portion of the bench  is being loaded
               and hauled, another portion of the bench is
               being drilled and shot so the sequence can
               continue without interruption. This will create a
               series of benches each approximately 1 5 to 30
               feet in height, with a maximum bench height of
               40 feet, and  of varying width to maintain
               operational safety (BMGC, 1993a).

               The overall pit slopes (straight line between the
               top and the bottom of the pit) would be
               between 45° and 55° from horizontal,
               depending on rock stability, haul road
               placement, and other engineering
               considerations. Individual bench slopes would
               be steeper, ranging from approximately 65° to
               75°.  The pit slope and  bench height may vary
               due to on-site rock properties, ore
               characteristics, and spatial occurrence of waste
               rock and ore. These properties are determined
               by mechanical testing, inspections, and
               measurements performed concurrently with
               actual operations to ensure pit stability and safe
               work areas.

               Equipment used in the operation would include
              truck or track-mounted blast hole drill rigs,
              bulldozers, front end loaders,  hydraulic
              excavators, haul trucks, road  graders, pickup
              trucks, water trucks and other minor ancillary
              equipment.
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 Page 2-10
CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES
June 1995
Underground Mining

Underground mining was historically used in the
region to develop mines on Buckhorn Mountain.
These underground mines have not operated for
several decades. Early underground operations
searched for high grade ore veins of gold,
copper,  and iron (iron was also mined from a
small open pit).

For the purposes of the EIS, an investigation of
the applicability of extracting the mineralized
zones by underground methods was conducted.
Given the spatial characteristics of the deposit,
the room and pillar method of ore extraction
was selected as the primary technique for
evaluation. It was assumed that in ore zones
greater than 50 feet in  width and 1 5 feet in
height, 1 5 feet by 1 5 feet in size pillars would
be left every 35 feet.  Besides room and pillar, 3
other underground techniques could be
applicable to certain smaller mineralized zones
of the Crown Jewel deposit.  These include
sublevel stoping, breast sloping (post and pillar
sloping), and glory holing.

The underground equipment would be
somewhat similar to equipment used on the
surface  but would be of smaller capacity and
designed to use less vertical clearance.

A portion of the ore occurs in isolated  small
pods (1,500 to 5,000 tons each) scattered
throughout the deposit. Some of these blocks
are too isolated to justify the development cost
necessary to access them. Underground mining
would also result in leaving gold values in the
support pillars.  The higher cost of underground
mining would require that cutoff grade be
increased. This evaluation has been based on a
cutoff grade of 0.100 oz/ton (BMGC, 1993c).
Based on the support requirements and the
spatial location  of ore pods, it is estimated that
approximately 40% of the available gold  would
not be mined.  In total, for underground
operations (185  workers) and ore  processing
(40 workers) activities, approximately  225
workers  would be required for a 3,000 tons/day
operation.

Combination of Underground and Surface
Mining

The possibility of combining underground and
surface mining to extract ore reserves  was
                  examined.  For the Crown Jewel deposit, a
                  combination of open pit mining on the north
                  portion of the reserve and room and pillar and
                  breast stoping underground mining to the south
                  could present a possible extraction method.  A
                  reserve loss of approximately 20% would be
                  expected given the spatial distribution of ore
                  pods, support pillars needed in the underground
                  workings and ounces lost due to higher ore
                  cutoff grades required for underground mining.

                  Mining Method Options Considered in  Detail

                  •       Surface (Open-Pit) Mining
                  •       Underground Mining
                  •       Combination Underground and Surface
                           Mining

                  Mining Method Options Eliminated From
                  Detailed Evaluation

                  •       None

                  2.2.3    Operating Schedule

                  The operating schedule can be divided into 2
                  categories:

                  •       Operating season; and,
                  •       Daily operating period.

                  Operating Season

                  The proposed action would involve operating
                  the Crown Jewel Project year-round.

                  An option would be to annually shut the
                  operation down during the coldest (winter) and
                  muddiest (spring) portions of the year.  It is
                  assumed that a seasonal mine would operate for
                  a longer time to remove the same ore  reserve.

                  Suspending operations during winter and spring
                  is an option which was eliminated because of
                  logistical problems closing and re-starting a
                  mine, laying  off employees,  maintaining security
                  and providing environmental maintenance and
                  monitoring during the suspension periods.
                  Seasonal suspension  could lead to a transient,
                  less well-trained,  work force which could result
                  in socioeconomic problems for the surrounding
                  communities. The Proponent should develop a
                  more committed and  experienced work force
                  with greater loyalty among the workers by
                  offering year-round employment.
                     Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
                                      CROWN JEWEL MINE
                                                                                     Page 2-11
 Daily Operating Rate

 Under the proposed action the Crown Jewel
 Project would operate on a 24 hour per day, 7
 day per week, 365 days per year basis.  At this
 rate, the ore would be mined out in
 approximately 8 years.

 An option of operating the Crown Jewel Project
 on a 12 hour per day basis was examined.  This
 option was suggested as a basis for eliminating
 night-time noise,  reducing night-time glare, and
 providing longer-term economic benefits.  As
 with most complex industrial processes, it is
 technically infeasible and logistically impossible
 to start and stop  a conventional ore-processing
 mill every 12 hours.  This  is due to the time
 required to drain or recharge the system and the
 time necessary to bring  it up to proper operating
 conditions.

 Assuming that the mill would operate on a 24
 hour basis,  then  production from the mine for a
 12-hour period would need to be sufficient to
 supply the 24-hour needs of the mill.  For the
 Crown Jewel Project, this  would mean either
 doubling hourly ore production from 125 tons to
 250 tons per hour and a concurrent increase of
 waste  rock production for  a milling rate of
 3,000  tons per day, or it would be necessary to
 down sizing the mill and reducing the milling
 rate to 1,500 tons per day, in order to
 accommodate a 12 hour per day operating
 schedule.  In the confines of the open pit
 proposed, the increase in ore production to 250
 tons per hour would be  logistically infeasible.
 The operation of a mine for only 12 hours per
 day could decrease efficiency and impact the
 economic feasibility of the Project.  However, in
 response to agency and  public input,  it was
 decided to consider this  option in detail.

 Operating Schedule Options Considered in Detail

 •        Year Round Operation
 •        24 Hour Per Day Operating  Schedule
         (3,000 tons of ore per day)
 •        12 Hour Per Day Operating  Schedule
         for the  Mine (1,500 tons of ore per
         day)

Operating Schedule Options Eliminated From
Detailed Evaluation

•        Seasonal Operation
                                                  •         12 Hour Per Day Milling

                                                  2.2.4     Production Schedule

                                                  The target production rate for the Crown Jewel
                                                  Project, in the proposed action, averages
                                                  approximately 1.1  million tons of ore per year.
                                                  This mining  and milling schedule would involve
                                                  a 24-hour per day, 365 day per year operation.
                                                  At this operating rate, mining would continue
                                                  for  approximately 8 years.

                                                  Greater Production Rate

                                                  A 50% faster processing rate was considered.
                                                  A faster rate (4,500 tons per day of ore) would
                                                  decrease the life of the operation to  about 6
                                                  years.  The processing rate would require
                                                  additional equipment and personnel.  A larger
                                                  processing facility would require a crusher
                                                  operating  at 190 tons per hour. A larger mill
                                                  would be required. It is estimated that
                                                  personnel requirements would increase by 30%.

                                                  Although the same total amount of ore would
                                                  be processed as in the proposed action, the site
                                                  plan would be changed to accommodate the
                                                  increased  equipment. The increase in
                                                  equipment would result in a larger pit and a
                                                  subsequent increase in waste  rock production.
                                                  A larger processing plant would also be
                                                  required.

                                                  Water requirements and consumption for ore
                                                  processing would increase on  a  daily basis, but
                                                  would decrease overall due to the reduced
                                                  duration of operations.  Due to a higher
                                                  instantaneous demand for water, it would be
                                                  necessary to increase the withdrawal of water
                                                  from Myers Creek drainage or secure additional
                                                  water sources. Daily electric power  and fuel
                                                  consumption would be increased over the
                                                  proposed action.

                                                  Anticipated increases in mine and processing
                                                  equipment would include:

                                                  •         Mining:  Mining equipment
                                                           requirements would increase  (primarily
                                                           loaders and haul trucks) due to the
                                                           increased production requirements or
                                                          the size of the mining equipment
                                                           (trucks and loaders) would  increase.
                                                          There would be concerns about
                                                          sufficient working space at the site.
                   Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 Page 2-12
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIVES
June 1995
•        Crushing:  Crushing rates would
         increase from 130 to  almost 200 tons
         of ore per hour.

•        Milling:  Milling rates  would increase
         from 3,000 tons per day to over
         4,500 tons of ore per day. Equipment
         capacities would be increased.

•        Processing:  Although gold leaching
         and recovery rates  would remain the
         same, a slightly larger processing
         facility would be required due to the
         increase in the volume of material
         being processed hourly.

Chemical agent, fuel, and explosive
requirements for ore processing and mining
would increase on an average daily basis as
compared to the proposed action.  There would
be increased traffic to deliver such supplies.

Access requirements would be  similar to the
proposed action.  Project traffic would be higher
than estimated for the proposed action;
however, the duration of traffic would be
reduced to a 6 year mine life.

The increased production and processing rate
option was eliminated from further study
because it is impractical, inefficient, and
generally increases the Project's inherent
impacts.  Negative impacts would include
development of additional water sources,
increased traffic, more land disturbance,  and a
greater number of employees hired for a shorter
period of time.

Reduced Production Rate

A slower rate of production (1,500 tons  per day
of ore) would increase the life of the operation
to about 16 years, assuming  ore grades were
not affected by the economics  of lengthening
the mine life.  However, the reduction in the
rate of production would affect the amount of
ore reserves due to increased unit costs; and,
therefore, higher ore cutoff grades would be
likely.  The reduced processing rate would
require a decrease in the size of the mill and the
equipment used in the mine.

This option of processing 1,500 tons per day of
ore would result in a  smaller  processing facility
with the crusher operating at an average rate of
                  approximately 60 tons of ore per hour.  The
                  personnel requirements for the mill would not be
                  greatly reduced; the components would be
                  downsized but would still require a similar
                  amount of labor to operate and maintain.

                  Because the same total amount of ore and
                  waste rock would be processed as for the
                  proposed  action, the site plan would generally
                  be identical to the proposed action.  The
                  processing plant would be in the  same location
                  but would disturb slightly less area.

                  Water requirements for ore processing would
                  decrease on an average  daily basis, but would
                  increase overall due to the extended Project
                  duration.  The increase would be due to greater
                  amounts being needed for dust control and
                  make-up water to compensate for that lost due
                  to evaporation.

                  If less ore is processed per hour,  possible
                  reductions in mine and processing equipment
                  would include:

                  •        Mining:  Mining equipment
                            requirements may be reduced,
                            primarily in loaders and haul trucks;
                            however, it is  probable that the size of
                            loaders and haul trucks should simply
                            be reduced and their numbers remain
                            the same, thereby requiring the same
                            amount of labor. Most other support
                            equipment would still be necessary.
                            Smaller loaders and trucks would cost
                            less to operate per hour.

                  •        Crushing: Crushing rates would
                            decrease from approximately 125 to
                            60 tons of ore per hour.  Equipment
                            capacities would be reduced and
                            different types of crushers might be
                            used.

                  •        Milling:  Milling rates would decrease
                            from 3,000 tons of ore per day to
                            1,500 tons of ore per day.  Equipment
                            capacities would be reduced.

                  •        Processing:  Although gold leaching
                            and  recovery rates would remain the
                            same, a smaller processing facility
                            area could be  utilized due to the
                            decrease in the volume of material
                            being processed per hour.
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-13
Access requirements would be similar to the
proposed action.  Chemical agents, fuel, and
explosive requirements for ore processing and
mining would decrease on an average daily
basis, but fuel would increase overall due to the
extended Project duration.  There would be less
traffic on a daily basis, the duration of traffic
impacts would be extended to a 16-year mine
life.

A reduced production rate could mean a
reduction in personnel.  However, the
economics of the operation would  be pushed  to
maximize capital equipment efficiency. In this
case, the size of mobile equipment might be
reduced rather than the number of shifts
worked. For example, instead of utilizing 85
ton trucks, the operation could use 50 ton
trucks.  Yet a driver would still be needed for
the truck, regardless of capacity.  Generally, the
administrative, engineering, environmental and
other support personnel requirements  would
remain the same.

Production Rate Options Considered in Detail

•       3,000 tons of ore per day - processing
         rate
•       1,500 tons of ore per day -
         processing rate

Production Rate Option Eliminated from Detailed
Evaluation

•       Increase in ore processing rate (4,500
         tons of ore per day)

2.2.5    Waste Rock Disposal

Waste  rock consists of rock material removed
during  mining that contains no gold values or
with gold content below the economic cutoff
grade.  Waste rock disposal is an integral part of
mining operations and must be carried out in
stable and suitable sites. Considering the
topography and stability in the area surrounding
the mining site, several criteria were used to
evaluate alternatives for siting waste rock
disposal.

These criteria include:

•        Topography and Slope
•        Proximity to Pit
•        Efficiency of Operation
               •        Geologic Stability
               •        Size
               •        Wetland Areas
               •        Ability to Reclaim

               For all action alternatives, waste rock would be
               moved throughout the life of the operation.
               Underground mining would produce an
               estimated 500,000 cubic yards  of waste rock, a
               combination underground and surface mining
               would result in about 19 million cubic yards of
               waste rock, and total surface mining would
               require removal of approximately 54 million
               cubic yards of waste rock. Under either of the
               underground alternatives, the amount of waste
               rock would  be smaller and would be placed
               within 1  of the footprints of the waste rock
               disposal  areas that have not been eliminated
               from further evaluation.  Alternative locations
               considered for waste rock disposal  areas are
               shown on Figure 2.2, Waste  Rock Disposal Area
               Options, and are listed with their approximate
               capacities as follows:

               Waste Rock Disposal Area A  - Upper Nicholson
               (30 million cubic yards), sidehill fill;

               Waste Rock Disposal Area B  - Upper Marias (24
               million cubic yards),  sidehill fill;

               Waste Rock Disposal Area C  - Upper Marias
               South  (11 million cubic yards),  sidehill/valley fill;

               Waste Rock Disposal Area D  - South Bolster (19
               million cubic yards),  valley fill;

               Waste Rock Disposal Area E - North Bolster (54
               million cubic yards),  valley fill;

               Waste Rock Disposal Area F - Upper South
               Nicholson (30 million cubic yards), sidehill/valley
               fill;

               Waste Rock Disposal Area G  - Marias (30
               million cubic yards),  valley fill;

               Waste Rock Disposal Area H  - East Marias (30
               million cubic yards),  sidehill fill;

               Waste Rock Disposal Area I - Upper Nicholson
               Expansion (43 million cubic yards),  sidehill fill;
               and,

               Waste Rock Disposal Area J - North Nicholson
               (54 million cubic yards), sidehill/valley fill.
                     Crown Jewel Mine f Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 2-14
                                                                  June J995
                           X.      /\     I     tl^m"~f^j'jr<,,l,*r~ ^^^*"S7 •".  \


                        --\-JH$^x >—-^ ife^xW'ygg:^ v^  \
FILENAME  CJ2-2 DWG
             LEGEND
       MINE PIT AREA
  	WASTE ROCK AREA  OPTION BOUNDARY


                              -,3,
UPPER NICHOLSON WASTE ROCK
 (APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL, 30 MM YDJI
        UPPER MARIAS WASTE ROCK
         (APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL, 24 MM YD3I

        UPPER MARIAS SOUTH WASTE ROCK
         (11 MM YD3)

        SOUTH BOLSTER WASTE ROCK
         (19 MM YD3)
        NORTH BOLSTER WASTE ROCK
         (54 MM YD3)
                            X
                            (2)
UPPER SOUTH NICHOLSON WASTE ROCK
 (30 MM YD3)

MARIAS WASTE ROCK
 (30 MM YD3)

EAST MARIAS WASTE ROCK
  (30 MM YD3)
UPPER NICHOLSON EXPANSION WASTE ROCK
 [43 MM YD3)

NORTH NICHOLSON WASTE ROCK
 (54 MM  YD3)
N
                                                            CONTOUR INTERVAL 250FT
         FIGURE  2.2,  WASTE  ROCK  STOCKPILE  OPTIONS

-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-15
The objective of siting a waste rock disposal
area requires that 1 or a combination of waste
rock disposal areas be capable of storing the
projected total amount of waste  rock that would
be generated by the operation.

Construction of the waste rock disposal area(s)
would be conducted in levels and consist of
end-dumped lifts, progressing horizontally
across the waste rock disposal area. The
individual working faces of the waste rock
disposal area would be maintained at an overall
angle of repose slope during mine operation.  An
angle of repose slope is defined as the steepest
slope that waste rock would conform to
naturally. For the Crown Jewel Project, the
angle of repose for waste rock would be
approximately 36°.  Flatter slopes would be
obtained by grading with a  dozer.

Waste Rock Disposal Area A  - Upper Nicholson
This disposal area would contain approximately
30 million cubic yards of waste rock and cover
an estimated 122 acres.  It would be combined
with Disposal Area B to form the proposed
action (Alternative B).  Although the overall
slope of Disposal Area A would be 2H:1 V at
mine closure, there would be small areas of the
final disposal area configuration where slopes of
approximately 1.5H:1V  would tie into existing
topography.  Disposal Area A would not cover
any wetlands.

Waste Rock Disposal Area B - Upper Marias

This disposal area would contain approximately
24 million cubic yards of waste rock and cover
an estimated 138 acres.  At mine closure, the
overall slope of Disposal Area B would be
21-1:1 V; however, there would be small areas of
the final disposal area configuration where
slopes would be approximately 1.51-1:1 V to tie
into existing topography. Disposal Area B
would not cover any wetlands.

Waste Rock Disposal Area C - Upper Marias
South

This disposal area would  contain approximately
11 million cubic yards of  waste rock and cover
an estimated 94 acres.  This disposal area has
been shifted south of Disposal Area B to avoid
relatively steep  topography above the proposed
              Marias tailings facility. At mine closure, the
              overall slope of Disposal Area C would be
              3H:1 V. Disposal Area C would not cover any
              wetlands.

              Waste Rock Disposal Area D - South Bolster

              This disposal area would contain approximately
              19 million cubic yards of waste rock and cover
              an estimated 81 acres. At mine closure.
              Disposal Area D would have slopes at an
              estimated 1.5H:1V.  Disposal Area D would not
              cover any wetlands. Disposal Area D would be
              located in an area which has existing slopes
              approximating 1.5 to 2H:1 V. Disposal Area D  is
              located in the Bolster Creek  drainage which is a
              tributary to Myers Creek.  Reclamation of a
              waste rock disposal area  at  1.5H:1 V slopes will
              be difficult and  may take a number of years.  In
              order to reduce the  potential  impact in the
              Myers Creek drainage and due to the difficulty
              of revegetation  of this steep disposal area, this
              option was eliminated from further
              consideration.

              Waste Rock Disposal Area E - North Bolster

              This disposal area would  contain approximately
              54 million cubic yards of  waste  rock and cover
              an estimated 200 acres.  It is designed to
              contain the total waste rock  created by the
              operation. Given the steep side slopes of
              Bolster Creek, construction would be relatively
              difficult; an elaborate haulage system would be
              adopted to ensure that proper slopes are
              achieved this would require the design of an
              access road  to this area.  At mine closure, the
              overall slope of  Disposal Area E would be 3H
              :1 V. Disposal Area  E would  not cover any
              identified wetlands.  Like  Disposal Area D, this
              disposal area would be located in the Bolster
              Creek drainage. The channel of Bolster Creek
              would be reconstructed under or around the
              final disposal area. This disposal area would
              require an extensive underdrain system.  In
              order to reduce  the impacts to the Myers Creek
              drainage, this option was eliminated from
              further consideration.  The mine pit would
              require redesign to include an access road to
              this area.
                    Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 Page 2-16
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIVES
                                                                                      June 1995
Waste Rock Disposal Area F - Upper South
Nicholson

This disposal area would contain approximately
30 million cubic yards of waste rock and cover
an estimated 200 acres. Haul trucks would be
subject to a relatively steep downhill haul from
the mine pit. This would increase the truck
fleet for the operation.  At mine closure, overall
slope of Disposal Area F would  be relatively flat
on top with outslopes of 1.5H:1 V into the
Nicholson Creek drainage.  Disposal Area F
would cover approximately 9 acres of wetlands.
Besides covering wetlands, Nicholson Creek
channel would be routed through or around the
disposal area, and an alternative location would
be found for the proposed mill site.  This
disposal area would require an extensive
underdrain system.  Stability of the loose glacial
till as a foundation material could be an issue.
Given wetlands disturbance, general logistics,
and the fact that other sites are already
available, this site has been eliminated from
further consideration.

Waste Rock Disposal Area G - Marias

This disposal area would contain approximately
30 million cubic yards of waste rock and  cover
an estimated 87 acres. Trucks hauling the
waste rock would be subject to a long steep
downhill haul from the pit area.  Longer hauls
would add greater road maintenance, increase
the number of trucks, add more personnel,
increase air emissions and noise, and increase
the potential for erosion and sediment
generation. At mine closure, overall slope of
Disposal Area G would be a relatively gentle
3H:1 V slopes on  both the Marias Creek and
Nicholson Creek drainages.  Disposal Area G
would cover approximately 2 acres of wetlands.
If this location were selected, the Marias Creek
tailings facility would be relocated to another
site.  The Marias Creek drainage would be
routed around the final disposal area. This
disposal area would require  an  extensive
underdrain system.  The Disposal Area G
location was eliminated from consideration as a
waste rock disposal area primarily because of
the haulage situation. Other sites are available
which are not in wetlands and this site did not
provide any environmental benefits over other
proposed disposal area options.
                  Waste Rock Disposal Area H - East Marias

                  This disposal area would contain approximately
                  30 million cubic yards of waste rock and cover
                  an estimated 190 acres.  This location is a
                  considerable distance from the mine  pit with
                  relatively long steep downhill hauls from the pit.
                  Longer hauls would create similar environmental
                  concerns as described for Waste Rock Disposal
                  Area G above.   Additional trucks would be
                  required. The final overall slope of Disposal
                  Area H would be constructed at 3H:1 V with the
                  margins  of the disposal area having slopes
                  approximating  1.5H:1V.  Disposal  Area H would
                  not cover any identified wetlands.  This site
                  does not offer  any unique advantages over
                  other proposed disposal area options and given
                  the haulage distance and slope, was eliminated
                  from further consideration.

                  Waste Rock Disposal Area I - Upper  Nicholson
                  Expansion

                  This disposal area is a variation of Disposal Area
                  A and would contain approximately 43 million
                  cubic yards of waste rock and cover an
                  estimated 243 acres. The final overall slope of
                   Disposal Area  I would be constructed to 3H:1V,
                  with some portion of the disposal  area having
                  slopes approximating 1.5H:1V to blend with
                  existing  topography. Disposal Area  I would not
                  cover any identified wetlands, however it would
                   cover a  spring and a small pond.

                   Waste Rock Disposal Area J - North Nicholson

                   This disposal area would contain approximately
                   54 million cubic yards of waste rock and cover
                   an estimated 294 acres. It is designed to
                   contain  the entire waste rock volume generated
                   by the operation. The final overall slope of
                   Disposal Area  J would be constructed to
                   3H:1V,  to ensure long-term stability and
                   enhance revegetation potential.  Disposal Area J
                   would cover a wetland area known locally  as
                   the frog pond, which is approximately 2 acres in
                   size, as  well as a spring and a small pond.

                   Options Considered in Detail.
                            Waste Rock Disposal Areas A
                            Waste Rock Disposal Area B
                            Waste Rock Disposal Areas C
                            Waste Rock Disposal Area I
                            Waste Rock Disposal Area J
                      Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
  June 1995
                 CROWN JEWEL MINE
                                                                                         Page 2-17
 Options Eliminated from Further Consideration
          Waste Rock
          Waste Rock
          Waste Rock
          Waste Rock
          Waste Rock
Disposal Area D
Disposal Area E
Disposal Area F
Disposal Area G
Disposal Area H
 The alternatives utilizing underground mining
 techniques (Alternatives C and D) would
 generate less waste rock than total surface
 mining alternatives. In the case of the
 underground operations, the general locations
 listed above would be used for waste rock
 placement, but the "foot-print" of the disposal
 area  would be reduced. (See Sections 2.6,
 Alternative C, and 2.7, Alternative D).

 Alternative E, involving partial backfilling of the
 final  pit, would also have less waste rock
 volume to be permanently stockpiled  outside the
 pit area.  The location for this reduced out-of-pit
 waste rock would be placed in 1  (or more) of
 the locations listed above. (See Section 2.8,
 Alternative E).

 In Alternative F (complete backfilling of mine
 pit), waste rock would  be temporarily stockpiled
 outside the pit, then returned  to the pit once all
 ore is extracted. The "temporary" stockpile
 would be placed in 1 of the areas located north
 of the pit area.  (See Section 2.9, Alternative F).

 2.2.6    Ore Processing

 The crusher unit would reduce the run-of-mine
 ore from the pit to a consistent size of 6 inches
 or less.  The run-of-mine ore would be hauled
 from  the pit and stockpiled near the crusher
 unit.  The stockpiled ore would be fed to the
 crusher by a front-end loader.  The crushed ore
 would be further reduced in size in the grinding
 circuit.

 There have been 2 locational options considered
 for analysis, these are:

 •         Surface Crushing Facilities
 •         Below Ground Crushing Facilities

 Surface Crushing Facilities

The crushing unit would consist of an open top
to allow ore to be dumped directly into the
crusher.  The main crusher unit would be
 enclosed in a building to control dust emissions
 and noise levels.

 Below Ground Crushing Facilities

 Ore would be crushed in a below ground facility
 as shown in Figure 2.3, Below Ground
 Crushing.  Discharge from the crusher would
 feed into an underground live storage area
 constructed to contain about 8,000 tons of
 crushed ore.  Crushed ore would be transferred
 from this storage area by feeders to a  belt
 conveyor and conveyed to the surface for
 further grinding  and processing.

 Options Considered  in Detail.

 •        Surface Crushing Facilities
 •        Below Ground Crushing Facilities

 Options Eliminated from Further Consideration.

 •        None

 2.2.7     Grinding

 The  crushed 6 inch ore  must undergo further
 size  reduction to 80% passing 400  mesh
 (consistency of flour) to be amenable for
 leaching the gold.  The circuit would be
 comprised of a semi-autogenous grinding (SAG)
 mill operating in  closed circuit with  a vibrating
 screen and an optional cone crusher and a ball
 mill operating in  closed circuit with
 hydrocyclones.  Ore  grinding is performed wet
 (slurry).  The ground material is then thickened
and pumped to the cyanidation circuit while
decanted water is re-used in the grinding circuit.
                              There have been 2 locational options considered
                              for analysis, these are:

                              •        Surface Grinding Facilities
                              •        Below Ground Grinding Facilities

                              Surface Grinding Facilities

                              The grinding circuit would be enclosed in a steel
                              frame building to reduce noise levels and to
                              eliminate climatic variations (freezing).  The
                              facility would include an overhead bridge crane
                              for maintenance.
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
          8.000 TON
        UNDERGROUND
        STORAGE AREA
          FOR ORE
            CONVEYOR
CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT
       NOT TO SCALE
                  UNDERGROUND ADIT
                      (TUNNEL)
                                                                 TO MILL BUILDING
                        FIGURE 2.3, BELOW GROUND CRUSHING
FII EfJAME CJ2-3 0 WG

-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-19
 Below Ground Grinding Facilities

 Placement of the grinding facilities underground
 would involve excavation of an area large
 enough to accommodate the grinding equipment
 and mill feed storage near the crusher.  The
 grinding excavation would be about 130 by 150
 by 70 feet.  These excavations would be
 interconnected by access drifts for personnel
 transport and delivery of supplies and
 equipment, ventilation drifts, and ore passes.

 Because of the space and logistical limitations,
 no environmental benefit, possible dewatering
 requirement and worker safety concerns of
 placing the grinding circuit underground, this
 option has been eliminated from further
 consideration.

 Option Considered in Detail.

 •        Surface  Grinding Facilities

 Options Eliminated from Further Consideration.

 •        Below Ground Grinding Facilities

 2.2.8     Ore Processing Methods

 Ore processing, also known as milling, is the
 process of separating precious metal values
 from undesired or  non-economic mineral matter.

 The use of the appropriate ore processing
 technique must be tied to the mineralogy and
 economics of the deposit.  Although the
 following  discussion on ore processing is
 simplified, the proper evaluation  of the
 technique for ore processing is a complicated
 process.

 Ore processing is a key aspect of any gold
 mining project. The bottom line  question is
 "can this ore be processed economically?"  The
 overall cost of a mining venture is extremely
 sensitive to the milling process selected. The
 mineral processing technique to maximize return
 is carefully evaluated and selected in the initial
stages of  the development of an ore body.  The
evolution of study  for any gold milling technique
must result in a method that is economically
appropriate, environmentally sound, and that
optimizes  gold recovery.
              The various processing techniques examined
              include:

              •        Gravity Separation
              •        Flotation
              •        Lixiviant Leaching

              Under Lixiviant Leaching, the following chemical
              agents (lixiviants) were evaluated:
                        Cyanide
                        Thiourea
                        Bromine
                        Acidified Chlorine
                        Iodine
                        Malononitrile
                        Thiosulfate
              In addition, different methods of applying or
              using the lixiviants were evaluated. These
              methods included:

              •        Heap Leaching
              •        Vat Leaching
              •        Tank Leaching

              Gravity Separation

              This process is a physical  separation of the gold
              from the ore, much like early day miners  used in
              gold panning or sluice box applications. This
              technique is generally only feasible in high grade
              deposits and gravel-placer deposits, where the
              gold is "free" and not disseminated as a
              microscopic particle or compound within  the
              mineralized zones. Gravity separation is not
              technologically feasible for the Crown Jewel
              deposit and was eliminated from additional
              consideration.

              Flotation

              Flotation is a process in which valuable minerals
              or metafiles are separated from waste rock to
              produce a concentrate.  Generally, this
              concentrate will require further treatment such
              as smelting and refining, or leaching and
              recovery to produce a saleable product.

              Flotation is utilized for the  separation of finely
              divided solids from one another.  The separation
              of  dissimilar solids is achieved by the selective
              attachment of a gas bubble or liquid to the
              surface of a particle selected in the flotation
              process.  The attachment of the particle to
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 Page 2-20
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
                                                                                      June 1995
either the gas bubble or liquid is greatly assisted
by the chemical modification of the particle
surface by surface active (surfactant) chemicals.

Gas bubbles act as "balloons" and provide the
necessary buoyancy to carry the selected
minerals  to the surface of the flotation pulp
allowing  it to be skimmed off as a concentrate.
Adhesion is obtained between surface coated
particles  and air bubbles that are rising through
the pulp. Enough buoyancy must be provided
by the bubble to cause the desired mineral to
rise and to  form a relatively stable froth that can
be removed by skimming. Concurrently,
materials that have not been preferentially
attached to air bubbles remain submerged and
exit the process as tailings.

The separation of gold from the Crown Jewel
ore material by  the flotation process would be
technically complex.  Gold in the Crown Jewel
ore is typically found associated with magnetite
and andesite. The combination of the heavy
materials and complicated metallurgy of the
Crown Jewel ore would result in poor
separation  of gold from waste rock.

Laboratory chemical and metallurgical testing
work completed on the Crown Jewel Project ore
indicates that 52% of the gold can be saved in
the concentrate.  Actual overall recovery would
be approximately 45%, depending on the post-
flotation process chosen. Not only is gold
recovery low, with substantial amounts of gold
ending up in the tailings, but the average gold
grade of the concentrates would be under 1
ounce per ton of concentrate.  Transporting and
smelting a concentrate less than 1 once per ton
may not be economically feasible.

Normally, flotation concentrates, which contain
higher gold values, are shipped directly to a
smelter for metal recovery.  For example, the
flotation concentrates produced at the Asamara
Mine near Wenatchee, Washington, which
contained about 6 ounces of gold per ton of
concentrate, were shipped to Japan for
smelting/refinement.

The alternative to direct smelting of flotation
concentrates is cyanidation. This means that
construction of a cyanide mill like the one
proposed by the Proponent on or off the mine
site,  or if available and/or compatible, the use of
existing  facilities elsewhere.
                   In response to public input,  it has been decided
                   that flotation, with off-site cyanidation and
                   smelting, would be considered as an option for
                   the Project and will be discussed in Chapter 4.

                   Lixiviant Leaching

                   Leaching is the process of introducing a
                   chemical agent that bonds preferentially and
                   dissolves into solution the precious metals in an
                   ore.  The easiest ores to leach are those that
                   have been weathered or oxidized,  liberating the
                   precious metals from the pyrite or other
                   encapsulating minerals.  The leaching agent
                   (lixiviant) separates and transports the metals
                   from the ore.

                   Leaching of gold by a cyanide lixiviant is
                   presently the prevailing leaching technique in
                   the industry, and has been for over 100 years.
                   There has been research on using  other lixiviant
                   leaching techniques in the laboratory and  at the
                   pilot-scale stage.  Other lixiviant studies include:
                   thiourea, bromine, chlorine, iodine,
                   malononitrile, and thiosulfate.

                   Cyanide. Cyanide (CN-) is a naturally occurring
                   highly toxic organic compound.  The most
                   hazardous property is its reaction  with acids to
                   form lethal hydrogen cyanide gas  (HCN).

                   Both gold and silver, plus other  precious metals,
                   can be recovered from ores in the leaching
                   processes by using cyanide.

                   The cyanide process for extracting precious
                   metals from low grade ores uses aqueous
                   solutions of sodium cyanide with oxygen  (air) to
                   convert the gold to a soluble cyanide
                   compound, Na(Au or Ag)CN2, from which the
                   gold can be recovered either by precipitation
                   with zinc or aluminum dust or by  carbon
                   adsorption, and electrowinning. The stability of
                   the cyanide leaching solution is controlled by
                   adding lime to keep the  pH  above 10.5.  The
                   normal  application and consumption  rate  is 0.5
                   to 2 pounds of cyanide per ton  of ore.

                   Thiourea. Thiourea [CS(NH)2]2 is  an  organic
                   compound derived from urea.  It is a carcinogen
                   listed by the Occupational Safety  and Health
                   Administration  (OSHA).

                   Thiourea leaching requires a highly acidic
                   solution (average pH values of approximately
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
  June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
                                                                                        Page 2-21
 1.4).  At a pH above 2.0, thiourea is rapidly
 oxidized to sulfur.  The intermediate product of
 the oxidation is formamidine disulfide (Von
 Michaelis, 1987), which can coat ore particles
 and retard or prevent leaching.

 Because of the requirements to maintain highly
 acidic leaching conditions and to limit thiourea
 oxidation (consumption), stringent and careful
 management is required to accomplish effective
 leaching (Abt, 1991).  The alkaline components
 of the Crown Jewel ore would require the
 addition of large  volumes of acid to maintain the
 low pH levels needed for effective leaching.

 Laboratory studies have indicated that with
 proper control of the leaching environment and
 the appropriate ore characteristics, the thiourea
 process can proceed quite rapidly extracting
 gold values from ore within about 4 hours.
 Thiourea consumption can be significantly
 reduced by keeping the time of thiourea contact
 with the sulfide minerals in the ore to a
 minimum.  Gold recovery can be severely
 inhibited by the presence of clay and adsorption
 to clay particles.  The average application and
 consumption rate ranges from 5 to 1 5 pounds
 of thiourea  per ton of ore.

 Gold values can be recovered from the pregnant
 thiourea solution  with the use of activated
 carbon (carbon adsorption) or zinc precipitation.

 The thiourea method will not be considered  in
 further detail because the use of thiourea as a
 lixiviant leachate  in the extraction of precious
 metals has not been commercially proven. The
 application and consumption rates of the
 compound would be relatively high, and the
 resultant acidic tailings would require treatment.

 Bromine.  Bromine has been recognized as a
 lixiviant for gold since 1846. Bromine leaching
 may be applicable for oxide ores. Ore
 containing carbon or sulfides would require
 oxidative pretreatment such as roasting,
 pressure oxidation (autoclave), bioleaching, or
 some other chemical method.  The Crown
Jewel ore is considered a sulfide ore and would
require oxidative pretreatment prior to leaching.

Bromine dissolves gold by a direct chemical
oxidation reaction.  This oxidation characteristic
allows  bromine to dissolve not only gold but  all
other ore components which are candidates for
              any kind of oxidation.  The normal application
              rate for bromine is approximately 14 to 20
              pounds of bromine per ton of ore.

              Bromine dissolves gold under acid conditions, at
              a pH less than 7.0,  and can be added directly
              into the discharge pulp after pressure oxidation.
              Dissolution of gold with bromine would be
              expected to be more rapid than with cyanide.

              Gold recovery from  bromine leach solutions can
              be achieved by carbon adsorption and zinc
              precipitation methods.  At this time, reagent
              recycling is problematic, which would result in
              high bromine reagent consumption rates in the
              leaching  process. The bromine (hypobromous
              acid) remaining in the tailings stream should be
              oxidized quickly, therefore the environmental
              hazard potential appears very low (Hiskey and
              DeVries, 1991). Furthermore, silver in the ore
              can cause difficulties with gold recovery.  There
              are silver values in the Crown Jewel ore.

              This method has not been proven on a
              commercial scale; and, combined  with the
              reasons discussed above, the use of bromine as
              a lixiviant leachate for the Crown Jewel ore will
              not be  considered in further detail.

              Acidified Chlorine. There has been some
              preliminary research conducted on acidified
              chlorine as a lixiviant for precious  metal
              leaching.  For effective leaching, laboratory
              tests reveal that the pH of chlorine leaching
              solutions has to be extremely acidic.
              Furthermore, the leaching process can be
              extremely unstable unless the leaching solution
              is very  rich in chlorine reagent.

              The major drawbacks of chlorine as a substitute
              lixiviant to cyanide are: 1) the required solution
              acidity  can  cause substantial equipment
              corrosion; 2) the reagent is applied and
              consumed at a rate of approximately 60 to 100
              pounds per ton of ore processed; 3) the
              leaching process is unstable; 4)  human  health
              danger  of chlorine; 5) the tailings would be
              highly acidic with high levels of residual
              chlorine; and 6) this process has not been
              proven  on a commercial scale (Greaves,
              Palmer,and  White, 1990).

              The use of acidified chlorine as an  alternative
              lixiviant has been eliminated from further
              consideration.
                     Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 Page 2-22
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A T1VES
June  1995
Iodine.  Iodine and bromine leaching processes
are virtually identical.  Iodine will leach gold
Over a wide pH range  although, like bromine,
silver can interfere with gold recoveries.  In
operations similar to cyanide tank leaching, the
reagent consumption is comparable, but the unit
cost of iodine is significantly higher when
compared to cyanide.  This method would
require a high degree of oxidation for the Crown
Jewel ore.  Also,  iodine leaching has not been
proven on a commercial basis.  For these
reasons, the use of iodine as an alternative
lixiviant leaching method will not be considered
in further detail.

Malononitrile.  The use of malononitrile as a
lixiviant leaching agent is still in the research
phase, and there are no current commercial
applications.  Although  malononitrile [CH2(CN}2]
can leach gold from oxide ores, laboratory
testing has shown that  it is less effective in
leaching gold than cyanide except when applied
to high carbon content ores.  Malononitrile
leaches gold under alkaline conditions, pH above
8.0 with application rates ranging from 3 to 5
pounds per ton of ore.  By-products of the
chemical reactions are acetamide, which is
listed as a carcinogen, and HCN (Abt, 1991).

Due to limited testing, no current commercial
use, and apparent inapplicability to Crown
Jewel ore, this method  will not be considered in
further detail.

Thiosulfate. A copper catalyzed thiosulfate
leaching method is being investigated by the
U.S. Bureau of Mines as a method for heap
leaching of low-grade oxidized  precious metal
ores (Langhans, 1991). The Crown Jewel ore is
a sulfide ore rather  than an oxide ore; therefore,
this method would not be appropriate for gold
recovery and will not  be considered in further
detail.

Heap Leaching

Heap leaching is most ideally applied to oxide
(oxidized naturally or  induced) ores containing
submicron  gold in a porous host rock; however,
not all low grade ores can be successfully heap
leached.

The Crown Jewel ore is not amenable to the
heap leaching application  because  it is a sulfide
rather than an oxide ore.  Additionally, this
                   option generally requires level, open topography
                   in proximity to the mine, which is not available
                   at the site.  Due to the ore characteristics, this
                   option is not practical or technologically feasible
                   for the Crown Jewel ore, and was eliminated
                   from additional consideration.

                   A moratorium, until  June 1996, was placed on
                   using this method of processing in the State of
                   Washington with the adoption of the 1994
                   Washington State Metal Mining and Milling Act.

                   Vat Leaching

                   Vat leaching is a processing  technique suitable
                   for certain types of ore with  a narrow range of
                   metallurgical characteristics.   Generally
                   speaking, vat leaching is only appropriate for
                   ores which have a predictable leaching  cycle
                   and which leach very quickly (i.e., within
                   several days to 1  week).  The physical  and
                   metallurgical characteristics of the Crown Jewel
                   ore are not amenable to vat leach techniques
                   because the Crown  Jewel ore requires fine
                   grinding for reasonable recovery and does not
                   leach rapidly enough to make vat  leaching
                   technically feasible.   This alternative was
                   eliminated from detailed study.

                   Tank Leaching

                   This process is proposed in all but 1 of the
                   action alternatives for gold extraction.  Tank
                   leaching is used for sulfide ores such as the
                   Crown Jewel Project ore.  The process can be
                   controlled to maximize gold recovery. A
                   simplified flow chart for the  process operation is
                   set forth as Figure 2.4, Gold Recovery  Through
                   Carbon Adsorption.

                   Crushed ore is added to the  grinding circuit and
                   milled in water or in  water and cyanide. The
                   resultant slurry is thickened  to provide  a proper
                   slurry density for leaching.  The slurry is then
                   introduced into an agitated,  aerated leaching
                   tank(s).  In the leaching tank(s), the gold
                   dissolves. The slurry is next introduced into a
                   series of agitated tanks containing activated
                   carbon,  whereby the dissolved gold is adsorbed
                   onto the carbon surface. This is referred to as
                   the carbon-in-pulp (CIP) process.  A variation of
                   this process is the CIL process, where  the
                   leaching and carbon adsorption steps are
                   combined in a single series of tanks.
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
SOURCE  KILBORN ENGINEERING/BATTLE MOUNTAIN GOLD COMPANY
 UNDERGROUND
   PRIMARY
  CRUSHING
                                                                                    *
                                                                                    tt)
                                                                                    •»»
                                                                                    <0
                                                                                    <0
                                                                                    
                                                                                    N>
                                                                                    U)

-------
 Page 2-24
CHAPTER 2  AL TERN A T/VES
June 1995
Options Considered in Detail

•        Flotation
•        Lixiviant Leaching - Cyanide
•        Tank Leaching

Options Eliminated from Further Consideration.

•        Gravity Separation
•        Lixiviant Leaching
          - Thiourea
          - Bromine
          - Chlorine
          - Iodine
          - Malononitrile
          - Thiosulfate
•        Heap Leaching
•        Vat Leaching

2.2.9    Off-Site Processing

Processing the ore off-site was considered. To
obtain a more desirable site than those already
described, ore would be hauled to some distant
location for processing.  The advantages to
moving the mill off-site is that all disturbance
and potential adverse environmental effects of
the ore processing operation would be removed
from public (State and Forest) lands and put
elsewhere, presumably on private lands. This
not only includes the direct impacts of the
milling operation, but also the transportation of
workers, chemical reagents, and fuels.  Along
with the mill, the tailings impoundment would
also be moved,  leaving only the mining
operation and waste rock disposal areas on
public lands.

Possible nearby locations for an off-site facility
would be in the Myers Creek drainage where
there is private land and relatively flat ground.

Further away is the Toroda Creek valley to the
east and the Okanogan River valley to the west.

In order to transport the ore, a haul  road would
be constructed to provide adequate  access for
about 120 (25 ton)  truck loads (round-trips) per
day every day of the year to the  processing
facility.  Another method of ore transport would
be via conveyor, however construction and
maintenance could cause major logistical
problems. The construction of a haul road or
conveyor system to Myers Creek or beyond
could interfere with public access and would be
                   highly visible. In addition, there would be
                   increased fugitive dust and noise levels along
                   with increased water usage for dust suppression
                   for the haulage.

                   Hauling or transporting the ore a greater
                   distance would consume large quantities of
                   energy/fuel and could result in a large amount of
                   fugitive dust emissions.  Haulage of ore would
                   also add significant capital and operating
                   expense.  Additional haul trucks would be
                   required along with road maintenance
                   equipment such as motor graders and water
                   trucks. Extra personnel would be added  for the
                   enlarged truck haulage fleet and road
                   maintenance. There would be increased  supply
                   expenditures, particularly for fuel.

                   This option was eliminated because it does not
                   reduce environmental consequences of the
                   facilities,  nor does it provide  appreciable
                   environmental advantage.  It merely transfers
                   environmental effects, and adds adverse
                   environmental consequences of a haul road or
                   conveyor corridor off the site.

                   2.2.10   Gold Recovery

                   There are 2 basic techniques being  used  for
                   actual gold recovery at today's precious  metal
                   processing facilities.  These methods are:

                   •        Zinc Precipitation
                   •        Carbon Adsorption

                   Zinc Precipitation Process of  Gold Recovery

                   The zinc precipitation process of gold recovery
                   is known as  the Merrill-Crowe Process.   This
                   process of gold recovery is illustrated on Figure
                   2.5, Gold Recovery Through Zinc Precipitation.

                   The pregnant solution from the post-leach
                   circuit thickener and from the leach filters is
                   pumped to clarifiers, which use diatomaceous
                   earth as a filter medium.  In the clarifiers,
                   suspended impurities are removed resulting in a
                   clear solution which is pumped to a de-aeration
                   tower where air is removed from the solution.
                   After the solutions have been filtered and de-
                   aerated it is pumped to the filter presses. As
                   the clear  pregnant solution is being pumped to
                   the filter presses, zinc dust is added. The zinc
                   dust causes  the gold to precipitate  from
                   solution.  After the gold has  been precipitated.
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
                                                                                                          a
                                                                                                          to
                                                                                                          to
                                                                                                          01

                                                              DE-AERATION
                                                               TOWER
                                                                            ZINC
                                                                      GOLD RECOVERY
                                                                           CIRCUIT
                PREGNANT —
                SOLUTION
                  FROM
                  TANK
                CYANIDATION
                 CIRCUIT
                                                                     ^Lnlnu^
                                                                       \^V^\A-,\An
                                                                                         -c=D-
    DORE
                                                             CLARIFIED
                                                             PREGNANT
                                                            SOLUTION TANK
PRESSURE
CLARIFIERS
                                                                                       PUMPS
PREGNANT
SOLUTION
 TANK
                                 SLAG
               FIGURE  2.5,  GOLD  RECOVERY  THROUGH ZINC PRECIPITATION
FILENAME CJ2-5DWG
                                                                                                          *
                                                                                                          3
                                                                                                          01

-------
 Page 2 26
CHAPTER 2 -AL TEH IMA TIVES
June  1995
the solution from the filter process is
recirculated into the grind circuit.

The gold precipitates are periodically removed
from the filter presses.  Fluxes are added to the
precipitate which is then melted  in a furnace.
The fluxes cause the gold to separate from the
slag as the concentrates melts.  The slag is
removed and the gold is then re-melted and
poured into a dore' button, or bar, and shipped
to a refinery. The slag is crushed and placed in
barrels which can be sent off-site to a smelter
where further residual gold is recovered, or the
slag can  be processed on-site.

The zinc  precipitation process is  typically used
for ore deposits that contain more silver than
the Crown Jewel Project.  This option will not
be considered for additional evaluation because
there  are no environmental  benefits over carbon
adsorption, and this process is more labor
intensive and is less effective at  recovering gold
than the  carbon adsorption process for the
particular ore to be mined at the  Crown Jewel
Project.

Carbon Adsorption Process of Gold Recovery

The carbon adsorption process of gold recovery
is illustrated on Figure 2.4,  Gold  Recovery
Through  Carbon Adsorption.  Two variations of
this method are practiced: CIL where gold is
adsorbed onto activated carbon concurrent with
the leaching; and CIP where gold is loaded onto
activated carbon subsequent to leaching.

Carbon-in-Leach Method.  Five to 30 grams of
activated carbon per liter of slurry is moved
counter-current to the pregnant solution in the
leach  tanks so that the lowest grade solution
remains in contact with  the freshest, unloaded,
carbon.  As the carbon becomes "loaded" with
gold,  it is moved counter-current to the
pregnant solution flow in the  leach tanks with
the most heavily loaded carbon being
transferred to an acid wash and then to a
precious  metal  stripping circuit.

The stripping circuit consists  of a tank which
holds  the loaded carbon. A hot caustic, or
caustic and cyanide, solution is passed through
the stripping vessel and desorbs  the previously
adsorbed metal/cyanide  complexes from the
carbon.  The stripping solution is then passed
                   through an electrolytic cell, using steel wool as
                   a cathode for deposition of gold.

                   Carbon-in-Pulp Method.  This process is similar
                   to the CIP process but the carbon adsorption is
                   accomplished in tanks after the  leaching is
                   completed rather than while the leaching is
                   taking place.

                   The carbon is periodically removed from the
                   leach circuit, transferred to an acid wash vessel
                   to remove calcium carbonate scale, and
                   neutralized.  The carbon is then  treated with a
                   caustic cyanide solution to strip the precious
                   metals from the carbon. The resulting solution
                   is passed through an electrowinning cell which
                   plates the metals onto a steel wool cathode.
                   Routinely, the cathode is collected from the cell
                   and smelted in a furnace and a dore'  bar
                   containing the precious metals is then poured.

                   The stripped carbon is washed and then
                   regenerated in a reactivation kiln before being
                   returned to the adsorption circuit.  The process
                   is a closed circuit  with no process solution
                   being lost or discharged from the circuit.

                   Since there is no environmental  benefit from
                   using this process over the CIL method  which is
                   preferred by the Proponent, this method has
                   been dropped from further consideration.

                   Gold Recovery Processes Considered  for Further
                   Evaluation.

                   •        Gold Recovery - CIL Method

                   Gold Recovery Processes Eliminated From
                   Further Evaluation.

                   •        Gold Recovery - Zinc Precipitation
                   •        Gold Recovery - CIP method

                   2.2.11    Cyanide Destruction

                   If an action alternative involving tank
                   cyanidation is selected, the Proponent would be
                   required to meet cyanide limits in the spent
                   tailings effluent.  The Proponent has proposed
                   to limit Weak Acid Dissociable (WAD) cyanide
                   levels in their spent tailings effluent to less than
                   10 mg/l.  This level will serve as the baseline for
                   evaluation. Levels above 10 mg/liter  will not be
                   considered in the document or permitted. The
                   permits issued for the Crown Jewel Project
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-27
 would set cyanide limits for tailings effluent and
 fix the points of compliance for cyanide
 measurement including frequency of
 measurement and monitoring methodologies.

 Industries using cyanide have developed a
 number of treatment processes for cyanide
 destruction. Additionally, other processes have
 been proposed based on  related laboratory
 investigations but have not been utilized in full-
 scale operations.

 The evaluation and selection of an appropriate
 technology for cyanide destruction for any given
 site  requires an iterative approach which
 includes laboratory tests  and examination of
 data from other installations.  An understanding
 of the metallurgical process and the chemistry
 of the tailings  is essential in selecting the most
 effective destruction technique.

 Cyanide treatment technology has evolved and
 improved over the years. What may have been
 the best available technology for an application
 a decade ago, may not be the best available
 technology today. In addition, treatment
 streams vary significantly, and the treatment
 methods and achievable limits would also vary
 according to even slight changes in  the ore
 geochemical makeup or mill process. Effective
 treatment processes, reliability, and reasonable
 achievable treatment levels would vary in
 accordance with variations  in ore geochemistry
 and  mill processes.

 Various options for cyanide destruction were
 examined for Crown  Jewel  Project and are as
 follows:
         Natural Degradation;
         INCO S02/Air/02;
         Hydrogen Peroxide Oxidation;
         Ferrous Sulfate;
         UV/Ozone;
         Alkaline Chlorination;
         Biological Degradation;
         Cyanide Recovery; and.
         Ion Exchange.
Natural Degradation

Natural degradation of cyanide in tailings ponds
takes place due to the interaction of several
processes such as volatilization, hydrolysis,
photodegradation, dissociation, chemical and
              bacteriological oxidation, and precipitation.  The
              main mechanisms controlling the natural
              degradation of cyanide are HCN volatilization
              and the dissociation of metal cyanide
              complexes.

              Natural degradation is a simple method to
              decrease the cyanide concentration.  Natural
              degradation can be influenced by variables such
              as the  species of cyanide, cyanide
              concentrations, temperature, pH, aeration,
              sunlight, presence of bacteria, pond size, depth
              of water, and turbulence. This method may not
              be suitable as the solitary treatment technique if
              residence time in the pond is limited, if wildlife
              would  be endangered by the projected cyanide
              levels in the impoundment, or if regulatory
              standards require specific (low) cyanide levels in
              the tailings impoundment upon discharge from
              the mill. Major advantages of the natural
              degradation process are low capital and
              operating costs, and  no known formation of
              new toxic by-products.

              Natural degradation cannot be demonstrated to
              be a reliable primary treatment for the Crown
              Jewel Project.  Since most natural degradation
              processes are accelerated at a neutral to acidic
              pH, the high buffering (alkaline) characteristics
              of the tailings would  tend to inhibit some of
              these reactions.  Natural degradation could not
              be solely relied upon  to meet permit
              requirements as the primary  cyanide destruction
              for the Crown Jewel  Project.  However, this
              process would occur in combination with
              whatever treatment technology is selected.

              INCO SO2 - Air Oxidation

              The INCO SO2/Air/O2 process was patented in
              1984 and is marketed and supported by INCO
              Exploration and Technical Services, Inc.  The
              INCO process oxidizes both free cyanide (CN~)
              and WAD metal-complexed cyanides to cyanate
              (CNO).   The oxidizing agent is a combination of
              SO2 and oxygen in the presence of a small
              amount of soluble copper catalyst.  The solution
              or slurry to be treated is contacted with the
              reagents in a mixing tank.  Gaseous or liquid
              S02, soluble sulfites,  or metabisulfites may be
              used to supply the S02.  Air  and/or oxygen are
              added to supply the oxygen.   Temperature is
              ambient, and the pH range is between 7 and
              10. The best pH range for cyanide destruction
              is normally 8.0 to 8.5.  Slaked lime is added as
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 Page 2-28
CHAPTER
June 1895
needed to neutralize sulfuric acid generated in
the process and to maintain the desired pH
level. If soluble copper is not present in the
tailings solution as a product of the cyanidation
process, then a small amount is added as
copper sulfate.  Retention times vary depending
on the solution composition being treated, but
generally range from 20 to 180 minutes.

Cyanidation can also dissolve other metals in
the ore to some extent.  Copper, zinc,  nickel,
and iron are commonly found in cyanidation
solutions.  Generally, these metals dissolve only
slightly. Dissolution of these  metals during
cyanidation results in the presence of metal
cyanogen  complexes in the cases of copper,
zinc, and nickel; and ferrocyanide in  the case of
iron, (Fe(CN)e'3). The strong iron-cyanide
complexes are not decomposed in the INCO
process, but are removed as an insoluble
ferrocyanide precipitate. Ferricyanide solutions
in cyanidation tailings are reduced by S02 in the
INCO process to ferrocyanide. The ferrocyanide
forms insoluble metallo-ferrocyanide complexes
with available metal ions. The lead nitrate
added to the process ultimately forms an
insoluble,  unleachable ultrafine precipitate
(PMET, 1994).

Strong, environmentally stable, cyanide
complexes such as those that form with
mercury and cobalt are not destroyed in the
INCO process.

Actual operations using the INCO process have
seen the ammonium ion stabilize at 20 to 50
mg/l in the pond.  Most of the remainder is
precipitated out as an insoluble ammonium salt.

The INCO  process requires a mixing  tank which
provides appropriate retention time and agitation
capabilities and the use of air compressors, if air
is being used as an oxygen source.  Appropriate
S02, oxygen (if used), and copper sulfate
mixing, storage and distribution equipment are
also required.  Several instruments continuously
monitor process variables such as pH, reagent
addition, and possibly  dissolved oxygen.

The INCO  process has been used effectively in
the treatment of cyanide slurries and solutions
in over 70 mining applications throughout the
United States and Canada, including a wide
variety of  ore types and conditions.
                  Hydrogen Peroxide Oxidation

                  Two processes have been designed and
                  patented for cyanide destruction with hydrogen
                  peroxide (H202): Dupont's Kastone process and
                  the Degussa process.

                  Dupont's Kastone process uses hydrogen
                  peroxide, formaldehyde, and copper. The
                  formaldehyde is used to catalyze the oxidation
                  of cyanide, which can reduce oxidation time by
                  up to 40%.

                  The Degussa hydrogen peroxide process utilizes
                  copper in the form of copper sulfate, but
                  without formaldehyde.

                  As  with the INCO process, the addition of
                  cupric ion as a catalyst will oxidize free cyanide
                  ion to yield copper cyanide complex and
                  cyanate. Cupric ion  will also precipitate
                  ferrocyanide as cupric ferrocyanide.  Cyanate
                  formed by the oxidation of cyanide in turn
                  hydrolyzes to ammonia and carbon dioxide.  The
                  process has an optimum pH  range of 9.5 to
                  10.0. The reaction rate accelerates dramatically
                  with temperature and with increasing cyanide
                  concentration.  Increasing the H2O2 dosage also
                  reduces reaction time.  Any residual H202 in  the
                  discharge will decompose to yield water and
                  oxygen in a reaction  catalyzed by metals and
                  suspended material.

                  Hydrogen peroxide treatment has proven an
                  effective cyanide detoxification  process on clear
                  solutions and some slurry applications.  Slurry
                  applications have been  limited, and success is
                  site specific given solid constituents that may
                  contribute to excessive hydrogen  peroxide
                  decomposition.  Lab  experiments using
                  hydrogen peroxide oxidation treatment method
                  showed that very high levels of hydrogen
                  peroxide would be required for effective
                  treatment of the Crown Jewel ore. According
                  to engineering studies,  the high hydrogen
                  peroxide demand was likely clue to certain  solids
                  in the slurry that caused excessive
                  decomposition of hydrogen peroxide.  Crown
                  Jewel ore contains significant quantities of
                  magnetite, which is known to catalyze the
                  decomposition of hydrogen peroxide.  Due to
                  the high consumption of hydrogen peroxide, this
                  method would not be reliable or cost-effective
                  for  treatment of the Crown Jewel tailing slurry
                  (Knight Piesold,  1993).
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4  Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
  June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
                                                                                        Page 2-29
 Ferrous Sulfate

 The addition of ferrous sulfate to solutions of
 free cyanide and the complexed cyanides of
 zinc and copper, at pH 7.5 to 10.5, converts
 most of the cyanide to ferrocyanide.  This is  1
 of the oldest cyanide destruction methods.

 Ferrocyanide salts formed as a result of this
 reaction will settle to the bottom of the tailings
 pond.  Although  the iron-cyanide complexes are
 considered stable and non-toxic, extensive and
 rapid photolysis does occur upon exposure of
 dilute solutions to direct sunlight, yielding HCN.
 Because photo-decomposition is slow in deep,
 turbid,  and shaded waters, production of HCN is
 minimal.  It has generally not been  an effective
 means  of preventing wildlife mortality on
 slurries with levels of copper above
 approximately  30 mg/l as cyanide-complexed
 copper. Ferrous  sulfate adsorption would be
 ineffective in treating the Crown Jewel slurry
 due to the relatively  high  levels of copper-
 cyanide complexes.  (Knight Piesold, 1993)

 Ultraviolet Irradiation / Ozone

 Ultraviolet (UV) irradiation is able to destroy the
 iron cyanide bond and create free cyanide and
 precipitate iron hydroxide. UV does not  destroy
 free cyanide; therefore, it must be used in
 conjunction with  another  treatment process
 such  as ozonation.

 This method  is unproven in the mining industry;
 but, in the laboratory, this technique removes
 cyanide and heavy metals with high electrical
 cost.  There is  no known  full-scale application
 of ultra-violet radiation in  treating mine tailings.
 Thus, the method was not considered applicable
 to the Crown Jewel Project (Knight Piesold,
 1993).

 Alkaline Chlorination

 The alkaline chlorination process involves the
 destruction of cyanide using hypochlorite ion at
 pH values in the range of  10.5 to 11.5.
 Hypochlorite  may be supplied in the form of
 either chlorine gas, calcium hypochlorite or
 sodium  hypochlorite.  Lime or another caustic
 agent is required to maintain pH in the alkaline
 range. The process involves 2 steps: the
formation  of cyanogen chloride by the reaction
               of cyanide ion and chlorine, and the hydrolysis
               of cyanogen chloride to cyanate.

               The reaction rate is sensitive to pH, with the
               optimum pH level being 10.5 to 11.5. The pH
               must be maintained between 10.5 to 11.0 to
               ensure rapid decomposition of toxic CNCI gas.

               Many mining operations are moving away from
               the alkaline chlorination process in favor of the
               S02/Air/02 and hydrogen peroxide processes.
               The alkaline chlorination process has the
               concerns associated with residual chlorine and
               chlorinated by-products.

               The advantages of the process are favorable
               kinetics and the ability to remove thiocyanate,
               cyanate and ammonia. Laboratory tests using
               sodium hypochlorite with the Crown Jewel ore
               indicate that alkaline chlorination could reduce
               cyanide, WAD cyanide, and possibly total
               cyanide to  acceptable levels at  reasonable
               reagent consumption.  However, the high
               concentration of soluble chloride produced by
               chlorination is toxic to plants.  This produces a
               potential long-term liability  which makes alkaline
               chlorination less attractive than the INCO
               process (Knight Piesold, 1993).

               Biological Degradation

               The application of biological degradation is
               limited to site-specific situations where heat is
               available.  Further treatment is required for other
               contaminants such as thiocyanate and
               ammonia, as well as cyanide.

               Homestake Mining Company in  Lead, South
               Dakota, treats tailings pond decant and mine
              water in a 2-step biological treatment process.
              The first step converts cyanide  and  thiocyanate
              to ammonia and sulfate by  oxidation and
              hydrolysis.  Metals are removed by adsorption
              on a biological film. This film periodically
              sloughs off and is removed in the clarification
              stage.  In the second step of the process,
              ammonia is oxidized to nitrate by biological
              nitrification. The effluent is then clarified and
              filtered.  Phosphoric acid is added to provide
              phosphorous as a nutrient for the biological
              system, while soda ash is added to provide
              alkalinity, which assists the nitrification process.
              A particular advantage at this site is ambient
              water temperature: untreated water is between
              10° to 18°C (50° to 64°F) year-round.  The
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 Page 2-30
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIVES
June 1995
Homestake system removes cyanide,
thiocyanate and ammonia and was designed to
produce a "non-toxic" effluent for tailings pond
decant and mine water.

Biological treatment is limited to solution
applications, and therefore is not applicable to
the Crown Jewel Project.  Biological processes
require piloting under actual site and process
conditions, which is not possible since the
Crown Jewel Project is not an existing
operation.  Cyanide concentrations of 250 to
350 mg/l expected in the mill tailings exceed
the limitations of biological  primary treatment
and there is no available natural source of warm
water on the site.  (Knight Piesold, 1993).

Cyanide Recovery

Several processes have been developed to
recover and recycle cyanide.  The basic
processes are Acidification, Volatilization,
Reneutralization (AVR) and  ion exchange with
AVR and electrolytic recovery.

In the AVR process, barren solution is acidified
to a pH of 2 to 3 using sulfuric acid and passed
countercurrent to a stream  of air in a series of
packed towers. HCN is volatile and is stripped
from solution. Low pH is essential to dissociate
the metal complexes and convert cyanide ion to
HCN.  HCN in the gas stream is absorbed in a
caustic solution, and the resulting caustic
cyanide solution is recycled to the cyanidation
circuit.

General acceptance of this  technique has  been
slow due to the hazard of acidification, handling
HCN gas, the initial capital  cost and overall
complexity. Due to the importance of reducing
pH in the first part of the AVR process, cyanide
recovery is most effective on solutions that
have a low buffering capacity and a low level of
copper cyanide complexes. The Crown Jewel
mill tailings does not meet either of these
criteria. In the lab, even with high sulfuric acid
additions, WAD cyanide removal was poor
(about 62%), thus this method was not
considered further (Knight Piesold, 1993).

Ion Exchange

There are 2 processes that use ion exchange
resin for cyanide recovery and recycling.  The
first process, known as the RTA process,
                  patented by Resource Technology Associates,
                  has been tested on a pilot scale.  It involves the
                  adsorption of metal-cyanide complexes from
                  barren solutions on a weak-base anion exchange
                  resin and concentration of the cyanide by
                  eluting with a calcium hydroxide solution,
                  followed by resin regeneration and cyanide
                  recovery via the AVR process, discussed
                  previously.

                  The second process, known as the  Cyanosave
                  process, uses a metal-binding resin marketed
                  under the name Vitrokele™.  Vitrokele™ beads
                  are contacted with pulp in a series of tanks.
                  The Vitrokele™ resin moves counter current to
                  the pulp, and the loaded Vitrokele™ is eluted,
                  regenerated and returned to the adsorption step.
                  Both cyanide and metals are  recovered.

                  The major limitations of ion exchange processes
                  appear to be resin poisoning  and costs.  Further
                  development work involving pilot and full-scale
                  testing will be required before these processes
                  gain acceptance.  No full-scale application of
                  this technology in mine effluent treatment is
                  known. Thus, this method was not considered
                  applicable to the Crown Jewel  Project.

                  Conclusion

                  The most common cyanide treatment processes
                  utilize an oxidizing agent in combination with pH
                  control to eliminate cyanide and metal-cyanide
                  complexes from solution. The Homestake
                  Mining Company at Lead, South Dakota has
                  used  a biological oxidation process for solutions
                  containing cyanide. Other treatment processes
                  utilizing ozone, ultraviolet irradiation, and
                  chlorine dioxide have been utilized on a very
                  limited basis or only evaluated  at the bench and
                  pilot scale.

                  Several reported systems rely on  physical-
                  chemical techniques to remove cyanide, but
                  most of these are considered polishing steps.
                  Adsorption on activated carbon, complexing
                  with ferrous sulfate to lower solubility, ion
                  exchange resins, reverse osmosis,
                  electrodialysis, and high pressure oxidation are
                  all processes that have been used for specific
                  industrial applications or described  in the
                  literature as being able to treat or destroy
                  cyanide.  They have not been widely practiced
                  in the mining  industry.
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 June 7995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-31
Table 2.2, Summary of Cyanide Treatment
Processes, presents a graphic view of the
processes discussed.

Table 2.3, Results of Treatability Testing,
presents the results of some initial labs tests
done to determine cyanide detoxification levels
using different commonly used techniques.

The  proposed use of the INCO S02/Air/02
process at the Crown Jewel Project for cyanide
destruction of the mill tailings is a direct result
of laboratory testing work and the desire to use
a technique that has proven performance,
efficiency, supplier and equipment availability,
and  reliability and simplicity of operation.

Two gold operations in the region utilize the
INCO S02/Air/02  process for cyanide
destruction in their mill tailings. These mines
are the Homestake Nickel Plate Mine (near
Medley, British Columbia) and the Echo Bay
Kettle River Mine (near Republic, Washington).
Both report satisfaction with the process.

Cyanide Destruction Options Considered in
Detail.

•         INCO S02/Air/02  (with Natural
          Degradation)

Cyanide Destruction Options Eliminated From
Detailed Evaluation.
         Natural Degradation (as stand-alone
         technique)
         Hydrogen Peroxide Oxidation
         Ferrous Sulfate
         UV/Ozone
         Ion Exchange
         Alkaline Chlorination
         Biological Degradation
         Cyanide Recovery
2.2.12   Tailings Disposal

Tailings are the finely ground, sand and silt-like
rock material remaining after the precious metal
values have been extracted from the ore. As the
ore mined becomes tailings after processing,
sufficient area for tailings disposal is required
for the expected recoverable ore body.

Following is a discussion of  the tailings disposal
options identified for the Crown Jewel Project.
               There are 3 primary methods of dry land tailings
               disposal:

               •        Conventional Tailings Disposal-Thick
                        Layer Deposition;
               •        Conventional Tailings Disposal-Thin
                        Layer Deposition; and
               •        Dewatered Tailings Disposal.

               Conventional Tailings Disposal

               Tailings would be transported as a slurry to a
               disposal site, using an 8 inch diameter slurry
               pipeline.  The tailings slurry would contain
               approximately 45-50% solids by weight.  Once
               solids settle out and process water is drawn
               through the tailings or ponded on the surface,
               process water would be  returned to the mill by
               pumping.  Slurry and return water pipelines
               would be constructed  with flexible pipe
               resistant to corrosion and abrasion.

               Tailings would be discharged around the
               perimeter of the active tailings areas to form a
               beach using either a managed thick-layer or
               thin-layer deposition technique.  Thick layer
               deposition is a depositional technique where
               slurry is discharged at 1  point for extended
               periods of time.  This technique results in the
               solids in the slurry settling out in thick, poorly
               consolidated layers and does not allow for
               efficient recovery and  recycling of water.   Only
               the thin-layer method will be considered further
               because this method would maximize
               consolidation  and would allow reclamation and
               revegetation of the tailings pond in the shortest
               time frame. Since there  is no environmental
               benefit to thick layer deposition,  it was
               eliminated from consideration.

               Dewatered Tailings Disposal

               This method of tailings disposal would involve
               reducing the moisture content in the treated
               tailings from 40 to 50%  to about 10%, through
               the use of filter presses and thermal drying.
               Once dried, the tailings material would be
               hauled or conveyed to a  disposal site.

               Environmental benefits that might be gained
               from dewatering of mill tailings include reduced
               likelihood of dam or lining failure, reduced
               likelihood of introduction into aquatic systems in
               the event of dam or lining failure, reduced
               likelihood of ground water contamination and
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 2-32
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIVES
June 1995
TABLE 2.2, SUMMARY OF CYANIDE TREATMENT PROCESSES
Process
Natural Degradation
INCO - SO?/Air/O2
Hydrogen Peroxide
Ferrous Sulfate
UV/Ozone
Alkaline Chlorination
Biological Degradation
Cyanide Recovery
(Acidification/Regeneration)
Ion Exchange
Thiocyanide
Y
P
N
7
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Total
Cyanide
Y
Y
Y
Y"
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Ammonia
Y
Y
N
N/A
N/A
Y
Y
N/A
N/A
Metals
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Comments
Occurs naturally with no addition of chemicals. Requires large shallow pond. Generally used
in combination with another process.
Removes iron complexed cyanide. Heavy metals precipitated. Relatively new process but
design support from INCO.
Several methods of removal are possible if reaction is conducted under alkaline conditions.
Ammonia is generated in the destruction reaction of cyanide. Technical help available but
experience is limited in mining applications.
Does not remove free cyanide or heavy metals. Filtration step required to remove colored
precipitate; skilled labor necessary. Process not proven in the mining industry.
Not proven in the mining industry. Removes all forms of cyanide and heavy metals. High
electrical energy costs. High O&M costs if substantial thiocyanide is present. High level of
operator experience required.
High chemical costs when chlorine demand is high (i.e. when large amounts of thiocyanide,
organics, etc. are present). Heavy metals precipitated.
Destroys all forms of cyanide and removes metal. Biological system subject to upset and
requires continuous feed, and relatively warm temperature. Skilled labor required, initial
experience in mining industry.
Recovers reusable cyanide; heavy metals not removed. May not be cost-effective unless
waste stream has high cyanide levels. Proven for cyanide recovery but not wasts treatment.!*
Metals removal would occur during neutralization with addition of lime. !
Recovers both cyanide and metals. Not proven on full-scale. May not be cost effective. i
Used in conjunction with cyanide recovery (AVR) process.
Notes: Y = Yes, process removes indicated component.
N = No, process does not remove indicated component.
p = Poorly, process not very efficient at removing indicated component. |
' = Removal performance was not determined.
N/A = Not applicable.
CNO Breakdown to ammonium and carbonate and insoluble double salts is a slow process which occurs for all methods that produce CNO"
Prussian Blue process does not remove free cyanide, rather it removes complexed cyanide.

-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-33
TABLE 2.3. RESULTS OF TREATABILITY TESTING1
Treatment Method
(ore sample)
Alkaline Chlorination
Hydrogen Peroxide
Ferrous Sulfate
Cyanide Recovery (AVR)
INCO S02/02
Reagent Consumed
(Ibs/ton ore)
NaOCI 5.0 Ib/t
H202 10.2 Ib/t
H202 20.8 Ib/t
FeS04 3.7 Ib/t
H2S04 12.8 Ib/t
H2SO4 18.2 Ib/t
S02 5.0 Ib/t
Final Leach Solution Assays (mg/l)
Total CN
5
179
5
68
194
134
NR
WAD CN
2
171
2
55
95
76
<1
Free CN
NR
14
0.3
13
22
19
NR
Cu
<1
72
<1
59
58
58
3
Fe
2
1
2
40
38
17
<1
Source: Knight Piesold and Company, All Known Available and Reasonable Technology (AKART) evaluation for
Cyanide Detoxification, Battle Mountain Gold Company, Crown Jewel Project, Okanogan County,
Washington, October 1993.
Note: 1. Influent CN is greater than 200 mg/l in all Tests.
virtual elimination of potential mortality of birds
which could be attracted to a tailings pond.

Initially a berm would be constructed at the toe
of the structure using waste rock.  A
compacted till liner and overlying drainage
blanket would be constructed covering the basal
area of the pile.  Dewatered tails would be
placed in shallow lifts and compacted, with
haulage roads constructed of waste rock placed
on 75 to 100 foot increments.  No tailings
embankments, except an initial  starter berm
would be constructed. Dewatering and handling
costs are typically double to triple the cost for
conventional placement of tailings using slurry
pipelines.

The option of drying or dewatering tailings was
evaluated, and was determined  to have
technical feasibility and reliability problems as
explained in the following.

The schedule for placement would  be weather
controlled due to the moisture sensitivity  of the
tailings material. During periods of inclement
weather, placement of dewatered tailings may
have to be suspended because an increase in
moisture content would reduce  the material
density and the ability to  maintain stability in
the overall pile (depending on the grain size and
percentage of slimes associated with the
tailings).  Dewatering to acceptable limits may
not be possible under the best of conditions.
During periods of inclement weather, the
material would be placed  in covered storage
              until final placement was possible. The covered
              storage would be designed to hold the tailings
              expected to be generated during 1 to  2 weeks.
              This could amount to approximately 25,000 to
              50,000 tons.

              Surface water would be diverted around the
              tailings, but rain and snow would provide a
              source of additional water in the tailings. Waste
              rock would be used to construct internal drains
              to channel water from the tailings. Since it is
              likely that runoff from the tailings would contain
              fine sediments, a return water dam would be
              constructed downstream of the tailings to
              capture water from the tailings and act as a
              settling pond.  This water would be returned to
              the mill for use in the ore processing operation.

              Winds  could pick up fine materials from the
              surface of the tailings deposit. Standard
              reclamation practices would be used to
              revegetate the surface of the  tailings during
              operation.  Phased reclamation would  reduce,
              but not eliminate, the amount of fines exposed
              to wind erosion.

              Therefore, this option was not considered for
              further evaluation.

              Tailings Disposal Methods Considered  Further

              •        Conventional Tailing Disposal, Thin
                       Layer Deposition
                    Crown Jewel Mine  4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 2-34
CHAPTER 2 - At TERNA TIVES
June 1995
Tailings Disposal Methods Not Considered
Further

•        Conventional Tailings Disposal,  Thick
         Layer Deposition
•        Dewatered Tailings Disposal

2.2.13   Tailings Disposal Locations

There are several locations within the Marias
Creek and Nicholson Creek drainages that are
technically feasible as tailing disposal facilities.
Off-site facilities may also be possible.  The on-
site locations are identified in Figure 2.6,
Tailings Facility Options.  The sites are  identified
as:
         Marias Tailings Facility;
         Upper South Nicholson;
         South Nicholson;
         Lower South Nicholson;
         North Nicholson; and
         Off-site Locations
A site selection report, per requirements of
Chapter 78.56.090 RCW, has been prepared for
this Project and is contained in Appendix H,
Tailings Site Selection Report.

Marias Tailings Facility

The proposed  action is to construct a tailings
disposal facility within the upper reaches of
Marias Creek.  This facility would require the
construction of 2 embankments, a primary on
the south and  a secondary on the north  and
would cover about 2.4 acres of wetlands.

At the conclusion of milling activities, the
primary embankment would  be approximately
240 feet high  (downstream toe  to crest  at an
elevation of 4,400 feet).  This embankment
would be constructed across the Marias Creek
drainage.  The primary embankment would
begin with a 145 foot high starter embankment
and have  7 scheduled raises added to reach the
final elevation  at 4,400 feet.  The secondary
embankment would also  be constructed  on the
saddle that divides Marias Creek from Nicholson
Creek and would be about 87 feet high at the
conclusion of  milling activities, thereby locating
the disposal area completely in the Marias  Creek
drainage.  The secondary embankment would be
constructed in a total of 7 scheduled raises to a
final elevation  of 4,390 feet. The facility would
                   be designed to allow water to continue to freely
                   flow under the facility.  Water from this
                   underflow would likely be captured and released
                   (treated if necessary before release), or captured
                   and routed into the reclaim solution collection
                   pond to be returned to the mill to use as
                   process water.

                   Runoff from the west side of the tailings facility
                   would be diverted around the impoundment
                   area.  This diversion would be constructed prior
                   to use of the tailings facility.  Any runoff from
                   the east side should be minor and would run
                   into the tailings facility.

                   Closure of the  tailings impoundment would
                   involve allowing process water to evaporate.
                   The area would be revegetated with grasses,
                   shrubs and  trees.  Permanent drainage channels
                   would be constructed, as necessary, to route
                   the runoff from the site. These channels would
                   be designed to safely pass the 72 hour intensity
                   and volume event (9.05 predicted inches).

                   Other operational aspects of this tailings
                   impoundment would consist of a reclaim
                   solution collection pond, access roads, a slurry
                   pipeline, a return water pipeline and monitoring
                   wells.  Total surface disturbance associated
                   with this disposal  site would be approximately
                   87 acres.

                   Review of the embankment designs would  be
                   conducted by the  Forest Service and by the
                   Dam Safety Division of the WADOE.  The final
                   design approval must be provided by these
                   agencies.

                   Upper South Nicholson

                   This site is favorably situated for possible
                   tailings disposal because of its location in
                   relationship to  the proposed mill facilities and is
                   less heavily wooded than the other proposed
                   locations. Construction techniques would be
                   similar to those proposed for ihe Marias tailings
                   facility.  The site is underlain by nearly 9 acres
                   of wetlands. Three embankments would be
                   constructed to contain the tailings. This would
                   add to the complexity and infrastructure of the
                   facility.  Nicholson Creek  would be diverted
                   around the facility.

                   This option will not be considered further for
                   several reasons.  It has substantial impacts on
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
Page 2-35
                                                     NORTH
                                                   NICHOLSON
                                                     TAILINGS
                                 LOWER SOUTH
                              NICHOLSON TAILINGS
                UPPER SOUTH
                 NICHOLSON
                  TAILINGS

                                           SOUTH NICHOLSON
                                               TAILINGS
                TAILINGS
        L EGEND
   C-—-J TAILINGS AREA OPTION BOUNDARY
          FIGURE 2.6, TAILINGS FACILITY OPTIONS

-------
Page 2-36
CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES
Jane 79S5
wetlands. The shape of the facility is less
suitable for thin layer deposition. Up to 85' of
excavation would be necessary to construct this
facility. Shallow ground water provides a
greater risk of contamination if a leak should
occur. Use of this location would probably
require water from the historic (now abandoned)
Roosevelt adit to be diverted into Marias Creek.

South Nicholson

This site would be down stream of the Upper
South Nicholson tailings facility as shown on
Figure, 2.6, Tailings Facility Options.
Construction techniques would be similar to
those proposed for the Marias tailings facility.
Nicholson Creek would be routed around this
tailings storage area during mining, and a post-
mining drainage scheme would be developed.
Only 1 embankment would be required, but it
would be about 350  feet high at the completion
of milling activities. This height would be
required, given the steepness of the Nicholson
drainage in this area. There would be
insufficient pre-production waste rock to
construct this  facility so additional borrow pits
would be required. Water would be pumped
back to the mill.

Lower South Nicholson

This site would be further  downstream, with  the
toe of the embankment located just above the
confluence with North Nicholson Creek.
Construction techniques would be similar to
those proposed for the South Nicholson facility.
Nicholson Creek would be routed around this
facility during  mining, and  a post-mining
drainage scheme would be developed for final
reclamation. As with the South Nicholson
facility, only 1  embankment would be needed,
about 350 feet high at the end of mining.
Borrow pits would be used which would
increase the area of disturbance. Water would
be pumped back to the mill.

North Nicholson

This tailings site would be located in the north
branch of the Nicholson Creek drainage as
illustrated on Figure 2.6, Tailings Facility
Options. The  construction of this facility would
be similar to that of the South Nicholson tailings
facility. Only  1 embankment would be
necessary. Diversions would be required during
                   operations, and post-mining drainage plans
                   would be required. This site would require
                   tailings to be pumped from the mill site.  Water
                   would be pumped back to the mill. As with all
                   tailings pond locations, a plan would be
                   developed in case of rupture of the tailings
                   pipeline and ditches.  More complex
                   infrastructure would be required due to the
                   distance to the mill. There are few
                   environmental advantages of this site over other
                   locations.  This option will not be considered for
                   further evaluation.

                   Off-Site Disposal

                   Disposing of mill tailings remote from the Crown
                   Jewel mine site was considered.  A search was
                   conducted for relatively level sites further
                   downstream in Marias and Nicholson Creeks
                   where tailings could be placed in a non-valley fill
                   configuration.  No such areas were identified.
                   Similarly, tributary drainages 1o Myers Creek,
                   such as Gold Creek, Bolster Creek, Lime  Creek,
                   and Ethel Creek, were examined for relatively
                   flat areas where tailings could be deposited.
                   These drainages have steep gradients and all
                   have steep topography.  None of these Myers
                   Creek tributaries offered any sites that would be
                   topographically more advantageous than sites in
                   upper Marias and Nicholson Creek drainages.
                   These drainages, because of their  gradients  and
                   steep sides, would provide the necessary
                   storage volumes only with substantial
                   excavation coupled with construction of  high
                   tailings embankments.

                   Sites for alternative tailings locations were also
                   sought in the Toroda Creek and  Myers Creek
                   main stem drainages.  An examination was
                   made for areas of relatively flat surface where
                   non cross-valley tailings storage sites could  be
                   constructed. Myers Creek is greater than 3
                   miles from the  proposed Crown Jewel mine and
                   mill. Toroda Creek is located at distances
                   greater than 5  miles from the proposed Crown
                   Jewel mine and mill.  Tailings would be  pumped
                   or piped to the remote location.  The Myers
                   Creek tributary drainages where a tailings and
                   return water pipelines could be laid include Gold
                   Creek,  Bolster Creek, Lime Creek,  Ethel Creek,
                   and the "Pontiac Ridge" Creek (drainage
                   adjacent to County Road 4895). To access a
                   tailings disposal site in the Toroda Creek
                   drainage, tailings and return water pipelines
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-37
 would be needed in the Marias or Nicholson
 Creek drainages.

 There would be property and ownership
 considerations for the construction of any
 remote tailing disposal area in either the Myers
 or Toroda Creek drainages. Most of the
 ownership in these drainages is private. The
 alluvial material in the Myers and Toroda Creek
 drainages contains ground water that feeds a
 number of domestic and agricultural wells in
 these main north-south valleys. Any
 construction of a tailings facility in the Myers or
 Toroda Creek drainages would  need to consider
 the requirement for extensive dewatering
 systems and monitoring schemes to protect
 adjacent and downstream water users.  A
 tailings facility in either Myers or Toroda Creek
 drainages would place the facility immediately
 adjacent to fisheries.

 Extensive leak detection monitoring systems
 would need to be installed and  maintained along
 the length of the tailings pipelines to any
 isolated tailings disposal site. A plan would be
 developed in case of a rupture of a tailings
 pipeline, and the resulting protection would
 necessitate the construction of lined ditches and
 ponds along the right-of-way.  These would be
 sized to contain a pre-determined volume of
 tailings and tailings effluent.  An all-weather
 road would need to be constructed and
 maintained adjacent to the pipeline right-of-way
 and the associated  ditches and  ponds for use in
 the event of a tailings pipeline rupture.  The
 pipeline right-of-way, and the associated
 ditches, ponds, and all weather road would
 need  to be fenced to exclude livestock,  wildlife,
 and the public.  A long, isolated tailings pipeline
 would have a  higher risk of vandalism.

 Given the complex  infrastructure, additional
 disturbance, extensive monitoring requirements,
 and the added construction, operational and
 liability costs with no added environmental
 benefit, off-site tailings disposal sites were
 eliminated from further consideration.

Tailings constitute a solid  waste under
Washington State law. Generators of solid
waste are responsible for determining whether
the waste is a dangerous waste and subject to
regulation under Chapter 173-303 RCW (the
Dangerous Waste Regulations).  The process for
               determining this is called dangerous waste
               designation.

               Extensive chemical analysis conducted by the
               Proponent has shown that the tailings resulting
               from bench scale processing do not designate
               as dangerous waste. However, information is
               not yet available regarding toxicity from actual
               biological test methods called bioassay.
               Because of the complex nature of the tailings
               and  the large volume of tailings that would be
               placed in a tailings disposal unit,  the bioassay
               test is being  required to determine whether the
               tailings would designate.  Because additional ore
               samples will  have  to be collected and processed
               by the Proponent before the bioassay test can
               be conducted, this information is not currently
               available. Boiassey testing will be completed
               prior to the issuance of the  Final  EIS.

               The  applicant's proposed tailing facility location,
               as well as all other alternative tailing facility
               locations considered in the draft EIS, do not
               meet the siting requirements for dangerous
               waste management facilities.  If the tailings
               designate as dangerous waste, based on
               bioassay tests, alternative tailings facility sites
               or changes to the treatment process will need
               to be explored. There is no information
               available currently which leads us to believe the
               tailings will designate. For this reason, this
               draft EIS will not include environmental analysis
               for a proposal with tailings which do designate
               as dangerous waste.  If the tailings do designate
               as dangerous waste, changes to the proposal
               and associated environmental  analysis will be
               included in a  subsequent environmental
               document.

              Tailings Disposal Location Options Considered
              Further

               •        Marias Tailings Facility
               •        South Nicholson Tailings Facility
              •        Lower South Nicholson  Tailings
                       Facility

              Tailings Disposal Location  Options Not
              Considered Further

              •        Upper South Nicholson
              •        Off-Site Disposal (Gold, Bolster, Lime,
                       Ethel, Myers, or Toroda Creeks)
                     Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 2-38
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
June 1995
2.2.14   Tailings Embankment Design and
         Construction

A number of options exist for the construction
of tailings embankments as displayed in Figure
2. 7, Tailings Dam Construction Design. The
type of design and construction selected would
depend on permit requirements which include
technical components, safety considerations,
logistical considerations, and economic
constraints.  The design (construction and
operation) of the tailings embankments would
require the structure to have sufficient freeboard
to ensure that rain fall events are safely
retained, and  do not threaten the integrity of the
structure. Requirements related to seismic
events and other stability considerations must
also be met.

The embankment design would likely involve an
impermeable core constructed of fine grained
materials borrowed from selected till deposits
located within the confines of the
impoundment.  Coarse grained materials from
rock and till located within the tailings basin
would be used for the embankment shell zones
and coarse filter materials, along with select
waste rock from the mine.  Some borrow areas
would provide fill material.  Borrow areas would
be located both within and adjacent, in upland
areas, to the tailings basin.

Traditional upstream embankment construction
methods produce a zone of low density tailings
within the embankment section that has an
increased susceptibility to liquefaction if
subjected to severe seismic ground motions. To
address concerns with the seismic  stability of
the proposed  main embankment, it would have
a lower half that is constructed as a zoned,
engineered fill and an upper section placed in
part as an engineered fill and  partly by a
modified centerline technique. The adoption of
this modified  centerline construction technique
is contingent  upon demonstrating that the
tailings in the zone critical to the structural
integrity  of the embankment can be placed and
will remain in an unsaturated  state  in filling the
lower half of the embankment. The tailings
cannot liquify if they remain in an unsaturated
state. The modified centerline construction
method is a compromise between the upstream
and downstream methods of construction. As a
result, it shares, to a degree,  the respective
advantages of the 2 methods, while mitigating
                   their disadvantages. For centerline
                   construction, a starter embankment initially is
                   constructed, and tailings are peripherally
                   spigoted from the dike crest to form a beach.
                   The starter embankment would consist of an
                   engineered fill with an internal seal and drain.
                   Each raise would be constructed of random fill
                   with a filtered drain formed  in  the  upstream
                   portion of the embankment. Centerline
                   construction has proven to be an effective
                   means of tailings management in seismic areas.

                   Prior to constructing any tailings embankment,
                   design and engineering detail would be
                   submitted to the WADOE, Dam Safety Division,
                   and the Forest Service. These agencies would
                   be responsible for approval of dam design and
                   construction, as well as long-term integrity of
                   dams constructed on National Forest land.
                   These agencies would be responsible for
                   deciding whether to issue dam construction  and
                   operating permits.  The Forest Service may
                   defer approval of the dam design and
                   construction to the Dam Safety Division with
                   their greater local technical expertise but would
                   conduct spot checks and yearly safety checks
                   of the facility.

                   2.2.15   Tailings Liner System Design

                   A number of factors must be considered for the
                   design of a liner system for  mine tailings. These
                   include the following:

                   •        Climatic conditions;
                   •        Physical and chemical characteristics
                            of the tailings;
                   •        Underlying geologic formations;
                   •        Attenuation characteristics of
                            underlying geologic formations;
                   •        Hydrogeologic characteristics of the
                            underlying geologic formations;
                   •        Ground and surface  water
                            characteristics of the site, including
                            the abundance, quality, proximity, and
                            beneficial uses of  ground and surface
                            waters;
                   •        Methods for placement of the tailings;
                            and,
                   •        Ability to detect liner leaks.

                   There are a variety of liner types or
                   combinations of liners that can be used to
                   contain mine tailings.  The basic components of
                   a liner system include an overdrain, clay  or
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
                                                  HEADER
                                                 DOWNSTREAM
                                                                         STARTER DAM
             HEADER
          STARTER
           DAM
         T
            UNDERDRAINS

         CENTERLINE
    IMPERVIOUS
      CORE
  SHELL
CONVENTIONAL
                    GRADED
                    FILTER
                    DRAIN
\
                  FIGURE 2.7,  TAILINGS  DAM  CONSTRUCTION  DESIGN
FILENAME CJ2-7 DWG

-------
Page 2-40
CHAPTER 2 - .41 TERN A JIVES
June '1995
synthetic barriers, intermediate drains, and
underdrains.  The ability of the liner system to
minimize or prevent seepage of tailings leachate
depends not only on the inherent characteristics
of the engineered system, but also on the
hydraulic loading conditions, quality of
construction, and the underlying natural
geologic material. The principal goal  or
objective with regard to tailings deposition
should be to provide protection to the surface
and ground waters of the area from a release of
hazardous or deleterious substances,  both on a
short- and long-term basis.

As proposed, the facility would be fully lined,
utilizing a composite liner system and pipework
drainage layer.  Details of the proposed lining
system  are found in Battle Mountain Gold
Company Crown Jewel Project, Tailing Disposal
Facility  Final Design Report (Knight Piesold,
1993).

The liner system design developed and
submitted by the  Proponent will be considered
as the baseline design on which environmental
analysis will be conducted. Liner design
systems with safeguards less than that
proposed by the Proponent would not be
permitted.  If this design does not meet the
requirements of the 1994 Washington State
Metals Mining law,  something more stringent
would be required (i.e. additional synthetic
barriers, thicker clay liners, etc.).

The ultimate design of a tailings disposal facility
would be based on  a containment analysis
which would consider all of the site specific
aspects referred to above.  The objective of the
tailings  pond design is to prevent  leakage.
Ground and surface water quality monitoring
below the tailings facility would be required.
Appropriate corrective action would take  place
if a leak is detected.

2.2.16    Employee Transportation

Employees would commute from various
locations (Oroville, Tonasket, Omak,  Republic
etc.) to the mine  site and back every  workday.

There are 3 options for employee  transportation:

•        Individual Transportation;
•        Car Pooling; and
•        Company Busing and/or Van Pooling.
                   Individual Transportation

                   This option requires the least effort and cost to
                   the Proponent.  It would put the highest volume
                   of traffic on the affected roads and require the
                   most on-site parking. This option  has been
                   eliminated from detailed consideration since this
                   amount of traffic would negatively affect public
                   safety, increase wildlife mortality,  and decrease
                   the enjoyment/convenience of other Forest
                   visitors.  As a result, the Proponent has agreed
                   to provide company transportation. The
                   magnitude of these adverse impacts would vary
                   with the access route being used.   Employees
                   would be discouraged from driving personal
                   vehicles to the mine site.

                   Car Pooling

                   Under this option, employees would be
                   encouraged to car pool to the Project.
                   Employees would be free to choose how they
                   commute but the Proponent would offer
                   incentives for carpooling. This option would  be
                   difficult to enforce, particularly if the program is
                   voluntary. Although traffic loads may be
                   reduced over individual transportation, this
                   option has been eliminated from further
                   consideration for similar reasons to individual
                   transportation.  There would still be effects on
                   public safety, wildlife, and the enjoyment and
                   convenience of other Forest visitors.

                   Company  Busing and/or Van Pooling

                   Under this option, the Proponent would provide
                   and encourage the  use of company buses or
                   van pools to the site from a location near
                   Oroville and other locations as appropriate. This
                   option would be the most costly and time
                   consuming to manage for the Proponent,  but
                   would result in the lowest level of employee
                   traffic.

                   From Chesaw to the mine site there are 2 likely
                   routes that could be followed.  These are:

                   •        Chesaw and South Route; and,
                   •        Chesaw and North Route.

                   Chesaw and South Route

                   This option would involve the transportation  of
                   employees by  bus/van from Oroville.  Bus traffic
                   would be  on County Road 9480 through
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
                                     CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-41
 Chesaw to County Road 4895, east on County
 Road 4895, then north to the mine site on
 Forest Road 3575-120. The location of this
 route is illustrated on Figure 2.8, Employee
 Transport Routes.

 Chesaw and North Route

 This option would involve the transportation of
 employees by bus/van from Oroville.  Bus traffic
 would be on County Road 9480 to Chesaw,
 north on County Road 4883, east on Forest
 Road 3575, then south to the mine site on
 either Forest Road 3575-100 or 150. The
 location of this route is illustrated on Figure 2.8,
 Employee Transport Routes.

 The roads to the north  of Chesaw are unpaved,
 less traveled and less frequently maintained
 than the roads on the south.  More upgrade and
 maintenance would  be required if this route
 were selected for employee traffic. This option
 has been eliminated from further consideration
 since the southern route would require
 maintaining only 1 route instead of 2; the
 northern route is steeper and would be less  safe
 to use; and there would be reduced
 environmental impacts on deer winter range
 from disturbance with the use of 1  access route
 for both supply and  employee transportation.

 Employee Transport Options Considered for
 Further Analysis.

 •       Company Busing and/or Van Pooling
 •       Chesaw and South Route

 Employee Transport Options Eliminated From
 Further Evaluation.

 •       Individual Transportation
 •       Car Pooling
 •       Chesaw and North Route

 2.2.17   Supply Transportation

 Operational materials, chiefly consisting  of fuel,
 chemical reagents, and explosives would be
 delivered at least weekly, to the site. These
 materials would be shipped by truck from
 remote sources (Spokane, Seattle or beyond)
and, where possible, from the Okanogan Valley.
At peak production, approximately 28 weekly
trips for bulk materials would be expected.  The
                                                   high use supplies would have on-site storage
                                                   capacity for approximately 30 days.

                                                   Listed in Table 2.4, Materials and Supplies, are
                                                   the major consumable items that would be
                                                   required during operation of the Crown Jewel
                                                   Project, as planned for the proposed action.
                                                   This list will be similar for all of the action
                                                   alternatives, until the start of reclamation,
                                                   except Alternative F which would require about
                                                   half as many supplies per year due to reduced
                                                   production and Alternative G which would use
                                                   different chemicals since it proposes to use a
                                                   different milling process. Table 2.5,
                                                   Consumables Estimate - Underground Mining
                                                   lists the major consumable items that would be
                                                   required during the operation of the Crown
                                                   Jewel Project, as planned for Alternative C.

                                                   Three supply transport access route options are
                                                   considered. These optional routes are:

                                                   •        Wauconda to Site;
                                                   •        Oroville to Chesaw to Site; and,
                                                   •        Tonasket to Chesaw to Site.

                                                   Wauconda to Site

                                                   This is the supply access route used in the
                                                   proposed action.  Under this option, shipments
                                                   of operating supplies would be routed through
                                                   Wauconda via existing year-round State
                                                   Highway 20. From Wauconda, trucks would be
                                                   routed north approximately 12 miles on County
                                                   Road 9495 (Toroda Creek Road) to County
                                                   Road 9480 (Oroville - Toroda Creek Road), then
                                                   continue approximately 16.2 miles over County
                                                   Road 9480, County Road 4895 and Forest Road
                                                   3575- 120 to the mine site.  Trucks carrying
                                                   fuel, certain chemical reagents, and explosives
                                                   would  be accompanied by pilot vehicles from
                                                   the junction of County Road  9480 and 9495 to
                                                  the mine site.

                                                   Oroville to Chesaw to Site

                                                  Under this option, shipments of operating
                                                  supplies would be routed to Oroville via existing
                                                  year round State Highway 97.  From Oroville,
                                                  trucks would be routed east approximately 25
                                                  miles on County Road 9480 to County Road
                                                  4895 and Forest Road 3575-120  to the site.
                                                  Trucks would pass through the community of
                                                  Chesaw. Trucks carrying fuel, certain chemical
                                                  reagents, and explosives would be accompanied
                   Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
      R27E  BRITISH COLUMBIA
      'F~ '  'WASHINGTON
                                                          CHESAW AND
                                                          NORTH ROUTE
                                         """ " : CHESAW
                                  CHESAW AND
                                  SOUTH  ROUTE
                                                                  LEGEND
TONASKEK
                   FIGURE 2.8, EMPLOYEE TRANSPORT  ROUTES

-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-43
TABLE 2.4, MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
Consumables


Grinding
Steel Balls
Leaching
Sodium Cyanide
Cement
Flocculent
Lead Nitrate
Oxygen
Recovery
Activated Carbon
Hydrochloric Acid
Caustic
Antiscalant
Steel Wool
Refinery
Silica Sand
Anhydrous Borax
Soda Ash
Sodium Nitrate


Cyanide Destruct4
Sulfur Dioxide
Copper Sulfate
Lime
Oxygen
Blasting
Ammonium Nitrate3
General
Fuel3
Propane
Miscellaneous
Totals
Daily Use
(tons)


6.38

4.69
18.75
0.19
0.47
5.0

0.30
0.60
0.57
0.09
0.01

0.02
0.05
0.02
0.01



4.23
0.15
3.15
7.0

8.75

3,300 gal
3.06 tons


Annual Use
(tons)


2,327

1,711
6,844
68
171
1,825

110
220
207
34
0.30

8
16
8
3



1,543
53
1,149
2,555

3,194

1,204,500 gal
813 tons


Physical
Form


solid

solid briquettes
powder
liquid
powder
liquified gas

granules
liquid
liquid
liquid
solid

solid
solid
solid
solid



liquid
solid
powder
liquid

granules

liquid
LPG


Truck Shipments1

Weekly

2.3

1.7
6.6
0.1
0.2
1.8

0.1
0.2
0.2
0.04
0.02








1.5
0.1
1.1
2.5

3.1

4.8
0.8
0.9
28

Yearly2

117

86
343
4
9
92

6
11
11
2
1
These
materials
combined
will require
only 2 truck
loads per
year

78
3
58
128

160

240
41
48
1440
Notes: Daily use based on 3,000 tons of ore per day.
1 . Number of truck shipments based on an average payload of 20 tons.
2. Based on an average production rate of usage requirements for 365 days per year.
3. Based on 33,000 tons/day (ore and waste).
4. Design amount is based on conservative cyanide use estimates. The amount is based on bench
tests and projected mill usage. Actual chemical use may be less.
by pilot vehicles through Chesaw to the mine
site.

Tonasket to Chesaw to Site

Under this option, shipments of operating
supplies would be routed to Tonasket via
existing year round State Highway 20 and 97.
From Tonasket, trucks would be routed
northeast for approximately 22 miles on County
Road 9467, which would include passing
through the community of Havillah. Trucks
would join County Road 9480 (several miles
west of Hee Hee  Rock) and proceed through
              Chesaw to the mine site via County Road 4895
              and Forest Road 3575-120.

              The disadvantages of this route include the
              length of travel on county maintained roads and
              the need for trucks to pass through the
              communities of both Havillah and Chesaw and
              past Sitzmark  Ski Area with associated traffic
              congestion. These roads are poorly constructed
              and will not stand-up to heavy truck haul
              especially during the spring break-up.  There is
              no real advantage for using this route and
              several disadvantages;  therefore, it was
              eliminated from further consideration.
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 2-44
CHAPTER 2 - AL
June 1995
TABLE 2.5, CONSUMABLES ESTIMATE, UNDERGROUND MINING
Consumables
Grinding
Steel Balls
Leaching
Sodium Cyanide
Cement
Flocculent
Lead Nitrate
Oxygen
Recovery
Activated Carbon
Hydrochloric Acid
Caustic
Antiscalant
Steel Wool
Refinery
Silica Sand
Anhydrous Borax
Soda Ash
Sodium Nitrate
Cyanide Destruct
Sulfur Dioxide
Copper Sulfate
Lime
Oxygen
Blasting
Ammonium Nitrate3
General
Fuel3
Propane
Miscellaneous
Totals
Daily Use
(tons)
6.38
4.69
18.75
0.19
0.47
5.0
0.30
0.60
0.57
0.09
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.01
4.23
0.15
3.15
7.0
3.0
330 gal
3.06 tons

Annual Use
(tons)
2,327
1,711
6,844
68
171
1,825
110
220
207
34
0.30
8
16
3
1,543
53
1,149
2,555
1,095
120,500 gal
81 3 tons

Physical j_ Truck Shipments1
rom, j
__L Weekly
solid ! 2.3
j
solid briquettes 1 .7
powder 6.8
liquid 0.1
powder 0.2
liquified gas 1 .8
granules 0.1
liquid 0.2
liquid 0.2
liquid
solid
solid
solid
solid
solid
liquid 1 .5
solid 0.1
powder 1 .1
liquified gas 3
granules 1 .1
liquid 0.5
LPG 1
> 2
23.7
Yearly2
1 17
86
343
4 !
9 i
92 !
i
6
1 1
11
2
1
These materials t
combined will
require only 2 truck
loads per year
78 I
3
58
128
55
24
41
100
1 171
Note: Daily use based on 3,000 tons of ore per day.
1. Number of truck shipments based on maximum payload of 20 tons.
2. Based on usage requirements for 365 days per year.
3. Based on 33,000 tons/day (ore and waste).
Supply Transport Options Considered for Further
Analysis

•        Wauconda to Site
•        Oroville to Chesaw to Site

Supply Transport Option Eliminated from Further
Consideration

•        Tonasket to Chesaw to Site

2.2.18   Water Use

Water management is a key component of the
Crown Jewel Project.  Water would be used for
operation of the mine and ore processing
facility, tailings disposal, potable use, and fire
protection.  The primary mine operation use
would be for dust suppression (mainly on haul
roads and at excavation and dumping sites.
                  Water would be needed for construction
                  activities and could be needed for replacing
                  reduced or eliminated flows in surface drainages
                  and wetlands, and reclamation.  Water use for
                  each alternative is set forth in Table 2.6,
                  Estimated Water Use Requirements.

                  The Crown Jewel ore processing facility must
                  be operated as a zero-discharge closed circuit
                  facility according to federal regulation (40 CFR
                  Part 440, Subpart J).  Process water would be
                  recycled  within the process system rather than
                  allowed to discharge into the environment.
                  Initially, water would be added to the ore in the
                  grinding process.  Following grinding and
                  thickening, the ore would be pumped as a slurry
                  through a series of leaching tanks. Once the
                  gold is extracted from the ore, water would be
                  necessary to pump the tailings (spent-ore
                  material) to the tailings disposal area.
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
                                  CROWN JEWEL MINE
                                                  TABLE 2,6, ESTIMATED WATER USAGE REQUIREMENTS1
              Alternative
                  C
                  D
                  E
                  F
                  G
                          Construction
                             (gpm)
  0
50-60
25-30
50-60
50-60
50-60
50-60
                      Start-Up
                                        Mine
                                        (gpm)
   0
  1122
 60-90
80-100
100-120
80-100
125-150
                        Mill
                       (gpm)
    0
  26S2
  2682
  2682
  26S2
 100-200
500-1000
                      Domestic
                        (gpm)
  0
 142
15-20
15-20
  15
10-15
  15
                                         Normal Operations
                          Mine
                         (gpm)
   0
  1122
 60-90
80-100
100-120
80-100
125-150
                         Mil!
                        (gpm!
    0
  2912
  2912
  2912
  291?
 100-200
500-1000
                      Domestic
                        (gpm)
  0
  15
15-20
15-20
  15
10-15
  15
                                                          Reclamation
                                                             (gpm)
  0
 50-60
 25-30
 50-60
 50-60
80-100
 50-60
                                      Estimated Total
                                      Water Usage for
                                       Life-of-Mine3
                                         (acre-feet)
     0
5517-5549
2502-2647
3860-4134
5363-5654
7049-10807
8420-15227
              Notes:     gpm means gallons per minute.
                        1. Except as noted in (2), water usage requirements estimated by TerraMatrix Inc.
                        2. Estimated Water Usage from Battle Mountain Gold Company.
                        3. To calculate acre feet for life of operation gpm x 8.0208 = cu ft/hr then;
                            (cu ft/hr) -i- (43560 sq ft/acre) x (24 hr/day) x (365 days/year) = acre ft/year
                        4. Total Life of Mine Acre-Feet = Construction +  Start-up + Normal Operations -I- Reclamation
                                                                Estimated Years of Activity
                                     Alternative
                                                     Construction
                                                                        Start-up
                                         A
                                         B
                                         C
                                         D
                                         E
                                         F
                                         G
                                               0
                                               1
                                               1
                                               1
                                               1
                                               1
                                               1
                                                             Normal
                                                            Operations
                                                                                                        Reclamation
                                                     0
                                                     7
                                                     3
                                                     5
                                                     7
                                                     15
                                                     7
                                                           0
                                                           1
                                                           1
                                                           1
                                                           1
                                                           16
                                                           1
                                            Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 2-46
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIV£S
June 1995
The ore processing facility would be operated in
3 stages:

•        Mill start-up (charging the system);
•        Normal operation; and,
•        Mill close-down.

When the mill is started up, there would be no
water in the circuit, and therefore, the most
fresh water would be used at this time, which
would occur during the first several months of
operation. There would be very little water
within the tailings impoundment during mill start
up. At present, the plan is to pump tailings, in
a slurry, at 45-50% solids to the tailings
impoundment.

After several months of start-up activities, the
Crown Jewel mill would attain operation status.
At this time, the mill fresh water makeup needs
would stabilize. More than half of the total
water used in the process would be
continuously recycled within the mill facility.
However due to evaporation  and the retention
of water within the tailings, fresh water makeup
would still be needed in the process, to maintain
the milling process.

Once sufficient water volume is attained in the
tailings impoundment, water would be returned
from the impoundment area back to the mill.
Although there would always be minor water
losses in the system such as seasonal
evaporation loss from the impoundment, fresh
water makeup should stabilize.  During the
tailings water recycling phase, seasonal
precipitation would play a role in determining
the amount of water recycled to the mill.

All water in the tailings impoundment must be
removed prior to reclamation of the tailings
impoundment. As the mill approaches cessation
of operations, more water would be drawn from
the tailings impoundment and less fresh water
would be added to the system to reduce the
size of the pond on the tailings impoundment.
Any excess water remaining  in the tailings
facility at cessation of operations would be
allowed to evaporate or would be made to
evaporate through the use of a sprinkler system.

Water would be necessary for potable use at
the site.  Potable water would be used at the
mine office, mill and service complex.  Potable
                  water would likely come from an off-site source
                  but could come from an on-site source.

                  Capacity must be available in the total system
                  for adequate water storage in the case of a fire.
                  The Proponent plans to construct and maintain
                  2 tanks on-site.  One would have approximately
                  100,000 gallons dedicated to fire fighting.

                  Water at the Crown Jewel operation must be
                  managed according to  its origin, chemical
                  constituency and potential use. Water would be
                  handled separately for  the following:

                  •        Mining;
                  •        Milling and Tailings Disposal; and,
                  •        Surface Diversions.

                  Any water encountered during mining activities
                  would be characterized and pumped to surface
                  detention ponds or used as make-up water.
                  Any water released from detention ponds must
                  meet the standards of a National Pollutant
                  Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit.
                  This permit would be issued by the WADOE.
                  Settled material (sediment) would be  periodically
                  removed from the ponds, characterized, and
                  placed in the tailings pond, waste rock disposal
                  area, or other appropriate locations.

                  The operator must collect  all tailings and
                  associated water within the tailings pond  as
                  well as recirculate such water back to the mill,
                  as required by current Federal regulations.
                  Surface runoff associated  with the mill facilities
                  (roof runoff, parking lots, etc.) would be routed
                  into the tailings impoundment or into other
                  detention facilities, as appropriate.

                  Runoff from undisturbed areas above the  mill
                  facilities and tailings impoundment would be
                  collected by diversion ditches and routed around
                  the area affected by tailings and mill facilities.
                  Runoff from these areas above the facilities
                  would be directed back into Marias or Nicholson
                  Creek below disturbed  areas.

                  2.2.19   Water Supply

                  Because of the relatively remote location of the
                  operation, a water supply system must be
                  developed for the operation of the Project.
                  Water rights permits from  the WADOE would be
                  required for each use.
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-47
There are 2 potential sources of water supply
for the Crown Jewel Project, ground and
surface water.  This includes ground or surface
water which would be intercepted and managed
on the site (pit runoff, stormwater runoff, waste
rock runoff, etc.). There are numerous ground
and surface water supply and location
combinations for procuring water. The
following combinations/options were considered
for this EIS.

•        A combination of Ground Water and
         Surface Water;
•        Ground Water Only; and
•        Surface Water Only.

Combination Ground Water and Surface Water
Supply

Under this option, the combination of ground
water sources and surface water sources,
mainly from Myers Creek, would  be used to
supply water for the  Project (Colder, 1994c).
Water would be pumped from a ground water
well on the Lost Creek Ranch in the lower
Bolster drainage; a  portion of the surface flow
from Myers Creek and water from Starrem
Creek would all be captured and utilized as a
water supply for the  Project. Water would be
pumped from Myers Creek, at a point near
Starrem Creek, into a constructed reservoir
(Starrem Creek reservoir) and stored for use in
mining and processing.

Any mining uses of the site  water runoff, as
well as all other Project water uses, would
require a water rights permit.  Potential
additional sources include; pit dewatering,
waste rock runoff, or from surface water
diversions around Project facilities as well as
from the tailings impoundment underdrain.

Use of Ground Water Only or Surface  Water
Only

Options to the proposed water supply are the
use of surface water  or ground water
exclusively. Although using only surface or
ground water was considered, there were few
advantages to  either over the combination
method.
              Water Supply Options Considered for Further
              Analysis.

              •        Combination Ground Water and
                       Surface Water Supply

              Water Supply Options Eliminated from Further
              Consideration.

              •        Use of Ground Water Only
              •        Use Surface Water Only

              2.2.20   Water Storage

              A water storage reservoir would be needed to
              store water for continuous daily needs
              throughout the year.

              Starrem Creek Reservoir

              Under this option, a reservoir would be
              constructed in Starrem Creek, west of Myers
              Creek in Section 3, T40N, R30E, as shown on
              Figure 2.9, Water Storage Reservoir Locations.
              An instream diversion would be constructed in
              Myers Creek and water would  be transferred by
              gravity into a sump and then pumped into the
              Starrem Creek reservoir. The diversion would
              be an instream concrete structure which  would
              divert water flows while maintaining instream
              flows greater than a certain designated amount.
              The exact location, amount, and seasonal timing
              allowed would be controlled through a water
              right permit from WADOE.

              The Starrem Creek reservoir would serve as
              water storage for the Crown Jewel Project.
              Water would be pumped from the reservoir via a
              buried pipeline running along the sideslopes of
              the Gold Creek drainage  to the proposed  mill
              site as shown in Figure 2.9, Water Storage
              Reservoir Locations.  The water would be used
              primarily in the milling process  and for dust
              control.

              The design of the reservoir includes the
              placement of an impermeable synthetic liner and
              the construction of an embankment at the lower
              end of the reservoir site. Depending on the
              action alternative selected, the  required water
              storage capacity is estimated to be between
              250 and 580 acre-feet. The final design  and
              construction of the Starrem Creek reservoir
              would be subject to regulations of the Dam
              Safety Division of the WADOE.  Requirements
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
              BRITISH COLUMBIA
               "WASHINGTON
                                          LAND RESERVOIR!
STARREM RESERVOIR
      PUMPING STATION
         SOURCE
                                         HEAD TANK
                                                              MILL SITE
                                              TAILING
                                           IMPOUNDMENT
                                            RESERVOIR
                                                                     LEGEND
                                                                               ACCESS ROADS
                                                                    .___— PIPELINE

                                                                    	— ALTERNATE PIPELINE
                                                                        RESERVOIR SITES
                FIGURE 2.9, WATER  STORAGE  RESERVOIR  LOCATIONS
FILENAME CJ2-9 DWG

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-49
 related to seismic events and other stability
 considerations must be met by the proposed
 design. In addition, the water storage reservoir
 must be designed and constructed to have an
 emergency spillway and/or sufficient freeboard
 to ensure that rainfall events are safely retained
 or passed and do not threaten the integrity of
 the structure.

 Forest Land Reservoir

 Under this option, a reservoir would be
 constructed in Section  1, T40N, R30E, and is
 shown on Figure 2.9, Water Storage Heservoir
 Locations.  This site was found to be a spruce
 bog, an important type of wetland habitat.
 Water would still have to be pumped from
 Myers Creek to this site. Because a larger,
 higher quality wetland would be impacted and
 no reduction in environmental cost would be
 expected, this option was eliminated from
 further study.

 Tailings Impoundment Reservoir

 Under this option, the tailings disposal facility
 would be used for total process water storage.
 The logistics, size and construction
 requirements to include sufficient volume for
 water storage above and beyond the storage
 requirements for tailings and storm water make
 this option unfeasible (refer to 2.2.7, Tailings
 Disposal Methods).  Use of the tailings
 impoundment as a reservoir eliminates the use
 of thin layer deposition as a tailings disposal
 method.  Therefore, this option  was eliminated
 from further consideration.

Water Storage Options Considered for  Further
Analysis.

 •        Starrem Creek Reservoir
Water Storage Options Eliminated from Further
Consideration.

 •        Forest Land Reservoir
 •        Expand use of Tailings Impoundment
         Reservoir

2.2.21   Power Supply

Two options were considered for power supply:

•        New Power Line from  Oroville; and
•        Generators.
              New Power Line

              The Proponent has negotiated a power supply
              agreement for the Crown Jewel Project with
              Okanogan  Public Utility District (PUD).  Part of
              the agreement would be to re-construct an
              existing distribution/transmission line that runs
              from Oroville to Chesaw.  The line from Oroville
              to Chesaw would follow an existing Okanogan
              PUD right-of-way (mostly along the existing
              powerline). From Chesaw, electric power would
              be brought to the mine and mill site via a
              transmission line constructed up the Ethel Creek
              drainage.  Bringing the transmission line up Lime
              Creek was considered but eliminated  because of
              the rugged, undeveloped terrain in the Lime
              Creek drainage.  There is an existing road up
              Ethel Creek.  The exact alignment of the
              transmission line in Ethel Creek would be
              determined as part of the Plan of Operations
              which must be approved by the Forest Service.
              The line must meet Forest Service visibility
              standards, and power poles must  discourage
              raptor use  and minimize raptor electrocutions.
              The powerline would be removed from forest
              lands after completion of mining operations and
              milling decommissioning.

              Generators

              The option of using large diesel generators to
              provide electric power to the site was
              considered but eliminated. Any on-site
              generators must be designed to meet the
              electric loads of the mill and other facilities.  It
              is estimated that an additional 4,500 to 5,000
              gallons of diesel fuel  would need to be
              transported daily to the site to meet generator
              needs. Air quality limits would have to be
              considered and met.  This  option is not
              environmentally  desirable thus was eliminated.

              Power Supply Options Considered for Further
              Analysis.

              •        New Powerline from Oroville

              Power Supply Options Eliminated from Further
              Consideration.

              •        On-Site Generators
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 2 50
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
June 1995
2.2.22   Fuel Storage

Storage at the Project site will be needed for
approximately 1 50,000 gallons of diesel fuel
and gasoline and 150 tons of propane besides
storage for other miscellaneous petroleum
products.

Fuel storage on-site can be accomplished in
either of 2 methods

•        Above Ground Tanks; or
•        Underground tanks.

Above Ground Tanks

All tanks would be enclosed within lined berms
sized to contain the contents of the largest tank
with an added allowance  of 10% in the event of
a spill or tank rupture. If  an above ground tank
leaked, it would be easier to correct and clean-
up. Conversely, this system could be more
vulnerable to fire,  explosion,  damage or
sabotage than an underground system.

Underground Tanks

Underground storage tanks have historically
been subject to corrosion and leakage.  New
laws regulating  underground tanks require
corrosion protection and a leak detection
system. If operated and maintained properly,
there would be minimal environmental risk.

Both underground and above ground storage
tanks can  be installed, operated, and removed
without presenting a large risk of environmental
damage. Because above  ground tanks were
proposed by the Proponent, they will  be the
only fuel storage option considered in this
document.

Fuel Storage Options Considered for Further
Analysis.

•        Above Ground Fuel Storage

Fuel Storage Options Eliminated from  Further
Consideration.

•        Underground Fuel Storage
                   2.2,23   Sanitary Waste Disposal

                   Two options were considered for disposal of
                   sanitary waste.  They are:

                   •        Septic Tank - Leach Field; or
                   •        Package Sewage Disposal Plant.

                   Septic Tank - Leach Field

                   Sanitary waste would be treated and disposed
                   of through a septic tank-leach field system. The
                   waste disposal system would be connected to
                   fixed  Project facilities, such as the  mill facility,
                   shop  complex,  and administration building.
                   Sanitary wastes from remote sites  would be
                   collected in a system of portable chemical
                   toilets which would be periodically cleaned by a
                   contractor.  The wastes would be transported
                   off-site for disposal by the contractor.

                   Package Sewage Disposal Plant

                   An option to a septic tank-leach field system is
                   the use of a package sewage disposal plant.
                   Package sewage disposal plants are widely used
                   on remote sites unsuited to septic and leach
                   field systems.  The principal advantages of
                   these systems are that they can treat larger
                   quantities of waste in relatively small areas.
                   They  are generally more expensive to install and
                   operate than septic tank-leach field systems,
                   require a discharge permit,  and must be more
                   closely monitored than a septic tank-leach field
                   system.  Because either method of sanitary
                   waste disposal would meet both state and local
                   standards and protect water quality,  the
                   package plant system was eliminated from
                   further study.

                   Sanitary Waste Option Considered  for Further
                   Analysis.

                   •        Septic Tank-Leach Field System

                   Sanitary Waste Option Eliminated from Further
                   Consideration.

                   •        Package Plant System

                   2.2.24   Solid Waste Disposal

                   There are 2 options considered for solid waste
                   disposal.  They are:
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
                                                                                        Page 2-51
 •        On-site Solid Waste Disposal; or
 •        Off-site Solid Waste Disposal

 On-site Solid Waste Disposal

 All clean solid waste, that is not recyclable,
 would be disposed of on-site in a landfill.  The
 option of disposing of solid  waste on Federal
 land was considered and eliminated from study.
 This was based on current policy discouraging
 such disposal as well as environmental
 concerns.  Any disposal of clean solid waste on
 non-Forest lands would have to meet
 appropriate State of Washington and Okanogan
 County regulations.

 Off-site Solid Waste Disposal

 All clean solid waste, except concrete
 foundations, that is not recycled,  would be
 disposed of in an approved county landfill.

 Solid Waste Options Considered for Further
 Evaluation.

 •        Off-site Solid Waste Disposal

 Solid Waste Options Eliminated From Further
 Consideration.

 •        On-site Solid Waste Disposal

 2.2.25    Reclamation

 A summary of the  reclamation plans for the
 Crown Jewel Project are presented in Section
 2.11 of this chapter and are an integral part  of
 each action alternative. The Proponent's
 reclamation plan is set forth in the Crown Jewel
 Joint Venture Project, Battle Mountain Gold
 Company and Crown Resources Corporation,
 Reclamation Plan, August 1993 as revised
 November 1993.

 It was decided to treat much of the reclamation
 program and techniques as  management
 requirements and mitigation  measures rather
than component options for the Project
alternatives.

Various agencies such as the Forest Service,
BLM, and  WADNR  would be required, under
their regulations, to approve (or deny) the
reclamation plans for the Crown Jewel
operation.  Each of these agencies (either jointly
               or separately), would require some type of
               reclamation security.

               Reclamation/revegetation of the tailings pond is
               a primary consideration of the overall
               reclamation program. Various methods and
               approaches have been suggested to provide
               final reclamation, such as:
                       Cap with impermeable material;
                       Install a capillary break between the
                       tailings and the topsoil;
                       Apply topsoil only;
                       Reclaim as a grassland;
                       Plant trees and shrubs randomly in
                       clumps (50-100 trees/acre); and,
                       Plant trees randomly over the entire
                       site (250 trees and 400 shrubs per
                       acre).
              Even thought the tailings material has been
              predicted to be suitable for reclamation
              purposes, the agencies and the Proponent
              propose to construct test plots, during
              operation, consisting of actual tailings material
              to determine what the actual conditions would
              be and to provide data to develop a suitable and
              successful  revegetation program.

              The options that are analyzed within this
              document involve the final disposition of the
              mine pit area and the associated placement of
              waste rock. Items considered  include the
              following:

              •        No Backfilling;
              •        Partial Direct Backfilling;
              •        Complete Backfilling;
              •        Slopes of Waste Rock Disposal Areas;
                       and,
              •        Segmental Reclamation.

              No Backfilling

              The mine pit would be left open after
              operations. The pit would be allowed to fill
              with water  until it overflows into a tributary of
              Nicholson Creek through a set of detention
              ponds,  if necessary.

              Partial Backfilling

              Backfilling a portion of the north zone of the
              mine pit could result in achieving drainage from
              the pit area and eliminating a lake from forming
              in the final mine pit.
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 252
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
June 1995
This option would involve sequencing of mining
such that waste rock produced from the south
part of the pit would be sequentially placed or
backfilled into the previously excavated north
portion of the pit that has been mined out.  This
technique could  reduce flexibility in the control
of ore grades during processing.  However,
instituting sequencing would reduce the area of
disturbance needed for waste rock disposal and
eliminate haulback of backfill (waste rock)
material at the end of mining. The option of
direct backfilling requires that the ore in the
north zone be completely extracted while waste
rock is still being removed in the  south  zone.

Approximately,  6 million cubic yards of waste
rock would be required for backfill of the north
zone of the final mine pit to achieve post-mining
drainage.  Equipment necessary for a partial
backfilling operation would remain the same as
required for the proposed action.

Backfilling the north zone of the final pit may
preclude  potential future utilization of currently
sub-economic mineralization and  any later
extraction of  possible ore contained below the
present economic reserves.

Complete Backfilling

As an option  to permanent surface waste rock
disposal, complete backfilling  of the pit area
would reduce the post-mining scenic and land
use impacts of the pit. Complete backfilling of
a mined area  is  primarily used at  surface coal
mines where  the mineral exists in relatively well-
defined layers.  Waste rock is removed  from the
active mine area and deposited directly  into an
adjacent  mined  out area, thereby minimizing
costly double handling.

Hard rock open pit mines, such as proposed for
the Crown Jewel Project, are  historically not
backfilled for  both operational and economic
reasons.  Surface storage of the waste  rock
would first be required.  Replacement of waste
rock in the pit after completion of mining would
increase capital costs, fuel use, and
substantially extend the life of the operation.

Once the waste  rock is blasted, loaded, and
hauled, there  would be an estimated 35%
increase in its volume. Backfilling with  a 35%
swell factor for waste rock (even with the
removal of ore which accounts for about 10%
                   of the total rock volume removed), would cause
                   the overall elevations of the post-mining
                   topography to be greater than the original pre-
                   mining topography.

                   Slopes of Waste Rock Disposal Areas

                   The key to the final slope design and
                   acceptance would be disposal area stability and
                   long-term revegetation success. Design options
                   for final slope configurations include a range of
                   slope angles from  angle of repose (1.5H:1 V) to
                   3H:1 V or less; linear or non-rectilinear
                   configurations; continuous slopes; or slopes
                   with intermediate benches.

                   A linear configuration at an angle of repose
                   slope would disturb the least amount of area
                   but would not be conducive to revegetation.  A
                   non-rectilinear configuration with a 3H:1V slope
                   with intermediate breaks in slopes (benches)
                   would be quite conducive to revegetation and
                   appear more natural, but would disturb a greater
                   area.

                   Segmental Reclamation

                   This option would schedule and initiate
                   reclamation activities relatively early in the life
                   of the Project.  The goals of the segmental (or
                   concurrent) reclamation approach would  be to
                   reduce the overall  amount of disturbance at any
                   one time; to stabilize and  revegetate the site as
                   soon as possible; and monitor the success of
                   the plan during operations and make changes, if
                   necessary, to  minimize environmental impacts.

                   The primary goal would be to begin reclaiming
                   the waste rock disposal area(s) as soon as
                   possible.  Depending on location and
                   configuration of the disposal area, there are
                   various ways to accomplish this:

                   •        The disposal area would be
                            constructed from the toe up and final
                            slopes would be established as the
                            disposal area increases in height.

                   •        The waste rock could be constructed
                            in lifts and selected portions then
                            pushed and configured by dozer to
                            achieve final slopes while the disposal
                            area continues to grow in other areas.
                     Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
                            CROWN JEWEL MINE
                                    Page 2-53
Any number of variations to these construction
schemes exist.

Reclamation Options Considered for Further
Analysis.
          No Backfilling
          Partial Direct Backfilling
          Complete Backfilling
          Segmental Reclamation
          Slopes of Waste Rock Disposal Areas
 Reclamation Options Eliminated from Further
 Consideration.
 2.3
None

PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
This section describes the Project alternatives
which have been assembled from screened
options. Effects of Project alternatives are
analyzed in Chapter 4, Environmental
Consequences.

The following components are the same for all
alternatives, except the No Action Alternative:
         Employee Transportation;
         Power Supply;
         Water Supply;
         Water Storage;
         Fuel Storage;
         Chemical Storage;
         Tailings Embankment Construction;
         Tailings Liner System Design and
         Construction;
         Cyanide Destruction Techniques;
         Solid Waste Disposal; and,
         Sewage Disposal.
The components that vary among the action
alternatives include the following:
         Mining Method;
         Operating Schedule;
         Production Schedule;
         Waste Rock Disposal Locations;
         Tailings Disposal Locations;
         Ore Processing Methods;
         Supply Transportation; and,
         Site Reclamation.
The Forest Service and BLM prefer a modified
Alternative E utilizing an open-pit mine that
would be partially backfilled during operations;
operate year-round, 24-hours per day, 7-days
per week, lasting about 10 years; utilizing a
tank cyanidation ore processing method with
INCO process cyanide destruction; a north
waste rock disposal area at 3H:1 V slopes for
reclamation; and a tailings facility in the Marias
Creek drainage.  This alternative would be
closest to Alternative E except all waste rock
would be placed to the north of the pit similar
to Alternative G.  This alternative is estimated
to physically disturb  about  840 acres,
decreasing the area of disturbance of
Alternative E by about 85 acres.  Because the
modifications to Alternative E were not
identified until late in the draft EIS process, and
because  the modified components in the  new
alternative are part of other alternatives, the
draft  EIS does not display a separate modified
Alternative E.  This alternative will be a stand
alone alternative in the final EIS.  Selection of
the preferred alternative in  the final EIS will be
made with consideration  given to public input
during the review of  the draft EIS and any
additional analysis needed between the draft EIS
and the final EIS.

2.4      ALTERNATIVE  A  - NO ACTION
         ALTERNATIVE

This alternative serves as a baseline against
which to compare the effects of other
alternatives.  Under this alternative, permits
would not be granted, and  approval for the
operation would be denied. The No Action
Alternative would preclude  the proposed  mining
and milling activities.  Complete reclamation of
previous exploration activities would commence
at the first available opportunity.

There would be no additional physical
disturbance to the site except what was
previously approved as part of the
environmental documents prepared for
exploration.  There would be no need to revise
or amend the management  prescriptions for the
area as outlined in the Okanogan Forest Plan, or
to create the new Forest  Service management
area (MA-27) for mining and ore processing
activities, as discussed earlier in this chapter.

Reclamation for exploration activities would
consist of plugging and capping existing drill
holes, recontouring drill pads and access  roads,
rehabilitating mud and cutting sumps,
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 2 54
CHAPTER 2 - AL TER/VA JIVES
June 1995
redistributing topsoil, revegetation with grasses,
shrubs and/or trees of disturbed sites, and
monitoring water quality.

2.5      ALTERNATIVE B - PROPOSED
         ACTION

This alternative represents the construction,
operation and reclamation of a mining and
milling facility as proposed by the Proponent.
This would include an open pit surface mine, 2
waste rock disposal areas, a milling facility, a
lined tailings  impoundment, an office and
maintenance  complex, and miscellaneous
support facilities including haul and access
roads, a  water storage reservoir, a water supply
pipeline,  and  an electric power transmission line.
At full production,  the operation would process
approximately 3,000 tons of ore per day with
the mine and mill operating 24 hours per day.

The proposed layout of the facilities for this
alternative is  set forth on Figure 2. JO,
Alternative B - Site Plan.  Various aspects of
this alternative are summarized in Table 2.7,
Summary of Alternative B.

2.5.1    Mining Techniques

This proposed action would consist of a single
open pit  surface mine.  Approximately 8.7
million tons of ore  are planned to be mined and
processed. To access the ore, approximately
54 million cubic  yards of waste rock would be
removed and placed in the 2 waste rock
disposal  areas (A and B).

The mining would  be conducted by conventional
bench highwall techniques.  Benches would be
created as part of ore and waste rock
extraction. Benches would be drilled and shot
with ammonium nitrate and fuel oil (ANFO)  as
blasting  agents.  Samples would be obtained
from the cuttings of a representative number of
blast holes drilled.  These would be analyzed in
an  on-site laboratory for precious metals
content. Once determined, the mine's
surveyors would stake the  blasted benches and
flag both ore and waste rock locations for the
front end loader or shovel operators.  Off-
highway trucks would be loaded by front end
loaders or shovels. These trucks would
transport the ore to the crusher facility and the
waste rock to the waste  rock disposal areas.
                   2.5.2    Waste Rock Disposal

                   Approximately 16,700 cubic yards of waste
                   rock per day would be moved during operations.

                   This material would be placed in 2 permanent,
                   sidehill fill, waste rock disposal areas (A and  B):
                   1 to the north of the  proposed pit and the other
                   to the south. The north disposal area would be
                   designed to retain about 30 million cubic yards
                   of waste rock while the south disposal area
                   would be designed to contain approximately  24
                   million cubic yards of waste rock. At  mine
                   closure, the overall slope of waste rock disposal
                   areas would be 2H:1V.

                   2.5.3    Ore Processing

                   Ore from the mine would be transported to a
                   surface ore stockpile  area from where it would
                   be fed into a below surface crushing facility.
                   After crushing, the ore would be transported by
                   conveyor to a surface mill for grinding,
                   processing, and extraction of the gold.
                   Conventional milling techniques involving tank
                   cyanidation and CIL recovery would be used  to
                   extract the gold from the ore.

                   The final product of milling would be  gold bars,
                   known as dore'.

                   2.5.4    Tailings Disposal

                   The tailings stream, after being subjected to the
                   INCO S02/Air/02 cyanide destruction process,
                   would be transported via a pipeline to a fully
                   lined tailings impoundment in the Marias Creek
                   drainage. Water used in the cyanide  processing
                   and transport of the tailings would be collected
                   and recycled to the mill for reuse in the milling
                   process. The tailings facility would be designed
                   and maintained as a zero-discharge facility.

                   2.5.5    Area of Disturbance

                   Approximately 766 acres would be physically
                   disturbed, including the  estimated 69  acres of
                   disturbance associated with the water storage
                   reservoir, the water supply pipeline, and the
                   electric power transmission line right-of-way
                   from Oroville to the site.

                   Of the estimated total disturbance, 61 % (470
                   acres) would be on National Forest lands, 24%
                   (184 acres) would be on lands administered  by
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
                                                      Page 2-55
                                                        R. 30 E.  R. 31 E.
                              TOPSOIL
                             STOCKPILE
                                                                          TOPSOIL
                                                                         STOCKPILE
                            WASTE ROCK
                            STOCKPILE A
                           (Upper Nicholson)
                                AMMONIUM
                                 NITRATE
                                STORAGE
                                                                 DIVERSION
                                                                   DITCH
                                                                  SEDIMENT
                                                                   POND
                                                                     OFFICE.
                                                                   WAREHOUSE
                                                                    AND SHOP
                                                                    COMPLEX
                                           ORE
                                         STOCKPILE
                                                ORE
                                             PROCESSING
                                              FACILITY
                                        TAILINGS
                                        PIPELINE
                                       DIVERSION
                                        DITCH
                                                                    TOPSOIL
                                                                   STOCKPILES
                                                                   TAILINGS
                                                                  EMBANKMENT
          WASTE ROCK
          STOCKPILE B
          (Upper Marias)
              RECLAMATION
                 LIMIT
                                                              SOIL
                                                            BORROW
                                                              PITS
                                       SEDIMENT
                                         POND
                                                               COLLECTION
  MAIN
ACCESS
 ROAD
                                                                   LEGEND
                                                               	— FACILITY AREA
                                                                        BOUNDARY
                                                                      RECLAMATION LIMIT
  CONTOUR INTERVAL SOFT
 FILENAME CJ2-10DWG
            FIGURE  2.10,
ALTERNATIVE  B  -  SITE  PLAN

-------
Page 2-56                         CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA 7>V£S                        Juns
                             TABLE 2.7, SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE B
  GENERAL COMPONENTS
           Production 	3,000 tons of ore per day
           Mining	   Surface/Open Pit
           Waste Rock	  2 Disposal Areas (nonh and south of pit)
           Crushing  	   Below Surface
           Grinding	Surface
           Milling	Tank Cyanidation with Carbon in Leach
           Tailings Disposal	  Marias Creek I
           Cyanide Destruction  	INCO SO2/Air/02
           Employee Transportation  	  Busing and/or van pooling  (Oroville to Chesaw and South)
           Supply Transportation	Wauconda to Mine Site
           Reclamation	  No Pit Backfill; Other Sites Revegetated
  EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS

           Construction and Development
                   Year 1  	  250
           Operations
                   Year 2-9	  1 50
           Decommissioning and Reclamation
                   Year 10  	  50
  LAND OWNERSHIP/ADMINISTRATION                                                      ACRES  %

           Forest Service  	470   61
           BLM  	 184   24
           WADNR	  20    3
           Private	  92   12

           Total	 766  100
  SURFACE AREA DISTURBANCE (acres)

           Waste Rock Disposal Areas  	  260
           Tailings Facility	  87
           Mill and Ore Processing Facility  	  18
           Pit Area	  138
           Rock  Quarry	  0
           Topsoil Stockpiles	  43
           Mine  Adits	  0
           Ore Stockpile  	  7
           Mam  Access Road  	  24
           Haul Roads	  48
           Misc. Site Access Roads 	  11
           Tailings Slurry  Pipeline  	  4
           Ancillary Facilities	  40
           Soil Borrow  Pits  	  14
           Water Supply Pipeline/Pump  Station 	  9
           Water Reservoir  	  35
           Topsoil Stockpile (Reservoir)	  4
           Power Line Right-of-Way 	  24

           Total	  766
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
                            Page 2-57
the BLM, 3% (20 acres) would be on lands
administered by the WADNR, and 12% (92
acres) would be on private lands.

2.5.6   Project Life

Alternative B has a projected life of 10 years.
Construction accounts for about 1 year,
operations for approximately 8 years, and the
remaining decommissioning/reclamation, which
was not completed during segmental
reclamation, being completed in another year.
Long-term monitoring would be as necessary to
meet approved plans and permits. At least 6
years of monitoring for revegetation success
would be required.

2.5.7   Employment

During the construction phase, approximately
250 people would be required, 200 for actual
construction of facilities and 50 for initiation of
mining operations. The construction work
would be managed by the Proponent, but the
actual work would be completed under contract
to a construction  firm specializing in mining-
related construction. The Proponent estimated
that approximately 40% of the construction
work force would be hired locally (Eastern
Okanogan County and Western  Ferry County).

Once the mine becomes fully operational, an
average of 150 people would be employed.  Of
this total,  it is projected that 80% would be
hired from the local work force.

During reclamation, approximately 50 people
would be retained for mill decommissioning,
mine closure and  reclamation. It is estimated
that 95% of the reclamation work force could
be local.

2.5.8   Supply Transportation

Operating  supplies will be brought to the mine
site through Wauconda via year-round State
Highway 20.  From Wauconda, trucks would  be
routed north on County Road 9495 (Toroda
Creek Road) to County Road 9480 (Oroville -
Toroda Creek Road),  then up County Road 4895
and Forest Road 3575-120 to the site.  The
listing and amount of supplies brought to the
site are set forth in Table 2.4, Materials and
Supplies.
               2.5.9   Reclamation

               The final pit would be left open. This would
               allow the creation of a lake in the northern
               portion of the final pit that would eventually
               discharge into the Nicholson Creek drainage.
               The remainder of the disturbed  areas would be
               contour graded, sloped, topsoiled and
               revegetated with grasses, 400 shrubs/acre and
               50 trees/acre for long-term stabilization.
               Selective blasting of the pit walls (benches) is
               proposed.  Test plot areas would be created to
               determine the best methods of achieving
               revegetation of the site.  The buildings and
               other temporary surface facilities would be
               dismantled, torn down or otherwise disposed of
               or hauled off-site.  The haul roads would be
               eliminated  by recontouring.

               2.5.10 Ore Recovery

               It is estimated that approximately 1.36 million
               ounces of gold would be recovered under this
               alternative. This is approximately 87% of the
               ore reserve.
              2.6
ALTERNATIVE C
              This alternative represents the construction,
              operation, and reclamation of an underground
              mine with production and exploration adits
              combined with ventilation and backfill raises, a
              single waste rock disposal area, 2 surface
              quarries, a milling facility, a lined tailings
              impoundment, an office and maintenance
              complex, and miscellaneous other support
              facilities including haul  and  access roads, a
              water storage reservoir, water supply pipeline,
              and a power transmission line.  At full
              production, the operation would process 3,000
              tons of  ore per day.

              A complete feasibility analysis has not been
              completed.  Such a study might result in a
              different underground scenario. This alternative
              was developed to portray as reasonable an
              underground mining scenario as possible based
              upon rough analysis of the known character and
              configuration of the mineral deposit and its
              ability to produce approximately 3,000 tons of
              ore per day.

              The proposed surface facility layout of the
              operation is set forth on Figure 2.11, Alternative
              C - Site  Plan. Various aspects of this alternative
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 2-58
                                                          R. 30 E.   R. 31 E.
                              WATER
                              SUPPLY
                              PIPELINE
                                                             DIVERSION DITCH)
                                                                   SEDIMENT PONDK'
                                                                      UNDERGROUND
                                                                       DEVELOPMENT
                                                                       WASTE ROCK
                                                                     BOUNDARY FENCEy-
                                                                        ~
                        AMMONIUM
                         NITRATE
                        STORAGE
                            WATER
                           STORAGE
                                                                DIVERSION DITCH
       [EXPLORATION ADIT
                                                        SEDIMENT
                                                          POND
                                                                    MILL AND ORE
                                                                    PROCESSING
                                                                      COMPLEX
             EXPLORATION
                                                                      SOIL
                                                                    BORROW
                                                                      PITS
          VENTLATION
                                     PRODUCTION
                                       ADITS
                                                                    ^STOCKPILES
                                     DIVERSION
                                       DITCH
                                                                        TAILINGS
                                                                      EMBANKMENTS
                        SCREENED
                          ROCK
                        STOCKPILE
 ROCK
CRUSHER
  AND
                                                                SOIL
                                                               BORROW
                                                          	FACILITf AREA BOUNDARY

                                                             (i)    POTENTIAL SUBSIDENCE
                                                                    ZONE
   CONTOUR INTERVAL SOFT
 FILENAME CJ2-IIDWG
                        FIGURE  2.11,
            ALTERNATIVE  C  -  SITE  PLAN

-------
June 1995
                                      CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-59
 are summarized in Table 2.8, Summary of
 Alternative C.

 2.6.1    Underground Mining Techniques

 The mine would be accessed by 2 adils: 1
 approximalely 1,500 feel in length at the 4,850
 foot elevation and the second approximately
 2,500 feet in lenglh al Ihe  4,500 fool elevalion.
 These adits would be used  as haulage levels for
 both ore and underground developmenl wasle
 rock.

 Given  Ihe variable spalial geology and
 disseminaied nalure of Ihe  ore deposil, 4
 differenl lypes of underground exlraclion
 lechniques would be ulilized lo mine Ihe Crown
 Jewel  deposil.

 These  lechniques are as follows:

 •      Room & Pillar Mining;
 •      Sublevel Sloping;
 •      Breasl Sloping - Post Pillar Mining; and,
 •      Glory Hole Mining.

 Room  & Pillar

 This melhod involves initially removing ore in a
 "honey-combed" network of underground rooms
 approximalely 20 feel in widlh and 15 lo 20
 feel in heighl. Where Ihe ore is thicker than 20
 feel, mulliple benches would be required.
 Inlerspersed belween ihese rooms is rock
 malerial lefl for roof support. These  areas
 would  be approximalely 15 by 15 feel and are
 known as Ihe pillars.  Pillar  spacing ihroughoul
 Ihe mined areas would be on approximalely 35
 fool cenlers.  These pillars  would be  necessary
 to support the rock above the underground
 working areas to ensure worker safely. Room
 & pillar mining would be Ihe predominanl
 melhod of mining al Ihe Crown Jewel sile
 where  Ihe ore zones are horizonlal and tabular.
 ll could not be employed in areas where Ihe ore
 is vertical or dipping.

 Sublevel Stoping

 Some isolated blocks of vertical ore zones at the
 Crown Jewel deposit would be mined by a
technique known as sublevel stoping.  Although
Ihis melhod is generally used where high grade
ore occurs in sleeply dipping wide veins and
where  ore and surrounding  rock are very
                                                   competent, it probably has applicability to
                                                   certain vertical or nearly vertical ore pockels al
                                                   Ihe Crown Jewel Projecl site.  The ore in these
                                                   areas musl be fairly uniform since Ihis melhod
                                                   does nol lend ilself lo seleclive mining.  The
                                                   principal slrategy of sublevel stoping would be
                                                   to mine the isolated vertical areas by ring drilling
                                                   and blasting from a series of blasthole drifts
                                                   located al various vertical inlervals wilhin the
                                                   ore zone; these blasthole drifls are connecled lo
                                                   Ihe haulage drifls by raises or  spiral drifls lhat
                                                   are used for ventilalion, personnel and
                                                   equipment access. Once blasted, the ore would
                                                   flow by gravily lo draw poinls on a haulage
                                                   level. The raises, spiral drifls,  and haulage
                                                   drifls should be on Ihe foolwall side of Ihe
                                                   slope lo be oul of Ihe zone of  subsidence lhal
                                                   mighl resull from Ihe sloping aclivily. Sublevel
                                                   sloping would be used predominancy in  Ihe
                                                   northern part of Ihe Crown Jewel ore zone.

                                                   Breast Stoping - Post Pillar Mining

                                                   This method would be used in  areas of tabular
                                                   configuralion or zones dipping  al less lhan Ihe
                                                   angle of repose for broken ore  bul sleeper lhan
                                                   feasible lo mine wilh convenlional room  & pillar
                                                   techniques.  This condition is found in the
                                                   soulhwesl portion of Ihe Crown Jewel ore zone.
                                                   Posl pillar mining employs Ihe  use of horizonlal
                                                   slicing of Ihe dipping ore zone.  The general
                                                   direclion of exlraclion would be up-dip.  The
                                                   down-dip, mined-oul areas would be filled with
                                                   cemented rock backfill and used as the
                                                   foundalion for the continued up-dip exlraclion.
                                                   Exlraclion drifls would be parallel lo Ihe  strike
                                                   of the ore zone wilh ore haulage and ore passes
                                                   adjacenl lo Ihe areas of exlraclion.  Backfill
                                                   would come from Ihe surface,  and backfill
                                                   raises would be bored to the surface above this
                                                   extraclion area. This lechnique mighl be
                                                   compared lo a modified cul and fill melhod of
                                                   mining on shallow dipping deposits.

                                                   Glory Hole Mining

                                                   In the "Gold Bowl" area of the  Crown Jewel
                                                   deposit, some isolated ore zones begin at Ihe
                                                   surface.  Glory hole mining implies surface
                                                   depression caused by underground  mining
                                                   (subsidence).  Ore is removed by gravily
                                                   Ihrough a raise or raises connecling lo
                                                   underground haulage-ways.  A  classic definilion
                                                   usually describes an operalion where ore around
                                                   each raise is excavaled so lhat il falls inlo Ihe
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 2-60                         CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
                                TABLE 2.8. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE C	

  GENERAL COMPONENTS

           Production  	3,000 -ons of ore per day
           Mining	  Underground
                   • Room & Pillar
                   • Sublevel Sloping
                   • Post & Pillar
                   • Glory Hole
           Waste Rock	1  Disposal Area (north  of facilities)
           Crushing  	Surface
           Grinding	Surface
           Milling	Tank Cyanidation with Carbon m Leach
           Tailings Disposal	  Marias Creek
           Cyanide Destruction  	IIMCO SO2/Air/02
           Employee Transportation 	  Busing  and/or van pooling (Oroville to Chesaw and South)
           Supply Transportation  	Oroville to Mine Site
           Rock Quarry	2 Quarries
                   • tailings area
                   • backfill site
  	Reclamation	Adits closed; Other Sites Revegetated

  EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS

           Construction and Development
                   Year 1  	  250
           Operations
                   Year 2-5	  225
           Decommissioning and Reclamation
  	Year 6 	 50

  LAND OWNERSHIP/ADMINISTRATION                                                       ACRES  %

           Forest Service   	273  62
           BLM 	   78  18
           WADNR	20   5
           Private	   69  15

  	Total	  440 100

  SURFACE AREA  DISTURBANCE (acres)

           Waste Rock Disposal Area	 26
           Tailings Facility	 84
           Mill and Ore Processing Facility  	 14
           Subsidence  Zone  	 27
           Rock Quarries	 25
           Topsoil  Stockpiles	 29
           Mine Adits	 9
           Ore Stockpile  	 12
           Main Access Road  	 24
           Haul Roads	 30
           Misc. Site Access Roads 	 23
           Tailings Slurry Pipeline   	 1
           Soil Borrow Pits 	 14
           Ancillary Facilities	 50
           Water Supply  Pipeline/Pump Station  	 9
           Water Reservoir 	 35
           Topsoil  Stockpile (Reservoir)	 4
           Power Line Right-of-Way 	 24

           Total	  440
                      Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-61
 raise by gravity, resulting in a funnel shaped
 depression on the surface.

 2.6.2   Underground Development Exploration

 As part of the underground work, development
 drilling stations would be constructed along
 development adits and drifts to pinpoint the ore
 targets ahead of the mining. These stations
 would involve the use of long-hole diamond
 drills or their equivalent that would be used to
 bore holes into potential mineralized zones.
 Given the disseminated nature of the deposit,
 continued evaluation would be necessary by
 underground planning engineers to determine
 the zones targeted for extraction.

 2.6.3   General Mine Development

 Mine development would involve the following:

 •      Drilling;
 •      Blasting;
 •      Mucking (removal of the rock) and
        haulage; and,
 •      Ground support (as necessary).

 Trackless underground electric/hydraulic drills
 would be used to drill a pattern of blast holes.
 Once the appropriate area has been drilled, the
 holes would be loaded with explosives and shot.
 Blasting would occur daily,  and ANFO would be
 the primary explosive used.  The broken rock
 would be loaded by underground front end
 loaders onto trucks, which would transport the
 ore or waste rock to the surface. Underground
 ore and waste rock passes would be used as
 appropriate to facilitate the  vertical movement
 of the material.  Underground trucks would be
 used to haul all ore and waste rock to the
 surface.  Ore would be hauled to a crushing
 station adjacent to the mill facility.

 Any mechanical support necessary for rock
 stability would be installed prior to initiating
 drilling activities.  Ground control or support
 would involve a variety of techniques including
 rock and cable bolting, wire meshing, steel sets,
and cribbing. Such support would depend on
the rock conditions encountered in the unique
underground settings.

The underground mine workings would not be
visible from the outside of the mine, except the
subsidence and glory holes.  The main adits on
              the 4,850 foot level and the 4,500 foot level
              would be visible on the surface.  So would
              development and exploration adits located in the
              upper reaches of the deposit.  Ventilation shafts
              (raises) and mine exhaust fans would be visible
              near the summit of Buckhorn Mountain. Over
              the southwest portion  of the ore zones, backfill
              shafts (raises) and crushed/screened backfill
              rock and cement storage towers would be
              visible.  All adits and raises would be
              interconnected by a surface road system.

              2.6.4  Underground Development Rock
                      Disposal

              Early mine development in the 4,850 and 4,500
              foot level adits would involve the removal of
              development waste rock. This waste rock
              would be hauled to the surface for placement in
              a single waste rock disposal area to the north of
              the 4,500 foot level adit. Waste rock would
              continue to  be produced throughout the life of
              the operation as development drifts, haulage
              drifts, ventilation raises, and ore and waste rock
              passes are constructed. Approximately
              500,000 cubic yards of waste rock would be
              generated.   At mine closure, the overall slopes
              of the waste rock disposal area would be
              3H:1V.

              2.6.5   Surface Quarries

              As shown on Figure 2.11, Alternative C - Site
              Plan,  surface rock  quarries would be required for
              Alternative C. One site would be located in the
              vicinity  of the tailings facility to serve as a
              material source for the  construction of the
              tailings  embankments.  Another rock quarry
              would be needed near the area of the post pillar
              backfill raises in the southwest part of the
              Crown Jewel mineralized zone.  This rock must
              be sized by crushing and screening.  It would be
              necessary to dump both sand and aggregate
              into backfill  raises, and combine the material
              underground with cement for use in  backfilling
              operations.

              2.6.6   Mine Ventilation

              Mine ventilation is  necessary for preservation of
              human life during the underground operations.
              For the underground operations contemplated; 3
              exhaust fans would be  located at ventilation
              raises constructed  above the mining  zones.
              These exhaust fans would draw fresh air into
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 2 62
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA J7
the haulage levels through the active working
areas and exhaust the air into the atmosphere.

2.6.7   Ore Processing

Ore from the mine would be transported to a
surface ore stockpile area from where it would
discharged into a surface crushing facility.
After crushing, the ore would be transported by
conveyor belt to a surface mill for grinding,
processing, and extraction of the gold as
proposed in Alternative B.  Conventional milling
techniques involving tank cyanidation and CIL
recovery would be used to extract the gold from
the ore.

The final product of milling would be gold bars,
known as dore'.

2.6.8   Tailings Disposal

Alternative C would involve construction and
operation of a tailings facility in the Marias
Creek drainage as proposed in  Alternative B.
The tailings facility foot print would be smaller
than the Alternative B tailings facility because
less ore would be extracted during the life of
the Project.

2.6.9   Area of Disturbance.

Approximately 440 acres would experience
direct physical disturbance. This would include
approximately 72 acres for the water storage
reservoir, water supply pipeline and powerline
corridor. Approximately 62% (273 acres)
would be on lands administered by the Forest
Service, 18% (78 acres) on lands administered
by the  BLM lands, 5% (20 acres) on lands
administered by the WADNR land, and 15% (69
acres) on private land.

2.6.10  Project Life

Alternative C has a projected life of
approximately 6 years.  Of that, construction
accounts for approximately 1 year, operations
are projected for less than 4 years, and the
remaining decommissioning/reclamation are
anticipated to take another year.  Long-term
monitoring would be necessary to meet
approved plans and  permits. At least 6 years of
monitoring would be required for revegetation.
                   2 6 -1  Kr'ipiovrr • -,

                   During construction, approximately 250 people
                   would to be required. Construction work would
                   be managed by the Proponent, but the actual
                   construction work would probably be completed
                   under contract to a construction firm which
                   specializes in mining related construction.
                   Underground development, which would be a
                   part of the initial construction work, would be
                   done by the Proponent.  Given the specialty of
                   mine construction, particularly underground
                   development work, only about 25% of the
                   construction work force would be local hire.

                   Once the mine becomes operational,  a
                   maximum of 225 people are expected to be
                   employed.  Given the specially of underground
                   mining, an estimated 40% of the operational
                   work force would be local hire (Eastern
                   Okanogan County and Western Ferry County).

                   During reclamation, approximately 50 people
                   would be employed for decommissioning, mine
                   closure and reclamation activities.  It is assumed
                   that 95%  of the reclamation work force would
                   be local hire.

                   2.6.12  Supply Transportation

                   Shipment  of operating supplies would be via
                   year round highways to Oroville.  From Oroville,
                   trucks would be routed east on County Road
                   9480 through  Chesaw (Oroville - Toroda Creek
                   Road), then up County Road 4895 and Forest
                   Road 3575-120 to the site.  Given the probable
                   spring haulage restrictions with this
                   transportation route, approximately 30 days
                   additional  storage over the 30 day storage
                   contemplated for the Wauconda-Toroda Creek
                   route would be required.  With the exception of
                   ammonium nitrate and fuel, the listing and
                   amount of supplies brought to the site in
                   Alternative C would be approximately the same
                   as those for Alternative B  (see Table 2.4,
                   Materials and Supplies}.

                   2.6.13  Reclamation

                   The mining adits and ventilation raises would be
                   permanently sealed to eliminate future public
                   access according to applicable state and federal
                   regulations. To alleviate hydraulic pressure from
                   the build-up of water behind the seal,  from mine
                   flooding, the closures to the adits would be
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
                             CROWN JEWEL MINE
                                    Page 2-63
designed to accommodate the discharge of
water which could be regulated by a NPDES
Permit.  The remainder of the surface
disturbance would be graded, sloped, topsoiled,
and vegetated for long-term stability with
grasses, 400 shrubs/acre and 250 trees/acre.
Test plot areas would be created to determine
the best methods of achieving revegetation of
the site. The buildings and other temporary
surface facilities would be dismantled, torn
down or otherwise disposed of or hauled off-
site.  The  haul roads would be eliminated by
recontouring.

The surface area over the underground workings
would be susceptible to subsidence activity.
This activity is difficult to predict and would not
be reclaimed.  Fencing and  signage would be
used  to provide for human safety.

2.6.14  Ore Recovery

Total underground mining of the Crown Jewel
deposit would recover approximately 830,000
ounces  of gold.  This 40%  reduction in minable
reserves is due to the roof support pillars that
must remain for safety of miners (and
equipment), isolated  mineralized pockets too
small for underground extraction, and loss of
reserves due to higher cutoff grades and higher
mining costs.
2.7
ALTERNATIVE D
This alternative represents the construction,
operation, and reclamation of a combined
surface and underground mine with an open pit
in the northern portion of the Crown Jewel
deposit and an underground  operation on the
south side.  This alternative would include
production and exploration adits combined  with
ventilation and backfill raises, a single waste
rock disposal area to the north of the mine pit, a
milling facility, a lined tailings impoundment, an
office and maintenance complex, and
miscellaneous other support  facilities  including
haul and access roads, a water storage
reservoir, water supply pipeline, and a power
transmission line. At full production,  the
operation would process approximately 3,000
tons of ore per day.

A complete feasibility analysis has not been
completed.  Such a study might result in a
different scenario.  This  alternative was
 developed to portray a combined surface and
 underground mine based upon a rough analysis
 of known character and configuration of the
 mineral deposit.

 The proposed surface facility layout of the
 operation is set forth on Figure 2.12, Alternative
 D - Site Plan.  Various  aspects of this
 alternative are summarized in Table 2.9,
 Summary of Alternative D.

 2.7.1   Mining Techniques

 Alternative D would be a combination of surface
 and underground operations. The northern
 portion of the Crown Jewel  deposit would be
 mined by surface means similar to the open pit
 techniques set forth in Alternative B.
 Underground mining would be by the room &
 pillar, post and pillar, and other methods as
 described in Alternative C.

 2.7.2   Waste Rock Disposal

 Approximately 18.5 million cubic yards of waste
 rock would be moved during surface  mining
 operations, while approximately 300,000 cubic
 yards of waste rock from the underground
 operation would be generated.  This material
 would be placed in a single permanent, sidehill
 fill, waste rock disposal area to the north of the
 proposed pit.  At mine closure, the overall slope
 of the waste rock disposal area would be
 3H:1V.

 A portion of the waste rock  would be used as
 mine backfill in the post and pillar extraction
 areas in the southwest part of the Crown Jewel
 mineralized zone. A surface rock quarry would
 not be required for backfill material. Backfill
 rock would be obtained from the open pit, and
 this rock must be sized by crushing and
 screening.  It would be necessary to use both
 sand and aggregate for underground backfill
 stability, and combine this material underground
 with cement in a pug mill for use in backfilling
 operations.

 2.7.3   Mine Ventilation

The underground operations contemplated
would require mine ventilation.  Two exhaust
fans would be located on the surface adjacent
to the ventilation raises constructed above the
mining zones.  These exhaust fans would draw
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental impact Statement

-------
Page 2-64
                                            R. 30 E   R. 31  E.
                                                                 OPSOIL STOCKPILE!
                                  DIVERSION
                                    DITCH
                                                           SEDIMENT POND!
                                                            DIVERSION DITCHk
                                                          WASTE ROCK
                                                           STOCKPILE
                                                      (Upper Nicholson Area)
                AMMONIUM
                 NITRATE
                STORAGE
             [WATER STORAGE
                                                  OFFICE, WAREHOUSE
                                                  AND SHOP COMPLEX
    TOPSOIL
   STOCKPILE
                                                  DIVERSION DITCH
JORE STOCKPILE
                                                      SEDIMENT
                                                       POND
                                                      MILL AND ORE
                                                      PROCESSING
                                                       COMPLEX
                                                        SOIL
                                                      BORROW
                                                        PITS
   VENTILATION
      RAISE
                        PRODUCTION
                           ADIT
                                                      TOPSOIL
                                                     STOCKPILES
                        '' i' ' " ' ' i ' i
                       EXPLORATION
                          ADIT
                        DIVERSION
                          DITCH
              ACCESS
               ROAD
                                                          TAILINGS
                                                        EMBANKMENTS
                                                         WILDLIFE
                                                          FENCE
                                                             LEGEND
                                                         	FACILITY AREA BOUNDARY

                                                                 POTENTIAL SUBSIDENCE
                                                                   ZONE
   CONTOUR INTERVAL SOFT
 FILENAME CJ2-12 DWG
                               FIGURE  2.12,
                    ALTERNATIVE  D  -  SITE  PLAN

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-65
                               TABLE 2.9, SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE D
  GENERAL COMPONENTS

           Production 	3,000 tons of ore per day
           Mining	Open Pit and Underground
           Waste Rock 	1 Disposal Area (north of open pit)
           Crushing  	  Below Surface
           Grinding	Surface
           Milling	Tank Cyanidation with Carbon in Leach
           Tailings Disposal	  Marias Creek
           Cyanide Destruction  	INCO S02/Air/O2
           Employee Transportation  	  Busing and/or van pooling  (Oroville to Chesaw and South)
           Supply Transportation 	Wauconda to Mine Site
           Reclamation	No Pit Backfill; Adits Closed

  EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS

           Construction and Development
                   Year 1	  250
           Operations
                   Year 2-7	  225
           Decommissioning and Reclamation
  	Year 8  	  50

  LAND OWNERSHIP/ADMINISTRATION                                                     ACRES  %

           Forest Service  	289  51
           BLM  	  153  27
           WADNR	20   4
           Private	  100  18

  	Total	  562 100

  SURFACE AREA DISTURBANCE (acres)

           Waste Rock Disposal  Area	  98
           Tailings Facility	  87
           Mill and Ore Processing Facility   	  18
           Pit Area	  73
           Rock Quarry	  0
           Topsoil Stockpiles	  53
           Mine Adits	  8
           Ore Stockpile  	  12
           Main Access Road  	  24
           Haul Roads	  35
           Misc. Site Access Roads  	  23
           Tailings Slurry Pipeline  	  1
           Ancillary  Facilities	  41
           Water Supply  Pipeline/Pump Station  	  9
           Water Reservoir  	  35
           Topsoil Stockpile (Reservoir)	  4
           Power Line Right-of-Way  	  24

           Total	  562
                     Crown Jewel Mine $ Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 2-66
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIVES
June 79.95
fresh air into the haulage levels, through the
active working areas and exhaust the air into
the atmosphere.

2.7.4   Ore Processing

Ore from both the underground workings and
the surface mine would be transported to a
surface stockpile area where the  ore would be
discharged into  the below ground crushing
facility. After crushing, the ore would be
transported by conveyor to the mill for grinding,
processing, and extraction of the gold.
Conventional milling techniques involving tank
cyanidation and CIL recovery would be used to
extract the gold from the ore.

The final product of the milling and processing
would be gold bars, known as dore'.

2.7.5   Tailings Disposal

The tailings stream, after being subjected to the
INCO S02/Air/02 destruction process, would be
transported via a pipeline to a lined tailings
impoundment in the Marias Creek drainage.
Water used in the cyanide processing and
transport of the tailings would be collected and
recycled to the mill for reuse in the milling
process.  The tailings facility would be designed
and maintained as a zero-discharge facility.

2.7.6   Area of Disturbance

Approximately 562 acres would be physically
disturbed, including an estimated 72 acres of
disturbance associated with the water storage
reservoir, the water supply pipeline, and the
power transmission line right-of-way from
Oroville to the site.

Of the  estimated total disturbance,  51 % (289
acres) would be on National Forest lands, 27%
(1 53 acres) would be on lands administered by
the BLM, 4% (20 acres)  would be on lands
administered by the WADNR, and 18% (100
acres) would involve private lands.

2.7.7   Project Life

Alternative D has a projected life  of 8 years.
Construction accounts for about  1 year,
operations for approximately 6 years, and  most
decommissioning/reclamation adding another
year.  Long-term monitoring would be necessary
                  to meet approved plans and permits. At least 6
                  years of monitoring for revegetation would be
                  required.

                  2.7.8   Employment

                  During the construction phase, a maximum of
                  250 people would be  required.  The
                  construction work would be managed by the
                  Proponent, but the actual work would be
                  completed under contract to a construction firm
                  specializing in mining-related construction.
                  Underground development work, which would
                  be part of the initial construction work, would
                  be completed  by the Proponent.  Given the
                  specialty of mine construction, particularly
                  underground development work, it is estimated
                  that approximately 30% of the construction
                  work force would be hired locally.  Once the
                  mine becomes fully operational, a maximum of
                  225 people would be  employed. Of this total, it
                  is projected that 50% would be hired from the
                  local work force (Eastern Okanogan and
                  Western Ferry Counties). Specialized skills
                  would  be  required of the underground labor
                  force which may not be available in the local
                  labor pool.

                  During reclamation, approximately  50 people
                  would  be  retained for  mill decommissioning,
                  mine closure and reclamation.  It is estimated
                  that at least 95% of the reclamation work force
                  would  be  local.

                  2.7.9   Supply Transportation

                  Operating supplies would be brought to the
                  mine site through Wauconda via State Highway
                  20.  From  Wauconda,  trucks would be routed
                  north on County Road 9495 (Toroda Creek
                  Road) to County Road 9480 (Oroville - Toroda
                  Creek Road),  then up  County Road 4895 and
                  Forest  Road 3575-120 to the site.  The listing
                  and  amount of supplies brought to the site are
                  similar to those set forth in Table 2.4, Materials
                  and  Supplies,  except the amounts of ammonium
                  nitrate and fuel needed will be less.

                  2.7.10  Reclamation

                  The  final pit in the northern portion of the
                  Crown Jewel Project deposit would not be
                  backfilled, but would be allowed to fill with
                  water and eventually overflow into a tributary of
                  Nicholson Creek. The adits would  be sealed
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 June 1995
                              CROWN JEWEL MINE
                                    Page 2-67
 according to applicable regulations. The surface
 of the tailings area would be contoured to
 provide drainage to the north. The buildings
 and other temporary surface facilities  would be
 dismantled, torn down or otherwise disposed of
 or hauled off-site.  The haul roads would be
 eliminated by recontouring.

 Disturbed surface  areas would be configured
 and final graded prior to topsoiling and
 revegetation with  grasses, 400 shrubs/acre and
 250 trees/acre for long-term stabilization.
 Selective blasting  of the pit  walls to remove
 benches is proposed.  Test plot areas would be
 created to determine the best methods of
 achieving revegetation of  the site. The surface
 area over the underground workings could be
 susceptible to subsidence activity.  Fencing and
 signage would be  required to maintain human
 safety.

 2.7.11 Ore Recovery

 The combination of both surface and
 underground mining of the Crown Jewel  deposit
 is expected to recover approximately 1.1 million
 ounces of gold. This 20% reduction in minable
 reserves is primarily due to the roof support
 pillars that must remain in the underground mine
 for safety of miners and equipment as well as
 isolated pockets of mineralization not amenable
 to underground extraction and the loss of
 reserves due to higher underground mining
 costs.
 2.8
ALTERNATIVE E
This alternative represents the construction,
operation, mining, and reclamation of a scenario
consisting of an open pit surface mine, 2 waste
rock disposal areas, a lined tailings
impoundment, a milling facility, an office and
maintenance complex, and miscellaneous other
support facilities including haul roads, access
roads, a water storage reservoir, water supply
pipeline and a power transmission line. At full
production, the operation would process
approximately 3,000 tons of ore per day.

The proposed surface facility layout of the
operation is set forth on Figure 2.13, Alternative
E - Site Plan. Various aspects of this alternative
are summarized in Table 2.10, Summary of
Alternative E.
 2.8.1   Mining Techniques

 This alternative would consist of a single open
 pit surface mine. Approximately 8.7 million
 tons of ore are planned to be mined and
 processed.  To access the ore, approximately
 54 million cubic yards of waste rock would be
 removed and placed in 3 waste rock disposal
 areas.

 The mining would be conducted by conventional
 bench highwall techniques.  Benches would be
 created as part of ore and waste rock
 extraction.  Benches would be drilled and shot
 with ANFO explosives. Samples would be
 obtained from the cuttings of all blast holes
 drilled and analyzed in an on-site laboratory for
 precious metals content. Once determined, the
 mine's surveyors would stake the blasted
 benches and flag both ore and waste rock
 locations for the front end loader or shovel
 operators.  Off-highway trucks would be loaded
 by front end loaders or shovels. These trucks
 would transport the ore to the crusher facility
 and the waste rock to the waste rock disposal
 areas.

 The pit would be sequentially mined to allow
 placement of about 6 million cubic yards of
 waste material from the southern portion of the
 pit directly into the completed northern portion
 of the pit. The partial backfilling would allow
 drainage from the total pit area and would
 eliminate the presence of a surface lake in the
 pit area after reclamation.

 2.8.2   Waste  Rock Disposal

 Approximately 16,700 cubic yards of waste
 rock per day would  be moved during operations.
 This  material would be placed in 2 permanent
 waste rock disposal areas outside the mine  pit:
 One to the north of the proposed pit another to
 the south (C and  I).  The north disposal area
 would be designed to retain about 37 million
 cubic yards of waste rock, and  the south
 disposal area would be designed to contain
 approximately 11 million cubic yards of waste
 rock.  Approximately 6 million cubic yards of
 waste rock would be directly backfilled within
the north pit. At mine closure,  the overall slope
of the waste rock disposal areas would be
3H:1V.
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 2-68
                                 WASTE ROCK
                                 STOCKPILE I
                            (Upper Nicholson Expansion)
                        AMMONIUM
                         NITRATE
                        STORAGE
  X\BOUNDARY
     WASTE ROCK
     STOCKPILE C
   (Upper Marias South)
                                                        LEGEND
                                                        •— FACILITY AREA BOUNDARY
      800'    1600

      aESESS!
  CONTOUR INTERVAL SOFT



 FILENAME  CJ2-13 D WG
           FIGURE  2.13,
ALTERNATIVE E -  SITE  PLAN

-------
                                       CROWN JEWEL MINE                             Page 2-69
jj                            TABLE 2.10, SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE E

jj  GEMERAl COMPONENTS
                        	3,000 tons of ore per day
           Mininn	Surface/Open Pit and Underground
           Wasle Roc<  	  2 Disposal Areas (north and south of pit)
           Crushing   	   Below Surface
           Grinding  	Surface
           Milling	Tank Cyanidation with Carbon in Leach
           Tailings Disposal	  Marias Creek
           Cyanide Destruction  	INCO SO?/Air/02
           Employee Transportation  	  Bu,<-ckp,;e  ....................    .........          ......  12
           Mcj'i!  Acres: Road   ................      .........              ,     ...   24
           Hau; Road:  ..............................               ,      ...  30
           Mi'-c. Sitt-1 Access Roads  .......     . .     .        ,      .          .        ......  19
           Trt'lmas r.h.'rry  Pipeline    ..........     .  . .        .              .                     1
           ArC'iU-iry  Facilities ...........................          .       ...  3P
           Water Supply Pipeime/Pump Station  .....      ,  .     .        ...    .       .     ....     9
           Watt-;r Reservoir   .......      .............     .     .                       ...  35
           1 ot,\so'i Stockpile (Reservoir) ............     ......                                  /i
           Pnwvr Line Right of -Way   ...  ..........       .      ...                    2>~
                                                                                                027
                     Crown Jnwel Mine $  Drdft Environmental Impact Siat(tn>e:;i

-------
Page 2-70
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIVES
June 7995
2.8.3   Ore Processing

Ore from the mine would be transported to a
surface ore stockpile area where it would be
loaded into a below surface crushing facility.
After crushing, the ore would be transported  by
conveyor to a surface mill for grinding,
processing, and extraction of the gold.
Conventional milling techniques involving tank
cyanidation and CIL recovery would be used to
extract the gold from the ore.

The final product of milling would be gold bars,
known as  dore'.

2.8.4   Tailings Disposal

The tailings stream, after being subjected to the
INCO S02/Air/02 destruction process, would be
pumped via a pipeline to a lined tailings
impoundment in the Marias Creek drainage.
Water used in the cyanide processing and
transport of the tailings would be collected and
recycled to the mill for reuse in the milling
process.  The tailings facility would be designed
and maintained as a zero-discharge facility.

Water would be obtained from water rights in
the Myers Creek drainage, stored in a reservoir
on private property on Starrem Creek, near the
Canadian border, and then pumped, via pipeline
up Gold Creek to the milling complex.

2.8.5   Area of Disturbance

Approximately 927 acres would be physically
disturbed, including an estimated 72 acres of
disturbance associated with the water storage
reservoir, the water supply pipeline, and the
power transmission line right-of-way from
Oroville to the site.

Of the estimated total disturbance, 62% (574
acres) would be on National Forest lands, 21 %
(195 acres) would be on lands administered by
the Bureau of Land Management, 5% (47 acres)
would be on lands administered by the WADNR,
and 12% (111  acres) would be on private lands.

2.8.6   Project Life

Alternative E has a projected life of 10 years.
Construction accounts for about 1 year,
operations for approximately 8 years, and most
decommissioning/reclamation adding another
                  year. Long-term monitoring would be necessary
                  to meet approved plans and permits. At least 6
                  years of monitoring for revegetation would be
                  required.

                  2.8.7   Employment

                  During the construction phase, a maximum of
                  250 people would be required.  The
                  construction work would be managed by the
                  Proponent, but the actual work would be done
                  under contract to a construction firm
                  specializing in mining-related construction. It is
                  estimated that approximately 40% of the
                  construction force would be hired locally (from
                  Eastern Okanogan or Western Ferry Counties).

                  Once the mine becomes fully operational, a
                  maximum of 1 50 people would be employed.
                  Of this total, it is projected that at least 80%
                  would be hired from the local work force.

                  During reclamation, approximately 50 people
                  would be retained for year ten.  This work force
                  would be responsible for mill decommissioning,
                  completing the partial  mine backfill, and
                  reclamation.  It is estimated that at least 95%
                  of the reclamation work force would be local.

                  2.8.8   Supply Transportation

                  Operating supplies would be brought to the
                  mine site through Wauconda via State Highway
                  20. From Wauconda, trucks would be routed
                  north on County Road 9495 (Toroda Creek
                  Road) to County Road 9480 (Oroville - Toroda
                  Creek Road), then up County Road 4895 and
                  Forest Road 3575-1 20 to the site. The listing
                  and amount of supplies brought to the site are
                  set forth in Table 2.4, Materials and Supplies.

                  2.8.9   Reclamation

                  This alternative provides for partial backfill of
                  waste rock into the final open pit  on the north
                  side  of the Crown Jewel reserve zone.  This
                  partial backfill would allow  drainage from the
                  total pit area,  prevent the formation of a surface
                  lake  after reclamation, and  allow isolation of
                  selected waste rock.

                  The surface of the tailings area would be
                  contoured to provide drainage to the north.  The
                  buildings and other temporary surface facilities
                  would be dismantled, torn down or otherwise
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 June 1995
                              CROWN JEWEL MINE
                                    Page 2-71
 disposed of or hauled off-site.  The haul roads
 would be eliminated by recontouring.

 The remainder of the disturbed areas would be
 graded,  sloped, topsoiled and revegetated with
 grasses, 400 shrubs/acre and 250 trees/acre for
 long-term stabilization.  Selective blasting of the
 pit walls to remove benches is proposed.  Test
 plot areas would be created to determine the
 best methods of achieving revegetation of the
 site.

 2.8.10  Ore Recovery

 Approximately 1.4 million ounces of gold are
 estimated to be recoverable under this
 alternative.  The sequential partial backfilling
 during mining could affect the operational
 flexibility and mining economics.  The Proponent
 proposed to extract the magnetite ore in the
 bottom of the northern pit near the  conclusion
 of mining. The reasoning is that the magnetite
 ore would not need to be as finely ground as
 the other ore in the deposit.  This could be
 accomplished operationally and would not
 require major modifications to the mill.
 2.9
ALTERNATIVE F
 This alternative represents the construction,
 operation, and reclamation of a mining and
 milling facility consisting of an open pit surface
 mine, a waste rock disposal area, a lined tailings
 impoundment, a milling facility, an office and
 maintenance complex, and miscellaneous other
 support facilities including haul roads, access
 roads, a water storage reservoir, water supply
 pipeline and an electric power transmission line.
 At full production, the operation considered by
 this alternative would process approximately
 1,500 tons of ore  per day, or half of the
 production rate proposed for action Alternatives
 B, C,  D, E, and G.

 The proposed surface facility layout of the
 operation is set forth on Figure 2.14, Alternative
 F - Site Plan. Various aspects of this alternative
 are summarized in  Table 2.11, Summary of
Alternative F.

 2.9.1    Mining Techniques

This alternative would consist of a  single open
pit surface mine. Approximately 8.7 million
tons of ore are planned to be mined and
 processed.  To access the ore, approximately
 54 million cubic yards of waste rock would be
 removed and placed in a single waste rock
 disposal area (I) north of the pit.

 The mining  would be conducted by conventional
 bench highwall techniques. Benches would be
 created as part of ore and  waste rock
 extraction.  Benches  would be drilled and shot
 with ANFO  blasting agents.  Samples would be
 obtained from the cuttings of selected  blast
 holes and analyzed in an on-site laboratory for
 precious metals.  Once determined, the mine's
 surveyors would  stake the blasted benches and
 flag both ore and waste rock locations for the
 front end loader or shovel operators. Off-
 highway trucks would be loaded by front end
 loaders or shovels. These  trucks would
 transport the ore to the crusher facility and the
 waste rock  to the waste rock disposal areas.
 Mining operations would be conducted for a
 single  (12 hour) shift per day, 7 days a week,
 365 days per year with maintenance scheduled
 for the second shift.  Milling would be
 conducted 2 shifts a  day, 24 hours per day, 7
 days a week, 365 days per year.

 2.9.2   Waste Rock Disposal

 A single temporary waste rock disposal area
 would be constructed north of the proposed pit
 to contain the entire estimated 54 million cubic
 yards of waste rock material removed from the
 mine pit.  At the cessation  of operations, all the
 temporarily  stockpiled waste rock would  be
 returned to  the mine pit.

 The final topography of the mine pit area, after
 backfilling, would be higher than the  topography
 existing prior to mining given the swell  factor
 for the waste rock material.

 2.9.3   Ore Processing

 Ore from the mine would be transported to a
 surface ore stockpile area where it would be
 loaded into a below surface crushing facility.
After crushing, the ore would be transported by
conveyor to  a surface mill for grinding,
processing,  and extraction of the gold.
Conventional milling techniques involving tank
cyanidation  and CIL recovery would be  used to
extract the gold from  the ore.  The mill  would
be designed  for the 1,500 tons per day feed.
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 2-72
    WATER
    SUPPLY
    PIPELINE
                                                         SEDIMENT
                                                           POND
                                                               ACCESS
                                                                ROAD
                             WASTE ROCK
                              STOCKPILE I
                            (Upper Nicholson)
              AMMONIUM
              NITRATE
              STORAGE
                 WATER
                STORAGE
 TOPSOIL
STOCKPILES
                                              TOPSOIL
                                             STOCKPILE
                                              OFFICE,
                                            WAREHOUSE
                                             AND SHOP
                                             COMPLEX
                                                                         RECLAIM
                                                                        SOLUTION
                                                                       COLLECTION
                                                                          POND
                                           TOPSOIL
                                          STOCKPILE
                                       WILDLIF
                                        FENCE
                                             SOIL
                                           BORROW
                                              PIT
                               ORE
                           PROCESSING
                             FACILITY
CATTLE
GUARD
             BOUNDARY
               FENCE
                             GUARD
                             HOUSE
             NOTE PROJECTED RECLAIMED TOPOGRAPHY
                SHOWN IN MINE PIT AREA
                                                                   LEGEND
                                                                    	FACILITY AREA
                                                                         BOUNDARY
       900     1SOO
  CONTOUR INTERVAL SOFT
 FILENAME CJ2-14 DWG
                                  FIGURE 2.14,
                       ALTERNATIVE  F  - SITE  PLAN

-------
June 1995                            CROWN JEWEL MINE                             Page 2-73
                               TABLE 2.11, SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE F
  GENERAL COMPONENTS
           Production 	 1,500 tons of ore per day
           Mining	  Surface/Open Pit
           Waste Rock	1 Disposal Area (north of pit)
           Crushing  	  Below Surface
           Grinding	Surface
           Milling	Tank Cyanidation with Carbon in Leach
           Tailings Disposal	Nicholson Creek
           Cyanide Destruction  	INCO S02/Air/O2
           Employee Transportation  	  Busing and/or van pooling (Oroville to Chesaw and South)
           Supply Transportation	Wauconda to Mine Site
           Reclamation	 Complete  Pit Backfill; no permanent waste rock disposal areas
   EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS

           Construction and Development
                   Year 1  	  250
           Operations
                   Year 2-17	  125
           Decommissioning and Reclamation
                   Year 18-33	  75
  LAND OWNERSHIP/ADMINISTRATION                                                     ACRES  %

           Forest Service  	526   64
           BLM  	 153   19
           WADNR	  38    5
           Private	105   12

           Total	   822  100
  SURFACE AREA DISTURBANCE (acres)

           Waste Rock Disposal Area (Temporary)  	  215
           Tailings Facility	  157
           Mill and Ore Processing Facility  	  18
           Pit Area	  138
           Rock Quarry	  0
           Topsoil Stockpiles	  63
           Mine Adits	  0
           Ore Stockpile  	  12
           Mam Access Road   	  24
           Haul Roads	  48
           Misc. Site Access Roads 	  21
           Tailings  Slurry  Pipeline  	  2
           Ancillary  Facilities	  39
           Water Supply Pipeline/Pump  Station 	  9
           Water Reservoir  	  35
           Topsoil Stockpile (Reservoir)	  4
           Power Line Right-of-Way 	  24

           Total	  822
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 2 74
CHAPTER 2 - ALTtRNA
June 1935
The mill would be operated on a 24 hour per
day basis.

The final product of milling would be gold bars,
known as dore'.

2.9.4   Tailings Disposal

The tailings stream, after being subjected to the
INCO S02/Air/02 destruction process, would be
pumped via a pipeline to a lined tailings
impoundment in the Nicholson Creek drainage.
Water used in the cyanide processing and
transport of the tailings would be collected and
recycled to the mill for reuse in the milling
process.  The tailings facility would be designed
and maintained  as a zero-discharge facility.

Water would be  obtained from water rights in
the Myers Creek drainage, stored in a reservoir
on private property on Starrem Creek, near the
Canadian border, and then pumped, via pipeline
up Gold Creek to the milling complex.

2.9.5   Area of  Disturbance

Approximately 822 acres would be physically
disturbed, including an estimated 72 acres of
disturbance associated with the water storage
reservoir, the water supply pipeline, and the
power transmission line right-of-way from
Oroville to the site.

Of the estimated total disturbance, 64% (526
acres) would be  on National Forest lands,  19%
(153 acres) would be on lands administered by
the BLM, 5% (38 acres) would be on lands
administered by the WADNR, and 12%  (105
acres) would be on private lands.

2.9.6   Project Life

Alternative F has a projected life of 33 years.
Construction accounts for about 1 year,
operations for 16 years, and most
decommissioning/reclamation (including the
complete backfill activities) adding another
estimated 16 years.  Long-term monitoring
would be as necessary to meet approved plans
and permits. At least 6 years of monitoring for
revegetation would be required.
                   2.9.7   Employment

                   During the construction phase, a maximum of
                   250 people would be  employed.  The
                   construction work would be managed by the
                   Proponent, but the actual work would be done
                   under contract to a construction  firm
                   specializing in mining-related construction.  It is
                   estimated that approximately 40% of the
                   construction force would be hired locally
                   (Eastern Okanogan and Western  Ferry
                   Counties).

                   Once the mine becomes fully operational, an
                   estimated 125 people would be employed.  Of
                   this total, it is projected that at least 80%
                   would be hired from the local work force.

                   During reclamation, an estimated 100 people
                   would be retained for the first year of
                   reclamation work which would include mill
                   decommissioning, tailings pond reclamation, and
                   initiation of mine backfill activities.  For the next
                   1 5 years, an estimated 75 people would be
                   required to continue the mine pit backfill
                   operations.  In the last year of reclamation, an
                   estimated 25 people would be required for
                   topsoil work and miscellaneous revegetation
                   activities. It is estimated that at least 95% of
                   the reclamation work  force would be local.

                   2.9.8   Supply Transportation

                   Operating supplies would be brought to the
                   mine site through Wauconda via  State Highway
                   20. From Wauconda,  trucks would be routed
                   north on County Road 9495 (Toroda Creek
                   Road) to County Road 9480 (Oroville - Toroda
                   Creek Road), then up  County Road 4895 and
                   Forest Road 3575-120 to the site.  The listing
                   and amount of supplies brought to the site are
                   set forth in Table 2.4, Materials and Supplies.

                   2.9.9   Reclamation

                   This alternative provides for complete backfill of
                   waste rock into the final open pit.  This would
                   allow drainage from the total pit  area and
                   prevent the formation of a surface  lake after
                   reclamation.

