300D05901B
Lead Agencies:
U.S.D.A.
Forest Service
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL
«—-»•» IMPACT STATEMENT
Department of Ecology
TON STATE
E'C'O'L'O'G'Y
JUNE 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Okanogan County, Washington
VOLUME II Assembled By:
Engineering * Enwlronmwttal S*rvlcM
-------
Chapter 5
List Of Preparers
-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 5-1
5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
5.1
INTRODUCTION
The U.S.D.A. Forest Service (Forest Service)
and the Washington Department of Ecology
(WADOE) are the lead agencies for the Crown
Jewel Project EIS. The Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps of Engineers), and Washington
Department of Natural Resources (WADNR) are
cooperating agencies on this EIS project.
TerraMatrix (formerly ACZ Inc.) served as the
third-party EIS contractor under the direction of
the lead agencies and utilized numerous
subcontractors in the preparation of the EIS. A
number of individuals have contributed to this
document. The academic background and
experience of individuals are presented in this
chapter.
5.2
U.S.D.A. FOREST SERVICE
Mel Bennett* - Forest Hydrologist - B.S. in
Forest Management, 1970, Washington State
University. M.S. in Forestry (Forest Hydrology
and Soils), 1975, Washington State University.
Soil Scientist, Boise National Forest, Boise, ID
1971-1972. Soil Scientist, Clearwater National
Forest, Orofino, ID 1972-74. Hydrologist,
Clearwater National Forest, Orofino, ID 1974-
1977. Soil Scientist, Okanogan National Forest,
Okanogan, Washington 1982-86. Assistant
Range Staff Officer, Okanogan National Forest,
Okanogan, Washington 1986-1991.
Hydrologist, Okanogan National Forest,
Okanogan, Washington 1978-1995.
William Butler* - Engineer - B.S. in Forest
Management, 1982, University of Washington.
B.S. in Logging Engineering, 1982, University of
Washington. B.S. in Civil Engineering, 1988,
Washington State University. Two and a half
years professional experience with the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. One year as an
Engineer in Training. One and a half years as a
structural designer. Two years with the Forest
Service as a Civil Engineer with areas of
responsibility in facilities, water systems,
hazardous materials, road and trail bridges,
dams, recreation projects and road design.
Jessie Childs Dole* - Landscape Architect,
Recreation - B.S. in Geography ana
Environmental Studies, 1 978, University of
Oregon. Master's of Landscape Architecture,
1985, Cornell University. Landscape Architect,
Klamath National Forest, Yreka, California,
1985-1986. Park Planning Aide, City of
Eugene, Eugene, Oregon, 1986. Private
landscape work, Eugene and Portland, Oregon,
1987-1988. District Landscape Architect,
Tonasket Ranger District, 1989-1993.
Phil Christy* - Mineral Coordinator - B.S. in
Forest Management, 1971, University of
Washington. Forest Engineering Institute,
1980, Oregon State University. Peace Corps
and CARE in Niger, 1971-1977. Seventeen
years as a Forester with the Forest Service,
1978-1995.
Dick Coppock - Mineral Field Inspector - Two
years of study at Montana Normal College in
Elementary Education. Twenty years
experience on the Okanogan National Forest
working in administration of minerals, timber
sales and special projects. Tonasket Ranger
District Hazardous Materials Coordinator.
Mark Deleon - Cultural Resources - B.A. in
Anthropology, University of Alabama (1978);
M.S. in Anthropology, University of Southern
Mississippi (1981). Sixteen years employed by
the Forest Service as a cultural resource
specialist providing technical review and
guidance to cultural resource contractors and
Forest Service employees.
Oren B. Erickson - Forest Landscape Architect -
B.S. in Music and Art, Minnesota State
University, Masters Studies in Architecture,
University of Oregon, Bachelor of Landscape
Architecture, University of Oregon. Masters
Studies in Urban and Regional Planning,
California Polytechnical University, San Luis
Obispo, California. Twenty years experience in
two regions, on five forests with the U.S.
Forest Service and four years with the Bureau
of Land Management.
Jan Flatten, Forest NEPA Coordinator - B.A. in
geography, 1977, California State University at
Northridge. Fourteen years of experience with
the Forest Service in environmental
coordination, Forest planning, and timber sale
planning. Three years experience in the private
sector in land-use planning.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 5-2
CHAPTER 5 - LIST OF PREPARERS
June 1995
George Halekas* - Wildlife Biologist - Wildlife
Ecology studies, University of Idaho. B.A. in
Philosophy and Comparative Religion, Lafayette
College, Pennsylvania. Nine years as a Wildlife
Biologist with the Forest Service.
Jean A. Lavell - Wildlife Biologist - B.S. in
Botany. Post Graduate work at the University
of Montana in Wildlife, Ecology and Secondary
Teacher Certification. Twelve years experience
as a biologist with the Forest Service.
Rod Lentz* - Area Mining Geologist - B.S. in
Geology, 1974, and M.S. in Geology, 1977,
Portland State University, Oregon. Two years
industry experience, 1974-1975. Eighteen
years experience with the BLM, 1977-1981,
and U.S. Forest Service, 1 981-Present.
Larry Loftis* - Botanist - B.A. in Biology, 1977,
Southern Oregon State College, plus additional
classes at Oregon State University. Eighteen
years experience with the Forest Service, as a
forestry technician and botanist, 1977-1995.
Okanogan National Forest Botanist since 1991.
Don Lyon - Planning/Minerals Staff Okanogan
National Forest - B.S. in Forest Management,
1965, Washington State University. Okanogan
National Forest Planning/Minerals Staff 1991 -
1995. Region 6 Forest Plan
Implementation/Monitoring Coordinator 1989-
1991. Team Leader, Tongass National Forest
Plan Revision, 1986-1989. Planning Staff,
Wenatchee National Forest, 1980-1986. Varied
assignments on several Ranger Districts in
Regions 1 and 6, 1965-1980
Kenneth J. Radek* - Forest Soil Scientist - B.S.
in Resource Management and Soils, 1973,
University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point. Soil
Science Institute at Texas A&M. Wisconsin
Department of Agriculture, 1973. Soil
Conservation Service, 1974-1976. Nineteen
years as a Soil Scientist with the Forest Service,
1976-1995.
William Randall* - Supervisory Forestry
Technician - 36 years experience on the
Okanogan National Forest; specializing in
timber, fire and other resources, 1957-1994.
John Ridlington* - Mineral Coordinator - B.S. in
Forest Management from the Washington State
University (1969) with graduate level credits
from the University of Idaho, University of
Montana and Washington State University.
Twenty-three years of professional experience
with the Forest Service in Washington, Oregon
and California in project coordination, forestry
and range.
Don Rose* - District Silviculturist, District
Ranger - B.S. in Forest Management from
Humboldt State University of California in
Arcata. Certified Region 6 Silviculturist.
Thirteen years experience with the Forest
Service in environmental analysis, silviculture
and timber sale planning.
Joe Sanchez - Timber Management, Range,
Soils. Water, Air Quality and Lands Staff Officer
- B.S. in Range/Forest Management from
Colorado State University. Thirty years
experience with the Forest Service. Four years
as Staff Officer on the Okanogan National
Forest. Eight years as District Ranger on the
Santa Fe National Forest.
Pete Soderquist - District Ranger - B.S. in Forest
Management, University of Montana. Certified
Region 1 and 6 Silviculturist. Eighteen years
experience with the Forest Service.
James V. Spotts - Fisheries Biologist - B.S. in
Fisheries. Fisheries Biologist with Washington
Department of Wildlife 1 984-1 989. State Trout
Biologist, Arkansas Trout Program, 1990-1992.
Okanogan National Forest Fisheries Biologist,
Okanogan National Forest, 1992-1995.
Elaine Zieroth - District Ranger - B.A. in
Biological Sciences from University of California
at Davis. M.A. in Wildlife Ecology from
California State University, Fresno. Post-
graduate work in Behavioral Genetics at the
University of Iowa. Twenty years of experience
in the Forest Service, BLM, and Experimental
Station. Main focus in wildlife biology and
management.
* NEPA Interdisciplinary Team Member
5.3 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF
ECOLOGY
William Bafus - Economist - B.A. in Economics,
Willamette University, Salern, Oregon. M.S. in
Economics, Purdue University, West Lafeyette,
Indiana. Twenty two years experience in State
Government evaluation of socioeconomic
impacts and benefits versus cost of natural
resource management policy, program and
project proposals and rules.
Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 5-3
Bob Barwin - Water Quality Section Manager -
B.S. in Civil Engineering, Oregon State
University, Corvallis, Oregon, 1977. Mr. Barwin
has eighteen years experience in water
resources and water quality management with
the states of Oregon and Washington.
Patricia Betts - SEPA Coordinator - B.S. in
Zoology, University of California, Davis,
California. Thirteen years experience in salmon
research and habitat protection. Four years
experience in implementing and coordinating the
State Environmental Policy Act, EIS project
management, and wetland project review and
protection.
Jerald LaVassar - Geotechnical Engineering -
M.S. in Civil Engineering, University of
Washington. B.S. in Civil Engineering,
University of Washington. B.A. in History,
University of Washington. Professional
Engineer, Registration No. 18650. Seven years
as a geotechnical consultant for Shannon &
Wilson, Inc. Thirteen years with the Dam
Safety Section, Department of Ecology.
Tom Luster - Water Quality - M.S. in Resource
Geography, Oregon State University, Corvallis,
Oregon. B.S. in Geography, Humboldt State
University, Arcata, California. Six years
experience at Washington Department of
Ecology in water quality certification, project
review, freshwater sediment research, and
sediment policy issues.
Tom Mackie - Hydrogeology - M.S. in Geology,
Washington State University, Pullman, WA.
B.S. in Geology, Washington State University,
Pullman, WA. Seven years experience in water
resource and contaminant hydrogeology.
Andy McMillan - Wetlands Specialist - B.A./B.S.
in Biology/Chemistry, Evergreen State College,
Olympia, Washington. Ten years experience in
wetland field studies, project review, policy
development and regulatory activities.
Robert L. Raforth - Hydrogeologist - B.A. in
Geology, University of Wyoming, Laramie,
Wyoming. 24 years industry and state
government experience as a geologist,
geophysicist, and hydrogeologist. Department
of Ecology Technical Coordinator for Central
Regional Office and Water Quality Program
Regional Hydrogeologist.
Robert D. Swackhamer - Air Quality - B.S. in
Metallurgical Engineering, University of
Washington, Seattle, Washington. Seven years
experience in state government; air quality and
cleanup of contaminated sites. Five years in
private industry: nonferrous smelter process
metallurgy. Registered Professional Engineer in
the State of Washington, Number 29886.
Polly Zehm - Hazardous Waste Reduction and
Management - B.S. in Biological Sciences,
Central Washington University, Ellensburg,
Washington. Five years experience in industrial
hazardous waste reduction and management
technical assistance and regulatory programs in
state government. Ten years experience in
waste water process control, laboratory
analysis, and permitting in local and state
government.
5.4 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Rich Baily - Archaeologist - B.S. in
Sociology/Anthropology, Montana State
University; Bozeman, Montana. Six years
graduate work in Department of Anthropology,
Washington State University, Pullman,
Washington. Fifteen years experience in
archaeology and cultural resource management.
George Brown* - Geologist (Asst. Project
Manager) - B.S. in Science (Geology),
Pennsylvania State University; University Park,
Pennsylvania. Seventeen years experience in
project planning and management, coordination
of environmental analysis, mining feasibility
evaluations and permitting.
Pamela Camp* - Botanist - M.S. in Plant
Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of
Nebraska; Lincoln, Nebraska. B.S. in Botany,
Utah State University; Logan, Utah. Eighteen
years experience in plant taxonomy, ecology
and rare plant biology in Washington and Utah.
Ralph Cornwall - Forester - B.S. in Forest
Management, Washington State University;
Pullman, Washington. Twenty-nine years
experience as a forester with BLM in Coeur
d'Alene, Idaho and Spokane, Washington BLM
Districts.
Kelly Courtright* - Mining Engineer - M.S. in
Mining Engineering, College of Mines, University
of Idaho; Moscow, Idaho. B.S. in Geology,
College of Mines, University of Idaho; Moscow,
Idaho. Ten years experience in exploration,
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 5-4
CHAPTER 5 - LIST OF PREPARERS
June 7995
mining operations, mine design, and planning in
North and South America. Ten years
experience with BLM involving the independent
verification of mineral production and royalties,
coordination of environmental analysis, and
technical assistance to the government of
Hungary.
Brent Cunderla* - Geologist (Team Leader) -
M.S. in Geology, Portland State University;
Portland, Oregon. B.S. in Earth Sciences,
University of Wisconsin-River Falls; River Fall,
Wisconsin. Ten years experience with BLM in
surface compliance and review of environmental
documents, mine plan and bond calculations for
mineral exploration/mining projects on BLM/BIA
administered lands.
Al Gardner - Silviculturist - B.S. in Forestry,
Syracuse University; Syracuse, New York.
C.E.F.E.S. University of Idaho, Washington
State University, University of Montana.
Nineteen years of experience as a forester and
silviculturist with the BLM in Colorado and
Washington State.
Neal Hedges - Wildlife Biologist - M.S. in
Zoology, University of Guelph; Guelph, Ontario,
Canada. B.S. in Zoology, Washington State
University; Pullman, Washington. Nineteen
years of experience with the BLM in wildlife and
range management in the western United
States.
Joel "Jake" Jakabosky* - Environmental
Protection Specialist - B.S. in Range
Management - Wildlife Science, Oregon State
University; Covallis, Oregon. Ten years
experience in range management and forestry in
the western United States. Fourteen years in
environmental analysis and hazardous materials
management with BLM.
Tom Olsen - Denver Service Center Geological
Engineer (Hydrology) - Ph.D. in Geological
Engineering SWU, Louisiana; M.S. in Geology,
University of Pennsylvania; B.S. in Geology,
University of Wisconsin; Madison, Wisconsin.
Four years private industry, 12 years federal
government.
Dana Peterson - Range Conservationist - B.S. in
Wildlife Science, Oregon State University;
Corvallis, Oregon. B.S. in Range Management,
Humbolt State; Arcata, California. Fifteen years
experience in grazing administration and
rangeland management, including rangeland
vegetation assessment and rehabilitation.
Judy Thompson* - Archaeologist - M.A. in
Anthropology, University of Nevada; Reno,
Nevada. B.S. in Anthropology, Portland State
University; Portland, Oregon. Twenty-two years
experience in archaeology and cultural resources
management.
Bob Troiano* - Hydrologist - B.S. in Forest
Management/Forest Engineering, North Idaho
College; Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. Water
Resources Management/Soils Program, Spokane
Community College; Spokane, Washington.
Five years experience with USFS, 5 years
experience with Soil Conservation Service, and
6 years experience with BLM as program lead
for soil, water, air, and noxious weeds.
Gary Yeager - Planning and Environmental
Coordination - B.S. in Agronomy, Pennsylvania
State University; University Park, Pennsylvania.
Eighteen years experience in land use planning
and project level planning, implementation and
monitoring.
* NEPA Interdisciplinary Team Membei
5.5 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES
Raymond Lasmanis - Geologist - B.S. in
Geology, Mining Engineering minor. University
of Missouri at Rolla. Twenty one years mineral
exploration and mine development experience
and 12 years managing State Geological Survey
with environmental law enforcement duties.
David Norman - Reclamation Geologist
B.S. in Geology, Portland State University,
Portland Oregon. M.S. in Geology, University of
Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. Five years
experience in mine regulation and reclamation in
Washington for Department of Natural
Resources. Five years experience in geological
consulting and laboratory analysis. Seven years
of experience in mineral exploration and
research on hydrothermal geochemistry of ore
deposits.
5.6
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Tim Erkel* - Biologist - B.S. in Environmental
Resources Management, 1979, Pennsylvania
State University. Nine years of regulatory
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 5-5
experience with the Pittsburgh, Walla Walla and
Seattle Districts of the Corps of Engineers.
5.7 TERRAMATRIX INC.
Richard Burtell, Geochemistry - M.S. in
Hydrology, 1989 University of Arizona. B.S. in
Geology, 1986 University of Pittsburgh. Project
Geochemist at TerraMatrix. Responsible for the
acquisition and evaluation of hydrogeologic and
geochemical data. Experiences involve
environmental project work, permit preparation,
baseline data collection, and evaluation of
hydrogeologic and geochemical data.
Karen Conrath, Drafting - B.S. in Geology, Mesa
State, Grand Junction, Colorado. Five years
experience in computer drafting and mapping,
civil CAD design and graphics.
Susan Corser, Visuals, Recreation and Land Use
- Masters of Urban Planning, 1 989 University of
Washington, Seattle. M.A. in Landscape
Design, 1983 Conway School of Landscape
Design, Conway MA. B.A. in Geography and
Environmental Studies, 1977 Macalester
College, St. Paul, MN. Landscape Planner at
TerraMatrix, served as visual and recreation
specialist for the Project. Ms. Corser has over
10 years experience in landscape planning, with
emphasis on recreation, land use, visual
assessment and environmental impact analysis.
Alan Czarnowsky, Project Manager - B.S. in
Mining Engineering, 1974 Colorado School of
Mines. Twenty years experience in mining
operations and environmental aspects of mining
activities in Western North America.
Responsible for project planning and
management, coordination of environmental
analyses, and project report production.
Jay James, Assistant Project Manger - B.A. in
Geology, 1969 Western State College. Senior
Geologist with TerraMatrix, has nearly 25 years
of mining, environmental and related
experience. His responsibilities include project
management, geologic and transportation
sections of this project.
Alan Krause, Principal-in-Charge, Geotechnical
M.S. in Geological Engineering, 1979 University
of Nevada, Mackay School of Mines. B.S. in
Geology, 1976 Pacific Lutheran University.
Eighteen years of progressive technical and
management experience. President and
Professional Geologist at TerraMatrix served as
principal-in-charge and geotechnical specialist
for this project.
Suzanne Maddux, Document Coordination/Word
Processing - Colorado State University, 1995.
Business Administration and Word Processing,
Santa Barbara Business College, 1985, Santa
Maria, California. Social Science, Monterey
Peninsula College 1 983, Monterey, California.
Ms. Maddux has over 14 years of
management/administrative and clerical
experience.
Joe Nagengast, Drafting and Graphics - Billings
VO-Tech: AA Drafting Technology, 1978
Northern Montana College: Design Technology
Eastern Washington University: Geology
CAD Institute: Phoenix: AutoCAD I, II, III &
Management. Seventeen years experience in
geologic, mining, permitting, and environmental
graphics exploration and design.
Tim Smith, Graphics/Maps - A.S. Cartographic
Drafting, 1981, Engineering Drafting School.
Professional Draftsman. Responsibilities include
drafting and graphics, Computer
hardware/software review and selection. Mr.
Smith has over 11 years drafting experience.
5.8 ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL
SERVICES
Keo Boreson, Historical and Cultural - M.A.
Anthropology, 1975 University of Idaho,
Moscow, Idaho. Archaeologist III with
Archaeological and Historical Services, Eastern
Washington University. Ms. Boreson has over
20 years of cultural resource field experience in
the Pacific Northwest.
Dr. Jerry Galm, Archeology, Historical and
Cultural - Ph.D. in Anthropology, 1981
Washington State University, Pullman,
Washington. M.A. Anthropology, 1975
Washington State University, Pullman,
Washington. B.A. in Anthropology, 1971
Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan. Program Director of Archaeological
and Historical Services, Eastern Washington
University. He has over 20 years of cultural
resource field and administrative experience,
including 14 years in the Pacific Northwest.
Charles Luttrell, Archaeology, Historical and
Cultural - B.A. in Anthropology, 1989 Eastern
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 5-6
CHAPTER 5 - LIST OF PREPARERS
June 1995
Washington University, Cheney, Washington.
Archaeologist/Historian with Archaeological and
Historical Services, Eastern Washington
University. Areas of specialization include
American architecture and historic preservation,
as well as historic and prehistoric archaeological
field work.
5.9
A.G. CROOK COMPANY
George Berscheid, Vegetation and Wetlands,
Streams and Fisheries - B.S. in Forest
Management, 1957, M.S. in Forestry, 1958,
University of Idaho. Vice President for Natural
Resources at A.G. Crook Company, participated
in impact assessment, performed range
analyses. He provides project management for
the A.G. Crook Company team. Mr. Berscheid
is a range ecology expert, and has over 30
years experience with the U.S. Forest Service.
Philip Lee, Wildlife - B.S. in Wildlife
Management/Range Management, 1962
Colorado State University. Certified wildlife
biologist with A.G. Crook Company, conducted
a portion of the wildlife review and impact
assessment for the Project. Mr. Lee has over
20 years experience in wildlife and resource
management with the Forest Service.
Thomas Melville Sr., Fisheries Programs Director
- B.S. in Fish and Wildlife Management, Cornell
University. Mr Melville served as fisheries
specialist for this project. His experience
includes fisheries management work for the
New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation.
Rita Mroczek, Wetlands Program Manager - B.S.
in Forest Resources, 1975, North Carolina State
University. Responsible for wetlands
delineations and mitigation plans. Ms. Mroczek
has over eight years experience as a regulatory
specialist with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
5.10 CEDAR CREEK ASSOCIATES
Steve Long, Soils - M.S. in Regional Resource
Planning/Soil Science-Reclamation, 1977
Colorado State University. B.S. in Wildlife
Biology, 1972 Colorado State University.
Principal of Cedar Creek Associates, served as
the soils specialist. Mr. Long has over 17 years
of experience in environmental management and
remediation design.
Mike Phelan - Wildlife Biologist - B.A. in
Zoology, University of California with
postgraduate studies in biology and ecology
from San Diego State University. Twenty one
years experience in mining operations and
environmental aspects of mining activities in
Western North America.
5.11 ENSR CONSULTING AND ENGINEERING
James Wilder, Air Quality/Meteorology and
Noise - Associate Air Quality/Noise Engineer.
M.S. in Environmental Engineering, 1981
University of Washington. B.S. in Civil
Engineering, 1975 University of California,
Davis. Mr. Wilder has over 10 years of
experience with air quality and noise
assessment.
5.12 HYDRO-GEO CONSULTANTS
Joe Frank, Surface Water Hydrology - B.S. in
Geology, 1978. M.S. in Hydrogeology/Geology,
1987, University of Colorado. Mr. Frank is a
senior hydrogeologist/geologist with Hydro-Geo
Consultants and has over 16 years experience
in determining hydrogeological characteristics
for projects in the western United States. He
currently performs a variety of ground and
surface hydrogeologic studies. His experience
includes well installation and logging, aquifer
testing and analysis, water quality sampling,
and groundwater and surface water computer
modelling.
Janet Shangraw, Water Quality/Water Rights -
B.S. in Watershed Science/Hydrology, Colorado
State University. Senior Hydrologist at Hydro-
Geo Consultants. Ms. Shangraw is a
Professional Hydrologist, Certified by the
American Institute of Hydrology. She served as
a water quality specialist. Ms. Shangraw has
10 years experience in hydrologic evaluations
and water resource development.
Vladimir Straskraba, Hydrogeology - M.S. in
Geological Engineering, School of Mines,
Ostrava, Czechoslovakia. B.S. in Geological
Engineering, School of Mines, Ostrava,
Czechoslovakia. Principal Hydrogeologist for
Hydro-Geo Consultants. He has over 35 years
experience in hydrologic evaluations and water
resource development projects throughout the
world.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 5-7
5.13 SCHAFER AND ASSOCIATES
William M. Schafer, Principal, Soil Scientist -
Ph.D. in Soil Science, 1979 Montana State
University. M.S. in Soil Science, 1976
University Cal.-Davis. B.S. in Watershed
Science, 1974 Colorado State University.
Principal of Schafer and Associates. Specializes
in soil geochemistry, vadose zone monitoring,
and in-situ remediation alternatives.
Ed Spotts, Senior Soil Chemist/Geochemist -
B.S. in Geology and M.S. in Land Re-habilitation
from Montana State University, Bozeman,
Montana. Mr. Spotts has seven years
experience in his field and specializes in vadose
zone geochemistry and organic contaminant
fate & transport modeling.
5.14 E.D. HOVEE & COMPANY
Eric Hovee, Socioeconomics - Real Estate
Finance and Environmental Economics, 1977
Portland State University, Portland Oregon.
Economics and Urban Studies, 1973 University
of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Mr. Hovee has been involved with public service
work for over 17 years and is owner and
principal of E.D. Hovee and Company a
consulting firm providing economic and
development services.
John Koleda, Socioeconomics - B.A. in Natural
Science and Sociology, 1969, Adelphi
University, Oakdale, New York. Assistant to
Eric Hovee. Mr. Koleda also conducted social
interviews for the socioeconomic portion of this
project.
5.15 BEAK CONSULTANTS
Susan Barnes, Wildlife Biologist - B.S. in Wildlife
Management, Forestry minor, 1991, University
of New Hampshire. Scientist I of Beak
Consultants Inc. Ms. Barnes has experience in
wildlife ecology and management, endangered
species, forest ecology, and is certified in
Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP).
Randy Floyd, Wildlife Biologist - B. S. Wildlife
Science, 1975, Oregon State University.
Scientist II of Beak Consultants Inc. Mr. Floyd
has over 10 years of experience in the areas of
wildlife ecology and management, endangered
species, and NEPA Implementation.
Chuck Howe, Biologist/Forester - B.S. in
Forestry, Wildlife minor, 1990 University of
Montana. A.S. Wildlife Management 1987
Hocking College. Scientist I for Beak
Consultants Inc. Mr. Howe specialized in
CAD/Graphics, NEPA implementation, terrestrial
ecology, and endangered species.
Paul Whitney, Terrestrial Ecologist - Ph.D. in
Ecology/Physiology, 1972, University of Alaska.
M.A. Zoology, 1967, Indiana University. B.A.
in Biology, 1965, Earlham College.
Postgraduate work in Population Ecology at the
University of Calgary. Principal of Beak
Consultants Inc. Dr. Whitney has over 20 years
of experience in project management, terrestrial
ecology, wildlife monitoring and mitigation,
wetland determination and permitting, NEPA
implementation, and Habitat Evaluation
Procedures (HEP).
5.16 CASCADES ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES
John Blum - Fisheries Biologist - B.S. in
Environmental Biology, 1 975, Eastern Illinois
University, B.S. in Business, Business
Management, 1975, Eastern Illinois University,
M.S. in Fisheries, 1988, University of
Washington. Mr. Blum has over 15 years
experience as a fisheries biologist and
consultant in fisheries research, enhancement,
management, water resources assessment,
watershed planning and environmental biology.
Jean Caldwell - Biologist - B.S. in Ecosystems
Analysis, 1978, Western Washington
University. Principal of Caldwell and Associates
Environmental Consulting, working with
Cascades Environmental Services with the IFIM
studies. Ms. Caldwell has over twelve years
experience as an environmental biologist.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 6-1
6.0 REFERENCES
Abt Associates, Inc. (Abt). 1991. Use and Substitutes Analysis for Sodium Cyanide in Benefication of Gold
and Silver, July 15, 1991. Report submitted to the Regulatory Impacts Branch of the Office of
Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, contract no. 68D90169. 1991.
ACZ Inc. 1993. Baseline Hydrologic Monitoring Plan. August 1993.
ACZ Inc. 1992a. Scoping Information, Volumes 1A, 2A, 3A and 4A. 1992.
ACZ Inc. 1992-1995. Technical Information, Volumes 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D and 2E. 1992-1995.
ACZ Inc. 1992b. Kensington Gold Project Final Environmental Impact Statement. February 1992.
A.G. Crook Company. 1993a. Timber and Vegetation Resource Studies. January 1993, revised May
1993.
A.G. Crook Company. 1993b. Gold Bowl Drainage Report 1992 Stream Survey, Draft. March 28, 1993.
A.G. Crook Company. 1993c. Marias Creek Report 1992 Stream Survey, Draft. March 30, 1993.
A.G. Crook Company. 1993d. Nicholson Creek Report 1992 Stream Survey, Draft. March 29, 1993.
A.G. Crook Company. 1993e. Aquatic Habitats of Streams in the Marias and Nicholson Creek Basin.
September 1993.
A.G. Crook Company. 1993f. Wetland Delineation Report. November 1993.
A.G. Crook Company. 1993g. Draft Northern Goshawk Survey Report, Crown Jewel Project. 1993
A.G. Crook Company. 1993h. Summer Wildlife Survey Report, Crown Jewel Project. January 1993
A.G. Crook Company. 1992. Winter Wildlife Survey Report, Crown Jewel Project. 1992
Alabaster, J.S., D.G. Shurben and M.J. Mallett. 1983. The acute lethal toxicity of mixtures of cyanide and
ammonia to smolts of salmon, Salmo salar L. at low concentrations of dissolved oxygen. J. Fish
Biol. 22:215-222. 1983.
Algermissen, S.T., D.M. Perkins, P.C. Thenhause, S.L. Hanson and B.L. Bender, 1982. Probabilistic
Estimates of Maximum Acceleration and Velocity in Rocks in the Contiguous United States. United
States Department of the Interior Geological Survey. Open File Report 82-1033. 1982.
Allen, A.W. 1983. Habitat suitability index models: fisher. U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/OBS-
82/10.45. 19pp. 1983.
Allen, A.W. 1987. Habitat suitability index models: barred owl. U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biol.
Rep. 82(10.143). 17 pp. 1987.
Allen, H. 1992. Status and management of the peregrine falcon in Washington. Pages 72-74 in J.E. Pagel,
ed. Proceedings symposium on peregrine falcons in the Pacific Northwest, January 1 991. Rogue
River Nat. For. 125 pp. 1992.
Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 6-2 CHAPTER 6 - REFERENCES June 1995
Almack, J.A. 1986. Grizzly bear habitat use, food habits, and movements in the Selkirk Mountains,
northern Idaho. Pages 150-157 in Proceedings - Grizzly bear habitat symposium, Missoula,
Montana, April 30 - May 2, 1985. Contreras, G.P. and K.E. Evans, compilers. USDA Forest
Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-207. 1986.
Almack, J.A., W.L. Gaines, R.H. Naney, P.M. Morrison, J.R. Eby, G.F. Wooten, M.C. Snyder, S.H. Fitkin,
and E.R. Garcia. 1993. North Cascades grizzly bear ecosystem evaluation; final report.
Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, Denver, CO. 156pp. 1993.
American Geologic Institute. 1980. Glossary of Geology. Bates, R.L. and Jackson, J.A., editors. 1980.
Amstrup, S.C., and J. Beecham. 1976. Activity patterns of radio-collared black bears in Idaho. J. Wildl.
Manage. 40(2):340-348. 1976.
Aney, W.C. and B.R. McClelland. 1990. Pileated woodpecker habitat relationships, pages 10-17 in N.M
Warren. Old growth habitats and associated wildlife species in the northern Rocky Mountains.
USDA, Forest Service, Northern Region, Wildlife Habitat Relationships Program. R1 -90-42. 47 pp.
1990.
Archaeological and Historical Services (AHS). 1990. A Cultural Resources Survey of the Crown Jewel
Exploration Project, Okanogan County, Washington. Short Report 21 5, Galm, Jerry R., C. Luttrell,
1990.
Armstrong, E.A. 1956. Territory in the wren Troglodytes troglodytes. Ibis 98: 430-437. 1956.
Ashley, P. 1992a. Grand Coulee Dam wildlife mitigation program pygmy rabbit programmatic management
plan. Douglas County, WA. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. 87 pp. 1992.
Ashley, P. 1 992b. Sharp-tailed grouse management plan: Columbia River wildlife mitigation, Grand Coulee
Dam Project. Bonneville Power Administration, Div. Fish and Wildl. 88 pp. 1992.
Ashley, P. et al. 1990. Unpublished HEP models, Wash. Dept. Wildl., Olympia, WA. 1990.
Aulman, D.L. 1992. The impacts and pressures on West Coast peregrines. Pages 55-65 in J.E. Pagel, ed.
Proceedings symposium on peregrine falcons in the Pacific Northwest, January 1 991. Rogue River
Nat. For. 125 pp. 1992.
Banfield, A.W.F. 1974. Mammals of Canada. Univ. of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada. 1974.
Barbour, R.W., and W.H. Davis. 1969. Bats of America. Univ. Press of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.
286pp. 1969.
Barker, J. 1992. Half-Fast Off-Road Vehicle Club. Oroville, Washington. Personal Communication. June
1992.
Battle Mountain Gold Company. 1995. Letter from Anne Baldrige to Rich Burtell. March 16, 1995.
Battle Mountain Gold Company, Kea Pacific Holdings Inc. 1994a. Tailings Geochernical testing Program:
Crown Jewel Project, Okanogan County, Washington. January 1994.
Battle Mountain Gold Company. 1994b. Air Quality Permit Support Document, Crown Jewel Project.
February 3, 1994.
Battle Mountain Gold Company. 1994c. Supplemental correspondence letter from Jeff White of Battle
Mountain Gold Company to Mr. Bob Swackhamer of WADOE to address WADOE comments, June
14, 1994.
Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 6-3
Battle Mountain Gold Company. 1994d. Correspondence letter from Jeff White to Battle Mountain Gold
Company to Patty Betts of WADOE, to discuss plume visibility modeling, No date, presumably
1994.
Battle Mountain Gold Company. 1993a. Integrated Plan of Operation. March 1993.
Battle Mountain Gold Company. 1993b. Crown Jewel Project, Reclamation Plan. Revised August 1 993.
Battle Mountain Gold Company, Kea Pacific Holdings Inc. 1993c. Report on Geochemical Testing of Ore
and Low Grade Ore Crown Jewel Project. September 1993.
Baumgardner, P. 1 994. Biological Technician, Tonasket Ranger District, USDA Forest Service. Telephone
conversation with Dale Lindeman, Beak Consultants Inc., March 16, 1994.
BC Ministry of Environment. 1983. The Effect on Water Quality of Explosives Use in Surface Mining,
Volume 1: Nitrogen Sources, Water Quality, and Prediction and Management of Impacts, MOE
Technical Report 4, May 1983.
Beak Consultants, Limited. 1995a. Crown Jewel Project, Wildlife Technical Report. Prepared for U.S.
Forest Service, Tonasket, Washington and Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia,
Washington. 1995.
Beak Consultants, Limited. 1 995b. Crown Jewel Project, Draft Wildlife Biological Evaluation. Prepared for
U.S. Forest Service, Tonasket, Washington. 1995.
Beak Consultants Limited. 1995c. Potential Effects of Gold Mines on Wildlife and Possible Mitigation
Strategies. 1995.
Bechard, M.J., R.L. Knight, D.G. Smith, and R.E. Fitzner. 1990. Nest sites of sympatric hawks (Buteo
spp.) in Washington. J. Field Ornithol. 61 (2): 1 59-170. 1990.
Bent, A.C. 1937. Life histories of North American birds of prey. Dover Publications Inc., New York, NY.
409pp. 1937.
Bilby, R. E., K. Sullivan and S. H. Duncan. 1989. The Generation and Fate of Road-Surface Sediment in
Forested Watersheds in Southwestern Washington. Forest Science. 1989.
Blanchard, B.M., and R.R. Knight. 1991. Movements of Yellowstone grizzly bears. Biol. Conserv. 58:41-
67. 1991.
Block, W.M. and L.A. Brennan. 1993. The habitat concept in ornithology. Pages 35-91 in D.M. Power,
ed. Current Ornithology, Volume 11. Plenum Pres, New York. 1993.
Bortolotti, G.R. 1984. Trap and poison mortality of golden and bald eagles. J. Wildl. Manage. 48(4): 1173-
1179. 1984.
Bossier, D. 1992. Midway, B.C. resident. Wolverine sighting reported to Kent Woodruff (Tonasket Ranger
District Wildlife Biologist. October 1992.
Bottorff, J., J. Shafer and D. Swanson. 1987. Noise disturbances study on bald eagles at Orcas and Shaw
Island ferry terminals, San Juan County, WA. Wash. State Dept. of Transp., Environ. Unit,
Olympia. 1987.
Bovee, K.D. 1 982. A guide to stream habitat analysis using the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology.
Instream flow information paper #12. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Collins, Colorado. 1982.
Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 64 CHAPTER 6 - REFERENCES June 1995
Brittell, J.D., R.J. Poelker, S.J. Sweeney, and G.M. Koehler. 1989. Native cats of Washington - Section
III: Lynx. Washington Dept. Wildl. Olympia, Wash. 1989.
Brooks, B.L., and S.A. Temple. 1 990. Habitat availability and suitability for loggerhead shrikes in the upper
Midwest. Am. Midi. Nat. 123(1):75-83. 1990.
Brown, E.R., tech. ed. 1985. Management of wildlife and fish habitats in forests of western Oregon and
Washington. Part 2 - Appendices. Ag. Pub. R6-FW&L-192-1985. USDA Forest Service, Pacific
Northwest Region. 302 pp. 1985.
Bryan, T., and E.D. Forsman. 1987. Distribution, abundance, and habitat of great gray owls in southcentral
Oregon. Murrelet 68:45-49. 1987.
Bull, E.L., and J.E. Hohmann. 1993. Breeding biology of northern goshawks in northeastern Oregon. Paper
presented at: Sixty-third annual meeting of the Cooper Ornithological Society, Sacramento,
California, 14-15 April, 1993. 13pp. 1993.
Bull, E.L., and M.G. Henjum. 1990. Ecology of the Great Gray Owl. USDA Forest Service. Pac.
Northwest Res. Sta. Gen. Tech. Report PNW-GTR-265. 37 pp. 1990.
Bull, E.L., M.G. Henjum, and R.S. Rohweder. 1989. Diet and Optimal Foraging of Great Gray Owls. J.
Wildl. Manage. 53(1):47-50. 1989.
Bull, E.L., M.G. Henjum, and R.S. Rohweder. 1988. Nesting and Foraging Habitat of Great Gray Owls.
J. Raptor Res. 22(4):107-115. 1988.
Bull, E.L. 1987. Ecology of the Pileated Woodpecker in Northeastern Oregon. J. Wildl. Manage.
51(2):472-481. 1987.
Bull, E.L., S.R. Peterson, and J.W. Thomas. 1986. Resource Partitioning Among Woodpeckers in
Northeastern Oregon. USDA Forest Service. PNW-444. 19pp. 1986.
Bureau of Land Management. 1992. Buckhorn Inventory Block, Okanogan Planing Unit. Unpublished
Inventory Data. 1992.
Burroughs, E. R. Jr. and J. G. King. 1989. Reduction of Soil Erosion on Forest Roads. USDA Forest
Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. General Technical Report INT-264. 1989.
Buskirk, S.W., and L.L. McDonald. 1989. Analysis of variability in home-range size of the American
marten. J. Wildl. Manage. 53(4):997-1004. 1989.
Cade, B.S., and P.J. Sousa. 1985. Habitat suitability index models: Ruffed Grouse. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv.
Biol. Rep. 82(10.86). 31 pp. 1985.
California Division of Mines and Geology. 1 975. Recommended Guidelines for Determining the Maximum
Credible and the Maximum Probable Earthquakes. CDMG Number 43. February 3, 1975.
Cannings, R.A., R.J. Cannings, and S.G. Cannings. 1987. Birds of the Okanogan Valley, British Columbia.
Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria, B.C. 420 pp. 1987.
Carbyn, L.N. 1987. Gray wolf and red wolf. Pages 359-376 in M. Novak, G.A. Baker, M.E. Obbard, and
B. Malloch, eds. Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America. Ont. Trappers
Assoc., Ministry of Nat. Resources, Ont. 1987.
Cedar Creek Associates, Inc. 1993. Soils Technical Memorandum Addendum-Crown Jewel Project. June
1993.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 6-5
Cedar Creek Associates, Inc. 1992. Soils Technical Memorandum - Crown Jewel Project. November
1992.
Chambers, C.J. 1989. Empirical growth and yield tables for Douglas-fir zone. Washington Department of
Natural Resources, DNR Report No. 41. 1989.
Chancy, R.L. and J.A. Ryan. 1993. Heavy metals and toxic organic pollutants in MSW-composts: research
results on phytoavailability, bioavailability, fate, etc. In: Science and Engineering of Composting:
Design, Environmental, Microbiological and Utilization Aspects. H.A.J. Hoitink and H.M. Keener,
editors. Renaissance Publications. 1993.
Christy, R.E., and S.D. West. 1993. Biology of bats in Douglas-fir forests. USDA For. Serv. Pac.
Northwest Res. Sta. Gen. Tech. Report PNW-GTR-308. 28 pp. 1993.
Clark, D.R., Jr. 1991. Bats, cyanide, and gold mining. Bats 9:17-18. 1991.
Cody, M.L., and C.B.J. Cody. 1972a. Areal versus lineal territories in the wren Troglodytes troglodytes.
Condor 74:477-478. 1972.
Cody, M.L., and C.B.J. Cody. 1972b. Territory size, clutch size, and food in populations of wrens. Condor
74: 473-477. 1972.
Collopy, M.W. 1983. A comparison of direct observations and collections of prey remains in determining
the diet of golden eagles. J. Wildl. Manage. 47(2):360-368. 1983.
Coppock, R. 1993. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Tonasket Ranger District. Personal Communication. 1993.
Core Laboratories. 1 994. Letter from David Marshal (Core) to Anne Baldrige (BMGC) enclosing additional
humidity cell test data for the Crown Jewel Project. February 7, 1994.
Covington, W.W., R.L. Everett, R. Steele, L.L. Irwin, T.A. Daer, and A.N.D. Auclair. 1994. Historical and
anticipated changes in forest ecosystems of the inland west of the United States. J. Sustainable
For. 2%: 13-63. 1994.
Craighead, J.J., and J.A. Mitchell. 1982. Grizzly bear. Pages 515-556 in J.A. Chapman and G.A.
Feldhamer, eds. Wild mammals of North America, biology, management, and economics. Johns
Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD. 1,147 pp. 1982.
Craighead, J.J., J.S. Sumner, and G.B. Scaggs. 1982. A definitive system for analysis of grizzly bear
habitat and other wilderness resources utilizing LANDSAT multispectral imagery and computer
technology. Wildlife-Wildlands Institute Monogr. No. 1. U of M Foundation, Univ. of Montana,
Missoula, MT. 279pp. 1982.
Dalquest, W.W. 1948. Mammals of Washington. Univ. of Kansas Publ., Lawrence, KS. 1948.
Danison, K. 1992. Highlands Associates. Tonasket, Washington. Personal Communication. July 1992.
Dixon, K.R. 1982. Mountain lion. Pages 711-727 in J.A. Chapman and G.A. Feldhamer, eds. Wild
mammals of North America: biology, management, and economics. The John Hopkins Univ. Press,
Baltimore, MD. 1982.
Dow Chemical Co. 1976. A thirty day repeated inhalation toxicity study of potassium amyl xanthate '2-6'
in laboratory animals. Toxicology Research Laboratory, Health and Environmental Research,
Midland, Michigan. Dow Reference Number CAP00251. 1976.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 66 CHAPTER 6 - REFERENCES June 1995
Dyer, 0. 1994. Wildlife Technician, Wildlife Management Program, British Columbia Ministry of
Environment. Letter to Randy Floyd, Beak Consultants Inc. February 7, 1994.
Ebasco Environmental. 1993. Draft Background Noise Monitoring and Noise Modeling Report. September
1993.
E.D. Hovee and Company. 1994. Affected Socioeconomic Environment Background Report. December
1994.
Edison Electric Institute (EEI). 1984. The Electric Power Plant Environment Noise Guide, Second Edition,
EET, Washington D.C. 1984.
Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin, and D.Wheye. 1988. The birder's handbook: a field guide to the natural history
of North American birds. Simon and Schuster, Inc., New York, NY. 785pp. 1988.
English, E.I., Habitat Biologist, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1994. Letter to Paul Whitney,
Beak Consultants, Inc. 2 December 1994.
ENSR Consulting and Engineering. 1994. Survey of Bats Near the Crown Jewel Mine Site, Okanogan
County. 1994.
Environment Canada. 1992. Letter from Andrea Ryan transmitting water quality database printouts.
November 1992.
Environment Canada. 1988. The Export of Nutrients from Surface Coal Mines, Regional Program Report
87-12. March 1988.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1994. Draft Technical Document, Acid Mine Drainage Prediction,
August 1994.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1992. Workbook for Plume Visual Impact Screening and Analysis.
October, 1992.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1986. Quality Criteria For Water. EPA-440/5-86-001. 1986.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1985. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Cyanide, 1984. Criteria
and Standards Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., EPA-440/5-84-
028. 1985.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1973. Water Quality Criteria 1972. Prepared by National
Academy of Sciences-National Academy of Engineering, for USEPA, EPA-R3-73-033. Washington,
D.C.
EPRI. 1981. Electric Power Plant Equipment Noise Guide. Noise Control Engineering Journal, May-June
1981.
Evans, D.L. 1 982. Status reports on twelve raptors. Special Scientific Report, Wildlife No. 238, U.S.D.I.
Fish and Wildl. Serv. 68pp. 1982.
Felmy, A.R., D.C. Girvin, and E.A. Jenne. 1 984. MINTEQ - A Computer Program for Calculating Aqueous
Geochemical Equilibria, USEPA Report PB-84-1 57-148. 1984.
Ferguson, M.D. and L.B. Keith. 1982. Influence of nordic skiing on distribution of moose and elk of
Fermont Cottonwood. Range Mgmt. 38:135-130. 1982.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 6-7
Franklin, J.F., and C.T. Dyrness. 1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest
Service Gen. Tech. Report PNW-8, Portland, Oregon. 417pp. 1973.
Frederick, G.P. 1991. Gray wolf. Pages 33-50 in Effects of forest roads on grizzly bear, elk, and gray
wolves: a literature review. USDA Forest Service, Kootenai National Forest, R1-J1-73. 1991.
Friesz, R. 1994a. Washington Department of Wildlife. Telephone conversation with Randy Floyd, Beak
Consultants Inc. 21 October 1994.
Friesz, R. 1994b. Washington Department of Wildlife. Letter to Randy Floyd, Beak Consultants Inc.
February 10, 1994.
Friesz, R. 1992a. Washington Department of Wildlife. Ephrata, Washington. Personal Communication.
November, 1992.
Friesz, R. 1992b. Washington Department of Wildlife. Letter to Patricia Crumley (Washington Dept. of
Ecol.), June 26, 1992.
Friis, L. 1994. Wildlife Branch, B.C. Environment, Victoria, B.C. Personal communication with Randy
Floyd, Beak Consultants Inc. November 22, 1994.
Fry, S. 1 992. Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. Seattle, Washington. Personal Communication.
December, 1992.
Fry, S. 1991. Washington's Highest Mountains and Steepest Faces. The Mountaineer Annual (1983-
1990). The Mountaineers Press, Seattle, Washington. Pp 40-53. August, 1991.
Gashwiler, J. S., W.L. Robinette, and O.W. Morris. 1961. Breeding habits of bobcats in Utah. J Mammal
42(1):76-84. 1961.
Gawlik, D.E., and K.L. Bildstein. 1990. Reproductive success and nesting habitat of loggerhead shrikes
in north-central South Carolina. Wilson Bull. 102(1 ):37-48. 1990.
Gentry, D.W. 1988. Minerals Project Evaluation - An Overview, Transactions. Institution of Mining and
Metallurgy, Vol 97, pp. A25-A35. 1988.
Gentry, D.W., and T.J., O'Neil. 1984. Mine Investment Analysis. SME-AIME. New York. 488 pp 1984.
Gill, R. E. 1994. Sediment Delivery to Headwater Stream Channels Following Road Construction and
Timber Harvest in the Blue Mountains, Oregon. Master's Thesis. Oregon State University,
Corvallis, Oregon. 1994.
Goggans, R., R.D. Dixon, and L.C. Seminara. 1988. Habitat use by three-toed and black-backed
woodpeckers. ODFW Nongame Report 87-3-02. xvii + 49 pp + 34 figures/tables. 1988.
Golder Associates (Colder). 1994a. Streamflow Investigations Conducted Along Myers Creek Near
Myncaster, British Columbia. January 5, 1994.
Golder Associates (Golder). 1994b. Technical Memorandum on Groundwater Supply Evaluation of the Lost
Creek Ranch Irrigation Well. 1994
Golder Associates (Golder). 1994c. Water Supply System for the Crown Jewel Project. October 24
1994.
Golder Associates (Golder). 1993. Report on Pumping Test of the North Lookout Fault Zone. 1993
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 6-8 CHAPTER 6 - REFERENCES June 1995
Colder Associates (Colder). 1992a. Monitoring Analysis Package, Crown Jewel F'roject (MAP), Users
Manual - Version 1.1. September 1992.
Colder Associates (Colder). 1992b. Correspondence letter to Battle Mountain Gold Company on Ground
Water Supply Investigation: Johnny Thorp Property, Chesaw, Washington November 3, 1992.
Greaves, J.N., Palmer, G.R., and W.W. White III. 1990. Refactory Ore Gold Recovery by Carbon-in-
Chlorine Leach. Presented at the TMS Annual Meeting, Anaheim, CA, February 1990.
Green, J.S. and J.T. Flinders. 1980. Habitat and dietary relationships of the pygmy rabbit. J. Range
Manage. 33(2):136-142. 1980.
Haines, R., Forest Wildlife Staff, Malheur National Forest. 1993. Telephone conversation with Randy
Floyd, Beak Consultants Inc. 4 November 1993.
Halekas, G. 1994. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Tonasket Ranger District. Tonasket, Washington. Personal
Communication. 1994.
Halfpenny, J.C., and E.A. Biesiot. 1986. Field guide to mammal tracking in western America. Johnson
Publ. Co., Boulder, CO. 1986.
Hanbury, R. 1993. Knight-Piezold and Company, Denver, Colorado, Personal Communication. September
17, 1993.
Hargis, C.D., and D.R. McCullough. 1 984. Winter diet and habitat selection of marten in Yosemite National
Park. J. Wildl. Manage. 48(11:140-146. 1984.
Hart Crowser. 1993a. Baseline Noise Monitoring Report. Proposed Crown Jewel Mine Site. January 19,
1993.
Hart Crowser. 1993b. Noise Modeling Report. Proposed Crown Jewel Mine. February 19, 1993.
Hart Crowser. 1992. Draft Baseline Noise Monitoring Report; Proposed Crown Jewel Mine Site. October
1992.
Hartman, H.L. 1992. SME Mining Engineering Handbook, second editions, 2 volumes, 2,260 pp. 1992.
Hash, H.S. 1 987. Wolverine. Pages 574-585 in M. Novak, J. Baker, M. Obbard, and B. Malloch, eds. Wild
furbearer management and conservation in North America. Ministry of Nat. Resourc. Ontario. 1 987.
Hayes, M. 1994. Marsh Habitat Specialist, Portland Community College. Telephone conversation with
Susan Barnes, Beak Consultants Inc. January 21, 1994.
Hayward, G.D., P.H. Hayward, and E.O. Carton. 1987. Movements and home range use by boreal owls
in central Idaho. Pages 175-184 in Biology and conservation of northern forest owls; symposium
proceedings. USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-142. 1987.
Hayward, G.D., R.K. Steinhorst, and P.H. Hayward. 1992. Monitoring boreal owl populations with nest
boxes: Sample size and cost. J. Wildl. Manage. 56(4):777-785. 1992.
Hayward, G.D. and J. Verner. 1994. Review of technical knowledge: boreal owls. Pages 92-127 in
Flammulated, boreal, and great grey owls in the United States: A technical conservation
assessment. USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-253. 1994.
Headstrom, R. 1951. Birds' nests of the west, a field guide. Ives Washburn, Inc., New York. 177pp.
1951.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 69
Hedtke, S.F. and F.A. Puglisi. 1982. Short-term toxicity of five oils to four freshwater species. Arch.
Environm. Contam. Toxicol. 11:425-430. 1982.
Heinemeyer, K.S. and J.L. Jones. 1994. Fisher Biology and Management: A literature review and adaptive
management strategy. USDA Forest Service Northern Regions. Missoula, MT. 108pp. 1994.
Henny, C.J. and M.W. Nelson. 1981. Decline and present status of breeding peregrine falcons in Oregon.
The Murrelet. 62:43-53. 1981.
Henson, P. and T.A. Grant. 1991. The effects of human disturbance on trumpeter swan breeding behavior.
Wildl. Soc. Bull. 19:248-257. 1991.
Hiskey, B.J. and F.W. DeVries. 1991. Environmental Considerations for Alternatives to Cyanide
Processing. 1991.
Hocklin, D., M. Ounsted, M. Gorman, D. Hill, V. Keller and M.A. Barker. 1992. Examination of the effects
of disturbance on birds with reference to its importance in ecological assessments. J. of Environ.
Manage. 36:253-286. 1992.
Holmes, R.T., and S.K. Robinson. 1988. Spatial patterns, foraging tactics, and diets of ground-foraging
birds in a northern hardwoods forest. Wilson Bull. 100: 377-394. 1988.
Holmes, R.T., R.E. Bonney, Jr., and S.W. Pacala. 1979. Guild structure of the Hubbard Brook bird
community: a multivariate approach. Ecology 60: 512-520. 1979.
Hornocker, M.G., and H.S. Hash. 1981. Ecology of the wolverine in northwestern Montana. Can.J.Zool.
59:1286-1301. 1981.
Hydro-Geo Consultants. 1995a. Impacts of Mining on Buckhorn Mountain Drainages. June 1995.
Hydro-Geo Consultants. 1995b. Pit Filling Study Crown Jewel Project. June 1995.
Hydro-Geo Consultants. 1995c. Seepage and Attenuation Study Crown Jewel Tailing Disposal Facility.
June 1994.
Hydro-Geo Consultants. 1994. Underground Mine Inflow Calculations. February 1 5, 1994.
Hydro-Geo Consultants. 1993. Ground Water Level Fluxuation Analysis, Crown Jewel Project. 1993.
Hydro-Geo Consultants. 1992. Estimated Mean Annual, Mean Peak Discharge for Project Watersheds,
Crown Jewel Project. November 30, 1992.
INCO. 1995. Letter from Dr. E.A. Devuyst to Rich Burtell. March 29, 1 995.
Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC). 1990. Washington Outdoors: Assessment and
Policy Plan, 1990-1995. Tumwater, Washington. April 1990.
Jackson, H.H.T. 1961. Mammals of Wisconsin. Univ. Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wl. 504 pp. 1961.
Janssen, R. 1980. Future scientific activities in effects of noise on animals. Pages 632-637 in J.V.
Tobias, G. Jansen, and W.D. Ward, eds. Proceedings of the Third International Congress on Noise
as a Public Health Problem. Am. Speech-Language-Hearing Assoc., Rockville, MD. 1980.
Jewett, S.A., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington state. Univ. of
Washington Press, Seattle, WA. 767pp. 1953.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 6-10 CHAPTER 6 - REFERENCES June 7995
Johnsgard, P.A. 1988. M. Abbate, ed. North American owls. Smithsonian Institute. 1988.
Jones, S. 1979. The Accipiters: Goshawk, Coopers Hawk, Sharp-Shinned Hawk. U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land
Management, Habitat Management Series for Unique or Endangered Species, Report No. 17.51 pp.
1979.
Jonkel, C.J., and I.McT. Cowan. 1971. The black bear in the spruce-fir forest. Wildl. Monogr. 27. 57
pp. 1971.
Kea Pacific Holdings Inc., Colder Associates Inc. 1993a. Report on the Waste Rock Geochemical Testing
Program, Crown Jewel Project. September 1993.
Kea Pacific Holdings Inc., Colder associates Inc. 1 993b. Report on the Waste Rock Geochemical Testing
Program, Crown Jewel Project, Responses to Agency Comments. September 1993.
Kea Pacific Holdings Inc., Colder Associates Inc. 1993c. Report on Geochemical Testing of: Ore and Low
Grade Ore, Crown Jewel Project. September 1993.
King, J. 1994. Wildlife Biologist, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Telephone conversation
with Dale Lindeman, Beak Consultants Inc. May 18, 1994.
Kirk, R., C. Alexander. 1990. Exploring Washington's Past, A Road Guide to History. University of
Washington Press, Seattle. 1 990.
Klott, J.H., and F.G. Lindzey. 1 990. Brood habitats of sympatric sage grouse and Columbian sharp-tailed
grouse in Wyoming. J. Wildl. Manage. 54(1 ):84-88. 1990.
Knick, ST. 1990. Ecology of Bobcats relative to exploitation and a prey decline in southeastern Idaho.
Wildlife Monographs 108:1-42. 1990.
Knight Piezold. 1993. Tailings Disposal Facility; Final Design Report, Rev. 2. June 1, 1993.
Koehler, G.M. 1990. Population and habitat characteristics of lynx and snowshoe hares in north-central
Washington. Can. J. Zool. 68:845-851. 1990.
Koehler, G.M., and J.D. Brittell. 1990. Managing spruce-fir habitat for lynx and snowshoe hares. J.
Forestry. 88(10): 10-14. 1990.
Koehler, G.M., and M.G. Hornocker. 1977. Fire effects on marten habitat in the Selway-Bitterroot
wilderness. J. Wildl. Manage. 41 (31:500-505. 1977.
Krapu, G.L. 1974. Avian mortality from collisions with overhead wires in North Dakota. Prairie Nat.
6(1):1-6. 1974.
Kunz, T.H., and R.A. Martin. 1982. Plecotus townsendii. Mamm. Species. No. 175. 6pp. 1982.
Langhans, J.W., Jr., Lei, K.P.V., and T.G. Carnahan. 1991. Copper-catalyzed Thiosulfate Leaching of Low-
grade Gold Ores. In: W.C. Cooper and D.B. Dreisinger (Editors), Hydrometallurgy, Theory and
Practice. Proceedings of the Ernest Peters International Symposium. Hydrometallurgy, 29: 191-
203. 1991.
Larrison E.J. 1976. Mammals of the Northwest. Seattle Audobon Society. 1976.
Larrison, E.J., and K.G. Sonnenberg. 1968. Washington birds, their location and identification. The Seattle
Audubon Society. 258pp. 1968.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 6 11
Laufer, J.R., and P.T. Jenkins. 1989. Historical and present status of the grey wolf in the Cascade
Mountains of Washington. The Northwest Env. J. 5:313-327. 1989.
Lawson, B., and R. Johnson. 1982. Mountain Sheep. Pages 1036-1055 in J.A. Chapman and G.A.
Feldhamer, eds. Wild Mammals of North America: biology, management, and economics. John
Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD. 1,147 pp. 1982.
Leary, R. 1993. Letter to Phil Hilgert (Beak Consultants Inc.) dated November 2, 1993.
Lee, Phil. 1992. A.G. Crook Company. Beaverton, Oregon. Personal Communication. November, 1992.
Lenfesty, C.D. 1980. Soil Survey of Okanogan County Area, Washington. Soil Conservation Service.
Okanogan, WA 143 pp. Appendix and Maps. 1980
Lentz, R.T, K.D. Courtright. 1995. Economic Analysis of Crown Jewel Project Alternatives. United States
Department of Agriculture Forest Service Mineral Report. January 31, 1995.
Leonard, W.P., H.A. Brown, L.C. Jones, K.R. McAllister, and R.M. Storm. 1993. Amphibians of
Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, WA. 168pp. 1993.
Lewis, J.B., J.D. McGowan, and T.S. Baskett. 1968. Evaluating ruffed grouse reintroduction in Missouri.
J. Wildl. Manage. 32(1):17-28. 1968.
Licht, L.E. 1 971. Breeding habits and embryonic thermal requirements of the frogs Rana aurora aurora and
Rana pretiosa pretiosa in the Pacific Northwest. Ecology 52(1): 11 6-124. 1971.
Lindzey, F.G., and E.G. Meslow. 1977. Home range and habitat use by black bears in southwestern
Washington. J. Wildl. Manage. 41 (3):41 3-425. 1977.
Lowe, D.W., J.R. Matthews, and CJ. Moseley, eds. 1990. Grizzly bear. Pages 548-552 in Official World
Wildlife Fund Guide to Endangered Species of North America. 1990.
Madsen, S. 1986. Woodpeckers in the Okanogan National forest. M.S. Thesis. University of Washington.
1986.
Marks, J.S., and V.S. Marks. 1988. Winter habitat use by Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in western Idaho.
J. Wildl. Manage. 52(4):743-746. 1988.
Marshall, D.B., M. Chilcote, and H. Weeks. 1992. Sensitive vertebrates of Oregon. Oregon Dept. of
Wildl., Portland, OR. 1992.
Martinka, R.R. 1972. Structural characteristics of blue grouse territories in southwestern Montana. J.
Wildl. Manage. 36(2):498-510. 1972.
Maser, C., B.R. Mate, J.F. Franklin, and C.T. Dyrness. 1981. Natural history of Oregon Coast mammals.
USDA For. Serv. Pac. Northwest Res. Sta. Gen. Tech. Report PNW-133. 496 pp. 1981.
McWhorter and Nelson. 1980. Seepage in the Partially Saturated Zone Beneath Tailings Impoundment.
1980.
Mech, D.L. 1970. The wolf. Natural History Press, Doubleday and Co., FNC., New York, NY. 384 pp.
1970.
Mech, D.L. 1 989. Wolf population survival in an area of high road density. Am. Midi. Nat. 121:387-389.
1989.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental impact Statement
-------
Page 6 12 CHAPTER 6 - REFERENCES June 1995
Mech, D.L., S.H. Fritts, G. L. Radde, and W.J. Paul. 1988. Wolf distribution and road density in
Minnesota. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 16:85-87. 1988.
Melland, J. 1977. Nongame wildlife report: Long-billed curlew study (Numenius americanus), Morrow and
Umatilla Counties, unpubl. rep. 1977.
Michael, B. 1993. Ministry of Environment, B.C. Personal Communication. March 18, 1993.
Moen, Wayne S. 1980. Myers Creek and Wauconda Mining Districts of Northeastern Okanogan County,
Washington. Bulletin 73, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and
Earth Resources, Olympia. 1980.
Molson, et. al. 1962. Molson, Chesaw, Knob Hill Communities Okanogan Highland Echoes, by the
Committee, Oroville. 5th Edition. 1962.
Moss and Haushild. 1978. Evaluation and design of a Streamflow - Data Network in Washington - USGS
open file report 73-1 67. 1978.
Muldoon and Bobick. 1984. Retrofit Noise Controls for Crushing and Screening Plants. U.S. D.I. Bureau
of Mines Information Circular #8986. Proceedings of Mine Technical Transfers Seminars, Pittsburgh
PA. July 24, 1994.
Murphy, M.A. 1994. Letter to Randy Floyd, Beak Consultants, Inc. February 9, 1994.
Nassbaum, R.A., E.D. Bodie. Jr., and R.M. Storm. 1 983. Amphibians and reptiles of the Pacific Northwest.
Univ. of Idaho Press, Moscow, ID. 332 pp. 1983.
National Geographic Society. 1987. Field Guide to the Birds of North America. National Geographic
Society, Washington D.C. p. 184. 1987.
Nelson, R. L., M. L. McHenry, and W. S. Platts. 1991. Mining. American Fisheries Society Special
Publication 19:425-457. 1991.
NIOSH. 1985. NIOSH pocket guide to chemical hazards. US Department of Health and Human Services.
1985.
Northwest Management, Inc. 1994. Fall, 1994 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Report for the Crown Jewel
Project. December, 1994.
Northwest Mining Association Short Course. 1991. Environmental Aspects of Explosives Use. Spokane,
Washington, December 1-3, 1991.
Norris, L. A., H. W. Lorz and S. V. Gregory. 1991. Forest Chemicals. American Fisheries Society Special
Publication. 1991.
Nussbaum, R.A., E.D. Bodie. Jr., and R.M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Pacific
Northwest. University of Idaho Press, Moscow, ID. 332pp. 1983.
Oakerman, G. 1994. Telephone conversation with Randy Floyd, Beak Consultants, Inc. December 1994.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 1994. Screening benchmarks for ecological risk assessment. Draft report.
Prepared for US Department of Energy, Washington D.C. October, 1994.
O'Connell, M.W. 1987. Occurrence of the boreal owl in northeastern Washington. Pages 185-188 in
Biology and conservation of northern forest owls; symposium proceedings. USDA Forest Service,
Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-142. 1987.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 CRO WN JEWEL MINE Page 6-13
Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 1972. The Use, Characteristics and Toxicity of Mine-Mill Reagents
in the Province of Ontario. 1972.
Oroville. 1989. Town of Oroville Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan. Town of Oroville, Washington.
1989.
Pacific Coast American Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team. 1982. Pacific Coast recovery plan for the
American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum). USDI Fish and Wildl. Serv. 86 pp. 1982.
Pagel, J.E. 1992. Protocol for observing known and potential peregrine falcon eyries in the Pacific
Northwest. Pages 83-96 in J.E. Pagel, ed. Proceedings symposium on peregrine falcons in the
Pacific Northwest, January 1991. Rogue River Nat. For. 125pp. 1992.
Pampush, G.J. 1980. Breeding chronology, habitat utilization, and nest-site section of the long-billed
curlew in northcentral Oregon. Unpubl. M.S. thesis. Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR. 49 pp.
1980.
Paradise, J.L., and R.M. Nowak. 1982. Wolves (Cam's lupus and allies). Pages 460-474 in J.A. Chapman
and G.A. Feldhamer, eds. Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and economics.
The John Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD. 1982.
Parametrics, Inc. 1995. Corwn Jewel Project 404 (b)(1) Alternatives Analysis Support Information. March
1995.
Parkhurst, D.L., D.C Thorstenson, and L.N. Plummer. 1980. PHREEQE - A Computer Program for
Geochemical Calculations, USGS Water-Resource Inventory Paper 80-96. 1980.
Paulus, S.L 1994. Letter to Jeffrey White (Battle Mountain Gold Company). Re: Hibernacula study of bats
near the Crown Jewel Project. December 12, 1994.
Payton, J. 1993. The Columbianan Magazine. Chesaw, Washington. Personal Communication. January,
1993.
Payton, G.B. 1992. Letter to Kent Woodruff (Tonasket Ranger District Wildlife Biologist). March 16,
1992.
Peatt, A.D. 1992. Wildlife Management Program, British Columbia Ministry of Environment. 1992. Letter
to Phil Lee (A.G. Crook). November 25, 1992.
Pelton, M.R. 1982. Black bear. Pages 504-514 in J.A. Chapman and G.A. Feldhamer, eds. Wild
mammals of North America: biology, management, and economics. The John Hopkins Univ. Press,
Baltimore, MD. 1982.
Pennoyer, W. 1994. Telephone conversation with Dale Lindeman, Beak Consultants. March 7, 1994.
Pentec Environmental, Inc. 1993a. Aquatic Resources for Sections of Myers, Gold, Nicholson, and Marias
Creeks. February 22, 1993.
Pentec Environmental, Inc. 1993b. Wetland Delineation Crown Jewel Project Okanogan County,
Washington. February 19, 1993.
Perkins, J.M. 1994. Telephone conservation with Dale Lindeman, Beak Consultants Inc. October 7, 1994.
Perkins, J.M. 1995. Telephone conversation with Tiffany LaGrave, Beak Consultants, Inc. January 19,
1995.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 6-14 CHAPTER 6 - REFERENCES June 1995
Perkins, J.M. 1989. Three year bat survey for Washington National Forests results of year three -
Wenatchee, Okanogan, and Colville National Forests. Unpublished report. 54 pp. 1989.
Perkins, J.M., J.M. Barss and J. Peterson. 1990. Winter records of bats in Oregon and Washington.
Northwest Naturalist 71:59-62. 1 990.
Perry, C. and R. Overly. 1 977. Impact of roads on big game distribution in portions of the Blue Mountains
in Washington, 1972-73. Applied Research Bull. No. 11. Washington State Game Department,
Olympia, WA. 1977.
Peterle, T.J. 1991. Wildlife Toxicology. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. 1991.
Peterson, R.O. 1986. Graywolf. Pages 951-967 in Audubon wildlife report, 1 986. The National Audubon
Society, New York, NY. 1986.
Phillips, R.L. 1986. Current issues concerning the management of golden eagles in western U.S.A. Birds
of Prey Bull. No. 3 149-155. 1986.
Poelker, R.J., and H.D. Hartwell. 1973. Black bear of Washington. Washington State Game Dept. Biol.
Bull. No. 14. 180 pp. 1973.
Powell, R.A. 1982. The fisher, life history, ecology, and behavior. Univ. Minn. Press, Minneapolis, MN.
271 pp. 1982.
Pozzanghera, S. 1994. Manager, Carnivore and Furbearer Program, Washington Dept. Fish and Wildlife.
1992-1993 and 1 993-1 994 trapping season results, by drainage and species for Okanogan County.
Tabulated data. 1994.
Prescott, D.R., and D.M. Collister. 1993. Characteristics of occupied and unoccupied loggerhead shrike
territories in southeastern Alberta. J. Wildl. Manage. 57(21:346-352. 1993.
Radek, K. 1992. USDA Forest Service. Okanogan National Forest Supervisors Office. Okanogan, WA.
Personal communication with S. Long. December, 1992.
Raforth, R. 1992. Washington Department of Ecology. Letter to Conrad Parrish (ACZ Inc.) June 18,
1992.
Raine, R.M. 1981. Winter habitat use and responses to snow cover of fisher (Martespennanti) and marten
(Martes americana) in southeastern Manitoba. Can. J. Zool. 61(1):25-34. 1981.
Renard, K. G., G. R. Foster, G. A. Weesies, D. K. McCool, and D. C. Yoder (Coordinators). 1992.
Predicting soil erosion by water: a guide to conservation planning with the revised universal soil loss
equation (RUSLE). U. S. Department of Agriculture. Washington, D C. 1992.
Reid, L. M. and T. Dunne. 1984. Sediment production from forest road surfaces. Water Resources
Research. 1984.
Reynolds, R.T. 1983. Management of western coniferous forest habitat for nesting accipiter hawks. Gen.
Tech. Rep. RM-102. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Exp. Sta., Ft.
Collins, CO. 7 p. 1983.
Reynolds, R.T., and E.G. Meslow. 1984. Partitioning of food and niche characteristics of coexisting
Accipiter during breeding. Auk 101: 761-779. 1984.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 7995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 6-15
Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce, G. Goodwin, R. Smith,
and E.L, Fisher. 1992, Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the
southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-217. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain
Forest and Range Exp. Sta., Ft. Collins, CO. 90 pp. 1992.
Rodrick, E., and R. Milner. eds. 1991. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats
and species. Wildl. Manage., Fish Manage., and Hab. Manage. Div., Wash. Dept. Wildl. np. 1991.
Rogers, L.L., and A.W. Allen. 1987. Habitat suitability index models: black bear, Upper Great Lakes
Region. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82(10.144). 54pp. 1987.
Rose, D. 1994. Acting District Ranger, Tonasket Ranger District. Letter to Paul Whitney, Beak Consultants
Inc. March 16, 1994.
Russell, K.R. 1978. Mountain lion. Pages 207-225 in J.L. Schmidt and D.L. Gilbert, eds. Big game of
North America, ecology and management. Wildl. Manage. Inst. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA.
1979.
Rost, G.R. and J.A. Bailey. 1979. Distribution of mule deer and elk in relation to roads. J. Wildl. Manage.
43(3): 634-641. 1979.
Rother, E.W. 1977. Soil Resource Inventory-Okanogan National Forest. USDA Forest Service. Okanogan
National Forest. Okanogan, WA 194pp. 1977.
Salo, L. V. 1987. Similkameen River Multipurpose Project Feasibility Study, Cultural Resource
Reconnaissance, Technical Report. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District. 1987.
Sample, and Suter, G.W., II. 1994. Estimating Exposure of Terrestrial Wildlife to Contaminants. 1994.
Sarell, M.J. and K.P. McGuinness. 1993. Rare bats of the shrub-steppe ecosystem of eastern Washington.
1993.
Schafer and Associates, Inc. 1 995a. Geochemical Modeling of Pit Lake Water Quality for the Crown Jewel
Project. February 22, 1995.
Schafer and Associates, Inc. 1995b. Waste Rock Facility Seepage Analysis for the Crown Jewel Project.
February 27, 1995.
Schumacher, P. 1995. Battle Mountain Gold Company. Letter to R. Burtell of TerraMatrix dated February
23, 1995.
Schumacher, P. 1994. Battle Mountain Gold Company. Personal Communication. October 1994.
Schmutz, J.K. 1 987. The effect of agriculture on ferruginous and Swainson's hawks. J. Range Manage.
40(5):438-440. 1987.
Schmutz, J.K. 1989. Hawk occupancy of disturbed grasslands in relation to models of habitat selection.
Condor 91:362-371. 1989.
Schroeder, R.L. 1984. Habitat suitability index model: Blue grouse. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Biol. Rep.
82(10.81). 19pp. 1984.
Seidensticker, J.C.,IV, Hornocker, M.G., Wiles, W.V., and Messick, J.P. 1973. Mountain lion social
organization in the Idaho Primitive Area. Wildl. Monogr. 35. 60 pp. 1973.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 6-16 CHAPTER 6 - REFERENCES June 1995
Servello, F.A. and R.L. Kirkpatrick. 1987. Regional variation in the nutritional ecology of the ruffed grouse.
J. Wildl. Manage. 51:749-770. 1987.
Sharp, B.E. 1 992. Neotropical migrants on National Forests in the Pacific Northwest: a compilation of
existing information. USDC NTIS PB93-128825. 45 pages, 3 tables, 10 appendices. 1992.
Shipley Associates. 1992. How to Write Quality EISs and EAs. Bountiful, Utah. 1992.
Shroeder, M. 1994. Upland Bird Research Biologist, Washington Department of Wildlife. Telephone
conversation with Dale Lindeman, Beak Consultants Inc. April 22, 1994.
Smith, D.L. 1992. Caterpillar, Inc. Technical Bulletin. October 29, 1992.
Smith, D.L. 1991 a. Caterpillar, Inc. Technical Bulletin. January 1 5, 1 991.
Smith, D.L. 1991b. Caterpillar, Inc. Technical Bulletin. August 19, 1991.
Smith, L.L., S.J. Broderius, D.M. Oseid, G.L. Kimball, W.M. Kownst and D.T. Lincl. 1979. Acute and
chronic toxicity of HCN to fish and invertebrates. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Report
600/3-79-009. 129p. 1979.
Snow, C. 1981a. Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis). Habitat management series for unique or endangered
species. Rep. No. 13, USDI Bureau of Land Management. 23 pp. 1981.
Snow, C. 1981b. Southern bald eagle and northern bald eagle. Habitat management series for endangered
species. Rep. No. 5, USDI Bureau of Land Management. 58 pp. 1981.
Soderquist, P. 1994. District Ranger, Tonasket Ranger District. Letter to Paul Whitney, Beak Consultants
Inc. December 15, 1994.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1983. National Soils Handbook. Superintendent of Documents. U.S.
Government Printing Office. Washington, D. C. 1983.
Soutiere, E.G. 1979. Effects of timber harvesting on marten in Maine. J. Wildl. Manage. 43(4):850-860.
1979.
Spier, Leslie. 1936. Tribal Distribution in Washington. General Series in Anthropology, Number 3. George
Banta Publishing Company, Menasha. 1936.
Stalmaster, M.V., and J.R. Newman. 1978. Behavioral responses of wintering bald eagles to human
activity. J. Wildl. Manage. 42(3):506-513. 1978.
Stauffer, D.F. and S.R. Peterson. 1 985. Ruffed and blue grouse habitat use in southeastern Idaho. J. Wildl.
Manage. 49(21:459-466. 1985.
Stauffer, D.F. and S.R. Peterson. 1986. Seasonal microhabitat relationships of blue grouse in southeastern
Idaho. Great Basin Naturalist 46(1 ):117-1 22. 1986.
Stepniewski, A. 1994. Curlew Breeding Bird Survey. U.S.D.A. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, MD
1994.
Stepniewski, A. 1993. Curlew Breeding Bird Survey. U.S.D.A. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, MD
1993.
Stern, M.A. 1993. Zoologist, Nature Conservancy. Telephone conversation with Randy Floyd, Beak
Consultants Inc. August 13, 1993.
Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 6-17
Steventon, J.D., and J.T. Major. 1982. Marten habitat use in a commercially clear-cut forest. J. Wildl.
Manage. 46(1):175-182. 1982.
Stoll, R.J., Jr., M.W. McClain, and G.C. Hart. 1977. Ruffed grouse fall and winter food preferences. Ohio
Dept. Nat. Resour., Div. Wildl., Wildl. In-Service Note 370. 8 pp. 1977.
Stoltz, J., and J. Schnell. 1991. eds. Trout. Stackple Brooks, Harrisburg PA. pp.370. 1991.
Strickland, M.A., C.W.Douglas, M.Novak, and N. Hunzinger. 1982. Fisher. Pages 586-598 in J.A.
Chapman and G.A. Feldhamer, eds. Wild Mammals of North America; biology, management, and
economics. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD. 1982.
Suter, G.W., II. 1993. Ecological Risk Assessment. Lewis Publishers, Michigan. 1993.
Swedburg, D. 1994. Washington Dept. of Wildl. Enforcement Officer. Personal communication.
Telephone conversation with Randy Floyd, Beak Consultants Inc. 24 October 1994.
Tefler, E.S. 1 992. Habitat change as a factor in the decline of the western Canadian loggerhead shrike,
Lanius ludovicianus, population. Can. Field Nat. 106(3):321-326. 1992.
TerraMatrix Inc. 1994a. Draft Summary Report, Confirmation Geochemistry Program, Crown Jewel
Project. March 1994.
TerraMatrix Inc. 1994b. Baseline Water Quality Data, Crown Jewel Project. 1994.
Terres, J.K. 1980. The Audubon Society encyclopedia of North American birds. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. New
York, NY. 1,109 pp. 1980.
Teit, J. A. 1930. The Salishan Tribes of the Western Plateaus. Bureau of American Ethnology, 45th
Annual Report, 1927-28, edited by Franz Boas, pp. 23-296. Facsimile Reproduction. 1973. The
Shorey Book Store, Seattle. 1 930.
Thiel, R.P. 1 985. Relationship between road densities and wolf habitat suitability in Wisconsin. Am. Midi.
Nat. 113:404-407. 1985.
Thomas, J.W., tech.ed. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed forest; the Blue Mountains of Oregon and
Washington. USDA Forest Serv., Agric. Hand. 553. Wildl. Manage. Inst., Washington, D.C., and
USDI Bur. Land Manage. 512pp. 1979.
Thompson, L.S. 1978. Transmission line wire strikes: mitigation through engineering design and habitat
modification. Pages 27-52 in Avery, M.L. ed. Impacts of transmission lines on birds in flight:
proceedings of a workshop. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Biol. Serv. Program, FWS/OBS-78-48.
1978.
Tisdale, S.L. and W.L. Nelson. 1975. Soil Fertility and Fertilizers. Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. New
York. 1975.
Tonasket. 1 989. Town of Tonasket Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan. Town of Tonasket,
Washington. 1989.
TRC. 1992. Preliminary data package for meteorological monitoring results, TRC Environmental
Corporation, November 23, 1992.
United States Army. 1978. Construction Noise Control, Cost-Effectiveness Estimating Procedures.
Construction Engineering Research Lab, AD-A051737. 1978.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 6-18 CHAPTER 6 - REFERENCES June 7995
United States Committee on Large Dams (USCOLD). 1985. Guidelines for Selecting Seismic Parameters
for Dam Parameters for Dam Projects. USCOLD Report. 1985
University of Washington. 1987. The Washington Input-Output Study, 1982. Pacific North West
Executive, V3 #2. April 1987.
Unsworth, J.W., J.J. Beecham, and L.R. Irby. 1989. Female black bear use in west-central Idaho. J.
Wildl. Manage. 53(31:668-673. 1989.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1995. Draft Biological Evaluation for Proposed Endangered, Threatened, and
Sensitive Plants. May 1995
U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1994. Reclamation maps of alternatives. Tonasket Ranger District. Five maps
and reclamation key. 1994.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1993. Nicholson Screening Map. Tonasket Ranger District. 1993.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1993b. Nicholosin Timber Sale Environmental Assessment. January 1993.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1992. Goshawk map. USDA Forest Service, Okanogan National Forest. 1992.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1991. Wildlife sighting forms. USDA Forest Service, Okanogan National Forest.
1991.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1990a. Stream habitat classification and inventory procedures for Northern
California. Fish Habitat Relationships Technical Bulletin. Pacific Southwest Region, Eureka,
California. 1990.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1990b. Bald Eagle Sighting Map. Okanogan National Forest. 1990.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1 989a. Land and Resource Management Plan for the Okanogan National Forest,
1989.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1989b. Caring for our natural community: Region 1 -Threatened, Endangered,
and Sensitive Species Program. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region. 1989.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1988. General Water Quality Best Management Practices, pp 6-7. 1988.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1984. Buckhorn Mountain Timber Sale wildlife map. USDA Forest Service,
Okanogan National Forest. 1984.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1980. Predicting Impact of Noise on Recreationists. Forest Service, U.S. Dept.
of Agriculture, Equipment Development Center, San Dimas, CA. April 1980.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 1974. National Forest Landscape Management, Volume 2, Chapter 1, The Visual
Management System. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. April 1974.
U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1991. Cyanide Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates;
A Synoptic Review, Biological Report 85(1.23). December 1 991.
U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1986. Recovery plan for the Pacific bald eagle. USDI Fish and
Wild. Serv., Portland, OR. 160 pp. 1986.
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). 1982. Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual. USDOT,
Federal Highway Administration. Transmittal 348. 1982.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 6-19
Van Dyke, W.A., A. Sands, J. Yoakum, A. Polenz, J. Blaisdell. 1983. Wildlife habitats in managed
rangelands - the great basin of southeastern Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-159. USDA Forest
Service. 1983.
Vick S.G. 1990. Risk Based Approach to Seismic Stability and Inundation Hazard for Upstream Tailings
Dams. May 23, 1990.
von Michaelis, Dr. Hans. 1987. The Prospects for Alternative Leach Reagents, Engineering and Mining
Journal, June 1987.
Wakeley, J.S. 1978. Factors affecting the use of hunting sites by ferruginous hawks. Condor 80:316-
326. 1978.
Wakelyn, L.A. 1987. Changing habitat conditions on bighorn sheep ranges in Colorado. J. Wildl. Manage.
51(4):904-912. 1987.
Ward, A.L. 1985. The response of elk and mule deer to firewood gathering on the Medicine Bow Range
in south-central Wyoming. Pages 28-40 in R.W. Nelson, ed. Proceedings of the 1984 western
states and provinces elk workshop. Wildl. Branch, Fish and Wildl. Div., Edmonton, Alberta. 1985.
Washington Department of Ecology (WADOE). 1 992. Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the
State of Washington, Chapter 173-201A WAC. November 25, 1992.
Washington Department of Ecology (WADOE). 1989. Washington State Air Monitoring Data for 1988.
Washington State Department of Ecology, Air Programs, Olympia, Washington. September 1989.
Washington Department of Ecology (WADOE). 1978. Washington State Air Monitoring Data for 1988.
Washington State Department of Ecology, Air Programs, Olympia, Washington. September 1977.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WADFW). 1995. Proposed Crown Jewel Mine Project,
Wildlife Habitat Evaluation Procedures Study. March, 1995.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WADFW). 1994a. Crown Jewel HEP. Maps of alternative
footprints. 1994.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WADFW). 1994b. Priority habitats and species data release,
February 7, 1 994; Nongame Data System Report, February 8, 1 994; and Priority habitats & species
and natural heritage wildlife data maps: Bodie, 4811878; Buckhorn Mtn, 4811888; Chesaw,
4811 981; and Toroda, 4811 887, February 8, 1 994.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WADFW). 1993a. Instream Flow Study Guidelines, January
1993. Olympia, Washington. 1993.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WADFW). 1993b. Status of the North American lynx (Lynx
canadensis) in Washington. Wash. Dept. Wildl., Olympia, WA. 1993.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WADFW). 1 993c. Status of the pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus
idahoensis) in Washington. Wash. Dept. Wildl., Olympia, WA. 25 pp. 1993.
Washington State Department of Transportation (WADOT). 1994. Tallied deer kill data on Highway 20
from milepost 280 - 290, from Sept. 1979 through Dec. 1993. 1994.
Washington State Department of Transportation (WADOT). 1992. A History and Summary of Reported
Accidents. August 1992.
WAIAC. 1990. Washington outdoors: Assessment and policy plan (WAIAC 1990).
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 6 20 CHAPTER 6 - REFERENCES June 1995
Washington Input-Output Study. 1982
Watson, J.W., M.G. Garrett, and R.G. Anthony. 1991. Foraging ecology of bald eagles in the Columbia
River estuary. J. Wild. Manage. 55(3):492-499. 1991.
Wedgewood, J. 1992. Tolerance of short-term disturbances by sharp-tailed grouse. Blue Jay 50(2):96-
100. 1992.
Weaver, J. 1993. Lynx, wolverine and fisher in the western United States. Northern Rockies Conservation
Cooperative, Jackson, Wyoming. 1993.
Western Mine Engineering. 1994. APEX. Software for mining economic analysis (Version 2.10).
Spokane, Washington. 1994.
White, C.M., and T.L. Thurow. 1985. Reproduction of ferruginous hawks exposed to controlled
disturbance. Condor 87:14-22. 1985.
Whitmer, G.W., M.P. Kuttel, M. Wisdom, I.D. Luman, E.P. Harshman, J.A. Rochelle, R.J. Anderson, R.W.
Scharpf, C. Carey, and D. Smithey. 1985. Deer and Elk. Pages 231-258 in Brown, E.R. tech. ed.
Management of Wildlife and Fish Habitats in Forests of Western Oregon and Washington. U.S.
Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon. 1985.
Whittaker, J.O., S.P. Cross, J.M. Skovlin, and C. Maser. 1982. Food habits of the spotted frog (Rana
pretiosa) from managed sites in Grant County, Oregon. Northwest Sci. 57(2): 147-154. 1982.
Wilber, M., R. Connell, B. Michelutti, B. Bell, O.K. Joyce, and W. Luinstra. 1991. Environmental Aspects
of Explosives Use. Presented at the Northwest Mining Association Short Course, Spokane, WA.
December 1991.
Wiens, J.A. 1969. An approach to the study of ecological relationships among grassland birds. Ornithol.
Monogr. No. 8. 93 pp., 30 text figures. 1969.
Wiens, J.A., and R.A. Nussbaum. 1975. Model estimation of energy flow in northwestern coniferous
forest bird communities. Ecology 56: 547-561. 1975.
Williams, K. 1992. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Ephrata, Washington. Personal
Communications. July 1992.
Wilson, D.E. 1 982. Wolverine. Pages 644-652 in J.A. Chapman and G.A. Feldhamer, eds. Wild mammals
of North America: biology, management, and economics. John Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD.
1,147 pp. 1982.
Winges, K.D. 1994. Battle Mountain Gold Crown Jewel Project, air quality support document. 1994.
Wishart, W. 1978. Bighorn Sheep. Pages 161-171 in J.L. Schmidt and D.L. Gilbert eds. Big game of
North America, ecology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. 494 pp. 1978.
Wisseman, R. 1994. Macroinvertebrate Biomonitoring in Mountain Streams of Western North America
(Draft). Aquatic Biology Associates, Corvallis, Oregon. 1994.
Witmer, G.W., M.P. Kuttel, M. Wisdom, I.D. Luman, E.P. Harshman, J.A. Rochelle, R.J. Anderson, R.W.
Scharpf, C. Carey, and D. Smithey. 1985. Deer and Elk. Pages 231-258 in Brown, E.R. tech. ed.
Management of wildlife and fish habitats in forests of western Oregon and Washington. U.S. For.
Serv., Pac. Northwest Reg., Portland, OR. 1985.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 6-21
Woffinden, N.D. 1989. Decline of a ferruginous hawk population: a 20 year summary. J. Wildl. Manage.
53(4):1127-1132. 1989.
Woffinden, N.D., and J.R. Murphy. 1983. Ferruginous hawk nest site selection. J. Wildl. Manage.
47(1):216-219. 1983.
Woodruff, N. P., L. Lyles, F. H. Siddoway, and D. W. Fryrear. 1972. How to control wind erosion.
Agricultural Information Bulletin No. 354. Superintendent of Documents. U. S. Government
Printing Office. Washington, D C. 1972.
Yenko, D. 1992. Personal Communication. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Okanogan National Forest,
Supervisor's Office. Okanogan, Washington. July 1992.
Yosef, R., and T.C. Grubb. 1993. Effect of vegetation height on hunting behavior and diet of loggerhead
shrikes. Condor 95(1): 127-131. 1993.
Zender, S. 1994. Wildlife Biologist, Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. Telephone conversation with
Susan Barnes, Beak Consultants Inc. May 9, 1994.
Zieroth, E. 1993. District Ranger, Tonasket Ranger District. 1993. Letter to Alan Czarnowsky, ACZ, Inc.
July 21, 1993.
Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
-------
Chapter 7
Glossary
-------
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 7-7
7.0 GLOSSARY, ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS
Abandonment: Discontinuing project operation, salvaging project facilities, and rehabilitating the site
when future mining is determined to be technically or economically infeasible.
Acid-Base-Accounting (ABA): An evaluation of the potential for acid generation by comparing various
levels and forms of acid-forming and acid-neutralizing materials found in ore or waste rock.
Acid drainage: Water from pits, underground workings, waste rock, and tailings containing free sulfuric
acid. The formation of acid drainage is primarily due to the weathering of iron pyrite and other
sulfur-containing minerals. Acid drainage can mobilize and transport heavy metals which are
often characteristic of metal deposits.
Acid generation potential (AGP): A material's potential to generate acid and produce acid drainage.
Analytical tests used to assess acid generating potential are either static or kinetic.
Acid mine drainage: See acid drainage.
Acid neutralizing potential (ANP): The measure of a carbonate material theoretically available to
neutralize potential acid generated by ore or waste rock.
Acid rock drainage (ARD): See acid drainage.
Acre-foot: The amount of water or sediment volume which covers an acre of land to a depth of one
foot; an acre-foot is equal to 325,851 gallons or 43,560 cubic feet.
Activity: An action, measure of treatment undertaken that directly or indirectly produces, enhances, or
maintains forest and rangeland outputs, or achieves administrative or environmental quality
objectives (FSM 1309, Management Information Handbook). An activity can generate multiple
outputs.
Adit: A horizontal or nearly horizontal access opening into an underground mine.
Adsorption: The adherence of molecules in solution to the surface of solids with which they are in
contact. Dissolved gold adsorbs to activated carbon.
ADT: Average daily traffic. Measured as a one-way trip.
Aerial: Consisting of, moving through, found or suspended in the air.
Affected environment: A physical, biological, social, and economic environment within which human
activity is proposed.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 7-2 CHAPTER 7 - GLOSSARY June 1995
Affects* (ESA): Includes both direct and indirect effects to the listed species and/or it's habitat.
May Affect Any action that would result in a beneficial effect or could result in an adverse
impact to a listed species. A may effect determination would necessitate the
need for informal (or formal) consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service.
No Effect A proposed action would not have any impact on a listed species or it's habitat.
* Affect and Effect These words are used interchangeably in the statutes,
regulations, and the Forest Service Manual.
Age class: An interval, usually 10 to 20 years, into which the age range of vegetation is divided for
classification or use.
AKART: All known available and reasonable technology.
Alkaline chlorination: A treatment method by chemical reaction used to break down cyanide into non-
toxic sodium bicarbonate, nitrogen, sodium chloride, and water. This method may be used to
treat mill effluent and tailings.
Alluvium: Unconsolidated sedimentary material, including clay, silt, sand, gravel, and mud, deposited by
flowing water.
Alternatives: The different means by which objectives or goals can be attained. One of several policies,
plans, or projects proposed for decision making.
Ambient: The environment as it exists at the point of measurement and against which changes
(impacts) are measured.
Ambient air quality standard: Air pollutant concentrations of the surrounding outside environment which
can not legally be exceeded during fixed time intervals within specific geographic areas.
Ambient noise level: The composite of noise from all sources near and far. In this context, the ambient
noise level constitutes the normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location.
AMD: Acid mine drainage.
Anadromous: Those species of fish that mature in the sea and swim up freshwater rivers and streams
to spawn. Salmon, steelhead, and searun cutthroat trout are examples.
Analysis area: A delineation of land subject to analysis of: 1) responses to proposed management
practices in the production, enhancement, or maintenance of forest and rangeland outputs and
environmental quality objectives, and 2) economic and social impacts (FSM 1905). Tracts of
land with relatively homogeneous characteristics in terms of the outputs and effects that are
being analyzed.
Andesite: A dark-colored, fine-grained extrusive rock.
ANFO: A mixture of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil which is used as a blasting agent.
Animal Unit Month (AUM): The amount of forage required by one cow and calf, or their equivalent, for
one month. Approximately 800 pounds of air-dried feed (26 pounds/day).
APR: Acid producing potential.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 7-3
Aquatic: Growing, living in, frequenting or taking place in water; in this EIS, used to indicate habitat,
vegetation, and wildlife in freshwater.
Aquifer: A zone, stratum or group of strata acting as a hydraulic unit that stores or transmits water in
sufficient quantities for beneficial use.
Areal: The spatial extent or location.
Artesian: Refers to ground water under hydrostatic pressure. Water in a well rises above the level of
the water table under artesian pressure and usually flows at the surface.
Artifact: An object made or modified by humans.
Aspect: The direction toward which a slope faces.
Attainment area: A geographic region with which National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) are
met; three categories of attainment are defined Class I, Class II and Class III on the basis of the
level of degradation of air quality which may be permitted.
Audible: Capable of being heard.
B
Background: (Visual distance zone.) The distant part of a landscape. The seen or viewed area located
more than 3 to 5 miles from the viewer, and generally as far as the eye can detect objects.
Backfill: Waste material (i.e. rock) that is placed back in surface or underground mine workings.
BACT: Best Available Control Technology - pollution controls as defined by EPA for a specific emission
or pollutant discharge and required for meeting pollution control regulations.
Ball mill: Equipment used to reduce ore particles to a finer size; includes a large rotating cylinder
partially filled with steel balls.
Barren solution: Non gold-bearing cyanide solution.
Base flow: A sustained or fair-weather flow of a stream.
Baseline data: Data gathered prior to the proposed action to characterize pre-development site
conditions.
BMGC: Battle Mountain Gold Company.
BCME: British Columbia Ministry of Environment.
Bench: A ledge, which in open-pit mines and quarries, forms a single level of operation above which
mineral or waste materials are excavated from a single bank or bench face.
Berm: An earthen structure, generally several feet high, which acts as a barrier to make it difficult for a
vehicle to cross, or which redirects the flow of traffic, water, or other materials.
Best Management Practices (BMP): Management actions that are designed to maintain water quality by
preventative rather than corrective means.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 7-4 CHAPTER 7 - GLOSSARY June 1995
Big game: Large animals hunted, or potentially hunted, for sport. These include animals such as deer,
bear, elk, moose, bobcats, and mountain lions.
Bioaccumulation: Pertaining to concentration of a compound, usually potentially toxic, in the tissues of
an organism.
Biodegradable: Capable of being broken down by the action of living organisms such as micro-
organisms.
Biological Assessment (BA): Refers to the information prepared by or under the direction of the Federal
agency concerning listed and proposed species and designated and proposed critical habitat that
may be present in the action area and the evaluation of potential effects of the action on such
species and habitat.
Biological Opinion (ESA): Is the document that states the opinion of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
as to whether or not the Federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Biomass: The total weight of all living organisms in a biological community.
BOD: Biological Oxygen Demand - The quantity of oxygen utilized in the biochemical oxidation of
organic matter in a specified time and temperature.
Bond: A sum of money which, under contract, one party pays another party under conditions that when
certain obligations or acts are met, the money is then returned; such as after mining reclamation
occurs. See reclamation guarantee.
Borrow area: Rock quarry; earthen construction material source area such as sand and gravel or topsoil
taken from specific area for use in construction or reclamation.
British Thermal Unit (BTU): The amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one pound of water
on degree Fahrenheit.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM): The agency of the United States Government, under the
Department of the Interior, responsible for administering certain public lands of the United
States.
c
°C: Degrees Celsius.
Calcite: A mineral, calcium carbonate (CaC03). One of the most common minerals; the principal
constituent of limestone. The primary acid neutralizing material in the Crown Jewel deposit.
Canopy: The more-or-less continuous cover of branches and foliage formed collectively by the crown of
adjacent trees and other woody debris.
Capability: The potential of an area of land to produce resources, supply goods and services, and allow
resource uses under an assumed set of management practices at a given level of management
intensity. Capability depends upon current conditions and site conditions such as climate, slope,
landform, soils, and geology, as well as the application of management practices.
Carrying capacity: The number of organisms of a given species and quality that can survive in, without
causing deterioration of, a given ecosystem through the least favorable environmental conditions
that occur within a stated interval of time.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 7-5
CEQ: An advisory council to the President established by the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969. It reviews federal programs for their effect on the environment, conducts environmental
studies, and advises the President on environmental matters.
CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (1980) also known
as Superfund. This act provided the authority for money administered by the EPA to identify
and clean up hazardous waste sites.
CFR: Code of Federal Regulations. A codification of the general and permanent rules published in the
Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
cfs: Cubic feet per second, 1 cfs equals 448.33 gallons per minute.
Chlorine: A toxic, yellow-green irritating gas of disagreeable odor belonging to the halogen group of
diatomic molecules.
Chronically: Continually and repeatedly over a long period of time.
CIL: Carbon-in-leach method of gold recovery from cyanide solutions.
CIP: Carbon-in-pulp method of gold recovery from cyanide solutions.
Climax plant communities: The stabilized plant community on a particular site. The plant cover does
not change so long as the environment remains the same.
Climax species: Those species that dominate a climax stand in either numbers per unit area or biomass.
Closure: An administrative order restricting either location, timing, or type of use in a specific area.
CMAI: Culmination of mean annual increment.
CMP: Corrugated metal pipe; culverts used in road/stream crossings.
Coarse fragments: That portion of the soil larger than 2 millimeter including gravels, cobbles, rocks and
boulders.
Colluvium: Soil material or rock fragments moved down slope by gravitational force in the form of
creep, slides, and local wash.
Community stability: A community's capacity to handle change without major hardships or disruptions
to component groups or institutions. Measurements of community stability requires
identification of the type and rate of proposed change and an assessment of the community's
capacity to accommodate that level of change.
COE: U.S Army Corps of Engineers; agency responsible for regulating and permitting wetland
disturbances.
Concern: A point, matter, or questions raised by management that must be addressed in the planning
process.
Cone of depression: The geometry or shape of an inverted cone on the water table or artisan pressure
surface caused by the pumping of a well. The cone of depression will disappear over time when
well pumping ceases.
Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 7-6 CHAPTER 7 - GLOSSARY June 1995
Consumptive use: A use of resources that permanently reduces the supply, such as mining.
Contrast: The effect of differences in form, line, color, or texture of a landscape's features.
Corridor: A linear strip of land identified for the present or future location of transportation or utility
rights-of-ways.
Costs:
Direct costs A cost that directly contributes to the production of the primary outputs of an
activity, project, or program.
Economic cost Total fixed and variable costs for inputs, including costs incurred by other public
parties and, if appropriate, opportunity costs and cost savings.
Fixed cost A cost that is committed for the time horizon of planning or the decision being
considered. Fixed costs include fixed ownership requirements, fixed protection,
short-term maintenance, and long-term planning and inventory costs.
Investment costs A cost of creating or enhancing capital assets, including costs of administrative
or common-use transport facilities and resource management investments.
Joint cost A cost contributing to the projection of more than one type of output.
Opportunity cost The value of a resource's foregone net benefits in its most economically
efficient alternative use.
Unit cost or
cost per unit Total cost of production divided by the number of units produced.
Variable cost A cost that varies with the level of controlled outputs in the time horizon
covered by the planning period or decisions being considered.
Cost effective: Achieving specified outputs or objectives under given conditions for the least cost.
Cost efficiency: The usefulness of specified inputs (costs) to produce specified outputs (benefits). In
measuring cost efficiency, some outputs, including environmental, economic, or social impacts,
are not assigned monetary values, but are achieved at specified levels in the least costly
manner. Cost efficiency is usually measured using present net value, although use of benefit-
cost ratios and internal rate-or-return may be appropriate.
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ): An advisory council to the President established by the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It reviews federal programs for their effect on the
environment, conducts environmental studies, and advises the President on environmental
matters.
Cover: Living or non-living material (e.g., vegetation) used by fish and wildlife for protection from
predators, to ameliorate conditions of weather, or reproduce. The proportion of the ground
occupied by a perpendicular projection to the ground from the outline of the aerial parts of the
members of a plant species.
CPOM: Coarse particulate organic matter.
Criteria: Data and information which are used to examine or establish the relative degrees of desirability
among alternatives or the degree to which a course of action meets an intended objective.
Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 7-7
Cultural resources: The remains of sites, structures, or objects used by humans in the past-historic or
prehistoric. More recently referred to as heritage resources.
Cumulative effects or impacts: Cumulative effect or impact is the impact on the environment which
results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and
reasonable foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or
person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but
collectively significant actions taken place over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7 - these
regulations use effects and impacts synonymously). For example, the impacts of a proposed
timber sale and the development of a mine together result in cumulative impacts.
Cutoff grade: Lowest grade of mineralized rock that qualifies as ore in a given deposit; assay grade
below which an ore body cannot be profitably exploited.
Cyanide: A naturally occurring organic compound composed of carbon and nitrogen (CN); a solid
chemical compound (sodium or calcium cyanide) is dissolved in water to form a solution which
is suitable for the extraction of precious metals from ore by using a leaching process.
Cyanidation: The type of milling where prepared ore is exposed to cyanide, under a set of specific
conditions which dissolves precious metals such as gold. Various cyanidation processes are
capable of extracting gold, with up to 90% efficiency, in grades as low as 0.0025 oz/ton of ore.
D
dB: Decibel scale.
DBH Diameter of a tree at breast height (4 feet, 6 inches from ground level).
Decibel (dBA): A unit for expressing the relative intensity (loudness) of sound (decibel or dBA),
weighted along the audible frequencies.
Decommissioning: Suspension and/or closure of operations and possible removal of facilities.
DEIS: The draft statement of environmental effects which is required for major federal actions under
Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act, and released to the public and other
agencies for comment and review.
Demography: A statistical study of the characteristics of human populations with reference to size,
density, growth, distribution, migration and effect on social and economic conditions.
Density: The number of individuals in a given area. Expressed per unit area.
Depletion: Use of water in a manner that makes it no longer available to other users in the same
system.
Deposit: A natural accumulation, such as precious metals, minerals, coal, gas, oil, etc. that may be
pursued for its intrinsic value; gold deposit.
Desorb: To remove by the reverse of adsorption.
Desired Future Condition (DFC): A portrayal of the land or resource conditions which are expected to
result if goals and objectives are fully achieved (30 CFR 219).
