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
------- |