                   Reclamation of the pit area and temporary
                   waste rock disposal area sites would begin
                   much later than under all other action
                   alternatives.
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-75
The surface of the tailings area would be
contoured to provide drainage to the north.  The
buildings and other temporary surface facilities
would be dismantled, torn down or otherwise
disposed of or hauled off-site. The haul roads
would be eliminated by recontouring.

All disturbed areas would be graded, sloped,
topsoiled and revegetated with grasses, 400
shrubs/acre and 250 trees/acre for long-term
stabilization. Test plot areas would be created
to determine the best methods of achieving
revegetation of the site.

2.9.10 Ore Recovery

Approximately 1.4 million ounces of gold were
estimated to be recovered in the implementation
of this alternative.  Mine equipment utilization,
economic ore grade recoveries, or milling
economies of scale were not considered in the
formation of this alternative.

2.10    ALTERNATIVE G

This alternative represents the construction,
operation and reclamation of a mining and
milling facility that would include  an open pit
surface mine, a single waste rock disposal area
to the north of the pit, a milling facility that
uses flotation only with no cyanide processing
on-site, a lined tailings impoundment in
Nicholson Creek for flotation tailings, an office
and maintenance complex, and miscellaneous
support facilities including haul and access
roads, a water storage reservoir, a water supply
pipeline, and a power transmission line.  In this
alternative, flotation concentrates would be
hauled off-site to be subjected to  cyanidation
and smelting.  At full production,  the operation
would process approximately 3,000 tons of ore
per day.

The proposed layout of the facilities for this
alternative is set forth on Figure 2.15,
Alternative G - Site Plan. Various aspects of
this alternative are summarized in Table 2.12,
Summary of Alternative G.

2.10.1  Mining Techniques

This proposed action would  consist of a single
open pit surface mine.  Approximately 8.7
million tons  of ore  are planned to  be mined and
processed.  To access  the ore, approximately
               54 million cubic yards of waste rock would be
               removed and placed in 1 waste rock disposal
               area north of the pit (J).

               The mining would be conducted by conventional
               bench highwall techniques. Benches would be
               created as part of ore and  waste rock
               extraction.  Benches  would be drilled and shot
               with ANFO blasting agents.  Samples would be
               obtained from the cuttings of selected blast
               holes drilled and would be  analyzed in an on-site
               laboratory for precious metals.  Once
               determined, the mine's surveyors would stake
               the blasted benches and flag both ore and
               waste rock locations  for the front end loader or
               shovel operators.  Off-highway trucks would be
               loaded by front end loaders or shovels. These
               trucks would transport the ore to the crusher
               facility and  the waste rock to the waste rock
               disposal area.

               2.10.2 Waste Rock  Disposal

               All waste rock (approximately 54 million cubic
               yards) would be placed in a single permanent
               waste rock disposal area (J) located to the north
               of the proposed pit.  This disposal area would
               cover the 2 acre wetland area known locally as
               the "frog pond".  At  mine closure, the overall
               slope of the waste rock disposal area would be
               3H:1V.

               2.10.3  Ore Processing

               Ore from the mine would be transported to a
               surface ore stockpile  area where it would be
               loaded into a below surface crushing facility.
               After crushing, the ore would be transported by
               conveyor to a surface mill for grinding,
               processing, and extraction of the gold.  Milling
               would use the flotation process which is a
               method of concentrating solid minerals in a
               relatively finely divided state.  Precious metals
               (gold) in the ground ore would be recovered as
               a concentrate in the flotation cell.

               Chemicals that are projected for use in the
               flotation process and their  estimated
               consumption rates are presented in Table 2,13,
               Flotation Reagents.
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 2-76
                                                                  June
                                       30 E.  R. 31 E.
                            WASTE ROCK
                            STOCKPILE J
                           (North Nicholson)
WATER
SUPPLY
PIPELINE
                                                                SEDIMENT
                                                                 POND
       TOPSOIL
      STOCKPILE
                                                            DIVERSION
                                                              DITCH
                                                             SEDIMENT
                                                               POND
        AMMONIUM
         NITRATE
        STORAGE
                                                             TOPSOIL
                                                           STOCKPILES
             WATER
            STORAGE
                                        CATTLE
                                         GUARD
     TOPSOIL
   STOCKPILES
                                             OFFICE,
                                            WAREHOUSE
                                            AND SHOP
                                            COMPLEX
                       ORE
                    PROCESSING
                      FACILITY
                                         TOPSOIL
                                        STOCKPILES
               CATTLE
               GUARD
  SOIL
BORROW
                                                                     TAILINGS
                                                                   EMBANKMENT
                                                           WILDLIFE
                                                            FENCE
                          MAIN
                         ACCESS
                          ROAD
                                                          LEGEND
                                                       	FACILITY AREA BOUNDARY
                                 FIGURE  2.15,
                      ALTERNATIVE  G -  SITE  PLAN
 FILENAME CJ2-1SDWG

-------
June 1995                            CROWN JEWEL MINE                             Page 2-77
                               TABLE 2.12, SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE G
   GENERAL COMPONENTS
           Production 	3,000 tons of ore per day
           Mining	  Surface/Open Pit
           Waste Rock	1  Disposal Area  (north of pit)
           Crushing  . ,	  Below Surface
           Grinding	Surface
           Milling	  Flotation, Off-Site Cyanidation and Smelting
           Tailings Disposal	Nicholson Creek
           Cyanide Destruction  	Not Applicable
           Employee Transportation  	  Busing and/or van pooling (Oroville to Chesaw and South)
           Supply  Transportation	Oroville to Mine Site
           Reclamation	  No Pit Backfill; Other Sites Revegetated
   EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS

           Construction  and Development
                   Year 1  	  250
           Operations
                   Year 2-9	  210
           Decommissioning and Reclamation
                   Year 10   	  50
   LAND OWNERSHIP/ADMINISTRATION                                                      ACRES  %

           Forest Service  	546  61
           BLM  	  198  22
           WADNR	   44   5
           Private	  108  12

           Total	  896  100
   SURFACE AREA DISTURBANCE (acres)

           Waste Rock Disposal Area	  294
           Tailings Facility	  137
           Mill and Ore Processing Facility  	  18
           Pit Area	  138
           Rock Quarry	  0
           Topsoil Stockpiles	  72
           Mine Adits	  0
           Ore Stockpile  	  12
           Main Access Road   	  24
           Haul  Roads	  63
           Misc. Site Access Roads  	  15
           Tailings Slurry Pipeline  	  1
           Soil Borrow  Pits  	  11
           Ancillary Facilities	  39
           Water Supply Pipeline/Pump Station  	  9
           Water Reservoir  	  35
           Topsoil Stockpile (Reservoir)	  4
           Power Line Right-of-Way  	  24

           Total	  896
                     Crown Jewel Mine f Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 2-78
CHAPTER 2 - At f£/?A'/. /V
                                                     June
TABLE 2.13, FLOTATION REAGENTS
Regent
Potassium Amyl Xanthate
MIBC (Frother)

AP404 (Promotor)
DP-6 (Promotor)
Copper Sulfate (Activator)
Na2S (Sulfidizer)
Note: 1 . Assumes
Approximate
Requirement
Ibs/ton
0.3
0.06

0.25
0.1
0.3
0.3
processing of
Container
(Shipping & Storage)
50 gai drum
50 gal drum

50 gal drum
50 gal drum
50 gal drum
50 gal drum
approximately 3,000 tons of ore
!
_.J
Approximate Daily 1
use
(Ibs)
900
180

750
300
900
900
per day
2.10.4  Off-Site Shipment of Flotation
        Concentrates

Approximately 10% of the total processed ore
would become the flotation concentrates.  This
would amount to approximately 300 tons per
day, if 3,000 tons  per day are milled. Assuming
25 ton haul trucks, there would be 12 trips per
day, 7 days per week, from the Crown Jewel
site with trucks hauling flotation concentrates.
It is assumed that the concentrates would be
hauled to Oroville where the concentrates would
be loaded on  railroad cars for transport to the
Seattle or Tacoma  area where they would
probably be shipped overseas for cyanidation
and final smelting.

2.10.5  Tailings Disposal

The flotation  tailings would be pumped via a
pipeline to a lined tailings impoundment in the
Nicholson Creek drainage. Water  used in the
processing and transport of the tailings would
be collected and recycled to the mill for reuse in
the milling process. The tailings facility would
be designed and maintained as a zero-discharge
facility.  There would be no cyanide destruction
component to the tailings disposal circuit.

2.10.6  Area of Disturbance

Approximately 896 acres would be physically
disturbed, including an estimated 72 acres of
disturbance associated with the water storage
reservoir, the water supply pipeline, and  the
                   power transmission line right-of-way from
                   Oroville to the site.

                   Of the estimated total disturbance, 61 % (546
                   acres) would be on National Forest lands, 22%
                   (198 acres) would be on lands administered by
                   the BLM, 5% (44 acres) would be on lands
                   administered by the WADNR, and 12% (108
                   acres) would be on private lands.

                   2.10.7  Project Life

                   Alternative G has a projected life of 10 years.
                   Construction accounts for about 1 year,
                   operations for approximately 8 years, and the
                   majority of decommissioning/reclamation being
                   completed in another year.  Long-term
                   monitoring would be as necessary to meet
                   approved plans and permits. At least 6 years of
                   monitoring for revegetation  would be required.

                   2.10.8  Employment

                   During the construction phase, a maximum of
                   250 people would be required.  The
                   construction work would be managed by the
                   Proponent, but the actual work would be done
                   under contract to a construction firm
                   specializing in mining-related construction.  It is
                   estimated that approximately 40% of the
                   construction force could be hired locally
                   (Eastern Okanogan and Western Ferry
                   Counties).
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
                      CROWN JEWEL MINE
                                   Page 2-79
Once the mine becomes fully operational, a
maximum of 210 people would be employed.
Of this total, it is projected that at least 80%
would be hired from the local work force.  This
operational work force would include the 30
people (drivers, maintenance, dewatering,
loadout, and administration personnel)
necessary for the handling and transportation of
flotation concentrates to Oroville.

During reclamation, approximately 50 people
would be retained for mill decommissioning,
mine closure and reclamation. It is estimated
that at least 95% of the reclamation work force
would be local.

2.10.9  Supply Transportation

Shipment of operating supplies, approximately
11 truck loads per week, would be via year
round highways  to Oroville.  From Oroville,
trucks would be  routed east on County Road
9480 through Chesaw (Oroville - Toroda Creek
Road), then up County Road 4895 and Forest
Road 3575-120  to the site.  Given the probable
spring haulage restrictions with this
transportation route,  approximately 30 days
additional storage over the original 30 day
storage contemplated for the Wauconda-Toroda
Creek route would be required. There would be
no transport of chemicals needed for the
cyanidation circuit or the cyanide destruction
circuit.  Flotation chemicals are set forth in
Table 2.13, Flotation Reagents.
                                    2.10.11
                Ore Recovery
2.10.10
Reclamation
The final pit would be left open.  This would
allow the creation of a lake in the northern
portion of the final pit that would eventually
discharge into the Nicholson  Creek drainage.
The remainder of the disturbed areas would be
graded,  sloped, topsoiled and revegetated with
grasses, 400 shrubs/acre and 250 trees/acre for
long-term stabilization. Selective blasting of the
pit walls to remove benches  is proposed.  Test
plot areas would be created to determine the
best methods of achieving revegetation of the
site. The buildings and other temporary surface
facilities would be dismantled, torn down  or
otherwise disposed of or hauled off-site. The
haul roads would be eliminated by recontouring.
The use of flotation would recover
approximately 45%, versus approximately 87%
using cyanidation, of the gold contained in the
Crown Jewel ore reserve. This reduction is
primarily due to the mineralogy of the Crown
Jewel deposit.

2.11    RECLAMATION MEASURES

The Proponent submitted in August 1993
(Revised November 1993) a Reclamation Plan to
the Forest Service, WADOE, BLM, and WADNR.
The plan includes their proposed reclamation
plan for the site.  If an action alternative is
selected, this reclamation plan would be
modified, as necessary, to include any changes
or additions as developed through the EIS and
permitting processes.

The purpose of reclamation is to return the
disturbed areas to a stabilized and productive
condition following mining and milling activities
and protect long-term land and water resources
in the area.  Reclamation policies of the Forest
Service, BLM and WADNR are to ensure the
return of disturbed lands to productive uses
consistent with land management policies.

The Plan of Operations approved prior to Project
start-up would include a detailed reclamation
plan acceptable to the Forest Service,  WADOE,
BLM,  and WADNR.  The reclamation plan would
describe measures to reduce long-term impacts
with the goal to return the land to a productive
state similar to those which exist on the site
presently.  The reclamation would conform to
appropriate federal and state statutes and
regulations.

All parties understand that many aspects of
reclamation practices and technology are
changing and developing.  A certain degree of
flexibility must be allowed for changes and
modifications as techniques are refined or
expanded.  Revegetation test plot work would
be completed during operations and would
evaluate the results of this work and other
reclamation  programs in the industry.  The
Proponent would take advantage of
opportunities to explore new reclamation
techniques  and new methods for erosion
control. The reclamation  plan would be updated
at least once every 5 years or as appropriate
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 2-80
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A JIVES
June  1995
with results of test plots or improvements in
reclamation technology.  Bonding costs would
be updated yearly using cost indices and  in
accordance with regulatory requirements. The
reclamation performance security would be
updated as necessary depending on changes in
disturbed  areas, modifications of plans or any
other alteration of or to the condition of the
mine that affects the cost of reclamation  or at a
minimum  of every 2 years.

2.11.1  Introduction

The reclamation program for the Crown Jewel
Project is  designed to reclaim mining related
disturbance, where conditions and current
reclamation technology reasonably permit, in
compliance with the requirements of the
appropriate regulatory  agencies. The following
are measures the Proponent would take to
safeguard the environment through reclamation
of the affected areas when activities in these
areas cease. The procedures are designed to
allow the  Proponent to reclaim affected areas to
a productive post-mining land use that is similar
to pre-mining land uses.

2.11.2 Reclamation Goals and Objectives

The current land use of the site is primarily for
timber management, rangeland for cattle
grazing, wildlife habitat and dispersed
recreation.  Although most of the area has
previously been harvested for timber, there is
relatively  little available, high quality forage
suitable for wildlife use and domestic grazing.
The emphasis of the reclamation plan would be
to create  forested habitats similar to what exists
presently  and future deer winter range, where
appropriate.

The reclamation plan for any of the selected
action alternatives would incorporate the
following  basic goals:

•      Establishment of stable surface,
        topographic, and drainage conditions
        that are compatible with the
        surrounding landscape and control
        erosion and water quality impacts from
        the operation;

•      Establishment of surface soil conditions
        that are conducive to regeneration of a
        stable plant community through
                           removal, stockpiling, and reapplication
                           of suitable topsoil and cover soil
                           material;

                   •       Revegetation of disturbed areas using
                           species adapted to site conditions and
                           approved by the appropriate agencies in
                           order to establish  a long-term
                           productive, self-sustaining,  biotic
                           community compatible with currently
                           identified future land uses and
                           comparable to what currently exist on
                           the site; and,

                   •       Consideration of public safety including
                           posting warning signs, limiting public
                           access, and the stabilizing or removing
                           of structures or landforms created as a
                           result of the mining activities that could
                           constitute a public hazard.

                   The post-mining land uses on Federal lands
                   would be  managed for replacement  timber,
                   grazing, wildlife habitat, and dispersed
                   recreation or  land use emphasis developed for
                   the area through Management Plan  revisions.

                   2.11.3  Reclamation Schedule

                   Reclamation activities would be scheduled to
                   occur as soon as practical after the  mining
                   activities in a particular area are completed,
                   thus minimizing erosion and sedimentation
                   problems. This is called segmental  or
                   concurrent reclamation.

                   In general, reclamation activities would be timed
                   to take advantage of optimal climatic
                   conditions. Seedbeds would be prepared and
                   seeding would be completed in order to take
                   advantage of winter and spring moisture.  Tree
                   and shrub planting would  occur in the spring.

                   During the life of the Project, interim and
                   segmental reclamation would occur to reduce
                   erosion and the potential for water quality
                   degradation.  Interim reclamation refers to
                   reclamation efforts on lands disturbed during the
                   course of a project and that is intended to
                   temporarily stabilize an area prior to final
                   reclamation.  Interim reclamation would include
                   revegetation  to reduce erosion  and sediment
                   during the life of the operation.  Topsoil would
                   not be applied to interim revegetated areas.
                   Mulch would be applied, as appropriate.
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-81
following seeding.  The areas which would
require interim reclamation include the
temporary road embankments,  and topsoil
stockpiles.

Segmental reclamation refers to reclamation
activities which can be carried  on at the same
time as ongoing mining activities.  Segmental
(concurrent) reclamation would be used on
disturbed areas that have been graded to final
reclamation topography.  Such areas would
include road outslopes for permanent roadways,
areas disturbed during construction of the water
supply pipeline routes, powerline route, and
waste rock disposal areas at final grade due to
staged construction.

Most reclamation activities would occur at the
time of mine closure and  would be considered
final reclamation.  The areas to undergo
reclamation at mine closure would include
portions of the mine pit, portions of the waste
rock disposal areas, the tailings disposal facility,
haul roads, mill facilities and administration
building site, borrow areas and other ancillary
areas. The water storage reservoir would be
reclaimed after reclamation of the mine site is
complete and water is no longer needed for
reclamation activities.  Final reclamation would
be implemented upon the completion of mining
activities at the Crown Jewel Project or after a
period of shutdown of more than 2 years,
unless there are circumstances that allow for
longer periods under permit terms.

Temporary Cessation

Although a temporary cessation of operations is
not planned, circumstances beyond the control
of the Proponent may require a temporary
cessation of operations.  If a temporary
cessation of operations occurs, the Proponent
would implement the following activities:

•       Seeding and associated revegetation
        practices would be implemented on
        areas not scheduled for additional
        disturbance;

•       Diversion ditches and sedimentation
        ponds would be inspected periodically
        to insure that spring runoff can be
        handled and that the systems continue
        to function properly after major storm
                      events.  Cleaning and repairs would be
                      performed as necessary; and,

              •       Appropriate sediment management
                      structures would be placed as
                      necessary.

              Monitoring and necessary maintenance would
              be conducted during  any temporary cessation of
              operations.

              Under certain circumstances, and 180 days
              after the cessation of operations, the WADNR
              can declare the site abandoned and final
              reclamation would commence.

              Permanent Cessation

              In the unlikely event that operations
              permanently cease prior to the scheduled
              completion of operations, impacts related to pit
              size and depth, underground operations, waste
              dumps and tailings disposal facilities may be
              less than proposed.  In the event of a premature
              permanent cessation  of operations, the
              post-operational landform would depend on the
              stage of the operation and cannot be predicted.
              If operations cease prematurely, the Proponent
              would work with the appropriate agencies to
              develop a revised reclamation plan that
              specifically addresses the existing conditions at
              the time of closure.

              2.11.4  General Reclamation Procedures

              This section includes the general  steps to be
              followed in reclaiming each of the disturbance
              areas.  Where feasible. Project features to be
              reclaimed would be designed to achieve a
              topography that blends into the surrounding
              terrain.

              Vegetation Clearing and Seed Collection

              Prior to  topsoil salvage, merchantable timber
              would be harvested and removed from the site.
              All remaining vegetation would be removed.
              Logs that would be used for replacement of
              large woody debris during segmental or final
              reclamation would be stockpiled during
              operations and/or be  removed from nearby
              stands (unmerchantable timber only). Other
              woody debris including stumps, limbs, brush,
              etc. would be chipped and returned onto the
              soil prior to actual soil removal or piled and
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 2-82
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
June  1995
burned in place depending on the amount of
material present.

At least 3 years prior to the commencement of
segmental and/or final reclamation, the mine
operator would collect seed from the proper
seed zones to reforest the site or reimburse the
agencies for the collection of the seed. This
seed would be made available to the Forest
Service  or a private tree nursery to grow the
necessary seedlings.

As much natural, local vegetation  (grasses,
forbs, shrubs, and  trees) would be used as
feasible. Seed sources from sites with similar
environments would be selected to ensure that
the plants are adapted to the elevation,
precipitation, temperature, and soil conditions
present  at the Crown Jewel Project.  As much
of the seed would  be collected locally as
possible. Where not enough seed can be
collected locally, seed would be purchased from
suppliers in Washington State or from other
suppliers in the Pacific Northwest  who
specialize in reclamation. If appropriate seed is
not available commercially, seed would be
collected from appropriate ecotypes as required.

Erosion  and Sediment Control

Erosion  control would be accomplished by
diverting existing flow into engineered diversion
channels, thus eliminating excessive surface
runoff across disturbed areas.  Sediment
catchment basins and ponds designed for
catching and storing sediment from exposed
and erodible surfaces would be built prior to
disturbance in an area.  Detention ponds would
have an adequate retention time to allow
sediment removal from water inflow and runoff
entering the pond.   Discharges from detention
ponds must meet appropriate State and Federal
Water Quality Standards.  Sediment traps would
be placed in ditches at least every 300 feet,
depending on slope, and below un-revegetated
slopes to aid in erosion and sediment control.

Best Management  Practices for runoff and
sedimentation control  include the following
measures:

•       The disturbed area would be kept to a
        minimum at any given time through
        phased disturbance and segmental
        reclamation.
                   •      An underdrain would be created
                          beneath the tailings disposal facility.
                          This would allow ground water and
                          springs to flow beneath the facility and
                          into a reclaim solution collection pond.

                   •      Drainage structures installed as part of
                          the construction of access and haul
                          roads would  include channels,
                          water-bars, cross drains, culverts,
                          sediment traps, and silt fencing.

                   •      Rapidly developing and sod-forming
                          plant species would be planted to
                          promote rapid stabilization.

                   •      Revegetation would occur in the first
                          appropriate season after topsoil
                          redistribution.

                   •      Tackifiers would be applied to aid in
                          erosion control and moisture retention.

                   •      Access would be minimized by fencing.

                   •      Grasses, shrubs, and trees would be
                          planted for stabilization.

                   •      Interim revegetation would be used to
                          stabilize inactive, disturbed areas.

                   •      Roads and water control structures
                          would be maintained periodically as
                          needed.

                   Grading during reclamation would be designed
                   and conducted to minimize the  potential for
                   erosion.  Specifically:

                   •      Reclaimed slopes would be inspected
                          after spring run-off and after major
                          storm events for a period of at least 6
                          years after the completion of
                          reclamation grading or  as determined by
                          the agencies.  Any significant rills and
                          gullies that develop would be stabilized
                          and revegetated.

                   •      Fill slopes and other potential sediment
                          sources would be visually inspected
                          throughout the operation to allow early
                          detection of erosion and  vegetation
                          problems. During critical runoff
                          periods, such as spring snow melt.
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-83
        inspection of fills and erosive areas
        would occur on a more frequent basis.

Decommissioning of Facilities

Following permanent closure of the operation,
salvageable equipment, instrumentation,
furniture, and/or unused reagents would be
removed from the site. The various piping and
plumbing material associated with the mill
would be flushed to remove or neutralize any
reagents or chemicals and then capped  prior to
removal.

Removal of Buildings and Structures.

Buildings and structures would be dismantled
and removed from the site at the permanent
cessation of operations. Any salvageable parts
of buildings and structures would be sold or
transferred to another operation. Unsalvageable
portions of buildings and structures, such as
foundations, would be buried on-site or removed
and disposed of in an approved waste disposal
facility.  Pads would  be ripped to alleviate
compaction and revegetated as part of final
closure.  In addition, unless needed for  some
ongoing purpose, access and haul roads would
be removed or reclaimed as part of final closure.
Culverts would be removed, and the roads
would be ripped and reseeded.

Grading and Stabilization

Slopes would be shaped for reclamation during
material placement, removal, or upon
completion of the active life of each Project
component.  Depending on  the type of material,
its erodibility, and the practical considerations of
the mining process, overall  slope grades would
vary.

Upper portions  of the pit would remain
essentially as cliffs.  Reclamation objectives for
the pit would be to blast portions of the upper
highwall and benches, particularly in the upper
200 feet to leave irregular cliffs with talus
slopes below. The southwest end of the pit and
pit floor would be resoiled and reclaimed with
vegetation, where possible.  The southwest pit
wall would be blasted down to create,
somewhat, continuous slopes that are no
steeper  than 1.5H:1 V which could be used for
wildlife passage in and out of the pit and could
be revegetated.  Some isolated raptor perches
               would be left or created high on the pit walls.
               Several portions of the south pit floor would be
               designed to capture water and create small,
               shallow riparian areas. The pit outfall and new
               channel, down to the existing Gold Bowl
               drainage channel, would be constructed and
               stabilized to prevent erosion and be natural
               looking.

               Other cut slopes in bedrock, such as along
               roads, would be left as near vertical walls
               during operations to minimize the amount of
               disturbed land.  Material would be placed in
               these road cuts during reclamation to return
               these, as practical, to the slopes of the adjacent
               natural ground.

               Final grading of mine facilities, such as waste
               rock disposal areas and the tailings embankment
               outslopes, would create overall slopes that
               blend with the surrounding undisturbed
               topography and are generally between 2.5H:1 V
               to 3H:1 V except under Alternative B where they
               would generally be between 1.5H:1V and
               2H:1V.  Sharp edges would be rounded and
               straight lines would be softened to provide
               topography which blends with the surrounding
               terrain.  Small, irregular swales would be formed
               on the outslopes of the waste disposal areas
               during regrading to break up constant slopes
               and  straight lines.  These swales would also
               provide protected microsites on south faces for
               plant growth.

               Tailings Pond  Dewatering and Closure

               At the time of final mill decommissioning, some
               surface water would probably be impounded in
               the tailings disposal site. Prior to recontouring
               and  revegetation, the remaining water in the
               tailings impoundment would be eliminated. The
               deposition of this water would likely be  handled
               by evaporation through spraying on tailings
               beach areas.

               Topsoil

               Topsoil and cover soil suitable for revegetation
               would be salvaged and stockpiled prior to the
               initiation of mining operations.

               Topsoil salvage  would be conducted using
               dozers, front end loaders, scrapers,  haul trucks,
               and  other equipment, as appropriate.  The
               salvaged topsoil and cover  soil would be loaded
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 2-84
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
June  1995
and hauled to 1 of the designated stockpiles.
Stormwater runoff diversions would be
constructed around each stockpile to minimize
water erosion.  Certified noxious weed free hay
or straw bales, silt fences, or berms would be
used as necessary to control erosion from the
topsoil stockpiles. The topsoil stockpiles would
be revegetated with the interim seed mixture to
prevent erosion.

In order to maintain favorable microbial
conditions of replaced topsoil, the upper 2 to 3
feet of topsoil stockpiles may be removed and
temporarily stockpiled in a previously disturbed
adjacent area.  This surficial topsoil would be
applied as a thin layer over all topsoiled areas
during reclamation using a process that would
evenly spread the microbially active topsoil
layer. Gentler slopes would require less soil
than steeper slopes to achieve successful
revegetation and  would be given higher priority
for replacement of topsoil.

Gentler slopes, except the tailings pond, would
generally have  12 inches of soil applied while
steeper slopes would have 18 inches of soil
applied.

Fertilization

As necessary, fertilization would be used in the
revegetation plan to provide an initial source of
nutrients for establishment of the plant
community.  Fertilizer recommendations, by an
agency approved soil scientist, would be based
on the soil testing, the nutrient requirements of
species to be planted, the effectiveness of
fertilizers on a given soil type, depth of plant
growth layer, pH  and measured nutrient
deficiencies of the soils.

Cultural Treatments

Cultural treatments refer to soil-modification
practices that create more favorable conditions
to facilitate plant  growth by:

1)      Initiating and maintaining a stable soil
        system;
2)      Reducing erosion of surface soils;
3)      Increasing soil moisture and  reducing
        evaporative losses;
4)      Extending the season of seeding by
        moderating local microclimates;
                   5)      Modifying microenvironments to create
                           a more diverse plant community; and,
                   6)      Providing for the restoration of soil
                           microbial populations.

                   Typical cultural treatments that can be used to
                   facilitate plant community development include
                   soil ripping, tilling, harrowing, seedbed
                   preparation, and erosion control measures.
                   Mine areas which are compacted (i.e., roads,
                   level surfaces on waste rock disposal areas, and
                   mill facilities), would be ripped to a depth of
                   approximately 18 inches to loosen the plant
                   rooting zone and create an adhesive surface for
                   the topsoil application.  Where possible and
                   needed, ripping on all reclaimed slopes would
                   occur parallel to the contours.  On  steeper
                   slopes that have subsoil compaction, ripping
                   would occur perpendicular to the contours and a
                   chain drag would be attached behind the ripper
                   to eliminate furrows.

                   Revegetation

                   Species Selection. The species mixture  chosen
                   for revegetation would be designed to provide a
                   stable environment that is capable  of supporting
                   premining land uses of timber production,
                   livestock grazing, wildlife habitat, and dispersed
                   recreation use.  The first objective  of
                   revegetation would be to provide immediate soil
                   stabilization to prevent erosion. The second
                   objective of revegetation would be to establish
                   a self-sustaining biotic community  comparable
                   to what currently exists on the site.

                   Seeding and Planting. Seeding  activities for
                   grasses and shrubs would be conducted in the
                   fall at the conclusion of regrading,  placement of
                   topsoil,  fertilization, and seedbed preparation to
                   take advantage of winter and spring moisture.
                   Grass and shrub seeding are most  effective
                   when completed prior to the period of peak
                   precipitation.  Seeded shrubs and grasses would
                   be planted to take advantage of late fall  and
                   spring moisture conditions.  Planting of trees
                   and shrubs would take place in the spring.  If
                   seeding or planting is unsuccessful, follow-up
                   applications in the next appropriate season
                   would occur until revegetation is successful.

                   The surface of the prepared seedbed would be
                   left relatively rough to create microsites  to
                   facilitate burial of seed and establishment of
                   seedlings. Grass and shrub seed would be
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-85
broadcast with a cyclone-type broadcaster
where possible and, if necessary, inaccessible
slopes would be hydroseeded.  Broadcast
seeding techniques would be used to create a
more natural-appearing plant community. The
seedbed would be harrowed or dragged
following seeding to ensure proper seed burial,
if necessary.

Tree and shrub seedlings would be planted
randomly over the entire site at approximately
250 trees and 400 shrubs per acre except under
Alternative B where 50 - 100 trees per acre
would be planted in clumps. On south aspects,
clumps  of approximately 20-25 seedlings, with
4 to 5 clumps per acre would be planted.  Tree
and shrub seedlings would be planted from
containerized stock.

Mulch Application   Mulch would be applied to
seeded  areas after seeding to facilitate plant
establishment and to protect the seeded areas
from wind and water erosion until the plants
have stabilized the  soil.

Cattle Exclosures.  Fencing  would be left
in-place to exclude cattle from reclaimed areas,
until the revegetation success standards have
been attained, an estimated 10 years.

2.11.5  Reclamation Guarantees

The statutory and regulatory authority of the
Forest Service, BLM, WADOE, and WADNR
would require the Proponent to execute a
financial assurance agreement as part of any
permit and plan approvals from these agencies.
The agreement(s) would need to ensure that
sufficient funds would be available to properly
reclaim  the areas disturbed  at the Crown Jewel
operation in the event that the Proponent would
be unable to meet its reclamation obligations.

No mining or milling operations can commence
without approval of the permits and  plans by
the previously mentioned agencies and the
execution of financial assurance agreement(s)
for sufficient reclamation funds to the agencies
responsible for decommissioning and
reclamation of the Crown Jewel Project.  At this
time, it  has not been determined how many
performance securities would be required, or if
the Forest Service, BLM, WADOE, and WADNR
would work together on determining the method
or manner of a reclamation  guarantee for the
              Crown Jewel mining and milling activities, and
              who would hold that assurance.

              2.12    MANAGEMENT AND MITIGATION

              Management and mitigation practices at the
              proposed Crown Jewel Project would be based
              on federal, state, and local  laws and regulations,
              current technology, best management practices,
              and company policies. The purpose of these
              practices would be to reduce or avoid adverse
              impacts to the environment and to reclaim
              disturbed areas.  Enforcement of management
              and mitigation measures would be the
              responsibility of the agencies issuing permits
              and approvals for the Project. This section is a
              summary of management and mitigation
              practices that would be applied based on
              applicable State and Federal regulations or
              agreed to previously by the Proponent to the
              Crown Jewel Project under all action
              alternatives.

              Project activities are reviewed, controlled and/or
              regulated by a number of federal, state, and
              local agencies.  Each agency enforces laws and
              regulations particular to their mission.  A
              number of agencies, would be involved in
              regulating various aspects of the Crown Jewel
              Project (water discharge, reclamation, air
              emissions, wetlands, etc.). Some aspects, such
              as wetlands, are regulated by multiple agencies
              (EPA, the Corps of Engineers, WADOE, Forest
              Service,  etc.).  Management and mitigation
              measures are considered in predicting
              environmental consequences and assessing
              Project impacts and are an  integral part of each
              alternative.

              This section describes measures and techniques
              that would be required to lessen or eliminate
              impacts  of the proposed action alternatives.  It
              includes  a discussion of management
              requirements that would be required of the mine
              operator, assuming that 1 of the action
              alternatives is selected. In  addition to the
              management and mitigation measures described
              in this section,  there are environmental
              requirements associated with various permits,
              licenses, approvals, and financial assurance
              necessary for the Project. Further, many
              agencies have environmental performance
              standards and guidelines that must be met by
              the operation but for which there are no permit
              or license requirements.
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 2-86
                 CHAPTER 2 - AL
Environmental management and mitigation
measures are designed to ensure that
environmental impacts are minimized during the
construction and operation of the Crown Jewel
Project.  The  activities would also be designed
such that the site would be reclaimed to a
productive use following closure  and
decommissioning.  Implementation of these
measures would enhance the Project's ability to
operate in an  environmentally sound manner.

The effects of the proposed alternatives on the
environment are described in Chapter 4. For the
action alternatives, that description is
dependent, in part, on the management and
mitigation programs proposed for the Project.  If
the No Action Alternative is selected,
management  and mitigation outlined here would
not be required.  Instead, the reclamation plans
already approved by the Forest Service  and BLM
for Project exploration activities would be
implemented.  If an action alternative is
selected, the  Proponent must acquire the
permits summarized in Chapter 1  prior to
initiating Project construction and operation.

The management requirements and mitigation
measures found in this section were either
proposed by the Proponent, required by state or
federal regulations, or were developed to
respond to impacts identified  in the EIS process.

A rating system, described below and in
"General Water Quality Best Management
Practices" (Forest Service, 1988, pp 6 & 7) was
used to determine the operator's  probable
effectiveness  in achieving the mitigation
measures objectives.
Effectiveness
High:
Moderate:
Low:
Would achieve the desired
results more than 90% of the
time, and this is documented or
obviously so;

Between 75 and 90%
effective, or logic dictates that
it is more than 90% effective,
but no documentation exists;

Effectiveness is unknown or
unverified, or is estimated to
be effective less than 75% of
the time.
."• • ,  !   Air Quality

All applicable state and federal air quality
standards must be met, which would require
BACT (Best Available Control Technology) to
control emissions as part of the WADOE Notice
of Construction, Air Quality Permit.  The
crushing system would be constructed below
the surface (except in Alternative C) and would
be equipped with dust suppression systems at
the crushing plant, and water sprays at the
crushers and transfer points.  The ore reclaim
feeders  would use baghouse type dust
collectors.

Dust collectors would be  provided for the
cement  and lime bins as well as the refinery
furnace.

Effectiveness:  High

Dust suppression programs would be required
for haul roads  which would involve periodic
watering to control fugitive dust generation and
a chemical treatment or paving of roads.  The
main access road would be chip-sealed or
paved.   A mine water truck would run
periodically,  as needed, over the roads,  wetting
down any dusty conditions.  Roads in the
mining  operation would be maintained regularly
by a  motor grader to remove any rock, silt, or
any other debris.  Smooth and clean road
surfaces are essential for not only minimizing
dust  but also for allowing efficient, safe and
economic use  of haulage  equipment.

Effectiveness:  Moderate

The mine operator would provide busing or van
pooling for employees and otherwise minimize
traffic to the site. If 80% compliance of
workers with busing or van pooling is not
achieved on  National Forest roads, the mine
operator could provide incentives to workers to
use this system.

Effectiveness:  Moderate

Slash burning, during clearing operations, would
have to comply with WADNR burning permit
requirements.

Effectiveness:  High
                    Crown Jewel Mine +  Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-87
 2.12.2  Heritage Resources

 Heritage resources identified during pre-Project
 baseline surveys would be protected through
 avoidance, where possible, and data recovery
 where it is not possible to avoid identified sites.
 If additional heritage resources are identified
 during Project activities, the plans of operation
 would require protection and possible work
 stoppages until the site can be evaluated and
 appropriate resource protective measures
 developed and implemented per the
 Memorandum of Agreement between the State
 Historic Preservation Office and the Forest
 Service/BLM.

 Effectiveness:  High

 2.12.3  Cyanide and Other Chemicals

 Hazardous chemicals would be transported  via
 U.S. Department of Transportation certified
 containers and transporters. Transportation of
 sodium cyanide and other chemical reagents
 would comply with Department of
 Transportation, the Occupational Safety and
 Health Administration (OSHA)  and Mine Safety
 and Health Administration (MSHA) rules and
 regulations.

 Specific procedures would be used for the
 transportation, storage, and handling of sodium
 cyanide, lime, cement and other hazardous
 chemicals.  Personnel transporting these
 substances would be trained in emergency
 procedures and carry emergency response plans
 during the transport. The  transport trucks
 would be equipped with VHP radios for
 communication. All handling and storage of
 these chemicals would occur only in designated
 areas.  These areas would be specifically
 designed for these chemicals.  Personnel
 working with sodium cyanide and other
 potentially hazardous chemicals would be
 specially trained.  In addition to alarms and
 safety devices, various equipment and materials
 necessary to safely handle the  sodium cyanide
and other hazardous chemicals and deal with
emergencies would be maintained on-site by the
operator.

Effectiveness:  High

Fuel and other petroleum products at the site
would be stored in above ground tanks
              surrounded by designed and approved
              containment structures. The operator would
              develop a Spill Prevention Control and
              Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan for the operation
              as required by Federal Oil Spill Prevention
              Regulation (40 CFR 112) of the Environmental
              Protection Agency (EPA).

              Effectiveness: High

              Bioassay testing of the mine tailings to
              determine if it would designate as dangerous
              waste will be completed prior to issuance of the
              final EIS.  If the tailings designate as dangerous
              waste, changes to the Project and additional
              environmental analysis would be required.

              It may be possible to change the Project so the
              tailings would not designate.  For example,
              additional tailings (pre)treatment steps may be
              possible.  If changes are proposed, additional
              environmental review would be  required.  The
              amount of review would depend upon the
              magnitude and significance of the changes to
              the proposal.

              Effectiveness: High

              2.12.4  Spill  Prevention, Hazardous Materials,
                      Fire Prevention and First Aid

              These measures are intended to prevent
              spills/accidental releases and if a release occurs-
              minimize the impact with quick responses,
              trained personnel, and appropriate accessible
              clean-up equipment.

              The Proponent would maintain detailed plans for
              spill prevention and control of hazardous
              materials. These plans would become part of
              the Forest Service and BLM Plans of Operation
              prior to beginning any transport or storage of
              fuels, flammable liquids, and hazardous or toxic
              materials. These plans would also describe the
              toxic or hazardous materials to be utilized at the
              site, how they are transported, stored, and used
              along with methods of disposal.  The Proponent
              would describe the emergency procedures,
              equipment and personnel that would be used to
              respond to an accidental spill on the site.  It
              would describe the spill response training of
              appropriate company employees, subcontractors
              and their employees.
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 2-88
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIVES
June 1995
These plans would describe the monitoring
procedures to ensure the following: that all
storage and containment facilities meet the
prescribed standards; that emergency first aid
and spill response materials are available and
stored  in the proper place; and that
communications equipment is in working order.
Spot inspections of these procedures and
equipment would be completed throughout the
year by agency personnel.

A minimum of 4 plans would be required of the
Proponent under different regulatory authorities.
A brief description  of these plans follow:

1.     A Spill Prevention Control and
      Countermeasures Plan (SPCC), as
      required by the EPA under 40 CFR Part
       112, would  be prepared by the
      Proponent and address design standards
      including spill containment features for
      fuel and other petroleum product storage
      facilities, and appropriate response
      strategies in the event of a fuel or other
      petroleum product spill.

      The SPCC Plan would be prepared  in
      accordance with good engineering
      practices and with the full approval of
       management at a level  with authority to
      commit the necessary resources,
       manpower, equipment and materials.
      The complete SPCC Plan would include a
       discussion of the facility's conformance
       with the appropriate guidelines including:

       •     Where experience indicates a
            reasonable potential for equipment
            failure (such as a tank overflow,
            rupture or leakage), the plan
            should contain a  prediction of the
            direction, rate of flow, and total
            quantity of petroleum which could
            be discharged from the facility as
            a result of each major type of
            failure.

       •     Appropriate containment and/or
            diversionary structures or
            equipment to prevent the
            discharge of oil from reaching a
            navigable water course should be
            provided.
                         A Hazardous Material Handling Plan
                         would be developed with guidance from
                         the WADOE.  This plan would address
                         handling techniques and emergency
                         response strategies for hazardous
                         materials (cyanide, cement, lime, etc.) to
                         be used at the Project site.  The Plan
                         would list potential health hazard
                         materials to be used and stored on the
                         Project site along with the  applicable
                         Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) for
                         each substance.  Onsite handling,
                         storage, and inspection procedures would
                         be documented.  Emergency response
                         procedures would be included.

                         The Project facilities would be developed
                         to have sufficient secondary containment
                         structures in areas where potentially
                         hazardous materials would be stored or
                         used. All areas of the Project with
                         process water solutions would be lined
                         and graded to drain to the  tailings
                         disposal facility.  Immediate, temporary
                         containments or berms to prevent the
                         migration of  a spill, as well as other
                         means of neutralization or  treatment
                         would be used in the event of a spill. If a
                         spill occurs involving process waters
                         escaping the containment facilities, or
                         synthetically lined areas, additional steps
                         outlined in the Plan would  be taken.  An
                         example  of the type of steps that could
                         be taken is included in the  Proponent's
                         Plan of Operations (BMGC, 1993a).

                         A Transportation Spill Response Plan
                         would be required by the Forest Service
                         for transport of hazardous  materials  on
                         Forest roads.  It would be  incorporated
                         into the Forest Service Road Use Permit
                         which would be required as part of the
                         Forest Service Plan of Operation for  the
                         Crown Jewel Project.  Under the terms of
                         this plan, suppliers of hazardous material
                         would  be required to submit spill
                         response plans which describe the
                         procedures,  equipment and personnel
                         which would be used  in case of a spill
                         during transport.  Suppliers of hazardous
                         materials or  petroleum products would be
                         required  to comply with a  Transportation
                         Spill Response Plan  insofar as it affects
                         any part of their operation.
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-89
4.    A Fire Protection and Suppression Plan
      would be maintained for the Crown
      Jewel Project. The fire codes and
      standards of the WADNR would apply.
      The Proponent would comply with Forest
      Service and WADNR procedures for
      protecting against starting wildfires and
      procedures for assuring suppression of
      accidental wildfires.  All equipment and
      vehicles would meet fire preparedness
      requirements during the proclaimed fire
      season.

      A designated Forest Service/BLM
      representative would conduct an annual
      inspection plus spot inspections of the
      Proponent's fire cache, and mufflers and
      spark arresters.  This designated
      representative would annually review a
      fire plan for the Crown Jewel Project to
      ensure its appropriateness.

Effectiveness:  High

Pilot vehicles would be identified with approved
signing and lighting. They would be equipped
with VHF radios for emergency use only and CB
radios for vehicle to vehicle communication.
The VHF radios would be capable of
communicating with the Okanogan County
Sheriffs Office or with someone who can
communicate with the Sheriffs Office.

First aid and containment equipment would be
carried in vehicles piloting hazardous materials
and petroleum products along with a copy of
the most recent spill response plan.  Pilot
vehicle drivers would complete spill response
and safety training, prior to piloting hazardous
materials and at least once annually thereafter.

Effectiveness:  Moderate

The Proponent would ensure that
representatives of the suppliers and/or
transporters of the hazardous reagents and fuel
used at the Crown Jewel Project or the
Proponent would provide appropriate spill
response and materials  handling training to the
local sheriffs and fire departments.

Effectiveness:  Moderate

Monthly, the Proponent would review:
              •     Storage and containment facilities to
                    ensure they are maintained to standards
                    adequate to contain spills;
              •     Emergency first aid and spill response
                    materials to see that they are current and
                    stored in the proper place;
              •     Radio communication equipment to see
                    that it is in working order; and.

              The Proponent would document the results of
              this monthly review to ensure that emergency
              response requirements are being  met.

              Effectiveness: Moderate

              The transportation plan would schedule the
              transportation of hazardous supplies or
              petroleum products to consider school bus
              schedules on Okanogan County and Forest
              roads.

              Effectiveness: Moderate

              The Proponent would maintain the necessary
              personnel and equipment to respond to fires
              and/or medical emergencies at the mine site.

              The Proponent would meet with the appropriate
              local authorities to discuss coordinated
              responses to Project related vehicle or other
              emergencies on Okanogan County and Forest
              roads within the area. The Proponent may
              maintain their own land based emergency
              transport service from the mine to a local
              medical facility.  The Proponent may make an
              agreement for "Life Flight" services to allow
              rapid transport in the case of extreme
              emergencies. The company would designate
              and maintain a helicopter landing site at the
              mine property.

              Effectiveness: Moderate

              2.12.5   Geochemistry - Acid or  Toxic Forming
                       Capability

              During operations, water collected in the mine
              pit would be tested for acid drainage indicators
              and for  blasting efficiency by the operator. Any
              water discharged from the mine pit must meet
              WADOE water quality permit requirements.
              Appropriate treatment would be required for any
              water that does not meet permit requirements.

              Effectiveness:  High
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 2-90
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIVES
June 1995
Water that contacts or drains from ore
stockpiles, waste rock,  overburden piles, or
onsite haul roads that are constructed from
waste rock would be collected and tested for
compliance with WADOE permits by the
operator.  Any water discharged from these
sites must meet WADOE water quality permit
requirements.  Appropriate treatment would  be
required for any water that does not meet
permit requirements.

Effectiveness:  High

The operator would maintain a water quality
monitoring program in surface water drainages
and ground water monitoring wells, as
necessary, to identify potential adverse impacts
due to the Project.   Most of the current
sampling points would continue to be used;
some additional sampling points may be
necessary depending on the final Project  design.

Effectiveness:  High

The operator would conduct geochemical
analysis of waste rock during operations  to
identify potential acid generating rock material.
Such materials would be encapsulated with acid
neutralizing rock material, mixed with acid
neutralizing material, mixed with lime, or other
appropriate measures to ensure that acid
drainage does not occur from waste rock piles.

Effectiveness:  High

During operations,  the operator would conduct
routine geochemical analyses of water
discharged into the tailings impoundment and
water in the tailings seepage collection system.
During closure, the operator would collect
geochemical samples of interstitial pore fluid
within the tailings for comparison with
geochemical baseline studies and operational
analyses.  Changes in the geochemical
character  of the tailings that have the potential
to cause adverse environmental impacts  may
require treatment or other mitigation response.

Effectiveness:  High

2.12.6   Geology and Geotechnical

The waste rock stockpiles, the tailings facility
and the mine pit would be required to be
maintained in a stable manner, both  during
                  operations and in the long-term following
                  Project decommissioning and reclamation.  The
                  minimum static safety factor for the waste rock
                  stockpiles and tailings embankments would be
                  determined as part of the permits and approvals
                  granted by the Forest Service, BLM, WADOE,
                  and WADNR.  As necessary, slope angles would
                  be reduced to increase  waste rock  stockpile
                  stability.

                  Effectiveness: Moderate

                  Fencing and warning signs would be posted
                  around potential surface subsidence features
                  during operations and reclamation.  These
                  fences will be maintained by the  Proponent for
                  at least 10 years after the completion of
                  reclamation.

                  Effectiveness: Moderate

                  2.12.7   Land Use

                  The Proponent would minimize disturbance by
                  maintaining a compact  operation. Vegetation
                  would be cleared only in those areas necessary
                  for mining and milling activities.  Timber and
                  vegetation would be left wherever  possible.
                  Erosion and sediment control measures such as
                  sediment collection ponds, segmental
                  reclamation, and temporary revegetation would
                  be implemented  to prevent downstream impacts
                   Effectiveness:  Moderate

                   Certain existing water source developments
                   used by livestock would be inside the fenced
                   area surrounding the mining and milling
                   activities. Where this occurs, the Proponent
                   would work with the Forest Service,  the BLM
                   and the livestock grazing permittees to find and
                   develop replacement water sources for
                   livestock. Perimeter fences would be
                   maintained by the Proponent during the life of
                   the mine and for 10 years after the
                   commencement of reclamation unless otherwise
                   determined by the agencies. Controlled grazing
                   inside  the fences may be permitted to reduce
                   competition between grasses and planted trees.

                   Effectiveness:  Moderate
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-91
2.12.8   Noise

The operator would comply with all state and
Okanogan County health and safety
requirements pertaining to noise generation.
MSHA governs worker health and safety which
includes requiring noise protection for workers
in high noise areas.

Effectiveness:  Moderate

Noise would be monitored at Chesaw.  In the
event of routine exceedences of greater than 5
dBA above ambient from the mine (excluding
blasting), then mitigation would be
implemented. The haul trucks, bulldozers,
loaders and  graders used for the  Crown Jewel
Project would be purchased or retrofitted with a
"quiet package" consisting of lower-speed fans
and special noise  barriers along the engine
compartment.  Commercially available "ambient
sensitive" backup alarms would be used on all
equipment to continuously adjust the volume of
back-up alarms so that the alarms are only as
loud as necessary based on the ambient noise in
the work area (about 5 dBA above the ambient
noise level).  Exhaust fan noise from any
underground mining would be reduced by
providing a silencer, diffuser or sound absorbing
materials which would lower the noise level
from the fan.

Effectiveness:  Moderate

2.12.9  Permitting and Financial Assurances

Federal mining laws authorize  mineral
exploration and development on Federal Lands.
State and federal environmental laws are
designed and implemented to minimize adverse
impacts and to promote reclamation such that
future long-term productivity of the surface
resources is maintained to the extent
practicable.

The Proponent must obtain any required
approvals and permits from the federal, state,
and local agencies.  Approval of the Plans of
Operation by the Forest Service and BLM is
required prior to beginning any mining and
milling activities on federal lands.

The Proponent would prepare and submit
comprehensive mine site design plans prior to
approval of the Plans of Operations.  These
              plans, at a minimum, would show mine layout;
              dimensions of the buildings and other
              structures; volumes and cross sections of cuts
              and fills; location and dimensions of the tailings
              impoundment; water storage ponds; sediment
              catchment channels and ponds; fence  lines;
              road ingress and egress; waste
              rock stockpiles and reclamation  timing; and
              other details as needed.

              Compliance with the approved Plans of
              Operation would be conditioned upon
              compliance with the terms of the other federal
              and state permits which govern the proposed
              actions of the Crown Jewel mining and milling.

              Effectiveness: Moderate

              The Proponent would bond for reclamation
              before operations can begin. The regulations of
              the Forest Service, BLM, WADOE, and WADNR
              require that the Proponent submit a reclamation
              bond (financial surety) to ensure that adequate
              reclamation and restoration of the land is
              achieved following mining and milling activities.
              A bond would provide the government with
              sufficient funds to reclaim the site,  and provide
              environmental protection should the Proponent
              fail to do so.  The WADOE and/or WADNR
              would hold the Washington State required
              financial assurances. The financial assurances
              would not be released without the consent of
              both the  WADOE and WADNR.  Either  the
              Forest Service and/or BLM would hold  the
              required Federal reclamation bonds. The bonds
              would not be released without the consent of
              both agencies.

              RCW 78.56 requires the Proponent to provide
              financial assurance that would support long-
              term monitoring for water quality following mine
              closure and for clean-up of potential problems
              revealed during or after closure.

              Effectiveness: Moderate

              2.12.10  Recreation

              Only authorized travel would be  allowed into the
              Crown Jewel operation.  No unauthorized
              vehicles or personnel would be permitted on the
              site.  Plans would be implemented to control
              public access such as fencing and posting to
              prohibit unauthorized entry to hazardous areas.
              However, these plans would provide for
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 2-92
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIVES
June 1995
administrative traffic, as well as access for
Forest permittees, contractors or operators.
Public and administrative access on the closed
portions of Forest Service and BLM Roads
would be re-established, as directed,  after the
Crown Jewel Project has been completed.

Effectiveness: Moderate

There would be no hunting or fishing allowed
inside the fenced enclosure. The possession of
firearms, the discharging of firearms, and
hunting would be prohibited within the areas
fenced around the mine area and facilities.

Effectiveness: High

2.12.11  Socioeconomics

The Proponent would work with local
educational institutions to help provide local
employees trained to work at the Project. The
Proponent would maximize local hiring, as
practicable, by employing local contractors  and
workers, using the local job service center and
only going outside the local area to hire if an
adequate pool of candidates can not  be
generated.

Effectiveness: Moderate

If necessary, the Proponent would work with
local real estate  representatives, lending
institutions, and builders to encourage the local
housing market to appropriately respond to
possible new housing demand as a result of
mine worker in-migration and for local
businesses to provide facilities for  temporary
workers during the mine construction phase.

Effectiveness: Moderate

2.12.12 Soils

Recover soil material from the areas  of Project
disturbance in sufficient quantities to achieve
the reclamation  plan objectives.  The soil
removal plans would be subject to the
reclamation plan approvals from the  Forest
Service, BLM, and WADNR. Soil material,  up to
5% of total volume, could be augmented
through the addition of wood chips from land
clearing or the use of bio-solids.

Effectiveness:  Moderate
                   Measure microbial activity in topsoil prior to re-
                   distribution.  Inoculate topsoil if needed.

                   Effectiveness:  Moderate

                   A soil salvage and handling plan would be
                   developed which would  include the salvage and
                   reapplication of all suitable soil materials.
                   Appropriate seed and planting mixtures and
                   mulching would be used for stabilization of the
                   site. Revegetation test plots would be installed
                   at the proposed waste rock stockpile and
                   tailings facilities to determine appropriate soil
                   replacement depths and vegetation species.  If
                   test plot results indicate that the chemical or
                   physical nature of the tailings or waste rock
                   material promotes the degradation of applied
                   soil, or reduces the  potential for revegetation
                   success, techniques would be developed to
                   address this problem during segmental
                   reclamation.

                   Effectiveness:  Moderate

                   As  appropriate, suitable soils from quarries,
                   borrow areas,  powerline access roads, diversion
                   ditches, water pipelines, and the tailings slurry
                   pipeline would be windrowed and stabilized
                   adjacent to each disturbance area until
                   reclamation operations for these disturbances
                   begins.

                   2.12.13  Surface Water and Ground Water -
                            Quality and Quantity

                   Surface water control and handling would be an
                   important part of the Crown Jewel operation.
                   Special care would  be taken to minimize or
                   eliminate erosion and subsequent downstream
                   sedimentation.

                   The Forest Service would require best
                   management practices for erosion and sediment
                   control (Forest Service,  1988).

                   The following  techniques would be used to
                   minimize erosion and sedimentation:

                   •       Vegetation would be removed only
                            from those areas to be directly
                            affected by Project activities. Other
                            areas would not be cleared.
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4  Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-93
•        Primary soil removal activities would
         be scheduled for the dry months to
         reduce the potential for erosion and
         high soil losses.

•        Cut and fill slopes for service and
         access roads would be designed to
         prevent soil erosion.  Drainage ditches
         with cross drains would  be
         constructed where necessary.
         Disturbed slopes would be
         revegetated, mulched or otherwise
         stabilized to  minimize erosion.

•        Road embankment slopes would be
         graded and revegetated to prevent
         erosion, as practicable.

•        Runoff from  roads, buildings, and
         other structures would be handled
         through best management practices,
         including sediment traps, settling
         ponds, berms,  sediment filter fabric,
         etc. Design  of these features would
         be based upon an analysis of local
         hydrologic conditions.

•        Off-road vehicle travel would be
         avoided.

•        During tailings  impoundment
         construction and operation,  diversions
         would be constructed  around affected
         areas to minimize erosion.

•        The tailings pipeline berms would be
         revegetated after pipeline installation.

•        Incidental precipitation falling on the
         construction site would be collected in
         temporary infiltration basins or
         sediment sumps, thus preventing
         sedimentation of downstream water
         resources.

•        A number of management practices
         including check dams, dispersion
         terraces and  filter fences would be
         used during the construction and
         operational phases of the Project.

Effectiveness: Moderate

A network of surface water monitoring stations
in the drainages surrounding the Crown Jewel
               Project would be monitored to permit timely
               detection of potential water quality problems
               resulting from construction or operation of
               Project facilities.  Should substantial
               sedimentation occur, construction and
               operational activities responsible for the
               sedimentation would be suspended or modified,
               and additional actions would  be implemented to
               reduce sediment delivery.

               Effectiveness:  Moderate

               Erosion control for permanent roads would be
               incorporated into their design.  This control
               would include best management practices as
               designated by the Forest Service, WADOE,
               BLM, and the WADNR.  The following control
               measures would be used:

               •       Avoid excessive clearing in areas
                       adjacent to drainage channels.

               •       Minimize cut and fill slope length.

               •       Minimize cut and fill slope steepness
                       (percent slope) to no greater than
                       1.33H:1V.

               •       Minimize the number of stream
                       channel crossings.

               •       Utilize appropriate road surface and
                       bedding materials.

               •       Minimize disturbance to vegetation.

               •       Implement  revegetation  and
                       reclamation for long-term stability of
                       cut and fill  slopes.

               •       Provide adequate roadside and roadbed
                       drainage.

               Effectiveness:  Moderate

               Following the construction of roads,  roadsides
               would be stabilized by 1 or more  of the
               following techniques:

               •       Mulch, fertilize and  reseed during the
                       first planting season following
                       construction. All of these measures
                       would be repeated each year until
                       reseeding and stabilization is
                       effectively implemented.
                    Crown Jewel Mine f  Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 2-94
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
June 1995
•        Riprap steep slopes where storm water
         runoff would concentrate.

•        Replace removed soil.

Effectiveness: Moderate

Drainage from upland watersheds would be
routed around waste rock disposal areas to
minimize contact.  Sediment pond embankments
would be stabilized with vegetation or rock
cover as soon as practicable after construction
to provide for erosion protection.

Effectiveness: Moderate

Diversion ditches would be installed to divert
runoff away from disturbed and cleared areas.
Diversion ditches would be maintained,  as
necessary during the life of the operation.
Newly constructed diversion channels would be
protected after construction with riprap, or
other temporary or permanent erosional
structures, or revegetated to minimize
downstream sediment loading.

Effectiveness: Moderate

The concentrations of cyanide in the effluent
discharged to the tailings impoundment would
be stipulated as part of the State Waste
Discharge Permit that would be issued by
WADOE, but the level would be no greater than
10 mg/l WAD cyanide.

Effectiveness: High

The tailings disposal facility would be designed
and operated as a closed circuit, zero-discharge
system consisting of a geomembrane lined
impoundment and a lined reclaim solution
collection pond in compliance with the 1994
Washington State Metal Mining and Milling Act.
The facility would be constructed with at least a
composite liner system consisting of a primary
geomembrane with a secondary low-
permeability soil liner with lower than 10~6
cm/sec permeability. The tailings disposal
facility would be drained using a basin drain
layer to minimize head on the liners.  (This
design would not be required in Alternative G).

The mine operator would maintain a water
balance to account for water use and discharge.
                   If monitoring wells detect leakage from this
                   facility, mitigation measures such as pump-back
                   of ground and/or surface water into the tailings
                   facility, or other appropriate measures would be
                   taken to stop or mitigate leakage.

                   Effectiveness:  High

                   To the extent permitted by any water rights, the
                   mine operator would minimize water discharges
                   and withdrawals by recycling water collected in
                   the mine, process water, and site sediment
                   control sediment control systems.  Water
                   discharged from the site would meet all
                   applicable state and federal water quality
                   standards.

                   Effectiveness:  High

                   2.12.14 Transportation

                   Sufficient storage room would be provided for
                   snow removal adjacent to National Forest
                   roadways. Snow would be removed or plowed
                   regularly by the Proponent to minimize  snow
                   packing and interference with day to day
                   activities. Road sanding would avoid the use of
                   salt to the extent practical.  II salt is used, it
                   would be preferable to use potassium chloride.

                   Effectiveness:  Moderate

                   The Proponent would maintain an office for
                   most personnel and purchasing requirements
                   away from the mine site.  The purpose of this
                   office would be to reduce the number of visits
                   to the Crown Jewel operation by vendor and
                   supplier representatives.

                   Effectiveness:  Moderate

                   An attempt  would be made to limit supply
                   deliveries to the site to daylight hours except
                   during spring break-up when travel may be
                   allowed at night on frozen roads to reduce the
                   amount of hazardous  materials  and petroleum
                   products that must be stored at the site, except
                   in emergency situations.  A pilot car would be
                   used to escort  trucks carrying hazardous
                   materials and petroleum products past  Beth and
                   Beaver Lakes or through the town of Chesaw to
                   the mine site.  A pilot car would assure that
                   transports stay within the posted speed limits.
                   Effectiveness:  Moderate
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4  Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-95
The Proponent's Forest Road Use Permit would
include the following provisions:

•        Any upgrades on Forest roads for
         access to the Project site would meet
         Forest Service standards (FSH
         7709.56 Road  Preconstruction
         Handbook) specifications for road
         width, grade, alignment, drainage,
         quality control, gross vehicle weights
         and signing. Exceptions to these
         standards may be used  only with
         Forest Service approval.

•        Most mine employees would be bused
         to the site.  A busing plan would
         address  participation percentages and
         would discuss personnel that would
         not be bused to the site. There would
         be an effort made to bus the
         construction work force to the site.
         Adequate parking would not be
         provided at the site for employees to
         drive their personal vehicles.

•        Contractors would comply with Forest
         Service,  Washington State, and
         Okanogan County rules  for oversize
         and overweight loads.

•        The Forest Service and  BLM must
         approve  location or design changes for
         access roads on Forest  Service or BLM
         managed lands.

•        The Proponent  would be responsible
         for maintaining all signs, fencing and
         other features of the mine safety and
         security  program.

•        The Proponent  would be responsible
         for deposits for deferred (non-routine)
         maintenance or for doing deferred road
         maintenance (such as surface rock,
         culvert or bridge replacement).  The
         Proponent would be responsible for
         recurrent (grading, cleaning culverts)
         maintenance as specified in the Forest
         Service and BLM Road Use Permits.

•        A designated Proponent representative
         and a Forest Service representative
         would periodically inspect supply
         transport trucks for noxious weeds,
         although this is not expected to be a
                       problem as supply trucks would be
                       confined to well maintained access
                       roads.  All construction equipment
                       moved to the site would be power
                       washed of dirt and debris prior to
                       arrival on the Project site to eliminate
                       the possibility that they are
                       transporting noxious weeds.

              Effectiveness:  Moderate

              For safety considerations,  Forest Road 3575-
              148 would be  closed to public access where it
              is near the west mine pit wall.

              Effectiveness:  High

              If County Road 9480 is used for transportation
              of materials in  the vicinity  of Beth and Beaver
              Lakes, the road junction with  Forest Road 32
              would be improved to increase safety. This
              would include  increased signing and sight
              distance.

              Effectiveness:  High

              2.12.15  Vegetation

              The Proponent would maintain a compact
              operation and  avoid, where possible, any
              sensitive habitats.

              Effectiveness:  Moderate

              Timber on areas scheduled for disturbance by
              mining operations would be paid for (except
              timber used in  mining operations) and cleared in
              accordance with Forest Service, BLM, and
              WADNR management requirements for timber
              harvesting.  Negotiated contracts for timber
              harvest would  be entered into with the
              appropriate agency. Timber to be removed
              would be designated by the appropriate agency
              representatives prior to removal.

              As applicable to the surface ownership,  plans
              for clearing and disposal of vegetation would be
              submitted prior to beginning operations, and
              each year thereafter for the next year's clearing
              requirements.  The areas to be cleared would be
              delineated on the ground to facilitate Forest
              Service, BLM,  and WADNR review, as
              appropriate. The Forest Service, BLM and
              WADNR would review these plans and specify
              the measures that would be needed to ensure
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 2-96
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIVES
June 1995
proper utilization of the timber, disposal of slash
and protection of the surface resources.

Volume estimation and payment would be
calculated by cruising or scaling. Slash and
unmerchantable timber would be chipped for
blending with salvaged topsoil (up to 5% of soil
by volume) and/or  piled for burning in locations
that would not cause damage to surrounding
vegetation.  The Proponent would burn
designated slash piles as directed by the Forest
Service and BLM, and allowed under regulations
of the WADNR.  The Forest Service and  BLM
would designate brush and log piles to be left
for wildlife habitat  or reclamation use. Debris
left from burning would be spread or buried
depending on the volume of material.

Effectiveness: Moderate

Certified weed-free mulch  and seed  mixtures
would  be use to promptly  reclaim disturbed
areas and  control noxious  weeds.

Effectiveness: Moderate

The Proponent would be responsible for noxious
weed control within the fenced perimeter. Hand
pulling, hand digging, and  non-persistent
herbicides would be used for the control of
noxious weeds, as approved in the Vegetation
Management Plan  for Noxious Weeds. Only
herbicides having Forest Service approval would
be used.

Effectiveness: Moderate

Plans would be developed for the final location
of powerlines and  roads to minimize the
disturbance and provide screening of the
facilities from view.

Effectiveness: Moderate

Interim revegetation would be carried out as
part of, and following, construction activities.
This revegetation would be conducted at areas
requiring immediate attention, particularly where
soil erosion and  sedimentation would need to be
reduced.

The ultimate goal of revegetation would be to
create a self-sustaining ecosystem.  The short-
term goal would be to return the disturbed areas
to a physically stabilized and vegetatively
productive condition following mining and
                   milling activities, and to ensure the long-term
                   protection of land and water resources in the
                   area. The purpose of interim revegetation
                   would be to stabilize the disturbed areas on a
                   continuing basis during the life of the mine. A
                   final revegetation plan for the  Crown Jewel
                   Project would be incorporated into the approved
                   Forest Service and BLM Plans of Operation and
                   various permit approvals from the WADOE,
                   WADNR and Corps of Engineers.

                   Effectiveness:  Moderate

                   2.12.16  Wetlands

                   Existing wetlands and other waters of the U.S.
                   regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water
                   Act would be affected if any of the action
                   alternatives are  implemented.  All waters of the
                   U.S. are accorded the full measure of protection
                   under the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines,
                   including requirements for appropriate
                   mitigation.  The determination of appropriate
                   mitigation is based solely on the functions  and
                   values of the aquatic resource that would be
                   impacted, with a national goal of no net loss of
                   wetland function and acreage.

                   The overall goal of mitigation will be to offset
                   the project's unavoidable adverse impacts to
                   aquatic resources. In addition to the overall
                   goal, aquatic resource mitigation plans will seek
                   to:

                   •        Provide replacement of in-kind
                            ecological functions  to the extent
                            possible.

                   •        Replace degraded  areas that are poorly
                            functioning or of low value with areas
                            of greater function and higher value.

                   •        Provide a range of habitat types to
                            accommodate wildlife species of
                            concern and other species with similar
                            habitat requirements.

                   •        Provide long-term  protection to
                            wetland and riparian areas such as
                            those  that may be threatened by
                            development or other intensive uses.

                   •        Conduct mitigation actions on sites
                            that are unlikely to be improved under
                            other regulatory programs or
                            management plans.
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-97
The basic criteria for selecting mitigation sites
will include:

•        Hydrology;
•        Topography;
•        Soils; and,
•        Management constraints.

Of these, establishing and maintaining the
appropriate hydrology is the most critical factor
in mitigation success. A reliable water source  is
essential, and the site's hydroperiod (the
periodic occurrence of flooding and/or soil
saturation) must be thoroughly understood.
Topography comes into play where steep terrain
or other conditions limit the size of the area that
can be adequately wetted,  or where a large
volume of excavation would be required to
shape the site. The soil's potential to pond or
drain water is a primary consideration,  and soil
types may affect plant survival and the species
that can  be grown at the site. Lastly, the
ownership and availability of the site, the ability
to manage on-site  and adjacent land uses, and
the ability to ensure the site's long-term
protection must be taken into consideration.

Buckhorn Mountain and adjacent areas have
been investigated to identify potential mitigation
sites.   Potential sites within or in the immediate
vicinity of the project area tend to  be limited by
the steep terrain and a scarcity of water, and
are  unlikely to yield sufficient acreage to
adequately mitigate aquatic impacts.  Under
current Forest Service and  BLM resource
management plans, it may  not be possible to
guarantee long-term protection of aquatic
mitigation sites located on federal lands in the
Buckhorn Mountain area.

The Myers Creek valley offers the potential for
mitigation sites in an area where homesite
development, agriculture, and other uses have
impacted or threatened riparian zones and
wetlands. In this semi-arid climate, wetlands
and riparian areas provide flood control, water
quality improvement, fish and wildlife habitat,
and other essential functions.  Mitigation
measures will  help to restore wetland and
riparian resources and protect them from the
adverse effects of  development and other uses.
Potential mitigation sites are located at Pine
Chee Springs and along sections of Myers
Creek.
               Pine Chee Springs

               The Pine Chee Springs site lies in a narrow,
               northwest-trending valley adjacent to the
               Oroville-Toroda Creek Road.  The stream at Pine
               Chee is a tributary to Myers Creek, although the
               stream disappears subsurface downstream of
               the mitigation site.  The site is approximately 29
               acres in size and comprises forested wetlands
               and pasture, as well as a small manmade pond
               maintained by a perennial stream.  The site
               supports populations of 2 State-designated
               sensitive plant species. It is privately owned
               and is used for grazing.  Livestock use of the
               site has resulted  in some bank trampling and
               distribution of weedy vegetation.

               Potential mitigation actions at the Pine Chee site
               include excavation to enlarge the area of
               emergent wetland and enhancing the existing
               pond with additional planting of native wetland
               species.  Additional riparian vegetation and
               habitat linkage could be developed between the
               pond and forested areas, and the overall
               functional effectiveness of the area could be
               improved by expanding the existing upland
               buffer zones. Other actions include weed
               control, fencing the site to limit livestock
               access, and providing interpretive and
               educational opportunities for the public.

               The Proponent has purchased the land and
               acquired timber rights to the property. Long-
               term protection of the site can be secured  by
               placing restrictions on the property deed,
               establishing a non-profit  maintenance
               corporation, conveying the property to a
               government body or conservation organization,
               or other means to establish a permanent
               wetlands  and wildlife reserve.

               Myers Creek

               Virtually all  of the land along Myers Creek is
               privately owned, and many reaches of the  creek
               have been affected by agriculture, grazing, and
               residential development.  In some areas,
               reduction or elimination of woody vegetation,
               bank erosion, and channel incision have resulted
               in impaired function of riparian areas and
               fragmented wildlife habitat.  In stretches along
               the creek where the riparian zone is more or
               less intact, new development and removal  of
               vegetated buffers may threaten the ecological
               function of those areas.
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 2-98
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIVES
  June 1995
Mitigation actions along Myers Creek would
focus on improving the functional condition of
degraded wetland/riparian areas, increasing
habitat diversity, and re-establishing habitat
connectivity. Potential actions cold include re-
establishment of woody riparian vegetation and
bank stabilization, channel stabilization,
enlarging existing riparian areas, and
establishing additional upland wildlife habitat.
Other actions include weed control and fencing
to limit livestock access.

Long-term protection can be secured through
property purchase, purchase of development
rights or conservation easements, placement of
deed restrictions, establishment of a non-profit
maintenance corporation, or the means.

Three potential wetland and wildlife mitigation
sites have been tentatively identified for
possible restoration:

•        Bear Trap Canyon;
•        Nicholson Creek Headwaters; and,
•        Frog Pond.

Final details of wetlands mitigation would be
determined in Corps of Engineer and WADOE
permits.

Bear Trap Canyon

The Bear Trap Canyon potential mitigation site
would offset tailings facility impacts to
wetlands, as well as general mine-development
impacts to the Gold Bowl drainage. Both the
impact and mitigation sites are similar in valley
shape, elevation, slope, flow regime,  and
potential natural vegetation cover.

This possible mitigation proposal would
accelerate recovery of Bear Trap Canyon and
eventually establish equilibrium conditions that
would be of maximum functional effectiveness.
Potential actions include:

•        Cattle exclusion from the entire
         headwater area and channel  system,
         including a buffer zone approximately
         300 feet wide on either side of the
         channel (600  feet total buffer width,
         approximately 110 total acres).  Water
         troughs would be provided outside the
         buffer. The fence and water troughs
         constructed to create this cattle
         exclusion would be maintained by the
                           Proponent for a period of not less than
                           20 years. The fence would be
                           constructed to avoid a cattle trap at
                           the bottom of Bear Trap  Canyon.

                           Reintroduction of woody debris to the
                           clearcut segments of the buffer and
                           stream areas. Woody material would
                           likely come from the area being
                           cleared for mining and milling and
                           would be placed with an excavator.

                           Additional plantings of shrubs and
                           trees to assure that eventual overstory
                           and shrub community composition and
                           structure  reflect natural patterns.

                           High-density hardwood plantings along
                           stream channels to reestablish riparian
                           interactions and moderate sediment
                           mobilization.

                           Selective  girdling of five-20 inch
                           diameter or larger, live trees per acre,
                           above the first whorl of limbs or at
                           least  40 feet above the ground, in the
                           remaining forest blocks to increase
                           snag  density and encourage
                           understory development  and uneven-
                           aged  forest structure.  Larch should be
                           selected  where possible, followed by
                           Douglas fir, if no larch are available.

                           Stock trails would be created on both
                           sides of this exclosure to ensure ease
                           of cattle  movement.  These trails
                           would be maintained by the Proponent
                           for not less than 20 years.

                           Obliteration of the Forest Road 3550
                           that parallels Bear Trap Creek, except
                           for the culverted creek crossing which
                           would be retained to allow cattle to
                           move across the valley without
                           entering the stream or the fenced
                           buffer zone.
                   Wildlife Effectiveness:  Moderate
                   Wetlands Functions Effectiveness:
Low
                   Nicholson Creek Headwaters Wetland (9 acre
                   wetland)

                   Several small wetlands and intermittent stream
                   segments would be impacted by mine-site
                   activities  such as road construction, ore
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
    CROWN JEWEL MINE
                                   Page 2-99
stockpiling, and waste rock disposal. The
functional significance of these areas is limited
to varying degrees by their isolation and periodic
heavy use by cattle.  However, they do have
notable wildlife habitat functions in that they
are reliable sources of water and harbor
sensitive plant species.  The proposed
mitigation would consist of restoration of these
wetlands communities through the following
actions:

•        A 300 foot buffer zone would be
         established around the wetland area,
         and the wetland and  buffer would be
         fenced to exclude grazing. The fence
         constructed to create this cattle
         exclosure would be maintained by the
         operator for a period  of not less than
         20 years. The tailings facility, topsoil
         stockpiles,  soil borrow pits and tailings
         pipelines  would encroach on the buffer
         during operation, but these areas
         would be included in  the buffer
         following reclamation.

•        A program  would be  conducted to
         identify effective ways to encourage
         aspen regeneration.

•        A replacement water source would be
         developed to compensate for the loss
         of this water source for cattle grazing.
Wildlife Effectiveness:  Moderate
Wetlands Functions Effectiveness:

Frog Pond
Low
The frog pond is a 1.6 acre impoundment
developed as a livestock watering facility.  The
pond  is shallow, less than 4 feet deep, with
very little open water, and has a diverse
emergent plant community.  It is nearly
surrounded by mature coniferous forest except
for about 300 feet of the northern shore, which
is an  open grassy area used heavily by cattle,
for a  dispersed hunters camp and adjacent to a
road.  The frog pond is 1 of the few open water
systems in the  Buckhorn Mountain area.
Functionally, the frog pond is limited by periodic
cattle use, a structurally simple riparian forest,
and the predator efficiency and human
disruption associated with the open northern
shore area.  To mitigate impacts to nearby
isolated wetlands, these impediments to
wetland function would be corrected as follows:

•        A buffer zone of variable width, up to
         300 feet, would be established around
         the frog pond.  Along the eastern side,
         the buffer would extend to the road
         edge.  A small camping area would be
         maintained north of the pond. The
         buffer would be fenced to exclude
         cattle.  The fence constructed to
         exclude cattle would be maintained by
         the Proponent for a period of not less
         than 20 years.

•        Native tree and shrub species would
         be planted in the open northern shore
         area to create a forested perimeter
         completely around the pond and under
         the existing forest canopy around the
         remainder of the pond.

•        Up to  18 trees in the existing buffer-
         zone forest would be girdled to create
         snags and promote development of a
         more complex and diverse understory.
         Larch trees, greater than 20 inches in
         diameter would be utilized, if they
         exist.  If larch trees do not exist,
         Douglas fir trees greater than 20
         inches in diameter, or the next largest
         size available, would be selected.

•        A replacement water source would be
         developed to compensate for the loss
         of this water source for cattle grazing.
                   Wildlife Effectiveness: Moderate
                   Wetlands Functions Effectiveness:

                   2.12.17 Scenic Resources
                                 Low
                   All buildings and other major Project features
                   would use non-reflective earth-tone paints.

                   Effectiveness:  Moderate

                   Exterior lighting would be kept to the minimum
                   required for safety and security purposes.
                   Lights would be directed down towards the
                   interior of the Project site.  Permanently
                   mounted  lights should be sodium or a type of
                   equal spectrum and intensity.

                   Effectiveness:  Moderate
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 2-100
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIVES
June 1995
The following scenic resource mitigation
measures would be utilized:

•        Retain vegetation and trees wherever
         possible to screen facilities and
         maintain a forested appearance to the
         extent possible;

•        To the extent possible,  locate facilities
         where they can be screened;

•        Plant native species to screen
         facilities.

•        Design cuts, fills and clearings to blend
         in with the surrounding topography.

Effectiveness:  Moderate

2.12.18  Wildlife and Fish

A series of wildlife mitigation and management
practices are required to minimize disturbance
and adverse impacts on wildlife.  Where
possible, the goals of wildlife mitigation are:

1)       Avoid impacts to wildlife and sensitive
         habitats;

2)       Minimize impacts to wildlife when
         impacts cannot be avoided; and

3)       Replace lost habitat through creation
         and/or enhancement of wildlife habitat.

4)       Minimize the area of disturbance by
         maintaining a compact operation and
         avoiding sensitive habitats, where
         possible.

Fences would be constructed and maintained
around the entire area to be disturbed.  Fences
would be constructed to exclude livestock from
the Project area using a standard Forest Service
4 wire, barbed wire fence. This fencing would
be designed to allow the movement of wildlife
through the area.

Physical locations of fences should consider
existing travel corridors, game trails and swales.

These fences would be maintained by the
Proponent during the operational and
reclamation phases of the Project plus
                   approximately 10 years thereafter unless
                   otherwise determined by the agencies.

                   Effectiveness:  Moderate

                   One of the concerns for wildlife use in the
                   Project vicinity is road densities.  At this time,
                   some roads in the vicinity of the proposed mine
                   are closed or restricted to only approved traffic.
                   In order to improve wildlife habitat, the
                   following roads would be closed, except to
                   administrative traffic by the Proponent through
                   the placement of gates: the Forest Road 3550
                   (Marias Creek Road) where it leaves private
                   land; Forest Road 3550 from the junction of
                   Forest Road 3550-130 up Bear Trap Canyon;
                   Forest Roads 3550-125; 3550-115; 3550-120;
                   and 3575-210.

                   Effectiveness:  Moderate

                   Fencing around the tailings facility would be
                   designed  to restrict large and small mammals
                   and small amphibians from the tailings facility.
                   These fences would be maintained by the
                   Proponent during the operational and
                   reclamation phases of the Project plus
                   approximately 10 years thereafter to allow
                   vegetation to become established unless
                   otherwise determined by the agencies.  This
                   fence would extend at least 96 inches above
                   the ground and  be buried at least 18 inches in
                   the soil.

                   Effectiveness:  Moderate

                   Blasting would occur only during daylight hours
                   on a preset schedule and no  more than 3 times
                   a day (e.g. 8,  12 and/or 4) except in emergency
                   situations to clear unstable and unsafe
                   conditions.  The preferred time for blasting
                   would be near midday. Nitrate contamination
                   from incomplete blasting would be minimized by
                   optimizing blast conditions to improve oxidation
                   of ANFO  or other blasting agents.

                   Effectiveness:  Moderate

                   Employee dogs  would not be allowed on the
                   Project site.

                   Effectiveness:  High

                   The Proponent would replace snags lost in the
                   area of direct Project impact  in surrounding
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-101
forests, within a mile of the Project.  This would
be a replacement, in kind, for snags lost. Snags
would be at least 10 inches in diameter, at least
10% should be greater than 20 inches in
diameter and 10% should be from larch and
ponderosa  pine trees. Snags would be created
in stands where less than 5 snags per acre
presently exist except within 200 feet of
existing clearings where snags would be created
in stands where less than 9 snags per acre
presently exist.

Effectiveness:  Moderate

Grass palatable to wildlife would be included as
at least 15% of the species mix selected to
provide immediate soil stabilization during
reclamation.  The shrub and small tree
component of the species mix selected during
reclamation would be represented by  varieties
with higher palatability to wildlife.  The primary
short-term  objective of reclamation would be
erosion control.  A secondary objective is to
provide a diversity of plant species that
encourage  wildlife recolonization.

Effectiveness:  Moderate

Electric transmission lines at the Crown Jewel
operation would be designed and constructed to
protect raptors in the area from potential
electrocution hazards. Figure 2.16, Proposed
Power Pole Design, shows the type of poles to
be used along various sections of the line on
National Forest land from Oroville to the Project.

Effectiveness:  High

Fifteen fish structures, to provide passage
through culverts and to create pools,  would be
installed in the lower reaches of Nicholson
Creek and  Marias Creek.   These structures
would be designed to improve fish spawning
and rearing habitat, improve movement in the
stream and reduce sedimentation in these
streams which may receive less flow due to
Project activities. These  structures would be
installed in the first year of the Project.

Effectiveness:  Moderate

Water withdrawals in Myers Creek would be
stopped if instream flows, at the border, drop
below 12 cfs during the months of April to June
to protect rainbow trout spawning habitat and
               below 6 cfs during other months to protect
               Canadian adjudicated water rights, fish habitat
               and other aquatic life.

               Effectiveness:  Moderate

               If accidental, short-term, water quality problems
               from mining result in fish kills, a restoration plan
               to restore habitat or populations for fish and
               other species would be developed.

               Effectiveness:  Moderate

               Where appropriate, underplant and fertilize in
               seedtree, shelterwood, and overstory removal
               units in the vicinity of the Project to create
               future snow intercept thermal cover in less time
               than it would occur naturally.

               Effectiveness:  Low

               The Proponent is expected to design and
               operate facilities that minimize wildlife exposure
               to hazardous substances.  Effective measures
               restricting wildlife access to the tailings pond
               and collection pond are expected.  These
               measures may include such things as fences,
               floating pond covers, wildlife use deterrents, or
               detoxification to levels not a threat to wildlife.

               Effectiveness:  Moderate

               Mount 50 kestrel boxes on individual power
               poles and in other appropriate grassland
               locations between Oroville and Chesaw to
               reduce impacts on bird populations.

               Effectiveness:  Moderate

               Design, contour 5% of pit walls to provide
               habitat for raptors and other cliff nesting
               species.  Design and regrade the south pit to
               allow ingress  and egress for wildlife.

               Effectiveness:  Moderate

               If a  pit lake is created, once it has filled and if
               the  water quality is appropriate, the Proponent
               would plant the lake with fish and other native
               aquatic plant and animal species.  During
               reclamation, the Proponent would shape the
               final shoreline of the pit lake to facilitate the
               growth of riparian and emergent vegetation;
               create shallows and gradual slope areas along
               the  lake for uplands; and create an irregular
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
    5	9
jf	f.
                                   M
                                      JF	S.
                                                          n
                                                        n
           THP-115
                                  TP-115
                                                               TH1-AAX
FILENAME CJ2-16 DWG
                   FIGURE 2.16, PROPOSED  POWER  POLE DESIGN

-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-103
 shoreline through selective placement of waste
 rock or blasting of pit walls.  Effectiveness is
 based on the assumption that water quality
 would be adequate.

 Effectiveness:  Moderate

 Erect a raptor  perch, per 10 acres, on reclaimed
 waste rock stockpiles. Two power poles,  on
 National Forest or BLM lands, would not be
 removed during reclamation.  These poles  would
 have  raptor nesting platforms on them.

 Effectiveness:  Moderate

 Create wildlife  runouts when snowbanks along
 roads become more than 2 feet high so animals
 that get on haul roads can escape.  These
 runouts should be planned in conjunction with
 escape routes in safety berms along haul roads.

 Effectiveness:  Moderate

 The Proponent would mount  50 songbird boxes
 on  individual fence posts surrounding the
 Project area to provide nesting sites for
 secondary cavity  nesters.  One area to consider
 would be surrounding the water reservoir in
 Starrem Creek.

 Effectiveness:  Moderate

 Helicopter flight paths in the area of the Project
 would avoid flight paths over identified golden
 eagle nests and Beth and Beaver Lakes.

 Effectiveness:  Moderate

 2.12.19 Employee Training

 The Proponent would initiate  a comprehensive
 program of training and education for
 employees. A major portion of training and
 education would involve the health and safety
 aspects of the construction and operation.  The
 Proponent would  include environmental
 considerations in this training.

 Environmental lessons would generally outline
 major rules and regulations which dictate key
 aspects of the operation.  Events leading to
their origin, rationale,  objectives, and
 compliance would be reviewed.  Environmental
training and education would  explain the
 "hows" and the "whys" to the individuals with
              the most potential to positively effect the
              outcome - the mine employees.

              Pilot vehicle drivers would complete spill
              response and safety training, at least once
              annually prior to piloting hazardous materials.

              Wildlife impact identification and mitigation
              measures would be a key component of
              environmental training and education. Items
              including, but not limited to the following,
              would be discussed in the training:
                       Hunting prohibition on mine property;
                       Firearm prohibition;
                       Traffic speed limits on roads;
                       Proper handling of chemicals;
                       Measures to prevent wildlife
                       harassment;
                       Laws dealing with poaching;
                       Notification procedures in the event of
                       road kill of deer and sensitive species;
                       Importance of habitat conservation and
                       reclamation; and
                       Identification of threatened and
                       endangered species.
              Effectiveness: High

              2.12.20 Waste Management

              During construction,  solid wastes would be
              contained and hauled off-site as appropriate.
              Facilities such as porta-potties would be used to
              handle sanitary wastes. Spills of oil, fuel,
              grease, and other materials would be cleaned up
              immediately

              Effectiveness: High

              Solid wastes  would be hauled to state-approved
              sanitary landfills.  The mine operator would
              store any solid wastes  collected on-site in
              containers prior to removal.  Wood and inert
              wastes such as concrete could, during
              reclamation, be buried on-site in selected areas
              in accordance with applicable County, State and
              Federal regulations or approvals and with
              landowners approval.

              Effectiveness: High

              Open burning of garbage and refuse would be
              prohibited at the mine site.

              Effectiveness: High
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 2-104
                        CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIVES
                                  June 1995
2.12.21  Showcase Agreement

The Proponent has entered a "Showcase
Agreement" with the Forest Service.  Part of
this agreement may involve the closure of
certain roads remote to the site and
enhancement of off-site resources to promote
wildlife use, to improve recreation sites, or to
enhance wetland areas.
2.13
MONITORING MEASURES
Environmental monitoring programs would be
implemented as part of any action alternative.
Monitoring programs are designed to quantify
any measurable environmental impacts
accompanying construction, operation,
reclamation and post-closure condition of the
Project with reference to pre-operational data
obtained during baseline monitoring. Impacts
that result in violations of regulatory stipulations
would require alterations of Project operations
or additional mitigation actions.

Periodic review of monitoring data would be
required to assess the possible presence of
short- or long-term impacts resulting from the
Project.

The Proponent would prepare an annual report
for all monitoring studies.  The Proponent would
submit the annual report by March 1 5th, and
there would be a meeting with the agencies to
review the monitoring results and plan.  This
meeting would include personnel from the
Forest Service, BLM, WADNR, WADOE, Corps
of Engineers, and the Proponent and their
representatives. A public meeting to discuss
monitoring information would be held yearly, if
desired.
The agencies would maintain jurisdiction for
monitoring the Project through approvals and
permits issued to the  Proponent.

As part of the protocol for each environmental
monitoring plan, the Proponent would develop
QA/QC procedures for each of these areas.
These procedures would collectively comprise a
QA/QC plan, the overall goal of which would be
to ensure the reliability and accuracy of
monitoring information as it is acquired.  Internal
elements may include procedures for redundant
sampling such as random blind splits or other
replication schemes, chain of custody
documentation, data logging, and error
checking.  External procedures may include
audits and data analyses by outside specialists,
and oversight monitoring and data checking
conducted by various regulatory agencies.

Monitoring plans must be developed prior to
final Project approval or permit issuance.

Monitoring objectives and measures are
discussed in this section for the following
resource areas:
                                                   Water Resources;
                                                   Air Quality;
                                                   Geotechnical Issues;
                                                   Geochemistry;
                                                   Wildlife;
                                                   Timber;
                                                   Noxious Weed;
                                                   Transportation;
                                                   Soil Replacement; and.
                                                   Reclamation.
                                           2.13.1  Water Resources

                                           A ground water and surface water monitoring
                                           program would be established to assess the
                                           Proponent's compliance with state and federal
                                           permits.

                                           Some data would be obtained directly in the
                                           field for reporting.  For example, pH, water
                                           temperature, and conductivity may be measured
                                           directly at a monitoring station using calibrated
                                           instruments.  Samples collected for other
                                           monitoring parameters, such as metals and
                                           other  chemical parameters, must be analyzed at
                                           a laboratory.  Permit related chemical analysis
                                           must  be conducted by an WADOE accredited
                                           laboratory.  A  description of the water
                                           monitoring  program would include the location
                                           of the permanent monitoring stations, the
                                           frequency of monitoring, the required
                                           parameters for field and laboratory analysis, and
                                           a quality assurance and quality control plan.

                                           Water quality samples are generally collected by
                                           the operator of the facility.  The 1994
                                           Washington State Metals Mining Law includes a
                                           provision that  allows for citizen observation and
                                           verification of  the field collection of the
                                           monitoring  data. State agencies have full
                                           access to the facility and may inspect the
                                           monitoring  program or other aspects of the
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental impact Statement

-------
June 7995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2- JOS
operation at any time. Field data and chemical
analyses, collected in compliance with permits,
are public records and available upon request.

Water monitoring for the Crown Jewel Project
would focus in these areas:

•        Water quality;
•        Water quantity.

Water Quality

Surface water quality monitoring stations are
established in the drainages, springs and seeps
that have the potential to be impacted by the
Project. Water at these stations would be
sampled and analyzed for specific chemical
parameters determined by permits. In addition,
monitoring  would be conducted for discharge of
sediment into streams during construction,
operation and reclamation  of the mine.

Low concentration chronic changes in water
chemistry may not be detected in  quantitative
chemical analytical monitoring.  However, such
a scenario may have an impact on the
characteristics of the small organisms that
inhabit the  stream.  A proposed benthic macro-
invertebrate survey program has been designed
to monitor  possible changes in the distribution
and number of small organisms that inhabit  the
streams in the vicinity of the operation.

Ground water quality monitoring information
would be obtained from wells located to
intercept plumes of contaminants.  Permit
compliance wells would be located as close  to
the potential source of contamination as
physically possible. The list of ground water
monitoring  parameters would be similar to
parameters developed for the surface water
monitoring  program.

Water Quantity

The monitoring program would focus on
potential impacts on surface water supply, such
as pit dewatering, stream diversions, and the
hydraulic continuity between ground water and
surface water. Most of the surface water
quantity monitoring data can be collected with
the surface water quality monitoring data.
Additional monitoring may be required outside
the water quality network based on the location
of various mine activities, such as the source of
              the water supply necessary to operate the mine
              and the mill.

              Potential impacts on ground water quantity can
              be monitored as part of the water quality
              monitoring program by tracking water level
              fluctuations in water quality wells and springs
              and seeps. The distribution of water quality
              wells may not be adequate in either number or
              location to satisfy potential permit requirements
              to assess impacts due to water diversions for
              Project use.

              Wetlands, on and adjacent to the Project site,
              would be monitored for changes in wetland
              types, functions, and acreage.

              2.13.2  Air Quality Monitoring

              Air quality monitoring would be conducted
              according to MSHA requirements for miner
              health and safety.

              The mine operator would install, operate and
              maintain 2 air quality monitoring sites in the
              vicinity of the mill and downwind of the tailings
              facility to monitor particulates (recommend use
              of module A IMPROVE,[PM2.5]} which would
              provide both human health and visibility
              information. The locations of the monitoring
              sites would meet all siting requirements of the
              EPA Quality Assurance Manual including
              revisions, and 40 CFR Parts 53 and 58.

              In addition, the operator would do biological
              monitoring (lichen and other methods) for the
              duration  of the Project.

              The mine operator would commence air
              monitoring 3 months prior to the
              commencement of construction and continue
              particulate monitoring for at least 1 year after
              normal production is achieved.  The air quality
              monitoring data would be reviewed by the
              Forest Service to determine if continued
              monitoring or additional monitoring is
              warranted. The mine operator would submit
              quarterly reports within 60 days after the end of
              the calendar quarter and an annual data report.
              It is proposed  to monitor particulates on a
              sampling frequency of at least once in 6 days.

              WADOE  could apply additional monitoring
              requirements as part of their air quality permit
                    Crown Jewel Mine *  Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 2-106
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
June 1995
but no additional monitoring is presently
proposed {Notice of Construction Approval).

2.13.3  Geotechnical Monitoring

The objectives of geotechnical monitoring at the
Crown Jewel Project would be to:

•       Assure that the tailings and water
        reservoir structures are constructed
        according to design.

•       Assure that the tailings and water
        reservoir structures are maintained in a
        stable condition over the short- and
        long-term.

•       Assure that waste rock storage areas
        are stable over the short- and long-
        term.

•       Assure that mine pit highwalls are
        stable over the short-term.

Tailings Facility

During operations, the Proponent would be
required to make at least weekly visual
observations of the tailings disposal facilities to
check the  condition of the embankment, the
impoundment, pipelines, collection pond and
water control facilities.  Significant observations
would be recorded in a field diary or on standard
forms required by WADOE and the Forest
Service.

Special attention would be given to any scour
and erosion, vegetation growth, plugged
pipelines or drains, and the ongoing operation of
any monitoring instrumentation.

A series of wells would be established in the
impoundment structure to measure the pore
pressure conditions.  These wells would be
located on the crest or downstream face of the
embankment.

In addition to the wells,  instrumentation
(piezometers, settlement gages, etc.) would be
installed on the crest and external  slope of the
structure to monitor the stability of the
impoundment.  This instrumentation would be
checked according to WADOE requirements and
recordings made in a field diary. Visual and
instrumentational monitoring would be
                   conducted by the Proponent's operations
                   personnel. A record of such data would be
                   maintained on-site.

                   The actual routine and emergency reporting
                   requirements would be defined in a  Dam Safety
                   Permit approved by WADOE.

                   Waste Rock Storage

                   Any monitoring required would be defined in the
                   Plans of Operation approved by the Forest
                   Service and BLM.  At a minimum, routine visual
                   observations would be required of waste rock
                   stockpiles for settling and slumping.

                   Mine Pit

                   The Mine Safety and Health Administration
                   (MSHA) would inspect highwalls as part of their
                   ground control regulations.

                   2.13.4  Geochemical Monitoring

                   The Proponent must provide the Forest Service,
                   BLM, WADOE, and WADNR with descriptions of
                   a geochemical monitoring and response program
                   for waste rock and tailings.  These plans would
                   identify action limits or thresholds of concern,
                   and feasible methods of neutralizing, blending,
                   or isolating materials which  exceed  these limits.
                   The goal of this program would be to ensure an
                   effluent quality that is non-toxic and non-acid
                   generating over the long-term. A plan would be
                   developed for monitoring waste rock produced
                   from the mining operation.

                   2.13.5  Wildlife and Fish Monitoring

                   The agencies  would meet with the Proponent
                   annually to discuss the need for supplements or
                   modifications to the Plan of Operation as
                   necessary to address wildlife issues.

                   Monitoring requirements would include:

                   •        Monitoring for wildlife mortality in the
                           Project area including the tailings
                           pond. Mortalities would be reported to
                           the Forest Service, Washington
                           Department of Wildlife, and U.S. Fish
                           and  Wildlife Service each day if they
                           occur.
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4  Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June  1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-107
•        Reporting of any vehicle/wildlife
         collisions on the mine site roads to the
         Forest Service and Washington
         Department of Wildlife each day they
         occur.

•        Determine freshwater aquatic habitat
         trends through twice yearly benthic
         macro-invertebrate data collection.

•        Monitoring the tailings impoundment
         and perimeter fencing for breaks and
         proper function. There would be daily
         visual observations of the tailings
         facility for wildlife mortalities.

•        Monitor the lower 2 miles of Marias
         and Nicholson Creeks for fish kills on a
         weekly basis.

•        The frog pond would be  monitored on
         a yearly basis to determine changes in
         population numbers  (male chorus
         monitoring).

•        Monitor the golden  eagle, loons, and
         black tern nests in the area
         surrounding the  Project for
         presence/absence of the  birds.

•        Capture pocket gophers,  shrews and
         earthworms next to the tailings facility
         to test lead  and cadmium levels.

The mine operator  would develop  a monitoring
program to evaluate use of the tailings and
water storage ponds by wildlife. Waterfowl
monitoring would be conducted in the spring
and fall to document use by waterfowl, any
mortality, and the cause of mortality, if
possible. If waterfowl use of the ponds,
impoundments, or streams is noted at other
times, the observation would be recorded
incidental to other monitoring.

2.13.6  Timber  Monitoring

Clearing, harvest and slash disposal would be
monitored by the Forest Service, BLM and
WADNR to ensure  compliance with Plans of
Operation, Timber Sale Contracts and resource
protection measures.
              2.13.7   Noxious Weed Monitoring

              Because noxious weeds occur in the area, it is
              possible that weed infestation could occur on
              disturbed and newly reclaimed areas. The
              Proponent would monitor disturbed and
              reclaimed sites for noxious weeds and, as
              necessary,  implement weed control measures to
              eliminate noxious weeds during mining and for a
              period of time after the completion of initial
              reclamation.

              2.13.8   Transportation Monitoring

              The Forest Service and BLM would meet with
              the Proponent annually to  review transportation
              and related safety issues.  An inspection
              schedule, acceptable to the Forest Service, for
              all construction and reconstruction of mine
              access roads, would be developed. Roads on
              Forest land must be constructed and maintained
              according to  Forest Road standards.  In
              addition, the  Forest Service would require the
              Proponent to review all access roads on
              National Forest land used by the Proponent
              during and  after spring runoff, and prior to
              winter operations.  The purpose of these
              reviews would be to certify that drainage
              features are functioning as designed,  and/or to
              identify any needed improvements or changes.

              2.12.9   Reclamation  Monitoring

              The Proponent would  monitor for reclamation
              success according to the approved Forest
              Service, BLM, WADOE,  and WADNR plans and
              permits.  Areas to be monitored would include
              soil placement, revegetation success, presence
              of soil erosion, etc.

              The vegetation cover,  species composition, and
              tree planting  success would be evaluated by the
              proponent during the first, third and fifth year
              following seeding or planting.  Tree planting
              success would be measured against the
              following standards: first year, > 90% trees
              alive;  third year, > 75% trees alive and in fair
              or better condition; and fifth year, at least 250
              trees/acre,  134 well distributed crop trees
              (except  under Alternative B which would have
              50 trees per acre).  Shrub  planting success
              would be measured against the following
              standards: first year, >  50%  shrubs alive, >
              200 shrubs/acre; and third and fifth year,  >
              35% shrubs alive,  > 140 shrubs/acre. There
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 2-108
                        CHAPTER 2 - AL
would be a minimum of at least 5 shrub species
present, each representing at least 8% of the
total population or a minimum of 10 species
present, each representing at least 5% of the
total population. Grass seeding success  will be
measured against the following standards: first
year, > 30% ground cover; and third year, >
60% ground cover.  In areas where these
standards are not met, replanting would take
place until they are met.

2.13.10 Soil Replacement Monitoring

Soil treatment uniformity would be determined
by surveying on a 100 foot by 100 foot grid
across the slope after slope reduction and
placement of cover soil.  Actual measured
thickness of replaced soil cover would be
determined in soil sample excavations located
within the grid.

Treatments would be deemed to be successful
if the measured depth of cover material meets
the following criteria:

•       At least 90% of the design thickness
        must be measured at 50% or more of
        the sampling sites or transect
        locations.

•       At least 75% of the design thickness
        must be measured at 90% or more of
        the sampling points or transect
        locations.

•       No sampling site may have less than
        50% of design cover soil thickness.

2.13.11 Reporting

The Proponent would comply with the reporting
requirements of miscellaneous federal, state and
local government authorities.  Such reporting
would  occur on forms provided or approved by
those agencies. Likewise, the timing of
reporting would correspond to the stipulations
set forth in various permit and  plan approvals.
2.14
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
This section summarizes the consequences of
the alternatives in a comparison form.  More
details described in Chapter 4 - Environmental
Consequences. Table 2.14,  Summary of
Impacts by Alternative for Each Issue,  compares
                                          alternatives to the issues that drove alternative
                                          development and those issues identified as
                                          being important to assess the impacts of the
                                          alternatives. These issues are identified in
                                          Chapter 1.

                                          Please note when describing specific alternative
                                          actions in acres and volumes there are some
                                          minor differences.  These differences are
                                          because of rounding and are not significant to
                                          the descriptions  of the actions or their effects.
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-109
TABLE 2.14, SUMMARY OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE FOR EACH ISSUE
ISSUE/CONCERN
Alternative
A
B
C
D
E
F
Q
AIR QUALITY
Tons of TSP produced' Yearly
(Operation Phase)
Tota
Tons of PM,0 produced Yearly
(Operation Phase) Total
Tons of HCN produced: Yearly
(Operation Phase)
Total
Tons of NOX produced: Yearly
(Operation Phase)
Total
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
None
None
Unknown
Unknown
521
4,168
160
1,303
0.073
0 56
326
2,608
Yearly - more than
A,F; less than
B,D,E,Q.
Total - more than A,
less than B,D,E,F,G
31
144
Yearly - more than
A,F,G, Less than
B.D.E.
Total - more than
A,G; less than
B.D.E.F
Yearly - more than
A; less than
B.D.E, F,G.
Total - more than A;
less than B,D,E,F,G
Yearly - more than
A,C,F; less than
B,E,G.
Total - more than
A,C; less than
B,E,F,G
89
558
Yearly - more than
A,C,F,G; less than
B,E.
Total - more than
A,C,G: less than
B,E,F.
Yearly - more than
A,C, less than
B,E,F,G
Total - more than
A,C; less than
B,E,F,G
521
4,168
160
1,303
0073
0.56
326
2,608
279
8,940
88
2,582
00365
0.56
163
5,218
573
4,583
184
1,495
0
0
More than other
Alts, due to
trucks hauling
ore concentrate
to Oroville 24
hr/day.
ENERGY
Gallons of petroleum products Annual
Total
kWh of electricity used Annual
Total
< 1 ,000 gal
< 1,000 gal
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
1,204,500 gal
9,600,000 gal
63 million
504 million
< 700,000 gal
2,800,000 gal
63 million
252 million
< 1,000,000 gal
5,800,000 gal
63 million
378 million
1,204,000 gal
9,600,000 gal
63 million
504 million
600,000 gal
19,000,000 gal
42 million
672 million
> 2,400,000 gal
1 9,000,000 gal
63 million
504 million
FISH POPULATIONS AND HABITAT
Predicted impact to spawning habitat
None
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
GEOCHEMISTRY (Key Issue)
Potential for acid rock drainage from waste rock disposal
areas
Potential for release of radioactive materials (alpha and beta
emissions)
Potential for metals transport
Potential for release of tailings materials or interstitial liquids
into ground/surface waters
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Low
Low
Low
Low
Negligible
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
GEOLOGY AND GEOTECHNICAL (Key Issue)
Safety Factors Waste Rock Slopes
Tailings Embankment
Pit Walls
Not Applicable
1.35-1 8
1 5
1 2
2.7
1 5
No Pit
2.7
1.5
1 2
2 7
1.5
1.2
2 7
1.5
1.2
2.7
1.5
1.2
                                   Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 2-710
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIVES
                                                                                                          June 1995
TABLE 2.14, SUMMARY OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE FOR EACH ISSUE
ISSUE/CONCERN
Acres of potential ground subsidence through
Potential for rock slides or unstable pit wall conditions
after mining
Alternative
A
None
Not Applicable
B
None
Low
C
27
No Pit
D
3
Moderate
HERITAGE RESOURCES AND NATIVE AMERICAN ISSUES


None
None
6
835
6
720
6
770
LAND USE
Acres disturbed by ownership USFS
BLM
State of Washington
Private
Number of acres of public land possible to put under patent
54.6
3.3
0
No Record
Not Applicable
470
184
20
92
925
273
78
20
69
< 925
289
153
20
100
< 925
NOISE
Summertime noise levels Chesaw
{Prevailing Condition, nighttime) Bolster
Wintertime noise levels Chesaw
{prevailing Condition, nighttime) Bolster
Peak noise levels Chesaw
Bolster
39
37
32
31
57
54
39
37
38
41
59
59
Not Modeled
Not Modeled
43
Not Modeled
57
54
39
37
38
41
59
59
E
None
Moderate

7
1,055

574
195
47
111
> 925

39
37
38
41
59
59
RECLAMATION (Kev Issue)
Percentage of final slopes that are. Steeper than 2H 1V
2H 1V
2.5H:1V
3H-1V or flatter
Acres/percentage of south facing slopes needing reclamatior

Not applicable,
areas to be
reclaimed are roads.
None
55
< 10%
50%
20%
20%
47 ac (7%)
604
< 10 %
10-20 %
1 0-20 %
> 50 %
6 ac (1%)
416
< 10 %
10-20 %
10-20 %
> 50 %
9 ac (2%)
460
< 10 %
10-20 %
10-20 %
> 50 %
9 ac (1%)
812
SCENIC RESOURCES
No of high-powered lights visible at night from
Oroville-Toroda Creek Road
B C. Highway 3
Visual Quality Objectives met by Project
0
0
Yes
Vary from 0 to
3, not visible on
continual basis
No
(Waste areas)
O
0
Yes
vary from U to J,
not visible on
continual basis
Yes
SOCIOECONOMICS (Key Issue)
Person-years of employment Annual
Life-of-Project
Payroll Annua
Life-of-Project
< 5
< 5
Not Projected
150
1,500
$1.85 - 7.4 mm
$53 4 mm
225
950
$1.95 - 8 8 mm
$44.6 mm
225
1,650
$1 95 - 8 8 mm
$62 3 mm
vary from 0 to 3,
not visible on
continual basis
No
(Waste Areas)

150
1,675
$2 8 - 7 35 mm
$59 9 mm
F
None
No pit walls left
exposed

7
885

526
153
38
105
> 925

39
37
32
31
59
59

< 10 %
10-20 %
10-20 %
> 50 %
0 ac (0%)
775

0
0
No
(Waste Area)

125
3,450
$2.85 - 7 35 mm
$127.2 mm
G
None
Moderate

7
925

546
198
44
108
> 925

39
37
38
41
59
59

< 10 %
10-20 %
10-20 %
> 50 %
16 ac (2%)
741

Vary from 0 10
3, not visible on
continual basis
No
(Waste Area)

210
1,980
$1 85 - 7.8 mm
$71.3 mm

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-111
TABLE 2.14, SUMMARY OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE FOR EACH ISSUE
ISSUE/CONCERN
Anticipated peak population increase
Project related (direct)
Total (direct plus indirect)
Anticipated peak new school enrollment
Project related (direct)
Total (direct plus indirect)
Anticipated permanent new housing
Project related (direct)
Total (direct plus indirect)
Anticipated tax revenues after expenditures
Project related (direct)
Total (direct plus indirect)
Alternative
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
Not Projected
B
180
208
17
41
30
63
$157 mm
521 5 mm
C
273
406
56
91
135
183
$10.6 mm
$146 mm
D
230
363
48
83
113
160
$142 mm
$19.6 mm
E
180
208
17
41
30
63
$15.7 mm
$21.5 mm
F
180
208
16
36
24
53
$31.6 mm
$43.3 mm
Q
180
222
22
55
42
87
$14.7 mm
$20.3 mm
SOILS (Key Issue)
Acres of topsoil removal
Percent of soil available for reclamation at 12" and 18"
depths
55
Not Applicable
604
113%
416
87%
460
119%
812
119%
775
106%
741
1 20%
SURFACE AND GROUND WATER (Key Issue)
Number of springs/seeps directly affected
Lineal feet of existing stream channels impacted
• Gold Bowl Creek
• Marias Creek
• Nicholson Creek
Decreases in area stream flows (est)
• Nicholson Creek
{confluence w/ Toroda Creek)
• Manas Creek
(confluence w/ Toroda Creek)
• Bolster Creek
(Confluence w/ Myers Creek)
• Gold Creek
Estimated life-of-mine water use
(acre feet)
None
None
None
None
None
None
7
2,300
3,550
2,025
1 7-4.1 %
1 1-3.4%
5 2-8.6%
2 2-6.0%
5,960-5,992
5
1,350
3,550
None
1 7-4 1 %
1 1-3.4%
5 2-8 6%
2 2-6.0%
2,903-3,119
6
1,550
3,550
550
1 7-4 1 %
1 1-34%
5 2-8.6%
2 2-6 0%
4,337-4,572
9
1,500
3,550
3,900
1 7-4.1%
1.1-34%
5.2-8.6%
2 2-6 0%
5,804-6,100
8
1,500
None
8,525
1 .7-4 1 %
1 1-3.4%
5 2-8.6%
2 2-6 0%
9,745-12,190
10
1,500
None
8,300
1 7-4.1%
1.1-3 4%
5.2-8.6%
2.2-6 0%
11,008-18,956
TRANSPORTATION
Additional number of vehicles per day
Construction
Operations
Reclamation
Percent increase in traffic during operations phase
Oroville-Toroda Creek Road
Pontiac Ridge Road
0
0
12
4%
240%
282
51
20
7-13%
1020%
282
57
20
20%
1140%
282
59
20
7-16%
1180%
282
51
20
7-13%
1020%
282
45
26
4-13%
920%
282
77
20
27%
1540%
                                     Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 2-112
                                            CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
June 1995
TABLE 2 14 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE FOR EACH ISSUE
ISSUE/CONCERN
Alternative
A
B
C
USE OF HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS (Key Issue)
Estimated Annual/total use of
• Sodium cyanide (ton)
• Cement/lime (ton)
• Lead nitrate (ton}
» Sodium nitrate (Ion)
• Ammonium nitrate (ton)
• Hydrochloric acid (ton)
* Cdubtiu (tori;
• Copper sulfate (ton)
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
= 500
1.700/13,600
8,000/64,000
170/ 1,360
3/ 24
3,200/25,600
220/ 1,760
207,' 1,660
~53/ 424
1 2 mm'9 6 mm
1,020' 4,080
8,000/64,000
1 00,' 400
21 8
1,920,' 7,680
130/ 520
1 25' 5OO
32,' 1 30
=* 7mm/2 8mm
D

1,3607 8,160
8 000/64,000
1 40/ 840
3/ 18
2,560/15,360
140,' 1,080
170' 1 020
40,' 240
= 1 mm '5 8m'Ti
VEGETATION (Key Issue) 	 	 _ -
Mumber of T&E plants lost 	
Number of sensitive plants lost
Timber removed (MMBF)
Estimated annua AUM's (animal unit months) of grazing lost
0
0
0
0
0
2 533
5 3
84
0
2,510
3 1
72
0
2,510
4 1
77
WETLANDS (Key Issue)

0
3 39
3 15
3 16
E

1,700/13,600
8 000 '64, 000
170,' 1,360
3,1 24
3,200'25,600
220/ 1,760
207/ 1,660
53/ 424
1 2mm'9 6mm

0
2,567
7 0
106

3 18

F

850/13,600
4.000/64,000
85/ 1,360
1 5/ 24
1,600/25,600
110/ 1,760
103/ 1,660
26/ 424
= .6mm/19mm

0
349
6 2
89

0 92

G

None
None
None
None
3,200/25.600
None
None
None
2 4mm/19 2mm

0
328
6 8
93

_5__42____J
WILDLIFE (Key Issueldmpacts during mining and reclamation) , 	 	 J
IMPACTS TO HABITAT WITHIN THE CORE AREA BY SELECTED WILDLIFE SPECIES AND ALTERNATIVE.
J|_ Exislm^Cundilions || Alternative B || Alluniajve C J[ Alternative D l|_ Altai-native E ||_ Alternative F _J[ 	 Altwnatiifd G j
Wildlife Species and Habitat
Deer non winter cover1
snow mtercept.'lhermal
thermal1
hiding1
Black Bear suitable
Mountain Lion suitable prey habitat
Pine Marten suitable
spruce/fir forest
habitat with coarse, woody debris
spruce'fir old growth & mat forest
Bobcat suitable
Hairv Woodpecker suitable
Pileated Woodpecker suitable
Ruffed Grouse suitable
Acres
4,477
242
442
3,562
10400
7,635
1,543
691
140
133
6589
8,572
7,595
7,731
Percent of
Core Area
43
2
4
34
100
L 73
15
7
1
1
83
82
73
74
Acres
461
142
51
453
1,159
802
-271
70
4
3
594
1,015
-802
812
Percent
Change
10
59
12
13
1 	 11
11
18
10
3
-2
9
12
-11
1!
Acret
373
31
43
341
990
684
239
66
4
3
4 76
866
684
893
Percent
Change
8
11
10
in
10
I 9
15
9
-3
2
7
10
-9
9
Acres
408
31
50
404
1,076
743
226
64
-3
?
584
955
748
758
Percent
Change
8
-13
11
11
10
|_ 1° 1
15
9
2
2
9
11
10
10
Acres
r 572
55
73
585
(.428
| 1,004
301
80
6
-5
799
1,249
-1,004
Percent
Change
13
23
17
-16
14
13
m
12
4
4
12
15
13
1 023 | 13
Acres
609
37
77
-471
... ;I3.6S.,-
944
214
125
51
44
__855_ _
-1,218
9-M
853
Percent
Chanje__
-11
15
17
13
-13
12 -I
-13
-18
	 36. ,
;lj__
14
1 "
......
17
Acrot Percent
_ J_£tin-a8 i
502 li
____28_! J2 	
~_~[ ^ ^
492 j 1-1 I
1,415 _| 1J
L_9jL_i-, 12 j
i" |__ ! j
n/ 'D
K-HH
_«. |._,v._J
L.J86_i_..l:_i
r!2« i -• I
9* i v ;
- - • ]-~ — • •
9!J ] >::

-------
June 1995
                                                    CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-113
IMPACTS TO HABITAT WITHIN THE CORE AREA BY SELECTED WILDLIFE SPECIES AND ALTERNATIVE.

Wildlife Species and Habitat
Blue Grouse wmtef
summer & breeding
Golden Eagle foraging
Barred Owl nesting
Great Gray Owl nesting
foraging
Grizzly Bear potential
Gray Wolf potential
Pacific Fisher potential
preferred
avoided
California Wolverine suitable
North American Lynx travel7
foraging7
denning7
non cover'
Townsend's Big Eared Bat foraging
potential roost trees
Northern Goshawk nesting
potential post fledging /family area
foraging
[ Existing Conditions || Alternative B
Acres
707
138
1,878
1,190
1,190
3,836
10,400
10400
5,076
1,388
794
4,526
3,618
254
13
2,882
6,074
3,538
814
2,509
5,076
Percent of
Core Area
7
1
18
11
1!
37
100
100
49
13
8
44
35
2
0
28
58
34
6
24
49
Acres
128
-10
234
240
240
341
1,159
1,159
-843
-248
507
576
426
27
-2
377
710
401
144
361
813
Percent
Change
18
-7
-12
-20
20
-9
-11
11
-13
-18
64
-13
-12
-11
15
13
12
11
23
-14
-12
Alternative C J| Alternative D
Acres
161
9
-214
-211
211
-321
-990
990
565
216
418
501
322
17
2
270
602
351
148
272
531
Percent
Change
23
7
-11
18
IB
8
-10
10
•11
-16
53
-11
-9
-7
15
9
-10
10
24
11
10
Acres
169
10
211
195
195
318
1,076
1,076
591
203
794
524
386
30
2
336
656
359
-139
-311
-560
Percent
Change
-24
j
[ 11
18
-16
-8
-10
10
•12
-15
100
-12
11
-12
•15
12
-11
•10
•23
12
•11
I Alternative E
Acres
-245
19
-269
270
270
415
1,428
1 428
-791
-278
625
-708
-533
-40
3
482
-889
-528
145
-473

Percent
Change
35
-14
•14
-23
23
-11
-14
-14
-16
20
, 79
-16
-15
•18
-23
17
•15
•15
24
•19

Alternative F || Alternative G
Acres
•170
-9
-240
-159
-159
-432
-1,386
-1,366
•728
-162
722
-639
-515
-48
-3
481
826
-363
-102
-420

Percent
Change
-24
-7
•13
13
13
•11
•13
-13
-14
•12
91
-14
-14
-19
-23
17
-14
-10
-17
-17

Acres
-174
-9
•263
•142
142
-460
•1,415
•1,415
•721
•145
734
-826
-547
55
-3
522
-821
-424
79
-430

Note*: 1 Based on TWHIP dat:
2 Based on Habitat above 4,000 feet in the core area
Percent
Change
-25
•7
•14
-12
•12
•12
-14
•14
•14
10
92
•14
•15
•22
•23
18
•14
•12
•13
•17



Element
SUCCESSIONAL STAGE DIVERSITY:
T40N R31E: Grass'Forb
SeedlinijrSaplinq
Pole
Young Mature
Mature
Forest Plan
Standard
5%
10%
10%
5%
5%
Values' || status1 '
Existing
Condition
3%
TI
10%
40%
29%
Alternative
A
3%
7%
10%
10%
29%
B
3%
7%
10%
40 '4
29%
C
3%
7%
10%
40%
29%
D
3%
7%
10%
40%
29%
E
4%
6%
10%
39%
29%
F
4%
6%
10%
39%
28%
G
4%
6%
10%
39%
28%
Existing
Condition
BELOW
BELOW
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
Alternative
A
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
B
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
C
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
D
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
E
O
C-
NC
A-
NC
f
C +
C-
NC
A
A
G
C +
c-
NC
A
A-
                                       wn Jews/ Mine 4- Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 2-114
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
June 1995
SUMMARY OF FOREST PLAN COMPLIANCE BY ALTERNATIVE ON NATIONAL FOREST LANDS.
Element
T40N R30E: GrassfForb
Seed ling /Sapling
Rote
Young Mature
Mature
OLD GROWTH:
T40N R31E: Existing
Replacement
Total
T40N R30E: Existing
Replacement
Total
ROAD DENSITY
MA14-1B
MA14-17
MA14-18
MA14-19
MA25-18
MA28-13
MA28-15
Forest Plan
Standard
5%
10%
10%
5%
5%
a 5%
no threshold
2:5%
925 acres
£5%
no threshold
2:5%
203 acres
20 mi/mi!
2 0 milmi2
20 mitai'
20 mi/tni!
30 mi/mi!
1 0 mitai'
1 0 mitai7
I Values1 || Status"
Existing
Condition
14%
9%
12%
35%
26%
12%
0
12%
1,823
4%
0
4%
149
21
25
41
373
27
43
32
Alternative
A
14%
9%
12%
35%
26%
12%
0
12%
1,823
4%
0
4%
149
21
25
41
30
25
43
32
B
13%
9%
11%
33%
23%
12%
0
12%
1,823
3%
0
3%
125
21
25
41
00
23
43
32
C
17%
9%
11%
34%
24%
12%
0
12%
1823
4%
0
4%
149
21
25
4 1
00
24
43
32
D
17%
9%
11%
34%
24%
12%
0
12%
1,823
4%
0
4%
149
21
25
41
08
23
43
32
E
18%
9%
11%
33%
23%
12%
0
12%
1,823
2%
0
2%
99
21
25
41
00
2.2
43
32
F
14%
9%
11%
34%
28%
11%
0
11%
1,767
4%
0
4%
149
21
25
41
19
22
43
32
G
15%
9%
11%
34%
25%
12%
0
12%
1,802
4%
0
4%
149
2!
25
41
OB
22
43
32
Existing
Condition
MEETS
BELOW
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS


MEETS


BELOW
BELOW
BELOW
BELOW
BELOW
MEETS
BELOW
BELOW
Alternative
A
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC


NC


NC
NC
NC
NC
C+
A +
NC
NC
B
	 A_|
NC
A
A
A


NC


C-
NC
NC
NC
B +
A+
NC
NC
C | D
A +
NC
A-
A
A-


NC


NC
NC
NC
NC
Bt
A+
NC
NC
A+
NC
A
A
A


NC


NC
NC
NC
NC
B+
A +
NC
NC
E I F I •
A+
NC
A
A-
A


NC


C-
NC
NC
NC
tu
A +
NC
NC
NC
NC
A
A
NC


A


NC
NC
NC
NC
B +
A+
NC
NC
A+
NC
A
A-
A


A


NC
NC
NC
NC
6 +
A+
NC
)VC j
Notes: 1 . Shaded cells indicate a change from existing conditions Boldmg indicates the e ement would be reduced from existing conditions.
2. A+ indicates that the element currently meets standards and guidelines and value would increase,
A- indicates that the element currently meets standards and guidelines, would be reduced, but would still meet standards and guidelines,
B + indicates the element is below standards and guidelines, value would increase and would meet standards and guidelines;
C+ indicates the element is currently below standards and guide ines, would increase in value but not meet standards and guidelines (f e , value wou!d increase but status
would not),
C- indicates the element is currently below minimum standards and guide ines and would be reduced further,
NC indicates no change from existing condit ons

-------
             Chapter 3
Affected Environment

-------

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-1
                               3.0  AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
This chapter describes the existing condition of
the Crown Jewel Study Area, and is presented
primarily to assist the reviewers in
understanding the environmental consequences
presented for each resource in Chapter 4,
Environmental Consequences.  Descriptions of
resources focus on areas which would likely be
affected  by the proposed mining and milling
activities. As  an example, there is minimal
focus on the silvicultural priority of the timber to
be harvested since there is only a limited
amount of variation in where certain facilities
can be located.

The current attributes and conditions of this
study area are discussed  by resource specialists
who have done intensive ground surveys of the
area or lab studies of mineral materials or water
samples.  This section presents the relevant
physical, biological, and social condition for this
area.  The relationship between resources and
resource users is of critical importance and
requires careful attention.

This chapter is organized by environmental
component such as air quality, geology,
geochemistry, water resources, noise, wildlife,
etc.  Whenever possible,  the basic dynamics of
forest ecosystems are described as they occur
in the natural state.  This establishes the mutual
dependence of elements in the natural
environment, a reality which is sometimes
obscured when resources are considered
individually. It also provides a basis for judging
the significance  of mining activities.

For certain resources, such as soils and cultural
resources, the study area was considered to
essentially be the area of potential  direct
disturbance.  For other resources, such as
wildlife, scenery, and socioeconomics, a broader
study area was utilized to encompass the
potential off-site aspects  of issues  related to
these resource categories.

For clarification purposes, the following
definitions apply throughout this document.

Project Area.   The specific area within which all
surface disturbance and development activities
would occur.
               Core Area.  The specific area within which all
               surface disturbance and development activities
               would occur plus a specified buffer, up to a mile
               outside this area.

               Study Area, Analysis Area.  A larger peripheral
               zone around the Project area within which most
               potential direct and indirect effects to a specific
               resource would be expected to occur.

               Environmental studies have been conducted on
               the site since 1990.  Background and baseline
               studies have been completed by a number of
               contractors for a number of resource areas.
               These studies are listed in Appendix A, List of
               Unpublished Appendices, and  are available for
               review at locations as identified in Appendix A.

               Because many of the documents and analyses
               used in the preparation of the  EIS are lengthy
               and technical in detail, the  results are often  only
               summarized in this EIS.  Further information can
               be found in source documents listed in
               Appendix A, List of Unpublished Appendices.

               3.1      AIR QUALITY/CLIMATE

               3.1.1    Introduction

               The air quality and climate  at the proposed
               Project site are influenced by the rugged
               topography, the prevailing  westerly winds, and
               weather fronts from the Pacific Ocean and the
               Arctic.

               3.1.2    Air Quality

               State law (RCW 70.94, the Washington Clean
               Air Act) gives a county the opportunity of
               activating a local air pollution control authority.
               In counties which have such local air
               authorities, air quality laws are administered by
               that local air authority. In counties, such as
               Okanogan  and Ferry Counties, which do not
               have such local air authorities, air quality laws
               are administered  by the WADOE.

               To demonstrate compliance with the Federal
               Clean  Air Act, WADOE submits a State
               Implementation Plan to the EPA.  The
               Washington State Implementation Plan divides
               the state into 6 regions. Okanogan and Ferry
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-2
Counties are part of the Northeast Intrastate Air
Quality Control Region.

EPA designates non-attainment areas where air
pollution has been demonstrated to exceed
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). No such non-attainment areas have
been designated in Okanogan County. This
indication that air quality is good must be
tempered with the knowledge that the amount
of air quality monitoring which has been
conducted in Okanogan County is limited.

Particulate matter is the only type of pollutant
that has been monitored by WADOE in
Okanogan County.  Monitoring took place  at
approximately 6 sites for portions of the period
1 972 through 1 988. Nearly all of this
monitoring was for total suspended particulate
(TSP), although a small amount of monitoring
for PM10 (particulate matter less than 10
microns) was completed.  None of the
monitoring locations were within 50 miles  of the
proposed Crown Jewel Project.

Monitoring results from Mazama Junction  for
1987-88 (WADOE,  1989) showed annual
average of 14 micrograms TSP per cubic meter
(compared to the NAAQS of 50 micrograms per
cubic meter).  During the same period, the
highest 24-hour average TSP at this site was 76
micrograms per cubic meter (compared to  the
NAAQS of 150 micrograms per cubic meter).
The Mazama Junction site is approximately 70
miles from the Crown Jewel Project site. The
Crown Jewel Project site resembles the  Mazama
Junction site in being generally remote from
existing industrial sources of air pollution.
However, a saw mill, with a tepee burner,  is
located about 5 air miles northeast of the
Project site in Midway, British Columbia,
another small sawmill is located about 5 miles
east of the Project site on Toroda Creek.

Monitoring results from the city of Okanogan
(WADOE, 1978) show higher concentrations
than the Mazama site.  For the years 1972
through 1975, the average of the annual
averages was above 61 micrograms per cubic
meter.  Okanogan is approximately  50 miles
from the Crown Jewel Project site.  The
Okanogan-Omak area has several sources  of
industrial air pollution including 2 sawmills, a
plywood plant, an asphalt plant and a concrete
batch plant.
Monitoring in 1 993 by WADOE investigated
potential health impacts from airborne metals in
the area of Northport, Washington. Northport is
located approximately 60 miles east of the
proposed Crown Jewel Project site. Thus far,
exceedances of the PM10 or lead NAAQS have
not been observed.  Levels of arsenic, lead  and
cadmium were sufficiently high to warrant
further study, WADOE determined. A lead-zinc
smelter is  located in Trail, British Columbia  11
miles to the north of Northport and 55 miles
east of the Crown Jewel Project site.

The Proponent chose not to conduct baseline
ambient air quality monitoring to support its
application for the Notice of Construction Air
Quality Permit.  WADOE typically requires
baseline ambient air quality monitoring for
sources which require Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) permits, but typically does
not require ambient monitoring for sources
which do not require the PSD permit.
Nonfugitive emissions in excess of 250 tons per
year of a regulated pollutant would have
necessitated a PSD permit. An emissions
inventory submitted to WADOE by the
Proponent indicates that the nonfugitive
emissions  would be approximately 5.7 tons per
year which is below the 250 ton per year limit.

WADOE did not require any baseline TSP
monitoring to support the Proponent's air quality
license application because fugitive dust is
expected to be the only substantial air pollutant
emitted  by the proposed Project, and because
there are no other existing nonfugitive sources
of dust near the Project site.

The Proponent operated an on-site electronic
weather station to collect wind speed,  wind
direction, and temperature data to support the
license application. The weather data are
described  in Section 3.1.3, Climate.

3.1.3   Climate

Table 3.1.1,  Weather Data, summarizes the
temperature, precipitation, and snowpack data
for the Project site and the general vicinity.
Monthly average temperature data was taken
from the on-site electronic weather station
operated by the Proponent (TRC,  1992).  The
location of the on-site weather station is shown
in Figure 3.1.1, Location of On-Site Weather
Station. The  monthly average temperature  at
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
                                                               Page 3-3
                                                      R. 30 E.  R. 31 E.
                                         WEATHER
                                          STATION
                                         LOCATION
         SOURCE BATTLE MOUNTAIN GOLD COMPANY


                NOTE
                                              LEGEND
                   UPON PROJECT DEVELOPMENT, THE WEATHER
                   STATION WOULD BE MOVED FROM PRE-MINING
                   LOCATION TO AREA NEAR OFFICE COMPLEX
                                                 MINE PIT AREA BOUNDARY


                                                 WEATHER STATION LOCATION
  CONTOUR INTERVAL SOFT
 FIL EN A ME CJ3 -t-lD WG
                    FIGURE 3.1.1,
LOCATION  OF  ON-SITE  WEATHER  STATION

-------
Page 3-4
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June 7995
TABLE 3.1.1, WEATHER DATA
Month






January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Annual
Average Monthly
Mine Site
Temperature1
(degree F)



24.6
31.1
26.8
27.3
42.4
47.3
58.5
60.1
54.9
39.0
26.8
25.3
39.4
High Monthly Mine
Site Temperature1


°C


2
4
10
12
14
18
22
22
17
17
2
0

°F


35
39
50
54
57
65
72
72
63
63
35
32
53
Low Monthly
Mine Site
Temperature1

°C


-11
-9
-3
-3
0
4
7
5
3
-9
-9
-9

°F


12
16
27
27
32
39
45
41
34
16
16
16
27
Precipitation



Estimated
Precipitation2
(inches)
2.9
1.5
1.5
1.4
2.1
2.1
1.1
1.5
1.0
1.3
2.0
2.9
21.3

Estimated
Snowfall2
(inches water)
3.3
0.9
0.5
0.1





0.1
1.0
3.4
9.3

Pan
Evaporation3
(inches)
0.4
0.3
2.0
3.5
5.0
6.3
7.3
5.9
3.7
1.9
0.8
0.4
38.1

Regional
Snowpack4
(inches water)

1.8
4.9
2.9








9.6
Notes: 1 . Measured by an on-site electronic weather station (See Figure 3. 1. 1 , Location of On-Site Weather Station)
2. Two years of on-site data, adjusted by correlation with the Republic, Washington National Weather Service (NWS) station.
3. Based on the Republic, Washington NWS station.
4. Snowpack stations at Summit Geographical Station, Elevation 4,600 feet, 25 miles east of the site.
                                  Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June  1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
                            Page 3-5
the mine site during the year 1991-92 ranged
from an average low of -4.1 degrees Celsius
(°C) or 24.6 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in January,
to an average high of 15.6°C or 60.1 °F in
August.

The precipitation data shown in Table 3.1.1,
Weather Data, were derived from a manual rain
gauge operated by the Proponent at a residence
about 4 miles south southeast of the mine site,
at an elevation of about 4,500 feet. That gauge
was operated from May 1989 through April
1991.  Two years of on-site data are generally
not considered sufficient for defining the true
long-term monthly precipitation trends at a site.
Therefore, the 2 years of measured mine site
data were correlated with data collected during
the same period by the National Weather
Service station at Republic, Washington. A
statistical correlation was used to synthesize a
long-term precipitation data set for the mine site
(Hanbury, 1993). The data between the mine
site and the Republic, Washington station
correlated well (r2 =  0.88), and indicated that,
during the monitoring period, the mine site
received  approximately 32% more precipitation
than does Republic.  The monthly average
precipitation values shown in the table were
estimated by applying the statistical regression
to the Republic monthly data.  The estimated
annual precipitation at the Project site is 21.3
inches.

The assumed evaporation rates shown in Table
3.1.1, Weather Data, are based on long-term
data collected at the Republic,  Washington
monitoring station.   The annual pan evaporation
is 38.7 inches.  The estimated potential annual
net evaporation (evaporation minus
precipitation) is 13.3 inches.

Table 3.1.1, Weather Data, shows  2 estimates
for the snowpack at the site:  predicted values
and data that was measured at a historical
regional site at roughly  the same elevation.  The
"predicted mine site" value was estimated by
assuming that all of the precipitation that fell on
days with an average temperature was less than
0°C was snow.  Based on that estimate, the
predicted snowfall is 7.8 inches water
equivalent. That predicted value correlates well
with the  4.9 inches water equivalent of
snowpack that was previously measured at the
Summit  Geographical Station near Kettle River,
about 25 miles east of Buckhorn Mountain.
               Table 3.1.2, Predicted Rainfall Intensities,
               summarizes the predicted rainfall intensities that
               were used to design the surface runoff facilities
               (Knight Piesold, 1993).  The predicted 24-hour
               storm intensity is 2.0 inches for a 10 year
               recurrence interval, 2.4 inches for 25 year
               recurrence, and 2.7 inches for a 100-year
               recurrence interval.

               Figure 3.1.2, Wind Roses From On-Site Weather
               Station, shows the seasonal wind direction and
               speed, derived  from the on-site weather station
               during the period January 1991 through April
               1992.  During the winter the wind direction was
               generally from the east.  During the summer,
               spring, and autumn,  the prevailing wind
               direction was generally from the west.
               3.2
TOPOGRAPHY/PHYSIOGRAPHY
              The Crown Jewel Project is located in north
              central Washington State, approximately 3 miles
              south of the Canadian border. The topography
              of the general region is steep to relatively flat.

              Elevations in the general region range from
              slightly over 900 feet in the Okanogan River
              valley near the town of Oroville to 5,602 feet,
              at the summit of Buckhorn Mountain. The
              elevations in the actual Crown Jewel Project
              area ranges from about 4,120 feet in elevation
              in the Marias Creek drainage to the 5,602 foot
              summit of Buckhorn Mountain. The elevation of
              Chesaw and the Myers Creek drainage is
              slightly less than 3,000 feet.

              The Project area is drained by Nicholson Creek
              and Marias Creek which flow generally east to
              Toroda Creek  and Ethel Creek, Lime Creek,
              Bolster Creek, and Gold Creek which flow
              generally  west to Myers Creek. Myers Creek is
              approximately 3 miles to the west of the
              proposed Project area and flows north into
              Canada, and eventually empties into the Kettle
              River.  Toroda Creek is about 5 miles southeast
              of the proposed Project area and flows
              northeast, then east to the Kettle  River.

              3.3     GEOLOGY/GEOCHEMISTRY

              3.3.1    Introduction

              The mineral deposit dictates the most
              economical mining and milling applications.
              Geologic data  and interpretations  form the basis
              for mine evaluation  and mine  production by
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4  Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 36
             WINTER 1992
                   N
SPRING 1992
                                   E  W
                PEAK DIRECTION = ENE
                PEAK FREQUENCY = 18.6%
    PEAK DIRECTION = W
    PEAK FREQUENCY = 18 2%
            SUMMER  1992
 AUTUMN 1992
                   N
                                   E  W
                PEAK DIRECTION = W
                PEAK FREQUENCY r 23.3%
    1) WIND ROSE DISPLAYS THE DIRECTION FROM WHICH THE WIND IS COMING
    2! KNOTS (k) x 1151 = MILES PER HOUR (mph)
                                                       N
     PEAK DIRECTION = W
     PEAK FREQUENCY = 29.8%
            FIGURE 3.1.2, WIND  ROSES  FROM  ON-SITE
                          WEATHER STATION
  FILENAME CJ3-1-2DWG

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3 7
TABLE 3.1.2, PREDICTED RAINFALL INTENSITIES
Storm Duration
24 Hour Storm
10-yr recurrence
25-yr recurrence
100-yr recurrence
72 Hour (Intensity)
72 Hour (Volume)
Precipitation
(inches)
2.0
2.4
2.7
9.05
10.38
Note: From Knight Piesold, 1993b
providing ore reserve and waste rock estimates,
geologic structure data (such as faults and
fracture zones), metallurgical characteristics of
the ore, and geochemistry information for
environmental analyses. Geochemistry is the
study of the distribution and amounts of
chemical elements in ore, waste rock, and
tailings material.  One of the fundamental
functions of geochemical analyses is to evaluate
the fate of the rock material over time, in
particular, to assess the potential for the rock
material to develop  acid or liberate toxic
elements to  the environment.

3.3.2    Site Geology

The geology of north-central Okanogan County
is a complex association of igneous,
metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks.  The
larger valleys of the region contain surface
materials of  alluvium and glacial deposits.

In recent geologic time, large continental
glaciers covered most of the Okanogan
Highlands and are responsible for the general
surface topography of much of north central
Okanogan County.  Patches of glacial material
remain scattered throughout the region.

The Project site lies within a complex structural
setting, located on the western  margin of the
Eocene aged Toroda Creek Graben.  Northeast
trending, southeast dipping sinuous  shear zones
and brittle faults locally cut all rock types.  The
most prominent of these faults is the North
Lookout Fault, which has a  normal displacement
of approximately  1 50 to 200 feet.  Faulting is
generally thought  to be related to the
development of the  Toroda  Creek Graben.
              The Crown Jewel orebody is hosted by a skarn
              deposit found in a sequence of complexly folded
              and faulted volcanic and volcaniclastic rocks,
              shallow-to-deep-marine clastic sedimentary
              rocks, and carbonate rocks. The term skarn
              refers to rocks composed almost entirely of
              lime-bearing silicates and are derived from
              nearly pure limestone and dolomites.

              Figure 3.3.1, Geologic Map of the Proposed
              Crown Jewel Project Site, presents  the geology
              of the proposed Project area as determined by
              the Proponent through surface and subsurface
              investigations.

              The orebody is a gold deposit confined to the
              skarn and is locally erratically distributed.  Gold
              mineralization  is associated with skarn alteration
              and includes magnetite-dominant, garnet-
              dominant, and pyroxene-dominant skarn zones
              which reflect the varied hydrothermal  fluid
              reaction with host rocks.  The gold occurs as
              fine-grained disseminations varying in  grade
              within the skarn mineral assemblages.  The
              geology of the deposit is based on the detailed
              analysis and interpretation of approximately
              280,000 feet of reverse circulation drilling and
              80,000 feet of core drilling conducted by the
              Proponent.

              3.3.3    Geochemistry

              Introduction

              The geochemical behavior of the rock  materials
              to be mined and processed at the proposed
              Crown Jewel Project are described below.
              Understanding the geochemical behavior of
              these materials is important in assessing
              potential impacts from  mining on the
                    Crown Jewel Mine +  Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-8
                                           June 1995
                                                                          R  30 E   R 31 E
     15
                                                                                      18
                       LEGEND
        EOCENE VOLCANICS             ___
        SKARN (UNDIVIDED]
        ANDESITE VOLCANICS
        DIORITE
        INTRUSIVE DIKES/SILLS            '
        CLASTIC/VOLCANICLASTIC
        GRANODIORITE
        MARBLE/LIMESTONE
        CLASTICS ("CRYSTAL BUTTE SEQUENCE"!
        FOOTWALL MYLONITE (APPROXIMATE)
FAULT/FAULT ZONE (APPROXIMATE!
FAULT/FAULT ZONE
   (REASONABLY INFERRED!
FAULT/FAULT ZONE
   (TENTATIVELY LOCATED)
MINE PIT AREA
    CONTACT SYMBOLS
	 APPROXIMATE LOCATION
• — GRADATIONAL
	INFERRED
• • • • HIGHLY TENTATIVE
                        FIGURE  3.3.1,  GEOLOGIC  MAP
         OF  THE PROPOSED CROWN  JEWEL  PROJECT  SITE
  FILENAME CJ3-3-1DWG

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-9
surrounding environment.  Geochemical impacts
from mining operations can include the
formation of acid rock drainage (ARD) and mine
leachates that contain metals and/or
radionuclides.  ARD, commonly referred to as
acid min drainage (AMD), is defined as follows:

Drainage with a pH of 2.0 to 4.5 from mines
and mine wastes. It results from the oxidation
of sulfides exposed during mining, which
produces sulfuric acid and sulfate salts. The
acid dissolves minerals in the rocks, further
degrading the quality of the drainage water.
(American Geologic Institute, 1980).

For rock materials to generate ARD and other
leachates, several conditions must be present:

•        Certain chemical conditions allow for
         the formation of ARD.  These require
         pathways for oxygen and water to
         come into contact with  sulfide
         minerals, particularly iron sulfides.
         Sulfides form under anaerobic  (oxygen-
         poor) conditions, and when exposed to
         an aerobic (oxygen-rich) environment
         as a result of natural erosion, mining
         or processing, can become unstable
         and break down chemically.  This can
         result in the production  of acidity.

•        The materials must contain metals  that
         can be leached under the
         environmental conditions present at
         the mine. Metals often  occur in  ore
         deposits in the form of sulfide minerals
         such as pyrite (iron), sphalerite (zinc),
         galena (lead), chalcopyrite and
         chalcocite (copper) and  arsenopyrite
         (arsenic).

•        Radionuclides, such as uranium,
         thorium, and radium may also  be
         present in some ore deposits and can
         be leached.

•        A mechanism must be present to
         transport the acidity and contaminants
         away from the source material and
         into the surrounding environment.
         This is usually accomplished by water.

Geologic Materials of Concern

Testing programs were implemented to evaluate
the geochemical behavior of mined and
              processed materials at the Crown Jewel Project.
              Three material types were examined:

              •        Waste rock;
              •        Ore and low grade ore; and,
              •        Tailings (solids and liquid).

              Initial sample selection was performed by the
              Proponent's geochemist and geologists based
              on their knowledge of the rock type (lithology)
              and mineralogy of the ore body and the
              anticipated geochemical variability of the
              materials. In total, approximately 360,000 feet
              of drill hole have been logged, of which 80,000
              feet was from core drilling and 280,000 feet
              was from reverse circulation drilling. Core
              samples were used in the Proponent's
              geochemical and metallurgical testing programs
              and samples were not composited.  The location
              of coreholes used for geochemical testing is
              presented in Figure 3.3.2, Location of Drill
              Holes Used for Geochemical Testing.

              Summary results from the geochemical testing
              programs are presented  in this section. More
              detailed discussion of these results can be
              found in the following reports:

              •        "Report on the Waste  Rock
                       Geochemical Testing Program, Crown
                       Jewel Project," prepared by Kea
                       Pacific Holdings Inc. in association
                       with Colder Associates Inc. for the
                       Proponent (Kea Pacific, 1993a);

              •        "Report on the Waste  Rock
                       Geochemical Testing Program, Crown
                       Jewel Project,  Response to Agency
                       Comments," prepared by Kea Pacific
                       Holdings Inc. in association with
                       Colder Associates Inc. for the
                       Proponent (Kea Pacific, 1993b);

              •        "Report on Geochemical Testing of:
                       Ore and Low Grade  Ore, Crown Jewel
                       Project," prepared by Kea Pacific
                       Holdings Inc. in association with
                       Colder Associates Inc. for the
                       Proponent (Kea Pacific, 1993c);

              •        "Tailings Geochemical Testing
                       Program: Crown Jewel Project,
                       Okanogan County, Washington",
                       prepared by the Proponent with
                       assistance from Kea Pacific Holdings
                       Inc. (BMGC 1994a); and,
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-10
                                                    June 1995
                                           R, 30 E.
                        LEGEND
         EOCENE VOLCANICS
         SKARN (UNDIVIDED)
   I     I ANDESITE VOLCANICS
   rLTLTH DIORITE
   IHH INTRUSIVE DIKES/SILLS
   | ''' " "j CLASTIC/VOLCANICLASTIC
         GRANODIORITE
         MARBLE/LIMESTONE
         FOOTWALL MYLONITE (APPROXIMATE!
         CONTACT SYMBOLS
         APPROXIMATE LOCATION
         GRADATIONAL
         INFERRED
         HIGHLY TENTATIVE
D91-119)
   463 ±
         • FAULT/FAULT ZONE (APPROXIMATE)
         FAULT/FAULT ZONE
            (REASONABLY INFERRED)
         • FAULT/FAULT ZONE
            (TENTATIVELY LOCATED)
         MINE PIT AREA
DRILL HOLES SELECTED FOR
 GEOCHEMICAL TESTING BY
 BATTLE MOUNTAIN GOLD COMPANY

DRILL HOLES SELECTED FOR CONFIRMATION
 GEOCHEMICAL TESTING BY EIS TEAM
               FIGURE  3.3.2,  LOCATION  OF  DRILL  HOLES
                    USED  FOR  GEOCHEMICAL  TESTING
  FILENAME  CJ3-3-2 DWG

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-11
•        "Draft Summary Report, Confirmation
         Geochemistry Program, Crown Jewel
         Project", prepared by TerraMatrix Inc.
         for the Forest Service and WADOE
         (TerraMatrix Inc., 1994a).

Waste Rock. It is estimated that between
500,000 cubic yards and 54,000,000 cubic
yards of waste rock (development rock) would
be associated  with the Project alternatives.
Nine waste rock groups were identified in the
proposed mine area based on differences in
lithology and degrees of alteration and
mineralization. The waste rock groups include:
         Altered andesite;
         Unaltered andesite;
         Garnet skarn;
         Magnetite skarn;
         Undifferentiated skarn;
         Altered elastics;
         Unaltered elastics;
         Marble; and,
         Intrusives.
 Table 3.3.1, Waste Rock Percentages for the
 EIS Alternatives, lists the total waste rock
 volume for the various EIS alternatives.

 The number of waste rock samples selected for
 testing was based, in part, on the estimated
 rock volumes and common ranges of sulfide
 content observed during core logging. An effort
 was also made to select and test samples with
 higher sulfide contents, as these would  have a
 greater potential to generate acid and leach
 metals. For reference, Appendix E,
 Geochemistry (E-1, Geochemical Samples
 Analyzed),  lists the 89 waste rock samples
 tested by the Proponent and what analyses
 were performed on these samples.

 To confirm that the samples selected by the
 Proponent were representative of the waste
 rock material to be generated and stockpiled
 during mining, the EIS Project team selected an
 additional 278 waste rock samples for
 geochemical testing.  These 'confirmation
 samples' were selected from 17 coreholes and
36 reverse  circulation holes and analyzed for
total sulfur and acid neutralization potential.
The location of these drill holes are also shown
on Figure 3.3.2, Location of Drill Holes  Used for
 Geochemical Testing.
              The drill holes used for confirmation testing
              satisfied the following general criteria:

              •        Were not analyzed in the Proponent's
                       testing program;
              •        Provided area coverage of the
                       proposed mine pit; and,
              •        Were drilled to a total depth at least as
                       deep as the projected base of the pit.

              To determine the number of confirmation
              samples to be tested, a 5-foot sample interval
              was randomly selected from every 50-feet of
              drill hole.  An additional sample  was selected
              from each hole at the projected  intersection
              with the limit of  the pit. If ore material or mixed
              waste rock lithologies were included in the
              sample interval, the sample was not analyzed.
              A listing of the confirmation samples by rock
              type is also presented in Appendix E,
              Geochemistry (E-1,  Geochemical Samples
              Analyzed).

              Ore and Low Grade Ore.  The following ore
              types  were identified at the Crown Jewel
              Project and were used to prepare test samples:

              •        Andesite/garnetite skarn;
              •        Magnetite skarn; and,
              •        'Southwest' ore (undifferentiated
                       skarn).

              The southwest ore type is comprised primarily
              of pyroxene and  amphibole and  occurs in the
              southern portion of the deposit.  It is estimated
              by the Proponent that this material and the
              andesite/garnetite ore type will each comprise
              about 44% of the total ore processed.  The
              remaining 12% of the ore will consist of
              magnetite skarn.

              A total of 10 ore samples were analyzed by the
              Proponent and are  listed in Appendix E,
              Geochemistry (E-1,  Geochemical Samples
              Analyzed).

              Tailings.  Tailings samples were prepared for
              geochemical testing by passing ore grade
              material through  'bench-scale' milling processes
              in the  laboratory. After bench-scale  processing
              was completed and before proceeding with
              geochemical testing, tailings samples were
              treated to reduce their cyanide levels using the
              INCO process.
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-12
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
TABLE 3.3.1, WASTE ROCK PERCENTAGES FOR THE EIS ALTERNATIVES
Waste Rock Group
Altered Andesite
Unaltered Andesite
Garnet Skarn
Magnetite Skarn
Undifferentiated Skarn
Altered Clastics
Unaltered Clastics
Marble
Intrusive
Total Waste Rock Volume
(in million cubic yards)
Alternative
B
6.5
52.3
9.5
1.5
8.9
0.7
13.0
5.5
2.5
54
C
2
1
28
4
36
<0.7
18
3
8
0.5
D
2
14
25
9
6
<0.7
37
3
5
18.8
E
6.5
52.3
9.5
1.5
8.9
0.7
13.0
5.5
2.5
54
F
(3.5
52.3
9.5
1. 5
8.9
0.7
13.0
!3.5
2.5
54
G
6.5
52.3
9.5
1.5
8.9
0.7
13.0
5.5
2.5
54
Note: The waste rock percentages were estimated by the Proponent using site drill data and block model
program. (Schumacher, 1994 and 1995).
All action alternatives, except G, use the INCO
cyanide detoxification process during operations
to satisfy regulatory requirements.  The
Proponent's original Plan of Operations (POO)
specified a detoxification level of less than 40
ppm WAD cyanide.  Three of the tailings
samples initially tested were, therefore,
detoxified to a WAD cyanide level of less than
40 ppm. Upon further consideration, the
Proponent revised its detoxification level to less
than 10 ppm WAD cyanide and 4 additional
tailings samples were  prepared and treated to
this level.

Appendix E-1,  Geochemical Samples Analyzed,
contains a list  of the tailings samples analyzed,
the  ore type(s) used to prepare the samples, the
level of cyanide detoxification achieved, and
what analyses were performed.

Testing  Methods

Various testing methods were employed to
determine the  potential for formation of acid
rock drainage and the creation of leachates
containing detrimental concentration of metals
and/or radionuclides.  Testing was performed by
Core Laboratories of Aurora, Colorado and
included the following analyses:
                     •       Total metals and whole rock
                             radionuclide analyses;
                     •       Leachability tests;
                     •       Tailings Liquid Analysis;
                     •       Acid-base accounting (ABA); and,
                     •       Humidity cell tests.

                     The specific testing methods  used and
                     procedures to interpret the test data are
                     summarized in Appendix E, Geochemistry, and
                     further discussed in the referenced reports.
                     Sample results are summarized below.

                     Waste Rock Analyses

                     The Proponent's waste rock testing program
                     consisted of the analysis of 89 samples.  A
                     subsequent confirmation sampling program was
                     undertaken at the direction of the EIS Project
                     team.  This program consisted of selection of an
                     additional 278 samples for ABA testing to verify
                     the results of the original program.

                     The analyses for the waste rock testing
                     programs are summarized in the following:

                     •       Total metals analysis;
                     •       Leachability tests;
                     •       Acid-base accounting; and,
                     •       Humidity cell tests.
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-13
 Total Metals Analysis. Results from the X-ray
 fluorescence (XRF) analyses indicate the
 presence of several trace metals in the samples
 including arsenic, chromium, cobalt, copper,
 lead, molybdenum, nickel, strontium, thorium,
 tin, vanadium, and zinc.  Detection of these
 metals is not uncommon in mineralized ore
 deposits. Alkaline minerals containing calcium
 and magnesium were also detected in the
 majority of samples tested, indicating that the
 mine waste rock has some natural buffering
 capacity. XRF data for the waste rock samples
 tested are summarized in Appendix E,
 Geochemistry (E-2, XRF and Whole Rock
 Radionuclide Analysis Summary).

 To evaluate the occurrence of  radionuclides in
 the mineral deposit, 25 waste  rock samples
 were tested for natural uranium and thorium.
 Results of these analyses are included in
 Appendix E, Geochemistry (E-2,  XRF and Whole
 Rock Radionuclide Analysis).  The results
 indicate that thorium occurred  in all samples
 tested at concentrations below 1 5 ppm (as Th).
 Twenty-three of the 25 samples  tested also had
 uranium concentrations below  of 0.1 ppm (as
 U308).  Two samples contained uranium at
 levels of 0.8 ppm (as  U308), which is equivalent
 to 0.55 ppm as U. These values are below
 average natural background levels for uranium in
 soils and rocks (Kea Pacific,  1993a).

 Leachability Tests, teachability tests were
 performed to determine whether the metals and
 alkaline minerals identified by XRF analysis
 would readily leach from the waste rock
 material when exposed to precipitation.  Test
 results are discussed below and  summarized in
 Appendix E, Geochemistry (E-3,  Leachability
 Test Results).  The EPA testing procedure used
 (EPA Method 1312) was developed to assess
 the effect of short-term leaching  of large-volume
 wastes by precipitation. The effect of long-term
 leaching of the waste rock material at the
 Crown Jewel Project was assessed by analysis
 of humidity cell test (HCT) leachates. A
 discussion of the HCT results is presented later
 in this section.

 Results from the leachability tests indicate that
 precipitation will not leach substantial
 concentrations of metals and radionuclides from
the waste rock materials at the proposed Crown
Jewel Project.  Sample leachates were typically
alkaline and calcium-rich,  with  pH values
varying between 8 and 10 and  metal
concentrations at or below analytical detection
              limits. Actual leachate pH values would likely
              be slightly lower. Several metals of potential
              concern in neutral to alkaline solutions were
              typically also below detection, including arsenic,
              mercury, molybdenum and selenium.
              Exceptions are described below:

              •        Arsenic was detected in leachates
                       from a clastic waste rock sample (7-
                       711) and an altered andesite waste
                       rock sample (1-114-A) at
                       concentrations of 0.10 and 0.24 mg/l,
                       respectively. The detection of
                       teachable arsenic in these samples
                       appears to be an anomalous
                       occurrence as it was not detected
                       during further kinetic testing of either
                       sample. Arsenic concentrations in the
                       other waste rock sample leachates
                       were at or less than the detection level
                       of  0.05 mg/l. Arsenic was detected at
                       similar levels in several of the bench-
                       scale tailings liquid and leachate
                       samples suggesting that this metal is
                       more readily leached by ore process
                       solutions.

              •        Molybdenum was detected in  a single
                       sample leachate (7-709) at an
                       anomalous concentration of 0.18 mg/l
                       and was below detection level (0.05
                       mg/l) in all other sample leachates.

              •        A relatively low pH (4.07)  leachate
                       was measured from altered elastics
                       waste rock sample  7-710.  Leachate
                       from this sample also contained
                       several trace metals at concentrations
                       above detection including cobalt (0.13
                       mg/l), iron (23.2 mg/l), manganese
                       (0.21 mg/l),  nickel  (0.32 mg/l), and
                       zinc (0.26  mg/l). The acid producing
                       properties of this sample were verified
                       during subsequent acid generation
                       tests.

              •        Iron was detected in 13 other sample
                       leachates at low levels (0.04 to 0.05
                       mg/l).

              Waste rock leachates were analyzed for
              radionuclides.  All of the samples tested had
              gross alpha and gross beta activities below
              regulatory criteria and, in  most cases, the
              activities  were below laboratory detection limits.
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4  Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-14
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June 7995
Acid-Base Accounting (ABA). ABA results for
the waste rock samples are summarized in
Table 3.3.2, Average and Range of ABA  Values
for Waste Rock.  To allow  comparison, results
from the initial and confirmation testing
programs are shown in this table.  A listing of
ABA results for individual waste rock samples is
provided in Appendix E, Geochemistry (E-4,
ABA Results for Waste Rock Samples).

The following criteria were used to interpret the
ABA results:

•        If the ratio of Acid Neutralization
         Potential (ANP) to Acid Generation
         Potential (AGP) is greater than 3:1,
         there is low risk for acid  rock drainage
         to develop; and,

•        If the difference between the AGP and
         ANP is less than -20 tons of calcium
         carbonate per 1000 tons of rock
         (TCaC03/KT), there is also low risk  for
         acid rock drainage to develop.

These criteria are presented in a recent EPA
technical document on acid mine drainage
prediction (EPA, 1994).

Because of the large number of waste rock
samples analyzed  (a total of 89 in  the
Proponent's testing program and 278 in the EIS
confirmation testing program) and  the wide
range in ABA values observed, the ABA data
were evaluated using average values calculated
for each waste rock group. Review of the
average ABA values shows good agreement
between the testing programs. Both testing
programs determined that 7 of the 9 waste rock
groups (altered andesite, unaltered andesite,
garnet skarn, undifferentiated skarn, marble,
unaltered elastics, and intrusive) are not
potentially acid generating.  For these rock
types, average ANP/AGP ratios were
substantially greater than 3 and net Acid
Producing Potentials (APP) were less than
approximately -20 TCaC03/KT.

Both testing programs also determined that the
magnetite skarn waste rock group was
potentially acid generating  with an average
ANP/AGP ratio of 0.7  to 1.6 and an average net
APP of -12 to 73 TCaC03/KT. Similarly, the
altered elastics waste  rock group was
determined by both testing programs to be
potentially acid generating  with an average
                    ANP/AGP ratio of 1 to 3.4 and an average net
                    APP of -20 to 26 TCaC03/KT. Kinetic testing
                    by Core Laboratories for the Proponent verified
                    that these waste rock groups  have a marginal
                    (magnetite skarn) to strong (altered elastics)
                    tendency to generate acid. As shown in Table
                    3.3.1, Waste Rock Percentages for the EIS
                    Alternatives, magnetite skarn  and altered
                    elastics will comprise less than 10% of the total
                    waste rock volume generated  under any of the
                    EIS alternatives.  Humidity cell testing showed
                    that a smaller percentage than this (less than
                    5%) would generate acid under simulated field
                    conditions.

                    Due to the relatively large volume of waste rock
                    that would  be generated during mining and the
                    planned selective mixing of this material during
                    disposal and reclamation, it is also meaningful
                    to look at the average ABA characteristics of
                    the total waste rock volume.  Table 3.3.3,
                    Average Total Waste Rock ABA Values for the
                    Crown Jewel Project, lists  the average net APP
                    value  and average ANP/AGP ratio for the total
                    waste rock volume generated  under each
                    Project alternative. These  values were
                    calculated by multiplying the average ABA
                    values for a given waste rock,  group by its
                    percentage of the total waste  rock volume and
                    summing for each alternative.

                    Review  of Table  3.3.3, Average Total Waste
                    Rock  ABA  Values for the Crown Jewel Project,
                    indicates that the total waste  rock volume
                    generated under  each Project  alternative would,
                    on average, not be potentially acid generating.
                    These averages should not be interpreted to
                    suggest that materials in the waste rock dumps
                    would be homogeneous and that there would be
                    no zones with ABA values that would be
                    potentially higher or lower  than the averages.
                    The averages do, however, provide a practical
                    method of comparison between the alternatives.

                    As  part of the confirmation testing program, the
                    EIS Project team  included waste rock samples
                    from the expected limits of the mine pit
                    proposed under Alternative B.  ABA tests were
                    performed on these samples to initially assess
                    the potential for  waste rock exposed in the final
                    pit walls to generate acid.  Results for these
                    samples are listed separately in Appendix E,
                    Geochemistry (E-5, ABA Results for Pit Wall
                    Samples). A map showing the waste rock
                    types that would be exposed  in the final pit and
                    the location of the pit wall samples is presented
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4  Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-15
TABLE 3.3.2, AVERAGE AND RANGE OF ABA VALUES FOR WASTE ROCK1
Waste Rock
Group
Number
of
Samples
Analyzed
Total Sulfur Percentage
Range
Average
AGP as TCaCO3/KT2
Range
Average
ANP as TCaC03/KT3
Range
Average
ANP/AGP Ratio
(mean)
Range
Average
Net APP as TCaCO3/KT*
Range
Average
Andesites
Altered
Unaltered
21 (14}
81 117}
0 01 to 2 14
«0 01 to 4.17)
<0 01 to 2.47
«0 01 to 2.19)
Skarn
Garnet
Magnetite
Undifferentiated

Marble
36 19}
5 (10)
26 (7)

25 (9)
Clastic
Altered
Unaltered
1 (5)
61 (11)
<0 01 to 14 5
(<001 to 2.44)
1 81 to 8 75
(0.43 to 6 33)
<0.01 to 3 90
«0 01 to 0.03)

<0 01 to 2 66
«0 01 to 0.1)
0.45 (1 16)
0 32 (0 49)
0 3 to 66 9
«0 3 to 130)
<0.3 to 77.2
«0 3 to 68 4)
140 (36.3)
101 (15 4)
4.4 to 220
(23 0 to 220}
<0 1 to 209
(14 8 to 99.1)

1 65 (0.49)
4 10 (2.20)
0 97 (0 01)

0.19 (0 03)
< 0.3 to 4530
«0 3 to 76 3)
56 6 to 273
(13.4 to 198)
<0.3 to 122
K0.3 to 0.9)

<0 3 to 83 1
« 0 3 to 3 1 )
51.5 (15.2)
128.2 (68 6)
30.4 (0.3)

59 (08)
<0.1 to 2970
(12.8 to 116)
9 8 to 1 35
(6 5 to 327)
<0.1 to 363
(9 4 to 61 3)

14 8 to 1320
(741 to 927}
72.4 (86.9)
38 6 (41 2)

145.6 (84.4)
55.6 (80. 7)
86 4 (39 5}

667 2 (802)
0.48 to 373 3
(0.76 to >312)
<0 1 to 124.7
(0 32 to 330)

0.15 to 990O
(1.03 to 373)
0.07 to 2.39
(0 19 to 10)
<0 1 to 1173
(>31 to >204)

2 64 to 3533
(260 to >3050)

(0 31 to 3)
<0 01 to 1 81
«0 01 to 0.99)

Intrusive
Total
22 (7)
278 (89)
<0 01 to 2 34
(<0 01 to 0.07)

0.26 (1 4)
0 38 (0 2)

0 22 (0 04)
(9 7 to 93 8)
<0 3 to 56 6
«0 3 to 30 9)

<0 3 to 73.1
«0 3 to 2 2)
8 1 (43.6)
120 (62)
« 0 1 to 34 8)
<0.1 to 516
(5 4 to 235)
27.8 (17 4)
60.2 (39 0)
«0 1 to 3 6)
<0 1 to 1620
(0 7 to 783)
46 (51)
27 (60)
-196 9 to +7.6
(-205 to +30)
-191.2 to +77.1
(-97 to +46)

347 (130)
07 (16)
90 (117)

1200 (10OO)

34 (1)
76 (95|
-2969 7 to +369 4
(-1 to +223)
-78.4 to +253 8
(-297 to +90)
-351.7 to +78.9
(-61 to -9)

-1324.7 to -9. 2
(-914 to -625)
-58 (-50)
-28 (-25)

-94 (-69)
-73 (-12 5}
-56 (-39}

-661 (-801)

(-25 to +59}
-506 9 to +50 6
(-234 to +9)

6 9 (1.1)
<0 1 to 86 6
«0 1 to 29 4)
25 8 (18 9)
<0.1 to 252.3
(0 1 to 98 1 1
35 (36)
-84.1 to +12
(-29 to +2)
-20 ( + 26)
-48 (-32)

-19 (-18)

Notes: 1 Numbers in parentheses are from the Proponent's testing program Numbers outside parentheses are from the EIS confirmation testing program.
2 AGP = Acid Generation Potential, assumed to equa Total Sulfur.
3. ANP = Acid Neutra ization Potential
4. Net APP = Net Acid Producing Potential, AGP-ANP
5. Net APP values less than -20 TCaC03/KT and ANP/AGP rations greater than 3 are considered representative of non acid generating material
                                   Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-16
Chapter 3
June
TABLE 3.3.3, AVERAGE TOTAL WASTE ROCK ABA VALUES FOR THE CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
Alternative
B
C
D
E
F
G
Net APP ;as TCaCO3/KT)
-42 (-31)
-55 (-37)
-38 (-21)
-42 (-31)
-42 (-31)
-42 (-31)
|
ANP/AGP Ratio
72 (71)
142 (91)
108 (59)
72 (71)
72 (71)
72 (71)
Notes: 1. Numbers in parentheses are based on ABA data from the Proponent's testing program. Numbers
outside parentheses are based on ABA data from the EIS confirmation testing program.
2. Net APR values less than -20 TCaC03/KT and ANP/AGP ratios greater than 3 are considered
representative of non acid generating material.

|
in Figure 3.3.3, Waste Rock Types Exposed in
Final Pit Walls (Alternatives B & G).

Of the 44 pit wall samples analyzed:
         10 samples were marble;
         9 samples were unaltered clastic;
         7 samples were garnet skarn;
         6 samples unaltered andesite;
         5 samples were undifferentiated skarn;
         5 samples were intrusive; and,
         2 samples were magnetite skarn.
Twenty-eight of the 44 pit wall samples tested
(64%) either had ANP/AGP ratios greater than 3
or net APP values less than -20 TCaC03/KT,
indicating non acid generating material. Taken
as whole, the samples had an average ANP/AGP
ratio of 354 and an average net APP of -160
TCaC03/KT.

To account for the different areas of waste rock
exposed  in the proposed pit and to further
predict whether this exposed material would
impact the quality of ground and  surface
waters, a pit water quality study  was
performed.  Results from this study confirmed
the pit wall sample ABA results, that is, the
exposed  waste rock would not result in acidic
drainage  either during or after mining.  A further
discussion of the pit water quality study  is
presented in Section 4.6, Ground Water,
Springs and Seeps.

Finally, for purposes of verification, the EIS
Project team analyzed the net APP  and
ANP/AGP ratio of 8 waste rock samples
previously tested by the Proponent. Duplicate
waste rock sample results from the Proponent's
and confirmation testing programs  produced
similar conclusions regarding potential to predict
                    acid generation by AGP/ANP ratios in 5 out of
                    the 8 cases (63%) for the waste rock units.
                    Comparing duplicate net APP values, similar
                    conclusions regarding potential to predict acid
                    generation occurred in 6 of the 8 cases (75%).
                    The differences observed in the duplicate
                    sample results are largely attributed to natural
                    variability in the core used for testing.  The
                    duplicate samples were prepared from separate
                    halves of the same core interval.

                    Humidity Cell Tests (HCT). Waste rock samples
                    shown to be potentially acid generating based
                    on ABA testing were further tested in humidity
                    cells to evaluate whether the  materials would
                    generate acid under field conditions and, if so,
                    the rate of acid generation. The HCT is the
                    most widely used test to simulate natural
                    weathering conditions and can be used to
                    assess the long-term potential of a mine
                    material to generate acid.  A total of 28 waste
                    rock samples were tested  in humidity cells.
                    Humidity cell test results are summarized in
                    Appendix E, Geochemistry (E-6, Summary of
                    Humidity Cell Tests Results).  A discussion of
                    the humidity cell  testing procedure including the
                    length of testing  and the effects of bacteria on
                    the rate of acid generation is  provided in
                    Appendix E, Geochemistry.

                    Seven of the 28 waste rock samples tested in
                    humidity cells were shown to be acid
                    generating. Included were:

                    •       Two unaltered andesite samples (2-
                             209-B and 2-214-B) exhibited a
                             moderate to strong tendency to
                             generate acid.  These samples
                             probably represent a subgroup of the
                             unaltered andesite and are
                             characterized by 'large' open fractures
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
                      Page 3-17
        E 2.084,000
                                     R. 30 E.
                                                       E. 2,088.000
                                                                          T.
                                                                          40
                                                                          N.
                                L EGEND
                                                            CONTOUR INTERVAL 15FT
   |  | UNALTERED ANDESITE


   |  | ALTERED ANDESITE


   |  | GARNET SKARN


   |  | MAGNETITE SKARN
\%£-\  UNDIFFERENTIATE SKAHN
^*~^

f~|  UNALTERED CLASTICS


|  |  MARBLE

^B  INTRUSIVE
DRILL HOLES SELECTED FOR CONFIRMATION
ABA TESTING THAT INTERSECTED ESTIMATED
BASE OF PIT AND WERE SAMPLED
        FIGURE  3.3.3,  WASTE  ROCK  TYPES EXPOSED  IN
        FINAL PIT  WALLS  UNDER  (ALTERNATIVE  B  &  G)
 FILENAME CJ3-3-3 DWG

-------
Page 3-18
Chapter 3 - Affected t'nvifontnent
June f.9,95
         containing sulfides, moderate to high
         total sulfur contents (greater than
         0.5%), low ANP:AGP ratios (less than
         2:1),  and low net APP (less than 10
         TCaCO3/KT). Humidity cell testing of
         2 other samples from this potential
         subgroup did not exhibit acid
         generating properties.  Review of the
         confirmation  waste rock data indicates
         that less than approximately 5% of the
         unaltered andesite samples tested had
         total sulfur contents and ABA values
         characteristic of this material.
         Accounting for the estimated
         percentage of unaltered andesite
         waste rock that would be generated
         under the various EIS alternatives, this
         potential subgroup would  comprise
         from  less than 1 % to about 2.5.% of
         the total waste rock volume.

•        Four altered clastic samples (7-708-A,
         7-710-A, 7-715-A and 7-716-A) also
         exhibited a moderate to strong
         tendency to generate acid. This
         subgroup was identified after initial
         humidity cell  testing of the elastics
         and is characterized  by banded
         hornfels material.  It is estimated that
         altered elastics would comprise less
         than 1 % of the total waste rock
         volume under any of the EIS
         alternatives.

•        One magnetite skarn sample (4-405-B)
         exhibited a marginal tendency to
         generate acid.  Nine magnetite skarn
         waste rock samples  were  tested in
         humidity cells, all of which were
         determined from ABA testing to be
         potentially acid generating. The HCT
         results, however, suggested that
         sulfides in this waste rock are
         generally not readily oxidizable.
         Magnetite skarns would comprise
         approximately 2% to 9% of the total
         waste rock volume depending on the
         alternative selected.  The humidity cell
         testing indicated that less than  20% of
         this amount may be  acid generating or
         less than 1 % to 2% of total waste
         rock volume.

Based on the HCT results, it is estimated that
less than 5% (0.02 to 2.7 million cubic yards)
of the total waste rock volume generated at
                    Crown Jewel under the various EIS alternatives
                    would be acid generating. The acid generating
                    material is predicted to include a potential
                    subgroup of unaltered andesite (less than 1 % to
                    about 2.5% of the total waste rock volume),
                    altered elastics (less than 1 % of the total waste
                    rock volume),  and a portion of the magnetite
                    skarn (less than 1 % to 2% of the total waste
                    rock volume).

                    In addition to the analyses described above, the
                    EIS Project team had several of the HCT
                    leachates analyzed. The purpose of this testing
                    was to evaluate the occurrence of
                    contaminants, particularly trace metals, in
                    leachates formed under acid  generating
                    conditions.  The additional analyses  were
                    performed on week 1 5, HCT leachates from 18
                    of the waste rock samples tested. Six of these
                    samples had been found to have a marginal to
                    strong tendency to generate  acid while the
                    others were non acid generating.

                    Table 3.3.4, Summary of Additional HCT
                    Leachate Analyses, lists the range of parameter
                    concentrations detected in the sample
                    leachates.  For comparison, the samples
                    determined from humidity cell testing to  be acid
                    generating samples were  grouped separately in
                    Table 3.3.4, Summary of Additional HCT
                    Leachate Analyses, from the non acid
                    generating samples.  Due to the testing
                    procedure used, the metal concentrations listed
                    should be considered a semi-quantitative
                    measure of what would occur  under actual field
                    conditions.

                    Review of data for the non-acid generating
                    samples indicates that, with the exception of
                    manganese and zinc, metal concentrations in
                    HCT leachates were generally at or below
                    detection levels.  A moderate concentration of
                    manganese (0.35  mg/l) and zinc (0.13 mg/l)
                    was detected in leachate  from 1 of the
                    magnetite skarn samples  tested.

                    Leachates analyzed from the acid generating
                    samples typically contained low to moderate
                    concentrations of several trace metals including
                    arsenic, antimony, cadmium, chromium,  copper,
                    iron, manganese, nickel, thallium, and zinc.  It is
                    possible under acid generating conditions at the
                    site that these metals could be leached from
                    select waste rock material. f\  comparison of
                    the HCT leachate analyses to water quality
                    conditions measured in historic mine adits at the
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4  Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-19
TABLE 3.3.4, SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL HCT LEACHATE ANALYSES
Parameter


pH 
-------
Page 3-20
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June 1995
Results for these analyses are presented in
Appendix E, Geochemistry, and are summarized
below.

Total Metals Analysis.  As with the waste rock
testing program, the results of the XRF analyses
indicate the presence of several trace metals in
the ore samples  including arsenic, chromium,
cobalt, copper, lead, molybdenum, nickel,
strontium, thorium, tin, vanadium, and zinc.
Detection of these metals is not uncommon in
mineralized ore deposits. Alkaline minerals
containing calcium and magnesium were also
detected in the majority of ore samples tested
indicating the material has some natural
buffering capacity.

teachability Tests.  Results from teachability
testing indicated that precipitation would not
leach substantial concentrations of metals from
the ore mined at the Crown Jewel Project.  The
pH  of sample leachates ranged from  8.5 to 10.1
and metal concentrations were typically at or
below detection  levels.  Exceptions include the
detection of barium and aluminum.  Barium was
detected in 2 of the 10 sample leachates at
concentrations of 0.04 to 0.12 mg/l.  Aluminum
was detected in  7 of the 10 samples at
concentrations of 0.06 to 0.60 mg/l

Acid-Base Accounting. ABA results for the  ore
and low grade ore samples are shown in Table
3.3.5, ABA Results for Ore Samples.  Based on
the ANP/AGP ratios and net APP values
measured, none  of the ore samples tested was
potentially acid generating.  Three of the 10 low
grade ore samples did, however, exhibit
ANP/AGP ratios  below 3:1. Two of these were
magnetite skarns and  1 was southwest ore
(undifferentiated skarn). The low net APP (-51
TCaC03/KT) of the southwest ore sample makes
it unlikely, however, that this material would
generate acid during the approximate maximum
2-month period it would be stored before
processing.  Similarly, the relatively low net APP
(5 TCaC03/KT) of one of the magnetite skarn
samples suggest that any short-term acid
production would be neutralized. As a
precaution, the long-term acid generation of the
2 magnetite skarn samples were tested in
humidity cells and both were found to be non-
acid generating.  Results of these analyses are
further discussed below.

Humidity Cell Tests.  Humidity cell data for the
2 low grade ore samples indicated that both
                    were non acid generating. Although low to
                    moderate sulfate concentrations « 10 to 120
                    mg/l) were detected in leachates from  1 sample
                    (11-102), pH values remained above 6
                    throughout the testing period, acidity and iron
                    were near or below detection limits, and
                    alkalinity was available.  HCT leachates from
                    the other low grade ore sample (11-101) had
                    low sulfate levels (18  to 87 nng/l), available
                    alkalinity, iron and acidity concentrations near or
                    below detection levels, and pH values typically
                    above 6. Lower pH values were measured in
                    leachates from this sample during the initial 10
                    weeks of testing, but these stabilized in the
                    range of pH 6 to 6.5 during the second 10
                    weeks.  Both of the low grade ore samples
                    tested in humidity cells were magnetite skarns.

                    Summary of Analyses. The ore and low grade
                    ore samples tested were found to be non-acid
                    generating and had a low potential to leach
                    metals.

                    Tailings Analyses

                    Prior to  analysis, each tailings sample was
                    separated into a solid and liquid portion. The
                    solids were analyzed for total metals,
                    leachability, and acid generation potential.  The
                    liquid portion of the tailings were analyzed for
                    several water quality parameters.

                    Analyses for tailings included:
                             Total metals analysis;
                             Leachability tests;
                             Acid-base accounting;
                             Humidity cell tests; and,
                             Tailings liquid analysis.
                    Results for these analyses are presented in
                    Appendix E, Geochemistry,  and are described
                    below.

                    Total Metals Analysis.  XRF results for the
                    tailing solids were not unlike the results for the
                    waste rock and ore samples.  Several trace
                    metals common to the ore were detected
                    including arsenic,  chromium, cobalt, copper,
                    lead, molybdenum, nickel, strontium, thorium,
                    vanadium, and zinc as well as alkaline minerals
                    capable of neutralizing acid generation.

                    Leachability Tests. Results from the tailings
                    leachability tests were similar to the waste rock
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-21
TABLE 3.3.5, ABA RESULTS FOR ORE SAMPLES
Ore Type
Ore:
Undifferentiated Skarn
Garnet Skarn
Garnet Skarn
Magnetite Skarn
Low Grade Ore:
Undifferentiated Skarn
Undifferentiated Skarn
Garnet Skarn
Garnet Skarn
Magnetite Skarn
Magnetite Skarn
Sample
Number

12-101
13-101
13-102
14-101

9-101
9-102
10-101
10-102
11-101
11-102
Total Sulfur
percentage

2.66
0.09
0.03
0.06

<0.01
4.91
<0.01
0.21
3.63
1.09
AGP as
TCaCO3/KT

83.1
2.8
0.9
1.9

<0.3
153
<0.3
6.6
113
34.1
ANP as
TCaC03/KT

570
52.3
65.3
401

36.6
204
71.9
26.9
27.7
29.5
ANP/AGP
Ratio

6.9:1
19:1
73:1
211:1

>122:1
1.3:1
> 240:1
4:1
0.25:1
0.87:1
Net APP
as
TCaCOj/KT

-486.9
-49.5
-64.4
-399.1

-36.6
-51
-71.9
-20.3
85.3
4.6
 and ore samples analyzed and indicated that
 precipitation would not leach substantial
 concentrations of metals and radionuclides.
 Sample leachates were alkaline and calcium-
 rich, with pH values varying between 8.5 and
 10, and metal concentrations typically below
 analytical detection limits.

 Arsenic was detected in leachates from 5 of the
 7 tailing samples.  The arsenic levels detected
 ranged from 0.09 to 0.12 mg/l for the samples
 detoxified to a WAD cyanide level of less than
 10 ppm and from 0.12 to 0.24 mg/l for samples
 detoxified to WAD cyanide levels of less than
 40 ppm.  By comparison, arsenic levels
 measured in baseline surface and ground water
 have been less than 0.05 mg/l. The occurrence
 of arsenic in the tailings leachates suggests that
 moderate levels of this metal may be leached
 via precipitation from the processed ore
 material.  Several other metals of potential
 concern in neutral to alkaline solutions were
 below detection in leachates, including mercury,
 molybdenum, and selenium.

 Acid-Base Accounting. ABA results for the
 tailings solids are shown in Table 3.3.6, ABA
 Results for Tailings Solids.  Accounting for the
 approximate ratio of ore types that would be
 processed, analysis of the tailings solids
 indicated that, as a whole, the material would
 not be acid generating at either level of cyanide
 detoxification.   Average net APP values for the
tailings were from -78 to -79 TCaC03/KT and
average ANP/AGP ratios were from 2.4:1  to
3.6:1.
              Individually, the andesite/garnetite ore tailings
              and magnetite ore tailings had a marginal acid
              generation potential with ANP/AGP ratios
              ranging from 0.79:1 to 1.5:1 and net APPs
              ranging from -40 to +23 TCaC03/KT.
              ANP/AGP ratios and net APP values for tailings
              prepared from the southwest ore type indicated
              the material would not be potentially acid
              generating.  All of the tailings samples were
              subsequently tested for long-term acid
              generation potential using humidity cells.

              Humidity Cell Tests.  Three samples detoxified
              to WAD cyanide levels of less than 40 ppm
              were tested in humidity cells for 20  weeks.
              Four samples detoxified to WAD cyanide levels
              of less than 10 ppm were tested  in humidity
              cells for 27 weeks.

              Review of the HCT data  indicate that the
              tailings solids are  not acid generating.  For all
              samples tested, iron and acidity concentrations
              remained near or below detection levels, pH
              values were 6 and above,  and alkalinity was
              available throughout the testing periods. A pH
              of 5.8  was measured for 1 sample (CJC-7
              2127-74)  during the first 10 weeks of testing
              but increased to above 7 for the remainder of
              the testing.  Also, during the first 10 to 15
              weeks of testing,  elevated sulfate levels (greater
              than 200 mg/l) were detected in all of the
              sample leachates.  The sulfate levels declined
              substantially during the later weeks of testing
              and are believed to be an artifact  of treating the
              tailings prior to geochemical testing. As
              proposed during mining operations, the samples
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4  Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-22
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
TABLE 3.3.6, ABA RESULTS FOR TAILINGS SOLIDS ]
Sample Number
Ore Type
Approximate
Ore Ratios
in Tailings
Total
Sulphur
Percentage
AGP as
TCaC03/KT
AMP as
TCaCO3/KT
ANP/AGP
Ratio
Net APP as
TCaCOj/KT
Samples Detoxified to WAD Cyanide Level of less than 40 ppm j
CJC-12 21 10-135
CJC-13 2110-135A
CJC-7 2096-99
Weighted Average
Values for Combined
Tailings
Southwest
Andesite/Garnetite
Magnetite Ore
Samples Detoxified to WAD Cyanide Level
CJC-12 2127-70
CJC-12 2127-71
CJC-Blend 2127-73
CJC-7 2127-74
Weighted Average
Values for Combined
Tailings
Southwest Ore
Southwest Ore
Andesite/Garnetite
& Southwest
Magnetite Ore

45%
45%
10%
(100%)
0 93
1.27
2.46
1.6
29
40
77
39
184
52
117
118
6.3.1
1.3 1
1.5.1
3.6.1
-155
-12
-40
-79 j
of less than 10 ppm
45%
45%
90%
10%
(100%)
1.83
1.78
1.53
3.49
1.85
57.3
55.6
47.8
109
57.8
162
169
122
85.8
136
2.8:1
3.0:1
2.6:1
0.79:1
2.35:1
-105
-113
-74
+ 23
-78
 were treated by the INCO process which can
add a substantial quantity of sulfate to tailings
(BMGC, 1994a).

Tailings Liquid Analysis.  To provide an estimate
of the quality of water that will pond and be
collected from the tailings impoundment, the
liquid portion of 6 tailings samples were tested
separately.  Three of the samples were
detoxified to a WAD cyanide level of less than
40 ppm and 3 were detoxified to a WAD
cyanide level of less than 10 ppm. The tailings
liquid from these samples were analyzed for a
variety of chemical parameters including total
and WAD cyanide, major and minor ions, trace
metals, and radionuclides.  Results of these
analyses for the samples treated to an optimal
WAD detoxification level are presented in Table
3.3. 7, Analysis of Tailings Liquid.

Based on review of the tabulated data, the
following generalizations can be made regarding
the tailings water quality:

•       When detoxified to a WAD
         cyanide level of less than 10
         ppm,  total and WAD cyanide
         concentrations averaged 5.3
         and 0.9 mg/l, respectively.
                             Sodium and calcium were the
                             dominant cations and sulfate
                             the dominant anion.

                             The tailings water had a
                             relatively high total dissolved
                             solids (TDS) content,
                             averaging 4,200 mg/l.

                             The solution was alkaline,
                             with an average pH of 7.5.

                             Nutrient levels were elevated
                             in the water, with an average
                             ammonia concentration of 93
                             mg/l (as N) and average
                             nitrate concentration of 11
                             mg/l (as N).

