Lead Agencies:
U.S.D.A.
Forest Service
Washington State
Department of Ecology
TON STM E
E'C'O'L b"c V
JANUARY 1997
300R05900A
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Okanogan County, Washington
VOLUME I
Assembled By:
Terra Matrix
Engineering & Environmental Services
-------
U.S.D.A. Forest Service Department of Ecology
Tonasket Ranger District Washington State
1 West Winesap P.O. Box 47703
Tonasket, Washington 98855 Olympia, Washington 98504
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
CROWN JEWEL MINE
January 1997
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
Enclosed for your review is the Final Environmental Impact Statement (E1S) for the Crown Jewel Mine Project (Crown
Jewel Project) proposed by Battle Mountain Gold Company and Crown Resources Corporation (jointly referred to as the
"Proponent"). This document describes the environmental effects of the Proponent's plan to construct and operate a
gold and silver mine and mill project near Chesaw, in Okanogan County, Washington and alternatives to that plan
The United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (Forest Service) and the Washington Department of
Ecology (WADOE) appreciate all the comments, suggestions, and ideas received throughout the E1S development
process To aid in the preparation of the E1S, we held a series of public meetings in 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995. We
want to thank you for your participation in this Project and hope that you find the analysis responsive to your concerns.
Besides the No-Action Alternative (Alternative A) and the Proponent's Plan (Alternative B), we examined five other
alternatives (Alternatives C through G) in the completion of the final E1S. In these other alternatives, we analyzed
underground mining, a combination of underground and surface mining, partial and complete backfilling of the mine pit,
differing locations for waste rock and tailings, a decreased production and operating schedule, and a non-cyanide milling
process known as flotation. This wide array of alternatives was designed to respond to comments received during the
scoping process.
As a result of the discussion in the draft E1S and the comments received on the draft EIS, the Proponent revised their
Plan of Operations and Reclamation Plan. These revisions are reflected in the Alternative B presented in this final EIS.
Some of the Proponent's modifications include the plans for a double synthetic liner system with a leak detection system
for the tailings facility, downstream construction of the tailings embankment in Manas Creek, shifting the placement of
the north and south waste rock disposal areas (as well as reducing post-mining reclaimed slopes), augmentation of
natural pit filling with water from Myers Creek, and revisions to their reclamation plan that includes increased tree
plantings and additional re-vegetation activities in the mine pit area
Some of the key issues for this proposal include: The potential for cyanide and other harmful chemicals to enter the
environment; the potential effects on water availability and quality; changes in land use which effect wildlife, timber
production, grazing and recreation; changes to the local social and economic structure; and assessing the short-term
losses of existing uses of the land and the ability to reclaim the land in the long-term to approximate pre-Project uses.
Copies of the final EIS are available for review in local libraries in Omak, Tonasket, Oroville, Brewster, Seattle (main
branch), Chelan, Colville, Grand Coulee, Wenatchee, Republic, Twisp, Spokane and Winthrop, Washington. Further
locations where copies of the final EIS would also be available for review include BLM offices in Spokane and
Wenatchee, Washington; Forest Service offices in Okanogan and Tonasket, Washington; Department of Ecology offices
in Olympia and Yakima, Washington; the British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks office in Victoria,
British Columbia; Environment Canada in North Vancouver, British Columbia; and the Village Office in Midway,
British Columbia.
-------
Also enclosed is the Record of Decision which documents the decision by the Responsible Officials for the
Okanogan National Forest and Spokane District for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to select Alternative B as
presented in the final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Crown Jewel Mine including the reclamation,
mitigation, monitoring and performance guarantee measures described in the FEIS, Sections 2 11 through 214.
Alternative B, as modified by the Record of Decision, would allow the Proponent to develop, construct, operate, close
and reclaim a surface mining and milling operation for gold and silver recovery and production on Buckhorn Mountain
Because authority for approval of this project lies not only with the Forest Service and BLM, but also with other Federal,
State and Local agencies, other decision documents and permits would be issued by the appropriate agency to cover that
agency's decisions. The Record of Decision only covers decisions under the authority of the Okanogan National Forest
Supervisor for the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and the Spokane District Manager for the
United States Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
The decision to allow the development of the mine is subject to appeal pursuant to Forest Service 36 CFR 215
Regulations for those actions on lands administered by the Forest Service. Appeal of this decision must be fully
consistent with 36 CFR 215.14 (Content of an appeal), and must provide sufficient evidence and rationale to show why
the Responsible Official's decision should be remanded or reversed. Appeals must be in writing and must be
postmarked and sent to the Appeal Deciding Officer within 45 days of the date of publication of the notice of decision
for this project in the Wenatchee World. The Appeals Deciding Officer for this project is
Regional Forester
ATTN: 1570 APPEALS
Pacific Northwest Region
P O Box 3623
Portland, OR 97208-3623
Only those actions pertaining to the public lands administered by the BLM and subject to BLM jurisdiction may be
appealed under BLM administrative appeal rights Parties, other than Battle Mountain Gold Company and Crown
Resources Corporation, may appeal this decision directly to the Interior Board of Land Appeals, Office of the Secretary,
in accordance with the regulations contained in 43 CFR, Part 4, and Form 1842-1. If an appeal is taken, the notice of
appeal must be filed within 30 days of publication of this decision in the Federal Register with the BLM officer listed
below, with the IBLA at the address below, and with the office of the Regional Solicitor at the address below.
District Manager
Spokane District Office
Bureau of Land Management
I103N. Fancher
Spokane, WA 99212
Interior Board of Land Appeals
Office of Hearings and Appeals
4015 Wilson Blvd
Arlington, VA 22203
Office of the Regional Solicitor
Department of Interior
500 NE Multnomah Street, Suite 607
Portland, OR 97232
The Forest Service 36 CFR 215 appeal regulations require that the implementation of this project be automatically
stayed until 5 days after the close of the appeal period, if no appeal is filed. Also based on those regulations, if an appeal
is filed, the decision would not be implemented until 15 days following the date of appeal disposition The Forest
Service Plan of Operations, Special Use Authorizations and Road Use Permits would not be approved until the Forest
Service's internal administrative review process has been completed The Forest Service considers approval of the Plan
of Operations, Special Use Authorizations and Road Use Permits for the project to be implementation of the project, and
these approvals are not subject to appeal under 36 CFR 215 8(b)
The decision affecting BLM administered lands would be in full force and effect as of the date of signing of this Record
of Decision and would remain in effect during any appeal unless a written request for a stay is granted pursuant to 43
CFR 4.21 The full force and effect provisions only apply to the approval of the Selected Alternative, as modified by
The Record of Decision, and do not pertain to initiating actions under a Plan of Operations The Proponent is required
to prepare a revised Plan of Operations and financial guarantee estimate, that fully incorporates all of the requirements of
the Record of Decision, obtain BLM approval of those documents, and post acceptable financial guarantees prior to
commencing operations. BLM approval of the Plan of Operations and financial guarantees would be addressed in a
separate appealable decision.
-------
WADOE has not chosen a preferred alternative in the final E1S. In accordance with WAC 197-11 -655, WADOE would
consider the alternatives in relevant environmental documents as part of WADOE permit decisions
There is no administrative appeal process under the Washington State Environmental Policy Act available with issuance
of the final E1S by WADOE. Permit decisions by WADOE may be appealed to the Pollution Control Hearings Board
(PCHB). Part of this appeal can include appeal of the final EIS.
Further information on the Crown Jewel Project can be obtained by contacting the agency Project leaders: Phil Christy,
at the Forest Service Tonasket Ranger District Office, 1 West Winesap, Tonasket, Washington 98855, phone (509) 486-
5137; Patricia Belts, at the Olympia office of WADOE, P.O. Box 47703, Olympia, Washington, 98504, phone (360)
407-6925; or Brent Cunderla at the Wenatchee Resource Area office of the BLM, 915 N. Walla Walla Street,
Wenatchee, Washington, 98801, phone (509) 665-2100. Please leave a message if these individuals are not available.
Respectfully submitted,
SAMGEHR '
Forest Supervisor
Okanogan National Forest
U.S D.A. Forest Service
PURGQ
Rfegkmal
Central Region
Wasnmgton Department of Ecolo^
-------
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Crown Jewel Mine
Okanogan County, Washington
January 1997
Lead Agencies:
U.S.D.A. Forest Service - Okanogan National Forest
Washington State Department of Ecology
Cooperating
Agencies:
Responsible Officials:
For Further Information
Contact:
U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington State Department of Natural Resources
Mr. Sam Gehr, Forest Supervisor
Okanogan National Forest
1240 South Second Avenue
Okanogan, Washington 98840
Phil Christy, NEPA Coordinator
1 West Winesap
Tonasket, Washington 98855
Telephone: (509)486-5137
Mr. Pat Spurgin, Regional Director
Central Regional Office
106 South 6th Avenue
Yakima, Washington 98902
Patricia Betts, SEPA Coordinator
P.O. Box 47703
Olympia, Washington 98504
Telephone: (360)407-6925
Abstract: The Crown Jewel Mine Final Environmental Impact Statement (final EIS) describes the physical,
biological, social, and economic resources that would potentially be affected by the proposed Project. The
primary state and federal action consists of the approval of all necessary permits to construct and operate the
Crown Jewel Project mine and mill. Some of the key issues for this proposal include: the potential for cyanide
and other harmful chemicals to enter the environment; potential effects on water availability; water quality;
changes in land use which could affect wildlife, timber production, grazing and recreation; changes to the
local social and economic structure; and assessing the short-term loss of existing uses of the land and the
ability to reclaim the land in the long-term to approximate pre-Project uses. The Project, as proposed by the
Proponent, would consist of a surface mine (open pit), a mill to process the ore using tank cyanidation, two
waste rock disposal areas, miscellaneous surface support facilities, a tailings retention impoundment in Marias
Creek, access roads, new power transmission lines, water pipelines, and a water supply reservoir in the
Starrem Creek drainage basin. Alternatives have been developed in this final EIS to alter, eliminate, or
mitigate environmental impacts resulting from the proposed Project. These alternatives include: a no-action
alternative (Alternative A); the Proponent's proposed action (Alternative B) as modified from the draft EIS; an
underground mining alternative with above ground crushing and tailings disposal in Marias Creek (Alternative
C); an alternative that proposes to use both underground mining techniques and a surface mine with tailings
disposal in Marias Creek (Alternative D); an alternative with a surface mine, Marias Creek tailings
impoundment, two waste rock disposal areas and partial back-fill of the pit (Alternative E); an alternative with
a surface mine, Nicholson Creek tailings impoundment, a temporary north waste rock disposal area, complete
backfill of the pit and 12 hour per day mining operations (Alternative F); and an alternative consisting of a
surface mine, Nicholson Creek tailings facility and on-site flotation milling with ore concentrate haulage to
Oroville for rail transport (Alternative G). Project components that vary between alternatives include tailings
impoundment locations, waste rock disposal area locations, underground and surface mining, different milling
processes, and reclamation options, including complete or partial backfilling of the mine pit.
The Responsible Officials for the Okanogan National Forest and for the Spokane District of the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) select Alternative B as presented in the final EIS for the Crown Jewel Mine including the
reclamation, mitigation, monitoring and performance guarantee measures described in the final EIS, Sections
2.11 through 2.14. Alternative B, as modified by the Record of Decision, will allow the Proponent to develop,
construct, operate, close and reclaim a surface mining and milling operation for gold and silver recovery and
production on Buckhorn Mountain. Because authority for approval of this Project lies not only with the Forest
Service and BLM, but also with other Federal, State and Local agencies, other decisions and permits will be
issued by the appropriate agency to cover that agency's decisions. The Record of Decision only covers
decisions under the authority of the Okanogan National Forest Supervisor for the United States Department of
Agriculture, Forest Service, and the Spokane District Manager for the United States Department of Interior,
Bureau of Land Management.
WADOE has chosen not to identify a preferred alternative in the final EIS. WADOE selection of an alternative
will be made as part of WADOE permit decisions.
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 1
FACT SHEET
Project Title: Crown Jewel Mine
Name and Address of Proponent (With Proposed Date for Implementation):
Battle Mountain Gold Company Crown Resources Corporation
P.O. Box 1243 1225 17th Street, Suite 1500
624 Central Avenue Denver, CO 80202
Oroville, Washington 98844
The Proponent proposes to begin construction in late spring of 1997 with mill start-up in 1998.
Name and Address of Lead Agency Responsible Officials:
Mr. Pat Spurgin, Regional Director Mr. Sam Gehr, Forest Supervisor
Washington Department of Ecology U.S.D.A. Forest Service
Central Regional Office Okanogan National Forest
106 South 6th Avenue 1240 South Second Ave.
Yakima, Washington 98902 Okanogan, Washington 98840
Contact Persons for Lead Agencies:
Ms. Patricia Betts, SEPA Coordinator Mr. Phillip Christy, NEPA Coordinator
Washington Department of Ecology Tonasket Ranger District
P.O. Box 47703 1 West Winesap
Olympia, Washington 98504-7703 Tonasket, Washington 98855
Telephone: (360)407-6925 Telephone: (509)486-5137
List of Tentative and Potential Permits and Approvals:
Forest Service
1. Plan of Operations
2. Special Use Permits (Right-of-Ways, etc.)
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
1. Plan of Operations
2. Special Use Permits (Right-of-Ways, etc.)
Army Corps of Engineers
1. Section 404 Permit - Federal Clean Water Act (Dredge and Fill)
Environmental Protection Agency
1. Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan
2. Review of Section 404 Permit
3. Notification of Hazardous Waste Activity
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1. Threatened and Endangered Species Consultation (Section 7)
Federal Communications Commission
1. Radio Authorizations
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2 FACT SHEET January 1997
Treasury Department (Department of Alcohol. Tobacco & Firearms)
1. Explosives User Permit
Mine Safety and Health Administration
1. Mine Identification Number
2. Legal Identity Report
3. Miner Training Plan Approval
Washington Department of Ecology IWADOE)
1. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDESl/Construction Activities Stormwater General
Permit
2. State Waste Discharge Permit
3. Water Quality Standards Modification
4 Water Quality Certification (Section 401 - Federal Clean Water Act)
5. Dam Safety Permits
6. Reservoir Permit
7. Permit to Appropriate Public Waters
8. Authorization to Change Existing Water Rights
9. Notice of Construction Approval (Air Quality)
10. Air Contaminant Source Operating Permit
11. Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) - (Air Quality)
12. Dangerous Waste Permit
13. Changes to Existing Water Rights
Washington Department of Natural Resources (WADNR)
1. Surface Mine Reclamation Permit
2. Forest Practices Application (Private and State lands)
3. Burning Permit (Fire Protection and Slash Disposal)
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WADFW)
1. Hydraulic Project Approval
Washington Department of Community Development, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
1. Historic and Archaeological Review (Section 106 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966)
Washington Department of Health
1. Sewage Disposal Permit
2. Public Water Supply Approval
Washington Department of Labor and Industries
1. Explosive License
2. Safety Regulation Compliance
Okanogan County
1. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
2. Conditional Use Permit/Zoning Requirements
3. Building Permits
4. Maximum Environmental Noise Levels
5. Road Construction and/or Realignment
6. Socioeconomic Impact Analysis Approval
7. Growth Management Critical Areas Regulations
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 3
Okanogan County Health District
1. Solid Waste Handling
2. Sewage Disposal Permit
Okanogan Public Utility District (PUD)
1. Power Service Contact
Authors and Principal Contributors:
The following are Agency individuals who were either reviewers or principal contributors to the preparation of
the Crown Jewel Project EIS:
Forest Service
Mel Bennett - Forest Hydrologist
Craig Bobzien - District Ranger
William Butler - Engineer
Jessica Childs Dole - Landscape Architect, Recreation
Phil Christy - Federal Project Manager
Dick Coppock - Mineral Field Inspector
Mark Deleon - Cultural Resources
Oren B. Erickson - Forest Landscape Architect
Jan Flatten - Forest NEPA Coordinator
George Halekas - Wildlife Biologist
Jean A. Lavell - Wildlife Biologist
Rod Lentz - Area Mining Geologist
Larry Loftis - Botanist
Don Lyon - Planning/Minerals Staff Okanogan National Forest
Kenneth J. Radek - Forest Soil Scientist
William Randall - Supervisory Forestry Technician
John Ridlington - Mineral Coordinator
Don Rees - Range Management Specialist
Don Rose - District Silviculturist, Acting District Ranger
Joe Sanchez - Resources Staff Officer
Pete Soderquist - Acting District Ranger
James V. Spotts - Fisheries Biologist
Kent Woodruff - Wildlife Biologist
Elaine Zieroth - District Ranger
Washington Department of Ecology (WADOE)
Bob Barwin - Water Quality Section Manager
Patricia Betts - State SEPA Coordinator
Phil Crane - Water Resources
Jerald LaVassar - Geotechnical Engineer
Tom Luster - Water Quality
Tom Mackie - Hydrogeology
Katherine March - Wetlands Specialist
Andy McMillan - Wetlands Specialist
Robert L. Raforth - Hydrogeologist
Robert D. Swackhamer - Air Quality
Al Wald - Wetlands Hydrologist
Polly Zehm - Hazardous Waste Reduction and Management
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
Rich Baily - Archaeologist
George Brown - District Geologist
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4 FACT SHEET January 1997
Ralph Cornwall - District Forester
Kelly Courtright - District Mining Engineer
Brent Cunderla - Geologist (Team Leader BLM)
Al Gardner - Silviculturist
Neal Hedges - Wildlife Biologist
Joel "Jake" Jakabosky - Environmental Protection Specialist
Tom Olsen - Geological Engineer (Hydrology)
Dana Peterson - Range Conservationist
Judy Thompson - Archaeologist
Bob Troiano - Hydrologist
Gary Yeager - Planning and Environmental Coordinator
Washington Department of Natural Resources (WADNR)
Ray Lasmanis - Manager of Mining, Geology & Reclamation
David Norman - Reclamation Geologist
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Tim Erkel - NEPA Compliance & Permitting
Tom Mueller - Chief, Regulatory Branch
The following are Contract individuals who were either reviewers or principal contributors to the preparation
of the Crown Jewel Project EIS:
TerraMatrix Inc.
Rich Burtell - Geochemistry/Hydrology
Karen Conrath - Graphics
Susan Corser - Visuals, Recreation and Land Use
Alan Czarnowsky - Project Manager
Rita Edinger - Document Coordination/Word Processing
Jay James - Assistant Project Manger
Dan Keuscher - Comment Coordination
Alan Krause - Principal-in-Charge, Geotechnical
Suzanne Maddux - Document Coordination/Word Processing
Joe Nagengast - Graphics
Tim Smith - Graphics/Maps
Archaeological and Historical Services
Keo Boreson - Historical and Cultural
Dr. Jerry Galm - Archeology, Historical and Cultural
Charles Luttrell - Archaeology, Historical and Cultural
A.G. Crook Company
George Berscheid - Vegetation and Wetlands, Streams and Fisheries
Philip Lee - Wildlife
Thomas Melville Sr. - Fisheries Programs Director
Rita Mroczek - Wetlands Program Manager
Beak Consultants Incorporated
Bill Baber - Wildlife Biologist
Susan Barnes - Wildlife Biologist
Randy Floyd - Wildlife Biologist
Chuck Howe - Biologist/Forester
Paul Whitney - Terrestrial Ecologist
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 5
Cascade Environmental Services
John Blum - Fisheries Biologist
Jean Caldwell - Fisheries Biologist
Cedar Creek Associates
Steve Long - Soils
Mike Phelan - Wildlife Biologist
E.D. Hovee and Company
Eric Hovee - Socioeconomics
John Koleda - Socioeconomics
ENSR Environmental
James Wilder - Air Quality/Meteorology and Noise
Hydro-Geo Consultants
Joe Frank - Surface Water Hydrology
Randy Hertzman - Hydrogeology
Mike McDermid - Surface Water Hydrology
Janet Shangraw - Water Quality/Water Rights
Vladimir Straskraba - Hydrogeology
Schafer and Associates
William Schafer - Principal, Soil Scientist
Ed Spotts - Senior Soil Chemist/Geochemist
Snow and Associates
David Snow - Hydrogeology
A listing of these individuals pertinent experience is set forth in Chapter 5.0, List of Preparers.
Date of Issue of Draft EIS: June 30, 1995
Public Meetings:
After the release of the draft EIS, three public information meetings were held to explain the draft EIS, two
formal public hearings were held to receive comments on the draft EIS, and two public field trips to the Crown
Jewel Project site were made. The public information meetings were held on July 20, 1995 in Midway,
British Columbia, July 26, 1995 in Oroville, Washington, and July 27, 1995 in Riverside, Washington. The
formal public hearings were held on August 15, 1995 in Ellensburg, Washington and August 17, 1995 in
Oroville, Washington. The field trips to the Project site were made on July 29, 1995 and August 5, 1995.
Date of Issue of Final EIS: February 7, 1997
Agency Action:
The primary state and federal actions consists of the approval of necessary plans and permits to construct and
operate the Crown Jewel Project mine and mill. Permit application processing is proceeding concurrently with
preparation of this final EIS. No state permits may be issued prior to seven days after the final EIS is
published.
Approval of the selected alternative, as modified by the Record of Decision, or the proposal is considered by
the Forest Service to be implementation of the Crown Jewel Project. The Forest Service 36 CFR 215 appeal
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 6 FACT SHEET January 1997
regulations require that this Project is automatically stayed until five days after the close of the appeal period
if no appeal is filed. Also based on those regulations, if an appeal is filed, the decision will not be
implemented until 15 days following the date of appeal disposition.
The decision affecting BLM administered lands will be in full force and effect as of the date of signing of the
Record of Decision and will remain in effect during any appeal unless a written request for a stay is granted
pursuant to 43 CFR 4.21. The full force and effect provisions only apply to the approval of the Selected
Alternative, and do not pertain to initiating actions under a Plan of Operations.
WADOE has chosen not to identify a preferred alternative in the final EiS. WADOE selection of an alternative
will be made as part of WADOE permit decisions.
There is no administrative appeal process under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) available with
issuance of the final EIS by WADOE. Permit decisions by WADOE may be appealed to the Pollution Control
Hearings Board (PCHB). Part of this appeal can include appeal of the final EIS.
Environmental Review:
To avoid unnecessary duplication, this final EIS was prepared under requirements of both SEPA and the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Lead agencies (WADOE and Forest Service) in coordination with
cooperating agencies (WADNR, BLM, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) have worked together in order
that this document would contain the information they need to evaluate and address environmental effects
during decision making and meet their statutory requirements.
EIS Availability:
Single copies of this final EIS are available from the WADOE offices in Olympia and Yakima, Washington and
the Forest Service offices in Tonasket and Okanogan, Washington.
If you have special accommodation needs or require this document in alternative format, please contact
Patricia Betts at (360)407-6925 (voice) or (360)407-6006 (TDD).
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Prepared for:
U.S.D.A. Forest Service Department of Ecology
Tonasket Ranger District Washington State
1 West Winesap P.O. Box 47703
Tonasket, Washington 98855 Olympia, Washington 98504
CROWN JEWEL MINE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
January 1997
Assembled by:
TerraMatrix Inc.
343 West Drake Road, Suite 108
Fort Collins, CO 80526
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 .0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
1 . 1 INTRODUCTION
1 .2 BACKGROUND
1 .3 PURPOSE AND NEED
1 .4 PROPOSED ACTION
1 .5 DECISIONS TO BE MADE
1 .6 OKANOGAN FOREST PLAN CONSISTENCY
1 .7 SPOKANE DISTRICT RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY . .
1 .8 PERMITS AND APPROVALS NEEDED
1 .8.1 Performance Standards
1 .9 SCOPING, PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT, AND CONSULTATION WITH THE
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE INDIAN RESERVATION ....
1 .9.1 Agency Meetings and Scoping
1 .9.2 Public Scoping
1.9.3 Consultation with the Confederated Tribes of the Colville
Indian Reservation Government to Government Relations ....
1 .9.4 Interdisciplinary Team
1.10 ISSUES AND CONCERNS
1.10.1 Air Quality
1 .10.2 Heritage Resources and Native American Issues
1 .10.3 Geology and Geotechnical (Key Issue)
1 .10.4 Geochemistry (Key Issue)
1.10.5 Energy
1 .10.6 Noise
1 .10.7 Soils (Key Issue)
1 .10.8 Surface Water and Ground Water (Key Issue)
1 .10.9 Wetlands (Key Issue)
1 .10.10 Use of Hazardous Chemicals (Key Issue)
1 .10.1 1 Vegetation (Key Issue)
1.10.12 Reclamation (Key Issue)
1.10.13 Wildlife (Key Issue)
1 .10.14 Fish Habitat and Populations
1.10.15 Recreation
1.10.16 Land Use
1 .10.17 Socioeconomics (Key Issue) ,
1.10.18 Scenic Resources
1.10.19 Health/Safety
1 .10.20 Transportation ,
1.11 ISSUES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS EIS/NO VARIATION BETWEEN
ALTERNATIVES
1.11.1 Wild and Scenic Rivers ,
1.11.2 Trails
2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
2.1 FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES
2.1 .1 Identification of Project Components
2.1 .2 Development of Options
2.1 .3 Selection of Options
2.1.4 Management, Mitigation, and Monitoring
2.1.5 Project Alternative Comparison
Page No.
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-2
1-2
1-3
1-4
1-6
1-6
1-8
1-8
1-8
1-9
1-10
1-11
1-11
1-12
1-12
1-13
1-13
1-13
1-13
1-14
1-14
1-14
1-14
1-15
1-15
1-15
1-16
1-16
1-16
1-16
1-16
1-17
1-17
1-17
1-17
1-17
2-1
2-2
2-2
2-3
2-3
2-3
2-4
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS January 1997
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
PROJECT COMPONENTS AND OPTIONS
2.2.1 Project Location
2.2.2 Mining Methods
2.2.3 Operating Schedule
2.2.4 Production Schedule
2.2.5 Waste Rock Disposal
2.2.6 Ore Processing - Crushing
2.2.7 Ore Processing - Grinding
2.2.8 Ore Processing Methods
2.2.9 Off-Site Processing
, 2.2.10 Gold Recovery
2.2.1 1 Cyanide Destruction
2.2.12 Tailings Disposal
2.2.13 Tailings Disposal Locations
2.2.14 Tailings Embankment Design and Construction
2.2.1 5 Tailings Liner System Design
2.2.16 Employee Transportation
2.2.17 Supply Transportation
2.2.18 Water Use
2.2.19 Water Supply
2.2.20 Water Storage
2.2.21 Water Balance
2.2.22 Power Supply
2.2.23 Fuel Storage
2.2.24 Sanitary Waste Disposal
2.2.25 Solid Waste Disposal
2.2.26 Reclamation
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
2.3.1 Project Alternatives Considered for Detailed Study
2.3.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated From Detailed Study . . .
ALTERNATIVE A - NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
ALTERNATIVE B - PROPOSED ACTION
2.5.1 Mining Techniques
2.5.2 Waste Rock Disposal
2.5.3 Ore Processing
2.5.4 Tailings Disposal
2.5.5 Area of Disturbance
2.5.6 Project Life
2.5.7 Employment
2.5.8 Supply Transportation
2.5.9 Reclamation
2.5.10 Ore Recovery
ALTERNATIVE C
2.6.1 Underground Mining Techniques
2.6.2 Underground Development Exploration
2.6.3 General Mine Development
2.6.4 Underground Development Rock Disposal
2.6.5 Surface Quarries
2.6.6 Mine Ventilation
2.6.7 Ore Processing
2.6.8 Tailings Disposal
2.6.9 Area of Disturbance
2.6.10 Project Life
2.6.1 1 Employment
2.6.12 Supply Transportation
2.6.13 Reclamation
2-9
2-10
2-10
2-12
2-13
2-15
2-18
2-19
2-19
2-24
2-25
2-27
2-33
2-36
2-52
2-53
2-54
2-55
2-58
2-60
2-66
2-69
2-70
2-71
2-72
2-72
2-73
2-76
2-76
2-76
2-78
2-78
2-79
2-79
2-79
2-79
2-79
2-81
2-81
2-81
2-81
2-81
2-82
2-82
2-84
2-84
2-85
2-85
2-85
2-85
2-85
2-85
2-85
2-86
2-86
2-86
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page Hi
2.7
2.8
2.9
2.10
2.11
2.12
2.6.14 Ore Recovery
ALTERNATIVE D
2.7.1 Mining Techniques
2.7.2 Waste Rock Disposal
2.7.3 Mine Ventilation
2.7.4 Ore Processing
2.7.5 Tailings Disposal
2.7.6 Area of Disturbance
2.7.7 Project Life
2.7.8 Employment
2.7.9 Supply Transportation
2.7.10 Reclamation
2.7.1 1 Ore Recovery
ALTERNATIVE E
2.8.1 Mining Techniques
2.8.2 Waste Rock Disposal
2.8.3 Ore Processing
2.8.4 Tailings Disposal
2.8.5 Area of Disturbance
2.8.6 Project Life
2.8.7 Employment
2.8.8 Supply Transportation
2.8.9 Reclamation
2.8.10 Ore Recovery
ALTERNATIVE F
2.9.1 Mining Techniques
2.9.2 Waste Rock Disposal
2.9.3 Ore Processing
2.9.4 Tailings Disposal
2.9.5 Area of Disturbance
2.9.6 Project Life
2.9.7 Employment
2.9.8 Supply Transportation
2.9.9 Reclamation
2.9.10 Ore Recovery
ALTERNATIVE G
2.10.1 Mining Techniques
2.10.2 Waste Rock Disposal
2.10.3 Ore Processing
2.10.4 Off-Site Shipment of Flotation Concentrates
2.10.5 Tailings Disposal
2.10.6 Area of Disturbance
2.10.7 Project Life
2.10.8 Employment
2.10.9 Supply Transportation
2.10.10 Reclamation
2.10.1 1 Ore Recovery
RECLAMATION MEASURES
2.11.1 Introduction
2.1 1 .2 Reclamation Goals and Objectives
2.1 1 .3 Reclamation Schedule
2.1 1.4 General Reclamation Procedures
2.11.5 Reclamation and Environmental Protection Performance
Securities
MANAGEMENT AND MITIGATION
2.12.1 Air Quality
2-86
2-87
2-87
2-87
2-87
2-87
2-87
2-88
2-89
2-89
2-89
2-89
2-89
2-90
2-90
2-90
2-90
2-91
2-92
2-92
2-92
2-92
2-92
2-93
2-93
2-93
2-93
2-93
2-93
2-94
2-95
2-95
2-95
2-95
2-95
2-96
2-96
2-96
2-96
2-96
.... 2-97
.... 2-98
.... 2-98
.... 2-98
.... 2-98
.... 2-99
.... 2-99
2-99
2-99
.... 2-100
.... 2-100
.... 2-101
2-107
.... 2-107
2-109
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page iv TABLE OF CONTENTS January 1997
2.12.2 Heritage Resources 2-110
2.12.3 Cyanide and Other Chemicals 2-111
2.12.4 Spill Prevention, Hazardous Materials, Fire
Prevention, and First Aid 2-111
2.12.5 Geochemistry - Acid or Toxic Forming Capability 2-114
2.12.6 Geology and Geotechnical 2-115
2.12.7 Land Use 2-116
2,12.8 Noise 2-118
2.12.9 Permitting and Financial Assurances
(Performance Securities) 2-118
2.12.10 Recreation 2-119
2.12.11 Socioeconomics 2-119
2.12.12 Soils 2-120
2.12.13 Surface Water and Ground Water - Quality
and Quantity 2-120
2.12.14 Transportation 2-125
2.12.15 Vegetation 2-126
2.12.16 Wetlands 2-127
2.12.17 Scenic Resources 2-132
2.12.18 Wildlife and Fish - Public Land Enhancement 2-132
2.12.19 Wildlife and Fish - Private Land Enhancement 2-136
2.12.20 Employee Training 2-140
2.12.21 Solid Waste (Garbage) Management 2-141
2.12.22 Showcase Agreement 2-141
2.13 MONITORING MEASURES 2-141
2.13.1 Water Resources Monitoring 2-142
2.13.2 Air Quality Monitoring 2-144
2.13.3 Geotechnical Monitoring 2-145
2.13.4 Geochemical Monitoring 2-146
2.13.5 Wildlife and Fish Monitoring 2-146
2.13.6 Timber Monitoring 2-147
2.13.7 Noxious Weed Monitoring 2-147
2.13.8 Transportation Monitoring 2-147
2.13.9 Reclamation Monitoring 2-148
2.13.10 Revegetation Monitoring 2-148
2.13.11 Molybdenum Uptake in Tailings Reclamation
Vegetation Cover Monitoring 2-148
2.13.12 Soil Replacement Monitoring 2-148
2.13.13 Soil Storage Monitoring 2-149
2.13.14 Wetlands Monitoring 2-149
2.13.15 Reporting 2-149
2.14 PERFORMANCE SECURITIES 2-150
2.14.1 Reclamation Performance Security 2-150
2.14.2 Environmental Protection Performance Security 2-154
2.15 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 2-155
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 3-1
3.1 AIR QUALITY/CLIMATE 3-1
3.1.1 Introduction 3-1
3.1.2 Air Quality 3-1
3.1.3 Climate 3-3
3.2 TOPOGRAPHY/PHYSIOGRAPHY 3-5
3.3 GEOLOGY/GEOCHEMISTRY 3-6
3.3.1 Introduction 3-6
3.3.2 Site Geology 3-6
3.3.3 Geochemistry 3-7
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page v
3.4 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS 3-28
3.5 SOILS 3-28
3.5.1 Introduction 3-28
3.5.2 General Soil Properties 3-28
3.5.3 Reclamation Suitability of Soils of the Study Area 3-31
3.5.4 Erosion Hazard of Soils of the Study Area 3-31
3.6 SURFACE WATER 3-32
3.6.1 Introduction 3-32
3.6.2 Regional Surface Water Hydrology 3-33
3.6.3 Regional Surface Water Quality 3-35
3.6.4 Project Area Surface Water Hydrology 3-36
3.6.5 Site Surface Water Quality 3-44
3.7 SPRINGS AND SEEPS 3-52
3.7.1 Introduction 3-52
3.7.2 Location and Description 3-52
3.7.3 Water Quantity 3-53
3.7.4 Water Quality 3-57
3.7.5 Origin 3.59
3.8 GROUND WATER 3.59
3.8.1 Introduction 3.59
3.8.2 Regional Hydrogeology 3-59
3.8.3 Mine Site Hydrogeology 3-60
3.8.4 Ground Water Quality 3-62
3.8.5 Seasonal Trends In Ground Water Quality 3-65
3.8.6 Influence of Past Mining on Ground Water 3-65
3.8.7 Relation of Ground Water and Surface Water Systems 3-68
3.9 WATER SUPPLY RESOURCES 3-69
3.9.1 Introduction 3-69
3.9.2 Ground Water 3-70
3.9.3 Surface Water 3-70
3.10 VEGETATION 3-71
3.10.1 Introduction 3-71
3.10.2 Upland Plant Communities 3-71
3.10.3 Forest Resource 3-72
3.10.4 Noxious Weeds 3-73
3.10.5 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species 3-73
3.10.6 Plant Species of Concern 3.74
3.10.7 Range Resource 3.74
3.11 WETLANDS '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'. 3-75
3.11.1 Introduction 3.75
3.11.2 Wetlands Delineation 3.75
3.12 AQUATIC RESOURCES '.'.'.'.'. 3-75
3.12.1 Introduction 3.75
3.12.2 Survey Methodology 3.73
3.12.3 Myers Creek '_] 3.79
3.12.4 Gold Creek 3.80
3.12.5 Marias Creek 3.30
3.12.6 Nicholson Creek . 3.31
3.12.7 North Fork of Nicholson Creek 3-81
3.12.8 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Fish Species 3-82
3.12.9 Benthic Macroinvertebrates 3-82
3.12.10 Instream Flow Incremental Methodology .... 3-86
3.13 WILDLIFE 3.37
3.13.1 Introduction 3.37
3.13.2 Habitat Overview 3-88
3.13.3 Land Use Patterns and Human Activities Influencing Wildlife . . . 3-91
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page vi TABLE OF CONTENTS January 1997
3.13.4 Additional Aspects of the Biological Environment 3-93
3.13.5 Wildlife Species Overview 3-95
3.13.6 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species 3-109
3.13.7 HEP Analysis 3-120
3.14 NOISE 3-122
3.14.1 Introduction 3-122
3.14.2 Health Effects of Community Noise 3-122
3.14.3 Baseline Noise Levels 3-123
3.14.4 Temperature Inversion Study 3-125
3.14.5 Noise Regulations 3-125
3.15 RECREATION 3-127
3.15.1 Introduction 3-127
3.15.2 Current Management Direction 3-128
3.15.3 Recreation Resources 3-128
3.15.4 Recreation Activities 3-129
3.16 SCENIC RESOURCES 3-132
3.16.1 Introduction 3-132
3.16.2 Scenic Management System 3-132
3.16.3 Project Area Description 3-133
3.16.4 Roads and Viewpoints 3-134
3.16.5 Summary 3-136
3.17 HERITAGE RESOURCES 3-137
3.17.1 Introduction 3-137
3.17.2 Prehistory 3-137
3.17.3 History 3-138
3.17.4 Known Heritage Resources in Crown Jewel
Project Area 3-139
3.18 TRANSPORTATION 3-139
3.18.1 Introduction 3-139
3.18.2 Major Transportation Routes . . 3-139
3.18.3 Project Access Routes 3-145
3.18.4 On-Site Roads 3-148
3.19 LAND USE 3-148
3.19.1 Introduction 3-148
3.19.2 Crown Jewel Project Exploration Activities 3-148
3.19.3 Historic and Present Timber Operations 3-149
3.19.4 Proposed Timber Operations 3-154
3.19.5 Agricultural Activities 3-154
3.19.6 Residential Activities 3-154
3.19.7 Recreation 3-155
3.19.8 Patenting of Crown Jewel Project Mining Claims 3-155
3.20 SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 3-156
3.20.1 Introduction 3-156
3.20.2 Population and Demographics 3-156
3.20.3 Housing 3-158
3.20.4 Employment 3-162
3.20.5 Income 3-165
3.20.6 Community and Public Services 3-168
3.20.7 Fiscal Conditions 3-174
3.20.8 Social Values 3-176
3.20.9 Land Ownership and Values 3-180
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4-1
4.1 AIR QUALITY 4-2
4.1.1 Summary 4-2
4.1.2 Air Quality Regulations Applicable to All Alternatives 4-4
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page vii
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.1 .3 Effects of Alternative A (No Action)
4.1 .4 Effects Common to All Action Alternatives
4.1 .5 Effects of Alternatives B and E
4.1 .6 Effects of Alternative C
4.1 .7 Effects of Alternative D
4.1 .8 Effects of Alternative F
4.1 .9 Effects of Alternative G
4.1 .10 Cumulative Effects
4.1.11 Climate
TOPOGRAPHY/PHYSIOGRAPHY
4.2.1 Summary
4.2.2 Effects of Alternative A (No Action)
4.2.3 Effects Common to All Action Alternatives
4.2.4 Effects of Alternative B
4.2.5 Effects of Alternative C
4.2.6 Effects of Alternative D
4.2.7 Effects of Alternative E
4.2.8 Effects of Alternative F
4.2.9 Effects of Alternative G
GEOLOGY
4.3.1 Summary
4.3.2 Effects of Alternative A (No Action)
4.3.3 Effects Common to All Action Alternatives
GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
4.4.1 Summary
4.4.2 Effects of Alternative A (No Action)
4.4.3 Effects Common to All Action Alternatives
4.4.4 Effects of Alternative B
4.4.5 Effects of Alternative C
4.4.6 Effects of Alternative D
4.4.7 Effects of Alternative E
4.4.8 Effects of Alternative F
4.4.9 Effects of Alternative G
SOILS
4.5.1 Summary
4.5.2 Effects of Alternative A (No Action)
4.5.3 Effects Common to All Action Alternatives
4.5.4 Effects of Alternative B
4.5.5 Effects of Alternative C
4.5.6 Effects of Alternative D
4.5.7 Effects of Alternative E
4.5.8 Effects of Alternative F
4.5.9 Effects of Alternative G
GROUND WATER, SPRINGS AND SEEPS
4.6.1 Summary
4.6.2 Effects of Alternative A (No Action)
4.6.3 Effects Common to All Action Alternatives
4.6.4 Effects of Alternative B
4.6.5 Effects of Alternative C
4.6.6 Effects of Alternative D
4.6.7 Effects of Alternative E
4.6.8 Effects of Alternative F
4.6.9 Effects of Alternative G
SURFACE WATER
4.7.1 Summary
4.7.2 Effects of Alternative A (No Action) ....
4-5
4-6
4-11
4-20
4-20
4-20
4-20
4-20
4-21
4-21
4-21
4-22
4-22
4-23
4-23
4-23
4-24
4-24
4-24
4-24
4-24
4-24
4-25
4-25
4-25
4-26
4-26
4-31
4-31
4-32
4-32
4-32
4-32
4-33
4-33
4-34
4-34
4-37
4-38
4-39
4-39
4-40
4-40
4-41
4-41
4-42
4-42
4-53
4-56
4-58
4-58
4-59
4-60
4-60
4-60
4-62
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page viii TABLE OF CONTENTS January 1997
4.7.3 Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 4-63
4.7.4 Effects of Alternative B 4-71
4.7.5 Effects of Alternative C 4-75
4.7.6 Effects of Alternative D 4-76
4.7.7 Effects of Alternative E 4-77
4.7.8 Effects of Alternative F 4-78
4.7.9 Effects of Alternative G 4-79
4.8 WATER SUPPLY RESOURCES AND WATER RIGHTS 4-80
4.8.1 Summary 4-80
4.8.2 Effects of Alternative A (No Action) 4-81
4.8.3 Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 4-82
4.8.4 Effects of Alternative B 4-83
4.8.5 Effects of Alternative C 4-83
4.8.6 Effects of Alternative D 4-83
4.8.7 Effects of Alternative E 4-83
4.8.8 Effects of Alternative F 4-83
4.8.9 Effects of Alternative G 4-83
4.9 VEGETATION 4-84
4.9.1 Summary 4-84
4.9.2 Effects of Alternative A (No Action) 4-84
4.9.3 Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 4-84
4.9.4 Effects of Alternative B 4-89
4.9.5 Effects of Alternative C 4-89
4.9.6 Effects of Alternative D 4-89
4.9.7 Effects of Alternative E 4-90
4.9.8 Effects of Alternative F 4-90
4.9.9 Effects of Alternative G 4-90
4.10 WETLANDS 4-90
4.10.1 Summary 4-90
4.10.2 Regulations . . 4-98
4.10.3 Effects of Alternative A (No Action) 4-98
4.10.4 Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 4-100
4.10.5 Effects of Alternative B 4-102
4.10.6 Effects of Alternative C 4-103
4.10.7 Effects of Alternative D 4-103
4.10.8 Effects of Alternative E 4-103
4.10.9 Effects of Alternative F 4-103
4.10.10 Effects of Alternative G 4-104
4.10.11 Waters of the United States 4-104
4.10.12 Location and Description of Project Components Affecting
Waters of the United States 4-104
4.10.13 Mitigation 4-106
4.11 AQUATIC HABITATS AND POPULATIONS 4-107
4.11.1 Summary 4-107
4.11.2 Effects of Alternative A (No Action) 4-108
4.11.3 Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 4-108
4.11.4 Effects of Alternatives B, C, D, and E 4-114
4.11.5 Effects of Alternative F 4-114
4.11.6 Effects of Alternative G 4-114
4.11.7 Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) 4-114
4.11.8 Forest Service Inland Native Fish Strategy 4-115
4.12 WILDLIFE 4-116
4.12.1 Summary 4-117
4.12.2 Effects of Alternative A (No Action) 4-119
4.12.3 Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 4-119
4.12.4 Toxics 4-134
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page ix
4.13
4.14
4.15
4.16
4.17
4.18
4.12.5 Cumulative Effects
4.12.6 Forest Plan Consistency
4.12.7 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species
4.12.8 HEP Consequences
NOISE
4.13.1 Summary
4.13.2 Effects of Alternative A (No Action)
4.13.3 Effects Common to All Action Alternatives
4.13.4 Effects of Alternative B
4.13.5 Effects of Alternative C
4.13.6 Effects of Alternative D
4.13.7 Effects of Alternative E
4.13.8 Effects of Alternative F
4.13.9 Effects of Alternative G
RECREATION
4.14.1 Summary
4.14.2 Effects of Alternative A (No Action)
4.14.3 Effects Common to All Action Alternatives
4.14.4 Effects of Alternative B
4.14.5 Effects of Alternative C
4.14.6 Effects of Alternative D
4.14.7 Effects of Alternative E
4.14.8 Effects of Alternative F
4.14.9 Effects of Alternative G
SCENIC RESOURCES
4.15.1 Summary
4.1 5.2 Effects of Alternative A (No Action)
4.15.3 Effects Common to All Action Alternatives
4.1 5.4 Effects of Alternative B
4.1 5.5 Effects of Alternative C
4.1 5.6 Effects of Alternative D
4.1 5.7 Effects of Alternative E
4.1 5.8 Effects of Alternative F
4.1 5.9 Effects of Alternative G
HERITAGE RESOURCES
4.16.1 Summary
4.16.2 Effects of Alternative A (No Action)
4.16.3 Effects Common to All Action Alternatives
4.16.4 Effects of Alternatives B, C, and D
4.16.5 Effects of Alternative E, F, and G
TRANSPORTATION
4.17.1 Summary
4.17.2 Effects of Alternative A (No Action)
4.17.3 Effects Common to All Action Alternatives
4.17.4 Effects of Alternative B
4.17.5 Effects of Alternative C
4.17.6 Effects of Alternative D
4.17.7 Effects of Alternative E
4.17.8 Effects of Alternative F
4.17.9 Effects of Alternative G
LAND USE/RECLAMATION
4.18.1 Summary
4.18.2 Effects of Alternative A (No Action)
4.18.3 Effects Common to All Action Alternatives
4.1 8.4 Effects of Alternative B
4.18.5 Effects of Alternative C
4-139
4-141
4-148
4-151
4-152
4-152
4-155
4-155
4-1 59
4-166
4-168
4-168
4-168
4-169
4-169
4-169
4-170
4-170
4-172
4-173
4-174
4-174
4-174
4-175
4-175
4-176
4-176
4-176
4-179
4-181
4-182
4-182
4-183
4-183
4-184
4-184
4-184
4-184
4-185
4-185
4-185
4-185
4-190
4-190
4-195
4-196
4-197
4-198
4-198
4-199
4-200
4-200
4-200
4-201
4-203
4-203
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page x TABLE OF CONTENTS January 1997
4.18.6 Effects of Alternative D 4-203
4.18.7 Effects of Alternative E 4-203
4.18.8 Effects of Alternative F 4-204
4.18.9 Effects of Alternative G 4-204
4.19 SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 4-204
4.19.1 Summary 4-204
4.19.2 Effects of Alternative A (No Action) 4-206
4.19.3 Comparative Effects Common to All Action Alternatives
4.19.4 Sensitivity Analysis 4-227
4.19.5 Alternative Crown Jewel Project Economic and Fiscal Impact
Analysis 4-229
4.19.6 Potential Additional Mitigation 4-231
4.20 ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND CONSERVATION 4-233
4.21 MINING ECONOMICS 4-233
4.21.1 Introduction 4-233
4.21.2 Potential Mine Expansion 4-235
4.21.3 Economic Analysis of the Alternatives 4-236
4.22 ACCIDENTS AND SPILLS 4-237
4.22.1 Water Reservoir Rupture 4-238
4.22.2 Tailings Dam Failure 4-238
4.22.3 Transportation Spill 4-240
4.22.4 Other Types of Accidents 4-243
4.23 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES .... 4-246
4.23.1 Irreversible Resource Commitment 4-246
4.23.2 Irretrievable Resource Commitments 4-246
4.24 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS 4-247
4.25 SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY 4-248
4.26 RESERVATION OF PROJECT FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT 4-249
4.27 SPECIALLY REQUIRED DISCLOSURES 4-250
4.27.1 Floodplains and Wetlands 4-250
4.27.2 Social Groups 4-250
4.27.3 Threatened and Endangered Species 4-250
4.27.4 Prime Range Land, Farm Land, and Forest Land 4-250
4.27.5 Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential of
Alternatives 4-251
4.27.6 Heritage Resources 4-251
4.27.7 Conflicts Between Proposed Action and Other Federal,
State, and Local Plans, Policies, Controls and Laws 4-251
5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 5-1
5.1 INTRODUCTION 5-1
5.2 U.S.D.A. FOREST SERVICE 5-1
5.3 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY 5-3
5.4 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT 5-4
5.5 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 5-5
5.6 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 5-5
5.7 TERRAMATRIX INC 5-5
5.8 ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL SERVICES 5-6
5.9 A.G. CROOK COMPANY 5-6
5.10 CEDAR CREEK ASSOCIATES 5-7
5.11 ENSR CONSULTING AND ENGINEERING 5-7
5.12 HYDRO-GEO CONSULTANTS 5-7
5.13 SCHAFER AND ASSOCIATES 5-7
5.14 E.D. HOVEE & COMPANY 5-8
5.15 BEAK CONSULTANTS 5-8
5.16 CASCADES ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 5-8
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CPOWN JEWEL MINE Page xi
5.17 SNOW & ASSOCIATES 5-8
5.18 HERTZMAN & ASSOCIATES 5-9
6.0 REFERENCES 6-1
7.0 GLOSSARY, ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS 7-1
8.0 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS & INDIVIDUALS TO WHOM COPIES
OF THE FINAL EIS WERE SENT 8-1
8.1 FEDERAL AGENCIES 8-2
8.2 STATE GOVERNMENT 8-3
8.3 COUNTY & LOCAL GOVERNMENT . 8-3
8.4 TRIBAL OFFICIALS 8-3
8.5 CANADIAN GOVERNMENT 8-4
8.6 ELECTED OFFICIALS 8-4
8.7 BUSINESS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS 8-4
9.0 INDEX 9-1
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page xli TABLE OF CONTENTS January 1997
LIST OF TABLES
Number Title Page No.
1.1 List of Tentative and Potential Permits and Approvals 1-7
2.1 Alternative Comparison Summary 2-5
2.2 Summary of Cyanide Treatment Processes 2-32
2.3 Results of Treatability Testing 2-34
2.4 Materials and Supplies 2-56
2.5 Consumables Estimate - Underground Mining 2-57
2.6 Estimated Water Use Requirements 2-59
2.7 Summary of Alternative B 2-80
2.8 Summary of Alternative C 2-83
2.9 Summary of Alternative D 2-88
2.10 Summary of Alternative E 2-91
2.11 Summary of Alternative F 2-94
2.12 Summary of Alternative G 2-97
2.13 Flotation Reagents 2-98
2.14 Potential Environmental Protection and Reclamation Activity
and Calculation Methods 2-108
2.15 Summary of Impacts by Alternative for Each Issue 2-156
3.1.1 Weather Data 3-4
3.1.2 Predicted Rainfall Intensities 3-5
3.3.1 Waste Rock Percentages for the EIS Alternatives 3-9
3.3.2 Average and Range of ABA Values for Waste Rock 3-12
3.3.3 Average Total Waste Rock ABA Values for the Crown Jewel
Project 3-14
3.3.4 Summary of Additional HCT Leachate Analyses 3-18
3.3.5 ABA Results for Ore Samples 3-20
3.3.6 ABA Results for Tailings Solids 3-22
3.3.7 Analysis of Tailings Liquid 3-24
3.5.1 Soil Characteristics Summary 3-29
3.5.2 Soil Salvage Depth Summary 3-32
3.6.1 Regional Surface Water Discharge Summary 3-34
3.6.2 Stream Classification Summary 3-38
3.6.3 Flow Monitoring History 3-41
3.6.4 Summary of Crown Jewel Project Site Hydrologic Water Balance 3-45
3.6.5 Water Quality Monitoring History 3-46
3.6.6 Water Quality Analytical Methods and Standards 3-47
3.7.1 Spring and Seep Investigation Summary 3-54
3.8.1 Summary of Historic Mine Workings 3-66
3.10.1 Plant Associations in Crown Jewel Project Vegetation Study Area 3-72
3.10.2 Estimated Timber Volume 3-73
3.11.1 Summary of Wetland Areas 3-76
3.12.1 Stream Habitat Units and Description 3-78
3.12.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Biological Integrity Assessment Parameters .... 3-83
3.12.3 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Comparison 3-84
3.12.4 IFIM Transects and Habitat Description 3-87
3.13.1 Acreages of Cover Types and Land Types in the Crown Jewel
Project Core and Analysis Areas 3-89
3.13.2 Wildlife Species List 3-96
3.13.3 Bat Detections in or Near the Analysis Area 3-101
3.14.1 Measured Background Noise Levels 3-124
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page xiii
3.14.2 Allowable Noise Levels at Residential and Non-Residential
Receiving Property for Industrial Noise Source 3-127
3.14.3 Recommended Maximum Noise Impacts to Recreational Areas 3-127
3.1 5.1 Recreation Use - Forest Service Facilities 3-131
3.17.1 Buckhorn Mountain Mining Properties Identified by Survey and
Historic Research 3-140
3.17.2 Buckhorn Mountain Mining Properties Identified by Historic Research 3-143
3.17.3 Heritage Resources Identified by Survey of Powerline Route
and Related Construction Features 3-144
3.19.1 Crown Jewel Project Exploration Summary 3-150
3.19.2 Past Timber Sales in the Crown Jewel Project Area 3-153
3.20.1 Population Trends (1970-1995) 3-157
3.20.2 1990 Housing Characteristics 3-159
3.20.3 1990 Labor Force and Employment Data 3-163
3.20.4 1994 Covered Employment and Wages Paid by Sector (Okanogan
and Ferry Counties) 3-164
3.20.5 1989 Household Income Data 3-165
3.20.6 1979 and 1989 Sources of Household Income 3-166
3.20.7 1994 Comparative Travel Impacts 3-167
3.20.8 1995 School Enrollments by Grade 3-169
3.20.9 Okanogan and Ferry County Electric Utility Data 3-174
3.20.10 1994 County Government Revenues and Expenditures 3-176
4.1.1 Summary of Emissions by Alternative 4-3
4.1.2 Peak-Year Emissions for the Operations Phase (Alternative B) 4-7
4.1.3 Dust Suppression Methods 4-10
4.1.4 Comparison of Peak Year PM-10 Emissions for Project Alternatives 4-12
4.1.5 Alternative B Emission Rates of Toxic Air Pollutants 4-13
4.1.6 Alternative B, Modeled Ambient Air Quality Impacts -
Criteria Pollutants 4-14
4.1.7 Alternative B, Modeled Ambient Air Quality Impacts - Toxic
Air Pollutants 4-15
4.1.8 Alternative B, Calculated Visibility Impacts at Pasayten
Wilderness 4-18
4.1.9 Alternative B, Calculated Worst-Case Nitrate and Sulfate
Deposition at Pasayten Wilderness 4-19
4.2.1 Acreage Impacts of Major Facilities 4-22
4.4.1 Waste Rock Disposal Areas - Calculated Factors of Safety 4-27
4.4.2 Flow Failure Consequences - Waste Rock Disposal Areas 4-28
4.4.3 Slope Angle Versus Erosion Potential 4-29
4.5.1 Summary of Resoiling Considerations 4-34
4.5.2 Summary of Mine Component Potential Erosion Rates by
Alternative 4-35
4.6.1 Springs and Seeps Impacted by Mining Operations 4-45
4.6.2 Comparison of Predicted Water Quality Conditions in the
Proposed Open Pit to Washington Ground Water Quality Criteria 4-48
4.6.3 Predicted Ground Water Contaminant Concentrations
Downgradient of a Release From the Tailings Impoundment,
Assuming Worst-Case Conditions 4-55
4.7.1 Summary of Total and Watershed Disturbance for Action
Alternatives 4-64
4.7.2 Summary of Average Precipitation Year (20.0 Inches)
Impacts on Buckhorn Mountain Drainages 4-66
4.7.3 Impacts of Mining on Buckhorn Mountain Drainages 4-68
4.7.4 Comparison of Predicted Water Quality Conditions in the
Proposed Open Pit to Washington Aquatic Life Quality Criteria 4-73
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Pagexiv TABLE OF CONTENTS January 1997
4.8.1 Water Right Applications for the Crown Jewel Project 4-81
4.9.1 Sensitive Plants Impacted by Alternative 4-85
4.10.1 Wetlands, Springs, and Seeps Narrative Description and Impact
Classification 4-91
4.10.2 Wetland Direct Impact Acreage . . 4-97
4.10.3 Wetlands Impacted by Mining Operations 4-99
4.11.1 Proposed Water Diversion Schedule for New Myers Creek
Water Right 4-116
4.12.1 Status of Reclamation Within the Alternative Footprints 4-121
4.12.2 Loss of Cover Types (Acres) in the Core Area by Alternative 4-122
4.12.3 Comparison of Forest Succession on Buckhorn Mountain Under
Reclaimed and Natural Scenarios 4-124
4.12.4 Impacts to Habitat Within the Core Area by Selected Wildlife
Species and Alternative 4-127
4.12.5 Risk or Probability of Toxic Impact at the Tailings Pond 4-136
4.12.6 Summary of Forest Plan Consistency by Alternative 4-143
4.12.7 Crown Jewel Project HU and AAHU Net Impact Summary 4-1 53
4.13.1 Comparison of Noise Impacts for All Alternatives 4-1 54
4.13.2 Assumed Traffic Volumes Used for Noise Modeling . 4-157
4.13.3 Maximum 1-Hour Traffic Noise Impact Summary 4-158
4.13.4 Noise Sources Used for Modeling 4-160
4.13.5 Weather Conditions Used for Noise Modeling 4-163
4.13.6 Alternative B: Modeled Noise Levels at Residential Areas
and Comparison With Nighttime Background Leq 4-164
4.13.7 Alternative B: Modeled Noise at Nearest Private Land and
Comparison With Nighttime L-25 EDNA Limits 4-165
4.13.8 Alternative B: Modeled Blasting Noise and Comparison With
Daytime L-02 Levels 4-165
4.13.9 Comparison of Modeled Nighttime Noise Levels for Alternatives
B, C, and E 4-167
4.14.1 Recreation Impacts Comparison of Alternatives 4-169
4.15.1 Summary of Short-Term and Long-Term Scenic Impacts 4-177
4.16.1 Summary of Effects to Cultural Resources 4-186
4.17.1 Average Daily Traffic by Alternative 4-187
4.17.2 Traffic Summary by Road 4-189
4.17.3 Annual Hazardous Material Transport 4-190
4.18.1 Land Status Disturbance 4-201
4.19.1 Socioeconomic Assumptions for the Action Alternatives 4-205
4.19.2 Anticipated Population Increase 4-206
4.19.3 Forecast Annual Employment and Payroll 4-211
4.19.4 Multi-Year Employment and Payroll 4-212
4.19.5 Anticipated School Enrollment Effects 4-215
4.19.6 Anticipated Permanent Housing Demand 4-220
4.19.7 Anticipated Multi-Year Fiscal Effects 4-222
4.19.8 Sensitivity Analysis 4-228
4.19.9 Comparison of ElS/Proponent Economic Effects (Alternative B) 4-232
4.20.1 Energy Consumption 4-233
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page xv
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Title
1.1 General Location Map 1-18
1.2 Land Status Map 1-19
2.1 Management Prescription 27 2-166
2.2 Waste Rock Disposal Area Options 2-167
2.3 Below Ground Crushing 2-168
2.4 Gold Recovery Through Carbon Adsorption 2-169
2.5 Gold Recovery Through Zinc Precipitation 2-170
2.6 Tailings Disposal Facility Options 2-171
2.7 Slope Study Area 2-172
2.8 Tailings Dam Construction Design 2-174
2.9 Proposed Conceptual Liner System Configuration 2-175
2.10 Employee Transport Routes 2-176
2.11 Water Supply Plan 2-177
2.12 Water Storage Reservoir Locations 2-178
2.13 Operational Water Balance Schematic - Average Year 2-179
2.14 Operational Water Balance Schematic - Dry Year 2-180
2.15 Operation Water Balance Schematic - Wet Year 2-181
2.16 Alternative B - Operation Site Plan 2-182
2.17 Alternative B - Proponent's Proposed Postmining Plan 2-183
2.18 Alternative C - Operational Site Plan 2-184
2.19 Alternative D - Operational Site Plan 2-185
2.20 Alternative E - Operational Site Plan 2-186
2.21 Alternative F - Operational Site Plan 2-187
2.22 Alternative G - Operation Site Plan 2-188
2.23 Forest Road Closures 2-189
2.24 Proposed Power Pole Design 2-190
3.1.1 Location of On-Site Weather Station 3-182
3.1.2 Wind Roses From On-Site Weather Station 3-183
3.3.1 Geologic Map of the Proposed Crown Jewel Project Site 3-184
3.3.2 Location of Drill Holes Used for Geochemical Testing 3-185
3.3.3 Waste Rock Types Exposed in Final Pit Walls
(Alternatives B & G) 3-186
3.4.1 Earthquake Epicenters 3-187
3.4.2 Seismic Risk Zone Map of the United States 3-188
3.5.1 Soil Map Units - Mine Area 3-189
3.5.2 Soil Map Units - Starrem Reservoir Site 3-190
3.6.1 Regional Stream Network 3-191
3.6.2 Estimated Monthly Hydrograph of Myers Creek
(International Boundary) 3-1 92
3.6.3 Surface Water Monitoring Stations 3-193
3.6.4 Site Stream Network 3-194
3.7.1 Spring and Seep Locations 3-195
3.8.1 Regional Geologic Map of Northeastern Okanogan County 3-196
3.8.2 Hydrogeologic Investigation Map 3-197
3.8.3 Potentiometric Surface Map, General Project Area, Annual
Low Level (February 1993) 3-198
3.8.4 Potentiometric Surface Map, General Project Area, Annual
High Level (May 1993) 3-199
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page xvi TABLE OF CONTENTS January 1997
3.8.5 Potentiometric Surface Map, Proposed Tailings Disposal Area
(October/November 1995) 3-200
3.8.6 Hydrologic Cross-Section A-A' 3-201
3.8.7 Hydrologic Cross-Section B-B' 3-202
3.8.8 Hydrologic Cross-Section C-C' 3-203
3.8.9 Location of Regional Ground Water Monitoring Sites 3-204
3.8.10 Comparison of Ground Water Levels and Surface Water Flows in
the Proposed Mine Area 3-205
3.8.11 Comparison of Ground Water Levels and Surface Water Flows
Near Nicholson Creek Headwaters 3-206
3.8.12 Trilinear Diagram for Crown Jewel Project Site Waters 3-207
3.10.1 Plant Association Map 3-208
3.11.1 Project Associated Wetland Locations 3-209
3.12.1 Regional Drainages 3-210
3.12.2 Myers Creek Stream Survey Locations 3-211
3.12.3 Marias and Nicholson Stream and Fisheries Survey Locations 3-212
3.12.4 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Station Location Map 3-213
3.12.5 IFIM Study Sites 3-214
3.12.6 IFIM Final Weighted Usable Area Versus Flow 3-215
3.12.7 Myers Creek Winter Trout Habitat - Weighted Useable Area
Versus Flow 3-216
3.13.1 Project Area Map 3-217
3.13.2 Land Type Map 3-218
3.13.3 Cover Type Map 3-220
3.13.4 National Forest Management Areas in the Core and
Analysis Areas 3-222
3.13.5 Riparian, Deciduous and Ridgetop Habitat 3-223
3.13.6 Successional Stage Diversity 3-225
3.13.7 Successional Stage Map 3-227
3.14.1 Typical Range of Common Sounds 3-229
3.14.2 Noise Monitoring Station Locations 3-230
3.14.3 Noise Source Locations and Baseline Monitoring Locations 3-231
3.15.1 Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Inventory 3-232
3.15.2 Dispersed Recreation Sites - Primary Study Area 3-233
3.15.3 Existing Developed Recreation Facilities 3-234
3.16.1 Scenic Viewsheds and Key Viewpoints 3-235
3.16.2 Oroville - Toroda Creek Viewpoint 3-236
3.16.3 Nealey Road Viewpoint 3-237
3.16.4 Toroda Creek Road Viewpoint 3-238
3.16.5 Highway 3 Viewpoint 3-239
3.16.6 Forest Road 3575-125 Viewpoint 3-240
3.16.7 Mt. Bonaparte Viewpoint 3-241
3.16.8 Existing Conditions Within the Project Site 3-242
3.17.1 Locations of Sites and Features Along Powerline Corridor 3-243
3.17.2 Project Area Sites and Features 3-244
3.18.1 Traffic Counts and Road Systems 3-245
3.18.2 Forest Roads 3-246
3.19.1 Historic Mining Sites 3-247
3.19.2 Consolidated Ramrod Exploration Site 3-248
3.19.3 Historic Timber Sales 3-249
3.19.4 Claim Patent Application Location Map 3-250
3.20.1 Socioeconomic Study Area Location 3-251
3.20.2 Employment Distribution for Ferry County 3-252
3.20.3 Employment Distribution for Okanogan County 3-253
3.20.4 Travel Expenditures by Type of Business 3-254
3.20.5 Travel Expenditures by Type of Accommodation 3-255
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page xvii
3.20.6 County General Fund Revenues by Source 3-256
3.20.7 County General Fund Expenditures by Type 3-257
3.20.8 1994 Total Expenditures for Study Area Cities 3-258
3.20.9 1994 Expenditures per Capita for Study Area Cities 3-259
4.1.1 Maximum Peak-Year Annual Average TSP and PM-10
Concentrations (Not Including Background) 4-252
4.1.2 Maximum Peak-Year 24-Hour TSP and PM-10
Concentrations (Not Including Background) 4-253
4.6.1 Zone of Influence Due to Pit Dewatering and the Pit
Recharge Catchment Area 4-254
4.6.2 Schematic Hydrogeologic Cross-Section at Conclusion of Mining 4-255
4.6.3 Post Mining Hydrogeologic Cross-Section D-D' 4-256
4.7.1 Watersheds and Monitoring Sites 4-257
4.7.2 Zone of Influence Due to Pit Dewatering 4-258
4.7.3 Schematic - Average During and Post Mining Stream Depletions 4-259
4.10.1 Location of Features Related to Wetland Impact
Classification - Alternative B 4-260
4.10.2 Location of Features Related to Wetland Impact
Classification - Alternative C 4-261
4.10.3 Location of Features Related to Wetland Impact
Classification - Alternative D 4-262
4.10.4 Location of Features Related to Wetland Impact
Classification - Alternative E 4-263
4.10.5 Location of Features Related to Wetland Impact
Classification - Alternative F 4-264
4.10.6 Location of Features Related to Wetland Impact
Classification - Alternative G 4-265
4.13.1 Noise Source Locations and Baseline Monitoring Locations 4-266
4.13.2 Modeled Noise Results: Continuous Operation, Summer,
Prevailing West Wind 4-267
4.13.3 Modeled Noise Results: Continuous Operation, Summer,
Uncommon East Wind 4-268
4.13.4 Modeled Noise Results: Continuous Operation, Winter,
Prevailing East Wind 4-269
4.13.5 Modeled Noise Results: Blasting, Winter, East Wind 4-270
4.13.6 Modeled Noise Results: Blasting, Summer, West Wind 4-271
4.15.1 Toroda Creek, Viewpoint Alternative B 4-272
4.15.2 Highway 3 Viewpoint, Alternative B 4-273
4.15.3 Mt. Bonaparte Viewpoint, Alternative B 4-274
4.15.4 Toroda Creek Viewpoint, Alternative D 4-275
4.1 5.5 Highway 3 Viewpoint, Alternative E 4-276
4.15.6 Toroda Creek Viewpoint, Alternative F 4-277
4.15.7 Highway 3 Viewpoint, Alternative F 4-278
4.15.8 Highway 3 Viewpoint, Alternative G 4-279
4.19.1 Population Effects of Action Alternatives 4-280
4.19.2 Maximum Population Effect Versus Baseline Forecast Growth 4-281
4.21.1 Generalized Interactive Procedure for Mine Evaluation 4-282
4.21.2 Comparison of NPV (15%) of Crown Jewel Project Alternatives to
Alternative B 4-283
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page xviii TABLE OF CONTENTS January 1997
LIST OF APPENDICES
A List of Unpublished Reports
B Agency Responsibilities (Permits and Approvals)
C Hydrologic Summary Statistics
D Soil Erosion Rates
E Geochemistry
F Dangerous Waste Characterization Results for Detoxified Tailings
G Traffic Assumptions
H Wildlife Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation
I Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat Biological Evaluation
J Biological Evaluation for Proposed, Endangered Threatened, and Sensitive Plants
K Tailings Site Selection Report
L Public Involvement for the Draft EIS
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Chapter 1
Purpose Of And Need For Action
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 1-1
1.0 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This environmental impact statement (EIS)
documents the environmental analysis of the
Proposed Action and alternatives in
accordance with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) and the Washington State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). This
document will provide the decision makers
with information needed to make a decision
on the Crown Jewel Mine Project (Crown
Jewel Project) that is fully informed and
relevant to the specifics of the Crown Jewel
Project proposal. The EIS documents the
process used to analyze the Proposed Action
and alternatives to the Proposed Action, the
environmental impacts, and mitigation
measures associated with the alternatives.
The EIS process also provides a forum for
public review and comment on the Crown
Jewel Project, the associated relevant issues,
and the environmental analysis.
1.2 BACKGROUND
Renewed interest in the Myers Creek Mining
District surfaced in the late 1970's with
exploration to the north of the proposed
Crown Jewel Project. In early August of
1988, Crown Resources Corporation
submitted a Notice of Operations to conduct
exploration work to the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM). The notice outlined a
proposal to drill five exploration holes in the
vicinity of the abandoned Magnetic Mine near
Buckhorn Mountain. Crown Resources
Corporation continued with exploration
activities in this area through 1989.
In early 1990, Battle Mountain Gold Company
(BMGC) acquired an option from Crown
Resources Corporation to become a joint
venturer in exploration, development, and
mining in a defined area on and around
Buckhorn Mountain. This option agreement
required BMGC to engage in certain
exploration activities prior to January 4,
1991. BMGC exercised the option, and a
joint venture was formed in early 1991.
BMGC has the right to earn a 54% interest in
the venture by funding all expenditures for
exploration, evaluation, permitting, and
development through commencement of
commercial production. BMGC is the
manager of the joint venture and is hereafter
referred to as the "Proponent."
In April of 1990, representatives of the
Proponent met with officials of the U.S.D.A.
Forest Service, Okanogan National Forest
(Forest Service) to outline plans for continued
exploration activities, in particular additional
drilling, in the area. Based on this meeting
and subsequent discussions, an
environmental assessment (EA) was
prepared, and a Decision Notice was signed
by the Okanogan Forest Supervisor in June of
1990 approving continued exploration
activities. The EA resulted in a "finding of no
significant impact" by Forest Service officials
and exploration activities continued.
In January of 1992, the Proponent submitted
a plan of operations to the Forest Service,
BLM, Washington Department of Ecology
(WADOE) and Washington Department of
Natural Resources (WADNR); this plan
involved a proposal to develop, construct,
operate, close, and reclaim a surface mining
and milling operation for gold recovery and
production. In the plan of operations, the
Crown Jewel Project was identified as the
Crown Jewel Joint Venture Project.
Supplemental clarifications or updates to the
original plan of operations were submitted to
the involved agencies by the Proponent in
February, April, and September of 1992. In
March of 1993, the Proponent submitted a
document that integrated all of the previous
changes, as well as several additional
updates, into one comprehensive plan. As
part of the Proponent's August 29, 1995
comments on the Crown Jewel Project draft
EIS, a number of comments were submitted
which revised and clarified their proposal
(BMGC, 1995b). In December of 1995, and
in March and July of 1996, the Proponent
submitted additional revisions and information
to further refine and improve their proposal
(BMGC, 1995c, 1996f and 1996i); these
revisions expanded and supplemented the
information contained in the Proponent's
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 1-2
CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION January 1997
August 29, 1995 comments. The
supplemental plans further defined, clarified
or refined the original January 1992
submittal. Alternative B (the Proposed
Action) as outlined in the June 1995 draft
EIS has been revised in this final EIS to
conform to the revisions and information
submitted by the Proponent.
1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED
The purpose and need for the EIS is to
respond to the plan of operations and other
permit applications submitted by the
Proponent for the development of the specific
ore body at Buckhorn Mountain for the
proposed Crown Jewel Project while
protecting surface resources. An EIS is
prepared to inform the federal, state and local
agency decision makers of the probable
environmental impacts of the proposal,
present a range of reasonable alternatives,
and reasonable mitigation measures.
Because the purpose and need is to respond
to the Proponent's proposal for a specific ore
body, there are no feasible location
alternatives for the proposed mine area. The
location of the defined deposit necessarily
controls the location of the mine. The
geology and mineral deposits associated with
the Crown Jewel Project have been
extensively explored and studied since 1988.
United States Mining Laws establish the
statutory right of mining claim holders to
explore and/or develop mineral resources and
encourage such activity consistent with the
Mining and Mineral Policy Act and the Federal
Land Policy and Management Act. These
regulations require responsible federal
agencies to review the Proponent's plan of
operations to ensure that:
1. Adequate provisions are included to
minimize, to the extent practical, adverse
environmental impacts on public land
surface resources;
2. Measures are included to provide for
reclamation, where practicable; and,
3. The proposed operation will comply with
other applicable federal and state laws
and regulations.
Under Washington State Mining Laws, metal
mining/milling as an industry is allowable, if it
can be accomplished in an environmentally
sensitive manner. It is the intent of
Washington State laws to insure a high
degree of environmental protection while
allowing the proper development and use of
the state's natural resources, including its
mineral resources. The 1993 Washington
Surface Mining Reclamation Act (RCW
78.44) and the Washington Metal Mining and
Milling Operations Act (RCW 78.56)
specifically address mining activities in the
State of Washington. In addition, many other
state laws address particular components (i.e.
water, air, fish, transportation) of the
environment and regulate mining as it affects
such components.
This EIS is tiered to the Okanogan National
Forest, Land and Resource Management Plan,
as amended, (Forest Plan) and the final EIS
for Managing Competing and Unwanted
Vegetation and its mediated Agreement. The
Crown Jewel Project would require a Forest
Plan Amendment to be consistent with the
Forest Plan (Forest Service, 1989). This EIS
is also tiered to the BLM, Spokane Resource
Management Plan (RMP), as amended. The
proposed Crown Jewel Project is consistent
with this plan (BLM, 1985).
1.4 PROPOSED ACTION
The Proponent has submitted an Integrated
Plan of Operations (BMGC, 1993a) and a
Reclamation Plan (BMGC, 1993b), with
updates and revisions (BMGC, 1995b,
1995c, 1996f). The Proponent's proposal is
to develop, construct, operate, close, and
reclaim a surface mining and milling operation
with associated facilities known as the
Crown Jewel Project.
The Proponent's purpose and objectives for
the Crown Jewel Project are to recover as
much of the Project's mineral deposit as is
technically and economically possible, at a
maximum rate of return for its investors,
consistent with applicable company, state.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 1-3
federal, and local environmental permitting
and operation requirements.
The Crown Jewel Project site is located on
and near the summit of Buckhorn Mountain,
approximately 3.5 air miles east of the
community of Chesaw in northeastern
Okanogan County, Washington in Township
39 and 40 North, Range 30 and 31 East, as
shown on Figure 1.1, General Location Map.
As proposed by the Proponent, the mine
would process about 3,000 tons of ore and
handle an average of 34,000 tons of waste
rock per day for approximately eight years.
Expected gold production is about 180,000
ounces per year with the use of tank
cyanidation for gold recovery.
The work force would consist of about 144
people during full production. The Crown
Jewel Project would directly disturb 787
acres during the life of the Crown Jewel
Project. An estimated 59% (469 acres) of
that disturbance would be on lands
administered by the Forest Service, 24%
(189 acres) would be on lands administered
by the BLM, 2% (13 acres) would be on
lands administered by WADNR, and 1 5%
(116 acres) would be on private lands
controlled by the Proponent. Figure 1.2, Land
Status Map, shows the property ownership in
the general area.
On National Forest land, a new temporary
management area prescription, designated as
MA 27, with associated standards and
guidelines, has been developed for the area
within the proposed fenced area of the
Crown Jewel Project, if the Crown Jewel
Project is approved. This EIS will consider
the environmental effects of that action.
1.5 DECISIONS TO BE MADE
The Forest Service and the WADOE are the
co-lead agencies responsible for completion
of the Crown Jewel Project EIS. These
agencies are following specific procedures
that began with scoping and data collection
and continued with analysis of data and
evaluation of alternatives. In accordance
with regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR
1500) and SEPA (Chapter 197-11 WAC), the
results of this analysis are documented in this
EIS and will form the basis for decisions on
the various permits and approvals for the
Crown Jewel Project.
After the close of the draft EIS review and
comment period, the Forest Service and
WADOE considered comments submitted by
the public, interested organizations, and
government agencies and responded to those
substantive comments in the final EIS.
Cooperating agencies (BLM, Army Corps of
Engineers, and WADNR) assisted with
responses to comments pertinent to their
areas of jurisdiction and expertise as
requested by the Forest Service and the
WADOE. In accordance with 40 CFR
1503.4, WAC 197-11-440, and WAC
197-11-560, the lead agencies considered
substantive comments and responded to
these comments by making changes to
Alternative B, as submitted by the Proponent,
modifying the analysis, making corrections, or
explaining why comments did not warrant
further agency response. A discussion on
public involvement and a summary of
comments received on the draft EIS are set
forth in Appendix L, Public Involvement for
the Draft EIS. A stand alone "Individual
Comment Response Document" addresses all
substantive comments received.
Upon issuance of the final EIS by the lead
and cooperating agencies, the Forest Service
and BLM will jointly identify a selected
alternative and issue a Record of Decision.
The Army Corps of Engineers will also issue a
Record of Decision based on the EIS. SEPA
does not require the WADOE to issue a
Record of Decision.
The Forest Supervisor for the Okanogan
National Forest is the NEPA responsible
official for the Forest Service. The District
Manager for the Spokane District of the BLM
is the NEPA responsible official for the BLM.
The Central Regional Director of the WADOE
is the SEPA responsible official for the State
of Washington.
In the Record of Decision, the responsible
officials may decide to:
• Adopt the no action alternative;
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 1-4
CHAPTER 1 • PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION January 1997
• Adopt one of the action alternatives;
• Adopt an alternative that combines
features of more than one alternative; or,
• Adopt one of the action alternatives with
additional mitigation measures.
Once the Record of Decision is signed and
issued, the Proponent would be required to
develop and submit a revised "Plan of
Operations" and performance security
estimate that fully incorporates all of the
requirements of the Record of Decision. The
"Plan of Operations" would require approval
by both the Forest Service and BLM.
Under the United States Mining Law of 1872
et. seq., qualified prospectors may search for
mineral deposits on public domain lands open
to mineral entry. Upon discovering a valuable
mineral deposit, a prospector may locate a
mining claim. A mining claimant is entitled to
reasonable access to the claim for further
prospecting, mining, or necessary related
activities, subject to other laws and
applicable regulations. Selection of the no
action alternative is therefore subject to
statutory limitations on the agencies in
relation to the statutory rights of a mine
claimant to develop their claims.
If the Proponent's proposal changes
substantially beyond that which is analyzed in
this EIS, additional environmental analysis
may be required.
1.6 OKANOGAN FOREST PLAN
CONSISTENCY
In excess of 50% (between 273 and 582
acres) of the proposed Crown Jewel
operations will be located on public lands in
the Okanogan National Forest. This acreage
is managed by the Forest Service under
direction described in the 1989 Forest Plan as
amended by the Inland Native Fish Strategy
(INFISH) (Forest Service, 1995a) and under
the National Forest Management Act. Forest
Plan standards and guidelines provide general
direction and guidance on how Okanogan
National Forest lands should be administered.
Two types of Standards and Guidelines are
provided: (1) Forest-Wide and (2)
Management-Area-Specific. The former
applies forest wide and addresses, among
other things, mineral rights, mineral access,
and mineral activities. The latter lists
additional Standards and Guidelines providing
special emphasis for certain geographic zones
called "Management Areas." The Crown
Jewel Project site is presently located within
Management Areas 14, 25 and 26, as shown
on Figure 1.2, Land Status Map. INFISH
overlayed additional direction for Riparian
Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) along
streams and other riparian areas.
Each Management Area has its own set of
goals and objectives, standards and
guidelines, and desired future conditions.
Detailed information on Management Areas
14, 25 and 26 can be found in Chapter 4,
Management Area Prescriptions, of the Forest
Plan. The prescription goal statements and
desired future conditions for the Forest
Service management areas that would be
affected by the proposed Crown Jewel
Project are as follows:
• Management Area 14: Goal - "Provide a
diversity of wildlife habitat, including deer
winter range, while growing and
producing merchantable wood fiber."
Desired Future Condition - "Deer winter
ranges will provide habitat conditions
including proper juxta-position of forage
and cover areas, to sustain desired deer
population levels. Dead tree habitat will
be provided at a moderate level to
support cavity dependent species.
Even-age stands, and stands representing
different age classes, species mix, and
with variable structure will be found
across the Forest" (Forest Service,
1989).
• Management Area 25: Goal -
"Intensively manage the timber and range
resources using both even-aged and
uneven-aged silvicultural practices.
Manage to achieve a high present net
value and a high level of timber and range
outputs while protecting basic
productivity of the land and providing for
the production of wildlife, recreation
opportunities, and other resources."
Desired Future Condition - "On suitable
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 1-5
lands in the Moist Productive and Dry
Productive Working Groups that are
capable of producing 20 cubic feet per
acre CMAI (cumulation of mean annual
increment), stands will be well stocked
and thrifty. Even-aged stands, and
stands representing different age classes,
species mix, and with variable structure
will be found across the Forest. Suitable,
non-transitory range will be in good
condition. Transitory range will be
managed in a manner compatible with
silvicultural objectives" (Forest Service,
1989).
Management Area 26: Goal - "Manage
deer winter range and fawning habitats to
provide conditions which can sustain
optimal numbers of deer indefinitely,
without degrading habitat characteristics
such as forage, cover, and soil." Desired
Future Condition - "Deer winter range will
be managed to provide optimum habitat
conditions for deer by maintaining well
distributed winter thermal and
snow/intercept thermal cover and
foraging areas. Wood product outputs
will be provided at a reduced level.
Winter recreation activities will be
encouraged outside of deer winter range.
Access to these areas will be provided on
designated through-routes to reduce
disturbance to wintering deer. Motorized
access will be restricted to maintain
wildlife habitat effectiveness at higher
levels. Even-aged stands and stands
representing different age classes,
species mix, and with variable structure
will be found across the Forest. The
spatial distribution of cover and forage
areas on the winter ranges are very
important to reduce the distances deer
are required to move between habitat
components" (Forest Service, 1989).
Inland Native Fish Management Direction
for Minerals Operations: Goal - "Minimize
adverse effects to inland native fish
species from mineral operations. If a
mineral operation would be located in a
Riparian Habitat Conservation Area,
consider the effects of the activity on
inland native fish in the determination of
significant surface disturbance pursuant
to 36 CFR 228.4. For operations in a
Riparian Habitat Conservation Area,
ensure operators take all practicable
measures to maintain, protect, and
rehabilitate fish and wildlife habitat which
may be affected by the operations.
When bonding is required, consider (in
the estimation of bond amount) the cost
of stabilizing, rehabilitating, and
reclaiming the areas of operations"
(Forest Service 1995a).
Due to the structure of mineral laws and
regulations, the Minerals Management
Programs of the Forest Service and BLM are
largely responsive in nature. A major part of
this job is responding to applications and
proposals submitted from outside these
agencies. Federal responsibilities for such
proposals lie mainly in providing reasonable
surface protection and reclamation
requirements with specific time frames and in
assuring consistency of the same.
Management implications for the Forest
Service and BLM require that mineral
exploration and development be facilitated on
federal lands while accommodating the needs
and conservation of other resources to the
fullest extent possible.
The Forest Plan could not predict specifics as
to where, when, and what kind of mineral
development might be proposed, nor specific
needs of that development in terms of
surface resources. Since Forest Plan
standards and guidelines were developed
mainly in the context of typical Forest Service
projects (timber sales, small recreation
developments, or mineral exploration), it was
expected that the intensive surface use
required for large mineral development
projects would require Forest Plan
amendments (Forest Service, 1989).
On National Forest land, a new temporary
management prescription, designated as MA
27, with associated standards and guidelines,
would be an integral part of each of the
action alternatives. The Forest Service would
manage the operation according to the
proposed temporary Management Area 27
standards and guidelines which are outlined
in Chapter 2, Alternatives Including the
Proposed Action, of this EIS. A decision to
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 1-6
CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION January 1997
adopt a new MA-27 prescription may also
necessitate the amendment of some "Forest-
Wide" and "Management-Area-Specific"
Standards and Guidelines. Once mining and
milling activities have ceased, the Forest
Service would return the reciaimed areas to
management under the goals and objectives
of the underlying management areas or
replacement management areas in any future
Forest Plan. The goal of reclamation will be
to return the land, as near as practical, to the
underlying management area goals and
objectives.
1.7 SPOKANE DISTRICT RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT PLAN
CONSISTENCY
In excess of 16% (between 70 and 197
acres) of the proposed Crown Jewel Project
operations would be located on public lands
administered by the Spokane District of the
BLM, which are managed by the BLM under
the guidelines described in the Resource
Management Plan (RMP) (BLM, 1985). The
RMP provides general direction and guidance
on how certain segments of Spokane District
lands should be administered. The RMP
recognizes the potential for locatable mineral
development in the general Crown Jewel
Project area and provides for approval of
proposed mine plans that would not cause
unnecessary and undue degradation of the
environment.
The Crown Jewel Project area is part of the
North Ferry Management Area. The Forest
Management Goal is - "Manage a timber
production base of 7,499 acres. Acquire
permanent access to all public lands to
enhance forest management and multiple
use." The Wildlife Habitat Management Goal
is - "Emphasize maintenance or improvement
of key species habitat areas identified
through previous planning, public input,
and/or issues analysis. Protect and improve
riparian habitat on BLM administered land
along seven miles of perennial streams, and
the Kettle River." The Recreation
Management Goal is - "Emphasize
maintenance or improvement of recreation
opportunities in key areas identified through
previous planning, public input, and/or issues
analysis. Designate 13,000 acres open to off-
road vehicle use."
The Crown Jewel Project is not in-consistent
with any of the goals and other provisions of
the RMP.
1.8 PERMITS AND APPROVALS
NEEDED
A number of federal, state and local permits
and approvals would be required for the
Crown Jewel Project, as indicated in Table
1.1, List of Tentative and Potential Permits
and Approvals.
Preparation of an EIS and the actual
permitting process are related but distinctly
separate. An EIS is designed to explore
alternatives, mitigation measures, and to
discuss environmental impacts. At a
minimum, mitigation identified in Chapter 2,
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action,
would be imposed upon the selected
alternative. See Appendix B, Agency
Responsibilities (Permits and Approvals), for
the details of each permit and approval.
SEPA gives state and local government
decision-makers the authority, as part of their
normal permitting process, to grant individual
permit applications with requirements and
conditions beyond their normal permit
authority. These requirements and conditions
must eliminate and/or mitigate specific
adverse environmental impacts which are
identified in the EIS. Under certain
conditions, SEPA also gives the decision-
makers the substantive authority to deny
individual permit applications. To deny a
permit using SEPA substantive authority,
significant adverse environmental impacts
which cannot be reasonably mitigated must
be identified in the final EIS. Also, certain
SEPA procedural requirements must be met
by the permitting agency. State and local
agencies are not required to use this
authority.
No state permits can be approved until a
minimum of seven days after the issuance of
the final EIS (Chapter 197-11-WAC). Forest
Service decisions are automatically "stayed"
during a 50 day appeal period after issuance
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 1-7
TABLE 1.1, LIST OF TENTATIVE AND POTENTIAL PERMITS AND APPROVALS
•:, fp?EI^ fCR^BRNMENT
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 (Department of Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms)
Mine Safety and Health Administration
•SIVCTiOFWAiWWifSTeiNr ,. :•:;.: •:<:::"
Washington Department of Energy
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
Washington Department of Labor and Industries
LOCM GOVERNMENT . --.-.... '• \=.. ••"... .
Okanogan County Planning Department
Okanogan County Health District
Okanogan County Public Works Department
Okanogan Public Utility District (PUD)
• Plan of Operations
• Special Use Permits (Right-of-Ways, etc.)
• Plan of Operations
• Special Use Permits (Right-of-Ways, etc.)
• 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 Activity1
• Threatened and Endangered Species Consultation
(Section 7 Consultation)
• Radio Authorizations
• Explosives User Permit
• Mine Identification Number1
• Legal Identity Report1
• Miner Training Plan Approval
• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES)/Construction Activities Stormwater General
Permit
• State Waste Discharge Permit
• Water Quality Standards Modification
• Water Quality Certification (Section 401 -Federal Clean
Water Act)
• Dam Safety Permits
• Reservoir Permit
• Permit to Appropriate Public Waters
• Changes to Existing Water Rights
• Notice of Construction Approval (Air Quality)
• Air Contaminant Source Operating Permit
• Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) - (Air
Quality)2
• Dangerous Waste Permit2
• 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
• Explosive License
• Safety Regulation Compliance1
• Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
• Conditional Use Permit/Zoning Requirements
• Building Permits
• Maximum Environmental Noise Levels1
• Socioeconomic Impact Analysis Approval (County
Commissioners)
• Growth Management Critical Areas Regulations
• Solid Waste Handling
• Septic Tanks and Drain Field Approval
• Road Construction and/or Realignment
• Power Service Contract
Notes: 1 . Performance standard/requirement - No formal permit necessary.
2. Potential permit - At this time, these permits are not anticipated for the Crown Jewel Project.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 1-8
CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR A CTION January 1997
of the Record of Decision and until 15 days
after appeal resolution if an appeal is filed.
Therefore approval of the Plan of Operations
will not occur for at least 50 days. BLM and
Army Corps of Engineers approvals are
immediately effective and are issued at least
30 days after the final EIS is issued or, if
issued with the final EIS, are stayed for 30
days after issuance. (40 CFR Section
1506.10(b)). BLM approval of the Plan of
Operations is an appealable decision.
1.8.1 Performance Standards
Besides this final EIS and the various permits
and approvals that are required, there would
be regulatory performance standards that
would apply to the activities at the Crown
Jewel Project.
A performance standard is a government
criterion, generally set by regulation, that
must be observed. Although the EIS and
various permits may discuss performance
standards for the Crown Jewel Project and
set compliance measures, many performance
standards do not require an individual or
specific permit.
For example, the Crown Jewel Project must
comply with the Okanogan County Noise
Disturbance Ordinance, and with noise level
limits (performance standards) set forth by
regulations of WADOE, even though specific
permits are not required from either agency.
1.9 SCOPING, PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT,
AND CONSULTATION WITH THE
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE
COLVILLE INDIAN RESERVATION
On January 23, 1992, the Proponent
presented an initial plan of operations for
mine development to representatives of the
Forest Service, WADOE, and the BLM.
Submittal of this plan initiated action under
both NEPA and SEPA regulations. This plan
has been supplemented as described in
Section 1.2, Background, of this EIS
document.
As required by NEPA (CEQ 1501.7) and
SEPA (RCW 43.21 C), the Forest Service and
WADOE have provided for an early and open
process to determine the scope of issues to
be addressed and the extent of the
environmental analysis necessary for an
informed decision on the Crown Jewel
Project. Elements in the scoping process
include the following:
• Publication of a Notice of Intent to
prepare an EIS in the Federal Register,
and updates to that Notice of Intent;
• The description of the purpose and need,
and proposed action including the nature
of the decisions to be made;
• The identification of potential effects
caused by the Crown Jewel Project;
• The collection of existing data and
information to address the Crown Jewel
Project site and general area;
• The initiation of public and government
participation in the EIS process;
• The determination of the type and extent
of analysis to be used in the preparation
of the EIS;
• The identification of government agencies
involved and appropriate responsible
officials from the lead and cooperating
agencies; and,
• The plans for the preparation of the EIS,
including selection of a format for the
document and development of a tentative
schedule for EIS completion and
publication.
1.9.1 Agency Meetings and Scoping
A series of meetings were held by the various
federal and state agencies involved with the
Crown Jewel Project EIS. A preliminary
coordination meeting was held on December
11, 1991 with representatives present from
the WADOE, BLM and Forest Service. The
purpose of that meeting was to discuss
possible jurisdictional procedures and policies
should the Proponent file an operational plan
for mining and milling activities. A multitude
of additional meetings have been held
throughout the development of the EIS
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 1-9
documents involving agency technical and
administrative specialists. These meetings
were dedicated to various aspects of the
proposed Crown Jewel Project EIS including
discussions on issues, alternatives,
environmental baseline data, environmental
consequences, and mitigation and monitoring
measures.
1.9.2 Public Scoping
As required by NEPA (40 CFR Part 1503) and
by SEPA (RCW 43.21 C and WAC 197-11-
360), the general public businesses, special
interest groups, and government agencies
were provided the opportunity to become
informed and comment on the proposed
Crown Jewel Project. The Forest Service and
WADOE accomplished these goals by holding
agency and public scoping meetings; public
mailings; publishing of Notices of Intent in the
Federal Register; forming an Interdisciplinary
(ID) Team; preparing a scoping document
and, making baseline resource reports
available in public locations and directly to
government agencies.
The formal scoping process began on
February 14, 1992 and was scheduled to end
on March 31, 1992. Several requests were
received asking for additional detailed
information and to extend the scoping period
to provide adequate response time. With
concurrence from the Proponent, the lead
agencies extended the formal scoping
comment period until April 24, 1992. The
lead agencies held four public meetings to
allow the general public the opportunity to
ask questions concerning the Crown Jewel
Project. At three of these meetings, formal
oral comments were taken. The fourth
meeting was an open-house.
Throughout the entire EIS process and
following publication of the scoping summary
document, the Forest Service and WADOE
have continued to consider written
statements and comments at public meetings
to help in the preparation of this EIS
document. Issues and concerns addressed in
this EIS document were raised by the public,
cooperating agencies, other government
agencies, and Forest Service and WADOE
technical specialists.
Formal public scoping meetings were held on:
• February 26, 1992, Okanogan,
Washington, PUD Auditorium;
• February 27, 1992, Oroville, Washington,
The Depot;
• April 13, 1992, Oroville, Washington,
Oroville Elementary School Gym, (Open
House); and,
• April 20, 1992, Tonasket, Washington,
High School.
An additional meeting regarding the Crown
Jewel Project was held on July 27, 1992 at
the Community Center in Midway, British
Columbia, Canada, after interest was
expressed by several Canadian citizens.
The Forest Service and the WADOE also held
frequent public meetings beginning in
September 1992 to keep the public informed
on the progress of the EIS, to solicit any
comments or questions regarding the Crown
Jewel Project, and to highlight specific
aspects of the Crown Jewel Project. The
following list identifies the date of the public
meeting and the special topics discussed at
the meeting:
• September 21, 1992 - Permitting
Requirements;
• October 1 5, 1992 - Hydrology and Water
Rights;
• November 16, 1992 - Mineral Patenting;
• December 17, 1992 - Socioeconomics;
• January 19, 1993 - Wildlife;
• February 17, 1993 - Cyanide;
• March 8, 1993 - Reclamation;
• April 15, 1993 - Tailings Pond
Construction, Cyanide Destruction
Techniques, and Dam Safety Division
Requirements;
• May 19, 1993 - Water Quality;
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 1-10
CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION January 1997
• June 1 5, 1993 - Noise and Forest Service
Showcase Program;
• July 14, 1993 - Water Rights;
• August 18, 1993 - Wetlands;
• October 20, 1993 - EIS Alternatives; and,
• August 17, 1994 - Project Update, HEP
(wildlife) and IFIM (fisheries).
These public meetings were held at the
Tonasket Ranger District office or the
Tonasket Elementary School gym in
Tonasket, Washington.
The Forest Service and WADOE provided
speakers to discuss the NEPA and SEPA
processes at additional public interest group
meetings on the Crown Jewel Project held in
Okanogan County, which were sponsored by
the Columbia River Bio-Regional Educational
Project and partially funded by WADOE grant
money.
From input at the public scoping meetings
and from written comments, issues specific
to the proposed Crown Jewel Project were
summarized and used as part of the criteria
for completing this EIS document. Issues
were used by the ID Team for developing and
screening alternatives, and evaluating the
consequences of the Crown Jewel Project. A
synopsis of the significant issues identified
for the proposed Crown Jewel Project is set
forth in Section 1.10, Issues and Concerns,
of this EIS document.
Between July 1992 and October 1996, 12
newsletters were sent to people on the
Crown Jewel Project mailing list to inform
them on progress of the EIS and provide
relevant technical information.
The Crown Jewel Project draft EIS was filed
with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) on June 23, 1995. The Notice
of Availability of the Crown Jewel Project
draft EIS was printed in the Federal Register
on June 30, 1995. A Notice of Opportunity
to Comment was also published in the Omak
- Okanogan County Chronicle on June 28,
1995 and in the Okanogan Valley Gazette-
Tribune on June 29, 1 995. The public
review and comment period for the Crown
Jewel Project draft EIS extended from June
30, 1995 to August 29, 1995.
The Forest Service and WADOE received
4,623 written and oral responses from
individuals and government agencies
containing over 1 1,500 comments on the
Crown Jewel Project draft EIS. The majority
of comments were classified in the
miscellaneous category, surface/ground
water, socioeconomics, and wildlife.
A Spanish "Summary" of the Crown Jewel
Project draft EIS was prepared to assist the
Spanish-speaking residents of the area.
Three public information meetings were held
to explain and answer questions on the
Crown Jewel draft EIS. These meetings were
as follows:
• July 20, 1995 in Midway, British
Columbia;
• July 26, 1995 in Oroville, Washington;
and,
• July 27, 1996 in Riverside, Washington.
The Forest Service and WADOE hosted two
field trips to the Crown Jewel Project site.
These tours were held on July 29, 1995 and
August 5, 1995. They were organized to
provide interested individuals the opportunity
to observe the site proposed for mining and
milling activities and ask questions of Forest
Service, WADOE, and Proponent staff
members.
Two formal public hearings were held for
interested individuals and organizations to
make oral comments and statements on the
Crown Jewel draft EIS. These meetings were
as follows:
• August 15, 1995 in Ellensburg,
Washington; and,
• August 17, 1995 in Oroville, Washington.
1.9.3 Consultation with the
Confederated Tribes of the
Colville Indian Reservation
Communications with the Colville
Confederated Tribes have occurred, or
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 1-11
continue to occur on different levels:
Government to Government consultation,
includes communications between Forest
Service and tribal officers, and technical
staff, also between the Forest Service and
tribal member-citizens.
Government to Government consultation
recognizes the Colville Confederated Tribes
as distinct, separate, political entities that
have a unique legal relationship with Federal
agencies as a result of a treaty or executive
order with the respective Indian Nation. The
tribal government, which for the Colville
Confederated Tribes is called the Tribal
Business Council, speaks for the Tribes as a
whole, similar to a corporate board. This
consultation is different from scoping with
the general public; however, individual
comments received from tribal members are
considered in the same manner as comments
received through public scoping.