Crown Jewel Mine f Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 78 CHAPTER 7 GLOSSARY June 1995
Detention ponds: Structures constructed by excavation and/or by building an embankment whose
purpose is to retain water and allow for settlement of fines (total suspended solids) and
reduction in turbidity.
DFO: Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Diamond drilling: Rock drilling that makes use of a diamond tipped drill bit. Often used when recovering
a core sample of rock.
Dilution: The act of mixing or thinning, and therefore decreasing a certain strength or concentration.
Dip: The angle at which rock stratum, vein, or any plane (fault) is inclined from a horizontal plane.
Direct impacts: Impacts which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place.
Discharge: The volume of water flowing past a point per unit time, commonly expressed as cubic feet
per second, million gallons per day, gallons per minute, or cubic meters per second.
Discount rate: An interest rate that represents the cost or time value of money in determining the
present value of future costs and benefits.
Disposal area: (waste rock) Also called a fill, storage site, or stockpile; an area where waste rock is
placed during mining either temporarily or permanently.
Dispersion: The act of distributing or separating into lower concentration or less dense units.
Dissociable: A chemical combination that can break up into simpler constituents.
Diversion: Removing water from its natural course or location, or controlling water in its natural course
or location, by means of a ditch, canal, flume, reservoir, bypass, pipeline, conduit, well, pump,
or other structure or device.
Diversity: An expression of community structure. High if there are many equally abundant species; low
if only a few equally abundant species. The distribution and abundance of different plant and
animal communities and species within the area covered by a land and resource management
plan (36 CFR 219.3).
DNR: U.S. Department of Natural Resources.
DO: Dissolved Oxygen.
DOE: Determination of Eligibility.
Dore: Metal alloy composed of gold, silver, and other precious metals. Bullion containing unseparated
metallic gold and silver.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS): The draft statement of environmental effects which is
required for major federal actions under Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act,
and released to the public and other agencies for comment and review. Under the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), a DEIS is required for proposal which may have probable
significant adverse impacts.
Drift: A horizontal or nearly horizontal mine passageway driven on or parallel to the vein.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 7-9
E
EA: Environmental Assessment.
Earthquake: Sudden movement of the earth resulting from faulting, volcanism, or other mechanisms
within the earth.
Ecosystem: An interacting system of organisms considered together with their environment; for
example marsh, watershed, and lake ecosystems.
Effects: "Effect" and "impact" are synonymous as used in this document. Environmental changes
resulting from a proposed action. Included are direct effects, which are caused by the action
and occur at the same time and place, and indirect effects, which are caused by the action and
are later in time or further removed in distance, but which are still reasonably foreseeable.
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, and related effects on air
and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.
Effervescence: Reaction of a soil mass to the addition of 0.1 N hydrochloric acid indicating the
concentration of free calcium in the soil.
Electrofishing: The taking of fish by a system based on their tendency to become immobilized by direct
electric current.
Electrowinning: A means of recovering metals from solution using electrochemical processes. It is
usually found as a primary metal recovery in conjunction with cyanide leaching. It is used to
recover the gold from the pregnant solution stripped from the activated carbon.
Employment: Labor input into a production process, measured in the number of person-years or jobs. A
person-year is 2,000 working hours by one person working year long or by several persons
working seasonally. The number of jobs required to product the output of each sector. A job
may be 1 week, 1 month, or 1 year.
EMT: Emergency Medical Technician.
Endangered species: Any species of animal or plant that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. Plant or animal species identified by the Secretary of the Interior
as endangered in accordance with the 1973 Endangered Species Act.
ENM: Environmental Noise Model.
Environment: The physical conditions that exist within the area that will be affected by a proposed
project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historical
or aesthetic significance. The sum of all external conditions that affect an organism or
community to influence its development of existence.
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): An analytical document prepared under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) that
portrays potential impacts to the environment of a Proposed Action and its possible alternatives.
An EIS is developed for use by decision makers to weigh the environmental consequences of a
potential decision.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): An agency of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government
which has responsibility for environmental matters of national concern.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental impact Statement
-------
Page 7-10 CHAPTER 7 - GLOSSARY June 1995
Ephemeral stream: A stream or portion of a stream that flows only in direct response to precipitation or
snow melt. Such flow is usually of short duration.
Epicenter: The part of the earth's surface directly above the focus or origin, of an earthquake.
Erodibility (K-factor): A means or factor used to estimate the erosion potential of soils through the use
of the "Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE)".
Erosion: The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice or other geologic agents,
including such processes as gravitation creep.
ESA: Endangered Species Act.
Escape cover: Usually vegetation dense enough to hide an animal; used by animals to escape from
potential predators.
Essential habitat (ESA): Those areas designated by the Regional Forester as possessing the same
characteristics as critical habitat without having been declared as critical habitat by the
Secretary of the Interior. The term includes habitat necessary to meet recovery objectives for
endangered, threatened, and proposed species and those necessary to maintain viable
populations of sensitive species.
Ethnographic: Descriptive anthropology. The study of man in relation to distribution, classification,
origin, environmental and social relations, and culture.
Exploration: The search for economic deposits of minerals,ore, gas, oil or coal through the practices of
geology, geochemistry, geophysics, drilling, shaft sinking and/or mapping.
F
°F: Degrees Fahrenheit.
Fan: Rock and soil material deposited at the toe of a slope by the action of fluvial and gravitational
forces.
Fault: A displacement of rock along a sheer surface or linear plane.
Feasible: Capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time,
taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.
Feasibility study: As applied to mining, the feasibility study follows discovery of the mineral and is
prepared by the mining company or an independent consultant. Its purpose is to analyze the
rate of monetary return that can be expected from the mine at a certain rate or production.
Based on this study, the decision by the company to develop the ore body may be made.
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS): Means a detailed written statement as required by section
1 2(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act. (40 CFR 1 508.11) It is a revision of the
draft environmental impact statement to include public and agency responses to the draft.
Fisheries habitats: Streams, lakes, and reservoirs that support fish populations.
Fishery: All activities related to human harvest of a fisheries resource.
Floodplain: The lowland and relatively flat area adjoining inland waters, including, at a minimum, that
are subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 7-11
Flotation: A milling process wherein finely ground ore material is introduced to a circuit where chemical
reagents and/or air are introduced to concentrate valuable minerals. The valuable minerals
adhere to air bubbles and float to the top, whereas the less valuable component sinks to the
bottom and are removed as tailings.
Fluvial: Of or relating to a stream or river.
Forage: All browse and non-woody plants that are available to livestock or game animals for grazing or
harvestable for feed.
Forb: Broad-leafed, small plants composed of soft tissue; not woody material. Any herb other than
grass.
Foreground: (Visual distance zone) A term used in visual management to describe the area immediately
adjacent to the observer, usually within 1/4 to 1/2 mile.
Forest Plan: Each of the National Forests administered by the U.S.D.A. Forest Service is operated under
a "Land and Resource Management Plan" as required by the National Forest Management Act of
1 976. The 1 976 Act was an amendment to the Multiple use Sustained Yield Act of 1 960 and
the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974. Forest Plans are
prepared under the authority of these acts.
Free cyanide: Cyanide molecules that are unattached to any other atoms; chemically uncombined.
French drain: A water passage made by filling a trench with loose stones and covering with earth.
Frequency: The number of samples in which a plant or animal species occurs divided by the total
number of samples.
Freshet: A large increase in stream flow due to heavy rains or snow melt.
Fugitive dust: Dust particles suspended randomly in the air from road travel, excavation and rock
loading operations.
Game species: Any species of wildlife or fish for which seasons and bag limits have been prescribed
and which are normally harvested by hunters, trappers, and fishermen under state or federal
laws, codes and regulations.
Garnetite: A Crown Jewel metamorphic ore material consisting primarily of garnet.
Genetic variation: The variety of genes present within and among individuals in the population, which
influences how well a population can adapt to environment changes over time.
Geohydrology: Refers to the hydrologic or flow characteristics of subsurface waters. Often
interchangeable with hydrogeology.
Geomorphic: Pertaining to the form of the surface of the earth.
Geotechnical: A branch of engineering that is essentially concerned with the engineering design aspects
of slope stability, settlement, earth pressures, bearing capacity, seepage control, and erosion.
Crown Jewel Mine $ Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 7 12 CHAPTER 7 - GLOSSARY
Glacial till: Glacial materials deposited directly by ice with little or no transportation by water. (Drift
includes outwash - AGI Dictionary).
gpd, gph, gpm: Gallons per day, hour, minute.
Goal: A concise statement that describes a desired condition to be achieved sometime in the future. It
is normally expressed in broad, general terms and is timeless in that it has no specific date by
which it is to be completed. Goal statements form the principal basis from which objectives are
developed.
Graben: An elongate, relatively depressed block that is bounded by faults on the long sides.
Grade: A slope stated as so many feet per mile or as ft/ft (%); the content of precious metals per
volume of rock (oz/ton).
Grass/forb: An early forest successional stage where grasses and forbs are the dominant vegetation.
Grizzly: Heavy steel grate used to size, short, and grade materials into required categories. Also grizzly
bear, an endangered species.
Ground water: Water found beneath the land surface in the zone of saturation below the water table.
Growth media: All materials, including topsoil, specified soil horizons, vegetative debris, and organic
water, which are classified as suitable for stockpiling and/or reclamation.
Guideline: An indication or outline of policy or conduct; i.e., any issuance that assists in determining the
course of direction to be taken in any planned action to accomplish a specific objective.
H
Habitat: The natural environment of a plant or animal, including all biotic, climatic, and soil conditions,
or other environmental influences affecting living conditions. The place where an organism
lives.
Habitat capability: The estimated ability of an area, given existing or predicted habitat conditions, to
support a wildlife, fish or plant population. It is measured in terms of potential population
numbers.
Haul road: A road used by large «50 ton capacity) trucks to haul ore and overburden from an open pit
mine to other locations.
Hazardous waste: A waste is considered hazardous by the EPA if it exhibits one or more of these
characteristics; ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, toxicity. These are listed in 40 CFR 261.3
and 40 CFR 171.8.
HCT: Humidity cell tests.
Heavy metals: A group of elements, usually acquired by organisms in trace amounts, that are often
toxic in higher concentrations; includes lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, copper, cobalt,
chromium, iron, silver, etc.
HOPE: High Density Polyethylene - a high density man-made material used for liners. This material
deforms with a low probability of puncturing or splitting. Seams are heat welded instead of
glued, thus preventing rupture.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 7-13
HEP: Habitat Evaluation Process.
Hiding cover: Vegetation that will hide 90% of an adult deer or elk from the view of a human at a
distance of 200 feet or less. The distance at which the animal is essentially hidden is called a
"sight distance".
HSI: Habitat suitability index.
Hydraulic conductivity: A measure of the ability of rock or soil to permit the flow of ground water under
a pressure gradient; permeability.
Hydrologic system: All physical factors, such as precipitation, stream flow, snowmelt, ground water,
etc., that effect the hydrology of a specific area.
Hydrothermal alteration: Alteration of rocks or minerals by the reaction of hydrothermal water with pre-
existing solid phases.
IFIM: Instream Flow Incremental Measurement. A method to estimate the minimum stream flows
needed to maintain spawning and rearing habitat for fish.
Impermeable: Property of a substance that inhibits passage of fluids through its mass.
Impoundment: The accumulation of any form of water in a reservoir or other storage area.
Incidental take (ESA): Refers to takings that result from, but are not for the purpose of, carrying out an
otherwise lawful activity conducted by an agency or applicant.
Incised: A narrow, steep-walled valley caused by erosion.
Increment: The amount of change from an existing concentration or amount; such as air pollutant
concentrations.
Indirect impacts: Impacts which are caused by the action but are later in time or farther remved in
distance, although still reasonably foreseeable.
Inert: A substance that is chemically unreactive; not affecting any substance it comes in contact with.
Infiltration: The movement of water or some other fluid into the soil through pores or other openings.
Informal consultation (ESA): An optional process that includes all discussions, correspondence, etc.
between the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Federal agency or the designated non-Federal
representative prior to formal consultation, if required.
Infrastructure: The underlying foundation or basic framework; substructure (i.e. schools, police, fire
services, hospitals, water and sewer systems).
Interdisciplinary Team (IDT): The interdisciplinary team is comprised of a group of personnel with
different training assembled to solve a problem or perform a task. The team will consider
problems collectively, rather than separate concerns along disciplinary lines. This interaction is
intended to insure systematic, integrated consideration of physical, biological, economic and
other sciences.
Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 7-74 CHAPTER 7 - GLOSSARY June 1996
Intermittent stream: A stream that runs water in most months, but does not contain water year-round.
Interstitial: Occupying the spaces between sediment particles.
Irretrievable: Applies to losses of production, harvest, or commitment of renewable natural resources.
For example, some or all of the timber production from an area is irretrievably lost during the
time an area is used as a winter sports site. If the use changes, timber production can be
resumed. The production lost is irretrievable, but the act is not irreversible.
Irreversible: Applies primarily to the use of nonrenewable resources, such as minerals or cultural
resources, or to those factors that are renewable only over long time spans, such as soil
productivity. Irreversible also includes loss of future options.
Irretrievable commitments: Those that are lost for a period of time. If an interstate is constructed
through a forest, the timber productivity of the right-of-way is lost for as long as the highway
remains. The construction of the highway signals an irretrievable loss in exchange for the
benefits of the highway.
Irreversible commitments: Those that cannot be reversed, except perhaps in the extreme long term.
I he classic instance is when a species becomes extinct; this is an irreversible loss. Mining is a
similar case; once ore is removed, it can never be replaced.
Isothermal: Having equal temperatures.
Issue: A point, matter, or question of public discussion or interest to be addressed or decided through
the planning process.
Jeopardy or jeopardize the continued existence of (ESA): Means to engage in an action that reasonably
would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the
survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or
distribution of that species. A jeopardy opinion would result in the Fish and Wildlife Service
developing reasonable and prudent alternatives for the proposed action.
Jurisdictional wetland: A wetland area delineated and identified by specific technical criteria, field
indicators and other information for purposes of public agency jurisdiction. The federal agencies
which administer Jurisdictional wetlands are the Fish and Wildlife Service, Army Corps of
Engineers, Environmental Protection Agency, and the Soil Conservation Service.
K
K-factor: See erodibility.
Key viewpoint: The point(s) commonly in use or potentially in use where the view of a management
activity is the most disclosing. The location which provides the means of studying the visual
impact of alternatives to the landscape.
Kinetic test: A category of tests used to predict the occurrence of acid drainage from mine wastes or
workings (e.g., humidity cell tests). Kinetic tests involve repetitive cycles of leaching and
monitoring under controlled conditions. Ideally, kinetic tests yield information on the extent and
timing of acid generation.
kw: kilowatt.
Crown Jewel Mine $ Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 7 15
kwh: Total kilowatt hours.
L
Landform: A natural landscape that exists as a result of wind, water, or geologic activity.
Land management: The intentional process of planning, organizing, programming, coordinating,
directing, and controlling land use actions.
Land management plan: See Forest Plan.
Landscape: The sum total of the characteristics that distinguish a certain area on the earth's surface
from other areas. These characteristics are a result not only of natural forces but of human
occupancy and use of the land. An area composed of interacting and interconnected patterns of
habitats (ecosystems), that are repeated because of geology, landforms, soils, climate, biota and
human influences throughout the area.
Land status: The ownership status of lands.
Land use allocation: The assignment of a management emphasis to particular land areas with the
purpose of achieving the goals and objectives of that specified use(s) (e.g. campgrounds,
wilderness).
Lands Not Appropriate for Timber Production: Includes lands that: 1) are proposed for resources used
that preclude timber production such as Wilderness; 2) have other management objectives that
limit timber production to the point where management requirements set forth in CFR 219.27
cannot be met; or 3) are not cost efficient over the planning horizon in meeting forest objectives
including timber projection.
Lands Not Suited (Unsuitable) for Timber Production: Includes lands that: 1) are not forest land as
defined in CFR 219.3; 2) are likely, give current technology, to suffer irreversible resource
damage to soils productivity, or watershed conditions; 3) cannot be adequately restocked as
provided in 36 CFR 21 9.27(c)(3); or 4) have been withdrawn from timber production by an Act
of Congress, the Secretary of Agriculture, or the chief of the Forest Service. In additions. Forest
lands other than those that have been identified as not suited for timber production shall be
reviewed and assessed prior to formulation of alternatives to determine the costs and benefits of
a range of management intensities for timber Production.
LDH: Lactic acid dehydrogenase.
Leaching: The process of applying a chemical agent that bonds preferentially and dissolves into
solution. The precious metals in an ore. The precious metal complexes or binds to the solution,
which is then called a "pregnant" solution. The pregnant solution is collected for processing to
recover the precious metals.
Lead agency: The public agency(s) that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a
project.
Least cost analysis: Determination of the least cost means of attaining specified results.
Limits of acceptable change: A process of deciding what kind of resource conditions are acceptable and
prescribing actions to protect or achieve these conditions.
Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 7-16 CHAPTER 7 - GLOSSARY June O395
Line: The path that the eye follows when perceiving abrupt differences in form, color, or texture. In the
landscape, ridges, skylines, structures, changes in vegetation, or individual trees and branches
may be perceived as line.
Listed species (ESA): Species that are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (as amended).
Lixiviant: A substance used to extract a soluble compound (from a soil mixture) by washing or
percolation.
Locatable minerals: Generally refers to hardrock minerals on Public Domain lands or National Forest
System lands reserved from the Public Domain that are mined and processed to recover metals,
such as gold and copper, chemical grade limestone, and asbestos.
Lode: A mineral deposit that is contained within bedrock, as opposed to a placer deposit.
Long-term impacts: Impacts that normally result in permanent changes to the environment. An example
is a topographic change resulting from tailings disposal in a drainage. Each resource, by
necessity, may vary in its definition of long-term.
Low-grade ore: Ore resources that cannot be economically processed at this time.
M
Magazine: A storage room for explosives. Magazines are built to specifications set by the Mine Safety
and Health Administration and are usually located in a secure but remote area of the project site.
Management activity: An activity of man imposed on a landscape for the purpose of harvesting,
traversing, transporting, or replenishing natural resources.
Management Area: An area with similar management objectives and a common management
prescription.
Management concern: An issue, problem, or condition which influences the range of management
practices identified in the planning process.
Management direction: A statement of multiple use and other goals and objectives, and the associated
management prescriptions, and standards and guidelines for attaining them (36 CFR 219.3).
Management indicator species: A species selected because its welfare is presumed to be an indicator of
the welfare of other species using the same habitat. A species whose conditions can be used to
assess the impacts of management actions on a particular area.
Management Requirements (MR's): Standards for resource protection, vegetation manipulation,
silvicultural practices, even-aged management, riparian areas, soil and water diversity, to be met
in accomplishing National Forest System goals and objectives.
Mature forest: Trees that have obtained full development, particularly in height and are in full seed
production. When used in an economic sense, indicates a forest that has attained harvest age.
The point after which a decline in health and vigor is noted.
MCE: Maximum credible earthquake.
MBF: Thousand board feet. A measure of wood volume.
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 7-17
Metallurgy: A science and technology that deals with the extraction of metals from their ores, refining,
processing, etc.
Microenvironment: The local environment/climate of a given area or habitat characterized by uniformity
over the site.
Middleground: (Visual distance zone) The space between the foreground and the background in a
picture or landscape. The area from 1/2 to 3 to 5 miles from the viewer.
Migratory: Moving from place to place, daily or seasonally.
Milling: The general process of separating the valuable constituent (gold) from the undesired or non-
economic constituents of the ore material (called tailings after milling).
Mine pit: Surface area from which ore and overburden are removed.
Mineral entry: The filing of a mining claim upon Public Domain or related land to obtain the right to any
minerals it may contain. Valid mining claims may be purchased in full (patented) under the
1872 mining law, as amended.
Minimum streamflow requirement: A set amount of water to be maintained in a water course for the
purpose of reasonably maintaining the environment.
Mining claim: A portion of the Public Domain or related lands which a miner, for mining purposes, takes
and holds in accordance with mining laws.
Mining plan: See operating plan.
Mitigation: Mitigation includes; (a) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts
of an action; (b) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation; (c) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affects
environment; (d) reducing or elimination of the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance of operations during the life of the action; and, (e) compensating for the impact by
replacing or providing substitute resources or environments (40 CFR Part 1508.20).
MMBF: Million board feet. A measure of wood volume. The amount of wood contained in 100 average
homes.
Modification: A visual quality objective meaning man's activities may dominate the characteristic
landscape but must, at the same time, follow naturally established form, line, color, and texture.
It should appear as a natural occurrence when viewed in foreground or middleground.
Monitoring and evaluation: A watching, observing or checking, in this instance, a continuing testing of
specific environmental parameters and of project waste streams for purposes of comparing with
permit stipulations, pollution control regulations, mitigation plan goals, etc. The periodic
evaluation of management practices on a sample basis to determine how well objectives have
been met.
MOD: Memorandum of Understanding.
MSHA: Mine Safety and Health Administration - Federal agency under the Department of Labor which
regulates worker health and safety in mining operations.
Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 7-18 CHAPTER 7 - GLOSSARY June 1995
Multiple use: The management concepts under which National Forest and BLM lands are managed. The
management of the lands and their various resource values so they are utilized in the
combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people.
N
NAAQS: National Ambient Air Quality Standards
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): An act to declare a National policy which will encourage
productive and enjoyable harmony between humankind and the environment, to promote efforts
which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the
health and welfare of humanity, to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and
natural resources important to the Nation, and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality.
(The Principal Laws Relating to Forest Service Activities, Agriculture Handbook No 453, USDA,
Forest Service, 359 pp).
National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan: A Plan which "....shall provide for multiple use
and sustained yield of goods and services from the National Forest System in a way that
maximizes long-term net public benefits in an environmentally sound manner." (36 CFR 219).
National Forest Management Act (NFMA): A law passed in 1976 as an amendment to the Forest and
rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act, requiring the preparation of Regional Guidelines
and Forest Plans and the preparation of regulations to guide the development.
NEPA Process: All measures necessary to comply with the requirements of Section 2 and Title I of the
National Environmental Policy Act.
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS): Standards set by EPA defining the allowable pollutant
discharge (air and water) and applicable pollution control for new facilities; by industrial
category. (Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act).
Non-game species: Animal species which are not hunted, fished, or trapped.
Nonpoint air pollution: Pollution caused by sources that are non-stationary. In mining, nonpoint air
pollution results from such activities as blasting and hauling minerals over roads, as well as dust
from mineral stockpiles, tailings, and waste dumps prior to mulching and/or revegetation.
NOX: Nitrogen oxides, a product of vehicle exhaust.
NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System - A program authorized by Sections 318, 402
and 405 of the Clean Water Act, and implemented by regulations 40 CFR 122. NPDES program
requires permits for the discharge of pollutants from any point source into waters of the United
States.
NPV: Net Present Value.
NRHP: National Register of Historical Places.
NWS: National Weather Service.
0
OAHP: State of Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 7 19
Objective: A concise, time-specific statement of measurable planned results that respond to pre-
established goals. An objective forms the basis for further planning to define the precise steps
to be taken and the resources to be used in achieving identified goals.
OFM: State of Washington Office of Financial Management.
Old-growth stand (old-growth): Any stand of trees generally containing the following characteristics: 1)
contains mature and over-mature trees in the overstory and are well into the mature growth
stage; 2) will usually contain a multi-layered canopy and trees of several age classes; 3)
standing dead trees and down material are present; and 4) evidences of man's activities may be
present, but do not significantly alter the other characteristics and would be a subordinate factor
in a description of such a stand.
Oligotrophic: A lake having abundant dissolved oxygen with no marked stratification; well mixed.
Lakes characterized by a low accumulation of dissolved nutrient salts, supporting only sparse
plant and animal life.
Open pit mining: A type of mining that involves excavation of the ore or minerals above ground by
removing the overburden and extracting the mineral beneath. The result of the mining operation
is an "open pit".
Ore: A mineral or group of minerals present in sufficient value as to quality and quantity which may be
mined at a profit.
Oxide: A mineral compound of oxygen with one or more metallic elements.
Ozone: Form of oxygen found largely in the stratosphere; a product of reaction between ultraviolet light
and oxygen.
P
Parent material: Unconsolidated organic and inorganic mineral material in which soils form.
Partial retention: A visual quality objective which in general means man's activities may be evident but
must remain subordinate to the characteristic landscape.
Particulates: Small particles suspended in the air or generally considered pollutants.
Patented claims: Private land which has been secured from the U. S. Government by compliance with
the laws relating to such lands.
Percolation/infiltration: The act of water seeping or filtering through the soil without a definite channel.
Perennial stream: A stream that flows year round.
Performance bond: See reclamation guarantee.
Permeability: The property or capacity of a porous rock, sediment, or soil for transmitting a fluid; it is a
measure of the relative ease of fluid flow under unequal pressure.
pH: Symbol for the negative common logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration (acidity) of a
solution. The pH of 7 is considered neutral. A pH number below 7 indicates acidity, and a pH
value above 7 indicates alkalinity or a base.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 7-20 CHAPTER 7 - GLOSSARY June 1995
Physiographic province: A Region having a particular pattern of relief features or land forms that differs
significantly from that of adjacent Regions (e.g. Okanogan Highlands).
Piezometer: A device for measuring moderate ground water pressures.
Piezometric surface: Any imaginary surface coinciding with the hydraulic pressure level of the water in
a confined aquifer, or the surface representing the static head of ground water and defined by
the level to which water will rise in a well. A water table is a particular piezometric surface.
Planning records: The body of information documenting the decisions and activities which result from
the process of developing an environmental assessment.
Plan of Operations: A detailed description presenting the methods, tinning and contingencies to be used
during the operation of the Project. A document required from any person proposing to conduct
mineral related activities while utilizing earth moving equipment and which will cause
disturbance to surface resources or involve the cutting of trees.
Plant communities: A vegetation complex unique in its combination of plants which occur in particular
locations under particular influences. A plant community is a reflection of integrated
environmental influences on the site such as soils, temperature, elevation, solar radiation, slope
aspects, and rainfall.
PMF: Probable Maximum Flood - A statistically determined flood event.
PM-10: Particulates of 10 microns in size. A source of air quality degradation.
Point source: Stationary sources of potential pollutants. In terms of mining, some examples of point
sources are crushing and screening equipment, conveyor transfer points, and pond outlet pipes.
Policy: A guiding principle upon which is based a specific decision or set of decisions.
Pollution: Human-caused or natural alteration of the physical, biological, and radiological integrity of
water, air, or other aspects of the environment producing undesired effects.
POO: Plan of Operations.
Portal: The entrance to a tunnel or underground mine.
Potable water: Suitable, safe, or prepared for drinking.
Potentiometric surface: Surface to which water in an aquifer would rise by hydrostatic pressure. (See
piezometric surface).
ppm: parts per million.
Precious metal: Any of the less common and highly valuable metals; gold, silver, platinum.
Pregnant solution: The resulting metal-laden solution collected from the leaching process which
contains dissolved metal values. The precious metals values are recovered from this pregnant
solution, which then becomes the barren solution that is typically refortified and reintroduced to
the leaching circuit.
Prescription: The set of management practices applied to a specific area to attain specific objectives.
Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 7-21
Prescriptive mitigation: The rules or directive in-place giving precise instructions on the abatement or
alleviation of certain issues.
Prehistoric: Relating to the times just preceding the period of recorded history.
Present net value (PNV): The difference between the discounted value (benefits) of all outputs to which
monetary values or established market prices are assigned and the total discounted costs of
managing the planning area.
Prevention of significant deterioration (PSD): A special permit procedure established in the Clean Air
Act, as amended, used to ensure that economic growth occurs in a manner consistent with;
protection of public health; preservation of air quality related values in national special interest
areas; the opportunity for informed public participation in the decision-making process.
P:R:G: Pool: riffle: glide.
Priority pollutant: Toxic aqueous pollutants specified as a particular concern in the Clean Water Act;
EPA sets limits for discharge of these pollutants.
Pristine: Pertaining to pure, original, uncontaminated conditions.
Project: The whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in a physical change in the
environment. An organized effort to achieve an objective identified by location, timing,
activities, outputs, effects, and time period and responsibilities for executions.
Proposed Action: A description of the project as proposed by the project proponent in the Plan of
Operations.
Proposed critical habitat (ESA): Habitat proposed in the Federal Register to be designated or revised as
critical habitat under Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act for listed or proposed species.
PSD: See Prevention of Significant Deterioration.
Public participation: Meetings, conferences, seminars, workshops, tours, written comments, responses
to survey questionnaires, and similar activities designed and held to obtain comments from the
public about planning.
Public scoping: Giving the public the opportunity for oral or written comments concerning the
intentions, activity, or influence of a project on an individual, the community, and/or the
environment.
R
Radionuclide: Radioactive nuclides of certain elements.
Range allotment: An area designated for use of a prescribed number and kind of livestock under one
management plan.
Raptor: Bird of prey, including eagles, hawks, falcons, and owls.
RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
RCW: Revised Code of Washington.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 7-22 CHAPTER 7 - GLOSSARY June 1995
Reagent: A chemical substance used in the treatment of ores.
Reasonable and prudent measures (ESA): Those actions the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service
believes necessary or appropriate to minimize the impacts, i.e., amount or extent of incidental
take. These measures are stated in the biological opinion issued by the Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Recharge: Absorption and addition of water to the zone of saturation.
Reclamation: Returning disturbed land to a form and productivity in conformity with a predetermined
land management plan or a government approved plan or permit.
Reclamation guarantee: A binding commitment payable to a governmental agency in the event that
decommissioning and reclamation of an operation is not completed according to an approved
plan. See bond.
Reclamation Plan: A document that details the specific measures to be taken by the project proponent
(permit holder) to reclaim the project lands during mining operations and after mining and milling
have been completed.
Record of Decision (ROD): A document separate from but associated with an Environmental Impact
Statement which states the decision, identifies all alternatives, specifying which were
environmentally preferable, and states whether all practicable means to avoid environmental
harm from the alternative have been adopted, and if not, why not (40 CFR 1 505.2).
Recovery plan (ESA): A plan developed by the Fish and Wildlife Service for the recovery of listed
species.
Resident: A species, which is found in a particular habitat for a particular time period (i.e. winter
resident, summer resident, year-round) as opposed to those found only when passing through on
migration.
Richter Scale: A numerical (logarithmic) measure of earthquake intensity.
Rills: Small erosional channels or grooves made by water.
Riparian: A type of ecological community that occurs adjacent to streams and rivers and is directly
influenced by water. It is characterized by certain types of vegetation, soils, hydrology and
fauna and requires free or unbound water or conditions more moist than that normally found in
the area.
Riparian zone: Terrestrial areas where the vegetation and microclimate are influenced by perennial
and/or intermittent water, associated high water tables and soils which exhibit some wetness
characteristics, this habitat is transitional between true bottom land wetlands and upland
terrestrial habitats.
Riprap: A layer of large, broken rock placed together irregularly to prevent erosion of embankments,
causeways, or other surfaces.
Road density: The number of miles of road per square mile of land.
ROS: Recreational Opportunity Spectrum - Used in describing potential recreational uses of an area.
Runoff: Precipitation that is not retained on the site where it falls, not absorbed by the soil; natural
drainage away from an area.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 7-23
Runout: The distance a potential waste rock or embankment failure would have to travel to impact a
stream, road or another facility.
s
SADT: Seasonal average daily traffic.
Safety factor: A safety factor is a ratio of resisting forces to driving forces. By determining a
structure's safety factor, a numerical index of stability is obtained.
SAG mill: Semi-Autogenous Grinding Mill - A mill which uses the ore itself as a grinding medium and
supplements with steel balls as required to obtain the proper size.
Salmonid: Any of a family of elongate soft-finned fishes (such as salmon and trout).
Scarified: Land in which the topsoil has been broken up or loosened in preparation for regeneration by
direct seeding or natural seedfall. Also refers to ripping or loosening road surfaces to a specified
depth for obliteration or "putting a road or piece of land to bed".
Scenic quality: The degree of harmony, contrasts, and variety within a landscape; the overall
impression retained after driving through, walking through, or flying over an area of land and/or
water.
Scenic resources: The Forest Service manages viewsheds as a resource, establishing specific
management objectives for different areas of Forest Service land.
Scoping process: A part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process; early and open
Activities used to determine the scope and significance of the issues, and the range of actions;
alternatives, and impacts to be considered in an Environmental Impact Statement (40 CFR
1501.7).
SCS: U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service.
Sedentary organisms: Not migratory; staying in one place; stationary.
Sediment: Earth material transport, suspended, or deposited by water; also, the same material once it
has been deposited.
Seismicity: The likelihood of an area being subject to natural earthquakes; the relative frequency,
magnitude, and kind of natural earthquakes.
Sensitive species: Plant or animal species which are susceptible or vulnerable to activity impacts or
habitat alterations. Those species that have appeared in the Federal Register as proposed for
classification or are under consideration for official listing as endangered or threatened species,
that are on an official State list, or that are recognized by the Regional Forester as needing
special management to prevent placement on Federal or State lists.
Sensitivity level: A particular degree of measure of viewer interest in and concern for the scenic quality
of the landscape.
Selective blasting: Blasting of pit walls and benches for reclamation to create either slopes or natural
appearing cliffs.
SEPA: State Environmental Policy Act.
Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 7-24 CHAPTER 7 - GLOSSARY June 1995
Serai: A biotic community which is a developmental, transitory stage in an ecologic succession.
SHPO: State Historic Preservation Office.
Short-term impacts: Impacts occurring during project construction and operation, and normally ceasing
upon project closure and reclamation. Each resource, by necessity, may vary in its definition of
short-term.
Significant: Requires consideration of both context and intensity. Context means that the significance
of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such as society as a whole, and the affected
region, interests, and locality. Intensity refers to the severity of impacts. The severity of an
impact should be weighted along with the likelihood of its occurrence.
Slurry: A watery mixture or suspension of insoluble matter such as mud or lime.
Snag: A standing dead tree from which the leaves and most of the branches have fallen.
Snow intercept thermal cover (SI/T): Vegetation that reduces energy expense due to movement and
temperature regulation by deer, and provides forage during periods of deep snow (18 inches or
greater).
SOX: Sulfur oxides, including sulfur dioxide (S02). A product of vehicle tailpipe emissions.
SO2: Sulfur dioxide. Used in the INCO Process to assist in cyanide destruction.
Socioeconomic: Pertaining to, or signifying the combination or interaction of social and economic
factors.
Soil horizon: A layer of soil material approximately parallel to the land surface differing from adjacent
genetically related layers in physical, chemical and biological properties.
Soil pedon: A three-dimensional body of soil with lateral dimensions large enough to permit the study of
horizon shapes and relations.
Soil productivity: The natural capacity of a soil to produce a specified plant or sequence of plants under
a specified system of management. Productivity is generally dependent on available soil
moisture and nutrients availability, and length of growing season.
Soil profile: A vertical section of the soil through all its horizons and extending into the parent material
or to a depth of 60 inches.
Solid waste: Garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air
pollution control facility and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semi-solid, or
contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, and agricultural
operations, and from community activities.
Sound level (dBA): The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the
A-weighing filter network. The A-weighing filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high
frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the response of the human ear and
gives good correlation with subjective reactions to noise.
SPCC: Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan - a plan which the EPA requires having on file
within six months of project inception. It is a contingency plan for avoidance of, containment
of, and response to hazardous materials spills or leaks.
Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 7 25
Special Use Permit: A permit issued under established laws and regulations to an individual,
organization, or company for occupancy or use of Federal or State lands for some special
purpose.
Stand diversity: Any attribute that makes one timber stand biologically or physically different from other
stands. The difference can be measured by, but not limited to: different age classes; species;
densities; or non-tree floristic composition.
Standard: A statement which describes a condition when a job is done properly. Standards show how
well something should be done, rather than what should be done.
Standards and Guidelines: Principles specifying conditions or levels of environmental quality to be
achieves.
Stream gradient: The rate of fall or loss of elevation over the physical length of a segment or total
stream usually expressed in feet per feet {%).
Subsidence: A local lowering of surface land caused by the collapse of rock and soil into an
underground void; it can result in stability failures such as landslides and mine roof cave-ins.
Substantive comment: A comment that provides factual information, professional opinion, or informed
judgement germane to the action being proposed.
Succession: The progression of plant communities that occurs on a site that previously contained a
plant community that was removed by disturbances such as fire or logging. An orderly process
of biotic community development that involves changes in species, structure, and community
processes with time.
Suitability: The appropriateness of applying certain resource management practices to a particular area
of land, as determined by an analysis of the economic and environmental consequences and the
alternative uses foregone. A unit of land may be suitable for a variety of individual or combined
management practices. (FSM1905).
Synthetic liner (see HOPE and VLDPE): A protective layer composed of man-made materials installed
along the bottom, sides and/or top of a disposal area to reduce the migration of fluids into or out
of the disposal area.
Take (ESA): To harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, trap or collect, or attempt to engage in any
such conduct.
Tailings: The non-economic constituents of the ground ore material that remains after the valuable
minerals have been removed from raw materials by milling.
Talus: Heaps of coarse debris at the foot of cliffs and steep slopes resulting from gravity transport and
weathering processes.
Tank cyanidation: The process of extracting gold from ore in enclosed containers such as concrete
and/or steel tanks.
TDS: Total Dissolved Solids - Any finely divided materials suspended in liquids such as water with a
diameter smaller than a few hundred micrometers.
Crown Jewel Mine f Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 7-26 CHAPTER 7 - GLOSSARY
Terrestrial: Of or relating to the earth, soil, land; an inhabitant of the earth or land.
Texture: The visual manifestation of the interplay of light and shadow created by variations in the
surface of an object.
Thermal cover: Cover used by animals to lessen the effects of weather.
THP: Total petroleum hydrocarbons.
Threatened species: Those plants or animal species likely to become endangered species throughout all
or a significant portion of their range within the foreseeable future.
Thiourea: A solvent used for the extraction of metals from finely crushed ores.
Third-party contractor: An independent firm contracted by a government agency to perform work
related to a proposed action of another organization; due to the financial and contractual
arrangements governing such relationships, the third-party contractor has no financial or other
interest in the decision to be reached on the project.
Timber slash: The residue left on the ground after tree falling and tending, and/or accumulating there as
a result of storm, fire, girdling, or poisoning. It includes unutilized logs, uprooted stumps,
broken or uprooted stems, the heavier branchwood, etc.
TOC: Total Organic Carbon.
Topography: A configuration of a surface including its relief, elevation, and the portion of its natural and
human-created features.
Toxicity tests: Refers to predescribed laboratory analysis generally used to determine the degree of
danger posed by a substance to animal or plant life.
tpd: Tons per day.
Transect: A sample area in the form of a long narrow continuous strip that is used for the tabulation of
data.
TRICO: Tri-County Economic Development District.
TSP: Total Suspended Participates. Any finely divided material (solid or liquid) that is airborne with an
aerodynamic diameter smaller than a few hundred micrometers.
TSS: Total Suspended Sediment, as it applies to sediments in streams.
Turbidity: Reduced water clarity resulting from the presence of suspended matter.
TWHIP: Tonasket Wildlife Habitat Inventory Procedures.
u
Unavoidable effects: Many effects which could occur from the Project can be eliminated or minimized
by management requirements and constraints and mitigation measures. Effects that cannot be
eliminated are identified as unavoidable.
USDA: United States Department of Agriculture.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 7-27
USFWS: United States Fish and Wildlife Service - United States Department of Interior.
USGS: United States Geological Survey-United States Department of Interior.
Underflow: Movement of water through subsurface material.
Understory: A foliage layer lying beneath and shaded by the main canopy of a forest.
V
Variety Class: A rating system that classifies the landscape into different degrees of variety. This
determines those landscapes which are most important and those which are of lesser value from
the standpoint of scenic quality.
Viable population: A population which has adequate numbers and dispersion of reproductive individuals
to ensure the continued existence of the species population on the planning area. (Okanogan
National Forest) (FSM 1905).
Visual absorption capability: The physical capacity of a landscape to support proposed development and
still maintain its inherent visual character.
Visual management system: The system devised by the Forest Service in the early 1970's to
incorporate visual values into their forest management system. It involves classifying
landscapes, determining visual objectives, understanding how much change a landscape can
absorb, and mitigating impacts so that visual quality objectives are met.
Visual Quality Objective (VQO): Degree of acceptable alteration of the natural landscape. These include
preservation, retention, partial retention, modification, maximum modification, and
enhancement. Used by the Forest Service in classifying scenic resources of an area.
visual sensitivity levels: A three-level rating system used to delineate areas receiving different amounts
of exposure (present or potential) to user groups with differing attitudes towards changes in
scenic quality. When combined with distance zones and Variety Class, make up Visual Quality
Objectives.
VLDPE: Very Low Density Polyethylene - a low density man-made material used for liners. This
material deforms with a low probability of puncturing or splitting. Seams are heat welded
instead of glued, thus preventing rupture.
w
WAC: Washington Administrative Code.
WAD: Weak Acid Dissociable - refers to a testing procedure to measure the amount of cyanide that can
be chemically liberated using a prescribed mixture of diluted acids.
WADFW: Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife.
WADIMR: Washington State Department of Natural Resource.
WADOE: Washington State Department of Ecology.
WADOT: Washington State Department of Transportation.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 7 28 CHAPTER 7 - GLOSSARY June 1995
Waste rock: Waste rock is the non-ore rock that is removed to access the ore zone. It contains no gold
or gold below the economic cutoff level, and must be removed to gain access to the ore zone.
Water balance: A measure of continuity of water flow in a fixed or open system.
Watershed: The entire land area that contributes water to a particular drainage system or stream.
Water quality: The interaction between various parameters that determines the usability or non-usability
of water for on-site and downstream uses. Major parameters that affect water quality include:
temperature, turbidity, suspended sediment, conductivity, dissolved oxygen, pH, specific ions,
discharge and fecal coliform.
Weathering: The process whereby larger particles of soils and rock are reduced to Finer particles by
wind, water, temperature changes, and plant and bacteria action.
Weir: A device (as a notch in a dam) for determining the quantity of water flowing over it from
measurements of the depth of water over the crest or sill, and known dimensions of the device.
Wetlands: Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances, do support a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include
swamps, marshes, bogs, etc. (See jurisdictional wetlands).
Wilderness: Land designated by Congress as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation
System.
Wind rose: A diagram showing the relative frequency of winds blowing from different directions.
XYZ
Xanthate: An organic compound which is used as a chemical collecting agent. They are the principal
collecting agents for heavy and precious metals in sulfide and oxidized materials.
XRF: X-ray fluorescence analysis.
10-year recurrence interval flood: A flood that occurs on the average once every 10 years.
10-year, 24-hour event: The precipitation that is predicted to occur during a 24-hour period with a 10-
year recurrence interval.
25-year, 24-hour event: The precipitation that is predicted to occur during a 24 hour period with a 25-
year recurrence interval.
404 Permit: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act specifies that anyone wishing to place dredged or fill
materials into the waters of the United States and adjacent jurisdictional wetlands shall apply to
the U.S. Army Corps, of Engineers for approval. A permit issued by the Army Corps of
Engineers for these activities is known as a 404 permit.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Chapter 8
List Of Agencies, Organizations, And Individuals To
Whom Copies Of The DEIS Were Sent
-------
-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 8 1
8.0 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS & INDIVIDUALS
TO WHOM COPIES OF THE DEIS WERE SENT
Copies of the DEIS are available for review at the following public locations:
Okanogan National Forest
Forest Supervisor's Office
1240 South Second Avenue
Okanogan, WA 98840
Tonasket Ranger District
1 West Winesap
Tonasket, WA 98855
Bureau of Land Management
Wenatchee Resource Area
915 Walla Walla Street
Wenatchee, WA 98801
Bureau of Land Management
Spokane District Office
1103 N. Fancher Road
Spokane, WA 99212-1275
Washington Department of Ecology
300 Desmond Drive
Lacey, WA 98503
Washington Department of Ecology
Central Regional Office
106 South 6th Avenue
Yakima, WA 98902-3387
Washington Department of Ecology
Eastern Regional Office
North 4601 Monroe Street, Suite 100
Spokane, WA 99205-1295
Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks
Mine Development Reviews
Fifth Floor
1312 Blanshard Street
Victoria, BC V8V 1X5
Environment Canada
Environmental Assessment Coordination
224 West Esplanade
North Vancouver, BC V7M 3H7
Brewster Public Library
1206 Columbia Avenue
Brewster, WA 98812
Chelan Public Library
317 E. Johnson
Chelan, WA 98816
Colville Public Library
195 S. Oak
Colville, WA 99114
Grand Coulee Public Library
Grand Coulee, WA 99133
North Central Regional Library
230 Old Station Road
Wenatchee, WA 98804
Omak Public Library
Box J
30 S. Ash
Omak, WA 98841
Oroville Public Library
1276 Main
Oroville, WA 98844
Republic Public Library
1 94 S. Clark Avenue
Republic, WA
Seattle Public Library (2)
Government Publications Department
1000 4th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
Tonasket Public Library
Box 629
209 S. Whitcomb Avenue
Tonasket, WA 98855
Twisp Public Library
P.O. Box 237
Twisp, WA 98856
Wenatchee Public Library
310 Douglas
Wenatchee, WA 98801
Winthrop Public Library
P.O. Box 519
Winthrop, WA 98862
Village of Midway
R.J. Hatton
Box 160
Midway, BC VOH 1MO
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 8-2
CHAPTER 8 - AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS
June 7995
Copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) or Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Summary (Summary) were distributed to the following individuals, organizations, and government
agencies. Those individuals specifically requesting copies of the DEIS or Summary were mailed a copy.
Copies of the DEIS were distributed free of charge. If supplies of the DEIS are completely distributed,
additional copies may be reproduced and made available to interested parties.
8.1
FEDERAL AGENCIES
Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation
Western Office of Review
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Nespelem, Washington
Maurice Socula
Bureau of Land Management
Oregon State Office
Bureau of Mines
Paul A. Pierce
Ecology and Conservation Office
Donna Wietling
Environmental Protection
Agency; Office of
Environmental Review
Environmental Protection
Agency; EIS Review Coordinator
Federal Aviation Administration,
Northwest Region; Office of the
Regional Administrator
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Advisor on
Environmental Quality;
Environmental Compliance
Branch
Federal Highway Administration
Region 10, Regional
Administrator
Federal Railroad Administration
Research and Special Program
Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Office of Transportation and
Regulatory Affairs
General Services Administration
Office of Planning and Analysis
Interstate Commerce
Commission
Energy and Environment
Northwest Power
Planning Council
Office of Economic Opportunity
Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission
William Goggins
United States Department of
Agriculture; Forest Science Lab,
Pacific Northwest Range
Experimental Station
George Scherer
United States Department of
Agriculture; Forest Service
Colville National Forest
United States Department of
Agriculture; Forest Service
Methow Ranger District
United States Department of
Agriculture; Forest Service
Republic Ranger District
United States Department of
Agriculture; Forest Service
Pacific Northwest Region
United States Department
of Agriculture; Forest Service
Detroit Ranger District
Vincent Puleo
United States Department of
Agriculture; Office of Equal
Opportunity
Robert Sranco
United States Department
of Agriculture; OPA
Publication Stockroom
United States Department
of Agriculture; Animal & Plant
Health Inspection Service
Deputy Director
United States Department
of Agriculture; Office of
Equal Opportunity
United States Department
of Agriculture; Soil
Conservation Services
United States Department
of Agriculture; National
Agricultural Library
United States Department of the
Army; Corps of Engineers
Tim Erkel
United States Department
of Commerce; NOAA Ecology
and Conservation Division
United States Department of
Commerce; Northwest Regional
Unit of National Marine
Fisheries Service Habitat
Conservationist Division
United States Department
of Defense; U.S.
Army Engineers Division
United States Department
of Defense; U.S. Navy
United States Department
of Defense; Naval Oceanography
Division U.S. Naval Observatory
United States Department
of Energy, Office of
Environmental Compliance
Director
United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development
Office of Environment and
Energy Director
United States Department of
Housing and Urban Development
Environmental Officer
United States Department
of the Interior, Office of
Environmental Affairs
United States Department
of Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service
Tom Reed
United States Department
of Transportation, Assistant
Secretary for Policy
United States Department
of Transportation
United States Coast Guard
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 8-3
8.2 STATE GOVERNMENT
Montana Department of State Lands
Mike DaSilva
Oregon Department of Geology
Allan H. Throop
Washington Department of Community, Trade, and
Economic Development
Archaeology and Historic Preservation
Gregory Griffith
Washington Department of Natural Resources
Colville
Washington Department of Natural Resources
Olympia
Dave Norman
Washington Department of Natural Resources
Constance Iten
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Jeff Tayer
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Gordy Zillges
Washington Department of Health
Tom Justus
Washington Parks and Recreation Commission
Dave Heiser
Washington State,
Office of the Governor
Jack DeYonge
Washington Department of Transportation
Fred Suter
8.3 COUNTY & LOCAL GOVERNMENT
City of Okanogan
City of Omak
City of Oroville
City of Republic
Ferry County Planning Dept.
Okanogan County Planning Dept.
Okanogan County Assessor
Jim Hand
Okanogan County Health District
Okanogan County Health District
Jacqueline Bellinger
Okanogan County P.U.D.
Okanogan Department of Public Works
County Engineer
Okanogan Department of Public Works
Joseph Nott
Oroville Chamber of Commerce
Tonasket Chamber of Commerce
Town of Tonasket
Thomas W. Fancher
Okanogan County Board of Commissioners
Okanogan, WA 98840
8.4
TRIBAL OFFICIALS
Colville Confederated Tribes
Maureen Murphy
Colville Confederated Tribes
Dean Pilkington
Colville Confederated Tribes
Patti Stone
Colville Confederated Tribes
Office of Preservation Attorney
Stephen H. Suagee
Yakima Indian Nation
Fisheries Resource Management
Lee Carlson
8.5 CANADIAN GOVERNMENT
Boundary Forest District
Forestry Manager
Ken Weaver
Environment Canada
Stephen Sheehan
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 8-4
CHAPTER 8 - AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS
June 1995
Ministry of Agriculture
District Agriculturist
John E. Parsons
Ministry of Energy
District Inspector
Ed Beswick
Ministry of Energy, Mines,
and Petroleum Resources
A.L. O'Byran
Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks
Gary Alexander
Ministry of Environment Lands & Parks
Peter Jarman
Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans
Gordon Ennis
8.6
ELECTED OFFICIALS
Member U.S. House of Representatives
Richard Hastings
Member U.S. House of Representatives
George Nethercutt
United States Senator
Slade Gorton
United States Senator
Patty Murray
Clyde Ballard
Scott Barr
Dale Foreman
Steve Fuhrman
Bob Morton
George L. Sellar
8.7 BUSINESS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS
Michael Chaffee
Fred Albert
James L. Arnett
Steve Auker
Jeff Austin
Larry L. Bailey
Bill Baird
Ian Barnett
Ducks Unlimited Canada
John and Andrea Basile
Gary D. Bates
Owen Berio
Lori Bialic
Stan Bianchi
Kevin M. Brackney
Brian Brademeyer
Patrick Brady
Jan Braunswich
Richard J. Brooks
Diana & Ernie Brooks
Jerry W. Cain
May M. Carrell
Cates & Erb Inc.
Virginia Causey
David Chambers
SCLDF
Card Chambers
Victoria Chiech
Shawn Clough
Ducks Unlimited Canada
Amos E. Coffelt - PE, LS
Civil Engineer - Land Surveyor
Penny Cole
Jim Collord
Concerned Citizens For Responsible
Mining
Lon & Eleanor Cook Sr.
Richard & Bonnie Coppock
Sam Cupp
John Day
Richard S. Dipretoro
John J. Donoghue
Sun Cove Resort
Eldon W. Doyle
Harris Dunkelberger
Lars Durban
Max W. Eckenburg
Common Sense Resource League
Larry L. Emmett
Delmer B. English
Steven Excell
Paragon
Joseph E. Falkoski
Roger Flynn
Susan Freiberg
Carla M. Frey
Stephen & Karen Fry
Marlene Fulper
Sarah Gage
Roger & Dianne Gardinier
Marie Garrett
Parametrix
Paul E. Garrett
The Ohio National Life
Gazette - Tribune
John Gedolie
Lee Gochnour
Don Gray
Greater Ecosystem Alliance
Mikkel Gredvig
Ross Gregg
Willian Gregory
Laurie L. Grimes
Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 85
John Grindeland
Bill Harpur
Lois Hartwig
Wenatchee Library
Arthur Heinemann
Carloe Herrera
Robert Mickey
Department of Geography
Douglas B. Hinton
Osoyoos Lake State Park
D.C. Hodges
Daisy Hollis
David Hoppens
Midnight Systems
Susan Iverson
Roger Jackson
Sallie Jacobsen
Mark Jasumback
Bob and Denise Jewett
Tom Johnson
Paul C. Jones
Kettle Range Conservation Group
Keystone Gold, Inc.
David & Hanna Kliegman
P. Robert Klonoff
Terry D. Knapton
Lake Roosevelt Forum
Jeffery A. Kocol
Pete A. Koochin
Dayna Kruger
Melvin E. Kublmann
Ann Laurie
Sanchez, Paulson, Mitchell &
Laurie
Bonnie Lawrence
Louis A. Lepry, Jr.
Mr. & Mrs. Paul Loe
Robert Lopresti
Wilson Library
Roger S. Lorenz
Jim & Colleen Lourie
Al Maas
Jack & Jody Mack
Highland Mining Company
Maurice Magee
Patricia Maher
Mike Malmquist
Parsons, Behel, and Latimer
David Mann
Bricklin and Gendler
B.L. Manning
Marybeth Marks
Humbolt National Forest
Hank Marshall
Fred Marshall
Michael & Virgina Mazzetti
Methow Valley Citizens' Council
Bruce C. Mcauley
Larry Michael
H. Mischou
Rivers Council of WA
The Mountaineers
Pierre Movsset - Jones
Dept. of Mining Engineering
Linda Mycek
Terry L. Myers
David L. Nelson
David L. Nelson & Assoc. Inc.
Northwest Mining Association
Okanogan Highlands Alliance
Shawn Olsen
Ted Olson
Jeff Otoole
Darton Overby
Jim Owens
Cogan, Owens, Cogan
Lisa Parsons
William Patric
Mineral Policy Center
Stuart Paulus
ENSR
Tom Payne
Geraldine Payton
J. Mark Perkins
Craig M. Peterson
Tom Powers
Economics Dept.
University of Montana
Doug Prichard
Dorothy Rathbone
Bob Rathvon
Alex J. Redford
A. Ringel
Pamela Rivers
Riverview Market
Paul Robinson
SWRIC
Joan Rolph
Al and Dona Rousseau
Myron Sawiuk
Rebecca Sawyer
Hecla Mining Company
Michael W. Schlueter
Jennifer Schmidt
KPLU
Sigmund D. Schwarz
S.D. Schwarz and Assoc.,Inc.
William and Paula Sevey
Judy & Dana Shellenbarger
Linda Sherman
Environmental Strategies
Agnes Shunn
Silvermoon
Charles & Marya Silverthorn
Bill M. Skelly
Carl & Susan Smith
Nettie Smoot
Paul Sorensen
William K. Steele
Greg Stott
Susan Stringfellow
James H. Stumpf
Kristen & Donald R. Super
Harvey Swanson
Thomas M. Sweeney
Ed Thiele
Scott & Nancy Thompson
Richard Thorpe
Richard Trenholine
Steven Tucker
Everette Turner
Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 86 CHAPTER 8 - AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS June 1995
Marion & Lela Turner
Muriel & Gilbert Turner
Adam Turner
Larry Tuttle
Theodor and Myrtle Tweten
Paul Urban
Mark Utting
Pacific Groundwater Group
Leroy J. Warner
Jim Weaver
Elton Welke
Microsoft Corporation
John & Betty White
Jeff & Annette White
John Williams
Tame TIC
William Willoughby
Greg Wingard
Hawley Woolschlager
George Woolen
K. Yockey
Paul Yost
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Chapter 9
Index
-------
-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 9-1
9.0 INDEX
Access: S-9, S-11, S-16, S-16, S-17, S-18, S-
21, S-22, S-23, S-25, S-27, S-28, S-29, S-38,
S-43, S-56; 1-6, 1-14; 2-5, 2-6, 2-7, 2-8, 2-10,
2-12, 2-13, 2-15, 2-19, 2-24, 2-34, 2-36, 2-
40, 2-41, 2-53, 2-54, 2-26, 2-57, 2-59, 2-60,
2-62, 2-63, 2-65, 2-76, 2-69, 2-71, 2-73, 2-
75, 2-77, 2-80, 2-82, 2-83, 2-85, 2-26, 2-87,
2-91, 2-92, 2-93, 2-95, 2-97, 2-98, 2-101, 2-
104, 2-107; 3-32, 3-46, 3-48, 3-49, 3-55, 3-
87, 3-114, 3-116, 3-122, 3-126, 3-134, 3-149,
3-151, 3-154, 3-155, 3-159, 3-164, 3-168, 3-
170, 3-174, 3-180, 3-181, 3-188, 3-189, 3-
216; 4-2, 4-5, 4-15, 4-16, 4-20, 4-22, 4-26, 4-
46, 4-50, 4-52, 4-53, 4-54, 4-55, 4-56, 4-58,
4-60, 4-64, 4-83, 4-84, 4-86, 4-87, 4-88, 4-
93, 4-94, 4-99, 4-100, 4-110, 4-117, 4-118,
4-11 9, 4-1 20, 4-121, 4-123, 4-1 27, 4-130, 4-
132, 4-138, 4-139, 4-141, 4-143, 4-145, 4-
146, 4-147, 4-148, 4-149
Acid Rock Drainage (ARD): S-30, S-50; 1-11; 2-
109; 3-9, 3-12, 3-24; 4-39, 4-142
Air Quality: S-5, S-8, S-28, S-30, S-43, S-44;
1-8, 1-10, 1-11, 1-12; 2-49, 2-86, 2-104, 2-
105, 2-109; 3-1, 3-2, 3-39; 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4,
4-5, 4-6, 4-8, 4-88
Alternatives
S-31, S-36,
55, S-56, S
1-7, 1-9, 1-
13, 2-17, 2
2-80, 2-85,
14, 3-16, 3
3-190; 4-1,
10, 4-11, 4
4-20, 4-22,
30, 4-31, 4
4-44, 4-46,
56, 4-57, 4
: S-1, S-4, S-10, S
S-43, S-50, S-51,
-57, S-58, S-60; 1-
10, 1-15; 2-1, 2-2,
-22, 2-41, 2-51, 2-
2-86, 2-96, 2-108
-18, 3-19, 3-25, 3-
4-2, 4-3, 4-4, 4-5,
-12, 4-13, 4-14, 4-
4-23, 4-24, 4-25,
-34, 4-39, 4-40, 4-
4-47, 4-48, 4-53,
-58
-18, S-23, S-27,
S-52, S-54, S-
1, 1-3, 1-5, 1-6,
2-3, 2-5, 2-8, 2-
53, 2-71, 2-74,
; 3-11, 3-12, 3-
26, 3-87, 3-140,
4-6, 4-8, 4-9, 4-
17, 4-18, 4-19,
4-26, 4-27, 4-
41, 4-42, 4-43,
4-54, 4-55, 4-
Ancillary Facilities: S-1 5, S-16, S-17, S-21, S-
22, S-25, S-17; 2-56, 2-60, 2-65, 2-69, 2-73,
2-77; 4-21, 4-124
Average Daily Traffic (ADT): S-57, S-58, S-59;
3-174, 3-180, 3-181, 3-182; 4-5, 4-84, 4-11 8,
4-138, 4-140, 4-141, 142, 4-143, 4-145, 4-
146, 4-147, 4-148, 4-149, 4-150, 4-151
Blasting: S-4, S-43, S-56, 1-11, 1-12, 2-43, 2-
44, 2-54, 2-57, 2-59. 2-61, 2-67, 2-71, 2-75,
2-79, 2-89, 2-91, 2-100, 1-103; 3-147; 4-4, 4-
6, 4-9, 4-10, 4-31, 4-34, 4-35, 4-41, 4-47, 4-
48, 4-49, 4-50, 4-73, 4-85, 4-86, 4-94, 4-104,
4-11 2, 4-113,4-119, 4-1 27, 4-138, 4-1 52, 4-
184
Canopy: 2-99; 3-84, 3-91, 3-93, 3-95, 3-96, 3-
98, 3-100, 3-121, 3-125, 3-126, 3-129, 3-
130, 3-131, 3- 134, 3-135; 4-19, 4-22, 4-46,
4-69, 4-74, 4-79
Chesaw: S-1, S-11, S-1 5, S-1 6, S-17, S-21, S-
22, S-23, S-25, S-29, S-30, S-37, S-38, S-29,
S-40, S-41, S-43, S-45, S-56, S-58; 1-1, 1-12;
2-5, 2-8, 2-40, 2-41, 2-43, 2-44, 2-49, 2-56,
2-60, 2-62, 2-56, 2-69, 2-73, 2-77, 2-79, 2-
91, 2-94, 2-101, 2-110; 3-5, 3-32, 3-33, 3-91,
3-114, 3-115, 3-130, 3- 140, 3-144, 3-147,
3-151, 3-154, 3-156, 3-159, 3-168, 3-171, 3-
180, 3-181, 3-191, 3-193, 3-195, 3-196, 3-
197, 3-198, 3-199, 3-202, 3-203, 3-205, 3-
206, 3-207, 3- 208, 3-214, 3-215, 3-216; 4-3,
4-78, 4-84, 4-87, 4-90, 4-100, 4-103, 4-104,
4-110, 4-112, 4-113, 4-114, 4-115, 4-116, 4-
117, 4-118, 4-121, 4-122, 4-124, 4-130, 4-
141, 4-145, 4-146, 4-147, 4-148, 4-149, 4-
150, 4-156, 4-156, 4-164, 4-165, 4-166, 4-
170, 4-172, 4-182
Climate: S-30; 2-97; 3-1, 3-2, 3-39, 3-119, 3-
215; 4-8
Closure: 2-23, 2-29, 2-51, 2-54, 2-56; 2-3, 2-
6, 2-15, 2-16, 2-34, 2-54, 2-57, 2-61, 2-61, 2-
63, 2-66, 2-67, 2-75, 2-79, 2-81, 2-83, 2-85,
2-86, 2-90, 2-91, 2-92, 2-98, 2-99, 2-104; 3-
113, 3-121, 3-125, 3-126, 3-130, 3-131, 3-
135, 3-155, 3-180, 3-181, 3-182; 4-17, 4-29,
4-58, 4-60, 4-75, 4-77, 4-78, 4-79, 4-84, 4-
86, 4-87, 4-89, 4-11 7, 4-11 8, 4-119, 4-120,
4-121, 4-122, 4-138, 4-144, 4-151, 4-152, 4-
161, 4-162, 4-163, 4-169
Consequences: S-4, S-43, S-52; 1-9, 1-10, 1-
11; 2-1, 2-24, 2-53, 2-85, 2-108; 3-1, 3-190
Cultural Resources: S-8; 1-11; 3-1; 4-136, 4-
138, 4-139, 4-185, 4-186
Crown Jewel Mine + Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 92
9.0 INDEX
June 1995
Developed Recreation: S-37; 3-149, 3-151; 4-
119, 4-120
Dewatering: S-7, S-50, S-51; 1-13; 2-19, 2-31,
2-33, 2-37, 2-47, 2-79, 2-83, 2-105; 4-25, 4-
26, 4-27, 4-32, 4-38, 4-44, 4-46, 4-57, 4-67
Dispersed Recreation: S-37, S-56; 2-80, 2-84;
3-149, 3-151, 3-154; 4-117, 4-120, 4-151, 4-
153, 4-187
Diversity: S-7, S-48; 1-5, 1-13; 2-98, 101-113;
3-90, 3-96, 3-98, 3-100, 3-108, 3-116, 3-199,
3-141; 4-16, 4-57, 4-63, 4-63, 4-92, 4-94, 4-
97, 4-99
Economic Conditions: S-58; 1-14; 3-204; 4-
154, 4-165, 4-176
Education: S-40; 2-92, 2-97, 2-103; 3-196, 3-
203, 3-205
Employment: S-8, S-11, S-15, S-16, S-17, S-
18, S-21, S-22, S-23, S-25, S-26, S-39, S-40,
S-45, S-58, S-60; 1-14; 2-110; 3-199, 3-202,
3-203, 3-204, 3-214; 4-154, 4-155, 4-156, 4-
157, 4-158, 4-161, 4-162, 4-163, 4-164, 4-
165, 4-168, 4-172, 4-173, 4-186
Energy: S-9, S-44; 1-10, 1-11; 2-24, 2-32, 2-
109; 3-114, 3-120; 4-85, 4-174, 4-176, 4-185
Erosion and Sediment Control: S-28; 2-82, 2-
90, 2-92
Fish/Fisheries: S-5, S-6, S-7, S-9, S-29, S-36,
S-39, S-44; 1-3, 1-10, 1-11, 1-13; 2-37, 2-92,
2-97, 2-100, 2-101, 2-106, 2-107, 2-109, 2-
113; 3-42, 3-87, 3-90, 3-93, 3-95, 3-96, 3-
100, 3-102, 3-130, 3-132, 3-138, 3-139, 3-
140, 3-141, 3-154, 3-170, 3-199, 3-215; 4-66,
4-67, 4-68, 4-69, 4-70, 4-75, 4-78, 4-80, 4-
82, 4-86, 4-88, 4-90, 4-91, 4-99, 4-100, 4-
101, 4-102, 4-119, 4-121, 4-122, 4-182, 4-
183, 4-187
Forest Plan: S-48, 1-3, 1-5, 1-6; 2-3, 2-5, 2-53,
2-113; 3-108, 3-11 5, 3-116, 3-11 9, 3-120, 3-
124, 3-125, 3-126, 3-128, 3-129, 3-130, 3-
134, 3-136, 3-149; 4-59, 4-71, 4-73, 4-93, 4-
94, 4-95, 4-99
Frog Pond: 2-16, 2-75, 2-98, 2-99, 2-107; 3-
43, 3-55, 3-56, 3-60, 3-90, 3-127, 3-128, 3-
137, 3-154; 4-15, 4-29, 4-30, 4-38, 4-41, 4-
42, 4-43, 4-44, 4-48, 4-51, 4-53, 4-54, 4-55,
4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 4-75, 4-136
Geochemical Testing: S-4, 1-11; 3-9, 3-11, 3-
19, 3-21, 3-24, 3-77; 4-27, 4-30, 4-34, 4-40,
4-42, 4-47, 4-48, 4-66, 4-69, 4-88
Geology: S-4, S-28, 2-30, S-44, S-50; 1-3, 1-
10, 1-11; 2-8, 2-59, 2-90, 2-109; 3-1, 3-5, 3-
7, 3-56, 3-61, 3-63; 4-11, 4-12, 4-40, 4-42, 4-
48
Geotechnical: S-4, S-18, S-31, S-44, S-50; 1-
10, 1-11; 2-90, 2-104, 2-106, 2-109; 3-26, 3-
189; 4-12, 4-14, 4-17, 4-18, 4-69
Grazing: S-1, S-3, S-7, S-35, S-28, S-47, S-54;
1-13; 2-80, 2-84, 2-90, 2-97, 2-99, 2-112; 3-
37, 3-52, 3-82, 3-86, 3-90, 3-91, 3-95, 3-96,
3-159, 3-191; 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 4-65, 4-
73, 4-91, 4-92, 4-93, 4-151, 4-153, 4-185
Habitat: S-7, S-8, S-9, S-29, S-36, S-37, S-44,
S-47, S-48, S-55, S-56; 1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-11, 1-
13, 1-14; 2-2, 2-6, 2-49, 2-80, 2-84, 2-95, 2-
96, 2-97, 2-98, 2-99, 2-100, 2-101, 2-103, 2-
107, 2-109, 2-112, 2-113; 3-42, 3-85, 3-87,
3-90, 3-91, 3-93, 3-95, 3-96, 3-100, 3-102,
3-108, 3-11 2, 3-113, 3-11 4, 3-11 5, 3-11 6,
3-119, 3-120, 3-121,
3-125, 3-126, 3-127,
3-131, 3-132, 3-133,
3-137, 3-138, 3-139,
3-147, 3-151, 3-155,
3-118
3-124
3-130
3-136
3-142
4-57
4-69
4-76
4-83
4-90
4-97
3-122, 3-122,
3-128, 3-129,
3-134, 3-135,
3-140,
3-159;
4-58, 4-61, 4-65, 4-66, 4-67,
4-70, 4-71, 4-72, 4-73, 4-74,
4-77, 4-78, 4-79, 4-80, 4-81,
4-84, 4-85, 4-86, 4-87, 4-88,
4-91, 4-92, 4-93, 4-94, 4-95,
3-141,
4-16,
4-68,
4-75,
4-82,
4-89,
4-96,
4-98, 4-99, 4-100, 4-101, 4-102,
4-11 8, 4-11 9, 4-1 51, 4-1 53, 4-1 80, 4-1 81,
4-183, 4-185, 4-186, 4-187
Haul Road: S-15, S-16, S-17, S-21, S-22, S-25,
S-27; 2-9, 2-24, 2-44, 2-56, 2-57, 2-60, 2-63,
2-65, 2-67, 2-69, 2-71, 2-73, 2-75, 2-77, 2-
79, 2-81, 2-82, 2-83, 2-86, 2-90, 2-103; 4-3,
4-5, 4-21, 4-30, 4-46, 4-48, 4-50, 4-53, 4-64,
4-110, 4-111, 4-11 5, 4-11 6, 4-117, 4-127, 4-
130, 4-132
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 9-3
Hazardous Materials: S-28, S-29, 2-59; 2-87, 2-
88, 2-89, 2-94, 2-103; 4-31, 4-141, 4-142, 4-
144, 4-145, 4-146, 4-147, 4-148, 4-149, 4-
150
Heritage Resources: S-8, S-38, S-45, S-56, S-
57; 1-10, 1-11; 2-87, 2-110; 3-168, 3-170, 3-
171, 3-174, 3-179; 4-136
Impacts: S-6, S-7, S-8, S-9, S-10, S-23, S-27,
S-29, S-43, S-44, S-47, S-50, S-51, S-52, S-
54, S-55, S-56, S-57, S-58; 1-1, 1-3, 1-7, 1-
11, 1-12, 1-13, 1-14, 1-15; 2-2, 2-3, 2-5, 2-9,
2-12, 2-13, 2-15, 2-24, 2-34, 2-40, 2-41, 2-
52, 2-79, 2-80, 2-81, 2-85, 2686, 2-90, 2-91,
2-96, 2-97, 2-98, 2-99, 2-100, 2-101, 2-104,
2-105, 2-108, 2-109, 2-112; 3-2, 3-7, 3-9, 3-
52, 3-75, 3-86, 3-95, 3-96, 3-100, 3-102, 3-
144, 3-148, 3-155, 3-193; 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 4-4,
4-5, 4-6, 4-8, 4-9, 4-10, 4-12, 4-13, 4-17, 4-
18, 4-19, 4-21, 4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-29, 4-30,
4-31, 4-32, 4-34, 4-36, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-
41, 4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 4-45, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48
Indicator Species: S-7, S-8; 1-13; 3-108, 3-
116, 3-118, 3-129, 3-136
Issues: S-4, S-8, S-10, S-18, S-42, S-45; 1-1,
1-7, 1-9, 1-10, 1-11, 1-15; 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-
104, 2-106, 2-107, 2-108, 2-110; 3-1, 3-142,
3-190, 3-207; 4-1, 4-91, 4-156, 4-166, 4-172
Land Use: S-9, S-23, S-28, S-36, S-37, S-38,
S-42, S-45, S-55, S-58; 1-11, 1-14; 2-52, 2-
80, 2-84, 2-90, 2-97, 2-107, 2-110; 3-73, 3-
84, 3-98, 3-100, 3-108, 3-113, 3-182, 3-191,
3-198, 3-216; 4-16, 4-19, 4-61, 4-71, 4-72, 4-
83, 4-86, 4-92, 4-93, 4-99, 4-151, 4-153, 4-
156, 4-173, 4-185
Law Enforcement: S-40; 3-203, 3-205; 4-164,
4-166, 4-170
Management Areas: 1-5, 1-5; 2-5; 3-108, 3-
116, 3-119, 3-120, 3-124, 3-125; 4-94, 4-151
Myers Creek: S-6, S-9, S-30, S-32, S-34, S-35,
S-36, S-37, S-46, S-56; 1-1, 1-12, 1-13; 2-11,
2-15, 2-24, 2-36, 2-47, 2-49, 2-70, 2-74, 2-
97, 2-98, 2-101, 2-111; 3-5, 3-32, 3-34, 3-36,
3-37, 3-39, 3-44, 3-48, 3-73, 3-81, 3-82, 3-
87, 3-91, 3-93, 3-96, 3-100, 3-102, 3-108, 3-
115, 3-124, 3-127, 3-128, 3-137, 3-138, 3-
154, 3-159, 3-171, 3-181, 3-182, 3-191; 4-12,
4-50, 4-56, 4-57, 4-63, 4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 4-
67, 4-70, 4-71, 4-75, 4-76, 4-90, 4-91, 4-100,
4-110, 4-1 19, 4-124, 4-1 80, 4-1 82, 4-183, 4-
186
Milling Facility: S-1; 2-54, 2-57, 2-63, 2-67, 2-
71, 2-75; 4-51, 4-53, 4-55, 4-83, 4-86, 4-111
Minerals: S-31; 1-6; 2-3, 2-6, 2-19, 2-20, 2-21,
2-75; 3-9, 3-13, 3-20, 3-51, 3-81, 3-191, 3-
215; 4-34, 4-93, 4-176, 4-185
Mining Operation: S-28, S-51, S-56, 2-58; 2-5,
2-6, 2-13, 2-24, 2-29, 2-49, 2-57, 2-63, 2-71,
2-83, 2-86, 2-95, 2-106; 3-9, 3-21, 3-140, 3-
184, 3-193; 4-2, 4-5, 4-8, 4-12, 4-26, 4-27, 4-
29, 4-32, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-48,
4-54, 4-56, 4-59, 4-68, 4-69, 4-79, 4-83, 4-
110, 4112, 4-113, 4-117, 4-121, 4-122, 4-
127, 4-132, 4-151, 4-161, 4-165, 4-166, 4-
168, 4-169, 4-176, 4-182, 4-184, 4-185, 4-
186
Mitigation: S-4, S-27, S-29, S-43, S-55, S-58;
1-1, 1-5, 1-7; 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-51, 2-85, 2-86,
2-90, 2-91, 2-94, 2-96, 2-97, 2-98, 2-99, 2-
100, 2-103, 2-104; 3-140; 4-1, 4-5, 4-27, 4-
31, 4-40, 4-44, 4-50, 4-51, 4-54, 4-57, 4-60,
4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 4-71, 4-72, 4-74, 4-75, 4-
77, 4-78, 4-79, 4-83, 4-87, 4-88, 4-89, 4-99,
4-100, 4-118, 4-123, 4-127, 4-136, 4-138, 4-
141, 4-143, 4-146, 4-147, 4-148, 4-149, 4-
150, 4-151, 4-158, 4-178, 4-182, 4-183, 4-
184, 4-185
Monitoring: S-29, 2-30, S-32, S-33, S-34, S-
37, S-51; 2-1, 2-2, 2-3, 2-1-, 2-27, 2-34, 2-40,
2-54, 2-57, 2-62, 2-66, 2-70, 2-74, 2-78, 2-
81, 2-87, 2-90, 2-91, 2-93, 2-94, 2-104, 2-
105, 2-106, 2-107, 2-108; 3-2, 3-5, 3-35, 3-
37, 3-44, 3-46, 3-47, 3-48, 3-49, 3-52, 3-53,
3-63, 3-64, 3-69, 3-73, 3-75, 3-77, 3-81, 3-
82, 3-96, 3-98, 3-142, 3-144; 4-2, 4-3, 4-25,
4-27, 4-29, 4-31, 4-34, 4-41, 4-44, 4-47, 4-
48, 4-50, 4-51, 4-54, 4-64, 4-69, 4-84, 4-88,
4-89, 4-94, 4-110, 4-184
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): S-1,
S-10; 1-1, 1-5, 1-7, 1-9, 1-10; 2-2, 2-3, 2-5, 2-
6; 3-170, 3-184, 3-193; 4-177
No Action Alternative: S-4, S-10; 1-5; 2-1, 2-3,
2-53, 2-86; 4-1, 4-3, 4-9, 4-11, 4-19, 4-67, 4-
73, 4-104, 4-151
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 94
9.0 INDEX
June 1995
Noise: S-5, S-9, S-28, S-36, S-37, S-45, S-55,
S-56; 1-7, 1-8, 1-10, 1-12, 1-14; 2-11, 2-16,
2-17, 2-24, 2-91, 2-110; 3-1, 3-114, 3-142, 3-
144, 3-147, 3-148; 4-71, 4-72, 4-73, 4-74, 4-
83, 4-84, 4-85, 4-86, 4-92, 4-93, 4-94, 4-101,
4-103, 4-104, 4-110, 4-111, 4-112, 4-113, 4-
114, 4-115, 4-116, 4-117, 4-119, 4-185, 4-
186, 4-187
Old Growth: S-8; 1 -13; 3-11 6, 3-1 25, 3-1 26,
3-131, 3-139, 3-141
Paniculate: S-42; 1-11; 2-105; 3-2, 3-96; 4-2,
4.4, 4-5, 4-6, 4-8
Pit Dewatering: 2-47, 2-105; 4-32, 4-46, 4-57,
4-67
Plan of Operations: S-1, S-2, S-27; 1-1, 1-3, 1-
7, 1-8; 2-3, 2-49, 2-79, 2-88; 3-12, 3-188
Plant Association: S-37; 3-82, 3-84, 3-85, 3-
108, 3-113; 4-74
Population: S-7, S-8, S-9, S-37, S-39, S-40, S-
41, S-42, S-44, S-45, S = 50, S-56, S-58, S-60;
1-5, 1-11, 1-12, 1-13, 1-14; 2-84, 2-97, 2-
101, 2-107, 2-108, 2-109, 2-111; 3-84, 3-85,
3-114, 3-115, 3-121, 3-122, 3-124, 3-125, 3-
129, 3-130, 3-132, 3-133, 3-134, 3-134, 3-
135, 3-136, 3-138, 3-149, 3-151, 3-170, 3-
171, 3-193, 3-195, 3-196, 3-203, 3-207, 3-
214, 3-215, 3-216; 4-3, 4-8, 4-18, 4-21, 4-58,
4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 4-66, 4-69, 4-70, 4-71, 4-
73, 4-80, 4-86, 4-87, 4-88, 4-89, 4-91, 4-92,
4-93, 4-94, 4-99, 4-100, 4-11 8, 4-11 9, 4-1 20,
4-122, 4-153, 4-154, 4-155, 4-157, 4-158, 4-
161, 4-163, 4-164, 4-165, 4-166, 4-167, 4-
169, 4-170, 4-171, 4-172, 4-173, 4-174, 4-
185, 4-186, 4-187
Power Line Corridor: S-38, S-57; 4-46, 4-84, 4-
123, 4-124
Precipitation: S-30, S-31, S-33; 2-20, 2-21, 2-
24, 2-26, 2-27, 2-46, 2-82, 2-84, 2-93; 3-2, 3-
4, 3-5, 3-7, 3-13, 3-19, 3-20, 3-21, 3-23, 3-
24, 3-39, 3-43, 3-52, 3-59, 3-60, 3-64, 3-69,
3-73; 4-30, 4-32, 4-38, 4-39, 4-42, 4-44, 4-
47, 4-55, 4-184
Proposed Disturbance: S-50, S-54; 3-39, 3-188;
4-31, 4-59
Public Involvement: 1-7; 3-198
Range: S-8, S-9, S-10, S-30, S-31, S-32, S-33,
S-34, S-35, S-37, S-41, S-50, S-51, S-54; 1-5,
1-6, 1-10, 1-13, 1-14; 2-1, 2-2, 2-6, 2-21, 2-
22, 2-27, 2-28, 2-29, 2-41, 2-52, 2-80, 2-96;
3-5, 3-11, 3-14, 3-15, 3-18, 3-19, 3-20, 3-21,
3-24, 3-26, 3-31, 3-32, 3-33, 3-34, 3-37, 3-
39, 3-42, 3-43, 3-44, 3-46, 3-48, 3-52, 3-53,
3-59, 3-60, 3-63, 3-64, 3-69, 3-72, 3-73, 3-
75, 3-76, 3-81, 3-82, 3-84, 3-86, 3-91, 3-93,
3-95, 3-96, 3-99, 3-100, 3-108, 3-114, 3-115,
3-11 6, 3-11 8, 3-11 9, 3-1 20, 3-121, 3-1 22, 3-
126, 3-127, 3-128, 3-130, 3-131, 3-132, 3-
133, 3-134, 3-135, 3-136, 3-140, 3-141, 3-
142, 3-144, 3-151, 3-164, 3-170, 3-190, 3-
191, 3-203, 3-206, 3-207, 3-208, 3-216; 4-6,
4-11, 4-18, 4-19, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-25, 4-
27, 4-32, 4-34, 4-35, 4-38, 4-39, 4-41, 4-42,
4-43, 4-44, 4-46, 4-50, 4-51, 4-52, 4-53, 4-
55, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 4-63, 4-70, 71, 4-
72, 4-73, 4-74, 4-75, 4-79, 4-80, 4-81, 4-84,
4-85, 4-89, 4-90, 4-91, 4-92, 4-99, 4-101, 4-
102, 4-113, 4-125, 4-151, 4-157, 4-162, 4-
163, 4-165, 4-167, 4-168, 4-169, 4-171, 4-
172, 4-177, 4-178, 4-182, 4-183, 4-184
Reclamation: S-5, S-6, S-7, S-10, S-11, S-1 5,
S-1 6, S-17, S-1 8, S-21, S-22, S-23, S-25, S-
26, S-28, S-29, S-31, S-43, S-45, S-46, S-47,
S-50, S-53, S-54, S-55, S-57, S-58, S-59, S-
60; 1-1, 1-3, 1-6, 1-8, 1-9, 1-10 1-12; 2-1, 2-
2, 2-3, 2-4, 2-5, 2-6, 2-7, 2-8, 2-9, 2-15, 2-31,
2-33, 2-36, 2-41, 2-44, 2-45, 2-46, 2-51, 2-
52, 2-53, 2-54, 2-56, 2-57, 2-60, 2-62, 2-63,
2-65, 2-66, 2-67, 2-69, 2-70, 2-71, 2-73, 2-
74, 2-75, 2-77, 2-78, 2-79, 2-80, 2-81, 2-82,
2-83, 2-84, 2-85, 2-86, 2-90, 2-91, 2-92, 2-
93, 2-96, 2-99, 2-100, 2-1-1, 2-103, 2-104, 2-
105, 2-107, 2-110, 2-111, 2-112; 3-14, 3-33,
3-55, 3-188, 3-189, 3-193, 3-203, 3-206; 4-1,
4-2, 4-3, 4-6, 4-8, 4-9, 410, 4-14, 4-15, 4-16,
4-18, 4-1 9,-4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-
29, 4-30, 4-31, 4-32, 4-36, 4-38, 4-41, 4-42,
46, 4-47, 4-48, 4-52, 4-55, 4-57, 4-58, 4-59,
4-60, 4-61, 4-62, 4-63, 4-65, 4-66, 4-67, 4-
71, 4-72, 4-73, 4-74, 4-75, 4-76, 4-77, 4-78,
4-79, 4-80, 4-83, 4-85, 4-86, 4-94, 4-100, 4-
101, 4-116, 4-117, 4-118, 4-122, 4-123, 4-
125, 4-127, 4-132, 4-138, 4-140, 4-141, 4-
142, 4-143, 4-145, 4-146, 4-147, 4-148, 4-
149, 4-150, 4-151, 4-152, 4-153, 4-154, 4-
155, 4-157, 4-161, 4-162, 4-163, 4-165, 4-
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 95
168, 4-169, 4-170, 4-171, 4-177, 4-185, 4-
187
Reclamation Bond: 2-19; 4-177
Recreation: S-9, S-36, S-37, S-38, S-39, S-56;
1-5, 1-6, 1-7, 1-11, 1-14; 2-6, 2-80, 2-84, 2-
91, 2-104; 3-114, 3-115, 3-130, 3-140, 3-147,
3-148, 3-149, 3-151, 3-154, 3-155, 3-156, 3-
159, 3-182, 3-191, 3-193, 3-197, 3-208; 4-73,
4-86, 4-92, 4-104, 4-11 2, 4-1 17, 4-11 8, 4-
11 9, 4-1 20, 4-121, 4-1 22, 4-130, 4-145, 4-
151, 4-153, 4-167, 4-185, 4-186, 4-187
Riparian: S-8, S-37; 1-7; 1-13; 2-83, 2-96, 2-
97, 2-98, 2-99, 2-101; 3-85, 3-86, 3-91, 3-93,
3-95, 3-96, 3-108, 3-112, 3-113, 3-115, 116,
3-119, 3-120, 3-122, 3-125, 3-126, 3-127, 3-
128, 3-129, 3-133, 3-134, 3-138, 3-141; 4-60,
4-65, 4-75, 4-76, 4-78, 4-80, 4-82, 4-83, 4-
87, 4-92, 4-93, 4-94, 4-96, 4-97, 4-99, 4-100,
4-101, 4-180, 4-183
Scoping: S-1, S-4; 1-3, 1-7, 1-9, 1-10; 2-3; 3-
154, 3-203; 4-172
Sediment Control: S-23, S-27, S-28, S-29, S-
50, S-51, S-52; 2-82, 2-90, 2-92, 2-94; 4-14,
4-20, 4-22, 4-23, 4-46, 4-50, 4-67, 4-69, 4-
70, 4-119
Springs and Seeps: S-6, S-32, S-51; 1-12; 2-
105; 3-16, 3-53, 3-55, 3-59, 3-61, 3-69, 3-77;
4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-29, 4-30, 4-31, 4-36, 4-
38, 4-41, 4-42, 4-43, 4-54, 4-55, 4-186
Sensitive Species: S-8, S-35, S-54; 1-13; 2-
103; 3-84, 3-90, 3-96, 3-116, 3-118, 3-11 9,
3-121, 3-128, 3-129, 3-131, 3-132, 3-136; 4-
58, 4-60, 4-61, 4-71, 4-73, 4-84, 4-99, 4-100
Snag: S-8, S-55; 2-98, 2-100, 2-101; 3-124, 3-
125, 3-126, 3-130, 3-131, 3-134, 3-142; 4-72,
4-77, 4-78, 4-91, 4-92, 4-94, 4-99
Socioeconomic: S-8, S-28, S-45; 1-9, 1-11, 1-
14; 2-92, 2-110; 3-1, 3-191, 3-193, 3-214; 4-
119, 4-125, 4-153, 4-154, 4-155, 4-157, 4-
161, 4-165, 4-167, 4-169, 4-170, 4-172, 4-
173
Soils: S-6, S-28, S-31, S-46, S-50, 1-10, 1-12;
2-84, 2-92, 2-97, 2-111; 3-1, 3-13, 3-26, 3-
31, 3-32, 3-33, 3-34, 3-51, 3-86, 3-124, 3-
133, 3-136; 4-12, 4-15, 4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-
21, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-38, 4-43, 4-77, 4-89,
4-100, 4-183, 4-184
Soil Productivity: S-6, S-55; 1-12; 4-19, 4-21,
4-22, 4-23, 4-57, 4-72, 4-76, 4-77, 4-186, 4-
187
Solid Waste Disposal: S-10; 2-2, 2-8, 2-50, 2-
51, 2-53
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA): S-1, S-
4, S-10; 1-1, 1-5, 1-7, 1-9, 1-10; 2-1, 2-2, 2-3,
2-5; 3-184; 4-177
Successional Stage: S-37, S-48; 2-113; 3-108,
3-112, 3-116, 3-122, 3-135, 3-139, 3-141, 3-
142; 4-91, 4-94, 4-97, 4-99
Tailings: S-4, S-6, S-7, S-9, S-10, S-11, S-1 5,
S-1 6, S-1 7, S-1 8, S-21, S-22, S-23, S-25, S-
26, S-27, S-28, S-29, S-30, S-31, S-33, S-43,
S-44, S-50, S-52, S-54, S-57; 1-9, 1-11, 1-12,
1-13, 1-14; 2-2, 2-4, 2-5, 2-6, 2-7, 2-8, 2-15,
2-16, 2-20, 2-21, 2-24, 2-26, 2-27, 2-28, 2-
29, 2-30, 2-31, 2-33, 2-34, 2-36, 2-37, 2-38,
2-40, 2-44, 2-46, 2-47, 2-49, 2-51, 2-53, 2-
54, 2-56, 2-57, 2-60, 2-61, 2-62, 2-63, 2-65,
2-66, 2-67, 2-69, 2-70, 2-71, 2-73, 2-74, 2-
75, 2-77, 2-78, 2-81, 2-82, 2-83, 2-84, 2-87,
2-88, 2-90, 2-91, 2-92, 2-93, 2-94, 2-98, 2-
99, 2-100, 2-101, 2-105, 2-106, 2-107, 2-109;
3-7, 3-9, 3-11, 3-12, 3-13, 3-20, 3-21, 3-22,
3-23, 3-24, 3-25, 3-63, 3-64, 3-189; 4-2, 4-3,
4-5, 4-9, 4-10, 4-11, 4-12, 4-13, 4-1 5, 4-1 7,
4-18, 4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-
25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-29, 4-30, 4-36, 4-37, 4-42,
4-43, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48, 4-50, 4-51, 4-53, 4-
54, 4-55, 4-56, 4-57, 4-58, 4-59, 4-61, 4-62,
4-63, 4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 4-68, 4-69, 4-70, 4-
73, 4-77, 4-78, 4-87, 4-88, 4-89, 4-110, 4-
111,4-112, 4-11 6, 4-1 22, 4-123, 4-125, 4-
127, 4-130, 4-136, 4-151, 4-152, 4-180, 4-
184, 4-185, 4-186
Tailings Impoundment: S-4, S-9, S-23, S-50; 1-
11, 1-14; 2-8, 2-24, 2-27, 2-34, 2-46, 2-47, 2-
49, 2-54, 2-57, 2-63, 2-66, 2-67, 2-70, 2-71,
2-74, 2-75, 2-78, 2-83, 2-90, 2-91, 2-93, 2-
94, 2-107; 3-22; 4-2, 4-3, 4-9, 4-27, 4-29, 4-
36, 4-37, 4-42, 4-43, 4-47, 4-48, 4-51, 4-53,
4-55, 4-68, 4-69, 4-70, 4-184, 4-186
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 96
9.0 INDEX
June 1995
Temperature: S-9, S-30, S-32, S-33, S-34, S-
56; 2-27, 2-28, 2-29, 2-32, 2-82, 2-104; 3-2,
3-4, 3-5, 3-37, 3-42, 3-48, 3-49, 3-51, 3-52,
3-53, 3-59, 3-60, 3-69, 3-72, 3-73, 3-87, 3-
93, 3-95, 3-96, 3-102, 3-120, 3-144; 4-5, 4-
66, 4-67, 4-68, 4-69, 4-71, 4-72, 4-104, 4-
110, 4-116, 4-119
Threatened and Endangered Species: S-5; 1-8;
2-103
Tonasket: S-37, S-38, S-29, S-40, S-41; 1-9, 1-
10, 2-40, 2-41, 2-43, 2-44; 3-84, 3-108, 3-
133, 3-134, 3-149, 3-151, 3-170, 3-174, 3-
179, 3-180, 3-181, 3-191, 3-193, 3-195, 3-
196, 3-198, 3-203, 3-204, 3-205, 3-206, 3-
207, 3-214; 4-8, 4-60, 4-87, 4-119, 4-125, 4-
144, 4-145, 4-146, 4-147, 4-148, 4-149, 4-
150, 4-163, 4-164, 4-165, 4-166, 4-172, 4-
182
Topography: S-18, S-30, S-37, S-43, S-50; 2-7,
2-13, 2-15, 2-16, 2-22, 2-36, 2-52, 2-71, 2-
81, 2-83, 2-97, 2-100; 3-1, 3-5, 3-7, 3-26, 3-
61, 3-69, 3-93, 3-119, 3-159, 3-160, 3-164;
4-9, 4-10, 4-11, 4-18, 4-42, 4-54, 4-85, 4-
104, 4-124, 4-125, 4-127, 4-132, 4-151, 4-
185, 4-186
Topsoil: S-6, S-15, S-16, S-17, S-21, S-22, S-
23, S-25, S-27, S-46, S-57; 1-12; 2-51, 2-54,
2-56; 2-57, 2-60, 2-63, 2-65, 2-67, 2-69, 2-
71, 2-73, 2-74, 2-75, 2-77, 2-79, 2-80, 2-81,
2-82, 2-83, 2-84, 2-92, 2-96, 2-99, 2-111; 4-
17, 4-21, 4-36, 4-55, 4-76, 4-77, 4-89, 4-100,
4-123, 4-124, 4-125
Transportation: S-9, S-10, S-15, S-16, S-17, S-
21, S-22, S-25, S-28, S-29, S-38, S-40, S-41,
S-46, S-57, 1-3, 1-11, 1-14, 1-15; 2-2, 2-8, 2-
24, 2-40, 2-41, 2-53, 2-56, 2-57, 2-60, 2-61,
2-62, 2-65, 2-66, 2-69, 2-70, 2-73, 2-74, 2-
77, 2-79, 2-87, 2-88, 2-89, 2-94, 2-95, 2-104,
2-107, 2-111; 3-42, 3-102, 3-114, 3-115, 3-
138, 3-174, 3-179, 3-180, 3-199, 3-202, 3-
203, 3-204; 4-6, 4-49, 4-71, 4-73, 4-84, 4-86,
4-89, 4-90, 4-110, 4-11 9, 4-1 22, 4-138, 4-
142, 4-143, 4-144, 4-145, 4-146, 4-147, 4-
148, 4-149, 4-150, 4-180, 4-182, 4-185
Vegetation: S-6, S-7, S-23, S-28, S-29, S-35,
S-37, S-47, S-52, S-54, S-55; 1-11, 1-2, 1-13;
2-2, 2-6, 2-15, 2-16, 2-31, 2-51, 2-52, 2-54,
2-57, 2-62, 2-63, 2-66, 2-67, 2-70, 2-71, 2-
74, 2-75, 2-78, 2-79, 2-80, 2-81, 2-82, 2-83,
2-84, 2-85, 2-90, 2-92, 2-93, 2-94, 2-95, 2-
96, 2-97, 2-98, 2-100, 2-101, 2-106, 2-107,
2-112; 3-33, 3-53, 3-82, 3-84, 3-85, 3-86, 3-
90, 3-91, 3-93, 3-95, 3-96, 3-100, 3-108, 3-
112, 3-113, 3-114, 3-120, 3-122, 3-127, 3-
129, 3-132, 3-133, 3-136, 3-137, 3-138, 3-
141, 3-159, 3-160, 3-164; 4-4, 4-9, 4-12, 4-
13, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, 4-19, 4-21, 4-22,
4-26, 4-32, 4-41, 4-47, 4-49, 4-55, 4-57, 4-
58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 4-62, 4-72, 4-73, 4-75,
4-76, 4-85, 4-92, 4-123, 4-124, 4-127, 4-130,
4-152, 4-153, 4-154, 4-180, 4-181, 4-182, 4-
183, 4-184, 4-185, 4-186, 4-187
Water Quality: S-5, S-6, S-23,
33, 2-34, S-51, S-52, S-55; 1
40, 2-50, 2-54, 2-80, 2-82, 2
2-90, 2-91, 2-93, 2-94, 2-97,
104, 2-106; 3-16, 3-18, 3-20
24, 3-25, 3-33, 3-37, 3-39, 3
3-50, 3-51, 3-52, 3-55, 3-56,
63, 3-69, 3-72, 3-73, 3-75, 3
3-90; 4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-30,
34, 4-35, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4
4-42, 4-44, 4-46, 4-47, 4-48,
51, 4-52, 4-54, 4-55, 4-66, 4
4-88, 4-100, 4-187
S-28, S-31, 2-
-8, 1-9, 1-12, 2-
86, 2-86, 2-89,
2-101, 2-103, 2-
3-22, 3-23, 3-
42, 3-48, 3-49,
3-59, 3-60, 3-
76, 3-77, 3-81,
4-31, 4-32, 4-
39, 4-40, 4-41,
4-49, 4-50, 4-
67, 4-68, 4-69,
Water Rights: S-5, S-6, S-35, S-52; 1-8, 1-9, 1
10, 1-12; 2-46, 2-47, 2-70, 2-74, 2-94, 2-101;
3-81, 3-82; 4-32, 4-39, 4-50, 4-56, 4-57, 4-
68, 4-76, 4-184
Water Use: S-6, S-10, S-28, S-35, S-46, S-52,
S-54; 1-11, 1-12; 2-2, 2-8, 2-37, 2-44, 2-46,
2-47, 2-54, 2-66, 2-70, 2-74, 2-78, 2-94, 2-
111; 3-42, 3-82, 3-206; 4-51, 4-56, 4-57, 4-
184
Water Storage Reservoir: S-27; 2-47; 2-49, 2-
54, 2-57, 2-62, 2-63, 2-66, 2-67, 2-70, 2-71,
2-74, 2-75, 2-78, 2-81; 3-26, 3-86; 4-12, 4-
17, 4-18, 4-20
Water Supply: S-5, S-10, S-15, S-16, S-17, S-
21, S-22, S-25, S-27, S-35, S-36, S-39, S-41,
S-52, S-57; 2-2, 2-5, 2-8, 2-46, 2-47, 2-53, 2-
54, 2-56, 2-57, 2-60, 2-62, 2-63, 2-65, 2-66,
2-67, 2-69, 2-70, 2-71, 2-73, 2-74, 2-75, 2-
77, 2-78, 2-81, 2-105; 3-32, 3-81, 3-87, 3-
198, 3-203, 3-206; 4-26, 4-32, 4-38, 4-39, 4-
41, 4-42, 4-43, 4-56, 4-67., 4-110, 4-123, 4-
124, 4-139, 4-165, 4-166, 4-174
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 9-7
Wetlands: S-7, S-3, S-29, S-35, S-37, S-47, S-
54, S-55; 1-10, 1-11, 1-13; 2-15, 2-16, 2-34,
2-36, 2-44, 2-85, 2-96, 2-97, 2-98, 2-99, 2-
105, 2-112; 3-31, 3-43, 3-82, 3-86, 3-87, 3-
88, 3-90, 3-91, 3-113, 3-11 9, 3-1 22, 3-1 27,
3-128; 4-60, 4-61, 4-63, 4-64, 4-65, 4-66, 4-
75, 4-76, 4-90, 4-151, 4-152, 4-180, 4-181,
4-186, 4-187
Wildlife: S-5, S-6, S-7, S-9, S-27, S-29, S-36,
S-37, S-47, S-55, S-56; 1-5, 1-6, 1-8, 1-9, 1-
10, 1-11, 1-12, 1-13, 1-14; 2-6, 2-9, 2-27, 2-
29, 2-37, 2-40, 2-80, 2-83, 2-84, 2-96, 2-97,
2-98, 2-99, 2-100, 2-101, 2-103, 2-104, 2-
106, 2-107, 2-112; 3-1, 3-37, 3-90, 3-100, 3-
102, 3-108, 3-112, 3-113, 3-114, 3-115, 3-
11 8, 3-1 20, 3-121, 3-1 22, 3-1 24, 3-130, 3-
131, 3-134, 3-140, 3-141, 3-149, 3-151, 3-
154, 3-159, 3-205; 4-12, 4-52, 4-57, 4-58, 4-
61, 4-71, 4-72, 4-73, 4-74, 4-75, 4-76, 4-77,
4-78, 4-79, 4-80, 4-81, 4-83, 4-84, 4-85, 4-
86, 4-87, 4-88, 4-89, 4-90, 4-91, 4-92, 4-94,
4-99, 4-100, 4-101, 4-102, 4-118, 4-138, 4-
151, 4-152, 4-153, 4-180, 4-181, 4-182, 4-
185, 4-186, 4-187
Workforce: S-1; 4-118, 4-119, 4-121, 4-149,
4-158, 4-164, 4-176
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
-------
Appendices
-------
APPENDIX A
LIST OF UNPUBLISHED APPENDICES
-------
June 1995
Appendix A * List of Unpublished Appendices * A-l
LIST OF UNPUBLISHED APPENDICES
There has been a considerable amount of background data collected for the proposed Crown Jewel Project,
including EIS process documents. This information has been amassed by the Proponent (Battle Mountain
Gold Company or BMGC), TerraMatrix, (the third-party contractor) and their various discipline sub-
contractors under the direction of the Forest Service and Washington Department of Ecology (WADOE).
These materials are considered unpublished documents available for public review and are listed below
chronologically by resource discipline.
All of the referenced documents in this appendix are located at the Washington Department of Ecology
offices in Olympia and Yakima, and the Forest Service office in Tonasket for your review. Documents
marked with an "*" are also located at the following locations for public review.
Forest Service Supervisor's office in Okanogan, Washington
Bureau of Land Management office in Wenatchee, Washington
Oroville, Washington Public Library
Tonasket, Washington Public Library
Omak, Washington Public Library
Environment Canada office in North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks offices in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Village office of Midway, British Columbia, Canada
Seattle, Washington Public Library, Main Branch, Washington
DOCUMENT
DATE
SUBMITTED BY
OPERATING PLANS
Plan of Operations - Gold Axe Area
Plan of Operations - Crystal Butte Area
Plan of Operations - Crown Jewel
Amendment to April 12, 1990 Plan
1991 Plan of Operation - Crown Jewel Project
Amendment to 1991 Operating Plan
Amendment to 1991 Operating Plan
Amendment to 1991 Operating Plan
Notice of Intent to Operate - Crown Jewel Project
Amendment to December 16, 1991 Notice of Intent
Notice of Intent to Operate
Amendment to December 16, 1991 Notice of Intent
Notice of Intent to Operate
Plan of Operation
Supplemental Plan of Operation
Reclamation Plan
April 12, 1990
April 12, 1990
April 27, 1990
April 30, 1990
March 19, 1991
July 15, 1991
September 30, 1991
December 16, 1991
December 16, 1991
February 5, 1992
February 6, 1992
February 5, 1992
February 6, 1992
January 1992
April 1992
February 1993
BMGC
BMGC
BMGC
BMGC
BMGC
BMGC
BMGC
BMGC
BMGC
BMGC
BMGC
BMGC
BMGC
BMGC
BMGC
BMGC
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix A * List of Unpublished Appendices * A-2
DOCUMENT
Integrated Plan of Operation *
Reclamation Plan *
DATE
March 1993
August 1993
SUBMITTED BY
BMGC
BMGC
SCOPING PROCESS
Scoping Comment Summary *
Scoping Summary Document *
June 1992
July 1993
TerraMatrix/ACZ Inc.