                             Several trace metals
                             occurred, with varying
                             dissolved concentrations,
                             including arsenic (<0.05 to
                             0.25 mg/l), barium (0.07 to
                             0/09 mg/l), boron (0.11 to
                             0.14 mg/l), cobalt  (0.33 to
                             0.55 mg/l), copper (0.01 to
                             0.06 mg/l), iron (0.58 to
                             2.06 mg/l), mercury (0.0004
                             to 0.0023 mg/l), manganese
                             (0.01 to 0.12 mg/l»,
                             molybdenum (0.06 to 0.24
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-23
TABLE 3.3.7, ANALYSIS OF TAILINGS LIQUID1


Parameter


Bicarbonate (Fill.)
Carbonate (Filt.)
Chloride (Filt.)
Conductivity (Filt.)
Cyanide, Total (Filt.)
Cyanide, WAD (Filt.)
Hydroxide (Filt.)
Nitrogen, Ammonia (Filt.)
Nitrogen, Nitrate (Filt.)
pH (Filt.)
Solids, Total Dissolved (TDS)
Sulfate (Filt.)
Aluminum, Diss. (Al)
Antimony, Diss. (Sb)
Arsenic, Diss. (As)
Barium, Diss. (Ba)
Beryllium,. Diss. (Be)
Boron, Diss. (B)
Cadmium, Diss. (Cd)
Calcium, Diss. (Ca)
Chromium. Diss. (Cr)
Cobalt, Diss. (Co)
Copper, Diss. (Cu)
Iron, Diss. (Fe)
Lead, Diss. (Pb)
Mercury, diss. (Hg)
Magnesium, Diss. (Mg)
Manganese, Diss. (Mn)
Molybdenum, Diss. (Mo)
Nickel, Diss. (Ni)
Potassium, Diss. (K)
Selenium, Diss. (Se)
Silver, Diss. (Ag)
Sodium, Diss. (Na)
Strontium, Diss. (Sr)
Titanium, Diss. (Ti)
Uranium, Diss. (U)
Vanadium, Diss. (V)
Zinc, Diss. (Zn)
Radionuchdes
Gross Alpha, diss.
Gross Alpha, diss., error, ±
Gross Alpha, diss., LLD
Gross Beta, dissolved
Gross Beta, diss., error, ±
Gross Beta, diss., LLD
Radium 226, dissolved
Radium 226, diss., error, ±
Radium 226, diss., LLD
Sample Number/Ore Type
(Detoxified to WAD Cyanide Level of Less Than 10 ppm)2
CJC-12/2127-70/71
(Southwest Ore)
"Average"
95
<1
370
4080
9.9
0.93
<1
100
12
7.51
4020
1640
<0.05
<0.1
0.34
0.09
<0.005
0.09
0.05
675
<0.01
0.56
0.02
2.06
<0.05
0.0023
7.0
0.01
0.15
<0.04
89
<0.1
<0.01
335
2.51
<0.05
0.01
<0.05
<0.01
CJC-Blend/21 27-73
(Andesite/Garnetite)
and Southwest
105
<1
523
4160
1.6
0.88
<1
106
10
7.59
4280
1950
<0.05
<0.1
0.20
0.09
<0.005
0.14
< 0.005
830
<0.01
0.48
0.01
0.58
<0.05
0.0004
8.3
0.01
0.24
<0.04
66
<0.1
<0.01
311
2.57
<0.5
<0.001
<0.05
0.01
CJC-7/2 127/74
(Magnetite Ore)

123
<1
1820
4760
1.2
0.62
<1
80
9
7.28
5080
2120
<0.05
<0.1
<0.05
0.07
<0.005
0.1 1
<0.005
910
<0.01
0.33
0.06
0.98
<0.05
0.0005
15.9
0.12
0.06
<0.04
49
<0.1
<0.01
390
2.23
<0.05
0.007
<0.05
0.01
Weighted
"Average"

102
<1
853
4184
5.3
0.88
<1
93
11
7.5
4240
1830
<0.05
<0.4
0.25
0.09
<0.005
0.12
<0.005
770
<0.01
0.50
0.02
1.29
<0.05
0.001
8.5
0.02
0.18
<0.04
75
<0.1
<0.01
330
2.51
<0.05
<0.001
<0.05
0.01

ND
20.4
43.4
67.1
29.8
46.8
0.1
0.8
1.2
17.1
20.9
34.5
55.4
30.9
49.6
0.6
0.7
0.9
ND
34.9
68.2
47.2
30.1
48.6
0.6
0.6
O.8
<10
21
42
60
31
48
0.4
0.7
1.0
Notes: 1. All results in mg/l except pH (s.u.) and radionuclides (pCi/l)
2. Samples detoxified by the Inco process.
        mg/l), uranium «0.001 to 0.01 mg/l),
        and zinc «0.01 to 0.01  mg/l).  Of
        these, arsenic, cobalt, and
        molybdenum were the most highly
        elevated.

        Radionuclide activities were
        near or below the lower limit
        of detection. Average values
        for gross alpha, gross beta,
        and radium were <10 pCi/l,
                       60 pCi/l and 0.4 pCi/l,
                       respectively.

              Actual tailings water quality conditions at the
              Crown Jewel Project may vary from the results
              presented in Table 3.3.7, Analysis of Tailings
              Liquid, due to the effects of seasonal dilution of
              the tailings water from  precipitation, loss of
              selected contaminants (cyanide in particular)
              through  natural degradation,  pond evaporation
              and recycling the water through the mill.
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-24
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June 1995
Potential changes in tailings water quality as a
result of recycling water through the mill were
evaluated by the Proponent and it was
concluded that little variation would occur over
time (BMGC,  1995 and INCO, 1995).
Concentrations of most metals and major ions in
the reuse water are expected to be controlled
by one or more of the following process:

•        Destruction of metal-cyanide
         complexes as a result of continual
         passage of the tailings water through
         the INCO system;

•        Precipitation/co-precipitation of metals
         and  ions from solution due to the
         elevated pH conditions required during
         milling and the generally low mineral
         solubilities observed in alkaline waters;
         and,

•        Dilution from addition of fresh makeup
         water estimated to comprise
         approximately 30% to 35%  of the
         total process water volume.

For constituents which do not form substantial
cyanide complexes and/or which exhibit
relatively high solubilities in alkaline water,
some increase in concentration may occur if
dilution does not offset additions from milling.
Such constituents could include sodium and
chloride.

Summary of Analyses. Geochemical testing
indicates that the solids fraction of the tailings
generated at Crown Jewel would contain
several trace metals of which arsenic  could be
leached by precipitation at concentrations of 0.1
to 0.2 mg/l. ABA and HCT results suggest that
the tailings solids would not be acid generating.

When detoxified to a WAD cyanide level of less
than 10 ppm, the liquid fraction of the tailings
would be alkaline and contain WAD cyanide
concentrations below 1 ppm.  The tailings liquid
would also contain elevated levels of total
dissolved solids, ammonia, nitrate nutrients, and
some trace metals.

Summary

A detailed geochemical testing program was
performed for the proposed Crown Jewel
Project to assess the potential for waste rock,
ore, and tailings materials at the mine to
                    generate ARD and leachate containing metals
                    and radionuclides. A total of 89 waste rock
                    samples and  10 ore and low grade ore samples
                    were tested for the Proponent by Core
                    Laboratories.   These samples were selected by
                    the Proponent's geologists and geochemist to
                    represent the range of lithologic and
                    mineralogical differences observed at the site.
                    To confirm that the samples were
                    representative, the EIS Project team selected an
                    additional 278 waste rock samples for ABA
                    analysis as well as duplicates of 8 samples
                    previously tested  by the Proponent. To assess
                    geochemical conditions in the tailings area, the
                    Proponent also had prepared and tested  7
                    representative tailings samples.

                    Based  on the geochemical testing that was
                    performed for Crown Jewel, the following
                    conclusions can be drawn:

                    •       Whole rock analyses of all
                             test samples (waste rock,
                             ore, and tailings) showed the
                             occurrence of several
                             common trace metals that
                             potentially could occur in
                             mine leachates. These
                             metals include arsenic,
                             chromium, cobalt, copper,
                             lead, molybdenum, nickel,
                             strontium, thorium, tin,
                             vanadium, and zinc.
                             Radionuclides occur in these
                             materials at levels at or
                             below average
                             concentrations for the rock
                             types tested.

                    •       teachability tests indicated
                             that precipitation would
                             typically not leach substantial
                             concentrations of metals and
                             radionuclides from the mine
                             materials. Arsenic was,
                             however, detected at
                             moderate concentrations
                             (0.09 to 0.24 mg/l) in
                             leachates from 5 of the 7
                             tailings  samples analyzed.
                             Iron was detected at low
                             concentrations (0.04 to 0.05
                             mg/l) in leachates from 13 of
                             81 waste rock samples
                             analyzed. Aluminum was
                             detected in 7 of the 10 ore
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-25
         leachates tested at
         concentrations of 0.06 to
         0.60 mg/l.

         Analysis of the liquid portion
         of the tailings samples
         demonstrated that when
         detoxified to WAD cyanide
         levels of less than 10 ppm,
         the tailings pond water would
         be slightly alkaline and
         contain elevated levels of
         total dissolved solids and
         nutrients, low to moderate
         trace metal concentrations,
         an average total cyanide
         concentration of 5.3 ppm
         and an average WAD cyanide
         concentration of less than 1
         ppm.

         ABA tests suggest that the
         overall volumes of waste
         rock, ore, and tailings
         generated at the site would
         not be acid generating under
         the different  Project
         alternatives.  Individually, 2
         of the waste rock groups,
         magnetite skarns and altered
         elastics,  were found to be
         potentially acid generating
         based on ABA results. Of
         the ore samples tested, 2
         low grade magnetite skarn
         samples  and  1
         undifferentiated skarn sample
         were also found to have  a
         low to marginal potential to
         generate acid, although,  in
         light of the time ore will be
         stockpiled before processing,
         it is  unlikely this would
         occur. Tailings samples
         prepared from 2 of the 3 ore
         types  were also found to
         have a marginal acid
         generation potential based on
         ABA testing.

         ABA results from the EIS
         confirmation  program
         confirmed the Proponent's
         findings regarding the waste
         rock characteristics.  Also,
         comparison of duplicate
                       results from the 2 testing
                       programs indicated similar
                       conclusions would be drawn
                       regarding ability to predict
                       acid producing potential in 5
                       to 6 of the 8 samples tested.

                       Waste rock samples collected
                       from the proposed walls of
                       the final mine pit  were
                       predicted not to be acid
                       generating based on average
                       ABA results. Pit water
                       quality modeling discussed in
                       Chapter 4 determined that
                       water collected in the
                       proposed pit would not be
                       acidic during or after mining.

                       Twenty-week humidity cell
                       tests (HCTs) were performed
                       to further evaluate samples
                       determined to be potentially
                       acid generating from the ABA
                       tests.  Results of these tests
                       indicated 2 unaltered
                       andesite samples, 1
                       magnetite skarn sample and
                       4 altered elastics samples
                       exhibited a marginal to strong
                       tendency to generate acid.
                       Accounting for their
                       occurrence at the  site, these
                       materials would make up less
                       than 5% of the total waste
                       rock volume generated under
                       the EIS alternatives.
                       Humidity cell testing of ore
                       and tailings samples
                       indicated that these materials
                       were not acid generating.

                       Further analysis of the HCT
                       leachates indicated that
                       those samples that were
                       found to generate acid
                       contained detectable levels of
                       several trace metals including
                       antimony,  arsenic, cadmium,
                       chromium, copper, iron,
                       manganese, nickel, thallium
                       and zinc. As indicated
                       above, these samples are
                       estimated to represent less
                       than 5% of the total waste
                       rock volume.
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-26
                       Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
                                   June 1995
3.4      GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS

Seismic (or earthquake) activity in central
Washington is low, (Algermissen et. al., 1982).
Figure 3.4.1, Earthquake Epicenters, show the
relative activity.  According to the Uniform
Building Code, the Crown Jewel Project area
lies in Zone 2B of the Seismic Risk Map of the
United States, as shown  on Figure 3.4.2,
Seismic Risk Zone Map of the  United States.
This zone can be expected to receive moderate
damage corresponding to Intensity VII of the
Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale of 1931.
3.5
SOILS
3.5.1    Introduction

Baseline information used to characterize soils
was derived from USDA Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) soil surveys completed for the
Okanogan County Area (Lenfesty, 1980),
surveys completed for the Okanogan National
Forest (Rother,  1977), and intensive on-site soil
surveys completed in August of 1992 and May
of 1 993 to provide site-specific soil data for the
proposed Project area and water  storage
reservoir alternatives. Details of  site-specific
survey methodologies, the areas  surveyed, and
specific survey  results are provided in the
technical memorandums prepared by Cedar
Creek Associates, Inc.  (1992, 1993).

3.5.2    General Soil Properties

Study Area

A variety of soils occur within the study area.
The soil variability stems primarily from the
presence of a broad spectrum of  parent
materials as influenced by topography, aspect,
elevation, and differential rates of material
weathering. Figure 3.5.1, Soil Map Units - Mine
Area, depicts the 22  soil map units delineated
as a result of the survey.  Figure  3.5.2, Soil
Map Units - Starrem Reservoir Site, depicts the
soil map units delineated in the location of the
proposed Starrem reservoir.  Table 3.5.1, Soil
Characteristics  Summary, presents data for
selected properties of the dominant soils
mapped for each area (Cedar Creek, 1992 and
1993).

Soils at higher elevations in the western portion
of the study area are developing  in residuum,
slope wash, and colluvium from igneous rock
parent materials, have moderate permeabilities,
and are well to somewhat excessively well-
drained.  The soils are typically very shallow to
moderately deep over hard bedrock.  Loam to
gravelly loam textures typify surface horizons
while very to extremely cobbly loam and sandy
loam textures are characteristic of the subsoils.
Coarse fragment content is high throughout the
majority of the profiles, typically ranging from
35% to over 60%.  The pH values of the
profiles range between 5.7 and 6.2 with the
profiles being non-effervescent. Effervescence
is a chemical reaction resulting from the
addition of hydrochloric acid to a soil material.
The level of effervescence is directly related to
the free calcium carbonates in the soil. Rock
outcrops and surface rock exposures are
commonly associated with the more shallow
soils.

Soils at lower elevations in the central and
eastern portion of the study area are forming
primarily in volcanic ash over glacial parent
material. These soils are deep to very deep
with notably high coarse fragment  horizons
occurring at depths typically ranging from 1 5 to
30 inches.  Permeability is moderate to
moderately slow, and the soils are  well drained.
Surface textures range from  loams and silt
loams to gravelly loams.  Subsoils exhibit a
wide variety of textures from gravelly  loams to
extremely cobbly loamy sands.  Coarse
fragment content of the surface horizons ranges
from less than 5% to 15%.  Coarse fragment
contents ranging from 40% to over 70% are
typical of subsoils.  Soil pH values  range from
5.9 to 6.6, though some deeper horizons exhibit
pH values of 6.8. The soils are non-
effervescent. An ash layer immediately below
the organic horizon  is typical of these  soils.

Soils in the extreme eastern portion of the study
area are forming primarily  in  volcanic ash over
glacial deposits and have characteristics similar
to the soils described previously.  However,
coarse fragment content of the  subsurface
horizons  is occasionally lower and may not
exceed 25%.

Utilities and Road Corridors

Soils overlying the location of the proposed
Starrem water storage reservoir are typically
deep and well drained with moderate to
moderately slow permeabilities and are forming
in glacial lake deposits and volcanic ash over
                     Crown Jewel Mine t Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
RE 3.4
EARTHQUAKE EPICENTERS
RO
SZZS.ZZZZ  °
OOOODO
fTirrinimrnm
. —— -^ ._ .
/ /_ f^L. l\l/l
/ / \J [_ 1 }/ !_/
NOTE US GEOLOGIC
INFORMATION CENTER
DATA BASE SYSTEM
, NATIONAL E
EN FROM THE
                                                                                                                                                      *
                                                                                                                                                      a
                                                                                                                  en

                                                                                                                  0
                                                                                     LATITUDE
                                                                                                                                                      $
                                                                                                                                                      bo

-------
                  125°
                            120°
                                       115°       110°       105°       100
     40
                                                                                                              80°        75°
            SEISMIC  RISK MAP  OF THE UNITED STATES
            ZONE 0 -
            ZONE 1 -
                   Minor damage; distant earthquakes may cause
                   damage to structures with fundamental periods
                   greater than  1.0 second; corresponds to Intensities
                   V and VI of the M.tt. Scale.
                   2A.2B; Moderate damage; corresponds to intensity VII
                   of the M.M. Scale.
                   Major damage; corresponds to intensity VII and
                   higher of the «M Seals.
                   Those areas within Zone No.  3 determined by the
                   proximity to certain major fault systems.
                   CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
            Modified Mercaili Intensity Scale of 193
                                 110°
                                                 105°
                                                                100'
FILENAME  CJ3-4-2DWG
                                                             95°             90°             85°

FIGURE   3.4.2,   SEISMIC   RISK  ZONE  MAP  OF   THE  UNITED
                                                                                                                              80°
                                                                                                                          STATES

-------
June 1995
Page 3-29
         LEGEND
           SAMPLE POINT
        	SOIL UNIT BOUNDARY
        R  SOIL MAP UNIT (SEE TEXT
           FOR SOIL DESCRIPTION)
       — — STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
           FIGURE 3.5.1, SOIL MAP  UNITS, MINE AREA

-------
              BRITISH COLUMBIA
                                   R 30 E
  CANADA

"UNITED STATES
                                                                            T
                                                                            40
                                                                            N
LEGEND
                                                                                 A"-<6  SAMPLE POINT

                                                                                 	SOIL UNIT BOUNDARY

                                                                                  B  SOIL MAP UNIT (SEE TEXT
                                                                                     FOR SOIL DESCRIPTION)
                                                                                 — — STUDY AREA BOUNDARY
                                                                                   CONTOUR INTERVAL 40PT
                FIGURE 3.5.2, SOIL  MAP  UNITS-STARREM  RESERVOIR  SITE
FILENAME CJ3-5-2DWG

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
                                                                                                              Page 3-31
TABLE 3.5.1, SOIL CHARACTERISTICS SUMMARY
Map Unit
(Slope Percent)
A (5-30)
B (20-40 + )
C (10-35)
D (10-25)
E«10)
F (10-30)
G (10-25)
H (25-40)
1 (10-35)
J (25-35 + )
K (10-33)
L (5-33)
M (25-35)
N (50-70)
O (40-70)
P (25-35)
Q (20-33 + )
R (25-100)
S (50-100)
T (50-75)
U (5-70)
V
W (_<10)
X (10)
Y(10)
ZK5)
AA (35-45)
BB (5-35)
CC K10)
Contrasting Map Unit Inclusion1
5% VSS
5% VSS, SR
10% SR
All similar soils
All similar soils
10% VSS, SR
5% SR
5% SR
10% drainageway; 5% RO, SR, VSS
5% SR
10% RO, SR; 5% Deeper soils
15% SR, VSS
10% VSS, SR
30% Disturbed; 5% VSS
45% Disturbed; 5% VSS
30% Disturbed; 5% SR
30% Disturbed
30% Deeper soils; 20% RO, SR, VSS
25% RO, SR; 25% Deeper soils
25% Deeper soils; 15% VSS
40% deeper soils
Unit V consists entirely of soils
Dreviously disturbed to varying
degrees.
All similar soils
30% Disturbed
50% Disturbed
10% wetlands, 10% high Co. Frag.;
5% RO
10% High Co. Frag.
10% SR; 5% Mod deep
5% gullies; 5% high Co. Frag.
Soil Depth2
Deep
Deep
Deep
Deep
Deep
Deep
Deep
Deep
Deep
Deep
Mod Deep - Deep
Shallow - Mod Deep
Deep
Very shallow - Shallow
Very Shallow - Shallow
Mod Deep
Mod Deep
Very Shallow - Shallow
Very Shallow - Shallow
Unit T consists of 60% RO, SR,
and VSS
Shallow - Deep

Deep
Deep
Deep
Deep
Deep
Deep
Deep
Primary Soil Drainage
Well
Well
Well
Well
Very poor
Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
Somewhat excessive
Somewhat excessive
Well
Well
Somewhat excessive
Somewhat excessive

Well

Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
Soil pH Range
5.9-6.8
6.0-6.8
6.4-6.8
6.2-6.6
6.4-6.6
6.2-6.8
5.6-6.8
6.4-6.6
5.6-6.8
6.2-6.4
5.8-6.2
5.8-6.2
5.6-6.8
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.2-6.4
6.0-7.0
60.70

No Data

5.8-6.2
6.2-6.4
7.7-8.0
7.8-8.0
7.2-7.6
7.2
7.6-8.2
Erosion Hazard3
SI - Mod
Mod - Se
SI - Mod
SI - Mod
None - SI
Mod
SI - Mod
Mod - Se
SI - Mod
Mod
SI - Mod
SI - Mod
Mod
Se - VSe
Se - VSe
Mod - Se
Mod
Mod - VSe
Se - VSe
Se - VSe
Mod - VSe
Si - VSe
None - SI
SI
SI
Non - SI
Mod - Se
SI - Mod
None - SI
Notes: 1 . VSS = Very Shallow Soils; SR = Surface Rock Exposures; RO = Rock Outcrops; Co. Frag. = Coarse Fragments.
2. Deep = >40"; Moderately Deep = 20-40"; Shallow = 10-20"; Very Shallow = less than 10".
3. V = Very; SI = Slight; Mod = Moderate; Se = Severe (for exposed soil surface).
                                  Crown Jewel Mine > Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-32
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June 1995
alluvial sediments or glacial till.  Soil textures
throughout the profiles are predominantly loams
and silt loams.  Coarse fragment contents are
highly variable. Soils overlying more level areas
typically exhibit less than 15% gravels
throughout the profile while more steeply
sloping soils characteristically have coarse
fragment contents ranging from 15% to 70%,
by horizon.  Soil pH values range  from 7.2 to
8.0.  These soils may be non-effervescent to
violently effervescent with lime content
generally increasing with depth.  The hazard for
erosion is  predominantly slight to  moderate,
though high ratings occur for soils overlying
steeper terrain.

The proposed water supply pipeline route is
overlain by a variety of soils ranging from deep
soils forming in alluvium and glacial deposits in
drainage-ways and along slopes to shallow
ridge-top soils developing in granitic residuum.
Soils on slopes and in drainage positions
typically have sandy loam, silt loam, or loam
surface textures with subsurface textures
ranging from very gravelly sands to gravelly
sandy loams.  Coarse fragment content can
range from less than 1 5% to over 60%
throughout these profiles. These  soils are
typically well drained, moderately rapidly
permeable, and non-effervescent with pH values
from 6.2 to 7.8.  The erosion hazard ranges
from slight to very severe depending upon
slope.  Ridge-top soils typically are somewhat
excessively drained with moderately rapid
permeabilities.  Surface and subsurface textures
range from sandy loams to gravelly loamy sands
and sandy loams.  Coarse fragment content
ranges from 5% to 50% but is typically high
throughout the profile.  These soils are non-
effervescent with pH values from 6.0 to 6.9.
The erosion hazard is classed as severe to very
severe.

Soils crossed by the proposed transmission line
vary widely in characteristics and range from
shallow soils on mountains and ridge-tops to
deep soils located in floodplains.  Soils along  the
eastern one-half of the corridor include forest
soils on mountainous uplands which were
formed in a variety of parent materials including
volcanic ash over glacial till, outwash, and
granite residuum.  Soil depths range from very
shallow to shallow on knolls and ridges to deep
over most other topographic positions.  Shallow
soils are also associated with rock outcrops
common to the mountainous areas. These soils
                     are predominantly well drained, moderately
                     permeable, non-effervescent to slightly
                     effervescent, and have pH values typically
                     ranging from 6.1 to 7.8.  Higher pH values may
                     also occur at depth in soils overlying dissected
                     glacial plains. Surface textures are typically silt
                     loams and loams, though stony, extremely
                     stony, and extremely gravelly loams also occur.
                     Subsurface textures range from silt loams to
                     gravelly sandy loams to very gravelly sands.
                     The hazard of erosion is highly variable, ranging
                     from slight to severe.

                     Soils along the western half of the proposed
                     transmission corridor include those of  upland
                     plains and terraces formed in glacial till and
                     lacustrine sediments and soils of lowland
                     terraces and floodplains with alluvial parent
                     materials.  Upland soils are typically deep and
                     well drained with permeabilities ranging from
                     moderately slow to moderately rapid.  Surface
                     textures are typically silt loams to extremely
                     stony loams with silt loam, loam, and  gravelly
                     sandy loam subsurface textures being  common.
                     Coarse fragment content ranges from  less than
                     1 5% to 40% in typical soil profiles.  These soils
                     are non- to strongly effervescent and have pH
                     values ranging from 6.6 to 9,0. The hazard of
                     erosion is slight to severe as slope increases.

                     Lowland soils are forming  in  glacial till,
                     outwash, and alluvial parent  materials. On
                     average, these soils are deep, well drained, and
                     moderately permeable.  Surface textures range
                     from fine sandy loams to silty clay loams  and
                     subsurface textures from very gravelly sands to
                     silty clay loams.  Coarse fragment contents are
                     typically low while subsurface horizons of
                     terrace soils may contain as much as 55%
                     coarse fragments.  Soil pH values range from
                     6.6 to 7.3 with higher values common to some
                     floodplain soils.  These soils  are typically non- to
                     slightly effervescent and have erosion  hazards
                     classed as slight to moderate.

                     The proposed northern access route crosses the
                     same soils as the proposed water supply
                     pipeline route from the junction of Bolster and
                     Myers Creek to the proposed Starrem  reservoir.
                     From this point  south to Chesaw, soils vary
                     from shallow soils on ridges  and uplands
                     forming  in granitic rocks to deep soils  overlying
                     plains, meadows, and bottomlands with
                     volcanic ash (over glacial till) and alluvial parent
                     materials.  These soils are typically non- to
                     slightly effervescent with pH values ranging
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
                           Page 3-33
 from 6.1 to 7.8, though more effervescent soils
 with higher pH values may be found in meadow
 soils.  On average, these soils are well drained
 and moderately permeable with more poorly
 drained soils common to lower slope positions.
 Surface and subsurface soil textures range from
 extremely stony and gravelly silt loams in the
 uplands to very fine sandy loams overlying the
 bottomlands.  Subsurface textures range from
 gravelly silt loams to stratified sands and sandy
 loams.  Coarse fragment contents are highly
 variable. Erosion hazards are slight to high for
 upland soils and slight for bottomland soils.

 From the southern boundary of the  study area
 to the town of Chesaw, soils vary from well
 drained soils forming in  volcanic ash over glacial
 till on uplands and mountains to somewhat
 poorly to moderately well drained bottomland
 soils forming in alluvial parent materials. These
 soils are typically deep and moderately
 permeable  with silt loam to sandy loam surface
 textures.  Subsurface textures range from  silt
 loams and  loams to very gravelly sands. Coarse
 fragment content of the upper horizons in
 typically low while contents of lower horizons
 may reach  as high as 75% on terrace positions.
 Soil pH values range from 6.1  to 8.4 in uplands
 and from 7.9 to 8.4 in bottomland soils with a
 corresponding tendency toward effervescence.
 Erosion hazards for upland and bottomland soils
 are classed as moderate to very high and none
 to slight, respectively.

 3.5.3    Reclamation Suitability of Soils of the
         Study Area

 Soil suitability for reclamation within the study
 area was determined as a result of an analysis
 of both physical (texture, coarse fragment
 content, shallow depth,  depth to bedrock,
 existing disturbances, percent slope, moisture
 regime) and chemical (pH, effervescence)
 characteristics as compared  to commonly
 accepted suitability criteria.

As a result of this analysis, it was determined
that salvage depths of soils suitable for
reclamation ranged from 0 to 28 inches over the
 Project area depending upon individual map unit
characteristics. The percent of each unit
determined to be salvageable ranged from 0%
to 100% with percentages between 85 and 95
being most common.
               In the western portion of the Project area, high
               coarse fragment content, shallow depth, and
               past disturbances were the primary limitations
               to deeper and/or  more extensive salvage.

               High coarse fragment content, slope,  and rock
               outcrops were the primary salvage limitations in
               the central part of the  Project area while high
               soil coarse fragment content at depth was the
               primary limitation in the eastern portion of the
               Project area.

               Table 3.5.2, Soil Salvage Depth Summary,
               presents selected information regarding the
               salvage suitability of the soil  units mapped
               within the study area.

               3.5.4    Erosion  Hazard of Soils of the Study
                       Area

               Table 3.5.1, Soil Characteristics Summary,
               depicts the erosions hazards  estimated for the
               soils mapped within the study area. These
               ratings are based on endemic slope angles,
               slope lengths, soil depths, and soil physical
               characteristics. The ratings assume a condition
               of a bare soil surface devoid of plant cover or
               litter similar to that  which could exist  following
               vegetation removal  in preparation for soil
               salvage operations.  In general, ratings range
               from "slight",  reflecting nearly level slopes and
               good  soil infiltration rates, to "very severe" for
               shallow soils on very steep slopes.
              3.6
SURFACE WATER
              3.6.1    Introduction

              The description of existing water resources is
              divided into a discussion of water quality and
              water quantity.  The following sections include
              a discussion of the regional hydrologic setting,
              flow characteristics within the surface drainage
              system, and analysis of the surface water
              quality.

              3.6.2    Regional  Surface Water Hydrology

              The Crown Jewel  Project site is  located on the
              eastern flank of Buckhorn Mountain.  Surface
              waters from the eastern flank flow in  an
              easterly direction in Marias Creek and Nicholson
              Creek to join with  Toroda Creek. Toroda Creek
              flows northeasterly as it receives flow from
              Marias Creek.  At the confluence with Nicholson
              Creek, Toroda  Creek turns east for
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-34
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June  (995
TABLE 3.5.2, SOIL SALVAGE DEPTH SUMMARY
Map
Unit
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
Y
Z
AA
BB
CC
Salvage Depth
(inches)
20
28
9
23
60
14
18
18
20
22
22
13
24
0
0
19
21
6
0
0
0
0
60
23
16
14
60
Percent of Unit
Salvageable
95
95
90
100
0
90
95
95
95
95
85
95
90
0
0
90
95
60
0
0
0
0
100
95
95
90
90
Primary Salvage Limitations
Coarse fragment content, soil texture
Coarse fragment content, soil texture
Coarse fragment content, surficial bedrock
Coarse fragment content
Saturated soils, standing water
Coarse fragment content
Coarse fragment content
Coarse fragment content
Coarse fragment content
Coarse fragment content
Coarse fragment content, depth bedrock
Coarse fragment content
Coarse fragment content, depth to bedrock
Coarse fragment content, depth to bedrock, past disturbances
Coarse fragment content, depth to bedrock, past disturbances
Coarse fragment content, depth to bedrock, past disturbances
Coarse fragment content, depth to bedrock, past disturbances
Depth to bedrock, slope, rock outcrops
Slope, depth to bedrock
Slope, rock outcrops and surface rock exposures
Depth to bedrock, slope, coarse fragment content
Opportunistic salvage only
None
Effervescent, rock outcrop
Coarse fragment content, surface stones/boulders
Coarse fragment content, depth, surface stones
Erosion gullies, depth to coarse fragments
approximately 3 miles to its confluence with the
Kettle River.  The Kettle River flows in a
southerly and easterly direction to the town of
Curlew, Washington where it turns northeast
and flows across the Canadian border at
Danville, British Columbia. The Kettle River
flows back into the United States at Laurier,
Washington where it flows south to its
confluence with the Columbia River.

Surface waters from the western flank of
Buckhorn Mountain flow from the Ethel Creek,
Thorp Creek, Bolster Creek, and Gold Creek
drainage basins in a northwesterly direction to
Myers Creek.  Myers Creek flows north across
the Canadian border and is tributary to the
Kettle River in Canada, approximately 10 miles
from the U.S. border.

Flow in  the Kettle River has been monitored at
several  locations in the United States, as well as
in Canada.  Figure 3.6.1,  Regional Stream
Network, illustrates the course of the Kettle
River as it flows into and out of the United
States along the Canadian border.  There is a
                    Canadian monitoring station (maintained by
                    Water Survey/Environment Canada), and a U.S.
                    monitoring station (maintained by the U.S.
                    Geological  Survey) located on the Kettle River
                    upstream of the confluence of Toroda Creek
                    with the Kettle River. Two Canadian and a U.S.
                    monitoring station have been maintained
                    downstream of the Toroda Creek confluence.

                    Mean annual discharge in  the Kettle River
                    ranges from 1,314 cubic feet per second (cfs)
                    at Kettle Valley to 2,895 cfs near Laurier.  Table
                    3.6.1, Regional Surface Water Discharge
                    Summary,  gives the  period of record, mean
                    annual discharge, and mean daily extremes for
                    the period  of record for each of these
                    monitoring stations.

                    A monitoring station on Myers Creek at the
                    U.S./Canadian border was maintained by Water
                    Survey of Canada/Environment Canada. Flow
                    records are available for a period of record from
                    1923 through 1950  and 1968 through 1977.
                    This station was operated to obtain information
                    pertaining to flows during the irrigation season;
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------

\
                    ROCK CREEK^
                                   KETTLE VALLEY
  \
      OROV/LLE
    \
   j
              BRITISH COLUMBIA. 	
                WASHINGTON
                                  -\
                                     ^
                                      CARSON
                                                           GILPIN
MIDWAY^
  FERRY
 /- — ^.± ---- -a
A     _____ ^
                        CHESAW
                           I
           /
          :- TONASKET
         I
        1

                                                    DANVILLE
  CASCADE

^LAURIER
            }

             \

                                                   BARSTOW A \
                                                            V

                                                          /
                                                         /
                                                         /
                                                                       KETTLE FALLS
                                                                                    V
                                                                                  TRAIL
                                            ,__/—-
        LEGEND


  •^f CROWN JEWEL PROJECT

  A MONITORING STATION - CANADA
  /\ MONITORING STATION - UNITED STATES
                                                                               NOTE- NOT TO SCALE
                       FIGURE  3.6.1, REGIONAL STREAM  NETWORK
FILENAME CJ3-6-1OWG

-------
Page 3-36
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June 1995
TABLE 3.6.1, REGIONAL SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE SUMMARY
Station Name
Myers Creek at International Boundary
Kettle River at Kettle Valley
Kettle River near Ferry
Kettle River near Ferry
Kettle River at Carson
Kettle River at Cascade
Kettle River near Launer
Operated by:
Canada
Canada
United States
Canada
Canada
Canada
United States
Approximate
Drainage Area
mi2
80
1,761
-2,200
-2,200
-2,600
3,459
3,800
km2
207
4,560
5,750
5,750
6,730
8,960
9,842
Period of Record
1923-1977
1915-1922
1929-1991
1928-1990
1913-1922
1916-1934
1929-1991
Mean Annual Discharge
cfs
Annual mean
not available'
1,314
1,523
1,523
1,500
2,511
2,895
m3/sec

37.2
43.1
43.1
42.5
71.1
82
Note: 1. Only irrigation season measured.
Sources: 1985, U.S. Geological Survey. Stream flow Statistics and Drainage-Basm Characteristics for the Southwestern and Eastern Regions, Washington,
Volume II. U.S.G.S. Open File Report 84-145-B.
1991, U.S. Geological Survey. Water Resources Data for Washington, 1 991 .
1992, Environment Canada. Water Survey Records, 1992.

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-37
 and, therefore, winter stream flows were not
 recorded. The drainage area at the Myers Creek
 station is approximately 80 square miles (207
 square kilometers). Extremes for the period of
 record were a maximum instantaneous
 discharge of 109 cfs (3.09 cubic meters per
 second) on June 11, 1948, maximum daily
 discharge of 102 cfs (2.89 cubic meters per
 second) on June 11, 1948, and  minimum daily
 flows of 0.0 cfs (0.0 cubic meters per second)
 on July 16, 1926 and August 13,  1939.  A
 summary of the estimated mean annual flow of
 Myers Creek at the international border is
 shown on Figure 3.6.2, Estimated Mean Annual
 Hydrograph of Myers Creek (International
 Boundary).

 A stream flow investigation of Myers Creek was
 completed near the town of Myncaster, British
 Columbia (Colder, 1994a).  The study was
 conducted to evaluate the hydraulic continuity
 between Myers Creek and the shallow ground
 water system, particularly during the peak flow
 period. The study concluded that Myers Creek
 is losing an average of 1.6 cfs or approximately
 5% to 6% of typical peak flow (25 to 30 cfs).
 The small stream flow loss is attributed to the
 relatively low permeability and silty nature of
 the stream banks and streambed materials.

 3.6.3    Regional Surface Water Quality

 Regional water quality data are available from  5
 surface water  monitoring stations established  on
 the Kettle River.  The locations of these stations
 are shown on Figure 3.6.1, Regional Stream
 Network.

 Three of the Kettle River water quality stations
 (Midway, Carson, and Gilpin) have been
 monitored monthly or semi-monthly by
 Environment Canada from 1979 to the present.
 The station at  Rock Creek was generally
 sampled annually by British Columbia (B.C.)
 Ministry of Environment from 1965 to 1984 and
 again in August 1992.  The U.S. water quality
 monitoring station on the Kettle River, near
 Barstow, was sampled  by WADOE  on a monthly
 basis from 1960 to 1990.

 Water quality samples collected from the Kettle
 River have been analyzed for several parameters
 including general and physical characteristics,
 major and minor ions, nutrients, metals,
cyanide, and coliform bacteria. A review of
these data indicates that the Kettle River is near
              neutral to slightly alkaline, with pH values
              ranging from 6.6 to 8.7.  Specific conductivity
              ranged from 30 to 70 micromhos per centimeter
              (umhos/cm) at Rock Creek and from 46 to 249
              umhos/cm at Gilpin. This increase in specific
              conductivity indicates an increase in the TDS
              content of the Kettle River as it flows
              downstream.  Calcium and bicarbonate were the
              dominant cation and anion measured in all
              samples.

              Nutrient levels were generally low along the
              Kettle River, with nitrate plus nitrite
              concentrations ranging from below detection
              limit to about 0.5 mg/l and total phosphorous
              concentrations ranging from below detection to
              about 0.3 mg/l.  There were seasonal trends in
              these nutrient levels, with nitrate plus nitrite
              concentrations generally decreasing during the
              spring runoff,  while total phosphorous
              concentrations increased during the same
              period.  Concurrent with these nutrient
              variations were noticeable increases in water
              turbidity, as would be expected with increased
              surface  water runoff during the spring.

              Trace metal levels in the Kettle River do not
              appear to follow seasonal patterns.  With the
              exception of arsenic, the concentration of trace
              metals were generally at or below the Canadian
              analytical detection  limits. Arsenic was
              routinely detected at concentrations up to
              0.004 mg/l.

              Cyanide results for the Kettle River are
              inconclusive as a result of suspected
              contamination of the samples during sample
              preservation (Environment Canada, 1992).

              Total coliform  bacteria  were  analyzed at one of
              the Kettle River stations (Barstow) and were
              detected at concentrations up to 800
              colonies/100 ml.  Elevated counts could suggest
              contamination from  septic tanks, waste water
              treatment plants, and livestock grazing or
              represent background  levels  associated with
              wildlife activity.  The maximum bacteria counts
              were measured on the Kettle River during the
              summer months, when river  water temperatures
              rose and biologic activity is expected to have
              increased.

              3.6.4   Project Area Surface Water Hydrology

              Five drainages that originate  near the top of
              Buckhorn Mountain  could potentially be affected
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
                                   ESTIMATED MEAN MONTHLY FLOW (cfs)
     Tl

     0
     C
     3D
     m
   C/T
     rn
   O w
   3D H
  a m
  zo
   3D m
   z>
   >z


   II
   •">
   0,1-
   0=0
   >0
   §g
s«
o> ,;
    >
        Pi
            c?
            c/> -<
O O 

o CD 00 ,„ S2 • o !i 3 w 20 si Q661


-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-39
by the proposed Crown Jewel Project.
Nicholson Creek and Marias Creek are perennial
streams with intermittent sections in the upper
reaches.  These streams drain the eastern flank
of Buckhorn Mountain. Gold Creek, Bolster
Creek, and Ethel Creek are perennial streams
that drain the western flank of Buckhorn
Mountain.  Of these streams, only Nicholson
and Marias Creeks form intermittent streams
within the area of proposed disturbance. The
western boundary of the proposed disturbed
area is roughly located along the drainage divide
between the east and  west flanks of Buckhorn
Mountain.  Most of the proposed disturbance
would occur on the eastern flank of the
mountain.

Figure 3.6.3, Watershed Location Map,  outlines
the drainage boundaries of these  5 watersheds
and the  area of proposed disturbance. Figure
3.6.4, Site Stream Network, shows the
configuration of the streams as they flow from
Buckhorn Mountain, and the stream miles from
their confluence with Toroda Creek on the
eastern flank and Myers Creek on the western
flank of  Buckhorn Mountain.

The general runoff regime for watersheds in the
northern border mountain area of eastern
Washington is applicable to the 5 drainages of
on the Crown Jewel Project site.  Precipitation
in the late fall through early spring is stored as
snow and released as  snowmelt in the late
spring and early summer (Moss and Haushild,
1978).

Precipitation at the Crown Jewel  Project site
was estimated from local measurements during
the period of 1989 through 1991. These data
were compared to precipitation data measured
by the National Weather Service at Republic,
Washington with a period of record from 1950
through 1991.  An average annual precipitation
for the Buckhorn Mountain area is estimated to
be 21.3 inches per year (BMGC, 1993b).
Additional discussion regarding climate is found
in Section 3.1, Air Quality/Climate.

Project Area Drainage  Characteristics

Drainage information used to characterize the 5
drainages at the Project site includes:

•        Total drainage area;
•        Elevation range;
•        Channel  length;
              •        Stream order;
              •        Stream classification; and,
              •        Estimates of mean annual and mean
                       annual peak flow.

              Total Drainage Area. This is the area of the
              drainage basin to  its  confluence with the next
              lower stream.

              Elevation Range.  The range is determined from
              the highest point  in the watershed to the
              elevation at the confluence with the next lower
              stream.

              Channel Length.  This is the total length of the
              stream from its origin to its confluence with the
              next lower stream.

              Stream Order.  Stream order is a classification
              of a drainage basin using the number of
              tributaries found within the drainage. A first
              order stream  has  no  tributaries. A  second order
              stream is a reach  downstream of the confluence
              of at least 2 first  order streams. Ordering
              continues in this fashion indicating  the relative
              complexity of the drainage basin.

              Stream Classifications. Stream classifications
              are defined by both the Forest Service and
              WADOE for the purpose of establishing water
              quality management  goals for streams in the
              State of Washington. Streams in the Project
              area have been classified by the Forest Service
              as Class III and IV (Forest Service,  1989a), and
              by the WADOE as Class AA or Lake Class
              (WADOE, 1992).  Table 3.6.2, Stream
              Classification Summary, describes Forest
              Service and WADOE stream classifications and
              water quality management goals.

              Mean Annual and Mean Annual Peak Stream
              Flows.  Estimates of mean annual stream flows
              and mean annual  peak stream flows were
              calculated (Hydro-Geo, 1992) using USGS
              regression equations (Moss and Haushild,
              1978).  Regionalized regression equations can
              produce a range of results; however, for the
              purposes of comparison between the drainages,
              the estimates obtained from regression
              equations can be  helpful to understand the
              relative differences in flows within the Project
              area. Table 3.6.3, Summary of Hydrologic Flow
              Data, includes the estimated mean  annual
              average and mean annual peak flows for Project
              area streams.
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
              BRITISH COLUMBIA
   ' 	 '       '   WASHINGTON^
                                 _ _     JSP Pi-.   -R—-	
                                                                                                            -i     LEGEND
                                                                                                                       BOUNDARY OF AREA
                                                                                                                       IMPACTED BY ALTERNATIVE B

                                                                                                                       MINE PIT AREA

                                                                                                                       DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY
                                                                                                                       STREAM CLASS III
                                                                                                                       EPHEMERAL SECTIONS
                                                                                                                       MAJOR STREAMS
                                                           GOLD CREEK
                                                         DRAINAGE BASIN
                                                           2,308.3 AC.
                                                      10.23% STREAM GRADIENT
   BOLSTER CREEK
   DRAINAGE BASIN
     1.799.4 AC.
10.23% STREAM GRADIENT
                                                                                                                       (1989, USDA, FOREST
                                                                                                                       SERVICE)
                                                                     NICHOLSON CREEK
                                                                     DRAINAGE BASIN
                                                                       10,124.2 AC.
                                                                   6.06% STREAM GRADIENT
    THORP CREEK
   DRAINAGE BASIN
      413.6 AC.
17.94% STREAM GRADIENT
                ETHEL CREEK
               DRAINAGE BASIN
                 1.961.8 AC.
             9.73% STREAM GRADIENT
                                            MARIAS CREEK
                                            DRAINAGE BASIN
                                              7,745.7 AC.
                                        5.68% STREAM GRADIENT
                                   FIGURE  3.6.3,  WATERSHED  LOCATION  MAP
FILE NAME OJ3-6-3DWG

-------
                                                                     LEGEND
F/lfAMME CJ3-6-4DWS
                        FIGURE 3.6.4,  SITE STREAM NETWORK
                                                                      0     1.38

                                                                    DISTANCE FROM CONFLUENCE
                                                                         IN MILES

-------
Page 3-42
            Chapter 3 - Affected Envit
                                  TABLE 3.6.2. STREAM CLASSIFICATION SUMMARY
                                              U.S.D.A. Forest Servica
   Cla«« I    Perennial or intermittent streams that have 1 or more of the following characteristic*,-
                       •          Direct Source of domestic water use.
                       •          Used by large numbers of fish for spawning or migration.
                       »          Major flow contributor to a Class I stream

   Highest level of protection

             Water quality  will not be changed from the existing or natural condition except for the following temporary
             changes from:
                                  Stream restoration.
                                  Habitat improvement.
                                  Necessary transportation system crossing.
                                  Beneficial  use structures.                                               	
   Class II
             Perennial or
ntermittent streams that have 1 or more of the following characteristics:
         Used by moderate numbers of fish for spawning or migration.
         Moderate flow contributor to the Class I stream or major flow contributor to a Class II
         stream.
   High level of protection
             Temporary changes as defined for Class I stream but not including the following:
                        •         Increased water temperatures which take several years for shade roestablishment.
            	•	Turbidity from long-term disturbances such as roads or large denuded areas.	
   Class III   All other perennial streams not meeting higher criteria.

   Normal level  of protection

             Water quality will not deteriorate below existing established water quality goals for downstream Class I and II
             streams. Water quality changes may involve the following:
                        •         Increased water temperatures and turbidity increase, provided these do not cause Class I
  	and II streams to fall below established goals.	
   Class IV    Intermittent streams not meeting higher criteria.

   Normal level of protection

              Water quality will not deteriorate below existing established water quality goals for downstream Class I and II
              streams. Water quality changes may involve the following:
                        •         Increased water temperatures and turbidity increases, provided the:>e do not cause Class
  	I and II streams to fall below established goals.	
                                                 Washington State
    Class AA or Lake Class
              All surface waters lying within national parks, national forests, and wilderness areas that are not specifically
              listed under WAC 1 73-301 A-1 30.
    Highest level of water quality criteria
                                  Water quality of this class shall markedly and uniformly exceed the requirements for all
                                  or substantially all uses.
                                  No temperature increases shall exceed 0.3°C due to human activities.
                                  Turbidity increases shall not exceed 10% due to human activities.
Project Area Drainages

An overview of the 5 drainages at the Project
site follows.  The drainages include:

•         Nicholson Creek;
•         Marias Creek;
•         Gold  Creek;
•         Bolster Creek;  and,
•         Ethel Creek.
                                    These drainages are shown on Figure 3.6.3,
                                    Watershed Location Map.

                                    Nicholson Creek.  Nicholson Creek has its
                                    headwaters  at Buckhorn  Mountain near the
                                    Canadian border. The drainage basin ranges in
                                    elevation from 4,920 feet at the headwaters to
                                    2,100 feet at its confluence with Toroda Creek.
                                    The drainage area of Nicholson Creek is 15.8
                                    square miles,  with a channel gradient of 5.06%.
                                    Nicholson Creek has a total stream length of
                                    approximately 7.6 miles.  Approximately 5.25
                         Crown Jewel Mine • Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-43
TABLE 3.6.3, SUMMARY OF HYDROLOGIC FLOW DATA
Drainage Basin
Marias at confl. with Toroda
Nicholson at confl. with Toroda
Toroda at confl. with Marias
Toroda at confl. with Nicholson
Toroda at Kettle River2
Ethel at confl. with Myers
Bolster at confl. with Myers
Gold at confl. with Myers
Starrem at confl. with Myers
Myers at confl, with Ethel
Myers cit confl with Bolster
Myers at confl. with Gold
Myers at Canadian Border
Total Drainage Area
(square miles)
12.10
15.82
121.15
125.83
135.20
3.05
2.81
3.61
4 0 (approximate)
38.28
67.13
71.77
76 73
Range of Mean Annual
Discharge' (cfs)
1 .43 - 3.39
1.83 - 4.39
12.15 - 31.78
12.59 - 32.98
13.45 - 35.36
0 39 - 0.89
0.36 - 0.82
0.46 - 1 .04
051 1.16
4.17 - 10.37
7 02 - 17.9
7.47 - 19.1
7.95 - 20.39
Range of Mean Annual Peak
Discharge1 (cfs)
6.94 - 31.28
8.97 - 39.29
61.34 - 222.32
63.55 - 229.61
67.96 - 244.10
1 83 9.69
1 69 - 9.05
2.16 - 11.18
2.38 12 21
20.76 - 83.3
35.26 - 134 46
37.54 - 142 34
39.98 - 150 66
Notes: 1. Estimated using 1978, Moss and Haushild. Regression equation for Eastern Washington,
Spring Peak applicable to northern border mountains of eastern Washington where winter
precipitation is stored as snow and released as snowmelt.
2. Toroda Creek enters the Kettle River approximately 4 miles south of the Canadian border.
miles of the stream are located on National
Forest  lands. The lower 2.25 mile stream reach
to the confluence with Toroda Creek is on
private lands.  The portions of the stream that
are located on National Forest land are Forest
Service Class III and IV streams (or the WADOE
classification of AA, or Lake Class).  Nicholson
Creek has an estimated mean annual discharge
ranging from 2 to 4 cfs. The mean annual  peak
discharge is estimated to be between 9 and 39
cfs.

The Roosevelt mine adit is located very close to
the drainage divide between Nicholson Creek
and Marias Creek.  Prior to recent mineral
exploration activities, flows from the Roosevelt
Adit were channeled by a plugged culvert down
a road  constructed near the drainage divide
between  Nicholson and Marias Creeks.  In
1992, flows were diverted off the road and
back through the culvert and back into the
Nicholson Creek drainage where they were
flowing before. Old stream channels seem to
indicate that flows from the adit have, in the
               past, flowed into both Nicholson and Marias
               Creek drainages.  The current flows are draining
               into the Nicholson Creek.  A wetland area
               covering approximately 9 acres is fed partially
               by the flows from the abandoned Roosevelt
               mine.

               Another wetland  area, commonly called the
               "frog pond", is located in the upper reaches of
               the Nicholson Creek basin, and north of the 9
               acre area described above. It is believed that
               the pond was created by local ranchers who
               excavated an impoundment at the site of a
               spring.  The  Forest Service later constructed a
               road that forms an embankment.  These and
               other wetland areas located within the Project
               area are described in detail in Section 3.11,
               Wetlands.

               Marias Creek.  Marias Creek also  drains
               eastward from its headwaters  on  Buckhorn
               Mountain.  The Marias Creek drainage is directly
               south of the  Nicholson Creek drainage, ranging
               in elevation from  5,600 feet to 2,280 feet at its
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4  Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-44
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June 1995
confluence with Toroda Creek.  The total
drainage area for Marias Creek is 12.1 square
miles, with a channel gradient of 6%.  Marias
Creek is also a third order stream at its
confluence with Toroda Creek.  It has a total
stream length of approximately 6.8 miles, and
all but the lower 0.25 miles are within the
Okanogan National Forest boundary.  The lower
0.25 mile stream reach to the confluence with
Toroda Creek is on private lands. The portions
of the stream that are located on National
Forest land are  Forest Service Class III and IV
streams (or the WADOE classification of AA, or
Lake Class). The estimated mean annual
discharge of Marias Creek ranges from 1 to 3
cfs.  The estimated mean annual peak discharge
ranges from 7 to 31  cfs.

Gold Creek.  Gold Creek drains westward into
Myers Creek from its headwaters located on
Buckhorn Mountain.  The drainage basin ranges
in elevation from 5,410 feet to 2,680 feet at its
confluence with Myers Creek, and has a total
drainage area of 3.6  square miles. The drainage
divide separating Gold Creek from Nicholson
Creek is the approximate western boundary of
the disturbance area.  Physical disturbance from
the proposed Project will generally be limited to
the area east of this boundary into Nicholson
Creek.

The channel gradient of Gold  Creek to the
confluence with Myers Creek is approximately
10%. Gold Creek is  a third order stream at its
confluence with Myers Creek. It flows through
Okanogan National Forest, BLM, Washington
State, and private lands.  It has a total
streamlength of 3.5 miles. The lower 0.86
miles of Gold Creek to the confluence with
Myers Creek are not  on National Forest land.
The 1.4 miles within  the National Forest
Boundary upstream is designated a Class III and
IV stream reach  (or the WADOE Classification
AA). The estimated  mean annual discharge for
Gold Creek ranges from 0.5 cfs to 1 cfs. The
estimated mean annual peak discharge ranges
from 2 cfs to 11 cfs.

Bolster Creek.  Bolster Creek also drains
westward into Myers Creek from Buckhorn
Mountain. The  Bolster Creek drainage is located
directly south of the Gold Creek drainage and
has a total area of 2.8 square miles. The
elevation of the drainage ranges from 5,600 at
the summit of Buckhorn Mountain feet to 2,800
feet at Myers Creek.  The channel slope of
                    Bolster Creek to Myers Creek is 10%. Bolster
                    Creek has a total stream length of 2.8 miles and
                    is a second order stream at its confluence with
                    Myers Creek.  Two upper reaches of the
                    southern fork of Bolster Creek (totaling
                    approximately 0.4  miles in length) are on
                    National Forest land and are classified as Forest
                    Service Class III and IV (or the WADOE
                    classification A A).  The remainder of Bolster
                    Creek flows through BLM, state and private
                    lands.

                    The estimated mean annual discharge for
                    Bolster Creek ranges from 0.4 cfs to 1 cfs.  The
                    mean annual peak  discharge ranges from 2 cfs
                    to 9 cfs.  These ranges were calculated based
                    on USGS regression equations and do not
                    account for intermittent sections of Bolster
                    Creek observed near its confluence with Myers
                    Creek.

                    Ethel Creek. Ethel  Creek drains westward into
                    Myers Creek.  The  drainage is located south of
                    Bolster Creek and has a total area of 3.1 square
                    miles. The drainage ranges in elevation from
                    5,496 to 2,960 at  Myers Creek.  Channel slope
                    for the entire Ethel Creek drainage is 10%.
                    Ethel Creek is a second order stream with a
                    total stream length of  2.9 miles.  The lower 1.4
                    miles  of Ethel Creek, to the confluence with
                    Myers Creek, are not on National Forest land.
                    The next 1.5 miles upstream are designated a
                    Class III and IV (or WADOE Class AA) stream
                    reach.

                    Surface Water Monitoring Program

                    The surface  water  monitoring program for the
                    Crown Jewel Project is described in detail in the
                    draft report entitled "Baseline Hydrologic
                    Monitoring Plan (ACZ  Inc., 1993).  There are 14
                    surface water monitoring stations within the
                    Project area  as shown in Figure 3.6.5, Surface
                    Water Monitoring Stations.  Baseline data
                    collection was initiated in  October 1990 at 3
                    surface water sites located in Nicholson, Marias
                    and Bolster Creeks. In May  1991,  2 additional
                    sites were added; 1 on Gold Creek and 1 on
                    Ethel Creek.  In March 1992, 3 more sites were
                    added; 1  in each of the upper reaches of 2
                    tributaries of Nicholson Creek,  and  1  in the
                    upper reaches  of Marias Creek.  In June 1992,
                    6 stations were added to the network and 1
                    was dropped.  The 6 stations added were
                    located in the upper reaches of Nicholson Creek
                    in the Gold Bowl area, and the upper reaches of
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
              BRITISH COLUMBIA
  	'	WASHINGTON 1    [
                                           R30E     R31E	CANADA	
                               . 	 • 	 •-r- • 	 • 	 'I— •	1	UNIT£D\STA TES
                                                                                                                   LEGEND
       EPHEMERAL SECTIONS
	 MAJOR STREAMS
       BOUNDARY OF AREA
       IMPACTED BY ALTERNATIVE B

       SURFACE WATER STATION
          ADIT


       MINE PIT AREA

       DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY
                                                          GOLD CREEK
                                                         DRAINAGE BASIN
                                                          2,306.3 AC.
                                                      10.23% STREAM GRADIENT
    BOLSTER CREEK
    DRAINAGE BASIN
      1.790.4 AC.
10.23% STREAM GRADIENT
                                                                    NICHOLSON CREEK
                                                                    DRAINAGE BASIN
                                                                      10,124.2 AC.
                                                                  5.06% STREAM GRADIENT
    THORP CREEK
   DRAINAGE BASIN
      413.6 AC.
17.94% STREAM GRADIENT
                ETHEL CREEK
               DRAINAGE BASIN
                 1,951.8 AC.
            9.73% STREAM GRADIENT
                                           MARIAS CREEK
                                           DRAINAGE BASIN
                                             7,745.7 AC.
                                        5.58% STREAM GRADIENT
                        FIGURE  3.6.5,  SURFACE  WATER  MONITORING  STATIONS
RLE NAME CJ3-6-5DWG
                                                                                                                                          r
                                                                                                                                          Ol
                                                                                                                                          Co
                                                                                                                                          4
                                                                                                                                          Ol

-------
                                                                                    June 1995
Gold Creek.  Four stations were added to
monitor Bolster Creek; an upper and lower
station located on each of the 2 tributaries of
Bolster Creek.  One station located on the main
stem of Bolster Creek was replaced with the
installation of the stations on the lower reaches
of the 2 Bolster Creek tributaries.

Monthly stream flow data were collected from
the  initiation of the monitoring network in
October 1990 through June 1992. In July
1992, weekly stream flow measurements were
initiated.  Table 3.6.4, Flow Monitoring History,
lists the monitoring stations and the period of
record available for stream flow measurements.
Flow was measured at the surface water sites
using depth measurements in either corrugated
metal pipe (cmp)  culvert  road crossings, or
sharp-crested,  V-notch weirs.  Direct flow
measurements were also periodically  taken to
verify the flows estimated from depth
measurements. Weekly stream flow  monitoring
has been conducted at the site during the 1993,
1994, and 1995  spring runoff seasons.  Due to
poor site access  and/or weather conditions,
there are periods when stream flow data were
not collected from some  of the monitoring
stations.

Specific monitoring information is described for
the  following drainages in the Project area:
         Nicholson Creek;
         Marias Creek;
         Gold Creek;
         Bolster Creek; and,
         Ethel Creek.
Nicholson Creek.  There are currently 4 surface
water stations located on Nicholson Creek.
SW-1 is located downstream of the Project
area.  Stream flow is estimated from depth
measurements at a 36 inch cmp culvert road
crossing.  Monitoring at SW-1 was initiated in
October 1990.  Stream flow at SW-1 ranged
from 0.0 cfs, (December 1990 through February
1991, when the stream was frozen) to 8.24 cfs
(May 5, 1993).

The north and south forks of upper Nicholson
Creek are monitored by SW-6 and SW-7,
respectively.  The monitoring station on the
north fork of upper Nicholson Creek (SW-6) is a
sharp-crested, V-notch weir. This  weir is
located approximately 7,800 feet upstream  of
SW-1 and was installed in July 1992.  Flow
measured at this station from July 1992
through July 1994 ranged from less than 0.1 to
0.49 cfs. Flows less than 0.1 cfs were
recorded from August  13, 1992 through April
1993 and again from August 26, 1993 through
February 23, 1994.  The peak flow for the
period of record (0.49  cfs) was measured on
May 5, 1993.

The monitoring station located on the south fork
of upper Nicholson Creek (SW-7) is also a
sharp-crested, V-notch weir.  The weir was
installed in July 1992.  Monitoring station SW-7
is located approximately  7,800 feet upstream of
SW-1.  Flow measured at this station from July
1992 to present ranged from  0.05 cfs,
(December 3, 1992) to 1.30 cfs (May 12,
1993).

An additional monitoring station (SW-9) is
located at the headwaters of the Nicholson area
that  was previously logged.  Monitoring at SW-
9 was initiated in June 1992.  Flow at this site
was  estimated from depth measurements taken
at a  24 inch cmp culvert crossing. Flow has
ranged from 0.0 cfs (November 12, 1992
through March 25,1993  and December 7, 1993
through April 14,  1994)  to 0.54 cfs (May 13,
1993).

Marias Creek.  There are 2 surface water
monitoring stations located on Marias Creek.
Lower Marias Creek has  been  monitored at SW-
2 since October 1990.  Flow at lower Marias
Creek is estimated from depth measurements
taken at a 36 inch culvert crossing.  Stream
flow at this site ranged from 0.0 cfs when the
stream was frozen in December 1990 through
February 1991 to  2.53 cfs on May 10, 1993.

Stream flow on upper  Marias Creek is monitored
from a sharp-crested, V-notch weir designated
SW-8.  This station is  located approximately
6,300 feet upstream of SW-2 and was installed
in July 1992.  Flow across the weir ranged from
less  than 0.01 cfs (January 6,  1993) to 0.59
cfs (June 2, 1993).

Goid Creek.  Two surface water stations are
located on Gold Creek. Monitoring station SW-
10 is located at a  24 inch cmp culvert road
crossing that conveys  water from a spring that
forms the headwaters  of Gold Creek.
Monitoring at SW-10 was initiated in June
1992.  Flow at SW-10 ranged from 0.0 cfs
(December 28,  1992 through  April 7, 1993 and
                    Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-47
TABLE 3.6.4, FLOW MONITORING HISTORY
Station
Number
SW-1
SW-2
SW-3
SW-4
SW-5
SW-6
SW-7
SW-8
SW-9
SW-10
SW-1 12
SW-122
SW-132
SW-142
GW-2
GW-33
GW-43
GW-53
Drainage
Basin
Nicholson Creek
Manas Creek
Bolster Creek
Gold Creek
Ethel Creek
Nicholson Creek
Nicholson Creek
Marias Creek
Gold Bowl Creek (upper Nicholson Creek)
Gold Creek
Bolster Creek
Bolster Creek
Bolster Creek
Bolster Creek
Marias Creek
Gold Creek
Gold Creek
Marias Creek
Control Structure '"
Culvert
Culvert
Broad Crested Weir
Culvert
Culvert
Sharp Crested Weir
Sharp Crested Weir
Sharp Crested Weir
Culvert
Culvert
Sharp Crested Weir
Sharp Crested Weir
Sharp Crested Weir
Sharp Crested Weir
Sharp Crested Weir
Adit Portal
Discharge Pipe
Adit Portal
Period of Discharge Record
October 1990 - Present
October 1990 - Present
October 1990 - May 1992
May 1991 - Present
May 1991 - Present
July 1992 - Present
July 1992 - Present
July 1992 - Present
June 1992 - Present
June 1992 - Present
July 1992 - Present
July 1992 - Present
July 1992 - Present
July 1992 - Present
September 1992 - Present
May 1992 - Present
July 1992 - Present
May 1993 - Present
Notes: 1. Discharge ;s calculated based on flow depth measured in control structure. For comparison, direct discharge me
using either a bucket and ''or flow meter.
2. Discharges measured at nearby Station SW-3 between October 1990 and May 1992 were determined to be mac
3. Discharges from the Upper Magnetic and Gold Axe Adits are visually estimated. Water flowing from the Buckho
containment basin drained by a steel pipe A bucket is used to measure discharge from the pipe.
Notes


Station replaced in June 1992



\

1
5

Replacement for Station SW-3
Replacement for Station SW-3 ;
Replacement for Station SW-3
Replacement for Station SW-3
Roosevelt Adit
Upper Magnetic Adit
Buckhorn Adit
Gold Axe Adit
asurements are p^i' •(-•• ^Hy ^i^-. °~' - ~
curate.

                                   Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-48
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
                                                                                    June 1995
December 21, 1993 through March 31, 1994)
to0.63cfs (May 13, 1993).

Monitoring station SW-4 is located
approximately 4,400 ft downstream of SW-10.
Monitoring at SW-4 was initiated in May 1991.

Flow is estimated from depth measurements
taken in a 24 inch cmp culvert road crossing.
Stream flow in Gold Creek at SW-4 ranged from
0.0 cfs on November 28, 1992 and December
9, 1993 to 1.85 cfs on May 13, 1993.

Bolster Creek.  There are currently 4 operating
monitoring stations on Bolster Creek.
Monitoring station SW-11 is located near the
headwaters of the north fork of Bolster Creek,
and monitoring station SW-14 is located near
the headwaters of the south fork of Bolster
Creek. Monitoring stations SW-12 and SW-13
are located directly upstream of the confluence
of the north and south forks of Bolster Creek,
respectively.  Monitoring station SW-3 was
located directly downstream of the confluence
of the tributaries. This station was discontinued
in June  1992 and replaced by SW-12 and SW-
13.  Monitoring station SW-3 was initially
monitored in October 1990.  Flow
measurements at this site were not precise  and
have  not been included in the surface water
flow database.  The remaining monitoring sites
are all sharp-crested, V-notch weirs. They were
installed in July 1992.

Stream flow at monitoring station SW-11, on
the north fork of Bolster Creek, has ranged  from
less than 0.01 cfs on October 1, 1992 and the
period of December 1992 through March 1993
and October 27, 1993 through January 18,
1994 to 0.44 cfs on May 5, 1993. Monitoring
station SW-12, located approximately 5,700
feet downstream of SW-11 has had stream flow
ranging from 0.01  cfs (March 3, 1992) to 1.30
cfs (May 5,  1993).

Stream  flow at monitoring station SW-14, on
the south fork of Bolster Creek, have  ranged
from  less than 0.01 cfs  (January  22 through
March 18, 1993 and January 18,  1994)  to 1.34
cfs (May 13, 1993). Monitoring station SW-13,
located approximately 7,300 feet downstream
of SW-14 has had stream flow ranging from
0.02 cfs (October 1, 1992) to 2.09 cfs (May
 13, 1993).
                    Ethel Creek. Monitoring station SW-5 is located
                    on Ethel Creek approximately 6,000 feet from
                    its confluence with Myers Creek.  Flow at
                    monitoring station SW-5 is estimated from
                    depth measurements made in a 24 inch cmp
                    culvert road crossing.  Stream flow monitoring
                    was initiated at SW-5 in May 1991.  Stream
                    flow has ranged from 0.01 cfs (January 7,
                    1993 and February 15, 1994) to 4.9 cfs  (April
                    28, 1993).

                    3.6.5   Site Surface Water Quality

                    Sample Collection and Analysis

                    Baseline surface water quality samples for the
                    Crown Jewel Project were first collected  in
                    October 1990 from 3 monitoring stations: SW-1
                    (Nicholson Creek), SW-2 (Marias Creek) and
                    SW-3 (Bolster Creek).  Since this initial sampling
                    effort, 11 additional surface water stations (SW-
                    4 through SW-14) have been added to the
                    monitoring  network and water quality samples
                    have been collected every month, weather and
                    access conditions permitting.  All of the surface
                    water stations are currently being sampled on a
                    monthly basis with the exception of station SW-
                    3, which was discontinued in May 1993  and
                    replaced by stations SW-12 and SW-13.  The
                    monitoring  history of the stations is included in
                    Table 3.6.5, Water Quality Monitoring History.
                    Note that this table also includes the wells and
                    historic adits where ground water quality
                    samples have  been collected.  A discussion of
                    ground water quality conditions at the site is
                    presented in Section 3.8, Ground Water. The
                    locations of the surface water monitoring
                    stations are shown on Figure 3.6.5,  Surface
                    Water Monitoring Stations.

                    Field analyses of the surface water quality
                    samples include measurement of dissolved
                    oxygen (DO),  pH, specific conductance,
                    temperature, and ferrous iron.  Laboratory
                    analyses of the samples are performed using
                    analytical methods accepted and approved by
                    WADOE in WADOE accredited laboratories. The
                    following laboratory water quality parameters
                    are measured:
                             General and Physical Characteristics;
                             Major Ions;
                             Nutrients;
                             Trace Metals/Elements;
                             Radionuclides; and.
                             Cyanide (Total and WAD).
                     Crown Jewel Mine +  Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-49
TABLE 3.6.5, WATER QUALITY MONITORING HISTORY
Sampling Site
Period of Record
Monthly Analyses Performed
Field Parameters'
Laboratory Parameters2
Monitoring Wells
MW-1
MW-2
MW-3
MW-4
MW-5
MW-6
MW-7
MW-8
MW-9
May 1992 - Present
May 1992 - Present
May 1992 - Present
May 1992 - Present
May 1992 - Present
May 1992 - Present
May 1992 - Present
June 1992 - Present
June 1992 - Present
\
/
/
Surface Water Stations3
SW-1
SW-2
SW-3
SW-4
SW-5
SW-6
SW-7
SW-8
SW-9
SW-10
SW-11
SW-1 2
SW-1 3
SW-1 4
October 1990 - Present
October 1990 - Present
October 1990 - May 1992
May 1991 - Present
May 1991 - Present
April 1992 - Present
February 1992 - Present
February 1992 - Present
June 1992 - Present
June 1992 - Present
June 1992 - Present
June 1992 - Present
June 1992 - Present
June 1992 - Present
/
/•
^
J
Mine Adits3
GW-24'5
GW-35
GW-4S
GW-56
February 1992 - Present
May 1992 - Present
June 1992 - Present
May 1993 - Present
/
/
Flowing Well
GW-1
August 1991 - Present
^

Notes: 1. Field parameters include pH, temperature, specific conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and
ferrous iron.
2. Laboratory parameters are listed in Table 3.6.6, Water Quality Analytical Methods.
3. During the winter months, surface water stations and mine adits were periodically not
sampled due to either poor site access, no flow observed, or ice cover.
4. From February 1992 to October 1992, field parameters were analyzed at GW-2. Beginning
in November 1992, both field and laboratory parameters were monitored monthly.
5. Field and laboratory parameters were analyzed at GW-2, GW-3, and GW-4 as part of the
June 1992 Spring and Seep Survey.
6. Field and laboratory parameters were analyzed at GW-3 and GW-5 during Spring and Seep
Surveys in 1992, 1993 and 1994.
A listing of the surface water quality
parameters, including methods of laboratory
analysis, is provided in Table 3.6.6, Water
Quality Analytical Methods.  Methods used to
conduct field analyses and to sample the
surface waters are described in the report
"Baseline Hydrologic Water Monitoring Plan"
(ACZInc., 1993).

Summary of Water Quality

Surface water quality data collected at the
Project site through July 1994 are summarized
in Appendix C, Water Quality, (C-1, Summary
Statistics for Selected Baseline Surface Water
Quality Data). A complete record is maintained
              in the surface water flow data base.  For
              comparative purposes, data in this appendix
              have been grouped by watersheds and basic
              statistics (minimum, maximum, mean, number
              of samples analyzed, and number of samples
              below detection level) calculated. To calculate
              mean values, all concentrations reported below
              the detection limit were assumed to equal 1/2
              of the detection limit value. This approach was
              used to calculate summary statistics for the
              surface water, ground water,  and spring and
              seep quality baseline data.

              Due to similarities observed in water quality
              conditions, a separate discussion of surface
              water quality conditions in each watershed is
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-50
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June 1995
TABLE 3.6.6, WATER QUALITY ANALYTICAL METHODS
PARAMETER LABORATO

RY METHOD DETECTION LIMIT
(in mg/l unless noted)
GENERAL AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Specific Conductance EPA 120.1, Meter
Hardness, Total EPA 200.7, ICP
pH EPA 150.1, Meter
Silica EPA 200.7, ICP
Sodium Absorption Ration (SAR) By calculation
1 .0 (umhos/cm)
1.0
0.1 (units)
0.1

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) EPA 160.1, Gravimetric (180C) 2.0
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) EPA 160.2, Gravimetric (105C) 2.0
Turbidity EPA 180.1 , Neptholometric 0.1 (NTU)
CATIONS
Calcium EPA 200.7, ICP
Magnesium EPA 200.7, ICP
Potassium EPA 200.7, ICP
Sodium EPA 200.7, ICP
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
ANIONS
Alkalinity, Total SM 2320B
Bicarbonate SM 2320B
Carbonate SM 2320B
1.0
1.0
1.0
Chloride EPA 325.2, Auto-Ferrocyanide 1.0
Fluoride EPA 340.2, Ion Selective Electrode 0.1
Sulfate EPA 375.3, Gravimetric
2.0
Sulfide SM 427C, Meth. Blue Colometric 0.02
NUTRIENTS
Nitrogen, Ammonia EPA 350.1, Auto-Phenate
0.05
Nitrogen, Nitrate/Nitrite EPA 353.2, Auto-CD Reduction 0.02
Nitrogen, Nitrate EPA 353.2, Auto-CD Reduction 0.02
Nitrogen, Nitrite EPA 353.2, Auto-CD Reduction 0.01
TRACE METALS/ELEMENTS1
Aluminum EPA 200.7, ICP
Antimony EPA 204.2, GFAA
Arsenic EPA 206.2, GFAA
Barium EPA 200.7, ICP
Beryllium EPA 200.7, ICP
Bismuth EPA 200.7 (M), ICP
Boron EPA 200.7, ICP
Cadmium EPA 200.7, ICP
Chromium EPA 200.7, ICP
Cobalt EPA 200.7, ICP
Copper EPA 200.7, ICP
Iron EPA 200.7, ICP
Lead EPA 200.7, ICP
Manganese EPA 200.7, ICP
0.05
0.001
0.001
0.01
O.OO5
0.1
0.02
0.005
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
Mercury2 EPA 245.1 , AA-Cold Vapor 0.0001,0.0002
Molybdenum EPA 200.7, ICP
Nickel EPA 200.7, ICP
0.05
0.02
Selenium3 EPA 270.2, GFAA/SM 3500SeC, Hydride Generation 0.001
Silver EPA 200.7, ICP
Strontium EPA 200.7, ICP
Thallium EPA 279.2, GFAA
Vanadium EPA 200.7, ICP
Zinc EPA 200.7, ICP
0.01
0.02
0.002
0.01
0.01
                   Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3 5 3
TABLE 3.6.6, WATER QUALITY ANALYTICAL METHODS
PARAMETER LABORATORY METHOD
DETECTION LIMIT
(in mg/l unless noted)
RADIONUCLIDES
Gross Alpha EPA 9310
Gross Beta EPA 9310
Radium 226 (analyzed if Gross Alpha EPA 9315
results > 5 pCi/l)
Radium 226/228 (analyzed if Radium EPA 9320
226 results > 3 pCi/l)
1 .0 (pCi/l)
1.0 (pCi/l)
1.0 (pCi/l)
2.0 (pCi/l)
CYANIDE AND ORGANICS
Total Organic Carbon (TOO4 EPA 415.1
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)4 EPA 8015 (M) GC/FID
Cyanide, Total5 EPA 335.3, Manual Distillation
Cyanide, WAD5 SM 4500-CNI
1.0
0.2
0.002, 0.01
0.002, 0.01
Notes: 1. Trace metals/elements analyzed in both filtered (dissolved) and unfiltered (total) samples.
2. Mercury detection limit increased from 0.0001 mg/l to 0.0002 mg/l in July 1993 due to a
change in instrumentation.
3. In June 1994, the method to analyze selenium was changed from EPA 270.2 to SM
3500SeC.
4. TOC and TPH only analyzed on ground water samples
5. Cyanide detection limit increased from 0.002 mg/l to 0.01 mg/l in June 1994 due to results
from laboratory instrument detection studies.
not provided in this section. Rather, an overall
summary of water quality characteristics in the
study area  is presented.  Information on other
water quality characteristics for each watershed
can be found in the Project files.

Field analyses indicate that surface waters at
the Project site are alkaline and contain
measurable oxygen, with field  pH values ranging
from 6.9 to 9.3 and DO ranging from 1.5 to
13.8 mg/l.  Surface water temperatures vary
seasonally, with measurements ranging from
30.7 °F in  Gold Creek during the winter to 62.6
°F in Nicholson Creek during the summer.  Field
measurements of ferrous iron in site surface
waters were negative.

Laboratory  analyses indicate that calcium and
bicarbonate are the dominant cation and anion
measured,  respectively,  in site surface waters.
This would suggest that the site surface waters
are buffered by the carbonate system. One
exception is station SW-10, located at the
headwaters to Gold Creek.  In  samples from this
station, sulfate, rather than bicarbonate, was
the dominant anion measured.

Station  SW-10 is located downgradient of the
Lower Magnetic Adit,  (Station  GW-3),
suggesting  that discharge from the adit could be
               affecting surface water quality conditions.
               Comparison of water quality data from the 2
               stations, however, showed that the average
               sulfate concentration at SW-10 is about 40%
               higher than at GW-3. This would indicate an
               additional sulfate source between the stations,
               likely originating from the oxidation of sulfide
               bearing minerals in the native  soils and bedrock.
               Bedrock in this area  was mapped as a
               mineralized skarn. The alkaline pH values
               measured at GW-3 (from 7.3 to 8.3) and SW-10
               (from 7.9 to 8.5) further indicate that sulfide
               oxidation, if occurring, is not resulting in acid
               drainage.

               The highest TDS measured in  site surface
               waters also occurs at station SW-10,  ranging
               from 368 to 482 mg/l.  By comparison, TDS
               levels were lower at the other surface stations
               (62 to 324 mg/l), including Station SW-4,
               located about 1 mile downgradient of SW-10 on
               Gold Creek. The average TDS concentration at
               SW-4 (229 mg/l) is about 46% lower than at
               SW-10, indicating that substantial dilution of
               the surface waters is occurring between the 2
               stations.

               Dissolved trace metal concentrations in site
               surface waters were generally at or below
               analytical  detection limits.  Both arsenic and
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3 52
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
                                                                                      June 1995
strontium were, however, frequently detected in
all drainages at levels above detection limits.
Arsenic concentrations ranged from below
detection (less than 0.001 mg/l) to 0.014 mg/l,
and averaged 0.002 mg/l. Strontium
concentrations ranged from below detection
(less than 0.01 mg/l) to 0.76  mg/l and averaged
0.3 mg/l. These metals are commonly detected
at trace levels in natural waters as a result of
the interaction with sediments and bedrock.

Total concentrations of aluminum and iron were
noticeably higher than associated dissolved
concentrations at several of the surface water
stations. This observation is  not uncommon in
the analysis of surface waters and is attributed
to the occurrence of colloidal  material and/or
suspended  solids in the water column. Colloids
and suspended solids  are effectively removed
from the dissolved metal  samples by filtration.

Low nutrient levels were  commonly detected in
site drainages.  Ammonia concentrations ranged
from below detection  (less than 0.05  mg/l) to
0.27 mg/l and averaged less than 0.05 mg/l.
Nitrate plus nitrite concentrations ranged from
below detection (less than 0.02 mg/l) to 1.09
mg/l and averaged 0.1 mg/l.  Detection of
ammonia, a reduced form of nitrogen, in site
streams suggest inflow of slightly anaerobic
(oxygen poor) ground water into the drainages
and/or potential  impacts from grazing activities.

Analysis of gross alpha and gross beta activities
indicates that background radioactivity in site
surface waters is generally near detection
levels.  Gross alpha activities ranged from less
than 1 to 22 pico Curie per liter (pCi/l) and
averaged 2 pCi/l.  Gross  beta activities ranged
from less than 1 to 21 pCi/l and averaged 2.6
pCi/l.  Analysis of Radium 226 in samples with
gross alpha activities greater  than 5 pCi/l were
at or below the detection level of 1  pCi/l.

Total and WAD cyanide concentrations were
generally below the analytical detection limit of
0.002 mg/l, although, periodically, these
parameters were detected at  slightly above
detection levels.  Total cyanide concentrations
ranged from less than 0.002  to 0.029 mg/l and
averaged less than 0.002 mg/l.  WAD cyanide
concentrations ranged from less than 0.002 to
0.005 mg/l and averaged less than 0.002 mg/l.
Cyanide does occur naturally in the environment
and its infrequent detection during baseline
                     monitoring of site surface waters may suggest a
                     natural source.

                     Seasonal Variability in Quality.  Seasonal
                     variability in baseline  surface water quality data
                     can occur as a result  of 1 or more of the
                     following factors:

                     •       Increased stream flow during
                             precipitation events and
                             spring snowmelt;

                     •       Greater ground water
                             contribution during low
                             stream flow (baseflow)
                             conditions;

                     •       Differences  in ambient air
                             temperature;

                     •       Elevated biological activity
                             during warmer months; and,

                     •       Increased surface activities at sites
                             (grazing/logging/exploration/etc.).

                     To assess whether changes in  streamflow have
                     caused seasonal variability in surface water
                     quality data at the Crown Jewel site, a simple
                     correlation was performed between monthly
                     discharges, TDS, and total suspended solids
                     (TSS) data.  During periods of  high streamflow,
                     TDS can be expected to decrease due to
                     dilution from  run-off while TSS should increase
                     because of increased erosion in or near the
                     stream channel. In contrast, under low flow
                     conditions, TDS levels would be higher due to a
                     greater ground water contribution to flow and
                     less dilution  whereas TSS levels may decrease
                     as a result of reduced erosion. This scenario
                     would result in a positive correlation between
                     discharge and TSS values and  a negative
                     correlation between discharge  and TDS values.

                     The correlation results indicate that increased
                     stream flows at the site generally are related to
                     decreased TDS concentrations. The degree of
                     correlation, as measured by correlation
                     coefficient values,  between stream flow and
                     TDS ranged from weak to strong  across the
                     site.  By contrast, the correlation  between flow
                     and TSS was typically poor at all  of the surface
                     water stations monitored indicating that
                     increased flows are not closely related  to
                     increases in sediment concentration. Several
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-53
factors may contribute to this observation
including:

•        Stable stream banks;
•        Site soil and geologic conditions; and,
•        Location near drainage headwaters.

Surface water temperatures demonstrated a
strong seasonal variability.  As a result of
ambient air temperature differences, surface
waters typically ranged from 5 to 16°C (11  to
29 °F) cooler during the winter than the
summer. A month to month comparison of
nutrient levels revealed no clear seasonal trends.

Sediment Loading. The sediment load of a
stream is determined by the stream discharge
and sediment concentration of the water.
Sediments in stream  water are comprised of
mobile bed material that occurs near the base of
the water column and suspended material that
occurs throughout the water column.

As part of baseline monitoring at the Project
site, TSS were measured  in monthly surface
water grab samples.  TSS provides a measure
of the sediment concentration of the streams.
Observed differences in TSS levels  between
drainage  basins may  indicate areas  where
elevated erosion is occurring.

TSS concentrations measured in site streams
ranged from less than 2 to 88 mg/l and, on
average,  were less than 5 mg/l. Four stations
did exhibit slightly increased TSS with average
TSS values ranging from 5 to 11 mg/l. Two of
these stations  are on Bolster Creek  (SW-3 and
SW-11),  1 on Gold Creek (SW-4), and 1 on
Ethel  Creek (SW-5).  As described previously,
station SW-3 was replaced in June  1992 by
stations SW-12 and SW-13.

Local increases in the sediment concentration of
streams can result from a variety of factors
including:

•        Disturbances such as timber
         removal, slash burning, and
         road construction;

•        Differences  in vegetation and
        percentage of surface cover;

•       Changes in soil types; and,
              •        Differences in the drainage
                       basin shape and slope.

              Over the past 30 years, each of the drainage
              basins in the Project area has been logged to
              some extent and recently (1992), shelterwood
              and seedtree harvest operations were
              conducted in Marias Creek near stations SW-2
              and SW-8.  Also, in 1993, 3 sales occurred  in
              the Nicholson and Marias Creek drainages.
              Review of the TSS data collected during
              baseline monitoring suggests that the recent
              (and historic) logging activities  have not
              substantially increased the TSS of the site
              streams. One or a combination of the other
              factors may explain the minor increase in TSS
              values observed at the 4 stations.

              The highest individual TSS concentrations were
              measured in April  1992 and April 1993 at 3
              sites:

              •        SW-3 - 88 mg/l;
              •        SW-11 - 52 mg/l; and,
              •        SW-9 - 52 mg/l.

              The occurrence of elevated TSS values in April
              corresponds with increased stream discharges
              that result from spring snowmelt and suggests a
              relationship between increased  sediment
              concentrations and flows.  However, as
              described above, a correlation performed
              between TSS and flow for each of the surface
              water monitoring stations indicated an overall
              weak correlation exists between TSS and flow
              over the period of record.

              3.7      SPRINGS AND SEEPS

              3.7.1     Introduction

              A spring and seep survey and sampling program
              was initiated in June 1992, with follow-up
              sampling conducted in October  1992, June
              1993, October 1993, June 1994, and October
              1994.  The  initial location survey consisted of
              driving and  walking site drainages to locate
              springs, seeps and flowing sections of streams.
              The purpose of the program was to locate
              springs and seeps that could be potentially
              affected by  the proposed Project and to collect
              water samples from the springs to  determine
              flow and quality characteristics  during wet and
              dry seasons. Figure 3. 7.1, Spring  and Seep
              Locations, shows the primary study area
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
                                                                                                                          LEGEND

                                                                                                                          	  	 STREAM
                                                                                                                                 DRAINAGE BASIN
                                                                                                                                  BOUNDARY
                                                                                                                                 MINE PIT  AND TAILINGS
                                                                                                                                  AREA
                                                                                                                            CD   GLACIAL  SEDIMENTS
                                                                                                                                  BOUNDARY
                                                                                                                          	PRIMARY  SPRING AND
                                                                                                                                  SEEP STUDY AREA
                                                                                                                            JJ-1
                                                                                                                            •     SPRING LOCATION
                                                                                                                                  AND NUMBER
                                                                                                                                     LOCAT|ON
                                                                                                                                  AND NUMBER
BRITISH_COLUMeiA
  WASHINGTOliT
                                                                           NICHOLSON CREEK
                                                                            DRAINAGE BASIN
                                                                                                                    SOILS TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM, CROWN JEWEL
                                                                                                                    CEDAR CREEK ASSOCIATES INC ISEPT 1992)
                                                                                                                   12} MYEBS CREEK AND WAUCONDA MINING DISTRICTS
                                                                                                                    OF NORTHEASTERN OKANOGAN COUNTY WASHINGTON
                                                                                                                    WADNR, DIVISION OF GEOLOGY AND EARTH RESOURCES
                                                                                                                    BULLETIN 73 (19801
                                                                                                                                     2s
                                                                                                                                     CO
                                                                                                                                     s
                                    FIGURE  3.7.1,  SPRING  AND  SEEP  LOCATIONS
FILE NAME CJ3-7-1DWG

-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
                                                                                        Page 3-55
 boundary and the springs and seeps identified
 during the surveys.

 Springs and seeps were classified in the field
 based on flow conditions.  To be classified as a
 seep, a field site had to contain visible water
 but generally no measurable flow or apparent
 source.  To be classified as a spring, there had
 to be both measurable flow and a distinct
 source of water.  Flows determined to be
 continuations of upstream surface waters were
 not classified as springs.  Intermittent sections
 were mapped in the study area where surface
 waters appeared for a short distance and then
 disappeared underground for  varying distances
 before resurfacing.

 3.7.2   Location and Description

 The spring and seep surveys  were performed in
 the headwaters of 5 drainages:
         Nicholson Creek;
         Marias Creek;
         Gold Creek;
         Bolster Creek; and,
         Ethel Creek.
A total of 30 springs and 18 seeps were
identified.  The majority of the springs and
seeps originate along or near fault zones. Each
of the springs and seeps are listed in Table
3.7.1, Spring and Seep Investigation Summary,
and grouped by drainage basin. A description
of the spring and seep  locations is provided
below, followed by a discussion of discharge
and water quality measurements.

Nicholson Creek

The Nicholson Creek drainage consists of 2
primary tributaries - the South  Fork and North
Fork. A total of 6 springs and  8 seeps were
found within this combined drainage area.

Along the South Fork, 3 springs (JJ-18, JJ-20,
and JJ-21) and 3 seeps (JJ-16, SN-22, and SN-
26) were identified. Three springs and 5 seeps
were identified along the North Fork.  The
spring locations were designated SN-3,  SN-4,
and SN-5 and the seep locations designated SN-
10, SN-15, SN-19, SN-20, and SN-27.  SN-15
is the location of a shallow pool, known as the
"frog pond", covering approximately 2 acres.
              Marias Creek

              Within this drainage, 3 tributaries were
              investigated - the South Fork, the Middle Fork,
              and the East Fork. Five springs (JJ-6, JJ-6a,
              JJ-6b, JJ-7, and JJ-10) and 2 seeps (JJ-9 and
              JJ-34) were identified in the South Fork.  Five
              springs were also identified in the Middle Fork
              (JJ-4, JJ-5, JJ-14, JJ-15 and JJ-26). Only 1
              spring (JJ-3) was observed in the East Fork.

              Four springs surveyed in the Marias Creek
              drainage have been affected by man's activity
              in the area.  Springs JJ-4 and JJ-5 were
              reportedly first observed after a site access road
              was  constructed. Spring JJ-14 originates from
              an uncased boring (92-513) drilled by the
              Proponent in 1992 as part of their exploration
              program.  Attempts to plug this boring have
              been unsuccessful.  Finally, spring JJ-3 occurs
              at the location of a flowing well,  developed for
              stock water.

              Gold Creek

              Two  springs (SN-6 and SN-7) and 1 seep (SN-
              18) were identified in the Gold Creek drainage.

              Bolster Creek

              Two  primary tributaries were investigated in this
              drainage - South Fork and North Fork. Four
              springs were identified in the South Fork
              drainage and designated SN-12, SN-14, SN-16,
              and SN-17.

              Ethel Creek

              Three springs and 3 seeps were identified along
              the main Ethel Creek tributary.  The springs
              were designated JJ-23, JJ-24, and JJ-25.  The
              seeps were designated JJ-22, JJ-33, and SN-
              21.

              Additional Springs and Seeps

              Eight additional springs and seeps were
              identified north and south of the Project area.
              North of Nicholson Creek, within the Cedar
              Creek drainage,  5 sites were identified and
              designated JJ-27 through JJ-31.  Of these
              sites, only JJ-27 had flowing water and was
              classified as a spring.  A large,  swampy area
              was observed at the site of JJ-28, but no flow
              was detected at this site. The remaining sites
              north of Nicholson Creek were generally dry in
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-56
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
                                                                                                         June 1995
TABLE 3.7.1, SPRING AND SEEP INVESTIGATION SUMMARY
Site
Number
JJ-16
JJ-18
JJ-20
JJ-21
SN-3
SN-4
SN-5
SN-10
SN-15
SN-19
SN-20
SN-22
SN-26
SN-27
JJ-3
JJ-4
JJ-5
Drainage Basin
Nicholson Creek
(South Fork)
Nicholson Creek
(South Pork)
Nicholson Creek
(South Fork)
Nicholson Creek
(South Fork)
Nicholson Creek
(North Fork)
Nicholson Creek
(North Fork)
Nicholson Creek
(North Fork)
Nicholson Creek
(North Fork)
Nicholson Creek
(North Fork)
Nicholson Creek
(North Fork)
Nicholson Creek
(North Fork)
Nicholson Creek
(South Fork)
Nicholson Creek
(South Fork)
Nicholson Creek
(North Fork)
Manas Creek
(East Fork)
Marias Creek
(Middle Fork)
Marias Creek
(Middle Fork)
Classification

Seep
Spring
Spring
Spring
Spring
Spring
Spring
Seep
Seep
Seep
Seep
Seep
Seep
Seep
Spring
Spring
Spring
Estimated Discharge '
Igpm)
6/92
NF
9
2
5
2 5
1
1.3
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
Not
Identi
tied
Not
Identi
fied
3
<0 5
<05
10/92
NM
1 8
2 2
NM
NF
NF
3
NF
NF
NF
NM
NM
NF
NF
0.2
NF
0.5
6/93
NM
6
5
10
9
5
9
NM
NF
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
12
NM
NM
10/93
NM
3
3 75
3
NM
05
2 5
NM
NF
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
0 6
NM
NM
6/94
NM
4 5
1.5
12
12
1 3
2
NM
NF
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
5
NM
NM
Water Quality Samples 2
6/92
NS
F/L
F/L
F/L
F/L
F/L
F/L
F
F/L
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
F/L
F
f
10/92
NS
F/L
F/L
NS
F/L
NS
F/L
F
F/L
NS
NS
NS
F
F
F/L
NS
NS
6/93
NS
F/L
F/L
F/L
F/L
F/L
F/L
NS
F/L
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
F/L
NS
NS
10/93
NS
F/L
F/L
F/L
F/L
F/L
F/L
NS
F/L
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
F/L
NS
NS
6/94
NS
F/L
F/L
F/L
F/L
F/L
F/L
NS
F/L
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
F/L
NS
NS
Surface
Geology
Glacial
Sediments
Glacial
Sediments
Glacial
Sediments
Glacial
Sediments
Glacial
Sediments
Glacial
Sediments
Bedrock
Glacial
Sediments
Glacial
Sediments
Bedrock
Glacial
Sediments
Bedrock
Glacial
Sediments
Glacial
Sediments
Bedrock
Glacial
Sediments
Glacial
Sediments
Possible Conditions of Origin
Occurs above inferred bedrock
fault
Occurs above inferred bedrock
fault, flow originates about 150
feet away
Occurs near bedrock contact
Occurs near bedrock contact
Unknown
Occurs above inferred bedrock
fault.
Occurs along or near bedrock
fault
Occurs above 
-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
                                                                                                             Page 3-57
TABLE 3.7.1, SPRING AND SEEP INVESTIGATION SUMMARY
Site
Number
JJ-6
JJ-6a
JJ-6b
JJ-7
JJ-9
JJ-10
JJ-14
JJ-15
JJ-26
JJ-34
SN-6
SN-7
SN-18
SN-12
SN-14
SN-16
SN-17
JJ-22
JJ-23
Drainage Basin
Manas Creek
ISouth Forkl
Marias Creek
(South Forkl
Marias Creek
(South Fork)
Manas Creek
(South Fork)
Marias Creek
(South Fork)
Manas Creek
(South Fork)
Marias Creek
(Middle Fork)
Manas Creek
(Middle Forkl
Marias Creek
(Middle Fork)
Manas Creek
(South Fork)
Gold Creek
Gold Creek
Gold Creek
Bolster Creek
(South Fork)
Bolster Creek
(South Forkl
Bolster Creek
(South Fork)
Bolster Creek
(South Fork)
Ethel Creek
Ethel Creek
Classification
Spring
Spring
Spring
Spring
Seep
Spring
Spring
Spring
Spring
Seep
Spring
Spring
Seep
Spring
Spring
Spring
Spring
Seep
Spring
Estimated Discharge 1
(gpm)
6/92
1
<0 5
<0.5
<0.5
NF
<0.5
2 75
2 75
Not
Identi
fied
NF
3
5
NF
<0 5
1.5
Not
Identi
fied
Not
Identi
fied
NF
4
10/92
1
NM
NM
NM
NM
0 9
3
2
2
NM
2
NM
NM
2
0 2
0.5
1
NF
0.9
6/93
1.4
NM
NM
NM
NM
2
3
2
6
NM
10
3.8
NM
NM
1 8
NM
0.6
NM
12
10/93
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
1.6
2 5
4
3
NM
5
NF
NM
NM
0 6
NM
1.1
NM
3
6/94
1.5
NM
NM
NM
NM
1 5
1.5
40
3
NM
6
1
NM
NM
1 3
0.7
2
NM
8
Water Quality Samples 2
6/92
F/L
F
F
F
NS
F/L
F/L
F/L
NS
NS
F/L
F
NS
F
F/L
NS
NS
F/L
F/L
10/92
F/L
NS
NS
NS
NS
F/L
F/L
F/L
F/L
NS
NS
NS
NS
F/L
F/L
F/L
F/L
NS
F/L
6/93
F/L
NS
NS
NS
NS
F/L
F/L
F/L
F/L
NS
F/L
F/L
NS
F/L
F/L
F/L
F/L
NS
F/L
10/93
F/L
NS
NS
NS
NS
F/L
F/L
F/L
F/L
NS
F/L
F
NS
F/L
F/L
F/L
F/L
NS
F/L
6/94
F/L
NS
NS
NS
NS
F/L
F/L
F/L
F/L
NS
F/L
F/L
NS
F/L
F/L
F/L
F/L
NS
F/L
Surface
Geology
Glacial
Sediments
Glacial
Sediments
Glacial
Sediments
Glacial
Sediments
Glacial
Sediments
Glacial
Sediments
Glacial
Sediments
Glacial
Sediments
Glacial
Sediments
Glacial
Sediments
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Possible Conditions of Origin
Occurs near bedrock contact,
flows from manmade pond.
Located about 50 feet north of
JJ-6
Located about 80 feet north of
JJ-6.
Inferred to be continuation of
flow from JJ-6.
Occurs above inferred bedrock
fault.
Occurs above inferred bedrock
fault.
Near bedrock contact, originates
from uncased drill hole.
Occurs above inferred bedrock
fault.
Occurs above inferred bedrock
fault
Occurs above inferred bedrock
fault
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Occurs along or near bedrock
fault.
Occurs near fault and change in
bedrock lithology
Occurs along or near bedrock
fault.
Occurs along or near bedrock
fault.
Occurs as a pond near change in
bedrock hthology.
Unknown
                                  Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-58
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June 1995
^— Jl
TABLE 3.7.1, SPRING AND SEEP INVESTIGATION SUMMARY
Site
Number

JJ-24
JJ-25
JJ-33

SN-21

JJ-27


JJ-28


JJ-29


JJ-30


JJ-31


JJ-1

JJ-2


JJ-32


Drainage Basin


Ethel Creek
Ethel Creek
Ethel Creek

Ethel Creek

Cedar Creek


Cedar Creek


Cedar Creek


Cedar Creek


Cedar Creek


Unnamed

Unnamed


Unnamed


Classification


Spring
Spring
Seep

Seep

Spring


Seep


Seep


Seep


Seep


Spring

Spring


Spring


Estimated Discharge '
Igprn)
6/92
5
5
NF

NF

Not
Identi
fied
Not
Identi
fied
Not
Identi
fied
Not
Identi
fied
Not
Identi
fied
0 4

1 5


Not
Identi
fied
10/92
5
NM
NM

NM

2


NF


NF


NF


NF


NF

NF


<0 5


6/93
4
NM
NM

NM

NM


NM


NM


NM


NM


6

8


NM


10/93
NM
NM
NM

NM

NM


NM


NM


NM


NM


0 6

2.8


NM


6/94
6
6
NM

NM

NM


NM


NM


NM


NM


NM

3


NM


Water Quality Samples 2

6/92
F/L
F/L
NS

NS

NS


NS


NS


NS


NS


F/L

F/L


NS


10/92
F/L
NS
NS

NS

F/L


NS


NS


NS


NS


NS

NS


NS


6/93
F/L
NS
NS

NS

NS


NS


NS


NS


NS


F/L

F/L


NS


10/93
F/L
F/L
NS

NS

NS


NS


NS


NS


NS


F/L

F/L


NS


6/94
F/L
F/L
NS

NS

NS


NS


NS


NS


NS


F/L

F/L


NS


Surface
Geology

Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock

Bedrock

Bedrock


Bedrock


Bedrock


Glacial
Sediments

Bedrock


Glacial
Sediments
Glacial
Sediments

Glacial
Sediments

Possible Conditions of Origin


Unknown j
Unknown .
Unknown j
jl
Occurs near change in bedrock
Itthology
Unknown


Occurs near change in bedrock
lithology

Occurs near contact with glacial
sediments
i
Occurs near contact with
bedrock

Occurs near fault and cnanyt M !
bedrock Itthology j

Occurs above inferred bedrock
fault. I
j
Occurs near change in bedrock
lithology \\
tl
Unknown
!

Notes: 1 NF = No flow observed 1
NM = Flow not monitored ji
2 NS = Samples not collected j
F = Field analyses
L = Laboratory analyses ,

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3 59
October 1992, although there was evidence of
past surface moisture. South of Ethel Creek
and west of Marias Creek, 3 springs were
identified in an unnamed drainage. These
springs were designated JJ-1, JJ-2 and JJ-32.
Spring JJ-32 was determined to be out of the
potential area of hydrologic effect and was
eliminated from the sampling program.

3.7.3   Water Quantity

Flow rates from springs were measured, where
possible, using a section of 1.5-inch PVC pipe,
a calibrated 2-gallon bucket, and a watch.  The
pipe was placed near the spring origin and  used
to direct flow into the bucket. The flow was
calculated based  on the time required to fill the
bucket.  At some sites, all of the flow could not
be collected and directed through the pipe. For
these springs, a visual estimate of the total
discharge was made.

Flow measurement data are included in lable
3. 7. 1, Spring and Seep Investigation Summary,
and are discussed below.  In general, flows
were observed to decrease from June  to
October, probably as a result of seasonal
variations in precipitation and ground water
levels.

Nicholson  Creek

Flows from the springs in the South Fork of
Nicholson  Creek ranged from a maximum of 10
gallons per minute (gpm) in June 1993 to a
minimum of 1.5 gpm in June 1994. In the
North Fork of Nicholson Creek, discharges  from
3 springs ranged from a maximum of 12 gpm  in
June 1 994 to no flow in October 1 992.

Marias, Creek

Flows from springs measured in the Marias
Creek drainage were relatively low. Along  the
South Fork, spring discharges ranged from less
than 0.5 to 1.6 gpm. Generally, minor changes
in flow were observed in this area  between July
and October. Flows were also relatively
constant in the Middle Fork of Marias Creek,
where discharge values ranged from less than
0.5 to 6 gpm.  A substantial change in flow
was observed in 1 spring (JJ-3) along  the East
Fork. Flow at this site varied from a maximum
of 12 gpm in June 1993 to a minimum of 0.2
gpm in October 1992.
              Gold Creek

              Discharges from the 2 springs identified in this
              drainage ranged from a maximum of 10 gpm in
              June 1993 to no flow in  October 1993.

              Bolster Creek

              In the South Fork of Bolster Creek, discharges
              from 4 springs ranged from a maximum of 1.8
              gpm in June 1993 to a minimum of 0.2 gpm in
              October 1992.

              Ethel Creek

              Discharges from 3 springs identified along Ethel
              Creek ranged from a maximum of 12 gpm in
              June 1993 to a minimum of 0.9 gpm in October
              1992.  Spring JJ-23 exhibited the greatest
              seasonal change in discharge,  decreasing from 4
              to 0.9 gpm during 1992  (spring to fall) and from
              12 to 3 gpm during 1993 (spring to fall).  In
              June 1994, the flow was 8 gpm.

              Additional Springs

              Flows measured at 2 springs south of the Ethel
              Creek drainage (JJ-1 and JJ-2) were typical of
              the  seasonal trends observed a the other sites.
              Flows ranged from as high  as  8 gpm in June
              1993 to no flow in October 1992.

              A discharge of 2  gpm was  measured at spring
              JJ-27,  located  north of Nicholson Creek, in
              October 1992. Spring JJ-32 was also
              measured once in October  1992 and  had  a
              visually estimated flow of less than 0.5 gpm.

              3.7,4   Water Quality

              Baseline water quality samples were collected
              from springs and seeps as indicated on Table
              3. 7 1, Spring and Seep Investigations Summary
              Samples were collected in June and October of
              1992 and June and October of 1993 and
              analyzed for either field water  quality
              parameters or for both field and laboratory
              water quality parameters. Field analyses
              included measurement of pH, DO, specific
              conductance, temperature,  and ferrous iron.
              Laboratory analyses were performed at WADOE
              accredited laboratories. The following
              laboratory water quality parameters were
              measured:
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-60
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June 1995
         General and Physical
         Characteristics;
         Major Ions;
         Nutrients;
         Trace Metals/Elements;
         Radionuclides; and,
         Cyanide (Total and WAD).
Springs
Field analyses indicated that the springs are
slightly acidic to alkaline, with pH values
ranging from 5.9 to 9.4.  All field tests for
ferrous iron were negative indicating dissolved
iron concentrations in the springs are low.
Spring water temperatures exhibited seasonal
variability, with values ranging from a high of
23.2°C (74°F)  in June to 1.6°C (35°F) in
October.

Laboratory analyses indicate that calcium and
bicarbonate are the dominant cation and anion,
respectively, measured in all site springs.  TDS
values averaged 176 mg/l and ranged from 56
mg/l at SN-3 (Nicholson Creek drainage) to 350
mg/l at SN-17 (Bolster Creek drainage).

Dissolved trace metal concentrations were
generally at or below analytical detection limits.
Arsenic, barium and strontium were, however,
frequently measured  at levels above detection
limits in the springs.  Arsenic concentrations
ranged from below the detection limit (0.001
mg/l) to 0.009  mg/l and averaged 0.001  mg/l.
Barium concentrations ranged from below the
detection limit (0.01  mg/l) to 0.03 mg/l and
averaged less than 0.01 mg/l.  Strontium
concentrations  ranged from .08 to 1.71 mg/l
and averaged 0.18 mg/l.  Seasonal trends were
not observed in the metal analyses.

Low levels of nitrate  plus nitrite were also
commonly detected.  Nitrate plus nitrite
concentrations  ranged from below the detection
level (0.02 mg/l) to 1.1 mg/l and averaged 0.11
mg/l. Ammonia was detected in 7 springs,
located across 4 drainage basins and ranged
from 0.05 to 0.32  mg/l. Seasonal trends were
not observed in the nutrient analyses.

Hydrogen sulfide was detected in 14 of the 30
springs sampled at concentrations ranging from
the detection level  (0.02 mg/l) to 0.17 mg/l.
Detection of this compound suggests that
ground water sources supplying the springs are
under slightly reducing or anaerobic (oxygen
                     poor) chemical conditions.  Hydrogen sulfide
                     was also detected at similar levels in both
                     bedrock and glacial wells.  (See Section 3.8,
                     Ground Water).

                     Cyanide concentrations in the springs were
                     typically below the laboratory detection level of
                     0.002 mg/l.  Low levels of total cyanide were,
                     however,  detected at 5 springs at
                     concentrations ranging from 0.003 to 0.008
                     mg/l.  WAD cyanide was only detected once, at
                     spring JJ-18,  at a concentration of 0.005 mg/l.

                     Gross alpha activities measured in the springs
                     ranged from below the detection level (1  pCi/l)
                     to 22 pCi/l and averaged 2 pCi/l.  Gross beta
                     activities ranged from below the detection level
                     (1 pCi/l) to 11 pCi/l and averaged 3 pCi/l.
                     Radium 226 was analyzed  in 5 springs (JJ-3,
                     JJ-14, JJ-15, JJ-20, and SM-12) that exhibited
                     gross alpha activities of 5 pCi/l or greater. The
                     radium 226 activities for these springs ranged
                     from below the detection level (1  pCi/l) to 3.6
                     pCi/l.  One of these springs (JJ-14),  located in
                     the Marias Creek basin, consistently had gross
                     alpha activities greater than 10 pCi/l and
                     recorded the  highest radium 226 activity of 3.6
                     pCi/l.  The reason for increased radioactivity at
                     this spring is probably related to differences in
                     local mineralogy.

                     Seeps

                     Water quality  samples were collected from 5
                     seeps  and analyzed for field parameters (JJ-22,
                     SN-10, SN-26, and SN-27) or field and
                     laboratory parameters (SN-1 5).  Field analyses
                     indicated that pH and DO levels were generally
                     within the range measured in site springs. Seep
                     temperatures, however, were typically higher
                     than the springs with values ranging from
                     6.1°C (42°F) to  17.2°C (63°F).  The higher
                     seep temperatures measured may be the result
                     of the stagnant nature of waters sampled at
                     these sites.

                     Laboratory analysis of samples collected at SN-
                     15 (the "frog  pond"), generally showed similar
                     levels of trace metals, nutrients, cyanide and
                     radionuclides as the springs.  TDS levels were,
                     however,  relatively low ranging from 42 to 1 56
                     mg/l.  This difference suggests that the pond
                     may be fed, in part, by direct precipitation.
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June  1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-61
3.7.5    Origin

Springs and seeps identified in the area originate
from either glacial sediments or from bedrock.
The extent of glacial sediments in the study
area was determined from review of site and
regional geology maps and is shown in Figure
3.7.1,  Spring and Seep Locations. Further
inspection of these maps and available
structural data suggest that of the springs and
seeps surveyed originate under one of the
following conditions:

•        Along or near a bedrock fault
         or fracture (42% of the
         sites);
•        At or near a change in
         bedrock lithology (23% of
         the sites);
•        Unknown (21 % of the sites);
•        At or near the contact
         between glacial sediments
         and bedrock (8% of the
         sites); or,
•        As a result of human
         disturbance (6% of the
         sites).

The first 3  conditions may create  local
discontinuities in aquifer properties that can
result in ground water being forced to the
surface.  The fourth condition, as described
previously, has caused springs to form along a
recently completed section of road (JJ-4 and
JJ-6), at a  flowing manmade well (JJ-3),  and at
a flowing uncased exploration boring (JJ-14).
Possible origins for individual springs and seeps
are included in Table 3.7.1,  Spring and Seep
Investigation Summary.

3.8      GROUND WATER

3.8.1    Introduction

The description of the existing ground water
resources includes an analysis of the regional
and Project area hydrogeology.  The discussion
includes the flow, hydraulic, water quantity and
water quality characteristics of the bedrock and
shallow glacial deposits and alluvial sediments.

3.8.2    Regional Hydrogeology

The general area  surrounding the Crown  Jewel
Project consists of a variety of igneous,
sedimentary,  and  metamorphic rocks of Permian
               through upper Eocene age.  The regional
               geology is graphically illustrated on Figure
               3.8.1, Regional Geologic Map of Northeastern
               Okanogan County.

               Regional ground water in and around the Crown
               Jewel Project area occurs in the following
               hydrogeologic systems:

               •        Bedrock;
               •        Glacial deposits; and,
               •        Alluvial sediments.

               Bedrock

               Ground water is present in varying degrees in all
               bedrock in the region.  Ground water flow
               direction generally mirrors topography, however
               preferential flow occurs locally along fracture
               systems in the bedrock.  Fracture systems are
               influenced by structural episodes of faulting and
               folding whih  have sheared, foliated, or lineated
               the bedrock.  The general trend of the faults is
               north-northeast, parallel to the  regional fold
               axes.

               Glacial Deposits

               Unconsolidated glacial deposits are saturated
               with ground water in many areas of the region,
               particularly where the deposits. The glacial
               deposits have primary (intergranular) porosity
               and  permeability depending principally on the
               clay content.

               Alluvial Sediments

               Alluvial sediments, developed along major
               regional drainages, are generally saturated
               where the thickness of the sediments is more
               than approximately 10 feet.  Unconsolidated
               sediments along regional streams contain
               alluvial sediments which are typically formed by
               a mixture of clays, silts, sands, and gravels.
               The  alluvial sediments are recharged by
               precipitation and snowmelt, by stream flow
               losses, and by discharge from the bedrock
               ground water system.  The regional surface and
               ground water system is interdependent with
               ground water contributing to stream baseflows
               (gaining stream) in some areas  and streams
               contributing to ground water recharge (losing
               streams) in other areas. Seasonal variations in
               this interrelationship is common.
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3 62
      R 27 E
                                             R 29 E
                                                                                    R 31 E
                                           R 29 E
                                                              R 30 E
                                                                        119°00'
                    LEGEND
              SURRCIAL DEPOSITS (Quaternary] - Alluvium and glacial drift
              undifferentiated
              VOLCANIC ROCKS (late Eocene) - Klondike Mountain Formation
              consisting of lithoidal lava flows and pyroclastic breccias
              VOLCANIC ROCKS (middle Eocenel - Dacitic, andesitic. and minor
              trachytic lava flows and hypabyssal Intrusive rocks.

              EPICLASTIC  AND VOLCANICLASTIC ROCKS (early Eocene) - Sandstone,
              graywacke, tuff, conglomerate, and shale   Includes O'Brien
              Creek Formation

              PARAGNEISS, ORTHOGNEISS, AND ASSOCIATED GRANITIC ROCKS OF
              THE OKANOGAN GNEISS DOME - A, paragneiss. B, orthognelss

              GRANITIC ROCKS ITriassic to lower Tertiary) - Includes granodionte.
              quartz monzonlte, quartz diorite, diorite, and monzonite.

              EUGEOSYNCLINAL DEPOSITS (Permian to Cretaceous) - Greenstone.
              greenschist,  slate, phyllite, schist, metawacke, quartzite (meta-
              chert), limestone  and marble.

              CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
                  FIGURE  3.8.1,   REGIONAL  GEOLOGIC  MAP
                 OF  NORTHEASTERN   OKANOGAN   COUNTY
 FILENAME CJ3-8-IDWG

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-63
3,8.3    Project Area HydrogeoSogy

Several phases of ground water investigations
have been completed for the Crown Jewel
Project.  Ground water investigations have been
conducted on the mine area, the tailings pond
and mill areas, and the general Project area.

A total of 9 monitoring wells (MW-1 through
MW-9) were installed in the Project area to
monitor ground water quantity and quality.
Monitoring wells MW-3, MW-4, MW-5, MW-7,
MW-8, and MW-9 were installed in glacial
deposits, and the  other monitoring wells were
installed  in bedrock.  These wells have been
monitored monthly for water level and water
quality since May and June of  1992.  Review of
the site ground water level data show seasonal
fluctuations in the water table range from less
than 1  to 2 feet to over 200 feet.  This range of
fluctuation indicates a relatively high recharge
potential, and great variability in hydraulic
conductivity and storage.

Project area ground water occurs in the
following hydrogeologic systems:

•        Bedrock; and,
•        Glacial deposits.

Project Area Bedrock

The Project area consists mostly of the Permo-
Triassic Brooklyn  Formation as shown on Figure
3.3,1,  Geologic Map  of the Proposed Crown
Jewel Project Site. In the proposed mine area,
the Brooklyn Formation consists of an upper
volcanic  group  and a lower sedimentary group.
The upper group is composed mostly of
andesite  east of the North Lookout Fault, which
crosses the proposed mine area from northeast
to southwest.   The lower group consists of
skarns, marble, hornfels, silicified conglomerate,
and silicified volcanoclastics.  The Crown Jewel
orebody  is present mostly in the skarns of the
lower group.  The granodiorite Buckhorn
Mountain pluton underlies the lower group of
the Brooklyn Formation. Numerous dikes and
sills associated with the pluton intrude the
strata of the Brooklyn Formation.

East of the Crown Jewel deposit, a structural
transition zone  (western edge of the Toroda
Creek Graben) separates the Brooklyn Formation
and the Toroda Creek volcanics. The transition
zone contains andesite volcanics which have
              been clay altered and highly fractured and
              brecciated.  The fracturing and brecciation is
              well cemented and healed with clay gouge,
              calcite, and quartz.  The Toroda Creek volcanics
              consist primarily of andesites.

              The Project area bedrock has low primary
              (intergranular) permeability and porosity,  and
              the ground water flow is governed by fracture
              and joint systems (secondary permeability and
              porosity).  The ground water flow within  the
              proposed mine area is impacted by the presence
              of the  North Lookout Fault (dipping 60° to 70°
              to the  southeast and striking northeast).  A
              shear zone developed along  the fault is
              approximately 75 feet wide  in the southwest
              corner of the proposed mine and as much as
              200 feet wide near the northeast margin  of the
              proposed mine.

              The ground water flow east of the pit
              area may be impacted by the Toroda Creek
              structural zone which dips approximately 45
              degrees to the southeast striking northeast.
              The shear zone is approximately 500 to 700
              feet wide.

              Hydrologic characteristics of the Project area
              bedrock were determined by 7 field  permeability
              tests and 2 pumping tests in the proposed mine
              area and by 12 packer tests and 9 field
              permeability tests in  the Marias Creek tailings
              disposal area.

              Fractured bedrock in the proposed mine area
              have hydraulic conductivities ranging from
              0.031  to  0.8 ft/day (1.1x10'6 to 2.8x10'4
              cm/sec).  The pumping test  results indicate a
              range of average hydraulic conductivity from
              0.1 to 0.75 ft/day (3.5x105 to 2.6 x10'4
              cm/sec).  The pumping tests indicated that the
              hydraulic conductivity of the North Lookout
              Fault zone may be somewhat less than the
              surrounding rock (Colder, 1993).

              Testing for permeability of the bedrock in the
              Marias Creek tailings pond area  indicated  a
              range of hydraulic conductivities from less than
              0.00028 to 1.4 ft/day (1x107 to 5.0x104
              cm/sec).  The fractured and  brecciated rock
              associated with the structural transition zone
              tested within the Marias tailings pond area
              indicated  no increase in permeability over the
              non-fractured zones (Knight  Piesold, 1993).
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-64
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June 1995
The depth to ground water from the surface
ranges from an active artesian discharge from
boreholes 90-303, and GB-220 to a depth of
380.7 feet from the ground surface in borehole
90-218.

Ground water level monitoring in the Project
area bedrock was initiated in May 1991.
Monitoring of water levels in the proposed mine
area indicated that seasonal fluctuation of the
depth to  ground water level is highly variable.
Fluctuation of water levels over a period of 20
months ranged from several feet to 228 feet.
The highest water levels were observed during
spring (April through June), and the lowest
levels were measured through winter (December
through March). The  water level fluctuation is
much higher east of the North Lookout Fault
than within the fault zone and west of the North
Lookout Fault.  This may be the result of lower
permeability and storage capacity of the
bedrock east of the North Lookout Fault (Hydro-
Geo, 1993).

The Project area bedrock is recharged by
infiltration of precipitation and snowmelt. The
infiltration from the local streams is minor at the
proposed mine site due to  its  location on the  top
of the watershed. The contribution to
infiltration from the streams is more pronounced
on the lower reaches of the local streams. The
recharge  to the area was estimated to range
from 10 to 25% of annual precipitation (Colder,
1993). The bedrock water bearing strata are
mostly under unconfined conditions  where
bedrock outcrops, and under semi-confined or
confined  conditions where the bedrock is
covered with glacial deposits.  The pumping
tests in the proposed mine area indicated
storage coefficient values from 1.3x10~3 to
5.0x10"3, which are typical for semi-confined
conditions (Colder, 1993).

Discharge from bedrock is  into springs, adits,
streams,  and unconsolidated sediments. The
general ground water flow direction is toward
the southeast with an approximate hydraulic
gradient of 0.05 ft/ft.  This is illustrated with a
series of 4 potentiometric surface maps
developed for the general Project and proposed
mine area:
         Figure 3.8.2, Potentiometric Surface
         Map, General Project Area, Annual
         Low Level (February 19931;
                    •        Figure 3.8.3, Potentiometric Surface
                             Map, Mine Area, Annual Low Level
                             (February  1993);

                    •        Figure 3.8.4, Potentiometric Surface
                             Map, General Project Area, Annual
                             High Level (May 1993); and,

                    •        Figure 3.8.5, Potentiometric Surface
                             Map, Mine Area, Annual High Level
                             (May 1993).

                    Note that with the exception of some
                    differences in the mine area, (attributed to
                    recharge conditions) the direction of ground
                    water flow changes little from  low to high
                    levels. On  a smaller scale, ground water flow in
                    the bedrock is likely affected by the series of
                    northeast trending faults and also by the
                    presence of abandoned mine adits penetrating
                    up to 990 feet into the Buckhorn Mountain.

                    Project Area Glacial Deposits

                    In the area  of the proposed tailings facility in
                    Marias Creek, 2 distinctive glacial deposits were
                    encountered during  drilling. The upper deposit
                    consists of loose glacial till, ranging in thickness
                    from 10 to 30 feet.  The lower deposit is  a
                    dense well  graded till.  Till with a thickness of
                    more than 119 feet  was encountered in
                    monitoring  well MW-3.

                    Packer permeability  testing of the loose and
                    dense till horizons indicated values of hydraulic
                    conductivity from less than 1.0x10" to 9.9x10"4
                    cm/sec respectively (Knight Piesold,  1993).
                    The ground water in the loose  till is seasonally
                    present and is perched in nature. In general, the
                    ground water in the dense till is unconfined;
                    however, artesian conditions (confined) exist
                    locally where  low permeability  strata overlies
                    more permeable saturated zones. The dense till
                    forms the upper aquitard above the semi-
                    confined contact zone between the till and
                    bedrock.  Seasonal perched conditions occur in
                    the dense till/bedrock contact zone.  The
                    till/bedrock contact has typically higher
                    permeability than  the overlying till and
                    underlying bedrock.  Packer permeability tests
                    from this zone indicated hydraulic conductivity
                    values ranging from less than 0.0014 to 2.0
                    ft/day (5.0x107 to 7.0x104 cm/sec).
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
                       Page 3-65
                                                                                   T
                                                                                   40
                                                                                   N
    443
         BATTLE MOUNTAIN GOLD
   ~SW-9    BOREHOLE
   •     ACZ SURFACE WATER STATION

   A  "6 ACZ MONITORING WELL
   +     ADITS

    	  STREAM

   • 	  EPHEMERAL STREAM

 —4200—  POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR
      A,  (100' CONTOUR INTERVAL)

         HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION
         MINE PIT AREA
                                      CONTOUR INTERVAL SOFT
NOTES II) U AND L INDICATES UPPER AND LOWER PIEZOMETER
   RESPECTIVELY
   [21 WATER LEVELS MEASURED IN UPPER PIEZOMETERS
   USED FOB CONTOURING
   131 MONITOBING WELLS COMPLETED ACROSS FIRST WATER
   BEARING ZONE ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING
     Groundwater Level
        Elevation
        Dale of
       Measurement
                    . 329f°°AMW-8
  FIGURE  3.8.2, POTENTIOMETRIC  SURFACE MAP,  GENERAL
   PROJECT  AREA,  ANNUAL LOW  LEVEL  (FEBRUARY  1993)
 FILENAME CJ3-8-2DWG

-------
Page 3-66
                                                                      June 1995
                  LEGEND
    H

    ®96
     SW-9

     -MW-

    4-
COLDER PIEZOMETER

BATTLE MOUNTAIN GOLD
 BOREHOLE

ACZ SURFACE WATER STATION

ACZ MONITORING WELL

ADITS

FLOWING AT SURFACE

MINE PIT AREA
         STREAM

         EPHEMERAL STREAM
NOTES HI U AND L INDICATES UPPER AND LOWER PIEZOMETER,
   RESPECTIVELY
   12] WATER LEVELS MEASURED IN UPPER PIEZOMETERS
   USED FOR CONTOURING
   (31 MONITORING WELLS COMPLETED ACROSS FIRST WATER
   BEARING ZONE ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING
—4200— POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR
          (50' CONTOUR INTERVAL)

Groundwatsr Level  —v^
   Elevation     ^^^
                                 Date of
                                              3298309°AMW-8
                                Measurement
                                                                         CONTOUR INTERVAL SOFT
          FIGURE  3.8.3,  POTENTIOMETRIC  SURFACE  MAP,
        MINE  AREA,  ANNUAL  LOW  LEVEL  (FEBRUARY 1993)
  FILENAME  CJ3-8-3 DWG

-------
June 1995
                      Page 3-67
         ACZ MONITORING WELL

         ADITS

         STREAM

 	 	 EPHEMERAL STREAM

 —4200— POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR
           (100- CONTOUR INTERVAL)

         HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS-SECTION
         MINE PIT AREA
      Groundwater Leve
        Elevation
                                       CONTOUR INTERVAL SOFT
                                                                                   T
                                                                                   40
                                                                                   N
NOTES II) U AND L INDICATES UPPER AND LOWER PIEZOMETER
   RESPECTIVELY
   (21 WATER LEVELS MEASURED IN UPPER PEZOMETERS
   USED FOR CONTOURING
   I3I MONITORING WELLS COMPLETED ACROSS FIRST WATER
   BEARING ZONE ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING
         Date of
        Measurement
   FIGURE 3.8.4,  POTENTIOMETRIC  SURFACE  MAP,  GENERAL
        PROJECT  AREA,  ANNUAL  HIGH  LEVEL  (MAY  1993)
  FILEHAUE CJ3-S-4DWG

-------
Page 3-68
                                                                       June 1535
                                                      GOLD AXE ADIT
                                                      A
                                               DOUBLE AXE ADIT
                 LEGEND
 443
B
r,96

 SW-9
    -

   +
   IF)
    MW-6
COLDER PIEZOMETER

BATTLE MOUNTAIN GOLD
 BOREHOLE

ACZ SURFACE WATER STATION

ACZ MONITORING WELL

ADITS

FLOWING AT SURFACE

MINE PIT AREA
                                      STREAM

                                      EPHEMERAL STREAM
                   NOTES 111 U AND I INDICATES UPPER AND LOWER PIEZOMETER
                      RESPECTIVELY
                      121 WATER LEVELS MEASURED IN UPPER PIEZOMETERS
                      USED FOR CONTOURING
                      13) MONITORING WELLS COMPLETED ACROSS FIRST WATER
                      BEARING ZONE ENCOUNTERED DURING DRILLING
—4200—  POTENTIOMETRIC CONTOUR
          (SO1 CONTOUR INTERVAL)

Groundwalor Level  —^^
   Elevation     ^-^.
   Date of
                               Measurement
         FIGURE  3.8.5, POTENTIOMETRIC  SURFACE  MAP,
           MINE  AREA,  ANNUAL  HIGH  LEVEL  (MAY  1993)
 FILENAME CJ3-8-S DWG

-------
      1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-69
The glacial deposits are recharged by
precipitation, snowmelt, direct infiltration from
the local streams and inflow of bedrock ground
water.  The relationship between ground water
systems in the bedrock and glacial deposits is
illustrated on hydrogeologic cross sections in
Figure 3,8.6, Hydrologic Cross-Section A-A ',
and Figure 3.8. 7, Hydrologic Cross-Section B-
B'. As described above, ground water flow
generally follows the local topography.  Ground
water in the glacial deposits discharges into
springs and seeps and  into the surface water
streams in the lower reaches of the local
drainages.

3.8.4    Ground Water Quality

Baseline ground water  quality samples have
been collected from monitoring wells MW-1
through MW-9 since May and June of 1992.
Ground water quality samples have also been
collected from an existing flowing well (GW-1)
since October 1990, and from 4 mine adits:

•        Roosevelt Adit (GW-2);
•        Upper Magnetic Adit (GW-3);
•        Buckhorn Adit (GW-4); and,
•        Gold Axe Adit (GW-5).

A  summary of the ground water quality
monitoring history at the site is provided in
Table 3.6.5, Water Quality Monitoring History.

The ground water stations are (and have been)
sampled monthly for either field water quality
analyses (GW-1, GW-3 and GW-5) or for both
field and laboratory water quality analyses (all
other stations).  During the spring and seep
surveys, samples were also collected from the
abandoned mine adits for field and laboratory
analyses.

Field analyses of ground water samples are
conducted by the Proponent's personnel and
include measurement of DO, pH, specific
conductivity, temperature, and ferrous iron.
Laboratory analyses of  these samples are
performed in WADOE accredited laboratories.
The following laboratory water quality
parameters are measured:

•        General and Physical
         Characteristics;
•        Major Ions;
•        Nutrients;
•        Trace Metals/Elements;
              •        Radionuclides;
              •        Cyanide (Total  and WAD);
              •        Total Petroleum
                       Hydrocarbons (TPH); and,
              •        Total Organic Carbon (TOO.

              At the request of WADOE, TPH and TOC were
              added to the monitoring  program and are only
              analyzed in the well samples. A detailed listing
              of all  of the ground water quality parameters,
              including methods of laboratory analysis, is
              provided in Table 3.6.6,  Water Quality
              Analytical Methods.

              Ground  water quality data collected at the site
              through July 1994 are summarized in Appendix
              C, Water Quality (C-1  Summary Statistics for
              Baseline Ground  Water Quality Parameters).
              Data from the bedrock and glacial deposit wells
              are also found in this appendix.  A complete
              record is maintained in the ground water data
              base.

              Bedrock Wells

              Field analyses indicate that ground waters
              sampled from the bedrock wells (MW-1, MW-2,
              and MW-6) are near neutral to moderately
              alkaline, with pH values ranging from 6.7 to
              9.2.   Ground water temperatures in these  wells
              ranged from 4.1 °C (39°F) to 7.9°C (46°) and
              averaged 5.8°C  (42°F).  DO levels ranged from
              3.1 to 12.3 mg/l, although these measurements
              may have been affected  by entrainment of air in
              the samples during collection. Field tests for
              ferrous iron were negative.

              Laboratory analyses indicated that with the
              exception of bedrock well MW-1, calcium and
              bicarbonate were the dominant cation and
              anion, respectively, measured in all site wells,
              including the glacial wells.  Sodium (rather than
              calcium) was the dominant cation  measured in
              MW-1.  The source of sodium in this well may
              be related to the  geologic material (andesite)
              encountered during well  drilling. None of the
              other  monitoring  wells at the site are completed
              in andesite.

              TDS levels in the bedrock wells ranged from 90
              to 250 mg/l and averaged 149 mg/l. By
              comparison, the average TDS concentration
              measured in the glacial wells was  187 mg/l;
              TDS concentrations in site surface waters
              averaged 233 mg/l.  The similar TDS levels
              measured in ground waters and  surface waters
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
                                                                                                                                     CO
WEST
3900
     NOTES Ml VERTICAL SCALE EXAGGERATED
         I2I WELIS MW-3 AND MW-4 FLOWING AT SURFACE IN
         FEBRUARY AND MAY 1993
         (3! SECTION LOCATION SHOWN IN FIGURE 3
           LEGEND
I     I ANDESITE (UNALTERED]
&P%%%| ANDESITE (ALTERED)
|     | GARNET SKARN
      MAGNETITE SKARN
      UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
|     | MARBLE           MW-4
I     | CLASTICS

      GLACIAL SEDIMENTS
MAY 1993 -5l|j
FEB 1993 VI
                                                                                                     1 PIT OUTLINE
                                                                                                     SHEAR ZONE
                                                                                                     FAULT LINE
                                                                                                     HIGH WATER LEVEL
                                                                                                     LOW WATER LEVEL
                                                                                                     BOREHOLE WITH
                                                                                                       SCREENED ZONE/
                                                                                                       OPEN INTERVAL

                                                                                                     UNKNOWN
                              EAST
                                 A'
                                  5400
5300

5200

5100

5000

4900

4800

4700

4600

4500

4400

4300

4200

4100

4000

3900
                                                                                                         HORIZONTAL SCALE
                         FIGURE  3.8.6, HYDROGELOGIC  CROSS-SECTION  A-A'
 •JAME  CJ3-3-6DWH
                                                                                                                                      to
                                                                                                                                      to
                                                                                                                                      01

-------
SOUTH
    B
                                                                                                                          NORTH
                                                                                                                              B'
 5300

 5200 •

 • 5100

 i 5000

fij 4900
                                                         -PWC
                                                                                  MW-3
                          -MW-
                                                                                                                        -5
                                                                                                                               • 4900 ^j
     NOTES [11 VERTICAL SCALE EXAGGERATED
         [21 WELLS MW-3 AND MW-4 FLOWING AT SURFACE IN
         FEBRUARY AND MAY 1993
         13) WATER LEVEL AT PWC MEASURED IN JULY 1993
         141 SECTION LOCATION SHOWN IN FIGURE 3
                                                                             LEGEND
                                                                        ANDESITE (ALTERED)
                                                                        CLASTICS
                                                                        GLACIAL SEDIMENTS
                                                                                             -*•  HIGH WATER LEVEL
                                                                                             •S-  LOW WATER LEVEL
                                                                                        MW-8 —i  BOREHOLE WITH
                                                                                        MAY 1993 -J    SCREENED ZONE/
                                                                                        FEB 1993 _V|    OPEN INTERVAL

                                                                                              ?  UNKNOWN
                           FIGURE  3.8.7,  HYDROGELOGIC  CROSS-SECTION  B-B'
 FILENAME CJ3-8-7 DWG

-------
Page 3-72
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June 1995
at the Crown Jewel site suggest a close
interrelationship exists between these 2
hydrologic systems as well as between the
bedrock and glacial aquifers.  This observation
will be discussed further in Section 3.8.7,
Relation of Ground Water and Surface Water
Systems.

In general, dissolved trace metal concentrations
in the bedrock wells were at or  below analytical
detection  limits. Three trace  metals (arsenic,
barium, and strontium) were, however,
commonly detected at levels above detection
levels. Dissolved arsenic concentrations ranged
from less  than 0.001 to 0.008 mg/l and
averaged 0.004 mg/l.  Dissolved barium
concentrations  ranged from less than 0.01 to
0.03 mg/l and averaged 0.01  mg/l.  Dissolved
strontium  concentrations ranged from 0.09 to
0.80 mg/l and averaged 0.26 mg/l.

Total trace metal concentrations were typically
higher than associated dissolved values in both
the bedrock and glacial deposit wells.

Nutrient levels in the bedrock wells were
generally low.  Ammonia concentrations ranged
from less than 0.05 to 0.14 mg/l and averaged
less than 0.05 mg/l.  Nitrate plus nitrite
concentrations  ranged from less than 0.02 up to
2.4 mg/l and averaged 0.92 mg/l.
Concentrations of total organic carbon (TOC)
were also  low,  ranging from less than 1 to 53
mg/l and averaging 3 mg/l.  Although TOC is
not a direct measure of nutrients, it is often
associated with elevated nutrient levels, as
would be found in waters impacted by organic
matter.  Analyses of ground waters for total
petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) were negative,
both in the bedrock and glacial deposit wells.

Detection  of hydrogen sulfide (less than 0.02 up
to 0.30 mg/l) in the bedrock wells indicate that
site ground waters are under slightly reducing or
anaerobic  (oxygen poor) conditions.  Hydrogen
sulfide is generally unstable under more
oxidizing conditions and is transformed to
sulfate.

Total and  WAD cyanide concentrations in site
ground water were typically below the detection
level of 0.002 mg/l.  Cyanide was occasionally
detected in both the bedrock and glacial deposit
wells, with concentrations ranging from 0.002
to 0.006 mg/l.
                     Analysis of gross alpha and gross beta activities
                     indicates that the background radioactivity of
                     site ground waters is near detection levels.
                     Gross alpha activities in the bedrock well
                     samples ranged from less than 1 up to 19 pCi/l
                     and averaged 3 pCi/l.  Gross beta activities for
                     these glacial  well samples ranged from less than
                     1 up to 22 pCi/l and averaged approximately 2
                     pCi/l.

                     Glacial Deposit Wells

                     In general, water quality data from the bedrock
                     wells and glacial deposit wells (MW-3, MW-4,
                     MW-5,  MW-7,  MW-8 and MW-9) were similar.
                     Field analyses indicated that ground water in
                     the glacial deposits was also near neutral to
                     slightly alkaline with pH values ranging from 6.0
                     to 8.3.  Ground water temperatures in the
                     glacial deposit wells were slightly higher than
                     the bedrock wells, ranging from 3.1 °C (38°F)
                     to 8.5°C (47°F) and averaging 6.2°C (43°F).
                     DO concentrations ranged from 2.3 to 13.3
                     mg/l and probably were affected, as indicated
                     above, by entrainment of air in the samples
                     during collection. Field tests for ferrous iron
                     were  also negative.

                     Laboratory analyses  indicated that calcium and
                     bicarbonate were the dominant cation and
                     anion, respectively, measured in  all ground
                     water samples from  the glacial deposit wells.
                     TDS levels ranged from 76 to 344 mg/l and
                     averaged 187 mg/l.

                     Similar to the bedrock wells, dissolved trace
                     metal concentrations in the glacial deposit wells
                     were  generally at or  below analytical detection
                     limits. Exceptions include arsenic, barium, iron,
                     manganese, and strontium.  With the addition of
                     iron and manganese, the same trace metals
                     were typically detected at levels above
                     detection limits in the bedrock wells.  The
                     occurrence of iron and manganese in the  glacial
                     deposit wells may be unique to this glacial
                     material. Arsenic concentrations in the glacial
                     deposit wells ranged from less than  0.001 up to
                     0.43 mg/l and averaged 0.006 mg/l.  Barium
                     concentrations  ranged from less than 0.01 up to
                     0.1 7 mg/l and averaged 0.01 mg/l.  Iron
                     concentrations  ranged from less than 0.02 up to
                     0.23 mg/l and averaged 0.02 mg/l.  Manganese
                     concentrations  ranged from less than 0.01 to
                     0.70 mg/l and averaged 0.07 mg/l.  Strontium
                     concentrations  ranged from 0.1 5 to 0.54 mg/l
                     and averaged approximately 0.27 mg/l.
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-73
Nutrient levels in the glacial deposit wells were
also generally low.  Ammonia concentrations
ranged from less than 0.05 up to 0.49 mg/l and
averaged 0.07 mg/l, and nitrate plus nitrite
concentrations ranged from less than 0.02 up to
1.6 mg/l and averaged 0.13 mg/l.  In general,
nitrate plus nitrite concentrations in the bedrock
wells and adits were higher than the glacial
deposit wells, ranging from less than 0.02 up to
2.4 mg/l and averaging 0.75 mg/l.  TOC
concentrations in the glacial deposit wells
ranged from less than 1 to 77 mg/l and on
average were the same as the bedrock wells (3
mg/l).  Analyses of the glacial deposit wells for
TPH were negative.

As with the bedrock wells,  hydrogen sulfide
was detected in the glacial deposit wells.
Sulfide concentrations ranged from less than
0.02 up to 0.8 mg/l and averaged approximately
0.05 mg/l.

Background radioactivity of ground water in the
glacial deposits was similar to that observed in
the bedrock.  Gross alpha activities measured in
the glacial deposit wells ranged from less than 1
up to 14 pCi/l and averaged 3 pCi/l. Gross beta
activities in these wells ranged from less than 1
up to 33 pCi/l and averaged 3 pCi/l.

3.8.5    Seasonal Trends In Ground Water
         Quality

Review of water quality data from the bedrock
and glacial deposit wells suggest that seasonal
trends in ground water quality do occur at the
Crown Jewel site.  IDS levels typically
decrease during the spring months and increase
to maximum values  in early to late fall.
Differences between spring and fall TDS
concentrations range from 60 mg/l (MW-2) to
greater than 100 mg/l (MW-8 and MW-9).
These differences are attributed to recharge of
site aquifers during the spring by snowmelt
waters, which are presumed to be low in
dissolved solids. Ground water temperatures
were found to be lowest in late fall and early
winter and highest in the summer.  Seasonal
temperature variations ranged from 36 to 41 °F.
There appeared  to be little or no seasonal
variability in the levels of nutrients, trace
metals, or radionuclides in site ground waters.
              3.8.6    Influence of Past Mining on Ground
                       Water

              The Buckhorn Mountain area of the Myers
              Creek mining district has been prospected and
              mined for gold, silver, copper, and iron for the
              last 100 years, as described in Section 3.19,
              Land Use.

              Most of the abandoned mine adits present in
              the vicinity of the Buckhorn Mountain
              penetrated into the zone of ground water
              saturation and water discharges from the
              workings.  Table 3.8.1, Summary of Historic
              Mine Workings, lists the mine workings and
              their characteristics in the  Buckhorn Mountain
              area.  Location of the adits is shown on Figure
              3.8.8, Location of Regional Ground Water
              Monitoring Sites.

              The discharge from the old mine workings has
              been monitored since June 1992. The most
              substantial discharge,  ranging from 23 to 121
              gpm, has been measured from the lower
              Roosevelt adit. The discharge from the
              Buckhorn adit ranged from 1.9 to 6 gpm. The
              other abandoned mine adits, Gold Axe and
              Magnetic in particular, have small seasonally
              variable discharge and standing water at the
              entrances to the adits.

              Although the total discharge rates from the
              abandoned Roosevelt Mine workings are
              relatively small, the  continuous discharge over a
              period of at least 80 years (Roosevelt Mine was
              first mined between 1902  and 1911) has
              impacted the natural (pre-mining) ground water
              system. The abandoned Roosevelt adit
              discharge indicates an average hydraulic
              conductivity of the mine area  as approximately
              16.2 ft/day (5.7x103 cm/sec). The radius of
              influence from the discharging adit was
              calculated as 1,364 feet.  The recharge rate
              was estimated as 41 % of annual precipitation
              (21.3 inches) (Hydro-Geo,  1994) and (BMGC,
              1993b).

              As part of baseline monitoring for the Crown
              Jewel Project, water quality samples have been
              collected and analyzed from 5 of the historic
              mine adits:

              •       Buckhorn adit;
              •       Gold Axe adit;
              •       Lower Magnetic adit;
              •       Upper Magnetic adit; and,
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-74
June 1995
                                            R 30 E R 31 E
                              MAGNETIC ADIT \\ \ \ -\ V V  |i  \  l
                              ^   "-.„ ' ^" ' \ \  \ 1  \ \ \ )  !  \
                           UPPER MAGNETIC ADIT (GW-31
            'A BUCKHORN ADHtHGW-4) |( f
                       DOUBLE AXE ADIT
        L EGEND
        ACZ MONITORING WELL
        ADIT

        STREAM

        EPHEMERAL STREAM
                                                                       T
                                                                      40
                                                                       N
        MINE PIT AREA


        TAILINGS IMPOUNDMENT AREA
                                                        CONTOUR INTERVAL SOFT
                    FIGURE 3.8.8,  LOCATION OF
         REGIONAL  GROUNDWATER MONITORING SITES
 FILENAME CJ3-8-8DWG

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-75
TABLE 3.8.1, SUMMARY OF HISTORIC MINE WORKINGS
Name of Mine or Portal Location Approximate Approximate Direction of Water'"
Prospect Portal Elevation Length of Drift Main Drift Discharge
(feet) (feet) Igpml
Aztec
Buckhorn
Caribou
Gold Axe
Magnetic
(Neutral)
Rainbow
Roosevelt
NE1/4, NW1/4 5,250 80 S 20° E 0
Sec 24 T 40N R 30E
NW1/4, NW1/4 5,160 990 S 62° £ 1.9
Sec 24 T 40n R 30E
SW1/4, SW1/4 4,700-4,800 90 South
Sec 13 T 40N R 30E
SE1/4, SW1/4 5,280 200 N 34° W less than 1 (21
Sec 24 T 40 N R 30E
N1/2, N1/2 4,800-5,200 485I3) SE less than 1121
Sec 24 T 40N R 30E 100(3! S 30° W less than 1121
SW1/4, SW1/4 5,000 460 S 65° E 0
Sec 13 T 40N R 30E S 25° E 0
(Grout) NW1/4, NE1/4 4,450-4, 750141 750 S 80° W 55
Sec 25 T 40N R 30E
Western Star NW1/4, NW1/4 5,350 N/A N/A
Sec 24 T 40N R 30E
NOTES:
1 . Water discharge as measured on 1 1-12-92.
2. No measurable discharge, but standing water on October 19 and 20, 1992.
3. Three open pits and 2 adits.
4. Two adits at different elevations, discharge from the lower adit.
•        Roosevelt adit.

Water quality data for these abandoned mine
adits are discussed below and are summarized
in Appendix C, Water Quality, (C-1, Summary
Statistics for Selected Ground Water Quality
Data).  The adit data are considered particularly
useful in evaluating long-term water quality
impacts at the proposed Crown Jewel Project.

Samples of water discharged from the
Buckhorn, Lower Magnetic, and Roosevelt adits
were found to have a similar  quality as samples
taken from site monitoring wells.   The
following generalizations are  made regarding the
water quality conditions in these adits:

•        The waters were slightly
         alkaline with an average pH
         of 7.8 and a pH range of 5.8
         to 8.6.
                       Calcium and bicarbonate
                       were the dominant anion and
                       cation, respectively.

                       The total dissolved solids
                       content averaged 224 mg/l
                       and ranged from 156 mg/l to
                       384 mg/l.

                       Nitrate plus nitrite
                       concentrations averaged 0.5
                       mg/l and ranged from 0.33
                       mg/l to 0.77 mg/l. Ammonia
                       concentration  averaged  less
                       than 0.05 mg/l and ranged
                       from less than 0.05 mg/l to
                       0.16 mg/l.

                       Dissolved trace metal
                       concentrations were
                       generally below detection
                       level with the  exception of
                       arsenic and strontium.
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-76
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June 1995
•        Average arsenic
         concentrations ranged from
         0.001 to 0.005 mg/l for the
         Lower Magnetic and
         Roosevelt adits to 0.025
         mg/l for the Buckhorn Adit.

•        Strontium concentrations
         averaged 0.16 mg/l and
         ranged from 0.08 mg/l to
         0.22 mg/l.

•        Gross alpha activities
         averaged 2  pCi/l and ranged
         from less than 1 pCi/l to 14
         pCi/l.  Gross beta  activities
         averaged 2  pCi/l and ranged
         from less than 1 pCi/l to 8
         pCi/l.

•        WAD and total cyanide
         concentrations were at or
         below the detection level of
         0.002 mg/l  in all samples
         tested.

Water ponded in the Upper Magnetic and Gold
Axe adits was found  to be chemically distinct
from the wells and other adits sampled and
characterized by:

•        Generally lower pH values,
         averaging 6.5 in the Gold
         Axe adit and 7.5 in the Upper
         Magnetic adit;

•        Relatively high TDS levels
         averaging 494 mg/l;  and,

•        High  sulfate concentrations
         relative to alkalinity;

Waters analyzed from the Upper Magnetic adit
also contained low to moderate  levels of
dissolved iron (less than 0.02 to 0.56 mg/l),
manganese (less than 0.01  to 0.27 mg/l), and
zinc (less than 0.01 to 0.05 mg/l).
Concentrations of others dissolved  metals in
this adit were typically at or below detection
levels.

The Gold Axe adit merits specific mention
because of the lower pH values  measured in the
standing water at the entrance to this
abandoned adit.  Water samples collected from
the Gold Axe adit revealed low to moderate
                    levels of several dissolved trace metals including
                    aluminum (0.18 mg/l), barium (0.01 mg/l),
                    cadmium (0.006 mg/l), cobalt (0.50 mg/l),
                    copper (0.84 to 1.18 mg/l), manganese (0.99
                    mg/l), nickel (0.25 mg/l), selenium (0.002 mg/l)
                    and zinc (0.30 to 0.38 mg/l). Field analyses
                    suggest that water quality conditions in this adit
                    vary seasonally. During spring runoff, seepage
                    of alkaline waters into the adit appears to result
                    in higher pH values and lower dissolved solids.
                    When the seepage decreases, the pH of the adit
                    waters declines  and TDS rises.  Water collected
                    at the entrance of the Gold Axe and Upper
                    Magnetic Mine adits  does not flow freely at the
                    surface and remains  in contact with waste rock
                    and ore material exposed in the adits and
                    assorted debris from prior mining activities
                    including old underground mine car rails.  One or
                    more of these conditions may affect the water
                    quality conditions observed.

                    The quality of water  in each of the adits is
                    affected to some degree by the rock materials
                    exposed along the adit floor and walls. Review
                    of mining reports and data provided by the
                    Proponent shows that the adits were driven into
                    several materials:

                    •       Buckhorn adit - mostly
                             limestone and marble with a
                             garnet skarn zone and altered
                             elastics near the back of the
                             adit;

                    •       Gold Axe adit - ore-grade
                             skarns formed from the
                             alteration of andesites;

                    •       Upper and Lower Magnetic
                             adits -  primarily magnetite
                             skarn with some garnet
                             skarn;  and,

                    •       Roosevelt adit - intrusives,
                             skarns, and altered elastics.

                    The historic mine adits appear to be driven
                    across 2 or more rock types.  This makes it
                    difficult to directly compare the adit water
                    quality data to the geochemical properties of an
                    individual waste rock or ore group. The water
                    quality data does suggest that materials
                    historically mined at Crown Jewel are well
                    buffered and not strongly acid generating.
                    However, as evidenced by elevated sulfate  and
                    metal concentrations in the Gold Axe and Upper
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-77
 Magnetic Adits, some sulfide oxidation is
 occurring locally.

 Analysis of a skarn ore sample from the Gold
 Axe adit confirmed that the material was
 potentially acid generating with a net acid
 production potential of + 55 TCaC03/KT and
 ratio of ANP to AGP of 0.1:1.  Humidity cell
 testing also confirmed that 2 rock types likely
 exposed in the Upper Magnetic Mine and Gold
 Axe adits (magnetite skarn and the subgroup of
 the unaltered andesite) exhibit  a marginal to
 strong tendency to generate acid and leach
 metals.  Water quality analyses of the humidity
 cell leachates show similar trace metals
 signatures as the water samples collected from
 the 2 adits.  For example, iron, manganese, and
 zinc were detected both in water samples from
 the Upper Magnetic Adit and in humidity cell
 leachates from a magnetite skarn sample found
 to be marginally acid generating.  Similarly, 4
 trace metals (copper, manganese, nickel, and
 zinc) were detected in water from the Gold Axe
 adit as well as in humidity cell  leachates from 2
 andesite samples determined to be strongly acid
 generating.

 The water quality conditions observed in the
 Upper Magnetic and Gold Axe adits should not,
 however, be considered representative of the
 overall conditions expected to occur in the
 proposed final pit or waste rock dumps.  The
 waste rock types, determined through
 geochemical testing to have  a marginal to
 strong potential to generate acid and  leach
 metals,  are estimated to make up less than 5%
 of the waste rock volume generated.

 3.8.7    Relation of Ground  Water and Surface
         Water Systems

 The Crown Jewel Project site is located near the
 peak of Buckhorn Mountain and at the
 headwaters of 5 drainage basins.  As a result of
 its location, the ground water system at the site
 is shallow and most of the recharge occurs
 locally.  The site baseline  data confirms that the
 ground water and surface water systems are
 closely related.

 Stream flows at the Crown Jewel site increase
 during the spring months  in response to
snowmelt.  During the same  time,  a substantial
rise in ground water levels is also observed in
wells and piezometers.  It is common in
hydrologic systems for a lag  to exist between
              peak surface water flows and peak ground
              water levels. Typically, ground water levels are
              found to rise and peak several weeks to months
              after peak surface water flows. The length of
              the lag period is determined by the time required
              for surface infiltration to reach and recharge the
              ground water system.

              At the Crown Jewel site, little or no lag was
              observed between increased surface water
              flows and increased ground water levels
              suggesting the close interaction of the systems.
              Figure 3.8.9, Comparison of Ground Water
              Levels and Surface Water Flows in the Proposed
              Mine Area, shows hydrographs developed for a
              surface water station (SW-9) and bedrock
              piezometer (90-272) located along Gold Bowl
              Creek. Note that peak surface water flows and
              ground water levels occur at approximately the
              same time.

              A similar trend was observed downgradient of
              Gold Bowl Creek at the headwaters of the south
              fork of the Nicholson Creek drainage. As
              shown in Figure 3.8.10, Comparison of Ground
              Water Levels and Surface Water Flows Near
              Nicholson Creek Headwaters, changes in ground
              water levels in a glacial sediment well (MW-7)
              also correspond closely to changes in flow at a
              nearby surface station (SW-7).

              Due to the shallow, dynamic nature of the
              hydrologic systems at the Crown Jewel site, the
              quality of site ground waters and surface waters
              are also similar.

              To compare the surface water and ground water
              quality at the site, baseline data were plotted on
              a trilinear diagram.  Waters of similar
              composition and origin will have a similar
              chemical signature and plot near the same
              position on the diagram. Figure 3.8.11, Jrilinear
              Diagram for Crown Jewel Site Waters, shows
              the composition of water quality samples
              collected from site monitoring wells, surface
              water stations, springs and seeps, and mine
              adits.  Review of the figure confirms the general
              similarity in water quality at the site.  Calcium
              and bicarbonate are typically the dominant
              cation and anion measured in all samples
              collected.  Differences in quality were observed
              at the following sampling sites:

              •       Gold Axe and Upper
                      Magnetic adits;
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
           49SO
           4940
                                                                             1.00
                                                                             0.90
           4850
                                                                           — 0.00
             MAY-92
                 JUL-92
                          NOV-92
                                  MAR-93
    LEGEND
                                           JUL-93      NOV-93

                                           DATE
                                                        JAN-94      MAY-94   :   SEP-94
                                                            MAR-94      JUL-94
  •   PIEZOMETER 90-272

  ©   STATION SW-9
             FIGURE 3.8.9,  COMPARISON OF GROUNDWATER LEVELS AND
               SURFACE  WATER FLOWS IN THE PROPOSED MINE AREA
FILENAME CJ3-3-3DWG

-------
          4260
          4248
   LEGEND
          4234
          4230
                                                                          150
                                                                          1.3S
                                                                          120
                                                                          1.05
                                                                          0.90
                                                                          0.78
                                                                          0.60
                                                                          0.48
                                                                          0.30
                                                                          0.16
                                                                             
-------
Page 3-80
                                  June 1995
                                                GOLD  AXE
                                                   ADIT
                                                                        GOLD AXE
                                                                          ADIT
                   Ca                                              Cl

                CATIONS     PERCENTAGE REACTING VALUES     ANIONS
                                    LEGEND
                AVERAGE SPRING AND SEEP QUALITY

               I AREA WHERE MAJORITY OF SURFACE
                WATER DATA PLOT

               I AREA WHERE MAJORITY OF GROUNDWATER
                QUALITY DATA PLOT

                AREA WHERE MAJORITY OF ADIT WATER
                QUALITY VALUES PLOT
^SW-4  SURFACE WATER SAMPLING SITE WITH
w      DISTINCT WATER QUALITY

 •MW-1  GROUNDWATER SAMPLING SITE WITH
       DISTINCT WATER QUALITY

r\      ADIT SAMPLING SITE WITH DISTINCT
*-*      WATER QUALITY
                  FIGURE 3.8.11,  TRILINEAR  DIAGRAM
                  FOR  CROWN JEWEL  SITE  WATERS
FILENAME  CJ3-8-11DWG

-------
June 1995
                            CROWN JEWEL MINE
                                   Page 3-81
•        Surface water stations SW-4
         and SW-10; and,
•        Ground water monitoring well
         MW-1.

As previously described, waters sampled from
the abandoned Gold Axe and Upper Magnetic
adits are more sulfate-rich than typically
observed at the Crown Jewel site. This is likely
the result of the oxidation of sulfide minerals
exposed in the floor and walls of the adits.
Surface water station SW-10 is located directly
downgradient of the Upper Magnetic Adit and
has a similar water quality, probably a result of
oxidation of sulfides in the local bedrock.  SW-4
is  located downgradient of SW-10 and exhibits
an intermediate sulfate content, suggesting
mixing with surface waters not affected by
sulfide oxidation.  Ground water sampled from
well MW-1 is rich in sodium  (rather than
calcium) and may be affected by local reaction
with the andesite bedrock material that the well
is  completed across.

The review of site water quality data  indicates
that surface waters and ground waters also
have similar trace metal concentrations,
radionuclide activities, total dissolved solids,
and pH values. This further substantiates the
close interaction between the surface and
ground water hydrologic systems at the Crown
Jewel  site.
3.9
WATER SUPPLY RESOURCES
3.9.1    Introduction

Individuals living near the Crown Jewel Project
obtain their water through private ground or
surface water rights.  Water in the area has
historically been used for domestic, irrigation,
and stock water purposes.  Water rights in
Washington are obtained through and managed
by WADOE.

3.9.2    Ground Water

Ground water at the proposed Crown Jewel
mine site is limited because of the physical
location  near the top of Buckhorn Mountain and
the low permeability of the bedrock.  Testing of
a well  for ground water characterization near
the proposed mine indicated that ground water
wells could produce about 20 gallons per
minute (Colder, 1993).
There are a number of productive wells in the
Myers Creek basin that utilize ground water for
irrigation.  Ground water in Myers Creek is
found in alluvial fans, in alluvial deposits of the
Myers Creek floodplain, and in glacial-fluvial
deposits that underlie the alluvial deposits.
Pump testing of an existing irrigation well in the
Bolster Creek alluvial fan on the Lost Creek
Ranch, near the confluence of Bolster and
Myers Creek, indicated well yields in the range
of 200 to 500 gallons per  minute (Colder,
1994b).

Investigations  of the glacial fluvial deposits
along Myers Creek near the Canadian border
indicated that the ground water potential was
limited in this area since the deposits are
present as isolated lenses  surrounded by low
permeability glacial till (Colder, 1992b).

3.9.3   Surface  Water

Myers Creek and  Toroda Creek are the 2 main
drainages in the area adjacent to the proposed
Crown Jewel Project site.   Myers Creek is
located west of the Project site. Toroda Creek
is located east of the Project site.  Figure 3.6.1,
Regional Stream Network  and Figure 3.6.4,  Site
Stream Network,  show the relative locations of
streams in the region.

Myers Creek

Myers Creek has  historically been a water
source for irrigation, domestic and  stock water
since the late 1800's.  The Myers Creek
drainage basin has an area of approximately 89
square miles at its confluence with the  Kettle
River in Canada.  The  elevation ranges from
7,258 feet at Mt. Bonaparte to 1,900 feet at
its confluence  with the Kettle River in Canada.
Stream flow in Myers Creek was monitored at
the international border by Environment Canada
(station number 08NN010) from 1923 through
1950 and 1968 through 1977 during the
irrigation season.  The drainage area of Myers
Creek at this station is approximately 80 square
miles; 77 square  miles within the United States
and 3 square miles in  Canada. Stream  flow is
highest during the spring runoff period.  The
maximum daily discharge recorded during the
period of record from  1923 through 1950 was
102 cfs on June  11, 1948. The minimum daily
discharge for the same period of record was 0
cfs on July 16, 1926.  All diversions from
Myers Creek occurring within the United States
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-82
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
                          June 1995
are located upstream of the Myers Creek station
so that flows at the gaging station reflect flows
in Myers Creek available for water users in
Canada.

An estimate of mean annual flow based on the
Myers Creek streamflow data during the
irrigation season and data  from similar drainages
was calculated by Golder Associates (Golder,
1994a) as 7 to 8 cfs, or 5,000 to 5,800 acre-
feet/year. Daily streamflow varies annually
from 40 cfs or more in early spring to  less than
5 cfs in the fall and winter months (Golder,
1994c).  Figure 3.6.2, Estimated Mean Annual
Hydrograph of Myers Creek (International
Boundary), presents the average hydrograph for
Myers Creek.

Mean annual flow estimates have also been
calculated for  all streams within the Project  area
using regression equations.  Results of
regression calculations are displayed in Table
3.6.3, Summary of Hydrologic Flow Data.  An
estimated mean annual flow from  Myers Creek
at the international  border ranges from
approximately 7  to  20 cfs. An estimate of
mean annual flow from Starrem Creek which is
tributary to Myers Creek from the west close to
the Canadian border ranges from 0.51 to  1.16
cfs.

U.S. water right holders with junior priority
dates on Myers Creek have historically been
regulated during average flow years; however,
Myers Creek is not  administratively closed to
further water appropriations.

Water rights licenses have been issued on
Myers Creek in Canada for approximately 530
acre-feet/year for direct flow rights and 1,170
acre-feet for storage rights for a total of
approximately 1,700 acre-feet/year irrigating
approximately 740  acres of land (Michael,
 1993).  These allowable water rights are  based
on licenses issued.  Some Washington State
adjudicated water rights have been granted for
water use in Canada by Canadians (decree no.
7723, County of Okanogan).

Toroda Creek

The Toroda Creek drainage basin has an area of
approximately 135  square miles.  Elevation of
the drainage ranges from  5,738 feet at Bodie
 Mountain to 1,969 feet at the confluence with
the Kettle River. There are no established
                    monitoring stations on Toroda Creek.  The mean
                    annual flow estimate using the regression
                    equations ranges from 13 to 35 cfs.  The
                    distance along Toroda Creek from the Nicholson
                    Creek confluence to the Kettle River is
                    approximately 3.4 miles.

                    Toroda  Creek and its tributaries are
                    administratively closed to further appropriations
                    other than in-house, single dwelling domestic
                    supply; however, this situation has not been
                    codified by WAC.
                     3.10
VEGETATION
                     3.10.1   Introduction

                     The Crown Jewel Project is primarily located in
                     the forested area of the Okanogan Highlands
                     physiographic province.  Douglas-fir and
                     Subalpine fir are the most common coniferous
                     species found in the forest zones.  This section
                     focuses on upland plant communities, forest
                     resources, noxious  weeds, and threatened,
                     endangered,  and sensitive vegetation species.
                     Wetlands are discussed in Section 3.11,
                     Wetlands.

                     Disturbance of vegetation from logging, past
                     mining and exploration activities, and grazing is
                     visibly apparent.  All these forms of past
                     disturbance have altered the region's vegetation
                     to some degree.

                     3.10.2  Upland Plant Community

                     The plant association for the Crown Jewel
                     Project vegetation study area are shown on
                     Figure 3.10.1,  Plant Association Map.

                     On the forested sites  in the vegetation study
                     area, Douglas-fir and  Subalpine fir form the
                     major upland closed forest zones.  These
                     species are particularly common in the forest
                     areas east of the Okanogan River. Western
                     larch is also  common in the vegetation study
                     area and is found in a variety of sites.  Low
                     shrubs such  as twinflower, buffalo-berry,
                     huckleberries,  ninebark, and snowberry are
                     typically the dominant shrub species, with
                     pinegrass dominating the understory herb layer.

                     Natural openings typically consist  of dry
                     shrublands or grassy  openings on  hillsides,
                     which are typified by mountain snowberry with
                     pinegrass or mountain big sagebrush with
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
                                                  Page 3-83
                       LEGEND
   •j    PSME/PHMA (367.4 ACRESI




   2    ABLA2/LIBOL (430.8 ACRESI





   3    PSME/CAI (359.7 ACRES)




   4    PSME/VACCI (137.8 ACRESI




   5    PIPO-PSME/AGIN (24.6 ACRES)
  5   ABLA2/CARU (208 ACRES)




  7   PSME/ARUV (7.5 ACRESI





  3   ABLA2/VACCI (137.4 ACRESI




  9   PSME/SYOR (145.0 ACRESI




— — PROJECT CORE AREA BOUNDARY




	PLANT ASSOCIATION BOUNDARY
0     1300'     2600'






CONTOUR INTERVAL 250FT
               FIGURE  3.10.1,  PLANT  ASSOCIATION  MAP

-------
Page 3-84
Cha pies' 3 - Affected Environment
June 1995
awnless bluebunch wheatgrass. A listing of
plant associations identified in the vegetation
study area, along with approximate acreages, is
set forth in Table 3.10.1, Plant Associations in
Crown Jewel Vegetation Study Area.

3.10.3  Forest Resource

Timber stands within the Crown Jewel Project
vegetation study area are composed primarily of
Douglas-fir, western larch, and subalpine fir,
with some Engelmann spruce in the wetter
areas, and scattered lodgepole pine. The
federal and state lands within the Project area
have been extensively logged in the past, as
discussed in Section 3.19, Land Use. Most of
the private lands in the vegetation study area
were clearcut many years ago and some
regeneration is present.  Timber harvest within
the Project area has been mostly selective
salvage logging or shelterwood removal
methods, a process which removes most of the
trees and retains 3 to 8 seed trees  per acre for a
seed source to provide for natural regeneration.

The dominant tree species left on the federal
and state lands within the Project area is
Douglas-fir.  Timber harvest has resulted in low
density canopy cover, removal of decadent and
dead trees, reduction of large woody debris, and
an increase in grasses and shrubs.  Table
3.10.2, Estimated Timber Volume,  presents an
estimate of the timber volumes by tree species
which are found in the vegetation study area of
approximately 1,632 acres prior to any harvest
from the Nicholson  Timber sales.

The effects of both  insects and disease are
evident within the vegetation study area.  The
occurrence of spruce budworm defoliation and
dwarf mistletoe is light to moderate in both the
under and overstory.  Small, scattered pockets
of laminated root rot were also observed.  The
mountain pine beetle has damaged or destroyed
the majority of the lodgepole pine in the area.
Detailed information about the timber stands
within the Project area can be found in the
document: Timber and Vegetation Resource
Studies, Crown Jewel Project (A.G. Crook
1993a).

3.10.4  Noxious Weeds

Noxious weeds are  undesirable plant species
which invade an area and compete with native
vegetation.  Surveys for noxious weeds were
                    undertaken within the vegetation study area
                    during both the timber resource and range
                    resource evaluations.  The surveys focused on
                    the following 6 species of particular concern to
                    the Forest Service:
                             bull thistle;
                             Canada thistle;
                             musk thistle;
                             hound's tongue;
                             diffuse knapweed; and,
                             spotted knapweed.
                     Bull thistle was the most commonly observed
                     noxious weeds within the vegetation study
                     area. It was observed on disturbed sites such
                     as drill pads, landings, roadsides, and skid trails.
                     Canada thistle was not as common as bull
                     thistle, but it occurred on most sites suitable for
                     bull thistle.  Both species were found at a
                     variety of elevations, and primarily in open,
                     sunny, disturbed sites.  Musk thistle, a recent
                     invader in the region,  was found at 1 site in
                     upper Marias Creek and at 2 sites southwest  of
                     Buckhorn Mountain in  1992.  Hound's tongue
                     was most prevalent on the lower east side of
                     the vegetation study area.  In  1993, 50 to 75
                     musk thistle were pulled from the vegetation
                     study area, mostly from the area of the
                     proposed mine (Coppock, 1993).  No knapweed
                     was found in the vegetation study area.

                     3.10.5   Threatened and Endangered Plant
                             Species

                     No federally listed endangered, threatened, or
                     proposed plant species are know to occur in the
                     vicinity of the Project, however, 2 species listed
                     on the Region 6, Regional Forester's sensitive
                     species list (Listera borealis, Plantanthera
                     obtusata] do exist in the vicinity of the Project.
                     Another species, Botrychium crenulatum, also
                     occurs in the area and is currently in the Federal
                     Register as a Category 2 Federal Candidate for
                     Federal Listing.  Category 2 taxa are not being
                     proposed as sensitive  species, and there are no
                     current plans for such proposals; however, the
                     Tonasket Ranger District will consider these
                     species as sensitive.

                     Field reconnaissance was conducted in and
                     adjacent to the proposed Project area during
                     1991, 1992, 1 993, and 1994 by the Forest
                     Service and independent specialists to locate
                     and identify populations of sensitive species
                     (Forest Service, 1995).
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-85
TABLE 3.10.1, PLANT ASSOCIATIONS IN CROWN JEWEL PROJECT VEGETATION STUDY AREA
Plant Association '
Douglas-Fir/Nmebark (PSME/PHMA)
Subalpine Fir/Twinflower (ABLA2/LIBOL)
Douglas-Fir/Pinegrass (PSME/CARU)
Douglas-Fir/Huckleberry (PSME/VACCI)
Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-Fir/Awnless (Bluebunch Wheatgrass)
(PIPO-PSME/AGIN)
Subalpine Fir/Pinegrass (ABLA2/VACCI)
Douglas-Fir/Bearberry (PSME/ARUV)
Subalpine Fir/Huckleberry (ABLA2/VACCI)
Douglas-Fir/Mountain Snowberry (PSME/SYOR)
Total
Acres
367
431
360
138
25
21
8
137
145
1,632
Note: 1 . For plant association locations, see Figure 3. 10. 1, Plant Association Map
                                TABLE 3.10.2, ESTIMATED TIMBER VOLUME
TREE SPECIES
Douglas-fir
Western larch
Engelmann spruce
Subalpine fir
Lodgepole pine
TIMBER VOLUME
(thousand-board-feet)
3,711
2,472
568
307
83
TOTAL ESTIMATED VOLUME 7,141
Note: 1 . This volume based on a survey of approximately
1,632 acres in and around the Crown Jewel
Project site.
A total of 10 populations of Listera borealis
were discovered, containing over 2,000 plants.
One population has approximately 1,700 plants,
while the other 9 are much smaller.  The plants
are situated along riparian areas at a variety of
locations throughout the surveyed area. This
species usually occurs in moist woods, often in
moss along  streams.  Most of the plants were
either blooming or fruiting, which indicates they
are reproducing.

Four populations  of Platanthera obtusata,
containing over 800 plants, were located.  One
population has over 700 plants, while the other
3 are much  smaller.  The populations are
               dispersed along riparian and wet areas.  This
               species normally occupies damp to wet forested
               areas.  Many of the plants were either blooming
               or fruiting during the surveys, implying they are
               reproducing.

               Two populations of Botrychium crenulatum
               were identified in the study area, with 1
               population having 21  plants,  while the other
               population consists of only 1 plant.  The plants
               had produced spores  indicating reproduction.
               They were growing in and near wet areas,
               which is normal habitat for this species.
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-86
Chapter 3 - /"
-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-87
 canarygrass, creeping bentgrass, spike rush,
 small winged sedge, cattail, burreed, bulrush).

 Wetlands were identified at 32 locations within
 the areas surveyed as shown in Figure 3.11.1,
 Project Associated Wetland Locations.  A
 summary of wetland acreages, classifications,
 and types is presented in Table 3.11.1,
 Summary of Wetland Areas.  A detailed
 description of the  wetlands is found in the
 delineation reports: Wetland Delineation, Crown
 Jewel Project (Pentec Environmental, Inc.
 1993b) and Wetland Delineation Report, Crown
 Jewel Project (A.G. Crook  1993f).

 3.12     AQUATIC RESOURCES

 3.12.1   Introduction

 Stream channel and aquatic habitat conditions
 were  assessed, and fisheries studies were
 conducted in drainages on  both the west and
 east side of Buckhorn Mountain. On the  west
 side,  studies were conducted on Myers Creek,
 which flows north into Canada and is a tributary
 to the Kettle River, and limited surveys were
 done  on Gold Creek which  flows into Myers
 Creek. On the east side of Buckhorn Mountain,
 Nicholson and Marias Creeks were surveyed.
 Both  Marias and Nicholson  Creeks are
 tributaries to Toroda Creek, which is also
 tributary to the Kettle River. Figure 3.12.1,
 Regional Drainages, shows the regional drainage
 relationships.

 Anadromous fish species cannot enter the
 Kettle River drainage or tributaries due to the
 impassable barriers downstream on the
 Columbia River.  Curiously  however, steelhead
 trout  (Onchorhynchus mykiss) have become
 "residualized"  at some historical point in some
 waterways above the impassable barriers.  It
 has not been determined if  this phenomenon
 occurs in the Kettle River drainage.

 Most  of the areas that would be affected by
 direct disturbance from the  action  alternatives
 are situated in either the Marias or Nicholson
 Creek drainages; however, the Proponent has
 proposed to divert a certain amount of water
from Myers Creek which would be stored in a
water supply reservoir and pumped to the mine
site via a water supply pipeline.
              3.12.2   Survey Methodology

              Aquatic habitats were surveyed using both the
              1992 (Version 6.0) and 1993 (Version 7.0)
              Forest Service (Region 6) Hankin and Reeves
              Stream Inventory Methods.  Both Level I and II
              Hankin and Reeves survey procedures were
              used.  Stream surveys were conducted for
              portions of Marias and Nicholson Creeks (A.G.
              Crook, 1993e), Myers and Gold Creeks (Pentec,
              1993a).  Electrofishing surveys were also
              conducted to determine the relative abundance
              and species of fish in Myers,  Nicholson and
              Marias Creeks, as  well as to determine the
              upstream  limits of fish  presence in Marias  and
              Nicholson Creeks.

              Level I Protocol

              A literature search was undertaken to assess
              the general background of the stream system
              through an investigation of maps, aerial photos,
              and previously collected data. These materials
              were used to determine factors such as
              gradients, sinuosity, tributary confluences,
              valley types, road crossings, access
              possibilities, unique features,  and other
              watershed features.

              Level II Protocol

              The actual field inventory work along the
              streams involved the collection of quantitative
              characterizations of aquatic (fish and water)
              conditions for various habitat types.  The
              process involved the identification of stream
              habitat types as set forth in Table 3.12.1,
              Stream Habitat Units and Description.

              The relationship amongst stream habitat units
              (pools, riffles, and  glides) generally indicates the
              health of a stream  environment and its ability to
              support fish productivity. One method used to
              gauge the habitat potential is  the pool:riffle:glide
              (P:R:G) ratio. In general, the  higher the pool
              portion of  the ratio, the more  productive the
              stream.

              As appropriate during the stream inventory
              work, other information collected included
              stream cover types, bank width and depth,
              embeddedness of substrates,  bank substrates,
              bank ground cover class, floodplain vegetative
              information, stream temperatures, percent  of
              pocketwater, stream shade percent, floodplain
              width, and stream gradient.
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
            BRITISH COLUMBIA

               WASHINGTON
                              R30E
                                         R31E
                                                          CANADA
                                          UNIDENTIFIED DRAINAGE
                                              WEST OF
                                           NICHOLSON CREEK
             WEST FORK
             GOLD CREEK
                                                     NORTH FORK
                                                    NICHOLSON CREEK
BOLSTER CREEK
                          GOLD BOWL
                           DRAINAGE
                                      POND   19 C20C
  MIDDLE FORK
 BOLSTER CREEK
                                                     MAIN STEM
                                                  NICHOLSON CREEK
 SOUTH FORK
BOLSTER CREEK
                                                                                S3.

                                                                               C-11x
                                                                      LEGEND
                                                                        SPRING OR SEEP

                                                                        WETLANDS AREA
                                                                                    MINE PIT AREA
        FIGURE  3.11.1,  PROJECT ASSOCIATED WETLANDS LOCATIONS
to
fe
                                                                                                       5°
                                                                                                       to
                                                                                                       CJl

-------

-------
Page 390
Chapter 3
i i.*J Environment
June 139i
TABLE 3111, SUMMARY Of- WETLAND AREAS
WETLAND'
"Frog Pond"
C1
C1A
C1B
C1C
C2 or PE
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
C10
C11
C12
C13
C14
C15
C16
C17
C18
C19
C20
C21
A
B
CA/CB
DA/DB
FA/FB
PA
PB
PC
PD
RA
AREA (ft2)
78,408
387,684



75,225
24,300
17,424
30,492
300
53,750
200
15,225
20O
350
3,600
3,358
98,010
8,276
13,298
12,364
7,560
3,829
1,000
1.OOO
22,334
5,568
24,780
1,098,923
33,243
3,181
8,802
8,420
2,585
10,474
CLASS2
2

2
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
4
2
3
3
3
4
3
4
VEGETATION
TYPE1
PEM

PFO/PSS
PSS/PEM/PFO
PSS/PEM
PSS/PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
PSS/PEM
PSS/PEM
PEM
PSS/PEM
PEM
PSS/PEM
PSS/PEM
PFO/PSS/PEM
PEM
PEM
PSS/PEM
PSS/PEM
PSS/PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
PSS/PFO
PSS/PFO
PEM
PFO/PSS/PEM
PFO/PSS/PEM
PSS/PFO
PFO/PSS
PSS
PSS
PEM/PSS
FUNCTIONS'
WQ,00,GR,AD,WA,FA,HD,RS
Wn,FC,GR,GD,WA,HD,RS
WQ,FC,GR,GD,WA,HD,RS
WQ,FC,GR,GD,WA,HD,RS
WQ,FC,GR,GD,WA,RS
SS.WH
WQ,GR,GD,RS,FA
WQ.FC.GR.GD
WQ.FC.GR.GD.WA
WQ.FC.GR.GD.WA
Functions limited by clearcuttmg and grazing
Functions limited due to logging and proximity of road
WA.RS; Limited FC,GR,GD
Limited WA.RS, CA - logging
Limited WA.RS, CA - logging
Limited FC,GR,GD,RS,CA,WA - proximity to road and trampling
Limited WA.CA - small size
WQ.FC.GR.GD, AD, WA, FA, CA.RS
WQ.FC.GR.GD. AD, WA.RS
FA, FA, CA.RS. Limited WQ.FC.GD.GR, AD - grazing
CA.FA.WA, Limited WQ.FC.GR.GD, AD - cattle disturbance
HD.RS, Limited WQ.FC.GR.GD, AD - cattle disturbance
Limited WQ FC GR GD AD HD - old skid roads and cattle disturbance
Limited WQ, FC, GR, GD, AD, HD - old skid roads, and cattle disturbance
Limited WQ, FC, GR, GD, AD, HD, RSS - Old skid roads and cattle
disturbance
GD.WH
GD
Not currently known if wetland is performing any hydrologic functions
FH,WH,BM,FC,WQ.SS
GD.WA
GD.WA.NC.SR
GO.WA
GD.WA
Potential functions GD.NC.SR.WH None of these observed in the field
GD, SR
TOTALS | 2,040,944 (46.85 ACRES)
Notes: 1 The wetland locations are shown on Figure 3. 1 1. 1 , Project Associated Wetland Locations
2 Areas are classified according the Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Eastern Washington
3 Vegetation Type
PFO Forested broad-leafed deciduous wetlands (aspen, alder) and forested needle-leafed evergreen
wetlands (spruce),
PSS Deciduous scrub/shrub wetlands (dogwood, wtllow, current, alder)
PEM Persistent emergent wetlands (bentgrass, canarygrass, sedge, rush)
4 Wetland Functions Functions for Wildlife
AD = aquatic diversity ETS = Refuge for ETS species
SR = Sediment retention/removal WH = Wildlife Habitat
FC = Flood contro FH = Fisheries habitat
WQ = Water quality improvement HD = Habitat diversity
BM = High biomass production WA = Water availability
NC = Nutrient eye ing FA = Forage availability
GR = Ground water recharge CA = Cover availability
GD = Ground water discharge RS = Roosting/resting sites
SS = Soil stabilization RSS = Refuge for sensitive species
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
                                       CROWN JEWEL MINE
                                                                 Page 3-91
                           TABLE 3.12.1, STREAM HABITAT UNITS AND DESCRIPTION
               Habitat Unit
                Type Code
     Description
                  Definition
                   CA


                   PW


                   SC


                   U

                   B

                   C
Pool




Riffle




Glide



Cascade



Pocket Water


Side Channel



Special or Unique Case

Bridge

Culvert
Deep, slow water, level water surface with
downstream hydraulic control, small substrate (e.g.,
sand, silt)

Shallow, rapid flow, moderate slope, moderate
turbulence, medium to large substrate (e.g., gravel,
cobble)

Shallow, moderate flow, moderate slope, low
turbulence, medium substrate (e.g., gravel)

Shallow with deeper pockets, rapid flow, steep slope,
high turbulence, large substrate (e.g., cobble, boulder)

Deep, slow water, associated with boulders or other
stream obstructions (e.g., root wads)

Secondary high water channel(s) adjacent to the main
flow channel

Unusual habitat features

Bridge crossing

Stream flows through a culvert
 3.12.3   Myers Creek

 Myers Creek is the largest of the streams in the
 area around Buckhorn Mountain.  It flows
 northerly through the Chesaw valley along the
 westerly flank of Buckhorn Mountain and
 meanders through a broad U-shaped glaciated
 valley with  moderate to steep side slopes (30%
 to 60%) and valley floor widths of
 approximately 300 to 600 feet.  The stream
 crosses into Canada approximately 4 miles
 north of the community of Chesaw and enters
 the Kettle River approximately 3  miles west of
 the Canadian  community of Midway, as shown
 on Figure 3.12.1, Regional Drainages.
 Agriculture  is  the primary activity along Myers
 Creek, consisting mainly of hay crops and
 grazing.  The  land adjacent to Myers Creek in
 the Chesaw valley is  private.

 Three reaches of Myers Creek were surveyed as
 shown on Figure 3.12.2, Myers Creek Stream
 Survey Locations (Pentec,  1993a). Reach 1
 and 3 displayed a deeply incised  channel  while
 Reach 2 displayed a moderately incised channel.
Myers Creek exhibited moderate sinuosity along
its channel course throughout the Chesaw
                            valley.  Channel substrate was dominated by
                            the following:

                            •       Reach 1:  sand or silt and small gravel
                                    material;
                            •       Reach 2:  small cobble, sand, and
                                    gravel material; and,
                            •       Reach 3:  small gravel and sand
                                    material.

                            Substrate embeddedness for all reaches was
                            estimated to range between 30% to 50%.

                            Stream canopy cover was less than 20% in
                            Reaches 1  and 3 and between 20% and 30%  in
                            Reach 2.  Both the aquatic and riparian zones
                            were dominated by grassland-forb vegetation
                            with subdominant vegetation cover of either
                            shrub-seedlings or  small trees.  Small trees were
                            the dominant vegetation in Reach 2. The
                            dominant vegetation in the upland zones of all 3
                            surveyed reaches was grassland-forb.  Because
                            of Myers Creek's incised  meandering nature,
                            undercut banks occur predictably at the
                            outcurves of channel meanders and overhanging
                            vegetation  occurs regularly throughout the
                           channel course.  Woody debris, turbulence, and
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-92
                                                             June 1995
                                           R 30 E.   R.31 E.    CANADA	
                                      	. irii- • —r	r/Ai/rcn C TA TFS
                                                       UNITED STATES
  BRITISH COLUMBIA .__»	^.	

	WASHINGTON     '      ^
             v       15
       ,«     i  i-.
            LEGEND
           STREAM


           STREAM REACH SURVEY LOCATIONS


           ELECTROFISHING LOCATIONS


           CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
                                                        0    2500-    5000
                   FIGURE  3.12.2, MYERS CREEK

                   STREAM SURVEY  LOCATIONS
  FILENAME CJ3-«-2DWG

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-93
stream depth provided instream cover  in lesser
amounts (Pentec, 1993a).

Throughout the length of Myers Creek, beaver
activity appeared to be a dominant factor in the
ongoing change of the stream channel.  A total
of 31 beaver dams or sites of beaver activity
were observed as follows:

•        Reach 1 - 28 beaver dams;
•        Reach 2 - 2 sites of beaver activity;
         and,
•        Reach 3 - 1 site of beaver activity.

The  P:R:G ratio of the surveyed sections of
Myers Creek is approximately 38%: 29%: 33%.
Channel stability is rated as fair in the survey
segments of Myers Creek.  This rating  is the
result of extensive channel modification activity
by beavers. There is a high degree of channel
migration with new channels being cut as  a
result of the ponding or the failure of ponds
behind beaver dams. The Myers  Creek channel
was incised throughout most of the surveyed
segments and showed evidence of substantial
sloughing of the banks.

Both rainbow trout and brook trout were
visually observed in the surveyed reaches  of
Myers Creek. An electrofishing survey was
conducted to confirm the visual identifications
and to provide data on species composition.  Of
the total fish  surveyed by electrofishing in
Myers Creek, approximately 75% were brook
trout and 25% were rainbow trout. The mean
lengths of the fish examined by electrofishing
on Myers Creek were 111 mm (4.4 inches) for
brook trout and 106 mm (4.2  inches) for
rainbow trout (Pentec, 1993a). Temperatures in
Myers Creek ranged from 32.4°F (11/3/94) to
55.8°F (8/22/94).

3.12.4  Gold Creek

Gold Creek is a small perennial stream which
flows west, about 3 miles, from it's source on
the north flank of Buckhorn Mountain to the
confluence  with Myers Creek.  The Okanogan
National Forest boundary is located about  1 mile
above the confluence with Myers Creek.
Approximately 1,781 feet of Gold Creek were
surveyed.  This portion of the  stream flows
through a narrow forested valley and displays
deep entrenchment. The channel has a low
sinuosity rating.  Substrates were typically
              dominated by cobble and gravel with sand being
              subdominate (Pentec, 1993a).

              Stream canopy shade was 51 % to 75%. Both
              the aquatic and riparian zones are dominated by
              a grassland-forb vegetation.  The forested
              riparian zone provides a regular source of small
              and large woody debris.  Undercut banks
              provide instream cover in limited amounts
              (Pentec, 1993a).

              There were visual sightings of fish,  however an
              electroshock survey was not conducted because
              of low stream flow and marginal habitat
              (Pentec, 1993a).

              3.12.5  Marias Creek

              Marias Creek is a small stream, with
              intermittent flow in the upper reaches and
              perennial flow  further downstream.  From its
              source near  Buckhorn Mountain, Marias Creek
              flows easterly for approximately 7 miles to its
              confluence with Toroda Creek as shown on
              Figure 3.12.1,  Regional Drainages.  All but
              approximately the last quarter mile of Marias
              Creek is located in the Okanogan National
              Forest (A. G. Crook,  1993e).  Additional
              information about Marias Creek and its
              hydrologic characteristics is set forth in Section
              3.6, Surface Water, of this document.

              Marias Creek was surveyed from its confluence
              with Toroda Creek upstream  to its source as
              shown on Figure 3.12.3, Marias and Nicholson
              Stream and Fisheries Survey  Locations.