Consultation is an on-going process
throughout the life of a project, which occurs
officially between the Tribal Business Council
and Forest Service line officers. Consultation
on this level has occurred, which has
involved face-to-face meetings between the
Tribal Business Council, Natural Resources
Committee, and Forest Service line officers.
Issues and concerns raised are hunting/fishing
rights, water rights, and Traditional Cultural
Properties/Practices (TCP's).
Tribal hunting/fishing rights and water rights
are addressed in this EIS. Traditional Cultural
Properties are the subject of an MOU
between the Tribes and the Okanogan
National Forest. An MOU outlining the
procedures for treatment of accidental
discoveries of American Indian cultural
material is also forthcoming.
Meetings in conjunction with written and
verbal communications have been held
between technical and administrative staff or
departmental specialists of the Tribes, the
Forest Service, the Proponent, and
contractors, since the inception of the Crown
Jewel Project. The products of these
communications are reflected in pertinent
parts of the EIS, as well as in the various
technical reports. Comments received on the
draft EIS from tribal department technical
specialists, and individual tribal members,
resulted in clarification or expansion of the
effects of the Crown Jewel Project tribal
concerns in this final EIS.
1.9.4 Interdisciplinary Team
Section 102(2)(A) of NEPA requires that
agencies involved in the preparation of an EIS
use an interdisciplinary approach to analyze
the proposed action to ensure the integrated
use of natural and social sciences and the
environmental design arts in planning and
decision making. The Forest Service,
WADOE, and the other cooperating agencies
contributed technical specialists to participate
on an ID Team to comply with NEPA
requirements. These government specialists
are listed in Chapter 5, List of Preparers, of
this document. One of the primary purposes
of bringing these government specialists
together was to establish the scope of the
EIS, review Project work by contracted
technical specialists, provide input into
alternative development, and review and edit
the internal working drafts of the EIS
document.
1.10 ISSUES AND CONCERNS
Scoping for the Crown Jewel Project was
conducted to focus the EIS on those issues
considered important to the public and
various government agencies. A Scoping
Summary was prepared and released to the
public in July of 1993.
Issues are areas of discussion, debate, or
dispute about effects of proposed activities
on resources. Scoping is the procedure used
to determine the extent of the analysis
necessary for an informed decision on a
project proposal.
The key issues are the issues that come up
most frequently in public and agency
comment and over which there were widely
differing opinions. The lead agencies chose
the key issues based on agency and public
input. The alternatives were designed to
respond in different ways to these issues.
The other issues are also important, but do
not drive differences in the design of the
alternatives. They are addressed by
provisions that would be applied in each of
the alternatives.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 1-12
CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION January 1997
Associated with the issues are "Primary
Comparison Criteria." These are quantitative
and qualitative measures that reflect an issue,
and indicate how the alternatives respond to
that issue. For example, the acres of
wetlands impacted under a particular
alternative is one criteria of how that
alternative would respond to the wetlands
issue. The Primary Comparison Criteria are
used in Chapter 2, Alternatives Including the
Proposed Action, and Chapter 4,
Environmental Consequences, as a means of
comparing the different alternatives and their
environmental effects.
The following list of issues are specifically
addressed in the analyses presented in this
document:
• Air Quality;
• Heritage Resources and Native American
Issues;
• Geology and Geotechnical (Key Issue);
• Geochemistry (Key Issue);
• Energy;
• Noise;
• Soils (Key Issue);
• Surface Water and Ground Water (Key
Issue);
• Wetlands (Key Issue);
• Use of Hazardous Chemicals (Key Issue);
• Vegetation (Key Issue);
• Reclamation (Key Issue);
• Wildlife (Key Issue);
• Fish Habitat and Populations;
• Recreation;
• Land Use;
• Socioeconomics (Key Issue);
• Scenic Resources;
• Health/Safety; and,
• Transportation.
1.10.1 Air Quality
Identify and minimize the air quality impacts
caused by the Crown Jewel Project. Areas
of concern include: the effects on air quality
from fugitive dust and gaseous emissions; air
quality impacts (visibility, depositional) on the
Pasayten Wilderness; and, cumulative air
quality effects.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
• Tons per year/cumulative total suspended
particulates (TSP) created;
• Tons per year/cumulative particles less
than PM-10 created;
• Tons per year/cumulative cyanide gas
released to the atmosphere;
• Tons per year/cumulative nitrogen oxide
emissions released to the atmosphere;
and,
• Changes in visibility model screening
parameters and plume contrast from the
Pasayten Wilderness.
1.10.2 Heritage Resources and Native
American Issues
Identify cultural resources and minimize
disturbance impacts. Areas of concern
include: effects to historic properties listed or
eligible for listing on the National Register of
Historic Places; and, the potential to affect
cultural resources, reserved rights, trust
issues, and responsibilities to the Colville
Confederated Tribes.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
• Number of known historic sites to be
physically disturbed or destroyed by the
Crown Jewel Project; and,
• Number of acres not available to Colville
Confederated Tribe members.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 1-13
1.10.3 Geology and Geotechnical (Key
Issue)
Identify geologic hazards on the site and
minimize the potential for failure of any
Crown Jewel Project facility. Areas of
concern include: the potential influence of
geologic hazards; potential for and
consequences of failures within waste rock
disposal area; tailings impoundments, pit
walls or pond liners; and, the effects of
blasting on area geology.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
• Safety factors of waste rock slopes and
tailings embankment;
• Acres of potential ground subsidence
through underground mining;
• Potential for rock slides (loose rock areas)
or exposure of unstable rock sections in
the pit wall; and,
• Proximity of ground water to the bottom
of the tailings liner.
1.10.4 Geochemistry (Key Issue)
Identify the potential for acid-rock drainage
and metals transport from the mine pit and
the waste rock disposal areas. Identify and
minimize the potential impacts from the
tailings material. Areas of concern include:
the down gradient water uses; potential
short-term and long-term impacts to humans,
wildlife, and fish; the potential for acid rock
drainage; the ability to mitigate acid rock
drainage if it occurs; possible releases of
radioactive materials resulting from moving
large quantities of earth; and, the ability to
isolate potential pollutants in both the
short-term and long-term.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
• Potential for acid rock drainage from
waste rock disposal areas;
• Potential for release of radioactive
materials (alpha and beta emissions);
• Potential for metals transport; and,
• Potential for release of tailings materials
or interstitial liquids into ground and
surface waters.
1.10.5 Energy
Identify the potential impacts to energy
supplies (i.e. electricity, diesel, propane, and
other petroleum based products) and
minimize the use of nonrenewable energy
resources. Areas of concern include: the
quantity of electricity needed and how it may
impact the county; and, the quantity of
diesel, other petroleum based products to be
used during operations.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
• Gallons of petroleum products used per
year/life of the Crown Jewel Project; and,
• Kwh of electricity used per year/life of
the Crown Jewel Project.
1.10.6 Noise
Identify and minimize noise impacts. Areas
of concern include: worker health and safety;
and, disruptions to the normal activities of
adjacent residents/communities and wildlife
populations.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
• Daytime decibel (dBA) increase at
property boundary, communities of
Chesaw and Bolster;
• Nighttime dBA increase at property
boundary, communities of Chesaw and
Bolster;
• Level of blasting noise able to be heard
by the general public;
• Noise effects on wildlife; and,
• Effects of on-site noise level on worker
health and safety.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 1-14
CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION January 1997
1.10.7 Soils (Key Issue)
Identify Crown Jewel Project site soil
resources and the adequacy of soil for
reclamation. The expressed concerns
regarding soil include: the identification of
soil resources in terms of quantity and
quality; soil use and adequacy for final
reclamation; and, the potential for any soil
erosion and loss of soil productivity.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
• Percent of soil available for reclamation at
12-inch and 18-inch depths;
• Changes in soil productivity; and,
• Acres of topsoil removal.
1.10.8 Surface Water and Ground
Water (Key Issue)
Identify and minimize impacts to water
quality and hydrology to maintain the
integrity of affected watersheds. Maintain
adequate flows to protect the dependent
resources. Areas of concern include: the
potential to alter existing hydrologic systems
by direct disturbances of stream courses;
increased sediment loads; alteration of
downstream flow rates; alteration of existing
springs and seeps; and, changes in water
chemistry as a result of mining and milling
operations. Impacts to water rights on
Toroda Creek and Myers Creek, including
Canadian water rights is another area of
concern.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
• Changes in stream flow rates within the
Crown Jewel Project area;
• Changes in numbers of springs and seeps
in the Crown Jewel Project area;
• Lineal feet of existing stream channels
impacted (Gold Bowl drainage, Marias
Creek, and Nicholson Creek);
• Predicted changes to ground water and
surface water chemistry from pit water,
waste rock, and tailings;
• Changes in ground water and surface
water chemistry;
• Predicted increases in stream sediment
loads;
• Estimated annual water use (acre feet);
and,
• Estimated life-of-mine water use (acre
feet).
1.10.9 Wetlands (Key Issue)
Identify and minimize impacts to wetlands of
the Crown Jewel Project. Areas of concern
include: the acres of wetlands lost; the
changes in functions and values of wetlands on-
and off-site (as a result of the Crown Jewel
Project); and, the potential effects from the
creation and dewatering of the pit.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
• Acres of wetlands with changed
functions (i.e. stormwater retention,
filtering capability) and values (i.e.
potential habitat diversity, potential
wildlife corridors) due to the Crown Jewel
Project;
• Acres and types of wetlands lost; and,
• Acres and types of new wetlands
created.
1.10.10 Use of Hazardous Chemicals
(Key Issue)
Address impacts of chemicals, cyanide in
particular, used in mining and milling. A
number of chemicals would be used that can
have toxic effects on humans, wildlife,
fisheries, and the general environment. Areas
of concern include: the form these chemicals
would be in if released to the environment;
the potential of these chemicals to affect
humans, domestic stock, plants and wildlife;
the long-term health effects of the use of
these chemicals; the effectiveness and
reliability of the detoxification process in
removing hazardous chemicals or depositing
these chemicals in a stable form in the
tailings pond; and, the prevention of
contamination at the site.
Crown Jewel Mine i Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 1-15
Primary Comparison Criteria:
• Estimated annual/total tons used of
sodium cyanide, cement/lime, lead
nitrate, sodium nitrate, ammonium
nitrate, hydrochloric acid, caustic, copper
sulfate, and diesel fuel; and,
• Transport of key toxic substances.
1.10.11 Vegetation (Key Issue)
Address the impacts to vegetation in the
Crown Jewel Project area. Areas of concern
include: the potential effects on threatened,
endangered, or sensitive plants; and, control
of noxious weeds.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
• Number of threatened and endangered
plants lost;
• Number of sensitive plants lost;
• Timber removed (board feet); and,
• Annual/total AUMs (animal unit months)
of grazing lost.
1.10.12 Reclamation (Key Issue)
Minimize the size of the disturbed area and
provide for reclamation of all disturbed areas.
Areas of concern include: the successful
short-term soil stability and long-term
revegetation to a primarily forested
environment; and, the ability to prevent or
control damage to the environment.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
• Acres/percentage of waste rock slopes
steeper than 2H:1 V, between 2H:1 V to
3H:1V; and 3H:1V or flatter;
• Acres/percentage of south-facing waste
rock slopes needing reclamation;
• Acres of disturbance needing reclamation;
• Acres/percentages of slopes which can
be successfully reclaimed with timber
(greater than 100, well scattered, live and
healthy trees per acre);
• Percentages of slopes which can be
successfully reclaimed with grasses and
shrubs; and,
• Acres to be blasted, filled, or flooded in
pit.
1.10.13 Wildlife (Key Issue)
Minimize the disruption to wildlife and
habitats. Areas of concern include: the
impacts to threatened, endangered, or
sensitive species; impacts to deer habitat;
impacts associated with increased human
activity; loss of habitat and habitat
effectiveness; wildlife exposure to toxic
substances; effects on migratory birds and
raptors; effects on "Management Indicator
Species" identified in the Forest Plan; and,
reduction of habitat diversity.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
• Acres/percent of deer winter range (snow
intercept thermal cover and thermal
cover) lost;
• Acres/percent of existing old growth
harvested;
• Comparison of the balance of forage,
hiding cover, thermal cover, and snow
intercept thermal cover;
• Comparison of the balance of grasslands,
shrub, early successional, mixed conifer
pole, mixed conifer young and mature,
old growth, deciduous, riparian/wetland,
agriculture, lake/pond, and disturbed;
• Comparison of total and open road
densities;
• Acres/percentage of habitat lost in the
Crown Jewel Project analysis area for key
species;
• Acres/percent of cover types lost; and,
• Loss of other habitat structures such as
snags, down logs, cliffs, caves, and talus
slopes.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 1-16
CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION January 1997
1.10.14 Fish Habitat and Populations
Minimize disruption to fish habitat and fish
populations. Areas of concern include:
decreased flows in Nicholson, Marias, and
Myers Creeks; stream sedimentation; the
impacts of changes in stream chemistry and
temperature on fish; and, the potential for a
toxic chemical release entering Nicholson
Creek, and/or Marias Creek, or other streams.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
• Predicted changes in stream temperature;
and,
• Predicted changes in spawning habitat.
1.10.15 Recreation
Minimize disturbance to recreational
opportunities. Areas of concern include:
disruption to recreational opportunities in the
area, including Jackson Creek and Graphite
Mountain undeveloped areas, caused by
changes in scenery, background sounds,
adjacent traffic, and accessibility. Another
concern is effects to the recreational
experience of fishers and campers at Beth
and Beaver Lakes due to changes in traffic
caused by transportation of Crown Jewel
Project materials.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
• Changes in recreational access;
• Increases in vehicles, and changes in
kinds of vehicles, past Beth and Beaver
Lakes;
• dBA increase in noise to Graphite
Mountain; and,
• Facilities visible from Graphite Mountain.
1.10.16 Land Use
Minimize disturbance by maintaining a
compact operation. Areas of concern are:
the acreage of total disturbance; the amount
of disturbance on Forest Service, BLM,
WADNR, and private lands; any changes in
land use; and, the acreage of public lands
which could be patented and converted to
private control.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
• Acres of disturbance by ownership;
• Changes in land use from existing land
management plans; and,
• Number of acres of public lands which
could be patented and become private
land.
1.10.17 Socioeconomics (Key Issue)
Address the social, lifestyle, and economic
impacts on local residents of Okanogan and
Ferry Counties. Areas of concern include:
impacts to the nearby communities such as
housing, utilities, employment; the influx of
workers and their families; the effect of the
Crown Jewel Project on housing demand,
public services, community services, and
present lifestyles; and, the effects of
temporary and permanent mine shutdown.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
• Person-years of employment, annual/life
of the Crown Jewel Project;
• Payroll, annual/life of the Crown Jewel
Project;
• Anticipated population increase, Crown
Jewel Project related/cumulative;
• Anticipated school enrollment effects.
Crown Jewel Project related/cumulative;
• Anticipated permanent housing demand.
Crown Jewel Project related/cumulative;
and,
• Anticipated tax revenues, annual/life of
the Crown Jewel Project.
1.10.18 Scenic Resources
Minimize the impacts to scenery of the
Crown Jewel Project from both surrounding
viewpoints and on-site. The concerns
include: impacts to scenery of the mine pit,
waste rock disposal areas, tailings
impoundment, and other Crown Jewel Project
related facilities (including off-site facilities)
during the Crown Jewel Project and for the
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 1-17
long-term. Another concern is the impacts
from lights when operating at night.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
• Night visibility of the Crown Jewel
Project from the Oroville-Toroda Road and
Canadian Highway 3 west of Rock Creek;
and,
• Scenic Quality Objectives met by the
Crown Jewel Project.
1.10.19 Health/Safety
Protect worker health and safety. Identify
the emergency response measures that would
be available in the event of chemical spills,
fire, or explosion. Areas of concerns for
worker health and safety include: the risks
from the use of chemicals; explosives;
underground operations; and, heavy
equipment. The expressed concerns for the
Crown Jewel Project include the possibility of
an accident that would necessitate an
emergency response and the potential for
chemical spills, fires, or explosions.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
• Likelihood of a chemical spill; and,
• Predicted number of industrial accidents.
1.10.20 Transportation
Address traffic impacts created by the Crown
Jewel Project and the potential for accidents.
Areas of concern include: the potential for
accidents and spills of materials in transit, as
well as the risks and advantages of using
particular travel routes for employees and
supplies.
Primary Comparison Criteria:
• Additional number of vehicles per day;
• Percent increase in traffic;
• Number of accidents involving chemical
supply vehicles; and,
• Changes in total number of accidents.
Crown Jewel Project employee and/or
supply routes.
1.11 ISSUES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF
THIS EIS/NO VARIATION
BETWEEN ALTERNATIVES
1.11.1 Wild and Scenic Rivers
The Crown Jewel Project is not located in or
adjacent to a corridor of a designated, eligible
or potentially eligible wild and scenic river.
1.11.2 Trails
There are no effects anticipated on the
presently maintained trail network.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 1-18
CHAPTER 1 - PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACT/ON January 1997
O
O
oc
LLI
111
O
UJ
OC
O
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
1
1
I
i
I
L EGEND
I I USFS LANDS
STATE LANDS
BLM LANDS
PRIVATE/FEE LANDS
— — MANAGEMENT AREA BOUNDARY
MINE PIT AREA
— — v ' 25-18 US FS MANAGEMENT AREA
U.S.F.S MANAGEMENT AREAS
FIGURE 1.2, LAND STATUS MAP
\
'
I
1
to
-------
Chapter 2
Alternatives Including The Proposed Action
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-1
2.0 ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
The discussion of alternatives is the
foundation of the environmental impact
statement (EIS) process (40 CFR 1502.14
and Chapter 197-11-400 WAC). This
foundation consists of the development of a
reasonable range of alternatives. The
agencies have explored and objectively
evaluated numerous Crown Jewel Project
components during the selection and
development of the alternatives which include
the No Action Alternative and the Proposed
Action. In total, seven alternatives (six
action and the no action) have been
developed for evaluation in this EIS.
This chapter includes reclamation
management, mitigation, and monitoring
measures which are associated with the
implementation of any of the action
alternatives. The environmental
consequences associated with each of the
action alternatives are analyzed in Chapter 4,
Environmental Consequences.
Many engineering, reclamation, and
environmental studies were used in the
development of this EIS document. Refer to
Appendix A, List of Unpublished Reports, for
a list of engineering, reclamation, and
environmental studies used. There have been
many visits to the Crown Jewel Project area
by both agency personnel and the general
public; these visits have facilitated a
familiarity with the area and an insight
regarding the Crown Jewel Project as
proposed, as well as a working understanding
regarding the range of possible alternatives.
Three important terms used in this chapter
are defined below:
Project Components: the major activities or
facilities which, together, form the Crown
Jewel Project.
Options: possible location, design,
operational, or reclamation methods available
for each Crown Jewel Project component.
Project Alternatives: developed by linking
groups of options into Crown Jewel Project
configurations.
This chapter is organized into sections which
describe and discuss the process utilized to
analyze the Crown Jewel Project. These
sections include:
• Formulation of Alternatives;
• Project Components and Options;
• Project Alternatives;
• Reclamation;
• Management, Mitigation, and Monitoring;
and,
• Performance Securities.
Formulation of Alternatives
This section describes the process used to
develop and compare alternatives, including
the No Action Alternative. The agencies
selected various components and options to
develop alternatives that alter or reduce the
magnitude of the potential effects of the
Proposed Action on local environmental
conditions. Section 2.1, Formulation of
Alternatives, provides detailed discussion of
the alternative formulation process.
Project Components and Options
The description of Crown Jewel Project
components which were evaluated in detail
and those which were considered but
eliminated from further analysis is set forth in
this section. A number of components and
options were identified; some were eliminated
from further consideration if they clearly
could not meet the proposal objectives or
address the issues. However, in response to
agency and public input, some options were
retained for further evaluation despite
questions regarding technical and economic
feasibility. (See Section 2.2, Project
Components and Options).
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-2
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
It is recognized that certain options and
Crown Jewel Project alternatives, because of
their economic and legal implications may not
be considered reasonable alternatives as
specified by 40 CFR 1502.14. Specific
issues of concern under the federal general
mining laws include:
1) Does the option or alternative meet the
purpose and objectives, to protect the
surface resources while allowing the
Proponent to recover available gold
resources from their claims?
2) Is the option or alternative technically and
economically feasible?
3) Does the option or alternative allow the
claimant full expression of their rights
granted under the General Mining Laws?
Under SEPA (197-11-440.5(b)), alternatives
are evaluated that reasonably attain or
approximate a proposal's objective, but at a
lower environmental cost or decreased level
of environmental degradation.
Project Alternatives
Descriptions of the Crown Jewel Project
alternatives which were assembled from the
remaining components and options are
included. (See Section 2.3, Project
Alternatives, through Section 2.10,
Alternative G). Alternatives Considered but
Eliminated From Detailed Study are included
in Section 2.3.2.
Reclamation
This section includes discussions that
describe reclamation planning, construction
and interim reclamation, temporary cessation
of operations, final reclamation activities, and
reclamation guarantees. (See Section 2.11,
Reclamation Measures).
Management, Mitigation, and Monitoring
These sections include an identification of
management requirements and constraints for
action alternatives. Mitigation measures and
monitoring programs are discussed as
components of the management requirements
for the Crown Jewel Project. (See Section
2.12, Management and Mitigation, and
Section 2.13, Monitoring Measures).
Performance Securities (Bond)
This section discusses the reclamation
performance security to be required by the
U.S.D.A. Forest Service (Forest Service),
U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
and Washington Department of Natural
Resources (WADNR), and the environmental
protection performance security to be
required by Washington Department of
Ecology (WADOE). (See Section 2.14,
Performance Securities).
2.1 FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives have been developed and
analyzed to address social and environmental
issues, to respond to public and agency
concerns and input, and to satisfy regulations
of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and the Washington State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). Both
federal and state regulations require that an
EIS discuss alternatives including the No
Action Alternative. The objective of
developing and reviewing the alternatives for
the Crown Jewel Project is to provide various
agency decision-makers and the public with a
reasonable range of Crown Jewel Project
alternatives for consideration.
2.1.1 Identification of Project
Components
The first step in developing alternatives
involved identifying the Project components.
Components (facilities or activities) include:
• Mining Methods;
• Operating Schedule;
• Production Schedule;
• Waste Rock Disposal;
• Ore Processing;
• Cyanide Destruction;
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-3
• Tailings Disposal;
• Tailings Embankment Construction;
• Tailings Liner Design;
• Employee Transportation;
• Supply Transportation;
• Water Supply;
• Water Storage;
• Water Use;
• Power Supply;
• Fuel Storage;
• Sanitary Waste Disposal;
• Solid Waste Disposal; and,
• Reclamation.
2.1.2 Development of Options
The second step in developing alternatives
consists of describing options for the Crown
Jewel Project components. The options
considered for each facility are based on
location, design, operation, or reclamation
methods, and are discussed further below.
Location
Each Crown Jewel Project facility has
technical, environmental, and economic
location criteria which must be considered.
For example, the locations of waste rock
disposal areas should minimize impacts to
sensitive resources, be near the pit, and have
adequate capacity to hold the waste rock.
Design
In any given location, there are often a
number of feasible design alternatives for
facilities. An example is the various design
methods for construction of a tailings
embankment. Another example involves
placement of fuel storage tanks on the
surface or burying them underground.
Operation
Production rates and operating schedule are
examples of operation options that were
considered.
Reclamation
Reclamation of surface disturbance can take
many forms. Examples of different
alternatives for reclamation of a surface mine
include creation of a lake in the final mine pit;
partial pit backfill or complete backfill of the
pit; and/or revegetation to grassland/shrub/
steppe or forest habitat.
2.1.3 Selection of Options
Numerous meetings were held among various
federal and state agencies in 1992, 1993,
1994, and 1995 to discuss the various
options and to form the alternatives for the
Crown Jewel Project. A variety of options
were identified for each component by
agency personnel. As a result of these
agency meetings, certain options were
screened, altered, or eliminated from further
consideration if they did not produce a
substantially different environmental response
to the issues identified for the Crown Jewel
Project.
Surviving options were assembled into Crown
Jewel Project alternatives and compared to
the No Action Alternative (Alternative A) and
the Proponent's proposal (Alternative B).
2.1.4 Management, Mitigation, and
Monitoring
From 1 992 to present, there have been
numerous discussions regarding management,
mitigation, and monitoring measures for the
Crown Jewel Project. Environmental
management and mitigation guidelines as well
as monitoring and control measures must
ensure that the final actions conform to the
applicable laws relating to the Crown Jewel
Project. The intent of these constraints,
guidelines, and mitigation measures is to
ensure that adverse environmental impacts
are avoided, minimized or otherwise
reasonably mitigated during construction,
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-4
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
operation, closure, and post-closure of the
Crown Jewel Project.
Following completion of the NEPA and SEPA
processes, and selection of the Preferred
Alternative, the Proponent must provide final
engineering design and final reclamation and
closure plans for the selected alternative to
the appropriate agencies involved. Also, the
Proponent would be required to modify the
Plan of Operations to incorporate any
stipulations set forth in the Records of
Decision as necessary. Any design,
operational, or reclamation alterations must
meet individual agency permitting regulations
and guidelines. This work would be required
to secure the necessary permits and
approvals as explained in Chapter 1, Purpose
of and Need for Action.
Prior to initiating any work involved with an
approved action alternative, the Proponent
must file reclamation and environmental
protection performance securities acceptable
to the Forest Service, BLM, WADNR, and
WADOE. These securities would not be
released until the agencies determine that
adequate reclamation has been successfully
completed and no other remediation
measures are necessary.
2.1.5 Project Alternative Comparison
Crown Jewel Project alternatives were
developed as a result of numerous meetings
and discussions amongst federal and state
agencies. These meetings began in 1992 as
scoping comments were received and issues
established. The issues and comments
received from both the public and
government agencies formed the basis for the
selection of the Crown Jewel Project
alternatives presented in this EIS.
The Crown Jewel Project alternatives
assembled by the lead agencies (Forest
Service and WADOE) are described in this
section. Table 2.1, Alternative Comparison
Summary, portrays a comparison of the
Crown Jewel Project alternatives. Additional
details concerning these Crown Jewel Project
alternatives, including representative figures
and tables, are found in Section 2.3, Project
Alternatives, through Section 2.10,
Alternative G, of this EIS document.
Alternative A (No Action) and Alternative B
(Proposed Action) are required to be analyzed
by NEPA and SEPA. Alternatives C through
G were developed by the lead agencies to
address issues and concerns identified during
the scoping portion of the EIS process and in
an effort to alter or reduce the magnitude of
the potential effects.
All of the action alternatives would require an
amendment to the Okanogan Forest Plan
which would be part of this NEPA document.
Due to the structure of mineral laws and
regulations, the Forest Service's and BLM's
Minerals Management Programs are largely
responsive in nature. A major part of these
programs are responding to applications and
proposals submitted from outside the agency.
Forest Service and BLM responsibility for
such mineral (exploration and mining)
proposals lies mainly in providing reasonable
surface protection and reclamation
requirements within specified time frames
and in assuring compliance of the same.
Management implications for the Forest
Service and BLM require that mineral
exploration and development be facilitated
while accommodating the needs and
conservation of other resources to the fullest
extent possible.
To accommodate the proposed mining
operation, if approved, the Forest Service has
decided to develop a new temporary
management prescription, designated as
MA27, and associated standards and
guidelines for the new management area.
The Forest Service would manage the
operation according to the proposed
Management Area 27 standards and
guidelines outlined in Figure 2.1,
Management Prescription 27.
The Okanogan National Forest Land and
Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) did
not attempt to accommodate potential large
mining operations when developing
Management Area Standards and Guidelines
because of the difficulty in predicting actual
locations or kinds of developments. It was
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
1
I
I
I
I
i
TABLE 2.1, ALTERNATIVE COMPARISON SUMMARY
Mining Method
Operating
Schedule
Production
Schedule
Project Life
Employment
Local Hire (%!
Area of
Disturbance
Mill Process
Ore Reserve1
Reserve (oz)
Minable Ounces
Grade (oz/ton)
Mill Recovery (%)
Recovered (oz)
Tailings Location
Waste Rock
Disposal2
Supply Route
Site Reclamation
Alternative
A
Reclamation Only
Daylight hours,
Summer months
Not Applicable
1 year
Const: 0
Oper: 0
Rec: 1
Const: 0
Oper: 0
Rec: ** 4 people
Const: 0
Oper: 0
Rec: 1 00
•=> 55 acres
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Exploration roads
and drill sites
B
Surface (open pit)
Year-Round;
24 hours/day
3,000 tons/day
1 0 years
Const: 1
Oper: 8
Rec: 1
Const: 250 people
Oper: 1 44 people
Rec: 50 people
Const: 40
Oper: 80
Rec: 5
787 acres
Tank Cyanidation
1,678,000
1,678,000
0.18
87
« 1 ,460,000 oz
Marias Creek
54 mm yd3
2 disposal areas: North
(A) and South (B) of Pit
From Wauconda - CR
9495 - CR 9480 - CR
4895 - FS 1 20 - Site
Pit left open; Facilities
removed; Site
re vegetated.
C
Underground
Year-Round;
24 hours/day
3,000 tons/day
6 years
Const: 1
Oper: 4
Rec: 1
Const: 250 people
Oper: 225 people
Rec: 50 people
Const: 25
Oper: 40
Rec: 95
415 acres
Tank Cyanidation
1,355,569
934,300
0.25
89
<= 831, 530 oz
Marias Creek
» 500,000 yd3
1 disposal area:
North of Adits
within Area A
From Oroville CR
9480 - CR 4895 -
FS 1 20 - Site
Possible
subsidence;
Facilities removed;
Site revegetated.
D
Surface (open pit) /
Underground
Year-Round;
24 hours/day
3,000 tons/day
8 years
Const: 1
Oper: 6
Rec: 1
Const: 250 people
Oper: 225 people
Rec: 50 people
Const: 30
Oper: 50
Rec: 95
558 acres
Tank Cyanidation
1,520,149
1,261,600
0.20
88
= 1,1 10,200 oz
Marias Creek
1 9 mm yd3
1 disposal area:
North of Pit within
Area A
From Wauconda - CR
9495 - CR 9480 - CR
4895 - FS 1 20 - Site
Pit left open; Possible
subsidence; Facilities
removed; Site
revegetated.
E
Surface (open pit)
Year-Round;
24 hours/day
3,000 tons/day
1 0 years
Const: 1
Oper: 8
Rec: 1
Const: 250 people
Oper: 144 people
Rec: 50 people
Const: 40
Oper: 80
Rec: 95
928 acres
Tank Cyanidation
1,678,000
1,678,000
0.18
87
= 1, 460,000 oz
Marias Creek
48 mm yd'
2 disposal areas:
North (1) and South (C)
of Pit
From Wauconda - CR
9495 - CR 9480 - CR
4895 - FS 1 20 - Site
Pit partially backfilled;
Facilities removed; Site
revegetated.
F
Surface (open pit)
Year-Round;
Mill 24 hours/day
Mine 1 2 hours/day
1 ,500 tons/day
33 years
Const: 1
Oper: 1 6
Rec: 1 6
Const: 250 people
Oper: 1 25 people
Rec: 75 people
Const: 40
Oper: 80
Rec: 95
817 acres
Tank Cyanidation
1,678,000
1 ,678,000
0.18
87
= 1 ,460,000 oz
Nicholson Creek
54 mm yd3
1 (temp) stockpile:
North (I) of Pit
From Wauconda - CR
9495 - CR 9480 - CR
4895 - FS 1 20 - Site
Pit backfilled; Facilities
removed; Site
revegetated.
Q
Surface (open pit)
Year-Round;
24 hours/day
3,000 tons/day
1 0 years
Const: 1
Oper: 8
Rec: 1
Const: 250 people
Oper: 210 people
Rec: 50 people
Const: 40
Oper: 80
Rec: 95
893 acres
Flotation
1,678,000
1,678,000
0.18
52(flot) + 87(CN)
» 759,000 oz
Nicholson Creek
54 mm yd3
1 disposal area:
North (J) of Pit
From Oroville CR
9480 - CR 4895 -
FS 1 20 - Site
Pit left open;
Facilities removed;
Site revegetated.
Note: 1 • Based on data requested from the Proponent; Battle Mountain Gold Company Crown Jewel Project Draft Alternative: Request For Additional Information, July 7, 1 993. Complete
feasibility studies have not been conducted for all alternatives. Alternatives, B, E, F, and G have differing Crown Jewel Project economics; studies may result in different cut-off
grades and different ore reserves for these alternatives.
2. Refer to Figure 2.2, Waste Rock Disposal Area Options, for general locations.
<0
-------
Page 2-6
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
expected that such operations involving large,
intensive disturbances would not be able to
meet standards and guidelines developed
principally for low-intensity vegetation
management projects (see page 4-21 of the
Forest Plan). If an action alternative is
selected, this decision would include a non-
significant amendment of the Forest Plan
which would provide a new temporary
management prescription, designated as
MA27, and associated standards and
guidelines (see Figure 2.1, Management
Prescription 27). As part of the decision the
following project MA27 standards and
guidelines would be specified:
MA27-8A
The post-rehabilitation Scenic Quality
Objective of "maximum modification" shall
apply following successful revegetation.
MA27-6A
Cover standards applicable to revegetation
of disturbed mine lands would be as
specified in monitoring item 2.13.10,
Revegetation Monitoring.
MA27-17A
Road construction and reconstruction
would be as specified in mitigation
measures 2.12.14.4, Road Use Permit,
and 2.12.14.6, Junction Improvement.
Road closures and management would be
as specified in mitigation measures
2.12.14.4, Road Use Permit; 2.12.14.5,
Road Closure; and 2.12.18.2, Wildlife
Road Closures. Any pre-existing roads
determined to be necessary for long-term
management of the area would be re-
established by the Proponent at project
completion. Forest Road 3575-100 would
be relocated during reclamation.
MA27-18A
The design, placement, construction, and
closure of all facilities shall be as specified
in the Selected Alternative, and according
to applicable state and local laws and
permits.
MA27-18C
Facilities to be retained or reconstructed
after mine closure are specified in Section
2.11, Reclamation, and 2.12.7.4,
Fencing, or as determined by approved
Operating Plan modifications.
MA27-18D
Hazardous substances, mining residues
and tailings shall be removed, treated, or
stored on site as specified in the Selected
Alternative and according to applicable
state and local laws and permits.
Management of hazardous substances is
specified in Sections 2.11, Reclamation;
2.12, Management and Mitigation; and
2.13, Monitoring Measures.
MA27-18E
Solid wastes shall be removed, treated or
stored on site as specified in the Selected
Alternative, Sections 2.11, Reclamation,
and 2.12.21, Waste Management, and
according to applicable state and local
laws and permits.
This decision amends any Forest Plan Forest-
Wide Standards and Guidelines as necessary
to be consistent with the preferred
alternative.
This amendment is non-significant as defined
in 36 CFR, Part 219, 219.10, because the
amendment would not result in any
substantial changes in overall outputs or
effects predicted in the Forest Plan.
Although some long-term effects would
occur, the mine is a short-term operation, and
once reclamation is completed, management
of the lands would revert back to the original
Forest Plan management areas, or
replacement management areas specified in
future Forest Plan revisions or amendments.
If an action alternative is selected, the
boundary of this management area would be
the actual fence surrounding the Crown
Jewel Project.
Alternative A - No Action
This alternative, required by both NEPA and
SEPA, would preclude development of the
Crown Jewel Project, but would not change
previous decisions regarding mineral
exploration. Reclamation of the Crown Jewel
Project site from impacts of previous
exploration activities would begin as soon as
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-7
feasible as described in previous NEPA
documents. This alternative provides the
basis and existing condition against which
the other action alternatives are compared.
Alternative A is discussed in further detail in
Section 2.4, Alternative A - No Action
Alternative.
Alternative B - Proposed Action
As proposed, this alternative would consist of
an open pit mine with two waste rock
disposal areas located to the north and south
of the pit area. The facility would operate 24
hours per day, with an average annual
employment of about 144 people during
operations, and produce an average of 3,000
tons of ore per day. The life of the operation
would be ten years: one year for
construction, eight years of operation, and
one year for completion of most physical
reclamation. Crushing would be conducted
below ground level; grinding and milling
would be above ground in an enclosed
building. Gold extraction would use
conventional milling with the tank cyanidation
process and carbon-in-leach (CIL) gold
recovery. Residual cyanide in the tailings
would be reduced using the INCO S02/
Air/Oxidation cyanide destruction process.
The tailings would be placed in an engineered
facility at the head of the Marias Creek
drainage. The final pit would not be
backfilled. The north part of the pit would be
allowed to partially fill with water, and
eventually discharge to the Nicholson Creek
drainage. Filling the lake would be expedited
by using water pumped from the Starrem
Reservoir. This enhanced pit lake filling
would take about five years thus delaying
reclamation of the Starrem Reservoir and
associated facilities for that period. Busing
would be provided for employee transport to
the site from locations in or near Oroville.
The supply route would access the Crown
Jewel Project from the south through
Wauconda, Toroda Creek Road, and Beaver
Canyon. Alternative B is discussed in further
detail in Section 2.5, Alternative B - Proposed
Action.
Alternative C
This alternative proposes that ore be
extracted by underground methods. The
facility would operate 24 hours per day,
employ 225 people during operations, and
produce an average of 3,000 tons of ore per
day. The life of the operation would be six
years: one year for construction, four years
of operation, and one year for the completion
of most physical reclamation. Crushing,
grinding, and milling would be conducted
above ground in an enclosed building. Gold
extraction would use conventional milling
with the tank cyanidation process and CIL
gold recovery. Residual cyanide in the
tailings would be reduced using the INCO
S02/Air/Oxidation cyanide destruction
process. Tailings would be placed in an
engineered facility at the head of the Marias
Creek drainage. Waste rock from
underground development would be placed
above ground in a north disposal area
location. A surface quarry would be required
for rock material to construct tailings
embankments located in the Marias Creek
drainage and for backfill in the underground
mine. Employee busing would be provided to
the site from locations in or near Oroville.
Supplies would be hauled from Oroville to
Chesaw and then via a south access route to
the Crown Jewel Project site. This
alternative would produce about 57% of the
gold compared to the surface (open pit)
mining proposed by Alternative B.
Alternative C is discussed in further detail in
Section 2.6, Alternative C.
Alternative D
This alternative would mine the north portion
of the ore body by surface mining methods
and would mine the southern portion of the
ore body by underground methods. The
operation would run 24 hours per day,
employ about 225 people during operations,
and produce an average of 3,000 tons of ore
per day. The life of the operation would be
eight years: one year for construction, six
years for operation, and one year for the
completion of most physical reclamation.
Crushing would be conducted below ground
level. Grinding and milling would be above
ground in an enclosed building. Gold
Crown Jewel Mine f Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-8
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIVES
January 1997
extraction would use conventional milling
with the tank cyanidation process and CIL
gold recovery. Residual cyanide in the
tailings would be reduced using the INCO
S02/Air/Oxidation cyanide destruction
process. The tailings would be placed in an
engineered facility in the Marias Creek
drainage. Waste rock would be placed in a
north disposal area location. Some waste
rock would be used for backfill in the
underground mine. Final reclamation would
include leaving the north part of the ultimate
pit open to partially fill with water, and
eventually discharge to Nicholson Creek via
the Gold Bowl drainage. Employee busing
would be provided to the site from locations
in or near Oroville. The supply route would
access the Crown Jewel Project from the
south through Wauconda, Toroda Creek, and
Beaver Canyon. This alternative would
recover about 76% of the gold reserve
available to strictly surface mining.
Alternative D is discussed in further detail in
Section 2.7, Alternative D.
Alternative E
This alternative proposes an open pit mine
with two waste rock disposal areas located in
the same general areas as Alternative B. The
disposal areas were reconfigured to have
gentler slopes and to avoid placement of
waste rock on some steeper slopes.
Although this may limit the Proponent's
operational flexibility, the lead agencies
would require the Proponent to schedule the
operation to completely mine out the north pit
before finishing the south pit so that waste
rock from the south pit could be used to
partially refill the north pit. Approximately six
million cubic yards (10.5 million tons) of
waste rock would be used to partially refill
the north pit so no permanent post-mining
lake would be formed. The operation would
run 24 hours per day, employ approximately
144 people during operation and produce an
average of 3,000 tons of ore per day. The
life of the operation would be ten years: one
year for construction, eight years of
operation, and one year to complete most
physical reclamation. Crushing would be
conducted below ground level. Grinding and
milling would be above ground in an enclosed
building. Gold extraction would use
conventional milling with the tank cyanidation
process and CIL gold recovery. Residual
cyanide in the tailings would be reduced
using the INCO S02/Air/Oxidation cyanide
destruction process. The tailings would be
placed in an engineered facility in the Marias
Creek drainage. Final reclamation would
include partially backfilling the final pit to
achieve drainage and reestablish desirable
topography. Employee busing would be
provided to the site from locations in or near
Oroville. The supply route would access the
Crown Jewel Project from the south through
Wauconda, Toroda Creek and Beaver Canyon.
Alternative E is discussed in further detail in
Section 2.8, Alternative E.
Alternative F
This alternative consists of an open pit mine
with a single temporary waste rock stockpile
area located to the north of the pit area. The
mine would operate one (12 hour) shift per
day producing an average of 1,500 tons of
ore per shift. The mill would operate 24
hours per day to process the 1,500 tons of
ore extracted per day. The life of the
operation would be 33 years: one year for
construction, 16 years of operation, and 16
years to complete physical reclamation,
which would primarily involve backfilling of
the mine pit. About 125 people would be
employed during operations. Gold extraction
would use conventional milling employing
tank cyanidation process and CIL gold
recovery. Residual cyanide in the tailings
would be reduced using the INCO
S02/Air/Oxidation cyanide destruction
process. The tailings would be placed in an
engineered facility in the Nicholson Creek
drainage. Final reclamation would include
returning about 54 million cubic yards of
waste rock to the final pit. Employee busing
would be provided to the site from locations
in or near Oroville. The supply route would
access the Crown Jewel Project from the
south through Wauconda, Toroda Creek
Road, and Beaver Canyon.
This alternative would require a smaller mill
than proposed in Alternatives B, C, D, and E.
Complete backfilling upon the final extraction
of gold values would require a considerable
investment in equipment and personnel during
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-9
periods where there will be no monetary
return from the sale of the gold values.
There could be substantially increased
operating costs during gold production years
to develop a sinking fund to pay for the
backfilling activities. Given economic
feasibility considerations, totally different ore
reserves could result. Alternative F is
discussed in further detail in Section 2.9,
Alternative F.
Alternative G
This alternative consists of an open pit mine
with a single permanent waste rock disposal
area located to the north of the pit area. The
operation would run 24 hours per day,
employ about 210 people during operations,
and produce an average of 3,000 tons of ore
per day. The life of the operation would be
ten years: one year of construction, eight
years of operation, and one year to complete
most physical reclamation. Crushing would
be conducted below ground level. Grinding
and milling would be conducted above ground
in an enclosed building. The gold bearing
material would be concentrated using a
flotation process. The concentrate would be
transported off-site to undergo cyanidation
processing to recover the gold values. The
non-concentrate from the flotation process
would be placed in an engineered tailings
impoundment located in the Nicholson Creek
drainage. Final reclamation would include
leaving the north part of the ultimate pit open
to partially fill with water, and eventually
discharge to Nicholson Creek via the Gold
Bowl drainage. Employee busing would be
provided to the site from locations in or near
Oroville. Supplies would be hauled from
Oroville to Chesaw and then via the south
access route to the Crown Jewel Project site.
This alternative would require a different mill
than proposed in the other action
alternatives. Preliminary analytical work
completed for a flotation process on the
Crown Jewel mineralized zones indicated that
approximately 45% of the gold values can be
recovered versus an estimated 87% recovery
utilizing conventional cyanidation processing.
This reduction would affect the economic
feasibility of this alternative. Alternative G is
discussed in further detail in Section 2.10,
Alternative G.
2.2 PROJECT COMPONENTS AND
OPTIONS
The following discussion describes options to
the various Crown Jewel Project components
and identifies those options considered in
detail in the development of one or more of
the Crown Jewel Project alternatives. This
section also presents the rationale for the
elimination of other options from further
study. From these options, Crown Jewel
Project alternatives were developed and
evaluated.
The various Crown Jewel Project components
are examined in the following sections:
• Section 2.2.1, Project Location;
• Section 2.2.2, Mining Methods;
• Section 2.2.3, Operating Schedule;
• Section 2.2.4, Production Schedule;
• Section 2.2.5, Waste Rock Disposal;
• Section 2.2.6, Ore Processing - Crushing;
• Section 2.2.7, Ore Processing - Grinding;
• Section 2.2.8, Ore Processing Methods;
• Section 2.2.9, Off-Site Processing;
• Section 2.2.10, Gold Recovery;
• Section 2.2.11, Cyanide Destruction;
• Section 2.2.12, Tailings Disposal;
• Section 2.2.13, Tailings Disposal
Locations;
• Section 2.2.14, Tailings Embankment
Design and Construction;
• Section 2.2.15, Tailings Liner System
Design;
• Section 2.2.16, Employee Transportation;
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-10
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIVES
January 1997
• Section 2.2.17, Supply Transportation;
• Section 2.2.18, Water Use;
• Section 2.2.19, Water Supply;
• Section 2.2.20, Water Storage;
• Section 2.2.21, Water Balance;
• Section 2.2.22, Power Supply;
• Section 2.2.23, Fuel Storage;
• Section 2.2.24, Sanitary Waste Disposal;
• Section 2.2.25, Solid Waste Disposal;
and,
• Section 2.2.26, Reclamation.
2.2.1 Project Location
There are no feasible locational options for
the proposed mine area. The purpose and
need for this EIS is to respond to the
Proponent's Plan of Operations to develop a
mine at their claims on Buckhorn Mountain.
The location of the defined ore deposit
necessarily controls the location of the mine.
The geology and mineral deposits associated
with the Crown Jewel Project have been
extensively explored and studied since 1988.
2.2.2 Mining Methods
There are three primary methods of mineral
extraction:
• Open Pit (Surface) Mining;
• Underground Mining; and,
• Combination of Surface and Underground
Mining.
Environmental impacts vary, both positive
and negative, with each mining method.
Each method has various techniques and
combinations of techniques which can be
selected to meet specific site conditions.
Selecting a mining method is a complex
process involving consideration of a number
of factors:
• The spatial characteristics of the deposit
(size, shape, attitude and depth);
• The physical properties of the mineral
deposit and the surrounding rock;
• Ground water and hydraulic conditions;
• Economic factors, including grade of the
ore, comparative mining costs, maximum
resource recovery and desired production
rates; and,
• Environmental factors including air, water,
and wildlife impacts, as well as
reclamation goals.
Of these factors, the spatial characteristics of
the deposit, the physical properties of the
rock, and the grade of the ore are usually the
primary factors in selecting a mining method.
Underground mining is usually conducted
when the ore occurs in veins or tabular
bodies, the grade is relatively high, and when
the deposit is located deeper than can be
reached by surface mining methods.
Surface mining is generally used for
extraction of disseminated type or bulk
minable ore deposits that are irregularly
shaped or distributed and that occur at
shallow depth.
The Crown Jewel Project deposit consists of
irregularly shaped areas of garnetite ore
occurring at or near the surface and
magnetite ore at depth. These areas of
disseminated ore vary substantially in shape,
distribution, grade and depth. As described
in the Proponent's Integrated Plan of
Operation (BMGC, 1993a), approximately 8.7
million tons of ore (ore reserve) estimate has
been delineated at a cutoff grade of 0.034
ounces/ton. This ore reserve estimate would
be expected to fluctuate based on gold
prices. In comments received from the
Proponent on the draft EIS, it was mentioned
that recent gold prices have slightly modified
their Crown Jewel Project ore reserve
estimate from 8.7 to 9.1 million tons. This
change would not result in any changes to
the pit configuration, but could slightly raise
the elevation of the tailings dams and
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-11
increase the size of the tailings facility by one
to two acres. This change has been taken
into consideration in this EIS document.
Open Pit (Surface) Mining
This is a surface mining technique that allows
the extraction of shallow ores. This method
uses a sequenced set of operations to
maximize the recovery of the ore.
Initially, a portion of a bench or level is drilled
on a pre-set pattern. The cuttings from
representative blast holes are collected and
assayed to determine whether the material is
ore or waste rock. The blast holes are loaded
with explosives and detonated (shot) to
promote breakup or fracturing of the rock.
Next, the material is picked up with an
excavator, such as a front-end loader or a
hydraulic shovel, and loaded into a haul truck
for transport to the ore stockpile or crusher, if
the material is ore, or to a waste rock
disposal area if not ore. While this portion of
the bench is being mined, another portion of
the bench is being drilled and shot so the
sequence can continue without interruption.
This will create a series of benches each
approximately 15 to 30 feet in height, with a
maximum bench height of 40 feet, and of
varying width to maintain operational safety
(BMGC, 1993a).
The overall pit slopes (straight line between
the top and the bottom of the pit) would
range between 45° and 55° from horizontal,
depending on rock stability, haul road
placement, and other engineering
considerations. Individual bench slopes
would be steeper, ranging from approximately
65° to 75°. The pit slope and bench height
may vary due to on-site rock properties, ore
characteristics, and spatial occurrence of
waste rock and ore. These properties are
determined by mechanical testing,
inspections, and measurements performed
concurrently with actual operations to ensure
pit stability and safe work areas.
Equipment used in the operation would
include truck or track-mounted blast hole drill
rigs, bulldozers, front-end loaders, hydraulic
excavators, haul trucks, road graders,
maintenance vehicle, pickup trucks, water
trucks, and other minor ancillary equipment.
Underground Mining
Underground mining was historically used in
the region to develop mines on Buckhorn
Mountain. These underground mines have
not operated for several decades. Early
underground operations searched for high
grade ore veins of gold, copper, and iron (iron
was also mined from a small open pit). This
method of mining is inherently more
dangerous than surface mining.
For the purposes of the EIS, an investigation
of the applicability of extracting the
mineralized zones by underground methods
was conducted. Given the spatial
characteristics of the deposit, the room and
pillar method of ore extraction was selected
as the primary technique for evaluation. It
was assumed that in ore zones greater than
50 feet in width and 1 5 feet in height, 15
foot by 15 foot pillars would be left every 35
feet. Besides room and pillar, three other
underground techniques could be applicable
to certain smaller mineralized zones of the
Crown Jewel Project deposit. These
techniques include sublevel sloping, breast
sloping (post and pillar sloping), and glory
holing.
The underground equipment would be
somewhat similar to equipment used on the
surface but would be of smaller capacity and
designed to need less vertical clearance.
A portion of the ore occurs in isolated, small
pods (1,500 to 5,000 tons each) scattered
throughout the deposit. Some of these
blocks are too isolated to justify the
development cost necessary to access them.
Underground mining would also result in
leaving gold values in the support pillars. The
higher cost of underground mining would
require that the cutoff grade be increased.
This evaluation has been based on a cutoff
grade of 0.100 ounces/ton (BMGC, 1993d).
Based on the support requirements and the
spatial location of ore pods, it is estimated
that approximately 43% of the available gold
would not be mined. Approximately 225
workers would be required for a 3,000
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-12
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIVES
January 1997
tons/day operation, including 185 workers
(underground operations) and 40 workers
(milling operations).
Combination of Underground and Surface
Mining
The possibility of combining underground and
surface mining to extract ore reserves was
examined. For the Crown Jewel Project
deposit, a combination of open pit mining on
the north portion of the reserve and room and
pillar and breast stoping underground mining
to the south could present a possible
extraction method. A reserve loss of
approximately 24% would be expected given
the spatial distribution of ore pods, support
pillars needed in the underground workings,
and ounces lost due to higher ore cutoff
grades required for underground mining.
Mining Method Options Considered in Detail
• Open Pit (Surface) Mining
• Underground Mining
• Combination Underground and Surface
Mining
Mining Method Options Eliminated From
Further Consideration
• None
2.2.3 Operating Schedule
The operating schedule can be divided into
the following categories:
• Operating Season; and,
• Daily Operating Period.
Operating Season
The proposed action would involve operating
the Crown Jewel Project year-round.
An option would be to annually shut the
operation down during the coldest (winter)
and muddiest (spring) portions of the year. It
is assumed that a seasonal mine would
operate for a longer time to remove the same
ore reserve.
Suspending operations during winter and
spring is an option which was eliminated
because of logistical problems closing and re-
starting a mine, laying off employees,
maintaining security and providing
environmental maintenance and monitoring
during the suspension periods. Seasonal
suspension could lead to a transient, less
well-trained, work force which could result in
socioeconomic problems for the surrounding
communities. The Proponent should develop
a more committed and experienced work
force with greater loyalty among the workers
by offering year-round employment.
Daily Operating Period
Under the proposed action, the Crown Jewel
Project would operate on a 24-hour per day,
seven day per week, 365 days per year
basis. At this rate, the ore would be mined
out in approximately eight years.
An option of operating the Crown Jewel
Project on a 12-hour per day basis was
examined. This option was suggested as a
basis for eliminating night-time noise,
reducing night-time glare, and providing
longer-term economic benefits. As with most
complex industrial processes, it is technically
infeasible and logistically impossible to start
and stop a conventional ore-processing mill
every 12 hours. This is due to the time
required to drain or recharge the system and
the time necessary to bring the system up to
proper operating conditions.
Assuming that the mill would operate on a
24-hour basis, then production from the mine
for a 12-hour period would need to be
sufficient to supply the 24-hour needs of the
mill. For the Crown Jewel Project, this would
mean either doubling hourly ore production
from 125 tons to 250 tons per hour and a
concurrent increase of waste rock production
for a milling rate of 3,000 tons per day, or it
would be necessary to down-size the mill and
reduce the milling rate to 1,500 tons per day,
in order to accommodate a 12-hour per day
operating schedule.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-13
In the confines of the open pit proposed, the
increase in ore production to 250 tons per
hour would be difficult due to constraints of
limited working area at mining faces and
increased loader and truck operations. The
operation of a mine for only 12 hours per day
would decrease efficiency and would impact
the economic feasibility of the Crown Jewel
Project. However, in response to public and
agency input, it was decided to consider this
option in detail.
Operating Schedule Options Considered in
Detail
• Year Round Operation
• 24-Hour Per Day Operating Period (3,000
tons of ore per day)
• 12-Hour Per Day Operating Period for the
Mine (1,500 tons of ore per day)
Operating Schedule Options Eliminated From
Further Consideration
• Seasonal Operation
• 12-Hour Per Day Milling
2.2.4 Production Schedule
The target production rate for the Crown
Jewel Project, in the proposed action,
averages approximately 1.1 million tons of
ore per year. This mining and milling
schedule would involve a 24-hour per day,
365 day per year operation. At this operating
rate, mining would continue for approximately
eight years.
Greater Production Rate
A 50% faster processing rate was
considered. A faster rate (4,500 tons per
day of ore) would decrease the life of the
operation to about seven years (one year for
construction, five years for operations, and
one year for most physical reclamation). The
processing rate would require additional
equipment and personnel. A larger
processing facility would require a crusher
operating at 190 tons per hour. A larger mill
would also be required.
Although the same total amount of ore would
be processed as in the proposed action, the
site plan would be changed to accommodate
the increased equipment. The increase in
equipment would result in a larger pit and a
subsequent increase in waste rock
production.
Water requirements and consumption for ore
processing would increase on a daily basis,
but would decrease overall due to the
reduced duration of operations. Due to a
higher instantaneous demand for water, it
would be necessary to increase the
withdrawal of water from Myers Creek
drainage or secure additional water sources.
Daily electric power and fuel consumption
would increase over that required for the
proposed action.
Anticipated increases in mine and processing
equipment would include:
• Mining: Mining equipment requirements
(or size) would increase (primarily loaders
and haul trucks) due to the increased
production requirements. There would be
concerns about sufficient working space
at the site.
• Crushing: Crushing rates would increase
from approximately 125 to 190 tons of
ore per hour.
• Milling: Milling rates would increase from
3,000 tons of ore per day to over 4,500
tons of ore per day. Equipment capacities
would be increased.
• Processing: Although gold recovery rates
would remain the same, a larger
processing facility would be required due
to the increase in the volume of material
being processed hourly.
Chemical agent, fuel, and explosive
requirements for ore processing and mining
would increase on an average daily basis as
compared to the proposed action. There
would be increased traffic to deliver such
supplies.
Access requirements would be similar to the
proposed action. Crown Jewel Project traffic
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-14
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
would be higher than estimated for the
proposed action; however, the duration of
traffic would be reduced to a seven year mine
life.
The increased production and processing rate
option was eliminated from further study
because it is impractical, inefficient, and
generally increases the inherent impacts of
the Crown Jewel Project. Negative impacts
would include development of additional
water sources, increased traffic, more land
disturbance, and a greater number of
employees hired for a shorter period of time.
Reduced Production Rate
A slower rate of production (1,500 tons per
day of ore) would increase the life of the
operation to about 18 years {one year of
construction, 16 years for operations, and
one year for most physical reclamation),
assuming ore grades were not affected by the
economics of lengthening the mine life.
However, the reduction in the rate of
production would affect the amount of ore
reserves due to increased unit costs; and,
therefore, higher ore cutoff grades would be
likely. The reduced processing rate would
require a decrease in the size of the mill and
the amount of equipment used in the mine.
This option of processing 1,500 tons per day
of ore would result in a smaller processing
facility with the crusher operating at an
average rate of approximately 60 tons of ore
per hour. The personnel requirements for the
mill would not be greatly reduced; the
components would be downsized but would
still require a similar amount of labor to
operate and maintain.
Because the same total amount of ore and
waste rock would be processed as for the
proposed action, the site plan would generally
be identical to the proposed action. The
processing plant would be in the same
location but would disturb slightly less area.
Water requirements for ore processing would
decrease on an average daily basis, but
would increase overall due to the extended
duration of the Crown Jewel Project. The
increase would be due to greater amounts of
water being needed for dust control and
increased make-up water to compensate for
water lost due to evaporation.
If less ore is processed per hour, possible
reductions in mine and processing equipment
would include:
• Mining: Mining equipment requirements
may be reduced, primarily in loaders and
haul trucks; however, it is probable that
the size of loaders and haul trucks would
simply be reduced and their numbers
remain the same, thereby requiring the
same amount of labor. Most other
support equipment would still be
necessary. Smaller loaders and trucks
would cost less to operate per hour.
However, operating cost per ounce of
gold produced would increase.
• Crushing: Crushing rates would decrease
from approximately 125 to 60 tons of ore
per hour. Equipment capacities would be
reduced and different types of crushers
might be used.
• Milling: Milling rates would decrease from
3,000 tons of ore per day to 1,500 tons
of ore per day. Equipment capacities
would be reduced.
• Processing: Although gold leaching and
recovery rates would remain the same, a
smaller processing facility area would be
needed due to the decrease in the volume
of material being processed per hour.
Access requirements would be similar to the
proposed action. Chemical agents, fuel, and
explosive requirements for ore processing and
mining would decrease on an average daily
basis, but fuel would increase overall due to
the extended Crown Jewel Project duration.
There would be less traffic on a daily basis,
the duration of traffic impacts would be
extended to an 18-year mine life.
A reduced production rate could mean a
reduction in personnel. However, the
economics of the operation would be pushed
to maximize capital equipment efficiency. In
this case, the size of mobile equipment might
be reduced rather than the number of shifts
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-15
worked. For example, instead of utilizing 85
ton trucks, the operation could use 50 ton
trucks. Yet a driver would still be needed for
the truck, regardless of capacity. Generally,
the administrative, engineering,
environmental, and other support personnel
requirements would remain the same.
Production Rate Options Considered in Detail
• 3,000 tons of ore per day - processing
rate
• 1,500 tons of ore per day - processing
rate
Production Rate Option Eliminated From
Further Consideration
• Increase in ore processing rate (4,500
tons of ore per day)
2.2.5 Waste Rock Disposal
Waste rock consists of rock material removed
during mining that contains no gold values or
with gold content below the economic cutoff
grade. Waste rock disposal is an integral part
of mining operations and must be carried out
in stable and suitable sites. Considering the
topography and stability in the area
surrounding the mining site, several criteria
were used to evaluate alternatives for siting
waste rock disposal areas.
These criteria include:
• Topography and Slope;
• Proximity to Pit;
• Efficiency of Operation;
• Geologic Stability;
• Size;
• Wetland Areas; and,
• Ability to Reclaim.
For all action alternatives, waste rock would
be moved throughout the life of the
operation. Underground mining would
produce an estimated 500,000 cubic yards of
waste rock, a combination underground and
surface mining would result in about 19
million cubic yards of waste rock, and total
surface mining would require removal of
approximately 54 million cubic yards of waste
rock. Under either of the underground
alternatives, the volume of waste rock would
be smaller than any of the surface mine
alternatives and would be placed within one
of the footprints of the waste rock disposal
areas listed below. Alternative locations
considered for waste rock disposal areas are
shown on Figure 2.2, Waste Rock Disposal
Area Options, and are listed with their
approximate capacities as follows:
Waste Rock Disposal Area A - Upper
Nicholson (30 million cubic yards), sidehill fill;
Waste Rock Disposal Area B - Upper Marias
(24 million cubic yards), sidehill fill;
Waste Rock Disposal Area C - Upper Marias
South (11 million cubic yards), sidehill fill;
Waste Rock Disposal Area D - South Bolster
(19 million cubic yards), valley fill;
Waste Rock Disposal Area E - North Bolster
(54 million cubic yards), valley fill;
Waste Rock Disposal Area F - Upper South
Nicholson (30 million cubic yards),
sidehill/valley fill;
Waste Rock Disposal Area G - Marias (30
million cubic yards), valley fill;
Waste Rock Disposal Area H - East Marias
(30 million cubic yards), sidehill fill;
Waste Rock Disposal Area I - Upper
Nicholson Expansion (37 million cubic yards),
sidehill fill; and.
Waste Rock Disposal Area J - North
Nicholson (54 million cubic yards),
sidehill/valley fill.
The objective of siting a waste rock disposal
area requires that one or a combination of
waste rock disposal areas be capable of
storing the projected total amount of waste
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-16
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
rock that would be generated by the
operation and that the areas are accessible
via haulage roads and ramps. The disposal
areas should be located as near the pit as
possible, given technical, environmental, and
economical considerations.
Construction of the waste rock disposal
area(s) would be conducted in levels and
consist of end-dumped lifts, progressing
horizontally across the waste rock disposal
area. The individual working faces of the
waste rock disposal area would be
maintained at an overall angle of repose slope
during mine operation. An angle of repose
slope is defined as the steepest slope that
waste rock would conform to naturally. For
the Crown Jewel Project, the angle of repose
for waste rock would be approximately 36°.
Flatter slopes would be obtained by grading
with a dozer.
Waste Rock Disposal Area A - Upper
Nicholson
This disposal area would contain
approximately 30 million cubic yards of waste
rock and cover an estimated 161 acres
following reclamation. Although the overall
slope of Disposal Area A would average
2.5H:1 V or flatter at mine closure, there
would be small areas of the final disposal
area configuration where slopes of
approximately 1.5H:1 V would tie into
existing topography. Disposal Area A would
cover approximately 0.01 acres of wetlands
and 2,025 feet of intermittent stream
channel.
Waste Rock Disposal Area B - Upper Marias
This disposal area would contain
approximately 24 million cubic yards of waste
rock and cover an estimated 127 acres
following reclamation. At mine closure, the
overall slope of Disposal Area B would be
2.51-1:1 V or flatter; however, there would be
small areas of the final disposal area
configuration where slopes would be
approximately 1.5H:1V to tie into existing
topography. Disposal Area B would not
cover any wetlands or stream channels.
Waste Rock Disposal Area C - Upper Marias
South
This disposal area would contain
approximately 11 million cubic yards of waste
rock and cover an estimated 94 acres. This
disposal area has been shifted south of
Disposal Area B to avoid relatively steep
topography above the proposed Marias
tailings facility. At mine closure, the overall
slope of Disposal Area C would be 3H:1 V.
Disposal Area C would not cover any
wetlands or stream channels.
Waste Rock Disposal Area D - South Bolster
This disposal area would contain
approximately 19 million cubic yards of waste
rock and cover an estimated 81 acres. At
mine closure. Disposal Area D would have
slopes at an estimated 1.5H:1 V. Disposal
Area D would not cover any wetlands.
Disposal Area D would be located in an area
which has existing slopes approximating 1.5
to 2H:1 V. Disposal Area D is located in the
headwaters of the Bolster Creek drainage
which is a tributary to Myers Creek. This
option would cover approximately 1,700 feet
of stream channel. Reclamation of a waste
rock disposal area at 1.5H:1 V overall slopes
would be difficult and may take a number of
years. In order to reduce the potential impact
in the Myers Creek drainage and due to the
difficulty of revegetation of this steep
disposal area, this option was eliminated from
further consideration.
Waste Rock Disposal Area E - North Bolster
This disposal area would contain
approximately 54 million cubic yards of waste
rock and cover an estimated 200 acres in the
North Bolster Creek drainage. It is designed
to contain the total waste rock created by the
operation. Given the steep side slopes of
Bolster Creek, construction would be
relatively difficult; an elaborate haulage
system would be adopted to ensure that
proper slopes are achieved. This would
require the design of an access road from the
mine pit to this area. At mine closure, the
overall slope of Disposal Area E would be
31-1:1 V. Disposal Area E would not cover any
identified wetlands but would cover
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-17
approximately 3,900 feet of stream channel.
The channel of North Bolster Creek would be
reconstructed under or around the final
disposal area. This disposal area could
require an extensive underdrain system. In
order to reduce the impacts to the Myers
Creek drainage, this option was eliminated
from further consideration.
Waste Rock Disposal Area F - Upper South
Nicholson
This disposal area would contain
approximately 30 million cubic yards of waste
rock and cover an estimated 200 acres. Haul
trucks would be subject to a relatively steep
downhill haul from the mine pit. This would
increase the truck fleet for the operation. At
mine closure, overall slope of Disposal Area F
would be relatively flat on top with outslopes
of 1.5H:1 V extending into the Nicholson
Creek drainage. Disposal Area F would cover
approximately 11 acres of wetlands and
5,200 feet of stream channel. The Nicholson
Creek channel would be routed through or
around the disposal area, and an alternative
location would be found for the proposed mill
site. This disposal area would require an
extensive underdrain system. Stability of the
loose glacial till as a foundation material could
be an issue. Given wetlands and stream
disturbance, general logistics, and the fact
that other sites are already available, this site
was eliminated from further consideration.
Waste Rock Disposal Area G - Marias
This disposal area would contain
approximately 30 million cubic yards of waste
rock and cover an estimated 87 acres.
Trucks hauling the waste rock would be
subject to a long steep downhill haul from the
pit area. Longer hauls would add greater
road maintenance, increase the number of
trucks, add more personnel, increase air
emissions and noise, and increase the
potential for erosion and sediment generation.
At mine closure, overall slopes of Disposal
Area G would be a relatively gentle 3H:1V in
both the Marias Creek and Nicholson Creek
drainages. Disposal Area G would cover
approximately two acres of wetlands and
3,600 feet of perennial stream channel. If
this location were selected, the Marias Creek
tailings facility would be relocated to another
site. The Marias Creek drainage would be
routed around the final disposal area. This
disposal area would require an extensive
underdrain system. The Disposal Area G
location was eliminated from consideration as
a waste rock disposal area primarily because
of the haulage situation. Other sites are
available, and this site did not provide any
environmental benefits over other proposed
waste rock disposal area options.
Waste Rock Disposal Area H - East Marias
This disposal area would contain
approximately 30 million cubic yards of waste
rock and cover an estimated 190 acres. This
location is a considerable distance from the
mine pit with relatively long steep downhill
hauls from the pit. Longer hauls would
create similar environmental concerns as
described for Waste Rock Disposal Area G
above. Additional trucks would be required.
The final overall slope of Disposal Area H
would be constructed at 31-1:1 V with the
margins of the disposal area having slopes
approximating 1.5H:1V. Disposal Area H
would not cover any identified wetlands.
This site does not offer any unique
advantages over other proposed disposal area
options and, given the haulage distance and
haul road slope, was eliminated from further
consideration.
Waste Rock Disposal Area I - Upper
Nicholson Expansion
This disposal area is a variation of Disposal
Area A and would contain approximately 37
million cubic yards of waste rock and cover
an estimated 285 acres. The final overall
slope of Disposal Area I would be constructed
to 31-1:1 V, with some portion of the disposal
area having slopes approximating 1.5H:1 V to
blend with existing topography. Disposal
Area I would cover about .005 acres of
identified wetlands and approximately 3,900
feet of intermittent stream channel. It would
also cover a spring and a small pond created
as a fire fighting water source.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-18
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIVES
January 1997
Waste Rock Disposal Area J - North
Nicholson
This disposal area would contain
approximately 54 million cubic yards of waste
rock and cover an estimated 294 acres. It is
designed to contain the entire waste rock
volume generated by the mine operation.
The final overall slope of Disposal Area J
would be constructed to 3H:1 V with the
margins of the disposal area having slopes
approximating 1.5H:1V. Disposal Area J
would cover a 1.8 acre wetland area known
locally as the frog pond, as well as
approximately 3,900 feet of intermittent
stream channel, a spring, and another small
pond.
Waste Rock Disposal Options Considered in
Detail
• Waste Rock Disposal Area A
• Waste Rock Disposal Area B
• Waste Rock Disposal Area C
• Waste Rock Disposal Area I
• Waste Rock Disposal Area J
Waste Rock Disposal Options Eliminated from
Further Consideration
• Waste Rock Disposal Area D
• Waste Rock Disposal Area E
• Waste Rock Disposal Area F
• Waste Rock Disposal Area G
• Waste Rock Disposal Area H
The alternatives utilizing underground mining
techniques (Alternatives C and D) would
generate less waste rock than total surface
mining alternatives. In the case of the
underground operations, the general locations
listed above would be used for waste rock
placement, but the "foot-print" of the
disposal area would be reduced. (See
Section 2.6, Alternative C, and Section 2.7,
Alternative D).
Alternative E, involving partial backfilling of
the final pit, would also have less waste rock
permanently disposed outside the pit area.
The location for this waste rock would be
Disposal Areas C and I listed above. (See
Section 2.8, Alternative E).
In Alternative F (complete backfilling of mine
pit), waste rock would be temporarily
stockpiled outside the pit, then returned to
the pit once all ore is extracted. The
"temporary" stockpile would be located in
one of the disposal areas located north of the
proposed mine pit. (See Section 2.9,
Alternative F).
2.2.6 Ore Processing - Crushing
The crusher unit would reduce the run-of-
mine ore from the pit to a consistent size of
six inches or less. The run-of-mine ore would
be hauled from the pit and either dumped
directly into the crusher or stockpiled near the
crusher unit. The stockpiled ore would be
fed to the crusher by a front-end loader. The
crushed ore would be further reduced in size
in the grinding circuit.
Two locational options have been considered
for analysis:
• Surface Crushing Facilities; and,
• Below Ground Crushing Facilities.
Surface Crushing Facilities
The crushing unit would consist of an open
top to allow ore to be dumped directly into
the crusher. The main crusher unit would be
enclosed in a building to control dust
emissions and noise levels.
Below Ground Crushing Facilities
Ore would be crushed in a below ground
facility as shown in Figure 2.3, Below Ground
Crushing. This location would also allow for
control of dust emissions and noise levels.
Discharge from the crusher would feed into
an underground live storage area constructed
to contain about 8,000 or more tons of
crushed ore. Crushed ore would be
transferred from this storage area by feeders
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-19
to a belt conveyor and conveyed to the
surface for further grinding and processing.
Crushing Options Considered in Detail
• Surface Crushing Facilities
• Below Ground Crushing Facilities
Crushing Options Eliminated from Further
Consideration
• None
2.2.7 Ore Processing - Grinding
The crushed six inch ore must undergo
further size reduction to 80% passing 400
mesh (consistency of fine sand) to be
amenable for leaching the gold. The circuit
would be comprised of a semi-autogenous
grinding (SAG) mill operating in closed circuit
with a vibrating screen and an optional cone
crusher and a ball mill operating in closed
circuit with hydrocyclones. Ore grinding
would be performed wet (slurry). The ground
material would then be thickened and
pumped to the cyanidation circuit while
decanted water would be re-used in the
grinding circuit.
Two locational options have been considered
for analysis:
• Surface Grinding Facilities; and,
• Below Ground Grinding Facilities.
Surface Grinding Facilities
The grinding circuit would be enclosed in a
steel frame building to reduce noise levels
and to eliminate climatic variations (freezing).
The facility would include an overhead bridge
crane for maintenance.
Below Ground Grinding Facilities
Placement of the grinding facilities
underground would involve excavation of an
area large enough to accommodate the
grinding equipment and mill feed storage near
the crusher. The grinding excavation would
be about 130 feet by 150 by 70 feet. These
excavations would be interconnected by
access drifts for personnel transport and
delivery of supplies and equipment,
ventilation drifts, and ore passes.
Because of the space and logistical
limitations, no environmental benefit, possible
dewatering requirements, and worker safety
concerns of placing the grinding circuit
underground, this option has been eliminated
from further consideration.
Grinding Option Considered in Detail
• Surface Grinding Facilities
Grinding Options Eliminated from Further
Consideration
• Below Ground Grinding Facilities
2.2.8 Ore Processing Methods
Ore processing, also known as milling, is the
process of separating precious metal values
from undesired or non-economic mineral
matter.
The use of the appropriate ore processing
technique must be tied to the mineralogy and
economics of the deposit. The proper
evaluation of the technique for ore processing
is a complicated process. Therefore, the
following discussion on ore processing has
been simplified.
Ore processing is a key aspect of any gold
mining project. The bottom line question is:
"Can this ore be processed economically"?
The overall cost of a mining venture is
extremely sensitive to the milling process
selected. The mineral processing technique
to maximize return is carefully evaluated and
selected in the initial stages of the
development of an ore body. The evolution
of study for any gold milling technique must
result in a method that is economically
appropriate, environmentally sound, and that
optimizes gold recovery.
The various processing techniques examined
include:
• Gravity Separation;
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-20
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
• Flotation; and,
• Lixiviant Leaching.
Under Lixiviant Leaching, the following
chemical agents (lixiviants) were evaluated:
• Cyanide;
• Thiourea;
• Bromine;
• Acidified Chlorine;
• Iodine;
• Malononitrile; and,
• Thiosulfate.
In addition, different methods of applying or
using the lixiviants were evaluated. These
methods include:
• Heap Leaching;
• Vat Leaching; and,
• Tank or Agitation Leaching.
Gravity Separation
This process is a physical separation of the
gold from the ore, much like early day miners
used in gold panning or sluice box
applications. This technique is generally only
feasible in high grade, hard rock deposits and
placer sand and gravel deposits containing
relatively coarse free gold particles. Low
grade, hard rock deposits in which gold
occurs as very fine to microscopic
disseminated particles or compounds, such as
those in the Crown Jewel Project ore body,
are not amenable to gravity separation
techniques because of inadequate gold
recovery. Gravity separation for the Crown
Jewel Project deposit was thus eliminated
from additional consideration.
Flotation
Flotation is a process in which valuable
minerals or metallics are separated from
waste rock to produce a concentrate.
Generally, this concentrate will require further
treatment such as smelting and refining, or
leaching and recovery to produce a saleable
product.
Flotation is utilized for the separation of finely
divided solids from one another. The
separation of dissimilar solids is achieved by
the selective attachment of a gas bubble or
liquid to the surface of a particle selected in
the flotation process. The attachment of the
particle to either the gas bubble or liquid is
greatly assisted by the chemical modification
of the particle surface by surface active
(surfactant) chemicals.
Gas bubbles act as "balloons" and provide
the necessary buoyancy to carry the selected
minerals to the surface of the flotation pulp
allowing it to be skimmed off as a
concentrate. Adhesion is obtained between
surface coated particles and air bubbles that
are rising through the pulp. Enough
buoyancy must be provided by the bubble to
cause the desired mineral to rise and to form
a relatively stable froth that can be removed
by skimming. Concurrently, materials that
have not been preferentially attached to air
bubbles remain submerged and exit the
process as tailings.
The separation of gold from the Crown Jewel
Project ore material by the flotation process
would be technically complex. Gold in the
Crown Jewel Project ore is typically found
associated with magnetite and andesite. The
combination of the heavy materials and
complicated metallurgy of the Crown Jewel
Project ore would result in poor separation of
gold from waste rock.
Laboratory chemical and metallurgical testing
work completed on the Crown Jewel Project
ore indicates that approximately 52% of the
gold could be captured in the concentrate.
Actual overall recovery would be
approximately 45%, depending on the post-
flotation process chosen. Not only is gold
recovery low, with substantial amounts of
gold ending up in the tailings, but the average
gold grade of the concentrates would be
under one ounce per ton of concentrate.
Transporting and smelting a concentrate with
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-21
less than one ounce of gold per ton would
not be economically feasible given today's
gold prices.
Normally, flotation concentrates, which
contain higher gold values, are shipped
directly to a smelter for metal recovery. For
example, the flotation concentrates produced
at the former Asamera Mine near Wenatchee,
Washington, contained about six ounces of
gold per ton of concentrate and were shipped
to Japan for smelting/refinement.
The alternative to direct smelting of flotation
concentrates is cyanidation. This would
require the construction of a cyanide mill, like
the one proposed by the Proponent, on or off
the mine site, or, if available and/or
compatible, the use of existing facilities
elsewhere.
In response to substantial interest expressed
during scoping and a desire to develop a
reasonable range of alternatives, the decision
makers chose to evaluate flotation, with off-
site cyanidation and smelting as an option for
the Crown Jewel Project (see Section 2.10,
Alternative G).
Lixiviant Leaching
Leaching is the process of introducing a
chemical agent that bonds preferentially and
dissolves into solution the precious metals in
an ore. The easiest ores to leach are those
that have been weathered or oxidized,
liberating the precious metals from the pyrite
or other encapsulating minerals. The leaching
agent (lixiviant) separates and transports the
metals from the ore.
Leaching of gold by a cyanide lixiviant is
presently the prevailing leaching technique in
the industry, and has been for over 100
years. There has been research on using
other lixiviant leaching techniques in the
laboratory and at the pilot-scale stage. Other
lixiviant studies include: thiourea, bromine,
chlorine, iodine, malononitrile, and
thiosulfate.
Pressure oxidation was considered as a
method to pretreat ores before lixiviant
leaching to increase ore recovery and reduce
the time of exposure to the lixiviant.
Pressure oxidation (autoclaving) is a process
used to pretreat refractory ores. Refractory
ores are those whose geochemical/
metallurgical properties impede the recovery
of their valuable mineral constituents without
some sort of pre-treatment. With pressure
oxidation, the ore is "oxidized" with heat and
pressure to alter the chemical makeup of the
sulfides thereby increasing the ability of
cyanide, or other lixiviant, to contact and
dissolve the gold values in the rock. Based
on metallurgical tests conducted by the
Proponent, the Crown Jewel Project ores do
not require this pre-treatment to recover
acceptable levels of gold, thus this treatment
was not further considered.
Cyanide. Cyanide (CN-) is a naturally
occurring organic compound; and, depending
on the form and concentration, it can be
highly toxic. Some forms of cyanide are not
highly toxic, including most of its naturally
occurring forms, which are found in some
food items such as lima beans, and the pits
of peaches and seeds of apples. Cigarette
smoke also contains high levels of cyanide.
The most hazardous property of cyanide is its
reaction with acids (less than pH of 7) to
form lethal hydrogen cyanide gas (HCN).
However, in the cyanide leaching process,
the pH of the slurry is kept above 10.5
(alkaline conditions) to ensure that HCN is not
formed. It should be noted that cyanide has
been used in the gold industry for over 100
years; and, according to E.I. DuPont
DeNeMours and Company (DuPont - a major
supplier of cyanide to the mining industry),
there have been no recorded accidental
human deaths in the gold mining industry
from either the formation of hydrogen
cyanide gas or cyanide ingestion (Whitworth,
1996).
Both gold and silver, plus other precious
metals, can be recovered from ores in the
leaching processes by using cyanide.
The cyanide process for extracting precious
metals from low grade ores uses aqueous
solutions of sodium cyanide with oxygen (air)
to convert the gold to a soluble cyanide
compound, Na(Au or Ag)CN2, from which the
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-22
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIVES
January 1997
gold can be recovered either by precipitation
with zinc or aluminum dust, or by carbon
adsorption and electrowinning. The stability
of the cyanide leaching solution is controlled
by adding lime to keep the pH above 10.5.
The normal application and consumption rate
is 0.5 to 2 pounds of cyanide per ton of ore.
Thiourea. Thiourea [CS(NH2>2] is an organic
compound derived from urea. It is a
carcinogen listed by the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA).
Thiourea leaching requires a highly acidic
solution (average pH values of approximately
1.4). At a pH above 2.0, thiourea is rapidly
oxidized to sulfur. The intermediate product
of the oxidation is formamidine disulfide (von
Michaelis, 1987), which can coat ore
particles and retard or prevent leaching.
Because of the requirements to maintain
highly acidic leaching conditions and to limit
thiourea oxidation (consumption), stringent
and careful management is required to
accomplish effective leaching (Abt, 1991).
The alkaline components of the Crown Jewel
Project ore would require the addition of large
volumes of acid to maintain the low pH levels
needed for effective leaching.
Laboratory studies have indicated that with
proper control of the leaching environment
and the appropriate ore characteristics, the
thiourea process can proceed quite rapidly
extracting gold values from ore within about
four hours. Thiourea consumption can be
substantially reduced by keeping the time of
thiourea contact with the sulfide minerals in
the ore to a minimum. Gold recovery can be
severely inhibited by the presence of clay and
adsorption to clay particles. The average
application and consumption rate ranges from
5 to 1 5 pounds of thiourea per ton of ore.
Gold values can be recovered from the
pregnant thiourea solution with the use of
activated carbon (carbon adsorption) or zinc
precipitation.
The thiourea method will not be considered in
further detail because the use of thiourea as a
lixiviant leachate in the extraction of precious
metals has not been commercially proven.
The application and consumption rates of the
compound would be relatively high, and the
resultant acidic tailings would require
treatment.
Bromine. Bromine has been recognized as a
lixiviant for gold since 1846. Bromine
leaching may be applicable for oxide ores.
Ore containing carbon or sulfides would
require oxidative pre-treatment such as
roasting, pressure oxidation (autoclave),
bioleaching, or some other chemical method.
The Crown Jewel Project ore is considered a
sulfide ore and would require oxidative pre-
treatment prior to leaching.
Bromine dissolves gold by a direct chemical
oxidation reaction. This oxidation
characteristic allows bromine to dissolve not
only gold but all other ore components which
are candidates for any kind of oxidation. The
normal application rate for bromine is
approximately 14 to 20 pounds of bromine
per ton of ore.
Bromine dissolves gold under acid conditions,
at a pH less than 7, and can be added
directly into the discharge pulp after pressure
oxidation. Dissolution of gold with bromine
would be expected to be more rapid than
with cyanide.
Gold recovery from bromine leach solutions
can be achieved by carbon adsorption and
zinc precipitation methods. At this time,
reagent recycling is problematic, which would
result in high bromine reagent consumption
rates in the leaching process. The bromine
(hypobromous acid) remaining in the tailings
stream should be oxidized quickly; therefore,
the environmental hazard potential appears
very low (Hiskey and DeVries, 1991).
Bromine can combine with the CH3 radical to
become methyl bromide which is a
carcinogen (NIOSH, 1990). Furthermore,
silver in the ore can cause difficulties with
gold recovery. There are silver values in the
Crown Jewel Project ore.
Bromine can be highly caustic which can
pose substantial risks to human health.
Another potential adverse effect of bromine
(especially as methyl bromide) is its potential
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-23
to impact the earth's high altitude ozone
layer.
This method has not been proven on a
commercial scale; and, combined with the
reasons discussed above, the use of bromine
as a lixiviant leachate for the Crown Jewel
Project ore will not be considered in further
detail.
Acidified Chlorine. There has been some
preliminary research conducted on acidified
chlorine as a lixiviant for precious metal
leaching. For effective leaching, laboratory
tests reveal that the pH of chlorine leaching
solutions has to be extremely acidic.
Furthermore, the leaching process can be
extremely unstable unless the leaching
solution is very rich in chlorine reagent.
The major drawbacks of chlorine as a
substitute lixiviant to cyanide are: 1) the
required solution acidity can cause substantial
equipment corrosion; 2) the reagent is applied
and consumed at a rate of approximately 60
to 100 pounds per ton of ore processed; 3)
the leaching process is unstable; 4) the
human health danger associated with
chlorine; 5) the tailings would be highly acidic
with high levels of residual chlorine; and 6)
this process has not been proven on a
commercial scale (Greaves, et al., 1990).
The use of acidified chlorine as an alternative
lixiviant was eliminated from further
consideration.
Iodine. Iodine and bromine leaching
processes are virtually identical. Iodine will
leach gold over a wide pH range although,
like bromine, silver can interfere with gold
recoveries. In operations similar to cyanide
tank leaching, the reagent consumption is
comparable, but the unit cost of iodine is
substantially higher when compared to
cyanide. This method would require a high
degree of oxidation for the Crown Jewel
Project ore. Also, iodine leaching has not
been proven on a commercial basis. For
these reasons, the use of iodine as an
alternative lixiviant leaching method was not
considered in further detail.
Malononitrile. The use of malononitrile as a
lixiviant leaching agent is still in the research
phase, and there are no current commercial
applications. Although malononitrile
[CH2(CN)2] can leach gold from oxide ores,
laboratory testing has shown that it is less
effective in leaching gold than cyanide except
when applied to high carbon content ores.
Malononitrile leaches gold under alkaline
conditions, pH above 8 with application rates
ranging from three to five pounds per ton of
ore. By-products of the chemical reactions
are acetamide, which is listed as a
carcinogen, and HCN (Abt, 1991).
Due to limited testing, no current commercial
use, and apparent inapplicability to Crown
Jewel Project ore, this method was not
considered in further detail.
Thiosulfate. A copper catalyzed thiosulfate
leaching method was investigated by the U.S.
Bureau of Mines as a method for heap
leaching of low-grade oxidized precious metal
ores (Langhans et al, 1992). The Crown
Jewel Project ore is a sulfide ore rather than
an oxide ore; therefore, this method would
not be appropriate for gold recovery and was
not considered in further detail.
Heap Leaching
Heap leaching is most ideally applied to oxide
(oxidized naturally or induced) ores containing
submicron gold in a porous host rock;
however, not all low grade ores can be
successfully heap leached. Typically, this
option generally requires level, open
topography in proximity to the mine;
however, in some cases (such as the
Zortman/Landusky operation in Montana), ore
can be filled into valley areas in sequential
level lifts and then heap leached.
The Crown Jewel Project ore is not amenable
to the heap leaching application due to the
higher grade of the Crown Jewel Project ore
body and the lower recoveries estimated from
heap leaching when compared to milling.
Given the Crown Jewel Project ore
characteristics, this option is not practical or
technologically feasible for the Crown Jewel
Project ore, and was eliminated from
additional consideration.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-24
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
Vat Leaching
Vat leaching is a processing technique
suitable for certain types of ore with a narrow
range of metallurgical characteristics.
Generally speaking, vat leaching is only
appropriate for ores which have a predictable
leaching cycle and which leach very quickly
(i.e., within several days to one week). The
physical and metallurgical characteristics of
the Crown Jewel Project ore are not
amenable to vat leach techniques because
the Crown Jewel Project ore requires fine
grinding for reasonable recovery and does not
leach rapidly enough to make vat leaching
technically feasible. This alternative was
eliminated from detailed study.
Tank or Agitation Leaching
This process is proposed in all but one of the
action alternatives for gold extraction. Tank
leaching is used for sulfide ores such as the
Crown Jewel Project ore. The process can
be controlled to maximize gold recovery. A
simplified flow chart for the process operation
is set forth in Figure 2.4, Gold Recovery
Through Carbon Adsorption.
Crushed ore is added to the grinding circuit
and milled in water or in water and cyanide.
The resultant slurry is thickened to provide a
proper slurry density for leaching. The slurry
is then introduced into an agitated, aerated
leaching tank(s). In the leaching tank(s), the
gold dissolves. The slurry is next introduced
into a series of agitated tanks containing
activated carbon, whereby the dissolved gold
is adsorbed onto the carbon surface. This is
referred to as the carbon-in-pulp (CIP)
process. A variation of this process is the
carbon-in-leach (CIL) process, where the
leaching and carbon adsorption steps are
combined in a single series of tanks.
Ore Processing Methods Considered in Detail
• Flotation
• Lixiviant Leaching - Cyanide
• Tank or Agitation Leaching
Ore Processing Methods Eliminated from
Further Consideration
• Gravity Separation
• Lixiviant Leaching
- Thiourea
- Bromine
- Chlorine
- Iodine
- Malononitrile
- Thiosulfate
• Heap Leaching
• Vat Leaching
2.2.9 Off-Site Processing
Processing the ore off-site was considered.
To obtain a more desirable site than those
already described, ore would be hauled to
some distant location for processing. The
advantages to moving the mill off-site is that
all disturbance and potential adverse
environmental effects of the ore processing
operation would be removed from public
(state and federal) lands and put elsewhere,
presumably on private lands. This not only
includes the direct impacts of the milling
operation, but also the transportation of
workers, chemical reagents, and fuels. Along
with the mill, the tailings impoundment would
also be moved, leaving only portions of the
mining operation and waste rock disposal
areas on public lands. See Section 2.2.13,
Tailings Disposal Locations, subsection "Off-
site Upland Disposal," for additional
discussion of off-site processing.
Possible nearby locations for an off-site
facility would be in the Myers Creek drainage
where there is relatively flat private land.
Further away is the Toroda Creek valley to
the east and the Okanogan River valley to the
west.
In order to transport the ore, a haul road
would be constructed to provide adequate
access for about 120 (25 ton) truck loads
(round-trips) per day every day of the year to
the processing facility.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-25
Another method of ore transport would be via
conveyor or slurry pipeline. However,
construction and maintenance could cause
major logistical problems. The construction
of a haul road conveyor system or slurry
pipeline to Myers Creek or beyond could
interfere with public access and would be
highly visible.
There would be increased fugitive dust and
noise levels associated with construction
along with increased water usage for dust
suppression for the haulage on a road
system.
Hauling or transporting the ore a greater
distance would increase consumption of
energy/fuel and could result in a large amount
of fugitive dust emissions. Transport of ore
by road or via conveyor or pipeline would also
add substantial capital and operating
expense.
For truck haulage, additional haul trucks
would be required along with road
maintenance equipment such as motor
graders and water trucks. Extra personnel
would be added for the enlarged truck
haulage fleet and road maintenance. There
would be increased supply expenditures,
particularly for fuel.
This option was eliminated because it does
not reduce environmental consequences of
the facilities, nor does it provide appreciable
environmental advantage. It merely transfers
environmental effects, and adds adverse
environmental consequences of a haul road,
conveyor, or pipeline corridor off the site.
Off-Site Processing Options Considered in
Detail
• None
Off-Site Processing Options Eliminated from
Further Consideration
• Off-Site Processing
2.2.10 Gold Recovery
There are two basic techniques being used
for actual gold recovery at today's precious
metal, cyanide leach, processing facilities.
These methods are:
• Zinc Precipitation; and,
• Carbon Adsorption.
Zinc Precipitation Process of Gold Recovery
The zinc precipitation process for recovering
gold values from pregnant cyanide solutions
is known as the Merrill-Crowe Process. In
simple terms, this process consists of adding
zinc dust (fine powder) to gold bearing
cyanide solutions. The zinc displaces the
gold from solution and causes it to precipitate
as a fine solid. The precipitated gold is then
recovered by filtration and smelted on site
into gold bars known as "dor6." The Merrill-
Crowe Process is illustrated in Figure 2.5,
Gold Recovery Through Zinc Precipitation.
A more detailed description of the zinc
precipitation process follows.
At the completion of leaching in the tank
cyanidation circuit, a solid/liquid separation is
made to recover solubilized gold values. This
separation is normally completed with a
series of thickeners or with drum filters. The
gold-rich solution is referred to as the
"pregnant solution." The pregnant solution is
then pumped to clarifiers, which use
diatomaceous earth as a filter medium. In the
clarifiers, suspended impurities are removed
resulting in a clear solution which is pumped
to a de-aeration tower where air is removed
from the solution. After the solution has
been filtered and de-aerated, it is pumped to
the precipitate filter presses. Zinc dust is
added to the clear pregnant solution just prior
to entering the precipitate filter presses. The
zinc dust causes the gold to precipitate from
solution. After the gold has been
precipitated, the barren solution from the
filter presses is re-circulated back to the
grinding circuit.
The gold precipitates are periodically removed
from the filter presses by hand. Fluxes are
added to the precipitate which is then
smelted in a furnace. The fluxes cause the
gold to collect in the bottom of the molten
melt. The remainder of the molten melt is
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-26
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
referred to as "slag." The molten gold is
poured into molds. The gold bars (dore) are
shipped to an off-site refinery. The slag is
poured into separate molds, allowed to cool,
and is then crushed. The crushed slag is
placed in barrels which can be sent off-site to
a smelter where further residual gold is
recovered, or the slag can be processed on-
site.
The zinc precipitation process is typically
used for ore deposits that contain more silver
than the Crown Jewel Project. This option
will not be considered for additional
evaluation because there are no
environmental benefits over carbon
adsorption, and this process is more labor
intensive and less effective at recovering gold
than the carbon adsorption processes for the
particular ore to be mined at the Crown
Jewel Project.
Carbon Adsorption Process for Gold Recovery
The carbon adsorption process for gold
recovery is illustrated in Figure 2.4, Gold
Recovery Through Carbon Adsorption. Two
variations of this method are practiced for
tank cyanidation:
• Carbon-in-Leach (CIL) where gold is
adsorbed onto activated carbon
concurrent with cyanide leaching; and,
• Carbon-in-Pulp (CIP) where gold is loaded
onto activated carbon subsequent to
cyanide leaching.
For all practical purposes, CIL and CIP are the
same process.
Carbon adsorption, using the CIL variation,
involves adding 5 to 30 grams of activated
carbon per liter of slurry to the last leach
tank. This carbon is advanced tank-to-tank,
counter-current to the flow of the ore slurry.
As the gold values are dissolved by cyanide,
they are adsorbed onto the carbon particles.
As the carbon particles are moved through
the tanks, they become progressively
"loaded" with gold. The loaded carbon is
removed from the circuit by screening and is
then advanced to an acid wash tank and
subsequently to a precious metal stripping
circuit.
The acid wash step is necessary to remove
calcium carbonate scale from the carbon prior
to stripping. The stripping process consists
of pumping a hot caustic solution through the
carbon to strip the precious metal values from
the carbon. The resulting solution is then
passed through an electrowinning cell which
plates the gold onto a steel wool cathode.
Periodically, the gold sludge is collected from
the electrowinning cell and smelted in a
furnace and cast into dor6 bars. The dor6
bars are shipped off-site for final processing.
There is little or no slag produced by this
process.
The stripped carbon is washed and then
thermally regenerated in a re-activation kiln
before being recycled to the adsorption
circuit. The process is a closed circuit with
no process solution being lost or discharged
from the circuit.
The CIP method is similar to the CIL process,
but the carbon adsorption is accomplished in
tanks after the cyanide leaching is completed
rather than while the leaching is taking place.
The CIL variation of carbon adsorption is
preferred for the Crown Jewel Project by the
Proponent because it would involve fewer
tanks, would have a lower capital cost, and it
is more efficient and less labor intensive than
zinc precipitation. Neither gold recovery
process has an environmental advantage over
the other.
Gold Recovery Processes Considered in Detail
• Gold Recovery - Carbon Adsorption, CIL
Method
Gold Recovery Processes Eliminated From
Further Consideration
• Gold Recovery - Zinc Precipitation
• Gold Recovery - Carbon Adsorption, CIP
Method
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-27
2.2.11 Cyanide Destruction
If an action alternative involving tank
cyanidation is selected, the Proponent would
be required to meet cyanide limits in the
tailings effluent. The Proponent has
proposed to limit Weak Acid Dissociable
(WAD) cyanide levels in their tailings water
pool to less than 10 mg/l. This level will
serve as the baseline for evaluation. Levels
above 10 mg/l in their spent tailings effluent
would not be considered in the document or
permitted. The permits issued for the Crown
Jewel Project would set cyanide limits and fix
the points of compliance for cyanide
measurement including frequency of
measurement and monitoring methodologies.
This level served as the initial basis for
evaluation of environmental impacts.
Tailings effluent which would be designated
as a dangerous waste under state dangerous
waste rules may not lawfully be placed in the
tailings facility. The Proponent has
conducted laboratory tests on sample tailings
produced from ore at the proposed mine site
which indicate that the tailings effluent will
not designate as a dangerous waste. The
cyanide destruction system must be
designed, constructed and operated in a
manner that assures that no tailings effluent
will designate as dangerous waste despite
potential variation in cyanide destruction
effectiveness.
Industries using cyanide have developed a
number of treatment processes for cyanide
destruction. Additionally, other processes
have been proposed based on related
laboratory investigations but have not been
utilized in full-scale operations.
The evaluation and selection of an
appropriate technology for cyanide
destruction for any given site requires an
iterative approach which includes laboratory
tests and examination of data from other
installations. An understanding of the
metallurgical process and the chemistry of
the tailings is essential in selecting the most
effective destruction technique.
Cyanide treatment technology has evolved
and improved over the years. What may
have been the best available technology for
an application a decade ago, may not be the
best available technology today. In addition,
treatment streams vary substantially, and the
treatment methods and achievable limits
would also vary according to even slight
changes in the ore geochemical makeup or
mill process. Effective treatment processes,
reliability, and reasonable achievable
treatment levels would vary in accordance
with variations in ore geochemistry and mill
processes.
Various options for cyanide destruction
examined for the Crown Jewel Project
include:
• Natural Degradation;
• INCO S02/Air/Oxidation;
• Hydrogen Peroxide Oxidation;
• Ferrous Sulfate;
• Ultraviolate Irradiation/Ozone;
• Alkaline Chlorination;
• Biological Degradation;
• Cyanide Recovery; and,
• Ion Exchange.
Natural Degradation
Natural degradation of cyanide in tailings
ponds takes place due to the interaction of
several processes such as volatilization,
hydrolysis, photodegradation, dissociation,
chemical and bacteriological oxidation, and
precipitation. The main mechanisms
controlling the natural degradation of cyanide
are Hydrogen Cyanide (HCN) volatilization
and the dissociation of metal cyanide
complexes.
Natural degradation is a simple method to
decrease the cyanide concentration. Natural
degradation can be influenced by variables
such as the species of cyanide, cyanide
concentrations, temperature, pH, aeration,
sunlight, presence of bacteria, pond size,
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-28
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
depth of water, and turbulence. This method
may not be suitable as the solitary treatment
technique if residence time in the pond is
limited, if wildlife would be endangered by
the projected cyanide levels in the
impoundment, or if regulatory standards
require specific (low) cyanide levels in the
tailings impoundment upon discharge from
the mill. Major advantages of the natural
degradation process are low capital and
operating costs, and no known formation of
new toxic by-products.