TerraMatrix/ACZ Inc.
AIR QUALITY
Crown Jewel Project - Air Quality Permit Support Document
February 3, 1994
Revised August 24,
1994
McCully and Gilman, Inc
GEOCHEMISTRY
Ore and Low Grade Ore, Geochemical Testing Program, Report
in Sampling
Waste Rock Geochemical Testing Program
Crown Jewel Joint Venture Project Geochemical Testing
Program
Comments on Humidity Cell Tests Data: Ore and Low Grade
Ore Geochemical Testing Program
Comments on Humidity Cell Tests Data: Waste Rock
Geochemical Testing Program
Repon on Geochemical Testing of: Ore and Low Grade Ore
Crown Jewel Project
Report on the Waste Rock Geochemical Testing Program
Response to Agency Review Team
Waste Management Issues Report - Crown Jewel Project
Tailings Geochemical Testing Program
Geochemical Modeling of Pit Lake Water Quality for the
Crown Jewel Project *
Waste Rock Facility Seepage Analysis for the Crown Jewel
Project *
Summary Report Confirmation Geochemistry Program
April 1992
July 1992
October 29, 1992
January 20, 1993
January 20, 1993
September 1993
September 1993
September 1993
December 1993
January 1994
February 22, 1995
February 27, 1995
June 1995
ASCI
ASCI
BMGC
Kca Pacific
Kea Pacific
BMGC
BMGC
Kea Pacific
BMGC
BMGC
Schafer & Associates, Inc.
Schafer & Associates, Inc.
TerraMatrix/ACZ Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Geotechnical Characterization Report
Design Report: Starrem Creek Dam and Reservoir
Design Report: Water Supply System
Crown Jewel Project Tailings Disposal Facility Final Design
Report
Crown Jewel Project Waste Rock Disposal Facilities Stability
Analysis Report
Tailings Site Selection Report: Crown Jewel Project
March 22, 1993
March 31, 1993
April 13, 1993
June 1, 1993
July 2, 1993
December 1994
Colder Associates
Colder Associates
Colder Associates
Knight Piesold and Company
Knight Piesold and Company
Colder Associates
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix A * List of Unpublished Appendices * A-3
DOCUMENT
DATE
SUBMITTED BY
TAILINGS SITING
Tailings Site Selection Report: Crown Jewel Project
Tailings Site Selection Report (Appendix K)
December 1994
April 1995
Colder Associates
WADOE
SOILS
Soils Technical Memorandum *
Soils Technical Memorandum Addendum *
November 1992
June 1993
Cedar Creek Associates, Inc.
Cedar Creek Associates, Inc.
SURFACE AND GROUND WATER HYDROLOGY
Baseline Ground Watering Monitoring Plan (Draft)
Geohydrology Study
Crown Jewel Project Tailings Storage Facility Proposed
Hydrogeological Investigation
Groundwater Supply Investigation
Water Resources Plan - Applications and Technical Support for
the Crown Jewel Project
Memorandum to BMGC on Crown Jewel Pit Hydrogeology
and Proposed Pump Testing Plan
Statistical Comparison of Metals Data, Baseline Water Quality
Program
Crown Jewel Project: Tailing Disposal Facility Final Design
Report
Memorandum on Groundwater Inflows to the Crown Jewel Pit
Crown Jewel Project Tailing Disposal Facility Solution Balance
Report
Baseline Hydrologic Monitoring Plan
All Known Available and Reasonable Technology (AKART)
Evaluation for Cyanide Detoxification
Hydrogeological Study of Proposed Tailings Disposal Facility
Report on Pumping Test of the North Lookout Fault Zone
Report on Streamflow Investigations Conducted Along Myers
Creek Near Myncaster, British Columbia
Report on Inflows to the Crown Jewel Pit
Water Supply System for the Crown Jewel Project
Potential Effects of the Proposed Crown Jewel Pit on the
Streamflows at Buckhorn Mountain Okanogan County,
Washington
Pit Filling Study Crown Jewel Project
Seepage and Attenuation Study Crown Jewel Tailing Disposal
Facility
Impacts of Mining on Buckhorn Mountain Drainages
March 1992
April 8, 1992
June 12, 1992
November 3, 1992
February 1993
March 1, 1993
March 29, 1993
June 1993
June 18, 1993
July 15, 1993
August 1993
October 1993
November 2, 1993
November 8, 1993
January 5, 1994
January 10, 1994
October 1994
April 28, 1995
June 1995
June 1995
June 1995
ACZ Inc.
Colder Associates
Knight Piesold and Company
Colder Associates
BMGC
Colder Associates
TerraMatrix/ACZ Inc.
Knight Piesold
Colder Associates
Knight Piesold and Company
TerraMatrix/ACZ Inc.
Knight Piesold and Company
Knight Piesold and Company
Colder Associates
Colder Associates
Colder Associates
Colder Associates
Colder Associates
Hydro-Geo Consultants
Hydro-Geo Consultants
Hydro-Geo Consultants
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix A * List of Unpublished Appendices * A-4
DOCUMENT
Crown Jewel Project 404 (b)(l) Alternatives Analysis Support
Information
DATE
March 1995
SUBMITTED BY
Parameirix, Inc.
VEGETATION AND WETLANDS
Range Resources and Noxious Weed Surveys *
Timber and Vegetation Resource Studies *
Wetland Delineation Report
Wetland Delineation Report
Crown Jewel Project 404(b)(l) Alternatives Analysis Support
Information
Biological Evaluation for Proposed Endangered, Threatened, and
Sensitive Plants (Draft) (Appendix J)
December 1992
January 1993
Revised May 27,
1993
February 19, 1993
November 1993
March 1995
May 1995
A.G. Crook Company
A.G. Crook Company
Pentec Environmental Inc.
A.G. Crook Company
Parametrix, Inc.
Forest Service
WILDLIFE
Winter Wildlife Survey Report *
Summer Wildlife Survey *
Northern Goshawk Survey (Draft)
Potential Effects of Gold Mines on Wildlife and Possible
Mitigation Strategies (Draft)
Survey of Bats Near the Crown Jewel Project Site
Hibernacula Study of Bats Near the Crown Jewel Project
Proposed Crown Jewel Mine Project, Wildlife Habitat
Evaluation Procedures Study
Crown Jewel Project, Wildlife Technical Report (Draft)
Wildlife Biological Evaluation (Draft) (Appendix H)
May 1, 1992
January 1993
July 20, 1993
April 1994
October 1994
December 12, 1994
March 1995
April 1995
May 1995
A.G. Crook Company
A.G. Crook Company
A.G. Crook Company
Beak Consultants Inc.
ENSR Consulting and
Engineering
ENSR Consulting and
Engineering
Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife
Beak Consultants Inc.
Beak Consultants Inc. and
Cedar Creek Associates Inc.
AQUATIC RESOURCES
Aquatic Resources for Sections of Myers.Gold, Nicholson, and
Marias Creeks in the Okanogan National Forest
Gold Bowl Drainage Report 1992 Stream Survey (Draft)
Marias Creek Report 1992 Stream Survey (Draft)
Nicholson Creek Report 1992 Stream Survey (Draft)
Aquatic Habitats of Streams in the Marias and Nicholson Creek
Basin (Draft)
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Plan for the Crown
Jewel Project
Fall 1994 Benthic Macroinvetebrate Report for the Crown Jewel
Project
Myers Creek IFIM Report praft)
February 22, 1993
March 28, 1993
March 30, 1993
March 29, 1993
September 1993
October 1994
December 1994
January 1995
Pentec Environmental Inc.
A.G. Crook Company
A.G. Crook Company
A.G. Crook Company
A.G. Crook Company
Northwest Management, Inc.
Northwest Management Inc.
Cascades Environmental
Services, Inc.
Crown Jewel Mine t Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix A * List of Unpublished Appendices * A-5
DOCUMENT
Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat - Biological Evaluation
(Appendix I)
DATE
May 1995
SUBMITTED BY
Forest Service
RECREATION
Recreation Baseline Report *
January 1993
TerraMatrix/ACZ Inc.
VISUALS RESOURCES
Visual Assessment Baseline Report *
Visual Assessment Baseline Report Addendum *
January 1993
March 1994
TerraMatrix/ACZ Inc.
TerraMatrix/ACZ Inc.
TRANSPORTATION
Transportation Baseline Report *
June 1993
TerraMatrix/ACZ Inc.
NOISE
Baseline Noise Monitoring Report - Proposed Crown Jewel
Mine Site Chesaw, Washington *
January 19, 1993
Hart Crowser
SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS
Existing Socioeconomic Conditions, Baseline Report Crown
Jewel Project *
Affected Socioeconomic Environment Background Report *
February 8, 1994
December 1994
E.D. Hovee & Company
E.D. Hovee & Company
HERITAGE RESOURCES
Cultural Resources Investigations of the Crown Jewel Mine
Project *
August 1994
Archaeological and Historical
Services
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES
(PERMITS AND APPROVALS)
-------
-------
June 1995 Appendix B * Agency Responsibilities * 5-7
AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES (PERMITS AND APPROVALS)
A number of federal, state and county permits and approvals are or could be required for the
Crown Jewel Mine Project (Crown Jewel Project) as set forth in Table B-l, List of Tentative
Permits and Approvals.
Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the actual permitting processes 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. Permits may
be granted with requirements and conditions to eliminate and/or mitigate specific adverse
environmental impacts which are identified in the EIS.
Forest Service Responsibilities
The Forest Service is the legal authority to regulate locatable mineral operations on National
Forest System Lands as described in the regulation found in 36 CFR 228. These Forest Service
mining regulations require a Plan of Operations for locatable mineral developments from a
proposed developer. The plans must be approved by the Forest Service and must explain how
the mine operator will minimize environmental damage to the site and provide for the
reclamation of the affected surface resources.
Under these regulations, the Forest Service must decide to either approve, conditionally approve,
modify or disapprove the plan. Prior to approving any Plan of Operations, the Forest Service
must undertake an analysis of the significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts related to
the mining operation and determine the significance of these effects. This analysis is defined by
NEPA and its subsequent guidelines and regulations. Because mining the Crown Jewel Project
gold deposit may significantly affect the quality of the physical, biological, and human
environment, the Forest Service decided to prepare an EIS.
The Forest Service will be the lead federal agency in the EIS process and will work as a
joint-lead agency with the Washington Department of Ecology (WADOE). The Forest Service
follows a specific procedure that begins with scoping and data collection which results in the
formation of alternatives and continues with an analysis of those alternatives. The results of
these analyses will be documented in the EIS and will form the basis for the Forest Service
Supervisor's decision on the project. The Forest Supervisor for the Okanogan National Forest
is the Responsible Official for this decision.
The preferred alternative, selected as a result of the EIS process and all its inherent discussions,
will be the basis of the applicant's development, operation, and reclamation plans for the Crown
Jewel Project. Once a final EIS and associated Record of Decision are published, a final Plan
of Operations and other Forest Service special use permits may be approved by the Forest
Service. The Forest Service will require a reclamation bond for activities on National Forest
lands. Once final Plan of Operations is approved by the Forest Service and an acceptable
reclamation bond is received, the project can then begin, provided that other necessary federal,
state, and local government permit approvals are obtained.
A special use permit is required before constructing any dam if the barrier will create a reservoir
on Federal land. A reservoir is defined as a dam or dike that will store water to a depth of ten
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix B * Agency Responsibilities * B-2
TABLE B-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 Appendix B * Agency Responsibilities * B-3
or more feet at its deepest point, or a dam or dike that will retain ten or more acre-feet of
water. Dam special use permits require information on the use and capacity of the reservoir,
proposed construction, and a legal description of the location of the structure. Processing time
varies depending on the project complexity. Construction and yearly safety reviews are
required.
Washington Department of Ecology Responsibilities
The "lead state agency" is the agency responsible for SEPA compliance for a particular project.
For the Crown Jewel Project EIS, the WADOE is the lead state agency.
As required by WAG 197-11-938 (12), the WADOE is automatically the lead agency for the
Crown Jewel Project, because the proposal includes a new metallic mineral processing plant.
During consultations with the Proponent, the WADOE decided that an EIS would be prepared
for the Crown Jewel Project in accordance with WAG 197-11-315.
The WADOE will follow the specific procedures outlined in the Chapter 197-11, WAG, SEPA
Rules, that begin with scoping and data collection, and continues with an analysis of the data
necessary to develop and evaluate alternatives, impacts of the project and mitigation. The results
of this analysis will be documented in the EIS and will form the basis along with other
regulatory requirements for the WADOE decisions on the various permits to be issued for the
project.
In February 1994, the Washington State legislature passed the 1994 Metals Mining and Milling
Act, Chapter 78.56 RCW. It gives the WADOE some additional responsibilities, some of which
will affect the preparation of the EIS. This law directs the WADOE to issue a tailings facility
site selection report for any proposal meeting the law's definition of a metals mining and milling
proposal. This report is to be developed in conjunction with the EIS (see Appendix K, Tailings
Site Selection Report). Some elements of the bill include requirements for: writing rules to
secure a performance security (financial assurance), additional inspections, waste rock plans for
new proposals, and tailings impoundment design guidelines.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Under authority delegated by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), WADOE regulates the discharge of
pollutants into Washington's surface waters through this permit system. An application for an
individual NPDES permit requires information on water supply volumes, water utilization,
wastewater flow characteristics and disposal methods, planned improvements, stormwater
treatment, plant operation, materials and chemicals used, production and other related
information. Depending upon the type of materials to be mined, EPA regulations may specify
effluent limits for inclusion in an NPDES permit(s) for the discharge of waste waters and
stormwater. Mines for which EPA has not promulgated stormwater effluent limits are required
to obtain coverage under Ecology's NPDES Baseline General Stormwater Permit. The
processing time for an individual NPDES permit ranges from about 180 days to one year but
varies upon project complexity. A public hearing on a proposed NPDES permit may be
required. The statutory authority for this permit is section 402 of the Federal Clean Water Act,
as amended. The state implementing regulations are Chapter 173-220 WAG and Chapter 173-
226 WAG.
Silvicultural Burning, Open Burning, Agricultural Burning. Silvicultural burning is
regulated by WADNR, who would be contacted regarding requirements for slash burning or
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix B * Agency Responsibilities » B-4
burning on land protected by WADNR. Except for special circumstances, open burning of
materials other than natural vegetation is prohibited by WAG 173-425, which is administered
by WADOE or local fire jurisdictions. Agricultural burning may be conducted under an interim
permit program administered by WADOE. All burning requires permission.
Permit to Appropriate Public Waters. Authority to use public water is granted through
issuance of a permit to appropriate public waters.
A permit is required prior to the development of any diversion of surface water. A permit is
required prior to the withdrawal of groundwater for any purpose, except for the following
groundwater exemptions (Sections 90.03.250 and 90.44.050 RCW):
• Stock-watering purposes;
• Watering of a lawn or non-commercial garden not exceeding one-half acre in size;
• Single or group domestic uses not exceeding 5,000 gallons per day; and,
• Industrial purposes not exceeding 5,000 gallons per day.
Public notice is required prior to permitting. A 30-day comment period is provided after the
public notice. WADOE evaluates the application and any objections which were filed in
response to the public notice with particular attention to the following questions:
• Is water available to satisfy the project needs?
• Would the appropriation of water impair the senior rights or injure the instream values
of the water source?
• Does the project propose a beneficial use of water?
• Would the appropriation be detrimental to the public interest?
Permits may be issued which authorize water use for a limited period of time (a "temporary"
permit). The Crown Jewel Project is proposed to operate for a specific length of time. It is
expected that most of the authorizations to use water for a mining project would be of a limited
time duration. Changes to existing water rights must also be reviewed and approved (i.e. point
of withdrawal, changes in use). The statutory authority for water right permits in Washington
State is found under Chapters 18.104, 43.27A, 90.03, 90.14, 90.16, 90.22, 90.44, and 90.54 RCW.
Administrative rules are found under Chapters 173-100, 173-136, 173-150, 173-154, 173-166,
173-500, 508-12, 173-590 WAC.
Any permit which is issued must be specific as to the following:
Water quantities to be appropriated, instantaneous and annual;
The period of use;
The point from which water may be obtained;
The purposes for which water may be used; and,
The place of use.
Provisions and limitations specific to the proposed water use and a development schedule for
completing the project are normally associated with a permit.
A permit only authorizes development of a project and does not represent the extent of a final
water right. To the extent that water is beneficially used within the limitations of a "regular"
permit, a Certificate of Water Right may be issued documenting a perfected water right.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix B * Agency Responsibilities * B-5
The processing of a water right often takes a minimum of 18 months. Public notice is required
for water right applications.
Reservoir Permit. A reservoir permit is required by WADOE before constructing any barrier
across a stream, channel, or watercourse, if the barrier will create a reservoir. A reservoir is
defined as a dam or dike that will store water to a depth of ten or more feet at its deepest point,
or a dam or dike that will retain ten or more acre-feet of water. Reservoir applications require
information on the use and capacity of the reservoir and a legal description of the location of
the structure. Processing time varies depending on the project complexity. The process requires
publication of a legal notice for two succeeding weeks. The statutory authority for reservoir
permits is Chapter 90.03 RCW and Chapter 508-12 WAG.
Water Quality Standards Modification. Chapter 173-201A WAC provides that a water quality
standards modification may be issued on a short term basis for essential activities. Examples of
work that commonly occurs in or adjacent to waterways that could result in exceedence of the
State's water quality standards are placement of culverts during road construction, construction
of the tailings impoundment, and construction of stormwater retention facilities. A short term
modification of the criteria is generally conditioned to require the use of known and effective
best management practices to minimize water quality impacts during the construction period.
Dam Safety Permit. The WADOE requires an approval for any person or entity intending to
construct, modify, or repair any dam or controlling works for any storage area of ten acre feet
or more of water. Before beginning any construction, plans and specifications must be prepared
by a properly qualified Washington State certified professional engineer (carrying the engineer's
signature and seal) and submitted for approval to the WADOE and the appropriate federal
agency (on Federal lands). Plan approval is required before beginning construction. Processing
time averages from about six to eight weeks, but varies depending on project complexity. There
is no requirement for a public hearing. Also, the WADOE is required to periodically inspect
the construction of any dams in order to secure safety to life and property. The statutory
authority for dam safety approval is Chapter 90.03 RCW, Chapter 43.21A RCW, Chapter
508-12 WAC, and Chapter 173-175 WAC.
Waste Discharge Permit. Through this permit, WADOE regulates the discharge of industrial,
commercial or municipal waste material into State of Washington ground waters, and the
discharge of industrial or commercial wastes into municipal sewer systems.
This permit application requires information on the following:
Water supply volumes;
Water utilization;
Waste water flow, characteristics and disposal methods;
Planned improvements;
Storm water treatment;
Plant operation;
Materials and chemicals used;
Production; and,
Other relevant information.
Statutory authority for waste discharge permits are Chapters 90.48, 90.52, 90.54 RCW and
Chapters 173-216, 173-224, and 173-240 WAC.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix B * Agency Responsibilities * B-6
Water Quality Certification (Section 401-Federal Clean Water Act). A water quality
certification is required of any applicant for federal license or permit to conduct any activity that
may result in any discharge into surface waters. The federal agency requests certification from
the state that the discharge complies with State Water Quality Standards, WAG 173-201A.
Usually, the federal agency requests this certification on behalf of the applicant. In the case of
the Corps of Engineers permit applications, timing of the certification is tied to Corps of
Engineers 404 permit application. Public notice for a water quality certification is
"piggy-backed" with the Corps of Engineers public notice. Statutory authority for this
certification is found in Section 401 of the Federal Water Act and Chapter 173-225 WAG.
New Source Construction Approval (Air Quality). The WADOE has review and approval
authority over a new source construction or additions or modifications to existing sources for
releasing contaminants into the air.
This permit requires the applicant to submit an emissions inventory listing all sources and
amounts of air pollution released, an analysis of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and
a demonstration that ambient air quality standards, including levels for toxic air pollutants, will
not be exceeded. The permit processing time is normally four to six months from the receipt
of a complete application to a final permit determination by WADOE.
The statutory authority for new source construction approval is Chapters 43.21A and 70.94
RCW; and Chapters 173-400 and 173-460 WAG.
Air Contaminant Source Operating Permit. The Washington State Department of Ecology
(WADOE) has a comprehensive Washington State air operating permit program which is
consistent with the requirements of Title V of the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA). The
statutory authority for the state operating permit program is Chapters 43.21A and 70.94 RCW;
and Chapters 173-400 and 173-401 WAG.
Facilities will be required to apply for operating permits if they meet the definition of "major
stationary source" as defined in the FCAA and Ch. 173-401 WAG. Facilities that are either
subject to Title IV (acid rain provisions) of FCAA or if the source is in a category defined by
EPA through rule-making as being subject to the operating permit requirements are also
required to obtain permits. For a mining operation, the most likely triggers for inclusion in the
operating permit program would be if the source emits more than 10 tons per year (typ) of any
single hazardous air pollutant (HAP) or more than 25 typ of a combination of HAP's; or if the
source emits more than 100 typ of a regulated air pollutant.
Air pollution sources subject to the program must submit complete permit applications within
6 months after the state program is approved by the EPA; June 7, 1995 in the case of
Washington State. WADOE has up to 3 years to process the initial applications. Final action
on at least 1/3 of all operating permit applications received from sources must occur annually.
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD-Air Quality). The basic objective of the
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) air quality program is to prevent substantial
degradation of air quality in areas that are in compliance with national ambient air quality
standards, while maintaining a margin for future growth. As part of the new source review,
PSD applicability is determined.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix B * Agency Responsibilities * B-7
Criteria that trigger the requirements for a PSD permit vary depending on the type of facility.
In the case of mining, a PSD permit is not required for operations that emit less than 250 tons
per year of any pollutant regulated under the Federal Clean Air Act. Pollutants can include
both paniculate (dust) and gasses (SO2, CO, NOx, and HC) emissions.
Specific information on PSD requirements can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations (40
CFR 52.221) as adopted and supplemented by Washington State Statute. If a PSD permit is
required, one year of site-specific ambient air quality data collected by the Proponent is typically
needed. In addition, the permit processing time is normally three months to one year.
Washington State statutory authority is Chapters 43.21A and 70.94 RCW and Chapter 173-400
WAG.
Dangerous Waste Release Notification (Spills or Releases). Prompt notification to WADOE
is required when spills or releases of dangerous substances occur that have the potential to
impact public health or the environment. The responsibility for reporting spills lies with the
person or entity that spills or releases the substance; however, any person aware of such spills
is encouraged to contact the WADOE. Statutory authority for this notification is found in
Chapter 70.105 RCW and Chapter 173-303 WAG.
Dangerous Waste Designation. Any person or entity who generates waste is responsible for
determining if it is a regulated dangerous waste. A waste may be a solid, liquid, or contained
gaseous material that a person or entity no longer wishes to use, or which a person or entity
throws away, recycles, or stores temporarily until accumulated enough to recycle or dispose of
economically. A dangerous waste is a waste material with certain properties that can pose
dangers to human health, property, or the environment. The statutory authority for the
dangerous waste designation is set forth in Chapter 70.105 RCW and Chapter 173-303 WAG.
Generator and/or Transporter Identification Number/Reporting Requirements Dangerous
Waste). An EPA/Washington State identification number is required for persons or entities that
generate dangerous waste, as well as those who transport or offer to transport dangerous waste
going to a storage, treatment, and/or a disposal facility. Statutory authority is Chapter 70.105
RCW and Chapter 173-303 WAG.
Dangerous Waste Permit. The WADOE regulates the handling of dangerous waste in order
to protect public health and the environment. Dangerous waste is any waste material which
may pose a substantial hazard to human health, wildlife or the environment (Chapter 70.105
RCW). Permits are required for the treatment, storage, or disposal of dangerous waste. A
detailed facility siting process is required. A pollution prevention plan will be required once a
mill and mine commence operations per WAC 70.95 C. Facilities that generate greater than
2,640 pounds of dangerous waste per year must prepare a plan for the voluntary reduction of
hazardous substances and the generation of dangerous wastes. The facility must provide an
annual report on the progress of implementing these reduction opportunities.
Applying for a permit requires detailed information on methods of treatment, storage, and
disposal. Information requirements include engineering drawings, operational plans, and facility
closure procedures. What constitutes a dangerous waste and the statutory authority for
dangerous waste permits are set forth in Chapter 70.105 RCW and Chapter 173-303 WAC.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix B * Agency Responsibilities » B-8
Emergency Planning and Community Right To Know. Title m of The Superfund
Amendments and Re-Authorization Act (SARA), also known as the Emergency Planning and
Community Right-To-Know Act, requires facilities that handle hazardous substances to provide
information on the type, quantities, storage, and environmental fate of the hazardous substances.
These reports provide information for emergency planning agencies and the public. The reports
are filed with the State Emergency Response Commission. The statutory authority is found in
Section 302, 304, 311, 312, 313 of Title m of SARA 1986.
Underground Storage Tank Notification Requirement. If an underground storage tank is to
be installed, a complete state underground storage tank notification form, available from the
WADOE, must be completed. The WADOE administers federal requirements to report
regulated underground storage tanks and information about these tanks. Currently, under
federal requirements, notification is required within 30 days of placing a new tank into service.
Statutory authority for underground storage tank notification is set forth in 40 CFR 280.22 and
Chapter 90.76 RCW.
Solid Waste Management. According to RCW 70.95, a permit shall be obtained for the
operation of any solid waste disposal site. The Jurisdictional Health Department (in the case
of the Crown Jewel Project, the Okanogan Health Department) will investigate every
application to determine whether the existing or proposed site and facilities meets all the
applicable laws and regulations and conforms with the approved comprehensive solid waste
handling plan and complies with all local zoning requirements. When the Jurisdictional Health
Department finds that the permit should be issued, it shall issue such permit. Every application
shall be approved or disapproved by the Jurisdictional Health Department within 90 days after
receipt.
Air Contaminant Source Registration. According to Chapter 70.194.151 RCW and Chapter
173-400 WAC, major air contaminant sources in Washington State must be registered with the
WADOE. The air contaminant source registration classifies the levels and types of air
emissions.
Sewage Facilities Approval. Businesses that are located outside areas served by sewer systems
frequently treat disposal of sewage on the property where it originates through septic tanks and
sub-surface disposal fields. These systems are reviewed and approved by the local public health
department, the Washington Department of Health, or the WADOE depending on the size and
the nature of the system. Local health departments issue permits for on site sewage with design
flows less that 3,500 gallons per day. The Washington Department of Health has review and
approval authority for on site sewage systems with design flows between 3,500 gallons per day
and 14,500 gallons per day. The WADOE has review and approval authority for on site systems
exceeding 14,500 gallons per day, all systems receiving state or federal construction grants under
the Clean Water Act, and systems using mechanical treatment or lagoons with ultimate design
flows above 3,500 per day. The statutory authority for sewage disposal or sewage facilities
approvals is set forth in Chapter 90.48 RCW and Chapter 173-240 WAC.
Maximum Environmental Noise Levels. WADOE has established maximum environmental
noise levels that cannot be exceeded. These noise levels are set forth in Chapter 173-60 WAC.
Okanogan County has adopted these noise levels in a local noise ordinance; therefore Okanogan
County will be responsible for noise abatement and control at the Crown Jewel Project.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix B * Agency Responsibilities * B-9
Washington Department of Natural Resources Responsibilities
The Washington Department of Natural Resources (WADNR) is a cooperating agency with
Forest Service and WADOE on the Crown Jewel Project EIS. In February 1994, the
Washington State legislature passed the 1994 Metals Mining and Milling Aa (Chapter 78.56
RCW) which gives the WADNR some additional responsibilities in conjunction with the
WADOE. Some elements of the bill include requirements for: 1) to hold a joint performance
security 2) to jointly develop performance security rules, and 3) requirements to conduct
additional inspections. There are a number of permits required by the WADNR for mining
operations. They are addressed below:
Surface Mine Reclamation Permit. Under Chapter 78.44 RCW and Chapter 332.18 WAG, the
WADNR requires a permit to regulate surface mining activities. The purpose of the permit is
to ensure the area is reclaimed and the natural resources are conserved on State and private land
within the State of Washington. A performance security for reclamation activities is required
before this permit is granted. Required engineering information includes topographic maps,
sequence of mining, disposal and borrow sites, construction methods, equipment to be used,
plans for mitigation of runoff and erosion, and the proposed schedule of reclamation.
Environmental information includes soil characterization and topsoil management, erosion
control measures, reclamation and revegetation plan, and methods to protect surface water
quality. Processing time varies depending on the project complexity, but it can take six months
or longer. The need for public hearings are assessed on a case by case basis.
Forest Practice Applications. Before any forest practice activities or site conversion activities
(harvesting, reforestation, road construction or chemical application) can begin on private or
State school lands in Washington State, the WADNR must approve such practices. The
statutory authority is under Chapter 76.09 RCW and Chapter 222 WAG. The WADNR will
require information on the location and extent of harvesting, road construction activities,
borrow and disposal activities, methods and equipment size, need of right-of-ways, reforestation
plans, stream crossing and drainage plans, indication of wildlife habitat to be removed, riparian
protection, and location of water bodies.
The Burning Permit (Fire Protection). Under Chapter 76.04 RCW and Chapter 332-24 WAG,
the WADNR regulates certain types of outdoor fires including burning permits for vegetation,
forest or other wood debris, and recreational fires. The WADNR also helps protect air quality
through its smoke management plan. A written burning permit is required year-round on land
protected by the WADNR.
Dumping Permit. As part of its forest protection requirements under Chapter 76-04 RCW and
Chapter 332-24 WAG, the WADNR also requires a permit for the dumping of forest debris of
any kind in quantities that the agency declares would constitute a forest fire hazard on, or
would threaten forest lands located within the state.
Bureau of Land Management Responsibilities
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is a cooperating agency with the Forest Service and
the WADOE on the Crown Jewel Project EIS. As such, a number of BLM resource specialists
representing various environmental and technical disciplines have and will continue to provide
input into the Crown Jewel Project EIS process.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix B * Agency Responsibilities * B-10
Under the mining law of 1872 et. seq, in Sections 302 and 603 of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976, the BLM is responsible for review, approval, or denial, and "if
approved" monitoring of mineral production and related land use activities under the
Proponent's Plan of Operation. The BLM will require a Plan of Operations that meets the
needs of 43 CFR Part 3800, Mining Claims, under the General Mining Laws. In the case of the
Crown Jewel Project, a single Plan of Operations will be developed to meet both Forest Service
and BLM needs. Like the Forest Service, WADOE, and WADNR, the BLM will require a bond
be filed with the agency before commencement of activities to ensure that reclamation measures
are properly completed by the Proponent on BLM lands. All Federal reclamation bonds will
likely be held by one Federal agency, probably the BLM. On public lands administered by the
BLM, the agency also has review and approval authority for any project related right-of-ways,
access roads, and special use permits.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Responsibilities
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps of Engineers) is a cooperating agency on the Crown
Jewel Project EIS.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act authorizes the Corps of Engineers to issue permits for "the
discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters." Guidelines promulgated by the
EPA under Section 404(b)(l) generally prohibit the discharge of dredged or fill materials into
"waters of the United States" unless it can be shown that the discharge is the least
environmentally damaging practicable alternative to achieve the basic purpose of the proposed
project.
The term "waters of the Unites States" is broadly defined as waters that are or could be used
in interstate or foreign commerce. In addition to territorial seas and interstate waters, this
includes other waters such as lakes, mudflats, sloughs and wetlands which are or could be used
in interstate or foreign commerce. To the degree that they impact "waters of the United States",
various activities associated with mining operations, such as road or bridge construction, mining
site development and construction, construction of dams for tailings storage, construction of
water storage dams, etc., may require a Section 404 permit.
The Corps of Engineers must comply with Executive Orders 11990 and 11998 with respect to
impacts to the nation's wetlands and/or floodplains. The "no net loss" wetlands policy is
outlined in an agreement between the Corps of Engineers and the EPA. The policy goal of no
net loss to wetland acreage or function is implemented primarily through permit review.
Wetlands in the area to be affected by the Crown Jewel Project will be identified using the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Two types of permits apply to wetland fill proposals. These are nationwide permits and
individual permits. Nationwide Permit 26 authorizes the filling of up to 2 acres of isolated
wetlands or wetlands above the headwaters of tributary water bodies. If the affected area is not
isolated wetlands or wetlands above the headwaters, or if the proposed activity would affect
more than 2 acres of jurisdictional wetlands, an individual permit is required. Water quality
certification from the state (WADOE) is required on wetland fills of 1 acre or more.
In reviewing Section 404 permit applications, the Corps of Engineers must evaluate whether the
benefits from the project outweigh the predicted environmental impacts. This is called a "public
interest review." Factors considered during the public interest review include the following:
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix B * Agency Responsibilities * B-ll
• Basic project purpose and need.
• Water Dependency.
• Availability of practicable alternatives, taking into consideration cost, logistics, and
technology.
• Environmental impacts.
The Corps of Engineers evaluate whether the proposal is the least environmentally damaging
practicable alternative. It may be necessary for the Proponent to include mitigation measures
that will reduce impacts to the aquatic environment to an acceptable level. These measures may
include avoiding fills to waters of the United States, reducing the area of fill, creating or
restoring aquatic environments, or enhancing the value of an existing aquatic area.
Environmental Protection Agency Responsibilities
NEPA documents (draft EIS, final EIS, and Records of Decision by any federal agencies
regarding the Crown Jewel Project) will be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA).
The EPA has established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program for regulating surface water quality. This program was principally established by the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments of 1972 and supplemented amendments and
re-authorization. In its amended and re-authorized form, this statute as a whole is now generally
referred to as the Clean Water Act.
The Clean Water Act has established the following surface water programs which may concern
the Crown Jewel Project:
• The NPDES Permit program regulating the point source and stormwater discharge of
pollutants;
• The Section 404 Permit program regulating the discharge of dredged or fill material;
and,
• The Section 311 program regulating spills of oil and hazardous substances.
The NPDES Permit program is established by Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. The
WADOE is the permitting authority in Washington State for the issuance of NPDES Permits
pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act authorizes the Corps of Engineers to issue permits "for the
discharge of dredged or fill materials into navigable waters". These permits are addressed under
the heading: "Corps of Engineers" which immediately precedes this discussion. The EPA is
responsible for reviewing the consistency of the proposed 404 action with the Section 404 (b)(l)
guidelines.
Section 311 of the Clean Water Act establishes requirements relating to discharges or spills of
oil or hazardous substances. Discharges or spills of oil in "harmful quantities" are prohibited.
The EPA has established a requirement for the preparation of a Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasure (SPCC) plan by facilities that handle substantial quantities of oil.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix B * Agency Responsibilities » 5-72
In addition to water quality oversight, the EPA also maintains control over the air resources of
an area as outlined in the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act's most basic goals are to protect
public health and welfare.
The EPA can comment on, but is not responsible for, a New Source (Air Quality) Construction
Permit issued by the WADOE. Prior to commencement of construction of any major
stationary source or major modification of such sources, the WADOE will conduct a Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) review of a planned operation. The PSD process requires a
preconstruction review, and, if a permit is required, an impact and technology analysis. An
opportunity for public hearing prior to permit issuance is required and will be conducted by the
WADOE.
The PSD regulations generally define a "major stationary source" as, in the case of mining, any
operation that emits or has the potential to emit 250 tons a year or more of any pollutant
regulated under the Clean Air Act. Pollutants can include both fugitive (dust) and gaseous
(sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide and nitrous oxide) emissions.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Responsibilities
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service administers the Endangered Species Act, as re-enacted in
1982, and the Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended. On the Crown Jewel Project, the
Forest Service and BLM must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding any
federally listed threatened or endangered species that might be impacted by the proposed
operation. This is known as the Section 7 Consultation. A Biological Assessment (BA) will be
prepared by the Forest Service and BLM for any federally listed threatened, endangered or
sensitive species and submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. If adverse impacts to
threatened or endangered species are projected, specific design measures to protect the affected
species may need to be developed.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service administers the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (15 U.S.C.
701-718h). Under this treaty, it is unlawful to kill migratory birds, and no permits are issued
to take migratory birds. Conditions in the tailings impoundment must both meet permit
requirements and prevent mortality to migratory birds which might use the pond. Two
methods are available to preclude bird mortality, physical isolation through barriers (nets or
tanks) and chemical detoxification.
Bureau of Indian Affairs Responsibilities
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is responsible for oversight of federal Indian reservations and
has responsibility to review to assure adequate fish and water protection. The BIA works with
Indian tribes on issues affecting tribal members or tribal land. With regards to the Crown Jewel
Project EIS, the BIA has no direct compliance responsibilities relative to the review, permitting,
or oversight for the Crown Jewel Project operations. The agency does, however, have an
interest in the process and will work with the technical specialists of the Colville Confederated
Tribes in the review of NEPA/SEPA documents and the Crown Jewel Project EIS documents.
Colville Confederated Tribes Responsibilities
The boundaries of the Colville Indian Reservation once extended northward to the Canadian
border encompassing the area now planned for Crown Jewel Project activities. In the late 1800s,
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix B * Agency Responsibilities » B-13
the boundary was shifted southward to its present location; however, certain hunting and fishing
rights were retained by the Colville Confederated Tribes. The Colville Confederated Tribes
have an interest in the project in terms of cultural resources, wildlife issues, fishing and hunting
activities, grazing leases, and socioeconomic effects.
The Colville Confederated Tribes have no requirements with regard to review, permitting, or
oversight for the Crown Jewel Project operations; however, the Tribes are interested in the
project and will have the opportunity to review and comment on NEPA/SEPA submittals and
the Crown Jewel Project EIS documents.
The Colville Confederated Tribes may maintain certain rights (including water rights) on three
Indian Allotments near the project area along Myers Creek in Sections 3 and 4, T. 40 N., R. 30
E., W.M. These rights varying depending on the particular allotment.
U.S. Bureau of Mines Responsibilities
Although the Bureau of Mines no longer has any permitting responsibilities for mining, this
organization is a government agency with its function primarily targeted at research. The
Bureau of Mines consults routinely with other federal agencies regarding mining and conducts
research which is necessary to achieve technological advancement in the mining industry.
Federal agencies may consult with the Bureau of Mines for a review of mining and processing
techniques proposed in permitted operations (36 CFR 228.5(d)).
U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration Responsibilities
The health and safety aspects of the Crown Jewel Project would be regulated by Federal Health
and Safety Standards for mining operations. The U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration
(MSHA) will make comprehensive routine inspections of the operation and also will be involved
in educational and safety training programs for company personnel. Mine inspections will be
made by duly authorized representatives of the MSHA. The Crown Jewel Project will also be
responsible for providing MSHA with reports of accidents, injuries, occupational diseases, and
related data. Specific programs for the education and training of all employees are also part of
the Health and Safety Regulations of MSHA.
Treasury Department (Department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) Responsibilities
Interstate transportation of explosives is regulated by the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms. The Operator or its explosive supplier will need to obtain a license for transport of
such explosives to the site. In addition, an explosive user permit will also be required by this
agency.
Federal Communications Commission Responsibilities
The Operator will need to obtain radio and microwave station authorizations from the Federal
Communications Commission. These licenses will be issued for any two-way radio installations
made at the project site.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix B * Agency Responsibilities * B-14
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Responsibilities
A copy of both the draft EIS and final EIS documents must be filed with the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation. This agency works in an advisory role to assist the Forest Service and
BLM (on the Crown Jewel Project) with compliance with the National Historic Preservation
Act and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act. However, the Washington Department
of Community Development, Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation gives concurrence
with agency determined cultural impacts. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
would be available to serve in an advisory role if requested by the Washington agency. The
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation may also review state program activities and
determine relative compliance to the previously mentioned National Historic Preservation Act.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Several representatives from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WADFW) are
providing technical input regarding wildlife and the fisheries resources in the area of the
proposed Crown Jewel Project development.
A Hydraulic Project Approval Permit is required from the WADFW under Chapter 75.20 RCW
and Chapter 220-1 1 0 WAC. Any activity or operation that uses, diverts, obstructs, or changes
the natural flow or bed of any fresh water stream or salt water in Washington State requires
approval from the WADFW. There is no public hearing required for this approval.
Applications for the hydraulic project approval must include general plans for the overall project
and complete plans and specifications of the proposed work. The application must also include
complete plans and specifications for the proper protection of fish life.
Washington Department of Community Development Office of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation Responsibilities
Under Chapters 27.44 and 27.53 RCW and Chapter 25-48 WAC, the Washington Department
of Community Development Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation will be contacted
prior to the start of a project to determine if historic and archaeological sites will be affected.
The status of any sites or structures listed in or eligible for State of Washington or National
Register of Historic Places or local landmark designation will need to be determined. Plans for
protection or mitigation measures may be a condition of concurrence with agency determined
cultural impacts.
The Washington Department of Community Development, Office of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation will be consulted when projects are subject to review under Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. This Act requires that all federal agencies take into
account the effect of their actions on historic properties. The Washington Office of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation will be consulted to help determine if the site has been
surveyed, if there are identified historic resources on site, and if the property is listed or eligible
for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. If a project will adversely affect property
that meets the National Historic Register criteria, the Washington Office of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation will recommend ways to avoid or mitigate that adverse effect.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix B * Agency Responsibilities * B-15
Washington Department of Transportation Responsibilities
The Washington Department of Transportation (WADOT) is responsible for compliance with
Washington State requirements for road design and construction along with compliance with
federal and state requirements for transportation of hazardous materials. It is not anticipated
that the WADOT will be greatly involved in the EIS review process for the Crown Jewel
Project. The WADOT responsibilities (in the case of the Crown Jewel Project) will probably
be limited to review and approval of applications for any required road construction permits and
permit approval and compliance monitoring for transportation of hazardous materials.
Washington Department of Health Responsibilities
Depending on the size and use, the Washington Department of Health (WADOH) may be
involved with issuing the Sewage Disposal Permit or a Public Water Supply Approval Permit.
The Washington Department of Health will become involved with the approval of on-site
disposal plans and specifications for on-site sewage systems with design flows at any common
point between 3,500 gallons per day and 14,500 gallons per day. Local Health Departments will
issue permits for on-site sewage disposal with design flows less than 3,500 gallons per day, while
the WADOE will review and approve plans and specifications for on-site systems exceeding
14,500 gallons per day.
The WADOH may have review and approval authority over water system plans, engineering
reports, plans and specifications for new public drinking water systems under the federal Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA). A public drinking water system is one that furnishes drinking
water to any community, or number of individuals, or if it is made available to the public for
human consumption and domestic use. ,
As described above, depending on the system plan for the Crown Jewel Project, the WADOH
might not have any regulatory responsibility for the water supply system. In this case, the
Okanogan County Health Department (OCHD) will actually do the review and approval of the
drinking water system.
Washington Department of Trade and Economic Development Responsibilities
Washington State maintains a Department of Trade and Economic Development. Although this
agency does not have any regulatory authority, this group monitors and encourages trade and
economic development within Washington State. Responsibilities of this agency are to encourage
trade, i.e. exports of products and services from Washington State industries, and to promote
economic development throughout Washington State. This agency is interested in the
development of any project or industry which promotes beneficial growth within Washington
State.
Okanogan County Planning Department Responsibilities
Because the Crown Jewel Project is located in Okanogan County, the Okanogan County
Planning Department has requested that the operation obtain a number of permits or approvals.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix B * Agency Responsibilities * B-16
Shoreline Management Act Permits. The Shoreline Management Act Permit is required for
any development within shore line jurisdiction which exceeds $2,500 or any development which
interferes with normal public use of the water or shoreline of the state. The Crown Jewel
Project proposes work on a portion of Myers Creek which is designated as shorelines of the
state. Shoreline jurisdiction encompasses a minimum of 200 horizontal feet from the Ordinary
High Water Mark of this portion of Myers Creek (Chapter 90.58 WAG and Chapter 173-14
WAG).
The Proponent will have to apply for a Shoreline Permit from Okanogan County. The specific
permit procedures and performance standards are contained within the County Shoreline Master
Program. If a Shoreline Variance or a Conditional Use Permit is required, the WADOE will
have final approval authority.
Noise Ordinance. Okanogan County has adopted a noise ordinance and is responsible for noise
abatement and control. Chapter 173-60 WAG, maximum environmental noise level, establishes
noise levels that can not be exceeded.
Building Permits. Permits to construct permanent buildings will probably be requested by
Okanogan County for any structural facilities at the Crown Jewel Project. The applications will
require detailed plans for structures including electrical plans, plumbing plans, floor lay out,
sewage facilities, location of wells (applicable), drainage plans, size and shape of the buildings,
access, size and shape of foundation walls, beams, air vents, window accesses, and heating and
cooling mechanical aspects. Permits are issued upon approval of the plans. Permit processing
time varies depending on the project, and can average from 6 to 8 weeks. Public hearing
requirements also vary depending on the activity proposed. The County may require the
Operator to hire a qualified building inspector at their expense.
The Forest Service and BLM retain certain responsibilities for building construction on Federal
lands. County building permits may not be required on Federal lands.
Okanogan County Health District Responsibilities
The Okanogan County Health District has responsibilities for solid wastes handling under the
authority of the Okanogan County Board of Health, solid waste and facilities regulation. The
Health District is also responsible for on-site sewage disposal systems that process 3,500 gallons
per day or less. Larger on-site systems from 3,500 to 14,500 gallons per day are regulated by the
Washington Department of Health. WADOE has primary responsibility for sewer systems with
a capacity of over 14,500 gallons per day. If there will be a public food establishment at the
Crown Jewel Project, the owners or operators are required to contact the Okanogan County
Health District before they build or operate any food establishment. By virtue of being a
public health department, the Okanogan County Health District also has concerns about any
or all issues effecting the health and well being of the community.
Okanogan Public Works Department Responsibilities
The Okanogan Public Works Department has responsibility for construction and maintenance
of county roads. As such, this agency will be interested in any Crown Jewel Project
transportation activities on county roads. If any county roads are to be improved, upgraded or
snowplowed, the Operator of the Crown Jewel Project must work with the Okanogan Public
Works Department to insure that the proposed road upgrades meet public standards.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix B * Agency Responsibilities * B-17
Okanogan Public Utility District Responsibilities
An electrical transmission and distribution line will service the Crown Jewel Project. This line
will be constructed from the city of Oroville to the mine site. The distribution line will
terminate south of the community of Chesaw. This distribution line will be used for local
residences and business. The Proponent will work with the Okanogan Public Utility District
(PUD) on the right-of-way. A special use permit will be required for the transmission line
where it crosses Federal lands. The Okanogan PUD and the Proponent will enter into a power
service contract.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
-------
APPENDIX C
HYDROLOGIC SUMMARY STATISTICS
-------
-------
June 1995
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics * C-l
HYDROLOGIC SUMMARY STATISTICS
Summary statistics have been calculated for surface water, mine adits, and monitoring wells within and
surrounding the Crown Jewel Project. These statistics are summarized in the following tables included
in this appendix:
• Table C-l, Summary Statistics For Selected Baseline Surface Water Quality Data;
• Table C-2, Summary Statistics For Selected Baseline Groundwater Quality Parameters -
Mine Adits; and,
• Table C-3, Summary Statistics For Selected Baseline Groundwater Quality Parameters -
Monitoring Wells.
TABLE C-l
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA
PARAMETER
BOLSTER CREEK
SW-3
sw-ri
SW-12
SW-13
SW-14
ETHEL
CREEK
SW-5
GOLD CREEK
SWM
SW-10
MARIAS
CREEK
SW-2
SW-8
NICHOLSON CREEK
SW-1
SW-6
SW-7
SW-9
GENERAL AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Conductance (umrios/cm, field)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
350
303
384
3
0
372
299
459
21
0
367
303
491
21
0
352
291
475
23
0
390
340
453
20
0
404
354
529
23
0
336
221
410
25
0
563
481
744
12
0
376
335
453
23
0
381
305
454
25
0
313
220
389
23
0
210
107
218
22
0
302
250
355
25
0
368
246
443
13
0
Conductance (umhos/cm, laboratory)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
369
292
445
16
0
379
326
424
24
0
383
287
485
27
0
371
293
447
27
0
392
332
444
24
0
421
342
533
42
0
354
239
400
39
0
583
491
650
17
0
408
259
492
41
0
392
284
445
30
0
342
276
476
43
0
219
107
281
26
0
315
260
409
31
0
385
253
499
18
0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1, field)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
-
0
-
10.2
6.2
12.0
20
0
10.8
8.3
12.2
21
0
11.5
8.4
13.5
22
0
10.2
7.4
12.8
21
0
10.4
8.2
12.9
24
0
10.8
7.8
13.0
21
0
10.0
6.7
12.1
15
0
10.8
7.1
13.6
23
0
9.8
6.6
12.1
25
0
10.8
7.2
13.8
24
0
9.2
1.5
13.3
21
0
10.3
7.5
12.6
22
0
9.6
6.9
12.0
14
0
Hardness (mg/1 as CaCO,)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
196
168
221
16
0
197
167
226
24
0
194
166
220
27
0
190
151
225
27
0
209
170
231
24
0
218
182
257
42
0
179
118
227
40
0
322
284
369
18
0
214
174
252
42
0
203
168
242
31
0
172
117
227
43
0
108
55
154
26
0
167
137
247
31
0
206
126
244
18
0
pH (su, field)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
8.3
7.7
8.6
14
8.2
7.6
8.9
20
8.1
7.7
8.8
25
8.1
7.6
8.6
24
7.8
7.2
8.6
22
8.1
7.6
8.8
35
8.0
7.0
8.7
32
8.1
7.9
8.5
12
8.1
7.3
8.9
36
7.7
6.9
9.3
26
8.1
7.2
8.7
39
7.7
6.8
8.3
22
8.0
7.3
8.6
26
8.2
7.3
8.9
13
Notes: 1) To calculate means, concentrations below detection limit are assumed to equal Vi detection limit value.
2) Data qualified as suspect or anomalous by the reviewer are not included in summary statistics
3) Total trace metals were analyzed in unfiltered samples and dissolved trace metals were analyzed in filtered samples
4) Parameters listed are those that typically occurred in surface water at concentrations above detection limits. Baseline cyanide
results are included due to regulatory concerns.
5) Table includes data collected through July 1994.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics * C-2
TABLE C-l
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA
PARAMETER
samples below detection
BOLSTER CREEK
SW-3
0
SW-II
0
SW-12
0
SW-13
0
SW-14
0
ETHEL
CREEK
SW-5
0
GOLD CREEK
SW-4
0
SW-10
0
MARIAS
CREEK
SW-2
0
SW-8
0
NICHOLSON CREEK
SW 1
0
SW-6
0
SW-7
0
SW-9
0
pH (su, laboratory)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
Silica (mg/l, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
8.3
7.6
8.6
16
0
8.3
7.9
8.6
24
0
8.3
7.9
8.6
26
0
8.3
8.0
8.6
27
0
8.1
7.6
8.6
24
0
8.3
7.6
8.7
42
0
8.1
7.6
8.5
40
0
8.2
7.5
8.5
18
0
8.2
7.5
8.7
42
0
8.0
7.5
8.5
30
0
8.3
7.9
8.6
42
0
8.0
7.7
8.4
26
0
8.2
7.9
8.5
31
0
8.3
7.6
8.6
18
0
15.6
10.5
17.8
16
0
21.0
16.2
23.7
24
0
18.8
13.7
20.7
27
0
15.1
13.8
18.1
27
0
12.6
11.6
13.3
24
0
15.6
9.9
18.6
42
0
22.2
14.1
24.5
40
0
22.9
21.0
24.1
18
0
20.8
13.6
24.9
41
0
21.6
20.0
24.8
31
0
22.6
14.4
25.7
43
0
28.4
23.6
31.4
26
0
25.3
21.8
28.8
31
0
23.4
21.0
24.9
18
0
Temperature (°C, field)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
6.4
1.0
16.1
14
N/A
4.6
-0.7
8.3
22
N/A
5.7
.03
11.1
26
N/A
5.2
0.0
12.8
26
N/A
4.9
0.4
6.5
23
N/A
5.8
0.5
13.0
37
N/A
6.2
0.0
16.2
36
N/A
6.5
0.0
8.2
17
N/A
6.1
0.0
13.9
39
N/A
6.0
3.3
9.0
29
N/A
6.4
0.0
16.9
40
N/A
5.8
0.5
12.0
25
N/A
5.9
1.4
13.0
29
N/A
7.5
2.6
12.2
16
N/A
Total Dissolved Solids (mg/1)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
232
218
248
16
0
228
180
260
24
0
227
196
254
27
0
218
180
262
27
0
230
200
268
24
0
254
192
300
42
0
229
164
284
40
0
422
368
482
18
0
249
208
282
42
0
238
204
268
31
0
211
15*
270
43
0
136
62
172
26
0
204
144
266
31
0
251
136
324
18
0
Total Suspended Solids (mg/1)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
11
<2
88
16
4
6
<2
52
23
11
3
<2
20
27
15
5
<2
44
27
15
3
<2
14
24
11
5
<2
50
42
18
6
<2
40
40
11
4
<2
20
18
9
4
<2
32
42
20
4
<2
24
31
20
3
<2
16
43
22
5
<2
22
26
8
4
<2
20
31
15
9
<2
52
18
5
CATIONS
Calcium (mg/1)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
69
59
77
16
0
72
62
82
24
0
68
58
83
27
0
67
55
80
27
0
77
63
85
24
0
75
63
88
42
0
61
39
81
40
0
113
99
131
18
0
63
55
79
42
0
67
54
82
31
0
54
37
68
43
0
33
17
50
26
0
56
45
89
31
0
72
44
86
18
0
Magnesium (mg/1)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
6
5
7
16
0
4
3
5
24
0
6
3
7
27
0
6
4
7
27
0
4
3
5
24
0
7
5
9
42
0
6
5
7
40
0
10
9
11
18
0
14
8
17
42
0
9
8
10
31
0
9
6
14
43
0
6
3
7
26
0
7
1
8
31
0
6
4
7
18
Potassium (mg/1)
Notes: 1) To calculate means, concentrations below detection limit are assumed to equal Vi detection limit value.
2) Data qualified as suspect or anomalous by the reviewer are not included in summary statistics
3) Total trace metals were analyzed in unfiltered samples and dissolved trace metals were analyzed in filtered samples
4) Parameters listed are those that typically occurred in surface water at concentrations above detection limits. Baseline cyanide
results are included due to regulatory concerns.
5) Table includes data collected through July 1994.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics * C-3
TABLE C-l
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA
PARAMETER
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
Sodium (mg/l)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
BOLSTER CREEK
SW-3
2
2
2
16
0
SW-11
2
1
3
24
0
SW-12
2
1
4
27
0
SW-13
2
1
2
27
0
SW-14
1
1
2
24
0
ETHEL
CREEK
SW-5
1
1
5
42
0
GOLD CREEK
SW-4
2
2
2
40
0
SW-10
2
2
9
17
0
MARIAS
CREEK
SW-2
2
<1
2
42
1
SW-8
2
1
2
31
0
NICHOLSON CREEK
SW-1
1
1
2
43
0
SW-6
2
1
2
26
0
SW-7
1
1
2
31
0
SW-9
2
1
6
18
0
5
4
7
16
0
3
2
3
24
0
6
3
7
27
0
5
4
6
27
0
2
2
3
24
0
6
5
7
42
0
5
4
6
40
0
2
2
3
18
0
11
4
13
42
0
8
7
10
31
0
8
1
14
43
0
7
5
8
26
0
5
4
7
31
0
3
2
5
18
0
ANIONS
Alkalinity (mg/l, as CaCO3)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
175
154
194
16
0
166
102
200
24
0
177
134
192
27
0
174
110
198
27
0
197
130
224
24
0
196
122
222
42
0
126
88
145
39
0
153
106
206
18
0
211
170
236
42
0
193
148
210
31
0
165
106
217
43
0
109
62
134
26
0
148
118
168
31
0
163
114
198
18
0
Chloride (mg/l)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
1
<1
6
16
6
<1
<1
1
24
20
1
<1
3
27
5
<1
<1
2
27
21
<1
<1
3
24
21
<1
<1
2
41
21
<1
<1
2
40
25
<1
<1
2
18
0
2
<1
9
42
3
1
<1
2
31
6
1
<1
6
43
,19
<1
<1
2
26
19
<1
<1
1
31
24
<1
<1
1
18
15
Fluoride (mg/l)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
.1
<.l
.2
16
1
.1
<.l
.3
24
11
.1
<.l
.2
27
1
.1
<.l
.2
27
9
.1
<.l
.1
24
18
.1
<.l
.2
42
13
.2
.1
.2
40
0
.1
<.l
.1
18
7
.3
<.l
.4
42
1
.2
.1
.2
31
0
.2
.2
.4
43
0
.2
.1
.3
26
0
.1
<.l
.3
31
3
.1
<.l
1
18
12
Sulfate (mg/l)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
29
10
54
16
0
38
14
78
24
0
34
16
66
27
0
32
12
84
27
0
24
4
80
24
0
35
10
76
42
0
64
25
115
40
0
177
136
228
18
0
20
<2
51
42
3
31
6
68
31
0
24
<2
82
43
1
16
<2
65
26
4
31
<2
115
31
1
50
19
84
18
0
Sulfide (mg/l)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<.02
<.02
.06
14
13
<.02
<.02
.05
23
19
<.02
<.02
.03
26
21
<.02
<.02
.03
26
22
<.02
<.02
.02
22
18
.02
<.02
.29
41
35
.02
<.02
.05
38
29
<.02
<.02
.04
18
15
<.02
<.02
.06
40
35
<.02
<.02
.03
30
24
<.02
<.02
.09
40
34
<.02
<.02
.04
25
20
<.02
<.02
.04
30
24
<.02
<.02
.04
18
15
NUTRIENTS
Ammonia (mg/l as N)
mean value
.06
<.05
<.05
<.05
<.05
<.05
<.05
<.05
<.05
<.05
.05
<.05
<.05
<.05
Notes: 1) To calculate means, concentrations below detection limit are assumed to equal Vz detection limit value.
2) Data qualified as suspect or anomalous by the reviewer are not included in summary statistics
3) Total trace metals were analyzed in unfiltered samples and dissolved trace metals were analyzed in filtered samples
4) Parameters listed are those that typically occurred in surface water at concentrations above detection limits. Baseline cyanide
results are included due to regulatory concerns.
5) Table includes data collected through July 1994.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics * C-4
TABLE C-l
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA
PARAMETER
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
Nitrate & Nitrite (mg/1 as
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
BOLSTER CREEK
SW-3
<.05
.13
16
7
N)
.03
<.02
.08
16
8
SW-ll
<.05
.15
24
21
SW-12
<.05
.06
27
26
SW-13
<.05
.09
27
24
SW-1 4
<.05
.09
24
23
ETHEL
CREEK
SW-5
<.05
.15
42
32
GOLD CREEK
SW-1
<.05
.15
40
32
SW-10
<.05
.15
18
14
MARIAS
CREEK
SW-2
<.05
.15
42
30
SW-8
<.05
.13
30
25
NICHOLSON CREEK
SW-1
< 05
.27
43
31
.19
.08
.34
24
0
.07
<.02
.18
27
4
.05
<.02
.16
29
9
.28
.18
.36
24
0
.09
<.02
.37
42
6
.05
<.02
.24
40
14
.24
.13
.44
18
0
.08
<.02
.25
42
9
.10
<.02
.25
31
2
TRACE METALS/ELEMENTS
Aluminum (mg/1, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<.05
<.05
.07
5
4
.04
<.02
.22
43
19
SW-6
<.05
.15
26
23
.03
<.02
.07
26
12
SW-7
<.05
.13
30
25
.06
<.02
.26
31
10
SW-9
< 05
.13
18
16
.29
.03
1.09
18
0
.06
<.05
.15
9
4
<.05
<.05
.07
8
5
.11
<.05
.44
9
7
.16
<.05
1.10
8
7
<.05
<.05
.20
15
13
.14
<.05
.90
12
7
.06
<.05
.14
4
3
<.05
<.05
.10
12
9
.05
<.05
.14
10
7
<.05
<.05
.17
13
10
.09
<.05
.19
8
2
< 05
<.05
.20
11
9
<.05
< 05
.10
4
3
Aluminum (mg/1, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<.05
<.05
<.05
16
16
<.05
<.05
<.05
24
24
<.05
<.05
.15
27
26
<.05
<.05
.07
27
26
<.05
<.05
<.05
24
24
<.05
<.05
<.05
42
42
<.05
<.05
.05
40
38
<.05
<.05
<.05
18
18
<.05
<.05
<.05
42
42
<.05
<.05
<.05
31
31
<.05
<.05
.36
43
42
TRACE METALS/ELEMENTS
Arsenic (mg/1, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
Arsenic (mg/1, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<.05
< 05
.07
26
24
<.05
<.05
<.05
31
31
<.05
<.05
07
18
17
.002
.001
.003
6
0
.002
.001
.004
15
0
.007
.005
.009
10
0
.006
.001
.010
24
0
.004
.002
.008
8
0
.002
<.001
.004
9
1
.002
<.001
.003
8
1
.003
<.001
.010
27
2
.001
<.001
.003
27
7
.001
<.001
.002
24
4
.009
.007
.016
15
0
.009
.003
.014
42
0
.001
<.001
.002
12
6
.001
<.001
.001
4
2
.002
<.001
.002
13
1
.001
<.001
.004
40
31
.001
<.001
.002
18
11
.002
<.001
.002
41
8
.002
<.001
.002
10
1
.001
< 001
.003
14
3
.001
<.001
002
8
5
.001
<.001
.003
11
2
.002
<.001
.003
31
7
.001
< 001
.002
42
12
.001
<.001
.002
26
26
Barium (mg/1, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
Barium (rng/l, dissolved)
mean value
.02
.02
.02
6
0
.02
.01
<.01
.03
10
8
.01
.02
.01
.02
8
0
.02
.02
.01
.02
9
0
.01
<.01
<.01
.02
8
3
<.01
.01
<.01
.02
15
4
.01
.01
<.01
.02
12
1
.01
.01
<.01
.02
4
2
.01
.01
.01
.02
13
0
.01
.01
<.01
.02
10
1
.01
.01
<.01
.03
14
1
.01
.01
.01
.02
8
0
.01
.001
<.001
004
36
7
.01
<.01
.01
11
6
.01
.003
.002
.003
4
0
.002
<.oo
1
.004
18
4
<.01
<.01
.01
4
1
<.01
Notes: 1) To calculate means, concentrations below detection limit are assumed to equal Vz detection limit value.
2) Data qualified as suspect or anomalous by the reviewer are not included in summary statistics
3) Total trace metals were analyzed in unfiltered samples and dissolved trace metals were analyzed in filtered samples
4) Parameters listed are those that typically occurred in surface water at concentrations above detection limits. Baseline cyanide
results are included due to regulatory concerns.
5) Table includes data collected through July 1994.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics * C-5
TABLE C-l
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA
PARAMETER
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
BOLSTER CREEK
SW-3
<.01
.03
15
1
SW-ll
<.01
.01
24
17
sw-u
<.01
.02
27
1
SW-13
<.01
.02
27
1
SW-14
<.01
.01
24
15
ETHEL
CREEK
SW-5
<.01
.01
42
14
GOLD CREEK
SW-4
<.01
.02
40
3
SW-10
<.01
.02
18
6
MARIAS
CREEK
SW-2
<.01
.02
41
3
SW-8
<.01
.02
31
4
NICHOLSON CREEK
SW-1
<.01
.03
42
8
SW-6
<.01
.02
26
7
SW-7
<.01
.01
31
18
SW-9
<.01
.02
18
5
Iron (mg/1 total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
.02
<.02
.03
5
3
.03
<.02
.15
9
6
.05
<.02
.24
8
4
.04
<.02
.19
9
7
.05
<.02
.34
8
7
<.02
<.02
.08
15
11
.06
<.02
.21
12
1
.05
<.02
.15
4
3
.03
<.02
.07
12
6
.04
<.02
.15
10
4
.02
<.02
.05
13
9
.03
<.02
.09
8
3
.03
<.02
.07
11
4
.04
.04
.08
4
1
Iron (mg/1 dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<.02
<.02
<.02
16
16
<.02
<.02
.03
24
16
<.02
<.02
.07
26
25
<.02
< 02
.09
27
25
<.02
<.02
<.02
24
24
<.02
<.02
.07
42
40
.02
<.02
.04
40
31
<.02
<.02
<.02
18
18
<.02
<.02
.06
42
41
<.02
<.02
.13
31
30
-------
June 1995
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics * C-6
TABLE C-l
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE SURFACE WATER QUALITY DATA
PARAMETER
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
BOLSTER CREEK
SW-3
10
13
6
SW-11
22
24
15
SW-12
20
27
17
SW-13
18
27
22
SW-14
9
24
13
ETHEL
CREEK
SW-5
11
41
27
GOLD CREEK
SW-»
12
39
20
SW-IO
17
18
11
MARIAS
CREEK
SW-2
13
39
19
SW-8
9
31
15
NICHOLSON CREEK
SW-1
16
40
18
SW-6
11
26
20
SW-7
8
30
17
SW-9
16
18
13
Gross Beta (pCi/1)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
5
<1
11
10
1
3
<1
12
24
8
3
<1
21
27
13
2
<1
14
27
13
2
<1
6
24
12
3
<1
10
38
12
3
<1
10
35
9
3
<1
19
18
9
3
<1
11
35
8
2
<1
7
28
10
3
<1
15
37
16
2
<1
11
24
9
2
<1
9
27
13
2
<1
13
18
12
CYANIDE AND ORGANICS
Cyanide (mg/l, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
.002
<.002
.003
4
3
<.002
<.002
<.002
21
21
.002
<.002
.006
24
22
.002
<.002
.007
25
22
<.002
<.002
.003
22
13
<.002
<.002
.003
29
27
<.002
<.002
.004
28
25
<.002
<.002
.002
14
13
.003
<.002
.029
27
24
<.002
<.002
.004
26
24
< .002
< .002
.003
28
24
<.002
<.002
.003
22
19
-------
June 1995
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summitry Statistics * C-7
TABLE C-2
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE
GROUNDWATER QUALITY PARAMETERS MINE ADITS
PARAMETER
BUCKHORN
ADIT
GOLD AXE
ADIT
LOWER MAGNETIC
ADIT
UPPER MAGNETIC
ADIT
ROOSEVELT
ADIT
GENERAL AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Conductance (umnos/cm, field)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
387
331
506
22
0
801
653
966
12
0
501
292
908
26
0
535
523
547
2
0
289
239
346
26
0
Conductance (umhos/cm, laboratory)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
395
319
464
23
0
846
673
1019
2
0
449
266
594
5
0
508
444
597
4
0
302
177
372
24
0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1, field)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
9.7
6.0
11.7
23
0
9.9
8.2
12.8
11
0
Hardness (mg/I as CaCO3)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
210
176
241
23
0
498
405
590
2
0
8.9
6.7
11.3
27
0
8.2
6.4
9.6
4
0
267
179
329
5
0
299
259
334
4
0
8.6
6.0
10.2
25
0
150
133
170
24
0
pH (su, field)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
7.8
6.6
8.3
18
0
6.5
5.3
7.5
11
0
7.7
5.8
8.5
28
0
7.5
6.2
8.3
4
0
7.9
7.4
8.6
29
0
pH (su, laboratory)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
8.2
7.6
8.6
23
0
6.4
6.4
6.4
1
0
8.1
8.0
8.2
4
0
7.5
6.2
8.3
4
0
8.1
7.7
8.5
23
0
Silica (mg/1)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of .samples
samples below detection
22.1
20.0
24.6
22
0
33.6
33.6
33.6
1
0
21.7
20.4
22.9
4
0
22.9
19.4
27.4
3
0
19.2
18.0
20.2
15
0
Notes: 1) To calculate means, concentrations below detection limit are assumed to equal Vi detection limit value.
2) Data qualified as suspect or anomalous by the reviewer are not included in summary statistics
3) Total trace metals were analyzed in unfiltered samples and dissolved trace metals were analyzed in filtered samples
4) Parameters listed are those that typically occurred in mine adit waters at concentrations above detection limits. Baseline
cyanide results are included due to regulatory concerns.
5) Table includes data collected through July 1994.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics * C-8
TABLE C-2
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE
GROUNDWATER QUALITY PARAMETERS MINE ADITS
PARAMETER
Temperature
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
BUCKHORN
ADIT
4.6
.10
6.3
23
N/A
GOLD AXE
ADIT
3.1
1.1
6.2
11
N/A
LOWER MAGNETIC
ADIT
4.2
.1
8.2
29
N/A
UPPER MAGNETIC
ADIT
6.2
4.1
8.0
4
N/A
ROOSEVELT
ADIT
8.2
6.5
9.2
31
N/A
Total Dissolved Solids (mg/1)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
247
200
284
23
0
705
567
842
2
0
320
194
384
5
0
389
316
458
4
0
182
156
-208
24
0
Total Suspended Solids (mg/1)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
2
<2
12
23
16
6
6
6
1
0
3
<2
6
4
2
3
<2
8
3
2
2
<2
8
24
17
CATIONS
Calcium (mg/I)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
74
62
85
23
0
155
125
185
2
0
97
65
120
5
0
105
92
117
4
0
51
45
58
24
0
Magnesium (mg/1)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
6
5
7
23
0
27
22
31
2
0
6
4
7
5
0
9
7
10
4
0
5
5
6
24
0
Potassium (mg/1)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
2
1
2
23
0
4
4
5
2
0
1
1
1
5
0
2
1
3
4
0
1
<1
1
24
1
Sodium (mg/1)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
2
2
2
23
0
4
3
4
2
0
2
2
2
5
0
2
2
2
4
0
3
3
4
24
0
Notes: 1) To calculate means, concentrations below detection limit are assumed to equal '/2 detection limit value.
2) Data qualified as suspect or anomalous by the reviewer are not included in summary statistics
3) Total trace metals were analyzed in unfiltered samples and dissolved trace metals were analy/.eJ in filleted samples
4) Parameters listed are those that typically occurred in mine adit waters at concentrations above detection limits. Baseline
cyanide results are included due to regulatory concerns
5) Table includes data collected through July 1994.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics * C-9
TABLE C-2
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE
GROUNDWATER QUALITY PARAMETERS MINE ADITS
PARAMETER
BUCKHORN
ADIT
GOLD AXE
ADIT
LOWER MAGNETIC
ADIT
UPPER MAGNETIC
ADIT
ROOSEVELT
ADIT
ANIONS
Alkalinity (tng/1)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
178
134
212
23
0
5
3
6
2
0
186
172
222
5
0
116
38
174
4
0
127
76
172
24
0
Chloride (mg/1)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<1
<1
1
23
22
<1
<1
1.2
2
1
<1
<1
2
5
3
<1
<1
1
4
3
<1
<1
1
24
21
Fluoride (mg/1)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
.1
<.l
.2
23
14
.2
.2
.2
2
0
<.l
<.l
<.l
5
5
<.l
<.l
.1
4
3
<.l
<.l
.1
24
12
Sulfate (mg/1)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
39
19
84
23
0
460
372
547
2
0
79
2
136
5
0
180
105
292
4
0
34
4
80
24
0
Sulfide (mg/1)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<.02
<.02
.03
23
19
.04
.04
.04
1
0
<.02
<.02
.03
4
3
.02
<.02
.04
3
2
<.02
<.02
.04
23
21
NUTRIENTS
Ammonia (mg/1 as N)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<.05
<.05
.16
23
19
<.05
<.05
.07
2
1
<.05
<.05
<.05
5
5
<.05
<.05
<.05
4
4
<.05
<.05
05
24
23
Nitrate & Nitrite (mg/1 as N)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
.58
.43
.72
23
0
1.03
1.03
1.03
1
0
.64
.51
.77
4
0
.16
.14
.19
3
0
.40
.33
.48
24
0
Notes: 1) To calculate means, concentrations below detection limit are assumed to equal Vi detection limit value.
2) Data qualified as suspect or anomalous by the reviewer are not included in summary statistics
3) Total trace metals were analyzed in unfikered samples and dissolved trace metals were analyzed in filtered samples
4) Parameters listed are those that typically occurred in mine adit waters at concentrations above detection limits. Baseline
cyanide results are included due to regulatory concerns.
5) Table includes data collected through July 1994.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics * C-10
TABLE C-2
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE
GROUND WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS MINE ADITS
PARAMETER
BUCKHORN
ADIT
GOLD AXE
ADIT
LOWER MAGNETIC
ADIT
UPPER MAGNETIC
ADIT
ROOSEVELT
ADIT
TRACE METALS/ELEMENTS
Aluminum (mg/l, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<.05
<.05
<.05
8
8
.18
.18
.18
1
0
<.05
<.05
<.05
2
2
<.05
<.05
<.05
2
2
<.05
<.05
<.05
10
10
TRACE METALS/ELEMENTS
Aluminum (mg/l, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<.05
<.05
<.05
23
23
.19
.19
.19
1
0
<.05
<.05
<.05
4
4
<.05
<.05
<.05
3
3
<.05
<.05
<.05
24
24
Arsenic (mg/l, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
.025
.022
.028
8
0
•C.001
<.001
<.C01
1
1
.001
<.001
.002
2
1
<.OOI
<.001
<.OOI
2
2
.005
.002
.006
9
0
Arsenic (mg/l, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
.023
<.001
.033
23
1
.001
<.001
.001
2
1
.001
<.001
.002
5
3
<.OOI
<.OOI
<.OOI
4
4
.004
.002
.006
24
0
Barium (mg/l, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<.01
<.01
<.01
8
8
.01
.01
.01
1
0
<.01
<.01
•C.01
2
2
<.01
<.01
<.01
2
2
<.01
<.01
<.01
9
9
Barium (mg/l, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<.01
<.01
<.01
23
23
<.01
<.01
.01
2
1
<.01
<.01
.01
5
4
<.01
<.01
<.01
4
4
<.01
<.01
<.01
24
24
Iron (mg/l, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<.02
<.02
.22
8
7
.16
.16
.16
1
0
.04
.03
.05
2
0
.51
.16
.86
2
0
<.02
<.02
<.02
9
9
Notes: 1) To calculate means, concentrations below detection limit are assumed to equal Vz detection limit value.
2) Data qualified as suspect or anomalous by the reviewer are not included in summary statistics
3) Total trace metals were analyzed in unfiltered samples and dissolved trace metals were analyzed in filtered samples
4) Parameters listed are those that typically occurred in mine adit waters at concentrations above detection limits. Baseline
cyanide results are included due to regulatory concerns.
5) Table includes data collected through July 1994.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics * C-ll
TABLE C-2
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE
GROUNDWATER QUALITY PARAMETERS MINE ADITS
PARAMETER
BUCKHORN
ADIT
GOLD AXE
ADIT
LOWER MAGNETIC
ADIT
UPPER MAGNETIC
ADIT
ROOSEVELT
ADIT
Iron (mg/l, dissolved)
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<.02
<.02
<.02
23
23
<.02
<.02
<.02
1
1
<.02
<.02
<.02
4
4
.20
<.02
.56
3
1
Manganese (mg/l, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<.01
<.01
<.01
9
9
.99
.99
.99
1
0
Manganese (mg/l, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<.01
<.01
<.01
25
23
.99
.99
.99
1
0
<.01
<.01
<.01
2
2
.02
<.01
.03
2
1
<.01
<.01
<.01
5
5
.10
<.01
.27
4
2
<.02
<.02
.08
24
22
<.01
<.01
<.01
9
9
<.01
<.01
<.01
24
24
Strontium (mg/l, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
.19
.18
.21
8
0
.18
.18
.18
1
0
.10
.09
.10
4
0
.12
.10
.14
2
0
.15
.13
.17
9
0
Strontium (mg/l, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
.19
.13
.22
23
0
.16
.13
.19
2
0
.09
.08
.11
5
0
.12
.10
.14
4
0
.15
.13
.17
24
0
RADIONVCLIDES
Gross Alpha (pCi/l)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
2
<1
14
23
17
<1
<1
<1
1
1
<1
<1
1
4
3
<1
<1
<1
3
3
2
<1
6
24
14
Gross Beta (pCi/l)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
2
<1
8
22
11
5
4
7
2
0
2
<1
2
3
1
3
2
4
3
0
1
<1
5
23
16
Notes: 1) To calculate means, concentrations below detection limit are assumed to equal '/z detection limit value.
2) Data qualified as suspect or anomalous by the reviewer are not included in summary statistics
3) Total trace metals were analyzed in unflltered samples and dissolved trace metals were analyzed in filtered samples
4) Parameters listed are those that typically occurred in mine adit waters at concentrations above detection limits. Baseline
cyanide results are included due to regulatory concerns.
5) Table includes data collected through July 1994.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics * C-12
TABLE C-2
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE
GROUNDWATER QUALITY PARAMETERS MINE ADITS
PARAMETER
BUCKHORN
ADIT
GOLD AXE
ADIT
LOWER MAGNETIC
ADIT
UPPER MAGNETIC
ADIT
ROOSEVELT
ADIT
CYANIDE AND ORGANICS
Cyanide (mg/l, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<.002
<.002
.002
20
17
<.C02
<.002
<.002
1
1
<.002
<.002
<.002
4
4
<.002
<.002
<.002
3
3
<.002
<.002
<.002
21
21
Cyanide (mg/l, WAD)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<.002
<.002
<.002
20
20
<.002
<.002
<.002
1
1
<.002
<.002
<.002
4
4
<.002
<.002
<.002
3
2
<.002
<.002
<.002
21
21
Notes: 1) To calculate means, concentrations below detection limit are assumed to equal Yz detection limit value.
2) Data qualified as suspect or anomalous by the reviewer are not included in summary statistics
3) Total trace metals were analyzed in unflltered samples and dissolved trace metals were analyzed in filtered samples
4) Parameters listed are those that typically occurred in mine adit waters at concentrations above detection limits. Baseline
cyanide results are included due to regulatory concerns.
5) Table includes data collected through July 1994.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics 4 C-13
TABLE C-3
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE
GROUNDWATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
MONITORING WELLS
PARAMETER
BEDROCK MONITORING WELL
MW-I
MW-2
MW-*
GLACIAL SEDIMENTS MONITORING WELL
MW-3
MW-4
MW-5
MW-7
MW-8
MW-9
GENERAL AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Conductance (umhos/cm, field)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
213
126
259
24
0
197
156
246
27
0
325
288
376
25
0
250
214
299
26
0
368
319
412
25
0
152
144
216
26
0
292
226
362
25
0
453
360
538
20
0
300
229
372
26
0
Conductance (umhos/cm, laboratory)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
227
184
275
28
0
197
148
237
28
0
324
268
368
29
0
252
210
292
129
0
360
306
400
29
0
179
131
215
30
0
298
220
345
30
0
467
328
577
26
0
305
216
371
29
0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l, field)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
5.3
3.1
7.7
22
0
9.3
4.5
12.3
25
0
7.6
4.1
11.6
25
0
8.7
5.9
10.3
23
0
7.8
4.2
10.0
23
0
8.0
4.8
10.5
24
0
6.1
2.3
9.8
23
0
9.2
4.9
13.3
25
0
6.1
3.5
9.9
23
0
Hardness (mg/l as CaCO3)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
35
13
157
29
0
93
69
126
28
0
168
145
190
29
0
130
110
176
29
0
186
164
214
29
0
90
68
130
30
0
151
125
187
30
0
235
181
281
26
0
155
26
241
29
0
pH (su, field)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
8.6
8.0
9.2
20
0
7.3
6.7
8.0
23
0
7.5
6.9
8.3
22
0
7.6
6.9
8.3
25
0
7.6
6.9
8.1
25
0
6.8
6.0
7.5
22
0
7.1
6.3
8.2
22
0
7.5
6.6
8.1
22
0
6.8
6.2
7.5
19
0
pH (su, laboratory)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
8.6
7.0
9.2
28
0
7.4
6.9
8.2
27
0
7.7
7.1
8.4
28
0
7.9
7.5
8.4
28
0
7.8
7.6
8.4
29
0
7.3
6.9
8.0
29
0
7.4
7.0
8.3
29
0
7.9
7.4
8.5
26
0
7.3
6.9
8.2
27
0
GENERAL AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Silica (mg/l, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
11.1
9.5
21.9
25.1
23.3
28.7
28.5
25.0
36.2
21.0
19.0
23.7
21.5
18.1
24.1
29.1
26.2
33.3
26.1
22.0
29.0
17.2
15.6
20.2
23.3
21.7
26.6
Notes: 1) To calculate means, concentrations below detection limit are assumed to equal Vz detection limit value.
2) Data qualified as suspect or anomalous by the reviewer are not included in summary statistics
3) Total trace metals were analyzed in unfiltered samples and dissolved trace metals were analyzed in filtered samples
4) Parameters listed are those that typically occurred in groundwater at concentrations above detection limits. Baseline cyanide
results are included due to regulatory concerns.
5) Table includes data collected through July 1994.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics + C-14
TABLE C-3
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE
GROUNDWATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
MONITORING WELLS
PARAMETER
number of samples
samples below detection
BEDROCK MONITORING WELL
MW-1
29
0
MW-2
28
0
MW-6
29
0
GLACIAL SEDIMENTS MONITORING WELL
MW-3
29
0
MW^
30
0
MW-5
30
0
MW-7
30
0
MW-8
26
0
MW-9
29
0
Temperature (°C, field)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
6.8
6.1
7.9
25
N/A
5.7
4.3
7.0
26
N/A
5.1
4.1
7.2
27
N/A
7.0
6.1
8.1
27
N/A
6.7
5.9
8.4
27
N/A
5.9
4.8
6.7
26
N/A
5.6
3.1
8.4
26
N/A
6.2
5.5
7.4
26
N/A
5.7
3.3
8.5
26
N/A
Total Dissolved Solids (mg/1)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
125
100
164
29
0
116
90
150
27
0
204
164
250
29
0
151
116
202
29
0
218
190
266
29
0
112
76
144
30
0
184
146
224
30
0
289
234
344
25
0
187
132
246
28
0
Total Suspended Solids (mg/l)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
19
<2
90
29
1
83
<2
1108
26
2
8
<2
30
29
5
49
<2
226
27
2
201
<2
748
29
1
346
6
930
30
0
299
<2
678
30
1
100
10
364
25
0
25
<2
274
28
3
CATIONS
Calcium (mg/l)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
10
6
53
29
0
29
21
39
28
0
56
48
69
29
0
40
33
59
29
0
59
51
64
29
0
25
19
42
30
0
49
40
65
30
0
74
56
88
26
0
53
42
88
29
0
Magnesium (mg/l)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
2
1
6
29
0
5
4
9
28
0
6
2
8
29
0
7
6
9
29
0
9
8
12
29
0
6
5
7
30
0
7
5
8
30
0
12
12
16
26
0
6
5
7
29
0
Potassium (mg/l)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<1
<1
1
29
26
2
1
2
28
0
2
1
2
29
0
<1
<1
1
29
14
1
1
2
29
3
1
<1
2
30
2
1
<1
2
30
5
2
1
3
26
0
1
<1
2
29
5
Sodium (mg/l)
mean value
minimum value
41
4
4
3
3 I! 5
3 || 4
9
7
6
5
5
4
14
12
6
3
Notes: 1) To calculate means, concentrations below detection limit are assumed to equal Vi detection limit value.
2) Data qualified as suspect or anomalous by the reviewer are not included in summary statistics
3) Total trace metals were analyzed in unfiltered samples and dissolved trace metals were analyzed in filtered samples
4) Parameters listed are those that typically occurred in groundwater at concentrations above detection limits. Baseline cyanide
results are included due to regulatory concerns.
5) Table includes data collected through July 1994.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics * C-15
TABLE C-3
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE
GROUNDWATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
MONITORING WELLS
PARAMETER
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
BEDROCK MONITORING WELL
MW-1
51
29
0
MW-2
12
28
0
MW-6
5
29
0
GLACIAL SEDIMENTS MONITORING WELL
MW-3
6
29
0
MW-4
10
29
0
MW-5
8
30
0
MW-7
6
30
0
MW-8
17
25
0
MW-9
46
29
0
ANJONS
Alkalinity (mg/1, as CaCO3)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
112
82
136
29
0
85
70
112
28
0
135
114
178
29
0
130
84
148
29
0
186
144
200
29
0
91
54
114
30
0
129
88
162
30
0
222
72
268
26
0
131
96
175
29
0
Chloride (mg/1)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
1
<1
3
29
10
1
<1
4
28
14
1
<1
2
29
5
1
<1
9
29
20
1
<1
2
29
21
1
<1
2
30
19
<1
<1
2
30
22
4
1
54
26
0
1
<1
15
29
22
Fluoride (mg/1)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
.2
.2
.3
29
0
.1
<.l
.2
28
7
.1
<.l
.2
29
16
.2
.2
.3
29
0
.3
.1
.4
29
0
.2
<.l
.7
30
1
.2
<.l
.2
30
2
.3
.2
.4
26
0
.1
<.l
.3
29
10
Sulfate (mg/1)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
12
<2
41
29
6
19
<2
60
28
2
38
6
64
29
0
13
<2
47
29
4
19
4
51
29
0
12
<2
49
30
5
32
8
68
30
0
41
10
78
26
0
35
<2
80
29
1
Sulfide (mg/1)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
.04
<.02
.18
27
14
.05
<.02
.50
26
13
.02
<.02
.10
28
21
.02
<.02
.08
27
19
.05
<.02
.20
27
13
.12
<.02
.80
28
13
.02
<.02
.10
27
21
.06
<.02
.38
24
16
<.02
<.02
.10
23
22
NUTRIENTS
Ammonia (mg/1 as N)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<.05
<-05
.12
29
22
<.05
<.05
.09
28
19
.05
<.05
.14
29
16
.04
<.05
.11
29
21
.25
<.05
.49
29
1
<.05
<.05
.14
30
22
<.05
<.05
.10
30
22
<.05
<.05
.12
26
17
<.05
<.05
.10
29
24
Notes: l) To calculate means, concentrations below detection limit are assumed to equal Yi detection limit value.
2) Data qualified as suspect or anomalous by the reviewer are not included m summary statistics
3) Total trace metals were analyzed in unfikered samples and dissolved trace metals were analyzed in filtered samples
4) Parameters listed are those that typically occurred in groundwater at concentrations above detection limits. Baseline cyanide
results are included due to regulatory concerns,
5) Table includes data collected through July 1994.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics * C-16
TABLE C-3
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE
GROUNDWATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
MONITORING WELLS
PARAMETER
BEDROCK MONITORING WELL
MW-1
MW-2
MW-6
GLACIAL SEDIMENTS MONITORING WELL
MW-3
MW-4
MW-5
MW-7
MW-8
MW-9
Nitrate & Nitrite (mg/1 as N)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
.05
<.02
.38
29
12
1.11
.94
1.54
27
0
1.6
<.02
2.4
29
1
12
.05
.36
29
0
.17
.13
.34
29
0
.06
<.02
.12
30
2
.10
<.02
.62
50
6
.24
.02
1.07
25
0
.21
<.02
1.6
28
3
TRACE METALS/ELEMENTS
Aluminum (mg/1, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
1.1
.52
2.3
7
0
3.9
.15
23.3
8
0
.12
<.05
.21
8
1
.47
<.05
.98
8
2
3.3
<.05
13
9
1
5.5
1.1
14.7
8
0
1.2
.07
1.8
9
0
5.8
2.1
11.1
7
0
1.3
.21
4.2
7
0
Aluminum (mg/1, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<.05
<.05
.08
29
22
<.05
<.05
.23
28
18
<.05
<.05
<.05
30
30
<.05
<.05
.08
29
25
<.05
<.05
.10
30
25
.05
<.05
.30
30
19
<.05
<.05
.11
H
26
<.05
<.05
.09
26
23
<.05
<.05
.13
29
25
Arsenic (mg/1, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
.006
<.001
.008
7
1
.009
.002
.045
8
0
.003
<.001
.004
8
1
.002
<.001
.003
8
1
.024
.007
.041
9
0
.004
<.001
.008
8
2
.003
<.001
.005
9
1
.003
<.001
.010
7
1
.004
.002
.008
7
0
Arsenic (mg/1, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
.005
.002
.008
29
0
.003
.001
.006
28
0
.003
<.001
.006
30
2
.002
<.001
.003
29
2
.030
.008
.043
30
0
.001
<.001
.001
30
27
.002
< 001
.003
31
5
.001
<.001
.003
26
19
.002
-------
June 1995
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics * C-17
TABLE C-3
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE
GROUNDWATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
MONITORING WELLS
PARAMETER
samples below detection
BEDROCK MONITORING WELL
MW-t
3
MW-2
19
MW-6
28
GLACIAL SEDIMENTS MONITORING WELL
MW-3
28
MW-t
0
MW-5
23
MW-7
12
MW-8
0
MW-9
25
Iron (mg/1 total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
1.40
.70
2.87
7
0
5.40
.17
36.00
8
0
.17
.03
.31
8
0
.61
<.02
1.27
8
2
4.80
<.02
19.10
9
1
6.80
1.30
14.20
8
0
1.70
.12
2.45
9
0
8.30
3.00
14.40
7
0
2.20
.29
7.10
7
0
Iron (mg/l, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
.02
<.02
.07
29
19
<.02
<.02
.12
28
20
.02
<.02
.16
30
27
.02
<.02
.10
29
26
.02
<.02
.12
30
26
.03
<.02
.23
30
24
<.02
<.02
.09
31
22
.02
<.02
.08
26
19
.05
<.02
.13
29
44
Manganese (mg/l, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
.02
<.01
.05
7
1
.09
<.01
.55
8
1
.01
<.01
.01
8
7
.02
<.01
.03
8
3
.56
.11
.93
9
0
.29
.05
.69
8
0
.04
.02
.06
9
0
.31
.11
.48
7
0
.09
.03
.18
7
0
Manganese (mg/l, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<.01
<.01
.04
29
28
.01
<.01
.19
28
19
<.01
<.01
.01
30
28
<.01
<.01
.01
29
22
.36
.06
.70
30
0
<.01
<.01
.11
30
24
<.01
<.01
.03
31
18
.02
<.01
.17
26
21
.04
<.01
.07
29
2
Strontium (mg/l, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
.66
.47
.82
7
0
.11
.10
.18
8
0
.14
.11
.18
8
0
.21
.19
.22
8
0
.48
.38
.55
9
0
.23
.13
.40
8
0
.19
.18
.22
9
0
.52
.45
.62
7
0
.18
.15
.21
7
0
Strontium (mg/l, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
.52
.17
.80
29
0
.09
.09
.13
28
0
.16
.12
.23
30
0
.21
.19
.24
29
0
.44
.42
.54
30
0
.17
.15
.19
30
0
.20
.17
.24
31
0
.46
.38
.54
26
0
.16
.15
.21
28
0
RADfONUCUDES
Gross Alpha (pCi/l)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
4
<1
10
2
<1
19
2
<1
9
3
<1
9
3
<1
11
4
<1
9
2
<1
8
6
<1
14
2
<1
8
Notes: 1) To calculate means, concentrations below detection limit are assumed to equal Vi detection limit value.
2) Data qualified as suspect or anomalous by the reviewer are not included in summary statistics
3) Total trace metals were analyzed in unfiltered samples and dissolved trace metals were analyzed in filtered samples
4) Parameters listed are those that typically occurred in groundwater at concentrations above detection limits. Baseline cyanide
results are included due to regulatory concerns.
5) Table includes data collected through July 1994.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics * C-18
TABLE C-3
SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE
GROUNDWATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
MONITORING WELLS
PARAMETER
number of samples
samples below detection
BEDROCK MONITORING WELL
MW-I
29
3
MW-2
28
14
MW-6
30
18
GLACIAL SEDIMENTS MONITORING WELL
MW-3
29
10
MW-4
29
11
MW-5
30
3
MW-7
29
11
MW-8
26
4
MW-9
29
10
Gross Beta (pCi/1)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
2
<1
8
29
12
3
<1
22
28
11
2
<1
6
30
10
2
<1
10
28
15
3
<1
9
28
9
4
<1
11
30
3
3
<1
S3
29
10
5
<1
12
26
3
2
<1
8
28
14
CYANIDE AND ORGANICS
Cyanide (mg/l, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<.002
<.002
.002
26
24
<.002
<.002
.004
26
23
•C.002
<.002
.003
26
25
<.002
•C.002
.002
27
25
<.002
•C.002
.003
27
24
.002
<.002
.006
28
25
<.002
<.002
.002
28
27
<.002
<.002
.003
24
21
<.002
<.002
.003
26
24
Cyanide (mg/l, WAD)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<.002
<.002
.003
26
25
<.002
<.002
.002
26
24
<.002
•C.002
.002
26
25
<.002
<.002
.002
27
25
-------
APPENDIX D
SOIL EROSION RATES
-------
-------
June 1995 Appendix D * Soil Erosion Rates * D-l
SOIL EROSION RATES
To calculate estimated erosion rates for the Crown Jewel Project, the following assumptions
were made for each of the factors used in the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE).
Table D-l, "RUSLE" Factors Used to Calculate Current and Potential Erosion Rates, depicts
the values assigned for the factors discussed below for each alternative.
Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) = A (soil loss in tons/acre/year) = RKLSCP,
where:
(1) Rainfall-runoff factor (R): A value of 17 has been assigned to the project area and was
used for all calculations (Duncan 1993).
(2) Soil erodibility factor (K): K-factors ranging from 0.17 to 0.21 were used to calculate
soil losses from undisturbed sites. These values were based on data taken directly from
the soil survey completed for the project area and represent the values estimated for the
undisturbed surface soil horizons subject to water erosion. A K-factor of 0.18 was used
for all calculations for reclaimed surfaces. This value represents a weighted-average of
estimated K-factors for the soils to be salvaged and replaced during reclamation.
Weighted averages for the soil horizons as well as the proportion of the total soil salvage
volume by soil series salvaged were completed. All K-values developed for the project
site were compared to SCS (U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Survey) documented values to
insure overall validity.
(3) Slope length and gradient (L/S): Effective lengths for existing undisturbed baseline sites
was assumed to be 300 feet. Slope gradients selected for reclaimed areas were based on
proposed grading plans for the Alternatives B through G as noted in Chapter 2.0 of this
document.
(4) Cover-management factor (C): This factor was based on the type of vegetation
currently existing on site or the vegetation community to which the disturbed sites
would be reclaimed, estimated soil roughness factors, estimated soil surface cover and
height, estimated plant canopy cover, and estimated above-ground plant biomass factors.
It was assumed that, following one and five growing seasons, canopy cover values would
range from 22 to 33 and from 64 to 85 percent of the existing values for grass/shrub
meadows located within the project area, respectively, depending upon slope steepness.
Values used for biomass production were based on these same percentages of estimates
of existing production for grass/shrub meadows.
(5) Supporting practices factor (P): The value used for the "P" factor was 1.0 for existing
baseline conditions. Where supporting management practices were proposed, a value of
0.75 was assigned for this factor for the first growing season. Assuming that soil
disturbances would disappear by the fifth growing season, a value of 1.0 was selected for
the P-factor for this point in time.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix D * Soil Erosion Rates * D-2
TABLE D-l
"RUSLE" FACTORS USED TO CALCULATE
CURRENT AND POTENTIAL EROSION RATES
Alternative
Baseline Conditions
Nonh waste rock stockpile area
South waste rock disposal area
Tailings pond area
Alternative tailings pond area
Alternative B
Waste rock disposal level area
Waste rock disposal slopes
Tailings surface
Tailings dam faces
Alternative C
Waste rock disposal slopes
Tailings surface
Tailings dam faces
Alternative D
Waste rock disposal slopes
Tailings surface
Tailings dam faces
Alternative E
Waste rock disposal slopes
Tailings surface
Tailing dam faces
Alternative F
Waste rock disposal slopes
Tailings surface
Tailing dam faces
Pit slopes
Alternative G
Waste rock disposal level area
Waste rock disposal slopes
Tailings surface
Tailings dam faces
R
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
K
0.21
0.17
0.19
0.21
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
LS
12.74
19.75
7.92
10.28
0.16
17.40
0.17
12.00
5.45
0.17
9.04
5.45
0.17
12.00
5.45
0.17
12.00
4.34
0.14
17.03
5.45
0.17
5.45
0.17
20.76
C
Year 1/5
0.005/NA
0.003/NA
0.002/NA
0.002/NA
0.017/0.007
0.01/0.014
0.017/0.007
0.01/0.014
0.022/0.009
0.017/0.007
0.01/0.014
0.022/0.009
0.017/0.007
0.01/0.014
0.022/0.009
0.017/0.007
0.01/0.014
0.022/0.009
0.017/0.007
0.01/0.014
0.22/0.009
0.017/0.007
0.022/0.009
0.017/0.007
0.01/0.014
P
Year 1/5
1.0/1.0
1.0/1.0
1.0/1.0
1.0/1.0
0.75/1.0
0.75/1.0
0.75/1.0
0.75/1.0
0.75/1.0
0.75/1.0
0.75/1.0
0.75/1.0
0.75/1.0
0.75/1.0
0.75/1.0
0.75/1.0
0.75/1.0
0.75/1.0
0.75/1.0
0.75/1.0
0.75/1.0
0.75/1.0
0.75/1.0
0.75/1.0
0.75/1.0
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
APPENDIX E
GEOCHEMISTRY
APPENDIX E-1, GEOCHEMICAL SAMPLES ANALYZED
APPENDIX E-2, XRF AND WHOLE ROCK RADIONUCLIDE ANALYSIS
APPENDIX E-3, LEACHABILITY TEST RESULTS
APPENDIX E-4, ABA RESULTS FOR WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
APPENDIX E-5, ABA RESULTS FOR PIT WALL SAMPLES
APPENDIX E-6, SUMMARY OF HUMIDITY CELL TEST RESULTS
-------
-------
June 1995 Appendix E * Geochemistry * E-l
GEOCHEMISTRY
Various testing methods were used to evaluate the potential for mine rock materials from the
Crown Jewel Project to generate acid rock drainage and leach metals and radionuclides.
Analysis of geochemical samples was performed by Core Laboratories Inc. of Denver, Colorado
and included:
Total metals and whole rock radionuclide analyses;
Leachability tests;
Tailings Liquid Analysis;
Acid-base accounting (ABA); and,
Humidity cell tests
Additional information regarding the geochemical testing program for the Crown Jewel Project
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
BMGC (September 1993);
• "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 BMGC (September 1993);
• "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
BMGC (September 1993);
• "Tailings Geochemical Testing Program: Crown Jewel Project, Okanogan County,
Washington", prepared by BMGC with assistance from Kea Pacific Holdings Inc.
(January 1994); and,
• "Draft Summary Report, Confirmation Geochemistry Program, Crown Jewel Project",
prepared by TerraMatrix Inc. for the Forest Service and WADOE (March 1994).
Testing Methods
Total Metals Analysis. X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis was used to test the abundance of
major and minor constituents in waste rock, ore, and tailings samples. This analysis is useful
in screening samples for trace metals and elements which could later become dissolved in mine
leachates.
Leachability Tests. Geochemical samples were tested for metal and radionuclide leachability
using the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (EPA Method 1312). This testing
procedure was developed to assess the effects of short-term leaching of large-volume wastes by
precipitation. For comparison, selected waste rock and tailings samples were also analyzed using
the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure or TCLP (EPA Method 1311).
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix E * Geochemistry * £-2
EPA Method 1312 specifies that a test sample be crushed to a maximum particle size of 9.5 mm
(less than 1/2 inch) and leached at a 20:1 liquid-solid ratio in a closed container. The sample is
leached with a synthetic solution prepared with nitric and sulfuric acids to simulate a weakly
acidic condition (pH 4.2). The resulting mixture is agitated for approximately 18 hours and the
leachate generated is filtered and analyzed.
EPA Method 1311 differs from EPA Method 1312 primarily in the use of an organic acid (rather
than inorganic acids) to prepare the synthetic leach solution. EPA Method 1311 was developed
by the EPA to evaluate waste toxicity and, for regulatory purposes, to characterize materials as
hazardous wastes. Analysis of geochemical samples by EPA Method 1311 allowed the
Proponent to compare their sample results with regulatory levels for hazardous wastes.
However, because an organic acid leach solution is used, EPA Method 1311 results are generally
considered to be less representative of actual field conditions; therefore, only a few samples were
tested by this procedure.
Sample leachates from the EPA Method 1311 tests were analyzed for 8 standard trace metals
used for hazardous waste classification: arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury,
selenium, and silver. Leachates from the EPA Method 1312 tests were analyzed for an expanded
list of parameters including pH, TDS, alkalinity, major cations, and 22 trace metals.
To assess the potential to leach radionuclides, the gross alpha and gross beta activities in 21 of
the 77 waste rock sample leachates were analyzed. The samples tested included at least one
sample from each of the waste rock groups and several samples with relatively elevated sulfide
contents. The latter were considered by the Proponent to have a greater potential to leach
radionuclides.
Tailings Sample Preparation and Analysis
To ensure that test materials were representative, the Proponent considered the following factors
when preparing bench-scale tailings samples for geochemical characterization:
• The varying ore types extracted over the life of the project;
• Reagents added during milling and processing of the ore; and,
• Detoxification of the tailings slurry using the INCO SO2/Air process (all action
alternatives, except G, use the INCO detoxification process during operations to
satisfy regulatory requirements for cyanide).
A total of 7 tailings samples were submitted for laboratory testing. The Hrst 3 samples tested
were detoxified to a Weak Acid Dissociable (WAD) cyanide level of less than 40 ppm. This
detoxification level had been specified in the Proponent's original Plan of Operations (POO).
Upon further consideration, the proponent revised its detoxification level to less than 10 ppm
WAD cyanide and 4 additional tailings samples were prepared and tested.
Each tailings sample was separated into a liquid and solid fraction. Analysis of the solid fraction
included total metals, teachability tests, ABA and humidity cell tests. The liquid fraction was
filtered and analyzed for a variety of chemical parameters including total and WAD cyanide,
major and minor ions, trace metals, and radionuclides.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix E * Geochemistry * E-3
Acid-Base Accounting (ABA)
To evaluate the potential for rock materials at Crown Jewel to generate acid, acid-base
accounting (ABA) tests were performed on all samples selected for geochemical testing, including
the confirmation waste rock samples. ABA tests relate the acid neutralization potential (ANP)
of a material with its acid generation potential (AGP). Both values are expressed as an
equivalent weight of calcium carbonate.