              The upstream portions of Marias Creek are
              confined in narrow valley topography which
              broadens as Marias Creek approaches its
              confluence with Toroda Creek. Gradients in the
              Marias Creek drainage average approximately
              6% to 7%.  Substrates of Marias Creek were
              typically gravel and sand with some cobble and
              small boulders.  The P:R:G of the lower 4 miles
              was approximately 2%: 97%: 1 %.  The upper 3
              miles had a P:R:G ratio of approximately 0%:
              94%: 6%.  Woody debris was plentiful in
              Marias Creek and seemed to  contribute to
              stream structure and stability.  Overall fish
              habitat quality is poor because of low pool
              numbers and lack of instream fish cover.
              Spawning  gravel was adequate throughout
              Marias Creek and was estimated to  be generally
              less than 35%  embedded.  Stream temperatures
              during the 1992 and  1993 surveys ranged from
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
                                                                                                L EGEND
                                             NATURAL BARRIER
                                               FISH LIMIT
                                            NICHOLSON CREEK
                                                                                            —  — STREAM

                                                                                            — — — STREAM REACH
                                                                                                   SURVEY LOCATIONS
                                                                                             EF-3«  ELECTROFISHING LOCATIONS

                                                                                              •   UPSTREAM FISH LIMIT

                                                                                              •    CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
                                                                                              NOTES 111 ONLY BROOK TROUT FOUND
                                                                                                  IN MARIAS AND NICHOLSON CHEEKS
                                                                                                  ON OKANOGAN NATIONAL FOREST
                                                                                                  LANDS
                                                                                                  121 BOTH RAINBOW AND BROOK TROUT
                                                                                                  OBSERVED ABOVE MARIAS AND
                                                                                                  NICHOLSON CHEEK CONFLUENCES WITH
                                                                                                  TOROOA CREEK
                     FIGURE  3.12.3,  MARIAS AND NICHOLSON  STREAM  AND
                                    FISHERIES  SURVEY  LOCATIONS
FILENAME CJ3-12-3 D WG

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-95
45 to 60°F, which should not limit salmonid
survival (A.G. Crook, 1993e).

Marias Creek has been impacted by past timber
management practices  and cattle grazing.
Impacts include trampled banks, overbrowsed
riparian vegetation, roadside erosion,  and
reduced canopy cover.

Both brook trout and rainbow trout were
visually observed in Marias Creek.  However,
large amounts of slash, undercut rootbanks, and
low streamside vegetation hindered visual fish
observations.  Although rainbow trout were
visually observed near the Marias Creek
confluence with Toroda Creek, only 3 individual
rainbow trout were encountered during the
electrofishing survey work on Marias  Creek.
Brook trout were the primary species  found
during electrofishing surveys in  Marias Creek.

The electrofishing survey determined  that the
upper limits of fish presence in Marias Creek
was approximately 5 miles upstream from the
confluence with Toroda Creek or approximately
half a mile above the culvert crossing at Forest
Road 3550. The location of the electrofishing
surveys and the approximate limit of fish
presence in Marias Creek are shown on Figure
3.12.3, Marias and Nicholson Stream and
Fisheries Survey Locations.

3.12.6   Nicholson Creek

Nicholson Creek is a perennial stream. From its
source on the east side of Buckhorn Mountain,
Nicholson Creek flows generally easterly for
approximately 8 miles to its confluence with
Toroda Creek as shown on Figure 3.12.1,
Regional Drainages.  The lower 2.5 miles of
Nicholson Creek (upstream of its confluence
with Toroda Creek) are located on private lands;
the rest of the stream is located on Okanogan
National Forest lands.  Additional information
about Nicholson Creek and its hydrologic
characteristics is set forth in Section 3.6,
Surface Water.

Nicholson Creek flows through a constrained,
moderately V-shaped valley with valley floor
widths generally less than 100 feet wide.  The
average gradient was moderately steep at 7%.
Substrates of Nicholson Creek are
predominantly gravel and sand with some
cobble present. The P:R:G was approximately
3%: 85%: 12%. There were an estimated 2.3
              pools per mile with an average residual depth of
              approximately 1.7 feet.  Cover values are low,
              ranging from 6%  to 20%, with the most cover
              being provided by woody debris and undercut
              banks.  Large woody debris on the floodplain
              seemed to contribute to system structure and
              stability. Spawning substrates were adequate
              and were estimated to be generally less than
              35% embedded.  Stream temperatures during
              the 1992 and 1993 surveys ranged from 48°F
              to 55°F, which should not limit salmonid
              survival (A.G. Crook, 1993e).

              Like Marias Creek, Nicholson Creek has been
              impacted by past timber management practices
              and cattle grazing. Impacts include trampled
              banks, overbrowsed riparian vegetation,
              roadside erosion,  and reduced canopy cover.

              Both brook trout and rainbow trout were
              visually observed  in Nicholson Creek. An
              electrofishing survey was conducted to confirm
              the visual observations, provide data  on species
              composition, and  determine the upstream limit
              on fisheries.  Although there appeared to be
              suitable fish habitat in the upper reaches of
              Nicholson Creek,  no fish were observed by
              either visual or electrofishing survey techniques
              above a natural barrier located approximately 5
              miles upstream of its confluence with Toroda
              Creek (A.G.  Crook, 1993e) The barrier
              consisted of a woody debris jam with an incised
              channel below. The location of the
              electrofishing surveys and the approximate limit
              of fish presence in Nicholson Creek are shown
              on Figure 3.12.3, Marias and Nicholson Stream
              and Fisheries Survey Locations (A.G.  Crook,
              1993e).

              3.12.7   North Fork of Nicholson Creek

              The North Fork of Nicholson Creek, a tributary
              to Nicholson Creek, begins at a spring and seep
              area on the eastern slope of Buckhorn Mountain
              and intermittently flows southeasterly
              approximately 1.5 miles to its confluence with
              Nicholson Creek as shown on Figure 3.12.1,
              Regional Drainages. The entire length of the
              Nicholson Creek tributary is located on
              Okanogan National Forest lands.  Three reaches
              of the North Fork  of Nicholson Creek were
              surveyed; the locations of these reaches are
              shown on Figure 3.12.3, Marias and Nicholson
              Stream and Fisheries Survey Locations.
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-96
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June 1995
This tributary is located in a narrow V-shaped
valley which is generally less than 50 feet wide.
The average gradient is approximately 9% and
channel substrates are predominantly gravel
with sand and cobble present in subdominant
quantities.  Streambank substrates are sand
with subdominant amounts of cobble.

It was estimated that only approximately 2% to
3% of the North Fork of Nicholson Creek was
composed of pools. There were approximately
21 pools per mile with an average residual
depth of about 0.8 feet. Instream cover values
were generally low ranging from 6% to 20%
and were provided almost entirely by
overhanging vegetation. Large woody debris
was present that contributed to system
stability, but only minor amounts of the woody
debris was available within the channel to
provide direct fish cover.  Stream temperatures
measured during the 1 993 survey ranged
between 46°F and 49°F, which should not limit
fish survival.  There are adequate spawning
gravels, although it appeared that  most were
embedded greater than 35% (A.G.Crook,
1993e).

Past timber harvest activities and cattle grazing
have impacted the North Fork of Nicholson
Creek.  Observed impacts included trampled
banks, degraded channel, overbrowsed riparian
vegetation, roadside erosion, and reduced
canopy cover.

There were no fish present in the North Fork of
Nicholson Creek.

3.12.8   Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive
         Fisheries  Species

No threatened or endangered fisheries species
are known to occur in Myers, Marias, or
Nicholson Creeks or any of their tributaries.
Likewise,  no anadromous fisheries species are
known to occur in  any of these drainages.

Bull trout and redband trout are considered
sensitive species by the Forest Service. None
of the drainages in the vicinity of Buckhorn
Mountain have  bull trout habitat.  No bull  trout
were  found during the visual or electrofishing
surveys.

Thirteen rainbow trout were  collected during
electrofishing surveys in Nicholson Creek  (10)
and Marias Creek (3) and were submitted to the
                    University of Montana's Wild Trout and Salmon
                    Genetics Laboratory for lactic acid
                    dehydrogenase (LDH) analysis to determine
                    possible redband trout genetics.  No redband
                    trout were identified by this genetic testing
                    (Leary, 1993).

                    3.12.9   Benthic Macro-Invertebrates

                    A benthic macroinvertebrate survey was
                    conducted in the Fall of 1994 to provide
                    baseline data on habitat and species abundance
                    and variability in Myers, Nicholson and Marias
                    Creeks. A total of 4 stations were sampled;
                    BM1 and BM2 are  located on Myers Creek; BM3
                    is on Marias Creek, and; BM4 is on Nicholson
                    Creek. See  Figure 3.12.4, Benthic
                    Macroinvertebrate  Monitoring Station Location
                    Map.

                    Several physical habitat variables were
                    measured at each station including; air and
                    water temperature, stream gradient, channel
                    type,  percent canopy cover, bank stability
                    assessment, etc.  Benthic macroinverebrates
                    were collected from representative riffle sites to
                    provide a biological assessment. In addition,
                    pool,  margin and coarse paniculate organic
                    matter (CPOM) were sampled to provide data
                    from all representative  habitat types (Northwest
                    Management,  1994).

                    The results were compared to values
                    representing community diversity conditions
                    typically  found in unimpacted mid-order western
                    streams.  Table 3.12.2, Benthic
                    Macroinvertebrate Biological Integrity
                    Assessment Parameters, shows the parameter
                    and description used in the survey work.

                    Myers Creek

                    Analysis of the physical and biological
                    parameters for stations BM1 and BM2 indicates
                    that the benthic invertebrate community has
                    been moderately impacted by land management
                    practices, primarily cattle grazing in the riparian
                    areas as shown in  Table 3.12.3, Benthic
                    Macroinvertebrate Sampling Comparison.

                    Washington streams are different in that some
                    parameters  (i.e. taxa richness and EPT richness)
                    are expected to be lower and the natural
                    disturbance frequency  is expected to be greater.
                    Conclusions regarding  the richness of the
                    streams may need to be adjusted to reflect
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
R31E        UANfOJ*_	,
•	1	• •"••T'^^STATES
   BRITISH COLUMBIA
	WASHINGTON^) ^
           *yBMi
                                                                                            LEGEND
                                                                                        	 	 STREAMS
                                                                                              BOUNDARY OF AREA
                                                                                              IMPACTED BY ALTERNATIVE B

                                                                                              MINE PIT AREA

                                                                                              DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY
                                                                                         xBM4  BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE
                                                                                         v    MONITORING LOCATION

                                                                                            SOURCE NORTHWEST MANAGEMENT INC
                         FIGURE  3.12.4,  BENTHIC  MACROINVERTEBRATE
                              MONITORING  STATION LOCATION MAP
                                                                                                   3750'    7500
FILENAME CJ3-12-4 DWG

-------
Page 3-98
Chapter 3 - Affected
June
TABLE 3.12.2, BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY ASSESSMENT PARAMETERS
Parameter
Total Abundance
Percent Contribution of
Dominant Taxon
Taxa Richness
EPT Richness
Rhyacophihdae Richness
Percent Chironomidae
Percent Oligochaeta
Percent Non-Diptera
EPT/Chironomidae
Percent Shredders
Percent Scrapers
Scraper Richness
Percent Collector-Filterers
Percent Predators
Predator Richness
Margalef's Index
Simpson's Index
Shannon-Werner Index
Hilsenhoff Biotic Index
Pielou's J
Description
Total number of invertebrates per 0.1 square motor
Percent of total number of individuals belonging to the most abundant taxa
Total number of taxonomic units in a sample
Total number of taxonomic units in a sample belonging to the insect ordsrs Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera, and Tnchoptera.
Total number of taxa in the genus Rhyacophihdae.
Percent of the total number of individuals belonging to the Diptera family Chironomidae.
Percent of the total number of individuals belonging to the class Oligochaeta.
Percent of the total number of individuals that are not in the insect order Diptera.
Ratio of the number of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Tnchoptera to the number of
Chironomidae.
Percent of the total number of individuals that are classified as shredders.
Percent of the total number of individuals that are classified as scrapers.
Number of taxonomic units in the sample classified as scrapers.
Percent of the total number of individuals that are classified as collector-filterers.
Percent of the total number of individuals that are classified as predators.
Number of taxonomic units in the sample classified as predators.
Total number of taxa in the sample divided by the log of the total number of individuals in the
sample
The sum of: (number of individuals in the /'th taxon) divided by (total number of individuals in
the sample). This sum, subtracted from 1 .0 is the value of Simpson's Index.
The sum of: the proportion of individuals in the /th taxon multiplied by the log (In) of the
proportion.
A weighted average of the organic tolerance values of all individuals in the sample.
Shannon's index for the sample divided by the log of the total number of taxa in the sample.
eastern Washington differences by using
WADOE's work and other regional studies
located closer in the monitoring sites.

Community diversity was low, as indicated by
taxa richness (31 and 26), EPT richness (11),
and rhyacophilidae richness (0 and 1).
Measures of community evenness (percent
contribution of the dominant taxon and Pielou's
J) indicate that the communities are under
stress  when compared to western Oregon
streams.  Adjusting for eastern Washington
stream expectations, measures of community
diversity and evenness would indicate a
moderate disturbance in stream physical
conditions.

The community trophic structure as indicated by
the percent of total fauna show that scrapers
(36% and 38%), shredders (22% and 12%),
and collector-filterers (23% and 33%) values
are above expected values, while predators
numbers (2% and 1 %) were below expected
values.
                    Marias Creek

                    Analysis of the physical and biological
                    parameters for station BM3 indicates that the
                    benthic invertebrate community may have been
                    slightly to moderately impacted by previous land
                    use activities,  primarily sediment loading from
                    timber harvest and road building as shown in
                    Table 3.12.3,  Benthic Macroinvertebrate
                    Samp/ing Comparison.  Additional physical
                    measures such as embeddness, preferred
                    substrates, or  canopy cover would verify an
                    impacted condition that was indicated by
                    examining the  biological data.

                    Community diversity was low, as indicated by
                    taxa richness (32), EPT richness  (17), and
                    rhyacophilidae richness (3). Measures of
                    community evenness (percent contribution of
                    the dominant taxon and Pielou's J) indicate that
                    the communities are under slight stress, when
                    compared to western Oregon  streams.
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
TABLE 3.12.3, BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLING COMPARISON
Parameter
Total Abundance
Percent Contribution of Dominant Taxon
Taxa Richness
EPT Richness
Rhyacophilidae Richness
Percent Chironomidae
Percent Oligochaeta
Percent Non-Diptera
EPT/Chironomidae
Percent Shredders
Percent Scrapers
Scraper Richness
Percent Collector-Filterers
Percent Predators
Predator Richness
Margalef's Index
Simpson's Index
Shannon-Wemer Index
Hilsenhoff Biotic Index
Pielou's J
Expected Range1
>100
<15%
>60
>35
>4
5-30%
<5%
>80%
>5
>5%
>10%
>6
<10%
>5%
>10
>5.0
>0.80
>2.75
<2.5
>0.75
Station BM1 | Station BM2
1337
26.4%
31.6
11.3
0 6
9.6%
0.5%
87.8%
10.2
22%
35.8%
4
22.3%
2%
5.4
4.3
0.85
2.36
3.7
0.68
1218
31.5%
26.4
11.4
1.3
4.2%
0.1%
92.2%
4.3
11.8%
37.8%
4.6
32.6%
1 .4%
4
3.6
0.83
2.19
3.8
0.67
Station BM3 Station BM4 J
530 | 4-4 1
26.9%
32.1
16.8
2.8
5.7%
23%
91.7%
0.6
12.7%
13.6%
4.3
0.6%
22.4%
1 1.1
5.0
0.86
2 43
3.2
0 70
24.5<4
30.3
15.2
1.9
21.2%
13.7%
69.4
2.7
5.1%
13.2%
3.4
0.03%
24.8%
9
4.9
0.88
2.59
3.5
0.76
Note: 1 . Expected range of values for unimpacted mid-order western streams m Oregon and more southerly streams (Wisseman, 1 994)
                                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-100
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June 1995
The community trophic structure as represented
by the percent of total fauna show that scrapers
(14%), shredders (13%), and collector-filterers
(< 1 %) values indicate a healthy benthic
invertebrate community.

Nicholson Creek

Analysis of the physical and biological
parameters for station BM4 indicates that the
benthic invertebrate community has been
slightly to moderately impacted by land use
activities,  primarily sediment loading from
timber harvest and road building, see  Table
3.12.3, Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling
Comparison.

Community diversity was low, as indicated by
taxa richness (30), EPT richness (1 5), and
rhyacophilidae richness (2). Measures of
community evenness (percent contribution of
the dominant taxon and Pielou's J) indicate that
the communities are under slight  stress, when
compared to western Oregon streams.

The community trophic structure  as represented
by the percent of total fauna show that scrapers
(14%), shredders (5%), and collector-filterers
(< 1 %) values indicate a healthy benthic
invertebrate community.

3.12.10  Instream Flow Incremental
         Methodology

The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WADFW), WADOE, British Columbia  Ministry
of Fish and the Environment (BCME),  and
Canadian Department of Fish and Oceans (DFO)
requested an instream flow study in order to
assess the impacts of the proposed diversion of
water from Myers Creek to the Starrem
Reservoir on existing fish habitat, and to
determine appropriate habitat protection in
Myers Creek downstream of the proposed
diversion site.

The study method chosen was the Instream
Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM)  (Bovee,
1982); this method, developed by the U.S.  Fish
and Wildlife  Service, is  used in the western
United States and Canada.  It relies on a
predictive model, developed from a combination
of site-specific stream channel measurements
and estimates of habitat preferences of the fish
species of concern.
                    The IFIM study was conducted in accordance
                    with the Washington State Department of
                    Wildlife instream flow study guidelines
                    (WADFW, 1993a).  Study objectives were to
                    predict the relationship  between stream
                    discharge and physical  habitat for salmonids to
                    Myers Creek in British Columbia downstream of
                    the proposed intake. This work provided
                    technical data for evaluating the effects of
                    alternative flow regimes on the salmonid
                    resources of Myers  Creek.

                    Both brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and
                    rainbow trout (Onchorhynchus mykiss) are
                    found in Myers Creek (Pentec,  1993a).  The
                    instream flow study focused on the spawning
                    life history stage of  rainbow trout and the spring
                    and winter habitat for both species.  Water
                    withdrawals have been  proposed in Myers
                    Creek by the Proponent from approximately
                    February  1 to July 31.

                    The overall slope of  Myers Creek below the
                    point of diversion near the Canadian border is
                    approximately 2%.  The moderately incised
                    stream channel meanders through a wide, U-
                    shaped glacial valley. Habitats include long low-
                    gradient glide-riffle complexes and small corner
                    pools with undercut banks.  Areas of braided
                    channel are present.  Channel substrates include
                    sand, silts, and small gravel and cobble.
                    Canopy cover is variable, ranging from
                    grassland  vegetation to brush and trees.

                    Based on slope and  channel pattern, 2 study
                    sites were selected on Myers Creek as shown
                    on Figure  3.12.5, IFIM  Study Sites.

                    Study Site #1  is immediately upstream of the
                    March Creek confluence and contains 5 cross-
                    sections (transects).  Study Site #2 is
                    immediately downstream of the international
                    border between the  United States and Canada
                    and contains 6 transects. The transects and
                    habitat descriptions  for  each study site is shown
                    in  Table 3.12.4, IFIM Transects and Habitat
                    Description. At each study site, information
                    was gathered at 3 flow levels (3, 7, and 12
                    cfs), which allowed  development of the
                    predictive model over the flow range of interest
                    (2-30 cfs). The model predicts a habitat versus
                    flow relationship for each site,  which are then
                    combined with estimates of inflow to develop a
                    relationship for the reach of Myers Creek,
                    indexed to a gaging  point at or near the
                    diversion,  in the United  States.  This
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
                                                                     Page 3-101
	CANADA	\	

       /  '     UNITED STATES  )
                            ROCK CREEK
                           :v,^--*
                                       KETTLE VALLEY
                                                                  MIDWA Y
               CHESAW
      Fields

     ***L3l<6
                   I   V^'-eif \


                  '>    ,  "I*
                  -)   f    ^
                  •r  , .^0 /
                            ^c
                                                      BRITISH COLUMBIA
                                                        WASHINGTON
                              Beth
                              take
                              x
                             MW  V
                    Strawberry

                    Mtn
      D
                 ^F Bo
                 v_
                                   '/ ,. Cu/nberlsnd

                                       Mtns
             LEGEND
       IFIM
              CROWN JEWEL PROJECT SITE


              MYERS CREEK IFIM STUDY SITE
                              FIGURE 3.12.5,
                            IFIM  STUDY SITES

-------
Page 3-102
Chapter 3
                          TABLE 3.12.4, IFIM
                           Transect
                    Myers Creek Study Site 1
                                          Gr,iv,,'i
                                          Gr.iv-i
                                          Rifflp
                    Myers Creek Sludy Site 2
          Shallow p- « ' ,-,']. i ; ,\  ' 'I il
          Glide/srnnl! w.nci  :lfSn's ror
          Glide/small wood  ;i?bfs d/
          Cornur pool, undeir.ut bank
          Glide
          Gravelly riffle (near gage)
                                                               bnt. '
                                                               nplex
                                                                plex
                    Note:    Habitat type descriptions:

                             Riffle: moderate to fast water velocities, shallow depths, gravel
                             substrate.

                             Glide' slow to moderate water velocities, U shaped channel,
                             cobble or gravel subtract.

                             Corner pool  pool at a stream bend, often with an undercut bank
                             providing cover for fish.

                             Wood debris complex: wood m stream channel, providing cover
                             for fish and creating  small dammed pools at times.

                    Source'   U.S.D A. Forest Service, 1990	
relationship is illustrated in Figure 3.12.6, IFIM
Final Weighted Usable Area Versus Flow.
Analysis can then be made of how the proposed
future flow regime compares to current
conditions, or alternative flow regimes
developed using  different diversion  strategies.

The IFIM study results provide a technical basis
for evaluating different flow regimes resulting
from the proposed water diversion. The intent
is to determine an instream flow to protect fish
resources.

Results from the instream flow study are
combined indices of the relationship between
habitat and flow, for each fish lifestage under
consideration.  In this case, a relationship was
developed for rainbow trout spawning as shown
on Figure 3.12.6, IFIM Final Weighted Useable
Area Versus Flow, and a relationship  for
rainbow trout and brook trout winter  habitat is
shown on Figure 3.12. 7, Myers Creek Winter
 Trout Habitat - Weighted Useable Area Versus
Flow. It is expected that the winter habitat
needs for trout would define an instream flow
for the early part of the proposed spring
diversion period, and that rainbow trout
spawning habitat needs would define instream
flow needs for the portion of the diversion
period after spawning commences (which would
                      differ slightly between years, depending on
                      ambient stream temperatures). These exact
                      time periods would be determined annually
                      using field data collected from Myers Creek.
                      3,13
WILDLIFE
                      3.13.1   Introduction

                      Section 3.13 describes existing conditions for
                      wildlife and wildlife habitat in the core and
                      analysis areas of the proposed Crown Jewel
                      Project.  Wildlife biologists from the Forest
                      Service, BLM, USFWS, and WADFW designated
                      and delineated the boundaries of the core and
                      analysis areas as those habitats that may be
                      affected by proposed mining activities, shown
                      on Figure 3.13.1, Project Area Map. The
                      analysis area. Figure 3.13.2, Land  Type Map,
                      totals approximately 72,700 acres.  It
                      encompasses the core area and is bounded by
                      Myers Creek and the Kettle River to the north,
                      by Toroda Creek to the east, by Beaver Creek to
                      the south and southwest, and  by Myers Creek
                      to the west and northwest.  The core area,
                      Figure 3. 13.3, Cover Type Map, totals
                      approximately 10,961 acres.  It is defined as
                      the area where direct impacts of the proposed
                      Project could  occur.  The core area incorporates
                      the mine footprint,  mine facilities, transportation
                      Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
                                            INFLOW INTEGRATED
           4,000
           3,500
        •S  3,000 —
           2,500
        =  2,000
        a
        z
           1,600
           1.000
            500 —
<6


""4

to



01
                                             DISCHARGE (cfsl
                                  MYERS CREEK  WUA, RAINBOW TROUT

                                   COMBINED STUDY SITES. WEIGHTED
                         LEGEND
                           WINTER REARING


                           SPAWNING
                      FIGURE 3.12.6, IFIM  FINAL WEIGHTED USEABLE

                                     AREA  VERSUS  FLOW
FILENAME CJ3-12-6 DWG
 to
 -^

 §

-------
          1,000
          900
          600
          700
       _  600
          500
          400
          300
          200
          100
                                        DISCHARGE (ofs)
                              MYERS CREEK WINTER REARING WUA
                                 RAINBOW AND BROOK TROUT
                      LEGEND
                        RAINBOW TROUT

                        BROOK TROUT

                        COMBINED
                    FIGURE 3.12.7, MYERS  CREEK  WINTER TROUT
                HABITAT  - WEIGHTED USEABLE  AREA VERSUS FLOW
FILENAME CJ3-12- 7 D WG
                                                                                       Wl

-------
     UNITED STATES
                             HJ  /I  01
                         wrong "   /'  ° '
                                                             CORE AREA BOUNDARY
                                                             ANALYSIS AREA BOUNDARY
                                                             PAVED HIGHWAY
                                                             GRAVEL ROAD
                                                             DIRT ROAD
                                                             OKANOGAN NATIONAL FOREST BOUNDARY
                                                             NATIONAL BORDER
                                                             COUNTY LINE
                                                             STREAMS
                                                             TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES
                                                             CANADIAN PROVINCIAL HWY
                                                             FOREST SERVICE ROAD
                                                OURCE BEAK CONSULTANTS INCORPORATED
FIGURE  3.13.1,  PROJECT  AREA  MAP

-------
                                                                                                    LEGEND
                                                                                                          CORE AREA BOUNDARY
                                                                                                          ANALYSIS AREA BOUNDARY
                                                                                                   LAND TYPE
                                                                                                 GRASSLAND/SHRUB
                                                                                                 OPEN CONIFEROUS/DECIDUOUS

                                                                                                 CONIFEROUS

                                                                                                 AGRICULTURE

                                                                                             USjS DISTURBED/RESIDENTIAL

                                                                                             ^H RIPARIAN/WETLAND/OPEN WATER

                                                                                             SOURCE BEAK CONSULTANTS INCORPORATED
ACRES
 15.728

 25,824
 27.465

 2,949
   99

  635
                                        FIGURE  3.13.2,  LAND TYPE  MAP
FILENAME  CJ3-13-2DWG

-------
June 1995
                Page 3 707
                                            CANADA
                                                                    LEGEND
                                                                COVER TYPE
                                                                                      ACRES

                                                                   UPLAND GRASSLAND      1.675
                                                                   BOTTOMLAND GRASSLAND   107


                                                                   SHRUB                 96


                                                                                       887


                                                                   MIXED CONIFER POLE      2,178


                                                                   MIXED CONFIFER MATURE  4,526
EARLY SUCCESSIONAL
CONIFER
                                                                   LAKE/POND


                                                                   RIPARIAN/WETLAND


                                                                   DECIDUOUS


                                                                 1 AGRICULTURE
                    106


                    891


                     40


                    456
                                                              SOURCE BEAK CONSULTANTS INCORPORATED
                     FIGURE  3.13.3,  COVER  TYPE  MAP
 FILENAME  CJ3-13-8DWG

-------
Page 3-108
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June 1995
corridors, Starrem Reservoir, the alluvial fan on
Myers Creek, the in-coming transmission lines,
and all land within a 1 mile radius around the
mine footprint and facilities.

Wildlife habitats in the analysis area are
categorized by land type, a habitat grouping
based on vegetation composition, structure, and
typical land uses.  Wildlife habitats in the core
area are categorized by cover type, a habitat
grouping based on Forest Service stand data
and on plant associations described by the
Forest Service and Franklin and Dyrness (1973).
Cover types were delineated to a minimum  size
of 1 acre through a combination of aerial photo
interpretation and field-checking during habitat
surveys. Lands outside the core area were
interpreted to a minimum of  5 acres using aerial
photos.

The core and analysis areas include private,
state, and federal lands.  The analysis area
encompasses the Okanogan  National Forest,
within which Management Areas are defined for
the implementation of specific management
emphasis according to the Forest Plan (Forest
Service, 1989),  see Figure 3.13.4, National
Forest Management Areas in  the Core and
Analysis Areas.  The Okanogan Forest  Plan
describes standards and guidelines (i.e., specific
conditions or levels of environmental quality to
be achieved) within each Management  Area.

In this section, information on wildlife habitats
in the core and analysis areas is presented. A
description of existing land uses, activities and
disturbance follows.  Existing  conditions for
elements managed under Forest Plan standards
and guidelines are identified.  Forest Plan
standards and guidelines which apply to
individual wildlife species (e.g., deer) are
discussed within respective species sections.
Riparian/wetland habitats, Figure 3.13.5,
Riparian, Deciduous, and Ridgetop Habitat Map,
old-growth forests, successional stage diversity,
Figure 3.13.6, Successional Stage Diversity,
and road density are also managed under Forest
Plan standards and guidelines; these 4 elements
are described separately prior to the species
treatments. Unique Forest Plan terms, such as
Management Area, are used in these
discussions.  A  Management Area is a
delineated area of the National Forest dedicated
to specific management standards and
guidelines. A discrete Management Area is a
block of forest in a particular Management  Area.
                     Management Requirement Cells are blocks of
                     forest dedicated as habitat for Management
                     Indicator Species.  Boundaries of stands
                     delineated during cover type mapping were
                     drawn to coincide with Management Area
                     boundaries.  Existing conditions for Forest Plan
                     elements describe whether or not standards and
                     guidelines are currently being met.  Life histories
                     of wildlife species selected for emphasis are
                     provided, along with information on occurrences
                     in the core and analysis areas.

                     Information in  this section is drawn from the
                     Wildlife Technical Report  (Beak, 1995). The
                     Wildlife Technical Report  is  a comprehensive
                     report containing detailed inlormation on the
                     wildlife study area.  The Wildlife Technical
                     Report describes the methods used to map,
                     survey and analyze wildlife data, and includes
                     descriptions of the wildlife habitats that were
                     mapped.

                     3.13.2  Habitat Overview

                     The study area for  wildlife includes the core
                     area and analysis area. The core and analysis
                     areas are characterized by a wide range of
                     wildlife habitats juxtaposed according to
                     landscape and micro-site  conditions.  Wildlife
                     habitat in the core area is categorized by cover
                     type, a habitat definition  based on successional
                     stage, plant association, and land use
                     information derived primarily from Tonasket
                     Wildlife  Habitat Inventory Procedures (TWHIP)
                     stand data. Wildlife habitats in  the analysis area
                     are categorized by  land type, a habitat definition
                     based on general vegetation composition and
                     structure, and on land use.

                     Core Area

                     Ten cover types  are defined for the core area.
                     These include  upland grassland, bottomland
                     grassland, shrub, early successional conifer,
                     mixed conifer  pole,  mixed conifer mature,
                     deciduous, riparian/wetland, lake/pond, and
                     agriculture, see Figure 3.13.3, Cover Type Map.
                     Cover type descriptions and amounts shown in
                     Table 3.13.1, Acreages of Cover Types and
                     Land Types in the Crown Jewel Core and
                     Analysis Areas, along with  a list of wildlife
                     species  known or expected to occur  in each
                     cover type, is  presented in the Wildlife
                     Technical Report.
                     Crown Jewel Mine +  Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
                                                                 \ 	 ___ __
                                                                               5500'   11000'
                                                                    LEGEND
                                                                   OKANOGAN NATIONAL FOREST BOUNDARY

                                                                   MANAGEMENT AREA BOUNDARY

                                                                   CORE AREA BOUNDARY

                                                             	ANALYSIS AREA BOUNDARY
                                                             SOURCE BEAK CONSULTANTS INCORPORATED
                                      r
FILENAME G-J3-13-4 DWG
               FIGURE  3.13.4, NATIONAL FOREST  MANAGEMENT AREAS
                         IN THE CORE AND  ANALYSIS AREAS

-------
Page 3-110
June 1995
                                      CANADA_

                                    UNITED STATES
                                                           LEGEND


                                                        ITEM

                                                          RIPARIAN HABITAT


                                                          DECIDUOUS HABITAT
                                                          BLUE GROUSE
                                                          WINTERING HABITAT
          CHESAW
                                                          CORE AREA BOUNDARY

                                                    	NATIONAL FOREST BOUNDARY

                                                    	LAND OWNERSHIP BOUNDARY
                                                        LAND OWNERSHIP
                                                          U.S.FS MANAGEMENT AREAS
 ACRES


 998



  40



 707
                                                          BLM LAND
                                                          CANADIAN PRIVATE LAND
                                                          PRIVATE LAND (IN U.S.A )
                                                          WASHINGTON STATE LAND
                                                      SOURCE BEAK CONSULTANTS INCORPORATED
                FIGURE  3.13.5,  RIPARIAN, DECIDUOUS,
                     AND  RIDGETOP HABITAT  MAP
  FILENAME CJ3-13-5DWG

-------
                   T.40 N R.30 E.    T 40 N R.31 E.
                 4000    8000
                                                                                OMMOCMM '
                                                                                 NA7MMM.
                                                                                   FOREST
                                                                             SOURCE BEAK CONSULTANTS INCORPORATED
                                                                                   LEGEND
                                                                              I   I
                                                                              5
\   | GRASS/FORB

    SEEDLING/SAPLING

    POLE

    YOUNG

    MATURE


    OLD GROWTH


    NON-FOREST
1052 Ac

1394 Ac

2054 Ac.

7514 Ac.


5360 Ac.


2037 Ac

3897 Ac.
                        FIGURE  3.13.6, SUCCESSIONAL  STAGE  DIVERSITY
FILENAME CJ3-13-6DWG

-------
Page 3-112
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June 1995
TABLE 3. 13.1, ACF

Cover Type
Upland Grassland
Bottomland
Grassland
Shrub
Early Successional
Conifer
Mixed Conifer Pole
Mixed Conifer
Mature
Deciduous
Riparian/Wetland
Lake/Pond
Agriculture
Total
IEAGES OF COVER
CORE AREA
Acres
1,675
107
96
887
2,178
4,526
40
891
106
456
10,962
TYPES AND LAND

Percent
15.3
1.0
0.9
8.1
19.9
41.3
0.3
8.1
1.0
4.1
100.0
TYPES IN THE CROWN
/
Land Type
Grassland /Shrub
Open
Coniferous/Deciduous
Coniferous
Riparian/Wetland/Open
Water
Agriculture
Disturbed/Residential




Total
JEWEL CORE AND
ANALYSIS AREA
Acres
15,728
25,824
27,465
635
2,949
99




72,700
ANALYSIS AREAS

Percent
21.6
35.5
37.8
0.9
4.1
0.1




100.0
All cover types provide wildlife with food, cover
(reproductive and concealment) and water.  In
addition, the mixed conifer pole and mature
cover types and the deciduous cover type
provide wildlife with thermal cover.

Upland Grassland Cover. The upland grassland
cover type  is defined as naturally occurring
(non-irrigated,  non-cultivated, and non-hayed)
dry grassland areas with less than 20% tree
cover and less than 20% shrub cover. The
predominant species of native grasses found in
this cover type include bluebunch wheatgrass,
Sandberg's bluegrass, and pinegrass. Non-
native  seeded and naturalized species include
smooth brome, fescues, and other
wheatgrasses.

Bottomland Grassland Cover. The bottomland
grassland cover type describes naturally
occurring (i.e., non-irrigated, non-cultivated, and
non-hayed) moist or wet grassland  habitats with
less than 20% tree cover and less than 20%
shrub.   Predominant native grasses include
bluebunch wheatgrass, bentgrass, and
pinegrass.  Non-native seeded and naturalized
species include smooth brome and fescues.

Shrub  Cover. The shrub cover type is
represented by areas with less than 20% tree
cover,  more than 20% shrub cover, and not
classified as upland grassland,  bottomland
grassland, early successional conifer, or
riparian/wetland habitat.  Common shrubs in
                    this cover type include snowberry, ninebark,
                    red-osier dogwood, sagebrush, currant, and
                    rose.  Other vegetation present includes Idaho
                    fescue, pinegrass, Sandberg's bluegrass,
                    sedges, bluebunch wheatgrass, and various
                    forbs.

                    Early Successional Conifer Cover. The early
                    successional conifer cover type consists of
                    typically forested areas currently  in a grass/forb
                    or seedling/sapling successional stage (i.e.,
                    clearcut,  seed tree cut, or shelterwood cut less
                    than 20 years old).  Predominant trees present
                    include Douglas-fir, western larch, ponderosa
                    pine, Engelmann spruce, and subalpine fir.
                    Predominant shrub species include ninebark,
                    bearberry, snowberry, pachistima, huckleberry,
                    red-osier dogwood, and Cascade  azalea.

                    Mixed Conifer Pole Cover.  The mixed conifer
                    pole cover type includes those stands with trees
                    5 to 9 inches diameter at breast height (dbh)
                    that are the dominant class and occupy more
                    than 50% of the area. Trees larger than 9
                    inches dbh occupy less than 20% of the stand.
                    Douglas-fir, western larch, Engelmann spruce,
                    subalpine fir, and ponderosa pine are the most
                    abundant trees present.  Common shrub species
                    include ninebark, snowberry, bearberry,
                    pachistima, huckleberry, red-osier dogwood, and
                    Cascade azalea.

                    Mixed Conifer Mature Cover. The mixed conifer
                    mature cover type is  represented  by stands with
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4  Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-113
 trees greater than 9 inches dbh occupying more
 than 20% of the area. Dominant trees species
 include Douglas fir, western larch, Engelmann
 spruce, subalpine fir, and ponderosa pine.
 Major shrub species include ninebark,
 snowberry, bearberry, pachistima, huckleberry,
 and Cascade azalea.

 Deciduous Cover. The deciduous cover type is
 classified as stands with 90% overstory of
 aspen or cottonwood, but not necessarily a
 climax deciduous hardwood plant association.
 The predominant tree species found in
 deciduous forests include quaking aspen and
 black cottonwood.  Major shrubs present
 include Sitka alder, Douglas maple, snowberry,
 red-osier dogwood, willow, huckleberry,
 serviceberry, and shiny leaf spirea.

 Riparian/Wetland Cover.  The riparian/wetland
 cover type consists of all areas within 100 feet
 of a stream, wetland, lake, or pond, and within
 50 feet of a seep or spring.  Subalpine fir,
 Engelmann spruce, Douglas-fir, western red
 cedar, black cottonwood, and quaking aspen
 represent the major trees present.  Predominant
 shrub species found in riparian/wetland areas
 include Sitka alder, Douglas maple, huckleberry,
 red-osier dogwood, bearberry, snowberry,
 twisted stalk, arrowleaf groundsel, and
 bunchberry dogwood.  Common ferns include
 lady fern, and oak fern.

 Lake/Pond Cover.  The lake/pond cover type
 includes areas of open water and emergent
 vegetation, excluding rivers streams.  Beth,
 Beaver and Little Beaver Lakes are mapped as
 lake/pond cover types. Emergent vegetation
 includes cattails, reed canary grass, creeping
 bentgrass, spike rush, and sedges.

 Agriculture Cover. The agriculture cover type
 represents those areas which are currently being
 cultivated. Included are plowed and planted
 land, hay lands, and irrigated pastures.

 Analysis Area

 Six different land types (grassland/shrub, open
 coniferous/deciduous, coniferous,
 riparian/wetland/open water, agriculture, and
 disturbed/residential) are identified in the
analysis area, Table 3.13.1, Acreages of Cover
 Types and Land Types in the Crown Jewel Core
 and Analysis Areas.  These land types were
delineated to a minimum size of 5 acres, see
              Figure 3.13.2, Land Type Map.  Land types
              represent broader wildlife habitat classifications
              than core area cover types.  A list of species
              known or expected to occur in each land type is
              presented in the Wildlife Technical Report.
               Grassland/Shrub Land. The grassland/shrub
               land type includes those areas with less than
               20% tree cover.

               Open Coniferous/Deciduous Land.  The open
               coniferous/deciduous land type is classified as
               forested areas with 20% to 60% crown closure,
               including clearcuts, partial cuts, shelterwoods,
               and  natural openings not capable of crown
               closures exceeding 60%.

               Coniferous Land.  The coniferous land type is
               represented by forested areas with more than
               60% crown closure of pole-sized or larger trees.

               Riparian/Wetland/Open Water Land. The
               riparian/wetland/open water land type consists
               of all areas within  100 feet of, and including,
               perennial streams, wetlands, lakes, or ponds;
               and includes any area within 50 feet of, and
               including, intermittent streams.

               Agriculture Land.  The agriculture land type
               includes those lands which have been
               cultivated, and  includes plowed and planted
               land, hay lands, and irrigated pastures.  Species
              that  reproduce and/or forage in cultivated areas
               are associated with this land type.

               Disturbed/Residential Land. The
              disturbed/residential land type is classified as
              towns, mines, rockpits, home sites, and parking
              lots.  This land  type generally does not provide
              good wildlife habitat. However, certain species
              adaptable to human disturbance do use this land
              type.

              3.13.3   Land Use/Disturbance

              Land use, land management, and disturbance
              from human activities may directly affect the
              type, amount, and quality of habitat available to
              wildlife. Changes in land  use may be
              detrimental or beneficial to wildlife.  Wildlife
              response to disturbance is variable and
              dependent upon the type, intensity and duration
              of the disturbance, the activity of the individual
              prior  to the disturbance, the time of day and/or
              season,  the proximity to the source of the
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-114
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June  1995
disturbance, previous experience with the
disturbance, the mobility of the species, and
sensitivity of the species or individual to the
type of disturbance.

The effects of noise on wildlife is emphasized
because this represents the greatest potential
disturbance  to wildlife from the proposed
Project. Added emphasis is placed on
information pertaining to species addressed later
in Section 3.13.5.

Human Presence

Human presence affects wildlife behavior in
numerous ways.  Wildlife sensitive to human
presence may suffer declines in productivity,
depressed feeding rates,  and  avoidance of
otherwise suitable habitat (Henson and Grant,
1991). Ward  (1985)  noted differential response
by big game to human presence; elk were less
tolerant of human activity than deer.  Nesting
ferruginous hawks flushed 40% of the time if a
person walked within 130 yards of the nest
(White and Thurow,  1985).  In contrast, random
observations by Wedgewood (1992) indicated
considerable tolerance by sharp-tailed grouse to
short-term human presence.

Human presence in the core area is  relatively
low as few permanent residences occur there.
Seasonal activities do increase human presence
during certain  times of the year, including forest
management, firewood cutting and recreation.
The dominant  recreation activity is hunting,
primarily  in the fall. Other recreation activities
occur mostly during the summer and include
sightseeing,  hiking, camping, berry-picking, and
wildlife watching.  Human presence during the
winter is  limited by access to open roads.
Principal winter recreation activities are skiing
and snowmobiling.  The overall effect on
wildlife of these intermittent seasonal activities
is considered minimal.

An increased density of permanent residences
occurs in portions of the analysis area (near
Chesaw,  along Toroda Creek, along the Kettle
River, and along the  Pontiac Ridge Road).
Increased human presence in these  areas has
likely affected wildlife to  a greater degree than
in the core area, probably reducing habitat
suitability for species sensitive to disturbance.
However, in portions of the analysis area away
from human habitation, the overall effect of
human presence is still likely  low.
                     Noise

                     Noise effects on wildlife can be primary (direct
                     physical auditory effects such as temporary or
                     permanent hearing loss, or masking of auditory
                     signals), secondary (non-auditory effects such
                     as stress, elevated metabolism, increased
                     energy costs, or behavioral  changes), or tertiary
                     (direct result of primary and secondary effects -
                     e.g., localized population declines or range
                     reductions)  (Janssen, 1980).

                     In general, existing noise levels within the
                     analysis area are relatively low in all but
                     inhabited and farmed areas.  The forest
                     vegetation and variable topographic relief act to
                     buffer noises.  Nonetheless, wildlife are subject
                     to intermittent episodes of noise disturbance
                     primarily from logging,  firewood cutting, farm
                     machinery,  aircraft, road traffic, and recreational
                     activities including hunting and the use of
                     vehicles (e.g., snowmobiles, motorcycles, all-
                     terrain vehicles). Within the core area,
                     additional noise disturbance resulted from
                     mineral exploration activities.

                     Existing daytime and nighttime noise levels
                     were measured at 5 locations in the analysis
                     area. Noise levels ranged from  30  to 53 dBA
                     (Section 3.14, Noise).  The  U.S. Department of
                     Transportation applies a noise abatement
                     criterion of  57 dBA for  lands where quiet and
                     serenity are of extraordinary importance
                     (USDOT 1982). Wintertime noise levels were
                     generally less than summertime levels at all
                     locations.

                     Light and Glare

                     The presence of artificial lights has the potential
                     to affect wildlife in both beneficial and harmful
                     ways.  The existing light and glare  in the core
                     and analysis areas is minimal based on the low
                     population density and  the distance from cities
                     or activities that generate extensive artificial
                     light. The greatest existing light and glare
                     occurs  around the town of Chesaw; along the
                     Kettle River Valley near Midway, British
                     Columbia; from residences along Myers and
                     Toroda Creeks; and from residences along the
                     Pontiac Ridge Road.

                     Residential Development

                     The presence of residential  development may
                     have a  direct influence  on wildlife distribution
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June W95
CROWN JEWEL MINE
                                                                                      Page 3-17 5
and populations.  As development occurs (i.e.,
structures, roads, and the conversion of
forest/range to agricultural lands), wildlife are
subjected to the loss and/or alteration of habitat
and increased disturbance.

Currently, there is very little residential
development in the core and analysis areas.
Most of the land within the core area is
managed forest under the jurisdiction of the
Forest Service, and little opportunity exists for
residential development.  A few homes occur on
private in-holdings along Gold Creek and along
the transportation corridor on County Road
3575-120.  Scattered homes are also located
on private land along Myers Creek.

Most of the analysis area is also Forest Service
land, but it includes more private land.  Greater
opportunities exist for residential development,
particularly south and west of the Project site
(e.g., near Chesaw, and along  Pontiac Ridge
Road). Residential development is concentrated
at Chesaw and at Midway, British Columbia.
Homes are also located along Myers Creek,
Toroda Creek, the Kettle River,  lower Nicholson
Creek (on Forest Road 3575), and  along County
Road 4695.  In recent years, several areas have
been subdivided for residences on  private land
south and west of Buckhorn Mountain. There
has  been  a slight increase (1.4%) in the
population for Chesaw-Oroville  (the closest U.S.
towns to  the Project site) between 1980-90.
However, with 41 % of the available housing in
Chesaw-Oroville vacant in 1990 (Section
3.20.3),  extensive residential development is
unlikely in the near future.

Road Density and Road Kills

The presence of roads can contribute to death
or injury  to wildlife from collisions  with moving
vehicles.  The principal factors affecting the
incidence of wildlife-vehicle accidents include
road condition (gravel or paved), traffic speed,
and  road location relative to wildlife habitat. In
Okanogan County, wildlife vehicle  accidents
account for approximately 14% of the accidents
on state  highways (A.G. Crook,  1993g).

Existing road density is relatively low over the
analysis area (2.23 miles per square mile).
Road density within the core area is higher
(6.08 miles per square mile) due to past mineral
exploration activities. There is no data available
on wildlife related accidents or wildlife road kills
              for Forest roads in the analysis area or County
              Roads leading to the Project area.  The road
              closest to the analysis area where data on
              wildlife road kills have been collected is
              Highway 20.  There were 22 reported deer road
              kills, mostly white-tails, along a ten-mile stretch
              of Highway 20 (mile post 280-290) during a 14
              year period from September 1979 through
              December  1993 (A.G. Crook, 1993g).

              Hunting and Trapping

              Hunting is  the dominant recreation activity in
              the core and analysis areas.  Most hunting
              (archery and firearm) is for deer (mule and
              white-tail)  and black bear, although there is
              some hunting for cougar,  coyote,  and bobcat
              (Swedburg, 1994). Small game hunting is
              primarily for grouse (blue and ruffed)  and quail.
              The analysis area is a popular hunting site for
              both local  residents and out-of-area hunters
              (1,831  big-game hunter days and  146 small
              game hunter days (Section 3.15.4). It is also
              part of the North Half of the  former Colville
              Reservation. The Colville tribe retains hunting
              rights on the North Half where tribal members
              have a  separate deer season  (Murphy, 1994).
              Illegal hunting of deer also occurs, but is
              difficult to quantify. Most hunting within  the
              analysis area occurs in the Jackson and Cedar
              Creek drainages northeast of the Project site
              (A.G. Crook, 1993g).

              Recent trapping efforts within the analysis area
              are low, primarily due to low pelt prices (Friesz,
               1994a). The primary trapping areas are along
              Beaver and Myers Creeks, and to a lesser extent
              Mary Ann  and Toroda Creeks.  The species
              most frequently trapped are beaver and
              muskrat, with some coyote and raccoon taken
              (Pozzanghera, 1994).  An important location of
              bobcat trapping is Beaver Canyon. Badgers,
              weasels, and raccoons are trapped incidentally.
              One registered Canadian trapline (taking beaver,
              coyote, marten, squirrel, bobcat, raccoon, and
              lynx) is located near the northern border of the
              analysis area between Rock Creek and Midway,
              British  Columbia (Pennoyer, 1994).

              3.13.4  Other Aspects of the Biological
                       Environment

              Riparian/Wetland Habitat

              Riparian/wetland habitat is identified in the
              Okanogan  Forest Plan as a "limiting habitat"
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-116
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June 1995
that is important to numerous wildlife species
such as amphibians and songbirds.  Thirteen
standards and guidelines serve to protect
riparian/wetland ecosystems from physical
alteration or damage when activities occur
there.  These standards and guidelines do not
prescribe amounts of riparian/wetland habitat to
be managed or maintained. Approximately 340
acres of  riparian/wetland habitat occur on Forest
Service lands within the core  area, see Figure
3.13. 7, Deer Winter Cover.

Successional Stage Diversity

The  Forest Plan includes a standard and
guideline for successional stage diversity to
ensure a  variety of forest stand habitats are
available  to support a wide range of wildlife.
Successional stage diversity is measured on a
township basis. Successional stage diversity in
T40N R31E meets Forest Plan standards and
guidelines for young mature and mature serai
stages, see Figure 3.13.6, Successional Stage
Diversity. The  grass/forb, seedling/sapling, and
pole serai stages are below the prescribed
minimum amount.  In T40N R30E, successional
stage diversity  meets Forest Plan standards and
guidelines for all serai stages except
seedling/sapling.

Old Growth

The  intent of the Okanogan Forest Plan standard
and  guideline for old growth is to ensure that
habitat is available for old growth-associated
species (e.g., goshawk), to maintain ecosystem
diversity, and to lend aesthetic qualities to the
landscape.  Old growth is measured on a
township basis. Approximately 1,823 acres  of
Forest  Service lands  in T40N R31E have been
designated as old  growth, representing 10%  of
the Forest Service land base suitable for timber
production  in the township. Designated old
growth in T40N R30E totals 149 acres (97
acres in Section 12 and  52 acres in Section 25)
and represents  3% of the suitable Forest
Service land base  in the township.  The amount
of designated old growth in T40N R30E does
not currently meet Forest Plan standards and
guidelines,  see Figure 3.13.6,  Successional
Stage Diversity. To comply with the Forest
Plan, approximately 91  acres of replacement  old
growth would be designated by the Forest
Service.
                    Road Density

                    The Okanogan Forest Plan standards and
                    guidelines for maximum allowable road density
                    are based on the goals and activities of the
                    Management Area and are implemented to limit
                    disturbance to wildlife.  Road densities are
                    lowest and access restrictions greatest in
                    Management Areas which emphasize deer
                    winter range.  Road densities in discrete
                    Management Area 25-18 meets Okanogan
                    Forest Plan standards and guidelines.  Road
                    densities in discrete Management Areas 14-16,
                    14-17, 14-18, 14-19, 17, 26-13, 26-15,  and
                    26-16 exceed  Forest Plan Standards and
                    Guidelines.  Discrete Management Areas 14-16,
                    14-19, 26-13, and 26-15 are closed to
                    motorized vehicles from December 1 through
                    March 31  to minimize disturbance in deer winter
                    range. All off-road travel is prohibited within
                    the seasonally closed areas.

                    3.13.5  Wildlife Species

                    Wildlife emphasized in this document include
                    those species occurring on priority habitats,
                    those managed under standards and guidelines
                    in the Forest Plan, species of high human value,
                    and species assigned protective status by state
                    or federal  agencies (i.e., Endangered,
                    Threatened, Federal Candidate, Forest Service
                    Sensitive)  as shown in  Table 3. 13.2, Wildlife
                    Species List.  Bats are included at the request of
                    the Forest Service.  Several songbirds are
                    included that occupy grassland, shrub and
                    riparian/wetland habitats.  Waterbirds are
                    discussed  as a group because of the importance
                    of aquatic Management Indicator Species,
                    Priority Habitats and Species Program,
                    Washington, Documented (Known to occur).
                    Suspected (Likely to Occur/Habitat Present)
                    habitats in the core and analysis areas. The
                    species are organized according to the following
                    categories: large mammals; medium and small-
                    sized mammals; reptiles and  amphibians;
                    woodpeckers; songbirds; waterbirds; upland
                    game birds;  raptors; and endangered,
                    threatened, candidate and sensitive species.
                    Each species account includes sufficient life
                    history information to understand habitat needs
                    and assess the potential effects of proposed
                    Project activities.  Site-specific information on
                    occurrences and habitat use  in the core and
                    analysis areas is presented.  The Wildlife
                    Technical Report provides a detailed description
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
                     Page 3-117
                                            CANADA_

                                          UNITED STATES
           CHESAW
      LEGEND
                                                                   SNOW INTERCEPT/THERMAL COVER



                                                                   WINTER THERMAL COVER



                                                                   WINTER HIDING COVER
                                                                   COMBINATION OF TWO OR MORE
                                                                   COVER TYPES.
      FOREST MANAGEMENT AREA
      BOUNDARY

— — —  LAND OWNERSHIP BOUNDARY
                                                                   U.SF.S. MANAGEMENT AREAS
                                                                   BLM LAND
                                                                   CANADIAN PRIVATE LAND
                                                                   PRIVATE LAND (IN U S.A.)
                                                                   WASHINGTON STATE LAND
                                                              SOURCE BEAK CONSULTANTS INCORPORATED
 FILENAME  CJ3-13-7DWG
                   FIGURE  3.13.7,  DEER  WINTER  COVER

-------
Page 3-118
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June 1995
TABLE 3.13.2, WILDLIFE SPECIES LIST
Common Name
Scientific Name
Forest
Status
Federal
Status
State Status
Habitat or
Species
Occurrence
Large Mammals
Mule deer
White-tailed deer
Black bear
Mountain Lion
Odocoileus hem/onus
hemionus
Odocoileus virgin/anus
Ursus americanus
Felis con co lor
MIS
MIS

PHS Game
PHS Game
Game
Game
Documented
Documented
Documented
Documented
Medium and Small-Sized Mammals
Pine marten
Bobcat
Martes americana
Felis rufus
MIS

PHS Gam.3
Game
Documented
Documented
Woodpeckers
Hairy woodpecker
Three-toed woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker
Picoides villosus
Picoides tridactylus
Dryocopus pileatus
MIS
MIS
MIS

Monitor
Candidate
Documented
Documented
Documented
Songbirds
Winter wren
Orange-crowned warbler
Vesper sparrow
Troglodytes troglodytes
Vermivora celata
Pooecetes gramineus



Documented
Documented
Documented
Upland Game Birds
Ruffed grouse
Blue grouse
Bonasa umbel/us
Dendragapus obscurus
MIS

Game
PHS Game
Documented
Documented
Raptors
Golden eagle
Barred owl
Great gray owl
Boreal owl
Aquila chrysaetos
Strix varia
Stnx nebu/osa
Aegolius funereus


Candidate
Monitor
Monitor
Monitor
Documented
Documented
Documented
Documented
Endangered, Threatened, Candidate, and Sensitive Species
California bighorn sheep
Grizzly bear
Gray wolf
Pacific fisher
California wolverine
North American lynx
Pygmy rabbit
Townsend's big-eared bat
Spotted frog
Loggerhead shrike
Common loon
Long-billed curlew
Black tern
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse
Northern bald eagle
Northern goshawk
Ferruginous hawk
Peregrine falcon
Northern spotted owl
Ovis canadensis californiana
Ursus arctos
Can is lupus
Martes pennant!
Guto gulo luteus
Felis lynx canadensis
Brachylagus idahoensis
Pie cot us townsendii
fiana pretiosa
Lanius ludovicianus
Gavia immer
Numenius americanus
Chlidonias niger
Tympanuchus phasianellus
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Accipiter gentilis
Buteo regal/s
Falco peregrinus
Strix occidentalis caurma
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
MIS
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Candidate
Threatened
Endangered
Candidate
Candidate
Candidate
Candidate
Candidate
Candidate
Candidate
Candidate
Candidate
Candidate
Threatened
Candidate
Candidate
Endangered
Threatened
PHS Game
Endangered
Endangered
Candidate
PHS Monitor
Threatened
Endangered
Candidate
Candidate
Candidate
Candidate
PHS Monitor
PHS Monitor
Candidate
Threatened
Candidate
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
Suspected
Suspected
Documented
Documented
Documented
Documented
Suspected
Documented
Suspected
Documented
Suspected
Documented
Documented
Suspected
Suspected
Notes: MIS = Management Indicator Species
PHS = Priority Habitats and Species Program, Washington
Documented = Known to Occur
Suspected = Likely to Occur/Habitat Present
of life history, habitat requirements, habitat
suitability, and species occurrence.

Large Mammals

Large mammals known to occur in the core and
analysis areas include black bear, mountain lion,
mule deer, white-tailed deer, Rocky Mountain
                    elk, and moose.  Species expected to occur in
                    the Okanogan Highlands but not documented
                    for the analysis area include gray wolf, grizzly
                    bear, and California bighorn sheep.

                    Natural history, known occurrences,  and habitat
                    assessments are  presented in the following
                    section for deer (mule and white-tailed), black
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-119
 bear, and mountain lion. These species are
 common to the area and occupy a wide variety
 of habitats and cover types.  California bighorn
 sheep, grizzly bear, and gray wolf are addressed
 later in Endangered, Threatened, Candidate, and
 Sensitive Species.

 Mule and White-Tailed Deer.  Mule deer inhabit
 virtually every major vegetative type in western
 North America.  The white-tailed deer occurs
 throughout most of North America, inhabiting
 areas with a diversity of habitat conditions and
 a range of climates.  In the Okanogan
 Highlands, mule and white-tailed deer use
 forested  and non-forested habitats.

 Deer food habits change seasonally depending
 on the availability of forage.  Grasses are the
 preferred spring forage. Summer diets are
 dominated by forbs and to a lesser extent
 deciduous browse (i.e., trees and shrubs).
 Shrubs are preferred during fall. Readily
 available sources of fresh  water are important
 components of mule and white-tailed deer non-
 winter habitat.  During July, August, and
 September deer may concentrate around
 wetlands or riparian/wetland areas for succulent
 forage and water (Witmer et al. 1985).  Cover
 in forested areas is important for thermal
 regulation and concealment during the non-
 winter seasons.   Deer that live in non-forested
 areas use brush, topography {e.g., ravines), and
 aspect (e.g., sunny open slopes) for thermal
 regulation and concealment, preferring areas
 with a diversity of habitats.  The winter cover
 requirements of deer are based  on the need for
 available forage, thermal regulation, and
 security.  Although deer use a wide range of
 vegetative types and topographic conditions for
 cover, typical critical winter habitat in the
 Okanogan Highlands is recognized as old-
 growth/mature timber stands that provide snow-
 intercept/thermal cover (SI/T) and places to bed
 down. These stands also  provide arboreal
 lichens and conifer needles which make-up a
 substantial portion of the winter diet (Friesz
 1994b, Forest Service  1989a).

 Mule and white-tailed deer commonly occur in
the core and analysis areas.  Both species were
regularly seen during TWHIP surveys.  Deer are
known to spend  at least part of the winter on
Buckhorn Mountain (Friesz 1994a, Haines
 1993). The Okanogan Highlands has a history
of providing high quality deer hunting
opportunities (Friesz 1992a).  The core and
              analysis areas supply drinking water, areas of
              suitable fawning habitat, the areas of non-
              winter cover, winter hiding cover, winter
              thermal cover and snow intercept thermal cover
              as shown on Figure 3.13.7, Deer Winter Cover.

              According to the TWHIP habitat inventory
              conducted, 41% of the  core area provides non-
              winter cover (thermal and hiding).  Two percent
              of the core area provides snow-
              intercept/thermal cover, 4% provides winter
              thermal cover, and 33% provides winter hiding
              cover as shown on Figure 3.13.7, Deer Winter
              Cover.  Numerous creeks in the core area
              provide drinking water,  including Nicholson,
              Marias, Gold, Ethel and  Beaver Creeks.  A.G.
              Crook (1993g) identified 7  areas of suitable
              fawning habitat within the core area. The
              screening process  for the Nicholson Timber
              Sale, which is located mostly within the core
              area, identified several travel corridors
              throughout the Buckhorn Mountain area.

              Habitat  sampling conducted in the core area
              indicates that grassland, shrub, and early
              successional conifer cover types (totaling 2,765
              acres) provide mule and white-tailed deer with
              good non-winter cover;  mixed conifer pole,
              mixed conifer mature, deciduous, and
              riparian/wetland cover types provide  very good
              non-winter habitat (totaling 7,595 acres); and
              the densely vegetated portions of lake/pond
              cover types  provide fair  non-winter habitat.
              Habitat  sampling also indicated that grassland
              and lake/pond cover types provide deer with no
              winter cover; shrub, early successional  conifer,
              and deciduous cover types  provide poor to fair
              winter habitat; mixed conifer pole and
              riparian/wetland cover types (totaling 3,069
              acres) provide good winter  habitat; and the
              mixed conifer mature cover type (4,526 acres)
              provides very good winter habitat.

              The analysis area provides potential mule and
              white-tailed deer non-winter and winter habitat.
              Deer cover in the analysis area is represented by
              27,465  acres of coniferous land type, and
              foraging habitat, represented by the other land
              types, totals approximately  45,235 acres. The
              covenforage ratio in the  analysis area is 38:62.

              The Forest Plan goal for  Management Area 14
              (14-6, 14-17, 14-18, and 14-19) and
              Management Area  26 (26-13  and 26-15) is  to
              manage  for deer winter range. The standards
              and guidelines for these  Management Areas
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4  Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-120
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June 1995
outline the deer cover conditions that must exist
to meet the Forest Plan's management goals.
The TWHIP analysis of deer winter cover in the
core area indicates that SI/T cover standards
and guidelines are not met in these portions of
the  Management Areas.  Minimum requirements
for winter thermal cover and winter hiding cover
are  met in discrete Management Areas 14-16
and 26-15.  Management Area  14-17 meets
only winter hiding cover standards and
guidelines, and Management Areas 14-18, 14-
19, and 26-13 are below standards and
guidelines for all winter cover components.

Although SI/T cover standards and guidelines
are  not met in the core area portions of
Management  Areas 14 and 26, SI/T cover does
occur in 13 of 1 53  stands. SI/T cover is in
short supply and is likely limiting the number of
deer in the area. SI/T cover is vegetation that
reduces energy  expense due to movement and
temperature regulation by deer and provides
forage during periods of deep snow (18" or
greater).  Patches of SI/T cover range from 1 to
12 acres  (average 3 acres)  and are widely
scattered. Winter thermal cover occurs in 27
stands in the  core area portions of Management
Areas 14 and 26. In the 8 stands where
minimum block  size (5 acres) is met, winter
thermal cover constitutes 40%  to 100% of the
stand.  Winter hiding cover for deer occurs in
80 stands within those portions of Management
Areas 14 and 25 in the core area.  Minimum
block size for winter hiding cover (5 acres) is
met in 30 of these stands,  with winter hiding
cover constituting 30% to  100% of the stand
area.  Winter  thermal cover is present in 253
stands in Management Areas 14 and 25 within
the core area.

Summer cover within the core area portions of
Management  Areas 14-16, 14-17, and 25-18
meet or exceed Forest Plan standards.  Summer
thermal cover conditions meet Forest Plan
standards for Management Areas 14-18 and 14-
19, but summer hiding cover does not.

Black Bear. The black bear occurs throughout
forested regions of North America (Banfield
1974, Pelton 1982).  Preferred habitat is a
coniferous forest matrix interspersed with
deciduous forest, open forest-shrub, shrub,
meadow, and riparian/wetland cover types
(Unsworth et al., 1989). Open areas are
typically avoided (Jonkel and Cowan 1971,
Unsworth et al., 1989).
                    The black bear is omnivorous but primarily
                    vegetarian.  Forbs and grasses are consumed in
                    the spring and a wide variety of berries sought
                    in the summer and early fall  (Dalquest, 1948,
                    Banfield, 1974, Unsworth et al.,  1989).  Animal
                    matter, especially insects, makes up a small
                    portion of their diet (Dalquest, 1948; Poelker
                    and Hartwell,  1973; Rogers  and Allen, 1987).
                    Carrion also serves as a source of food
                    (Banfield, 1974).  Habitat use and movements
                    by black bear  are influenced  by the availability
                    of food. Timbered areas are used throughout
                    the year for bedding, travel,  and  escape cover
                    (Amstrup and Beecham, 1976; Lindzey and
                    Meslow, 1977; Pelton, 1982; Unsworth et al.,
                    1989).  Bears are most active at  lower and
                    middle  elevations, particularly within small
                    clearings or meadows where grasses, sedges,
                    and forbs are  abundant (Amstrup and Beecham,
                    1976; Unsworth et al., 1989). Higher elevation
                    slopes and ridgetops are  used in  late summer
                    and fall (Amstrup and Beecham,  1976;
                    Unsworth et al.,  1989).

                    Black bears are generally solitary and are most
                    active during the day (Poelker and Hartwell,
                    1973; Lindzey and Meslow,  1977).  Black bears
                    become dormant in the winter, denning in late
                    October to November. They emerge from their
                    dens in April or May (Dalquest, 1948; Jonkel
                    and Cowan, 1971).  During  the denning period,
                    black bears can be easily aroused and will react
                    to a disturbance  (Jonkel and Cowan,  1971).
                    Although adaptable to human presence, bears
                    are most abundant in remote areas (Pelton,
                    1982; Rogers and Allen,  1987).

                    Black bears occur within the core area. Several
                    sightings of bear and bear sign (i.e., tracks,
                    scat, clawed trees) are reported from the
                    Nicholson timber sale wildlife surveys
                    conducted by the U.S. Forest Service in 1990
                    and TWHIP habitat sampling performed by Beak.
                    Vegetation types and foods  typically  used by
                    black bear are present in the core and analysis
                    areas.  Approximately 10,400 acres of the
                    grassland, shrub, early successional conifer,
                    mixed conifer pole, mixed conifer mature,
                    riparian/wetland, and deciduous  cover types
                    may provide suitable habitat for black bears in
                    the core area,  as shown  on  Figure 3.13.4,
                    National Forest Management Areas in the Core
                    and Analysis Areas.  No  other bear observations
                    are documented for the analysis  area, but 1
                    black bear was observed in July  1994 just
                    outside the analysis area boundary
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-121
approximately 1  mile southwest of Beaver Lake
(English, 1994). Suitable habitat within the
analysis area is represented by 69,017 acres of
grassland/shrub, open coniferous/deciduous,
and coniferous land types as shown on Figure
3.13.2, Land Type Map.

Mountain Lion. The mountain lion is a large
carnivore which historically ranged throughout
North and South America (Banfield,  1974;
Russell, 1978; Dixon, 1982). Its current
distribution in North America is limited to areas
west of,  and including, the Rocky Mountains
(Russell,  1978; Dixon,  1982).  They occur
throughout Washington except for the treeless
areas in the eastern part of the state (Dalquest,
1948).

Mountain lions use a wide variety of habitat
types. Preferred habitat includes areas with
cliffs and ledges, rugged terrain and dense
cover (Banfield, 1974;  Russell, 1978; Dixon,
1982; Halfpenny and Biesiot, 1986). Stream
courses and high ridges are favored travel
routes (Russell, 1978). Mountain lions are
solitary (Banfield, 1974).  Estimates of home
range size for the mountain lion vary widely
based on season and gender (Banfield, 1974;
Russell, 1978; Dixon, 1982; Seidensticker et
al., 1973). Summer and fall ranges are larger
than winter and spring; females without kittens
occupy larger ranges than those with kittens;
and the range of males is larger than that of
females.  Mountain  lions feed primarily upon
larger mammals, but will also consume smaller
mammals, birds, and small amounts of grass
(Dixon, 1982; Seidensticker et al., 1973;
Banfield,  1974). Mountain lions hunt by
stalking,  prefer fresh meat, and normally do not
scavenge (Banfield,  1974).

Mountain lions occur in the core area.  One lion
was sighted during TWHIP habitat sampling by
Beak (1995a); A.G.  Crook (1992) recorded a set
of lion tracks during winter wildlife surveys.
Mountain lions use the  same habitat as deer,
their primary prey species (refer to deer above
for habitat amounts).

Medium and Small-Sized Mammals

Medium and small-sized mammals known to
occur in the core and analysis areas include
shrews, various species of bats, snowshoe
hare, yellow-pine chipmunk, red squirrel, beaver,
muskrat,  western jumping mouse, porcupine,
              raccoon, coyote, pine marten, mink, California
              wolverine, North American lynx, and bobcat.
              Species expected to occur in the area include
              Columbian ground squirrel, northern pocket
              gopher, western harvest mouse, deer mouse,
              voles, Norway rat, house mouse, Pacific fisher,
              and long-tailed weasel, among others.  This
              group of species inhabits a wide range of cover
              types and habitats.  Natural history, known
              occurrences, and habitat assessments are
              presented for pine marten, bobcat,  and bats in
              the following sections. Townsend's big-eared
              bat, pygmy rabbit, Pacific fisher, California
              wolverine, and North American lynx are
              addressed under Endangered, Threatened,
              Candidate, and Sensitive Species.

              Pine Marten.  The pine marten occurs
              throughout the coniferous forests of Canada,
              Alaska,  and the northeastern and western
              United States (Banfield, 1974).  In Washington,
              the marten is found  primarily in Canadian and
              Hudsonian life zones throughout the state
              (Dalquest, 1948). Although the marten prefers
              late-successional and old-growth forest, they
              will use a variety of  forest types (Koehler and
              Hornocker,  1977; Soutiere, 1979; Steventon
              and Major, 1982; Hargis and McCullough,
              1984). The most important habitat  is mature
              spruce/fir forest with canopy closures greater
              than 30% and high densities of coarse woody
              debris.  Soutiere (1979) found that marten
              numbers declined where mature forest habitat
              was decreased to less than 25% to 35% of the
              total forest area. Throughout the year, mesic
              habitats are preferred and appear to provide the
              most abundant prey (Koehler and Hornocker,
              1977).  Marten are opportunistic and will eat a
              variety of small mammals and plants.
              Population densities  are related to quality of
              habitat (Buskirk and  McDonald, 1989).

              The marten is known to occur in the Okanogan
              Highlands (Rodrick and Milner, 1991).  Several
              sets of marten tracks were recorded by A.G.
              Crook during winter  wildlife surveys, confirming
              presence in the core area.  Marten likely use all
              forest cover types within the core area.
              However, the most important habitat is mature
              spruce/fir forest with canopy closures greater
              than 30% and high densities of coarse woody
              debris (Koehler and Hornocker, 1977).
              Approximately 1,543 acres of mature and old-
              growth mixed conifer forest (having a canopy
              closure greater or equal to 30%) are present
              within the core area, representing 14% of the
                    Crown Jewel Mine $ Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-122
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June 1995
total area.  Spruce is present on 691 acres.
Approximately 140 acres of the mature and  old-
growth mixed-conifer forest contain high
densities of coarse woody debris, and of this,
spruce is present on  133 acres. The analysis
area contains 27,465 acres of coniferous land
type which could contain suitable marten
habitat as shown on  Figure 3.13.2, Land Type
Map.

Bobcat. The bobcat  is found throughout much
of the mainland United States,  and is gradually
expanding its range into Canada. Bobcats were
once common within forests of the Okanogan
National Forest and may have been associated
with rocky areas.  Due to high  pelt prices in the
1970's, this species  was intensively pursued
during this time by hound hunters and trappers.
This harvest pressure, coupled with increased
road access from intensified logging, likely
depressed populations from former numbers
(Friesz,  1994b). In the northwest, bobcats  are
most numerous in  logged areas, conifer forests,
and rock outcrops (Larrison, 1976). Ledges
serve as centers for activities such as denning,
and provide protection from weather and
harassment.  Bobcats also use brush piles,
hollow trees, and logs as rest or denning sites
(Gashwiler et al., 1961). The diet of the bobcat
includes snowshoe hares, cottontail rabbits,
squirrels, mice, rats,  and other rodents, as well
as porcupines, birds, and occasionally insects,
reptiles, vegetation,  livestock and deer.  The
range of the bobcat varies by gender and age.
An area of 4.5 square miles has been recorded
for a female and as much as 47.4 square miles
for male bobcats (Knick, 1990).

Three bobcat observations were documented by
A.G. Crook (1992) and 3 observations were
documented by Beak personnel.  Beak personnel
observed 2 kittens in a pole size (8"dbh)
Douglas-fir stand in September 1 993.  Bobcat
tracks were also seen by Beak personnel in
November 1993 in 2 locations. In August of
 1994, Beak personnel observed 1 kitten in a
young mature Douglas-fir stand. Tracks of  an
adult were seen several days later within 1 /4
mile of the kitten's location.

Approximately 619 acres of seedling/sapling
serai stage, 2,498 acres of pole serai stage, and
3,472 acres of young mature serai stage stands
provide potential bobcat habitat in the core
area, see Figure 3.13.8,  Successional Stage
Map.  Early successional conifer stands provide
                    forage and the conifer pole and conifer mature
                    stands provide cover for bobcats.  Important
                    habitat features such as ledges, rock piles and
                    down logs are scattered throughout the core
                    area.

                    The analysis area contains approximately
                    27,465 acres of coniferous forest that is
                    potential bobcat habitat.  Important habitat
                    features like ledges and rock outcroppings are
                    found along south slopes and ridges of the
                    analysis area (e.g., ridges between Beaver and
                    Marias Creek, and between Marias and
                    Nicholson Creek).

                    Bats. As more is learned about bats, it
                    becomes apparent that generalizations within
                    and between species must be made with
                    caution. Behavior and habitat characteristics of
                    a species may vary widely between different
                    geographic locations,  even as close as 100
                    miles (Perkins,  1994).  Refer to the Wildlife
                    Technical Report for information on life histories
                    of bats (Beak, 1995a).  Occurrences of bats
                    within the core and analysis areas are
                    summarized in  Table 3.13.3, Bat Detections in
                    or Near the Analysis Area.

                    Reptiles and Amphibians

                    Several species of reptiles and amphibians are
                    known or expected to occur in the core and
                    analysis areas.  Permanent water sources are
                    important for a number of these species during
                     1 or more of their life stages.  Bullfrogs, spotted
                    frogs and painted  turtles spend the majority of
                    their lives in or very near perennial water. The
                    terrestrial adults of the tiger salamander, the
                     long-toed salamander, and the western toad
                     may wander some distance from water, but
                     seasonal or perennial  bodies of water are
                     important for certain life stages of all 3 species.
                     Pacific treefrogs may be found in a variety of
                     habitats as adults, but require shallow,
                     vegetated wetlands for egg-laying and larval
                     development.

                     Additional species are found in riparian/wetland
                     habitats,  but may not be dependent on them.
                     Western skinks and rubber boas may be found
                     in forested habitats with rotting logs, or at
                     rocky streams  near meadows.  The common
                     garter snake and the western terrestrial garter
                     snake are typically associated with
                     riparian/wetland zones. The western terrestrial
                     garter snakes is not as  aquatic as the common
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
                                                                     Page 3-123
                                      CANADA 	
                                    UNITED STATES
          CHESAW
     LEGEND
   SERAL STAGE     ACRES
|   | GRASS/FORB      2663 Ac
    SEEDLING/SAPLING    619 Ac
    POLE           2498 Ac
    YOUNG MATURE     3472 Ac
    MATURE
    OLD GROWTH
    OPEN WATER
                                                     SOURCE BEAK CONSULTANTS INCORPORATED
1250 Ac.
353 Ac
106 Ac.
             FIGURE 3.13.8, SUCCESSIONAL STAGE  MAP
   FILENAME CJ3-13-8DWG

-------
Page 3-124
Chi-
June
TABLE 3.13 3. BAT DE;Ef:i!u(vi, .!•< O'-~ .'.L'-.^ Ti'r ANALYSIS AREA |
Common Name
Western small-footed myotis/
California myotis1
Western long-eared myotis
Little brown myotis/
Yuma myotis1
Northern long-eared myotis
Fringed myotis
Long-legged myotis
Western red bat
Hoary bat
Silver-haired bat
Big brown bat
Spotted bat
Townsend's big-eared bat
Pallid bat
Western ptjaistrelle
Sc'tnti.'ic M'vrt- Location j
MyoC" -'v.-AcV,. •<>< urper Magnetic Mine i
Myotis cah'cr, ,-,.• j
Myo''is svcli^
Myotis lucifugasi
Myotis yumanensis
Myotis septentrionalis
Myotis thysanodes
Myotis volans
Las/urus blossevillii
Lasiurus cinereus
Lasionycteris noctivagans
Eptesicus fuse us
Euderma maculatum
Plecotus townsendii
Antrozous pallidus
Pipistrel/us hesperus
Upper Magnetic Mine
Lower Magnetic Mine
Gold Axe
Lower Magnetic Mine
Upper Nicholson Creek Pond
No detections recordec
Approx. 50 mi. SW of Analysis Area
Upper Magnetic Mine
Lower Magnetic Mine
Approx. 15 mi. W of Analysis Area
Approx. 100 mi. S of Analysis Area
Upper Nicholson Creek Pond
Starrem Creek Reserve r
Upper Nicholson Creek Pond
Starrem Creek Reserve r
Approx. 10 mi. W of Analysis Area
Approx. 3 mi. SE of Analysis Area
Myers Creek Valley
Approx. 40 mi. SW of Analysis Area
Approx. 50 mi. SW of Analysis Area
Note: 1. Due to similarities between these species, identification was not definitive (ENSFi, 1994).
Sources: ENSR 1994, Perkins 11989], Sarell and McGumness 1993
garter snake, but it spends a considerable
amount of time near water.

The core and analysis areas contain cover types
which provide habitat characteristics important
for other species of reptiles and amphibians.
Northern alligator lizards are frequently found in
woodland and forest  habitats hiding under
rotting logs, bark, and other debris. Racers and
gopher snakes are commonly seen in grassland
and shrub cover types which contain many
rocks and logs. Although the western
rattlesnake can be found in many habitat types,
they are typically near rocky streams, rocky
outcrops, and talus slopes.  Short-horned lizards
are also found in a variety of habitats, but are
usually associated with the presence of at least
some pockets of fine, loose soil within areas of
rocky, sandy or firm soils.

Woodpeckers

Woodpeckers excavate their own cavities in
dead and decayed trees for nesting and
roosting. Most foraging takes place on dead
                    and decayed wood, including down logs and
                    stumps.  Woodpeckers occurring in the Crown
                    Jewel analysis area include northern flicker,
                    Lewis' woodpecker, white-headed woodpecker,
                    Williamson's sapsucker, red-breasted sapsucker,
                    red-naped sapsucker, downy woodpecker, hairy
                    woodpecker, three-toed woodpecker, black-
                    backed woodpecker, and pileated woodpecker.
                    Several of these woodpeckers are migratory,
                    including the northern flicker, Lewis'
                    woodpecker, and the sapsuckers.

                    Snags are a key component for  maintaining
                    viable populations of woodpeckers (primary
                    cavity excavators) which in turn provide cavities
                    for use by other wildlife species. The Okanogan
                    Forest Plan assigns each Management Area a
                    level of biological potential  (snag densities
                    capable of supporting a given percent of the
                    maximum population level possible) for primary
                    cavity excavators to assure that snags of
                    adequate sizes are available and well
                    distributed.  Snag densities in Management
                    Areas 14 and 25 are managed at the 60% level
                    of biological potential (i.e.,  snag densities
                    Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental impact Statement

-------
     7956"
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-125
capable of supporting 60% of the maximum
population possible) and snag densities in
Management Area 26 is managed at the 80%
level.  In addition to these Management Area
allocations, snag densities in riparian/wetland
management zones and old growth areas are
managed at the 100% level of biological
potential (i.e., snag levels do not limit the
population).

Current snag densities in discrete Management
Areas 14-16, 14-17, 14-18 and 25-18 meet
Forest Plan standards and guidelines for desired
number and  distribution of various size snags.
Management Areas  14-17 and 14-18, and all
riparian/wetland areas meet standards and
guidelines for all snag size classes combined.
Discrete Management Areas  14-19 and 26-15,
and all old growth areas do not meet the Forest
Plan Standards  and Guidelines for small (i.e.,
10-20 inch dbh) snags, but the standards and
guidelines are met for snags  greater than 20
inches dbh.  The portion of Management Area
26-15 within the core area has no snags and
does not meet Forest Plan standards and
guidelines.

Snag densities meet Forest Plan standards and
guidelines on 1,546 acres but are below the
desired level on 2,291 acres (32%  and 47% of
the total area respectively).   Snags are absent
on 990 acres (21 % of the total area).  Stands
where snag  densities meet standards and
guidelines are typically large, and are primarily
found in the eastern portion  of the  core area.

Hairy Woodpecker.  The hairy woodpecker is a
non-migratory cavity nesting species that occurs
in all forest types throughout North America
(Terres, 1980). It is a widespread  year-round
resident in Washington and the Okanogan
Valley (Cannings et al., 1987; Jewett et  al.,
1 953). The hairy woodpecker usually
excavates cavities in soft decayed wood of  both
live and dead standing trees  (Brown, 1985).
Cavities are  also used for roosting and winter
cover, as well as for nesting and rearing  young
(Thomas,  1979).  Insects account for most  of
the hairy woodpecker's annual diet (Ehrlich  et
al., 1988).

Riparian/wetland, mixed conifer pole, and mixed
conifer mature cover types provide very good  to
excellent hairy woodpecker nesting habitat and
cover because of high snag densities, the
presence of  larch or ponderosa pine snags,
              adequate tree size, and sufficient canopy
              closure.  Suitable habitat for the hairy
              woodpecker is present on 8,572 acres of the
              core area within the riparian/wetland, early
              successional conifer, mixed conifer pole, and
              mixed conifer mature cover types, see Figure
              3.13.3, Cover Type Map. About 27,465 acres
              of hairy woodpecker habitat, represented by the
              coniferous land type, are scattered throughout
              the analysis area as shown on Figure 3.13.2,
              Land Type Map.

              Three-toed Woodpecker. The three-toed
              woodpecker is a non-migratory species that
              occurs from the boreal forests of Canada south
              through the mountains of the western United
              States (Terres, 1980),  including Washington
              (Jewett et al., 1953).  The three-toed
              woodpecker prefers mature and old-growth
              stands of lodgepole pine and Englemann spruce
              at elevations above 4,500 feet  for nesting and
              foraging; mixed conifer and aspen stands are
              used to a lesser degree (Cannings et al., 1987;
              Goggans et al., 1988).  Mixed-conifer stands
              are selected for roosting (Goggans et al., 1988).
              A key habitat component is abundant diseased,
              dead, and decaying trees which provide forage
              and nest sites (Goggans  et al.,  1988).  The
              three-toed woodpecker feeds on wood-boring
              beetle larvae and adult beetles (Terres, 1980;
              Bull et al.,  1986, Goggans et al., 1988).  The
              species requires soft wood for excavating
              cavities and selects trees with heartrot
              (Goggans et al., 1988).

              Approximately 2,869 contiguous acres of
              conifer forest above 4,500 feet elevation extend
              north and south through the center of the core
              area.  Within this area, 131 acres of mature  and
              old-growth lodgepole and spruce provide
              foraging and nesting habitat.  There are no
              mature or old-growth stands of lodgepole pine
              or Englemann spruce present in the core area.
              Lodgepole pine, preferred by the three-toed
              woodpecker for nesting, is present on 128 acres
              of early and mid-successional forest.  Mature
              and old-growth forest stands of western larch
              total 279 acres, and could provide suitable
              nesting and foraging habitat for the three-toed
              woodpecker.  The area identified above 4,500
              feet within the core area extends to the
              southeast into the analysis area and totals
              4,068 acres there.  There are no other areas
              above 4,500 feet in the analysis area.
                     Ciown Jewtrl Mine %  Draff environmental Impact S

-------
Page 3-126
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June 1995
Three Management Requirement Cells for the
three-toed woodpecker are present in the core
area.  One area along Road 3575-150 totals
113 acres, an area near the end of road 3550-
120 totals 78 acres, and an area near South
Bolster Creek totals 75 acres.  Two additional
three-toed woodpecker Management
Requirement Cells occur in the analysis area.

The pileated woodpecker occurs in large tracts
of contiguous mature and old-growth forest
throughout Canada and the United States
(Terres, 1980). It is a year-round resident
throughout the Okanogan Valley (Cannings et
al., 1987).

Pileated Woodpeckers. Pileated woodpeckers
excavate nest cavities in  large diameter (greater
than 20 inches) snags or live defective trees
with heartrot.  According to Madsen (1986),
pileated woodpeckers on the Okanogan National
Forest prefer large western larch or ponderosa
pine snags over other species for nesting.
Pileated woodpeckers forage primarily on
carpenter ants  (Aney and McClelland, 1990;
Bull,  1987).  Other wood-boring insects, fruits,
and nuts are eaten to a lesser extent (Cannings
et al., 1987). Foraging habitat suitability is a
function of canopy closure, and the accessibility
and abundance of snags and down logs (Aney
and McClelland, 1990).

The pileated woodpecker commonly occurs in
the core area.  Approximately 891 acres of
riparian/wetland, 2,178 acres of mixed conifer
pole, and 4,526 acres of mixed conifer mature
cover types in the core area are suitable habitat
for the pileated  woodpecker, see Figure 3.13.3,
Cover Type Map.  The predominant snag
species is Douglas-fir,  though larch  and
ponderosa pine snags are also found. About
27,465 acres of pileated woodpecker habitat,
represented by the coniferous land type, are
scattered throughout the analysis area as shown
on Figure 3.13.2,  Land Type Map.

Four pileated woodpecker Management
Requirement Cells occur in the analysis area.  In
addition, a portion (1 50 acres) of a  610 acre
Management Requirement Cell for the pileated
woodpecker lies within the core area near the
headwaters of  the North  Fork of Gold Creek.
Pileated woodpecker Management Requirement
Cells are divided into reproductive and feeding
areas.  Reproductive areas are 300 acres of
mature or old-growth forest and must contain at
                    least 45 large-diameter snags (greater than 20
                    inches) for nesting.  Feeding areas are 300
                    acres but not required to be mature or old
                    growth forest. They must however, contain a
                    minimum average of 2 snags per acre which are
                    greater than 10 inches in diameter. All
                    Management Requirement  Cells for pileated
                    woodpecker meet the minimum size required by
                    the Forest Plan.

                    Songbirds

                    Songbirds (passerines) are a large and diverse
                    group, and include flycatchers, swallows, jays,
                    crows, chickadees, wrens, thrushes, waxwings,
                    vireos, warblers, grosbeaks, sparrows,
                    blackbirds, tanagers, and finches.  More than
                    75 species of songbirds have been observed in
                    the analysis  area. Songbirds are found in
                    virtually all available habitats. The majority of
                    the songbird species occurring in the analysis
                    area are migratory; most of these are
                    neotropical migrants (i.e., they winter south of
                    the Tropic of Cancer). The winter wren
                    represents the riparian/wetland cover type; the
                    orange-crowned  warbler represents the shrub
                    cover type; and the vesper sparrow represents
                    the grassland cover types.

                    Winter Wren.  The winter wren is found
                    throughout North America, Asia, and Europe
                    and is a widespread year-round resident in
                    Washington  and  the Okanogan Valley (Cannings
                    et al., 1987; Jewett et al., 1953).   In
                    northeastern Washington, the winter wren
                    occurs in dense coniferous or conifer-hardwood
                    forests along streams or creeks (Jewett et al.,
                    1953; Brown, 1985).

                    Important habitat features  required by the
                    winter wren include logs and down material,
                    and substrate for foraging  (Etrown, 1985).
                    Winter wrens usually nest  in natural cavities in
                    or under trees, stumps, roots of upturned trees,
                    down logs, rock  crevices, and stream banks
                    (Ehrlich  et al., 1988; Terres, 1980; Headstrom,
                    1951).  Insects and other invertebrates account
                    for most of the winter wren's diet, with some
                    plant material also consumed (Holmes and
                    Robinson, 1988; Wiens and Nussbaum, 1975).
                    The winter wren forages by gleaning and
                    probing bark, foliage, and ground litter (Holmes
                    et al., 1979; Holmes and Robinson, 1988).
                    Almost all foraging occurs within a defended
                    territory (Armstrong, 1956) which is generally
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-127
 up to 3 acres in size (Brown, 1985; Cody and
 Cody, 1972a, 1972b; Holmes et al., 1979).

 Approximately 891 acres (delineated at 1-acre
 resolution) of the riparian/wetland cover type
 are present in the core area. Figure 3.13.3,
 Cover Type Map, providing very good winter
 wren nesting and foraging habitat because of
 moderate to high shrub cover and height, an
 abundance of down material, the dominance of
 large overstory trees, and moderate deciduous
 tree cover.

 Orange-Crowned Warbler. The orange-crowned
 warbler is a neotropical migrant that breeds in
 central Alaska, northwestern and southern
 Canada, and the western United States.
 Orange-crowned warblers use a variety of
 deciduous and coniferous forests and  scrub-
 shrub and forested  wetlands for nesting and
 foraging (Brown,  1985). The orange-crowned
 warbler nests in or  beneath dense underbrush or
 shrubs, usually on or within 3  feet of the ground
 (Ehrlich et al., 1988). The diet of the  orange-
 crowned warblers consists of insects, berries,
 and plant galls {Ehrlich et al., 1988). They
 forage by gleaning foliage, mostly on the lower
 branches of trees and shrubs, and also feed by
 flycatching (Brown, 1985).

 Sightings in the core area are reported by the
 1993 Curlew Breeding Bird Survey, by the
 Forest Service, and from TWHIP habitat surveys
 performed by Beak. Bottomland grassland,
 upland grassland, shrub, early  successional
 conifer, and mixed conifer pole cover types
 provide a total of 4,943 acres of suitable habitat
 for the orange-crowned  warbler in the core area
 as shown on Figure 3.13.3, Cover Type Map.
 Shrub and early successional conifer cover
 types provide good  to very good orange-
 crowned warbler nesting and foraging  habitat.
 About 41,552 acres of grassland/shrub and
 open coniferous/deciduous land types
 representing potential orange-crowned warbler
 habitat occur in the  analysis area. Figure
 3.13.2, Land Type Map.

 Vesper Sparrow.  The vesper sparrow  is a
 neotropical migrant that breeds in grassland
 habitats across southern Canada and the United
 States (Terres, 1980).  In northeastern
Washington, the vesper sparrow is a summer
resident of sagebrush grasslands, bunchgrass
range, and open ponderosa pine forests (Jewett
et al., 1953; Larrison and Sonnenberg, 1968).
              Suitable grassland habitat at elevations above
              5,000 feet are sometimes used after nesting
              (Jewett et al., 1953). Vesper sparrows nest in
              small excavated depressions on the ground in
              grasslands, burned over land, clearcuts, and
              agricultural fields.  Vesper sparrows feed by
              gleaning from the ground. Their diet consists of
              insects and the seeds of grasses and forbs
              (Ehrlich et al., 1988). Elevated perches
              provided by shrubs or tall vegetation are an
              important  habitat feature for vesper sparrows
              (Wiens, 1969). Fence posts and wires provide
              important  artificial  perches.

              Approximately 107 acres of bottomland
              grassland, 1,675 acres of upland grassland, and
              96 acres of shrub cover types provide  potential
              suitable habitat for the vesper sparrow in the
              core area,  Figure 3.13.3, Cover Type Map.
              Grassland  and shrub  cover types provide
              excellent vesper sparrow breeding habitat.
              About 15,728 acres of vesper sparrow habitat,
              represented by the grassland/shrub land type,
              occur in the analysis  area, Figure 3.13.2, Land
              Type Map.

              Waterbirds

              Waterbirds live part of their life in or around
              water, especially the  swimming, diving, and
              wading birds  (Terres, 1980).  Waterbirds include
              loons and grebes,  pelicans, cormorants, wading
              birds, waterfowl, rails and coots, shorebirds,
              gulls,  and terns. Waterbirds that visit the
              analysis area  include common loons, grebes,
              herons, ducks, sora rails, shorebirds, and terns.
              These birds are migratory species that summer
              in the area. They require water bodies such as
              lakes, ponds,  creeks,  marshes, wetlands, and
              rivers for breeding, foraging, brooding,  resting,
              and security.

              Loons, grebes, and ducks prefer the open water
              of ponds and  lakes adjacent to marshes and
              wetlands.  Herons select ponds, creeks,
              marshes, and  rivers near trees large enough to
              support their nests. Rails occupy dense
              marshes and emergent wetlands. Shorebirds
              prefer marshes,  mud flats, and shores of lakes
              and ponds.

              Water bodies  in the core area include the Frog
              Pond,  portions of Myers Creek, the  headwaters
              of Nicholson and Marias Creeks, and Beaver
              Creek. The Frog Pond is a 1.8 acre emergent
              wetland located near the center of the core
                    Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-128
Chapter 3 - Aifectvtf Environment
June 1995
area.  A sora was observed on the Frog Pond
during a summer survey by Beak in 1994.
Habitat for waterbirds provided by Myers Creek
consists of standing water, marshes, and
shrubby wetlands. Birds observed along Myers
Creek include mallards, sora rails, and great blue
herons (A.G. Crook, 1993g).

Water bodies located along Beaver Creek
include Beth Lake (33.9 acres), Beaver Lake
(30.9 acres) and Little Beaver Lake (22.4 acres).
USFWS Breeding Bird Surveys conducted in
1993 and 1994 (Stepniewski, 1993, 1994)
recorded red-necked grebe, mallard, blue-winged
teal, cinnamon teal, ring-necked duck, Barrow's
goldeneye, sora, American coot, killdeer, and
spotted sandpiper on and near the lakes on
Beaver Creek.  Birds such as the pied-billed
grebe, green-winged teal, gadwall, and Barrow's
goldeneye were also observed on these lakes
(Beak, 1995c).  The common loon and black
tern has been observed by WADFW personnel
(Friesz,  1994b: English, 1994).  Bufflehead ,
horned grebe, lesser scaup, merganser, wigeon,
and wood duck observations have also been
documented (English,  1994) on these lakes and
associated wetlands.  Downstream from the
above mentioned lakes are 5, 2 to 3 acre
marshes and emergent wetlands with cattails,
sedges, and rushes.  Birds observed using these
wetlands include American coot, pied-billed
grebe, common snipe, and ducks such as the
green-winged teal, blue-winged teal, gadwall
and mallard  (Beak, 1995c).

In the analysis area, known water bodies
include small creeks (e.g., Nicholson,  Marias)
and the Kettle  River.  The forested creeks
generally receive little use by waterbirds
because of dense canopies along most of their
lengths and  a lack of open water large enough
to meet the  habitat needs of these species.
However, the Kettle River, which forms the
eastern boundary of the analysis area, provides
habitat for some waterbirds such as great blue
heron and ducks.

The common loon, long-billed curlew  and black
tern are addressed in detail in Endangered,
Threatened, Candidate and Sensitive species.

Upland  Game Birds

Upland game birds known to occur in the core
and analysis areas include ruffed grouse, blue
grouse, California quail, and mourning dove.
                    Occurrences and habitat assessments are
                    presented below for ruffed and blue grouse
                    because habitats for those species are managed
                    under Forest Plan standards and guidelines. The
                    Columbian sharp-tailed grouse is addressed in
                    the Endangered, Threatened, Candidate and
                    Sensitive Species section.

                    Ruffed Grouse. The ruffed grouse is a resident
                    species throughout its range across  Canada and
                    the northern United States.  In Washington,
                    ruffed grouse are fairly common in low to mid-
                    elevation forests (Larrison and Sonnenberg,
                    1968).  Preferred habitat is  early and mid-
                    successional deciduous forest, although mixed
                    and coniferous forests in some areas also
                    provide winter thermal  habitat, escape cover,
                    and roost sites (Lewis et al.( 1968; Stoll et al.,
                    1977).

                    The critical components of ruffed  grouse habitat
                    are winter food,  and cover during  fall, winter,
                    and spring (Cade and Sousa,  1985).  Aspen
                    forests are the preferred winter habitat, but
                    cottonwood and red alder are also used.
                    Deciduous shrubs, deciduous trees,  coniferous
                    trees, or a mixture of these, are essential for
                    ruffed grouse cover and for predation
                    avoidance. Ruffed grouse nests are usually
                    located at the base of trees and stumps, or at
                    the edge of brushpiles or slash. Drumming sites
                    are used by male ruffed grouse as part of
                    courtship display and territorially. Ruffed
                    grouse winter forage consists primarily of buds,
                    twigs,  and flowers of hardwood trees (primarily
                    aspen, but also cottonwood, willow, black
                    cherry, birch, alder, and hazelnut) (Servello and
                    Kirkpatrick, 1987).

                    Shrub, mixed conifer pole, mixed  conifer
                    mature, deciduous, and riparian/wetland cover
                    types provide a total of 7,635 acres of suitable
                    ruffed grouse habitat in the core area. Figure
                    3.13.3, Cover Type Map. The shrub and mixed
                    conifer mature cover types provide ruffed
                    grouse with fair winter forage and poor
                    fall/winter/spring cover.  The  mixed conifer pole,
                    deciduous, and riparian/wetland cover types
                    provide very good to excellent winter forage,
                    but fair to no fall/winter/spring cover. About
                    69,652 acres of grassland/shrub,  open
                    coniferous/deciduous, coniferous, and
                    riparian/wetland/open water land types provide
                    suitable ruffed grouse habitat in the analysis
                    area, Figure 3.13.2.. Land Type Map.
                     Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-129
Deciduous habitat is identified as a "limiting
habitat" on the Okanogan National Forest.  The
Forest Plan identifies the ruffed  grouse as the
management indicator species for this habitat
type.  Because dry conditions limit deciduous
habitat quantities on the Okanogan National
Forest, the Forest Plan includes a  standard and
guideline to perpetuate hardwoods as a stand
component wherever they occur.  No specific
amounts are required to be maintained or
managed. There is less than 1 acre of
deciduous habitat (exclusive of riparian/wetland
habitat) on Forest Service lands within the core
area.

Blue Grouse. Blue grouse are found throughout
the mountainous regions of western North
America.  Winter habitat consists  of mature
conifer stands at higher elevations.  Favored
stands are predominately Douglas-fir. During
the summer breeding season, blue grouse are
found in open  (25% to 50% canopy cover)
deciduous and mixed shrub stands at lower
elevations (Schroeder,  1984; Stauffer and
Peterson,  1985). In the Okanogan Valley,  blue
grouse winter  on ridge tops in open stands of
mature Douglas-fir that have live limbs
distributed along the  entire length of the trunk.
The grouse move to open hillsides at lower
elevations following spring snow melt (Cannings
et al., 1987).

Male blue grouse territories are typically located
in the forest between forested and non-forested
habitats (Martinka, 1972).  Hooting and display
by males to attract females usually occurs  in
open areas that are closely associated with
woody cover.  Clumps of small trees and shrubs
are important for nest concealment (Stauffer
and Peterson,  1986).  In the Okanogan  Valley,
nests  are typically found in open woodlands
near the base of a tree, log or fence (Cannings
et al., 1987).  Important features of brood-
rearing habitat include areas of tall herbaceous
cover interspersed  with open areas used as
travel corridors.  In all habitats,  trees used  for
roosting are usually the largest Douglas-fir
present in a patch of trees (Stauffer and
Peterson, 1986). The diet of the blue grouse
consists of conifer needles, large leaf
vegetation, seeds, berries, and insects.   Blue
grouse populations are generally stable  in this
part of Washington, and hunting is allowed
(Friesz,  1994b).
               Approximately 707 acres of suitable wintering
               habitat is represented by mature Douglas-fir
               stands along ridge lines in the core area, see
               Figure 3.13.5, Riparian,Deciduous, and Ridgetop
               Habitat Map.  Shrub and deciduous cover types
               contain potential summer and breeding habitat.
               Within the core area, about 136 acres of habitat
               with these qualities exist.  One block of blue
               grouse habitat has been delineated by the
               Forest Service (Forest Service, 1984) in the
               analysis area.  This area is  located near the
               southeast boundary of the  core area. Although
               blue grouse are not a management indicator
               species, the Forest Plan does include a standard
               and guideline  to maintain suitable habitat on
               ridge-tops providing wintering areas  for the
               species.  The  standard and guideline does not
               require that specific amounts be managed or
               maintained. Suitable ridge-top wintering areas
               for blue  grouse within the core area  total
               approximately 426 acres.

               Raptors

               The following section describes existing
               conditions for raptors.  Raptors are large,
               carnivorous birds characterized by large talons
               and heavy, hooked bills.  This group of birds
               includes vultures, kites, hawks (accipiters,
               harriers and buteos), eagles, ospreys, falcons
               and owls.

               Raptors  known to occur in  the core and analysis
               areas include turkey vulture, golden  eagle,
               northern bald  eagle, northern harrier, sharp-
               shinned  hawk, Cooper's  hawk, northern
               goshawk, red-tailed hawk,  rough-legged hawk,
               American kestrel, merlin, short-eared owl, long-
               eared  owl, great horned owl, barred  owl, great
               gray owl, northern  pygmy-owl, northern saw-
               whet owl, and boreal owl.  Species known or
               expected to occur in the  Okanogan Highlands
               include Swainson's hawk, ferruginous hawk,
               osprey, prairie falcon, peregrine falcon, snowy
               owl, western screech owl,  and flammulated
               owl.  Natural history, known occurrences, and
               habitat assessments are presented below for the
               golden eagle,  barred owl, great gray  owl, and
               boreal owl at the request of the Forest Service.
               The northern bald eagle,  northern goshawk,
               ferruginous hawk, peregrine falcon, and
               northern spotted owl (included in the Forest
               Service Sensitive List) are addressed in the
               Endangered, Threatened, Candidate,  and
               Sensitive Species section.
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-130
Chapter 3 - Affected Envitoitment
June
Five raptor nest sites exist within the core area.
These nest sites are known to have been
occupied by red-tailed hawk (2 nest sites), a
Cooper's hawk, a saw whet owl, and a barred
owl. All the nest  sites are considered to be
actively used by raptors.  Forest Plan standards
and guidelines for nest site protection require a
primary protection zone extending up to 500
feet from the nest site (an area of approximately
18 acres) and a secondary restricted activity
zone extending up to one-quarter of a mile from
the nest (an area of approximately 126  acres).
The primary and secondary zones for each of
the 5 nest sites all lie  entirely within the core
area.

Golden  Eagle. The golden eagle is common in
western North America, typically associated
with habitats that provide cliffs or large trees
for  nesting and open areas for hunting (National
Geographic Society, 1987).  The home  range
size of golden eagles varies depending upon
prey and nest site availability. Golden eagles
are opportunistic foragers, feeding on small
mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and carrion (Bent,
1937; Collopy,  1983). Yellow-bellied marmots
are a favored mammalian prey in the Okanogan
Valley (Cannings et al., 1987). Golden  eagles
typically return  to the same nesting territories in
successive years, but may have more than 1
nest site within a  territory (Rodrick and  Milner,
1991).  In the Okanogan  Valley, eagles that
nest in alpine habitats are believed to overwinter
at lower elevations (Cannings et al.,  1987).

Major causes of golden eagle mortality  include
non-target poisoning,  accidental capture in traps
set for predators or furbearers, electrocution,
shooting, and collisions (Bortolotti, 1984;
Phillips, 1986). Golden eagles seem to tolerate
regular  (predictable) activity, such as that
associated with highways and ranches.  Erratic
human  disturbance, such as road  building and
recreational  use, is believed to be a major cause
of nest failure (Rodrick and Milner, 1991).
Despite these dangers, golden eagle populations
appear to be relatively stable throughout most
of their range (Phillips, 1986), including the
Okanogan Valley  (Cannings et al., 1987).

According to the  WADFW, non game database,
there are 2 golden eagle nesting territories
within the core area.  One is located east of
chesaw with 2 known nests and the second is
located in Beaver Canyon with at least  1 tree
nest and 3 cliff nests. There may be other
                    territories in the analysis area (WADFW,
                    1994b).  About 2,765 acres of golden eagle
                    foraging  habitat, represented by the grassland
                    and shrub cover types, exists within the core
                    area,  Figure 3.13.3,  Cover Type Map. No other
                    potential nesting habitat has been documented
                    within the analysis area.  Potential foraging
                    habitat within the analysis area is represented
                    by  18,677 acres of the grassland/shrub and
                    agriculture land types, Figure 3.13.2,  Land Type
                    Map.   Between August and October 1994,
                    numerous golden eagle sightings were reported
                    in the Cedar Creek, Ethel Creek, and North Fork
                    Beaver Creek drainages within the analysis area
                    (WADFW, 1994).

                    Barred Owl.  The barred owl is a year-round
                    resident  of the  eastern United  States,
                    southeastern and central Canada, and
                    southeastern Alaska to northeastern California
                    (Terres,  1980;  Johnsgard, 1988).  Barred owls
                    use a variety of forest types,  but are most
                    closely associated with mature deciduous or
                    mixed deciduous/coniferous forests (Allen,
                    1987). Barred owls typically nest in interior
                    portions  of extensive mature forests, requiring
                    some large trees which provide suitable cavities
                    for nesting, but often use abandoned  hawk or
                    crow nests (Allen, 1987; Johnsgard,  1988).
                    The same nest site may be used from year to
                    year  if it remains intact (Johnsgard, 1988).  The
                    barred owl is primarily nocturnal although owls
                    with  young may hunt during the day (Terres,
                    1980; Johnsgard, 1988). Small mammals are
                    the primary component of the barred owl's diet,
                    but the species is opportunistic and also preys
                    on  birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, and insects
                    (Allen, 1987; Johnsgard, 1988).  Suitable
                    foraging areas provide cover, lack dense
                    understories, and have an abundance  of dead
                    trees and downed logs (Johnsgard, 1988).

                    Barred owls were heard during A.G. Crook's
                    winter wildlife survey (1992) and TWHIP
                    surveys  conducted by Beak personnel. An
                    active nest site was located during wildlife
                    surveys  conducted by the Forest  Service for the
                    Nicholson Timber Sale. Barred owls were
                    detected on 2 occasions during the 1994 field
                    season (Oakerman, 1994). Suitable nesting
                    habitat for barred owls in the core area totals
                     1,1 90 acres of mixed conifer mature and
                    deciduous forest stands with greater than 60%
                    canopy closure, Figure 3.133, Cover Type
                     Map. These stands contain an average of 0.5
                    snags per acre that are greater than 20 inches
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
                                     CROWN JEWEL MINE
                                  Page 3-131
dbh. Allen (1987) estimated that 2 snags (>
20" dbh) per acre meet nesting requirements for
barred owls. Approximately 27,465 acres of
coniferous forest landtype within the analysis
area could provide areas for nesting; 25,824
acres of the open coniferous forest landtype
may provide additional areas for foraging, Figure
3.13.2, Land Type Map.

Great Gray Owl.  The great  gray owl is a year-
round resident of the northern forests in Canada
and Alaska south to the northern United States
and mountains of the west (Johnsgard,  1988;
Bull et al., 1988). The  great gray owl nests in
mature, over-mature, and old-growth forest
stands, but may  use young  stands with remnant
large overstory trees (Bryan and Forsman,
1987; Bull et al., 1988). It  nests in abandoned
nests of goshawk and red-tail hawks, large
cavities, or broken-topped dead trees (Bryan and
Forsman, 1987;  Bull and Henjum,  1990).  Great
gray owls usually forage in open forest stands,
use meadow or forest edges, and avoid large
clearings having  no cover (Bull and Henjum,
1990). They feed primarily on voles and pocket
gophers but are opportunistic  and  will prey upon
other small mammals (Bull et al., 1989;  Bull and
Henjum, 1990).  During winter great gray owls
relocate to avoid areas  of deep snow which
reduce the availability of prey (Bull et al., 1989;
Bull and Henjum, 1990).

Great gray owls have been observed in the core
area by Beak personnel and WADFW (Friesz,
1994b).  Suitable nesting habitat for great gray
owls in the core  area totals  1,1 90 acres of
mixed conifer mature cover type with greater
than 60% canopy closure,  however no nests
are known to occur.  Suitable foraging habitat,
represented by mixed conifer pole  and mixed
conifer mature cover types with canopy closure
between 11 %  and 59%, totals 3,856 acres in
the core area.  Within the analysis area,
approximately  27,465 acres of the coniferous
land type may  provide suitable areas for nesting
and the open coniferous land type provides
25,824 acres of  suitable foraging habitat, Figure
3.13.2, Land Type Map.

Boreal Owl. Boreal owls are found in northern
forests throughout the northern hemisphere
(Hayward and  Verner, 1994).  In northeastern
Washington, they typically inhabit dense mature
to  old growth Englemann spruce and subalpine
fir  forests at high elevations.  Boreal owls are
thought to breed at higher elevations in the
Okanogan Valley (Cannings et al., 1987) and
are permanent residents in suitable habitat
above 4,500 feet throughout northeastern
Washington (O'Connell, 1987).  Home ranges of
boreal owls are large (exceeding 2,900 acres),
and typically include several core areas of high
use separated by unused forest.  Home ranges
overlap extensively, with defense typically
limited to the immediate area around a nest
(Hayward et al., 1987; Hayward et al., 1992;
and, Hayward and Verner, 1994). The diet of
the boreal owl consists of small mammals,
birds, and insects.  Boreal owls are cavity
nesters, often using abandoned pileated
woodpecker or  other large woodpecker cavities
(Terres,  1980) in large dead or dying conifers or
large aspen within mature spruce forests (Forest
Service, 1989d). A nest is typically used for
only 1 season (Hayward et al., 1992).
Individual boreal owls roost at many different
sites, usually in coniferous trees, distributed
widely throughout their home range (Hayward
and Verner, 1994).

Boreal owls are known to occur within the core
area (A.G. Crook, 1992),  and suitable habitat
(above 4,500 feet with mature and old growth
spruce/subalpine fir or Englemann spruce) is
present at a site southwest of Roosevelt Mine
and on the east side of Buckhorn Mountain
(A.G. Crook, 1992).  Approximately 148 acres
of suitable habitat exists within the core area.
Suitable habitat totals 4,068 acres in the
analysis area.

3.13.6  Endangered, Threatened, Candidate,
        and Sensitive Species

This section describes existing conditions for 19
endangered, threatened, candidate, and
sensitive wildlife species,  Table 3.13.2, Wildlife
Species List, that may be affected by  the
proposed Crown Jewel Project.  Endangered
and threatened  species are those species
federally listed by the USFWS under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
Candidate species are those species that the
USFWS believe may be proposed and listed as
endangered or threatened in the future. Three
categories of candidate species are recognized:
Category 1 species are those species  for which
the USFWS has sufficient biological information
to support a proposal to list the species as
endangered or threatened; Category 2 species
are those species for which existing information
indicates that a listing may be warranted, but
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-132
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June
for which conclusive data on biological
vulnerability and threat(s) are lacking to support
the listing; and Category 3 species are those
that have proven to be more abundant or
widespread than was previously believed and/or
those that are not subject to any identifiable
threat.  Sensitive species are those species
found on the Forest Service  Regional Forester's
Sensitive Species List (FSM 2670, Interim
Directive No. 90-1, revised March 1989 for
sensitive animals). Sensitive species include
federally listed species, federal candidate
species, and other species not listed  by the
USFWS that the Forest Service considers
susceptible to disturbance or threat.

Thirteen of the 19 species described  in this
section  were selected for consideration based
on their status as Forest Service sensitive
species. As requested by the Forest Service, 6
additional USFWS candidate species, including
the Townsend's big-eared bat, are also included.

California Bighorn Sheep

The California bighorn sheep occurs as
scattered groups along the eastern slopes of the
Cascade Mountains in British Columbia,
Washington,  and Oregon (Rodrick and Milner,
1991).  Its historic range was once more
widespread across northeastern Washington,
with distribution along the Okanogan and
Columbia River Valleys (Wishart, 1978).
Bighorn sheep inhabit remote areas where
human  disturbance is limited (Lawson and
Johnson, 1982). They forage in open grass and
shrublands and generally avoid  areas of dense,
tall vegetation that restricts  visibility  (Van Dyke
et al., 1983;  Wakelyn, 1987).  Precipitous rocky
slopes,  ridges,  and cliffs or rugged canyons are
important for cover,  escape, and lambing (Van
Dyke et al.,  1983; Wakelyn, 1987; Rodrick and
Milner,  1991).

No suitable habitat for the California  bighorn
sheep exists  in either the core or analysis areas.
The few cliffs that occur within the analysis
area are not extensive enough to provide escape
terrain (King, 1994).  California bighorn sheep
are found locally on  Mount Hull  (20 miles west
of the analysis area) and on  Vulcan Mountain (8
mile east of the analysis area).
                     Grizzly Boar

                     The grizzly bear is a generally solitary, wide-
                     ranging species that presently occurs in the
                     Selkirk Range 75 miles to the east, in the North
                     Cascades 50 miles to the west (verified grizzly
                     tracks were documented in 1989 and 1990
                     [Almack et al., 1991]), in the Monashee
                     Mountains 40 miles to the north-northeast, and
                     in the Cathedral Park - Ashnola River Region 50
                     miles to the northwest.  Essential features
                     contributing to the overall quality of grizzly bear
                     habitat are space, isolation, sanitation (i.e., the
                     control of artificial food from human activities),
                     denning, safety, and most importantly, a variety
                     of seasonal foods and mosaic of vegetation
                     types and  habitat conditions (Craighead et al.,
                     1982, Almack et al. 1993).  If 1 item is missing
                     or severely depleted, the ability of the entire
                     ecosystem to sustain a grizzly bear population
                     rapidly diminishes.

                     The grizzly bear's diet consists of both plants
                     and animals and, depending on season and
                     region, may include carrion, deer, elk, moose,
                     fish, rodents, insects, roots, bulbs, fungi,
                     berries, nuts, grasses and sedges.  Optimal
                     habitat conditions for grizzlies are found in
                     forests that are interspersed with moist
                     meadows and grasslands (Lowe et al., 1990).
                     Grizzly bears are found in a variety of habitats
                     and generally occupy very large home ranges
                     depending on region, season, gender, and age.
                     Winter dens are excavated chambers, often
                     supported by tree roots or rock outcrops, or
                     natural caves at high elevations (above  5,800
                     feet) on slopes with deep snow accumulations
                     (Almack et al., 1993).  Isolation of den sites
                     from humans and other animals is considered
                     the most essential denning  criterion (Craighead
                     et al., 1982). The availability of human-
                     produced artificial food sources is detrimental to
                     grizzly bears. Human-caused mortality and
                     competitive use of habitat are a potential threat
                     to the grizzly bear, and are considered a major
                     cause of historical  declines in grizzly populations
                     (Craighead and Mitchell, 1982).

                     The core and analysis areas occur at the
                     northern end of the Okanogan Highlands  (an
                     area of approximately 4,000 square miles).
                     Approximately 69,017 acres (95%) of the
                     analysis area (including the core area) is
                     potential grizzly bear habitat, representing the
                     grassland/shrub, open coniferous/deciduous,
                     and coniferous land types, Figure 3.13.2, Land
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-133
Type Map.  About 10,400 acres (95%) of the
core area is potential habitat, including the
grassland, shrub,  early successional conifer,
mixed conifer pole, mixed conifer mature,
riparian/wetland, and deciduous cover types,
Figure 3.13.3, Cover Type Map.  Based on
known home ranges (Almack, 1986; Blanchard
and Knight, 1991), and considering space only,
the Okanogan Highlands and the analysis area
could support grizzly bear.

Grizzlies have not been permanent residents of
the Okanogan Highlands for many years.  The
nearest permanent population, and most likely
source of any grizzly bear immigration, is 40
miles north-northeast in the Monashee
Mountains of British Columbia. Movement of a
grizzly  bear from the Monashee Mountains to
the Okanogan Highlands would entail crossing
the Kettle River Valley and British Columbia
Provincial Highway 3. The Kettle River Valley
from Midway to Rock Creek, British Columbia is
1 to 2 miles wide, and densely occupied  by
continuous farms, houses, and towns (i.e.,
Midway, Kettle Valley, and Rock Creek).  A
grizzly  bear would probably encounter humans,
but records of bear-human encounters  are rare
(Peatt,  1992), so  known movements of grizzly
bears into the Kettle River  Valley are likely rare.
Given the inverse relation between human
presence and grizzly bear,  it is possible, but not
likely that grizzlies would cross the Kettle River
Valley and move south to the analysis area. If a
grizzly  bear did cross this valley, the Jackson
Creek Roadless Area could provide isolation for
one female, but would be too small for a male
(based on home range studies cited above).

The summit of Buckhorn Mountain, the highest
point within 12 miles, is 5,602 feet.  The tallest
peaks in the northern Okanogan Highlands are
approximately 7,000 feet,  with most, however,
being 6,000 feet or below.  The core and
analysis areas, and northern Okanogan
Highlands, do not provide deep soils necessary
for digging at elevations recently recorded for
den sites in the nearest occupied ecosystems
(i.e., above 5,800 feet in the Northern  Cascades
and Selkirk Mountains) (Almack, 1 986; Almack
et al., 1993).

More than 50 species of plant foods known to
be used by  grizzly bears in the North Cascades
(Almack et al., 1993), Selkirk Mountains
(Almack, 1986), and in other occupied grizzly
              ecosystems (Almack et al., 1993) also occur in
              the analysis area.

              No records of grizzly bear are known for the
              core or analysis areas.  Tonasket Ranger District
              files indicate that a grizzly bear track was
              reported in the Fourth of July Ridge area in
              1993, approximately 14 miles south-southwest
              of Buckhorn Mountain.  Older District records
              indicate that a grizzly bear was seen in  1962 in
              Long Alec Creek, approximately 24 miles east
              of the core area, and in  1952 at Palmer Lake,
              28 miles west of the core area. The WADFW
              Nongame Data System (WADFW, 1994)
              contains a number of records for grizzly bear for
              Okanogan and Ferry  Counties from 1989 to the
              present.  All of these sightings are more than
              30 miles from the analysis area.  The British
              Columbia Ministry of Environment (Peatt, 1992)
              has no records of grizzly bears within 12 miles
              of the Canadian-U.S. border since 1984.

              The core and analysis areas contain some of the
              necessary characteristics for suitable grizzly
              bear habitat (space, vegetation types and food);
              however, other important habitat characteristics
              are less than optimal (isolation, sanitation,
              denning, safety).  As a result, it is unlikely that
              grizzly bears occur in the core or analysis areas.

              Gray Wolf

              The gray wolf is a wide-ranging carnivore that
              was abundant across North America in  pre-
              settlement times. The current distribution of
              wolves in North America is mainly confined to
              the northern half of the continent (Paradiso and
              Nowak, 1982).  Gray wolves use a wide variety
              of habitats, from  dense forest to open tundra.
              The key components of wolf habitat are a
              sufficient year-long prey base (Carbyn,  1987;
              Frederick, 1991), suitable and somewhat
              secluded denning and rendezvous sites  (Carbyn,
              1987; Mech, 1970),  and sufficient space with
              minimal interaction with humans (Thiel, 1985).
              Wolves are opportunistic predators that feed
              primarily on deer, moose, and small  animals
              (Carbyn, 1987; Paradiso and Nowak, 1982).
              Territories range from 40 to  1,000 square miles
              (Peterson, 1986) depending on pack size and
              prey density. Dens are usually burrows
              constructed in sandy soil in well drained areas
              near water (Mech, 1970). Abandoned beaver
              lodges, hollow trees and  logs, rock caves, and
              shallow surface beds are also used for denning.
              Pups remain in semi-open areas next to swamps
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-134
Chapter 3 - Affected Environ:-
or beaver ponds, near forest cover, and away
from human activity while the adults hunt
(Frederick,  1991).  Human disturbance and
accessibility to wolf habitats (primarily through
open roads) are the main factors limiting wolf
recovery, and account for the major sources of
wolf mortality in most areas today (Frederick,
1991; Mech, 1989; Mech et al., 1988).

Although there are no known viable wolf
populations in Washington,  an increasing
number of wolf sightings have been reported
throughout the state (Laufer and Jenkins,
1989).  There have been 120 reports of wolf
sightings since 1 989 in Okanogan and Ferry
Counties (WADFW, 1994).  Several
unconfirmed wolf sightings  have been reported
on the Tonasket Ranger District, while
numerous wolf sightings have been reported on
the Twisp and Winthrop Districts of the
Okanogan National Forest and on the adjacent
Republic District of the Colville National Forest.
There are 2 Class I records  of wolves on the
west side of the Okanogan  National Forest.
One in the  Twisp River Valley (1992) confirmed
by Bill Gaines and a second one in the Methow
Valley Area (1990).  An unconfirmed sighting of
a wolf occurred within the core area just north
of Magnetic Mine in  1992 (Raforth, 1992).
A.G. Crook and Tonasket Ranger District
personnel conducted howling surveys and
monitored carcass bait stations  in 1992, but did
not elicit any responses or reveal the presence
of wolves in the core or analysis areas (A.G.
Crook, 1992). There were  3 wolf sightings
within the analysis area in 1992. Two of these
sightings are believed to be a resident's escaped
wolf-dog hybrid  (A.G. Crook, 1992).  The other
report is of a wolf-like canid which was shot
near Rock Creek, British Columbia, just north of
Forest Service lands administered by the
Tonasket Ranger District (Peatt, 1992).  The
skull of the animal was examined by Laura Friis
of the British Columbia Royal Provincial
Museum. According to Friis (1994),  the
carnassial teeth are within the range of wolf
measurements.  From the cursory examination
given the skull, she believes the animal is similar
to wolves from northern British Columbia.  Friis
believes the animal was a wolf, but the
possibility  of dog-wolf characters could not be
ruled out.  The closest confirmed sighting to the
analysis area are 2 wolves killed in British
Columbia,  1 near Princeton (75 miles northwest
of the core area) and 1 near Grand Forks (23
miles northeast of the core area) (Dyer, 1994).
                    It is possible that wolves may occur in the
                    analysis area, and may use the analysis area as
                    part of their larger home range.

                    Deer would be the main prey species of a
                    potential wolf population.  Winter deer habitat is
                    currently deficient and does not meet Forest
                    Plan Standards and Guidelines in the core area.
                    Winter wildlife surveys conducted by A.G.
                    Crook (1992) estimated approximately 10 deer
                    per square mile within the core area. During the
                    winter of  1991/1992, most deer moved from
                    the core area to lower elevation habitats when
                    snow depths reached 12 to 16 inches (A.G.
                    Crook, 1992).

                    It is not known if current deer densities in the
                    core and analysis areas could sustain a viable
                    wolf population.  However, deer, various  small
                    animals, and grouse may be sufficient to
                    support a dispersing wolf traveling through  the
                    core and analysis areas.

                    Road densities in the analysis area are currently
                    2.23  miles per square mile.  Frederick (1991)
                    reports that a road density exceeding 1 mile per
                    square mile has had adverse effects on wolves.
                    The Jackson Creek unroaded area, which
                    comprises approximately 14% of the analysis
                    area,  lies  in the eastern portion of the analysis
                    area.  It is remote and could possibly serve  as a
                    portion of a wolf population's  larger home range
                    or as a travel corridor for dispersing wolves if
                    retained in a roadless or near-roadless condition.
                    The Jackson Creek unroaded area  has been
                    allocated  as a forest management area by the
                    Okanogan National Forest and may not remain
                    unroaded in the future; if future road densities
                    exceed approximately 1 mile per square mile
                    then  its potential as wolf habitat will be
                    diminished.

                    Pacific Fisher

                    The Pacific fisher inhabits conifer and mixed
                    conifer habitats throughout Canada and
                    northern portions of the United States
                     (Strickland et al., 1982).  Preferred foraging,
                    denning,  and cover habitat is mature forest with
                    a dense canopy (Powell, 1982) and an
                    abundance of snags and downed logs (Rodrick
                     and Milner, 1991), although other habitats  may
                    also be used (Heinemeyer and Jones, 1994).
                     Coniferous ridges and riparian/wetland areas are
                     particularly important to fisher (Raine, 1981;
                     Heinemeyer and Jones, 1994).  Areas with less
                     Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-135
 than 50% canopy closure are avoided by fisher
 (Allen,  1983).  The fisher is an opportunistic
 feeder that preys primarily on snowshoe hare,
 but may also feed on small mammals, grouse,
 carrion (especially deer), berries, and nuts
 (Powell, 1982; Allen, 1983). Allen (1983)
 determined that no less than 100 square miles
 of suitable contiguous habitat is required to
 successfully sustain a population of fisher.

 The core and analysis areas are considered
 potential fisher habitat because they are located
 within the fisher's historic range (Heinemeyer
 and Jones, 1994).  Although fisher have been
 documented near the analysis area, no
 confirmed observations have been documented.
 Approximately 5,076 acres (7.9 square miles)
 of young mature, mature, and old-growth  forest
 are present within the core area as shown on
 Figure 3.13.8,  Successions! Stage Map,
 Preferred habitat of mature and old-growth
 forest with greater than 50% canopy closure
 totals 1,388 acres (2.2 square miles) in the core
 area. About 794 acres have less than 50%
 canopy closure and would probably be avoided
 by fisher.  The analysis area contains 27,465
 acres (42.9 square miles) of coniferous land
 type having a canopy cover greater than 50%,
 Figure 3.13.2, Land Type Map. These forested
 areas are fragmented and do  not provide a
 contiguous block of habitat that may be
 necessary for the fisher. However, several
 blocks of habitat are narrowly linked into a
 combined area of 20,205 acres (31.6 square
 miles).

 California Wolverine

 The California wolverine is a wide-ranging
 carnivore that inhabits remote mountainous
 areas in the western United States (Hash,
 1987).  They prefer extensive areas of
 moderately dense to scattered mature trees and
 avoid large openings created by burns  or
 clearcuts (Hornocker and Hash,  1981).  In
 Washington, wolverine habitat consists of
 Douglas-fir and mixed conifer forests (Hash,
 1987).  Forests interspersed with cliffs, talus
 slopes, marshes, and meadows  provide the
 wolverine with cover, a  diverse food source,
 and adequate den sites. Wolverine den in snow
tunnels, among boulders, in caves, and under
fallen trees (Wilson, 1982). Wolverines feed
primarily on carrion, but will also prey upon
snowshoe hare, grouse, squirrels, mice, and
voles (Hornocker and Hash, 1981, Hash  1987).
              High densities of wolverine populations have
              been correlated with large and diverse ungulate
              populations (Hornocker and Hash, 1981).
              Because of their scavenging nature, they tend
              to have large home ranges and frequently travel
              over long distances (Hornocker and  Hash,
              1981).  The historic decline of the wolverine
              has been attributed to liberal hunting, trapping
              and habitat degradation (Hash, 1987).

              No wolverines sightings are documented for the
              core area, though 2 wolverine sightings are
              reported for the analysis area (Bossier, 1992;
              Payton, 1992). Wolverines have been
              documented about 17 miles north of the
              analysis area (Pennoyer, 1994). The core and
              analysis areas could serve as a portion of a
              larger home range for wolverines.  The core
              area contains approximately 4,526 acres (7.1
              square miles) of mixed conifer mature cover
              type which could provide suitable habitat for the
              wolverine, Figure 3.13.3, Cover Type Map.  The
              analysis area contains various land types which,
              except for agriculture and disturbed  areas,
              provide potential habitat for the wolverine,
              Figure 3.13.2, Land Type Map. Road densities
              for the analysis area, which could affect
              wolverine habitat suitability, are currently at
              2.23 miles per square mile.  The Jackson Creek
              unroaded area, a 10,218 acre (16 square miles)
              remote area  in the eastern portion of the
              analysis area, could provide security, sources of
              food, and denning sites within a small portion of
              a  wolverine's home range.

              North American Lynx

              The North American lynx is a specialized
              predator that is adapted to travel in deep snow
              (Koehler and Brittell, 1990, Koehler 1990).
              Lynx inhabit northern forests of Canada and
              Alaska and isolated mountains of the
              northwestern United States (Koehler and  Brittell,
              1990).  Within Okanogan  County, lynx use
              areas above 4,000  feet dominated by lodgepole
              pine, spruce, and subalpine fir (Koehler and
              Brittell, 1990).

              Lynx require a mosaic of forest conditions for
              hunting, denning, and travel.  The average home
              range size in Washington is 24 square miles
              (Brittell et al., 1989). Dens are typically within
              hollow logs  or stumps, and beneath large logs,
              log piles, or root wads (Jackson, 1961) in
              mature  (greater than 200 years old) lodgepole
              pine and spruce/subalpine fir forests  with a high
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4  Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-136
Chapter 3 - Affected Envirorment
June 1995
density of down logs (Brittell et al., 1989;
Koehler, 1990). Lynx prey almost exclusively
on snowshoe hare, however, grouse and
squirrels may also be taken.  Snowshoe hare
abundance, which is dependent on availability
of winter habitat, is considered the major
limiting factor for the Washington lynx
population (Rodrick and Milner, 1991).

One lynx sighting is known from the core area
and 2 sightings are documented for the analysis
area (Forest Service,  1992; WADFW, 1994;
Swedberg, 1994).  Lynx occur in Canada north
of Vulcan  Mountain and in areas north of the
analysis area  (Pennoyer,  1994).  The current
range of lynx in Washington includes the Vulcan
Mountain Zone, 7 miles east  of the analysis
area.  Although this zone  is considered too
small to support a population of lynx, it is
important as a travel corridor (WADFW, 1993a).
The Forest Service has identified areas above
4,000 feet within the core area as potential lynx
habitat (Rose, 1994).  The core and  analysis
areas are at the periphery of lynx range  and are
not likely to support resident lynx. Forest
vegetation within the core area is dominated by
Douglas-fir with a small amount of lodgepole
pine present.  Approximately 55% of the core
area is potential lynx travel habitat, 4%  is
identified as potential foraging habitat and
hiding cover,  and less than 1  % is potential
denning habitat. The remaining 45% is not
suitable habitat for lynx.   In the analysis area,
lands above 4,000 feet extends north to the
Kettle River and south to  Beaver Canyon.
Coniferous and open  coniferous/deciduous land
types above 4,000 feet may  provide suitable
lynx habitat.  However, because lynx are known
to expand their home range size during  periods
of low hare abundance, the core and analysis
areas may serve as an extension of lynx
territories north and east of the analysis area.
The core and analysis areas may also serve as a
travel area for dispersing juveniles.

The lynx is a  management indicator species for
lodgepole pine forests on the Okanogan National
Forest.  It is also included on the Regional
Forester's list of sensitive species.  Forest Plan
standards and guidelines for lynx are specific to
Management Area  12, which does not occur in
the core or analysis area.  No other standards
and guidelines are applicable for assessing  lynx
habitat on Forest Service  lands.
                    Pygmy Rabbit

                    The pygmy rabbit is found in southern Idaho,
                    western Utah, northern Nevada, southeastern
                    Oregon, and eastern Washington (Ashley,
                    1992a).  Although the pygmy rabbit may still
                    occur in Grant and Lincoln counties, its known
                    present range in Washington is 5 active sites in
                    Douglas County (WADOW, 1993b). Cover
                    appears to be the critical habitat component
                    required by the pygmy rabbit (Green and
                    Flinders,  1980). Pygmy rabbits inhabit areas
                    which contain sagebrush (WADFW, 1993b),
                    and they are seldom found in areas with sparse
                    vegetation (Ashley, 1992a).  Unlike other
                    species of native rabbits, pygmy rabbits usually
                    dig their own burrows in areas where soils are
                    deep, soft, and cobble free (Ashley, 1992a).
                    Burrows are usually excavated under big
                    sagebrush plants and into  slopes (WADFW,
                    1993b).  Sagebrush is a major food item for the
                    pygmy rabbit (Green and Flinders, 1980) and
                    wheatgrass and bluegrass  are highly preferred
                    foods.

                    The analysis area is outside the historical and
                    current range of the pygmy rabbit.  No  sightings
                    of the pygmy rabbit are documented for the
                    core or analysis areas.  Extensive areas of
                    mature sagebrush which could provide suitable
                    habitat for the pygmy rabbit do not occur in
                    either the core or analysis  areas.

                    Townsend's Big-Eared Bat

                    Townsend's big-eared bats are broadly
                    distributed in western North America (Banfield,
                    1 974) and are permanent residents throughout
                    Washington (Kunz and Martin, 1982) although
                    occurrence may be restricted by the availability
                    of suitable sites for winter hibernation  and
                    nighttime roosting (Perkins, 1989).  In eastern
                    Washington availability of  suitable undisturbed
                    caves or  cave-like structures is an important
                    habitat feature  (Marshall et al., 1992;  Perkins,
                    1994).  Big-eared bats favor caves and
                    abandoned mine tunnels for hibernation,
                    nurseries, and roosting but will use buildings
                    and bridges  (Barbour and Davis, 1969; Perkins,
                    1987; Christy and West, 1993).  They do not
                    always use the same roost each night  (Maser et
                    at., 1981).  Their roosting habits make them
                    particularly vulnerable to human disturbance.
                    Disturbance during hibernation may reduce over-
                    wintering survival of big-eared bats (Barbour and
                    Davis, 1969; Perkins, [1989]).  Big-eared bats
                    Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-137
 normally hibernate from mid-October until mid-
 April (Banfield, 1974), typically in caves having
 multiple entrances which allow ventilation
 (Perkins, [19891; Perkins, 1994).  They may
 require cool conditions to maintain low
 metabolic rates and conserve fat reserves
 (Banfield, 1974). Maternity roosts are almost
 always caves although buildings and bridges are
 known to be used (Perkins, [1989]; Christy and
 West, 1993). The maternity colonies generally
 disband by August (Kunz and Martin,  1982).
 Big-eared bats exhibit a high degree of site
 fidelity and will return to the same maternal
 roost year after year (Kunz and Martin, 1982).
 The big-eared bat forages only after darkness
 (Barbour and Davis, 1969).  It is an aerial
 feeder, feeding principally on small moths along
 forest edges, roads, or forest openings (Kunz
 and Martin,  1982; Christy and West, 1993).

 Two documented occurrences of big-eared bats
 are reported in the Myer's Creek Valley (ENSR,
 1994). Other documented occurrences of big-
 eared bats are reported 30 miles west and
 within 30 to 60 miles east of the Project site
 (Perkins, [1989]).  Several adits in the analysis
 area could provide suitable habitat for big-eared
 bats.

 Spotted Frog

 The spotted frog is found from Alaska to
 northern California and eastward to Wyoming,
 Montana, and Utah (Leonard et al., 1993).
 They are widespread east of the Cascades
 Mountains in Washington (Rodrick and Milner,
 1991).  The spotted frog is highly aquatic and
 inhabits the marshy edges of ponds, lakes, and
 streams which contain dense vegetation and a
 thick underwater layer of decaying  material or
 thick algal growth (Nussbaum et al., 1983).
 Spotted frogs hibernate in muddy substrates
 near breeding areas {Rodrick and Milner. 1991).
 Spotted frogs become active February to March
 and breed as soon as the ice melts from the
 breeding sites (Licht, 1971). Females deposit
 egg masses in water only a few inches deep.
 The same communal breeding sites are typically
 used in successive years (Nussbaum et al.,
 1983).  The  larvae feed on algae, vascular
 plants, and scavenged animal material (Rodrick
 and Milner, 1991). Adults feed on  a wide
 variety of insects (Whittaker et al.,  1982).
Juveniles may move up to 2 miles, following
watercourses until a permanent source of water
is found (Hayes,  1994).
              Spotted frogs are known to occur in the core
              and analysis areas.  The spotted frog inhabits
              Nicholson and Marias Creeks (English, 1994),
              Myers Creek, ponds along Beaver Creek, and
              the Frog Pond (Friesz, 1994b).  The spotted
              frog is also likely to occur in suitable habitat
              along Toroda Creek.

              Loggerhead Shrike

              The loggerhead shrike is a neotropical migrant
              that nests from southern Canada to Mexico
              (Torres, 1980). Shrikes are typically found in
              the Okanogan Valley between May and late
              September, and may occasionally  winter in the
              area (Cannings et al., 1987).

              The loggerhead shrike prefers short-grass
              prairie, pasture, and shrub habitats for foraging
              (Thomas, 1979; Brown, 1985; Brooks and
              Temple, 1990;Tefler, 1992).  Primarily
              insectivorous, the shrike is a ground-feeding bird
              which hunts from perches such  as fences,
              posts, unobstructed branches, and power lines
              (Prescott and Collister,  1993;  Yosef and Grubb,
              1993; Brooks and Temple, 1990).  Shrub
              habitat is preferred for nesting although the
              loggerhead shrike will nest in deciduous forest
              stands (Brown,  1985).  The primary component
              of breeding habitat is dense vegetation for
              concealing nest sites (Brooks and Temple,
              1990, Gawlik and Bildstein 1990).  Loggerhead
              shrikes frequently nest near roads and collisions
              with vehicles can be a major cause of mortality
              (Gawlik and Bildstein, 1990; Tefler, 1992).

              There are no observations of loggerhead shrikes
              in the analysis area, although potential habitat  is
              present.  The core area is primarily coniferous
              forest, Figure 3.13.3, Cover Type Map. which  is
              not suitable habitat for the shrike.  However, a
              453 acre block of upland grassland cover type
              in the extreme northwest portion of the core
              area (Starrem Reservoir site), 2,324 acres of
              grassland/shrub landtype along Myers Creek,
              and a large block of grassland/shrub landtype in
              the eastern portion of the analysis area could
              provide both foraging and breeding habitat for
              the loggerhead shrike.

              Common Loon

              The common loon nests in Alaska, Canada, and
              the northern United States (Terres, 1980).
              Loons typically arrive in Okanogan County from
              mid-March to  early May and leave on fall
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-138
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June 1995
migration as early as mid-September (Cannings
et al., 1987).  Common loons inhabit and breed
on large wooded lakes which have healthy fish
populations and may visit shallow lakes which
lack fish to feed on amphibians, snails, and
aquatic insects (Terres, 1980, Cannings et al.
1987, Rodrick and Milner 1991).  Nests are
built of matted grasses, rushes, and twigs
within 4 feet of the water's edge (Terres,
1980). Islands appear to be preferred for
nesting and loons may use the same nest site
each year (Rodrick and  Milner,  1991). An adult
and a chick were reported on Beth Lake
(English,  1994), and  loons have been reported
at Beth, Beaver, and  Little Beaver Lakes
(Baumgardner, 1994; Swedberg, 1994) within
the Transportation Corridor.

Long-Billed Curlew

The long-billed curlew is an early spring migrant
arriving in Okanogan  County in late March to
April (Cannings et al., 1987).  They are often
seen in agricultural fields upon  their first arrival
during spring migration, and will stage in these
areas prior to fall migration (Melland, 1977).
Long-billed curlews prefer short grassland cover
types for nesting and avoid areas of tall,  dense
cover (Pampush, 1980).  Curlews forage
extensively on grasshoppers as well as other
insects while on the breeding grounds (Melland,
1977; Pampush, 1980; Terres, 1980).

Approximately 453 acres of upland grassland
cover type in the extreme northwest portion of
the core area (along Myers Creek) are potential
nesting habitat for the long-billed curlew.  In
this same area, 263 acres of agriculture cover
type provides potential  foraging habitat.  In the
analysis area, 2,324  acres of grassland/shrub
and 1,603 acres of agriculture  land types along
Myers Creek provide potential nesting and
foraging habitat for the long-billed curlew.
Curlews have been observed in the vicinity of
Molson, Washington, approximately 7 miles
west of the analysis area  (Friesz, 1994b).

Black Tern

The black tern  is a neotropical migrant that
breeds in temperate North America.  It arrives in
Okanogan County the latter half of May and
departs by the first week of September
(Cannings et al., 1987).  Marshes and wet
meadows with standing water and emergent
vegetation are  critical components of black tern
                    foraging and nesting habitat.  They are known
                    to fly half a mile from the nest site to feed
                    (Stern,  1993).  Black terns  feed on aquatic
                    insects, beetles, spiders, juvenile frogs, fish,
                    crayfish, and mollusks (Ehrlich et al., 1988,
                    Stern 1993).

                    The Transportation Corridor portion of the core
                    area contains 8 bodies of open water which are
                    suitable habitat for black terns.  At least 5
                    breeding pairs are  known to occur on Beaver
                    and Little Beaver Lakes (Friesz, 1994b).

                    Columbian Sharp-Tailed Grouse

                    In Eastern Washington, the Columbian sharp-
                    tailed grouse is a resident upland gamebird
                    inhabiting northern Douglas, central Lincoln, and
                    central Okanogan counties  (Ashley, 1992b).
                    Preferred nesting habitat is  grasslands of tall
                    dense grass on flat to rolling terrain with
                    patches of sagebrush-grassland, mountain
                    shrub, and riparian/wetland communities. They
                    avoid areas heavily grazed by livestock (Ashley,
                    1992b). Most habitats used throughout the
                    year occur within 2 to 3  miles of leks (mating
                    display  areas) (Ashley, 1992b). Sharp-tailed
                    grouse feed primarily on  the leaves and flowers
                    of grasses and forbs, insects, buds, twigs, and
                    fruit from waterbirch, cottonwood, aspen,
                    willows, serviceberry, snowberry, and common
                    chokecherry (Klott and Lindzey, 1990, Ashley et
                    al.  1990, Ashley 1992b). Preferred wintering
                    habitat is undisturbed riparian/wetland areas,
                    usually  within 1 mile of leks (Ashley, 1992b).
                    They roost in snow burrows,  trees, and tall
                    shrubs (Marks and Marks, 1988; Ashley,
                    1992b).

                    Sharp-tailed grouse are not documented in the
                    analysis area, though they may have  historically
                    occurred there (Shroeder, 1994).  Occupied
                    habitat occurs 1/2 mile wesl of Myers Creek
                    (Shroeder, 1994).  Approximately 191 acres of
                    riparian/wetland and 1,871  acres of the
                    grassland/shrub land types  are present along
                    Myers Creek within the analysis area, Figure
                    3.13.2, Land Type Map.  This area is within  1.5
                    miles of known leks and  could provide potential
                    habitat for local populations of sharp-tailed
                    grouse.

                    Northern Bald Eagle

                    The northern bald  eagle is found throughout the
                    Pacific Northwest in close association with
                    Crown Jewel Mine +  Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-139
freshwater, estuarine, and marine ecosystems
(Watson et al., 1991).  In Washington, breeding
territories are located in mature, coniferous
forests near water.  Bald eagle wintering habitat
consists of day perches in tall trees close to a
food source (primarily fish and waterfowl) and
night roosts in forests that provide protection
from weather and human disturbance (Rodrick
and Milner, 1991).  Bald eagles are
opportunistic scavengers and predators, feeding
on a variety of prey items including fish,  small
mammals, waterfowl, seabirds, and carrion
(Snow,  1981b; Rodrick and Milner, 1991).
Human interference has been shown to
adversely affect bald eagles (Stalmaster and
Newman, 1978).  The historic decline of the
bald eagle has been attributed to the loss of
feeding  and nesting habitat, shooting,
organochloride pesticide residues, poisoning,
and electrocution  (Snow,  1981b; USFWS,
1986).  The USFWS's Pacific States Bald Eagle
Recovery Plan identifies the Kettle River, which
forms the northeastern boundary of the analysis
area (approximately 7 to 10 miles north and
northeast of the Project area) as a key bald
eagle recovery area.

There are no documented sightings of bald
eagles in the core area. A bald eagle was
observed in the Nicholson Creek drainage in
1990, about 0.9 mile east of the core area
(Forest Service, 1990b).  Bald eagles may
opportunistically feed on carrion throughout the
analysis area.  Suitable nesting, foraging,
roosting, and winter habitat occurs along the
Kettle River and Toroda Creek. Use of these
areas by wintering bald eagles occurs from
October to April and seems to be increasing
(Zender, 1994; USFWS, 1986; Swedberg,
1994).  There are no known bald eagle nesting
sites along the Kettle River in the analysis area
(WADFW,  1994).  No major eagle migration
routes have been identified along the Kettle
River (Zender, 1994).

Northern Goshawk

The northern goshawk breeds in dense mature
or old-growth mixed coniferous forests in
Canada and the northern and western United
States and is generally a year-round resident
(Terres,  1980). Goshawks generally arrive at
their nesting territories in mid- to late- March
(Cannings et al., 1987). They often use the
same nest for several years or alternate
between 2 or more nests within the same
              territory, which generally encompasses 20 to 25
              acres (Reynolds, 1983).  Habitat use by adults
              and fledglings is concentrated within a 300 to
              600 acre post-fledgling family area (Reynolds et
              al., 1992) which provides prey as well as
              protection from predators and weather. This
              area is used for approximately 2 months before
              the juveniles disperse (Reynolds et al., 1992).
              Goshawks typically hunt  in dense woodlands,
              clearings, and open fields, preying on a variety
              of birds and mammals (Jones, 1979, Reynolds
              and Meslow 1984, Bull and Hohmann  1993).

              Six confirmed goshawk sightings are reported
              for the core area, however no active goshawk
              nests are known. Approximately 614 acres of
              suitable goshawk nesting habitat were identified
              in the core  area. Another 2,509 acres were
              identified as potential post-fledgling family area
              habitat. Suitable foraging habitat totals
              approximately 4,526 acres  within the core
              area.  Five goshawk sightings have been
              reported for the analysis area outside the core
              area, including 3 goshawk nest sites (A.G.
              Crook, 1993f; Forest Service, 1991; Forest
              Service, 1992; English, 1994).  About 2,030
              acres of potential goshawk nesting habitat
              represented by the old growth successional
              stage is present within the analysis area.
              Approximately 27,465 acres of the analysis
              area (inclusive of the core area) could provide
              potential post-fledgling family-area and foraging
              habitat for goshawk.

              Ferruginous Hawk

              The ferruginous hawk inhabits shrub-steppe and
              grassland habitats within  the semi-arid plains
              region of the United States and the southern-
              most portion of the Canadian prairie provinces
              (Snow,  1981 a).  In Washington, the ferruginous
              hawk historically occurred in the southeast
              portion of the state (Bent, 1937; Jewett et al.,
              1953).  Ferruginous hawks nest in scattered,
              isolated trees, on cliffs and rock outcrops, or on
              the ground  (Snow, 1981 a; Woffinden and
              Murphy, 1983).  Ferruginous hawks are
              sensitive to human activity and even slight
              disturbances may cause them to abandon nests
              (White and  Thurow, 1985).   Undisturbed areas
              are an important habitat component as they
              hunt open areas and pastures (Wakeley, 1978;
              Schmutz, 1 987;  Schmutz, 1989; Woffinden,
              1989; Bechard et al., 1990). Ferruginous
              hawks primarily prey upon rabbits, hares, and
              rodents (Evans, 1982).
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-140
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June J99S
No sightings of the ferruginous hawk are
documented for the core or analysis areas.
Although it is likely they occasionally visit the
Okanogan Valley (approximately  16 miles west
of the analysis area), there are no reports of
breeding (Cannings et al., 1987). There is no
suitable or potential habitat for ferruginous
hawks within the core and analysis areas.

American Peregrine Falcon

The American peregrine falcon historically
occurred throughout North America, and
currently breeds in western Washington (Allen,
1992).  Peregrine falcons generally nest on
sheer cliff faces (Ehrlich et al., 1988) and feed
primarily on birds (Ehrlich et al.,  1988,  Sharp
1992,  Henny and Nelson 1981).   Small
mammals, insects, and fish are occasionally
taken (Sharp, 1992;  Pacific Coast American
Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team, 1982).  Some
adults  may remain near the nest  site year-round
while others may range  widely.  In Washington,
intertidal mudflats, estuaries, and agricultural
river basins are important winter habitats
(Pacific Coast American Peregrine Falcon
Recovery Team, 1982; Allen, 1992).

The historic decline of the peregrine falcon is
attributed to eggshell thinning, induced by
organochlorine  pesticides, resulting in
widespread reproductive failure (Aulman, 1992;
Pacific Coast American Peregrine Falcon
Recovery Team, 1982). Other reasons for
decline include  the loss and degradation of
nesting and foraging habitats, other pollutants,
shooting, and collisions.  Peregrines are most
susceptible to disturbance during courtship and
nesting activities (Pacific Coast American
Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team, 1982).  Land
management activities, low-flying planes, and
recreational disturbance (e.g., rock climbing,
hikers, photographers) may induce desertion of
the nest site or nest failure.

Currently, 16 breeding pairs of peregrine falcons
are known in Washington (Sharp, 1992).
Peregrine falcons are not known to occur in  or
near the core or analysis areas, although, it is
possible that an occasional peregrine falcon
could pass through the area during migration.
There  are no documented sightings of
peregrines or known peregrine eyries or foraging
areas in the core area (Swedberg, 1994);
however, there are 2 cliff sites that have
medium potential for peregrine falcon
                     occupancy just south of Beaver Creek (Pagel,
                     1992; WADFW, 1994)  and near Beth Lake
                     (Pagel, 1992).  There are no documented
                     sightings of peregrines or known peregrine
                     eyries or foraging areas in the analysis area.
                     There are, however, 3 unique cliff  habitats that
                     may be potential peregrine habitat, located just
                     north of Beaver Creek, on Porphyry Peak and
                     east of Chesaw (WADFW, 1994).  The analysis
                     area is included within a portion of a
                     management unit which has been  identified by
                     the Pacific Coast American Peregrine Falcon
                     Recovery Team (1982)  for occupancy by at
                     least 1 breeding pair.

                     Northern Spotted Owl

                     The northern spotted owl is resident in western
                     and central Washington. The northern spotted
                     owl is typically found in mature forests,
                     however, they may sometimes occur in younger
                     forests that contain remnant large  trees or
                     patches of large trees from earlier  stands. In
                     northern Washington, spotted owls eat a wide
                     variety of prey but primarily small  mammals,
                     including the northern flying squirrel, bushy-
                     tailed  woodrat, northern pocket gopher, deer
                     mouse, hare, and rabbit.

                     The core and analysis areas are 50 miles east of
                     the known range of the northern spotted owl.
                     Dispersal of spotted owls to the analysis area is
                     possible but unlikely due to the presence of a
                     large expanse of non-forest habitat between the
                     designated range and the analysis  area.

                     3.13.7  HEP Analysis

                     The Habitat Evaluation  Procedure  (HEP) was  a
                     method used to evaluate the impact on wildlife
                     and their habitats from  mine exploration and  the
                     6 proposed mining  operation alternatives (B
                     through G) (WADFW 1995).  HEP is an
                     accounting procedure, developed by the U.S.
                     Fish and Wildlife Service, that measures
                     changes in wildlife  habitat quality  and quantity
                     over time - expressed as changes  in Habitat
                     Units.  The HEP compares the analysis of each
                     'With Mining Project' alternative to the 'Without
                     Project' analysis. The Without Project analysis
                     included expected management of the area had
                     the Project (including mine exploration) not
                     occurred.  The With Project/Without Mitigation
                     analysis contained exploration, proposed mining
                     and reclamation activities.
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-141
 Eleven wildlife species/groups were selected to
 represent and evaluate habitats associated with
 the Crown Jewel Project including the
 following: veery, shrub-steppe nesting birds,
 vesper sparrow, spotted frog, black tern, fisher,
 pileated  woodpecker, sharp-shinned hawk, mule
 deer winter range, and deer summer range.
 Each evaluation species is dependent on key
 habitat components which provide resources
 and environmental conditions supporting the
 animal's survival.  These components were
 identified by the HEP Team and then measured
 in the field by representatively sampling
 vegetation cover classes within the 24,000 acre
 study area around Buckhorn  Mountain. The field
 measurements are then incorporated into
 models that provide a measure of the quality of
 the habitat (Habitat Suitability Index - HSI),

 The HEP combines  measures of the quality (HSI)
 and quantity (acres) of available habitat for each
 evaluation species into a single value, termed a
 Habitat Unit.  Habitat Units are a measure of an
 area's inherent ability to support wildlife.  If
 either  the amount of habitat or the quality of
 habitat changes, then the ability of that area to
 support wildlife will change.

 Habitat Unit production could be measured for
 each year and summed for the entire study
 period (60 years) to determine total production
 of wildlife habitat for an evaluation species.
 This monumental task is shortened by
 measuring habitat quality at times when
 substantial habitat changes may occur (target
 years) and then averaging the production
 between target years. These estimates of
 habitat production between target years are
 then totaled. The 5  target years selected by the
 HEP Team for this study are:  1) pre-Project, 2)
 initiation  of exploration, 3) initiation of mining,
 4) completion of mining and milling and 5) end
 of the  60 year evaluation time period.

Total production of  habitat units can be
averaged over the study time period to produce
Average annual habitat units. Average annual
habitat units are a measure of the average
annual productivity of wildlife habitat for an
area.  Habitat units and average annual habitat
units can not be added or subtracted between
different species. Each species was chosen to
represent separate wildlife habitat attributes.
               HEP Analysis

               HEP has evaluated the changes in habitat unit
               value over the 60 year period of analysis.
               However, the following section describes the
               quality of the affected wildlife environment
               before exploration occurred.

               Habitat quality for each evaluation species is
               expressed as a HSI which ranges from 0.0 to
               1.0, with 1.0 representing perceived optimum
               conditions. To facilitate the analysis, the
               diversity of habitats  analyzed for the Crown
               Jewel Project has been grouped into 4 habitat
               types:

               •       wetland/deciduous  riparian habitats;
               •       open herbaceous/shrubland habitats;
               •       coniferous  forest habitats; and,
               •       multi-cover type habitats.

               Wetland/Deciduous Riparian Habitats

               Less than 9% of the study area K_ 1,000
               acres) is wetland/deciduous riparian habitat.
               Wetland/deciduous riparian habitats provide
               medium to high  quality habitat for wildlife
               species used specifically to evaluate these
               habitats (spotted frog: HSI = 0.49, wetland
               veery: HSI = 0.51; non-wetland veery: HSI  =
               0.67; black tern: HSI = 0.74). Water
               fluctuations during the breeding season and  lack
               of herbaceous vegetation cover were the 2
               most limiting characteristics of these habitats.

              Open Herbaceous/Shrubland Habitats

              About 30% of the study area (7,000 acres) is
              comprised  of open upland herbaceous/shrub
              dominated habitats.  Herbaceous habitats
              provide high quality habitat for wildlife  species
              specifically used to evaluate these habitats
              (vesper sparrow: HSI = 0.95). These habitats
              provide medium  habitat quality for shrubland
              evaluation wildlife species (shrub steppe
              breeding  birds: HSI = 0.46).  Low shrub cover
              was observed to be the most limiting
              characteristic of  these habitats.

              Coniferous Forest Habitat

              Coniferous forests from the pole to old  growth
              successional stages currently comprise
              approximately 67% of the study area (16,200
              acres). Coniferous forests provide medium to
              high quality habitat for wildlife species used to
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4  Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-142
                      Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
                                  June 1995
evaluate these habitats.  Evaluation species that
utilize younger successional stage forests had
more habitat and higher quality habitat (1 5,600
-  16,200 acres; fisher: HSI = 0.69; pileated
woodpecker: HSI = 0.76; and sharp-shinned
hawk: HSI =  0.75), than species that were
used to only evaluate the more mature
evergreen coniferous forests (5,300 acres; mule
deer winter range: HSI = 0.45).

The small size (< 10" dbh) of the youngest
successional stages of coniferous forest and the
overall lack of understory layering were the
most limiting factors to coniferous forest
evaluation species.   The  nearly complete
absence of large snags and trees within
silviculturally treated forest stands were the
most limiting factors to the snag evaluation
species (pileated woodpecker).  The quality of
mule deer winter range within the study area
was limited by low  amounts of palatable forage
found in the understory and human harassment
as measured by high road densities (2.7 - 3.0
miles of road/sq. mile).

Multi-Cover Type Habitat

The summer mule deer habitat model was used
to evaluate the multi-cover type habitat
characteristics of the study area. The proximity
of cover types that provide forage, cover and
water influences the quality of deer summer
habitat.   Most of the study area is considered
deer summer range  (23,297 acres). The study
area produces medium quality mule deer
summer range (HSI  = 0.44). The quality of
palatable forage and human disturbances as
measured by road densities were observed to be
the most limiting habitat characteristic of the
study area (3.4 miles of  road/sq. mile).
3.14
NOISE
3.14.1   Introduction

Noise can be defined as unwanted, disturbing
sound.  The impact of a noise source depends
on the levels and characteristics of the
background sound, as well as the
characteristics of the source.  Sound is
transmitted through the atmosphere as low-
intensity pressure waves.  People can detect
and respond to a wide range of sound
intensities and frequencies. The logarithmic
decibel scale (dB)  is used to indicate the
intensity of sound. To measure sound on a
scale that approximates the way people hear,
more emphasis must be placed on those sound
frequencies (or pitch) that people hear best.
The EPA recommends the use of the "A-
weighed" sound pressure levels, expressed as
A-weighted decibels or dBA, for analyzing
community noise issues.  Figure 3.14.1,
Typical Range of Common Sounds,  shows the
range of dBA sound intensities that are
produced by various noise sources.  The
threshold of human hearing is  0 dBA.  Quiet
whispers and bird calls produce about 25 to 35
dBA.  Chain saws can produce over 110 dBA.

Because decibels are a logarithmic scale, a
doubling of the sound pressure corresponds to a
noise increase of 3 dBA.  For example, a single
bulldozer typically produces about 85 dBA of
noise at a distance of 50 feet from the
bulldozer. Therefore, 2 identical bulldozers
operating side by side (with each bulldozer
producing 85 dBA) produce a theoretical noise
level of 88 dBA.

There are many factors that determine whether
an increase in the noise level above the existing
background is "audible".  The  most important
factor is the nature of the new noise source as
compared to the nature of the background
noise.  In the case of the proposed  Crown
Jewel Project, the noise caused by  the mining
equipment will be different from the rural
background sounds.  During the background
noise measurements described in Section
3.14.2, the noise  from exploratory  equipment
operating at the site was noticeable by
monitoring stations instruments even when the
equipment caused noise increases as low as 2
dBA.  Based on those observations, it is
assumed that the  proposed mining activities will
probably be audible to monitoring instruments if
they are loud enough to cause an increase of as
little as 1 dBA above background.

3.14.2  Baseline Noise Levels

Three rounds of baseline noise monitoring were
performed in  the vicinity of the proposed mine:

•        A summertime round from August 14
         to 17, 1992;
•        A second summertime round from
         June 19 to 24, 1993; and,
•        A wintertime round from January 10
         to 11, 1994.
                    Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
FILENAME
\
CJ


C
s
D
H
IV
H
S
P
T
F
A
A
H
F
V
A
C
V
R



HAIN SAW (1)
NOWMOBILE (INCLUDING WIN
IESEL LOCOMOTIVE AT 50 F
EAVY TRUCK AT 50 FT. (2)
OTORCYCLE (1)
ELICOPTER AT 50 FT. ELEV>
UBWAY (INCLUDING SCREEC
LEASURE MOTORBOAT (1)
RAIN PASSENGER (1)
OOD DISPOSER (3)
UTOMOBILE AT 50 FT, (2) .
UTOMOBILE PASSENGER (1)
OME SHOP TOOLS (3)
OOD BLENDER (31 	
ACUUM CLEANER (3) 	
IR CONDITIONER (WINDOW U
LOTHES DRYER (3)
i/ASHING MACHINE (3)
EFRIGERATOR (3)

(1) OPERATOR/PASSENGER
(21 OUTDOORS
13) IN HOME




4
D EFFECTS (1) 	
T. (2)


<\TION (2)
H NOISE) (1)








NITS) (3) 	



4
0 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120



























































































































0 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
MAXIMUM A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL IN dB



\
/

FIGURE 3.14.1, TYPICAL RANGE OF COMMON SOUNDS
3-14-1DWG
to
in
1
CO

-------
Page 3-144
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June 1995
The first round of summertime measurements
were repeated in 1993, because the daytime
noise levels at some of the monitoring locations
were affected by noise-making insects, which
appeared to be similar to locusts.  The
wintertime round was performed in response to
public requests.  The baseline monitoring
programs were developed  to address 2
objectives: first, to measure the daytime and
nighttime noise levels at representative locations
around the proposed Project site;  and second,
to assess the impacts of temperature inversions
on sound propagation from the mine site to
surrounding areas.

The measured sound levels at each of the
monitoring locations are summarized in Table
3.14.1, Measured Background Noise Levels.
During all 3 of the survey periods, data-logging
electronic noise monitors (Larson Davis Model
820) were  used. Noise monitoring was done at
5 locations: Chesaw townsite; near the Bolster
area; along Toroda Creek Road near Nicholson
Creek Road; the Pine Chee area south of
Chesaw; and  at the undeveloped South Corral
area along the southern boundary  of the Project.
The locations of the noise  monitoring stations
are illustrated on Figure 3.14.2, Noise
Monitoring Station Locations, and Figure
3.14.3, Noise Source Locations and Baseline
Monitoring Locations.  The measured data
shown in Table 3.14.1, Measured Background
Noise Levels,  are expressed as the ranges of
daytime and nighttime sound levels, and as the
statistical "L-n sound level", which is the noise
level that was exceeded "n" percent of the
monitoring period.  The table indicates which of
the August 1992 readings  were affected by
insect noise.

The wintertime noise levels were considerably
quieter than were the summertime levels.  For
example, the  nighttime average L-eq (1 hour
equivalent sound level) at Bolster was 36.8 dBA
in the summertime,  as compared to 30.6 dBA in
the wintertime. Similar results were found at
the other monitoring stations.

3.14.3   Temperature Inversion Study

Temperature inversions at  the site could
enhance sound propagation, and thereby
increase noise impacts in the surrounding
vicinity.  The  on-site meteorological station
operated by the Proponent indicated that
temperature inversions occurred during the
                    evening to early morning hours on each day of
                    the August,  1992 baseline monitoring.  The
                    potential adverse impacts caused by
                    temperature inversions were assessed by
                    operating a drill rig at the proposed pit area,
                    then observing the sound levels at various
                    distances from the rig (Hart Crowser, 1992).

                    Sound levels within the existing pine forest
                    were measured using handheld monitors at
                    distances of 50 and 200 feet from the drill rig.
                    Continuous data-logged readings were taken at
                    a location about 0.5 miles south of the drill rig,
                    at the South Corral area that was 1 mile from
                    the drill rig, and at Chesaw and Bolster.  The
                    test was completed during 2 weather
                    conditions:   on a clear afternoon when there
                    was no temperature inversion, and on a clear
                    morning with a  strong temperature inversion.

                    Sound did not travel far during the afternoon,
                    when there was no temperature inversion. The
                    sound attenuation caused by the pine forest
                    within the first 200 feet of distance away from
                    the rig was about 12 dBA during both the
                    morning and afternoon tests, and was therefore
                    not affected by the morning temperature
                    inversion. During the afternoon, the noise from
                    the drill rig was inaudible and undetectable by
                    any of the electronic monitors, including the
                    monitor that was only 0.5 miles away from the
                    rig.

                    However, sound traveled much better during the
                    morning test run, during a temperature
                    inversion. At that time, dogs that were believed
                    to be about 2 miles away were clearly audible
                    at the South Corral. The drill rig was clearly
                    audible at the South Corral about 1  mile away,
                    and the drill  rig caused a detectable noise level
                    increase of about 1.5 dBA at South Corral when
                    it was cycled on and off. Based on that drill rig
                    study,  it was confirmed that  temperature
                    inversions will cause increases in noise levels in
                    the areas surrounding the mine.

                    It is likely that nighttime and  morning
                    temperature  inversions are frequent at the
                    Project area.  Therefore, it is important to
                    consider the adverse effects  caused by
                    inversions.  The predictive noise impact
                    assessments described in Chapter 4 were
                    completed using a computer  model that
                    accounts for temperature inversions.
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
                                                                             LEGEND

                                                                           ®  MONITORING STATIONS
                                                                              CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
           BRITISH COL UMBIA
            WASHINGTON
                                                                                 3750   7500
FILE NAME CJ3-14-3 DWG
 FIGURE 3.14.2, NOISE MONITORING  STATION  LOCATIONS
MH^	

-------
 Page 3-146
                                                              June 1995
                 LEGEND
<§)  BASELINE MONITORING STATION
 •a
   NOISE SOURCE LOCATION
   U.S.F.S, LANDS
   STATE LANDS
   BLM LANDS
   PRIVATE/FEE LANDS
   FACILITIES AREA
NOISE SOURCES
1
2
3
4
b
MINE PIT AREA
- NORTH WASTE ROCK AREA
- SOUTH WASTE ROCK AREA
HAUL ROAD
- COARSE ORE MILL AREA
SOUND
POWER.
OBA
127
125
125
123
126
                                                         N
                                                         3000    6000
FILENAME CJ3-i4~3DWG
      FIGURE 3.14.3, NOISE  SOURCE LOCATIONS AND
             BASELINE MONITORING  LOCATIONS

-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-147
TABLE 3.14.1, MEASURED BACKGROUND NOISE LEVELS
Location
Bolster
Chesaw
Pinechee
Toroda/
Nicholson
South Corral
August 1992 Data
Day Night
L-eq L-eq
42-45
(Insect noise)
50-60
{Insect noise)
ND
49-52
(Insect noise)
49-52
40-60
45-50
ND
28-33
25-40
June 19-24, 1993 Data
Average Day
L-eq L-26 L-9O
45 3 41.5 32.9
48 2 43 9 34 0
526 45.7 31.1
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
Average Night
L-eq L-25 L-90
368 35.5 31.7
38.9 34 7 3O.1
38 6 32 0 26 1
ND ND ND
ND ND ND
January 10-11 1994 Data
Average Day
L-eq L-25 L-90
35 1 31 6 29 6
49.4 36 0 27 2
43 7 34 5 30 3
ND ND ND
36.9 31.1 28.3
Average Night
L-eq L-25 L-90
30.6 30.2 29.3
31 7 23 9 22 5
33 0 31 1 29.7
ND ND ND
28 8 28 9 28 1
Note: ND = No Data.
 3.14.4  Noise Regulations

 County Noise Ordinance

 Prevention of public disturbances caused by
 loud, unpleasant, or raucous noise is governed
 by Okanogan County  Ordinance 88-1.
 However, that regulation is not related to
 continuous noises that would originate from the
 proposed mining activities. Noise from
 industrial operations is regulated by WADOE, as
 described below.

 Washington State  Noise Regulations

 Allowable noise  levels at existing or potential
 residential areas caused by industrial operations
 are set by the Washington Department of
 WADOE regulations, WAC-173-60, "Maximum
 Environmental Noise Levels".  That regulation
 specifies maximum noise levels at the receiving
 property boundary. Allowable limits are based
 on the "Environmental Designation for Noise
 Abatement", or EDNA, classification of the
 source and receiving properties.  The allowable
 limits are based on the EDNA zoning of the
 receiving property, the EDNA  zoning of the
 source property, the time of day (daytime
 versus nighttime),  and the duration of the noise
 occurrence.

 For this assessment, it is assumed  that all
 privately-held property is designated as EDNA
 Class A (Residential) regardless of whether
there are existing full-time homes there,
 because such property can potentially be used
for dwellings.  The public lands immediately
              adjacent to the proposed facility boundary are
              assumed to be EDNA Class B, which are not
              zoned for human habitation but require
              protection against speech interference, as
              specified in WAC-173-60-030:

              (b) Class B EDNA - Lands involving uses
              requiring protection against noise interference
              with speech.  Typical Class B EDNA will be the
              following types of property:

              (vii)      Recreation and entertainment, property
                       not used for human habitation...
              (viii)      Community services, property not
                       used for human habitation....

              For noises caused by industrial activity, the
              allowable noise levels at residential (EDNA A)
              and non-residential (EDNA B) receiving
              properties are listed in Table 3.14.2, Allowable
              Noise Levels at Residential and Non-Residential
              Receiving Property,  For Industrial Noise Source.
              The Washington regulations set limits based on
              the number of minutes per hour of allowable
              exceedance.  For this assessment, the
              Washington regulations shown in Table 3.14.2,
              Allowable Noise Levels at Residential and Non-
              Residential Receiving Property, For Industrial
              Noise Source, have been  converted to the
              equivalent "L-n" statistical descriptors.  The
              following industrial activities are exempt from
              the Ecology daytime noise limits, but subject to
              the nighttime limits:

              •        Temporary construction activities,
                       such as blasting;
              •        Forest harvesting.
                    Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-148
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June 1995
TABLE 3.14.2, ALLOWABLE NOISE LEVELS AT RESIDENTIAL AND NON RESIDENTIAL
RECEIVING PROPERTY, FOR INDUSTRIAL NOISE SOURCE
Noise Duration
No more than 15 minutes per
hour (L-25)
No more than 5 minutes per
hour (L-08)
No more than 1 .5 minutes per
hour (L-2.5)
Allowable Daytime Levels in dBA from
7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
60 (Residential)
65 (Non-Residential)
65 (Residential)
70 (Non-residential)
70 (Residential)
75 (Non-Residential)
Allowable Nighttime Levels in dBA from
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
50 (Residential)
55 (Non-Residential)
55 (Residential)
60 (Non-Residential)
60 (Residential)
65 (Non-Residential)
TABLE 3.14.3, RECOMMENDED MAXIMUM NOISE
IMPACTS AT RECREATIONAL AREAS
Recreational Site Classification
Primitive Area
Semi-Primitive Areas:
Trail Camps
Undeveloped Roadside Camps
Semi-Modern Areas:
Roadside Campgrounds
Highly Developed Campgrounds
Note: 1 .
Recommended Allowable
Noise Impact in dBA1
1
5
10
20
40
Increase in dBA above background.
The following noise sources are exempt from
both the daytime and nighttime noise limits:

•        Warning devices (such as backup
         alarms) that are operated for less than
         5 minutes per hour.

Trucks operated on public roads are exempt
from these noise regulations.  However, haul
trucks and mobile construction equipment that
are routinely operated on private land are
considered as regular industrial equipment, and
the noise caused by those haul trucks is subject
to the WADOE  regulations.

EPA Region 10  EIS Guidance

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
no enforceable  noise limits applicable to
industrial operations.  However, EPA Region 10
has published general guidance for noise
assessments in EISs.  According to that
guidance, the significance of predicted noise
levels is governed by the increase in the L-eq
above background:

•        An increase in the L-eq of 0 to 5  dBA
         above existing background constitutes
         a "slight" impact.
                     •       An increase in the L-eq of 5 to 10 dBA
                             above existing background constitutes
                             a "significant" impact.

                     •       An increase in the L-eq exceeding 10
                             dBA constitutes a "very serious"
                             impact.

                     Forest Service Guidelines for Recreational Areas

                     The Forest Service recommends that
                     recreational noise area impacts caused by new
                     industrial activity should be limited based on the
                     recreational classification ol the recreational
                     area (Forest Service, 1980). Table 3.14.3,
                     Recommended Maximum Noise Impacts at
                     Recreational Areas, lists the recommended
                     allowable noise increase above existing baseline
                     values.  It is not intended that these values be
                     used as  strict numerical limits.  Instead, the
                     potential noise impacts in recreational areas are
                     intended to be assessed on a case by case
                     basis,  accounting for factors such as the noise
                     duration and  the time of day when the noise will
                     occur.
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
                            CROWN JEWEL MINE
                                  Page 3-149
3.15
RECREATION
3.15.1   introduction

Existing recreational facilities and use patterns
were identified based on a review of existing
recreation documents, interviews with
government agencies and private organizations
involved with recreation, and observations
during field visits.  Data on recreational use at
developed Forest Service sites was collected
from the Forest Service.

Hunting is an important recreational activity in
the study area and was estimated by taking a
prorated share of the harvest data provided by
the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
for the entire game management unit, based on
the acreage of the  study area.  The data was
averaged over the 4 most recent seasons for
which  data was available (1984-85, 1986-87,
1989-90, 1991-92).

Due to the lack of developed recreation facilities
in the immediate vicinity of the Project, detailed
recreation use data was not available for this
area; thus, the discussion is based primarily on
information gained during personal interviews
and on field observations.  Future recreation
development and recreation  use projections
were also analyzed.

A primary study area and an analysis area were
delineated for the recreation analysis.  The
primary study  area, includes publicly owned
lands situated  between County Roads (CR)
4883,  9480, 9495, and the Canadian border.
The purpose of the primary area  was to
determine the  direct effect of the Project
features  on existing resources, and access to
those resources.

The analysis study area includes  lands lying
between Molson, Havillah, Lake Bonaparte,
Beaver and Beth Lakes,  Beaver Creek, Toroda
Creek, and Provincial Highway 3, north of the
Canadian Border. It also includes recreation
facilities  within the communities  of Tonasket,
Oroville,  Republic,  and  Curlew. The purpose of
the analysis area was to look at facilities that
may be indirectly impacted by  changes in
population as a result of the Project.
3.15.2   Current Management Direction

The Land and Resource Management Plan for
the Okanogan National Forest (Forest Service,
1989a) provides an inventory of recreation
opportunities in the National Forest, as well as
current management prescriptions for the area.
The BLM has not adopted such recreation
management plans for their lands within the
study area; therefore, Forest  Service plans were
used to analyze these lands.

According to the Forest Service inventory, the
west side of Buckhorn Mountain can provide a
"Semi-Primitive, Non-Motorized" type of
recreation setting, as shown on Figure 3,15.1,
Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Inventory.

This designation indicates that recreation
opportunities could  be provided in a natural
appearing environment, where visitors have a
high probability of experiencing solitude,
freedom, closeness to nature, tranquility, self-
reliance,  personal enrichment, challenge, and
risk.

The east side of Buckhorn Mountain provides a
"Roaded  Natural" setting, meaning recreation
activities occur in a mostly natural appearing
environment.  Some developed recreation sites
are allowed, and access is gained by sedan,
trailer, and recreation  vehicle.

The above designations were used by the Forest
Service to describe  existing conditions in the
forest during development of the Forest Plan.
After developing the inventory, management
prescriptions were  developed to guide future
activities in the area.  The plan's management
prescriptions designate the Buckhorn area to be
managed as a "Roaded Modified" recreation
opportunity.  This means that "recreation
opportunities are provided in  a substantially
modified  environment, except for campsites.
Roads, landings, slash and debris may dominate
the area, except from  distant sensitive roads.
Access is relatively  easy, provided by sedan,
trailer, and recreation  vehicles" (Forest  Service,
1989a).

3.15.3   Recreation Resources

There are no developed  recreation facilities
operated  by the Forest Service or other agencies
within the primary study area. A number of
undeveloped, dispersed  recreation sites,
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3 150
                                      June 1995
              BRIDES VILLE
	BRITISH COLUMBIA
   WASHINGTON
         L EGEND
SOURCE USD ft FOHEST SERVICE IUSDAFS)
   LAMP AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN.
   OKANOGAN NATIONAL FOREST
   U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE,
   WASHINGTON DC 1989
           CROWN JEWEL PROJECT SITE

           SEMI-PRIMITIVE NON-MOTORIZED

           SEMI-PRIMITIVE MOTORIZED

           ROADED NATURAL

           ROADED MODIFIED
                                FIGURE  3.15.1,
       RECREATION OPPORTUNITY  SPECTRUM  INVENTORY
  FILENA ME CJ3-15-1D WG

-------
June  7995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-151
however, have been observed near the Project
site, as shown on Figure 3.15.2, Dispersed
Recreation Sites - Primary Study Area. These
undeveloped, dispersed recreation sites
generally consist of undeveloped hunting camps
or fire  rings.

Nicholson Creek Road (Forest Road 3575-125)
is the main gravel road traversing the  Forest
Service lands  and provides access for dispersed
recreation. Additional access is provided by the
many improved (coarse gravel or dirt)  or
primitive (high clearance) Forest Service roads in
the area.  Travel on a large portion of  the
primary study area is unrestricted throughout
the year but roads are not maintained  or snow
plowed in the winter.

The Forest Service topographic maps  indicate 2
trails to the northeast of Buckhorn Mountain,
the Denny Trail and the Fawn's Mill Trail.
These  are historic trails used  during past mining,
logging, and smuggling activities, but  are not
considered system trails by the Forest Service
and are not maintained.

Wrthin the analysis area, there are a variety of
developed recreation facilities, most of which
are managed by the Forest Service and located
in the Five Lakes Area south of the Project site,
as shown on Figure 3.15.3, Existing Developed
Recreation Facilities. Four campgrounds in this
area provide a total of 74 campsites.   The
Forest Service also permits private recreation
residences in the Bonaparte Lake area and
permits several private  organizations to operate
organization camps at Lost and Bonaparte lakes.
Other Forest Service sites include Mt.
Bonaparte, a historic lookout, and the  Big Tree
Botanical Area, a small interpretive site.

Recreation sites  operated by other agencies
include the Molson Museum,  a historic museum,
and the Johnstone Creek Provincial Park, a 120-
acre park located in British Columbia 7.5 miles
north of the Project site. The Byers Ranch is a
2,500-acre wildlife preserve managed  by the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
located west of Chesaw. The ranch was
acquired primarily to protect and enhance
habitat for sharp tailed  grouse, but other
activities such as hunting and wildlife
observation are allowed. There are no
developed recreational facilities at the  Byers
Ranch.
               Private facilities within the analysis area include
               the Sitzmark alpine ski area and the Highlands
               nordic ski area.  The Okanogan County
               Snowmobile Advisory Board maintains 52.5
               miles of snowmobile trails near Bonaparte Lake.
               They maintain about 250 miles on the Tonasket
               Ranger District.

               Local recreation facilities within the community
               of Tonasket includes ballfields, tennis courts, a
               visitor center, a youth center, a swimming pool
               and several small green spaces, totalling
               approximately 30 acres. Also located in the
               town is a senior center, high school playfields,
               and rodeo grounds (Tonasket, 1989).

               The city of Oroville has 12 recreational facilities,
               including a new all-purpose recreation park, a
               senior center, a  golf course, tennis courts, a
               river front park,  ballfields, Deep Bay Park on
               Lake Osoyoos and several small green spaces
               (Oroville,  1989). In addition, Osoyoos Lake
               State Park is located outside Oroville.  Although
               several community parks have been upgraded in
               the last several years, the number of developed
               recreational facilities relative to the population is
               still  below national park standards (Danison,
               1992).

               Recreational facilities  in the communities of
               Republic and Curlew are more limited, including
               a small park, ballfields, tennis courts,  a boat
               launch, and Curlew Lake State  Park.  Facilities
               under  construction include a rifle range, an off-
               road vehicle park,  and a recreation center.

               3.15.4  Recreation Activities

               Primary Study Area

               The predominant recreation activity in the
               primary study area is  hunting.  There  are an
               estimated 448 large game hunters and 1,831
               hunter days annually in  the primary study area,
               based  on a 4-year average, and not including
               Native American hunting. In 1991, there were
               an estimated 39 hunters from the Colville Indian
               Tribe,  with a harvest of 28 deer.

               The number of hunters has been  gradually
               increasing in recent years from an estimated
               387 in 1 984-85 to 437 in 1991-92.  Most of
               the large game hunting is for deer (1,747 hunter
               days), although  black bear hunting also occurs
               (WADFW, 1994b). Small game hunting average
               146 hunters and 851  hunter days per year.
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-152
      June 1995
 _ BRITISH COLUMBIA	                      CANADA
     WASHINGTON
              \
UNITED STATE
            CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
            PAVED ROAD
            AGGREGATE ROAD
            HIGH CLEARANCE
            TRAIL
            COUNTY ROAD

            FOREST SERVICE COLLECTOR ROAD
            FOREST SERVICE LOCAL ROAD
            ROAD CLOSED TO MOTORIZED
             VEHICLES OCT 1 - DEC. 31
            ROAD OPEN TO MOTORIZED
             VEHICLES IN AN AREA THAT
             IS OTHERWISE RESTRICTED
            DISPERSED RECREATION SITES
                FIGURE  3.15.2,  DISPERSED  RECREATION
                       SITES  PRIMARY  STUDY  AREA
  FILENAME CJ3-15-2 DWG

-------
June 1995
                                                                                                Page 3-153
                                                                   KETTLE VALLEY
                  BRIDESVILLE
  BRITISH COLUMBIA	
    WASHINGTON
         LEGEND
           CROWN JEWEL PROJECT SITE

           PRIMARY RECREATION STUDY AREA

           SECONDARY STUDY AREA

           RECREATION SITE
                                                             BONAPARTE LAKE
                                                              CAMPGROUND
                                                             MT BONAPARTE
                                                              LOOKOUT
                                                             HIGHLANDS
                                                              SNOPARK
BIG TREE
 BOTANICAL AREA
BONAPARTE RECREATION
 RESIDENCES
MOLSON
 MUSEUM
                                                              JOHNSTONE CREEK
                                                              PROVINCIAL PARK
                                                             SITZMARK
                                                              SKI AREA
              CAMPSITES [29]    HIKING TRAIL
              PICNIC SITES 1131   FISHING
              SNOWMOBILE TRAILS BOAT RAMP
                                                                            HIKING TRAILS/ATV TRAIL
                                                                            CROSS-COUNTRY SKI TRAILS
              INTERPRETIVE TRAIL
              SUMMER HOME SITES 112]
              HISTORY DISPLAYS
              CAMPSITES (161
              HIKING TRAIL (5 MILE]
                                                                                               FOREST SERVICE
                                                                                               FOREST SERVICE
                                  FOREST SERVICE /
                                  HIGHLANDS NORDIC
                                  SKI CLUB
                                  FOREST SERVICE
                                  FOREST SERVICE
                                  OKANOGAN COUNTY
BRITISH COLUMBIA
 MINISTRY OF PARKS
                                                                                               SITZMARK SKI CORP
                                           FIGURE  3.15.3,
              EXISTING   DEVELOPED   RECREATION   FACILITIES
   FILENAME CJ3-15-3 DWG

-------
Page 3-154
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June 1995
Grouse and quail are the primary small game
species.

Most of the hunting within the primary study
area occurs northeast of the Project site in the
Jackson and Cedar Creek drainages (Yenko,
1992).  Hunting does occur closer to the site,
mostly along routes 3575-140,  120, 100, and
3575.  Most of the hunting occurs near the
roads since there are no developed trails (Lee,
1992).  However, this country is also well
suited and utilized for cross-country hunting
away from trails (Halekas, 1994).

Although there are no developed campsites in
the primary study area and thus no data on
camping, some  dispersed camping does occur.
This is indicated by the several hunting camps
and campsites observed in the field, as shown
on Figure 3.15.2,  Dispersed Recreation Sites -
Primary Study Area. Much of this camping is
most likely related to hunting activity.  The
greatest amount of fishing activity in the
primary study area is found along Toroda Creek.
Public access is limited along Toroda Creek,  but
there is some public land providing access and
private landowners often grant access for
fishing.  WADFW is planning to improve the
fisheries both in Toroda Creek (between Cougar
and Beaver Creeks) and the Kettle River, where
trout tend to rear (Williams, 1992).

Other recreation activities occur in the  primary
study area, but  on a limited basis due to the
lack of developed facilities.  Comments received
during the scoping process mention
rockhounding and ascending the summit of
Buckhorn Mountain as recreation activities.
Field observations indicate that some informal
hiking around or to the summit of Buckhorn
Mountain occurs, most of which is by local
residents along  existing roads or wildlife trails.

Since Buckhorn Mountain used to have a
lookout tower, many people hiked up to the
summit in the past (Fry, 1992). It is currently
considered a Class 1 climb by the Mountaineers
climbing club (out of 5 classes,  with 5 being the
most difficult).  The mountain has been listed in
a publication as the 103rd highest peak in
Washington with a 2,000-foot prominence
above the ridgeline.  (Fry, 1991).

Many of the old mines in the area also show
signs of visitation, as does the "frog pond"
located northeast of the mountain.  The area  is
                    also used for plant gathering and berry picking
                    by members of the Colville tribe. Most of this
                    takes place along existing roads. Local
                    residents in the Chesaw area also gather plants
                    and medicinal herbs in the area  (Payton,  1993).

                    Although there is no data to indicate that any
                    formal astronomy activities occur in the area,
                    the scoping comments mention  star-gazing as
                    part of the local lifestyle requiring protection.
                    Some use of  the area's roads for horseback
                    riding, off-road vehicles, and snowmobiles also
                    occurs on an individual basis rather than
                    organized rides.  Cross-country  skiing  is limited
                    due to the lack of maintained trails  and the
                    availability of high quality trails at Highlands
                    SnoPark and  in the Methow Valley  in western
                    Okanogan County.