Natural degradation cannot be demonstrated
to be a reliable primary treatment for the
Crown Jewel Project. Since most natural
degradation processes are accelerated at a
neutral to acidic pH, the high buffering
(alkaline) characteristics of the tailings would
tend to inhibit some of these reactions.
Natural degradation could not be solely relied
upon to meet permit requirements as the
primary cyanide destruction for the Crown
Jewel Project. However, this process would
occur in combination with whatever
treatment technology is selected.
INCO S02/Air/Oxidation
The INCO S02/Air/Oxidation process was
patented in 1984 and is marketed and
supported by INCO Exploration and Technical
Services, Inc. The INCO process oxidizes
both free cyanide (CN') and WAD metal-
complexed cyanides to cyanate (CNO). The
oxidizing agent is a combination of S02 and
oxygen in the presence of a small amount of
soluble copper catalyst. The solution or
slurry to be treated is contacted with the
reagents in a mixing tank. Gaseous or liquid
S02, soluble sulfites, or metabisulfites may be
used to supply the S02. Air and/or oxygen
are added to supply the oxygen.
Temperature is ambient, and the pH range is
between seven and ten. The best pH range
for cyanide destruction is normally between
8.0 to 8.5. Slaked lime is added as needed
to neutralize sulfuric acid generated in the
process and to maintain the desired pH level.
If soluble copper is not present in the tailings
solution as a product of the cyanidation
process, then a small amount is added as
copper sulfate. Retention times vary
depending on the solution composition being
treated, but generally range from 20 to 180
minutes.
Cyanidation can also dissolve other metals in
the ore to some extent. Copper, zinc, nickel,
and iron are commonly found in cyanidation
solutions. Generally, these metals dissolve
only slightly. Dissolution of these metals
during cyanidation results in the presence of
metal cyanogen complexes in the cases of
copper, zinc, and nickel; and ferrocyanide in
the case of iron, |Fe(CN)e'3). The strong iron-
cyanide complexes are not decomposed in
the INCO process, but they are removed as
an insoluble ferrocyanide precipitate.
Ferrocyanide solutions in cyanidation tailings
are reduced by S02 in the INCO process to
ferrocyanide. The ferrocyanide forms
insoluble metallo-ferrocyanide complexes with
available metal ions. Lead nitrate, which is
added to the milling process, to enhance the
leaching kinetics, ultimately forms an
insoluble, unleachable ultrafine precipitate in
the tailings material (PMET, 1994).
Strong, environmentally stable, cyanide
complexes such as those that form with
mercury and cobalt are not destroyed in the
INCO process.
Actual operations using the INCO process
have seen the ammonium ion stabilize at
between 20 mg/l to 50 mg/l in the pond.
Most of the remainder is precipitated out as
an insoluble ammonium salt.
The INCO process requires a mixing tank
which provides appropriate retention time and
agitation capabilities and the use of air
compressors, if air is being used as an
oxygen source. Appropriate S02, oxygen (if
used), and copper sulfate mixing, storage and
distribution equipment are also required.
Several instruments continuously monitor
process variables such as pH, reagent
addition, and possibly dissolved oxygen.
The INCO process has been used effectively
in the treatment of cyanide slurries and
solutions in nearly 70 mining applications
throughout the United States (U.S.) and
Canada, including a wide variety of ore types
and conditions. Currently, the INCO process
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-29
is licensed at 31 operations in Canada and
nine in the United States (DeVuyst, 1996).
The Proponent has proposed this technology
for the Crown Jewel Project and strongly
believes that the INCO S02/Air/Oxidation
process is clearly the best available
technology to use at the Crown Jewel
Project.
The effectiveness of cyanide destruction in
the INCO S02/Air/Oxidation process depends
on the appropriate concentrations of reagents
being maintained relative to the composition
of the solution of slurry being treated. The
treated solution composition is variable and is
determined by ore chemistry and processing
requirements. A change in residual cyanide
concentrations in the solution during
processing may require appropriate
adjustment of S02, 02, or other reaction
variables. Inappropriate adjustments may
reduce reaction efficiency or cause an upset
in the system of reactions necessary for
effective cyanide destruction. The system
must be monitored and managed to maximize
efficiency and avoid such upsets.
Hydrogen Peroxide Oxidation
Two processes have been designed and
patented for cyanide destruction with
hydrogen peroxide (H202): DuPont's Kastone
process and the Degussa process.
DuPont's Kastone process uses hydrogen
peroxide, formaldehyde, and copper. The
formaldehyde is used to catalyze the
oxidation of cyanide, which can reduce
oxidation time by up to 40%.
The Degussa hydrogen peroxide process
utilizes copper in the form of copper sulfate,
but without formaldehyde.
As with the INCO S02/Air/Oxidation process,
the addition of cupric ion as a catalyst will
oxidize free cyanide ion to yield copper
cyanide complex and cyanate. Cupric ion will
also precipitate ferrocyanide as cupric
ferrocyanide. Cyanate formed by the
oxidation of cyanide in turn hydrolyses to
ammonia and carbon dioxide. The process
has an optimum pH range of 9.5 to 10.0.
The reaction rate accelerates dramatically
with temperature and with increasing cyanide
concentration. Increasing the H202 dosage
also reduces reaction time. Any residual
H202 in the discharge will decompose to yield
water and oxygen in a reaction catalyzed by
metals and suspended material.
Hydrogen peroxide treatment has proven an
effective cyanide detoxification process on
clear solutions and some slurry applications.
Slurry applications have been limited, and
success is site specific given solid
constituents that may contribute to excessive
hydrogen peroxide decomposition. Lab
experiments using the hydrogen peroxide
oxidation treatment method showed that very
high levels of hydrogen peroxide would be
required for effective treatment of the Crown
Jewel Project ore. According to engineering
studies, the high hydrogen peroxide demand
was likely due to certain solids in the slurry
that caused excessive decomposition of
hydrogen peroxide. Crown Jewel Project ore
contains significant quantities of magnetite,
which is known to catalyze the
decomposition of hydrogen peroxide. Due to
the high consumption of hydrogen peroxide,
this method would not be reliable or cost-
effective for treatment of the Crown Jewel
Project tailings slurry (Knight Piesold, 1993b).
Ferrous Sulfate
The addition of ferrous sulfate to solutions of
free cyanide and the complexed cyanides of
zinc and copper, at pH 7.5 to 10.5, converts
most of the cyanide to ferrocyanide. This is
one of the oldest cyanide destruction
methods.
Ferrocyanide salts formed as a result of this
reaction will settle to the bottom of the
tailings pond. Although the iron-cyanide
complexes are considered stable and non-
toxic, extensive and rapid photolysis does
occur upon exposure of dilute solutions to
direct sunlight, yielding HCN. Because photo-
decomposition is slow in deep, turbid, and
shaded waters, production of HCN is minimal.
It has generally not been an effective means
of preventing wildlife mortality on slurries
with levels of copper above approximately 30
mg/l as cyanide-complexed copper. Ferrous
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-30
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA JIVES
January 1997
sulfate adsorption would be ineffective in
treating the Crown Jewel Project slurry due
to the relatively high levels of copper-cyanide
complexes (Knight Piesold, 1993b).
Ultraviolet Irradiation/Ozone
Ultraviolet (UV) irradiation is able to destroy
the iron cyanide bond and create free cyanide
and precipitate iron hydroxide. UV does not
destroy free cyanide; therefore, it must be
used in conjunction with another treatment
process such as ozonation.
This method is unproven in the mining
industry; but, in the laboratory, this technique
removes cyanide and heavy metals with high
electrical cost. There is no known full-scale
application of ultraviolet irradiation in treating
mine tailings. Thus, the method was not
considered applicable to the Crown Jewel
Project (Knight Piesold, 1993b).
Alkaline Chlorination
The alkaline chlorination process involves the
destruction of cyanide using hypochlorite ion
at pH values in the range of 10.5 to 11.5.
Hypochlorite may be supplied in the form of
either chlorine gas, calcium hypochlorite or
sodium hypochlorite. Lime or another caustic
agent is required to maintain pH in the
alkaline range. The process involves two
steps: the formation of cyanogen chloride by
the reaction of cyanide ion and chlorine, and
the hydrolysis of cyanogen chloride to
cyanate.
The reaction rate is sensitive to pH, with the
optimum pH level being 10.5 to 11.5. The
pH must be maintained between 10.5 to 11.0
to ensure rapid decomposition of toxic CNCI
gas.
Many mining operations are moving away
from the alkaline chlorination process in favor
of the INCO S02/Air/Oxidation and hydrogen
peroxide processes. The alkaline chlorination
process has the concerns associated with
residual chlorine and chlorinated by-products.
The advantages of the process are favorable
kinetics and the ability to remove
thiocyanate, cyanate, and ammonia.
Laboratory tests using sodium hypochlorite
with the Crown Jewel Project ore indicate
that alkaline chlorination could reduce
cyanide, WAD cyanide, and possibly total
cyanide to acceptable levels at reasonable
reagent consumption. However, the high
concentration of soluble chloride produced by
chlorination is toxic to plants. This produces
a potential long-term liability which makes
alkaline chlorination less attractive than the
INCO SOj/Air/Oxidation process (Knight
Piesold, 1993b).
Biological Degradation
The application of biological degradation is
limited to site-specific situations where heat
is available. Further treatment is required for
other contaminants such as thiocyanate and
ammonia, as well as cyanide.
Homestake Mining Company in Lead, South
Dakota, treats tailings pond decant and mine
water in a two-step biological treatment
process. The first step converts cyanide and
thiocyanate to ammonia and sulfate by
oxidation and hydrolysis. Metals are removed
by adsorption on a biological film. This film
periodically sloughs off and is removed in the
clarification stage. In the second step of the
process, ammonia is oxidized to nitrate by
biological nitrification. The effluent is then
clarified and filtered. Phosphoric acid is
added to provide phosphorous as a nutrient
for the biological system, while soda ash is
added to provide alkalinity, which assists the
nitrification process. A particular advantage
at this site is ambient water temperature:
untreated water is between 10°Cto 18°C
(50° to 64°F) year-round. The Homestake
system removes cyanide, thiocyanate and
ammonia and was designed to produce a
"non-toxic" effluent for tailings pond decant
and mine water.
Biological treatment is limited to solution
applications and therefore is not applicable to
the Crown Jewel Project. Biological
processes require piloting under actual site
and process conditions, which is not possible
since the Crown Jewel Project is not an
existing operation. Cyanide concentrations of
250 mg/l to 350 mg/l expected in the mill
tailings exceed the limitations of biological
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-31
primary treatment, and there is no available
natural source of warm water on the site
(Knight Piesold, 1993b).
Cyanide Recovery
Several processes have been developed to
recover and recycle cyanide. The basic
processes are Acidification, Volatilization,
Reneutralization (AVR) and ion exchange with
AVR and electrolytic recovery.
In the AVR process, barren solution is
acidified to a pH of 2 to 3 using sulfuric acid
and passed countercurrent to a stream of air
in a series of packed towers. HCN is volatile
and is stripped from solution. Low pH is
essential to dissociate the metal complexes
and convert the cyanide ion to HCN. HCN in
the gas stream is absorbed in a caustic
solution, and the resulting caustic cyanide
solution is recycled to the cyanidation circuit.
General acceptance of this technique has
been slow due to the hazard of acidification,
handling HCN gas, the initial capital cost, and
the overall complexity. Due to the
importance of reducing pH in the first part of
the AVR process, cyanide recovery is most
effective on solutions that have a low
buffering capacity and a low level of copper
cyanide complexes. The Crown Jewel
Project mill tailings do not meet either of
these criteria. In the lab, even with high
sulfuric acid additions, WAD cyanide removal
was poor (about 62%), thus this method was
not considered further (Knight Piesold,
1993b).
Ion Exchange
There are two processes that use ion
exchange resin for cyanide recovery and
recycling. The first process, known as the
RTA process, patented by Resource
Technology Associates, has been tested on a
pilot scale. It involves the adsorption of
metal-cyanide complexes from barren
solutions on a weak-base anion exchange
resin and concentration of the cyanide by
eluting with a calcium hydroxide solution,
followed by resin regeneration and cyanide
recovery via the AVR process, discussed
previously.
The second process, known as the
Cyanosave process, uses a metal-binding
resin marketed under the name Vitrokele™.
Vitrokele™ beads are contacted with pulp in
a series of tanks. The Vitrokele™ resin
moves counter current to the pulp, and the
loaded Vitrokele™ is eluted, regenerated, and
returned to the adsorption step. Both
cyanide and metals are recovered.
The major limitations of ion exchange
processes appear to be resin poisoning and
costs. Further development work involving
pilot and full-scale testing will be required
before these p.rocesses gain acceptance. No
full-scale application of this technology in
mine effluent treatment is known. Thus, this
method was not considered applicable to the
Crown Jewel Project.
Conclusion
The most common cyanide treatment
processes utilize an oxidizing agent in
combination with pH control to eliminate
cyanide and metal-cyanide complexes from
solution. The Homestake Mining Company at
Lead, South Dakota has used a biological
oxidation process for solutions containing
cyanide. Other treatment processes utilizing
ozone, ultraviolet irradiation, and chlorine
dioxide have been utilized on a very limited
basis or only evaluated at the bench and pilot
scale.
Several reported systems rely on physical-
chemical techniques to remove cyanide, but
most of these are considered polishing steps.
Adsorption on activated carbon, complexing
with ferrous sulfate to lower solubility, ion
exchange resins, reverse osmosis,
electrodialysis, and high pressure oxidation
are all processes that have been used for
specific industrial applications or described in
the literature as being able to treat or destroy
cyanide. They have not been widely
practiced in the mining industry.
Table 2.2, Summary of Cyanide Treatment
Processes, presents a graphic view of the
processes discussed.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
I
K)
1
I
I
CD
S1
o
•*
CO
sr
TABLE 2.2, SUMMARY OF CYANIDE TREATMENT PROCESSES'
Process
Natural Degradation
INCO - SO2/Air/Oxidation
Hydrogen Peroxide
Ferrous Sulfate
UV/Ozone
Alkaline Chlorination
Biological Degredation
Cyanide Recovery
(Acidification/Regeneration)
Ion Exchange
Thlocyanlde
Y
P
N
?
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Total
Cyanide
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Ammonia
Y
Y
N
N/A
N/A
Y
Y
N/A
N/A
Metals
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Comments
Occurs naturally with no addition of chemicals. Requires large shallow pond. Generally
used in combination with another process.
Removes iron complexed cyanide. Heavy metals precipitated. Process evolved in 1984,
design support from INCO.
Several methods of removal are possible if reaction is conducted under alkaline
conditions. Ammonia is generated in the destruction reaction of cyanide. Technical help
is available, but experience is limited in mining applications.
Does not remove free cyanide or heavy metals. Filtration step required to remove colored
precipitate; skilled labor necessary. Process not proven in the mining industry.
Not proven in the mining industry. Removes all forms of cyanide and heavy metals. High
electrical energy costs. High O&M costs if substantial thiocyanide is present. High level
of operator experience required.
High chemical costs when chlorine demand is high (i.e., when large amounts of
thiocyanide, organics, etc. are present). Heavy metals precipitated.
Destroys all forms of cyanide and removes metals. Biological system subject to upset
and requires continuous feed, and relatively warm temperature. Skilled labor required.
Initial experience in mining industry.
Recovers reusable cyanide; heavy metals not removed. May not be cost-effective unless
waste stream has high cyanide levels. Proven for cyanide recovery but not waste
treatment. Metals removal would occur during neutralization with addition of lime.
Recovers both cyanide and metals. Not proven on full-scale. May not be cost effective.
Used in conjunction with cyanide recovery (AVR) process.
Notes: 1 . Presented for illustrative purposes, since there are many variables which effect the performance of a particular treatment process.
Y = Yes, process removes indicated component.
N = No, process does not remove indicated component.
P = Poorly, process not very efficient at removing indicated component.
? = Removal performance was not determined.
N/A = Not applicable.
i
•o
K>
I
*>
^
1
<0
to
SJ
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-33
The nine ore samples that were run through
the pilot mill and detoxified using the INCO
S02/Air/Oxidation process (Table 2.3, Results
of Treatability Testing), provide a basis for
establishing technology-based effluent limits
for the full scale cyanide treatment system.
There is uncertainty associated with using the
laboratory results to scale up to the
production system. The treatment system
design (Engineering Report, INCO SOJO,
Waste Water Treatment Unit, BMGC, 1996h)
attempts to address the uncertainty by: 1)
Assuming influent CN concentrations is 30%
greater than in the lab; 2) Sizing the reactor
volume at the maximum slurry flow feed rate
and providing twice the laboratory retention
time; 3) Providing 25% greater S02 capacity
than the laboratory-established amount; and
4) Assuming that only 50% of the 02 feed is
available for reaction.
The NPDES/State Waste Discharge permit
would contain a cyanide destruction limit
consistent with the application of all known
available technology to limit the
concentration of toxic materials in the tailings
facility, as required by the Washington Metal
Mining and Milling Operations Act. The
mitigation measures described in Section
2.12.13.3, Cyanide Destruction, and Section
2.12.18.12, Wildlife Exposure to Toxic
Substances, to protect wildlife and for the
prevention of a discharge of dangerous waste
into the tailings disposal facility would be
included in and enforced as part of the
NPDES/State Waste Discharge permit.
The proposed use of the INCO
S02/Air/Oxidation process at the Crown
Jewel Project for cyanide destruction of the
mill tailings is a direct result of laboratory
testing work and the desire to use a
technique that has proven performance,
efficiency, supplier and equipment availability
and reliability, and simplicity of operation.
Two gold operations in the region utilize the
INCO S02/Air/Oxidation process for cyanide
destruction in their mill tailings. These mines
are the Homestake Nickel Plate Mine (near
Hedley, British Columbia) and the Echo Bay
Kettle River Mine (near Republic,
Washington). Both report satisfaction with
the process.
Cyanide Destruction Options Considered in
Detail
• INCO S02/Air/Oxidation (with Natural
Degradation)
Cyanide Destruction Options Eliminated From
Further Consideration
• Natural Degradation (as stand-alone
technique)
• Hydrogen Peroxide Oxidation
• Ferrous Sulfate
• Ultraviolate Irradiation/Ozone
• Ion Exchange
• Alkaline Chlorination
• Biological Degradation
• Cyanide Recovery
2.2.12 Tailings Disposal
Tailings are the finely ground, sand and silt-
like rock material remaining after the precious
metal values have been extracted from the
ore. Sufficient disposal containment area is
required to accommodate the volume of
tailings resulting from the processing of the
ore.
A discussion of these tailings disposal options
follows:
• Conventional Tailings Disposal-Thick Layer
Deposition;
• Conventional Tailings Disposal-Thin Layer
Deposition;
• Dewatered Tailings Disposal;
• Underground Tailings Disposal;
• Disposal of Tailings in Surface Mine; and,
• Off-Shore Disposal (Submarine Tailings
Disposal).
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-34
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
TABLE 2.3, RESULTS OF TREATABILITY TESTING1
Treatment Method
(ore sample)
Alkaline Chlorination
Hydrogen Peroxide
Ferrous Sulfate
Cyanide Recovery (AVR)
INCO S02/Air/Oxidation
Reagent Consumed
(Ibs/ton ore)
NaOCI 5.0 Ib/t
H202 10. 2 Ib/t
H2O2 20.8 Ib/t
FeS04 3.7 Ib/t
H2S04 1 2.8 Ib/t
H2S04 18. 2 Ib/t
S02 5.0 Ib/t
Final Leach Solution Assays (mg/l)
Total CN
5
179
5
68
194
134
NR2
WADCN
2
171
2
55
95
76
<1
Free CN
NR
14
0.3
13
22
19
NR
Cu
<1
72
<1
59
58
58
3
Fe
2
1
2
40
38
17
<1
Source: Knight Piesold and Company, All Known Available and Reasonable Technology (AKART) evaluation for
Cyanide Detoxification, Battle Mountain Gold Company, Crown Jewel Project, Okanogan County,
Washington, October 1993.
Note: 1 . Influent CN is greater than 200 mg/l in all tests.
2. NR means "No Result."
Conventional Tailings Disposal
Tailings would be transported as a slurry to a
disposal site, using an eight inch diameter
slurry pipeline. The tailings slurry would
contain approximately 45% to 50% solids by
weight. Once solids settle out and process
water is drawn through the tailings or ponded
on the surface, process water would be
returned to the mill by pumping. Slurry and
return water pipelines would be constructed
with flexible pipe resistant to corrosion and
abrasion.
Tailings would be discharged around the
perimeter of the active tailings areas to form
a beach using either a managed thick-layer or
thin-layer deposition technique. Thick layer
deposition is a depositional technique where
slurry is discharged from selected points for
extended periods of time. This technique
results in the solids in the slurry settling out
in thick, poorly consolidated layers and does
not allow for efficient recovery and recycling
of water.
Thin-layer deposition is a depositional
technique where slurry is discharged from
selected points for only one to two days
before moving to different discharge points.
Tailings are allowed to consolidate for one to
two weeks between layers.
Only the thin-layer method will be considered
further because this method would maximize
consolidation and would allow reclamation
and revegetation of the tailings pond in the
shortest time frame. Since there is no
environmental benefit to thick layer
deposition, it was eliminated from
consideration.
Dewatered Tailings Disposal
This method of tailings disposal would
involve reducing the moisture content in the
treated tailings from 40% to 50% to about
10%, through the use of filter presses and
thermal drying. Once dried, the tailings
material would be hauled or conveyed to the
disposal site.
Environmental benefits that might be gained
from dewatering of mill tailings include
reduced likelihood of dam or lining failure,
reduced likelihood of introduction into aquatic
systems in the event of dam or lining failure,
reduced likelihood of ground water
contamination and elimination of a tailings
pond that could attract birds thus reducing
potential bird mortality.
Initially a berm would be constructed at the
toe of the structure using waste rock. A
compacted till liner and overlying drainage
blanket would be constructed covering the
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-35
basal area of the pile. Dewatered tails would
be placed in shallow lifts and compacted,
with haulage roads constructed of waste rock
placed on 75 foot to 100 foot increments.
No tailings embankments, except an initial
starter berm would be constructed.
Dewatering and handling costs are typically
double to triple the cost of conventional
placement of tailings using slurry pipelines.
The schedule for placement would be
weather controlled due to the moisture
sensitivity of the tailings material. During
periods of inclement weather, placement of
dewatered tailings may have to be suspended
because an increase in moisture content
would reduce the material density and the
ability to maintain stability in the overall pile
(depending on the grain size and percentage
of slimes associated with the tailings).
Dewatering to acceptable limits may not be
possible under the best of conditions. During
periods of inclement weather, the material
would be placed in covered storage until final
placement was possible. The covered
storage would need to hold the tailings
expected to be generated over one to two
weeks. This could amount to approximately
25,000 tons to 50,000 tons.
Surface water would be diverted around the
dewatered tailings disposal facility, but rain
and snow could provide a source of additional
water in the tailings. Waste rock would be
used to construct internal drains to channel
water from the tailings. Since it is likely that
runoff from the tailings would contain fine
sediments, a detention pond would be
constructed downstream of the tailings to
capture water from the tailings and act as a
settling pond. This water would be returned
to the mill for use in the ore processing
operation.
Winds could pick up fine materials from the
surface of the tailings deposit. Standard
reclamation practices would be used to
revegetate the surface of the tailings during
operation. Phased reclamation would reduce,
but not eliminate, the amount of fines
exposed to wind erosion.
As explained in the preceding, the option of
drying or dewatering tailings was evaluated
and was determined to have technical
feasibility and reliability problems; therefore,
this option was not considered for further
evaluation.
Underground Tailings Disposal
If an underground mining alternative is
selected for the Crown Jewel Project,
disposing of tailings into the underground
voids created by mining was considered.
Complete underground disposal of all tailings
is technically not feasible. Expansions of
rock once drilled, blasted, and ground would
preclude complete backfilling of tailings.
There is no means of compressing tailings to
equal original in-place rock density; therefore,
excess tailings would still need to be placed
in a surface location. Tailings that could
potentially be backfilled at some point during
the mining schedule would have to be
pumped back to selected underground areas
in the form of a slurry or paste. Power
consumption would increase to cover
additional dewatering costs associated with
backfill operations.
Backfilling of tailings underground raises
several key technical feasibility issues. Water
introduced into the mine would require
treatment and discharge. Hydraulically-
placed tailings backfill would need to be
cemented, which would mean that large
quantities of cement would need to be
transported and stored on-site.
Backfilling of tailings underground creates
additional practical constraints such as
available space, physical characteristics of
the tailings, scheduling limitations, and
worker safety. Space underground is always
a consideration, and largely controlled by ore
geometry; thus, a temporary surface disposal
area for tailings (along with a permanent
disposal area for excess tailings) would be
required. This surface facility for temporary
storage and permanent disposal of tailings
would have the same potential to impact
wetland areas, because they would probably
be situated in one of the locations discussed
in Section 2.2.13, Tailings Disposal
Locations.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-36
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIVES
January 1997
Underground mining at the Crown Jewel
Project deposit would proceed from top of
the ore body downward, which would mean
that only underground mining areas that
could be effectively sealed could be
backfilled; the safety of the miners would be
of paramount importance and might preclude
backfilling of tailings until such time as
mining is progressed to a point where miners
would not be working beneath backfilled
tailings.
The Washington Metal Mining and Milling
Operations Act requires that mill tailings be
placed in a facility with a properly engineered
liner system that incorporates leak detection
and collection elements. Placement of the
tailings in any of the underground mine
workings could not meet the Washington
Metal Mining and Milling Operations Act
requirement.
With the limitation of available underground
space, water treatment considerations,
scheduling limitations, miner safety, the
remaining need for a permanent surface
disposal facility for tailings, and non-
compliance with the Washington Metal
Mining and Milling Operations Act, backfilling
of tailings in underground workings was
eliminated from further consideration.
Disposal of Tailings in Surface Mine
Backfilling of tailings into the surface mine pit
could only be completed after the conclusion
of mining of the north and/or south pit;
therefore, an out-of-pit disposal area would
have to be constructed and maintained to
store tailings until they could be transported
or pumped to the mined-out pit. This
temporary out-of-pit storage would have
impacts that were similar to the Nicholson
and Marias Creek tailings disposal areas.
Once deposited into the surface pit, the
tailings would be subject to ground water and
surface water influences that could require
treatment. It would be infeasible to comply
with the Washington Metal Mining and Milling
Operations Act for an alternative that would
allow the disposal of tailings into a mined-out
surface pit.
Backfilling of tailings into the surface mine pit
at the Crown Jewel Project was eliminated
from further consideration because of long
term water quality considerations, the need
to construct an out-of-pit disposal area while
mining progressed, and questions of
compliance with the Washington Metal
Mining and Milling Operations Act.
Off-Shore Disposal (Submarine Tailings
Disposal)
The logistics of off-shore tailings disposal
dictate that the milling operations would be
located near an ocean, a sea, or large lake.
Because the Crown Jewel Project is not
situated in this locale, the option of off-shore
disposal was eliminated from further
consideration.
Tailings Disposal Methods Considered in
Detail
• Conventional Tailings Disposal, Thin Layer
Deposition
Tailings Disposal Methods Eliminated From
Further Consideration
• Conventional Tailings Disposal, Thick
Layer Deposition
• Dewatered Tailings Disposal
• Underground Tailings Disposal
• Disposal of Tailings in Surface Mine
• Off-Shore Disposal (Submarine Tailings
Disposal)
2.2.13 Tailings Disposal Locations
The Proponent plans to mine and process
approximately 3,000 tons of ore per day to
extract 180,000 ounces of gold per year. As
a result, over the life of the mine,
approximately 9.1 million tons of tailings
material would be generated. This material
must be transported to and deposited in a
tailings facility. Although Alternatives C and
D would generate less tailings material as a
result of less ore extracted by underground
mining techniques, the examination of
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-37
potential tailings disposal locations in this
section focused on sites that were large
enough to contain about 9.1 million tons of
material.
Tailings constitute a solid waste under
Washington State Law. Generators of solid
waste are responsible for determining
whether the waste is a dangerous waste and
subject to regulation under Chapter 173-303
WAC (the Dangerous Waste Regulations).
The process for determining this is called
dangerous waste designation. Extensive
chemical and bioassay analyses have been
conducted by the Proponent on tailings
samples resulting from bench scale
processing. Those samples did not designate
as dangerous waste and show that the
Crown Jewel Project is able to produce
tailings that do not require management as
dangerous waste. However, it has not been
established how variability of the cyanide
destruction process would affect tailings
designation, and additional monitoring and
cyanide detoxification process control
measures are included as mitigation (see
Section 2.12.13.3, Cyanide Destruction) to
ensure that tailings that designate would not
be discharged to the tailings disposal
location.
The Proponent conducted an evaluation of
tailings disposal sites around Buckhorn
Mountain and submitted it to the lead
agencies in December 1994. A tailings site
selection report was prepared by the WADOE
to meet the requirements of RCW 78.56.090.
The report is included in this EIS as Appendix
K, Tailings Site Selection Report. The site
selection process used in preparation of
Appendix K, Tailings Site Selection Report, is
based upon criteria described in RCW
78.56.090. The process involved
consideration of the Proponent's objectives, a
preliminary screening phase, and a technical
site investigation phase.
As a result of comments received on the
draft EIS, a further examination of off-site
upland and side-hill tailings disposal was
conducted (TerraMatrix, 1996). Potential
tailings sites within a ten-mile radius around
the mine were evaluated.
This section of the EIS describes the tailings
site evaluation process conducted. It
includes all of the sites previously considered
and new sites that offer the potential for
side-hill and upland construction.
Besides a storage capacity of about 9.1
million tons of tailings material, the evaluation
for potential tailings disposal sites considered
the following design criteria and logistical
considerations:
• Topography;
• Distance from mine/mill to tailings
disposal facility;
• Geotechnical considerations, such as
structural geology and slope stability;
• Easements, access, and residential
displacements;
• Power supply and energy requirements;
• Project water needs;
• Security;
• Operational and maintenance
requirements;
• System reliability; and,
• Environmental effects on soils, vegetation,
air quality, wildlife, aquatic resources,
socioeconomic conditions, traffic, and
visibility.
As a generalization for the Crown Jewel
Project, a tailings facility would consist of
one or more embankments to impound the
tailings, with synthetic liners for leak
protection and collection measures for
isolation of the tailings. Depending on its
ultimate location, the tailings facility would
require supporting infrastructure, such as
access roads, borrow sites for embankment
fill and liner bedding material, excess rock
disposal sites for material excavated during
tailings facility construction, and tailings
slurry and decant-water-return pipelines.
Given the complex and costly nature of the
liner design, collection measures, and
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-38
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
supporting infrastructure, only a single
location for disposal of the entire 9.1 million
tons of tailings material is feasible. Splitting
the 9.1 million tons of tailings material into
smaller units for separate disposal was not
considered to be operationally, technically, or
economically practical.
A remote tailings facility could also involve
the construction of a remote mill, adjacent to
the tailings facility. In this situation, ore
would be hauled, conveyed, or pumped to the
mill. A remote mill and tailings facility would
require the construction and maintenance of a
haul road or conveyor system to physically
transport the ore material to the remote site.
In Ferry County, Washington, Echo Bay
Mines, Ltd. hauls (or has hauled) ore from
several underground and surface mines to a
remote mill with an adjacent tailings facility.
Another option would be to crush, grind and
slurry the ore near the mine site, then pump it
to the remote mill for actual processing. At
their Mclaughlin Mine near Lower Lake,
California, Homestake Mining Company
crushes and grinds ore near the mine pit, then
slurries the ore to a mill facility located
several miles away from the mine.
If the mill would remain in the location
proposed by the Proponent, tailings material
would require pumping or gravitation flow
piping to the remote tailings facility. As a
result of pipe abrasion and maintenance
requirements, at least three tailings pipelines
and two return water pipelines would be
required from the mill to the off-site disposal
site. A long, isolated pipeline would present
a high risk for vandalism and an increased
probability for accidental release of tailings.
These risks would be higher than for any of
the on-site tailings facility alternatives. As a
result, additional personnel would be required
to monitor the pipelines on a 24 hour per day,
seven day per week, 365 day per year
schedule. To prevent uneven wear by
abrasion, the tailings pipelines would require
frequent rotation. Extensive leak detection
monitoring systems would be installed and
maintained along the length of the tailings,
ore, or return water pipelines to any remote
tailings disposal site. An emergency
response plan would be developed in the case
of a rupture of a pipeline, and protective
measures would necessitate the construction
of lined ditches and ponds along the right-of-
way. These structures would be sized to
contain a pre-determined volume of tailings
material and tailings effluent. An all-weather
road would be constructed and maintained
adjacent to the pipeline right-of-way and the
associated ditches and ponds for use in the
event of an ore, tailings, or return water
pipeline rupture. The pipeline right-of-way,
and the associated ditches, ponds, and all-
weather road would be fenced to exclude
livestock, wildlife, and the public.
It was determined that the practical study
area for identification of potential tailings
disposal locations was a ten-mile radius
around Buckhorn Mountain (TerraMatrix,
1996). Various political barriers (i.e., the
U.S.-Canada border) and physical barriers
(e.g., major drainages) effectively reduced the
study area boundary to a five-mile radius
(TerraMatrix, 1996). The five-mile radius
study area was further truncated to the north
by the Canadian border, which represented a
political barrier; disposing of tailings in
Canada from a U.S. mining operation was not
considered as a practical alternative. Myers
Creek, Toroda Creek, and Beaver Creek are
main drainages in the area and would
represent general physical barriers to off-site
tailings disposal. Topographic changes
associated with major drainages would entail
significant additional infrastructure, power,
maintenance, and monitoring requirements for
pumping of ore, tailings, and return water.
The rugged topography, along with the
undeveloped conditions maintained by the
Forest Service in the Cedar and Jackson
Creek watersheds, further add to physical
and political barriers to the northeast of
Buckhorn Mountain.
In the search for potential tailings disposal
sites within the study area, no distinction
was made between private and public
property. Because the Proponent does not
have the power of condemnation to acquire
private lands for a tailings disposal facility,
there is some uncertainty as to whether
private lands could actually be acquired by
the Proponent. The Proponent currently
proposes to construct, operate, and reclaim a
tailings disposal facility on land administered
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-39
by the Forest Service, with a small portion of
the proposed facility on private land. It
should be recognized that any proposal to
construct a tailings disposal facility on private
property outside the control of the Proponent
would necessitate acquiring control of the
private property and, in some locations,
would necessitate residential displacement.
The operational features of any tailings
disposal facility for the Crown Jewel Project
would consist of a recovery solution
collection pond, leak detection system,
topsoil stockpile(s), borrow site(s), access
and haul roads, slurry and reclaim solution
(return water) pipelines, perimeter fencing,
diversion ditches, and monitoring wells.
The tailings disposal facilities would be
designed and constructed to allow existing
surface or ground water to freely flow under
the facilities. If cyanide and/or other
contaminants are detected in the leak
detection system installed between the two
synthetic liners, water from the underflow
would likely be captured as a precaution,
sampled, treated (if necessary), and released;
or captured and routed into the recovery
solution collection pond to be returned to the
mill to be used as process water.
As necessary, runoff would be routed around
the tailings facility. The diversion structures
would be designed to safely pass the 24-hour
(100-year) intensity and volume event
(predicted 2.7 inches). If such diversion
structures are temporary, they would be
reclaimed at the conclusion of operations.
Closure of a tailings facility would involve
allowing process water to evaporate. The
impoundment area would be covered with a
three foot layer of rock material (preferably
glacial material) and 12 inches of soil, then
revegetated with grasses, shrubs, and trees.
Permanent drainage channels, around and/or
through the tailings facility and over the
embankment, would be designed and
constructed to safely route runoff from the
72-hour (30,000-year) intensity and volume
event (predicted 9.05 inches).
Review of the embankment designs for any
tailings facility would be conducted by the
Forest Service and by the Dam Safety
Division of the WADOE. The final design
approval must be provided by these agencies.
The investigation for potential tailings
disposal sites within the study area focused
on the following general areas:
• Valley floor sites in the Nicholson and
Marias Creek drainages within the
immediate vicinity of the Crown Jewel
mine site;
• Off-site valley floor disposal sites in the
lower Nicholson, lower Marias, Myers,
Toroda, Gold, Bolster, Lime, and Ethel
Creek drainages;
• Upland sites with relatively level
topography; and,
• Side-hill site in the Marias Creek drainage.
Valley Floor Sites in Immediate Vicinity
The potential tailings disposal sites identified
in the Nicholson and Marias Creek drainages
in the immediate vicinity of the Crown Jewel
Project mine site are as follows:
• North Nicholson;
• Upper South Nicholson;
• South Nicholson;
• Lower South Nicholson; and,
• Marias Creek.
These locations are illustrated in Figure 2.6,
Tailings Disposal Facility Options.
North Nicholson. This tailings site would be
located in the north branch of the Nicholson
Creek drainage as illustrated on Figure 2.6,
Tailings Disposal Facility Options.
The North Nicholson tailings disposal site is
located in a partially forested area (Nicholson
Salvage Two, Unit 13) approximately 3,600
feet upstream of the confluence with the
South Fork of Nicholson Creek. Nicholson
Crown Jewel Mine i Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-40
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
Creek is perennial in this reach. The stream
channel gradient is approximately 10%2 and
valley side slopes range from 2.5H:1 V to
6H:1V. The upstream drainage area is
approximately 745 acres.
Location of the tailings disposal facility at this
site would require construction of an
embankment spanning the valley, with a crest
length of about 2,100 feet and toe-to-crest
height of about 320 feet. The final
embankment crest would be at an elevation
380 feet below the proposed mill site.
Construction of the embankment would
require a borrow area for some of the
construction materials. Other operational
components would include a topsoil
stockpile, recovery solution collection pond,
approximately four miles of access and haul
roads, approximately 1.5 miles of slurry and
reclaim solution pipelines, perimeter fencing,
diversion ditches, and monitoring wells.
The facility would disturb approximately 95
acres, including filling of about 1.6 acres of
wetlands identified on a National Wetlands
Inventory map of the area. Approximately
3,750 linear feet of stream channel along
Nicholson Creek would be filled.
Because of the site's distance from the mill
and the length of the tailings solution
pipelines, there would be an increased risk of
pipeline failure and pollutant release to
surface and ground water. A ridge lying
between the mill and the tailings disposal site
would create pumping requirements for
transporting the tailings to the facility.
Pumping of tailings over this distance would
entail more infrastructure, land disturbance,
and cost than a gravity flow system.
During operations of the tailings facility,
runoff from the upstream catchment area
would require a structure sized to divert flows
from a 24-hour, 100-year storm event to the
existing stream channel downgradient of the
tailings facility during operations. The size of
the catchment area, steepness of terrain, and
high embankment would place engineering
constraints on the diversion system.
Closure of the facility would require
construction of a spillway to channel flows
from a 72-hour, 30,000-year storm event to
the valley floor downstream of the
embankment. The high embankment and
steep terrain would require flows to travel
through a protected channel and drop the
320 feet from the top of the embankment to
the stream below in a relatively short
distance. The relatively large volume of flow
and high flow velocities created by the steep
spillway slope would increase the risk of
erosion and potential for spillway failure. The
need for channel drop structures or other
protective devices would substantially
increase closure construction and post-
closure maintenance costs.
The North Nicholson tailings disposal site was
considered to have few environmental
advantages over other locations, and was
eliminated from further study because:
• It would require a large, complex
infrastructure as a result of topography
and the site's distance from the proposed
mill.
• It would directly impact about 1.6 acres
of wetlands and 3,750 feet of stream
channel.
• It poses an increased probability of
pollutant release and erosion and risk of
impact to downstream aquatic
ecosystems as compared to the Marias
Creek site.
• Construction, operation, and closure costs
would be high. Construction costs
(approximately $24,000,000) alone would
be approximately three times the cost of
the Marias Creek facility, as proposed by
the Proponent.
Upper South Nicholson. This site is located
in the upper reaches of the South Fork of
Nicholson Creek as shown on Figure 2.6,
Tailings Disposal Facility Options. This site is
favorably situated for possible tailings
disposal because of its location in relationship
to the proposed mill facilities and is less
heavily wooded than the other proposed
locations. The stream gradient is
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-41
approximately 6% and valley side slopes
range from 2.5H:1 V to 7.5H:1 V. The
upstream drainage area is approximately 435
acres.
Location of the tailings disposal facility at this
site would require construction of three
embankments. The main embankment would
span the valley from north to south and have
a crest length of about 2,600 feet. The toe-
to-crest height would be 320 feet. The final
embankment crest would be at an elevation
100 feet below the mill. The secondary
embankments would be located north and
south of the main embankment. The north
embankment would have a crest length of
approximately 600 feet; the south
embankment would confine the tailings north
of Marias Creek and have a crest length of
approximately 1,200 feet. Construction of
the three embankments would require one or
more borrow sites for construction materials.
Other operational components would include
topsoil stockpile(s), recovery solution
collection pond, access and haul roads, slurry
and reclaim solution pipelines, perimeter
fencing, diversion ditches, and monitoring
wells. Because this facility would require
construction of three relatively large
embankments and excavation of loose glacial
till, construction costs would be high.
The facility would disturb approximately 178
acres, including filling of over nine acres of
wetlands. Approximately 2,250 linear feet of
stream channel would be filled. Owing to the
nine acres of wetlands, the site is considered
to be a sensitive or unique ecosystem.
The Roosevelt adit drains directly into the
area. These flows (approximately 57 gpm),
and flows from the upstream catchment,
would require construction of diversion
structures. However, given the relatively
small catchment area and moderate
topography, diverting upgradient flows would
not be difficult at this location.
Although the site is close to the mill, the risk
of pollutant release to surface or ground
waters is increased by its location at the head
of two drainages and by the presence of a
thick surficial layer of unconsolidated glacial
deposits. These deposits are considered to
be an unsuitable foundation for a tailings
disposal facility, as it could provide a conduit
to ground water beneath the facility. Up to
85 feet of excavation would be necessary to
construct this facility due to the poor quality
of the foundation materials.
The Upper South Nicholson tailings disposal
site was considered to be impracticable, have
substantial impacts to wetlands, and was
eliminated from further study because:
• Approximately nine acres of wetlands
would be directly impacted;
• Foundation materials are unsuitable for a
tailings impoundment; and
• Construction costs (approximately
$24,000,000) would be approximately
three times the cost of the Marias Creek
facility, as proposed by the Proponent.
South Nicholson. This site would be down
stream of the Upper South Nicholson tailings
facility as shown on Figure 2.6, Tailings
Disposal Facility Options. The South
Nicholson tailings disposal site is located in a
mostly harvested area along the South Fork
of Nicholson Creek. The stream is perennial
in this reach. The stream channel gradient is
approximately 8%, and valley side slopes
range from 2.5H:1V to 6H:1 V. The upstream
drainage area is approximately 625 acres.
A facility at this site would require
construction of a large embankment spanning
the valley, with a crest length of 2,300 feet
and a toe-to-crest height of 315 feet. The
final embankment crest would be at an
elevation 350 feet below the mill.
Construction of the embankment would
require a borrow area for some of the
construction materials. Other operational
components would include a topsoil
stockpile, recovery solution collection pond,
approximately four miles of access and haul
roads, slightly less than 1.6 miles of slurry
and reclaim solution pipelines, perimeter
fencing, diversion ditches, and monitoring
wells.
The facility would disturb approximately 137
acres, including filling of approximately 2.52
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-42
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
acres of wetlands. Approximately 3,500
linear feet of stream channel along Nicholson
Creek would be filled. Construction cost
would be approximately $14,000,000,
almost twice the cost of the Marias Creek
facility, as proposed by the Proponent.
The South Nicholson facility would not
require a large tailings pumping system, as
tailings transport could be achieved primarily
through gravity flow. The upstream
catchment area is approximately 740 acres
and would require structures to divert flows
from a 24-hour, 100-year storm event to the
existing stream channel downgradient of the
tailings facility during operation. Closure of
the facility would be accomplished with a
spillway structure to channel flows from a
72-hour, 30,000-year storm event
downstream of the embankment.
Lower South Nicholson. This site would be
further downstream, with the toe of the
embankment located just above the
confluence with North Nicholson Creek as
illustrated on Figure 2.6, Tailings Disposal
Facility Options. The Lower South Nicholson
site is located in a moderately forested area
along the South Fork of Nicholson Creek,
which is perennial in this reach. The stream
channel gradient is approximately 9% and the
valley side slopes range from 1.9H:1 V to
8.9H:1V. The upstream drainage area is
approximately 950 acres.
Location of the tailings disposal facility at this
site would require construction of an
embankment spanning the valley, with a crest
length of about 1,900 feet, and a toe-to-crest
height of 370 feet. The final embankment
crest would be at an elevation 545 feet
below the mill. Construction of the
embankment would require a borrow site for
some of the construction materials. Other
operational components would include topsoil
stockpile(s), recovery solution collection
pond, approximately four miles of access and
haul roads, 3.4 miles of slurry and reclaim
solution pipelines, perimeter fencing,
diversion ditches, and monitoring.
The facility would disturb approximately 157
acres, including filling of about 0.22 acres of
wetlands. Approximately 5,000 linear feet of
stream channel would be filled.
The Roosevelt adit drains into the area. The
upstream catchment is approximately 950
acres, and a large structure would be needed
to divert surface flows from a 24-hour, 100-
year storm event and flow from the adit
(approximately 57 gpm) to the existing
stream channel downgradient of the tailings
facility during operations. The size of the
catchment area, steepness of terrain, and
high embankment would place severe
engineering constraints on the diversion
system.
Closure of the facility would require the
construction of a spillway to channel flows
from a 72-hour, 30,000-year storm event to
the valley floor downstream of the
embankment. The high embankment would
require flows to travel through a protected
channel and drop the 400 feet from the top
of the embankment to the stream below in a
short distance limited by the close proximity
to the confluence of the North and South
Nicholson tributaries. The large volume of
flow and very high flow velocities created by
the steep spillway slope increase the risk of
erosion and potential for spillway failure. The
need for channel drop structures or other
protective devices would increase closure
construction and post-closure maintenance
costs.
Marias Tailings Facility. The proposed action
is to construct a tailings disposal facility
within the upper reaches of Marias Creek.
Except for the perimeter fence, the facility
would be entirely confined to the Marias
Creek drainage and is located in a mostly
forested area in the upper reaches of Marias
Creek. The valley topography is gentle with
a gradient of approximately 5%. Side slopes
range from 1.9H:1V to 3.31-1:1 V, and average
3H:1V. The upstream drainage area is
approximately 280 acres. This facility would
require the construction of two
embankments, a primary on the south and a
secondary on the north.
At the conclusion of milling activities, the
primary embankment would be approximately
240 feet high (downstream toe to crest at an
elevation of approximately 4,400 feet) with a
crest length of approximately 1,500 feet.
This embankment would be constructed
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-43
across the Marias Creek drainage. The
primary embankment would begin with a
starter embankment and have scheduled
raises added to reach the final crest elevation
at 4,400 feet. The secondary embankment
would have a crest length of approximately
1,200 feet and would be constructed near
the saddle that divides Marias Creek from
Nicholson Creek. At the conclusion of milling
activities, the secondary embankment would
be about 95 feet high, thereby locating the
disposal area completely in the Marias Creek
drainage. The secondary embankment would
be constructed in scheduled raises to a final
crest elevation of approximately 4,390 feet.
Approximately 3,650 linear feet of stream
channel would be filled. Total surface
disturbance associated with this disposal site
would be approximately 101 acres, with 2.46
acres of wetlands being filled.
Approximately 1.5 miles of access and haul
roads, and an estimated 0.5 mile of piping to
transport tailings and return water, would be
required for this facility. Tailings would be
transported by gravity, except for a short
time near the end of the life of the facility.
Runoff from the west side of the tailings
facility would be diverted around the
impoundment area during operations. This
diversion would be constructed prior to use
of the tailings facility. Runoff from the east
side is expected to be minor and would be
collected by the tailings pipeline access road
ditch or the tailings facility.
Construction cost is estimated at
$8,489,299. Reclamation/closure cost is
estimated at $643,711. Wildlife mitigation
cost is estimated at $242,755. Aquatic
resource mitigation cost is estimated at
$645,664 (Parametrix, 1996a). Cost
estimates in Section 2.2.13, Tailings Disposal
Locations, were provided by Parametrix, Inc.
to the Corps of Engineers. Costs are for
comparative purposes only.
Other operational aspects of this tailings
impoundment would consist of a reclaim
solution collection pond, access roads, a
slurry pipeline, a return water pipeline, and
monitoring wells. Total surface disturbance
associated with this disposal site would be
approximately 101 acres.
Closure of the tailings impoundment would
involve allowing process water to evaporate.
The area would be revegetated with grasses,
shrubs and trees. Permanent drainage
channels would be constructed, as
necessary, to route the runoff from the site.
These channels would be designed to safely
pass the 72-hour, 30,000-year intensity and
volume event.
Off-Site Valley Floor Disposal
Disposal of mill tailings remote from the
Crown Jewel Project mine site was
considered for off-site (downstream) drainage
or valley floor areas.
The objective was to locate any areas that
offered more topographically or
environmentally advantageous sites than
those in the upper Marias and Nicholson
Creek drainages. The search focused on
downstream stretches of Marias and
Nicholson Creeks, as well as in the Myers
Creek tributaries of Gold Creek, Bolster
Creek, Lime Creek, and Ethel Creek. No such
areas were identified that offered topographic
or environmental advantages over the sites in
upper Marias and Nicholson Creek drainages.
Because of steep gradients and side slopes,
placement of tailings material in any of the
Myers Creek tributary drainages (Gold,
Bolster, Lime, and/or Ethel Creeks) could only
be possible with substantial excavation
coupled with the construction of high tailings
embankments. Tailings placement further
downstream in Marias and Nicholson Creek
locations or in Millard Creek would be
complicated by a more complex infrastructure
due to distance from the mill, and is
considered to be impracticable as a result of
the need to route perennial stream flow
around such a tailings facility, and the
increased potential for direct impact to
aquatic resources, and the removal of
existing fishery habitat in downstream areas.
There would be an increase in water use in
off-site valley floor tailings disposal. Pumping
of tailings to more remote sites would require
that the solids content of the tailings material
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-44
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
be reduced by the addition of water, and road
watering requirements for the road system
between the mine and the remote tailings
facility would be substantially increased. The
availability of water is perceived to be limited
on the Crown Jewel Project, so any increase
in water requirements would cause a
substantial impact.
Many potential off-site valley floor tailings
disposal sites are located on private land.
These include areas in Myers and Toroda
Creeks, as well as downstream stretches of
Marias, Nicholson, Gold, Bolster, Lime and
Ethel Creeks. Because the Proponent does
not have the power of condemnation to
acquire lands for a tailings disposal facility,
there is some uncertainty as to whether these
lands could actually be acquired. Remote
placement of tailings material in off-site valley
floor locations could also cause displacement
of private residences and disruption to
property owners.
The Strawberry Lake area, located in Section
8, Township 40 North, Range 30 East,
offered another possible off-site valley-floor
location for tailings disposal. The Strawberry
Lake site is located on private property, and
its location is illustrated in Figure 2.6, Tailings
Disposal Facility Options. This site was
eliminated from further consideration because
the facility would impact at least 15 acres of
wetland and riparian habitats.
Sites for alternative tailings locations were
also sought in the main stem drainages of
Toroda Creek and Myers Creek. In these
main drainages, an examination was made for
areas of relatively flat surface where non
cross-valley tailings storage sites could be
constructed. The construction of a cross-
valley tailings facility in these drainages was
not considered due to construction
difficulties, potential impacts to aquatic
ecosystems, fishery impacts, and hydrologic
concerns. There would also be property and
ownership considerations for the construction
of any remote tailings disposal area in the
Toroda or Myers Creek drainages as most of
the ownership in these drainages is private
and not owned or controlled by the
Proponent.
Toroda Creek is located more than five miles
from the proposed Crown Jewel Project mine
and mill. To access a tailings disposal site in
the Toroda Creek drainage, ore would have to
be hauled, conveyed, or pumped to a mill in
the area; or, if the mill remained in the
location proposed by the Proponent, tailings
and return water pipelines and associated
roads, power lines, and leak control
structures would be installed in either the
Marias and Nicholson Creek drainages.
Myers Creek is located more than three miles
from the proposed Crown Jewel Project mine
and mill. Similar to the Toroda Creek
drainage, ore or tailings material would have
to be hauled, conveyed, or pumped to any
site. Depending on the location of a tailings
facility in the Myers Creek "valley," haul
roads, conveyor systems, pipelines (tailings
and return water), all-weather access roads,
power lines, and associated leak control
structures would be necessary in the Myers
Creek tributary drainages of Gold Creek,
Bolster Creek, Lime Creek, Ethel Creek, or the
unnamed drainage adjacent to County Road
4895.
Given the relatively steep slopes in the area,
the construction of a tailings-return water
pipeline corridor with associated all-weather
access road, power line and leak
detection/control structures would involve a
sectional disturbance of approximately 170 to
560 feet wide to accommodate the cuts and
fills necessary for the required infrastructure
(TerraMatrix, 1996). For every mile of this
corridor, there would be approximately 21 to
68 acres of actual physical disturbance. If
the tailings facility is located five miles from
the mill, the estimated additional disturbance
would be approximately 105 to 340 acres.
The alluvial material in the Toroda and Myers
Creek drainages contains ground water that
feeds a number of domestic and agricultural
wells in these main north-south valleys. Any
construction of a tailings facility in the Toroda
or Myers Creek drainages would need to
consider the requirement for extensive
dewatering systems and monitoring schemes
to protect adjacent and downstream water
users. These schemes exist, but they would
be very expensive to operate and monitor. A
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-45
tailings facility in either the Toroda or Myers
Creek drainages would impact aquatic
ecosystems (wetlands), and would place the
facilities immediately adjacent to fish habitat.
Given the complex infrastructure, additional
disturbance, extensive monitoring
requirements, and the added construction,
operational and liability costs with no added
environmental benefit, off-site valley-floor
tailings disposal sites were eliminated from
further consideration.
Off-Site Upland Disposal
Most upland areas within the vicinity of the
Crown Jewel Project area are quite steep as
shown on Figure 2.7, Slope Study Area. In
an attempt to locate suitable upland disposal
sites, the study area was divided into three
general slope categories:
• Areas greater than 30% slopes;
• Areas with slopes between 10% and
30%; and,
• Areas less than 10% slopes.
The search for upland off-site tailings disposal
locations revealed a band of relatively flat
terrain in Sections 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,
and 14 of Township 39 North, Range 30 East
(TerraMatrix, 1996). This band of terrain is
shown on Figure 2.7, Slope Study Area, and
is relatively flat in comparison with the steep
topography in the area, but nonetheless
slopes are approximately 10% to 15%. The
construction of upland tailings facilities on
slopes exceeding 10% is not considered to
be practicable. (See discussion in this
section on side-hill construction.)
The areas with slopes less than 10% were
divided into "valley" and "upland" areas.
Only a small portion of the area within the
slope study area have slopes less than 10%,
and some of these areas with less than 10%
slopes are located along ridge tops where
construction of the tailings facility would be
undesirable given visibility considerations,
geotechnical concerns over embankment
stability, and the large amount of material
needed to construct embankments. Likewise,
there is limited room for construction on the
ridge tops in the area within and surrounding
the Crown Jewel Project. No areas of 100
acres in size with slopes less than 10% were
found on ridgetops. For purposes of siting an
upland tailings facility, locations were sought
that were a minimum of 100 feet from any
perennial stream channel with a level area of
approximately 100 acres.
Slopes in the study area are typically greater
than 30%, severely constraining opportunities
for upland (out of drainage) tailings disposal.
The potential off-site upland tailings disposal
sites identified in the vicinity of the Crown
Jewel Project site are as follows:
• Site A: Beaver Creek Canyon
• Site B: Pontiac Ridge
• Site C: Pine Chee Meadow
These locations are illustrated in Figure 2.6,
Tailings Disposal Facility Options, and Figure
2.7, Slope Study Area.
Site A: Beaver Creek Canyon. This potential
tailings facility site is located in Section 14,
Township 39 North, Range 30 East, on a
gently sloping bench area above and parallel
to Beaver Creek Canyon as shown on Figure
2.6, Tailings Disposal Facility Options. The
location of this possible facility had to be
shifted to the west of the relatively level side-
slope of Millard Creek to avoid covering a
wetland area similar in size to the frog pond.
Most of this site would drain to Beaver Creek
to the west, but a portion of the site would
also drain to Millard Creek.
The embankment for the Beaver Creek
Canyon tailings facility would have a toe-to-
crest height of approximately 180 feet. A
conceptual layout for a tailings facility in this
area indicates that approximately 100 acres
would be needed for placement of the
impoundment/embankment. It is estimated
that about six million cubic yards of fill would
be needed to construct the embankment at
this site, but only approximately three million
cubic yards would be excavated to construct
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-46
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
the facility. As such, a 40 to 50 acre
material borrow source (quarry) would be
required to provide the remaining
embankment fill material.
Construction of the facility at this site would
remove approximately 50 acres of young
mature forest. This would result in additional
loss of deer winter range and important
habitat for goshawk (federal species of
concern), black bear, pileated woodpecker
(state candidate species), fisher, and other
wildlife. Full replacement of this habitat on
the site would not be expected to occur until
60 to 100 years after reclamation is
completed. Because suitable sites for
mitigation of this type of habitat impact are
uncommon in the area, mitigation for this
impact would be difficult and mitigation costs
would be increased.
The operational support logistics for the
Beaver Creek Canyon tailings disposal facility
would require a tailings pipeline corridor, ore
slurry pipeline corridor, or haul road corridor
for ore (or dry tailings) haulage by trucks.
Other ore haulage techniques could involve
the use of a conveyor system or railroad.
Both a conveyor and a railroad system would
involve disturbance similar or greater than
that proposed by a pipeline or haul road, and
the construction of a conveyor or railroad
system would probably necessitate greater
capital expense than either a slurry pipeline or
a haul road system. Therefore, the use of a
conveyor or railroad system was not
considered to be a practical alternative for ore
haulage to the Beaver Creek Canyon tailings
disposal facility.
If the mill remained in an area adjacent to the
proposed mining area, then the Beaver Creek
Canyon tailings disposal facility would be
supported via a tailings and return water
pipeline corridor. Such a pipeline corridor
would contain multiple tailings and return
water pipelines, along with an associated all-
weather access road, power line, and leak
detection/control structures. The pipeline
corridor would involve sectional disturbance
wide enough to accommodate the cuts and
fills necessary for the required infrastructure.
Given the relatively steep slopes in the area,
the construction of a tailings-return water
pipeline would involve a sectional disturbance
approximately 170 feet to 460 feet wide
(TerraMatrix, 1996). Since the Beaver Creek
Canyon tailings disposal facility would require
a pipeline corridor approximately 25,000 feet
in length, the estimated disturbance
associated with the pipeline corridor would
range from 98 acres to 264 acres. The
pipeline corridor would traverse through pole
and young mature forest and cross several
drainages and associated riparian habitat.
The 25,000-foot pipeline right-of-way, and
the associated ditches, ponds, and all
weather road would be fenced to exclude
livestock, wildlife, and the public. This fence
would function as a barrier to livestock and
wildlife movement, and would displace
livestock and wildlife from habitat inside the
corridor.
Because of the site's distance from the mill
and the length of tailings and return-water
pipelines, there would be an elevated
probability of pipeline failure and risk of
pollutant release to ground and surface
water.
Extensive leak detection monitoring systems
would need to be installed and maintained
along the length of the tailings (or ore)
pipelines. A contingency plan would be
developed in the case of a rupture of an ore,
tailings, or water-return pipeline, which would
require the construction of lined ditches and
ponds along the right-of-way. These
structures would be sized to contain a pre-
determined volume of tailings material and
tailings effluent. An all-weather road would
be constructed and maintained adjacent to
the pipeline right-of-way and the associated
ditches and pond for use in the event of a
pipeline rupture. The location of the facilities
remote from the Crown Jewel Project site
would increase emergency response time
from the mine site in the event of an
accidental release. A surge pond located
near the mill facility would be required to
contain tailings entrained in the mill circuit in
the event of a shutdown caused by pipeline
rupture.
Release of tailings or return water through a
pipeline rupture could cause adverse
environmental impacts to aquatic ecosystems
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-47
in Marias, Millard, or Beaver Creeks and could
potentially affect water wells used by
residents along the pipeline route. Although
the risks of a release from the tailings
disposal facility is small, this site's proximity
to Beaver Creek, Beth Lake, and Beaver Lake
considerably increases the potential for
contamination of these waterbodies. Beaver
Creek and associated lakes and marshes
provide important habitat for a variety of
waterbirds, including common loon (state
candidate species) and black tern (state
monitor species). Waterbodies near Beaver
Creek have been designated as priority
habitat by the WADFW.
Portions of the 25,000-foot length of the
pipeline corridor would be lighted to allow for
on-going night-time operational and
maintenance requirements. Such lighting
could potentially interfere with wildlife
movement and nocturnal wildlife behavior.
Serious concerns with system reliability and
security would create the need for additional
personnel and round-the-clock monitoring.
The construction and maintenance of the
pipeline corridor would increase the air quality
impacts of the Crown Jewel Project. Fugitive
dust and gaseous emissions from earth
moving equipment would be greater than
those generated by the activities from an on-
site proposal. The traffic on the all-weather
road paralleling the pipeline would generate
additional dust and gaseous emissions, as
well as increase the fuel consumption for
operational and maintenance vehicles and
equipment. Extra electric power would be
needed for tailings and return water pumping,
as well as any lighting installed along the
pipeline corridor.
Additional water would be required to control
dust emissions on the increased footage of
project roads. Water demand could also
increase with the need to reduce the solids
content of the tailings for efficient pumping
over the distance from the mill (approximately
25,000 feet). The water supply reservoir
proposed for Starrem Creek might have to be
moved to a location in Beaver Creek or upper
Myers Creek drainages to support dust
control and pumping needs for the Beaver
Creek Canyon tailings disposal facility and
associated pipeline corridor.
Another option considered for the Beaver
Creek Canyon tailings disposal facility would
be to truck the ore from the mine to an on-
site crushing and grinding facility, from which
the ore would be slurried via a pipeline to a
remote mill located adjacent to the Beaver
Creek Canyon tailings facility. This option
would be similar to the operation employed
by the Homestake Mining Company at the
McLaughlin Gold Mine in California. The
disturbances and impacts associated with the
slurry pipeline would be similar to those
associated with a tailings pipeline.
Another option would be trucking the ore (or
dry tailings) from the mine to the Beaver
Creek Canyon site where both a mill (if ore is
hauled) and tailings disposal facility could be
constructed. Under this option, a haul road
corridor would be constructed; this corridor
would be similar to that of the tailings/ore
slurry pipeline, but the actual sectional
disturbance would be slightly greater, ranging
in width from 1 90 feet to 560 feet
(TerraMatrix, 1996). Assuming that the haul
road would be approximately 25,000 feet in
length, the estimated disturbance associated
with a haul road corridor from the mine to the
off-site mill would range from 131 acres to
386 acres.
An estimated 3,000 tons of ore would be
hauled from the mine to the off-site mill on a
daily basis. Such ore haulage would greatly
increase noise and impacts to air quality.
Traffic impacts would depend primarily on the
type of vehicle selected for transporting the
ore.
If 85-ton mine haulage trucks were used, ore
transportation from the mine to the off-site
mill would require an estimated 35 round
trips per day, on a 24-hour per day basis.
The length of the haul would likely preclude
use of 85-ton trucks however, as these
vehicles are not designed nor generally used
for haulage distances exceeding four to five
miles. If the length of haul necessitated the
use of 25-ton highway trucks, it is estimated
that ore haulage would entail 120 trips per
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-48
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
day on a 24-hour basis (five round trips per
hour).
Additional vehicles would be required for road
watering and maintenance, and for handling
of stockpiled ore at the mill. If 85-ton trucks
were used for the approximate five mile haul,
it is estimated that an additional 60 to 70
tons of fugitive dust would be generated
during each year of mining. This estimate
does not consider air quality impacts from
dumping, stockpiling, and loading of ore at
the processing site. If highway trucks were
used for haulage, it is estimated that an
additional 200 to 240 tons of fugitive dust
would be generated during each year of
mining.
Extra water (estimated at 6 acre feet to 10
acre feet per year) would be required for dust
control. Additional personnel (estimated to
be 8 to 12) would be employed for the ore
haulage. The haul road right-of-way would
be fenced to exclude livestock, wildlife, and
the public. Appropriate drainage and
sediment control mechanisms would be
installed and maintained, but there would be
an increased potential for sedimentation to
Marias, Millard, and Beaver Creeks, especially
during construction. Use of haul trucks and
the associated traffic (water truck, grader,
supervisors' pick-up trucks, etc.) would
increase the noise from the Project over the
Proponent's proposal. The construction and
use of a 25,000 foot-long haul road corridor
to a remote mill would add to the capital,
operational, and reclamation expenditures for
the Crown Jewel Project.
The Beaver Creek Canyon tailings disposal
facility site was considered to be
impracticable and was eliminated from further
study for the following reasons:
• It would require a large, complex
infrastructure as a result of topography
and the site's distance from the mining
operation;
• Water, power, and fuel requirements
would be increased;
• It poses serious security and liability
concerns; and,
• Construction costs (estimated at about
$32,649,000), at approximately five times
the cost of the Marias Creek facility,
would be unreasonably expensive.
Operation, maintenance, and
reclamation/closure costs (approximately
$3,063,404) would be higher, and
mitigation costs (approximately
$1,155,360) for wildlife habitat impacts
would increase.
In addition, construction and operation of a
tailings disposal facility at this site would
have other adverse environmental
consequences, including;
• A substantially increased probability of
pollutant release and risk of impact to
downstream aquatic ecosystems, adjacent
priority wildlife habitats, and nearby public
water supplies; and,
• Additional impacts to vegetation, wildlife,
air quality, noise, traffic, visual aesthetics,
cattle movement, and grazing. Additional
areas of soil would be compacted.
Site B: Pontiac Ridge. This potential tailings
facility site is located in the southern portion
of Section 3, Township 39 North, Range 30
East, and the northern portion of Section 10,
Township 39 North, Range 30 East, as
shown on Figure 2.6, Tailings Disposal
Facility Options. This area is drained by an
unnamed tributary to Beaver Creek and is
located adjacent to the Pontiac Ridge Road.
The embankment for the Pontiac Ridge
tailings facility would have a toe-to-crest
height of approximately 80 feet. A
conceptual layout for a tailings facility in this
area indicates that approximately 170 acres
would be needed for placement of the
impoundment/embankment (this does not
include ancillary facilities and structures). To
provide sufficient storage room for the
projected 9.1 million tons of tailings, it is
estimated that approximately 3.5 million
cubic yards of material would be excavated
from the site, and of that, about 1.5 million
cubic yards would be needed to construct the
tailings embankment. The remaining two
million cubic yards would be placed in a
permanent waste rock disposal area adjacent
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-49
to the site. To contain this material, a 40
acre to 50 acre permanent waste rock
disposal site would be needed.
A review of habitat maps produced in
conjunction with the wildlife HEP analysis
(WADFW, 1995} indicates that construction
of the facility at this site would remove
approximately 30 acres of riparian and wet
meadow habitat. A perennial stream and
associated springs in the northern portions of
the site could be impacted.
The operational logistics, system reliability,
infrastructure needs, security, overall
disturbance, and environmental impacts
associated with a Pontiac Ridge tailings
disposal facility and a pipeline/haul road
corridor would be similar to those associated
with the Beaver Creek Canyon facility, except
that pipeline or haul road corridor would be
about 20,000 feet in length. Accordingly the
disturbance for a tailings or ore slurry pipeline
would range from 78 acres to 211 acres,
while the disturbance for a haul road corridor
would range from 109 acres to 321 acres
(TerraMatrix, 1996). In addition,
construction and operation of a tailings
facility in this area would entail the
displacement of families' residing year-round
in five homes located immediately adjacent to
the site.
The Pontiac Ridge tailings disposal site was
considered to be impracticable and was
eliminated from further study for the
following reasons:
• It would require a large, complex
infrastructure as a result of topography
and the site's distance from the mining
operation;
• Water, power, and fuel requirements
would be increased;
• It poses security and liability concerns;
and,
• Construction costs (approximately
$30,560,663) at four to five times the
cost of the Marias Creek facility, would be
unreasonably expensive. Operation,
maintenance, and reclamation/closure
costs (approximately $2,878,544} would
be higher, and mitigations costs
(approximately $1,085,640) for wildlife
habitat impacts would increase.
In addition, construction and operation of a
tailings disposal facility at this site would
have other adverse environmental
consequences, including:
• A substantially increased probability of
pollutant release and risk of impact to
downstream aquatic systems, adjacent
priority wildlife habitats, and nearby public
water supplies;
• Removal of approximately 30 acres of
riparian and wet meadow habitat; and,
• Additional impacts to vegetation, wildlife,
air quality, noise, traffic, visual aesthetics,
cattle movement, and grazing. Additional
areas of soil would be compacted.
Site C: Pine Chee Meadow. This site is
located in Section 4, Township 39 North,
Range 30 E, as shown on Figure 2.6, Tailings
Disposal Facility Options. This site is
characterized as a relatively flat to gently
sloping pasture area that forms a drainage
divide between Myers Creek and Beaver
Creek.
A conceptual layout for a tailings facility in
this area indicates that approximately 11 5
acres would be needed for placement of the
tailings impoundment and embankment. It is
estimated that about seven million cubic
yards of material would be needed to
construct the embankment. A "ring dike"
type of tailings facility construction would be
used for this site. The toe-to-crest height of
the dike would vary in elevation from
approximately 60 feet to approximately 120
feet. A borrow source (quarry) would be
needed adjacent to the facility to supply the
entire seven million cubic yards, needed for
tailings embankment fill. To obtain this
material, an approximate 80 acre to 120 acre
borrow source (quarry) would be developed,
with the rock material crushed and screened
for the appropriate size and consistency for a
tailings facility embankment.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-50
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A T/VES
January 1997
The operational logistics, system reliability,
infrastructure needs, security, overall
disturbance, and environmental impacts
associated with a Pine Chee Meadow tailings
disposal facility and a pipeline/haul road
corridor would be similar to those associated
with the Beaver Creek Canyon facility. There
would be greater air quality impacts primarily
because of the larger embankment size and
the quarry (with its crushing and screening
activities). The pipeline and haul road
corridor would traverse through pole and
young mature forest and cross several
drainages and associated wetland and riparian
habitat. The actual presence of wetlands at
the Pine Chee Meadow site has not been
verified. The pipeline right-of-way, and the
associated ditches, ponds, and all-weather
road would be fenced to exclude livestock,
wildlife, and the public. This fence would
function as a barrier to livestock and wildlife
movement, and would displace livestock and
wildlife from habitat inside the corridor.
The potential presence of highly permeable
glacial deposits and alluvial sediments on the
site increase the potential for release from the
facility to enter Myers and Beaver Creeks. A
release into either stream has the potential to
impact the brook and rainbow trout fisheries
in that stream and the great blue herons that
feed and nest along Myers Creek.
Construction and operation of a tailings
facility at this location would entail displacing
residents of a home located immediately
adjacent to the site, and the displacement of
property owners who use the Pine Chee
Meadow site on a seasonal basis.
The Pine Chee Meadow tailings disposal
facility site was considered to be
impracticable and was eliminated from further
study for the following reasons:
• It would require a large, complex
infrastructure as a result of topography
and the site's distance from the mining
operation;
• Water, power, and fuel requirements
would be increased;
• It poses serious security and liability
concerns; and,
• Construction costs (approximately
$31,580,648) at approximately five times
the cost of the Marias Creek facility,
would be unreasonably expensive.
Operation, maintenance, and
reclamation/closure costs (approximately
$3,393,512) would be higher, and
mitigation costs (approximately
$1,279,860) for wildlife habitat impacts
would increase.
In addition, construction and operation of a
tailings disposal facility at this site would
have other adverse environmental
consequences, including:
• A substantially increased probability of
pollutant release and risk of impact to
downstream aquatic ecosystems, priority
wildlife habitats, and public water
supplies; and,
• Additional impacts to soils, vegetation,
wildlife, air quality, noise, traffic, visual
aesthetics, cattle movement, and grazing.
Additional areas of soil would be
compacted.
Side-Hill Construction
As a result of comments received on the
draft EIS, a further examination of the side-
hill tailings disposal method was conducted
(TerraMatrix, 1996). This type of
construction would be hindered by the
topography surrounding Buckhorn Mountain.
To represent slopes typical of the area
adjacent to the proposed Crown Jewel
Project, an area identified as Site D: Marias
Side Hill, as shown on Figure 2.6, Tailings
Disposal Facility Options, was selected. The
layout of Site D indicates that the side-hill
tailings facility would involve a disturbance of
about 580 acres and directly impact eight
springs/seeps and three wetlands
(approximately two acres). The Site D side-
hill tailings facility would be approximately
8,000 feet in length and vary in width from
2,500 feet to 4,200 feet (TerraMatrix, 1996).
Construction of a side-hill facility at the site
would eliminate the possibility of using the
south waste rock disposal area. All waste
would be placed north of the pit. Impacts
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-51
from placing all waste north of the pit (Waste
Rock Disposal Area J) would include covering
of the 1.8 acre wetland called the frog pond.
An estimated 38 million cubic yards of
material would be excavated, and 36 million
cubic yards would be needed to construct the
tailings embankment. The remaining two
million cubic yards of material would be
placed in a permanent waste rock disposal
area adjacent to the site. This waste rock
disposal area would cover an area of
approximately 25 acres to 40 acres,
depending on its configuration and
placement.
Construction of the facility at this site would
nearly double the amount of wildlife habitat
impacted by the entire project, and over five
times as much habitat as the proposed tailing
disposal facility. Habitats on the site include
young mature and mature forest; full
replacement of this habitat on the site would
not occur until 100 or more years after
reclamation is completed. Wildlife mitigation
costs for impacts from this facility are
estimated to cost about $1,598,580.
Site D is located south of the proposed
Crown Jewel Project, and the logistics of
tailings delivery would be similar to those
planned for the Marias Creek tailings facility.
The mill could be located in the same area as
proposed by the Proponent and a tailings
pipeline corridor would run approximately
1,000 feet from the mill to the tailings
disposal area. However, in order to deliver
tailings material to the side-hill facility, the
tailings pipeline would have to encircle the
side-hill tailings facility, an estimated length
of 17,000 feet to 18,000 feet.
Construction of a side-hill facility would
involve cutting into the side-hill to provide
sufficient area for the tailings disposal and
would result in a relatively high tailings
embankment that would parallel the Marias
Creek drainage. This structure would be
visible from a number of locations and would
not meet the scenic quality objective of
maximum modification in the short- or long-
term. This type of tailings disposal would
involve a contour placement of tailings with a
linear visual disturbance.
A side-hill tailings disposal facility would
present substantial concerns about
geotechnical stability. The steepness of the
terrain would place severe engineering
constraints on the design and construction of
such a facility. An embankment failure would
cause considerable physical disturbance and
environmental damage to the wetland,
riparian and aquatic resources of Marias
Creek and other drainages down-slope of
such a facility. An extensive surface water
diversion system would be needed above the
facility to keep water from running into the
tailings from areas higher on the slopes.
There would be a potential for erosion on the
cut and fill slopes of the side-hill facility; such
erosion could lead to downstream
sedimentation in Marias Creek, also impacting
water quality, wetlands, riparian areas, and
aquatic habitat and resources. Permanent
drainage channels would be constructed, as
necessary, to route the runoff from the site.
These channels would be designed to safely
pass the 72-hour, 30,000-year intensity and
volume event.
The construction of a side-hill tailings
disposal facility near the Crown Jewel Project
area would substantially add to the
development costs of the Crown Jewel
Project. Construction costs would be
approximately $94,117,125 (12 times the
cost of the Marias Creek facility). Moving 38
million cubic yards of rock material for such a
facility represents an increase of 60% in the
total waste rock to be moved during the
entire eight year life of the Project operations.
This would cause considerably more fugitive
dust and gaseous emissions than any of the
other action alternatives, especially during the
construction period. More earthmoving
equipment would translate to greater noise
and use of energy products. More
construction personnel would be needed.
There would be substantially more employee
and supply traffic on Washington State,
Okanogan County, and Forest roads in and
out of the Crown Jewel Project site during
construction. Reclamation costs
(approximately $4,238,589) would be much
higher, as would mitigations costs
(approximately $1,598,580) for impacts to
wildlife habitat.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-52
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
Given the additional area of disturbance,
similar acreage of wetland impacts,
geotechnical stability considerations, and the
added construction, operational, reclamation,
and liability costs with greater environmental
impacts, side-hill tailings disposal was
considered to be impracticable and was
eliminated from further consideration.
Tailings Disposal Location Options Considered
in Detail
• South Nicholson Tailings Facility
• Lower South Nicholson Tailings Facility
• Marias Tailings Facility
Tailings Disposal Location Options Eliminated
From Further Consideration
• Upper South Nicholson
• North Nicholson
• Myers Creek
• Toroda Creek
• Lower Marias Creek
• Lower Nicholson Creek
• Gold Creek
• Bolster Creek
• Lime Creek
• Ethel Creek
• Strawberry Lake
• Beaver Creek Canyon
• Pontiac Ridge
• Pine Chee Meadow
• Side-Hill Construction
2.2.14 Tailings Embankment Design
and Construction
A number of options exist for the
construction of tailings embankments as
displayed in Figure 2.8, Tailings Dam
Construction Design. The type of design and
construction selected would depend on
permit requirements which include technical
components, safety considerations, logistical
considerations, and economic constraints.
The design (construction and operation) of
the tailings embankments would require the
structure to have sufficient freeboard to
ensure that rainfall events and ground water
capture are safely retained, and do not
threaten the integrity of the structure.
Requirements related to seismic events and
other stability considerations must also be
met.
The primary embankment design would likely
involve a low permeability zone, constructed
of fine grained materials borrowed from
selected till deposits located within the
confines of the impoundment, and an
impermeable liner. For subsequent
construction phases, fine grained material
would be obtained from borrow areas beyond
the impoundment footprint. Coarse grained
materials from rock and till located within the
tailings basin would be used for the
embankment shell zones and coarse filter
materials, along with select waste rock from
the mine. Some borrow areas would provide
fill material. Borrow areas would be located
both within and adjacent, in upland areas, to
the tailings basin.
Figure 2.8, Tailings Dam Construction
Design, depicts three different embankment
construction methods all involving the
construction of a starter dam adequate to
retain the tailings produced during the first
year or two of operations. The methods
differ in the approach used to raise the dam
in order to contain the tailings produced in
subsequent years.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-53
Downstream Embankment Construction
In the downstream method, all new
embankment fill material is placed on the
downstream side away from the tailings.
This method requires large volumes of
embankment material and disturbs a relatively
larger area than the other methods but has a
lower risk of failure. In response to agency
comments, the Proponent has modified their
proposal to include downstream construction
of their tailings embankments.
Upstream Embankment Construction
The upstream method is only appropriate if
the tailings are relatively dense and non-
liquefiable. These conditions can be
accomplished under suitable circumstances
with the thin layer deposition methods
discussed in Section 2.2.12, Tailings
Disposal. In the upstream method, the
strength of the relatively dense, non-
liquefiable tailings is used to support the
raised embankment. This method has the
advantage of reduced embankment material
requirements, and all subsequent raises of the
embankment are contained within the
footprint of the starter dam. A disadvantage
of the upstream method is that the tailings
within the embankment foundation section
may have an increased susceptibility to liquify
if they are saturated and in a relatively loose
state, and are then subjected to severe
seismic ground motions. Colder Associates
work for the Proponent, concluded that the
tailings may liquify under the design
earthquake (Colder, 1996a). Another
difficulty is the placement of a liner system
that incorporates leak detection.
Centerline Embankment Construction
The centerline construction technique is
another method of tailings embankment
construction, but is contingent upon
demonstrating that the tailings in the zone
critical to the structural integrity of the
embankment could be placed and would
remain in an unsaturated state in filling the
lower half of the embankment. The tailings
could not liquify if they remain in an
unsaturated state. The centerline
construction method is basically a
compromise between the upstream and
downstream methods of construction.
Tailings Embankment Design and
Construction Option Considered in Detail
• Downstream Embankment
Tailings Embankment Design and
Construction Options Eliminated From Further
Consideration
• Upstream Embankment
• Centerline Embankment
Prior to constructing any tailings
embankment, design and engineering detail
would be submitted to the WADOE, Dam
Safety Division, and the Forest Service.
These agencies would be responsible for
approval of dam design and construction, as
well as long-term integrity of dams
constructed on National Forest land. These
agencies would be responsible for deciding
whether to issue dam construction and
operating permits. The Forest Service may
defer approval of the dam design and
construction to the Dam Safety Division with
their greater local technical expertise but
would conduct spot checks and yearly safety
checks of the facility.
2.2.15 Tailings Liner System Design
A number of factors must be considered for
the design of a liner system for mine tailings.
These include the following:
• Climatic conditions;
• Physical and chemical characteristics of
the tailings;
• Underlying geologic formations;
• Attenuation characteristics of underlying
geologic formations;
• Hydrogeologic characteristics of the
underlying geologic formations;
• Ground and surface water characteristics
of the site, including the abundance,
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-54
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
quality, proximity, and beneficial uses of
ground and surface waters;
• Methods for placement of the tailings;
and,
• Ability to detect liner leaks.
There are a variety of liner types or
combinations of liners that can be used to
contain mine tailings. The basic components
of a liner system include an overdrain, clay or
synthetic barriers, intermediate drains, and
underdrains. The ability of the liner system
to minimize or prevent seepage of tailings
leachate depends not only on the inherent
characteristics of the engineered system, but
also on the hydraulic loading conditions,
quality of construction, and the underlying
natural geologic material. The principal goal
or objective with regard to tailings deposition
should be to provide protection to the surface
and ground waters of the area from a release
of hazardous or deleterious substances, both
on a short- and long-term basis.
The proposed liner system design for the
tailings facility has been revised by the
Proponent since the release of the draft EIS.
The revised system would be a multi-layer
engineered liner system incorporating two
synthetic liners with an overdrain system for
tailings dewatering, a leak detection system,
and an underdrain for intercepting ground and
surface water within the footprint of the
facility. The Proponent's liner system is
shown on Figure 2.9, Proposed Conceptual
Liner System Configuration.
The liner system design proposed by the
Proponent would be considered as the design
on which environmental analysis would be
conducted. The tailings liner system design
must meet the requirements of the
Washington Metals Mining and Milling
Operations Act.
The ultimate design of a tailings disposal
facility would be based on a containment
analysis which would consider all of the site
specific aspects referred to above. The
objective of the tailings disposal facility
design is to prevent leakage. Ground and
surface water quality monitoring down
gradient of the tailings facility would be
required. If leakage is detected from the
tailings facility, mitigation measures such as
pump-back of ground and/or surface water
into the tailings facility or other appropriate
measures would be taken to stop or mitigate
leakage.
Tailings Liner System Considered in Detail
• Proposed multi-layer engineered system
Tailings Liner Systems Eliminated From
Further Consideration
• None
2.2.16 Employee Transportation
Employees would commute from various
locations (Oroville, Tonasket, Omak,
Republic, etc.) to the mine site and back
every workday.
There are three options for employee
transportation:
• Individual Transportation;
• Car Pooling; and
• Company Busing and/or Van Pooling.
Individual Transportation
This option requires the least effort and cost
to the Proponent. It would put the highest
volume of traffic on the affected roads and
require the most on-site parking. This option
was eliminated from detailed consideration
for the operations phase since this amount of
traffic would negatively affect public safety,
increase wildlife mortality, and decrease the
enjoyment/convenience of other Forest
visitors. As a result, the Proponent has
agreed to provide company transportation.
The magnitude of these adverse impacts
would vary with the access route being used.
Employees would be discouraged from driving
personal vehicles to the mine site.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-55
Car Pooling
Under this option, employees would be
encouraged to car pool to the Crown Jewel
Project. Employees would be free to choose
how they commute, but the Proponent would
offer incentives for carpooling. This option
has been considered for the construction
phase of the Crown Jewel Project but would
be difficult to enforce, particularly if the
program is voluntary. Although traffic loads
may be reduced over individual
transportation, this option was eliminated
from further consideration for the operations
phase for similar reasons to individual
transportation. There would still be effects
on public safety, wildlife, and the enjoyment
and convenience of other Forest visitors.
Company Busing and/or Van Pooling
Busing/van pooling would be provided and
encouraged as primary transportation to the
Crown Jewel Project from locations in or near
Oroville; however, due to management
responsibilities and potential emergency
situations, a limited number of employees
would use individual vehicles and/or car pool
to the Crown Jewel Project site. This option
would be the most costly and time
consuming to manage for the Proponent, but
would result in the lowest level of employee
traffic.
From Chesaw to the mine site there are two
likely routes that could be followed. These
are:
• Chesaw and South Route; and,
• Chesaw and North Route.
Chesaw and South Route
This option would involve the primary
transportation of employees by bus/van from
Oroville. Bus traffic would be on County
Road 9480 through Chesaw to County Road
4895, east on County Road 4895, then north
to the mine site on Forest Road 3575-120.
The location of this route is illustrated on
Figure 2.10, Employee Transport Routes.
Chesaw and North Route
This option would involve the primary
transportation of employees by bus/van from
Oroville. Bus traffic would be on County
Road 9480 to Chesaw, north on County Road
4883, east on Forest Road 3575, then south
to the mine site on either Forest Road 3575-
100 or 150. The location of this route is
illustrated on Figure 2.10, Employee
Transport Routes.
The roads to the north of Chesaw are
unpaved, less traveled and less frequently
maintained than the roads on the south.
More upgrade and maintenance would be
required if this route was selected for
employee traffic. This option was eliminated
from further consideration since the southern
route would require maintaining only one
route instead of two. The northern route is
steeper and would be less safe to use; and
there would be reduced environmental
impacts on deer winter range from
disturbance with the use of one access route
for both supply and employee transportation.
Employee Transport Options Considered in
Detail
• Company Busing and/or Van Pooling
• Chesaw and South Route
• Car Pooling - Construction Phase
Employee Transport Options Eliminated From
Further Consideration
• Individual Transportation
• Car Pooling - Operation Phase
• Chesaw and North Route
2.2.17 Supply Transportation
Operational materials, consisting of fuel,
chemical reagents, and explosives would be
delivered, at least weekly, to the site. These
materials would be shipped by truck from
remote sources (Spokane, Seattle or beyond)
and, where possible, from the Okanogan
Valley. At peak production, approximately
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-56
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
27 weekly trips for bulk materials would be
expected. The high use supplies would have
on-site storage capacity of approximately 42
days.
Listed in Table 2.4, Materials and Supplies.
are the major consumable items that would
be required during operation of the Crown
Jewel Project, as planned for the proposed
action. This list will be similar for all of the
action alternatives, until the start of
reclamation, except Alternative F which
would require about half as many supplies per
year due to reduced production and
Alternative G which would use different
chemicals since it proposes to use a different
milling process. Table 2.5, Consumables
Estimate - Underground Mining, lists the
major consumable items that would be
required during the operation of the Crown
Jewel Project, as planned for Alternative C.
Three supply transport access route options
were considered. These optional routes are:
• Wauconda to Site;
• Oroville to Chesaw to Site; and,
• Tonasket to Chesaw to Site.
Wauconda to Site
This is the supply access route used in the
proposed action. Under this option,
shipments of operating supplies would be
routed through Wauconda via existing year-
round State Highway 20. From Wauconda,
trucks would be routed north approximately
12 miles on County Road 9495 (Toroda
Creek Road) to County Road 9480 (Oroville -
Toroda Creek Road), then continue
approximately 16.2 miles over County Road
TABLE 2.4, MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES
Consumables
Grinding
Steel Balls
Leaching
Sodium Cyanide
Cement
Flocculent
Lead Nitrate
Oxygen
Recovery
Activated Carbon
Hydrochloric Acid
Caustic
Antiscalant
Steel Wool
Refinery
Silica Sand
Anhydrous Borax
Soda Ash
Sodium Nitrate
Cyanide Destruct4
Sulfur Dioxide
Copper Sulfate
Lime
Oxygen
Blasting
Ammonium Nitrate3
General
Fuel3
Miscellaneous
Totals
Daily Use
(tons)
6.38
4.69
18.75
0.19
0.47
5.0
0.30
0.60
0.57
0.09
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.01
4.23
0.15
3.15
7.0
8.75
3,300 gal
Annual Use
(tons)
2,327
1,711
6,844
68
171
1,825
110
220
207
34
0.30
8
16
8
3
1,543
53
1,149
2,555
3,194
1,204,500 gal
Physical
Form
solid
solid briquettes
powder
liquid
powder
liquified gas
granules
liquid
liquid
liquid
solid
solid
solid
solid
solid
liquid
solid
powder
liquid
granules
liquid
Truck Shipments1
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
27.2
Yearly2
117
86
343
4
9
92
6
11
11
2
1
These
materials
combined
would require
only two truck
loads per year
78
3
58
128
160
240
48
1,399
Notes: Daily use based on 3,000 tons of ore per day.
1 . Number of truck shipments based on an average payload of 20 tons.
2. Based on an average production rate of usage requirements for 365 days per year.
3. Based on 33,000 tons/day (ore and waste).
4. Design amount is based on conservative cyanide use estimates. The amount is based on bench tests and
projected mill usage. Actual chemical use may be less.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-57
TABLE 2.5. CONSUMABLES ESTIMATE - UNDERGROUND MINING
Consumables
Grinding
Steel Balls
Leaching
Sodium Cyanide
Cement
Flocculent
Lead Nitrate
Oxygen
Recovery
Activated Carbon
Hydrochloric Acid
Caustic
Antiscalant
Steel Wool
Refinery
Silica Sand
Anhydrous Borax
Soda Ash
Sodium Nitrate
Cyanide Destruct
Sulfur Dioxide
Copper Sulfate
Lime
Oxygen
Blasting
Ammonium Nitrate'
General
Fuel'
Miscellaneous
Totals
Daily Use
(tons)
6.38
4.69
18.75
0.19
0.47
5.0
0.30
0.60
0.57
0.09
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.01
4.23
0.15
3.15
7.0
3.0
330 gal
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
1 20,500 gal
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
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
2
22.7
Yearly2
117
86
343
4
9
92
6
11
11
2
1
These materials
combined would
require only two
truck loads per
year
78
3
58
128
55
24
100
1,130
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.
9480, County Road 4895 and Forest Road
3575-1 20 to the mine site. Trucks carrying
cyanide, fuel, certain chemical reagents, and
explosives would be accompanied by pilot
vehicles from the junction of County Road
9480 and 9495 to the mine site.
Based on current road conditions, this route
has been indicated by Okanogan County as
the best available supply route.
Oroville to Chesaw to Site
Under this option, shipments of operating
supplies would be routed to Oroville via
existing year-round State Highway 97. From
Oroville, trucks would be routed east
approximately 25 miles on County Road
9480 to County Road 4895 and Forest Road
3575-120 to the site. Trucks would pass
through the community of Chesaw. Trucks
carrying cyanide, fuel, certain chemical
reagents, and explosives would be
accompanied by pilot vehicles through
Chesaw to the mine site. County Road 9480
is poorly constructed and has long steep
grades between Oroville and Chesaw.
Sections of County Road 9480 (Molson
Grade) would require major upgrade to handle
regular heavy truck traffic.
Tonasket to Chesaw to Site
Under this option, shipments of operating
supplies would be routed to Tonasket via
existing year round State Highway 20 and
97. From Tonasket, trucks would be routed
northeast for approximately 22 miles on
County Road 9467, which would include
passing through the community of Havillah.
Trucks would join County Road 9480 (several
miles west of Hee Hee Rock) and proceed
through Chesaw to the mine site via County
Road 4895 and Forest Road 3575-120.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-58
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
The disadvantages of this route include the
length of travel on county maintained roads
and the need for trucks to pass through the
communities of both Havillah and Chesaw
and past Sitzmark Ski Area with its
associated traffic congestion. These roads
have long steep grades, are poorly
constructed with inadequate base and would
not stand-up to regular heavy truck haul
especially during the spring break-up. There
is no real advantage for using this route and
several disadvantages; therefore, it was
eliminated from further consideration.
Supply Transport Options Considered in
Detail
• Wauconda to Site
• Oroville to Chesaw to Site
Supply Transport Option Eliminated From
Further Consideration
• Tonasket to Chesaw to Site
2.2.18 Water Use
Water management is a key component of
the Crown Jewel Project.
The majority use of water at the Crown
Jewel Project would be for milling/ore
processing purposes and dust control/
suppression. Other uses would be for
potable use and fire protection.
Water would be needed for construction,
operation, and reclamation activities, and
could be needed for replacing reduced or
eliminated flows in surface drainages and
wetlands. Water use for each alternative is
set forth in Table 2.6, Estimated Water Usage
Requirements.
Approximately one-third of the water use
would be for dust suppression (mainly on
haul roads and at excavation and dumping
sites).
Water volumes used for mine road dust
suppression could be reduced with the use of
dust control chemicals. Depending on
location or use, various dust control
chemicals could be considered, including
calcium or sodium lignosulfonate, Road-Oyl,
Dust-Lock, Cohere, a combination of Road
King and PureWet, Soil Cement, and DO-4 (or
the appropriate product for the road surface).
When applied properly and maintained, these
products would be capable of providing dust
control and lessening the amount of water to
be used at the operation.
The Crown Jewel Project ore processing
facility must be operated as a closed circuit
facility according to federal regulation (40
CFR Part 440, Subpart J). Process water
would be recycled within the process system
rather than allowed to discharge into the
environment. For example, water from the
tailings facility would not be used for dust
suppression. Initially, water would be added
to the ore in the grinding process. Following
grinding and thickening, the ore would be
pumped as a slurry through a series of
leaching tanks. Once the gold is extracted
from the ore, water would be necessary to
pump the tailings to the tailings disposal area.
The ore processing facility would be operated
in three stages:
• Mill start-up (charging the system);
• Normal operation; and,
• Mill close-down.
When the mill is started up, there would be
no water in the circuit; therefore, the most
fresh water would be used during the first
several months of operation. There would be
very little water within the tailings
impoundment during mill start up. At
present, the plan is to pump tailings, in a
slurry, at 45% to 50% solids to the tailings
disposal facility.
Approximately a year after start-up, the
Crown Jewel Project mill would attain
operation status. At this time, the mill fresh
water makeup needs would stabilize. More
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
1
Sr
5'
(6
i
3.
4.
5.
TABLE 2.6, ESTIMATED WATER USAGE REQUIREMENTS1
Alternative
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Construction
(gpm)
0
50- 60
25- 30
50 - 60
50- 60
50 - 60
50- 60
Start-Up
Mine2
(gpm)3
0
112*
60- 90
80- 100
100- 120
80 - 1 00
125-150
Mill
(gpm)
0
268"
2684
268*
2684
1 00 - 200
500 - 1 ,000
Domestic
(gpm)
0
144
15-20
15-20
15
10- 15
15
Normal Operations
Mine2
(gpm)
0
1124
60-90
80 - 100
100- 200
80 - 100
1 25 - 1 50
Mill
(gpm)
0
2911
2914
2914
291"
100- 200
500 - 1 ,000
Domestic
(gpm)
0
15
15-20
15-20
15
10- 15
15
Reclamation
(gpm)
0
50- 60
25- 30
50- 60
50- 60
80- 100
50 - 60
Notes: 1 . Except as noted in (2), water usage requirements estimated by TerraMatrix Inc. The water usage requirements in this table do nc
Estimated Total
Water Usage for
Life-of-Mine6
(acre-feet)
0
5,517 - 5,549°
2,502 - 2,647
3,860-4,134
5,363 - 5,654
7,049 - 10,807
8 420 - 1 5 227
>t include any
.
This water usage estimate assumes no chemical dust suppression methods are initiated at the Crown Jewel Project; simply, the estimate in this
table assumes that road dust suppression would be taken care of solely through the application of water. Water volumes used for mine road dust
suppression could be reduced with the use of dust control chemicals. Depending on location or use, various dust control chemicals could be
considered, including calcium or sodium lignosulfonate, Road-Oyl, Dust-Lock, Coheres, a combination of Road King and PureWet, Soil Cement, and
DO-4 (or the appropriate product for the road surface). When applied properly and maintained, these products would be capable of providing dust
control and lessening the amount of water to be used at the operation.
gpm means gallons per minute.
Estimated Water Usage from the Proponent.
To calculate acre feet for life of mine first calculate acre-fee/year usage for each phase (e.g., gpm x 8.0208 = cu ft/hr) then; (cu ft/hr) + (43,560
sq ft/acre) x (24 hr/day) x (365 days/year) = acre ft/year. Total Life of Mine Acre-Feet = Construction phase usage x years of construction +
start-up phase usage x years of start-up + normal operations phase usage x years of operation + reclamation phase usage x years of reclamation
and pit filling.
If water is pumped from the Starrem Reservoir to aid in filling the mine pit, an additional estimated 2,768 acre-feet of water would be needed for
the pit lake water to reach the 4,850 foot elevation. This pit filling would be accomplished by pumping 330 gallons per minute of water from
Starrem Reservoir for 5.2 years.
Alternative
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Estimated Years of Activity
Construction
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
Start-up
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
Normal
Operations
0
7
3
5
7
15
7
Reclamation
0
1
1
1
1
16
1
I
-------
Page 2-60
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
than half of the total water used in the
process would be continuously recycled
within the mill facility. However, due to
evaporation and the retention of water within
the tailings, fresh water makeup would still
be needed in the process to maintain the
milling process.
Once sufficient water volume is attained in
the tailings disposal facility, water would be
returned from the facility area back to the
mill. Although there would always be minor
water losses in the system such as seasonal
evaporation loss from the facility, fresh water
makeup should stabilize. During the tailings
water recycling phase, seasonal precipitation
would play a role in determining the amount
of water recycled to the mill.
All ponded water in the tailings facility would
be removed prior to reclamation of the
tailings impoundment. As the mill
approaches cessation of operations, more
water would be drawn from the tailings
impoundment and less fresh water would be
added to the system to reduce the size of the
pond on the tailings impoundment. Any
excess water remaining in the tailings facility
at cessation of operations would be allowed
to evaporate or would be made to evaporate
through the use of a sprinkler system.
Water would be necessary for potable use at
the site. Potable water would be used at the
mine office, mill and service complex.
Drinking water would likely come from an off-
site source. Other potable water would come
from an on-site source.
Capacity must be available in the total
system for adequate water storage in the
case of a fire. The Proponent plans to
construct and maintain two water storage
tanks on-site. Approximately 100,000 or
more gallons of water in the main water tank
would be dedicated for fire suppression
purposes.
Water at the Crown Jewel Project must be
managed according to its origin, chemical
constituency and potential use. Water would
be handled separately for the following:
• Mining;
• Milling and Tailings Disposal; and,
• Surface Diversions.
Any water encountered during mining
activities (e.g. excess water from pit
dewatering) would be characterized and
pumped to surface detention ponds or used
as mill make-up water via the tailings disposal
supernate pool. Any water released from
detention ponds must meet the standards of
a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Permit. The Proponent has
applied for this permit from the WADOE
(BMGC, 1996g). Settled material (sediment)
would be periodically removed from the
ponds, characterized, and placed in the
tailings pond, waste rock disposal area, or
other appropriate locations.