The net Acid Producing Potential (APP) of a material is calculated by subtracting ANP from
AGP. A negative value for net APP is considered to represent a potentially neutral material,
while a positive value represents a potentially acid-generating material. The greater the value
of net APP, positive or negative, the more likely the material is to either generate acid or be
neutral over the long term. (SRK, 1989).
An alternative approach to evaluating ABA test data is to calculate the ratio of ANP to AGP.
Mine waste with an ANP:AGP ratio of less than 3:1 may also be considered to have the
potential to generate acid (Smith and Barton Bridges, 1991). It should be noted that both
approaches to evaluating ABA test data (positive net APP values and ANP:AGP ratios less than
3:1) are inherently conservative and incorporate a factor of safety (CMA, 1992).
The ANP of the Crown Jewel samples was analyzed using the method of Sobek and others
(1978). This procedure measures by chemical titration the amount of acid that can be
neutralized by reaction with minerals in the material. The AGP of the samples was determined
based on analysis of total sulfur content by a Leco furnace. It is assumed by this procedure that
all sulfur in the material reacts to form acid which is a conservative assumption if non-sulfide
sulfur forms such as sulfates and organic sulfur are present. It is further assumed that all sulfides
in the material will generate acid at equal rates, which is also conservative. Studies have shown
that non-iron sulfides and large sulfide crystals are typically more resistant to weathering and
acid production. (CMA, 1992).
Humidity Cell Tests
As verification of the ABA results, 28 waste rock, 2 ore, and 7 tailings samples were tested in
humidity cells. The humidity cell test (HCT) simulates natural weathering and can be used to
assess the long-term potential of mine materials to generate acid (CMA, 1992). The procedure
was designed to enhance the rate of sulfide oxidation and measure the subsequent generation and
neutralization of acid.
The HCT procedure used a specially designed weathering or humidity cell that controls air,
temperature, and moisture conditions. The sample material tested was placed in the bed of the
cell and subjected to alternating cycles of dry air (3 days), moist air (3 days) and leaching (one
day) (Sobek et al., 1978). Leachate generated during each week of testing was collected, filtered,
and analyzed for several parameters including pH, acidity, alkalinity, sulfate, and iron. In
addition, the 15-week humidity cell leachates from selected samples were analyzed for major ions
and trace elements and metals. The following guidelines were used to infer from the leachate
chemistry that a material was not acid generating:
• The presence of alkalinity and absence or low level of acidity;
• A pH value generally above 5 to 6;
• The general absence of iron, except during the beginning of the test; and
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix E * Geochemistry * E-4
• Low levels of sulfate during and at the end of the test.
Humidity cell testing is typically performed for 20 or more weeks depending on the rate of
chemical reactions observed. All but 3 of the Crown Jewel samples were tested for a total of
20 weeks or until the sample was determined to generate acid earlier than 20 weeks, at which
time testing was discontinued. Three tailings samples were tested for a total of 27 weeks.
At present, there is no one standard time for completion of a given humidity cell test. In
practice, testing periods can range from a few weeks to more than 4 or 5 months and largely
depend on the behavior of the material being tested. For example, longer testing periods may
be required for samples that contain a moderate to high sulfide percentage and high levels of
sulfate and alkalinity. Such sample results can suggest that pyrite oxidation is actively occurring
in the material and that the acidity being generated may eventually exceed the material's
neutralization potential. Alternatively, shorter testing periods are appropriate for samples that
have clearly begun to generate acid or that contain a low sulfide percentage and exhibit low
sulfate levels and sustained leachable alkalinity for 10 or more weeks. The latter would suggest
that sulfide oxidation in the material is minimal.
The 20-week testing period used for the majority of the Crown Jewel samples has become
somewhat of an accepted standard and there is a movement to formally standardize this testing
period through a proposed ASTM method.
In a July 5, 1994 letter from the Proponent to WADOE and the Forest Service, the Proponent
re-examined the adequacy of the humidity cell data in light of the 20-week testing period that
was used. As indicated in their letter, 6 test samples were found to be strongly acid generating
and testing of some of these samples was terminated prior to 20 weeks. Of the remaining 25
humidity cell tests performed, there were 3 waste rock samples that exhibited an increase in
sulfate levels toward the end of the 20 weeks that, by itself, could indicate that a longer testing
period was needed. These samples included 2 magnetite skarns (4-405 and 4-407) and a clastic
sediment (7-711).
A more complete review of the humidity cell data, however, suggested that additional humidity
cell testing (beyond 20 weeks) was not warranted for these samples. Specifically, a comparison
of pH, alkalinity, acidity, iron and sulfate levels measured at the end of 20 weeks indicated that
the samples would not become strongly acid generating.
Finally, note that the humidity cell samples were not inoculated with bacteria during testing.
Research suggest that the rate of sulfide oxidation in mine materials is not significantly increased
by the presence of bacteria if the sample pH remains above 6 (Kleinman et al. 1981; CMA,
1992). At higher pH levels, the rate of sulfide oxidation is believed to be primarily governed
by the presence of oxygen. As the pH declines below 6, however, and if ferrous iron (Fe2+)
becomes available, the importance of bacteria likely increases. In particular, the presence of the
bacterium Thiobaccilus ferrooxidan has been identified as enhancing acid generation due to its
ability to catalyze the oxidation of ferrous iron to ferric iron (Fe+3). The presence of ferric
iron, in turn, is reportedly an important factor in the rate of sulfide oxidation in mine materials
at low pH's.
Based on the above discussion, it is unlikely that the lack of sample inoculation had a significant
effect on the humidity cell tests performed for the Crown Jewel Project. For the majority of
samples tested, the pH levels generally remained at or above 6 throughout the testing period.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix E * Geochemistry * E-5
At these pH levels, the ability of bacteria to enhance acid generation is believed to be minimal
and, and therefore, sample inoculation would not have significantly changed the sample results.
As discussed above, there were 6 Crown Jewel samples that showed a strong acid generation
behavior during humidity cell testing and exhibited pH levels of 4 or below. Inoculation of
these samples may only have further enhanced the rate of acid generation that was observed.
REFERENCES
California Mining Association (CMA). 1992. Mine Waste Management. Edited by Hutchison,
I.P.G., R.D. Ellison. Lewis Publishers. Michigan.
Kleinman, R., P. Crerar, and R. Pacelli. 1981. Biogeochemistry of Acid Mine Drainage and a
Method to Control Acid Formation. Mining Engineering. March 1981.
Smith, A. and J.B. Barton-Bridges. 1991. Some Consideration in the Prediction and Control
of Acid Mine Drainage Impact on Ground Water from Mining in North America.
Proceedings EPPIC Conference, Johannesburg, South Africa. May 1991.
Sobek, A.A., W.A. Schuller, J.R. Freeman, and R. M. Smith. 1978. Field and Laboratory
Methods Applicable to Overburden and Mine Soils. EPA 600/2-78-054.
Steffen Robertson and Kirsten (SRK). 1989. Draft Acid Rock Drainage Technical Guide,
Volume 1. British Columbia Acid Mine Drainage Task Force. BiTech Publishers LTD.
Vancouver, B.C. August 1989.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
-------
APPENDIX E-1
GEOCHEMICAL SAMPLES ANALYZED
-------
-------
June 1995
Appendix E * Geochemistry 4 E-l, Page 1
WASTE ROCK SAMPLES ANALYZED BY BMQC
Waste Rock Group
Altered Andesite
Unaltered Andesite
Garnet Skarn
Magnetite Skam
Borehole Number
D91-83
D91-83
D91-83
D91-83
D91-83
D91-83
D91-88
D91-88
D91-88'
D91-88
D91-88
D91-88
D91-101
D91-101
D91-83
D91-88
D91-88
D91-88
D91-88
D91-88
D91-881
091-88
D91-88
D91-88
D91-88
D91-88
D91-101
D91-101
D91-101
D91-101
D91-101
D90-51
D90-56
D90-56
D90-56
091-85
091-85
091-85
091-85'
091-88
091-85
D91-85
091-85
091-85
091-85
091-85
D91-851
D91-119
091-119
091-123
Sample Depth
!*__•»
(feet?
310-315
320-325
325-330
335-340
345-350
355-360
115-120
160-165
210-215
295-300
305-310
315-320
100-105
150-155
340-345
30-35
35-40
70-75
75-80
90-95
120-125
145-150
185-190
220-225
290-295
300-305
30-35
50-55
60-65
140-145
195-200
239-245
200-205
205-209
155-160
190-195
1 95-200
230-235
235-240
330-335
410-415
415-420
420-425
425-430
455-460
460-465
465-470
385-390
410-415
480-485
BMQC Sample
Designation
1-1 09- A
1-113-A
1-110-A
1-105-A
1-111-A
1-114-A
1-106-A
1-101-A
1-107-A
1-102-A
1-1 08- A
1-112-A
1-103-A
1-1 04- A
2-208-B
2-201-B
2-209-B
2-206-B
2-21 7-B
2-202-B
2-203-B
2-207-B
2-204-B
2-205-B
2-216-B
2-21 5-B
2-21 0-B
2-21 4-B
2-21 1-B
2-21 2-B
2-21 3-B
3-301-A
3-303-A
3-306-A
3-309-A
3-307-A
3-304-A
3-305-A
3-308-A
3-302-A
4-401 -B
4-403-B
4-404-B
4-407-B
4-405-B
4-406-B
4-402-B
4-409-B
4-408-B
4-41 0-B
Analyses Performed
XRF
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
EPA Method
1311
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
EPA Method
1312
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
EPA Method 1312
w/ Radlonucllde
Indicators
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Acid-Base
Accounting
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Humidity Cell
Tests
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Crown Jewel Mine * Dr
-------
June 1995
Appendix E * Geochemistry * E-l, Page 2
WASTE ROCK SAMPLES ANALYZED BY BMGC
Waste Rock Group
Undifferentiated Skarn
Marble
Altered Clastics
Unaltered Clastics
Intrusives
Borehole Number
D90-51
D90-51
D90-51
D90-5T
D90-51
D91-85
D91-85
D91-99
D91-99
D91-99
D91-99
D91-991
D91-99
D91-99
D91-99
D91-108
D90-51
D90-51
D90-51
D9O-511
D90-56
D90-51
D90-51
D90-51
D90-56
D90-56
D90-56
D90-56
D90-85
D90-85
D90-85
091-88
D90-51
090-51
D6O-56
060-56
090-56
D90-561
D90-56
Sample Depth
(feet)
100-105
105-110
110-112
139-145.3
197.4-200.3
50-55
165-170
455-460
470-475
480-485
485-490
490-495
495-500
500-505
515-520
505-510
10-15
15-20
20-25
65-70
140-145
125-130
205-210
220-225
105-110
145-150
170-175
180-185
125-130
140-145
175-180
325-330
150-155
155-160
210-215
215-220
220-225
225-230
230-235
BMQC Sample
Designation
5-507-C
5-501 -C
5-502-C
5-503-C
5-504-C
5-505-C
5-506-C
6-601
6-604
6-602
6-605
6-607
6-603
6-608
6-606
6-609
7-710
7-71 6-A
7-71 5-A
7-708
7-714
7-713
7-704
7-701
7-705
7-711
7-702
7-709
7-712
7-703
7-706
7-707
8-801
8-802
8-803
8-804
8-807
8-805
8-806
Analyses Performed
XRF
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
EPA Method
1311
/
/
EPA Method
1312
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
EPA Method 1312
w/ Radionuclide
Indicators
^
v'
•/
S
S
J
S
S
Acid-Base
Accounting
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
^
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Humidity Cell
Tests
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Note: 1 Duplicate Samples analyzed by the EIS team for acid-base accounting.
-------
CONFIRMATION WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
ANALYZED BY EIS TEAM
WASTE ROCK
GROUP
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
BOREHOLE
NUMBER
223
224
354
357
357
398
457
D-112
D-112
D-114
D-114
D-114
D-114
D-133
D-133
D-133
D-136
D-148
D-148
D-30
D-82
D-88
109
109
109
109
109
189
189
189
215
215
215
215
215
215
218
218
218
221
221
223
223
223
223
SAMPLE DEPTH
(FEET)
130-135
145-150
165-170
145-150
45-50
85-90
15-20
165-170
265-270
195-200
245-250
295-300
345-350
205-210
5-10
55-60
70-75
215-220
265-270
165-170
325-330
210-215
165-170
215-220
265-270
315-320
365-370
115-120
15-20
65-70
125-130
175-180
225-230
245-250
25-30
75-80
130-135
30-35
80-85
70-75
85-90
180-185
230-235
280-285
30-35
EIS TEAM SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
223(130-135)
224(145-150)
354(165-170)
357(145-150)
357(45-50)
398(85-90)
457(15-20)
0-112(165-170)
0-112(265-270)
0-114(195-200)
0-114(245-250)
0-114(295-300)
0-114(345-350)
0-133(205-210)
0-133(5-10)
0-133(55-60)
0-136(70-75)
0-148(215-220)
0-148(265-270)
0-30(165-170)
0-82(325-330)
0-88(210-215)
109(165-170)
109(215-220)
109(265-270)
109(315-320)
109(365-370)
189(115-120)
189(15-20)
189(65-70)
215(125-130)
215(175-180)
215(225-230)
215(245-250)
215(25-30)
215(75-80)
218(130-135)
218(30-35)
218(80-85)
221 (70-75)
221 (85-90)
223(180-185)
223(230-235)
223(280-285)
223(30-35)
NOTE: Confirmation Waste Rock Samples Only Analyzed for Acid-Base Accounting
-------
E-1,Pac
CONFIRMATION WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
ANALYZED BY EIS TEAM
WASTE ROCK
GROUP
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
BOREHOLE
NUMBER
223
224
224
224
343
343
343
354
354
354
354
354
398
455
455
457
463
463
482
482
482
482
482
482
482
482
D-112
D-112
D-114
D-114
D-114
D-114
D-133
D-133
D-133
D-133
D-136
D-145
D-148
D-148
D-148
D-148
D-148
D-30
D-30
D-30
SAMPLE DEPTH
(FEET)
80-85
1 95-200
245-250
45-50
135-140
185-190
35-40
115-120
15-20
215-220
265-270
65-70
35-40
35-40
50-55
65-70
15-20
50-55
10-15
110-115
1 60-1 65
210-215
260-265
310-315
335-340
60-65
215-220
315-320
145-150
395-400
45-50
95-100
105-110
155-160
255-260
305-310
20-25
330-335
115-120
15-20
165-170
315-320
65-70
115-120
15-20
215-220
EIS TEAM SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
223(80-85)
224(195-200)
224(245-250)
224(45-50)
343(135-140)
343(185-190)
343(35-40)
354(115-120)
354(15-20)
354(215-220)
354(265-270)
354(65-70)
398(35-40)
455(35-40)
455(50-55)
457(65-70)
463(15-20)
463(50-55)
482(10-15)
482(110-115)
482(160-165)
482(210-215)
482(260-265)
482(310-315)
482(335-340)
482(60-65)
0-112(215-220)
0-112(315-320)
0-114(145-150)
0-114(395-400)
0-114(45-50)
0-114(95-100)
0-133(105-110)
0-133(155-160)
0-133(255-260)
0-133(305-310)
0-136(20-25)
0-145(330-335)
0-148(115-120)
0-148(15-20)
0-148(165-170)
0-148(315-320)
0-148(65-70)
0-30(115-120)
0-30(15-20)
0-30(215-220)
NOTE: Confirmation Waste Rock Samples Only Analyzed for Acid-Base Accounting
-------
CONFIRMATION WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
ANALYZED BY EIS TEAM
WASTE ROCK
GROUP
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
BOREHOLE
NUMBER
D-30
D-30
D-40
D-49
D-71
D-71
D-82
D-82
D-82
D-82
D-82
D-82
D-88
178
210
224
260
260
272
272
284
284
284
284
302
302
302
302
306
335
335
491
D-145
D-148
D-30
D-38
D-38
D-38
D-40
D-44
D-44
D-451
D-49
D-49
D-49
SAMPLE DEPTH
(FEET)
265-270
65-70
65-70
35-40
10-15
60-65
125-130
175-180
225-230
25-30
275-280
75-80
120-125
160-165
25-30
345-350
340-345
400-405
150-155
155-160
245-250
295-300
345-350
95-100
395-400
445-450
490-495
95-100
375-380
20-25
370-375
180-185
380-385
475-480
315-320
255-260
355-360
405-410
165-170
230-235
380-385
425-430
135-140
185-190
235-240
EIS TEAM SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
0-30(265-270)
0-30(65-70)
0-40(65-70)
0-49(35-40)
0-71(10-15)
D-71 (60-65)
0-82(125-130)
0-82(175-180)
0-82(225-230)
0-82(25-30)
0-82(275-280)
0-82(75-80)
0-88(120-125)
178(160-165)
210(25-30)
224(345-350)
260(340-345)
260(400-405)
272(150-155)
272(155-160)
284(245-250)
284(295-300)
284(345-350)
284(95-100)
302(395-400)
302(445-450)
302(490-495)
302(95-100)
306(375-380)
335(20-25)
335(370-375)
491(180-185)
0-145(380-385)
0-148(475-480)
0-30(315-320)
D-38 (255-260)
0-38(355-360)
0-38(405-410)
0-40(165-170)
0-44(230-235)
0-44(380-385)
D-451 (425-430)
0-49(135-140)
0-49(185-190)
0-49(235-240)
NOTE: Confirmation Waste Rock Samples Only Analyzed for Acid-Base Accounting
-------
E-1, Pac
CONFIRMATION WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
ANALYZED BY EIS TEAM
WASTE ROCK
GROUP
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
MAGNETITE SKARN
MAGNETITE SKARN
MAGNETITE SKARN
MAGNETITE SKARN
MAGNETITE SKARN
MAGNETITE SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
BOREHOLE
NUMBER
D-49
D-49
D-49
D-49
D-85
284
284
306
D-38
D-44
D-85
218
218
221
224
224
224
260
260
284
302
306
306
330
335
335
354
D-145
D-148
D-148
D-30
D-38
D-38
D-40
D-44
D-451
D-51
D-57
189
200
212
341
341
SAMPLE DEPTH
(FEET)
285-290
335-340
360-365
85-90
235-240
395-400
445-450
475-480
520-525
470-475
465-470
280-285
310-315
20-25
295-300
390-395
95-100
290-295
40-45
195-200
45-50
225-230
325-330
75-80
320-325
385-390
315-320
510-515
365-370
415-420
365-370
105-110
8-15
215-220
280-285
395-400
140-145
165-170
215-220
50-55
25-30
270-175
315-320
EIS TEAM SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
0-49(285-290)
0-49(335-340)
0-49(360-365)
0-49(85-90)
0-85(235-240)
284(395-400)
284(445-450)
306(475-480)
0-38(520-525)
0-44(470-475)
0-85(465-470)
218(280-285)
218(310-315)
221 (20-25)
224(295-300)
224(390-395)
224(95-100)
260(290-295)
260(40-45)
284(195-200)
302(45-50)
306(225-230)
306(325-330)
330(75-80)
335(320-325)
335(385-390)
354(315-320)
0-145(510-515)
0-148(365-370)
0-148(415-420)
0-30(365-370)
0-38(105-110)
0-38(8-15)
0-40(215-220)
0-44(280-285)
0-451 (395-400)
0-51(140-145)
0-57(165-170)
189(215-220)
200(50-55)
212(25-30)
341 (270-275)
341(315-320)
NOTE: Confirmation Waste Rock Samples Only Analyzed for Acid-Base Accounting
-------
CONFIRMATION WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
ANALYZED BY EIS TEAM
WASTE ROCK
GROUP
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
BOREHOLE
NUMBER
354
354
354
357
398
398
398
41
443
443
443
D-114
D-114
D-133
D-133
D-136
D-57
D-71
D-71
0-82
D-99
SAMPLE DEPTH
(FEET)
365-370
415-420
425-430
340-345
135-140
185-190
230-235
20-25
10-15
60-65
70-75
495-500
520-525
355-360
365-370
115-120
105-110
110-115
135-140
475-480
485-490
EIS TEAM SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
354(365-370)
354(415-420)
354(425-430)
357(340-345)
398(135-140)
398(185-190)
398(230-235)
41 (20-25)
443(10-15)
443(60-65)
443(70-75)
0-114(495-500)
0-114(520-525)
0-133(355-360)
0-133(365-370)
0-136(115-120)
0-57(105-110)
0-71(110-115)
0-71(135-140)
0-82(475-480)
0-99(485-490)
ALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED
UNALTERED
UNALTERED
UNALTERED
UNALTERED
UNALTERED
UNALTERED
UNALTERED
UNALTERED
UNALTERED
UNALTERED
UNALTERED
UNALTERED
UNALTERED
UNALTERED
UNALTERED
UNALTERED
UNALTERED
UNALTERED
UNALTERED
UNALTERED
UNALTERED
CLASTICS
CLASTICS
CLASTICS
CLASTICS
CLASTICS
CLASTICS
CLASTICS
CLASTICS
CLASTICS
CLASTICS
CLASTICS
CLASTICS
CLASTICS
CLASTICS
CLASTICS
CLASTICS
CLASTICS
CLASTICS
CLASTICS
CLASTICS
CLASTICS
CLASTICS
306
183
184
184
189
212
212
218
218
234
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
260
260
272
284
302
302
25-30
70-75
40-45
70-75
300-305
110-115
75-80
180-185
230-235
60-65
10-15
110-115
160-165
210-215
260-265
295-300
60-65
190-195
240-245
100-105
45-50
195-200
345-350
306(25-30)
183(70-75)
184(40-45)
184(70-75)
189(300-305)
212(110-115)
212(75-80)
218(180-185)
218(230-235)
234(60-65)
235(10-15)
235(110-115)
235(160-165)
235(210-215)
235(260-265)
235(295-300)
235(60-65)
260(190-195)
260(240-245)
272(100-105)
284(45-50)
302(195-200)
302(345-350)
NOTE: Confirmation Waste Rock Samples Only Analyzed for Acid-Base Accounting
-------
E-1, Pa
CONFIRMATION WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
ANALYZED BY EIS TEAM
WASTE ROCK
GROUP
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
BOREHOLE
NUMBER
306
306
315
315
315
315
315
330
330
330
335
348
348
348
348
348
357
357
357
41
41
41
459
459
459
459
459
459
491
491
491
491
D-27
D-27
D-38
D-44
D-44
D-44
D-451
109
109
109
183
210
210
SAMPLE DEPTH
(FEET)
125-130
75-80
100-105
150-155
200-205
215-220
50-55
175-180
225-230
250-255
270-275
135-140
185-190
235-240
35-40
85-90
195-200
245-250
295-300
120-125
125-130
70-75
135-140
185-190
235-240
335-340
35-40
85-90
230-235
280-285
330-335
380-385
120-125
170-175
205-21 0
30-35
330-335
80-85
345-350
115-120
375-380
65-70
20-25
75-80
85-90
EIS TEAM SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
306(125-130)
306(75-80)
315(100-105)
315(150-155)
315(200-205)
315(215-220)
315(50-55)
330(175-180)
330(225-230)
330(250-255)
335(270-275)
348(135-140)
348(185-190)
348(235-240)
348(35-40)
348(85-90)
357(195-200)
357(245-250)
357(295-300)
41(120-125)
41(125-130)
41 (70-75)
459(135-140)
459(185-190)
459(235-240)
459(335-340)
459(35-40)
459(85-90)
491 (230-235)
491 (280-285)
491 (330-335)
491 (380-385)
0-27(120-125)
0-27(170-175)
0-38(205-210)
0-44(30-35)
0-44(330-335)
0-44(80-85)
0-451 (345-350)
109(115-120)
109(375-380)
109(65-70)
183(20-25)
210(75-80)
210(85-90)
NOTE: Confirmation Waste Rock Samples Only Analyzed for Acid-Base Accounting
-------
CONFIRMATION WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
ANALYZED BY EIS TEAM
E-1, Page 9
WASTE ROCK
GROUP
BOREHOLE
NUMBER
SAMPLE DEPTH
(FEET)
EIS TEAM SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
260
260
284
302
343
357
457
457
459
491
D-112
D-112
D-30
D-44
D-44
D-56
D-82
140-145
390-395
145-150
145-150
85-90
95-100
115-120
155-160
285-290
430-435
115-120
15-20
545-550
130-135
180-185
225-230
565-570
260(140-145)
260(390-395)
284(145-150)
302(145-150)
343(85-90)
357(95-100)
457(115-120)
457(155-160)
459(285-290)
491 (430-435)
0-112(115-120)
0-112(15-20)
0-30(545-550)
0-44(130-135)
0-44(180-185)
0-56(225-230)
0-82(565-570)
NOTE: Confirmation Waste Rock Samples Only Analyzed for Acid-Base Accounting
-------
June 1995
Appendix E * Geochemistry * E-l, Page 10
ORE AND LOW GRADE ORE SAMPLES ANALYZED BY BMGC
Low Grade Ore
Garnet Skarn
Magnetite Skarn
Undifferentiated
Skarn
Borehole Number
D90-46
D90-56
D91-51
D90-85
D90-46
D91-101
Sample Depth
95-100
265-270
540.3-545
500-505
140-145
245-250
BMGC Sample
Designation
10-101
10-102
11-101
11-102
9-101
9-102
Ore
Garnet Skarn
Magnetite Skarn
Undifferentiated
Skarn
D90-46
D90-46
D91-88
D91-101
40-45
45-50
445-450
235-240
13-101
13-102
14-101
12-101
Analyses Performed
XRF
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
EPA Method 1312
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Acid-Base
Accounting
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Humidity Cell Tests
/
/
REPRESENTATIVE TAILING SAMPLES ANALYZED BY BMGC
Ore Type
Magnetite
Magnetite
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Andesite/Garnetite
Southwest and
Andesite/Garnetite
Cyanide Detox Level
<40 ppm WAD
Optimal detox
<40 ppm WAD
Optimal detox
Optimal detox
<40 ppm WAD
Optimal detox
BMGC Sample
Designation
CJC-7/2096-991
CJC-7/21 27-74
CJC-1 2/21 10-1 35
CJC-1 2/2 127-70
CJC-1 2/2 127-71
CJC-1 3/21 10-1 35A
CJC-Blend/21 27-73
Analyses Performed
XRF (solids)
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Dissolved
Constituents
(liquid)
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
EPA Method
1311 (solids)
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
EPA Method
1312 (solids)
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Acid - Base
Accounting
(solids)
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Humidity Cell
Tests (solids)
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Note: 1 = Laboratory referred to this sample as CJC-1 3/2096-99
-------
APPENDIX E-2
XRF AND WHOLE ROCK RADIONUCLIDE ANALYSIS
-------
-------
June 1995
Appendix E * Geochemistry * E-2, Page 1
XRF ANALYSES OF ALTERED ANDESITE WASTE ROCK SAMPUS
Parameter
Major Elements
Aluminum (as AljOj)
Barium (as BaO)
Cadmium (as CaO)
Chloride (as Cl)
Iron (as Fe?Oj)
Magnesium (as MgO)
Manganese (as MnO)
Phosphorus (as P3O^)
Potassium (as K3O)
Silica (as SiOJ
Sodium (as Nap)
Sulfur (as S)
Titanium (as T1O;)
Minor Elements
Arsenic (As)
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
Lead (Pb)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Ni)
Niobium (Nb)
Rubidium (Rb)
Strontium (Sr)
Thorium (Th)
Tin (Sn)
Tungsten (W)
Uranium (U)
Vanadium (V)
Yttrium (Y)
Zinc (Zn)
Zirconium (Zr)
Parameter
Major Elements
Aluminum (as Al2Oj)
Barium (as BaO)
Cadmium (as CaO)
Chloride (as Cl)
Iron (as Fe;Oj)
Magnesium (as MgO)
Manganese (as MnO)
Phosphorus (as PpO
Potassium (as K3O)
Silica (as SiOj
Sodium (as NajO)
Sulfur (as S)
Titanium (as TiOj)
Minor Elements
Arsenic (As)
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
Lead (Pb)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Ni)
Niobium (Nb)
Rubidium (Rb)
Strontium (Sr)
Thorium (Th)
Tin (Sn)
Tungsten (W)
Uranium (U)
Vanadium (V)
Yttrium (Y)
Zinc (Zn)
Zirconium (Zr)
Sample *
101-A
102-A
10J-A
104-A
105-A
106-A
107-A
% By Weight
15.1
0.06
11.8
0.02
10.8
6.47
0.23
0.33
1.72
51.7
2.86
ND
0.70
12.1
0.05
16.9
ND
12.9
6.76
0.28
0.22
2.00
39.9
1.57
1.59
0.64
13.7
0.04
10.4
0.03
13.0
8.98
0.24
0.13
2.70
43.9
1.91
ND
0.64
14.1
0.09
11.0
ND
11.8
6.36
0.29
0.22
2.34
49.3
2.53
0.19
0.66
14.1
0.08
13.0
ND
10.8
6.92
0.22
0.36
1.27
50.6
2.87
0.86
0.68
15.1
0.05
12.3
ND
11.7
6.88
0.31
0.41
1.38
49.8
2.97
0.08
0.76
8.60
0.03
19.9
ND
10.3
4.43
0.40
0.18
0.83
42.2
1.23
0.61
0.43
mg/kg
ND
185
32
169
47
ND
57
ND
70
648
10
228
ND
29
208
35
84
56
189
105
36
711
83
to
33
ND
70
757
10
249
ND
21
212
33
43
47
ND
149
25
313
24
ND
34
ND
211
569
ND
290
ND
ND
168
33
100
40
ND
125
34
1580
104
ND
47
ND
125
468
23
294
ND
21
193
30
94
58
ND
97
52
1080
105
ND
46
ND
52
623
ND
254
ND
ND
208
32
95
58
ND
185
64
1090
383
ND
57
ND
67
652
53
309
ND "
19
215
35
111
59
ND
112
29
931
259
15
60
ND
42
471
61
180
ND
ND
124
22
78
37
Sample #
108-A
109-A
110- A
111-A
112-A
113-A
114-A
% By Weight
13.0
0.05
16.6
ND
12.1
8.47
0.28
0.24
1.45
46.4
1.12
0.69
0.69
14.6
0.06
12.0
ND
12.0
7.54
0.33
0.37
1.47
49.1
2.49
0.91
0.74
14.6
0.08
11.4
ND
11.9
7.70
0.27
0.27
2.07
49.4
2.31
1.10
0.70
15.3
0.04
9.67
ND
10.6
7.62
0.19
0.25
1.00
51.7
3.81
0.80
0.68
14.3
1.18
13.8
ND
12.0
6.20
0.24
0.27
1.99
45.8
1.54
1.12
0.71
10.8
0.03
19.4
ND
15.1
7.57
0.26
0.26
0.72
42.9
1.81
2.48
0.66
12.8
0.04
11.9
ND
24.2
7.74
0.34
0.19
2.01
39.4
0.77
3.41
0.65
mg/kg
23
361
32
400
56
ND
84
ND
59
574
12
224
ND
16
222
28
89
48
ND
109
37
588
720
12
32
ND
65
563
54
228
ND
ND
232
28
262
54
21
112
42
856
294
11
41
ND
94
544
31
193
ND
20
238
38
118
52
ND
74
38
345
39
ND
24
ND
53
741
12
212
ND
10
206
27
69
56
ND
82
28
528
57
ND
23
ND
79
561
25
212
ND
13
219
29
72
55
ND
189
80
1090
183
12
41
ND
38
615
28
104
10
24
203
33
97
50
384
53
93
918
169
ND
43
10
107
479
21
226
ND
ND
198
26
123
49
Note: ND = Not detected
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix E * Geochemistry * E-2, Page 2
XRF ANALYSES OF UNALTERED ANDESITE WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
Parameter
Major Elements
Aluminum (as Al:Oj)
Barium (as BaO)
Cadmium (as CaO)
Chloride (as Cl)
Iron (as FejO3)
Magnesium (as MgO)
Manganese (as MnO)
Phosphorus (as P,OJ
Potassium (as KjO)
Silica (as SiOJ
Sodium (as Na,O)
Sulfur (as S)
Titanium (as TiOj)
Minor Elements
Arsenic (As)
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
Lead (Pb)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Ni)
Niobium (Nb)
Rubidium (Rb)
Strontium (Sr)
Thorium (Th)
Tin (Sn)
Tungsten (W)
Uranium (U)
Vanadium (V)
Yttrium (Y)
Zinc (Zn)
Zirconium (Zr)
Parameter
Major Elements
Aluminum (as Al3Oj)
Barium (as BaO)
Cadmium (as CaO)
Chloride (as Cl)
Iron (as Fe2O3)
Magnesium (as MgO)
Manganese (as MnO)
Phosphorus (as P,OJ
Potassium (as K2O)
Silica (as SiOJ
Sodium (as Na;O)
Sulfur (as S)
Titanium (as TiO^
Minor Elements
Arsenic (As)
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
Lead (Pb)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Ni)
Niobium (Nb)
Rubidium (Rb)
Strontium (Sr)
Thorium (Th)
Tin (Sn)
Tungsten (W)
Uranium (U)
Vanadium (V)
Yttrium (Y)
Zinc (Zn)
Zirconium (Zr)
Sample #
201-B
202-B
203-B
204-B
205-B
206-B
207-B
% By Weight
14.9
0.04
14.3
ND
10.8
6.18
0.30
0.32
1.42
49.8
2.94
0.11
0.73
14.3
0.06
10.4
0.10
11.6
7.37
0.23
0.40
1.37
50.2
2.99
0.08
0.70
16.4
0.09
12.3
ND
11.4
6.41
0.22
0.23
2.87
47.9
1.63
0.18
0.73
15.4
0.07
10.7
ND
10.6
7.26
0.26
0.37
1.67
52.0
2.70
ND
0.76
14.9
0.07
11.7
ND
12.1
8.71
0.26
0.34
1.95
49.2
1.87
0.14
0.72
15.8
0.06
9.46
0.07
11.9
7.63
0.18
0.22
1.49
50.9
3.22
0.10
0.75
14.9
0.03
10.9
0.03
13.2
8.06
0.22
0.24
1.57
49.1
2.51
0.38
0.70
mg/kg
35
145
40
515
82
11
52
ND
85
568
15
233
ND
12
204
28
104
63
29
161
48
569
63
ND
65
ND
56
561
ND
316
ND
15
212
29
87
53
42
152
32
243
41
ND
49
ND
112
480
11
266
ND
ND
201
28
106
53
ND
196
33
635
93
ND
56
ND
69
621
13
281
ND
ND
221
29
97
58
22
172
40
896
106
ND
53
ND
78
707
13
258
ND
21
211
30
109
55
ND
163
33
664
53
ND
50
ND
71
605
14
251
ND
12
219
33
102
55
ND
152
41
93
26
ND
60
ND
84
693
ND
240
ND
16
200
28
92
52
Sample #
208-B
209-B
210-B
211-B
212-B
213-B
214-B
% By Weight
14.4
0.07
10.9
ND
13.4
7.21
0.24
0.31
1.20
48.6
3.06
1.90
0.63
16.0
0.07
10.9
ND
11.5
5.69
0.18
0.22
2.18
50.0
2.88
0.84
0.70
13.4
0.04
12.9
0.04
15.5
8.56
0.36
0.26
1.41
46.6
1.37
0.75
0.73
7.93
ND
25.0
ND
17.8
4.24
0.53
0.13
0.07
40.1
0.45
0.37
0.63
14.5
0.08
10.9
ND
11.9
6.95
0.24
0.22
1.82
51.6
2.91
0.06
0.67
13.5
0.05
11.4
ND
10.6
6.97
0.18
0.17
1.56
46.7
2.25
ND
0.76
14.7
0.03
9.13
0.02
13.0
7.27
0.37
0.22
1.14
50.8
3.48
0.62
0.75
mg/kg
ND
80
74
1020
81
ND
45
ND
52
649
21
263
ND
13
197
34
89
52
ND
148
30
254
30
ND
41
ND
109
442
ND
249
ND
ND
201
27
95
55
ND
182
43
472
85
10
42
ND
80
593
15
199
ND
16
184
36
125
51
ND
13
28
246
93
12
ND
13
29
332
132
71
10
ND
110
27
298
79
26
120
38
869
53
ND
39
ND
84
719
ND
254
ND
10
207
34
105
64
ND
58
31
244
33
ND
22
ND
86
656
ND
264
ND
ND
221
28
80
53
ND
168
36
347
47
19
56
ND
81
577
18
272
ND
ND
214
29
89
61
Note: ND - Not detected
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix E * Geochemistry * E-2, Page 3
XRF ANALYSES OF GARNET SKARN WASTE ROCK SAMPI£S
Parameter
Major Elements
Aluminum (as A13O3)
Barium (as BaO)
Cadmium (as CaO)
Chloride (as Cl)
Iron (as Fe3O,)
Magnesium (as MgO)
Manganese (as MnO]
Phosphorus (as PjpJ
Potassium (as K3O)
Silica (as Sib.)
Sodium (as NiuO)
Sulfur (as S)
Titanium (as TiO,)
Minor Elements
Arsenic (As)
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
Lead(Pb)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Nil
Niobium (Nb}
Rubidium fRb)
StrontiunifSr)
Thorium (Thj
Tin(Sn)
Tungsten (W)
Uranium (U)
Vanadium (V)
Yttrium (Y)
Zinc (Zn)
Zirconium (Zr)
Sample #
301-A
302-A
303-A
304-A
305-A
306-A
307-A
308-A
309-A
% By Weight
7.97
ND
28.0
ND
16.6
2.71
0.52
0.16
0.03
35.4
ND
ND
0.51
9.34
ND
21.6
ND
14.7
2.55
0.61
0.15
0.14
49.7
2.52
0.08
0.56
8.27
ND
28.0
0.02
18.9
3.39
0.67
0.15
0.11
40.4
0.22
0.16
0.98
15.8
0.02
6.16
ND
11.4
6.35
0.17
0.21
1.00
52.0
4.71
0.12
0.71
6.29
ND
27.1
ND
17.6
5.49
0.55
0.31
0.04
41.6
0.07
0.36
0.69
6.66
ND
31.8
ND
15.0
1.44
0.74
0.05
0.34
32.1
0.26
0.25
0.57
7.54
ND
26.5
ND
23.4
3.02
0.54
0.09
0.03
37.6
ND
2.71
0.86
7.05
ND
27.0
ND
19.3
5.13
0.55
0.29
0.05
40.9
0.05
1.42
0.63
7.08
ND
26.5
ND
19.7
3.54
0.60
0.05
0.08
38.8
0.05
0.72
0.37
ma/kg
ND
ND
10
43
43
ND
ND
ND
19
271
16
ND
ND
ND
114
38
57
60
ND
36
16
42
73
81
ND
ND
17
246
38
97
ND
10
93
30
108
785
ND
16
10
154
62
90
ND
13
15
145
28
ND
ND
ND
172
43
95
82
ND
105
30
360
35
ND
36
ND
64
439
ND
292
ND
22
192
33
77
61
ND
11
24
138
72
ND
ND
11
21
186
17
ND
ND
ND
97
31
89
85
ND
14
ND
149
113
68
ND
ND
30
297
10
ND
ND
15
113
31
184
63
ND
16
67
673
82
20
43
ND
21
275
29
ND
20
18
135
36
82
72
ND
15
53
353
67
ND
ND
10
20
214
45
ND
14
11
94
39
134
87
ND
25
20
297
62
10
82
11
17
223
38
ND
ND
ND
101
43
113
55
Note: ND = Not detected
XRF ANALYSES OF MAGNETITE SKARN WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
Parameter
Major Elements
Aluminum (as AljOj)
Barium (as BaO)
Cadmium (as CaO)
Chloride (as C!)
Iron (as Fe3O3)
Magnesium (as MgO)
Manganese (as MnO]
Phosphorus (as P^OJ
Potassium (as K3O)
Silica (as SiO,)
Sodium (as Na,O)
Sulfur (as S)
Titanium (as TiO-,)
Minor Elements
Arsenic (As)
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
LeaJfPb)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Nil
Niobium (Nb)
Rubidium fRb)
StrontiunMSr)
Thorium (Th)
Tin (Sn)
Tungsten fW)
Uranium (U)
Vanadium (V)
Yttrium (Y)
Zinc (Zn)
Zirconium (Zr)
Sample #
4-40 1-B
4-402-B
403-B
404-B
405-B
406-B
% By Weight
4.29
0.01
11.8
ND
68.8
1.39
0.29
ND
0.03
18.8
ND
1.60
0.19
28
ND
56
70
91
ND
ND
ND
ND
76
37
ND
39
10
63
17
64
30
7.65
ND
17.9
ND
47.9
1.46
0.40
0.13
0.06
27.1
ND
2.36
0.27
31
20
28
148
93
25
ND
ND
ND
264
24
ND
22
ND
73
25
61
38
3.96
0.01
11.3
ND
73.3
1.11
0.25
ND
0.03
18.0
ND
0.78
0.13
m£/l
32
ND
55
167
112
ND
ND
ND
12
95
160
ND
44
ND
55
ND
71
18
5.28
0.01
13.4
ND
65.7
1.22
0.32
0.08
0.04
20.0
ND
1.93
0.21
4.20
ND
11.8
ND
65.2
1.36
0.28
ND
0.04
19.2
ND
4.47
0.13
6.04
ND
18.7
ND
41.8
2.49
0.36
0.18
0.05
30.07
ND
3,74
0.40
R
33
ND
55
241
103
11
ND
ND
ND
!20
ND
ND
30
ND
65
15
74
40
30
14
43
190
100
21
ND
ND
ND
117
85
ND
29
ND
45
ND
95
25
27
20
29
102
83
13
ND
11
ND
261
76
ND
40
ND
68
20
81
55
Note: ND - Not detected
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix E * Geochemistry * E-2, Page 4
XRF ANALYSES OF UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
Parameter
Major Elements
Aluminum (as AljO3)
Barium (as BaO)
Cadmium (as CaO)
Chloride (as Cl)
Iron (as Fe3O3)
Magnesium (as MgO)
Manganese (as MnO)
Phosphorus (as Pp.)
Potassium (as K,O)
Silica (as SiO,)
Sodium (as Na,O)
Sulfur (as S)
Titanium (as TiO,)
Minor Elements
Arsenic (As)
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
LeacfnPb)
Molvbdenum (Mo)
Nickel (NO
Niobium (Nb)
Rubidium fRb)
Strontium (Sr)
Thorium (Th)
Tin (Sn)
Tungsten (W)
Uranium (U)
Vanadium (V)
Yttrium (Y)
Zinc (Zn)
Zirconium (Zr)
Sample H
501-C
502-C
503-C
504-C
505-C
506-C
507-C
% By Weight
12.8
0.04
17.9
ND
12.9
4.53
0.45
0.12
1.18
48.4
2.26
ND
0.91
12.5
0.09
19.5
ND
11.7
2.97
0.41
0.10
1.80
47.5
1.97
0.07
0.75
11.5
0.13
17.6
ND
12.8
3.85
0.45
0.13
1.90
45.6
1.27
ND
1.02
9.18
ND
19.7
ND
15.8
6.17
0.42
0.23
0.26
43.9
0.33
ND
1.29
12.5
0.05
14.3
ND
11.2
2.44
0.45
0.13
1.06
53.3
4.68
ND
1.25
9.07
ND
24.4
ND
16.5
2.95
0.68
0.15
0.18
42.5
0.16
0.10
0.88
12.9
0.04
13.5
ND
10.2
3.51
0.35
0.11
1.22
55.1
3.62
0.20
0.66
me/kg
ND
54
21
134
49
ND
12
ND
50
476
18
190
ND
22
170
31
142
83
ND
26
20
299
67
ND
ND
ND
40
426
ND
230
ND
ND
134
41
136
87
ND
38
32
143
46
10
13
ND
52
402
ND
241
ND
ND
170
38
113
97
ND
U
33
82
50
18
ND
ND
22
621
67
197
ND
15
208
27
109
109
ND
31
21
15
26
ND
ND
ND
26
275
19
192
ND
13
201
36
131
93
20
17
14
291
2490
19
ND
ND
29
297
298
73
ND
ND
131
32
124
74
ND
47
27
429
72
14
19
ND
36
492
ND
242
ND
12
130
35
77
75
Note: ND - Not detected
XRF ANALYSES OF MARBLE WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
Parameter
Major Elements
Aluminum (as A13O3)
Banum (as BaO)
Cadmium (as CaO)
Chlonde (as Cl)
Iron (as Fe;O3)
Magnesium (as MgO)
Manganese (as MnO)
Phosphorus (as PjOt)
Potassium (as K,O)
S.lica (as SiO,)
Sodium (as NauOl
Sulfur (as S)
Titanium (as TiO?)
Minor Elements
Arsenic (As)
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
Lead (Pb)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (NO
Niobium (Nb)
Rubidium fRb)
Strontium (Sr)
Thorium (Th)
Tin (Sn)
Tungsten (W)
Uranium (U)
Vanadium (V)
Yttrium (Y)
Zinc (Zn)
Zirconium (Zr)
Sample *
601
602
60J
604
605
606
607
608
609
% By Weight
0.05
ND
50.9
ND
3.76
0.31
0.12
ND
ND
4.93
ND
ND
ND
0.46
ND
52.2
ND
0.47
1.23
0.05
ND
0.11
1.89
ND
ND
0.02
0.44
ND
52.4
ND
0.89
0.55
0.06
ND
0.09
2.07
ND
ND
0.03
2.29
ND
42.3
ND
0.83
9.72
0.05
ND
0.16
8.10
ND
0.11
0.08
0.39
ND
49.5
ND
2.38
0.47
0.09
ND
0.15
2.79
ND
ND
0.02
3.18
0.01
40.7
ND
5.57
5.36
0.15
ND
0.26
13.0
ND
0.22
0.16
0.16
ND
49.6
ND
3.15
0.26
0.08
ND
0.04
2.09
ND
0.23
0.02
0.45
ND
50.9
ND
1.23
0.44
0.07
ND
0.08
2.24
ND
0.07
0.03
1.52
ND
46.1
ND
1.44
6.57
0.06
ND
0.23
5.94
ND
0.10
0.06
ma/ke
39
26
ND
ND
38
15
ND
ND
24
276
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
22
ND
ND
27
16
ND
ND
32
10
ND
ND
28
778
ND
ND
ND
ND
18
20
ND
14
179
16
ND
11
38
21
ND
ND
24
587
138
ND
ND
ND
18
22
ND
11
ND
20
ND
ND
20
ND
ND
ND
23
539
ND
ND
ND
ND
24
19
10
19
47
15
ND
12
34
17
ND
ND
27
594
105
ND
ND
ND
15
19
ND
ND
450
17
50
47
32
26
ND
ND
28
373
83
ND
ND
ND
40
22
11
29
197
10
70
96
48
35
ND
ND
36
422
585
ND
ND
ND
16
13
ND
ND
720
26
95
12
36
46
ND
ND
30
543
166
ND
ND
ND
24
23
ND
ND
ND
16
ND
20
29
25
ND
ND
33
789
ND
ND
ND
ND
31
16
ND
17
Note: ND — Not detected
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix E * Geochemistry * E-2, Page 5
XRF ANALYSES OF CLAST1CS WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
Parameter
Major Elements
Aluminum (as Al,O3)
Barium (as BaO)
Cadmium (as CaO)
Chloride (as Cl)
Iron (as Fe3O3)
Magnesium (as MgO)
Manganese (as MnO]
Phosphorus (as P^OD
Potassium (as K,O)
Silica (as SiO,)
Sodium (as Na-,0)
Sulfur (as S)
Titanium (as TiO,)
Minor Elements
Arsenic (As)
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Cff~~- \
opper Iv^u)
LeadfPb)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Nil
Niobium (Nb)
Rubidium fRb)
Strontium (Sr)
Thorium (Tn)
Tin (Sn)
Tungsten W)
Uranium (U)
Vanadium (V)
Yttrium (Y)
Zinc(Zn)
Zirconium (Zr)
Sample #
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
% By Weight
14.1
0.02
8.18
0.08
11.6
4.43
0.20
0.20
0.85
55.2
5.47
ND
1.29
12.0
0.05
16.3
ND
9.42
3.34
0.43
0.16
1.22
51.5
3.53
ND
0.79
12.9
0.03
12.8
ND
9.19
4.78
0.35
0.23
0.90
54.5
4.60
0.20
0.94
15.5
0.02
5.64
ND
9.74
3.66
0.20
0.16
1.65
55.4
5.08
0.24
1.16
15.6
0.01
13.4
ND
9.85
6.97
0.22
0.37
0.49
50.5
3.07
0.33
0.81
13.6
0.02
11.9
0.04
11.2
5.24
0.28
0.20
0.45
53.0
4.48
0.13
1.22
12.0
0.14
15.6
ND
11.3
3.79
0.41
0.25
2.05
52.8
2.17
0.45
0.56
14.8
0.13
6.60
ND
12.5
4.14
0.37
0.18
3.01
54.7
2.35
2.26
0.55
14.2
0.09
10.8
ND
7.75
3.13
0.28
0.12
1.70
54.
52
0.15
0.72
15.8
0.16
8.71
ND
5.79
3.69
0.18
0.21
2.99
58.9
2.22
1.85
0.65
16.1
0.09
9.41
ND
9.60
6.13
0.41
0.20
2.15
52.3
3.31
0.89
0.69
me/kg
ND
ND
31
ND
15
ND
ND
ND
28
273
23
266
ND
16
250
42
72
113
ND
27
21
290
92
ND
23
ND
36
725
ND
217
ND
ND
149
32
126
99
61
59
30
254
132
19
25
ND
51
488
18
197
ND
12
199
44
93
104
ND
13
24
77
17
ND
ND
ND
70
307
19
292
ND
13
246
40
69
102
ND
29
30
108
28
ND
ND
ND
30
918
ND
170
ND
13
238
37
72
59
20
13
29
19
28
ND
ND
ND
24
510
31
183
ND
ND
267
41
73
104
61
70
16
67
37
43
28
ND
46
413
17
187
ND
10
155
43
80
81
27
76
21
203
37
62
55
ND
84
360
19
273
ND
ND
174
32
51
82
ND
12
20
108
100
80
22
ND
42
456
ND
229
ND
15
134
28
154
83
33
87
21
94
29
25
47
ND
72
487
ND
192
ND
ND
183
33
29
89
674
164
67
723
83
71
90
ND
73
382
17
272
ND
11
210
30
76
72
Note: ND - Not detected
XRF ANALYSES OF INTRUSIVES WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
Parameter
Major Elements
Aluminum (as A13O3)
Barium (as BaO)
Cadmium (as CaO)
Chloride (as Cl)
Iron (as Fe3O3)
Magnesium (as MgO)
Manganese (as MnO)
Phosphorus (as PjOj
Potassium (as K3O)
Silica (as SiO,)
Sodium (as Na,O)
Sulfur (as S)
Titanium (as TiO,)
Minor Elements
Arsenic (As)
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
LeacffPb)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Nil
Niobium (Nb)
Rubidium fRb)
Strontium (Sr)
1 honum (Ih)
Tin (Sn)
Tungsten IW)
Uranium (U)
Vanadium (V)
Yttrium (Y)
Zinc (Zn)
Zirconium (Zr)
Sample #
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
% By Weight
12.2
0.01
18.8
0.05
13.8
6.02
0.34
0.16
0.39
47.0
1.85
ND
0.96
12.4
0.01
18.3
0.04
13.7
5.77
0.35
0.18
0.49
45.6
2.14
0.13
0.88
15.7
0.04
2.14
ND
2.41
0.49
0.21
ND
4.76
69.7
0.22
0.09
0.08
14.7
0.05
3.28
ND
2.46
0.64
0.21
ND
4.65
70.6
0.28
ND
0.07
15.1
0.04
2.59
ND
2.44
0.64
0.23
ND
4.47
70.4
0.43
0.07
0.10
15.0
0.03
3.58
ND
7.03
1.26
0.60
ND
3.98
69.3
0.39
0.07
0.15
15.5
0.12
3.96
ND
5.30
0.56
0.43
ND
5.90
68.2
0.47
0.07
0.09
mg/kfc
22
13
42
17
44
ND
ND
ND
24
595
148
140
ND
11
222
27
109
79
33
16
39
ND
40
ND
ND
ND
28
548
130
171
ND
ND
224
30
93
77
45
17
ND
53
12
ND
ND
13
137
49
ND
59
ND
13
10
27
ND
55
ND
20
ND
26
11
14
ND
13
162
61
ND
59
ND
ND
ND
29
10
56
76
20
ND
46
19
16
11
11
141
77
ND
63
ND
ND
15
21
18
57
34
95
12
264
32
51
37
15
136
126
26
186
ND
ND
25
30
25
57
43
52
ND
117
18
39
28
13
181
146
14
142
ND
12
12
29
23
61
Note: ND - Not detected
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix E * Geochemistry * E-2, Page 6
XRF ANALYSES OF LOW GRADE ORE SAMPLES
Parameter
Sample Number
9-101
9-102
10-101
10-102
11-101
11-102
Major Elements (%)
Aluminum (as AI2O3)
Barium (as BaO)
Calcium (as CaO)
Chloride (as Cl)
Iron (as Fe2Oj)
Magnesium (as MgO)
Manganese (as MnO)
Phosphorus (as P2O5)
Potassium (as K2O)
Silica (as SiO2)
Sodium (as NijO)
Sulfur (as S)
Titanium (as TiO2)
8.45
ND
21.4
ND
15.8
2.88
0.46
0.14
0.04
51.9
ND
0.09
0.72
1.36
0.01
20.7
ND
34.1
3.61
0.41
ND
0.20
37.4
ND
5.10
0.02
7.49
ND
29.1
ND
17.0
3.23
0.58
0.07
0.02
39.1
ND
ND
0.41
6.71
ND
28.8
ND
20.4
4.14
0.59
0.12
0.03
40.6
0.05
0.38
0.49
4.15
ND
15.1
ND
46.7
4.56
0.29
0.24
0.06
28.9
ND
4.49
0.50
1.01
0.01
2.74
ND
82.4
1.95
0.10
0.06
0.07
9.03
ND
1.47
0.03
Minor Elements (mg/kg)
Arsenic (As)
Chromium (CR)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
Lea/(Pb)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Ni)
Niobium (Nb)
Rubidium (Rb)
Strontium (Sr)
Thorium fl"h)
Tin (Sn)
Tungsten (W)
Uranium (U)
Vanadium (V)
Yttrium (Y)
Zinc (Zn)
Zirconium (Zr)
ND
27
20
123
92
156
ND
ND
12
925
62
70
10
13
106
43
92
100
ND
ND
136
1410
79
99
ND
ND
19
131
24
ND
14
ND
20
16
74
17
ND
15
ND
64
54
ND
ND
10
ND
92
ND
ND
ND
ND
83
34
44
63
ND
ND
10
397
72
34
18
ND
13
94
ND
ND
10
ND
104
59
87
70
21
ND
27
486
105
18
ND
10
ND
109
47
ND
21
ND
117
24
70
53
52
ND
135
118
114
ND
ND
ND
ND
41
345
ND
15
ND
28
ND
88
ND
Note: ND - Not detected.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix E * Geochemistry * E-2, Page 7
XRF ANALYSES OF ORE SAMPLES
Parameter
Sample Number
12-101
13-101
13-102
14-101
Major Elements (%)
Aluminum (as A1203)
Barium (as BaO)
Calcium (as CaO)
Chloride (as Cl)
Iron (as Fe^Oj)
Magnesium (as MgO)
Manganese (as MnO)
Phosphorus (asP2O5)
Potassium (as K2O)
Silica (as SiO2
Sodium (as NajO)
Sulfur (as S)
Titanium (as TiOj)
4.67
0.01
32.8
ND
14.7
4.03
0.27
ND
0.59
17.9
0.18
1.29
0.22
9.94
ND
26.7
ND
18.3
2.96
0.50
0.14
0.02
40.8
ND
0.35
0.66
8.46
ND
26.9
ND
17.5
3.04
0.55
0.06
0.03
39.9
ND
0.17
0.51
0.15
ND
37.0
ND
24.0
1.85
0.21
ND
0.04
15.3
ND
0.61
0.02
Minor Elements (mg/kg)
Arsenic (As)
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
.-« /v~< \
Copper (Cu)
LeaJ(Pb)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (ni)
Niobium (Nb)
Rubidium (Rb)
Strontium (Sr)
Thorium fTh)
Tin (Sn)
Tungsten (W)
Uranium (U)
Vanadium (V)
Yttrium (Y)
Zinc (Zn)
Zirconium (Zr)
ND
45
41
649
54
23
11
ND
53
506
28
51
ND
ND
100
38
65
43
497
30
441
169
99
ND
13
ND
16
525
249
ND
16
ND
112
35
90
93
95
18
22
72
121
18
ND
ND
49
281
1840
ND
17
10
86
ND
59
43
960
ND
486
280
130
ND
ND
ND
36
190
1150
ND
14
ND
10
ND
32
ND
Note: ND = Not detected.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix E * Geochemistry * E-2, Page 8
XRF ANALYSES OF TAILINGS SOLIDS
P«i r*i meter
Sample Number
CJC-12/2110-
135
(Southwest)
CJC-12/2127-
70
(Southwest)
CJC-12/2127-
71
(Southwest)
CJC-13/2110-135A
(Andesite/Garnetite)
CJC Blend/2127-73
(Andesite/Garnetite
& Southwest)
CJC-7/2096-
99
(Magnetite)
CJC-7/2127-
74
(Magnetite)
Major Elements(%)
Aluminum (as AI2O3)
Barium (as BaO)
Calcium (as CaO
Chloride (as Cl)
Iron (as Fe2O,)
Magnesrum (as MgO)
Manganese (as MnO)
Phosphorus (as P2O5)
Potassium (as K2O)
Silica as SiO2)
Sodium (is NajO)
Sulfur (as S)
Titanium (as TiO^
5.20
0.04
28.1
0.03
14.0
3.39
0.26
ND
1.12
32.7
0.53
0.75
0.32
4.36
0.03
25.9
0.02
18.1
3.08
0.22
ND
0.89
28.3
0.42
1.41
0.29
4.37
0.03
26.1
0.02
18.2
3.08
0.22
ND
0.90
28.7
0.41
1.41
0.29
11.3
0.02
17.7
0.04
18.0
5.27
0.35
0.19
0.76
45.0
1.45
1.31
0.62
6.03
0.03
24.8
ND
18.5
4.17
0.27
0.06
0.98
34.6
0.53
1.21
0.39
8.46
0.01
21.3
0.04
29.6
2.91
0.42
0.15
0.37
37.0
0.89
2.51
0.47
6.64
0.02
19.8
ND
38.4
2.84
0.29
0.07
0.45
31.9
0.51
3.59
0.35
Minor Elements (mg/kg)
Arsenic (As)
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
Lead(Pb)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Ni)
Niobium (Nb)
Rubidium fRb)
Strontium (Sr)
Thorium (Th)
Tin (Sn)
Tungsten (W)
Uranium (U)
Vanadium (V)
Yttrium 00
Zinc (Zn)
Zirconium (2r)
638
185
79
545
167
86
99
ND
57
321
291
ND
23
29
77
21
80
38
1,040
96
119
710
166
49
50
14
44
265
304
ND
32
29
67
ND
60
26
1,050
55
120
698
171
38
32
13
46
266
322
ND
35
24
67
12
57
25
112
476
71
454
144
161
264
10
47
451
322
ND
26
23
159
18
128
60
802
82
120
367
190
61
34
15
61
292
379
ND
38
40
92
12
90
33
107
164
71
667
378
52
91
15
35
313
528
ND
42
27
103
11
146
51
383
52
113
355
209
21
31
13
32
237
424
ND
59
12
78
10
94
24
Note: ND - Not Detected.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
'nan Smith MEMORANDUM
:nsijlhng Incorporated
25l5 Edjemonl Bcule.ctd
(• lci"h Vancouver, B C
Canada V7R 2M9
TeiecK.ro 604 984-2524 October 21, 1992
rax c.L/4-984-8426
TO: Ms Anne Baldridge, Battle Mountain Gold Company
FROM: Adrian Smith OPT ? K
ASCI. Vancouver, B.C.
RE: Radionuclides in Rock Samples: Battle Mountain Gold Compan
Crown Jewel Project. WA
Battle Mountain Gold Company (BMGC) has collected twenty five rock samples from their
Crown Jewel Project with the object of determining the occurrence and range of values for
indicator radionuclides which might be present in these rocks. The locations from which
the samples were collected are shown on the Appended figure.
The twenty five samples were analysed, by geochemical methods, for natural uranium (as
U308) and thorium (as Th), by SVL Analytical Inc., Kellogg, Idaho. The results of the
analyses are given on the appended laboratory data sheet.
All thorium values were found to be below the detection limit of the analytical methods.
Thorium, the likely principal beta emitter in these rock if one were to be present, is not
detectable and not of environmental concern.
Twenty three of the twenty five samples had uranium levels below the analytical detection
limit of 0.1 ppm. Two samples contained uranium at levels of 0.8 ppm (as U308), which is
the equivalent of 0.55 ppm as U.
To put the uranium values in context, natural soils have an average uranium value of about
1 ppm; igneous rocks an average of about 2.5 ppm (range 0.05 to 3.5 ppm); and
sedimentary rock an average of about 4 ppm (range 0.5 to 300 ppm), (Hawkes and Webb,
1962). Consequently, the 0.55 ppm uranium found in two of the twenty five samples from
the Crown Jewel Project can be considered well below average natural background levels in
rocks and are no cause for any concern.
-------
RESULTS OF WHOLE ROCK RADIONUCLIDE ANALYSIS
Hole Number
90-270
90-275
90-306
90-313
90-326
90-331
90-339
90-371
90-376
90-380
90-387
90-419
91-443
91-444
91-461
91-482
91-483
91-485
D90-47
D90-49
D90-63
D91-87
D9 1-107
D91-108
D91-120
Depth
Interval
210-215
105-110
295-300
250-255
5-10
0-5
410-415
170-175
590-595
540-545
340-345
110-115
235-240
275-280
120-125
285-290
450-455
150-155
12-15
0-15
235-240
605-610
0-5
440-445
580-585
U,0,
ppm
-------
APPENDIX E-3
LEACHABILITY TEST RESULTS
-------
-------
June 1995
Appendix E * Geochemistry * E-3, Page 1
ANALYSIS OF EQUILIBRATED FLUIDS FROM US EPA METHOD 1312 LEACH TESTS ON
ALTERED ANDESITE WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
Parameter
pH (File., std. units)
Solids, Total Diss. (TDS)
Aluminum, Diss. fAl)
Antimony, Diss. (Sb)
Arsenic, Diss. (As)
Barium, Diss. (Bat
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. JMg)
Manganese, Diss. (Mn)
Molybdenum, Diss. (Mo)
Nickel, Diss. (Ni)
Potassium, Diss. (K)
Selenium, Diss. (Se)
Silver, Diss. (Ac)
Sodium, Diss. (Na)
Strontium, Diss. (Sr)
Titanium, Diss. (Ti)
Vanadium, Diss. (V)
Zinc, Diss. (Zn)
Parameter
pH (Filt., std. units)
Solids, Total piss. fTDS)
Aluminum, Diss. (Al)
Antimony, Diss. Kb)
Arsenic, Diss. (As)
Barium, Diss. (Bat
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. jlMg)
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)
Vanadium, Diss. (V)
Zinc, Diss. (Zn)
BMGC Sample Designation
1-101-A
9.54
49
0.80
<0.1
<0.05
0.06
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
5.5
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.4
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
1-102-A
9.28
52
0.55
<0.1
<0.05
0.06
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
7.0
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.4
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.04
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
1-103-A
9.71
46
0.65
<0.1
<0.05
0.07
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
5.1
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
0.04
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.3
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
1-104-A
9.26
58
0.35
<0.1
<0.05
0.10
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
7.4
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.5
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.02
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
1-105-A
9.77
35
0.76
<0.1
<0.05
<0.08
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
6.0
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.04
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.8
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.01
0.01
<0.05
<0.01
1-106-A
9.71
40
0.91
<0.1
<0.05
0.06
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
5.0
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.4
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
1-107-A
9.34
41
0.59
<0.1
<0.05
0.06
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
7.4
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.5
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.02
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
BMGC Sample Designation
1-108-A
9.46
36
0.63
<0.1
<0.05
0.05
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
7.8
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.00030.
6
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.04
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
1-109-A
9.70
38
0.69
<0.1
<0.05
0.05
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
6.3
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.8
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
0.01
1-1 10- A
9.72
38
0.72
<0.1
<0.05
0.06
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
6.2
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.8
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
1-111-A
9.46
36
0.69
<0.1
<0.05
0.09
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
4.2
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
0.04
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.7
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
1-112-A
9.12
44
0.64
<0.1
<0.05
0.05
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
7.8
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.5
<0.01
<0.05
<0.05
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.04
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
1-113-A
9.52
31
0.57
<0.1
0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
7.7
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
1.0
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
1-114-A
9.46
41
0.91
<0.1
0.24
0.06
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
4.5
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
0.04
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.3
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
11
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.02
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
Note: All results reported in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
< — Concentration less than detection limit.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix E * Geochemistry 4 E-3, Page 2
ANALYSIS OF EQUILIBRATED FLUIDS FROM US EPA METHOD 1312 LEACH TESTS ON
UNALTERED ANDESITE WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
Parameter
pH (Filt., std. units)
Solids, Total Diss. (TDS)
Aluminum, Diss. (Al)
Antimony, Diss. (Sb)
Arsenic, Diss. (As)
Barium, Diss. (Bat
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)
Vanadium, Diss. (V)
Zinc, Diss. (Zn)
Parameter
pH (Filt., std. units)
Solids, Total Diss. fTDS)
Aluminum, Diss. (Al)
Antimony, Diss. (Sb)
Arsenic, Diss. (As)
Barium, Diss. (Bat
Beryllium Diss. (Be)
Boron, Diss. (B)
Cadmium, DLss. (Cd)
Calcium, Diss. (Ca)
Chromium, Diss. (Cr)
Cobalt, Diss. (Co)
Copper, Diss. (Cu)
Iron, Diss. (Fe)
Lead, Diss. (Pb)
Mercury, Diss. (He)
Magnesium, Diss. fMg)
Manganese, Diss. (Mn)
Molybdenum, Diss. (Mo)
Nickel, Diss. (Ni)
Potassium, Diss. (K)
Selenium, Diss. (Se)
Silver, Diss. (Ac)
Sodium, Diss. (Na)
Strontium, Diss. (Sr)
Titanium, Diss. (Ti)
Vanadium, Diss. (V)
Zinc, Diss. (Zn)
BMGC Sample Designation
2-201-B
9.5
37
1.14
<0.1
<0.05
0.09
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
6.4
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.4
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0 1
<0.01
< 1
0.02
<0.01
<0.05
0.01
2-202-B
9.51
27
0.88
<0.1
<0.05
0.06
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
5.0
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
0.04
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.4
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0 1
<0.01
< 1
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
2-203-B
9.71
31
1.18
<0 1
<0.05
0.08
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
6.1
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.3
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
0.1
0.01
< i
0.02
<0.01
<0.05
0.01
2-204-B
9.67
22
1.03
<0.1
<0.05
0.07
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
4.7
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
0.04
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.4
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0 1
<0.01
< 1
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
2-205-B
9.76
25
0.91
<0.1
<0.05
0.09
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
4.1
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
0.05
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.4
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0 1
<0.01
< 1
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
0.01
2-206-B
9.52
33
0.79
<0.1
<0.05
0.08
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
4.7
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
0.05
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.5
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0 1
<0.01
< 1
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
2-207-B
9.67
40
0.88
<0.1
<0.05
0.08
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
4.9
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
0.04
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.4
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0 1
<0.01
< 1
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
BMGC Sample Designation
2-208-B
9.68
36
0.83
<0. 1
<0.05
0.08
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
5.6
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
0.04
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.5
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
< 1
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
2-209-B
9.37
36
0.64
<0.1
<0.05
0.08
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
5.5
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
0.04
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.5
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0. 1
<0.01
< 1
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
0.01
2-210-B
9.30
32
0.62
<0. 1
<0.05
0.07
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
3.5
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
0.04
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.5
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
< 1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.05
0.01
2-211-B
8.58
21
0.28
<0.1
<0.05
0.07
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
4.5
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
0.04
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.4
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
< 1
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
0.01
2-212-B
9.70
35
0.62
<0.1
<0.05
0.07
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
5.5
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.4
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
< 1
0.02
<0.01
<0.05
0.01
2-213-B
9.58
32
0.34
<0. 1
<0.05
0.08
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
5.3
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.3
-------
June 1995
Appendix E * Geochemistry * E-3, Page 3
ANALYSIS OF EQUILIBRATED FLUIDS FROM US EPA METHOD 1312 LEACH TESTS ON
GARNET SKARN WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
Parameter
pH (Filt., std. units)
Solids, Total Diss. fTDS)
Aluminum, Diss. (Al)
Antimony, Diss. fSb)
Arsenic, Diss. (As)
Barium, Diss. (Bat
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. (He)
Magnesium, Diss. (Mg)
Manganese, Diss, (Mnj
Molybdenum, Diss. (Mo)
Nickel, Diss. (Ni)
Potassium, Diss. (K)
Selenium, Diss. (be)
Silver, Diss. (Ag)
Sodium, Diss. (Na)
Strontium, Diss.jfSr)
Titanium, Diss. (Ti)
Vanadium, Diss. (V)
Zinc, Diss. (Zn)
Parameter
pH (Filt., std. units)
Solids, Total Diss. (TDS)
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. (Ac)
Sodium, Diss. (Na)
Strontium, Diss. (Sr)
Titanium, Diss. (Ti)
Vanadium, Diss. (V)
Zinc, Diss. (Zn)
BMGC Sam
3-301-A
9.49
36
<0.05
<0.1
<0.05
0.07
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
6.4
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
0.05
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.3
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.03
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
3-302-A
9.70
44
0.42
<0.1
<0.05
0.04
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
7.1
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.4
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.02
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
3-303-A
9.97
37
0.49
<0.1
<0.05
0.05
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
7.9
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.4
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
BMGC Sample Designation
3-307-A
9.66
39
0.38
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
7.6
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.5
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
3-308-A
9.79
33
0.37
<0.1
<0.05
0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
7.9
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.6
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
3-309-A
9.50
<10
0.31
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
8.9
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
1.0
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
pie Designation
3-304-A
9.83
33
0.45
<0.1
<0.05
0.04
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
6.7
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.4
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
3-305-A
9.40
41
0.11
<0.1
<0.05
0.04
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
9.2
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.7
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
3-306-A
9.71
46
0.55
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
7.1
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.4
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.02
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
Note: All results presented in me/1 unless otherwise noted.
< - Concentration less than detection limit.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix E * Geochemistry * £-3, Page 4
ANALYSIS OF EQUILIBRATED FLUIDS FROM US EPA METHOD 1312 LEACH TESTS ON
MAGNETITE SKARN WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
Parameter
pH (Filt., std. units)
Solids, Total Diss. (TDS)
Aluminum, Diss. (Al)
Antimony, Diss. (Sb)
Arsenic, Diss. (As)
Barium, Diss. v^^l
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. (Ae)
Sodium, Diss. (Na)
Strontium, Diss. (Sr)
Titanium, Diss. (Ti)
Vanadium, Diss. (V)
Zinc, Diss. (Zn)
BMGC Samj
4-401-A
9.28
27
0.15
<0 1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
7.7
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.2
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0. 1
-------
June 1995
Appendix E * Geochemistry * E-3, Page 5
ANALYSIS OF EQUILIBRATED FLUIDS FROM US EPA METHOD 1312 LEACH TESTS ON
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
i aranicEcr
pH (Filt., std. units)
Solids, Total Diss. (TDS)
Aluminum, Diss. (Al)
Antimony, Diss. (Sb)
Arsenic, Diss. (As)
Barium, Diss. (Bat
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. .(He)
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. (ir)
Titanium, Diss. (Ti)
Vanadium, Diss. (V)
Zinc, Diss. (Zn)
BMGC Sample Designation
5-501-C
9.52
39
0.60
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
6.8
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.4
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
5-502-C
9.48
38
0.53
<0.1
<0.05
0.04
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
6.6
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.5
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
5-503-C
9.59
47
0.36
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
6.9
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.4
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
5-504-C
9.27
46
0.62
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
7.2
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.8
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.03
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
5-505-C
9.66
30
0.58
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
6.5
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.3
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
5-506-C
9.67
94
0.66
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
6.6
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.4
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
5-507-C
9.58
43
0.09
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
1.9
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.1
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
Note: All results presented in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
< - Concentration less than detection limit.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix E * Geochemistry * E-3, Page 6
ANALYSIS OF EQUILIBRATED FLUIDS FROM US EPA METHOD 1312 LEACH TESTS ON
MARBLE WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
Parameter
pH (Filt., std. units)
Solids, Total Diss. (TDS)
Aluminum, Diss. (Al)
Antimony, Diss. (Sb)
Arsenic, Diss. (As)
Barium, Diss. (Bat
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. (wig)
Manganese, Diss. (Mn)
Molybdenum, Diss. (Mo)
Nickel, Diss. (Ni)
Potassium, Diss. (K)
Scleniuirij Diss. (Se)
Silver, Diss. (Ag)
Sodium, Diss. (Na)
Strontium, Diss. (Sr)
Titanium, Diss. (Ti)
Vanadium, Diss. (V)
Zinc, Diss. (Zn)
Parameter
pH (Filt., std. units)
Solids, Total Diss. (TDS)
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. TMg)
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)
Vanadium, Diss. (V)
Zinc, Diss. (Zn)
BMGC Sample Designation
6-601
9.29
32
<0.05
<0 1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
5.9
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.4
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0 1
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
6-602
9.14
39
0.17
<0. 1
-------
June 1995
Appendix E * Geochemistry * E-3, Page 7
ANALYSIS OF EQUILIBRATED FLUIDS FROM US EPA METHOD 1312
LEACH TESTS
ON CLASTIC WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
Parameter
pH (Filt., std. units)
Solids, Total Diss. (TDS)
Aluminum, Diss. (Al)
Antimony, Diss. (Sb)
Arsenic, Diss. (As)
Barium, Diss. (Bat
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. (i\)
Vanadium, Diss. (V)
Zinc, Diss. (Zn)
Parameter
pH (Filt., std. units)
Solids, Total Diss. (TDS)
Aluminum, Diss. (Al)
Antimony, Diss. (Sb)
Arsenic, Diss. (As)
Barium, Diss. (Bat
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. JMg)
Manganese, Diss. (Mn)
Molybdenum, Diss. (Mo)
Nickel, Diss. (Ni)
Potassium, Diss. (K)
Seleniunij Diss. (Se)
Silver, Diss. (Ac)
Sodium, Diss. (Na)
Strontium, Diss. (Sr)
Titanium, Diss. (Ti)
Vanadium, Diss. (V)
Zinc, Diss. (Zn)
BMGC Sample Designation
7-701
9.64
53
0.73
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
6.2
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.5
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0 1
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
7-702
9.76
47
0.72
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
6.5
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.4
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0. 1
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
7-703
9.73
44
0.69
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
6.5
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.4
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0. 1
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
7-704
9.66
41
0.88
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
4.9
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.4
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
7-705
9.14
50
0.44
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
10.4
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.8
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0. 1
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
7-706
9.65
43
0.69
<0. 1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
5.1
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.5
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
BMGC Sample Designation
7-707
9.67
39
0.59
<0 1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
7.2
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
<0.5
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0 1
-------
June 1995
Appendix E * Geochemistry * E-3, Page 8
ANALYSIS OF EQUILIBRATED FLUIDS FROM US EPA METHOD 1312 LEACH TESTS ON
INTRUSIVE WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
Parameter
pH (Fill., std. units)
Solids, Total piss. (TDS)
Aluminum, Diss. (Al)
Antimony, Diss. (5b)
Arsenic, Diss. (As)
Barium, Diss. (Baf
Beryllium, Diss. (Be)
Boron, Diss. (B)
Cadmium, Diss. (Cd)
Calcium, Diss. (Ca)
Chromium, DLss. (Cr)
Cobalt, Diss. (Co)
Copper, Diss. (Cu)
Iron, Diss. (Fe)
Lead, Diss. (Pb)
Mercury, Diss. (Hg)
Magnesium, Diss. JMg)
Manganese, Diss. (Mn)
Molybdenum, Diss. (Mo)
Nickel, Diss. (Ni)
Potassium, Diss. (K)
Selenium, Diss. (Se)
Silver, Diss. (Ag)
Sodium, Diss. (Na)
Strontium, Diss. (ar)
Titanium, Diss. (Til
Vanadium, Diss. (V)
Zinc, Diss. (Zn)
BMGC Sample Designation
8-801
9.79
32
0.85
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
7.2
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.5
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.02
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
8-802
9.72
35
0.69
<0.1
<0.05
0.04
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
6.9
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.6
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.03
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
8-803
9.51
32
1.29
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
6.1
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
<0.1
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
8-804
9.41
29
1.23
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
6.2
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
<0.1
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
8-805
9.45
32
1.28
<0.1
0.05
<0.05
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
5.6
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.1
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
8-806
9.13
21
0.90
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
3.1
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
<0.1
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
8-807
9.49
34
1.16
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
7.5
-------
I
I
i?
1
2
COMPARISON OF NUMERIC VALUES FROM US EPA METHOD 1312 AND TCLP (METHOD 1311) LEACH TEST SOLUTIONS
Parameter
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Lead (Pb)
Mercury (Hg)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Parameter
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Lead (Pd)
Mercury (Hg)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
BMGC SAMPLE DESIGNATION
1-110-A
TCLP 1312
<0.05 0.05
0.1 0.06
<0.01 < 0.005
0.02 <0.01
<0.05 <0.05
< 0.003 < 0.0003
0.1 <0.1
<0.01 <0.01
1-111-A
TCLP 1312
<0.05 <0.05
0.4 0.09
<0.01 < 0.005
0.02 <0.01
<0.05 <0.05
< 0.003 < 0.0003
<0.1 <0.1
<0.01 <0.01
2-212-B
TCLP 1312
<0.05 <0.05
0.4 0.07
<0.01 < 0.005
0.02 <0.01
<0.05 <0.05
< 0.003 < 0.0003
<0.1 <0.1
<0.01 <0.01
2-214-B
TCLP 1312
<0.05 <0.05
0.4 0.08
<0.01 < 0.005
0.02 <0.01
<0.05 <0.05
< 0.003 < 0.0003
<0.1 <0.1
<0.01 <0.01
3-304-A
TCLP 1312
<0.05 <0.05
0.2 0.04
<0.01 < 0.005
0.02 <0.01
<0.05 <0.05
< 0.003 < 0.0003
<0.1 <0.1
0.03 <0.01
BMGC SAMPLE DESIGNATION
3-306-A
TCLP 1312
<0.05 <0.05
0.3 <0.01
<0.01 <0.005
0.01 <0.01
<0.05 <0.05
< 0.003 < 0.0003
<0.1 <0.1
<0.1 <0.01
3-307-A
TCLP 1312
<0.05 <0.05
0.2 <0.01
<0.01 < 0.005
0.02 <0.01
<0.05 <0.05
< 0.003 < 0.0003
<0.1 <0.1
0.01 <0.01
3-308-A
TCLP 1312
<0.05 <0.05
0.2 <0.01
<0.01 < 0.005
0.02 <0.01
<0.05 <0.05
< 0.003 < 0.0003
0.1 <0.1
0.05 <0.01
6-606
TCLP 1312
<0.05 <0.05
0.2 <0.01
<0.01 < 0.005
0.02 <0.01
<0.05 <0.05
< 0.003 < 0.0003
<0.1 <0.1
<0.01 <0.01
8-804
TCLP 1312
<0.05 <0.05
0.6 <0.01
0.01 < 0.005
0.02 <0.01
0.18 <0.05
< 0.002 <0.05
<0.1 <0.1
<0.01 <0.01
Note: All results presented in me/1.
< - Concentration less than detection limit
-------
June 1995
Appendix E * Geochemistry » E-3, Page 10
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS FOR GROSS ALPHA FROM WASTE ROCK
LEACHATES (pCi/1)
BMGC Sample
Designation
1-102-A
1-110-A
1-112-A
1-113-A
1-114-A
2-208-B
2-210-B
3-307-A
3-309-A
4-402-B
4-405-B
4-406-B
5-506-C
5-507-C
6-606
6-607
7-708
7-709
7-710
8-803
8-805
Waste Rock
Group
Altered
Andesite
Unaltered
Andesite
Garnet
Skarn
Magnetite
Skarn
Undifferentiated
Skarn
Marble
Clastics
Intrusives
Gross Alpha
Dissolved (pCi/1)
0.8
0.5
1.0
0.7
0.9
0.1
ND
0.2
ND
ND
1.2
0.9
0.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.8
2.6
1.2
1.7
Error ( + /-)
(pCi/1)
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.8
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.6
0.9
1.0
Lower Limit
of Detection
(pCi/1)
1.3
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.2
.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
.4
.2
.8
.1
.1
Note: ND - Not Detected
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS FOR GROSS BETA FROM WASTE ROCK
LEACHATES (pCi/1)
BMGC
Sample
Designation
1-102-A
1-110-A
1-112-A
1-113-A
1-114-A
2-208-B
2-210-B
3-307-A
3-309-A
4-402-B
4-405-B
4-406-B
5-506-C
5-507-C
6-606
6-607
7-708
7-709
7-710
8-803
8-805
Waste Rock Group
Altered
Andesite
Unaltered
Andesite
Garnet
Skarn
Magnetite
Skarn
Undifferentiated
Skarn
Marble
Clastics
Intrusives
Gross Beta
Dissolved
(PCi/1)
3.5
0.5
4.0
0.6
9.7
0.6
2.6
ND
ND
ND
1.6
2.2
1.9
0.6
0.2
0.8
ND
1.5
2.5
3.3
3.1
Error (+/-)
(pCi/1)
1.9
1.6
1.8
1.6
2.2
1.8
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.7
Lower Limit
of Detection
(pCi/1)
2.8
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.8
2.9
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.8
2.8
2.6
2.6
2.6
Note: ND - Not Detected
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix E * Geochemistry * E-3, Page 11
ANALYSIS OF EQUILIBRATED FLUIDS FROM US EPA METHOD 1312 LEACH TESTS
ON LOW GRADE ORE SAMPLES
Parameter
pH (Fill., std. units)
Solids, Total Dissolved (TDS)
Aluminum, Diss. (Al)
Antimony, Diss. (Sb)
Arsenic, Diss. (As)
Barium, Diss. (Bat
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. (He)
Magnesium, Diss. 'iMg)
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)
Vanadium, Diss. (V)
Zinc, Diss. (Zn)
BMGC Sample Designation
9-101
9.84
35
0.60
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
7.1
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
0.08
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.4
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.02
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
9-102
9.09
62
<0.05
<0.1
<0.05
0.04
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
10.2
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.7
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.03
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
10-101
10.10
42
0.37
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
6.5
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.4
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
10-102
9.52
60
0.19
<0.1
<0.05
0.12
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
11.3
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.6
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.05
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
11-101
9.16
48
0.06
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
8.0
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.7
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
11-102
8.48
60
<0.05
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
12.1
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
1.0
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.03
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
Note: All results reported in mg/1, unless otherwise noted.
< - Concentration less than detection limit.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix E * Geochemistry * E-3, Page 12
ANALYSIS OF EQUILIBRATED FLUIDS FROM US EPA METHOD 1312 LEACH
TESTS
ON ORE SAMPLES
Parameter
pH (Filt., std. units)
Solids, Total Dissolved (TDS)
Aluminum, Diss.
-------
June 1995
Appendix E * Geochemistry * E-3, Page 13
ANALYSIS OF EQUILIBRATED FLUIDS FROM US EPA METHOD 1312 LEACH TESTS
ON TAILINGS SOLIDS
Parameter
pH (Fill., std. units)
Solids, Total Dissolved (TDS)
Aluminum, Diss. (Al)
Antimony, Diss. fSb)
Arsenic, Diss. (As)
Barium, Diss. (Ba)
Beryllium, Diss. (Be)
Boron, Diss. (B)
Cadmium, Diss. (Cd)
Calcium, Diss. (Caj
Chromium, Diss. ((>)
Cobalt, Diss. (Co)
Copper, Diss. (Cu)
Iron, Diss. (Fe)
Lead, Diss. (Pb)
Mercury, Diss. (He)
Magnesium, Diss. (Me)
Manganese, Diss. (Mn)
Molybdenum, Diss. (Mo)
Nickel, Diss. (Ni)
Potassium, Diss. (K)
Selenium, Diss. (Se)
Silver, Diss. (Ae)
Sodium, Diss. (TSIa)
Strontium, Diss. (Sr)
'I Hanium, Diss. (Ti)
Vanadium, Diss. (V)
Zinc, Diss. (Zn)
Parameter
pH (Filt., std. units)
Solids, Total Dissolved (TDS)
Aluminum, Diss. (Al)
Antimony, Diss. (Sb)
Arsenic, Diss. (As)
Barium, Diss. (pa)
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)
vlercury, Diss. (1 Ig)
vlagnesium, Diss. (Me)
vlanganese, Diss. (Mn)
vlolybdenum, Diss. (Mo)
Xfickel, Diss. (Ni)
'otassium, Diss. (K)
Selenium, Diss. (Se)
Silver, Diss. (Ae)
Sodium, Diss. (Na)
Strontium, Diss. (Sr)
Titanium, Diss. (Ti)
Vanadium, Diss. (V)
Zinc, Diss. (Zn)
BMGC Sample Designation
CJC-12/21 10-135
(Southwest Ore)
8.9
268
<0.05
<0.1
.24
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
67.5
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.5
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
12
<0.1
<0.01
4.5
0.17
<0.05
<0.05
<0.01
CJC-13/2110-135A
(Andesite/Garnetite)
9.1
284
<0.05
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
69.9
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
0.10
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.7
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
11
<0.1
<0.01
6.4
0.12
<0.05
<0.05
<0.01
CJC-7/2096-99
(Magnetite Ore)
8.0
316
<0.05
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
78.1
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.8
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
10
0.16
<0.05
<0.05
<0.01
Weighted
"Average"
8.9
280
<0.05
<0.1
0.12
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
69.6
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
0.06
<0.03
< 0.0003
0.6
<0.01
<0.05
<004
10.4
<0.1
<0.01
5.9
0.15
<0.05
<0.05
<0.01
BMGC Sample Designation
CIC-12/2127-70/71
(Southwest Ore)
9.92
144
<0.05
<0.1
.12
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
27.2
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.6
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
5.12
<0.1
<0.01
4.97
0.09
<0.05
<0.05
<0.01
CJC-Blend/2 127-73
(Andesite/Garnetite)
8c Southwest
9.90
134
<0.05
<0.1
0.09
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
19.8
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.6
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
4.6
<0.1
<0.01
4.87
0.07
<0.05
<0.05
<0.03
CJC-7/2127-74
(Magnetite Ore)
8.85
149
<0.05
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
30.7
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.6
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
3.67
<0.1
<0.01
5.49
0.07
<0.05
<0.05
<0.01
Mote: All results reported in mg/1, unless otherwise noted.