                    Since the Okanogan Highlands,  in general, are
                    popular with  bird  watchers, the primary study
                    area may be used for bird watching. Due to the
                    primitive roads and lack  of camping facilities,
                    however, birdwatching in the primary  study area
                    is fairly limited in  extent as compared to the
                    Five Lakes area to the south (Friesz, 1992).

                    Analysis Area

                    There is considerably more recreational use of
                    the analysis area than the primary study area,
                    due in part to the lake amenities found south of
                    Chesaw, as set forth in  Table 3.15.1,
                    Recreation Use - Forest Service Facilities. The
                    campgrounds in the Five Lakes Area receive
                    heavy use on the weekends and moderate use
                    during the week.  The most popular site is the
                    Bonaparte Campground with an average of
                    8,200 visitors a year and 16,400 visitor days.
                    The campgrounds are usually full on weekends,
                    except Beth Lake, which accommodates
                    overflow from the other campgrounds.
                    Although use levels are high, campground use is
                    currently not considered to be over-capacity
                    (Yenko, 1992). The Johnstone Creek
                    campground in Canada also tends to fill up at
                    night on summer  weekends.

                    Trout fishing  in the Five  Lakes Area is popular.
                    Over-fishing has been a  concern for these lakes
                    in recent years (Williams, 1992). Fishing in
                    Myers Creek  is also popular with local residents.
                    The U.S. portion of Myers Creek is stocked with
                    brook trout.
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
               Page 3-155
                         TABLE 3.15.1, RECREATION USE - FOREST SERVICE FACILITIES
           Recreation Site
     Recreation Visits
     (4-Year Average)
Recreation Visitor Days
   (4-Year Average)
 Beaver Lake Campground
 Beth Lake Campground
 Lost Lake Campground
 Bonaparte Campground
 Mt. Bonaparte Lookout
 Highlands Snowpark
 Boy Scout Camp
 Kiwanis Camp
 Lutheran Camp
 Big Tree  Botanical Area
 Bonaparte Recreation Residences
         1,900
         2,100
         4,700
         8,200
           400
           200
           900
         1,600
         1,100
           800
         1,200
       2,800
       2,000
       6,700
      16,400
         100
         300
       5,300
      13,700
       6,800
         200
       1,500
 Note:     Recreation Visit: A measure of recreation use, in which one visits 1 particular site which would log 1 individual.

          Recreation Visitor Day: A measure of recreation use in which 1  RVD equals 12 visitor hours, which may be
          aggregated continuously, intermittently, or simultaneously by 1  or more person(s).

 Source:   Yenko, Dave, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Okanogan National Forest. Okanogan, Washington. Personal
          Communication. July 1992.
Snowmobiling is popular around Bonaparte Lake
and cross-country skiing is popular in the
Highlands ski area, used by an average of 200
skiers per year.  Mountain biking is popular in
the Bonaparte Mountain area (Payton, 1993).
Motorized dirt bikes, all  terrain vehicles, and
horseback riding are also popular around
Bonaparte Lake.  The Okanogan Highlands, in
general, are popular with bird watchers.  The
Five Lakes Area is popular in particular,  due to
the water birds, diverse  habitat, and  camping
facilities (Friesz,  1992a). Driving for pleasure
and viewing scenery is another recreational
activity, comprising approximately  20% of the
forest's recreational use (Forest Service,
1989a).

Recreation use is considerably higher in  the
Okanogan Valley than the rest of the study
area,  since a large number of visitors from
Canada utilize the area.  The Oroville Visitor
Center had 22,057 visitors in 1 991.

This Project is located 45 miles east of the
Pasayton Wilderness and 66 miles  west of the
Salmon-Priest Wilderness.  There are no rivers
or streams in, or near, the Project area that
would be eligible to  be classified as a Wild or
Scenic River.
               Past and Current Mining Impacts

               Past mining activities have created some
               isolated visual changes in the landscape.  Those
               preferring a roadless setting might be adversely
               affected by past mining activities.  For others,
               however,  the large number of roads used for
               past mining, exploration and timber harvest has
               improved  access to the area. The abandoned
               mines themselves are often an attraction for
               hikers and recreationists. Some of the old
               mines in the area also provide an opportunity for
               interpretive sites.  Some of these  sites have
               been investigated for eligibility to the list of
               National Historic Places.

               Exploration for the  Crown Jewel Project has
               resulted in a number of road closures due to
               drilling and other activities.   Recreationists can
               still traverse the study area,  however, via Forest
               Roads 3575-100, 120, 140, and 150,  which
               link the Pontiac  Ridge Road (CR 4895) to the
               Nicholson Creek Road (Forest Road 3575) north
               of Buckhorn Mountain.

               3.16     SCENIC RESOURCES

               3.16.1   Introduction

               Existing scenic resources were analyzed using
               the scenic management system developed by
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-156
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June 1995
the Forest Service (Forest Service, 1974).
Neither the Washington Department of Natural
Resources nor the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management have adopted  scenic resource
plans for their lands within the study area, and
thus the Forest Service management system
was used to analyze these lands.

The analysis began with identification of the key
viewpoints.  Key viewpoints are selected points
in the vicinity of the Project that are most likely
to have views of the proposed Project and thus
serve to establish the general baseline
conditions for scenic resources. They do not
include every location with a possible view of
the Project but generally the areas of highest
use and best views.

Viewpoints were established through a detailed
map and cross section  analysis and  several
visits to the Project Area.  Cross sections were
developed between the summit of Buckhorn
Mountain and any towns, groups of houses,
roads, or recreation sites from which the Project
might be visible.  This task  was completed to
identify the most  populated places that have the
best views of the Project site, in order to
describe the general scenic quality of the area.
Specific views of  individual Project features
from these and other locations are discussed in
more detail in Section 4.15, Scenic  Resources.

The scenic resources of the Project  area  were
inventoried, as seen from each viewpoint,  based
on  the Forest Service system of form, line,
color, and texture. The distance of  the Project
site from each viewpoint was determined and
classified in terms of foreground, middleground,
or background.

The Visual Absorption Capability from each
viewpoint was determined, which indicates the
ability of the Project site to absorb change
before it begins to degrade the scenic quality of
the area.  The scenic quality of the view was
also analyzed, based on a number of factors,
including the degree of variety in the view and
the balance between variety and other factors.
The sensitivity of each viewpoint was also
determined, based on the number and types of
people exposed to the resource.

3.16.2  Visual Management System

The Land and Resource Management Plan for
the Okanogan National Forest, completed by the
                     Forest Service in 1 989, provides an inventory of
                     existing scenic resources, as well as future
                     management prescriptions for the area.
                     According to the inventory,  much of the west
                     side of Buckhorn Mountain has moderate visual
                     significance, as shown on Figure 3.16.1, Visual
                     Significance Designation.  Most of the
                     mountain's  east side is shown as having low
                     visual significance.

                     A number of scenic viewsheds, or areas which
                     can be seen from relatively populated areas or
                     highly travelled road corridors are shown on
                     Figure 3.16.2, Scenic Viewsheds and Key
                     Viewpoints.  The scenic viewshed closest to the
                     Project is the Oroville-Chesaw viewshed,
                     designated as a Level 1  Viewshed.  Level 2
                     Viewsheds  include the Toroda viewshed and the
                     Havillah-Myers viewshed.

                     The Level 1  and Level 2 designations were
                     established  by the Forest  Service to describe
                     existing conditions in the forest.  After
                     developing the inventory,  management
                     prescriptions were developed to guide future
                     activities  in  the area.  According to the
                     management prescriptions, activities within the
                     Level 1 Viewsheds would need to conform to
                     the "modification objectives" whereas activities
                     within the other areas could conform to the
                     "maximum  modification" objectives.

                     In an area classified as "modification",
                     development activities "...may visually dominate
                     the original  characteristic  landscape.  Activities
                     must borrow from naturally established form,
                     line, color or texture at such a scale that the
                     visual characteristics are those of natural
                     occurrences within the surrounding area"
                     (Forest Service, 1989a).  In an area classified as
                     "maximum  modification", development activities
                     "...may dominate the characteristic landscape.
                     When viewed as background, visual
                     characteristics must be those of natural
                     occurrences within the surrounding area.  When
                     viewed as foreground or middleground,  visual
                     characteristics may not appear to completely
                     borrow from naturally established form, line,
                     color or texture.  Alterations may also be out of
                     scale or contain detail which is incongruent with
                     natural occurrences as seen in foreground or
                     middleground" (Forest Service, 1989a).
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
                                                 Page 3-157
                                               ROCK CREEK KEJTL£ yALLEY
               BRIDES VILLE
  BRITJSH £OLUMBIA_ 	  ff 	 	
    WASHINGTON
	 CANADA
UNITED STATES
               LEGEND
                  SOURCE USD A Forest Service (USDAFS)
                      Land and_Rgs(Mce ManaaemenLPIan.
                      Okanoqan Nalional .Porest
                      US Government Printing Office,
                      Washington, DC 1989
                 CROWN JEWEL PROJECT SITE

                 HIGH VISUAL SIGNIFICANCE

                 MODERATE VISUAL SIGNIFICANCE

                 LOW VISUAL SIGNIFICANCE
                                    FIGURE  3.16.1,
                  VISUAL  SIGNIFICANCE  DESIGNATIONS
 FILENAME CJ3-16-1DWG

-------
Page 3-158
                                                                               June 1995
                                                       CREEK  Kt, rif Mii£ Y
                BRIDES VILLE
   RITISH COLUMBIA
    WASHINGTON
                    LEGEND
     11
     12
     17
     24


     3
     9
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT SITE

LEVEL 1 VIEWSHED
  BONAPARTE AREA VIEWSHED
  HAVILLAH TOWNSITE VIEWSHED
  NORTH FORK BEAVER VIEWSHED
  OROVILLE-CHESAW  VIEWSHED
LEVEL 2 VIEWSHED
  TORODA VIEWSHED
  HAVILLAH-MYERS VIEWSHED
OTHER FOREST SERVICE LAND

VIEWPOINT LOCATION
                                   o
0
VIEWPOINT LOCATIONS

OROVILLE-TOHODA CREEK ROAD VIEWPOINT

NEALY ROAD VIEWPOINT

TORODA CREEK ROAD VIEWPOINT

HIGHWAY 3 VIEWPOINT

USFS ROAD 125 VIEWPOINT

MT BONAPARTE VIEWPOINT
                                                       SOURCE USD A Forest Service IUSDAFS)
                                                           Land and Resource Management Plan.
                                                           OttanoQan National Forest
                                                           U S Government Printing Ollice
                                                           Washington, DC 1989
                                       FIGURE  3.16.2,
                SCENIC  VIEWSHEDS  AND  KEY  VIEWPOINTS
  FILENAME CJ3-16-2DWG

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-159
3.16.3   Project Area Description

Characteristic Landscape

Buckhorn Mountain and the surrounding
Okanogan Highlands landscape are
characterized by moderately steep topography,
ranging from rugged, mountainous terrain to
rolling hills.  The area's hills and mountains are
characterized by broad, rounded summits.  In
the higher elevations, the landscape is forested
with coniferous trees, such as Douglas fir and
western larch.  Occasional clearings are
apparent, some of which are natural and some
of which are a result of past or current logging
and exploration operations. In the lower
elevations, frequent clearings dominate the
landscape, used primarily for agricultural
purposes. The  dominant colors in the higher
elevations include the blues and greens of  the
forest vegetation, the light browns in cleared
areas, and the buff, dark brown,  and red colored
rock outcroppings  (BLM,  1992).  In the lower
elevations, yellows and light greens
predominate, due to the extensive grazing  lands
interspersed with coniferous vegetation.

Site Visibility

The hills and ridges surrounding Buckhorn
Mountain obscure the site from much of the
study area.  Those views that do exist generally
extend up river valleys and road corridors.
Based upon  a detailed map analysis, 5 major
corridors and 1  minor corridor as well as the
summit of Mt. Bonaparte, located 13 miles to
the southwest,  were found that have
intermittent  views  of the mountain, as shown
on Figure 3.16.2, Scenic Viewsheds and Key
Viewpoints.  Mt. Baldy in British  Columbia
would also be within the viewshed, but its 1 8-
mile distance would make the Crown Jewel
Project features difficult to distinguish.

To the west of the Project, the Oroville - Toroda
Creek Road corridor (CR 9480) has several
viewpoints between Hee Hee Rock and Mary
Ann Creek.  To the southwest, the Myers Creek
Valley allows views of Buckhorn  Mountain  from
portions of the Nealy Road corridor (CR 4861).
After  its intersection with CR 4887,  however,
the Myers Creek valley is screened from most of
the Project site  by the intervening hills.  The
steep canyon along Beaver Creek prevents
views of the Project site from Beth and Beaver
Lakes.
              The summit of Buckhorn Mountain is not visible
              from Chesaw or the Bolster area, due to the
              proximity of the base of the ridge.  The Project
              site is also not visible from the Canadian towns
              of Midway and Rock Creek.  Portions of the
              Project, however, may be visible from the Byers
              Ranch located west of Chesaw.  The ranch is
              currently operated by the WADFW for
              protecting critical habitat of grouse, although
              recreation such as hunting and wildlife
              observation is allowed.  Although the primary
              mine facilities  will not be visible from any
              communities, other Project features,  such as the
              transmission line, may be visible from more
              areas.

              On the east, the Crown Jewel Project will be
              visible from several locations  along the Toroda
              Creek Road, looking up the Nicholson Creek
              drainage.  The Project site is not visible from
              Toroda Creek Road south of Nicholson Creek,
              due to the steep hills rising immediately above
              the valley.

              The fifth area from which the Project will be
              visible is British Columbia Highway 3, as it
              climbs out of the Kettle River  Valley, west of
              Rock Creek. East of Rock Creek, Highway 3
              travels along the Kettle River  Valley,  which  is
              too low in elevation to  provide views of
              Buckhorn Mountain.

              The sixth view corridor is the  Forest Road
              3575-1 25, which is less important than the
              others in terms of the amount of traffic,  but has
              the closest and thus clearest view of the site.
              Forest Road 3575-125 is a narrow dirt road
              immediately east of Buckhorn Mountain, which
              is currently closed to vehicle access.

              For each view corridor, one location was
              selected with the clearest view of the site and
              designated as  the key viewpoint for the purpose
              of analyzing existing scenic quality, as
              presented in Figure 3.16.2, Scenic Viewsheds
              and Key Viewpoints. Each of these 6 view
              corridors and the key viewpoint selected for
              each corridor are addressed in more detail in the
              following discussion.

              3.16.4   View Corridors and Viewpoints

              Oroville - Toroda Creek Road  (CR 9480)

              Buckhorn Mountain is visible from 4 sections of
              CR  9480, located between the Hee-Hee Rock
                     Crown Jewel Mine  4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-160
Chapter 3 - Affected
June  1995
and a point 3.4 miles east of the rock and
totalling 2.6 miles in length.  The key viewpoint
selected for this corridor is located near the
intersection of CR 9480 and CR 9467, as
shown on Figure 3.16.3, Oroville - Toroda Creek
Viewpoint. This view is dominated by the
horizontal lines of the  ridgeline and treeline and
the form  created by the Buckhorn Mountain
ridgeline.  There is no  strong focal point, other
than the ridgeline.  The actual summit of
Buckhorn  Mountain  does not provide a strong
focal point due to its lack of prominence over
the ridgeline. The Crown Jewel Project site is
5.3 miles from this viewpoint and lies within the
background of this view.  The scenic quality of
the view  would be considered moderately
varied, since it is similar to other views in the
area, and there are no outstanding physical
features or water bodies to distinguish it.

The Crown Jewel Project area would have a
moderate ability to absorb scenic change (visual
absorption capability) from this viewpoint,  due
to various physical and perceptual factors, such
as the moderate slopes, irregular topography,
the existing vegetation, and the intermittent
views of the site. This corridor has been
designated by the Forest Service as a Level 1
Sensitivity corridor due to the amount of traffic
(approximately 288  vehicles per day) and the
proportion of people using it concerned with
scenic quality (estimated  at 25% or more).  Due
to this sensitivity level, management activities
should meet the "modification" scenic quality
objective and should borrow from naturally
established patterns.  The view does not
currently borrow from natural design attributes
due to the geometric shape of the clearcut in
the Ethel Creek drainage and thus does not
entirely meet the "modification" scenic quality
objective.

Nealy Road (CR4861)

Nealy Road is a partly paved and partly graveled
road with views of Buckhorn Mountain along
approximately 4.5 miles of its length.  The key
viewpoint selected for this corridor is
approximately 1 mile south of the road's
intersection with CR 9480 as shown on Figure
3.16.4, Nealy Road Viewpoint.  The view looks
up the Ethel Creek drainage and is very similar
to the Oroville - Toroda Creek viewpoint.  Most
of the mountain is obscured from view by
intervening topography. The dominant elements
of this view are the horizontal lines created by
                    the ridgeline and treeline and the form of the
                    background ridge. The view does not have a
                    strong focal point, but the eye is drawn, to
                    some extent, to the converging lines of the
                    Ethel Creek drainage. The summit of Buckhorn
                    Mountain is approximately 4.2 miles from this
                    viewpoint and thus within the middleground
                    view.

                    The scenic absorption capability and the scenic
                    quality from the Nealy Road viewpoint would be
                    similar to that of the Oroville - Toroda Creek
                    Road.  This site, however, would have a much
                    lower level of sensitivity than the Oroville -
                    Toroda Creek viewpoint, due to the low traffic
                    volumes (approximately 21 vehicles per day).
                    Management activities would need to meet the
                    "maximum modification" scenic quality due to
                    the low sensitivity level.  This view is currently
                    not natural in  appearance due to the large
                    clearcut in the background and agricultural
                    activities in the foreground.

                    Toroda Creek Road (Ferry CR 502)

                    Three short segments of the Toroda Creek
                    Road, totalling approximately 3/4 of a mile,
                    have views of the Project site.  The segments
                    are all located east of the road's intersection
                    with the Nicholson Creek Road  (Forest Road
                    3575).  The key viewpoint is located
                    approximately 1 mile west of Toroda, and has
                    the broadest view of the Project site of the 3
                    segments as  shown on Figure 3.16.5, Toroda
                    Creek Road Viewpoint.  The Project site will be
                    9.5 miles from this viewpoint and thus is within
                    the background view. The dominant elements
                    of this view are the strong lines created by the
                    curving road,  the treeline, and the Buckhorn
                    Mountain ridgeline. Buckhorn Mountain is the
                    focal point of this view, in spite of its distance,
                    because of the winding  road leading towards it
                    and the converging middleground hills. The
                    scenic quality would be considered  moderately
                    varied, due to the Class B variety level and  the
                    lack of unique or outstanding features.

                    The scenic absorption capability of this view
                    would be moderate, due primarily to the
                    irregular, sloping  topography; the height and
                    density of existing vegetation; soil color; and
                    the existing openings in the tree cover.  The
                    Toroda Creek Road has  been designated as a
                    Level 2 Sensitivity corridor by the Forest
                    Service, due  to the low  traffic volumes.  Due to
                    its Level 2 sensitivity, views of any future
                     Crown Jewel Mine f Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
                                                   Page 3-161
                       FIGURE 3.16.3,
         OROVILLE-TORODA CREEK  ROAD VIEWPOINT

-------
Page 3-162
           FIGURE  3.16.4, NEALY  ROAD VIEWPOINT
 FILENAME CJ3-16-4 DWG

-------
                                                    Page 3-163
     FIGURE  3.16.5,  TORODA CREEK ROAD VIEWPOINT
PILENAME CJ3- T6-5 DWG

-------
Page 3-164
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June 1995
management activities from this corridor would
need only meet the "maximum modification"
scenic quality objective.

Canadian Highway 3

The Project site can be viewed from Canadian
Highway 3, west of Rock Creek, as it rises out
of the Kettle River Valley.  The view extends
approximately 1.4 miles west of Rock Creek.
The key viewpoint for this corridor is located  at
the western end of the corridor, which is the
closest point to the Project site, as shown on
Figure 3.16.6, Highway 3 Viewpoint. The
summit of Buckhorn Mountain is 7.6 miles from
this point and thus within the background view.
The dominant elements from this view are the
landforms of the background mountains and
middleground hills and the horizontal lines of  the
ridgeline  and treelines. There is no strong focal
point in this view.

The Highway 3 view would have a moderate
visual absorption capacity due to the slope,
existing openings, soil color and vegetation.
Due to the high traffic volumes (approximately
2,700 vehicles per day) and the large number of
tourists using Highway 3,  this road would fulfill
the Forest Service's criteria for a Level 1
Sensitivity corridor. With  a Level  1 Sensitivity
designation, any management activities should
meet the "modification" scenic quality objective.
This objective is not currently being met
because there are several existing clearcuts
visible that contrast with natural form, line,
color, and texture.

Forest Road 3575-125

The Project site is visible from portions of the
forest in the immediate vicinity of the Project.
Most of these areas would be closed to the
public during Project operation, but could
eventually be opened again after Project
completion. For example, approximately 1 mile
of Forest Road 3575-125  would have a
relatively clear and unobstructed view of various
Project features and thus a key viewpoint was
designated to assess scenic conditions from  this
area. The viewpoint is located approximately
1.2 miles from the intersection of Forest Road
3575-125 and  Forest Road 3575-120, as
shown on Figure 3.16. 7, Forest Road 3575-125
 Viewpoint.  The Project features would be
between one-half to  2 miles from  this
viewpoint, and thus would lie within foreground
                    and middleground.  The dominant elements from
                    this view are the coarse texture of the
                    foreground trees and the rounded form and
                    horizontal lines created by the background ridge.
                    This view does not have a strong focal point.
                    The scenic quality of this view is low relative to
                    the other views, because there is little variety in
                    terms of color and texture.

                    This view would have a moderate scenic
                    absorption capability, due primarily to the
                    topography, slope, dense vegetation and
                    existing openings. This viewpoint would have a
                    low sensitivity level (Level 3), due to its low
                    amount of use.  Management activities should
                    meet the "maximum modification" scenic
                    quality objective. Past management activity is
                    evident in the various clearcuts and roads seen
                    from this point, but meet the "maximum
                    modification" objective since they are within the
                    foreground and middleground view. Proposed
                    Project features located in the foreground and
                    middleground would not need to completely
                    borrow from natural occurrences, but should
                    attempt to borrow from natural form, line, color,
                    or texture as much as possible.

                    Mt. Bonaparte

                    The proposed Project site is visible from the
                    summit of Mt. Bonaparte, as shown on Figure
                    3.16.8, Mt. Bonaparte Viewpoint. Located 13
                    miles southwest of the proposed Project site,
                    Mt. Bonaparte has an historic lookout tower and
                    a popular trail leading up to  it. The summit is
                    not accessible by vehicles.  The view towards
                    Buckhorn Mountain is dominated by the parallel
                    horizontal lines of the foreground treeline and
                    the mountain range in the background.
                    Buckhorn Mountain provides a focal point in the
                    view, due to its prominence above ridgeline,
                    although it is not substantially higher than
                    surrounding landforms. The foreground trees
                    create a coarse texture and  dark green color,
                    which contrasts with the lighter blues and
                    greens of the background mountains.  The many
                    clearings and forest openings in the background
                    also lend a coarse texture to the view.
                    Although the view from Mt. Bonaparte, in
                    general, is outstanding, due to its panoramic
                    nature; the view of Buckhorn Mountain would
                    be considered moderately varied in quality,
                    since it does not provide a dramatic rise from
                    the surrounding terrain  and  has no other
                    outstanding feature. The proposed Project site
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
Page 3-165
                                        ..;
            FIGURE 3.16.6,  HIGHWAY 3  VIEWPOINT
 FILENAME CJ3-16-6DWG

-------
                 FIGURE  3.16.7, FOREST ROAD 3575-125 VIEWPOINT
FILENAME CJ3-16-7 DWG

-------
FIGURE  3.16.8, MT. BONAPARTE  VIEWPOINT
Co
—4
0}
VI

-------
Page 3-168
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June 1995
lies within the background portion of the view
from Mt. Bonaparte.

The Project area would have a moderate ability
to absorb change from this viewpoint, due
primarily to its distance, the existing number of
natural and man-made openings in the forest,
and the irregularly shaped landforms and forest
edges. The fact that Buckhorn Mountain is a
focal point from this viewpoint, however, would
lower its absorption capability. Although Mt.
Bonaparte receives only approximately 400
visitors per year, and thus would be considered
of secondary importance, it would be
considered a  Level 1  Sensitivity site because a
large portion  of the visitors would likely have a
major concern for scenic qualities.  Due to this
sensitivity level, management activities within
the viewshed should meet the "modification"
scenic quality objective.  This objective is
currently being met due primarily to the 13-mile
distance.  Signs of past management activities
on Buckhorn  Mountain appear to borrow from
natural occurrences.

Other Scenic  Conditions

The viewpoints addressed in the  preceding
discussion represent views looking into the
Project site from the surrounding area.  Views
of the Project within the site, however,  should
also be considered. Although these areas will
be inaccessible to the public during  Crown
Jewel Project operation, they will most likely be
accessible after Crown Jewel Project
completion.

Most of the proposed mine pit site was clearcut
in the late 1 980s, prior to the Proponent's
exploration program.  To accommodate
exploration, a series  of roads were constructed
as shown on Figure 3.16.9, Existing Conditions
Within the Project Site.  This area currently does
not appear natural, due to its size and straight
edges, but it would meet the "maximum
modification" VQO.

Existing scenic conditions along the powerline
route from Oroville to Chesaw must also be
considered, since the powerline would be
upgraded and the alignment changed slightly
from the existing route.  The view of the
eastern portion  of the powerline  route, between
Chesaw and  the Project site, is described under
the Nealy Road  Viewpoint. Most of the western
portion of the powerline route, between Oroville
                     and Chesaw, is visible from CR 9480 or 9485.
                     This portion of the powerline runs through open,
                     rolling terrain, used primarily for agriculture.
                     The landscape is characterized by the rounded
                     forms of the hills; the horizontal lines of the
                     hills,  background ridges, and  skyline; and the
                     golden-yellow color and relatively fine texture of
                     the foreground grasses. The existing powerline
                     is compatible with the surrounding landscape in
                     terms of color and texture, due to the wooden
                     poles. The vertical lines of the poles, however,
                     contrast with the horizontal lines that dominate
                     the landscape.

                     3.16.5  Summary

                     Most of the views of Buckhorn Mountain are
                     background views,  with the exception of Forest
                     Road 3575-125, which is 2 miles or less from
                     the Project site.  The view with the highest
                     sensitivity is the Canadian Highway 3 view,  due
                     to the high traffic volumes, followed by the Mt.
                     Bonaparte, and Oroville - Toroda Creek Road
                     views. The views from 5 of the 6 sites are
                     considered moderately varied, due to the lack of
                     unique or outstanding physical features.  Forest
                     Road 3575-125 has an essentially unvaried
                     scenic quality rating due to the relative
                     uniformity of color and  texiure.

                     The Forest Service  management plan specifies
                     that management activities should meet the
                     "maximum modification" objective, except
                     within Level 1 Viewsheds, which would need to
                     meet the "Modification" objective.  This would
                     include areas visible from the Highway 3, Mt.
                     Bonaparte or Oroville - Toroda corridors, due to
                     their Level 1 Sensitivity.  All  6 views have a
                     moderate ability to absorb scenic change. In
                     general, additional large clearings located at the
                     higher elevations should be minimized or, where
                     necessary, should borrow as much as possible
                     from natural forms,  especially those visible from
                     Highway 3, Mt. Bonaparte, or the Oroville -
                     Toroda road.  Views of any other modifications,
                     such as structures,  roads, or power lines,
                     should also have characteristics compatible  with
                     natural features when viewed as background.

                     3.17     HERITAGE RESOURCES

                     3.17.1   Introduction

                     The heritage resources investigation of the
                     Crown Jewel Project involved locating,
                     recording, and evaluating prehistoric and historic
                     Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
        A. VIEW TOWARDS THE PROPOSED MINE PIT SITE FROM NORTH SIDE OF PROPOSED PIT
B.  VIEW FROM EAST EDGE OF PROPOSED MINE PIT LOOKING NORTH ACROSS THE PIT TO THE NORTH CREST
    FIGURE  3.16.9, EXISTING CONDITIONS WITHIN  THE PROJECT SITE

-------
Page 3-170
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June 1995
remains within areas that could be affected by
the proposed actions.  Areas of potential effect
associated with this Project include the
proposed mine, powerlines, water lines, water
reservoir, and access roads.  The sites
documented in the Project area were evaluated
for significance in order to make
recommendations on eligibility to the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Heritage
resource investigations on this Project began in
1990 (AHS, 1990) and were completed in
1993.

Work completed as part  of this Project followed
appropriate laws, rules, and regulations
pertaining to the protection and management of
heritage resources.  These compliance
procedures are set forth  in the following
regulations,  laws, and guidelines:

•        Section 106  of the National Historic
         Preservation  Act of 1966, as amended
         (16 USC, Section 470) implemented
         through regulations at 36 CFR 800
         Protection of Historic and Cultural
         Properties;

•        National Environmental Policy Act of
         1969  (42 USC Sections 4321-4327);

•        American Indian Religious Freedom Act
         of  1978 (PL  95-341);

•        Archaeological Resources Protection
         Act of 1979 (16 USC Sections 470a-
         470m); and,
•        Native American Graves Protection
         and Repatriation Act of 1990 (PL 101-
         601).

A review of the list of National Historic
Landmarks,  the World Heritage List, the
National Registry of Natural Landmarks, and
subsequent addenda indicated no such
properties are listed in the Project area.
Overviews summarizing the heritage resources
in the region include Lyman 1978; Mierendorf et
al. 1981;  Salo 1987;  and Uebelacker 1978.

The historian for the Colville Confederated
Tribes was consulted  in regard to areas of
traditional tribal use.  Consultations with the
State Historic Preservation Officer of
Washington, the Okanogan National Forest
Service archaeologist, and the BLM
archaeologist were completed regarding
                    eligibility of sites for the NRHP and for findings
                    of effect of the proposed Project prior to
                    consultation with the Advisory Council on
                    Historic Preservation.

                    3.17.2   Prehistory

                    Ethnographic information indicates the Project
                    area was located  within the traditional territory
                    of the Northern Okanogan Indians. This group
                    utilized the lower Similkameen River and the
                    section of the Okanogan River from the
                    Canadian boundary south to Tonasket (Spier,
                    1936).  Teit recorded  Okanogan village sites at
                    and near the  mouth of the Similkameen River
                    (Teit, 1930).

                    Salo summarized  the prehistoric adaptive
                    sequence for the  Okanogan region (1987).  He
                    indicates there is  little evidence of occupation
                    before 6,500 years ago, and the populations
                    were probably small and dispersed. Early
                    assemblages seem to  occur in the vicinity of
                    small lakes, suggesting  a heavy reliance on fish
                    for subsistence.  This continued into  the Kartar
                    Phase, from about 6,500 to 5,000 years ago.

                    During the latter part of the phase, from 5,000
                    to 4,000 years ago, the adaptive system
                    became strongly central-base oriented.
                    Populations appear to have concentrated
                    activities near winter range and along the larger
                    rivers, where there were a diverse faunal
                    assemblage.

                    During the Hudnut Phase (4,000 to 2,000 years
                    ago), the number of sites increases and appears
                    to be more diverse. Use of upland areas is
                    more frequent and fishing seems to have
                    become  a greater focus of economic interest.

                    Late in the phase (2,500 to 2,000 years ago),
                    there is a distinct drop in the number of
                    recorded sites, perhaps as a result of
                    populations concentrating in larger central
                    residential bases.

                    A distinct cultural change appeared during the
                    Coyote Creek Phase,  around 2,000 years ago.
                    Larger villages appeared and seem to have  been
                    occupied for a long time.  There was
                    considerable expansion in the number of sites,
                    the bow and arrow was introduced,  and the
                    cultural system in place at the time of Euro-
                    American contact (early 1 800s) was
                     established.  The introduction of the horse  in
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June  1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-171
the 1700s increased mobility (Salo, 1987), and
is  1 of 2 major factors producing important
changes in native adaptations, the other being
epidemic diseases.

3.17.3  History

Historic events in the region were initially
centered in the Okanogan River valley and
began in the early 1800s with the  Hudson's  Bay
Company fur traders and explorers. Subsequent
Euro-American intrusions in the mid-1800s
included Catholic missionaries and the
establishment of the United States-Canadian
border in 1846.
              northern slope of the mountain, and the area
              was soon covered by mining claims, among
              which was the Neutral, site of the Magnetic iron
              mine.

              Sporadic mining activity took place on Buckhorn
              Mountain during the early 1900's, but the
              presence of copper, gold, and silver on the
              mountain attracted the attention of the Granby
              Consolidated  Mining, Smelting  &  Power Co. Ltd.
              This company core-drilled the most promising
              occurrences in 1911, and shipped around 12
              carloads of copper-gold-silver ore from the
              Roosevelt mine on the eastern slope of
              Buckhorn Mountain.
Gold was found near the mouth of the
Similkameen River and, by 1861, the resultant
boom camp had nearly 3,000 people.  Oroville
was incorporated and platted in 1892 (Kirk and
Alexander, 1990).  In 1894-96, several placer
claims were located on the east side of the
Similkameen River in present-day Oroville (U.S.
Surveyor General 1894-1896).

The town of Chesaw was named after Chee
Saw, a Chinese placer miner who married a
native woman, Julia Lumm, and settled down to
farm land on Myers Creek.  In the 1890s, when
the northern half of the Colville Reservation was
opened to mining, a boomtown sprang up  at
"Chee Saw's" stream crossing.  By 1900,
Chesaw's population had grown to  about 200,
and the establishments included 2 hotels, a
bank, a post office,  a newspaper  office,  several
saloons, a millinery shop, and an  assay office
(Kirk and Alexander,  1990).  Deposits of gold,
silver, copper, lead, zinc, and molybdenum were
discovered, and the mining districts of Myers
Creek, Bodie, and Wauconda were established.
Many mineral deposits underwent exploratory
and development work but few deposits proved
to be large or rich enough to mine.

The first mine located on Copper  Mountain
(renamed Buckhorn Mountain by the Forest
Service) was located by Jim Grant after his
stepson Johnnie Louis found ore with copper
stains while hunting grouse.  This was named
the "Copper Queen" and was located early in
the spring of 1895  (Molson et.  al., 1962).

The early producing mines on Buckhorn
Mountain included the Roosevelt,  Gold Axe,
Western Star, and Caribou.  Around 1908, large
outcrops of magnetite were discovered on  the
              In 1918, mining of iron ore at the Magnetic and
              Roosevelt mines began, with the first shipments
              made to Northwest Magnetite Company at
              Chewelah.  Mining of copper-gold-silver ore
              ceased in 1920, but with the increase in the
              price of gold in 1934, small shipments of gold
              ore were made from the Gold Axe and Mother
              Lode properties until 1942 (Moen, 1980).
              Mining of magnetite from the Magnetic Mine
              assumed importance during World War II as the
              magnetite was used as ship ballast.  Operations
              ceased at the Magnetic Mine in  1950.

              Since 1951, no mine has operated on Buckhorn
              Mountain but gold, silver, iron, and copper
              mineralization has continued to attract the
              attention of mining companies (Moen, 1980).

              3.17.4   Known Heritage Resources in Project
                       Area

              Heritage resources located within the Project
              area include previously recorded sites with
              forms on file in the Office of Historic
              Preservation in Olympia, the Forest Service, and
              the BLM; places of historic importance
              described via  interpretive signs and/or local
              histories; and, sites located  and described
              during the fieldwork for this Project. Identified
              heritage resources are summarized in the
              following Tables:

              •        Table 3.17.1, Buckhorn Mountain
                       Mining Properties Identified by Survey
                       and Historic Research;
              •        Table 3.17.2, Buckhorn Mountain
                       Mining Properties Identified by Historic
                       Research; and.
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-172
Chapter 3 - Af^uc-ad Environment
June 1995
TABLE 3.17.1. BUCKHORN MOUNTAIN MINING PROPFHTIIS IDENTIFIED BY SURVEY AND HISTORIC RESEARCH ]
Complex
Caribou
Gold Axe
Jack Pot
Magnetic
Type
Caribou Claim
Gold Axe Camp
Gold Axe Claim
Jack Pot
Aztec Claim
Copper Quean Camp
Copper Queen Claim
Magnetic Camp

Site
24-79

24-64



24-80
24-86


45OK478H
45OK479H
45OK480H
24-79
24-76
450K476H
Feature f^ajy-e fype
No. J
1 j f»fi.',
2 hur.ker
3 | adit
4 j adit
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
11
16
1
2
3
1
2
3
12
13
14
15


1
7
2
3
4
5
6
5
6
7
8
1
2
14
15
16
17
cabin
cabin
cabin
cabin, shed
pnvy pit
foundation
foundation, remains
structure
well
cabin
privy pit,
collapsed structure
root cellar
structure
adit, lumber scatter
adits (n = 3)
bunker
collapsed structure
adit
remains of structure
cuts
adits, prospects
cabin, pits
bunker
cabin, can dump
cabin, pit
cabin
root cellar
outhouse
shaft
adit
adit
blacksmith shop
collapsed cabin
adit
can dump, now destroyed
pit, now destroyed
pit, now destroyed
foundation, now
destroyed
NRHP"
Eligibility
no
yes
no




yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
yes
no

Dates
1897-1900,
1908-1916, 1916
1914-1935'
1914-1935?
1911, 1914-1915,
1934, 1935, 1938
1902
1890s, 1911-?
189Os">-1950?
I89OS-?

19377-1950
Patent
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
                   Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-173
TABLE 3.17.1. BUCKHORN MOUNTAIN MINING PROPERTIES IDENTIFIED BY SURVEY AND HISTORIC RESEARCH
Complex
Magnetic
Magnetic
Monterey
Rainbow
Roosevelt

Type
Magnetic Camp
Neutral Claim
Neutral Claim
Nucleus Claim
Rainbow Claim
Mexico Fraction
Roosevelt Camp
Velvet Claim
Site
450K476H
450K477H
24-67
24-68
24-68
24-66/86OK50H
(Lower Buckhorn
Aditl
24-69

24-65






24-65





Feature
No.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
2
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4

1
2
3
6
7
8
9
15
4
5
10
11
12
13
Feature Type
can dump, now destroyec
pit, now destroyed
foundation, now
destroyed
pit, now destroyed
pit, now destroyed
privy, now destroyed
springbox, now destroyed
bridge, now destroyed
fuel tanks, loading
platform
pond, now destroyed
bunker
shaft
ramp (45OK482H)
bunker
bunker (450K481H)
structure remains
adit
ramp
can dump
large cut, bunker
blacksmith shop
large cut
adit
buried logs
bunker
adit, trough, pad
structure (bunker?)
structure
structure
collapsed structure, pit
blacksmith shop
log structure
adit
shaft, adit
structure
structure
collapsed structure
collapsed structure
rock structure
structure
lumber scatter
structure remains
collapsed structure
prospect
adit
bunker
adit shaft
adit
cabin
NRHP*
Eligibility
no











no

yes





no
no
yes
no
no
no
Dates
1937^-1950
1890s-1911, 1917,
1918-1950


1890s-l911, 1917,
1918-1950
1896, 1898-191 17
(MS6 673)
1896-191 1,
IMS5 1034)
1903, 191 1 ~>
1901-1920
1901-1920,
(MS6 1255)
Patent
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
no
yes
                  Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-174
                      Chapter 3 - Affected Environmenl
                                  June 1995
TABLE 3.17.1. BUCKHORN MOUNTAIN MINING PROPERTIES IDENTIFIED BY SURVEY AND HISTORIC RESEARCH
Complex
Roosevelt
Western
Star

Type
Velvet Claim
Western Star Claim

Site
24-65
24-77
24-78
24-87

Feature
No.
14
16
17
1
2
3
1
1
2
3
4
5
Feature Type
blacksmith shop
bunker
structural debns
collapsed structure
adit
shaft
structure
prospect
shaft, blacksmith shop
adit
shaft
shaft
NRHP"
Eligibility
no
no
no

Dates
1901-1920,
(MSb 1255)
1901-7
1896-1914, 1915

Patent
yes
yes
no

Notes: 1. NRHP = National Register of Historic Places
2. MS = Mineral Survey On file. Bureau of Land Management, Spokane
3 Assessment complied by Archaeological and Historic Services, Eastern Washington University.
•        Table 3.17.3, Heritage Resources
         Identified by Survey at Powerline
         Route and Related Construction
         Features.

Figure 3.17.1, Locations of Sites and Features
Along Powerline Corridor, shows results of
powerline corridor investigations.  Figure
3.1 7.2, Project Area Sites and Features, shows
sites in and around the immediate Project area.

As  part of this Project, heritage resource sites
within the areas of potential effect were
evaluated to make recommendations of
significance for nomination to the NRHP.
Isolated features (such historic rock piles, the
slat fence, the pole platform, and isolated
prospects) and sites that have been destroyed
were  not evaluated for NRHP significance.
3.18
TRANSPORTATION
3.18.1   Introduction

A transportation analysis of the study area was
conducted based on location and ownership,
road standards, traffic load, public safety,
environmental safety, and maintenance.  The
study area and associated transportation
network for the Crown Jewel Project has been
defined to include the major transportation
routes,  the Project access routes and the on-site
roads.  The roads in the region are shown on
Figure 3.18. /, Traffic Counts and Road
Systems.
3.18.2   Major Transportation Routes

The major transportation routes servicing
Okanogan County are U.S. Highway 97 (U.S.
97) and Washington State Route 20 (SR 20).

U.S. Highway 97 (U.S. 97)

U.S. 97 is a major U.S. highway which
traverses the State of Washington from south to
north.  It serves as a route into southern British
Columbia.  The northern portion of U.S.97 is a
primary route for local residents and also serves
both tourist and commercial traffic between  the
U.S. and Canada.

U.S.97 is an asphalt, all-weather 2-lane
highway.  In Okanogan County, the road is
within the Okanogan River Valley and has
minimal grades.  The road passes through the
downtown sections of the communities of
Tonasket and Oroville.  Information from the
Washington Department of Transportation
(WADOT) shows varying average daily traffic
(ADT) volumes from Omak to the Canadian
border.  The permanent traffic recorder just
north of Omak recorded 4,505 ADT; traffic
counts just north of Tonasket showed 6,100
ADT; traffic counts between Tonasket and
Oroville indicated 3,400 ADT; and 2,100 ADT
were recorded at the Canadian border.  Figure
3. 18.1, Traffic Counts and Road Systems,
shows U.S. 97 and other roads with their traffic
counts and location of counts.
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
                      BRITISH COLUMBIA                              CANADA
   RAILROAD
AND STRUCTURE
                     PILED ROCK
                                        TRANSMISSION LINE |
                           HOMESTEAD
                                                                         CANADA
                                         MAJOR HIGHWAYS

                                         COUNTY ROADS

                                         RIVERS

                                         POWERLINE
                                                                    WASHINGTON
                 NOT TO SCALE
                            FIGURE  3.17.1, LOCATIONS OF  SITES
                      AND  FEATURES ALONG POWERLINE CORRIDOR
                                                                                OREGON
FILENAME CJ3-1?-1QWG

-------
                                                          |450K479H


                                                          I450K476HE
                                                           \  \
                     WASHINGTON
   NOT TO SCALE
97 f	  MAJOR HIGHWAYS

9leo"1	  COUNTY ROADS

      RIVERS
                                 OREGON

                  FIGURE 3.17.2,  PROJECT AREA SITES AND  FEATURES
FILENAME CJ3-17-2DWG

-------
                                        BRI r/SHCOLUMBIA
                                          WASHINGTON
                                                                                                 L EGEND
 SOURCE WASHINGTON STATE HIGHWAYS
 1991 TRAFFIC FLOW MAP AND OKANOGAN COUNTY
 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
NATIONAL FOREST (USA) / PROVINCIAL
 FOREST (CANADA!

HIGHWAY AND COUNTY ROAD
  DESIGNATIONS

TRAFFIC COUNT (AVERAGE DAILY
 TRAFFIC / SEASONAL AVERAGE
 DAILY TRAFFIC)

CROWN JEWEL PROJECT SITE
                       FIGURE  3.18.1,  TRAFFIC COUNT  AND  ROAD  SYSTEMS
FILENAME CJ3-18-1 DWG

-------
Page 3 178
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June 1995
TABLE 3.17.2. BUCKHORN MOUNTAIN MINING PROPERTIES IDENTIFIED BY HISTORIC RESEARCH
Complex
Eastside
Jack Pot
Magnetic





Monterey





Nip & Tuck
Rainbow
Roosevelt







Type
Eastside Claim
Jack Pot Claim
Crystal Spring Claim
Iron Horse Claim
Iron King Claim
Iron Mask Claim
No. 9 Claim
Polaris Claim
A & R Claim
Alhambra Claim
Buckhorn Claim
Missing Link Claim
Panhandle Claim
Stratton Claim
Tenderloin Claim
Umatilla Claim
Umatilla Fraction Claim
Van Dyke Claim
WiHard Fraction Claim
Nip & Tuck Mine
Mexico Fraction
Texas Fraction
American Girl Claim
Annabell Claim
Crystal Light Claim
Double Standard Claim
Elk Claim
Farmington Claim
Grant Claim
Lucky Jim Claim
Ruby Fraction
Sir Robert Fraction
Snowshoe Claim
Feature Type
cuts (n = 2), shafts In = 2)
cuts (n = 4), adit, cabin
open pits, cuts, shafts
discovery cuts (n — 2)
cuts, adits, shaft, cabin
discovery cut, shaft
shaft
discovery cuts (n = 2}
discovery cut, shaft
discovery cut
cuts In = 2), shafts (n = 2)
discovery cut, shafts (n = 2)
discovery cut
discovery cut.
cut, shaft, adits (n = 2)
discovery cut, structures
adit, shaft
cuts (n = 3), shaft
discovery cut, prospects
discovery cut
cuts (n = 3|, trench, shaft
discovery cut, prospects
discovery cut
discovery cut, prospects



Comment
1898-1907, (MS8 886]
1901-1902, (MS" 670)
1933-1950
1897, undeveloped (MS" 673}
1899 IMS3 674)
1896, undeveloped (MS" 673)
1902, undeveloped (MSa 673)
1897, undeveloped (MS8 673)
1896, undeveloped (MS" 673)
1900, undeveloped (MS" 6731
1902, undeveloped (MS" 673)
1901, undeveloped (MS8 673)
1902, undeveloped (MS8 1145)
1903-1911, (MS8 1035)
1903-1911, (MSa 1035)
1903, undeveloped (MS" 1255)
ca 19O1, undeveloped
1901, undeveloped (MS8 1255)

ca 1901, undeveloped
1901, undeveloped (MS8 12551
ca. 1901, undeveloped
Potential
Impact
modern mining
modern mining
modern mining
modern mining
modern mining
modern mining
modem mining
modern mining
modem mining
modern mining
modern mining
modern mining
modern mining
modern mining
modern mining
modern mining
modern mining
modern mining
modern mining
modern mining
modern mining
Patent
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
Note: 'MS = Mineral Survey. On file. Bureau of Land Management, Spokane.
                   Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-179
TABLE 3.17.3, HERITAGE RESOURCES IDENTIFIED BY SURVEY OF POWERLINE ROUTE
AND RELATED CONSTRUCTION FEATURES
Type
Prehistoric
Historic
Site
450K361
450K830 (Hee Hee
Stone)
24-70 (Erwin
Homestead)
24-71 (W&GN Railway)
24-72
24-73
24-74
24-75
24-81 (Thomas
Homestead)
24-82 (East Homestead)
Austin Goat Ranch
Buckhorn Mountain
Lookout
Bolster
pole platform
rock piles
Physical Remains
burial location
Hee Hee Stone locale,
sign
orchard, road, structures
railbed, structures, cuts
irrigation flume
structures, remains of
same
adits (n = 2), dugouts
In = 2)
burial location
dugouts (n = 2), lumber
scatter
granary, hay barn
fence
U.S. Forest Service
structure
townsite
pole structure
rock piles (n = 4)
Comment
burials removed
traditional cultural property
ca. 1910-1930s
1907-1932 (near Circle
City)
1915-1970
ca. 1900-1940
ca. 1896-1920
burial removed
ca. 1903-1 930s
ca. 1901-1940
1930s
demolished, burned
1899-1939, no surface
remains
built by the Boy Scouts,
1988
historic field clearing
Potential Impact
substation
construction
scenic, powerline
rebuild
powerline rebuild
powerline rebuild
powerline rebuild
powerline rebuild
reservoir construction
road construction
powerline rebuild
powerjine rebuild
road construction
modern mining
pumphouse, waterline
road construction,
mining
powerline rebuild
DOE

X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X





Note: DOE = Determination of Eligibility for National Register of Historic Places.
Accident records provided by WADOT show 76
average annual accidents on U.S. 97 between
mileposts 286 and 336.5 (junction SR 20 and
the Canadian border), from 1988 through 1991.

Of the average 76 accidents, 28 involved
personal injury and 48 were property damage
only.  During this period, there were 2 fatalities
(WADOT, 1992).

U.S.97 is not proximate to streams or rivers
except for the limited locations where there are
bridge crossings.  The term "proximate", as it
applies to transportation in this EIS, means any
roads within 100 feet of streams or rivers.
Most of U.S.  97 from Omak to the Canadian
border is separated from the Okanogan River by
the railroad  tracks.
              Washington State Route 20 (SR 20)

              SR 20 is a scenic route which traverses the
              State of Washington from west to east. SR 20
              connects the communities of Tonasket and
              Republic.  The highway is maintained and
              controlled by the State of Washington.

              Between Tonasket and Republic, SR 20 is 40.6
              miles of asphalt, all-weather 2-lane highway.
              SR 20 consists of grades varying from 0% to
              6% with speed limits ranging from 20 (school
              zones) to 55 mph. SR 20 climbs from 903 feet
              elevation at Tonasket to 4,310 feet elevation at
              Wauconda Summit (approximately 26.5 miles at
              an overall grade of 2%). SR 20 then descends
              for approximately 14 miles into Republic
              (elevation 2,600 feet) at an overall grade of
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-180
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June 1995
2%. There are an estimated 10.6 miles of
grades exceeding 5% on SR 20 between
Tonasket and Republic.

According to  1991  traffic flow information from
WADOT, SR 20 experiences 1,700 ADT on the
east city limits of Tonasket and 3,250 ADT on
the west city  limits of Republic.

Accident records provided by WADOT show 18
average annual accidents between mileposts
262 and 302  from  1988 through 1990. Of the
average 18 accidents, 7 involved personal injury
and 11 involved property damage only. There
were 2 fatalities during this reporting period.

There are approximately 13.5 miles of SR  20
proximate  to streams (34%).  Approximately
8.8 miles are  proximate to Bonaparte Creek, and
4.7 miles are  proximate to the West Fork of
Granite Creek.

3.18.3  Project Access Routes

As shown on  Figure 3.18.1, Traffic Counts and
Road Systems, there are 5 main Okanogan
County roads in the region. These are:

•       CR 9495 (Toroda Creek Road);
•       CR 9480 (Oroville - Toroda Creek
        Road);
•       CR 9467 (Tonasket - Havillah Road);
•       CR 4895 (Pontiac Ridge Road); and,
•       CR 4883 (Bolster Road).

CR 9495 (Toroda Creek Road)

CR 9495 is an Okanogan County Road which
proceeds northeasterly from SR 20 near
Wauconda to  the Okanogan/Ferry County  line.
CR 9495 is a  paved, 2-lane all-weather road
which parallels Toroda Creek for the entire
length of the road.  The portion of interest
extends for approximately 12 miles along
Toroda Creek from  SR 20 to the intersection
with CR 9480. CR 9495 descends from
Wauconda toward Toroda at an overall grade of
approximately 2%.

The most current traffic volume data for CR
9495 was recorded by Okanogan County on
July 15, 1992 at milepost 6.3 and showed an
ADT count of 172 vehicles.  Accident records
provided by Okanogan  County show an average
of 3 accidents per year between milepost 0 and
15.5 since 1988.  Approximately 65% of  the
                    accidents since 1988 were personal injury
                    accidents.

                    There are approximately 2.9 miles of road
                    proximate to streams (Toroda Creek) between
                    SR 20 and CR 9480 (approximately 24%).

                    Okanogan County is responsible for
                    maintenance of this road. Periodically during
                    spring thaw, sections of CR 9495 are closed to
                    heavy truck traffic to avoid major damage to the
                    road. Initiation of road closures (location and
                    timing) is based on road and weather conditions
                    and on the experience of the Okanogan County
                    Department of Public Works.

                    With funds from the U.S. Department of
                    Transportation and WADOT, there are plans to
                    reconstruct CR 9495 to meet federal highway
                    standards. This work will involve widening,
                    straightening certain sections, and upgrading
                    bridges.  There is no connection between this
                    reconstruction work and the Crown Jewel
                    Project.  The road upgrade work for CR 9495
                    was proposed  and planned independently of any
                    mine operation.

                    CR 9480 (Oroville - Toroda Creek Road)

                    CR 9480 is an Okanogan County Road that
                    connects the Chesaw area with Oroville to the
                    west and southeast to the Toroda Creek Road
                    providing access to the Beth and Beaver Lakes
                    area.

                    CR 9480 is a paved, 2-lane all-weather road
                    with grades varying from 0% to 6%.  There are
                    an estimated 9 miles of grades exceeding 4%
                    and an estimated 21.5 miles of speed
                    restrictions (40 mph or less).  A portion of CR
                    9480 west of  Beth Lake was widened and
                    paved with asphalt during the summer of 1993.

                    The Okanogan County Department of  Public
                    Works recorded traffic volume at 2 locations in
                    May 1992.  One location east of CR 9467
                    (Tonasket - Havillah Road) had a recorded traffic
                    volume of 288 ADT and the other location west
                    of Beth Lake recorded 190 ADT.

                    Accident records provided by Okanogan County
                    show an average of 11  accidents per year
                    between mileposts 0 and 33.5 since 1988.
                    Approximately 40% of these accidents involved
                    personal  injury with 1 fatality.
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3 181
There are approximately 10.0 miles of the total
34 miles of CR 9480 proximate to streams
(about 29%).

Okanogan County is responsible for
maintenance of this road.  Periodically during
spring thaw, sections of CR 9480 are closed to
heavy truck traffic to avoid damage to the road.
Initiation of road closures (location and timing)
is based on road and weather conditions and on
the experience of the Okanogan County
Department of Public Works.

CR 9467 (Tonasket - Havillah Road)

CR 9467 is an Okanogan County road that
provides access from the Chesaw area
southwest to Tonasket.  CR 9467 is a paved, 2-
lane, all-weather county road with grades
varying from 0% to 7%.  The road consists  of
12 foot lanes from Tonasket to  Havillah and
then narrows to 10 foot lanes to the
intersection with CR 9480. In general, the road
climbs from 903 feet elevation in Tonasket to
approximately 4,440 feet elevation at the
Sitzmark ski area  (about 19.0 miles at an overall
grade of 4%) and then descends to 3,620 feet
elevation at the intersection with CR  9480
(approximately 6.4 miles at an overall grade  of
2%).

There are an estimated  11.2 miles of road with
grades of 4% and greater and approximately
8.4 miles of speed restricted road (40 mph or
less).

Traffic counts  recorded in May 1992 by the
Okanogan County Department of Public  Works
show ADT's of 1,035 at the outskirts of
Tonasket, 371 at  South Siwash Creek Road,
242 at North Siwash Creek Road, 179 south of
Havillah, 145 at Nealey Road, 74 at Kipling
Road and 70 at the intersection  with  CR 9480
(Oroville - Toroda  Creek Road).

Accident records provided by Okanogan County
show  an average of 6 accidents per year
between milepost 0 and 20 since 1988.
Approximately 32% of these accident involved
personal injury with  2 fatalities.

There  are approximately 1.8 miles of  CR 9467
proximate to streams or water (approximately
7%).
              Okanogan County is responsible for
              maintenance of this road. Periodically during
              spring thaw, sections of CR 9467 are closed to
              heavy truck traffic to avoid damage to the road.
              Initiation of road closures (location and timing)
              is based on road and weather conditions and on
              the experience of the Okanogan County
              Department of Public Works.

              CR 4895 (Pontiac Ridge Road)

              CR 4895 is an Okanogan County road which
              provides access to private and public lands.
              The road section that would be most effected
              by Project traffic begins at the intersection with
              CR 9480 and proceeds east to the intersection
              with Forest Road 3575-120.  This section of
              road is approximately 2 miles in  length.  CR
              4895 is a gravel surfaced road, with varying
              lane width, depending on location. The road
              contains steep grades and sharp corners. The
              overall  condition of this road should be
              considered as fair; and, it requires frequent
              maintenance.

              The most recent traffic count shows an ADT
              count of 5 over an  8 day period  in May of
              1992.  There have  been 2 reported accidents
              since 1988.

              The portion of CR 4895 under consideration is
              proximate to a stream for approximately 1,500
              feet (approximately 5%).

              Okanogan County is responsible for the
              maintenance of this road. Periodically during
              spring thaw, sections of CR 4895 could be
              closed to heavy truck traffic to avoid damage to
              the road. Initiation of road closures (location
              and timing)  is based on road and weather
              conditions and on the experience of the
              Okanogan County Department of Public  Works.

              CR 4883 (Bolster Road)

              CR 4883 is an Okanogan County road which
              provides access to private and public lands.
              The road begins at Chesaw and proceeds north
              along Myers Creek for approximately 3.2 miles
              where it joins with Forest Road 3575 (Gold
              Creek/Nicholson Creek Road).

              CR 4883 is a narrow 2 lane gravel road with
              numerous driveways accessing private property.
              The sight distance for most of the driveways is
              generally restricted. There are no posted speed
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 Page 3-182
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
                                                                                     June 1995
 restrictions, but the condition of the road
 surface and the restricted sight distances
 dictate that maximum speeds should not exceed
 35 mph. The overall condition of this road
 should be considered as fair, but it needs
 frequent maintenance.  There have been 2
 accidents reported since 1987.

 There are approximately 0.9 miles of CR 4883
 proximate to Myers Creek (approximately 28%).

 Okanogan County is responsible for the
 maintenance of this road. Periodically during
 spring thaw, sections of CR 4883  could be
 closed to heavy truck traffic to avoid damage to
 the road.  Initiation of road closures (location
 and timing) is based on road and weather
 conditions and on the  experience of the
 Okanogan County Department of Public Works.

 3.18.4   On-Site Roads

 The Project site is accessed via  Forest Service
 roads from the north, the south and the east as
 illustrated on Figure 3.18.2, Forest Roads.

 Access from the north is via Forest Road 3575
 to Forest Road 3575-100 (Magnetic Mine Road)
 and into the Project area. Forest Road 3575-
 100 provides access through the Project area
 and connects back to Forest Road  3575 on the
 east along Nicholson Creek.  From Forest Road
 3575, access to the Project area can also be via
 Forest Road 3575-150.

 Access to the Project area from the south is via
 Forest Road 3575-120.  Forest Road 3575-140
 branches off from Forest Road 3575-120 south
 of the Project area and proceeds toward the top
 of Buckhorn Mountain.  Forest Road 3575-120
 proceeds through the Project area and intersects
 with Forest Road 3575-100 and Forest Road
 3575-150.

 Forest Road 3575

 Forest Road 3575 provides access from CR
4883 on  Myers Creek east to CR 9495 on
Toroda Creek and is located just to the south of
the U.S./Canadian border. This  road provides
service for logging, exploration and recreation
activities.

Forest Road 3575 is a single lane gravel road
with turnouts for passing oncoming traffic.  The
portion of Forest Road 3575 within the Gold
                    Creek drainage contains continuous 4% to 6%
                    grades and a switchback. Overall, the road is in
                    good condition.

                    The Forest Service has recorded seasonal
                    average daily traffic (SADT) counts at the west
                    Forest boundary on Forest Road 3575.  These
                    counts were 4,031 vehicles over 176 days (23
                    SADT) in 1989 and 3,955 vehicles over 182
                    days (22 SADT) in 1990.

                    The Forest Service is responsible for the
                    maintenance of roads within the National Forest
                    system.  Forest Road 3575 is maintained on a
                    semi-annual basis  (usually grading spring and
                    fall).

                    Forest Roads 3575-100, 120, 140 and 150

                    The Forest Service controls access and use of
                    Forest Roads 3575-100, 120, 140, and 150.
                    These roads provide access to the immediate
                    Project area from the north, east and south, as
                    shown on Figure 3.18.2, Forest Roads.  The
                    roads are narrow,  primitive, and generally
                    suitable for high clearance vehicles.
                    3.19
LAND USE
                    3.19.1   Introduction

                    Land uses within the region are logging,
                    agriculture, residential development, recreation,
                    and mineral exploration activities. As discussed
                    in Section 1.2, Proposed Action, of Chapter 1,
                    mixed land ownership occur within and around
                    the Crown Jewel Project area. This section
                    describes various land uses which serve multiple
                    purposes for numerous land owners and the
                    various land users.

                    3.19.2  Crown Jewel Exploration Activities

                    Between 1988 and  1993, the Proponent
                    conducted exploration activities on claims on or
                    near the summit of  Buckhorn Mountain.  These
                    activities involved drilling to delineate the
                    mineralized zone and evaluate ore grades.
                    Exploration activities have occurred on Forest
                    System Lands under plans of operations and
                    subsequent amendments approved  by the
                    Forest Service. Also, exploration on BLM Lands
                    has occurred under  a notice-of-operations filed
                    with the BLM.  A chronology of the Proponent's
                    exploration activities as filed with the Forest
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
                                                  LEGEND
                                                      FOREST SERVICE ROADS



                                                      CROWN JEWEL PROJECT



                                                      CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
P  ' VNlflEDTSTA TES  ' T"   '  'I
                                                                   5°
                                                                   io
                                                                   Ul
                                                       3750   7500'
FIGURE  3.18.2, FOREST ROADS

-------
Page 3-184
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June 1995
Service and BLM are set forth in Table 3.19.1,
Crown Jewel Exploration Summary.

As a result of the Proponent's success during
exploration activities to identify and delineate
what they perceive as an economically
recoverable ore deposit, a proposal for mining
and milling of the Crown Jewel Project was filed
with the Forest Service, WADOE, BLM, and
WADNR.

There has been considerable discussion
regarding the possibility of future additional and
adjacent mining activity in the vicinity of the
proposed Crown Jewel Project.  Although some
limited exploration activities (other than the
Proponent's  work) occurred in 1993,  it is not
reasonably foreseeable at this time that any
mining or ore processing (other than the Crown
Jewel proposal) would be proposed or
developed on Buckhorn Mountain. If such a
mining and ore processing  development is
proposed, it  would be subject to the preparation
of an environmental analysis as required by
NEPA and SEPA and related regulatory review.

The location of past mining operations in and
around Buckhorn Mountain are shown on Figure
3.19.1, Historic Mining Sites.

During the summer of 1993, Consolidated
Ramrod Gold Company conducted exploration
activities on  claims controlled  by Keystone
Mining Company in  an area adjacent to the
Crown Jewel claim block as shown on Figure
3.19.2, Consolidated Ramrod Exploration Site.
The Forest Service approved these exploration
activities in a categorical exclusion and a
Decision Memo dated  November 30, 1992.  The
company indicated that they must initiate
exploration drilling prior to  reaching any decision
regarding development of a mining and ore
processing facility on-site.  Exploration occurred
in 1993.  There has been no indication from
Consolidated Ramrod that further development
or exploration will occur. In fact, the  actual
extent of the Consolidated  Ramrod exploration
activities were substantially less than  those
approved by the Forest Service. At this time, it
is unclear whether the Consolidated Ramrod
Gold Company will return to complete their
exploration program.
                    3.19.3   Historic and Present Timber Operations

                    Logging has been one of the dominant land
                    management uses in the vicinity of the Crown
                    Jewel Project,  with  numerous acres  being
                    logged as set forth in Table 3.19.2, Past Timber
                    Sales in the Crown Jewel Project Area. Over
                    the past 35 years, about 8,000 acres have been
                    logged in and around the vicinity  of the
                    proposed Crown Jewel Project. Logging has
                    occurred on public and private  lands in the
                    general area. Both commercial harvests and
                    firewood cutting occur. The location of historic
                    timber sales are shown on Figure 3.19.3,
                    Historic Timber Sales; many of the areas shown
                    on this map represent the planning areas and
                    not solely the actual harvest areas.

                    Timber has been harvested throughout most of
                    the Project area. Heavy cutting has  occurred in
                    Sections 13, 23, 24, 25, 26 and  35 of T40N,
                    R30E.  Harvesting has been a combination of
                    clearcutting, shelterwood,  seedtree,  and partial
                    removal. The shelterwood and seedtree
                    methods remove most of the trees in a stand
                    and leave a few selected trees  to either provide
                    Seed for natural regeneration and/or as shelter
                    for young trees.  The most recently selected
                    "leave" trees have been Western  Larch.

                    Approximately 560  acres of timber were
                    harvested during the Buckhorn Mountain Sale
                    which sold in 1979.  About 62 acres of this
                    Forest Service sale were clearcuts including the
                    38 acres of land in Section 24, T40N,  R30E
                    where part of the proposed mine  pit area is
                    located.  The remaining area was harvested
                    using shelterwood removal methods.
                    In addition  to logging on National Forest lands,
                    the State of Washington and BLM have
                    harvested their lands within the vicinity of
                    Buckhorn Mountain  using both shelterwood and
                    overstory removal methods.

                    Most private lands around  the Crown Jewel
                    Project area have been harvested at  some time
                    in the past. Private sawmills worked in the area
                    from around the turn of the century  into the
                    1950's.  Much of the private lands in Sections
                    21, 22 and 28 of T40N, R30E were logged by
                    Biles-Coleman  in the late 1950's.

                    3.19.4   Proposed Timber Operations

                    The Forest Service sold and awarded 2 sales
                    from within the 4,220 acre Nicholson Planning
                    Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
                                        Page 3-185
                                        LOWER MAGNETIC ADIT
                                          UPPER MAGNETIC ADIT
                  BUCKHORN ADIT
                  AND WORKINGS
                                                  ROOSEVELT ADIT
                                                  AND WORKINGS
                     LEGEND
             1 Caribou
             2 Rainbow
             3 Magnetic (Neutral)
             4 Magnetic Camp
             5 Aztec
             6 Western Star
7  Buckhorn Adit
8  Gold Axe
9  Roosevelt
10 Roosevelt Camp
                FIGURE  3.19.1,  HISTORIC MINING  SITES

-------
                                                              LEGEND
                                                               U.S.FS LANDS
                                                               STATE LANDS
                                                               BLM LANDS
                                                               PRIVATE/FEE LANDS
                                                              CONSOLIDATED RAMROAD
                                                               EXPLORATION SITE
FIGURE 3.19.2, CONSOLIDATED RAMROD EXPLORATION  SITE

-------
           BRIT/SH_COUJ_MBIf(      	  	     _RJ
                                    R30E     R31E
                                                                             _CANADA 	
                                                                            UNITED [5?/i res
                                                                            3     ]     Z
                                                                                                              LEGEND
                                                                                                                STREAMS
                                                                                                                DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY
BOLSTER CREEK
   DRAINAGE BASIN
 t   I  GOLD
 I   I  BUCKHORN
 I._ "I  MARIAS
      UPPER NICHOLSON
      HOODOO
      COW CAMP HIGH RISK
  H  MARIAS CREEK
      BISHOP
      NICK I
I   I  NICK II
      PRINCE
I   I   WADNR PONTIAC RIDGE No.2
      PARK PLACE (1994)
K\\1   NICHOLSON (1993)
             SALVAGE
 THORP CREEK I
DRAINAGE BASIN f
                             DRAINAGE BASIN
                                                                              NICHOLSON CREEK
                                                                              DRAINAGE BASIN
          DRAINAGE BASIN
                                        MARIAS CREEK
                                        DRAINAGE BASIN
                               FIGURE  3.19.3,  HISTORIC  TIMBER  SALES

-------
Page 3-188
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June 1995
TABLE 3.19.1, CROWN JEWEL EXPLORATION SUMMARY
FOREST SERVICE
Document
Plan of Operations - 8/1/88.
Supplemental Plan of Operations -
9/6/88
Request to Remove Snow - 2/20/89
Winter 1989 Supplemental Plan of
Operations - 2/20/89
Supplemental Plan of Operations -
3/23/89
Plan of Operations Update - 5/17/89
Supplemental Plan of Operations -
6/13/89
Supplemental Plan of Operations -
8/22/89
Supplemental Plan of Operations -
1 1/13/89
Plan of Operations - 4/30/90
1991 Amendment to 1990 Ooeratma
Plan - 3/19/91
Amendment to Crown Jewel Project
1991 Operating Plan - 9/30/91
Amendment to Crown Jewel 1991
Operating Plan - 12/16/91
Amendment to Crown Jewel 1991
Operating Plan - 2/6/92
Remarks
0.68 acres of disturbance requested in 2
locations.
Requests disturbance at 3 additional sites - Total
1988 disturbance requested 0.86 acres
Snow removal from roads accessing Gold Axe,
Gold Buck and Double Axe Mines.
This plan requests 1 .48 acres of disturbance.
Cumulative estimated disturbance - 1.85 acres.
Requests 0.57 acres of disturbance in the Double
Axe area.
Revised and updated disturbance to date - 1 .64
acres (0.90 miles)
Requests additional 3.24 acres of disturbance.
Total proposed disturbance - 4.88 acres (2.68
miles)
Only 1 .2 acres of preceding Plan was disturbed
(1 .56 miles). Total disturbance - 2.84 acres (1 .56
miles) This plan requests an additional 2.01 acres
of disturbance
Request for infill delineation drilling approximately
7.3 acres Total disturbance - 10.2 acres
(approximately 5.6 miles) Only about 2.7 acres
outside clearcut.
An EA was completed in June 1990. Total
estimated additional disturbance 4.6 acres (2.8
miles) This is step-out drilling adjacent to the
clearcut. Total disturbance - 14.8 acres (8.4
miles)
Forest Service calculations indicate 25.4 acres
actually disturbed 1988 through 1990 (10.5 miles
of road).
Renuest 6-4 arres nf disturbance. Total
disturbance - 21 .2 acres (11.9 miles)
Requests 6 additional holes on existing roads (no
additional disturbance)
Estimated surface disturbance 2 7 acres. (1.6
miles) Total disturbance - 23.9 acres (13.5 miles)
Forest Service calculations indicate 12. 0 acres of
disturbance in 1991. Cumulative total 1988
through 1991 -37.4 acres (15.5 miles )
Approximately 1,500 feet of old road would be
upgraded, (no additional disturbance)
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Document
Notice of Intent to Operate -
8/3/88


Notice of Intent to Operate -
3/29/89





Notice of Intent to Operate -
2/27/90
Notice of intent 4/22/90

Reclamation Update - 6/3/91
Notice of Intent to Operate -
12/16/91
Remarks
0.74 acres of disturbance requested in location.
(0.3 miles of road)


No additional disturbance requested, snow
removal only. Approved 4/6/89





No additional disturbance requested snov.
removal only.


I
Requested 0.4 acres of disturbance for g«otech
trenches. (0.25 miles of road) Approver! \
12/24/91. i

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3 189
TABLE 3.19.1, CROWN JEWEL EXPLORATION SUMMARY
FOREST SERVICE
Document
1992 Exploration Operating Plan -
2/6/92
Crown Jewel Project Data Gathering -
6/15/92
Notice of Modification to 1992
Operating Plan - 6/16/92
Addition to 1992 Amendment - 8/4/92
Proposed Reclamation - 10/9/1992
Crusher Mill Site Geotechnical
Investigations - 10/13/93
Reclamation Work on Exploration Drill
Roads - 09/17/93
Geohydrology Investigation of the
Tailings Basin - 07/06/93

Remarks
Request an estimated 7.9 acres of additional
disturbance (3.25 miles). Total disturbance - 31.8
acres (16.75 miles)
6 temporary trenches, within existing road
disturbance. Not approved.
Would require about 0 75 acres of additional
disturbance (0.3 miles) Not approved.
Catchment sump in the Gold Bowl.
Reclaimed 1.1 miles of exploration roads.
(2.7 acres)
No additional disturbance.
Reclaimed 0.98 miles of exploration roads. (2.4
acres)
8 well and test pits within existing disturbance
Forest Service calculations indicate that an
additional 17.2 acres were disturbed in 1992 (7. 1
miles) These acres includes EIS related
disturbance i.e. roads to monitor wells etc.
TOTAL CALCULATED DISTURBANCE TO DATE =
54.6 ACRES (23.6 MILES OF ROAD)
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Document
Amendment to Notice of Intent
dated 12/16/91 - 2/5/92
Notice of Intent to Operate -
2/6/92
Amended Notice of Intent to
Operate - 4/30/92
Amendment to 1992 Notice of
Intent - 6/18/92



Remarks
Request additional 0.15 acres of disturbance for
geotech. (0.06 miles) Approved 2/6/92
Cumulative disturbance is 0.95 acres (0.6 miles |
of road) j
Request 3.37 acres of disturbance for access to
34 drill sites. (1.9 miles of road) Approved
2/11/92 i
The preceding request revised to request 1 .8 )
acres of disturbance to access 41 drill site;;.
(0.98 miles of road) Approved 5/12/92
Cumulative disturbance is 2.75 acres {1.6 miles
of road)
Request additional 0.47 acres for EIS testing.
(0.26 miles of road) Approved 7/7/92
Cumulative disturbance is 3.3 acres 11.9 miles of
road)


TOTAL BLM CALCULATED DISTURBANCE =
3.3 ACRES (1.9 MILES OF ROAD)
                                   Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-190
TABLE 3.19.2, PMT riv. , - ....,, ,
Name of Sale

Manas (Buyout)
Nick 1 (Resale)(82)
Buckhorn
Nick II
Gold
Bishop
Pnnce
Marias Creek
Goid Creek
Hoodoo
Upper Nicholson
Cow Camp High Risk
Ethel Creek High Risk
Nicholson Creek #2
Nicholson Creek
Pontiac Ridge #2
Bat Resale
Mine
Mine II
Nicholson Salvage Two
Nicholson Salvage One
Gold Mine
Beaver Lake High Risk
Nicholson
Gold Thinning Salvage
Date of Salfc

7/08/86
5/06/86
11/15/84
4/23/82
1976
1974
1972
1966
1964
1964
1964
1962
1962
1962
1960
1975
1986
1980
1980
1994

! .' S P - S JK hi S*
! ', *~ "V
11 1'',, f.f->
10(18/83
1 1 /04/87
1980 -81'
1977-78'
N/A
2/18/72
N/A
N/A
N/A
N(A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1989
1986
1988
199b
Canceled
1988
1962
1994
1989
1988
1962
1995
1989
-,.«.„„„., Hanye
' ' C C-
!40VR3'F
T33fi.R3>E
140N/R3IE
T40N-R30E
T40N/R31E
T40N/R30E
T40N/R30E
T40N/P31E
T40N/R31E
T39N/R30E
T39N/R31E
T40N/R31E
N/A
T40N/R30E
T40N/R31E
T40N/R30E
T4ON.R30E
T40N/R31E
T40N/R31E
T4ONR3OE
T39N/R3OE
T39N/R31E
T40N/R30E
T40N/R30E
T40N/R31E
T40N/R31E
T40N/R31E
T40N/R30E
T40N/R31E
T39N/430E
T40N/R30E
T40N/R31E
T4ON/R3OE
K-:r AREA'
ft 'am
Section

29,30,31,32
5,6
25
8.9,16,17,19.20,21
28
22,23,24,25,27
20,21,27,23,29
1,2,11,12
24,25
17,18,19.20,29,30,
2,33
4,5,6,7,8,1 7,18
1
4,5,6
31,32
N/A
25
18,19
25
26
16,17,18,20,21
18,19.20
36
1
4,5,6,8
11,12
1,12
6,7
17,18,19
7,8,17,18
6,7
23,24,25
24,25
6,7,18,19,30
1 1
i
i
Total Acrtfe
Logged5
l
810
1,257
560
4643
560
400
3
N/A
N/A
58s
N/A
N/A
25b
N/A
480b
220"
640
697
493
243
155
0
453
N/A
350
21
Washington Department of Natural Resources
Park Place 1994
1994
N/A
Notes: 1 This table represents data available as of May
2 Closing dates were estimated based on other
3 Acreage estimated from a timber sale map
4 Total acres logged was assumed to be approx
1993)
5 Acreage estimate from old cutting records
N/A Not available
T40N/R30E
36
250
1993, and may not be a complete list
timber sales in the area of similar size
irnately 80% of \\\t, total acreage of sale (Forest Service,
Area. The timber sales are known as the
Nicholson Timber Sale and the Nicholson
Salvage Two Timber Sale.  The location  is
northeast of Buckhorn Mountain in Sections 6
and 7,  17 through 19 and 30, T40N, R31E and
Sections 24 and  25, T40N, R30E.  The sales
consist of approximately 299 acres of
shelterwood harvest,  5 acres of clearcuts (for
aspen regeneration), 200 acres of overstory
removal, and 1 acre of road right-of-way. This
represents a total harvest of 505 acres.

On January 15,1993, the  Forest Service
published an EA for the Nicholson Timber Sales.
A discussion of the Project, including issues,
alternatives, and environmental consequences is
set forth in that document.  Timber harvest and
other resource management activities planned
with the Nicholson  Timber  Sales are consistent
                    Crown Jewel Mine $ Draft Envltonmcntal Impact Statement

-------
                                     CROWN JEWEL MINE
                                  Page 3 191
with direction contained in the Okanogan
National Forest Land Use Plan.

The Notice of Intent to prepare and EIS for the
Jackson Timber Sale was cancelled in 1994 due
to lack of funding.

The WADNR in 1994 sold a timber sale (Park
Place Timber Sale) on approximately 250 acres
in Section 36, T40N, R30E.  This sale contained
about 1 million board feet of timber and is a
selective harvest that will remove less than
50% of the standing timber volume.

3.19.5   Agricultural Activities

Agricultural land uses are more prominent in
Okanogan County than in the immediate
proposed  Project area.  The area around the
Project is  subject to summer livestock grazing
under permit from the Forest Service as
explained  in Section 3.10.6,  Range Resource.

Agriculture in the Okanogan Highlands also
involves livestock grazing with small production
of hogs, alfalfa hay, barley, oats, and  winter
and spring wheat.  The prominent agriculture in
the lower reaches of Okanogan County, namely
the Okanogan River valley, involves apple and
pear production.

3.19.6   Residential Activities

Residential development in the immediate
vicinity of the Project area is concentrated at
Chesaw,  with scattered development along
Myers Creek, Gold Creek, Nicholson Creek,
Bolster Creek and the Pontiac Ridge south of
the Project area. Two new homes were built in
1992 in Section 35, T40N, R30E in the Ethel
Creek drainage.  In recent years,  there have
been several  areas subdivided in 5 to 20 acre
tracts for residences on private ground south
and west of Buckhorn Mountain.

Residential uses within the general region are
typically concentrated in the nearby existing
communities  of Oroville, Tonasket, Omak,
Okanogan, Republic, and Curlew.  Residential
development and uses are also scattered
throughout the  rural portions of both Okanogan
and Ferry  Counties. See Section 3.20,
Socioeconomic  Environment.
3.19.7   Recreation

Recreation is another land use in the area.
Forest Service and BLM lands surrounding the
Project area are subject to hunting, fishing,
hiking, camping, sightseeing, and picnicking.
See Section 3.16, Recreation.  Big game
hunting for deer is the  major source of
recreation within the Project area.

3.19.8   Patenting of Crown Jewel Mining
         Claims

As allowed under 43 CFR 3860, the Proponent
has made application to the BLM for patenting
claims at the Crown Jewel Project site. The
application involves 1 6 mineral claims of
approximately 20 acres in size each (320 acres
total) and 121 mill site  claims of approximately
5 acres in size each (605 acres total).  The total
acreage in the patent applications is
approximately 925 acres.  The location of the
claims which the Proponent has made
application for patent are shown on Figure
3.19.4, Claim Patent Application Location Map.

An unpatented mining claim allows the claimant
the right to extract and remove minerals but
does not represent a full title.  A patented
mining claim is one in which the  Federal
Government has passed title to the claimant,
giving the applicant exclusive title to the
location minerals, and,  in most cases,  the
surface and all resources except water. At any
time prior to the issuance of patent, the Federal
Government may challenge the validity of a
claim and, if successful, the claim can be
cancelled with all rights forfeited.

The various State Directors of the BLM are
authorized to take all actions on mining claims
under the general mining laws. The Chief of the
Division of Technical Services, subordinate to
each BLM State  Director, is further authorized
to take actions on mining claims.  However, the
actual processing of all mineral patent
applications is handled  by mining law
adjudicators. These adjudicators are responsible
for processing all mineral applications,
regardless of which  agency manages the
surface of the lands.

There is no specific time period to process a
patent application.  The specific time period
depends on many variables such  as the number
of claims, location of claims, experience of the
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-192
June 1995
         LEGEND
         LOCATABLE MINERAL CLAIMS
         (Under Patent Application!

    |    [ MILL SITE APPLICATIONS
    	 (Under Patent Application)
 FIGURE 3.19.4, CLAIM PATENT  APPLICATION  LOCATION MAP

-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-193
 applicant or the applicant's attorney, necessity
 for a mineral survey, title problems, adverse
 claimants,  nature of the mineral deposit, status
 of mining activity, direction from the BLM State
 Director or Secretary of the Interior.  Under ideal
 conditions, the entire process may be
 accomplished within a couple of years, but
 more likely the process will require 3 to 5 years.
 On March 2, 1993, the  Secretary of Interior
 issued Order No.  3163, which revoked the
 existing delegations of authority to all
 subordinate certificates and patents. The
 Secretary stated that this action was necessary
 "to enable  the Secretary to assume the review
 and issuance of such documents and
 instruments during consideration by the 103rd
 Congress of bills  which, if adopted, would
 reform the  mining laws and the rights and
 obligations thereunder."

 The outcome of mineral patenting of the Crown
 Jewel claims is unclear. Even if patented, the
 Crown Jewel claims would still  be subject to
 the numerous federal, state and local laws and
 regulations that apply to mining operations.  If
 patented, the federal agencies that manage the
 surface (in  the case of the Crown Jewel Project,
 the Forest Service and BLM) would no longer
 have any direct oversight on the reclamation of
 such lands: however, in the case of Crown
 Jewel Project, both WADOE and WADNR would
 maintain oversight for reclamation and would
 maintain a  reclamation surety for such
 reclamation.  On any unpatented claims that are
 part of the  operation, the federal agencies
 would likewise maintain operations and
 reclamation oversight. The actual patenting
 process is not covered by NEPA.  This
 document does not make a decision on
 patenting.

 3.20    SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

 3.20.1   Introduction

 The study area is  defined to generally include all
 of Okanogan and  Ferry counties. The primary
 study area for this analysis consists of the
 following communities plus associated rural
 areas:

Okanogan County:
 Chesaw (unincorporated)
 Conconully
 Oroville
 Tonasket
                Omak
                Okanogan
                Riverside

              Ferry County:
                Republic
                Curlew (unincorporated)

              Location of the socioeconomic study area within
              the State of Washington and the location of the
              census subdivisions and incorporated cities are
              shown on Figure 3.20.1, Socioeconomic Study
              Area Location.  The location of Chesaw is
              identified although this community is not
              incorporated.

              The Okanogan/Ferry county subdivisions of
              Early Winters, Methow Valley, Brewster-
              Wakefield,  Colville Reservation and Orient-
              Sherman are not included in the study area.  It
              is expected that factors of distance and/or
              length of travel would result in minimal
              socioeconomic impacts outside the study area.

              Similarly, socioeconomic effects on the
              Canadian side of the border are expected to be
              relatively minimal.  Hiring restrictions, tariffs and
              duties would limit socioeconomic effects of the
              proposed Project on the Canadian labor force
              and expenditures respectively. Probably the
              biggest Canadian beneficiary of the Project
              would be motels, hotels, eating establishments
              and recreations facilities in the town of
              Osoyoos.

              3.20.2   Population & Demographics

              Information on key population and demographic
              trends in Okanogan and Ferry counties and,
              more  specifically, in the study area has been
              compiled from U.S. Censuses for 1970, 1980
              and 1990,  as set forth in Table, 3.20.1,
              Population  Trends (1970-1992).  Updated 1991
              and 1992 population estimates for the
              incorporated cities  and the 2 counties were
              obtained from the Washington Office of
              Financial  Management.

              As of the 1990 U.S. Census, Okanogan and
              Ferry  counties had  a combined population of
              39,645, representing 0.8% of the population of
              the  State of Washington.  The study area had a
              population of 23,762,  accounting for almost
              60% of the population of the 2 counties.
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
                                                                                         Co
                                                    BRITISH  COLUMBIA
                                                                         FERRY

                                                                        C 0 U N T Y

                                                                   COL VILLE RESERVA TION
                            rJ^
                      ^-^
                           OREGON
     NOT TO SCALE
FILENAME GJ3-20-1 DWG
FIGURE 3.20.1, STUDY AREA  LOCATION
                                                                                         to
                                                                                         10
                                                                                         01

-------
June  1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-195
TABLE 3.20.1, POPULATION TRENDS (1970-1992)
Community
City /Town:
Conconully1
Okanogan
Omak
Oroville
Republic
Riverside
Tonasket '
Subtotal Study Area Cities
Subtotal Unincorporated Study Area
Total Study Area
County Subdivisions in Study Area:
Chesaw/Oroville
Conconully-Riverside
Curlew
Okanogan/Omak
Republic
Tonasket-Pine Creek
County and State:
Okanogan County
Ferry County
Subtotal Okanogan/Ferry County Area
State of Washington
1970

122
2,015
4,164
1,555
862
228
951
9,897

--

--
-
-




25,867
3,655
29,522
3,409,169
1980

157
2,302
4,007
1,483
1,018
243
985
10,195
11,460
21,655

4,974
1,574
1,214
8,628
2,344
2,921

30,639
5,811
36,450
4,132,156
1990

174
2,370
4,117
1,505
940
223
900
10,229
13,533
23,762

5,726
1,871
1,430
9,072
2,531
3,132

33,350
6,295
39,645
4,866,692
1991

165
2,375
4,120
1,505
1,030
240
933
10,368
-
-

--

--

-
--

34,000
6,500
40,500
5,000,400
1992

160
2,395
4,130
1,505
1,040
250
960
10,440
--
-

--
--
-
-

-

34,400
6,700
41,100
5,116,700
Note: 1. Indicates a special Census was conducted and a correction was made to the 1990 Census.
Source: U.S. Census for 1980 and 1990 figures. Population figures for 1991 and 1992 are from the Washington
Office of Financial Management and are not available for county subdivisions (other than incorporated cities).
Population of the 2 county area increased by
8.8% during the decade of the 1980s, equating
to a compound growth  rate of 0.8% per year.
Population increased somewhat more rapidly in
the study area, by 9.7% from 1980-1990,
equating to an annual growth rate of 0.9%.

The largest city in the 2 counties (and in the
study area) is Omak, with over 4,100 residents.
Taken together, the incorporated cities
experienced a 2% gain  in population between
1980 and 1990. The population of the
unincorporated study area increased by 18.7%
(for an annual growth rate of 1.7%).  As of the
1990 census, the unincorporated portion of the
study area had over 13,500 residents,
accounting for 57% of study area population,
while incorporated cities had over 10,200
residents.  The Washington Office of Financial
Management has updated population estimates
for incorporated cities and counties for 1991
and 1992.  Since the 1990 census, the
              population of Okanogan County has increased
              by an estimated 1,050 residents (or by 3%) to
              34,400 residents as of 1992.  The population of
              Ferry County has also increased by 405
              residents (6%) to 6,700 people in 1992.

              From 1990-1992, Office of Financial
              Management estimates indicate that population
              within the area's incorporated  communities is
              also  increasing.

              All indications are that the rate of population
              growth is again accelerating for both Okanogan
              and Ferry counties after relatively slow growth
              in the 1980s.  For the 2 counties  combined, the
              rate of population growth averaged 2.1 % per
              year  from 1970-80,  0.8% annually from 1980-
              90, increasing to 1.8% per year since 1990.

              As is true throughout the U.S., the median age
              of the population in Okanogan  and Ferry
              counties increased between  1980 and 1990.
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-196
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June 1995
This is due to factors such as increased
longevity and lower birth rates (than was the
case 20-30 years ago).

The median age of Okanogan County residents
(at 35.0 years) is above the statewide median
age figure (33.1) and above that of Ferry
County (32.8).  All of the incorporated
communities in the study area have a population
that is older than the statewide median figure.
Median age of Conconully residents is highest at
48.6 years.

The county subdivisions vary greatly.
Population of the Curlew area (in Ferry County)
is relatively young (with a median age of 28.9
years) due to the location of the Job Corps
Center at Curlew.  County subdivisions tend to
have populations with a higher median age than
is the case statewide.

Overall educational attainment of adult residents
in the 2 counties and the study area tends to be
below that of the entire state. This is typical
for rural areas of the  state.  The 1990 census
indicates that a relatively high proportion of
adults in the Chesaw/Oroville area (almost 31 %)
have not completed high school.

A higher proportion of the population in both
counties are Native Americans than is the case
statewide.  However, the proportion of the
population in the study area that is Native
American is well below the proportion of the
population that is Native American for the
remainder of the 2 county area.  In large part,
this is because the Colville Indian Reservation is
located outside the study area.

The Hispanic proportion  of the study area
population is  above the statewide figure, but
below the state proportion for Ferry and
Okanogan counties combined.

3.20.3  Housing

The most comprehensive recent source of
information for housing in Okanogan and Ferry
County is from the 1990 U.S. Census.
Pertinent census data for the Chesaw/Oroville
area,  the entire study area.  Ferry and Okanogan
counties is presented on Table 3.20.2, 1990
Housing Characteristics.

As  of  1990, Ferry  and Okanogan counties had a
combined total of just under 19,900 housing
                    units.  Overall, a lower proportion of housing
                    units in this 2 county area are owner occupied
                    (50%)  than is the case statewide (56%).  In the
                    Chesaw/Oroville area, less than 40% of all
                    housing units are owner occupied on a year-
                    round basis. A substantial proportion were
                    identified by the census as vacant or in seasonal
                    use (41%).

                    While 41 % of housing units in the
                    Chesaw/Oroville area are classified by the 1990
                    census as vacant, only just over 3% of the units
                    were identified as available for sale or rent.

                    About  14% of units are indicated as being
                    available on a seasonal basis (as for vacation
                    use) and over 24% are vacant for other reasons
                    (including  migrant worker housing).

                    While the  majority of units are single family
                    detached residences, an important share are
                    mobile homes.  Throughout the study area,
                    mobile homes account for 22% of all residential
                    units; in the Chesaw/Oroville area they account
                    for 19%.

                    While housing costs have increased
                    substantially since 1990, as of 1990 home
                    prices  in Ferry and Okanogan  County were only
                    54% of the statewide median house value.
                    Prices  in the Chesaw/Oroville  area have been
                    below  those of the entire Okanogan County
                    area, although Oroville is currently experiencing
                    more rapid appreciation in values.

                    As of the  1990 census, median contract rent
                    was $237 per month for the study area,
                    compared to $383 statewide.  Again, recent
                    market conditions indicate that rents have
                    increased  sharply since  1990  to a reported
                    average of about $325.  As of the 1990
                    census, a  relatively low proportion of Ferry and
                    Okanogan County residents paid  35%  or more
                    of their income in rent, as compared to the
                    entire state.

                    Between 1990 and 1992, a total of 610 new
                    housing units have been added throughout
                    Okanogan and Ferry counties. This represents
                    an increase of 2% in the housing inventory for
                    the 2 county area.

                    Over 86% of the housing development in
                    Okanogan and Ferry counties from 1990-1992
                    has occurred outside of incorporated
                    communities.  Tonasket is Ihe only city with
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4  Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-197
TABLE 3.20.2, 1990 HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Occupancy & Tenure
(Number of Housing Units):
Owner Occupied
Renter Occupied
Vacant Units:
For Sale or Rent
Seasonal'
Other Vacant'
Total Units
Percent Owner Occupied
Percent Vacant Units:
For Sale or Rent
Seasonal
Other Vacant'
Units in Structure:
1 Unit (detached)
1 (attached to 4 units)
5+ Units
Mobile Homes
Total
Median House Valuation
Median Contract Rent
Housing Costs as percent of Incomes:
Owner Occupied
less than 20%
20-35%
35% +
Renter Occupied
less than 20%
20-35%
35% +
Chesaw/
Oroville
1,452
761
126
513
908
3,760
38.6%
3.4%
13.6%
24.1%
2,678
213
150
719
3,760
$46,300
$21 1
61.6%
19.2%
16.8%
23.3%
33.1%
21.1%
Study Area
6,182
2,930
377
1,084
1,606
12,179
50.8%
3.1%
8.9%
13.2%
8,299
659
531
2,690
12,179
$48,900
$237
69.9%
19.4%
9.7%
35.8%
27.7%
22.0%
Ferry County
1,568
679
107
613
272
3,239
48.4%
3.3%
18.9%
8.4%
2,128
71
74
966
3,239
$50,100
$197
75.8%
15.3%
8.2%
55.3%
18.3%
14.4%
Okanogan
County
8,439
4,215
586
1,620
1,769
16,629
50.7%
3.5%
9.7%
10.6%
11,281
918
677
3,753
16,629
$50,300
$222
70.5%
19.0%
9.8%
34.4%
27.5%
21.0%
Washington
State
1,171,580
700,851
58,784
55,832
45,331
2,032,378
57.6%
2.9%
2.7%
2.2%
1,272,721
186,871
365,589
207,197
2,032,378
$93,400
$383
58.6%
30.3%
10.6%
31.2%
34.8%
29.0%
Note: 1 . The U.S. Census distinguishes between units that are vacant on a seasonal basis (as for vacation or
recreational use) versus "other vacant units" (including residences for migrant workers and units that have
been rented or sold but not occupied).
Source: 1990 U.S. Census.
substantial new development ( + 40 units),
accounting for close to 112 of construction in
incorporated cities throughout the 2 county
area.

Mobile homes represent 47% ( +  287 units) of
the growth in housing inventory,  followed by
single family homes ( + 271 units) and
multifamily structures ( + 52 units).

Contacts have been made  with realtors and
property managers throughout the study area to
ascertain more recent availability  and pricing of
for sale and rental housing. Contacts were
made in the fall of 1992 and  subsequently in
August-September, 1993.  In addition, classified
advertisements were obtained for 3 newspapers
in  the study area.

A total of  194 units were identified as being on
the market for sale or rent in  the  study area
              during the period of late August - early
              September, 1993.  These 194 units represent
              approximately  1.5% of the total housing
              inventory in the study area.

              This 1993 vacancy figure of 1.5% compares to
              a 3.1 % vacancy rate of units for sale or for rent
              reported as of  the 1990 U.S. Census.  This data
              indicates that the area's housing market has
              tightened considerably in about 3 years time,
              with vacancy rates dropping to less than half of
              the 1990 level.

              Of the 194 available units, 56 units are in Ferry
              and 138 are in Okanogan County.  A total of
              170 residences were for sale, with only 24
              rental vacancies (home and apartments)
              identified.

              Apartments and homes for rent are extremely
              difficult to find throughout the study area;
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-198
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June 7995
undoubtedly some properties are rented by
word-of-mouth and so are not captured by this
inventory.

A key factor affecting prospective housing
availability is local land use planning.  While
Okanogan County has not opted to  comply with
all the provisions of the State of Washington
Growth Management Act, the county is required
by Growth Management Act to inventory and
manage critical lands. An extensive planning
and public involvement process was initiated in
1992, coordinated  by a 40 member advisory
committee.

As of November 1992, mining activity is a
conditional use in Okanogan  County (pursuant
to the new Zoning  Code - Title 17) requiring a
conditional use permit.  Okanogan County also
is involved in reviewing and issuing conditional
use permits required  in the Minimum
Requirement District  for  explosives  storage, fuel
storage and hazardous chemicals.

While federal lands are typically exempt from
local jurisdiction planning, zoning and building
requirements, the Forest Service and Okanogan
County have been considering a possible
memorandum of agreement whereby Okanogan
County would assume responsibility for building
permitting, sanitation and garbage on the
federal portion of the site (as well as private
lands used for the  Project).  The Proponent has
also indicated plans to apply to Okanogan
County for a conditional use permit for the
entire Project (covering portions on both federal
and other lands).

Historically, there have been relatively few
controls in place in Okanogan County to
regulate housing.  Most  of the rural area within
the study area is designated as a Minimum
Requirement District.

However, the Minimum  Requirement District
does have a variety of controls in place which
help to  regulate development, including a
minimum lot size of 1 acre and density of
dwelling-unit per acre.  Site plans are required
for each RV park or mobile home park, and will
not be approved unless  there is demonstration
of adequate water, roads, sewage disposal, etc.

Every building constructed in the county must
meet Uniform Building Code requirements, and
each residential structure must show adequate
                    water before a building permit is issued.  Every
                    division of land into lots smaller than 20 acres is
                    subject to the Okanogan County Subdivision
                    ordinance 92-1  adopted in 1992.

                    Availability of water has been of particular
                    concern in the Chesaw/Molson area.  As a
                    result,  in November 1992, Okanogan  County
                    adopted a Molson/Chesaw plan overlay.  This
                    overlay has the effect of limiting lot size for
                    residential use to a minimum of 20 acres,
                    except for areas previously platted.

                    Ferry County's  Planning and Building
                    Department is responsible for county  planning,
                    comprehensive plan administration, zoning code
                    enforcement, building permit issuance,
                    inspection and enforcement. There currently is
                    no zoning in the unincorporated area of the
                    county.  However, Ferry County has opted to
                    comply with the Growth Management Act. A
                    Comprehensive Plan is expected to be
                    considered for adoption.

                    A review of housing potential on  a community-
                    by-community basis indicates that developing
                    housing in most areas throughout the study area
                    is currently problematic.  All of the incorporated
                    communities face some combination of
                    topographic, water supply, sewer and/or flood
                    plain constraints.  The Chesaw/Highlands rural
                    area is affected by lack of potable water due to
                    the difficulty of finding productive domestic
                    wells.  The Curlew area of Ferry County  appears
                    to be one of the few rural locations within the
                    study area with the near term potential to
                    support additional residential development.

                    The incorporated communilies of Conconully,
                    Oroville, Riverside  and Tonasket all appear to
                    have the infrastructure capacity (notably water
                    and sewer) to accommodate further residential
                    development.  Although Tonasket's system is
                    undergoing WADOE review. All of these
                    communities  (except Riverside) report a
                    shortage of buildable lots. Riverside homes are
                    on  septic and much of the community is in the
                    100 year flood plain.  Republic's infrastructure
                    can accommodate growth once anticipated
                    sewer repairs are complete; however, few
                    buildable lots are available.

                    Recent actions being taken by the cities  of
                    Okanogan and Omak will better position these
                    communities to accommodate new residential
                    development in future years.  Okanogan has
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3 199
 annexed land to the west, and Omak has
 completed plans to expand the capacity of its
 municipal water system.

 3.20.4  Employment

 There are major differences in the composition
 of the employed labor force in Ferry and
 Okanogan  counties.  Census data for labor force
 and employment are  presented in the following:

 •       Table 3.20.3, 1990 Labor Force  and
         Employment Data;
 •       Figure 3.20.2, Comparative
         Employment Distributions for Ferry
         County; and,
 •       Figure 3.20.3, Comparative
         Employment Distributions for
         Okanogan County.

 The Washington State Employment Security
 Department also collects employment data on a
 county wide basis (but not for cities or other
 subdivisions of a county).  Employment Security
 data differs from 1990 census data in 2 key
 respects.

 First, Employment Security has information only
 for jobs covered by unemployment insurance;
 census data covers uninsured workers such as
 sole proprietors and discouraged workers.

 Second, Employment Security assigns all
 government workers  (including school
 employees) to the governmental category;
 census data counts only administrative workers
 in the public administration category; other
 government workers  may be assigned to other
 industry sectors, such as services for school
 teachers.

 The composition of 1990 employment for  Ferry
 and Okanogan counties, using the U.S. Census
 and Employment Security data, is illustrated on
 Figure 3.20.2, Comparative Employment
 Distributions for Ferry County and Figure
 3.20.3, Comparative  Employment Distributions
 for Okanogan County.

As of the 1990 Census, the percentage of
those who  are age 16 and  over who are in the
labor force  in Ferry and Okanogan counties was
below the statewide participation rate of
66.7%. See Table 3.20.3, 1990 Labor Force
and Employment Data.  Unemployment rates
have also been well above the state average,
              particularly in Ferry County, but less so for the
              study area.

              Relatively high proportions of Okanogan and
              Ferry County residents are employed in farm,
              forest, fishery and operator, fabricator and
              laborer occupations.  By industry, relatively  high
              proportions of area residents are employed in
              agriculture, mining and construction, and public
              administration jobs; while relatively low
              proportions are employed  in manufacturing,
              transportation, communications, public utilities,
              finance, insurance, real estate, and services.

              Washington State Employment Security data for
              1990 indicate that in  Okanogan County a
              majority (52%) of the employed labor force  are
              engaged in  2 industries, agriculture (29% of
              employment) followed by government  (23%).
              In Ferry County, the top 2 employment sectors
              account for 54% of total employment;
              government (33%) and mining (21%).

              The State of Washington Employment  Security
              Department has compiled information on the
              characteristics of unemployment claimants for
              1991. The data indicates that of 1,543
              unemployment claims filed in Ferry and
              Okanogan counties, 909 (or 59%) were filed by
              persons living in the study area.  This is similar
              to the percentage of residents Ferry  and
              Okanogan counties who live in the study area
              (60%).

              However, the characteristics of unemployment
              claimants in the study area are different from
              those of the entire 2 county area.  Relatively
              high proportions of study area residents have
              been employed in agriculture and trade.
              Comparatively low proportions have
              employment experience in mining/construction
              and services.

              3.20.5   Income

              Household income data for the Chesaw/Oroville
              subdivision, entire study area. Ferry and
              Okanogan counties and the entire state are
              shown on Table 3.20.4,  1990 Household
              Income Data.

              As of the 1990 Census,  median household
              income for Ferry County residents was $25,170
              (81 % of the state median figure of $31,183).
              Median income in Okanogan County  was
              $20,303 (65% of the  statewide median).
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
                                       AGRICULTURE (11,57.1
                    SERVICES (2&A'/,}
                       GOVERNMENT (82)
                    FINANCE, INSURANCE, REAL ESTATE (38%)
          SOURCES 1990 U S CENSUS
               1990 DATA FROM WASHINGTON
               STATE EMPLOYMENT SECURITY
               DEPARTMENT
                                                                              MINING AND CONSTRUCTION (205%)
                                                                                     MANUFACTURING (11.5%)
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS,
PUBLIC UTILITIES (4.0%)
                                                                    RETAIL TRADE (14.1%)
   FIGURE  3.20.2, COMPARATIVE  EMPLOYMENT  DISTRIBUTIONS  FOR  FERRY  COUNTY
FILENAME C-J3-20-2DWG

-------
                 RETAIL TRADE [22 2%)
                 GOVERNMENT (68)
            TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS,
            PUBLIC UTILITIES (6.0%)
                                                                                  SERVICES (25.6%)
                                                                                   MINING AND CONSTRUCTION (6.5%)
                                                                                MANUFACTURING (11.0%)
                                                                       FINANCE, INSURANCE, REAL ESTATE (2.8%)
                                   AGRICULTURE (19.3%)
           SOURCES 1990 US CENSUS
               1990 DATA FROM WASHINGTON
               STATE EMPLOYMENT SECURITY
               DEPARTMENT
FIGURE  3.20.3,  COMPARATIVE EMPLOYMENT  DISTRIBUTIONS  FOR  OKANOGAN COUNTY
FILENAME  CJ3-20-3 DWG
CO

-------
Page 3-202
Chapter 3 - Affected Eri\tiron,
-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-203
 Chesaw/Oroville also has a relatively high
 proportion of the population (28%) who have
 incomes that are below poverty level. This
 proportion is dramatically higher than the 11%
 of the population statewide with incomes below
 poverty level.

 Based on comments made in social values
 interviews and at a Forest Service/WADOE
 public meeting held on December 17, 1992, it is
 noted that reported income data alone does not
 provide a complete picture of economic activity
 in the study area.  Particularly in the
 Chesaw/Highlands area, a substantial amount of
 barter activity is indicated.  As in other rural
 areas, other cash income is generated that may
 go unreported. For these reasons, the local
 standard of living may  be higher than is
 indicated by income data alone.

 A more detailed indicator of incomes across all
 economic sectors is  indicated by employment
 and  wages paid by industry sector as provided
 on Table 3.20.5, 1990 Employment and Wages
 Paid by Industry (Okanogan and Ferry County).

 As of  1990, 2,350 workers were employed in
 Ferry County and 18,357 in Okanogan for total
 employment in both  counties of 20,707.  Total
 wages paid in both counties was almost $338
 million, averaging out at $15,078 per employee.

 Highest wages on a per employee basis are paid
 in mining (over $38,800 per employee),
 followed by federal government employment at
 over $27,300 per employee, and then
 transportation,  communication, public utilities
 and state government employment.  Lowest
 average payrolls are in  retail trade  (under
 $9,800 per employee) and agriculture (less than
 $7,800).

 3.20.6  Community & Public Services

 During the  EIS scoping  process, concerns were
 raised as to the impact  of the proposed  Crown
 Jewel Project on community and public services
 in the area  during construction, operations and,
 ultimately, during decommissioning/reclamation.
The first step in assessing community services
 has been to inventory the following existing
services based on contacts with pertinent
providers:

•       Education;
•       Law Enforcement;
                       Fire Protection;
                       Ambulance Services;
                       Hospital & Medical Services;
                       Social Services;
                       Water Supply;
                       Wastewater Treatment;
                       Solid Waste; and,
                       Electrical Utilities.
              Education

              Six public school districts provide K-12
              education services within the study area.  The
              Okanogan,  Omak, Oroville and Tonasket
              districts serve the Okanogan County portion of
              the study area; and Curlew and Republic serve
              the Ferry County portion.

              Current enrollment statistics by grade for each
              of the 6 districts are provided  on Table 3.20.6,
              1992 School Enrollment by Grade.

              Total enrollment of these 6 districts is just over
              6,300 students.  Combined, the Omak,
              Okanogan,  Oroville and Tonasket districts
              account for almost 85% of enrollment.

              Enrollment is relatively consistent across all
              grade levels (in a range of 467 to 542 students
              per grade) up through grade 9. Grades  10-12
              have substantially smaller class sizes at  435,
              388 and 326 students per class, respectively.

              Enrollment in the study area districts increased
              by over 550 students (or by almost 10%)
              between the fall of 1990 and 1992.  The single
              greatest enrollment gain has been experienced
              in the Omak School District with more than 350
              added students.

              Tonasket shows a gain  of only 1 student from
              1 990-1992. Enrollment at Tonasket actually
              dropped from 1,107 students in 1990 to 1,087
              in 1991, then increased to 1,108 in 1992.

              Three of the 6 districts are facing current or
              prospective  facility shortages as a result of
              enrollment growth and/or levy  failures.  Three
              districts have or will soon have capacity to
              accommodate more students across all grade
              levels, these include Oroville, Okanogan, and
              Tonasket.

              Oroville School  District reconstructed several of
              their schools in  1993 providing additional
              student capacity of 100 students over grades
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-204
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June 1995
TABLE 3.20.5, 1990 EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES PAID BY INDUSTRY
(OKANOGAN AND FERRY COUNTY) 	 j
Industry Sector

Agriculture
Forestry
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Transportation, Communication, Public Utilities
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate
Services
Government
Federal
State
Local
Total Employment
Employment

4,512
--
386
329
1,560
318
1,143
2,208
297
1,998
3,978
1,21 1
307
2,460
20,707
Wages Paid

$35,090,524

$14,989,71 3
$6,149,802
$34,321,455
$7,055,853
$15,334,070
$21,531,725
$4,489,355
$27,656,875
$85,616,993
$33,141,651
$6,788,967
$45,686,3715
$337,853,358
Wages Per
Employee
$7,777
—
$38,833
$18,692
$22,001
$22,188
$13,416
$9,752
$15,116
$13,842
$21,523
$27,367
$22,114
$18,572
$15,078
Source: State of Washington Employment Security Department, 1990.
TABLE 3.20.6, 1992 SCHOOL ENROLLMENT BY GRADE
Grade

K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Special
Total 1992 Enrollment
Total 1990 Enrollment
Change from 1990-1992
Okanogan

80
86
67
72
100
71
67
94
65
85
74
70
54

985
915
+ 70
Omak

188
167
196
177
167
208
184
173
173
206
152
145
139
74
2,349
1,997
+ 352
Oroville

61
95
74
87
95
57
63
65
61
72
63
55
34

882
822
+ 60
Tonasket

80
86
99
78
111
106
89
93
97
96
61
52
43
17
1,108
1,107
+ 1
Curlew

15
27
30
20
26
31
34
30
28
31
24
27
25

348
331
+ 17
Republic

t-3
37
A 7
Ei 6
50
50
51
62
EO
E2
61
39
31

629
578
+ 51
Total by
Grade
467
498
513
490
549
523
488
517
474
542
435
388
326
91
6,301
5,750
+ 551
Source: District contacts by E.D. Hovee & Company, September-October 1992 and summer, 1993.
K-12.  The restructured schools will provide
growth for fifty students each in the K-6 and 7-
12 facilities.

Tonasket Schools has recently passed a school
bond for the building of new elementary and
middle/high school facilities.  The budget for the
new schools is being revised and will go back
out to  bid in December 1994 with bids opening
in January 1995.

The  total combined new schools capacity for
Oroville and Tonasket will be 1,250 students.
The  current enrollment as of October 1994 is
1,218  students. The new schools will be able
                    to provide increased capacity for an additional
                    32 students.  The 1995 new facilities are
                    expected to be adequate, but only for a short
                    time according to enrollment projections.

                    The north campus of Wenatchee Valley College
                    (Wenatchee) is located in Omak, as is the
                    privately run Heritage College.  Enrollment at
                    Wenatchee Valley College North of 356 full-time
                    equivalent students and increasing as of 1992.
                    Current economic conditions are leading more
                    residents to take a course or stay in school
                    longer to improve job opportunities.  Maximum
                    facility capacity is 425 students. Wenatchee
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-205
Valley College North also offers adult basic
education in Tonasket and Oroville.

While Wenatchee Valley College enrollment is
under its maximum enrollment lid, existing
facilities are described as overused on
weekdays, evenings, and Saturdays. The
college is  increasingly looking to serve a role in
job training by both retraining for ex-forest
products workers as well as training for new
industries to the area.

Heritage College, Omak Campus, is  a 4 year
private college with degree programs in
education, business and psychology. Fall 1990
enrollment was 80 students.

Law Enforcement

Law enforcement services are provided for the
rural unincorporated portions of the study area
by the Okanogan and Ferry County sheriff
departments.  Most of the incorporated cities
have their own police departments.  However,
the city of Okanogan contracts  with the
Okanogan County sheriff's office for law
enforcement services.  The Okanogan County
Sheriff also provides dispatch services for
Omak, Okanogan and Riverside (but not Oroville
and Tonasket).

The Okanogan County Sheriff has a 1 person/8
hour shift assigned to the north end of the
county with patrols through the Chesaw/Molson
area approximately 2 to 3 times per week.
Conconully has a part-time marshal, and
Riverside has no paid police.

There are  a total of 4 Department of Fish and
Wildlife enforcement officers for Okanogan
County (1 sergeant and 3 officers).  The 4
officers are responsible for enforcing all game
code regulations.

Due to increased case load  and  the prospect of
budget reductions in both Okanogan and Ferry
counties, the ability to provide an adequate level
of law enforcement is reported to be
increasingly strained.

The Washington State Highway Patrol has 8
assigned officers in Okanogan County. Officers
are responsible for patrolling all  Washington
State Highways in Okanogan County.  In
addition, they provide assistance on secondary
county roads on an  "as needed" basis.
               Conconully has a part-time town marshal with
               no financial capacity for additional service.  The
               Omak police  department needs additional
               staffing, plus additional improved facilities.
               Oroville has a city police department. The
               Republic police department is a 2-person
               operation;  Ferry County provides back-up for
               24-hour protection.  Riverside has no paid
               police; Okanogan County Sheriff and state
               patrol provide informal protection to Riverside.
               Tonasket has local law enforcement.  Concern
               is expressed  over potential impact of the mine
               and the need for expanded police staffing.

               Fire Protection

               Fire protection for the more populated portions
               of the study  area is provided by 5  city and  8
               rural fire districts in Okanogan County and  by
               the Curlew district together with the City of
               Republic/Republic district in Ferry County.  The
               cities generally have cooperative relationships,
               including joint staffing with the rural districts
               providing funding for adjoining rural areas.

               WADNR provides fire protection for state and
               private wildlands throughout the county.
               Agreements  exist between the WADNR, the
               Forest Service, the BLM, and rural fire
               departments  for initial response and  cooperative
               fire control.

               All of the cities and fire districts operate with
               volunteer personnel. Some of the  cities have a
               paid fire chief.  All cities/districts have
               personnel with emergency medical treatment
               capability.

               Substantial portions of the study area are
               outside the boundaries of any fire district.
               However, the Forest Service and the BLM
               provide coverage for their holdings.  Most local
               districts  provide assistance outside their
               immediate  districts through formal or informal
               mutual aid  agreements.

               Ambulance Services

               Ambulance and related emergency transport
               services are provided in a variety of ways in
               Okanogan  and Ferry counties. Most of the city
               fire departments assist with emergency medical
               services. The Oroville emergency medical
               services  district provides emergency transport
               services  within the northern portion of
               Okanogan  County.  Ferry County emergency
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-206
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June 1995
medical services District #1 provides service
from the Canadian border south to the Colville
Indian Reservation.  Tonasket also provides
ambulance service.

Life-Line serves the Omak-Okanogan area with a
fully-equipped, licensed ambulance operated on
a 24-hour call basis.

Air flight transport is provided by Life Bird
helicopter service to Deaconess Hospital and
fixed wing plane service to Sacred Heart
Hospital.  Both hospitals are located in Spokane.

Hospital & Medical Services

Hospitals located within the study area are the
Mid Valley Hospital in Omak, North Valley
Hospital in Tonasket, and Ferry County
Memorial Hospital in Republic.  North Valley
also operates a medical clinic in Oroville. All of
the hospitals are partially tax supported,  each
with its own property tax base.

Combined, the 3 hospitals have a total of 76
acute care beds available.  Hospital occupancy
ranges from 20% to less than 45%.

A variety of other medical  and related services
are located within the study area, including local
clinics, nursing/congregate care facilities, and
general care centers.  There are no  medical
facilities located in the immediate
Chesaw/Highlands area.

Social Services

As in most urban and rural communities, a
variety of  social service programs are available
in  both  Okanogan and Ferry counties.
Comprehensive listings of  social service
providers and activities are difficult to develop
because providers include  a mix of state,
federal, county and local agencies; non-profit
organizations ranging from churches to non-
profit organizations contracting with
government agencies; and private providers
such as counselors.

The services provided by individual
organizations are constantly changing in
response to community needs, funding
availability, and volunteer interest.

The major state agency with social  service
responsibilities is the Washington Department of
Social and Health Services. Washington
                    Department of Social and Health Services has
                    offices in Omak and Republic.

                    Within Okanogan County, the Okanogan County
                    Community Action Council serves in the role of
                    an umbrella agency and provides housing,
                    emergency, and  other human service programs.
                    In Ferry County, the county's Community
                    Services Department provides a similar umbrella
                    agency role, as well as serving some clients in
                    eastern Okanogan County.

                    Water Supply

                    Public water supply systems in the study area
                    are currently provided by a mix of local
                    municipalities and community systems.  With
                    the exception of a few community systems,
                    most rural area residents rely on their own
                    domestic well systems. Identifying community
                    systems is problematic as some are informally
                    organized.

                    The incorporated communities of Oroville,
                    Omak, Republic, Riverside and Tonasket have
                    adequate water capacity to serve additional
                    development, as does the community system
                    for unincorporated Curlew.  The  immediate
                    Chesaw area has a privately-owned community
                    water system; the surrounding area depends on
                    private domestic wells.

                    Omak has received an additional water source
                    capable of delivering 2,300 gpm. In the spring
                    of 1995 they will begin pumping 1,500 gpm.
                    This is expected to solve the growth  problems
                    of Omak over the next 10 to 15  years.

                    Omak has installed water meters and in June
                    1995 will  begin billing consumers under a  new
                    rate structure.  Omak expects to see a reduction
                    in water use related to consumer conservation
                    efforts.

                    There is also irrigation water provided for many
                    rural landowners  in the study area by the
                    Oroville-Tonasket, Whitestone, Riverside, Duck
                    Lake, and Omak-Okanogan  Irrigation  Districts.
                    Many of these districts have been developed or
                    improved upon by the Bureau of Reclamation.

                    Wastewater Treatment

                    The only identified sanitary, storm and related
                    wastewater treatment systems in Okanogan  and
                    Ferry counties are operated by local
                    municipalities.  Some municipalities, such as
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3 207
Riverside, do not provide sewer as residents are
on septic systems.

The sewer systems and wastewater treatment
facilities for Okanogan and Republic  are
operating at, or close to capacity, although
Republic can accommodate a doubling of
population once  repairs are completed.
Conconully, Omak,  Oroville and Tonasket have
capacity to accommodate additional  residential
development.

Homes  in  rural areas have individual  septic
systems.  Some  of these are unapproved septic
systems and outhouses, especially in the
Okanogan Highlands. These unapproved
facilities have the potential to cause  water
pollution and heath  problems now or in the
future.

Solid Waste

Both Okanogan and Ferry counties operate
landfill facilities.  As is the case throughout the
state, local landfills  are reaching capacity and
facing environmental and regulatory  issues.

The Ferry  County landfill is scheduled for
closure  in 1995. The City of Republic landfill
was closed in 1991. The city and county are
now developing  plans for an alternative landfill
site.

The old Okanogan County landfill was out of
compliance and closed in 1993.  A new central
landfill became operational in December 1993.

Electrical Utilities

Electric  power in both the incorporated and
unincorporated areas of the study area is
provided by public utility districts operating in
Okanogan and Ferry counties.  Okanogan
County  also owns an 8% interest in  the Wells
Dam hydroelectric facility on the Columbia
River.

Pertinent statistics regarding system capacities
and demand (by  residential and all customers)
are provided on Table 3.20.7, Okanogan and
Ferry County Electric Utility Data.

Electric  load growth in Okanogan County is
increasing at about 2% per year. A  major share
of total demand is from residential customers,
followed by  commercial  and agricultural users.
              Industrial customers (such as fruit packing
              operations) tend to operate seasonally.

              In Ferry County, total kilowatt hours (KWH)
              increased by 13% between 1990 and 1991.
              Major Ferry  County industrial customers include
              Hecla Mining, Vaagen Brothers Lumber, and
              Echo Bay Mining.  The residential customer base
              is increasing slowly, mostly in the north
              county/Curlew area.

              There have been considerable discussions
              regarding how the proposed Crown Jewel
              Project will be served.  It is proposed that a new
              power transmission line will be constructed to
              replace an existing distribution powerline/right-
              of-way from Oroville to the south of Chesaw. A
              new 115 kw (kilowatt) line will be constructed
              from south of Chesaw up the Ethel Creek
              drainage to the proposed mine site.

              The Proponent for the Crown Jewel Project has
              already spent funds for purchase of right-of-way
              and engineering.  Power consumption would be
              in the range of 10 megawatts per day,
              approximately a  10% increase in the load of the
              Okanogan PUD.  The Proponent would pay
              Bonneville Power Administration  rates for power
              purchased, if the Project is approved.

              3.20.7   Fiscal Conditions

              Current data and trends regarding expenditures
              and revenues for local county, city and other
              public agency service providers have been
              obtained through direct contacts with  the
              pertinent public and community service
              providers.

              Major revenue sources for most local
              governments include:

              •        Taxes,  including property, sales and
                       use taxes (local option for cities and
                       counties);
              •        Licenses, permits and fees  (including
                       user fees as for water and sewer);
              •        Federal and state grants and
                       reimbursements (i.e. intergovernmental
                       revenue); and,
              •        Other sources (including beginning
                       cash balance, charge for services,
                       fines & forfeits, and miscellaneous).
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-208
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June 1995
TABLE 3.20.7, OKANOGAN AND FERRY COUNTY ELECTRIC UTILITY DATA

Total Customers
Residential Customers
Total Kilowatt-Hour Sales (x 1 ,000)
Residential Kilowatt-Hour Sales
Total Average Revenue per KWH Sold
Residential Revenue per KWH Sold
Number of Employees
Miles of Line Owned (34.5 KV and less)
Overhead
Underground
Okanogan County
PUD #1
17,496
13,555
530,409
243,314
$2.66
$2.65
55
1,205
125
Ferry County
PUD #1
2,496
1,874
1 17,798
27,630
$4.38
$5.29
16
783
12
Source: R.W. Beck and Associates, Data and Statistics: 22 Public Utility Districts -- Washington, 1991, and
contacts by E.D. Hovee & Company with the Okanogan and Ferry County PUDs.
Consolidated property tax rates in Okanogan
County range from a low of $8.32 to a high of
$18.33 per $1,000 of tax assessed valuation.
Total 1992 levy rate for the Chesaw area is
$14.1113 per $1,000 of tax assessed
valuation. Tax rates for Ferry County range
from a low of  $8.66 to a high of $12.46 per
$1,000 tax assessed valuation.

Most properties are assessed every 4 years at
100% of fair market value, based on
comparable sales.  Due to recent increasing
values, it has been estimated that properties are
currently assessed at about 85% of true market
value.

Current year revenues and expenditures for
Okanogan and Ferry counties and for the
incorporated cities within the study area are
provided on Table 3.20.8, County Government
Revenues and Expenditures,  Figure 3.20.4,
County General Fund Revenues by Source
Illustrated Revenue, and Figure 3.20.5,  County
General Fund Expenditures by Source Illustrated
Expenditure.

For  1992, Okanogan County has an operating
budget of approximately $7.1 million and Ferry
County of $3.5 million.  When expenditures
from other funds are added, the total 1992
budgets would increase to $34.2 million for
Okanogan County  and $11.3 million for Ferry
County.

Other funds include direct county programs
such as the road fund together with funding
passed back to other districts including local fire
and irrigation  districts.  In Okanogan  County,
the  road fund  accounts  for 34% of other fund
expenditures,  followed by equipment rental
                    (17%), irrigation districts (8%), solid waste
                    (8%), mental health (6%) and fire districts
                    (4%).  In Ferry County, the road fund accounts
                    for 48% of other fund expenditures, followed
                    by equipment rental (15%), community services
                    (11%), courthouse building (4%), parks &
                    recreation (3%) and emergency medical services
                    district (2%).

                    In Okanogan County, 40% of general fund
                    revenues are from tax sources, and another
                    37% constitutes intergovernmental revenues.
                    Together, tax and intergovernmental sources
                    account for 77% of Okanogan County
                    revenues.

                    Approximately 34% of Ferry County general
                    fund revenues are from tax sources; 43% of
                    income represents intergovernmental revenues.
                    Together, tax and intergovernmental sources
                    account for 77% of Ferry County revenues.

                    On the expenditure side,  expenditures for
                    security of persons and property accounts for
                    40% of the Okanogan County and 27% of the
                    Ferry County budget.  Ferry County also
                    expends a higher proportion of its general fund
                    budget for other expenditures (37%) than does
                    Okanogan County  (10%). Other expenses
                    include funding for planning and  capital outlay
                    (a substantial general fund budget item for Ferry
                    County in 1992).

                    Budgeted expenses for Okanogan County have
                    increased substantially over the last several
                    years. Some of the highest growth (in
                    percentage terms) has been in the special
                    contractual services of mental health,
                    developmental disabilities, alcohol/drug
                    program, and the public health district.
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------

                                                                                                         to
                                  REVENUE BY  SOURCE OF INCOME
                              FERRY COUNTY
                   OKANOGAN COUNTY
                                             34.3%
                 43.3%
                                                                              40.1%
                                               22.3%
                                                                                23 1%
                                                       36.8%
                        TAXES
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
OTHER REVENUE
                SOURCE OKANOGAN AND FERRY COUNTY AUDITORS OFFICES
                    REVENUE PERCENTAGES REFLECT ADOPTED 1992 COUNTY
                    BUDGETS WHICH MAY NOT COINCIDE WITH ACTUAL
                    REVENUES
                     FIGURE  3.20.4 COUNTY GENERAL FUND  REVENUES
                              BY SOURCE ILLUSTRATED REVENUE
                                                                                                         Kl
FILENAME CJ3-30-JOWG

-------
                                 EXPENDITURE BY MAJOR CATEGORY
                              FERRY COUNTY
                 27.3%
                       TAXES
                  OKANOGAN COUNTY
                                            36 0%
                                                                            49 5%
                                              36,7%
                                                                              10 2%
                                                     40.3%
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
OTHER REVENUE
                SOURCE OKANOGAN AND FERRY COUNTY AUDITORS OFFICES
                   REVENUE PERCENTAGES REFLECT ADOPTED 1992 COUNTY
                   BUDGETS WHICH MAY NOT COINCIDE WITH ACTUAL
                   REVENUES
                  FIGURE  3.20.5  COUNTY GENERAL FUND  EXPENDITURES
                          BY SOURCE  ILLUSTRATED  EXPENDITURES
FILENAME CJ3-20-5 DWG

-------
                                     CROWN JEWEL MINE
                                   Page 3'277
TABLE 3 20 8. COUNTY GOVERNMENT REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES (1992 BUDGET X $1,000)
!' >!<>><; - j* ''Expenditure Item
Ferry
County
Okanogan
County
Comments
C' nffi.l fund Revenues:
T
-------
             $7.000.000





             $6,000,000 —
                      Conconuliy
Okanogan
                                         Omak
                                                 Oroville
Republic
                                                                  Riverside   Tonasket
                                         General Fund
                                                      Other Expenditures
          FIGURE 3.20.6,  1991 TOTAL  EXPENDITURES FOR STUDY AREA  CITIES
FILEHME  CJ3-20-6DWG

-------
      $8,000,000 —|





      $7.000,000





      $6,000,000 —
                Conconuliy    Okanogan     Omak
Oroville     Republic    Riverside   Tonasket
                                   General Fund
                                                Other Expenditures
FIGURE  3.20.7, 1991 EXPENDITURES PER  CAPITA  FOR  STUDY  AREA  CITIES

-------
 Page 3'-214
Chapter 3 - Affected
 Study Area Cities, calculates expenditures on a
 per capita basis.

 While the City of Omak has the highest total
 budget, Tonasket appears to spend the most on
 a per capita basis. Other cities with high per
 capita budgets (above $1,000 per person) are
 Conconully, Okanogan, Omak and Oroville.
 Municipalities with relatively low budgeted
 resources (on a per capita basis) are Republic
 and Riverside.

 3,20.8   Social Values

 The socioeconomic study plan has included  an
 assessment of quality of life factors in the study
 area.  This analysis has occurred in 2 study
 phases:

 •        Phase I: Review of existing
         documents and data for
         Okanogan/Ferry counties and the
         study area plus contacts with
         community/public service providers.

 •        Phase II:  A more in-depth analysis of
         current values based on interviews
         with a broad cross-section of
         community interests within the study
         area.

 Phase I

 Current social values of the Okanogan and Ferry
 counties and of the study area have been
 examined in the context of longer term historical
social values of the region.  Several factors are
 particularly important to note in tracing these
linkages:

 •       The history of Caucasian settlements
        in Okanogan County dates to the
        earliest days of British and then
        American occupation of the  Pacific
        Northwest.

•       The Colville Indian Reservation was
        created in 1872  and  initially extended
        from east of the Okanogan River,
        north and west from the Columbia
        River to the Canadian border.
        Subsequently, the reservation was
        reduced in 1892 to its present
        configuration, in part, due to the
        discovery of gold and other mineral
                             deposits in the northern portions of
                             Ferry and Okanogan counties.

                    •        Mining has played an important role in
                             the historical and continuing
                             development of both Okanogan and
                             Ferry counties; many of the highlands
                             communities such as Chesaw and
                             Molson were started as mining towns.

                    •        For longer than most areas of the
                             Pacific Northwest, Okanogan and Ferry
                             counties have been culturally and
                             ethnically heterogeneous beginning
                             with the original Native American
                             Indian tribes which experienced early
                             contact with European fur traders and
                             military personnel.

                    •        Chinese laborers were brought into the
                             area to work on railroad, mining, and
                             irrigation dam Projects. More recently,
                             a Hispanic population has migrated to
                             the area for employment in agricultural
                             and other occupations.

                    •        Residents of Okanogan and Ferry
                             counties have become accustomed to
                             the seasonal and cyclical ups and
                             downs of a natural resource based
                             economy.

                    As traditional natural resource based sources of
                    employment have declined in recent years, there
                    are clear signs that more attention is being
                    placed on economic development activities in
                    both Okanogan  and Ferry counties.

                    A clear indication of this change in emphasis is
                    provided by the 1985 formation of the
                    Okanogan County Council for Economic
                    Development. Ferry County has participated
                    over a longer time period in the Tri-County
                    Economic Development District (TRICO), a 3
                    county economic development organization
                    recognized by the U.S. Economic Development
                    Administration.

                    In 1991, a preliminary Economic Diversification
                    Strategy for Okanogan County was completed
                    as a basis for diversification for timber
                    dependent regions in Washington.  This strategy
                    was revised as a result of local jurisdiction
                    input in February 1992.  The action plan of the
                    strategy identified "Chesaw  Mine"
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June  1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-215
Comprehensive Plan and Infrastructure funding
as a potential priority Project.

Subsequently, OCCED prepared an Overall
Economic Development Plan for Okanogan
County: 1992 Update.  This plan identified
Buckhorn/Crown Jewel Operation as a top
priority economic development Project (tied with
Oroville Airport Light Industrial Park for top
rating).

In 1991, the Washington State Department of
Community  Development and the TRICO
Economic Development Board funded the
preparation of an Economic Profile (changes in
the Forest Products Industry, and Community
Response) for Ferry, Stevens, and Pend Oroville
counties.  This document identifies a goal to
target recruitment of diversified industries;
additional mining potentials are noted, though
not specifically identified as a priority for Ferry
County.

Phase II

Phase II of the social values analysis involved
27 personal interviews conducted with a broad
cross-section of  interests who could be affected
by the proposed Crown Jewel Project.

The study area was generally described to those
interviewed  as the Okanogan Valley from Malott
to the Canadian border, northeastern Okanogan
County together with northwest Ferry County.
Most of this region (east of the Okanogan River)
had been set aside in 1872 as reservation lands
for the Colville Confederated Tribes (a
combination of 12 dissimilar tribal bands) until
1892 when  gold was discovered and the
boundary  was truncated to its current borders.

Because of its remoteness, difficult terrain,
harsh weather and dry climate, this area was
one of the last regions of the continental United
States to be settled by white men.  Due to the
rich deposits of gold, silver and other minerals,
the area grew quickly when opened up to white
settlement.  Towns sprung up overnight and
railroads were built to move ore, supplies, and
people.  The construction of railroads created a
demand for timber, creating a strong timber
industry which survives to this day, although
the forest products industry has declined in
recent years.
              A swelled population of miners, loggers, and
              settlers also created a need for agriculture and
              produce.  The profuse orchards and agricultural
              economy are a modern legacy of that demand,
              although today agriculture products are shipped
              to wider markets nationally and internationally.

              Mining began to vanish almost as quickly as it
              grew once the primary deposits were
              exhausted.  Much of the mineral extraction was
              dwindling by 1920, leaving a number of
              homesteaders/ranchers, loggers, and eventually
              ghost towns.  The communities of Chesaw,
              Molson,  Havillah, Curlew, while still sparsely
              populated, are vestiges of once large and
              thriving mining communities.

              The people who stayed in the region after the
              mines were closed fall into several categories:

              Indians.  Many of the original families have
              since moved out of the area onto the
              reservation or elsewhere.  There still are some
              lands owned by enrolled members and their
              relatives, but more importantly, these people
              have reclaimed hunting, fishing, gathering, and
              heritage rights in this region.

              Farmers/Ranchers.  Many of the original
              homesteading families who stayed in the area
              developed ranches to raise cattle and other
              limited agricultural products.  Many of these
              "old families" still practice their livelihood and
              retain some of their original mining claims and
              patents.

              Orchardists/Farmers. Primarily located in the
              irrigated  "banana belt" of the Okanogan  Valley,
              these families became more  involved in the
              development of valley communities and
              commodity exchange. The sons and daughters
              of these early agriculturists became the
              entrepreneurs and the merchants of the valley
              where lumber processing, fruit warehousing,
              and the service industry grew and flourished.
              This is where the vast majority of population
              growth has occurred in Okanogan County.

              These original homesteaders, settlers, and their
              descendants brought and have maintained many
              of the strong values that remain a major
              influence in the culture today. The personal
              interviews conducted during Phase II revealed
              the following values:
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 3-216
Chapter 3 - Affected Environment
June 1995
•        Self reliance, independence, self
         confidence, respect of neighbors, and
         recognition of interdependence.

•        Resistance to authority, planning,
         regulation.

•        Strong desire to maintain status quo --
         resistant to change.

•        Appreciation of natural beauty and
         wildness.

•        An orientation that natural  resources
         are given to use and to be  utilized.

•        Hard work and honesty.

•        Quality of lifestyle which is a higher
         priority than material wealth.

•        Distrust for government and big
         business.

•        Children and family which are highly
         prioritized.

It would appear that those who have remained
in this region for a considerable period of time
embrace  these values if they did not already
arrive with them.

However, major change  is taking place in this
region due to a number of circumstances.  A
heavy influx of population has not only put
additional stress on housing and land use, but
has introduced  a wider variety of social values.
To simply list the categories of recent
immigrants there are:

•        Educated wilderness migrants;
•        Hispanic/migrant workers;
•        Retired middle  class migrants; and,
•        Urban refugees.

This region seems to be attractive to these new
"migrants" because of a number of factors
including the area's natural  beauty, low land
costs, sparse population, minimal land use
controls, and low cost of living. The diverse
values of these "new people" sometimes
conflict with the more historic and traditional
values of the area.
                    3.20.9   Land Ownership & Values

                    Approximately 77% of the land in  Okanogan
                    County (as of 1989) and 82% of Ferry County
                    is owned by the federal government or is part of
                    the Colville Indian Reservation.  Reservation
                    lands are located in the south half  of both
                    counties, east of the Okanogan River, and
                    managed by the Colville Confederated Tribes
                    and U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs.

                    The majority of non-reservation lands are
                    managed primarily by the F:orest Service. The
                    BLM also manages substantial holdings,
                    particularly at the edges of the Okanogan
                    Valley.  The State of Washington also owns a
                    substantial amount of land in the study area,
                    primarily managed by the XVADNR  or the
                    WADFW.

                    Total assessed valuation of property in
                    Okanogan County approximates almost $1
                    billion as of 1992.  Assessed valuation of the
                    county  has increased by almost 79% since
                    1980, equating to an average annual increase in
                    property valuation of 4.9%.

                    Total assessed valuation of Ferry County
                    approximates $275 million as of 1992.
                    Assessed valuation has increased by 240%
                    since 1980, for an average annual  increase in
                    property valuation of  10.7%.  Much of this
                    increase is attributable to mining activity in
                    Ferry County, particularly the opening of the
                    Echo Bay operation.

                    Property values are starting to increase at an
                    accelerated rate,  particularly in the Oroville area.
                    City building lots range widely from $5,500 to
                    $20,000.  Rural acreage with water, power,
                    and road access may range from less than
                    $1,000 per acre  (20+ acres in
                    Chesaw/Highlands area) up to $10,000 per acre
                    (Oroville).

                    Acreage is least expensive (on a per acre basis)
                    in the highland areas of northeast Okanogan
                    County (encompassing the Chesaw, Molson,
                    Toroda  Creek, Wauconda, Havillah and other
                    nearby  areas).  However, assuring  availability of
                    water can be quite  uncertain unless a well is
                    already on-site or an existing water right  (to a
                    stream) is in place.  Consequently, most
                    residences in the highlands are placed on large
                    acreage parcels.
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
                         	CRO WN JEWEL MINE                         Page 3-217

By comparison, building a home or placing a
mobile home/modular home on a smaller (1-5
acre) lot has been more common in the
Okanogan Valley and the Republic area.
However, strong demand has reportedly
depleted much of the supply of buildable small
acreage parcels in the Okanogan Valley.
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------

-------
                   Chapter 4
Environmental Consequences

-------

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
                            Page 4-1
                           4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
This chapter of the EIS provides the analytical
basis for comparison of the Project alternatives
(Chapter 2)  with the existing environmental
resources (Chapter 3).  Chapter 4 examines the
anticipated environmental effects associated
with the implementation of the action
alternatives  in comparison to the no action
alternative.

The descriptions in Chapter 2 include mitigation
and reclamation measures which were
developed to limit the occurrence or severity of
environmental impacts.  The environmental
analyses presented in Chapter 4 are for the
alternatives  as mitigated in Chapter 2.

For ease of  presentation and comparison, the
impact analysis discussions are grouped by the
same technical disciplines as addressed in
Chapter 3.  Although the anticipated
environmental effects of alternatives were
analyzed for each resource discipline, impact
analyses emphasize those disciplines that relate
to the key issues and concerns identified in
Chapter 1.  Each alternative would have effects
7on existing land and resource conditions
described in Chapter 3.  Some effects are
expressed in qualitative terms,  others in
quantitative  terms.  All effects disclosed in this
chapter assume compliance with direction
contained in existing Management Plans or that
these plans  will be modified so the Project is in
compliance  and that the mitigation measures
identified in  Chapter 2 are implemented.

Impact descriptions under each  resource area
are divided into the following categories:

•        Effects of the no action alternative;
•        Effects common to all  action
         alternatives; and,
•        Effects unique to each action
         alternative.

Under each  resource area, as applicable, the
direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts for the
alternatives  are evaluated. These impacts are
defined as follows:

•       Direct impacts - Those effects which
        occur at the same time and in  the
        same general location as the activity
        causing the effects;
               •       Indirect impacts - Those effects which
                       occur at a different time or different
                       location than the activity to which the
                       effects are related; and,

               •       Cumulative impacts - Those effects
                       which result from the incremental
                       impact of the action when added to
                       other past, present, and reasonably
                       foreseeable future actions.

               •       Irreversible commitments.  Those
                       commitments that cannot be reversed,
                       except perhaps in the extreme long-
                       term.

               •       Irretrievable commitments.  Those
                       commitments that are lost for a period
                       of time.

               Proposed mitigation measures are addressed in
               Chapter 2.  Effective mitigation avoids,
               minimizes,  rectifies, reduces or compensates for
               potential effects. After mitigation is applied,
               any unavoidable adverse impacts to each
               resource area are addressed.
              4.1
AIR QUALITY
              4.1.1    Summary

              Fugitive dust emissions would occur in all action
              alternatives during the operating life of the
              Crown Jewel Project, as shown in Table 4.1.1,
              Summary of Fugitive Dust Emissions By
              Alternative. The Proponent used  EPA-approved
              emission calculations and air quality computer
              models to estimate the ambient concentrations
              of fugitive  dust and hydrogen cyanide during the
              peak year of the Project.  The modeled peak-
              year ambient concentrations at the Proponent's
              mine claim boundary are less than WADOE's
              ambient air quality standards.  Air quality
              impacts from dust and hydrogen cyanide
              generated directly by proposed mine operations
              would cease when mining and milling operations
              cease.

              No long-term air quality impacts would occur
              from the Project after mining and  reclamation
                    Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-2
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June 1995
TABLE 4.1.1, SUMMARY OF FUGITIVE DUST EMISSIONS BY ALTERNATIVE
Issue
TSP (tons)
Peak-Year
Total
PM-10 (tons>
Peak-Year
Total
Hydrogen Cyanide
(tons)
Peak-Year
Total
NOX (tons)
Peak Year
Total
Alternative
A
Data Not
Available
Data Not
Available
None
None
Data Not
Available
Alternative
B
521
4,168
160
1,303
0.07
0.56
326
2,608
Alternative
C
Annual- > A, F,
< B,D,E,G
Total- >A;
<8.D.E,F,G
31
144
Annual - > A,
F.G; A, G,
 A;
A,
 A,
C,F, < B,E,G
Total- >A,C;
A,
C.F.G; A,C, G,
 A, C,
A,C;

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-3
compliance with the ambient air quality
standards.

4.1.3    Effects of Alternative A (No Action)

Under Alternative A (No Action), the Project
area would essentially remain unchanged in
regards to air quality.  The regional area
consists mainly of undeveloped forest land, with
little industrial activity or few cities to
contribute to air pollution.  The nearest
industrial activity is the Pope and Talbot mill
located at Midway, British Columbia, about 6
miles from the Project site and Steve Brown's
mill on Toroda Creek, also about 6 miles from
the Project site.

Under Alternative A, the fugitive dust
concentrations near Chesaw and Buckhorn
Mountain would probably remain unchanged.
The area currently is classified as being in
attainment with  National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for all pollutants.  The nearest
ambient air quality monitoring was 50 miles or
more from the Crown Jewel site.  If the No
Action Alternative is implemented,  the area
would continue to be classified as being in
attainment with  the standards.  In the absence
of industrial, commercial or population growth,
there is little likelihood that ambient monitoring
would be conducted and, thus, little chance that
the classification would change.

4.1.4    Effects Common to All Action
         Alternatives

Direct Impacts

Construction/Reclamation.  All the  action
alternatives would cause a short-term increase
in air pollution emissions during construction
and reclamation, which are not expected to
have a major impact. The emission rates during
construction and reclamation would be lower
than they would be during the operation phase.

The Forest Service, WADOE, WADNR, and BLM
must approve a Reclamation Plan for the Crown
Jewel Project before any construction or
operations, and the Proponent would be
required to post a financial security (bond) to
ensure that adequate funds are available to
perform the reclamation.  These actions are
being required for this Project to prevent future
problems such as those that occurred at the
Holden  Mine project, where windblown dust
               impacts occurred until a rigorous reclamation
               project was implemented.  No long-term air
               quality impacts would occur from the Crown
               Jewel Project after mining and reclamation
               cease because the tailings impoundment surface
               and other disturbed surface areas would be
               properly stabilized and reclaimed to control
               potential wind erosion. Reclamation activities
               must be designed to prevent  wind erosion off
               the tailings and disturbed areas.

               Operation. All of the action alternatives would
               cause an increase in air pollutant emissions
               during the life of the Project,  and for a short
               period thereafter, and would  result in
               corresponding short-term increases in the  air
               pollutant concentrations near the Project site.
               As shown in Table 4.1.2, Peak-Year Emissions
               for the Operations Phase (Alternative B), a
               majority of the dust would  be generated from
               the haul roads; although, loading, dumping,  and
               dozer operations would also contribute.

               The Proponent has used EPA-approved
               calculations and computer models to
               demonstrate that the modeled ambient
               concentrations at the Proponent's mine claim
               boundary during the peak year of operation for
               Alternative B are less than the WADOE ambient
               air quality limits.

               During the Project duration, the  pollutant
               concentrations are expected to dissipate to
               near-background levels within several miles
               downwind of the site. The Project emissions
               are not expected to cause measurable  increases
               in pollutant concentrations at Chesaw, Bolster,
               Midway (British  Columbia), or other population
               centers.

               Several federal and state agency guidelines
               would regulate and limit on-site  worker
               exposure  to fugitive dust, tailpipe emissions,
               hydrogen cyanide and other air pollutants.

               Nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide,
               and volatile organic compounds would be
               emitted from the tailpipes of  the on-site
               construction vehicles. Hydrogen cyanide,
               hydrogen chloride, and ammonia would be
               emitted from the processing plant for all
               alternatives except Alternative G. Trace metals
               including arsenic, chromium,  cobalt, copper,
               lead, molybdenum, nickel, niobium, rubidium,
               strontium, thorium, tin, tungsten, uranium,
               vanadium, yttrium, zinc, and  zirconium are
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-4
Ch 4- - Environmental Consequences
June 1995
TABLE 4.1.2, PEAK YEAR EMISSIONS FOR THE OPERATIONS PHASE (ALTERNATIVE B)

CO
Tailpipe
Hydrocarbons
NOX
SOX
ANNUAL EMISSIONS (tons/
Drilling
Blasting
Loading
Hauling
Dumping
Crusher Hopper
Dozers/Graders
Wind Erosion
Misc. Vehicles
In-Pit Generators
Process Area
Total
12.6
105.0
5.2
27.8
0.5

4.4

3.5
0.6
0.5
160.1
.04

1.6
4.0
0.2

2.2

0.5
0.2
0.1
9.2
42.1
26.5
34.1
181 0
3.4

33

0.5
2.9
2.7
326.1
3.5
1.6
3.7
11.9
0.4

3.1


0 2
0.1
24.5
TSP
PM-10
Cyanide
/ear)
0.9
No Data
41.1
383.0
17.1
0.3
20.2
Not
Substantial
52.8

5.4
520.8
0.1
No Data
13.8
100.0
7.8
0.2
4.4
Not
Substantial
23.7

5.4
155.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0073
0.0073
HOURLY EMISSIONS (Ib/hr)
Drilling
Blasting
Loading
Hauling
Dumping
Crusher Hopper
Dozers/Graders
Wind Erosion
Misc. Vehicles
In-Pit Generators
Process Area
Total
4.1
804.0
1.5
8.1
0.8

2.2

1.1
0.3
0.2
822.3
0.1

0.5
1.1
0.2

1.1

0.2
0.1
0.0
3.3
13.6
204.0
9.9
52.4
4.9

17

0.2
1.4
1.2
304.4
1.1
12.0
1.1
3.5
0.5

1.5


0.1
0.0
19.8
0.3
No Data
12.0
111.0
8.6
0.1
18
Not
Substantial
17.0

2.0
169.1
0.0
No Data
4.0
29.0
3.1
0.1
4
Not
Substantial
7.6

2.0
49.6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0166
0.0166
Note: CO = Carbon Monoxide
NOX= Oxides of Nitrogen
SOX = Oxides of Sulfur
TSP = Total Suspended Particulates
PM-10 = Particulate Matter 10 Micrometers or Less in Size
Source: February 3, 1994 - Air Quality Permit Support Document. Battle Mountain Gold Corporation, Crown
Jewel Project
naturally present in the gold ore and the
overlying soil, and would be emitted by all
Action Alternatives. These trace metals are not
expected to cause significant air quality impacts
                     Indirect Impacts

                     Fugitive dust and associated impacts to
                     vegetation and visibility would be generated on
                     off-site unpaved roads by Project-related traffic
                     during both the construction phase and
                     operations phase.
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4  Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-5
The construction phase is predicted to add 285
ADT and the operations phase is predicted to
add 48 to 95 ADT onto the roads accessing the
Project.

Busing/van pooling of personnel is proposed for
the operations phase of the Project.  Busing
during the construction phase would reduce the
generation of dust on off-site  roads.

Other forms of mitigation for off-site dust
generation could include speed control on all
unpaved roads and dust suppression on off-site
unpaved roads. Speed control has been proven
effective in controlling a percentage of dust (as
much as 50% reduction  when speeds are
reduced from 40 mph to 20 mph).  Dust
suppression through the use of water or
chemicals has also been shown to reduce dust
generation by  at least 50%.

4.1.5    Effects of Alternatives B and E

Emission Estimates

The Proponent has prepared several technical
reports to support their air quality permit
application (BMGC,  1994a; 1994b; and 1994c).
Those documents provided emission inventories
for all point  sources, tailpipe sources and
fugitive emissions for particulate matter,
hydrogen cyanide, particulate  air toxins, and
gaseous pollutants from tailpipes. Table 4.1.2,
Peak- Year Emissions for the Operations Phase
(Alternative B), itemized  the annual emissions
that would occur during  the operation.

Table 4,1,3, Comparison of PM-10 Emissions
for Project Alternatives, lists the estimated peak
year PM-10 emissions for each of the Project
alternatives  during the construction phase,
operation phase, and backfilling operations. The
values shown  in that table are approximate
values that were derived only  for rough
comparison  purposes in this EIS, and  are not
intended to serve as emissions limits for any of
the alternatives. The values for Alternative B,
Table 4.1.2, Peak-Year Emissions for the
Operations Phase (Alternative B) were taken
from the Proponent's air quality permit
application package (BMGC, 1994a and 1994b).
The emission rates for the other alternatives
were approximated by scaling from the
Alternative B values, and accounting for
engineering  values such as relative haul road
lengths, relative production rates, etc.
              The most noticeable emission source is the
              fugitive dust that would be produced by the
              haul trucks and other mining equipment. The
              fugitive dust emission rates listed in Table
              4.1.2, Peak-Year Emissions for the Operations
              Phase (Alternative B),  are based on the
              application of either an approved chemical
              stabilizer to the unpaved haul roads or the use
              of water on unpaved haul roads during dry
              weather.  Table 4.1.2, Peak-Year Emissions For
              Operations Phase (Alternative B) also lists the
              peak-year emissions for carbon monoxide, (CO)
              nitrogen oxides (NOX), and sulfur dioxide (SOX),
              all of  which are emitted primarily from the
              construction equipment tailpipes.

              The maximum daily emission rates for cyanide
              evaporating from the tailings pond were
              estimated based on an assumed aqueous
              cyanide concentration in the pond of 10.0 part
              per million  (ppm) (WAD), and evaporation rates
              based on conservatively high ambient
              temperature and wind speed.  The predicted
              cyanide emission rate  is 0.0166 pounds per
              hour.

              The emission rates for particulate toxic air
              pollutants generated as fugitive dust from the
              proposed mining operations were estimated
              from the known concentration of trace metals in
              the ore and waste rock. The estimated
              particulate air toxics emission rate is 0.63 tons
              per year.

              Modeled Ambient Air  Quality and Visibility
              Impacts

              Air quality  modeling for the peak year of
              operation was conducted by the Proponent for
              Alternative B.  The modeled impacts caused by
              fugitive dust and cyanide at the Proponent's
              mine  claim boundary are less than the allowable
              limits set by WADOE.   The modeled visibility
              impacts at the Pasayten Wilderness Area are
              less than the guidelines set by EPA.

              Three different computer models were used to
              estimate the ambient air impacts: FDM and
              ISCST2 for fugitive dust and cyanide; and
              VISCREEN for plume visibility impacts. The
              FDM  computer model  was used for emissions of
              particulate material less than 10 microns (PM-
              10), and accounts for area sources and dust
              settling. The ISCST2  computer model was used
              for the cyanide emissions from the tailings
              pond.  Both FMD and  ISCST2 models have been
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4  Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 46
Ch 4- - Environmental Consequences
June 7995
TABLE 4.1.3, COMPARISON OF PM-10 EMISSIONS FOR PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
PEAK - YEAR PM-10 EMISSIONS (tons/year)
Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E Alternative f Alternative G
Construction Phase
Road Construction
Other
Total
Operation Phase
Drillmg/Blasting/Loading
Waste Rock
Crushing/Milling
Employee Transportation
Truck Haulage
Total
Reclamation Phase
Waste Rock
Other
Total

22
1
23

14
105
7
24
<1
150

<1
<1
<1

19
1
20

0
2
<1
29
<1
31

<1
<1
<1

24
<1
24

6
47
7
29
<1
89

<1
<1
<1

22
1
23

14
105
7
24
<1
150

<1
<1
<1

22
<1
22

7
54
9
18
<1
88

54
18
72

22
<1
22

14
117
16
24
13
184

<1
<1
<1
shown by the EPA to predict a conservatively
high ambient concentration. For both of those
models, the meteorological data from the on-site
weather station were used as modeling input.

The results of the peak-year modeling for
fugitive dust impacts are shown in Figure 4.1.1,
Air Quality JSP Modeling.  The modeled
impacts, including an assumed value for existing
background,  are less than the WADOE ambient
standards:

Modeled Impact by Mine Project
•        122ug/m3

Assumed Existing Background
•        10 ug/m3

Total Modeled  Concentration
•        132ug/m3

State of Washington Ambient Standard
•        1 50 ug/m3

Some assumptions  used for the dust emission
model include the selection of the background
concentration for TSP and PM-10 and location
of the facility boundary, see Figure 4.1.1, Air
Quality TSP Modeling. The Proponent's
modeling assumed that the mine claim boundary
would be established as the compliance
boundary for air quality permitting.  An
uncertainty on  background TSP and PM-10
concentrations arises because the existing
background concentration of TSP at the Project
site has not been measured. Because of the low
                     modeled PM-10 levels, exceedance of the
                     National Ambient Air Quality Standard for PM-
                     10 is not likely, but is still possible if a much
                     higher background concentration is assumed.

                     The modeled concentration of hydrogen  cyanide
                     at the Proponent's mine claim boundary  is only
                     0.08 ug/m3, which is much lower than the
                     WADOE air toxics limit of 33 ug/m3.

                     The VISCREEN computer model indicated that
                     the Crown Jewel emissions  would not adversely
                     affect visibility at the Pasayten Wilderness Area,
                     about 44 miles west of the Crown Jewel
                     Project.  The Pasayten Wilderness is the Class I
                     airshed nearest the Crown Jewel Project.
                     VISCREEN models the concentrations of
                     particulates and nitrogen oxides at a pre-
                     selected downwind receptor, and calculates 2
                     values related to plume visibility:  Plume
                     Contrast as seen against white and black
                     backgrounds; and the Perceptibility Parameter,
                     "Delta E", which relates to the changes in
                     plume color as seen  against white and black
                     backgrounds.  EPA has established the
                     following guideline limits for acceptable plume
                     visibility in Class I airsheds (EPA,  1992):  Plume
                     Contrast less than 0.05;  and Delta E less than
                     2.00. Based on the  assumption that the
                     background visible range at  Pasayten
                     Wilderness is 37 miles, VISCREEN modeled
                     worst-case Plume Contrast of only 0.021 and
                     Delta E of only 1.76. Therefore, the paniculate
                     and nitrogen oxide emissions from the Crown
                     Jewel Project would not  adversely affect
                     visibility at the nearby wilderness areas.
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
                                        Page 4 7
             -5000   -4000    -3000    -2000   -1000
          7000
          6000 —
          5000 —
          4000
          3000
          2000
          1000
          -1000
          -2000
          -3000
          -4000
 1000     2000    3000    4000    5000
	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1 7000
                                                                                              6000
                                                                                              5000
                                                                                              4000
                                                                                              3000
                                                                                              2000
                                                                                              1000
                                                                                               -1000
                                                                                               -2000
                                                                                               -3000
                                                                                               -4000
             -5000    -4000    -3000    -2000   -1000      0      1000     2000     3000     4000    5000

                        ISOPLETH OF MAXIMUM 24-HOUR TSP CONCENTRATIONS IN  ug/m3
     NOTE BOUNDARY SOURCE FEBRUARY 3. 199<
         AIR QUALITY PERMIT SUPPORT DOCUMENT
         BATTLE MOUNTAIN GOLD CORPORATION
         CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
         (TSP - TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATEI
                                                                         1000      2000


                                                                    SCALE IN KILOMETERS
                 FIGURE   4.1.1,  AIR  QUALITY  TSP  MODELING
  FILENAME  CJ4-1-1DWG

-------
Page 4-8
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June 1995
VISCREEN modeling runs for the other actions
alternatives were not performed, but the
impacts would be similar or less than
Alternative B, except for Alternative G which is
estimated to have a worst-case plume contrast
of 0.023 and a Delta E of approximately 1.94.

4.1.6    Effects of Alternative C

This alternative features underground mining,
and is calculated  to cause lower emission rates
for all air pollutants than those for Alternative B
(see  Table 4.1.1,  Summary of Air Emissions by
Alternative).  Therefore, this alternative would
be expected to result in lower ambient air
concentrations than Alternative B.

4.1.7    Effects of Alternative D

Since Alternative D would a combination of
open pit and underground mining, the TSP
emissions during  operation are predicted to be
less than Alternative B, but more than
Alternative C. Therefore, this alternative  is
expected to cause ambient air pollutant
concentrations lower than those for Alternative
B, but greater than those for Alternative C.

4.1.8    Effects of Alternative F

For this alternative, the mining would be
conducted at a lower annual rate but for a
longer period of time than for Alternative  B.
The maximum annual average and daily average
air pollutant emission rates are expected to be
less than those for Alternative B, and the
ambient air pollutant concentrations would be
correspondingly lower.  However, the air
pollution impacts would occur over a longer
period than they  would under Alternative B.

The fugitive dust emission rate during
reclamation would be greater, and the duration
of impact would  be longer for Alternative F than
for any  other Action Alternative.  The
reclamation phase of this alternative  would
generate additional dust emissions as a result of
hauling  all the waste rock from  a temporary
location back to the  pit. This activity would
have a 16-year duration.

4.1.9    Effects of Alternative G

The estimated fugitive dust  emission rate during
operation would be larger for Alternative G than
for all other Action Alternatives due to the
                      additional hauling distance and associated
                      fugitive dust generated a single waste rock
                      stockpile. The ambient TSP concentrations at
                      the Proponent's mine claim boundary were not
                      modeled  for this alternative, but they are
                      expected to be higher than  those for Alternative
                      B, which resulted in modeled concentrations
                      only slightly below the WADOE standard.

                      4.1.10   Cumulative Effects

                      None of the alternatives are expected to have
                      major effects  on local or regional climate.  The
                      emissions from the alternatives would be small
                      relative to the overall emissions from the
                      regional area, which already experiences urban,
                      industrial, agricultural and logging activities.
                      The emission  of "greenhouse gases" such as
                      carbon dioxide from construction equipment
                      tailpipes  would be low compared to existing
                      emissions from residential heaters and tailpipes
                      at Tonasket, Oroville, and Omak.  None of the
                      alternatives would emit large amounts of water
                      vapor,  which  might otherwise cause localized
                      fogging or icing.  Furthermore, the
                      concentrations of the emitted pollutants would
                      be expected to dissipate to  near-background
                      levels within only a few miles from the mine
                      site, and it is  unlikely that any of the
                      alternatives would contribute to any detectable
                      increase  in pollutant concentrations at local
                      population centers.

                      No long-term, adverse impacts to air quality
                      would  be expected to result from
                      implementation of slash disposal on this Project
                      and adjacent  projects (i.e. Nicholson and  Park
                      Place Timber  Sales) in either the United States
                      or Canada.  It would be very unlikely that land
                      clearing or slash burning from the various
                      projects would be undertaken at the same time.
                      Instead, these short-term impacts would be
                      spread out over time.

                      4.1.11   Climate

                      None of the alternatives would emit enough
                      particulates or water vapor  to cause cloud
                      formation, fogging or icing, which might
                      otherwise contribute to local weather impacts.
                      The emissions of "greenhouse gases" from the
                      proposed mining operations would be low
                      compared to  similar emissions from non-Project
                      activities elsewhere in the region.
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
                             CROWN JEWEL MINE
                                     Page 4-9
In eastern Washington valleys, cold air often
flows down slopes and collects in low places.
Interrupting this flow can result in a "cold air
dam" by creating another place for cold air to
collect. The tailings and the open pit would
have the potential to act as cold air dams
potentially affecting revegetation success.
4.2
TOPOGRAPHY/PHYSIOGRAPHY
4.2.1    Summary

The construction and operation of the Crown
Jewel Project would introduce a noticeable
topographic change in the immediate area of
Buckhorn Mountain. Development of a
comprehensive reclamation plan that involves
regrading and recontouring, and strict adherence
to this plan would lessen the topographic
intrusion on the site. The degree of topographic
impact would be a function of the acreage
disturbed, the type of mining, the final
configuration of the open pit, waste rock
disposal  piles, tailings facility, and the extent of
subsidence that develops over underground
mine workings.  The variations  in acreage are
shown on Table 4.2.1, Acreage Impacts of
Major Facilities.  Although the topographic
changes  are long-term, the regrading and
recontouring aspects of the reclamation efforts
would be conducted in such a manner that the
waste rock and tailings areas would be, to the
extent possible, blended into the adjacent
undisturbed terrain.

As described in detail in Chapter 2, Section
2.11.4, General Reclamation Procedures;
Grading and Blasting for Alternatives B, D, E,
and G, reclamation blasting would be conducted
to create cliffs and talus slopes in an effort to
eliminate and minimize the artificial topographic
appearance created by the rectilinear activities
of open pit mining.  Alternative F would require
that all waste rock be returned to the pit, this
would result in  a slightly higher summit on
Buckhorn Mountain and gentler slopes than
currently exist.   Alternative C could have  up  to
27 acres of potential subsidence, while
Alternative D could  have about 3 acres of
potential  subsidence.  The subsidence areas
would probably have unstable edges  and  steep
talus slopes.

Waste rock disposal piles would be configured
such to eliminate rectilinear features as much as
possible while the slopes would vary from angle
of repose to 3H:1 V. In Alternative B, the north
and south disposal  piles would have  overall
2H:1 V slopes.  Waste rock disposal piles, in all
the other alternatives, would have overall 3H:1 V
slopes.

All action alternatives would have a tailings
facility.   In Alternatives B, C, D,  and  E the
facility would  be located in the Marias drainage
and be 84 to 87 acres  in size. Alternative F and
G  tailings facilities would be located in
Nicholson drainage and be  1 57 or 137 acres,
respectively.  These areas would appear
somewhat unnatural due to the large flat areas
that would be created and the uniform, high
steep dam faces.

4.2.2    Effects of Alternative A (No Action)

If  the no action alternative is selected, the
Proponent would probably discontinue
exploration and pre-development activities and
complete reclamation of areas disturbed by
exploration operations as required by existing
environmental documentation.

Reclamation would essentially restore and
replicate the pre-exploration topography.

4.2.3    Effects Common to All  Action
         Alternatives

Direct Effects

The approval of any of the  action alternatives
would result in changes to  the topography of
the area.

Tailings impoundments would be created with
all action alternatives, which would create long-
term, irreversible transformation  of the existing
topography.  Depending on the alternative,
topographic changes would vary with the size
of the particular tailings facility whether located
in  the Marias or the Nicholson Creek drainage.

Permanent waste rock  disposal areas would  be
constructed in all action alternatives, except
Alternative F, where complete backfilling  is
proposed.  These waste rock disposal areas
would permanently alter the existing  landscape
by changing the present topography.

Although these topographic changes are long-
term, the regrading and recontouring aspects of
the reclamation efforts would be conducted in
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-10
Ch 4 - Envirori'tmnthf {Ivtite
J;jne
TABLE 4.2.1, ACREAGE IMPACTS Of fv'AJOR FACILITIES
SURFACE FACILITY
Waste Rock Disposal Areas
Tailings Facility
Pit Area
Subsidence Area
ALT A
0
0
0
0
r r "~
ALT B I AIT C
260
87
I 38
0
?=i
84
0
27
ALT D
98
87
73
3
ALT E
379
87
138
0
ALT F
215
157
138
0
ALT G
294
137
138
0
such a manner that the waste rock and tailings
areas would be blended into the surrounding
undisturbed terrain to achieve a resemblance to
the pre-mining terrain.  For Alternatives B, D, E,
and G, reclamation blasting would be completed
to create cliffs and talus slopes in an effort to
eliminate and minimize the artificial, rectilinear,
topographic appearance created  by open  pit
mining.

Visual aspects of the action alternatives are
discussed in detail in Section 4.16, Scenic
Resources.

Indirect Effects

There are no anticipated indirect topographic
effects expected for any of the action
alternatives.

Cumulative Effects

There are no anticipated cumulative topographic
effects expected for any of the action
alternatives.

4.2.4    Effects of Alternative B

The final topographic configuration of
Alternative B is set forth on Figure 2.10,
Alternative B - Site Plan.  The major changes in
post-operational topography would be the final
mine pit (138 acres), the 2 waste rock disposal
areas (260 acres) and the tailings facility in the
Marias Creek drainage  (87 acres).  A lake would
develop in the north portion of the mine pit.

4.2.5    Effects of Alternative C

The final topographic configuration of
Alternative C is set forth on Figure 2.11,
Alternative C - Site Plan. The major  change in
the post-operational topography would be the
84 acre tailings facility in the Marias  Creek
drainage.  The 26 acre underground
                      development waste rock disposal area to the
                      northeast of the mining area, and a surface
                      quarry pit southeast of the summit of Buckhorn
                      Mountain.

                      Surface subsidence features (about 27 acres)
                      could develop above some of the underground
                      operation.  Because some of the Crown Jewel
                      ore zones are located in close proximity to the
                      surface, the extraction of such resources by
                      underground techniques would probably cause
                      caving to the surface.  The extent of subsidence
                      is difficult to predict, but it is assumed that
                      there would be caving to the surface where  ore
                      zones less than 100 feet in depth from the
                      surface would be extracted.  One of the mining
                      techniques  proposed for Alternative C is glory
                      hole underground mining;  this technique (as
                      described in Chapter 2) is a method of planned
                      extraction of near surface ore zones by
                      underground means that would leave "funnel-
                      shaped" or "crater-shaped" depressions on the
                      surface.

                      4.2.6    Effects of Alternative D

                      The final topographic configuration  of
                      Alternative  D is set forth on Figure 2.12,
                      Alternative  D - Site Plan.  The major changes in
                      post-operational topography would  be the final
                      mine pit (73 acres), the waste rock disposal
                      area (98 acres), and the tailings  facility  in the
                      Marias Creek drainage (87 acres).  Some
                      surface subsidence features,  an  estimated 3
                      acres, could develop over the area of
                      underground mining as  discussed for Alternative
                      C.  A lake would develop in the  final open pit
                      area.

                      4.2.7    Effects of Alternative E

                      The final topographic configuration  of
                      Alternative E is set forth on Figure 2.13,
                      Alternative E - Site Plan. The major changes in
                      post-operational topography would  be the final
                     Crown Jewel Mine *  Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June  1995
                             CROWN JEWEL MINE
                                    Page 4-11
mine pit (138 acres), the 2 waste rock disposal
areas (379 acres)) and the tailings facility in the
Marias Creek drainage (87 acres).  The northern
portion of the final mine pit would be partially
backfilled  with waste rock that would create a
relatively flat area.  No surface lake would
develop in the final open pit area.

4.2.8    Effects of Alternative F

The final topographic configuration of
Alternative F is set forth on Figure 2.14,
Alternative F - Site Plan.  During operations, a
waste rock stockpile would be created
northeast of the mine pit; this waste rock would
be backfilled into the final mine pit after the
permanent cessation of mining.  The major
changes in post-operational topography would
be the tailings facility (1 57 acres) in the
Nicholson Creek drainage.  Because of the
estimated 35% swell factor anticipated for the
waste rock, the final topography of the pit  area
could be 20 to 50 feet higher in elevation after
backfilling than the pre-disturbance topography.
The final topography of the temporary  waste
rock stockpile area would approximate the  pre-
disturbance topography.

4.2.9    Effects of Alternative G

The final topographic configuration of
Alternative G is shown on Figure 2.15,
Alternative G - Site Plan.  The major changes in
post-operational topography would be the final
mine pit (138 acres), the waste rock disposal
area (294 acres), and the tailings facility in the
Nicholson Creek drainage (137 acres).  A lake
would develop in the final northern open pit
area.
4.3
GEOLOGY
4.3.1    Summary

If the proposed Project were to proceed, a
certain amount of geologic material (ore and
waste rock) would be removed, altered and/or
re-arranged.  The gold values would be gone,
and the existing geological structure and
lithologic continuity in the area of the  ore
deposit would be altered.

Alternatives B, E, F, and G would remove and/or
relocate about 61  million yards of material,
Alternative D would remove about 24 million
yards, while Alternative C would remove about
4.6 million yards of material. The relocation of
this material would affect the surface
topography of the  area. These effects were
further discussed in Section 4.2, Topography
/Physiography.

4.3.2    Effects of Alternative A  (No Action)

If the No Action Alternative is selected, gold ore
would not be removed and processed.  The gold
resource and the structural and lithologic
integrity of Buckhorn Mountain would remain in-
place.  The precious metal  resource would  still
have the potential  to be recovered at sometime
in the future.

4.3.3    Effects Common to All Action
         Alternatives

Direct Effects

In all action alternatives, rock material (ore)
would be mined and processed for the recovery
of gold. The rock  material  from which the  gold
is extracted would become tailings which would
be deposited in either a Marias or Nicholson
Creek tailings facility.   The tailings would be a
finely ground rock mixture  composed of
magnetite, garnet and  undifferentiated  skarn
deposits from which the gold values have been
extracted.  To recover the ore,  waste rock
would be removed from either the surface or
underground  mine and placed in waste rock
disposal area(s). Mining would alter the existing
geologic structure  and lithologic continuity  in
the pit area.

Alternatives B, E, F, and G would alter the
geologic continuity of about 54 million cubic
yards of waste rock material and  7.1 million
cubic yards of ore material.

Alternative D would remove 18.8 million cubic
yards of waste rock and about 5.2 million cubic
yards of ore material.

Alternative C would remove about 0.5  million
cubic yards of waste rock and an estimated 4.3
million cubic yards of  ore material.

Indirect Effects

The only possible indirect geologic effects
expected for  any of the action alternatives
would result from the MCE. MCE is defined as
the largest earthquake that is projected to occur
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-12
                      Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
                                   June 7995
in a given area (California Division of Mines and
Geology, 1975).  MCE estimates are typically
used for long-lived, high-risk projects such as
large dams (USCOLD, 1985).  Disruption of the
geology in other locations by placement of the
material removed during  mining could contribute
to the effects  experienced by other resources
(i.e.; vegetation, soils, hydrology, visuals,
wildlife, etc).

Cumulative Effects

Although a small portion of the geology in and
around Buckhorn Mountain has been altered by
historic mining activities, there are no
anticipated local or regional cumulative geologic
effects expected for any of the action
alternatives.
4.4
GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
4.4.1    Summary

Geologic events, such as earthquakes, could
result in damage or destruction of any or all
components comprising the action alternatives.
In addition, the release of chemicals into the
environment could result from the occurrence of
a geologic event. The damage, destruction, or
chemical contamination would vary depending
on the severity of the event and could lead to
direct and indirect impacts. Although it is
possible for a earthquake to occur in the region
surrounding the Crown Jewel Project, the
potential for damage to  a facility and release of
chemicals or tailings material would be
minimized through engineering design and
proper construction.

No active faults are known to exist in the
Project area.  There is a low potential for
damaging seismic activity.

All buildings on the Crown  Jewel site would be
designed and constructed according to the
latest Okanogan County and Uniform  Building
Code standards.

The tailings facilities and the Starrem  water
storage reservoir would be  designed and
constructed to withstand a MCE for the area
(magnitude 6.0 on the Richter scale)  with  a
estimated peak bedrock acceleration at the site
of 0.19 g (gravity).
Possible catastrophic consequences associated
with a tailings facility failure from an earthquake
event greater than the  MCE are discussed in
Section 4.22,  Accidents and  Spills. If an
earthquake of this intensity occurred in the
vicinity of the Crown Jewell Project, it could
result in severe property destruction,  loss of
electric and other utility services, and possible
loss of life in this region of Washington and
Canada.

The waste rock disposal areas would  be
designed to meet or exceed factors of safety on
the order of 1.2 static  and 1.1 dynamic
(pseudo-static).  A static factor of safety
measures the safety of the facility under normal
conditions. The dynamic factor of safety,
sometimes expressed as pseudo-static, shows
the ability to resist failure  from earthquake
loading.

4.4.2    Effects of Alternative A (No  Action)

Under this alternative,  no  mining would occur,
and no waste  rock disposal areas or tailings
facilities would be constructed; therefore, no
Project-related geotechnical consequences
would occur.  The possibility  of a moderate
earthquake as described in Section 3.4,
Geotechnical Considerations,  remains; however,
given the local geological conditions of the
Project area, large scale slope instabilities and
mass wasting are not likely.  Glaciofluvial
deposits are generally stable because  the
material is primarily deposited on flat terrain and
along the drainage basins  of Marias, Nicholson,
and Myers Creek.  Steeper slopes in the area
occur in bedrock units  composed of volcanic
material which is not easily influenced by
unfavorable structural trends  (bedding and
joints) which could result in slope instability.

4.4.3    Effects Common to  All  Action
         Alternatives

Direct Effects

Effects related to stability can be discussed in
terms of probability of  failure and consequences
of failure.  The probability of  failure would be a
function of engineering design calculations and
construction quality control.  The consequences
of failure are discussed for waste rock dumps,
the tailings facilities, and drainage control
structures. Pit wall stability and the effects of
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June  1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-13
subsidence from underground mining operations
are discussed under individual alternatives.

Design Considerations.  Preliminary design work
used the historic earthquake records and
attenuated accelerations from the largest
earthquakes. It was estimated that the peak
bedrock acceleration at the Crown Jewel site
could reach 0.19 g for a 1,000 year return
event for such an earthquake.

Knight Piesold (1993) estimated the MCE for
the area and placed such an earthquake at an
epicenter distance  of 10 miles from the Crown
Jewel site; they then attenuated the ground
acceleration and predicted a maximum bedrock
acceleration of 0.19 g.  This peak acceleration
was then utilized in the  performance of a
displacement analysis. This means that
displacements associated with the earthquake
of this severity, within 10 miles of the Crown
Jewel site, would not result in failure of the
tailings facility in Alternative B (Knight Piesold,
1993).  This assessment would also apply to
the other alternative tailing facilities for
Alternatives C, D,  E, F, and G.

Engineering design calculations indirectly rate
the probability of failure of a Project component.
Engineers customarily express failure
probabilities as factors of safety.  The higher
the factor of safety, the more certain one can
be about the stability of a structure. A factor of
safety equal to 1 implies the facility is exactly
strong enough to support  itself.

Factors of safety less than 1 imply that the
facility would experience some measure of
failure, while factors of  safety greater than 1
imply the facility is more than strong enough to
carry the calculated loads.  Engineers design
facilities with factors of safety somewhat
greater than 1  to allow for unknowns that might
affect either the  strength of the structure or the
load that it must sustain.

Factors of safety are generally calculated for 2
different conditions, a static and a dynamic
condition.  A static factor of safety measures
the safety of the facility under normal
conditions.  The  dynamic factor of safety shows
the ability to resist failure from earthquake
loading.

The Crown Jewel waste rock disposal area
facilities would be  designed to meet factors of
               safety on the order of 1.2 static and 1.1
               dynamic (pseudo-static).  Factors of safety
               calculated for each of the Crown Jewel waste
               rock disposal areas are set forth in  Table 4.4.1,
               Waste Rock Disposal Areas - Calculated Factors
               of Safety. These numbers indicate static
               factors of safety ranging from  1.35 to 2.7, and
               dynamic factors of safety ranging from 0.9 to
               1.6.  In all cases, the calculated factors of
               safety indicate that the waste rock disposal area
               designs are more than adequate,  except for the
               1.5H:1 V slopes under MCE conditions.

               Construction Quality Control.  When evaluating
               construction quality control, both the
               consequences of failure and the design factor of
               safety are considered. Quality control is more
               important for structures with large
               consequences of failure than it is for structures
               with only minor consequences.  Structures with
               large factors of safety have more room for
               variance in the construction quality than
               structures with small factors of safety.

               The tailings facility would have a relatively large
               consequence of failure. Quality control for the
               construction of this facility would be extensive.
               Such quality control would consist  of detailed
               descriptions of how construction activities
               would proceed, be inspected, and approved. It
               would include mandatory inspection and testing
               of work and materials to ensure they would
               perform as designed.  The Proponent would be
               responsible for development of the  quality
               control construction procedures.  The  Dam
               Safety Division of WADOE and the Forest
               Service would be responsible for approving
               construction quality control procedures on the
               tailings facility and would routinely inspect the
               site during the construction period. There
               would be no important safety differences
               between alternatives in tailing facility
               construction.

               Waste Rock Disposal Areas. The failure within
               a  waste rock disposal area might have a very
               little effect or large effects. A small slump
               failure halfway up the disposal area face might
               provide some minor interruption to  the
               vegetation growing on the disposal area face
               but otherwise be innocuous. On the other
               hand,  a major flow type failure of a waste rock
               disposal area could cover a wetland area or road
               or block a drainage resulting in sedimentation
               impacts downstream. An analysis  was
               performed of possible consequences of failure
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4- 74
Ch 4 - Environmental €o/;,ses7,',;;;
~"il
TABLE 4.4.1, WASTE ROCK DISPOSAL AREAS - CALCULATED FACTORS OF SAFETY
Alternative
B
C
D
E
G
Facility
Waste Rock Disposal Area A (North)
Waste Rock Disposal Area B (South)
Undergiound Development Waste
Rock Disposal Area
Waste Rock Disposal Area (North)
Waste Rock Disposal Area I (North)
Waste Rock Disposal Area C (South)
Waste Rock Disposal Area J (North)
" 	 ~~
Static Factor of Safety
1.bH IV 2H 1V
Slope Slope
1 35 1.8
1 35 18
3H IV Slope
2 7
2 7
2 7
2.7
Dynamic
(Pseudo-Static)
Factor of Safety
1.5H:1V
Slope
1.06
0 90
3H:1V
1.
1.
2H:1V
Slope
1.18
1.1S
Slope i
e ;
6 ;
1.6
1.
!
Note: Assumptions used m calculating factors of safety are addressed in Appendix F, Slope I
Stability Analysis. ;
from wet debris slides at each waste rock
disposal area.  The findings are summarized in
Table 4.4.2, Flow Failure Consequences -
Waste Rock Disposal Areas. The reader should
bear in mind these are potential risks inherent
with the construction of the waste rock disposal
areas; however, based on the stability analyses
conducted, they are not predicted to occur.

In the short-term, during  operations, the
Proponent might suffer economic consequences
from a waste rock disposal area failure, but it is
expected that they would be able to remediate
the problem.  In the long-term, after
reclamation, the Proponent would still be liable
for damages resulting from such failures subject
to the existing Federal or Washington State
laws and performance security in effect at the
time.

The waste rock disposal areas in Alternative B
would generally be re-contoured to a 2H: 1V or
lesser slopes.  The waste rock disposal areas in
Alternatives C,  D, E, and G would be re-
contoured to a 3H:1 V or  lesser slopes.  The
potential for waste rock disposal area slope
failures in the long-term are low based on slope
angles and the results of  the design slope
stability analyses  for the  waste rock disposal
areas {see Table 4.4, 1, Waste Rock Disoosal
Areas - Calculated Factors of Safety}. There
would be no long-term waste rock disposal
areas in Alternative F as all waste rock would
be backfilled into the mined-out pit.
                      Water Reservoir. The Starrem Creek Reservoir
                      embankment would be designed and
                      constructed to withstand failure from a MCE for
                      the area with a estimated peak bedrock
                      acceleration at the  site of 0.19 g (Colder,
                      1994c). There should be no geotechnical
                      effects as a result of the normal operation of
                      this facility. Possible destructive consequences
                      associated with a water  reservoir failure from an
                      earthquake event greater than the MCE are
                      discussed in Section 4.22, Accidents and Spills.
                      If an earthquake  of this intensity occurred in the
                      vicinity of the Crown Jewel Project, it could
                      result  in severe property destruction, loss of
                      electric and other utility services, and possible
                      loss of life in this region  of Washington and
                      Canada.

                      Drainage Control.  Failure of drainage and
                      sediment control structures, such  as ponds and
                      diversion ditches, could result in the release of
                      sediments and any impounded water to
                      surrounding drainages. Except for Alternative B,
                      diversion structures would be designed to safely
                      pass flows from  the 25-year, 24-hour storm
                      event.  Alternative  B would be designed to pass
                      the 10-year, 24-hour storm event.  The
                      spillways of the detention ponds would be
                      designed to safely  pass the flows  from a 25-
                      year, 24-hour event.

                      The potential for failure of surface water
                      diversions and sediment and drainage detention
                      ponds is low during and  after the life of the
                      mine.
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-15
TABLE 4.4.2, FLOW FAILURE CONSEQUENCES - WASTE ROCK DISPOSAL AREAS
Alternative
B
C
D
E
F
G
Facility
Waste Rock Disposal
Area A (North)
Waste Rock Disposal
Area B (South)
Underground
Development
Waste Rock Disposal
Area
Waste Rock Disposal
Area (North)
Waste Rock Disposal
Area 1 (North)
Waste Rock Disposal
Area C (South)
No Permanent
Disposal Area
Waste Rock Disposal
Area J (North)
Wet Slide Runout
400 foot runout from toe would encroach on frog pond
1,700 foot runout from the toe would block North
Nicholson Creek
50 foot runout from toe would cover main access road
600 foot runout from toe would encroach on tailings
500 foot runout from toe would encroach on frog pond
400 foot runout from toe would encroach on frog pond
1,700 foot runout from toe would block North Nicholson
Creek
400 foot runout from toe would encroach on frog pond
200 foot runout would block north Nicholson Creek
750 foot runout from toe would encroach on tailings
facility
400 foot runout from toe would encroach on frog pond
600 foot runout would block north Nicholson Creek
350 foot runout from toe would block North Nicholson
Creek
Note: These are not predicted effects, but very low probability risks.
Slope Angles, Erosion Potential and
Reclamation.  Erosion potential is of concern
given the limited volume of soil available for
reclamation.  An estimate of erosion potential
with respect to slope angle can be made using
the formula: "soil K factor x slope angle (in
percent)" and comparing the results to a
U.S.D.A. Soil  Conservation Service rating
system.  A calculated value of less than 4
represents a "low" erosion potential, a value
between 4 and 8 represents a "moderate"
potential, and a value greater than 8 indicates a
"high" erosion potential. Table 4.4.3, Slope
Angle Versus  Erosion Potential, depicts the
erosion potentials for a variety of slope angles
using a K-factor of 0.18 for the soils of the
Crown Jewel  Project area.  This is the same K-
factor applied to the Revised Universal  Soil Loss
Equation used to calculate the potential runoff
from Project facilities under various alternative
scenarios.

As can be seen from the table values, a slope
angle of  1.5H:1V represents a high erosion
hazard given the average erodibility (K-factor) of
the soil available for reapplication on-site.
Lesser slope angles all have moderate erosion
potentials, though it can  be noted that as slope
angle increases to 2H:1 V the erosion potential
value increases noticeably.
               Slope angles also affect reclamation machinery
               access and efficiency.  With respect to earth-
               moving equipment, large dozers can access and
               spread  soil efficiently on slopes of 3H:1 V.
               Work on 2H:1 V slopes can proceed safely but
               at this slope angle efficiency is greatly reduced
               due to the need for the dozer to track back
               uphill to continue reapplication activities.
               Sidehill work is generally considered to be safe
               and efficient at 4H:1 V slopes with 3H:1V
               slopes or greater resulting  in a decrease in
               equipment efficiency and an increase in safety
               concerns.  In terms of revegetation equipment,
               a 4H:1 V slope is generally regarded to be the
               maximum  slope angle on which normal farm
               equipment can operate efficiently.  However,
               successful revegetation using tractors, drills,
               crimpers, etc. commonly occurs on mine sites
               on slopes of 3H:1 V.  Revegetation  on slopes up
               to 2.5H:1V using similar equipment is possible,
               but efficiency can decrease noticeably.

               Revegetation potential is also affected by slope
               angle and is generally related to the erosion
               potential and equipment efficiency analyses
               presented  above.  As slope angle increases,
               revegetation potential generally decreases,
               though lesser angles  up to 3H:1 V (and possibly
               2.5H:1 V) do not inhibit reclamation potential
               unduly.  Up to this angle, erosion potentials are
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-16
Ch 4- - Environmental Consequences
June 1995
TABLE 4.4.3, SLOPE ANGLE VERSUS EROSION POTENTIAL
Slope Angle
1.5H:1V
2.0H:1V
2.5H:1V
3.0H:1V
4.0H:1V
Erosion Potential
11.7
8.0
7.2
5.9
4.5
acceptable, and the site is readily accessible to
both earth-moving and revegetation equipment.
Comparatively inexpensive and efficient
mulching methods (crimped straw mulch) can
be applied to stabilize the applied soil.
However, more soil volume is required to resoil
a 3H:1 V slope as compared to a steeper slope
and a greater acreage must be disturbed to
construct a lesser slope angle.

Conversely, slope angles of 2H:1 V and greater
entail a  smaller disturbance area for
construction, a lesser volume of soil for
reapplication, and a smaller acreage requiring
revegetation.  However, equipment access is
more difficult and soil reapplication  less
accurate and efficient, which is of particular
concern on a Project site typified by a limited
soil resource.  In  addition, more intensive and
generally more costly mulching  and soil
stabilization techniques (i. e. water  bars, etc.)
are required with such steeper slope angles.
This is not to say that the effects of steeper
slopes are unmitigable, but that a substantial
input of time,  money, and effort is required to
overcome the characteristics of slope angles
steeper than 2H:1 V.