The Proponent would operate the tailings
disposal facility and associated water as a
closed-circuit facility as required by federal
regulations. Surface runoff associated with
the mill facilities (roof runoff, parking lots,
etc.) would be routed into detention facilities.
Runoff from undisturbed areas above the mill
facilities and tailings impoundment would be
collected by diversion ditches and routed
around the area affected by tailings and mill
facilities. Runoff from these areas above the
facilities would be directed back into Marias
Creek or Nicholson Creek below disturbed
areas.
2.2.19 Water Supply
The Crown Jewel Project would require
industrial water for construction, ore
processing at the mill, dust suppression,
general utility uses, reclamation and fire-
fighting reserves. Because of the relatively
remote location of the operation, a water
supply system must be developed for the
operation of the Crown Jewel Project.
The Proponent has estimated maximum water
requirements for the Crown Jewel Project and
filed applications to the WADOE to obtain use
of approximately 675 acre-feet per year for
industrial purposes, dust suppression,
domestic use, and closure for a period of
eight to ten years. Water demand would
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-61
vary during the year, with peak demand being
highest during summer months, when dust
suppression requirements and evaporation are
greatest. This projected annual maximum
water requirement would be extended for
another estimated 5.2 years after the
conclusion of mining operations to provide for
filling the post-mining pit lake. Start-up
water needs for construction are estimated to
be approximately 81.5 acre-feet.
Water rights permits from the WADOE would
be required for each use. The water supply
system must be operated so as not to impair
senior water rights or in-stream values. In
assessing the issuance of water rights
permits, WADOE would consider instream
flows, seasonal limitations, basin/stream
closures, and protection of senior rights. In
the event that a water supply system would
require conveyance infrastructure in both the
U.S. and Canada; issuance of both U.S.
water rights permits and Canadian water
licenses may be involved. There is presently
no international agreement governing cross-
boundary water transportation; such an
agreement would require U.S. Congressional
action. Further, in June 1995, the British
Columbia provincial legislature enacted the
Water Protection Act, which prohibits the
removal of water from British Columbia
except in packaged containers smaller than
20 liters. Thus, diversion of water from the
Kettle River in Canada is not legally
practicable.
The evaluation for a water supply system for
the Crown Jewel Project considered the
following design criteria and logistical
considerations:
• Capability of supplying 675 acre-feet of
water per year; and
• Environmental effects (instream flows,
diversion point disturbance, and
conveyance infrastructure).
All possible water sources within the locale
of the Crown Jewel Project were
investigated. These include:
• Ground water on Buckhorn Mountain;
• Ground water from Myers Creek drainage;
• Surface water at the mine site;
• Surface water from Toroda Creek;
• Surface water from Myers Creek;
• Surface water from the Kettle River;
• Existing lakes and reservoirs; and,
• Combination of surface water and ground
water.
Ground Water on Buckhorn Mountain
If technically feasible, the preferred water
source would be ground water at the mine
site. Because of the area's topography, all
other sources of water would require long
pipelines, storage facilities, and other features
which increase capital requirements,
operating complexity, and the potential for
environmental impacts. However,
geohydrological testing indicates that ground
water near the summit of Buckhorn Mountain
is limited by the small recharge area and
bedrock that generally has a low effective
porosity. Wells completed in bedrock near
the proposed mine would be expected to
produce long-term yields between 5 and 15
gallons per minute (gpm). Although such
yields are not sufficient to satisfy the overall
water demands of the Crown Jewel Project,
several wells completed at the mine site
could satisfy construction requirements and
domestic water needs.
Ground Water From Myers Creek Drainage
Usable quantities of ground water were
identified in the Myers Creek drainage, and
several test wells were completed in an
alluvial fan near the lower reaches of Bolster
Creek. Pump tests show that the aquifer is
capable of producing 200 gpm to 500 gpm
on a short-term basis, but the aquifer would
probably not be capable of withstanding
continuous pumping.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-62
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
Surface Water at the Mine Site
Little surface water is available at the mine
site, as there is a relatively small drainage
area to contribute surface water runoff.
Surface Water From Toroda Creek
The Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife (WADFW) has recommended closure
of Toroda Creek to further appropriations,
although seasonal diversions may be allowed
during snowmelt. Water diverted seasonally
from Toroda Creek could be stored in a
reservoir and pumped to the mine site for use
throughout the year. Diversions may also be
possible through purchase of senior water
rights. Approximately seven miles of water
transmission pipeline with a pumping capacity
of approximately 1,000 gpm would be
required to deliver water from Toroda Creek
to the mine site. Such delivery would
probably be made through a pipeline in the
Marias Creek or Nicholson Creek drainages.
Surface Water From Myers Creek
Diversions from Myers Creek could be made
through purchase and transfer of senior water
rights on Myers or Mary Ann Creeks, or junior
water rights that could be exercised during
high flow periods. A reservoir would be
required to store water for use throughout
the year. A transmission pipeline with a
pumping capacity of approximately 1,000
gpm would be required to deliver water from
Myers Creek to the mine site.
Surface Water From Kettle River
Several thousand gallons per minute could
potentially be pumped from the Kettle River
on a continuous basis; however, it is unlikely
that the Proponent would get the necessary
U.S. water right permits or Canadian water
licenses to divert water on a 24-hour, year-
round basis since the Kettle River is already
below desired summer time flows. As such,
a reservoir would still be required to store
water for use throughout the year. A long
pipeline would be needed to deliver water to
the mine site. The closest potential diversion
point is in Canada, and would require a
pipeline approximately 8.5 miles long.
Permitting such a diversion would not be
feasible as previously discussed. The closest
diversion point in the U.S. would require a
transmission pipeline approximately 13 miles
long. Because of the high costs, the
potential for surface disturbance associated
with such a pipeline, and the remaining
necessity for a water-storage reservoir, the
Kettle River is not a practicable source of
water for the Crown Jewel Project. Because
it is unlikely that a suitable upland location
for a reservoir could be located, this option
would not result in any reduction to impacts
to the aquatic environment.
Existing Lakes and Reservoirs
All existing lakes and reservoirs of significant
size are located at least five miles from the
Crown Jewel Project site. Such U. S. lakes
and reservoirs located within an approximate
ten mile radius of the Crown Jewel site
include Beaver Lake, Beth Lake, Lost Lake,
Bonaparte Lake, Strawberry Lake, Muskrat
Lake, Fields Lake, Teal Lake, Kerwin Lake,
Molson Lake, and Sidley Reservoir.
Withdrawal of the quantity of water at the
time required for Crown Jewel Project
operations would likely result in impacts to
aquatic resources and wildlife habitats
through lowering of water levels and
elevation of water temperatures. These
existing reservoirs and lakes are utilized for
recreational and irrigation purposes. Long
pipelines would be needed to deliver water to
the mine site. Permitting such a pipeline and
acquiring easements necessary for such a
pipeline would certainly be complex.
Combination of Surface Water and Ground
Water
Based upon the water supply needs of the
Crown Jewel Project and water availability,
the Proponent proposes to use a water supply
system that would rely upon the utilization of
a combination of new and existing surface
and ground water sources within the Myers
Creek and Toroda Creek watersheds. Water
from the Myers Creek watershed would be
stored in a reservoir because of the seasonal
availability of water (see Section 2.2.20,
Water Storage). The tailings disposal facility
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-63
could also provide surge capacity by storing
and recycling water at the mine site.
The Proponent has proposed a system that
includes:
• Utilization of existing surface and ground
water irrigation water rights during the
irrigation season;
• The diversion of water under new rights
from Myers Creek and Starrem Creek
subject to instream flows on Myers Creek
being met; and,
• Utilization of water collected at the mine
facilities on Buckhorn Mountain.
The Proponent has stated that water
conservation and use efficiencies would be
incorporated into the design and operation of
the Crown Jewel Project.
In simple summary form, the Proponent has
proposed that water would be diverted from
the following sources to fill the Starrem
Reservoir:
• Runoff from Starrem Creek watershed
above the proposed reservoir;
• Diversion of surface water from Myers
Creek based upon a transfer of existing
surface water rights (Leslie Ranch
diversion from Mary Ann and Myers
Creeks) and new rights when flows meet
or exceed base flows established by
WADOE during permitting; and,
• Ground water from the Lost Creek Well
based upon a transfer of an existing right.
The Proponent proposes to collect and use
water from the following mine sources:
• Sumps and a well to remove and use
water from the open pit;
• Domestic ground water well for the
purposes associated with the office,
shops, and other facilities; and,
• Precipitation and runoff incidental to the
tailings disposal facility.
Details on the water right applications and
change applications for the Myers Creek and
Toroda Creek watersheds are set forth in the
following.
Myers Creek Water Right Applications and
Change Applications. The Proponent has
proposed to construct and utilize a water
storage reservoir in Starrem Creek, west of
Myers Creek in Section 3, Township 40
North, Range 30 East, as shown on Figure
2.11, Water Supply Plan. As proposed by
the Proponent, the reservoir would impound
water covering an area of 29 acres and store
580 acre-feet of water; the dam for the
Proponent's reservoir would be an earthen
structure 62 feet high with a crest width of
20 feet. Because the soils underlying the
reservoir site are relatively permeable sands
and gravels, the Proponent plans to line the
reservoir with 40 mil HOPE geomembrane to
minimize leakage. Evaporation from the
reservoir at maximum storage levels is
estimated at 28 inches per year, or a
maximum annual evaporative loss of about
68 acre-feet.
Water from the reservoir would be pumped
on demand to a main head tank at the mine
site through a buried pipeline with a
maximum capacity of 800 gpm. A pump
station (a building to house the pumps) would
be constructed adjacent to the Starrem
Reservoir. Water would be retrieved from the
reservoir, routed to the pump station, and
pumped through a pipeline buried within the
roadbed of Forest Road 3575 (Gold
Creek/Nicholson Creek Road), then along the
side slopes of the Gold Creek drainage to the
head tank at the proposed mine site. The
location of the pump station, the buried
pipeline, and the head tank are shown on
Figure 2.11, Water Supply Plan. It should be
noted that a power line from the mill would
also be buried with the water supply pipeline
to supply electricity to run the pumps and
other associated facilities located at or near
the Starrem Reservoir.
The Proponent has submitted applications to
the WADOE to change seven existing surface
water rights in Mary Ann Creek and allow
this water to flow downstream approximately
3.5 miles to the proposed diversion on Myers
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-64
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIVES
January 1997
Creek. These Mary Ann Creek rights are
presently being used to irrigate 46 acres.
Transferring the point of diversion
downstream would result in additional water
in the reach between the two diversions
during times when water would be used for
irrigation. In past years, these rights have
been regulated in favor of a senior water
right, usually in late July and August. Water
diverted under these rights would be pumped
into Starrem Reservoir during the irrigation
season.
Another of the Proponent's water right
applications requests to change a ground
water certificate presently being used for
irrigation to industrial, mining, and d"St
control purposes. The location of this ground
water source, known as the Lost Creek Well,
is shown on Figure 2.11, Water Supply Plan.
This existing certificate authorizes the
seasonal use of 400 gpm, or approximately
156 acre-feet per year, for the irrigation of
120 acres; this certificate has a priority date
of 1974. This right is also subject to
regulation in favor of senior surface water
rights. The water withdrawn under this right
would be pumped via a buried pipeline to the
Starrem Reservoir during the irrigation
season. This pipeline would be buried in the
roadbed crossing Myers Creek, then north in
the roadbed of County Road 4883, east a
short distance under Forest Service Road
3575 (Gold Creek/Nicholson Creek Road),
then north on the west side of Myers Creek
to the Starrem Reservoir.
Applications for new water rights have also
been submitted by the Proponent for water
from both Myers Creek and Starrem Creek.
The application from Myers Creek requests
six cubic feet per second (cfs) of water to be
withdrawn from Myers Creek during the
spring runoff period known as spring freshet.
This water would be stored in the Starrem
Reservoir until needed at the mine site.
All authorizations for new water rights along
Myers Creek would be subject to in-stream
flows on Myers Creek recommended through
the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology
(IFIM) process (see Section 3.12.10, Instream
Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM), and
Section 4.11.7, Instream Flow Incremental
Methodology (IFIM)).
The Proponent has applied for diversion of up
to 20 cfs from Starrem Creek since the
Starrem Reservoir embankment would block
surface water runoff in the Starrem Creek
drainage catchment area from reaching Myers
Creek. The Proponent has filed for this water
quantity based on projected runoff from a
major storm event. This quantity of water
does not reflect the normal water flow in
Starrem Creek. Again, during Crown Jewel
Project construction, operations, and
reclamation (including filling of the post-
mining pit), Starrem Creek runoff water
would be impounded by Starrem Reservoir
until needed at the mine. When the water is
no longer needed for pit filling and other
reclamation activities, the Starrem Reservoir
would be removed and the site of the
reservoir reclaimed by the Proponent.
All authorizations for change issued by
WADOE on Myers Creek, its tributaries, and
other sources would make a determination of
the extent and historical use of the water
rights to be changed. Authorizations would
be limited to water beneficially consumptively
used under existing rights. No adverse
impacts to Myers Creek or impairment to
existing water rights would be allowed by
WADOE as a result of any change
authorization.
Toroda Creek Water Right Applications. The
tailings disposal facility as proposed by the
Proponent would be located entirely in the
Marias Creek drainage, which is tributary to
Toroda Creek and would cover approximately
101 acres between two impounding dams.
Water would pool above settled tailings
material or migrate to the overdrain system.
Water would then be recycled to the mill
from ponded surface water and via a liner
overdrain system that would be designed to
foster the consolidation of the tailings
material through the operational process
known as thin-layer deposition (see Section
2.2.12, Tailings Disposal). The tailings
facility would be operated to minimize
ponding of water which would minimize
evaporation from the pond of water that
would form at the northern end of the facility.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-65
Sufficient water volume would be maintained
for barge pump operation.
The tailings disposal facility would also be
able to store and recycle some water pumped
from the Starrem Reservoir, water routed to
the tailings facility from the mine pit
dewatering system or diversion/collection
system, or water from runoff in the tailings
facility disposal area. As explained in Section
2.2.18, Water Use, the tailings disposal
facility would be an integral part of the water
balance management for the Crown Jewel
Project. To be conservative and account for
potential seasonal variations, the Proponent
has submitted to WADOE a reservoir
application for the tailings disposal facility
that requests maximum water storage of 360
acre-feet.
With Application No. G4-31611, the
Proponent has requested up to 400 gpm, or
approximately 240 acre-feet per year of
water from the mine pit sump and in-pit
ditches. The request was submitted to the
WADOE as a ground water application; but,
for a short time early in the life of the mine,
this water would be intercepted surface
water runoff. After the mine pit intersects
the ground water table, the water would be
considered ground water, and the application
was submitted as such by the Proponent.
Water from the mine pit sumps and in-pit
ditches would be pumped or routed to the
tailings facility reservoir for storage and use.
Water of suitable quality from the mine pit
sump and in-pit ditches which is not needed
for make-up water purposes for the mill could
be released to the surface through approved
permits.
With Application No. G4-31612, the
Proponent has requested up to 100 gpm, or
approximately 50 acre-feet per year of water,
that could be intercepted by an underdrain
system that would be installed underneath
the lined tailings disposal facility. Originally,
prior to the recent decision by the Proponent
to install a double synthetic liner system with
leak detection, water from the underdrain
was proposed to be collected in a lined
collection pond or tank system that would be
constructed in Marias Creek down-gradient of
the tailings facility. The original plan was to
collect this water and pump it back to the mill
for make-up water or to the tailings facility
reservoir for storage. With the decision to
install a double synthetic liner system for the
tailings facility, current plans by the
Proponent are not to retain this underflow
water but to allow it to flow down Marias
Creek. However, with their proposal, the
option would be available to route this water
into the collection pond for mill make-up
water.
The Plan of Operations would include one
dewatering well, which would be located
within the actual confines of the north pit
area. The well would be installed and used
during construction, then idle until late in the
operation of the mine pit. The Proponent
has filed an application with the WADOE
requesting 50 gpm from this dewatering
water and proposed this water to be released
or to be used for general purposes at the
mine, such as dust control, or pumped to the
tailings disposal facility for storage and use in
the mill as make-up water.
The Proponent has also filed an application
with the WADOE to use up to 25 gpm from a
well installed near the mill facility for
domestic, non-potable water. Bottled
domestic drinking water may be supplied to
the Crown Jewel Project from an off-site
source.
Water Supply Options Considered in Detail
• Combination of surface water and ground
water
Water Supply Options Eliminated From
Further Consideration
• Ground water on Buckhorn Mountain
• Ground water from Myers Creek drainage
• Surface water at the mine site
• Surface water from Myers Creek
• Surface water from the Kettle River
• Existing lakes and reservoirs
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-66
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
2.2.20 Water Storage
The Proponent has proposed a water storage
reservoir to store water to provided sufficient
water for operations during periods when no
diversions are taking place and for limited
drought periods. Given the water supply
discussion in Section 2.2.19, Water Supply,
there appears to be no practical alternative to
a water storage reservoir; therefore, this
section examines potential sites for the
purpose of storing water for the Crown Jewel
Project.
For the purpose of storing water for the
Crown Jewel Project, all potential sites in the
locale of the Crown Jewel Project were
investigated. Potential sites were identified
by a review of USGS topographic maps and
were initially selected on the basis of
sufficient on/off stream storage of at least
500 acre-feet of water. Technical
considerations for siting included the
proximity to water sources and the Crown
Jewel Project site, storage capacity, and
suitability of the local geology for reservoir
construction and operation. Environmental
concerns focused on the presence of
wetlands and the potential impacts to the
aquatic environment.
The following eight potential water storage
sites (including using the tailings disposal
facility as a water storage reservoir) were
identified:
• Site 1 - Starrem Reservoir;
• Site 2 - County Road 9480;
• Site 3 - County Road 4887;
• Site 4 - Strawberry Lake;
* Site 5 - Forest Land Reservoir;
• Site 6 - Lower Myers Creek;
• Site 7 - Upper Myers Creek; and,
• Site 8 - Tailings Impoundment Reservoir.
The location of these potential water storage
sites are shown on Figure 2.12, Water
Storage Reservoir Locations.
The final design and construction of any
reservoir would be subject to the regulations
of the Dam Safety Division of the WADOE.
Requirements related to seismic events and
other considerations must be met by the
proposed design. In addition, the water
storage reservoir must be designed and
constructed to have an emergency spillway
and/or sufficient freeboard to ensure that
rainfall events are safely retained or passed
and do not threaten the integrity of the
structure.
Site 1 - Starrem Reservoir
Site 1 is located in Section 3, Township 40
North, Range 30 East. Located at the
southern end of the Starrem Creek drainage,
the topography of this site forms a natural
basin. The basin slopes to the south and
could provide approximately 580 acre-feet of
storage. The Proponent conducted
geophysical and geotechnical investigations
of this site that indicate the construction of a
reservoir facility is technically feasible,
although the presence of permeable outwash
deposits near the surface indicates the need
for an engineered liner to eliminate excessive
reservoir leakage. To supply this facility, it is
proposed to withdraw water directly from
Myers Creek, divert from Starrem Creek and
use piped water from private wells.
Any facilities constructed at this site would
impact approximately 0.57 acre of wetlands
within the reservoir footprint. An additional
temporary impact to 0.08 acre of wetland
immediately adjacent to Myers Creek would
be needed to withdraw water from Myers
Creek. A water delivery pipeline from this
reservoir would be routed to the mine site to
avoid impacts to wetlands identified along the
Gold Creek drainage. The pipeline would be
approximately 24,000 feet long and have a
maximum elevation difference of 2,367 feet.
The reservoir, topsoil stockpile and water
supply pipeline/pumphouse total about 49
acres.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-67
The Starrem Reservoir site is the one
proposed by the Proponent for use on the
Crown Jewel Project.
Site 2 - County Road 9480 Reservoir
Site 2 is located in Section 9, Township 39
North, Range 30 East, southwest of County
Road 9480. The site is an open-ended,
northeast trending valley. A reservoir at this
site would require two dams, one at each end
of the valley. This site would be capable of
storing up to 500 acre-feet of water, and
geologic conditions appear favorable for
reservoir construction. Water could be
withdrawn from Myers Creek and piped to
the reservoir for storage.
The reservoir and the associated water supply
pump station and pipeline for this option
would physically disturb approximately 55
acres. The water supply pipeline from the
reservoir to the mine site would be
approximately 34,000 feet long and have an
estimated maximum elevation difference of
1,420 feet.
Initial investigations revealed that
approximately five acres of wetlands within
the valley would be directly impacted by
reservoir construction. In addition, a large
number of right-of-way easements would be
required for a water delivery pipeline to the
site. Because of the greater wetlands impact
and the difficulty in securing right-of-way
easements, this option was eliminated from
further study.
Site 3 - County Road 4887 Reservoir
Site 3 is located in Section 17, Township 39
North, Range 30 East, east of Myers Creek
and southwest of County Road 4887. The
site would be capable of storing at least 500
acre-feet of water. Water could be
withdrawn from Myers Creek and piped to
the reservoir for storage.
The reservoir and the associated water supply
pump station and pipeline for this option
would physically disturb approximately 75
acres. The water supply pipeline from the
reservoir to the mine site would be
approximately 42,000 feet long and have an
estimated maximum elevation difference of
1,320 feet.
A review of the site reveals that
approximately 30 acres of wetlands would be
impacted by the construction of the reservoir.
Additionally, this site is far removed from the
Crown Jewel Project site, and would require
a large number of right-of-way easements for
the water delivery pipeline. Because of the
greater wetlands impact and the difficulty in
securing right-of-way easements, this option
was eliminated from further study.
Site 4 - Strawberry Lake Reservoir
Site 4 is located at Strawberry Lake in
Section 8, Township 40 North, Range 30
East. Strawberry Lake lies in a wide, shallow
depression and was formed by the
construction of an earthen berm. The lake
could be expanded to hold approximately 550
acre-feet of water by constructing a new dam
downstream of the existing structure. The
Proponent examined the geologic and
geophysical characteristics of the site and
found that the site would be suitable for an
expanded reservoir. Water could be
withdrawn from Myers Creek, but would
have to be pumped to the reservoir for
storage.
The reservoir and the associated water supply
pump station and pipeline for this option
would physically disturb approximately 55
acres. The water supply pipeline from the
reservoir to the mine site would be
approximately 36,000 feet long and have an
estimated maximum elevation difference of
1,000 feet; however, the delivery pipeline
would be routed across Myers Creek wherein
the maximum elevation would be about
2,300 feet.
Approximately 15 acres of wetlands that
presently occur around the perimeter and at
the southern end of Strawberry Lake would
be inundated if the level of the lake were
raised. Additionally, this site is far removed
from the Crown Jewel Project site and would
require a number of right-of-way easements
for the water delivery pipeline. Because of
the greater wetlands impact and the difficulty
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-68
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
in securing right-of-way easements, this
option was eliminated from further study.
Site 5 - Forest Land Reservoir
Site 5 is located in Section 1, Township 40
North, Range 30 East, at the head of a
westward-trending drainage that merges with
Myers Creek. This site would be capable of
storing 500 acre-feet of water. The
Proponent examined the geologic and
geophysical characteristics of the site and
found that the site would be suitable for a
reservoir. Water could be withdrawn from
Myers Creek but would have to be pumped to
the reservoir for storage.
The reservoir and the associated water supply
pump station and pipeline for this option
would physically disturb approximately 50
acres. The water supply pipeline from the
reservoir to the mine site would be
approximately 20,000 feet long and have an
estimated maximum elevation difference of
800 feet.
Because of its proximity to the mine site and
favorable geologic conditions, Site 5 was
originally the site preferred by the Proponent.
However, the site was found to have
approximately five acres of a spruce bog, an
important type of wetland habitat, that would
be directly impacted by the construction of a
reservoir at this location. Because a larger,
higher quality wetland would be impacted
and no reduction in environment cost would
be expected, this option was eliminated from
further study.
Site 6 - Upper Myers Creek Reservoir
Site 6 is located on Myers Creek in Section 5,
Township 39 North, Range 30 East. A
reservoir could be located at this site by
construction of a dam across Myers Creek.
The reservoir and the associated water supply
pump station and pipeline would physically
disturb approximately 50 acres. The water
supply pipeline from the reservoir to the mine
site would be approximately 46,000 feet long
and have an estimated maximum elevation
difference of 1,620 feet. A dam at this
location would present an obstruction to fish
passage, and a reservoir at this site would
directly impact approximately eight acres of
wetlands and more than 0.5 mile of the
Myers Creek stream channel. For these
reasons, this option was eliminated from
further study.
Site 7 - Lower Myers Creek Reservoir
Site 7 is located on Myers Creek in Section 3,
Township 40 North, Range 30 East. As with
Site 6, a reservoir could be located at this
site by construction of a dam across Myers
Creek. The reservoir and the associated
water supply pump station and pipeline for
this option would physically disturb
approximately 55 acres. The water supply
pipeline from the reservoir to the mine site
would be approximately 26,000 feet long and
have an estimated maximum elevation
difference of 2,400 feet. Concerns regarding
fish passage and direct impacts to
approximately 30 acres of wetlands
eliminated this option from further study.
Site 8 - Tailings Impoundment Reservoir
Under this option, the tailings disposal facility
would be used for total process water
storage. The logistics, size, and construction
requirements to include sufficient volume for
water storage above and beyond the storage
requirements for tailings and storm water
make this option infeasible. Additionally, use
of the tailings impoundment as a reservoir
eliminates the use of thin layer deposition as
a tailings disposal method. Part of the reason
for a water storage reservoir is to have water
available for dust control, domestic and
general utility use, and fire fighting reserves;
given the closed-circuit requirements (zero
discharge) for water used in precious metal
milling, such "external" uses of water from a
tailings impoundment reservoir would be
prohibited. Given such limitations, a reservoir
separate from the tailings impoundment
reservoir would still need to be constructed.
Therefore, this method was eliminated from
further consideration.
Water Storage Options Considered in Detail
• Site 1 - Starrem Reservoir
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-69
Water Storage Options Eliminated From
Further Consideration
• Site 2 - County Road 9480 Reservoir
• Site 3 - County Road 4887 Reservoir
• Site 4 - Strawberry Lake Reservoir
• Site 5 - Forest Land Reservoir
• Site 6 - Upper Myers Creek Reservoir
• Site 7 - Lower Myers Creek Reservoir
• Site 8 - Tailings Impoundment Reservoir
2.2.21 Water Balance
During the operation of the mine and mill, the
Proponent would manage water that would
include monitoring of the site's water balance
to ensure that an adequate supply of water is
available for milling, dust control, and other
miscellaneous needs. Schematic layouts
depicting the Crown Jewel Project operational
water balances for dry, average and wet
years are shown on the following figures:
• Figure 2.13, Operational Water Balance
Schematic - Average Year
• Figure 2.14, Operational Water Balance
Schematic - Dry Year
• Figure 2.15, Operational Water Balance
Schematic - Wet Year
The Proponent has filed water right
applications with the WADOE for mining and
milling use (see Section 2.2.19, Water
Supply).
Water demand at the site would vary
annually, seasonally, and even daily
throughout the life of the operation. As such,
one of the important responsibilities for the
Proponent's supervisors and engineers, in
particular the mill supervisor, would be to
continually be aware of the Crown Jewel
Project water balance. Items that would be
monitored are:
• Precipitation and evaporation data;
• Snow pack water content;
• Runoff volumes;
• Pumping rates (water from Starrem
Reservoir; tailings discharge, tailings
return water, etc.);
• Level of water in tailings water pool,
Starrem Reservoir, and sediment retention
ponds;
• Water volumes in tailings water pool,
Starrem Reservoir, and sediment retention
ponds; and,
• Tailings slurry densities.
Two key components of the site's water
balance would be the Starrem Reservoir and
the tailings disposal facility. To a lesser
extent, the main head tank at the mine would
be an important part of the water balance.
The Starrem Reservoir would be filled as
quickly as possible during the spring runoff,
known as spring freshet, in the Myers Creek
watershed and would be maintained as full as
possible under water rights authorized by the
WADOE. Water demand at the mine and mill
is expected to exceed the Starrem Reservoir
inflows beginning in July of each year;
therefore, the Proponent would begin to
deplete the stored water. The net withdrawal
of water from the Starrem Reservoir would
continue until the filling cycle begins the
following year.
Water withdrawals from the Starrem
Reservoir for use at the mine and mill would
vary according to mine and mill operational
needs, weather, and water conditions at the
mine site, specifically the re-cycle water
volumes available from the tailings disposal
facility for ore processing activities. For
example, if Starrem Reservoir water is not
needed at the mine or mill, then pumping to
the main head tank could be discontinued.
The water balance for the tailings disposal
facility would vary as previously described in
Section 2.2.18, Water Use. Water volumes
in the tailings pond would deviate; and, as
such, water recycled from the tailings facility
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-70
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIVES
January 1997
would be used to minimize the need for water
from the Starrem Reservoir. Because the
tailings disposal facility would be a closed-
circuit facility, the WADOE would require
excess storage capacity for water during
operations through sufficient embankment
freeboard to handle the water volumes that
would be expected from the precipitation and
associated runoff from major storm events.
The main head tank would function as a
"surge" control for water needed at the mine
and mill. Water for the mill would be drawn
from the mine head tank (this would
supplement decant water from the tailings
disposal facility). Water for dust suppression
and fire fighting would also be drawn from
the main head tank.
2.2.22 Power Supply
Three options were considered for power
supply:
• Surface power line from Oroville;
• Underground (buried) power line from
Oroville; and,
• On-site generators.
Surface Powerline
The Proponent has negotiated a power supply
agreement for the Crown Jewel Project with
Okanogan Public Utility District (PUD). Part
of the agreement would be to re-construct an
existing distribution/transmission line that
runs from Oroville to Chesaw. The line from
Oroville to Chesaw would follow an existing
Okanogan PUD right-of-way (mostly along the
existing powerline). From Chesaw, electric
power would be brought to the mine and mill
site via a transmission line constructed up the
Ethel Creek drainage. Bringing the
transmission line up Lime Creek was
considered but eliminated because of the
rugged, undeveloped terrain in the Lime Creek
drainage. There is an existing road up Ethel
Creek. The exact alignment of the
transmission line in Ethel Creek would be
determined as part of the Special Use Permit
from the Okanogan PUD which must be
approved by the Forest Service. The line
must meet Forest Service scenery standards,
and power poles must discourage raptor use
and minimize raptor electrocutions. The
power line would be removed from Forest
lands and from private lands between
Chesaw and the mine site after completion of
mining operations and mill decommissioning.
Underground (Buried) Powerline
Underground construction or buried power
lines are frequently used with distribution
lines that operate at 25 kV or less. At these
relatively low voltages, the problems of
electrically insulating each phase and of
dissipating the heat generated by the
conductors, are typically not a concern. With
lines of greater voltage, such as the Crown
Jewel transmission line, the material costs,
construction costs, and the heating of the
cable become greater concerns.
Two types of underground transmission
technologies would be available for the
Crown Jewel transmission line:
• Solid dielectric cables; and,
• Pipe type cable system.
Solid dielectric underground lines are
insulated with polyethylene, covered with
metal foil and a Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC)
jacket. Three cables are required, one per
phase, and each cable is placed in a plastic
duct. No dielectric fluid or gas and,
therefore, no pumping plants are required for
the solid dielectric cables. However, this
type of system has not been used much in
the United States, due to the high costs,
technological limitations and the relatively
short-lived life span of the underground line.
With pipe type cable systems, the three-
phase conductors are insulated with oil
impregnated paper, which is covered with
metal foil, and pulled into a steel pipe filled
with insulating and cooling fluid. Pumps and
pressurizing stations are required to circulate
either the oil or nitrogen for cooling.
The design of underground transmission lines
requires that the line be placed in a thermal
backfill to transfer the heat generated by the
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-71
cables in the earth. The backfill also provides
a protective bed for the pipe since damage to
the pipe wold be expensive and time
consuming to repair. The thermal backfill
material, must be a very clean sand. The
typical design for underground transmission
lines would require three feet of thermal
backfill, which would replace the
approximately three feet of natural soil
material removed from the trench. The
removed soil material would be placed either
on the right-of-way or transported to a
designated fill area. For each one mile of
line, there would be approximately 1,750
cubic yards of thermal backfill and excess
earth.
Underground construction would require that
the easement be cleared, trenched for cable
installation, and backfilled. In the event of
rupture, the pipe type cable could leak oil
underground and cause damage to land and
water resources. Repairs of such ruptures,
while infrequent, would require extensive
excavation and reprocessing of the cable
system to place the system back in service.
This represents an environmental risk, not
associated with above ground construction.
At points where an underground line
connects to overhead lines, and at
substations, the three phases must be
attached to a special termination structure.
These structures are similar to a conventional
overhead steel structure, but with a greater
diameter and with substantial equipment on
each arm. The pipe type system would
require several pumping and pressurizing
facilities along the underground right of way.
The average size for a pumping facility is 40
feet in length, ten feet in width, and ten feet
in height. Additional impacts would result
from increased excavation, road construction,
and the need for continuous clearing along
the right-of-way.
The right-of-way required for an underground
transmission line is slightly narrower than
that of a comparable overhead line.
However, the entire right-of-way width and
the length of line would be disturbed to
facilitate construction and maintenance of the
underground line. This would impact the
soils, surface water, vegetation, and wildlife
habitat.
Although underground lines are immune to
the effects of weather or lightning, they are
susceptible to damage from geologic or
subsoil instabilities and to mechanical failure
of their cooling systems. A failure in an
underground system often results in a power
outage of several days or even weeks since
failures are difficult to locate and repair. The
life of underground lines is approximately 30
years for pipe type cable, as compared to
more than 70 years for aboveground lines.
Due to the environmental risk associated with
oil filled pipes housing the electrical lines, the
amount of land disturbance required for
installation and maintenance considerations,
this option was eliminated from further study.
On-site Generators
The option of using large diesel generators to
provide electric power to the site was
considered but eliminated. Any on-site
generators must be designed to meet the
electric loads of the mill and other facilities.
It is estimated that an additional 4,500 to
5,000 gallons of diesel fuel would need to be
transported daily to the site to meet
generator needs. Air quality limits would
have to be considered and met. This option
is not environmentally desirable since the
Okanogan PUD has available power, thus it
was eliminated from further consideration.
Power Supply Options Considered in Detail
• Surface power line from Oroville
Power Supply Options Eliminated From
Further Consideration
• Underground (buried) power line from
Oroville
• On-site generators
2.2.23 Fuel Storage
Storage at the Crown Jewel Project site
would be needed for approximately 190,000
gallons of diesel fuel and gasoline besides
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-72
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
storage for other miscellaneous petroleum
products. This is enough fuel to operate for
approximately seven weeks.
Fuel storage on-site can be accomplished in
either of two methods:
• Above Ground Tanks; or
• Underground Tanks.
Above Ground Tanks
All tanks would be enclosed within lined
berms sized to contain the contents of the
largest tank with an added allowance of 10%
in the event of a spill or tank rupture. If an
above ground tank leaked, it would be easier
to correct and clean-up. Conversely, this
system could be more vulnerable to fire,
explosion, damage or sabotage than an
underground system.
Underground Tanks
Underground storage tanks have historically
been subject to corrosion and leakage. New
laws regulating underground tanks require
corrosion protection and a leak detection
system. If operated and maintained properly,
there would be minimal environmental risk.
Both underground and above ground storage
tanks can be installed, operated, and removed
without presenting a large risk of
environmental damage. Because above
ground tanks were proposed by the
Proponent, they will be the only fuel storage
option considered in this document.
Fuel Storage Options Considered in Detail
• Above Ground Tanks
Fuel Storage Options Eliminated From Further
Consideration
• Underground Tanks
2.2.24 Sanitary Waste Disposal
Two options were considered for disposal of
sanitary waste. They are:
• Septic Tank - Leach Field; or
• Package Sewage Disposal Plant.
Septic Tank - Leach Field
Sanitary waste would be treated and
disposed of through a septic tank-leach field
system. The waste disposal system would
be connected to fixed Crown Jewel Project
facilities, such as the mill facility, shop
complex, and administration building.
Sanitary wastes from remote sites would be
collected in a system of portable chemical
toilets which would be periodically cleaned by
a contractor. The wastes would be
transported off-site for disposal by the
contractor.
Package Sewage Disposal Plant
An option to a septic tank-leach field system
is the use of a package sewage disposal
plant. Package sewage disposal plants are
widely used on remote sites unsuited to
septic and leach field systems. The principal
advantages of these systems are that they
can treat larger quantities of waste in
relatively small areas. They are generally
more expensive to install and operate than
septic tank-leach field systems, require a
discharge permit, and must be more closely
monitored than a septic tank-leach field
system. Because either method of sanitary
waste disposal would meet both state and
local standards and protect water quality,
both were considered in detail.
Sanitary Waste Option Considered in Detail
• Septic Tank - Leach Field System
• Package Sewage Disposal Plant
Sanitary Waste Option Eliminated From
Further Consideration
• None
2.2.25 Solid Waste Disposal
There are two options considered for solid
waste disposal. They are:
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-73
• On-Site Solid Waste Disposal; or
• Off-Site Solid Waste Disposal.
Estimates for solid waste to be generated at
the Crown Jewel Project operation are as
follows:
• Construction; four to five
pounds/day/employee;
• Operations; two to three
pounds/day/employee; and,
• Reclamation; 2 to 30
pounds/day/employee.
Approximately three to four
pounds/day/household individual would be
generated by the newcomers and their
families (Czarnowsky, 1996).
On-Site Solid Waste Disposal
All clean solid waste that is not recyclable,
would be disposed of on-site in a landfill.
The option of disposing of solid waste on
federal land was considered and eliminated
from study. This was based on current policy
discouraging such disposal as well as
environmental concerns. Any disposal of
clean solid waste on non-Forest lands would
have to meet appropriate State of
Washington and Okanogan County
regulations.
Off-Site Solid Waste Disposal
At the time of Project decommissioning, all
clean solid waste, except concrete
foundations, that is not recycled, would be
disposed of in an approved county landfill.
Solid Waste Options Considered in Detail
• Off-Site Solid Waste Disposal
Solid Waste Options Eliminated From Further
Consideration
• On-Site Solid Waste Disposal
2.2.26 Reclamation
A summary of the reclamation plans for the
Crown Jewel Project are presented in Section
2.11, Reclamation Measures, and are an
integral part of each action alternative. The
Proponent's reclamation plan is set forth in
the Crown Jewel Joint Venture Project. Battle
Mountain Gold Company and Crown
Resources Corporation. Reclamation Plan,
August 1993, as revised November 1993,
December 1995, and July 1996.
It was decided to treat much of the
reclamation program and techniques as
management requirements and mitigation
measures rather than component options for
the Crown Jewel Project alternatives.
Various agencies such as the Forest Service,
BLM, and WADNR would be required, under
their regulations, to approve (or deny) the
reclamation plans for the Crown Jewel
Project. Each of these agencies (either jointly
or separately), would require some type of
reclamation performance security. (See
Section 2.14, Performance Securities).
Reclamation (revegetation) of the tailings
disposal facility is a primary consideration of
the overall reclamation program. Various
methods and approaches have been
suggested to provide final reclamation, such
as:
• Cap with impermeable material;
• Install a capillary break between the
tailings and the topsoil;
• Apply topsoil only;
• Reclaim as a grassland;
• Plant trees and shrubs randomly in clumps
(250 trees/acre); and,
• Plant trees randomly over the entire site
(250 trees per acre and 400 shrubs per
acre).
Even though the tailings material has been
predicted to be suitable for reclamation
purposes, the Proponent proposes to
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-74
CHAPTER 2 • AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
construct test plots, during operation,
consisting of actual tailings material to
determine what the actual conditions would
be and to provide data to develop a suitable
and successful revegetation program.
The options that are analyzed within this
document involve the final disposition of the
mine pit area and the associated placement
of waste rock. Items considered include the
following:
• No Backfilling;
• Partial Direct Backfilling;
• Complete Backfilling;
• Slopes of Waste Rock Disposal Areas;
• Segmental Reclamation; and,
• Pit Highwall Blasting.
No Backfilling
The north zone of the mine pit would be left
open after operations and would be allowed
to fill with water until it overflows into a
tributary of Nicholson Creek through a set of
detention ponds, if necessary.
Partial Direct Backfilling
Backfilling a portion of the north zone of the
mine pit could result in achieving drainage
from the pit area and eliminating a lake from
forming in the final mine pit.
This option would involve sequencing of
mining such that waste rock produced from
the south part of the pit would be
sequentially placed or backfilled into the north
portion of the pit that has been mined out.
This technique could reduce the flexibility of
the Proponent in the control of ore grades
during processing. However, instituting
sequencing would reduce the area of
disturbance needed for waste rock disposal
and eliminate haulback of backfill (waste
rock) material at the end of mining. The
option of direct backfilling would require that
the ore in the north zone be completely
extracted while waste rock is still being
removed in the south zone. To haul material
from the south pit to backfill the north pit, an
external haul road would need to be
constructed. This would disturb an additional
seven to eight acres and increase waste rock
handling by about 0.17 million cubic yards.
Approximately, six million cubic yards of
waste rock would be required for backfill of
the north zone of the final mine pit to achieve
post-mining drainage. Equipment necessary
for a partial backfilling operation would
remain the same as required for the proposed
action.
Backfilling the north zone of the final pit may
preclude potential future utilization of
currently sub-economic mineralization and
any later extraction of possible ore contained
below the present economic reserves.
Complete Backfilling
As an option to permanent surface waste
rock disposal, complete backfilling of the pit
area would reduce the post-mining scenic and
land use impacts of the pit. Complete
backfilling of a mined area is primarily used at
surface coal mines where the mineral exists
in relatively well-defined layers. Waste rock
is removed from the active mine area and
deposited directly into an adjacent mined-out
area, thereby minimizing costly double
handling.
Hard rock open pit mines, such as proposed
for the Crown Jewel Project, are historically
not backfilled for both operational and
economic reasons. Surface storage of the
waste rock would first be required.
Replacement of waste rock in the pit after
completion of mining would increase capital
costs, fuel use, and substantially extend the
life of the operation.
Once the waste rock is blasted, loaded, and
hauled, there would be an estimated 35%
increase in its volume. Backfilling with a
35% swell factor for waste rock (even with
the removal of ore which accounts for about
10% of the total rock volume removed)
would cause the overall elevations of the
post-mining topography to be greater than
the original pre-mining topography.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-75
Partial or complete backfill of the open pit
could result in an irretrievable loss of gold
resources. This loss of gold resources due to
backfilling is based on the assumption that
future mining would not be conducted in a
backfilled pit due to the economics of
recovering high strip ratio (ratio of tons of
waste rock to tons of ore) material.
The Proponent has stated that approximately
3.5 million tons of additional ore could be
mined provided the market price of gold
reached $800 per ounce. Should gold prices
rise to a level that mining of this additional
ore would become economical, that proposal
would require a separate environmental
analysis, since it is not proposed or
reasonably foreseeable at this time.
Slopes of Waste Rock Disposal Areas
The key to the final approved slope design for
the waste rock disposal areas would be
stability and long-term revegetation success.
Design options for final slope configurations
include a range of slope angles from angle of
repose (1.5H:1 V) to 3H:1 V or less, linear or
non-rectilinear configurations, continuous
slopes, or slopes with intermediate benches.
A linear configuration at an angle of repose
slope would disturb the least amount of area
but would be more difficult to revegetate. A
non-rectilinear configuration with a 3H:1 V
slope with intermediate breaks in slopes
(benches) would be more conducive to
revegetation (Richardson, 1984) and appear
more natural, but such a configuration would
disturb a greater area.
Segmental Reclamation
This option would schedule and initiate
reclamation activities relatively early in the
life of the Crown Jewel Project. The goals of
the segmental (or concurrent) reclamation
approach would be to reduce the overall
amount of disturbance at any one time, to
stabilize and revegetate the site as soon as
possible, and to monitor the success of the
plan during operations and make changes, if
necessary, to minimize environmental
impacts.
The primary goal would be to begin
reclaiming the waste rock disposal area(s) as
soon as possible. Depending on location and
configuration of the disposal area, there are
various ways to accomplish this task:
• The disposal area would be constructed
from the toe up and final slopes would be
established as the disposal area increases
in height.
• The waste rock could be constructed in
lifts and selected portions then configured
by dozer to achieve final slopes while the
disposal area continues to grow in other
areas.
Any number of variations to these
construction schemes exist.
Pit Highwall Blasting
One of the reclamation objectives for the final
mine pit would be to create a topographic
feature composed of rock cliffs and talus
slopes which would incorporate certain
desirable wildlife habitat. In conjunction with
rock fill placement, soil redistribution and
seeding, pit highwall blasting would be used.
Selective blasting would be used in specific
segments of the pit to create topographic
diversity, to provide improved wildlife access,
and to provide bat and raptor habitat. The
blasting of pit benches would create talus
slopes between some benches and along the
pit lake shoreline. Regrading of blasted
material would also be completed to reshape
pit slopes in certain areas. These practices
would interrupt the angular appearance of the
pit benches and produce more natural
appearing topographic features common to
the surrounding area.
Natural formation of talus slopes during and
after mining would further allow wildlife
access into and out of the pit and create
additional irregularities in pit topography.
Other portions of the pit benches and
interbench faces would be left in place upon
completion of mining.
Selective pit highwall blasting would
commence only when all in-pit work is
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-76
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIVES
January 1997
completed, and there is no danger to
workers.
Reclamation Options Considered in Detail
• No Backfilling
• Partial Direct Backfilling
• Complete Backfilling
• Slopes of Waste Rock Disposal Areas
• Segmental Reclamation
• Pit Highwall Blasting
Reclamation Options Eliminated From Further
Consideration
• None
2.3 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
2.3.1 Project Alternatives Considered
for Detailed Study
The No Action Alternative, identified as
Alternative A, will be considered, and is
discussed in Section 2.4, Alternative A - No
Action Alternative. Six additional action
alternatives have been assembled from
screened options for the Crown Jewel
Project. These action alternatives identified
as B through G, are described in Section 2.5,
Alternative B - Proposed Action through 2.10,
Alternative G, of this document. Effects of
all Crown Jewel Project alternatives are
analyzed in Chapter 4, Environmental
Consequences.
The following components would be the
same for all action alternatives, except the
No Action Alternative:
• Employee Transportation;
• Power Supply;
• Water Supply;
• Water Storage;
• Fuel Storage;
• Chemical Storage;
• Tailings Embankment Construction;
• Tailings Liner System Design and
Construction;
• Cyanide Destruction Techniques;
• Solid Waste Disposal; and,
• Sewage Disposal.
The components that vary among the action
alternatives include the following:
• Mining Method;
• Operating Schedule;
• Production Schedule;
• Waste Rock Disposal Locations;
• Tailings Disposal Methods and Locations;
• Ore Processing Methods;
• Supply Transportation; and,
• Site Reclamation.
2.3.2 Alternatives Considered but
Eliminated From Detailed Study
In Section 2.2, Project Components and
Options, a number of options were eliminated
from detailed consideration based on obvious
technical, environmental, or regulatory
constraints. The following alternatives were
considered between the draft and final EIS,
but they were eliminated from detailed study
in the final EIS for the reasons stated:
• Alternative B - Unmodified;
• Highlands Rural Character Alternative;
• Alternative E - Modified; and,
• EPA's Suggested Alternative.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-77
Alternative B - Unmodified
In the draft EIS, the Proponent's proposal
was identified as Alternative B. Since the
publication of the draft EIS, the Proponent
has updated its proposal to include additional
operational, reclamation, and mitigation
measures. With these updates, the Forest
Service and WADOE have eliminated the
original Alternative B (identified here as
Alternative B - Unmodified) from further
detailed consideration in the final EIS.
Alternative B in the final EIS includes the
revisions and updates as submitted by the
Proponent (see Section 2.5, Alternative B -
Proposed Action).
Highlands Rural Character Alternative
A group of Okanogan Highlands landowners
advertised in the local newspaper and put
forth a suggested mining alternative to be
considered where mining and ore crushing
would shut-down at night. The alternative
was proposed to be similar to Alternative B
except it would just operate one shift per
day. It is not technically feasible to only
operate the mill during the day so it was
assumed that the mill would operate 24 hours
per day, but the rest of the operation would
operate a single day shift.
Because the components of the suggested
alternative have been considered in the other
action alternatives, it was determined that
the analysis of this "stand-alone" alternative
was not necessary; therefore, this suggested
alternative was not carried forward for
detailed study in the final EIS.
Alternative E - Modified
A modified version of Alternative E was
identified in the draft EIS as the
recommended alternative by the Forest
Service. Upon further analysis, it was
determined that there were unanticipated
environmental and technical problems with
the implementation of this alternative. These
had to do with the environmental impacts of
the longer haul distances on air quality,
economic costs of the longer haul distances
including additional fuel consumption, and the
difficulty to place all of the waste rock north
of the pit without covering the frog pond
while still achieving mostly 3H:1 V slopes.
EPA's Suggested Alternative
In a letter dated August 29, 1995 from
Richard Parkin (EPA) to Phil Christy (Forest
Service), the EPA suggested the following:
Underground/Surface Mining With Backfill.
This alternative is a variation of Alternative D.
It would involve extraction of the ore from
the north portion of the ore body by surface
mining and would mine the southern portion
of the ore zone by underground methods.
The operation would run 24 hours per day,
employ about 225 people during operations,
and produce an average of 3,000 tons of ore
per day. The life of the operation would be
eight years: one year for construction six
years for operation, and one year for the
completion of most physical reclamation.
Crushing would be conducted below ground
level. Grinding and milling would be above
ground. Gold extraction would use
conventional milling with the tank cyanidation
process and CIL gold recovery. The tailings
facility would be located entirely in the
Marias Creek drainage and residual cyanide in
the tailings would be reduced using the INCO
cyanide destruction process. Waste rock
would be placed south of the pit area in
Waste Rock Stockpiles B and C (as shown in
Figure 2.2, Waste Rock Stockpile Options, on
page 2-14 of the draft EIS). The combination
of Stockpiles B and C would allow
approximately 30 million cubic yards of waste
rock (based on Figure 2.2, Waste Rock
Stockpile Options). Waste rock would be
used to completely backfill the underground
mine and north pit. Backfill of the pit would
begin immediately after mining of the pit is
completed. Employees would be bused to
the site from locations in or near Oroville.
The supply route would access the Crown
Jewel Project from the south through
Wauconda, Toroda Creek, and Beaver
Canyon. This alternative would recover
about 80% of the gold reserve available to
strictly surface mining. A detailed
compensatory mitigation plan would be
provided for the final EIS.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-78
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA T/VES
January 1997
Most of the alternative components
suggested by EPA were included in one or
more of the action alternatives (B through G)
with the exception of placing waste rock in a
disposal area to the south of the proposed
mine and complete backfill of the
underground mine. One of the objectives of
the EPA alternative was to avoid impacts in
the Nicholson Creek drainage.
It is not physically possible to place the "30
million cubic yards" of waste rock into
Disposal Areas B and C. Likewise, complete
backfilling of the underground mining
operation would be difficult given the
proposed extraction techniques required for
the geologic ore configuration.
NEPA and SEPA do not require an infinite
combination of alternatives nor the
development of "unreasonable" alternatives.
Development of an alternative that would use
all of the most costly, least environmentally
damaging components with a complete
compensatory mitigation plan would result in
an alternative that would clearly be
economically infeasible; therefore, it could
not be considered "reasonable" by the NEPA
and SEPA definition.
Each of the action alternatives would provide
specific tradeoffs for different resources.
Alternative components that may be
beneficial for one resource may be harmful
for another resource. Because most of the
EPA suggested alternative has been included
in the existing action alternatives, the
suggested "stand-alone" alternative was not
carried forward for detailed study.
2.4 ALTERNATIVE A - NO ACTION
ALTERNATIVE
This alternative serves as a baseline against
which to compare the effects of other
alternatives. Under this alternative, permits
would not be granted, and approval for the
operation would be denied. The No Action
Alternative would preclude the proposed
mining and milling activities. Complete
reclamation of previous exploration activities
would commence at the first available
opportunity, as already approved in previous
NEPA documents.
There would be no additional physical
disturbance to the site except what was
previously approved as part of the
environmental documents prepared for
exploration. There would be no need to
revise or amend the management
prescriptions for the area as outlined in the
Okanogan Forest Plan or to create the new
Forest Service management area (MA27) for
mining and ore processing activities, as
discussed in Section 2.1.5, Project
Alternative Comparison.
Reclamation for exploration activities would
consist of plugging and capping existing drill
holes, recontouring drill pads and access
roads, rehabilitating mud and cutting sumps,
redistributing topsoil, revegetation with
grasses, shrubs and/or trees of disturbed
sites, and monitoring water quality.
2.5 ALTERNATIVE B - PROPOSED
ACTION
This alternative represents the construction,
operation and reclamation of a mining and
milling facility as proposed by the Proponent.
The Proponent modified the Plan of
Operations and Reclamation Plan in response
to comments on the draft EIS from regulatory
agencies and the general public, as well as
continued refinement by the Proponent.
Modifications were received from the
Proponent in August 1995, December 1995,
March 1996, and July 1996. These
modifications included plans for a double
synthetic liner system for the tailings facility
with a different leak detection system,
downstream construction of the tailings
embankment in Marias Creek, reconfiguring
the north and south waste rock disposal
areas to reduce post-mining reclaimed slopes,
and revisions to the reclamation plan that
involve increased tree plantings and additional
revegetation activities in the mine pit area.
Alternative B, as discussed or referred to in
the final EIS, includes the Proponent's
modifications made since the publication of
the draft EIS.
Alternative B includes an open pit surface
mine, two waste rock disposal areas, a
milling facility, a double lined tailings
impoundment, an office and maintenance
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-79
complex, and miscellaneous support facilities
including haul and access roads, a water
storage reservoir, a water supply pipeline,
and an electric power transmission line. At
full production, the operation would process
an average of 3,000 tons of ore per day with
the mine and mill operating 24 hours per day.
The proposed layout of the facilities for this
alternative is set forth on Figure 2.16,
Alternative B - Operational Site Plan. Various
aspects of this alternative are summarized in
Table 2.7, Summary of Alternative B.
2.5.1 Mining Techniques
This proposed action would include a single
open pit mine. Approximately 9.1 million
tons of ore are planned to be mined and
processed. To access the ore, approximately
54 million cubic yards (97 million tons) of
waste rock would be removed and placed in
the two waste rock disposal areas (A and B).
The mining would be conducted by
conventional bench highwall techniques.
Benches would be created as part of ore and
waste rock extraction. Benches would be
drilled and shot with ammonium nitrate and
fuel oil (ANFO) as blasting agents. Samples
would be obtained from the cuttings of a
representative number of blast holes drilled.
These would be analyzed in an on-site
laboratory for precious metals content. Once
determined, the mine's surveyors would
stake the blasted benches and flag both ore
and waste rock locations for the front-end
loader or shovel operators. Off-highway
trucks would be loaded by front-end loaders
or shovels. These trucks would transport the
ore to the crusher facility and the waste rock
to the waste rock disposal areas.
2.5.2 Waste Rock Disposal
An average of 17,900 cubic yards of waste
rock per day would be moved during
operations. This material would be placed in
two permanent, side-hill fill, waste rock
disposal areas (A and B): one located to the
north of the proposed pit and the other to the
south. The north disposal area would be
designed to retain about 30 million cubic
yards of waste rock while the south disposal
area would be designed to contain
approximately 24 million cubic yards of waste
rock.
At mine closure, the overall slope of the
reclaimed waste rock disposal areas would be
approximately 2. 5H: 1V to 3H: 1V. About ten
acres of the north waste rock disposal facility
would be located on land administered by
WADNR. The Proponent has proposed this
land be exchanged for a parcel they own
located south of the Crown Jewel Project
site.
2.5.3 Ore Processing
Ore from the mine would be transported to a
surface ore stockpile area from where it
would be fed into a below surface crushing
facility. After crushing, the ore would be
transported by conveyor to a surface mill for
grinding, processing, and extraction of the
gold. Conventional milling techniques
involving tank cyanidation and CIL recovery
would be used to extract the gold from the
ore.
The final product of milling would be gold
bars, known as dorg.
2.5.4 Tailings Disposal
The tailings stream, after being subjected to
the INCO S02/Air/Oxidation cyanide
destruction process, would be transported via
a pipeline to a fully lined tailings
impoundment in the Marias Creek drainage.
Water used in the ore processing facility,
including transport of the tailings, would be
collected and recycled back to the mill for
reuse. The tailings facility would be designed
and operated as a closed-circuit (zero
discharge) facility with respect to water.
2.5.5 Area of Disturbance
Approximately 787 acres would be physically
disturbed, including the estimated 73 acres of
disturbance associated with the water
storage reservoir, the water supply pipeline,
and the power transmission line right-of-way
from Oroville to the site.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-80 CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIVES January 1997
TABLE 2.7. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE B
GENERAL COMPONENTS
Production 3,000 Tons of Ore Per Day
Mining Surface/Open Pit
Waste Rock 2 Disposal Areas (north and south of pit)
Crushing Below Surface
Grinding Surface
Milling Tank Cyanidation with Carbon in Leach
Tailings Disposal Marias Creek
Cyanide Destruction INCO SO2/Air/Oxidation
Employee Transportation Busing and/or Van Pooling (Oroville to Chesaw and South)
Supply Transportation Wauconda to Mine Site
Reclamation No Pit Backfill; Other Sites Revegetated
EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
Construction and Development
Year 1 145-FTE1"; 250-Peak
Operations
Year 2-9 144
Decommissioning and Reclamation
Year 10 50
LAND OWNERSHIP/ADMINISTRATION ACRES %
Forest Service 469 59
BLM 189 24
WADNR 13 2
Private 116 15
Total 787 100
SURFACE AREA DISTURBANCE (acres)
Waste Rock Disposal Areas 288
Tailings Facility 101
Mill and Ore Processing Facility 16
Pit Area 138<2'
Rock Quarry 0
Topsoil Stockpiles 48
Mine Adits O
Ore Stockpile 6
Main Access Road 24
Haul Roads 48
Miscellaneous Site Access Roads 6
Tailings Slurry Pipeline 4
Ancillary Facilities, including Soil Borrow Pits 35
Water Supply Pipeline/Pump Station 10
Water Reservoir 35
Topsoil Stockpile (Reservoir) 4
Power Line right-of-Way 24
Total 787
Notes: 1. FTE = Full Time Equivalents (Employees)
2. The Proponent's plan of operation included a pit area of 116 acres. A 22 acre safety buffer zone
has been added by the lead agencies since an area 100 feet wide around the pit would need to be
cleared so trees could not fall into the pit.
Of the estimated total disturbance, 59% (469 WADNR, and 15% (116 acres) would be on
acres) would be on National Forest lands, private lands.
24% (189 acres) would be on lands
administered by the BLM, 2% (13 acres)
would be on lands administered by the
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-81
2.5.6 Project Life
Alternative B has a projected life of about ten
years. Construction accounts for about one
year, operations for approximately eight
years, and the remaining decommissioning/
reclamation, which was not completed during
segmental reclamation, being completed in
another year. Reclamation of the Starrem
Reservoir would be deferred for
approximately five to six years, until the final
pit lake filling is complete. Long-term
monitoring would be conducted as necessary
to meet approved plans and permits. At least
six years of monitoring for revegetation
success would be required.
2.5.7 Employment
During the peak construction phase,
approximately 225 people for actual
construction of facilities and 25 for initiation
of mining operations would be employed.
This represents a full time workforce of 145
people (145 FTE). The construction work
would be managed by the Proponent, but the
actual work would be completed under
contract to a construction firm specializing in
mining-related construction. The Proponent
estimated that approximately 40% of the
construction work force would be hired
locally (Eastern Okanogan County and
Western Ferry County).
Once the mine becomes fully operational, an
annual average of 144 people would be
employed. Of this total, it is projected that
80% would be hired from the local work
force.
During reclamation, approximately 50 people
would be retained for mill decommissioning,
mine closure and reclamation. It is estimated
that 95% of the reclamation work force
would be local.
2.5.8 Supply Transportation
Operating supplies would be brought to the
mine site through Wauconda via year-round
State Highway 20. From Wauconda, trucks
would be routed north on County Road 9495
(Toroda Creek Road) to County Road 9480
(Oroville - Toroda Creek Road), then up
County Road 4895 and Forest Road 3575-
120 to the site. The listing and amount of
supplies brought to the site are set forth in
Table 2.4, Materials and Supplies.
2.5.9 Reclamation
The final pit would be left open. The
Proponent plans to use water from the
Starrem Reservoir to fill the pit and allow the
creation of a lake in the northern portion of
the final pit that would eventually discharge
into the Nicholson Creek drainage. Filling of
the pit lake would be accelerated by pumping
of water from the Starrem Reservoir. It is
estimated to take approximately five to six
years to artificially fill the pit using Starrem
Reservoir water versus approximately 25 to
26 years if the pit was allowed to fill
naturally. Portions of the pit would be
revegetated. The remainder of the disturbed
areas would be graded, sloped, topsoiled and
revegetated with grasses, 400 shrubs per
acre, and a minimum of 250 trees per acre
for long-term stabilization. Selective blasting
of the pit walls and backfilling of the benches
is proposed. Test plot areas would be
created during operations to determine the
best methods of achieving revegetation of the
site. The buildings and other temporary
surface facilities would be dismantled, torn
down, or otherwise disposed of or hauled off-
site. The haul roads would be eliminated by
recontouring. Figure 2.17, Alternative B -
Proponent's Proposed Postmining Plan,
shows the Proponent's proposed topography
and plant communities.
2.5.10 Ore Recovery
It is estimated that approximately 1.46 million
ounces of gold would be recovered under this
alternative. This is approximately 87% of the
ore reserve.
The Proponent has proposed to extract the
magnetite ore in the bottom of the northern
pit area near the conclusion of mining. The
reasoning is that the magnetite ore would not
need to be as finely ground as the other ore
in the deposit. This could be accomplished
operationally and would not require major
modifications to the miH.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-82
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIVES
January 1997
2.6 ALTERNATIVE C
This alternative represents the construction,
operation, and reclamation of an underground
mine with production and exploration adits
combined with ventilation and backfill raises,
a single waste rock disposal area, two
surface quarries, a milling facility, a lined
tailings impoundment, and office and
maintenance complex, and miscellaneous
other support facilities including haul and
access roads, a water storage reservoir,
water supply pipeline, and a power
transmission line. At full production, the
operation would process 3,000 tons of ore
per day.
A complete feasibility analysis might result in
a slightly different underground scenario.
This alternative was developed to portray as
reasonable an underground mining scenario
as possible based upon rough analysis of the
known character and configuration of the
mineral deposit and its ability to produce
approximately 3,000 tons of ore per day.
The proposed surface facility layout of the
operation is set forth on Figure 2.18,
Alternative C - Operational Site Plan. Various
aspects of this alternative are summarized in
Table 2.8, Summary of Alternative C.
2.6.1 Underground Mining Techniques
The mine would be accessed by two adits:
one approximately 1,500 feet in length at the
4,850 foot elevation and the second
approximately 2,500 feet in length at the
4,500 foot elevation. These adits would be
used as haulage levels for both ore and
underground development waste rock.
Given the variable spatial geology and
disseminated nature of the ore deposit, four
different types of underground extraction
techniques would be utilized to mine the
Crown Jewel Project deposit.
These techniques are as follows:
• Room and Pillar Mining;
• Sublevel Sloping;
• Breast Sloping - Post Pillar Mining; and,
• Glory Hole Mining.
Room and Pillar Mining
This method involves initially removing ore in
a "honey-combed" network of underground
rooms approximately 20 feet in width and 15
feet to 20 feet in height. Where the ore is
thicker than 20 feet, multiple benches would
be required.
Interspersed between these rooms is rock
material left for roof support. These areas
would be approximately 15 feet by 15 feet
and are known as the pillars. Pillar spacing
throughout the mined areas would be on
approximately 35 foot centers. These pillars
would be necessary to support the rock
above the underground working areas to
ensure worker safety.
Room and pillar mining would be the
predominant method of underground mining
at the Crown Jewel Project site where the
ore zones are horizontal and tabular. It could
not be employed in areas where the ore is
vertical or steeply dipping.
Sublevel Sloping
Some isolated blocks of vertical ore zones at
the Crown Jewel Project deposit would be
mined by an underground technique known
as sublevel sloping. Although this method is
generally used where high grade ore occurs in
steeply dipping wide veins and where ore and
surrounding rock are very competent, it
probably has applicability to certain vertical or
nearly vertical ore pockets at the Crown
Jewel Project site. The ore in these areas
must be fairly uniform since this method does
not lend itself to selective mining.
The principal strategy of sublevel sloping
would be to mine the isolated vertical areas
by ring drilling and blasting from a series of
blaslhole drifls located al various vertical
intervals wilhin Ihe ore zone; Ihese blaslhole
drifls are connecled lo Ihe haulage drifls by
raises or spiral drifls that are used for
ventilation, personnel and equipment access.
Once blasted, the ore would flow by gravity
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 2-83
TABLE 2.8. SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE C
GENERAL COMPONENTS
Production 3,000 Tons of Ore Per Day
Mining Underground
• Room & Pillar
• Sublevel Stoping
• Post & Pillar
• Glory Hole
Waste Rock 1 Disposal Area (north of facilities)
Crushing Surface
Grinding Surface
Milling Tank Cyanidation with Carbon in Leach
Tailings Disposal Marias Creek
Cyanide Destruction INCO S02/Air/Oxidation
Employee Transportation Busing and/or Van Pooling (Oroville to Chesaw and South)
Supply transportation Oroville to Mine Site
Rock Quarry 2 Quarries
• Tailings Area
•> Backfill Site
Reclamation Adits Sealed; Other Sites Revegetated
EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
Construction and Development
Year 1 145-FTE111; 250-Peak
Operations
Year 2-5 225
Decommissioning and Reclamation
Year 6 50
LAND OWNERSHIP/ADMINISTRATION ACRES %
Forest Service 266 64
BLM 70 17
WADNR 20 5
Private 59 14
Total 415 100
SURFACE AREA DISTURBANCE (acres)
Waste Rock Disposal Area 26
Tailings Facility 89
Mill and Ore Processing Facility 14
Subsidence Zone 27
Rock Quarries 25
Topsoil Stockpiles 29
Mine Adits 9
Ore Stockpile 12
Main Access Road 24
Haul Roads 30
Miscellaneous Site Access Roads 20
Tailings Slurry Pipeline 4
Ancillary Facilities, including Soil Borrow Pits 33
Water Supply Pipeline/Pump Station 10
Water Reservoir 35
Topsoil Stockpile (Reservoir) 4
Power Line Right-of-Way 24
Total 415
Note: 1. FTE = Full Time Equivalents (Employees)
Sublevel sloping would be used
to draw points on a haulage level. The predominantly in the northern part of the
raises, spiral drifts, and haulage drifts should Crown Jewel Project ore zone.
be on the footwall side of the stope to be out
of the zone of subsidence that might result Breast Stoping - Post Pillar Mining
from the sloping activity.
This underground mining method would be
used in areas of tabular configuration or
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-84
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
zones dipping at less than the angle of repose
for broken ore but steeper than feasible to
mine with conventional room and pillar
techniques. This condition is found in the
southwest portion of the Crown Jewel
Project ore zone.
Post pillar mining employs the use of
horizontal slicing of the dipping ore zone.
The general direction of extraction would be
up-dip. The down-dip, mined-out areas
would be filled with cemented rock backfill
and used as the foundation for the continued
up-dip extraction. Extraction drifts would be
parallel to the strike of the ore zone with ore
haulage and ore passes adjacent to the areas
of extraction. Backfill would come from the
surface, and backfill raises would be bored to
the surface above this extraction area.
The post pillar mining technique might be
compared to a modified cut and fill method of
mining on shallow dipping deposits.
Glory Hole Mining
In the "Gold Bowl" area of the Crown Jewel
Project deposit, some isolated ore zones
begin at the surface. Glory hole mining
implies surface depression caused by
underground mining (subsidence). Ore is
removed by gravity through a raise or raises
connecting to underground haulage-ways. A
classic definition usually describes an
operation where ore around each raise is
excavated so that it falls into the raise by
gravity, resulting in a funnel shaped
depression on the surface.
2.6.2 Underground Development
Exploration
As part of the underground work,
development drilling stations would be
constructed along development adits and
drifts to pinpoint the ore targets ahead of the
mining. These stations would involve the use
of long-hole diamond drills or their equivalent
that would be used to bore holes into
potential mineralized zones. Given the
disseminated nature of the deposit, continued
evaluation would be necessary by
underground planning engineers to determine
the zones targeted for extraction.
2.6.3 General Mine Development
Mine development would involve the
following:
• Drilling;
• Blasting;
• Mucking (removal of the rock);
• Haulage; and,
• Ground support (as necessary).
Trackless underground electric/hydraulic drills
would be used to drill a pattern of blast
holes. Once the appropriate area has been
drilled, the holes would be loaded with
explosives and shot. Blasting would occur
daily, and ANFO would be the primary
explosive used.
The broken rock would be loaded by
underground front-end loaders onto trucks,
which would transport the ore or waste rock
to the surface. Underground ore and waste
rock passes would be used as appropriate to
facilitate the vertical movement of the
material. Underground trucks would be used
to haul all ore and waste rock to the surface.
Ore would be hauled to a crushing station
adjacent to the mill facility.
Any mechanical support necessary for rock
stability would be installed prior to initiating
drilling activities. Ground control or support
would involve a variety of techniques
including rock and cable bolting, wire
meshing, steel sets, and cribbing. Such
support would depend on the rock conditions
encountered in the unique underground
settings.
The underground mine workings would not be
visible from the outside of the mine, except
the subsidence and glory holes. The entries
to the main workings on the 4,850 foot level
and the 4,500 foot level would be visible on
the surface. So would development and
exploration adits located in the upper reaches
of the deposit. Ventilation shafts (raises) and
mine exhaust fans would be visible near the
summit of Buckhorn Mountain. Over the
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-85
southwest portion of the ore zones, backfill
shafts (raises) and crushed/screened backfill
rock and cement storage towers would be
visible. All adits and raises would be
interconnected by a surface road system.
2.6.4 Underground Development Rock
Disposal
Early mine development in the 4,850 and
4,500 foot level adits would involve the
removal of development waste rock. This
waste rock would be hauled to the surface
for placement in a single waste rock disposal
area to the north of the 4,500 foot level adit.
Waste rock would continue to be produced
throughout the life of the operation as
development drifts, haulage drifts, ventilation
raises, and ore and waste rock passes are
constructed. Approximately 500,000 cubic
yards of waste rock would be generated. At
mine closure, the overall slopes of the waste
rock disposal area would be 3H:1 V.
2.6.5 Surface Quarries
As shown on Figure 2.18, Alternative C -
Operational Site Plan, surface rock quarries
would be required for Alternative C. One site
would be located in the vicinity of the tailings
facility to serve as a material source for the
construction of the tailings embankments.
Another rock quarry would be needed near
the top of Buckhorn Mountain to provide rock
for backfill needed in the mine during
operations. This rock must be sized by
crushing and screening. It would be
necessary to dump both sand and aggregate
into backfill raises, and combine the material
underground with cement for use in
backfilling operations.
2.6.6 Mine Ventilation
Mine ventilation is necessary for preservation
of human life during the underground
operations. For the underground operations
contemplated, three exhaust fans would be
located at ventilation raises constructed
above the mining zones. These exhaust fans
would draw fresh air into the haulage levels
through the active working areas and exhaust
the air into the atmosphere.
2.6.7 Ore Processing
Ore from the mine would be transported to a
surface ore stockpile area from where it
would be discharged into a surface crushing
facility. After crushing, the ore would be
transported by conveyor belt to a surface mill
for grinding, processing, and extraction of the
gold as proposed in Alternative B.
Conventional milling techniques involving
tank cyanidation and CIL recovery would be
used to extract the gold from the ore.
The final product of milling would be gold
bars, known as dor6.
2.6.8 Tailings Disposal
Alternative C would involve construction and
operation of a tailings facility in the Marias
Creek drainage as proposed in Alternative B.
The tailings facility footprint would be smaller
than the Alternative B tailings facility because
less ore would be extracted during the life of
the Crown Jewel Project.
2.6.9 Area of Disturbance
Approximately 415 acres would experience
direct physical disturbance. This would
include approximately 73 acres for the water
storage reservoir, water supply pipeline and
power line corridor. Approximately 64%
(266 acres) would be on lands administered
by the Forest Service, 17% (710 acres) on
lands administered by the BLM, 5% (20
acres) on lands administered by the WADNR,
and 14% (59 acres) on private land.
2.6.10 Project Life
Alternative C has a projected life of
approximately six years. Of that,
construction accounts for approximately one
year, operations are projected for less than
four years, and the remaining
decommissioning/reclamation are anticipated
to take another year. Long-term monitoring
would be necessary to meet approved plans
and permits. At least six years of monitoring
would be required for revegetation.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-86
CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES
January 1997
2.6.11 Employment
During the peak construction period,
approximately 250 people would to be
required, 225 for actual construction of
facilities and 25 for initiation of mining
operations. This would be equivalent to a full
time workforce of about 145 people.
Construction work would be managed by the
Proponent, but the actual construction work
would probably be completed under contract
to a construction firm which specializes in
mining related construction. Underground
development, which would be a part of the
initial construction work, would be conducted
by the Proponent. Given the specialty of
mine construction, particularly underground
development work, only about 25% of the
construction work force would be local hire.
Once the mine becomes operational, a
maximum of 225 people are expected to be
employed. Given the specialty of
underground mining, an estimated 40% of
the operational work force would be local hire
(Eastern Okanogan County and Western Ferry
County).
During reclamation, approximately 50 people
would be employed for decommissioning,
mine closure and reclamation activities. It is
estimated that 95% of the reclamation work
force would be local hire.
2.6.12 Supply Transportation
Shipment of operating supplies would be via
year-round highways to Oroville. From
Oroville, trucks would be routed east on
County Road 9480 through Chesaw (Oroville
- Toroda Creek Road), then up County Road
4895 and Forest Road 3575-120 to the site.
Given the probable spring haulage restrictions
with this transportation route, approximately
30 days additional storage over the storage
contemplated for the Wauconda-Toroda
Creek route would be required. With the
exception of ammonium nitrate and fuel, the
listing and amount of supplies brought to the
site in Alternative C would be approximately
the same as those for Alternative B (see
Table 2.5, Consumables Estimate -
Underground Mining).
2.6.13 Reclamation
The mining adits and ventilation raises would
be permanently sealed to eliminate future
public access according to applicable state
and federal regulations. To alleviate hydraulic
pressure from the build-up of water behind
the seal, from mine flooding, the closures to
the adits would be designed to accommodate
the discharge of water which would be
regulated by an NPDES Permit.
The remainder of the surface disturbance
would be graded, sloped, topsoiled, and
vegetated for long-term stability with grasses,
400 shrubs per acre, and 250 trees per acre.
Test plot areas would be created to
determine the best methods of achieving
revegetation of the site.
The buildings and other temporary surface
facilities would be dismantled, torn down, or
otherwise disposed of or hauled off-site. The
haul roads would be eliminated by
recontouring.
Due to the lower amount of soil available,
gentler slopes would be resoiled to about ten
inches in depth instead of 12 inches as
described in the other alternatives, and
steeper slopes would be resoiled to about 15
inches in depth instead of 18 inches in other
alternatives.
The surface area over the underground
workings would be susceptible to subsidence
activity. This activity is difficult to predict
and would not be reclaimed. Fencing and
signage would be used to provide for human
safety.
2.6.14 Ore Recovery
Total underground mining of the Crown Jewel
Project deposit would recover approximately
831,000 ounces of gold. This 43%
reduction in minable reserves is due to the
roof support pillars that must remain for
safety of miners (and equipment), isolated
mineralized pockets too small for
underground extraction, and loss of reserves
due to higher cutoff grades caused by higher
operating costs.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-87
2.7 ALTERNATIVE D
This alternative represents the construction,
operation, and reclamation of a combined
surface and underground mine with an open
pit in the northern portion of the Crown
Jewel Project deposit and an underground
operation on the south side. This alternative
would include production and exploration
adits combined with ventilation and backfill
raises, a single waste rock disposal area to
the north of the mine pit, a milling facility, a
lined tailings impoundment, an office and
maintenance complex, and miscellaneous
other support facilities including haul and
access roads, a water storage reservoir,
water supply pipeline, and a power
transmission line. At full production, the
operation would process approximately 3,000
tons of ore per day.
A complete feasibility analysis might result in
a slightly different scenario. This alternative
was developed to portray a combined surface
and underground mine based upon a rough
analysis of known character and
configuration of the mineral deposit. The
proposed surface facility layout of the
operation is set forth on Figure 2.19,
Alternative D - Operational Site Plan. Various
aspects of this alternative are summarized in
Table 2.9, Summary of Alternative D.
2.7.1 Mining Techniques
Alternative D would be a combination of
surface and underground operations. The
northern portion of the Crown Jewel Project
deposit would be mined by surface means
similar to the open pit techniques set forth in
Alternative B. Underground mining would be
by the room and pillar, post pillar, and other
methods as described in Alternative C.
2.7.2 Waste Rock Disposal
Approximately 18.5 million cubic yards of
waste rock would be moved during surface
mining operations, while approximately
300,000 cubic yards of waste rock from the
underground operation would be generated.
This material would be placed in a single
permanent, side-hill fill, waste rock disposal
area to the north of the proposed pit. At
mine closure, the overall slope of the waste
rock disposal area would be 31-1:1 V.
A portion of the waste rock would be used as
mine backfill in the post and pillar extraction
areas in the southwest part of the Crown
Jewel Project mineralized zone. A surface
rock quarry would not be required for backfill
material. Backfill rock would be obtained
from the open pit. This rock must be sized
by crushing and screening. It would be
necessary to use both sand and aggregate for
underground backfill stability. This material
would be combined with cement in an
underground pug mill for use in backfilling
operations.
2.7.3 Mine Ventilation
The underground operations contemplated
would require mine ventilation. Two exhaust
fans would be located on the surface
adjacent to the ventilation raises constructed
above the mining zones. These exhaust fans
would draw fresh air into the haulage levels,
through the active working areas and exhaust
the air into the atmosphere.
2.7.4 Ore Processing
Ore from both the underground workings and
the surface mine would be transported to a
surface stockpile area where the ore would
be discharged into the below ground crushing
facility. After crushing, the ore would be
transported by conveyor to the mill for
grinding, processing, and extraction of the
gold. Conventional milling techniques
involving tank cyanidation and CIL recovery
processing facility and transport of the
tailings would be collected and recycled back
to the mill for reuse. The tailings facility
would be designed and operated as a closed-
circuit (zero discharge) facility with respect to
water.
2.7.5 Tailings Disposal
The tailings stream, after being subjected to
the INCO S02/Air/Oxidation destruction
process, would be transported via a pipeline
to a lined tailings impoundment in the Marias
Creek drainage similar to Alternative B.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-88 CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIVES January 1997
TABLE 2.9, SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE D
GENERAL COMPONENTS
Production 3,000 Tons of Ore Per Day
Mining Open Pit and Underground
Waste Rock 1 Disposal Area (north of open pit)
Crushing Below Surface
Grinding Surface
Milling Tank Cyanidation with Carbon in Leach
Tailings Disposal Marias Creek
Cyanide Destruction INCO SO2/Air/Oxidation
Employee Transportation Busing and/or Van Pooling (Oroville to Chesaw and South)
Supply Transportation Wauconda to Mine Site
Reclamation No Pit Backfill; Adits Sealed
EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
Construction and Development
Year 1 145-FTE"1; 250-Peak
Operations
Year 2-7 225
Decommissioning and Reclamation
Year 8 50
LAND OWNERSHIP/ADMINISTRATION ACRES %
Forest Service 292 52
BLM 147 26
WADNR 20 4
Private 99 18
Total 558 100
SURFACE AREA DISTURBANCE (acres)
Waste Rock Disposal Area • 98
Tailings Facility 101
Mill and Ore Processing Facility 16
Pit Area 73
Rock Quarry 0
Topsoil Stockpiles 53
Mine Adits 8
Ore Stockpile 12
Main Access Road 24
Haul Roads 35
Miscellaneous Site Access Roads 20
Tailings Slurry Pipeline 4
Ancillary Facilities, including Soil Borrow Pits 41
Water Supply Pipeline/Pump Station 10
Water Reservoir 35
Topsoil Stockpile (Reservoir) 4
Power Line Right-of-Way 24
Total 558
Note: 1. FTE = Full Time Equivalents (Employees)
2.7.6 Area of Disturbance Of the estimated total disturbance, 52% (292
acres) would be on National Forest lands.
Approximately 558 acres would be physically 26% (147 acres) would be on lands
disturbed, including an estimated 73 acres of administered by the BLM, 4% (20 acres)
disturbance associated with the water would be on lands administered by
storage reservoir, the water supply pipeline, theWADNR, and 18% (99 acres) would
and the power transmission line right-of-way involve private lands.
from Oroville to the site.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-89
2.7.7 Project Life
Alternative D has a projected life of eight
years. Construction accounts for about one
year, operations for approximately six years,
and most decommissioning/reclamation
adding another year. Long-term monitoring
would be necessary to meet approved plans
and permits. At least six years of monitoring
for revegetation would be required.
2.7.8 Employment
During the peak construction phase, a
maximum of 250 people would be required,
225 for actual construction of facilities and
25 for initiation of mining operations. This
would be equivalent to a full time workforce
of about 145 people. The construction work
would be managed by the Proponent, but the
actual work would be completed under
contract to a construction firm specializing in
mining-related construction.
Underground development work, which
would be part of the initial construction work,
would be completed by the Proponent. Given
the specialty of mine construction,
particularly underground development work, it
is estimated that approximately 30% of the
construction work force would be hired
locally.
Once the mine becomes fully operational, a
maximum of 225 people would be employed.
Of this total, it is projected that 50% would
be hired from the local work force (Eastern
Okanogan and Western Ferry Counties).
Specialized skills would be required of the
underground labor force which may not be
available in the local labor pool.
During reclamation, approximately 50 people
would be retained for mill decommissioning,
mine closure and reclamation. It is estimated
that 95% of the reclamation work force
would be local hire.
2.7.9 Supply Transportation
Operating supplies would be brought to the
mine site through Wauconda via State
Highway 20. From Wauconda, trucks would
be routed north on County Road 9495
(Toroda Creek Road) to County Road 9480
(Oroville - Toroda Creek Road), then up
County Road 4895 and Forest Road 3575-
120 to the site. The listing and amount of
supplies brought to the site would be similar
to those set forth in Table 2.4, Materials and
Supplies, except the amounts of ammonium
nitrate and fuel needed would be less.
2.7.10 Reclamation
The final pit in the northern portion of the
Crown Jewel Project deposit would not be
backfilled, but would be allowed to fill
naturally with water and eventually overflow
into a tributary of Nicholson Creek. The
mining adits and ventilation raises would be
permanently sealed to eliminate future public
access according to applicable state and
federal regulations. To alleviate hydraulic
pressure from the build-up of water behind
the seal from mine flooding, the closures to
the adits would be designed to allow limited
discharge of water which would be regulated
by an NPDES permit.
The surface of the tailings area would be
contoured to provide drainage to the north.
The buildings and other temporary surface
facilities would be dismantled, torn down, or
otherwise disposed of or hauled off-site. The
haul roads would be eliminated by
recontouring.
Disturbed surface areas would be configured
and final graded prior to topsoiling and
revegetation with grasses, 400 shrubs per
acre, and 250 trees per acre for long-term
stabilization. Selective blasting of the pit
walls to remove benches is proposed. Test
plot areas would be created to determine the
best methods of achieving revegetation of the
site.
The surface area over the underground
workings could be susceptible to subsidence
activity. Fencing and signage would be
required to maintain human safety.
2.7.11 Ore Recovery
The combination of both surface and
underground mining of the Crown Jewel
Project deposit is expected to recover
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-90
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIVES
January 1997
approximately 1.1 million ounces of gold.
This 24% reduction in minable reserves is
primarily due to the roof support pillars that
must remain in the underground mine for
safety of miners and equipment, isolated
pockets of mineralization not amenable to
underground extraction, and the loss of
reserves due to higher cutoff grades caused
by higher operating costs.
2.8 ALTERNATIVE E
This alternative represents the construction,
operation, mining, and reclamation of a
scenario consisting of an open pit surface
mine, two waste rock disposal areas, a lined
tailings impoundment, a milling facility, an
office and maintenance complex, and
miscellaneous other support facilities
including haul roads, access roads, a water
storage reservoir, water supply pipeline, and
a power transmission line. At full production,
the operation would process approximately
3,000 tons of ore per day.
The proposed surface facility layout of the
operation is set forth on Figure 2.20,
Alternative E - Operational Site Plan. Various
aspects of this alternative are summarized in
Table 2.10, Summary of Alternative E.
2.8.1 Mining Techniques
This alternative would consist of a single
open pit surface mine. Approximately 9.1
million tons of ore are planned to be mined
and processed. To access the ore,
approximately 48 million cubic yards of waste
rock would be removed and placed in two
waste rock disposal areas. An additional six
million cubic yards of waste rock would be
hauled from the south pit and placed in the
north pit so a pit lake would not form.
The mining would be conducted by
conventional bench highwall techniques.
Benches would be created as part of ore and
waste rock extraction. Benches would be
drilled and shot with ANFO explosives.
Samples would be obtained from the cuttings
of all blast holes drilled and analyzed in an
on-site laboratory for precious metals
content. Once determined, the mine's
surveyors would stake the blasted benches
and flag both ore and waste rock locations
for the front-end loader or shovel operators.
Off-highway trucks would be loaded by front-
end loaders or shovels. These trucks would
transport the ore to the crusher facility and
the waste rock to the waste rock disposal
areas.
The pit would be sequentially mined to allow
placement of about six million cubic yards of
waste material from the southern portion of
the pit directly into the completed northern
portion of the pit. The partial backfilling
would allow drainage from the total pit area
and would eliminate the presence of a
surface lake in the north pit area after
reclamation.
2.8.2 Waste Rock Disposal
Approximately 16,700 cubic yards of waste
rock per day would be moved during
operations. This material would be placed in
two permanent waste rock disposal areas
outside the mine pit: one to the north of the
proposed pit (Disposal Area I) and the other
to the south (Disposal Area C). The north
disposal area would be designed to retain
about 37 million cubic yards of waste rock,
and the south disposal area would be
designed to contain approximately 11 million
cubic yards of waste rock. Approximately six
million cubic yards of waste rock would be
directly backfilled within the north pit. At
mine closure, the overall slope of the waste
rock disposal areas would be 3H:1 V.
2.8.3 Ore Processing
Ore from the mine would be transported to a
surface ore stockpile area where it would be
loaded into a below surface crushing facility.
After crushing, the ore would be transported
by conveyor to a surface mill for grinding,
processing, and extraction of the gold.
Conventional milling techniques involving
tank cyanidation and CIL recovery would be
used to extract the gold from the ore.
The final product of milling would be gold
bars, known as dor6.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 2-91
TABLE 2.10, SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE E
GENERAL COMPONENTS
Production 3,000 Tons of Ore Per Day
Mining Surface/Open Pit
Waste Rock 2 Disposal Areas (north and south of pit)
Crushing Below Surface
Grinding Surface
Milling Tank Cyanidation with Carbon in Leach
Tailings Disposal Marias Creek
Cyanide Destruction INCO SO2/Air/Oxidation
Employee Transportation Busing and/or Van Pooling (Oroville to Chesaw and South)
Supply Transportation Wauconda to Mine Site
Reclamation Partial Pit Backfill to Achieve Drainage from Pit
EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
Construction and Development
Year 1 145-FTE"1; 250-Peak
Operations
Year 2-9 144
Decommissioning and Reclamation
Year 10 50
LAND OWNERSHIP/ADMINISTRATION ACRES %
Forest Service 575 62
BLM 195 21
WADNR 47 5
Private 111 12
Total 928 100
SURFACE AREA DISTURBANCE (acres)
Waste Rock Disposal Areas 379
Tailings Facility 101
Mill and Ore Processing Facility 16
Pit Area 138
Rock Quarry 0
Topsoil Stockpiles 75
Mine Adits 0
Ore Stockpile 12
Main Access Road 24
Haul Roads 48
Miscellaneous Site Access Roads 19
Tailings Slurry Pipeline 4
Ancillary Facilities, including Soil Borrow Pits 39
Water Supply Pipeline/Pump Station 10
Water Reservoir 35
Topsoil Stockpile (Reservoir) 4
Power Line Right-of-Way 24
Total 928
Note: 1. FTE = Full Time Equivalents (Employees)
2.8.4 Tailings Disposal lined tailings impoundment in the Marias
Creek drainage. Water used in the cyanide
The tailings stream, after being subjected to processing and transport of the tailings would
the INCO S02/Air/Oxidation destruction be collected and recycled to the mill for reuse
process, would be pumped via a pipeline to a in the milling process. The tailings facility
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-92
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIVES
January 1997
would be designed and operated as a closed-
circuit (zero-discharge) facility with respect to
water.
2.8.5 Area of Disturbance
Approximately 928 acres would be physically
disturbed, including an estimated 73 acres of
disturbance associated with the water
storage reservoir, the water supply pipeline,
and the power transmission line right-of-way
from Oroville to the site.
Of the estimated total disturbance, 62% (575
acres) would be on National Forest lands,
21% (195 acres) would be on lands
administered by the BLM, 5% (47 acres)
would be on lands administered by the
WADNR, and 12% (111 acres) would be on
private lands.
2.8.6 Project Life
Alternative E has a projected life of ten years.
Construction accounts for about one year,
operations for approximately eight years, and
most decommissioning/reclamation adding
another year. Long-term monitoring would be
necessary to meet approved plans and
permits. At least six years of monitoring for
revegetation would be required.
2.8.7 Employment
During the peak construction period, a
maximum of 250 people would be required,
225 for actual construction of facilities and
25 for initiation of mining operations. This
would be equivalent to a full time work force
of about 145 people. The construction work
would be managed by the Proponent, but the
actual work would be completed under
contract to a construction firm specializing in
mining-related construction. It is estimated
that approximately 40% of the construction
force would be hired locally (from Eastern
Okanogan or Western Ferry Counties).
Once the mine becomes fully operational, an
annual average of 144 people would be
employed. Of this total, it is projected that at
least 80% would be hired from the local work
force.
During reclamation, approximately 50 people
would be retained for year 10. This work
force would be responsible for mill
decommissioning, completing the partial mine
backfill, and reclamation. It is estimated that
at least 95% of the reclamation work force
would be local.
2.8.8 Supply Transportation
Operating supplies would be brought to the
mine site through Wauconda via State
Highway 20. From Wauconda, trucks would
be routed north on County Road 9495
(Toroda Creek Road) to County Road 9480
(Oroville - Toroda Creek Road), then up
County Road 4895 and Forest Road 3575-
120 to the site. The listing and amount of
supplies brought to the site are set forth in
Table 2.4, Materials and Supplies.
2.8.9 Reclamation
This alternative provides for partial backfill of
waste rock into the final open pit on the
north side of the Crown Jewel Project reserve
zone. This partial backfill would allow
drainage from the total pit area, prevent the
formation of a surface lake after reclamation,
and allow isolation of potential acid-producing
waste rock.
The surface of the tailings area would be
contoured to provide drainage to the north.
The buildings and other temporary surface
facilities would be dismantled, torn down, or
otherwise disposed of or hauled off-site. The
haul roads would be eliminated by
recontouring.
The remainder of the disturbed areas would
be graded, sloped, topsoiled and revegetated
with grasses, 400 shrubs per acre, and 250
trees per acre for long-term stabilization.
Selective blasting of the pit walls to remove
benches is proposed. Test plot areas would
be created to determine the best methods of
achieving revegetation of the site.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-93
2.8.10 Ore Recovery
Approximately 1.46 million ounces of gold
are estimated to be recoverable under this
alternative. The sequential partial backfilling
during mining could affect the operational
flexibility and mining economics since the
magnetite ore in the bottom of the northern
pit area would need to be removed earlier so
it would need to be as finely ground as the
other ore in the deposit.
2.9 ALTERNATIVE F
This alternative represents the construction,
operation, and reclamation of a mining and
milling facility consisting of an open pit
surface mine, a waste rock disposal area, a
lined tailings impoundment, a milling facility,
an office and maintenance complex, and
miscellaneous other support facilities
including haul roads, access roads, a water
storage reservoir, water supply pipeline and
an electric power transmission line. At full
production, the operation considered by this
alternative would process approximately
1,500 tons of ore per day, or half of the
production rate proposed for action
Alternatives B, C, D, E, and G.
The proposed surface facility layout of the
operation is set forth on Figure 2.21,
Alternative F - Operational Site Plan. Various
aspects of this alternative are summarized in
Table 2.11, Summary of Alternative F.
2.9.1 Mining Techniques
This alternative would consist of a single
open pit surface mine. Approximately 9.1
million tons of ore are planned to be mined
and processed. To access the ore,
approximately 54 million cubic yards of waste
rock would be removed and placed in a single
temporary waste rock disposal area north of
the pit. (Disposal Area I on Figure 2.2,
Waste Rock Disposal Area Options.)
The mining would be conducted by
conventional bench highwall techniques.
Benches would be created as part of ore and
waste rock extraction. Benches would be
drilled and shot with ANFO blasting agents.
Samples would be obtained from the cuttings
of selected blast holes and analyzed in an on-
site laboratory for precious metals. Once
determined, the mine's surveyors would
stake the blasted benches and flag both ore
and waste rock locations for the front-end
loader or shovel operators. Off-highway
trucks would be loaded by front-end loaders
or shovels. These trucks would transport the
ore to the crusher facility and the waste rock
to the waste rock disposal areas.
Mining operations would be conducted for a
single (12 hour) shift per day, seven days a
week, 365 days per year with maintenance
scheduled for the second shift. Milling would
be conducted two shifts a day, 24 hours per
day, seven days a week, 365 days per year.
2.9.2 Waste Rock Disposal
A single temporary waste rock disposal area
would be constructed north of the proposed
pit to contain the entire estimated 54 million
cubic yards of waste rock material removed
from the mine pit. At the cessation of
operations, all the temporarily stockpiled
waste rock would be returned to the mine pit.
The final topography of the mine pit area,
after backfilling, would be higher than the
topography existing prior to mining given the
swell factor for the waste rock material.
2.9.3 Ore Processing
Ore from the mine would be transported to a
surface ore stockpile area where it would be
loaded into a below surface crushing facility.
After crushing, the ore would be transported
by conveyor to a surface mill for grinding,
processing, and extraction of the gold.
Conventional milling techniques involving
tank cyanidation and CIL recovery would be
used to extract the gold from the ore. The
mill would be designed for the 1,500 tons per
day feed.
The final product of milling would be gold
bars, known as dor£.
2.9.4 Tailings Disposal
The tailings stream, after being subjected to
the INCO S02/Air/Oxidation destruction
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-94 CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES January 1997
TABLE 2.11, SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE F
GENERAL COMPONENTS
Production 1,500 Tons of Ore Per Day
Mining Surface/Open Pit
Waste Rock 1 Disposal Area (north of pit)
Crushing Below Surface
Grinding Surface
Milling Tank Cyanidation with Carbon in Leach
Tailings Disposal Nicholson Creek
Cyanide Destruction INCO SO2/Air/Oxidation
Employee Transportation Busing and/or Van Pooling (Oroville to Chesaw and South)
Supply Transportation Wauconda to Mine Site
Reclamation Complete Pit Backfill; No Permanent Waste Rock Disposal Areas
EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
Construction and Development
Year 1 145-FTE111; 250-Peak
Operations
Year 2-17 125
Decommissioning and Reclamation
Year 18-33 75
LAND OWNERSHIP/ADMINISTRATION ACRES %
Forest Service 527 64
BLM 153 19
WADNR 38 5
Private 99 12
Total 817 100
SURFACE AREA DISTURBANCE (acres)
Waste Rock Disposal Area (Temporary) 215
Tailings Facility 157
Mill and Ore Processing Facility 16
Pit Area 138
Rock Quarry 0
Topsoil Stockpiles 63
Mine Adits 0
Ore Stockpile 12
Main Access Road 24
Haul Roads 48
Miscellaneous Site Access Roads 28
Tailings Slurry Pipeline 4
Ancillary Facilities, including Soil Borrow Pits 39
Water Supply Pipeline/Pump Station 10
Water Reservoir 35
Topsoil Stockpile (Reservoir) 4
Power Line Right-of-Way 24
Total 817
Note: 1. FTE = Full Time Equivalents (Employees)
process, would be pumped via a pipeline to a would be designed and operated as a closed-
lined tailings impoundment in the Nicholson circuit facility with respect to water.
Creek drainage. Water used in the cyanide
processing and transport of the tailings would 2.9.5 Area of Disturbance
be collected and recycled to the mill for reuse
in the milling process. The tailings facility Approximately 817 acres would be physically
disturbed, including an estimated 73 acres of
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-95
disturbance associated with the water
storage reservoir, the water supply pipeline,
and the power transmission line right-of-way
from Oroville to the site.
Of the estimated total disturbance, 64% (527
acres) would be on National Forest lands,
19% (153 acres) would be on lands
administered by the BLM, 5% (38 acres)
would be on lands administered by the
WADNR, and 12% (99 acres) would be on
private lands.
2.9.6 Project Life
Alternative F has a projected life of 33 years.
Construction accounts for about one year,
operations for 16 years, and most
decommissioning/reclamation (including the
complete pit backfilling activities) adding
another estimated 16 years. Long-term
monitoring would be as necessary to meet
approved plans and permits. At least six
years of monitoring for revegetation would be
required.
2.9.7 Employment
During the peak construction period, a
maximum of 250 people would be employed,
225 for actual construction of facilities and
25 for initiation of mining operations. This
represents a full time work force of about
145 people. The construction work would be
managed by the Proponent, but the actual
work would be done under contract to a
construction firm specializing in mining-
related construction. It is estimated that
approximately 40% of the construction force
would be hired locally (Eastern Okanogan and
Western Ferry Counties).
Once the mine becomes fully operational, an
estimated 125 people would be employed.
Of this total, it is projected that at least 80%
would be hired from the local work force.
During reclamation, an estimated 100 people
would be retained for the first year of
reclamation work which would include mill
decommissioning, tailings pond reclamation,
and initiation of mine backfill activities. For
the next 15 years, an estimated 75 people
would be required to continue the mine pit
backfill operations. In the last year of
reclamation, an estimated 25 people would
be required for topsoil work and
miscellaneous revegetation activities. It is
estimated that 95% of the reclamation work
force would be local.
2.9.8 Supply Transportation
Operating supplies would be brought to the
mine site through Wauconda via State
Highway 20. From Wauconda, trucks would
be routed north on County Road 9495
(Toroda Creek Road) to County Road 9480
(Oroville - Toroda Creek Road), then up
County Road 4895 and Forest Road 3575-
120 to the site. The listing and amount of
supplies brought to the site are about half
those set forth in Table 2.4, Materials and
Supplies.
2.9.9 Reclamation
This alternative provides for complete backfill
of waste rock into the final open pit. This
would allow drainage from the total pit area
and prevent the formation of a surface lake
after reclamation.
Reclamation of the pit area and temporary
waste rock disposal area sites would begin
much later than under all other action
alternatives.