Weighted
"Average"
9.9
140
<0.05
<0.1
0.10
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
24.2
<0.01
< 0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.6
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
4.74
<0.1
<0.01
4.95
0.08
<0.05
<0.05
<0.01
< — Concentration less than detection limit.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
-------
APPENDIX E-4
ABA RESULTS FOR WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
-------
-------
June 1995
Appendix E * Geochemistry * E-4, Page 1
WASTE ROCK ABA RESULTS BMGC TESTING PROGRAM
BMGC Sample Waste
Designation Gr<
Rock Total Sulfur
nip %
1-101-A Altered <0.01
1-102-A Andesite 2.35
-103- A
-104- A
-105-A
-106- A
-107-A
-108- A
-109- A
-110-A
-111-A
-112-A
-113-A
-114-A
<0.01
0.05
0.97
0.01
0.49
0.70
0.97
1.31
0.85
1.76
2.65
4.17
2-201-B Unaltered 0.01
2-202-B Andesite 0.02
2-203-B
2-204-B
2-205-B
2-206-B
2-207-B
2-208-B
2-209-B
2-210-B
2-21 1-B
2-212-B
2-213-B
2-214-B
2-215-B
2-216-B
2-217-B
0.06
0.01
0.12
0.08
0.37
2.19
0.66
0.72
0.23
<0.01
<0.01
0.66
1.92
1.27
0.05
3-301-A Garnet <0.01
3-302-A Skarn 0.07
3-303-A
3-304-A
3-305-A
3-306-A
3-307-A
3-308-A
3-309-A
0.01
0.12
0.22
0.02
2.44
1.06
0.44
4-401-B Magnetite 0.96
4-402-B Skarn 1.99
4-403-B
4-404-B
4-405-B
4-406-B
4-407-B
4-408-B
4-409-B
4-410-B
0.43
1.06
3.55
3.19
2.39
1.09
0.97
6.33
5-501-C Undifferentiated <0.01
5-502-C Skarn <0.01
5-503-C
5-504-C
5-505-C
5-506-C
5-507-C
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
0.01
6-601 Marble <0.01
6-602
6-603
6-604
6-605
6-606
6-607
6-608
6-609
<0.01
0.01
0.03
<0.01
0.04
0.10
0.02
0.02
Total Sulfur as
TCaCO,/KT
(AGP)
<0.3
73.4
<0.3
1.6
30.3
0.3
15.3
21.9
30.3
40.9
26.6
55.0
82.8
130
0.3
0.6
1.9
0.3
3.8
2.5
11.6
68.4
20.6
22.5
7.2
<0.3
<0.3
20.6
60.0
39.7
1.6
<0.3
2.2
0.3
3.8
6.9
0.6
76.3
33.1
13.8
30.0
62.2
13.4
33.1
111
99.7
74.7
33.8
30.3
198
<0.3
<0.3
<0.3
<0.3
<0.3
0.9
0.3
<0.3
<0.3
0.3
0.9
<0.3
1.3
3.1
0.6
0.6
ANPas
TCaCO,/KT
36.6
199
93.8
89.7
23.0
59.6
220
67.3
41.9
47.8
25.4
90.3
123
100
99.1
17.5
31.8
19.5
21.5
14.8
16.8
22.0
28.7
33.4
60.2
68.4
87.3
36.6
53.5
31.1
58.5
110.9
54.2
116
12.8
56.6
224
88.5
34.2
62.5
9.9
26.2
6.5
18.9
21.5
74.3
22.4
63.4
327
237
40.1
61.3
42.5
24.8
9.4
40.1
56.6
767
915
903
745
837
927
807
878
741
ANP/AGP
Ratio
> 122:1
2.7:1
>312:1
56:1
0.76:1
198:1
14:1
3:1
1.4:1
1.2:1
0.95:1
1.6:1
1.5:1
0.77:1
330:1
29:1
16:1
65:1
5.6:1
5.9:1
1.4:1
0.32:1
1.4:1
1.5:1
8.3:1
> 228:1
>291:1
1.8:1
0.9:1
0.8:1
36:1
> 369:1
24:1
386:1
3.3:1
8.2:1
373:1
1.2:1
1.03:1
4.5:1
0.33:1
0.42:1
0.48:1
0.57:1
0.19:1
0.74:1
0.3:1
1.9:1
10:1
1.2:1
> 133:1
> 204:1
>141:1
>82:1
>31:1
44:1
188:1
> 2556:1
> 3050:1
>3010:1
> 827:1
> 2790:1
482:1
260:1
1463:1
1235:1
Net APP as
TCaCOj/KT
-36
-126
-93
-88
+ 7.3
-197
-205
-45
-11
-6.9
+ 1.2
-35
-40
+ 30
-97
-15
-29
-19
-17
-12
-5
+ 46
-8
-10
-53
-68
-87
-16
+ 6
+ 8
-56
-110
-52
-115
-9
-49
-223
-12
-1
-48
+ 20
+ 34
+ 7
+ 13
+ 90
+ 25
+ 52
-30
-297
-39
-39
-61
-42
-24
-9
-39
-56
-766
-914
-902
-744
-836
-625
-803
-877
-739
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix E * Geochemistry * E-4, Page 2
WASTE ROCK ABA RESULTS BMGC
BMGC Sample Waste
Designation Grc
Rock Total Sulfur
nip %
7-701 Unaltered <0.01
7-702 Clastics <0.01
7-703
7-704
7-705
7-706
7-707
7-709
7-711
7-712
7-713
0.02
0.27
0.29
0.04
0.47
0.07
0.99
<0.01
<0.01
7-708 Altered 3.0
7-710 Clastics 1.63
7-7 14- A
7-715-A
7-7 16- A
0.31
0.63
1.41
8-801 Intrusives <0.01
8-802
8-803
8-804
8-805
8-806
8-807
0.04
0.07
<0.01
0.06
0.05
0.02
Total Sulfur as
TCaCO,/KT
(AGP)
<0.3
<0.3
0.6
8.4
9.1
1.3
14.7
2.2
30.9
<0.3
<0.3
93.8
50.9
9.7
19.7
44.1
<0.3
1.3
2.2
<0.3
1.9
1.6
0.6
TESTING PROGRAM
ANP as
TCaCO,/KT
235
25.9
23.6
17.7
18.9
5.4
25.9
19.1
21.8
13.7
22.4
34.2
<0.1
34.8
9.5
8.3
29.4
18.9
13.0
24.8
<0.1
20.6
26.0
ANP/AGP
Ratio
783:1
86:1
39:1
2.1:1
2.1:1
4.1:1
1.7:1
8.6:1
0.7:1
>45.1
>74.1
0.36:1
<0.1:1
3.6:1
0.5:1
0.3:1
98:1
14:1
5.9:1
82:1
0.1:1
12:1
43:1
Net APP as
TCaCOj/KT
-234
-25
-23
-9
-9
-3
-11
-17
+ 9
-13
-22
+ 59
+ 50
-25
+ 10
+ 36
-29
-17
-10
-24
+ 2
-19
-25
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
WASTE ROCK ABA RESULTS
ALTERED ANDESITE (AAD)
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
EIS TEAM
SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
223(130-135)
224(145-150)
354(165-170)
357(145-150)
357(45-50)
398(85-90)
457(15-20)
0-112(165-170)
0-112(265-270)
0-114(195-200)
0-114(245-250)
0-114(295-300)
0-114(345-350)
0-133(205-210)
0-133(5-10)
0-133(55-60)
0-136(70-75)
0-148(215-220)
0-148(265-270)
0-30(165-170)
0-82(325-330)
NUMBER
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
STD DEV
TOTAL
SULFUR
%
0.95
0.01
1.17
0.01
0.14
0.01
0.01
0.29
0.05
0.23
1.33
0.06
0.35
1.24
0.13
0.26
0.74
0.02
0.11
2.14
0.17
21
2.14
0.01
0.45
0.57
TOTAL
SULFUR
as TCaCO3/KT
29.7
0.3
36.6
0.3
4.4
0.3
0.3
9.1
1.6
7.2
41.6
1.9
10.9
38.8
4.1
8.1
23.1
0.6
3.4
66.9
5.3
21
66.90
0.30
14.02
17.91
ACID
NEUTRALIZING
POTENTIAL (ANP)
as TCaCO3/KT
24
22
215
112
25
49
16
4
89
38
34
28
30
209
166
44
220
80
9
75
30
21
220.00
4.40
72.35
69.01
ANP/AGP
RATIO
0.80
74.33
5.87
373.33
5.77
163.00
54.67
0.48
55.75
5.24
0.82
14.53
2.74
5.39
40.49
5.46
9.52
132.67
2.53
1.13
5.64
21
373.33
0.48
45.72
85.47
NETAPP
as TCaCO3/KT
5.80
-22.00
-178.40
-111.70
-21.00
-48.60
-16.10
4.70
-87.60
-30.50
7.60
-25.70
-19.00
-170.20
-161.90
-36.10
-196.90
-79.00
-5.20
-8.40
-24.60
21
7.60
-196.90
-58.32
64.86
-------
WASTE ROCK ABA RESULTS
UNALTERED ANDESITE (UAD) SAMPLES
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
EIS TEAM
SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
109(165-170)
109(215-220)
109(265-270)
109(315-320)
109(365-370)
189(115-120)
189(15-20)
189(65-70)
215(125-130)
215(175-180)
215(225-230)
215(245-250)
215(25-30)
215(75-80)
218(130-135)
218(30-35)
218(80-85)
221 (70-75)
221 (85-90)
223(180-185)
223(230-235)
223(280-285)
223(30-35)
TOTAL
SULFUR
0.09
<.01
<.01
0.26
0.09
0.03
0.11
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.76
0.42
0.32
0.01
0.29
0.06
0.03
2.47
2.28
0.17
0.05
1.27
0.17
TOTAL
SULFUR
as TCaCO3/KT
2.80
<.30
<.30
8.10
2.80
0.90
3.40
0.60
0.30
1.20
23.80
13.10
10.00
0.30
9.10
1.90
0.90
77.20
71.20
5.30
1.60
39.70
5.30
NEUTRALIZING
POTENTIAL (ANP)
as TCaCO3/KT
21.90
18.20
19.00
22.10
23.80
22.40
19.70
30.80
25.90
24.70
24.00
28.10
14.80
22.70
17.50
9.40
19.70
<.10
<.10
17.90
20.60
15.40
16.30
ANP/AGP
RATIO
7.82
>61
>63
2.73
8.50
24.89
5.79
51.33
86.33
20.58
1.01
2.15
1.48
75.67
1.92
4.95
21.89
<.01
<.01
3.38
12.88
0.39
3.08
NET APP
as TCaCO3/KT
-19.10
-17.90
-18.70
-14.00
-21.00
-21 .50
-16.30
-30.20
-25.60
-23.50
-0.20
-15.00
-4.80
-22.40
-8.40
-7.50
-18.80
77.10
71.10
-12.60
-19.00
24.30
-11.00
-------
WASTE ROCK ABA RESULTS
UNALTERED ANDESITE (UAD) SAMPLES
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
EIS TEAM
SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
223(80-85)
224(195-200)
224(245-250)
224(45-50)
343(135-140)
343(185-190)
343(35-40)
354(115-120)
354(15-20)
354(215-220)
354(265-270)
354(65-70)
398(35-40)
455(35-40)
455(50-55)
457(65-70)
463(15-20)
463(50-55)
482(10-15)
482(110-115)
482(160-165)
482(210-215)
482(260-265)
TOTAL
SULFUR
%
0.03
0.11
1.68
0.01
0.06
1.69
0.05
0.38
1.37
0.09
0.19
1.05
0.01
0.04
<.01
0.04
0.05
0.32
0.01
0.71
0.20
0.22
0.07
TOTAL
SULFUR
as TCaCO3/KT
0.90
3.40
52.50
0.30
1.90
52.80
1.60
11.90
42.80
2.80
5.90
32.80
0.30
1.20
<.30
1.20
1.60
10.00
0.30
22.20
6.20
6.90
2.20
ACID
NEUTRALIZING
POTENTIAL (ANP)
as TCaCO3/KT
17.40
25.20
17.80
14.20
48.20
89.40
136.00
38.00
24.70
32.30
26.60
132.00
19.30
18.10
14.60
14.30
25.90
25.90
14.40
1 1 1 .00
140.00
101.00
85.50
ANP/AGP
RATIO
19.33
7.41
0.34
47.33
25.37
1.69
85.00
3.19
0.58
11.54
4.51
4.02
64.33
15.08
>49
11.92
16.19
2.59
48.00
5.00
22.58
14.64
38.86
NET APP
as TCaCO3/KT
-16.50
-21 .80
34.70
-13.90
-46.30
-36.60
-134.40
-26.10
18.10
-29.50
-20.70
-99.20
-19.00
-16.90
-14.30
-13.10
-24.30
-15.90
-14.10
-88.80
-133.80
-94.10
-83.30
-------
WASTE ROCK ABA RESULTS
UNALTERED ANDESITE (DAD) SAMPLES
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
EIS TEAM
SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
482(310-315)
482(335-340)
482(60-65)
0-112(215-220)
0-112(315-320)
0-114(145-150)
0-114(395-400)
0-114(45-50)
0-114(95-100)
0-133(105-110)
0-133(155-160)
0-133(255-260)
0-133(305-310)
0-136(20-25)
0-145(330-335)
0-148(115-120)
0-148(15-20)
0-148(165-170)
0-148(315-320)
0-148(65-70)
0-30(115-120)
0-30(15-20)
0-30(215-220)
TOTAL
SULFUR
%
0.20
0.16
0.22
0.09
0.12
0.01
1.04
<.01
0.05
0.17
<.01
0.12
0.06
0.19
0.05
0.02
0.20
0.02
1.32
0.02
0.03
<.01
0.37
TOTAL
SULFUR
as TCaCO3/KT
6.20
5.00
6.90
2.80
3.80
0.30
32.50
<.30
1.60
5.30
<.30
3.80
1.90
5.90
1.60
0.60
6.20
0.60
41.20
0.60
0.90
<.30
11.60
ACID
NEUTRALIZING
POTENTIAL (ANP)
as TCaCO3/KT
77.40
36.50
33.80
<.10
80.80
24.20
38.20
29.90
28.70
43.60
37.40
35.10
29.40
49.80
181.00
26.90
21.20
28.80
26.60
20.70
75.40
25.60
12.20
ANP/AGP
RATIO
12.48
7.30
4.90
<.04
21.26
80.67
1.18
>100
17.94
8.23
>125
9.24
15.47
8.44
113.13
44.83
3.42
48.00
0.65
34.50
83.78
>85
1.05
NET APP
as TCaCO3/KT
-71 .20
-31.50
-26.90
2.90
-77.00
-23.90
-5.70
-29.60
-27.10
-38.30
-37.10
-31.30
-27.50
-43.90
-179.40
-26.30
-15.00
-28.20
14.60
-20.10
-74.50
-25.30
-0.60
-------
WASTE ROCK ABA RESULTS
UNALTERED ANDESITE (UAD) SAMPLES
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
EIS TEAM
SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
0-30(265-270)
0-30(65-70)
0-40(65-70)
0-49(35-40)
0-71(10-15)
0-71 (60-65)
0-82(125-130)
0-82(175-180)
0-82(225-230)
0-82(25-30)
0-82(275-280)
0-82(75-80)
NUMBER
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
STDEV
TOTAL
SULFUR
%
1.56
0.05
<.01
2.02
0.05
0.57
0.03
<.01
0.02
0.01
0.04
<.01
81
2.47
<.01
0.32
0.56
TOTAL
SULFUR
as TCaC03/KT
48.80
1.60
<.30
63.10
1.60
17.80
0.90
<.30
0.60
0.30
1.20
<.30
81
77.20
<.30
10.10
17.43
ACID
NEUTRALIZING
POTENTIAL (ANP)
as TCaCO3/KT
9.80
37.00
4.10
44.80
108.00
209.00
24.20
19.80
28.70
16.70
24.70
25.40
81
209.00
<.10
38.55
39.11
ANP/AGP
RATIO
0.20
23.13
>14
0.71
67.50
11.74
26.89
>66
47.83
55.67
20.58
>85
81
124.67
0.0013
27.21
30.92
NET APP
as TCaCO3/KT
39.00
-35.40
-3.80
18.30
-106.40
-191.20
-23.30
-19.50
-28.10
-16.40
-23.50
-25.10
81
77.10
-191.20
-28.43
42.79
-------
WASTE ROCK ABA RESULTS
ALTERED CLASTIC (ACS)
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
EIS TEAM
SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
TOTAL
SULFUR
%
TOTAL
SULFUR
as TCaCO3/KT
ACID
NEUTRALIZING
POTENTIAL
as TCaCO3/KT
ANG/AGP
RATIO
NET APP
as TCaCO3/KT
306(25-30) 0.26 8.10 27.80 3.43 -19.70
-------
WASTE ROCK ABA RESULTS
GARNET SKARN (GSK)
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
EIS TEAM
SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
178(160-165)
210(25-30)
224(345-350)
260(340-345)
260(400-405)
272(150-155)
272(155-160)
284(245-250)
284(295-300)
284(345-350)
284(95-100)
302(395-400)
302(445-450)
302(490-495)
302(95-100)
306(375-380)
335(20-25)
335(370-375)
491(180-185)
0-145(380-385)
D-1 48(475-480)
0-30(315-320)
0-38(255-260)
TOTAL
SULFUR
%
0.02
0.12
<.01
1.66
0.92
0.38
0.04
0.01
1.25
1.69
0.01
10.50
5.58
1.61
0.16
5.18
0.77
0.01
2.18
0.02
14.50
1.43
0.21
TOTAL
SULFUR
as TCaCO3/KT
0.60
3.80
<.30
51.90
28.80
11.90
1.20
0.30
39.10
52.80
0.30
328.00
174.00
50.30
5.00
162.00
24.10
0.30
68.10
0.60
453.00
44.70
6.60
ACID
NEUTRALIZING
POTENTIAL
as TCaCO3/KT
21.60
55.80
2970.00
106.00
56.80
28.50
42.80
28.60
64.00
108.00
58.40
91.80
105.00
39.00
57.40
57.00
46.80
65.60
101.00
157.00
83.60
14.80
9.00
ANP/AGP
RATIO
36.00
14.68
>9900
2.04
1.97
2.39
35.67
95.33
1.64
2.05
194.67
0.28
0.60
0.78
11.48
0.35
1.94
218.67
1.48
261 .67
0.18
0.33
1.36
NETAPP
as TCaCO3/KT
-21 .00
-52.00
-2969.70
-54.10
-28.00
-16.60
-41 .60
-28.30
-24.90
-55.20
-58.10
236.20
69.00
11.30
-52.40
105.00
-22.70
-65.30
-32.90
-156.40
369.40
29.90
-2.40
-------
WASTE ROCK ABA RESULTS
GARNET SKARN (GSK)
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
EIS TEAM
SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
0-38(355-360)
0-38(405-410)
0-40(165-170)
0-44(230-235)
0-44(380-385)
0-451 (425-430)
0-49(135-140)
0-49(185-190)
0-49(235-240)
0-49(285-290)
0-49(335-340)
0-49(360-365)
0-49(85-90)
NUMBER
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
STD DEV
TOTAL
SULFUR
%
3.13
0.35
<.01
0.27
1.76
0.31
0.02
0.68
0.01
0.02
1.16
3.30
0.05
36
14.50
<.01
1.65
3.00
TOTAL
SULFUR
as TCaCO3/KT
97.80
10.90
<.03
8.40
55.00
9.70
0.60
21.20
0.30
0.60
36.20
103.00
1.60
36
453.00
<.30
51.47
93.84
ACID
NEUTRALIZING
POTENTIAL
as TCaCO3/KT
14.40
9.80
8.00
10.60
9.50
11.00
<.10
54.50
425.00
1 1 1 .00
80.80
35.60
104.00
36
2970.00
<.10
145.63
482.74
ANP/AGP
RATIO
0.15
0.90
>27
1.26
0.17
1.13
<.17
2.57
1416.67
185.00
2.23
0.35
65.00
36
9900.00
0.15
346.88
1632.06
NET APP
as TCaCO3/KT
83.40
1.10
-7.70
-2.20
45.50
-1.30
0.50
-33.30
-424.70
-110.40
-44.60
67.40
-102.40
36
369.40
-2969.70
-94.15
499.41
-------
WASTE ROCK ABA RESULTS
MAGNETITE SKARN (MSK)
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
EIS TEAM
SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
284(395-400)
284(445-450)
306(475-480)
0-38(520-525)
0-44(470-475)
NUMBER
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
STD DEV
TOTAL
SULFUR
%
1.81
4.95
2.72
8.75
2.29
5
8.75
1.81
4.10
2.56
TOTAL
SULFUR
as TCaCO3/KT
56.60
155.00
85.00
273.00
71.60
5
273.00
56.60
128.24
79.85
ACID
NEUTRALIZING
POTENTIAL (ANP)
as TCaCO3/KT
135.00
66.80
47.30
19.20
9.80
5
135.00
9.80
55.62
44.55
ANP/AGP
RATIO
2.39
0.43
0.56
0.07
0.14
5
2.39
0.07
0.72
0.85
NETAPP
as TCaCO3/KT
-78.40
88.20
37.70
253.80
61.80
5
253.80
-78.40
72.62
106.97
-------
WASTE ROCK ABA RESULTS
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN (USK)
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
EIS TEAM
SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
218(280-285)
218(310-315)
221 (20-25)
224(295-300)
224(390-395)
224(95-100)
260(290-295)
260(40-45)
284(195-200)
302(45-50)
306(225-230)
306(325-330)
330(75-80)
335(320-325)
335(385-390)
354(315-320)
0-145(510-515)
0-148(365-370)
0-148(415-420)
0-30(365-370)
0-38(105-110)
0-38(8-15)
0-40(215-220)
0-44(280-285)
D-451 (395-400)
0-57(165-170)
NUMBER
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
STD DEV
TOTAL
SULFUR
%
0.09
0.01
2.26
0.51
2.77
0.01
0.31
<.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
3.90
3.02
0.01
0.01
1.07
1.75
3.00
2.86
2.32
0.09
0.02
0.08
<.01
1.12
0.01
26
3.90
<.01
0.97
1.25
TOTAL
SULFUR
as TCaCO3/KT
2.80
0.30
70.60
15.90
86.60
0.30
9.70
<.30
0.60
0.60
0.30
122.00
94.40
0.30
0.30
33.40
54.70
93.80
89.40
72.50
2.80
0.60
2.50
<.30
35.00
0.30
26
122.00
<.30
30.38
39.24
ACID
NEUTRALIZING
POTENTIAL (ANP)
as TCaCO3/KT
39.20
<.10
<.10
191.00
61.20
23.20
125.00
147.00
60.00
13.80
15.30
43.10
187.00
42.60
62.40
9.00
156.00
234.00
363.00
7.60
4.60
4.40
9.80
2.60
93,50
352.00
26
363.00
<.10
86.44
102.96
ANP/AGP
RATIO
14.00
<.33
<.01
12.01
0.71
77.33
12.89
>490
100.00
23.00
51.00
0.35
1.98
142.00
208.00
0.27
2.85
2.49
4.06
0.10
1.64
7.33
3.92
>9
2.67
1173.33
26
1173.33
0.0014
90.04
239.33
NETAPP
as TCaCO3/KT
-36.40
0.20
70.50
-175.10
25.40
-22.90
-115.30
-146.70
-59.40
-13.20
-15.00
78.90
-92.60
-42.30
-62.10
24.40
-101.30
-140.20
-273.60
64.90
-1.80
-3.80
-7.30
-2.30
-58.50
-351.70
26
78.90
-351.70
-56.05
98.53
-------
WASTE ROCK ABA RESULTS
UNALTERED CLASTIC (UCS)
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
EIS TEAM
SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
183(70-75)
184(40-45)
184(70-75)
189(300-305)
212(110-115)
212(75-80)
218(180-185)
218(230-235)
234(60-65)
235(10-15)
235(110-115)
235(160-165)
235(210-215)
235(260-265)
235(295-300)
235(60-65)
260(190-195)
260(240-245)
272(100-105)
284(45-50)
302(195-200)
302(345-350)
306(125-130)
TOTAL
SULFUR
%
1.47
0.87
0.30
0.08
0.04
0.29
1.81
1.80
1.73
0.79
0.51
0.11
0.15
0.01
0.29
0.16
0.83
0.33
0.78
0.34
0.05
1.00
<.01
TOTAL
SULFUR
as TCaCO3/KT
45.90
27.20
9.40
2.50
1.20
9.10
56.60
56.20
54.10
24.70
15.90
3.40
4.70
0.30
9.10
5.00
25.90
10.30
24.40
10.60
1.60
31.20
<.30
ACID
NEUTRALIZING
POTENTIAL (ANP)
as TCaC03/KT
20.80
37.60
50.10
101.00
48.30
516.00
8.60
5.60
14.50
42.70
22.10
16.00
15.40
75.00
91.40
55.50
15.10
108.00
25.60
35.60
15.30
15.30
<.10
ANP/AGP
RATIO
0.45
1.38
5.33
40.40
40.25
56.70
0.15
0.10
0.27
1.73
1.39
4.71
3.28
250.00
10.04
11.10
0.58
10.49
1.05
3.36
9.56
0.49
0.33
NET APP
as TCaCO3/KT
25.10
-10.40
-40.70
-98.50
-47.10
-506.90
48.00
50.60
39.60
-18.00
-6.20
-12.60
-10.70
-74.70
-82.30
-50.50
10.80
-97.70
-1.20
-25.00
-13.70
15.90
-0.20
-------
WASTE ROCK ABA RESULTS
UNALTERED CLASTIC (UCS)
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
EIS TEAM
SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
306(75-80)
315(100-105)
315(150-155)
315(200-205)
315(215-220)
315(50-55)
330(175-180)
330(225-230)
330(250-255)
335(270-275)
348(135-140)
348(185-190)
348(235-240)
348(35-40)
348(85-90)
357(195-200)
357(245-250)
357(295-300)
41(120-125)
41(125-130)
41 (70-75)
459(135-140)
459(185-190)
TOTAL
SULFUR
%
0.35
1.11
0.12
0.25
0.06
0.16
1.33
0.17
0.01
0.02
0.47
0.18
0.01
<.01
0.02
0.33
1.07
0.02
0.44
0.61
0.48
<.01
0.01
TOTAL
SULFUR
as TCaC03/KT
10.90
34.70
3.80
7.80
1.90
5.00
41.60
5.30
0.30
0.60
14.70
5.60
0.30
<.30
0.60
10.30
33.40
0.60
13.80
19.10
15.00
<.30
0.30
ACID
NEUTRALIZING
POTENTIAL (ANP)
as TCaCO3/KT
11.20
<.10
27.80
82.30
139.00
30.60
128.00
61.00
142.00
22.60
47.50
12.50
75.00
193.00
28.40
40.30
21.40
16.90
67.30
28.60
63.10
83.20
27.30
ANP/AGP
RATIO
1.03
<.01
7.32
10.55
73.16
6.12
3.08
11.51
473.33
37.67
3.23
2.23
250.00
>643
47.33
3.91
0.64
28.17
4.88
1.50
4.21
>277
91.00
NET APP
as TCaCO3/KT
-0.30
34.60
-24.00
-74.50
-137.10
-25.60
-86.40
-55.70
-141.70
-22.00
-32.80
-6.90
-74.70
-192.70
-27.80
-30.00
12.00
-16.30
-53.50
-9.50
-48.10
-82.90
-27.00
-------
WASTE ROCK ABA RESULTS
UNALTERED CLASTIC (UCS)
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
EIS TEAM
SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
459(235-240)
459(335-340)
459(35-40)
459(85-90)
491 (230-235)
491 (280-285)
491 (330-335)
491 (380-385)
0-27(120-125)
0-27(170-175)
0-38(205-210)
0-44(30-35)
0-44(330-335)
0-44(80-85)
D-451 (345-350)
NUMBER
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
STD DEV
TOTAL
SULFUR
%
0.03
0.08
0.23
<.01
0.01
<.01
0.01
0.28
<.01
0.59
0.02
0.45
0.12
<.01
0.59
61
1.81
<.01
0.38
0.48
TOTAL
SULFUR
as TCaCO3/KT
0.90
2.50
7.20
<.30
0.30
<.30
0.30
8.80
<.30
18.40
0.60
14.10
3.80
<.30
18.40
61
56.60
<.30
11.99
14.86
ACID
NEUTRALIZING
POTENTIAL (ANP)
as TCaCO3/KT
34.40
21.20
24.00
67.80
28.20
14.20
28.20
17.00
486.00
56.90
7.00
4.60
3.00
5.40
187.00
61
516.00
<.10
60.16
91.83
ANP/AGP
RATIO
38.22
8.48
3.33
>226
94.00
>47
94.00
1.93
>1620
3.09
11.67
0.33
0.79
>18
10.16
61
1620.00
0.0029
75.61
229.54
NET APP
as TCaCO3/KT
-33.50
-18.70
-16.80
-67.50
-27.90
-13.90
-27.90
-8.20
-485.70
-38.50
-6.40
9.50
0.80
-5.10
-168.60
61
50.60
-506.90
-48.16
95.24
-------
WASTE ROCK ABA RESULTS
MARBLE (MB)
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
EIS TEAM
SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
189(215-220)
200(50-55)
212(25-30)
341 (270-275)
341(315-320)
354(365-370)
354(415-420)
354(425-430)
357(340-345)
398(135-140)
398(185-190)
398(230-235)
41 (20-25)
443(10-15)
443(60-65)
443(70-75)
0-114(495-500)
0-114(520-525)
0-133(355-360)
0-133(365-370)
0-136(115-120)
0-57(105-110)
0-71(110-115)
0-71(135-140)
0-82(475-480)
NUMBER
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
STD DEV
TOTAL
SULFUR
%
0.05
<.01
0.18
0.05
<.01
0.12
0.05
0.17
2.66
0.01
<.01
0.07
0.50
<.01
0.02
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
0.01
0.17
0.24
0.06
0.29
25
2.66
-0.01
0.19
0.52
TOTAL
SULFUR
as TCaCO3/KT
1.60
<.30
5.60
1.60
<.30
3.80
1.60
5.30
83.10
0.30
<.30
2.20
15.60
<.30
0.60
<.30
<.30
<.30
<.30
<.30
0.30
5.30
7. 50
1.90
9.10
25
83.10
-0.30
5.87
16.18
ACID
NEUTRALIZING
POTENTIAL (ANP)
as TCaC03/KT
710.00
94.60
14.80
840.00
1000.00
693.00
906.00
1320.00
302.00
743.00
916.00
524.00
613.00
625.00
737.00
616.00
736.00
684.00
1020.00
1060.00
258.00
304.00
912.00
861.00
190.00
25
1320.00
14.80
667.18
317.61
ANP/AGP
RATIO
443.75
>315
2.64
525.00
>3333
182.37
566.25
249.06
3.63
2476.67
>3053
238.18
39.29
>.30
1228.33
>2053
>2453
>2280
>3400
>3533
860.00
57.36
121.60
453.16
20.88
25
3533.33
2.64
1198.94
1232.36
NETAPP
as TCaCO3/KT
-708.40
-94.30
-9.20
-838.40
-999.70
-689.20
-904.40
-1314.70
-218.90
-742.70
-915.70
-521.80
-597.40
-624.70
-736.40
-615.70
-735.70
-683.70
-1019.70
-1 059.70
-257.70
-298.70
-904.50
-859.10
-180.90
25
-9.20
-1314.70
-661.25
322.36
-------
WASTE ROCK ABA RESULTS
INTRUSIVE (INT)
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROJECT
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
EIS TEAM
SMAPLE
DESIGNATION
109(115-120)
109(375-380)
109(65-70)
183(20-25)
210(75-80)
210(85-90)
260(140-145)
260(390-395)
284(145-150)
302(145-150)
343(85-90)
357(95-100)
457(115-120)
457(155-160)
459(285-290)
491 (430-435)
0-112(115-120)
0-112(15-20)
0-30(545-550)
0-44(130-135)
0-44(180-185)
0-82(565-570)
NUMBBER
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
STD DEV
TOTAL
SULFUR
%
<.01
0.05
<.01
0.26
0.40
0.27
0.16
0.06
0.01
0.98
0.08
0.06
<.01
<.01
<.01
0.02
0.13
<.01
0.01
<.01
<.01
2.34
22
2.34
<.01
0.22
0.51
TOTAL
SULFUR
as TCaCO3/KT
<.30
1.60
<.30
8.10
12.50
8.40
5.00
1.90
0.30
30.60
2.50
1.90
<.30
<.30
<.30
0.60
4.10
<.30
0.30
<.30
<.30
73.10
22
73.10
<.30
6.91
15.93
ACID
NEUTRALIZING
POTENTIAL (ANP)
as TCaCO3/KT
0.40
16.10
4.80
5.30
21.00
19.70
43.40
23.00
75.70
18.60
86.60
26.10
22.80
15.50
43.90
36.60
<.10
10.30
2.60
6.20
3.10
85.60
22
86.60
<.10
25.79
25.84
ANP/AGP
RATIO
>1.33
10.06
>16
0.65
1.68
2.35
8.68
12.11
252.33
0.61
34.64
13.74
>76
>52
>146
61.00
<.02
>34
8.67
>21
>10
1.17
22
252.33
0.02
34.74
58.18
NET APP
as TCaCO3/KT
-0.10
-14.50
-4.50
2.80
-8.50
-11.30
-38.40
-21.10
-75.40
12.00
-84.10
-24.20
-22.50
-15.20
-43.60
-36.00
4.00
-10.00
-2.30
-5.90
-2.80
-12.50
22
12.00
-84.10
-18.82
23.65
-------
June 1995
Appendix E * Geochemistry * E-4, Page 18
ORE AND LOW GRADE ORE ABA RESULTS
BMGC Sample
Designation
Ore Type
Total Sulfur
(%)
Total Sulfur as
TCaCO,/KT
(AGP)
ANP as
TCaCO3/KT
ANP/AGP
Ratio
Net APP as
TCaCO3/KT
Low Grade Ore
9-101
9-102
10-101
10-102
11-101
11-102
Undifferentiated Skarn
Undifferentiated Skarn
Garnet Skarn
Garnet Skarn
Magnetite Skarn
Magnetite Skarn
<0.01
4.91
<0.01
0.21
3.63
1.09
<0.3
153
<0.3
6.6
113
34.1
36.6
204
71.9
26.9
27.7
29.5
> 122:1
1.3:1
> 240:1
4:1
0.25:1
0.87:1
-36
-51
-72
-20
-85
-5
Ore
12-101
13-101
13-104
14-101
Undifferentiated Skarn
Garnet Skarn
Garnet Skarn
Magnetite Skarn
2.66
0.09
0.03
0.06
83.1
2.8
0.9
1.9
570
52.3
65.3
401
6.9:1
19:1
73:1
211:1
-487
-50
-64
-399
TAILINGS ABA RESULTS
BMGC Sample
Designation
CJC-7/2096-99
CJC-7/2127-74
CJC-12/21 10-135
CJC- 12/2 127-70
CJC-12/2127-71
CJC-13/2110-135A
CJC-Blend/2127-73
Ore Type
Magnetite
Magnetite
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Andesite/Garnetite
Southwest and Andesite/Garnetite
Total Sulfur
(%)
2.46
3.49
0.93
1.83
1.78
1.27
1.53
Total Sulfur as
TCaCO,/KT
(AGP)
77
109
29
57.3
55.6
40
47.8
ANP as
TCaC03/KT
117
85 8
184
162
169
52
122
ANP/AGP
Ratio
1.5:1
0.79:1
6.3:1
2.8:1
3.0:1
1.3:1
2.6:1
Net APP as
TCaCO,/KT
-40
+ 23
-155
-105
-113
-12
-74
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
APPENDIX E-5
ABA RESULTS FOR PIT WALL SAMPLES
-------
-------
WASTE ROCK ABA RESULTS
PIT WALL SAMPLES
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
CROWN JEWELL PROJECT
EISTEAM
SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
482(335-340)
41(125-130)
109(375-360)
0-451(425-430)
178(160-165)
183(70-75)
184(70-75)
189(300-305)
200(50-55)
210(85-90)
212(110-115)
215(245-250)
218(310-315)
221(85-80)
302(490-495)
315(215-220)
330(250-255)
335(385-390)
341(315-320)
343(185-190)
2444390-395)
234(60^5)
235(285-300)
260(400-405)
272(155-160)
0-30(545-550)
0-38(520-525)
0-44(470-475)
0-114(520-525)
0-133(365-370)
0-136(115-120)
0-145(510-515)
0-148(475-480)
0-49(360-365)
0-57(165-170)
0-71(135-140)
0-82(565-570)
354(425-430)
357(340345)
388(230-235)
443(70-75)
455(50-55)
457(155-160)
463(50-55)
NUMBER
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
STDDEV
WASTE
ROCK
GROUP
UAD
UCS
INT
GSK
GSK
UCS
UCS
UCS
MB
INT
UCS
UAD
USK
UAD
GSK
UCS
UCS
USK
MB
UAD
USK
UCS
UCS
GSK
GSK
INT
MSK
MSK
MB
MB
MB
USK
GSK
GSK
USK
MB
INT
MB
MB
MB
MB
UAD
INT
UAD
TOTAL
SULFUR
%
016
0.61
005
031
0.02
1 47
0.30
0.08
<.0t
027
0.04
0.42
001
2.28
1 61
006
001
0.01
<.01
1.69
2.77
1 73
029
0.92
0.04
0.01
8.75
228
<.01
<.01
001
1.75
14.50
3.30
0.01
006
234
017
266
007
<.01
<.01
<.01
0.32
44
14.50
< 01
1.17
2.54
TOTAL
SULFUR
MTCiCOSKT
500
19 10
1.60
970
060
4590
9.40
250
<.30
8.40
1.20
13.10
0.30
71 20
50.30
1.90
0.30
0.30
<,30
52.80
86.60
54.10
8.10
28.80
1.20
0.30
273.00
71.60
<.30
<.30
030
54.70
453.00
10300
0.30
1.90
73.10
5.30
83.10
220
<.30
<.30
<.30
10.00
44
453.00
<.30
3651
79.33
ACID
NEUTRAL! ZING
POTENTIAL
MTC«Ca*KT
36.50
28.60
16.10
11.00
21.60
2080
50.10
101.00
94.60
19.70
4830
28.10
<.10
<.10
39.00
13900
14200
6240
10OOOO
89.40
61.20
14.50
91.40
56.80
42.80
2.60
19.20
9.80
684.00
1060.00
258.00
15600
83.60
3560
352.00
861.00
B560
1320.00
302.00
524.00
61600
14.80
1550
2590
44
1320.00
<.10
196.37
318.16
ANP/AGP
RATIO
7.30
1.50
1006
1.13
36.00
045
5.33
4040
>345
2.35
4025
215
<.33
<.01
0.78
73 16
473.33
20800
>3333
1.69
0.71
0.27
1004
1.97
35.67
8.87
0.07
0.14
>2280
>3533
860.00
285
0.18
035
117333
453.16
1.17
249.08
3.83
238.18
>2053
>49
>52
259
44
>3533
<.01
354.36
830.23
NETAPP
MTC*COSKT
•31 50
-9.50
-14.50
-1.30
•21 00
25.10
-40.70
-98.50
-94.30
-11.30
-47.10
•15.00
0.40
71.30
11.30
-137.10
•141 70
-62.10
-999.70
-36.60
25.40
39.60
-82.30
-2800
-41.60
-2.30
253.80
61.80
-683.70
•1059.70
•257.70
-101.30
36940
67.40
-351.70
-859 10
-12.50
-1314.70
•216.90
-521.80
-615.70
-14.30
-15.20
-15.90
44
369.40
-1314.70
-15984
341.36
-------
-------
APPENDIX E-6
SUMMARY OF HUMIDITY CELL TESTS RESULTS
-------
-------
June 1995
Appendix E * Geochemistry * E-6, Page 1
SUMMARY OF HUMIDITY CELL TEST RESULTS
ON WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
BMGC
Designation
Sample
1-105-A
1-110-A
1-1I1-A
M14.A
2-207-B
2-208-B
2-209-B'
214-B
2-215-B
2-216-B
3-307-A
3-308-A
4-401 -B
4-402-B
Week
of
Testing
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
12
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
pH (units)
7.2
7.0
6.4
6.8
5.5
7.1
6.8
6.5
6.9
6.4
7.4
7.0
6.4
6.9
6.4
7.6
6.9
6.3
6.9
5.1
7.2
6.8
6.4
7.2
6.5
7.2
6.7
7.0
7.2
6.4
4.2
3.8
3.7
3.4
4.8
4.4
4.3
3.7
4.0
7.1
6.8
7.0
7.4
7.1
6.9
6.9
6.5
7.1
7.1
7.6
6.9
7.0
6.4
7.3
7.4
7.1
7.0
6.1
6.4
7.2
6.9
6.7
6.7
6.4
7.5
7.1
7.6
6.9
7.3
Alkalinity (as
mg/1 CaCO,)
17
10
13
6
6
17
10
10
6
6
17
13
10
13
10
23
13
13
13
<5
19
10
13
16
10
19
<5
11
13
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
ND
ND
ND
13
16
ND
ND
ND
11
12
22
13
19
16
16
17
16
19
21
13
16
10
8
<=>
6
22
<5
14
14
11
Acidity (as mg/1
CaCOj)
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
346
255
859
956
23
44
48
70
44
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
16
10
10
10
Sulfate I Iron
mg/1 I mg/l
12
41
<10
14
11
14
46
32
17
17
37
43
22
21
<10
11
43
32
27
23
16
52
28
15
15
13
23
<10
12
<10
781
957
1640
2050
102
253
164
120
74
13
67
45
49
37
12
33
17
10
<10
20
32
45
49
32
<10
13
21
11
10
<10
14
<10
<10
13
24
<10
19
23
< 0.03
< 0.03
< 0.03
< 0.03
< 0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
< 0.03
< 0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
< 0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
154
16
175
308
5
3
8
18
12
< 0.03
0.03
< 0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
< 0.03
< 0.03
<0.03
< 0.03
<0.03
< 0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
< 0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
0.04
<0.03
0.03
0.03
Waste Rock Group
Altered Andesite
Altered Andesite
Altered Andesite
Altered Andesite
Unaltered Andesite
Unaltered Andesite
Unaltered Andesite
(0/F)'
Unaltered Andesite
(O/F)'
Unaltered Andesite
(O/F)'
Unaltered Andesite
(O/F)'
Garnet Skarn
Garnet Skarn
Magnetite Skarn
Magnetite Skarn
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix E * Geochemistry 4 E-6, Page 2
BMC;C
Designation
Sample
4-403-B
4 404-B
4-405-B
4-406-B
4-407-B
4-408-B
4 410-B
7-705
7-707
7-711
7-708-A
7-710-AB
7-7 15- A
7-716-A
Week
of
Testing
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
pM (units)
7.4
7.0
65
60
6.5
7.0
6.9
7.1
6.7
6.7
72
6.7
6.6
5.9
6.2
7.1
68
7.5
7.0
7.1
6.7
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.9
7.0
7.1
7.0
8.1
7.4
7.0
7.0
6.7
7.5
7.5
7.6
7.1
7.1
6.6
6.9
7.4
7.1
7.2
6.5
6.8
6.9
6.3
6.1
5.9
6.2
4.9
4.0
5.3
4.4
6.8
4.2
3.3
4.2
4.3
3.5
3.3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.1
2.7
2.9
SUMMARY OF I
ON W
Alkalinity (as
mg/1 CaCO,)
19
16
8
6
<10
20
<5
8
6
5
16
10
6
-------
June 1995
Appendix E * Geochemistry * E-6, Page 3
SUMMARY OF HUMIDITY CELL TEST RESULTS
ON LOW GRADE ORE SAMPLES
BMGC
Sample
Designation
11-101
11-102
Week
of
Testing
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
pH
(units)
7.2
5.2
6.4
6.6
6.3
7.7
6.9
7.2
6.0
6.3
Alkalinity
(mg/L'caCO,)
21
<5
13
6
6
8
10
13
6
13
Acidity
(mg/L CaCO3)
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
Sulfatc
(mg/L)
18
41
11
25
<10
23
64
120
87
66
Iron
(mg/L)
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
< 0.0.3
<0.03
Low Grade
Ore Group
Magnetite
Skarn
Magnetite
Skarn
SUMMARY OF HUMIDITY CELL TEST RESULTS
ON TAILING SOLIDS SAMPLES
BMGC
Sample
Designation
CJC-12
2110-135
(Southwest Ore)
CJC-13
2110-135A
(Andesite/Garnetite)
CJC-13
2096-99
(Magnetite Ore)
CJC-12
2127-70
(Southwest Ore)
CJC-12
2127-71
(Southwest Ore)
CJC-Blend
2127-73
(Andesite/Garnetite
and Southwest)
CJC-7
2127-74
(Magnetite Ore)
Week
of
Testing
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
25
27
1
5
10
15
20
25
27
1
5
10
15
20
25
27
1
5
10
15
20
25
27
pH
(units)
6.8
6.6
7.5
7.5
7.0
6.8
6.0
7.1
7.7
6.9
7.3
7.7
7.9
7.5
7.8
7.7
7.5
N/A
7.1
7.64
7.8
8.0
7.6
7.2
N/A
7.2
7.6
7.5
80
7.7
7.1
N/A
7.2
7.6
7.8
8.0
7.7
7.1
N/A
7.2
7.5
7.6
7.6
Alkalinity
as
Jmg/L CaCOj)^
32
22
28
22
33
26
6
22
18
22
29
34
52
24
26
30
30
N/A
50
129
36
35
23
20
N/A
50
88
37
38
27
18
N/A
50
h4
38
35
30
15
N/A
40
58
34
<12
Acidity
as
(mg/L CaCO3)
<10
16
15
<10
<10
<10
80
<10
11
<10
14
.31
<10
<10
13
<25
<25
N/A
<50
<25
<25
<25
<25
<25
N/A
<50
<25
<25
<10
<25
<25
N/A
<50
<25
<25
<25
<25
28
N/A
<50
<25
<25
<25
Sulfatc
(mg/L)
248
284
165
125
104
252
243
261
265
143
156
331
215
275
313
228
358
N/A
29
<10
<10
32
170
332
N/A
25
<10
<10
<10
226
398
N/A
29
<10
<10
<10
288
418
N/A
106
47
15
<10
Iron
(mg/L)
0.04
0.17
0.06
<0.03
0.03
0.09
0.14
0.11
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
0.04
<0.03
0.07
0.06
0.04
<0.03
N/A
0.8
0.07
< 0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
N/A
<0.6
0.06
<0.03
<0.03
< 0.0.3
< 0.0.3
N/A
<0.6
0.07
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
N/A
<0.6
0.08
< 0.0.3
<0.6
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix E * Geochemistry * E-6, Page 4
ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS OF 15-WEEK HUMIDITY CELL LEACHATES ON
SELECTED WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
PARAMETER
Chloride, Diss. (C1)
Fluoride, Diss. (Fl)
Antimony, Diss (Sb)
Arsenic, Diss. (As)
Barium, Diss. (Bal
Cadmium, Diss. (Cd)
Calcium, Diss. (Ca)
Chromium, Diss. (Cr)
Copper, Diss. (Cu)
Iron, Diss. (Fe)
Lead, Diss. (Pb)
Mercury, Diss. (He)
Magnesium, Diss. (Me)
Manganese, Diss. (Mn}
Nickel, Diss. (Ni)
Potassium, Diss. (K)
Selenium, Diss. (Se)
Silver, Diss. (Ag)
Sodium, Diss. (Na)
Thallium, Diss. (Tl)
Zinc, Diss. (Zn)
PARAMETER
Chloride, Diss. (Cl)
Fluoride, Diss. (Fl)
Antimony, Diss (Sb)
Arsenic, Diss. (As)
Barium, Diss. (Ba)
Cadmium, Diss. (Cd)
Calcium, Diss. (Ca)
Chromium, Diss. (Cr)
Copper, Diss. (Cu)
Iron, Diss. (Fe)
Lead, Diss. (Pb)
Mercury, Diss. (Hg)
Magnesium, Diss. (Me)
Manganese, Diss. (Mn)
Nickel, Diss. (Ni)
Potassium, Diss. (K)
Selenium, Diss. (Se)
Silver, Diss. (Ag)
Sodium, Diss. (Na)
Thallium, Diss. 00
Zinc, Diss. (Zn)
BMGC SAMPLE DESIGNATION
1-105-A
<1
<0.2
<0.2
<0.1
<0.02
<0.01
6.4
<0.02
<0.02
<0.06
<0.1
< 0.004
0.8
<0.02
<0.08
<10
<0.2
<0.02
<2
<0.2
<0.02
1-114-A
<0.5
<0.1
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
8.1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.002
0.8
<0.01
<0.04
12
<0.1
<0.01
<1
<0.1
<0.01
2-207-B
<0.5
<0.1
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
10.5
<0.01
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.002
1.6
0.06
<0.04
6
<0.1
<0.01
<1
<0.1
<0.01
2-208-B
<0.5
<0.1
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
8.2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.002
0.5
0.02
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
<0.1
<0.01
BMGC SAMPLE DESIGNATION
2-209-B
<0.5
0.3
<0.5
<0.2
<0.05
<0.03
203
<0.05
2.00
238
<0.2
< 0.002
11.0
5.80
08
<5
<0.5
0.05
21
0.5
0.90
2-214-B
<0.5
<0.1
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
25.1
<0.01
0.80
9.88
<0.05
< 0.002
3.8
238
0.58
<5
<0.1
<0.01
1
<0.1
0 17
2-215-B
<0.5
<0.1
-------
June 1995
Appendix E * Geochemistry * E-6, Page 5
ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS OF 15-WEEK HUMIDITY CELL LEACHATES ON
SELECTED WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
PARAMETER
Chloride, Diss. (Cl)
Fluoride, Diss. (Fl)
Antimony, Diss (Sb)
Arsenic, Diss. (As)
Barium, Diss. (Ba)
Cadmium, Diss. (Cd)
Calcium, Diss. (Ca)
Chromium, Diss. (Cr)
Copper, Diss. (Cu)
Iron, Diss. (Fe)
Lead, Diss. (Pb)
Mercury, Diss. (Hg)
Magnesium, Diss. (Me)
Manganese, Diss. (Mnj
Nickel, Diss. (Ni)
Potassium, Dtss. (K)
Selenium, Diss (Se)
Silver, Diss. (Ag)
Sodium, Diss. (Na)
Thallium, Diss. (Tl)
Zmc, Diss. (Zn)
PARAMETER
Chloride, Diss. (Cl)
Fluoride, Diss. (Fl)
Antimony, Diss (Sb)
Arsenic, Diss. (As)
Barium, Diss. (Ba)
Cadmium, Diss. (Cd)
Calcium, Diss. (Ca)
Chromium, Diss. (Cr)
Copper, Diss. (Cu)
Iron Diss. (Fe)
Lead, Diss. (Pb)
Mercury, Diss. (He)
Magnesium, Diss. (Me)
Manganese, Diss. (Mn)
Nickel, Diss. (Ni)
Potassium, Diss. (K)
Selenium, Diss. (Se)
Silver, Diss. (Ag)
Sodium, Diss. (Na)
Thallium, Diss. (Tl)
Zinc, Diss. (Zn)
BMGC SAMPLE DESIGNATION
3-307-A
<0.5
<0. 1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
24.6
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
<0.05
< 0.002
1 9
0.17
<0.04
<5
<0. 1
<0.01
<0. 1
<0.01
3-308-A
<0.2
<0.2
<0.02
<0.01
9.2
<0.02
<0.02
<0.06
<0.1
< 0.008
0.8
<0.02
<0.08
< 10
<0.2
<0.02
<2
<0.2
<0.02
4-403-B
<0.5
<0. 1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
2.9
<0.01
0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.002
0.1
0.16
<004
<5
<0. 1
<0.01
<0. 1
0.13
4-405-B
<0.5
<0 1
<0. 1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
22.2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.002
0.5
1.07
<0.04
<5
<0. 1
<0.01
<0. 1
007
BMGC SAMPLE DESIGNATION
7-705
<0.5
<0. 1
<0. 1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
16.9
<0.01
<0.01
<0.03
< 0.05
< 0.002
1.1
0.15
<0.04
<5
<0. 1
<0.01
1
<0. 1
•C0.01
7-707
0.6
<0. 1
<0. 1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
6.9
<0.01
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.002
0.9
<0.01
<0.04
<5
<0. 1
<0.01
1
<0. 1
<0.01
7-708
0.5
<0. 1
<0. 1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
82.0
<0.01
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.002
1.8
2.77
0.14
<5
<0. 1
<0.01
<0. 1
0.22
7-711
0.5
<0. 1
<0. 1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
8.2
<0.01
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.002
0.7
0.35
<0.04
<5
<0. 1
<0.01
<0. 1
0.03
Note: All results reported in mg/1.
< = Concentration less than detection limit
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix E * Geochemistry * E-6, Page 6
ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS OF 15-WEEK HUMIDITY CELL LEACHATES ON
SELECTED WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
PARAMETER
Chloride, Diss. (Cl)
Fluoride, Diss. (Fl)
Antimony, Diss (Sb)
Arsenic, Diss. (As)
Barium, Diss. (Ba)
Cadmium, Diss. (Cd)
Calcium, Diss. (Ca)
Chromium, Diss. (Cr)
Copper, Diss. (Cu)
Iron Diss. (Fe)
Lead, Diss. (I'h)
Mercury, Diss. (Hfi)
Magnesium, Diss. (Me)
Manganese, Diss. (MnJ
Nickel, Diss. (Ni)
Potassium, Diss. (K)
Selenium, Diss. (Se)
Silver, Diss. (Ac)
Sodium, Diss (Na)
Thallium, Diss (TO
Xinc, Diss. (Xn)
BMGC SAMPLE DESIGNATION
7-715-A
<0.5
0.3
0.2
0.07
<0.01
0.014
151
0.14
16.3
73.5
<0.05
< 0.002
10.0
5.78
3.40
<5
0.3
0.04
2
03
092
7-716-A
<05
04
0.4
02
<0.02
<0.01
50
0.74
13.8
342
<0.1
< 0.002
9.0
1.48
3.12
<10
04
0 18
<2
1 0
1 32
Note. All results reported in m$;/l
< = (Concentration less than detection limit.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
APPENDIX F
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
-------
-------
June 1995 Appendix F * Slope Stability Analysis * F-l
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Crown Jewel Project in Okanogan County, Washington, will involve the construction of
waste rock disposal dumps. The various locations for these dumps are addressed in Chapter 2
of the Crown Jewel environmental impact statement (EIS). The purpose of these analyses are
to provide a basic and general evaluation of the stability of the waste rock being removed and
disposed of at the Crown Jewel Project. The results of these analyses should not be used for
final design or construction purposes; the intent of these analyses is simply to provide a means
of equal comparison for Federal and State of Washington regulatory agency decision makers.
Each action alternative addressed in the Crown Jewel EIS has a different waste rock stockpile
configuration. Alternative B has two waste rock disposal dumps with initial side slopes of 1.5
horizontal (H):l vertical (V) for the first five years, then will be graded to slopes of 2H:1V.
Alternative E has two waste rock disposal dumps, both with slopes of 3H:1V. Alternatives C,
D, and G in the Crown Jewel EIS will each have a single waste rock disposal dump with slopes
not exceeding 3H:1V. Alternative F will not have a permanent waste rock disposal dump; all
waste rock will be backfilled into the final mined-out pit.
Slope stability analyses were performed to estimate various factors-of-safety for the waste rock
dumps proposed for Alternatives B and E as well as generic waste rock slopes of 1.5H:1V,
2H:1V, and 3H:1V; these are the various slopes being constructed for the waste rock disposal
dumps proposed in the action alternatives being evaluated in the Crown Jewel EIS. The
computer model XSTABL was used for the analyses in conjunction with the infinite slope
stability charts (Hoek and Bray, 1977). Both static and pseudo-static evaluations were
performed. Mr. Paul Pellicer of TerraMatrix Inc. of Steamboat Springs, Colorado, conducted
the slope stability analyses addressed in this appendix.
2.0 ASSUMPTIONS
The following are the basic assumptions used in these waste rock slope stability analyses:
• The waste rock at the Crown Jewel Project consists predominantly of andesite,
with lesser amounts of skarn material and marble (see Section 3.3,
Geology/Geochemistry) in the Crown Jewel EIS).
• Vegetation and topsoil would be removed in dump locations prior to waste rock
placement.
• The waste rock was assigned an angle of internal friction of 42° (Knight-Piesold,
1993). The underlying bedrock was assigned the conservative friction angle of 45°.
• The maximum ground acceleration used for the pseudo-static analyses was 0.19g,
based on a Maximum Credible Earthquake of 6.0 on the Richter scale (Knight-
Piesold, 1993).
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix F * Slope Stability Analysis * F-2
3.0 CONCLUSIONS
A summary of the analyses, including the projected factors-of-safety, is presented in Table F-l,
Slope Stability Analysis Summary - Crown Jewel Project.
The results of the stability analyses reveal that the critical failure mode for the waste rock
stockpiles is an infinite slope failure. Using XSTABL to perform a circular failure search, the
critical surfaces were quite shallow, actually approaching an infinite slope failure.
The initial 1.5H:1V slopes of the waste rock disposal dumps of Alternative B are projected to
have a static factor-of-safety of 1.35 and a pseudo-static factor-of-safety of 0.9 if a Maximum
Credible Earthquake occurs. This analysis indicates that some waste rock movement may occur
for the initial five year waste rock disposal dump geometry if a Maximum Credible Earthquake
is experienced at the site. Once the waste rock disposal dumps are regraded to 2H:1V, the
calculations show the dumps to have a static factor-of-safety of 1.8 and a pseudo-static factor-of-
safety of 1.18 if the Maximum Credible Earthquake occurs.
Alternatives C, D, E, and G all have slopes not exceeding 3H:1V and display static factor-of-
safety of 2.70 and pseudo-static factor-of-safety of 1.61 if the Maximum Credible Earthquake
occurs. This means that no waste rock movement should occur under these conditions.
4.0 REFERENCES
Hoek, E., and Bray, J.W., Rock Slope Engineering, 1977.
Knight-Piesold Company, Tailings Disposal Facility Final Design Report for the battle
Mountain Gold Company Crown Jewel Project, 1993.
XSTABL, Computer Program Version 5.00, 1994
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix F * Slope Stability Analysis * F-3
TABLE F-l
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS SUMMARY
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
Section
Alternative B, A-A'
Alternative B, A-A'
Alternative B, B-B'
Alternative B, B-B'
Alternative E, C-C'
Alternative E, C-C'
Alternative E, D-D'
Alternative E, D-D'
Generic 1.5H:1V
Generic 1.5H:1V
Generic 2H:1V
Generic 2H:1V
Generic 3H:1V
Generic 3H:1V
Generic 1.5H:1V
Generic 2H:1V
Generic 1.5H:1V
Generic 3H:1V
Generic 1.5H:1V
Generic 2H:1V
Generic 2H:1V
Generic 3H:1V
Generic 3H:1V
Failure Mode
Circular
Circular
Circular
Circular
Circular
Circular
Circular
Circular
Circular
Circular
Circular
Circular
Circular
Circular
Infinite Slope
Infinite Slope
Infinite Slope
Infinite Slope
Infinite Slope
Infinite Slope
Infinite Slope
Infinite Slope
Infinite Slope
Analysis Method
XSTABLE
XSTABLE
XSTABLE
XSTABLE
XSTABLE
XSTABLE
XSTABLE
XSTABLE
XSTABLE
XSTABLE
XSTABLE
XSTABLE
XSTABLE
XSTABLE
Hoek-Brown Chart
Hoek-Brown Chart
Infinite slope analysis spreadsheet
Hoek-Brown Chart
Infinite slope analysis spreadsheet
Infinite slope analysis spreadsheet
Infinite slope analysis spreadsheet
Infinite slope analysis spreadsheet
Infinite slope analysis spreadsheet
Analysis
Mode
Static
Pseudo-Static
Static
Pseudo-Static
Static
Pseudo-Static
Static
Pseudo-Static
Static
Pseudo-Static
Static
Pseudo-Static
Static
Pseudo-Static
Static
Static
Static
Static
Pseudo-Static
Static
Pseudo-Static
Static
Pseudo-Static
Factor
of
Safety
1.58
1.06
1.47
0.99
2.39
1.48
2.66
1.59
1.36
0.92
1.81
1.19
2.71
1.62
1.35
1.80
1.35
2.70
0.90
1.80
1.18
2.70
1.61
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
-------
APPENDIX G
TRAFFIC ASSUMPTIONS
-------
-------
June 1995 Appendix G * Traffic Assumptions * G-l
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 CONSTRUCTION PHASE (Common to All Alternatives) 2
1.1 EMPLOYEE TRAFFIC 2
1.2 SUPPLY TRAFFIC 3
1.3 OTHER TRAFFIC 3
2.0 OPERATION PHASE 4
2.1 EMPLOYEE TRAFFIC 4
2.2 SUPPLY TRAFFIC 6
2.3 OTHER TRAFFIC 8
3.0 RECLAMATION 9
3.1 EMPLOYEE TRAFFIC 9
3.2 SUPPLY TRAFFIC 10
3.3 OTHER TRAFFIC 11
LIST OF TABLES
Number Title Page No.
G-l Consumable Estimate, Alternative B G-12
G-2 Consumable Estimate, Alternative C G-13
G-3 Consumable Estimate, Alternative G G-14
Crown Jewel Project * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix G * Traffic Assumptions * G-2
TRAFFIC ASSUMPTIONS
This appendix presents the various assumptions used to determine the Project related average
daily traffic (ADT) for the construction, operation and reclamation phases of the Crown Jewel
Project. The information is used to support the conclusions reached in Section 4.17,
Transportation, and other sections of Chapter 4.
1.0 CONSTRUCTION PHASE (Common to All Alternatives)
1.1 EMPLOYEE TRAFFIC
A total of 250 employees would be engaged during the 1 year construction period. It is assumed
that no busing would be used during the construction phase of the Project; most of the workers
would probably car pool (2 persons per vehicle) to the site in individual vehicles. The employee
traffic for the construction phase assumes that 50 individuals would be employed for the
operations portion of construction (pre-mine development) and 200 individuals for the actual
construction aspects of the Project. Two shifts would be utilized, and traffic would be equally
split between the 2 shifts.
For the 50 operations people, this would mean 25 individuals per shift, classified as follows:
• 20 in general work force
• 5 in management
For calculation purposes, it is assumed that the general work force would car pool (2
individuals/vehicle), but management personnel due to varying schedules would take individual
vehicles. In this scenario, both operations shifts would require 15 vehicles. The ADT would
be calculated by multiplying 15 vehicles x 2 shifts x 2 ways (round trip). Therefore, the ADT
for the operations segment of construction would be 60.
For the 200 construction people, this would mean 100 individuals per shift, classified as follows:
• 96 in general work force
• 4 in management
For calculation purposes, it is assumed that the general work force would car pool (2
individuals/vehicle), but management personnel due to varying schedules would take individual
vehicles. In this scenario, both shifts would require 52 vehicles. The ADT would be calculated
by multiplying 52 vehicles x 2 shifts x 2 ways (round trip). Therefore, the ADT for the
construction segment would be 208.
The total estimated employee ADT during the construction phase would be 268. To be
conservative, assuming that no employees chose to car pool, a maximum employee ADT for the
construction phase would be 500.
The total construction phase employee ADT would range from 268 (minimum) to 500
(maximum).
Crown Jewel Project * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix G * Traffic Assumptions * G-3
1.2 SUPPLY TRAFFIC
The majority of the supplies required for construction would be hauled over the 6 month period
of May through October. The majority of the construction supplies would involve the delivery
of steel and cement. It is assumed that these materials would be hauled during daylight only,
and an estimated 3 trucks per day would be needed over the 6 month period for these
construction materials. The estimated traffic for steel and cement construction materials would
be 396 trucks, calculated by multiplying 3 trucks per day x 22 days per month x 6 months.
An estimated additional 2 trucks per day would be needed over the full 12 month construction
phase for fuel and other miscellaneous supplies, such as general earthmoving equipment
necessary for construction or with actual mining and mill equipment. The estimated traffic for
fuel and miscellaneous supplies would be 520 trucks, calculated by multiplying 2 trucks per day
x 260 days per year.
It is assumed that a pilot vehicle would be needed during construction on varying basis;
however, for calculation purposes, it is assumed that there would be the need for 1 pilot vehicle
per day. The estimated traffic for a pilot vehicle would be 260 vehicles, calculated by
multiplying 1 vehicle per day x 260 days per year.
Additional supply-related traffic would consist of equipment and supply representatives. It is
estimated that a range of 2 to 5 representatives per day would visit the site during the
concentrated 6 month construction period. The estimated traffic for these representatives would
be 520 to 1,300 vehicles, calculated by multiplying 2 to 5 vehicles per day x 260 days per year.
The total annual supply-related construction traffic is estimated to range from 1,696 to 2,476
vehicles. Based on 260 day schedule, the ADT would range from 6.5 to 9.5 vehicles per day or
an average ADT of 8 vehicles per day. During the 6 months of concentrated construction, it
is estimated that as many as 22 transport vehicles per day could use the roads to the Crown
Jewel Project.
1.3 OTHER TRAFFIC
Throughout the construction phase of the Crown Jewel Project, it is assumed that government
personnel, consultants, engineering contractors, sales representatives, and the general public
would visit the site. For calculation purposes, it is estimated that an average of 3 vehicles per
day (7 days a week for 365 days) would transport these individuals to the site. The total traffic
for this traffic would be 1,095 vehicles. The estimated ADT for this traffic would be 6.
Crown Jewel Project * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix G * Traffic Assumptions * G-4
2.0 OPERATION PHASE
2.1 EMPLOYEE TRAFFIC
Alternative B and E
An estimated total of 150 people would be employed at the Crown Jewel Project for an 8 year
operational period of Alternatives B and E. This traffic analysis assumes 50% or 75 people work
each shift; however, this assumption is conservative. In actuality, there would be less people per
shift due to the scheduling of rotating shifts which would allow each person time off from a 7
day per week work schedule.
During the operations contemplated in Alternatives B and E. there would be some type of
busing/van pooling for employee transport from Oroville to the Crown Jewel Project site. The
size of the bus/van vehicles has not been determined, but it is possible that such vehicles could
vary in capacity from 8 to 48 passengers; for purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the
employee bus would be capable of transporting 24 passengers.
Two shifts would be utilized; and, for calculation purposes, employee traffic for the operation
phase of Alternatives B and E would be equally split between the 2 shifts as follows:
• 1st shift - 75 people (70 riding bus, 5 management driving pickups)
• 2nd shift - 75 people (70 riding bus, 5 management driving pickups)
In this scenario, both shifts would require 3 buses and 5 pickups. The ADT would be calculated
by multiplying 8 vehicles x 2 shifts x 2 ways (round trip). Therefore, the ADT for the
employees during operations would be 32.
If there was no busing or car pooling, and each employee drove separately, the ADT would be
300, calculated by multiplying 75 vehicles x 2 shifts x 2 ways (round trip).
The operation phase employee ADT for Alternatives B and E would range from 32 (minimum)
to 300 (maximum).
Alternative C and D
An estimated total of 225 people would be employed at the Crown Jewel Project during the
operational periods of Alternatives C and D (4 years for Alternative C and 6 years for
Alternative D). This traffic analysis assumes that there will be 2 shifts and that 115 people will
work the first shift and 110 people will work on the second shift. This assumption is
conservative. In actuality, there would be less people per shift due to the scheduling of rotating
shifts which would allow each person time off from a 7 day per week work schedule.
During the operations contemplated in Alternatives C and D, there would be some type of
busing/van pooling for employee transport from Oroville to the Crown Jewel Project site. The
size of the bus/van vehicles has not been determined, but it is possible that such vehicles could
vary in capacity from 8 to 48 passengers; for purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the
employee bus would be capable of transporting 24 passengers.
Crown Jewel Project * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix G * Traffic Assumptions * G-5
Two shifts would be utilized; and, for calculation purposes, employee traffic for the operation
phase of Alternatives C and D would be split as follows:
• 1st shift - 115 people (110 riding bus, 5 management driving pickups)
• 2nd shift - 110 people (105 riding bus, 5 management driving pickups)
In this scenario, both shifts would require 5 buses and 5 pickups. The ADT would be calculated
by multiplying 10 vehicles x 2 shifts x 2 ways (round trip). Therefore, the ADT for the
employees during operations would be 40.
If there was no busing or car pooling, and each employee drove separately, the ADT would be
450, calculated by multiplying 225 people (each in their own individual vehicle) x 2 ways (round
trip).
The operation phase employee ADT for Alternatives C and D would range from 40 (minimum)
to 450 (maximum).
Alternative F
An estimated total of 125 people would be employed at the Crown Jewel Project for a 16 year
operational period of Alternatives F. Under this alternative, the mine would operate 1 shift per
day, while the mill would operate 2 shifts per day. This traffic analysis assumes that
approximately 65% or 80 people work the first shift and 35% or 45 people work the second
shift; however, this assumption is conservative. In actuality, there would be less people per shift
due to the scheduling of rotating shifts which would allow each person time off from a 7 day
per week work schedule.
During the operations contemplated in Alternatives F, there would be some type of busing/van
pooling for employee transport from Oroville to the Crown Jewel Project site. The size of the
bus/van vehicles has not been determined, but it is possible that such vehicles could vary in
capacity from 8 to 48 passengers; for purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the employee
bus would be capable of transporting 24 passengers.
Two shifts would be utilized; and, for calculation purposes, employee traffic for the operation
phase of Alternative F would be split between the 2 shifts as follows:
• 1st shift - 80 people (75 riding bus, 5 management driving pickups)
• 2nd shift - 45 people (40 riding bus, 5 management driving pickups)
In this scenario, the first shift would require 4 buses and 5 pickups, while the second shift would
require 2 buses and 5 pickups. The ADT would be calculated by multiplying 16 vehicles x 2
ways (round trip). Therefore, the ADT for the employees during operations would be 32.
If there was no busing or car pooling, and each employee drove separately, the ADT would be
250, calculated by multiplying 125 vehicles x 2 ways (round trip).
The operation phase employee ADT for Alternatives F would range from 32 (minimum) to 250
(maximum).
Crown Jewel Project * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix G * Traffic Assumptions * G-6
Alternative G
An estimated total of 210 people would be employed at the Crown Jewel Project for an 8 year
operational period of Alternatives G. This traffic analysis assumes 50% or 105 people work each
shift; however, this assumption is conservative. In actuality, there would be less people per shift
due to the scheduling of rotating shifts which would allow each person time off from a 7 day
per week work schedule.
During the operations contemplated in Alternatives G, there would be some type of busing/van
pooling for employee transport from Oroville to the Crown Jewel Project site. The size of the
bus/van vehicles has not been determined, but it is possible that such vehicles could vary in
capacity from 8 to 48 passengers; for purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the employee
bus would be capable of transporting 24 passengers.
Two shifts would be utilized; and, for calculation purposes, employee traffic for the operation
phase of Alternative G would be equally split between the 2 shifts as follows:
• 1st shift - 105 people (100 riding bus, 5 management driving pickups)
• 2nd shift - 105 people (100 riding bus, 5 management driving pickups)
In this scenario, both shifts would require 5 buses and 5 pickups. The ADT would be calculated
by multiplying 10 vehicles x 2 shifts x 2 ways (round trip). Therefore, the ADT for the
employees during operations would be 40.
If there was no busing or car pooling, and each employee drove separately, the ADT would be
420, calculated by multiplying 105 vehicles x 2 shifts x 2 ways (round trip).
The operation phase employee ADT for Alternative G would range from 40 (minimum) to 420
(maximum).
2.2 SUPPLY TRAFFIC
Alternative B, D and E
As shown on Table G-1, Consumable Estimate Alternative B, D, and E, it is estimated that there
would be 1,440 truck loads of various supplies per year during operational life of Alternatives
B, D, and E. This analysis assumes delivery would take place 260 days per year (Monday
through Friday); however, the Proponent has indicated to Okanogan County officials that most
deliveries would occur Monday through Thursday (208 days).
Of the supplies delivered, there would be an estimated 1,001 loads of potentially
environmentally hazardous materials hauled to the Project site per year. As a mitigation
measure, the transport of this environmentally hazardous materials to the Project site would be
escorted by a pilot vehicle. This analysis has assumed that materials would be escorted in
caravans; therefore, only 1 pilot vehicle would be required each day. To evaluate a potential
range for this analysis, it is projected that a caravan of environmentally hazardous materials
could be escorted to the Project site twice a day (morning and afternoon); however, this
situation would not be expected on a daily basis.
Crown Jewel Project * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix G * Traffic Assumptions * G-7
Assuming 260 days (Monday through Friday delivery) and only a single pilot vehicle needed per
day, the estimated ADT would be approximately 13; this ADT is calculated as follows:
• (1,440 + 260) x 2 / 260 = 13.1 ADT
Assuming 208 days (Monday through Thursday delivery) and 2 pilot vehicles needed per day,
the estimated ADT would be approximately 19; this ADT is calculated as follows:
• (1,440 + 520) x 2 / 208 = 18.8 ADT
Alternative C
As shown on Table G-2, Consumable Estimate Alternative C, it is estimated that there would
be 1,171 truck loads of various supplies per year during operational life of Alternative C. This
analysis assumes delivery would take place 260 days per year (Monday through Friday);
however, the Proponent has indicated to Okanogan County officials that most deliveries would
occur Monday through Thursday (208 days).
Of the supplies delivered, there would be an estimated 1,001 loads of potentially
environmentally hazardous materials hauled to the Project site per year. As a mitigation
measure, the transport of hazardous materials to the Project site would be escorted by a pilot
vehicle. This analysis has assumed that these materials would be escorted in caravans; therefore,
only 1 pilot vehicle would be required each day. To evaluate a potential range for this analysis,
it is projected that a caravan of environmentally hazardous materials could be escorted to the
Project site twice a day (morning and afternoon); however, this situation would not be expected
on a daily basis.
Assuming 260 days (Monday through Friday delivery) and only a single pilot vehicle needed per
day, the estimated ADT would be approximately 11; this ADT is calculated as follows:
• (1,171 + 260) x 2 / 260 = 11 ADT
Assuming 208 days (Monday through Thursday delivery) and 2 pilot vehicles needed per day,
the estimated ADT would be approximately 16; this ADT is calculated as follows:
• (1,171 + 520) x 2 / 208 = 16.3 ADT
Alternative F
The anticipated supply trucks would be estimated to be 50% of Alternative B, D and E.
Assuming 260 days (Monday through Friday delivery) and only a single pilot vehicle needed per
day, the estimated ADT would be approximately 8; this ADT is calculated as follows:
• (720 + 260) x 2 / 260 = 7.5 ADT
Assuming 208 days (Monday through Thursday delivery) and maintaining a single pilot vehicle
per day, the estimated ADT would be approximately 9; this ADT is calculated as follows:
• (720 + 260) x 2 / 208 = 9.4 ADT
Crown Jewel Project * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix G * Traffic Assumptions * G-8
Alternative G
As shown on Table G-3, Consumable Estimate Alternative G, it is estimated that there would
be 601 truck loads of various supplies per year during operational life of Alternatives G. This
analysis assumes delivery would take place 260 days per year (Monday through Friday);
however, the Proponent has indicated to Okanogan County officials that most deliveries would
occur Monday through Thursday (208 days).
Of the supplies delivered, there would be an estimated 400 loads of hazardous materials hauled
to the Project site per year. As a mitigation measure, the transport of hazardous materials to
the Project site would be escorted by a pilot vehicle. This analysis has assumed that materials
would be escorted in caravans; therefore, only 1 pilot vehicle would be required each day.
Assuming 260 days (Monday through Friday delivery) and a single pilot vehicle per day, the
estimated ADT would be approximately 7; this ADT is calculated as follows:
• (601 + 260) x 2 / 260 = 6.6 ADT
Assuming 208 days (Monday through Thursday delivery) and a single pilot vehicle per day, the
estimated ADT would be approximately 30; this ADT is calculated as follows:
• (601 + 260) x 2 / 208 = 8.3 ADT
2.3 OTHER TRAFFIC
Alternative B, C, D, E, and F
Throughout the operational phase of Alternatives B, C, D, E, and F, it is assumed that
government personnel, sales representatives, and the general public would visit the site. For
calculation purposes, it is estimated that an average of 3 vehicles per day (7 days a week for 365
days) would transport these individuals to the site. The total traffic for this traffic would be
1,095 vehicles. The estimated ADT for this traffic would be 6.
Alternative G
Throughout the operational phase of Alternative G, it is assumed that government personnel,
sales representatives, and the general public would visit the site. For calculation purposes, it is
estimated that an average of 3 vehicles per day (7 days a week for 365 days) would transport
these individuals to the site. The total traffic for this traffic would be 1,095 vehicles. The
estimated ADT for this traffic would be 6.
Also, for Alternative G, ore concentrate haulage would require 12 truck loads per day, 7
days/week, from the Project site to Oroville. It is projected that approximately 300 tons of ore
concentrate per day would be generated at the flotation mill in Alternative G. Tractor-trailer
units would be used to carry about 25 tons of concentrate each trip. Assuming 365 days (7 days
per week transport), the estimated ADT would be approximately 8; this ADT is calculated as
follows:
• (12 + 3) x 2 = 30 ADT
Crown Jewel Project * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix G * Traffic Assumptions » G-9
3.0 RECLAMATION
3.1 EMPLOYEE TRAFFIC
Alternative B, C, D, E and G
A total of 50 employees would be employed for reclamation over 1 year; this period would be
allowed for the completion of the grading, topsoiling, mulching, and seeding of the Project site.
Reclamation activities would occur during daylight hours (on the first shift); however, there
would be maintenance and security people on duty during second shift. For this traffic analysis,
it was assumed that 70% of the work force would work the first shift. This would be
conservative. In actuality, there would be less people per shift due to the scheduling of rotating
shifts which would allow each person time off from a 7 day per week work schedule.
During the reclamation activities contemplated in Alternatives B, C, D, E, and G, it is assumed
that there would be some type of busing/van pooling for employee transport from Oroville to
the Crown Jewel Project site. The size of the bus/van vehicles has not been determined, but
it is possible that such vehicles could vary in capacity from 8 to 48 passengers; for purposes of
this analysis, it is assumed that the employee bus would be capable of transporting 24 passengers.
Two shifts would be utilized; and, for calculation purposes, employee traffic for the reclamation
phase of Alternatives B, C, D, E, and G would be split between the 2 shifts as follows:
• 1st shift - 34 people (32 riding bus, 2 management driving pickups)
• 2nd shift - 16 people (15 riding bus, 1 management driving pickup)
In this scenario, there would be the need for 2 buses and 2 pickups for the first shift, and 1 bus
and 1 pickup for the second shift. The ADT would be calculated by multiplying 6 vehicles x
2 ways (round trip). Therefore, the ADT for the employees during reclamation would be 12.
If there was no busing or car pooling, and each employee drove separately, the ADT would be
100, calculated by multiplying 50 vehicles x 2 ways (round trip).
The reclamation phase employee ADT for Alternatives B, C, D, E, and G would range from
12 (minimum) to 100 (maximum).
Alternative F
A total of 75 employees would be employed for reclamation activities for the 16 year period to
backfill the mine pit area as well as to complete final grading, topsoiling, mulching, and seeding
of the Project site. Reclamation activities would occur during daylight hours (on the first shift);
however, there would be maintenance and security people on duty during second shift. For this
traffic analysis, it was assumed that 75% of the work force would work the first shift. This
would be conservative. In actuality, there would be less people per shift due to the scheduling
of rotating shifts which would allow each person time off from a 7 day per week work schedule.
Crown Jewel Project * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix G * Traffic Assumptions » G-10
During the reclamation activities contemplated in Alternatives F, it is assumed that there would
be some type of busing/van pooling for employee transport from Oroville to the Crown Jewel
Project site. The size of the bus/van vehicles has not been determined, but it is possible that
such vehicles could vary in capacity from 8 to 48 passengers; for purposes of this analysis, it is
assumed that the employee bus would be capable of transporting 24 passengers.
Two shifts would be utilized; and, for calculation purposes, employee traffic for the reclamation
phase of Alternative F would be split between the 2 shifts as follows:
• 1st shift - 56 people (54 riding bus, 3 management driving pickups)
• 2nd shift - 19 people (18 riding bus, 1 management driving pickup)
In this scenario, there would be the need for 3 buses and 3 pickups for the first shift, and 1 bus
and 1 pickup for the second shift. The ADT would be calculated by multiplying 8 vehicles x
2 ways (round trip). Therefore, the ADT for the employees during reclamation would be 16.
If there was no busing or car pooling, and each employee drove separately, the ADT would be
150, calculated by multiplying 75 vehicles x 2 ways (round trip).
The reclamation phase employee ADT for Alternative F would range from 16 (minimum) to
150 (maximum).
3.2 SUPPLY TRAFFIC
Alternative B, C, D, E and G
To complete the reclamation activities in Alternatives B, C, D, E, and G, it is estimated that 120
truck loads of fuel per year would be necessary. This would assume 5,000 gallons of fuel per
truck. Fuel trucks would only travel to the Project site during weekdays (Monday through
Friday). Each fuel truck would be escorted to the Project site by a pilot vehicle. In addition,
an additional 25 truck loads of supplies would be required during the reclamation activities; this
would include items such as miscellaneous supplies, mulch, and seed.
The estimated ADT for reclamation supplies in Alternatives B, C, D, E, and G would be 2,
calculated as follows:
• (120 + 120 + 25) x 2 / 260 = 2 supply vehicles per day.
Alternative F
To complete the reclamation activities in Alternatives F, it is estimated that 240 truck loads of
fuel per year would be necessary for the 16 years of reclamation. This would assume 5,000
gallons of fuel per truck. Fuel trucks would only travel to the Project site during weekdays
(Monday through Friday). Each fuel truck would be escorted to the Project site by a pilot
vehicle. In addition, an additional 25 truck loads of supplies would be required during the
reclamation activities; this would include miscellaneous maintenance and reclamation supplies.
The estimated ADT for reclamation supplies in Alternatives F would be approximately 4,
calculated as follows:
Crown Jewel Project * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix G * Traffic Assumptions * G-ll
• (240 + 240 + 25) x 2 / 260 = 3.9 supply vehicles per day.
3.3 OTHER TRAFFIC
Alternative B, C, D, E, F, and G
Throughout the reclamation phase of all action alternatives, it is assumed that government
personnel, sales representatives, and the general public would visit the site. For calculation
purposes, it is estimated that an average of 3 vehicles per day (7 days a week for 365 days) would
transport these individuals to the site. The total traffic for this traffic would be 1,095 vehicles.
The estimated ADT for this traffic would be 6. For Alternatives B, C, D, E, and G, this ADT
would occur for a year while occurring 16 years in Alternative F.
Crown Jewel Project * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix G * Traffic Assumptions * G-12
TABLE G-l, CONSUMABLE ESTIMATE, ALTERNATIVE B
CONSUMABLE
GRINDING
Steel Balls
LEAGI IING
Sodium Cyanide
Cement
Flocculent
Lead Nitrate
Oxygen
RECOVERY
Activated Carbon
Hydrochloric Acid
Caustic
Antiscalant
Steel Wool
RKFINKRY
Silica Sand
Anhydrous Borax
Soda Ash
Sodium Nitrate
CYANIDE DFSTRUCT
Sulfur Dioxide
Copper Sulfate
Lime
Oxygen
BLASTING
Ammonium Nitrate
GENERAL
Fuel1
Propane
Miscellaneous
TOTALS
DAILY USE
(tons)
6.38
4.69
18.75
0.19
0.47
5.0
0.30
0.60
0.57
009
0.01
0.02
0.05
002
001
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
030
8
16
8
3
1,543
53
1,149
2,555
3,194
1,204,500 gal
813 tons
PHYSICAL
FORM
so 1 1 d
solid briquettes
powder
liquid
powder
liquified gas
granules
liquid
liquid
liquid
solid
solid
solid
solid
solid
liquid
solid
powder
liquid
granules
liquid
LPG
TRUCK SHIPMENTS'
WEEKLY
2.3
1.7
6.6
0.1
0.2
1.8
0.1
0.2
0.2
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
'I hese
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 baseu 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).
Crown Jewel Project * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix G * Traffic Assumptions * G-13
TABLE G-2, CONSUMABLE ESTIMATE, ALTERNATIVE C
CONSUMABLE
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 OBSTRUCT
Sulfur Dioxide
Copper Sulfate
Lime
Oxygen
BLASTING
Ammonium Nitrate1
GENERAL
Fuel'
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 gallons
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
1,095
120,500 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
liquified gas
granules
liquid
LPG
TRUCK SHIPMENTS1
WEEKLY
2.3
1.7
6.8
0.1
0.2
1.8
0.1
0.2
0.2
1.5
0.1
1.1
3
1.1
0.5
1
2
23.7
YEARLY'
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
55
24
41
100
1171
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).
Crown Jewel Project 4 Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix G * Traffic Assumptions * G-14
TABLE G-3, CONSUMABLE ESTIMATE, ALTERNATIVE G
CONSUMABLE
GRINDING
Steel Balls
RECOVERY
Flotation Reagents
Potassium Amyl Xanthate
MIBC (frother)
AP4O4 (promoter)
DP-6 (promoter)
Copper Sulfate (activator)
Na2S (sulfidizer)
BLASTING
Ammonium Nitrate3
GENERAL
Fuel3
Miscellaneous
TOTALS
DAILY USE
(tons)
6.38
1.97
8.75
3.300 gal
ANNUAL USE
(tons)
2.327
717
3.194
1.204.500 gal
PHYSICAL
FORM
solid
liquid
granules
liquid
TRUCK SHIPMENTS'
WEEKLY
2.3
These materials combined
would require 1 truck load
every 2 weeks
3.1
4.8
0.9
11
YEARLY2
117
36
160
240
48
601
Notes: 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).
-------
APPENDIX H
DRAFT
WILDLIFE BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION
-------
-------
BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION
CROWN JEWEL MINE PROJECT
Prepared
lor
U.S. Forest Service,
Tonasket Ranger District
Tonasket, Washington
Prepared
by
Beak Consultants Incorporated
Portland, Oregon
and
Cedar Creek Associates, Inc.
Fort Collins, Colorado
MayS, 1995
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4
2.1 Environmental Setting 4
2.2 Description of the Action Alternatives 6
2.2.1 Alternative B (Applicant s Proposal) 6
2.2.2 Alternative C 12
2.2.3 Alternative D 13
2.2.4 Alternative E 14
2.2.5 Alternative F 14
2.2.6 Alternative G 14
3.0 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION PROCESS 16
3.1 Step 1 - Pre-Field Review 16
3.2 Step 2 - Field Reconnaissance 16
3.3 Step 3 - Risk Assessment 17
3.4 Step 4 - Biological Investigation 19
4.0 ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS 20
4.1 Townsend's Big-eared and Myotis Bats 20
4.1.1 Townsend's Big-eared 21
4.1.2 Myotis Bats 22
4.1.3 Determination of Effects for Townsend's Big-eared and Myotis Bats 24
4.2 Pygmy Rabbit 27
4.3 Gray Wolf 28
4.3.1 Determination of Effects for Gray Wolf 30
4.4 Grizzly Bear 33
4.4.1 Determination of Effects for Grizzly Bear 36
4.5 Pacific Fisher 37
4.5.1 Determination of Effects for Pacific Fisher 39
4.6 California Wolverine 40
4.6.1 Determination of Effects for California Wolverine 41
4.7 North American Lynx 43
4.7.1 Determination of Effects for North American Lynx 44
4.8 California Bighorn Sheep 46
4.9 Common Loon 46
4.9.1 Determination of Effects for Common Loon 47
4.10 Northern Bald Eagle 50
4.10.1 Determination of Effects for Northern Bald Eagle 51
4 11 Northern Goshawk 53
4.11.1 Determination of Effects for Northern Goshawk 56
4.12 Ferruginous Hawk 59
4.13 American Peregrine Falcon 60
4.13.1 Determination of Effects for American Peregrine Falcon 61
4.14 Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse 61
4.14.1 Determination of Effects for Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse 63
4.15 Long-billed Curlew 64
4.15.1 Determination of Effects for Long-billed Curlew 65
4.16 Black Tern 66
4.16.1 Determination of Effects for Black Tern 67
4.17 Northern Spotted Owl 68
4.18 Olive-sided Flycatcher 69
4.18.1 Determination of Effects for Olive-sided Flycatcher 69
4.19 Little Willow Flycatcher 69
4 19 1 Determination of Effects for Little Willow Flycatcher 70
Crown Jewel Project BE i May 5, 1995
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
4.20 Spotted Frog 71
4.20.1 Determination of Effects for Spotted Frog 71
5.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS SUMMARY 74
6.0 CONCLUSIONS 76
7.0 LITERATURE CITED 78
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No Page No.
1 Project Vicinity Map 2
2 Project Area Map 5
3 Land Type Map 7
4 Cover Type Map 8
5 Potential Goshawk Nesting Habitat 55
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Page No.
1 PETS and Candidate Species Evaluated for the Crown Jewel Project 2
2 Land Types and Cover Types Within the Analysis and Cores Areas 9
3 Action Alternative Disturbance Areas 11
4 Habitat Losses Affecting Deer Prey Density for Gray Wolf 31
5 Northern Goshawk Habitat Losses 57
Crown Jewel Project BE ii May 5,1995
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Biological Evaluation (BE) is prepared for the proposed Crown Jewel Mine Project. Battle Mountain
Gold Company (BMG) proposes to develop a gold mine on a site located approximately 3.5 miles east of
Chesaw, Washington on private and public lands (Figure 1). An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for
the proposed Crown Jewel Project is being prepared by the U.S. Forest Service and the Washington
Department of Ecology (WADOE) as co-lead agencies.
This BE complies with the Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2672.4. The BE process (FSM 2672.43)
documents the potential direct and indirect effects of the proposed mine and the cumulative effects of
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions to ensure that the proposed mining development
would not jeopardize or adversely modify critical habitat of any federally listed species, or contribute to a
loss of species viability. This BE assesses potential impacts of the proposed project on wildlife species
listed as Proposed, Endangered, or Threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and as
Sensitive by the U.S Forest Service, Region 6 (collectively known as PETS species). Species evaluated
by this BE were determined, in part, through consultation with state and federal agencies. This BE
addresses 25 wildlife species, including fourteen PETS species on the Okanogan National Forest and 11
federal candidate (Category 2) species (Table 1). Federal Category 2 (C2) candidates are species being
considered for listing as Threatened or Endangered but sufficient data are not available to support listing.
PETS fish and plant species are addressed in separate BEs.
Crown Jewel Project BE May 5, 1995
-------
PROJECT
' AREA
©
PAVED HIGHWAY
OKANOGAN NATIONAL FOREST BOUNDARY
NATIONAL BORDER
COUNTY LINE
CANADIAN PROVINCIAL HWY
COUNTY ROAD
FOREST SERVICE ROAD
SOURCE BEAK CONSULTANTS INCORPORATED
PROJECT
AREA
FIGURE H-1, PROJECT VICINITY MAP
FILENAME CJH-1DWG
-------
Table 1
PETS and Candidate Species Evaluated for the Crown Jewel Project
Common Name
Scientific Name
USFWS
Status1
USFS
Region 6
Status
State
Status
MAMMALS
Western small-footed
myotis
Long-eared myotis
Fringed myotis
Long-legged myotis
Yuma myotis
Townsend's big-eared bat
Pygmy rabbit
Gray wolf
Grizzly bear
Pacific fisher
California wolverine
North American lynx
California bighorn sheep
BIRDS
Common loon
Northern bald eagle
Northern goshawk
Ferruginous hawk
American peregrine falcon
Columbian sharp-tailed
grouse
Long-billed curlew
Black tern
Northern spotted owl
Olive-sided flycatcher
Little willow flycatcher
Myotis ciliolabrum (was leibi!)
Myotis evotis
Myotis thysanodes
Myotis volans
Myotis yumanensis
Plecotus townsendii
Brachylaqus idahoensis
Canis lupus
Ursus arctos
Martes pennanti pacifica
Gulo Qulo luteus
Felis lynx canadensis
Ovis canadensis calif orniana
Gavia immer
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Accipiter qentilis
Buteo regalis
Falco peregrinus anatum
Tympanuchus phasianellus
Numenius americanus
Chlidonias niger
Strix occidental caurina
Contopus borealis
Empidonax traillii brewsteri
Candidate
Candidate
Candidate
Candidate
Candidate
Candidate
Candidate
Endangered
Threatened
Candidate
Candidate
Candidate
Candidate
Threatened
Candidate
Candidate
Endangered
Candidate
Candidate
Candidate
Threatened
Candidate
Candidate
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Monitor
Monitor
Monitor
Monitor
Monitor
Candidate
Endangered
Endangered
Endangered
Candidate
Threatened
Candidate
Threatened
Candidate
Threatened
Endangered
Candidate
Monitor
Monitor
Endangered
AMPHIBIANS
Spotted froq
Rana pretbsa
Candidate
Candidate
-------
2.0 BACKGROUND AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This BE analyzes the effects of the proposed alternatives addressed by the Crown Jewel Mine Project
EIS. BMG's proposed Crown Jewel Mine Project would be within Okanogan County, Washington (T40N,
R30E and R31E; and T39N, R30E and R31E). The proposed mine and ancillary facilities would be on the
eastern flank of Buckhorn Mountain, which lies approximately 3.5 miles east of the town of Chesaw and
approximately 25 miles east of Oroville (Figure 2).
The proposed mine area includes private and public lands. Public lands are administered by the Tonasket
Ranger District of the Okanogan National Forest, U.S. Forest Service and the Weriatchee Resource Area
of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Current public land use includes mineral exploration, timber
harvest, firewood gathering, grazing, and recreation. Forest Service management is under Forest-wide
and Management Area Standards and Guidelines designed to achieve desired future conditions
contained in the Okanogan Land and Resource Management Plan (U.S. Forest Service 1989). BLM
management is under guidance and objectives of the Final Spokane Resource Management Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement (BLM 1985, as amended June 1992). This BE addresses PETS wildlife
species within the Crown Jewel Core and Analysis Areas, including private, State, U.S. Forest Service,
and BLM lands. The Core Area encompasses the mine footprint, mine facility sites, transportation and
transmission corridors, and lands within a 1-mile radius of the mine footprint and facilities. Most direct
impacts to wildlife habitat and species would be expected to occur within the Core Area. The Analysis
Area includes the Core Area and a much larger surrounding area within which indirect impacts or
cumulative effects could occur. Rationale for delineation of the Core and Analysis areas are contained in
the Planning Record for the Crown Jewel EIS.
2.1 Environmental Setting
The landscape of the Analysis Area is dominated primarily by two prominent ridgeline features. Within the
Core Area, the prominent physical feature is Buckhorn Mountain and its associated north-south oriented
ridgeline. This ridge divides the generally east and west flowing drainages within the Core and Analysis
Areas, including Ethel, Bolster, and Gold creeks (west-flowing) and Cedar, Nicholson, and Marias creeks
(east-flowing). The other prominent ridgeline within the Analysis Area runs between the east flowing
Nicholson Creek and Cedar Creek drainages and connects Buckhorn Mountain and Graphite Mountain.
Less prominent east-west ridge systems extend between Cedar Creek and Myers Creek, Marias Creek
and Beaver Creek, and Nicholson Creek and Marias Creek (Figure 2). Areas of rock outcrop and cliffs are
not common and are limited primarily to south-facing slopes along Beaver Creek Canyon.
Crown Jewel Project BE 4 May 5,1995
-------
CANADA
UNITED STATES
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
COUNTY ROAD
HE] FOREST SERVICE ROAD
SOURCE BEAK CONSULTANTS INCORPORATED
FILENAME CJH-20WG
FIGURE H-2, PROJECT AREA MAP
-------
Creeks draining the Core Area vary from relatively flat drainages with slow-moving water to steep, deeply-
incised drainages with swift currents. Near the headwaters of Nicholson and Marias Creeks, sufficient
surface water collects to produce bog conditions. Small ponds, both natural and man-made, are found on
the east side of Buckhorn Mountain.
The Analysis Area (72,700 acres) is bounded by Myers Creek and the Kettle River to the north and
northeast, by Toroda Creek to the east, by Beaver Creek to the south and southwest, and by Myers Creek
to the west and northwest (Figure 2). The Core Area (10,962 acres) is the area which may be directly
impacted by the proposed Crown Jewel Project. This includes the mine footprint, mine facilities,
transportation corridor to Toroda Creek Road, Starrem Reservoir, alluvial fan on Myers Creek, water and
power transmission lines, and all other lands within a one-mile radius around the mine footprint and
facilities (Figure 2). Six land types were delineated in the Analysis Area (Figure 3), while 10 cover types
were delineated in the Core Area (Figure 4). Detailed descriptions of land and cover types are included in
the project Analysis File, Chapter 3 of the Crown Jewel Project EIS, and the Wildlife Technical Report
(Beak 1995). Table 2 lists land types and cover types with corresponding acreages for the Analysis and
Core Areas.
2.2 Description of the Action Alternatives
The Crown Jewel Project EIS analyzes seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative. With the No
Action Alternative (Alternative A), no mine and associated facilities would be constructed. If the No Action
Alternative was selected, reclamation of existing disturbance would commence immediately. Reclamation
would consist of plugging and capping existing drill holes, recontouring drill pads and access roads,
rehabilitating mud and cutting sumps, redistributing topsoil, revegetation of disturbed sites with grasses,
shrubs and/or trees, and monitoring of water quality. The No Action Alternative is not evaluated by this
BE. The six action alternatives developed for the Crown Jewel Project (Alternatives B, C, D, E, F and G)
are analyzed. Alternative B is described below in detail while the remaining subsequent alternative
descriptions focus principally on those features that are different from Alternative B. Chapter 2 of the
Crown Jewel Project EIS and BMG's Integrated Plan of Operations (1993) provide more detailed
descriptions of all the alternatives and proposed reclamation.
2.2.1 Alternative B (Applicant's Proposal)
The proposed Crown Jewel Project would be an open pit gold and silver mine with a 1,159 acre footprint.
Alternative B includes an open pit mine, waste rock disposal areas, crushing and milling facilities, a tailings
disposal facility, and ancillary support facilities. Ancillary facilities include access and haul roads, power
supply, substation, transmission line, water supply, fuel storage area, explosive storage area, topsoil
Crown Jewel Project BE 6 May 5, 1995
-------
LEGEND
CORE AREA BOUNDARY
ANALYSIS AREA BOUNDARY
LAND TYPE ACRES
GRASSLAND/SHRUB 15,728
OPEN CONIFEROUS/DECIDUOUS 25,824
CONIFEROUS 27,465
AGRICULTURE 2,949
DISTURBED/RESIDENTIAL 99
^H RIPARIAN/WETLAND/OPEN WATER 635
SOURCE BEAK CONSULTANTS INCORPORATED
FIGURE H-3, LAND TYPE MAP
FILENAME CJH-3 DWG
-------
CANADA
CHESAW
L EGEND
COVER TYPE
UPLAND GRASSLAND 1.675
BOTTOMLAND GRASSLAND 107
SHRUB ge
EARLY SUCCESSIONAL 887
CONIFER
MIXED CONIFER POLE 2,178
MIXED CONIFER MATURE 4.526
LAKE/POND
RIPARIAN/WETLAND
DECIDUOUS
AGRICULTURE
ACRES
106
891
40
456
SOURCE BEAK CONSULTANTS INCORPORATED
FIGURE H-4, COVER TYPE MAP
FILENAME CJH-4 DWG
-------
Table 2
Land Types and Cover Types Within the Analysis and Core Areas
Analysis Area
Land Type
Grassland/Shrub
Open Coniferous/Deciduous
Coniferous
Riparian/Wetland/Open Water
Agriculture
Disturbed/Residential
Total
Acres
15,728
25,824
27,465
635
2,949
99
72,700
%
21.6
35.5
37.8
0.9
4.1
0.1
100.0
Core Area
Cover Type
Upland Grassland
Bottomland Grassland
Shrub
Early Successional Conifer
Mixed Conifer Pole
Mixed Conifer Mature
Deciduous
Riparian/Wetland
Lake/Pond
Agriculture
Total
Acres
1,675
107
96
887
2,178
4,526
40
891
106
456
10,962
%
15.3
1.0
0.9
8.1
19.9
41.3
0.3
8.1
1.0
4.1
100.0
Crown Jewel Project BE
May5,1995
-------
stockpiles, chemical and reagent storage areas, and buildings for an office, laboratory, warehouse and
maintenance shop. Disturbance acreages associated with principal mine features and facilities are
summarized in Table 3. Supply transport would be via the Wauconda to mine site option.
The mine would operate 24 hours per day, seven days per week, 365 days per year, and would produce
an average of 3,000 tons of ore per day. Approximately 8.7 million tons of ore would be mined and
processed from approximately 97 million tons of rock taken from a 138-acre pit which would be several
hundred feet deep. The overall pit slopes (straight line between the top and the bottom of the pit) would
be between 45 and 55 degrees, depending on rock stability, haul road placement, and other engineering
considerations. Individual bench slopes would be steeper, ranging from approximately 65 to 75 degrees.
Most of the waste rock produced by the mining operations would be placed in two waste rock storage
areas, one to the north and one to the south of the pit.
Ore processing would involve underground crushing, above-ground grinding, milling, cyanide
detoxification, and gold recovery facilities. Gold extraction includes conventional milling with the tank
cyanidation process and carbon-in-leach gold recovery. Residual cyanide in the tailings would be reduced
using the cyanide destruct process consisting of the INCO SO2/Air/O2 Process. The spent ore tailings
would be conveyed by pipeline to a tailings disposal facility. A surface quarry would provide material to
construct the tailings embankments in the Marias Creek drainage. The tailings disposal facility would
consist of a composite-lined disposal area located between two embankments, and a lined reclaim
solution collection pond south of the disposal area. Impounded tailings water would be recycled back to
the mill to minimize the pond size and the need for new process water sources. Storm water and sediment
control structures would include a series of ditches, culverts, and basins. Employees would be bused to
the site from a location west of Chesaw.
Ancillary facilities for Alternative B include a 115 kv power line (wood pole H frame); a water supply system
consisting of a well, pipeline, surface water intake (diversion structure, flume, inlet box, and buried
pipeline) on Myers Creek, a storage reservoir, transmission and pumping facilities, and storage tanks;
support buildings including pumphouse, laboratory, administration building, plant facilities building, and
maintenance shop; and other structures including explosives storage, crusher, fuel storage and
containment, water storage, power substation, and fencing. The plant facilities and support buildings
would cover approximately 23 acres.
Alternative B has a projected life of 10 years including one year of construction, 8 years of mining, and 1
year of decommissioning and reclamation. If the project began operation in 1996, the expected
completion date would be 2005.
Crown Jewel Project BE 1 0 May 5,1995
-------
Table 3
Action Alternative Disturbance Acres
Facility
Tailings Facility and Slurry Pipeline
Waste Rock Disposal Areas
Pit Area
Topsoil Stockpiles
Rock Quarries
Subsidence Area
Mine Facilities including borrow
areas and ore stockpiles
Access and Haul Roads, Powerline
Right-of-Way
Water Reservoir and Supply Pipeline
Totals
Acres Disturbed by Alternative
B
91
260
138
43
0
0
79
107
48
766
C
85
26
0
29
25
27
99
101
48
440
D
88
98
73
53
0
3
93
106
48
562
E
88
379
138
94
0
0
83
97
48
927
F
159
215
138
63
0
0
82
117
48
822
G
138
294
138
72
0
0
80
126
48
896
Crown Jewel Project BE
11
May5,1995
-------
Reclamation of the mine under Alternative B is described in a reclamation plan (BMG 1993) prepared by
the applicant. Stockpiled topsoil would be distributed on all disturbed surfaces except for the pit. Within
the pit, a pit lake would form in the north half, and the southwestern wall would be blasted, graded and
topsoiled to allow movement of wildlife into and out of the pit. Following reclamation, a pit lake would form
within 7 to 13 years. Trees, shrubs, grasses, and forbs would be planted on level areas and on slopes of
less than 2 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical) on the tailings facility and waste rock piles. Trees would be planted in
4 to 5 clumps per acre at a stocking rate of 100 trees per acre. Steeper slopes on the waste rock piles
would be planted with shrubs, grasses, and forbs. Starrem Reservoir would be removed following other
reclamation activities. Administration buildings and the power line would be dismantled and removed.
Water quality would be monitored until quality standards were met. Reclaimed areas would be returned to
grass, shrub, or open forest habitats depending on the revegetation prescription.
Mitigation measures discussed in Chapter 2 of the EIS include practices designed to preclude, minimize,
or compensate for potential wildlife impacts. Prevention measures include building fences, closing roads,
and design of electrocution-proof electric transmission lines. Measures to be used to minimize impacts to
wildlife include timing restrictions for disturbance activities (such as blasting), employee busing, and
plowing wildlife runouts. Possible compensation measures could include the creation and/or
enhancement of wildlife habitat through snag creation; planting of palatable grasses, forbs, and shrubs;
installation of fish structures; installation of nest boxes; designing pit walls for raptor habitat; creating
aquatic habitat in the pit lake; erecting raptor perches; providing floating nest platforms; and purchase of
private land for habitat restoration or enhancement.
2.2.2 Alternative C
Alternative C differs from Alternative B in that ore would be extracted by underground mining methods.
This alternative would have the least amount of surface disturbance due primarily to the lack of a mine pit
and the need for only one small waste rock disposal area. Ore processing and tailings impoundment
operation would be similar to Alternative B. Two surface quarries would be required to provide rock
material for the construction of the tailings embankments and for backfill in the mine. Supply transport
would be via the Oroville to Chesaw to mine site option.
The mine would accessed by two adits. These adits would be used as haul routes for both ore and
underground waste rock. Waste rock would be stored in one waste rock pile located to the north of the
mine. Room and pillar mining would be the predominant method of mining. Sublevel sloping, breast
sloping (post and pillar sloping), and glory hole mining techniques would also be used to mine the Crown
Jewel deposit. Ground subsidence would be expected lo occur above areas where ihe ore is near ihe
surface.
Crown Jewel Project BE 1 2 May 5,1995
-------
Reclamation and mitigation would be similar to Alternative B except for the lack of a pit and associated pit
lake. Trees would be restocked at a higher rate (200 to 300 trees per acre) than that proposed for
Alternative B. Reclamation activities would include permanent sealing of the adits and ventilation shafts. It
is anticipated that 11 acres of subsidence would be permanently unreclaimed. The U.S. Forest Service
(1994) predicts that lodgepole pine would regenerate on the rock quarry. Trees would be planted on the
waste rock pile and tailings facility, and fully stocked forest (200 to 300 trees per acre) is predicted to grow.
Mitigation measures described for Alternative B would also be implemented.
The life of Alternative C would be 6 years including 1 year for construction and development (drilling,
blasting, removal of rock, and haulage), 4 years of mine operation, and 1 year for decommissioning and
the completion of most reclamation
2.2.3 Alternative D
Alternative D proposes that the Crown Jewel gold deposit be extracted by a combination of surface and
underground mining with an open pit to access the northern portion of the deposit and an underground
operation to access the southern portion. This alternative would have the second least amount of surface
disturbance due primarily to a smaller pit and the need for only a single waste rock disposal area. Ore
processing and tailings impoundment operation would be similar to Alternative B.
Mining techniques would be a combination of Alternative B and C. Waste rock would be stored in one
permanent waste rock pile located to the north of the proposed pit. A portion of the waste rock would be
backfilled in the underground mine. A small area of subsidence (3 acres) would be expected with this
alternative.
Reclamation and mitigation would be similar to aspects of Alternatives B and C. Reclamation activities
would include the permanent sealing of the adits and ventilation shafts. The open pit in the northern
portion of the Crown Jewel deposit would not be backfilled. The pit would fill with water 7 to 13 years
following reclamation. According to the U.S. Forest Service (1994), trees would be replanted on all
facilities Some south- and east-facing slopes of the waste rock disposal area are predicted to return as
open (20 to 30 scattered trees per acre) Douglas-fir forest. Other portions of the waste rock disposal area,
as well as the tailings facility, would be expected to regenerate to fully stocked forest (200 to 300 trees per
acre).
The life of Alternative D would be 8 years: 1 year for construction and development, 6 years of mine
operation, and 1 year for decommissioning and the completion of most reclamation.
Crown Jewel Project BE 13 May 5 1995
-------
2.2.4 Alternative E
Alternative E is similar to Alternative B except that the pit would be sequentially mined to allow partial
backfill of the northern portion of the pit. The partial backfill would allow drainage from the pit area and
prevent the formation of a pit lake after reclamation. This alternative would result in the greatest extent of
surface disturbance due primarily to the size of the waste rock disposal areas and topsoil stockpiles
required for this alternative. The U.S. Forest Service (1994) predicts the return of fully stocked forest (200
to 300 trees per acre) on the replanted waste rock disposal areas and the tailings facility. Some southeast
facing slopes of the north waste rock disposal area would be expected to regenerate only 20 to 30
scattered trees per acre. Mostly grasses with 50 to 70 trees per acre is predicted to grow on the slope of
the south waste rock disposal area. The backfilled portion of the mine pit would be expected to
regenerate 200 to 400 trees per acre of almost pure lodgepole pine.
The life of Alternative E would be 10 years: 1 year for construction and development; 8 years of mine
operation; and 1 year for decommissioning and the completion of most reclamation.
2.2.5 Alternative F
Alternative F is similar to Alternative B except that the tailings impoundment would be constructed in the
Nicholson Creek drainage, and mine operations would only occur during a single 12-hour shift per day
rather than 24 hours per day. Milling activities, however, would operate on a 24-hour per day schedule.
Waste rock would be stored in a single disposal area to the north of the pit, and the pit area would be
completely backfilled after completion of mining. The Nicholson tailings impoundment would be a
shallower structure than the Marias Creek impoundment and would, therefore, require a larger footprint
than the Marias Creek location. Utilizing a 12-hour mine shift would result in an extended life-of-mine
period.
The life of Alternative F would be 33 years: one year for construction and development; 16 years of mine
operation; and 16 years for decommissioning, completely filling the mine pit, and the completion of other
reclamation activities.
2.2.6 Alternative G
Alternative G would be similar to Alternative B except that the tailings impoundment would be constructed
in the Nicholson Creek drainage and ore processing on site would involve only the use of potassium amyl
xanthate as a reagent in the flotation process for gold extraction. The flotation tailings would be pumped
to a lined tailings impoundment located in Nicholson Creek drainage. Flotation concentrates would be
shipped offsite for cyanidation and smelting. Supply and flotation concentrate transport would be via the
Crown Jewel Project BE 14 May 5,1995
-------
Oroville to Chesaw to mine site option. It is assumed that flotation concentrates would be shipped by truck
to Oroville where they would be loaded on rail cars for transport to Tacoma or Seattle for shipping overseas
for cyanidation and final smelting.
Reclamation predictions by the U.S. Forest Service (1994) include the regeneration of fully stocked forest
(200 to 300 trees per acre) on the waste rock disposal areas and most of the tailings facility. The steep
slope of the dam face would be expected to grow 50 to 70 trees per acre. The pit area is predicted to
regenerate mostly to grasses with 20 to 70 scattered trees per acre.
The life of Alternative G would be 10 years: 1 year for construction and development; 8 years of mine
operation; and 1 year for decommissioning and the completion of most reclamation. The pit would not be
backfilled and a pit lake would form 7 to 13 years following reclamation.
Crown Jewel Project BE 15 May 5,1995
-------
3.0 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION PROCESS
Each of the PETS species and federally listed candidate species were evaluated using the standard 4-
step Forest Service BE process. The BE for any species may be complete at the end of any step in the
process. A description of the steps required to complete the process for each species follows.
3.1 Step 1 - Pre-field Review
The pre-field review (Step 1) followed FSM 2672.4, R-6 Supplement 2600-90-5 for threatened,
endangered, or proposed species. The pre-field review began with acquisition of the Regional Forester's
Sensitive Species List, FSM 2670, Interim Directive No. 90-1, revised March 1989 for sensitive animals.
The Forest Service requested a species list from the USFWS of those federally listed and candidate
species to be addressed in the BE. This list was revised based on the USFWS's most recent listing of
animal candidate species (50 CFR Part 17, November 15, 1994). The pre-field review addressed PETS
and candidate species on the entire Core and Analysis Areas, including private, state, and federal lands.
Forest Service District occurrence records of PETS species and Washington Priority Species and Habitats
database information were reviewed, and agencies and knowledgeable individuals were contacted for
information on species or habitat occurrence for species listed in Table 1. Agencies contacted included
the U.S. Forest Service; USFWS; WADFW; BLM; Colville Confederated Tribes (CCT); and the British
Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (BCE). Individuals contacted included Canadian
trappers and guides. Literature searches for information on occurrence, species range, and habitat
requirements of those species being considered in the BE also were completed. The habitat
requirements were compared with habitats present in the Core and Analysis Areas to determine if suitable
habitat exists for listed species.
If no evidence of species occurrence or suitable habitat existed for a sensitive or candidate species within
the Core and Analysis Areas, the evidence was documented and the BE was complete for that species. If
a "no impact" statement could not be made, an assessment was made as to whether implementation of
the project would contribute to loss of viability of the species or cause the species to move toward federal
listing. Where this determination could not be made with available information, then Step 2, Field
Reconnaissance is performed.
3.2 Step 2 • Field Reconnaissance
Field reconnaissance for the Crown Jewel BE included all field work and data-gathering conducted for the
EIS, starting in 1991 and continuing through 1994. Data gathering included surveys for northern
goshawk and Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, winter and summer wildlife surveys performed by A.G.
Crown Jewel Project BE 16 May 5,1995
-------
Crook, Tonasket Wildlife Habitat Inventory Procedures (TWHIP) surveys conducted in the Core Area, and
Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) data collection in the Core Area. Copies of these reports are
available in the EIS Planning Record. Surveys were completed prior to the initiation of the BE and Step 1
assessments. The TWHIP stand information included information on North American lynx cover, raptor
nests (including northern goshawk), riparian areas (potential spotted frog and black tern habitat), deer
cover (prey habitat for gray wolf, grizzly bear, and wolverine), and wildlife observations. The HEP data
include habitat information for fisher and black tern.
3.3 Step 3 - Risk Assessment
A risk assessment (Step 3) is carried out if a PETS or candidate species or suitable habitat are
documented during the field reconnaissance. The risk assessment considers direct, indirect, and
cumulative effects of exploration and proposed mining activities under each of the six action alternatives.
The risk assessment is based on the following factors: 1) the dependency of the species on specific
habitat components, 2) habitat abundance, 3) population levels of the species, 4) the degree of habitat
impact, and 5) the potential to mitigate for the adverse effect. Risk assessment for a population or habitat
considers the size, density, vigor, and location of the population (when information is available), habitat
requirements, and timing of the project in relation to life requirements. This BE addresses effects,
including cumulative effects, on PETS and candidate species within the entire Analysis Area, including
private, state, and federal lands.
Direct effects of the Crown Jewel Project that were assessed included habitat loss, alteration, or
conversion; habitat loss due to displacement from noise, roads, and light; and potential toxic effects of the
tailings pond and pit lake. Indirect effects included human presence; secondary land-use or
development; hunting and trapping; and toxic impact of a tailings liner breach or accidental spills.
Cumulative effects analyzed the incremental effects of the proposed mine when added to past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The extent of habitat loss or change were determined as
acres of cover types in the Core Area and land types in the Analysis Area. The period of analysis spans
100 years, the time required to reestablish young mature forest structure and function to reclaimed areas.
General impact discussions regarding direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts are provided in the EIS
prepared for the Crown Jewel Project and, for the most part, are not repeated in this document.
Proposed mining alternatives would result in a variety of permanent changes to existing habitat. An
increase in the grassland/shrub/open forest cover types would occur for all alternatives. Under
Alternatives B, D, and G, a pit would be constructed, converting an area of existing disturbed forest (i.e.,
the exploration area) into rocky pit walls, talus, and open water. Losses of habitats for species utilizing the
disturbed forested habitat on the exploration area would not be compensated under the proposed
Crown Jewel Project BE 17 May 5,1995
-------
reclamation and mitigation plan. However, the pit may provide habitat for wildlife that currently do not occur
in the footprint (e.g., waterbirds). A portion of the pit would fill with water in 7 to 13 years, depending on
the alternative considered and the assumptions being made. This water would be a resource for some
species of wildlife since water quality projections indicate that pit waters would not be toxic to terrestrial
wildlife or adjacent habitats. But projections do indicate that cadmium and silver levels in the pit waters
could reach levels potentially toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates which would restrict the development
of suitable aquatic habitat. Pit water quality would have to meet or exceed state water quality standards
prior to release from the pit.
The pit wall and associated talus could provide roosting habitat for myotis 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 (depending on the level of implementation) compensate for
such permanent conversions.
As indicated in the Crown Jewel Project EIS, projected concentrations of cyanide and other compounds
in the tailings pond may have toxic impacts to bird and bat PETS or candidate species under Alternatives
B, C, D, E, and F. Other species would be excluded by wildlife proof fencing. A mathematical model was
used to determine the toxic impacts of the tailings pond to certain PETS species. The model was used to
calculate the amount of a toxicant that would be taken in by a species (predicted dose). The predicted
dose was compared to chronic reference values (no observed effect levels) since exposure to toxins
could occur over a prolonged period. 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 1995).
Analyses indicate the risk of impact due to cyanide would be negligible for all taxa examined. Similar
results were obtained for all other elements examined except ammonia. There would be a high risk of
impact to bats (e.g., myotis and Townsend's big-eared bat) and water birds from ammonia concentrations
in the tailings pond and a moderate risk to passerines (impact due to ammonia would be sub-lethal). In
Alternative G, potassium amyl xanthate would be used as a flotation agent to recover gold; no cyanide
would be used. Xanthates in tailings ponds have not been considered an issue for other mine operations,
and the predicted concentration of xanthate in the tailings pond is unknown. As with pit water, tailings
impoundment water quality would have to meet or exceed state water quality standards prior to any
release from the tailings impoundment.
As indicated the risk of toxicity from cyanide by itself would be negligible. However the potential toxic
effects of low levels of cyanide in combination with metals or other chemicals are largely unknown.