Advantages and disadvantages  with regard to
slope "shapes" are less quantifiable yet can be
assessed.  Smooth or gently undulating slope
shapes  are essentially subject to the reclamation
advantages and disadvantages as discussed for
slope angles above.  Those associated  with
talus slopes are primarily associated with post
mining  land use.  Unresoiled rock talus slopes
are generally not  subject to erosion or mass
movement if residing at the angle of repose or
less,  are not typically subject to mass
movement.  Given that 5% to 10% of the
predisturbance acreage is composed of rock
outcrops, it might be appropriate that a certain
percentage of the reclaimed  acreage be
dedicated to this  land form.  Talus slopes would
                      provide a certain amount of habitat diversity
                      within  reclaimed waste rock disposal areas that
                      would  not be attained if the entire waste rock
                      disposal area were revegetated.  Further, more
                      soil would be available for reselling other areas
                      if talus slopes were included as a part of waste
                      rock disposal area reclamation.  The
                      disadvantage is the inability to revegetate talus
                      slopes  in the short-term.

                      Benches created on the waste rock disposal
                      areas would serve to reduce slope lengths of
                      the reclaimed facility and reduce the erosion
                      potential of the site. At steeper slopes, a
                      smaller area would need to be disturbed for
                      facility construction, less soil would be required
                      for revegetation, and less acreage overall would
                      require reclamation.  In addition, the level
                      benches could be revegetated using reclamation
                      techniques common to more gently sloping
                      areas.  However, unsoiled slope faces between
                      benches would exist and, if not  screened,
                      would  likely create a scenically displeasing slope
                      shape. A limited acreage of slope faces (talus
                      slopes) could be incorporated into the
                      revegetation plan for the waste rock disposal
                      areas to serve the habitat functions of the rock
                      outcrops common to the existing undisturbed
                      area.

                      Benches, which serve to help stabilize the mine
                      pit walls during operations, would not readily
                      provide access for earthmoving and reclamation
                      equipment.  Where  revegetation, to some
                      degree, would be required in the pit,  benches
                      and talus slopes would have low reclamation
                      potential. If safety  considerations could be
                      overcome and adequate soil was available,
                      benches could be resoiled prior to abandonment.
                      Talus slopes would not likely be candidates for
                      such a practice due to steepness of the slopes.
                      The nearly level slopes of benches would
                      provide a more acceptable seedbed than talus
                      slopes. Further, seedbed material moisture
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 7995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-17
conditions would be more amenable with
benches since runoff would be much less than
with talus slopes.

Indirect Effects

There are no anticipated indirect geotechnical
effects expected for any of the action
alternatives.

Cumulative Effects

There are no anticipated cumulative
geotechnical effects expected for any of the
action alternatives.

4.4.4    Effects of Alternative B

The primary mine components with potential
geotechnical consequences include; the open pit
surface mine, 2 waste rock disposal areas, the
tailings facility, and the water storage reservoir.

Short-term failure of the mine pit walls is for the
most part a mining personnel health and safety
issue but also has economic consequences.
Generally, mine pit wall failures result in waste
rock material covering ore. The Proponent must
stabilize the failure and excavate the failed
material prior to extracting the ore.  The Mine
Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)
regulates the stability of mine pit walls to
ensure worker safety.

The consequences of mine pit slope failure after
closure are relatively limited.  The pit slopes
would be in a condition much like that of natural
cliffs.  All natural cliffs tend to "ravel",
particularly during the spring months. Freeze-
thaw action on rocks  tend to pry surface rocks
away from the intact slope.  The rocks then roll
some distance down the  slope before they
come to a stop.  In abandoned mine pits, it is
expected that ravelling would be more active in
the early years following  mine closure.  After
some period of time, the  rate of ravelling would
approach that found in nature.  The mine pit
walls would be expected  to eventually form
talus slopes that would weather to an
appearance similar to  natural slopes.

The geotechnical consequences for the 2 waste
rock disposal areas, the tailings facility, and the
water storage reservoir are discussed in Section
4.4.3,  Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives.
               4.4.5    Effects of Alternative C

               The primary mine components which could have
               potential geotechnical impacts include the
               surface subsidence from underground mining, a
               surface rock quarry for underground backfill
               material, a single underground development
               waste rock disposal area, the  tailings facility,
               and a water storage reservoir.

               Subsidence is a potential consequence of
               underground mining; it may be small and
               localized or extend over considerable area, and
               it may be immediate or delayed for many years.
               Whenever a cavity is created underground due
               to mining, the natural equilibrium of the rock
               masses are disturbed, causing stress
               redistributions in the vicinity of the excavation
               with corresponding horizontal and vertical
               displacements. Subsidence of the ground
               surface would occur when these displacements
               propagate from the mine opening, through the
               overlying strata to the surface.  Such ground
               movements would cause surface disturbances
               ranging from simple land settlement to large
               surface depressions.  Deeper mine workings
               offer less chance for surface subsidence due to
               the swell factor of collapsing roof rock.

               Surface subsidence manifests itself in 3 major
               ways:

               •       Cracks, fissures, or step fractures;
               •       Pits or sinkholes; or,
               •       Troughs or sags.

               Surface cracks and fissures formed through
               subsidence would form pathways to drain water
               away from the topsoil, thus being detrimental to
               plant growth. Flow of water into the cracks
               could also cause erosion, thereby widening
               them. Subsurface hydrology patterns would be
               modified; water would migrate through
               subsidence cracks and openings eventually
               discharging from the adits, similar to how water
               is now discharging from some historic
               abandoned adits.  Flows from the Crown Jewel
               adits would be higher than the historic flows
               given the much larger area of influence of the
               underground workings.  Vegetation and soil
               would be drawn into subsidence pits and
               sinkholes. Pits and sinkholes caused by surface
               subsidence might also accumulate water.
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Dtaft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-18
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
The effects of pit wall failure in the surface
quarry would be similar to those described in
Section 4.4.4, Effects of Alternative B, but less
given the smaller size of the quarry as compared
to the open pit proposed in Alternative B.

The geotechnical consequences for the waste
rock disposal area, the tailings facility, and the
water storage reservoir are discussed in Section
4.4.3, Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives.

4.4.6    Effects of Alternative D

Alternative D would combine underground
mining with open pit surface mining. The
effects of the surface mining would be similar to
those discussed under Alternative B. The area
subject to surface subsidence above the
underground workings would be smaller than for
Alternative C,  but the subsidence impacts
would be similar to those described for
Alternative C.

The geotechnical consequences for the waste
rock disposal area, the tailings facility, and the
water storage reservoir are discussed in Section
4.4.3, Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives.

4.4.7    Effects of Alternative E

Although there would be a partial filling of the
final pit area, the geotechnical effects of the
surface mining would be similar to those
discussed under Alternative B.

The geotechnical consequences for the 2 waste
rock disposal areas, the tailings facility, and the
water storage reservoir are discussed in Section
4.4.3, Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives.

4.4.8    Effects of Alternative F

This alternative includes a single temporary
waste rock dump. At the cessation of
operations, all dumped waste rock would be
returned to the mine pit.  The final topography
of the mine pit area would be higher than the
original topography prior to mining due to the
estimated 35% swell factor associated with the
waste rock material. This increase in post-
reclamation elevation would occur even with the
removal of the ore material, which accounts for
approximately 10% of the volume of the in-
                      place (bank) material removed as part of mining.
                      Long-term differential settlement of the replaced
                      waste rock could cause depressions in the
                      reclaimed area of the re-filled mine pit.

                      The geotechnical consequences for the waste
                      rock stockpile, the tailings facility,  and the
                      water storage reservoir are discussed in Section
                      4.4.3, Effects Common to All Action
                      Alternatives.

                      4.4.9   Effects of Alternative G

                      The geotechnical effects of the surface mining
                      would be the same as those discussed under
                      Alternatives B and E.

                      The geotechnical consequences for the single
                      waste rock disposal area, the tailings facility,
                      and the  water storage reservoir are discussed in
                      Section  4.4.3, Effects Common to All Action
                      Alternatives.
                      4.5
SOILS
                      4.5.1    Summary

                      A number of effects to soils would occur as a
                      result of implementing any of the proposed
                      alternatives. These effects range from changes
                      in soil chemical and physical characteristics due
                      to blending during salvage operations to a
                      reduction in soil microbial populations resulting
                      from stockpiling.  Many of these direct effects
                      would be mitigated through proposed
                      reclamation techniques.  The quality of the soil
                      proposed to be salvaged is adequate for the
                      reclamation planned. The 12 and 18 inch
                      resoiling depths proposed for reclamation would
                      be sufficient to support the proposed post-
                      mining vegetation communities assuming care is
                      taken during soil reapplication.

                      Given proposed soil handling plans, sufficient
                      soil exists on-site to reclaim the disturbed areas
                      of all action alternatives except Alternative C,
                      which has an estimated soil  shortage of 62,000
                      cubic yards. Test plots, to be constructed in
                      support of  reclamation operations, would be
                      appropriate and beneficial for identifying optimal
                      resoiling depths, as well as other necessary
                      refinements to the proposed reclamation plans.

                      The potential for wind erosion at the proposed
                      Project area is low, given site characteristics
                      including a rolling topography (short "field
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June  1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-19
length") and a dense forest canopy (high
vegetative cover) (Radek,  1992; Woodruff et
al., 1972). Water erosion rates were calculated
for existing site conditions and selected
components of all action alternatives at the end
of 1  and 5 growing seasons following
reclamation.  Estimated rates for existing
conditions ranged from 0.051 to 0.227
tons/acre/year. Rates estimated for selected
components of Alternatives  B through  G ranged
from 0.006 to 0.889 tons/acre/year over 1 to 5
growing seasons. The annual soil loss tolerance
level for reclaimed areas at the Project  site is
1.00 ton/acre/year given the depths of soil
reapplication proposed as  well as substrate
characteristics (SCS, 1983).  "Tolerance"  in this
case indicates that at a potential erosion rate of
1.00 ton/acre/year, there  should be no effect on
soil  productivity.  All values  calculated  for
reclaimed Project components were below this
figure.

Table 4.5.1, Summary of  Reselling
Considerations and Table  4.5.2, Summary of
Mine Component Erosion  Hates by Alternative,
depict soil mass balance and erosion rate
variations between the evaluated alternatives.

Under any alternative,  the forest-dominated
vegetation community  overlying the majority of
the  Project acreage would be replaced  by  a
reclaimed grass/forb/shrub/tree community in
the short-term. This represents an irreversible
effect  to the soil  resource in  terms of soil
productivity, though the reclaimed community
would return to a forest type over time. Any
subsoil materials  not salvaged prior to
disturbance at the pit site or covered by waste
rock or tailings materials under any alternative
would be considered an irretrievable loss of  the
soil  resource.

4.5.2    Effects of Alternative A (No Action)

Under the No Action alternative, the soils  in the
Crown Jewel Project area would remain in their
endemic state supporting  current land  uses.
Natural erosion rates would  continue at the
same rate that currently exists.  Soils disturbed
during exploration activities  would be stabilized
and  revegetated as required, reducing erosion
potentials and returning the  disturbed areas  to a
productive condition in terms of the soil
resource.
               4.5.3   Effects Common to All Action
                       Alternatives

               Direct Effects

               Impacts to the soil resource include those which
               would affect the chemical, microbial, and
               physical nature of the endemic soils as well
               as the volumes available for reclamation.
               Erosion is a potential impact.  Soil chemical
               parameters would be permanently modified as a
               result of the proposed soil salvage  program.
               Soil horizons would be mixed during salvage
               resulting in a blending of characteristics as
               compared to the soils in their natural state.
               Given that only soils rated as suitable for
               reclamation are proposed for salvage, blending
               should not result in the degradation of soil
               resources in terms of reclamation potential.
               Soil chemistry would also be modified through
               soil stockpiling as anaerobic conditions within
               the  disposal areas develop. Soil  chemical
               changes of this nature, due specifically to
               stockpiling, are considered to be short-term and
               redeemable to a level commensurate  with
               vegetation establishment following resoiling
               through soil sampling and fertilization.

               If the chipping and blending of woody debris
               with soils is incorporated into the soil salvage
               plan, additional impacts to soil chemistry could
               occur depending on the amount incorporated. It
               is likely that the woody debris to be
               incorporated into the soil would have a high
               carbon:nitrogen ratio. When large  volumes of
               such material are introduced into the soil
               system, soil microbes utilize the available soil
               nitrogen to decompose the added debris with
               the result that the nitrogen becomes  unavailable
               to higher plants (Tisdale and Nelson,  1975).
               Over time, this process may be reversed,
               though the greater the amount of debris added
               to the soil,  the longer it will take the  soil to
               reach a carbon:nitrogen "equilibrium" and the
               longer the time the  soils reapplied to  disturbed
               sites remain in a nitrogen-depleted  state.  The
               time soils spend in disposal areas may be
               discounted since soil microbial activities will be
               much reduced throughout the majority of the
               disposal area.  Large additions of fertilizer-
               nitrogen to the soil  system could ameliorate this
               condition through time though an impact to soil
               productivity during the critical first few growing
               seasons could result The positive effects of
               woody debris  blending would include a decrease
               in the volume  of woody material requiring
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4  Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-20
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences


Alternative
Alternative B
Alternative C
Alternative D
Alternative E
Alternative F
Alternative G
Notes: 1.
2.

TABLE 4.5.1, SUMMARY OF RESOILiNS CONSIDERATIONS I
Total Acreage To Total Acreage To Soil Volume Soii Volume Variance :
Be Affected Be Reclaimed ' Salvaged Required (cubic yard,-,!
(bank cubic yards)2 (bank cubic yards)2
766 604 1,109,800 978,500 131,300 !
440 416 398,500 460,500 -62,000
562 460 696,100 583,300 112,800
927 812 1,381,000 1,299,000 82,000
822 775 1,228,200 1,132,800 95,400
896 741 1,401,300 1,166,300 235,000 \
Non-reclaimed acreage consists primarily of pit disturbances and main access road upgrade. i
Resoiling of various pit acreages included for Alternative E, F, and G. This practice is not applicable j
to Alternatives B, C, D, (see Chapter 2.0). I
Assumes salvage and soil replacement program identical to Alternative B for all components of
Alternatives C through G. Water reservoir and soil borrow pit disturbances net included. Sufficient
soil exists under all alternatives for water storage reservoir reclamation. Sediment control structure
disturbances not included for alternatives since final location of such is not known at this time. The
soil volumes calculated for all alternatives represent 100% of the "suitable" soil available for salvage
according to the baseline report prepared for the soils discipline (Cedar Creek, 1992).
TABLE 4.5.2, SUMMARY
Alternative/Component
Baseline Conditions
North waste rock disposal area
South waste rock disposal area
Tailings pond area
Alternative tailings pond area
Alternative B
Waste rock disposal area, level area
Waste rock disposal area slopes
Tailings surface
Tailings dam faces
Alternative C
Waste rock disposal area slopes
Tailings surface
Tailings dam faces
Alternative D
Waste rock disposal area slopes
Tailings surface
Tailings dam faces
Alternative E
Waste rock disposal area slopes
Tailings surface
Tailings dam faces
Alternative F
Waste rock stockpile slopes
Tailings surface
Tailings dam faces
Pit slopes'
Alternative G
Waste rock disposal area, level area
Waste rock disposal area slopes
Tailings surface
Tailings dam faces
Note: 1. Erosion potential for
alternative.
OF MINE COMPONENT EROSION RATES BY ALTERNATIVE
Total Acreage
NA
NA
NA
NA
43.8
200.2
75.3
11.3
15.8
49.0
6.0
78.1
59.8
11.6
321.5
59.8
11.6
184.7
91.8
17.7
114.9
31.4
225.9
59.8
33.0
pit slopes calculated
Resoiling Depth
(feet)
NA
NA
NA
NA
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
since the pit will be
Estimated Erosion
Potential In
Tons/Acre/Year
Year 1 /Year 5
0.227/NA
0.171/NA
0.051/NA
0.073/NA
0.006/0.003
0.399/0.745
0.007/0.004
0.275/0.514
0.275/0.150
O.OO7/0.004
0.2O7/0.387
0.275/0.150
0.007/0.004
0.275/0.514
0.275/0.150
0.007/0.004
0.275/0.514
0.219/0.120
0.007/0.004
0.319/0.730
0.275/0.150
0.007/0.004
0.275/0.150
0.007/0.004
0.476/0.889
Total Estimated
Erosion Potential
In Tons/Year
Year 1/Year 5
NA
NA
NA
NA
0.26/0.13
79.88/149.15
0.53/0.30
3.1 1/5.81
83.78/155.39
4.35/2.37
0.34/0.20
1.25/2.32
5.93/4.89
21.48/1 1.72
0.42/0.24
31.9/5.96
53.8/17.92
88.41/48.23
0.42/0.24
3.19/5.96
92.02/54.43
40.45/22.16
0.61/0.37
5.65/12.92
31.60/17.24
78.34/52.69
0.22/0.13
962.12/33.89
0.42/0.24
15.71/29.34
78.47/63.60
completely backfilled under this
                  Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June  1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-21
disposal following land clearing and, assuming
acceptable decomposition, an increase in basic
soil fertility, water holding capacity, and micro-
nutrient content.  Recommendations from a
qualified soil scientist or silviculturist would be
used as guidance to ensure that over application
of fertilizer does not result in impacts to ground
water or surface water.

Isolated spill accidents could result in minor soil
contamination from oils, solvents, etc.  Such
spills would normally  result in soils deemed
unsuitable for reclamation. Soils so affected
would be  disposed of in accordance with
Washington State and Federal laws.  The
volume of soil subject to spills should be limited,
however,  given the plan to salvage suitable soils
prior to operational disturbances and the
proposed  implementation of a Spill Prevention
Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan. No
impact to  revegetation potential is anticipated.

Subsurface materials  upon which salvaged soils
will be replaced consist of subsoils, waste rock,
and tailings.  Baseline data indicate that subsoils
contain no chemical constituents which would
degrade soil reapplied for revegetation  purposes.
The potential for waste rock to  generate acidic
conditions is limited and it is doubtful that such
conditions, if they did form, would affect soil
applied to the surface of waste rock disposal
areas given the potential for soil drainage.

Tailings material (according to tailings pore
water analyses) exhibits salinity (Electrical
Conductivity = 4.16  to 4.76 mm/cm), sodium
(Sodium Adsorption Ratio = 2.9 to 3.5) and
heavy metal concentrations that are acceptable
for reclamation purposes but would likely have a
moderately high pH (7.28 to 7.59),  as
compared to existing  soil conditions following
deposition in the tailings facility. The effect of
this comparatively higher pH on reapplied soils
is unknown.  The proposed revegetation test
plots scheduled to be constructed on tailings
materials should permit the assessment of
tailings characteristics with respect to
tailings/soil chemical interactions and foster the
development of corrective measures, if
necessary.

Soil microbial populations would also change
with a potential overall loss of nitrifying-type
species.  Soil microbial populations should
reestablish over time through natural invasion
from adjacent undisturbed soils. The
               reclamation technique proposed, by which
               surface soil materials from disposal areas would
               be spread over resoiled areas to enhance
               microbial population restoration, would minimize
               this concern.

               Physical characteristics such as structure,
               texture, and rock fragment content would be
               permanently modified through blending during
               soil salvage and replacement operations.  Soil
               quality is not expected to be negatively
               affected, in terms of reclamation potential, since
               only soils rated as suitable for reclamation
               would be salvaged.  The soils, in their natural
               state, are subject to compaction due to the
               presence of pyroclastic materials in the upper
               horizons. However, blending through soil
               salvage would essentially eliminate the potential
               for compaction given the presence of loamy soil
               textures and soil rock fragment content.
               Compaction  could occur adjacent to haul roads
               and ancillary facilities and would likely reduce
               the aeration, permeability, and water-holding
               capacity  of impacted soils.  The effects of
               compaction would be reduced to a short-term
               impact through the proper application of
               proposed ripping techniques,  and natural freeze-
               thaw cycles, over time.  The volume of subsoil
               materials not salvaged prior to mining or waste
               rock and tailings deposition,  and considered
               unsuitable for salvage, would be permanently
               lost in terms of vegetation productivity.

               Unsalvaged subsoils at the reservoir site would
               be protected from flooding and saturation during
               the life of the Project owing to the installation
               of a liner system prior to reservoir flooding. It is
               assumed that the pre-disturbance productivity
               of these subsoils would return with the ripping
               of the compacted subsoil and the reapplication
               of salvaged topsoil materials following reservoir
               draining and removal of the liner.

               The Forest Service estimates that long-term soil
               productivity, in terms of the tree strata, would
               decrease on  the order of 10% to 1 5% for a
               period of up to 100 years on resoiled,
               revegetated Project components.  Conversely, it
               is reasonable to assume that soil productivity
               following reclamation  as related to the
               herbaceous and shrub vegetation strata, would
               likely equal (it not exceed) that of soils in the
               undisturbed state.  This assumption is based
               upon a review of the Proponent's reclamation
               plan within which is contained the proposed
               methods  for  soil reapplication, seedbed
                     Crown Jewel Mine f Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-22
Ch 4- - Environmental Consequences
preparation, fertilization, seeding, and mulching.
It is also believed that herbaceous and shrub
strata productivity would be positively affected
as opposed to existing conditions, by a lack of
tree shading on newly reclaimed lands.

Indirect Effects

Any indirect soils effects would be reflected in a
possible decrease in vegetation success.  There
are no other anticipated indirect soils effects
expected for any of the alternatives.

Cumulative Effects

In the past, soil has been impacted through
primarily timber harvesting, mineral exploration
and road building.  The implementation of a
proposed alternative would result in a long-term
soil productivity loss and the potential for
increased soil erosion on 440 to 927 acres of
area.  The potential soil erosion from the Project
area is not expected to result in noticeable
sedimentation of area streams due to the
extensive drainage and sediment control
systems planned.

The contribution by Crown Jewel Project
disturbances to overall soil erosion within the
watershed would be small given the erosion
potentials calculated for all Project alternatives
and the revegetation and erosion/sediment
control techniques to be implemented.

4.5.4    Effects of Alternative B

Direct Effects

This alternative would result  in the disturbance
of 766 acres of soils, as shown on Table 4.5.1,
Summary of Resoiling Considerations.  A total
of 1,109,800 cubic yards of  suitable soil would
be salvaged and stockpiled from the areas to be
disturbed, excepting the powerline access,
borrow pit(s), tailings slurry pipeline, diversion
ditches, and water pipeline disturbances.  Soil
from these disturbances would be windrowed
adjacent to each disturbance until reclamation
operations for these disturbances begin.
Approximately 978,500 cubic yards are required
for resoiling. Therefore, a surplus of  131,300
cubic yards  of soil, representing a 13% variance
over that needed for resoiling, exists under this
alternative.  This is considered to be a
reasonable volume sufficient  to account for the
                      inherent inefficiencies of soil salvage and
                      reapplication.

                      The potential for sheet and rill (water) erosion
                      was estimated for existing and reclaimed
                      conditions for comparative purposes using the
                      Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (Renard et
                      al., 1992).  Appendix D, Soils Erosion Rates
                      (Table D-1 "RUSLE" Factors Used to Calculate
                      Current and Potential Erosion Rates) summarizes
                      the factors involved in erosion prediction
                      computations and depicts the  parameter values
                      used for calculating site-specific erosion
                      potentials for the action alternatives.  Table
                      4.5.2, Summary of Mine Component Erosion
                      Rates By Alternative, presents the results of the
                      erosion calculations along with acreage  and
                      resoiling depth information for selected
                      components of each alternative as well  as for
                      baseline conditions. Baseline conditions are
                      those conditions (average slope angles,  average
                      slope lengths, average soil cover  by vegetation,
                      litter,  coarse fragments, etc.) currently existing
                      at the identified proposed Project component
                      sites.  It is assumed these conditions would
                      continue to dominate in the future barring any
                      site disturbances.  The alternative components
                      selected for analysis represent those involving
                      the largest acreages for each alternative,
                      therefore representing the greatest  potentials for
                      erosion.  Calculations were completed for 2
                      time periods including the end of 1  (Year 1)  and
                      5 (Year 5) growing seasons.

                      Potential erosion under existing undisturbed
                      conditions ranges from a calculated 0.051 to
                      0.227 tons/acre/year with higher rates reflecting
                      steeper slopes.  In comparison, potential erosion
                      on reclaimed sites under Alternative B at the
                      end of 1  growing season ranges from 0.006 to
                      0.399 tons/acre/year for nearly level and 2H:1 V
                      graded slopes, respectively. Potential erosion
                      on reclaimed sites at the end of 5 growing
                      seasons ranges from approximately 0.003 to
                      0.745 tons/acre/year for nearly level and 21-1:1 V
                      graded surfaces, respectively.  The notably
                      higher fifth year rates for 2H:1 V reclaimed
                      slopes versus existing conditions is related
                      primarily to the lower percent ground surface
                      and vegetation canopy cover values estimated
                      for the reclaimed areas as compared to  existing
                      conditions.  Potential erosion rates  for the tailing
                      and waste rock nearly level surfaces of  this  and
                      all other alternatives are virtually  identical due
                      to the similar slope angles and slope lengths
                      involved.  Potentials for the tailings dam are
                     Crown Jewel Mine +  Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June  1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-23
equal to or slightly greater for this alternative as
compared to Alternatives  C, D, and E.  The soil
erosion potentials for the tailings dam faces of
Alternative F and G are greater than those of
this alternative due to the greater slope
length/angle factor of Alternatives F and G.  The
erosion potentials of Alternative B are notably
greater for the sloping portions of the waste
rock disposal areas than for any other
alternative.  This variation is due primarily to the
fact that the slopes of the Alternative B waste
rock disposal areas would be built to an
approximate 2H:1 V slope while those of the
disposal areas of the other alternatives would be
built to a 31-1:1 V angle or less.  In terms of total
estimated erosion potential, that of Alternative
B is the highest at the end of both 1 and 5 year
periods of all Project alternatives.  This is due
primarily to the large acreage of 2H:1 V waste
rock disposal slopes proposed.

The annual soil loss tolerance level for reclaimed
areas at the Crown Jewel Project site is  1.00
ton/acre/year (SCS, 1983) given the depth of
soil reapplication proposed  (12 to 18 inches) as
well  as the substrate  characteristics of waste
rock and tailings. All values computed for
reclaimed areas fall below this level indicating
an acceptable potential level of soil loss, in
terms of soil productivity, for the waste rock
and tailings acreages  1 and 5 years following
planting.  A limited volume of soil material will
be displaced from revegetated sites and enter
the sediment control system.  As revegetated
areas mature,  erosion and sedimentation rates
should return to approximate baseline
(background) levels.

4.5.5    Effects of Alternative C

This alternative would result in the disturbance
of 440 acres of soils as shown on Table 4.5.1,
Summary of Resoiling Considerations.  A total
of 460,500 cubic yards of soil are required for
reclamation in Alternative C. A calculated
398,500 cubic yards  are potentially available
following salvage of areas to be disturbed,
resulting in a net shortage of approximately
62,000 cubic  yards.  This insufficiency is due
primarily to the lack of soil overlying the
proposed quarry site and the assumed
requirement for resoiling and reclaiming this
disturbance.  This deficiency could be made up
through applying a thinner layer of soil during
reclamation, purchasing soil from off-site or not
resoiling certain sites.
               Potential erosion rates for the nearly level slopes
               of the tailings facility at the end of 1 and 5
               years are 0.007 and 0.004 tons/acre/year,
               respectively.  Rates for the 3H:1 V and 2H:1 V
               slopes of the waste rock disposal area and
               tailings facility are 0.207 to 0.275
               tons/acre/year at the end of the first growing
               season.   Erosion rates for these Project
               components following the fifth  growing season
               are 0.150 and 0.387 tons/acre/year,
               respectively.  All values are within the soil loss
               tolerance limits set by SCS (1983).  Post-
               operational values are essentially comparable to
               existing conditions as well as Alternatives D, E,
               and F and are equal to (or less than) those
               estimated for Alternative B on a component-by-
               component basis. The erosion  potentials for the
               tailings dam faces are less for this alternative
               than for Alternatives F and G due to the
               differences in slope  lengths and angles. This
               alternative would  have the lowest potential
               erosion volumes for 1 and 5 years.  This is
               primarily a function  of the low number of  acres
               proposed to be disturbed.

               4.5.6    Effects of Alternative  D

               This alternative would result  in  the disturbance
               of 562 acres of soil. A  total  of 696,100 cubic
               yards of soil are potentially salvageable in
               Alternative D (Table 4.5.1, Summary of
               Resoiling Considerations). An estimated
               853,300 cubic  yards are required for resoiling
               and reclamation, resulting in  a net surplus of
               112,800 cubic  yards of soils, representing a
               19% variance over that needed for resoiling.
               This is considered to be a reasonable volume
               sufficient to account for the inherent
               inefficiency of soil salvage and  reapplication.
               This surplus is due primarily to  the fact that the
               final pit area will not be resoiled and to some
               degree to the shift in waste rock storage to the
               northern  site where there is more soil to be
               salvaged on an average  per acre basis.  It may
               be desirable to  increase  the resoiling depth
               during reclamation.

               Estimated soil erosion rates for  Alternative D are
               identical to those  of Alternative E and
               comparable to those of Alternative C, F, and  G
               with the exception of those related to the
               tailings facility as previously noted.  Rates
               estimated for the  first and fifth  years following
               planting range from 0.007 to 0.514
               tons/acre/year under this alternative.  All
               estimated rates are within the soil loss tolerance
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4  Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-24
Ch 4 - Environmental C ;t»-
levels set by the SCS.  Erosion potentials for the
waste rock slopes for this alternative are
noticeably less than for Alternative B given the
greater slope lengths and steeper slope angles
of Alternative  B.  Total potential 1 and 5 year
erosion volumes for Alternative D are among the
lowest for all proposed alternatives.  This is due
in part, to the low total acres potentially to be
disturbed and  the emphasis on 3H:1 V versus
2H:1 V waste rock disposal area slopes.

4.5.7    Effects of Alternative E

This alternative would result in the disturbance
of 927 acres as shown on  Table 4.5.1,
Summary of Reselling Considerations.  A total
of 1,381,000  cubic yards are  potentially
available as  a result of salvage of areas to be
disturbed. While 1,299,000 cubic yards of soil
are required for reclamation in Alternative E.  In
effect, there is a surplus of 82,000 cubic yards
of soil for reapplication under this alternative.
This represents a variance of over 6%. This is
considered to  be reasonable volumes sufficient
to account for the inherent inefficiency of soil
salvage and reapplication.

Estimated erosion rates for the waste rock
disposal  area slopes and tailings dams of
Alternative E are similar to those of Alternative
D and have  the same relationships to the
potential of  other alternatives as described
above. One and 5 year potential erosion totals
for this alternative are comparable with those of
Alternatives F and G, which are typically less
than Alternative B but greater than Alternatives
C and D.

4.5.8    Effects of Alternative F

This alternative would result in the disturbance
of 822 acres.  A total of  1,228,200 cubic yards
of soil are potentially salvageable under
Alternative F.  An estimated 1,132,800 cubic
yards are required for reselling, given
reclamation  objectives, resulting in a net surplus
of 95,400 cubic yards, (see Table 4.5.1,
Summary of Reselling Considerations). This
represents a variance of over 8% that needed
for resoiling. There is sufficient suitable soil
available under this alternative to meet resoiling
goals.

Erosion rate estimates for the  waste  rock
disposal  area and backfilled pit slopes range
from 0.120  to 0.275 tons/acre/year at the  1
                      and 5 year period following planting.  Estimated
                      rates for the tailings surface are 0.007 and
                      0.004 tons/acre/year at 1 and 5 years,
                      respectively.  The tailings dam, based on a
                      comparatively longer proposed slope length, has
                      estimated erosion rates of 0.31 9 and 0.730
                      tons/acre/year at the end of 1  and 5 growing
                      seasons, respectively.  All values are within the
                      SCS tolerance limits for soil erosion and are
                      comparable to, the rates associated with
                      Alternatives B, C, D, and E on a component by
                      component basis with the exception that the
                      potential for the waste rock disposal areas
                      slopes of Alternative B are somewhat greater.
                      The erosion potentials for this alternative are
                      also comparable to those of Alternative G,
                      particularly in the case of the tailings dam
                      faces.  The 1 and 5 year total erosion potential
                      volumes for this alternative parallel those for
                      Alternatives E and F and fall between those of
                      Alternative B,  which are highest, and those of
                      Alternative C and D, which are lowest.

                      4.5.9    Effects of Alternative G

                      This alternative would result in the disturbance
                      of 896 acres of soils as shown on Table 4.5.1,
                      Summary of Resoiling Considerations.  An
                      estimated 1,166,300 cubic yards of soil are
                      required for resoiling.  A total  of 1,401,300
                      cubic yards are available under the proposed
                      salvage regime, resulting in a surplus volume of
                      nearby soil of 235,000 cubic yards.  This
                      excess is associated with the shift of the waste
                      rock disposal area away from the southern
                      disposal area site to the northern disposal area
                      site, where there is a greater volume of soil
                      available for salvage.  This represents a variance
                      of over  20%.  It may be desirable to increase
                      the resoiling depth during reclamation.

                      Estimated erosion rates associated with the
                      nearly level slopes of the waste rock disposal
                      area and tailings facilities are comparable with
                      those of Alternative B and are all within the soil
                      loss tolerance limits established by the SCS.
                      Rates following 1 and 5 growing seasons for
                      the 3H:1 V slopes of the waste rock disposal
                      area facility are 0.275 and 0.150
                      tons/acre/year, respectively, and are noticeably
                      lower than those for the 21-1:1 V slopes (0.399
                      and 0.745) proposed for this facility under
                      Alternative B yet comparable to values for
                      Alternatives C, D, E, and F. Erosion rates for
                      the Alternative G tailings dam face, following 1
                      and 5 growing seasons, were estimated at
                                  V!/nv  t

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-25
0.476 and 0.889 tons/acre/year.  These values
are higher than those estimated for the Marias
Creek Tailings facility {Alternatives B, C, D, and
E) and are notably higher than those estimated
for existing undisturbed conditions.  The longer
proposed slope lengths of the dam faces under
Alternative G are the basis for these elevated
erosion  rates as compared with Alternatives B,
C, D, E, and F.  However, values calculated for
Alternative G are within SCS erosion rate
tolerance levels.  Alternative G results in 1 and
5 year potential erosion volume totals similar to
those of Alternatives E and F.

4.6     GROUND WATER, SPRINGS AND
        SEEPS

4.6.1   Summary

After cessation of the dewatering operations
and after the open pit or underground mine
workings water levels reach equilibrium, the
hydrologic balance of the ground water system
would return to a static condition.  In all action
alternatives, this static level would be different
than the pre-mining conditions.  The action
alternatives with open pits without backfilling
(Alternatives B and G) would have a slightly
lower water table (potentiometric  surface)
locally due to losses from evaporation.
Alternative C with underground mining would
alter the ground water flow path.  The open or
backfilled mine workings would be more
permeable than the surrounding rock, creating a
pathway for ground water flow.  This would
tend to  lower the potentiometric surface of the
ground water in the area near the mine.  This
could potentially reduce the flow of nearby
springs  and seeps. The alternatives with a
combination of open pit and/or underground
mining or complete back-filling of the pit
(Alternatives C,  D, and F) would have similar
though somewhat smaller effects than
described above.

The tailings disposal areas for all action
alternatives will permanently disturb the original
surface  area and cover some springs and seeps
in the Marias Creek drainage (Alternatives B, C,
D, and E) or the Nicholson Creek drainage
(Alternatives F and G).  This would impact the
recharge/discharge of the ground water system
in local areas.  However, these flows will not be
lost, but routed down drainage from the facility
into the  seepage collection pond.
               The action alternatives that include permanent
               waste rock disposal sites would disturb the
               original surface areas (Alternatives B, C, D, E,
               and G) and locally reduce the recharge to the
               ground water system and possibly lower the
               water table.  The discharge from springs
               covered by waste rock would be routed below
               the facilities.  Local spring flow under the
               facilities would be captured and tested
               according to a monitoring plan prior to
               discharge.

               Surface water would be diverted around the
               tailings and permanent waste rock disposal
               areas proposed for the action alternatives and
               discharged to the drainages below the facilities.
               These impacts would be very localized and the
               overall impact to the ground water system
               would be minimal.

               A network of ground water wells would be
               located downgradient of facilities and disturbed
               areas and monitored on a regular basis to permit
               timely detection of potential ground water
               quality impacts resulting from construction or
               operation of the Project facilities. Should
               degradation of ground water quality occur,
               activities or facilities responsible for the impact
               would be suspended or modified, and additional
               actions would be implemented to reduce future
               impacts. Ground water remediation measures
               would be implemented as required in site
               permits and Washington State and Federal law.

               4.6.2    Effects of Alternative A (No Action)

               Because of past timber harvesting, recent
               mineral exploration, and historic mining
               activities, some impacts have already occurred
               to the original ground water hydrology.  The
               primary long-term  impact to the  local ground
               water hydrology is the change to the recharge-
               discharge characteristics of the local ground
               water system resulting from the historic, now
               abandoned underground mines.

               A total of 8 abandoned mines are located in the
               Crown Jewel  Project area.  Discharge from
               these abandoned mines ranges from no  outflow
               to over 50  gpm. The continuous discharge from
               these abandoned mines has lowered the local
               potentiometric surface of the ground water.
               Other abandoned mines, which are not currently
               discharging water, may have redistributed
               recharge and created preferential pathways for
               ground water flow.
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-26
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June  1995
As discussed in Section 3.8, Ground Water,
ground water discharged from 3 historic adits
(Buckhorn, Lower Magnetic, and Roosevelt) was
found to be similar in quality to water sampled
from site ground water wells and is
characteristically alkaline and contains low
metals concentrations. Slightly acidic ground
water containing detectable levels of several
trace metals was sampled from the Gold Axe
and Lower Magnetic adits.  Water in  these adits
is not considered generally representative of the
site ground water quality.

Surface disturbances associated with past
access road construction, timber harvesting,
and drill site construction have caused only
limited effect on the natural recharge to the
ground water system; there have been only
minor effects due to the alteration of surface
runoff patterns and increased infiltration rates.

Exploration drilling activities could potentially
impact the local ground water hydrology.
Drilling activities could interconnect different
water-bearing horizons such as perched zones in
the surficial glacial/colluvial materials and the
bedrock aquifer.  The ground water quality
could be locally impacted by the introduction of
drilling fluid additives and lost circulation of
those additives during drilling procedures.
Possible fuel or oil  spills from exploration
activities could also cause minor effects to the
local ground water quality.

Water supply wells used for exploration drilling
activities could have a temporary effect on the
local ground water system. During pumping
from these wells, ground water levels would be
lowered. However, due to the limited volume of
this pumping, impacts to the ground  water level
would be short-term.  After pumping, the
ground water levels recover to pre-pumping
levels.  The pumping has not impacted the local
ground water quality.

4.6.3    Effects Common to All Action
         Alternatives

Direct Effects

The Project components that could potentially
impact the ground  water system include the
following:

•        General surface disturbance;
                              Open pit or underground mine
                              workings;
                              Ore stockpiling;
                              Tailings disposal;
                              Waste rock disposal;
                              Sewage disposal;
                              Accidental spills; and,
                              Water supply wells.
                      Potential impacts to the ground water system
                      from these components could include changes
                      in recharge-discharge relationships, decrease of
                      water levels in the zone of influence due to
                      mine inflow, decrease of discharge from springs
                      and seeps, and degradation of ground water
                      quality.

                      General Surface Disturbance.  Approximately
                      440 to 927 acres of land surface within the
                      Project area (depending on the action
                      alternative) would be impacted by additional
                      construction and mine development operations.
                      In general, this area would remain disturbed for
                      the life of the  Project. Clearing and disturbance
                      of natural vegetation, changing slope
                      characteristics, and changing surficial soil
                      configuration would effect the recharge-
                      discharge relationship of the ground  water
                      system.  The specific surface disturbance
                      effects are discussed in detail for each action
                      alternative.

                      Open Pit Mine or Underground Mine  Workings.
                      All action alternatives for mining the Crown
                      Jewel ore deposit would involve either an open
                      pit mine, underground mine, or a combination of
                      the two.  The mine would be located on
                      Buckhorn Mountain near the top of the Gold
                      Bowl Creek drainage basin.  Regardless of the
                      mining method, there would be effects on the
                      local ground water system.

                      During mining operations (after the mine is
                      below ground water level), mine dewatering
                      would be necessary.  Mine drainage  would
                      cause changes in the local  ground water flow
                      direction and recharge rates. During and after
                      operations, the ground water in the Crown
                      Jewel Project  area would flow toward the mine.
                      The zone of influence from the mine drainage
                      would be limited due  to the mine location at the
                      top of the watershed  and the relatively low
                      hydraulic conductivity of the bedrock strata.

                      Springs and seeps could be impacted within the
                      zone of influence developed by the mine
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-27
 drainage and result in the reduction or cessation
 of flow.  Seven springs and 4 seeps were
 identified during baseline monitoring within the
 predicted zone of influence.  See Figure 4.6.1,
 Area of Influence / Surface and Ground Water,
 for general locations. In addition, 5 springs and
 4 seeps were identified in close proximity to this
 zone of influence and may also experience some
 flow reduction.  Impacts to the springs and
 seeps could require a Corps of Engineers permit.
 A list of the springs  and seeps that would be
 potentially  impacted are listed in  Table 4.6.1,
 Springs and Seeps with Potential Flow
 Reductions from Mining Operations.

 Some impacts of mine dewatering on the
 discharge of  ground water into the surface
 streams are also anticipated, and these impacts
 are discussed in Section 4.7, Surface Water
 Hydrology.  These described potential impacts
 would be limited to the time of active mine
 dewatering and to the initial phase of the final
 mine pit filling with water after completion of
 the mining  operations.  After mining, the ground
 water regime, including springs and seeps,
 would establish equilibrium conditions.

 Impacts to ground water quality from the mining
 are predicted to vary depending on the mining
 method used. Specific  impacts are discussed
 below under  each  of the action alternatives.
 Regardless of which action alternative is
 selected, the Proponent would be required to
 monitor ground water wells  and,  if present,
 springs and seeps downgradient of the mine
 workings to confirm that water quality
 degradation is not occurring.  During mining
 operations, if ground water contamination is
 detected below the mine workings, appropriate
 mitigation would be required to remain in
 compliance with permitting requirements.  After
 mine operations have ended, certain operational
 permits may lapse; however, long-term financial
 security would be  required to insure continued
 ground water monitoring and remediation.

 Ore Stockpile.  All alternatives include some
form of an  ore stockpiling facility. The ore
could be stored up to 2 months before
processing. Surface water diversion structures
would be constructed around the area to collect
runoff from the facility and to  prevent surface
water runoff from entering the site.  An unlined
detention pond would collect all runoff from the
site for testing according to a monitoring plan.
               The surface disturbance for the proposed ore
               stockpile facilities ranges from 7 to 12 acres.

               The ore stockpiles for each action alternative
               would be located in the Nicholson Creek
               watershed. The area of disturbance represents
               less than 1 % of the total Nicholson drainage
               basin area.  The affected drainage is covered by
               low permeability glacial deposits and the stream
               has a gaining character, that is, that ground
               water is  contributing to the surface flow in the
               area of the ore stockpiling  facility. These
               factors would greatly reduce the potential
               impact on the recharge-discharge system of the
               Nicholson Creek drainage.

               Little or no short-term ground water quality
               impacts are anticipated from the ore stockpile.
               Geochemical testing suggests that the ore is not
               acid generating and has a low potential to leach
               metals and radionuclides (BMGC, 1993c).
               These results, combined with the limited time
               the ore would be stored prior to processing (a
               maximum of 2 months) and the design of the
               runoff diversion structures and detention pond,
               would reduce the potential for water quality
               impacts in this area.  Moreover, due to its
               limited size, the amount of leachate generated
               from the ore stockpile is expected to be small.

               No long-term ground water quality impacts are
               expected from the ore stockpile.  Once the ore
               is depleted and milling operations cease,  the
               stockpile area would be regraded and reclaimed.
               The waste rock used to construct the stockpile
               pad would not be removed.  If the collection
               water fails to meet permit requirements,
               treatment of the water and lining of the pond
               would be necessary, or the water could be sent
               directly to the tailings impoundment  for mill feed
               water.

               Tailings Disposal.  All of the action alternatives
               would require a tailings disposal facility.  All
               action alternatives, except  Alternative G, would
               use cyanide for ore processing. Alternative G
               would use a non cyanide flotation process.  For
               all of the action alternatives,  the tailings
               disposal facility would be constructed as a zero
               discharge operation, incorporating both
               synthetic and clay liners. An underdrain  system
               would be installed beneath the tailings facility to
               collect ground water,  seep  and spring flow.
               The cyanide process mill tailings would be
               treated, by the INCO S02/Air/O2 cyanide
               destruction process, before placement in  the
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-28
                                                   MINIMUM POTENTIAL AREA
                                                        OF IMPACTS
       MAXIMUM POTENTIAL AREA
            OF IMPACT
                       R.30 E.
             LEGEND
            POTENTIAL IMPACTED AREA
      SW-8   SURFACE WATER MONITORING STATION

            SPRlNG OR SEEP LOCATION
   A     A'
   i     |  CROSS SECTION LOCATION

       f"
            MINE PIT AREA
    2500'    5000
CONTOUR INTERVAL 500FT
               FIGURE 4.6.1,  AREA  OF  INFLUENCE /
                   SURFACE  AND  GROUND WATER
 FILENAME CJ4-6-JDWG

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-29
TABLE 4 6.1, SPRINGS AND SEEPS WITH POTENTIAL FLOW REDUCTIONS
FROM MINING OPERATIONS
Springs | Seeps
Probable Impacted Springs and Seeps (within maximum predicted zone of influence)
SN-3 SN-18
JJ-6.6A.6B SN-22
JJ-7 JJ-22
JJ-21 JJ-33
JJ-23
JJ-24
JJ-25
Possible Impacted Springs and Seeps (within 500 ft. of maximum predicted zone of
SN-4 SN-10
SN-7 SN-15 (frog pond)
SN-12 JJ-16
SN-14 JJ-34
JJ-14


influence.

impoundment. The tailings would be dewatered
by a gravel overdrain system that would be
installed on top of the synthetic liner and would
collect inflow from the tailings during operation
and route the solution to a double lined reclaim
solution collection pond  at the toe of the
primary embankment. The collected tailings
solution would be pumped to  the processing
plant and recycled.  A gravity decant and
evaporation system would remove excess
supernatant solution after this solution is no
longer needed for processing at the mill. A
system of diversion channels would be
constructed to divert surface water runoff away
from the  tailings disposal area  and into the
existing drainage downstream  of the facility.  A
detailed description of the  tailings facility design
(Alternative B) is presented in the Tailings
Disposal  Facility, Final Design Report (Knight
Piesold, 1993).

The surface disturbance and construction
associated with tailings facilities would  impact
the recharge-discharge relationship in the
affected drainages.  Proposed sites for tailings
disposal in the Marias and  Nicholson Creek
drainages are located in  sections with several
springs and seeps and with low permeability
glacial till deposits covering most of the tailings
disposal sites. During operation, the tailings
disposal facility would alter the recharge-
discharge relationship of the local ground water
system by changing the  surface water runoff
patterns and associated  recharge, and by
covering  spring and seep discharge areas.
These potential impacts  would be limited by the
diversion of surface water  runoff to lower
reaches of the drainages.  The underdrain
system of the impoundment would collect and
               channel the ground water underflow to the
               reclaim solution collection pond.  After
               reclamation, the facility drainage systems would
               facilitate the return of the recharge and ground
               water flow patterns to near pre-operational
               conditions.  A minor amount  of recharge may be
               lost to surface water flow to  Nicholson or
               Marias Creeks.

               Any seepage through the tailings impoundment
               liner system could enter the ground water
               system, and subsequent ground water
               contamination could be a source of potential
               impacts.  The underdrain is designed to
               intercept this seepage and  route it to the
               reclaim solution pond located downstream of
               the primary tailings embankment.  Any collected
               seepage  would be reused at the processing
               plant. The quality of the solution entering the
               reclaim solution pond would  be monitored to
               provide data necessary  to assess the need for
               future seepage control  measures. Monitoring
               and seepage control measures would be
               continued after mine closure.  The stability of
               metallic compounds in pore waters, the extent
               of cyanide neutralization and  degradation and
               the presence of any flows from the seepage
               collection system would be contributing factors
               in the length of monitoring.

               A study of the potential seepage and
               attenuation of contaminants at the proposed
               Marias Creek facility tailings disposal facility
               was completed for the Project (Hydro-Geo,
               1995c).  The study indicated that, even during
               an extreme case of liner failure, potential
               contaminants would not reach any
               downgradient springs and seeps or flowing
               stream sections in concentrations above
                    Crown Jewel Mine  + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-30
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June  7995
background levels.  This study is discussed in
more detail in later sections of this document.

Long-term effects of the tailings disposal facility
would be mitigated  by the decommissioning and
reclamation of the site.  Reclamation of the site
includes stabilizing the facility with respect to
the potential for the release of contaminants to
the environment, and recontouring and
revegetating the site.  Though  infiltration of
incident precipitation would occur into the
reclaimed tailings pond to some degree,  this is
not expected to result in long-term saturation  of
the tailings. During the growing season
months, evaporation and plant respiration
should be sufficient to prevent most infiltration
from entering the tailings proper.  In the winter,
during the time of greatest precipitation  and
lowest evaporation and plant respiration,
moisture would pass through the reclaimed soil
profile to the soil/tailings interface. Due to
expected differences in the permeability  of the
soil and tailings, most of this infiltration  would
collect above the interface in the soil profile and
seasonally could enter the tailings.  Run-off,
including seeps and springs, from the surface of
the tailings facility would drain into the
Nicholson Creek drainage.

Waste  Rock Disposal. All action alternatives
include temporary or permanent waste rock
storage at the  Project site.  Differences between
alternatives regarding waste rock storage are
mainly in the size and location  of the disposal
areas and whether the material would be used
to backfill the mine.  Alternative D would
involve backfilling of some waste rock into  the
underground workings, and Alternatives E and F
would involve  either partial  or complete
backfilling of the final mine  pit.  All action
alternatives, other than Alternative F, specify
permanent  waste rock storage areas.

The waste  rock disposal facility design includes
perimeter channels to divert surface water
runoff and, if determined to be needed during
construction, an underdrain (french  drain)
system would  be installed to intercept any
previously identified spring and seep flow.  The
underflow from the  waste rock disposal  area(s)
would be collected in  detention ponds located
downdrainage  of the waste rock disposal areas.
Waste rock disposal areas proposed for the
Project are  located in upper Nicholson Creek and
upper Marias Creek drainages.
                      Regardless of the action alternative selected,
                      waste rock would also be used at the site for
                      construction purposes.  Only waste rock
                      material found to have a low potential to
                      generate acid and leach contaminants would be
                      used for construction purposes.  The Proponent
                      has proposed using waste rock in construction
                      of haul roads, the tailings embankment, and
                      pads for the  crusher and ore stockpile.

                      The surface disturbance and facility
                      construction would impact the recharge-
                      discharge relationship in the affected drainages.
                      The north site for waste rock disposal in the
                      upper Nicholson  Creek drainage is located in a
                      section with  several springs and seeps and with
                      low permeable glacial till deposits covering most
                      of the disposal site. The south site for the
                      waste rock disposal is located in the upper
                      Marias Creek drainage.  No springs or seeps
                      were identified at the proposed south waste
                      rock disposal site.

                      During operation, the waste rock disposal
                      facility would locally alter the recharge-
                      discharge relationship of the ground water
                      system by changing the surface water runoff
                      patterns and the associated recharge.  These
                      potential impacts would be minimized by the
                      diversion of surface water runoff to lower
                      reaches of the drainage and by an underdrain
                      system beneath the waste rock disposal area,
                      which would be constructed if necessary, to
                      intercept and channel any spring underflow.

                      The ground water flow to the frog pond, located
                      adjacent to the northern waste disposal area
                      would be altered and likely reduced by all action
                      alternatives.  The amount of flow reduction
                      would be dependent on the acres of disturbance
                      and surface water diversion upgradient and the
                      resultant changes to the ground water recharge
                      characteristics.  In Alternative G, the frog pond
                      area would be completely and permanently
                      covered by waste rock.

                      Seepage from the waste rock disposal sites into
                      the  ground water system, and potential ground
                      water contamination, would be an additional
                      source of potential impacts.  As a result of the
                      large surface areas of the waste rock exposed
                      to weathering, water quality impacts from
                      waste rock disposals could include the
                      formation of acidic drainage and leachate that
                      contains contaminants.  Based on the results
                      geochemical testing presented in Chapter 3,
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-31
less than 5% of the overall waste rock volume
generated is predicted to generate acid and to
leach metals under the Project alternatives. It is
possible, nevertheless, that "hot spots" would
occur locally in the waste rock disposals, and
limited acid generation could occur.

Several measures are proposed during
operations to minimize the potential for acid
generation in the waste rock disposal areas. In
general, these measures involve isolating and
neutralizing potentially acid generating material
and preventing water from infiltrating through
the disposed  waste rock.  As a result of these
measures, the potential for ground water
contamination from the waste rock disposal
sites from acid generation and leaching of
metals is expected to be low.

Other potential water quality impacts could
include a temporary release of ammonia  and/or
nitrates to site waters from residual blasting
agents within  the waste rock.  Potential  impacts
from blasting on water quality are difficult to
predict, and would depend, to a large  degree,
on the blasting efficiency. Baseline monitoring
indicates that  site ground water currently
contains average nitrate plus nitrite
concentrations of less than 2 mg/l  (as N) and
ammonia concentrations less than  0.3 mg/l (as
N). By comparison, the Washington State
ground water  quality standard for nitrate is 10
mg/l (as N). There is presently no  Washington
State ground water standard for ammonia.

During operations, the quality of the collected
seepage and underflow would be monitored,
treated (if required), and released into the
Nicholson or  Marias Creek drainages.  The
quality of the  water discharged from the waste
rock disposal areas to either ground or surface
water would have to satisfy permit effluent
quality standards set by regulating agencies.
Monitoring could include analysis of water
collected from the  underdrains and detention
ponds, springs and seeps that form along the
slopes of the disposal areas, and downgradient
ground water  wells.

Long-term water quality impacts from the waste
rock disposal areas after reclamation are
expected to be somewhat less than during
operations. This is largely due to a predicted
decrease in seepage through the waste rock
after reclamation of the disposal areas.
Additional monitoring of the disposal area areas
               would be performed as required by the
               regulatory agencies to confirm this prediction.

               Sewage Disposal. The sewage disposal system
               for the proposed Project would be located in the
               Nicholson Creek drainage and would disturb less
               than  1  acre. The system would consist of a
               septic tank and drain field system located near
               the proposed mill and designed to Washington
               State and local specifications.

               A potential effect to the quantity of the local
               ground water could result from the surface
               disturbance of the sewage disposal facility.
               However, due to the  limited area of the
               proposed disturbance (less than 1 acre) no
               measurable impacts are expected.

               During mine development, operation and
               reclamation, impacts  to ground water quality
               from sewage disposal would be localized in  an
               area  downgradient of the drain field and could
               be characterized by elevated levels of dissolved
               major ions, organic carbon, nutrients, and/or
               bacteria. Lab waste and other sources of toxic
               materials would not be discharged into the drain
               field.  On-site ground water monitoring would
               be performed to evaluate the extent of this
               potential impact and, if site ground water
               quality standards are exceeded, mitigation
               measures, including increasing the size of the
               system, relocating the system or designing an
               alternative treatment system would be taken as
               is appropriate.

               No long-term impacts from on-site sewage
               disposal are anticipated. After reclamation is
               completed, the septic tank would be pumped
               and the leach field decommissioned.

               Accidental Spills.  An accidental spill of
               hazardous materials at the Project site could
               have an impact to the ground water system.
               The impacts could include temporary and local
               ground water contamination at the site of the
               spill. A detailed discussion of accidental spills
               and the possible impacts are discussed in
               Section 4.22, Accidents and Spills.

               Indirect Effects

               The potential for indirect ground  water impacts
               to the region are expected to be minimal, if
               employees choose to live in communities with
               established water systems. If employees
               choose to live in rural areas, domestic water
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-32
Ch 4 - £nvffcit
wells would be drilled, where possible. These
wells should have little indirect effects on
ground water quality or quantity.

Cumulative Effects

No cumulative ground water impacts are
expected to occur as a result of logging, mineral
exploration or other activities.

4.6.4    Effects of Alternative B

Surface Disturbance

An estimated 766 acres would be impacted by
construction and mine development operations
of Alternative B.  The area of surface
disturbance and layout of the mine facilities for
Alternative B are shown on Figure 2.10,
Alternative B - Site Plan.

Most of the Project area drainages would be
impacted by surface disturbances;  however, the
total percentage of the impact would be small.
Nicholson and Marias Creek drainages would be
most affected with 4% and 3%, respectively, of
total drainage area impacted by mine facilities.
The other drainage areas including Gold, Bolster,
Ethel and Starrem would be impacted  with 1 %
or less of surface disturbance. After
reclamation of the mine facilities, the ground
water recharge-discharge patterns  would
establish equilibrium.

Long-term effects of the surface disturbances
would be mitigated by the decommissioning and
reclamation of the site.  Reclamation of the site
includes recontouring and revegetation.  This
would re-establish the static ground water
hydrologic  balance.

Open Pit Mine

Alternative B involves the development of an
open pit mine.  The mine would be located near
the top and on the northeastern flank  of
Buckhorn Mountain.  The mine pit  would cover
an area of over 100 acres, and the final pit
bottom would reach an elevation of
approximately 4,505 feet.  The completion of
mining in Alternative B would take
approximately 9 years after Project initiation.

During the mining operations, after the pit is
below the zone of saturation, ground water
would flow toward the pit,  and active or passive
                      mine dewatering would be necessary.  Several
                      dewatering wells would be installed at the pit
                      perimeter.  Mine dewatering would cause
                      changes in the local ground water flow direction
                      and recharge rate.  During and after completion
                      of mining operations, ground water within the
                      zone of influence created by the pit dewatering
                      would flow toward the mine.

                      Mine inflows, during and  after the mining
                      operation, were calculated in the Pit Filling
                      Study (Hydro-Geo, 1995b). The study
                      concluded that the pit inflow, due to ground
                      water seepage,  runoff, and precipitation, could
                      range from approximately 114 to 176  gpm.

                      The area of influence caused by the mine
                      drainage was calculated for the proposed mining
                      operations (Hydro-Geo, 1995b) using the range
                      of hydraulic parameters measured during recent
                      hydrologic testing at the site (Colder, 1993).
                      The calculations assumed that the area of
                      influence would not extend below the  elevation
                      of the final pit bottom of  4,505 feet.  (See
                      Figure 4.6.2, Schematic Hydrogeologic Cross-
                      Section at Conclusion  of Mining).  The area of
                      potential impacts on the  ground water system
                      would be less than 10% of the total watershed
                      areas of Bolster, Gold, Ethel, Marias and
                      Nicholson Creeks.  Within this area, ground
                      water would flow toward the  mine, and there
                      would be a reduction in the recharge to the
                      ground water system. Springs and wells within
                      these areas could experience reduction of
                      ground water level or flow.  The size of the area
                      of influence in relationship to the drainages
                      within the Project area is  discussed in  Section
                      4.7,  Surface Water.

                      The water pumped from  the dewatering wells
                      would be used to supplement the Project water
                      supply if water rights are granted.  Water
                      pumped directly from the aquifer would not flow
                      into the pit and  there would be no impacts to
                      the ground water quality  due to pit water
                      dewatering.

                      After completion of mining operations, the open
                      pit would be left to fill with ground and surface
                      water. Hydro-Geo (1995b) calculated pit filling
                      based on the application of the aquifer hydraulic
                      characteristics,  recharge rates, direct
                      precipitation, runoff and  evaporation.  The
                      Hydro-Geo study indicated that pit filling to an
                      outflow elevation of 4,850 feet, would take
                      approximately 7 to 13 years.  After the pit filled
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
           WEST
                                                                                     EAST
                                                MAXIMUM AREA OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
                                               ON SURFACE & GROUNDWATER RESOURCES
                                                 MINIMUM AREA OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
                                               ON SURFACE & GROUNDWATER RESOURCES
                                                POTENTIAL RECHARGE CATCHMENT AREA

                                                 BUCKHORN MTN
                                                                     PRE-MINING TOPOGRAPHY
 APPROXIMATE
POTENTIOMETRIC
SURFACE AT THE
 END OF MINING
(LOW HYDRAULIC
 CONDUCTIVITY)
                                                                             APPROXIMATE PRE-MINING
                                                                                POTENTIOMETRIC
                                                                                  SURFACE
                                                              CROWN JEWEL
                                                               OPEN PIT
                                  APPROXIMATE
                                 POTENTIOMETRIC
                                 SURFACE AT THE
                                  END OF MINING
                                 (HIGH HYDRAULIC
                                  CONDUCTIVITY!
                HORIZONTAL SCALE

         NOTES 11] VERTICAL SCAIE EXAGGERATED
            121 CROSS-SECTION LOCATION SHOWN
            ON FIGURE < 6 I
                               FIGURE  4.6.2,  SCHEMATIC  HYDROGEOLOGIC
                              CROSS-SECTION  AT  CONCLUSION  OF  MINING
FILENAME  CJ2-4 D WG

-------
Page 4-34
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June 1995
to an elevation of 4,850 feet, an average annual
outflow of 135 to  177 gpm would occur.
Seasonal fluctuations in outflow could range
from 25 to 291 gpm. By comparison,
streamflows measured during baseline
monitoring at 3 stations located in the
headwaters of Marias and Nicholson Creeks
have ranged from no flow (SW-9) to
approximately 600 gpm (SW-7).

Removal of waste rock and ore  from an open
pit, as proposed by the Proponent, would
expose a large volume of material to
atmospheric conditions. Oxidation of sulfide
minerals exposed in the walls of the pit could
potentially result in generation of acidic drainage
and release of contaminants to the site surface
water and ground water.  To evaluate this
potential,  geochemical modeling was performed
to predict the quality of water that would
accumulate in  the pit and discharge from the
open pit.  A summary of the model approach
and results is presented below.  A more detailed
discussion is provided in the report,
"Geochemical  Modeling of Pit Lake Water
Quality for the Crown Jewel Project" (Schafer,
1995a).  Results from this model served as the
basis for comparing water quality  impacts from
the other action alternatives

Pit water quality modeling consisted of mixing
pitwall runoff water with ground water inflow
using the USGS geochemical computer program
PHREEQE (Parkhurst et al., 1980). The quality
of the pitwall runoff was characterized using
humidity cell data from baseline geochemical
testing that were 'weighted' to account for the
percentage of waste  rock types exposed in the
proposed pit. The runoff component was mixed
with a representative ground water at ratios
estimated from pit inflow  simulations.

Results from mixing pit runoff and ground water
components were used as input to the EPA
geochemical computer program  MINTEQA2
(Felmy et al.,  1 984).  This geochemistry code
was employed to predict which  solids may
precipitate out of the water mixtures and the
extent of sorption of metals onto the solids.
Final water quality conditions were determined
from these simulations.

It was assumed based on the geometry of the
pit and local climatic  conditions  that a lake
formed in the pit would 'turn over' in the fall
and be oligotrophic.  Oligotrophic lakes are
                     characterized by a moderate to high dissolved
                     oxygen content, well mixed waters, and low
                     biological activity. To evaluate how this
                     assumption of lake conditions would affect the
                     model results, sensitivity analyses were
                     performed on 2 important geochemical
                     variables; redox (reduction/oxidation) potential
                     and concentration of carbon dioxide gas.  It was
                     further assumed that for modeling purposes that
                     certain chemical constituents not detected in
                     the humidity cells would occur in pitwall runoff
                     at concentrations equal to their detection limit.
                     This is a conservative assumption considering
                     that the majority of rock types tested produced
                     leachates with metal concentrations below
                     detection.

                     Results of the modeling indicate that during  pit
                     filling with water and at outflow, the pit lake
                     would be slightly alkaline and have moderate to
                     high levels of total dissolved solids.  The pit lake
                     water pH was estimated to  range from 7.7 to
                     7.8 with a TDS concentration between 72 and
                     500 mg/l. At outflow, the pit water quality
                     would be similar with a pH ranging from  7.7 to
                     8.1, and TDS concentrations between 67 and
                     540 mg/l. Dissolved trace metal concentrations
                     are predicted to be low at all stages of the pit
                     filling.  Most trace metal concentrations would
                     remain below Washington State ground water
                     quality criteria.

                     Table 4.6.2, Comparison  of Predicted Water
                     Quality Conditions in the Proposed Open Pit to
                     Washington  Ground Water Quality Criteria, lists
                     the range of parameter concentrations predicted
                     to occur in the pit water during and after the pit
                     has filled. Note that concentrations of arsenic,
                     copper, nickel, and zinc, were predicted to be
                     reduced by adsorption onto iron hydroxides
                     shown through  modeling to precipitate from the
                     water. It is possible that other metals, most
                     notably selenium and thallium, may become
                     seasonally concentrated in the upper level of the
                     lake through evaporation. Due to the depth  of
                     the lake, lake turnover and site evaporation
                     rates, these parameters were not modeled.

                     The pit water quality study also did not model
                     potential water quality impacts from blasting in
                     the pit area.  Approximately 0.5 pounds of
                     ammonium nitrate and fuel oil (ANFO) per ton of
                     material mined would be used. Due to the high
                     solubility of the ammonia and nitrate contained
                     in ANFO, water quality impacts from these
                     constituents may occur at Crown Jewel.  Water
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-35
TABLE 4.6.2, COMPARISON OF PREDICTED WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS IN THE PROPOSED OPEN PIT
TO WASHINGTON GROUND WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
Parameter1
Antimony4
Arsenic4
Barium
Cadmium
Copper
Chromium
Iron
Manganese4
Nickel4
Selenium4
Silver
Thallium4
Zinc
Calcium
Magnesium
Potassium
Sodium
Alkalinity (as
CaCO.,)
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate4
pH
TDS4
Predicted Range in
Concentration During
Initial Stages of Pit
Filling2
(mg/l)
0.0229-0.0309
<0.001-0.0391
0.0102-0.0156
0.0027-0.0052
0.0049-0.0093
0.01 10-0.014
0.0002-0.0006
0.0496-0.9615
0.0254-0.1256
0.0220-0.0351
0.0102-0.0186
0.0229-0.0650
0.0108-0.0239
62.124-129.9794
3.4263-5.589
2.6432-3.9491
1.5265-4.2532
94.59-1 10.60
0.7409-0.9075
0.1018-0.1332
34.08-298.18
7.73-7.82
72-500
Predicted Range in
Concentration When Pit
is Filled2
(mg/l)
0.0190-0.0639
<0.001-0.0412
0.0103-0.0163
0.0009-0.0052
0.0046-0.0097
0.0066-0.022
0.0003-0.0007
0.1258-1.0823
0.0279-0.1402
0.0191-0.0640
0.0103-0 0197
0.0319-0.0629
0.01 1 1-0.0256
50.5008-135 5906
3.1 104-5 3946
2.9325-4.2228
1.4645-4.5520
92.81-213.1
0.7090-0.8685
0.1026-0.1 186
33.41-333.31
7.72-8 11
67-540
Washington Primary
Ground Water Quality
Criteria3
(mg/l)
0.006
0.0005
1
0.01

0.05


0.1
0.01
0.05
0.002







4



Washington Secondary
Ground Water Quality
Criteria3
(mg/l)




1

0.3
0.05




5





250

250
6.5-8.5
500
Notes: 1. Lead and mercury concentrations were below detection limits in waste rock leachates and
baseline ground water samples from the site and, therefore, were not modeled.
2. Based on results presented in fma! report "Geochemical Modeling of Pit Lake Water Quality for
the Crown Jewel Project (Schafer, 1995a). Results given as dissolved concentrations.
Modeling assumed sorption to iron hydroxide precipitates occurs and pit water is well
oxygenated.
3. From WAC 1 73-200, Water Quality Standard for Ground Waters of the State of Washington,
October 1990. Primary standards have been updated to include revisions to EPA MCL's
effective January 1994, as per R. Raforth, WADOE.
4. Predicted to exceed primary or secondary ground water quality criteria.
L 	
quality samples collected from coal and metal
mines in Canada have shown locally elevated
levels of ammonia and/or nitrate (Northwest
Mining Association Short Course, 1991;
Environment Canada, 1988; and, BC Ministry of
Environment, 1983).  The occurrence of
elevated nutrient levels in these waters was
believed to be a result largely of spillage and
partial detonation of ANFO from blasting
activities.  As part of water quality monitoring
              at Crown Jewel, nutrient levels would be
              monitored in pit waters during operations to
              verify that optimal ANFO use is being achieved.
              If elevated levels of ammonia and/or nitrate
              were detected, changes in blasting procedures
              would be implemented and water treatment
              performed as is necessary to comply with
              permit requirements.
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-36
Ch 4 - Envtr:
Based on the above discussion, seepage from
the flooded pit after operations is expected to
have a low overall impact on ground water
quality. Five trace metals (antimony, arsenic,
nickel, selenium, and thallium) were predicted to
occur in the pit water at concentrations above
Washington State primary ground water quality
criteria. One trace metal (manganese), a major
ion (sulfate),  and  IDS were predicted to exceed
state secondary ground water quality criteria.
Due to the conservative assumptions used in
the pit water quality study,  the modeled
concentrations  may overestimate the
concentrations  that would be observed under
field conditions. Any impacts to ground water
quality from elevated nutrient levels are
expected to be  short lived because the residual
ANFO would be flushed from the pit during
filling.  Flooding of the lower pit would retard
potential acid production from submerged
bedrock.

To satisfy permit  requirements and confirm the
model predictions, the Proponent would  be
required to monitor pit water quality both during
pit filling and after outflow begins.

Tailings Disposal

The proposed tailings disposal facility would
disturb approximately 84 acres in Marias Creek
drainage and 3  acres in Nicholson Creek
drainage.  The area of disturbance represents
approximately 1 % of the total Marias Creek
drainage basin and less than 1 % of the
Nicholson Creek drainage basin.  The affected
drainages are covered by low permeability
glacial deposits.  Several springs and seeps
begin at the tailings impoundment site in the
Marias Creek drainage and several wells have
reported artesian  flow. This indicates that the
drainages have a  gaining character in the area
of the tailings disposal facility.  That is, streams
in the drainages are receiving flow contribution
from ground  water. These  factors would
greatly reduce the potential impact on the
recharge-discharge system of the Marias Creek
drainages.

An independent seepage and attenuation study
was conducted by Hydro-Geo Consultants
(1995c).  In the study, 2 models were utilized
to analyze various scenarios of potential
seepage and attenuation. The  computerized
version of the McWhorter Nelson method for
determination of seepage in the partially
                      saturated zone beneath tailings impoundments
                      (McWhorter and Nelson, 1980) was applied.  A
                      second model was utilized to simulate the
                      saturated portion of  horizontal flow (Colder,
                      1992a). Column leach tests were performed on
                      various soil types from the site foundation to
                      estimate attenuation of selected contaminant
                      species. Six different  cases representing
                      various scenarios were simulated.

                      The case with an intact liner system indicated
                      virtually no seepage  (6.7x10"4 gpm). The most
                      conservative or "worst-case" scenario predicted
                      a maximum mean  seepage rate of 2.4 gpm.

                      For the modeled "worst-case" scenario, seepage
                      from the impoundment with a 10 foot by 10
                      foot synthetic liner tear occurring in each acre
                      the tailings facility, a dysfunctional underdrain
                      system, and a constant rate of seepage for the
                      8 year life  of the mine (conservative hydrologic
                      parameters), were used. The tailing facility
                      would be reclaimed after this time. No chemical
                      attenuation of the tailings solution in the
                      subgrade materials was considered. Horizontal
                      flow modeling indicated that a plume with
                      contaminant concentrations equal to or below
                      standard laboratory detection levels would
                      extend approximately 489 feet from the source
                      after 4 years of seepage,  763 feet in 8 years,
                      and 1,430 feet in  20 years. The contaminant
                      plume from this "worst case"  scenario would
                      not be detectable in  the ground water beyond
                      the footprint of the tailings facility even after 20
                      years.  Table 4.6.3,  Predicted Ground Water
                      Contaminant Concentrations Downgradient of a
                      Release from the Tailings Impoundment
                      Assuming  Worst Case Conditions, lists that
                      contaminant concentrations predicted
                      downgradient of the tailings impoundment  under
                      this scenario and, for comparison, the
                      associated Washington State ground water
                      standards.  Because of the conservative
                      assumptions used in the modeling effort, the
                      potential for ground  water contamination would
                      be more limited than indicated by the
                      simulation.

                      Long-term effects of the tailings disposal facility
                      would be mitigated by the decommissioning and
                      reclamation of the site. Reclamation of the site
                      includes stabilizing the facility by recontouring,
                      topsoiling, and revegetating the site.
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-37
TABLE 4.6.3, PREDICTED GROUND WATER CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS DOWNGRADIENT OF A RELEASE FROM THE TAILINGS IMPOUNDMENT,
ASSUMING WORST CASE CONDITIONS1
Parameter
Cyanide (WAD)
Arsenic
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Ammonia (as N)
Nitrate (as N)
Calcium
Sodium
Potassium
Iron
Sulfate
Chloride
Bicarbonate
Original Tails Solution
Concentration
Modeled2
(mg/l)
27
0.21
6.85
0.0008
0.1
19.3
10.5
680
298
43
0 3
1,930
388
63
Dispersed
Concentration of
Tails Contaminants
in Ground Water
Downgradient of
Release
(mg/l)
0.0027
2.1 x 10"
6.8 x 10'4
8. x 10'
1. x 10 b
0.0019
0.0010
0.068
0.0298
0.0043
3. x 10-5
0.193
0.0388
0.0063
Change in Length of Contaminant Plume Downgradient of
Release With Time
(feet)
4 Years
489
489
489
489
489
489
489
489
489
489
489
489
489
489
8 Years
763
763
763
763
763
763
763
763
763
763
763
763
763
763
20 Years
1,430
1,430
1,430
1,430
1,430
1,430
1,430
1,430
1,430
1,430
1,430
1,430
1,430
1,430
Washington Primary
Ground Water
Quality Criteria3
(mg/l)
0.2
0.0005

0.002
0.1

10







Washington
Secondary Ground
Water Quality
Criteria3
(mg/l)


1.0







0.3
250
250

Notes: 1. Based on results presented in the report "Seepage and Attenuation Study, Crown Jewel Tailings Disposal Facility, June 1995", (Hydro-Geo,
1995c).
2. Based on average concentration of tailings liquid reported by the Proponent for bench scale samples detoxified to a WAD CN concentration of less
than 40 ppm.
3. From WAC 173-200, Water Quality Standards for Ground Waters of the State of Washington. Primary standards have been updated to include
revisions to EPA MCL's effective January 1994, per R. Raforth, WADOE.
                                   Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-38
Ch 4- - Environmental Consequences
June 1995
Waste Rock Disposal

The proposed waste rock disposals would
disturb approximately 138 and 122 acres in the
Marias and Nicholson Creek drainages
respectively.  This represents  1.5% of the total
Marias Creek drainage and 1.3% of the
Nicholson Creek drainage. The affected
drainage areas are covered by low permeability
glacial and colluvial deposits.  The upper
Nicholson and Marias Creek drainages have a
gaining character, as evidenced by numerous
springs and seeps. The low permeability of the
soils and gaining character of  the affected areas
would greatly reduce the  impact on the
recharge-discharge system.

In an  independent study,  seepage rates through
the waste rock disposals  were calculated
(Schafer, 1995b).  In this study, a water
balance  simulation was utilized to analyze
various scenarios of potential  seepage during
operations and after reclamation, based  on
minimum, maximum and average annual
precipitation. The calculated average flow  rates
for the unreclaimed waste rock disposal areas  in
Nicholson Creek during operations ranged from
29.0 to  51.1 gpm. The calculated flow rate for
the unreclaimed waste  rock disposal area in the
Marias Creek watershed ranged from 30.0  to
54.8 gpm. It should be noted that the flow
rates  were calculated at the completion  of
mining and maximum disposal area size.  Also,
it was assumed that the waste rock disposal
areas would initially be at field capacity.  It is
estimated to take approximately 2 years for
seepage to first occur at the waste rock
disposal area sites, and flow rates would be
much less than indicated  during the  early
operational stages of the  waste rock disposal
facility due to smaller disposal area size. During
operations, any flow from the waste rock
disposal areas would be collected in detention
ponds at the toe of the facilities and could  be
utilized to supplement the water supply
requirements for the operation or could  be
released to Marias or Nicholson Creeks, after
testing and, if necessary, treatment.

Reduced ground water recharge and seepage
quality due to the operation of the waste rock
facility in the Nicholson Creek watershed would
impact the flows to the frog pond.  The
potential impacts could include a reduction of
flow and size, and/or a change in water quality.
                     4.6.5    Effects of Alternative C

                     Surface Disturbance

                     In Alternative C, approximately 440 acres would
                     be impacted by construction and mine
                     development operations.  The surface
                     disturbance and layout of the mine facilities for
                     Alternative C are shown on Figure 2.11,
                     Alternative C - Site Plan.

                     Area drainages would be impacted by surface
                     disturbances; however, the total area of the
                     impact would be small.  Nicholson and Marias
                     Creek drainages would be  most affected with
                     approximately 2% of total drainage areas
                     impacted by mine facilities.  The other drainages
                     of Gold, Bolster, Ethel, and Starrem Creeks
                     would be impacted by 1 % or less of surface
                     disturbance.

                     Underground Mine

                     Alternative C involves the  development of an
                     underground mine.  The main mine adits would
                     be located  in the Gold Bowl Creek drainage
                     basin (of the Nicholson Creek watershed) at
                     approximately 4,500 and 4,850 foot elevations.
                     The mine development for Alternative C would
                     take approximately 1 year for the adit
                     construction and early mine development, and 4
                     years for actual  ore production operations.

                     During the mining  operations,  because the level
                     of the mine adits and workings are below the
                     zone of saturation, ground water would seep
                     into the mine. This seepage and subsequent
                     mine dewatering would cause changes in the
                     local ground water flow direction and recharge
                     rate.  During and after operations, the ground
                     water in the Crown Jewel Project area would
                     flow toward the underground mine workings.

                     Minimum and  maximum mine inflows, during
                     the adit construction and at the end of mining,
                     were calculated using analytical methods
                     presented in Maximov ed., Handbook for
                     Hydrogeologists, 1975, and a water balance
                     simulation  (Hydro-Geo, 1994). The analysis
                     concluded  that the ground water inflow during
                     adit construction could range from
                     approximately 47 to 129 gpm. At the
                     maximum mine development, inflows were
                     calculated  to range from 103 to  284 gpm.
                     After completion of mining, the sustained inflow
                     was calculated to  range from 58 to 141 gpm.
                     Crown Jewel Mine  4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 439
The area of influence from the mine drainage
was calculated for the proposed mining
operations based on a  range of hydraulic
parameters measured during recent hydrologic
testing at the site (Hydro-Geo, 1994).  The
potentially impacted surface areas, due to mine
drainage,  would be less than 1 % of the total
watershed areas of Marias, Ethel, Bolster, Gold,
Starrem and Nicholson Creeks.  Within these
areas, ground water would flow toward the
underground mine workings, reducing recharge
to the ground water system.  Water sources
within this area of influence above the
underground workings would experience
reduction  of  ground water level or flow.

Mine induced subsidence would locally impact
the ground water system. The effects of
subsidence are related to the mining method,
site specific geologic and hydrogeologic
characteristics, including thickness of
overburden, rock type, terrain configuration, and
aquifer hydraulic properties. Surface subsidence
would increase recharge to the  ground water
system by increasing the infiltration from runoff
and precipitation.  Subsidence induced
fracturing of the rock above the underground
workings  overburden material would also cause
changes in the local aquifers. The  potential
effects include the interconnection  of different
water bearing zones and the reduction of
ground water levels. Springs or seeps within
the area of subsidence induced  impacts could
also be impacted  by the reduction in flow.

During operations, the  water from underground
mine  drainage would be used to supplement the
water supply requirements of the operation if
water rights are granted.  As a result,  no
impacts to the ground water quality due to mine
water discharge are expected.

After mining  operations, the underground mine
adit would be sealed with  a concrete plug and
bulkhead.  The bulkhead would  be installed with
a drain pipe for long-term mine discharge.  After
the mine is sealed, it would begin to flood with
ground water; however, a reduction in ground
water levels above the  underground mine
workings would occur as long-term post-mining
discharge  persisted.  Changes in mine outflow
related to  seasonal variations in precipitation
and runoff is anticipated in a similar range as
measured  for the historic Roosevelt Adit (see
Section 3.8, Ground Water).
               Mine flooding could result in a temporary
               flushing of sulfide oxidation products and
               residual ANFO from previously unsaturated
               sections of the workings. This alternative
               would expose a smaller percentage of
               potentially acid generating rock than the mine
               workings  proposed under Alternative B. Using
               this comparison and the pit  water quality results
               discussed above, the  initial flush of oxidation
               products from the walls of the underground
               mine is expected to result in a lesser impact tb
               ground water quality than predicted for the
               proposed  open pit.

               After flooding, there would be less rock area
               exposed to oxygen in the underground workings
               than in the proposed open pit and, therefore,
               the long-term impacts to ground water from this
               alternative would also be predicted to be less
               than Alternative B. The overall water quality
               impacts predicted for  Alternative B should not
               be substantially  different than this or any of the
               other action alternatives due to the high natural
               buffering capacity of most of the  waste rock at
               the site and the  role of iron hydroxide
               precipitates  in the sorption of metals.

               Underground Development Waste Rock Disposal

               The proposed underground development waste
               rock disposal area would disturb approximately
               26  acres in the Nicholson Creek drainage.  This
               represents less than 1 % of the total  Nicholson
               Creek watershed area.  As a result,  no
               measurable impact to  the recharge-discharge
               system of the ground  water is expected.  This
               waste rock disposal area would have the least
               effect of all waste rock  disposal area
               alternatives, due to its limited size.  Also, as
               described  in Section 3.3, waste rock generated
               under Alternative C would, on average, have a
               lower potential to generate acid rock drainage
               than under Alternative B.

              4.6.6   Effects of Alternative D

              Surface Disturbance

              Approximately 562 acres would be impacted by
              construction and mine development operations
              of Alternative D.  The  surface disturbance and
              layout of the mine facilities for Alternative D are
              shown on  Figure 2.12, Alternative D - Site Plan.

              Some of the area drainages would be impacted
              by surface disturbances, however, the total area
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-40
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
Juns 1995
of the impact would be small.  Nicholson and
Marias Creek drainages would be most effected
with 2 and 4% respectively of total drainage
areas impacted by mine facilities.  The other
drainages, including Gold, Bolster, Ethel and
Starrem Creeks would be impacted by 1 % or
less of surface disturbance.

Open Pit and Underground Mining

Alternative D involves the development of an
open pit and underground mine.  The open pit
mine would be located on Buckhorn Mountain
near the top of the Gold Bowl Creek drainage
basin.  The pit would have an area of 73 acres,
and the final pit bottom would reach an
elevation of approximately 4,505 feet. The
underground mine adit would be located in the
Gold Bowl Creek drainage basin at the 4,850
foot elevation.

During surface mining operations, after the level
of the open pit goes below the water table,
ground water would seep into the pit.  Because
the underground workings would be below the
water table, ground water would continually
seep into the underground adit and subsequent
workings.  The total seepage and zone of
influence would be the same or slightly less
than calculated for Alternative B, and the
potential impacts  would include the reduction  of
flow to wells and springs within the zone  of
influence during mining and initial period of pit
filling. The size of the area of influence in
relationship to the drainages within the Project
area is discussed  in Section 4.7, Surface Water.

After mining operations cease, the open pit and
underground mines would flood. The outflow
and seepage from the open pit would be less
than predicted in Alternative B because of the
reduced size of the pit area.  The underground
mine adit would also discharge, but this
discharge would be less than the adit outflows
predicted for Alternative C because of the
reduced underground  mine workings area in
Alternative D.

Based on the percentage of waste rock types
estimated to be exposed  in the open pit and
underground mine workings, the short-term
impact to ground  water quality from this
alternative is predicted to be similar to
Alternative B and  the long-term impact is
predicted to be between Alternatives B and C.
                      4.6.7   Effects of Alternative E

                      Surface Disturbance

                      Approximately 927 acres would be impacted by
                      construction and mine development operations
                      of Alternative E.  The surface disturbance and
                      location of the mine facilities for Alternative E
                      are shown on Figure 2.13, Alternative E - Site
                      Plan.

                      Some of the area drainages would be impacted
                      by surface disturbances; however, the total area
                      of the impact would be small.  Nicholson and
                      Marias Creek drainages would be most affected
                      with  5% and 3% respectively of total drainage
                      areas impacted by mine facilities.  The other
                      drainages. Gold, Bolster, Ethel, and Starrem
                      Creeks would be impacted by 1 %  or less of
                      surface disturbance.

                      Open Pit Mine

                      Alternative E involves the development of a
                      single open pit mine with the same size and
                      depth as described for Alternative  B.  During
                      mining operations, the pit would be partially
                      backfilled to an elevation above the
                      potentiometric surface of the ground water.
                      Therefore, no final pit lake would form. The pit
                      backfilling would limit the water evaporation
                      losses from the pit lake.  Ground water flowing
                      into the backfilled pit would slowly saturate the
                      waste rock placed in the pit and the
                      potentiometric surface of the ground water
                      would reach equilibrium in approximately 7 to
                      13 years.

                      As the backfilled waste rock in the final pit
                      becomes saturated with water after mining,
                      flushing of the backfilled material could result in
                      a temporary release of trace metals and residual
                      ANFO to the ground water. Geochemical
                      testing of the waste rock material  indicates that
                      the impact from a release of trace metals would
                      be minimal.  As described in Section 3.3,
                      Geology/Geochemistry, less than 5% of the
                      total  waste rock volume  has been  determined to
                      potentially generate acid and leach pollutants,
                      and a large percentage of the waste rock is
                      alkaline.  After waste rock saturation, using
                      mitigation measures for waste rock piles to
                      characterize and selectively place the backfill
                      material, any further potential for acid
                      production should be effectively stopped in that
                      material.  Potential impacts from residual ANFO
                     Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-41
in the backfilled waste rock material are difficult
to predict and would depend to a large degree
on the efficiency of blasting achieved during
operations.

The discharge of water from the partial backfill
in the final mine pit would largely occur in the
form of springs and seeps at the low point of
the pit crest. After flushing of the  backfilled
waste rock with water, the long-term impact to
ground water quality from the partial backfilling
is predicted to be greater than alternatives C
and D due to a larger area of exposed pit wall
but less than Alternative B because less direct
runoff would occur from the pit walls.

Regrading and revegetation performed as part of
the reclamation activities would limit runoff and
infiltration into the pit. Installation of ground
water monitoring  wells downgradient of the
mine  would be required to confirm  that no
ground water degradation is occurring. Water
quality monitoring would also include selected
springs or seeps that formed in the area of the
backfilled waste rock material.

Waste Rock Disposal

The waste rock disposal areas for Alternative E
would be located  in the upper Nicholson and
Marias Creek drainages.  During the mining
operation, approximately 11 % of the waste rock
would be used to directly  backfill the final open
pit and would not be hauled to a waste rock
disposal area outside the pit.

The proposed waste rock  disposal  areas would
disturb approximately 245 acres in the
Nicholson Creek and 134  acres in the Marias
Creek drainages.  This represents approximately
2% of each drainage.

The calculated average seepage flow rates for
the unreclaimed waste rock disposal area in
Nicholson Creek during operations  ranged from
59.5  to 109.3 gpm.  The  calculated flow rate
for the unreclaimed Marias Creek disposal area
ranged from 34.6 to 63.9 gpm.  These
calculated seepage rates are based on a high
permeability rate  and an assumption that the
waste rock disposal area is saturated (Schafer,
1995b). These seepage rates are conservative
and would probably not develop unless the
waste rock disposal areas remained
unreclaimed.  If it develops, the seepage would
be collected in detention ponds and could be
               utilized to supplement the water supply
               requirements for the operation.

               The frog pond could be temporarily impacted by
               the reduction of ground water recharge and
               seepage due to the waste rock facilities.
               Calculated flow  rates for the resoiled waste
               rock piles ranged from 8.5 to 10.0 gpm for the
               Nicholson waste rock disposal area and 4.9 to
               5.8 gpm for the Marias waste rock disposal
               area.

               Potential long-term water quality impacts from
               Alternative  E waste rock disposal areas are
               different from Alternative B primarily in the use
               of waste rock material to partially and  directly
               backfill the  final open pit.  If Alternative E is
               selected, waste rock determined to have a low
               potential to generate acid and leach  metals
               would be used for backfilling purposes.

               4.6.8    Effects of Alternative F

               Surface Disturbance

               Approximately 822 acres would be impacted by
               construction and mine development  operations
               of Alternative F. The surface disturbance and
               location of  mine facilities for Alternative F  are
               shown on Figure 2.14, Alternative F -  Site Plan.

               Some of the area drainages would be impacted
               by surface  disturbances.  Nicholson  Creek
               drainage would  be  most affected with  7% of
               the total drainage area impacted by mine
               facilities.  Surface disturbance in the other
               drainages including, Gold,  Bolster, Ethel, and
               Starrem Creeks would be 1 % or less of the
               watershed  area.

               After completion of mining, the waste rock
               would be used to completely backfill the open
               pit, and the waste rock disposal area would be
               reclaimed.  This would reduce the long-term
               surface disturbance impacts to the area.

               Open Pit Mine

               Alternative  F involves the development of a
               single open pit mine with the same operations
               as discussed for Alternative B,  with  the
               exception that the mining operations would be
               conducted  in a single 12 hour shift per day.

               Complete backfilling of the open pit  would
               eliminate standing water in the open pit. The
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-42
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June 1995
final topography of the mine area would be
slightly higher than pre-mining conditions due to
swelling of the materials.  As a result, the
inflow contribution to the  pit area from
precipitation and runoff would be reduced and
the total seepage out of the pit area would be
somewhat less than  estimated for Alternative B.
The pit area outflow  would occur as springs or
seepage along the northeast side  of the pit
rather than an open flow,  as in Alternatives B,
D, and G, down the  Gold Bowl drainage.

The impacts to ground water quality could be
somewhat less than  those discussed for
Alternative E due to  the lower percentage of
exposed pit wall that would result from
complete backfilling  and a further decrease in
pit wall runoff. This  prediction assumes that
suitable waste rock will be used in backfilling
that does  not result in impacts to water quality
greater than the exposed pit walls.

Tailings Disposal

The proposed tailings impoundment would
disturb approximately 1 57 acres in the
Nicholson Creek drainage.  This represents
1.5% of the total drainage area. The affected
drainage is covered by low permeability glacial
deposits.  Springs and seeps that occur at the
tailings  impoundment site  indicate that the
drainage has a gaining character, that  is, that
ground water is contributing to the surface
flow.  These factors  would greatly reduce  the
potential impact on the recharge-discharge
system of the Nicholson Creek drainage.

Impacts from this facility on ground water
quality conditions would be expected to be
similar to those described  for Alternative B
assuming  that the overall facility design, quality
of the tailings, seepage rate, and ground water
flow gradient are  not substantially different.

Waste Rock Disposal

A temporary waste rock stockpile would be
located  in  the upper  Nicholson Creek drainage.
After  mining, waste rock would be used to
backfill the open pit.  The  proposed stockpile
would disturb approximately 215  acres.  This
represents approximately 2% of the total
watershed area.
                      waste rock stockpile for this alternative
                      (Schafer, 1995b). The conservative
                      methodology of the study is previously
                      described. The calculated average flow rates
                      for the temporary stockpile  in  Nicholson Creek
                      watershed during operations ranged from  53.2
                      to 97.5 gpm.  The seepage  would be collected
                      in down drainage detention  ponds and could be
                      utilized to supplement the water supply
                      requirements for the operation, if so permitted.

                      Potential short-term water quality impacts from
                      waste rock under this  alternative would be
                      similar to impacts discussed in Alternative B.
                      Based on geochemical testing  results  presented
                      in Section 3.3, Geology/Geochemistry, less than
                      5% of the overall waste rock generated is
                      predicted to be acid generating and/or leach
                      metals.  Due to the intermixing of waste rock
                      material during mining and disposal, the larger
                      size of the waste rock disposal area by itself
                      would not be expected to change the quality of
                      leachate generated from the facility.

                      The frog pond would  be impacted by  the
                      reduction of ground water recharge and seepage
                      due to the waste rock facilities until completion
                      of reclamation.

                      After completion of mining operations, the
                      waste rock would be used to backfill the open
                      pit and the disposal area would be recontoured
                      and revegetated. As a result,  no long-term
                      impacts on ground water would be  expected in
                      the area of the temporary disposal area.

                      Because all waste rock generated during mining
                      would be backfilled into the  open pit under
                      Alternative F, selective placement of potentially
                      acid generating waste  rock From the backfill
                      would probably not be feasible.  As discussed
                      under potential water quality impacts  from this
                      mining method, pit filling with water after
                      completion of operations would saturate backfill
                      materials below the outlet level and more
                      effectively flush any sulfide  oxidation  products
                      that formed while the waste rock material  was
                      stockpiled.  In addition, residual ANFO on  the
                      waste rock could be potentially released to the
                      pit water resulting in elevated  nutrient levels.
The Waste Rock Facility Seepage Analysis
calculated seepage rates for the temporary
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
                           Page 4-43
4.6.9    Effects of Alternative G

Surface Disturbance

Approximately 896 acres would be impacted by
construction and mine development operations.
The mine facility layout are shown on Figure
2.15, Alternative G - Site Plan.

The mine facility layout and resulting surface
disturbance and related impacts are  essentially
the same as described for Alternative F,
described in Section 4.6.8.

Tailings Disposal

The proposed  tailings impoundment would
disturb approximately 137 acres in the
Nicholson Creek drainage.  This represents
1.3% of the total drainage area.

Flotation ore processing, without the application
of cyanide, would change  the chemistry of the
tailings material. Assuming that pH  conditions
modeled are similar to cyanidation, the liquid
portion of the  tailings may contain lower metals
levels than reported for the other alternatives
since there would be no cyanide in the solution
for complexation.  It is likely that xanthates
would  be present in the flotation mill tailings;
however, these compounds are unstable in
aqueous solutions and break down to carbon
disulfide which is highly volatile and would
dissipate rapidly at the tailings impoundment
(ACZ,  1992b).

Assuming the  design and operation of the
tailings disposal facility is similar and accounting
for expected differences in the tailings solution
chemistry,  impacts from this alternative to
ground water quantity and quality would be
expected to be similar to or less than other
alternatives because metals complexed with
surfactants and frothers would be expected to
be strongly attenuated in soils beneath the
facility due to the large molecular size of the
organic polymers.

Waste  Rock Disposal

The proposed waste rock disposal area would
disturb approximately  294 acres in the
Nicholson Creek drainage.  This represents
approximately  3% of the total watershed area.
The frog  pond  would be completely and
permanently covered by the waste rock.
              The Waste Rock Disposal Seepage Study
              calculated seepage rates from the waste rock
              disposal for this alternative (Schafer, 1995b).
              The conservative methodology of the study is
              previously described.  The calculated average
              flow rates for unreclaimed waste rock disposal
              during operations could range from 72.3 to
              131.8 gpm.  The seepage would be routed to
              detention ponds and could be utilized to
              supplement the water supply requirements for
              the operation, if so permitted.

              Flow rates  for the reclaimed waste rock disposal
              area could  range from 10.4 to 12.3 gpm.  The
              flows are based on conservative assumptions.

              As a result no measurable impact to the
              recharge-discharge system of the ground water
              is expected.
              4.7
SURFACE WATER
              4.7.1    Summary

              The action alternatives with an open pit would
              permanently disturb the original surface area of
              the pit. In Alternatives B and G, the open pit
              mine would discharge water into the Gold Bowl
              drainage after 7 to 13 years of pit filling
              following completion of mining and flows would
              range from 135 to 177 gpm.  After completion
              of underground mining (Alternative C),  flows
              from mine workings could be expected to
              almost immediately discharge from 58 to  141
              gpm to surface streams.  Alternatives involving
              a combination of surface and  underground
              mining, partial or complete backfilling
              (Alternatives D, E, and F, respectively)  would be
              expected to discharge slightly less water to
              surface flow than Alternatives B and G. Some
              of the pit lake water could be lost to
              evaporation.  The discharged water could cause
              some erosion to the drainage channel seasonally
              and add a minor amount of sediment loading
              during high flow periods.

              Excavation and fill of the tailings disposal areas
              for all action alternatives would  permanently
              disturb the original surface area and cover some
              springs and seeps in the Marias Creek drainage
              (Alternatives B, C, D, and E) or the Nicholson
              Creek drainage (Alternatives F and G).  The
              action alternatives that include permanent
              waste rock disposal sites would disturb the
              original surface areas (Alternatives B, C, D, E,
              and G) and reduce recharge and surface water
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-44
Ch 4 - Environmental Con.
flows to areas immediately downgradient of the
sites including the frog pond. Alternative G
would completely cover the frog pond.

A network of surface water monitoring stations
in drainages surrounding the Crown Jewel
Project would be monitored at a frequency
specified in permits to detect potential water
quality problems resulting  from  construction or
operation of the Project facilities.  Should
increased sedimentation or other degradation of
surface water quality occur, activities or
facilities responsible for the impact would be
suspended or modified and additional mitigation
actions would be implemented to reduce future
impacts.

Reduction of stream flow in area drainages
would be unavoidable for all action alternatives
due to mine dewatering (except in Alternative
A). Minor losses to stream flow would also
occur in the alternatives with  open pit mining
due to precipitation collected  in  the open pit and
the resulting loss of overland  flow. Alternatives
with underground mining would have less
impact primarily because overland flow would
not be affected.

The minimum average annual baseflow
reductions due to open pit mining were
calculated to range from 0.9% for Nicholson
and Marias Creeks to 4.9% in Bolster Creek,
with an average of 2.2%.  The maximum
average annual  baseflow reductions were
calculated to range from 1.5% for the Nicholson
Creek drainage to 7.6% for Bolster Creek with
an average of 4.5%.

The impacts due to overland flow losses would
be small with minimum and maximum average
annual flow reductions ranging from 0.2% to
0.5% in Marias Creek, 0.3% to  1% in Bolster
Creek, and 0.8% to 2.6%  in Nicholson Creek.

The minimum and maximum total average
annual flow reductions for the total drainage
areas due to baseflow reduction and losses of
overland flow would be  1.7% to 4.1 % for
Nicholson Creek, 1.1 % to  3.4% for Marias
Creek, 5.2% to 8.6% for Bolster Creek, and
2.2% to 6% for Gold Creek.  The minimum to
maximum total average annual flow reductions
for all of the Buckhorn Mountain drainages
would be 2.5% to  5.5%.
                      The potential impact of underground mining on
                      area stream flows would be primarily due to
                      baseflow reduction.  Overland flow would not
                      be impacted.  As a result the minimum and
                      maximum total average annual flow reduction
                      for the total drainage areas due to underground
                      mining were calculated to be 0.9% to 1.5% for
                      Nicholson Creek, 0.9% to 2.9% for Marias
                      Creek, 4.9% to 7.6% for Bolster Creek, and
                      2.2% to 6% for Gold Creek.  The minimum to
                      maximum total average annual flow reductions
                      for all of the Buckhorn Mountain drainages
                      would be 2.2% to 4.5%. Table 4, 7.1,
                      Summary of Impacts of Mining on Buckhorn
                      Mountain Drainages, summarizes the potential
                      streamflow reductions due to mining.

                      The potential impacts of mining on area stream
                      flows were estimated to be much less than the
                      natural variability of flows due to climatic
                      changes.  The mean  annual discharge variations
                      for the Buckhorn  Mountain drainages are
                      typically greater than 30%.

                      4.7.2    Effects of Alternative A (No Action)

                      Timber harvesting, mineral exploration, and
                      historic mining activities have already occurred
                      at and near the Project site.  Surface
                      disturbances from timber harvesting (including
                      Nicholson Timber Sales and Park Place Timber
                      Sale) and exploration related activities near the
                      Project site could cause temporary increases in
                      total and suspended solids levels in local surface
                      waters.  Potential short-term surface water
                      quality impacts from continued mineral
                      exploration and logging in the area could result
                      from oil and fuel spills.

                      Flows from historic adits present at the site, in
                      particular the Roosevelt Adit and the Buckhorn
                      Adit, contribute flow to Nicholson and  Bolster
                      Creeks, respectively.  Additional future impacts
                      from these adits is unlikely.

                      Baseline sediment concentrations in local
                      streams indicate that no substantial long-term
                      increases in  sedimentation have occurred from
                      previously logged areas or where mineral
                      exploration and historic development have taken
                      place (TerraMatrix, 1994b)  Also, with the
                      exception of the upper reaches of Gold Creek,
                      there appears to be generally no evidence of
                      stream degradation related to sulfide oxidation
                      from mineral development.  Baseline water
                      samples collected from upper Gold Creek did
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-45
TABLE 4. 7.1. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF MINING ON BUCKHORN MOUNTAIN DRAINAGES
Drainage
Nicholson
Creek
Marias
Creek
Bolster
Creek
Gold
Creek
Gaging
Station
SW-6
SW-7
SW-9
SW-8
SW-11
SW-14
SW-4
SW-10
Average Annual
Contribution of
Baseflow in
Gaging Station
Areas
(%)
56.6
13.5
14.7
45.8
28.5
19 0
45.9
45.4
Estimated Average
Annual Contribution
of Baseflow in
Potential Areas of
Impact
(%)
28.2
48.5
23.8
45.6
Potential Area
of Impact
(ac)
mm.
338
140
372
116
max.
533
474
576
305
Total
Drainage Area
(ac)
10,124
7,746
1,799
2,308
Potential
Impacted Area of
Total Drainage
(%)
min.
3.3
1.8
20.7
5.0
max.
5.3
6.1
32.0
13.
Average (%)
Average Annual
Reduction of
Baseflow for
Total Drainage
Area
(%)
mm.
0.9
0.9
4.9
2.2
2.2
max.
1.5
2.9
7.6
6.0
4.5
Average Annual
Reduction of
Overland Flow for
Total Drainage
Area
(%)
min.
0.8
0.2
0.3
-
--
max.
2.6
0.5
1.0
-
--
Total Average
Annual Flow
Reduction for
Total Drainage
Area
(%)
mm.
1.7
1.1
5.2
2.2
2.5
max.
4.1
3.4
8.6
6.0
5.5
Source: Hydro-Geo, 1995a
                                   Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-46
Ch 4 •• Environmental Consequences
June 1995
contain elevated sulfate levels (average of 177
mg/l at SW-4) that may be related, in part, to
development of the Magnetic Mine.  However,
surface waters in lower Gold Creek were
alkaline and  contained metals concentrations
below aquatic standards.

4.7.3    Effects Common to All Action
         Alternatives

Direct Effects

Project components could have effects that
could be  common to all alternatives.  Variations
to these effects are discussed for each
alternative separately.

Surface Disturbance.  Surface disturbance from
the  action alternatives range from approximately
440 to 927  acres as discussed in Chapter 2.
Disturbance  would begin  with construction
activities during the early phase of the Project.

The potential for erosion and sediment loading
below the areas of disturbance is greatest
during the construction phase.  Sediment
loading in streams would  return to or near
baseline conditions during the operational phase
of mining. The quantity of sediment transported
would likely  be greatest during snowmelt and
periods of heavy rainfall especially in  areas
where vegetative cover has been removed.
Removal  of the forest canopy could result in
accelerated snowmelt and subsequent runoff.

Actual sediment concentrations in streams
would depend largely  on climatic conditions and
the  effectiveness of erosion control practices
employed.  Depending on the stability or
hydrologic condition of the stream, increases in
water yields may be followed by degradation to
the  physical  characteristics of a stream channel
and its water quality.  During construction,
operations and reclamation water transport of
sediment off the Project site is not expected
when erosion practices, and diversion and
detention control structures are in place, except
as a result of extreme runoff events.

Disturbance  areas contributing to sedimentation
include the haul road and access roads, the
construction of the power line corridor, ore and
waste rock disposal areas, diversion structures
around the ore and waste rock disposal areas,
and the tailings facility embankment.
Construction practices would be designed to
                      minimize the potential for water erosion to
                      occur.  Erosion from surface disturbance would
                      vary among alternatives depending on the area
                      and steepness of slopes disturbed, amount of
                      roads constructed, slopes of areas to be
                      reclaimed, and the potential for sediment to be
                      delivered to surface drainages.

                      After successful reclamation of the Project area,
                      sedimentation effects would return to baseline
                      conditions. Reduction of erosion would be a
                      major objective of the reclamation plan.
                      Sediment control structures would remain in
                      place until the reclamation objectives are
                      achieved.

                      Open Pit or Underground Mine Workings.
                      Mining  methods used in the various alternatives
                      include open pit mining, underground mining, or
                      a combination of open pit and underground
                      mining. All of these methods would have some
                      effect on the local surface water regime.  Direct
                      long-term effects from the mining method used
                      to extract ore would vary depending on the
                      alternative. Alternatives involving open pit
                      mining  include impacts from water filling the pit,
                      then discharging to surface  water. Alternatives
                      involving underground mining, or a combination
                      of surface and underground mining include
                      impacts from water discharging from adits to
                      surface water.

                      There is an interconnection  between surface
                      and ground water systems at the Project site.
                      An analysis of the potential  impacts to surface
                      water flows from  mining activities was
                      conducted (Hydro-Geo, 1995a). This study
                      focused on the baseflow reductions due to the
                      open pit dewatering.  This is considered the
                      worst case scenario because it would involve
                      dewatering the greatest area.  The drainages
                      that would be directly impacted by the open pit
                      dewatering include Nicholson, Marias,  Bolster,
                      Gold, and  Ethel Creeks.  The study indicated
                      that the annual average base flow reduction due
                      to pit dewatering as 2.2% to 6% for the Gold
                      Creek drainage, 4.9% to 7.6% for the  Bolster
                      Creek drainage, 0.9% to 2.9% for the  Marias
                      Creek drainage, and 0.9% 1o 1.5% for
                      Nicholson  Creek.  The effects of flow reduction
                      would be most pronounced  during the  low flow
                      season where baseflow is contributing the
                      greatest to the surface flow. The flow
                      reductions would  be much less during the spring
                      freshet period where runoff contributes greatest
                      volume to the surface water flows.  A  summary
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June  1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-47
of the results of this study are in Table 4.7.1,
Summary of Impacts of Mining on Buckhorn
Mountain Drainages.

Potential surface water quality impacts from
mining would depend on several factors
including:

•        The quantity of drainage from the mine
         workings; and,
•        The potential for generation of acid
         and leaching of contaminants from
         exposed rock and the resulting quality
         of the drainage.

There could also be possible short-term
increases of nutrient loading in surface streams
as a result of blasting in the pit (ANFO),
seepage through the waste rock disposal area
areas (residual ANFO), and sewage  disposal.
Increased nutrient loading could also be
observed from the application  of fertilizer for
revegetation during mine reclamation.  Specific
impacts to surface water quality from mining
are discussed below for each alternative.

Ore Stockpile.  Potential water quality impacts
from ore stockpiling are similar for all
alternatives. The Proponent has proposed to
locate the ore stockpile  directly adjacent to the
mill. Only the areal extent of the ore stockpile
changes among the alternatives. In Alternative
B, prior to ore stockpiling, waste rock would be
filled across the Gold Bowl drainage to a level
grade suitable for an ore stockpile pad.  This
level would be approximately 200 feet above
the drainage channel. The other action
alternatives considered a sidehill location for this
stockpile pad so filling in Gold Bowl Creek
would not be necessary.

Little or no short-term surface water or ground
water quality impacts are anticipated from the
ore stockpile.  Geochemical testing  indicates
that the ore has a low potential to generate acid
and/or leach metals and release radionuclides.
These results, in addition to the limited time the
ore would be stored prior to processing (a
maximum of 2 months), suggests that the
potential for water quality impacts in this area
are very low.

To further minimize the  potential for water
quality impacts, surface water diversions would
be placed up slope of the stockpile and any
runoff from the ore during operations would be
               routed to a detention pond.  Monitoring of the
               pond water quality, as would be required in an
               NPDES permit issued by the WADOE, would be
               conducted to verify the effectiveness of the
               detention facilities. Additional treatment may
               be necessary to meet permit requirements.

               Potential long-term water quality impacts from
               the ore stockpile are also expected to be low.
               Once the ore is depleted and milling operations
               cease, the stockpile area would be regraded and
               reclaimed.  The overburden used to construct
               the stockpile pad would likely not be removed.
               To minimize potential long-term impacts from
               construction of the ore stockpile, only waste
               rock material shown to have a low potential to
               generate acid and leach metals would be used.

               Tailings  Disposal. Three different tailings
               impoundment locations are proposed for the
               various alternatives, however, the impacts to
               surface water are common to all alternatives.

               For all of the action alternatives, the tailings
               disposal facility would be constructed as a zero
               discharge operation, incorporating both
               synthetic and clay liners.   An underdrain system
               would be installed beneath the tailings facility to
               collect ground water, seep and spring flow.
               The cyanide process mill tailings would be
               treated,  by the INCO  S02/Air/02 cyanide
               destruction process, before placement in the
               impoundment.  The tailings would be dewatered
               by a gravel overdrain system that would be
               installed on top of the synthetic liner and would
               collect inflow from the tailings during  operation
               and route the solution to a double lined reclaim
               solution collection pond at the toe of the
               primary  embankment.  The collected tailings
               solution would be pumped to the processing
               plant and recycled. A gravity decant and
               evaporation system would remove excess
               supernatant solution after  this solution is  no
               longer needed for processing at the mill.  A
               system of diversion channels would be
               constructed to divert surface water runoff away
               from the tailings disposal area and into the
               existing  drainage downstream of the facility.  A
               detailed  description of the tailings facility design
               (Alternative B) is presented in the Tailings
               Disposal Facility, Final Design Report (Knight
               Piesold,  1993).

               During operation, surface water would be
               diverted around the tailings disposal facility.
               Precipitation falling on the tailings facility would
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-48
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June  1995
collect in the tailings pond and would be
recycled to the mill and process facilities.  After
mill decommissioning, this water would be
treated if necessary and discharged.
Downstream monitoring wells would be used to
detect any seepage of contaminants to ground
water.

A study of potential seepage from the Marias
Creek tailings impoundment into the ground
water system indicated that even during an
extreme case of liner failure, potential
contaminants would not degrade downgradient
water sources {Hydro-Geo, 1995c). This study
was specific to the tailings facility in Marias
Creek, as  described in Alternatives B, C, D, and
E.  Operation of a tailings facility in the
Nicholson Creek drainage, as described in
Alternatives F and G, would be  expected to
have similar results because of the similar
hydrologic characteristics of the area and similar
tailings facility design requirements. Further
discussion of potential impacts to ground water
quality from tailings disposal is presented in
Section 4.6, Ground Water.

Waste Rock Disposal. Each action alternative
considers  temporary or permanent storage of
waste rock.  Differences between alternatives
regarding  waste rock storage are mainly the  size
and location of the waste rock disposal sites
and whether the material would be backfilled
into the open pit (Alternatives E and F) or
underground mine (Alternative D).  All other
alternatives  specify permanent waste rock
storage areas.

Regardless of the alternative selected, waste
rock would be used at the site for construction
purposes such as the construction of haul
roads, the tailings embankment, and pads  for
the crusher and ore stockpile.  Little or no
impacts to site water quality are anticipated
from use of  waste rock for construction
purposes. Materials selected for this use would
be those with  a low potential to generate acid
and leach  metals.

Surface water flows would be diverted around
the waste rock disposal site(s) to detention
control structures. The diversions around the
various alternative north waste  rock disposal
areas could  impact flow to the frog  pond.

As a result of the large surface  areas of the
waste rock exposed to weathering,  water
                      quality impacts from waste rock disposal sites
                      could include the formation of acidic drainage
                      and leachate that contains trace metals.  Other
                      potential impacts could be local increases in
                      sediment loading to streams and a temporary
                      release of ammonia and/or nitrates to site
                      waters from residual ANFO contained on the
                      waste rock.

                      Geochemical testing suggests that less than  5%
                      of the waste rock material mined under the
                      Project alternatives would generate acid and
                      leach metals.  However, due to the relatively
                      large volume of waste rock that would  be
                      generated and the inherent  variability in site
                      geology, it is possible that "hot spots"  could
                      occur locally in the waste rock disposal site(s)
                      where acid generation and metal leaching would
                      occur.  To identify any  potential impact to site
                      water quality,  waste rock conditions would be
                      monitored during and after operations and
                      mitigated, if necessary.  Potential  water quality
                      impacts from blasting are more  difficult to
                      predict and would depend, to a large degree, on
                      the  blasting efficiency achieved.

                      During operations,  all waters draining from, or
                      through, waste rock areas would be captured in
                      the  water diversion system and would have to
                      meet permit effluent limits before  discharge into
                      area streams.  Based on the above discussion
                      and operational controls, short-term impacts to
                      surface water  quality from the waste rock
                      disposal areas are not expected to be
                      significant.

                      Potential long-term surface  water  quality
                      impacts from the waste rock disposal site(s)  are
                      expected to be somewhat less than during
                      operations.  This is due to a predicted decrease
                      in seepage through the waste rock after
                      reclamation.  Post operational monitoring of the
                      waste rock disposal area(s) would also be
                      performed as required by the regulatory
                      agencies.

                      Accidental Spills.  Impacts to surface water
                      from accidental spills are common to all
                      alternatives. An alternative ore processing
                      method, (flotation with no tank cyanidation), is
                      used in Alternative G, and constituents used in
                      that process are specifically described under
                      Section 4.7.9, Effects of Alternative G.

                      Several materials considered for use in  the
                      proposed mining operation could impact area
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-49
 ground and surface water in the event of a spill
 or release.  These materials include the
 following chemical reagents and fuels:

 Chemical Reagents
 •       Sodium cyanide (briquette);
 •       Lead nitrate (powder);
 •       Copper sulfate (powder);
 •       Ammonium nitrate (prills);
 •       Sodium nitrate (powder);
 •       Soda ash (solid);
 •       Anhydrous borax (powder);
 •       Lime and cement (powder);
 •       Hydrochloric acid (liquid);
 •       Sulfur dioxide (liquid);
 •       Solvents (liquid); and,
 •       Coolants (liquid).

 Fuels and Lubricants
 •       Diesel (liquid);
 •       Gasoline (liquid); and,
 •       Oils and greases (liquid).

 Water quality impacts from spills could occur as
 a result of an accident during transportation,
 storage, or use of the materials at the site.

 Transportation.  The risk of accidental spills
 during transportation is related directly to the
 number of miles that the materials are
 transported and the safety  measures that are
 employed by the  transporter.  A discussion of
 the transportation network and associated risk
 factors is included in  Section 4.17,
 Transportation.  The impact from a transport-
 related spill near the proposed mine would
 depend on a number of conditions including:

 •       Accident severity and volume of spill;
 •       Integrity of the transport containers;
 •       Chemical/physical properties of the
         material being transported;
 •       Clean-up response time and
         effectiveness;
 •       Weather conditions;
 •       Local soil and vegetation types;
 •       Proximity of accident to a stream; and,
 •       Volume of receiving water body.

 Materials in solid  form would generally be less
 mobile in the event of a spill than liquids  and
 easier to clean up.  Assuming a sufficiently
rapid and effective response, solid materials
would  be less likely than liquids to impact
surface waters, unless spilled directly into a
stream or pond.  As described in Section 4.17,
               Transportation, approximately 20 miles of roads
               in the proposed transportation network are
               proximal to streams.  Liquids spilled or leaked
               during transportation could impact surface
               waters via the following pathways:

               •       Direct spillage onto water surfaces;
               •       Overland flow or runoff from liquids
                       spilled onto hillsides adjacent to
                       streams; or,
               •       Transport of dissolved material in
                       ground water into streams and lakes.

               Accounting for the volume and relative toxicity
               of the materials that would be transported,
               sodium cyanide, ammonium nitrate,
               cement/lime, and fuel have the greatest
               potential to adversely impact surface or ground
               water quality. Relatively low concentrations of
               cyanide, copper, and ammonia in water could
               cause acute toxicity to aquatic species.  A
               release of cement or lime to surface waters
               could result in elevated  pH (alkaline) water that
               could have chronic toxicity to some aquatic
               species.  Accidental spills of fuel during
               transport could directly  impact surface water
               quality by a depletion of oxygen. Fuels spilled
               or leaked into soil could also migrate either in a
               vapor or liquid form and contaminate shallow
               ground waters. The impacts of  certain
               hypothetical spills are discussed in Section
               4.22, Accidents and Spills.

               Storage. It is proposed that all fuels and
               chemicals used at the mine, except for blasting
               agents,  would be stored in the main processing
               facility.  To contain spills that could occur in the
               facility, the complex would be enclosed within a
               berm and drained internally. This would be
               required under an SPCC Plan as  discussed in
               Chapter 2. Surface waters would be prevented
               from entering this area by construction of a
               diversion ditch outside of the berm on  the north
               and west sides of the facility.

               Fuel and cyanide would  be stored in above
               ground tanks placed in concrete containment
               basins.  Chemical reagents would be stored
               inside metal buildings constructed with cement
              floors. Lime, cement, and ammonium nitrate
              would be stored in silos.

              Potential release of materials stored in  the
              processing facility could result from:
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-50
                              Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June 1995
•        Rupture or leakage of the storage
         tanks and subsequent failure of the
         containment systems;
•        Explosion of flammable materials;
•        Accidental spillage during the
         unloading or loading of trucks;
•        Rupture of the silos.

With the exception of fuel and ANFO, the
chemical reagents listed above would only be
used at the processing complex.  Potential spills
during their use would occur mainly within
buildings and be easily monitored and
controlled. Impacts from these spills are,
therefore, expected to be minimal.

Outside of the process area, minor fuel leaks
could originate from trucks and machinery along
the haul road, in the pit area, on waste rock
piles, and in areas along Myers Creek where the
water reservoir is constructed.  Fuel leaks  could
also occur in areas being reclaimed after mining.
Ammonium nitrate could be lost from accidental
spills and unexploded  ANFO. As  discussed in
Section 4.6, Ground Water, the amount of
ANFO  released in the  pit area is difficult to
predict and would be controlled largely by  the
blasting efficiency achieved.

Indirect Effects

With the implementation of monitoring and
mitigation measures as described  in Chapter 2,
impacts to surface water quality outside of the
Project area  should be minimal. Potential
impacts that would result from certain
hypothetical off-site spills or releases are
addressed in  Section 4.22, Accidents and  Spills.

Cumulative Effects

Implementation of the Project combined with
planned and proposed timber harvests, and
potential mineral exploration in adjacent areas
could result in short-term cumulative effects to
the sediment levels within the area streams.

However, the potential soil erosion from the
Project area  is not expected to result in
noticeable sedimentation of area streams due to
the extensive drainage and sediment control
systems planned, therefore no long-term
cumulative effects are expected from sediment
contributions of the Crown Jewel Project to the
area streams.
                                                    4.7.4    Effects of Alternative B

                                                    Alternative B includes an open pit mine, 2
                                                    waste rock facilities, a mill facility, a lined
                                                    tailings facility, miscellaneous office and
                                                    maintenance facilities, and haul and access
                                                    roads.  The facility locations are shown on
                                                    Figure 2.10, Alternative B - Site Plan.

                                                    Alternative B would disturb approximately 766
                                                    acres.  Nicholson and Marias Creek basins
                                                    would have the most surface disturbance, 423
                                                    acres and 253 acres, respectively. Mining
                                                    related activities in the Nicholson Creek
                                                    drainage would disturb approximately 4.5% of
                                                    the total drainage and would include alteration
                                                    or elimination of 2,300 lineal feet  of Gold Bowl
                                                    Creek and 2,025 lineal feet of Nicholson Creek.
                                                    Surface disturbance in the Marias  Creek
                                                    drainage would disturb 3%  of the  total  drainage
                                                    and would include alteration or elimination of
                                                    3,550 lineal feet of Marias Creek.   Gold  Creek,
                                                    Bolster Creek and Ethel Creek would all have
                                                    less than 1 % of the total drainage area
                                                    disturbed by mining activities.  The Starrem
                                                    Creek water reservoir would disturb less than
                                                    2% of the Starrem Creek drainage and would
                                                    include alteration or elimination  of approximately
                                                    2,200 lineal feet of Starrem Creek. Surface
                                                    disturbance during construction, and to a lesser
                                                    extent during operations, could  temporarily
                                                    increase sedimentation of local streams, in
                                                    particular, Nicholson, Marias, and  Starrem
                                                    Creeks.   Proper mitigation, such as detention
                                                    ponds, should  minimize this effect.

                                                    The open pit would encompass  138 acres.
                                                    Short-term impacts to surface water quality
                                                    from open pit mining are expected to be low.
                                                    Water that accumulates in the pit  during mining,
                                                    if permitted by Washington State water rights,
                                                    would be collected for use as process water for
                                                    the mill.

                                                    Upon completion of mining, the pit would be
                                                    allowed to fill with water and discharge to the
                                                    Nicholson Creek drainage at a rate that  could
                                                    range from an  average of 135 to 177 gpm
                                                    (Hydro-Geo, 1995b).  Based on this study of pit
                                                    inflow (see Section 4.6, Ground Water
                                                    Hydrology), it could take 7 to 13 years  for the
                                                    pit to fill.  Discharge from the final open pit
                                                    would flow down the Gold Etowl drainage which
                                                    is tributary to Nicholson Creek.
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-51
The quality of water discharged from the
proposed pit was evaluated (Schafer, 1995a)
and a discussion of the model approach  and
assumptions is presented in Section 4.6,
Ground Water. Based on this study, pit  water is
predicted to be alkaline and contain low
concentrations of dissolved metals and levels of
high total dissolved solids.  The concentrations
of parameters predicted to occur in the pit
water during and after filling are listed in Table
4.7.2, Comparison of Predicted Water Quality
Conditions in the Proposed Open Pit to
Washington Aquatic Life Criteria.

The modeling  results predict that the pit water
quality may exceed the freshwater chronic
criteria for  cadmium and the freshwater  acute
criteria for  silver. Pit water quality modeling
was performed using conservative assumptions
regarding metal concentrations that would leach
from the pit walls and, therefore, actual  field
concentrations are expected to be  lower. To
confirm these predictions, pit water quality
would be monitored during and after mining.
Any water discharged from the pit to site
streams would be regulated by effluent limits
set in site permits.  If monitoring of pit water
quality confirms that exceedences  of fresh
water criteria  were to occur,  appropriate
mitigation would be required. This mitigation
could include treatment of outflows, not
allowing the pit to fill with water, and/or
backfilling the pit.

The specific effluent limits, and ultimately the
impacts from  pit discharges on surface water
quality, would be established on a site specific
basis by Washington State and EPA.  The
following considerations, as specified in  WAC
173-201 A, Water Quality Standards for  Surface
Water of the State of Washington, would be
taken into account when setting limits on the
amount and quality of water discharged  from
the pit:

•        Water use and classification;
•        Background water quality conditions;
•        Federal and state acute and chronic
         aquatic life standards;
•        Antidegradation requirements;  and,
•        Mixing zone determinations.

The tailings disposal facility would be located in
the Marias Creek drainage and would cover an
area of 87  acres. As discussed in Section 4.6,
Ground Water, a "worst case" maximum mean
               seepage rate from the tailings impoundment
               would be 2.4 gpm based on attenuation
               modeling (Hydro-Geo, 1995c). The
               contaminant plume resulting from the maximum
               mean seepage rate would range from
               approximately 489 feet from the source after 4
               years of seepage to 1,430 feet after 20 years.
               The "worst-case" modeled plume would
               disperse to background ground water quality
               levels before ever reaching any known springs
               or seeps, or to flowing surface water.  Any
               discharge of runoff or seepage from the tailings
               facility to site surface waters would have to
               meet Washington State effluent limits.

               There would be 2 waste rock disposal sites in
               Alternative B. The Nicholson  Creek location
               would cover 122 acres and the Marias  Creek
               location would cover 138 acres. Surface water
               runoff would  be diverted around the waste rock
               disposal area  and routed to detention
               structure(s).  The detention and diversion
               structures associated with the north waste rock
               disposal site would reduce surface  flow to the
               frog pond by  about 44%.  Long and short-term
               water quality impacts from the waste rock
               disposal sites are not predicted to be
               substantial.

               4.7.5     Effects of Alternative C

               Alternative C includes an underground mine
               with production and exploration adits,
               ventilation and backfill raises, a single
               underground waste rock disposal area,  2
               surface quarries, milling facility, lined tailings
               impoundment, miscellaneous office and
               maintenance facilities, and haul and access
               roads.  The location of the site facilities are
               shown  on Figure 2. 11,  Alternative  C - Site Plan.

               Alternative C would disturb approximately 440
               acres.  Mining activities would disturb
               approximately 220 acres, or 2% of the
               Nicholson Creek drainage area and  would
               include alteration or elimination of 1,350 lineal
               feet of  Gold Bowl Creek.  Surface disturbance in
               the Marias Creek drainage would total 128
               acres, or 2%  of the total drainage area  and
               would include alteration or elimination of 3,550
               lineal feet of Marias Creek.  Gold, Bolster, and
               Ethel Creeks all have less than 1 %  of the
               drainage area that would be disturbed by mining
               related  activities.  The Starrem Creek water
               reservoir would disturb less than 2% of the
               Starrem Creek drainage and would  include
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-52
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June 1995
TABLE 4.7.2, COMPARISON OF PREDICTED WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS IN THE PROPOSED OPEN PIT
TO WASHINGTON AQUATIC LIFE CRITERIA
Parameter1
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium4
Copper
Chromium
Iron
Manganese
Nickel
Selenium
Silver4
Thallium
Zinc
Calcium
Magnesium
Potassium
Sodium
Alkalinity (as
CaCO,)
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
pH
TDS
Predicted Range in
Concentration During
Initial Stages of Pit
Filling2
Img/l)
0.0229-0.0309
<0.001-0.0391
0.0102-0.0156
0.0027-0.0052
0.0049-0.0093
0.0010-0.014
0.0002-0.0006
0.0496-0.9615
0.254-0.1256
0.0220-0.0351
0.0120-0.0186
0.0229-0.0650
0.0108-0.0239
62.124-129.9794
3.4263-5.589
2.6432-3.9491
1.5265-4.2532
94.59-1 10.60
0.7409-0.9075
0.1018-0.1332
34.08-298.1
7.73-7.82
72-500
Predicted Range in
Concentration When Pit
is Filled2
(mg/l)
0.0190-0.0639
<0.001-0.0412
0.0130-0.0163
0.0009-0.0052
0.0046-0.0097
0.0066-0.022
0.0003-0.0007
0.1258-1.0823
0.0279-0.1402
0.0191-0.0640
0.0103-0.0197
0.0319-0.0629
0.01 1 1-0.0256
50.5008-135.5906
3.1 104-5.3946
2.9325-4.2228
1.4645-4.5520
92.91-213.1
0.7090-0.8685
0.1026-0.1186
33.41-333.31
7.72-8.11
67-540
Washington Fresh Water
Acute Criteria3
(mg/l)

0.360

0.0074
0.029
3.06


2.42

0.0071

0.1876





860


6.0-9.06

Washington Fresh
Water Chromic Criteria3
(mg/l)

0.190

0.0017
O.C18
0.365


0.269



0.1699





230




Notes: 1 . Lead and mercury concentrations were below detection limits in waste rock leachates and
baseline ground water samples from the site and, therefore, were not mode:ed.
2. Based on results presented in final draft report "Geochemical Modeling of Pit Lake Water Quality
for the Crown Jewel Project (Schafer, 1995a). Results given as dissolved concentrations.
Modeling assumed sorption to iron hydroxide precipitates occurs and pit water is well
oxygenated.
3. From WAC 173-201 A, Water Quality Standard for Ground Waters of the State of Washington,
November 1992. Standards for Cadmium, Chromium, Copper, Nickel, Silver and Zinc were
calculated assuming a hardness of 200 mg/l as CaCO.,). This hardness value is the approximate
baseline average measured at surface water station SW-7 on Gold Bowl Creek which currently
drains the proposed pit area and would serve as the receiving stream.
4. Predicted to exceed acute or chronic freshwater aquatic criteria in pit water.
5. General use criteria for Class AA surface waters in Washington.
alteration or elimination of approximately 2,200
lineal feet of Starrem Creek.

Any subsidence from underground mine
workings could cause local changes in surface
water drainage patterns.  These alterations
could  include local ponding of water and
                     increased recharge to ground water from
                     surface depressions and cracks.

                     After reclamation, the underground mine
                     workings would be sealed to prevent access by
                     humans or wildlife.  Long-term flow from the
                     adits would occur and would be discharged via
                     designed drain pipes. In Alternative C, the
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-53
 4,500 foot level and the 4,850 foot level adits
 and the exploration adit would flow to the
 Nicholson Creek drainage.  Flows to surface
 water from these workings are expected to
 range from 58 to 141 gpm (Hydro-Geo, 1994).

 As discussed in Section 4.6, Ground Water, the
 quality of water discharged from the
 underground workings to site streams  is
 predicted to contain lower metals levels than
 the water discharged from the open pit in
 Alternatives B, D, and G.

 The tailings facility  for this alternative would be
 similar in design as the ones  described in
 Alternatives B, D, and E, but would be slightly
 smaller in size (84 acres).

 The waste rock disposal area would encompass
 about 26 acres in the Nicholson Creek drainage.
 This disposal would probably not require an
 underdrain and is 90% smaller than the disposal
 area in Alternative B. Surface flow to the frog
 pond would be reduced by about 42%.

4.7.6    Effects of  Alternative D

 Alternative D includes surface mining with an
 open pit on the northern portion of the ore
 deposit and underground mining on the southern
 portion, production  and exploration adits
 combined with ventilation and backfill raises, a
 single combined surface and underground waste
 rock disposal, milling facility, lined tailings
 impoundment, miscellaneous office and
 maintenance facilities, and haul and access
 roads. The site facility layout would disturb
approximately 562 acres and is shown on
Figure 2.12, Alternative D - Site Plan.

There would  be about 357 acres of surface
disturbance in the Nicholson Creek drainage
(approximately 4% of the total drainage area)
and 117 acres of disturbance in the Marias
Creek drainage (approximately 2% of the total
drainage area). All other drainages would have
less than 1 % total surface disturbance  per
drainage basin, except Starrem Creek which
would be less than 2%.  The  proposed surface
disturbance would include alteration or
elimination of 1,550 lineal feet of  Gold  Bowl
Creek, about 550 lineal feet of Nicholson Creek,
3,550 lineal feet of  Marias Creek, and
approximately 2,200 lineal feet of Starrem
Creek.
               As discussed in Section 4.6, Ground Water, it is
               estimated that the water discharged from the
               mine workings under Alternative D would
               initially have a  similar quality as predicted for
               Alternative B and, over the long-term, have a
               quality between that predicted for Alternative B
               and Alternative C.

               The tailings disposal facility for this alternative
               is the same as described for Alternative B and
               the effects would be similar.

               In this alternative, there would be  a single
               waste rock disposal area encompassing 98
               acres in the Nicholson Creek drainage. This
               disposal site would be 25% smaller than the
               north waste  rock disposal area proposed in
               Alternative B (62% smaller than the acres of
               both waste rock sites totaled). Seepage would
               be routed to  a  detention pond below the
               disposal site.  Underground backfill of some
               waste rock would occur.  The diversion of
               surface flows around the waste  rock disposal
               area would reduce the flow  to the  frog pond by
               about 44%.

               4.7.7    Effects of Alternative E

               Alternative E includes an open pit mine, 2 waste
               rock disposal areas, a lined tailings
               impoundment,  a mill facility, miscellaneous
               office and maintenance facilities, and haul roads
               and  access roads. Alternative E would disturb
               approximately 927 acres and is shown of Figure
               2.13, Alternative E - Site Plan.  548 acres or
               5%, of the Nicholson Creek drainage would be
               disturbed by  mining activities. Three percent, or
               262 acres of the  Marias Creek drainage would
               be disturbed.  Gold Creek, Bolster  Creek and
               Ethel Creek would have 1 %  or less of the total
               drainage area that would be disturbed. The
               proposed surface disturbance would include
               alteration or elimination of 1,500 lineal feet of
               Gold Bowl Creek, about 3,900 lineal feet of
               Nicholson Creek,  3,550 lineal feet  of Marias
               Creek, and approximately 2,200 lineal feet of
               Starrem Creek.

               Open pit mining would proceed as  described in
               Alternative B.  Mining would be sequenced for
               the partial backfill.  Toward the end of the
               operation, approximately 6 million cubic yards
               of waste rock would be routed from the south
               pit area into the north pit area.  Backfilling the
               waste rock into the pit would prevent the
              formation of a pit lake. As a result of partial
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-54
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June  1995
backfilling, pit water would be discharged from
the pit largely in the form of springs and seeps
rather than at a defined outflow point.

As discussed in Section 4.6, Ground Water, the
long-term quality of ground water discharged
from the mine workings under this scenario is
predicted to be worse than for Alternatives C
and D due to exposure of a larger area of waste
rock which is potentially acid generating, but
better than Alternative B due to a smaller runoff
component from the pit walls as a result of
backfilling. This prediction of water quality
conditions assumes that through selective
handling, potentially acid generating waste rock
is not used to backfill the pit.

The tailings disposal  facility for this alternative
is the same as described for Alternative  B and
the effects would be similar.

There would  be 2 waste rock disposal sites in
this alternative.  The south waste rock disposal
area would cover 134 acres in the Marias Creek
drainage. The north waste rock disposal area
would be located in Nicholson Creek, but would
extend further downdrainage than Alternative B.
It would come closer to, but not cover, the frog
pond.  This disposal  area would cover 245
acres. The north waste rock disposal area in
Alternative E would be twice as large as the
north waste rock disposal area described in
Alternative B due to the gentler slopes of the
waste rock disposal area (3H:1 V versus 2H:1 V).
Surface water flow to the frog pond would be
reduced by about 57%.

Potential short-term water quality impacts from
waste rock under this alternative would be
similar to Alternative  B. Although the area of
waste rock disposal sites and associated runoff
would be greater than Alternative B,  the quality
of the runoff should  not be substantially
different. As stated in Section 4.7.3, Effects
Common to All Action Alternatives, less than
5% of the total waste rock volume mined is
predicted to generate acid and leach  metals.
This result and implementation of monitoring
and mitigation measures during and after
disposal would reduce impacts to surface water
quality.

Potential long-term water quality impacts from
waste rock disposal  under this alternative are
different from Alternative B primarily due to the
use of waste rock material to partially backfill
                      the open pit.  Residual ANFO mixed with the
                      waste rock could, however,  be potentially
                      released from the material as the pit fills with
                      water and result in a temporary increase in
                      nutrient levels.  As with the  other alternatives,
                      water from the  waste rock disposal areas will
                      be monitored during and after operations and
                      would have to meet site effluent limitations
                      before discharge to surface waters.

                      4.7.8    Effects of Alternative F

                      Alternative F includes an open pit mine, a single
                      waste rock disposal stockpile, a mill facility,
                      lined tailings facility,  miscellaneous office and
                      maintenance facilities, and haul and access
                      roads.  The site layout for this alternative would
                      disturb approximately 822 acres and is shown
                      on Figure 2.14, Alternative F - Site Plan.  Most
                      of the disturbance, approximately 699 acres
                      (85%), would be confined to the Nicholson
                      Creek drainage  basin. This amounts to about
                      7% of the total Nicholson Creek drainage basin.
                      The other drainage basins in the Project area,
                      Marias,  Gold, Bolster, and Ethel Creeks, would
                      have less than  1 % of the total drainage area
                      impacted by activities related to mining except
                      Starrem Creek,  which would have  less than 2%
                      of the total drainage  impacted. The proposed
                      surface  disturbance would include  alteration or
                      elimination of 1,500 lineal feet of Gold Bowl
                      Creek, about 8,525 lineal  feet of Nicholson
                      Creek, and approximately  2,200 lineal feet of
                      Starrem Creek.

                      The direct effects of tailings disposal are
                      expected to be similar to Alternative B,
                      however, the tailings facility is located in the
                      Nicholson Creek drainage. The hydrologic
                      characteristics  of Nicholson  Creek are similar to
                      Marias Creek and the tailings facility design
                      would be similar as described in other
                      alternatives.

                      The waste rock disposal area would temporarily
                      cover 215 acres in the Nicholson Creek
                      drainage. This disposal area would be 76%
                      larger than the  northern disposal area proposed
                      in Alternative B. At  the end of the mining
                      operation, the entire waste rock volume of 54
                      million cubic yards would be backfilled into the
                      open pit.  The final topography of  the pit area
                      would be higher than original topography, as
                      explained in Section 4.2,
                      Topography/Physiography.  There  could be no
                      impoundment of water and the area  would be
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-55
 graded to establish surface water drainage.
 There would be ground water seepage in the
 form of springs and seeps downgradient of the
 pit area. Runoff from direct precipitation on the
 reclaimed area would also occur. No permanent
 waste rock disposal area would remain.  The
 disturbed area of the  waste rock disposal site
 would be topsoiled and reclaimed.  Detention
 structures would remain until revegetation is
 successful and reclamation objectives are
 achieved.  Reclamation  would not be completed
 for 33 years.  This would result in continuing
 erosion during this period of time and require
 more intensive maintenance for detention
 ponds.

 Although the frog pond would not be covered
 by waste rock, surface  flows to this area would
 be reduced by about 56% for at least 33 years.
 Flows to the frog pond  would be restored once
 the waste rock is removed from the disposal
 area, placed back in the pit area, and successful
 revegetation established.

 Long-term impacts to surface water quality from
 waste rock used as backfill are expected to be
 similar to Alternative E and would largely
 depend on the amount of waste rock submerged
 after pit filling occurs.

 4.7.9   Effects of Alternative  G

 Alternative G includes open pit mining, a single
 waste rock disposal, a milling facility that uses
 flotation rather than tank cyanidation, a lined
 tailings facility, miscellaneous office and
 maintenance facilities, and haul and access
 roads.  The site layout would disturb a total  of
 896 acres and is shown on Figure 2.15,
Alternative G - Site Plan.  Like Alternative F,
 most of the impacts from mining would be
 confined to the Nicholson Creek drainage basin.
 Disturbance areas in Nicholson  Creek would
total approximately 7%  of the total  drainage.
All other drainages  would have surface
disturbance of less  than 1 % of the respective
drainage areas except Starrem Creek, where
disturbance would be  less than 2%.  The
proposed surface disturbance would include
alteration or elimination  of 1,500 lineal feet of
Gold Bowl Creek, about 8,300 lineal feet of
Nicholson Creek, and  approximately 2,200 lineal
feet of Starrem Creek.

The tailings impoundment would be located in
the Nicholson Creek drainage, and impacts from
               this alternative would be similar to those
               described for Alternative F because the tailings
               facility design and the hydrologic characteristics
               of the areas  are similar. The Nicholson Creek
               tailings site has more spring activity and surface
               water flow than the Marias Creek site.  The
               tailings facility design would have an underdrain
               system to capture spring flow and route it to
               the reclaim solution collection pond.  Seepage
               from tailings is not expected to reach surface
               water features. Section 4.6, Ground Water,
               discusses the changes expected in the
               chemistry of the seepage based on  flotation
               versus tank cyanidation.

               In Alternative G, the waste rock disposal area
               has the largest areal extent of all the proposed
               waste rock disposal sites.  The disposal area
               would cover 294 acres and would cover the
               frog pond.

               Accidental spills under this alternative would be
               different from the other action alternatives,
               mainly due to the use of flotation reagents
               rather than cyanide to process ore.  The
               following chemicals would  replace the cyanide
               used in other action alternatives and could
               include:

               •        Potassium amyl xanthate (liquid);
               •        MIBC (liquid);
                       AP4O4 (liquid);
               •        DP-6  (liquid); or,
               •        Na2S  (liquid).

               These flotation chemicals would be stored in
               the processing facility under similar conditions
               as the cyanide-related reagents.  Contamination
               of surface waters from spills under this
               alternative could occur by the same pathways
               as the other action  alternatives but would not
               include the potential effects of cyanide.

               Xanthates are relatively unstable in the
               environment  and would degrade to carbon
               disulfide and volatilize (ACZ, 1992b).   Release
               of this compound to site surface waters could,
               however, result in a depletion of dissolved
               oxygen and/or reach toxic levels that impact
               aquatic life.  The other chemicals listed include
               frothers and modifiers that  have a varying range
               of solubilities in water and could also impact
              surface water quality by oxygen depletion
              and/or by reaching toxic levels to aquatic life.
              There are currently no state aquatic standards
              for these chemicals.
                     Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-56
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June 1995
4.8      WATER SUPPLY RESOURCES AND
         WATER RIGHTS

Water would be used for  the Crown Jewel
action alternatives as presented in Table 2.6,
Estimated Water Use Requirements.

Water for the Crown Jewel  Project would be
obtained from the transfer of existing
agricultural (irrigation) water rights to the
Proponent and from new  appropriations for
industrial uses.

A water right is a private  property right
legitimatized by a legal instrument from the
WADOE authorizing beneficial use of a
designated amount of water from a specific
source and used in a specified location for a
particular use. In the State  of Washington, a
water right certificate is required from WADOE
if the water diversion is from surface water, or
if the diversion of ground water exceeds more
than 5,000 gallons per day.

Water use at the Crown Jewel  Project would be
a temporary use that would cease once the
operation is decommissioned and reclaimed.
The duration of water use would  vary with the
proposed life of each action alternative. Water
would be used for 6 years in Alternative C,
while the duration of water  use for Alternative F
would be 33 years.  Alternatives  B, E, and G
would use water for approximately 10 years.

For the action alternatives, the highest annual
average use of water would occur with
Alternative G while the lowest  annual average
water use would occur with Alternative F.

The volume of water used would also vary
depending on the phase of the operation.  The
maximum utilization of water would occur
during operational start-up because there  would
be no water in the milling circuit or the tailings
facility.   This situation could be compared to
"priming of a pump", where sufficient water
must be  added to the system in order to initiate
the process.  Also, as part of the operational
start-up, water would be  needed  to fill the
Starrem Creek reservoir.

The water volumes  listed for "mine" use in
Table 2.6, Estimated Water Use Requirements,
represent water use primarily for dust
suppression on haul and access roads.  No dust
control chemicals are considered  in these
                     estimates.  Water volumes used for mine road
                     dust suppression could be reduced with the use
                     of dust control chemicals. Depending on
                     location of use, various dust control chemicals
                     could be considered, including calcium or
                     sodium lignosulfonate, Road-Oyl, Dust-Lock,
                     Coherex, a combination of Fload King and
                     PurWet, SoilCement, and DO-4 (or the
                     appropriate product for the road surface).  When
                     applied properly and maintained, these products
                     are capable of providing dust control and
                     lessening the amount of water used at the
                     operation.

                     The Proponent has submitted applications to
                     WADOE for the transfer of existing surface
                     water and ground water rights, for new water
                     rights from Starrem and Myers Creek, and for
                     surface and ground water diversions on
                     Buckhorn Mountain associated with proposed
                     mining  operations.  A summary of the
                     Proponent's water rights applications is
                     presented in  Table 4.8.1,  Water Right
                     Applications for Crown Jewel Project.
                     The total water volume requested by the
                     Proponent in their applications exceeds the
                     anticipated water to be used by each of the
                     action alternatives.  This does not mean that
                     these requested total  amounts of water would
                     be used or approved by the WADOE for use at
                     the same time; rather, the Proponent has
                     expressed their intent to obtain flexibility and
                     multiplicity in the water sources for the  Project.
                     The Proponent has also asserted that this
                     approach would accommodate seasonal
                     environmental variations, such as drought and
                     flood conditions, that might take place over the
                     life of the operation.  These factors would be
                     considered by WADOE in their review of the
                     Proponent's water right applications.

                     In the State of Washington, the WADOE has the
                     statutory and regulatory responsibility to review
                     water right applications and to render decisions
                     on such applications. The WADOE would cause
                     public notice of intention to appropriate or divert
                     water;  at this time, other water right holders or
                     interested parties would have the ability to
                     respond to the WADOE if they consider
                     approval of the subject water right application
                     would cause injury to existing rights.  Following
                     the receipt of comments, the WADOE would
                     prepare a report of examination and render a
                     decision on the water right application(s).  Any
                     WADOE approval of the water right application
                     can contain special provisions or qualifications.
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
                            CROWN JEWEL MINE
                                   Page 4-57
TABLE 4.8.1, WATER RIGHT APPLICATIONS FOR CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
Application and
Source
Starrem Creek
Reservoir
Tailings Facility
Reservoir
Mary Ann/Myers
Lost Creek Well
Starrem Creek
Myers Creek
Pit Sump
Dewatering Wells
Tailings Underdram
Domestic Well
Basin
Myers Creek
Toroda Creek
Myers Creek
Myers Creek
Myers Creek
Myers Creek
Toroda Creek
Toroda Creek
Toroda Creek
Toroda Creek
Reference Number
R4-31558
R4-31741
S4-47067J to 70J incl.
S4-47045J
S4-47047J and 48J
G4-22893C
54-31555
54-31554
G4-31611
G4-31556
G4-31612
G4-31272
Status
New
New
Change
Change
New
New
New
New
New
New
Purpose of Use
Water Storage
Water Storage
General Mining
General Mining
General Mining
General Mining
General Mining
Pit Dewatering
and General
Mining/Mitigation
General Mining
Domestic Supply
Amount
(acre-feet)
580
Up to 360
At least 1 15
156
Up to 500
Up to 650
Up to 240
Up to 81
Up to 50
Up to 25
Notes: Total quant ty requested from all sources from consumptive use will not exceed 675 acre-feet per year
Dewatering wells will be used for consumptive purposes during construction period.
During milling operations, dewatering well water will either be used for mill make-up or will be discharged
to enhance wetland areas.
This table does not include:
1) non-consumptive applications, for example Pine Chee (S4-31768); or
2) earlier applications on Marias Creek (54-31271,54-31740) and Nicholson Creek
(S4-31270) that are being held pending approval of the above applications.
Previous ground water applications G4-31273, G4-31274 and G4-31557 are planned to be withdrawn
pending the outcome of the above water system applications.
Source: Colder Associates (1 994b).
Water cannot be reserved in the State of
Washington. Likewise, no water can be used for
the Project without the appropriate water right
approvals from the WADOE.

Water use at the Project site would cease once
the operation is decommissioned and reclaimed.
Cumulative effects to water rights would
depend on the potential changes in beneficial
use and the number of future water right
applications granted.
4.9
VEGETATION
4.9.1    Summary

Native vegetation in the area plays an important
role in controlling erosion, providing wildlife
habitat, and maintaining biological diversity.
Disturbance to the vegetation resources can
result in impacts to these ecosystem functions.
Anticipated impacts to vegetation are directly
related to the estimated acres of disturbance.
Alternative C would disturb the least amount of
vegetation (440 acres) while Alternative E
would disturb the greatest amount of vegetation
(927 acres). With the exception of the final pit
area (Alternatives B, D, E, and G) and the
surface subsidence created above the
underground mining activities (Alternatives C
and D), reclamation would eventually mitigate
most impacts to vegetation.

Merchantable timber would be harvested from
the areas proposed for direct disturbance and
would be conducted in accordance with Forest
Service, BLM, and WADNR direction and their
applicable regulatory requirements. The impacts
resulting from timber harvesting would, for the
most part not be irreversible. Some irreversible
and irretrievable commitment of the timber
resource would be realized with the
implementation of any of the action alternatives
due to  the loss of soil productivity and old-
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-58
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June  1995
growth ecosystems. Proposed reclamation
practices are expected to gradually restore the
timber resources within the Project area.

The Crown Jewel Project is located within
portions of the Cedar, Ethel Creek and Gold
Creek Cattle and Horse Allotments.  During the
life of the Crown Jewel Project, the entire
Project site would be fenced, to exclude
livestock.  This action would temporarily
suspend livestock grazing inside the fenced
areas.  Implementation of any of the action
alternatives would result in the direct physical
loss of useable range and forage production,
during the life of the Crown Jewel operation, for
up to 10 years depending on the extent and
success of reclamation efforts.

No Federally listed endangered, threatened, or
proposed plant species are know to occur in the
vicinity of the Project.  However, 3 species
listed on the Region 6, Regional Forester's
Sensitive Species List (Botryium crenulatum,
Listera borealis and  Plantanthera obtusata) do
exist in the vicinity of the Project.  The species,
Botryium crenulatum,  is also currently in the
Federal Register as a Category 2 Federal
Candidate for  Federal Listing.  Category 2 taxa
are not being proposed, and there are no  current
plans for such proposals unless additional
supporting information becomes available.

Table 4.9.1, Sensitive Plants Impacted by
Alternative, shows the anticipated effects to
these sensitive plants  for each alternative.  It
has been determined that the loss of sensitive
populations predicted for each action alternative
would be unlikely to affect the viability of these
species (Forest Service, 1995).

4.9.2    Effects of Alternative A (No Action)

Under Alternative A, no further impacts, would
occur to vegetation  resources.  Reclamation of
the areas affected by exploration would be
initiated according to previously approved
reclamation plans and would mitigate most
exploration impacts.

4.9.3    Effects Common to All Action
         Alternatives

Direct Effects

Vegetation.  Implementation of any of the
action alternatives would require the clearing of
                      vegetation from all Project facility areas.  To
                      minimize the amount of cleared area at one
                      time, no area would be cleared more than a year
                      ahead of when the area is needed for Project
                      facilities. Most of these areas would be devoid
                      of vegetation and functional wildlife habitat for
                      the life of the mine. Cleared (or land
                      disturbance) acreage ranges from 440 acres
                      (Alternative C) to 927 acres (Alternative E).
                      The duration and severity of these impacts
                      would depend on the life of the operation,
                      which would vary for each action alternative as
                      explained in Chapter 2. Alternative C would
                      have a life of approximately 6 years while
                      Alternative F has a projected life span of 33
                      years.

                      At mine closure, disturbed areas would be
                      stabilized and reclaimed according to
                      reclamation plans that must be approved  by the
                      Forest Service, BLM, WADOE, and WADNR.
                      The development of vegetation communities in
                      reclaimed areas should occur in a manner similar
                      to that found on areas clearcut for timber in this
                      region.

                      Vegetation in the Crown Jewel Project area
                      would be directly affected by clearing, pit
                      excavation, surface subsidence, and placement
                      of tailings and waste rock.  Specific vegetation
                      resources which would be affected or
                      potentially impacted by the action alternatives
                      include: young, mature and old-growth  forest,
                      and sensitive plant species. Wildlife habitat
                      impacts are discussed in Section 4.12,  Wildlife.

                      Minor impacts to vegetation are anticipated as a
                      result of dust generated along access roads
                      within and adjacent to the Crown Jewel Project.
                      Deposition of dust  may result in the loss of
                      vigor of roadside plants because they would
                      have reduced capability of photosynthesis as a
                      result of lessened light availability. These
                      effects are not considered substantial and
                      would be minimized by the dust control
                      measures (watering of roads, chemical dust
                      suppressions) proposed.

                      Timber Resource.  Merchantable timber would
                      be harvested from the areas proposed for direct
                      disturbance and would be  conducted in
                      accordance with Forest Service,  BLM, and
                      WADNR direction and their applicable regulatory
                      requirements.  The amount of merchantable
                      timber would vary as each action alternative
                      affects different acreage and different timber
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-59
TABLE 4.9.1, SENSITIVE PLANTS IMPACTED BY ALTERNATIVE
Species
Botrychium
crenulatum
existing1
direct impact2
indirect effect3
Listera borealis
existing
direct impact
indirect effect
Platanthera obtusa
existing
direct impact
indirect effect
Alternative A
population/
plants
2 / =22
0 /O
0 / 0
10 / =2088
0/0
0 / 0
4/ =815
0/0
0/0
Alternative B
population/
plants
21 =22
1 / 1
0/0
10 / =2088
4 / =1828
2 / =84
4 / =815
2 / =704
0 / 0
Alternative C
population/
plants
2 / =22
1 / 1
0 / 0
10 / =2088
3 / = 1 805
2 / =73
4 / =815
2 / =704
0 / 0
Alternative D
population/
plants
2 / =22
1 / 1
0 /O
10 / =2088
3 / = 1 805
2 / =84
4 / =815
2 / =704
0/0
Alternative E
population/
plants
2 / =22
1 / 1
0 / 0
10 / =2088
6 / =1862
1 / =50
4 / =815
2 / =704
0/0
Alternative F
population/
plants
2 / =22
1 / 21
0 / 0
1 0 / = 2088
5 / =228
1 / =50
4 / =815
2 / = 1 00
0 10
Alternative G
population/
plants
2 / =22
0/0
0/0
10 / =2088
5 / =228
1 / =50
4/ =815
2 / =100
0 / 0
Notes: 1 . Represents the populations and plants identified within the core area
2. Represents the populations and plants which exist within the footprint of proposed disturbance
3. Represents the populations and plants which could be effected outside the footprint of disturbance.
types.  The timber harvested ahead of the
Crown Jewel Project activities would not result
in a major change in timber availability on the
Okanogan National Forest or the Wenatchee
Resource Area of the BLM.  Most of the timber
harvested would be sold on the local market.

Timber losses in the areas covered by waste
rock and tailings would be long-term, but
generally not irreversible. With proposed
reclamation practices, timber resources would
be gradually restored, both through planting and
natural regeneration.  Timber losses on created
southern exposures would also be long-term but
not irreversible.  These long-term losses in
timber productivity would not be substantial
when compared to the timber base in the
Okanogan National Forest or lands administered
by the BLM or WADNR.

Implementation of the mine would reduce timber
productivity by an estimated 10% to 1 5% on
reclaimed slopes returned to timber production
during the first  100 years after the completion
of reclamation.  Timber production would be
lost on disturbed lands for the life of the mining
operation. Some sites, such as the mine pit,  are
not planned to be revegetated to trees during
reclamation causing additional loss of timber
production capability.

As explained  in Chapter 1 (Section 1.6), if an
action alternative is approved, the Forest
Service proposes to alter the existing
management prescriptions for the areas to be
directly disturbed on Okanogan National Forest
lands by the Crown Jewel Project. The change
to a new management prescription would be
              temporary, continuing in force through
              successful revegetation.  The new management
              prescription would maintain standards and
              guidelines to ensure short-term and long-term
              stability of the disturbed areas. Following
              permanent cessation of mining activities and
              implementation of reclamation practices, the
              management of the disturbed areas would
              revert to the existing, or revised Okanogan
              Forest Plan goals and standards.

              Rangeland Resources. The Crown Jewel Project
              is located primarily within portions of the Forest
              Service Cedar Cattle and  Horse Allotment.
              However, the power line  right-of-way, pit
              boundary, and security fence cross the  Ethel
              Creek allotment and the water line crosses the
              Gold Creek allotment. Cattle are grazed on
              Forest Service, BLM, and adjacent private lands
              under these permits.

              The Ethel Creek or Gold Creek allotments would
              not be substantially affected by the Project.
              The construction  of the power and water lines
              would  be of short duration and will not have a
              lasting impact on the forage resources.

              The Ethel and Gold allotments, located on the
              west side of the Project, would not have their
              grazing capacities affected since the area that
              would  be disturbed is classified as unsuitable for
              grazing.  The only changes would occur in the
              allotment boundaries. Approximately 1  animal
              unit month (AUM) would  be lost for every 10
              acres of area excluded from each  allotment.
              This reduction (about 3%) would primarily
              affect the Cedar Allotment, however actual
              cow/calf units using the allotment has
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-60
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June 1995
decreased 34% in the last few years (Forest
Service, 1993b).

During the life of the Crown Jewel Project, the
Proponent would fence the entire Project site to
exclude livestock.  The Project area and wetland
mitigation fencing does not vary much by
alternative.  The acres affecting long-term
forage resources and the longevity of Project
area fencing varies by alternative and are
discussed below.  The actual acres of wetland
area to be excluded from grazing are described
in Section 4.10, Wetlands.

Implementation of any of the action alternatives
would result in the direct physical loss of
useable range and forage production. This
disruption would be primarily during the life of
the Crown Jewel  operation, but  would  likely
extend beyond mine closure for up to 10 years
depending on the extent and success of
reclamation  efforts. Fencing would remain in
place until revegetation meets the success
requirements established by the  Forest  Service,
BLM, and WADNR. Wetland mitigation fencing
might be in place for approximately 20  years,
from when wetland mitigation occurs.

During operations, there could be additional
pressure on adjacent riparian and wetland areas
as cattle are displaced.  In addition, the grazing
permittees could be inconvenienced by having
to move livestock from one pasture to another
more frequently due to the loss of forage and
watering options.

Increased traffic on the main access roads could
impact livestock grazing through collision
mortality and increased dust. Dust management
on these roads would minimize  livestock/vehicle
collisions and the dusting of forage.  Speed
control would also reduce the risk of collision.
With dust management and speed control, the
impacts to  range  resources are expected to be
low.

Noxious Weeds.  Noxious weeds are currently a
problem in  the area. Areas physically disturbed
by any of the alternatives could  be invaded by
undesirable or noxious plant species such as bull
thistle, Canada thistle, musk thistle,  Hound's-
tongue, and spotted and diffuse knapweed. All
of these species are known to be rapid invaders,
particularly into disturbed timber areas.  Affects
by alternative are proportional to the amount of
ground disturbance. Alternatives that cause
                      more ground disturbance would likely have more
                      control problems. These species will continue
                      to persist unless an effective weed control
                      program employing prevention, biological,
                      mechanical, and/or chemical methods is
                      implemented. There are requirements for
                      revegetation of disturbed areas and treatment, if
                      necessary, to prevent or eliminate the
                      propagation of noxious weeds.  The majority of
                      weed infestations would occur on travel
                      corridors and are introduced by the movement
                      of machinery and other vehicles. With  proper
                      reclamation, all action alternatives are predicted
                      to have a moderate incidence  of noxious weed
                      invasion. Long-term control would be required.

                      Threatened, Endangered, and  Sensitive  Plant
                      Species.  No Federally listed endangered,
                      threatened, or proposed plant species are
                      known to occur in the vicinity of the Project,
                      however, 2 species listed on the Region 6,
                      Regional Forester's sensitive species list (Listera
                      borealis, Platanthera obtusata) do exist  in the
                      vicinity of the Project.  Another species,
                      Botrychium crenulatum, which is currently in
                      the Federal Register as a Category 2 Federal
                      Candidate for Federal Listing.  Although
                      Category 2 taxa  are not being proposed and
                      there are no current plans for  such proposals
                      unless  additional supporting information
                      becomes available. However,  for the purposes
                      of analysis the Tonasket Ranger District will
                      consider this  species as sensitive.

                      Any of the action alternatives would directly
                      impact some  plants of all 3 species (except
                      Alternative G), primarily by physically disturbing
                      the area of occurrence.  Alternatives  B, C, D,
                      and E will impact 1 population of Botrychium
                      crenulatum consisting of 1  plant, while
                      Alternative F would impact a  different
                      population consisting of about 21 plants.

                      Alternative B would impact 4  populations of
                      Listera borealis consisting of about 1828 plants,
                      Alternatives C and D would impact 3
                      populations consisting of about 1805 plants,
                      Alternative E would impact 6  populations
                      consisting of about 1862 plants, while
                      Alternatives F and G  would impact 5
                      populations consisting of about 228 plants.

                      Alternatives B, C, D, and E would impact 2
                      populations of Platanthera obtusata consisting
                      of about 704 plants, while  /Alternatives F and G
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-61
 would impact 2 other populations consisting of
 about 100 plants.

 It has been determined in the Biological
 Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered, and
 Sensitive Plants that the loss of the above
 mentioned populations would be unlikely to
 reduce the forest viability of these sensitive
 species (Forest Service, 1995).  Table 4.9.1,
 Sensitive Plants Impacted by Alternative,
 summarizes the anticipated loss to these
 sensitive plants.

 Other potential adverse effects on sensitive
 populations could be caused by reductions in
 stream flow, reductions in flows to springs,
 seeps and wetlands, increased sedimentation
 along streams, and accidental spills along
 streams.  However, changes in grazing patterns,
 control of weeds  and changes in hydrology
 could have beneficial effects to the sensitive
 populations outside the proposed disturbed
 areas. The potential indirect effects could
 impact 1 to 2 additional populations consisting
 of 50 to 84 plants (see  Table 4.9.1, Sensitive
 Plants Impacted by Alternative).  Further
 discussion of effects is presented in the
 Biological Evaluation For Proposed, Endangered,
 Threatened, And  Sensitive Plants Crown Jewel
 Project Analysis Area (Forest Service, 1995).

 Indirect Effects

 Removal of vegetation would increase erosion,
 runoff, sediment in streams, and eliminate
 certain wildlife habitat, causing displacement or
 decline of resident wildlife populations. These
 impacts are discussed in Section 4.12, Wildlife.

 Cumulative Effects

 Cumulative effects to vegetation  resources
 would primarily involve adjacent timber
 harvesting activities, mainly proposed or
 presently being conducted on National Forest,
 BLM, and/or WADNR lands.  Historic and
 ongoing logging operations have  been
 conducted on thousands of acres in the area
 surrounding the proposed Crown Jewel Project,
 including recent clearcutting activities which
 occurred on the flanks of Buckhorn Mountain
 previous to the Proponent's exploration
 program.

The recent Forest Service Nicholson Timber Sale
harvested 351 acres of Okanogan Forest lands
              adjacent to the Crown Jewel Project.  The
              Nicholson Two Salvage  Sale would harvest an
              additional 150 acres in the summer of 1995.
              The WADNR timber sale, south of the proposed
              Crown Jewel Project, involves an estimated 250
              acres. Future proposed timber sales, within the
              next decade, on Federal and Washington State
              lands within several miles of the Project, are
              estimated to harvest timber off of  1,200 acres
              of timber lands.

              Chapter 3 (Section 3.19, Land Use) contains
              additional discussion on past and present
              logging activities.  Implementation of any of the
              Crown Jewel action alternatives  would not
              cause a noticeable change to future timber sales
              on the Okanogan National Forest or BLM
              administered lands. Logging activities in
              adjacent areas would  remove timber resources
              which would alter the existing vegetation
              communities in the logged areas.

              The implementation of the Crown Jewel Project
              would likely delay future timber harvest  on
              lands administered by the Okanogan National
              Forest in the Buckhorn Mountain area.
              Decisions on future timber sales  would be
              made, project by project, based on direct,
              indirect and cumulative impacts of the Project.

              Implementation of Project activities would affect
              up to 105 AUM's (3.4%) in the Cedar Cattle
              and Horse Allotment for a minimum of 10 years
              after reclamation. The past and future timber
              harvest would increase short-term  grazing
              capacity through creation of transitory range.
              Therefore, the cumulative effects from the
              Project and timber harvests could be a trade-off.

              4.9.4    Effects of Alternative B

              Alternative B would directly disturb 766 acres
              of vegetation.

              Merchantable timber exists on about 666 acres
              of the 766 acres to be disturbed.  These acres
              are  estimated to contain approximately 5.3
              MMBF of timber.

              The approximately 720 acre fenced Project area
              would be closed to livestock use for the  life of
              the  Project plus about 10 years after the
              commencement of reclamation or about 20
              years.  Project components such as waste rock
              disposal areas, tailings ponds, pits, roads and
              borrow areas could affect forage production for
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-62
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June 1995
the long-term on approximately 512 acres.
Reclamation activities would off set the loss of
forage on much of this acreage but time to
recovery could take as long as 10 years after
Project completion. The total forage resource in
the affected area is less than 2% of the total in
the Cedar allotment. Less than 1 % is expected
to be affected over the long-term.

4.9.5    Effects of Alternative C

Alternative C would directly disturb 440 acres
of vegetation.

Merchantable timber exists on about 392 acres
of the 440  acres to be disturbed.  These acres
are estimated to contain 3.1  MMBF of timber.

The approximately 720 acre fenced area would
be closed to livestock use for the life of the
Project plus about  10 years after the
commencement of reclamation or about 16
years. Project components such as waste rock
disposal areas, tailings ponds,  roads and borrow
areas could affect forage production for the
long-term on approximately 176 acres.
Reclamation activities would off set the loss of
forage on much of this acreage but time to
recovery could take as long as 10 years after
Project completion. The total forage resource in
the area affected is less than 2% of the total in
the Cedar allotment. Less than 1 % is expected
to be affected over the long-term.

4.9.6   Effects of Alternative D

Alternative D would directly disturb 562 acres
of vegetation.

Merchantable timber exists on about 514 acres
of the 562  acres to be disturbed.  These acres
are estimated to contain 4.1  MMBF of timber.

The approximately 770 acre fenced area would
be closed to livestock for the  life of the Project
plus about  10 years after the commencement of
reclamation or about 18 years.  Project
components such as waste rock  disposal area,
tailings, pits, roads and borrow areas could
affect forage production for the long-term on
approximately 290 acres.  Reclamation activities
would off set the loss of forage on much of this
acreage but time to recovery could take as long
as 10 years after Project completion.
                      4.9.7   Effects of Alternative E

                      Alternative E would directly disturb 927 acres of
                      vegetation.

                      Merchantable timber exists on about 879 acres
                      of the 927 acres to be disturbed.  These acres
                      are estimated to contain 7.0 MMBF of timber.

                      The approximately 1,055 acre fenced area
                      would be closed to livestock use for the life of
                      the Project plus about 10 years after the
                      commencement of reclamation or about 20
                      years.  Project components such as waste rock
                      disposal areas, tailings ponds, pits, roads and
                      borrow areas could affect forage production for
                      the long-term on approximately 637 acres.
                      Reclamation  activities would off set the loss of
                      forage on much of this acreage but time to
                      recovery could take as long as 10 years after
                      Project completion. The total forage resource in
                      the area affected is less than 2% of the total in
                      the allotment.  About 1 % is expected to be
                      affected over the long-term.

                      4.9.8   Effects of Alternative F

                      Alternative F would directly disturb 822 acres of
                      vegetation.

                      Merchantable timber exists on  about 774 acres
                      of the 882 acres to be disturbed.  These acres
                      are estimated to contain 6.2 MMBF of timber.

                      The approximately 885 acre fenced area would
                      be closed to livestock for the life of the Project
                      plus about 10 years after the commencement of
                      reclamation or about 43 years.  Project
                      components such as the waste rock disposal
                      area, tailings, pits, roads and borrow areas
                      could affect forage production  for the long-term
                      on approximately 553 acres.  Reclamation
                      activities would off set the loss of forage on
                      much of this acreage but time to recovery could
                      take as long as 10 years after Project
                      completion.  The total forage resource in the
                      area affected is less than 2% of the total in the
                      allotment.  About 1 % is expected to be affected
                      over the long-term.

                      4.9.9   Effects of Alternative G

                      Alternative G would directly disturb 896 acres
                      of vegetation.
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
                            CROWN JEWEL MINE
                                   Page 4-63
Merchantable timber exists on about 848 acres
of the 896 acres to be disturbed.  These acres
are estimated to contain 6.8 MMBF of timber.

The approximately 925 acre  fenced area would
be closed to livestock use for the life of the
Project plus about 10 years after
commencement of reclamation or about  10
years.  Project components such as waste rock
disposal area, tailings pond,  pits, roads and
borrow area could affect forage production for
the long-term on approximately 632 acres.
Reclamation activities would off set the loss of
forage on much of this acreage but time to
recovery could  take as long as 10 years  after
Project completion. The total forage resource in
the area affected is less than 2% of the total in
the allotment.   About 1 %  is  expected to be
affected over the long-term.
4.10
WETLANDS
4.10.1   Summary

Wetlands have notable ecosystem values in
terms of biological diversity, productivity, and
sedimentation control.  The federal government,
through Executive Orders 11988 and 11900,
has mandated that federal agencies provide
leadership for preserving floodplains and
minimizing losses to jurisdictional wetlands.
Most impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are
governed by the provisions of Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act, which requires permit
approval for any dredge or fill alterations to
waters of the  U.S. including wetlands.  The
Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) guidelines
specifically require that "no discharge of dredge
or fill material shall be permitted if there is a
practicable alternative to the proposed discharge
which would have less adverse impact on the
aquatic  ecosystem, so long as the alternative
does not have other significant adverse
environmental consequences" (40 CFR
230.10(a)). Compliance with the Section
404(b)(1) guidelines is determined by the Corp
of Engineers and EPA.  To assist in this process,
the Proponent has submitted a document
entitled. Crown Jewel Project 404(b)(1)
Alternatives Analysis Support Information, dated
March 1995, to the Corp of Engineers, the
Forest Service, and WADOE (Parametrics,
1995).

A series of jurisdictional wetland investigations
(A.G. Crook,  1993e) were conducted over an
area of approximately 4,000 acres. These field
inventories determined that 46.85 acres of
jurisdictional wetlands exist in the area (see
Table 3.11.1, Summary of Wetlands Areas and
Figure 3.11.1, Project Associated Wetland
Locations}. Wetland plant communities
identified during the field investigations include
approximately 0.06 acres of deciduous
wetlands (quaking aspen, sitka and red alter)
and 10.86 acres of forested needle-leafed
evergreen wetlands (Engelmann spruce) [PFO];
13.47 acres of deciduous scrub/shrub wetlands
(reosier dogwood, peach-leaf willow, prickly
current) [PSS]; and 22.52 acres of persistent,
emergent  wetlands (reed canary grass, creeping
bentgrass,spike ruish, small winged sedge,
cattails, burreed,  bulrush) [PEM].

Direct loss or major reduction of specific
wetlands would result from all action
alternatives;  losses would range from a low of
0.92 acres to a maximum of 5.42 acres:
Alternative A
Alternative B
Alternative C
Alternative D
Alternative E
Alternative F
Alternative G
- 0.00 acres
- 3.39 acres
- 3.1 5 acres
-3.16 acres
-3.18 acres
- 0.92 acres
- 5.42 acres
                                           Table 4. W. 1, Wetland Direct Impact Acreage,
                                           presents estimated disturbed acres by
                                           component.

                                           Indirect effects could occur,  based on the
                                           potential alteration (reduction) in stream flows
                                           primarily due to developing an open pit  in the
                                           upper portion of the area drainages. The
                                           development of an underground mine would
                                           probably have a lesser impact than the open pit
                                           due to  the amount of surface recharge area left,
                                           but the underground workings could redirect the
                                           surface expression of the ground water recharge
                                           in different directions than currently exists.

                                           As a result of these reduced  flows, there is a
                                           potential for additional wetlands in the Gold,
                                           Marias, Nicholson and Myers Creek watersheds
                                           to experience a reduction in size or a reduction
                                           in productivity resulting in changes in value or
                                           function.

                                           4.10.2  Effects of Alternative A (No Action)

                                           There would be no impact to wetlands from the
                                           exploration reclamation activity.
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-64
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June 1995
TABLE 4.10.1, WETLAND DIRECT IMPACT ACREAGE
Facility
Waste Rock Disposal
Area
Mine Area
Tailings Facility
Haul Road
Access Roads
Soil Borrow Pits
Tailings Pipeline
Water Reservoir
Myers Creek Intake
Myers Creek Pipeline
TOTAL
Wetlands
ID Type Acres
C8 PEM 0.01
C9 PSS/PEM 0.4
C10 PEM 0.01
Frog Pond PEM 1 .8
C11 PSS/PEM 0.01
C1C PSS/PEM 0.4
C2 PSS/PEM 1.7
C4 PEM 0.4
C5 PEM 0.7
C14 PEM 2.3
C15 PEM 0.2
C20 PEM 0.02
C1A PFO/PSS 0.8
C5 PEM 0.7
CIA PFO/PSS 0.8
PA PSS/PFO 0.07
C13 PFO/PSS/PEM 0.02
C1A PFO/PSS 0.8
PA PSS/PFO 0.07
CA-CB PEM 0.57
DA-DB PFO/PSS/PEM 25.23
DA-DB PFO/PSS/PEM 25.23

Alternative
B
(acres)

0.01
0.27
1.7
0.4
0.07
0.15
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.57
0.01
0.05
3.39
C
(acres)


0.2
1.7
0.4
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.57
0.01
0.07
3.15
D
(acres)

0.01
0.2
1.7
0.4
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.57
0.01
0.07
3.16
E
(acres)
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.2
1.7
0.4
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.57
0.01
0.07
3.18
f
(acres)
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.2
0.02


0.02

0.57
0.01
0.07
0.92
G
(acres)
0.01
0.4
0.01
1.8
0.01
2.3
0.2
0.02


0.02

0.57
0.01
0.07
5.42
Notes: Alternative B acres determined by the Proponent. All other acres determined by TerraMatnx.
PEM: Persistent emergent wetland
PSS: Deciduous shrub/scrub wetland
PFO: Forested broad-leafed deciduous and needle-leafed evergreen wetlands
4.10.3   Effects Common to All Action
         Alternatives

Direct Effects

Given the scattered locations of jurisdictional
wetlands in the Crown Jewel Project Area,
complete avoidance of impacts to wetlands
would be impossible with any of the action
alternatives. If development of an action
alternatives occurs, then compensatory
mitigation in the form  of enhancement,
restoration or creation of other wetlands would
be required prior to the impacts occurring.

The tailings facility, in all action alternatives
except Alternative  F, accounts for the  most
acres of impact to  wetlands (2.3 to 2.52 acres).
The Starrem Creek water reservoir would affect
0.52 acres in all of the action  alternatives.

The acres of impacted wetlands are based
conceptual locations of the Project components.
If an action alternative is selected and
                      implemented, the actual location of some minor
                      components (e.g. haul roads, 0.09 acres;
                      access roads, 0.07 acres; and soil borrow pits,
                      0.2 acres) could be adjusted on the ground to
                      further avoid or reduce impacts to some
                      wetlands.

                      Indirect Effects

                      In addition to the anticipated direct effects,
                      there could be indirect effects associated with
                      reduced or altered surface flows,  however there
                      is no way to accurately predict (quantify) the
                      extent of these indirect impacts to individual
                      wetlands or wetland functions and values.
                      Where indirect  impacts can be accurately
                      assessed, up-front, simultaneous  mitigation
                      would be  required.  Where indirect impacts are
                      less predictable, monitoring and contingency
                      plans would be developed.

                      The minimum and maximum total average
                      annual flow reduction for the total drainage
                      areas due to baseflow reduction and losses of
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-65
overland flow would be 1.7% to 4.1 % for
Nicholson Creek,  1.1 % to 3.4% for Marias
Creek, 5.2% to 8.6% for Bolster Creek, and
2.2% to 6% for Gold Creek. The minimum to
maximum total average annual flow reductions
for all of the Buckhorn Mountain drainages
would be 2.5% to 5.5%.  The potential impact
of underground mining on area stream flows
would be primarily due to baseflow reduction.
Overland flow would not be impacted. As a
result the minimum and maximum total average
annual flow reduction for the total drainage
areas due to underground mining were
calculated to be 0.9% to 1.5% for Nicholson
Creek, 0.9% to 2.9% for Marias Creek 4.9% to
7.6% for Bolster Creek, and 2.2% to 6%  for
Gold Creek.  The  minimum to maximum total
average annual flow reductions for all of the
Buckhorn Mountain drainages would be 2.2% to
4.5% (Hydro-Geo, 1995a).

The potential impacts of mining on area stream
flows were estimated to be much less than the
natural variability  of flows due to climatic
changes.  The mean annual discharge variations
for the Buckhorn  Mountain drainages are
typically greater than 30%.

Associated wetlands along stretches of Gold,
Marias,  and Nicholson Creeks have the potential
to experience reductions in size and/or reduced
productivity due to changes in habitat values
and functions (including the large wetland to the
north of the Marias Creek tailings location).
Isolated wetlands, in the same drainage basins,
and at similar elevations to these reaches  of
streams also have the potential to experience
reductions in size  and/or reduce productivity due
to changes in habitat types and functions
(including the 1.8 acre emergent wetland  known
locally as the frog pond). These impacts would
be expected to last during the life of the Project.
Once, the mine and initial reclamation of the
site (including hydrologic equilibrium of the pit
site) is completed, a new hydrologic equilibrium
would be reached which should approach  the
pre-project conditions.  At that time, some of
the short-term impacts to wetlands would be
reduced or eliminated.

The Myers Creek  water intake, and water
pipeline,  would directly impact about 0.04 acres
of wetlands  under all action alternatives.
Pumping of water from the Lost Creek well in
Bolster Creek may indirectly effect the wetlands
near and below this site by reducing flows to
              and through the wetlands.  Capture of spring
              run-off in Myers Creek may effect wetlands
              lower on the stream by reducing recharge of
              these wetlands.

              Compensatory mitigation would be required for
              any unavoidable adverse  impacts which remain
              after all appropriate steps have been taken to
              avoid and minimize impacts.

              Cumulative Effect

              Implementation of  the Project combined with
              planned and proposed timber harvests,
              continued livestock grazing and potential
              mineral  exploration in adjacent areas could
              result in short-term increases to the sediment
              levels within the area streams.

              Sedimentation in conjunction with potential
              minor long-term reductions in Project area
              stream flows could result in slight cumulative
              effects to wetland  acreage and functions.

              4.10.4   Effects of Alternative B

              Alternative B would directly impact 3.39 acres
              of jurisdictional wetlands. Existing roads would
              be widened, impacting some small wetland
              areas that were created by the original road
              construction. This is an unavoidable impact.
              The tailings facility would be constructed in the
              headwaters  of Marias  Creek and have the
              largest impact to wetlands, covering the 2.44
              acres of riparian wetlands along the stream.

              The projected wetland types which would be
              impacted include: PSS - 2.04 acres, PFO - 0.31
              acres, and PEM - 1.04  acres (see Table 4.10.1,
              Wetland Direct Impact Acreage).

              4.10.5   Effects of Alternative C

              Alternative C would directly impact 3.15 acres
              of jurisdictional wetlands. The tailings facility
              would again impact the most acres of wetlands,
              2.3 acres along Marias Creek.

              The projected wetland types which would be
              impacted include: PSS - 1.96 acres, PFO - 0.22
              acres, and PEM - 0.97 acres (see Table 4.10.1,
              Wetland Direct Impact Acreage).
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-66
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June 1995
4.10.6   Effects of Alternative D

Alternative D would directly impact 3.16 acres
of jurisdictional wetlands. The 0.01 acres more
than Alternative C is due to the additional open
pit in this alternative.   The largest impact is
again the 2.3 acres within the tailings facility on
Marias Creek.

The projected wetland types which would be
impacted include: PSS - 1.97 acres, PFO - 0.22
acres, and PEM - 0.97 acres (see  Table 4.10,1,
Wetland Direct Impact Acreage}.

4.10.7   Effects of Alternative E

Alternative E would directly affect 3.18 acres of
jurisdictional wetlands.  The tailings facility in
this alternative again impacts 2.3  acres along
Marias Creek. The additional 0.02 acres of
impact in this alternative would result from the
location and construction of the waste rock
disposals.

The projected wetland types which would be
impacted include: PSS - 1.97 acres, PFO - 0.22
acres, and PEM - 0.99 acres (see  Table 4.10.1,
Wetland Direct Impact Acreage).

4.10.8   Effects of Alternative F

Alternative F would impact 0.92 acres of
jurisdictional wetlands.  The component
affecting the most wetlands would be the
Starrem Creek reservoir (0.57 acres).  The
tailings facility would  be in Nicholson Creek and
would impact about 0.22 acres of wetlands.

The projected wetland types which would be
impacted include: PSS - 0.01 acres, PFO - 0.10
acres, and PEM - 0.81 acres (see  Table 4. JO. 1,
Wetland Direct Impact Acreage].

4.10.9   Effects of Alternative G

Alternative G would directly  impact 5.42 acres
of jurisdictional wetlands including the frog
pond  (1.8 acres). The tailings facility, in
Nicholson Creek,  would again have the largest
component impact, 2.52 acres.  This
alternative, as a whole, encompasses the
largest area  of impact to wetlands in terms of
total acreage and impacts from the tailings
disposal facilities.
                      The projected wetland types which would be
                      impacted include:  PSS - 0.41 acres, PFO - 0.10
                      acres, and PEM - 4.91 acres (see Table 4.10.1,
                      Wetland Direct Impact Acreage).

                      4.11    AQUATIC HABITATS AND
                              POPULATIONS

                      4.11.1   Summary

                      No short or long-term effects on fisheries
                      resources or other aquatic organisms from the
                      use of cyanide are expected provided design
                      and construction of facilities, mitigation and
                      protection measures, and spill and waste
                      cleanup plans are implemented.  Geochemical
                      testing suggests that the majority of material to
                      be placed in the waste rock disposal areas
                      would have a low  potential to  generate acid and
                      leach metals.  Therefore, little  or no short-term
                      or long-term impacts to water quality and
                      aquatic resources are  expected from waste rock
                      disposal.

                      Short-term,  local increases in turbidity and
                      suspended sediments are likely to occur during
                      initial construction, road  building/improvements
                      and earth-moving activities in the Marias  and
                      Nicholson Creek drainages.  Short-term
                      increases in sediment yield could result in short-
                      term losses  of habitat. Sediment yields would
                      stabilize once construction  was complete and
                      mitigation measures were implemented. With
                      proper drainage and detention  structures,
                      regulated by federal and state  standards, the
                      risk of long-term impacts to fisheries would be
                      low for any  of the action alternatives.
                      However, there could be limited short-term
                      impacts due to increases in sediment levels in
                      local stream segments due to reclamation
                      activities and road use.

                      An IFIM analysis was  conducted to determine
                      the habitat/flow relationship for the protection
                      of rainbow trout spawning  in Myers Creek. The
                      IFIM analysis recommends that a minimum
                      instream flows during the rainbow trout
                      spawning period during the spring  and early
                      summer of the year be 12 cfs  in Myers Creek as
                      measured at the point of diversion  into the
                      Starrem Creek reservoir.  The IFIM also
                      determined that an appropriate flow for brook
                      trout winter habitat needs would be 6 cfs as
                      measured at the diversion point. As daily
                      temperatures in Myers Creek rise to or over 6°C
                      (42.8°F) in the spring, the IFIM  analysis
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-67
recommends that an interim minimum instream
flow of 9 cfs would be appropriate to protect
the period before the beginning of the rainbow
trout spawning period. At or above the average
stream temperature of 8°C (46.4°F), the
minimum instream flow would increase to the
12 cfs level.

There is a possibility of cumulative impacts as a
result of increased sedimentation from adjacent
timber harvest and mineral exploration activities.
The extent of these impacts would be based on
the drainage and sediment control practices
implemented in all  activities, and specifically on
the Crown Jewel Project where most sediment
would be captured in the detention ponds.

4.11.2   Effects of Alternative A (No Action)

No direct, long-term effects to fisheries or other
aquatic organisms  would be anticipated from
implementation of  the no action alternative
since complete reclamation of previous
exploration activities would commence as soon
as weather permits.  Aquatic  resources would
be maintained  at current conditions.

4.11.3   Effects Common  to All Action
         Alternatives

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Fish
Species

No threatened, endangered or sensitive fish
species are known to occur in Myers, Marias or
Nicholson Creeks or their tributaries. See
Section 3.12, Aquatic Resources, and Appendix
I, Aquatic Habitat Biological Evaluation for
further discussion.

Direct Effects

Potential  effects by alternative vary only in the
potential  impacts from a tailing impoundment
failure scenario and the use of chemicals in
Alternative G.  Variations in potential effects are
discussed separately for each alternative. The
effects of action alternatives on the surface
water resources directly relates to potential
impacts to the fisheries resources.  The effects
of the action alternatives on the surface water
resources is discussed in detail in Section 4.7,
Surface Water.

Several factors have the potential to directly
impact fisheries. These factors include:
               •       Water Quantity
               •       Water Quality
               •       Physical Habitat Loss

               Water Quantity. Reductions in stream flow as a
               result of diversions can be directly detrimental
               to both spawning and  rearing  habitats for
               salmonids.  Reduced stream flow can impede or
               block both downstream fish movements and
               adult upstream migrations, increase water
               temperatures, and reduce available rearing and
               spawning habitats.

               A description of water quantity and the water
               supply system, and associated direct  effects to
               surface water resources, including direct loss or
               alteration of stream channel, are discussed in
               detail in Section 4.7, Surface Water.