The surface of the tailings area would be
contoured to provide drainage to the north.
The buildings and other temporary surface
facilities would be dismantled, torn down, or
otherwise disposed of or hauled off-site. The
haul roads would be eliminated by
recontouring.
All disturbed areas would be graded, sloped,
topsoiled and revegetated with grasses, 400
shrubs per acre, and 250 trees per acre for
long-term stabilization. Test plot areas would
be created to determine the best methods of
achieving revegetation of the site.
2.9.10 Ore Recovery
Approximately 1.46 million ounces of gold
were estimated to be recovered in the
implementation of this alternative. It should
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-96
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIVES
January 1997
be noted that, when the substantial costs of
complete backfilling are considered, a
substantial decrease in or elimination of
reserves should result in a different mine
equipment utilization and milling economies
of scale.
2.10 ALTERNATIVE G
This alternative represents the construction,
operation, and reclamation of a mining and
milling facility that would include an open pit
surface mine, a single waste rock disposal
area to the north of the pit, a milling facility
that uses flotation only with no cyanide
processing on-site, a lined tailings
impoundment in Nicholson Creek for flotation
tailings, an office and maintenance complex,
and miscellaneous support facilities including
haul and access roads, a water storage
reservoir, a water supply pipeline, and a
power transmission line. In this alternative,
flotation concentrates would be hauled off-
site to be subjected to cyanidation and
smelting. At full production, the operation
would process approximately 3,000 tons of
ore per day.
The proposed layout of the facilities for this
alternative is set forth on Figure 2.22,
Alternative G - Operational Site Plan. Various
aspects of this alternative are summarized in
Table 2.12, Summary of Alternative G.
2.10.1 Mining Techniques
This proposed action would consist of a
single open pit surface mine. Approximately
9.1 million tons of ore are planned to be
mined and processed. To access the ore,
approximately 54 million cubic yards of waste
rock would be removed and placed in a single
waste rock disposal area north of the pit (see
Disposal Area J on Figure 2.2, Waste Rock
Disposal Area Options).
The mining would be conducted by
conventional bench highwall techniques.
Benches would be created as part of ore and
waste rock extraction. Benches would be
drilled and shot with ANFO blasting agents.
Samples would be obtained from the cuttings
of selected blast holes drilled and would be
analyzed in an on-site laboratory for precious
metals. Once determined, the mine's
surveyors would stake the blasted benches
and flag both ore and waste rock locations
for the front-end loader or shovel operators.
Off-highway trucks would be loaded by front
end loaders or shovels. These trucks would
transport the ore to the crusher facility and
the waste rock to the waste rock disposal
area.
2.10.2 Waste Rock Disposal
All waste rock (approximately 54 million
cubic yards) would be placed in a single
permanent waste rock Disposal Area (J)
located to the north of the proposed pit. This
disposal area would cover the 1.8 acre
wetland area known locally as the frog pond.
At mine closure, the overall slope of the
waste rock disposal area would be 3H:1 V.
2.10.3 Ore Processing
Ore from the mine would be transported to a
surface ore stockpile area where it would be
loaded into a below surface crushing facility.
After crushing, the ore would be transported
by conveyor to a surface mill for grinding,
processing, and extraction of the gold.
Milling would use the flotation process which
is a method of concentrating solid minerals in
a relatively finely divided state. Precious
metals (gold) in the ground ore would be
recovered as a concentrate in the flotation
cell.
Chemicals that are projected for use in the
flotation process and their estimated
consumption rates are presented in Table
2.13, Flotation Reagents.
2.10.4 Off-Site Shipment of Flotation
Concentrates
Approximately 10% of the total processed
ore would become the flotation concentrates.
This would amount to approximately 300
tons per day, if 3,000 tons per day are
processed. Assuming 25 ton haul trucks,
there would be 12 trips per day, seven days
per week, from the Crown Jewel Project site
with trucks hauling flotation concentrates. It
is assumed that the concentrates would be
hauled to Oroville where the concentrates
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 2-97
TABLE 2.12, SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVE G
GENERAL COMPONENTS
Production 3,000 Tons of Ore Per Day
Mining Surface/Open Pit
Waste Rock 1 Disposal Area (north of pit)
Crushing Below Surface
Grinding Surface
Milling Flotation, Off-Site Cyanidation, and Smelting
Tailings Disposal Nicholson Creek
Cyanide Destruction Not Applicable
Employee Transportation Busing and/or Van Pooling (Oroville to Chesaw and South)
Supply Transportation Oroville to Mine Site
Reclamation No Pit Backfill; Other Sites Revegetated
EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
Construction and Development
Year 1 145-FTE'"; 250-Peak
Operations
Year 2-9 210
Decommissioning and Reclamation
Year 10 50
LAND OWNERSHIP/ADMINISTRATION ACRES %
Forest Service 544 61
BLM 197 22
WADNR 44 5
Private 108 12
Total 893 100
SURFACE AREA DISTURBANCE (acres)
Waste Rock Disposal Area 294
Tailings Facility 137
Mill and Ore Processing Facility 16
Pit Area 1 38
Rock Quarry 0
Topsoil Stockpiles 72
Mine Adits 0
Ore Stockpile 12
Mam Access Road 24
Haul Roads 63
Miscellaneous Site Access Roads 15
Tailings Slurry Pipeline 4
Ancillary Facilities, including Soil Borrow Pits 45
Water Supply Pipeline/Pump Station 10
Water Reservoir 35
Topsoil Stockpile (Reservoir) 4
Power Line Right-of-Way 24
Total 893
Note: 1. FTE = Full Time Equivalents (Employees)
would be loaded on railroad cars for transport Nicholson Creek drainage. Water used in the
to the Seattle or Tacoma area where they processing and transport of the tailings would
would probably be shipped overseas for be collected and recycled to the mill for reuse
cyanidation and final smelting. in the milling process. The tailings facility
would be designed and operated as a closed
2.10.5 Tailings Disposal circuit (zero discharge) facility with respect to
water. There would be no cyanide
The flotation tailings would be pumped via a destruction component to the tailings disposal
pipeline to a lined tailings impoundment in the circuit.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-98
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
TABLE 2.13, FLOTATION REAGENTS
Reagent
Potassium Amyl Xanthate
MIBC (Frother)
AP404 (Promotor)
DP-6 (Promotor)
Copper Sulfate (Activator)
Na2S (Sulfidizer)
Approximate
Requirement
Ibs/ton
0.3
0.06
0.25
0.1
0.3
0.3
Container
(shipping & storage)
50 gallon drum
50 gallon drum
50 gallon drum
50 gallon drum
50 gallon drum
50 gallon drum
Approximate Daily1 Use
(Ibs)
900
180
750
300
900
900
Note: 1 . Assumes processing of approximately 3,000 tons of ore per day.
Annual Use
(tons)
164
33
137
55
164
164
2.10.6 Area of Disturbance
Approximately 893 acres would be physically
disturbed, including an estimated 73 acres of
disturbance associated with the water
storage reservoir, the water supply pipeline,
and the power transmission line right-of-way
from Oroville to the site.
Of the estimated total disturbance, 61 % (544
acres) would be on National Forest lands,
22% (197 acres) would be on lands
administered by the BLM, 5% (44 acres)
would be on lands administered by the
WADNR, and 12% (108 acres) would be on
private lands.
2.10.7 Project Life
Alternative G has a projected life of ten
years. Construction accounts for about one
year, operations for approximately eight
years, and the majority of decommissioning/
reclamation being completed in another year.
Long-term monitoring would be as necessary
to meet approved plans and permits. At least
six years of monitoring for revegetation
would be required.
2.10.8 Employment
During the peak construction phase, a
maximum of 250 people would be required,
225 for actual construction of facilities and
25 for initiation of mining operations. This
would be equivalent to a full time workforce
of 145 people. The construction work would
be managed by the Proponent, but the actual
work would be done under contract to a
construction firm specializing in mining-
related construction. It is estimated that
approximately 40% of the construction force
could be hired locally (Eastern Okanogan and
Western Ferry Counties).
Once the mine becomes fully operational, a
maximum of 210 people would be employed.
Of this total, it is projected that at least 80%
would be hired from the local work force.
This operational work force would include the
30 people (drivers, maintenance, dewatering,
loadout, and administration personnel)
necessary for the handling and transportation
of flotation concentrates to Oroville.
During reclamation, approximately 50 people
would be retained for mill decommissioning,
mine closure and reclamation. It is estimated
that 95% of the reclamation work force
would be local.
2.10.9 Supply Transportation
Shipment of operating supplies,
approximately 11 truck loads per week,
would be via year round highways to Oroville.
From Oroville, trucks would be routed east on
County Road 9480 through Chesaw (Oroville
- Toroda Creek Road), then up County Road
4895 and Forest Road 3575-120 to the site.
Given the probable spring haulage restrictions
with this transportation route, approximately
30 days additional storage over the storage
contemplated for the Wauconda-Toroda
Creek route would be required. There would
be no transport of chemicals needed for the
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-99
cyanidation circuit or the cyanide destruction
circuit. Flotation chemicals are set forth in
Table 2.13, Flotation Reagents.
2.10.10 Reclamation
The final pit would be left open. This would
allow the creation of a lake in the northern
portion of the final pit that would eventually
discharge into the Nicholson Creek drainage.
The remainder of the disturbed areas would
be graded, sloped, topsoiled, and revegetated
with grasses, 400 shrubs per acre, and 250
trees per acre for long-term stabilization.
Selective blasting of the pit walls to remove
benches is proposed. Test plot areas would
be created to determine the best methods of
achieving revegetation of the site. The
buildings and other temporary surface
facilities would be dismantled, torn down, or
otherwise disposed of or hauled off-site. The
haul roads would be eliminated by
recontouring.
2.10.11 Ore Recovery
The use of flotation would recover about
760,000 ounces (45%), versus
approximately 1.46 million ounces (87%)
using cyanidation, of the gold contained in
the Crown Jewel Project ore reserve. This
reduction is primarily due to the mineralogy of
the Crown Jewel Project deposit.
2.11 RECLAMATION MEASURES
The purpose of reclamation is to return the
disturbed areas to a stabilized and productive
condition following mining and milling
activities and protect long-term land, water,
and air resources in the area. Reclamation
policies of the Forest Service, BLM, and
WADNR are to ensure the return of disturbed
lands to productive uses consistent with land
management policies.
The Proponent submitted a Reclamation Plan
in August 1993 (Revised November 1993,
August 1995, December 1995, March 1996,
and July 1996) to the Forest Service,
WADOE, BLM, and WADNR. The plan
includes their proposed reclamation measures
and design for the site. If an action
alternative is selected, this reclamation plan
would be modified, as necessary, to include
any changes or additions as developed
through the EIS and permitting processes.
The Plan of Operations approved prior to the
start-up of the Crown Jewel Project would
include a detailed reclamation plan acceptable
to the Forest Service, WADOE, BLM, and
WADNR. The reclamation plan would
describe measures to reduce long-term
impacts with the goal to return the land to a
productive state similar to that which existed
on the site prior to exploration. The
reclamation plan would conform to
appropriate federal and state statutes and
regulations.
All parties understand that reclamation
practices and technology are changing and
developing. It is expected that there would
be future modifications in the Operational
Reclamation Plans as techniques are refined
or expanded. Revegetation test plot work
would be completed during operations and
would evaluate the results of this work and
other reclamation programs in the industry.
The Proponent would take advantage of
opportunities to explore new reclamation
techniques and new methods for erosion
control. The reclamation plan would be
updated at least once every five years or as
appropriate using results of test plots or
improvements in reclamation technology.
As described in Section 2.14, Performance
Securities, reclamation and environmental
protection performance securities would be
updated on two year intervals or more
frequently, as necessary depending on
changes in disturbed areas, modifications of
plans or any other alteration of or to the
condition of the mine that affects the cost of
reclamation and/or environmental protection.
2.11.1 Introduction
The reclamation program for the Crown
Jewel Project is designed to reclaim mining
related disturbance, where conditions and
current reclamation technology reasonably
permit, in compliance with the requirements
of the appropriate regulatory agencies. The
following are measures the Proponent would
take to safeguard the environment through
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-100
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIVES
January 1997
reclamation of the affected areas when
activities in these areas cease. The
procedures are designed to allow the
Proponent to reclaim affected areas to a
productive post-mining land use that is similar
to pre-mining and pre-exploration land uses.
2.11.2 Reclamation Goals and
Objectives
The current land use of the site is primarily
for timber management, rangeland for cattle
grazing, wildlife habitat, and dispersed
recreation. Although most of the area has
previously been harvested for timber, there is
relatively little available, high quality forage
suitable for wildlife use and domestic grazing.
The emphasis of the reclamation plan would
be to create forested habitats similar to what
existed prior to exploration and future deer
winter range, where appropriate.
The reclamation plan for any of the selected
action alternatives would incorporate the
following basic goals:
• Establishment of stable surface,
topographic, and drainage conditions that
are compatible with the surrounding
landscape and that control erosion, water
quality, and air quality impacts from the
operation;
• Establishment of surface soil conditions
that are conducive to regeneration of a
stable plant community through removal,
stockpiling, and reapplication of suitable
topsoil and cover soil material;
• Revegetation of disturbed areas using
species adapted to site conditions and
approved by the appropriate agencies in
order to establish a long-term productive,
self-sustaining, biotic community
compatible with currently identified future
land uses and comparable to what
currently exists on the site;
• Consideration of public safety including
posting warning signs, limiting public
access, and the stabilizing or removing of
structures or landforms created as a result
of the mining activities that could
constitute a public hazard;
• Drain/dewater tailings solids, dewater the
tailings pond, cover the tailings with soil
and revegetate the tailings facility; and,
• Re-establishment of access routes across
the Crown Jewel Project site where
desired by the agencies.
The post-mining land uses on federal lands
would be managed for replacement timber,
grazing, wildlife habitat, and dispersed
recreation or land use emphasis developed for
the area through Management Plan revisions.
2.11.3 Reclamation Schedule
Reclamation and closure design measures
would be incorporated into the mine design at
the start of the Crown Jewel Project and
would be an integral part of the mine
permitting and mining operations.
Reclamation activities would be initiated as
soon as practical after the mining activities in
a particular area are completed, thus
minimizing erosion and sedimentation
problems. This is called segmental or
concurrent reclamation.
In general, reclamation activities would be
timed to take advantage of optimal climatic
conditions. Seedbeds would be prepared and
seeding would be completed in order to take
advantage of winter and spring moisture.
Tree and shrub planting would occur in the
spring.
During the life of the Crown Jewel Project,
interim and segmental reclamation would
occur to reduce erosion and the potential for
water quality degradation. Interim
reclamation refers to reclamation efforts on
lands disturbed during the course of a project
and is intended to temporarily stabilize an
area prior to final reclamation. Interim
reclamation would include revegetation to
reduce erosion and sediment during the life of
the operation. Topsoil would not be applied
to interim revegetated areas. Mulch would
be applied, as appropriate, following seeding.
The areas which would require interim
reclamation include the temporary road
embankments and topsoil stockpiles.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-101
Segmental reclamation refers to reclamation
activities which can be carried on at the same
time as ongoing mining activities. Segmental
(concurrent) reclamation would be used on
disturbed areas that have been graded to final
reclamation topography. Such areas would
include road outslopes for permanent
roadways, areas disturbed during
construction of the water supply pipeline
routes, power line route, and waste rock
disposal areas at final grade due to staged
construction.
Most reclamation activities would occur at
the time of mine closure and would be
considered final reclamation. The areas to
undergo reclamation at mine closure would
include portions of the mine pit, portions of
the waste rock disposal areas, the tailings
disposal facility, haul roads, mill facilities and
administration building site, borrow areas,
and other ancillary areas. The water storage
reservoir would be reclaimed after
reclamation of the mine site is complete, and
water is no longer needed for reclamation and
pit-filling activities. Final reclamation would
be implemented upon the completion of
mining activities at the Crown Jewel Project
or after a period of shutdown of more than
two years, unless there are circumstances
that allow for longer periods under permit
terms.
Temporary Cessation
Although a temporary cessation of operations
is not planned, circumstances beyond the
control of the Proponent may require a
temporary cessation of operations. If a
temporary cessation of operations occurs, the
Proponent would implement the following
activities:
• Seeding and associated revegetation
practices would be implemented on areas
not scheduled for additional disturbance;
• Diversion ditches and sedimentation ponds
would be inspected periodically to ensure
that approved design criteria are met and
that the systems continue to function
properly after major storm events.
Cleaning and repairs would be performed
as necessary; and,
• Appropriate sediment management
structures would be placed as necessary.
Monitoring and necessary maintenance would
be conducted during any temporary cessation
of operations.
Under certain circumstances, and 180 days
after the cessation of operations, the WADNR
can declare the site abandoned and final
reclamation would commence. Similarly, the
BLM can require reclamation to start after an
extended period of non-operation as defined
in the 43 CFR 3809 regulations, or as
otherwise defined in an approved Plan of
Operations.
Permanent Cessation
In the unlikely event that operations
permanently cease prior to the scheduled
completion of operations, impacts related to
pit size and depth, underground operations,
waste rock disposal areas, and tailings
disposal facilities may be less than proposed.
The post-operational landform would depend
on the stage of the operation at cessation
and cannot be predicted. If operations cease
prematurely, the Proponent would work with
the appropriate agencies to develop a revised
reclamation plan that specifically addresses
the existing conditions at the time of closure.
2.11.4 General Reclamation Procedures
This section includes the general steps to be
followed in reclaiming each of the disturbance
areas. Where feasible, Crown Jewel Project
features to be reclaimed would be designed
to achieve a topography that blends into the
surrounding terrain. This would not be fully
accomplished with the pit area except under
Alternative F.
Vegetation Clearing and Seed Collection
Prior to topsoil salvage, merchantable timber
would be harvested and removed from the
site, except what would be needed for "down
log" reclamation requirements. To the extent
possible, remaining vegetation would be
removed; however, much of the herbaceous
vegetation would remain and be salvaged
during soil removal operations. Logs that
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-102
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
would be used for replacement of large
woody debris during segmental or final
reclamation would be stockpiled during
operations. Other woody debris including
stumps, limbs, brush, etc. would be chipped
and returned onto the soil prior to actual soil
removal (if the permitting agency jurisdiction
concludes chipping would be available as a
reasonable alternative) or piled and burned in
place.
At least three years prior to the
commencement of segmental and/or final
reclamation, the Proponent would collect
seed from the proper seed zones to reforest
the site with trees and shrubs or reimburse
the agencies for the collection of the seed
and raising of the tree seedlings. This seed
would be made available to the Forest
Service or a private tree nursery to grow the
necessary seedlings. The seed collection and
plant propagation activities described above
pertain only to the production of tree and
shrub seedlings for mine site reclamation.
As much natural, local vegetation seed
sources (grasses, forbs, shrubs, and trees)
would be used as feasible. Seed sources
from sites with similar environments would
be selected to ensure that the plants are
adapted to the elevation, precipitation,
temperature, and soil conditions present at
the Crown Jewel Project. Native seed would
be collected locally as availability allows.
Where not enough seed can be reasonably
collected locally, seed would be purchased
from suppliers in Washington State or from
other suppliers in the Pacific Northwest who
specialize in reclamation. If appropriate seed
is not available commercially, seed would be
collected from appropriate ecotypes, as
required.
Erosion and Sediment Control
Erosion control would be accomplished by
diverting existing flow into engineered
diversion channels, thus eliminating excessive
surface runoff across disturbed areas.
Sediment detention basins and ponds
designed for catching and storing sediment
from exposed and erodible surfaces would be
built prior to disturbance in an area.
Detention ponds would have an adequate
retention time to allow the sediment to settle
out prior to discharge to surface waters.
Discharges from detention ponds must meet
appropriate state and federal water quality
standards. Sediment traps would be placed
in ditches, depending on slope, and below un-
revegetated slopes to aid in erosion and
sediment control. The size and spacing of
such erosion and sediment control structures
would be based on site specific design
considerations.
Best Management Practices for runoff and
sedimentation control include the following
measures:
• The disturbed area would be kept to a
minimum at any given time through
phased disturbance and segmental
reclamation.
• An underdrain would be installed beneath
the tailings disposal facility. This would
allow ground water and springs to flow
beneath the facility.
• Drainage structures installed as part of the
construction of access and haul roads
would include channels, water-bars, cross
drains, culverts, sediment traps, and silt
fencing.
• Rapidly developing and sod-forming plant
species would be planted to promote rapid
stabilization.
• Seeding and planting would occur in the
first appropriate season after topsoil
redistribution.
• Mulches, with tackifiers (as needed),
would be applied to aid in erosion control
and moisture retention.
• Access would be minimized by fencing to
limit disturbance and promote rapid
stabilization.
• Grasses, shrubs, and trees would be
planted for stabilization.
• Interim seeding would be used to stabilize
inactive, disturbed areas.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-103
• Roads and water control structures would
be maintained periodically as needed.
• Sediment control structures would be
maintained until reclamation and
revegetation efforts are completed and the
sediment control structures are no longer
needed. The sediment control structures
would then be reclaimed.
Grading during reclamation would be
designed and conducted to minimize the
potential for erosion. Specifically, the
following measures would be implemented:
• Fill slopes and other potential sediment
sources would be visually inspected
throughout the operation to allow early
detection of erosion and vegetation
problems. During critical runoff periods,
such as spring snow melt, inspection of
fills and erosive areas would occur on a
more frequent basis.
• Reclaimed slopes would be inspected after
spring runoff and after major storm events
for a period of at least six years after the
completion of reclamation grading or as
determined by the regulatory agencies.
Any rills or gullies greater than six inches
deep that develop would be stabilized and
revegetated.
Decommissioning of Facilities
Following permanent closure of the operation,
salvageable equipment, instrumentation,
furniture, and/or unused reagents would be
removed from the site. The various piping
and plumbing material associated with the
mill would be flushed to remove or neutralize
any reagents or chemicals.
Removal of Buildings and Structures
Buildings and structures would be dismantled
and removed from the site at the permanent
cessation of operations. Any salvageable
parts of buildings and structures would be
sold or transferred to another operation.
Unsalvageable portions of buildings and
structures, such as foundations, would be
buried on-site or removed and disposed of in
an approved waste disposal facility. Pads
would be ripped to alleviate compaction and
revegetated as part of final closure. In
addition, unless needed for some ongoing
purpose, access and haul roads would be
reclaimed to the original topography or ripped
and seeded, culverts would be removed, and
the roads would be "pulled back" and/or
ripped and then reseeded. Power lines and
power poles would be removed from National
Forest System lands except as specified in
Section 2.12.18, Wildlife and Fish - Public
Land Enhancement.
Grading and Stabilization
Slopes would be shaped for reclamation
during material placement, removal, or upon
completion of the active life of each Crown
Jewel Project component. Depending on the
type of material, its erodibility, and the
practical considerations of the mining
process, overall final slope grades would
vary.
Upper portions of the mine pit would remain
essentially as cliffs. Reclamation blasting
techniques would be used on the upper
highwall and benches, particularly in the
upper 200 feet to leave irregular cliffs with
talus slopes below. Backfilled waste rock in
the southwest end of the pit and pit floor
would be resoiled and reclaimed with
vegetation, where possible. The southwest
pit wall would be blasted and/or filled to
create somewhat continuous slopes that are
no steeper than the angle of repose
(1.51-1:1 V) which could be used for wildlife
passage in and out of the pit and could
become revegetated. Some isolated raptor
perches would be left or created high on the
pit walls. Several portions of the south pit
floor would be designed to capture water and
potentially create small, shallow vernal pools.
The pit outfall and new channel, down to the
existing Gold Bowl drainage channel, would
be constructed and stabilized to prevent
erosion, and provide aquatic resource
functions to the degree that the topography
would allow.
Other cut slopes in bedrock, such as along
roads, would be left as near vertical walls
during operations to minimize the amount of
disturbed land. Material would be placed in
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-104
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIVES
January 1997
these road cuts during reclamation to return
these, as practical, to the slopes of the
adjacent natural ground.
Final grading of mine facilities, such as waste
rock disposal areas and the tailings
embankment outslopes, would create slopes
that blend with the surrounding undisturbed
topography and generally range from 2.5H:1 V
to flatter than 3H:1 V. Waste rock disposal
areas would be graded to mostly a slope of
3H:1 V or flatter on public lands administered
by the BLM. Sharp edges would be rounded
and straight lines would be softened to
provide topography which blends with the
surrounding terrain. Small, irregular swales
would be formed on the outslopes of the
waste rock disposal areas during regrading to
break up constant slopes and straight lines.
These swales would provide protected
microsites on south faces for plant growth.
Tailings Disposal Facility
During the last year of tailings placement, the
depositional sequence would be modified by
depositing tailings through selected lines and
spigots in areas necessary to achieve the final
tailings surface configuration. The reclaimed
surface would be developed to promote
overall drainage to a spillway. The reclaimed
surface would slope at approximately a 2%
to 4% average grade.
The volume of tailings water in the system
would be reduced to the minimum possible
during the immediate period prior to closure.
Water would be reduced by limiting the
addition of make-up water and, if necessary,
spray evaporation of ponded water within the
tailings area. By reducing the system water,
the free water pool area could be minimized
to allow for access to a large portion of the
disposal area upon closure.
As the remaining areas of the tailings
consolidate, equipment would be able to
access the facility. The amount of time
required to allow access to the pond area by
reclamation equipment would depend on the
season and climactic conditions at the
completion of operations. However, by using
the thin layer deposition method for tailings
disposal, the tailings would be expected to
dewater quickly and allow reclamation of the
surface to be completed within one year of
the cessation of deposition.
A three foot layer of coarse material, most
probably glacial material, would be placed
over the tailings. This layer would provide
root anchoring support to trees planted on
the tailings surface. A 12-inch layer of soil
would be placed over the coarse material
layer, fertilized (if necessary), and the area
seeded and mulched.
A drainage channel would be constructed
across the facility to facilitate flow to a
spillway. A spillway would be constructed in
or adjacent to the tailings embankment and
have an outflow channel for control of normal
and flood flows. Riparian vegetation would
be planted along the drainageway across the
tailings surface.
Recovery Solution Collection Pond
The recovery solution collection pond would
remain in service until the tailings facility has
been successfully revegetated and until water
no longer discharges from the overdrain
system or such discharges meet water quality
standards either at the discharge or after
treatment through an approved treatment
system. The recovery solution collection
pond would then be regraded, topsoiled, and
revegetated.
Starrem Reservoir Reclamation
The Starrem Reservoir would be located on
private land. Reclamation activities of this
facility would meet the needs of the
landowner.
No water from the Starrem Reservoir would
be planned for revegetation irrigation use;
however, water could be used after
permanent cessation of mining activities to
speed pit lake filling. In this case, the
Starrem Reservoir and associated facilities
would not be reclaimed until the pit lake is
full and final reclamation is completed at the
mine.
The Starrem Reservoir would be drained by
pumping water to the pit lake or releasing
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-105
water in a controlled fashion to Myers Creek.
Following draining, the Starrem Reservoir liner
would be recycled, sold or perforated, folded,
and buried in place. The reservoir
embankment would be removed by grading it
onto the reservoir surface. Soil would be
redistributed, fertilized (if necessary), and the
area seeded and mulched.
The pipeline right-of-way corridor from the
Starrem Reservoir site to the mine would be
revegetated through concurrent reclamation,
immediately after construction is completed.
Upon final reclamation, the pipeline would be
excavated at certain intervals along its
length; and, at these intervals, the pipeline
would be perforated and/or segments
removed, and buried in clean gravel. The
disturbances caused by these activities would
be revegetated. The purpose of these
activities would be to prevent build-up of
water pressure in remaining pipe segments.
The power cable buried in the pipeline trench
would be disconnected and left in place.
The Starrem Reservoir pumping station would
be dismantled and salvaged upon final
reclamation of the reservoir. The Proponent
proposes to break and bury the concrete
foundations on site. Soil would be
redistributed, fertilized (if necessary), and the
area seeded and mulched.
Storm Water Facilities
The storm water facilities would also remain
in service until after the Crown Jewel Project
components which they serve are
successfully reclaimed. The water diversion
channel to the west of the tailings pond
(which would divert storm runoff from
entering the tailings facility) would be
constructed and stabilized to prevent erosion
and provide aquatic resource functions to the
degree that topography would allow. When
no longer needed, detention structures and
other diversion ditches would be regraded,
topsoiled, and seeded.
Topsoil
Topsoil and cover soil suitable for
revegetation would be salvaged and
stockpiled prior to the initiation of site
preparation and mining operations.
Topsoil salvage would be conducted using
dozers, front-end loaders, scrapers, haul
trucks, and other equipment, as appropriate.
The salvaged topsoil and cover soil would be
loaded and hauled to designated stockpiles.
Stormwater runoff diversions would be
constructed around each stockpile to
minimize water erosion. Certified noxious
weed free hay or straw bales, silt fences,
and/or berms would be used as necessary to
control erosion from the topsoil stockpiles.
The topsoil stockpiles would be revegetated
with an interim seed mixture to prevent
erosion.
In order to maintain favorable microbial
conditions of replaced topsoil, the upper two
to three feet of topsoil stockpiles may be
temporarily stored near the active reclamation
site. This surficial topsoil would be applied
as the last step in the topsoiling process.
Gentler slopes would require less soil than
steeper slopes to achieve successful
revegetation and would be given higher
priority for replacement of topsoil. The
stockpiled topsoil would be periodically tested
to determine if the spreading of surficial
topsoil would be necessary. Rapid microbial
recolonization of disturbed sites might be
accomplished through selective placement of
surficial topsoil, thereby, avoiding separate
stockpiling.
The Proponent's proposal is to place 12
inches of soil on gentler slopes and 1 8 inches
of soil on steeper slopes.
Fertilization
Soil testing would be conducted prior to
seeding and planting to determine if fertilizers
are needed to provide an initial source of
nutrients for establishment of the plant
community. Fertilizer recommendations
would be based on the nutrient requirements
of species to be planted, the effectiveness of
fertilizers on a given soil type, depth of plant
growth layer, pH and measured nutrient
deficiencies of the soils. Fertilizer application
rates would be approved by the Forest
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-106
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIVES
January 1997
Service, BLM, and WADNR prior to
application.
Cultural Treatments
Cultural treatments refer to soil-modification
practices that create more favorable
conditions to facilitate plant growth by:
• Initiating and maintaining a stable soil
system;
• Reducing erosion of surface soils;
• Increasing soil moisture and reducing
evaporative losses;
• Extending the season of seeding by
moderating local microclimates;
• Modifying microenvironments to create a
more diverse plant community; and,
• Providing for the restoration of soil
microbial populations.
Typical cultural treatments that can be used
to facilitate plant community development
include soil ripping, tilling, harrowing,
seedbed preparation, and erosion control
measures. Mine areas which are compacted
(i.e., roads, level surfaces on waste rock
disposal areas, and mill facilities), would be
ripped to a depth of approximately 18 inches
to loosen the plant rooting zone and create an
adhesive surface for the topsoil application.
Where possible and as needed, ripping on
reclaimed slopes would occur parallel to the
contours. On steeper slopes that have
subsoil compaction, ripping would occur
perpendicular to the contours, as safety
conditions allow, and a chain drag would be
attached behind the ripper to eliminate
furrows.
Revegetation
Species Selection. The species mixture
chosen for revegetation would be designed to
provide a stable environment that is capable
of supporting premining land uses of timber
production, livestock grazing, wildlife habitat,
and dispersed recreation use. The first
objective of revegetation would be to provide
immediate soil stabilization to prevent
erosion. The second objective of
revegetation would be to establish a self-
sustaining, native, biotic community
comparable to what currently exists on the
site.
Seeding and Planting. Seeding activities for
grasses, forbs, and shrubs would be
conducted in the fall at the conclusion of
regrading, placement of topsoil, fertilization,
and seedbed preparation to take advantage of
winter and spring moisture. Seeding is most
effective when completed prior to the period
of peak precipitation. Planting of tree and
shrub seedlings would take place in the
spring. If seeding or planting is unsuccessful,
follow-up applications in the next appropriate
season would occur until revegetation meets
release criteria established by the agencies.
The surface of the prepared seedbed would
be left relatively rough to create microsites to
facilitate burial of seed and establishment of
seedlings. Grass, forb, and shrub seed would
be broadcast with a cyclone-type broadcaster
where possible and, if necessary, inaccessible
slopes would be hydroseeded. Broadcast
seeding techniques would be used to create a
more natural-appearing plant community. If
necessary, the seedbed would be harrowed
or dragged following seeding to ensure proper
seed burial.
Tree and shrub seedlings would be planted
randomly over the entire site at approximately
250 trees and 400 shrubs per acre. Tree and
shrub seedlings would be planted from
containerized stock.
Mulch Application. Mulch would be applied
to seeded areas after seeding to facilitate
plant establishment and to protect the seeded
areas from wind and water erosion until the
plants have stabilized the soil.
Cattle Exclusion. Fencing would be used to
exclude cattle from reclaimed areas for an
estimated six years or until the revegetation
success standards have been attained.
Noxious Weeds Control. Necessary control
measures utilizing various mechanical,
biological, cultural, and chemical control
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-107
techniques would be implemented to prevent
and restrict the spread of noxious weeds on
all reclamation areas, topsoil stockpiles,
temporary roads, soil exposed areas, and
during temporary cessation of operations.
The definition of noxious weeds and control
measures is currently identified by
Washington State law Chapter 16-750 WAC
and the Okanogan National Forest, Tonasket
Ranger District, Okanogan County Integrated
Weed Management "IWM" Plan effective
1990, as provided for by Forest Service
Manual Interim Directive 2080-94-1,
"Noxious Weed Management" reissued
February 18, 1994 in accordance with the
1990 Farm Bill amendment of the 1974
Noxious Weed Act.
Revegetation Success Monitoring. A
revegetation monitoring plan is proposed to
evaluate the success of revegetation
activities. Monitoring would begin the first
growing season following planting and
continue until successful revegetation criteria
have been met. Revegetation would be
considered successful when herbaceous
cover and production values, as well as
woody plant densities and tree seedling
survival rates, meet or exceed proposed
success criteria. (See Section 2.13.9,
Reclamation Monitoring, and Section
2.13.10, Revegetation Monitoring).
2.11.5 Reclamation and Environmental
Protection Performance
Securities
The statutory and regulatory authority of the
Forest Service, BLM, WADOE, and WADNR
would require the Proponent to execute
reclamation and environmental protection
financial assurance agreements as part of any
permit and plan approvals from these
agencies. The agreements would ensure that
sufficient monies are available to properly
reclaim areas disturbed and/or to conduct
monitoring and other measures to prevent or
control long-term environmental impacts at
the Crown Jewel Project in the event that the
Proponent would be unable to meet its
reclamation and environmental protection
obligations.
No construction, mining, or milling operations
can commence without approval of the Plans
of Operations, appropriate permits by the
previously mentioned agencies and the
execution of financial assurance agreements
for sufficient reclamation and environmental
protection funds to the agencies responsible
for decommissioning and reclamation of the
Crown Jewel Project.
Additional information about reclamation and
environmental protection financial assurances
is set forth in Section 2.14, Performance
Securities, Section 2.12.9, Permitting and
Financial Assurances (Performance
Securities), and Table 2.14, Potential
Environmental Protection and Reclamation
Activity and Calculation Methods.
2.12 MANAGEMENT AND MITIGATION
Management and mitigation practices at the
proposed Crown Jewel Project would be
based on federal, state, and local laws and
regulations, current technology, best
management practices, and company
policies. The purpose of these practices
would be to reduce or avoid adverse impacts
to the environment and to reclaim disturbed
areas. Implementation of management and
mitigation measures would primarily be the
responsibility of the Proponent. Enforcement
of management and mitigation measures
would be the responsibility of the agencies
issuing permits and approvals for the Crown
Jewel Project. This section is a summary of
management and mitigation practices that
would be applied based on applicable state
and federal regulations or agreed to
previously by the Proponent of the Crown
Jewel Project under all action alternatives.
Crown Jewel Project activities would be
reviewed, controlled, and/or regulated by a
number of federal, state, and local agencies.
Each agency enforces laws and regulations
particular to their mission. A number of
agencies would be involved in regulating
various aspects of the Crown Jewel Project
(water discharge, reclamation, air emissions,
wetlands, etc.). Some aspects, such as
wetlands, are regulated or managed by
multiple agencies (the Corps of Engineers,
WADOE, Forest Service, EPA, etc.).
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-108
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
TABLE 2.14, POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND RECLAMATION ACTIVITY
AND CALCULATION METHODS
Activity
Calculation Method
RECLAMATION PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Mill Site Reclamation
Tailings Facility Closure
Water Quality Monitoring
Air Quality Monitoring
Waste Disposal Area Reclamation
Open Pit Reclamation
Road Reclamation
Pipeline and Reservoir Reclamation
Other Disturbed Areas
Estimated cost for demolition, site hazard assessment,
cleanup and grading.
Estimated cost based on engineering evaluation to
decommission drain system, cover or cap facility, and
reclaim the surface.
Estimated cost for monitoring stations, sample
collection, lab analysis, and reporting during the closure
and reclamation phase.
Estimated cost for monitoring stations, sample
collection, lab analysis, and reporting during the closure
and reclamation phase.
Estimated cost for earthwork, soil placement, and
revegetation.
Estimated cost for earthwork, soil placement, and
revegetation.
Estimated cost for earthwork, soil placement, and
revegetation.
Estimated cost for earthwork, soil placement, and
revegetation.
Estimated cost for earthwork, soil placement, and
revegetation.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PERFORMANCE SECURITY
Post-Reclamation Tailings Facility O&M
Post-Reclamation Water Quality Monitoring
Water Quality Treatment System Design & Construction
Water Treatment System Operations & Maintenance
Ground Water Remediation
Surface Water Remediation
Estimated cost based on engineering evaluation to
maintain any engineered works associated with the
closure plan.
Estimated cost for monitoring stations, sample
collection, lab analysis, and reporting.
Estimated cost based on an engineering evaluation of
treatment needed to meet water quality criteria.
Treatment system for pH adjustment and metals
removal.
Estimated staffing and equipment needed to maintain
treatment system.
Estimated cost based on:
-Completion of a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study
-Implementation of a Clean-up Action Plan
-Public Participation
-Agency Oversight
-Contingency Fund
Estimated cost based on:
-Completion of a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study
-Implementation of a Clean-up Action Plan
-Public Participation
-Agency Oversight
-Contingency
Management and mitigation measures are
considered in predicting environmental
consequences and assessing Crown Jewel
Project impacts and are an integral part of
each alternative.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-109
This section describes measures and
techniques that would be required to lessen
or eliminate impacts of the proposed action
alternatives. It includes a discussion of
management requirements that would be
required of the Proponent, assuming that one
of the action alternatives is selected. In
addition to the management and mitigation
measures described in this section, there are
environmental requirements associated with
various permits, licenses, approvals, and
financial assurances necessary for the Crown
Jewel Project. Further, many agencies have
environmental performance standards and
guidelines that must be met by the operation
but for which there are no permit or license
requirements.
Environmental management and mitigation
measures are designed to ensure that
environmental impacts are minimized during
the construction and operation of the Crown
Jewel Project. The activities would also be
designed such that the site would be
reclaimed to a productive use following
closure and decommissioning.
Implementation of these measures would
enhance the Crown Jewel Project's ability to
operate in an environmentally sound manner.
The effects of the proposed alternatives on
the environment are described in Chapter 4,
Environmental Consequences. For the action
alternatives, that description is dependent, in
part, on the management and mitigation
programs proposed for the Crown Jewel
Project. If the No Action Alternative
(Alternative A) is selected, the management
and mitigation outlined here would not be
required. Instead, the reclamation plans
already approved by the Forest Service and
BLM for Crown Jewel Project exploration
activities would be implemented. If an action
alternative is selected, the Proponent must
acquire approved Plans of Operations and the
appropriate permits summarized in Chapter 1,
Purpose of and Need for Action, prior to
initiating Crown Jewel Project construction
and operation.
The management requirements and mitigation
measures found in this section were either
proposed by the Proponent, required by state
or federal regulations, or were developed to
respond to impacts identified in the EIS
process.
A rating system, described below and in
General Water Quality Best Management
Practices (Forest Service, 1988) was used to
determine the probable effectiveness in
achieving the mitigation measures objectives.
Effectiveness ratings are somewhat
subjective and may be based on professional
judgement of how effective the measure
would be at mitigating and/or compensating
for the impact. Goals for each mitigation
measure have been established.
Effectiveness is measured against how well
the mitigation measure meets its stated goal.
Effectiveness:
High: Achieves the desired results more than
90% of the time, and this is
documented or obviously so;
Moderate: Between 75 and 90% effective,
or logic dictates that it is more
than 90% effective, but no
documentation exists; and,
Low: Effectiveness is unknown or unverified,
or is estimated to be effective less than
75% of the time.
2.12.1 Air Quality
2.12.1.1 Best Available Control
Technology
All applicable state and federal air quality
standards must be met, which would require
BACT (Best Available Control Technology) to
control emissions as part of the WADOE
Notice of Construction Air Quality Permit.
The operator of a new toxic air pollutant
source which is likely to increase toxic air
pollutant emissions shall demonstrate that
emissions are sufficiently low to protect
human health and safety from potential
carcinogenic and/or other toxic effects. The
crushing system would be constructed below
the surface (except in Alternative C) and
would be equipped with fugitive dust
suppression systems at the crushing plant,
and water sprays at the crushers and transfer
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-110
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
points. The ore reclaim feeders would use
baghouse type dust collectors.
Dust collectors would be provided for the
cement and lime bins as well as the refinery
furnace.
Goal: Control fugitive dust from mill and
related operations including the tailings
pond.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.1.2 Dust Suppression Programs
Dust suppression programs would be required
for haul roads which would involve periodic
watering to control fugitive dust generation
and/or if permitted, a chemical treatment. A
mine water truck would run periodically,
wetting the roads to minimize dust. Roads in
the mining operation would be maintained
regularly by a motor grader to remove any
rock, silt, or any other debris. Smooth and
clean road surfaces are essential for not only
minimizing dust but also for allowing
efficient, safe and economic use of haulage
equipment.
Goal: Minimize fugitive dust from roads while
allowing for efficient, safe, and
economic use of haulage equipment.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.1.3 Dust Control
The Proponent would control dust on the
Bolster Creek Road, where necessary, during
Starrem Reservoir construction. The
Proponent would control dust on the Pontiac
Ridge Road, where necessary, with water or
other chemical treatment approved by the
Okanogan County Engineer.
Goal: Minimize fugitive dust from roads
while allowing for efficient and safe
utilization.
Effectiveness: Moderate
2.12.1.4 Slash Burning
The majority of slash from timber harvest
would be stockpiled for replacement of large
woody debris on reclaimed areas or chipped
and utilized as mulch. Slash burning, during
clearing operations, would comply with
WADNR burning permit requirements.
Goal: Minimize smoke impacts of slash
burning to population centers and
Class I airsheds.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.1.5 Busing/Van Pooling
The Proponent would provide busing or van
pooling for employees and otherwise
minimize traffic to the site. If 80%
participation of workers with busing or van
pooling is not achieved on National Forest
roads, the Proponent would provide
incentives to workers to use this system.
Goal: Minimize traffic to the site and
attendant impacts.
Effectiveness: Moderate
2.12.2 Heritage Resources
Heritage resources identified during baseline
surveys would be protected through
avoidance, where possible, and data recovery
where it is not possible to avoid identified
sites. Impacts to the Gold Axe site would be
mitigated through data recovery prior to the
commencement of activities that would
further disturb the site. If additional heritage
resources are identified during Crown Jewel
Project activities, the Plans of Operations
would require protection and possible work
stoppages until the site can be evaluated and
appropriate resource protective measures
developed and implemented per the
Memorandum of Agreement between the
Washington State Historic Preservation Office
and the Forest Service/BLM.
Goal: Insure protection of sites potentially
eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places or mitigate effects to
such sites.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-111
Effectiveness: High
2.12.3 Cyanide and Other Chemicals
2.12.3.1 Transportation of Hazardous
Chemicals
Hazardous chemicals would be transported
via U.S. Department of Transportation
certified containers and transporters.
Transportation of sodium cyanide and other
chemical reagents would comply with
Department of Transportation, the
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), and Mine Safety and
Health Administration (MSHA) rules and
regulations.
Specific procedures would be used for the
transportation, storage, and handling of
sodium cyanide, lime, cement, and other
hazardous chemicals. Personnel transporting
these substances would be trained in
emergency procedures and carry emergency
response plans and equipment during the
transport. The pilot vehicles would be
equipped with VHP radios for communication.
All handling and storage of these chemicals
would occur only in designated and
specifically designed areas. Personnel
working with sodium cyanide and other
potentially hazardous chemicals would be
specially trained. In addition to alarms and
safety devices, various equipment and
materials necessary to safely handle the
sodium cyanide and other hazardous
chemicals and deal with emergencies would
be maintained on-site by the Proponent.
Goal: Safe handling of hazardous
chemicals and minimize the
potential of resource damage or
personnel exposure occurring.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.3.2 Fuel Storage
Fuel and other petroleum products at the site
would be stored in above ground tanks
surrounded by designed and approved
containment structures. The Proponent
would develop a Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan for the
operation as required by Federal Oil Spill
Prevention Regulation (40 CFR 112) of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Goal: Safe handling of petroleum products
and minimize the potential of
resource damage from a spill.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.4 Spill Prevention, Hazardous
Materials, Fire Prevention, and
First Aid
The goal of these measures are intended to
prevent spills or accidental releases; and, if a
release occurs, the goal would be to minimize
the impact with quick responses, trained
personnel, and appropriate accessible clean-
up equipment.
The Proponent would maintain detailed plans
for spill prevention and control of hazardous
materials. These plans would become part of
the Forest Service and BLM Plans of
Operations prior to beginning any transport or
storage of fuels, flammable liquids, and
hazardous or toxic materials. These plans
would also describe the toxic or hazardous
materials to be utilized at the site, how they
are transported, stored, and used along with
methods of disposal. The Proponent would
describe the emergency procedures,
equipment, and personnel that would be used
to respond to an accidental spill on the site.
It would describe the spill response training
of appropriate Proponent employees as well
as subcontractors and their employees.
These plans would describe the monitoring
procedures to ensure the following:
• Storage and containment facilities meet
the prescribed standards;
• Emergency first aid and spill response
materials are available and stored in the
proper place; and,
• Communications equipment is in working
order.
Spot inspections of these procedures and
equipment would be completed throughout
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-112
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
the year by Forest Service and BLM
personnel.
2.12.4.1 Spill and Handling Plans
A minimum of three plans would be prepared
by the Proponent under different regulatory
authorities. A brief description of these plans
follow:
1. A Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan, as required
by the EPA under 40 CFR Part 112, would
be prepared by the Proponent and address
design standards including spill
containment features for fuel and other
petroleum product storage facilities, and
appropriate response strategies in the
event of a fuel or other petroleum product
spill.
The SPCC Plan would be prepared in
accordance with good engineering
practices and with the full approval of
management at a level with authority to
commit the necessary resources,
manpower, equipment, and materials.
The complete SPCC Plan would include a
discussion of the facility's conformance
with the appropriate guidelines including:
• Where experience indicates a
reasonable potential for equipment
failure (such as a tank overflow,
rupture, or leakage), the plan should
contain a prediction of the direction,
rate of flow, and total quantity of
petroleum which could be discharged
from the facility as a result of each
major type of failure.
• Appropriate containment and/or
diversionary structures or equipment to
prevent the discharge of oil from
reaching a navigable water course
would be provided.
2. A Hazardous Material Handling Plan would
be developed with guidance from the
WADOE. This plan would address
handling techniques and emergency
response strategies for hazardous
materials (cyanide, cement, lime, etc.) to
be used at the Crown Jewel Project site.
This Plan would list potential health hazard
materials to be used and stored on the
Crown Jewel Project site along with the
applicable Material Safety Data Sheets
(MSDS) for each substance. On-site
handling, storage, and inspection
procedures would be documented.
Emergency response procedures would be
included.
The Crown Jewel Project facilities would
be developed to have sufficient secondary
containment structures in areas where
potentially hazardous materials would be
stored or used. All areas of the Crown
Jewel Project with process water
solutions would be lined and graded to
drain to a lined collection basin.
Immediate, temporary containments or
berms to prevent the migration of a spill,
as well as other means of neutralization or
treatment would be used in the event of a
spill. If a spill occurs involving process
waters escaping the containment facilities,
or synthetically lined areas, additional
steps outlined in this Plan would be taken.
An example of the type of steps that
could be taken is included in the
Proponent's Integrated Plan of Operation
(BMGC, 1993a).
3. A Transportation Spill Response Plan
would be required by the Forest Service
and BLM for tansport of hazardous
materials on Forest and BLM roads. It
would be incorporated into the Forest
Service and BLM Road Use Permits which
would be required as part of the Forest
Service and BLM Plans of Operations for
the Crown Jewel Project. Under the
terms of this Plan, suppliers of hazardous
materials would be required to submit spill
response plans to the Proponent which
describe the procedures, equipment, and
personnel which would be used in case of
a spill during transport. Suppliers of
hazardous materials or petroleum products
would be required to comply with a
Transportation Spill Response Plan insofar
as it affects any part of their activities.
Goal: The goal of these measures are
intended to prevent spills/accidental
releases; and, if a release occurs,
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-113
minimize the impact with quick
responses, trained personnel, and
appropriate accessible clean up
equipment.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.4.2 Fire Protection and Suppression
Plan
A Fire Protection and Suppression Plan would
be maintained for the Crown Jewel Project.
The fire codes and standards of the WADNR
would apply. The Proponent would comply
with Forest Service, BLM, and WADNR
procedures for protecting against starting
wildfires and procedures for assuring
suppression of accidental wildfires. All
equipment and vehicles would meet fire
preparedness requirements during the
proclaimed fire season. This plan would be
included as part of the Forest Service and
BLM Plans of Operations.
A designated Forest Service/BLM
representative would conduct an annual
inspection plus spot inspections of the
Proponent's fire cache, and mufflers and
spark arresters. This designated
representative would annually review a fire
plan for the Crown Jewel Project to ensure
its appropriateness.
Goal: Prevent fires; and, if a fire occurs,
minimize the impact with quick
responses, trained personnel, and
appropriate accessible equipment.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.4.3 Pilot Vehicle Escort
A pilot vehicle would be used to escort trucks
carrying hazardous materials and petroleum
products past Beth and Beaver Lakes and
through Beaver Canyon, or through the town
of Chesaw (for Alternatives C and G) to the
Crown Jewel Project site. The pilot vehicle
would assure that transports stay within the
posted speed limits, provide emergency radio
communication in case of an accident, and
provide initial response in case of a spill.
Pilot vehicles would be identified with
approved signing and lighting. They would
be equipped with VHF radios for emergency
use only and CB or other radios for vehicle to
vehicle communication. The VHF radios
would be capable of communicating with the
Okanogan County Sheriffs Office or with
someone who can communicate with the
Sheriffs Office.
First aid and appropriate containment
equipment would be carried in vehicles
piloting hazardous materials and petroleum
products along with a copy of the most
recent spill response plan. Pilot vehicle
drivers would complete spill response and
safety training prior to piloting hazardous
materials and at least once annually
thereafter.
Goal: Minimize accidents and reduce
resource impacts if accidents occur.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.4.4 External Spill Response and
Materials Handling Training
The Proponent would ensure that appropriate
spill response and materials handling training
be provided to the local sheriffs departments,
fire departments, and appropriate
administering agencies.
Goal: Provide local agencies with training in
handling hazardous substances.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.4.5 Review of Storage and
Containment Facilities
Monthly, the Proponent would review:
• Storage and containment facilities to
ensure they are maintained to standards
adequate to contain spills;
• Emergency first aid and spill response
materials to see that they are current and
stored in the proper place; and,
• Radio communication equipment to see
that it is in working order.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-11'4
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
The Proponent would document the results of
this monthly review in a report to the Forest
Service, WADOE, and Okanogan County
Emergency Services to ensure that
emergency response requirements are being
met.
Goal: Maintain effectiveness of emergency
response equipment.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.4.6 School Bus Schedules
The Proponent would provide school bus
schedules to suppliers and/or transporters.
Goal: Minimize the potential for accidents
with school buses.
Effectiveness: Moderate
2.12.4.7 Emergency Response
The Proponent would maintain the necessary
personnel and equipment to respond to fires
and/or medical emergencies at the mine site.
The Proponent would meet with the
appropriate local authorities to discuss
coordinated responses to Crown Jewel
Project related vehicle accidents or other
emergencies on Okanogan County and Forest
roads. The Proponent would designate and
maintain a helicopter landing site at the mine
property. The Proponent would have its own
security staff to allow for immediate
response, on the Crown Jewel Project site, if
the need for security arises.
Goal: Provide for safety of personnel and
facilities.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.5 Geochemistry - Acid or Toxic
Forming Capability
2.12.5.1 Prevention of Acid Rock
Drainage
The Proponent would be required to develop
a waste rock management plan as part of
Crown Jewel Project permitting. This plan
would address the potential for formation of
acid generating "hot spots" and prevention of
acid rock drainage. The plan must be
approved by the WADOE, WADNR, BLM, and
Forest Service prior to approval of the NPDES
permit. The BLM and Forest Service would
require this waste rock management plan
prior to movement of waste rock as part of
the Plans of Operations.
The purpose of the waste rock management
plan would be to describe:
• The field and laboratory procedures and
QA/QC measures that would be used in
the waste rock characterization program;
• The criteria used to identify potentially
acid generating waste rock;
• The procedures that would be used to
handle, isolate, encapsulate and/or blend
waste rock that exhibits acid generating
potential; and,
• The documentation, record keeping and
mapping procedures that would be used to
track and verify testing, handling, and
proper placement of potentially acid
generating waste rock.
Potentially acid generating rock would be
specially handled, with such material being
isolated (encapsulation) or blended with non-
acid-generating rock. The results of this
program would be included in an annual
monitoring report.
The Proponent would use only neutral or
neutralizing rock materials in the construction
of fills and embankments other than the
waste rock disposal areas. The procedures to
identify such material would be included in
the waste rock management plan.
Goal: Prevent acid rock discharge from waste
rock disposal areas, rock fills, and
embankments.
Effectiveness: High
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-115
2.12.5.2 Water Discharge
Any water discharged from the Crown Jewel
Project site, including the mine pit or
collection and infiltration ponds, must meet
WADOE water quality permit requirements
and federal water quality standards. If water
quality requirements are not met, appropriate
water treatment would be required. Water
treatment may include, but is not limited to:
• Precipitation and settling using lime,
sulfide, ferric ion, and/or flocculents;
• Filtration;
• Ion exchange;
• Reverse osmosis;
• Electrodialysis;
• Air stripping;
• Biological precipitation; or,
• Passive wetlands.
Water quality problems may also be
addressed by diverting discharges to the
tailings facility (during operations only), or
special cap design and construction on waste
rock disposal areas or tailings pond
embankments.
If water quality problems develop, then
several steps would be taken to achieve
compliance. These are:
1. Review of environmental impacts with the
possibility of additional or increased
frequency of monitoring;
2. Implement an interim (emergency or long
term) water management plan to stabilize
the situation;
3. Develop a conceptual engineering design
of water treatment system alternatives
(WAC 173-240) that would be available to
remedy the situation and select the most
appropriate design for more detailed
engineering;
4. The Proponent would prepare a detailed
engineering design of the selected
alternative; the agencies would review and
revise, as appropriate, the environmental
protection performance security required
from the Proponent;
5. Undertake appropriate permitting of the
selected water treatment system (conduct
NEPA/SEPA review as appropriate);
6. Construct the selected water treatment
system;
7. Operate and maintain the water treatment
system to meet design goals;
8. Monitor the water treatment system for
compliance; and,
9. Achieve a demonstrated "clean closure" or
maintain long term (permanent) treatment.
Goal: Protect ground and surface water
quality in case of unacceptable water
discharges.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.5.3 Nitrate Contamination
Potential nitrate contamination from blasting
would be minimized by optimizing blast
conditions to improve oxidation of ANFO or
other blasting agents.
Goal: Minimize nitrates available to water in
the pit and waste rock disposal areas.
Effectiveness: Moderate
2.12.6 Geology and Geotechnical
2.12.6.1 Geotechnical Stability
The waste rock disposal areas, the tailings
facility, and water reservoir embankment
would be required to be maintained in a
stable manner, both during operations and in
the long-term following decommissioning and
reclamation of the Crown Jewel Project. The
minimum static safety factor for the waste
rock disposal areas and tailings embankments
would be determined as part of the permits
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-116
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIVES
January 1997
and approvals granted by the Forest Service,
BLM, WADOE, and WADNR. As necessary,
slope angles, dumping heights, or crest
advancement would be reduced, or other
measures taken, to increase waste rock
disposal area stability.
Waste rock disposal areas, the coarse ore
stockpile pad, and other constructed rock fills
would have underdrain systems developed
through natural gravity segregation of
materials during dumping. When springs are
encountered or in selected drainage bottoms,
designed underdrains may be required by the
Forest Service, BLM, WADNR and/or WADOE
to direct water flow safely through the rock
fill. These underdrains would be constructed
of durable marble or other acid-neutralizing
rock having an average diameter of 12 inches
or more. The height and width of the drain
would be sufficient to convey the 100-year,
24-hour storm event determined using the
Corps of Engineers' HEC-1 hydrologic model.
The Proponent has evaluated the foundation
conditions and hazards for the waste rock
disposal areas and other important rock fills
based on available site-specific information.
The evaluation considered rock, and soil
types; springs and seeps; slope steepness
and stability; and other foundation hazards.
If previously unknown foundation hazards are
discovered in critical areas of the
construction sites prior to or during
construction, the agencies would be notified
and the Proponent would initiate one or more
of the following:
• Verify stability by conducting re-analysis
of the waste rock disposal areas or rock
fills with the new conditions; and/or,
• Mitigate by changing the configuration of
the waste rock disposal areas or rock fills
or performing foundation stabilization.
Goal: Assure stability of waste rock
disposal areas and designed
embankments.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.6.2 Fencing and Warning Signs
Fencing and warning signs would be posted
around potential surface subsidence features
(Alternatives C and D) during operations and
reclamation. These fences would be
maintained by the Proponent for at least six
years after the completion of reclamation,
unless otherwise determined by the agencies.
Goal: Preclude or prevent people from
straying into unsafe areas.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.7 Land Use
2.12.7.1 Land and Vegetation Disturbance
The Proponent would minimize disturbance
by maintaining a compact operation.
Vegetation would be cleared only in those
areas necessary for mining and milling
activities. Timber and vegetation would be
left wherever possible to facilitate habitat
connectivity. Erosion and sediment control
measures such as sediment collection ponds,
segmental reclamation, and temporary
revegetation would be implemented to
prevent downstream impacts.
Goal: Minimize land and vegetation
disturbances related to clearing
during construction and operation.
Effectiveness: Moderate
2.12.7.2 Livestock Water Source
Developments
Certain existing water source developments
used by livestock would be inside the fenced
area surrounding the mining and milling
activities. Where this occurs, the Proponent
would work with the Forest Service, the BLM
and the livestock grazing permittees to find
and develop replacement water sources for
livestock. For example, on the Gold
Allotment, water developments would be
fenced within the Crown Jewel Project
boundary. Water would be piped west and
down hill approximately one-quarter to one-
half mile to a new trough to be installed by
the Proponent. The Crown Jewel Project
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-117
fence would also eliminate livestock water on
the Cedar allotment in the Southeast % of
Section 13 near the Magnetic Mine.
Livestock water would be developed as part
of the water supply line and a trough placed
just north of the fence surrounding the Crown
Jewel Project.
Replacement water sources would be
maintained by the Proponent during the life of
the mine and for at least six years after the
commencement of reclamation unless
otherwise determined by the agencies.
Replacement water troughs would be placed
away from the water source and water
sources would be protected with cattle
barriers to prevent trampling.
Goal: Compensate grazing permittees for lost
water sources.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.7.3 Stock Trails
A stock trail would be created around the
eastern side of the Crown Jewel Project site
to the natural stock gathering area south of
the site. The stock trail would follow a route
that would avoid sensitive plant populations.
This would require small changes in existing
fencing, slash pile barriers and road closure
barriers to prevent livestock from trampling of
sensitive plant populations.
A directional drift fence would be erected
east of monitoring well MW-8, along the
cattle driveway, so that cattle do not get
down into the deep canyon and scatter.
Goal: Allow proper livestock movement from
pasture to pasture and compensate for
lost ability to move cattle through the
Crown Jewel Project area.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.7.4 Livestock Fencing
Fences would be constructed and maintained
around the entire area to be disturbed.
Fences would be constructed to exclude
livestock from the Crown Jewel Project area
using a standard Forest Service four strand
barbed wire fence. This fencing would be
designed to allow the movement of wildlife
through the area and laid out with livestock
movement in mind.
Physical locations of fences should consider
existing travel corridors, game trails, livestock
movement, and swales.
Because of the cumulative impacts on the
Cedar Allotment of fencing livestock out of
the Crown Jewel Project area, plus livestock
exclusion for wetlands mitigation in the Bear
Trap Canyon, Nicholson Creek headwaters,
and the frog pond, a pasture division fence
would be constructed that would divide the
north pasture into two units to improve
riparian health and reduce wetlands impacts.
These fences would be maintained by the
Proponent during the operational and
reclamation phases of the Crown Jewel
Project plus approximately six years
thereafter unless otherwise determined by the
agencies. Prior to removal of the Crown
Jewel Project area fences, allotment
boundary fences damaged or removed by the
Project would be repaired or replaced.
Controlled grazing inside the fences may be
permitted to reduce competition between
grasses and planted trees.
Goal: Exclude cattle and people (visitors)
from the Crown Jewel Project area and
provide safety zones.
Effectiveness: Moderate
2.12.7.5 Equipment
Before entering the National Forest and BLM-
managed land, all used earth moving and mill
equipment would be cleaned (washed) of soil
and noxious weed seeds prior to bringing the
equipment onto the Crown Jewel Project site.
Goal: Prevent the establishment of new and
potential invader noxious weeds from
entering the Crown Jewel Project area
as a result of Project construction.
Effectiveness: High
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-118
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
2.12.8 Noise
2.12.8.1 Health and Safety Requirements
The Proponent would comply with all
Washington State and Okanogan County
health and safety requirements pertaining to
noise generation. Mine Safety and Health
Administration (MSHA) governs worker health
and safety which includes requiring hearing
protection for workers in high noise areas.
Goal: Protect employees from noise.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.8.2 Starrem Reservoir
Minimize noise impacts to surrounding
residences from the construction of the
Starrem Reservoir through construction
practices that limit most noise-making
operations to daylight hours while allowing
flexibility for a reasonable work schedule.
Goal: Minimize noise impacts on surrounding
residences from reservoir construction.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.9 Permitting and Financial
Assurances (Performance
Securities)
2.12.9.1 Permit Acquisition
Federal mining laws authorize mineral
exploration and development on federal lands.
State and federal environmental laws are
designed and implemented to minimize
adverse impacts and to promote reclamation
such that future long-term productivity of the
surface resources is maintained to the extent
practicable.
The Proponent must obtain any required
approvals and permits from the federal, state,
and local agencies. Approval of a Plan of
Operations must be obtained from the Forest
Service and BLM prior to beginning any
exploration, mining, milling, or other surface
disturbing activities covered by the Plan and
located on federal lands.
The Proponent would prepare and submit
comprehensive mine site design and
reclamation plans as part of the Plans of
Operations. These plans, at a minimum,
would describe, show, and elaborate on the
details of measures presented in the final EIS
for the preferred alternative, including mine
layout; dimensions of the buildings and other
structures; volumes and cross sections of
cuts and fills; location and dimensions of the
tailings impoundment; water storage ponds;
sediment catchment channels and ponds;
fence lines; road ingress and egress; waste
rock disposal areas, reclamation methods and
schedule; and other details as needed. The
Plans of Operations would also include a
waste rock management plan, reclamation
monitoring plans, operational and post-closure
water monitoring plans, details of all
measures presented in Section 2.11,
Reclamation Measures, Section 2.12,
Management and Mitigation, Section 2.13,
Monitoring Measures, and Section 2.14,
Performance Securities, and the performance
securities cost estimates.
Compliance with the approved Plans of
Operations would be conditioned upon
compliance with the terms of the other
federal and state permits which govern the
proposed actions of the Crown Jewel Project
mining and milling.
Goal: Assure the Proponent designs the
mining operation in compliance with
applicable laws and regulations.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.9.2 Performance Securities
The Proponent would be required to post
reclamation and environmental protection
performance securities before construction,
mining, and milling operations could begin.
(Refer to Section 2.14, Performance
Securities.) The regulations of the Forest
Service, BLM and WADNR require that the
Proponent submit a reclamation performance
security to ensure that adequate reclamation
and restoration of the land is achieved
following exploration, mining, and milling
activities. The reclamation performance
security, likely held by the WADNR so it
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-119
would not need to be transferred if patenting
took place, would provide the government
with sufficient funds to reclaim and
revegetate the site, should the Proponent fail
to do so.
The WADOE would require an environmental
protection performance security. RCW 78.56
requires the Proponent to provide financial
assurance that would support long-term
monitoring for water quality following mine
closure and for clean up of potential problems
revealed during or after closure. This
environmental protection performance
security would be designed to protect the
public from financial liability related to long-
term impacts to the environment or water
quality, from failures of Crown Jewel Project
facilities or their operating systems. Post-
closure monitoring, water treatment, and
other measures to prevent or control long-
term environmental impacts can also be
required by the Forest Service (36 CFR 228A)
and BLM's "Cyanide and Acid Rock Drainage
Policies" for activities authorized under 43
CFR 3809 regulations. These regulations
also authorize collection of performance
securities to assure such measures are
implemented.
The performance securities would not be
released without the consent of the WADOE,
WADNR, Forest Service, and BLM.
Goal: To ensure that adequate
reclamation, restoration, and
remediation of the land are achieved
following mining and milling
activities or unforeseen events
related thereto.
Effectiveness: Moderate
2.12.10 Recreation
2.12.10.1 Traffic Restrictions
Only authorized travel would be allowed into
the Crown Jewel Project. No unauthorized
vehicles, personnel, or firearms would be
permitted on the site. Plans would be
implemented to control public access such as
fencing and posting to prohibit unauthorized
entry to hazardous areas. However, these
plans would provide for administrative traffic,
as well as access for Forest permittees,
contractors, or operators. Public and
administrative access on the closed portions
of Forest Service and BLM roads would be
reestablished, as directed, after the Crown
Jewel Project has been completed.
Goal: Minimize unauthorized vehicles and
personnel on the Crown Jewel
Project site.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.10.2 Hunting and Fishing Restrictions
There would be no hunting or fishing during
mine operation within the fenced boundary.
The possession of firearms, the discharging
of firearms, and hunting would be prohibited
within the areas fenced around the mine area
and facilities.
Goal: Control hunting and fishing for the
security of the mine and safety of
employees and the public.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.11 Socioeconomics
The Proponent would work with local
educational institutions to help provide local
employees trained to work at the Crown
Jewel Project. The Proponent would
maximize local hiring, as practicable, by
employing local contractors and workers,
using the local job service center and only
going outside the local area to hire if an
adequate pool of candidates cannot be
generated.
Goal: Provide local employment
opportunities and minimize negative
effects to the local, social
infrastructure.
Effectiveness: Moderate
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-120
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
2.12.12 Soils
2.12.12.1 Soil Removal
Soil material would be removed from the
areas of Crown Jewel Project disturbance in
sufficient quantities to achieve the
reclamation plan objectives. The soil removal
plans would be subject to the reclamation
plan approvals from the Forest Service, BLM,
and WADNR. Soil material, up to 5% of total
volume, could be augmented through the
addition of wood chips from land clearing or
the use of bio-solids. Additions of nitrogen
fertilizer may be needed (as determined from
test plots) to replace nitrogen that is tied up
by addition of carbon from the wood chips.
Goal: Recover sufficient soil to reclaim the
mine site.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.12.2 Soil Inoculation
Microbial activity would be measured in
topsoil prior to redistribution. Topsoil would
be inoculated if needed.
Goal: Reestablish mycorrihizal fungi for
those plants that need them in the
soil spread onto the site during
reclamation.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.12.3 Soil Salvage and Handling Plan
A soil salvage and handling plan would be
developed which would include the salvage
and reapplication of all suitable soil materials.
Appropriate seed and planting mixtures and
mulching would be used for stabilization of
the site. Revegetation test plots, which
would include grasses, forbs, shrubs and
trees, would be installed at the proposed
waste rock disposal areas and tailings
facilities to determine appropriate soil
replacement depths and vegetation species.
If test plot results indicate that the chemical
or physical nature of the tailings or waste
rock material promotes the degradation of
applied soil, or reduces the potential for
revegetation success, techniques would be
developed to address this problem during
segmental reclamation.
Goal: Assure distribution of topsoil across
the site at depths adequate for
successful revegetation to a forested
environment and determine key factors
for successful revegetation.
Effectiveness: Moderate for redistribution of
soils. High for on-site test
plots as the way to determine
successful revegetation.
2.12.12.4 Soil Removal From
Miscellaneous Facilities
As appropriate, suitable soils from quarries,
borrow areas, power line, access roads,
diversion ditches, water pipelines, and the
tailings slurry pipeline would be windrowed
and stabilized adjacent to each disturbance
area until reclamation operations for these
disturbances begins.
Goal: Stabilize disturbed areas from loss of
soil.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.13 Surface Water and Ground
Water - Quality and Quantity
2.12.13.1 Erosion and Sediment Control
Surface water control and handling would be
an important part of the Crown Jewel
Project. Special care would be taken to
minimize or eliminate erosion and subsequent
downstream sedimentation.
The Forest Service would require "best
management practices" for erosion and
sediment control (Forest Service, 1988).
Similarly, the BLM regulations require
prevention of unnecessary or undue
degradation of federal lands, both on-site and
off-site. Maintenance of diversion structures
and sediment traps would be conducted by
the Proponent to ensure short and long-term
effectiveness of the erosion and sediment
control facilities.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-121
The following techniques would be used to
minimize erosion and sedimentation:
• Vegetation would be removed only from
those areas to be directly affected by
Crown Jewel Project activities. Other
areas would not be cleared.
• Primary soil removal activities would be
scheduled for the dry months to reduce
the potential for erosion and high soil
losses.
• Cut and fill slopes for service and access
roads would be designed to prevent soil
erosion. Drainage ditches with cross
drains would be constructed where
necessary. Disturbed slopes would be
revegetated, mulched, or otherwise
stabilized to minimize erosion as soon as
practicable following construction.
• Road embankment slopes would be graded
and revegetated to prevent erosion, as
practicable.
• Runoff from roads, buildings, and other
structures would be handled through best
management practices, including sediment
traps, settling ponds, berms, sediment
filter fabric, etc. Design of these features
would be based upon an analysis of local
hydrologic conditions.
• Off-road vehicle travel would be avoided.
• The number of stream crossings would be
kept to a minimum.
• During tailings impoundment construction
and operation, diversions would be
constructed around affected areas to
minimize erosion.
• The tailings pipeline berms would be
revegetated after pipeline installation.
• Incidental precipitation falling on disturbed
areas would be collected in infiltration
basins or sediment traps.
• A number of management practices
including check dams, dispersion terraces,
and filter fences would be used during the
construction and operational phases of the
Crown Jewel Project.
• Unless otherwise approved, waste rock
surfaces would be left rough; machine
ripping, harrowing, disking, or drilling
would be done on contour; where only
downslope dozer tracking is possible,
blade gouges at a minimum of six inches
deep and 50 feet apart would be placed
across the slope, with an alternating
gouge sequence for adjacent passes;
deep, downslope tread ruts or channels
would be avoided; water collection and
diversion benches near contour would be
placed on unbroken slopes longer than
300 feet; and, coarse rock (greater than
three-quarter inch) fragment content of
soils placed on 21-1:1 V or steeper slopes
would be at least 20%.
• Permanent diversion channels would be
designed for long-term stability.
• Reclamation and revegetation would be
implemented as soon as practical for long
term stability.
If substantial sedimentation occurs,
construction and operational activities
responsible for the sedimentation would be
suspended or modified, and additional
actions, as described above, would be
implemented to reduce sediment delivery.
See Section 2.13.1, Water Resources
Monitoring.
Goal: Control surface water flow to minimize
erosion and downstream sedimentation
and implement corrective actions
quickly to minimize impacts from
sedimentation problems.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.13.2 Diversion Ditches and Sediment
Traps
As part of construction, operations, and
reclamation activities, the Proponent would
construct and maintain diversion ditches and
sediment traps.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-122
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
Diversion ditches would be installed to collect
runoff from disturbed and cleared areas, and
direct such runoff into the sediment traps.
Diversion ditches would also be constructed
as necessary to prevent runoff onto the
tailings facility and other disturbed and
cleared areas. Diversion ditches would
collect seepage from the toe of waste rock
disposal areas and also any discharge from
french drains located beneath the waste rock
disposal areas. Newly constructed diversion
channels would be protected after
construction with riprap, or other temporary
or permanent erosional structures, or
revegetated to minimize downstream
sediment loading. Sediment and infiltration
pond embankments would be stabilized with
vegetation or rock cover as soon as
practicable after construction to provide for
erosion protection.
The sediment traps would be designed and
operated to remove sediment from runoff.
As necessary, the Proponent would maintain
the flexibility to add treatment for suspended
and dissolved contaminants in the sediment
traps.
Diversion ditches and sediment traps would
be maintained as necessary during the life of
the operation. As appropriate, sediment
would be removed annually from sediment
traps. Such sediment would be deposited in
the waste rock disposal areas, the tailings
facility, topsoil stockpiles, or other
appropriate location.
Goal: Minimize soil erosion, sedimentation
into the sediment traps, and stream
sedimentation.
Effectiveness: Moderate for on-site, high for
off-site.
2.12.13.3 Cyanide Destruction
The Proponent must assure that the
hazardous constituent concentration in
tailings effluent at the outfall would not result
in:
• Mortality of migratory waterfowl attracted
to pooled water at the facility; or,
• Designation of tailings effluent as
dangerous waste under state dangerous
waste regulations.
The cyanide destruction system must be
designed and operated in order to assure that
no tailings effluent would designate at the
outfall to the tailings facility as dangerous
waste, according to a representative sampling
protocol, despite potential variation in cyanide
destruction effectiveness. Assurance of no
discharge of dangerous waste would involve
the following:
1. The determination of the designation
threshold. The designation threshold is the
WAD cyanide concentration in the tailings
effluent at which it designates as dangerous
waste, based on fish bioassay testing.
2. The establishment of operational trigger
thresholds. The trigger thresholds would be
the WAD cyanide concentration and duration
thresholds in the tailings effluent that would
trigger operational adjustments to the cyanide
destruction system in order to avoid
generation of tailings effluent that would
designate as a dangerous waste. The
duration threshold would take into account
the lag times between a given adjustment
and measured changes in the WAD cyanide
concentration and the variability of the
cyanide detoxification process. The WAD
cyanide concentration trigger must be lower
than the designation threshold.
3. The institution of process monitoring and
control measures. Process monitoring and
control measures would provide for:
a) Monitoring and adjusting the reagent and
catalyst additions to optimize cyanide
destruction; and,
b) Identification of operational adjustments to
the cyanide destruction system in
response to exceedances of trigger
thresholds.
4. The establishment of operational response
measures or system design elements to
prevent placement of tailings effluent that
would designate as dangerous waste using a
representative sampling protocol. Operational
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-123
response measures or system design
elements would consist of the following:
a) A response measure that requires
cessation of the tailings effluent discharge
(from the INCO S02/Air/ Oxidation reactor
vessel), with corresponding cessation of
mill feed, in order to respond to
exceedance of the established trigger
thresholds; or, alternatively,
b) System design elements providing for the
capture, containment, and/or adequate
cyanide destruction and reagent
dissipation of tailings effluent that would
designate as a dangerous waste, before it
could be discharged to the tailings
disposal facility.
5. The institution of compliance monitoring.
Compliance monitoring would provide for
representative sampling of treated tailings
effluent prior to placement in the tailings
facility to determine hazardous constituent
concentration and enable assessment with
regard to established threshold
concentrations.
The concentration of cyanide in the effluent
discharged at the outfall to the tailings
impoundment would be stipulated as part of
the NPDES Permit that would be issued by
WADOE, but the level would be no greater
than 40 mg/l WAD cyanide without the
implementation of mitigation measures
described in Section 2.12.18.12, Wildlife
Exposure to Toxic Substances.
Goal: Minimize exposure of people and
wildlife to cyanide levels greater than
40 mg/l WAD.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.13.4 Tailings Disposal Facility
The tailings disposal facility would be
designed and operated as a closed circuit
(zero-discharge) system consisting of a
geomembrane double lined impoundment,
leak detection system, low permeability
bedding material, and a lined recovery
solution collection pond in compliance with
the Washington Metal Mining and Milling
Operations Act. The tailings disposal facility
would be drained using a basin drain layer to
minimize head on the liners.
The Proponent would maintain a water
balance to account for water inputs, outputs,
and changes in storage.
The Proponent would maintain a number of
safeguards with regard to the tailings disposal
facility. These would include a leak detection
system as part of the facility design, an
underdrain system, and a series of
downstream ground and surface water
monitoring stations. If water quality
problems are detected by any of the
safeguard systems, then steps would be
taken to achieve compliance. These include:
1. Review of environmental impacts with the
possibility of additional or increased
frequency of monitoring;
2. Implement an interim (emergency or long
term) water management plan to stabilize
the situation;
3. Develop a conceptual engineering design
of water treatment system alternatives
(WAC 173-240) that would be available to
remedy the situation and select the most
appropriate design for more detailed
engineering;
4. The Proponent would prepare a detailed
engineering design of the selected
alternative; the agencies would review and
revise, as appropriate, the environmental
protection performance security required
from the Proponent;
5. Undertake appropriate permitting of the
selected water treatment system (conduct
NEPA/SEPA review as appropriate);
6. Construct the selected water treatment
system;
7. Operate and maintain the water treatment
system to meet design goals;
8. Monitor the water treatment system for
compliance; and,
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-124
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
9. Achieve demonstrated "clean closure" or
maintain long term (permanent) treatment.
The primary safeguard for the tailings
disposal facility would be a leak detection
system installed between the two synthetic
liners. If water develops in the leak detection
system, this water would be sampled,
analyzed, and characterized. Any substantial
changes in the amount of water in the leak
detection system would result in a response.
Such a response would include:
• The immediate sampling and analysis of
the water;
• An increase in the frequency of sampling
and the components analyzed;
• An investigation of the cause of the
"leak";
• Evaluation of the sample results;
• Sampling of the underflow drain;
• Diversion of the underdrain flow to the
recovery solution collection pond; and,
• Expansion of monitoring of surrounding
ground water wells and surface water
stations downstream of the tailings
facility.
Similarly, any changes in the chemistry of
water analyzed in the tailings facility
underdrain or downstream ground water
wells and surface water stations would
initiate a response similar to the steps
articulated above.
Goal: Maintain water quality above federal
and state water quality standards for
surface and ground water.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.13.5 Pit Lake
Water in the pit lake (or underground
workings) that discharges to the Gold Bowl
drainage (Alternatives B, C, D, and G) or
water discharging from springs and seeps
that develop in the pit backfill (Alternatives E
and F) would be required to meet Washington
State Aquatic Life Water Quality Standards
(WAC 173-201 A) and human health
standards (National Toxic Rules: 40 CFR
131.36, which considers natural .water
quality background levels).
Modeling of the pit lake water quality has
been completed as discussed in Section
4.6.3, Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives, subsection "Open Pit or
Underground Workings - Water Quality." The
modeling employed several assumptions
which caused the water quality prediction to
be at the upper bounds of what would be
expected. As a result of this approach, the
modeling predicts that the pit lake water
quality would fail to meet water quality
criteria for certain parameters.
If pit lake water quality (or water quality from
adits or from seeps and springs that develop
in the backfilled pit) is demonstrated through
monitoring (see Section 2.13.1, Water
Resources Monitoring), to exceed aquatic life
or human health criteria, then several steps
would be taken to achieve compliance.
These include:
1. Review of environmental impacts with the
possibility of additional or increased
frequency of monitoring;
2. Implement an interim (emergency or long
term) water management plan to stabilize
the situation;
3. Develop a conceptual engineering design
of water treatment system alternatives
(WAC 173-240) that would be available to
remedy the situation and select the most
appropriate design for more detailed
engineering;
4. The Proponent would prepare a detailed
engineering design of the preferred
alternative; the agencies would review and
revise, as appropriate, the environmental
protection performance security required
from the Proponent;
5. Undertake appropriate permitting of the
selected water treatment system (conduct
NEPA/SEPA review as appropriate);
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-125
6. Construct the selected water treatment
system;
7. Operate and maintain the water treatment
system to meet design goals;
8. Monitor the water treatment system for
compliance; and,
9. Achieve demonstrated "clean closure" or
maintain long term (permanent) treatment.
As a result of the modeling results described
in Section 4.6.3, Effects Common to All
Action Alternatives, the Proponent must
prepare a conceptual engineering design of
water treatment system alternatives (WAC
173-240) that would be available to remedy
the situation as prescribed by modeling. The
most appropriate design would serve as the
basis for establishing the environmental
protection performance security for the pit
lake discharge.
Goal: Meet Washington State Aquatic Life
Water Quality Standards, human health
standards, and/or natural water quality
background levels.
Effectiveness: Moderate-High
2.12.14 Transportation
2.12.14.1 Winter Road Maintenance
Sufficient storage room, inside safety berms,
would be provided for snow removal adjacent
to roadways. Snow would be removed or
plowed regularly by the Proponent to
minimize snow packing and interference with
day-to-day activities. Road sanding would
avoid the use of salt to the extent practical.
If salt is used, it would be preferable to use
potassium chloride, or a similar product.
The Proponent would work with Okanogan
County, Forest Service, and WADNR to
complete an agreement for certain year-round
road maintenance (including dust control) of
portions of County Road 4895 and Forest
Road 3575-120.
Goal: Maintain road passage safety while
reducing damage to trees and other
resources due to winter road
maintenance.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.14.2 Remote Office
The Proponent would maintain an office,
away from the mine site, for most personnel
hiring and most purchasing requirements.
Goal: Reduce the number of visits to the
Crown Jewel Project by vendor and
supplier representatives.
Effectiveness: Moderate
2.12.14.3 Supply Deliveries
Supply deliveries to the Crown Jewel Project
site would be limited to daylight hours except
in emergency situations. During spring break
up, travel may be allowed at night on frozen
roads to reduce the amount of hazardous
materials and petroleum products that must
be stored at the site. The Proponent would
use a pilot vehicle to escort trucks carrying
hazardous materials and petroleum products
through Beaver Canyon or through the town
of Chesaw (Alternatives C and G) to the mine
site. A pilot car would assure that transports
stay within the posted speed limits.
Goal: Increase road safety and reduce the
potential for supply vehicle accidents.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.14.4 Road Use Permit
The Proponent's Forest and BLM Road Use
Permits would include the following
provisions:
• Any upgrades on Forest roads for access
to the Crown Jewel Project site would
meet Forest Service standards (FSH
7709.56 Road Preconstruction Handbook)
specifications for road width, grade,
alignment, drainage, quality control, gross
vehicle weights, and signing. Exceptions
to these standards may be used only with
Forest Service and/or BLM approval.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-126
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A T/VES
January 1997
• Most mine employees would be bused to
the site during operations. A busing plan
would address participation percentages
and would discuss personnel that would
not be bused to the site. There would be
an effort made to bus the construction
work force to the site. Adequate parking
would not be provided at the site for
employees to drive their personal vehicles
during operations.
• Contractors would comply with Forest
Service, BLM, Washington State, and
Okanogan County rules for oversize and
overweight loads.
• Location and design changes for access
roads on Forest Service or BLM-managed
lands must receive approval from the
Forest Service and BLM before any
ground-disturbing activities take place.
• The Proponent would be responsible for
maintaining all signs, fencing, and other
features of the mine safety and security
program.
• The Proponent would be responsible for
deposits for deferred (non-routine)
maintenance or for doing deferred road
maintenance (such as surface rock,
culvert, or bridge replacement). The
Proponent would be responsible for
recurrent (grading, cleaning culverts, etc.)
maintenance as specified in the Forest
Service and BLM Road Use Permits.
• A designated Proponent representative
and a Forest Service representative would
periodically inspect supply transport trucks
for noxious weeds, although this is not
expected to be a problem as supply trucks
would be confined to well-maintained
access roads. All construction equipment
moved to the site would be power washed
to remove dirt and debris prior to arrival
on the Crown Jewel Project site to reduce
the possibility that they are transporting
noxious weeds.
Goal: To ensure that the road system is safe
and conforms to the natural resource
management objectives for the area,
and that financial liabilities created by
the Crown Jewel Project roads are
borne by the Proponent.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.14.5 Road Closure
For safety considerations, portions of Forest
Road 3575-140 would be closed to public
access at the intersection with Forest Road
3575-120 on the south (see Figure 2-23,
Forest Road Closures.
Goal: Maintain public safety.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.14.6 Junction Improvement
If County Road 9480 is used for
transportation of materials through Beaver
Canyon, the road junction with Forest Road
32 would be improved to increase safety.
This would include increased signing and
increased sight distance. This would include
the purchase and placement of three warning
signs meeting Forest Service and/or
Okanogan County standards, the cutting of
approximately five trees, and the cutting of
approximately one acre of brush.
Goal: Increased safety on the transportation
route.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.15 Vegetation
2.12.15.1 Timber Salvage and Sale
Timber on areas scheduled for disturbance by
mining operations would be sold (except
timber used in mining operations) and cleared
in accordance with Forest Service, BLM, and
WADNR management requirements for timber
harvesting. Negotiated contracts for timber
harvest would be entered into with the
appropriate agency. Timber to be removed
would be designated by the appropriate
agency representatives prior to removal.
As applicable to the surface ownership, plans
for clearing and disposal of vegetation would
be submitted prior to beginning operations.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-127
and each year thereafter for the next year's
clearing requirements. The areas to be
cleared would be delineated on the ground to
facilitate Forest Service, BLM, and WADNR
review, as appropriate. The Forest Service,
BLM, and WADNR would review these plans
and specify the measures that would be
needed to ensure proper utilization of the
timber, disposal of slash, and protection of
the surface resources.
Volume estimation and payment would be
calculated by cruising or scaling. Slash and
unmerchantable timber, not stockpiled for
future use as large woody debris, would be
chipped for blending with salvaged topsoil (up
to 5% of soil by volume) and/or piled for
burning in locations that would not cause
damage to surrounding vegetation. The
Proponent would burn designated slash piles
as directed by the Forest Service and BLM,
and allowed under smoke management
regulations of the WADNR. The Forest
Service and BLM would designate brush and
log piles (merchantable logs as needed) to be
left for wildlife habitat or reclamation use.
Debris left from burning would be spread or
buried depending on the volume of material.
Goal: Ensure proper utilization of the timber,
disposal of slash, and protection of the
surface resources. Provide for wildlife
habitat by replacing large woody debris
removed during operations.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.15.2 Noxious Weed-Free Mulch and
Seed
Certified noxious weed-free mulch and seed
mixtures would be used to promptly reclaim
disturbed areas and control noxious weeds.
Goal: Prevent the establishment of noxious
weeds.
Effectiveness: Moderate
2.12.15.3 Noxious Weed Control
The Proponent would be responsible for
noxious weed control on federal lands within
the fenced perimeter. Hand pulling, hand
digging, biological control, and approved
herbicides would be used for the control of
noxious weeds, as discussed in the Noxious
Weed Management Plan. Crown Jewel Mine
(Parametrix, 1996b). Only herbicides having
Forest Service and BLM approval would be
used on federal lands.
Goal: Control, contain and eradicate new and
potential invader noxious weeds.
Effectiveness: High when combined with
seeding and monitoring.
2.12.15.4 Land Disturbance Screening
Plans would be developed for the final
location of telephone lines, power lines, and
roads to minimize the disturbance and provide
screening of the facilities from view.
Goal: Minimize land disturbance and provide
screening of roads, telephone lines,
and power lines.
Effectiveness: Moderate
2.12.15.5 Interim Revegetation
Interim revegetation would be required and
would be designed to stabilize embankments
or structures (eg. topsoil stockpiles and road
cuts and fills) which are expected to remain
in place until final reclamation.
Goal: Minimize soil erosion and
sedimentation from disturbed sites
during operations.
Effectiveness: Moderate, although when
combined with other erosion
and sediment control
mitigation measures, the total
effectiveness of the Crown
Jewel Project would be high.
2.12.16 Wetlands
Existing wetlands would be affected if any of
the action alternatives are implemented.
Wetlands and their buffers are regulated
under the Okanogan County Critical Areas
Regulations. Wetlands and other Waters of
the U.S. are regulated under Section 404 of
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-128
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIVES
January 1997
the Clean Water Act. All Waters of the U.S.
are accorded the full measure of protection
under the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines,
including requirements for appropriate
mitigation. The determination of appropriate
mitigation is based on the functions and
values of the aquatic resource that would be
impacted, with a national goal of no net loss
of wetland function and acreage. Final
details of wetlands mitigation would be
determined in the Corps of Engineers and
Okanogan County permits in consultation
with the land management agency if on
public land.
After avoidance of wetlands has been fully
considered and implemented where feasible
and reasonable, the overall goal of mitigation
would be to offset the Crown Jewel Project's
unavoidable adverse impacts to aquatic
resources. In addition to the overall goal,
aquatic resource mitigation plans would seek
to:
• Provide replacement of in-kind ecological
functions to the extent possible.
• Replace degraded areas that are poorly
functioning or of low value with areas of
greater function and higher value.
• Enhance riparian vegetation to provide
improved wildlife habitat.
• Provide long-term protection to wetland
and riparian areas such as those that may
be threatened by development or other
intensive uses.
• Conduct mitigation actions on sites that
are unlikely to be improved under other
regulatory programs or management plans.
• Focus on protecting, restoring, or
enhancing aquatic habitats.
The basic criteria for selecting mitigation sites
would include:
• Hydrology;
• Topography;
• Soils; and,
• Management constraints.
Of these, establishing and maintaining the
appropriate hydrology is the most critical
factor in mitigation success. A reliable water
source is essential, and the site's hydro
period (the periodic occurrence of flooding
and/or soil saturation) must be thoroughly
understood.
Topography comes into play where steep
terrain or other conditions limit the size of the
area that can be adequately wetted, or where
a large volume of excavation would be
required to shape the site.
The soil's potential to pond or drain water
would be a primary consideration, and soil
types may affect plant survival and the
species that can be grown at the site.
Lastly, the ownership and availability of the
site, the ability to manage on-site and
adjacent land uses, and the ability to ensure
the site's long-term protection must be taken
into consideration. Under NEPA, the federal
agencies are obligated to consider the most
feasible mitigation operations, regardless of
land ownership or agency jurisdiction.
Buckhorn Mountain and adjacent areas have
been investigated to identify potential
mitigation sites. Potential sites within or in
the immediate vicinity of the Crown Jewel
Project area tend to be limited by the steep
terrain and the lack of a reliable source of
water, and are unlikely to yield sufficient
acreage to adequately mitigate aquatic
impacts. Under current Forest Service and
BLM resource management plans, it is not
possible to guarantee long-term protection of
aquatic mitigation sites located on federal
lands in the Buckhorn Mountain area.
Consequently, the primary focus of this
mitigation plan would be to improve privately
owned sites that are threatened by
development or other intensive uses, but
which would offer a high potential for
successfully achieving the stated mitigation
goals and objectives.
The Myers Creek valley offers the potential
for mitigation sites in an area where homesite
development, agriculture, and other uses
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-129
have impacted or threatened riparian zones
and wetlands. In this semi-arid climate,
wetlands and riparian areas provide flood
control, water quality improvement, fish and
wildlife habitat, and other essential functions.
Mitigation measures would help to restore
wetland and riparian resources and protect
them from the adverse effects of
development and other uses. Potential
mitigation sites are located at Pine Chee
Springs and along sections of Myers Creek
(Parametrix, 1996a).
2.12.16.1 Pine Chee Springs
The Pine Chee Springs site is a 29-acre parcel
located in a narrow, northwest-trending valley
adjacent to the Oroville-Toroda Creek Road.
A stream originates from a spring system at
the southern end of the site. The stream is a
tributary to Myers Creek, although the stream
disappears subsurface 500 feet downstream
of the mitigation site. The site comprises five
acres of forested wetlands, as well as a small
manmade pond less than one acre in size.
The site supports populations of two state-
designated sensitive plant species. It is
privately owned and is subject to grazing and
timber harvest. Livestock use of the site has
resulted in some bank trampling and
distribution of weedy vegetation.
Potential mitigation actions include
acquisition of the property and its timber
rights, construction of perimeter fencing, and
planting the site with additional trees and
shrubs. Livestock would be removed from
the area; the entire parcel would be fenced to
prevent livestock entry; and, provisions
would be made to maintain the fence in good
condition. An abandoned well and pump
equipment and a small barn, located in the
pasture north of the pond, would be
dismantled and removed. Covenants running
with the land to prohibit consumptive uses
would be recorded with the Okanogan
County Assessor's office. Riparian and
upland plant species would be planted to
provide a buffer for the open water habitat
which is currently subject to disturbance by
vehicles traveling along the adjacent roads.
Upland species would be planted to provide a
buffer for open water habitat and in meadows
near the pond. Other actions would include
weed control and providing interpretive and
educational opportunities for the public.
Wildlife Effectiveness: Moderate
Wetlands Functions Effectiveness: High
2.12.16.2 Myers Creek
Virtually all of the land along Myers Creek is
privately owned, and many reaches of the
creek have been affected by agriculture,
grazing, and residential development. In
some areas, reduction or elimination of native
vegetation, bank erosion, and channel
incision have resulted in impaired function of
riparian areas and fragmented wildlife habitat.
In stretches al.ong the creek where the
riparian zone is more or less intact, new
development and removal of vegetated
buffers may threaten the ecological function
of those areas.
The mitigation goals, proposed by the
Proponent, at the Myers Creek site are to
provide diverse, complex, and productive
habitat for a variety of wildlife species,
improve the site's ability to perform
hydrologic functions, and to provide long-
term protection for a site that is subject to
intensive agricultural use.
The Myers Creek mitigation area is located
immediately south of the international border
adjacent to the Starrem Reservoir site. It
comprises approximately 50 acres. The
parcel is privately-owned and is currently
used for grazing and hay production. A
private access road forms the western
boundary of the property.
The site supports approximately ten acres of
floodplain wetland adjacent to Myers Creek.
Woody vegetation has been removed from
the wetland/riparian area, and the stream is
actively downcutting in this reach. Channel
erosion has progressed to the point that the
water surface in the channel is separated
from the top of the bank and adjacent
floodplain by up to four feet. Riparian
vegetation does not appear to be regenerating
along this stream reach.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-130
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
The mitigation objectives would be met
through property acquisitions, installation of
water-level control structures, planting of
trees and shrubs, and implementation of a
reed canary grass reduction program. The
property would be fenced to prevent entry of
livestock. Water levels in the stream and
adjacent areas would be manipulated by
installing a series of ten structures along the
reach of Myers Creek within the mitigation
site. The structures would consist of an in-
stream rock "step" with rock sills extending
into the floodplain on both sides of the
channel. Because the site is currently
dominated by reed canary grass, a program
to reduce coverage by this species would be
implemented. This would be accomplished
using a combination of mulching, mechanical
removal, burning and, if necessary to assure
success, chemical applications.
Approximately six weeks after treatment, the
areas to be planted would be mulched with
polyethylene, fiber or other landscape
textiles, and planted with trees and shrubs.
Planting plans for shrubs and trees and
design of in-stream rock "steps" are
contained in the Crown Jewel Project
Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan
(Parametrix, 1996a). The buffer area to this
mitigation site would be planted with upland
vegetation approximately ten feet wide along
either side of the stream. The proposed
planting plan includes upland vegetation in a
buffer zone adjacent to the creek.
Long-term protection would be secured
through property purchase, and covenants
running with the land to prohibit consumptive
uses would be recorded with the Okanogan
County Assessor's office.
Wildlife Effectiveness: Moderate
Wetlands Functions Effectiveness: Moderate
Three wetland and wildlife mitigation sites
have been identified for restoration or
improvement on National Forest land:
• Bear Trap Canyon;
• Nicholson Creek headwaters wetland; and,
• The frog pond.
2.12.16.3 Bear Trap Canyon
The stream, within the mitigation site in Bear
Trap Canyon, flows approximately 600 feet
through an open meadow that was clearcut
in the late 1980's. The site is flat to gently
sloping. Seeps arising at the base of
sideslopes maintain wet and boggy conditions
during most of the growing season. Prior to
timber harvest, the area was dominated by
Engelmann spruce. Downstream of the
clearcut at the site's eastern boundary, the
stream flows into a mature forested riparian
habitat. Clear cutting in the riparian zone has
degraded the functional status of the site.
Perimeter fencing would be established
around the mitigation area and buffer zone
and would encompass approximately four
acres. Livestock would be fenced from the
site and an alternative water source would be
developed at a nearby upland location.
Provisions would be made by the Proponent
to maintain the fencing in good condition for
a period of not less than 16 years. Wetlands
and riparian species would be planted along
the stream corridor to reestablish native plant
community composition and structure, and
upland species would be planted as a buffer
to screen the site from disturbance. Wetland,
riparian zones are proposed to be planted
with mountain alder, Engelmann spruce,
quaking aspen, black cottonwood, red-osier
dogwood, black twin-berry, Nootka rose, and
prickly currant. The Forest buffer is proposed
to be planted with subalpine fir, serviceberry,
western larch, Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine,
ponderosa pine, common chokecherry.
Wood's rose, mountain ash, and black
mountain huckleberry.
Wildlife Effectiveness: Moderate
Wetlands Functions Effectiveness: Low
2.12.16.4 Nicholson Creek Headwaters
Wetland (nine acre wetland)
Several small wetlands and intermittent
stream segments would be impacted by mine-
site activities such as road construction, ore
stockpiling, and waste rock disposal. The
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-131
functional importance of these areas is limited
to varying degrees by their isolation and
periodic heavy use by cattle. However, they
do have notable wildlife habitat functions in
that they are reliable sources of water and
harbor sensitive plant species. The proposed
mitigation would consist of restoration of this
wetland community as described below.
A variable buffer zone would be established
around the wetland area, and the wetland
and buffer would be fenced to exclude
grazing. As necessary, the Proponent could
augment water to this area during operations
to maintain the wetland area. The fence
constructed to exclude cattle would be
maintained by the Proponent for a period of
not less than 16 years from the start of the
Crown Jewel Project and then removed. The
tailings facility, topsoil stockpiles, soil borrow
pits, and tailings pipelines would encroach on
the buffer during operation, but these areas
would be included in the buffer following
reclamation.
A replacement water source would' be
developed to compensate for the loss of the
water source for cattle grazing and would be
maintained by the Proponent for a period of
not less than 16 years.
Wildlife Effectiveness: Moderate
Wetlands Functions Effectiveness: Low
2.12.16.5 Frog Pond
The frog pond covers 1.8 acres and was
developed as a livestock watering facility.
This wetland is partially impounded by the
adjacent road and may have been excavated
at sometime in the past. It is not known
whether it was created from upland or
wetlands. The pond is shallow, less than
four feet deep, with very little open water,
and has a diverse emergent plant community.