Shorebirds drinking tailings water with high ammonia concentrations could become sick and remain on the
tailings pond, thereby increasing exposure time to low levels of cyanide and metals. Increased exposure
Crown Jewel Project BE 18 May 5, 1995
-------
duration could lead to a low risk of adverse impact from cyanide and metals. A low or negligible risk of
adverse impact implies that a small number of mortalities could occur, but the number of mortalities would
not be significant.
The potential for an indirect impact on PETS and candidate species from exposure to ammonia, cyanide,
or metals from an accidental tailings pond liner breach was determined to be negligible, except for possibly
spotted frog (Hydro-Geo 1994, Beak 1995). Concentrations of ammonia and cyanide in a 5-acre wetland
area immediately down gradient of the impoundment could have detrimental effects on amphibians, but
the impact cannot be estimated due to the lack of appropriate reference values (Beak 1995).
Accidental transportation spills of process chemicals into a stream also could create a risk of indirect
adverse impacts to certain PETS and candidate species. The impact of accidental spills was evaluated for
four chemicals (cyanide, ammonium nitrate, lime, and diesel) at three hypothetical spill sites (Myers Creek,
Beaver Creek, and Toroda Creek) (Beak 1995). Spills were evaluated based on the size, location, and
timing of a spill as described by the U.S. Forest Service (Zieroth 1993). Although the potential adverse
effects of accidental spills are analyzed for certain species in subsequent sections, the risk of a process
chemical or diesel fuel spill into Analysis Area streams would be extremely low to nonexistent. Hazardous
chemicals would be transported via U.S. Department of Transportation certified containers and
transporters. Because of the extreme toxicity of cyanide, containers used for shipment of this chemical
are relatively indestructible, making accidental release of cyanide unlikely even in the event of a transport
accident. Ammonium nitrate and lime would be shipped in dry form in bags or as bulk transport. A release
of these chemicals into aquatic habitats could only occur in the event of a transport truck crash directly into
a stream channel. Even with this highly unlikely scenario, only small amounts of these dry chemicals would
be released into the stream. Diesel fuel could be released in the event of a tanker truck turnover accident,
but the risk of this type of accident adjacent to a stream channel would still be very low. Pilot cars would be
used to escort transport trucks through Beaver Creek Canyon and the Town of Chesaw to ensure travel at
posted speed limits and minimize the risk of accidents.
3.4 Step 4 - Biological Investigation
A biological investigation (Step 4) is performed when the risk assessment concludes that project-related
effects are adverse and unavoidable. The biological investigation is conducted to develop information
regarding the significance of the impact on the population as a whole (i.e., on the species over its entire
range). The risk assessment for this BE concluded that individuals or local populations (Analysis Area) of a
few of the analysis species may be adversely affected, but that the proposed project would not affect the
viability of any species over its entire range. Therefore, no biological investigation was completed for the
Crown Jewel Project.
Crown Jewel Project BE 19 May 5,1995
-------
4.0 ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS
This section contains the findings of Step 1 (Pre-Field Review), Step 2 (Field Reconnaissance), and Step
3 (Determination of Effects). Steps 1 and 2 were not conducted in consecutive order. The field portion of
the BE started prior to and continued during the literature review for each species. Potential effects of the
proposed Crown Jewel project are considered for 25 evaluation species (Table 1). After completion of
Step 1, it was determined that no further assessment was required for four of these species: pygmy
rabbit, California bighorn sheep, ferruginous hawk, and northern spotted owl.
4.1 Townsend's Big-eared and Myotis Bats
Townsend's big-eared and five species of myotis bat were evaluated. They included western small-footed
myotis, long-eared myotis, fringed myotis, long-legged myotis, and Yuma myotis. The results of surveys
conducted by Perkins (1989), Sarell and McGuinness (1993), and ENSR Consulting and Engineering
(1994) were used to generate a list of bat species which may exist in the Core and Analysis Areas. These
studies also provided the only site specific information on the life history of bats found in or near the
Buckhorn Mountain area. The study area of Sarell and McGuinness (1993) included Okanogan, Grant,
Douglas, Chelan, Lincoln, and Ferry Counties, but no surveys were conducted in the Core or Analysis
Areas. Perkins' (1989) study area included the Wenatchee, Okanogan, and Colville National Forests.
Some mine searching surveys for bats were conducted in the Core and Analysis Areas in T39N, R30E
Section 24; T39N, R31E, Section 19; T40N, R30E, Sections 16, 21, and 24; and in T40N, R31E, Section
19. Perkins detected no bats during the searching surveys, but noted considerable activity near the Lake
Beth Campground in the transportation corridor portion of the Core Area. The surveys conducted by
ENSR (1994) were restricted to the Core Area and the Starrem Reservoir site. General life history
information was obtained primarily from Nagorsen and Brigham (1993).
The Core and Analysis Areas are located within the known ranges of Townsend's big-eared bat and the
five myotis species and contain suitable habitats for all five species. However, presence and distribution
of the five myotis species within the Core and Analysis Areas may be restricted by their known
preferences for habitats within certain elevational limits. Fringed myotis and western small-footed myotis
generally occur at lower elevation arid grassland and ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forest habitats from 990
to 2,800 feet elevation (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993). However as indicated in Section 4.1.2, one
possible western small-footed myotis was mist netted in the Core Area at the upper Magnetic Mine adit.
Yuma myotis are found up to 2,500 feet, while long-legged myotis and long-eared myotis are typically
found from sea level to as high as 3,500 feet and 4,500 feet, respectively (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993).
Townsend's big-eared bat is a permanent resident throughout Washington (Kunz and Martin 1982). Its
occurrence may be restricted more by the availability of suitable cave or cave-like hibernacula and roost
Crown Jewel Project BE 20 May 5,1995
-------
sites than habitat types (Perkins 1987 and 1994, Marshall et al. 1992). In eastern Washington, it is
primarily found at elevations below 3,600 feet (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993).
Within areas of preferred habitat, each species selects and uses microhabitats which meet their individual
life history needs. The availability of roosting and maternity sites is an important factor in determining the
distribution and abundance of bats (Barbour and Davis 1969, Christy and West 1993, Nagorsen and
Brigham 1993). The Townsend's big-eared bat and myotis species addressed by this BE use natural
caves, mine adits and shafts, buildings, trees, and rock crevices for roost and maternity sites.
4.1.1 Townsend's Big-eared Bat
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). Their
roosting habits make them particularly vulnerable to human disturbance. Big-eared bats hang from open
ceilings and never enter cracks or crevices (Barbour and Davis 1969). They are intolerant of disturbance
and are known to permanently desert disturbed roosts (Maser et al. 1981, Barbour and Davis 1969).
Disturbance during hibernation may reduce over-winter survival of big-eared bats.
Big-eared bats normally hibernate from mid-October until mid-April (Banfield 1974), typically in caves
having multiple entrances which allow ventilation (Perkins 1989, Perkins 1994). They cluster inside the
cave near an entrance or other well ventilated area, moving deeper into the cavern if temperatures
become too extreme (Banfield 1974, Kunz and Martin 1982). Big-eared bats typically use the portion of
the cave or mine with the coldest, non-freezing temperatures. They may require cool conditions within
hibernacula to maintain low metabolic rates and conserve fat reserves (Banfield 1974). Temperatures in
selected caves generally range from 35° to 54° F (Perkins 1994).
Maternity roosts are almost always caves although buildings and bridges are known to be used (Perkins
1989, Christy and West 1993). The maternity roosts are usually warm (60° F), and have a dome-like
structure to trap warm air (Perkins 1989). Maternity colonies consist of females and their young; males and
non-breeding females roost alone or in small groups separate from the nursery (Christy and West 1993).
The maternity colonies generally disband by August (Kunz and Martin 1982). Big-eared bats exhibit a
high degree of site attachment and will return to the same maternal roost year after year (Kunz and Martin
1982).
Big-eared bats use caves, bridges, and open buildings as night roosts (Barbour and Davis 1969, Christy
and West 1993). Males and non-lactating females sometimes use large hollow trees for roosting (Perkins
1994). They do not always use the same roost each night (Maser et al. 1981). Night roosts are often
shared with other species (Kunz and Martin 1982).
Crown Jewel Project BE 21 May 5 1995
-------
The big-eared bat is an aerial feeder, feeding mostly along forest edges, roads, or forest openings (Kunz
and Martin 1982, Christy and West 1993). They feed principally on small moths but may take other insects
including representatives of Neuroptera, Coleoptera, Diptera, and Hymenoptera (Kunz and Martin 1982).
Historical records document occurrences of big-eared bats 30 miles west and 40 miles east of the project
site. Surveys in 1988 (Perkins 1989) found scattered populations of big-eared bats at hibernating sites
between 30 and 60 miles east of the proposed Crown Jewel mine site. Bat surveys conducted within the
Core and Analysis Areas (Perkins 1989, Sarell and McGinness 1993, ENSR 1994) did not find this
species even though old mine adits in the Core Area could provide suitable habitat for big-eared bats.
Townsend's big-eared bats were documented during winter bat roost surveys conducted by ENSR
(Paulus 1994). A small number of big-eared bats were found roosting in a mine shaft near Chesaw and
adits near the Starrem Reservoir site.
4.1.2 Myotis Bats
Day and maternity roosts of western small-footed myotis have been found in crevices in cliffs and boulders
and on talus slopes. They prefer small protected dry crevices. Night and hibernation roosts are located in
small caves and abandoned mine adits. Buildings are also used as temporary night roosts between flights.
Western small-footed myotis hunt caddisflies over the edge of rocky bluffs. Flies, moths, and beetles are
also documented as prey. Western small-footed myotis hibernate near the entrance of caves and mine
adits (Banfield 1974). One western small-footed/California myotis was mist netted by ENSR (1994) in the
Core Area at the upper Magnetic Mine adit. Identification was not conclusive due to taxonomic similarities
between these two species. No other observations of this species have been recorded within the Core or
Analysis Area.
Fringed myotis use mines, caves, rock crevices, and buildings for day roosts. Temporary night roosts
have been found in mines, and large maternity colonies have been observed in caves and buildings.
Little is known about the migration habits of the fringed myotis, but individuals have been documented
hibernating in caves. Fringed myotis typically hunt airborne insects in thickets along streams and rivers.
The species is also known to glean insects from foliage. Moths, flies, beetles, leaf hoppers, lacewings,
crickets, and harvestmen are documented as prey. Fringed myotis have not been documented in the
Core or Analysis Areas. One detection was documented in the Okanogan National Forest during surveys
conducted by Perkins (1989). This detection was near Hunter Mountain, over 50 miles southwest of the
Analysis Area.
Long-eared myotis are strongly associated with coniferous forests in coastal Oregon and Washington
(Maser et al. 1981). Throughout their range, long-eared myotis day roosts are found in buildings and
under the bark of trees. Long-legged myotis use similar sites as well as crevices in rock cliffs and fissures
Crown Jewel Project BE 22 May 5,1995
-------
in the ground as day roosts. Both species typically use caves and abandoned mines for temporary
roosting between foraging flights at night. Three or four small maternity colonies of long-eared myotis are
documented in Oregon. All were located under cedar shakes on roofs. One colony was reported in an
attic in Clallum County, Washington (Perkins 1989). Long-legged myotis may use attics as well, but
nurseries have also been found under the bark of trees and in fissures in the ground.
Long-eared myotis are adaptable in their feeding habits. They chase airborne prey, as well as glean
insects from the ground and off plants. Long-eared myotis feed primarily on moths with beetles, flies, and
spiders also consumed (Perkins 1989). Long-legged myotis forage over water, among trees and above
the canopy. In Alberta, this species prefers to hunt along forest edges and cliff faces. The major prey of
long-legged myotis is moths, but termites, spiders, flies, beetles, leaf hoppers, and lacewings have also
been documented as prey.
Both species probably migrate southward prior to hibernation, and both have been known to hibernate in
caves and mine adits. All hibernating western long-eared myotis have been found west of the Cascades
(Perkins 1989). Occurrences of long-eared and long-legged myotis in the Core Area were reported by
ENSR (1994) from summer surveys. Several individuals of both species were captured during mist net
surveys at the upper and lower Magnetic Mine adits. Long-eared myotis were also netted at the Gold Axe
adit. Myotis use of these adits appeared to be primarily for foraging since little evidence of roosting use
was encountered (ENSR 1994). During winter surveys, a few individuals of long-eared myotis were found
roosting in the mine shaft near Chesaw and in the lower Magnetic Mine adit (Paulus 1994). No other
detections of either species have been reported within the Okanogan National Forest.
Yuma myotis is restricted to lower elevations and is closely associated with water. The species exhibits a
dependency for man-made structures, especially as maternity sites (Barbour and Davis 1969). Day roosts
are usually located in buildings, but some have been found in rock crevices in the Okanogan Valley. Yuma
myotis use man-made structures such as buildings and bridges for roosting between foraging bouts at
night. Nursery colonies, consisting of large numbers of females, are typically located in the attics of
buildings. All roosts are located near a source of water. Some Yuma myotis have been found hibernating
in caves, but little is known about the migration and hibernation habits of this species. Yuma myotis
forages over lakes, rivers, and streams. In the Okanogan Valley, their diet varies seasonally. Midges are
the main prey in the spring and mayflies and caddisflies are the predominant food in summer.
ENSR (1994) recorded several Yuma/little brown myotis during summer mist netting surveys at the upper
Nicholson Creek Pond and the lower Magnetic Mine adit. In addition, ENSR documented two Yuma/little
brown myotis roosting in the Buckhorn and lower Roosevelt adits during winter surveys (Paulus 1994).
Crown Jewel Project BE 23 May 5, 1995
-------
Taxonomic similarities precluded positive identification. No other occurrences are documented for the
Okanogan National Forest.
4.1.3 Determination of Effects for Townsend's Big-eared and Myotis Bats
Numerous human-related threats exist for bats. One of the most serious is human disturbance of
hibernacula and maternity roost sites. Bat species that use buildings as roosts (e.g., Yuma myotis) are
considered pests and are often exterminated. Obstruction or modification of cave entrances during winter
months can cause detrimental climate changes in hibernacula. Recreational activities, such as rock
climbing and spelunking, have been shown to cause Townsend's big-eared bat roost abandonment
(Barbour and Davis 1969). Excessive visits to caves by spelunkers and researchers may also accelerate
depletion of fat reserves by hibernating bats, resulting in starvation (Humphrey 1982). Studies by ENSR
(Paulus 1994) indicated that mine adits and buildings near the proposed mine development sites were
not important roost sites or winter hibernacula for bats. No evidence of extensive roosting use (large
numbers of bats or accumulations of guano) was found in any of the surveyed adits. The ceilings and walls
were wet along most of the length of the adits, and the few bats located were found in drier areas,
especially at the end of bore holes.
Destruction of habitat is another source of concern for bats. Deforestation and habitat losses due to
development or dewatering of wetlands and riparian areas can reduce foraging habitat and result in
reductions in bat populations dependent upon these habitat types (Humphrey 1982, Sarell and
McGuinness 1993). All cover types in the Core Area provide potential foraging and roosting habitat for
Townsend's big-eared bat and one or more Myotis species and habitat loss would directly impact these
species during mine operation and until reclamation is. Loss of habitat would range from nine to thirteen
percent of the Core Area for the action alternatives. Under proposed reclamation, the proportion of forest
cover types would be permanently reduced. This would result in a long-term minor reduction in available
forested habitat for forest-dwelling bats such as the big-eared bat, western long-eared myotis, long-
legged myotis, and Yuma myotis. Disturbed areas would provide foraging habitat (edge) for long-eared
and long-legged myotis immediately soon after reclamation is complete; however, tree roosting habitat
would be lacking. Yuma myotis which were documented over the upper Nicholson Creek pond would also
be directly affected by habitat loss resulting from by mine development. Construction of the tailings facility
would result in the permanent loss of riparian habitat which represents preferred Yuma myotis foraging
habitat. Required wetland mitigation would create or enhance existing wetlands thereby offsetting this
loss of habitat.
With Alternative B, D, F, and G construction of the north waste rock pile would alter the hydrology of the
Frog Pond. The water level would lower, but open water would remain since. This change should not
Crown Jewel Project BE 24 May 5, 1995
-------
affect bat use of the Frog Pond. The frog pond would be eliminated and permanently lost to the waste
rock disposal area in Alternative E. Construction of Starrem Reservoir for all alternatives would increase
the amount of available open water during operations, although the reservoir would be removed during
reclamation.
Long-eared and long-legged myotis generally roost under the bark of large trees. It is unknown if any
important tree roost sites for these species would be lost to project development. Reforested sites are
not likely to provide suitable roosting habitat until at least 100 years after reclamation. Proposed mitigation
to create snags in forest stands adjacent to the footprint would partially compensate for this loss. The
conversion of forested habitat to more open cover types may increase the amount of potential foraging
habitat for fringed and western small-footed myotis.
Townsend's big-eared bat and all myotis bats addressed will use caves as roost sites, either as primary
roosts or temporary roosts while foraging at night. The Gold Axe and Double Axe adits would be
destroyed by the mine pit in Alternatives B, E, F, and G, resulting in a permanent loss of potential cave
roosting and foraging habitat. However, no evidence of roosting bats was located in these adits. A minor
amount of winter roosting activity was documented for a mine shaft near Chesaw, two adits near Starrem
Reservoir, Buckhorn adit, upper and lower Magnetic Mine adits, and upper and lower Roosevelt Mine
adits. These sites would not be directly disturbed by mine development, but may be rendered unsuitable
for roosting activity during project operations due to impacts of noise (particularly blasting). Frequent
disturbance during hibernation could also arouse bats and induce a sequence of increased rates of
metabolism, depletion of fat reserves, starvation, and mortality. As indicated previously, only minor
amounts of bat roosting activity was detected in these adits, and possible disturbance would only affect a
few individual bats.
Development of the mine pit in Alternatives B, D, E, and G would create the potential for additional rock
crevice roosting habitat after cessation of mining. The pit lake that would be formed in Alternatives B, D,
and F would create additional available drinking water for bats and foraging habitat for species such as
Yuma myotis which prefer to feed over open water. Analyses indicate that levels of cadmium and silver in
the pit water could become toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates but would not be toxic to terrestrial
vertebrate species such as bats. Subsidence associated with Alternative C and D following cessation of
underground mining and could provide talus and cave roosting habitat suitable for Townsend's big-eared
bat and some myotis bats.
The presence of night lighting for mining operations could also serve to attract foraging bats to the vicinity
of the mining operation. Night lights attract moths and other night flying insects which are preyed on by
bats. However, illuminated areas near mine operations may not serve as suitable bat foraging sites
Crown Jewel Project BE 25 May 5,1995
-------
because of noise levels associated with heavy equipment operation. Loud noises could affect bat's
abilities to find prey by echo-location.
Another concern for bats within the Core Area is the exposure of bats to potentially toxic waters in the
tailings impoundment. Bats drink water once each night and require open water for consumption (Perkins
1994). During mine operations, bats may be attracted to open water in the tailings pond. Analyses have
indicated that concentrations of ammonia in the water could adversely impact bats, but the toxic risk from
cyanide and metals would be low (Beak 1995). Effects of low levels of cyanide in combination with low
levels of metals or other chemicals are largely undetermined for species of bats. It is possible that some
mortality of bats could be associated with use of the tailings impoundment. Monitoring animal mortalities at
the tailings impoundment would be a stipulated requirement of mine operation. If significant mortalities of
bats or other species occur, corrective actions would be required to preclude additional mortalities.
Indirect effects would be caused by increased human presence, secondary development, and accidental
toxic spills during transport. Residential development may remove minor amounts of myotis bat foraging
and roosting habitat. Since some myotis bats, particularly the Yuma myotis, sometimes roost in attics and
under roof shakes, the construction of houses could create a small amount of roosting habitat for these
species. Recreational use of the Analysis Area by workers and their families could result in a minor
increase of disturbance at roost sites and cause bats to abandon the roosts. In the event of an accidental
spill of sodium cyanide into Toroda, Beaver, or Myers creeks, concentrations would be acutely lethal to
bats (Beak 1995). The risk of mortality would decline downstream and with time. A spill of ammonium
nitrate or cement/lime could also have adverse effects on bats. There would be no acute impacts to bats
resulting from a spill of diesel fuel.
Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities in the Analysis Area constitute a minor
incremental impact on suitable habitat for bats. Past timber harvest has altered forest structure, but is not
considered a significant change to bat habitat. Past mining has created cave habitat with documented
use. While proposed mining activities would cause mortality to bats through habitat loss and exposure to
the tailings pond, the incremental effect, and therefore significance, of any resulting population decline
cannot be determined and cannot be placed in a regional population context because population levels
are unknown.
Determination of Effects Conclusion. Presence within the Core Area was documented for all
species except fringed myotis. All species evaluated, except long-eared myotis, generally prefer habitats
below 3,500 to 3,600 feet in elevation. However, knowledge of bat populations and distribution is limited.
Even though most mine facility development would occur at elevations above 3,600 feet, suitable habitat
exists within the mine footprint area and may be used to some extent by the other species, as indicated by
Crown Jewel Project BE 26 May 5, 1995
-------
survey results (ENSR 1994). The loss of snags and existing adits in the mine footprint area would reduce
the number of potential roost sites for myotis and big-eared bats. However, no evidence of roosting
activity was found in adits to be directly disturbed by mine development. Noise from mining operations
and increased human presence may cause bats to abandon adit roost sites that would not be directly
impacted by surface disturbance. Surveys indicated that bat roosting use of these adits was relatively
minor. Mitigation to create snags would partially compensate for the loss of possible tree roost sites. Pit
development would not compensate for the loss of cave roosting habitat, but would create additional rock
crevice roosting habitat for some species.
Myotis and Townsend's big-eared bats may use the tailings pond as a source of drinking water. The
ammonia or combinations of other chemical constituents present in the pond would have a low potential to
adversely impact bats, and some mortalities could occur. Mortality could also occur in the event of a
sodium cyanide, ammonium nitrate, or cement/lime, spill. The probability of a spill occurring and likelihood
of toxic exposure to bats would be extremely low. The duration of risk of toxic effects from the tailings
impoundment and accidental spills would be greatest with Alternative F since this alternative would have
the longest period of operation; however, overall risk would still be very low. Toxic risk would be
eliminated after reclamation. The habitat, land use, and toxic impacts could result in individual mortalities
and reductions in local summer populations of bat species of concern. 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 hibernation sites. Therefore, mine development may
adversely affect individual bats but is unlikely to result in a loss of viability or a trend toward federal listing for
Townsend's big-eared bat and the five Myotis species addressed by this BE.
4.2 Pygmy Rabbit
The pygmy rabbit is found in southern Idaho, western Utah, northern Nevada, southeastern Oregon, and
eastern Washington (Ashley 1992a). In Washington, the pygmy rabbit historically occurred in Adams,
Benton, Douglas, Franklin, Grant, and Lincoln counties. Although it may still occur in Grant and Lincoln
counties, its known present range in Washington is five active sites in Douglas county (WADFW 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 (Artemisia spp.) with an average height of 32
inches and average canopy cover of 32.7 percent (WADFW 1993b). They are seldom found in areas with
sparse vegetation (Ashley 1992a). Preliminary studies find no differences in pygmy rabbit densities on
grazed and ungrazed sites although male average home range sizes were larger in grazed areas than in
ungrazed areas (WADFW 1993b).
Crown Jewel Project BE 27 May 5, 1995
-------
Sagebrush is a major food item for the pygmy rabbit. It comprises up to 99 percent of the winter diet and is
the single most important food throughout the year (Green and Flinders 1980). During the winter, pygmy
rabbits will excavate snow burrows to forage on sagebrush (Ashley 1992a). In spring and summer,
grasses and forbs constitute 49 percent of their diet with the remaining 51 percent being sagebrush
(Green and Flinders 1980). Wheatgrass and bluegrass (Poa spp.) are highly preferred foods; forbs are
eaten only occasionally.
The Analysis Area is outside the known and historical range of the pygmy rabbit, and no sightings of the
pygmy rabbit have been documented within the Core or Analysis Areas. In addition, suitable habitat of
mature sagebrush does not exist in the Core or Analysis Areas. No further analysis will be provided for this
species in this BE.
4.3 Gray Wolf
The gray wolf is a wide-ranging carnivore that was abundant across North America. Trapping and shooting
eliminated wolves from most of eastern North America by 1900. However, the introduction of strychnine
in the late 1800's resulted in the virtual extinction of wolves throughout the United States by 1930
(Peterson 1986). Hunting, trapping, and poisoning also eliminated wolves from large areas of Alaska. The
status of wolves in Alaska and Minnesota improved in the late 1960's as poison was banned, aerial
gunning declined, and bounties were eliminated (Peterson 1986). The current distribution of wolves in
North America is mainly confined to the northern half of the continent, including portions of Idaho,
Montana, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan within the conterminous lower 48 states of the U.S.
Gray wolf utilize a wide variety of habitats, from dense forest to open tundra. The key components of wolf
habitat are: 1) a sufficient, year-long prey base of ungulates (deer, elk, and moose) and alternative prey
(Carbyn 1987, Frederick 1991), 2) suitable and somewhat secluded denning and rendezvous sites
(Carbyn 1987, Mech 1970), and 3) sufficient space with minimal interaction with humans (Thiel 1985).
Wolves are opportunistic predators that feed primarily on ungulates and small animals (Carbyn 1987,
Paradise and Nowak 1982). Reproducing packs inhabit territories that range from 40 to 1,000 square
miles (Peterson 1986) depending on pack size and prey density. In natural habitat situations (i.e., with no
human-caused wolf mortality) wolf numbers and distribution are directly related to ungulate biomass and
availability (Fuller 1989, Frederick 1991, Peterson and Page 1988, Pimlott 1967). Because of their size
and complex social organization, wolves could rarely survive on a prey base consisting of small mammals
(Pimlott 1967).
Den sites are typically in semi-open areas next to swamps or beaver ponds, near forest cover, and away
from human activity (Frederick 1991). Yearlings and two-year old wolves commonly explore areas outside
their territory on their own, and some disperse permanently as young adults. Dispersing wolves, which
Crown Jewel Project BE 28 May 5,1995
-------
may emigrate hundreds of miles (Fritts 1983), are more vulnerable to human-caused mortality since they
are more likely lo encounter roads (Frederick 1991).
Human/wolf land use conflicts and resultant shootings or poisonings 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). Wolves are most vulnerable to human-caused mortality in areas of high human
density and high open road density (Frederick 1991, Thiel 1985). Thiel (1985) examined the relationship
between rural road systems and wolf vulnerability in the Great Lakes region of Wisconsin. He found that as
road densities passable by 2-wheel-drive vehicles exceeded 0.93 mile per square mile, wolf populations
declined from breeding to non-breeding and finally became absent. Relatively small areas of higher road
densities may sustain wolves if suitable roadless areas with wolves exist nearby (Mech 1989).
Although there are no known viable wolf populations in Washington, an increasing number of recent wolf
sightings have been reported throughout the state (Laufer and Jenkins 1989). There have been 120
reports of wolf sightings since 1989 in Okanogan and Ferry counties (WADFW 1994a). Several
unconfirmed wolf sightings have been reported on the Tonasket Ranger District, while three wolf
sightings have been confirmed on the Twisp and Winthrop Districts of the Okanogan National Forest and
several on the adjacent Republic District of the Colville National Forest. An unconfirmed sighting of a wolf
occurred within the Core Area just north of Magnetic Mine in 1992 (Raforth 1992). There were three
reported 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 Tonasket
Ranger District (Peatt 1992). The skull of the animal was examined by Laura Friesz of British Columbia
Royal Provincial Museum According to Friesz (1994), the carnassial teeth are within the range of wolf
measurements. From the cursory examination given the skull, she believed the animal was similar to
wolves from northern British Columbia, but the possibility of dog-wolf characters could not be ruled out.
The closest confirmed sighting to the Analysis Area are two wolves killed in British Columbia, one near
Princeton (75 miles northwest of the Core Area) and one near Grand Forks (23 miles northeast of the Core
Area) (Dyer 1994).
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). Although wolves have not been confirmed on the Tonasket Ranger District,
numerous unconfirmed sightings have been recorded for Okanogan County (WADFW 1994b), and it is
possible that wolves may use the Analysis Area as part of a larger home range or for dispersal.
Crown Jewel Project BE 29 May 5, 1995
-------
Deer represent the main prey species of a potential wolf population in the Analysis Area. 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). Groups of 200 deer or
more have been observed in the Myers Creek drainage at the western boundary of the Analysis Area. 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 2.2 miles per square mile. Research indicates that an
increase in road density can have an adverse effect on wolves (Frederick 1991). Frederick reports that a
road density exceeding 1 mile per square mile has had adverse effects where this was examined. The
Jackson Creek unroaded area, which comprises approximately 14 percent 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
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.
4.3.1 Determination of Effects for Gray Wolf
No viable wolf population is known to exist in the Core or Analysis areas, and the Analysis Area occurs well
outside of the identified Central Idaho and Northwest Montana Recovery Areas for gray wolf (USFWS
1987). The area is considered potential wolf habitat because it falls within the species' historic range. All
cover types within the Core Area could provide suitable habitat for the gray wolf. During operations, about
9 to 14 percent of potential wolf habitat would be lost within the Core Area, depending on alternative.
Prey (deer) availability would be directly affected by the loss and conversion of habitat. Table 4
summarizes by alternative permanent, long-term, and short-term losses of snow intercept/thermal (SI/T)
cover for deer. Short-term losses represent unaltered S/T cover which would be available shortly after
mine closure, while long-term losses are represented by reclaimed areas which would require in excess of
100 years to redevelop characteristics of suitable S/T cover. These losses would directly affect prey
availability for gray wolf within the Core Area.
Although the project area could serve as a portion of a larger home range or as a travel corridor for wolves,
increased human disturbance would reduce the likelihood of wolves using the project area. Noise from
project operation would substantially exceed ambient levels over an area well beyond the mine footprint
(Beak 1995). This could result in disturbance impacts to any wolves occupying the area, as well as deer
Crown Jewel Project BE 30 May 5, 1995
-------
Table 4
Habitat Losses Affecting Deer Prey Density for Gray Wolf
Alternative
B
C
D
E
F
G
Losses of Deer Snow Intercept/Thermal (SI/T) Cover
(in acres)
Permanent
114
6
8
90
20
29
Short-term
(until mining cessation)
94
103
100
93
91
49
Long-term
(reestablished in 100 years)
1
66
62
81
78
57
Crown Jewel Project BE
31
May 5, 1995
-------
and other prey species Potential disturbance impacts would occur over a 6 to 33-year project duration,
depending on alternative Alternative F would have the greatest long-term impact with a project duration
of 33 years. Although the action alternatives would increase the potential for other human disturbance
activities (e.g., residential development, hunting, trapping, and roadkill), the gray wolf is not likely to be
adversely impacted since a high level of human disturbance impacts currently exist. Human presence is
currently widespread throughout much of the Core and Analysis areas and few secluded areas remain.
Furthermore, road densities in the Core Area currently exceed the identified tolerance threshold for
wolves (1.0 mile of road per square mile; Fredrick 1991). Although road densities would decrease
following reclamation, they would still exceed the threshold level.
Indirect toxic impacts to individual gray wolves could occur with the extremely unlikely event of a tailings
impoundment breach or an accidental transport spill of cyanide or lime into Beaver, Toroda, or Myers
creeks. With any of these potential spills, the likelihood of a wolf drinking contaminated water is very low
since a spill would be a short-term accidental event, species presence is not likely, and wolves avoid areas
inhabited by humans
The cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities have altered and
reduced the suitability of wolf habitat within the Analysis Area, principally through the reduction and loss of
large blocks of habitat secure from human presence. Increased human presence and human/wolf
conflicts with resultant wolf mortalities are the principal causative factors in the loss of historic populations
and may preclude the re-establishment of wolf populations in the Analysis Area in the future. Proposed
mining activities would have no direct impact on existing wolf populations or critical habitats but would
further degrade potential habitat quality through increased human presence and reductions in deer winter
habitat. In addition, mine development would not sever any travel corridors between current population
areas and/or existing recovery zones. The effects of increased human presence would occur in an area
already substantially altered by road building and associated human recreational and mine exploration
activity. Mine development would not impact any existing unroaded areas, and increased human
presence would be relatively short-term (6 to 33 years depending on alternative). As indicated previously,
road densities would decrease following reclamation, but they would still exceed the threshold level.
Determination of Effects Conclusion. Action alternatives would not adversely affect existing
populations of gray wolf because no viable wolf populations occur in the Analysis Area, and the Analysis
Area is currently outside of identified recovery areas in Idaho and Montana. Habitat in the Core Area is
currently unsuitable for gray wolf due to existing road densities and widespread human presence and
disturbance. No currently unroaded areas or blocks of secure habitat would be affected by mine
development, and mine development would not sever any travel corridors between current population
Crown Jewel Project BE 32 May 5,1995
-------
areas and/or existing recovery zones. Until project closure and reclamation is completed, the proposed
project would contribute to incremental adverse cumulative effects which may prevent the mine area from
comprising a portion of wolf home range in the future. Therefore, mine development may affect the
possible re-establishment of wolves in the Analysis Area, in the short-term, but is not likely to adversely
affect existing populations of gray wolf.
4.4 Grizzly Bear
The grizzly bear is a wide-ranging species that formerly occurred in the northern Okanogan Highlands
(USFWS 1993). It presently occurs in the Selkirk Range 75 miles east of the Crown Jewel Project, the
North Cascades 50 miles to the west, the Monashee Mountains 40 miles to the north-northeast, and the
Cathedral Park - Ashnola River Region 50 miles to the northwest.
No records of grizzly bear are known for the Core or Analysis areas. Tonasket Ranger District files indicate
that a grizzly bear track (Class 2 record) was reported in the Fourth of July Ridge area in 1993,
approximately 14 miles south-southwest of Buckhorn Mountain. Almack (1994) had no record of this
report. 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 1994a) 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 WADFW Nongame Data System (WADFW 1994a) contains no records of
grizzly bear for the Core or Analysis areas. 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.
Grizzly bear habitat has been described and evaluated using seven essential characteristics (Craighead et
al. 1982, Almack et al. 1993): space, isolation, sanitation, denning, safety, vegetation types, and food.
Each characteristic contributes to the overall quality of the area. If one item is missing or severely
depleted, the ability of the entire ecosystem to sustain a grizzly bear population rapidly diminishes.
According to Almack (1986a), the most basic requirements for high quality grizzly habitat probably include
the availability of a variety of seasonal foods and a mosaic of habitat conditions that provide adequate
security cover for feeding, breeding, and denning sites, as well as travel corridors. The Core and Analysis
areas were qualitatively evaluated using an aggregate of these characteristics.
Space and Isolation. The grizzly bear occupies very large home ranges which accommodates its
omnivorous feeding habits, complex population and social interactions, winter denning, and aggressive
infra-specific and inter-specific behavior (Craighead and Mitchell 1982). Adult bears are individualistic in
behavior and normally are solitary wanderers. Home ranges vary between sexes and age classes, with
adult males usually occupying the largest home ranges and subadult females occupying the smallest
Crown Jewel Project BE 33 May 5,1995
-------
home ranges. Seasonal trends in movements are similar for both sexes. In the Yellowstone, Northern
Continental Divide, and Selkirk Mountains Ecosystems, adult female home ranges of 11 to 564 square
miles have been reported, and adult male home ranges of 64 to 2,072 square miles have been reported
(Almack 1986b, National Wildlife Federation 1987, Blanchard and Knight 1991). The availability of secure
travel linkages between known population areas and/or proposed recovery zones is an important
consideration in the maintenance and re-establishment of grizzly bear populations.
Isolation of grizzly bear habitat is a function of available space and the amount of human activity present
(Almack 1986a). Human habitation and activity is common in the Okanogan Highlands. Rural dwellings,
farming, livestock grazing, firewood gathering, timber management, mineral exploration and development,
and outdoor recreation take place throughout the Okanogan Highlands, including the Core and Analysis
areas. Grizzlies have not been permanent residents of the Okanogan Highlands for many years. The
extent of human activity makes it unlikely that a population of grizzlies could be reestablished in this area.
As a result, the Core and Analysis areas are not contained within designated recovery zones for grizzly
bear (USFWS 1993). Also no grizzly bear travel linkages between known population areas or designated
recovery zones occur within the Analysis Area.
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, B.C. is 1 to 2 miles
wide, and densely occupied by continuous farms, houses, and towns (e.g., 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 considered
rare. Given the inverse relation between human presence and grizzly bear, it is possible, but not
probable, that grizzlies would cross the Kettle River Valley and move south to the Analysis Area. If a grizzly
bear did cross this valley, the 16 square mile Jackson Creek unroaded area could provide isolation for one
female but would be too small for a male (see home range data above).
Sanitation and Safety. Sanitation refers to the control of attractants produced by human activities.
Grizzlies are omnivorous and are attracted to garbage, camp debris, livestock carcasses, game meat, and
livestock feed. Such items occur near human habitations, campgrounds and hunting camps, and on
grazing allotments. Use of such food sources leads to grizzly habituation to areas of human activity and
inevitable bear-human interactions that are usually detrimental to grizzly bears. Thus the availability of
human-produced artificial food sources is a detrimental habitat characteristic for grizzly bears, rather than a
positive habitat factor. The Core and Analysis areas provide all of these detrimental food sources.
Crown Jewel Project BE 34 May 5,1995
-------
Safety refers to protection of grizzly bears from human-caused mortality and competitive use of habitat.
Only humans restrict grizzly habitat use. Any bear-human interaction is a potential threat to either human
or grizzly. Bear mortality resulting from such interactions often exceeds grizzly birth rates and is
considered the major cause of historical declines in grizzly populations (Craighead and Mitchell 1982).
The probability of encounters between grizzly bears and humans would be moderate to high in the
Analysis Area. The likelihood for human-caused bear mortality from such an encounter would be
moderate to high as well.
Denning. Grizzly bears generally prepare winter dens in excavated chambers or natural caves above
5,800 feet on slopes with deep snow accumulation (Almack et al. 1993). Most sites in the Continental
interior are in the upper reaches of the subalpine zone which experiences seasonal temperature
extremes (Craighead and Mitchell 1982). Suitable den sites require soils that allow easy digging and
adequate drainage of rainwater and snowmelt away from the denning chamber (Craighead and Mitchell
1982). Dens are often under the support of tree roots or rock outcrops but also occur on open, grassy
slopes (Almack 1986a). Isolation of den sites from humans and other animals is considered the most
essential denning criterion (Craighead et al. 1982).
The summit of Buckhorn Mountain, the highest point within the Analysis Area, is 5,602 feet in elevation
(approximately 200 feet below the lowest known den). Elevations throughout the remainder of the
Analysis area are generally below 4,500 feet. As a result, subalpine and other high-elevation habitats are
limited. Soils at the higher elevations associated with Buckhorn Mountain are typically very shallow (less
than 20 inches) to moderately deep (40 to 60 inches) over bedrock. The Analysis Area does not provide
the isolated, high elevation habitats and associated deep soils representative of the documented habitat
features recorded for den sites in the nearest occupied ecosystems (i.e., above 5,800 feet in the
Northern Cascades and Selkirk Mountains) (Almack 1986b, Almack et al. 1993).
Vegetation Types and Foods. Optimal habitat conditions for grizzlies are found in forests that are
interspersed with moist meadows and grasslands (Lowe et al. 1990). Grizzly bears require a variety of
vegetation types to obtain a rich supply of seasonally important plant and animal foods and to obtain
secure areas for feeding, breeding, bedding, and denning (Almack 1986a). Forested stands provide
seasonal feeding sites and security cover for travel corridors and breeding sites (Almack et al. 1993).
Vegetation requirements of grizzly bears differ by ecosystem, according to seasonal availability of
ungulates and small mammals and by the phenology of local plant communities associated with specific
habitats (Almack 1986a). An abundance of natural foods must be available from April to November.
Naturally occurring food items consumed by grizzly bear include ungulates, carrion, ground squirrels,
insects, ants, roots, bulbs, tubers, fungi, tree cambium, herbaceous plants, berries, nuts, and fish (Almack
1986b, USFWS 1993).
Crown Jewel Project BE 35 May 5 1995
-------
A variety of vegetation/land types reported to provide grizzly bear food and cover in the North Cascades
(Almack et al. 1993) and Selkirks (Almack 1986b) also occur within the Analysis Area. Potential food
sources within the Analysis Area include deer, ground squirrels, insects, and 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 1986b), and in other occupied grizzly ecosystems (Almack et al. 1993).
Habitat Summary. The Core and Analysis areas contain some of the necessary characteristics for
suitable grizzly bear habitat (e.g., vegetation types and food sources), but other important habitat
characteristics including isolation, sanitation, suitable den sites, and safety are lacking. The general lack of
isolation, sanitation, suitable den sites, and safety habitat features reduces the likelihood that grizzly
would occupy habitats in the Core and Analysis areas in the future
4.4.1 Determination of Effects for Grizzly Bear
Proposed mining development would have no direct impact on existing grizzly bear populations or critical
habitats and would not sever any travel linkages between existing recovery zones and/or known
population areas. Mine development would have minor adverse impacts on potential grizzly bear habitat.
Space would remain available to grizzlies, except for small permanent losses of currently suitable habitat.
Vegetation cover types providing potential habitat would be reduced during the 6 to 33-year period of
construction, operation and reclamation. Reclamation of disturbed sites would produce potentially
suitable grizzly bear habitat on all but the pit area (Alternatives B, D, E, and G). Early serai vegetation types
would provide potential plant food quickly (over the short term), while older vegetation types providing
forested cover would require 100 years or more to develop.
Risk of additional exposure to human food sources, bear/human encounters, and possible direct and
indirect adverse impacts to grizzlies from human presence, noise, secondary development, hunting and
exposure to toxic substances are not expected because grizzlies do not currently occupy the Core and
Analysis areas
The cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities have altered and
reduced the suitability of grizzly bear habitat within the Analysis Area, principally through the reduction and
loss of large blocks of habitat secure from human presence. Increased human presence and
human/grizzly bear conflicts with resultant grizzly bear mortalities are the principal causative factors in the
loss of historic populations and may preclude the re-establishment of grizzly bear populations in the
Analysis Area in the future. Proposed mine development would make a minor contribution (in the short-
term) toward a cumulative reduction of the existing low level of potential habitat suitability in the Analysis
Area.
Crown Jewel Project BE 36 May 5,1995
-------
Determination of Effects Conclusion. The Analysis Area is not situated in designated critical
habitat or a recovery zone for the grizzly bear. The lack of some suitable habitat characteristics make it
unlikely that a grizzly bear population could be established in the future. No currently unroaded areas or
blocks of secure habitat would be affected by mine development. In addition, mine development would
not sever any potential grizzly bear travel linkages between existing population areas and/or recovery
zones. The proposed mine development would have no effect on the conservation or recovery of grizzly
bear.
4.5 Pacific Fisher
The Pacific fisher is a medium-size carnivore that inhabits various conifer and mixed conifer cover types
within the Canadian and Transition Life Zones of North America (Strickland et al. 1982). The selection of
specific cover types by the Pacific fisher appears to be based in part on the availability of prey species
(Allen 1983). One consistent characteristic of fisher habitat is dense overstory canopy (Powell 1982).
Ideal habitat is described as having a canopy closure of 80 to 100 percent, while areas with less than 50
percent canopy closure are avoided (Allen 1983). Although fishers will forage in second growth forest,
mature forest is preferred because it provides adequate cover with ample amounts of snags and downed
logs for denning (Rodrick and Milner 1991). During the winter, fisher prefer coniferous ridges although
riparian areas and lake shores are important as well (Raine 1981).
Heinemeyer and Jones (1994) report that 53 percent of Pacific fisher records east of the Cascade crest
were from the subalpine fir zone. According to Jones (1991, as cited in Heinemeyer and Jones 1994),
the majority of observations of fishers in Idaho occurred in mesic grand fir habitat types, while more xeric
grand fir habitat types and subalpine, ponderosa pine, and Douglas-fir habitats were avoided. In Idaho,
there was a seasonal shift in the use of successional stages (Jones and Garton 1994, as cited in
Heinemeyer and Jones 1994). During winter 46 percent of animal re-locations occurred in young forests.
A broader range of habitats may be used for hunting than for resting (Jones 1991, as cited in Heinemeyer
and Jones 1994). In Idaho, fishers preferred stands with canopy cover of at least 61 percent for resting,
and stands with canopy cover greater than 80 percent for hunting (Heinemeyer and Jones 1994).
Forested stands containing, or located immediately adjacent to, riparian areas are particularly important to
fishers (Heinemeyer and Jones 1994).
The Pacific fisher is an opportunistic feeder that will prey on whatever animals it can overpower (Powell
1982). The snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus) appears to be a primary food of the fisher; however, they
also prey on mice, ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus), blue grouse (Dendragapus obscurus), pine squirrels
(Tamiasciurus spp.), and shrews (Sorexspp.) (Powell 1982, Allen 1983). The fisher's diet also includes
carrion, especially deer. When prey is unavailable, the fisher will eat berries and nuts (Powell 1982).
Crown Jewel Project BE 37 May 5, 1995
-------
Declines in fisher populations have been linked primarily to overtrapping (Powell 1981), although
reductions in the contiguous extent of mature and old growth forest from timber harvest may also be a
contributing factor. The potential for risk of incidental trapping of fishers is usually linked to the extent of
open roads. Existing roads increase the potential for snowmachine access during the winter trapping
period, especially in forested areas. The general management recommendation for minimizing the risk of
trapping to fisher and other sensitive furbearers is to maintain road densities below 1 mile of road/square
mile (U.S. Forest Service 1992a).
Fishers are typically solitary and wide-ranging. Home ranges vary from 15 to 35 square kilometers (5.8 to
13.5 square miles) (Powell 1981). Allen (1983) determined that no less than 100 square miles of suitable
contiguous habitat is required to successfully sustain a population of fisher. Smaller areas may maintain
fisher populations if the area is near or adjacent to larger areas of suitable habitat. Isolated areas less than
38.6 square miles would be insufficient.
The Pacific fisher historically occurred in the Cascades as far east as the Okanogan Valley (Rodrick and
Milner 1991). Documented occurrence for Okanogan County includes a report from 1955 in the
Cascades National Park (Yocom and McCollum 1973). Other documented sightings include a 1975
record of an animal trapped on Moses Mountain; sightings in 1977 and 1979 on Eightmile Road, 1 mile
below Billy Goat trailhead; a 1988 record 4 miles west of Loomis; and a 1990 sighting near Bryan Butte
(WADFW 1994c). Two of these documented sightings of the fisher occurred on the Okanogan National
Forest (WADFW I994c). Heinemeyer and Jones (1994) include the Okanogan Highlands on a map of the
distribution of potential Pacific fisher habitat. However no records of Pacific fisher have been documented
for the Okanogan Highlands or the Analysis Area, and a Canadian trapper reports he has never
encountered fisher in his traplines within and immediately north of the Analysis Area (Pennoyer 1994).
Potential fisher habitat of mature and old-growth forest with greater than 50 percent canopy closure totals
1,388 acres (2.2 square miles) in the Core Area. The Analysis Area contains 27,465 acres (42.9 square
miles) of coniferous forest having a canopy cover greater than 60 percent. These forested areas in the
Core and Analysis Areas are fragmented and do not provide a contiguous block of suitable habitat.
Several blocks of habitat are narrowly linked into a combined area of 20,205 acres (31.6 square miles).
These areas would provide sufficient habitat to support a few individual fishers but not enough to maintain
a viable population of fishers (see above). In addition, the road densities for the Analysis Area are
currently at 2.2 miles of road per square mile. The Jackson Creek unroaded area (10,218 acres or 16
square miles), which comprises only 14 percent of the Analysis Area, is the only existing block of secure
unroaded habitat. The lack of large, contiguous blocks of suitable habitat with low road densities reduces
the likelihood of Pacific fisher occurring within the Analysis Area.
Crown Jewel Project BE 38 May 5,1995
-------
4.5.1 Determination of Effects for Pacific Fisher
With mine development, approximately 139 to 278 acres (or 10 to 20 percent) of potential fisher habitat
(mature and old-growth forest with greater than 50 percent canopy closure) would be lost within the Core
Area. Losses of preferred habitat would be the greatest with Alternative E and the least with Alternative G.
These direct losses would result from operational impacts (land alteration and disturbance) over the 6 to
33-year life of the project, depending on alternative. These impacts would be limited to the mine footprint.
Permanent habitat loss and conversion would result from land alteration at sites such as the mine pit,
waste rock piles, and tailings facility. Reclamation of the some portions of the mine footprint is not
expected to produce suitable fisher habitat. The pit would not be restored, and with Alternative B most
disturbed sites would be reclaimed to grass, shrub, and open forest. With Alternatives C, D, E, F, and G,
reclamation of the tailings facility and the rock quarry could develop tree densities suitable for fisher
habitat. However, reclaimed forested habitat would require more than 100 years to reach mature forest
conditions preferred by fisher. All alternatives would result in some long-term fragmentation of suitable
fisher habitat.
The risk of other potential direct and indirect impacts of the proposed project (e.g., exposure to toxins,
increased trapping pressure, and roadkill), on fisher would be minimal since fishers would avoid disturbed
areas associated with the mine and transportation corridors.
The cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities, especially timber
harvest has resulted in the loss of potential fisher habitat represented by large, contiguous blocks of
mature forest. The total extent of these habitat losses is unknown, and past impacts to fisher are uncertain
since they have not been found within the Analysis Area. As a result of past habitat conversions and road
building, current habitat conditions within the Analysis Area are unsuitable to maintain a population of
fishers. Proposed mining activities would remove additional incremental amounts of potential fisher
habitat but impacts to existing populations would not occur. The lack of sufficient suitable habitat to
maintain a population of Pacific fisher will continue until a sufficient extent of forested stands are allowed to
develop mature or old growth characteristics preferred by fisher.
Determination of Effects Conclusion. Pacific fisher have not been documented in the Analysis
Area, and a sustainable population is unlikely given the lack of sufficient blocks of suitable habitat.
Consequently, potential habitat loss associated with mine development could potentially impact individual
fishers but would not result in a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability of the Pacific fisher.
Crown Jewel Project BE 39 May 5, 1995
-------
4.6 California Wolverine
The California wolverine is a wide-ranging carnivore that inhabits remote mountainous areas in California,
Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming (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). Within the interior forests of 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).
The wolverine is opportunistic and will feed on a wide variety of food items depending on availability (Hash
1987). They prey upon snowshoe hare, grouse, squirrels, mice, and voles (Hash 1987); however, carrion
is eaten more frequently than live prey and appears to be a major part of their winter diet (Hornocker and
Hash 1981). Prey availability is an important factor in habitat selection. 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 travel frequently
over long distances (Hornocker and Hash 1981). An average home range for an adult male is 163 square
miles and can be as large as 372 square miles (Hornocker and Hash 1981).
Historical records for wolverines in the Okanogan Highlands suggest that the area may have served as a
dispersal corridor but did not support a self-sustaining populations of wolverines (Banci 1994). In
Washington, most reports come from remote portions of the North Cascades. Two wolverine sightings are
reported for the Analysis Area (Bossier 1992, Payton 1992). Wolverine also have reportedly been
sighted in Canada about 17 miles north of the Analysis Area (Pennoyer 1994).
Declines in wolverine populations have been attributed to hunting, trapping, and habitat degradation
(Hash 1987). Hornocker and Hash (1981) proposed that wilderness or remote areas where human
activities are limited are required as refuges and reserves for viable wolverine populations. Banci (1994)
suggests that wolverine require very large refugia similar to conservation strategies for other large
carnivores such as the wolf and grizzly bear. The Jackson Creek unroaded area totals 10,218 acres (16
square miles) and lies in the northeastern portion of the Analysis Area. It is remote and could provide
security for dispersing wolverines but may be too small to support a self-sustaining population.
Incidental trapping is considered one of the principal threats to populations of wolverine. It is illegal to trap
wolverines in Washington, but their curiosity, wide-ranging habits, and dependence on carrion make them
susceptible to incidental trapping. Research has shown that wolverines can travel several kilometers to
Crown Jewel Project BE 40 May 5,1995
-------
bait (Copeland and Groves 1992). The potential for risk of incidental trapping of wolverine is usually linked
to the extent of open roads. The general management recommendation for minimizing the risk of trapping
for fisher and other sensitive furbearers is to maintain road densities below 1 mile of road/square mile (U.S.
Forest Service 1992a). Existing roads increase the potential for snowmachine access during the winter
trapping period, especially in forested areas. Road densities of less than 1 mile of road/square mile is the
general recommendation for minimizing the risk of trapping to sensitive furbearer species such as
wolverine (U S. Forest Service 1992a)
Most higher elevation portions of the Core and Analysis Areas provide suitable habitats and could serve as
a portion of a larger home range for wolverines. Road densities for that portion of the Analysis Area which
could affect wolverine habitat suitability are currently at 2.28 miles per square mile (pre-exploration
condition). Road densities at the current level reduce habitat suitability and the potential for establishment
of viable populations of wolverine in the Analysis Area.
4.6.1 Determination of Effects for Wolverine
Mine development would result in the loss of approximately 501 to 708 acres (or 11 to 16 percent) of
potential California wolverine habitat (i.e., mature, mixed conifer forest) within the Core Area during
operations. Losses of potential habitat would be the greatest with Alternative E and the least with
Alternative C. Restoration of disturbed portions of the mine footprint is not expected to produce suitable
wolverine habitat (open young forest) for at least 100 years following reclamation. Furthermore, some
portions of the mine footprint (e.g., pit and waste rock disposal areas) would be permanently unreclaimed
or would regenerate to grass or shrub habitats. Larger blocks of early successional stage or non-forested
habitats would be avoided by wolverine and could disrupt potential wolverine movement through the Core
Area.
Project implementation (construction, operation, and reclamation) could present a slight risk of mortality to
wolverine from roadkill. Because of the wolverine's preference for remote areas, project operation could
displace wolverines from a much larger area than the immediate disturbance sites. The duration of
potential disturbance and displacement impacts would be 6 to 10 years for all action alternatives except
Alternative F, which would be for 33 years.
Indirect impacts to the California wolverine could result from secondary development, increases in human
presence and activities in the Analysis Area, and potential spills of toxic materials during transport. While
some residences may be constructed in areas away from established townsites, most secondary
development would be in previously developed areas that are unsuitable for wolverine. An increase in
recreational use (including hunting and trapping) due to an increased population is expected to present a
minor increase in the potential for adverse impact to wolverine. The potential impact of disturbance and
Crown Jewel Project BE 41 May 5 1995
-------
displacement would be short-term over the 6 to 10-year project period for all actions alternatives, except
Alternative F (33 years). Road densities within the Core area would decrease following reclamation,
providing a minor long-term benefit to wolverine. However, overall road densities would remain above the
recommended maximum unless additional road closures (unrelated to the mine) occur. The pit and waste
rock piles would increase talus and cliff habitat in the Core Area. This could provide den sites for wolverine
if disturbance and lack of isolation do not preclude use.
The risk of other direct and indirect impacts of the proposed project from potential wolverine exposure to
toxins (i.e. from tailings pond or accidental spills) would be remote since it is unlikely that a wolverine would
occur in the disturbed mine areas or adjacent to roadways.
The cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities, especially timber
harvest and associated road building has resulted primarily in the loss of large blocks of remote and secure
habitat required to maintain wolverine populations. Road development has reduced the extent of
unroaded habitats or habitats with road densities less than 1 mile per square mile. The Jackson Creek is
the only remaining unroaded portion of the Analysis Area, and it may be too small to support a self-
sustaining population of wolverines. Cumulative impacts to wolverine within the Analysis Area are
uncertain because their past population status is unknown. As indicated, historical records for wolverine
in the Okanogan Highlands suggest that the area may have served as a dispersal corridor but did not
support a self-sustaining population of wolverines (Banci 1994). Proposed mining development would
result in minor incremental increase in habitat fragmentation and in losses of potentially suitable habitat.
Road densities would increase slightly with mining but would decrease below the existing condition after
mine closure. These impacts would contribute to a reduced likelihood that the Analysis Area could
support a population of wolverines in the futures, but impacts to existing populations of wolverine would
not occur.
Determination of Effects Conclusion. Suitable habitat in the Core and Analysis areas could
potentially support part of an individual wolverine's larger home range or serve as a movement corridor for
this species. However, potential habitat in the Core and Analysis areas is highly fragmented and does not
provide the large contiguous blocks of remote habitat preferred by wolverine. No currently unroaded
areas or blocks of secure habitat would be affected by mine development. Mine development would
result in minor reductions in potential wolverine habitat, but impacts to individuals is unlikely considering
the marginal suitability of the available habitat, their very large home range size, and the typically low
population density of the species. Mine development is unlikely to result in a loss of viability of the
California wolverine or a trend toward federal listing.
Crown Jewel Project BE
42 May5,1995
-------
4.7 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 boreal forests of Canada and Alaska and isolated mountains of
the northwestern United States. This species requires a mosaic of forest conditions for hunting, denning,
and travel (Koehler and Brittell 1990). They avoid crossing openings wider than 300 feet but will travel
through thinned stands of timber (Koehler 1990). Lodgepole pine and spruce/fir cover types with tree
densities of greater than 180 stems per acre and tree heights of at least 6 feet satisfy travel cover
requirements (Brittell et al. 1989, Koehler and Brittell 1990, WADFW 1993a). Within Okanogan County,
lynx use areas above 4,000 feet dominated by lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), spruce, and subalpine fir
(Koehler and Brittell 1990).
Dens are typically within hollow logs or stumps, and underneath large logs, log piles, or root wads (Jackson
1961). In Washington, denning sites are characterized by mature lodgepole pine and spruce/subalpine fir
forests older than 200 years, with north and northeast aspects, mesic habitat associations, and a high
density of down logs (greater than or equal to 40 logs per 150 linear feet, 1 to 4 feet above ground)
(Brittell et al. 1989, Koehler 1990). Suitable denning habitat ranges from 1 to 5 acres, contains more than
one den site, and is connected to foraging areas by travel cover (Koehler and Brittell 1990).
Primary prey of the lynx is the snowshoe hare, especially during the winter months, and preferred lynx
foraging habitat coincides with habitats where snowshoe hares are abundant (Saunders 1963, Koehler et
al. 1979, Parker et al. 1983). During the summer, grouse and small mammal species also are taken, but
snowshoe hares are typically still the lynx's main prey item. 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). Snowshoe hares prefer dense, early successional habitats and use
conifer stands in sapling and pole stages extensively (Bittner and Rongstad 1982). Koehler (1990) found
that in winter snowshoe hares forage almost exclusively on the tips of lodgepole pine trees less than 1
inch diameter and at least 2 to 3 feet above the snow surface. Stands with tree and shrub densities of
6,336 stems per acre provide security and thermal cover for hares (Koehler 1990). Suspended down logs
are also a valuable habitat components, providing security cover for hares.
Lynx home range size and movement patterns are related to snowshoe hare density. Lynx remain within
well defined home ranges when hares are abundant but increase home range sizes during periods of low
hare abundance (Berrie 1973, Brand and Keith 1979, O'Connor 1984, Parker et al. 1983). The average
home range size for lynx in Washington is 24 square miles (Brittell et al. 1989). Koehler (1990) found that
average home range size is 15 6 square miles for female lynx and 27.6 square miles for male lynx in north-
central Washington.
Crown Jewel Project BE 43 May 5, 1995
-------
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 is identified by six discrete zones (WADFW 1993a). The Vulcan
Mountain Zone lies 7 miles east and is the nearest zone to the Analysis Area. Although this zone is
considered too small (4,253 acres) to support a population of lynx, it is important as a travel corridor
(WADFW 1993a) The Forest Service identifies areas above 4,000 feet within the Core Area as potential
lynx habitat (Rose 1994). One lynx sighting is known from the Core Area, and two sightings are
documented for the Analysis Area (U.S. Forest Service 1992b, WADFW 1994a, Woodruff 1994,
Swedberg 1994). No lynx or lynx sign were observed during wildlife surveys conducted in the Core Area
(Beak 1995).
The Core and Analysis areas are at the periphery of lynx range and are not likely to support a resident
population of lynx. Forest vegetation within the Core Area is dominated by Douglas-fir. Lodgepole pine
does not comprise a substantial portion of any cover type in the Core Area, although small stands are
present. 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 to the north and east of the
Analysis Area. The Core and Analysis areas may also serve as a travel area for dispersing juveniles.
Approximately 6,450 acres of the Core Area are above 4,000 feet. TWHIP surveys indicate that
approximately 56 percent (3,618 acres) of this area is potential lynx travel habitat (i.e., above 4,000 feet
and greater than 180 trees per acre at least 6 feet high). Approximately 254 acres (4 percent) are
identified as foraging habitat and hiding cover, 13 acres (less than 1 percent) are denning habitat, and
2,862 acres (44 percent) are non-cover for lynx. In the Analysis Area, the area 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.
4.7.1 Determination of Effects for North American Lynx
Mine development would result in losses of potential lynx habitat for the life of the mine. Most disturbance
would be in potential lynx travel habitat. Losses of travel habitat would range from 250 to 450 acres,
depending on alternative. Alternative C would affect the least amount (250 acres) of travel habitat, while
Alternatives E, F, and G would affect the greatest amount (450 acres). Impacts to potential denning
habitat would be minor. Alternatives B and C would have little affect on potential foraging habitat, but 200
acres of foraging habitat would be impacted by Alternatives D, E, F, and G. These direct losses would
result from operational impacts (land alteration and disturbance) over the 6 to 33-year life of the project,
depending on alternative. These impacts would be limited to the mine footprint. However, noise and
human activity disturbance would extend beyond the footprint and could affect a much larger area during
mine construction and operation.
Crown Jewel Project BE 44 May 5,1995
-------
The potential impacts of disturbance and displacement from the area would be short-term (6 to 10 years)
for all alternatives except Alternative F which would extend over a 33-year time period. After project
closure and completion of reclamation activities, road densities would decline since existing mine and
exploration roads would be closed to all but administrative traffic or recontoured and revegetated.
Reclaimed areas would not be expected to produce suitable lynx denning habitat, however suitable winter
foraging habitat for the snowshoe hare, and consequently the lynx, would eventually be created in some
disturbance areas, depending on the reclamation scenario. Travel habitat would also be restored in areas
where trees would be reestablished in sufficient density to provide suitable travel cover. Much of the mine
footprint, especially with Alternative B, would be reclaimed to meadow, shrub, or open forest, which would
be avoided by the lynx The pit area in Alternatives B, D, E, and G also would not be reclaimed to suitable
lynx habitat.
Mine development would result in a slight increased risk of direct mortality to lynx from vehicle traffic.
There would be little risk of direct toxic exposure because the tailings pond would be fenced to exclude
lynx
Indirect impacts of the proposed project include secondary development, increased human presence and
activities, and potential spills of toxic substances during transport. While some residences may be
constructed in areas away from established townsites, most secondary development would be in
previously developed areas and at elevations below that typically used by lynx. An increase in recreational
use (including hunting and trapping) due to population increases is expected in the Core and Analysis
areas. These impacts should be minor based on the limited availability of suitable lynx habitat (primarily
travel) in the Core and Analysis areas. The potential for indirect toxic effects to lynx from hypothetical spills
or liner breaches would be extremely low because most of the potentially hazardous spill sites would be at
lower elevations unsuitable for use by the lynx.
The temporary disturbance and anticipated permanent loss and fragmentation of suitable travel habitat for
the North American lynx would contribute toward minor cumulative adverse effects in the Analysis Area.
The impacts would reduce the likelihood that the Core and Analysis areas would be used for travel by the
North American lynx during mine operation and until reclaimed areas develop habitat conditions suitable
for lynx.
Determination of Effects Conclusion. Suitable foraging and denning habitat for the North
American lynx is uncommon in the Core and Analysis areas. The Analysis Area is at the periphery of the
species' range and lynx presence (other than occasional dispersing individuals) is considered unlikely.
There is a slight chance that an individual lynx could use the Core Area for dispersal or as part of an
expanded home range. Although mine development would result in minor reductions in potential lynx
Crown Jewel Project BE 45
May5,1995
-------
habitat and may impact individual lynx, it is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of
viability of the North American lynx.
4.8 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). This species historic
range was 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 restrict
visibility (Van Dyke et al. 1983, Wakelyn 1987). Optimum winter range is found on south-facing slopes
where snow depths are low and native bluebunch wheatgrass, Sandberg's bluegrass (Poa sandbergii),
junegrass (Koeleria cristata), and Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis) are available as forage (Rodrick and
Milner 1991).
Steep rocky escape cover appears to be the most important feature of sheep habitat (Wakelyn 1987).
The extent and distribution of escape terrain (precipitous rocky slopes, ridges, and cliffs or rugged
canyons) determines the extent to which other habitat components are used (Van Dyke et al. 1983,
Wakelyn 1987). Bighorn sheep generally do not use forage areas greater than 0.5 miles from escape
terrain (Van Dyke et al. 1983). Ewes appear to select the most rugged areas for lambing; however, they
are typically within 0.3 miles of water (Rodrick and Milner 1991).
No suitable habitat for the California bighorn sheep exists in either the Core or Analysis areas. Existing
habitats are primarily forested and do not contain adequate isolated foraging habitat in proximity to escape
terrain. The few cliffs that occur within the Analysis Area are not sufficiently extensive to provide escape
terrain (King 1994). There are no plans to introduce bighorn sheep into the area (King 1994). California
bighorn sheep are found locally on Mount Hull (20 miles west of the Analysis Area) and on Vulcan
Mountain (8 miles east of the Analysis Area). Although rams are known to wander outside of established
territories, these herds are sedentary and are not known to use the Core or Analysis areas (King 1994).
No further analysis will be provided for California bighorn sheep in this BE.
4.9 Common Loon
The common loon nests in Alaska, Canada, and the northern United States. It winters primarily along the
Atlantic and Pacific coasts and on the Great Lakes (Terres 1980). Loons typically arrive in Okanogan
Crown Jewel Project BE 46 May 5, 1995
-------
County from mid-March to early May and leave on fall migration as early as mid-September (Cannings et al.
1987).
Common loons inhabit large wooded lakes which have an ample supply of fish and are of sufficient size to
allow loons to take flight and clear surrounding trees (Terres 1980, Rodrick and Milner 1991). Preferred
nesting habitat is considered to be clear, secluded lakes larger than 10 acres and below 5,000 feet in
elevation (Reel et al. 1989). They typically breed on lakes which have healthy fish populations and may
visit shallow lakes which lack fish to feed on amphibians, snails, and aquatic insects (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). Loons will nest on artificial nesting platforms but prefer to nest on protected islands
near shallow water habitat for the rearing of chicks. The same nest site may be used each year (Rodrick
and Milner 1991). Loons are generally very sensitive to human disturbances, particularly during the
breeding season. Disturbances to nesting loons may cause nest abandonment and failure. Fluctuating
water levels and nest predation may also cause nest failure. Nest predation by raccoons, skunks, crows,
and gulls is often common in areas with human habitation because of the availability of garbage. Islands
offer more protection from mammalian predators than shoreline habitat. Territory size ranges from 15 to
100 acres (Brown 1985).
Breeding populations of the common loon are low in north-central Washington. Records of common
loons within the Core Area include an adult and chick on Beth Lake (English 1994) and a few individuals
on Beth, Beaver, and Little Beaver lakes (Baumgardner 1994, Swedberg 1994). The observations
indicate at least occasional loon use of these lakes for resting, foraging, and possibly nesting. The lakes
could provide nesting habitat, but their suitability as nesting habitat is marginal because of small size,
proximity to an existing road, and current levels of recreational use. The lakes range in size from 22 to 34
acres and are smaller than Lost Lake (58 acres), which is considered marginal size for a breeding pair of
loons (Friesz 1994). A nesting pair of loons has been reported for Lost Lake, which lies approximately 2
miles southwest of the Analysis Area (Friesz 1994). Nesting loons also occur on Bonaparte Lake,
approximately 10 miles south of the Analysis Area (U.S. Forest Service records).
4.9.1 Determination of Effects for Common Loon
Project development would not result in the direct loss of nesting or foraging habitat within the Core or
Analysis Areas. However, loons using lakes in Beaver Creek Canyon could be exposed to direct
disturbance impacts from light and glare, and noise. Noise attenuation modeling results indicate that
increases in noise from facility construction and mine operation would not adversely impact loon
populations on Beth, Beaver, and Little Beaver lakes (Beak 1995). Loons would likely acclimate to the
moderate increases in traffic noise and associated light in the transportation corridor in Alternatives B, D,
Crown Jewel Project BE 47 May 5,1995
-------
E, and F. Although the common loon would not nest or forage on the tailings pond, there would be a
slight possibility that an individual would land on the pond to rest there for a short period of time. The
probability of this occurrence would be very low since areas of more suitable and attractive habitat exist
nearby in Beaver Creek Canyon However if a loon landed in the tailings pond, modeled projections
indicate that levels of metals and cyanide in the tailings water would have negligible effects on this species
(Beak 1995). There would be a risk of impact to a loon drinking from the tailings pond due to ammonia
concentrations. Birds drinking tailings water with high ammonia concentrations could become sick and
remain on the tailings pond, thereby increasing exposure time to low levels of cyanide and metals.
Increased exposure duration could lead to a low risk of adverse impact from cyanide and metals. A low risk
indicates that a small number of mortalities could occur, but the number of mortalities are not predicted to
be significant.
Individual loons on Beth, Beaver, and Little Beaver Lakes may be indirectly impacted by project-
associated disturbances, such as human presence, secondary development, and an accidental toxic spill
(with Alternatives B, D, E, and F). A slight increase in human presence would occur throughout the
project vicinity. Increases in human presence throughout the project area would be the greatest for
Alternative C but for the shortest duration (6 years). Alternative F would result in the smallest increase in
human population but would have the longest duration of increased human presence with a project life of
33 years. Minor incremental impacts to the common loon could occur as recreational use and residential
development continue to increase within the project vicinity (Beak 1995). Increased recreational use
(e.g., fishing, boating) could impact loons in Beaver Creek Canyon, particularly during the breeding
season (March-September). For example, disturbance to nesting loons may cause nest abandonment,
and an increase in fishing could deplete the loon's prey base and result in chick starvation. Increased
human use also could degrade shoreline and open water habitats which would reduce the suitability of the
lakes as nesting, feeding, or resting habitat. Raccoon and skunk populations may increase in areas of
human inhabitation or recreation due to the greater availability of garbage. Loons nesting on islands
protected from these mammalian predators would not be affected, but the risk of predation of nests along
potential shoreline nesting habitat may increase.
An accidental spill of sodium cyanide, ammonium nitrate, diesel, or lime at the hypothetical spill site on
Beaver Creek could adversely impact individual loons by direct mortality and degradation of existing
habitats (Beak 1995). As indicated previously a spill of sodium cyanide, ammonium nitrate, or lime is highly
unlikely. The risk for a diesel spill is slightly higher but still very low. In the remote event of an accidental
spill, a release of sodium cyanide into Beaver or Toroda Creek would be acutely lethal to common loons
(Beak 1995). A Beaver Creek spill would dilute to nonlethal levels in Beth and Beaver Lakes. Adverse
impacts from a spill of ammonium nitrate or cement/lime also would occur. Concentrations of these toxins
would remain highly lethal to aquatic life (e.g., fish) and result in the loss of food sources for common loon
Crown Jewel Project BE 48 May 5, 1995
-------
as far downstream as the Kettle River. Loss of a prey base would preclude nesting and feeding in the
drainage until suitable habitat conditions are restored. Any accidental spill in Toroda Creek (Alternatives B,
D, E, and G) or Myers Creek (Alternatives C and F) would have no effect on common loons since suitable
habitat for loons is not present along these creeks.
A spill of diesel fuel also would result in mortalities of fish and aquatic invertebrates, also rendering habitat
unsuitable for foraging loons. Most of a spill in Beaver Creek would be contained in the ponds along the
creek and losses of fish and aquatic invertebrates below the ponds would be low. Loons drinking from
diesel contaminated water would not be subjected to lethal levels (Beak 1995), but birds coming in direct
contact with a surface diesel film could die as a result of ingestion from preening or a loss of insulation from
oil coated feathers.
With any of the spill scenarios that could affect loons in the Beaver Creek drainage, impacts would result in
the loss of individual loons and a short-term reduction in suitable habitat. Recovery of water quality and
prey populations would be relatively rapid as long as appropriate spill response and clean-up measures are
implemented.
Development of Starrem Reservoir and the pit lake (with Alternatives B, D, and G) would have minimal
beneficial effect on common loon, in terms of creation of additional habitat. The reservoir would not
provide suitable nesting or foraging habitat due to moderate levels of human presence; fluctuating water
levels; and the lack of vegetated shoreline habitat, protected island habitat, and aquatic prey. The small
size of the pit lake and surrounding rock walls would preclude use by common loon because of their need
for unobstructed, large expanses of water for take-off.
Determination of Effects Conclusion. Increases in human disturbance with project development
could have minor adverse effects on the common loon in the Beaver Creek drainage. The potential for
adverse impact is associated primarily with the extremely low risk of a spill of toxic chemicals or diesel fuel
into Beaver Creek. An accidental spill of toxic substances into Beaver Creek would adversely impact
suitable habitat and could adversely impact individual foraging loons or a breeding pair, if it occurred during
the breeding season (March-September). Loss of a breeding pair of loons and/or suitable habitat on
Beaver Creek would result in a short-term reduction in the known breeding loon population in north-
central Washington. The effects would not be long-term because suitable habitat conditions would
eventually be recovered. In the remote event of an accidental spill, individual loons or a breeding pair
could be adversely affected, this impact is not likely to cause a reduction in species viability or result in a
trend toward federal listing for common loon.
Crown Jewel Project BE 49 May 5] 1995
-------
4.10 Northern Bald Eagle
The northern bald eagle is found throughout the Pacific Northwest in close association with freshwater,
estuarine, and marine ecosystems that provide abundant prey and suitable habitat for nesting and
communal roosting (Watson et al. 1991). In Washington, breeding territories are located near water in
predominantly coniferous, uneven-aged stands with old-growth structural components (Anthony et al.
1982, Stalmaster 1987). Favored nest trees are usually the largest tree or snag in a stand that provides an
unobstructed view of the surrounding area and a clear flight path to and from the nest (Stalmaster 1987,
Rodrick and Milner 1991). Additional snags and trees with exposed lateral limbs or dead tops within a
nesting territory may serve as perching or roosting sites (USFWS 1986). Wintering bald eagles
concentrate in areas where food is abundant and disturbance is minimal (Rodrick and Milner 1991).
Wintering habitat consists of day perches in tall trees close to a food source and night roosts in uneven-
sized, multi-layered, mature or old-growth stands that provide protection from weather and human
disturbance (Rodrick and Milner 1991).
Bald eagles are opportunistic scavengers and predators that feed on a variety of prey items including
migrating and spawning salmon, other fish, small mammals, waterfowl, seabirds, and carrion (Snow 1981 b,
Rodrick and Milner 1991). In northern Washington and southern British Columbia, flocks of ducks and
coots (Fulica americana) are the eagle's primary food source during winter (Cannings et al. 1987, Fielder
1982).
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).
Human interference has been shown to adversely affect the distribution and behavior of wintering bald
eagles (Stalmaster and Newman 1978). Disturbances may result in increased energy expenditure due to
avoidance flights and decreased energy intake due to interference with feeding activity (Knight 1984).
The Pacific States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (USFWS 1986) outlines the steps for bald eagle
management and habitat protection on federal lands. The Recovery Plan identifies the Kettle River as a
key bald eagle recovery area with the goal of one target recovery territory. The Kettle River forms the
northeastern boundary of the Analysis Area, approximately 7 to 10 miles north and northeast of the
proposed mine site.
There are no documented sightings of bald eagles in the Core Area. A bald eagle was observed in the
Analysis Area upslope from Nicholson Creek in November 1990, about 0.9 mile east of the Core Area
(U.S. Forest Service 1990, U.S. Forest Service 1992b). Although there are no other official sightings of
bald eagles within the Analysis Area, wintering bald eagles are known to occur along the Kettle River
(USFWS 1986, Swedberg 1994) and Toroda Creek (Swedberg 1994). Five to six eagles have been
Crown Jewel Project BE 50 May 5, 1995
-------
observed along the Kettle River between the Canadian border and Curlew, Washington from October to
April (Zender 1994).
The Core Area does not contain preferred potential bald eagle nesting habitat, and there are no known
bald eagle nesting, foraging, or roosting sites within the Core Area. Bald eagles may occasionally wander
over open habitats in the Core area in search of carrion. Suitable winter habitat does occur within the
Analysis Area along the Kettle River and Toroda Creek, and potential nesting, foraging, and roosting
habitat occurs there as well. The Kettle River is the only waterbody in the Analysis Area that supports
wintering populations of waterfowl. There are no known bald eagle nesting sites or winter roost sites
along the Kettle River or Toroda Creek in the Analysis Area (WADFW 1994a, Swedberg 1994). Also, no
major eagle migration routes are known to occur along the Kettle River (Zender 1994).
4.10.1 Determination of Effects for Bald Eagle
Project development would not result in the direct loss or disturbance of suitable bald eagle habitat within
the Analysis Area. Minor increases in traffic noise and light from possible nighttime truck transport traffic
along the Kettle River and Toroda Creek (Alternatives B, D, E, and F) could have minor negative impacts to
bald eagles wintering (October-April) in those areas. Noise attenuation modeling results indicate that
increased noise from proposed project activities, such as blasting and road construction, would not
adversely affect bald eagles along Toroda Creek or the Kettle River (Beak 1995). The likelihood of an
eagle being exposed to waters in the tailings facility is very low since bald eagles would only occasionally
wander over the Core Area, and no aquatic life would occur in the pond. If a bald eagle happened to
investigate the tailings pond, projected concentrations of cyanide and metals in the tailings water would
not have a detrimental effect on the eagle (Beak 1995). Levels of ammonia could have sublethal adverse
effects on an eagle if it drank from the tailings pond. An eagle would not remain in the area, however,
since mine personnel would be required to remove any carrion, and the pond would not be attractive to
prey species such as waterfowl.
Bald eagles wintering along Toroda Creek or the Kettle River may be indirectly impacted by project-
induced disturbances such as human presence, secondary development, the incidence of roadkill, and
an accidental toxic spill. A slight increase in human presence would occur throughout the project vicinity.
Increases in human presence and subsequent increases in recreational use (e.g., fishing) along Toroda
Creek or the Kettle River could adversely impact eagles. However, these effects would be relatively minor
since eagles wintering along Toroda Creek and the Kettle River have habituated to existing levels of traffic
and human presence along these drainages. Road kills of deer and other mammals could double as the
result of projected increases in vehicle traffic (Beak 1995) This increased availability of carrion may have a
Crown Jewel Project BE 51 May 5,1995
-------
minor influence on the distribution of eagles in the area and result in slight increase in the risk of roadkill for
bald eagles.
There is a remote chance for an accidental spill of toxic chemicals along the transportation corridors. As
indicated previously, a spill of sodium cyanide, ammonium nitrate, or lime is highly unlikely. The risk for a
diesel spill is slightly higher but still very low. A spill into Toroda, Beaver, or Myers creeks could have an
adverse effect on bald eagles wintering along Toroda Creek or the Kettle River. A spill of ammonium
nitrate or diesel at hypothetical spill sites would have a negligible direct impact to bald eagles, while a spill
of sodium cyanide would have a low toxic impact and a lime spill could have adverse impacts (Beak 1995).
A Beaver Creek spill of sodium cyanide would dilute to nonlethal levels in Beth and Beaver Lakes. A
Toroda Creek spill would remain lethal until dilution with the Kettle River. Toxicity of a cyanide slug in
Myers Creek would be minimal by the time it reached the Kettle River. A toxic spill of sodium cyanide into
Toroda Creek could result in direct mortality of eagles. Lethal impacts in Toroda Creek could occur to bald
eagles from sodium cyanide but would be reduced at the confluence of Nicholson Creek; lime impacts
would be reduced at the confluence with the Kettle River.
A spill of sodium cyanide, ammonium nitrate, or diesel into Beaver Creek would likely cause chronic
impacts to aquatic life in Beaver Lake and downstream to, and possibly including portions of, the Kettle
River. However, the lethal effects of a cement/lime spill to aquatic life would be largely limited to the
downstream reaches of Beaver Creek. A similar spill into Myers Creek or Toroda creeks would be acutely
lethal to fish and other aquatic life downstream to the Kettle River. Concentrations of cyanide, ammonium
nitrate, and diesel would remain high enough to cause some mortality to aquatic life within the Kettle River
downstream of its confluence with these two creeks. Since wintering bald eagles concentrate in areas
where food is abundant, a toxic spill could change the distribution of wintering eagles along Toroda Creek
and the Kettle River. Eagles could also be attracted to feed on dead or dying fish and waterbirds exposed
to contaminants. Ingestion of diesel contaminated flesh could adversely impact individual eagles.
With any of the spill scenarios that could affect wintering bald eagles along Toroda Creek or the Kettle
River, impacts could result in the loss of individual eagles and a short-term reduction in suitable habitat.
Recovery of water quality and prey populations would be relatively rapid as long as appropriate spill
response and clean-up measures are implemented.
The USFWS's Pacific States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan identifies the Kettle River as a key recovery area
with the goal of one target recovery breeding territory. The loss of an eagle or eagles due to a toxic spill
could result in a short-term impact to individual birds, but no long-term losses of suitable winter or potential
breeding habitat would occur. As a result, adverse effects on the recovery of this species in the region
over the long-term would not occur.
Crown Jewel Project BE 52 May 5,1995
-------
The development of the pit lake in Alternatives B, D, and G may not create additional foraging habitat for
bald eagle since it is projected that silver and cadmium concentrations in the pit waters may reach levels
toxic to fish and other aquatic life. The pit lake may be used by waterfowl, but without fish, aquatic
invertebrates, and shoreline vegetation, waterfowl concentrations sufficient to attract foraging bald eagles
would be unlikely. Bald eagles also may not forage on waterfowl attracted to Starrem Reservoir because of
the occasional noise disturbance from maintenance activities. The proposed electric transmission line
would be designed to prevent the accidental electrocution of bald eagles and other large raptors.
The historic distribution of bald eagles and use of habitats in the Analysis Area is unknown, but cumulative
impacts to potential bald eagle habitat probably been be relatively minor. Since the banning of use of
organochloride pesticides populations of bald eagles have increased throughout most of their former
range in the conterminous United States. Minor cumulative impacts to the bald eagle would be expected
to occur as human presence, noise, traffic, and residential development increase within the project vicinity
(Beak 1995). Continued threats by electrocution, shooting, poisoning, and organochloride pesticide
residues would continue to cumulatively impact the bald eagle and could prolong the recovery of the bald
eagle in north-central Washington.
Determination of Effects Conclusion. No breeding pairs of bald eagles are known to exist in the
Analysis Area, and no suitable breeding or wintering habitat would be directly affected by mine
development. Increases in human disturbance could have minor adverse impacts to wintering bald eagles
along Toroda Creek and the Kettle River. The potential for adverse impact is associated primarily with the
extremely low risk of a spill of toxic chemicals affecting Toroda Creek or the Kettle River. An accidental spill
of diesel fuel or process chemicals affecting Toroda Creek or the Kettle River could adversely affect bald
eagles through direct mortality or short-term habitat loss. The effects 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 eagle in the region.
4.11 Northern Goshawk
The northern goshawk inhabits coniferous and mixed forests in much of the northern hemisphere. In the
Northwest, goshawks prefer to nest in dense, old growth coniferous forest (Wilson et al. 1987), but
foraging can occur in a variety of forest types. In most areas of suitable habitat in North America, the
northern goshawk is a permanent resident. Some birds winter along the Pacific coast, in the southern
United States, and in northern Mexico (Terres 1980).
Goshawks generally arrive at their nesting territories in mid to late March (Cannings et al. 1987). They
appear to exhibit preference for particular areas, often using the same nest for several years or alternating
Crown Jewel Project BE 53 May 5,1995
-------
between two or more nests within the same territory (Reynolds 1983). Traditional nesting territories may
contain one to five nests (Jones 1979). The goshawk selects nest sites in mixed-conifer forest which
meet the following criteria: closed canopy (75 to 85 percent), moderate slope (15 to 35 percent), north or
east aspect, and within 1,600 feet of water (Hayward and Escano 1989). Nesting territories are generally
20 to 25 acres (Reynolds 1983). Nests are typically located in one of the larger trees on the site and are
frequently adjacent to small breaks in the canopy or openings in the understory (Reynolds et al. 1992).
Surveys conducted on the Okanogan National Forest found nest trees had a mean dbh of 27.5 inches
(Finn 1992).
Young goshawks fledge in June to early July (Bull and Hohmann 1993). Habitat use by adults and
fledglings is concentrated within a 300 to 600 acre post-fledgling family-area (PFA) (Reynolds et al. 1992).
The PFA provides fledglings with hiding cover from predators, protection from weather, and prey to
develop hunting skills. The family uses the area for approximately two months before the juveniles
disperse (Reynolds et al. 1992). The average home range for adult goshawks is 6,000 to 7,500 acres
(Reynolds 1983). According to Hayward et al. (1990), at least 1,500 to 6,000 acres of suitable foraging
habitat (depending on overall habitat quality) should be available within a goshawk's home range.
Goshawks typically hunt dense woodlands, clearings, and open fields, preying on a variety of birds and
mammals (Jones 1979, Reynolds and Meslow 1984, Bull and Hohmann 1993). Prey items taken can vary
seasonally, geographically, and by individual preference for specific prey (Jones 1979). Representative
food items which are found to be important prey species for goshawk include American robin (Turdus
migratorius), Steller's jay (Cyanocitta stellen], northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), common crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), ruffed grouse, snowshoe hare, and ground and pine squirrels (Jones 1979, Reynolds
and Meslow 1984). Prey items are plucked on top of stumps, fallen logs, rocks, or on large horizontal
limbs below the canopy (Reynolds et al. 1982).
Goshawk nest surveys within suitable habitat in the Core Area did not locate any nest sites, but
observations of three adult goshawks were recorded (A.G. Crook 1993). Although no nest sites were
located, the presence of adult birds suggests the overlap of a goshawk territory with a portion of the Core
Area. Three northern goshawk nest sites have been located within the Analysis Area (U.S. Forest Service
1991a, U.S. Forest Service 1992b).
TWHIP data and the Successional Stage Diversity Map were used to identify suitable goshawk habitat
within the Core Area. Approximately 614 acres of mature mixed conifer forest with at least 75 percent
canopy closure and within 0.25 mile of stream courses were identified which could provide suitable
nesting habitat for the goshawk (Figure 5). Another 2,509 acres were identified as potential PFA habitat.
Suitable foraging habitat (old-growth, young mature, and mature mixed conifer forest) within the Core Area
Crown Jewel Proiect BE 54 May 5.1995
-------
/
/ 8
/ z o
r l|i
j i's
V
V
f
OKANOGAN
NATIONAl
FOREST
SOURCE BEAK CONSULTANTS INCORPORATED
LEGEND
POTENTIAL GOSHAWK NESTING HABITAT
CORE AREA BOUNDARY
ANALYSIS AREA BOUNDARY
5500' 11000'
FIGURE H-5, POTENTIAL GOSHAWK NESTING HABITAT
FILENAME CJH-5 DWG
-------
totals approximately 5,076 acres. About 2,030 acres of suitable nesting habitat for the goshawk, is
present within the Analysis Area (Figure 5). Approximately 27,465 acres of old-growth, mature, and
young mature forest occur could provide potential PFAs and foraging habitat for goshawk within the
Analysis Area (inclusive of the Core Area). As indicated, the extent of suitable nesting habitat is the most
limited habitat component within the Core and Analysis areas. The availability of suitable nesting habitat is
considered the most limiting factor in the reproductive success of northern goshawks (Austin 1989, as
cited in U.S. Forest Service 1991b).
Based on the 72,700-acre Analysis Area and 10,962-acre Core Area, available foraging habitat in the Core
and Analysis areas, a goshawk home range size of 6,000 to 7,500 acres, and the need for 1,500 to 6,000
acres of suitable foraging habitat, the Core Area could support one nesting pair of goshawks, while the
Analysis Area (inclusive of the Core Area) could support from four to 12 nesting pairs.
4.11.1 Determination of Effects for Northern Goshawk
During mine construction and operation 79 to 146 acres of potential goshawk nesting habitat and 272 to
473 acres of PFAs would be affected beyond the direct disturbance areas by the influence of noise and
human presence (Table 5). Habitat losses resulting from noise and human influence would be relatively
short-term (except for Alternative F - 33 years) and last for the life of the mine operation. Direct impacts
from habitat removal in the pit, subsidence, waste rock disposal area, and tailings facilities areas would be
long-term. Long-term losses of nesting habitat and PFAs would range from 16 to 73 acres and 68 to 246
acres, respectively, depending on alternative (Table 5). Different reclamation scenarios could result in the
eventual restoration of suitable nesting habitat or PFAs over some of the disturbance areas, but at least
100 years following reclamation would be required for reforested areas to develop nesting/PFA stand
characteristics. Most other disturbance areas within the mine footprint could be reclaimed to habitat
suitable for goshawk foraging in a time period of less than 100 years. Two to 73 acres of nesting habitat
and 21 to 193 acres of PFAs could be permanently lost in pit, subsidence, waste rock, and tailings
embankment areas depending upon alternative and reclamation scenarios.
Noise and habitat disturbance could preclude nesting within suitable habitat near the mine area, or
otherwise adversely affect a breeding pair of goshawks. If construction was initiated after nesting had
begun, noise disturbance could cause nest abandonment, failed reproduction, or mortality of the young.
Because goshawk select nest sites based on a stand's overall characteristics (e.g., structure, size, and
extent), modification to even a portion of a stand where a nest site exists could cause goshawks to
abandon a nest stand (Reynolds 1983). Impacts from noise disturbance outside the breeding season
would likely displace goshawk from the mine footprint and additional areas of suitable adjacent habitat for
the life of the project. Nesting habitat and PFA losses are indicated in Table 5. Short-term and long-term
Crown Jewel Project BE 56 May 5, 1995
-------
Table 5
Northern Goshawk Habitat Losses
Alternative
B
C
D
E
F
G
Acres of Short-term Habitat Loss
(life-of-mine)
Nesting Habitat
144
146
139
145
102
79
PFA
361
272
311
473
420
430
Acres of Long-term Habitat Loss
(at least 100 years)
Nesting Habitat
73
65
64
64
47
16
PFA
193
68
110
246
214
239
Crown Jewel Project BE
57
May5,1995
-------
total habitat losses would be greatest for Alternative E and the least for Alternative C, although Alternative
G would result in the least extent of nesting habitat disturbance over the short and long-term.
The largest and most contiguous blocks of suitable goshawk habitat remaining within the Core Area occur
in the upper reaches of the Nicholson and Marias drainages. It is not known whether sufficient nesting
habitat exists outside of the potential disturbance zone for the establishment of an alternate nest site or
nesting territory. Long-term project-related habitat losses in these drainages could modify nest stands to
the extent that a nesting pair could no longer be supported, especially for Alternatives B through F.
Alternative G impacts the least amount of nesting habitat in this area and may only preclude nesting during
the period of project operation. Loss of a nesting pair could result in a population reduction ranging from 8
to 25 percent, assuming the Analysis Area can currently support four to 12 nesting pairs. A reduction in
nesting pairs over the long-term could reduce population viability within the Analysis Area.
The risk of toxic exposure of to northern goshawk to tailings pond waters would be negligible (Beak
1995). The size of the opening created by the tailings impoundment would not attract northern
goshawks. Indirect effects such as increased human presence, secondary development, and accidental
toxic spills also are not likely to result in any adverse effects to local goshawk populations. Human
presence in the Core and Analysis areas (apart from mine operations) would primarily be concentrated
around residential and developed recreational areas, although some use of more isolated areas could
occur. Most residential construction would occur in currently developed areas that are unsuitable for
goshawk. The risk of a goshawk drinking from a portion of a stream shortly after contamination by an
accidental spill would be low.
The cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities, especially timber
harvest has resulted in the conversion of late successional forest to early successional habitats and open
coniferous forest stands. This conversion has resulted from a 40 percent reduction of late successional
and old-growth forest, primarily in the western portion of the Analysis Area. It is unknown what effect this
habitat loss has had on Analysis Area populations of goshawk because information on population trends is
not available. It can be reasonably assumed, however, that reductions in suitable habitat have resulted in
population reductions. Proposed mining activities would remove additional incremental amounts of
potential northern goshawk habitat. Whether or not these additional losses would threaten goshawk
population viability within the Analysis Area is impossible to predict. If mining associated habitat losses
result in the loss of a nesting pair, population viability may well be reduced within the Analysis area. Trends
in the reduction of suitable habitats and corresponding reductions in goshawk populations would
continue if additional timber harvest in suitable habitats occur or until a sufficient extent of forested stands
are allowed to develop mature or old growth characteristics preferred by northern goshawk.
Crown Jewel Project BE 58 May 5,1995
-------
Determination of Effects Conclusion. Adverse effects of habitat loss and noise disturbance from
mining activities could reduce goshawk populations through displacement, nest abandonment, or
reduced productivity, especially over the short-term (6 to 10 years except for Alternative F - 33 years).
Habitat losses could potentially eliminate one goshawk nesting territory. Long-term effects (after mine
closure) of land alteration would not substantially reduce amounts of goshawk habitat but could impact
habitat quality, and therefore the distribution and density of goshawk populations in the Core and Analysis
areas. Historic losses of habitat could take as long as 100 years or more to recover and compensate for
mine-related habitat losses. Therefore, if habitat losses result in the loss of a breeding pair, those losses
mav 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.
4.12 Ferruginous Hawk
The ferruginous hawk inhabits shrub-steppe and grassland cover types within the semi-arid plains region
of the United States and the southern-most portion of the Canadian prairie (Snow 1981 a). It winters in the
southwest United States and south to Baja California and northern Mexico (Terres 1980, Evans 1982). In
Washington, the ferruginous hawk historically occurred in the southeast portion of the state (Bent 1937,
Jewettetal. 1953).
Ferruginous hawks nest in scattered, isolated trees, on cliffs and rock outcrops, or on the ground (Snow
1981 a, Woffinden and Murphy 1983). In the treeless Columbia Basin region of Washington, they nest in
high cliffs and basalt outcrops (Bechard et al. 1990). Ferruginous hawks are sensitive to human activity
and even slight disturbances may cause them to abandon nests (White and Thurow 1985).
Ferruginous hawks are diurnal foragers (Wakeley 1978). Although they hunt open areas and pastures
free of cover that would conceal prey, undisturbed (i.e., uncultivated) areas which provide habitat for prey
are an important habitat component (Wakeley 1978, Schmutz 1987, Schmutz 1989, Woffinden 1989,
Bechard et al. 1990). Ferruginous hawks primarily prey upon lagomorphs and rodents (Evans 1982).
Over most of its range, the black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus) is the hawk's primary prey item
(Howard and Wolfe 1976, Evans 1982, Woffinden 1989). In Washington, the northern pocket gopher
(Thomomys talpoides), ground squirrel (Spermophilus Washington!), western meadowlark (Sturnella
neglecta), yellow-bellied racer (Coluber constrictor), and bullsnake (Pituophis melanoleucus) are the most
frequently consumed food items of the ferruginous hawk (Fitzner et al. 1977).
No sightings of the ferruginous hawk are documented for the Core or Analysis Areas. Although it is
possible that they could occasionally visit the Okanogan Valley (approximately 16 miles west of the
Analysis Area), there are no substantiated reports of breeding there (Cannings et al. 1987). No recently
active nesting territories are known to occur north of Black Rock Coulee in Grant County (Friesz 1994).
Crown Jewel Project BE 59 May 5,1995
-------
There is no suitable or potential habitat for ferruginous hawks within either the Core or Analysis areas.
Extensive areas of flat or rolling sagebrush and grassland similar to currently occupied areas in
southeastern Washington are absent. The Core and Analysis areas are mountainous and primarily
forested. It is unlikely that the ferruginous hawk would occur there other than as an occasional visitor.
Therefore, no further analysis is provided for ferruginous hawk in this BE.
4.13 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 greater than 50
feet in height (Ehrlich et al. 1988) for protection from mammalian predators. Eyries are usually within 0.5
mile of riparian, lacustrine, or marine habitat that provide diverse and/or abundant prey (Pagel 1992).
Peregrines feed primarily on avian prey including doves, pigeons, upland birds, shorebirds, waterfowl,
and passerines which they capture in flight (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).
Peregrine falcon winter habitat needs are not well known along the Pacific Coast (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 organochlorine-induced eggshell thinning that
led to 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, recreational disturbance (e.g., rock climbing, hikers,
photographers) may induce desertion of the nest site and nest failure. The Pacific Coast Recovery Plan
(Pacific Coast American Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team 1982) for the peregrine falcon outlines the
steps for peregrine falcon management and habitat protection. The Recovery Plan identifies north-central
and northeastern Washington as management areas for the peregrine falcon. The Analysis Area is
included within a portion of a management unit which has been identified for potential occupancy by at
least one breeding pair.
Currently, 16 pairs of peregrine falcons are known to breed in Washington (Sharp 1992). Historic
peregrine falcon population information for eastern Washington is unknown or poorly documented (Allen
1992). Peregrines were known to successfully breed in the Okanogan Valley, British Columbia (Cannings
Crown Jewel Project BE 60 May 5, 1995
-------
et al. 1987) and were believed to have been present on the Okanogon National Forest (Pagel 1993).
Peregrine falcons may occasionally wander over the Analysis Area during migration.
There are no documented sightings of peregrines or known peregrine eyries or foraging areas in the Core
or Analysis areas (Swedberg 1994). Pagel (1993) identified two cliff sites in the Core Area that have
medium potential for peregrine falcon occupancy. These were defined by Pagel (1992) as cliffs that have
an acceptable level of potential occupancy, or are otherwise low potential cliffs with a possibility that a
nesting ledge is not visible or is suspected. The cliffs identified by Pagel are between 100 and 150 feet
tall and are located just south of Beaver Creek (T39N, R31 E, Sections 27, 28, and 29) and near Beth Lake
(T39N, R30E, Sections 23 and 24). The unique cliff habitat along Beaver Creek is identified in the
WADFW Priority Habitats and Species database (WADFW 1994a). The WADFW (1994a) identifies three
additional unique cliff habitats in the Analysis Area. These cliffs may provide potential peregrine nesting
habitat. The cliffs are located just north of Beaver Creek (T39N, R31 E, Sec. 20), on Porphyry Peak (T40N,
R30E, Sections 17 and 20), and east of Chesaw (T30N, R30E, Sections 21, 22 and 28).
4.13.1 Determination of Effects for Peregrine Falcon
No peregrine falcon breeding activity has been documented in or near the Core or Analysis areas, and
potential nesting habitat is limited. Peregrine falcons may occasionally wander over the Analysis area
during migration. The riparian corridors along Beaver Creek, Toroda Creek, and the Kettle River could
provide suitable foraging habitat for migrating birds. In the unlikely event that an accidental spill of process
chemicals or diesel fuel could affect these drainages, there is a remote chance that an individual falcon
could be exposed to these contaminants either through direct contact or consumption of tainted prey.
The chance of this exposure would be highly unlikely.
Potential peregrine falcon nesting habitat within the Analysis Area would not be physically altered or
disturbed by project construction or operation. Based on proposed activities and peregrine falcon habitat
requirements, the proposed mine development would have no effect on the conservation or recovery of
the species and would not result in modification or destruction of critical habitat.
4.14 Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse
The Columbian sharp-tailed grouse is a resident upland gamebird which historically occupied native
grasslands and shrub-steppe habitats throughout eastern Washington. Its current distribution includes
north Douglas, central Lincoln, and central Okanogan counties (Ashley 1992b). Preferred habitat is
grasslands on flat to rolling terrain with patches of sagebrush-grassland, mountain shrub, and riparian
communities (Ashley 1992b). Most habitats used throughout the year occur within 2 to 3 miles of leks
Crown Jewel Project BE 61 May 5,1995
-------
(Ashley 1992b). Sharp-tailed grouse leks (traditional courtship and mating sites) are usually located on
barren areas with little or no vegetation (Terres 1980, Ashley et al. 1990).
Sharp-tailed grouse nest in areas of tall, dense grass and avoid areas that are heavily grazed by livestock
(Ashley 1992b). Residual grass is important in providing cover for the nest. The nests are built on the
ground beneath clumps of bunchgrass or near shrub cover (Ashley et al. 1990). Brooding occurs in areas
of dense grass and forbs with less than 30 percent shrub cover (Klott and Lindzey 1990). Sharp-tailed
grouse feed primarily on the leaves and flowers of grasses and forbs during spring, summer, and fall,
although their diet also includes insects in summer and fall (Ashley et al. 1990). Chicks feed mostly on
insects (Terres 1980). During September, sharp-tailed grouse gather into large coveys for the winter
(Cannings et al. 1987). Preferred wintering habitat is undisturbed riparian areas, usually within 1 mile of
leks (Ashley 1992b). They roost in snow burrows when snow is deep and use trees and tall shrubs when
snow is shallow or crusted (Marks and Marks 1988, Ashley 1992b). Their winter diet includes buds, twigs,
and fruit from water birch (Betula occidentalis), cottonwood, aspen, willows, serviceberry, snowberry, and
common chokecherry (Prunus virginianus) (Klott and Lindzey 1990, Ashley 1992b).
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse are not documented for the Core or Analysis Areas. However, sharp-tailed
grouse and leks are known to occur about 1.5 miles west of the Analysis Area (Shroeder 1994a, Shroeder
1994b, WADFW 1994a). The WADFW is currently monitoring the sharp-tailed grouse which occur west of
the Analysis Area. Initial results indicate that grouse occupy sites located 0.5 to 3 miles west of Myers
Creek (Shroeder 1994a). The habitats used by this group of sharp-tailed grouse contain shrubs such as
Wood's rose (Rosa woodsii); sagebrush is not common in the area. Areas of rolling topography away from
grazing are preferred and steep slopes are generally not used (Shroeder 1994b).
Approximately 1,675 acres of upland grassland and 96 acres of shrub cover type are present within the
Core Area. These cover types are generally interspersed within forested areas and do not form extensive
blocks of habitat. About 467 acres of upland grassland cover type form a nearly contiguous block of
habitat in the extreme northwest portion of the Core Area. Sharp-tailed grouse may have historically
occurred in this area (Shroeder 1994b). Currently, approximately 347 acres within this area are moderately
to heavily grazed and managed as pasture or hayfields. These areas do not provide the dense grass
cover required for nesting. The remaining 120 acres of grassland are not adequately extensive to provide
suitable nesting or brooding areas for sharp-tailed grouse. Although riparian areas (185 acres) within this
grassland area could provide winter cover and forage, they occur along established roads and are subject
to frequent disturbance
Crown Jewel Pro]ect BE 62 May 5,1995
-------
Approximately 311 acres of riparian and 2,324 acres of the grass/shrub/steppe land types are present
along Myers Creek within the Analysis Area (exclusive of the Core Area). This area is within 1.5 miles of
known leks and could provide potential habitat for local populations of sharp-tailed grouse.