               Water intercepted  in the mine  area could
               decrease the total  average annual surface flow
               in Nicholson Creek by  less than 4%, Marias
               Creek by less than 3.4%, Bolster Creek by less
               than 8.5%, and Gold Creek by less than 6%.
               These estimated decreases are not expected to
               impact fisheries resources in these streams and
               are less than normal year to year stream flow
               variations.  After cessation of  the pit dewatering
               operation and after the open pit or underground
               mine workings water levels reach equilibrium,
               the hydrologic balance would  return to a stable
               condition, and the amount of water intercepted
               would decrease.

               An estimated 25% to 30% decrease in spring
               freshet stream flow could be realized  at the
               international border on Myers  Creek due to the
               proposed diversion.  Impacts of this diversion is
               based on the Proponent's proposal to divert  5
               cfs or less.  However,  due to the timing of
               proposed diversions, few environmental impacts
               should be seen during  the low flow periods.  No
               impacts to fisheries resources  are expected at
               low flow conditions due to the diversions.

               Flows of sufficient magnitude  are necessary to
               maintain channel integrity through the transport
               and flushing of fine sediments, nutrients and
               large organic debris. The potential exists to
               reduce peak flows enough as to not provide
               sufficient flows for the purpose of channel
               maintenance, spawning and rearing, aquifer
               recharge, and wetland  recharge. If  aquifer and
               wetland recharge are effected, this could cause
               reduced streamflows in Myers Creek during the
               late summer and the fall.
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-68
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June  1995
 Decreasing stream flows to the point where
 fisheries are impacted would  violate the State
 antidegradation regulations, WAC 173-201A-
 070, ROW 90.22 and 90.54.  Determination of
 appropriate diversion amounts would be made
 through the water rights permitting process.

 Water Quality.  Potential water quality impacts
 from the spill of chemicals and fuels, discharge
 of acidic waters, input of sediment and increase
 in stream temperatures could influence fisheries
 resources.  The potential effects on water
 quality are  discussed in detail in Section 4.7,
 Surface Water.

 The impacts of chemicals and fuels on aquatic
 resources depends on the magnitude, proximity
 and timing  of the reagent.  Chemical reagents
 and fuels are proposed for use to varying
 degrees in all action  alternatives.  While nearly
 all chemicals can have acute and chronic
 effects, the chemicals that have the greatest
 potential to adversely affect fisheries, include:

 •        Sodium Cyanide
 •        Ammonium Nitrate
 •        Cement / Lime
 •        Fuels

 Tank cyanidation is proposed for use to process
 ore in all alternatives except Alternative  G.
 Cyanide is an extremely toxic chemical to
 aquatic organisms.  Cyanide rarely occurs freely
 in nature; but, when used in mining operations,
 it often forms complexes with other metals.
 These complexes are often less toxic than free
 cyanide,  but dissociation to release free cyanide
 can occur.

 Cyanide achieves its toxicity by interfering with
 oxygen intake by organisms.  Lethal
 concentrations for fish are reached at about
 0.05 to 0.01  mg/l free cyanide (Morris et al.,
 1 991). Levels above 0.2 mg/l are rapidly fatal
for most  fish species, and a variety of sublethal
 effects have been reported at lower
 concentrations (Nelson et al., 1991). A level as
 low as 0.01 mg/l free cyanide has been  shown
to inhibit the swimming ability of fish (EPA,
 1973).

 Cyanide would be stored above-ground in
concrete  containment structures and the tailings
 impoundment structures would be designed and
constructed to be "zero discharge" facilities.
Therefore, the only likely method for cyanide to
                      reach stream surface waters is through
                      accidental spill. Cyanide spills typically would
                      occur as a single, short-term event. If cyanide
                      were to reach a stream, lethal short-term
                      effects to fisheries and other aquatic organisms
                      would occur.

                      Aquatic invertebrates are less sensitive to
                      cyanide toxicity than trout, but given the
                      lethality, acidity also increases the toxicity to
                      fish of metallic pollutants that are generated by
                      mining activities.  Metals which can bio-
                      accumulate in fish tissue at relatively high rates
                      and pose health risks for consumers, including
                      predators of fish,  are mercury, cadmium and
                      lead. These metals are not expected to increase
                      in concentration in the stream unless they are
                      present  in the leachate and there is drainage
                      from the tailings facility.  Other metals which
                      may be  present above baseline concentrations
                      but do not bio-accumulate at rates that are
                      substantial health hazards to consumers are
                      arsenic, manganese, iron and zinc. The
                      potential for these metals to be released to the
                      surface  water is low.

                      Ammonium nitrate (in solid form) in relatively
                      low concentrations could cause lethal toxicity to
                      fish. The extent of the impact would depend on
                      the volume of solid material that would actually
                      reach the stream and dissolve. Materials in
                      solid form would generally be less mobile in the
                      event of a spill than liquids and easier to clean
                      up. Unless spilled directly into surface waters,
                      ammonium nitrate would not likely impact
                      streams and aquatic resources.

                      Cement and  lime could elevate the stream pH
                      (alkaline) to chronic toxicity levels for fish and
                      other aquatic organisms.  The extent of the
                      impact would depend on the volume of solid
                      material that would actually reach the stream.
                      Similar to ammonium nitrate, cement and lime
                      are solids that are more easily cleaned up than
                      liquid spills.

                      Petroleum products  exhibit both acute lethal
                      toxicity  (short-term) and long-term sublethal
                      toxic effects on aquatic organisms (EPA, 1986).
                      Accidents involving  fuel  spills could result from
                      transport of fuels  to the  site, or accidental on-
                      site spills.   Diesel fuel is extremely toxic to
                      aquatic life by acting to deplete oxygen.  A
                      major fuel spill could rapidly contaminate
                      Marias,  Beaver, Toroda,  Myers, and/or
                      Nicholson Creeks  resulting in a potential loss of
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-69
salmonids, salmonid embryos and other aquatic
organisms.  Fuel oil spills would probably have a
short residence time in Marias or Nicholson
Creeks due to their gradients and velocities.
The extent of damage would be determined by
the volume and duration of the spill.  A
containment area is planned for the on-site fuel
storage facilities, and spills are unlikely.
Comprehensive emergency spill response is
planned for  both on-site and off-site events.

Stream temperatures in Marias and Nicholson
Creeks may increase slightly in response to
timber harvest and resulting loss of canopy
cover in and adjacent to the Project area.  The
majority of the water in the Project area is
present as ground and  subsurface water;
therefore, temperature  elevations to the degree
which could affect salmonid survival are unlikely
as a result of mining operations.

Ore  stockpiling, waste  rock disposal, and
accidental spills pose the greatest risk of toxic
chemicals reaching the stream. The tailings
facilities, in  each action alternative, are
designed to be zero-discharge, closed  circuit
systems with lined tailings impoundments  and a
double lined reclaim solution ponds downstream
of the constructed embankment.

Little or no short-term impacts to water quality
and  fisheries are expected from ore stockpiling.
The  potential long-term impacts to  water quality
and  fisheries are expected to be low.

Geochemical testing suggests that the majority
of material to be placed in the waste rock
disposals would have a low potential to
generate acid and  leach metals.  "Hot  spots"
could occur locally in the waste rock disposal
sites.  Monitoring of waste rock disposal areas
would be performed as required by regulatory
agencies.

Physical Habitat Loss.  Increases in
sedimentation to streams from ground
disturbing activities can be detrimental to the
aquatic environment. A review of the  literature
generally supports the hypothesis that salmonid
embryonic survival declines in substrates as
quantities of fine sediment increase (Gill, 1994).
Fine  sediments tend to  reduce gravel
permeability and pore space, as well as,
dissolved oxygen in water available to  embryos,
thus influencing incubation success. In
addition, fine sediment  in deposits or
               suspension can reduce primary production and
               invertebrate abundance and thus can affect the
               availability of food within the stream.  Low
               gradient stream sections generally contain the
               highest quality salmonid spawning and rearing
               habitat.  These are the most likely areas to
               experience the greatest impact to habitat from
               increased sedimentation.

               Potential sedimentation impacts from surface
               disturbance would vary among alternatives
               depending on the area disturbed and the
               potential for sediment to be transported to
               streams.  A description of surface disturbance
               and subsequent sediment yield increases is
               discussed in Section 4.7, Surface Water.

               The potential for silt and sediment loading in
               Marias and Nicholson Creeks is high; however,
               due to the required control measures,  the
               probability is low.  During the first 2 years.
               Project construction  activities, and removal and
               disposal  of waste rock would create ample
               opportunity for erosional events, particularly
               during snowmelt and storm water runoff, unless
               adequate preventive  measures are in place.
               Regardless of measures taken, periods of above
               ambient levels of suspended sediments are
               likely to occur during initial construction, road
               building/improvements, timber harvest, and
               earthmoving activities in the Marias and
               Nicholson Creek headwaters, especially during
               episodic  high water events. These events
               would have the greatest risk of violating the
               State turbidity standard for AA waters of
               Washington State. • With proper drainage and
               sediment control structures, the risk of long-
               term impacts to fisheries and other aquatic
               organisms is low for any of the action
               alternatives.

               The probability of a tailings impoundment
               structure failure is extremely low as discussed
               in Section 4.4, Geotechnical Considerations.
               Depending on the alternative selected, a major
               tailings impoundment failure could affect
               downstream fisheries. If the tailings
               impoundment were to suffer a catastrophic
               breach and the tailings were transported to
               headwater streams, sediments would impact
               stream habitats and cause massive short-term
               reductions in fish populations and aquatic
               organisms.

               In the event of a tailings impoundment failure, a
               clean-up  program would be initiated. The
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 Page 4-70
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
                                                                                       June 1995
 extent of such a program would depend on the
 severity of the failure, the time of year, the
 weather conditions, and flow conditions in the
 stream(s). With prompt program
 implementation, the potentially impacted aquatic
 resources would be expected to recover over a
 period of years. Time to recovery would
 depend on future sediment supply and the
 availability of flushing flows. Macroinvertebrate
 populations would be expected to quickly
 reestablish if affected.

 Indirect Effects

 Road use can  be a major factor contributing to
 sedimentation. Sediment concentrations
 produced during periods of active road use
 represent a combination of flushing  of
 accumulated material  from the road  and
 movement of sediment being produced at the
 time (Bilby et al., 1989). Reid and Dunne found
 that heavily used roads  contributed  substantially
 higher rates of sediment than abandoned or
 lightly used roads (1984).

 The amount of stream sedimentation resulting
 from roads depends largely on the quality of
 construction and maintenance.  Roads requiring
 surface aggregate reduced sediment production
 by approximately 80% over un-graveled road
 surfaces (Burroughs and King, 1989).
 Burroughs and King reported drastic reductions
 in sediment production by treating cut and fill
 slopes with erosion control measures such as,
 erosion mats,  chips, gravel, straw or
 hydromulch (1989).  Paving roads can
 substantially reduce sedimentation (Reid and
 Dunne, 1984).

 Increased recreational fishing pressure due to
 human population increases in the area may
 directly affect  local fish  populations. The take
 of local fish is regulated by the WADFW.

 Cumulative Effects

 If one of the action alternatives is chosen, there
 is a possibility of cumulative impacts as a result
 of increased sedimentation from adjacent timber
 harvest and mineral exploration activities. The
extent of these impacts  would be based on the
drainage and sediment control practices
implemented in all activities, specifically on the
Crown Jewel Project.  The extent to which
fisheries resources would be impacted depends
on the magnitude, timing and proximity of the
                      potential impact on fisheries habitat, but is
                      expected to be low.

                      4.11.4  Effects of Alternatives B, C, D, and E

                      A tailings impoundment failure could impact
                      about 2.6 miles of Marias Creek, of which the
                      lower 1.4 miles currently supports fish. A
                      tailings impoundment failure could also impact
                      approximately 300 feet of Nicholson Creek.
                      The potential impacts of a failure scenario is
                      discussed in Section 4.11.3, Effects Common
                      to All Action Alternatives.

                      4.11.5   Effects of Alternative F

                      A tailings impoundment failure could affect 2 to
                      3 miles of Nicholson Creek below the tailings
                      structure. The potential impacts of a failure
                      scenario is discussed in Section  4.11.3, Effects
                      Common To All Action Alternatives.

                      4.11.6   Effects of Alternative G

                      Alternative G uses flotation rather than tank
                      cyanidation to process ore. Flotation chemicals
                      would be stored in the processing facility under
                      similar conditions as the cyanide-related
                      reagents.  Chemical spills and potential effects
                      would occur through pathways discussed in
                      Section 4.11.3, Effects Common To All Action
                      Alternatives.

                      A tailings impoundment failure could affect 2 to
                      3 miles  of Nicholson Creek below the tailings
                      structure; however, there would be no  cyanide
                      concentrations  in the flotation tailings leachate.
                      The  potential impacts of a failure scenario is
                      discussed in Section 4.11.3, Effects Common
                     To All Action Alternatives.

                      4.11.7   Instream Flow Incremental
                              Methodology

                      Myers Creek supports a brook trout and rainbow
                     trout fishery.  Water diversion by the Proponent
                      in the Starrem  Creek reservoir during the late
                     winter, spring, and early summer would reduce
                     the flow in Myers Creek.  The Proponent is
                     proposed to divert up to 500 acre-feet of water
                     during the period from February  1 until  July 31
                     each year.  This diversion is proposed to not
                     exceed 5 cfs.  This schedule of diversion would
                     allow for the capture of a portion of the spring
                     runoff under a  wide range of highly variable
                     runoff patterns.
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-71
Habitat requirements for brook and rainbow
trout were evaluated using a technique known
as IFIM.  The results of the IFIM study show
that a 6 cfs flow needs to remain in Myers
Creek for protection of the brook trout eggs that
are laid in the gravels in the fall and incubate
over the  winter, and emerge from the gravels
the following spring and to protect winter
habitat for rainbow trout.  Protection of rainbow
trout spawning in the spring or early summer
requires a flow of 12  cfs.  Six cfs provides
habitat for rainbow and brook trout throughout
the winter, but the IFIM results indicate that
brook trout habitat is  incrementally increased
with creek flows up through 25 cfs.

The actual date that rainbow trout spawn each
year in Myers Creek is expected to vary,
perhaps by more than a month.  Spawning
initiation is variable and is principally influenced
by water temperature (Stoltz and Schnell,
1991).  In order to protect spawning habitat, it
would be necessary to identify, each year
during the Project life, when rainbow trout are
near initiation of spawning and then to reduce
diversions from the creek, if necessary, to allow
a transition from the 6 cfs winter-spring rearing
and incubation  flow up to the 12 cfs spawning
flow. This is proposed to be done in a 2-step
process.  When stream temperatures reach
about 6°C (42.8°F), flows would be increased
to 9 cfs.  When stream temperatures reach
spawning temperatures of 8°C (46.4°F)  flows
would be increased to 12  cfs.  The spawning
flow would need to remain in effect until July
31, and the Proponent could only divert water
in an amount consistent with their water right(s)
while still satisfying the 12 cfs flow measured
downstream from the diversion. Impacts to
instream resources would not be expected to
result from water diversion given the
establishment of minimum instream flows.

4.12    WILDLIFE HABITATS AND
         POPULATIONS

Potential beneficial and adverse effects on
wildlife likely to result from the implementation
of the action alternatives are addressed below.
The Wildlife Technical Report (Beak,  1995a)
provides methods, assumptions, detailed
analyses of potential wildlife impacts, and cites
information used in the assessment process.
               This section is organized into 8 subsections:
                       Summary;
                       Habitat Effects;
                       Land Use/Disturbance;
                       Toxics;
                       Cumulative Effects;
                       Forest Plan Compliance;
                       Proposed, Endangered, Threatened,
                       and Sensitive Species; and,
                       HEP.
               The period of analysis spans 100 years, the
               amount of time estimated  to reestablish young
               mature forest structure and function on
               reclaimed areas.  Impacts to wildlife could occur
               through the direct, indirect and cumulative
               effects of construction, operation, maintenance,
               and reclamation activities associated with each
               of the proposed mining alternatives. The areal
               extent of the impact analysis is defined by the
               analysis area, core area, and footprint  (see
               Section 3.13, Wildlife).

               The analysis area (approximately 72,700 acres)
               defines the land base for evaluating cumulative
               effects and wildlife species with large  home
               ranges (i.e., grizzly bear, gray wolf and
               California wolverine).

               The core area (approximately 10,960 acres) is a
               subset of the analysis area that includes all
               proposed facilities for all alternatives; the
               transmission, transportation, and water pipeline
               corridors; Starrem Reservoir; and potential
               zones of influence as described in Section 3.13,
               Wildlife.

               The footprint, a subset of the core area, varies
               with each alternative and consists of disturbed
               and undisturbed areas within the perimeter
               fence boundaries and  Project corridor.

               Proposed mining activities would directly affect
               all wildlife within the Footprint (e.g., loss of
               habitat) and some wildlife  within the core area
               (e.g., reduced habitat effectiveness due to
               noise). Indirect effects on wildlife would only
               occur outside of the Footprint within the core
               and analysis areas.

               4.12.1   Summary

               The action alternatives would result in both
               short-term and long-term impacts to wildlife.
               Proposed reclamation  plans and mitigation
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-72
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June 1995
measures would eventually restore wildlife
habitat, but not to the same quality or quantity
that would be lost.  Therefore a net loss to
wildlife may occur.  The magnitude of the
impact to wildlife would be a function of the
size and duration of habitat loss; changes in
land use, disturbance, and noise; and the risk of
exposure to toxic substances.

The net adverse impact to wildlife (following
reclamation and  mitigation) would be greatest
under Alternatives B and F, and least under
Alternative C. Alternative B would have
substantial impacts to wildlife due to the
permanent loss and conversion of habitat, and
the loss of deer SI/T cover.  Alternative F would
have substantial impacts due to the duration of
noise  (33 years) and the risk of toxic (16  years)
impacts, the duration of habitat loss to the
footprint (33  years).  Alternative C would have
the least impact of all action alternatives due to
the short Project life (6 years), the  small
footprint, and the reduced surface disturbance
from underground mining.

Impacts to wildlife would continue  after
operations cease and for some time following
revegetation when early succession cover types
(e.g.,  grass, shrub) prevail.  Species preferring
early successional cover types are expected to
be among the first colonizers of reclaimed
slopes.  However, species requiring mature
forest and associated components  (e.g., snags,
tree size, density) would be impacted until the
structure (e.g., multi-storied stands, snags) and
function (e.g., hiding cover, thermal regulation,
snow intercept cover) of mature interior forests
is realized. The likelihood that mature forest
structure and function would be achieved on the
reclaimed  mine sites would be reduced by: a
loss of soil productivity on reclaimed lands; the
permanent conversion of some forest habitat to
grass, shrub, and open forest (e.g., pit creation,
waste rock slopes); and the proposed tree
stocking levels of the reclamation plans.

Most wildlife  species would be moderately
impacted by most of the action alternatives.
The northern  goshawk, Myotis bats and
Townsend's big-eared bat are the only species
that would be subject to a large degree of
negative impact.  The common loon and
northern bald eagle may be subject to a large
degree of negative impact if an accidental spill
of toxic substances occurred; the golden eagle
may be subject to a moderate degree of
                      negative impact if a spill occurred.  Adverse
                      impacts to orange-crowned warbler, vesper
                      sparrow, loggerhead shrike, long-billed curlew
                      and Columbian sharp-tailed grouse would be
                      small.  Negligible impacts would occur to the
                      willow flycatcher and American Peregrine
                      falcon.

                      Loss of wildlife habitat would be common to all
                      action alternatives.  However, the magnitude of
                      impact would vary between alternatives
                      depending on the size of the footprint; the
                      duration of construction, operation, and
                      reclamation;  and the amount of habitat, such as
                      deer SI/T cover, permanently converted or lost.
                      While some of these impacts would be
                      permanent (e.g., the pit), others would be
                      reversible in  some areas (e.g., loss of forest
                      habitat). Alternative B would have the largest
                      impact to wildlife due to the amount of deer
                      SI/T cover lost and habitat permanently
                      converted to other types of habitat.
                      Alternatives  E and G would have the next
                      largest impact to wildlife due to the large
                      footprint size, the amount of deer SI/T cover
                      lost, and the amount of habitat types
                      permanently  converted.  Alternative C would
                      have the smallest impact to habitat because of
                      the  reduced surface disturbance and the  short
                      Project life.

                      The Project would result in a net loss of  wildlife
                      productivity after implementation of reclamation
                      and mitigation.  Mature forest providing deer
                      SI/T cover that is lost during mine construction
                      and operation would take over 100 years to
                      grow back. While this habitat and function
                      could, to some degree,  be  regrown  on-site, the
                      interim (100  year period) loss of productivity
                      would not  be compensated for even when the
                      resource has recovered.

                      Artificial light and  glare from the facility is
                      expected to have a negative effect on wildlife
                      and wildlife habitats in the Project area, but
                      beyond the mine footprint these impacts are
                      expected to be minor.  An  increase  in wildlife
                      roadkill on roads serving the facility would result
                      from an increase in traffic volume and speed.
                      The impact would be greatest under Alternative
                      F based on the Project duration, and under
                      Alternative G based on a traffic volume nearly
                      twice as great as the other alternatives.  The
                      supply route  under Alternatives B, D,  E and F
                      pass by Beth and Beaver Lakes, which contain
                      habitat for federal candidate and Forest
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-73
 sensitive species.  This presents a potential risk
 to these species from an accidental spill of toxic
 substances.  All action alternatives would result
 in a decrease in the suitability and effectiveness
 of habitats adjacent to transportation routes,
 but would result in a long-term decrease in the
 density of roads in the core area compared to
 current levels.  There would be little difference
 between alternatives; however, based on
 Project duration under Alternative  F, it would be
 considerably longer before habitat effectiveness
 is restored and the benefit of reduced road
 density is achieved.

 Noise from activities associated with Project
 implementation would result in disturbance to
 wildlife in habitats beyond the mine footprint
 under all action alternatives.  Up to 5,600 acres
 beyond the mine footprint could be affected.
 Alternative F would result in the greatest risk of
 disturbance to wildlife because of  the 33-year
 duration of operations, which includes blasting
 in the open pit mine for 16 years.  Alternatives
 B, E, and  G  also include open pit mines and
 above-ground blasting (including during
 reclamation), but the duration would be limited
 to 10 years.  Alternatives C and D would have
 the lowest risk of disturbance to wildlife
 because of the short duration of Project
 operation  and the comparatively low level of
 surface blasting required.

 The number of residential dwellings in the area
 would  increase due to the expected increase in
 local population. An increase in recreational use
 (including hunting) of the  analysis  area would
 also be expected.  The increase in  population
 and resulting adverse effects to wildlife habitat
 would  be  greatest  under Alternatives C and D.
 However,  the overall indirect impact on wildlife
 and wildlife habitat due to these types of
 impacts is expected to be minor.

 For all  action alternatives considered, the
 tailings pond would present a low  risk of
 population-level impacts for bats, shorebirds,
 and passerines. The risk to raptors  and
 waterfowl would be negligible.  There would be
 no risk to  mammals, amphibians or reptiles
 since a fence would prevent exposure. The risk
 of toxic impacts to wildlife would be the
 greatest under Alternative F due to the long
 Project life (16 years of processing).  The
degree of  impact anticipated would be similar
for the other  cyanide-based alternatives
 (Alternatives  B, C,  D,  and  E) because the
               tailings disposal process would be the same and
               the duration of potential exposure would range
               between 5 and 9 years. Alternative G, the
               xanthate-based alternative, is assumed to have
               similar toxic impacts to wildlife because there
               are no data to support a different conclusion at
               this time.  The risk of an accidental spill of
               sodium cyanide, ammonium nitrate,
               cement/lime, or diesel along the supply route is
               not known.  However, if a spill into Toroda,
               Myers or Beaver Creek  did occur, the
               concentrations of toxics would be acutely lethal
               to aquatic  life at the spill site and downstream.
               Impacts to terrestrial wildlife would vary
               between taxa depending on exposure and
               vulnerability to toxic substances.

               Forest Plan compliance  was assessed by
               comparing anticipated wildlife impacts to
               relevant standards and guidelines prescribed in
               the Forest Plan. Most noncompliance
               determinations result from proposed actions
               that would reduce habitat already below
               threshold levels.  The greatest number of
               noncompliance determinations (11) would occur
               for Alternative E. The fewest noncompliance
               determinations (3) would occur under
               Alternative C. None of  the action alternatives
               (B through G) would fully comply with the
               Forest Plan which is why this Project would
               require Forest Plan Amendments.

               4.12.2  Effects of Alternative A

               With Alternative A, the  No Action Alternative,
               existing land management  and other activities
               (e.g., forest management,  recreation, livestock
               grazing) would be expected to continue. Any
               impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat
               associated with these activities would continue.
               Reclamation of the mineral exploration site
               would be implemented as soon as weather
               permits following a decision of No Action (see
               Section 2.4, Alternative A  - No Action
               Alternative, for a description of proposed
               reclamation), and would be completed within
               one year.  Reclamation of the  exploration sites
               would result in impacts  to  wildlife and wildlife
               habitat. Existing early serai vegetation would
               be altered to remove roads and drill pads, and
               restore natural site contours.   Wildlife would be
               subjected to disturbance from increased human
               presence and noise.  However, the primary
               impact from reclamation would be beneficial
               (i.e., the restoration of coniferous forest
               habitat). Restored habitat would  undergo serai
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-74
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June 1995
progression from a grass/forb state in the first
10 years to young mature forest habitat after
80 to 100 years. Wildlife use would vary over
time depending upon the suitability of the
various serai stages for individual species.  Road
density within the exploration area would be
reduced.

4.12.3   Effects Common to All Alternatives

This section addresses the effects of the
proposed mining activities on wildlife habitat,
and the implications of habitat loss on wildlife
species.  The Wildlife Technical Report  (Beak,
1995a) contains detailed analyses of habitats
and wildlife species that form the basis for the
discussions in the draft EIS.

Habitat Loss

Habitat analysis is a standard approach used to
assess the impacts of land management
activities on wildlife. Habitat relates the
presence of a species to the physical (e.g.,
slope) and biological (plant association)
attributes of the environment (Block and
Brennan, 1993).  These attributes can be
delineated as cover types, areas of land or
water with similar characteristics. Once the
landscape is delineated as a group of cover
types,  the relationship between the  occurrence
of cover types and the presence of various
wildlife species can be determined.  This
relationship can be used to assess whether or
not a certain species is likely to occur in a
particular area.  If such an area is likely to be
altered by the proposed mine,  it is possible to
assess whether the loss or change in cover
types would influence wildlife species
occurrence.

The types of direct habitat effects that could
potentially affect wildlife can be categorized
according to the following factors:
         Landscape connectivity;
         Size of the footprint;
         Duration of operation;
         Decline in forest productivity;
         Time (short and long-term) for
         reclamation and mitigation to become
         effective; and,
         Permanent habitat conversions.
These 6 habitat factors are used to portray
impact on wildlife habitat, form the basis for the
                      analysis of habitat impacts, and are explained in
                      their respective subsections below.

                      Landscape Connectivity.  The analysis area for
                      the Crown Jewel  Project includes a portion of
                      the northern Okanogan Highlands, one of
                      several mountain  ranges that form peninsular
                      extensions from Canada and provide forested
                      landscape links between northern Washington
                      and British Columbia.  These forested links
                      serves as  north-south movement corridors for
                      species  (e.g., American marten) that use interior
                      forest habitat for travel (Hatler,  1988; Hatler,
                      1989; Weaver, 1993). Buckhorn Mountain and
                      the headwaters of Marias and Nicholson Creeks,
                      which occur  in the western portion of the
                      analysis area, are located on identified
                      movement corridors (Forest Service, 1993).
                      This western portion of the analysis area is
                      highly fragmented from past and ongoing land
                      management activities.  The proposed mine
                      footprint would further fragment wildlife
                      habitats in this area,  and would decrease the
                      likelihood  that interior forest species would
                      move along the north-south corridor.

                      Operation impacts could influence wildlife
                      travel/dispersal patterns near the footprint.
                      Many wildlife species demonstrate seasonal  and
                      dispersal movements within and beyond their
                      home ranges (e.g., black bear, mule deer,  lynx,
                      many small mammals).  Potential travel routes
                      have been identified by the Forest Service
                      (1993) in  portions of the core and analysis
                      areas based upon presence of forest stands  at
                      least 400  feet wide with at least 50% canopy
                      cover and trees greater than 9" in diameter.
                      These travel corridors would be disrupted  where
                      they currently cross the footprints, including
                      corridors along the summit of Buckhorn
                      Mountain  and corridors that connect the summit
                      with ridge systems on either side of Bolster
                      Creek and Ethel Creek.  Other corridors
                      identified  by the Forest Service (1993) that
                      would be  disrupted  include a corridor running
                      north-south through the headwaters of Marias
                      and Nicholson Creeks, a corridor running east-
                      west between the headwaters of Nicholson  and
                      Marias Creeks and the Gold Bowl, and a corridor
                      running north-south along the north fork of
                      Nicholson Creek. The eastern portion of the
                      analysis area, including the unroaded Jackson
                      Creek drainage, is characterized by larger  blocks
                      of contiguous mature conifer forest dissected by
                      east-west oriented drainages.  This portion of
                      the analysis area would not be physically altered
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-75
(i.e., fragmented) by the proposed mine and
would still contain functional travel corridors,
thereby increasing its importance for interior
forest species.

Size of Footprint.  The greater the amount of
habitat impacted by physical alteration
(construction of Project facilities) and
disturbance, the greater the potential impact
would be to wildlife.  Loss of habitats or
changes to their physical structure, vegetation
composition or spatial configuration (e.g.,
fragmentation) would reduce or alter the
capacity of the habitat to support wildlife.  This
analysis  assumes that the mine footprint would
have no  habitat value for wildlife during
operations, a result of the physical  alteration of
habitat and the effects of disturbance from
mining activities.  Some habitat in the footprint
would be physically removed or covered during
construction and operation.  Other  habitat
between facilities would be physically present,
but would to a large extent not be used by
wildlife due to a variety of  disturbance factors
such as noise, human presence, light and glare.

The footprints (area within the  perimeter fence
or a 200 foot buffer around facilities, whichever
is farther) of the action alternatives range in size
from 990 to 1,431 acres. Table 4.12.1,  Status
of Reclamation Within the Alternative
Footprints. The existing habitat in these
footprints varies from highly disturbed  areas
such as roads and areas of past mining activity
to relatively undisturbed forest, shrub,  and
grassland cover types.  Table 4.12.2, Loss of
Cover Types (Acres) in the Core Area by
Alternative, summarizes cover type losses
resulting from the  proposed mining alternatives.
The footprints would contain proposed facilities
and unaltered  patches of habitat between the
facilities.  The area of habitat which would  be
physically lost to facility construction ranges
from 440 to 927 acres. Table 4.12.1, Status of
Reclamation Within the Alternative  Footprints.
Although patches of trees, shrubs,  and grass
would remain within the various footprints,
noise disturbance and human presence would
render these habitats unsuitable during
operations for most wildlife.  Areas not
physically altered during operations would
regain wildlife habitat value following
reclamation for species that benefit from forest
fragmentation or habitat edge (e.g., brown-
headed cowbird).  Unaltered, isolated habitats
would be unsuitable for at least 100 years
               following reclamation for species that require
               large contiguous tracts of habitat (e.g., northern
               goshawk, California wolverine) or stands
               sufficiently large to provide security cover (e.g.,
               Pacific fisher).

               Duration of Operation.  The longer the period of
               mine operations, the longer the time interval
               when impacts to wildlife would occur. The
               duration of the action alternatives varies from 6
               to 33 years.  As previously discussed, habitat
               which occurs within  the footprints is assumed
               to have no  value for  wildlife during operations.
               Therefore, a net habitat loss would occur during
               the period of operations until  post-closure
               reclamation and mitigation activities are
               completed. The creation of open water habitat
               at Starrem  Reservoir may provide a beneficial
               impact (e.g.,  waterfowl resting area) for some
               species, however,  potential value is lowered due
               to the fluctuating water level  and the lack of
               wetland or  riparian vegetation around the
               reservoir.  The implementation of mitigation
               measures proposed during operation on areas
               outside of the footprint (e.g., road closures)
               would likely benefit wildlife as well.

               Various off-footprint impacts  could directly
               influence wildlife habitat quality during the
               period of operation.  Off-footprint operational
               impacts  include alteration to ground and surface
               water of the creeks and drainages on  Buckhorn
               Mountain (i.e., Marias,  Nicholson, Ethel, Bolster
               and Gold Creeks), and on Myers Creek upstream
               of Starrem  Reservoir. A temporary reduction in
               mean annual flow in  the upper parts of several
               creeks (e.g., Nicholson and Marias, depending
               on the alternative)  could reduce the extent of
               wetlands and riparian vegetation downstream of
               the footprints. Within the zone of influence,
               wetlands along  Marias and Nicholson  Creeks
               would likely take on riparian characteristics as
               drier conditions prevail  during operation; while
               existing riparian vegetation may revert to upland
               habitat.  Alteration of the hydrology at the frog
               pond would reduce the open water component
               of the pond during operations. Existing wetland
               vegetation in  the center of the frog pond would
               likely remain, but wetland habitat along the
               perimeter would convert to  riparian.  Hydrology
               of the frog  pond would be partially restored
               following completion of reclamation activities.
               Wetlands along Myers Creek could benefit from
               the water regime proposed to operate the mine.
               If water from Mary Ann Creek were allowed to
               remain in Myers Creek between the point of the
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4  Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-76
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June 1995


TABLE 4.12.1, STATUS OF RECLAMATION WITHIN THE ALTERNATIVE FOOTPRINTS.
Reclamation Treatment
Permanently Unreclaimed
Reclaimed to Grass, Shrub, or Open Forest
Reclaimed Long-Term to Fully Stocked Stand'
Actual Facility Impact2
Recovered Short-Term3
Total Footprint Size*
Acres by Alternative
B
97
669
0
766
393
1,159
C
11
59
370
440
550
990
D
61
113
388
562
514
1,076
E
77
220
630
927
504
1,431
F
0
223
599
822
547
1,369
G
97
182
617
896
522
1,418
Notes: 1 . Fully stocked stand (i.e., 200 to 300 trees per acre at young mature stage, less than 1 2
inch dbh). Young mature forest achieved in 100 years.
2. Actual facility impact was taken from summary tables in Chapter 2 of the draft EIS.
3. Habitat within the footprint not physically altered by facilities which would regain
wildlife habitat value at Project completion and reclamation.
4. Land area within security fence perimeter or a 200 foot buffer from facilities, whichever
is farther. Actual facility impact, when added to habitat recovered shoM-term, add up to
total footprint size.
Sources: Footprints were digitized from WADFW (1994) alternatives maps of footprints. Reclaimed and
unreclaimed areas were digitized using information from proposed reclamation plans for facilities
(BMGC |1993b] Reclamation Plan for Alternative B; Forest Service [1994] reclamation schemes and
key for Alternatives C through G).

TABLE 4.12.2, LOSS OF COVER TYPES (ACRES) IN THE CORE AREA BY ALTERNATIVE
Cover Type
Upland Grassland
Bottomland Grassland
Shrub
Early Successional Conifer
Mixed Conifer Pole
Mixed Conifer Mature
Deciduous
Riparian/Wetland
Lake/Pond (Open Water)
Agriculture
Total
Existing
Condition
1,675
107
96
887
2,178
4,526
40
891
106
456
10,962
Alternative
B
209
15
10
123
134
576
0
92
0
0
1,159
C
190
15
9
92
101
501
0
82
0
0
990
D
186
15
10
117
132
524
0
92
0
0
1,076
E
233
17
19
155
181
708
0
1 15
3
0
1,431
F
224
7
9
182
187
639
0
1 18
3
0
1,369
G
247
7
9
204
195
626
0
127
3
0
1,418
current diversion and the proposed diversion for
Starrem Reservoir (depends on Water Rights
Permits), then wetlands along this reach of
Myers Creek may be enhanced.  Diversion may
negatively effect wetland recharge and the
annual charging of the Myers Creek hyporheic
(water table), which may have an effect on late
season flows below the diversion point.
                     Decline in Forest Productivity.  The Forest
                     Service (Soderquist,  1994) estimates that
                     reclaimed mine lands would suffer a long-term
                     reduction in soil productivity on the order of
                     10% to 1 5% because the landscape would be
                     converted to bedrock covered with stored
                     topsoil.  Declines in soil productivity on
                     reclaimed lands would contribute to declines in
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-77
 both plant and wildlife habitat productivity.
 Ways to regain site productivity (e.g.,
 conservation of topsoil, microbial inoculation,
 addition of organic material or fertilizer) are
 identified in the Proponent's reclamation plan,
 including a proposal to establish test plots
 during mine operation (BMGC,  1993b).
 Modification of reclamation activities based on
 test plot results should improve reclamation
 success.  Nonetheless, the likelihood of
 completely replicating the properties and
 processes of the existing forest soil ecosystem
 (e.g., the nitrogen, phosphorous, and water
 cycles that naturally occur in the subsoil, soil,
 humus and duff of non-mined forested land) is
 not known, but would not be expected within
 the 100-year analysis period.

 The Projected reduction in soil productivity
 would result in a commensurate reduction of
 plant productivity  which would then be reflected
 in reduced habitat quality  and reduced wildlife
 habitat productivity.  More than 100 years
 would be required to develop mature, productive
 soil horizons, organic matter and surface
 structure (e.g., down logs, humus) necessary to
 achieve rates of plant growth, vegetative
 structure and composition that  are considered
 optimal for the site.  Since soils and plants are
 major components of wildlife habitat,  wildlife
 habitat productivity on the mine footprint that is
 a product of mature  structure and function
 could not be fully restored to pre-mine levels
 during the 100-year  period of impact analysis.

 This loss of habitat productivity would vary
 across the reclaimed footprint, as well as by
 alternative as shown on Table 4.12.1,  Status of
Reclamation within the Alternative Footprints.
 For example, tailings dam  and waste rock
 disposal areas with slopes greater than 2H:1 V
 are areas where it  would be difficult to replicate
the nitrogen, phosphorus and water cycles of
the forested habitats that currently exist.

Time for Reclamation and Mitigation to Become
Effective.  The  potential benefits to wildlife from
2 reclamation plans were considered, the BMGC
(1993b) Reclamation Plan  for Alternative B, and
the Forest Service  (1994)  plan for Alternatives
C through G. It was assumed that reclamation
as proposed would be successful. The extent
of natural regeneration of forested species on
altered lands has not been quantified,  but was
considered the  same for all alternatives.
               However, the descriptions of habitat restoration
               reflect reclamation as proposed.

               As part of mine reclamation, various facilities
               (e.g., waste rock disposal area) would be
               covered with stockpiled soil and then seeded,
               fertilized, and replanted.  Normal  physical and
               biological processes on these reclaimed sites
               would be substantially altered for an
               undetermined amount of time.  A very simplified
               environment would exist following reclamation.
               The complex soil ecosystem containing various
               organisms that occur in the  humus and duff of
               the current forest ecosystem would not
               reestablish on reclaimed lands for many years.
               Soil inoculation proposed in  the BMGC (1993b)
               reclamation plan would reintroduce some
               microflora and micro fauna earlier than would be
               expected  under natural succession.  Unlike
               successional development that typically occurs
               following farming or timber harvest, the
               reclaimed sites would lack significant organic
               components of the soil (i.e., humus and duff) to
               facilitate secondary succession.  The BMGC
               (1993b) reclamation plan proposes to accelerate
               organic decomposition and humus/duff
               development to replicate natural forest
               succession. Nonetheless, it is estimated that an
               additional 20 years would be required for
               reclaimed areas to reach a pole or young mature
               forest (less than 12 inch dbh) cover type as
               compared to growth following timber harvest,
               Table 4.12.3,  Comparison of Forest Succession
               on Buckhorn Mountain Under Reclaimed and
               Natural Scenarios. Grassland and shrub
               habitats would develop on restored lands within
               a few years of reclamation.  However, much
               more than 100 years following mine closure
               would be  necessary to establish mature habitat
               conditions characterized by well-developed
               vegetative structure  (e.g., snags,  down logs,
               rich humus layer, multi-layered canopies).  In
               comparison to the other action alternatives,
               mining activity associated with Alternative F
               would delay reclamation on the waste rock
               disposal areas and pit area 23 years later than
              the other action alternatives.

               Early successional communities on reclaimed
              lands (e.g., grass/forb)  would support a variety
              of wildlife which use disturbed sites (e.g.,
              juncos, deer).  However, the time necessary to
              create later successional structural habitat
              would take many years. For example, up to
              21 % of avian species in the  analysis area
              excavate  cavities in trees or  use cavities
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-78
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June  1995
TABLE 4.12.3, COMPARISON OF FOREST SUCCESSION ON BUCKHORN MOUNTAIN UNDER RECLAIMED AND NATURAL
SCENARIOS
Scenario
Succession on
Reclaimed
Lands'
Natural Forest
Succession2
Forest
Characteristics
Tree Diameter
(inches)
Tree Age (years)
Tree Diameter
(inches)
Tree Age (years)
Mean Stand Height
Trees per Acre
Cover Types
Grass
Forb

0 - 10

0 - 10


Early
Successional
<5
11-35
<5
11-20
5 feet - 20 feet

Mixed Conifer Pole Mixed Conifer Young Mature
5 - 9
36 - 60
5 - 9.4
21 - 40
Age 35 = 49 feet
191
9 - 121
60 - 100'
9.4 - 12.0
41 -80
Age 45 = 53 feet
Age 75 = 72 feet
191 - 258
12 + 1
100 + '
12.0 +
81 +
Age 85 = 76 feet
258 +
Notes: 1. Extrapolated from Forest Service projections (Forest Service, 1994).
2. Data for site index = 70 and site class =V, from: Chambers, C.J. 1989. Empirical Growth and Yield
Tables for the Douglas Fir Zone. WADNR Report No. 41 .
excavated by other species. It is unlikely that
trees suitable for such cavities would be present
on reclaimed lands during the first 60 years
following reclamation. The time required to
reach the later stages of succession represents
an ongoing impact to those species that utilize
the structure of a mature forest system.  Snag
creation proposed  in forest stands adjacent to
the footprint would provide an undefined level
of mitigation for cavity users.  Although later
serai stages would ultimately be achieved on
reclaimed lands planted with conifers, this
would not replace  the loss of habitat during the
period required to grow mature cover types.
This ongoing loss would be in addition to the
10% to 1 5% reduction  in forest productivity
described above.

Permanent Habitat Conversions. Proposed
mining alternatives would result in a variety  of
permanent changes to existing habitat, Table
4.12.1, Status of Reclamation within the
Alternative Footprints.  Under Alternatives B, D
and G, a pit would remain after reclamation,
converting an  area of existing disturbed forest
(i.e., the exploration area) into rocky pit walls,
talus and open water. A net loss of habitat  for
species which utilized the exploration  area
would remain  after implementation of proposed
reclamation and mitigation.  The pit lake might
eventually provide drinking water and waterfowl
resting habitat for wildlife.  However, water  in
the pit lake  may be toxic to fish and aquatic
invertebrates.  The pit wall and associated talus
would be designed to provide nesting habitat for
                      raptors and possibly provide roosting habitat for
                      bats in crevices. Roads into the area that are
                      upgraded and maintained would also represent
                      permanent conversions of habitat.  Mitigation
                      such as closures of other existing roads could
                      compensate for such permanent conversions.

                      Water availability in and near adits that occur
                      within the zone of  influence and above the new
                      ground water (potentiometric) surface would be
                      reduced.  Local wetland and riparian
                      communities depending upon these water
                      sources would likely convert to cover types
                      adapted to drier conditions.  The tailings facility
                      would permanently convert riparian/wetland
                      habitat to drier forest.

                      Indirect effects.  Indirect effects on wildlife
                      habitat would result from secondary
                      development.  The level of impact would
                      depend upon the amount and type of habitat
                      (e.g., mature coniferous forest, riparian, wetland
                      areas) modified or  developed into residential,
                      commercial, or  other human uses. A few acres
                      of habitat could be lost near Chesaw, and some
                      wildlife could be displaced.  However, the
                      potential indirect effects to wildlife from
                      secondary development would  be minimal.

                      Comparison of  Habitat Loss by Alternative

                      Alternative B would result in the greatest impact
                      to wildlife habitat.  This is primarily due to the
                      low tree stocking rates proposed  in the BMGC
                      (1993b) reclamation plan.  These stocking levels
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-79
would not provide canopy closure and other
habitat attributes required by mature forest
species.  Reclamation to achieve fully stocked
stands on reclaimed lands would be proposed
under the Forest Service (1994) plans for
Alternatives C through G.  Alternative B would
convert the largest amount of habitat capable of
supporting fully stocked forest (669 acres) to
grass, shrub or open forest, Table 4.12.1,
Status of Reclamation Within the Alternative
Footprints. The steep (2H:1V), south facing
slopes of the waste rock disposal areas  (the
steepest of all alternatives) would lower the
capability of supporting a fully stocked forest
stand. Permanent habitat loss (97 acres) would
be the same as under Alternative G, and would
occur in  the proposed pit area.  The actual
facility impact (766 acres) and footprint size
(1,159 acres)  would be less than Alternatives E,
F and G.  Operational impacts to wildlife would
occur over a 10-year period,  intermediate
between the minimum operation period of 6
years (Alternative C) and the maximum of 33
years (Alternative F).

Alternative C would result in the least impact to
wildlife habitat due to its short  6-year period  of
operations (the shortest of all alternatives)
combined with underground mining operations
which would limit surface disturbance.  This
alternative would produce the least physical
alteration of habitat (440 acres of actual facility
impact),  the smallest amount of habitat
conversion (59 acres) from fully stocked forest
to grass/shrub/open forest, and only 11  acres of
permanent habitat loss.

Alternative D would result in a  moderate impact
to wildlife habitat as compared  to the other
alternatives.  Duration is relatively short (8
years) and operations would  be similar to
Alternative C in that part of the mining activities
would take place underground.  The additional
surface mining would cause more actual facility
impact (122 additional acres  for a total of 562
acres), more habitat conversion (113 acres
total) and more permanent habitat loss (61
acres total) than Alternative C.  The longer
duration (8 instead of 6 years) would also
contribute to greater impacts to wildlife.

Alternative E would result in  a moderate to
substantial impact to wildlife habitat.  Actual
facility impact (927 acres) would be the largest
of the alternatives. Habitat conversion to
grass/shrub/open forest (220 acres) would be
               considerable, due to difficulty of plant growth
               on the south-facing aspect of the south waste
               rock disposal area, but substantially less than
               Alternative B.  Permanent habitat loss would
               total 77 acres and duration of operational
               impacts would extend for 10 years.

               Alternative F would result in a moderate impact
               to wildlife habitat, primarily due to  the long
               duration of operations (33 years, the longest of
               the action alternatives).  No permanent habitat
               loss would occur because of complete back-
               filling of the  mine pit and subsequent
               reclamation.   Actual facility impact of 822 acres
               would be less than Alternatives E and G.

               Habitat conversion from fully stocked forest to
               grass/shrub/open forest (223 acres) would be
               sizeable (similar to Alternative E), but much
               lower than Alternative B.

               Alternative G would result in an overall impact
               to wildlife habitat similar to Alternative E
               (moderate to substantial).  Actual facility impact
               would be large (896 acres) but not as large as
               under Alternative E.  Permanent habitat loss (97
               acres) would be  the same as Alternative B.

               Habitat conversion to grass/shrub/  open forest
               (182 acres)  would be much less than
               Alternative B, and duration of operational
               impacts (10  years) would be moderate (the
               same as Alternative B).

               The implications of these findings are that
               Buckhorn  Mountain and the core area would
               sustain long-term and permanent habitat loss or
               conversion under any of the proposed mining
               alternatives.   Mature wildlife habitat in the core
               area would sustain more than 100  years of
               alteration. An identified landscape corridor
               would be further disrupted thereby
               compromising its ability to serve as a movement
               corridor for wildlife.  Net impacts to wildlife
               habitat would remain after implementation of
               the proposed reclamation and mitigation
               measures. Impacts to mature conifer forest
               would contribute to a cumulative loss of deer
               winter habitat in the core area.

               Effects of Habitat Loss on Wildlife  Species

               Wildlife species exhibit a range of responses to
               habitat conditions. Species like the willow
               flycatcher, three-toed woodpecker  or boreal owl
               have habitat needs that are only provided by 1
                     Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-80
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June 1995
or 2 cover types. Other species such as mule
deer and Yuma myotis bats are able to meet at
least part of their life requisites from most cover
types present in a landscape.

A detailed assessment of the predicted impacts
of the mining alternatives to over 40 wildlife
species is presented in the Wildlife Technical
Report (Beak, 1995a).  Loss of habitats
identified as important to these species (see
Section 3.13, Wildlife) are displayed in Table
4.12.4, Impacts to Habitat within the Core Area
by Selected Wildlife Species and Alternative, A
summary of the impacts to species
representative of the cover types contained in
the core area follows. This analysis assumes
that the mine footprint would have no habitat
value for wildlife during operations, a result of
the physical alteration of habitat and the effects
of disturbance from mining activities.

Loss of upland  grassland cover type ranges
from 186 acres (Alternative  D) to  247 acres
(Alternative G), as shown on Table 4.12.2, Loss
of Cover Types (Acres) in the Core Area by
Alternative; impacts are comparatively similar
for all alternatives. These losses are not
considered substantial for species which use
this cover type, such as the  vesper sparrow and
Columbian  sharp-tailed grouse. Habitat loss
would be short-term  under proposed mining
alternatives, and primarily associated with
construction of Starrem Reservoir.  Upland
grassland habitat at the  reservoir site would be
restored following reclamation.

Bottomland grassland losses vary from 7 acres
(Alternatives F  and G) to 1 7 acres  (Alternative
E).  Habitat impacts are  comparatively similar
for all alternatives, and are not considered
substantial for species that use bottomland
grassland habitat. The long-billed curlew is an
example of a species that uses bottomland
grassland habitat. Loss of potential habitat for
the curlew would be short-term because
bottomland grassland habitat would be restored
following reclamation.

Losses of shrub cover type range from 9 acres
(Alternatives F  and G) to 19 acres (Alternative
E),  and  would impact species such as the
orange-crowned warbler.  These habitat impacts
would be similar for all alternatives.  Shrub
habitat would be regained after reclamation. No
substantial impacts would occur to species
                      which use shrub habitat because of the small
                      acreage impacted.

                      Early successional conifer losses due to the
                      mining alternatives range from 92 acres under
                      Alternative C to 204 acres under Alternative G.

                      Impacts to wildlife habitat are relatively similar
                      for the action alternatives.  No substantial
                      impacts would be expected for species which
                      use early successional conifer habitat because
                      this cover type is relatively  abundant (887
                      acres) in the core area and  no species depends
                      exclusively on this habitat.

                      Loss of mixed conifer pole cover type ranges
                      from 101 acres (Alternative C) to 195 acres
                      (Alternative G). Alternatives E, F and G would
                      cause the largest losses of  this cover type and
                      would have relatively more  impact on species
                      that use mixed conifer pole habitat.  However,
                      these habitat losses are not considered
                      substantial because no species depends
                      exclusively on this cover type, and mixed
                      conifer pole is abundant (2,178 acres) in the
                      core area.

                      Mixed conifer mature losses for the life of the
                      Project, including old-growth habitat, vary
                      between 501 acres  under Alternative C and 708
                      acres under Alternative E.   These losses
                      represent a substantial impact to species that
                      occur in mature and old-growth habitats (e.g.,
                      three-toed woodpecker, pileated woodpecker,
                      blue grouse, barred  owl, boreal owl,  Pacific
                      fisher and northern  goshawk). Several species
                      would experience a  greater than 20% reduction
                      in mixed conifer mature habitat in the core area,
                      including the three-toed woodpecker
                      (Alternatives B, C, D, and E),  blue grouse  (all
                      alternatives) and barred owl (Alternatives B and
                      E).  Alternatives B, C, D, E, and F would remove
                      goshawk breeding habitat to the extent that
                      remaining habitat may be insufficient to support
                      an existing nesting pair. The  loss of nesting,
                      post fledgling family areas and foraging areas
                      may continue the trend towards a loss of
                      population viability.

                      Riparian/wetland cover type losses range from
                      82 acres (Alternative C) to  127 acres
                      (Alternative G).  Such losses are considered
                      substantial for all alternatives. Permanent loss
                      of riparian/wetland habitat  important for spotted
                      frog, winter  wren, ruffed grouse and great gray
                      owl would occur in  Marias  Creek under
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 7995
                                                      CROWN JEWEL MINE
                                                                                                                        Page 4-81
TABLE 4.12.4, IMPACTS TO HABITAT WITHIN THE CORE AREA BY SELECTED WILDLIFE SPECIES AND ALTERNATIVE
Wildlife Species and Habitat
Mule and White-Tailed non-winter cover1
Deer
snow-mtercept/thermal1
thermal'
hiding1
Black Bear suitable
Mountain Lion suitable prey habitat
Pine Marten suitable
spruce/fir forest
habitat with coarse, woody debris
spruce/fir old-growth & mat forest
Bobcat suitable
Hairy Woodpecker suitable
Three-Toed Woodpecker mat & old-growth w/l'pole pine & E spruce
early- & mid-success w/l'pole pine
mat & old-growth forest w/larch
Pileated Woodpecker suitable
Winter Wren suitable
Orange-Crowned Warbler suitable
Vesper Sparrow suitable
Ruffed Grouse suitable
Blue Grouse winter
summer & breeding
Golden Eagle foraging
Barred Owl nesting
Existing Conditions
Acres
4,477
242
442
3,562
10,400
7,635
1,543
691
140
133
6,589
8,572
131
128
257
7,595
891
4,943
1,878
7,731
707
136
1,878
1,190
Percent
of Core
Area
43
2
4
34
100
73
15
7
1
1
63
82
1
1
2
73
9
48
18
74
7
1
18
11
Alternative B
Acres
-461
-142
-51
-453
-1,159
-802
-271
-70
-4
-3
-594
-1,015
-22
-52
-60
-802
-92
-491
-234
-812
-126
-10
-234
-240
Percent
Change
-10
-59
-12
-13
-11
-11
-18
-10
-3
-2
-9
-12
-17
-41
-23
-11
-10
-10
-12
-11
-18
-7
-12
-20
Alternative C
Acres
-373
-31
-43
-343
-990
-684
-239
-65
-4
-3
-478
-866
-16
-27
-63
-684
-82
-407
-214
-693
-161
-9
-214
-211
Percent
Change
-8
-13
-10
-10
-10
-9
-15
-9
-3
-2
-7
-10
-12
-21
-25
-9
-9
-8
-11
-9
-23
-7
-11
-18
Alternative D
Acres
-408
-31
-50
-404
-1,076
-748
-226
-64
-3
-2
-584
-955
-18
-56
-48
-748
-92
-460
-211
-758
-169
-10
-211
-195
Percent
Change
-9
-13
-11
-11
-10
-10
-15
-9
-2
-2
-9
-11
-14
-44
-19
-10
-10
-9
-11
-10
-24
-7
-11
-16
Alternative E
Acres
-572
-55
-73
-585
-1,428
-1,004
-301
-80
-6
-5
-799
-1,249
-27
-70
-62
-1,004
-115
-605
-269
-1,023
-245
-19
-269
-270
Percent
Change
-13
-23
-17
-16
-14
-13
-20
-12
-4
-4
-12
-15
-21
-55
-24
-13
-13
-12
-14
-13
-35
-14
-14
-23
Alternative F
Acres
-509
-37
-77
-471
-1,366
-944
-214
-125
-51
-44
-855
-1,216
-14
-65
-18
-944
-118
-609
-240
-953
-170
-9
-240
-159
Percent
Change
-11
-15
-17
-13
-13
-12
-13
-18
-36
-33
-13
-14
-11
-51
-7
-12
-13
-12
-13
-12
-24
-7
-13
-13
Alternative Q
Acres
-502
-28
-71
-492
-1.415
-948
-13
-112
-61
-54
-896
-1,242
-14
-66
-18
-948
-127
-662
-263
-957
-174
-9
-263
-142
Percent
Change
-11
-12
-16
-14
-14
-12
-1
-16
-44
-41
-14
-14
-11
-52
-7
-12
-14
-13
-14
-12
-25
-7
-14
-12
                                       Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-82
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June 1995
TABLE 4.12.4, IMPACTS TO HABITAT WITHIN THE CORE AREA BY SELECTED WILDLIFE SPECIES AND ALTERNATIVE
Wildlife Species and Habitat
Great Gray Owl nesting
foraging
Boreal Owl suitable
Grizzly Bear potential
Gray Wolf potential
Pacific Fisher potential
preferred
avoided
California Wolverine suitable
North American Lynx travel2
foraging2
denning2
non-cover2
Townsend's Big-Eared Bat foraging
potential roost trees
Loggerhead Shrike foraging & breeding
Long-Billed Curlew potential nesting
potential foraging
Col Sharp-Tailed Grouse riparian/wetland
grassland/shrub
Northern Goshawk nesting
potential post-fledghng/family area
foraging
Existing Conditions
Acres
1,190
3,836
148
1 0,400
10,400
5,076
1,388
794
4,526
3,618
254
13
2,862
6,074
3,538
467
467
263
185
467
614
2,509
5,076
Percent
of Core
Area
11
37
1
100
100
49
13
8
44
35
2
0
28
58
34
4
4
3
2
4
6
24
49
Alternative B
Acres
-240
-341
-27
-1,159
-1,159
-643
-248
507
-576
-426
-27
-2
377
-710
-401
-71
-71
-263
-12
-71
-144
-361
-613
Percent
Change
-20
-9
-18
-11
-11
-13
-18
64
-13
-12
-11
-15
13
-12
-1 1
-15
-15
-100
-6
-15
-23
-14
-12
Alternative C
Acres
-211
-321
-23
-990
-990
-565
-216
418
-501
-322
-17
-2
270
-602
-351
-71
-71
-263
-12
-71
-146
-272
-531
Percent
Change
-18
-8
-16
-10
-10
-11
-16
53
-11
-9
-7
-15
9
-10
-10
-15
-15
-100
-6
-15
-24
-11
-10
Alternative D
Acres
-195
-318
-17
-1,076
-1,076
-591
-203
794
-524
-386
-30
-2
336
-656
-359
-71
-71
-263
-12
-71
-139
-311
-560
Percent
Change
-16
-8
-11
-10
-10
-12
-15
100
-12
-1 1
-12
-15
12
-11
-10
-15
-15
-10O
-6
-15
-23
-12
-1 1
Alternative E
Acres
-270
-415
-35
-1,428
-1,428
-791
-278
625
-708
-533
-40
-3
482
-889
-528
-71
-71
-263
-12
-71
-145
-473
-761
Percent
Change
-23
-11
-24
-14
-14
-16
-20
79
-16
-15
-16
-23
17
-15
-15
-15
-15
-100
-6
-15
-24
-19
-15
Alternative F
Acres
-159
-432
-14
-1,366
-1,366
-728
-162
722
-639
-515
-48
-3
491
-826
-363
-71
-71
-263
-12
-71
-102
-420
-697
Percent
Change
-13
-11
-9
-13
-13
-14
-12
91
-14
-14
-19
-23
17
-14
-10
-15
-15
-100
-6
-15
-17
-17
-14
Alternative G
Acres
-142
-460
-14
-1,415
-1,415
-721
-145
734
-626
-547
-55
-3
522
-821
-424
-71
-71
-263
-12
-71
-79
-430
-691
Percent
Change
-12
-12
-9
-14
-14
-14
-10
92
-14
-15
-22
-23
18
-14
-12
-15
-15
-100
-6
-15
-13
.17
-14
Notes: 1. Based on TWHIP data
2. Based on Habitat above 4,000 feet in the core area

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-83
Alternatives B, C, D and E.  Permanent loss of
riparian/wetland habitat for these species would
occur in Nicholson Creek under Alternatives F
and G.  Losses of habitat for the spotted frog
would cause loss of productivity, but is not
considered significant because the species  is
well distributed in riparian/wetland habitats
across the analysis  area.

A comparison of alternatives shows that
Alternatives E and G would  cause the largest
short-term losses of cover types. Table 4.12.4,
Impacts to Habitat within the Core Area by
Selected Wildlife Species and Alternative.
Alternative E would cause the largest loss of
bottomland grassland cover type  (17 acres),
shrub cover type (19 acres) and mixed conifer
mature cover type (708 acres). Alternative G
would result  in the largest losses of upland
grassland cover type (247 acres), early
successional conifer (204 acres), mixed conifer
pole (195 acres), and riparian/wetland cover
type (127 acres). All cover types occurring in
the footprint  would be recovered to some extent
in the long-term following reclamation and
mitigation.

There are few important differences in habitat
impacts by alternative with the following
exception. Under the reclamation plan for
Alternative B, the greatest amount of deer SI/T
cover (114 acres), found in  portions  of the
mixed conifer mature cover  type, would be lost
for more than 100 years.  Alternative E would
result in a loss of 55 acres of deer SI/T cover
for more than 100 years.  The long-term loss of
these amounts of deer SI/T  cover on Buckhorn
Mountain, regardless of growth of residual
stands of mature timber into SI/T, would
increase the already substantial fragmentation
of this important habitat and would further
reduce the likelihood that the habitat could
support deer during the winter on Buckhorn
Mountain.  The ongoing loss of deer  SI/T will
further reduce the likelihood that deer would
provide a food source for mountain lions, or a
potential food source for gray wolf or wolverine.
The loss of this prey species would contribute
to incremental loss of gray wolf and wolverine
habitat, rendering the core area even less
suitable for these species.

Land Use/Disturbance

Light and glare, roads,  and noise are  aspects of
disturbance associated with the proposed mine
               activities that would result in direct impacts to
               wildlife and their habitat. Few studies have
               quantified the impacts of these factors on
               wildlife.

               Light and Glare.  The presence of artificial lights
               has the potential to affect wildlife in both
               beneficial and harmful ways.  Artificial light can
               attract insects (prey for  birds and bats).  The
               negative effects on wildlife include
               disorientation (e.g., migratory birds), changes in
               foraging behavior and efficiency  (e.g., insects,
               bats), changes in  daily rhythms (e.g., birds,
               small mammals), and even direct mortality due
               to collisions or changes  in the behavior of
               predators (e.g., bats, owls) (Hocklin et al.,
               1992). Artificial illumination may render
               habitats unsuitable for those species intolerant
               to artificial light.

               Under all action alternatives, illumination would
               be provided in localized areas for nighttime
               mining activities (e.g., rock crushing, drilling).
               Necessary lighting would be directed toward the
               work areas, although some light  would be
               reflected above the facilities.  Little direct light
               is expected to be  emitted beyond the boundary
               of the footprint, other than light  from nighttime
               vehicle traffic on roads.  Consequently, light
               and glare are not expected to pose a substantial
               adverse impact to wildlife or wildlife habitat
               beyond the mine footprint.  There would be little
               difference in the level  of artificial illumination
               between alternatives,  with the exception of
               Alternatives C and F. Under Alternative F, only
               the  milling facility would operate at night,
               thereby minimizing the light level expected to  be
               emitted from within the  mine footprint. The
               duration of this alternative, however, would
               result in nighttime illumination over 1 5 years,
               nearly twice that of the other alternatives.
               Under Alternative C, mining operations would
               be conducted underground and much less waste
               material would be move  to the disposal areas,
               thus the need for  outside lighting would be
               reduced.

               Wildlife-Power line Interactions.  Wildlife along
               transmission line rights-of-way may be exposed
               to human activity  on access  roads, metal
               towers and conductors.  The corona noise
               produced by low voltage transmission (e.g., 115
               kV), does not appear to  disturb nesting birds
               (Ellis et al.,  1978). However, wildlife mortality
               may result from the transmission conductors
               and support structures themselves, primarily
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-84
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June 1995
from bird collisions. This has been well
documented for many species (Thompson,
1978), including the ring-necked pheasant
(Krapu,  1974), ducks and geese (Stout and
Cornwell,  1976; Anderson, 1978; Faanes,
1987), sandhill crane (Walkinshaw, 1956), and
numerous migrating birds (Thompson, 1978).
Electrocution hazards on powerlines greater
than 88 kV can occur, but Project design would
minimize the potential.

Power transmission corridors and support
towers may also have beneficial effects for
wildlife. Deer, elk and bighorn sheep may
benefit from additional food plants found along
power line corridors (Taber et al., 1973).
Ravens, eagles, hawks and other birds may use
support towers as nest sites. Towers may also
provide  supplemental roost sites, foraging
perches, and congregation areas for birds. All
action alternatives have the same power supply
system and the effects are common to all.

Roads.  Wildlife injury and death is expected to
directly  result from increased traffic volume on
the roads servicing the mine (i.e., County Roads
4895, 9495, and 9480, and Forest Road 3575-
120). Information on the frequency of wildlife
roadkills on these roads is not available.
Current daily traffic  levels range from 5 vehicles
(County Road 4895 and Forest Road 3575-120)
to 288 (County Road 9480)  (see Section 4.17,
Transportation).  An increase of 46 to 77
vehicle trips per day is expected on these roads
during operation (depending  on alternative).
The greatest increase in traffic levels would be
during Project construction.  Due to the
expected increase in traffic volume on these
roads, wildlife fatalities would be expected to at
least double over current levels.  Nonetheless,
the overall incidence of roadkill would likely be
low.  Deer, rodents, rabbits,  small mammals,
snakes,  frogs, and birds would probably be
affected to the greatest extent by roadkill.

Traffic levels would not vary substantially (46 to
59 ADT) between Alternatives B, D, E, and F on
County Road 9495, County Road 9480, County
Road 4895, and  Forest Road 3575-120. The
impacts under Alternative F,  however, would
occur over the proposed 33-year Project
duration. The employee transportation route for
all alternatives is the same as the supply route
for Alternatives C and G (County Road 9480 to
Chesaw, County Road 4895, and Forest Road
3575-120).  This route is shorter and safer
                      (fewer accidents per million miles traveled) than
                      the transportation  route for Alternatives B, D, E
                      and F, and consequently fewer wildlife roadkills
                      would be expected.  Additionally, Alternative C
                      and G routes do not pass by Beth and Beaver
                      Lakes, substantially reducing the risk of a  spill
                      into these lakes which provide habitat for the
                      black tern (a candidate for  listing under the
                      Endangered Species Act) and the common loon
                      (a Forest Service,  Region 6 sensitive species).

                      Habitat suitability for some wildlife would  be
                      reduced in areas adjacent to roads.  Although
                      the proposed access routes are currently in use,
                      additional declines in the suitability of habitats
                      adjacent to the roads are expected to occur due
                      to increased traffic volume, vehicular noise and
                      nighttime traffic. The extent of additional  loss
                      of habitat suitability from Project traffic is
                      unknown. Habitat use by big game may decline
                      within up to 0.5 mile from  roads (Perry and
                      Overly, 1977; Rostand Bailey,  1979).  Road
                      densities exceeding 1 mile  per square mile are
                      reported to have negative effects on wolves
                      (Frederick, 1 991).  The current road density and
                      the Project road density in  the core  area is
                      estimated to be greater than 6 miles per square
                      mile. Road closures during and after Project
                      completion will reduce densities to less than 4
                      miles per square mile for all action alternatives
                      in the core area. This road density would  likely
                      be maintained until the end of monitoring.
                      However, many of these roads would only be
                      open to administrative  traffic.  Under Alternative
                      F it would be longer before this reduced level of
                      overall road density would  be achieved.

                      Noise.  The evaluation  of potential noise
                      impacts to wildlife is based on analyses and
                      data provided  by Ebasco (1993) and Hart
                      Crowser (1993a) as outlined in the Noise
                      Section (4.13).  As described in that section,
                      the noise analysis  summarizes the worst-case
                      expected sources and levels of noise for the
                      action alternatives. Although noise levels  can
                      be measured and predicted, the impacts of
                      noise on wildlife are largely unknown, and
                      assessment of impacts remains subjective. The
                      potential effect depends upon the nature of the
                      noise (continuous  or impulse), the sound
                      pressure level  increase above background, the
                      behavior of the species (related to season  and
                      time of day), the level of wildlife use of the
                      area, and the tolerance of the species or
                      individual. Some species are known to
                      habituate to types  or levels of noise. Wildlife are
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------OCR error (C:\Conversion\JobRoot\000003V5\tiff\2000CRIF.tif): Unspecified error

-------
Page 4-86
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June  1995
Blasting, Summer, West Wind] and winter (see
Figure 4.13.4, Modeled Noise Results: Blasting,
Winter,  East Wind) respectively.

The predicted extent of noise impacts to
wildlife, as described above, is based on the
implementation of Alternative B.  Noise levels
are expected to exceed ambient and adversely
impact wildlife over as much as 5,600 acres
(based on blasting during the summer). These
impacts would extend over a period of 10
years.  Potential impacts would be the same
under Alternative E, based on similarities  in the
mine facilities and configuration. Both
alternatives include above-ground mine pits, and
would include blasting during reclamation.

The overall noise level from the operation of
Alternative C is expected to be similar (only 1
decibel louder) to Alternative B, but limited to
the 6-year  Project life.  The slight difference is
attributed to the above-ground crushing
operation.  While some surface blasting would
be necessary, it would occur only during  Project
construction and operation, and would be
minimal compared with the other action
alternatives. Noise from underground blasting
would be quieter than that for surface blasting.
Based on these considerations, the potential for
disturbance to wildlife under Alternative C
would be less than Alternatives B,  E, F, and G.

Alternative D would be similar to Alternative B.
Less surface blasting would occur during
operation due to the underground mine
component, but would be included during mine
reclamation. The duration of potential impacts
would be 8 years. Based on these
considerations,  the potential for disturbance to
wildlife under Alternative D would be less than
Alternatives B,  E, F, and G.

Under Alternative F, mining and reclamation
activities would take place during 1 2-hour
daytime shifts,  with noise levels from operation
and blasting similar to Alternative B, however,
the duration of  the entire Project would extend
over 33 years, including 16 years of reclamation
(backfilling). Only the milling facility would
operate at night (approximately 85 dBA at 100
feet), thereby minimizing potential nighttime
noise impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat.
No blasting is proposed during reclamation, and
the overall noise levels during reclamation
would be slightly lower than operation levels
estimated for Alternative B  (see Section 4.13).
                      Alternative F is expected to result in the
                      greatest potential disturbance to wildlife and
                      wildlife habitat based on duration.

                      Noise levels during operation under Alternative
                      G are estimated to be slightly lower (1 to 2
                      decibels) than Alternative B based on the use of
                      fewer exhaust fans at the milling facility.
                      However, transport of ore from the facility
                      would result in greater truck traffic along the
                      transportation corridor.  As with Alternatives B,
                      E, and G, surface blasting would occur during
                      operation and reclamation of the open pit mine,
                      and noise impacts would be expected over the
                      10-year Project life.

                      Indirect Impacts

                      Human presence, secondary land use or
                      development, and changes in the level of
                      hunting and trapping are indirect effects of the
                      Project which would  impact wildlife and wildlife
                      habitat.

                      Human Presence. At most, a 2% increase in
                      human presence in Okanogan and Ferry
                      Counties is projected during mine construction
                      and operation.  Impacts  to wildlife  associated
                      with this increase would occur to some degree
                      throughout the analysis area where workers,
                      their families and domestic animals would reside
                      and recreate.  The primary indirect impact of
                      human presence would be in proximity to home
                      sites located outside  the developed areas, and
                      in recreation areas.  Wildlife would be displaced
                      from these areas.  Increases in the number of
                      free-roaming pets (dogs and cats) would further
                      displace wildlife from their usual habitats, and
                      may inflict direct injury or mortality.  Proposed
                      road closures would limit human presence in
                      some areas where the general public currently
                      has vehicular access.

                      Increased population levels  would also lead to
                      increased recreational use o1 wildlife habitats, in
                      the analysis area, with subsequent increases  in
                      the level of disturbance from these activities.
                      Under all alternatives, increased boating and
                      fishing on Beth, Beaver, and Little Beaver Lakes
                      may result in disturbance to populations of
                      common loon, black tern, and other waterfowl,
                      particularly if it occurred during the breeding
                      season.  Gray wolf, wolverine, and other
                      species  sensitive to human  disturbance would
                      likely be affected to a limited extent by
                      increases in recreational activities (e.g., hunting,
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4  Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 487
 camping, and use of off-road vehicles and
 snow-mobiles).  Overall, the potential from
 human presence linked to indirect effects of
 more development are expected to be minimal.

 Secondary Land-Use or  Development. The
 impact of secondary development on wildlife
 would be dependent upon the amount and type
 of habitat (e.g., mature  coniferous forest,
 riparian,  wetland  areas)  modified or developed
 into residential, commercial, or other human
 uses.  Construction of permanent housing units
 for workers would mostly occur within or in
 proximity to established communities.  Some
 homes might be built near Chesaw or in more
 isolated locations causing some habitat loss and
 wildlife displacement. However, the majority  of
 dwellings would be in the developed areas such
 as Oroville and Tonasket.  Therefore, the
 potential adverse effects to wildlife from
 secondary development would be minimal.

 The greatest overall population increase, and
 hence greatest potential for disturbance to
 wildlife, is expected under Alternative C.

 Hunting and Trapping. An increase in hunting
 and poaching may occur with projected
 population increases.  It is estimated that
 approximately 690 hunters currently use the
 area (WAIAC, 1990). If 1 person from each
 new household hunted,  the increase would be
 less than 10% (see Section 4.14).  Deer would
 be the key game species which would be
 affected by changes in the level of hunting
 (legal and illegal) in the analysis area.  Black
 bear would also be subject to impacts from
 increased hunting, but the increase is expected
 to be minor and would not vary substantially
 between alternatives. The impact on the deer
 population would likely be minor, and would
 probably be adjusted for by limited hunting
 entry or other management actions. Over the
 long-term (post-Project), proposed closure or
 obliteration of roads within the footprint would
 limit accessibility and likely reduce hunting
 pressure  and poaching.

 Very little trapping occurs  in  the analysis area.
 A substantial increase in trapping due to
 population  increases is unlikely. Bobcat and
 coyote would be the primary target species
 affected by any changes in trapping activities in
the analysis area.  Changes in trapping levels
 may also affect species such as marten, ermine,
and other small mammals. The potential effect
              to these species is expected to be minor, and
              would not vary between alternatives.

              4.12.4 Toxics

              Gold mines use chemicals that, in some
              situations, can be toxic to wildlife. The
              chemicals can adversely impact wildlife in
              different ways and through different exposure
              pathways. The response can be immediately
              (acutely) lethal, or the lethal response may
              result after several weeks or months of
              exposure (chronic).  The toxics analysis as
              described below will analyze the Project and
              look at the likelihood of adverse impacts to
              wildlife as a result of that exposure.  A detailed
              description of methods is provided in the
              Wildlife Technical Report (Beak, 1995a).

              Gold mines differ in their methods for removing
              gold from the ore, and the different processing
              methods vary in the opportunity for wildlife
              exposure to toxic chemicals.  Impacts to wildlife
              were assessed by exposure source (e.g., tailings
              pond, spill).  Results were obtained from a
              comparison between the predicted amount of
              chemical taken up as a result of exposure and a
              known toxic  dose. The models incorporated the
              uncertainties in toxic threshold values, and in
              exposure to chemicals of concern. Exposure
              impacts were addressed for species groups and
              individual species after considering proposed
              mitigation (e.g., fencing of the tailings pond).

              The analysis  assumes that the interaction of the
              individual chemicals is additive. This is the
              simplest assumption to make although more
              complex interactions are possible (Suter, 1993).
              Synergisms and antagonisms are nonadditive
              and are more difficult to address, particularly
              when no definitive information is available on
              how the chemicals of concern interact. For
              example, ammonia toxicity has been reported to
              be synergistic with cyanide toxicity (Smith et
              al., 1979), but others have reported additivity or
              antagonistic interactions (Alabaster et  al.,
              1983).

              For most parameters, the effects are based on
              mortality and impacts to reproduction and
              growth.  Since the levels where toxic exposure
              to high pH or high concentrations  of ammonia
              on terrestrial  species are not known, NIOSH
              (1985) levels for health protection of humans
              were extrapolated to wildlife.  Sub-lethal
              impacts on behavior may occur for parameters
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4  Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-88
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June 1995
in addition to ammonia, but are not generally
considered important to population success.
The impact to wildlife include sub-lethal effects
such as gastro-intestinal illness.  Sub-lethal
responses that could alter behavior (e.g.
avoidance or attraction), or alter activity levels
as a result of sickness (perhaps increasing
vulnerability to predation) are not included.

Direct Impacts

The impacts described below would be the
direct consequence of proposed facilities and
operations.

Pit Lake. The pit lake would not  have direct
toxic impacts to terrestrial wildlife or their
habitats. Based on an analysis of Table 4.7.2,
Comparison of Predicted  Water Quality
Conditions in the Proposed Open Pit to
Washington Aquatic Life  Criteria, concentrations
of silver and cadmium in the pit water may be
toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates.  The
water in the pit would not contain cyanide.

Waste Rock Disposal Area(s).  Seepage from
disposal areas could be a source  of potential
impacts to wildlife. Initial screening indicated
that the potential for toxic impact is low.  Based
on the results of geochemical testing presented
in  Chapter 3 and the Kea Pacific  report (1993a),
less than 5% of the overall disposal rock
volume generated  is predicted to have the
potential to generate acid and leach metals. As
stated in Section 4.6.3, local "hot spots"  not
previously identified could occur  and result in
limited acid generation.  However, proposed
mitigation measures would isolate and neutralize
the potentially acid generating material and
prevent water from seeping through the
disposed rock.  Monitoring of waste rock runoff
would occur. Should acid generation occur,
there is a risk of wildlife exposure to low  pH
and metals in the environment.

Tailings Pond.  A  mathematical model was
used to determine the toxic impacts of the
tailings pond to certain wildlife species. The
parameters of concern were cyanide, ammonia,
arsenic, lead, copper, nickel, and xanthates
(Alternative G only).  Chronic reference values
at "no observed effect levels" (therefore worst
case) were used since exposure to toxins could
occur over a prolonged period. The primary
exposure pathways were assumed to be
through drinking from the tailings pond and
                      inhalation. Ingestion was assumed to be
                      minimal since no prey base would exist at the
                      tailings pond. Dermal exposure is expected to
                      be negligible since the feathers and fur of birds
                      and mammals would minimize the likelihood of
                      significant dermal exposure (Sample and Suter,
                      1994). The detailed methods of the model used
                      to evaluate the toxic impacts of the tailings
                      pond on wildlife are presented in  the Wildlife
                      Technical Report (Beak, 1995a).

                      Estimates of contaminant concentrations in the
                      tailings pond were obtained from the Seepage
                      and Attenuation Study (Hydro-Geo, 1995c), and
                      air concentration estimates were  based on a
                      dispersion model described in the Air Quality
                      report (Winges,  1994).  Reference doses for the
                      contaminants were obtained from the Oak Ridge
                      National Laboratory benchmark data set (1994)
                      and the primary toxicology literature (Beak,
                      1995a).

                      Proposed mitigation plans for the tailings pond
                      include a fence sufficient to exclude large and
                      small mammals, reptiles and amphibians.
                      However, birds and bats would have access to
                      the tailings pond. To predict worst-case
                      estimates of impact, it was assumed that roosts
                      or nests were adjacent to the tailings pond.
                      Analyses indicate the risk of impact due to
                      cyanide would be negligible for all bird and bat
                      taxa examined,  Table 4.12.5, Risk or Probability
                      of Toxic Impact at the Tailings Pond. Similar
                      results were obtained for all other parameters
                      examined except ammonia.  There would be a
                      high risk of illness to bats and shorebirds from
                      ammonia concentrations in the tailings pond,
                      and a  moderate risk to passerines.  The
                      difference in impact between the bird taxa
                      results from the difference in length of exposure
                      and the different response thresholds.

                      As stated in the paragraph above, cyanide alone
                      has negligible toxicity to terrestrial wildlife at
                      the predicted concentration in the tailings pond.
                      However, interactions between the chemicals
                      present could alter this  result.  For example,
                      there is a high risk  that a shorebird would
                      become sick after drinking the tailings  water
                      with high ammonia  concentrations.  Because
                      the shorebird would not feel  well, it may not fly
                      away  as soon, thus increasing it's exposure
                      time to cyanide.  The increased exposure could
                      lead to a low risk of impact clue to cyanide and
                      metals.
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-89
TABLE 4.12.5. RISK OR PROBABILITY OF TOXIC IMPACT AT THE TAILINGS POND1.
Species
Bat
Shorebird
Waterfowl
Raptor
Passerine
Aquatic Invertebrate
Mammals
Amphibians
Reptiles
Risk of Impact by Compound/Element |
Cyanide
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
High
None
None
None
Ammonia
High
High
Negligible
Negligible
Moderate
High
None
None
None
Arsenic
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
None
None
None
Lead
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
High
None
None
None
Copper
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
High
None
None
None
Nickel |
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
High
None
None
None
Overall Risk of
Population
Level Imoacts
Low
Low
Negligible
Negligible
Low
High
None
None
None
Note: 1. Level of Risk Is Based on Results from Mathematical Models. Adverse Impact Is Defined as
Illness for Ammonia Exposure and Impacts Such as Mortality or Reduced Reproduction for All
Other Parameters.
Under Alternative G, potassium amyl xanthate
would be used as a flotation reagent to recover
the gold; cyanide would not be used.
Xanthates in tailings ponds generally have not
been considered an issue  and the predicted
concentration of xanthate in the tailings pond is
not known.  Toxicological studies of xanthates
are extremely rare. The aquatic toxicity of
xanthate to Daphnia magna (zooplankton) is
estimated to be between .1-1  mg/l (Ontario
Ministry of the Environment, 1972). The
chronic reference dose for mammals is 9.2
mg/kg of body weight/day (Dow Chemical Co.,
1976).

Post-closure Tailings.  The post-closure
environment for the reclaimed tailings area
could be a source of metals for soil fauna.
Chaney and  Ryan (1993)  indicate that
earthworms  bioaccumulate metals such as lead
and cadmium from soils and reclaimed mine
tailings.  Predators of earthworms such  as
shrews, deer mice and birds with relatively
small home ranges are the species that would
be most exposed to worms with soils containing
metals.  Birds such as raptors with large home
ranges would have much  less exposure  over
time.  While  pathways from soil to earthworm
to small mammals to predator have been
documented, the risk due to exposure cannot be
estimated. There is a  high likelihood that
earthworms  will colonize the 18-inch topsoil
layer placed  over the tailings.  However, the
exposure from earthworms burrowing into the
tailings and returning to the surface is unknown.
The rate at which this pathway would bring
              metals to the surface is not known.  For these
              reasons, monitoring of metals in small mammals
              in the vicinity of the reclaimed tailings would be
              required.

              Indirect Impacts

              Hypothetical scenarios were developed to
              describe potential impacts to wildlife in the
              unlikely event of a tear in the tailings  liner or a
              spill during the transportation of a hazardous
              chemical. These scenarios are a worst case
              analysis and assume that the mitigation
              proposed on the Project would not be effective.

              Accidental  Liner Breach.  The risk of impact due
              to a breach in the lining of the tailings pond was
              analyzed. The liner breach was assumed to
              occur as described in the Seepage and
              Attenuation study (Hydro-Geo, 1995c), and to
              continue undetected for 1 month.  After
              detection, pumping would be implemented to
              reduce the  rate of leakage to ground water,  and
              the reduced rate of leakage would continue for
              the duration of  mine operation.  Ground water
              would discharge at a constant rate to a 5-acre
              wetland immediately down gradient of the
              tailings area and the wetland would be entirely
              fed by this  discharge (path length  of 200 feet).
              Metals would be retarded by adsorption during
              transit to the wetland.  Cyanide and ammonia
              would not be retarded, but would  be  influenced
              by volatilization in the wetland.  Based on these
              assumptions and the initial concentrations of
              contaminants in the tailings pond (Hydro-Geo,
              1995c), metals from the tailings pond would not
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-90
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June 13BB
be detectable in the wetland.  Ammonia
concentrations in the wetland would be acutely
lethal to many aquatic species.  The cyanide
concentrations in the wetland could have only
marginal effects on the most sensitive aquatic
species (e.g., amphipod) but would not
substantially impair the aquatic community.
Terrestrial wildlife would not be adversely
affected by any of the contaminants considered.
Potential impact of cyanide and ammonia to
amphibians and reptiles cannot be estimated
due to  the lack of appropriate reference values.

Accidental Transportation Spills. The impact of
toxic compounds accidentally spilled directly
into  a stream during transport was estimated for
3 hypothetical accident sites along the proposed
and alternate transportation routes.  The
hypothetical spill sites are: (1) on County Road
9480 crossing of Myers Creek in the town of
Chesaw; (2) along County Road 9480 into
Beaver Creek in Section 23 just above the
wetlands leading into Beth Lake; and (3) into
Toroda Creek where County Road 9495  crosses
Toroda Creek in sections 3/4 Township 38
North,  Range 31  East, near the junction of
Toroda Creek with Bodie Creek and Vaughn
Creek.

Toxic impacts resulting from the unlikely event
of direct spills into waterways was evaluated
based on the size, location, and timing of the
spill  as described by the Forest Service (Zieroth,
1993). Beaver Creek has the greatest retention
time because of a series of ponds immediately
downstream of the hypothetical spill site. The
spill  materials evaluated include cyanide,
ammonium nitrate, lime, and diesel. The spills
were hypothesized to occur in late summer
during  low flow conditions thus maximizing
impacts.  Impacts were evaluated based on
potential stream concentrations at the spill
sites, and concentrations as the material moved
downstream.  Concentrations of contaminants
would  decrease downstream according to
dilution, natural degradation, adsorption to
sediments, and retention time in each stream
segment.  In Toroda Creek and Myers Creek,
the retention time would be sufficiently short
such that only acute response thresholds are
relevant.  However, in the Beaver Creek system,
the retention time in Beth and Beaver Lakes
could be sufficient to consider chronic
thresholds.
                      A cyanide spill in Toroda Creek or Myers Creek
                      could be acutely lethal to fish and aquatic
                      invertebrates in the Kettle River.  A spill in
                      Beaver Creek would be lethal to fish and aquatic
                      invertebrates through the Beth and Beaver
                      Lakes  ponds and downstream in Toroda Creek.
                      Assuming wildlife would drink at the spill site
                      within 24 hours of the accident, a cyanide spill
                      in Toroda, Beaver or Myers Creek would be
                      acutely lethal to bats, waterfowl, passerines,
                      and shorebirds at the spill sites.  The risk of
                      lethality at the spill sites could be low for
                      raptors, and small or large mammals. Within
                      Beth and  Beaver Lakes in the Beaver Creek
                      system, dilution and natural degradation  would
                      reduce concentrations to levels no longer lethal
                      for any wildlife taxa.  For a spill in Toroda
                      Creek, the risk of lethality for bats, waterfowl,
                      passerines or shorebirds would be reduced to
                      low levels by the time the slug reached
                      Nicholson Creek.  The risk of lethality to
                      shorebirds in Myers Creek would be reduced to
                      low levels a few miles before the confluence
                      with the Kettle River.  The risk to bats,
                      waterfowl and passerines would  be minimal
                      after dilution with Gold Creek.

                      A spill of ammonium nitrate at any of the 3 spill
                      sites could  result in high concentrations of
                      ammonia in the stream. A spill in Toroda or
                      Myers Creeks would be lethal to  fish and
                      aquatic invertebrates downstream in the Kettle
                      River,  and a spill in Beaver Creek would be
                      lethal  until dilution with the Kettle River.
                      Ammonia concentrations following a spill at
                      Toroda or Myers Creeks would result in adverse
                      impacts to bats, passerines, and  shorebirds  until
                      dilution with the Kettle River.  A  spill at the
                      Beaver Creek site would impact these taxa as
                      far downstream as Beth and  Beaver Lakes.
                      There  would be a moderate risk of impact for
                      waterfowl at the spill sites in Toroda and Myers
                      Creeks, and a low risk at the Beaver Creek spill
                      site. At all sites, the risk to small mammals
                      would be low and would be negligible within a
                      few miles of the spill site.  Negligible impacts
                      would be expected for raptors and large
                      mammals at all sites.

                      If cement/lime were to spill during transport, the
                      pH of  the stream water at spills sites in Toroda,
                      Beaver, and Myers Creeks would all be greater
                      than 12.  This pH would be acutely lethal to fish
                      and aquatic invertebrates; lethal impacts could
                      occur  downstream in the Kettle River following
                      a spill in Toroda and Myers Creek, and in lower
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-91
 Toroda Creek following a spill in Beaver Creek.
 Although the impacts to birds and mammals as
 a result of drinking water with a high pH are
 unknown, drinking water with a pH greater than
 10.7 would be expected to adversely affect
 (make sick) humans based on a threshold limit
 value for sodium hydroxide (NtOSH, 1985).  It is
 assumed that wildlife respond similarly to pH.
 Therefore, birds and mammals drinking at the
 hypothetical spill sites would be affected.  On
 Toroda and Myers Creeks, stream water pH
 would not drop below 10.7 until the confluence
 with the Kettle River.  It would take
 approximately  1 day for the high pH slug to
 arrive at the lower reaches of Toroda and Myers
 Creeks.  In the Beaver Creek  system, the lime
 would be diluted such that pH in Beth and
 Beaver Lakes would likely be  below 10. While
 toxic impacts to wildlife species would not likely
 occur in Beth and Beaver Lakes,  aquatic life
 would be affected, and the impact could last
 over 4 months.

 A diesel spill at any of the spill sites would
 result in the death of fish and aquatic
 invertebrates. Lethal impacts  would likely occur
 in the Kettle River if a spill occurred in Toroda
 and Myers Creek, and  if the diesel could not be
 contained.  If the spill occurred in Beaver Creek,
 the ponds  along the creek would retard the
 downstream flow of diesel, and the risk of
 lethality to fish and aquatic invertebrates
 downstream of the ponds would be low. The
 drinking of diesel-contaminated water by birds
 and mammals would not be acutely lethal at any
 of the 3 spill sites. However, contact with the
 diesel surface film may impair movement away
 from the contaminated water or may induce
 preening. This would increase the animal's
 exposure to diesel and could  result in a lethal
 situation for waterfowl, shorebirds, passerines,
 bats and small  mammals.

 The risk of lethal  impact to reptiles and
 amphibians from a toxic spill  is not known at
 this time due to the difficulty  in finding
 appropriate reference values in the literature.
 Few toxicological studies have used amphibians
 as representative aquatic vertebrates.  From
 information available, the vulnerability of reptiles
 and amphibians to toxicity varies between
 contaminants.  For example,  birds and fishes
appear more susceptible to pesticide poisoning
than mammals, reptiles and amphibians (Peterle,
 1991).  However, in a study  by Hedtke and
               Pulisi (1982), frog larvae were generally more
               sensitive than fish larvae to fuel contamination.

               4.12.5 Cumulative Effects

               Cumulative effects are the impacts of the
               proposed actions added to other past (including
               Nicholson and Park Place Timber Sales), present
               and reasonably foreseeable actions.  Significant
               cumulative effects can result from individually
               minor  impacts that may be overlooked if they
               are not considered collectively with  other
               actions taking place over time.  Past activities
               include actions which occurred after significant
               Euro-American settlement in the analysis area
               (about 1890).  The conditions prior  to 1890 are
               considered the "natural" conditions  which are
               the baseline for comparison.

               The cumulative effects analysis considered 2
               spatial scales for changes in habitat, the core
               and analysis  areas. The larger analysis area is
               used to assess landscape-level issues and
               species with  large home ranges (e.g., wolverine,
               wolf, grizzly  bear).  The smaller core area is
               used to assess the cumulative effects on those
               species in close proximity to the proposed mine.

               Landscape  Altering Processes

               Recent assessments of forest ecosystems  in the
               inland  west identify substantial changes which
               have occurred as a result of timber harvest,
               grazing, fire suppression, and human population
               increases (Covington et.al., 1994).
               Environmental conditions in the analysis area
               reflect  these  changes to varying degrees.   The
               changes in  wildlife habitat have been substantial
               for almost all core area cover types, analysis
               area land types, and special habitats and
               elements (e.g.,  snags, down woody debris, SI/T
               cover,  old-growth, migration corridors). The 4
               primary causes of change  in the analysis area
               are timber harvest, grazing, fire suppression,
               and human population increases.

              Timber Harvest. Timber harvesting has
               occurred on most of the analysis area except in
              the Jackson Creek unroaded area. The effects
              of timber harvests have included:

               •      The loss of mature forest cover and an
                     increase in early successional stage
                     forests.
                    Crown Jewel Mine +  Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-92
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June 1995
•      The fragmentation of  forest cover and
       loss of continuous cover for interior
       forest species.
•      A shift in composition of tree species to
       shade tolerant species such as spruce
       and fir from shade intolerant species
       such as larch and ponderosa pine.
•      The loss of habitat diversity including
       snags and complex forest structure.

Grazing and Agriculture.  Much  of the analysis
area has been  subject to grazing by livestock.
Agriculture is concentrated in the valleys around
the edges of the analysis area.  Range and
watershed conditions have been altered by :

•      The introduction and spread of exotic
       species such as noxious weeds.
•      The degradation and loss of
       wetland/riparian vegetation.
•      The alteration of ground water and
       surface water resources.

Human Population Increases.  Human population
has increased in the analysis area with most
permanent settlements concentrated around the
edges of the analysis area. The interior of the
analysis area has a very low density of homes,
but transitory use of the interior for recreational
and commercial activities has increased.  The
increase in human populations has contributed
to significant changes in wildlife populations
and habitats including:

•      The extirpation of wolves and  grizzly
       bears from the analysis area.
•      The reduction in use of habitat by some
       species due to disturbance such as
       noise or human presence.

Fire Suppression. The mixed conifer forests of
tne analysis area were subject to frequent low
intensity fires and infrequent stand replacement
fires. The fire suppression policies imposed
since the 1920's have been successful in
reducing the amount of land burned.  Burning by
Native Americans which was common
throughout the West has also been almost
eliminated (Covington et.al., 1994). The
reduction of natural and aboriginal fires has
resulted  in significant changes in habitat in the
analysis  area including:

•      An increase in tree density in
       unmanaged stands.
                      •      The increased risk of occurrence and
                             damage from large fires.
                      •      A change in forest composition from
                             larch and pine dominance to spruce  and
                             fir.

                      Foreseeable Actions

                      Timber harvest and road construction on the
                      Okanogan National Forest; in the Wenatchee
                      Resource area of the BLM; and on WADNR
                      lands in Okanogan County have declined
                      dramatically during the last 3 years, and no
                      specific proposals have been enacted which
                      would return it to the levels of 1960 to 1989.
                      Timber harvest is expected to continue at
                      approximately current levels on private and
                      state lands in the analysis area.  Significant
                      changes in habitat are anticipated as forest
                      stands grow.  Successional changes in forest
                      stands are expected to be the most dramatic in
                      very young stands.

                      No substantial  changes in land use/disturbance
                      impacts are expected.  The population in
                      Okanogan and  Ferry counties is expected to
                      increase, with rural populations increasing at a
                      faster rate than urban populations.  No
                      substantial changes are projected for  livestock
                      grazing.  Grazing on public and private lands is
                      expected to continue at current levels.  Fire
                      suppression policies have not changed, but  the
                      recognition of the role of fire in maintaining
                      ecosystem health is increasing.  This  may
                      someday lead to changes in fire policy.  Insects
                      and diseases associated with the more shade
                      tolerant trees are killing more trees than under
                      natural conditions.

                      Effects of the Mine on Habitat

                      The direct and  indirect effects of the  proposed
                      mining alternatives are described in detail
                      elsewhere in Section 4.12.  Those  effects
                      which contribute to landscape level changes in
                      the analysis area include:

                      •      The proposed mine would remove forest
                             cover for facilities including mature
                             forest,  and attributes of these forests
                             such as snags,  down woody debris
                             and structural diversity.
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-93
•      The mine would substantially increase
       human presence in a sparsely populated
       portion of the analysis area and would
       increase  the population in Ferry and
       Okanogan counties.

•      Mining activities would increase noise
       levels over several thousand acres.

•      Cattle which grazed the proposed mine
       site would be forced to graze outside
       the mining facility. This could increase
       grazing in and damage to riparian areas.

•      Lands disturbed by mining would
       provide potential sites for infestations of
       noxious weeds and exotic species.

•      The removal of forest cover combined
       with disturbance would further reduce
       the use of wildlife  movement corridors
       on Buckhorn Mountain.

Conclusion

The proposed mine would add to the significant
changes in habitat which have occurred in the
analysis area over time. An evaluation of the
significance of the cumulative  impacts of the
mine follow:

Impact on PETS species. Proposed mining
activities when combined with past, present and
future impacts could result in the loss and
continue the trend of loss  of suitable or
potential habitat for 16 Forest Service sensitive,
federal candidate (Category C2) and federally
listed wildlife species included on the Crown
Jewel PETS species list.  Many of these species
(e.g. wolverine, goshawk) have been adversely
impacted by fragmentation and loss of forest
structure associated with timber harvest. These
habitat losses, in conjunction  with land
use/disturbance impacts, would be additions to
significant past impacts which have led to their
status as sensitive, candidate, threatened, or
endangered. The predicted loss of 1  of 4
goshawk pairs is the most severe impact. The
loss of a goshawk pair would continue the trend
towards a loss of population viability in the
analysis area and may contribute to a trend
towards listing of this species. No PETS
species would benefit from the proposed mine.

Impact on  aggregations of animals.  Past
actions (primarily the loss of SI/T due to timber
               harvest) have already reduced deer winter
               habitat in the core area.  The incremental
               effects of the proposed mine on deer would be
               considered substantial because any additional
               loss of SI/T cover on Buckhorn Mountain would
               exacerbate past adverse affects.  The
               restoration of SI/T cover takes decades, and the
               proposed mine would reduce the likelihood that
               past losses of SI/T would be regained.

               Past actions  have lead to the fragmentation of
               forest cover  along an identified wildlife
               movement corridor which includes Buckhorn
               Mountain. Impacts associated with the mine
               would further reduce the likelihood that wildlife
               would use the movement corridor during mine
               operations and until forest cover is reestablished
               on disturbed areas.

               Impacts associated with the mine would
               contribute to the trend of significant changes in
               habitat which have occurred over the last 100
               years.  None of the observed trends  identified  in
               the analysis or other parts of Chapter 4 would
               be reversed by any of the proposed mine
               activities. Many of the changes have adversely
               impacted wildlife species.

               4.12.6 Forest Plan Compliance

               This Forest Plan compliance section assesses
               Project impacts, on National Forest lands,
               relative to the thresholds (standards  and
               guidelines) prescribed for wildlife elements as
               defined by the Forest Plan.  The Forest Plan, in
               the Resource Summary for the Minerals
               Program, recognized that "Project specific
               environmental analyses for potential  future
               mineral development may show a need for Plan
               amendments." This  analysis determines
               whether habitat losses resulting from proposed
               actions would remain above threshold levels
               (compliance), be reduced below prescribed
               threshold levels (noncompliance), or  exacerbate
               situations where thresholds  are not currently
               being met (noncompliance).  Habitat  reductions
               which approach minimum thresholds are also
               identified.

               The analysis  for Forest Plan  compliance is based
               upon physical losses of habitat that would not
               be recovered upon Project completion.  Habitat
               loss  would result from land alterations in MAs
               14-17,  14-19, 25-18 and 26-15.  Other
               standards and guidelines which place seasonal
               access restrictions on certain MAs and raptor
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-94
Ch 4- - Environmental Consequences
nest site protection zones are also addressed.
None of the action alternatives considered
would improve wildlife habitat conditions with
regard to standards and guidelines, or fully
comply with the Forest Plan, which is why all
alternatives would require a Forest Plan
amendment.  Reductions in road densities would
occur, however, disturbances associated with
roads would remain high after the end  of
reclamation due to the need for roads for
monitoring.

Alternative A. No land disturbance from mine
operations would occur and habitat values
would not change, Table 4.12.6, Summary of
Forest Plan Compliance by Alternative.  Roads
which were created during mineral exploration
would be removed and road density would
decrease in reclaimed areas.

Alternative B.  Land disturbances would result in
noncompliance determinations for 6 elements of
deer cover, snags, and old-growth, Table
4.12.6,  Summary of Forest Plan Compliance by
Alternative.  Losses of deer cover and  snags
would not be large, however, the elements are
currently below threshold levels and further
reductions would not move these Management
areas towards Forest Plan desired future
conditions. The loss of old-growth in T40N
R30E (a 16% reduction) would contribute to a
78 acre old-growth deficit in meeting standards
and guidelines for the township.

Impacts from land disturbance would also
reduce 12 other wildlife elements, but  values
would remain in compliance with Forest Plan
Standards and Guidelines.  Three additional
Forest Plan elements (riparian habitat,  blue
grouse habitat,  and raptor nest sites) would be
impacted. Habitat reduction would adversely
impact species dependent on  these habitats.
Loss of  blue grouse habitat could affect winter
survival of some blue grouse occupying the core
area.  No raptor nest sites  would be physically
removed under Alternative B, however, land-
clearing activities and noise disturbance within
secondary protection zones may cause raptors
to abandon the identified nest sites. The
secondary protection zone is the area within a
0.25-mile radius of a raptor nest site where
Project activities are restricted during the active
nesting  season.

Standards and guidelines for road density would
be met where roads (primarily created  during
                      exploration) would be eliminated or rendered
                      inaccessible. However, the use of motorized
                      vehicles, mining equipment and blasting during
                      operations would not comply with standards
                      and guidelines for seasonal restrictions in MA
                      14-19 and MA 26-15. Noise disturbance and
                      human presence may disrupt deer winter use of
                      the area.

                      Alternative C.  Noncompliance determinations
                      would result for 3 elements of deer cover and
                      snags under Alternative C as shown on Table
                      4.12.6, Summary of Forest Plan Compliance by
                      Alternative.  These habitat losses would be
                      similar to Alternative B. Habitat loss would
                      occur for 10 other elements,  but losses would
                      not approach threshold levels or noncompliance.
                      Impacts to riparian habitat, blue grouse habitat,
                      raptor nest sites, road density and seasonal
                      access restrictions would  be similar to
                      Alternative B. There would be no impacts to
                      old-growth from land disturbance.

                      Alternative D.  Four noncompliance
                      determinations would occur for deer cover, MR
                      Cells and snags, Table 4.12.6, Summary of
                      Forest Plan  Compliance by Alternative.  Impacts
                      to deer cover and snags would be similar to
                      Alternatives  B and C.  Habitat loss to  MR Cells
                      would be small, but sufficient to reduce it below
                      threshold. Other habitat reductions (10
                      elements for deer cover, snags, and
                      successional stage diversity), and impacts for
                      riparian habitat, blue grouse habitat, raptor nest
                      sites,  road density and access restrictions
                      would be similar to Alternatives B and C.  There
                      would be no impact to old-growth from land
                      disturbance.

                      Alternative E. The implementation of
                      Alternative E would result in the largest number
                      of noncompliance determinations (11) of the
                      alternatives considered, Table 4.12.6,
                      Summary of Forest Plan Compliance by
                      Alternative.  Reductions to elements for deer
                      cover, MR Cells, snags, and old-growth would
                      result in  not meeting Standards and Guidelines
                      in the Forest Plan. Land disturbance would
                      result in  the largest deer cover reductions and
                      old-growth losses (in T40N,R30E) of the action
                      alternatives. Old-growth in T40N,R30E would
                      be reduced  by  34%, resulting in a deficit of 104
                      acres for the township. Reductions would
                      occur to 12 other elements of deer cover, MR
                      Cells, snags, and successional stage,  but the
                      elements would remain in compliance with
                     Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-95
TABLE 4.12.6, SUMMARY OF FOREST PLAN COMPLIANCE BY ALTERNATIVE
Element
1 . DEER HABITAT
MA14-16: Snow
Intercept/Thermal
Winter Thermal
Winter Hiding
Summer Thermal
Summer Hiding
MA14-17: Snow
Intercept/Thermal
Winter Thermal
Winter Hiding
Summer Thermal
Summer Hiding
MA14-18: Snow
Intercept/Thermal
Winter Thermal
Winter Hiding
Summer Thermal
Summer Hiding
MA14-19: Snow
Intercept/Thermal
Winter Thermal
Winter Hiding
Summer Thermal
Summer Hiding
Forest Plan
Standard
>25%
>67 acres
>5%
> 13 acres
>15%
>40 acres
>20%
>54 acres
>20%
>54 acres
>25%
>42 acres
>5%
>8 acres
>15%
>25 acres
>20%
>33 acres
>20%
>33 acres
>25%
>13 acres
>5%
>3 acres
>15%
>8 acres
>20%
>1 1 acres
>20%
>1 1 acres
>25%
>48 acres
>5%
>9 acres
>15%
>29 acres
>20%
>38 acres
>20%
>38 acres
Values' || Status'-2
Existing
Condition
6%
1 8 acres
17%
46 acres
29%
80 acres
45%
1 23 acres
30%
81 acres
3%
6 acres
4%
6 acres
52%
87 acres
72%
1 22 acres
70%
117 acres
0%
0 acres
0%
0 acres
9%
5 acres
21%
1 1 acres
17%
9 acres
1%
1 acre
3%
6 acres
10%
19 acres
23%
45 acres
9%
18 acres
Alternative
A
6%
18
17%
46
29%
80
45%
123
30%
81
3%
6
4%
6
52%
87
72%
122
70%
117
0%
0
0%
0
9%
5
21%
11
17%
9
1%
1
3%
6
10%
19
23%
45
9%
18
B
6%
18
17%
46
29%
80
45%
123
30%
81
3%
6
4%
6
52%
87
72%
122
70%
117
0%
0
0%
0
9%
5
21%
11
17%
9
1%
1
3%
6
8%
16
22%
43
9%
17
C
6%
18
17%
46
29%
80
45%
123
30%
81
3%
6
4%
6
52%
87
72%
122
70%
1 17
0%
0
0%
0
9%
5
21%
11
17%
9
1%
1
3%
6
10%
18
22%
43
9%
18
0
6%
18
17%
46
29%
80
45%
123
30%
81
3%
6
4%
6
52%
87
72%
122
70%
117
0%
0
0%
0
9%
5
21%
11
17%
9
1%
1
3%
6
10%
18
23%
44
9%
18
E
6%
18
17%
46
29%
80
45%
123
30%
81
3%
6
4%
6
52%
87
72%
122
70%
117
0%
0
0%
0
9%
5
21%
11
17%
9
0%
0
1%
2
6%
11
18%
35
5%
9
F
6%
18
17%
46
29%
80
45%
123
30%
81
3%
5
3%
5
50%
84
68%
114
66%
112
0%
0
0%
0
9%
5
21%
11
17%
9
1%
1
3%
6
10%
19
21%
40
9%
17
G
6%
18
17%
46
29%
80
45%
123
30%
81
3%
6
4%
6
52%
87
72%
122
70%
117
0%
0
0%
0
9%
5
21%
1 1
17%
9
1%
1
3%
6
9%
18
20%
39
9%
17
Existing
Condition
BELOW
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
BELOW
BELOW
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
BELOW
BELOW
BELOW
MEETS
BELOW
BELOW
BELOW
BELOW
MEETS
BELOW
Alternative
A
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
B
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
C-
A-
C-
C
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
C-
A-
NC
D | E
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
C-
A-
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
C-
c-
c-
B-
C-
f
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
C-
c-
A-
A-
A-
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
A-
C
G
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
C-
A-
C-
                                  Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-96
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June 1995
TABLE 4.12.6, SUMMARY OF FOREST PLAN COMPLIANCE BY ALTERNATIVE
Element
MA25-18: Summer Thermal
Summer Hiding
MA26-13: Snow
Intercept/Thermal
Winter Thermal
Winter Hiding
MA26-15: Snow
Intercept/Thermal
Winter Thermal
Winter Hiding
2. MR CELLS
Three-Toed Woodpecker
(Sec. 18)
Three-Toed Woodpecker
(Sec. 23)
Three-Toed Woodpecker
(Sec. 30)
Pileated Woodpecker
3. DEAD TREE HABITAT
MA14-16 (Exclusive of Riparian and
Old-Growth Areas):
10-20" DBH
>20" DBH
iviMit-i/ itxciusive or Kipanan and
Old-Growth Areas):
10-20" DBH
>20" DBH
MA14-18 (Exclusive of Riparian and
Old-Growth Areas):
10-20" DBH
>20" DBH
MA14-19 (Exclusive of Riparian and
Old-Growth Areas):
10-20" DBH
>20" DBH
Forest Plan
Standard
>15%
>455 acres
>15%
>455 acres
>30%
>4 acres
>10%
>1 acre
>20%
>3 acres
>30%
>294 acres
>10%
>95 acres
>20%
>194 acres
75 acres
75 acres
75 acres
600 acres
108/100
acres
8/100 acres
108/100
acres
8/100 acres
108/100
acres
8/100 acres
108/100
acres
8/100 acres
Values1
Existing
Condition
36%
1,130
acres
48%
1,500
acres
0%
0 acres
0%
0 acres
0%
0 acres
1%
9 acres
10%
95 acres
39%
388 acres
1 1 3 acres
78 acres
75 acres
610 acres
115
36
108
26
108
125
49
32
Alternative
A
36%
1,130
48%
1,500
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
1%
9
10%
95
39%
388
113
78
75
610
115
36
108
26
108
125
49
32
B
35%
1,087
46%
1,448
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
1%
9
10%
95
38%
378
1 13
78
75
610
1 15
36
108
26
108
125
45
29
C
35%
1,081
46%
1,455
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
1%
9
10%
95
38%
375
113
78
75
610
115
36
108
26
108
125
48
31
D
34%
1,080
46%
1,449
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
1%
9
10%
95
39%
388
1 13
78
74
610
115
36
108
26
108
125
47
31
E
31%
986
43%
1,34
2
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
1%
9
10%
95
38%
375
88
78
74
610
115
36
108
26
108
125
41
26
F
34%
1,070
46%
1,439
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
1%
9
10%
95
39%
388
97
78
75
610
115
36
88
26
108
125
46
28
G
35%
1,081
45%
1,417
0%
0
0%
0
0%
0
1%
9
10%
95
39%
388
92
78
75
610
115
36
108
26
108
125
44
28
Status1-2
Existing
Condition
MEETS
MEETS
BELOW
BELOW
BELOW
BELOW
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
BELOW
MEETS
Alternative
A
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
B ] C
A-
A-
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
A-
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
C-
A-
A-
A-
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
A-
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
C-
A-
D
A-
A-
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
B-
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
C-
A-
E
A-
A-
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
A-
A-
NC
B
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
C-
A-
F
A-
A-
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
A-
NC
NC
NC
NC
N<~
B
NC
NC
NC
C-
A-
G
A-
A-
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
A-
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
C-
A-

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-97
TABLE 4.12.6, SUMMARY OF FOREST PLAN COMPLIANCE BY ALTERNATIVE
Element
MA25-18 (Exclusive of Riparian and
Old-Growth Areas):
10-20" DBH
>20" DBH
MA26-13 (Exclusive of Riparian and
Old-Growth Areas):
10-20" DBH
>20" DBH
MA26-15 (Exclusive of Riparian and
Old-Growth Areas):
10-20" DBH
> 20" DBH
Old-Growth:
10-20" DBH
>20" DBH
Riparian:
10-20" DBH
>20" DBH
4. RIPARIAN HABITAT (Acres)
5. DECIDUOUS HABITAT
(Acres)
6. BLUE GROUSE HABITAT
(Acres)
7. RAPTORS
Number of Nests Remaining
Number of Secondary
Protection Zones Disturbed
Acres of Primary Protection
Zones Impacted
8. SUCCESSIONAL STAGE
DIVERSITY:
T40N R31E: Grass/Forb
Seedling/Sapling
Pole
Young Mature
Mature
Forest Plan
Standard
108/100
acres
8/100 acres
108/100
acres
8/100 acres
144/100
acres
11/100
acres
180/100
acres
14/100
acres
180/100
acres
14/100
acres
| no threshold |
no threshold
no threshold
no threshold
no threshold
no threshold
5%
10%
10%
5%
5%
Values1 	 || Status1-2
Existing
Condition
166
40
0
0
29
84
96
84
170
23
Alternative
A
166
40
0
0
29
84
96
84
170
23
340 acres|| 340
< 1 acre
426 acres
5
0
0
3%
7%
10%
40%
29%
<1
426
5
0
0
3%
7%
10%
40%
29%
B
163
39
0
0
29
84
94
82
156
22
306
<1
411
5
3
0
3%
7%
10%
40%
29%
C
159
38
0
0
29
84
96
84
164
20
308
<1
416
5
2
0
3%
7%
10%
40%
29%
D
158
38
0
0
29
84
96
84
164
21
304
<1
424
5
3
1
3%
7%
10%
40%
29%
E
152
35
0
0
29
84
82
66
161
20
F
160
38
0
0
29
84
85
74
165
20
294| 298
<1
403
4
3
11
4%
6%
10%
39%
29%
<1
410
3
4
27
4%
6%
10%
39%
28%
G
151
36
0
0
29
84
95
84
166
22
297
<1
414
4
4
26
4%
6%
10%
39%
28%
Existing
Condition
MEETS
MEETS
BELOW
BELOW
BELOW
MEETS
BELOW
MEETS
BELOW
MEETS
[ NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BELOW
BELOW
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
Alternative
A
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
B
A-
A-
NC
NC
NC
NC
C-
A-
C-
A-
NA
NC
NA
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
C
A-
A-
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
C-
A-
D
A-
A-
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
C-
A-
E
A-
A-
NC
NC
NC
NC
C-
A-
C-
A-
NAJ NA] NA
NC
NA
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NA
NC
NA
NA
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NA
NA
NA
NA
C +
c-
NC
A-
NC
F
A-
A-
NC
NC
NC
NC
C-
A-
C-
A-
NA
NC
NA
NA
NA
NA
C +
C-
NC
A-
A-
G
A-
A-
NC
NC
NC
NC
C-
NC
C-
A-
NA
NC
NA
NA
NA
NA
C +
c-
NC
A-
A-
                                  Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-98
Ch 4- - Environmental Consequences
June 1995
TABLE 4.12.6, SUMMARY OF FOREST PLAN COMPLIANCE BY ALTERNATIVE
Element
T40N R30E: Grass/Forb
Seedling/Sapling
Pole
Young Mature
Mature
9. OLD-GROWTH:
T40N R31E: Existing
Replacement
Total
T40N R30E: Existing
Replacement
Total
10. ROAD DENSITY
MA14-16
MA14-17
MA14-18
MA14-19
MA25-18
MA26-13
MA26-15
Forest Plan
Standard
5%
10%
10%
5%
5%
>5%
no threshold
>5%
925 acres
>5%
no threshold
>5%
203 acres
2.0 mi/mi2
2.0 mi/mi2
2.0 mi/mi2
2.0 mi/mi2
3.0 mi/mi2
1 .0 mi/mi2
1 .0 mi/mi2
Values' || Status1- 2
Existing
Condition
14%
9%
12%
35%
26%
12%
0
12%
1,823
4%
0
4%
149
2.1
2.5
4.1
37.3
2.7
4.3
3.2
Alternative
A
14%
9%
12%
35%
26%
12%
0
12%
1,823
4%
0
4%
149
2.1
2.5
4.1
3.0
2.5
4.3
3.2
B
13%
9%
11%
33%
23%
12%
0
12%
1,823
3%
0
3%
125
2.1
2.5
4.1
0.0
2.3
4.3
3.2
C
17%
9%
11%
34%
24%
12%
0
12%
1,823
4%
0
4%
149
2.1
2.5
4.1
0.0
2.4
4.3
3.2
D
17%
9%
11%
34%
24%
12%
0
12%
1,823
4%
0
4%
149
2.1
2.5
4.1
0.6
2.3
4.3
3.2
E
18%
9%
11%
33%
23%
12%
0
12%
1,82
3
2%
0
2%
99
2.1
2.5
4.1
0.0
2.2
4.3
3.2
F
14%
9%
11%
34%
26%
11%
0
11%
1,767
4%
0
4%
149
2.1
2.5
4.1
1.9
2.2
4.3
3.2
G
15%
9%
11%
34%
25%
12%
0
12%
1,802
4%
0
4%
149
2.1
2.5
4.1
0.6
2.2
4.3
3.2
Existing
Condition
MEETS
BELOW
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS


MEETS


BELOW
BELOW
BELOW
BELOW
BELOW
MEETS
BELOW
BELOW
Alternative
A
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC


NC


NC
NC
NC
NC
C +
A +
NC
NC
B
A-
NC
A-
A-
A-


NC


C-
NC
NC
NC
B +
A +
NC
NC
C | D
A +
NC
A-
A-
A-


NC


NC
NC
NC
NC
B +
A +
NC
NC
A +
NC
A-
A-
A-


NC


NC
NC
NC
NC
B +
A +
NC
NC
E
A +
NC
A-
A-
A-


NC


C-
NC
NC
NC
B +
A +
NC
NC
F
NC
NC
A-
A-
NC


A-


NC
NC
NC
NC
R +
A +
NC
NC
G
A +
NC
A-
A-
A-


A-


NC
NC
NC
NC
R +
A +
NC
NC
Notes: 1 . Shaded cells indicate a change from existing conditions. Bolding indicates the element would be reduced from existing conditions.
2. A- indicates that the element currently meets standards and guidelines, would be reduced, but would still meet standards and gu delines; B- indicates that the
element currently meets standards and guidelines but would be reduced below standards and guidelines (i.e., goes below the threshold); C- indicates the
element is currently below minimum standards and guidelines and would be reduced further; A+ indicates that the element currently meets standards and
guidelines and value would increase; B + indicates the element is below standards and guidelines, value would increase and would meer standards and
guidelines; C+ indicates the element is currently below standards and guidelines, would increases in value but not meet standards and guidelines (i.e. value
would increase but status would not); NC indicates no change from existing conditions; NA indicates habitat cannot be assessed relative to a threshold
(holding indicates the element would be reduced). B- and C- represent noncompliance.

-------
June  1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-99
Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines.
However, these losses would be larger than the
other actions alternatives. Impacts to riparian
habitat and blue grouse winter habitat would
also be greater than in other action alternatives.
Habitat would be  removed from raptor primary
protection zones and a raptor nest would be
lost.  Primary protection zones extend 500 feet
from the nest site. Impacts to road density and
access restrictions would be similar to
Alternatives B through D.

Alternative F.  Habitat loss would result in 9
noncompliance determinations for deer cover,
snags, successional stage diversity and old-
growth,  Table 4.12.6, Summary of Forest Plan
Compliance by Alternative. Two discrete MAs
managed for deer winter range would be
impacted and deer cover losses would be
greater than in Alternatives B, C and D.

Reductions to 16 elements of deer cover, snags
and successional  stage diversity would not be
large enough to result in noncompliance.
Impacts to riparian habitat and raptors would be
greater than Alternatives B, C and  D; impacts to
blue grouse habitat would be similar.  Road
density would be highest of the action
alternatives.

Alternative G. Under Alternative G, land
disturbance would result in 7 noncompliance
determinations for deer cover, snags,
successional stage diversity and old-growth,
Table 4.12.6,  Summary of Forest Plan
Compliance by Alternative. Impacts to deer
cover and snags would be similar to
Alternatives B, C  and D.  Habitat loss would
occur but compliance would be retained for 13
elements of deer cover, snags and successional
stage diversity. Impacts to riparian habitat, blue
grouse habitat and raptors would be greater
than Alternative B, C  and D.  Road density and
seasonal access would be similar to Alternatives
B through E.

4.12.7 Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and
       Sensitive  Species

Proposed mining activities would result in  some
losses of suitable or potential habitat for several
Forest Service sensitive, candidate, and
federally listed wildlife species.  These habitat
losses in conjunction with land use/disturbance
impacts can be considered incremental additions
to existing cumulative impacts across species'
               ranges that have already lead to their status as
               sensitive, candidate, threatened, or endangered.
               Proposed mitigation does not fully compensate
               for the potential habitat losses.

               An accidental spill or process chemicals into
               Myers, Beaver, or Toroda creeks could affect
               wintering bald eagles either by direct mortality
               or by modification of habitat (loss of fish food
               sources). The potential for accidental spills is
               extremely low, and if it occurred, would not be
               long-term because suitable habitat conditions
               would eventually be recovered.  As a result,
               mine development may affect individual
               wintering bald eagles in the analysis area but is
               not likely to adversely affect the long-term
               recovery of bald eagles in the region. The
               proposed mining activities would not adversely
               affect grizzly bear and American peregrine
               falcon and may affect, but would not likely
               adversely affect, the conservation or recovery
               of the gray wolf.  Project impacts would be
               minor incremental additions to existing adverse
               cumulative  impacts on potential grizzly bear and
               gray wolf habitat in  the analysis area. No  effect
               on the northern spotted owl is expected
               because the proposed mine is located
               approximately 50 miles east of its designated
               range.

               Proposed mining activities may contribute  to
               losses of individuals or habitat of several Forest
               Service sensitive and federal candidate species,
               but would not be expected to contribute to a
               loss of viability for any species except perhaps
               the northern goshawk. The  incremental impact
               of the proposed mine on northern goshawk
               habitat would add to existing cumulative habitat
               losses.  If habitat losses result in the loss of a
               breeding pair, those losses may contribute to a
               trend toward  loss of population viability within
               the analysis area until sufficient habitat is
               restored through natural succession of younger
               timber stands. Loss of viability for candidate
               bats cannot be predicted with certainty due to a
               lack of regional knowledge for populations of
               these  species. However, reductions in
               population viability for bat species is not likely
               since mine  development would not affect any
               important maternity or winter roost sites.
               Proposed activities,  including an accidental spill,
               would result in minor incremental impacts  which
               are not likely to cause a trend toward federal
               listing or loss of population viability  in the
               Pacific fisher, California wolverine, North
               American lynx, common loon, Columbian sharp-
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-7 00
Ch 4 - Environments/ Consequences
June  1995
tailed grouse, long-billed curlew, black tern, little
willow flycatcher, loggerhead shrike, and
spotted frog. No effect on pygmy rabbit,
California bighorn sheep, or ferruginous hawk is
expected because no suitable habitat for these
species exists in the analysis area.  Proposed
mining activities would have no long-term effect
on the olive-sided flycatcher because
reclamation would more than offset habitat
losses.

Although mine development is not likely to
adversely affect any proposed or listed
threatened  or endangered  species or reduce the
population  viability of candidate or forest
sensitive species, expected for northern
goshawk, the relative level of potential adverse
impacts to  some of these  species would vary
depending  on the alternative.   Alternatives E
and G would create the greatest extent of
overall surface disturbance, while Alternatives C
and D would create the least.  No pit lake would
be created  with Alternatives C, E, and F, and
the corresponding potential for poor water
quality development in  the pit  would not exist.
Long-term  creation of the  pit and associated
permanent  losses in habitat would be avoided
by underground  mining in  Alternative C and
complete backfill of the pit in  Alternative F.
However, Alternative F has a  Project duration
more than  3-times longer than all the other
action alternatives and  would create the longest
duration of risk for human disturbance impacts
to sensitive species.

With respect to sensitive bat species, impacts
would be generally similar between the action
alternatives except that Alternatives B, E, F, and
G would remove potential roosting habitat by
eliminating  the Gold Axe and  Double Axe adits.
Alternatives B and E would result in the greatest
long-term loss of deer SI/T cover, thereby
having the  greatest possible long-term effect on
the potential re-establishment of gray wolf in
the analysis area. Alternatives C and D would
have the least effect on deer SI/T cover.  Losses
of potential Pacific fisher habitat would be
greatest for Alternative E and the least for
Alternative G.  Alternative G also would create
the least amount of short  and  long-term
disturbance to potential northern goshawk
nesting habitat and is the  least likely alternative
to eliminate a possible nesting pair of goshawks
over the long-term.  Alternative C would create
the least amount of short  and  long-term overall
disturbance to potential goshawk nesting and
                      foraging habitat.  Adverse impacts to spotted
                      frog populations would be greatest with
                      Alternative G since it would remove the greatest
                      extent of wetland/riparian habitats.  Alternatives
                      C, B, and D would remove the least extent of
                      suitable spotted frog habitat. Wetland/riparian
                      habitat losses would be compensated for by
                      required wetland mitigation.

                      As indicated previously, the risk of an accidental
                      spill of toxic chemicals or diesel fuel into
                      analysis area  streams would be extremely low.
                      The potential for such a spill to impact sensitive
                      species such  as common loon,  black tern, and
                      bald eagle would be alleviated with the Oroville-
                      to-mine site transport route associated with
                      Alternatives C and G. This transport route
                      would pass through the Town of Chesaw and
                      parallel Myers Creek which does not provide
                      suitable habitat for common loon, black tern, or
                      bald eagle.

                      4.12.8 HEP Consequences

                      With Project:  Mining Alternative Impacts

                      The effect of the mining action alternatives on
                      wildlife species and their habitat was evaluated
                      using the HEP.  HEP is  an accounting procedure
                      that measures changes in wildlife habitat quality
                      and quantity over time  and then compares the
                      results of the With Project/Without Mitigation
                      analysis by alternative to the Without Project
                      analysis (prior to exploration activities).  For the
                      HEP analysis  the difference is considered the
                      impact of the Project (WADFW, 1995).

                      The HEP analysis did not evaluate 'No Action'
                      Alternative A. The following narrative provides a
                      scenario for what may  occur should Alternative
                      A be selected.  Reclamation activities on lands
                      administered  by the Okanogan National  Forest
                      would take place as soon as conditions  are
                      favorable and follow the reclamation plan
                      identified in the 1990 Crown Jewel Exploration
                      Environmental Assessment.  Specific
                      reclamation activities include plugging and
                      capping existing drill holes; recontouring drill
                      pads and access roads; rehabilitating mud and
                      cutting sumps; redistributing topsoils; and
                      revegetating disturbed  sites  with grasses,
                      shrubs, and/or trees. Disturbed sites are
                      expected to go through a succession from initial
                      grass/shrub stages eventually leading to pole-
                      size stands of trees by  the end of the 60 year
                      analysis period.
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-101
 Results of the HEP analysis for Action
 Alternatives B though G show that mining
 alternatives B, E and G  produce net negative
 impacts to 10 of the 11 evaluation species.
 Alternative D and F produced net negative
 impacts to 9 of the 11 evaluation species.
 Alternative C produced  net negative impacts to
 8 of the 11  evaluation species. The black tern
 model showed no impacts would occur to
 existing black tern habitat in any action
 alternative.

 Impacts to wildlife evaluation species  and their
 habitats varied by the amount of habitat
 disturbed, the quality of habitat disturbed, the
 length of time that the habitat was disturbed,
 the extent that the mine site was reclaimed and
 the types of habitat produced by reclamation.

 Habitat losses occurred for 8 of the 11
 evaluation species for all mining alternatives
 when suitable habitats were converted into non
 habitat.  Long-term habitat degradation also
 occurred to most effected evaluation species
 when reclaimed habitats provided lower quality
 replacement habitat. Temporal degradation of
 habitat occurred due to  human  disturbances
 during the mining and milling phase of
 operation.  Habitat enhancement occurred for
 some species when non habitat was converted
 during reclamation into suitable habitat.

 The range of habitats analyzed for the Crown
 Jewel  Project can be grouped into 4 habitat
 types:  wetland/deciduous riparian habitats, open
 herbaceous/shrubland habitats, coniferous forest
 habitats, and multi-cover type habitats.

Wetland/Deciduous Riparian Habitats.  Negative
 impacts to wildlife species chosen to evaluate
 wetland/deciduous riparian habitats (veery non-
 wetland, veery wetland, and spotted frog) will
 occur in all action alternatives. The impacts are
 primarily a function of habitat loss due to
disturbance and habitat  degradation due to the
reduction of stream flows and lowering of the
ground water levels.

Open Herbaceous/Shrubland Habitats.   In all
action alternatives, negative impacts to open
herbaceous/shrubland habitat wildlife evaluation
species (vesper sparrow and shrub steppe
nesting birds) occur from temporal loss of
existing habitat due to disturbance. Some of
this negative impact is compensated for by the
conversion during  reclamation from pre-
               disturbance forest habitats replaced with
               reclaimed herbaceous/shrub habitats. In fact,
               the net impact over the length of the 60 year
               analysis period is positive for herbaceous
               habitats with Alternatives C and D.

               Coniferous Forest Habitat.  Coniferous forest
               habitat wildlife evaluation species (fisher,
               pileated woodpecker, sharp-shinned hawk and
               mule deer winter range)  received the greatest
               negative impacts from all the mining
               alternatives.  The greatest loss of forest habitat
               resulted from the conversion of suitable forest
               habitats into non forest habitats, and from
               habitat degradation when reclaimed sites
               provided low quality replacement habitat for
               some of the evaluation species.

               In addition, habitat effectiveness of intact
               forested stands near mining activity is lowered
               due to disturbances such as noise impacts. Due
               to the Project life being 3-5 times longer than
               other alternatives, Alternative F has the highest
               amount of human disturbance impacts to
               wildlife.

               Multi-Cover Type Habitats.  In all the action
               alternatives, negative impacts for summer deer
               habitat will occur due to loss of habitat,
               temporal loss of habitat quality due to human
               disturbance, and long-term habitat degradation
               due to reclamation producing low quality
               replacement habitats.

               Table 4.12.1, Crown Jewel Project  HU and
              AAHU Net Impact Summary, highlights the
               impacts to the HEP evaluation species with
               each action alternative. The numerical values
               are given which reflect of changes in Habitat
               Units and Average Annual Habitat Units.

              4.13   NOISE

              4.13.1 Summary

               Modeling indicates that noise levels during the
              operational phase would  be below the allowable
              limits for residential areas set by WADOE.  The
              noise levels are predicted based on Year 3 of
              the Project, during which time the production
              rate would be at its maximum, but during which
              time  the  noise  sources would not yet be
              naturally mitigated by the mine  pit.  Table
              4.13.1, Comparison of Noise Impacts for All
              Alternatives, summarizes the modeled noise
              levels and impacts for all alternatives.
                    Crown Jewel Mine f Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-102
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
                                                                                                        June 1995
TABLE 4.12.7, CROWN JEWEL PROJECT HU AND AAHU NET IMPACT SUMMARY
Net impact of HU's and AAHU's between Without Project and Action Alternatives

Species
Veery (Non-wetiand)
Veery (Wetland)
Shrub-Steppe Nesting Bird
Vesper Sparrow
Spotted Frog
Black Tern
Fisher
Pileated Woodpecker
Sharp-shinned Hawk
Mule Deer Winter Range
Mule Deer Summer Range
Alternative B | Alternative C
HU's AAHU's
-84.0 -1.4
-282.0 -4.7
-1668.0 -27.8
-7572.0 -126.2
-234.0 -3.9
0.0 0.0
-31908.0 -531.8
-25506.0 -425.1
-20616.0 -343.6
-4626.0 -77.1
-14292.0 -238.2
HU's AAHU's
-78.0 -1.3
-288.0 -4.8
1494.0 24.9
138.0 2.3
-240.0 -4.0
0.0 0.0
-26718.0 -445.3
-17394.0 -289.9
-16992.0 -283.2
-4980.0 -83.0
-8850.0 -147.5
Alternative D
HU's AAHU's
-78.0 -1.3
-288.0 -4.8
408.0 6.8
-1392.0 -23.2
-234.0 -3.9
0.0. 0.0
-28536.0 -475.6
-19326.0 -322.1
-19410.0 -323.5
-4458.0 -74.3
-11472.0 -191.2
Alternative E
HU's AAHU's
-90.0 -1.5
-282.0 -4.7
-1158.0 -19.3
-7164.0 -119.4
-258.0 -4.3
0.0 0.0
-36132.0 -602.2
-30300.0 -505.0
-26988.0 -449.8
-4614.0 -76.9
-14178.0 -236.3
Alternative F
HU's AAHU's
-132.0 -2.2
-234.0 -3.9
846.0 14.1
-11568.0 -192.8
-234.0 -3.9
0.0 0.0
-44442.0 -740.7
-38466.0 -641.1
-35748.0 -595.8
-4602.0 -76.7
-28560.0 -476.0
Alternative G
HU's AAHU's
-186.0 -3.1
-282.0 -4.7
-2886.0 -48.1
-7440.0 -124.0
-258.0 -4.3
0.0 0.0
-34776.0 -579.6
-28872.0 -481.2
-25254.0 -420.9
-3336.0 -55.6
-14832.0 -247.2
Notes: 1 . HU's is a measure of the quality (HSI) and quantity (acres) of available habitat into a single value;
2. AAHU's are a measure of the average annual productivity of wildlife habitat for an area (Total HU's divided by 60).

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-103
TABLE 4.13.1. COMPARISON OF NOISE IMPACTS FOR ALL ALTERNATIVES
Alternative
A - No Action
B
C
D
E
F
G
Impacts at Chesaw, Bolster and
Pinechee
Noise levels would decrease slightly,
compared to noise levels during actual
exploration.
Modeled summertime nighttime noise at
39 dBA including background. This is
lower than WADOE nighttime limits and
0-5 dBA above background; "Slight
Impact" by EPA criteria.
Modeled noise level is 41 dBA, 2 dBA
higher than Alternative B. This is less
than the WADOE nighttime noise limit.
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B.
Nighttime levels would be much lower
than Alternative B. Daytime levels same
as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B.
Impacts at Other Private Land
Noise levels would decrease slightly,
compared to noise levels during actual
exploration.
Modeled nighttime noise levels at all
parcels are less than 45 dBA. This is less
than the allowable Ecology residential
nighttime limit.
Modeled noise levels are comparable to
Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B.
Nighttime levels would be much lower
than Alternative B. Daytime levels same
as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B.
Impacts at Public Land East of Project
Noise levels would decrease slightly,
compared to noise levels during actual
exploration.
Modeled noise level at the eastern facility
boundary is 59 dBA, which is less than
the 65 dBA allowable non-residential
limit.
Modeled noise level is 60 dBA, which is
slightly higher than Alternative B, but less
than the WADOE non-residential noise
limit.
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B.
Nighttime levels would be much lower
than Alternative B. Daytime levels same
as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B.
                                   Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-104
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June 1995
The predicted noise levels are compared with
the following criteria: at the facility boundary,
the noise levels must satisfy daytime, non -
residential noise limits set by WADOE, Table
3.14.2, Allowable Noise Levels at Residential
and Non-Residential Receiving Property, the
nighttime noise levels must comply witn
residential nighttime WADOE noise limits; and at
the residential areas west of the mine, the noise
increases above the nighttime background are
compared with  guidelines set by EPA Region
10.

The modeled noise levels at Chesaw are slightly
above the existing background levels that were
measured during the quietest hours of the night
during  the winter.  Therefore, the  mining
activities might be slightly noticeable outdoors
during  the winter if the prevailing  winds are
from the  east.   However, it is unlikely that the
mining noise would  be noticeable  indoors unless
the residents had their windows open at night
during  the winter under windy conditions.

Blasting would  occur only during daylight hours.
The blast noise would dissipate quickly with
distance from the source, and is expected to be
relatively low at all areas  outside the facility
boundary.

4.13.2 Affects of Alternative A (No Action)

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be
a slight reduction in the noise levels as
compared to 1993 levels at the residential areas
surrounding the proposed mine site. The
exploratory drilling operations that have been
conducted to date would probably not be re-
initiated by the  Proponent.  Under most weather
conditions, the  exploratory drill rigs are inaudible
at off-site locations, so ceasing the drilling
probably would have no impact in most cases.

4.13.3 Effects  Common to All Action
       Alternatives

Ambient noise  levels surrounding  the site would
increase during the  Project life for all action
alternatives. The noise levels would decrease
to existing background levels upon completion
of the  Project.  The noise levels under all of the
action  alternatives would be less than allowable
daytime and nighttime limits that have been set
by WADOE.

Noise Modeling Methods. The noise levels at
me surrounding areas were predicted by a 3
                      step process:  first, inventory the equipment to
                      be used; second, assign each equipment item
                      with a source noise level;  and third, use a
                      computer model to simulate sound propagation
                      under representative weather conditions
                      (Ebasco, 1993).

                      The type and number of each piece of noise-
                      producing equipment was inventoried based on
                      the Alternative B mine plan. The source noise
                      levels for each equipment item were derived
                      based on a combination of literature values and
                      onsite noise measurements at comparable
                      facilities.  It was assumed that all of the
                      equipment is at the ground surface, and that all
                      of the existing forest within the fenced facility
                      boundary has been cleared, even though this
                      assumption was merely used to  be extremely
                      conservative.

                      The Environmental Noise Model  (ENM)  was
                      used to simulate sound propagation under a
                      variety of representative weather conditions.
                      ENM uses a combination of theoretical
                      equations and empirical coefficients to  account
                      for sound attenuation by atmospheric
                      absorption,  upwind/downwind conditions,
                      natural topography and ground cover, and man-
                      made berms.  ENM also accounts for the
                      occurrence of temperature inversions, by
                      allowing the user to  input the vertical
                      temperature gradient.  The noise levels within  a
                      4-mile radius around the mine site were
                      modeled under the following representative
                      weather conditions:

                      •      Summer, with the prevailing west wind
                             (Figure 4.13.1, Modeled Noise  Results:
                             Summer, West Wind);
                      •      Summer, with non-prevailing east wina
                             blowing toward Chesaw (Figure 4.13.2,
                             Modeled Noise Results: Summer, East
                             Wind);
                      •      winter, witn snow on the ground and
                             the prevailing east wind  toward Chesaw
                             (Figure 4.13.3, Modeled Noise  Results:
                             Winter, East Wind};
                      •      Blasting, under Winter conditions with
                             the prevailing east wind  toward Chesaw
                             (Figure 4. 13.4, Modeled Noise  Results:
                             Blasting,  Winter, East Wind); and,
                      •      Blasting, under Summer  conditions with
                             the prevailing west wind blowing toward
                             potential recreational users east of the
                             mine (Figure 4.13.5, Modeled Noise
                             Results: Blasting,  Summer,  West Wind}.
                     Crown Jewel Mine f Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 7995
r
                                                                     Page 4-105
        BRITISH COLUMBIA
          WASHINGTON
                                     R30E
                                              R31E
                                                            CANADA
                    L EGEND
®   BASELINE MONITORING STATION
 «k
A   NOISE SOURCE LOCATION
30— SOUND LEVEL IN dBA
    U.S.F.S. LANDS
    STATE LANDS
    BLM LANDS
    PRIVATE/FEE LANDS
    FACILITIES AREA
NOISE SOURCES
1
2
3
4
5
MINE PIT AREA
- NORTH WASTE ROCK AREA
- SOUTH WASTE ROCK AREA
HAUL ROAD
- COARSE ORE MILL AREA
SOUND
POWER.
dBA
127
125
125
123
126
                                                                 N
                             FIGURE 4.13.1,
       MODELED NOISE RESULTS: SUMMER,  WEST WIND
FILENAME CJ4-13-1DWG

-------
 Page 4-106
   ®  BASELINE MONITORING STATION
   A  NOISE SOURCE LOCATION
   30— SOUND LEVEL IN dBA
      I U.SFS LANDS
      I STATE LANDS
      I BLM LANDS
       PRIVATE/FEE LANDS
       FACILITIES AREA
NOISE SOURCES
1
2
3
4
MINE PIT AREA
- NORTH WASTE ROCK AREA
- SOUTH WASTE ROCK AREA
HAUL ROAD
5 - COARSE ORE MILL AREA
SOUND
POWER,
dBA
127
126
125
123
126
FILENAME CJ4-13-! DWG
                            FIGURE  4.13.2,
       MODELED NOISE RESULTS: SUMMER,  EAST  WIND

-------
June 1995
                                                                 Page 4- 707
                 L EGEND
  ®  BASELINE MONITORING STATION
  A  NOISE SOURCE LOCATION
— 30— SOUND LEVEL IN dBA
'---   .'1 U.S.F.S LANDS
     STATE LANDS
     BLM LANDS
     PRIVATE/FEE LANDS
     FACILITIES AREA
5 -COARSE ORE MILL AREA
     ««M.             FIGURE 4.13.3,
     MODELED NOISE RESULTS: WINTER,  EAST  WIND

-------
 Page 4-108
                                                                   June 1995
        BRIT/SH COLUMBIA
          WASHINGTON
                   LEGEND
 ®  BASELINE MONITORING STATION
 A  NOISE SOURCE LOCATION
—30— SOUND LEVEL IN dBA
f " -j USFS LANDS
L    I STATE LANDS
L    I BLM LANDS
C.   | PRIVATE/FEE LANDS
     FACILITIES AREA
NOISE SOURCES
1 - MINE PIT AREA
2
- NORTH WASTE ROCK AREA
3 - SOUTH WASTE ROCK AREA
« • HAUL ROAD
5
- COARSE ORE MILL AREA
SOUND
POWER,
dBA
127
125
125
123
126
                                                              3000'    6000'
M^_                    FIGURE 4.13.4,
MODELED NOISE  RESULTS: BLASTING, WINTER,  EAST  WIND
FILENAME r..tA.-11-A nuns*
FILENAME CJ4-13-4QWG

-------
June 1995
                                                                 Page 4-109
       BRITISH COLUMBIA	
         'WASHINGTON
                             _   _R3£E_   _H3§	
                                                           CANADA
                    L EGEND
 ®  BASELINE MONITORING STATION
 A3  NOISE SOURCE LOCATION
—30— SOUND LEVEL IN dBA
i:::::;::'.j U.S.F.S. LANDS
     STATE LANDS
     BLM LANDS
     PRIVATE/FEE LANDS
     FACILITIES AREA
NOISE SOURCES
1
2
3
4
5
MINE PIT AREA
- NORTH WASTE ROCK AREA
- SOUTH WASTE ROCK AREA
HAUL ROAD
-COARSE ORE MILL AREA
SOUND
POWER,
dBA
127
125
125
123
126
                                                                 3000'    8000:
                             FIGURE 4.13.5,
 MODELED NOISE  RESULTS:  BLASTING,  SUMMER, WEST  WIND
 FILENAME CJ4-13-5DWG

-------
Page 4-110
   Ch 4 - Environmental
For each case, the noise levels were modeled
for early morning conditions, with the
occurrence of a strong temperature inversion;
this represents an extremely conservative
modeling approach.

Table 4.13.1, Comparison of Noise Impacts for
All Alternatives,  summarizes the modeled noise
levels and regulatory status for all of the
alternatives.  Detailed descriptions for each
alternative  are given in the following sections.

Worker health and safety which would include
noise effects are regulated by the MSHA. If
noise levels are above regulatory limits within
the confines of specific work areas, protective
hearing apparel  would be worn by employees in
these areas.

The traffic  accessing the  Project on a daily basis
would result in some additional noise along the
transportation routes, however the increase
would not be continuous throughout the day
and/or night and is not expected to cause
substantial impact to the residents along the
routes.
       Effects of Alte;ru-tiv-
B
The proposed mining operations model results
indicate noise levels at Chesaw and Bolster that
are several dBA higher than the quietest
nighttime background periods. Therefore,  it is
concluded that the proposed operations might
be slightly audible outdoors during the nighttime
early morning hours.  However, the modeled
noise levels are much lower than the WADOE
limits that are used to define acceptable noise
levels at residential areas.
The construction phase operations of
Alternative B would cause slight, temporary and
localized noise impacts at some homesites.  The
construction operations would be temporary
and, if limited to daylight hours, would be
exempt from the WADOE noise regulations.
The construction operations that would cause
noise increases include:  logging and land
clearing within the fenced facility boundary on
the eastern slope of Buckhorn Mountain;
construction of the haul roads; construction of
the mill facility and tailings  dam; and
construction of the water supply reservoir near
the Canadian border and  adjacent to Myers
Creek. Based on the type of earthmoving
equipment needed to construct the tailings
facility and the location of the facility in the
drainage bottom of Marias Creek, the
construction noise levels  should be less than
during operations.  The Starrem Creek water
supply reservoir is near permanent residences.
During the daytime construction period at the
reservoir, the diesel equipment and the
earthmoving operations would  cause an
estimated 90 dBA ambient noise level  at a 100
foot reference distance.  Assuming a daytime
background equivalent noise level (L-eq)  of 45
dBA at Bolster, then the temporary construction
noise  is calculated to be above the background
level (and therefore probably audible) for a
distance of about 1  mile from the reservoir.  L-
eq represents the average noise level measured
over 1 5 minute intervals.

Assumed Noise Sources

To be conservative in the calculation of noise
effects, noise levels during the peak operational
year (Year 3) of Alternative B were modeled.
During that year, the mine is expected to
produce 1,095,000 tons  of ore and  22,300,000
tons of waste rock. The  Project was divided
into 5 operational areas, which were shown
previously in  '•  /••? ,'» /'_-?.?, fa'o/se Source
!• i .-,'   I . ..'  c  ,^--!-,ni: "t'lor>:;O:riny Locat.'O'^f,
The type and quantity of  equipment that will
operate at the various operational areas of the
Project during Year 3 are listed in /t?/;/;? 
-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-111

[___ TABLE 4.13.2, NOISE SOURCES USED FOR MODELING
Equipment Type
I
H
Designation


Number of
Pieces

Each Piece
Fractional
Utilization
Maximum Individual
Unit Noise
IdBA, SPL)
Equivalent
Noise
(dBA, SPL)
South Waste Rock Area
Rock Dumping'
Haul Trucks'
Front End Loaders1
Bulldozers5"
Graders5'
Water Truck2
Pickup Trucks3
Backup Alarms3
Total Source SPL
Total Source PWL

85 ton
13 cy
D9 Class
14G Class
85 ton
3/4 ton
Ambient Sensitive 5 dB


1
1
1
1
1
1
3
4


1
1
1
0.5
0.5
0 5
1
0.1


72
87.3
76
88
84
72
76
93


72.0
87.3
76.0
85.0
81.0
69.0
80.8
89.0
93
125
Mine-to-Mill Haul Road
Uphill Haul Trucks'
Downhill Haul Tiucks'
Water Truck'
Pickup Trucks3
Total Source SPL
Total Source PWL
85 ton
85 ton
15K gal



1
1
1
4


1
1
0 S
1


87.3
87.3
72
76


87.3
87.3
69 0
82.0
91
123
Run-of-Mill Coarse Ore Stockpile and Below Surface Ore Crusher
Rock Dumping'
Haul Trucks
Rubber-Tire Do/er'
Water Truck'
Pickup Truck '
Backup Alarms'
Primary Crusher'
i Dust Collection Fan'
Baghouse Cleaning4
Coarse Pile Vent Fan'

Total Source SPL -
Total Source PWL

85 ton

15K gal

Ambient Sensitive, 5 dB




1
2
1
i
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
O.'j
0 b
1
O !
1
1
0 1
1
1
72
87 3
83
80
76
93
T
71 3
79.5
71 3


72.0
90.3
80 0
77.0
820
39 0
70 0
71 3
69 b
71 3

94
i i 126
Milling Facility
i
General Outdoor Sound'
Crushed Rock Conveyors'
Fine Oie Baghouse Fan'
Fine Ore Baghouse Cleaning'1
Grinder Vent Fans'
Leach Tank Blowers'
Acid Wash Vent Fan'
Drying Oven Vent Fan'
Smelt Furnace Vent Fan'
Carbon Kiln Vent Fan'
Tailings Slurry Pump'
Total Source SPL
l_Total Source PWL











1
3
1
1

4
1
1
1
1
!
I
1
1
1
0.1
1
i
1

1
1
1

6b
70
71 3
79 5
71 .3
67
i'i .3
65,0
74 S
7 1 .3
69 5
71 .3
73 0
71.3
71.3 | 71 ?
71 3
71.3
53

71 3
71 3
53 C
Tl4
{ Mine Area
Front End Loaders
Haul Trucks'
Bulldozers
Rubber-Tire Do/er?
Shovel'
Rr.ck Drills'
Water Trucks'
Pickup Trucks'
Backup Alarms'
Total Source SPL
Total Source PWL
13 cy
85 ton
D9 Class

h 	 — •
7 \ I
1

13.5 cy I
DM 45
15K Gal
3/4 ton
Ambient Sensitive, 5 dB

f,
1
6
4


0 B
C 5
0 5
1
0 5
0 5
C.I


76 I
S7 3
88
83
S8
11 8
?2
76
93
I
76.0
90 3
R5.0
SO 0
8-0
S4 8
09 0
80 8
89 0
35
[l27
                  Crown Jewel Mine i Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-112
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June 1995
TABLE 4.13.2, NOISE SOURCES USED FOR MODELING
Equipment Type
Designation
Number of
Pieces
Each Piece
Fractional
Utilization
Maximum Individual
Unit Noise
(dBA. SPL)
Equivalent
Noise
(dBA, SPL)
North Waste Rock Area
Rock Dumping1
Haul Trucks'
Front End Loaders'
Bulldozers6
Graders5
Water Truck2
Pickup Truck3
Backup Alarms3
Total Source SPL
Total Source PWL
85 ton
13 cy
D9 Class
14 G Class
15K gal
3/4 ton
Ambient Sensitive, 5 dB
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
4
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
0.1
72
87.3
76
88
84
72
76
93
72.0
87.3
76.0
85.0
81.0
69.0
80.8
89.0
93
125
Tailings Pond Area
Return Water Pump4
Total Source SPL
Total Source PWL
Combined Sources SPL
Combined Sources PWL


1

1

58

58
58
90
100
132
Sources: 1. Field Measurements, (Hart Crowser, 1993a)
2. U.S. Army, Construction-Site Noise: Specification and Control (Forest Service, 1978)
3. Predicting Impact of Noise on Recreationists (EPRI, 1980).
4. Electric Power Plant Environmental Noise guide (1981)
5. Caterpillar, Inc. Data, 1992. Smith, 1992, 1991a, 1992b)
1978) was used to calculate the equivalent
noise level (L-eq) for each equipment item and
operational area of the Project. Each piece of
equipment was assigned a "Utilization Factor"
that indicates the fraction of each hour that the
equipment operates at full capacity.  Note that
each haul truck, which are the loudest items at
the site, was assigned a Utilization Factor of
1.0, indicating that they were assumed to
operate continuously.  If every piece of
equipment was to somehow operate at
maximum capacity simultaneously, then the
overall noise emissions would be about 2 dBA
higher than the L-eq noise values listed in  Table
4.13.2, Noise Sources Used for Modeling.

Blasting within the mine pit would occur only
during daylight hours. It is  assumed that typical
surface-delay blasting methods would be used.
An assumed blast noise source level of 105
dBA (sound pressure at a 100-foot reference
distance) was used to model the ambient blast
noise levels. Note that the  blast noise levels
would dissipate quickly with distance from the
blast, and are expected to be relatively low at
all areas outside the facility boundary.

Each of the operational areas at the Project was
assigned a source noise level and sound
frequency spectrum, based on the calculated
                      noise levels from the individual pieces of
                      equipment.

                      Modeled Noise Levels

                      Depending on the assumed weather conditions,
                      the proposed operations were modeled to cause
                      either no perceptible increase above
                      backgroundor a slight increase above the
                      background during the quietest periods of the
                      night.  The modeling indicated that the mining
                      activities would be slightly audible outdoors at
                      Chesaw and Bolster during the quietest
                      background conditions during the winter if the
                      wind is blowing from the east.  However, in all
                      cases the modeled noise levels are much lower
                      than the allowable nighttime limits set by
                      WADOE for residential areas.

                      Table 4.13.3,  Alternative B: Modeled Noise
                      Levels at Residential Areas and Comparison
                      with Nighttime Background L-eq, shows tne
                      modeled noise levels at Chesaw, Bolster, and
                      Pinechee under the various weather conditions.
                      In all cases, the modeled noise levels (including
                      the measured background) are much lower than
                      the allowable  WADOE  nighttime noise limit of
                      50 dBA. For the prevailing summertime
                      weather condition  of westerly winds, the noise
                      modeled levels caused by the mining operations
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
                                                                                     Page 4-113
TABLE 4.13.3, ALTERNATIVE B: MODELED NOISE AT RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND
COMPARISON WITH NIGHTTIME BACKGROUND L-eq
LOCATION
Bolster Chesaw Pinechee
Summer, West Wind (Prevailing Condition)
Nighttime Background L-eq
Modeled L-eq Without Background
Modeled L-eq Including Background
Increase Above Background L-eq
37
<20
37
0
39
<20
39
0
39
<20
39
0
Winter, East Wind (Prevailing Condition)
Nighttime Background L-eq
Modeled L-eq Without Background
Modeled L-eq Including Background
Increase Above Background L-eq
31
40
41
10
32
37
38
6
33
32
36
3
Summer, East Wind (Uncommon Condition)
Nighttime Background L-eq
Modeled L-eq Without Background
Modeled L-eq Including Background
Increase Above Background L-eq
37
37
40
3
39
36
41
2
39
28
39
0
Note: All noise levels are expressed as dBA.
alone are much lower than the existing
background levels.  For the uncommon
summertime weather condition where the wind
blows from the east, the conservatively
modeled noise levels at Chesaw and Bolster are
only 0 to 3 dBA higher than existing
background.  According to the EPA Region 10
criteria, this constitutes  only a "slight" impact.
If the noise levels are higher than the
background, then the mining operations would
probably be audible outdoors.  Based on the
modeling results, it is possible that the mining
operations would be slightly audible  outdoors at
Chesaw and Bolster at night and early morning,
during the winter with a prevailing east wind.

Under the Winter/East Wind condition, the
conservatively modeled noise levels  (including
background) are 3 to 10 dBA higher than the
measured nighttime background levels.
According to the EPA Region  10 criteria, that
range of increases constitutes a "slight impact"
to a "substantial impact".  However, the
modeled noise levels are much lower than the
WADOE outdoor noise limits that define
unacceptable noise, assuming that people
usually  keep their windows closed at night
during the winter when the prevailing winds are
blowing, then noise levels inside homes at
Chesaw would  not be noticeable.
               Table 4.13.4, Alternative B: Modeled Noise at
               Nearest Private Land and Comparison with
               Nighttime L-25 EDNA Limits, shows the
               modeled nighttime noise levels at the nearest
               privately-held parcels:  the parcels in Section  14
               near Bolster, about 2 miles northwest of the
               mine pit; and the parcels in Section 29, about 1
               to 2 miles southwest of the mill facility.
               Although those parcels contain no existing
               permanent residences, it is assumed  that the
               noise levels there must conform with the
               WADOE residential limits because the owners of
               the parcels can legally build homes there.
               Under all of the representative weather
               conditions, the conservatively modeled noise
               levels at Parcel 14 (Bolster)  and Parcel 29 are
               below the allowable WADOE nighttime limit of
               50 dBA.

               Table 4.13.5, Alternative B: Modeled Blasting
               Noise and Comparison with Daytime L-02 eq
               Levels, shows the conservatively modeled blast
               noise levels at the residential areas west of the
               Project. The blast noise levels are compared  to
               the measured daytime background L-02 noise
               levels,  which represent the loudest 2% of the
               time (typically caused by passing cars).  The
               modeled blast noise is only 2 to 5 dBA louder
               than the measured background L-02  eq.
               Therefore,  it is concluded that even under
               worst-case weather conditions, the blasting
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-114
Ch 4- - Environmental Consequences
June 1935

Location
Bolster Section 29
(Section 14)
Winter, East Wind (Prevailing Condition)
Background L-25
Modeled L-25 Without Background
Modeled L-25 Including Background
30
40
40
29
47
47
Summer, West Wind (Prevailing Condition)
Background L-25
Modeled L-25 Without background
Modeled L-25 Including Background
32
<20
32
32
38
39
Summer, East Wind (Uncommon Condition)
Background L-25
Modeled L-25 Without Background
Modeled L-25 Including Background
32
40
41
32
45
45
Note: All noise levels are expressed as dBA. |
TABLE 4.13.5, ALTERNATIVE B: MODELED BLASTING NOISE AND
COMPARISON WITH DAYTIME L-02 EQ LEVELS
Location
Bolster Chesaw Pinechee
Measured Daytime
Background Levels (L-02)
54
57
f>2
Modeled Ambient Noise Levels at Chesaw: Winter, East Wind
Modeled L-02 without Background
Modeled L-02 Including Background
Increase Above Background L-02
57
59
5
55
59
2
48
62
0
Note: All noise levels are expressed as dBA
noise would not be substantially different from
existing common noise occurrences, such as
passing vehicles, thunder, or passing
commercial jets.

4.13.5 Effects of Alternative C

The equipment for Alternative C that are not
included with Alternatives B and E would
include a rock quarry and a rock crusher at the
quarry, 3 ventilation fans located adjacent to
mine raises, and the use of an above-ground
primary crusher at the ore mill. The quarry area
equipment would be along the ridgeline of
Buckhorn Mountain, where they would be
difficult to mitigate.  Table 4.13.6,  Comparison
of Modeled Nighttime Noise Levels  for
Alternatives B and C, lists the noise levels that
were modeled for each of the Alternative C
noise sources. The methods that were used to
estimate each noise source were as follows:
                     Rock Crusher at Buckhorn Mountain Quarry

                     The source sound power levels and the noise
                     spectra emitted by the rock crusher were taken
                     from U.S. Bureau of Mines data (Muldoon and
                     Bobick, 1984).  Those noise data were taken at
                     a rock crusher that was  fitted with noise-
                     dampening rubber plates installed on the feed
                     and discharge chutes, which provided about 3
                     dBA of noise reduction compared to an
                     unmodified crusher. The rock crusher  was
                     assumed to operate at ground level at the rock
                     quarry.

                     Quarry Operations

                     It was assumed that the quarry would  use 1/2
                     of the equipment that is proposed for each of
                     the waste rock areas under Alternatives B and
                     E.  Therefore, the source sound power levels for
                     the quarry would be 3 dBA lower than the
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-115
TABLE 4.13.6, COMPARISON OF MODELED NIGHTTIME NOISE LEVELS FOR ALTERNATIVES B AND C
Location

Noise Source Contribution


Mine
North Waste Rook
South Waste Rock
Haul Roads
Ore Mill Fans/Pumps
Ore Mill Crusher
Rock Quarry and Crusher
Vent Raise Fans
Project Total
Nighttime Background L-eq
Total Noise Level
Noise Source Contribution


Mine
North Waste Rock
South Waste Rock
Haul Roads
Ore Mill Fans/Pumps
Ore Mill Crusher
Rock Quarry and Crusher
Vent Raise Fans
Project Total
Nighttime Background L-eq
Total Noise Level
Noise Level (dBAI Alt
Alternatives B and E Alternative C
Noise Levels at
Chesaw/Bolster
(Winter, E. Wind)
40
19
10
19
40
N/A
N/A
N/A
40
39
43
Noise Levels
East of Facility
(Summer, W. Wind)
50
44
48
51
56
N/A
N/A
N/A
59
39
59
Noise Levels at
Chesaw/Bolster
(Winter, E. Wind)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
10
10
43
33
43
39
45
Noise Levels
East of Facility
(Summer, W. Wind)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
56
56
47
44
60
39
60
corresponding sound power levels at the waste
rock areas. It was assumed that the equipment
would be operating at the ground surface, with
no natural attenuation provided by the walls of
the quarry.

Ventilation Fans

As described  in Chapter 2, there would be 3
ventilation fans used to continuously draw fresh
air through the underground mine passages. It
was assumed that each fan will be sized for
2,000 horsepower, with a flow rate of 750,000
cubic feet per minute. That assumed flow rate
was based on design data for the underground
AJ mine in Juneau, Alaska. It was also
assumed that induced draft fans would be used,
with the fan placed in a weatherproof structure
at the ground surface. The noise spectra
              caused by the stack exhaust and the fan
              housing were estimated using published data
              (EEI, 1984).  It was assumed that each fan
              would be in a separate structure, with typical
              frequency-specific sound absorption coefficients
              ranging from  0.2 at 31 Hz to 0.8 at 16,000 Hz.
              Under those assumed conditions, the stack
              exhaust noise would dominate over the fan
              housing noise.

              Ore Mill with  Surface Rock Crusher

              The primary rock crusher would be above-
              ground for this alternative. This would add an
              estimated 3 dBA of noise  emissions to the total
              sound power level emitted from the ore  mill
              area.
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-116
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June 1995
Modeled Noise Levels

During prevailing wintertime east winds,
Alternative C would cause higher noise levels at
Chesaw than would Alternatives B and E. The
ENM computer model was used to predict the
noise levels at Chesaw for both Alternatives B
and C under the following weather conditions:
east wind at 1.97 meters/second; -4°C; 85%
relative humidity; and a 2 degree per 100 meter
temperature inversion. Under those conditions,
the modeled noise levels at Chesaw for
Alternatives B and C are listed in Table 4.13,6,
Comparison of Modeled Noise Levels for
Alternatives B and C, for comparative purposes.
The modeled noise level for Alternative C is 2
dBA higher than for Alternatives B and E. The
higher noise level for Alternative C is due to the
rock crusher being the dominant noise source.
However, the conservatively modeled noise
levels at Chesaw and Bolster for both
Alternatives B and C are lower than  the
allowable WADOE nighttime limit of 50 dBA.

During prevailing summertime west  winds,
Alternative C would  cause higher noise levels
than Alternatives B and E within the public
lands east of the facility boundary.  The ENM
computer model was used to predict the noise
levels for Alternatives B and C at a location 1
mile east of the facility boundary, under the
following summertime weather conditions:
west wind at 2.6 meters/second;  + 10 degrees
C; 50% relative humidity; and a 2 degree per
100 meter temperature inversion. Under those
conditions, the modeled noise  levels at Chesaw
are listed in Table 4.13.6, Comparison of
Modeled Nighttime Noise Levels for  Alternatives
B and Alternative C.  The modeled noise level
for Alternative C is about 1 dBA louder than for
Alternatives B and E. For Alternative C, the ore
mill operations (coarse ore stockpile, ore mill,
and tailings dam) and the above-ground crusher
at the ore mill are by far the dominant noise
sources.  The above-ground mining  sources that
dominate Alternatives B and E (waste rock areas
and haul roads) are absent from Alternative C.
For Alternative C, the modeled noise level 1
mile east of the facility boundary is just equal  to
the WADOE limit of  60 dBA.

4.13.6 Effects of Alternative D

For the areas near Chesaw/Bolster west of the
mine and the unpopulated areas directly east of
the mine, the noise  levels for Alternative D
                      would be similar to those for Alternatives B and
                      E.  The mining equipment for the surface pit
                      would operate near the top of the ridge of
                      Buckhorn Mountain, in a configuration that is
                      comparable to the mine pit for Alternatives B
                      and E.  The waste rock operations would be
                      completed in comparable locations for
                      Alternatives B and E and Alternative D, and the
                      mill would be comparable for both alternatives.
                      It is assumed that during the years when the
                      above-ground mine pit is being operated, the
                      same number and type of above-ground mining
                      equipment that are proposed for Alternative B
                      would be used for Alternative D.  Therefore, the
                      noise caused  by the above-ground equipment at
                      the mine pit would cause noise levels at
                      Chesaw and Bolster that would be similar to
                      Alternatives B and E. The noise levels east of
                      the facility would also be similar to Alternatives
                      B and E, because the locations of the above-
                      ground sources that dominate the eastern noise
                      levels (mine pit, haul road,  north  waste rock and
                      ore mill) are similar to Alternatives B and E.

                      Alternative D would probably cause lower noise
                      levels at the private land in Sections 29 and 35,
                      southwest of the facility boundary than would
                      Alternatives B and E. There would be no
                      southern waste rock area for this alternative, so
                      there would be minimal pieces of equipment
                      operating along the southern facility boundary.

                      4.13.7 Effects of Alternative E

                      The Alternative E noise levels would be the
                      same as those modeled for Alternative B.

                      4.13.8 Effects of Alternative F

                      Alternative F  would limit the mining and
                      reclamation activities to a 12-hour period during
                      the daytime, while the mill would operate
                      around the clock.  Therefore, during the
                      operations phase (which would be extended to
                      16 years), there would be no loud nighttime
                      noise emissions, except for the relatively quiet
                      fans and motors at the mill.  The nighttime
                      noise levels at all locations outside the facility
                      boundary would be lower than the WADOE
                      limits.  The mill would not  be audible above
                      background at night at any permanent
                      residential areas.  The daytime noise levels at all
                      locations would be the same for Alternative F as
                      they are for Alternatives B and E, because the
                      daytime equipment usage would  be similar.  The
                      daytime noise levels at all locations outside the
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-117
 facility boundary would be lower than the
 WADOE daytime limits. During the morning
 daytime hours, the mining activities could be
 audible above background at Chesaw and
 Bolster.

 The reclamation activities  (pit backfilling) would
 stop at night, so there would be no nighttime
 noise impacts during the 16 year reclamation
 period.   During the 16 year daytime reclamation
 phase, the haul trucks and backfilling operations
 would cause noise levels east and south of the
 Project that would be only slightly lower than
 the operational phase. During reclamation,
 there would be extensive activity at the waste
 rock areas, and fully loaded  haul trucks would
 travel up relatively steep haul roads.  These
 loaded trucks would emit more noise than the
 mining trucks used to haul waste rock and ore
 down the mountain.   However, during
 reclamation, the mill would not be active, and
 initially the backfilling operations would be
 completed at the bottom of the mine pit.
 However, as backfilling operations approach the
 top of Buckhorn Mountain, overall noise
 emissions would increase  over those predicted
 for Alternatives B and E. Such activities would
 probably be audible above background  at
 Chesaw and Bolster during the morning daylight
 hours.  The overall noise emissions during
 reclamation are expected to  be slightly  lower
 than they would be during the mining
 operations.

 4.13.9 Effects of Alternative G

 The Alternative G noise levels from mining and
 milling at Chesaw/Bolster would be the same  as
 for Alternatives B and E, because these
 alternatives would use the same mining
 equipment, mining rates, and ore processing.
 Therefore, the daytime and nighttime noise
 levels at Chesaw/Bolster, which are governed
 by the mining activities, would be the same as
 for Alternatives B and E. The mining activities
 would probably be audible during nighttime and
 morning  periods with a quiet background.  With
 Alternative G, 12 ore concentrate trucks per day
 (7 days per week,  1 truck  per hour)  would make
 round trips to  Oroville, passing through Chesaw.
 These trucks would operate on a round-the-
 clock basis from the Project site and would
 increase  noise levels in Chesaw.

The mill for this alternative would use fewer
fans and blowers than the  mill for Alternatives B
               and E, so the sound power levels emitted from
               the flotation mill could be 1 to 2 dBA lower than
               for Alternatives B and E.  In that case, the
               ambient sound levels at locations within about 1
               mile of the mill could be slightly lower (about 1
               to 2 dBA) than the  modeled sound levels for
               Alternatives B and E.

               4.14   RECREATION

               4.14.1  Summary

               Adverse effects on  recreation resources would
               be mostly temporary in nature (less than 10
               years) and would affect primarily dispersed
               recreational activities within the primary study
               area. The impacts would comply with the
               "Roaded Modified"  recreation opportunity
               setting established by the Forest Service
               management prescriptions for the area.  Direct,
               short-term impacts  of all of the alternatives
               would consist of the closure of numerous Forest
               Roads and the consequent interruption of
               access throughout the Project area; increased
               traffic on access roads; the closure of the area
               within Project boundaries; and noise impacts as
               shown  on Table 4.14.1, Recreation Impacts
               Comparison of Alternatives.  Alternatives C and
               D would have the fewest acres disturbed and
               inaccessible to the public for the shortest time
               period,  while Alternatives E and G  would have
               the greatest number of acres disturbed and
               fenced  off.  Estimated traffic would vary
               considerably between alternatives, ranging from
               an estimated 46 trips per day under Alternative
               F to 77 trips under Alternative G.   The proposed
               route for supply vehicles through Chesaw under
               Alternatives C and G would minimize effects on
               the Beth and Beaver Lakes campgrounds over
               the other alternatives, but would increase noise
               effects  on residents of the Chesaw area.  A
               primary concern with Alternative F is the 33-
               year duration of the Project which  would extend
               the impacts over a much longer period than the
               other alternatives.

               The permanent, direct impacts of Alternatives
               B, E, and G would be the lowered summit of
               Buckhorn Mountain, as well as other alterations
               to the area's visual characteristics.  Alternative
               F might result in increasing the  height of
               Buckhorn Mountain. Permanent direct effects
               of Alternatives C and D would consist of the
               potential subsidence hazard over the
               underground workings.  While Alternatives B,  D,
               and G would result in a permanent lake in the
                    Crown Jewel Mine +  Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-118
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June
TABLE 4. 14.1, RECREATION IMPACTS COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
Alternative
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Disturbed
Acres
55
766
440
562
927
822
896
Fenced
Acres
0
835
720
770
1055
885
925
Employees
4
150
225
225
150
125
210
Additional
Housing
Units
0
63
183
160
63
53
87
Increased
Camping
Visits
0
980
2430
2170
980
795
1330
Project
Duration
(years)
i
10
6
8
10
33
1O
Total
Traffic
(ADT)
12
51
57
59
51
46
77
Supply
Traffic
(ADT)
C
13
1 1
13
13
8
7
Supply
Route

Wauconda
Chesaw
Wauconda
Wauconda
Wauconda
Chesaw
final mine pit, this could pose a safety hazard to
recreationists, as well as a recreation resource.

Indirect impacts would consist of the potential
for construction workers to use state or Forest
Service campgrounds for housing, as well as
potentially increased demands placed on
recreational facilities by Project-related
population increases. Alternatives C and D
would result in the largest, long-term population
increases of all of the alternatives due to the
larger number of employees and greater non-
local workforce.  Alternative F would have the
lowest population increase during operations,
but would have a larger reclamation work force
than other alternatives, which would last 16
years. There are no permanent, indirect
recreation impacts anticipated as a result of any
of the alternatives.

4.14.2 Effects of Alternative A (No Action)

Under Alternative A, pre-development mine-
related and exploration traffic would cease.
Areas affected by exploration would be
reclaimed, which would restore the  recreational
value of the area to pre-exploration  conditions.
Recreational activities in the Project area could
resume approximately 1 year after reclamation
begins, although it will take considerably longer
than that for the area to appear natural and for
replanted trees and shrubs to mature.

4.14.3 Effects Common to All Alternatives

Direct Effects

Direct effects would include both temporary and
permanent alterations to the recreational
resources in the Buckhorn Mountain area. The
most important temporary impact would  result
                      from the road closures required by the Project,
                      since most of the current recreation occurs
                      along these roads. Portions of Forest Roads
                      3575-100, 120, 127, 140, and 150, which
                      provide access through the Project area, would
                      be closed to the public at Project boundaries.
                      Other Forest roads within the Marias Creek
                      drainage would be closed as part of mitigation
                      for the proposed Project. Consequently,
                      recreationists such as hunters, plant gatherers,
                      snowmobilers, off-road vehicle users, hikers,
                      and horseback riders that might use these roads
                      would be temporarily displaced.  Closure of
                      portions of Forest Roads 3575-100, 120,  140,
                      and 1 50 would interrupt the north-south access
                      across the primary study area, preventing
                      recreationists from travelling between the
                      Pontiac Ridge Road to the south and the
                      Nicholson Creek and the Gold Creek roads to
                      the north. No alternative route to maintain
                      north-south access would be provided as part of
                      the proposed Project mitigation.

                      Hunting would be affected by the road and area
                      closures resulting from the Crown Jewel
                      Project, as well as increased hunting pressure
                      by Project employees. Increased hunting
                      pressure is discussed below under indirect
                      effects.  Although the road closures would
                      reduce access to the area for hunting, they can
                      sometimes improve the  quality of hunting by
                      reducing disturbance to  habitat.  Land fenced
                      off from the public during the 10-year mining
                      and reclamation operation would displace
                      existing hunting activity to other portions of the
                      study area.  Wildlife game species would also
                      be displaced out of the facility areas for the life
                      of the mining and reclamation operation.
                      Outside the Project boundaries, wildlife and
                      hunters may be affected by noise, dust. Project
                      lighting, and Project-related traffic.  After
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
                                                                                      Page 4-119
Project completion, reclaimed areas may have
improved spring-summer forage availability, but
the increase in forage may not increase
population numbers if the loss of critical winter
habitat cannot be mitigated.

Birdwatching would be also be affected by road
and area closures. Although birdwatching
would not be possible in the Project area during
the operation of the mine, there would be no
impacts to birdwatching in the surrounding
areas other than the reduced access caused by
road closures and from  noise disturbance.

There are no fisheries resources in the drainages
within the Project core area. Current fishing
activities occur several miles downstream of the
proposed Project and in Myers Creek,  Toroda
Creek, and the Kettle River. Given proper spill-
prevention measures and drainage and sediment
controls installed and maintained for any of the
action alternatives, there would be no impact to
fishing activities in these areas except from
possible spills along the transportation route and
possible minor impacts due to  sedimentation.

The transportation of employees and supplies to
and from the Project site could have a minor
impact on recreation.  Project-related traffic
would reduce the quality of the recreation
experience along these roads, as noise levels
and the probability of an accident would
increase.  Some recreationists may be displaced
to other areas by this traffic, particularly  those
using Beth and Beaver Lakes and  Forest Road
3575-120.  Existing logging traffic in  this area
has already  displaced off-road  vehicle users to
other areas  (Barker, 1992).  Since the
alternatives  contain several different
transportation routes, specific traffic impacts on
recreation are discussed in more detail under
each alternative.

If recreationists are close enough  to the Project
area,  they may hear Project-related noise.
Blasting would be the single loudest noise. This
would occur during daylight hours, generally
once or twice per day for above-ground
operations.  This sound would resemble a sonic
boom or thunder.  Most of the other noise
impacts would be considered "slight impacts"
under EPA Region 10 criteria and would occur
under unusual climatic conditions, which would
be during early morning hours (7:00 to 8:00
A.M.) on days when background  noise levels
               are low and temperature inversions have
               developed.

               Indirect Effects

               Indirect effects to recreational resources would
               result from Project-related population increases
               in Okanogan and Ferry Counties. All of the
               action alternatives would require a temporary
               workforce during Project construction, which
               would be imported to the Okanogan Valley and
               western Ferry County  and would need to find
               temporary housing (see Section 4.19,
               Socioeconomic Environment).  Given limited
               temporary housing currently available in the
               area, many of these workers may choose to live
               in mobile home and recreational vehicle parks.
               Space at these facilities  is also limited,
               however, which may result in increased stay
               limit violations at Lake Osoyoos State Park or
               Forest Service campgrounds in the Five Lakes
               Area.  This would place  pressure on these
               resources and could impact the recreation
               setting at these facilities.

               Project-related population growth could place
               increased demand on recreational resources in
               the area, especially the developed recreation
               facilities in the Five Lakes Area.  Under current
               conditions, use of these Forest Service
               campgrounds is approaching capacity during
               weekends (at 16,900  recreation visits per year),
               and the  lakes tend to be overfished.  Project-
               related population growth could also increase
               demand for hunting, fishing, and mountain
               biking. Additional fishing pressure in the Five
               Lakes Area may require  a change in the fisheries
               management or stocking policy.

               The added population  could increase pressure to
               a very minor extent on community parks and
               recreation facilities. If the new households are
               distributed among Tonasket, Oroville, Republic,
               and Curlew,  the overall population  increase
               would represent a relatively small increase in
               demand. Because many facilities are already
               below standard, however, any substantial
               increase in demand would be difficult to
               accommodate.  Traffic generated by indirect
               population growth would also have a slight
               impact on recreational use of the area's roads.

               Cumulative Effects

               Prior to  recent exploration and logging activities,
               Buckhorn Mountain provided a "Roaded Natural"
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-120
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June 1995
recreation setting (recreation opportunity
spectrum) on the east side of the mountain and
a "Semiprimitive Non-motorized" recreation
setting on the west side of the mountain.  The
cumulative effects of an action alternative
combined with past and future logging, mine
exploration, and road construction would alter
the recreation setting to Roaded Modified by
increasing roads and decreasing the natural
appearance of the area.  A considerable
percentage of the area around Buckhorn
Mountain has been logged to date, and 2 Forest
Service timber sales are currently awarded with
logging completed on  the larger sale in the
Nicholson and Marias  Creek drainages.  Park
Place Timber Sale was sold in 1994 on WADNR
land to the south of the Project.  Three
additional sales are proposed on WADNR land
within the next 10 years. A  200 acre sale,
thinning, is planned on BLM lands within the
next 10 years.

Cumulative effects on recreational resources
could also result from the combined effects  of
normal increases in recreation demand unrelated
to the Project and Project-related recreation.
Without Project-related increases, demand for
dispersed camping along roaded areas is
expected to  increase  by 29% by the year 2020.
Demand for  developed recreation opportunities
is expected to increase by 42% over the same
period  (Forest Service, 1989a).  Relative to
these projections, Project-related demand would
place a small amount of additional pressure  on
existing recreational resources, especially on the
developed facilities within the region.

4.14.4 Effects of Alternative B

Direct Effects

Alternative B would result in the disturbance of
766 acres of land. Approximately 835 acres
inside the fence would be closed to the public
over at least  a 10 year period.  The closure  of
this area would make the summit of Buckhorn
Mountain inaccessible and would reduce the
land available for dispersed recreation
opportunities such as hunting,  hiking, camping,
rockhounding, etc. In the long-term,  the
primary impact of Alternative B would be the
topographic effect of the mine pit on  the
summit of Buckhorn Mountain, perhaps
changing its status as a hiking destination.
After Project completion, the summit would be
about 50 feet lower than and 500 feet to the
                      south of the present summit. The lowered
                      summit could  reduce the value of Buckhorn
                      Mountain to hikers and climbers as
                      Washington's 103rd highest peak  (out of
                      approximately 200 in the state) with 2,000 feet
                      of prominence above ridgeline.  Formation of a
                      lake in the pit, after Project completion, could
                      benefit recreation, but may also pose a safety
                      hazard, due to the pit's steep walls.

                      The Project would employ about 150 people
                      during the operation phase.  This would result in
                      approximately 32 vehicles per day using County
                      Roads 9480 and 4895, and Forest Road 3575-
                      120 from Oroville  to the Project site.  Since the
                      Proponent would be busing and/or van pooling
                      employees to  the site from Oroville, traffic
                      passing by the Forest Service Beth and  Beaver
                      Lake Campgrounds would consist  of 13 supply
                      and pilot vehicles per day along County Road
                      9480. The Project-related traffic activity would
                      affect the quality of the recreation experience
                      for those using recreation facilities or driving for
                      pleasure along these roads.  There would be
                      little to no impact  on those using Bonaparte and
                      Lost Lakes Campgrounds, since these facilities
                      are generally accessed from the  south along
                      County Road 4953,  and this alternative does
                      not use County  Road 4953 for employee or
                      supply transport.

                      Indirect Effects

                      Alternative B could result in the addition of 63
                      households to the study area, which would
                      increase pressure  on recreation resources.
                      Based on regional household trip data, the
                      additional households could increase the annual
                      demand for camping by 980 recreation  visits
                      (IAC, 1990).  Only a portion of these trips
                      would likely occur in the Five Lakes Area, but
                      any additional use would increase pressure on
                      these heavily  used facilities.

                      Population growth resulting from Alternative B
                      could increase hunting in the study area. There
                      are currently an estimated 690 hunters per year
                      distributed throughout the primary recreation
                      study area, which is estimated to  increase to
                      790 by the year 2000, based on the
                      Washington Outdoors: Assessment and Policy
                      Plan (IAC, 1990). If an average of 1  person
                      from each new  household hunted, the increase
                      in hunters in the Project vicinity would be less
                      than 10% of the estimated hunters.  Since only
                      a portion of these individuals are likely to hunt
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-121
 in the study area, the actual increase in hunters
 would most likely be much less than 10%.

 4.14.5 Effects of Alternative C

 Direct Effects

 The effects of Alternative C on recreation
 resources would be similar to those of
 Alternative  B  because portions  of several Forest
 roads would be closed to public access.  The
 area closed to the public during mining and the
 area disturbed would be less than all of the
 other action alternatives.  The duration of road
 and Project area closures would be 6 years with
 Alternative  C.  The major difference between
 Alternatives B and C in  terms of recreation
 would be the  underground mining, which would
 allow the summit  of Buckhorn Mountain to
 remain intact. The potential for subsidence with
 Alternative  C, however, would  threaten public
 safety to the extent that the area of subsidence
 may have to be permanently fenced.  The
 mountain would thus retain its  status as the
 103rd highest peak in Washington State with
 2,000 feet of prominence, but  may not be fully
 accessible to hikers.

 The routing of supplies through Chesaw would
 benefit recreation  in comparison to Alternatives
 B, D, E,  and F since supply trucks would not
 pass by  the Beth and Beaver Lakes
 campgrounds facilities.  Alternative C, however,
 would require a  larger workforce, which would
 increase general traffic on the roads between
 Oroville and the Project site.

 Indirect Effects

 During mining operations, Alternative C would
 require a greater number of out-of-area workers
 than Alternative B, which would result in a
 greater increase in pressure on  recreation
 resources.  There would be an estimated 183
 new households, compared to 63 households
 under Alternative B.  These new households
 would increase the annual demand for camping
 by an estimated 2430 recreation visits, based
 on regional household trip data  (IAC, 1990).
 Some of these trips would occur in the Five
 Lakes area,  which is currently approaching
 capacity  at 16,900 annual trips. Hunting and
 fishing pressure  would probably be about 3
times greater than with Alternative B.
               4.14.6 Effects of Alternative D

               Direct Effects

               Alternative D would result in fewer acres fenced
               off from the  public  (770 acres) and fewer acres
               disturbed (562) than all of the other action
               alternatives except  C.  Due to the underground
               operation, this  alternative would allow the
               summit of Buckhorn Mountain to remain intact,
               although it may need to be permanently fenced
               off from the  public  after mining due to the
               threat of subsidence. Impacts on hunting and
               fishing would be  similar to those for Alternative
               B, except there could be a greater increase in
               hunting and fishing pressure as discussed below
               under indirect effects.  The estimated average
               of 13 supply vehicle trips per day would have
               the same effects  on the Beth and Beaver lakes
               campgrounds as for Alternative B.  The
               employee traffic impacts would be the same as
               for Alternative  C  because of the relatively large
               work force required for  underground mining.

               Indirect Effects

               The indirect Effects of Alternative D would be
               similar to those of Alternative C, due to the
               larger non-local workforce over the  other
               alternatives.  There would be an estimated 160
               new households under Alternative D, compared
               to 63 for Alternative B and 1 83 for  Alternative
               C.  The new  households could increase pressure
               on hunting, fishing  and other recreational
               resources, increasing the annual demand for
               camping by 2,170 visits.  Increased hunting and
               fishing pressure could be approximately 2.5
               times greater than with  Alternative  B.

              4.14.7 Effects  of Alternative E

              Direct Effects

              The effects of Alternative E on recreation
              resources would be similar to those of the other
              action alternatives because portions of the
              Project area and several  Forest roads will be
              closed to public access.  Alternative E,
              however, will have a larger area fenced off from
              the public (1,055 acres) than any other
              alternative. Alternative E also would have the
              largest disturbed area (927 acres) of all the
              alternatives.  The primary  difference between
              Alternative E  and  the other alternatives is the
              partial backfill of the mine pit, which would
              preclude formation of a lake  in the pit.  Traffic
                    Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-122
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June  1995
impacts will be the same as Alternative B, with
51 vehicle trips per day, including 13 supply
trips per day between Wauconda and the site,
which would effect the Beth and Beaver lakes
campgrounds.

Indirect Effects

Indirect effects will be similar to Alternative B,
with 63 new households resulting in an increase
of an estimated 980 camping visitor days.  As
with Alternative B, hunting in the study area
would increase by less than  10%, assuming
that an average of 1 person per household
hunted.

4.14.8 Effects of Alternative F

Direct Effects

Alternative F would result in similar road and
area closures (885 acres) as the other action
alternatives, except that a greater portion of
Forest Road 3575-100 would be closed (over 2
additional miles) due to the proposed tailings
pond location  in the Nicholson Creek drainage.
The area disturbed by Alternative F (822 acres)
would  be larger than all  of the alternatives
except E and G.   Due  to the 12-hour per day
mining schedule proposed as part of Alternative
F, the Project  would last 33 years, which would
extend the duration of Project-related road and
area closures. Alternative F would backfill the
final mine pit which could raise the  summit of
Buckhorn Mountain and preclude formation of a
lake in the mine pit.

The traffic impacts of Alternative F  would be
similar to those of Alternative B, because there
would be 46 trips per day for employee and
other vehicles, but there would be  less supply
trips (8 per day) passing through Beaver
Canyon. During the 16-year reclamation phase,
supply traffic  is estimated at 4 trips per day,
with 22 trips per  day  from other types of
vehicles.