It is nearly surrounded by mature coniferous
forest except for about 300 feet of the
northern shore, which is an open grassy area
adjacent to a road. The grassy area is used
both for camping by hunters and for cattle
grazing. The frog pond is one of the few
open water systems in the Buckhorn
Mountain area. Functionally, the frog pond is
limited by periodic cattle use, a structurally
simple riparian forest, and the predator
efficiency and human disruption associated
with the open northern shore area. To
mitigate impacts to nearby isolated wetlands,
these impediments to wetland function would
be corrected as follows:
• A buffer zone of variable width, up to 300
feet, would be established around the frog
pond. Along the eastern side, the buffer
would extend to the road edge (as close
as 50 feet at one point). The buffer
would be fenced to exclude cattle and
dispersed camping use, or combined with
the Crown Jewel Project perimeter fence.
The fence constructed to exclude cattle
would be maintained by the Proponent for
a period of not less than 16 years from
the start of the Crown Jewel Project.
• Native tree and shrub species would be
planted in the open northern shore area to
improve the buffer and isolate the open
water habitat from disturbance and create
a forested perimeter completely around
the pond. Shrub species would be planted
under the existing forest canopy around
the remainder of the pond. No trees or
shrubs would be planted within ten feet of
the pond's edge because spotted frogs
appear to prefer non-woody plant
communities (Leonard, et al. 1993). The
pond edge and north shore is proposed to
be planted with mountain alder,
Engelmann spruce, quaking aspen, black
cottonwood, red-osier dogwood, black
twin-berry, Nootka rose, snowberry, and
prickly currant. The Forest buffer is
proposed to be planted with Douglas
maple, subalpine fir, ponderosa pine,
thimble berry, swamp gooseberry, and
snowberry.
• Up to 18 trees in the existing buffer zone
forest would be girdled to create snags
and promote development of a more
complex and diverse understory. Larch
trees, greater than 20 inches in diameter
would be utilized, if this size exists. If
larch trees do not exist, Douglas fir trees
greater than 20 inches in diameter, or the
next largest size available, would be
selected.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-132
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
• Two replacement water sources would be
developed to compensate for the loss of
this water source for cattle grazing and
would be maintained by the Proponent for
a period of not less than 16 years. One is
located northeast of the frog pond, and
the other is along Forest Road 3575-125
near the borrow pit.
Additional mitigation would be undertaken if
the frog pond is covered with waste rock as
described for Alternative G.
Wildlife Effectiveness: Moderate
Wetlands Functions Effectiveness: Low
2.12.17 Scenic Resources
2.12.17.1 General Scenic Mitigation
Measures
The following scenic resource mitigation
measures would be utilized:
• Retain vegetation and trees wherever
possible to screen facilities and maintain a
forested appearance to the extent
possible;
• To the extent possible, locate facilities
where they can be screened;
• Plant native species to screen facilities;
• Design cuts, fills, and clearings to blend in
with the surrounding topography; and,
• All buildings and other features would use
non-reflective earth-tone paints.
Goal: Minimize visual impacts of Crown
Jewel Project buildings and structures.
Effectiveness: Moderate
2.12.17.2 Exterior Lighting
Exterior lighting would be kept to the
minimum required for safety and security
purposes. Lights would be directed down
towards the interior of the Crown Jewel
Project site. Permanently mounted lights
should be sodium or a type of equal spectrum
and intensity.
Goal: Minimize lighting impacts of the Crown
Jewel Project from surrounding
viewpoints.
Effectiveness: Moderate
2.12.18 Wildlife and Fish - Public Land
Enhancement
A series of wildlife mitigation and
management practices are required to
minimize disturbance and adverse impacts on
wildlife. Where possible, the goals of wildlife
mitigation are:
• Avoid impacts to wildlife and sensitive
habitats;
• Minimize impacts to wildlife when impacts
cannot be avoided;
• Compensate for unavoidable impacts to
habitats from the Crown Jewel Project;
• Maintain viable fish and wildlife habitats in
the vicinity of the Crown Jewel Project;
• Protect and enhance, both during and
after mine operations, the diversity,
abundance, and distribution of fish and
wildlife and their habitats on the
Okanogan Highlands and in proximity to
the Crown Jewel Mine; and,
• Reestablish and improve habitats impacted
by the Crown Jewel Project to conditions
nearly the same as those that existed
before the Project.
These goals would be approached through
mitigation on public and private lands that
strive to replace habitat functions and values
and provide a mix of habitats similar to that
impacted by the Crown Jewel Project. This
would include reclaiming the mine site,
enhancing federal lands surrounding the mine,
and acquiring, protecting, and enhancing
privately-owned lands near the mine. Most
of the mine site would be reclaimed.
Reclamation measures are described in
Section 2.11, Reclamation Measures.
Habitat conditions similar to those that
existed on the site prior to exploration should
become re-established within 60 to 100 years
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-133
after cessation of mining activities with the
exception of late mature and old-growth
structure with associated components of
large diameter trees and snags. In the
interim, the reclaimed lands would provide
habitat for numerous wildlife species that
favor or use early and mid successional forest
habitats. Habitat enhancement would also
occur on public and private lands to partially
compensate for the loss of wildlife habitat
values from the Crown Jewel Project.
2.12.18.1 Fencing for Deer Movement
The perimeter fence would be designed to
keep cattle out while allowing for deer
passage in either direction. Special
modifications would be used at obvious deer
crossing sites. These modifications could
include slight fence realignment or
constructing pole fences for short distances.
Goal: Facilitate movement of deer where
game trails and the perimeter fence
intersect.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.18.2 Wildlife Road Closures
Effective road closures are proposed to
control all access points into the Marias
Creek watershed in order to provide security
habitat for deer and other wildlife. (See
Figure 2.23, Forest Road Closures.) Vehicle
access would be limited to administrative use
during operations and reclamation of the
Crown Jewel Project. If berms installed in
area roads for wildlife mitigation or mine
safety require removal for administrative
uses, the benefitting function would be
responsible for opening and reclosing the road
after use. The Proponent would be
responsible for maintaining the gates at both
ends of the Marias Creek Road, Forest Road
3550. Gates on side roads in Marias Creek
would be the responsibility of the Forest
Service to maintain.
Forest Road 3550 would have heavy duty
gates installed to provide administrative
access near the boundary with state land and
about two miles up Marias Creek from Toroda
Creek Road above Bat Canyon Road. Other
access points from state and private lands
into the Marias Creek drainage would be
closed with berms, rocks or tank traps.
Existing "Special Order" and "Travel Plan"
closed roads (mostly in the Ethel Creek area)
would remain in that condition during the life
of mining related operations.
Goal: Provide wildlife temporary security
habitat to offset disturbance associated
with mining activities on Buckhorn
Mountain.
Effectiveness: Moderate
2.12.18.3 Tailings Facility Deer Fencing
A deer proof fence 96 inches above ground
combined with a mesh fence (or other
acceptable material) 18 inches above and
below ground, to exclude small animals,
would surround the tailings pond to restrict
access.
The below ground portion of the fence could
be installed in an L shape (portion of the
fence runs horizontal). Proper gate design,
and operation would prevent access by large
and small mammals.
Goal: Design, construct and maintain the
tailings facility perimeter fence so that
small and large animals (non-flying)
would not have access.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.18.4 Blasting
With the exception of emergencies, blasting
would occur during daylight hours, at a
maximum of two times a day.
Goal: Have regular blasting times so that
animals would have the best possibility
to acclimate to blast disturbances.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.18.5 Dogs
Employee owned dogs would not be allowed
on the Crown Jewel Project site.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-134
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
Goal: To minimize disturbance to wildlife
within the Crown Jewel Project
perimeter from roaming dogs.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.18.6 Snags
Snags would be created in the Marias Creek,
Nicholson Creek and Ethel Creek watersheds
by topping and inoculation to compensate for
snags lost during mining activities. At least
75% of the replacement snags would be 21
inches in diameter (or greater) ponderosa pine
and western larch. If 21 inch diameter trees
do not occur, all snags created would be
greater than 16 inches in diameter. The
number of snags created would be 3.5 times
the number of federal acres cleared.
Goal: Replace snag habitat lost with mining
activities by creating snags on adjacent
federal lands that would bring levels up
to Interim Screening Guidelines.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.18.7 Wildlife Plant Species
At least 15% of the species mix (including
grass, shrubs and small trees), selected to
provide immediate soil stabilization during
reclamation, would be represented by species
with higher palatability to wildlife users such
as browsers and nectarivores. Success
criteria with specific survival percentages
would be developed as part of the
reclamation plan. The primary short-term
objective of reclamation would be erosion
control. A secondary objective is to provide
a diversity of native plant species that
encourage wildlife recolonization.
Goal: Ensure that the reclamation species
mix include shrubs and small trees with
higher palatability to wildlife.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.18.8 Raptor Electrocution-Proof Power
Poles
Electric transmission line power poles at the
Crown Jewel Project would be designed and
constructed to protect raptors in the area
from potential electrocution hazards. Figure
2.24, Proposed Power Pole Design, shows
the type of poles to be used along various
sections of the line on National Forest land
from Oroville to the Crown Jewel Project.
The Crown Jewel Project would use the two-
pole electric transmission design which not
only protects raptors, but provides better
perches.
Goal: Prevent raptor electrocution.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.18.9 Fish Structures
Fifteen fish structures in Marias Creek and 15
fish structures in Nicholson Creek would be
constructed, using native materials, to create
pools in the lower reaches of Nicholson Creek
and Marias Creek. These structures would be
designed to improve fish spawning and
rearing habitat, improve movement in the
stream and reduce sedimentation in those
streams which may receive less flow due to
Crown Jewel Project activities. These
structures would be installed in the first year
of the Crown Jewel Project. These
structures are to partially mitigate for
probable Crown Jewel Project related impacts
to aquatic resources, as well as trapping
sediment.
Goal: Reduce possible downstream, off-site
impacts, from sedimentation of
streams and reductions in flows.
Effectiveness: Moderate
2.12.18.10 IFIM
Implement the IFIM water diversion schedule
for new Myers Creek water rights for the
diversion period of February 1 to July 31.
These are summarized as minimum instream
flows of 6 cfs until April 1. After April 1,
minimum instream flow would be increased
to 9 cfs when the seven day running average
mean temperature meets or exceeds 6°C.
After April 1st, minimum instream flow would
be increased to 12 cfs when the seven day
running average mean temperature meets or
exceeds 8°C. Once the 12 cfs instream flow
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-135
requirement is implemented, it will remain the
instream flow requirement until July 31. The
Proponent could not divert more than their
water right.
Goal: Protect fish populations in Myers Creek
from the effects of reduced flows.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.18.11 Fish Kills
If accidental, short-term, water quality
problems from the Crown Jewel Project result
in fish kills, an investigation based on
American Fishery Society (AFS) standards
would be conducted to determine the reason
for the deaths. Sampling sites would be
randomly selected and monitored by the
Forest Service prior to Crown Jewel Project
implementation per AFS guidelines. These
sites would also be monitored in the event of
Crown Jewel Project related fish kills. Based
on the results of the investigation, a
restoration plan to restore habitat or
populations for fish and other species would
be developed based on the Field Manual for
the Investigation of Fish Kills by USDI
(USFWS/Resource Publication #177). This
provides investigation guidelines and direction
for monetary compensation in the event of a
fish kill.
Goal: To evaluate the magnitude of potential
fish and aquatic organism mortalities
from the effects of Crown Jewel
Project related water quality problems.
Restore fish populations and other
aquatic organisms affected by water
quality problems. Protect the viability
and productivity of stream systems.
Effectiveness: Moderate
2.12.18.12 Wildlife Exposure to Toxic
Substances
The Proponent would design and operate
facilities that minimize wildlife exposure to
hazardous substances. Effective measures
restricting wildlife access to the tailings pond
and recovery solution collection pond are
expected. These measures might include
such things as fences, floating pond covers,
wildlife use deterrents, or detoxification.
If cyanide levels exceed 40 ppm WAD in the
supernatant as it leaves the mill outlet and
prior to entering the tailings pond, then
required mitigation would be fully functional;
that could include exclusion (wildlife hazing
or covering the supernatant) or additional
detoxification efforts (such as diluting the
supernatant with recycled tailings pond
water). Mitigation needs to be fully
functional when the tailings discharge from
the mill reaches 40 ppm WAD cyanide.
Consequently, when the tailings discharge
monitoring (after INCO S02/Air/Oxidation
detoxification or end of pipe) reaches 35 ppm
WAD cyanide^ the proposed mitigation would
be mobilized, resulting in fully functional
mitigation at 40 ppm WAD cyanide at the
discharge point.
Goal: To minimize wildlife exposure to toxic
substances.
Effectiveness: Moderate
2.12.18.13 Raptor Highwall Nesting
Twelve recessed cavities providing nesting
ledges for raptors would be blasted into the
upper third of the pit wall. These nesting
ledges would be distributed around the north
half of the pit high walls.
Goal: Take advantage of potential nesting
habitat provided by the pit wall.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.18.14 Pit Lake
If a pit lake is created on federal lands, once
it has filled and if the water quality is
appropriate, the Proponent would plant the
lake with native aquatic plant and animal
species. During reclamation, the Proponent
would shape the final shoreline of the pit lake
to facilitate the growth of riparian and
emergent vegetation, create shallows and
gradual slope areas along the lake for
transition zones, and create an irregular
shoreline through selective placement of
waste rock or blasting of pit walls. If pit lake
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-136
CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES
January 1997
water is determined to pose a toxic risk to
wildlife species, it would be fenced to keep
terrestrial wildlife out and other methods of
discouraging avian wildlife use would be
considered such as chemical treatment or
exclusion.
Goal: Optimize opportunities to create
wetlands and aquatic habitat in the pit.
Minimize wildlife exposure to toxic
substances.
Effectiveness: Moderate; based on the
difficulty of creating wetlands
in the pit lake environment
and the potential for water
quality problems.
2.12.18.15 Raptor Perches
One raptor perch would be erected per 20
acres on reclaimed waste rock disposal areas
(15 perches). Two power poles, on National
Forest or BLM administered lands, would not
be removed during reclamation. These poles
would be fitted with raptor nesting platforms.
Goal: To provide raptor perching and nesting
structures to partially offset structural
loss.
Effectiveness: Moderate
2.12.18.16 Wildlife Runouts
Wildlife runouts would be created (every
quarter mile), on both sides of Crown Jewel
Project roads, when snowbanks along roads
become more than two feet high so animals
that get on haul roads can escape. These
runouts would be planned in conjunction with
escape routes in safety berms along haul
roads.
Goal: To minimize potential wildlife mortality
on haul roads.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.18.17 Helicopter Flight Paths
With the exception of emergency
evacuations, Crown Jewel Project-related
helicopter flight paths would avoid areas
where golden eagle nests have been
identified.
Goal: To minimize impacts to eagle nest
sites.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.18.18 Spotted Frog Colonization
After replacement wetlands are established
providing a suitable food base for spotted
frogs, a small population of spotted frogs
would be moved from the frog pond to
facilitate colonization and increase
distribution. Bull frog populations would be
controlled, if necessary, during the initial
spotted frog colonization to allow spotted
frog populations to become established and
competitive with bull frogs.
Goal: To take advantage of the
opportunity provided by wetlands
creation.
Effectiveness: Moderate
2.12.18.19 Woody Material Replacement
Down woody material would be replaced on
reclaimed sites at a rate of seven tons per
acre. Less than 10% of this weight could be
from stumps. Large diameter logs would be
preferred.
Goal: To replace large woody debris
structure lost from the mining
operations.
Effectiveness: Moderate
2.12.19 Wildlife and Fish - Private
Land Enhancement
In addition to reclamation and enhancement
of public lands as discussed in Section
2.12.18, Wildlife and Fish - Public Land
Enhancement, privately-owned lands would
be acquired, protected, enhanced, and
managed to compensate for the loss of
wildlife habitat values from the Crown Jewel
Project. These would include habitat values
that are lost during mine operations, during
the 60 to 100 years until reclaimed lands
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-137
provide similar structure and function as
existing stands, and for lands that cannot be
reclaimed to habitats similar to those
currently on the site (e.g., pit lake).
Mitigation on privately-owned lands, rather
than federal lands, would be favored by the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WADFW) because federal lands are managed
for multiple uses and there would be no
guarantee of long-term protection for wildlife
habitat enhancements on federal lands.
Based on the WADFW (1995) study of the
impacts on wildlife from the Crown Jewel
Project, coniferous forest habitat species and
species using several habitat types, such as
deer habitat, found at the proposed mine site
would be most negatively impacted by the
Crown Jewel Project. Species using wetland,
riparian, open herbaceous, and shrubland
priority habitats would be impacted by the
Crown Jewel Project to a lesser degree. Loss
of snow intercept thermal (SIT) cover has
been identified as an important concern.
Thus, mitigation on private lands would focus
on acquiring and providing habitat for species
most likely to be impacted by the Crown
Jewel Project (in-kind) and in proximity to the
mine site (near-site) in perpetuity.
The Proponent has documented its proposed
private-land wildlife mitigation in a Crown
Jewel Mine Project Conceptual Fish and
Wildlife Mitigation Plan (ENSR. 1996b). This
plan, and proposed mitigation enhancements
and land management described in the plan
and below, were developed cooperatively
between the WADFW and the Proponent. As
described in more detail in the Plan, seven
privately-owned areas have been identified as
sites for wildlife habitat mitigation. These
are:
• Pine Chee Springs and Myers Creek Near
U.S.-Canada Border;
• Lost Creek Ranch;
• Cow Camp - Upper Marias Creek;
• Upper Nicholson Creek;
• Lower Nicholson Creek; and,
• Hungry Hollow.
The WADFW has determined that these
parcels would acceptably mitigate the
impacts to habitat functions and values
caused by the Crown Jewel Project, and
would provide a similar mix of habitats as
those impacted by the Crown Jewel Project.
The Proponent is working closely with state
and federal agencies and private landowners
to complete the acquisition of these parcels.
If for some reason the Proponent is unable to
obtain an identified parcel, it would, in
cooperation with the agencies, identify and
obtain a replacement parcel providing similar
habitat functions and values.
In addition to these sites, the Proponent has
applied for patents and private ownership of
most federally-managed lands impacted by
the Crown Jewel Project. If patenting is
approved, these lands would become
privately-owned and available for long-term
protection and management for wildlife.
2.12.19.1 Pine Chee Springs and Myers
Creek Near U.S. - Canada Border
The existing conditions and proposed
mitigation and enhancement at Pine Chee
Springs and along Myers Creek near the U.S.
- Canada border are described in Section
2.12.16, Wetlands. These sites would be
managed to mitigate for impacts to wetlands
from the Project and to provide habitat for
fish and wildlife. In addition to wetland
mitigation features described in Section
2.12.16 Wetlands, upland forest stands at
Pine Chee Springs would be managed to
develop a multi-layered forest canopy for
wildlife. Existing snags would be preserved
and new snags would be created, if needed,
by artificial methods.
Mitigation proposed for Myers Creek would
benefit fish and wildlife. Pools and wet areas
would be created along Myers Creek. Shrubs
and trees would be planted near the creek.
Cattle would be excluded from grasslands
and grasslands would be managed to provide
food and cover for wildlife and habitat for
nesting birds and small mammals. Nest
boxes would be installed on fence posts.
Protection of these lands would help preserve
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-138
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
portions of a wildlife corridor that follows
Myers Creek.
2.12.19.2 Lost Creek Ranch
The Lost Creek Ranch is two miles north of
Chesaw and adjacent to Myers Creek and
Bolster Creek. The privately-owned ranch is
primarily used for farming and provides deer
winter range. The Proponent has the option
to purchase approximately 166 acres for
mitigation. Mitigation would focus on
reestablishing native grassland and shrubland
communities and improving the condition of
degraded wetland/riparian areas near the
creeks. Protection of the property would help
to maintain native cover to provide
connectivity for wildlife traveling between
National Forest lands to the east and
WADFW lands to the west. Potential actions
could include:
• Controlling weeds in pasture land and
grass lands;
• Channel stabilization and enhancement of
riparian vegetation along Myers Creek and
Bolster Creek to benefit fish;
• Fencing to exclude livestock, improve
natural regeneration of vegetation favored
by grassland and shrubland wildlife, and to
prevent degradation of riparian habitat
along the creeks;
• Plantings of native shrubs and grasses to
provide food and cover for wildlife and
shelter for deer using winter range on the
parcel;
• Providing habitat for cavity nesting birds
and bats by installing bird nest boxes and
bat houses; and,
• Developing sharecropping agreements by
which a portion of crops, such as alfalfa,
produced on the property would be made
available for use by wildlife.
2.12.19.3 Cow Camp - Upper Marias Creek
The Proponent owns approximately 70 acres
adjacent to the proposed South Waste Rock
Disposal Area and near the headwaters of
Marias Creek. Of this, about 65 acres would
be available for mitigation, including the:
• Protection and enhancement of about 57
acres of existing forest and eight acres of
shrubland habitats;
• Elimination of wildlife habitat degradation;
• Development of SIT cover for deer; and,
• Development of suitable forest cover for
wildlife traveling between National Forest
lands, lower Marias Creek and the
reclaimed mine site.
Potential mitigation actions could include:
• Fencing of the property to exclude
livestock and improve natural regeneration
of vegetation favored by wildlife and
prevent degradation of riparian habitat on
the eastern portion of the site;
• Protecting existing forest stands and
management of stands by plantings/
thinnings to improve tree spacing and
growth capabilities, develop and maintain
shrubs for wildlife in the understory, and
develop a multi-storied canopy of young
mature and mature forest providing winter
range for deer and other wildlife; and,
• Providing habitat for cavity nesting birds
and bats and protecting and creating
snags to provide one or two snags per
acre.
2.12.19.4 Upper Nicholson Creek
The Proponent proposes to acquire 40 acres
of State-owned lands managed by the
WADNR near Nicholson Creek. About 20
acres would become part of the North Waste
Rock Disposal Area, while 20 acres would be
available for wildlife mitigation. The
mitigation parcel consists of about nine acres
of shrubland and grassland, and 11 acres of
pole and young mature forest. The objectives
of mitigation would be to protect and
enhance wildlife habitats on a site currently
managed for timber production and recreation
and protect a block of habitat for wildlife that
is surrounded by federal lands managed for
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-139
multiple resources including wildlife.
Potential actions could include:
• Fencing the parcel to exclude livestock
and, if agreeable with federal agencies,
close and reclaim roads on the parcel to
improve habitat for wildlife;
• Protecting existing forest stands to allow
them to develop into a multi-storied
canopy young mature and mature forest
habitat that provides SIT cover for deer
and other wildlife; and,
• Managing stands by thinning some trees
as they mature and felling diseased trees
to encourage growth of the understory,
and protecting and creating snags for
wildlife.
2.12.19.5 Lower Nicholson Creek
The Proponent has the option to purchase
132 acres along lower Nicholson Creek. The
site is on the south side of Nicholson Creek
adjacent to National Forest lands. Elevations
range from 2,300 feet to 3,000 feet above
mean sea level. The site consists of natural
steep grassland (25 acres), sapling conifer
forest (six acres), and pole conifer forest
(101 acres) and could potentially provide
habitat connectivity for wildlife moving along
Nicholson Creek and onto federal lands.
The goal of mitigation would be to protect
and enhance diverse productive wildlife
habitats on a site that is used for timber
production, is impacted by grazing, and may
be developed for residential uses. Potential
mitigation actions could include:
• Acquiring the parcel to protect about 107
acres of forestland and 25 acres of
grassland habitat;
• Repairing fences to reduce intrusion onto
the property by livestock and degradation
of upland and riparian habitats by
livestock;
• Protecting the parcel from future timber
harvesting and allowing sapling and pole
stands to develop into multi-storied
canopy young mature and mature forest
that will provide food and cover for forest-
dwelling wildlife and SIT cover and winter
range for deer;
• Thinning portions of stands as they
mature to provide openings within forests
and enhance herbaceous and shrub
vegetation for wildlife; and,
• Protecting existing snags and creating
additional snags in suitable trees by
girdling, explosives, or inoculating trees
with fungus, to provide one to two snags
per acre.
2.12.19.6 Hungry Hollow
The Proponent proposes to purchase 200
acres of upland and riparian forest and natural
steppe shrublands and grasslands in Sections
2, 3, 10, and 11 in Township 39 North,
Range 29 East, about one mile northeast of
Muskrat Lake and five miles southwest of the
proposed mine site. The site consists of
approximately two acres of steppe grassland,
57 acres of steppe shrubland, 28 acres of
riparian deciduous forest, 11 acres of pole
conifer forest, and 102 acres of young
mature and mature conifer forest. The site is
surrounded by private lands.
The goal of mitigation would be to protect
and enhance diverse productive wildlife
habitats on a site that is used for timber
production and is impacted by grazing.
Potential mitigation actions include:
• Acquiring the parcel to protect about 141
acres of forest land and 59 acres of
grassland and shrubland habitat;
• Fencing of the site to exclude livestock;
• Protecting the parcel from future timber
harvesting and allowing pole and young
mature stands to develop into multi-
storied canopy young mature and mature
forest that would provide food and cover
for forest-dwelling wildlife and winter
range for deer;
• Controlling weeds and monitoring forest
stands for bug infestation and disease;
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-140
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIVES
January 1997
• Thinning portions of stands as they
mature to provide openings within forests
and enhance herbaceous and shrub
vegetation for wildlife;
• Protecting existing snags and creating
additional snags in suitable trees by
girding, explosives, or inoculating trees
with fungus, to provide one to two snags
per acre; and,
• Stimulating the development of aspen
regeneration in riparian habitats and
preserve water birch to provide winter
habitat for sharp-tailed grouse.
2.12.19.7 Land Ownership Agreements,
Maintenance, and Monitoring
Long-term protection of private lands
acquired for wildlife mitigation would be
secured through property purchase,
conservation easements, placement of deed
restrictions, transfer to a conservation
organization or state or federal conservation
agency, establishment of a non-profit
maintenance corporation, patents, or by other
means. The Proponent would work with
state and federal agencies overseeing the
Crown Jewel Project to ensure the long-term
protection of private lands for fish and
wildlife and to develop funding mechanisms
for the purchase of lands and maintenance
and operations.
Upon approval of the Conceptual Wildlife
Mitigation Plan for fish and wildlife habitat
management activities on private lands, the
Proponent would prepare a detailed Wildlife
Habitat Mitigation Plan, Standards for
Operations and Procedures, and Detailed
Schedule of Activities in consultation with
the WADFW, Forest Service, USFWS, and
WADOE. These documents would outline
management and monitoring procedures to be
used on each privately-owned parcel and a
schedule of activities. A summary of
activities and status of habitats on lands
owned by the Proponent would be prepared
annually and submitted to the WADFW and
made available at the request of other local,
state, and federal agencies. These reports
would be prepared by the Proponent during
the life of the mine, or until the transfer of
ownership of lands held by the Proponent to
another owner or land-management entity.
2.12.20 Employee Training
The Proponent would initiate a
comprehensive program of training and
education for employees as needed. A major
portion of training and education would
involve the health and safety aspects of the
construction and operation. The Proponent
would include environmental considerations in
this training.
Environmental lessons would generally outline
major rules and regulations which dictate key
aspects of the operation. Events leading to
their origin, rationale, objectives, and
compliance would be reviewed.
Environmental training and education would
explain the "hows" and the "whys" to the
individuals with the most potential to
positively affect the outcome - the mine
employees.
Pilot vehicle drivers would complete spill
response and safety training, at least once
annually prior to piloting hazardous materials.
Wildlife impact identification and mitigation
measures would be a key component of
environmental training and education. Items
including, but not limited to the following,
would be discussed in the training:
• Hunting prohibition on mine property;
• Firearm prohibition;
• Traffic speed limits on roads;
• Proper handling of chemicals;
• Measures to prevent wildlife harassment;
• Hunting and fishing regulations;
• Notification procedures in the event of
road kill of deer and sensitive species;
• Importance of habitat conservation and
reclamation;
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-141
• Identification of threatened and
endangered species; and,
• Likely deer concentration areas along
roads.
Goal: Provide health, safety and
environmental training for employees to
assure knowledge of important issues.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.21 Solid Waste (Garbage)
Management
2.12.21.1 Construction Waste
During construction, garbage would be
contained and hauled off-site as appropriate.
Facilities such as portable toilets would be
used to handle sanitary wastes. Spills of oil,
fuel, grease, and other materials would be
cleaned up immediately.
Goal: To meet existing local, state and
federal laws and regulations.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.21.2 Operations and Reclamation
Waste
Open burning of garbage and refuse would be
prohibited at the mine site. All garbage
would be hauled to state-approved sanitary
landfills. The Proponent would store any
garbage collected on-site in containers prior
to removal. Wood and inert wastes such as
concrete could, during reclamation, be buried
on-site in selected areas in accordance with
applicable county, state and federal
regulations or approvals and with the
landowners approval.
Goal: To meet existing local, state and
federal laws and regulations.
Effectiveness: High
2.12.22 Showcase Agreement
The Proponent entered a "Showcase
Agreement" with the Forest Service in
December 1992. This agreement has
currently expired. Part of this agreement was
to involve the closure of certain roads remote
to the site and enhancement of off-site
resources to promote wildlife use, to improve
recreation sites, or to enhance wetland areas.
2.13 MONITORING MEASURES
Environmental monitoring programs that meet
the requirements of the WADOE, BLM, and
Forest Service would be implemented as part
of any action alternative and would be
included in the Plan of Operations.
Monitoring programs would be designed to
quantify any measurable environmental
impacts accompanying construction,
operation, reclamation and post-closure
condition of the Crown Jewel Project with
reference to pre-operational data obtained
during baseline monitoring. Impacts that
result in violations of regulatory stipulations
would require alterations of Crown Jewel
Project operations or additional mitigation
actions. Any exceedances of monitoring
criteria would be brought to the attention of
the WADNR, BLM, and Forest Service within
seven days of discovery unless other
timeframes are required by permit, law, or the
Record of Decision.
Periodic review of monitoring data would be
required to assess the possible presence of
short- or long-term impacts resulting from the
Crown Jewel Project.
The Proponent would prepare an annual
report for monitoring studies. The Proponent
would submit the annual report, to the
agencies listed below by March 15th, and
there would be a meeting with the agencies
to review the monitoring results and plan.
Personnel from the Forest Service, BLM,
WADNR, WADOE, Corps of Engineers, and
the Proponent and their representatives
would be invited to this meeting. All
monitoring data provided to the WADOE in
compliance with State permits or a summary
of that data would be provided to the above
agencies, at the request of the agencies by
the Proponent. If requested by the agency, a
complete copy of the data would also be
provided by the Proponent. Data or a
summary of that data would be provided in
the same format as provided to WADOE.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-142
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIVES
January 1997
The agencies would maintain jurisdiction for
monitoring the Crown Jewel Project through
approvals and permits issued to the
Proponent.
As part of the protocol for each
environmental monitoring plan, the Proponent
would develop Quality Assurance/Quality
Control (QA/QC) procedures for each of these
areas. These procedures would collectively
comprise a QA/QC plan, the overall goal of
which would be to ensure the reliability and
accuracy of monitoring information as it is
acquired. Internal elements might include
procedures for redundant sampling such as
random blind splits or other replication
schemes, chain of custody documentation,
data logging, and error checking. External
procedures might include audits and data
analyses by outside specialists, and oversight
monitoring and data checking conducted by
various regulatory agencies.
Monitoring plans must be developed prior to
final Crown Jewel Project approval or permit
issuance and would be part of the Plans of
Operations.
Monitoring objectives and measures are
discussed in the following sections for the
various resource areas:
• Section 2.13.1, Water Resources
Monitoring;
• Section 2.13,
• Section 2.13
• Section 2.13
• Section 2.13
Monitoring;
2, Air Quality Monitoring;
3, Geotechnical Monitoring;
4, Geochemical Monitoring;
5, Wildlife and Fish
• Section 2.13.6, Timber Monitoring;
.7, Noxious Weed
• Section 2.13.
Monitoring;
• Section 2.13
Monitoring;
8, Transportation
• Section 2.13.9, Reclamation Monitoring;
• Section 2.13.10, Revegetation Monitoring;
• Section 2.13.11, Molybdenum Uptake in
Tailings Reclamation Vegetation Cover
Monitoring;
• Section 2.13.12, Soil Replacement
Monitoring;
• Section 2.13.13, Soil Storage Monitoring;
• Section 2.13.14, Wetlands Monitoring;
and,
• Section 2.13.15, Reporting.
2.13.1 Water Resources Monitoring
A ground water and surface water monitoring
program would be established to assess:
• Compliance with state and federal
permits;
• Operational performance;
• Long term changes in water quality;
• Closure and reclamation success; and,
• Magnitude and extent of unanticipated
releases of regulated substances.
The monitoring program would include water
quality, flows, and levels. The water quality
monitoring program would involve collection
and analysis of key parameters necessary to
assess each phase of the Crown Jewel
Project. Some examples of the key
parameters include pH, sulfate, nitrate, and
heavy metals. Water samples would be
collected at many locations, including the
tailings disposal facility, waste rock disposal
areas, the mine workings, stormwater
sediment traps, seeps and springs, and
wetlands. Surface water flows and ground
water levels would be included.
Some data would be obtained directly in the
field for reporting. For example, pH, water
temperature, and conductivity may be
measured directly at a monitoring station
using calibrated instruments. Samples
collected for other monitoring parameters,
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-143
such as metals and other chemical
parameters, must be analyzed at a laboratory-
Permit related chemical analysis must be
conducted by a WADOE accredited
laboratory. The Proponent would prepare a
hydrologic monitoring plan. The plan would
include the location of the permanent
monitoring stations, the frequency of
monitoring, the required parameters for field
and laboratory analysis, and a quality
assurance and quality control plan.
Water quality samples are generally collected
by the Proponent. Chapter 78.56 RCW
includes a provision that allows for citizen
observation and verification of the field
collection of the monitoring data. State
agencies have full access to the facility and
are required to inspect mining and milling
facilities for permit compliance, including
associated monitoring programs or other
aspects of the operation, at least quarterly.
Federal agencies have similar authority to
inspect mining operations and associated
monitoring programs. Field data and
chemical analyses, collected in compliance
with permits, are public records and available
upon written request.
Water monitoring for the Crown Jewel
Project would focus in these areas:
• Operational Monitoring;
• Closure and Post-Closure Monitoring; and,
• Contingency Monitoring.
2.13.1.1 Operational Monitoring
Operational monitoring would be conducted
to assess compliance with state and federal
permits; assess operational performance of
Crown Jewel Project BMPs, treatment
systems, water management systems, waste
rock disposal areas, tailings detoxification,
and tailings facility integrity; and assess long-
term changes in water quality. This would be
accomplished through a network of surface
water sampling sites, ground water
monitoring wells, and process monitoring
locations throughout the Project area where
physical, chemical, and biological parameters
would be measured.
Surface water quality monitoring stations
would be established in streams, springs, and
seeps that have the potential to be impacted
by the Crown Jewel Project, as described in
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences.
Sampling would also be conducted at
discharge locations, such as the proposed
sediment traps. Water at these stations
would be sampled and analyzed for physical
and chemical parameters. The exact
locations, parameters, and frequencies would
be established in the NPDES operating permit.
A benthic macroinvertebrate survey program
has been designed and implemented as a part
of the baseline monitoring program. It is
intended to detect changes in the distribution
and number of small organisms that inhabit
streams in the vicinity of the operation.
Some long term changes in water chemistry
may not be detected by quantitative chemical
analytical monitoring because the analytical
methods do not allow detection of a
constituent at very low concentrations.
However, such a scenario may have an
impact on the distribution and type of small
organisms that inhabit the stream. The
benthic macro-invertebrate monitoring
program would be continued.
Ground water monitoring wells would be
located as close to the potential source of
contamination as physically or reasonably
possible. The list of ground water monitoring
parameters would be similar to parameters
developed for the surface water monitoring
program. The existing baseline monitoring
network would be preserved to the extent
possible. The exact locations, parameters,
and frequencies would be established in the
NPDES operating permit.
Sampling and analysis of water discharged
from the tailings underdrain, leak detection
layer, and overdrain would be conducted.
Monitoring in the underdrain would be on a
less frequent basis and for fewer parameters
than the overdrain, unless a leak was
detected in the leak detection layer.
Monitoring of the solids, liquids, and slurry
toxicity of tailings discharged into the tailings
disposal facility would be performed.
Sampling would also be conducted in the
supernatant pond and the interstitial pores in
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-1'44
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
the tailings. The exact locations, parameters,
and frequencies would be established in the
NPDES operating permit and the Forest
Service and BLM Plans of Operations.
The Proponent would be required to install,
maintain, and record measurements from
devices for measuring precipitation,
temperature, wind speed and direction, and
the depth and water content of the snowpack
at the site.
The Proponent would be required to install
and maintain measuring devices, and record
measurements when diverting water from
Myers Creek. Water temperature would also
be monitored for instream flow regulation.
The frog pond would be monitored on a
seasonal basis (spring and fall) for water
levels. Water chemistry sampling and
analysis would be included in the surface
water monitoring program.
2.13.1.2 Closure and Post-Closure
Monitoring
Closure monitoring would be conducted to
determine the success of site reclamation,
storm water management system
performance, and tailings facility closure
success. The focus of monitoring during the
early stages of closure and reclamation would
be on TSS (total suspended solids) and the
quantity and quality of drainage from the
tailings disposal facility. Most of the
elements of the operational monitoring
program would continue, but some may be at
a reduced frequency. Some elements related
to mill and mine operations would be
eliminated.
Post-closure monitoring would be
accomplished through a network of surface
water sampling sites and ground water
monitoring wells where physical, chemical,
and biological parameters would be
measured. The focus of this monitoring
program would be long-term water quality
effects including those potentially due to acid
rock drainage (waste rock facilities and
exposed, potentially acid generating rock in
the pit), dissolved metals, and nutrients. The
pit lake and its outflow would be monitored
at a frequency adequate to document
changes in water quality and to compare to
model predictions described in Chapter 4,
Environmental Consequences. The post-
closure monitoring program would be
comparable to the closure monitoring
program. Post-closure monitoring could last
from 20 to 50 years, or longer, depending on
monitoring results.
2.13.1.3 Contingency Monitoring
Contingency monitoring would be conducted
to assess the magnitude and extent of
unanticipated release of regulated substances
to surface water or ground water. The
monitoring network would be designed,
constructed, and maintained to support a
series of specific actions (See Section
2.12.13, Surface and Ground Water - Quality
and Quantity) to assess and respond to a
release of one or more regulated substances.
This would be accomplished through a
network of surface water sampling sites,
ground water monitoring wells, and process
monitoring locations, as appropriate, where
physical, chemical, or biological parameters
would be measured. Contingency monitoring
could be triggered at any time during project
construction, operation, closure, or post-
closure.
2.13.2 Air Quality Monitoring
Air quality monitoring would be conducted
according to MSHA requirements for miner
health and safety.
The Proponent would install, operate, and
maintain two air quality monitoring sites, one
in the vicinity of the Crown Jewel Project and
one at a site chosen to represent background
concentrations to monitor particulates. The
locations of the monitoring sites would meet
all siting requirements of the EPA Quality
Assurance Manual including revisions, and 40
CFR Parts 53 and 58.
The Proponent has commenced air monitoring
on land that they control above the proposed
pit. Monitoring would continue through
construction, and paniculate monitoring
would continue for at least one year after
normal production is achieved. The air
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-145
quality monitoring data would be reviewed by
the Forest Service, BLM, and WADOE to
determine if continued monitoring or
additional monitoring is warranted. The
Proponent would submit quarterly reports
within 60 days after the end of the calendar
quarter and an annual data report. It is
proposed to monitor particulates on a
sampling frequency of once every six days.
WADOE could apply additional monitoring
requirements as part of their air quality permit
(Notice of Construction Approval).
2.13.3 Geotechnical Monitoring
The objectives of geotechnical monitoring at
the Crown Jewel Project would be to:
• Assure that the tailings and water
reservoir structures are constructed
according to design;
• Assure that the tailings and water
reservoir structures are maintained in a
stable condition over the short- and long-
term;
• Assure that waste rock disposal areas are
stable over the short- and long-term; and,
• Assure that mine pit highwalls are stable
over the short-term.
A QA/QC program would be implemented for
mine construction in cooperation with the
WADOE, WADNR, BLM, and Forest Service.
The QA/QC inspections, performed by the
Proponent, would be designed to monitor
compliance with the final approved Plans of
Operations and state permits. Prior to
submittal to the WADOE, WADNR, Forest
Service, and BLM, the inspection reports
would be prepared by a licensed professional
engineer with current registration in
Washington engaged by the Proponent for
such work.
Tailings Facility
During operations, the Proponent would be
required to make regularly scheduled, at least
weekly, visual observations of the tailings
disposal facilities to check the condition of
the embankment, the impoundment,
pipelines, recovery solution collection pond,
and water control facilities. Observations
would be recorded in a field diary and/or on
standard forms approved by WADOE and the
Forest Service.
Observations would include any scour and
erosion, vegetation growth abnormalities,
plugged pipelines or drains, and the ongoing
operation of any monitoring instrumentation.
A series of wells would be established in the
embankment structure to measure the pore
pressure conditions. These wells would be
located on the crest or downstream face of
the embankment.
In addition to the wells, instrumentation
(piezometers, settlement gages, etc.) would
be installed on the crest and external slope of
the structure to monitor the stability of the
embankment. This instrumentation would be
checked according to WADOE requirements
and recordings made in a field diary. Visual
and instrumentational monitoring would be
conducted by the Proponent's operations
personnel. A record of such data would be
maintained on-site.
Similar inspections and monitoring would be
conducted for the water storage reservoir.
The actual routine and emergency reporting
requirements would be defined in a Dam
Safety Permit approved by WADOE and in
the Plan of Operations approved by the Forest
Service.
Waste Rock Storage
The Proponent would include a monitoring
program in the Plans of Operations with
periodic reports to the Forest Service, BLM,
WADNR, and WADOE. The Proponent would
make routine visual inspections of waste rock
disposal areas for settling, development of
cracks or fissures, slumping, and erosion.
Recurring minor events or large failures would
be reported to the WADOE, Forest Service,
WADNR, and BLM.
Under-drain systems beneath waste rock
disposal areas would be monitored during
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-146
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
construction. The size and durability of drain
material would be evaluated visually and
documented in inspection reports using
photographs, other visual aids, and narrative
descriptions. The inspection reports would
be prepared by a licensed professional
engineer with current Washington registration
engaged by the Proponent for that work.
The condition of active haul roads and access
roads would be monitored during mine
operations self-inspections, and appropriate
corrective actions would be taken as
necessary. This self-monitoring by the
Proponent would be in addition to normal
agency monitoring of the Crown Jewel
Project area.
Mine Pit
MSHA would inspect highwalls as part of
their ground control regulations.
2.13.4 Geochemical Monitoring
The Proponent must provide the Forest
Service, BLM, WADOE, and WADNR with
descriptions of a geochemical characterization
monitoring and handling plan for waste rock
and tailings. These plans would be included
as part of the Plans of Operations/
Reclamation Plan. These plans would verify
the waste characterization program, identify
action limits or thresholds of concern, and
feasible methods of neutralizing, blending, or
isolating materials which exceed these limits.
The goal of these programs and plans would
be to minimize the potential for "hot-spots"
and ensure an effluent quality that is non-
toxic and non-acid generating over the long-
term. One of the plans developed would be
for monitoring waste rock produced from the
mining operation. Another plan would
monitor water quality downgradient from the
waste rock and tailings disposal areas.
The Proponent shall monitor cyanide and
other parameters at the outfall of the tailings
pipe before entering into the tailings pond on
a regular basis. Details of the method,
parameters, and schedule would be set forth
in the NPDES permit and Forest Service and
BLM Plans of Operations.
During operations, the Proponent would
conduct geochemJcal analyses of water and
tailings discharged into the tailings
impoundment and water in the tailings
seepage collection system. During closure,
the Proponent would collect geochemical
samples of interstitial pore fluid within the
tailings for comparison with geochemical
baseline studies and operational analyses.
2.13.5 Wildlife and Fish Monitoring
The agencies would meet with the Proponent
annually to discuss the need for supplements
or modifications to the Plans of Operation as
necessary to address wildlife and fish issues.
Monitoring requirements would include:
• Wildlife mortality (birds, mammals) noted
within the Crown Jewel Project area
would be reported to the Forest Service,
Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife (WADFW), and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) on each day
they are located.
• The tailings pond area would be monitored
daily for the presence of the following
groups of fauna - waterfowl, shorebirds,
songbirds, raptors, small mammals
(including bats), and amphibians.
Monitoring would begin with release of
milling effluents into the tailings pond and
continue for one year. At that point, the
need for continued monitoring would be
evaluated. Sightings and estimates of
numbers would be recorded in a daily log
while walking the perimeter of the tailings
pond, among other techniques, and sent
to agency biologists on a monthly basis.
The purpose is to maintain a record of
fauna within the tailings facility fenced
perimeter which would assist in evaluating
the safety of the tailings environment.
• There would be daily visual observations
of the tailings facility for any wildlife
mortalities (birds, mammals, amphibians)
in the first year of the Crown Jewel
Project. At that point the frequency of
continued monitoring would be evaluated.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-147
• If dead migratory birds are found, an effort
would be made to determine the reason of
death. If migratory bird deaths occur in
the tailings facility, measures would be
taken to discourage use. These measures
might include hazing, covering the ponds,
etc. The tailings impoundment and
tailings facility perimeter fencing would be
monitored for breaks and proper function
when monitoring for wildlife presence and
for possible wildlife mortalities in the
tailings facility. Breaks would be repaired
that same day.
• The frog pond would be monitored by the
Forest Service or by the Proponent under
a Showcase Agreement, using chorus
surveys on an annual basis. If populations
experience a substantial decrease that can
be attributed to the mining activities,
mitigation measures would be
implemented to stop this decline.
• The Forest Service would monitor the
golden eagle and black tern nests and loon
activity in the wildlife analysis area to
document presence/absence of the birds,
and continued nesting on a yearly basis.
If changes in presence/absence are noted,
the Forest Service would try to identify
the cause. Mitigation measures may be
implemented to stop or reduce the impact
causing these changes.
• The Proponent would conduct validation
monitoring of the level of lead in the
tailings pond to ensure that it is below
1,000 ppm. If levels above 1,000 ppm
are found, mitigation measures would be
implemented, or operations would be
changed to reduce the availability of lead
to fauna.
• Freshwater aquatic habitat trends would
be determined through twice yearly
benthic macroinvertebrate data collection.
If important changes in populations,
diversity, or distribution are noted, an
effort would be made to determine the
cause. Mitigation measures may be
implemented to stop or reduce the
factor(s) causing these changes.
• Fish populations in Marias and Nicholson
Creeks would be monitored on an annual
basis by the Forest Service, or the
Proponent under a Showcase Agreement.
If fish populations experience a major drop
in population numbers and change in
species diversity that can be attributed to
the mining activities, additional mitigation
measures would be considered to stop this
decline.
• Road closures proposed for wildlife
mitigation would be checked on a monthly
basis, to assure they are intact.
2.13.6 Timber Monitoring
Clearing, harvest and slash disposal would be
monitored by the Forest Service, BLM and
WADNR to ensure compliance with Plans of
Operation, Timber Sale Contracts, and
resource protection measures.
2.13.7 Noxious Weed Monitoring
Because noxious weeds occur in the area, it
is possible that weed infestation could occur
on disturbed and newly reclaimed areas. The
Proponent would monitor disturbed and
reclaimed sites for noxious weeds and, as
necessary, would implement weed control
measures to eliminate noxious weeds during
mining and for a period of time after the
completion of initial reclamation until native
revegetation criteria have been met
successfully.
2.13.8 Transportation Monitoring
The Forest Service and BLM would meet with
the Proponent annually to review
transportation and related safety issues. An
inspection schedule, acceptable to the
responsible agencies, for all construction and
reconstruction of mine access roads, would
be developed by the Proponent. Roads on
Forest and BLM-managed lands must be
constructed and maintained according to
Forest and BLM Road standards respectively.
In addition, the Forest Service would require
the Proponent to inspect all access roads on
National Forest land used by the Proponent
during and after spring runoff, and prior to
winter operations. The purpose of these
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-148
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
inspections would be to certify that drainage
features are functioning as designed, and/or
to identify any needed improvements or
changes.
2.13.9 Reclamation Monitoring
The Proponent would monitor for reclamation
success according to the plans and permits
that are approved by the Forest Service,
BLM, WADOE, and WADNR. Areas to be
monitored would include soil placement,
revegetation success, presence of soil
erosion, etc. Inspections would be
conducted by the above agencies to verify
reclamation success criteria.
2.13.10 Revegetation Monitoring
The vegetation cover, species composition,
and tree planting success would be evaluated
by the Proponent during the first, third, and
fifth year following seeding or planting. Tree
planting success would be measured against
the following standards:
First year, >
distributed;
90% trees alive and well
• Third year, > 75% trees alive, well
distributed, and in fair or better condition;
and,
• Fifth year, at least 250 trees per acre,
134 well-distributed crop trees.
Shrub planting success would be measured
against the following standards:
• First year, > 50% shrubs alive, > 200
shrubs/acre; and,
• Third and fifth year, > 35% shrubs alive,
> 140 shrubs per acre.
There would be a minimum of at least five
shrub species present, each representing at
least 8% of the total population or a
minimum of ten species present, each
representing at least 5% of the total
population.
Grass seeding success will be measured
against the following standards:
• First year, > 30% ground cover; and,
• Third year, > 60% ground cover.
In areas where these standards are not met,
replanting would take place until they are
met.
The Forest Service would annually monitor
populations of the sensitive plants (Listera
borealis and Platanthera obtusata) for the life
of the Crown Jewel Project. Monitoring
would include survival, reproduction,
flowering, and height to see if mine activities
have impacted populations. A population in a
drainage receiving flow from the mine and a
population in a drainage not receiving flow
from the mine would be monitored. If
important changes in populations are noted,
an effort would be made to determine the
cause of the change. The Forest Service
and/or BLM may implement mitigation
measures to stop or reduce factor(s) causing
these changes, if they can be determined.
2.13.11 Molybdenum Uptake in
Tailings Reclamation
Vegetation Cover Monitoring
Molybdenum uptake in herbaceous plants
would be studied in tailings facility
revegetation test plots proposed by the
Proponent. Representative samples of
grasses and legumes would be collected from
the test plots prior to tailings pond
reclamation. Molybdenum concentrations in
the above-ground portions of these two
groups would be determined on a dry-weight
basis. Should potentially toxic concentrations
be detected in either group (>10 mg/kg
extractable Mo) and these concentrations
exceed levels in adjacent, undisturbed
populations, a risk analysis examining the
expected affects to ruminant livestock and
wildlife would be prepared. Based upon this
risk analysis, modification to the final
reclamation plan may be required to prevent
molybdenum toxicity in these animals.
2.13.12 Soil Replacement Monitoring
Soil treatment uniformity would be
determined by surveying on a 100 foot by
100 foot grid across the slope after slope
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-149
reduction and placement of cover soil prior to
planting or seeding. Actual measured
thickness of replaced soil cover would be
determined in soil sample excavations located
within the grid.
Treatments would be deemed to be
successful if the measured depth of cover
material meets all of the following criteria
after appropriately compensating for soil
swell:
• At least 60%, or more, of the sampling
sites or transect locations must have
90%, or more, of the design thickness;
• At least 90%, or more, of the sampling
sites or transect locations must have
75%, or more, of the design thickness;
• No sampling site may have less than 60%
of design cover soil thickness. (Minimum
acceptable design thickness is 7.2 inches
on the 12 inch sites, and 10.8 inches on
the 18 inch sites); and,
• The average soil depth (applied for
reclamation purposes) over each reclaimed
site shall be 100% of the design
thickness.
The swell factor for re-applied soil at the
Crown Jewel Project site would be
determined by the Proponent using methods
approved by the Forest Service, BLM, and
WADNR.
These percentages for sampling are intended
to ensure that an adequate thickness of either
the target 12 inches or 18 inches of growth
medium is applied relatively consistently over
the entire reclamation area while recognizing
that equipment limitations and micro-
landscape subtleties would result in some
variations (either greater or lesser) of the
targeted amounts desired. Alternative C and
D target soil depths would be shallower due
to available "soil for salvage."
2.13.13 Soil Storage Monitoring
A joint inspection by the Proponent and
appropriate agencies (BLM, WADNR, and
Forest Service) would follow removal of
salvageable soil from a site (i.e. mill complex,
pit, roads, tailings pond, water storage
reservoirs, waste dump areas, etc.) and prior
to the placement of waste rock on a site to
determine that all salvageable soil had been
removed.
If additional salvageable soil is encountered,
above and beyond any amounts originally
anticipated, on any of the removal sites, this
material would be removed and stored in case
other salvageable soil removal sites have
lower volumes than originally anticipated.
Additional volumes would not exceed 10% of
the estimated amounts from the entire Crown
Jewel Project site.
All stored salvageable soil that is in excess of
what is needed for reclamation would be
reused and applied evenly to reclaimed sites,
or as approved by the agencies, regardless of
whether the amount stored exceeds the
design amounts needed on any given site.
2.13.14 Wetlands Monitoring
Some wetlands, on and adjacent to the
Crown Jewel Project site, would be
monitored for changes in wetland types,
functions, and area. In particular, the frog
pond and the Nicholson Creek headwaters
wetland (nine acre wetland) would be
monitored on a seasonal basis (spring and
fall) for water levels (frog pond only) and
wetland types, functions and acreage. If a
drop in the level of the open water of the frog
pond wetland or a reduction in flow into the
Nicholson Creek headwater wetland (nine
acre wetland) is determined to substantially
affect their wetland functions, mitigation
measures, including possible water
augmentation, would be implemented.
Wetland mitigation sites would be monitored
per the 404 permit document.
2.13.15 Reporting
The Proponent would comply with the
reporting requirements of the federal, state
and local government authorities. Such
reporting would occur on forms provided by
or in a report format approved by those
agencies. Likewise, the timing of reporting
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-150
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
would correspond to the stipulations set forth
in various permit and plan approvals.
2.14 PERFORMANCE SECURITIES
The statutory and regulatory authority of the
Forest Service, BLM, WADNR, and WADOE
would require the Proponent to execute
financial assurance agreements as part of any
plan and permit approvals from these
agencies. These financial assurances would
be in the form of reclamation and
environmental protection performance
securities to ensure that sufficient funds
would be available to the agencies to properly
reclaim the areas disturbed at the Crown
Jewel Project in the event that the Proponent
would be unable or unwilling to meet
reclamation and post-closure obligations
under the terms and conditions of the plan
and permit approvals issued by the previously
mentioned agencies.
The environmental protection performance
security is a requirement of the Washington
Metal Mining and Milling Operations Act
(Chapter 78.56 RCW) and would provide
sufficient funding to the WADOE for
monitoring and cleanup of potential problems
revealed during and after closure of the
Crown Jewel Project in the event the
Proponent failed to meet various WADOE
permit commitments. Post-closure
monitoring, water treatment, and other
measures to prevent or control long-term
environmental impacts can also be required
by the Forest Service (36 CFR 228a) and
BLM's "Cyanide and Acid Rock Drainage
Policies" for activities authorized under 43
CFR 3809 regulations. These regulations
also authorize collection of performance
securities to assure such measures are
implemented.
The Washington Metal Mining and Milling
Operations Act provides for the possibility of
combining the reclamation and environmental
protection performance securities into one
held security.
No mining or milling activities or other
operations can commence without approval
of the Plans of Operations and appropriate
permits required by the Forest Service, BLM,
WADNR, and WADOE, and the execution of
financial assurance agreements for sufficient
reclamation and environmental protection
funds to the agencies responsible for the
regulation of the construction, operation,
decommissioning, reclamation, and post-
closure monitoring of the Crown Jewel
Project.
2.14.1 Reclamation Performance
Security
This section includes a general discussion on
the various aspects of the reclamation
performance security for the Crown Jewel
Project.
Regulatory Authority
The requirement for reclamation performance
securities is a fundamental component of the
Forest Service, BLM, and WADNR regulations
that govern mining operations. The Corps of
Engineers also has the regulatory capability to
require a mining and milling operator to
provide a reclamation performance security
for 404(b)(1) permit mitigation prior to
issuance of their permit approvals.
The Forest Service authority is presented in
36 CFR Part 228 - Minerals, Section 228.51,
Bonding. The BLM authority is stated in 43
CFR Part 3809 - Mining Claims Under The
General Mining Laws, Subpart 3809 - Surface
Management, Section 3809, 1-9, Bonding
Requirements. The WADNR authority for
reclamation performance securities for
surface mining in Washington State is cited
under RCW 78.44.087, Performance Security
and WAC 332-18-120, Bonds.
Coordination Amongst Agencies
The Forest Service, BLM, WADNR, and
WADOE have discussed the logistics and
methodologies for determining a reclamation
performance security for the Crown Jewel
Project. The agencies plan to develop and
execute an agreement amongst themselves to
facilitate agency coordination and to allow
the Proponent to develop a single, all-
inclusive reclamation performance security,
which would be held separately by the
WADNR. In the event that an agreement for
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-151
a single reclamation security is not reached,
reclamation securities would be held
individually by WADNR and the federal
agencies.
Calculation of Reclamation Performance
Security
The amount of the reclamation performance
security must be approved by the Forest
Service, BLM, WADOE, and WADNR based
on the reclamation requirements established
for the Crown Jewel Project selected
alternative as conditioned by stipulations
under appropriate federal and state permit
approvals. The reclamation performance
security must be sufficient to assure
completion of the reclamation if such work
had to be performed by the regulatory
agencies in the event of forfeiture by the
Proponent.
The calculation of a reclamation cost estimate
for the Crown Jewel Project reclamation
performance security would include labor,
equipment, and material costs for items such
as earthwork including recontouring and
retopsoiling, site stabilization and
revegetation, facility decommissioning,
structure demolition and removal, equipment
removal, and monitoring during closure and
reclamation. The reclamation cost estimate
would include costs for an independent
contractor to complete site reclamation in the
event that mining and milling operations
cease and the Proponent is unable or
unwilling to fulfill reclamation requirements.
As such, the reclamation cost estimate would
include estimates for contractor equipment
mobilization and de-mobilization, agency
management and overhead, contractor profit
and overhead, and a contingency.
A listing of reclamation activities and a
proposed cost calculation for the activities is
shown on Table 2.14, Potential
Environmental Protection and Reclamation
Activity and Calculations Methods.
Adequacy and Review of Reclamation
Performance Security
The adequacy of the reclamation cost
estimate for the reclamation performance
security for the Crown Jewel Project would
be assessed and approved by the Forest
Service, BLM, WADOE, and WADNR prior to
issuance of their approvals and permits for
the construction and operation of the Crown
Jewel Project. These agencies may refuse
any reclamation performance security deemed
inadequate. The Plan of Operations would
not be approved without an acceptable
security.
The reclamation performance security would
be reviewed at least every two years,
although a change or alteration in the Crown
Jewel Project operations or significant
inflation (or deflation) could result in a more
frequent review. The agencies, through
mutual agreement, may increase or decrease
the amount of the reclamation performance
security to compensate for any changes to
the Plan of Operations or Reclamation Plans.
The amount of the performance security
would be determined by WADNR in
cooperation with the Forest Service, BLM,
and WADOE. The amount would be based
upon estimated costs of completing
reclamation according to the approved
reclamation plan or minimum standards and
related overhead for the area to be mined
during (a) the next 12 month period, (b) the
following 24 month period, and (c) any
previously disturbed area on which
reclamation has not been satisfactorily
completed and approved. If held by WADNR,
the performance security would not be
released without consent from the Forest
Service, BLM, and WADOE.
Type of Reclamation Performance Security
The Forest Service, BLM, and WADNR would
allow a variety of reclamation performance
securities including the following:
• Bank letters of credit;
• A cash deposit;
• Negotiable securities;
• An assignment of a savings account;
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-152
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
• A savings certificate in a Washington
bank; or,
• A corporate surety bond executed in the
favor of WADNR.
Effects of Patenting on Reclamation
Performance Security
In the event that all or certain parts of the
Proponent's mining claims are patented (as
addressed in Section 3.19.8, Patenting of
Crown Jewel Project Mining Claims), the
Forest Service and the BLM would release the
Proponent from that portion of the
reclamation performance security that applied
to the operation and reclamation within the
boundaries of the patented land. However, in
the event of patenting, the WADNR would
retain control of the reclamation performance
security and would be responsible for the
administration and regulation of closure and
reclamation for the patented area.
Release of Reclamation Performance Security
Upon successful completion of reclamation of
a portion or all of the Crown Jewel Project,
the Proponent may apply for the release of a
part or all of the reclamation performance
security. Reclamation success would be
addressed by Proponent compliance with the
standards and performance criteria specified
in the reclamation plans and permits approved
by the Forest Service, BLM, and WADNR.
A synopsis of reclamation objectives and
procedures applicable for any of the action
alternatives for the Crown Jewel Project is
set forth in Section 2.11, Reclamation
Measures. The success of the reclamation
and the eventual release of all or a portion of
the reclamation performance security, would
be measured and evaluated by the post-
closure monitoring programs outlined in
Section 2.13, Monitoring Measures.
The release of all or a part of the reclamation
performance security would only be made by
the appropriate agencies after the
Proponent's request was reviewed for
completeness and compliance with the
predetermined reclamation release criteria and
post-closure monitoring data, and
representatives from these agencies had
conducted a field examination of the
requested bond release area(s) to ensure that
reclamation activities had indeed been
successfully implemented. A decision may
be made to release all, a portion, or none of
the reclamation performance security sought
by the Proponent.
Current Reclamation Performance Securities
at Mining Operations
The specific amount of the reclamation
performance security for the Crown Jewel
Project would be determined for the selected
alternative and its detailed Plans of
Operations and Reclamation Plan. As such,
this amount would be determined as part of
the permit and plan approval processes of the
Forest Service, BLM, and WADNR.
The Proponent currently maintains a
$500,000 reclamation performance security
with the Forest Service for their exploration
activities at the Crown Jewel Project site.
This performance security would provide
sufficient funds to reclaim the areas disturbed
during exploration in the event that the
Proponent failed to meet their reclamation
obligations under the Forest Service approvals
for exploration operations.
Example Metals Mine Reclamation
Performance Security Comparisons for Crown
Jewel Project
To provide the EIS reviewer an idea on the
relative amounts of reclamation performance
securities that mining companies have posted
for operations, the following list shows the
approximate reclamation performance
security amounts currently in place for certain
western U.S. precious metal mining
operations:
Operation Name: San Luis Mine
Operator: Battle Mountain Gold Company
Location: Colorado
Reclamation Security: $6,400,000
Comment: Surface Mine, Milling with Tailings
Facility; Disturbed Area of Approximately 500
acres; (Approximately $3,000,000 of the
total amount has been set aside for pit
backfilling purposes.)
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-153
Operation Name: Cripple Creek Mine
Operator: Pikes Peak Mining Company
Location: Colorado
Reclamation Security: $21,000,000
Comment: Surface Mine, Heap Leach, Milling
and Tailings Facility; Disturbed Area of
Approximately 700 Acres
Operation Name: Hayden Hill Mine
Operator: AMAX Gold Company
Location: California
Reclamation Security: $5,900,000
Comment: Surface Mine, Heap Leach, Milling
and Tailings Facility; Disturbed Area of
Approximately 950 Acres.
Operation Name: McLaughlin Mine
Operator: Homestake Mining Company
Location: California
Reclamation Security: $11,000,000
Comment: Surface Mine, Milling and Tailings
Facility; Disturbed Area of Approximately 700
Acres
Operation Name: Delamar Mine
Operator: Kinross Mining Company
Location: Idaho
Reclamation Security: $10,100,000
Comment: Surface Mine, Heap Leach, Mill
and Tailings Facility; Disturbed Area of
Approximately 1,071 Acres
Operation Name: Stone Cabin Mine
Operator: Kinross Mining Company
Location: Idaho
Reclamation Security: $730,000
Comment: Surface Mine (Remote Mill or Ore
Processing); Disturbed Area of Approximately
395 Acres
Operation Name: Stibnite Mine
Operator: Stibnite Mine, Inc.
Location: Idaho
Reclamation Security: $500,000
Comment: Surface Mine, Heap Leach;
Disturbed Area of Approximately 100 Acres
Operation Name: Goldstrike Mine
Operator: Barrick Mining Company
Location: Nevada
Reclamation Security: $33,900,000
Comment: Surface Mine, Heap Leach, Milling
with Tailings Facility; Disturbed Area of
Approximately 2,000 Acres
Operation Name: Rosebud Project
Operator: Hecla Mining Company
Location: Nevada
Reclamation Security: $720,000
Comment: Underground Mine, Mill with
Tailings Facility; Disturbed Area of
Approximately 150 Acres
Operation Name: Key West/Key East Mine
Operator: Echo Bay Mining Company
Location: Washington
Reclamation Security: $400,000
Comment: Surface Mine (Remote Mill);
Disturbed Area of Approximately 20 Acres (It
should be noted that the reclamation
performance security originally included the
Key East Mine and associated waste rock
disposal areas.)
Operation Name: Kettle River Mill & Tailings
Facility
Operator: Echo Bay Mining Company
Location: Washington
Reclamation Security: $ 1,000,000
Comment: Mill & Tailings Facility (Remote
Mines); Disturbed Area of Approximately 100
Acres
Operation Name: Beartrack Mine
Operator: FMC Corporation
Location: Idaho
Reclamation Security: $5,000,000
Comment: Surface Mine, Heap Leach;
Disturbed Area of Approximately 600 Acres
Operation Name: Grouse Creek Mine
Operator: Hecla Mining Company
Location: Idaho
Reclamation Security: $4,600,000
Comment: Surface Mine, Mill with Tailings
Facility; Disturbed Area of Approximately 500
Acres
Operation Name: Zortman/Landusky Mines
Operator: Pegasus Mining Company
Location: Montana
Reclamation Security: $25,000,000
Comment: Surface Mine, Mill with Tailings
Facility; Disturbed Area of Approximately
1,400 Acres
Operation Name: Montana Tunnels Mine
Operator: Pegasus Mining Company
Location: Montana
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-154
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIVES
January 1997
Reclamation Security: $11,000,000
Comment: Surface Mine, Mill with Tailings
Facility; Disturbed Area of Approximately
1,100 Acres
Operation Name: Beal Mine
Operator: Pegasus Mining Company
Location: Montana
Reclamation Security: $6,500,000
Comment: Surface Mine, Heap Leach;
Disturbed Area of Approximately 500 Acres
It should be mentioned that no mining
operations are alike. The physical, biological,
and social aspects of mining operations are
unique to the individual sites; therefore, the
reclamation performance securities (listed
above) are presented for illustrative purposes
only and would not necessarily represent the
reclamation performance security amounts
that would be imposed on the Proponent for
the Crown Jewel Project.
2.14.2 Environmental Protection
Performance Security
Washington State Regulatory Authority
Chapter 78.56 RCW requires that all new
metals mining and milling facilities in the
State of Washington deposit an
environmental protection performance
security with the WADOE. The performance
security is intended to assure faithful
performance of an operator to the following:
• Comply with the laws of the State of
Washington pertaining to metals mining
and milling facilities and related rules and
permit conditions established by state and
local government;
• Perform post closure environmental
monitoring; and,
• Provide sufficient funding for cleanup of
potential problems revealed during or after
closure.
Federal Regulatory Authority
Post-closure monitoring, water treatment, and
other measures to prevent or control long-
term environmental impacts can be required
by the Forest Service (36 CFR 228A) and
BLM's "Cyanide and Acid Rock Drainage
Policies" for activities authorized under 43
CFR 3809 regulations. These regulations
also authorize collection of performance
securities to assure such measures are
implemented.
Determination of Environmental Protection
Performance Security Amount
When determining the acceptability of the
environmental protection performance
security submitted to WADOE for the Crown
Jewel Project, acceptability would be
determined by the agencies (WADOE,
WADNR, Forest Service, and BLM) through
considerations of, among others, factors set
forth in Chapter 78.56 RCW, 36 CFR 228A,
and 43 CFR 3809, and the estimated cost of
accomplishing the following tasks:
• Long-term water quality monitoring
following reclamation of the site;
• Operations and maintenance required to
ensure long-term functionality of the
tailings embankments, leak detection and
collection system, and water treatment
systems that may be put into place during
or after mine closure;
• Design, construction, and permitting of a
water quality treatment system capable of
pH adjustment and removal of dissolved
metals;
• Remedial investigations and feasibility
studies necessary to develop a clean-up
action plan to respond to a release
detected by the post closure monitoring
programs;
• Implementation of a clean-up action plan
to remediate a ground or surface water
release;
• Involvement of adequate agency oversight
and public participation in the
development and implementation of the
cleanup action plan; and,
• Provisions for a contingency fund.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-155
A listing of remediation activities and a
proposed cost calculation method for
environmental protection activities is shown
on Table 2.14, Potential Environmental
Protection and Reclamation Activity and
Calculation Methods.
Adequacy and Review of Environmental
Protection Performance Security
The Washington Metal Mining and Milling
Operations Act requires that the applicant for
a permit deposit an environmental protection
performance security which is acceptable to
the WADOE prior to issuance of permits. The
Washington Metal Mining and Milling
Operations Act, as well as Forest Service and
BLM regulations, allows for a variety of
securities that the WADOE, WADNR, Forest
Service, and BLM may consider including:
• Bank letters of credit;
• A cash deposit;
• Negotiable securities;
• An assignment of a savings account;
• A savings certificate in a Washington
bank; or,
• A corporate surety bond executed in favor
of the WADOE.
The WADOE, Forest Service, and BLM may
refuse any environmental protection
performance security deemed inadequate.
The performance security would be reviewed
at two year intervals, although a change or
alteration in the operations or significant
inflation (or deflation) could result in more
frequent review. The WADOE, Forest
Service, and BLM may increase or decrease
the amount of the environmental protection
performance security to compensate for any
changes to the Plan of Operations or
Remediation Plans.
As a result of the pit lake water quality
modeling results described in Section 4.6.3,
Effects Common to All Action Alternatives,
the Proponent must prepare a conceptual
engineering design of water treatment system
alternatives (WAC 173-240) that would be
available to remedy the situation as
prescribed by modeling. The most
appropriate design would serve as the basis
for establishing the environmental protection
performance security for the pit lake
discharge.
Release of Environmental Protection
Performance Security
Release of all or part of the performance
security would be addressed through
performance criteria tied to the post-
reclamation monitoring program. The process
would be initiated by Proponent request,
followed by WADOE, Forest Service, and
BLM review of the request and its supporting
data. WADOE, Forest Service, and BLM
review would consist of an evaluation of the
post-reclamation monitoring data and site
evaluation data, coupled with a comparison
to predetermined release criteria. A decision
would then be made to release all, a portion,
or none of the environmental protection
performance security sought by the
Proponent. The performance security would
not be released without consent from the
WADOE, Forest Service, and BLM.
2.15 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
This section summarizes the impacts of the
alternatives. Environmental consequences of
each alternative are described in detail in
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences.
Table 2.15, Summary of Impacts by
Alternative for Each Issue, compares
alternatives to the issues that drove
alternative development and those issues
identified as being important to assess the
impacts of the alternatives. These issues are
identified in Chapter 1, Purpose of and Need
for Action.
When reviewing specific alternative actions in
acres and volumes, please note there may be
some minor differences. These differences
are due to rounding and are not important to
the descriptions of the actions or their
effects.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
I
if
I
5-
(0
I
S1
I
o
•*
C/J
TABLE 2.15, SUMMARY OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE FOR EACH ISSUE
ISSUE/CONCERN
Alternative
A
B
C
D
AIR QUALITY
Tons of TSP produced: Yearly
(Operation Phase) Total
Tons of PM10 produced: Yearly
(Operation Phase) Total
Tons of HCN produced: Yearly
(Operation Phase) Total
Tons of NO, produced: Yearly
(Operation Phase) Total
Changes in visibility screening parameters
None From
Project
None From
Project
None
None
None From
Project
Minor
403
2,689
188
1,224
0.203
1.21
369
3,546
Substantial
under worst
case conditions
109
478
55
218
0.203
0.61
150
763
< B
247
1,364
117
612
0.203
0.91
190
1,483
< B
E
F
403
2,689
188
1,224
0.203
1.21
369
3,546
Similar to B
ENERGY
Gallons of petroleum products Annual
Total
kWh of electricity used Annual
Total
< 1,000 gal
< 1,000 gal
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
1,200,000 gal
9,600,000 gal
63 million
504 million
700,000 gal
2,800,000 gal
63 million
252 million
1,000,000 gal
5.800.000 gal
63 million
378 million
1,20O,OOO gal
9,6OO,OOO gal
63 million
504 million
212
5,428
99
2,469
0.174
2.08
185
5,665
Similar to B
600,000 gal
19,000,000 gal
42 million
672 million
FISH HABITAT AND POPULATIONS
Predicted changes in spawning habitat
Predicted changes in stream temperature
None
None
Minor Decrease
Negligible
Minor Decrease
Negligible
Minor Decrease
Negligible
Minor Decrease
Negligible
Minor Decrease
Negligible
GEOCHEMISTRY (Key Issue)
Potential for acid rock drainage from waste rock
disposal areas
Potential for release of radioactive materials
(alpha and beta emissions)
Potential for metals transport
Potential for release of tailings materials or
interstitial liquids into ground/surface waters
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Low
(5-15%)
Low
Low
Low
Low-Moderate
(25-29%)
Low
Low
Low
Low-Moderate
(16%)
Low
Low
Low
Low
(5-15%)
Low
Low
Low
Low
(5-15%)
Low
Low
Low
Q
442
2.919
206
1,329
0
0
370
3,558
Similar to B
2,400,000
gal
1 9,000,000 gal
63 million
504 million
Minor Decrease
Negligible
Low
(5-15%)
Low
Low
Low
GEOLOGY AND GEOTECHNICAL (Key Issue)
Safety Factors(static) Waste Rock Slopes
Tailings Embankment
Pit Walls(operations)
Acres of potential ground subsidence through
underground mining
Potential for rock slides or unstable pit wall
conditions
after mining
Not Applicable
None
Not Applicable
>1.3
2.7
1.2
None
Moderate
2.7
2.7
No Pit
27
No Pit
2.7
2.7
1.2
3
Moderate
2.7
2.7
1.2
None
Moderate
2.7
2.7
1.2
None
No pit walls left
exposed
2.7
2.7
1.2
None
Moderate
I
K>
••*
8
i
i
Ki
Ik
r-
1
}0
<0
S4
-------
I
I
I
I
o
»»
to
TABLE 2.15, SUMMARY OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE FOR EACH ISSUE
ISSUE/CONCERN
Alternative
A
B
C
D
f.
F
Q
HEALTH/SAFETY
Likelihood of a chemical spill
Predicted number of industrial accidents
Negligible
Negligible
Greater than
C, O, G
Less than F
Low, Less than
C, D, F, G
Greater than G
Less than
B, D, E, F
Greater than
B, D, E, F, G
Greater than
C&F
Less than
B, E, G
Greater than
B, E, F, G
Less than C
Greater than
C, D, G
Less than F
Low, Less than
C, D, F, G
Greater than
B, C, D, E, G
Low, Greater
than
B, E. G
Less than C & D
Less than
B, C, D, E, F
Low,
Greater than
B&E
Less than
C, D, E
HERITAGE RESOURCES AND NATIVE AMERICAN ISSUES
No. of known historic sites impacted
Acres not available to Native Americans
None
None
6
•= 2,000
LAND USE
Acres Disturbed (total)
Acres disturbed by ownership Forest Service
(acres/%) BLM
State of Washington
Private
Number of acres of public lands possible to put
under patent application
>58
54.6
3.3
0
No Record
Not Applicable
787
469/59
189/24
13/2
116/15
925
6
= 1,500
6
•» 2.OOO
7
» 2.0OO
415
266/64
70/17
20/5
59/14
<925
NOISE
Summertime noise levels (Leq) Chesaw
(Prevailing Condition, nighttime.
west wind) Bolster
Wintertime noise levels (Leq) Chesaw
(prevailing Condition, nighttime,
east wind) Bolster
Noise levels of blasting (L-02)
(winter east wind) Bolster
Chesaw
Pine Chee
Noise effects on wildlife
Noise effects to worker health and safety
39 (background)
37 (background)
32 (background)
31 (background)
54 (background)
57 (background)
62 (background)
Negligible
None
RECREATION
Changes in recreational access
None
39
37
38
41
59
59
62
Greater than
C, D, G
Less than F
None
Yes
=> 8,000 acres
39
37
43
Not Modeled
54
57
62
Less than
B, E, F & G
None
558
292/52
147/26
20/4
99/18
<925
928
575/62
195/21
47/5
111/12
>925
39
37
38
41
59
59
62
Less than
B, E, F, G
None
Yes
=• 7,500 acres
Yes
= 8,000 acres
39
37
38
41
59
59
62
Greater than
C, D, G
Less than F
None
7
- 2,000
817
527/64
153/19
38/5
99/12
>925
39
37
32
31
59
59
62
High due to
duration of
impacts (33
years)
None
Yes
= 8.OOO acres
Yes
=• 8,000 acres
7
- 2,000
893
544/61
197/22
44/5
108/12
>925
39
37
38
41
59
59
62
Less than
B, E, F
None
Yes
= 8.0OO acres
JO
(O
SJ
s
O
I
SB
"8
KJ
01
SI
-------
?
1
I
5
5-
ST
I
o
GO
sr
i
TABLE 2.15, SUMMARY OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE FOR EACH ISSUE
ISSUE/CONCERN
Traffic past Beth and Beaver Lakes
(during operations phase)
Increase in daily traffic
Types of Traffic
Noise level increase to Graphite Mountain
Facilities visible from Graphite Mountain
RECLAMATION (Key Issue)
Percentage of final reclaimed waste rock slopes
that are:
Steeper than 2H:1V
Between 2H:1 V and 3H:1 V
3H: 1V or flatter
Acres/percentage of south facing waste rock
slopes needing reclamation (reclaimed mainly to
grass)
Acres of disturbance needing reclamation
Acres/percentage of slopes which can be
successfully reclaimed with > 1 00, well
scattered, live and healthy trees per acre
Acres/percentage of slopes which will only be
reclaimed with grasses and shrubs, and
scattered trees « 1 00 per acre)
Acres/percentage blasted, flooded or filled in pit
Alternative
A
None
None
No
B
18
Supply trucks,
pilot vehicles
None
Yes
C
None
None
Yes
D
18
Supply trucks,
pilot vehicles
None
Yes
Not applicable,
areas to be
reclaimed are
roads.
None
55
55 (100%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
10%
43%
47%
1 8 ac (3%)
787
502 (64%)
188 (24%)
97 (12%)
< 10%
20-40%
> 50%
0 ac (0%)
415
349 (84%)
55 (13%)
11 (3%)
< 10%
20-40%
> 50%
9 ac (2%)
558
386 (69%)
112 (20%)
60 (1 1 %)
SCENIC RESOURCES
No. of high-powered lights visible at night from:
Oroville-Toroda Creek Road
B.C. Highway 3
Visual Quality Objectives met by Project
Short-term
Long-term
0
0
Yes
Yes
Vary from 0 to
3, not visible on
continual basis.
No
(Waste areas)
Yes
0
0
Yes
Yes
Vary from 0 to
3, not visible on
continual basis.
Yes
Yes
SOCIOECONOMICS (Key Issue)
Project annual employment during operations
Project related (direct)
Total (direct plus indirect)
Project multi-year employment (in person-years)
Project related (direct)
Total (direct plus indirect)
<5
<5
<5
<5
144
254
1,350
2,310
225
395
1,100
1,860
225
395
1,550
2,650
E
18
Supply trucks,
pilot vehicles
None
Yes
< 10%
20-40%
> 50%
9 ac (1 %)
928
631 (68%)
220 (24%)
77 (8%)
Vary from 0 to
3, not visible
on continual
basis.
No
(Waste Areas)
Yes
144
254
1,350
2,310
f
11
Supply trucks,
pilot vehicles
None
Yes
< 10%
2O-40%
> 50%
0 ac (0%)
817
596 (73%)
221 (27%)
0 (0%)
0
0
No
(Waste Area)
Yes
125
225
3,430
6,030
Q
None
None
Yes
< 10%
20-40%
> 50%
16ac (2%)
893
615 (69%)
181 (20%)
97 (11%)
Vary from 0 to
3, not visible on
continual basis.
No
(Waste Area)
Yes
210
370
1.880
3,240
S3
00
i
t>
3
I
CO
If
5°
-------
1
fe-
I
S1
I
o
"*
CO
TABLE 2.15, SUMMARY OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE FOR EACH ISSUE
ISSUE/CONCERN
Projected annual employment payroll during
operations
Project related (direct) (xOOO)
Total (direct plus indirect) (xOOO)
Projected multi-year employment payroll
Project related (direct) (xOOO)
Total (direct plus indirect) (xOOO)
Anticipated peak population increase during
operations
Project related (direct)
Total (direct plus indirect)
Anticipated peak new school enrollment during
operations
Project related (direct)
Total (direct plus indirect)
Anticipated permanent new housing during
operations
Project related (direct)
Total (direct plus indirect)
Anticipated multi-year tax revenues after
expenditures
Project related (direct)
Total (direct plus indirect)
Alternative
A
Not Projected
Not Projected
Not Projected
Not Projected
0
0
0
0
0
0
Not Projected
B
$ 5,871
$ 7,456
$56,434
570,367
81
157
21
40
29
56
$20.1 mm
$31.4 mm
C
$ 9,042
$11,483
$45,623
$56,637
379
497
100
131
135
177
$14.3 mm
$23.3 mm
D
$ 9,042
$11,483
$63,707
$79,603
315
433
83
114
112
154
$19.4 mm
$31.1 mm
E
$ 5,871
$ 7,456
$56,434
$70,367
81
157
21
40
29
56
$19.2 mm
$30.1 mm
F
$ 5,210
$ 6,617
$144,162
$181,792
70
140
19
38
25
50
$41,0 mm
$64.1 mm
SOILS (Key Issue)
Acres of topsoil removal
Percent of soil available for reclamation at 1 2"
and 18" depths
Changes in soil productivity predicted
55
Not Applicable
Yes
665
105%
Yes
388
94%
Yes
460
113%
Yes
812
108%
Yes
775
112%
Yes
SURFACE AND GROUND WATER (Key Issue)
Number of springs/seeps affected
direct
indirect
Lineal feet of existing stream channels
impacted
Gold Bowl Drainage
Marias Creek
Nicholson Creek
Starrem Creek
Total
1
0
None
None
None
None
0
8
11
2,300
4,200
2,025
2,200
10,725
4
14
1,350
3,550
None
2,200
7,100
8
11
1,550
4,200
550
2,200
8,460
8
12
1,500
4,200
3,900
2,200
11,800
6
11
1,500
None
8,525
2,200
12,226
Q
$ 8,168
$10,373
$74,715
$93,582
118
230
31
60
42
82
$21.0 mm
$33.9 mm
741
121%
Yes
7
10
1,500
None
8,300
2,200
12,000
I
5°
(o
I
I
is
i
!
01
<0
-------
I
I
I
I
o
•*
GO
5?
TABLE 2.15, SUMMARY OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE FOR EACH ISSUE
ISSUE/CONCERN
Decreases in area stream flows at average
annual precipitation of 20 inches (during
operations)
Nicholson Creek (confluence with
Toroda Creek)
Marias Creek (confluence with Toroda Creek)
Bolster Creek (confluence with Myers Creek)
Gold Creek (confluence with Myers Creek)
Changes to ground and surface water chemistry
Increase in stream sediment loads
Estimated water use
(acre feet) Annual
Life-of-mine
TRANSPORTATION
Additional number of vehicles per day
Construction (93% of Employees Car Pool)
Operations (75% of Employees Bused)
Reclamation (75% of Employees Bused)
Percent increase in traffic during operations
phase
Oroville-Toroda Creek Road (County Road
9480)
Pontiac Ridge Road (County Road 4895)
Number of accidents involving hazardous
chemical supply vehicles
Alternative
A
None
None
None
None
Negligible
Negligible
None
B
1.3%
<0.1%
3.0%
0.7%
Negligible
Minor
674
8,728-8,760
(including pit
lake
augmentation of
2,768 acre-feet)
0
0
12
4%
240%
Negligible
305
108
41
20-31 %
2160%
Greater than
C, D, G
Less than F
(8, 128 truck
loads)
C
1.3%
<0.1%
3.0%
0.7%
Negligible
Minor
590-647
2,502-2,647
D
1.3%
<0.1%
3.0%
0.7%
Negligible
Minor
623-663
3,860-4,134
E
1.3%
<0.1%
3.0%
0.7%
Negligible
Minor
655-687
5,363-5,654
305
151
41
58%
3020%
Greater than G
Less than
B, D, E, F
(4,544 truck
loads)
305
154
41
20-53%
3080%
Greater than
C&F
Less than
B, E, G
(6,126 truck
loads)
305
108
41
20-35%
2160%
Greater than
C, D, G
Less than F
(8, 128 truck
loads)
F
1.3%
<0.1%
3.0%
0.7%
Negligible
Minor
3O6-5O8
7,049-10,807
305
89
53
1 2-30%
1780%
Greater than
B, C, D, E, G
(9,952 truck
loads)
USE OF HAZARDOUS CHEMICALS (Key Issue)
Estimated Annual/total use of:
Sodium cyanide (ton)
Cement/lime (ton)
Lead nitrate (ton)
Sodium nitrate (ton)
Ammonium nitrate (ton)
Hydrochloric acid (ton)
Caustic (ton)
Copper sulfate (ton)
Diesel fuel (gal) (Annual/Total)
Transport of key toxic substances
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
1 ,000/1 ,000
No
1,710/13,680
6,000/64,000
170/ 1,360
3/ 24
3,200/25,600
220/ 1,760
207/ 1 ,660
53/ 424
1.2 mm/9.6 mm
Yes
1,710/6,840
8,000/32,000
1 70/ 680
31 12
1,100/4,400
220/ 880
207/ 830
53/ 210
.7mm/2.8mm
Yes
1,710/10,260
8,000/48,000
1 70/ 1 ,020
3/ 18
3,200/19,200
22O/ 1,320
207/ 1,240
53/ 320
1 mm/5. 8mm
Yes
1,710/13,680
8,000/64,000
170/ 1,360
3/ 24
3,200/25,600
220/ 1,760
207/ 1 ,660
53/ 424
1.2mm/9.6mm
Yes
VEGETATION (Key Issue)
Number of T&E plants lost
0
0
0
0
0
855/1 3,680
4,000/64,000
85/ 1,360
1.5/ 24
1 ,600/25,600
110/ 1,760
103/ 1,660
26/ 424
.6mm/19mm
Yes
0
Q
1.3%
<0.1%
3.0%
0.7%
Negligible
Minor
1,032-1,879
8,420-15,227
305
160
41
62%
320O%
Less than
B, C, D, E, F
(3,528 truck
loads)
None
None
None
None
3,200/25,600
None
None
None
2.4mm/19mm
Yes
0
I
K)
••»
8
I
•o
a
1
3
§
5°
-------
1
SB-
I
I
to
TABLE 2.15, SUMMARY OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE FOR EACH ISSUE
ISSUE/CONCERN
Number of sensitive plants lost (direct &
indirect)
Timber removed (MMBF)
Estimated annual AUM's (animal unit months)
of grazing lost
WETLANDS (Key Issue)
Acres of wetlands lost
Number of wetlands indirectly impacted
(possible probable)
Alternative
A
0
0
0
0.01
0
B
2,616
5.3
84
3.40
13
C
2,582
3.1
72
3.40
12
D
2,593
4.1
77
3.41
14
E
2,616
7
106
3.43
14
F
378
6.2
89
0.90
14
Q
378
6.8
93
5.40
13
I
CO
(o
S4
i
i
i
§
i
Co
sr
•*
i
-------
1
I
I
t
I
TABLE 2.15, SUMMARY OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE FOR EACH ISSUE
IMPACTS TO HABITAT WITHIN THE CORE AREA BY SELECTED WILDLIFE SPECIES AND ALTERNATIVE3
WHdHfe Specie, and Habitat
Mule and White-Tailed Deer suitable
non-winter cover1
•now-intercept/thermal'
thermal1
hiding1
Black Bear suitable
Mountain Lion suitable prey habitat
Pine Marten suitable
habitat with coarse woody debris
Bobcat suitable
Hairy Woodpecker suitable
Plleated Woodpecker suitable
Ruffed Qrouse suitable
Blue Grouse winter
summer & breeding
Golden Eagle foraging
Barred Owl nesting
Great Gray Owl nesting
foraging
Grizzly Bear potential
Gray Wolf potential
Existing Conditions
Acres
(unless
specified)
10,819
4452
240
438
3552
10363
10363
1543
133
6685
8485
7541
7676
707
135
2334
1190
1190
3836
10363
10363
Percent
of Core
Area
99
41
2
4
33
95
95
14
1
60
78
69
70
6
1
21
11
11
35
95
95
Alternative B
Acres
Impacted
1174
617
47
53
539
1174
1174
311
3
668
1107
899
907
216
10
234
272
272
404
1174
1174
Percent
Change
(+ 01 -I
(11)
(14)
(20)
(12)
(15)
(11)
(11)
(20)
(2)
(10)
(13)
(12)
(12)
(31)
(7)
(10)
123)
(22)
(9)
(11)
(11)
Alternative C
Acres
Impacted
990
366
31
42
343
990
990
239
2
478
866
684
693
16O
9
214
211
211
321
990
990
Percent
Change
(+ or -)
(9)
(8)
(13)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(10)
(IB)
(2)
(7)
(10)
(9)
(9)
(23)
(7)
(9)
(18)
(18)
(8)
(10)
(10)
Alternative 0
Acres
Impacted
1076
401
31
49
4O4
1076
1076
226
2
584
9oo
748
758
169
10
211
195
195
318
1076
1076
Percent
Change
(+ or-l
(10)
(9)
(13)
111)
(11)
(10)
(10)
(15)
(2)
(9)
111)
(10)
(10)
(24)
(7)
(9)
(16)
(16)
(8)
(10)
(10)
Alternative E
Acres
Impacted
1440
592
65
73
693
1440
1440
301
4
840
1249
1004
1023
246
19
269
270
270
463
1440
1440
Percent
Change
(+ or -1
(13)
(13)
(23)
(17)
(17)
(14)
(14)
(20)
(3)
(13)
(15)
(13)
(13)
(35)
(14)
(12)
(23)
(23)
(12)
(14)
(14)
Alternative F
Acres
Impacted
1366
602
37
77
471
1366
1366
214
44
856
1216
944
963
169
9
240
159
159
432
1366
1366
Percent
Change
(+ or -I
(13)
(11)
(15)
(17)
(13)
(13)
(13)
(14)
(33)
(13)
114)
(12)
(12)
(24)
(7)
(10)
113)
(13)
(11)
(13)
(13)
Alternative 0
Acres
Impacted
1415
496
28
70
492
1415
1415
199
54
896
1242
948
957
174
9
263
142
142
460
1415
1415
Percent
Change
(+ or-)
(13)
(11)
(12)
(16)
(14)
(14)
(14)
(13)
(41)
(14)
(15
(12)
(12)
(25)
17)
(11)
(12)
(12)
(12)
(14)
(14)
K)
•*
p>
K>
i
I
I
••»
to
(o
SJ
-------
i
1
I
I-
§
I
TABLE 2.15, SUMMARY OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE FOR EACH ISSUE
IMPACTS TO HABITAT WITHIN THE CORE AREA BY SELECTED WILDLIFE SPECIES AND ALTERNATIVE3
WWdHfe Species and Habitat
Pacific FMier potential
preferred
avoided
California Wolverine suitable
North American Lynx travel2
foraging2
denning2
non-cover2
Townsend's Big-Eared Bat foraging
potential roost tree*
Northern Goshawk nesting
potential post-fledging/family araa
foraging
Existing Conditions
Acres
(unless
specified)
5O66
1388
794
4479
3607
264
13
2873
6664
3538
614
2491
5065
Percent
of Core
Area
46
13
7
41
33
2
<1
26
61
NA
6
23
46
Alternative B
Acres
Impacted
778
320
570
650
489
3E
4
448
789
493
143
435
778
Percent
Change
(+ or -)
(16)
(23)
172)
(15)
(14)
(14)
(30)
(16)
(12)
(14)
(23)
(17)
(15)
Alternative C
Acres
Impacted
565
216
418
501
322
17
3
306
602
351
146
271
565
Percent
Change
(+ or -1
(11)
(16)
(53)
(11)
(9)
(7)
(23)
(11)
(9)
(10)
(24)
(11)
(11)
Alternative D
Acres
Impacted
691
203
794
524
386
3O
3
272
656
359
139
310
591
Percent
Change
(+ or-l
(12)
(15)
(100)
(12)
(11)
(12)
(23)
(13)
(10)
(10)
(23)
(12)
(12)
Alternative E
Acres
Impacted
794
278
663
7O8
533
40
3
518
889
649
146
476
833
Percent
Change
(+ or-)
(16)
(20)
(84)
(16)
(16)
(16)
(23)
(18)
(13)
(16)
(24)
(19)
(16)
Alternative F
Acres
Impacted
728
162
722
639
616
48
3
626
826
363
102
420
728
Percent
Change
(+ or-l
(14)
(12)
(91)
(14)
(14)
(19)
(23)
(18)
(12)
(10)
(17)
(17)
(14)
Alternative Q
Acres
Impacted
721
146
734
626
647
55
3
658
821
424
79
429
722
Percent
Change
(+ or-l
(14)
(10)
(92)
(14)
(15)
(22)
(23)
(20)
(12)
(12)
(13)
(17)
(14)
Notee: 1 . Based on TWHIP data.
2. Based on habitat above 4,000 feet in the core area.
3. Percentages rounded to nearest 1 % core area = 10,925. Percent loss of area indicated by ().
JO
<0
SJ
I
I
13
S
I
rO
0)
CO
-------
t?
I
I
t
i
Co
sr
s
TABLE 2.15, SUMMARY OF IMPACTS BY ALTERNATIVE FOR EACH ISSUE
SUMMARY OF FOREST PLAN COMPLIANCE BY ALTERNATIVE ON NATIONAL FOREST LANDS
Element
SUCCESSIONAL STAGE DIVERSITY:
T4ON R31E: Grass/Forb
Seedling /Sapling
Pole
Young Mature
Mature
T4ON R30E: Grass/Forb
Seed ling /Sapling
Pole
Young Mature
Mature
OLD-GROWTH:
T4ON R31E: Existing
Replacement
Total
T40N R3OE: Existing
Replacement
Total
ROAD DENSITY
MA14-16
MAI 4-1 7
MA14-18
MA14-19
MA25-18
MA26-13
MA26-15
Forest Plan
Standard |
5%
10%
10%
5%
5%
5%
10%
10%
5%
5%
>5%
no threshold
>5%
925 acres
a5%
no threshold
£5%
203 acres
2.0 mi/mi2
2.0 mi/mi2
2.0 mi/mi2
2.0 mi/mi2
3.0 mi/mi2
1 .0 mi/mi2
1 .0 mi/mi2
Values1 || Status1-2
Existing
Condition
3%
7%
10%
40%
29%
14%
9%
12%
35%
26%
12%
0
12%
1,823
4%
1 %/54
4%
149
2.1
2.5
4.1
37.3
2.7
4.3
3.2
Alternative
A
3%
7%
10%
40%
29%
14%
9%
12%
35%
26%
12%
0
12%
1,823
4%
1%
4%
149
2.1
2.5
4.1
3.0
2.5
4.3
3.2
B
3%
7%
10%
40%
29%
13%
9%
11%
33%
23%
12%
0
12%
1,823
3%
1%
3%
125
2.1
2.5
4.1
0.0
2.3
4.3
3.2
C
3%
7%
10%
40%
29%
17%
9%
11%
34%
24%
12%
0
12%
1,823
4%
1%
4%
149
2.1
2.5
4.1
0.0
2.4
4.3
3.2
D
3%
7%
10%
40%
29%
17%
9%
11%
34%
24%
12%
0
12%
1,823
4%
1%
4%
149
2.1
2.5
4.1
0.6
2.3
4.3
3.2
E
4%
6%
10%
39%
29%
18%
9%
11%
33%
23%
12%
0
12%
1,823
2%
1%
2%
99
2.1
2.5
4.1
0.0
2.2
4.3
3.2
f
4%
6%
10%
39%
28%
14%
9%
11%
34%
26%
11%
0
11%
1,767
4%
1%
4%
149
2.1
2.5
4.1
1.9
2.2
4.3
3.2
Q
4%
6%
10%
39%
28%
15%
9%
11%
34%
25%
12%
0
12%
1,802
4%
1%
4%
149
2.1
2.5
4.1
0.6
2.2
4.3
3.2
Existing
Condition
BELOW
BELOW
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
BELOW
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
BELOW
BELOW
BELOW
BELOW
BELOW
MEETS
BELOW
BELOW
Alternative
A
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
C +
A +
NC
NC
B
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
A-
NC
A-
A-
NC
C-
NC
NC
NC
B +
A +
NC
NC
C
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
A +
NC
A-
A-
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
B +
A+
NC
NC
D
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
A +
NC
A-
A-
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
B +
A +
NC
NC
E
c+
c-
NC
A-
NC
A-t-
NC
A-
A-
NC
C-
NC
NC
NC
B +
A +
NC
NC
F
C-t-
c-
NC
A-
A-
NC
NC
A-
NC
A
NC
NC
NC
NC
B +
A +
NC
NC
Q
C +
c-
NC
A-
A-
A +
NC
A-
A-
A-
NC
NC
NC
NC
8 +
A +
NC
NC
Notes: 1 . Shaded cells indicate a change from existing conditions. Bolding indicates the element would be reduced from existing conditions.
2. A- indicates that the element currently meets standards and guidelines, would be reduced, but would still meet standards and guidelines; B- indicates that the element
currently meets standards and guidelines but would be reduced below standards and guidelines (i.e., goes below the threshold); C- indicates the element is cun-ently
below minimum standards and guidelines and would be reduced further; A+ indicates that the element currently meets standards and guidelines and value would
increase; B+ indicates the element is below standards and guidelines, value would increase and would meet standards and guidelines; C+ indicates the element is
cun-ently below standards and guidelines, would increases in value but not meet standards and guidelines (i.e., value would increase but status would not); NC indicates
no change from existing conditions; NA indicates habitat cannot be assessed relative to a threshold (bolding indicates the element would be reduced). B- and C- represent
noncompliance.
K)
••»
8
i
ro
I
^
r-
1
5°
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 2-165
2.16 IDENTIFICATION OF THE
PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
The Forest Service and BLM Preferred
Alternative is Alternative B, the Proposed
Action, as presented in this document
including the reclamation, mitigation,
monitoring and performance guarantee
measures described in Sections 2.11,
Reclamation Measures, 2.12, Management
and Mitigation, 2.13, Monitoring Measures,
and 2.14, Performance Securities.