4.14.1 Determination of Effects for Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse
With project development, potential sharp-tailed grouse habitat (approximately 12 acres of
riparian/wetland and 72 acres of upland grassland cover type) would be lost to the proposed Starrem
Reservoir. Noise disturbance from heavy equipment and blasting, and human presence during
construction of the water reservoir would impact upland grassland and riparian/wetland cover types near
the reservoir site. During the mine operation period, noise and human presence at the reservoir site
would be reduced to occasional low level disturbance during maintenance and inspection.
Water for use in mine operations would be diverted from Myers Creek downstream of the current
agricultural diversions and pumped into the reservoir. Wetland/riparian habitat at the reservoir site may be
enhanced during operations by the more consistent presence of water, while wetland/riparian habitat
below the diversion may be negatively impacted since spring runoff and episodes of high flow would be
reduced downstream of the diversion. After mine operations have been completed, the reservoir would
be drained, top-soiled, and seeded. Reclamation would return the reservoir site to pasture and the pre-
existing hydrology of Myers Creek would be restored.
Sharp-tailed grouse have not been observed using suitable habitat within the Core Area, but sharp-tailed
grouse and leks have been documented 4 miles southwest of the reservoir site. It is possible that sharp-
tailed grouse could occasionally use of the proposed reservoir area. Disturbance during construction
would displace sharp-tailed grouse from the immediate area. The proposed Starrem Reservoir site has
been moderately to heavily grazed by livestock and is too disturbed to provide preferred habitat for sharp-
tailed grouse. Wetland/riparian areas along Myers Creek are currently disturbed and are not known to be
used as wintering habitat by sharp-tailed grouse. Therefore, impacts to possible sharp-tailed grouse use
of the reservoir area and wintering habitat along Myers Creek would be negligible.
The transportation route leading to the mine facilities would pass through Chesaw and cross Myers Creek
in Alternatives C and G. A potential exists for an accidental spill of toxins into Myers Creek; however, the
likelihood of such an event would be low. If a toxic spill did occur, concentrations of cyanide into Myers
Creek would be acutely lethal to sharp-tailed grouse exposed to the spill (Beak 1995). Concentrations of
ammonium nitrate and lime also would result in adverse impacts to grouse. Although local populations of
sharp-tailed grouse are not known to winter in riparian habitat along Myers Creek, some use may occur,
and individuals could be lost to a spill during the winter.
Crown Jewel Project BE 63 May 5, 1995
-------
Past human settlement, fire suppression, livestock grazing and agriculture have cumulatively adversely
impacted sharp-tailed grouse habitat in the Analysis Area through modification and conversion. Grazing
and agriculture are expected to continue at present levels into the reasonably foreseeable future.
Proposed mining activities would have minor incremental impacts on potential sharp-tailed grouse habitat
but would not impact any individuals or currently occupied habitats.
Determination of Effects Conclusion. Columbian sharp-tailed grouse have not been documented
within the Core Area, although suitable habitat is present along Myers Creek. Any birds present could be
impacted by noise disturbance during construction of Starrem Reservoir. Habitat alterations would be
short-term and are not expected to substantially modify use of the Core Area. Cumulative effects relative
to land use and disturbance are not expected to have major impacts on habitat. Therefore, project
development could result in minor reductions of potential habitat but would not cause a trend toward
federal listing or a loss of viability of sharp-tailed grouse.
4.15 Long-billed Curlew
The long-billed curlew is a neotropical migrant which breeds from southwestern Canada to Texas and
winters in the southwestern United States to Guatemala (Terres 1980). Locally it is an early spring migrant
arriving in Okanogan County in late March to April; it is seldom seen in the area after July (Cannings et al.
1987). During migration, long-billed curlews frequent lake shores, seacoasts, fresh and salt water
marshes, and rivers, feeding upon crayfish, small crabs, snails, and amphibians (Terres 1980). 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). It appears that nesting habitat selection is associated with agricultural
fields (Pampush 1980).
Long-billed curlews prefer short grassland cover types for nesting and avoid areas of tall, dense cover
(Pampush 1980). Optimal nesting habitat appears to be in areas of annual grasses with few shrubs
(Melland 1977, Pampush 1980). Nest territories range from 15 to 50 acres (Allen 1980). During the
nesting period, curlews spend a majority of their time on the breeding grounds and away from water
(Cannings et al. 1987). Areas of annual grass and fresh cut alfalfa fields are preferred foraging areas,
although bunchgrass habitat is also used (Pampush 1980). Dense forb habitat is avoided because it
hampers movements of chicks (Pampush 1980). Curlews forage extensively on grasshoppers, as well as
other insects, while on the breeding grounds (Melland 1977, Pampush 1980, Terres 1980).
No occurrences of long-billed curlews are documented for either the Core or Analysis areas.
Observations of curlews have been made in the vicinity of Molson, Washington, approximately 7 miles
west of the Analysis Area (Friesz 1994). Nesting of long-billed curlews also is suspected in the Aeneas
Valley in Okanogan County (Forest Service file information).
Crown Jewel Project BE 64 May 5, 1995
-------
Approximately 453 acres of grassland in the extreme northwest portion of the Core Area are potential
habitat for the long-billed curlew. Within 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.
4.15.1 Determination of Effects for Long-billed Curlew
The proposed Starrem Reservoir would eliminate approximately 72 acres of potential long-billed curlew
nesting and foraging habitat provided by the upland grassland cover type. No other potentially suitable
curlew habitat would be affected by mine development. The reservoir site would be restored to curlew
habitat following reclamation, and no permanent loss of curlew habitat would occur. During construction of
the reservoir, noise from heavy equipment and blasting could impact upland grass cover type surrounding
the site. Following the 1-year construction period, disturbance during the following years of operations
would be reduced to low level noise and human presence at the site during maintenance and inspections.
Shoreline and adjacent mud flats that develop around the reservoir edge could provide foraging habitat
for curlew during operations. Dewatered agricultural fields adjacent to the Lost Creek Well would become
pasture and also provide potential curlew habitat. Following mine operations, fallow agricultural fields
would be returned to cultivation.
Although the long-billed curlew habitat use has not been documented in the Core Area, suitable habitat
does exist. Disturbance during construction of the reservoir may displace curlews; however, low-level
disturbance concentrated along roads and the reservoir site and short-term conversion of some
agricultural fields to upland pasture would not appreciably modify long-billed curlew use of the area. No
long-term or permanent loss of habitat would occur. No toxic effects on the curlew are likely. Curlews
would not be attracted to the tailings pond due to its location within forest habitat and the distance to
suitable upland grassland cover type. Curlews are not known to occur along Beaver Canyon, Toroda
Creek, or Myers Creek, and the likelihood of exposure to an accidental spill in these drainages would be
very low. However, if curlews were exposed to toxic substances in the event of an accidental spill, sodium
cyanide would be acutely lethal for a period of several days (Beak 1995). Concentrations of ammonium
nitrate and lime also would adversely impact curlews. Long-billed curlews drinking from diesel
contaminated water would not be subjected to lethal levels (Beak 1995), but birds coming in direct contact
with a surface diesel film could die as a result of ingestion from preening or a loss of insulation from oil
coated feathers.
It is unknown whether long-billed curlews historically occupied the Analysis Area. Nonetheless, past
human settlement, fire suppression, livestock grazing and agriculture have had a cumulative adverse
Crown Jewel Project BE 65 May 5, 1995
-------
impact on long-billed curlew through conversion and modification of formerly suitable habitat in the
Analysis Area. Grazing and agriculture are expected to continue at present levels into the reasonably
foreseeable future. Proposed mining activities would have minor incremental impacts on potential curlew
habitat but would not impact any individuals or currently occupied habitats.
Determination of Effects Conclusion. The long-billed curlew is not documented for the Core or
Analysis areas, but suitable habitat does exist. If curlews do occur in the areas, mine development could
impact individual curlews, but the proposed action would not likely cause a trend toward federal listing or a
loss of viability for long-billed curlew.
4.16 Black Tern
The black tern is a neotropical migrant that breeds in temperate North America and winters in South
America. It arrives in Okanogan County the latter half of May and departs by the first week of September
(Cannings et al. 1987). Standing water with emergent vegetation is a critical component of black tern
foraging and nesting habitat.
Black terns forage over open water, marshes, and wet meadows. They feed on aquatic insects, beetles,
spiders, juvenile frogs, fish, crayfish, and mollusks (Ehrlich et al. 1988, Stern 1993). Black terns nest in
marshes near open water and are known to fly half a mile from the nest site to feed (Stern 1993). Nests are
placed on muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) lodges and feeding platforms, meadow grasses or sedges,
floating platforms of old vegetation, and abandoned grebe (Podiceps spp.) nests (Bergman et al. 1970,
Stern 1987, Stern 1993). They do not nest in dense tules. Some studies of nesting habitat of the black
tern infer that concealment is not a habitat requirement since nests are often placed on open water with no
surrounding vegetation (Bergman et al. 1970, Stern, 1993). Black terns apparently prefer emergent
vegetation surrounding floating nests to reduce wind and wave action. Region-wide declines are largely
due to the decline in wetland habitat. Reports of low nest success in the midwest may be attributed to
agricultural chemicals (Ehrlich et al. 1988).
The transportation corridor portion of the Core Area contains eight bodies of open water which are
suitable habitat for black terns. At least five breeding pairs are known to occur on Beaver and Little Beaver
Lakes (Friesz 1994). It is likely they use adjacent lakes for feeding. Two other ponds which occur within
the central portion of the Core Area are not suitable breeding habitat due to their small size, dense
forested perimeter, or lack of emergent vegetation. They are greater than 1 mile from known nest sites
and therefore are unlikely to be used for foraging. No other sightings of black terns are reported for the
Analysis Area.
Crown Jewel Project BE 66 May 5,1995
-------
4.16.1 Determination of Effects for Black Tern
No direct loss of suitable black tern nesting or foraging habitat would occur within the Core or Analysis
areas from project development. However, terns on Beaver and Little Beaver Lakes would be exposed to
direct disturbance impacts from light and glare, roads, and noise. Noise attenuation modeling results
indicate that increases in noise from facility construction and mine operation would not adversely impact
terns in Beaver Creek Canyon (Beak 1995). Terns would likely acclimate to the moderate increases in
traffic noise and associated light in the transportation corridor. Although terns would not nest or forage on
the tailings impoundment area, they may investigate the pond or rest there for a short period of time. If a
black tern wandered onto the tailings impoundment, projected concentrations of metals and cyanide in
the tailings water would not have a detrimental effect on black terns (Beck 1995). Birds drinking tailings
water with high ammonia concentrations could become sick and remain on the tailings pond, thereby
increasing exposure time to low levels of cyanide and metals. Increased exposure duration could lead to a
low risk of adverse impact from cyanide and metals. A low risk indicates that a small number of mortalities
could occur, but the number of mortalities are not predicted to be significant.
Terns on Beaver and Little Beaver Lakes would be indirectly affected by slight increases in human
presence throughout the project vicinity. Increased recreational use (e.g., fishing, boating) could have
minor negative impacts on terns in Beaver Creek Canyon, particularly during the breeding season (May-
September). For example, disturbance to nesting terns may cause nest abandonment and/or failure.
In the remote event of an accidental spill, a release of sodium cyanide into Beaver Creek (Alternatives B,
D, E, and F) would be acutely lethal to black terns (Beak 1995). A Beaver Creek spill would dilute to
nonlethal levels in Beth and Beaver Lakes. Adverse impacts from a spill of ammonium nitrate or lime also
would occur. Concentrations of these toxins would remain highly lethal to aquatic life downstream of the
spill site to the confluence with the Kettle River, thus impacting the food supply of terns. Terns do not
occur along Toroda Creek or Myers Creek, therefore, an accidental spill into these drainages would have
no effect on black terns.
A spill of diesel fuel also would result in mortalities of fish and aquatic invertebrates, also rendering habitat
unsuitable for foraging terns. Most of a spill in Beaver Creek would be contained in the ponds along the
creek and losses of fish and aquatic invertebrates below the ponds would be low. Black terns drinking
from diesel contaminated water would not be subjected to lethal levels (Beak 1995), but birds coming in
direct contact with a surface diesel film could die as a result of ingestion from preening or a loss of
insulation from oil coated feathers.
Crown Jewel Project BE 67 May 5, 1995
-------
With any of the spill scenarios that could affect black terns in the Beaver Creek drainage, impacts would
result in the loss of individual terns and a short-term reduction in suitable habitat. Recovery of water quality
and prey populations would be relatively rapid as long as appropriate spill response and clean-up
measures are implemented.
Black terns have apparently expanded their distribution in the Okanogan Highlands in recent years in spite
of recreational development and use of lakes in Beaver Canyon. As a result, past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable future actions are considered to be cumulatively minor for the black tern.
Potential disturbance to terns resulting from increased recreational activity and human presence in Beaver
Canyon would constitute a minor incremental impact. The development of the pit lake in Alternatives B, D,
and G may not create additional foraging habitat for black tern since it is projected that silver and cadmium
concentrations in the pit waters may reach levels toxic to fish and other aquatic life.
Determination of Effects Conclusion. Increases in human disturbance following project
development would have minor adverse effects on the black tern The potential for adverse impact is
associated primarily with the extremely low risk of a spill of toxic chemicals or diesel fuel into Beaver Creek.
A spill occurring during the breeding season could be acutely lethal if terns are exposed. Tern habitat may
be rendered unsuitable for a year or more following a spill due to the highly lethal effects of toxins to
aquatic life. Only a few breeding pairs of black terns are known to occur in the project vicinity, and the
availability of suitable tern habitat is limited. The loss of a breeding pair of terns due to a toxic spill may
result in a short-term local population decline. The effects would not be long-term because suitable
habitat conditions would eventually be recovered. Although project development may impact individual
black terns or pairs, it is not likely to result in a trend towards federal listing or a loss of viability for black tern.
4.17 Northern Spotted Owl
The northern spotted owl is resident in western and central Washington. According to the Interagency
Scientific Committee to Address the Conservation of the Northern Spotted Owl (1990), habitats selected
by northern spotted owls typically exhibit moderate to high canopy closure; a multi-layered, multi-species
canopy dominated by large overstory trees; a high incidence of large trees with cavities, broken tops, and
other indications of decadence; numerous large snags; heavy accumulations of logs and other woody
debris on the forest floor; and considerable open space within and beneath the canopy. These attributes
are usually found in old-growth stands. They may sometimes occur in younger forests that contain
remnant large trees or patches of large trees from earlier stands.
The eastern limit of the range of the species is considered to be the Chewuch River and Methow River,
about 50 miles west of the Core Area (Naney 1993). 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
Crown Jewel Project BE 68 May 5,1995
-------
designated range and the Analysis Area. No further analysis will be provided for northern spotted owl in
this BE
4.18 Olive-sided Flycatcher
The olive-sided flycatcher is a neotropical migrant songbird that is widespread in open, mature stands of
coniferous forest from the Rocky Mountains westward. In the Okanogan Valley, this flycatcher is found in
the wetter subalpine and Columbian forests more often than in the drier Douglas-fir forests of the valley
(Cannings et al. 1987). Foraging habitat consists of mature forest in the Cascades, various-aged stands in
the Blue Mountains, and broken canopy or openings with high hunting perches provided by live trees or
snags (Sharp 1992). The species is known to use burns and clearings, including clearcuts, for foraging.
Olive-sided flycatchers select older stands for nesting in the Blue Mountains and mature and old-growth
stands in the Cascades (Sharp 1992). Diet consists of flying insects captured by hawking. Feeding and
advertising behavior is characterized by conspicuous perching near the top of dominant trees or snags in
the landscape.
Olive-sided flycatchers occur in the Analysis Area and Core Area. The species was recorded on USFWS
Breeding Bird Surveys along Beaver and Toroda Creeks in 1993 and 1994 (Stepniewski 1993, 1994).
The Core Area provides abundant potential habitat represented by the mixed conifer mature cover type,
which is interspersed with natural and man-made openings, providing edge habitat for foraging. The
Analysis Area contains suitable habitat in the coniferous land type.
4.18.1 Determination of Effects for Olive-sided Flycatcher
Proposed mining activities would cause the loss of nesting and foraging habitat during operations.
However, suitable habitat resulting from reclamation would exceed that currently available. Abundant
forest edge would be created, some permanent, and open conifer forest would develop on most
reclaimed facilities sites, providing suitable flycatcher habitat 60 to 100 years after reclamation. Short-term
habitat loss could affect some individuals, but would not contribute to a loss of population viability or a
trend toward federal listing for olive-sided flycatcher.
4.19 Little Willow Flycatcher
The little willow flycatcher occurs along wooded stream bottoms and in deciduous thickets and wet
shrubby meadows. East of the Cascades, the species occurs in riparian habitats and in dry shrubby
uplands in eastern Washington (Sharp 1992). In the Okanogan Valley, the willow flycatcher prefers to
nest in deciduous shrubs and trees in riparian thickets at lower elevations. However, nests have been
recorded in deciduous brush associated with water at elevations up to 5,500 feet (Cannings et al. 1987).
Crown Jewel Project BE 69 May 5,1995
-------
Diet consists of flying insects, seeds and caterpillars. Foraging behavior includes hawking and gleaning.
Nests are placed in willows or shrubs usually near the ground. Studies indicate that little willow flycatchers
are heavily parasitized by cowbirds in the Okanogan Valley (Cannings et al. 1987).
The willow flycatcher occurs in riparian willows along Myers Creek, Beaver Creek, Toroda Creek, and the
lowest reaches of Marias and Nicholson Creeks in the Analysis Area. The only portion of the Core Area
where willow flycatchers occur is along Myers Creek. The willow flycatcher was recorded on USFWS
Breeding Bird Surveys along Beaver and Toroda Creeks in 1993 and 1994 (Stepniewski 1993, 1994).
Willow flycatcher habitat is represented by riparian/wetland cover type along Myers Creek in the Core Area,
and by riparian/wetland/open water land type in the Analysis Area.
4.19.1 Determination of Effects for Little Willow Flycatcher
Riparian habitat suitable for willow flycatcher nesting and foraging (i.e., willow thickets and riparian shrubs)
occurs only along Myers Creek, Beaver Canyon, and Toroda Creek. These areas would not be physically
altered during operations. However, wetland/riparian habitat at the reservoir site may be enhanced during
operations by the more consistent presence of water, while wetland/riparian habitat below the diversion
may be negatively impacted since spring runoff and episodes of high flow would be reduced downstream
of the diversion. After mine operations have been completed, the reservoir would be drained, top-soiled,
and seeded. Suitable riparian habitat does not occur for willow flycatchers at the tailings impoundment
sites in the headwaters of Marias or Nicholson Creeks. Disturbance from project construction would not
affect the species or its habitat.
Indirect impacts due to secondary development and minor population increases would likewise have no
effect on the willow flycatcher. An accidental spill of sodium cyanide into Beaver or Toroda Creek would
be acutely lethal to the willow flycatcher (Beak 1995). A Beaver Creek spill would dilute to nonlethal levels
in Beth and Beaver Lakes. A Toroda Creek spill would remain lethal until dilution with the Kettle River.
Adverse impacts from a spill of ammonium nitrate or cement/lime also would occur. Under Alternative C
and G, the risk of toxic spill exists solely within Myers Creek. The potential adverse impacts of ammonium
nitrate would remain until diluted in the Kettle River. A cyanide spill would cause lethal impacts to the
willow flycatcher for several miles downstream. A spill of lime would increase pH with the potential of
adverse impacts until dilution with the Kettle River. Willow flycatchers drinking from diesel contaminated
water would not be subjected to lethal levels (Beak 1995), but birds coming in direct contact with a surface
diesel film could die as a result of ingestion from preening or a loss of insulation from oil coated feathers.
Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future cumulative effects on willow flycatcher are considered
minor because they are still common along riparian systems in the Analysis Area in spite of degradation of
habitat through timber harvest, grazing, and road-building. Proposed mining activities would have no
Crown Jewel Project BE 70 May 5,1995
-------
adverse effect on willow flycatcher habitat, although minor positive and negative alternations in
wetland/riparian habitat.
Determination of Effects Conclusion. Proposed mining activities would have very little impact on
the willow flycatcher. The potential for adverse impact is associated primarily with the extremely low risk of
a spill of toxic chemicals or diesel fuel into drainages occupied by willow flycatcher. In the event of an
accidental spill, exposure to sodium cyanide, ammonium nitrate, cement/lime, and diesel fuel could cause
mortality to individuals. However, mine development would not result in a trend toward federal listing or a
loss of viability for little willow flycatcher. Wetland mitigation required for replacement of lost
wetland/riparian habitats could create additional areas of suitable habitat for little willow flycatcher
depending on the wetland vegetation communities established.
4.20 Spotted Frog
The spotted frog is found from Alaska to northern California and eastward to Wyoming, Montana, and Utah
(Leonard et al. 1993). It is widespread east of the Cascade Mountains in Washington (Rodrick and Milner
1991). The spotted frog inhabits the marshy edges of ponds, lakes, and streams which contain dense
emergent vegetation and a thick underwater layer of decaying material or thick algal growth (Nussbaum et
al. 1983). Highly aquatic, they generally stay within a few feet of permanent water, moving farther during or
shortly after rain (Rodrick and Milner 1991). Spotted frogs hibernate in muddy or highly saturated
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 with as much as half of
the egg mass exposed to the air. 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
disperse up to 2 miles, following watercourses until a permanent source of water is found (Hayes 1994).
Wildlife surveys confirmed that the spotted frog inhabits the headwaters of Nicholson Creek, a pond along
Beaver Creek, and a perennial pond in the Core Area (Beak 1995). The spotted frog is also likely to occur
in suitable habitat along Marias, Toroda, and Nicholson creeks.
4.20.1 Determination of Effects for Spotted Frog
Project development would result in the loss of 82 to 127 acres of riparian/wetland habitat during project
operations (a 9 to 14 percent reduction in the Core Area). A portion of this habitat would be permanently
converted to upland habitat due to construction of the tailings facility in Marias or Nicholson creek.
Crown Jewel Project BE 71 May 5, 1995
-------
Alternative C would impact the smallest extent of riparian wetland habitat, while Alternative G would impact
the greatest extent. In addition, the 3-acre Frog Pond would be buried under the waste rock pile in
Alternative G, resulting in additional permanent loss of spotted frog foraging and breeding habitat.
Construction of the tailings facility could displace spotted frogs and result in direct mortality. With
Alternative B, D, E, and F, construction of the waste rock disposal areas would alter the hydrology of the
Frog Pond during operations. The pond's open water component would be slightly reduced during
operation but would be restored following reclamation. Existing wetland vegetation in the Frog Pond
would not be substantially altered by mining operations Therefore, suitable foraging and breeding habitat
at the Frog Pond should be unaffected by project-related activities.
Spotted frogs in or near the proposed mine footprint would be directly impacted by increased light, glare,
and noise Light, glare, and noise could adversely affect frog activities, but effects to populations would
be localized and minor. Increased traffic levels during mine operations would increase the incidence of
roadkill; however, impacts to local spotted frog populations would remain low. Toxic contaminants in the
tailing pond should pose no direct hazard to the spotted frog since a fence surrounding the pond would
exclude most amphibians.
Spotted frogs may be indirectly impacted by project-associated disturbance such as human presence,
secondary development, and an accidental spill of toxic chemicals during transport. Additional permanent
housing units would be built to accommodate the population growth. Expected human population
increases related to project development would increase the demand on available water, potentially
lowering the water table level and causing the loss or alteration of existing wetlands. Given the small
incremental population increase expected and its wide distribution, such an impact is unlikely. An
accidental breach of the tailings pond liner, or a spill of sodium cyanide, ammonium nitrate, cement/lime,
and diesel into Beaver or Toroda Creek could occur. Accidental spills could eliminate spotted frogs along
portions of the affected drainage until cleanup and habitat recovery is completed. Population and habitat
losses would be relatively short-term as long as appropriate spill response and clean-up measures are
implemented. The likelihood of a liner breach or spill occurring is extremely low.
Although Starrem Reservoir would provide temporary open water habitat during operations, it would not
develop characteristics (e.g., emergent vegetation, the proper substrate) required by spotted frogs. The
proposal to cease water withdrawal from Myers Creek when flow rates are reduced to critical levels would
protect spotted frog habitat along the creek. However, diversion of water from Myers Creek may have
minor adverse impacts to wetland/riparian habitat below the diversion since spring runoff and episodes of
high flow would be reduced downstream of the diversion. The development of the pit lake in Alternatives
Crown Jewel Project BE 72 May 5,1995
-------
B, D, and G may not create additional habitat for spotted frog since it is projected that silver and cadmium
concentrations in the pit waters may reach levels toxic to fish and other aquatic life.
Although past human activities (e.g., timber harvest, grazing, road-building) have resulted in cumulative
degradation of riparian habitats, spotted frogs are well distributed across the Analysis Area. A local
population decline would be expected in the Core Area as a result of habitat loss, but it would be a minor
incremental impact when placed in the context of the Analysis Area population.
Determination of Effects Conclusion. Habitat loss and increases in light and glare, road traffic, and
noise would have only minor adverse impacts on the spotted frog. Increases in human presence and
secondary development may contribute additional minor impacts. A tailings pond liner breach or
accidental spill of toxic process chemicals would also adversely affect populations along the portions of
affected drainages, but the risk for these events would be extremely low. Project development would
directly impact occupied wetland/riparian habitats, but habitat losses would be compensated by required
wetland mitigation. Although project development would impact individuals and localized populations, it is
unlikely to result in a trend towards federal listing or a loss of viability for spotted frog since populations are
well distributed across the Analysis Area.
Crown Jewel Project BE 73 May 5,1995
-------
5.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS SUMMARY
Proposed mining activities would result in additional minor losses of suitable or potential habitat for Forest
Service sensitive, federal and state candidate, and federally listed wildlife species. These habitat losses,
in conjunction with past land use/disturbance impacts, can be considered incremental additions to
significant cumulative impacts across a species' range that have already led to their status as sensitive,
candidate, threatened, or endangered. Past impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat have resulted primarily
from timber harvest activities which have reduced the extent of late successional forest and increased the
acreage of early successional habitats and open coniferous forest stands. Additionally, road
development, in conjunction with harvest activities, has reduced the extent of secure habitats for
sensitive species such as lynx and wolverine.
Reasonably foreseeable future actions include additional timber harvests (Wheaton and Coogan).
According to the Environmental Assessment prepared for the Nicholson Timber Sale (U.S. Forest Service
1992c), harvest activities would result in additional losses in mature forest habitat for species such as
northern goshawk Reductions in secure habitats and mature forested stands also would occur with
future harvests. However, harvest in disease infected stands would eventually improve stand health and
result in trends toward improved stand diversity. Additional roads would be created but likely closed after
harvest activities. The BE prepared for Nicholson project reached "no effect" or "not likely to adversely
affect" conclusions for all PETS species evaluated.
Development of the Crown Jewel Project would result in short-term losses of forested habitats and
conversion of some areas of mature and old growth stands to grass, shrublands, or more open coniferous
forest over the long-term (100 years or more). Because of the current roaded condition of the proposed
mine area, mine development would not result in any reduction in existing secure habitats within the Core
or Analysis areas. Road densities would be decreased after mine closure once reclamation is completed.
Human population change associated with mine development could result in minor incremental increases
in recreational use of the Analysis Area, causing a slight increase in the risk for human disturbance of
sensitive wildlife species.
Conclusions reached in the previous sections on determination of effects (Section 4.0, BE - Step 3)
provide the basis for assigning a cumulative impact determination to each species evaluated. As indicated
in the previous sections, the incremental impact of the mine was determined to be relatively minor for all
species except the northern goshawk. The potential loss of one nesting goshawk pair could contribute to
a loss of population viability within the Analysis Area, especially when considering past and reasonably
foreseeable impacts to goshawk from other land management activities. The cumulative effects of the
action alternatives on candidate bats cannot be predicted with certainty due to a lack of regional
Crown Jewel Project BE 74 May 5,1995
-------
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.
Crown Jewel Project BE 75 May 5 1995
-------
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
Proposed mining activities would result in some losses of suitable or potential habitat for several Forest
Service sensitive, candidate, and federally listed wildlife species listed on Table 1. 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 led to their status as sensitive, candidate,
threatened, or endangered. Proposed mitigation does not fully compensate for the potential habitat
losses
An accidental spill of 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 eagle 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 a 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-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.
Crown Jewel Project BE 76 May 5,1995
-------
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, except 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 three 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, and bald eagle.
Crown Jewel Pro|ect BE 77 May 5,1995
-------
7.0 LITERATURE CITED
A.G. Crook Co. 1992. Biological Evaluation for the Crown Jewel exploration project, amendment to June
1990 report, September 9, 1992.
A.G. Crook Co. 1993. Northern Goshawk Survey Report, Crown Jewel Project, July 20, 1993.
Allen, A.W. 1983. Habitat suitability index models: Fisher. USDI Fish and Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-
82/10.45.
Allen, H. 1992. Status and management of the peregrine falcon in Washington. Pages 72-74 in J.E.
Pagel, ed. Proceedings symposium on peregrine falcons in the Pacific Northwest, January 1991.
Rogue River Nat. For. 125 pp.
Allen, J.N. 1980. The ecology and behavior of the long-billed curlew in southeastern Washington. Wildl.
Mono. 73. 67 pp.
Almack, J.A. 1986a. North Cascades grizzly bear project annual report 1986. Wash. Dept. Game,
Olympia, WA. 31 pp
Almack, J.A. 1986b. Grizzly bear habitat use, food habits, and movements in the Selkirk Mountains,
northern Idaho. Pages 150-157 in Proceedings - Grizzly bear habitat symposium, Missoula,
Montana, April 30 - May 2, 1985. Contreras, G.P. and K.E. Evans, compilers. USDA Forest Service,
Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-207.
Almack, J.A. 1994. Personal communication with R. Floyd (Beak), November 1, 1994.
Almack, J.A., W.L. Gaines, R.H. Naney, P.H. Morrison, J.R. Eby, G.F. Woolen, M.C. Snyder, S.H. Fitkin,
and E.R. Garcia. 1993. North Cascades grizzly bear ecosystem evaluation; final report. Interagency
Grizzly Bear Committee, Denver, CO. 156 pp.
Anthony, R.G., R.L. Knight, and G.T. Allen, B.R. McClelland, and J.I. Hodges. 1982. Habitat use by
nesting and roosting bald eagles in the Pacific Northwest. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Res. Conf.
47:332-342.
Ashley, P. 1992a. Grand Coulee Dam wildlife mitigation program pygmy rabbit programmatic management
plan. Douglas County, WA. Bonneville Power Admin. Portland, OR. 87pp.
Ashley, P. 1992b. Sharp-tailed grouse management plan: Columbia River wildlife mitigation, Grand
Coulee Dam Project. Bonneville Power Administration, Div. Fish and Wildl. 88 pp.
Ashley, P. et al. 1990. Sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasinnellus). Unpublished HEP models,
Wash. Dept. Wildl., Olympia, WA. 5 pp.
Aulman, D.L. 1992. The impacts and pressures on West Coast peregrines. Pages 55-65 in J.E. Pagel,
ed. Proceedings symposium on peregrine falcons in the Pacific Northwest, January 1991. Rogue
River Nat. For. 125pp.
Banci, V. 1994. Wolverine. Pages 99-127 in Ruggiero, L.F., Aubry, K.B., Buskirk, S.W., Lyon, L.J.,
Zielinski, W.J., tech. eds. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten,
fisher, lynx and wolverine in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. Ft. Collins, CO.
USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 184 pp.
Crown Jewel Project BE 78 May 5, 1995
-------
Banfield, A.W.F. 1974 Mammals of Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada.
Barbour, R.W. and W.H. Davis. 1969. Bats of America. Univ. Press of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.
286 pp.
Battle Mountain Gold Company (BMG). 1993. Integrated Plan of Operations, Crown Jewel Joint Venture
Project. Battle Mountain Gold Company and Crown Resources Corporation, Okanogan County, WA.
Baumgardner, P. 1994. Biological Technician, Tonasket Ranger District, USDA Forest Service.
Telephone conversation with Dale Lindeman (Beak), March 16, 1994.
Beak Consultants Incorporated. 1995. Crown Jewel Project Wildlife Technical Report. Unpublished
report submitted to the U.S. Forest Service, Tonasket Ranger District.
Bechard, M.J., R.L. Knight, D.G. Smith, and R.E. Fitzner. 1990. Nest sites of sympatric hawks (Buteo
spp.) in Washington. J. Field Ornithol. 61 (2):159-170.
Bent, A.C. 1937. Life histories of North American birds of prey. Dover Publications Inc., New York, NY.
409 pp.
Bergman, R.D., P. Swain, and M.W. Weller. 1970. A comparative study of nesting Forster's and black
terns. Wilson Bull. 82: 435-444.
Berrie, P.M. 1973. Ecology and status of the lynx in Interior Alaska. Pages 4-41 in R.L. Eaton, ed. The
world's cats, Vol. 1 World Wildl., Safari, Winston, OR. 349 pp.
Bittner, S.L. and O.J. Rongstad. 1982. Snowshoe hare and allies. Pages 146-163 in J.A. Chapman and
G.A. Feldhamer, eds. Wild mammals of North America. John Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD.
1,147 pp.
Blanchard, B.M. and R.R. Knight. 1991. Movements of Yellowstone grizzly bears. Biol. Conserv. 58:41-
67.
Bossier, D. 1992. Midway, B.C. resident. Wolverine sighting reported to Kent Woodruff (Tonasket
Ranger District Wildlife Biologist). October 1992.
Brand, C.J. and L.B. Keith. 1979. Lynx demography during a snowshoe hare decline in Alberta. J. Wildl.
Manage. 43:827-849.
Brittell, J.D., R J. Poelker, S.J. Sweeney, and G.M. Koehler. 1989. Native cats of Washington - Section III:
Lynx. Wash. Dept. Wildl. Olympia, WA.
Brown, E.R., tech. ed. 1985. Management of wildlife and fish habitats in forests of western Oregon and
Washington. Ag. Pub R6-FW&L-192-1985. USDA Forest Service.
Bull, E.L. and J.E. Hohmann. 1993. Breeding biology of northern goshawks in northeastern Oregon.
Paper presented at: Sixty-third annual meeting of the Cooper Ornithological Society, Sacramento,
California, 14-15 April, 1993.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1985. Final Spokane Resource Management Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement.
Cannings, R.A., R.J. Cannings, and S.G. Cannings. 1987. Birds of the Okanogan Valley, British
Columbia. The Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria, B. C. 420 pp.
Crown Jewel Project BE 79 May 5,1995
-------
Carbyn, L N. 1987. Gray wolf and red wolf. Pages 359-376 in M Novak, G.A. Baker, M.E. Obbard, and B.
Malloch, eds. Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America. Ont. Trappers Assoc.,
Ministry of Nat. Resources, Ont.
Christy, R E and S.D. West. 1993. Biology of bats in Douglas-fir forests. USDA For. Serv. Pac.
Northwest Res. Sta. Gen. Tech. Report PNW-GTR-308 28 pp.
Copeland, J. and C Groves. 1992. Progress report, wolverine ecology and habitat use in central Idaho.
Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise.
Craighead, J J and J.A. Mitchell. 1982. Grizzly bear. Pages 515-556 in J.A. Chapman and G.A.
Feldhamer, eds. Wild mammals of North America, biology, management, arid economics. Johns
Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD. 1,147 pp.
Craighead, J.J , J S. Sumner, and G.B. Scaggs. 1982. A definitive system for analysis of grizzly bear
habitat and other wilderness resources utilizing LANDSAT multispectral imagery and computer
technology. Wildlife-Wildlands Institute Monogr. No. 1. U of M Foundation, Univ. of Montana,
Missoula, MT. 279 pp.
Dyer, 0. 1994. Wildlife Technician, Wildlife Management Program, British Columbia Ministry of
Environment. Letter to Randy Floyd (Beak), February 7, 1994
Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkm, and D. Wheye. 1988. The birder's handbook: a field guide to the natural
history of North American birds. Simon and Schuster, Inc., New York, NY. 785 pp.
English, E I. 1994. Habitat Biologist, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Letter to Paul
Whitney, Beak Consultants, Inc 2 December 1994.
ENSR Consulting and Engineering. 1994. Survey of bats near the Crown Jewel Mine Site, Okanogan
County.
Evans, D.L. 1982. Status reports on twelve raptors. Special Scientific Report, Wildlife No. 238, USDI Fish
and Wildl. Serv. 68pp.
Fielder, P.C. 1982. Food habits of bald eagles along the Mid-Columbia River, Washington. The Murrelet.
63:46-50.
Finn, S.P. 1992 Northern goshawk activity and productivity in Okanogan National Forest in 1992. Wash.
Dept. Wildl., Ephrata, WA. unpublished.
Fitzner, R.E., D. Berry, L.L. Boyd, and C.A. Reick. 1977. Nesting of ferruginous hawks (Buteo regalis) in
Washington 1874-1975. Condor 79:245-249.
Frederick, G.P. 1991 Gray wolf. Pages 33-50 in Effects of forest roads on grizzly bears, elk, and gray
wolves: a literature review. USDA Forest Service, Kootenai National Forest. R1-91-73.
Friesz, R. 1994. Wildlife Biologist, Washington Department of Wildlife. Letter to Randy Floyd (Beak),
February 10, 1994.
Fritts, S.H 1983. Record dispersal by a wolf from Minnesota. J. Mamm. 64(1):166-167.
Fuller, T.K. 1989. Population dynamics of wolves in North-Central Minnesota. Wildl. Mono. 105:1-41.
Crown Jewel Project BE 80 May 5, 1995
-------
Green, J.S. and J.T. Flinders. 1980. Habitat and dietary relationships of the pygmy rabbit. J. Range
Manage. 33(2).'136-142.
Hash, H.S 1987. Wolverine. Pages 574-585 in M. Novak, J. Baker, M. Obbard, and B. Malloch, eds. Wild
furbearer management and conservation in North America. Ministry of Nat. Resourc. Ontario.
Hayes, M. 1994. Marsh Habitat Specialist, Portland Community College. Telephone conversation with
Susan Barnes (Beak), January 21, 1994.
Hayward, G.D. and R.E. Escano. 1989. Goshawk nest-site characteristics in western Montana and
northern Idaho. Condor 91:476-479.
Hayward, G.D., T. Holland, and R. Escano. 1990. Goshawk habitat relationships, pp. 19-27 In: Warren,
N.M. (ed.). 1990. Old-growth habitats and associated wildlife species in the northern Rocky
Mountains. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region Wildlife Habitat Relationships Program, R1-90-
42. 47pp.
Heinemeyer, K.S. and J.L. Jones. 1994. Biology and Management: A literature review and adaptive
management strategy. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, MT. 108 pp.
Henny, C.J. and M.W. Nelson. 1981. Decline and present status of breeding peregrine falcons in
Oregon. The Murrelet. 62:43-53.
Hornocker, M.G. and H.S. Hash. 1981. Ecology of the wolverine in northwestern Montana. Can. J. Zool.
59:1286-1301.
Howard, R.P., and M.L. Wolfe. 1976. Range improvement practices and ferruginous hawks. J. Range
Manage. 29(1):33-37.
Humphrey, S.R. 1982. Bats. Pages 52-72 in J.A. Chapman and G A. Feldhamer eds. Wild Mammals of
North America. The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, MD.
Hydro-Geo Consultants, Inc. 1994. Draft seepage and attenuation study. Crown Jewel tailings disposal
facility. March 25, 1994. Prepared for TerraMatrix, Inc.
Interagency Scientific Committee to Address the Conservation of the Northern Spotted Owl. 1990. A
conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl. USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land
Management, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI National Park Service, Portland, OR. 427 pp.
Jackson, H.H.T. 1961. Mammals of Wisconsin. Univ. Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wl. 504pp.
Jewett, S.A , W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington state. Univ. of
Washington Press, Seattle, WA. 767 pp.
Jones, S. 1979. The accipiters: goshawk, Cooper's hawk, sharp-shinned hawk. USDI Bureau of Land
Management, Habitat Management Series for Unique or Endangered Species, Report No. 17. 51
PP
King, J. 1994. Wildlife Biologist Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Telephone conversation
with Dale Lindeman (Beak), May 18,1994.
Klott, J.H. and F.G. Lindzey. 1990. Brood Habits of sympatric sage grouse and Columbian sharp-tailed
grouse in Wyoming. J. Wildl. Manage. 54(1):84-88.
Crown Jewel Project BE 81 May 5,1995
-------
Knight, R.L. 1984. Response of wintering bald eagles to boating activity. J. Wildl. Manage. 48(3)'999-
1004.
Koehler, G.M. 1990. Population and habitat characteristics of lynx and snowshoe hares in north-central
Washington. Can. J. Zool. 68:845-851.
Koehler, G.M., and J.D. Brittell. 1990. Managing spruce-fir habitat for lynx and snowshoe hares J
Forestry. 88(10):10-14.
Koehler, M.G., M.G. Hornocker, and H.S. Hash. 1979. Lynx movements and habitat use in Montana.
Can. Field-Nat. 93:441-442.
Kunz, T.H. and R.A. Martin. 1982. Plecotus townsendii. Mamm. Species. No. 175. 6pp.
Laufer, J.R. and P.T. Jenkins. 1989. Historical and present status of the gray wolf in the Cascade
Mountains of Washington. The Northwest Env. J. 5:313-327.
Lawson, B. and R. Johnson. 1982. Mountain Sheep. Pages 1036-1055 in J. A. Chapman and G.A.
Feldhamer, eds. Wild Mammals of North America: biology, management, and economics. John
Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD. 1,147 pp.
Leonard, W.P., H.A. Brown, L.C. Jones, K.R. McAllister, and R.M. Storm. 1993. Amphibians of
Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, WA. 168pp.
Licht, L.E. 1971. Breeding habits and embryonic thermal requirements of the frogs Rana aurora aurora
and Rana pretiosa pretiosa in the Pacific Northwest. Ecology 52(1): 116-124.
Lowe, D.W., J.R. Matthews, and C.J. Moseley, eds. 1990. Grizzly bear. Pages 548-552 in Official World
Wildlife Fund Guide to Endangered Species of North America.
Marks, J.S. and V.S. Marks. 1988. Winter habitat use by Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in western Idaho.
J. Wildl. Manage. 52(4):743-476.
Marshall, D.B., M. Chilcote, and H. Weeks. 1992. Sensitive vertebrates of Oregon. First edition, June
1992. Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildl., Portland, Oregon.
Maser, C., B.R. Mate, J.F. Franklin, and C.T. Dyrness. 1981. Natural history of Oregon Coast mammals.
USDA For. Serv. Pac. Northwest Res. Sta. Gen. Tech. Report PNW-133. 496 pp.
Mech, D L 1970. The wolf. Natural History Press, Doubleday and Co., FNC., New York, NY. 384 pp.
Mech, D L. 1989. Wolf population survival in an area of high road density. Am. Midi. Nat. 121:387-389.
Mech, D.L., S.H. Fritts, G.L. Radde, and W.J. Paul. 1988. Wolf distribution and road density in Minnesota.
Wildl. Soc. Bull. 16:85-87.
Melland, J. 1977. Nongame wildlife report: Long-billed curlew study (Numenius americanus), Morrow and
Umatilla Counties, unpubl. rep.
Nagorsen, D.W., and R.M. Brigham. 1993. Bats of British Columbia. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC.
Naney, R.H. 1993. Okanogan National Forest Wildlife Biologist, USDA Forest Service. Telephone
conversation with Randy Floyd (Beak), December 6, 1993.
Crown Jewel Project BE 82 May 5, 1995
-------
Nassbaum, R.A., E.D. Bodie. Jr., and R.M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and reptiles of the Pacific
Northwest. Univ. of Idaho Press, Moscow, ID. 332 pp.
National Wildlife Federation. 1987. Grizzly bear compendium. Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee.
O'Connor, R.M. 1984. Population trends, age structure, and reproductive characteristics of female lynx in
Alaska, 1961 through 1973. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Alaska, Fairbanks, AK. 111 pp.
Pacific Coast American Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team. 1982. Pacific Coast recovery plan for the
American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum). USDI Fish and Wildl. Serv. 86 pp.
Pagel, J.E. 1992. Protocol for observing known and potential peregrine falcon eyries in the Pacific
Northwest. Pages 83-96 in J.E. Pagel, ed. Proceedings symposium on peregrine falcons in the
Pacific Northwest, January 1991. Rogue River Nat. For. 125 pp.
Pagel, J.E. 1993. Analysis of potential peregrine falcon nest sites on the Okanogan National Forest.
USDA Forest Service. 10pp.
Pampush, G.J. 1980. Breeding chronology, habitat utilization, and nest-site section of the long-billed
curlew in northcentral Oregon. Unpubl. M.S. thesis. Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR. 49 pp.
Paradise, J.L. and R.M. Nowak. 1982. Wolves (Canis lupus and allies). Pages 460-474 in J.A. Chapman
and G.A. Feldhamer, eds. Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and economics.
The John Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD.
Parker, G.R., J.W. Maxwell, L.D. Morton, and G.E.J. Smith. 1983. The ecology of the lynx (Lynx
canadensis) on Cape Breton Island. Can. J. Zool. 61770-786.
Paulus, S.L. 1994. Program manager, ENSR Consulting and Engineering. Letter to Jeffrey White (Battle
Mountain Gold Company). Re: Hibernacula study of bats near the Crown Jewel Project. December
12, 1994.
Payton, G.B. 1992. Local resident. Letter to Kent Woodruff (Tonasket Ranger District Wildlife Biologist),
March 16, 1992.
Peatt, A.D. 1992. Senior Wildlife Biologist, Wildlife Management Program, British Columbia Ministry of
Environment. Letter to Phil Lee (A G. Crook), November 25, 1992.
Peatt, A.D. 1994. Personal communication with R. Floyd (Beak), November 4, 1994.
Pennoyer, W. 1994. Registered Canadian trapline holder. Telephone conversation with Dale Lindeman
(Beak), March 7, 1994.
Perkins, J.M. 1987. Distribution, status, and habitat affinities of Townsend's big-eared bat (Plecotus
townsendii) in Oregon. Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildl. Tech. Report #86-5-01. 50 pp.
Perkins, J.M. 1989. Three year bat survey for Washington National Forests results of year three -
Wenatchee, Okanogan, and Colville National Forests. Unpublished report. 54 pp.
Perkins, J.M. 1994. Telephone conservation with Dale Lindeman (Beak), October 7, 1994 and
telephone conversation with Tiffany LaGrave (Beak), December 2, 1994.
Peterson, R.O. 1986. Gray wolf. Pages 951-967 in Audubon wildlife report, 1986. The National
Audubon Society, New York, NY
Crown Jewel Project BE 83 May 5, 1995
-------
Peterson, R.O. and R.E. Page. 1988. The rise and fall of Isle Royale wolves, 1975-1986. J. Mamm.
69(1)89-99.
Pimlott, D.H. 1967. Wolf predation and ungulate populations. Am Zoologist. 7:267-278.
Powell, R A. 1981. Maries pennanti. Mammalian Species 156:1-6.
Powell, R A. 1982. The fisher, life history, ecology, and behavior. Univ. Minn. Press, Minneapolis MN
271 pp.
Raforth, R., Hydrogeologist, Washington Department of Ecology. 1992. Letter to Conrad Parrish (ACZ
Inc.), June 18, 1992.
Raine, R.M. 1981. Winter habitat use and responses to snow cover of fisher (Martes pennant!) and
marten (Martes americana) in southeastern Manitoba. Can. J. Zool. 61(1):25-34.
Reel, S., L. Schassberger, and W. Ruediger. 1989. Caring for our natural community: Region 1 -
threatened, endangered & sensitive species program. USDA, Forest Service, Northern Region
Wildlife and Fisheries. 309 pp. + appendices.
Reynolds, R. T. 1983. Management of western coniferous forest habitat for nesting accipiter hawks.
Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-102. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Exp. Sta., Ft.
Collins, CO. 7 p.
Reynolds, R. T., E.C. Meslow, and H.M. Wight. 1982. Nesting habitat of coexisting Accipiter in Oregon.
J. Wildl. Manage. 46(1): 124-138.
Reynolds, R.T. and E.C. Meslow. 1984. Partitioning of food and niche characteristics of coexisting
Accipiter during breeding. Auk 101: 761-779.
Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce, G. Goodwin, R.
Smith, and E.L. Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the
southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-217. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain
Forest and Range Exp. Sta., Ft. Collins, CO. 90 pp.
Rodrick, E. and R. Milner. eds. 1991. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats
and species. Wildl. Manage., Fish Manage., and Hab. Manage. Div., Wash. Dept. Wildl. np.
Rose, D. 1994. Acting District Ranger, Tonasket Ranger District. Letter to Paul Whitney (Beak), March
16, 1994.
Sarell. M.J. and K.P. McGuinness. 1993. Rare bats of the shrub-steppe ecosystem of eastern
Washington.
Saunders, J.K. 1963. Movements and activities of the lynx in Newfoundland. J. Wildl. Manage. 27:390-
400.
Schmutz, J.K. 1987. The effect of agriculture on ferruginous and Swainson's hawks. J. Range Manage.
40(5):438-440.
Schmutz, J.K. 1989. Hawk occupancy of disturbed grasslands in relation to models of habitat selection.
Condor 91:362-371.
Crown Jewel Project BE 84 May 5,1995
-------
Sharp, B.E. 1992. Neotropical migrants on national forests in the Pacific Northwest: a compilation of
existing information. USDA Forest Service. 587pp.
Shroeder, M. 1994a. Upland Bird Research Biologist, Washington Department of Wildlife. Telephone
conversation with Dale Lindeman (Beak), March 22, 1994.
Shroeder, M. 1994b Telephone conversation with Dale Lindeman, April 22, 1994.
Snow, C. 1981 a. Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis). Habitat management series for unique or
endangered species. Rep. No. 13, USDI Bureau of Land Management. 23 pp.
Snow, E 1981 b. Southern bald eagle and northern bald eagle. Habitat management series for
endangered species. Rep. No. 5, USDI Bureau of Land Management. 58 pp.
Stalmaster, M.V. 1987. The bald eagle. Universe Books, New York, NY. 227pp.
Stalmaster, M.V., and J.R. Newman. 1978. Behavioral responses of wintering bald eagles to human
activity. J. Wildl. Manage. 42(3):506-513.
Stepniewski, A. 1993. Curlew breeding bird survey. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, MD.
Stepniewski, A. 1994. Curlew breeding bird survey. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, MD.
Stern, M.A. 1987. Site tenacity, mate retention and sexual dimorphism in black terns. M.S. Thesis,
Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR.
Stern, M.A. 1993. Zoologist, Nature Conservancy. Telephone conversation with Randy Floyd (Beak),
August 13, 1993.
Strickland, M.A., C.W. Douglas, M. Novak, and N. Hunzinger. 1982. Fisher. Pages 586-598 in J. A.
Chapman and G. A. Feldhamer, eds. Wild Mammals of North America: biology, management, and
economics. John Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD. 1,147 pp.
Swedberg, D. 1994. Wildlife Agent, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Telephone
conversation with Randy Floyd (Beak), October 24, 1994.
Terres, J.K. 1980. The Audubon Society encyclopedia of North American birds. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.,
New York, NY. 1,109pp.
Thiel, R.P. 1985. Relationship between road densities and wolf habitat suitability in Wisconsin. Am. Midi.
Nat 113:404-407.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1986. Recovery plan for the Pacific bald eagle. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 160 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Northern Rocky Mountain wolf recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Denver, Colorado. 119 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993 Grizzly bear recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula,
Montana. 181 pp.
U.S. Forest Service. 1989. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Land and resource management plan,
Okanogan National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.
Crown Jewel Project BE 85 May 5,1995
-------
U.S. Forest Service. 1990. Bald eagle sighting map. USDA Forest Service, Okanogan National Forest.
U.S. Forest Service. 1991a. Bat timber sale planting unit map. USDA Forest Service, Okanogan National
Forest.
U.S. Forest Service. 1991b. West Moyie final environmental impact statement. Idaho Panhandle National
Forests, Bonners Ferry Ranger District, misc. pagings.
U.S. Forest Service. 1992a. Interim management recommendations for sensitive species. Unpublished
March 1992 guidelines for Region 1.
U.S. Forest Service. 1992b. Biological Evaluation: Nicholson Timber Sale. USDA Forest Service,
Okanogan National Forest. 20 pp.
U.S. Forest Service. 1992c. Goshawk map. USDA Forest Service, Okanogan National Forest.
U.S. Forest Service. 1994. Reclamation maps of alternatives. Tonasket Ranger District. Five maps and
reclamation key.
Van Dyke, W.A., A. Sands, J. Yoakum, A. Polenz, and J. Blaisdell. 1983. Wildlife habitats in managed
rangelands - the great basin of southeastern Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-159. USDA Forest
Service.
Wakeley, J.S. 1978. Factors affecting the use of hunting sites by ferruginous hawks. Condor 80:316-
326.
Wakelyn, L.A. 1987. Changing habitat conditions on bighorn sheep ranges in Colorado. J. Wildl.
Manage. 51(4):904-912.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WADFW). 1993a. Status of the North American lynx (Lynx
canadensis) in Washington. Wash. Dept. Wildl., Olympia, WA.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1993b. Status of the pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis)
in Washington. Wash. Dept. Wildl., Olympia, WA. 25 pp.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1994a. Priority habitats and species data release, February
7, 1994.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1994b. Nongame data printout of wolf and grizzly records
for Okanogan and Ferry counties, April 28, 1994.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1994c. Nongame data printout of Pacific fisher records for
Okanogan County, November 1994.
Watson, J.W., M.G. Garrett, and R.G. Anthony. 1991. Foraging ecology of bald eagles in the Columbia
River estuary. J. Wild. Manage. 55(3):492-499.
White, C.M. and T.L. Thurow. 1985. Reproduction of ferruginous hawks exposed to controlled
disturbance. Condor 87:14-22.
Whittaker, J.O., S.P. Cross, J.M. Skovlin, and C. Maser. 1982. Food habits of the spotted frog (Rana
pretiosa) from managed sites in Grant County, Oregon. Northwest Sci. 57(2): 147-154.
Crown Jewel Project BE 86 May 5,1995
-------
Wilson, D.E. 1982. Wolverine. Pages 644-652 in J. A. Chapman and G. A. Feldhamer, eds. Wild
mammals of North America: biology, management, and economics. John Hopkins Univ. Press,
Baltimore, MD. 1,147pp.
Wilson, A., D. Gleisner, M. Morache, and D. Ronayne. 1987. Idaho's birds of prey part I: eagles, falcons,
hawks, osprey, vulture. Nongame Wildlife Leaflet 4. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, no
pagings.
Wishart, W. 1978. Bighorn Sheep. Pages 161-171 in J. L. Schmidt and D. L. Gilbert eds. Big game of
North America, ecology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. 494 pp.
Woffinden, N.D. 1989. Decline of a ferruginous hawk population: a 20 year summary. J. Wildl. Manage.
53(4):1127-1132.
Woffinden, N.D. and J.R. Murphy. 1983. Ferruginous hawk nest site selection. J. Wildl. Manage.
47(1):21 6-219.
Woodruff, K. 1994. Tonasket Ranger District Wildlife Biologist, USDA Forest Service. Telephone
conversation with Dale Lindeman (Beak), March 20,1994.
Yocom, C.F. and M.T. McCollum. 1973. Status of the fisher in northern California, Oregon, and
Washington. Calif. Fish and Game. 59(4):305-309.
Zender, S. 1994. Wildlife Biologist, Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. Telephone conversation with
Susan Barnes (Beak), May 9, 1994.
Zieroth, E. 1993. District Ranger, Tonasket Ranger District. Letter to Alan Czarnosky, ACZ, Inc. July 21,
1993.
Crown Jewel Project BE 87 May 5,1995
-------
-------
APPENDIX I
FISHERIES AND AQUATIC HABITAT - BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION
-------
-------
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
FISHERIES AND AQUATIC HABITAT - BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION
Project Area: The project area is located in Okanogan County,
north-central Washington, approximately 3 miles east of the town
of Chesaw, WA, in sections 23, 24, 25 and 26, T40N, R30E of the
Buckhorn Mountain Quadrangle. As proposed, the project entails
several alternatives including construction of an open pit mine
(Alternatives B, D, E, F, and G) , and an underground mining
alternative (Alternative C) , waste rock disposal areas, crushing
and milling areas, a tailings disposal area, and support
facilities. The immediate area disturbed by the proposed project
action alternatives will range from 440-896 acres on the east side
of Buckhorn Mountain (A.G. Crook 1993).
The area proposed for mining activity and surrounding analysis
area is an intricate complex of seeps, springs, wetlands and
intermittent and perennial tributaries (A.G. Crook 1993).
Basins potentially impacted by the proposed project include Myers,
Marias and Nicholson Creeks. Trampled and eroded streambanks,
streambed sedimentation, stream channel instability, reduced
canopy cover, lack of large woody debris complexes, and reduced
instream cover are common throughout the drainages in the proposed
project area (A.G. Crook 1993) . Current fisheries and aquatic
habitat impacts from management activities are most evident in the
lower sections of the watersheds draining the project area (A.G.
Crook 1993). All streams potentially affected by the project
either directly or indirectly flow into the Kettle River and then
into the Columbia River (Lake Roosevelt). Potential downstream
sedimentation increases from the proposed action alternatives
(Alternatives B,C,D,E,F and G) are expected to be moderated by
stream buffers, and sedimentation potential will be proportionate
to the area disturbed by any given alternative.
Potential water quality impacts, excluding possible sedimentation
increases from site disturbances discussed above, include the
spill of chemicals and fuel, discharge of acidic waters, possible
increases in water temperature, and downstream cadmium and silver
toxicity from leaching processes in the pit affecting groundwater
and surface waters, leachates from the waste rock and tailings
facility, and post project surface discharges from the mining pit.
Fish and aquatic organisms are very sensitive to low levels of
cadmium and silver (Table 1) . It is predicted that potential
downstream cyanide toxicity will be very low. If a toxic cyanide
spill should occur and reach a surface water, chronic and lethal
affects to fish and other aquatic organisms would be of a short
term and localized nature. All potential downstream effluent
effects would depend on seasonal water flow fluctuations, water
temperatures, and the concentrations of toxic materials.
-------
Specific effluent limits and impacts from the pib discharge
(surface), and spring and seep water quality would be established
on a site specific basis by the Washington State Department of
Ecology and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. If water
quality criteria are not being met under established monitoring
criteria, then effluent would be treated to comply with State and
Federal Water Quality Standards. Treatment of potentially toxic
downstream discharges of cadmium and silver from groundwater
sources draining the pit complex, waste rock and tailings will be
difficult to identify and treat.
Fisheries Resource: The lower reaches of Myers, Nicholson, and
Marias Creeks all have populations of both rainbow and brook
trout, with brook trout primarily found in the upper headwater
reaches of the streams (A.G. Crook 1993 and Pentec Environmental,
Inc 1993). Brook trout are an introduced non-native species. Due
to extensive historical fish stocking activities in the region it
is unknown if rainbow trout observed in the streams are native,
introduced, or most likely an admixture of both native and
introduced rainbow trout stocks.
Under the proposed action alternatives the potential predicted
water quality modifications, adverse water quality impacts,
specifically chemical toxicity, affecting Columbia River salmon
and steelhead runs is anticipated to be negligible due to the
distance from the proposed site (180 plus miles) to downstream
anadromous fish bearing waters. This assessment includes a worst
case scenario (hazardous material accident) and the distances and
corresponding dilution rates to waters utilized by anadromous fish
species.
Sensitive Species - Potential fish species of concern in the
Marias, Nicholson, and Myers Creek drainages within the analysis
area include rainbow trout (redband variety) and bull trout
(formerly dolly varden).
Rainbow trout of the redband variety (Oncorhynchus mykiss
gairdnerii), a species considered sensitive by the Forest
Service, were initially reported to be present in the analysis
area. Rainbow trout in Marias, Nicholson and Myers Creeks were
collected by A.G. Crook Company Consultants for electrophoretic
analysis to determine if they were redband trout or descendants of
upper Columbia River redband populations. The collected fish were
submitted to Rob Leary of the University of Montana's Wild Trout
and Salmon Genetics Laboratory for Lactic Acid (LDH) analysis to
determine if they were redbands. The results of this analysis
determined that the rainbow trout populations in the analysis area
were not of the redband variety (A.G. Crook 1993).
-------
Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentis) are at this time being
considered for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Extensive
stream and fisheries sampling conducted for the Crown Jewel
Project analysis area have not identified any bull trout in any of
the potentially affected basins (A.G. Crook 1993 and Pentec
Environmental, Inc. 1993), nor are there any historical records of
this species fish ever having been present in the proposed project
basins (K. Williams, WDWF, personal communication).
No sensitive aquatic or macroinvertebrate species have been
identified in the proposed project/analysis area (A.C. Crook 1993,
Pentec Environmental, Inc. 1993, and Northwest Management, Inc.
1994). Baseline habitat assessment and macroinvertebrate
bioassessments have been conducted in Marias, Nicholson and Myers
Creeks to be used for population trend monitoring for the Crown
Jewel Project (Northwest Management, Inc. 1994). Macroinvertebrate
species are excellent indicators of changes in water quality.
Project Water Supply: The water supply plan (for all alternatives
except A-no action) as proposed by Battle Mountain Gold Company
would be to divert 5 cfs of Myers (20-25 percent of peak flows)
during spring runoff to a storage reservoir, and would be limited
to periods when all senior water rights and minimum instream flow
conditions are satisfied (Golder Associates, Inc. 1994). The
maximum annual surface water diversion would be 500 ac/ft, which
would require approximately 50 days of 5 cfs withdrawals. Battle
Mountain Gold Company has also purchased some additional water
rights upstream from the reservoir. The combination of reduced
peak flows and diverting acquired water rights to reservoir
storage may have an impact on the annual charging of the Meyers
Creek hyporheic. Through reduction of hyporheic recharge,
withdrawal of peak flows could have a detrimental effect on late
season downstream fisheries through increased stream water
temperatures and reduced minimum flows. Reduced flows may also
affect both early and late season water supplies for wetlands in
hydrologic continuity with Myers Creek, below the point of
diversion.
Proposed fish passage facilities at the diversion site would have
to provide passage for spring spawning rainbow trout during high
spring runoff flows, and low flow passage for fall spawning brook
trout populations.
-------
Alternative Analysis
Alternative A - No Action Alternative: No adverse impacts to
fisheries, aquatic and macroinvertebrate species are anticipated
from this alternative.
Alternative B - Proposed Action: Potential fisheries, aquatic and
macroinvertebrate species consequences from this alternative
include:
a) Increased sedimentation of Marias and Nicholson Creeks is
anticipated, with 253 and 453 headwater acres disturbed,
respectively. The degree of increase in sedimentation from site
disturbing activities on Marias and Nicholson Creeks, and
potentially Toroda Creek will be dependent on annual variations in
meteorologic, and project modified hydraulic conditions. Stream
and fisheries surveys conducted for the proposed project indicate
sediment loading in the channel from road wash and skid road
sources, as well as bank trampling from livestock use. Existing
stream channel embededness exceeds the Okanogan National Forest
Standards and Guidelines.
b) Post project discharges of 0.3-0.4 cfs are estimated to flow
from the 138 pit complex into the Nicholson Creek Basin. Although
it is estimated that it will take the pit 7-13 years to fill after
excavation ceases, the projected pit water quality may exceed the
freshwater chronic criteria for cadmium and the freshwater acute
criteria for silver (Table 1).
Cadmium appears to be highly toxic to aquatic organisms at low
concentrations. Most quantitative data on toxicity of cadmium
toward fish and other aquatic organisms indicate that lethal
concentrations for fish varies from 0.01 mg/1 to 0.10 mg/1
depending on test animal, type of water, temperature and time of
exposure. Cadmium can also act synergistically with other
substances such as zinc to increase toxic effects on aquatic
organisms (McKee et.al. 1963).
Silver in minute quantities in water is very toxic to fish,
probably by interference with gas exchange by the gills (Gough
et.al. 1979). Lethal concentrations of silver for some fish
species are as low as 0.004/mg/l, depending on exposure time
(McKee et. al.) . Increased exposure time increased mortality
rates. Macroinvertebrate species appear to be more resilient to
silver toxicity with toxic concentrations for some species ranging
from 0.03 mg/1 to 0.05 mg/1 (Mckee, et.al. 1993).
-------
Table 1. Comparison of predicted cadmium and silver concentrations
in the proposed open pit to Washington Aquatic Life Criteria a/
Predicted Range
in Concentration
During Initial
Stages of Pit
(mcf/1)
Predicted Range
in Concentration
During Final
Stages of Pit
Filling (mg/1)
Fresh b/ Fresh b/
Water Water
Acute Chronic
Criteria Criteria
(mcr/1) (ma/1)
Cadmium
Silver
0.0027-0.0052
0.0120-0.0186
0.0009-0.0052
0.0130-0.0197
0.0074
0.0071
0.0017
- C/
a/ Adapted from Crown Jewel Project Preliminary Draft
Environmental Impact Statement, November 1994.
b/ From Washington WAG 173-201A, Water Quality Standards of the
State of Washington, November 1992.
c/ No fresh water chronic criteria established for silver,
however, acute criteria is assumed to be the same for chronic
criteria (D. Hart, Beak Consultants, personal communication, and
B. Barwin, Washington Dept. of Ecology, personal communication).
The potential for toxic discharges of cadmium and silver into the
Nicholson Creek drainage would be dependent on the validity of the
discharge modeling results, and the dilution rates when pit water
discharges mix with Nicholson Basin waters. The rate of
mixing/dilution will be seasonally variable, as will be the
potential toxic effects of pit discharge on the fisheries and
aquatic organisms in the Nicholson Creek Basin. As previously
discussed, pit water quality discharges will be monitored, and if
found to not meet the Washington State Department of Ecology
Surface Water Quality Standards, will be treated prior to
downstream release.
Alternative C: Potential fisheries, aquatic and macroinvertebrate
species consequences from this alternative include:
a) Increased sedimentation of Marias and Nicholson Creeks is
anticipated, with 128 and 220 headwater acres disturbed,
respectively. However, due to the underground mining proposed for
this alternative and a reduction of surface acre disturbing
activities, sedimentation potential is reduced in Marias and
Nicholson Creeks, and potentially Toroda Creek. Sedimentation
potential will be dependent on annual variations in meteorologic,
and project modified hydraulic conditions. Stream and fisheries
surveys conducted for the proposed project indicate sediment
loading in the channel from road wash and skid road sources, as
well as bank trampling from livestock use. Existing stream channel
embededness exceeds the Okanogan National Forest Standards and
Guidelines.
-------
Flows to surface water and water quality, specifically with regard
to cadmium and silver toxicity in the Nicholson Basin have not
been modeled for this alternative. However, the predicted surface
flow water quality from this alternative is not anticipated to be
as potentially toxic as with the open pit alternatives (i.e.,
alternatives B, D, E, F and G) . The potential magnitude of
groundwater and seep discharge sources of cadmium and silver from
the pit complex, waste rock and tailings will be difficult to
identify and treat. The potential for toxic discharges affecting
fish and other aquatic organisms from this alternative is low
(Table 2).
Alternative D: Potential fisheries, aquatic and macroinvertebrate
species consequences from this alternative include:
a) Increased sedimentation of Marias and Nicholson Creeks is
anticipated, with 117 and 357 headwater acres disturbed,
respectively. The degree of increase in sedimentation from site
disturbing activities on Marias and Nicholson Creeks, and
potentially Toroda Creek will be dependent on annual variations in
meteorologic, and project modified hydraulic conditions. Stream
and fisheries surveys conducted for the proposed project indicate
sediment loading in the channel from road wash and skid road
sources, as well as bank trampling from livestock use:. Existing
stream channel embededness exceeds the Okanogan National Forest
Standards and Guidelines.
The potential for toxic pit water discharges into the; Nicholson
Creek Basin is anticipated to be less than Alternative B (Table
2) , as will be the potential toxic effects of pit discharge on
fish and aquatic organisms in the Nicholson Creek Basin. The
potential magnitude of groundwater and seep discharge sources of
cadmium and silver from the pit complex, waste rock arid tailings
will be difficult to identify and treat.
Alternative E: Potential fisheries, aquatic and macroinvertebrate
species consequences from this alternative include:
a) Increased sedimentation of Marias and Nicholson Creeks is
anticipated, with 262 and 548 headwater acres disturbed,
respectively. The degree of increase in sedimentation from site
disturbing activities on Marias and Nicholson Creeks, and
potentially Toroda Creek will be dependent on annual variations in
meteorologic, and project modified hydraulic conditions. Stream
and fisheries surveys conducted for the proposed project indicate
sediment loading in the channel from road wash and skid road
sources, as well as bank trampling from livestock use. Existing
-------
stream channel embededness exceeds the Okanogan National Forest
Standards and Guidelines.
It is anticipated that the levels of cadmium and silver in the pit
complex will be the highest of all alternatives. Although the pit
will be backfilled, it will not prevent the hydraulics of springs
and overland flow from filling the voids between backfill
materials, and a lake partially filled with rock will most likely
be the result. Due to the increased surface area of the backfilled
material in the pit, much more material will be exposed to the
leaching process, thus increasing the concentrations of cadmium
and silver (D.Hart and N.Munn, Beak Consultants, personal
communication). Although initial leaching rates of cadmium and
silver may be reduced as a result of decreased availability of
oxygen, the long term concentrations are anticipated to be
substantially higher, with the magnitude depending on the acidity
of the material and the amount of dissolved oxygen in the filled
pit lake (D.Hart and N.Munn Beak Consultants, personal
communication).
The initial analysis of this alternative stated that as a result
of partial backfilling of waste rock into the pit would prevent
the formation of a pit lake, and that as a result of the partial
backfilling, pit water would be discharged from the pit largely in
the form of springs and seeps, rather than at a defined outflow
point. It is assumed that this concentrated discharge will still
be going into the Nicholson Creek Basin as water seeks its own
level.
Thus, the potential for toxic cadmium and silver pit water
discharges into the Nicholson Creek Basin is anticipated to be
higher, although over a greater period of time than Alternative B
(Tables 1 and 2) , and conceivably with potentially greater toxic
effects on the fisheries and aquatic organisms in the Nicholson
Creek Basin. This analysis assumes that since pit discharge will
not be from a discrete source, and will be exiting the pit area
from numerous springs and seeps, treatment of discharge effluent
would be difficult if downstream State and Federal water quality
standards are not being met.
Alternative F: Potential fisheries, aquatic and macroinvertebrate
species consequences from this alternative include:
a) Increased sedimentation Nicholson Creek is anticipated to be
the second highest with this alternative, with 699 headwater acres
disturbed. Little site disturbance is anticipated in Marias Creek.
The degree of increase in sedimentation from site disturbing
activities in the Nicholson Creek drainage, and potentially Toroda
Creek will be dependent on annual variations in meteorologic, and
-------
project modified hydraulic conditions. Stream and fisheries
surveys conducted for the proposed project indicate sediment
loading in the channel from road wash and skid road sources, as
well as bank trampling from livestock use. Existing stream channel
embededness exceeds the Okanogan National Forest Standards and
Guidelines.
This alternative would have a low potential impact on downstream
water quality (cadmium and silver) and fisheries and aquatic
organisms, resulting from leaching in the pit complex (Table 2) .
This assumption is based on reestablishing pre-project overland
flow away from the pit complex, thus by minimizing or preventing
any potential toxic water discharges from the pit lake or a
partially filled pit lake. It is still anticipated that
groundwater and seep discharge sources of cadmium and silver from
the pit complex, waste rock and tailings will occur.
Alternative G: Potential fisheries, aquatic and macroinvertebrate
species consequences from this alternative include:
a) Increased sedimentation Nicholson Creek is anticipated to be
the highest with this alternative, with 896 headwater acres
disturbed. Little site disturbance is anticipated in Marias Creek.
The degree of increase in sedimentation from site disturbing
activities in the Nicholson Creek drainage, and potentially Toroda
Creek will be dependent on annual variations in meteorologic, and
project modified hydraulic conditions. Stream and fisheries
surveys conducted for the proposed project indicate sediment
loading in the channel from road wash and skid road sources, as
well as bank trampling from livestock use. Existing stream channel
embededness exceeds the Okanogan National Forest Standards and
Guidelines.
It is anticipated that due to the open pit nature of this
alternative, the potential for discharges of toxic levels of
cadmium and silver are equivalent to that identified in
Alternative B (Table 2, next page).
-------
Table 2. Comparison by alternative of the relative magnitude of
potential impacts relating to downstream sedimentation potential,
and downstream cadmium and silver concentrations.
Alternative
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Sedimentation
Potential a/
Marias Nicholson
None None
Mod Mod
Low Low
Mod Low
Mod-High High
Very Low Very High
Verv Low Very Hicrh
Toxicity Potential
Cadmium and Silver
Nicholson
None
Mod-High
Low
Mod
High
Low
Mod-Hiah
b/
a/ Ratings are based on existing stream channel conditions and
projected acres of land disturbed by mining activity.
b/ Ratings are based on projected discharge concentrations and pit
water management strategies. Pit water quality effluent discharges
will be monitored, and if found to not meet the Washington State
Department of Ecology Surface Water Quality Standards, will be
treated prior to down stream release.
Biologist
Lonal Forest
-------
References
Crook, A.G., 1993. Aquatic habitats of streams in the Marias and
Nicholson Creek Basin. A.G. Crook Company. Portland, OR. 47 p.
plus appendices.
Golder Associates, Inc. 1994. Streamflow investigations conducted
along Myers Creek near Myncaster, British Columbia. Prepared for
Battle Mountain Gold Company.
Hart, D. 1995. Biochemist. Beak Consultants. Toronto, ON. Personal
Communication.
Gough, L.P., H.T. Shacklette, and A.A. Case. 1979. Element
concentrations toxic to plants, animals and man. U.S. Geological
Survey Bulletin 1466. GPO 1979-677129/23. 80 p.
McKee, J.E., and H.W. Wolf. 1963. Water quality criteria.
California State Water Resources Board. Pub. No. 3-A. 548 p.
Munn, D. 1995. Biologist. Beak Consultants, Portland, OR. Personal
Communication.
Northwest Management, Inc. 1994. Fall, 1994 benthic
macroinvertebrate report for the Crown Jewel Project. Northwest
Management, Inc. Moscow, ID. 12 p. plus appendices.
Pentec Environmental, Inc., 1993. Aquatic resources for sections
of Myers, Gold, Nickolson Creeks in the Okanogan National Forest.
34 p. plus appendices.
Williams, K. 1995. Area Fisheries Biologist. Washington Department
of Fish and Wildlife. Personal Communication.
-------
APPENDIX J
BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FOR PROPOSED, ENDANGERED,
THREATENED, AND SENSITIVE PLANTS
-------
-------
BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FOR PROPOSED, ENDANGERED,
THREATENED, AND SENSITIVE PLANTS
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT ANALYSIS AREA
Prepared By:
Okanogan National Forest
Tonasket Ranger District
Tonasket, Washington
-------
-------
SIGNATURE PAGE
Written by:
Larry Loftis Date
Forest Botanist
Okanogan National Forest
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
PRE-FIELD REVIEW 1
REVIEW OF EXISTING INFORMATION 1
CONSIDERATION OF IMPACT 3
FIELD RECONNAISSANCE 4
DESCRIPTION OF SURVEY METHODOLOGY 4
SURVEY RESULTS 5
RISK ASSESSMENT 6
Size, Density, Vigor, and Location of Population(s) 6
Analysis of Effects 7
Direct Effects 8
Indirect Effects 10
Cumulative Effects 23
OKANOGAN NATIONAL FOREST VIABILITY 25
STATEWIDE SPECIES DISTRIBUTION 26
TOTAL SPECIES DISTRIBUTION 28
DETERMINATION OF EFFECT 30
RECOMMENDATIONS 31
REFERENCES 33
FIGURE 1 General Location Map
APPENDIX 1: List of Sensitive Plants That Could Occur in the Analysis Area
APPENDIX 2: Tonasket Ranger District Sensitive Plant List
-------
INTRODUCTION
Battle Mountain Gold Company (BMGC) proposes to develop and operate a gold and
silver mining and processing operation in north-central Washington. The project is
located in Okanogan County, Washington, approximately 3.5 air miles east of Chesaw,
in T40N, R30E, sections 23, 24, 25, and 26. The area is located on and around
Buckhorn mountain and is characterized by mountainous terrain ranging from
approximately 2000 to 5600 feet in elevation. Major creeks in the project area include:
Myers, Ethel, Gold, Marias, Nicholson, Toroda, Cedar, Jackson, and Beaver Creeks.
The study area for this Biological Evaluation consists of approximately 6,000 acres,
which does not include the acreage of the powerline outside of the national forest
boundary. The project is located on U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest
Service and BLM lands, patented and unpatented mining claims, state leased lands
controlled by the project, and private lands. Waste rock disposal areas, crushing and
milling facilities, a tailings disposal facility, roads, and ancillary support facilities would
need to be constructed. Marias and Nicholson headwaters arise close to each other
and this area holds the majority of the wetland and riparian area found in the portion
where most mining activities are planned. This area of major activities is hereafter
referred to as the core area. Figure 1 contains a location map for the project.
The Forest Service Manual (FSM) section 2670, requires that activities that impact
species that are proposed (P), endangered (E), threatened (T) or sensitive (S) (PETS)
be reviewed. To carry out this policy, a Biological Evaluation is completed to assess
and document the impacts of proposed projects.
PRE-FIELD REVIEW
REVIEW OF EXISTING INFORMATION
Sources consulted prior to undertaking field studies for this Biological Evaluation (BE)
include the 1989 Final Environmental Impact Statement, Land and Resource
Management Plan, Okanogan National Forest, the Tonasket Ranger District (RD)
Sensitive Plant List, (Appendix 2); the Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP);
Mr. Larry Loftis, Botanist for the Tonasket Ranger District; Mr. George Wooten,
Biological Technician for the Winthrop Ranger District; Ms. Ann Sprague, Wildlife
Biologist for the Twisp Ranger District (for sightings of Listera by Steve Heywood,
Biological Technician); field studies conducted by Miss Kathryn Beck, private
-------
contractor, for the Nicholson Timber Sale; the June 1990 Biological Evaluation for the
Crown Jewel Exploration Project conducted by ACZ Inc. (Crofts, 1990); the August
1991 Crown Jewel Project Vegetation Studies document prepared by ACZ Inc.
Additional documents are listed in the Reference section of this report. In addition a
visit was made to the herbarium at the University of Washington, Seattle, to look at
plant specimens.
A list of sensitive species that might be found in the analysis area was compiled
(Appendix 1). Because of lack of suitable habitat the following species were
considered unlikely to occur in the analysis area, Agrostis borealis, Draba aurea,
Draba cana, Gentiania glauca, Loiseleuria procumbens, Potentilla diversifolia var.
perdissecta, Potentilla nivea, and Saxifraga debilis.
One species listed as threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is suspected to
occur on the Okanogan National Forest, Howellia aquatilis. However, neither H.
aquatilis nor any other Federally listed endangered, threatened, or proposed plant
species are known to occur in the vicinity of the project (USDI, Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1993b).
Surveys were done on portions of the area in 1990, but sensitive plants were not
discovered then (Crofts, 1990). Carex collections were done by Crofts, who sent his
specimens to Ownbey herbarium at Washington State University. None of the
specimens identified were sensitive species (Joy Mastrogiuseppe, pers. comm. to Kent
Crofts). On June 13-17 and July 22-27, 1991, contractors with ACZ Inc. conducted
surveys of the upland habitat within the project core area. These surveys were
completed to search for the existence of any upland sensitive species which flower
from early to mid-summer. Two site visits were done, one for early blooming species
and one for later species. Wetland and late-summer surveys were specifically
exempted from the 1991 survey and were scheduled to be conducted in the summer
of 1992. Numerous species of Carex were observed, however, none that are listed as
PETS species.
Kathryn Beck, a private contractor employed by the Forest Service, conducted plant
surveys in the adjacent Nicholson Timber Sale Area, which includes a portion of the
project area. Miss Beck's surveys, conducted in 1991, and Forest Service crew
surveys in 1992, discovered the following sensitive species both within and without the
Crown Jewel analysis area:
-------
Botrychium minganense (Mingan moonwort), which was later identified as
Botrychium crenulatum.
Listera borealis (northern twayblade).
Platanthera obtusata (small northern bog orchid).
These findings are discussed in the Biological Evaluation for Nicholson (Loftis, 1992).
Forest Service personnel at the Tonasket Ranger District collected specimens of
Botrychium from the Nicholson timber sale area and sent them to Dr. W. H. Wagner,
University of Michigan, for expert identification.
Botrychium crenulatum is currently described in the Federal Register as a Category 2
Federal Candidate for Federal listing, i.e. it is among taxa for which information now in
the possession of the Service indicates that proposing to list as endangered or
threatened is possibly appropriate, but for which sufficient data on biological
vulnerability and threat are not currently available to support proposed rules. It is
emphasized that category 2 taxa are not being proposed and that there are no current
plans for such proposals unless additional supporting information becomes available
(USDI, 1993a, pp 51145, 51153). Technical assistance from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service also indicated that B. crenulatum is not considered as listed (USDI,
Fish and Wildlife Service, 1992). Although this species does not currently have
Washington status on the Regional Forester's sensitive species list, this is because it
was unknown in the state at the last revision of that list in 1991. For the purpose of
this biological evaluation this species will be considered sensitive.
B. crenulatum, L borealis, and P. obtusata are all on the Region 6, Regional
Forester's sensitive species list.
CONSIDERATION OF IMPACT
Since mining activities are planned there will be considerable disturbance in the area,
especially where most of the activities are proposed to occur, i.e. the core area. Any
sensitive plant populations that may be in these areas might therefore be at risk. A
statement of "no impact" cannot be made at this point. Therefore more field
reconnaissance will be done.
-------
FIELD RECONNAISSANCE
DESCRIPTION OF SURVEY METHODOLOGY
The Intuitive Controlled method for surveys was used in most areas, which is defined
as follows: The surveyor has given the area a closer look by conducting a complete
reconnaissance through a specific area of the project after walking through the project
area and perimeter or by walking more than once through the area. Most of the
project area is examined.
Those areas not surveyed with the intuitive controlled method had complete surveys,
which are defined as follows: The surveyor has walked throughout the area being
examined until all of the area has been examined.
Surveys were done by employees of the A.G. Crook Company (Company) in
conjunction with wetland delineation and stream survey work during 1992. Two visits
to the analysis area were completed, one during 6-10 July, 1992 and the other during
20-24 July, 1992. During this effort no field surveys were completed in the portion of
the study area within the proposed Nicholson Timber Sale Area since the Forest
Service had completed field surveys in 1991 and 1992 in Nicholson (Loftis, 1992).
A map produced by ACZ Inc. was provided to Company field personnel that indicated
the location of wetland areas, seeps, and springs in the study area. This map was
used to target sites that may contain wetland associated sensitive plants. As wetland
delineation and riparian survey work progressed, adjustments and refinements were
made to the seep and spring map to ensure that all wetland areas were surveyed.
Additionally, the team went to other probable locations on the property not shown on
the map to determine the presence of wetland characteristics.
The 1993 surveys were headed by Dr. Robert Stockhouse. Working from a list of
plants provided by the U.S. Forest Service surveys were conducted from June 15 to
June 25, and from July 19 to July 23, 1993. Both efforts included the powerline
corridor from Oroville to Buckhorn Mountain, Ethel Creek from Ethel to its headwaters,
Forest Service roads 120 and 100 from Bolster to the Magnetic Mine area, the wet
meadow, stream and surrounding hills of the potential reservoir site located in T40N,
R31E, Section 3, potential mitigation sites, Forest Service Road 120 from its junction
-------
with 4895 to the Frog Pond, all roads and spur roads within the project area and all
drainages within the project area. Dr. Stockhouse's work was inspected by Larry
Loftis.
In addition Forest Service personnel did surveys in parts of the Crown Jewel analysis
area outside of the Nicholson analysis area. Surveys were done on September 3,
1992, June 2 and August 11, 1993, July 4 and July 14, 1994. The surveyors were
Larry Loftis and Ellen Nelson.
Surveys were done at the time of year when plants are identifiable.
SURVEY RESULTS
Several Carex species were collected by Company staff during the 1992 surveys and
identified by Dr. Robert Stockhouse of Pacific University. None of the species
collected were found to be sensitive. No sensitive species were found during the 1992
surveys.
The only place in the analysis area that might contain Howellia aquatilis, which is
listed as threatened by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is the pond called the Frog
pond. The Frog pond is believed to result from the construction of an adjacent road,
and is therefore recent. There is a slight chance there could be habitat for this
species along the edge of the pond if it dries out in the summer (Lesica, 1992, p 418).
However, this species was not found during surveys and has never been found on the
Okanogan National Forest.
During the 1993 surveys, more populations of the same three species of sensitive
plants found previously were discovered, Botrychium crenulatum, Listera borealis, and
Platanthera obtusata. The identification of B. crenulatum was verified by Dr. W. H.
Wagner of the University of Michigan (pers. comm. to Robert Stockhouse). Since
sensitive species are present a Risk Assessment is needed for this biological
evaluation.
-------
RISK ASSESSMENT
Size, Density, Vigor, and Location of Population(s)
The number of populations and approximate number of plants per species in the
analysis area is listed in Table 1. For the sake of discussion here, a group of plants in
the analysis area was usually considered to be a separate population if they were in a
different fork of a drainage, or if they were separated by a distance of approximately
1/4 mile. The number of plants can only be considered approximate, as population
sizes tend to vary with climate, time of year, and also from year to year (Lesica and
Stelle, 1994) (Meinke, 1994, pp 36 & 38).
Table 1. The total number of populations over the approximate number of plants by species
discovered in the analysis area.
SPECIES
Botrychium
crenulatum
Listera
bo real is
Platanthera
obtusata
NUMBER OF
POPULATIONS
APPROXIMATE
NUMBER OF PLANTS
2 POPULATIONS
-22 PLANTS
10 POPULATIONS
-2088 PLANTS
4 POPULATIONS
-815 PLANTS
Botrychium crenulatum.
Two populations of this species were discovered in the analysis area, one consisting
of one plant, the other having 21 plants. The plants had produced spores. The plants
-------
were growing in and near wet areas, which is normal habitat for this species (Wagner
and Wagner, 1993, p 96).
Listera borealis.
A total of 10 populations were discovered, containing over two thousand stems. One
population has approximately 1700 plants, the other 9 are much smaller. The plants
were situated along riparian areas at a variety of locations throughout the study area.
This species usually occurs in light to deep moist woods, often in moss along streams
(Hitchcock, et al, 1969, p 852). Most of the plants were, in a reproductive stage,
either blooming or fruiting.
Platanthera obtusata.
A total of 4 populations with over 800 stems of this species were found in the analysis
area. One population has over 700 plants, the other 3 are much smaller. The
populations were dispersed along riparian and wet areas. This species normally
occupies damp to wet forested areas (Hitchcock, et al, 1969, p 846). About half of the
plants were in a reproductive stage, either blooming or fruiting.
Timing of the Project
Disturbance of the project area by mining activities will be year-round, for an estimated
10 year period. Due to the nature of the project, varying the disturbance seasonally
so as to have less effect on plant populations would not be feasible.
Analysis of Effects
Alternative A, the no action alternative, would have little or no impact on the sensitive
plant populations. Clean up of exploration activities should not harm populations,
assuming reasonable precautions are taken to control erosion. Natural succession
might allow crown closure of overstory trees, thus shading out plants, or some natural
calamity such as fire or disease might damage plants. However, succession, fire, and
disease may or may not happen regardless of whether this alternative is chosen.
-------
DIRECT EFFECTS
The action alternatives would directly impact at least some plants of all three species,
primarily by covering the populations with mining spoils. Table 2 summarizes the
direct impacts on the species. The following discussion examines these impacts in
detail.
Botrychium crenulatum.
Alternatives B, C, D, E, and G: these alternatives will all impact one plant of this species by
covering it with mining spoils. Alternative F could impact a different population of about 21
plants.
Listera borealis.
Alternative B: this alternative will impact 4 populations by covering with mining spoils. The
largest impact will be to a population with approximately 1700 plants. About 1828 total plants
would be impacted.
Alternatives C and D: these alternatives would impact 3 populations by covering with mining
spoils, and a few less plants population than alternative B. The largest impact would be to a
population of about 1700 plants.
Alternative E: would impact 6 populations by covering with mining spoils, and the most plants
of any alternative. The largest population has about 1700 plants.
Alternative F and G: these alternatives impact 5 populations, again by covering with mining
spoils. Only about 228 plants, a much smaller number than alternatives B, C, D, and E
would be impacted by this alternative.
Platanthera obtusata.
Alternatives B, C, D, and E: would impact two known populations of this species,
approximating a total of 704 plants, by covering them with mining spoils. One of the
populations is very large, containing about 700 plants.
8
-------
Alternatives F and G: these alternatives impact two populations, again by covering with
mining spoils. Both populations together contain about 100 plants.
The impacts are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Comparison of the DIRECT EFFECTS of the action alternatives, listing the number of
populations (POPS) over the approximate number of plants of each species that could be impacted
by alternative (ALT).
SPECIES
Botrychium
crenulatum
Listera
boreal is
Platanthera
obtusata
ALTB
1 POP
1 PLANT
4 POPS
-1828
PLANTS
2 POPS
-704
PLANTS
ALTC
1 POP
1 PLANT
3 POPS
-1805
PLANTS
2 POPS
-704
PLANTS
ALTD
1 POP
1 PLANT
3 POPS
-1805
PLANTS
2 POPS
-704
PLANTS
ALTE
1 POP
1 PLANT
6 POPS
-1862
PLANTS
2 POPS
-704
PLANTS
ALTF
1 POP
-21
PLANTS
5 POPS
-228
PLANTS
2 POPS
-100
PLANTS
ALTG
0 POP
0
PLANTS
5 POPS
-228
PLANTS
2 POPS
-100
PLANTS
INDIRECT EFFECTS
Possible indirect impacts on populations include increased human disturbance
within the project area, dust, sedimentation along streams, accidental start of a
forest fire, changes in hydrology, changed grazing patterns of livestock, weeds,
and introduction of chemicals into the environment. The populations that are
not directly impacted are far enough away from the proposed operations that it
is unlikely enough artificial light would be present to change their growth
patterns. Also trees surrounding the populations would filter out extraneous
light.
-------
Off Site Populations
Populations of other species on the Regional Forester's Sensitive species lists
are known within a few miles of the project area, some on non Forest Service
land. One species, Cypripedium parviflorum, is also listed by the state of
Washington as Endangered (Washington Natural Heritage Program, 1994, p 1-
7). However C. parviflorum is not listed as threatened or endangered by the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, nor is it proposed, nor does it have any
candidate status. The sensitive species Sisyrinchium septentrionale and Carex
buxbaumii are also known to occur in the area of the C. parviflorum. These
populations are in a drainage that would have little if any run off from the mine
project. Nearly all of the project lies in another drainage. Any impact from the
portion of the project in the drainage with these species should be contained by
barriers around construction areas and stabilizing vegetation. Transportation of
supplies is not planned along a route near the populations of these species, so
there should be no problem from dust or accidental spill of chemicals.
A well that is proposed as a water source for the project lies in the drainage
containing the populations described in the previous paragraph. A well in this
area has been used for irrigation in the past. A new well would be drilled near
the existing well. The well would be pumped from each year until the amount
allowed by the water right is used up, or a senior water right requires cessation
of pumping (Golder associates, 1993, p 50). The certificate for the well states
"regulation of withdrawal from this well will be initiated if at any time such
withdrawal is determined to effect surface water rights..." (Philip Kerr, pers.
comm.) So if creek flows are disturbed by pumping, action can be taken to
stop the pumping. This should prevent any negative impacts on sensitive
plants that might be in the vicinity of the well.
A population of Ribes oxyacanthoides subspecies cognatum, occurs beside a
road that may be used for a transportation route for the mine. This population
is several miles from the mine site. The road is paved, so dust should not be a
problem. Accidental spills of chemicals might impact plants. R. oxyacanthoides
ssp. cognatum has recently been dropped from sensitive down to monitor group
3 status by Washington Natural Heritage Program (Washington Natural
Heritage Program, p A-2, 1994).
10
-------
Caution would also need to be exercised when transporting supplies along
riparian areas, as all 3 sensitive species found around the mine tend to occupy
riparian habitat. A spill of fuel or chemical could be transported down a creek
to sensitive plants. Transportation of supplies should be over roads that have
the smallest likelihood of impacting sensitive plant habitat, e.g. wetlands and
streams.
On Site Populations
Increased human activity in the project area could disturb the populations of
these species. Reducing the number of vehicles entering the area could help
alleviate this problem.
Deposition of dust generated as a result of traffic and operations may result in
some impact to populations of sensitive species in the project area. The dust
could drift to sensitive plant populations and impair photosynthesis and
respiration. Any portions of the ore and waste rock that were acid generating
would be especially important in this regard. Water or other dust suppressants
will need to be applied to roads and mining activity areas to control dust. Lignin
compounds should work well as dust suppressants. However, calcium chloride,
sodium chloride, and magnesium chloride, are all salts that might dissolve from
the roads when wet and migrate toward plant populations, perhaps harming
plants. Research and modelling of dust and other emissions has been done for
the project that recommends controls for dust. These controls include water or
dust control chemicals on roads. For crushing, conveying, and transferring ore,
ducts, fans, enclosure, electrostatic precipitators, water spray, baghouses, and
other methods are recommended (Winges, 1994, pp 33-34).
Soil runoff from mining activities and reclamation could cause sedimentation
into streams and harm sensitive plants, as all three species are usually found in
close proximity to water. Sediments will need to be contained by some sort of
barrier. Diversion channels and sediment traps have been designed to contain
sediments, and take into consideration large inflows from storms (Knight
Piesold and Company, 1993, Appendix Q, pp 1-15). Revegetation needs to be
done as soon as practicable to help contain soil. Sedimentation and
revegetation are discussed in sections 2.3 and 2.4 of the reclamation plan for
the project (Battle Mountain Gold Co., et al, 1993b, pp 2-3, 2-11--2-41). Since
11
-------
alternatives C and D disturb the least amount of ground, they would probably
cause the least problems with sedimentation.
Since large amounts of fuel, explosives, chemicals, and many vehicles are
proposed for use, there is the possibility of an accident starting a forest fire and
changing the environment of the plants or even destroying them. Therefore a
plan for emergency fire fighting needs to be developed to quickly control such
an event.
Water for the project may be withdrawn from Myer's creek north of Chesaw,
near the Canadian border. A hydrological study indicated streamflows are not
likely to affected much by this withdrawal, as this would occur during peak flows
(Golder Associates, 1994, pp 20-21). Therefore withdrawal there should not
impact sensitive plants.
There will be a reduction in stream flows in the drainages in the project area.
Most of the change will be in the upper, intermittent portions of the streams,
near the mine pit. Farther downstream streamflows will be reduced less,
anywhere from 1-10%. Most streamflow reduction will take place above 4505
feet, which is the lowest level of the pit (Hydro-Geo Consultants, 1995). A
population of 15 plants of Platanthera obtusata occurs along one stream that
may have reduced flow. There is also a possibility of populations of Listera
borealis in the upper reaches of streams being impacted by reduced stream
flow in the action alternatives. The reductions in stream flow may not actually
occur, but to be conservative, these populations will be considered impacted.
These population impacts are included in table 3 at the end of the Indirect
Effects section.
A population of Platanthera obtusata is known to occur near one of the
proposed wetland mitigation sites for the project. No decision has been made
at the time of this writing if this site will be developed. If this site is constructed
it would likely have a beneficial impact on this population, as the site would be
fenced, which would restrict cattle access.
There may be reduced stream flow below the tailings facility with all of the
alternatives. This would probably impact plant habitat below the facility until
stream flow resumes somewhere below the impoundment. In alternatives B, C,
12
-------
D, and E this would be on private ground. In alternatives F and G this would
be on federal land.
If an alternative is chosen that constructs a pit, eventually the pit will fill with
water and overflow. A water quality modeling study was done to predict future
water quality. The results of the study indicate the water would be alkaline and
have moderate to high hardness. The dissolved concentration of all metals
were below freshwater acute and chronic standards. Manganese is predicted
to be in elevated concentrations, although still relatively small (Schaefer &
Associates, Inc. 1994, p 6-12). Manganese is an important micronutrient
needed by plants and should thus cause no problems (Brady, 1990, pp 381-
397). All metals including manganese would be subject to adsorption in water
and soil, which is discussed in greater detail below, e.g. in the section on lead.
Cattle can damage plants, e.g. by trampling them. If the mine is constructed
there would be changes in the grazing patterns of cattle in the area. Cattle
would be fenced out of the mine area. Livestock numbers have already been
adjusted to compensate for any forage lost due to the mine activities.
Historically 584 cows with calves were run 6/1 to 9/30 on the Cedar grazing
allotment. Current numbers permitted on the Cedar allotment are 354 cows
with calves, 6/1 to 9/30. This is 61 % of historical stocking. This current
stocking is well within the carrying capacity adjustment needed to compensate
for lost forage due to mining activities. When an allotment management plan is
completed in the future it is anticipated that more livestock could be permitted
than the existing numbers (Don Rees, pers. comm.). The reduction in numbers
should reduce the concentrating of livestock and thus lower the likelihood of
damage to sensitive plants.
If mulching needs to be done to control erosion, any plant products used would
need to be certified as free of noxious weeds. This would help prevent weeds
from getting established and competing with sensitive species.
Chemicals.
The introduction of chemicals into the environment within the project area is a
concern for protection of sensitive species. Some chemicals, e.g. lime should
have little or no impact or perhaps even a beneficial effect, since lime is often
13
-------
applied to crops (Brady, 1990, pp 232-242). Others, e.g. lead, could have
negative impacts.
A plan will be needed to be developed to control any spills of chemicals and
fuel to prevent movement into the environment and possible damage to the
plants or their habitat. If chemicals such as cyanide, hydrochloric acid,
caustics, etc. entered streams in large quantities it could impact sensitive
plants.
Fertilization during reclamation could add excess fertilizer to the environment of
the sensitive species if done in excess. Therefore only the amount of fertilizer
necessary to do the job of restoration should be used. This amount can be
established as test plots are done for reclamation.
Another possible source of chemical pollution is the use of ammonium
nitrate/fuel oil blasting agent. If a portion of the blasting agent does not explode
then ammonium nitrate could be left exposed to the elements. During heavy
rain storms some of this could wash into the soil and adjacent streams. This
contamination should be relatively minor, as most of the blasting agent should
be consumed when detonated (Hawley, 1977, pp 235-236). The diversion
channels and sediment traps should help contain any excess that runs off. If
very small amounts of ammonium nitrate do escape it is unlikely sensitive
plants would be harmed, as ammonium nitrate is used as fertilizer (Brady,
1990, pp 473-475). Monitoring should detect any excess ammonium nitrate
that might escape.
The process of extracting gold from ore may involve the use oi cyanide and
other chemicals. In addition, metals such as lead, antimony, cadmium, lead,
zinc, etc. may be present in varying concentrations within the ore. Ore
processing unbinds these metals from the ore matrix and releases them into the
environmental media. If Alternative G is chosen other chemicals may be used,
such as potassium amyl xanthate, methyl isobutyl carbinol (MIBC), the promoter
chemicals AP 404 and DP-6, copper sulfate, and sodium sulfide.
Laboratory analysis was done on both waste rock and ore samples. In the
waste rock tests, the majority of the rock was found not to be acid generating,
and to have alkaline pH values. The small percentage of waste rock that would
14
-------
be acid generating would be mixed with the non acid generating portions. This
should effectively neutralize any acid generated. The tests also indicated only
trace to nondetectable levels of metals present (Kea Pacific Holdings, 1993a).
The amount of heavy metals in the ore body at Buckhorn Mountain is low, and
the ore is unlikely to be acid generating (Kea Pacific Holdings, 1993b). Tests
on the tailings indicate little acid generating potential also, and generally low
leach amounts of metals (Battle Mountain Gold Company and Kea Pacific
Holdings, Inc., 1994, pp 4, 6-10). The alkalinity and low acid generating
potential of the ore and waste rock should reduce the solubility of toxic and
heavy metals, as acidified water increases the solubility of toxic metals
(Newman, et al, 1992, p 186) (Hill, 1978, p 690). As pH decreases and soils
become more acid heavy metals generally become more available for biological
uptake (Smith, 1992, p 248) (Brady, 1990, pp 533-534). Since the waste rock,
ore, and tailings studies indicate little chance of acid generation, there should
be little likelihood of the water in the drainages becoming acid or carrying
metals that would impact the plants.
As mentioned above the tests on the tailings indicate only small amounts of
metals, < 1 mg/l (ppm) for most, are likely to leach from the tailings (Battle
Mountain Gold Company and Kea Pacific Holdings, Inc., 1994, pp 6-8, tables 5-
7). Those metals that do leach out would be subject to being tied up in the soil
as they travel (Elliot, et al, 1986). Most metal ions that are toxic are also
strongly adsorbed by the minerals in aquifers (Davis, et al, 1991, pp 53, 59).
Studies on areas where sewage sludge contaminated with heavy metals
(including lead) was applied to crop lands indicates the metals tend to be tied
up in the soil, and thus are not readily available to plants (Chang, et al, 1984, p
33) (Skousen and Clinger, 1993, p 146) (Chaney and Ryan, 1993, pp 460-467).
Therefore it seems unlikely the low amounts of metals at Crown Jewel are
going to travel enough to affect sensitive plants. Nor are such low levels of
metals likely to affect mycorrhiza that might be associated with the plants. One
study on mycorrhiza indicated much higher levels of contamination could be
tolerated by legumes (Angle, et al, 1988) (Chaney and Ryan, 1993, pp 485-
486).
15
-------
In addition, the INCO S02 process that is proposed to reduce the amount of
cyanide going into the tailings will precipitate heavy metals as metal
ferrocyanide salts or hydroxides (Smith and Mudder, 1991, pp 303-304, 313)
(Higgs associates, et al, 1992, p 7-5). Ferrocyanides are essentially insoluble,
and thus largely unavailable biologically. Being in hydroxide form should also
make metals less available biologically, e.g. lead in hydroxide form has low
solubility in water and is relatively immobile in the soil (Callahan, et al, 1979, p
13-2) (Battelle Columbus Labs, 1979, pp 16, 168, 170).