Indirect Effects

Since Alternative F would last for 33 years
instead of the 6 to 10 years proposed for the
other alternatives, the duration of indirect
impacts on recreation resources would last
much longer.  During  operations, Alternative F
would have the smallest population increase of
all the alternatives (53 households) and thus
                      less additional pressure on hunting, fishing,
                      camping and other recreation resources.
                      Alternative F, however, will require 50% more
                      workers during the 16-year reclamation phase
                      than all of the other action alternatives which
                      will increase pressure on the region's recreation
                      resources.

                      4.14.9 Effects of Alternative G

                      Direct Effects

                      Alternative G would result in similar road and
                      Project area closures the other action
                      alternatives, except that, like Alternative F, a
                      greater portion of Forest Road  3575-100 would
                      be closed  (over 2 additional miles) due to the
                      proposed tailings pond location in the Nicholson
                      Creek drainage.  Approximately 925 acres
                      would be fenced off from the public, with a
                      total of 896 acres disturbed. The duration of
                      Alternative G will be the same  as for Alternative
                      B (10 years). The traffic impacts of Alternative
                      G, however, would  be substantially  higher than
                      the other alternatives, since the ore  would be
                      transported by truck through Chesaw to
                      Oroville.  This alternative would require 210
                      employees, increasing traffic impacts to a total
                      of 77 trips per day through Chesaw (see
                      Section 4.17, Transportation).  Since supplies
                      would be transported through  Chesaw, there
                      would be minimal new impact  on the Beth and
                      Beaver lakes campgrounds.

                      Indirect Effects

                      During mining operations,  Alternative G would
                      require a greater number of non-local workers
                      than Alternative B, even though the percentage
                      of local hire is the same, and thus could result
                      in greater pressure on recreiation resources.
                      There would be an estimated 87 new
                      households with Alternative G. These new
                      households could increase the annual demand
                      for camping by an estimated 1330 recreation
                      visits, based on  regional household trip data
                      (IAC, 1990). Increased hunting pressure in the
                      study area would be approximately 40% more
                      than Alternative B.

                      4.15  SCENIC RESOURCES

                      The scenic impact analysis is based on the
                      premise that visitors to the National Forest
                      prefer to see the forest in  a condition as close
                      as possible to its natural state, and thus facility
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-123
development, such as the proposed Project,
should be as compatible as possible to the
landscape's natural form,  line, color, and
texture, consistent with other resource
requirements of the forest. In the case of
Buckhorn Mountain,  mining was designated as
an important resource use of the area in the
1989 Land and Resource Management Plan, and
thus a certain degree of changes to scenery is
considered acceptable by the Forest Service to
allow development of the  mining resource
(Forest Service, 1989a).  The Forest Service,
therefore, has assigned a  "maximum
modification" visual quality objective for the
Buckhorn Mountain area, except for lands
visible from Sensitivity Level  1 routes, such as
County Road 9480 and British Columbia
Highway 3. These lands must meet the
"modification" visual quality objective.

Major impacts would be actions visible from
sensitive areas that create an unacceptable level
of contrast with the adjacent natural landscape,
regardless of mitigation and reclamation
measures, and thus would not meet the Forest
Service's visual quality objectives.  Impacts to
scenery of land owned by private individuals or
other government agencies are analyzed based
on Forest Service visual management
objectives, since scenic standards have not
been adopted for  these lands.

4.15.1 Summary

All of the action alternatives would result in
general disturbance to the area from dust,
lights, and traffic, as well  as construction of the
topsoil stockpiles, borrow areas, roads, support
buildings, Project  lighting, water supply system
and the powerline. The powerline would be the
most visible of these features, altering the view
from the  Oroville-Toroda Creek Road, Nealy, and
Forest Road 3575-125 viewpoints.  Once
mining and reclamation is  completed and the
Project features are removed, the public would
again  have access to the Project area and thus
be able to see the sites of these facilities.  As
these areas gradually revegetate  over time,
contrasts in texture and color would be reduced.

Where the alternatives differ is primarily in the
configuration or presence of the mine pit, the
waste rock disposal areas, and the tailings
disposal area.  Alternative C would not require
any of these facilities, except for the tailings
disposal,  but would require 2  rock quarries, 1  of
               which will be on the ridgeline.  The only visible
               evidence of Alternative C from outside the
               Project area could be a moisture cloud in the
               winter months.  Alternative D could also create
               a moisture cloud, as well a long-term impacts
               from the mine pit.  Alternatives C and D may
               also result in surface subsidence above the
               underground works.  Alternatives B and E are
               similar in terms  of impacts to scenery, with the
               greatest impacts consisting of the view of the
               north waste area from Canada, the view of the
               south waste area from Mt. Bonaparte, and the
               view of the mine pit and south waste from
               Toroda Creek. In the long-term, Alternative F
               would have the  least impact to scenery,
               because the pit  would be completely backfilled,
               the summit would be reinstated (albeit slightly
               higher),  and there would be no waste rock
               disposal areas; likewise the lighting impacts of
               Alternative F would be lower due to the shorter
               work days. Tripling the length of the Project to
               33 years, however, would extend the duration
               of the short-term impacts, including views of
               the north waste area and mine pit.  Alternative
               G would have the least short-term impacts to
               scenery, because there would be no south
               waste rock area and the north waste rock area
               would be only slightly visible outside the
               immediate Project vicinity.

               4.15.2 Effects of Alternative A (No Action)

               Under Alternative A, existing mine exploration
               activities would  cease.  The forest disturbed for
               exploration and  all roads used exclusively for
               mine exploration would be reclaimed. In the
               short-term under Alternative A, signs of mine
               exploration may be visible to those  using the
               immediate area as vegetation gradually becomes
               established, but the "maximum modification"
               visual quality objective would be met.  There
               would be no major long-term impacts, once the
               area is reclaimed and revegetated.

               4.15.3  Effects Common to All Action
                     Alternatives

               The effects common to all action alternatives
               would include the  powerline corridor and
               associated structures proposed for the Ethel
               Creek drainage,  the water supply reservoir and
               pipeline along Gold Creek, the support buildings,
               and the topsoil and borrow areas, as well  as
               general disturbance due to dust and traffic.
                    Crown Jewel Mine t Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-124
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June 1995
The western portion of the proposed power
transmission line, between Oroville and Chesaw,
would run primarily along an existing powerline
right-of-way and thus would not require any
large right-of-way clearings.  Since the
powerline corridor will be visible from County
Roads 9480 and 9485, the sensitivity is
relatively high and thus the "modification" visual
quality objective would apply.  Impacts to
scenery would result from upgrading the
existing poles to wood  H-frame poles, but this
would meet the visual quality objective since it
would only slightly increase the contrast in form
and line over existing conditions.

The new powerline and right-of-way required
east of Chesaw would be routed through open
ranchland for approximately  1 mile and through
forested mountainside,  within the  Ethel Creek
drainage, the remaining 4 miles. The 100-foot
right-of-way clearing would create a contrast
with the natural surroundings due  to its straight
edges, lighter color, and finer texture.  From the
Nealy Road viewpoint, the powerline corridor
would be visible in the lower Ethel Creek
drainage, but would be only  intermittently
visible as it rises up the drainage due to its
location on the northern side of the drainage
and at the base of the slope.  The  corridor
would be less visible from the Oroville-Toroda
Creek Road Viewpoint, because the angle of
view is parallel to much of the route and
because the lower drainage is screened by
topography. The corridor would be visible from
both viewpoints, however, as it reaches the top
of the drainage  and crosses over the saddle.
The right-of-way clearing would create the most
contrast at the top of the ridge, since the saddle
is perpendicular to the line-of-sight.  The
powerline corridor may also appear in the left
edge of Forest Road 3575-125 viewpoint as it
crosses over the ridge.

The powerline corridor  east of Chesaw would
meet the "maximum modification" visual quality
objective from the Nealy Road and Forest Road
3575-125 viewpoints, since it is within the
middleground view. However, it would not
meet the "modification" visual quality objective
from the Molson-Chesaw Viewpoint, due to the
straight vertical lines created by the right-of-
way clearing at the saddle.  In the long-term,
the powerline east of Chesaw would be
removed and the right-of-way reclaimed and
thus meet the visual quality objective.  Since
the portion west of Chesaw  would remain after
                      Project completion, the minor impacts to
                      scenery would continue.

                      The proposed water supply reservoir in the
                      Starrem Creek drainage would be located on
                      private property, 3.5 miles northeast of
                      Chesaw, and disturb approximately 35 to 40
                      acres of ranchland. Since the reservoir site is
                      not visible from any roads or other public
                      places, it  would have  no major, long-term
                      impacts to scenery. In the long-term, the
                      proposed  reservoir would  be drained and the
                      embankment slopes revegetated.  The proposed
                      pump  station would be visible to the public from
                      the intersection of Myers Creek and County
                      Road 4883.  The pump station would be similar
                      in impact  as other developments in the valley.
                      The pump station would be removed after
                      Project completion and the site reclaimed.

                      Construction of the proposed, underground
                      water pipeline would require disturbing about 3
                      currently  undisturbed  acres.  The pipeline route
                      would most likely be visible from  County Road
                      4883, north of Bolster or  Forest Road 3575.
                      The water pipeline would  impact a narrow
                      (about 20 feet wide),  relatively straight line of
                      vegetation going to the summit of Buckhorn
                      ridge.  Although it would contrast with natural
                      line and form, the pipeline would  meet the
                      "maximum modification" visual quality
                      objective.

                      The support buildings and ancillary facilities
                      would cover approximately 28 acres and include
                      an administration building, plant facilities
                      building, maintenance shop/truck
                      shop/warehouse, secondary and tertiary
                      crushing building, fuel storage tank farm, water
                      storage tanks, power substation,  and security.
                      The facilities would introduce contrasting line,
                      form,  color, and texture to the area,  but would
                      only be visible from Forest Road 3575-125
                      viewpoint and would meet the "maximum
                      modification" visual quality objective from this
                      viewpoint due to their middleground location.
                      Since  the support facilities would be removed
                      after Project completion, they would have no
                      long-term impacts.  Once the site is recontoured
                      and revegetated,  as proposed, contrasts in
                      form,  line, color, and texture would be reduced.

                      The proposed topsoil  stockpiles would most
                      likely not  be visible from any of the viewpoints,
                      except the Forest Road 3575-125 Viewpoint,
                      assuming trees are left in place to provide
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June  1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-125
screening.  Stockpiles east of the Buckhorn
Ridge would meet the "maximum modification"
visual quality objective from  Forest Road 3575-
125 Viewpoint.  None of the stockpiles would
create long-term impacts, since the topsoil
would be reused and sites reclaimed after
Project completion.  Several  borrow areas would
be required near the tailings  disposal pond for
construction of the embankments.  During
mining these may be visible from the Forest
Road 3575-125 Viewpoint, but would be
reclaimed after mining and thus would meet the
visual quality objective.

Indirect Effects

Indirect impacts to scenery would result
primarily from the new residential development
associated with all of the alternatives, since the
Project is not expected to cause enough new
commercial development to create impacts to
scenery. Since new home construction would
most likely be distributed throughout the area,
including the communities of Tonasket and
Oroville and possibly Omak,  Republic and
Curlew, the overall impacts in any single area
would be minimal. New housing demand would
range in magnitude from 53  units for Alternative
F to 1 83 units for Alternative C during the
Project operation phase.  Alternatives B and E
would have the second lowest housing demand
at 63 units.  Alternatives D and G would require
160 and 87  units, respectively (Section 4.19,
Socioeconomic Environment).

Cumulative Effects

Past and future activities in the  Buckhorn
Mountain area, such as the Nicholson and Park
Place Timber Sales, home and road
construction, historic mining and mineral
exploration, would combine with the proposed
action alternatives to create cumulative impacts
to scenery and an alteration  of the natural,
forested setting.  It is not expected that the
current Nicholson harvest areas would increase
the visibility of the Project facilities from the
viewpoints analyzed. However, the addition of
harvested and cleared areas on and around
Buckhorn Mountain would continue to alter the
natural forested setting.
              4.15.4 Effects of Alternative B

              Direct Effects

              The mine pit would be located at the summit of
              Buckhorn Mountain, extending down the
              eastern flank of the ridge and disturbing
              approximately 138 acres, 37 of which were
              previously cleared during past timber harvesting.
              Contrasting elements introduced by the  pit
              could include the parallel horizontal lines created
              by the benches and the white marble deposits
              exposed by mining, which would reflect light
              and increase the pit's visibility.  In the long-
              term, the linear effect would be reduced during
              final reclamation.

              Views into the pit would be screened from the
              Highway 3, Mt. Bonaparte, Oroville-Toroda
              Creek Road and Nealy Road Viewpoints  either
              by topography or by trees left in place along the
              top edge of the pit, although mining activities
              may be visible at the beginning of the Project.
              The mine pit would, however, permanently alter
              the form of the mountain from all of these
              viewpoints by shifting the summit
              approximately 500 feet to the south and
              lowering it by approximately 50 feet.  Although
              altered by the Project, the form of  Buckhorn
              Mountain, as seen from these viewpoints would
              be similar to naturally established form,  because
              intervening peaks would break up the straight
              line of the mine's top edge.  The views of the
              pit area from the  west, north and south  would
              thus meet the "modification" visual quality
              objective.

              A portion of the northwest wall of the pit would
              be visible from the Toroda Creek viewpoint,
              with the rest screened by intervening
              topography or the top of the south waste area
              once final elevation is reached (Figure 4.15.1,
              Toroda Creek, Viewpoint Alternative B).  The
              inside  of the mine pit would most likely also be
              visible from the top of Graphite Mountain.  The
              visible portion of the pit would create a
              permanent,  noticeable change from existing
              color,  but changes in form, line, and texture
              would be difficult to detect from the 9-mile
              distance.  The area  of the pit visible from this
              viewpoint would meet the "maximum
              modification" visual quality objective, due to its
              small size relative to other openings and the
              forested ridge rising behind it. Although the pit
              would also be visible from the Forest Road
              3575-125 viewpoint, contrasting with the
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
                                                                                              &
                                                                                              «*

                                                                                              O)
                                                    SOUTH WASTE
                                                     ROCK PILE
                     BUCKHORN MOUNTAIN
                                                                      NORTH WASTE
                                                                        ROCK PILE
                                                                                             Ct>
filename CJ4-15-1DWG
                                       FIGURE  4.15.1
                        TORODA CREEK  VIEWPOINT ALTERNATIVE  B

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-127
 natural form, line, color, and texture, it would
 meet the "maximum modification" visual quality
 objective.

 In the long-term, the pit would be visible to
 those visiting the immediate Project site after
 Project completion, since the pit walls and
 benches would not be reforested. The pit
 would continue to contrast with its
 surroundings,  although reclamation blasting and
 the formation of talus slopes over time will
 gradually reduce the level of contrast in line and
 form. In addition, a lake would form in the
 northern portion of the pit,  which could improve
 aesthetic resources to those in the immediate
 vicinity.

 The north waste rock disposal area would
 disturb approximately 122 acres, all of which
 are currently forested.  The color of the waste
 rock would be a mixture of whites, greys,
 browns, and black. The top elevation of the
 disposal area would be approximately 5,000
 feet.  The north waste rock area would be
 screened from the Mt. Bonaparte, Oroville-
 Toroda Creek Road and Nealy Road  Viewpoints
 by the top of the ridgeline.  Topography would
 also screen the north waste rock area from the
 Byers Ranch.  The top of the north waste rock
 area might be slightly visible from a  short
 segment of the Toroda Creek Road,  although it
 would not be visible from the Toroda Creek
 viewpoint.

 The north waste rock disposal  area would be
 visible against the skyline from Highway 3 in
 Canada.  The "modification" visual quality
 objective would not be met during the 10-year
 mining operation, because of the contrasts it
 would create with the natural surroundings. In
 particular, the  geometric form of the waste area
 seen against the skyline would stand out from
 the surroundings (Figure 4.15.2, Highway 3
 Viewpoint, Alternative B).   The "maximum
 modification" visual quality  objective, however,
from Forest  Road 3575-125 would be met
 because this objective allows contrast with
 natural form, line, color, and texture within the
foreground and middleground views.  In the
long-term, reclamation and revegetation would
help reduce the contrast in color, line and
texture and thus .mitigate impacts to the
Highway 3 and Forest Road 3575-125
viewpoints.
              The south waste rock disposal area would
              extend in a southeasterly direction from the
              mine pit along the eastern flank of the ridge,
              disturbing approximately 138 acres. The waste
              rock disposal area would introduce contrasting
              form, line, color, and texture similar to the north
              waste rock area. The south waste rock disposal
              area would be visible from the Mt. Bonaparte
              (Figure 4.15.3, Mt.  Bonaparte Viewpoint,
              Alternative B), Toroda Creek, and Forest Road
              3575-125 viewpoints.  The area would likely be
              visible from the summit of Graphite Mountain
              also.  The "maximum modification" visual
              quality objective from Forest Road 3575-125
              viewpoint would be met.

              In spite of the long distance (12 miles), the
              south waste rock area would not meet the
              "modification" visual quality objective from Mt.
              Bonaparte during Project operation, because of
              the long view duration and the contrast with
              natural form and line created by the area's flat
              top and geometric form.  Although the distance
              from the Toroda Creek Viewpoint is also long (9
              miles) and the view duration is short, the south
              waste rock disposal area, in the short-term,
              would not meet the "maximum modification"
              visual quality objective from the Toroda Creek
              Viewpoint, because it would not borrow from
              natural line, form, color or texture.

              In the long-term, reclamation and revegetation
              measures would lessen the impact of the  south
              waste rock disposal area on the Mt. Bonaparte,
              Toroda Creek and Forest Road 3575-125
              viewpoints.  These reclamation measures,
              combined with the proposed mitigation
              measures, would allow the south waste rock
              area, in the long-term, to meet the visual quality
              objective from Mt. Bonaparte and Toroda Creek
              Road.

              The tailings facility would be located southeast
              of the mine pit, most of which would be
              screened from the viewpoints by topography.
              The tailings pond would be visible to those
              using the area after  completion, but since this
              area is not of high sensitivity, the "maximum
              modification" visual quality objective would
              apply and would be  met after reclamation.

              The proposed access roads along Forest Roads
              3575-120 and 140 would most likely not be
              visible from any of the viewpoints. Within the
              Project boundaries, an 80-foot wide, haul road
              would be constructed, totalling 7,000-8,000
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
                                         NORTH WASTE ROCK PILE
                                                  BUCKHORN MOUNTAIN
--ilename CJ4-15-2 DWG
             FIGURE 4.15.2,
HIGHWAY 3 VIEWPOINT ALTERNATIVE B
                                                                                             Ul

-------
                                                                                    CD
                                                                                    ~*
                                                                                    to
                                                                                    <£
                                                                                    Ul
                                              BUCKHORN MOUNTAIN
                                               SOUTH WASTE ROCK PILE:
CJ4-15-3
                                 FIGURE 4.15.3,
                  MT. BONAPARTE VIEWPOINT ALTERNATIVE B

-------
Page 4-7 30
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June 1995
feet in length and disturbing a total of 48 acres.
The cut and fill slopes for most of the haul
roads would be visible from the Forest Road
3575-125 Viewpoint, with the upper haul road
(between the pit and north waste area) slightly
visible from the Toroda Creek Viewpoint. The
haul roads and associated cut and fill slopes
would introduce a relatively straight, engineered
quality of form and line, a lighter color, and finer
texture to the landscape. In the long-term,
proposed regrading and revegetation would help
reduce the  contrast in form, line, color, and
texture.

Light  and glare could create a glow at night
visible from quite a distance away, depending
on the type, intensity, location of lighting used,
and on weather conditions. Lighting could
impact nighttime recreational activities, such  as
camping and stargazing, as well as the general
scenic quality of the  area during the evening
hours. It is proposed to use the minimum
necessary lighting and not use stadium type
lighting.  Lighting would be portable and
focused into the Project area.

4.15.5 Effects of Alternative C

Direct Effects

Underground mining  would allow the summit of
Buckhorn Mountain to remain in place, and thus
there would be no impact on the form of the
ridge  as seen from all viewpoints.  Underground
mining would require a limited amount of
clearing, regrading, and construction, but with
mitigating measures, these activities would not
create excessive contrasts from the viewpoints
and thus would  meet the "modification"  and
"maximum modification" visual quality
objectives. Alternative C would require a small
north waste rock area which would not be
visible from outside of  the Project area.
Alternative C would  also require 2 quarries, 1
on the Buckhorn ridgeline, which would  be
screened from all but the Forest Road 3575-125
Viewpoint and the other adjacent to the  tailings
pond, which would be  screened from all
viewpoints.

Project features associated with Alternative C
would not  be highly  visible from the viewpoints,
with the exception of the Forest Road 3575-
125 Viewpoint.  The primary  change in the view
would result during the winter months when the
exhaust fans required for underground
                      ventilation could create a moisture cloud that
                      would most likely be visible from Chesaw and
                      from all of the viewpoints.  This would not meet
                      the "modification" or the "maximum
                      modification" visual quality objectives.

                      Since there would be no open pit with
                      Alternative C, there would  be less impact on
                      scenery from lighting than with the other
                      alternatives.  The mill building lights would be
                      the primary source of lighting impacts.  Effects
                      on scenery of the tailings disposal area would
                      be similar to those for  Alternatives B,  D, and  E,
                      disturbing 84 acres, but screened from all of  the
                      viewpoints. Alternative C would have fewer
                      roads than most of the other alternatives,
                      requiring only a single  main haul road  to the
                      north waste disposal area.  The  haul road would
                      disturb approximately 30 acres and be visible
                      only from the Forest Road 3575-125 Viewpoint.
                      An access road to the  top of Buckhorn
                      Mountain would also be required, which would
                      be within the Toroda Creek viewshed, but
                      would be most visible  from the Forest Road
                      3575-125 Viewpoint.

                      In the long-term, the adits and raises would be
                      sealed, the structures  removed,  and the area
                      reclaimed and there would be no long-term
                      impact on the 6 viewpoints.  To those using  the
                      area  after mining, water discharging from
                      around the adits might be visible. Subsidence
                      associated with the underground workings
                      would also impact those using the Buckhorn
                      Mountain area, and the subsided areas would be
                      fenced off from the public for safety reasons.

                      4.15.6 Effects of Alternative D

                      Direct Effects

                      The effects on scenery of Alternative  D would
                      be similar to those of Alternative C in that the
                      summit of Buckhorn Mountain would  essentially
                      remain in place, but it  would also have a 73
                      acre open pit in the northern portion of  the
                      mine, which would be visible from Toroda Creek
                      and Forest Road 3575-125 viewpoints  (Figure
                      4.15.4,  Toroda Creek  Viewpoint, Alternative D).
                      As with Alternative C, a moisture cloud could
                      be visible from the surrounding  area, and the
                      potential for subsidence would require fencing
                      of the Project area after mining.

                      Alternative D  would require a smaller  north
                      waste area than Alternative B, E, F, and G,
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
                                                                                    Cb
                                                                                    **fc
                                                                                    5°
                                                                                    <0
                                                                                    01
                   BUCKHORN MOUNTAIN
                                                             NORTH WASTE
                                                               ROCK PILE
CJ4-15-4 DWG
               FIGURE  4.15.4
TORODA CREEK VIEWPOINT ALTERNATIVE D
                                                                                    Co

-------
Page 4-132
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June 1995
disturbing a total of 78 acres.  Although the top
portion may be visible from the Toroda Creek or
Highway 3 viewpoints, it would not create
enough contrast to prevent the visual quality
objective from being met.   Haul roads would be
required to access the north waste area,
disturbing 35 acres  and most likely only visible
from the Forest Road 3575-125 Viewpoint. An
access road would also be required to the top of
Buckhorn Mountain, similar to Alternative C.

Lighting effects would  be reduced over
Alternative B, due to the underground mining,
however, night lighting would be required for
the open pit portion of the mine.  This would
cause light trespass and glare, which could
create a glow at night visible from quite a
distance  away, depending on the type, location,
and intensity of lighting used and weather
conditions. It  is proposed to light the minimum
necessary area and  not use stadium type
lighting.  Lighting would be portable and
focused into the Project area.

4.15.7 Effects of Alternative E

Direct Effects

The primary difference between Alternative E
and the other open  pit action alternatives would
be the partial backfill of the mine pit, which
would only be visible from the Forest Road
3575-125 Viewpoint.   In the long-term,
backfilling would reduce contrasts with existing
color and texture  over Alternatives B,  D, and G.
Reestablishing tree cover in the backfilled area
would screen portions of the pit's back wall,
also helping to reduce contrasts.  Due to the
partial backfill, there would be no lake formed in
the pit after mining.

The view of the north waste area would be
similar to that of Alternatives B and F except
that the crest may appear narrower, which
would make it more compatible with natural
forms (Figure 4.15.5,  Highway 3 Viewpoint,
Alternative E).  The south waste area  would
have similar impacts as Alternative B, being
visible from the Mt. Bonaparte, Forest Road
3575-125, and Toroda Creek Viewpoints, as
well as the summit  of Graphite Mountain.  The
constant slope of the  disposal area and lack of
benches, however,  would make it less
compatible with existing form than the
Alternative B proposal.
                      The effects of Project lighting would be similar
                      to those for Alternative B.  Light and glare could
                      create a glow at night visible from the
                      surrounding areas, depending on the weather
                      conditions, type, intensity, and location of
                      lighting used.

                      4.15.8 Effects of Alternative F

                      Direct Effects

                      Effects  of Alternative F would extend over 33
                      years, including 16 years for reclamation,
                      resulting in a longer period during which many
                      of the Project features described below would
                      be visible to the public and a longer period
                      during which the visual quality objective from
                      Highway 3 is not met.

                      The short-term effects of the mine pit on all of
                      the viewpoints, except the Toroda Creek
                      Viewpoint, would be the same as for
                      Alternatives B and E, with a change in the form
                      of the mountain perceived from these
                      viewpoints as shown on Figure 4.15.6, Toroda
                      Creek Viewpoint, Alternative F.  The backfilling
                      of the mine pit would restore the form of the
                      Buckhorn Mountain  summit as seen from all of
                      the viewpoints. The backfilled pit area would
                      be slightly higher than original topography, due
                      to swelling of the backfill.  In the long-term,
                      once the pit is backfilled and revegetated, the
                      mine pit would be compatible with natural form,
                      line, color, and texture, and thus would meet
                      the visual quality objectives from all of the
                      viewpoints.

                      Although the north waste rock area would be
                      larger in size than that for Alternative B,
                      covering 215 acres  compared to  122,  it would
                      be the same elevation, and thus have similar
                      impacts from the Highway 3 Viewpoint (Figure
                      4.15. 7,  Highway 3  Viewpoint, Alternative F).
                      Since the waste area would be visible against
                      the skyline from Highway 3, contrasting with
                      natural form, line, and color, it would not meet
                      the "modification" visual quality objective during
                      the 33-year mining operation.  The waste area
                      would be visible from the Forest Road 3575-
                      125 Viewpoint and  may be slightly visible from
                      short  segments of the Toroda Creek Road.  It
                      would be screened from the other viewpoints  by
                      the top  of the ridgeline. The area would have
                      no long-term impacts as seen from any of the
                      viewpoints since the waste rock would
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
                    NORTH WASTE ROCK PILE
                           BUCKHORN MOUNTAIN
                            SOUTH WASTE ROCK PILE
             FIGURE 4.15.5,
HIGHWAY 3 VIEWPOINT ALTERNATIVE E

-------
                                                                      NORTH WASTE
                                                                        ROCK PILE
                    BUCKHORN MOUNTAIN
                                      FIGURE 4.15.6,
                       TORODA CREEK VIEWPOINT  ALTERNATIVE F
Filename- CJ4-15-6

-------
               NORTH WASTE ROCK PILE
                       BUCKHORN MOUNTAIN
            FIGURE 4.15.7,
HIGHWAY 3 VIEWPOINT ALTERNATIVE

-------
Page 4-136
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June  1995
eventually be placed back in the mine pit and
the site reclaimed.

The proposed tailings area disposal in the
Nicholson Creek drainage would create long-
term impacts to scenery from the  Forest Road
3575-125 Viewpoint, since its embankment
would be less than a mile from the viewpoint,
but the "maximum modification" visual quality
objective would be met.  The tailings pond
would not be visible from the other viewpoints.

Alternative F would reduce the impacts of
Project lighting over Alternative B, D, E, and G,
because there would be only 12 hours of mining
per day. Some lighting would be  required for
the mill building and for the mine  pit in the early
morning and evening hours during the winter
months, which would  be visible from the
surrounding area, depending on the type,
intensity, and location of lighting.

4.15.9 Effects of Alternative G

Direct Effects

The mine pit would have similar short-term
effects as Alternative F, causing a change in the
form of the mountain from the south,  west, and
north. From the Toroda Creek Viewpoint, a
greater portion of the inside of the pit would be
visible than under Alternative B, because  of the
absence of the south waste area,  which would
not meet the visual quality objective.  Unlike
Alternative F, this would create a  long-term
impact since the pit would not be backfilled.
Although the north waste rock area for
Alternative G would be considerably larger than
that under Alternative B, it would be less visible
from the Highway 3 and Toroda Creek
viewpoints due to the lower height (Figure
4.15.8 Highway 3  Viewpoint, Alternative G).
The waste area would cover the frog pond,
impacting an existing scenic resource in the
immediate Project area. Since Alternative G
would not require a south waste area, impacts
would be reduced from the Mt. Bonaparte and
Forest Road 3575-125 viewpoints compared to
Alternatives B and E.  Effects of the tailings
disposal would be similar to Alternative F,
located within the Nicholson Creek drainage and
visible from the  Forest Road 3575-125
viewpoint.
                      4.16   HERITAGE RESOURCES

                      4.16.1  Summary

                      All action alternatives would impact a minimum
                      of 4 individual sites. Of these sites,  only
                      features 4, 5, 6, and 7  of the Gold Axe Camp
                      (site #24-64) appear eligible for the NRHP. A
                      Determination of Eligibility (DOE) for many of
                      the mining properties within the Project area is
                      currently under  review by the Washington State
                      Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
                      (OAHP). Upon concurrence of that office,
                      appropriate mitigation measures for these 4
                      features (all cabins)  of site #24-64 would need
                      to be developed. It  is further noted that
                      features 4, 5, 6, 7 of site #24-64  are
                      constituents of a potential historic district, as
                      well as contributing  elements of a  potential rural
                      historic landscape within the Project area on
                      Buckhorn Mountain.  Historic district and rural
                      historic landscape eligibility  are also  under
                      review by OAHP at this time.

                      Other historic mining-related properties would
                      be removed or buried as a result of the mining
                      and related activity,  but none of these
                      properties  are recommended as eligible for
                      inclusion on the NRHP.

                      There are 2 potentially  NRHP eligible sites along
                      the proposed Crown Jewel  transmission line
                      corridor from Oroville to the mine  site, the Hee
                      Hee Stone and a historic irrigation flume.  The
                      Hee Hee Stone  would be avoided  by the
                      construction of the proposed transmission line,
                      and the  historic irrigation flume would be
                      spanned by the line.
                      The state of historical and archaeological
                      cultural resources would remain unchanged
                      under this alternative. Presently recognized
                      cultural resources would not be affected. The
                      Gold Axe cabin would deteriorate of benign
                      neglect.

                      4.16.3 Effects Common to All Action
                             Alternatives

                      Direct Effects

                      All action alternatives would impact a minimum
                      of 4 individual sites.  Of these sites, only
                      features 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the gold Axe Camp
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
                                                                                              01
                                         NORTH WASTE ROCK PILE
                                                  BUCKHORN MOUNTAIN
Filename CJ1-1S-8DWG
                                       FIGURE 4.15.8,
                          HIGHWAY 3 VIEWPOINT ALTERNATIVE G
CO
SI

-------
Page 4-138
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
                                                                                       June 1995
 (site #24-64) appear eligible for the NRHP.  A
 DOE for many of the mining properties within
 the Project area is currently under review by
 OAHP.  Upon concurrence of that office,
 appropriate mitigation measures for these 4
 features (all cabins) of site #24-64 would be
 developed.  It is further noted that features 4,
 5, 6, and 7 of site #24-64 are constituents of a
 potential historic district, as well as contributing
 elements of a potential rural historic landscape
 within the Project area on Buckhorn Mountain.
 Historic district and rural historic landscape
 eligibility are also under review by OAHP at this
 time.

 Four recorded sites would be removed and/or
 buried as a result of mining and related activity
 in all action alternatives:

 •      Gold Axe Camp (#24-64);
 •      Magnetic Camp  (#450K477H);
 •      Roosevelt Camp (#24-65); and,
 •      Velvet Claim (#24-65 and #24-78)

 Table 4.16.1, Summary of Effects to Cultural
Resources, presents a summary of impacts to
 known sites.

 There would  be impacts to the traditional rights
 that the members of the Colville Tribe currently
 exercise (e.g., hunting and herb gathering). The
 basic impact would be a result of fencing off
 the Project area to public access and limiting
 vehicle access to other areas through  road
 closure  for wildlife mitigation.

Indirect  Effects

 Mining activity  within the  Project  area would
 result in some indirect effects to historic
 properties.  Increased Project area visitation
 may occur due  to improved road conditions.  An
 increased human presence could result in
 vandalism and other random acts  which could
 impact cultural  resources.  Some old abandoned
 structures could be weakened by  blasting
 vibrations.  In addition, to the extent that visual
 attributes or physical setting contributes to the
 significance of any historic property, changes in
the visual environment could be considered a
 potential adverse effect.  All alternatives share a
similar degree of indirect effect on a minimum
of 4 historic mine sites.
                      Cumulative Effect

                      Future timber harvesting, mineral exploration,
                      and residential development on and around
                      Buckhorn Mountain could bring increased
                      human visitation and other potentially adverse
                      impacts  to bear on the area's historic resources.
                      For properties eligible under the NRHP
                      (determination pending with OAHP),
                      development and implementation of a mitigation
                      plan would be required to address specific
                      impacts  to any eligible properties.

                      4.16.4 Effects of Alternatives B,  C, and D

                      Sites to  be potentially impacted include the 4
                      sites addressed in Section 4.16.2, as well as
                      the Gold Axe Claim (#24-86) and site
                      #450K476H of the Magnetic  Camp. The
                      indirect and cumulative effects of Alternative B,
                      C,  and D would remain the same as discussed
                      in Section  4.16.3.

                      4.16.5 Effects of Alternative E, F, and G

                      Sites potentially directly  impacted by Alternative
                      E,  F,  and G include those described in Section
                      4.16.4,  as well as one additional  site, #24-76
                      associated with the Magnetic Camp.  Site #24-
                      76 is not eligible for inclusion to the NRHP.

                      The indirect and cumulative effects to these
                      sites would remain the same as described in
                      Section 4.16.3.

                      4.17   TRANSPORTATION

                      4.17.1 Summary

                      Effects to the existing transportation network
                      would result from an increase in daily traffic to
                      the site.  This projected increase  would come
                      from employee related traffic combined with
                      supply and material transport. The magnitude
                      and duration of impacts associated with traffic
                      or transportation related  activities would  depend
                      on  the alternative selected.

                      Some transportation effects or aspects would
                      be  the same or very  similar while others would
                      have varying effects. Each action alternative
                      has been separated into 3 phases: construction,
                      operations, and reclamation.  Table 4.17.1,
                     Average  Daily Traffic By Alternative, presents
                      and compares the estimated ADT for each
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-139
TABLE 4.16.1, SUMMARY OF EFFECTS TO CULTURAL RESOURCES
Complex
Caribou
Gold Axe
Magnetic
Monterey
Rainbow
Western Star
Roosevelt
Type
Caribou Mine Site
Gold Axe Camp
Gold Axe Claim
Aztec Claim
Copper Queen Camp
Copper Queen Claim
Magnetic Camp
Neutral Claim
Nucleus Claim
Rainbow Claim
Western Star Claim
Roosevelt Camp
Velvet Claim
Site No.
24-79
24-64
24-80
24-86

450K478H
450K479H
450K480H
24-79
24-76
450K476H
450K477H
24-67
24-68
450K481H
450K482H
24-66/860K50H
24-69
27-87
24-65
24-77
24-78
Atl A
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
Alt B
0
P
0
P
0
0
o
0
0
0
D
D
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
M
0
M
Alt C
0
M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M
0
0
O
o
o
0
0
M
0
M
Alt D
0
P
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
o
M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M
0
M
Alt E
O
P
O
P
0
0
o
0
o
D
D
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
M
O
M
Alt F
0
P
0
P
0
0
0
0
o
D
D
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M
0
M
Alt G
0
P
0
P
0
0
0
0
0
D
D
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M
0
M
Notes: Alt = Alternative
D = Waste Rock Disposal Area Impacts
M = Miscellaneous Facilities (access roads, diversion ditches, powerlmes, exploration adits, vent raises, or water supply lines)
0 = Outside Impact Area or Unaffected by Alternatives
P = Mine Impacts
NE = No Effect
DOE in Progress for all sites
                                   Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-140
Ch 4- - Environmental Consequences
June 1995
TABLE 4.17.1, AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC COMPARISON BY ALTERNATIVE

Alt A
Alt B
Alt C
Alt D
Alt E
Alt F
Alt G
Construction
Employee1
0
268
268
268
268
268
268
Supplies2
0
8
8
8
8
8
8
Other
0
6
6
6
6
6
6
Total
0
282
282
282
282
282
282
Operations
Employee
0
32
40
40
32
32
40
Supplies2
0
13
11
13
13
8
7
Other
0
6
6
6
6
6
30
Total
0
51
57
59
51
46
77
Reclamation
Employee
8
12
12
12
12
16
12
Supplies2
0
2
2
2
2
4
2
Other
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
Total
12
20
20
20
20
26
20
Notes: 1 . The construction employee ADT represents carpoolmg with 2 persons per vehicle; operation and reclamation represent busing.
2. The supply ADT represents traffic averaged over 260 days/yr the traffic expected on a week day.

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-141
phase of all alternatives, while Table 4.17.2,
Traffic Summary By Road, shows the percent of
traffic increase projected for each road.

Construction  Phase

All of the action alternatives are projected to
have similar volumes of construction related
traffic, for an estimated 12 month period.
Alternatives C and G route all traffic (employee
and supply) from Oroville to the Project, while
Alternatives B, D, E and F route supplies
through Wauconda to the  site.  For all action
alternatives, there would be some traffic
through Chesaw to the Starrem Creek Reservoir
during its construction.  There would be an
expected increase in the number of accidents
per year, due to the volume of traffic projected
during this phase.  However, the accident rate,
based on annual miles traveled, could be lower
than currently experienced based  on the safety
and mitigation measures proposed, but the
actual number of accidents per year could
increase.

Operations Phase

The proposed action alternatives vary
considerably  between employees  needed and
the life span of the operation.  As shown on
Table 4.17.1, Average Daily Traffic Comparison
By Alternative, Alternatives  B, C,  D, E and F
vary from 46 to 59 vehicle trips per day, while
Alternative G would have  77.  The duration of
effect varies from 4 to 8 years, except for
Alternative F which extends for 16 years.

Again, there would be an  expected increase in
the number of accidents per year, due to the
volume of traffic projected during this  phase.
However, the increase would be much  less  than
expected in the construction phase.

Annual supply requirements vary from 1,440
truck loads (Alternatives B, D, and E),  1,171 for
Alternative C, 720 for Alternative F, and 601
loads in Alternative G. All action  alternatives
would transport environmentally hazardous
materials including sodium cyanide,
chemicals/reagents, lime/cement,  ammonium
nitrate and fuel annually to the Project.
Alternative G would require  about 400  annual
loads of ammonium nitrate and fuel only, but  no
cyanide would be used in  this scenario.  The
Proponent has indicated that most supplies
would be delivered Monday  through Thursday.
               Reclamation Phase

               Alternatives B, C, D, E and G are projected to
               have the same volume (20 ADT) of associated
               traffic; employee, supply and miscellaneous
               visitors over a 1 year period. Alternative F
               would require more people per year for 16 years
               with an associated 26 ADT.

               Environmentally Hazardous Materials

               There would be materials required for operation
               of the Project that are considered
               environmentally hazardous.  The type and
               amount of these materials needed annually are
               summarized by alternative on Table 4.17.3,
               Summary of Environmentally Hazardous
               Materials.  Although numerous mitigation
               measures have been proposed to reduce or
               eliminate an accident or spill of this type of
               material, it must be recognized that the
               potential, however slight, remains. Section
               4.22, Accidents And Spills, discusses  what
               could happen if there were a spill into surface
               waters along a supply route.

               4.17.2 Effects of Alternative A (No Action)

               If the Project does not proceed, the Proponent's
               exploration and pre-construction activities would
               cease, resulting in the elimination of Project-
               related road traffic currently accessing the site.

               After cessation of exploration activities, roads
               constructed for exploration purposes on lands
               administered by the  Forest Service and the BLM
               would be closed and reclaimed under the terms
               of previously approved exploration plans of
               operations and notices of intent.  It has been
               estimated that reclamation activities would
               contribute an  ADT volume of 12 vehicles. The
               traffic would include an estimated;

               •      4 light or personal vehicles (employee
                      transport)
               •      2 light vehicles (agency personnel)

               This anticipated traffic is summarized on Table
               4.17.1, A verage Daily Traffic Comparison By
               Alternative  and Table 4.17.2, Traffic Summary
               By Road.

               The anticipated impact of this traffic would be
               less than previously  experienced during the
               exploration program.
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-142
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June 1995
TABLE 4.17.2, TRAFFIC SUMMARY BY ROAD _j

Alternative A
Construction
Operations
Reclamation
Alternative B
Construction
Operations
Reclamation
Alternative C
Construction
Operations
Reclamation
Alternative D
Construction
Operations
Reclamation
Alternative E
Construction
Operations
Reclamation
Alternative F
Construction
Operations
Reclamation
Alternative G
Construction
Operations
Reclamation
State Highway
20
(ADT 860)
Increase

8
13
2

8
13
2
8
13
2
8
8
4

% Inc

0.9
1.5
0.2

0.9
1.5
0.2
0.9
1.5
0.2
0.9
0.9
0.5

County Road 9495
(ADT 172}
Increase

8
13
2

8
13
2
8
13
2
8
8
4

% Inc

4.7
7.6
1.2

4.7
7.6
1.2
4.7
7.6
1.2
4.7
4.7
2.3

Countv Road 9480
(ADT 190e/288w!'
Increase
12w
8e/274w
13e/ 38w
2e/ 18w
282w
57w
20 w
8e/274w
13e/ 46w
2e/ 18w
8e/274w
13e/ 38w
2e/ 18w
8e/274w
8e/ 38w
4e/ 22w
282w
77w
20 w
% Inc
4.2w
4.2e/95.1w
6.8e/13.2w
1.1e/ 6.3w
99. Ow
19. 8w
6.9w
4.2e/95.1 w
6.8e/16.0w
Lie/ 6.3w
4.2e/95.1 w
6.8e/13.2w
Lie/ 6.3w
4.2e/95.1 w
4.2e/13.2w
2.1e/ 7.6w
97. 9w
26. 7w
6.9w
County Road 489&
(ADT 5)
Increase
12
282
51
20
282
57
20
282
59
20
282
51
20
282
46
26
282
77
20
% Inc
240
5640
1020
400
5640
1140
400
5640
1 180
400
5640
1020
400
5640
920
520
5640
1540
400
Forest Road 3575-
120
(ADT <5)
Increase
12
282
51
20
282
57
20
282
59
20
282
51
20
282
46
26
282
77
20
% Inc
>240
>5640
>1020
> 400
>5640
>1140
> 400
>5640
>1180
> 400
>5640
>1020
> 400
>5640
> 920
> 520
>5640
>1540
> 400
Notes: Traffic numbers represent expected and mitigated conditions.
ADT = average daily traffic.
1 . "e" represents the portion of County Road 9480 east of the Project, "w" is west of the Project.
TABLE 4. 17. 3, SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTALLY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Sodium Cyanide
Ammonium Nitrate
Chemicals/Reagents
Lime/Cement
Fuel
Lead Nitrate
Alternative
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
Alternative
B
86
160
105
401
240
9
Alternative
C
86
55
105
401
24
9
Alternative
D
86
160
1O5
401
240
9
Alternative
E
86
160
105
401
240
9
Alternative
F
43
80
52
200
120
4
Alternative
G
0
160
0
0
240
0
Note: Numbers represent annual truck loads during operations.
4.17.3 Effects Common to All Action
       Alternatives

Direct Effects

If an action alternative is selected, direct effects
to the existing transportation  network would
result from an increase in daily traffic to the
                      site.  This would result from employee related
                      traffic combined with supply and material
                      transport.  In addition, there would be the need
                      for upgrading segments of County Road 9480
                      and Forest Road 3575-120.

                      With all proposed alternatives, there are 3
                      separate phases;
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-143
 1) Construction;
 2) Operations, and;
 3) Reclamation.

 The construction phase, for all action
 alternatives, would last approximately a year
 and would have the largest impact to traffic
 loads.  It is estimated that the ADT would
 increase by up to 282 vehicles.  This scenario
 assumes that employees would carpool (2
 persons/vehicle). The ADT projection is based
 on traffic using the roads  365 days per year.
 However, most of the traffic would be
 concentrated over a 6 month construction
 season. During the  6 months of concentrated
 construction activity as many as 18 transport
 trucks could access the Project each day during
 the week, only employee traffic is anticipated
 on weekends.  This  anticipated traffic is
 summarized on Table 4.17. /, Average Daily
 Traffic Comparison By Alternative and Table
 4.17.2, Traffic Summary By Road.

 During the operations phase, employees would
 be bused and/or van pooled from a location in or
 near Oroville to the mine site via County Road
 9480 to County Road 4895 to Forest Road
 3575-120 and north on to the Project site.  The
 traffic increase for the operation phase would
 vary from an estimated 46 ADT (Alternative F)
 to 77 ADT (Alternative G) and would last from
 4 to 16 years.  This anticipated traffic is
 summarized on Table 4.17.1, Average Daily
 Traffic Comparison By Alternative and Table
4.17.2,  Traffic Summary By Road.

 Once the mining is completed, the number of
 employees required to conduct reclamation
 activities would be less. The reclamation phase
 would last for approximately a year with an
 estimated ADT of 20, except for Alternative F
 which would continue for  16 years and have an
 estimated ADT of 26.  This anticipated traffic is
 summarized on Table 4.17.1, Average Daily
Traffic Comparison By Alternative and Table
4.17.2,  Traffic Summary By Road.

With the increase in  traffic and the transport of
supplies to the Project site, there is also a
potential for accidents  involving employees  or
the supplies hauled to the  site. However, this
potential is expected to be low given the plans
for employee busing and/or van pooling to the
site and special safeguards for supply transport
as outlined in Chapter 2, Management and
Mitigation.
               Under all action alternatives, the impacts to
               transportation systems would be minor with the
               upgrades on County Road 4895 and Forest
               Road 3575-120 being discussed with Forest
               Service and Okanogan County officials and if
               proper maintenance is sustained throughout the
               life of the Project. The potential for the  spill of
               a hazardous or environmentally sensitive
               material resulting in a substantial impact would
               be very remote if proper transportation
               safeguards are maintained, and appropriate spill
               control and  cleanup measures are implemented
               in the event of a transport accident resulting in
               a spill.

               Several specific aspects of the transportation
               network in Okanogan County would be affected
               by employee and supply transport to the Project
               site.  These aspects include:
                      Public Access;
                      Traffic Load;
                      Public Safety;
                      Environmental Safety; and,
                      Road Maintenance.
              Public Access.  Under all action alternatives,
              public access to the Project area would be
              affected.  In particular, all or portions of Forest
              Roads 3575-100, 120, 125, 127, 140 and 150
              would be closed to through traffic during the life
              of the operation.  There are no plans under any
              of the action alternatives to construct a through
              road around the Project during operations to
              allow passage for the general public. However,
              once mining is completed and reclamation
              underway,  a through route would be
              constructed by connecting Forest Road 3575-
              120, 100 and  1 50.  The  location has yet to be
              determined and would depend on the alternative
              selected.

              Traffic Load.  All proposed action alternatives
              would result in increased traffic; however actual
              traffic volumes would vary depending on the
              alternative. Traffic sources would be employee
              commuting, supply transport, general public,
              state and federal agency  personnel,
              miscellaneous visitors and, in the case of
              Alternative G, hauling of ore concentrates from
              the Project site to Oroville.  The types of
              vehicles would consist of buses/vans and light
              vehicles for employee transport, truck-trailer
              (semi's) for supply transport, and light vehicles
              for miscellaneous traffic.
                    Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-144
 Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
                                  June  1995
The predominant increases in traffic load would
be expected on County Road 9480 and 4895,
and Forest Road 3575-120.  All alternatives
include busing and/or van pooling employees
from the town of Oroville to the Project site
which would greatly reduce the effects of
employee  vehicles on these roads, thereby
minimizing traffic loads. Predicted increases in
traffic loads are based on using 24 passenger
buses/vans and 5 light  vehicles per shift.

Employee  traffic would be most evident during
shift change periods. Supply traffic would be
scattered throughout the daylight hours on
weekdays except during spring breakup when
some supply traffic may operate at night.  The
impacts of increased Project employee and
supply traffic load would be short-term and
would cease upon closure of the Project.

A comparison of the existing estimated daily
traffic volumes and the projected daily employee
and supply traffic volumes for each alternative
is set forth on Table 4.17.2,  Traffic Summary
By Road.  Existing traffic loads are based on
information from the WADOT,  Okanogan
County, and the Forest Service.

Public Safety.  Accident frequency data was
obtained from the WADOT and the Okanogan
County  Department of  Public Works.  The data
combines  private and commercial accidents 24
hours a  day and consists of all types of causes
including speeding, drinking, all ages of drivers,
etc.

Historically, the reported accidents occurring
since 1988 in the Project area  average:
       State Highway 20
       County Road 9495
       County Road 9480
       County Road 4895
17.7/year
3/year
11 /year
5/year
Based on busing of employees to the site, along
with the safeguards proposed as mitigation for
supply vehicles, principally the use of a pilot
vehicle in the transport of diesel fuel and the
various hazardous materials to the site, the
potential for future accidents is expected to be
lower than the historical frequency.  However, if
a supply or ore concentrate truck is involved in
an accident with a passenger vehicle, resulting
impacts might be worse than an accident simply
involving passenger vehicles.
Increases in traffic due to new residents and
commuters would depend on where the
residents live.  There could be an increase in the
total number of accidents.

Environmental  Safety. Most supplies and
materials needed for mining and milling
operations would  be purchased from United
States and  Canadian vendors outside Okanogan
County; some  supplies, however, would be
purchased locally.

Whenever transporting environmentally
hazardous materials, such as sodium cyanide,
explosives, chemical reagents, lime/cement,
fuel, and lead nitrate, there is  a potential for an
accidental spill. These materials  would be
transported to  the Project site in conformance
with U.S. Department of Transportation
regulations. Spill  prevention would be the
principle objective during transportation of these
materials to the Project site.

About 9 miles  of State Highway 20, between
Tonasket and Wauconda, are proximate to
streams and could be susceptible to degradation
if an accident resulting in a spill happened to
occur. There are approximately 2.9 miles of
County  Road 9495 proximate to streams.
About 10.1 miles of County Road 9480 are
proximate to streams, including Beth and Beaver
Lakes. A pilot car would accompany hazardous
material shipments, from the intersection with
County  Road 9495 to the Project site, to reduce
the probability of  an accident. There are very
limited portions of County Road 4895 and
Forest Road 3575-120 proximate to streams.
With upgrading and reconstruction of portions
of these roads, no effects to environmental
safety would be expected.  Based on these
examinations,  mitigation measures were
stipulated to reduce or eliminate the potential
for these types of accidents and spills.  See
Chapter 2,  Management and Mitigation, for the
mitigation measures proposed for
implementation. Section 4.22, Accidents and
Spills, discusses what could happen if there
was a spill  into surface waters along the supply
routes.

Road Maintenance.  Under all action
alternatives, portions of both County Road 4895
and  Forest  Road 3575-120 would probably
require signing along with alignment, grade, and
width reconstruction to handle Project related
traffic.  Depending on the type of upgrade work
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-145
implemented, these roads would require routine
maintenance during Project operations.  Such
maintenance measures would probably  include
grading, watering or dust controls, and  snow
plowing and sanding in the winter months.  All
action alternatives would require the Forest
Service, WADNR, Okanogan County, and the
Proponent to complete an agreement for year
round maintenance of both County Road 4895
and Forest Road 3575-120.

Indirect Effects

Indirect effects to the transportation network
would result from additional non-work related
trips made by the new persons  (workers and
their families) that would move  into the region
as a result of the Project.  The projected number
of new workers varies by alternative. The
increase in traffic, however, would probably be
dispersed throughout Okanogan County and
would not be concentrated in the vicinity of the
Project. Therefore, this traffic would be only a
minor component in the cumulative impacts on
any roads near the Project site.

Cumulative Effects

Project traffic combined with traffic associated
with future timber harvests, over the next
decade, on federal, state, and private lands, as
well as continuing exploration, logging,
recreational, and residential traffic in the
immediate vicinity of the Project site, would
result in some cumulative effects.

The traffic resulting from adjacent and
surrounding activities would increase the traffic
volume in the area and would add to the
possibility of accidents. The combined use of
Forest roads for Project access  and harvest unit
access could result in conflicts  and priority
access rights.  The addition of timber harvest
activity could add an additional  2 vehicles per
acre of harvest to the projected Project traffic
load.  Administrative, recreational, and  other
Project related traffic is estimated to average
less than 15 ADT.

Even  with the projected traffic volumes
associated with the Project and surrounding
activities, it is not expected that such activities
would effect the operational conditions of
Washington State Highways 20 and 97, nor
County Road 9495 or County Road 9480.
              4.17.4  Effects of Alternative B

              The duration of the transportation impacts
              anticipate 1 year of construction activity, an 8
              year operating life, and 1 year of reclamation
              activity.

              Employee Traffic

              Construction Phase. Construction related traffic
              has been discussed in Section 4.17.3, Effects
              Common to All Action Alternatives.

              Operation Phase. It is expected that most of
              the projected 150 employees (133 operations
              and 17 administration) would reside in and
              around the Tonasket, Oroville and Chesaw
              areas.  Although some shift staggering may
              occur, it is anticipated that most employees
              would be assigned to 1  of 2 daily 12 hour
              shifts.  The employee route and the supply
              route would join at the intersection of County
              Road 4895 with County Road 9480.

              The daily traffic usage of these roads would
              increase by about 32 vehicle trips per day.
              County Road 9480 would experience
              approximately an 11 % increase in traffic load,
              whereas County Road 4895 and Forest  Road
              3575-120 would have 6 times or more the
              traffic currently experienced. The expected
              increase in traffic load, vehicle  types, ease  of
              access, and the need for winter maintenance
              would be the prime factors for requiring upgrade
              and reconstruction  of portions of County Road
              4895 and Forest Road 3575-120.

              Reclamation Phase.  This traffic has been
              discussed in Section 4.17.3, Effects Common
              to  All Action Alternatives.

              Supply Transport

              Project supplies would be routed through
              Wauconda on State Highway 20, then north on
              County Road 9495 about 12 miles to County
              Road 9480. At this point, a pilot car would
              accompany trucks carrying environmentally
              hazardous materials the remaining 16 miles via
              County Road 9480 to County Road 4895 to
              Forest Road 3575-120 and on  to the site.

              Construction  Phase. The ADT associated with
              the transport of supplies has been estimated at
              8.  This traffic consists of transport trucks  and
              pilot cars and has been  discussed in Section
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-146
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
4.17.3, Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives.

Operations Phase.  It has been estimated that
about 1,440 truck loads of supplies would be
needed annually to supply the Project, this
equates to an ADT of 13 consisting of trucks
and pilot cars 
-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-147
 calculations used to determine the traffic
 numbers.

 Of the estimated 1,171  loads of supplies, about
 680 truck loads would contain environmentally
 hazardous materials, consisting of:
        Sodium Cyanide - 86 loads per year;
        Ammonium Nitrate - 55 loads per year;
        Chemicals/Reagents - 105 loads per
        year;
        Lime/Cement - 401  loads per year;
        Fuel - 24 loads per year; and,
        Lead Nitrate - 9 loads per year.
 There are about 6.3 miles of County Road 9480
 proximate to streams and very limited portions
 of County Road 4895 and Forest Road 3575-
 120, which could be susceptible to degradation
 if a spill happened to occur.  Based on the
 management and mitigation measures proposed,
 the potential for a stream spill or long-term
 degradation of surface water is  unlikely;
 however, accidental spill scenarios with effects
 have been presented in Section  4.22, Accidents
 and  Spills.

 Reclamation Phase. The majority of the supply
 trucks would be carrying fuel during this phase,
 about 120 truck loads (2 ADT) for the year.

 Other Traffic

 It has been estimated there would be 3
 additional Project-related vehicles per day (6
 ADT).  These vehicles would be associated with
 agency personnel, general public, etc.

 4.17.6 Effects of Alternative D

 The  duration of the transportation impacts are
 anticipated at 1 year of construction activity, a
 6 year operating life, and 1 year of reclamation
 activity.

 Employee Traffic

 Construction Phase. Construction related traffic
 has been discussed in Section 4.17.3, Effects
 Common to All Action Alternatives.

 Operations Phase.  As discussed in Alternative
 C, it is expected that most of the projected 225
employees would reside  in and around the
Tonasket, Oroville and Chesaw areas.  Although
some shift staggering may occur, it is
              anticipated that most employees would be
              assigned to 1 of 2 daily 12 hour shifts.

              The daily employee traffic usage of these roads
              would increase by about 40 vehicle trips per
              day.  County Road 9480 would experience
              approximately a  14% increase in traffic load,
              whereas County Road 4895 and Forest Road
              3575-120 would have 8 times, or more, the
              traffic currently experienced.  The expected
              increase in traffic load, vehicle types, ease of
              access, and the need for winter maintenance
              would be the prime factors for requiring upgrade
              and reconstruction of portions of County Road
              4895 and Forest Road 3575-120.

              Reclamation Phase. This traffic has been
              discussed in Section  4.17.3, Effects Common
              to All Action Alternatives.

              Supply Transport

              Project supplies would be routed through
              Wauconda on State Highway 20, then north on
              County Road 9495 about 12 miles to County
              Road  9480. At this point, a pilot car would
              accompany trucks carrying environmentally
              hazardous materials the  remaining 16 miles  via
              County Road 9480 to County Road 4895 to
              Forest Road 3575-120 and on to the  site.

              Construction Phase.  The traffic associated with
              the transport of supplies has been estimated at
              8, Monday through Friday.  This traffic consists
              of transport trucks and pilot cars and  has been
              discussed in Section  4.17.3, Effects Common
              to All Action Alternatives.

              Operations Phase.  As discussed in Alternative
              B, it has been estimated that about 1,440 truck
              loads  of supplies would be needed annually  to
              supply the Project, this equates to 8 vehicles
              per day, 5 days per week, consisting  of trucks
              and pilot cars.  Table 4.17.2, Traffic Summary
              By Road, shows the increase in traffic to each
              road in the transportation system. Appendix G,
              Traffic Assumptions,  presents the rational and
              calculations used to determine  the traffic
              numbers.

              Of the estimated 1,440 loads of supplies, about
              1,001 truck loads would contain
              environmentally hazardous materials, consisting
              of:

              •      Sodium Cyanide - 86 loads per year;
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-148
                              Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June 7995
•      Ammonium Nitrate - 160 loads per year;
•      Chemicals/Reagents - 105 loads per
       year;
•      Lime/Cement - 401 loads per year;
•      Fuel - 240 loads per year; and,
•      Lead Nitrate - 9 loads per year.

There are about 16 miles of the  proposed
supply route proximate to streams, including
Beth and Beaver Lakes. Based on the
management and mitigation measures proposed,
the potential for a stream spill or long-term
degradation of surface water is unlikely;
however, accidental spill scenarios with effects
have been presented in Section 4.22, Accidents
and Spills.

Reclamation Phase.  The majority of the supply
trucks would be carrying fuel during this phase,
about 120 truck loads (2 ADT) for the year.

Other Traffic

It has been estimated there would be  3
additional Project-related vehicles per  day (6
ADT).  These vehicles would be associated with
agency personnel, general  public, etc.

4.17.7 Effects of Alternative E

The duration of the transportation impacts are
anticipated at 1 year of construction activity,  an
8 year operating life, and 1 year of reclamation
activity.

Employee Traffic

Construction Phase.  Construction related traffic
has been discussed  in Section 4.17.3, Effects
Common to All Action Alternatives.

Operations Phase.  As discussed in Alternative
B, it is expected that most of the projected 150
employees  (133 operations and  17
administration) would reside in and around the
Tonasket, Oroville and Chesaw areas.  Although
some shift  staggering may occur, it is
anticipated that most employees would be
assigned to 1 of 2 daily 12 hour shifts.  The
employee route and the supply  route would join
at the intersection of County Road 4895 with
County Road 9480.

The daily traffic usage of these roads would
increase by about 32 vehicle trips per day.
County Road 9480 would experience
                                                   approximately an 11 % increase in traffic load,
                                                   whereas County Road 4895 and Forest Road
                                                   3575-120 would have 6 times, or more, the
                                                   traffic currently experienced. The expected
                                                   increase in traffic load, vehicle types, ease of
                                                   access, and the need for winter maintenance
                                                   would be the prime factors for requiring upgrade
                                                   and reconstruction of portions of County Road
                                                   4895 and Forest Road 3575-120.

                                                   Reclamation  Phase.  This traffic has been
                                                   discussed in Section 4.17.3, Effects Common
                                                   to All Action Alternatives.

                                                   Supply Transport

                                                   Project supplies would be routed through
                                                   Wauconda on State Highway 20, then  north on
                                                   County Road 9495 about 12 miles to County
                                                   Road 9480.  At this point, a pilot car would
                                                   accompany trucks carrying environmentally
                                                   hazardous materials the remaining 16 miles via
                                                   County Road 9480 to County Road 4895 to
                                                   Forest Road  3575-120 and on to the site.

                                                   Construction Phase. The ADT associated with
                                                   the transport of supplies has been estimated at
                                                   8 vehicles per day, 5 days per week. This
                                                   traffic consists of transport trucks and  pilot cars
                                                   and has been discussed in Siection 4.17.3,
                                                   Effects Common to All Action Alternatives.

                                                   Operations Phase. As discussed in Alternative
                                                   B and D, it has been estimated that about
                                                   1,440 truck  loads of supplies would be needed
                                                   annually to supply the Project, this equates to
                                                   an ADT of 13 consisting of trucks and  pilot
                                                   cars. Table 4.17.2,  Traffic Summary By Road,
                                                   shows the increase in traffic to each road in the
                                                   transportation system.  Appendix G, Traffic
                                                   Assumptions, presents the rational and
                                                   calculations used to determine the traffic
                                                   numbers.

                                                   Of the estimated 1,440 loads of supplies, about
                                                   1,001 truck loads would contain
                                                   environmentally hazardous materials, consisting
                                                   of:

                                                   •      Sodium Cyanide - 86 loads per year;
                                                   •      Ammonium Nitrate - 160 loads per year;
                                                   •      Chemicals/Reagents - 105 loads per
                                                          year;
                                                   •      Lime/Cement - 401 loads per year;
                                                   •      Fuel  - 240 loads per year; and,
                                                   •      Lead Nitrate - 9 loads per year.
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-149
There are about 16 miles of the proposed
supply route proximate to streams, including
Beth and Beaver Lakes.  Based on the
management and mitigation measures proposed,
the potential for a stream spill or long-term
degradation of surface water is unlikely;
however, accidental spill scenarios with effects
have been presented in Section 4.22, Accidents
and Spills.

Reclamation Phase.  The majority of the supply
trucks would be  carrying fuel during this phase,
about 120 truck loads (2 ADT) for the year.

Other Traffic

It has been estimated there would be 3
additional Project-related vehicles per day (6
ADT).  These vehicles would be associated with
agency personnel, general  public, etc.

4.17.8 Effects of Alternative F

The duration of the transportation impacts are
anticipated at 1 year of construction activity, a
16 year operating life, and 16 years of
reclamation activity.

Employee Traffic

Construction Phase.  Construction related traffic
has been discussed  in Section 4.17.3, Effects
Common to All Action Alternatives.

Operations  Phase.  This alternative would
require an estimated 125 employees to operate
the mine 12 hours per day and to operate the
mill 24 hours per day.  Again, it is expected that
most of the employees would reside in and
around the  Tonasket, Oroville and Chesaw
areas.  Although some shift staggering may
occur, it is  anticipated that most employees
would be assigned to 1 of 2 daily 12 hour
shifts.  The employee route and the supply
route  would join  at the  intersection of County
Road 4895 with  County Road 9480.

The daily traffic usage of these roads would
increase by about 32 vehicle trips per day.
County Road 9480 would experience
approximately an 11 % increase in traffic load,
whereas County  Road 4895 and Forest Road
3575-120 would have 6 times, or more,  the
traffic currently experienced. The expected
increase in traffic load,  vehicle types, ease of
access, and the need for winter maintenance
              would be the prime factors for requiring upgrade
              and reconstruction of portions of County Road
              4895 and Forest Road 3575-120.

              Reclamation Phase. The workforce would
              decrease to 75 people for the last 14 years of
              the projected 16 year reclamation phase.
              During this phase, the employee traffic load
              would decrease to an ADT of 16.  This
              anticipated traffic is summarized on Table
              4.17.1, A verage Daily Traffic Comparison By
              Alternative, and on Table 4. 17.2,  Traffic
              Summary By Road.

              Supply Transport

              Project supplies would be routed through
              Wauconda on State Highway 20, then north on
              County Road 9495 about 12 miles to County
              Road 9480.  At this point, a pilot car would
              accompany trucks carrying environmentally
              hazardous materials the remaining 16 miles via
              County Road 9480 to County Road 4895 to
              Forest Road 3575-120 and on to the site.

              Construction Phase.  The ADT associated with
              the transport of supplies has been estimated at
              8 trucks.  This traffic consists of transport
              trucks and pilot cars and has been  discussed in
              Section 4.17.3, Effects  Common to All Action
              Alternatives.

              Operations Phase. It is  estimated that this
              scenario would require 50% less supplies
              annually than Alternatives B, D, and E, since ore
              processing has been reduced by 50%  annually.
              This equates to an ADT of 8 consisting of
              trucks and pilot cars.  Table 4.17.2, Traffic
              Summary By Road, shows the increase in traffic
              to each road in the transportation system.

              There are about 16 miles of the proposed
              supply route proximate to streams, including
              Beth and Beaver Lakes.  Based on the
              management and mitigation measures proposed,
              the potential for a stream spill or long-term
              degradation of surface water is unlikely;
              however, accidental spill scenarios with effects
              have been presented in  Section 4.22, Accidents
              and Spills.

              Reclamation Phase. The majority of the supply
              trucks would be carrying fuel during this phase,
              about 240 truck loads (4 ADT) for the year.
              This traffic consists of transport trucks and pilot
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-150
Ch 4- - Environmental Consequence*
cars and has been discussed in Section 4.17.3,
Effects Common to  All Action Alternatives.

Other Traffic

It has been estimated that there would be 3
additional Project-related vehicles per day (6
ADT).  These vehicles would be associated with
agency personnel, general public, etc.

4.17.9 Effects of Alternative G

The duration of the  transportation impacts are
anticipated at 1 year of construction activity, an
8 year operating life, and 1 year of reclamation
activity.

Employee Traffic

Construction Phase. Construction related traffic
has been discussed  in Section 4.17.3, Effects
Common to All Action Alternatives.

Operations Phase. This alternative would
require an estimated 210 employees to operate
the mine,  mill and ore haulage. It is expected
that most of the employees would reside in and
around the Tonasket, Oroville and Chesaw
areas.  Although some shift staggering may
occur, it is anticipated that most employees
would be assigned to 1 of 2 daily  12 hour
shifts.   The employee route and the supply
route would both use County Road 9480 from
Oroville.

The daily employee  traffic usage of these  roads
would increase by about 40 vehicle trips per
day. County Road 9480 would experience
about a 14% increase in traffic load, whereas
County Road 4895 and Forest Road 3575-120
would have 8 times, or more, the traffic
currently experienced.  The expected increase in
traffic load,  vehicle types, ease of access, and
the need for winter  maintenance would be the
prime factors for requiring upgrade and
reconstruction of portions of County Road 4895
and Forest Road 3575-120.

Reclamation Phase.  This traffic has been
discussed in Section 4.17.3, Effects Common
to All Action Alternatives.

Supply Transport

Project supplies would be routed from Oroville
through Chesaw on  County Road 9480 to
                      County Road 4895 and then north on Forest
                      Road 3575-120 to the Project.  This is the same
                      route that employee traffic would use.

                      Construction Phase. The ADT associated with
                      the transport of supplies has been estimated at
                      8.  This traffic consists of transport trucks and
                      pilot cars and has been discussed in Section
                      4.17.3, Effects Common to All Action
                      Alternatives.

                      Operations Phase.   It has been estimated that
                      about 601 truck loads  of supplies would be
                      needed annually to  supply the Project, this
                      equates to an ADT  of 8 vehicles consisting  of
                      trucks and pilot cars.  Table 4.1 7.2, Traffic
                      Summary By Road, shows the increase in traffic
                      to each road in the  transportation system.
                      Appendix G, Traffic Assumptions, presents the
                      rational and  calculations used to determine the
                      traffic numbers.

                      Of the estimated 601  loads of supplies, about
                      400 truck loads would contain environmentally
                      hazardous materials, consisting of:

                      •      Ammonium Nitrate -  160 loads per year;
                            and,
                      •       Fuel - 240 loads per year.

                      There are about 6.3 miles of County Road 9480
                      proximate to streams and very limited portions
                      of County Road 4895 and Forest Road 3575-
                      120,  which  could be susceptible to degradation
                      if a spill happened to occur.  Based on the
                      management and mitigation measures proposed,
                      the potential for a stream spill or long-term
                      degradation  of surface water is  unlikely;
                      however, accidental spill scenarios with effects
                      have  been presented in Section 4.22, Accidents
                      and Spills.

                      Reclamation Phase. The majority of the supply
                      trucks would be carrying fuel during this phase,
                      about 120 truck loads for the year.  This
                      equates to an ADT of 2, which consists
                      primarily of fuel transports, pilot cars.

                      Other Traffic

                      It has been estimated that there would be 3
                      additional Project-related vehicles per day (6
                      ADT). These vehicles would be associated  with
                      agency personnel, general public, etc.
                    Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-151
In addition, an estimated 12 truckloads of ore
concentrate would be hauled from the mill to
Oroville.  The flotation concentrate would equal
about 10% of the total ore processed or about
300 tons per day.  Assuming  25 ton haul
trucks, there would be 12 truckloads per day
leaving the mine area, 7 days  a week. Traffic in
this category would increase the ADT by 30.

4.18   LAND USE/RECLAMATION

4.18.1 Summary

In the long-term, successful reclamation would
enable the area to be used much as it was
before the Project.  In the short-term, land could
be used at a reduced capability.  The various
buildings at the site would be removed.  The
waste rock and tailings areas  would be
reclaimed and would be suitable for land uses
they now support.  As discussed in Section 4.2,
Topography/Physiography, there would be
topographic modifications to the Crown Jewel
Project area following mining.  Most notable will
be the final mine pit left open  in Alternatives B,
D, E, and G as well as surface subsidence in the
underground mining operations expected for
Alternatives C and D.  Land affected by the
open mine pit and surface subsidence would be
lost in terms of pre-mining land use.  Even with
these topographic changes, successful
reclamation of the action alternatives would not
cause a substantial  long-term  change in land
use within the immediate Project area.
Disturbance caused by the action alternatives
differs from 440 acres (Alternative C) to 927
acres (Alternative E).  The areas would
experience  short-term effects,  but reclamation
would return most of the acreage to pre-mining
uses.

4.18.2 Effects of Alternative A (No Action)

If the No Action Alternative is selected, the  land
use of the Crown Jewel Project area would  not
change.  In this situation, the  Proponent would
likely discontinue exploration and pre-
development activities and complete the
reclamation of areas disturbed by exploration
activities.

4.18.3 Effects Common to All Action
       Alternatives

Although mining activities have historically
occurred within and adjacent to the Project
              area, the construction and operation of the
              proposed Crown Jewel Project would introduce
              a noticeable temporary land use change in the
              area around Buckhorn Mountain.  However, on
              a more regional basis, the Crown  Jewel Project
              would not substantially change other land uses
              in Okanogan or Ferry Counties, or on the
              Okanogan National Forest, WADNR, or BLM
              administered lands.  The  disturbance of public
              and  private lands for the  action alternatives is
              set forth in Table 4.18.1, Land Status
              Disturbance. Reclamation of the surface
              disturbance would be planned to re-establish
              wildlife habitat, livestock grazing,  and timber
              resources after permanent Project closure. With
              mitigation and reclamation, the approval of any
              of the action alternatives would not
              substantially affect the long-term  land use or
              land use planning on the  Okanogan National
              Forest, WADNR, BLM, or adjacent private areas.

              The  Crown Jewel Project would cause  a short-
              term loss of multiple use  resources in the
              affected area,  mostly as a loss of  range, timber,
              dispersed recreation, and wildlife  habitat. Some
              restriction of access  to the site would occur
              during and immediately following  mining, until
              reclamation is  deemed successful. These
              impacts are short-term for the most part, with
              the exception of long-term loss of timber and
              mature timber related wildlife resources which,
              unmanaged, would probably not be restored for
              at least  100 years.  Use of the area for range
              would be recovered after reclamation.   These
              impacts would be similar for all action
              alternatives, differing primarily in the number of
              acres disturbed.

              The  approval of any  of the action  alternatives
              would result in changes in the appearance of
              the area (see Section 4.15, Scenic Resources).
              The  scope of such changes would depend on
              the alternative approved.  There would  be short-
              term interruptions to the  current Forest Service
              standards and guidelines  of Management Areas
              14, 25,  and 26; however, as described in
              Chapter 1,  a new Management Area 27 would
              be temporarily implemented for the affected
              area for each of the action alternatives.

              Varying forest resources  would be removed and
              dislocated as a result of each action alternative.
              There would be some loss of wetlands  with
              each action alternative, whose acreage  of
              disturbance would vary depending on the action
              alternative.  See Section 4.10,  Wetlands. The
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4  Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-152
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June 1995
TABLE 4.18.1. LAND STATUS DISTURBANCE
Land Status
Forest Service
BLM
Washington
State
Private
TOTAL
Alternative B
Acres
470
184
20
92
766
% of
Total
64
22
1
13
100
Alternative C
Acres
273
78
20
69
440
%of
Total
62
18
5
15
100
Alternative D
Acres
289
153
20
100
562
% of
Total
51
27
4
18
100
Alternative E
Acres
574
195
47
111
927
% of
Total
62
21
5
12
100
Alternative F
Acres
526
153
38
105
822
% of
Total
64
19
5
12
100
Alternative G
Acres
546
198
44
108
896
% of
Total
61
22
5
12
100
wildlife use of the area would also be altered
during operations as addressed in Section 4.12,
Wildlife.

Reclamation objectives for all the  action
alternatives would be to return disturbed areas
to a stabilized and productive condition and to
protect and maintain long-term land and water
resources in the area.   Preliminary evaluations of
the reclaimed exploration roads of the Crown
Jewel Project indicate that revegetation can be
successfully accomplished at the time of Project
closure.

Revegetation test plots would be established
during the operational years of the mine to
determine the most appropriate methods and
vegetation species to be used for  permanent
reclamation.  Test plots would be constructed
on both the waste rock and tailings  prior to the
planned commencement of reclamation. The
test plots would be used to evaluate the relative
merits of varying resoiling depths  over waste
rock and tailings materials as well as the need
for soil amendments, including fertilizer. The
plots comparing the various resoiling depths (12
and 18 inches as applicable) would  be important
given the limited soil resource available on-site
for resoiling  purposes.  The need for a capillary
barrier could also be tested on the tailings
material test plots.

Three pit reclamation techniques have been
discussed during the preparation of  the Crown
Jewel Project EIS. These techniques include the
creation of wetlands over a portion  of the pit
bottom, the  establishment of tree species on
graded pit areas, and pit wall reduction through
selective blasting.  With regard to wetland
creation, it has been projected that the northern
portion of the mine pit would begin  to fill soon
after the cessation of mining.  Filling would
continue to occur through time until the water
reaches a level where  the mine pit would drain
                      to the Gold Bowl drainage.  At this time, the
                      water would have reached a static level and
                      wetlands could possibly be created along the
                      southwest border of the mine pit "pond" located
                      near the center of the mine pit facility.
                      Wetlands could potentially be established as a
                      band along this pond border assuming sufficient
                      soil could be found and used to support a
                      wetland vegetation community. However, it
                      should be noted it would take 7 to 13 years for
                      the northern mine pit to become completely
                      flooded and reach a static level whereby
                      wetland community establishment could be
                      initiated.

                      The establishment of trees in the mine pit is
                      possible, on areas not subject to flooding, so
                      long as a sufficient depth of soil could be
                      replaced over a fractured rock sub-base and the
                      slope of the planting site(s) was such that the
                      soil could be effectively applied and stabilized.
                      This would parallel the potential for tree
                      establishment on the waste rock piles.
                      However, such reclamation would require that
                      soil currently dedicated for use on other areas
                      be diverted, in part, for mine pit revegetation.
                      Given the limited volume of soil available for
                      reapplication, such a diversion could result in an
                      insufficiency of soil  for use on other sites such
                      as the  tailings  pond or waste rock piles.

                      The reduction of the pit walls by reclamation
                      blasting would serve to reduce the long-term
                      visual effects associated with the  linear
                      appearing safety benches created  during mining
                      and to provide natural appearing talus slopes in
                      various segments of the pit walls.  The final
                      configuration is being discussed by the WADNR
                      and the Proponent.

                      The process of claim patenting is  summarized in
                      Section 3.19.9, Patent Applications of Crown
                      Jewel Mining Claims.  If patenting is approved,
                      property ownership of the claims would be
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-153
transferred from the federal government to the
Proponent. The patented area would become
private property.  The patenting of claims would
have little effect on the proposed Crown Jewel
operation, environmental controls, and
reclamation activities. During mining, the area
would still be regulated under permits issued by
Washington State agencies, such as the
WADOE and WADNR, as well as other
appropriate federal and Okanogan County
approvals and permits. The principal change
caused by patenting would be the removal of
Forest Service and BLM  management oversight
of the patented lands during and after mining.
Long-term management  of the patented area
would be the responsibility of the  Proponent as
the private surface owner. Any long-term land
use changes or developments would be subject
to applicable federal, state and local laws and
regulations.

Post-mining land use would be similar for all
action alternatives.  This would include livestock
grazing, timber growing, dispersed recreation,
and wildlife habitat, with a long-term potential
for timber harvesting in approximately 100
years, if the area is left unmanaged. If
patenting occurred, future land uses could
include residential development.

Indirect Effects

Population increases associated with the Project
may cause some minor changes in private land
use within Ferry and Okanogan Counties. Some
undeveloped or agricultural land may be
converted to residential uses if incoming mine
workers choose to construct home in these
areas.  The amount of such development would
depend on the alternative and the  number of
newcomers that may be expected. See Section
4.19, Socioeconomic Environment.

Cumulative Effects

There are no anticipated major cumulative land
use effects expected for any of the action
alternatives if appropriate reclamation measures
are implemented. Logging, grazing and other
agricultural activities, real estate development,
recreation, and mineral exploration activities
would probably remain the dominant land uses
in the immediate area of the proposed Crown
Jewel Project.
              4.18.4  Effects of Alternative B

              Alternative B would disturb approximately 766
              acres. This Alternative is scheduled to be 10
              years in duration, with the last year being
              utilized  for reclamation activities.  Revegetation
              would be completed on all but the open pit area;
              a lake would form in the  bottom of the mine pit
              which would eventually drain into Nicholson
              Creek down the Gold Bowl drainage.

              4.18.5  Effects of Alternative C

              Alternative C would disturb approximately 440
              acres. This Alternative is scheduled to be of 6
              years duration, with the last year  being utilized
              for reclamation activities.  Revegetation would
              be completed on all but the rock quarry and
              surface subsidence areas that could develop
              over the underground workings. Subsidence is
              difficult to predict with accuracy,  but it is
              assumed that there would be caving to the
              surface where ore zones, less than  100 feet
              below surface, would be extracted.  Subsidence
              areas would be fenced to discourage use of the
              area. Subsidence from underground mining may
              be a conflict with the Washington State Surface
              Mining Act (RCW 78.44).

              4.18.6  Effects of Alternative D

              Alternative D would disturb approximately 562
              acres. This Alternative is scheduled to be of 8
              years duration, with the last year  being utilized
              for reclamation activities.  Revegetation would
              be completed on all but the open pit area and
              subsidence areas.  A lake would form in the
              bottom  of the mine pit which would eventually
              drain into Nicholson Creek down the Gold Bowl
              drainage.  Subsidence areas would be fenced to
              discourage use of the area.  Subsidence from
              underground mining may be a conflict with the
              Washington State Surface Mining Act (RCW
              78.44).

              4.18.7  Effects of Alternative E

              Alternative E would disturb approximately 927
              acres. This Alternative is scheduled to be of 10
              years duration, with the last year being utilized
              for reclamation activities.  Revegetation would
              be completed on all areas but the  open pit
              walls. Partial backfilling in the northern part of
              the mine pit area would eliminate the formation
              of a surface lake.
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-154
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June 1995
4.18.8 Effects of Alternative F

Alternative F would disturb approximately 822
acres.  This alternative is scheduled to be of 33
years duration, with the last 16 years being
utilized for backfilling the final pit and
reclamation activities. Revegetation would be
completed on all disturbed areas because the
open pit area would be completely backfilled.

4.18.9 Effects of Alternative G

Alternative G would disturb approximately 896
acres.  This Alternative is scheduled to be of 10
years duration, with the last year being utilized
for reclamation activities.  Revegetation would
be completed on all but the open pit area. A
lake would form  in the bottom of the mine pit
which would eventually  drain  into Nicholson
Creek.

4.19   SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

4.19.1 Summary

As described in the review of existing
socioeconomic conditions (Chapter 3, Section
3.20), the general study area  for which impacts
are assessed are defined generally to
encompass all of Okanogan and Ferry counties,
but with a smaller primary study  area
encompassing approximately 60% of the 2-
county population.  This study area extends
south and west to encompass the cities  of
Omak and Okanogan, north to the Canadian
border, and east into the Republic and Curlew
communities of Ferry County.

Whenever possible, effects are identified in
quantitative or numerical terms (such as number
of jobs, housing units or school students).
Some impacts (such as effects on social values)
are more difficult to evaluate numerically and so
are described more in a qualitative or narrative
manner.

All of the  action alternatives would have
socioeconomic effects.  Table 4.19.1,
Socioeconomic Assumptions For The Action
Alternatives, and Table 4.19.2, Anticipated
Population Increase, present an overview of the
expected  effects to the socioeconomic
environment. However, statistical measures
such as population, employment, school
enrollments and  housing would change by less
                      than 2% based on total (direct and indirect)
                      effects of the proposed Crown Jewel Project.

                      Because of its shorter duration, Alternative C
                      could create  a greater need for temporary
                      worker housing through the 6 year duration of
                      mine construction, operation and reclamation.
                      Conversely, Alternative F would create the least
                      amount of major change in socioeconomic
                      conditions due to the longer duration of mining
                      activity and lower levels of mining employment.

                      Many of the  socioeconomic effects evaluated
                      are directly related to the question of how many
                      workers are hired locally versus from outside
                      the area.  Experience with other comparable
                      mine projects suggests that the proportion of
                      non-local hires could be greater than what has
                      been indicated by the Proponent, in the absence
                      of active efforts to encourage local hiring. The
                      Proponent has indicated that they would make
                      efforts for local hire and have more than
                      achieved these targets at other mines.

                      A greater proportion of non-local hires would
                      increase the  total effect on study area
                      employment, incomes, development  and
                      government  revenues.   However, non-local hires
                      would also generate added community and
                      public service expense, limit the degree to
                      which existing local residents benefit, and could
                      be more disruptive to existing social  values of
                      the area.

                      4.19.2 Effects of Alternative A (No Action)

                      Direct Effects

                      Direct socioeconomic effects of Alternative A
                      would be related primarily to the loss of
                      temporary personnel and purchases that have
                      been involved in mine exploration and related
                      Project planning activities.  These effects are
                      described as follows:

                      Population & Demographics

                      Alternative A would have little direct impact on
                      the population of the primary study area. Most
                      of the personnel employed in exploration
                      activity (drillers, geologists, driller helpers,
                      consultants, etc.) have been in the area on
                      temporary assignment, staying in motels. Most
                      of the pre-development personnel have
                      purchased homes in the area and would
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4- 755
TABLE 4.19.1, SOCIOECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE ACTION ALTERNATIVES

Years of Operation:
Construction
Operation
Reclamation
Total
Employment (Max):
Construction
Operation
Reclamation (Avg.)
Percent of Local Employment:
Construction
Operation
Reclamation
Annual Wage Levels:
Construction
Operation
Reclamation
Capital Expenditures:
Construction
Reclamation
Annual Expenditures:
Mine Operations
Reclamation
Assessed Valuation
Percent of Alternative B
Alternative
B
1
8
1
10
250
150
50
40
80
95
$27,500
37,000
37,000
$41,000,000
0
$8,300,000
$3,000,000
$60,000,000
100
Alternative
C
1
4
1
6
250
225
50
25
40
95
$27,500
39,000
39,000
$77,000,000
0
$12,450,000
$3,000,000
$36,000,000
60
Alternative
D
1
6
1
8
250
225
50
30
50
95
$27,500
39,000
39,000
$67,400,000
0
$12,450,000
$3,000,000
$48,000,000
80
Alternative
E
1
8
1
10
250
150
50
40
80
95
$27,500
37,000
37,000
$41,000,000
0
$8,300,000
$3,000,000
$60,000,000
100
Alternative
F
1
16
16
33
250
125
75
40
80
95
$27,500
37,000
38,000
$41,000,000
$20,200,000
$8,300,000
$3,000,000
$60,000,000
100
Alternative
G
1
8
1
10
250
210
50
40
80
95
$27,500
37,000
37,000
$50,400,000
0
$11,620,000
$3,000,000
$31,000,000
52
Source: TerraMatnx Inc., Chapter 2 Alternatives Including The Proposed Action, January 5, 1994. Assessed valuation is
estimated by E.D. Hovee & Company based on the amount of recoverable gold resource of each Alternative when
compared to the Proposed Action (Alternative B).
TABLE 4.19.2, ANTICIPATED POPULATION INCREASE
Mine Phase
Construction Phase:
Direct Effect
Indirect Effect
Total Effect
Operations Phase:
Direct Effect
Indirect Effect
Total Effect
Reclamation Phase:
Direct Effect
Indirect Effect
Total Effect
Alternative
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Alternative
B
180
28
208
73
91
164
7
28
35
Alternative
C
235
28
264
273
133
406
7
28
35
Alternative
D
219
28
247
230
133
363
7
28
35
Alternative
E
180
28
208
73
91
164
7
28
35
Alternative
F
180
28
208
63
77
140
11
42
53
Alternative
G
180
28
208
95
126
222
7
28
35
Note: Any population effect associated with Alternative A occurs prior to the construction, operation and
reclamation phases of mine activity.
Source: E.D. Hovee & Company.
probably leave the area if Alternative A is
selected.

Employment. There currently are no exploration
activities underway.  However, previously there
were approximately 18-22 people in mine
related planning activities employed by the
Proponent. These types of jobs would likely be
lost to Okanogan and Ferry counties as a result
              of abandoning the proposed Project.  There
              would be a short-term increase in jobs related to
              reclamation of exploration activities, planting
              and seeding of disturbed areas including clear-
              cut areas.

              Income.  The loss in income associated with
              termination of employment for exploration
              would be an amount equal to local payroll of the
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-156
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June 1995
Proponent.  No noticeable loss in local
purchases by the Proponent would be
anticipated since the exploratory work is now
completed.  However, it is noted that prior
exploration activity involved purchases of local
supplies and services.

Community & Public Services. Because of the
temporary nature of recent exploratory work,
Alternative A would have little effect on public
and community services, with the exception
that public agency staff time expended on the
EIS and related aspects of the Project proposal
should no longer be required.

Housing.  Many of the employees associated
with exploration work (drillers, geologists, driller
helpers, consultants, etc.) have not lived in
permanent housing, but have stayed  at area
lodging establishments for their portion of on-
site work.  Most of the pre-development
employees (managers, purchasing personnel,
mining and metallurgical engineers,
environmental specialists, technical support
personnel, etc.) have purchased homes in the
area and would probably sell their homes  and
leave  the area if Alternative A is selected.
Consequently, Alternative A would be expected
to have little if any direct effect on the market
for housing in Okanogan and Ferry counties.

Fiscal Conditions.  With the  exception of sales
tax revenues, little or no additional direct effect
on the fiscal conditions of state,  county or
municipal entities in the study area would be
expected.  This is because the initial exploration
activity is completed, independent of whether or
not the proposed Project proceeds.

Sales  tax revenues could  be negatively affected
somewhat (at least in the short-term) due to
reductions in lodging and purchases of goods
and services by mine-related employees.
However, the extent of the impact is not likely
to be  substantial because of the small number
of employees remaining in the area. The
Okanogan County Assessor's office indicates
that property tax revenues from mine-related
property are not expected to be negatively
affected, as long as mining  rights to the gold
resource are retained.

Social Values. Discontinuation of the proposed
Project could reduce  the potential for long-term
changes to the social values of the study area
that might be associated with mining activity,
                      particularly in the more immediate
                      Chesaw/Highlands area.  However, public
                      meetings and deliberations over the proposed
                      Crown Jewel Project have already engendered
                      considerable discussion and debate throughout
                      the study area.  Particularly in the
                      Chesaw/Highlands area, this debate may have
                      resulted  in community divisions that are not
                      easily reconciled, even if the proposed Project is
                      terminated.

                      Because of the high  degree of interest and
                      intensity around environmental and land use
                      issues in the region,  there may be continued
                      demand for a more formalized and extensive
                      land use planning process to address these
                      concerns on  an ongoing basis.  This publicity
                      could result in increased demand  for real estate
                      from those seeking a quiet, relatively pristine
                      environment in which to live.  Increased
                      attention from county government to previously
                      underemphasized issues such as code
                      compliance may also be a consequence of
                      recent events.

                      Land  Ownership & Values.  Alternative A has
                      the potential to reduce the upward pressure on
                      land values and changes in ownership that
                      might accompany the proposed mine.   In the
                      immediate  Chesaw/Highlands area, land prices
                      might decline as the  current speculative level of
                      demand in  anticipation of the mine Project is
                      abated.

                      Indirect Effects

                      The primary indirect  effect associated  with
                      Alternative A is that  the loss of exploration and
                      pre-development employment could result in the
                      loss of less than 10 jobs, largely in hospitality,
                      restaurant  and related retail/service activity.
                      This economic loss could conceivably  be offset
                      if the area  attracts more in-rnigrants seeking a
                      remote, pristine environment.  These in-migrants
                      would be more apt to move to the Okanogan
                      Highlands once it became clear that further
                      mining activity was not likely to occur.
                      However, the degree to which this might occur
                      is difficult to reliably gauge in advance.

                      Total  Effects

                      The total of direct and indirect quantitative
                      impacts potentially associated with
                      discontinuance of the proposed Crown Jewel
                     Crown Jewel Mine  + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-157
Project could be the loss of less than 20 direct
and indirect jobs.

The longer term effects  of Alternative A may be
represented by the loss  of potential
socioeconomic opportunities that are associated
with the action alternatives.

4.19.3 Comparative Effects Common to All
       Action Alternatives

Key socioeconomic assumptions used for the
evaluation of Action Alternatives B-G are
provided by Table 4.19.1, Socioeconomic
Assumptions For The Action Alternatives.

Socioeconomic effects of the action alternatives
would vary primarily due to differences in
assumptions  regarding duration of operation (in
years), employment levels, rates of local hires,
annual wage  levels, capital expenditures, annual
expenditures  and assessed valuation.

Alternatives B, E, and G would have a combined
duration for construction, operation and
reclamation of 10 years. By comparison,
Alternatives C and D involving underground
mining would have shorter durations  of 6 and 8
years respectively, while the complete backfill
and 12-hour shifts associated with Alternative F
would occur over a much longer period (of 33
years).

All of the alternatives involve comparable levels
of construction employment, but have varying
levels of employment during operations and
reclamation.  Rates of local hiring are
comparable for the action alternatives except
for the underground Alternatives C and D which
are expected  to involve  lower rates of local
hiring and greater number of employees.  The
underground  mining options also involve
somewhat higher rates of pay due to the more
specialized skills of workers involved.

Capital and annual  operating expenditures are
assumed to be comparable for Alternative B and
the backfill Options (Alternatives E and  F),
except that the complete backfill option
(Alternative F) would involve additional  capital
expenditures  during the  reclamation period.
Capital construction costs and annual operation
expenses would be greater for the underground
and non-cyanide alternatives (C, D, and G).
Assessed valuations would be related to
              economic value of the resource recovered (as a
              percentage of Alternative B).

              Based on these assumptions, the socioeconomic
              effects of the action alternatives are compared
              as follows:

              Population & Demographics

              Changes in population and demographics within
              the study area are essentially driven by 3
              factors:

              1.     The number of new (or non-local)
                     employees transferred or recruited to the
                     study area by the mine operator;

              2.     The number of households and average
                     household size associated with mine
                     employees that become new residents;
                     and,

              3.     The number of new (non local) workers
                     and their families drawn to the area in
                     industries that provide goods or services
                     to those employed at the mine (i.e.
                     secondary or support service
                     population).

              Added population represents  the result of a
              number of employment, housing and other
              factors described in more detail in subsequent
              sections  of this analysis. Results of this
              analysis are summarized by Table 4.19.2,
              Anticipated Population Increase.

              Direct Effects.  Construction jobs are not
              expected to have a long-term impact on
              population of the  study  area because of their
              temporary duration.  Average construction
              employment  is estimated at 200 plus 50 mine
              related employees for a  total of 250 jobs during
              the first year of activity.

              Construction  workers generally are not expected
              to bring their families to the area due to the
              relatively short duration  of construction
              activities. And 60-75% of construction workers
              are expected  to be non-local,  due to a need for
              highly trained and specific task experienced
              workers who have experience in mine and mill
              construction.

              It is estimated between  20-60% of mine
              operations personnel will be new (or non-local)
              residents of the study area. The range depends
                    Crown Jewel Mine +  Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-158
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June 7995
on the alternative selected. The underground
Alternatives C and D would have the greatest
rates of non-local hire, due to needs for more
specialized training.

Estimates for all action alternatives are based on
an assumption that during operations
approximately 50% of non-local non-office mine
personnel would not  bring families to the area.
Other mine personnel would have families with
characteristics (such  as household size and
number of children) similar to the adult
population (under age 65) already living in the
study area.

For Alternatives B, E, F and G, an estimated
80% of the workforce would consist of local
hires.  This is a relatively high rate of local hiring
based on the experience of other mines
contacted. Implications  of not achieving these
targets are identified  in the discussion of
potential mitigation measures.

Indirect Effects. Local expenditures made
directly by the mine and by mine personnel
would  result in  an increased  demand for goods
and services in  the study area. Some of this
demand would  be met by existing residents
working in stores, real estate offices and other
businesses.  However, the new demands
generated by the mine would be expected to
draw new service providers and residents into
the area, even though they are not  directly
connected with the Crown Jewel Project.

Given the current relatively high availability of
local labor force, it is assumed that
approximately 75% of the new indirect jobs
would  be taken by existing study area residents.
About  25% would involve non-local hires.

It is also assumed that employees added
indirectly as a result of the Project would have
household characteristics similar to those of the
existing study area population. As  of the 1990
U.S. Census, the study area  had a ratio of 2.8
residents per working age household (under age
65).

Total Effects.  Independent of the Project
alternatives, the population of Okanogan and
Ferry counties is forecast, by the State of
Washington Office of Financial Management
(OFM), to increase by 2,888 residents between
1995 and 2005 (a 7.0% gain over  10 years).
Population within the study area can be
                      expected to increase by 1,573 residents,
                      assuming a continuation of historic shares of
                      Okanogan  and Ferry County population growth.

                      For purposes of discussion, this analysis
                      assumes that  mine construction is underway in
                      1995.  However, it is noted that actual start of
                      construction is contingent on receiving
                      regulatory  approvals (see Chapter  1) and a
                      decision by the Proponent to proceed.

                      The combined direct and indirect effects of the
                      action alternatives would lead to an increase of
                      from  140 to 406 additional study area residents
                      during the  years of active mine operations.
                      Population increases would be greatest with
                      Alternative C due to a greater rate of non-local
                      hires  for underground mining, and  least with
                      Alternative F due to shorter worker work days
                      in the open pit and lower mill capacity.  Each of
                      the alternatives represents an increase of less
                      than  1 % to under 2% in study area population
                      and less than  1 % in the combined populations
                      of Okanogan and Ferry counties over baseline
                      projections.

                      Comparisons of population growth in the study
                      area expected as a result of normal baseline
                      expectations (state OFM forecast)  versus the
                      added maximum effects of Crown  Jewel Project
                      operations for each of the action alternatives are
                      portrayed graphically by Figure 4.19.1,
                      Employment Effects of Action Alternatives and
                      Figure 4.19.2, Maximum Population Effect
                      Versus Baseline Forecast Growth.

                      Population growth associated with the
                      maximum effect of various Action  Alternatives
                      is compared with a forecast based on the state
                      of Washington OFM  projection for Okanogan
                      and Ferry counties.  In these  projections, the
                      study area is assumed to maintain its
                      approximately 60% share of 2-county
                      population  as  was held by the study area in
                      1990.

                      With  maximum effect, population attributable
                      directly and indirectly to the Crown Jewel
                      Project represents less than a 2% increase to
                      study area population, above and beyond the
                      baseline conditions.

                      It is noted  that population in Okanogan and
                      Ferry counties is currently increasing more
                      rapidly than was forecast by  OFM  in 1992.  As
                      of 1994, combined 2-county population was

-------
            ALTERNATIVE C
450 -
400 -


300 -

250 -
i
j-1—^
I/ \
i \
! \
1 *
-( i
r |
\ 	
^— | ALTERNATIVE D |
^ 	 1 ALTERNATIVE G
\
\
\ /— | ALTERNATIVE
S*
~! /"*-


u

B & E |

ALTERNATIVE F

200 -j
150 -
100 -
50 -
* \ X
\ \
                                      (YEARS)
           L EGEND
                                                            NOTES FIGURE REPRESENTS THE TOTAL OF BOTH
                                                               DIRECT AND INDIRECT CROWN JEWEL EMPLOYMENT
     	ALTERNATIVE B AND E
     	ALTERNATIVE C
          ALTERNATIVE D
     	ALTERNATIVE F
     	ALTERNATIVE G
     FIGURE 4.19.1, EMPLOYMENT  EFFECTS  OF ACTION  ALTERNATIVES

-------
       29,000 -i
                         ALTERNATIVE B.E.G
                                                      PROJECTED MAXIMUM
                                                      POPULATION EFFECT
                                                    BY CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
                                                               STATE OF WASHINGTON OFFICE
                                                              OF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT (OFM)
                                                               POPULATION FORECAST FOR
                                                                 CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
                                                               SOCIOECONOMIC STUDY AREA
               1995
  FIGURE  4.19.2,  MAXIMUM  POPULATION  EFFECT VS  BASELINE  FORECAST  GROWTH
FILENAME CJ4-19-2DWG
                                                                                                                 to
                                                                                                                 Ul

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-161
42,900.  This is 1,960 persons above what
would be indicated by the current OFM
population estimate for 1994.

Employment

Employment estimates are based on
assumptions as outlined by Table 4.19.1,
Socioeconomic Assumptions for the Action
Alternatives.  Table 4.19.3, Forecast Annual
Employment and Payrolls, compares direct,
indirect and total employment effects of the
alternatives.  Table 4.19.4, Multi-Year
Employment and Payrolls, compares effects of
the alternatives.

Direct Effects. Employment projections
potentially associated with various phases of
construction, operations and reclamation are
estimated as follows:

•      Up to 250 workers over a construction
       period that will last approximately 1
       year.  For each of the action
       alternatives, employment is estimated to
       comprise 200 construction and 50 mine
       workers.

•      Mine operations employment ranging
       from 125 to 225  including mill and
       maintenance workers (including 17
       office workers with each alternative).

Employment levels are expected to be greatest
with Alternatives C  and D (the alternatives that
involve underground mining), and least with
Alternative F  (that involves extension  of mine
operations over 16 years).

•      Termination of mine personnel at
       completion of operations, except for
       reclamation  personnel.  The reclamation
       crew could employ an estimated 50-75
       workers. Effects are expected to be
       greatest with Alternative F, and least
       with Alternatives  B, C,  D, E, and G.
       The reclamation crew would consist of
       equipment operators, supervisors
       including an environmental supervisor,
       and the assistance of contractors and
       consultants as needed.

Indirect Effects.  New jobs would be created in
the service, retail or other non-mine sectors  of
the economy to support the Crown Jewel
Project and its employees constitutes  indirect
              employment.  Indirect employment of 40
              additional people would be expected to occur
              during construction. Indirect employment is
              limited by the single year duration of
              construction activities and the time needed to
              actually experience business increases before
              hiring additional personnel.

              For this analysis, the employment multiplier is
              estimated to approximate 2.00 for the state of
              Washington and 1.84 for Okanogan and Ferry
              counties (The Washington Input-Output Study,
              1982).  This means that for every 100 new
              basic mine related  jobs in the study area,
              another 84 support retail and service sector jobs
              would be generated in Okanogan and Ferry
              counties. This also assumes  a pattern of mine
              related purchases similar to that of other mining
              operations in the state of Washington.

              Consequently, this analysis yields an estimate
              of:

              •     An additional 110 to 190 indirect jobs in
                     the study area over the life of mine
                     operations  depending on the  action
                     alternative. Added yearly indirect jobs
                     are expected to  be greatest with the
                     underground Alternatives C and D, and
                     least with Alternative F but indirect jobs
                     created would likely be for a  longer
                     period of time.

              •     Decline to between 40 to 60 jobs
                     supported indirectly during post-closure
                     and reclamation activities.  Reclamation
                     related employment is expected to be
                     greatest with Alternative F.

              Total Effects. This analysis yields the following
              yearly and multi-year estimates of total direct
              and  indirect jobs created as a result of the
              action alternatives:

              •     An estimated 290 jobs during
                     construction.  Effects are expected to
                     be the same for all the action
                     alternatives.

              •     An estimated 235 to 415 jobs during
                     mine operations. Annual employment
                     effects are expected to be greatest with
                     the Alternatives C and D, and least with
                     Alternative F.
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-162
Ch 4- - Environmental Consequences
June 75.95"
TABLE 4.19.3, FORECAST ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT AND PAYROLLS
Mine Phase
Construction Phase:
Employment
Direct Effects
Indirect Effect
Total Effect
Total Payroll
Direct Effects
Indirect Effect
Total Effect
Operations Phase:
Employment
Direct Effects
Indirect Effect
Total Effect
Total Payroll
Direct Effects
Indirect Effect
Total Effect
Reclamation Phase:
Employment
Direct Effects
Indirect Effect
Total Effect
Total Payroll
Direct Effects
Indirect Effect
Total Effect
Alternative
A
OOO OOO
ooo ooo
ooo ooo

Alternative
B
250
40
290
$7,347,500
621,000
7,968,500
150
130
280
$5,530,000
1,860,000
7,390,000
50
40
90
$1,850,000
622,000
2,472,000
Alternative
C
250
40
290
$7,446,500
655,000
8,101,500
225
190
415
$8,820,000
2,965,000
11,785,000
50
40
90
$1,950,000
656,000
2,606,000
Alternative
D
250
40
290
$7,446,500
655,000
$8,101,500
225
190
415
$8,820,000
2,965,000
11,785,000
50
40
90
$1,950,000
656,000
2,606,000
Alternative
E
250
40
290
$7,347,500
621,000
7,968,500
150
130
280
$5,530,000
1,860,000
7,390,000
50
40
90
$1,850,000
622,000
2,472,000
Alternative
250
40
290
$7,347,500
621,000
7,968,500
125
1 10
235
$4,640,000
1,561,000
6,201,000
75
60
135
2,850,000
959,000
3,809,000
Alternative
G
250
40
290
$7,347,500
621,000
7,968,500
210
180
390
$7,760,000
2,609,000
10,369,000
50
40
90
$1,850,000
622,000
2,472,000
Note: Any employment and payroll associated with Alternative A occurs prior to the time periods referenced by this
table.
Source: E.D. Hovee & Company.
TABLE 4.19.4, MULTI-YEAR EMPLOYMENT AND PAYROLLS
Mine Phase
Multi-Year Employment
(in person-years):
Direct Effects
Indirect Effects
Total Effects
Multi-Year Payroll
Direct Effects
Indirect Effects
Total Effects
Alternative
A
0
0
0
$0
$0
$0
Alternative
B
1,500
1,120
2,620
$53,437,500
$16,123,000
$69,560,500
Alternative
C
1,200
840
2,040
$44,676,500
$13,171,000
$57,847,500
Alternative
D
1,650
1,220
2,870
$62,316,500
$19,101,000
$81,417,500
Alternative
E
1,500
1,120
2,620
$53,437,500
$16,123,000
$69,560,500
Alternative
F
3,450
2,760
6,210
$127,187,500
$40,941,000
$168,128,500
Alternative
G
1,980
1,520
3,500
$71,277,500
$22,115,000
$93,392,500
Note: Any employment and payroll associated with Alternative A occurs prior to the time periods referenced by this table.
Source: E.D. Hovee & Company.
       Potentially 90 to 135 jobs per year
       associated with post-closure reclamation
       activities. Reclamation related
       employment is expected to be greatest
       with Alternative F.

       A range of 2,040 to 6,210  person-
       years of employment are associated
       with the  action alternatives.  The
       greatest number of person-years of
       employment is associated with
       Alternative F (due to its duration of 33
       years) for construction, operation and
                            reclamation). The lowest number of
                            person-years of employment is
                            associated with Alternative C (due to its
                            short 6 year combined duration of
                            construction, operations and
                            reclamation). As operations are
                            curtailed with mine closure and
                            reclamation, local unemployment rates
                            can be expected to increase.  The
                            duration over which higher rates of local
                            unemployment would persist is difficult
                            to predict in advance, but would depend
                            on factors such as: availability of other
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-163
       employment or business opportunities in
       the area; potential for employee
       transfers by the mine operator or hire by
       other mining companies outside the
       study area; and/or willingness of former
       mine workers to relocate from the study
       area.

Income

Income generated from the  construction and
operation of the Project would be attributable
to:

•      Payroll to employees; and,
•      Local purchases of goods and services
       made directly by the Proponent.

Direct Effects.  As is detailed by Table 4.19.3,
Forecast Annual Employment and Payrolls and
Table 4.19.4, Multi-Year Employment and
Payrolls, the payroll directly associated with the
Crown Jewel Project is estimated to range
between $4.6 and $8.8 million per year  over
the years of operations (in 1991  dollars).
Annual payroll would be greatest for
Alternatives C and D,  and least would be for
Alternative F.

Over a multi-year period, total payroll  is
estimated to range between $57.8 million and
$168.1  million. Total multi-year payroll  is
greatest for Alternative F, followed by
Alternative G, Alternative D, Alternatives B and
E, and Alternative C (in descending order).

In addition, the Proponent would be expected to
purchase between  $8.3 to  $12.5 million in
goods and services annually out  of a $25 to
$38 million operating budget.  Based on
statewide and local sales data, an estimated
42% of purchases would be made within
Okanogan and Ferry counties.

Indirect Effects. For this analysis, an  earnings
multiplier of 1.34 is applied (The Washington
Input-Output Study, 1982). This means that for
every $1.00 in payroll by the mine, another
$0.34 would be generated  in additional income
for study area residents.  This multiplier  is less
for Okanogan County  than for more urbanized
areas due to limited development of the  local
economy and associated  sales leakage.

It is also noted that the indirect earnings
multiplier is  well below the  jobs multiplier
               because service sector jobs have substantially
               lower wage levels than for direct mine related
               workers.  However, there is the possibility that
               high wage levels of mine workers could put
               upward pressure on wage rates for service-
               related workers in the study area. If this
               occurs, the earnings multiplier would increase
               above and beyond the projections made in this
               report.

               Indirect earnings are estimated to range
               between $1.6 to $3.0 million yearly over the
               duration of mine operations, declining to $0.6 to
               $0.9 million during the period of reclamation
               activity.

               Total Effects. The total yearly added direct and
               indirect income effects associated with Action
               Alternatives are expected to approximate:

               •      An estimated $8.0 to $8.1 million
                      during construction with relatively little
                      difference between action alternatives.

               •      An estimated $6.2 to $11.8 million
                      annually over the years of the mine
                      operation.  Increased annual income
                      would be greatest with the Alternatives
                      C and D, and least with Alternative F.

               •      An estimated $2.5 to $3.8 million
                      during the year(s) of post-closure
                      reclamation activity.  Income effects
                      during reclamation are expected to be
                      greatest with complete backfill
                      Alternative F, and least with
                      Alternatives B, E and G.

               At assumed peak operations, the cumulative
               payroll earnings resulting from the mine would
               represent an additional 2 to 4% in personal
               earnings for residents of Okanogan and Ferry
               counties.

               Community & Public Services

               All of the action alternatives could be expected
               to generate both direct and indirect effects for  a
               variety of community and public services.
               Consideration of these effects is important
               because, until recently,  many of the community
               and public service providers have been strained
               in their ability to meet demands of the existing
               population. However, public service capacities
               have recently been improved in several of the
               study area's larger communities, notably Omak,
               Oroville and Tonasket.
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-164
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June  1995
Direct Effects.  Effects that mine operations,
mine personnel and their families would have
directly on community and public services cover
the following items:

•      As per Table 4.19.5, Anticipated School
       Enrollment Effects, a range of between
       16-56 additional students are expected
       from families of mine personnel during
       the period of mine operations.  The
       enrollment impact is potentially greatest
       with Alternative C due to a larger work
       force and high rate of non-local hires.
       However, this  impact occurs over a
       shorter time period due to the shorter
       duration of mining-related activity.
       Added yearly enrollment would increase
       the least with  Alternative F, but would
       be sustained over the longest period of
       time (33 years).

       It is noted that Tonasket has little
       capacity for an added enrollment despite
       new school construction.   Tonasket
       could accommodate less than 3% added
       enrollment growth (above October 1994
       enrollment figures).  In contrast, due to
       recent remodeling, the Oroville School
       District  reports capacity to
       accommodate  up to an additional 100
       students spread across all grade levels.

•      Need for law enforcement services
       would be expected to increase,
       particularly in the immediate
       Chesaw/Highlands area which  is lightly
       patrolled now  by the Okanogan County
       Sheriff Department.  It is  expected that
       at least one full-time officer would be
       assigned to patrol this area. A full-time
       officer is not available to the area
       currently, nor  has funding been available
       to date  within  budget resources for this
       added expense.

•      Fire protection requirements would be
       provided for on-site needs by the mine
       operator. The other provider most
       affected could be the Chesaw-Molson
       district (Okanogan County Fire District
       #11). The mine site would have fire
       protection systems  installed in building
       facilities as required by code and for
       insurance purposes.  Trained personnel
       with the necessary equipment  to provide
       on-site fire protection would be required.
                             Need for ambulance service on the site
                             of the proposed operation would be the
                             responsibility of the Proponent.  The
                             mine would have trained  EMT personnel
                             on-site, together with an  on-site
                             ambulance and an equipped first aid
                             room.

                             Off-site emergency medical response
                             would be the responsibility of existing
                             providers; this would include off-site
                             ambulance or Emergency Medical
                             Treatment (EMT) services.  Much of the
                             responsibility for immediate EMT
                             support could fall to the Molson-Chesaw
                             Fire District #11, an all volunteer
                             department which has personnel with
                             EMT training. Potential emergency
                             transport providers include the Oroville
                             EMS district,  Ferry County EMS District
                             #1, Life Bird helicopter and fixed wing
                             transport to Spokane area hospitals.

                             Hospital and medical services would be
                             directly affected for treatment of
                             personnel  injured at the Crown Jewel
                             site, as a result of highway related
                             accidents and the increased population
                             due to out of local area hires. Initial
                             emergency medical and non-acute care
                             would probably be provided by the
                             North Valley (Tonasket), Mid Valley
                             (Omak) and/or Ferry County Memorial
                             (Republic) hospitals, and potentially by
                             the Oroville Clinic (operated by North
                             Valley Hospital).  Patients requiring
                             intensive care would typically be
                             transported either to Mid Valley Hospital
                             (Omak) or out of the area, such as to
                             hospitals in Wenatchee,  Spokane and
                             Seattle.

                             Social services are provided by a variety
                             of public and non-profit organizations in
                             Okanogan and Ferry counties.  If the age
                             and sex ratios of the mining population
                             are similar to existing study area ratios,
                             there should be no disproportionate
                             increase in demand for social services as
                             a result of mine construction and
                             operation.

                             However,  effects of the action
                             alternatives could exceed indicated
                             proportionate shares of study area
                             population or employment if
                             construction and/or operations personnel
                     Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-165
TABLE 4.19.5, ANTICIPATED SCHOOL ENROLLMENT EFFECTS
Mine Phase
Construction Phase:
Direct Effect
Indirect Effect
Total Effect
Operations Phase:
Direct Effect
Indirect Effect
Total Effect
Reclamation Phase:
Direct Effect
Indirect Effect
Total Effect
Alternative
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Alternative
B
15
7
22
17
24
41
2
3
5
Alternative
C
20
7
27
56
35
91
2
3
5
Alternative
D
19
7
26
48
35
83
2
3
5
Alternative
E
15
7
22
17
24
41
2
3
5
Alternative
F
15
7
22
16
20
36
3
4
7
Alternative
G
15
7
22
22
33
55
2
3
5
Note: Enrollment associated with Alternative A occurs prior to mine-related activities noted in this table.
Source: E.D. Hovee & Company.
       are disproportionately comprised of
       young adult males.  An employment
       base of younger adult males and/or
       males without families could potentially
       result in disproportionate effects on
       social services such as alcohol and
       substance abuse programs, as has
       occurred in other mining communities
       contacted for the evaluation of existing
       socioeconomic conditions.

       Difficulties in meeting water demands
       would be most pronounced if new
       housing for mine related households is
       developed outside of areas currently
       served by public or community water
       systems, particularly in the
       Chesaw/Highlands area.

       As with water supply, wastewater
       needs would be  greatest if employees
       construct housing in areas without
       public sewer that cannot easily
       accommodate septic systems, or in
       communities with sewage treatment
       systems already operating at capacity.
       As of 1994, all of the incorporated
       communities (Conconully, Okanogan,
       Omak, Oroville,  Republic, and Tonasket)
       report capacity for growth in their
       wastewater treatment facilities.

       Electrical utility providers appear to have
       adequate capacity to serve both the
       mine operation and any added housing
       needed for mine employees.
               Indirect Effects. Indirect effects of the action
               alternatives on community and public services
               would result largely from the increase in
               population. For most services, demands would
               likely increase proportionate with overall
               household and population growth.

               Total Effects. The combination of direct and
               indirect effects of the action alternatives on
               community and public services were evaluated
               on a service-by-service basis.  For purposes of
               clarity, the discussion focuses primarily on
               effects during the years of active mining
               operations. This is the time period over which
               yearly effects on community and public service
               providers would be at peak levels.

               •     Total increase in school enrollment
                     would range between an additional 36-
                     91 students at the K-12 level.  Added
                     enrollment would be greatest with
                     Alternative C and least with Alternative
                     F.  Added students would increase
                     enrollment within the 6 study area
                     school districts by less than 2% (above
                      1992 levels).

                      Because 4 of  6 school districts in the
                     study area are currently operating  at
                     capacity, additional enrollment  may lead
                     to the need for constructing new
                     classrooms or use of added portables. It
                     should be noted that the Tonasket
                      School District has recently approved a
                     bond issue for new school construction,
                     and Oroville School District completed a
                     remodel of their schools in 1993.
                      Despite new school construction,
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-166
Ch 4 - Environmenn
June  15/95
       classroom capacity remains limited in
       Tonasket, while Oroville has capacity to
       accommodate up to an additional 100
       students dispersed across all grade
       levels.

       If the added student population is
       dispersed across grade levels between
       all 6 districts, the impact on any one
       district could be relatively minimal. The
       Oroville school district would be the only
       school district receiving property taxes
       generated directly from the mine site.

       Total direct and indirect need for law
       enforcement would be an additional 2
       full-time positions, plus  1  or 2 volunteer
       reserve positions  serving primarily in the
       sheriff's departments  of Okanogan and
       Ferry counties. This personnel
       projection is based on applying existing
       per capita law enforcement staffing to
       peak year total population growth that is
       related to the mine. There also would
       be a need for an added deputy covering
       the Chesaw/Highlands area.

       Fire protection services would increase
       in proportion to the population growth
       related to the proposed operation, plus
       any special needs generated directly at
       the mine site including issues associated
       with transporting materials and
       personnel to and from the mine. The
       fire districts within the study area
       currently have a combined total of over
       100 primarily volunteer fire fighters.

       The greatest impact would likely be on
       the Chesaw-Molson fire district due to
       its proximity to the proposed mine site.
       However, the Crown Jewel site is not
       within the boundaries of the Chesaw-
       Molson fire district, so the fire district
       would not receive any revenue directly
       from increased assessed valuation of the
       mine property.

       Use of hospital and medical services
       would increase proportionally to the
       population growth attributable to the
       mine Project, or by 1 % to less than 2%
       for the years of mine operations.  These
       additional demands should be  easily
       accommodated because capacity
       utilization is currently well below 50%
                             at area hospitals.  Increased utilization
                             could improve the financial viability of
                             the area's 3 hospitals, particularly to the
                             extent that mine employees and others
                             employed at retail arid service
                             businesses resulting from the mine are
                             covered by health insurance.

                             The impact on social service providers
                             would be at least proportional to the
                             increase in population in the 2-county
                             area  attributable to the mine, i.e., an
                             estimated increase of 1 % to less than
                             2% during the years  of mining
                             operations.  Social service needs could
                             be even greater if mine workers are
                             disproportionately young single males
                             and/or the Project draws more people
                             into the area than would actually be
                             employed directly or  indirectly  as a
                             result of the Project.  Heavy demands
                             on social service agencies have been
                             reported in other mining communities.

                             Effects on water supply would be
                             related to population and housing
                             growth in the study area, i.e.,  less than
                             2% with all action  alternatives. All of
                             the incorporated communities have
                             adequate water capacity (as of 1994) to
                             serve additional residential development.

                             As with water supply, effects on
                             wastewater treatment would be related
                             to the new housing developed  within
                             existing urban areas, or in rural
                             communities that may require shifting
                             from individual septic systems to a
                             community treatment facility.  Impacts
                             would be minimal if added housing is
                             developed in communities with adequate
                             existing sewage treatment capacity.  All
                             of the incorporated communities
                             currently have adequate wastewater
                             (i.e. public sewer or septic) systems to
                             accommodate additional residential
                             growth with the possible exception of
                             Okanogan and Tonasket.  Okanogan's
                             sewer system is currently operating at
                             approximately 85% of system  capacity.
                             Tonasket's sewer system is believed to
                             be operating at approximately 80% of
                             system capacity.

                             Any  of the action alternatives can be
                             expected to generate a need for solid
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-167
        waste facilities proportional to the
        increase in population in Okanogan and
        Ferry counties attributable to the
        Project, i.e. by less than 2% for the
        years of mine operations.  Additional
        volume can, in some cases, help to
        defray costs once facility investments
        are made.  Ferry County closed its
        landfill October 1993, and has
        constructed a transfer station for  the
        transfer of solid waste outside of  the
        county.  Okanogan  County has closed
        its old landfill and opened a new facility
        in early 1994.

 •      Total electrical load for the proposed
        mine and resulting population growth is
        projected to increase kilowatt hours sold
        for the Okanogan PUD by approximately
        10% (during peak years of operation).
        Added population and housing growth
        could increase the combined load  of the
        Okanogan and Ferry County  PUDs, but
        by less than an additional 2%.  Electrical
        service needs are well within the load
        capabilities available for these 2 utilities,
        provided that satisfactory arrangements
        are made for transmission  lines by
        Okanogan PUD to the proposed Crown
        Jewel Project site.

 Housing

 A careful evaluation of the effects of the action
 alternatives on housing is important for potential
 ramifications to other socioeconomic factors,
 particularly community and  public services.
 However,  predicting in advance  the types and
 locations of housing needed is problematic
 because so many of the factors  affecting
 demand would not be fully known until after the
fact.  These factors include questions such as:
size and composition of families associated with
mine workers; whether a mine or support
service related job is perceived as temporary or
permanent; availability of  existing suitable
housing; and lifestyle and social preferences.

For purposes of this analysis, the following
assumptions are  made:

•      Existing study  area residents who  are
       employed directly  or indirectly by the
       mine would create no new net demand
       for added housing.  This assumption
       reflects the fact that existing study area
                     residents are already housed in some
                     fashion.

              •      Short-term construction workers would
                     generate no demand for net added
                     permanent housing.  Because the
                     construction period is relatively short
                     (i.e. 1 year or less), workers who are
                     not local residents can generally be
                     expected to make temporary housing
                     arrangements.  Experience with other
                     mine projects suggests that many
                     construction workers can be expected
                     to use recreation vehicle campsites and
                     motels as well as rent homes and
                     apartments, to the extent that space is
                     available.  Demand for permanent
                     housing during the construction period is
                     related to employees hired early on who
                     would be retained beyond the end of
                     construction activity for mine
                     operations.

              •      Households that relocate to the area for
                     jobs created directly or indirectly as a
                     result of the mine's operation would
                     require an equal amount of  new housing
                     to be constructed. The percentage of
                     vacant rental and for sale units currently
                     available  (as of  1992-93) appear to be
                     below rates needed to accommodate
                     even normal turnover within a stable (or
                     no growth) housing market.
                     Consequently, any additional population
                     growth would be accompanied by
                     construction of  new housing units
                     located within the study area.

              •      New housing construction would occur
                     within the study area in both
                     incorporated and rural communities
                     which have the  capacity to support new
                     development. Several communities
                     within the study area are considering or
                     have recently undertaken to expand
                     their utility infrastructure. Increased
                     demand for housing could stimulate
                     implementation of some of these plans,
                     provided that adequate funding
                     resources are available.

              Table 4.19.6, Anticipated Permanent Housing
              Demand,  compares projected housing
              requirements for the action alternatives based
              on the above assumptions.
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-168
Ch 4- - Environmental Consequences
June 1995
TABLE 4.19.6, ANTICIPATED PERMANENT HOUSING DEMAND
Mine Phase
Construction Phase:
Direct Effect
Indirect Effect
Total Effect
Operations Phase:
Direct Effect
Indirect Effect
Total Effect
Reclamation Phase:
Direct Effect
Indirect Effect
Total Effect
Alternative
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Alternative
B
24
10
34
30
33
63
3
10
13
Alternative
C
37
10
47
135
48
183
3
10
13
Alternative
D
34
10
44
113
48
160
3
10
13
Alternative
E
24
10
34
30
33
63
3
10
13
Alternative
F
24
10
34
25
28
53
4
15
19
Alternative
G
24
10
34
42
45
87
3
10
13
Note: Construction phase demand for permanent housing is calculated on the basis of operations employees only.
Construction workers will generate an additional temporary housing need for a period of up to 1 year.
Housing demand related to Alternative A would occur prior to mine construction and subsequent activities
noted by this table.
Source: E.D. Hovee & Company, January 5, 1994
Direct Effects. Housing demand for new
residents attracted into the area to work at the
proposed Crown Jewel Project is estimated as
follows:

•      A range of from 24 to 37 permanent
       residential units might be needed to
       accommodate peak demand from 50
       mine workers during the first year of
       Project activity (i.e. construction).

Another 200 construction workers would need
to be housed  on a  temporary basis, for up to  1
year. Most of the  construction related demand
would be accommodated within the existing
inventory of motel rooms, rental housing,
RV/fifth-wheel and campground sites.

•      During the years of mining operations, a
       range of between 25 to 135 units of
       permanent new housing might be
       needed in the study area.  Demand
       would be greatest with Alternative C,
       and least with Alternative F. Because of
       its longer 33 year duration, Alternative F
       would have the least "boom and bust"
       effect that is associated with the other
       more short-lived action alternatives.

Indirect Effects.  Added housing demand would
be generated  by households attracted into the
area by the availability of jobs in businesses or
agencies benefitting from the proposed  mine's
operation.  Estimates of demand are as  follows:
                      •      The construction period would generate
                             a demand for about 10 added
                             permanent housing units, for all action
                             alternatives.

                      •      Over the years of operations, demand
                             would be generated for an additional 28
                             to 48 units of housing, tapering to need
                             for 10 to  15  units during the period of
                             reclamation activity. Demand would be
                             greatest with Alternatives C and D, and
                             least with Alternative F.

                      •      It is also possible that the Project will
                             attract other  people to the area hoping
                             to find work, who may remain even in
                             the absence of securing employment.
                             This potential effect is discussed further
                             as a possible cumulative effect later in
                             this analysis.

                      Total Effects. Total  demand for housing
                      expected to be created directly and  indirectly as
                      a result of the Project is  estimated at:

                      •      Between 34  to 47 added permanent
                             housing units generated  solely as a
                             result of construction activities.  Need
                             for added housing would be greatest
                             with Alternative C, and least with
                             Alternatives  B, E, F and G.  Construction
                             workers would generate an additional
                             need for temporary housing for a period
                             of up to 1 year.
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-169
•      That if chosen, each alternative can and
       is implemented by the Proponent.

•      A range of between 53 to 183 new
       permanent housing units during the
       years of active mining operations,
       dropping to between 13 to 19 units
       during the period of post-closure
       reclamation. Demand would be greatest
       with Alternative C, and least with
       Alternative F.  For all action alternatives,
       the housing need represents an addition
       of 2% or less  to the primary study
       area's inventory of existing occupied
       units (as of 1990).

       A potential downside to this housing
       effect is that 40 to 164 homes may
       come on the real estate market as active
       mining operations end.  The placement
       of this many homes on the market could
       depress housing prices unless other
       population growth independent of the
       mine operation is occurring.

       Based on the state OFM population
       forecast, population of the study area is
       expected to increase by approximately
       200 residents  (or 100 households) per
       year. It is noted that recent growth of
       400 residents  per year (from 1990 to
       1994) has been well in excess of OFM
       projections. This level of continued
       growth would serve to absorb housing
       placed on the  market within less than 2
       years  from the date that mine
       operations cease.

Fiscal Conditions

A comparison of effects of the action
alternatives on state and local government
revenues and expenditures is presented by
Table 4.19. 7, Anticipated Multi-Year Fiscal
Effects.  A detailed  description of the
methodology used to estimate fiscal effects is
provided by the supplemented Affected
Socioeconomic Environment Background Report
(E.D. Hovee,  1994).

The comparison of revenues generated with
public expenses produces a calculation of net
fiscal gain (or loss) to  the public as a result of
the proposed Project.  Due to the different
durations of mine related activities associated
with different action alternatives, calculations
               are presented on a combined multi-year basis,
               covering the entire period of construction,
               operation and reclamation activity.

               It is noted that while an estimation of fiscal
               impacts involves extensive quantitative analysis,
               key assumptions must be made that reflect
               informed opinion which may or may  not prove
               out in the future. Assumptions inevitably
               involve guesses about the future, which can
               subsequently be altered by unexpected or
               unforeseen events.

               Among the key assumptions made for this fiscal
               analysis are the following items:

               •     Assessed valuation of the mine with
                     Alternative B is estimated to  be
                     approximately  $60 million. Assessed
                     valuations for each of Alternatives C
                     through G are varied based on the ratio
                     of expected ore recovery compared with
                     Alternative B.  The Alternative B
                     valuation includes $20 million of
                     assessed valuation already estimated by
                     the Okanogan County Assessor for
                     mineral rights.  Valuation also reflects
                     an estimated $40 million in construction
                     improvements.  However, it is noted
                     that the Okanogan  County Assessor
                     would plan to reassess the mine after its
                     opening, in part based on a calculation
                     of the net present value of the income
                     to be generated over the life  of the
                     mine. The resulting determination of
                     assessed valuation could vary
                     substantially from the $60 million
                     preliminary estimate used for this impact
                     evaluation.

               •     No additional public capital improvement
                     expenditures are anticipated to be
                     required for upgrading of infrastructure
                     to serve the mine site. Capital
                     expenditures for state and local
                     governments are assumed to increase
                     proportional to population growth
                     created directly and indirectly by the
                     proposed Crown Jewel Project.  This is
                     for reasons noted below:

                             Impacts on public facilities
                             attributable directly and
                             indirectly to the Project generally
                             range from  about 1 % to less
                             than 2% depending on the
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-170
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June  1995
TABLE 4.19.7, ANTICIPATED MULTI YEAR FISCAL EFFECTS 	 j

Direct Effect:
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Gam/(Loss)
Indirect Effect:
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Gam/(Loss)
Total Effect:
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Gain/(Loss)
Alternative
A
$0
0
0
$0
0
0
$0
0
0
Alternative
B
$19,000,000
3,300,000
15,700,000
$7,000,000
1,200,000
5,800,000
$26,000,000
4,500,000
21,500,000
Alternative
C
$16,200,000
5,600,000
10,600,000
$6,000,000
2,000,000
4,000,000
$22,200,000
7,600,000
14,600,000
Alternative
D
$21,000,000
6,800,000
14,200,000
$7,800,000
2,400,000
5,400,000
$28,800,000
9,200,000
19,600,000
Alternative
E
$19,000,000
3,300,000
15,700,000
$7,000,000
1,200,000
5,800,000
$26,000,000
4,500,000
21,500,000
Alternative
F
$37,1300,000
6,000,000
31,600,000
$13,900,000
2,100,000
11,800,000
$51,400,000
8,100,000
43,300,000
Alternative
G J
|
$18,800,000
4,100,000
14,700,000
$7,000,000
1,400,000
5,600,000
$25,800,000
5,500,000
20,300,000
Note: Fiscal effects are aggregated over the entire multi-year period encompassing construction, operation, and reclamation
activities. Any fiscal effects associated with Alternative A occur prior to mine related construction, operation and
post-operation reclamation activities.
Source: E.D. Hovee & Company. A more detailed description of the impact methodology is provided by E.D. Hovee &
Company, Affected Socioeconomic Environment Background Report: Crown Jewel Project.
              action alternative under
              consideration; these incremental
              levels of demand on public
              facility usage are not likely to be
              sufficient to require major new
              or expanded public facilities
              solely as a result of mine related
              activity.

              Within Okanogan and Ferry
              counties, current major public
              facility needs are largely the
              result of existing deficiencies or
              deferral of prior maintenance and
              improvement requirements.
              Public facility improvements
              designed to cure existing
              deficiencies can also be sized to
              accommodate 1 % to 2% added
              growth factors associated with
              the action  alternatives at
              relatively nominal added
              incremental facility expense.

              An exception to this overall
              assumption is possible for the
              immediate Chesaw-Molson
              community.  If a large share of
              the added  population generated
              by the mine were to locate in
              the Chesaw-Molson area,
              existing  local public facilities
              that are  related to community
              water, sewage, law enforcement
              and fire capabilities could be
              severely strained.
                             Revenues and cost estimates generally
                             are allocated to taxing jurisdictions
                             based on the  residence locations of
                             persons living in the study area together
                             with current retail sales patterns.  For
                             example, incorporated cities currently
                             account for about 42% of total
                             population in  the study area.  Fiscal
                             impacts for cities would be understated
                             if more than 42% of the added study
                             area population resulting from the
                             proposed Crown Jewel Project actually
                             resides within an incorporated
                             community.

                             Anticipated increases in state and local
                             governmental revenues are categorized
                             based on the following considerations:

                                    Sales, property and business &
                                    occupation taxes directly
                                    attributable to the mine
                                    operation.

                                    Sales, properly and business &
                                    occupation taxes resulting from
                                    direct and indirect population
                                    growth which are assumed to be
                                    consistent with existing per
                                    capita revenues for Okanogan
                                    and Ferry counties and for other
                                    taxing jurisdictions within the
                                    study area.

                                    Other governmental revenues
                                    which are also assumed to
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-171
              increase for new residents based
              on existing per capita receipts.

•      Similarly,  local expenditures attributable
       directly and indirectly to the proposed
       mine are expected to increase on a basis
       proportional to existing per capita
       expenditures in Okanogan and Ferry
       counties.  A per capita method is also
       used to estimate expenditures
       associated with  new residents for other
       local jurisdictions throughout the study
       area. School district expenditures are
       calculated on a per student basis.
       School revenues from local property tax
       sources are calculated on a per capita
       basis; while state share revenues are
       calculated on a per student basis.

Direct Effects. Over the entire multi-year period
of construction, operation and reclamation,
between $16.2 to $37.6 million in direct
revenues would be generated, versus an
estimated $3.3 to $6.8  million in direct
expenditures.  Multi-year net fiscal gain  ranges
from $10.6 million with Alternative C to $31.6
million with Alternative F. Between 59% to
77% of the net fiscal gain accrues to the state
of Washington, with 23% to 41 %  accruing to
local governmental jurisdictions in Ferry  and
Okanogan counties.

Indirect Effects.  Additional state and local
government tax revenues would be paid by
employees and businesses benefitting directly
and indirectly from the proposed mine's
operations.  Revenues would increase in
proportion to area population and income
growth (assuming a per capita tax figure
adjusted upwards by the higher than average
wages associated with mine employees).
Indirect expenditures are also calculated on a
per capita basis for the share of population
growth that may  be indirectly attributable to  the
mine's operation.

Combined multi-year governmental revenues
associated  with construction, operation and
reclamation would range between $6.0 and
$13.9 million. Combined indirect expenses are
estimated to range between  $1.2 and $2.4
million.  Multi-year net fiscal gains are estimated
to range from $4.0 million with Alternative C to
$11.8 million with Alternative F.
               Total Effects. The combination of direct and
               indirect public agency fiscal impacts estimated
               for the years of construction, operations and
               reclamation are as follows:

               •     A range of combined multi-year annual
                     revenues of $22.2 to $51.4 million.
                     Revenue benefits are expected to be
                     greatest with Alternative F and least
                     with Alternative C.

               •     Multi-year expenditures of $4.5 to $9.2
                     million.  Public expenditures would  be
                     greatest with Alternative D  and least
                     with Alternatives B and E.

               •     Combined multi-year net fiscal gain
                     ranging from  $14.6  to $43.3 million.
                     Net fiscal benefits over the  entire period
                     of mine related activity would be
                     greatest with Alternative F and least
                     with Alternative C.

               It is important to note that revenue increases
               are relatively temporary in nature. Government
               revenues would be high during construction and
               during the 4 to  16 years of  mine  operation.
               During reclamation, the net  revenue surplus
               created by the Project would decrease sharply,
               followed by further reductions once reclamation
               activities are completed.

               Consequently,  mine related  governmental
               revenues could appropriately be viewed as  a
               means to fund short-term programs or capital
               improvements rather than long-term continuing
               government programs.  However, experience
               indicates that the impetus to increase ongoing
               governmental programs may be difficult to
               avoid. Other mining  communities including
               Ferry County reportedly have experienced public
               agency funding problems when mines have
               curtailed or ceased operations because local
               governments had come to rely on mine-related
               revenues.

               Social Values

               Unlike the other components of this analysis, it
               is difficult to assign meaningful numerical
               figures to changes in social  values that may
               occur directly or indirectly as a result of the
               Project.  However, based on the results of
               individual interviews and a review of other
               pertinent documents, it is possible to make a
               qualitative assessment of changes in social
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-172
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June 1995
values that may occur as a result of the action
alternatives.  Effects have been reported as they
are perceived by study area residents.

A detailed evaluation of potential effects of the
alternatives on distinct social groups is provided
in the Affected Socioeconomic Environmental
Background Report: Crown Jewel Project (E.D.
Hovee, 1994).  The following is a brief
summary of potential  effects on social values of
study area residents.

Based on the social interviews conducted and
the nature of the comments in the EIS scoping
review process, it is apparent that there is
considerable polarization and intensity of
viewpoints, particularly in the immediate vicinity
of the mine.  The intensity of feeling seems to
diminish as distance from the Project increases.
For example,  persons  interviewed in Omak and
Okanogan reportedly did not see themselves
affected as much, and therefore had not
thought as extensively about the issues as
much as people in Tonasket and Oroville.

In most interviews,  the basic objections to the
proposed Project revolved  around resistance to
unknown changes, loss  of personal or local
control, concern for the long-term well  being of
the environment, and  protection of one's
lifestyle.  Most values supporting the Project
relate to employment potentials, economic
benefit to the region, and stimulation of change
and growth in areas such as housing, social
services, infrastructure and population.

One common factor ties all viewpoints together:
there would be change with little consensus
about what changes are preferred.  As a result,
it may be important for those who live and work
in the region to develop  some means to
discussing these issues in a way that makes it
more possible to find new  common ground for
residents throughout the Chesaw/Highlands and
wider study area -- independent of the
alternative that is selected for the Crown Jewel
Project.

Land Ownership & Values

The overall distribution of land ownership in
Okanogan and Ferry counties would not change
appreciably as a result of any of the action
alternatives.  Potential changes in ownership are
limited to the 23% of  Okanogan County and
                      18% of Ferry County land that is currently in
                      private ownership.

                      Direct Effects. Assessed valuation of Okanogan
                      County would be increased by an estimated
                      $20 million plus $40 million (or $60 million
                      total) directly from the value of mineral rights
                      and improvements at the proposed Crown
                      Jewel Project site (with Alternative B). This
                      constitutes a 4.8% increase in the combined tax
                      assessed valuations of Okanogan and Ferry
                      counties.

                      To this amount can be added another $8.2
                      million in added assessed valuation attributable
                      to residences purchased or built by mine-related
                      employees. Total direct increase in assessed
                      valuation would therefore be close to an
                      estimated $68 million (with Alternative B).

                      Estimates of  assessed valuation changes for
                      other action alternatives are made on the basis
                      of level of gold ore  recovery compared to
                      Alternative B. The  change in direct assessed
                      valuation associated with the other Action
                      Alternatives (C through G) ranges from $39.2 to
                      $68.2 million. The increase in assessed
                      valuation is likely to be greatest with Alternative
                      E and least with Alternative G, based on the
                      relative amounts of gold ore recovered with
                      each of the action alternatives.

                      Indirect Effects.  The assessed valuation of
                      Okanogan and Ferry counties could be expected
                      to further increase due to new residential
                      construction  to house workers employed
                      indirectly as a result of mine operations.  By  the
                      years of peak operations, assessed valuations
                      are expected to increase by an additional $6.5
                      to $11.5 million.  Added valuation is expected
                      to be greatest with  Alternatives C and D, and
                      least with Alternative F.

                      Changes in land ownership may occur in
                      response to the demand for added housing and
                      support business activity in the study area.
                      Land ownership changes could  be substantial in
                      the Chesaw/Highlands area based on existing
                      subdivided properties which are available for
                      sale.  However, actual development of
                      Highlands area housing  is limited by sources of
                      potable water available from on-site wells.
                      Otherwise, changes in land ownership would be
                      relatively dispersed  throughout the study area.
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4  Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-173
Total Effects.  The total of direct and indirect
effects on property values would be an increase
ranging between $52.9 to $75.9 million in the
tax assessed valuation for Okanogan and Ferry
counties.  This represents a 4% to 6% increase
in the tax assessed valuation  of the 2-county
area depending on the action  alternative chosen.
Valuation effects could be expected to be
greatest with Alternatives B and E, and least
with Alternative G.

These estimates are in 1992 dollars, and do not
reflect the potential for further appreciation in
land values as has occurred in recent years.
Whether or not land values continue to escalate
above overall rates of inflation depends on a
number of factors  that are difficult to anticipate
in advance, including  population migration
patterns independent  of the proposed Crown
Jewel Project.

In summary, the demand for property in the
study area may increase starting at or prior to
construction and peaking at about the mid-point
of the years of mine operation.  As mine
operations are scaled  back, property values
could stabilize and possibly drop if displaced
mine workers start to move away from the area.
However, continued baseline  population growth
expected in Okanogan and Ferry counties even
in the absence of the  Crown Jewel Project
means that the demand for housing and
developable property could remain  strong, thus
supporting property values when mine
operations are eventually completed.

Generally, the following socioeconomic effects
associated with the action alternatives
considered for the  Crown Jewel Project could
be considered to substantially represent the
combination of direct  and indirect effects as
delineated in this report.  Direct effects are
those which are caused by the action and occur
at the same time and  place.  Indirect effects are
caused by the action and are  later in time or
further removed in distance, but are still
reasonably foreseeable. U.S.  Council of
Environmental Quality regulations note that
indirect effects may include growth inducing
effects and other effects related to induced
changes in the pattern of land use, population
density, or growth rate.

For this socioeconomic analysis, direct effects
have been construed to represent all activity
directly associated with mine-related
               employment, purchases and employee needs (as
               for housing and public services). Quantitatively
               measured  indirect effects are based on
               standard multiplier analyses which are defined
               to include induced changes in growth.

               Total effects could exceed the combination of
               direct and indirect effects if the  multipliers
               applied prove to underestimate the long-term
               ripple effects of any of the action alternatives.
               Examples of circumstances that could result in
               greater than anticipated indirect effects include:

               •      A lower rate of hiring  local residents
                      than is projected for the action
                      alternatives considered.

               •      More in-migrants drawn to the area in
                      hopes of employment than can actually
                      be employed as a direct and  indirect
                      result of the Crown Jewel Project.

               •      Potential notoriety of the Project which
                      draws additional visitors or residents
                      (whether as supporters,  opponents or
                      interested  observers).

               •      Increase in mining exploration and
                      claims as a result of an in-place,
                      permitted  mine Project.

               •      Increase in other industrial development,
                      ranging from suppliers interested in
                      locating closer to the mine or unrelated
                      industries  drawn by increased
                      awareness of Okanogan and Ferry
                      counties.

               There are also circumstances  which  could cause
               indirect effects to  be less than the projections
               identified in this analysis.  Examples include:

               •      Hiring of local residents in proportions
                      greater than  projected for the action
                      alternatives considered.

               •      Fewer families brought into the area to
                      the extent that operations personnel
                      elect to not make a permanent move
                      (however,  this could increase some
                      public and community service effects).

               •      Reduction  in indirect expenditures and
                      employment if greater than expected
                      proportions of mine-related and
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4 -174
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June
       employee purchases are made outside
       the study area.

•      Reduction in current underlying patterns
       of in-migration and population growth to
       the extent that a mine is perceived as
       making the area a less desirable place to
       live.

No quantitative estimates have been placed on
any of these additional factors.  This  is because
these factors are not reasonably foreseeable and
depend on social and psychological factors not
easy to predict in advance.   It is also  noted that
some effects are likely to fully or partially offset
others.

Some factors could be expected to further
induce population growth in the study area;
others to retard growth. The net effect
depends on decisions  of numerous individuals
acting independently of actions directly
attributable to mine-related  decisions  for the
alternatives considered.

4.20   ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND
       CONSERVATION

The principle non-renewable energy
requirements for the Crown Jewel Project would
be petroleum and electricity for mining
equipment, motor vehicles,  and for processing
the ore. The petroleum products would consist
primarily of diesel fuel, propane, and gasoline.
The estimated fuel consumption would vary by
alternative, based on equipment requirements.
Annual energy consumption during operation
varies by alternative as shown on Table 4.20.1,
Energy Consumption.

Electrical power  for all the Project facilities and
water supply system would be provide through
the PUD via an overhead 11 5 kv transmission
line.  Again, the  annual electric requirement
would vary with specific alternatives.

It has been estimated by the Proponent that 1.2
million gallons of fuel would be required
annually during operation.  Based on this
assumption, it was further estimated  that:
Alternative C, with no surface mining
equipment, would use approximately  40% less
fuel annually; Alternative D,  with some surface
equipment, would use about 20% less fuel
annually; Alternative E would use the same
amount of fuel as Alternative B; Alternative  F,
                      operating 12 hours per day, would use 50%
                      less fuel annually; while Alternative G, hauling
                      ore to Oroville 24 hours per day, would  use
                      about 100% more fuel than Alternative  B.

                      Fuel consumption by the mobile mining
                      equipment would be a major energy requirement
                      of non-renewable energy products.  Regular
                      maintenance for all vehicles and mining
                      equipment would be an opportunity for energy
                      conservation. In addition, the proposed
                      employee busing/van  pooling would further
                      reduce fuel consumption.

                      4.21    MINING  ECONOMICS

                      4.21.1 Introduction

                      The evaluation of a mining  project is a complex
                      and detailed activity.  It involves the interaction
                      of mineral sciences and engineering with
                      finance and economics in the analysis of
                      whether a  project is economically viable to
                      shareholders and investors.

                      Mine evaluation  denotes the assessment of a
                      variety of factors and variables that are
                      essential in establishing the worth of a mining
                      project.  In determining the economic  viability of
                      a mining project or investment opportunity,
                      estimates of ore reserves, mining rates,
                      revenues, costs, expected returns and
                      associated risks  are made (Hartman, 1992).

                      The mine evaluation procedure  is iterative in
                      nature, as illustrated on Figure 4.21.1,
                      Generalized Interactive Procedure for Mine
                      Evaluation  (Gentry and O'Neil, 1984). The
                      estimated ore reserve and grade, as established
                      from  the exploration program, are important
                      variables in determining optimum mine size.  In
                      turn,  mine  size, affects production costs (both
                      capital and operating expenses), as economics
                      of scale are often enjoyed with larger  production
                      rates. Ultimately, project production costs
                      determine what material can be mined at a
                      profit (cutoff grade) and therefore determines
                      the magnitude of the ore reserve (Hartman,
                      1992).

                      It is important to remember that each  time a
                      variable changes, the  impact of the change  on
                      all the other variables must be assessed as well
                      as the effect on  subsequent financial and
                      economic results.  The iterative procedure must
                      be repeated to determine the most economic

-------
                              ORE RESERVE ESTIMATION
CUTOFF GRADE CALCULATION
MINE SIZE OR MINING  RATE SELECTION
                            PRODUCTION COST ESTIMATION
                              (OPERATING AND CAPITAL)
                                                                    SOURCE GENTRY DW, AND O'NEIL.T J , 1984,
                                                                    MINE INVESTMENT ANALYSIS. SME-AIME,
                                                                    NEW YORK. 488 PAGES
   FIGURE 4.21.1,  GENERALIZED INTERACTIVE  PROCEDURE FOR MINE EVALUATION
FILENAME CJ4-21-1DWG

-------
Page 4  176
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June 1995
TABLE 4.20.1, ENERGY CONSUMPTION

Fuel (gal)
Annual
Total
Electricity
(Kwh) Annual
Total
Alternative
A
< 1 ,000
< 1 ,000
Not
Applicable
Alternative
B
1 .2 million
9.6 million
63 million
504 million
Alternative
C
0.7 million
2.8 million
63 million
252 million
Alternative
D
1 million
5.8 million
63 million
378 million
Alternative
E
1 .2 million
9.6 million
63 million
504 million
Alternative
F
0.6 million
19 million
42 million
672 million
Alternative
G
2.4 million
19 million
63 million
504 million
design. This is a time-consuming process but
Figure 4.21.1, Comparison of NPV (15%) of
Crown Jewel Alternatives to Alternative B,
represents the essence of the mine evaluation
process for investment analysis purposes
(Hartman, 1992).

The investment environment associated with
the mining industry is unique when compared to
most  other industries.  As described by Gentry
(1988) and Gentry and O'Neil (1984), some of
the special features associated with the
economics of the mining industry are described
in the following.

Capital Intensity

Mining ventures are extremely capital intensive.
Even small, high grade precious metal
operations that employ a small work force may
require multi-million dollar investments.

Cost Structure

The total average cost of mine production
includes a high fixed cost component, that
primarily reflects capital cost recovery.   For this
reason, the break even production level for
mining facilities is closer to capacity than for
other  types of facilities with lower fixed costs.
This is the major justification for mine
operations to run at capacity, often employing
3-shift, 7 day per week work schedules.

Long Pre-production Periods

Even after the occurrence of an ore deposit has
been established, several years of intensive
effort are required to develop the operation.
The pre-production period depends on the
mining and processing methods, size and
location of the deposit, and the  complexity of
the regulatory framework.
                      The importance of long lead times is amplified
                      when considered in conjunction with the capital
                      intensity of the mining industry.  Not only are
                      companies committing extremely large capital
                      resources to a new mining venture, but they
                      also are exposed financially for a considerable
                      period prior to project start-up.  Also, since
                      capital expenditures are required throughout the
                      pre-production period, the longer the lead time,
                      the greater are the returns required to off set
                      the lost investment opportunities represented by
                      the pre-production period.

                      Nonrenewable Resources

                      Unlike most other industries, one unique aspect
                      of the minerals industry is the extraction of a
                      nonrenewable resource.  Mining revenues result
                      from the "disposal" of the project's major asset
                      - the ore body.  As a result, the return of and
                      return on the  capital investment must be
                      obtained within the finite life of the ore body.

                      Risk

                      Besides the risks associated with capital
                      intensity and  long pre-production periods,
                      mining operations are subject to geologic and
                      engineering risks,  economic or  market risks, and
                      political and regulatory risks. Technical risks
                      (geologic and engineering) have been notably
                      reduced in recent years with  the improvement in
                      planning methods and tools.
                      Economic or market risks are typically outside
                      the control of the  operation; these include
                      fluctuating metals prices, inflation, and generally
                      unpredictable future economic conditions.

                      Although often under-estimated, political and
                      regulatory risk has been  increasingly important
                      in recent years when considering mining
                      investments.  There is an accelerating trend to
                      greater political participation and regulatory
                      oversight in mining projects.
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-177
 Mineral Markets

 Mineral markets are known for their volatility.
 There are literally thousands of factors that
 affect mineral markets and prices.  Some are
 economic, like the traditional supply and
 demand theories; others are political, such as
 decisions made by domestic and foreign
 governments. Even the most experienced and
 sophisticated observer of mineral markets is
 likely to err in predicting the future course of
 gold or other mineral prices (Hartman, 1992).

 An added difficulty in predicting  mineral prices
 is that the currency of any given country may
 lose or gain value at a different rate than the
 currencies of other countries. This has been
 true since the early  1970's, when the system of
 fixed exchange rates instituted by the
 International Monetary Fund following World
 War II was replaced by floating exchange rates
 (Hartman, 1992).

 For most mineral commodities, including gold,
 the currency standard is the U.S. dollar. Given
 changes in the value of other leading currencies
 in relation to the dollar, a rise in the price of
 gold in terms of U.S. dollars may equate to a
 loss in the commodity price in terms of a
 different currency, such as the Japanese yen or
 German mark.

 For example,  between February 1985 and
 March 1987, gold prices rose from $299/oz to
 $409/oz or a 37% increase. However,  during
 the same period, the value of the U.S. dollar
 decreased in relation to the major currencies. In
 terms of the Japanese yen, the price of gold
 declined by 21 %; in terms of German marks,
 the price of gold fell by 24% (Hartman,  1992).

 As you can see, this leads to difficulty in
 describing the gold market. People in the U.S.
 would say that the price was rising, yet people
 in Japan and  Germany would say the price is
falling.

 In the event of a sharp decline in gold prices,
 BMGC would probably elect to put the Crown
Jewel operation into temporary shutdown.  This
situation would probably persist until gold prices
rebound or the decision was made to
permanently decommission  and close the
operation.
              4.21.2 Mine Expansion

              There is no information or data that indicates
              there is economic mineralization in the skarn to
              the north of the proposed pit which would
              cause the proposed mine to expand in that
              direction or for the operation to go deeper.  The
              Proponent has verbally stated, on several
              occasions, that they have no plans to expand
              the proposed pit.  Any expansion of the mine pit
              is not reasonably foreseeable.  If such an action
              was proposed at some time in the future, it
              would be subject to NEPA and SEPA
              compliance, and applicable regulations.

              4.21.3 Economic Analysis of the Alternatives

              A pre-feasibility economic comparison of the
              action alternatives was performed in order to
              assess general feasibility and relative
              economics.  The accuracy of cost figures
              utilized in the study generally falls within a
              range of  +/- 25% and is typical for pre-
              feasibility mine evaluations (Lentz and
              Courtright, 1995).

              A simple discounted cash flow analysis was
              used to compare each alternative.  This involved
              using a software program called APEX, Version
              2.01 (Western Mine Engineering, 1994).  APEX
              considers negative and positive cash flows
              resulting  from the operation and discounts
              (adjusts for the time value of money)  net
              revenues back to the present.  Discounted cash
              flow analysis is a standard tool for evaluating
              mining and other long-term investments.

              The Crown Jewel Project is a joint venture
              between  BMGC and Crown Resources
              Corporation.  The partnership agreement
              requires BMGC to construct and start-up a
              3,000 ton-per-day mine and mill.  BMGC and
              Crown Resources Corporation will then share
              operating costs and revenues based upon a
              54/46% split.  The analysis, therefore, includes
              2 approaches. In  the first approach, BMGC's
              investment position was developed because
              BMGC is the primary partner.  The second
              analysis examined the combined partnership or
              total Project.

              Analyses included estimated  exploration,
              acquisition and permitting costs incurred by
              BMGC since 1990, mine and mill facility capital
              and operating costs, the cost of reclamation
              bonding and reclamation, environmental
                    Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-178
Ch 4- - Environmental Consequences
June 1995
mitigation, Washington State and Federal taxes,
cost of financing, and the joint venture partner
contributions/payments.  Cost estimates are
based on mid-1994 dollars.  Commodity prices
were current as of December 1994 and were
not fluctuated over the mine life.

Cost estimates were derived from various
sources; BMGC's proposed operating plan and
other data submitted by BMGC or by its
consulting mine engineering firms; professional
cost-estimating guides such as Mine Cost
Service published by Western Mine Engineering;
individuals working in mining and related  fields;
current literature; and professional judgement.
Estimates submitted  by the BMGC or its
contractors were reviewed  independently before
use. Operating costs were not escalated or de-
escalated over time.

Figure 4.21.2, Comparison of NPV115%) of
Crown Jewel Alternatives to Alternative B,
provides an  economic comparison of the
alternatives.  The figure compares the Net
Present Value (NPV)  of each alternative to
Alternative B.  NPV is the value,  in 1994
dollars, of the net sum of cash flows from each
alternative over time, assuming a 15% minimum
after-tax rate of return.  Because of the risk
involved, mining projects must provide a  high
return on many factors including the fiscal
conditions of the company, financing
arrangements, etc.  Fifteen percent is about
mid-range.

Economic Feasibility  of the Alternatives

Assuming a minimum after-tax rate of return of
15% an alternative may be considered
economically feasible if, for the Total Project
and Primary Partner, a positive NPV is returned.

Based upon the above criterion. Alternatives B,
C, D, and E are potentially feasible Projects,
while Alternatives F and G, which return  0% or
negative returns, are not.

Comparison of Alternatives

The Total Project NPV of Alternative E would be
about equal to Alternative B,  while Alternatives
C and D return 65% and 73 % of Alternative B,
respectively. If one looks at Primary Partner
NPV, Alternative E again compares favorably to
Alternative B, while Alternatives D and C return
41 % and  52%, respectively,  to BMGC.
                      Reduced NPV of Alternatives C and D is due to
                      the increased cost of underground  mining. Ore
                      cut-off grades were increased in these
                      alternatives to compensate for the  added costs.
                      Total minable gold was therefore reduced to
                      1.36 and 1.52 million ounces, respectively,
                      compared with 1.57 for Alternative B.

                      The failure of Alternative F is attributed to
                      increased cost associated with the  reduced (less
                      efficient) production rate, the large $101  million
                      end-of-mine  pit backfill cost, and the  single
                      north waste  rock disposal area.  The  single
                      greatest factor in the failure of Alternative G  is
                      the reduced  recovery of gold (45%) using the
                      flotation processing.

                      4.22   ACCIDENTS AND SPILLS

                      In  this section, special care has been  taken to
                      distinguish between a predicted effect and a
                      potential effect or risk.  Predicted effects are
                      specifically identified as such, and  described in
                      terms of magnitude and duration.  These are the
                      effects likely to  occur.

                      Effects or risks that are not predicted, but
                      which have a potential to occur have been
                      selected and presented in the  following
                      discussions.  These potential effects  are
                      recognized and described to ensure that
                      reasonable steps are taken to  further minimize
                      them.  Potential  effects or risks are not
                      predicted to  occur and are not approved or
                      sanctioned by the agencies.

                      There are an infinite number of accident and
                      spill scenarios that can be developed  for a
                      project like the Crown Jewel Project.  Analysis
                      of such scenarios can include varying levels of
                      complexity and  portray a variety  of results,
                      some quite alarming.  The following provides a
                      reasonable assessment of risk from potential
                      accidents and spills. For example,  an accident
                      assessment  of a trip in an automobile or an
                      airplane could be very frightening.  We know
                      that, but we continue to take those trips
                      anyway. However, the knowledge of a certain
                      type of accident may persuade us to  take extra
                      precautions  in route.  The following discussion
                      does not predict numerical probabilities for an
                      accident or spill  event, but instead  discusses the
                      type and relative magnitude of impacts that
                      could result. In  this spirit, the following
                      accident and spill scenarios are presented:
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
      150
     -150
                                                                                              r
                                                                                              to
                                                                                              01
                   B
      D          E

CROWN JEWEL ALTERNATIVES
                LEGEND
                                                                     SOURCE US DA FOREST SERVICE AND

                                                                        BUREAU OP LAND MANAGEMENT
           j^^H  PRIMARY PARTNER


                TOTAL PROJECT


           NPV = NET PRESENT VALUE
FILENAME CJ4-21-2DWG
                     FIGURE  4.21.2, COMPARISON OF NPV (15%)  OF
                   CROWN  JEWEL  ALTERNATIVES  TO ALTERNATIVE B

-------
Page 4-180
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June 7995
       Water Reservoir Rupture
       Tailings Dam Failure
       Transportation Spill
       Accident/Spill in the Mill
       Leak in the Tailings Facility
       Well Depletion
       Increase in Nitrate Loading Due to
       Explosives Handling
4.22.1 Water Reservoir Rupture

This event could be initiated by a catastrophic
event (earthquake, flood, etc.), a design flaw, or
other causes which could result in severe
structural damage to the embankment causing
leakage from the reservoir.  The leak causes a
portion of the embankment to collapse releasing
several million gallons of water into the Myers
Creek drainage.

The impacts would include  destruction of the
pumping station, flooding of the ranching and
housing structures immediately downstream,
erosion and  reconfiguration of the stream
channels, destruction of wetlands and riparian
areas, and alteration of aquatic habitats.
Further downstream, the level and velocity of
the released water would dissipate as the valley
widens.  The water would eventually be
absorbed into the Kettle River system with little
further effect.

The magnitude of the impacts to vegetation,
wildlife, aquatic life, and personal property is
difficult to predict other than it is realized that
environmental and property destruction would
occur close to the source and diminish with
distance.  There would not be any expected
human or large mammal fatalities, however,
there could be some loss of small mammals and
aquatic life due to drowning and the sediment
content (mud) of the runoff. The duration  of
impact would vary with the particular
environmental area affected.

This scenario has a very remote possibility of
happening.  The water reservoir would be
designed and constructed according to the
stringent criteria of the WADOE Dam Safety
Division.  In order to put the cause and result of
this type of  accident into perspective, it should
be considered that an earthquake or flood event
of the magnitude that would rupture the
embankment would not be isolated to only the
water reservoir,  but would  result in severe, and
                      possibly catastrophic, impacts to the entire
                      Okanogan region (U.S. and Canada).

                      4.22.2 Tailings Dam Failure

                      Again, this event could be initiated by a
                      catastrophic event (earthquake, flood, etc.), a
                      design flaw, or other causes which could result
                      in severe structural damage to the embankment
                      causing a breach or break of the embankment.
                      Two modes of failure were analyzed for the
                      proposed tailings facility  (Knight Piesold, 1993);
                      1)      earthquake induced embankment failure
                             (flow slide failure), and;

                      2)      dam breach by overtopping.

                      These scenarios have an extremely remote
                      possibility of happening. The tailings
                      embankments would be designed and
                      constructed according to the stringent criteria of
                      the WADOE Dam Safety Division.  In order to
                      put the cause and result of this type of accident
                      into perspective, it should be considered that a
                      situation whereby the Okanogan region  received
                      20 inches of rain in less than 6 days would
                      result in catastrophic flooding that would
                      certainly result in massive loss of life to
                      humans, wildlife, and livestock.  Furthermore
                      property and environmental  damage  would  be
                      enormous to the whole Okanogan  region (U.S.
                      and Canada).

                      Earthquake Induced Failure

                      The analysis was conducted using a MCE with a
                      magnitude of 6.0 which is a magnitude  above
                      anything previously experienced in the general
                      region. The analysis was preformed on the
                      primary embankment (Marias drainage) since
                      due to size it would be less  stable than the
                      secondary embankment (Nicholson drainage).
                      The results of the analysis indicate that the
                      embankment would not fail  and would have a
                      factor of safety of 1.3 during construction and
                      1.5 thereafter.

                      As shown the embankments would be designed
                      to  withstand the expected seismic events for
                      the region but could fail under more  extreme
                      events, and result in a flow slide failure.

                      A flow slide failure is a mud slide, resulting from
                      embankment collapse, which could release the
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-181
entire tailings deposit, which is conservatively
assumed to be in a fluid state.  Under the
proposed operating conditions, the tailings are
expected to be drained and consolidated in the
area of the embankments and impossible to
liquify (Knight Piesold,  1993).  However, the
extremely conservative assumption was
assumed that total liquification would occur.
Analysis of this scenario shows that failure of
the primary embankment could flow slide 2.6
miles down Marias Creek and the secondary
only 300 feet down Nicholson Creek.

Dam Breach by Overtopping

This is an erosional failure which could be
caused by overfilling.  This scenario would
occur only on the secondary embankment
(Nicholson drainage) because it would be lower
than the primary embankment in the Marias
drainage.  The breaching occurs at the
completion of placing the total 8.7 million tons
of tailings. This results in the exposure of
maximum surface area.

This analysis was conducted using the
computer program BREACH developed by D.L.
Fread (1988).  It was elected that the runoff
volume from a 72 hour storm event would be
assumed. The impoundment at this stage
would contain a supernatant pond amounting to
about 360 acre feet at the crest level of the
secondary embankment.  This volume is more
than twice the required design storage volume.
This is an extremely unlikely scenario since it in
effect assumes that more than 2 design storm
event follow each other (in excess of 20 inches
of rain in less than 6 days).

Analysis of the tailings material that will  settle
below the supernatant pond  show that this
material would be very unlikely to  join the
breach flow.  The depth of the of breaching  was
therefore assumed to stop 4 feet into the
tailings since the upper 4 feet may be
sufficiently saturated to flow (Knight Piesold,
1993).  Since the facility would be built in
stages with tailings added during each stage,
the impoundment could never fill entirely with
water.

A dam break analysis was conducted in
conjunction to predict the dam-break wave
formation and the downstream progression,
using the computer model DAMBRK developed
by the National Weather Service.  The analysis
              was performed along the 6.5 miles of Nicholson
              Creek downstream to the junction with Toroda
              Creek. The following is a summary of the
              results of Knight Piesold's Breach and Dam
              Break Analysis:

              •     The time from initial overtopping to
                     breaching could be  very short.  Warning
                     and evacuation downstream must be
                     done prior to overtopping.

              •     Peak discharge would occur very
                     rapidly, within minutes after breaching
                     starts.

              •     A peak discharge of 18,800 cfs is
                     predicted at the point of breach and a
                     peak flow of 14,700 cfs 6.5 miles
                     downstream.

              •     The peak flow could reach the first
                     dwellings, 6.5 miles downstream, in
                     about 112 hour after the start of
                     breaching.

              •     The peak is predicted to be 15 feet deep
                     at this point (6.5 miles downstream).

              The magnitude of the impacts to vegetation,
              wildlife, aquatic life, and personal property is
              difficult to predict other than it is realized that
              environmental and property destruction would
              occur all along the 6.5  miles of Nicholson Creek
              downstream to the confluence with Toroda
              Creek and diminish as the valley widens at
              Toroda Creek.  Human life,  personal property,
              and domestic water sources close to Nicholson
              Creek and within the predicted peak depth of
              the flow could be in jeopardy. There would be
              loss of wildlife, vegetation,  aquatic life  and
              wetlands within the flood zone. The influx of
              runoff from the storm events would effectively
              dilute the metals contaminate levels to
              undetectable levels and would not be expected
              to present adverse effects.  The erosional
              effects of the peak flow could be severe.

              Within the flow slide area, vegetation, wetlands
              and aquatic habitats would  be destroyed.
              Based on the leach test conducted on the
              tailings solids, there would  be no anticipated
              toxic impacts, only the inundation of very fine-
              grained material within the  slide zone.  The
              impacts would remain until  cleanup and
              restoration is completed.
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-182
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June 1995
4.22.3 Transportation Spill

In order to assess potential impacts resulting
from a transportation  spill of an environmentally
hazardous material, 3  general locations were
chosen to conduct the assessments:

•      Myers Creek at Chesaw
•      Beaver Lake
•      Toroda Creek

If an environmentally sensitive material were
spilled into one of the area streams, the water
could become temporarily toxic or physically life
threatening to aquatic life, wildlife, humans, and
vegetation depending  on the amount and type
of material released, the stream affected, the
time of year,  the point of entry, and the
response time to the accident. The types of
environmentally hazardous material include:
       Sodium Cyanide
       Explosives (ammonium nitrate)
       Chemicals and Reagents
       Cement/Lime
       Fuels
These types of accident scenarios are not
predicted to occur due to the specific nature of
each and the mitigative measures that would be
employed.  The types of mitigative measures to
be employed are discussed in Chapter 2,
Section 2.11, Management and Mitigation.

Sodium Cyanide

The occurrence of a massive cyanide spill is not
predicted because sodium cyanide is generally
transported in dry form in individual specially
designed containers and must come in contact
with water to pose immediate toxic and acute
health dangers.  Millions of pounds of sodium
cyanide are transported annually without
incident. Sodium cyanide is transported on a
regular basis along Highway  97 (through
Tonasket and Oroville) and to the mining
operations around Republic.

Upon contact with water or acid, cyanide
dissolves into a liquid form and portions volatize
into HCN gas. At high concentrations, free
cyanide is highly lethal to aquatic organisms.
Fish are generally found to be more sensitive
than invertebrates with acute levels estimated in
the range of 40 to 200 ppb HCN (EPA,  1985).
Cyanide acts rapidly in aquatic environments,
                      but does not persist for extended periods and is
                      highly species selective; organisms usually
                      recover quickly on removal to clean water
                      (USFWS,  1991).

                      In a gaseous state, concentrated levels of
                      cyanide is lethal to all terrestrial life.
                      Concentrations of 2,000 mg  HCN/L are fatal
                      within a minute to humans.

                      In the event of an accident with release of
                      sodium cyanide into surface waters, all aquatic
                      life in the immediate area would be killed.  In
                      flowing streams,  the effects would continue
                      downstream  until dilution and/or volatilization
                      reduced the cyanide content to non-toxic levels.
                      In a lake, the anticipated impacts would be
                      longer lasting due to the lack of flowing water,
                      however,  the overall toxicity  would still be
                      relatively short-term.

                      Any humans, mammals or birds in the
                      immediate vicinity of the gas cloud, produced
                      through volatilization, would probably be
                      overcome quickly and possibly die; however the
                      gas should dissipate rapidly having only a short-
                      term but deadly effect.

                      Cleanup would be limited to removing and
                      protecting the undissolved  sodium cyanide
                      briquettes from further potential contact with
                      the water.  The cyanide already dissolved or
                      volatized cannot be recovered and would be left
                      to run its course, which would probably be
                      completed by the time cleanup could be
                      initiated.

                      Although cyanide is highly toxic, the duration of
                      impacts from a release of cyanide would likely
                      be short-term.  Cyanide is relatively reactive and
                      does not persist in the aquatic environment nor
                      does it bioaccumulate in the food chain.

                      Explosives (Ammonium Nitrate)

                      Ammonium nitrate is transported in solid form
                      (small beads  or prills) and is a commonly used
                      form of agricultural fertilizer.

                      Nitrate is considered toxic to mammals only
                      under reducing conditions when ingested.  This
                      situation would be unlikely since there would  be
                      human presence until cleanup.

                      Nitrate is toxic to aquatic biota only in high
                      concentrations (EPA,  1986).  Lethal thresholds
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-183
for freshwater fish range from 420 to 2,000
mg/l.  This situation could occur if sufficient
amounts were spilled into a lake condition.
Likely effects would be a resultant algal bloom
due to the introduction of the nitrate.

In the event of an accident and  spill, the
anticipated effects would be very minor and
remediation would revolve around containment
and cleanup of the undissolved  portion of the
ammonium nitrate  prills.

Chemicals and Reagents

A spill involving chemicals or reagents could
affect the pH of the receiving stream to the
point that the water would be toxic to aquatic
life.  Spill response measures would be initiated
to neutralize the pH of the affected waters and
to contain and remove contaminated soils.

The magnitude of such an event would be
dependent on the specific type and amount of
chemical involved. There would be the potential
for short-term loss of aquatic resources,  fish
and invertebrates,  and riparian vegetation.
However, as soon  as the pH stabilizes aquatic
resources could return.

Cement/Lime

Cement/lime is toxic to fish when exposed to
levels of 92 ppm for 28 minutes, or 198 ppm
for 10 minutes. Since this material is not highly
reactive (soluble) and would be  transported in
dry form, adverse effects if an accidental spill
into water were to occur, would be minimal.
This type of accident/spill would be messy to
clean-up, due to the fine powder that would
need to be collected for disposal.

Fuels

Accidents of petroleum products could cause
both short and long-term adverse effects to
aquatic organisms  if a spill reaches a stream.
Since this material is transported as a liquid in
bulk tanks, there is a high potential that  a spill
into water could be of sufficient volume  to
result in multiple effects to the environment.
The duration of the impacts would depend
heavily on the location of the spill and the
response time to initiate containment and begin
cleanup.
              These types of accident scenarios are not
              predicted to occur due to the specific nature of
              each and the mitigative measures that would be
              employed. The types of mitigative measures to
              be employed are discussed in Chapter 2,
              Section 2.11 Management and Mitigation.

              A spill into a stream like Myers Creek or Toroda
              Creek could spread the fuel a considerable
              distance downstream if containment measures,
              such as placement of oil booms, installation of
              temporary dikes, removal of the fuel source,
              etc., are not initiated quickly.  There would
              likely be adverse impacts to aquatic life, riparian
              and wetland areas, and possibly waterfowl.
              Other effects that could possibly occur would
              be personal property impacts and contamination
              of domestic water supplies that are in close
              proximity to the stream.  The magnitude of
              effects would depend on the volume of fuel
              spilled, the location of the accident, the time of
              year (spring runoff or fall low flow), and the
              time required to initiate containment.  The time
              required to initiate containment and cleanup
              would depend on the location  and availability of
              spill response personnel, materials, and
              equipment.

              A similar type spill into an environment like
              Beaver Lake could probably be contained easier
              than a stream situation.  However, the same
              type and  magnitude of impacts could result.
              Once cleanup was completed, the affected
              habitats  would rapidly recover.

              Response time on County Roads 9480 and
              4895 and Forest Road 3575-120 would be
              short due to the presence of pilot cars with
              trained personnel in  radio contact with the  mine
              and caches of emergency response materials at
              strategic  locations.  Response time on other
              access roads to the  Project would be longer due
              to the absence of pilot vehicles.

              Accidents in the Mill

              Scenarios for accidents in the  mill are unlimited,
              however, as a point of perspective, assume a
              potential  situation which could involve
              malfunction in pH control of the cyanide
              solutions or a faulty valve which results in a
              large spill of cyanide leach  solution inside the
              mill  building.

              If this situation (albeit unlikely) occurred, where
              the pH of the cyanide solution could not be
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
Page 4-184
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
June 1995
controlled, the result would be the rapid
formation of HCN gas. In this type of scenario,
some mill workers could be killed before the gas
dissipated; however, the warning systems
would provide time for evacuation from the
area.  This scenario has a  very remote
possibility based on the safety and operational
systems designed into the milling and
processing circuits. There have been no
accidental deaths from cyanide in the mining
industry, but, there have been deaths in the
electroplating industry which  also uses cyanide.

A large spill of cyanide solution within the mill
building would probably pose no harmful human
or environmental effects as long  as proper
containment and cleanup measures were
employed.  Mill buildings are typically designed
to provide containment of potential accidental
spills.  If the spill were to escape from the
building, there could be contamination of soil
and vegetation resources.  It would be very
unlikely that this type of spill  would reach any
surface water resource. The  contaminated  soils
and vegetation would be neutralized and
probably placed in the tailings impoundment.

Leak in the Tailings Facility

The likelihood of a leak in tailings liner causing
environmental problems is extremely low.  A
Seepage and Attenuation Study (Hydro-Geo,
1995c) was conducted to  assess the magnitude
of potential impact. Results of the study
indicate that, even in the case of a "massive"
leak in the tailings  liner, there would be no
detectable contamination below the footprint of
the tailings area.

The tailings disposal facility would be designed
and operated as a closed circuit,  zero-discharge
system consisting of a geomembrane lined
impoundment and a lined reclaim solution
collection pond in compliance with the 1994
Washington State Metal Mining and Milling  Act.
The facility would be constructed with at least a
composite liner system consisting of a primary
geomembrane with a secondary low-
permeability soil liner with lower  than 106
cm/sec permeability.  The  tailings disposal
facility would be drained using a  basin drain
layer to minimize head on the liners.  (This
mitigation would not be necessary in  Alternative
G).
                      The mine operator would maintain a water
                      balance to account for water used and
                      discharge.

                      If monitoring wells detected leakage from this
                      facility, mitigation measures such as pump-back
                      of ground and/or surface water into the tailings
                      facility, digging up the tailings facility liner
                      system, or other appropriate measures would be
                      taken to stop or mitigate this leak.

                      Well Depletion

                      Given the location of the proposed Crown Jewel
                      mining operation, it seems very unlikely that the
                      proposed operation would impact any
                      surrounding private wells or water rights. In the
                      extreme case that such a situation occurs, it is
                      possible that the Proponent could be required to
                      replace the water source or change their
                      operations.

                      Increase in Nitrate Loading Due to Explosives
                      Handling

                      The most plausible scenario to describe and
                      assess this condition would be as follows:

                      During the life of the operation, water
                      monitoring stations begin to show increasing
                      levels of nitrate.  Further investigation indicates
                      that there is water present in some drill holes
                      that are being loaded with explosives consisting
                      of a bulk ANFO mixture. There is also
                      indication of ANFO  spillage around the area of
                      each drill hole.  When the material is blasted,
                      there are orange or yellow clouds accompanying
                      the explosion. This  indicates "incomplete"
                      combustion of the explosive.  When the blasted
                      material is placed in  the waste rock or ore
                      stockpile and has been subjected to
                      precipitation over time, the excess nitrate could
                      dissolve and enter the surface and ground water
                      system.

                      The potential for this situation to occur can not
                      be estimated; however, some mines  have
                      elevated levels of nitrates and some do not.  It
                      would  be important to  monitor the blasting
                      program to ensure proper handling and blasting
                      practices are  employed.
                     Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4 185
4.23   IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE
       COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES

Irreversible resource commitments are those
that cannot be reversed (loss of future  options),
except perhaps in the extreme long-term.  It
relates primarily to nonrenewable resources,
such as minerals or cultural resources or those
resources that are renewable only over long
periods of time, such  as old-growth forest. A
mining operation removes minerals from the
ground, this results in an irreversible loss of the
mineral resource.

Irretrievable resource  commitments are those
that are lost for a period of time.  Examples are:
the loss of production, harvest, or use  of natural
resources, such as the lost of timber production
and harvest until the Project site is reclaimed
and revegetation success is achieved.  Another
example; if a grazing  allotment  is in poor
condition  and is likely to remain so, the time
gap between its current condition and its ideal
(potential)  productivity is in itself an ongoing
irretrievable loss (Shipley Associates, 1992).

Use of land in the Project area would displace
existing land uses on  a short-term basis.
Existing grazing, timber, wildlife habitat, and
recreation  uses would be disrupted or eliminated
during the estimated life-of-mine. With
reclamation of the disturbed lands, land uses
could essentially return to current uses and
levels of use or even  be enhanced.

4.23.1 Irreversible Resource  Commitment

The irreversible commitment  of resources would
include the consumption of non-renewable
energy or materials, such as  diesel fuel and
propane, affects to topography, mineral
resources, and cultural resources.

The topography would be permanently altered
by the creation of an  open pit and the
construction of waste rock disposal piles and a
tailings facility.  Although most of these
changes would blend with the landscape
following completion  of reclamation; the pit
highwalls would remain apparent in the
landscape in Alternatives B, D,  E and G.
Surface subsidence would persist following
Alternatives C and D. Alternative F could result
in the top of Buckhorn Mountain  being slightly
higher than original.
               Recent reports suggest that to replace the
               ecosystem of an old-growth western forest
               might take 180 to 500 years.  It is suggested
               that to create a new forest stand that would
               provide SI/T cover for deer might take 100 to
               1 50 years.  Given the long-term nature of the
               effects, clear-cutting  an old-growth forest
               essentially becomes an irreversible commitment
               of resources.  Harvest of SI/T cover is a long-
               term irretrievable commitment  of resources.

               Fossil fuels used during the operation and
               transportation phases of the Project would
               result in irreversible commitments.

               The mining of the Crown Jewel ore deposit
               would be an irreversible use of a precious
               metals reserve. On the other hand, however,
               the extraction and processing of the gold would
               make this resource available for use by society.

               Four cultural sites, in the area  of the mine pit,
               would be lost; however, research values would
               be recovered  prior to the physical loss.

               4.23.2 Irretrievable Resource Commitments

               Timber and other vegetation would be removed
               in areas of proposed  facilities.  Once this timber
               is removed any future harvest would be delayed
               for many decades.

               Proposed mining activity would displace all
               wildlife within the direct area of disturbance
               (e.g. loss of habitat)  and some wildlife  within
               the larger core area (e.g. reduced habitat
               effectiveness due to  noise).  These effects
               would likely cause a  reduction in wildlife
               population. Reclamation plans and mitigation
               measures would eventually restore wildlife
               habitat, but not the same quality and quantity
               that would be lost.

               Populations of sensitive plants could be
               irreversibly and irretrievably affected by the
               placement of mine facilities.

               There would  be a consumption of  water
               resources, but only for the life of the Project.

               Recreation opportunities  would be restricted
               within the Project area during  the short-term.

               Partial or complete backfill of the open pit could
               result in an irretrievable loss of possible gold
               resources.
                     Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
 Page 4-186
Ch 4 - Environmental Consequences
                                                                                       June 1995
 4.24   UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS

 There are unavoidable impacts which could
 occur as a result of implementing a mining
 alternative. Some of these effects would be
 short-term, while others could be long-term.
 These unavoidable effects could include:

 •      The generation of fugitive dust (short-
        term);

 •      The loss of vegetation and wildlife
        habitat (short and long-term);

 •      The destruction of cultural resources
        (long-term);

 •      The consumption of water resources
        (short-term);

 •      The permanent alteration of the
        topography (long-term);

 •      The increased demand on public
        services and  utilities (short-term);
•      The hydrologic balance on Buckhorn
       Mountain would be changed with
       resulting flow changes in Gold, Bolster,
       Marias, Nicholson, Toroda and Myers
       creeks (long-term);

•      Loss of wetlands, springs and seeps and
       changed functions and values of
       wetlands (short and long-term);

•      Increases in noise levels which would
       effect human aesthetics and wildlife use
       and effectiveness (short-term);

•      Increased road traffic (short-term);

•      Soil productivity (long-term); and,

•      Timber production (short and long-term).

The fugitive dust produced during the mining
activities could contribute to a decrease in the
quality of the air resources in the Project area.

Project related surface disturbance would
disturb 440 to 927 acres of vegetation.  There
are currently 55  acres of disturbance,
associated  with the exploration activities. This
                      type of impact would continue for the duration
                      of the Project.

                      Four identified cultural sites, located in the
                      Project area, would be lost.  These sites would
                      be recorded as required by the OAHP prior to
                      destruction or removal.

                      To conduct mining operations and ore
                      processing activities, there would be an
                      unavoidable consumption of water resources.

                      Past actions (primarily the lost of SI/T have
                      already reduced deer winter habitat on  Buckhorn
                      Mountain.  The incremental effects of the
                      proposed Project on deer would be considered
                      substantial because any additional loss of SI/T
                      cover would exacerbate past adverse effects.
                      Impacts associated with the mine would
                      continue to trend of significant changes in
                      wildlife habitat which have occurred  over the
                      last 100 years.

                      The creation of an open pit or surface
                      subsidence features, along with the
                      construction of a tailings impoundment and
                      waste  rock disposal areas, would permanently
                      alter the topography of the Project area by
                      lowering the elevation of the top of Buckhorn
                      Mountain, filling a valley, and raising some
                      sideslopes on Buckhorn Mountain.

                      The estimated increase in population, due to
                      Project employment requirements, would place
                      an increased demand on public services and
                      utilities except for the predicted lack  of housing
                      during  the construction phase, these demands
                      would  be small if the local hiring goals are met.

                     4.25   SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS LONG-
                            TERM PRODUCTIVITY

                      Short-term  uses are those that generally occur
                     on a year to year basis. Examples are wildlife
                     and livestock use of forage, timber
                     management, other wood harvesting,
                     recreation, and uses of the water resource.
                     Long-term productivity is the capability  of the
                     land to provide resources, both market and non-
                     market, for future generations.

                     Relationships between short-term uses of the
                     environment and long-term productivity occur in
                     all action alternatives.  Short-term uses  such as
                     mining (vegetation removal) may be said to
                     represent irretrievable commitments of
                    Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-187
resources.  As an example:  The removal of
timber and vegetation from the facility sites
certainly prevents the vegetation from serving
as forage for livestock or as hiding cover for
wildlife for a certain period of time. However,
after a period of time, which will vary from site
to site based on reclamation objectives, trees
and other vegetation will again re-establish and
serve the desired purpose. This occurs because
basic long-term productivity was not destroyed
by the short-term use, therefore no irreversible
damage occurred.

Project operations would be short-term use,
with mining and initial reclamation expected to
last from 6 to 33 years.  The short-term use of
the Crown Jewel Project is to  recover as much
gold as is economically feasible. The amount of
area disturbance needed to recover this gold
varies by alternative, 440 to 927 acres.

Long-term impacts to site productivity from
roads, mining, and soil disturbance are
discussed previously in this chapter under the
individual resource areas.  In addition, the
alteration of ecological systems by mining and
related activities would impact  nutrient storage
and cycling processes. While the replacement
of older stands with managed  stands may
increase the quality and quantity of usable
timber produced, care must be taken to insure
that a long-term reduction in site quality does
not result from the mine operations.

Long-term productivity refers to the basic
capability of the land to produce according to
the desired future levels (e.g., timber, wildlife
habitat, water quality). Long-term productivity
would depend on the reclamation measures
applied, the ability to retain soil productivity,
and the desired long-term management
objectives. Timber  production and mature
growth wildlife habitat would be lost for about
100 years within the Project disturbance areas.

In addition to site conditions, the contribution of
mature and old-growth forest habitats in
providing for a unique and diverse mix of
species is reduced through removal of standing
timber and intensive management of the site.
Timber production and mature growth wildlife
habitat would be lost for about 100 years within
the area of physical disturbance. Wildlife
habitat also would be lost within the area
affected by noise impacts for the duration of
mining.
               Any impacts on fish and wildlife habitat due to
               sedimentation and the introduction of toxics
               into the environment can have both short and
               long-term impacts on these habitats, and to
               populations of fish and wildlife species.

               As described previously, the short-term benefits
               of mining of gold can have long-term impacts on
               scenic and recreational values in the area, and
               the numbers of people who would want to visit
               the area for these reasons, but may increase
               dispersed recreation opportunities for camping,
               hunting, mushroom picking and berry gathering
               besides the opportunity to visit an active mine.

               All of the action alternatives result in short-term
               uses which irretrievably commit certain
               resources, specifically timber production and
               various levels of wildlife habitat.  The relative
               amount of area that would experience  short-
               term uses (analysis area versus disturbed  area)
               varies from 0.6% to 1.3%. The short-term use
               would affect 4% to 8.5% of the area,  using the
               core area as a basis for comparison.
                     Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement

-------