WADOE has chosen not to select a Preferred
Alternative in the final EIS. WADOE selection
of an alternative would be made as part of
WADOE permit decisions.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-166
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
FIGURE 2.1, MANAGEMENT PRESCRIPTION 27
GOAL STATEMENT: Provide for minerals development, intensive minerals exploration activities, and site rehabilitation
while protecting other resource values to the extent reasonable and feasible.
DESCRIPTION: This applies to Management Area 27. The area allocated to this use includes only the specific areas of
minerals development or intensive exploration.
DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION: Minerals development and intensive minerals exploration activities are limited to the area
necessary for their efficient, economic, and orderly progression. The activities are carried out so that any effects on other
resources are minimized to the extent reasonable and feasible, and all legal resource protection requirements are met.
Other resources uses and activities may be permitted where activities are compatible with public safety and efficient and
safe mining and related operations. Sites will be rehabilitated following exploration or development to provide geomorphic
and hydrologic stability, habitat values, scenic values, and other uses of the National Forest. The goal of rehabilitation will
be to allow the return of the land to the former management emphasis.
Activity
Standards and Guideline*
Recreation MA27-8A The scenic quality objectives may not be met during mineral operations. The SQO will be
determined by the Project NEPA decision document, with a long-term or post-rehabilitation goal of
achieving a visual quality objective that considers the goals and objectives of the former management
emphasis.
MA27-8B Roaded modified recreation opportunities may be provided where compatible with public safety
and efficient and safe mining operations.
Wildlife MA27-6A Cover standards applicable to discrete MA27 shall be determined in the Project NEPA decision
document.
Range MA27-11A Manage commercial livestock to reduce conflicts with mineral activities.
MA27-11B Revegetation activities during site rehabilitation shall be designated to reestablish vegetation
having long-term stability. Use locally adapted native species where ever feasible.
Timber MA27-20A Scheduled timber harvest shall not occur.
MA27-20B Unscheduled timber harvest activities may occur when necessary for mineral exploration and
development, and when necessary to prevent the spread of disease or insects to adjacent areas and
ownerships, or meet other resource needs.
MA27-20C Reforestation of formerly forested sites shall occur with locally adapted native species and
seed sources to the extent feasible.
Minerals MA27-15A NEPA analysis and decision documents shall address site rehabilitation and reclamation
activities.
Access MA27-17A Roads shall be constructed or reconstructed to appropriate standards where necessary to
provide access for minerals exploration and development. Public use of roads may be restricted or
prohibited for reasons of safety, or to avoid conflict with mining operations. Project NEPA Decision
Documents shall provide for road management, and reclamation requirements for roads at the close of
operations.
Facilities MA27-18A Facilities necessary to mineral operations are allowed. Design, placement, construction, and
closure of all facilities shall be in accordance with the Project NEPA Decision Documents.
MA27-18B Facilities shall be designed, constructed, and operated to contain hazardous substances.
Facilities shall be designed and operated to minimize human, wildlife, or domestic livestock exposure to
hazardous substances.
MA27-18C With the exception of facilities identified in the NEPA Decision Document for retention,
facilities shall be removed or dismantled upon completion of intended use, and evidence of their presence
shall be obliterated during rehabilitation of the site.
MA27-18D Hazardous substances, mining residues and tailings shall be removed from the site and/or
appropriately treated and left on-site in accordance with the NEPA Decision Document and applicable
state and local laws and regulations.
MA27-18E Solid wastes produced incidentally to the management of mineral exploration or development
shall be disposed of in accordance with direction in the NEPA Decision Document and applicable state and
local laws and regulations.
Fire Protection MA27-19A the preferred suppression strategy is control.
MA27-19B Permittees shall assume responsibility for securing fire protection of structures and mining
facilities from structural fires.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-167
fo;fe#aH
/ w i
LEGEND
FIGURE 2.2, WASTE ROCK DISPOSAL AREA OPTIONS
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
I
I
(D
a
£
f
CO
APPROXIMATE
8,000 TON
UNDERGROUND
STORAGE AREA
FOR ORE
CONVEYOR
3-SIDED ENCLOSURE
CRUSHER AREA
CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT
NOT TO SCALE
GO
TO MILL BUILDING
UNDERGROUND ADIT
(TUNNEL)
i
K>
1
*>
r-
1
FIGURE 2.3, BELOW GROUND CRUSHING
I
-*
to
CO
ENAME CJF2-3DWG
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-169
O
H-
Q.
QC
O
CO
O
O
CO
CC
<
O
X
O
O
cc
QC
LU
O
O
HI
QC
O
O
cv
HI
QC
D
O
LL
Crown Jewel Mine * ffoa/ Environmental Impact Statement
-------
p
s
3
TO
$
^
^
3s
•
s3
1
onmen
St
•5.
g.
g
0
CO
<£
(6
ZINC
DUST
FEEDER
_. RETURN TO
ZINC
GOLD
RECOVERY
CIRCUIT
LEACH CIRCUIT FLOWMETER
PRE
CIPITATION 1
PRESSES \ r
n x"^^.
TTT1 FI 1 1 ^ ' f %
Illlllll Fj
— ™«
PUMP — /" ~^
9 ~~t r
.-_-_-_-
BARREN
1 ' SOLUTION »/^^
BARREN SAMPLER
Illlllll - v
IIIIIIIIH
Wtr (_y
11111111 j L~4.
^^^ 'FEED" •(
n PUMP 1
Illlllll ' VAP
»•
^^
UUM
MD
--*-"*'*
SOLUTION . ,_ ri_ •V
TANK Hj-1""' "-1"" „ 1
FLOWMETER , rLUX
.A,
• ' " "
r
i
DORE'
BULLION
SLAG
^*"
— DE-AER/
Ml
UN
TOWER
— '
CLARIFIED
|
..
|
..
|
•L
PRESSURE
PREGNANT
S
DLUTION T
AN
K
PREGNA
MT —
SOLUTION
FROM
FILTRATION
OR
CIP CIRCUIT
PUMPS
CLARIFIERS
PREGNANT
SOLUTION
TANK
FIGURE 2.5, GOLD RECOVERY THROUGH ZINC PRECIPITATION
FILENAME CJF2-5DWG
2?
•H
KJ
1
r*
1
•<
^r
rn
Co
S-
u>
3
c
0)
<0
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-171
LOWER SOUTH
NICHOLSON TAILINGS
STRAWBERRY
LAKE
TAILINGS
UPPER SOUTH
NICHOLSON
TAILINGS
NORTH
NICHOLSON
TAILINGS
SOUTH NICHOLSON
TAILINGS
SITE D: MARIAS
SIDE HILL
TAILINGS
139';
SITE C; PINE
CHEE MEADOW
TAILINGS
"**•«. »:«.
SITE B:
PONTIAC RIDGE
TAILINGS
SITE A: BEAVER
CREEK CANYON
TAILINGS
L EGEND
MINE PIT AREA
.
I TAILINGS DISPOSAL AREA OPTION BOUNDARY
*"'
FIGURE 2.6, TAILINGS DISPOSAL FACILITY OPTIONS
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-172
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
If '
«A _
/ V«7v * i
', /^7«*\ 8 ''/•
f^/^'-'-.-S^^XK' "
X.. ^-^ CT/ 1 ^f ^-z^M IJ5*^
-^ ^ i:-.,sf fl
•^:::.,^im^
f" -«sL'"53Ei • i'Ji'uf I i 1.1
* }\ • / (A.-JA ,JV^ I
*^x-> J-f •»• I
•V7'-- pn '4-S ^
Crown Jewel Mine 4 F/na/ Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-173
CANADA
>•&£&
STATES o
^
?r so
I ,-
-------
Page 2-174
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIVES
January 1997
HEADER
LOW PERMEABILITY
ZONE
STARTER
DAM
UPSTREAM
SPIGOT
UNDERDRAWS
HEADER
STARTER
DAM
-UNOERDRAINS
DOWNSTREAM
LOW PERMEABILITY
ZONE
HEADER
UNDERDRAWS-/
CENTERLINE
LOW PERMEABILITY
ZONE
FIGURE 2.8, TAILINGS DAM CONSTRUCTION DESIGN
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-175
PLAN VIEW
CONCEPTUAL LINER SYSTEM A
CONCEPTUAL LINER SYSTEM B
CONCEPTUAL LINER SYSTEM C CONCEPTUAL LINER SYSTEM D
FIGURE 2.9, PROPOSED CONCEPTUAL LINER
SYSTEM CONFIGURATION
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-176
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIVES
January 1997
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-177
Crown Jewel Mine • F/na/ Environmental Impact Statement
-------
L EGEND
A WATER STORAGE OPTION
LOCATION
SITE 4
STRAWBERRY
LAKE RESERVOIR
SITE 6
UPPER MYERS CREEK
RESERVOIR
SITE 2
COUNTY ROAD 9480
RESERVOIR
SITE 3
COUNTY ROAD 4887
RESERVOIR
FIGURE 2.12, WATER STORAGE RESERVOIR LOCATIONS
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-179
UJ
<
CC
LJJ
<
O
<
111
o
<
00
LJJ
QC
LJJ
O
CO
CM'
Crown Jewel Mine t Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
SOURCES
^ ^ SEP-1
PR- 4
0
00
PIT AND WELL \ \
DEWATERING ^ — £l_^
0
RESERVOIR ^ :1-^
Pfl-3
G
^ ^ p/?-2
G^ '
pp-1
G
PIT AND WELL
DEWATERING
MILL AREA
SOUTH
WASTE ROCK
NORTH
WASTE ROCK
AUG-1
PL-1
PL 3
PL -2
SEPTIC
" SYblhM
/T\f~\ ^ "~ ^ I
ORE CRUSHING/GRINDING/ DISPOS
MILLING, LEACHING GOLD \----v FACILI
/~\ RECOVERY PROCESSES Z ' f~\
2 L^
....Tr^l'-.i.x / — \
FR2 \^/ HAUL ROAD DUST
• / ":° *- " SUPPRESSION
FtRE^ s FIRE <; x
? °° / " SUPPRESSION Z-JL°_>
. x J
C^i(~^> i
DIVERSION SEDIME
UIICHbb " TRAP 3
L J_
. r_ v
^f^ifT}
DIVERSION SEDIME
DITCHES " TRAP
L J_
DIVERSION SEDIME
DIICHtS ' TRAP
1 -1
DISCHARGES
SEP-1 ^ ^
AUG-1 ^ v
d>
(D
1 TOP 1A , ^ — '
^ 543 > EVAPORATION
>S TDF-1B ^ - s
Y Z± 0
' I TDF-2 ,
0
FR2 ^ v
n 0
B
\n ) sr-3 x ,,. x
(A)
ST-3A ,- x
2 — L_^ u
w
NT ST-2 ^ ^
2 fT^
ST-2A ^ v
2 ^CJAP«H,,TIUH, IHFILTfi^TI^H
MT '''—^ ST-I ^ x
M>
ST-1A ^ s ^-^
NOTES 0
(T) VALUES FOR PRECIPITATION AND EVAPORATION/ NFILTRATION ARE SUMS OF PROJECTED MONTHLY LEGEND NPDES/STATE WASTE DISCHARGE PERMIT APPLICATION
ACCUMULATION FOR 12 MONTHS UNDER THE SPECIFIED CONDITIONS BASED ON HISTORICAL RAINFALL
DATA AND ANTICIPATED SURFACE AREAS AND CONDITIONS VALUES ARE FROM REVISED SEDIMENT TRAP
WATER BALANCE BY COLDER ASSOCIATES, SED-BAL1 XLS SUMMARY, DATED 22 MAY 1996 > 15 ° > — WATER FLOW RATE IN GPM
(T) DEWATERING WELL TO BE USED DURING CONSTRUCTION AND THE LATTER PHASES OF THE OPERATION PR-? FLOW STREAM DESIGNATION
MAKEUP WATER WILL BE TRANSFERRED FROM THE RESERVOIR AT STARREM CREEK
Cl) VALUES BASED ON BATTLE MOUNTAIN GOLD COMPANY CROWN JEWEL PROJECT WATER BALANCE FLOWSHEET BY
M3 ENGINEERING 8. TECHNOLOGY, INC DRAWING OOO-FL-009 JOBE M3-PN96025, DATED 8 APRIL 1996
(T) CALCULATED OR INTERPOLATED VALUE
(^) VALUE PROJECTED BY BATTLE MOUNTAIN GOLD COMPANY THE VALUE FOR THE TAILINGS EVAPORATION INCREASES
THROUGH THE LIFE OF THE PROJECT THE VALUE USED, 543 GPM, IS AVERAGED OVER THE LIFE OF THE MINE
FIGURE 2.14, OPERATIONAL WATER BALANCE SCHEMATIC - DRY YEAR
FILENAME CJF2-14 DWG SOURCE AGRA EARTH 8 ENVIRONMENTAL (June I996)
Page 2- 180 CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES January 1997
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-181
z
o
C3
IT
o
W
o
Q
2^
LU
1- O :
O t- :
LU (/) [
o*.
o. £ LU <
00^
Q LU
Q CO
UJ ~Z.
W <
^> o:
to >
w o
1*
or
<
"J
O
LU
O
CO
LU
00
LU
LU
a
CM
LU
8 8 8 88
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-182
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIMES
January 1997
R 30 E R 31 E
LEGEND
ORE STOCKPILE AREA
TAILINGS. SURFACE FACILITIES AND
SEDIMENT POND AREAS
| I WASTE ROCK DISPOSAL AREA A |
(Upper Nicholson! I—
[ | WASTE ROCK DISPOSAL AREA B
(Upper Marias)
j 1 TOPSOIL STOCKPILE AREA FACILITY AREA BOUNDARY
r~ 1 SOIL BORROW PIT AREA
FIGURE 2.16, ALTERNATIVE B
OPERATIONAL SITE PLAN
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-183
R 30 E R 31 E
SHOP, AND
ORE PROCESSING
FACILITY
26,
| FS3575-120|r—s^
LEGEND
cm '•-* '••-•
FIGURE 2.17, ALTERNATIVE B
PROPONENTS PROPOSED POSTMINING PLAN
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-184
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA T/VES
January 1997
R 30 E R 31 E
DIVERSION DITCH) 19
n
RECOVERY
SOLUTION
COLLECTION
POND
LEGEND
UNDERGROUND DEVELOPMENT
WASTE ROCK DISPOSAL AREA
QUARRY AREA
TOPSOIL STOCKPILE AREA
SOIL BORROW PIT AREA
| ORE STOCKPILE AREA
[ TAILINGS, SURFACE FACILITIES AND
SEDIMENT POND AREAS
• — FACILITY AREA BOUNDARY
9) POTENTIAL SUBSIDENCE ZONE
FIGURE 2.18, ALTERNATIVE C
OPERATIONAL SITE PLAN
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-185
R 30 E R 31 E
SEDIMENT PONDI
[DIVERSION PITCH!
IWATER STORAGE^
/n t "~
OFFICE, WAREHOUSE
AND SHOP COMPLEX
'(CRUSHER
/
DIVERSION DITCH[--19
MILL AND ORE
PROCESSING
PRODUCTION
ADIT
DIVERSION
DITCH
EXPLORATION
VENTILATION
RAISE
EMBANKMENT
POWERLINE ,
SEDIMENT
POND
RECOVERY
SOLUTION
COLLECTION
POND
ACCESS
ROAD
LEGEND
I j WASTE ROCK DISPOSAL AREA
(Upper Nicholson)
| ""j TOPSOIL STOCKPILE AREA
\ [ SOIL BORROW PIT AREA
j ORE STOCKPILE AREA
| TAILINGS. SURFACE FACILITIES AND
SEDIMENT POND AREAS
— • — FACILITY AREA BOUNDARY
(t) POTENTIAL SUBSIDENCE ZONE
FIGURE 2.19, ALTERNATIVE D
OPERATIONAL SITE PLAN
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-186
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
R 30 E R 31 E
DIVERSION PITCH! I
_^_\ (
HAUL ROADJ ',
OFFICE. WAREHOUSE
ANP SHOP COMPLEX
WASTE ROCK DISPOSAL AREA I
(Upper Nicholson)
WASTE ROCK DISPOSAL AREA C
(Upper Marias South)
TOPSOIL STOCKPILE AREA
SOIL BORROW PIT AREA
TAILINGS. SURFACE FACILITIES AND
SEDIMENT POND AREAS
• — FACILITY AREA BOUNDARY
FIGURE 2.20, ALTERNATIVE E
OPERATIONAL SITE PLAN
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-187
R 30 E R 31 E
WATER
SUPPLY
PIPELINE
WAREHOUSE
AND SHOP
COMPLEX
LEGEND
WASTE ROCK STOCKPILE I
(Upper Nicholson)
TOPSOIL STOCKPILE AREA
SOIL BORROW PIT AREA
ORE STOCKPILE AREA
TAILINGS, SURFACE FACILITIES AND
SEDIMENT POND AREAS
— — • — FACILITY AREA BOUNDARY
FIGURE 2.21, ALTERNATIVE F
OPERATIONAL SITE PLAN
Crown Jewel Mine • /=»ia/ Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-188
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERN A TIVES
January 1997
R 30 E R 31 E
SOLUTION
COLLECTION
POND
MILL AND ORE
PROCESSING
FACILITY
1
0
i^
OFFICE.
WAREHOUSE
AND SHOP
COMPLEX
30
ci
•>
4
\
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 2-189
CO
UJ
oc
D
CO
o
_l
o
o
<
o
oc
CO
UJ
oc
o
CO
CSI
CM
UJ
oc
o
Crown Jewel Mine • F/V?a/ Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 2-190
CHAPTER 2 - AL TERNA TIVES
January 1997
n-
»=
V
g
CO
u
Q
U
_l
o
Q.
CC,
U
O
Q.
O
UJ
CO
O
Q.
O
QC
O.
^"
CVI
UJ
QC
z>
o
Crown Jewel Mine • F/na/ Environmental Impact Statement
-------
-------
-------
Chapter 3
Affected Environment
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-1
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
This chapter describes the existing condition
of the Crown Jewel Project study area, and is
presented primarily to assist the reviewer in
understanding the environmental
consequences presented for each resource in
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences.
Resource descriptions focus on areas which
would likely be affected by the proposed
mining and milling activities. As an example,
there is minimal focus on the silvicultural
priority of the timber to be harvested since
there is only a limited amount of variation in
where certain facilities can be located.
The current attributes and conditions of the
Project area are described in this document
by resource specialists who have completed
intensive surveys of the area or lab studies of
mineral materials or water samples. This
section presents the relevant physical,
biological, and social conditions for this area.
The relationship between resources and
resource users is of critical importance and
requires careful attention.
This chapter is organized by environmental
component such as air quality, geology,
geochemistry, water resources, noise,
wildlife, etc. Whenever possible, the basic
dynamics of forest ecosystems are described
as they occur in their pre-project state. This
establishes the mutual dependence of
elements in the natural environment, a reality
which is sometimes obscured when resources
are considered individually. It provides a
baseline for measuring the effects of the
proposed mining activities.
For certain resources, such as soils and
cultural resources, the study area was
considered to essentially be the area of
potential direct disturbance. For other
resources such as wildlife, scenery, and
socioeconomics, a broader study area was
utilized to encompass the potential off-site
aspects of issues related to these resource
categories.
For clarification purposes, the following
definitions apply throughout this document.
Project Area. The specific area within which
all surface disturbance and development
activities would occur.
Study Area, Analysis Area. A larger
peripheral zone around the Crown Jewel
Project area within which most potential
direct and indirect effects to a specific
resource would be expected to occur.
Core Area. The specific area within which all
surface disturbance and development
activities would occur plus a specified buffer,
up to a mile outside the Project area.
Environmental studies have been conducted
on the site since 1990. Background and
baseline studies have been completed by a
number of contractors for a number of
resource areas. These studies are listed in
Appendix A, List of Unpublished Reports, and
are available for review at locations as
identified in Appendix A, List of Unpublished
Reports.
Because many of the documents and
analyses used in the preparation of the EIS
are lengthy and technical in detail, the results
are often only summarized in this EIS.
Further information can be found in source
documents listed in Appendix A, List of
Unpublished Reports.
3.1
AIR QUALITY/CLIMATE
3.1.1 Introduction
The air quality and climate at the proposed
Crown Jewel Project site are influenced by
the rugged topography, the prevailing
westerly winds, and weather fronts from the
Pacific Ocean and the Arctic. The site is over
six miles from any other industrial activities
so background pollutant levels are expected
to be low.
3.1.2 Air Quality
Background air pollutant concentrations at
the mine site are low due to the lack of any
major industrial activity or residential areas in
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-2
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
the vicinity. The small amount of air quality
monitoring data that has been collected at
the Crown Jewel site to date confirms this.
The closest industrial activity is the lumber
mill in Rock Creek, Canada about six miles
north of the Crown Jewel Project area. EPA
designates non-attainment areas where air
pollution has been demonstrated to exceed
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). No such non-attainment areas
have been designated in Okanogan County.
This indication that air quality is good must
be tempered with the knowledge that air
quality monitoring conducted to date in
Okanogan County has been limited.
The Proponent, after discussions with
Washington Department of Ecology
(WADOE), developed a baseline data
collection approach. As a result of this
interaction, the Proponent determined that
baseline ambient air quality monitoring was
not required to support the application for the
Notice of Construction Air Quality Permit.
WADOE typically requires pre-construction
on-site ambient air quality monitoring for
sources which require Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) permits, but
typically does not require pre-construction
ambient monitoring for sources which do not
require the PSD permit. Nonfugitive
emissions in excess of 250 tons per year of a
regulated pollutant would have necessitated a
PSD permit. An emissions inventory
submitted to WADOE by the Proponent
indicates that the nonfugitive emissions
would be approximately 5.7 tons per year
which is below the 250 ton per year limit.
The Washington Metal Mining and Milling
Operations Act requires that "...the applicant
shall provide baseline data adequate to
document the premining conditions at the
proposed site..." Since the passage of the
Washington Metal Mining and Milling
Operations Act, WADOE has not changed its
previous methods of determining what
constitutes adequate baseline data. As
described above, those methods do not
require pre-construction ambient air quality
monitoring for every project. For some
projects, WADOE has accepted monitoring at
locations in the same geographic area, but
not on the Project site.
Three sets of existing air quality monitoring
data were considered for use by the
Proponent as baseline data. Each of the
three sets had at least one drawback when
considered for use as baseline data for the
Crown Jewel Project. The three sets of
existing paniculate data which were
considered for use include historical
paniculate data from Northport, Mazama and
Okanogan. The Northport data has the
drawbacks of being from a populated area
(unlike the proposed mine site) and being
sited for the purpose of measuring impacts
caused by a smelter in Trail, British Columbia,
Canada. The Mazama data has the drawback
of being near a highway. The station at
Okanogan has the drawback of being near
populated areas and several industrial
sources.
Ultimately, the Proponent decided to conduct
on-site ambient PM-10 monitoring beginning
in January, 1996. While the on-site
monitoring conducted by the Proponent was
judged to be superior to any of these for
determining the PM-10 background level
itself, the Northport data was used to
estimate the ratio of PM-10 to Total
Suspended Particulates (TSP).
The first six months of that data are
summarized here.
The highest 24-hour background PM-10
(paniculate matter smaller than ten microns)
concentration measured at the mine site
during the period January-April 1996 was 8.1
micrograms per cubic meter. The background
TSP was calculated to be 13.1 micrograms
per cubic meter. For the gaseous air
pollutants S02, N02/ and CO, background
levels were assumed to be 25% of the
applicable standard. These background
concentrations were used in the air quality
modeling completed by the Proponent for the
Notice of Construction Air Quality Permit
application (BMGC, 1996b). The results of
that modeling are described in Section 4.1,
Air Quality, of this document.
For the pollutant lead, the background
concentration may be approximated by
multiplying the fraction of lead measured in
the rock of the area times the total
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-3
suspended paniculate background level. This
gives an estimated lead background
concentration for the Crown Jewel Project
site of less than 0.002 micrograms per cubic
meter which is much less than the National
Ambient Air Quality standard of 1.5
micrograms per cubic meter averaged over a
calendar quarter.
The background for the pollutant ozone at the
Crown Jewel Project site has been assumed
to be .04 ppm, which is one-third of the
National Ambient Air Quality Standard of
0.12 ppm for an hourly average.
3.1.3 Climate
The Proponent installed a meteorological
station at the mine site in 1991 and has
operated electronic monitors for temperature,
wind speed, and wind direction. In August
1993, an automated precipitation gage was
added to the meteorological station. The
location of the on-site weather station is
shown in Figure 3.1.1, Location of On-Site
Weather Station.
The annual and monthly-average
meteorological conditions at the mine site
were calculated based on two to three years
of data collected at the mine site, which were
correlated against historical data at other
existing meteorological stations in the region
to ensure that the on-site data had not been
inadvertently collected during unusual
weather conditions. The details of the
meteorological data assessment are given in a
separate report (ENSR, 1996a). The results
of the meteorological assessment are
summarized in Table 3.1.1, Weather Data.
The methodologies used to develop the mine
site data are described below.
The calculated monthly temperature profiles
at the mine site are shown in Table 3.1.1,
Weather Data. Two years of daily-average
temperature readings at the mine site were
correlated against simultaneous data
collected by the National Weather Service at
Republic, Washington. The correlation
showed that the mine site temperature was
between 2°F to 5°F cooler than Republic.
The correlations were then used to adjust the
long-term average Republic data to calculate
the mine site monthly temperatures.
The calculated monthly precipitation at the
mine site are shown in Table 3.1.1, Weather
Data. Twenty-eight months of precipitation
data from the mine site were correlated with
simultaneous precipitation data from Molson
and Republic. The correlations showed that
during the 28 months of data collection the
mine site experienced 43% more precipitation
than Molson, and 28% more precipitation
than Republic. Based on those correlations,
the annual precipitation at the mine site was
calculated to be 20.0 inches per year. The
monthly-average precipitation at the mine site
was estimated by distributing the 20.0 inches
per year annual total according to monthly
profiles from four local weather stations:
Republic, Molson, Chesaw, and Irene
Mountain. Based on that distribution, the
wettest months at the mine site are May and
June with monthly precipitation of 2.3 inches
and 2.4 inches respectively, and the driest
months at the mine site are September and
October with monthly precipitation of 1.2
inches.
For purposes of modeling the hydrological
impacts to ground water flow, stream flow
and wetlands, two sets of wet year and dry
year precipitation values were derived by
inspecting the historical wet/dry cycles at the
Molson weather station. Based on the
patterns at Molson, the extreme wet year at
the mine site is estimated to be 31.7 inches
per year (which corresponds to an 86-year
recurrence interval). The extreme dry year at
the mine site is estimated to be 14.2 inches
per year (which corresponds to a 13-year
recurrence interval).
The monthly average snowfall at the mine
site was estimated by inspecting the daily-
average temperature and precipitation data
that were collected for 28 months at the
mine site. It was assumed that all
precipitation that occurred on a day where
the average temperature was below freezing
fell as snow. The resulting snowfall
calculations are shown in Table 3.1.1,
Weather Data. The calculated annual
average snowfall at the mine site is 7.1
inches per year of water equivalent.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
I
(o
1
fe-
I
S'
(b
I
o
•*
Co
TABLE 3.1.1, WEATHER DATA
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Annual Total
Mean Minimum
Temperature
(°F)
15
20
23
29
37
44
47
47
40
31
25
16
..
Mean Maximum
Temperature
<°F)
26
33
42
52
59
67
73
74
62
50
34
26
—
Monthly Average
Temperature
<°F)
21
27
33
41
48
56
60
61
51
41
30
21
-
Lowest
Daily-Average
Temperature'
(°F)
10
-2.2
5.0
21
28
32
38
38
32
16
-7.6
-5.8
-
Highest
Daily-Average
Temperature1
(°F)
43
45
59
59
72
75
88
82
79
66
39
37
-
Total
Precipitation2
(inches)
1.7
1.3
1.3
1.6
2.3
2.4
1.4
1.7
1.2
1.2
1.8
2.1
20.0
Snowfall Water
Equivalent
(inches)
1.1
1.0
0.3
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
1.8
1.8
7.1
Pan
Evaporation
(inches)
0.2
0.6
1.5
4.0
5.5
6.8
7.3
6.0
3.9
1.8
0.7
0.3
38.6
Notes: 1. Period of Record: September 1993 - October 1996
2. Mine site values adjusted by correlating with historical Republic data and Molson data.
i
CO
3!
§
i
I
Jo
(o
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-5
The Proponent established staff gages, to
measure snow depth, at four locations in the
vicinity of the Project:
• Chesaw;
• Gold Bowl near the existing weather
station;
• "Overlook" near the southeast rim of
Gold Bowl; and,
• Proposed mill site.
Snow depth observations have been collected
on a monthly basis over the past two
winters. Future observations/measurements
could be used to estimate/verify water
equivalent for average annual snowfall.
No reliable pan evaporation data have been
taken at the mine site. Pan evaporation rates
at the mine site were therefore calculated by
adjusting historical data that were available
from Republic, and accounting for the
difference in temperature, wind speed and
humidity at the mine site compared to
Republic. A Monte Carlo statistical
adjustment was made between the Republic
site and the mine site to account for
uncertainty in the temperature, wind speed
and humidity data. The evaporation data
shown in Table 3.1.1, Weather Data,
represent the median calculated values. The
average annual pan evaporation at the mine
site was estimated to be 38.6 inches (ENSR,
1996a).
Table 3.1.2, Predicted Rainfall Intensities.
summarizes the predicted rainfall intensities
that were used to design the surface runoff
facilities and the tailings facility.
Figure 3.1.2, Wind Roses From On-Site
Weather Station, shows the seasonal wind
direction and speed, derived from the on-site
weather station during the period January
1991 through April 1992. During the winter
the wind direction was generally from the
east. During the summer, spring, and
autumn, the prevailing wind direction was
generally from the west. The meteorological
tower at the Crown Jewel Project is located
in the proposed mine pit area. The tower
was installed according to EPA guidelines and
was situated as far as practical from trees
that might affect the measured wind
direction. Two performance audits of the
wind speed and wind direction sensors were
performed by the Proponent's contractor
during the 15 months of primary data
collection used to support the air quality
permit application. The results of those
audits were reviewed by WADOE staff and
were found to be acceptable. The audits
indicated that the wind speed and wind
direction sensors and data loggers were
calibrated to within EPA's specifications for
meteorological equipment.
3.2
TOPOGRAPHY/PHYSIOGRAPHY
The Crown Jewel Project is located in north
central Washington State, approximately
three miles south of the Canadian border.
The topography of the general region ranges
from steep to relatively flat.
Elevations in the general region range from
slightly over 900 feet in the Okanogan River
valley near the town of Oroville to 5,602 feet
at the summit of Buckhorn Mountain. The
elevations in the actual Crown Jewel Project
area range from about 4,120 feet in the
Marias Creek drainage to the 5,602 foot
TABLE 3.1.2, PREDICTED RAINFALL INTENSITIES
Storm Duration
24-Hour Storm
1 0-year recurrence
25-year recurrence
1 00-year recurrence
Source:
NOAA, 1973
Precipitation
(inches)
2.0
2.4
2.7
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-6
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
summit of Buckhorn Mountain. The elevation
of the town of Chesaw and the Myers Creek
drainage is slightly less than 3,000 feet.
The Crown Jewel Project area is drained by
Nicholson Creek and Marias Creek which flow
generally east to Toroda Creek; and, Ethel
Creek, Thorp Creek, Bolster Creek, and Gold
Creek which flow generally west to Myers
Creek. Myers Creek is approximately three
miles to the west of the proposed Crown
Jewel Project and flows north into Canada,
eventually emptying into the Kettle River.
Toroda Creek is about five miles southeast of
the proposed Crown Jewel Project and flows
northeast, then east to the Kettle River.
3.3 GEOLOGY/GEOCHEMISTRY
3.3.1 Introduction
The characteristics of the mineral deposit aid
in determining the most economical mining
and milling applications. Geologic data and
interpretations form the basis for mine
evaluation and mine production by providing
ore reserve and waste rock estimates,
geologic structure data (such as faults and
fracture zones), metallurgical characteristics
of the ore, and geochemistry information for
environmental analyses.
Geochemistry is the study of the distribution
and amounts of chemical elements in ore,
waste rock, and tailings material. One of the
fundamental functions of geochemical
analyses is to evaluate the fate of the rock
material over time, in particular, to assess the
potential for the rock material to develop acid
or liberate toxic elements to the environment.
3.3.2 Site Geology
The geology of north-central Okanogan
County is a complex association of igneous,
metamorphic, and sedimentary rocks. The
larger valleys of the region contain surface
materials of alluvium and glacial deposits.
In recent geologic time, large continental
glaciers covered most of the Okanogan
Highlands and are responsible for the general
surface topography of much of north central
Okanogan County. Patches of glacially
deposited material remain scattered
throughout the region.
The Crown Jewel Project site lies within a
complex structural setting, located on the
western margin of the Eocene-aged Toroda
Creek Graben. Northeast trending, southeast
dipping sinuous shear zones and brittle faults
locally cut all rock types. The most
prominent of these faults is the North
Lookout Fault, which has a normal
displacement measured at 150 feet to 200
feet in the southern portion of the Crown
Jewel Project deposit. Faulting is generally
thought to be related to the development of
the Toroda Creek Graben.
The Crown Jewel Project orebody is hosted
by a skarn deposit found in a sequence of
complexly folded and faulted volcanic and
volcaniclastic rocks, shallow-to-deep-marine
clastic sedimentary rocks, and carbonate
rocks. The term skarn refers to coarse-
grained calc-silicates which replace
carbonate-rich rocks during regional or
contact metamorphism. In more specific
terms, a skarn deposit is one of lime-bearing
silicates derived from the reaction of
hydrothermal fluids with limestones and/or
dolomites or the reaction of limestones with
intruding magmas, or a combination of the
two. Skarns may contain substantial
quantities of ore minerals and their bulk
composition bears no simple relation to the
enclosing rocks (BMGC, 1995b).
Figure 3.3.1, Geologic Map of the Proposed
Crown Jewel Project Site, presents the
geology of the proposed Crown Jewel Project
area as determined by the Proponent through
surface and subsurface investigations.
The orebody is a gold deposit confined to the
skarn and locally is erratically distributed.
Gold mineralization is associated with skarn
alteration and includes magnetite-dominant,
garnet-dominant, and pyroxene-dominant
skarn zones which reflect the varied
hydrothermal fluid reaction with host rocks.
The gold occurs as fine-grained
disseminations varying in grade within the
skarn mineral assemblages. The geology of
the deposit is based on the detailed analysis
and. interpretation of approximately 280,000
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-7
feet of reverse circulation drilling and 80,000
feet of core drilling conducted by the
Proponent.
3.3.3 Geochemistry
Introduction
The geochemical behavior of the rock
materials to be mined and processed at the
proposed Crown Jewel Project are described
below. Understanding the geochemical
behavior of these materials is important in
assessing potential impacts from mining on
the surrounding environment. Geochemical
impacts from mining operations can include
the formation of acid rock drainage (ARD)
and mine leachates that contain metals
and/or radionuclides. ARD, also commonly
referred to as acid mine drainage (AMD), can
be defined as follows (American Geologic
Institute, 1987 and BMGC, 1995b):
Drainage with a pH of less than 4.5 from
sulfur-bearing rock materials. Acid rock
drainage is predominantly present when
these rocks have been exposed to air and
water through natural (i.e., landslide) or
man-induced (i.e., mining) processes.
The reaction with air and water over time
can produce sulfuric acid and sulfate
salts. Sulfuric acid can also dissolve
metals, if present in the rock, and release
the metals into the environment.
For rock materials to generate ARD and/or
leach contaminants, several conditions must
be present:
• There must be pathways for oxygen and
water to come into contact with sulfide
minerals, particularly iron sulfides.
Sulfides form under anoxic (oxygen-poor)
conditions and, when exposed to an oxic
(oxygen-rich) environment as a result of
natural erosion, mining or processing, can
become unstable and break down
chemically. This can result in the
production of acidity.
• The rock materials must include minerals
that contain metals or other substances
that can be leached under the
environmental conditions present at the
mine. At the Crown Jewel Project site,
these minerals include arsenopyrite
(arsenic), chalcopyrite (copper),
molybdenite (molybdenum), pyrite and
pyrrhotite (iron) and sphalerite (zinc).
• Radionuclides, such as uranium, thorium,
and radium may also be present in some
ore deposits and can be leached under
certain conditions.
• A mechanism must be present to
transport the acidity and contaminants
away from the source material and into
the surrounding environment. This is
usually accomplished by water.
Geologic Materials of Concern
Testing programs were implemented to
evaluate the geochemical behavior of mined
and processed materials at the Crown Jewel
Project. Three material types were examined:
• Waste rock;
• Ore and low grade ore; and,
• Tailings (solids and liquid).
Initial sample selection was performed by the
Proponent's geochemist and geologists based
on their knowledge of the rock type
(lithology) and mineralogy of the orebody and
the anticipated geochemical variability of the
materials. In total, the lithology in
approximately 360,000 feet of drill holes has
been logged (geological description), of which
80,000 feet was from core drilling and
280,000 feet was from reverse circulation
drilling. Core samples were used in the
Proponent's geochemical and metallurgical
testing programs. Samples were not
composited. The location of core holes used
for geochemical testing is presented in Figure
3.3.2, Location of Drill Holes Used for
Geochemical Testing.
Summary results from the geochemical
testing programs are presented in this
section. More detailed discussion of these
results can be found in the following reports:
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-8
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
• Report on the Waste Rock Geochemical
Testing Program. Crown Jewel Project.
prepared by Kea Pacific Holdings Inc. in
association with Golder Associates Inc.
for the Proponent (Kea Pacific, 1993a);
• Report on the Waste Rock Geochemical
Testing Program, Crown Jewel Project.
Responses to Agency Comments,
prepared by Kea Pacific Holdings Inc. in
association with Golder Associates Inc.
for the Proponent (Kea Pacific, 1993b);
• Report on Geochemical Testing of: Ore
and Low Grade Ore. Crown Jewel
Project prepared by Kea Pacific Holdings
Inc. in association with Golder Associates
Inc. for the Proponent (Kea Pacific,
1993c);
• Tailings Geochemical Testing Program:
Crown Jewel Project, Okanogan County,
Washington, prepared by the Proponent
with assistance from Kea Pacific Holdings
Inc. (BMGC, 1994a);
• Tailings Geochemical Testing Program:
Crown Jewel Project. Okanogan County,
Washington, Addendum 1. prepared by
the Proponent with assistance from
Geochemica, Inc. and Golder Associates
Inc. (BMGCetal, 1996a);
• Final Summary Report, Confirmation
Geochemistry Program, Crown Jewel
Project prepared by TerraMatrix Inc. for
the Forest Service and WADOE
(TerraMatrix, 1995a); and,
• Report on Waste Rock Geochemical
Testing Program, Crown Jewel Project.
Phase IV. Additional Humidity Cell Tests,
prepared by Geochimica, Inc. for the
Proponent (Geochimica, 1996).
Waste Rock. It is estimated that between
500,000 cubic yards and 54,000,000 cubic
yards of waste rock (development rock)
would be associated with the Crown Jewel
Project alternatives. Nine waste rock groups
were identified in the proposed mine area
based on differences in lithology and degrees
of alteration and mineralization. The waste
rock groups include:
• Altered andesite;
• Unaltered andesite;
• Garnet skarn;
• Magnetite skarn;
• Undifferentiated skarn;
• Altered elastics;
• Unaltered elastics;
• Marble; and,
• Intrusives.
Table 3.3.1, Waste Rock Percentages for the
EIS Alternatives, lists the total waste rock
volume for the various EIS alternatives.
The number of waste rock samples selected
for testing was based, in part, on the
estimated rock volumes and common ranges
of sulfide content observed during core
logging. An effort was also made to select
and test samples with higher sulfide
contents, as these would have a. greater
potential to generate acid and leach metals.
For reference. Appendix E, Geochemistry (E-
1, Geochemical Samples Analyzed), lists the
89 waste rock samples originally tested by
the Proponent and the type of analyses
performed on these samples.
To confirm that the samples selected by the
Proponent were representative of the waste
rock material to be generated and stockpiled
during mining, the EIS Project team selected
an additional 278 waste rock samples for
geochemical testing. These confirmation
samples were selected from 17 core drill
holes and 36 reverse circulation drill holes
and analyzed for total sulfur and acid
neutralization potential. The location of these
drill holes are shown on Figure 3.3.2,
Location of Drill Holes Used for Geochemical
Jesting.
The drill holes used for confirmation testing
satisfied the following general criteria:
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-9
TABLE 3.3.1. WASTE ROCK PERCENTAGES FOR THE EIS ALTERNATIVES
Waste Rock Group
Altered Andesite
Unaltered Andesite
Garnet Skarn
Magnetite Skarn
Undifferentiated Skarn
Altered Clastics
Unaltered Clastics
Marble
Intrusive
Total Waste Rock Volume
(in million cubic yards)
Alternative
B
6.5
52.3
9.5
1.5
8.8
0.7
13.0
5.5
2.2
54
C
2
1
28
4
36
<0.7
18
3
8
0.5
D
2
14
24
9
6
<0.7
37
3
5
18.5
E
6.5
52.3
9.5
1.5
8.8
0.7
13.0
5.5
2.2
54
F
6.5
52.3
9.5
1.5
8.8
0.7
13.0
5.5
2.2
54
G
6.5
52.3
9.5
1.5
8.8
0.7
13.0
5.5
2.2
54
Note: The waste rock percentages were estimated by the Proponent using site drill data and
block model program. (Schumacher, 1994, 1995)
• Were not analyzed in the Proponent's
testing program;
• Provided area coverage of the proposed
mine pit; and,
• Were drilled to a total depth at least as
deep as the projected base of the
proposed mine pit.
To determine the number of confirmation
samples to be tested, a five-foot sample
interval was randomly selected from every
50-feet of drill hole. An additional sample
was selected from each hole at the projected
intersection with the limit of the proposed
mine pit. If ore material or mixed waste rock
lithologies were included in the sample
interval, the sample was not analyzed. A
listing of the confirmation samples by rock
type is also presented in Appendix E,
Geochemistry {E-1, Geochemical Samples
Analyzed).
The Proponent performed additional
geochemical testing (humidity cell) on 17 of
the confirmation samples selected by the EIS
project team. These samples are noted in
Appendix E, Geochemistry (E-1, Geochemical
Samples Analyzed).
Ore and Low Grade Ore. The following ore
types were identified at the Crown Jewel
Project and were used to prepare test
samples:
• Andesite/garnetite skarn;
• Magnetite skarn; and,
• "Southwest" ore (undifferentiated skarn).
The southwest ore type is comprised
primarily of pyroxene and amphibole and
occurs in the southern portion of the deposit.
It is estimated by the Proponent that this
material and the andesite/garnetite ore type
would each comprise about 45% of the total
ore processed. The remaining 10% of the
ore would consist of magnetite skarn.
A total of ten unprocessed ore samples were
analyzed by the Proponent and are listed in
Appendix E, Geochemistry (E-1, Geochemical
Samples Analyzed). The samples were
analyzed because ore would be temporarily
stockpiled before being fed into the crusher
for processing, and this mineralized material
represents different material than the waste
rock and processed ore. The ten samples
selected for testing are representative of the
range of ore material expected to be mined
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-10
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
and processed (BMGC, 1993c).
Tailings. Tailings samples were prepared for
geochemical testing by passing ore grade
material through "bench-scale" milling
processes in the laboratory. Information
regarding the boreholes and borehole intervals
used to prepare the tailings samples is
presented in the Proponent's NPDES/State
Waste Discharge Permit Application and the
Engineering Report: INCO SOJO, Wastewater
Treatment Unit (BMGC 1996g and 1996h).
After bench-scale processing was completed
and before proceeding with geochemical
testing, tailings samples were treated to
reduce their cyanide levels using the INCO
S02/Air/Oxidation process.
All action alternatives, except G, would use
the INCO SO2/Air/Oxidation cyanide
detoxification process during operations to
satisfy regulatory requirements. The
Proponent's original Plan of Operations
specified a detoxification level of less than 40
ppm WAD cyanide. Three of the tailings
samples initially tested were detoxified to a
WAD cyanide level of less than 40 ppm.
Upon further consideration, the Proponent
revised its detoxification level to less than 10
ppm WAD cyanide and eight additional
tailings samples were prepared and treated to
this level.
Appendix E, Geochemistry (E-1, Geochemical
Samples Analyzed), contains a list of the
tailings samples analyzed, the ore type(s)
used to prepare the samples, the level of
cyanide detoxification achieved, and what
analyses were performed. Four of the eight
tailings samples, detoxified to less than 10
ppm WAD cyanide, were prepared specifically
to determine whether tailings material at the
Crown Jewel Project would characterize as a
dangerous waste. Results from these
characterization tests are presented in
Appendix F, Dangerous Waste.
Characterization Results for Detoxified
Tailings, and are not included in Appendix E,
Geochemistry.
Testing Methods
Various testing methods were employed to
determine the potential for formation of acid
rock drainage and the creation of leachates
containing metals and/or radionuclides from
the ore and low grade ore, tailings, or waste
rock. Testing was performed by Core
Laboratories of Aurora, Colorado and included
the following analyses:
• Total metals (X-ray Fluorescence or XRF)
and whole rock radionuclide analyses;
• Leachability tests (EPA Method 1312);
• Tailings Liquid Analysis;
• Acid-base accounting (ABA); and,
• Humidity cell tests (HCT).
A detailed description of each testing method
used and procedures to interpret the test data
are summarized in Appendix E, Geochemistry,
and further discussed in the referenced
reports. Sample results are summarized
below.
Waste Rock Analyses
The Proponent's waste rock testing program
consisted of the analysis of 89 samples. A
subsequent confirmation sampling program
was undertaken at the direction of the EIS
Project team. This program consisted of
selection of an additional 278 samples for
ABA testing to verify the results of the
original program.
The analyses for the waste rock testing
programs are summarized in the following:
• Total metals analysis (XRF) and whole
rock radionuclide analysis;
• Leachability tests (EPA Method 1312);
• Acid-base accounting (ABA); and,
• Humidity cell tests (HCT).
Total Metal and Whole Rock Radionuclide
Analyses. Results from the XRF analyses
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-11
indicate the presence of several trace metals
in the waste rock samples including arsenic,
chromium, cobalt copper, lead, molybdenum,
nickel, strontium, thorium, tin, vanadium, and
zinc. Detection of these metals is common in
metallic ore deposits. XRF data for the waste
rock samples tested are summarized in
Appendix E, Geochemistry (E-2, XRF and
Whole Rock Radionuclide Analysis Summary).
To evaluate the occurrence of radionuclides in
the mineral deposit, 25 waste rock samples
were tested for natural uranium and thorium.
Results of these analyses are included in
Appendix E, Geochemistry (E-2, XRF and
Whole Rock Radionuclide Analysis). The
results indicate that thorium occurred in all
samples tested at concentrations below 1 5
ppm (as Th). Twenty-three of the 25
samples tested also had uranium
concentrations below 0.1 ppm (as U308).
Two samples contained uranium at levels of
0.8 ppm (as U308), which is equivalent to
0.55 ppm as U. These values are below
average natural background levels for
uranium in soils and rocks (Kea Pacific,
1993a).
Leachability Tests. Prediction of teachability
is based on an EPA testing procedure (EPA
Method 1312) developed to assess the effect
of short-term leaching of large-volume wastes
by precipitation. This procedure was
performed on 77 waste rock samples to
determine the teachability of metals and
radionuclides identified by XRF and whole
rock analyses. Test results are discussed
below and summarized in Appendix E,
Geochemistry (E-3, Leachability Test Results).
Results from the teachability tests indicate
that the sample leachates were typically
alkaline and calcium-rich, with pH values
varying between 8 and 10 and metal
concentrations at or below analytical
detection limits. Several metals of potential
concern in neutral to alkaline solutions were
typically also below detection, including
arsenic, mercury, molybdenum and selenium.
Exceptions are described below:
• Arsenic was detected in leachates from a
clastic waste rock sample (7-711) and an
altered andesite waste rock sample (1-
114-A) at concentrations of 0.10 mg/l
and 0.24 mg/l, respectively. The
detection of teachable arsenic in these
samples appears to be an anomalous
occurrence as it was not detected during
humidity cell testing of either sample.
Arsenic concentrations in the other waste
rock sample leachates were at or less
than the detection level of 0.05 mg/l.
Arsenic was detected in bench-scale
tailings liquid at concentrations ranging
from <0.05 mg/l to 0.34 mg/l and in
leachates from bench-scale tailings solids
at concentrations ranging from <0.05
mg/l to 0.24 mg/l.
• Molybdenum was detected in a single
sample leachate (7-709) at an anomalous
concentration of 0.18 mg/l and was
below detection levels (0.05 mg/l) in all
other sample leachates.
• A relatively low pH (4.07) leachate was
measured from altered elastics waste
rock sample 7-710. Leachate from this
sample also contained several trace
metals at concentrations above detection
including cobalt (0.13 mg/l), iron (23.2
mg/l), manganese (0.21 mg/l), nickel
(0.32 mg/l), and zinc (0.26 mg/l). The
acid producing properties of this sample
were verified during subsequent humidity
cell tests.
• Iron was detected in 13 other sample
leachates at low levels (0.04 mg/l to
0.05 mg/l).
Waste rock leachates were analyzed for
radionuclides. All of the samples tested had
gross alpha and gross beta activities below
regulatory criteria; and, in most cases, the
activities were below laboratory detection
limits.
Acid-Base Accounting (ABA). ABA results
for the waste rock samples are summarized in
Table 3.3.2, Average and Range of ABA
Values for Waste Rock. To allow
comparison, results from the initial and
confirmation testing programs are shown in
this table. A listing of ABA results for
individual waste rock samples is provided in
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-12
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
§
E
>
g
IL
tu
3
1
IL
O
C9
Z
Q
111
}.2, AVERAG
m
to
$
\,
1
I
1
S
!]
H
o
Jl
I
0.
o
51
i-
i
i
il
n \
Tj
f
I1
f
*
&
!
i
I
!
!
1
1
?
<
c
f
!J
II
i
?s
to —
o +
0) ^
1 —
§1
0.48 to 373.3
10.76 to >312)
r^ E
o
ss
CN 0
So
o".
*co
D).3 to 66.9
<0.3 to 130)
"> co
d —
^^
CN| 2
o «-
*^o
=
M
|| Altered
?5
ri«
+ ^
o +
CN O
. —
si
<0.1 to 124.7
10.32 to 330)
CD"
Co !T
coS
en "^
00)
5
-S
s!
oS
** ,_
o°
d°
a
co
o
ID
"J«7
CO
n
IDO
01 OD
22
2s
1 -
d —
0.07 to 2.39
(0.19 to 10)
ii
s£
00 ">.
u
o2
°8
"'-
!?§
rri"
o2
CO
,J O
o
ID
|| Magnetite
s?
00
00
o»
1*- O
. —
si
"8
^ A
o o
** **
d"
v^.
il
CO S*
CD"?
CO •-
- 0
d".
\j cn
i°
<0.3 to 122
«0.3 to 0.9)
^5
d2
gs
m°
o2
*"* ,_
iS9
CD
M
?
Undlfferentiat
s!
w ^
2®
^ o
"S
il
2.64 to 3633
(26010 >3060)
CM _
il
Srt
fO M
*- O)
O O
«£
°>.s-
<0.3 to 83.1
«0.3to3.1)
"S
dS
to "
CO .
o 2
~ r.
o9
s
LO
1 i
O V
S> a
•* 1-5
s. is
i It
! 4
1 |°
sting program. Ni
Total Sulfur.
tGP ratios greater
gtven because onl
-•;! |||
S 2 ej'g2
ll ii!
Iff ?"l
» o_ o "B ' »
» c ^ 2 S *t
8 .2 N °- •£ c
|||ll!
°;-ssz| S
« < < o!. ct J
isssJl
2<«tZZ I
•- O4 CO ** ID CO
Crown Jewel Mine • F/Vra/ Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-13
Appendix E, Geochemistry (E-4, ABA Results
for Waste Rock Samples).
The following criteria were used to interpret
the ABA results:
• If the ratio of Acid Neutralization Potential
(ANP) to Acid Generation Potential (AGP)
is greater than 3:1, there is low risk for
acid rock drainage to develop; or,
• If the difference between the AGP and
ANP (net APP) is less than -20 tons of
calcium carbonate pr 1,000 tons of rock
(TCaC02/KT), there is also low risk for
acid rock drainage to develop.
These criteria are presented in an EPA
technical document on acid mine drainage
prediction (EPA, 1994).
ABA results were analyzed to determine the
potential of each waste rock type, as a
whole, to become acid generating and the
distribution of potentially acid generating
(PAG) rock within each rock type. Review of
the average ABA values shows good
agreement between the initial and
confirmation testing programs with respect to
waste rock types as a whole. Both testing
programs determined that seven of the nine
waste rock groups (altered andesite,
unaltered andesite, garnet skarn,
undifferentiated skarn, marble, unaltered
elastics, and intrusives) are not potentially
acid generating. For these rock types,
average ANP:AGP ratios were substantially
greater than three and net Acid Producing
Potentials (APP) were less than approximately
-20 TCaCGyKT.
Both testing programs also determined that
the magnetite skarn waste rock group was
potentially acid generating with an average
ANP:AGP ratio of 0.7 to 1.6 and an average
net APP of -12 to 73 TCaC03/KT. Similarly,
the altered elastics waste rock group was
determined by both testing programs to be
potentially acid generating with an average
ANP:AGP ratio of 1 to 3.4 and an average
net APP of -20 to 26 TCaC03/KT. Humidity
cell testing verified that these waste rock
groups have a marginal (magnetite skarn) to
strong (altered elastics) tendency to generate
acid. As shown in Table 3.3.1, Waste Rock
Percentages for the EIS Alternatives,
magnetite skarn and altered elastics would
comprise less than 10% of the total waste
rock volume generated under any of the EIS
alternatives.
Test results indicate a relatively small volume
of PAG waste rock compared to the volume
of acid neutralizing rock under all alternatives.
It should be possible to use the large volume
of waste rock with acid neutralization
capability in such a manner that would
minimize the potential for generation of acid
leachate. This would be accomplished by
mixing and/or encapsulating acid generating
material with acid neutralizing waste rock, so
that any acid generation which did potentially
occur would be neutralized by the much
larger volume of surrounding acid neutralizing
rock. The excess neutralization potential
necessary to support such a mixing plan can
be evaluated for the bulk waste rock by
considering the average ABA characteristics
of the total waste rock volume.
Table 3.3.3, Average Total Waste Rock ABA
Values for the Crown Jewel Project, lists the
average net APP value and average ANP:AGP
ratio for the total waste rock volume
generated under each Project alternative.
These values were calculated by multiplying
the average ABA values for a given waste
rock group by its percentage of the total
waste rock volume and summing for each
alternative. The table indicates that the total
waste rock volume generated under each
Crown Jewel Project alternative would, on
average, not be potentially acid generating,
and there would be relatively little difference
between the various waste rock alternatives
for net APP and ANP:AGP ratios. These
averages should not be interpreted to suggest
that materials in the waste rock dumps would
be homogeneous and that there would be no
zones with ABA values that would be
potentially higher or lower than the averages.
Histograms that illustrate the distribution of
ABA results for each waste rock group based
on confirmation testing are presented in
Appendix E, Geochemistry (E-5, Histograms
of Waste Rock ABA Results). The
histograms show that the waste rock ABA
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-14
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
TABLE 3.
3.3. AVERAGE TOTAL WASTE ROCK ABA VALUES
FOR THE CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
Alternative
B
C
D
E
F
G
Notes: 1 .
2.
Net APP
(as TCaCO3/KT)
-74 (-75)
-75 (-66)
-64 (-62)
-74 (-75)
-74 (-75)
-74 (-75)
ANP/AGP Ratio
135 (126)
183 (130)
163 (116)
135 (126)
135 (126)
135 (126)
Numbers in parentheses are based on ABA data from the
Proponent's testing program. Numbers outside parentheses
are based on ABA data from the EIS confirmation testing
program.
Net APP values less than -20 TCaC03/KT and ANP:AGP ratios
greater than three are considered representative of non acid
generating material.
results are not uniformly distributed and
typically cluster around relatively high
ANP:AGP ratios or low net APP values. This
observation supports the conclusion that the
majority of waste rock generated at the
Crown Jewel Project would not be potentially
acid generating. The histograms also suggest
that some portion of all the waste rock types,
except marble and altered andesite, may be
potentially acid generating. Finally, the
histograms provide the basis for an
independent evaluation of PAG waste rock as
presented in Appendix E, Geochemistry (E-9,
Analysis of Confirmation Geochemical Data).
That analysis used the above described ABA
criteria to calculate an initial estimate of PAG
material by rock type. This estimate was
then refined based on humidity cell testing as
described below in subsection entitled
"Confirmation Testing Analysis of Acid
Generating Waste Rock."
As part of the confirmation testing program,
the EIS Project team included waste rock
samples from the expected limits of the mine
pit proposed under Alternative B. ABA tests
were performed on these samples to initially
assess the potential for waste rock exposed
in the final pit walls to generate acid. Results
for these samples are listed separately in
Appendix E, Geochemistry (E-6, ABA Results
for Pit Wall Samples). A map showing the
waste rock types that would be exposed in
the final pit and the location of the pit wall
samples is presented in Figure 3.3.3, Waste
Rock Types Exposed in Final Pit Walls
(Alternatives B and G).
Of the 44 pit wall samples analyzed:
• Ten samples were marble (zero samples
PAG);
• Nine samples were unaltered clastic
(three samples PAG);
• Seven samples were garnet skarn (four
samples PAG);
• Six samples unaltered andesite (three
samples PAG);
• Five samples were undifferentiated skarn
(two samples PAG);
• Five samples were intrusive (two samples
PAG); and,
• Two samples were magnetite skarn (two
samples PAG).
The 44 pit wall samples had, on average, an
ANP:AGP ratio of 354 and a net APP of -160
TCaC03/KT, indicating a low potential to
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-15
generate acid. Twenty-eight of the 44 pit
wall samples tested (64%) either had
ANP:AGP ratios greater than three or net APP
values less than -20 TCaC03/KT, also
indicating a low potential to generate acid.
To account for the different areas of waste
rock exposed in the proposed mine pit and
predict whether this exposed material would
impact the quality of ground and surface
waters after both hydrologic and geochemical
process are considered, a pit water quality
study was performed. Results from this
study are presented in Section 4.6, Ground
Water, Springs and Seeps.
For purposes of verification, the EIS Project
team selected eight waste rock samples
previously tested by the Proponent and re-
analyzed the net APP and ANP:AGP ratio.
These "duplicate" samples were prepared
from separate halves of the same core
intervals used by the Proponent. Duplicate
sample results from the Proponent's and
confirmation testing programs produced
similar conclusions regarding potential to
predict acid generation by AGP:ANP ratios in
five out of the eight cases (63%) for the
waste rock units. Comparing duplicate net
APP values, similar conclusions regarding
potential to predict acid generation also
occurred in five of the eight cases (63%).
The differences observed in the duplicate
sample results are largely attributed to natural
variability in the core used for testing and the
fact that the samples were prepared from
separate halves of the same core interval.
For reference, a listing of the duplicate
sample results is presented in Appendix E,
Geochemistry (E-8, Results of Waste Rock
Duplicate Analysis). This appendix also
summarizes a study performed to evaluate
whether the duplicate sample results were
statistically different. Results of the study
indicated that ABA values for the duplicate
samples were not statistically different.
Humidity Cell Tests (HCT). The HOT is the
most widely used test to mimic natural
oxidation reactions of the field setting. The
HCT was designed to enhance or accelerate
the rate of acid generation in sulfide-bearing
materials. HCTs also better evaluate
variables such as reaction rates and the
availability of neutralizing alkalinity at mid-
range pHs than ABA. Consequently, they are
useful in determining whether materials
having uncertain ABA acid generating status
(ANP:AGP ratios between 3:1 and 1:1 or net
APP values between -20 and 20 TCaC03/KT)
are likely to generate acid.
Like all laboratory geochemical testing
methods, HCTs only provide a rough
approximation of actual field conditions. As a
result, in some instances, the test may not
generate leachate that is identical to the
actual leachate produced from waste rock in
the field. The procedure is regarded as useful
in identifying the long-term potential of waste
rock to produce leachate for prediction of
water quality and comparison to established
water-quality standards under the
accelerated-weathering conditions and
limitations inherent to the test, as stated in
Technical Document Acid Mine Drainage
Prediction (EPA, 1994):
"The (kinetic) test provides insight on the
rate of acid production and the water
quality potentially produced and is used
to evaluate treatment and control
measures."
HCT sample selection was based on the
results from the ABA testing program.
Generally only waste rock samples that did
not satisfy the EPA criteria for classification
as non-acid generating (i.e., samples that had
an ANP:AGP ratio of less than 3:1, or that
had a difference between AGP and ANP more
than -20 TCaC03/KT) were submitted for
humidity cell testing. A total of 45 waste
rock samples representing the full range of
sulfide classes discovered in the confirmation
testing program were tested in humidity cells.
Humidity cell test results are summarized in
Appendix E, Geochemistry (E-7, Summary of
Humidity Cell Tests Results). A discussion of
the humidity cell testing procedure including
the length of testing and the effects of
bacteria on the rate of acid generation is
provided in Appendix E, Geochemistry.
Twelve of the 45 waste rock samples tested
in humidity cells were shown to be acid
generating to varying degrees as described in
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-16
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
the following:
• Two unaltered andesite samples (2-209-B
and 2-214-B) were found to generate
acid. These samples appear to represent
a subgroup of the unaltered andesite and
are characterized by "large" open
fractures containing sulfides, moderate to
high total sulfur contents (greater than
0.5%), low ANP:AGP ratios (less than
2:1), and low net APP (less than ten
TCaC03/KT). Humidity cell testing of
three other samples from this potential
subgroup did not exhibit acid generating
properties. Review of the confirmation
waste rock data indicates that less than
5% of the unaltered andesite samples
tested had total sulfur contents and ABA
values characteristic of this material.
• Four altered clastic samples (7-708-A, 7-
710-A, 7-715-A and 7-716-A) were also
found to generate acid. This subgroup
was identified after initial humidity cell
testing of the elastics and is
characterized by banded hornfels
material. It is estimated that altered
elastics would comprise less than 1 % of
the total waste rock volume depending
on the alternative selected.
• Three of the six garnet skarn samples
tested in humidity cells (302 [395 to 400
foot interval], 302 [445 to 450 foot
interval] and 306 [375 to 380 foot
interval]) were found to be potentially
acid generating. Garnet skarn would
comprise approximately 10% to 28% of
the total waste rock volume depending
on the alternative selected.
• One magnetite skarn sample (4-405-B)
exhibited a marginal tendency to generate
acid. Nine magnetite skarn waste rock
samples were tested in humidity cells, all
of which were determined from ABA
testing to be potentially acid generating.
The HCT results, however, suggested
that sulfides in this waste rock are
generally not readily oxidizable.
Magnetite skarns would comprise
approximately 2% to 9% of the total
waste rock volume depending on the
alternative selected.
• Two of the three undifferentiated skarn
samples tested in humidity cells (221 [20
to 25 foot interval] and 306 [325 to 330
foot interval]) were found to be acid
generating. Undifferentiated skarn would
comprise approximately 6% to 36% of
the total waste rock volume depending
on the alternative selected.
Thirty-three of the 45 waste rock samples
tested in humidity cells were found to be
non-acid generating. The samples included:
unaltered andesite, altered andesite, unaltered
clastic, altered clastic, garnet skarn,
magnetite skarn, undifferentiated skarn, and
intrusives. The relationship between humidity
cell test and ABA results is illustrated in
Appendix E, Geochemistry (E-5, Histogram of
Waste Rock ABA Results).
In addition to the analyses described above,
the leachates obtained in the 15th week from
18 waste rock HCTs were analyzed. The
purpose of this testing was to evaluate the
occurrence of contaminants, particularly trace
metals, in leachates formed under both acid
and non-acid generating conditions.
HCT leachate was tested from six samples
that were found by the HCT to have a
marginal to strong tendency to generate acid.
The waste rock types represented by these
samples include unaltered andesite, altered
clastic, and magnetite skarn. Leachates
analyzed from the acid generating samples
typically contained low to moderate
concentrations of several trace metals
including arsenic, antimony, cadmium,
chromium, copper, iron, manganese, nickel,
thallium, and zinc. These metals could
potentially be leached from select waste rock
material at the site. The results from the HCT
leachate analyses were also compared to
water quality conditions measured in historic
mine adits at the Crown Jewel Project. This
discussion is found in Section 3.8, Ground
Water.
Twelve of the leachate samples tested were
indicated by the HCT to be non-acid
generating. The waste rock types represented
by these samples include unaltered andesite,
altered andesite, unaltered clastic, garnet
skarn, and magnetite skarn. Review of data
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-17
for the non-acid generating samples indicated
that, with the exception of manganese and
zinc, metal concentrations in HCT leachates
were generally at or below detection levels.
A moderate concentration of manganese
(0.35 mg/l) and zinc (0.13 mg/l) was
detected in leachate from one of the
magnetite skarn samples tested.
Table 3.3.4, Summary of Additional HCT
Leachate Analyses, lists the range of
parameter concentrations detected in the
sample leachates. For comparison, the
samples determined from humidity cell testing
to be acid generating were grouped
separately in Table 3.3.4, Summary of
Additional HCT Leachate Analyses, from the
non-acid generating samples.
Analysis of Acid Generating Waste Rock
The percentage of acid generating waste rock
that would be mined under Alternative B was
estimated by the Proponent using the
following information:
• Identification of potentially acid
generating waste rock subgroups through
humidity cell testing (i.e., "open fracture"
unaltered andesite and altered elastics);
• Occurrence and distribution of high
sulfide waste rock material determined to
be acid generating in humidity cells (i.e.,
garnet, magnetite, and undifferentiated
skarns); and,
• Predicted volume of each waste rock
type.
Based on this information, the Proponent
estimated that between 5% to 10% of the
total waste rock mined under Alternative B
would be acid generating. This represents
from 2.7 to 5.4 million cubic yards of acid
generating waste rock and from 48.6 to 51.3
million cubic yards of non-acid generating
waste rock. Further discussion of the
Proponent's analysis of acid generating waste
rock is presented in Report of Waste Rock
Geochemical Testing Program, Crown Jewel
Project, Phase IV, Additional Humidity Cell
Tests (Geochimica, Inc., 1996).
Confirmation Testing Analysis of Acid
Generating Waste Rock. The ABA
confirmation testing program was used by
the EIS Project team to provide a second,
independent analysis of the amount of acid
generating rock in each waste rock type and
in total. The analysis is presented in
Appendix E, Geochemistry (E-9, Analysis of
Confirmation Geochemistry Data), and relies
on the following statistical approach.
The percentage of potentially acid generating
(PAG) rock was initially estimated using the
confirmation ABA results and EPA criteria
previously described. The initial estimates
included waste rock material with an
uncertain potential for acid generation (i.e.,
ANP:AGP ratios between 3:1 and 1:1 or net
APP values between -20 and 20 TCaC03/KT).
HCT results were then used to refine these
estimates.
Refinements were made for each waste rock
type within each ANP:AGP ratio class less
than 3:1 (i.e., 0:1 to 1:1, 1:1 to 2:1, and 2:1
to 3:1) and within each net APP value class
greater than -20 TCaC03/KT (-20 to 0, 0 to
20, 20 to 40, and greater than 40
TCaC03/KT). The percentage of HCT
samples for a given ANP ratio or net APP
value class that was found to be acid
generating was used to adjust the initial
estimate based on ABA results. If no HCTs
were run for a given ABA class, no
adjustment of the initial ABA estimate was
made. Samples found to be marginally acid
generating during humidity cell testing were
treated as acid generating. These
assumptions provided a result that is
expected to overestimate the actual
percentage of acid generating material.
Results from the confirmation testing analysis
by the EIS Project team indicate that from
12% to 15% of the waste rock mined under
Alternative B could be potentially acid
generating. This represents from 6.5 to 8.1
million cubic yards of acid generating material
and 47.5 to 45.9 million cubic yards of non-
acid generating material. The same
percentages and volumes of acid generating
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-18
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
TABLE 3.3.4, SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL HCT LEACHATE ANALYSES
Parameter
pH (s.u.)
Calcium
Magnesium
Potassium
Sodium
Sulfate
Chloride
Fluoride
Alkalinity (as CaC03)
Acidity (as CaC03)
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Manganese
Nickel
Selenium
Thallium
Zinc
Range of concentrations
(in mg/l)
Non-Acid Generating
Waste Rock Samples
5.9 -7.4
2.9 - 24.6
0.1 2.2
<5 - 12
<1 - <2
<10-49
0.5 - <1
<0.1 - <0.2
<5 - 21
<10
<0.1 - <0.2
<0.05 - <0.1
<0.01 - <0.02
<0.005 - <0.01
<0.01 - <0.02
<0.01 - <0.02
<0.03 - <0.06
<0.05 - <0.1
<0.002 - <0.008
<0.01 -0.35
<0.04 - <0.08
<0.1 - <0.2
<0.01 - <0.2
<0.1 -0.13
Acid Generating
Waste Rock Samples
2.7 -5.9
22.2 - 190
0.50- 12
<5 - <10
<1 - 21
51 - 2050
<0.5-0.5
<0.1 -0.4
<5
< 1 0 - 1 400
<0.1 -0.4
<0.05- <1
<0.01 - <.2
<0.005 - <0.1
<0.01 -0.74
<0.01 - 16.3
<0.03 -404
<0.05 - <0,2
<0.002
1.1 -6.2
<0.04- 3.4
<0.1 - <2
<0.1 - 1.0
0.07 - 1.32
Notes: 1 . This table summarizes the detailed analyses of leachates from 1 8 of the 45 waste rock
samples tested in humidity cells. Leachates from the 1 5th week of testing were used
for the analyses. See Appendix E, Geochemistry, for a discussion of the adequacy of
the HCT testing period.
2. Differences in detection levels are due to laboratory dilution of samples before analysis.
3. pH, Sulfate, Alkalinity, Acidity, and Iron were measured during original laboratory
testing.
4. HCT leachate data presented in reports by Kea Pacific (1993a).
5. < indicates that the laboratory did not detect the parameter at the reported detection
limit.
waste rock are predicted for Alternatives E,
F, and G. A larger percentage of acid
generating waste rock is estimated for
Alternatives C and D. The confirmation
testing analysis indicated that from 25% to
29% of waste rock mined under Alternative
C (approximately 0.1 million cubic yards) and
16% of the waste rock mined under
Alternative D (3.0 million cubic yards) could
potentially be acid generating. The percent
contribution of acid generating material by
waste rock type and by project alternative is
presented in Appendix E, Geochemistry (E-9,
Analysis of Confirmation Geochemistry Data).
Summary of Analyses. Results of
geochemical testing indicate that the waste
rock mined at the Crown Jewel Project would
Crown Jewel Mine f Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-19
contain detectable concentrations of several
trace metals and low levels of radionuclides.
EPA Method 1312 leachability testing on the
waste rock showed that precipitation would
typically not leach substantial concentrations
of potential contaminants identified in the
XRF analyses. Using ABA and HCT data and
a phased approach to identify potentially acid
generating waste rock subgroups, the
Proponent estimated that 5% to 10% of the
waste rock generated under Alternative B
would be acid generating. An independent
analysis based on a statistical evaluation of
confirmation ABA data, as refined by HCT
results, and the Proponent's knowledge of
the waste rock distribution estimated that
from 12% to 15% of the waste rock
generated under Alternatives B, E, F, and G
could potentially generate acid and leach
metals. A larger percentage of acid
generating rock is estimated using this
method for Alternative C (25% to 29%) and
for Alternative D (16%). Percentages
calculated in the independent analysis are
expected to over estimate the actual
percentage of acid generating material.
Nevertheless, these estimates are used for
the percentage of acid generating waste rock
in Alternatives C and D. Potentially acid
generating waste rock in Alternatives B, E, F,
and G are predicted to range between 5%
and 15%.
Waste rock found to be acid generating
through static and kinetic testing include a
potential subgroup of the unaltered andesite,
altered elastics, and a percentage of the
garnet, magnetite and undifferentiated skarn.
Metals leached from waste rock samples
under acid generating conditions include
arsenic, antimony, cadmium, chromium,
copper, iron, manganese, nickel, thallium, and
zinc. For the non-acid generating waste rock,
manganese and zinc were detected in
leachate from one of the magnetite skarn
samples tested.
Ore and Low Grade Ore Analyses
Ten ore samples were selected for
geochemical testing. Sample selection was
performed by the Proponent's geochemist
and geologists based on their knowledge of
the lithology and mineralogy of the orebody
and the anticipated geochemical variability of
the materials.
Ore occurs primarily in three types of skarn:
andesite/garnetite skarn, magnetite skarn,
and the southwest ore type. For testing
purposes, the Proponent split each of the
skarns into an ore and low grade ore group
based on the level of gold mineralization.
These materials would be temporarily
stockpiled for a period of time prior to
processing.
Analyses performed on the ore included:
• Total metals analysis (XRF);
• Leachability tests (EPA Method 1312);
• Acid-base accounting (ABA); and,
• Humidity cell tests (HCT).
Results for these analyses are presented in
Appendix E, Geochemistry, and are
summarized below.
Total Metals Analysis. As with the waste
rock testing program, the results of the XRF
analyses indicate the presence of several
trace metals in the ore samples including
arsenic, chromium, cobalt, copper, lead,
molybdenum, nickel, strontium, thorium, tin,
vanadium, and zinc. Detection of these
metals is common in metallic ore deposits.
Alkaline minerals containing calcium and
magnesium were also detected in the majority
of ore samples tested indicating the material
has some natural buffering capacity.
Leachability Tests. Results from leachability
testing indicate that the pH of sample
leachates ranged from 8.5 to 10.1 and metal
concentrations were typically at or below
detection levels. Exceptions include the
detection of barium and aluminum. Barium
was detected in two of the ten sample
leachates at concentrations of 0.04 mg/l to
0.12 mg/l. Aluminum was detected in seven
of the ten samples at concentrations of 0.06
mg/l to 0.60 mg/l.
Acid-Base Accounting. ABA results for the
ore and low grade ore samples are shown in
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-20
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
TABLE 3.3.5, ABA RESULTS FOR ORE SAMPLES
Ore Type
Sample
Number
Total Sulfur
Percentage
AGP as
TCaC03/KT
ANPas
TCaC03/KT
ANP/AGP
Ratio
Net APP as
TCaC03/KT
Ore
Undifferentiated Skarn
Garnet Skarn
Garnet Skarn
Magnetic Skarn
12-101
13-101
13-102
14-101
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
-486.9
-49.5
-64.4
-399.1
Low Grade Ore
Undifferentiated Skarn
Undifferentiated Skarn
Garnet Skarn
Garnet Skarn
Magnetite Skarn
Magnetite Skarn
9-101
9-102
10-101
10-102
11-101
11-102
<0.01
4.91
<0.01
0.21
3.63
1.09
<0.3
1.53
<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
-36.6
-51
-71.9
-20.3
85.3
4.6
Table 3.3.5, ABA Results for Ore Samples.
Based on the ANP:AGP ratios and net APP
values measured, none of the ore samples
tested was potentially acid generating. Three
of the ten ore and low grade ore samples did,
however, exhibit ANP:AGP ratios below 3:1
(9-102, 11-101, and 11-102).
Two of these were magnetite skarns and one
was southwest ore (Undifferentiated skarn).
The low net APP (-51 TCaC03/KT) of the
southwest ore sample makes it unlikely,
however, that this material would generate
acid. Similarly, the relatively low net APP (5
TCaC03/KT) of one of the magnetite skarn
samples suggest that any short-term acid
production would be neutralized. As a
precaution, the long-term acid generation of
the two magnetite skarn samples (11-101
and 11-102) were tested in humidity cells
and both were found to be non-acid
generating. Results of these analyses are
further discussed below.
Humidity Cell Tests. Humidity cell data for
the two low grade magnetite skarn ore
samples indicated that both were non-acid
generating. Although low to moderate
sulfate concentrations «10 mg/l to 120
mg/l) were detected in leachates from Sample
11-102, values remained above 6 pH
throughout the testing period, acidity and iron
were near or below detection limits, and
alkalinity was available. HCT leachates from
the other low grade ore Sample 11-101 had
low sulfate levels (18 mg/l to 87 mg/l), with
available alkalinity, iron and acidity
concentrations near or below detection levels,
and values typically above 6 pH. Lower pH
values were measured in leachates from this
sample during the initial ten weeks of testing,
but these stabilized in the range of pH 6 to
6.5 during the second ten weeks.
Summary of Analyses. The ore and low
grade ore samples tested were found to be
non-acid generating. Leachability testing
showed that with the exception of barium
and aluminum, metal concentrations were at
or below detection limits.
Tailings Analyses
The Proponent initially proposed to detoxify
the tailings to a WAD cyanide concentration
of 40 ppm. Subsequently, the Proponent
conducted a detailed study of treatment
technologies to detoxify cyanide in the
tailings. Results from the evaluation
indicated that tailings from the Crown Jewel
Project could be detoxified to a WAD cyanide
level of 10 ppm using the INCO
S02/Air/Oxidation cyanide destruction
process. As a result, some tailings analyses
for the EIS were conducted on samples
assuming 40 ppm WAD cyanide
detoxification, while later studies were
conducted using 10 ppm WAD cyanide
tailings. Further details on the evaluation of
cyanide detoxification technologies are
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-21
provided in All Known Available and
Reasonable Technology (AKART) Evaluation
for Cyanide Detoxification (Knight Piesold,
1993b).
Prior to analysis, each tailings sample was
separated into a solid and liquid portion. The
solids were analyzed for total metals,
teachability, and acid generation potential.
The liquid portion of the tailings was analyzed
for 42 water quality parameters.
Analyses for tailings included:
• Total metals analysis (XRF);
• Leachability tests (EPA Method 1312);
• Acid-base accounting (ABA);
• Humidity cell tests (HCT); and,
• Tailings liquid analysis.
Results for these analyses are presented in
Appendix E, Geochemistry, and Appendix F,
Dangerous Waste Characterization Results for
Detoxified Tailings, and are described below.
Total Metals Analysis. XRF results for the
tailings solids were not unlike the results for
the waste rock and ore samples. Several
trace metals common to the ore were
detected including arsenic, chromium, cobalt,
copper, lead, molybdenum, nickel, strontium,
thorium, vanadium, and zinc.
Leachability Tests. Results from the tailings
teachability tests were similar to the waste
rock and ore samples analyzed. Sample
leachates were alkaline and calcium-rich, with
values varying between pH 8.5 and 10, and
metal concentrations typically near or below
analytical detection limits.
Arsenic was detected in leachates from 5 of
the 11 tailings samples. The arsenic levels
detected ranged from 0.09 mg/l to 0.12 mg/l
for the samples detoxified to a WAD cyanide
level of less than 10 ppm and from 0.12 mg/l
to 0.24 mg/l for samples detoxified to WAD
cyanide levels of less than 40 ppm. By
comparison, arsenic levels measured in
baseline surface and ground water have been
less than 0.05 mg/l. The occurrence of
arsenic in the tailings leachates suggests that
moderate levels of this metal may be leached
via precipitation from the processed ore
material. Several other metals of potential
concern in neutral to alkaline solutions were
below detection in leachates, including
mercury, molybdenum, and selenium.
Acid-Base Accounting. ABA results for the
tailings solids are shown in Table 3.3.6, ABA
Results for Tailings Solids. Accounting for
the approximate ratio of ore types that would
be processed, analysis of the tailings solids
indicated that, as a whole, the material would
not be acid generating at either level of
cyanide detoxification. Average net APP
values for the tailings ranged from -78 to
-129 TCaCO3/KT and average ANP:AGP
ratios ranged from 2.35:1 to 3.6:1.
Individually, the andesite/garnetite ore tailings
and magnetite ore tailings had a marginal to
low acid generation potential with ANP:AGP
ratios ranging from 0.79:1 to 3.4:1 and net
APPs ranging from -123 to +23 TCaC03/KT.
ABA results for tailings prepared from the
southwest ore type indicated the material
would not be potentially acid generating with
ANP:AGP ratios ranging from 2.8:1 to 6.3:1
and net APPs ranging from -105 to -193
TCaC03/Kt. Seven of the 11 tailings samples
were subsequently tested for long-term acid
generation potential using humidity cells.
Humidity Cell Tests. Three samples
detoxified to WAD cyanide levels of less than
40 ppm were tested in humidity cells for 20
weeks. Four samples detoxified to WAD
cyanide levels of less than 10 ppm were
tested in humidity cells for 52 weeks.
Review of the HCT data indicate that the
tailings solids are not acid generating. For all
samples tested, iron and acidity
concentrations remained near or below
detection limits, values were 6 pH and above,
and alkalinity was available throughout the
testing periods. A pH of 5.8 was measured
for Sample CJC-7 2127-74 during the first
ten weeks of testing but increased to above
seven for the remainder of the testing. Also,
during the first 10 to 15 weeks of testing,
elevated sulfate levels (greater than 200
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-22
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
TABLE 3.3.6, ABA RESULTS FOR TAILINGS SOLIDS
Sample
Number
Ore Type
Approximate
Ore Ratios
in Tailings
Total
Sulfur
Percentage
AGP as
TCaCOj/KT
ANPas
TCaCO3/KT
ANP/AGP
Ratio
Net APP
as
TCaCOj/KT
Samples Detoxified to WAD Cyanide Level of Less Than 40 ppm
CJC-12 2110-135
CJC-13 2110-135A
CJC-7 2096-99
Weighted Average
Values for
Combined Tailings
Southwest
Andesite/
Gametite
Magnetite Ore
45%
45%
10%
100%
0.93
1.27
2.46
1.24
29
40
77
39
184
52
117
118
6.3:1
1.3:1
1.5:1
3.6:1
-155
-12
-40
-79
Samples Detoxified to WAD Cyanide Level of Less Than 10 ppm
CJC-12 2127-70
CJC-12 2127-71
CJC Blend 2127-73
CJC-7 2127-74
Weighted Average
Values for
Combined Tailings
Southwest Ore
Southwest Ore
Andesite/
Gametite
Magnetite Ore
45%
45%
45%
10%
100%
1.83
1.78
1.53
3.49
1.85
57.3
55.6
47.8
109
57.8
162
169
122
85.8
138
2.8:1
3.O:1
2.6:1
0.79:1
2.55:1
-105
-113
-74
+ 23
-80
Samples Detoxified to WAD Cyanide Level of Less Than 10 ppm Used for Dangerous Waste Characterization
CJTest 217-104
CJTest 2317-105
CJTest 2317-106
CJTest 2317-107
Weighted Average
Values for
Combined Tailings
Southwest Ore
Andesite/
Gametite
Andesite/
Gametite
Magnetite
45%
45%
45%
10%
100%
1.85
1.51
1.64
4.73
2.01
57.8
47.2
51.2
148
63.0
251
94.6
174
185
191.9
4.3:1
2.0:1
3.4.1
1.3:1
3.3:1
-193
-47
-123
-37
-129
Note: To calculate weighted averages, ABA results for Southwest ore samples CJC-12 2127-70 and CJC-12 2127-71 were
averaged and ABA results for andesite/gametite samples CJ Test 2317-105 and CJ Test 2317-106 were averaged.
Also, it was assumed that sample CJC Blend 2127-73 consisted primarily of andesite/garnetite.
mg/l) were detected in all of the sample
leachates. As proposed during mining
operations, the samples were treated by the
INCO S02/Air/Oxidation process which adds
sulfate to tailings (BMGC, 1994a). Sulfate
levels declined during the later weeks of
testing with no indications of acid generation,
indicating that much of the teachable sulfate
in early weeks was derived from sulfate salts
added to the tailings in the INCO
S02/Air/Oxidation process, rather than from
oxidation of sulfides that might indicate the
potential for acid generation.
Tailings Liquid Analysis. To provide an
estimate of the quality of water that would
pond and be collected from the tailings
impoundment, the liquid portion of ten
tailings samples were tested separately.
Three of the samples were detoxified to a
WAD cyanide level of less than 40 ppm and
seven were detoxified to a WAD cyanide
level of less than 10 ppm. The tailings liquid
from these samples were analyzed for a
variety of chemical parameters including total
and WAD cyanide, major and minor ions,
trace metals, and radionuclides. Results of
these analyses for the samples detoxified to a
WAD cyanide level of less than 10 ppm are
presented in Table 3.3.7, Analysis of Tailings
Liquid and Appendix F, Dangerous Waste
Characterization Results for Detoxified
Tailings.
The Proponent evaluated all known available
technologies to detoxify cyanide in the
tailings to a level both protective of wildlife
and appropriate for closure and reclamation
of the tailings disposal area after mine
operations. Factors considered during
evaluation of treatment technologies
included:
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-23
• The method must be well proven in
actual operation and have a proven
history of successful process scale-up
based on laboratory tests;
• The method must be compatible with the
chemical and physical characteristics of
the Crown Jewel Project tailings;
• The method must not have negative
environmental factors; and,
• The method must be cost effective.
Results from the evaluation indicated that
tailings from the Crown Jewel Project could
be detoxified to a WAD cyanide level of 10
ppm using the INCO S02/Air/Oxidation
cyanide destruction process. Further details
on the evaluation of cyanide detoxification
technologies are provided in All Known
Available and Reasonable Technology
(AKART) Evaluation for Cyanide
Detoxification (Knight Piesold, 1993b).
Based on review of the referenced data, the
following generalizations can be made
regarding the tailings water quality:
• The INCO S02/Air/Oxidation process
is effective in reducing WAD cyanide
concentrations in the tailings water to
less than 10 ppm and the tailings do
not characterize as "dangerous
waste" or "extremely hazardous
waste."
• Sodium and calcium were the
dominant cations and sulfate the
dominant anion.
• The tailings water had a relatively
high total dissolved solids (TDS)
content, averaging between 4,240
mg/l and 5,056 mg/l and ranging
from 4,020 to 5,860.
• The solution was alkaline, with an
average pH of 7.5 and ranging from
7.07 to 7.60.
• Nutrient levels were elevated in the
water, with an average ammonia
concentration ranging from 93 mg/l
to 96 mg/l (as N) and average nitrate
concentration of 11 mg/l (as N).
• Several trace metals occurred in the
samples, with varying dissolved
concentrations, including:
arsenic «0.05 to 0.34 mg/l);
barium (0.05 to 0.11 mg/l);
boron «0.05 to 0.14 mg/l);
cobalt (0.21 to 0.56 mg/l);
copper «0.01 to 3.28 mg/l);
iron «0.03 to 2.06 mg/l);
mercury «0.0002 to 0.0023 mg/l);
manganese (0.01 to 0.12 mg/l);
molybdenum «0.05 to 0.26 mg/l);
selenium «0.1 to 0.2 mg/l);
silver «0.01 to 0.02 mg/l);
uranium « 0.001 to 0.007 mg/l and 2 to
4.8 pCi/l); and,
zinc «0.01 to 0.02 mg/l).
• Lead and nickel occurred at
concentrations less than 0.05 mg/l and
0.04 mg/l, respectively.
• Radionuclide activities were near or
below the lower limit of detection.
Average values for gross alpha, gross
beta, and radium ranged from <10 to
29.9 pCi/l, 60 pCi/l to 82.4 pCi/l and
0.3 to 0.4 pCi/l, respectively.
Actual tailings water quality conditions at the
Crown Jewel Project may vary from the
results presented in Table 3.3.7, Analysis of
Tailings Liquid, and Appendix F, Dangerous
Waste Characterization Results for Detoxified
Tailings, due to the effects of seasonal
dilution of the tailings water from
precipitation, loss of selected contaminants
(cyanide in particular) through natural
degradation, pond evaporation and recycling
the water through the mill.
Potential changes in tailings water quality as
a result of recycling water through the mill
were evaluated by the Proponent, and it was
concluded that little variation would occur
overtime (BMGC, 1995a and INCO, 1995).
Concentrations of most metals and major ions
in the reuse water are expected to be
controlled by one or more of the following
processes:
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-24
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
Q
|
V)
Z
I]
2
LL.
V)
V)
>
<
CO
to
111
ffi
i
o
t-
11
j.'S
2 s
ample Numb
\D Cyanide L
0
•o
o
9
Q
I
oc
c
0
Characteriz
i
>
»
9
£
1
a
5
oc
oc
Weighted
'Average'
3||
Hi
351
N<
-
35?
sN
"**
Weighted
'Average'
S
p g
N ^,
3~
fO
R = .
CJC-Btend/21
(And./Qar
andSW
12/2127-7071
(SW Ore)
" Average '
U
3
*
1
i
8
cn
S
£
00
CM
0
CO
CM
LO
O
LO
cn
|| Bicarbonate (Filt.
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
|| Carbonate (Filt.)
to
CO
o
CM
S
at
§
CO
8
O
CM
00
CO
CM
U)
cn
|| Chloride (Filt.)
in
o
CM
If)
If)
O
at
LO
o
cn
I
5-
8
8
o
_
|| Conductivity (Filt
CM
If)
d
CM
If)
CM
If)
d
00
to
d
CM
CN
d
CO
tri
CM
to
cn
cn
,j
il
0
'c
(0
o
O
If)
d
«
CM
If)
d
S
d
CM
CM
d
00
00
d
CM
to
d
00
00
d
CO
cn
d
_
a
|| Cyanide, WAD (F
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
|| Hydroxide (Filt.)
to
at
o
8
!
(0
cn
CM
at
CO
cn
8
8
8
LL
.5
|| Nitrogen, Ammon
o
d
d
cn
o
d
o
d
§
d
§
d
a
m
S
5
E
i
< 0.005 |
< 0.005
<0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
8
d
V
d
V
<0.005
,8
|| Beryllium, Diss. (E
CO
o
d
at
o
d
S
d
V
§
d
00
0
d
CN
d
d
§
d
S
S
5
S
1 900'0>
<0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
< 0.005
d
V
<0.005
LO
8
d
rS
|| Cadmium, Diss. (
CO
LO
CO
CN
00
CM
If)
CO
cn
in
to
g
g
0
cn
00
to
o
w
to
O
E"
"5
O
o
d
V
CO
o
d
o
d
V
o
d
V
o
d
V
o
d
V
o
d
V
0
d
V
o
d
V
A
o
|| Chromium, Diss.
cn
CM
d
Tt
LO
d
s
d
CM
d
CM
d
o
LO
d
S
d
00
d
to
LO
d
8
s
Q
*•
8
CO
to
d
00
CM
CO
S
d
o
CO
0
d
V
CM
O
d
8
d
o
d
CM
O
d
o
u
«9
5
0
a.
D.
<3
CM
d
s
d
CM
CO
d
CO
o
d
V
CM
d
cn
CN
00
cn
d
00
d
to
o
CM
1
8
S
8
d
V
8
d
V
8
d
V
in
o
d
V
S
d
V
8
d
V
8
d
V
S
d
V
S
d
V
to
u
5
TJ
o
d
CM
d
V
:o.ooo2
CO
8
d
0
8
d
cS
d
0.0023
n
I
w
_(0
1
o
00
CM
O
d
cn
CM
CM
to
ifi
CM
CO
Ot
Ifi
CO
CO
q
?
—
|| Magnesium, Diss.
CM
o
d
CM
o
d
CM
o
d
CM
O
d
CM
o
d
CM
0
d
CM
d
o
d
0
d
c
—
|| Manganese, Diss.
00
d
S
d
V
cn
O
d
to
d
to
CM
d
00
d
§
d
CM
d
LO
d
"o~
| Molybdenum, Dis
•C0.04 ||
Tt
O
d
V
S
d
V
<0.04
o
d
V
<0.04 |
<0.04
§
d
V
o
d
V
z
S
a
~n
.a
z
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-25
,_
0
2
O
CO
tn
)F TAILIN(
v-/
CO
CO
_J
^
CO
CO
LU
(Q
i
o
r-
C
ID
^
K
|i
ft
? >
Sample NumtM
IAD Cyanide Li
S
0
itoxified
w
a
S
i
B
^
i
e
S
u
1
0
i
M
angeroi
Q
i
cc
t_
*ffl
S°J
ay
-
«i I
35|
_
i!i
N 5
s
Jfi 1
3s"!
li
fl
S_
r* g
20
go
*» 5
O*
3
to
ri .
a>
00
—
to
to
5
E'
1
eo
£
ci
ci
r
ci
V
CN
ci
d
d
V
d
V
d
V
d
V
to
to
to
5
E"
C
~B
CO
«-
3
d
V
CM
o
d
o
d
V
o
d
o
d
V
o
d
V
o
d
V
o
d
V
o
d
V
1
w
to
s
1
55
i
en
CO
CM
CN
00
CO
01
CN
to
»
o
CO
CO
"to
to
u
5
I
1
en
_
01
CO
CN
CO
-
CO
CO
o
CN
in
CN
co
CN
CN
in
CN
in
CN
-c
CO
Q
1
1
tn
j-
d
V
o
d
V
o
d
V
o
d
V
o
d
V
S
d
V
S
d
V
in
d
V
in
o
d
V
P
to
Q
E
'c
a
P
CO
CO
CO
o
ri
q
CM
CO
8
d
V
8
d
8
d
v
8
6
5
w
u
D
|
i
0
d
V
S
d
V
§
o
V
in
o
d
V
in
O
0
V
s
d
V
<0.05
in
o
d
V
S
d
V
=i
to
5
|
T3
a
c
10
^
d
V
CM
O
d
o
o
V
CM
O
d
o
o
V
o
d
o
d
o
d
o
d
V
"c
S
5
NJ
inuclides
x
•D
a
DC
O>
a>
CM
to
CM
U)
*
CO
CM
CD
in
CM
0
V
Q
B
Q
«)
09
Q
a
a.
S
O
o
O)
CM
0)
CO
CN
rv
in
CO
o
00
CM
to
CO
CM
CM
01
0)
d
CM
d
CM
-H
1'
O
S
(0
5
to
a.
2
O
s
,v
[O
CO
Tt
in
S
00
in
CO
CM
CM
S
in
•*
ri
9
(0
(0
a
V)
_D.
2
o
CM
CO
o
9)
IV
^
CD
to'
to
«.
S
s
CM
in
in
CO
5
a
£
2
o
5
o
CM
CO
O!
CO
CO
0)
CM
in
00
CM
CO
d
O)
8
00
a*
CM
•H
O
O
8:
5
(0
&
2
o
CM
00
3
to
*
CN
in
01
CO
00
CO
00
CO
oi
00
CO
D
_J
to
to
s
(0
£
2
o
d
d
-
o
V
eo
d
^
d
d
to
d
CO
d
d
8'
5
to"
CM
CM
|
1
tr
d
CM
d
^
o
CM
d
CM
d
d
to
d
d
00
d
•H
error,
8
Q
co"
CM
CM
E
S.
d
CO
d
to
o
d
CO
o'
q
CD
d
01
d
CM
Q
-j
8'
a
CO"
CM
CM
|
S.
i
6
0
•
a.
to
to
a
i
CD
V)
a
s
'~
J
o
9
S
£
CO
o
CO
CM
to
3
C
a
O
p*.
m
tM
•D
Kw
3
3 "§•
o. E
to S
1 l«
••5 -?«
1 -2-?
•o S " ~
« o "c *
t*f|
^ JZ ^
— «B e» «
fl '" -2
•- »J 5 O
w-o • u
^ «3CO
slSfi
= a o *-
^ weo
0
a
i
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-26
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
• Destruction of metal-cyanide complexes
as a result of continual passage of the
tailings water through the INCO
S02/Air/Oxidation system;
• Precipitation/co-precipitation of metals
and ions from solution due to the
elevated pH conditions required during
milling and the generally low mineral
solubilities observed in alkaline waters;
and,
• Dilution from addition of fresh makeup
water estimated to comprise
approximately 30% to 35% of the total
process water volume.
For constituents which do not form
substantial cyanide complexes and/or which
exhibit relatively high solubilities in alkaline
water, some increase in concentration may
occur if dilution does not offset additions
from milling. Such constituents could include
sodium and chloride.
Based on trout bioassay testing and book
designation results, tailings detoxified to less
than 10 ppm WAD cyanide do not
characterize as "dangerous waste" or
"extremely hazardous waste" as defined in
Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-
303-70 and 173-303-100. Results from the
waste characterization studies are presented
in Appendix F, Dangerous Waste
Characterization Results for Detoxified
Tailings.
Summary of Analyses. Geochemical testing
indicates that the solids fraction of the
tailings generated at the Crown Jewel Project
would contain several trace metals including
arsenic which could occur in short-term
leachates. ABA and HCT results suggest that
the tailings solids would not be acid
generating.
The INCO S02/Air/Oxidation process is
capable of reducing WAD cyanide
concentrations in the tailings water to less
than 10 ppm. Tailings containing less than
10 ppm WAD cyanide do not characterize as
"dangerous waste" or "extremely hazardous
waste." The treated tailings water would
contain elevated levels of total dissolved
solids, ammonia, nitrate, and some trace
metals.
Summary
A detailed geochemical testing program was
performed for the proposed Crown Jewel
Project to assess the potential for waste rock,
ore, and tailings materials at the mine to
generate ARD and leachate containing metals
and radionuclides. A total of 89 waste rock
samples and ten ore and low grade ore
samples were tested for the Proponent by
Core Laboratories. These samples were
selected by the Proponent's geologists and
geochemist to represent the range of
lithologic and mineralogical differences
observed at the site. To confirm that the
samples were representative, the EIS Project
team selected an additional 278 waste rock
samples for ABA analysis as well as
duplicates of eight samples previously tested
by the Proponent. To assess geochemical
conditions in the tailings area, the Proponent
also had prepared and tested 11
representative tailings samples.
Based on the geochemical testing that was
performed for the Crown Jewel Project, the
following conclusions can be drawn:
• Total metals (XRF) and whole rock
analyses of all test samples (waste
rock, ore, and tailings) showed the
occurrence of several common trace
metals that potentially could occur in
mine leachates. These metals include
arsenic, chromium, cobalt, copper,
lead, molybdenum, nickel, strontium,
thorium, tin, vanadium, and zinc.
Radionuclides occur in these materials
at levels at or below natural
background levels for igneous and
sedimentary rocks.
• Leachability tests indicated that the
potential is low for short-term leaching of
metals and radionuclides from mine
materials. Arsenic was, however,
detected at moderate concentrations (up
to 0.34 mg/l) in leachates from 5 of the
11 tailings solid samples analyzed. Iron
was detected at low concentrations in
leachates from 13 of 81 waste rock
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-27
samples analyzed and at a concentration
of 2.06 mg/l in leachate from one tailings
sample. Aluminum was detected in
seven of the ten ore leachates tested at
concentrations of 0.06 mg/l to 0.60 mg/l
and in 1 of the 11 tailings solids
leachates at a concentration of 0.10
mg/l.
• Analysis of the liquid portion of the
tailings samples demonstrated that
when detoxified using the INCO
S02/Air/Oxidation process, the
tailings pond water would be slightly
alkaline and contain elevated levels of
total dissolved solids and nutrients,
low to moderate trace metal
concentrations, and an average WAD
cyanide concentration of less than 10
ppm.
• ABA tests suggest that the overall
volumes of waste rock, ore, and
tailings generated at the site would
not be acid generating under the
different Project alternatives.
Individually, two of the waste rock
groups, magnetite skarns and altered
elastics, were found to be potentially
acid generating based on ABA
results. Of the ore samples tested,
two low grade magnetite skarn
samples and one undifferentiated
skarn sample were also found to have
a low to marginal potential to
generate acid. Tailings samples
prepared from two of the three ore
types were also found to have a
marginal acid generation potential
based on ABA testing.