Lead.
Lead nitrate may be used in the gold extraction process. One review of the
literature noted lead nitrate was experimented with in the early part of the
century as a fertilizer (providing nitrogen), and it was found to increase crop
yields. However in some experiments deleterious effects were noted, especially
in larger concentrations (Holl and Hampp, 1977, pp 94-95). In another literature
review the root growth of sheep fescue was noted to be measurably retarded
with 10 ppm of lead nitrate in solution culture, and markedly reduced at 30 ppm
(Gough, et al, 1979, p 29). Lead has also been known to inhibit plant growth,
and reduce photosynthesis, mitosis, and water absorption (Eisler, 1988, p 56)
(Battelle Columbus Labs, 1979, pp 157-159). There is also evidence that lead
can be toxic to trees at threshold levels of exposure (Smith, 1992, p 248).
Lead nitrate is quite water soluble which makes the lead available to plants
(Battelle Columbus Labs, 1979, pp 15-16). However, the lead nitrate would
dissolve and react to form other compounds in the cyanadation process.
BMGC believes that some of the lead may react to form lead sulfide, (Jeffrey
White, pers. comm. to Don Rose). Work was done by Pittsburgh Mineral &
Environmental Technology, Inc. (PMET), on tailings samples from the Crown
Jewel Project (letters from PMET to Scott Hartman). PMET analyzed the
samples with optical microscopy, electron microprobe analysis, and
microscreening. Some later tests involved X-ray diffraction, more microscreen
analysis, and leach tests. The findings from the research imply the lead nitrate
forms lead sulfide or lead bearing jarosite, both of which are stable compounds.
Lead sulfide has very low solubility in water, thus making it less available
biologically (Battelle Columbus Labs, 1979, pp 15-16) (Simon and Morrison,
16
-------
1991, p 582) (Brady, 1990, p 532). The leach test done by PMET didn't record
any lead being extracted at pH 5 or pH 7.
As discussed above, the INCO SO2 process precipitates heavy metals as
hydroxides, so any lead not becoming sulfide or jarosite should be lead
hydroxide which is not readily available biologically. All of the lead from the
lead nitrate would go into the tailings.
Geochemical tests on seven samples of the tailings indicate very low levels of
lead would leach into the environment, less than 0.05 mg/l (ppm), in all but one
sample, which had 0.18 mg/l (Battle Mountain Gold Co. and Kea Pacific
Holdings, Inc. 1994, Table 7). The small amounts that might leach into the
environment would be subject to being bound up in the surrounding soils
(Battelle Columbus labs, 1979, pp 152, 330).
As discussed above, the low acid generating potential of the waste rock, ore,
and tailings should help keep the lead immobile. Any lead that leached into the
water would again be subject to sorption processes and thus would not be very
available to plants (Callahan, et al, 1979, pp 13-9 -- 13-13) (Davis, et al, 1991,
P53).
Copper.
Copper sulfate is being proposed for use in the cyanide destruction process,
and may also be used if alternative G is selected. Copper is an essential
element for plant growth, but only small amounts are required, i.e. it is a
micronutrient (Brady, 1990, pp 14, 381). Various compounds of copper are
used as fungicides on crops, aquatic herbicides, and as a root growth regulator
for container grown plants, and are labelled for such uses (Griffin Corp., n.d.).
However, copper can be toxic to plants if present in high enough concentrations
(Brady, 1990, pp 381-382) (Moriarty, 1988, pp 89-97). The copper from the
copper sulfate would go into the tailings. However, only very small amounts of
copper are likely to be available, as tests on the tailings indicated < 0.01 mg/l
would leach out (Battle Mountain Gold Co. and Kea Pacific Holdings, Inc., 1994,
Tables 5 & 6).
17
-------
A high proportion of copper can be bound by soil organic matter (Brady, 1990,
p 532). The tailings area is planned to be capped with topsoil during
reclamation, and this soil should contain some organic material. With time
microorganisms should build up and produce more organic matter in the soil
(Insam and Domsch, 1988) to help tie up copper and other metals.
Any copper that should leach out would be subject to being tied by the
processes previously discussed above. Any copper that got into the streams
would also be subject to adsorption on other materials, thus reducing the
bioavailabilty and toxicity (Callahan, et al, 1979, pp 11-6-11-12) (Meador, et al,
1993, pp 149, 151-153).
Flocculant.
A flocculant is planned on being used in conjunction with the cyanadation
process. The recommended flocculant will be a very high molecular weight
40% charge density anionic polyacrylamide. Two commercial products that
would meet these specifications are Nalclear 9709 PULV flocculant and Cytek
Superfloc 218 (Scott Hartman, pers. comm.). The Material Safety Data Sheet
(MSDS) for Nalclear 9709 indicates the chemical has no hazardous ingredients
in it. There is some toxicity to an aquatic organism (Ceriodaphnia dubia) (Nalco
Chemical Co. 1994). However, once this substance reacts with tailings it is tied
up and unavailable biologically (W. S. Utby, pers. comm.). It therefore will not
likely impact plants. Also only small amounts of this substance are planned on
being used, approximately 0.19 ton flocculant/3000 tons of ore. Similar
flocculants are described as relatively non toxic to animals (Hawley, 1977, pp
187-188), which may indicate they are also non toxic to plants.
Cyanide.
Cyanide can be toxic to plants under some circumstances. For example there
is evidence that cyanide can have negative effects on some plants, although
not all species (Towhill, et al, 1978, pp 95-101) (Eisler, 1991, pp 19-21).
However some plant species can metabolize externally added hydrogen
cyanide, others naturally produce cyanide containing compounds e.g. sorghum
(Towhill, et al, 1978, p 78) (Fuller, 1985, p 22). Also cyanides, including sodium
cyanide, have been used as fertilizer in the past (Fuller, 1985, pp 26-31). The
18
-------
preliminary results of one study on a few plant species indicate some plants
can grow and perhaps benefit in soil contaminated with cyanide. The controls
in this study again indicated that some species (chokecherry in this case)
naturally produce cyanide (Noble and Howe, 1983, pp 504-505).
Cyanide in tailings tends to degrade with time from natural processes. The
cyanide can volatilize, complex with other compounds, adsorb to soil and soil
organic matter (such as would be applied to cover the tailings in reclamation),
biodegrade, and decompose in other ways (Smith and Mudder, 1991, pp 47-
104) (Higgs Associates, et al, 1992, pp 8-4-8-5). Most biodegradation is done
by microorganisms who thus help break down the substance (Towhill, et al,
1978, pp 40, 48) (Fuller, 1985, p 24), which over time should reduce the
amount in the tailings. One of the byproducts of cyanide breakdown is
ammonia (Higgs Associates, et, al 1992, p 7-5) (Smith and Mudder, 1991, p
156). However ammonia should not be a problem, since only small amounts of
cyanide are planned to be in the tailings (about 10 ppm weak acid dissociable),
only small amounts of ammonia should be produced. Ammonia also tends to
volatilize into the atmosphere and is used as a fertilizer for plants (Brady, 1990,
pp 320-321, 472-474). Any cyanide that volatilizes would be in very small
amounts (Winges, 1994, p 47), and should not pollute the air enough to impact
sensitive plant populations.
In 1986 a heap leaching facility at a Montana gold mine was in danger of being
over topped by heavy rain. To deal with this problem the leaching solution was
treated with calcium hypochlorite using different strategies, which did not always
neutralize all of the cyanide. The treated solution was then applied to
surrounding land with sprinkler irrigation. The most noticeable effect on plants
was some browning of some vegetation and surficial "burning" of pine needles,
believed to be caused by excess chlorine left from cyanide neutralization,
overall adverse effects on vegetation were judged to be minimal (Spano, et al,
n.d., p 12). However at the Crown Jewel project heap leaching is not proposed
for gold extraction, but rather a tank cyanadation process, or if alternative G is
selected a flotation process would be used to concentrate gold, with the
concentrate then taken off site for further processing. In addition the cyanide
destruction method proposed for alternatives B-F is the INCO SO2 process,
rather than the use of calcium hypochlorite (alkaline chlorination) used in
Montana.
19
-------
Also the tailings impoundment area is designed to contain large inflows from
storms (Knight Piesold and Company, 1993, pp 8, 14, 18-19). If a catastrophic
storm did cause overflow of the tailings pond then the cyanide and other
chemicals would be greatly diluted, although sedimentation would be likely be
severe enough to damage plant populations.
If a tailings facility dam collapsed there would be release of chemicals and
sediment that could impact plants. However, the tailings facility is designed to
remain stable during an earthquake (Knight Piesold and Company, 1993, pp 52-
70).
It is proposed to detoxify the tailings to low levels of cyanide concentration,
about 10 ppm of Weak Acid Dissociable (WAD) cyanide. The planned chemical
process for gold extraction is self contained. The process is a closed circuit,
zero discharge system which includes a lined tailings impoundment area.
Safeguards are made to prevent loss of cyanide from the system even under
extreme rainfall, equipment failure, or puncture of the liner. A compacted clay
layer below an impervious liner should prevent significant entry of cyanide to
the underdrain, as the clay should attenuate cyanide movement by adsorption
(Smith and Mudder, 1991, p 59). In addition, the compaction of the tailings
themselves will create a barrier to passage of cyanide during and after mining
operations. If cyanide should penetrate the liners and soil and enter the creeks
it would be greatly diluted by the water. It would also continue to be subject to
degradation processes and sorption (Callahan, et al, 1979, pp 12-1-12-12)
The supernatant pond is expected to usually cover about 4 acres at any one
time, a relatively small portion of the total tailings impoundment area (Knight
Piesold and Company, 1993, p 85). The small size of the pond should leave
plenty of area to contain supernatant should a storm dump large amounts of
water in the area.
Since water from the solution pond is recycled, any cyanide dumped
accidentally will be recycled into the system. Monitoring of cyanide in the entire
system will detect such an occurrence.
If alternative G is selected other chemicals would be used for ore processing.
These chemicals would include potassium amyl xanthate, MIBC, AP 404, DP-6,
copper sulfate, and sodium sulfide. Little information is available on what
20
-------
impacts these compounds have on plants. One document states (translated) at
the environmental level xanthates become toxic for animals and aquatic plants
even when present in low concentrations. It is necessary to not throw this
product in bodies of water (Larue and Giroux, n.d., p 9). There is also some
information available on toxicity to animals, which may give some indication of
effects on plants. Xanthate has a moderate to high toxicity to animals, which
might carry over to plants. Xanthates do decompose rapidly to less toxic
substances (Hawley, 1977, pp 90-91, 222-223). MIBC (Methyl iso butyl
carbinol or Methyl Amyl Alcohol) is relatively non toxic to animals (Hawley,
1977, p 83) (Union Carbide Co., n.d.) AP 404 has a moderate toxicity to
animals (Hawley, 1977, p 100) (American Cyanamid Co., 1975). DP-6 is
essentially non toxic to animals (American Cyanamid Co. 1981). Copper sulfate
is also proposed to be used at the rate of about 0.3 Ibs./ton of ore, which
should not be enough to be toxic to plants (see also the discussion above
about copper). Sodium sulfide might cause some problems if enough was used
to make soils saline (Brady, 1990, pp 246-247), however the small amounts
proposed (again 0.3 Ib/ton of ore) would make this unlikely. Likewise any sulfur
left over from the process should not be enough to harm plants. Sulfur is
important for plant growth and is sometimes added to soil for crop production
(Brady, 1990, pp 338-344).
The chemicals and chemical by products of ore processing and any metals not
captured by the gold recovery process will go into the tailings. When
reclamation is done the tailings impoundment is to be covered by a layer of
topsoil (Battle Mountain Gold Company, 1993, pp 59-61) which should also
restrict the movement of chemicals. The soil and organic matter it contains
should restrict the movement of heavy metals (Elliot, et al, 1986) and cyanide
(Smith and Mudder, 1991, p 95). See also the previous discussion of
immobilization of contaminants. Immobilization of these chemicals should
prevent movement of concentrations large enough to be harmful to sensitive
plant populations in the area.
A modelling study was done on the proposed Marias creek tailings facility. The
study predicted the movement of cyanide, metals, and other contaminants into
groundwater. Under a worst case scenario the movement of contaminants was
predicted to not go beyond about 1430 feet from the source of origin after 20
years. At that time the fringe of the contaminant plume would have a
21
-------
concentration of 0.0001 times the original source concentration. Any
contamination at that time would be at background levels. The contaminants
are predicted to not move into surface waters. Also this study found a variety
of minerals in the soil at this site that would attenuate the movement of
contaminants, e.g. kaolinite, which is a clay (Hydro-Geo Consultants, pp 38-44,
1994).
Table 3. Comparison of the estimated INDIRECT EFFECTS of the action alternatives,
listing the number of populations (POPS) over the approximate number of plants of
each species that could be impacted by alternative (ALT). See pg 12 for discussion.
SPECIES
Listera
borealis
Platanthera
obtusata
ALTB
3 POPS
-105
PLANTS
1 POP
-15
PLANTS
ALTC
4 POPS
-117
PLANTS
1 POP
-15
PLANTS
ALTD
4 POPS
-128
PLANTS
1 POP
-15
PLANTS
ALTE
2 POPS
-71
PLANTS
1 POP
-15
PLANTS
ALT F
2 POPS
-71
PLANTS
1 POP
-15
PLANTS
ALTG
2 POPS
-71
PLANTS
1 POP
-15
PLANTS
22
-------
Table 4. Comparison of the possible DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS of the action
alternatives, listing the number of populations (POPS) over the approximate number of
plants of each species that could be impacted by alternative (ALT).
SPECIES
Botrychium
crenulatum
Listera
bo real is
Platanthera
obtusata
ALTB
1 POP
1 PLANT
7 POPS
-1933
PLANTS
3 POPS
-719
PLANTS
ALTC
1 POP
1 PLANT
7 POPS
-1922
PLANTS
3 POPS
-719
PLANTS
ALTD
1 POP
1 PLANT
7 POPS
-1933
PLANTS
3 POPS
-719
PLANTS
ALT E
1 POP
1 PLANT
8 POPS
-1933
PLANTS
3 POPS
-719
PLANTS
ALTF
1 POP
-21
PLANTS
7 POPS
-299
PLANTS
3 POPS
-115
PLANTS
ALTG
0 POP
0
PLANTS
7 POPS
-299
PLANTS
3 POPS
-115
PLANTS
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
There has been past mining activity in this area. These activities began in 1896
and continued on until 1950. Some of the past mining entries in the Buckhorn
Mountain area were Aztec, Buckhorn Adit, Caribou, Crystal Butte (Mother
Lode), Crystal Butte Iron, Gold Axe, Magnetic (Neutral), Rainbow, Roosevelt,
and Western Star (Moen, 1980, pp 41-54). These past entries have been
relatively small. Some of these sites would be covered by the current proposed
project.
Some mining exploration has been done in the Buckhorn Mountain area oy
Strongbow Resource Corporation adjacent to the Crown Jewel Project. If this
23
-------
project goes beyond preliminary exploration, further biological evaluation will
need to be completed for Strongbow's impacts.
Logging and recreation have taken place and continue to happen in and around
analysis area. These activities could impact sensitive plants, although the
Forest Service implements mitigation to try and prevent this from happening. In
the past a number of timber sales have occurred in the vicinity of the analysis
area. These sales include Nicholson Creek, Nicholson Creek #2, Ethel Creek
High Risk, Cow Camp High Risk, Upper Nicholson, Hoodoo, Gold Creek,
Marias Creek, Prince, Bishop, Gold, Nick II, Buckhorn, Nick 1 (Resale), and
Marias (Buyout), Gold thinning salvage, Mine, Mine II, Bat resale, and
Goldmine.
The Nicholson and Nicholson Salvage 2 timber sales have been sold, with
logging to begin about 1995. The sale area is located adjacent to and overlaps
the Crown Jewel Project on its eastern side. These sales propose timber
harvest and would include road building, slash burning, and other activities.
Depending on when harvest and mining activities occur, there might be some
cumulative impacts on sedimentation and stream flow. It is likely that most
impacts would come from the mine. The potential for increased sedimentation
was analyzed for these sales and found to be well within the range of natural
variability. The percent change in sedimentation was predicted to be 18%
above background. Stream flow timing was also predicted to not change
substantially because of Nicholson (USDA Forest Service, 1992b, pp 62-69).
The activities for the Nicholson sales were also analyzed through a screening
process. This process determined that the sales did not shift the historic
ranges of variability beyond normal ranges for the affected biophysical
environment (Michael Alvarado, pers comm.).
The Wheaton timber sale is being planned in the future a few miles east of the
Crown Jewel analysis area. It is probably far enough away to not have
cumulative effects on plants.
Currently the State of Washington, Department of Natural Resources is
planning the Park Place timber sale south of the mine area, in T40N, R30E,
Sec. 36. Both the state and BLM have had timber sales on their lands in the
area in the past. A population of Listera borealis was discovered in the analysis
24
-------
area on non forest service land that had been logged in the past.
Sedimentation was noted in the stream where the population was located,
presumably caused by the logging.
Grazing has also occurred in the area for many years. As discussed in the
indirect effects, the number of Animal Unit Months of grazing will be varied to
compensate for the loss of grazing area caused by the mine.
OKANOGAN NATIONAL FOREST VIABILITY
Botrychium crenulatum.
There are 14 populations of B. crenulatum known on the Okanogan National Forest
(Denise Roush, pers. comm.) (Jack McMillen, pers. comm.). Population size varies
from 1 plant to hundreds. At least 1018 plants have been counted on sighting reports
across the forest. Other populations are known north, west, east, and south of the
Crown Jewel area. If an action alternative is selected the number of populations and
plants left is summarized in table 5. It seems unlikely that loss of one of the
populations on the Crown Jewel Project would reduce forest viability.
Listera borealis.
There are 67 occurrences of L. borealis known on the Okanogan National Forest
(Denise Roush, pers. comm.) (Jack McMillen, pers. comm.). About 3127 plants have
been counted in these populations. Other populations are known north, west, east,
and south of the Crown Jewel area. If an action alternative is selected the number of
populations and plants left is summarized in table 5. It seems unlikely that forest
viability will be reduced by the loss of plants on the Crown Jewel Project.
Platanthera obtusata.
The number of populations on the forest for this species is 32 (Denise Roush, pers.
comm.) (Jack McMillen, pers. comm.). About 4418 plants have been counted in these
populations. Other populations are known north, west, east, and south of the Crown
Jewel area. If an action alternative is selected the number of populations and plants
25
-------
left is summarized in table 5. Again it would seem unlikely that forest viability would
be reduced by the loss of plants on the Crown Jewel Project.
Table 5. The number of populations and approximate number of plants on the
Okanogan National Forest left if an action alternative is selected. Displayed are the
number of populations (POPS) over the approximate number of plants of each species
by alternative (ALT).
SPECIES
Botrychium
crenulatum
Listera
boreal is
Platanthera
obtusata
ALTB
13 POPS
1017
PLANTS
60 POPS
1194
PLANTS
29 POPS
3699
PLANTS
ALTC
13 POPS
1017
PLANTS
60 POPS
1205
PLANTS
29 POPS
3699
PLANTS
ALTD
13 POPS
1017
PLANTS
60 POPS
1194
PLANTS
29 POPS
3699
PLANTS
ALT E
13 POPS
1017
PLANTS
59 POPS
1194
PLANTS
29 POPS
3699
PLANTS
ALTF
13 POPS
997
PLANTS
60 POPS
2828
PLANTS
29 POPS
4303
PLANTS
ALTG
14 POPS
1018
PLANTS
60 POPS
2828
PLANTS
29 POPS
4303
PLANTS
STATEWIDE SPECIES DISTRIBUTION
Botrychium crenulatum.
There are at least 47 known occurrences of this species in the State of Washington (Denise Roush,
pers. comm.) (Jack McMillen, pers. comm.). There are 19 in Ferry County, 14 in Okanogan
County, 3 in Pend Oreille County, and 11 in Stevens County. About 4101 plants are known to
occur in these populations. If an action alternative is selected the number of populations and
approximate number of plants left is summarized in table 6.
26
-------
Listera borealis.
There are 73 known occurrences of L borealis in Washington State at the time of this writing
(Denise Roush, pers. comm.) (Jack McMiilen, pers. comm.). There are in 2 in Ferry county, 65 in
Okanogan county, 2 in Pend Oreille county, 2 in Stevens county, and 2 in Whatcom county. About
3859 plants have been counted in these populations. If an action alternative is selected the number
of populations and plants left is summarized in table 6.
Table 6. The number of populations and approximate number of plants in the state of Washington
left if an action alternative is selected. Displayed are the number of populations (POPS) over the
approximate number of plants of each species by alternative (ALT).
SPECIES
Botrychium
crenulatum
Listera
borealis
Platanthera
obtusata
ALTB
46 POPS
4100
PLANTS
66 POPS
1926
PLANTS
33 POPS
3851
PLANTS
ALTC
46 POPS
4100
PLANTS
66 POPS
1937
PLANTS
33 POPS
3851
PLANTS
ALTD
46 POPS
4100
PLANTS
66 POPS
1926
PLANTS
33 POPS
3851
PLANTS
ALT E
46 POPS
4100
PLANTS
65 POPS
1926
PLANTS
33 POPS
3851
PLANTS
ALTF
46 POPS
4080
PLANTS
66 POPS
3560
PLANTS
33 POPS
4455
PLANTS
ALTG
47 POPS
4101
PLANTS
66 POPS
3560
PLANTS
33 POPS
4455
PLANTS
Platanthera obtusata.
There are at least 36 occurrences of P. obtusata in the state of Washington. There are two extra
occurrences in the Natural Heritage Data Base that may be identified wrong, (in King and Whatcom
Counties). 34 populations are known to occur in Okanogan County and 2 in Ferry County (D.
Roush, pers. comm.) (Jack McMiilen, pers. comm.). At least 4570 plants of this species have been
counted in the state. If an action alternative is selected the number of populations and plants left is
summarized in table 6.
27
-------
TOTAL SPECIES DISTRIBUTION
Botrychium crenulatum.
This species is on List 1 of the State of Oregon's special plants (Oregon Natural Heritage Program,
1993, p 73). B. crenulatum is listed as S-U, i.e. status unknown, on Idaho's rare plant list
(Conservation Data Center, 1994, p 9). The Flora of North America describes the range for this
species as being Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Nevada, Utah, Washington, and
Wyoming, (Wagner and Wagner, 1993, p 96). Another reference adds Alberta to this list (Zika,
1992, p20).
Listera borealis.
This species is not on the plant tracking list of the British Columbia Conservation Data Centre.
According to Hitchcock, et al (1969, p 852), this species ranges from Alaska to Hudson Bay, south
to north central Washington (Okanogan County) (found in other counties since then), Idaho,
Montana, Wyoming, and Utah.
Platanthera obtusata.
P. obtusata is listed as a category S-1 (taxa endangered or in danger, typically 5 or fewer
occurrences) on Idaho's rare plant list (Conservation Data Center, 1994, p 17). This species is not
on the plant tracking list of the British Columbia Conservation Data Centre. It is on list 2 of the
state of Oregon's special plants (Oregon Natural Heritage Program, 1993, p 74). According to
Hitchcock, et al (1969, p 846), this species is known to occur in the mountains from Alaska to
Newfoundland, south to southern British Columbia, Idaho, northeastern Oregon (Wallowa Mtns.),
Montana, Utah, Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New York, and Europe.
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES
If an action alternative is selected there will be a loss of sensitive plant populations in the study
area. There are however other populations in the analysis area that will be left. There are also
other populations of these species in the Nicholson timber sale area, which is adjacent to and
28
-------
overlaps a portion of the Crown Jewel analysis area. There are also nearby populations not in the
Nicholson analysis area.
The number of populations and plants not having impacts is summarized in Table 7. Also see
tables 2 and 3 to compare the effects of the alternatives.
Table 7. The number of populations and number of plants within the analysis area NOT having
Effects from the action alternatives, listing the number of populations (POPS) over the approximate
number of plants of each species by alternative (ALT).
SPECIES
Botrychium
cronulatum
Listera
borBalis
Platanthera
obtusata
ALT B
1 POP
-21
PLANTS
3 POPS
-155
PLANTS
1 POP
-96
PLANTS
ALT C
1 POP
-21
PLANTS
3 POPS
-166
PLANTS
1 POP
-96
PLANTS
ALT D
1 POP
-21
PLANTS
3 POPS
-155
PLANTS
1 POP
-96
PLANTS
ALTE
1 POP
-21
PLANTS
2 POPS
-155
PLANTS
1 POP
-96
PLANTS
ALTF
1 POP
-1 PLANT
3 POPS
-1789
PLANTS
1 POP
-700
PLANTS
ALTG
2 POPS
-22
PLANTS
3 POPS
-1789
PLANTS
1 POP
-700
PLANTS
Field work and draft documents of conservation strategies have been developed for all 3 species
(Zika, 1992) (Zika, 1994) (Salstrom and Gamon, 1993) (Beck, 1994).
29
-------
Table 8. The known number of populations over the approximate number of plants by species
located outside of but within a 5 mile radius of the analysis area.
SPECIES
Botrychium
crenulatum
Listera
borealis
Platanthera
obtusata
NUMBER OF
POPULATIONS
APPROXIMATE
NUMBER OF PLANTS
1 POPULATION
-418 PLANTS
2 POPULATIONS
-47 PLANTS
5 POPULATIONS
-316 PLANTS
DETERMINATION OF EFFECT
Since Howellia aquatilis was not discovered in the project area, there will be no effect on this
species.
DETERMINATION FOR H. aquatilis - No Effect.
If an action alternative is selected populations of three sensitive species will be impacted. However,
most of the area of these plant's habitat outside this project should not be seriously disturbed.
Other populations of these species exist both inside of and out of the analysis area. Nearly all of
the known populations of all 3 species occur on Federal Land, most on Forest Service land, a few
on BLM. Populations occurring in riparian areas are normally protected from impact by
management guidelines in the Forest Plan, as amended by the decision notice for the Continuation
30
-------
of Interim Management Direction Establishing Riparian, Ecosystem, and Wildlife Standards for
Timber Sales. In the future there will likely be additional riparian protection guidelines from the
PACFISH agreement and the Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management project.
Washington Natural Heritage Program has been informed of the possible impacts on these plants.
For all three species this project may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal
listing or loss of viability.
DETERMINATION FOR SENSITIVE SPECIES - May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a
trend to federal listing or loss of viability.
RECOMMENDATIONS
If an action alternative is selected:
Control dust using water and perhaps chemicals, e.g. lignin or something similar, so that dust
doesn't settle on plants.
Construct only the roads necessary to do the job needed in the area. Establish these roads
away from the creeks.
Transport employees to the job site in large vehicles to reduce dust and the chance of
human interference with the plant populations.
Use pilot cars to lead vehicles transporting chemicals and fuel into the area. Transport
chemicals in containers designed to be secure if an accident occurs.
As discussed in the Indirect Effects livestock numbers in the grazing allotment containing the
project have already been reduced. However some monitoring of livestock impacts would
need to be continued. Fence around the sensitive plant populations in the project area to
further reduce any chance of damage to the plants.
Coordinate with the local Range Conservationist to address salting plans to prevent trampling
and grazing damage near populations of sensitive species. Range revegetation using exotic
species which may attract the cattle to the areas of sensitive species should be evaluated to
determine impacts on sensitive species.
31
-------
If an action alternative is selected, transplant the sensitive plants to wetland and riparian
areas.
Establish monitoring plots in populations of the three species to see if impacts from mining
activities can be detected on the populations.
Monitoring of surface waters in Nicholson and Marias Creeks should be done during rain
storm events to determine if chemicals resulting from blasting or ore processing are within
prescribed levels.
Control sedimentation and oil runoff into streams so that sensitive plants are not adversely
impacted. Use diversion ditches, settling ponds, and mulching around topsoil, waste rock,
and other disturbed areas to control sedimentation.
Use mulches that are certified noxious weed free to avoid spreading weeds and having them
compete with sensitive species.
If alternative F is chosen route the tailings pipeline away from streams in the area to protect
sensitive species habitat.
During reclamation use only enough fertilizer to do the job needed for reclamation, so excess
fertilizer doesn't run into streams. Store fertilizer in facilities that contain it and don't allow
runoff into the environment.
Develop an emergency plan to respond quickly to fires, chemical spills, or other disasters
and contain them.
Acknowledgements. A. G. Crook Company did the preliminary work on this document. Pamela
Camp of the Wenatchee BLM reviewed and provided many helpful comments to this document.
Leo Torba of the Okanogan National Forest assisted by translating French into English.
32
-------
REFERENCES
ACZ Inc. Crown Jewel Project Vegetation Studies. August 1991
ACZ Inc. Crown Jewel Joint Venture Project - Battle Mountain Gold Company and Crown
Resources Corporation, Summary of Applicant's Plan of Operation. November 1992.
A.G. Crook Company. Crown Jewel Project Wetland Delineation Report. January 1993.
Alvarado, Michael. Forester, U.S. Forest Service, Tonasket Ranger District. Conversation, May 6,
1994.
American Cyanamid Company. Information Sheet on Aqueous Aero 404 promoter. 2pp. 1975.
American Cyanamid Company. Information Sheet on Cyquest DP-3 and DP-6 mineral processing
aids. 2 pp. 1981.
Angle, J. S., M. A. Spiro, A. M. Heggo, M. EI-Kherbawy, and R. L. Chaney. Soil Microbial -
Legume Interactions in Heavy Metal Contaminated Soils at Palmerton, PA. Pp 321-336. In:
Delbert D. Hemphill, ed. Trace Substances in Environmental Health-XXII. Proceedings of the
University of Missouri's 22'nd Annual Conference on Trace Substances in Environmental Health.
University of Missouri. 1988.
Battelle Columbus Labs. The Health and Environmental Impacts of Lead and an Assessment of a
Need for Limitations. Environmental Protection Agency Report Number EPA-560/2-79-001.
Available from National Technical Information Service, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Springfield, VA.
484 pp plus appendix. April, 1979.
Battle Mountain Gold Company. Crown Jewel Joint Venture Project, Battle Mountain Gold
Company, and Crown Resources Corporation, Okanogan County, Washington, INTEGRATED
PLAN OF OPERATIONS. 79 pp plus Tables and Figures. March, 1993.
33
-------
Battle Mountain Gold Company, Golder Associates Inc., and Shepherd Miller, Inc. Crown Jewel
Joint Venture Project, Battle Mountain Gold Company and Crown Resources Corporation,
Okanogan County, Washington, Reclamation Plan. Revised August, 1993.
Battle Mountain Gold Company and Kea Pacific Holdings, Inc. Tailings Geochemical Testing
Program: Crown Jewel Project, Okanogan County, Washington. 10 pp plus tables and sample set
data. January, 1994.
Beck, Kathryn. R-6 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Sighting Forms: Nicholson
Timber Sale Area. August, 1991.
Beck, Kathryn. Draft Species Conservation Strategy for Platanthera obtusata in Washington and
Oregon. 1994.
Brady, Nyle C. The Nature and Properties of Soils. 10'th edition, Macmillan publishing, 621 pp.
1990.
Callahan, Michael A., Michael W. Slimak, Norman W. Gabel, Ira P. May, Charles F. Fowler, J.
Randall Freed, Patricia Jennings, Robert L. Durfee, Frank C. Whitmore, Bruno Maestri, William R.
Mabey, Buford R. Holt, and Constance Gould. Water-Related Environmental Fate of 129 Priority
Pollutants. Volume 1: Introduction and Technical Background, Metals and Inorganics, Pesticides
and PCBs. Environmental Protection Agency Report Number EPA 440/4-79-029a. Available from
National Technical Information Service, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Springfield, VA. 37 chapters.
December, 1979.
Chaney, Rufus L, and James A. Ryan. Heavy Metals and Toxic Organic Pollutants in MSW-
Composts: Research Results on Phytoavailabilty, Bioavailability, Fate, Etc. Pp 451-506. In: Harry
A. J. Hoitink and Harold M. Keener, eds. Science and Engineering of Composting: Design,
Environmental, Microbiological and Utilization Aspects. Renaissance Publications (The Ohio state
University). 1993.
Chang, A. C., A. L. Page, J. E. Warneke, and E. Grgurevic. Sequential Extraction of Soil Heavy
Metals Following a Sludge Application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 13:33-38. 1984.
Conservation Data Center. Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Animals of Idaho. 3'rd
edition. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. 1994.
34
-------
Crofts, Kent, ACZ Inc. Biological Evaluation for the Crown Jewel Exploration Project. June 1990.
Davis, J. A., D. B. Kent, B. A. Rea, Stephen P. Garabedian, and L. D. Anderson. Effect of the
Geochemical Environment on Heavy-Metal Transport in Ground Water. Pp 53-61. In: Gail E.
Mallard and David A. Aronson, eds. U.S. Geological Survey Toxic Substances Hydrology Program
- Proceedings of the technical meeting, Monterey, California, March 11-15, 1991. Water-
Resources Investigations Report 91-4034. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. 730 pp. 1991.
Eisler, R. Lead Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: a Synoptic Review. U.S Fish and
Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(1.14). 134pp. 1988.
Eisler, R. Cyanide Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: a Synoptic Review. U.S Fish and
Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(1.23). 55 pp. 1991.
Elliot, H. A., M. R. Liberati, and C. P. Huang. Competitive Adsorption of Heavy Metals by Soils.
Journal of Environmental Quality 15:214-219. 1986.
Fuller, Wallace H. Cyanides in the environment with particular attention to soil. Pp 19-44. In: Dirk
Van Zyl, ed. Cyanide and the environment, Vol. 1. Proceedings of a conference, Tucson, Arizona,
Dec. 11-14, 1984. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. 1985.
Colder Associates, Inc. Design Report, Water Supply System, Crown Jewel Project, Battle
Mountain Gold Company. 55 pages + Figures. 1993.
Colder Associates, Inc. Streamflow Investigations Conducted along Myers Creek near Myncaster,
British Columbia. 22 pp plus tables, figures, and appendices. January, 1994.
Gough, Larry P., Hansford T. Shacklette, and Arthur A. Case. Element Concentrations Toxic to
Plants, Animals, and Man. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1466. (Available from USGS, Denver,
CO). 80 pp. 1979.
Griffin Corporation. Valdosta, Georgia. Manufactures copper compounds for various uses. The
labels describe the correct use of these compounds. No date.
Hartman, Scott N. Mill Superintendent, BMGC. Telephone conversation, April 27, 1994.
35
-------
Hawley, John R. The Use, Characteristics and Toxicity of Mine-Mill Reagents in the Province of
Ontario. Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 244pp. 1977.
Higgs, T. W., Associates Ltd., E.V.S Consultants Ltd., ASL Laboratories Ltd., and Gormely Process
Engineering. Technical Guide for the Environmental Management of Cyanide in Mining. British
Columbia Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation. 1992.
Hill, Ronald D. Methods for Controlling Pollutants. Pp 687-704. In: Frank W. Schaller and Paul
Sutton, eds. Reclamation of Drastically Disturbed Lands. American Society of Agronomy, Crop
Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America. Madison, Wisconsin. 742 pp. 1978.
Hitchcock, C. Leo, Arthur Cronquist, and Marion Ownbey. Vascular Plants of the Pacific Northwest.
Part 1: Vascular Cryptograms, Gymnosperms, and Monocotyledons. University of Washington
Press, Seattle, WA. 914 pp. 1969.
Holl, Wolfgang and Rudiger Hampp. Lead and Plants. Residue Reviews 54:79-111. 1975.
Hydro-Geo Consultants, Inc. Seepage and Attenuation Study, Crown Jewel Tailings Disposal
Facility. March 25, 1994.
Hydro-Geo Consultants, Inc. Impacts of Mining on Area Stream Flows. 1995.
Insam, H. and K. H. Domsch. Relationship Between Soil Organic Carbon and Microbial Biomass on
Chronosequences of Reclamation Sites. Microbial Ecology 15:177-188. 1988.
Kea Pacific Holdings Inc., in association with Golder Associates Inc. Report on the Waste Rock
Geochemical Testing Program Crown Jewel Project. September, 1993.
Kea Pacific Holdings Inc., in association with Golder Associates Inc. Report on Geochemical
testing of: Ore and Low Grade Ore Crown Jewel Project. September, 1993.
Kerr, Philip. Department of Ecology, State of Washington. Yakima, Washington. Telephone
conversation, November 7, 1994.
Knight Piesold and Co. Battle Mountain Gold Company Crown Jewel Project Tailings Disposal
Facility Final Design Report, 3 Volumes. 109 pp plus tables, figures, drawings, and appendices.
June 1, 1993.
36
-------
Larue, Marie and Denise Giroux. Risques Relies A L'Utilisation De Xanthates Dans Le Processus
De Flottaison Des Metaux. Commission de la Sante et de la Securite du Travail (CSST). CREF:
84020201. Quebec, Canada. 18 pp + Annexes. No Date, but probably 1984.
Lesica, Peter. Autoecology of the Endangered Plant Howellia aquatilis; Implications for
Management and Reserve Design. Ecological Applications 2(4):411-421. 1992.
Lesica, Peter and Brian M. Stelle. Prolonged Dormancy in Vascular Plants and Implications for
Monitoring Studies. Natural Areas Journal 14:209-212. 1994.
Loftis, L. Botanist, USDA Forest Service, Tonasket Ranger District, Okanogan National Forest.
Loftis, Larry. Biological Evaluation for Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Plants,
Nicholson Analysis Area. 1992.
Mastrogiuseppe, Joy. Botanist, Washington State University. Letter of determination to Kent
Crofts. April 2, 1992.
Meador, James P., Frieda B. Taub, and Thomas H. Sibley. Copper Dynamics and the Mechanism
of Ecosystem Level Recovery in a Standardized Aquatic Microcosm. Ecological Applications
3(1):139-155. 1993.
Meinke, Robert J. Investigations into the Conservation Status of Mimulus pygmaeus and Mimulus
tricolor (Scrophulariaceae) on the Winema and Fremont National Forests. Part II: Conservation
Strategy. Document prepared for Winema and Fremont National Forests by Oregon Department of
Agriculture and Dept. of Botany and Plant Pathology, Oregon State University. Pp 35-43. 1994.
Moen, Wayne S. Myers Creek and Wauconda Mining Districts of Northeastern Okanogan County,
Washington. Washington Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth
Resources, Bulletin 73. 96 pages. 1980
Moriarty, F. Ecotoxicology. 2'nd edition. Academic press. 289pp. 1988.
Nalco Chemical Company. Material safety data sheet for Nalclear 9709 pulv flocculant. 6 pages.
1994.
37
-------
Newman, James R., R. Kent Schreiber, and E. Novakova. Air Pollution Effects on Terrestrial and
Aquatic Animals. Pp 177-233. In: Jerry R. Barker and David T. Tingey eds. Air Pollution Effects
on Biodiversity. Van Nostrand Reinhold, 322 pp. 1992
Noble, Daniel L. and Marmion Howe. Cyanide in Riparian Vegetation. Pp 498-505. In: Maurice C.
Fuerstenau and Bruce R. Palmer, eds. Gold, Silver, Uranium, and Coal, Geology, Mining,
Extraction, and the Environment. The American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum
Engineers, Inc. New York, New York. 1983.
Oregon Natural Heritage Program. Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Animals of
Oregon. Oregon Natural Heritage Program, Portland, Oregon. 79pp. 1993.
Pittsburgh Mineral & Environmental Technology, Inc. Letters to Scott Hartman of BMGC, dated
June 24, and August 10, 1994.
Rees, Donald. Range conservationist, U.S. Forest Service, Tonasket Ranger District.
Conversation, February 25, 1994.
Roush, Denise. Rare Plant Data Specialist, Washington Natural Heritage Program, Olympia, WA.
Letter, January 12, 1995.
Salstrom, Debra and John Gamon. Draft Species Conservation Strategy for Listera borealis
Morong on the Colville National Forest. Document prepared by the Washington Natural Heritage
Program, Olympia, Washington. 1993.
Schafer and Associates. Geochemical Modeling of Pit Lake Water Quality for the Crown Jewel
Project. Schafer and Associates, Bozeman, MT. 1994.
Simon, Nancy S. and Janet F. Morrison. The Role of Bed Sediments and Drift in the Transport and
Fate of Metallo-Organic Compounds in the Calcasieu River Estuary, Louisiana. Pp 579-582. In:
Gail E. Mallard and David A. Aronson, eds. U.S. Geological Survey Toxic Substances Hydrology
Program -- Proceedings of the technical meeting, Monterey, California, March 11-15, 1991. Water-
Resources Investigations Report 91-4034. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. 730pp. 1991.
Skousen, J. and C. Clinger. Sewage sludge land application program in West Virginia. Journal of
Soil and Water Conservation. 48:145-151. 1993.
38
-------
Smith, William H. Air Pollution Effects on Ecosystem Processes. Pp 234-260. In: Jerry R. Barker
and David T. Tingey eds. Air Pollution Effects on Biodiversity. Van Nostrand Reinhold, 322 p.
1992.
Smith, Adrian and Terry Mudder. The Chemistry and Treatment of Cyanidation Wastes. Mining
Journal Books Limited, London, 345 pp. 1991.
Spano, Scott, Scott Haight, and Joe Frazier. Emergency Treatment and Land Application of Excess
Cyanide Solution at the Zortmann Mine, Phillips County, Montana. Apparently unpublished paper,
author Spano was with Montana Dept. of State Lands, Haight and Frazier with Bureau of Land
Management, Lewiston, MT. 17 pp plus figures and appendices. No Date.
Sprague, A. Wildlife Biologist. USDA Forest Service, Twisp Ranger District, Okanogan National
Forest. (Reporting findings of S. Heywood, Biological Technician).
Stockhouse, Robert. Botanist, Pacific University, Forest Grove, Oregon.
Towhill, Leigh E., John S. Drury, Brad L. Whitfield, Eric B. Lewis, Elizabeth Galyan, and Anna S.
Hammons. Reviews of the Environmental Effects of Pollutants: V. Cyanide. Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Tennessee. ORNL/EIS-81. EPA-600/1 -78-027. 190 pages. 1978.
Union Carbide Company. Technical information sheet on Methyl Amyl Alcohol. 1 p. No date.
USDA Forest Service. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Land and Resource Management
Plan, Okanogan National Forest. 1989.
USDA Forest Service. Tonasket Ranger District Sensitive Plant List, (Compiled from information
from the Washington Natural Heritage Program and Sensitive Species list of the Region 6 Regional
Forester). Okanogan National Forest. March, 1992.
USDA Forest Service. Nicholson Timber Sale, Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant
Impact, Environmental Assessment. October, 1992.
USDA Forest Service. Tonasket Ranger District Five Year Action Plan: FY 1991 - FY 1995.
Okanogan National Forest. No Date.
39
-------
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS Reference 1-3-93-SP-090. Letter dated December 16, 1992
to Okanogan Forest Biologist Robert H. Naney discussing species list. 1992.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. Plant Taxa for Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species;
Notice of Review. U.S. Federal Register:51144-51190. September 30, 1993.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS Reference 1-3-92-SP-910. Letter dated December 8, 1993
to Okanogan National Forest Biologist Robert Naney, discussing listed and proposed endangered
and threatened species which may occur within the area of the proposed gold mine and milling
facility. 1993.
Utby, W. S. Employee of Nalco Chemical Company, Naperville, Illinois. Telephone conversation,
April 28, 1994.
Wagner, Warren H. and Florence S. Wagner. Ophioglossaceae. Pp 85-10(3. In: Flora of North
America Editorial Committee, eds. Flora of North America North of Mexico. Vol 2. Oxford
University Press. 475 pp. 1993.
Washington Natural Heritage Data System. Special plant records by Ranger District, computer
printout. For Okanogan National Forest, Tonasket Ranger District. February, 1991.
Washington Natural Heritage Program. Species Status Summaries for Listera borealis and
Platanthera obtusata. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia. November
1992 and update January 1993 (pers. comm.).
Washington Natural Heritage Program. Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Vascular Plants of
Washington. Department of Natural Resources. Olympia, WA. 52 pp. 1994.
White, Jeffrey S. Environmental Superintendent, BMGC. Letters to Don Rose, 11 March, and 14
September, 1994.
Winges, Kirk D. 1994. Battle Mountain Gold, Crown Jewel Project Air Quality Permit Support
Document. McCulley, Frick & Oilman, Inc. Atmospheric Sciences Group. Lynwood, WA. 48 pp +
appendices.
Wooten, G. Biological Technician. USDA Forest Service, Winthrop Ranger District. Okanogan
National Forest.
40
-------
Zika, P.P. Draft Management Guide for Rare Botrychium Species (Moonworts and Grape-ferns) for
the Mount Hood National Forest. Oregon Natural Heritage Program, Portland. February, 1992.
Zika, P.P. Draft Management Plan for the Moonworts Botrychium ascendens, B. crenulatum, B.
Paradoxum, & B. pedunculosum in the Wallowa-Whitman, Umatilla & Ochoco National Forests.
Oregon Natural Heritage Program, Portland. June, 1994.
41
-------
-------
APPENDIX 1
SENSITIVE PLANTS THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE ANALYSIS AREA
Agoseris elata
Astragalus microcystis
Botrychium lanceolatum
Botrychium lunaria
Botrychium minganense
Botrychium montanum
Botrychium pinnatum
Botrychium simplex
Carex atrata var. atrosquama
Carex atrata var. erecta
Carex buxbaumii
Carex comosa
Carex flava
East of Okanogan river
Carex hystricina
Carex norvegica
Carex paupercula
Carex saxitalis var. major
Carex scirpoidea var. scirpoidea
Carex scopulorum var. prionophylla
Carex sychnocephala
Chrysosplenium tetrandum
Cicuta bulbifera
Cryptogramma stelleri
Cypripedium calceolus var. parviflorum
Cypripedium Fasciculatum
Dodecatheon pulchellum var. watsonii
Dryas drummondii
Eleocharis atropurpurea
Epipactus gigantea
Erigeron acris var. elatus
Erigeron humilis
Eriophorum viridicarinatum
Eritrichium nanum var. elongatum
Geum rivale
Howellia aquatilis
Iliamna longisepala
Listera borealis
Lycopodium dendroideum
Tall Agoseris
Least bladdery milk vetch
Lance leaved grape fern
Moonwort
Victorin's grape fern
Mountain moonwort
St. John's moonwort
Little grape fern
Blackened sedge
Erect blackened sedge
Buxbaum's sedge
Bristly sedge
Yellow sedge
Porcupine sedge
Scandinavian sedge
Poor sedge
Russet Sedge
Canadian single spike sedge
Saw leaved sedge
Many headed sedge
Northern golden carpet
Bulb bearing water hemlock
Steller's rockbrake
Yellow lady's slipper
Clustered lady's slipper
Few-flowered shooting star
Yellow mountain aven's
Purple spike rush
Giant helleborine
Tall bitter fleabane
Artie alpine daisy
Green keeled cotton grass
Pale alpine forget me not
Purple water avens
Howellia
Long sepal globemallow
Northern twayblade
Tree like club moss
-------
Mimulus suksdorFii
Nicotiana attenuata
Orobanche pinorum
Parnassia kotzebuei
Phacelia Franklini
Platanthera obtusata
Poa grayana
Polemonium viscosum
Potentilla quinquifolia
Ribes oxyacanthoides ssp. cognatum
Ribes oxyacanthoides ssp. irriguum
Rubus acaulis
Salix Candida
East of Okanogan river
Salix tweedyi
Sanicula marilandica
Saxifraga cernua
Sisyrinchium septentrionale
Spiranthes romanzofFia var. porrifolia
Teucrium canadense ssp. viscidum
Tillaea aquatica
Vaccinium myrtilloides
Suksdorf's monkey flower
Coyote tobacco
Pine broomrape
Kotzebue's grass of E'arnassus
Franklin's phacelia
Small northern bog orchid
Gray's bluegrass
Skunk polemonium
Five leaved cinquefoil
Umatilla gooseberry
Idaho gooseberry
Nagoonberry
Hoary willow
Tweedy's willow
Black snake root
Nodding saxifrage
Blue eyed grass
Western ladies tresses
Woodsage
Pygmy weed
Velvet leaved blueberry
-------
APPENDIX 2
REGION 6 SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES AND HABITAT LIST FOR TONASKET RANGER DISTRICT
(03/92)
Compiled from information from the Washington Natural Heritage Program and
the Sensitive Species list of the Region 6 Regional Forester. The Regional
Forester's sensitive species list includes Federally listed endangered,
threatened, and proposed species (FSM R-6 Supplement 2600-91-1, 2670.^4, 1.
a.). however none of these species are presently known to exist on the Okanogan
National Forest. Much of the habitat information came from Vascular Plants of
the Pacific Northwest, Parts 1-5, By Hitchcock, Cronquist, Ownbey, and
Thompson, 1955-1969.
(D = documented on district)
(S = suspected on district)
SPECIES
S Agoseris elata
S Agrostis borealis
S Astragalus microcystis
S Botrychium lanceolatum
D Botrychium lunaria
D Botrychium minganense
S Botrychium montanum
D Botrychium pinnatum
HABITAT
Meadows and open woods, from lowlands to
timberline in the mountains.
Alpine talus slopes, fellfields, and
ridges.
In the Olympic mountains it is found
above 6000 feet in the alpine zone. In
eastern Washington, it is found at
moderate elevations, in gravelly, sandy
areas, often in open woods.
Wet to moist grassy and rocky slopes,
meadows, woods, and roadsides in cold,
mostly subacid soil.
Grassy or marshy meadows and on sandy or
gravelly riverbanks, in acid to
circumneutral soil.
Meadows, prairies, and woods and on sand
dunes and riverbanks, in acid to
circumneutral soil.
Western red cedar forests and along
grassy trail edges.
Grassy slopes, streambanks, roadsides
and in mossy woods, in moist to wet
soil.
-------
S Botrychium simplex
Meadows, barrens, and woods in usually
subacid soil.
D Carex atrata
var. atrosquama
D Carex atrata
var. erecta
D Carex buxbaumii
S Carex comosa
S Carex flava
S Carex hystricina
D Carex norvegica
D Carex paupercula
S Carex saxitalis
var. major
S Carex scirpoidea
var. scirpoidea
D Carex scopulorum
var. prionophylla
S Carex sychnocephala
D Chrysosplenium tetrandum
Mid to high elevation forest and
subalpine meadows.
Wet meadows to open, dry slopes;
subalpine and alpine.
Peat bogs, marshes, wet meadows, and
other wet places.
Marshes, lake margins, drainage ditches,
rivulets, and wet meadows in lowlands.
Wet areas around fens, bogs, streams,
and lakes; from low to moderate
elevations. East of the Okanogan
river.
Wet areas along streams, lowlands to mid
montane.
Streambanks, seepage areas, and moist
meadows at moderate to high elevations.
Also exposed, rocky ridges, talus
slopes; subalpine to alpine.
Sphagnum bogs and sedge meadows.
Wet meadows and the margins of streams
and ponds.
Moist meadows, rocky outcrops with some
soil development at high elevations,
5900-7400 ft.
Wet to moist places.
Moist or wet low ground, especially in
marshes or along beaches and shores.
In rock crevices, on wet banks, and in
other wet areas.
-------
S Cicuta bulbifera
S Cryptogramma steller!
S Cypripedium calceolus
var. parviflorum
S Cypripedium Fasciculatum
D Dodecatheon pulchellum
var. watsonii
S Draba aurea
S Draba cana
S Dryas drummondii
S Eleocharis atropurpurea
S Epipactus gigantea
S Erigeron acris
var. elatus
S Erigeron humilis
S Eriophorum viridicarinatum
S Eritrichium nanum
var. elongatum
D Gentiana glauca
In marshes, bogs, wet meadows, and
shallow standing water.
Moist shaded cliffs and ledges at upper
and middle elevations.
In bogs to damp mossy woods, often with
aspen and red osier dogwood.
In moist to rather dry and rocky open
coniferous forest.
Subalpine to alpine zone; meadows, damp
rock outcrops, rocky open Douglas fir -
lodgepole pine forests.
Fellfields, dry slopes, to lush meadows,
subalpine to alpine zone.
Open, dry meadows and knolls and in rock
crevices, alpine to subalpine zones.
This species is D. lanceolata in
Hitchcock.
In crevices of rocky, dry cliffs.
Wet places, lake shores.
Streambanks, lake margins, and around
springs and seepage areas.
Generally in swampy places.
High elevation areas, the only known
site in Washington is in an opening with
very rocky soil in Engelmann spruce,
subalpine fir, and lodgepole pine.
Cold swamps and bogs at moderate to
higher elevations.
Open, rocky places at high elevations.
Alpine meadows and tundra, primarily
where its seasonally moist.
-------
S Geum rivale
S Howellia aquatilis
S Iliamna longisepala
D Listera borealls
S Loiseleuria procumbens
S Lycopodium dendroideum
S Mimulus suksdorfii
S Nicotiana attenuata
S Orobanche pinorum
D Parnassia kotzebuei
S Phacelia franklini
D Platanthera obtusata
S Poa grayana
S Polemonium viscosum
S Potentilla diversifolia
var. perdissecta
D Potentilla nivea
Streambanks, lake shores, bogs and wet
meadows.
In vernal ponds and lakes.
Dry, open hillsides, gravelly
streamsides, and open Ponderosa pine
forests, low to mid elevations.
In damp Englemann spruce woods with
red-osier dogwood, lady fern, and
stinking currant.
Alpine slopes.
Dry, rocky slopes and open coniferous
forests, mid elevations in mountains.
(keys to L. obscuram in Hitchcock et al)
Wet to dry open places; lowlands to
rather high in the mountains.
Dry sandy bottom lands, and in other dry
open places.
Mostly in coniferous woods and
associated with Holodiscus discolor.
Moist, near vertical, north facing
granitic cliffs.
Stream banks, meadows, and open slopes,
especially in gravelly soil, at moderate
elevations in the mountains, sometimes
in burns or other disturbed sites.
Damp to wet forested areas.
Alpine to subalpine, on screes, open
ridges, meadowland and Streambanks.
In sandy soil with much coarse rock and
on talus slopes.
Rocky alpine slopes.
Alpine slopes, meadows, ridgetops and
scree.
-------
S Potentilla quinquiFolia
S Ribes oxyacanthoides
ssp. cognatum
S Ribes oxyacanthoides
ssp. irriguum
D Rubus acaulis
S Salix Candida
D Salix tweedyi
S Sanicula marilandica
D Saxifraga cernua
D Saxifraga debilis
S Sisyrinchium septentrionale
S Spiranthes romanzoffia
var. porrifolia
S Teucrium canadense
ssp. viscidum
S Tillaea aquatica
D Vaccinium myrtilloides
Rocky ridgetops, associated with grasses
and sedges.
Along streambanks, ephemeral streams,
and adjacent moist hillsides to mid
elevations, (R. cognatum in Hitchcock).
Along streams, and slopes of moist to
dry canyons, (R. irriguum in Hitchcock).
Tundra to mountain meadows, bogs, and
woods.
Bogs and swamps. East of Okanogan
river.
Moist to boggy areas, generally at
moderate elevations.
Moist woods, margins of bogs.
Stream banks, seeps, moist rocks and
cliffs.
Damp cliffs, rock crevices, and talus
near snowbanks; alpine.
Dry meadows and pastures or streambanks
in unglaciated areas.
Moist to wet meadows.
Stream banks, moist bottom lands, and
the periphery of small (sometimes
vernal) ponds.
Growing in mud flats and vernal pools.
Moist or dry soil and bogs.
-------
-------
APPENDIX K
TAILINGS SITE SELECTION REPORT
-------
-------
June 1995 Appendix K * Tailings Site Selection Report * K-l
TAILINGS SITE SELECTION REPORT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Washington State law, Chapter 78.56 RCW, requires preparation of a site selection report to
determine the preferred location of tailings facilities of metals mining and milling operations. The
law requires that the report address certain site specific criteria while also accounting for the
objectives of the proponent's application relating tc mining and milling operations. In addition
to addressing these criteria, the report must analyze the feasibility of reclamation and stabilization
of the tailings facility. The process that is mandated consists of a preliminary screening phase
followed by a technical site investigation of one or more feasible sites identified in the preliminary
phase. As provided in the law, data for the site selection report was furnished by the applicant,
by the lead agencies, and by consultants for the lead agencies.
2.0 PRELIMINARY SCREENING PHASE
Potential tailings sites in the six major drainages in the vicinity of the project were considered.
In addition, the potential for locating a tailings facility that would not be in a valley bottom was
considered in the Myers Creek valley. Figure K-l, Regional Screening Areas, of this report is an
area map showing the location of drainages in the area. The six drainages were compared using
the criteria established by Chapter 78.56 RCW.
2.1 DRAINAGE ANALYSIS
2.1.1 Marias Creek Drainage
Marias Creek trends generally eastward from its headwaters on the eastern flank of Buckhorn
Mountain toward its confluence with Toroda Creek. The upper reaches of Marias Creek consist
of two parallel streams which flow generally to the south. The streams parallel each other for
about 1.5 miles before combining and trending east. The Marias Creek drainage area is 12.1
square miles with a length of 7.3 miles.
Proximity to the one hundred year flood plain, as indicated in the most recent federal
emergency management agency (FEMA) maps. No flood plain mapping has been conducted
on Marias Creek by FEMA. However, Marias Creek has a limited drainage area and a relatively
steep gradient that promotes rapid runoff of storm events. As a result, there is limited potential
for flood plain development along the creek.
Proximity to surface water and ground water. The upper 2.5 miles of Marias Creek is an
intermittent stream, while in the lower 4.8 miles the stream is perennial. Within the area of the
spring and seep sampling survey the west fork of the stream was found to include 5 springs and
2 seeps; the east fork contains one spring, which has been developed for watering cattle. The
upper reaches of the perennial portion of the stream have limited habitat for fish due to a lack
of pools; a study shows that no fish were found in the upper 2 miles of the stream. Marias Creek
is classified as Class AA by the Department of Ecology. Aquifer testing in the project area
indicates a connection between surface water and ground water. Thus, the depth to ground water
will vary seasonally, but is expected to occur at shallow depths in the valley bottom where
alluvium is present. Depth to ground water in bedrock is controlled by fractures and joints,
resulting in highly variable seasonal water table depths.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix K * Tailings Site Selection Report * K-2
KETTLE VALLEY
BRITISH_COLIJUBIA_ _^
WASHINGTON '
LEGEND
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT SITE
OKANOGAN NATIONAL FOREST
CREEKS / CANYONS
ROADS
FIGURE K-1,
REGIONAL SCREENING AREAS
fiL ENAME CJK-1D WG
-------
June 1995 Appendix K * Tailings Site Selection Report * K-3
Topographic setting. The overall gradient of Marias Creek is about 6%. The valley containing
the upper reach is broader and has a lower slope than the lower reach. Valley sideslopes in the
upper reach range from 2H:1V (HorizontahVertical) to 3.3H:1V, while the lower reach tends to
have somewhat steeper sideslopes, in the range of 1.6H:1V to 3H:1V.
Identifiable adverse geologic conditions, such as landslides and active faults. The potential site
is located within the Okanogan Uplands, a region of historically low seismicity. An review of
geologic mapping in the project area by the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
and the US Geological Survey did not reveal any mapped landslide deposits or evidence of recent
fault movement.
Visibility impacts of the public generally and residents more particularly. All but the lower
.25 miles of Marias Creek is located on land administered by the US Forest Service. There are
no developed recreational facilities along the creek. The stream has a poor quality for fisheries
due to lack of pools. Thus, it is likely that the stream has a low fishing and recreational use
resulting in low visibility for the general public. This would be particularly true for the upper
reach, which is an intermittent stream. The portion of Marias Creek that is on Forest Service
administered land has been designated as having low visual significance and as "roaded modified"
for recreational opportunities. The only dwelling structures in the Marias Creek drainage are
located approximately one mile west of the stream, on Forest Road 3575-120. The upper drainage
is heavily timbered and oriented away from nearby roads and structures, resulting in some natural
screening capability.
2.1.2 Nicholson Creek Drainage
Nicholson Creek is a perennial stream that flows eastward from its headwaters on the east flank
of Buckhorn Mountain a distance of 7.6 miles to its confluence with Toroda Creek. The upper
portion of Nicholson Creek drainage includes two forks. The North Fork drains the northern
portion of the project area and flows generally southeast for approximately one mile before
combining with the South Fork. The South Fork drains the central portion of the proposed
project area and flows to the east approximately 0.75 miles where it joins the North Fork. The
total drainage area is 15.8 square miles.
Proximity to the one hundred year flood plain, as indicated in the most recent federal
emergency management agency (FEMA) maps. No flood plain mapping has been conducted
on Nicholson Creek by FEMA. However, Nicholson Creek has a limited drainage area and a
relatively steep gradient that promotes rapid runoff of storm events. As a result, there is limited
potential for flood plain development along the creek.
Proximity to surface water and ground water. Nicholson Creek is a perennial stream within
the study area. A tailings facility sited in this drainage would require diversion of this streamflow.
Within the area of the spring and seep sampling survey, 6 springs and 8 seeps were located along
the stream. Flow rates in these springs range from 2.4 to 9.0 gallons per minute. Nicholson
Creek is classified as Class AA by the Department of Ecology. A study shows that brook trout
and rainbow trout were found in the lower 5 miles of the drainage. Aquifer testing in the project
area indicates a connection between surface water and ground water. Thus, the depth to ground
water will vary seasonally, but is expected to occur at shallow depths in the valley bottom where
alluvium is present. Depth to ground water in bedrock is controlled by fractures and joints,
resulting in highly variable seasonal water table depths.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix K * Tailings Site Selection Report * K-4
Topographic setting. The gradient of the upper reach of Nicholson Creek is about 5%, while
the lower reach has a gradient of about 10%. The valley containing the upper reach is broader
and has a lower slope than the lower reach. Valley sideslopes in the upper reach range from
1.5H:1V to 2.5H:1V. The lower reach tends to have somewhat steeper sideslopes, typically
steeper than 2H:1V.
Identifiable adverse geologic conditions, such as landslides and active faults. The potential site
is located within the Okanogan Uplands, a region of historically low seismicity. A review of
geologic mapping in the project area by the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
and the US Geological Survey did not reveal any mapped landslide deposits or evidence of recent
fault movement.
Visibility impacts of the public generally and residents more particularly. The upper 5.3 miles
of Nicholson Creek are located on land administered by the US Forest Service. The lower 2.3
miles are on private lands. There are no developed recreational facilities along the creek. The
portion of Nicholson Creek that is on Forest Service administered land has been designated as
having low visual significance and "roaded modified" for recreational opportunities.
2.1.3 Ethel Creek/Lime Creek Drainage
Ethel Creek flows westward about 3 miles from its headwaters on Buckhorn Mountain to its
confluence with Myers Creek. Lime Creek is tributary to Ethel Creek about 1 mile above the
Myers Creek confluence. The combined drainage area for the two streams is about 3 square miles.
Proximity to the one hundred year flood plain, as indicated in the most recent federal
emergency management agency (FEMA) maps. No flood plain mapping has been conducted
on Ethel Creek or Lime Creek by FEMA. However, with a limited drainage area and a relatively
steep gradient that promotes rapid runoff of storm events, there is limited potential for flood plain
development along either creek.
Proximity to surface water and ground water. Both Ethel Creek and Lime Creek are perennial
streams. Within the area of the spring and seep sampling survey, 3 springs and 3 seeps were
located near the headwaters of Ethel Creek, with flows ranging from 0.9 to 12 gallons per minute.
Wetlands occur in the stream channel areas. The streams are classified as Class AA by the
Department of Ecology. No fish survey has been conducted. However, Ethel Creek and Lime
Creek have steep gradients and lack pools with the likely result that fisheries potential is limited.
Aquifer testing in the project area indicates a connection between surface water and ground water.
Thus, the depth to ground water will vary seasonally, but is expected to occur at shallow depths
in the valley bottom where alluvium is present. Depth to ground water in bedrock is controlled
by fractures and joints, resulting in highly variable seasonal water table depths.
Topographic setting. The average channel slope is about 10%. Valley sideslopes range from a
moderate 4H-.1V to a steep 1.5H:1V.
Identifiable adverse geologic conditions, such as landslides and active faults. The potential site
is located within the Okanogan Uplands, a region of historically low seismicity. A review of
geologic mapping in the project area by the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
and the US Geological Survey did not reveal any mapped landslide deposits or evidence of recent
fault movement.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix K * Tailings Site Selection Report * K-5
Visibility impacts of the public generally and residents more particularly. The upper 1.5 miles
of Ethel Creek are located on lands administered by the US Forest Service. The lower 1.5 miles
are on private lands. There are no developed recreational facilities along the creek. The portion
of Ethel Creek that is on Forest Service administered land has been designated as having moderate
visual significance and "roaded modified" for recreational opportunities. Two new private
residences have been constructed in the Ethel Creek drainage. There are approximately a dozen
other structures on the lower reach of Ethel Creek.
2.1.4 Bolster Creek Drainage
Bolster Creek flows westward from its headwaters on the western flank of Buckhorn Mountain
to its confluence with Myers Creek. Bolster Creek consists of two branches, North Bolster Creek
and South Bolster Creek. The total drainage area is 2.8 square miles.
Proximity to the one hundred year flood plain, as indicated in the most recent federal
emergency management agency (FEMA) maps. No flood plain mapping has been conducted
on Bolster Creek by FEMA. However, with a limited drainage area and a relatively steep gradient
that promotes rapid runoff of storm events, there is limited potential for flood plain development
along the creek except on the alluvial fan near the confluence with Myers Creek.
Proximity to surface water and ground water. Both North Bolster Creek and South Bolster
Creek are perennial to their confluence. Below this point of confluence, Bolster Creek is
perennial to the point where it exits the canyon, approximately one half mile from Myers Creek.
At this point it becomes intermittent on an alluvial fan. Bolster Creek resumes flowing just
before it enters Myers Creek. The mean discharge at the confluence with Myers Creek is
estimated to be in the range of 0.4 to 1.0 cubic feet per second. Within the area of the spring and
seep sampling survey, 6 springs were located along Bolster Creek. About 0.6 acres of wetlands
occur in the stream channel areas. No fish survey has been conducted. However, with a steep
gradient, lack of pools, and no surface connection between Bolster Creek and Myers Creek, it is
likely that fisheries potential is limited. Bolster Creek is classified as Class AA by the Department
of Ecology. Aquifer testing in the project area indicates a connection between surface water and
ground water. Thus, the depth to ground water will vary seasonally, but is expected to occur at
shallow depths in the valley bottom where alluvium is present. Depth to ground water in
bedrock is controlled by fractures and joints, resulting in highly variable seasonal water table
depths.
Topographic setting. The average channel slope along Bolster Creek is about 10%. Valley
sideslopes are steep, averaging about 1.6H:1V.
Identifiable adverse geologic conditions, such as landslides and active faults. The potential site
is located within the Okanogan Uplands, a region of historically low seismicity. A review of
geologic mapping in the project area by the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
and the US Geological Survey did not reveal any landslide deposits or evidence of recent fault
movement.
Visibility impacts of the public generally and residents more particularly. The upper reaches
of Bolster Creek are located on lands administered by the US Forest Service. The lower reach
is on private lands. There are no developed recreational facilities along the creek. The portion
of Bolster Creek that is on Forest Service administered land has been designated as having
moderate visual significance and "roaded modified" for recreational opportunities. A number of
private residences are located on the lower reach of Bolster Creek.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix K * Tailings Site Selection Report * K-6
2.1.5 Gold Creek Drainage
Gold Creek flows westward from its headwaters in a narrow valley north of Buckhorn Mountain
approximately 3.5 miles to its confluence with Myers Creek at a point 0.75 miles south of the
Canadian border. The basin drainage area is 3.6 square miles.
Proximity to the one hundred year flood plain, as indicated in the most recent federal
emergency management agency (FEMA) maps. No flood plain mapping has been conducted
on Gold Creek by FEMA. However, with a limited drainage area and a relatively steep gradient
that promotes rapid runoff of storm events, there is limited potential for flood plain development.
Proximity to surface water and ground water. Gold Creek is a perennial stream. The mean
discharge at the confluence with Myers Creek is estimated to be in the range of 0.5 to 1.0 cubic
feet per second. Within the area of the spring and seep sampling survey, one spring was located
along Gold Creek. About 0.35 acres of wetlands occur in the stream channel areas along the
length of the creek. Brook trout and rainbow trout were identified in Gold Creek during a fish
survey. Gold Creek is classified as Class AA by the Department of Ecology. Aquifer testing in
the project area indicates a connection between surface water and ground water. Thus, the depth
to ground water will vary seasonally, but is expected to occur at shallow depths in the valley
bottom where alluvium is present. Depth to ground water in bedrock is controlled by fractures
and joints, resulting in highly variable seasonal water table depths.
Topographic setting. The average channel slope along Bolster Creek is about 10%. Valley
sideslopes range from about 2H:1V to 3H:1V.
Identifiable adverse geologic conditions, such as landslides and active faults. The potential site
is located within the Okanogan Uplands, a region of historically low seismicity. A review of
geologic mapping in the project area by the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
and the US Geological Survey did not reveal any mapped landslide deposits or evidence of recent
fault movement.
Visibility impacts of the public generally and residents more particularly. In its upper reaches,
Gold Creek flows on lands administered by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and
Washington Department of Natural Resources. The lower 0.9 miles are on private land. There
are no developed recreational facilities along the creek. Gold Creek is part of the Oroville-
Chesaw viewshed, and has been designated as having moderate visual significance and is classed
as a Level 1 Viewshed. Activities in this area "...must borrow from naturally established form,
color or texture at such a scale that the visual characteristics are those of natural occurrences of
the surrounding area." The Forest Service land is classified as "roaded modified" for recreational
opportunities.
2.1.6 Myers Creek Drainage
Myers Creek is the largest stream in the vicinity of Buckhorn Mountain. It flows in a northerly
direction along the Chesaw valley past the town of Chesaw and into Canada. The channel
meanders through a broad U-shaped valley. The drainage area is approximately 80 square miles.
Proximity to the one hundred year flood plain, as indicated in the most recent federal
emergency management agency (FEMA) maps. No flood plain mapping has been conducted
on Myers Creek by FEMA. However, the broad valley bottom configuration and large drainage
area sets Myers Creek apart from the other drainages studied in this report. For these reasons,
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix K * Tailings Site Selection Report * K-7
there is greater potential for widespread flooding of low lying areas adjacent to Myers Creek than
would likely occur adjacent to the other drainages in the area.
Proximity to surface water and ground water. The mean annual discharge of Myers Creek at
its confluence with Ethel Creek has been estimated to range from 4.17 to 10.37 cubic feet per
second (cfs). Using a prediction equation, mean annual discharge at the confluence with Gold
Creek has been estimated to range from 7.47 to 19.1 cfs. Myers Creek is classified as Class AA
by Ecology. Surface water and ground water in Myers Creek are utilized for irrigation, domestic
and stock water. Water is supplied by surface diversions and wells. As part of the baseline
studies, approximately 27 acres of wetlands have been delineated in the area to the north of the
confluence with Gold Creek. The remainder of the drainage has not been surveyed as part of the
baseline studies, but the Soil Conservation Service has classified the soils on approximately 75
acres in the Chesaw valley as "Marsh" soil, which would likely qualify as wetlands. Another
study, the National Wetlands Inventory, was consulted for information on delineated wetland
areas in Myers Creek. Approximately 500 acres of wetlands were estimated using maps prepared
for the inventory. Brook trout and rainbow trout were identified during a fish survey. Aquifer
testing in the project area indicates a connection between surface water and ground water. Thus,
the depth to ground water will vary seasonally, but is expected to occur at shallow depths in the
valley bottom where alluvium is present. Depth to ground water in bedrock is controlled by
fractures and joints, resulting in highly variable seasonal water table depths.
Topographic setting. The channel meanders through a broad U-shaped glaciated valley with
sideslopes ranging from 30 to 60 percent, valley bottom widths of 300 to 600 feet and a channel
gradient of approximately 1.5 percent.
Identifiable adverse geologic conditions, such as landslides and active faults. The potential site
is located within the Okanogan Uplands, a region of historically low seismicity. A review of
geologic mapping in the project area by the Washington Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
and the US Geological Survey did not reveal any mapped landslide deposits or evidence of recent
fault movement.
Visibility impacts of the public generally and residents more particularly. The primary land
uses along Myers Creek are agricultural, consisting of pasture crops and livestock grazing. The
adjacent land is privately owned. Approximately 90 structures were identified on the USGS
(1988) quad map. Residences are found in the town of Chesaw and at numerous farms.
2.2 PRELIMINARY SCREENING SUMMARY
The preliminary screening phase evaluates the general characteristics of a drainage while the next
step, the technical site investigation phase, evaluates specific sites within a drainage. To
accomplish this step, this report considered certain consequences that are not specified for
consideration in the Act that affect site selection. Use of these additional evaluation aspects
supplements, but does not replace, the requirements of the Act.
For example, the volume of tailings impounded compared to the size (or volume) of the required
impoundment structure is regarded as an important siting consideration. There is a relationship
between the valley gradient, steepness of the valley walls and the size of the embankment
necessary to contain the tailings. This means that a valley with a steep stream gradient and with
narrow steep walls is an undesirable location because it requires a high and massive impoundment
structure. Similarly, a broad, low gradient drainage requires a low but lengthy and, ultimately,
massive impoundment structure.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix K * Tailings Site Selection Report * K-8
The location of the tailings facility relative to aquatic resources is another example of an
important siting consideration. It is desirable to minimize potential impacts of facility
construction and operation on riparian habitat and fisheries, as well as habitat associated with
threatened or endangered wildlife. Isolation of the tailings facility by proper design and by
selecting a site that is removed from, or minimizes as much as possible, impacts to these sensitive
environments should be one goal of the site selection process.
Another important consideration is minimizing the volume of non-process water that flows into
the tailings facility from the surrounding terrain. Water introduced into the tailings facility
during the operational life of the mine is considered process water and may not be discharged.
In most circumstances, to avoid enlarging the tailings facility to contain this excess water, it would
be desirable to intercept this flow of water and route it back into the drainage downstream of the
operation. The size of the upstream drainage area (catchment area) affects the extent and design
considerations for the interception infrastructure. The infrastructure could require construction
of ditches or channels, detention ponds, drop boxes, or piping. Construction, operating, and
maintenance costs; the amount of disturbed area dedicated to redirecting water flows; and the
complexity of the structures necessary to redirect the water flows would all increase with an
increase in the size and steepness of the drainage area upstream of a tailings facility.
The information presented in the Preliminary Screening Phase Drainage Analysis section was used
to evaluate the suitability of drainages or segments of drainages for locating a tailings facility.
Unsuitable drainages or segments of drainages were eliminated from further consideration.
Specific potential sites for locating the tailings facility were identified and carried forward to the
next step in the siting process. The following discusses this evaluation for each drainage.
2.2.1 Marias Creek Drainage
Using the preliminary screening criteria, favorable conditions are predicted to exist for siting a
tailings facility in the upper portions of Marias Creek, particularly near the project area. These
conditions include a low valley floor gradient, less steep valley wall sideslopes, and a small
catchment area. Unfavorable conditions were identified for the sections of the valley further
downstream. In these sections the narrow V-shaped valley has sideslopes generally steeper than
2H-.1V. These slopes would require construction of a relatively large embankment.
The lower reach of Marias Creek is perennial, requiring diversion of strearnflows around the
facility during operation and possibly after closure. Increased maintenance would be required to
prevent erosion of diversion structures. Access problems requiring excessive road building would
also be experienced.
In addition, the presence of fish in the lower reaches of the stream make these reaches much less
attractive. Location of a facility below the upper 2.0 miles of the stream would place the facility
in direct proximity to fisheries and greatly increase the potential to impact the fish population.
The possibility of degradation offish habitat due to diversion of flows and increased sedimentation
would be a concern.
Finally, the catchment area for the main stream of Marias Creek immediately above the
confluence with the East Fork (about 1.5 miles below the headwaters) is approximately 900 acres.
Any location downstream of this point will have a contributing area which increases significantly
above 1000 acres, due to the additional contributing area drained by the East Fork, Bear Trap
Canyon and Bat Canyon. For these reasons, the lower reaches of Marias; Creek were not
evaluated further.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix K * Tailings Site Selection Report * K-9
One potential site for the tailings facility was identified in Marias Creek drainage. This site is in
the upper reaches of Marias Creek, below the drainage divide with Nicholson Creek. Two
embankments would be required to contain the tailings generated. The facility would disturb
about 100 acres. This potential site was evaluated using the technical screening criteria.
2.2.2 Nicholson Creek Drainage
Several sites in the upper reaches of Nicholson Creek would potentially be considered as favorable
locations for the tailings facility by minimizing the upstream drainage area and minimizing the
size of the impoundment structure necessary to contain the volume of tailings generated by
mining. Unfavorable conditions were identified with segments below these areas. The
unfavorable conditions were similar to those identified for the lower segments of Marias Creek.
Location of a facility below the upper 2.6 miles of the stream would place the facility in direct
proximity to fisheries and greatly increase the potential to impact the fish population. The
narrow V-shaped valley has sideslopes steeper than 2H:1V. These slopes will require a relatively
large embankment and present access problems, again causing closure difficulties and excessive
road building.
Finally, the catchment area for the main stream immediately above the confluence with the North
Fork (about 1.0 mile downstream of the upper reaches) is approximately 950 acres. Any location
downstream of this point will have a contributing area significantly greater than 1000 acres. For
these reasons, the seaions of Nicholson Creek below the confluence with the North Fork were
not evaluated further.
Four potential sites located in the upper reaches of the two branches of Nicholson Creek were
identified for the tailings facility. These potential sites were evaluated using the technical
screening criteria.
2.2.3 Ethel/Lime Creek Drainage
Ethel and Lime Creeks are both steep, narrow drainages with valley floor gradients of nearly 10
percent and valley sideslopes generally steeper than 2H:1V. Large portions of the Lime Creek and
Ethel Creek drainages are classified as deer winter range by the Forest Service. A tailings disposal
facility in this drainage would be visible from the town of Chesaw. All drainages on Forest
Service administered land on the west side of Buckhorn mountain are designated as moderate
visual significance, which is a higher level of significance than areas on the east side of Buckhorn
Mountain in the project area. Forest Service administered lands on the west side of Buckhorn
Mountain are designated as a "roaded modified" recreation area which could conflict with the
construction and operation of a tailings impoundment. The lower mile of the Lime Creek
drainage contains several residences which would have a much higher potential to be impacted by
a facility in Lime or Ethel Creek. The distance from the project of these facilities would make
it infeasible to haul construction material from the mine. Material for the embankment would
need to be borrowed from near the facility, resulting in additional disturbance for borrow pits.
For these reasons, the Lime Creek and Ethel Creek drainages were eliminated from consideration
as potential sites for a tailings facility.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix K * Tailings Site Selection Report * K-10
2.2.4 Bolster Creek Drainage
Unsatisfactory conditions identified by the preliminary screening criteria in the Bolster Creek
drainage are essentially identical to those previously identified for Lime and Ethel Creek. The
Bolster Creek drainage is a narrow, steep drainage with a stream gradient of approximately 10.0
percent and valley sideslopes generally steeper than 2H:1V. A facility would be visible from
Chesaw, which conflicts with the Forest Service moderate visual significance designation.
Additionally, facilities located in these drainages would require motorized access. Forest Service
administered lands on the west side of Buckhorn Mountain are designated as a "roaded modified"
recreation area.
Private residences in the Bolster Creek drainage increase the possibility of adverse impacts to
people. Additional disturbance would be necessary for borrow material. For these reasons, the
Bolster Creek drainage was not considered further.
2.2.5 Gold Creek Drainage
The Gold Creek drainage is located in the Oroville-Chesaw viewshed, which is an area classified
by the Forest Service as a Level I viewshed. A tailings disposal facility would conflict with the
requirement that modifications blend in with the existing form, color and texture. The stream
valley is steep, narrow and V-shaped, with stream gradients of 10.0 percent and sideslopes
approaching 2H:1V. The upper portion of the watershed is designated as deer winter range by
the Forest Service. Soils in the lower reaches are characterized by large highly permeable aeolian
and alluvial deposits unsuitable for tailings facility siting. A facility in the Gold Creek drainage
would require pumping of tailings and return solution over Buckhorn Mountain.
For these reasons, the Gold Creek drainage was eliminated from consideration as a potential site
for a tailings facility.
2.2.6 Myers Creek Drainage
There are numerous unsatisfactory siting issues associated with locating a tailings disposal facility
in the Myers Creek valley, of which the most obvious are the close proximity to the town of
Chesaw and to domestic water supplies. The large catchment area (up to 80 square miles) would
necessitate either a major stream diversion or construction of a ring dike facility away from Myers
Creek. Any location in the valley would place the facility in immediate proximity to fisheries
and beneficial water uses.
All of the ownership in Myers Creek is private and includes numerous residences. This greatly
increases the potential for adverse visual and environmental impacts on local residents. The Myers
Creek substrate consists of highly permeable alluvial and aeolian deposits which would act as a
direct conduit for any spill or leaks to the groundwater table, which is only a few feet below the
surface in most areas.
The size of the valley and relatively large drainage area make the construction of a cross-valley
tailings facility infeasible. A tailings disposal facility in Myers Creek would require a side-valley
or ring dike facility. A side-valley facility would require construction of an embankment on three
sides. A ring dike would require construction of an embankment on all sides. These facilities
require much larger volumes of embankment material per volume of tailings. This would result
in a larger disturbance area for the facility itself and in larger additional disturbances to excavate
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix K * Tailings Site Selection Report * K-ll
the embankment material. In addition, due to the large embankment volume, these facilities are
much more susceptible to leakage, embankment failure, and erosion.
For these reasons, the Myers Creek valley was eliminated from consideration as a potential site
for a tailings facility.
2.3 PRELIMINARY SCREENING RESULTS
Based on the preliminary screening analysis, the following areas were eliminated from further
consideration:
* Marias Creek below the confluence with the East Fork;
»• Nicholson Creek below the confluence with the North Fork;
* EthelXLime Creeks;
»• Bolster Creek;
>• Gold Creek; and,
»• Myers CreekXChesaw Valley.
The preliminary screening phase identified five potential sites for locating a tailings facility to
carry forward into the technical site investigation phase:
*• Upper Marias Creek;
»• North Nicholson Creek;
*• South Nicholson Creek;
* Upper South Nicholson Creek; and,
* Lower South Nicholson Creek.
These sites are located on Figure K-2, Tailings Facility Options, of this report.
3.0 TECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION
After consideration of the available information in the preliminary screening phase, as summarized
above, the next step required in the site selection process is a technical site investigation to verify
the adequacy of the remaining potential sites. Five potential tailings sites were evaluated using
the criteria specified by law.
3.1 TECHNICAL SITE ANALYSIS
3.1.1 Marias Creek Location
This facility would be located within the upper reaches of Marias Creek. The facility would trend
north-south with the upstream (north) end just below the saddle separating the Nicholson and
Marias Creek drainages. Two embankments would be required. The main embankment would
have a downstream toe to crest height of 240 feet and a crest length of approximately 1500 feet.
The secondary embankment would be located at the upstream end of the facility. The final crest
elevation would have a downstream toe to crest height of 87 feet and a crest length of
approximately 1200 feet.
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995
Appendix K * Tailings Site Selection Report * K-12
\rr (X / I
NORTH
NICHOLSON
TAILINGS
LOWER SOUTH
NICHOLSON TAILINGS
UPPER SOUTH
NICHOLSON
TAILINGS
SOUTH NICHOLSON
TAILINGS
TAILINGS
LEGEND
FIGURE K-2, TAILINGS FACILITY OPTIONS
-------
June 1995 Appendix K * Tailings Site Selection Report * K-13
The valley is dominated by forest. The facility would disturb approximately 100 acres.
Approximately 1.5 miles of access and haul roads and 12,900 feet of piping to transport tailings
and reclaim water would be required to support this facility.. Tailings can be transported by
gravity for all but a short time near the end of the facility's life when pumping will be required.
Soil characteristics. The site is underlain by loose and dense glacial tills, which are suitable
subsoils for the tailings facility construction. Suitable construction materials have been identified
on-site, within the footprint of the facility. However, an additional borrow site will be required
in the upper Nicholson Creek drainage.
Hydrologic characteristics. The valley gradient is about 5%. The tailings disposal facility is
located in the upper portion of the Marias Creek drainage in an area of intermittent flow. This
was the only site to have this distinct advantage. Approximately 2.37 acres of wetlands were
identified within the footprint of a facility at this location. The general area, other than the
wetlands, is not considered to be critical wildlife or fish habitat and is not a sensitive or unique
ecosystem.
Local and structural geology evaluation, including seismic conditions and related geotechnical
investigations. The project is located in the Okanogan Uplands, which is a region of historically
low seismicity. The largest recorded seismic events in the area of the proposed project site are
magnitude 6.0. The closest of these occurred at a distance of 84 miles from the project site. A
maximum credible earthquake of 6.0 has been estimated for the site.
All the sites are near a fault zone. Geologic data indicate no movement along this fault zone since
44 million years before the present. Sediments in the area do not exhibit surface evidence
(escarpments, truncations, etc.) which would indicate relatively recent fault activity. Current
seismic data indicate a lack of any moderate or strong seismic activity in the area.
Surface water control analysis. The upstream drainage area is approximately 280 acres. This is
a small drainage area, easily manageable through appropriate engineering design. The upstream
drainage would require diversion around the facility during the operational phase. This would
necessitate channelization of upstream flows and diversion to the existing stream channel
downstream of the facility.
Slope stability analysis. The sideslopes range from 1.9H:1V to 3.3H:1V. The topography in the
area is not too steep for a tailings facility.
3.1.2 North Nicholson Location
A tailings facility at this site would disturb about 120 acres. One embankment would be
required which would span the valley from northeast to southwest with a crest length of
approximately 2100 feet. The embankment would be 320 feet high to contain the volume of
tailings. The site is about 1.5 miles from the mill, requiring a long tailings transport line, a fail
safe system for capturing tails from possible transport line failures, and reclaim solution return
pump stations and pipelines. A ridge separates the tailings facility from the mill, requiring
pumping stations to pump the tailings to the impoundment. A minimum of 4 miles of access
roads and haul roads would also be required for operation and maintenance of this facility.
Soil characteristics. Soils inventories performed by the Forest Service indicate that the soils in
this area are similar to those which were mapped in Marias Creek and the South Fork of
Nicholson Creek. The soils immediately to the west are predominately deep and well drained
Crown Jewel Mine * Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix K * Tailings Site Selection Report * K-14
with slight to moderate erosion potential. If the assumption is made that the soils are similar to
the mapped areas, the foundation conditions are considered suitable for tailings construction. The
construction of the required 320 foot high embankment for this facility would require a borrow
site for some of the construction materials. Suitable construction materials have been identified
in the vicinity, although a specific borrow site has not been identified. The borrow site would
create a significant disturbance in an area close to the facility.
Hydrologic characteristics. The average valley gradient is approximately 10%. The stream is
perennial in this reach and would require diversion around the facility. Streamflow data have
been collected monthly since July 1992 at a point about one half mile upstream of this site. These
data indicate that for the period of record a maximum streamflow of 0.49 cubic feet per second
(cfs) has been recorded with a minimum no flow (0.0 cfs). The average maximum streamflow is
0.33 cfs with an average minimum flow of less than 0.01 cfs. Approximately 1.6 acres of wetlands
have been identified to occur within the footprint of a facility at this location. Indirect impacts
to wetlands above and below the facility are possible.
Local and structural geology evaluation, including seismic conditions and related geotechnical
investigations. The project is located in the Okanogan Uplands, which is a region of historically
low seismicity. The largest recorded seismic events in the area of the proposed project site are
magnitude 6.0. The closest of these occurred at a distance of 84 miles from the project site. A
maximum credible earthquake of 6.0 has been estimated for the site.
All the sites are near a fault zone. Geologic data indicate no movement along this fault zone since
44 million years before the present. Sediments in the area do not exhibit surface evidence
(escarpments, truncations, etc.) which would indicate relatively recent fault activity. Current
seismic data indicate a lack of any moderate or strong seismic activity in the area.
Surface water control analysis. The drainage area above the facility is 745 acres. The upstream
drainage would require diversion around the facility during its operational phase. This would
necessitate channelization of upstream flows and diversion back into the existing stream channel
downstream of the facility. The difficulty in accomplishing this is related to the runoff flow and
volume generated by the design storm, the catchment area, the steepness of the terrain, and the
elevation differences involved. A large embankment in a steep valley with a relatively large
catchment, such as the North Nicholson site, requires an increased effort: to construct and
maintain the diversion structure. The embankment for this site would have a downstream toe
to crest height of 320 feet. Due to the high embankment height, the flows would have to travel
through a protected channel and drop the 320 feet from the top of the facility to the stream below
in a relatively short distance. This would require a very steep and expensive channel utilizing
drop structures or other protective measures. The potential for erosion in man-made channels and
at the confluence with the existing channel is directly related to flow volumes cind velocities. The
large volume, due to the large catchment area, and high velocities, due to the steep slope, combine
to produce increased erosion. There would also be increased maintenance and an increased risk
of failure associated with such a spillway.
Slope stability analysis. Sideslopes range from 2.5H:1V to 6H:1V. No evidence of slope
instability, such as landslides, were identified from geologic mapping in the area.
3.1.3 South Nicholson Location
This option would disturb about 122 acres. A tailings facility at this site would require one
embankment which would cross the Nicholson Creek valley from the southeast to the northwest.
Crown Jewel Mine • Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix K * Tailings Site Selection Report « K-15
The embankment crest would be 2300 feet long, with a downstream toe to crest height of about
315 feet. About 4.3 miles of haul roads and access roads would be required for this facility.
Approximately 8300 feet of tailings slurry pipeline would be required with a fail safe system for
capturing tails from possible transport line failures, and decant water return pump stations and
pipelines would be required.
Soil characteristics. The soils in the area consist of deep well drained glacial till. These gravelly
loam soils are similar to those soils found in the area of the Marias facility and are considered
suitable for tailings construction. Suitable construction materials have been identified on-site.
Hydrologic characteristics. The average stream gradient is approximately 8%. The stream is
perennial in this reach. Streamflow data have been collected monthly since July 1992 at a point
about one half mile upstream of this site. These data indicate that for the period of record a
maximum streamflow of 1.3 cubic feet per second (cfs) has been recorded with a minimum flow
of 0.04 cfs. The average maximum streamflow is 0.78 cfs with an average minimum of 0.06 cfs.
About 2.46 acres of wetlands have been identified within the footprint of a facility at this location.
In addition, there are wetlands above and below the facility that could be indirectly impacted.
Local and structural geology evaluation, including seismic conditions and related geotechnical
investigations. The project is located in the Okanogan Uplands, which is a region of historically
low seismicity. The largest recorded seismic events in the area of the proposed project site are
magnitude 6.0. The closest of these occurred at a distance of 84 miles from the project site. A
maximum credible earthquake of 6.0 has been estimated for the site.
All the sites are near a fault zone. Geologic data indicate no movement along this fault zone since
44 million years before the present. Sediments in the area do not exhibit surface evidence
(escarpments, truncations, etc.) which would indicate relatively recent fault activity. Current
seismic data indicate a lack of any moderate or strong seismic activity in the area.
Surface water control analysis. The upstream drainage area is about 625 acres. This is a large
drainage area, but not unmanageable through appropriate engineering design. The upstream
drainage would require diversion around the facility during the operational phase. This would
necessitate channelization of upstream flows and diversion back into the existing stream channel
downstream of the facility. The smaller catchment area and less steep topography make diversions
at this location significantly easier and less costly than the North Nicholson location. Closure
of this facility could be accomplished relatively easily by redirecting the drainage across the
tailings surface to the east, combining it with the diversion channel around the facility, directing
it along the valley side to Nicholson Creek below the facility. Since the valley is not excessively
steep in this area, and the embankment is situated fairly far up the drainage, a suitable spillway
could be developed.
Slope stability analysis. The valley sideslopes at this site range from about 2.5H:1V to 6H.-1V.
The topography of the area is not too steep for a tailings disposal facility. No evidence of slope
instability, such as landslides, were identified from geologic mapping in the area.
3.1.4 Upper South Nicholson Location
This facility would be located in the upper reaches of South Nicholson Creek, immediately east
of the proposed mill. About 178 acres would be disturbed by a tailings disposal facility at this
site. Three embankments would be required to contain the expected 8.7 million tons of tailings.
The main embankment would have a downstream toe to crest height of 320 feet. The
Crown Jewel Mine • Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix K * Tailings Site Selection Report * K-16
embankment would span the Nicholson Creek valley from north to south with a crest length of
approximately 2600 feet. The secondary embankments would be located to the north and south
of the main embankment. The south embankment would confine tailings north of Marias Creek.
This embankment would be 87 feet high and 1200 feet in length. The north embankment would
be located approximately 1000 feet north of the main embankment and would be approximately
50 feet high with a crest length of approximately 600 feet.
Soil characteristics. This site is underlain by a thick layer of unconsolidated glacial till. This type
of till would not provide a suitable foundation for a tailings facility and would require removal
during construction. Borrow sites for construction materials are required for this alternative
because the necessary materials can not be found entirely within the footprint of the facility.
Hydrologic characteristics. This facility would be located at the head of two drainage basins.
Nicholson Creek is perennial in this reach. Streamflow data have been collected monthly since
July 1992 at this site. These data indicate that for the period of record a maximum Streamflow
of 1.3 cubic feet per second (cfs) has been recorded with a minimum flow of 0.04 cfs. The average
maximum Streamflow is 0.78 cfs with an average minimum of 0.06 cfs. The valley gradient is
approximately 6%. Approximately 8.28 acres of wetlands would be directly impacted by this
facility. In addition, there are wetlands below the area of the facility. Given this large area of
wetlands, the general area is considered to be critical wildlife habitat and is a sensitive or unique
ecosystem.
Local and structural geology evaluation, including seismic conditions and related geotechnical
investigations. The project is located in the Okanogan Uplands, which is a region of historically
low seismicity. The largest recorded seismic events in the area of the proposed project site are
magnitude 6.0. The closest of these occurred at a distance of 84 miles from the project site. A
maximum credible earthquake of 6.0 has been estimated for the site.
All the sites are near a fault zone. Geologic data indicate no movement along this fault zone since
44 million years before the present. Sediments in the area do not exhibit surface evidence
(escarpments, truncations, etc.) which would indicate relatively recent fault activity. Current
seismic data indicate a lack of any moderate or strong seismic activity in the area.
Surface water control analysis. The upstream drainage area is approximately 435 acres. The
Roosevelt Adit drains directly into the area, and would have to be diverted or otherwise rerouted.
The upstream drainage would require diversion around the facility during its operational phase.
This would necessitate channelization of upstream flows and diversion to the existing stream
channel downstream of the facility. Given the relatively small catchment area and moderate
topography, diverting upstream flows would not be difficult at this location.
Slope stability analysis. The topography is gentle and acceptable for a tailings facility, with
sideslopes ranging from 2.5H:1V to 7.5H:1V. The soils in the area consist of loose glacial tills
which are considered unsuitable for containment purposes and would require removal during
construction and increased engineering design requirements.
3.1.5 Lower South Nicholson Location
The facility would disturb approximately 167 acres. One large embankment would be required
which would have a final downstream toe to crest height of 370 feet. The embankment would
span the valley from northwest to southeast with a crest length of approximately 1900 feet.
Operational components would be the same as those required for the other facilities.
Crown Jewel Mine • Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix K * Tailings Site Selection Report * K-17
Construction of approximately 4.2 miles of haul road and access road would be required and
18000 feet of pipeline would be required to transport tailings to this facility and return reclaim
water.
Soil characteristics. Soils in the area were not mapped. Assuming that the soils are similar to
the areas that were mapped, the foundation conditions are considered suitable for tailings
construction. Suitable construction materials have not been identified on-site within the footprint
of the facility. Therefore, a borrow site will be required.
Hydrologic characteristics. The average valley gradient is about 9%. The stream is perennial
in this reach. Streamflow data have been collected monthly since July 1992 at a point about one
mile upstream of this site. These data indicate that for the period of record a maximum
streamflow of 1.3 cubic feet per second (cfs) has been recorded with a minimum flow of 0.04 cfs.
The average maximum streamflow is 0.78 cfs with an average minimum of 0.06 cfs. Streamflow
measurements are also collected monthly since October 1990 at a point about one half mile
downstream of this site. This monitoring location measures combined flow from North and
South Nicholson Creek. These data indicate that for the period of record a maximum streamflow
of 2.53 cfs has been recorded with a minimum flow of less than 0.01 cfs. The average maximum
streamflow is 1.15 cfs with an average minimum of 0.10 cfs. Approximately 0.21 acres of wetlands
were identified within the footprint of a facility at this location. In addition, there are wetlands
above and below the facility. The site is lower in the drainage and therefore closer to fish
populations located in lower Nicholson Creek.
Local and structural geology evaluation, including seismic conditions and related geotechnical
investigations. The project is located in the Okanogan Uplands, which is a region of historically
low seismicity. The largest recorded seismic events in the area of the proposed project site are
magnitude 6.0. The closest of these occurred at a distance of 84 miles from the project site. A
maximum credible earthquake of 6.0 has been estimated for the site.
All the sites are near a fault zone. Geologic data indicate no movement along this fault zone since
44 million years before the present. Sediments in the area do not exhibit surface evidence
(escarpments, truncations, etc.) which would indicate relatively recent fault activity. Current
seismic data indicate a lack of any moderate or strong seismic activity in the area.
Surface water control analysis. The upstream drainage area is approximately 950 acres. The
upstream drainage would require diversion around the facility during its operational phase. This
would necessitate channelization of upstream flows and diversion to the existing stream channel
downstream of the facility. The closeness of the large embankment to the confluence of the
North and South Nicholson tributaries would require that the spillway be short and steep. The
flows would have to travel through a protected channel and drop the 400 feet from the top of the
facility to the stream below. A distance constraint would be imposed by the closeness of the
embankment to the confluence of the tributary with North Nicholson Creek as mentioned above.
This would require a very steep and expensive channel utilizing drop structures or other
protective measures.
Slope stability analysis. The sideslopes range from 1.9H.-1V to 8.9H.-1V. For the most part, the
topography in the area is not too steep for a tailings disposal facility although the steep stream
gradient requires a large embankment.
Crown Jewel Mine • Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix K * Tailings Site Selection Report * K-18
3.2 TECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION SUMMARY
3.2.1 Marias Creek Location
Access would be relatively easy for this alternative. In addition to being located second closest
to the ore body, this alternative would require the least embankment and infrastructure
construction effort due to the smaller embankments and close borrow materials. The proximity
of this location to the mill and its requirement for only 1.5 miles of access and haul roads
significantly reduces the potential for a pipeline failure and release of tailings slurry. The
construction and maintenance efforts would be considerably lower for this alternative than the
others. The site is located at the top of the drainage where the stream is intermittent. As a result,
the upstream drainage area is the smallest of all the potential sites and it requires the least
infrastructure for diversions around the facility. This site was carried forward for additional
evaluation in the tailings siting process.
3.2.2 North Nicholson Location
This site has complex infrastructure requirements due to the distance from the mill and
topographic impediments. To overcome these conditions requires extensive road construction and
installation of additional pumping stations. There is an inherent risk of contamination to surface
and groundwater resources as a result of this additional infrastructure which increases with
distance from the mill site. Based on the type and depth of soil at the site, the foundation
conditions are considered adequate to construct the embankment. Similarly, the sideslope
topography is not too steep for a tailings disposal facility. The valley gradient, at an average of
10%, is the steepest of all the potential sites. This steep gradient requires a higher embankment
to contain the volume of tailings generated. The steep gradient coupled with the relatively large
catchment area (second largest of all the potential sites) and the presence of a perennial stream
leads to design, construction and maintenance complexities relating to routing of streamflow and
storm water runoff around the tailings facility. This location was dropped from further
consideration.
3.2.3 South Nicholson Location
The site has some characteristics of the North Nicholson site. However, in contrast to the North
Nicholson facility, this location for a tailings facility would not require the intricacy of a large
tailings pumping system, and since it is located nearer the mill site, would require less
infrastructure and construction disturbance. The valley is broad in this area, with relatively flat
sideslopes and a moderate stream gradient. These characteristics are adequate for siting a tailings
facility. The footprint (disturbed area) for this site is about the same as the North Nicholson site,
and less than the Upper South Nicholson or the Lower South Nicholson sites. This site was
carried forward for additional evaluation in the tailings siting process.
3.2.4 Upper South Nicholson Location
This potential tailings disposal site is the closest to the mill site. Access would not be a problem
for this location. Due to its proximity to the mill site, a minimal amount of piping and other
infrastructure would be required to access and operate this facility. The necessity for three
embankments to contain the tailings would increase the design, construction, and maintenance
requirements. The upstream drainage area is moderate. The topography in the area is not too
steep for a tailings facility. This site is not as heavily forested as the other potential sites.
However, the large trees and shrubs and relatively flat topography would provide good screening
Crown Jewel Mine • Draft Environmental Impact Statement
-------
June 1995 Appendix K * Tailings Site Selection Report * K-19
capability. This facility would have the greatest impact on wetlands of all potential sites and
would eliminate a sensitive ecosystem. This facility would also cause the greatest area of surface
disturbance. The soils consist of loose glacial till material which would require removal during
construction.
The wetlands impacts, size of disturbed area, and complex infrastructure requirements of three
embankments cause this site to be eliminated from further investigation.
3.2.5 Lower South Nicholson Location
In addition to being located the furthest from the ore body, this alternative would require the
largest embankment and infrastructure construction effort of the five locations considered. The
maintenance requirements would be considerably higher for this alternative than the others. The
drainage area of 950 acres is the largest of all potential sites. Combined with the perennial
character of the stream at this location, a large and extensive water management system to route
streamflow around the facility would be necessary. This site would cause the second largest area
of surface disturbance of all the alternatives considered. This site was not considered further in
the tailings site selection process.
4.0 INTEGRATION WITH SEPA AND NEPA
Neither the Preliminary Screening phase of the siting analysis nor the Technical Site Investigation
phase identified issues of concern which would constitute a fatal flaw for locating a tailings
disposal facility in either Marias Creek or at the South Nicholson Creek site. Either of the two
sites would accomplish the objectives of the proponent's application relating to mining and milling
operations. Construction of a tailings facility at either of these sites is technically feasible and
would result in a suitably sized facility.
According to Washington State law, tailings site selection criteria include, but are not limited to,
the prescribed criteria. The Marias Creek site and the South Nicholson site are selected for
further analysis using additional criteria established by the SEPA and NEPA environmental
process.
Crown Jewel Mine • Draft Environmental Impact Statement
------- |