• ABA results from the EIS
confirmation program confirmed the
Proponent's findings regarding the
waste rock characteristics. Also,
comparison of duplicate results from
the two testing programs indicated
similar conclusions would be drawn
regarding ability to predict acid
producing potential in five of the
eight samples tested with no
statistical difference between
duplicate sample values.
• Waste rock samples collected from
the walls of the proposed final mine
pit were predicted not to be acid
generating based on average ABA
results. Pit water quality modeling
discussed in Chapter 4,
Environmental Consequences,
determined that water collected in
the proposed pit would not be acidic
during or after mining.
• Humidity cell tests (HCTs) were
performed to further evaluate samples
determined to be potentially acid
generating from the ABA tests.
Results of these tests indicated 2 of
11 unaltered andosite waste rock
samples, three of seven garnet skarn
waste rock samples, one of nine
magnetite skarn waste rock samples,
two of three undifferentiated skarn
waste rock samples, and four of four
altered elastics waste rock samples
exhibited a marginal to strong
tendency to generate acid. Humidity
cell testing of ore and tailings
samples indicated that these
materials were not acid generating.
• Further analysis of the HCT leachates
indicated that those waste rock
samples that were found to generate
acid contained detectable levels of
several trace metals including
antimony, arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, copper, iron, manganese,
nickel, thallium and zinc.
• Based on the Proponent's and the
confirmation testing analysis program
data, the EIS Project team estimate that
from 5% to 15% of the total waste rock
mined under Alternatives B, E, F, and G
would be acid generating. A larger
percentage of acid generating waste rock
was estimated for Alternative C (25% to
29%) and Alternative D (16%).
Laboratory geochemical testing procedures,
including HCTs, are inherently limited in their
ability to predict geochemical conditions in
the field. The laboratory geochemical testing
procedures used for the Crown Jewel Project
are, nevertheless, consistent with current
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-28
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
industry practice as described in the
Technical Document, Acid Mine Drainage
Prediction (EPA, 1994). Use of laboratory
geochemical test data to predict geochemical
conditions in the field requires considerable
professional judgement and, as a result, can
be controversial.
The WADOE and Forest Service used the
geochemical test data presented in this
section to predict potential impacts from the
Crown Jewel Project in Chapter 4,
Environmental Consequences. It is
understood that uncertainties will always
exist in applying laboratory data to predict
field conditions. Due to this uncertainty, and
whenever professional judgement has
allowed, biased data have been selected for
estimating potential geochemical impacts at
the Crown Jewel Project. The bias in the
data has been toward data that would show
the greatest impacts.
3.4 GEOTECHNICAL
CONSIDERATIONS
Seismic (or earthquake) activity in central
Washington is low, (Algermissen et. al.,
1982). Figure 3.4.1, Earthquake Epicenters,
shows the relative activity. According to the
Uniform Building Code, the Crown Jewel
Project area lies in Zone 2B of the Seismic
Risk Map of the United States (U.S.), as
shown on Figure 3.4.2, Seismic Risk Zone
Map of the United States. This zone can be
expected to receive moderate damage
corresponding to Intensity VII of the Modified
Mercalli Intensity Scale of 1931.
3.5
SOILS
3.5.1 Introduction
Baseline information used to characterize
soils was derived from USDA Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) soil surveys
completed for the Okanogan County Area
(Lenfesty, 1980), surveys completed for the
Okanogan National Forest (Rother, 1977),
and intensive on-site soil surveys completed
in 1992, 1993, and 1995 to provide site-
specific soil data for the proposed Project
area and water storage reservoir alternatives.
Details of site-specific survey methodologies.
the areas surveyed, and specific survey
results are provided in the technical
memorandums prepared by Cedar Creek
Associates, Inc. (1992, 1993).
3.5.2 General Soil Properties
Study Area
The study area consists of the mine area, the
Starrem Reservoir site, and the utility and
road corridors. A variety of soils occur within
the study area. The soil variability stems
primarily from the presence of a broad
spectrum of parent materials as influenced by
topography, aspect, elevation, and differential
rates of material weathering. Fig1 ire 3.5.1,
Soil Map Units - Mine Area, depicts the 22
soil map units delineated as a result of the
survey. Figure 3.5.2, Soil Map Units -
Starrem Reservoir Site, depicts the soil map
units delineated in the location of the
proposed Starrem Reservoir. Table 3.5.1,
Soil Characteristics Summary, presents data
for selected properties of the dominant soils
mapped for both areas (Cedar Creek, 1992,
1993).
Mine Area
Soils at higher elevations in the western
portion of the study area are developing in
residuum, slope wash, and colluvium from
igneous rock parent materials, have moderate
permeabilities, and are well to somewhat
excessively well-drained. The soils are
typically very shallow to moderately deep
over hard bedrock. Loam to gravelly loam
textures typify surface horizons while very to
extremely cobbly loam and sandy loam
textures are characteristic of the subsoils.
Coarse fragment content is high throughout
the majority of the profiles, typically ranging
from 35% to over 60%. The pH values of
the profiles range between 5.7 and 6.2 with
the profiles being non-effervescent.
(Effervescence is a chemical reaction
resulting from the addition of hydrochloric
acid to a soil material. The level of
effervescence is directly related to the free
calcium carbonates in the soil.) Rock
outcrops and surface rock exposures are
commonly associated with the more shallow
soils.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
1
SB-
I
I
o
••*
CO
TABLE 3.5.1, SOIL CHARACTERISTICS SUMMARY
Map Unit
(Slope Percent)
A (5-30)
B (20-40 + )
C (10-35)
D (10-25)
E «10)
F (10-30)
G (10-25)
H (25-40)
I (10-35)
J (25-35 + )
K (10-33)
L (5-33)
M (25-35)
N (50-70)
0 (40-70)
P (25-35)
Q (20-33 + )
R (25-100)
S (50-100)
T (50-75)
U (5-70)
V
Y(10)
Z(<;5)
AA (35-45)
BB (5-35)
CC (£10)
DD
EE
Contrasting Map Unit Inclusion1
5% VSS
5% VSS, SR
10% SR
All similar soils
All similar soils
10% VSS, SR
5% SR
5% SR
10% drainage-way; 5% RO, SR. VSS
5% SR
10% RO, SR; 5% Deeper soils
15% SR, VSS
10% VSS, SR
30% Disturbed; 5% VSS
45% Disturbed; 5% VSS
30% Disturbed; 5% SR
30% Disturbed
30% Deeper soils; 20% RO, Sr, VSS
25% RO, SR; 25% Deeper soils
25% Deeper soils; 15% VSS
40% Deeper soils
Unit V consists entirely of soils previously disturbed to varying
degrees.
50% Disturbed
10% wetlands, 10% high Co. Frag.; 5% RO
10% High Co. Frag.
10% Sr; 5% Mod deep
5% gullies; 5% high Co. Frag.
30% RO; 20% Co. Frag.
10% VSS
Soil Depth2
Deep
Deep
Deep
Deep
Deep
Deep
Deep
Deep
Deep
Deep
Mod Deep - Deep
Shallow - Mod Deep
Deep
Very shallow - Shallow
Very shallow - Shallow
Mod Deep
Mod Deep
Very Shallow - Shallow
Very Shallow - Shallow
Unit T consists of 60% RO,
SR, and VSS
Shallow - Deep
Varies
Deep
Deep
Deep
Deep
Deep
Deep
Mod Deep
Primary Soil
Drainage
Well
Well
Well
Well
Very poor
Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
Somewhat excessive
Somewhat excessive
Well
Well
Somewhat excessive
Somewhat excessive
Well
Well
Varies
Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
Soil pH Range
5.9 - 6.8
6.0 - 6.8
6.4 - 6.8
6.2- 6.6
6.4 - 6.6
6.2 - 6.8
5.6- 6.8
6.4 - 6.6
5.6- 6.8
6.2-6.4
5.8- 6.2
5.8- 6.2
5.6- 6.8
6.2
6.2
6.2
6.2-6.4
6.0 - 7.0
6.0 - 7.0
6.2- 6.6
No Data
Varies
7.7- 8.0
7.8-8.0
7.2- 7.6
7.2
7.6- 8.2
6.4- 6.7
6.0 - 6.8
Erosion Hazard3
SI - Mod
Mos - Se
SI - Mod
SI - Mod
None - SI
Mod
SI - Mod
Mod - Se
SI - Mod
Mod
SI - Mod
SI - Mod
Mod
Se - VSe
Se - VSe
Mod - Se
Mod
Mod - VSe
Mod - VSe
Se - VSe
Mod - VSe
SI - VSe
SI
Non - SI
Mod - Se
SI - Mod
None - SI
SI - Mod
SI - Mod
Notes: 1. VSS = Very Shallow Soils; SR = Surface Rock Exposures; RO = Rock Outcrops; Co. Frag. = Coarse Fragments.
2. Deep = >40"; Moderately Deep = 20-40"; Shallow = 10-20"; Very Shallow = less than 10".
3. V = Very; SI = Slight; Mod = Moderate; Se = Severe (for exposed soil surface).
I
to
to
I
i
I
1
<0
-------
Page 3-30
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
Soils at lower elevations in the central and
eastern portion of the study area are forming
primarily in volcanic ash over glacial parent
material. These soils are deep to very deep
with notably high coarse fragment horizons
occurring at depths typically ranging from 15
inches to 30 inches. Permeability is
moderate to moderately slow, and the soils
are well drained. Surface textures range from
loams and silt loams to gravelly loams.
Subsoils exhibit a wide variety of textures
from gravelly loams to extremely cobbly
loamy sands. Coarse fragment content of the
surface horizons ranges from less than 5% to
15%. Coarse fragment contents ranging
from 40% to over 70% are typical of
subsoils. Soil pH values range from 5.9 to
6.6, though some deeper horizons exhibit pH
values of 6.8. The soils are non-
effervescent. An ash layer immediately
below the organic horizon is typical of these
soils.
Soils in the extreme eastern portion of the
study area are forming primarily in volcanic
ash over glacial deposits and have
characteristics similar to the soils described
previously. However, coarse fragment
content of the subsurface horizons is
occasionally lower and may not exceed 25%.
Starrem Reservoir Site
Soils overlying the location of the proposed
water storage reservoir are typically deep and
well drained with moderate to moderately
slow permeabilities. These soils are forming
in glacial lake deposits and volcanic ash over
alluvial sediments or glacial deposits. Soil
textures throughout the profiles are
predominantly loams and silt loams. Coarse
fragment contents are highly variable. Soils
overlying more level areas typically exhibit
less than 15% gravels throughout the profile
while more steeply sloping soils
characteristically have coarse fragment
contents ranging from 15% to 70% by
horizon. Soil pH values range from 7.2 to
8.0. These soils may be non-effervescent to
violently effervescent with lime content
generally increasing with depth. The hazard
for erosion is predominantly slight to
moderate, though high ratings occur for soils
overlying steeper terrain.
Utility and Road Corridors
The proposed water supply pipeline route is
overlain by a variety of soils ranging from
deep soils forming in alluvium and glacial
deposits in drainage-ways and along slopes to
shallow ridge-top soils developing in granitic
residuum. The proposed water pipeline
would be buried in an existing road bed for
much of its length. Soils on slopes and in
drainage positions typically have sandy loam,
silt loam, or loam surface textures with
subsurface textures ranging from very
gravelly sands to gravelly sandy loams.
Coarse fragment content can range from less
than 15% to over 60% throughout these
profiles. These soils are typically well
drained, moderately rapidly permeable, and
non-effervescent with pH values from 6.2 to
7.8. The erosion hazard ranges from slight to
very severe depending upon slope. Ridge-top
soils typically are somewhat excessively
drained with moderately rapid permeabilities.
Surface and subsurface textures range from
sandy loams to gravelly loamy sands and
sandy loams. Coarse fragment content
ranges from 5% to 50% but is typically high
throughout the profile. These soils are non-
effervescent with pH values from 6.0 to 6.9.
The erosion hazard is classed as severe to
very severe.
Soils crossed by the proposed transmission
line vary widely in characteristics and range
from shallow soils on mountains and ridge-
tops to deep soils located in floodplains.
Soils along the eastern one-half of the
corridor include forest soils on mountainous
uplands which were formed in a variety of
parent materials including volcanic ash over
glacial deposits, outwash, and granite
residuum. Soil depths range from very
shallow to shallow on knolls and ridges to
deep over most other topographic positions.
Shallow soils are also associated with rock
outcrops common to the mountainous areas.
These soils are predominantly well drained,
moderately permeable, non-effervescent to
slightly effervescent, and have pH values
typically ranging from 6.1 to 7.8. Higher pH
values may also occur at depth in soils
overlying dissected glacial plains. Surface
textures are typically silt loams and loams,
though stony, extremely stony, and
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-31
extremely gravelly loams also occur.
Subsurface textures range from silt loams to
gravelly sandy loams to very gravelly sands.
The hazard of erosion is highly variable, and
ranges from slight to severe.
Soils along the western half of the proposed
transmission corridor include those of upland
plains and terraces forming in glacial deposits
and lacustrine sediments and soils of lowland
terraces and floodplains with alluvial parent
materials. Upland soils are typically deep and
well drained with permeabilities ranging from
moderately slow to moderately rapid.
Surface textures are typically silt loams to
extremely stony loams with silt loam, loam,
and gravelly sandy loam subsurface textures
being common. Coarse fragment content
ranges from less than 15% to 40% in typical
soil profiles. These soils are non- to strongly
effervescent and have pH values ranging from
6.6 to 9.0. The hazard of erosion is slight to
severe as slope increases.
Lowland soils are forming in glacial deposits,
outwash, and alluvial parent materials. On
average, these soils are deep, well drained,
and moderately permeable. Surface textures
range from fine sandy loams to silty clay
loams and subsurface textures range from
very gravelly sands to silty clay loams.
Coarse fragment contents are typically low
while subsurface horizons of terrace soils
may contain as much as 55% coarse
fragments. Soil pH values range from 6.6 to
7.3 with higher values common to some
floodplain soils. These soils are typically non-
to slightly effervescent and have erosion
hazards classed as slight to moderate.
From the southern boundary of the study area
to the town of Chesaw, soils vary from well
drained soils forming in volcanic ash over
glacial deposits on uplands and mountains to
somewhat poorly to moderately well drained
bottomland soils forming in alluvial parent
materials. These soils are typically deep and
moderately permeable with silt loam to sandy
loam surface textures. Subsurface textures
range from silt loams and loams to very
gravelly sands. Coarse fragment content of
the upper horizons is typically low while
contents of lower horizons may reach as high
as 75% on terrace positions. Soil pH values
range from 6.1 to 8.4 in uplands and from
7.9 to 8.4 in bottomland soils with a
corresponding tendency toward
effervescence. Erosion hazards for upland
and bottomland soils are classed as moderate
to very high, and none to slight, respectively.
3.5.3 Reclamation Suitability of Soils of
the Study Area
Soil suitability for reclamation within the
study area was determined as a result of an
analysis of both physical (texture, coarse
fragment content, shallow depth, depth to
bedrock, existing disturbances, percent slope,
moisture regime) and chemical (pH,
effervescence) characteristics as compared to
commonly accepted suitability criteria.
As a result of this analysis, it was determined
that salvage depths of soils suitable for
reclamation ranged from 0 to 28 inches over
the Crown Jewel Project area depending
upon individual map unit characteristics. The
percent of each unit determined to be
salvageable ranged from 0% to 100% with
the range between 85% and 95% being most
common.
In the western portion of the Crown Jewel
Project area, high coarse fragment content,
shallow depth, and past disturbances were
the primary limitations to deeper and/or more
extensive salvage.
High coarse fragment content, slope, and
rock outcrops were the primary salvage
limitations in the central part of the Crown
Jewel Project area while high soil coarse
fragment content at depth was the primary
limitation in the eastern portion of the Crown
Jewel Project area.
Table 3.5.2, Soil Salvage Depth Summary,
presents selected information regarding the
salvage suitability of the soil units mapped
within the study area.
3.5.4 Erosion Hazard of Soils of the
Study Area
Table 3.5.1, Soil Characteristics Summary,
depicts the erosions hazards estimated for
the soils mapped within the study area.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-32
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
TABLE 3.5.2. SOIL SALVAGE DEPTH SUMMARY
Map
Unit
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
L
M
N
0
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
Y
Z
AA
BB
CC
DD
EE
Source:
Salvage
Depth
(inches)
20
28
9
23
60
14
18
18
20
22
22
13
24
0
0
19
21
6
0
0
0
0
60
23
16
14
60
15
32
Percent of
Unit
Salvageable
95
95
90
100
0
90
95
95
95
95
85
95
90
0
0
90
95
60
0
0
0
0
100
95
95
90
90
50
90
Primary Salvage Limitations
Coarse fragment content, soil texture
Coarse fragment content, soil texture
Coarse fragment content, surficial bedrock
Coarse fragment content
Saturated soils, standing water
Coarse fragment content
Coarse fragment content
Coarse fragment content
Coarse fragment content
Coarse fragment content
Coarse fragment content, depth to bedrock
Coarse fragment content
Coarse fragment content, depth to bedrock
Coarse fragment content, depth to bedrock, past disturbances
Coarse fragment content, depth to bedrock, past disturbances
Coarse fragment content, depth to bedrock past disturbances
Coarse fragment content, depth to bedrock, past disturbances
Depth to bedrock, slope, rock outcrops
Slope, depth to bedrock
Slope, rock outcrops and surface rock exposures
Depth to bedrock, slope, coarse fragment content
Opportunistic salvage only
None
Effervescent, rock outcrop
Coarse fragment content, surface stones/boulders
Coarse fragment content, depth, surface stones
Erosion gullies, depth to coarse fragments
Coarse fragment content
Coarse fragment content
1. Soils Technical Memorandum, Crown Jewel Proect, Cedar Creek Associates, Inc., (1992).
2. DD and EE from Okanogan National Forest - Soi Resources Inventory (Rother 1976).
These ratings are based on endemic slope
angles, slope lengths, soil depths, and soil
physical characteristics. The ratings assume
a condition of a bare soil surface devoid of
plant cover or litter similar to that which
could exist following vegetation removal in
preparation for soil salvage operations. In
general, ratings range from "slight," reflecting
nearly level slopes and good soil infiltration
rates, to "very severe" for shallow soils on
very steep slopes.
3.6 SURFACE WATER
3.6.1 Introduction
The description of existing surface water
resources is divided into discussions of water
quality and water quantity. The following
sections include a discussion of the regional
hydrologic setting, flow characteristics within
the surface drainage system, and analysis of
the surface water quality.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-33
3.6.2 Regional Surface Water
Hydrology
The Crown Jewel Project site is located on
the eastern slope of Buckhorn Mountain.
Surface waters from the eastern flank flow in
an easterly direction in Marias Creek and
Nicholson Creek to join with Toroda Creek.
Toroda Creek flows northeasterly as it
receives flow from Marias Creek. Near the
confluence with Nicholson Creek, Toroda
Creek turns east for approximately three
miles to its confluence with the Kettle River.
The Kettle River flows in a southerly and
easterly direction to the town of Curlew,
Washington where it turns northeast and
flows across the Canadian border at Danville,
Washington. The Kettle River flows back into
the U.S. at Laurier, Washington where it
flows south to its confluence with the
Columbia River.
Surface waters from the western flank of
Buckhorn Mountain flow from the Ethel
Creek, Thorp Creek, Bolster Creek, and Gold
Creek drainage basins in a northwesterly
direction to Myers Creek. Myers Creek flows
north across the Canadian border and is
tributary to the Kettle River in Canada,
approximately ten miles from the U.S. border.
Flow in the Kettle River has been monitored
at several locations in the U.S., as well as in
Canada. Figure 3.6.1, Regional Stream
Network, illustrates the course of the Kettle
River as it flows into and out of the U.S.
along the Canadian border. There is a
Canadian monitoring station (maintained by
Water Survey/Environment Canada), and a
U.S. monitoring station (maintained by the
U.S. Geological Survey [USGS]) located on
the Kettle River downstream of the
confluence with Myers Creek and upstream
of the confluence of Toroda Creek with the
Kettle River. Three Canadian stations and a
U.S. monitoring station have been maintained
downstream of the Toroda Creek confluence.
Mean annual discharge in the Kettle River
ranges from 1,314 cubic feet per second
(cfs) at Kettle Valley to 2,895 cfs near
Laurier. Table 3.6.1, Regional Surface Water
Discharge Summary, gives the period of
record, mean annual discharge, and mean
daily extremes for the period of record for
each of these monitoring stations.
A monitoring station on Myers Creek at the
international border has been maintained
periodically in the past by Water Survey of
Canada/Environment Canada. Flow records
are available for a period of record from 1923
through 1950 and 1968 through 1977. This
station was operated to obtain information
pertaining to flows during the irrigation
season; and, therefore, winter stream flows
were not recorded. The drainage area at the
Myers Creek station is approximately 80
square miles (207 square kilometers).
Extremes for the period of record were a
maximum instantaneous discharge of 109 cfs
(3.09 cubic meters per second) on June 11,
1948, maximum daily discharge of 102 cfs
(2.89 cubic meters per second) on June 11,
1948, and minimum daily flows of 0.0 cfs
(0.0 cubic meters per second) on July 16,
1926 and August 13, 1939. A summary of
the estimated mean annual flow of Myers
Creek at the international border is shown on
Figure 3.6.2, Estimated Monthly Hydrograph
of Myers Creek (International Boundary).
In October 1995, another monitoring station
was installed on Myers Creek approximately
440 feet south of the previous station, Myers
Creek at the International Boundary. This
continuous recording station referred to as
"Myers Creek" is operated cooperatively by
the USGS and the Proponent. The drainage
area at this station is approximately 77
square miles (199 square kilometers). Data is
not yet available from this site; however, it is
planned that the station would be maintained
until reclamation at the Project site is
completed.
A stream flow investigation of Myers Creek
was completed near the town of Myncaster,
British Columbia (Colder, 1994a). The study
was conducted to evaluate the hydraulic
continuity between Myers Creek and the
shallow ground water system, particularly
during the peak flow period. The stream
reach studied was from Myers Creek at the
international border to approximately 12,000
feet downstream of the border on Myers
Creek. The study concluded that Myers
Creek is losing an average of 1.6 cfs or
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
I
I
is-
(6
I-
CO
sr
TABLE 3.6.1, REGIONAL SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE SUMMARY
Station Name
Myers Creek at International Boundary
Myers Creek
Kettle River at Kettle Valley
Kettle River near Ferry
Kettle River near Ferry
Kettle River at Carson
Kettle River at Cascade
Kettle River near Laurier
Operated By
Canada
U.S./BMGC
Canada
U.S.
Canada
Canada
Canada
U.S.
Approximate
Drainage Area
mi2
80
77
1,761
-2,200
-2,200
-2,600
3,459
3,800
km2
207
199
4,560
5,750
5,750
6,730
8,960
9,842
Period of
Record
1923-1977
October 1995
1915-1922
1929-1991
1928-1990
1913-1922
1916-1934
1929-1991
Mean Annual Discharge
cfs
Annual mean not
available1
Annual mean not
available
1,314
1,523
1,524
1,500
2,511
2,895
nvVsec
Annual mean not
available
Annual mean not
available
37.2
43.1
43.1
42.5
71.1
82
Note: 1 . Only irrigation season measures.
Sources: 1 985, USGS. Stream Flow Statistics and Drainage-Basin Characteristics for the Southwestern and Eastern Regions, Washington,
Volume II. USGS Open File Report 84-1 45-B.
1991, USGS. Water Resources Data for Washington, 1991.
1992, Environment Canada. Water Survey Records, 1992.
1995, Letter From Ray Smith, USGS to Mr. Jon Winters, BMGC, May 2, 1995, Regarding Cooperative Monitoring Station
Installation at Myers Creek.
i
CO
§
}0
tO
SI
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-35
approximately 5% to 6% of typical peak flow
(25 to 30 cfs) in this reach. The small
stream flow loss is attributed to the relatively
low permeability and silty nature of the
stream banks and streambed materials.
Additional monitoring of stream flows along
Myers and Toroda Creeks was initiated in
1995. Four sites were added along Myers
Creek: Site A, Myers Creek at Chesaw,
Washington; Site B, Myers Creek at Bolster
Road; Site C, Myers Creek near the
International Border; and Site D, Starrem
Creek near its confluence with Myers Creek
(Colder, 1996b). Flow at these sites was
measured using a current meter during
October 1994 and between March and
September 1995. The frequency of
discharge measurements was one to five
times weekly. The magnitude of flows along
Myers Creek at these sites ranged from low
flows of 3.9 cfs to 5.1 cfs in October 1994
to high flows of 67.9 cfs to 90.3 cfs in May
1995. Flow in Starrem Creek, Site D, was
also measured using a current meter. The
drainage area for Starrem Creek near its
confluence with Myers Creek is 4.3 square
miles (11 square kilometers) at an elevation
of 2,650 feet. Flow ranged from 0.02 cfs in
October 1994 to 0.78 cfs in May 1995.
Six stream flow monitoring locations were
added on the Toroda Creek side of the Crown
Jewel Project area: Site E, Toroda Creek
upstream of its confluence with Marias
Creek; Site F, Toroda Creek downstream of
its confluence with Marias Creek; Site G,
Toroda Creek upstream of its confluence with
Nicholson Creek; Site H, Toroda Creek
downstream of its confluence with Nicholson
Creek; Site I, Marias Creek near its
confluence with Toroda Creek; and Site J,
Nicholson Creek near its confluence with
Toroda Creek. Flow at these sites was also
measured using a current meter during
October 1994 and between March and
September 1995. The frequency of
discharge measurements was on a weekly
basis. The magnitude of flows along Toroda
Creek ranged from low flows of 2 cfs to 4.1
cfs, in October 1994 and high flows of 59.0
cfs to 83.3 cfs, in May 1995. The drainage
area at Site H, Toroda Creek, downstream of
its confluence with Nicholson Creek, is 158
square miles (409 square kilometers) and is
located at an elevation of 2,120 feet. Flows
on Marias Creek and Nicholson Creek at their
confluence with Toroda Creek ranged from
0.3 cfs and 0.1 cfs, respectively, in
September 1995. At Marias Creek in April
1995, flow was measured at 8.5 cfs. At
Nicholson Creek in May 1995, flow was
measured at 10.6 cfs. (Colder, 1996b)
Figure 3.6.3, Surface Water Monitoring
Stations, shows the locations of these
monitoring sites.
3.6.3 Regional Surface Water Quality
Regional water quality data are available from
five surface water monitoring stations
established on the Kettle River. The locations
of these stations are shown on Figure 3.6.1,
Regional Stream Network.
Three of the Kettle River water quality
stations (Midway, Carson, and Gilpin) have
been monitored monthly or semi-monthly by
Environment Canada from 1979 to the
present. The station at Rock Creek was
generally sampled annually by British
Columbia (B.C.) Ministry of Environment from
1965 to 1984 and again in August 1992.
The U.S. water quality monitoring station on
the Kettle River, near Barstow, was sampled
by WADOE on a monthly basis from 1960 to
1990. Regional water quality data were not
available for other U.S. Stations.
Water quality samples collected from the U.
S. and Canadian stations on the Kettle River
have been analyzed for several parameters
including general and physical characteristics,
major and minor ions, nutrients, metals,
cyanide, and coliform bacteria. A review of
these data indicates that the Kettle River is
near neutral to slightly alkaline, with pH
values ranging from 6.6 to 8.7. Specific
conductivity ranged from 30 to 70
micromhos per centimeter (//mhos/cm) at
Rock Creek and from 46 to 249 /ymhos/cm at
Gilpin. This increase in specific conductivity
indicates an increase in the Total Dissolved
Solids (TDS) content of the Kettle River as it
flows downstream. Calcium and bicarbonate
were the dominant cation and anion
measured in all samples.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-36
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
Nutrient levels were generally low along the
Kettle River, with nitrate plus nitrite
concentrations ranging from below detection
limit to about 0.5 mg/l and total phosphorous
concentrations ranging from below detection
to about 0.3 mg/l. There were seasonal
trends in these nutrient levels, with nitrate
plus nitrite concentrations generally
decreasing during the spring runoff, while
total phosphorous concentrations increased
during the same period. Concurrent with
these nutrient variations were noticeable
increases in water turbidity, as would be
expected with increased surface water runoff
during the spring.
With the exception of arsenic, the
concentration of trace metals were generally
at or below analytical detection limits.
Arsenic was routinely detected at
concentrations up to 0.004 mg/l.
Cyanide results for the Kettle River are
inconclusive as a result of suspected
contamination of the samples during sample
preservation (Environment Canada, 1992).
Total coliform bacteria were analyzed at one
of the Kettle River stations (Barstow) and
were detected at concentrations up to 800
colonies/100 ml. Elevated counts could
suggest contamination from septic tanks,
waste water treatment plants, and livestock
grazing or represent background levels
associated with wildlife activity. The
maximum bacteria counts were measured on
the Kettle River during the summer months,
when river water temperatures rose and
biologic activity is expected to have
increased.
3.6.4 Project Area Surface Water
Hydrology
Five drainages that originate near the top of
Buckhorn Mountain could potentially be
affected by the proposed Crown Jewel
Project. Nicholson Creek and Marias Creek
are perennial streams with intermittent
sections in the upper reaches. These streams
drain the eastern slope of Buckhorn
Mountain. Gold Creek, Bolster Creek, and
Ethel Creek are perennial streams that drain
the western flank of Buckhorn Mountain. Of
these streams, only Nicholson and Marias
Creeks form intermittent streams within the
area of proposed disturbance. The western
boundary of the proposed disturbed area is
roughly located along the drainage divide
between the east and west flanks of
Buckhorn Mountain. Most of the proposed
disturbance would occur on the eastern slope
of Buckhorn Mountain.
Figure 3.6.3, Surface Water Monitoring
Stations, shows the drainage boundaries of
these five watersheds and the area of
proposed disturbance. Figure 3.6.4, Site
Stream Network, shows the configuration of
the streams as they flow from Buckhorn
Mountain, and the stream miles from their
confluence with Toroda Creek on the eastern
flank and Myers Creek on the western flank
of Buckhorn Mountain.
The general runoff regime for watersheds in
the northern border mountain area of eastern
Washington is applicable to the five drainages
at the Crown Jewel Project site. Precipitation
in the late fall through early spring is stored
as snow and released as snowmelt in the late
spring and early summer (Moss and Haushild,
1978).
Precipitation at the Crown Jewel Project site
was estimated from local measurements
during the period of August 1993 through
December 1995. These data were correlated
with precipitation data measured by the
National Weather Service at Republic,
Washington and a station at Molson,
Washington (ten miles west - northwest of
the Crown Jewel Project site), for the same
period of record. An average annual
precipitation for the Buckhorn Mountain area
is estimated to be 20.0 inches per year. A
synthetic long term annual precipitation
record has been established for the proposed
mine site. The record is based on a statistical
correlation of two years of mine site
precipitation data with long term records from
Republic and Molson, Washington. This
correlation was used to estimate a long term
average annual precipitation value for the
mine site. The record at Molson,
Washington, was used to estimate
precipitation values for the Crown Jewel
Project site for the driest year; the dry series
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-37
of years on the lowest three-year moving
average; the wettest year and the wet series
of years on the highest three-year moving
average. The precipitation values determined
by this procedure were used in the hydrologic
analysis of stream monitoring, and were
estimated for the Crown Jewel Project site as
follows:
• Driest Year - 14.2 inches;
• Driest Three-Year Period - 17.4 inches;
• Annual Average - 20.0 inches;
• Wettest Three-Year Period - 25.5 inches;
and,
• Wettest Year - 31.7 inches.
No reliable pan evaporation data have been
taken at the mine site. Pan evaporation rates
at the mine site were therefore calculated by
adjusting historical data that were available
from Republic, and accounting for the
difference in temperature, wind speed and
humidity at the mine site compared to
Republic. A Monte Carlo statistical
adjustment was made between the Republic
site and the mine site to account for
uncertainty in the temperature, wind speed,
and humidity data. The evaporation data
shown in Table 3.1.1, Weather Data,
represent the median calculated values. The
average annual pan evaporation at the mine
site was estimated to be 38.6 inches (ENSR,
1996a).
Additional discussion describing the
methodology used in estimating mine site
climatological data is found in Section 3.1,
Air Quality/Climate.
Project Area Drainage Characteristics
Drainage information used to characterize the
five drainages at the Crown Jewel Project
site included:
• Total drainage area;
• Elevation range;
• Channel length;
• Stream order; and,
• Stream classification.
Total Drainage Area. This is the area of the
drainage basin to its confluence with the next
lower stream.
Elevation Range. The range is determined
from the highest point in the watershed to
the elevation at the confluence with the next
lower stream.
Channel Length. This is the total length of
the stream from its origin to its confluence
with the next lower stream.
Stream Order. Stream order is a
classification of a drainage basin using the
number of tributaries found within the
drainage. A first order stream has no
tributaries. A second order stream is a reach
downstream of the confluence of at least two
first order streams. Ordering continues in this
fashion indicating the relative complexity of
the drainage basin.
Stream Classifications. Stream classifications
are defined by both the Forest Service and
WADOE for the purpose of establishing water
quality management goals for streams in the
State of Washington. Streams in the Crown
Jewel Project area have been classified by
the Forest Service as Class III and IV (Forest
Service, 1989), and by the WADOE as Class
AA (WADOE, 1992). Table 3.6.2, Stream
Classification Summary, describes Forest
Service and WADOE stream classifications
and water quality management goals.
Project Area Drainages
An overview of the five drainages at the
Crown Jewel Project site follows. The
drainages include:
• Nicholson Creek;
• Marias Creek;
• Gold Creek;
• Bolster Creek; and.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-38 CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT January 1997
TABLE 3.6.2, STREAM CLASSIFICATION SUMMARY
USDA FOREST SERVICE
Class I Perennial or intermittent streams that have one or more of the following characteristics:
• Direct Source of domestic water use.
• Used by large numbers of fish for spawning or mitigation.
• Major flow contributor to a Class I stream.
Highest level of protection
Water quality will not be changed from the existing or natural condition except for the following
temporary changes from:
• Stream restoration.
• Habitat improvement.
• Necessary transportation system crossing.
• Beneficial use structures.
Class II Perennial or intermittent streams that have one or more of the following characteristics:
• Used by moderate numbers of fish for spawning or migration.
• Moderate flow contributor to the Class I stream or major flow contributor to a Class II
stream.
High level of protection
Temporary changes as defined for Class I stream but not including the following:
• Increased water temperatures which take several years for shade reestablishment.
• Turbidity from long-term disturbances such as roads or large denuded areas.
Class III All other perennial streams not meeting higher criteria.
Normal level of protection
Water quality will not deteriorate existing established water quality goals for downstream Class I
and II streams. Water quality changes may involve the following:
• Increased water temperatures and turbidity increase, provided these do not cause Class
I and II streams to fall below established goals.
Class IV Intermittent streams not meeting higher criteria.
Normal level of protection
Water quality will not deteriorate below existing established water quality goals for downstream
Class I and II streams. Water quality changes may involve the following:
• Increased water temperatures and turbidity increases, provided these do not cause
Class I and II streams to fall below established goals.
WASHINGTON STATE
Class AA All surface waters lying within national parks, national forests, and wilderness areas that are
not specifically listed under WAC 1 73-301A-1 30.
Highest level of water quality criteria
• Water quality of this class shall markedly and uniformly exceed the requirements for all
or substantially all uses.
• No temperature increases shall exceed 0.3°C due to human activities.
• Turbidity increases shall not exceed 10% due to human activities.
• Ethel Creek. on Buckhorn Mountain near the Canadian
border. The drainage basin elevation ranges
These drainages are shown on Figure 3.6.3, from 5,602 feet at the headwaters to 2,100
Surface Water Monitoring Stations. feet at its confluence with Toroda Creek
(USGS, 1988). Nicholson Creek is a third
Nicholson Creek. Nicholson Creek originates order drainage at its confluence with Toroda
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-39
Creek. The drainage area of Nicholson Creek
is 16.1 square miles, with a channel gradient
of 5.06%. Nicholson Creek has a total
stream length of approximately 7.6 miles.
Approximately 5.25 miles of the stream are
located on National Forest lands. The lower
2.25 mile stream reach to the confluence
with Toroda Creek is on private lands. The
portions of the stream that are located on
National Forest land are Forest Service Class
III and IV streams (or WADOE classification
of AA).
The Roosevelt Mine adit is located very close
to the drainage divide between Nicholson
Creek and Marias Creek. The adit was
reportedly used to 1911, and again between
1919 and 1920. As was common practice at
that time, waste rock from the Roosevelt
Mine was dumped outside the adit portal.
Continuous discharges from the adit flow
easterly across and through the dump to exit
as surface and subsurface flows on the forest
floor on the divide between Nicholson and
Marias Creeks. The divide is located on a flat
area between the two creeks. Small changes
in the forest floor configuration at this point
could direct flows to either drainage. The
existence of a small channel near the outlet
indicates that water has flowed into the
Marias Creek drainage in the past.
Forest Service fire records indicate that the
outflow from the Roosevelt adit may have
entered Nicholson Creek prior to 1973, while
timber sale records indicate that the flow may
have been to Marias Creek in 1974. The
divide between the two drainages is about six
inches, subsequently, the outflow may enter
either drainage at various times.
Flows from the Roosevelt adit were causing
road erosion on Forest Road 3575-122; in
January of 1992, the Forest Service
corrected the situation by constructing a
sediment catch basin and unplugging the
culvert across the road. Flows exiting the
sediment basin continued into Nicholson
Creek, as they had before the culvert was
unplugged, as legally required to do. All
available data and evidence indicates that
when and if a change in stream course came
about, it was a natural occurrence. The
stream course change was possibly affected
by logging activities that occurred in the area
with the Bishop timber sale (1974-1978), as
the road was built and the culvert installed
between 1975 and 1977 for the removal of
logs from the area. The date on which the
culvert was plugged sufficiently to allow the
flow to divert to a different channel is
unknown, but can be approximated to some
time after the closing date of the Bishop
timber sale in 1978 (USFS, 1996b).
There are several wetlands located near the
divide. The nine-acre wetland in Nicholson
Creek (C1A and C1B) is partially supported
by Roosevelt adit surface and subsurface
flows, and the wetlands in Marias Creek
(C1C and PE or C2) may be partially
supported by Roosevelt adit subsurface
flows. At this time, surface and subsurface
flows in Nicholson Creek includes most of the
Roosevelt adit flows.
Another wetland area, called the frog pond, is
a man-made pond reportedly created in 1924
for stock watering. The embankment is
partially formed by Forest Road 3575-120. It
fills during the spring snowmelt runoff and
overflows to the north and east into
Nicholson Creek. During the year, the water
surface is reduced by evapotranspiration,
seepage, and cattle and wildlife usage. By
late summer and fall, only a small pool
remains in the bottom. The catchment which
contributes surface water runoff to the frog
pond is about 50 to 60 acres in extent.
There is no obvious evidence of springs
providing water to the pond during the low
water period in the fall. These and other
wetland areas located within the Crown
Jewel Project area are described in Section
3.11, Wetlands.
Marias Creek. Marias Creek also drains
eastward from its headwaters on Buckhorn
Mountain. The Marias Creek drainage is
directly south of the Nicholson Creek
drainage, ranging in elevation from 5,602 feet
to 2,280 feet at its confluence with Toroda
Creek. The total drainage area for Marias
Creek is 12.1 square miles, with a channel
gradient of 6%. Marias Creek is also a third
order stream at its confluence with Toroda
Creek. It has a total stream length of
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-40
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
approximately 6.8 miles, and all but the lower
0.25 miles are within the Okanogan National
Forest boundary. The lower 0.25 mile stream
reach, to the confluence with Toroda Creek,
is on private lands. The portions of the
stream that are located on National Forest
land are Forest Service Class III and IV
streams.
Gold Creek. Gold Creek drains westward into
Myers Creek from its headwaters located on
Buckhorn Mountain. The drainage basin
ranges in elevation from 5,410 feet to 2,680
feet at its confluence with Myers Creek, and
has a total drainage area of 3.6 square miles.
The drainage divide separating Gold Creek
from Nicholson Creek is the approximate
western boundary of the disturbance area.
Physical disturbance from the proposed
Crown Jewel Project would generally be
limited to the area east of this boundary into
Nicholson Creek.
The channel gradient of Gold Creek, to the
confluence with Myers Creek, is
approximately 10%. Gold Creek is a third
order stream at its confluence with Myers
Creek. It flows through Okanogan National
Forest, BLM, Washington State, and private
lands. It has a total stream length of 3.5
miles. The lower 0.86 miles of Gold Creek,
to the confluence with Myers Creek, are not
on National Forest land. The 1.4 miles within
the National Forest Boundary are designated
as a Class III and IV stream reach.
Bolster Creek. Bolster Creek also drains
westward into Myers Creek from Buckhorn
Mountain. The Bolster Creek drainage is
located directly south of the Gold Creek
drainage and has a total area of 2.7 square
miles. The elevation of the drainage ranges
from 5,602 feet at the summit of Buckhorn
Mountain to 2,800 feet at Myers Creek. The
channel slope of Bolster Creek, to Myers
Creek, is about 10%. Bolster Creek has a
total stream length of 2.8 miles and is a
second order stream at its confluence with
Myers Creek. Two upper reaches of the
southern fork of Bolster Creek (totaling
approximately 0.4 miles in length) are on
National Forest land and are classified as
Forest Service Class III and IV (or the
WADOE classification A A). The remainder of
Bolster Creek flows through BLM, state and
private lands.
Ethel Creek. Ethel Creek drains westward
into Myers Creek. The drainage is located
south of Bolster Creek and has a total area of
3.0 square miles. The drainage ranges in
elevation from 5,496 feet to 2,960 feet at
Myers Creek. Channel slope for the entire
Ethel Creek drainage is about 10%. Ethel
Creek is a second order stream with a total
stream length of 2.9 miles. The lower 1.4
miles of Ethel Creek, to the confluence with
Myers Creek, are not on National Forest land.
The upper 1.5 miles are designated a Class III
and IV stream.
Surface Water Monitoring Program
The surface water monitoring program for the
Crown Jewel Project is described in the draft
report entitled Baseline Hydrologic Monitoring
Plan (ACZ Inc., 1993). There are 14 surface
water monitoring stations within the Project
area as shown in Figure 3.6.3, Surface Water
Monitoring Stations. Baseline data collection
was initiated in October 1990 at three
surface water sites located in Nicholson,
Marias and Bolster Creeks. In May 1991,
two additional sites were added; one on Gold
Creek and one on Ethel Creek. In March
1992, three more sites were added; one in
each of the upper reaches of two tributaries
of Nicholson Creek, and one in the upper
reaches of Marias Creek. In June 1992, six
stations were added to the network and one
was dropped. The six stations added were
located in the upper reaches of Nicholson
Creek in the Gold Bowl area, the upper
reaches of Gold Creek, and four stations
were added to monitor Bolster Creek; an
upper and lower station located on each of
the two tributaries of Bolster Creek. One
station located on the main stem of Bolster
Creek was replaced with the installation of
the stations on the lower reaches of the two
Bolster Creek tributaries.
Monthly stream flow data were collected
from the initiation of the monitoring network
in October 1990 through June 1992. In July
1992, weekly stream flow measurements
were initiated. Table 3.6.3, Flow Monitoring
History, lists the monitoring stations and the
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
1
I
C/)
ST
I
3
TABLE 3.6.3, FLOW MONITORING HISTORY
Station
Number
SW-1
SW-2
SW-3
SW-4
SW-5
SW-6
SW-7
SW-8
SW-9
SW-10
SW-112
SW-122
SW-132
SW-142
GW-2
GW-33
GW-43
GW-53
Drainage Basin
Nicholson Creek
Marias Creek
Bolster Creek
Gold Creek
Ethel Creek
Nicholson Creek
Nicholson Creek
Marias Creek
Gold bowl Creek (upper Nicholson Creek)
Gold Creek
Bolster Creek
Bolster Creek
Bolster Creek
Bolster Creek
Marias Creek
Gold Creek
Gold Creek
Marias Creek
Control Structure1
Culvert
Culvert.
Broad Crested Weir
Culvert
Culvert
Sharp Crested Weir
Sharp Crested Weir
Sharp Crested Weir
Culvert
Culvert
Sharp Crested Weir
Sharp Crested Weir
Sharp Crested Weir
Sharp Crested Weir
Sharp Crested Weir
Adit Portal
Discharge Pipe
Adit Portal
Period of Discharge Record
October 1 990 - Present
October 1 990 - Present
October 1990 -May 1992
May 1991 - Present
May 1991 - Present
July 1992 - Present
July 1992 - Present
July 1992 - Present
June 1 992 - Present
June 1992 - Present
July 1 992 - Present
July 1992 - Present
July 1 992 - Present
July 1 992 - Present
September 1 992 - Present
May 1992- Present
July 1 992 - Present
May 1 993 - Present
Notes
Station replaced in June 1 992
Replacement for Station SW-3
Replacement for Station SW-3
Replacement for Station SW-3
Replacement for Station SW-3
Roosevelt Adit
Lower Magnetic Adit
Buckhorn Adit
Gold Axe Adit
Notes: 1 . Discharge was calculated based on flow depth measured in control structure. For comparison, direct discharge measurements are
periodically also made using either a bucket and/or flow meter.
2. Discharges measured at nearby Station SW-3 between October 1990 and May 1992 were determined to be inaccurate.
3. Standing water was observed in the Gold Axe adit; however, there was no surface expression of discharge. Discharge was
observed from the Upper Magnetic adit. This discharge could only be visually estimated due to its low rate of flow. Water flowing
from the Buckhorn adit is directed into a concrete containment basin drained by a steel pipe. A bucket is used to measure discharge
from the pipe.
i
-------
Page 3-42
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
period of record available for stream flow
measurements.
Flow was measured at the surface water
sites using depth measurements in either
corrugated metal pipe (cmp) culvert road
crossings, or sharp-crested, V-notch weirs.
Direct flow measurements were also
periodically taken to verify the flows
estimated from depth measurements. Weekly
stream flow monitoring at stations SW-1
through SW-14 began in July 1992 and
continued through December 1994. The
stream flow monitoring frequency at these
stations returned to monthly in 1995. Due to
poor site access and/or weather conditions,
there are periods when stream flow data
were not collected from some of the
monitoring stations.
Specific monitoring information collected
through October 1995 is described for the
following drainages in the Crown Jewel
Project area:
• Nicholson Creek;
• Marias Creek;
• Gold Creek;
• Bolster Creek; and,
• Ethel Creek.
Nicholson Creek. There are currently four
surface water stations located on Nicholson
Creek. SW-1 is located downstream of the
Crown Jewel Project area. Stream flow is
estimated from depth measurements at a 36-
inch cmp culvert road crossing. Monitoring
at SW-1 was initiated in October 1990.
Stream flow at SW-1 ranged from 0.0 cfs
(December 1990 through February 1991,
when the stream was frozen) to 8.24 cfs
(May 5, 1993).
The north and south forks of upper Nicholson
Creek are monitored by SW-6 and SW-7,
respectively. The monitoring station on the
north fork of upper Nicholson Creek (SW-6) is
a sharp-crested, V-notch weir. This weir is
located approximately 7,800 feet upstream of
SW-1 and was installed in July 1992. Flow
measured at this station from July 1992
through October 1995 ranged from less than
0.1 cfs to 0.49 cfs. Flows less than 0.1 cfs
were recorded from August 13, 1992
through April 1993, August 26, 1993
through February 23, 1994, and October 11,
1994 through April 1995. The peak flow for
the period of record (0.49 cfs) was measured
on May 5, 1993.
The monitoring station located on the south
fork of upper Nicholson Creek (SW-7) is also
a sharp-crested, V-notch weir. The weir was
installed in July 1992. Monitoring station
SW-7 is located approximately 7,800 feet
upstream of SW-1. Flow measured at this
station from July 1992 to present ranged
from 0.04 cfs (August 25, 1995) to 1.30 cfs
(May 12, 1993).
An additional monitoring station (SW-9) is
located at the headwaters of the Nicholson
area that was previously logged. Monitoring
at SW-9 was initiated in June 1992. Flow at
this site was estimated from depth
measurements taken at a 24-inch cmp culvert
crossing. Flow has ranged from 0.0 cfs
(November 12, 1992 through March 25,
1993, December 7, 1993 through April 14,
1994, and August 25, 1994 through April
1995) to 0.54 cfs (May 13, 1993).
Marias Creek. There are two surface water
monitoring stations located on Marias Creek.
Lower Marias Creek has been monitored at
SW-2 since October 1990. Flow at lower
Marias Creek is estimated from depth
measurements taken at a 36-inch culvert
crossing. Stream flow at this site ranged
from 0.0 cfs when the stream was frozen in
December 1990 through February 1991 to
2.53 cfs on May 10, 1993.
Stream flow on upper Marias Creek is
monitored from a sharp-crested, V-notch weir
designated SW-8. This station is located
approximately 6,300 feet upstream of SW-2
and was installed in July 1992. Flow across
the weir ranged from less than 0.01 cfs
(January 6, 1993) to 0.64 cfs (May 17,
1995).
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-43
Gold Creek. Two surface water stations are
located on Gold Creek. Monitoring station
SW-10 is located at a 24-inch cmp culvert
road crossing that conveys water from a
spring that forms the headwaters of Gold
Creek. Monitoring at SW-10 was initiated in
June 1992. Flow at SW-10 ranged from 0.0
cfs (December 28, 1992 through April 7,
1993, December 21, 1993 through March
31, 1994, and December 20, 1994 through
February 1995) to 0.63 cfs (May 13, 1993).
Monitoring station SW-4 is located
approximately 4,400 feet downstream of
SW-10. Monitoring at SW-4 was initiated in
May 1991. Flow is estimated from depth
measurements taken in a 24-inch cmp culvert
road crossing. Stream flow in Gold Creek at
SW-4 ranged from 0.0 cfs on November 28,
1992 and December 9, 1993 to 2.48 cfs on
May 11, 1995.
Bolster Creek. There are currently four
operating monitoring stations on Bolster
Creek. Monitoring station SW-11 is located
near the headwaters of the north fork of
Bolster Creek, and monitoring station SW-14
is located near the headwaters of the south
fork of Bolster Creek. Monitoring stations
SW-12 and SW-13 are located directly
upstream of the confluence of the north and
south forks of Bolster Creek, respectively.
Monitoring station SW-3 was located directly
downstream of the confluence of the
tributaries. This station was discontinued in
June 1992 and replaced by SW-12 and SW-
13. Monitoring station SW-3 was initially
monitored in October 1990. Flow
measurements at this site were not precise
and have not been included in the surface
water flow database. The remaining
monitoring sites are all sharp-crested, V-notch
weirs. They were installed in July 1992.
Stream flow at monitoring station SW-11, on
the north fork of Bolster Creek, has ranged
from less than 0.01 cfs (October 1, 1992,
December 1992 through March 1993,
October 27, 1993 through January 18,
1994, and February 17, 1995) to 0.44 cfs on
May 5, 1993. Monitoring station SW-12,
located approximately 5,700 feet
downstream of SW-11 has had stream flow
ranging from 0.01 cfs (March 3, 1992) to
1.30 cfs (May 5, 1993).
Stream flow at monitoring station SW-14, on
the south fork of Bolster Creek, have ranged
from less than 0.01 cfs (January 22 through
March 18, 1993 and January 18, 1994) to
1.34 cfs (May 13, 1993). Monitoring station
SW-13, located approximately 7,300 feet
downstream of SW-14, has had stream flow
ranging from 0.02 cfs (October 1, 1992) to
2.2 cfs (May 15 1995).
Ethel Creek. Monitoring station SW-5 is
located on Ethel Creek approximately 6,000
feet from its confluence with Myers Creek.
Flow at monitoring station SW-5 is estimated
from depth measurements made in a 24-inch
cmp culvert road crossing. Stream flow
monitoring was initiated at SW-5 in May
1991. Stream flow has ranged from 0.01 cfs
(January 7, 1993 and February 15, 1994) to
4.9 cfs (April 28, 1993).
Analysis of Surface Water Monitoring
The period of record for stream flows
monitored at the Crown Jewel Project site
have corresponded to a period of high
precipitation variability. During the surface
water monitoring program, surface flows
have been collected during a year with
precipitation slightly below the driest 3-Year
Period and slightly above the wettest 3-Year
Period. The precipitation for the driest 3-Year
Period was 17.4 inches and the precipitation
during the 1994 Water Year was 16.5
inches. The precipitation for the wettest 3-
Year Period was 25.5 inches and the
precipitation during the 1993 Water Year was
26.9 inches. This allows confidence that the
stream flow data collected have bracketed a
reasonable range of expected precipitation-
runoff conditions present at the site.
Surface water flows measured during the
monitoring program described above have
been plotted in hydrographs for each station
and each water year (October-September)
that the station has been monitored. Based
on the hydrographs, a hydrologic water
balance was prepared. A hydrologic water
balance is an accounting of the components
of the hydrologic cycle. The hydrologic water
balance components of surface runoff, base
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-44
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
flow, evapotranspiration, and precipitation
were examined. Four years of data are
available that have concurrent stream flow
and precipitation monitoring. The
precipitation data set includes two years of
monitored data (1993, 1994) and two years
of synthesized data.
A hydrograph separation analysis was used
to determine the surface and base flow
components of stream runoff. The
hydrographs also showed that the major
component of the stream flow at the Crown
Jewel Project site is base flow. Surface
runoff occurs predominantly during
snowmelt, approximately mid-April through
June. Table 3.6.4, Summary of Crown Jewel
Project Site Hydrologic Water Balance, shows
the results of the hydrograph analysis. Total
runoff is the sum of surface and base flow.
The baseflow component of stream flow
represents precipitation that has recharged to
ground water then discharges to the stream.
Based on inspection of the streamflow and
ground water, the ground water aquifer is
assumed to refill each year. The ground
water discharge to the stream, or base flow,
represents the majority of the recharge to the
ground water system. The average of the
base flows for the monitoring sites near the
top of Buckhorn Mountain, for the two to
three year period of record, was used to
estimate the ground water recharge rate.
This average was 2.9 inches. To this
average was added 0.2 inches to account for
riparian evapotranspiration in and near stream
beds, and 0.6 inches to account for
subsurface flow discharging from the system.
The total average annual recharge rate for
this period used for modeling purposes was
estimated to be 3.7 inches.
Precipitation (in acre-feet) was estimated over
each watershed area. The sum of outflows
from the system (total runoff and
evapotranspiration) equal the sum of inflows
to the system (total precipitation).
Throughout the Crown Jewel Project area,
total runoff was determined to range between
10% and 30% of total precipitation.
3.6.5 Site Surface Water Quality
Sample Collection and Analysis
Baseline surface water quality samples for the
Crown Jewel Project were first collected in
October 1990 from three monitoring stations:
SW-1 (Nicholson Creek), SW-2 (Marias
Creek) and SW-3 (Bolster Creek). Since this
initial sampling effort, 11 additional surface
water stations (SW-4 through SW-14) have
been added to the monitoring network, and
water quality samples have been collected
every month, weather and access conditions
permitting, through June 1995. All of the
surface water stations are currently being
sampled on a semi-annual basis with the
exception of station SW-3, which was
discontinued in June 1992, and replaced by
stations SW-12 and SW-13. The monitoring
history of the stations is included in Table
3.6.5, Water Quality Monitoring History.
Note that this table also includes the wells
and historic adits where ground water quality
samples have been collected. A discussion
of ground water quality conditions at the site
is presented in Section 3.8, Ground Water.
The locations of the surface water monitoring
stations are shown on Figure 3.6.3, Surface
Water Monitoring Stations.
Field analyses of the surface water quality
samples include measurement of dissolved
oxygen (DO), pH, specific conductance,
temperature, and ferrous iron. Laboratory
analyses of the samples are performed using
analytical methods accepted and approved by
WADOE in WADOE accredited laboratories.
The following laboratory water quality
parameters are measured:
• General and Physical Characteristics;
• Major Ions;
• Nutrients;
• Trace Metals/Elements;
• Radionuclides; and,
• Cyanide (Total and WAD).
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
1
Sir
I
I
^.
I
i
I
r>
TABLE 3.6.4, SUMMARY OF CROWN JEWEL PROJECT SITE HYDROLOGIC WATER BALANCE
Station Name
Upper NF Nicholson
Upper SF Nicholson
Gold Bowl Drainage
Lower Nicholson
Upper Marias
Lower Marias
Upper Gold
Lower Gold
Upper NF Bolster
Upper SF Bolster
Lower NF bolster
Lower SF Bolster
Ethel
Station
Number
SW-6
SW-7
SW-9
SW-1
SW-8
SW-2
SW-10
SW-4
SW-11
SW-1 4
SW-1 2
SW-1 3
SW-5
Drainage
Area
(acres)
536
479
143
2,222
792
1,381
42
407
72
105
397
743
1,365
Elevation
(ft)
4,000
4,000
4,600
3,200
3,900
3,400
4,600
3,800
4,500
4,600
3,600
3,500
3,500
Dry Year Scenario
Total
Runoff2
(AF)'
45
104
8
352
73
207
8
64
14
17
50
93
307
ET3
(API
590
463
161
2,278
864
1,427
42
417
71
108
420
786
1,308
Notes: 1 . AF is annual flow in acre-feet.
2. Total Runoff includes surface water runoff and baseflow.
used to compute average annual ground water recharge.
3. ET is evapotranspiration.
Dry Year Scenario precipitation = 14.2 inches/year, Average Year
Source: Hydro-Geo, 1996a. Analysis of Stream Depletions Resulting From
Total
Precip.
(AF)
634
567
169
2,629
937
1,634
50
482
85
124
470
879
1,615
Average Year Scenario
Total
Runoff2
(AF)1
63
172
23
593
139
391
13
136
23
56
89
167
501
ET3
(AF)
831
627
216
3,111
1,181
1,910
57
543
97
119
572
1,071
1,775
Total
Precip.
(AF)
893
798
238
3,703
1,320
2,302
70
678
120
175
662
1,238
2,275
Wet Year Scenario
Total
Runoff2
(AF)1
94
271
50
1,055
211
760
23
285
43
139
172
341
796
ET3
-------
Page 3-4-6
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
TABLE 3.6.5, WATER QUALITY MONITORING HISTORY
Sampling Site
Period of Record
Monthly Analyses Performed1
Field Parameters2
Monitoring Wells
MW-1
MW-2
MW-3
MW-4
MW-5
MW-6
MW-7
MW-8
MW-9
May 1 992 - Present
May 1 992 - Present
May 1 992 - Present
May 1992 - Present
May 1992 - Present
May 1992 - Present
May 1992 - Present
June 1992 - Present
June 1992 - Present
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
Laboratory Parameters3
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
Surface Water Stations4
SW-1
SW-2
SW-3
SW-4
SW-5
SW-6
SW-7
SW-8
SW-9
SW-10
SW-11
SW-1 2
SW-1 3
SW-1 4
October 1 990 - Present
October 1 990 - Present
October 1990- May 1992
May 1991 - Present
May 1991 - Present
April 1992 - Present
February 1 992 - Present
February 1992 - Present
June 1992 - Present
June 1992 - Present
June 1992 - Present
June 1992 - Present
June 1992 - Present
June 1992 - Present
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
Mine Adits4
GW-26-6
GW-36
GW-48
GW-57
February 1992 - Present
May 1992 - Present
June 1992 - Present
May 1 993 - Present
V
V
V
V
V
V
Flowing Well
GW-1
August 1991 - Present | V
Notes: 1. Beginning in June 1995, the monitoring frequency was changed from monthly to semi-annually. Semi-
annual analyses are currently performed in June and October.
2. Field parameters include pH, temperature, specific conductivity, dissolved oxygen, and ferrous iron.
3. Laboratory parameters are listed in Table 3,6.6, Water Quality Analytical Methods and Standards.
4. During the winter months, surface water stations and mine adits were periodically not sampled due to
either poor site access, no flow observed, or ice cover.
5. From February 1992 to October 1992, field parameters were analyzed at GW-2. Beginning in November
1992, both field and laboratory parameters were monitored.
6. Field and Laboratory parameters were analyzed at GW-2, GW-3, and GW-4 as part of the June 1992
Spring and Seep Survey.
7. Field and laboratory parameters were analyzed at GW-3 and GW-5 during Spring and Seep Surveys in
1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995.
A listing of the surface water quality
parameters, including methods of laboratory
analysis, is provided in Table 3.6.6, Water
Quality Analytical Methods and Standards.
Methods used to conduct field analyses and
to sample the surface waters are described in
the draft report Baseline Hydrologic Water
Monitoring Plan (ACZ Inc., 1993).
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
I
I
i
I
o
TABLE 3.6.6, WATER QUALITY ANALYTICAL METHODS AND STANDARDS
Parameter
Laboratory
Method
Detection
Limit1
(in mg/l
unless noted)
Washington
Fresh Water
Acute
Criteria*
(in mg/l)
Washington
Freeh Water
Chronic
Criteria*
(in mg/l)
Washington
Primary
Ground Water
Criteria*
(in mg/l)
Washington
Secondary
Qround Water
Criteria*
(hi mo/1)
Class AA
Surface Water
Criteria*
(as noted)
GENERAL AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Specific Conductance
Hardness, Total
pH
Silica7
Sodium Absorption Ratio (SAR)
Total Dissolved Solids (IDS)7
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)7
Turbidity
EPA 120.1, Meter
EPA 200.7, ICP
EPA 150.1, Meter
EPA 200.7, ICP
USGS -11738-78
EPA 160.1, Gravimetric (180C)
EPA 160.2, Gravimetric (105C)
EPA 180.1, Noptholometric
1 (//mhos/cm)
1
0.1 (units)
0.1, 0.2
0.03
2.0, 10
2.0, 5
0.1 (NTU)
CATIONS
Calcium7
Magnesium7
Potassium7
Sodium7
EPA 200.7, ICP
EPA 200.7, ICP
EPA 200.7, ICP
EPA 200.7, ICP
1,0.2
1,0.2
1, 0.3
1, 0.3
ANIONS
Alkalinity, Total7
Bicarbonate7
Carbonate7
Chloride
Fluoride
Sulfate
Sulfide
NUTRIENTS
Nitrogen, Ammonia
Nitrogen, Nitrate/Nitrite
Nitrogen, Nitrate
Nitrogen, Nitrite
SM 2320B
SM 2320B
SM 2320B
EPA 325.2, Auto-Ferrocyanide
EPA 340.2, Ion Selective Electrode
EPA 375.3, Gravimetric
SM 427C, Meth. Blue Colometric
1,0.2
1, 0.2
1,0.2
1
0.1
2, 10
0.02
EPA 350. 1 , Auto-Phenate
EPA 353.2, Auto-CD Reduction
EPA 353.2, Auto-CD Reduction
EPA 353.2, Auto-CD Reduction
TRACE METALS/ELEMENTS2
Aluminum7
Antimony7
Arsenic
Barium7
Beryllium7
Bismuth
Boron7
Cadmium7
Chromium
EPA 200.7, ICP
EPA 204.2, GFAA
EPA 206.2, GFAA
EPA 200.7, ICP
EPA 200.7, ICP
EPA 200.7 (M).ICP
EPA 200.7, ICP
EPA 200.7, ICP
EPA 200.7, ICP
0.05
0.02
0.02
0.01
860
230
0.10'°
0.06, 0.03
0.001,0.002
0.001
0.01,0.003
0.005, 0.002
0.1
0.02, 0.01
0.005, 0.003
0.01
0.360
0.0074
3.06
0.0210
0.19O
0.0017
0.365
700 (//mhos/cm)
6.6-8.5 (units)
600
1
4
10
10
1
0.006
0.00005
2
0.004
0.006
0.1
260
260
6.5-8.5 (units)
8
NJ
i
i
ffi
I
I
-------
8
I
*
i-
TABLE 3.6.6, WATER QUALITY ANALYTICAL METHODS AND STANDARDS
Parameter
Cobalt7
Copper
Iron7
Lead
Manganese7
Mercury3
Molybdenum7
Nickel7
Selenium4
Silver7
Strontium7
Thallium
Vanadium7
Zinc
RADIONUCLIDES
Gross Alpha
Gross Beta
Radium 226 (analyzed if
Gross Alpha results >5 pCi/l)
Radium 226/228 (analyzed if Radium
226 results >3 pCi/ll
Laboratory
Method
EPA 200.7, ICP
EPA 200.7, ICP
EPA 200.7, ICP
EPA 200.7, ICP
EPA 200.7, ICP
EPA 246.1, AA-Cold Vapor
EPA 200.7, ICP
EPA 2O0.7, ICP
EPA 270.2, GFAA/SM 3500SeC.
Hydride Generation
EPA 200.7. ICP
EPA 200.7, ICP
EPA 279.2, GFAA
EPA 200.7, ICP
EPA 200.7, ICP
Detection
Limit1
(in mg/l
unless noted)
0.02, 0.01
0.01
0.02, O.O1
0.02
0.01.0.OO5
0.0001,
0.0002
0.05, 0.01
O.02, O.O1
0.001
0.01.0.0O5
0.02, 0.01
0.002
0.01,0.005
0.01
EPA 9310
EPA 9310
EPA 9315
EPA 9320
1 (pCi/l)
1, 3(pCi/l)
1 (pCi/l)
2, 3 (pCi/L)
CYANIDE AND ORQANICS
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)5
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH)5
Cyanide, Total8
Cyanide, WAD'
EPA 41 5.1
EPA 8015 (M) GC/FID
EPA 335.3, Manual Distillation
SM 4500-CNI
1
0.2
0.002, 0.01
0.002, 0.01
Washington
Fresh Water
Acute
Criteria'
(in mg/l)
0.029
0.136
0.0024
2.42
0.020
0.0071
0.1876
Washington
Fresh Water
Chronic
Criteria*
(in mg/l)
0.018
0.0053
0.000012
O.269
0.005
0.1699
0.022
Washington
Primary
Ground Water
Criteria'
(in mg/l)
0.05
0.002
O.I
0.05
0.1
0.002
Washington
Secondary
Ground Water
Criteria"
(in mg/l)
1
0.3
0.05
5
Class AA
Surface Water
Criteria"
(as noted)
15 (pCi/ll
50 (pCi/l)
3 (pCi/l)
5 (pCi/ll
0.005
Notes: 1 . Detection limits reported by ACZ Laboratories, Inc. of Steamboat Springs, Colorado and SVL of Kellog, Idaho.
2. Trace metals/elements analyzed in both filtered (dissolved) and unfiltered (total) samples.
3. Mercury detection limit increased from 0.0001 mg/l to 0.0002 mg/l in July 1993 due to a change in instrumentation.
4. In June 1 994, the method to analyze selenium was changed from EPA 270.2 to SM 3500SeC.
5. TOC and TPH only analyzed on ground water samples
6. Cyanide detection limit increased from 0.002 mg/l to 0.01 mg/l in June 1994 due to results from laboratory instrument detection limit studies.
7. Detection limit changed in November 1 994 due to results from laboratory instrument detection limit studies.
8. From WAC 1 73-201 A, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters ot the State of Washington, November 1 992. Standards for cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel,
silver, and zinc were calculated assuming a hardness of 2000 mg/l (as CaCO,). This hardness value is the approximate baseline average measured in site surface waters.
9. From WAC 173-20O, Water Quality Standards for Ground Waters of the State of Washington, October 1990. These standards have been updated to include amendments to
applicable federal and state rules, as perR. Raforth of WADOE (July 1996).
10. Standards for ammonia were calculated assuming a water temperature of 6.0°C and a pH of 8.0. The water temperature and pH values are the approximate baseline
averages measured in site surface waters.
Co
fe
09
i
Co
3!
§
i
"H
{
(o
SJ
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-49
Summary of Water Quality
Surface water quality data collected at the
Crown Jewel Project site through October
1995 are summarized in Appendix C,
Hydrologic Summary Statistics, (C-1,
Summary Statistics for Selected Baseline
Surface Water Quality Parameters). A
complete record is maintained in a surface
water quality data base. For comparative
purposes, data in this appendix have been
grouped by watersheds and basic statistics
(minimum, maximum, mean, number of
samples analyzed, and number of samples
below detection level) have been calculated.
To calculate mean values, all concentrations
reported below the detection limit were
assumed to equal one-half of the detection
limit value. This approach was used to
calculate summary statistics for the surface
water, ground water, and spring and seep
quality baseline data.
Due to similarities observed in water quality
conditions, a separate discussion of surface
water quality conditions in each watershed is
not provided in this section. Rather, an
overall summary of water quality
characteristics in the study area is presented.
Information on other water quality
characteristics for each watershed can be
found in Appendix C, Hydrologic Summary
Statistics.
All surface and ground water sampling sites
were monitored for at least a three-year
period that included water years 1993, 1994,
and 1995. Site precipitation is estimated to
have been about 138% of average for the
1 993 water year, 82% of average for the
1 994 water year, and 120% of average for
the 1995 water year. As described in
Section 3.6.4, Project Area Surface Water
Hydrology, 1993 was a high precipitation
year and 1994 a low precipitation year.
Field analyses indicate that surface waters at
the Crown Jewel Project site are alkaline and
contain measurable oxygen, with field pH
values ranging from 6.9 to 9.3 and DO
ranging from 1.5 mg/l to 13.8 mg/l. Surface
water temperatures vary seasonally, with
measurements ranging from -0.7°C (30.7°F)
in Gold Creek during the winter to 16.9°C
(62.5°F) in Nicholson Creek during the
summer. Field measurements of ferrous iron
in site surface waters were negative.
Laboratory analyses indicate that calcium and
bicarbonate are the dominant cation and
anion measured, respectively, in site surface
waters. The observed pH range and the
predominance of calcium and bicarbonate in
solution indicates that the major-ion
chemistry and the acid-base conditions of
surface waters at the Crown Jewel Project
site are due to dissolution of carbonate
minerals. The presence of bicarbonate
alkalinity in the surface water also indicates
the natural system has inherent acid buffering
capabilities. One exception is station SW-10,
located at the headwaters to Gold Creek. In
samples from this station, sulfate, rather than
bicarbonate, was the dominant anion
measured.
Station SW-10 is located downgradient of the
Lower Magnetic Adit (Station GW-3),
suggesting that discharge from the adit could
be affecting surface water quality conditions.
Comparison of water quality data from the
two stations, however, showed that the
average sulfate concentration at SW-10 is
substantially higher than at GW-3. This
would indicate an additional sulfate source
between the stations, likely originating from
the oxidation of sulfide bearing minerals in
the native soils and bedrock. Bedrock in this
area was mapped as a mineralized skarn.
The alkaline pH values measured at GW-3
(7.6 mean) and SW-10 (8.1 mean) indicate
that sulfide oxidation, if occurring, is not
resulting in acid drainage.
The highest TDS measured in site surface
waters also occurs at station SW-10, ranging
from 290 mg/l to 482 mg/l. By comparison,
TDS levels were lower at the other surface
stations (62 mg/l to 324 mg/l), including
Station SW-4, located about one mile
downgradient of SW-10 on Gold Creek. The
average TDS concentration at SW-4 (228
mg/l) is about 45% lower than at SW-10
(416 mg/l), indicating that substantial dilution
of the surface waters is occurring between
the two stations. Flows measured at SW-4
have typically been three to five times higher
than at SW-10 over the monitoring period.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-50
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
Dissolved trace metal concentrations in site
surface waters were generally at or below
analytical detection limits. Both arsenic and
strontium were frequently detected in all
drainages at levels above detection limits.
Arsenic concentrations ranged from below
detection (less than 0.001 mg/l) to 0.014
mg/l, and averaged 0.002 mg/l. Strontium
concentrations ranged from below detection
(less than 0.01 mg/l) to 0.77 mg/l and
averaged 0.3 mg/l. These metals are
commonly detected at trace levels in natural
waters as a result of the interaction with
sediments and bedrock.
Total concentrations of aluminum and iron
were noticeably higher than associated
dissolved concentrations at several of the
surface water stations. This observation is
not uncommon in the analysis of surface
waters and is attributed to the occurrence of
colloidal material and/or suspended solids in
the water column. Most colloids and
suspended solids are effectively removed
from the dissolved metal samples by
filtration.
Low nutrient levels were commonly detected
in site drainages. Ammonia concentrations
ranged from below detection (less than 0.05
mg/l) to 0.27 mg/l and averaged less than
0.05 mg/l. Nitrate plus nitrite concentrations
ranged from below detection (less than 0.02
mg/l) to 1.09 mg/l and averaged 0.1 mg/l.
Detection of ammonia, a reduced form of
nitrogen, in site streams may suggest
potential impacts from grazing activities.
Analysis of gross alpha and gross beta
activities indicates that background
radioactivity in site surface waters is
generally near detection levels. Gross alpha
activities ranged from less than 1 pico Curie
per liter (pCi/l) to 22 pCi/l and averaged 2
pCi/l. Gross beta activities ranged from less
than 1 pCi/l to 21 pCi/l and averaged less
than 3 pCi/l. With one exception, analysis of
Radium 226 in samples with gross alpha
activities greater than 5 pCi/l were at or
below the detection level of 1 pCi/l. A
radium activity of 1.4 pCi/l was measured for
station SW-2 sampled on October 11, 1993.
Total and WAD cyanide concentrations were
generally below the analytical detection limit
of 0.002 mg/l, although, periodically, these
parameters were detected at slightly above
detection levels. Total cyanide
concentrations ranged from less than 0.002
mg/l to 0.029 mg/l and averaged less than
0.002 mg/l. WAD cyanide concentrations
ranged from less than 0.002 mg/l to 0.02
mg/l and averaged less than 0.002 mg/l.
Cyanide does occur naturally in the
environment and its infrequent detection
during baseline monitoring of site surface
waters may suggest a natural source. It
should also be noted that measuring cyanide
at these relatively low concentrations is
difficult and the potential for "false" positives
exists.
Seasonal Variability in Quality. Seasonal
variability in baseline surface water quality
data can occur as a result of one or more of
the following factors:
• Increased stream flow during
precipitation events and spring
snowmelt;
• Greater ground water contribution
during low stream flow (baseflow)
conditions;
• Differences in ambient air
temperature;
• Elevated biological activity during
warmer months; and,
• Increased surface activities at sites
(grazing/logging/exploration/etc.).
To assess whether changes in streamflow
have caused seasonal variability in surface
water quality data at the Crown Jewel
Project site, a simple correlation was
performed between monthly discharges, TDS,
and total suspended solids (TSS) data.
During periods of high streamflow, TDS can
be expected to decrease due to dilution from
run-off while TSS should increase because of
increased erosion in or near the stream
channel. In contrast, under low flow
conditions, TDS levels would be higher due to
a greater ground water contribution to flow
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-51
and less dilution whereas TSS levels may
decrease as a result of reduced erosion. This
scenario would result in a positive correlation
between discharge and TSS values and a
negative correlation between discharge and
TDS values.
The correlation results indicate that increased
stream flows at the site generally are related
to decreased TDS concentrations. The
degree of correlation, as measured by
correlation coefficient values, between
stream flow and TDS, ranged from weak to
strong across the site. By contrast, the
correlation between flow and TSS was
typically poor at all of the surface water
stations monitored indicating that increased
flows are not closely related to increases in
sediment concentration. Several factors may
contribute to this observation including:
• Stable stream banks;
• Site soil and geologic conditions; and,
• Location near drainage headwaters.
Surface water temperatures demonstrated a
strong seasonal variability. As a result of
ambient air temperature differences, surface
waters typically ranged from 6°C to 17°C
cooler (11 °F to 29°F) during the winter than
the summer. A month to month comparison
of nutrient levels revealed no clear seasonal
trends.
Sediment Loading. The sediment load of a
stream is determined by the stream discharge
and sediment concentration of the water.
Sediments in stream water are comprised of
mobile bed material that occurs near the base
of the water column and suspended material
that occurs throughout the water column.
As part of baseline monitoring at the Crown
Jewel Project site, TSS was measured in
monthly surface water grab samples. TSS
provides a measure of the sediment
concentration of the streams. Observed
differences in TSS levels between drainage
basins may indicate areas where elevated
erosion is occurring.
TSS concentrations measured in site streams
ranged from less than 5 mg/l to 125 mg/l
and, on average, were about 5 mg/l. Seven
stations did exhibit slightly increased TSS
with average TSS values ranging from 6 mg/l
to 11 mg/l. Three of these stations are on
Nicholson Creek (SW-6, SW-7, and SW-9),
two on Bolster Creek (SW-3 and SW-11), one
on Gold Creek (SW-4), and one on Ethel
Creek (SW-5). As described previously,
station SW-3 was replaced in June 1992 by
stations SW-12 and SW-13.
Local increases in the sediment concentration
of streams can result from a variety of
factors including:
• Disturbances such as timber removal,
slash burning, and road construction;
• Differences in vegetation and
percentage of surface cover;
• Changes in soil types; and,
• Differences in the drainage basin
shape and slope.
Over the past 30 years, each of the drainage
basins in the Crown Jewel Project area has
been logged to some extent. Recently
(1992), shelterwood and seedtree harvest
operations were conducted in Marias Creek
near stations SW-2 and SW-8. Also, in
1993, three sales occurred in the Nicholson
and Marias Creek drainages. The most recent
logging activities were the Nicholson timber
sales harvested in 1994 and 1995.
Review of the TSS data collected during
baseline monitoring suggests that the recent
(and historic) logging activities have not
substantially increased the TSS of the site
streams. One or a combination of the other
factors may explain the minor increase in TSS
values observed at the four stations.
The highest individual TSS concentrations
were measured in April 1992, 1993, and
1995 at six sites:
• SW-3 - 88 mg/l;
• SW-4-125 mg/l;
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-52
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
• SW-9 - 52 mg/l;
• SW-11 - 52 mg/l;
• SW-12-62 mg/l; and,
• SW-14-64 mg/l.
A relatively high TSS concentration of 74
mg/l was also measured at Station SW-6
during September 1995.
The common occurrence of elevated TSS
values in April corresponds with increased
stream discharges that result from spring
snowmelt and suggests a relationship
between increased sediment concentrations
and flows. However, as described above, a
correlation performed between TSS and flow
for each of the surface water monitoring
stations indicated an overall weak correlation
exists between TSS and flow over the period
of record.
3.7 SPRINGS AND SEEPS
3.7.1 Introduction
A spring and seep survey and sampling
program was initiated in June 1992, with
follow-up sampling conducted in October
1992; June and October 1993; June and
October 1994; and, June and October 1995.
The initial location survey consisted of driving
and walking site drainages to locate springs,
seeps and flowing sections of streams. The
purpose of the program was to locate springs
and seeps that could be potentially affected
by the proposed Crown Jewel Project and to
collect water samples from the springs to
determine flow and quality characteristics
during wet and dry seasons. Figure 3.7.1,
Spring and Seep Locations, shows the
primary study area boundary and the springs
and seeps identified during the surveys.
Springs and seeps are the discharge points
where ground water pressure gradients create
water movement. The seeps and springs
occur in a variety of locations, including along
streams or lakes, low areas or depressions,
areas where permeable soils or bedrock
surface, or zones overlying impermeable
layers.
Springs and seeps are part of several
ecological functions occurring over the
landscape. Most importantly, they contribute
to the overall functions of wetlands and
riparian areas by releasing filtered and stored
ground water. Seeps and springs which are
not directly associated with streams or lakes
are the source of water which supports
isolated wetlands or riparian areas. Seeps
and springs release water slowly, increasing
the quality of water for down stream uses,
while increasing the late season stream flow,
that can be used for down stream uses.
Seeps and springs influence soil and
vegetation development. These situations
create habitat for animal and plant
communities living within the soil or on the
soil surface. The release of cool water,
especially during warmer periods, provides
relief from extreme temperatures.
Springs and seeps were classified in the field
based on flow conditions. To be classified as
a seep, a field site had to contain visible
water but generally no measurable flow or
apparent source. To be classified as a spring,
there had to be both measurable flow and a
distinct source of water. Flows determined
to be continuations of upstream, surface
waters were not classified as springs.
Intermittent sections were mapped in the
study area where surface waters appeared for
a short distance and then disappeared
underground for varying distances before
resurfacing.
3.7.2 Location and Description
The spring and seep surveys were performed
in the headwaters of five drainages:
• Nicholson Creek;
• Marias Creek;
• Gold Creek;
• Bolster Creek; and,
• Ethel Creek.
A total of 30 springs and 18 seeps were
identified. The majority of the springs and
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-53
seeps originated along or near fault zones.
Each of the springs and seeps are listed in
Table 3.7.1, Spring and Seep Investigation
Summary, and grouped by drainage basin. A
description of the spring and seep locations is
provided below, followed by a discussion of
discharge and water quality measurements.
Nicholson Creek
The Nicholson Creek drainage consists of two
primary tributaries; the South Fork and North
Fork. A total of six springs and eight seeps
were found within this combined drainage
area.
Along the South Fork, three springs (JJ-18,
JJ-20, and JJ-21) and three seeps (JJ-16,
SN-22, and SN-26) were identified. Three
springs and five seeps were identified along
the North Fork. The spring locations were
designated SN-3, SN-4, and SN-5 and the
seep locations designated SN-10, SN-15, SN-
19, SN-20, and SN-27. SN-15 is the location
of a shallow pool, known as the frog pond,
covering approximately two acres.
Marias Creek
Within this drainage, three tributaries were
investigated; the South Fork, the Middle Fork,
and the East Fork. Five springs (JJ-6, JJ-6a,
JJ-6b, JJ-7, and JJ-10) and two seeps (JJ-9
and JJ-34) were identified in the South Fork.
Five springs were also identified in the Middle
Fork (JJ-4, JJ-5, JJ-14, JJ-15 and JJ-26).
Only one spring (JJ-3) was observed in the
East Fork.
Four springs surveyed in the Marias Creek
drainage have been affected by human
activity in the area. Springs JJ-4 and JJ-5
were reportedly first observed after a site
access road was constructed. Spring JJ-14
originates from an uncased boring (92-513)
drilled in 1992 as part of the exploration
program. Attempts to plug this boring have
been unsuccessful. Finally, Spring JJ-3
occurs at the location of a flowing well,
developed for stock water.
Gold Creek
Two springs (SN-6 and SN-7) and one seep
(SN-18) were identified in the Gold Creek
drainage.
Bolster Creek
Two primary tributaries were investigated in
this drainage: south fork and north fork. Four
springs were identified in the south fork
drainage and designated SN-12, SN-14, SN-
16, and SN-17.
Ethel Creek
Three springs and three seeps were identified
along the main Ethel Creek tributary. The
springs were designated JJ-23, JJ-24, and
JJ-25. The seeps were designated JJ-22,
JJ-33, and SN-21.
Additional Springs and Seeps
Eight additional springs and seeps were
identified north and south of the Crown
Jewel Project area. North of Nicholson
Creek, within the Cedar Creek drainage, five
sites were identified and designated JJ-27
through JJ-31. Of these sites, only JJ-27
had flowing water and was classified as a
spring. A relatively large, swampy area was
observed at the site of JJ-28, but no flow
was detected at this site. The remaining
sites north of Nicholson Creek were generally
dry in October 1 992, although there was
evidence of past surface moisture. South of
Ethel Creek and west of Marias Creek, three
springs were identified in an unnamed
drainage. These springs were designated JJ-
1, JJ-2 and JJ-32. Spring JJ-32 was
determined to be out of the potential area of
hydrologic effect and was eliminated from the
sampling program.
3.7.3 Water Quantity
Flow rates from springs were measured,
where possible, using a section of 1.5-inch
PVC pipe, a calibrated 2-gallon bucket, and a
watch. The pipe was placed near the spring
origin and used to direct flow into the bucket.
The flow was calculated based on the time
required to fill the bucket. At some sites, all
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
I
1
I
-------
I
I
I
I
o
Co
sr
I
3
TABLE 3.7.1, SPRING AND SEEP INVESTIGATION SUMMARY
Site
Number
JJ-6a
JJ-6b
JJ-7
JJ-9
JJ-10
JJ-14
JJ-15
JJ-26
JJ-34
SN-6
SN-7
SN-18
SN-12
SN-14
SN-16
SN-17
JJ-22
JJ-23
JJ-24
JJ-25
JJ-33
Drainage Basin
Marias Creek
(South Fork)
Marias Creek
(South Fork)
Marias Creek
(South Fork)
Marias Creek
(South Fork)
Marias Creek
(South Fork)
Marias Creek
(Middle Fork)
Marias Creek
(Middle Fork)
Marias Creek
(Middle Fork)
Marias Creek
(South Fork)
Gold Creek
Gold Creek
Gold Creek
Bolster Creek
(South Fork)
Bolster Creek
(South Fork)
Bolster Creek
(South Fork)
Bolster Creek
(South Fork)
Ethel Creek
Ethel Creek
Ethel Creek
Ethel Creek
Ethel Creek
Classification
Spring
Spring
Spring
Seep
Spring
Spring
Spring
Spring
Seep
Spring
Spring
Seep
Spring
Spring
Spring
Spring
Seep
Spring
Spring
Spring
Seep
Estimated Discharge1
(gpm)
6/92
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
NF
<0.5
2.75
2.75
Nl
NF
3
5
NF
<0.5
1.5
Nl
Nl
NF
4
5
5
NF
10/92
NM
NM
NM
NM
0.9
3
2
2
NM
2
NM
NM
2
0.2
0.5
1
NF
0.9
5
NM
NM
6/93
NM
NM
NM
NM
2
3
2
6
NM
10
3.8
NM
NM
1.8
NM
0.6
NM
12
4
NM
NM
10/93
NM
NM
NM
NM
1.6
2.5
4
3
NM
5
NF
NM
NM
0.6
NM
1.1
NM
3
NM
NM
NM
6/94
NM
NM
NM
NM
1.5
1.5
4.0
3
NM
6
1
NM
NM
1.
0.7
2
NM
8
6
6
NM
10/94
NM
NM
NM
NM
1.25
1
4
1.5
NM
1
NF
NM
NF
0.5
1
1.5
NM
1.5
2
NF
NM
6/95
NM
NM
NM
NM
3.5
15
12
6
NM
7.5
3
NM
NF
1
2
NF
NM
6
30
4
NM
10/95
NM
NM
NM
NM
1.25
1.5
3
3
NM
3
NF
NM
NF
NF
0.5
1.5
NM
1.5
2
NF
NM
Surface
Geology
Glacial
Sediment
Glacial
Sediment
Glacial
Sediment
Glacial
Sediment
Glacial
Sediment
Glacial
Sediment
Glacial
Sediment
Glacial
Sediment
Glacial
Sediment
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Possible Conditions
of Origin
Located about 50 feet
north of JJ-6
Located about 80 feet
north of JJ-6
Inferred to be continuation
of flow from JJ-6
Occurs above inferred
bedrock fault
Occurs above inferred
bedrock fault
Near bedrock contact,
originates from uncased
drill hole
Occurs above inferred
bedrock fault
Occurs above inferred
bedrock fault
Occurs above inferred
bedrock fault
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Occurs along or near
bedrock fault
Occurs near fault and
change in bedrock
lithology
Occurs along or near
bedrock fault
Occurs along or near
bedrock fault
Occurs as a pond near
change in bedrock
lithology
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
r
jo
<0
5
O
1
fe
I
s
"8
CO
Ol
01
-------
I
I
<6
S1
I
o
•*
CO
sr
TABLE 3.7.1, SPRING AND SEEP INVESTIGATION SUMMARY
Site
Number
SN-21
JJ-27
JJ-28
JJ-29
JJ-30
JJ-31
JJ-1
JJ-2
JJ-32
Drainage Basin
Ethel Creek
Cedar Creek
Cedar Creek
Cedar Creek
Cedar Creek
Cedar Creek
Unnamed
Unnamed
Unnamed
Classification
Seep
Spring
Seep
Seep
Seep
Seep
Spring
Spring
Spring
Estimated Discharge1
(gpm)
6/92
NF
Nl
Nl
Nl
Nl
Nl
0.4
1.5
Nl
10/92
NM
2
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
NF
<0/5
6/93
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
6
8
NM
10/93
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
0.6
2.8
NM
6/94
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
3
NM
10/94
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NF
0.75
NM
6/95
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NF
6
NM
10/95
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NM
NF
1.5
NM
Surface
Geology
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Bedrock
Glacial
Sediment
Bedrock
Glacial
Sediment
Glacial
Sediment
Glacial
Sediment
Possible Conditions
of Origin
Occurs near change in
bedrock lithology
Unknown
Occurs near change in
bedrock lithology
Occurs near contact with
glacial sediment
Occurs near contact with
bedrock
Occurs near fault and
change in bedrock
lithology
Occurs above inferred
bedrock fault
Occurs near change in
bedrock lithology
Unknown
Note: 1 . NF = No flow observed or too little to measure.
NM = Flow (and water quality) not monitored.
Nl = Not identified.
i
Co
I
3
\
8
}0
tO
SJ
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-57
of the flow could not be collected and
directed through the pipe. For these springs,
a visual estimate of the total discharge was
made.
Flow measurement data are included in Table
3.7.1, Spring and Seep Investigation
Summary, and are discussed below. In
general, flows were observed to decrease
from June to October, probably as a result of
seasonal variations in precipitation and
ground water levels.
Nicholson Creek
Flows from the springs in the south fork of
Nicholson Creek ranged from a maximum of
15 gallons per minute (gpm) in June 1995 to
a minimum of 1.5 gpm in June 1994. In the
north fork of Nicholson Creek, discharges
from three springs ranged from a maximum of
15 gpm in June 1994 to no flow in October
1992, 1994, and 1995.
Marias Creek
Along the south fork of the Marias Creek
drainage, spring discharges ranged from less
than 0.5 gpm to 3.5 gpm. Generally, minor
changes in flow were observed in this area
between July and October. Flows were more
variable in the middle fork of Marias Creek,
where discharge values ranged from less than
0.5 gpm to 1 5 gpm. A substantial change in
flow was also observed in one spring (JJ-3)
along the east fork. Flow at this site has
varied from a maximum of 1 5 gpm in June
1995 to a minimum of 0.2 gpm in October
1992.
Gold Creek
Discharges from the two springs identified in
this drainage ranged from a maximum of 10
gpm in June 1993 to no flow in October
1993, 1994, and 1995.
Bolster Creek
In the south fork of Bolster Creek, discharges
from four springs were relatively low, ranging
from a maximum of 2 gpm in June 1995 to
less than 0.5 gpm in October 1992, October
1994, and June and October 1995.
Ethel Creek
Discharges from three springs identified along
Ethel Creek ranged from a maximum of 30
gpm in June 1995 to no flow in October
1994 and 1995. Spring JJ-24 exhibited the
greatest seasonal change in discharge,
decreasing from 30 gpm to 2 gpm during
1995 (spring to fall).
Additional Springs
Flows measured at two springs south of the
Ethel Creek drainage (JJ-1 and JJ-2) were
typical of the seasonal trends observed at the
other sites. Flows ranged from as high as 8
gpm in June 1993 to no flow in June 1995
and October 1992, 1994, and 1995.
A discharge of 2 gpm was measured at
spring JJ-27, located north of Nicholson
Creek, in October 1992. Spring JJ-32 was
also measured once in October 1992 and had
a visually estimated flow of less than 0.5
gpm.
3.7.4 Water Quality
Baseline water quality samples were collected
from springs and seeps in June and October
of 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995. The spring
and seep samples were analyzed for either
field water quality parameters or for both field
and laboratory water quality parameters.
Field analyses included measurement of pH,
DO, specific conductance, temperature, and
ferrous iron. Laboratory analyses were
performed at WADOE accredited laboratories.
The following laboratory water quality
parameters were measured:
• General and Physical Characteristics;
• Major Ions;
• Nutrients;
• Trace Metals/Elements;
• Radionuclides; and,
• Cyanide (Total and WAD).
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-58
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
Results of the field and laboratory analyses
are summarized below and presented in
Appendix C, Hydrologic Summary Statistics,
Table C-4, Summary Statistics for Selected
Baseline Seep and Spring Water Quality
Parameters and Table C-5, Baseline Field
Water Quality Data for Additional Seeps and
Springs.
Springs
Field analyses indicated that the springs are
slightly acidic to alkaline, with pH values
ranging from 5.6 to 9.8. All field tests for
ferrous iron were negative. Spring water
temperatures exhibited seasonal variability,
with values ranging from a high of 24.6°C
(76°F) in June to 1.6°C (35°F) in October.
Laboratory analyses indicate that calcium and
bicarbonate are the dominant cation and
anion, respectively, measured in all site
springs. TDS values averaged 190 mg/l and
ranged from 56 mg/l at SN-3 (Nicholson
Creek drainage) to 350 mg/l at SN-17
(Bolster Creek drainage).
Dissolved trace metal concentrations were
generally at or below analytical detection
limits which are shown in Table 3.6.6, Water
Quality Analytical Methods and Standards.
Arsenic, barium, iron, and strontium were;
however, frequently measured at levels above
detection limits in the springs. Arsenic
concentrations ranged from below the
detection limit (0.001 mg/l) to 0.009 mg/l
and averaged 0.002 mg/l. Barium
concentrations ranged from below the
detection limit (0.01 mg/l) to 0.03 mg/l and
averaged less than 0.01 mg/l. Iron
concentrations ranged from below the
detection limit (0.02 mg/l) to 0.22 mg/l and
averaged less than 0.02 mg/l. Strontium
concentrations ranged from 0.08 mg/l to
1.71 mg/l and averaged 0.3 mg/l. Seasonal
trends were not observed in the metal
analyses.
Low levels of nitrate plus nitrite were also
commonly detected. Nitrate plus nitrite
concentrations ranged from below the
detection level (0.02 mg/l) to 1.1 mg/l and
averaged 0.14 mg/l. Ammonia was detected
in seven springs, located across four drainage
basins and ranged from 0.05 mg/l to 0.32
mg/l. Seasonal trends were not observed in
the nutrient analyses.
Hydrogen sulfide was detected in 14 of the
30 springs sampled at concentrations ranging
from the detection level of 0.02 mg/l to 0.17
mg/l. Hydrogen sulfide was detected at
similar levels in both bedrock and glacial
wells. (See Section 3.8, Ground Water).
Cyanide concentrations in the springs were
typically below the laboratory detection level
of 0.002 mg/l. Low levels of total cyanide
were; however, detected at six springs at
concentrations ranging from 0.003 mg/l to
0.01 mg/l. WAD cyanide was detected at
two springs (JJ-1 and JJ-18) with
concentrations of 0.002 mg/l and 0.005
mg/l, respectively.
Gross alpha activities measured in the springs
ranged from below the detection level (1
pCi/l) to 22 pCi/l and averaged 3 pCi/l. Gross
beta activities ranged from below the
detection level (3 pCi/l) to 11 pCi/l and
averaged less than 3 pCi/l. Radium 226 was
analyzed in nine springs (JJ-3, JJ-6, JJ-14,
JJ-1 5, JJ-18, JJ-20, JJ-25, SN-4, and SN-5)
that exhibited gross alpha activities of 5 pCi/l
or greater. The radium 226 activities for
these springs ranged from below the
detection level (1 pCi/l) to 3.6 pCi/l. One of
these springs (JJ-14), located in the Marias
Creek basin, consistently had gross alpha
activities greater than 10 pCi/l and a recorded
radium 226 activity of 3.6 pCi/l and a radium
226/228 activity of 7.0 pCi/L. The reason
for increased radioactivity at this spring is
probably related to differences in local
mineralogy.
Seeps
Water quality samples were collected from
five seeps and analyzed for field parameters
(JJ-22, SN-10, SN-26, and SN-27) or field
and laboratory parameters (SN-15). Field
analyses indicated that pH and DO levels
were generally within the range measured in
site springs. Seep temperatures, however,
were typically higher than the springs with
values ranging from 4.3°C (40°F) to 17.2°C
(63 °F). The higher seep temperatures
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-59
measured may be the result of the stagnant
nature of waters sampled at these sites.
Laboratory analysis of samples collected at
SN-15 (the frog pond) generally showed
similar levels of trace metals, nutrients,
cyanide and radionuclides as the springs.
TDS levels were, however, relatively low
ranging from 42 mg/l to 156 mg/l. This
difference suggests that the pond may be
fed, in part, by direct precipitation.
3.7.5 Origin
Springs and seeps identified in the area
originate from either glacial sediments or from
bedrock. The extent of glacial sediments in
the study area was determined from review
of site and regional geology maps and is
shown in Figure 3.7.1, Spring and Seep
Locations. Further inspection of these maps
and available structural data suggest that the
springs and seeps originate under one of the
following conditions:
• Along or near a bedrock fault or
fracture (42% of the sites);
• At or near a change in bedrock
lithology (23% of the sites);
• At or near the contact between
glacial sediments and bedrock (8% of
the sites);
• As a result of human disturbance (6%
of the sites); or,
• Unknown (21 % of the sites).
The first three conditions may create local
discontinuities in aquifer properties that can
result in ground water being forced to the
surface. The fourth condition, as described
previously, has caused springs to form along
a recently completed section of road (JJ-4
and JJ-6), at a flowing manmade well (JJ-3),
and at a flowing uncased exploration boring
(JJ-14). Possible origins for individual springs
and seeps are included in Table 3.7.1, Spring
and Seep Investigation Summary.
3.8
GROUND WATER
3.8.1 Introduction
The description of the existing ground water
resources includes an analysis of the regional
and Crown Jewel Project area hydrogeology.
The discussion includes the flow, hydraulic,
water quantity, and water quality
characteristics of the bedrock, shallow glacial
deposits, and alluvial sediments.
3.8.2 Regional Hydrogeology
The general area surrounding the Crown
Jewel Project consists of a variety of
igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rocks
of Permian through upper Eocene age. The
regional geology is graphically illustrated on
Figure 3.8.1, Regional Geologic Map of
Northeastern Okanogan County.
Regional ground water in and around the
Crown Jewel Project area occurs in the
following hydrogeologic systems:
• Alluvial sediments;
• Glacial deposits; and,
• Bedrock.
Alluvial Sediments
Alluvial sediments, developed along major
regional drainages, are generally saturated
where the thickness of the sediments is more
than approximately ten feet. Unconsolidated
sediments along regional streams contain
alluvial sediments which are typically formed
by a mixture of clays, silts, sands, and
gravels. The alluvial sediments are recharged
by precipitation and snowmelt, by stream
flow losses, and by discharge from the
bedrock ground water system. The regional
surface and ground water system is
interdependent with ground water
contributing to stream baseflows (gaining
stream) in some areas and streams
contributing to ground water recharge (losing
streams) in other areas. Seasonal variations
in this interrelationship are common.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-60
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
Glacial Deposits
Unconsolidated glacial deposits are saturated
with ground water in many areas of the
region, particularly where the deposits are
located in valleys. The glacial deposits have
primary (intergranular) porosity and
permeability depending principally on the
gradation and clay content.
Bedrock
Ground water is present in varying degrees in
all bedrock in the region. Ground water flow
direction generally mirrors topography;
however, preferential flow occurs locally
along fracture systems in the bedrock.
Fracture systems are influenced by structural
episodes of faulting and folding which have
sheared, foliated, or lineated the bedrock.
The general trend of the faults is north-
northeast, parallel to the regional fold axes.
3.8.3 Mine Site Hydrogeology
Several phases of ground water
investigations have been completed for the
Crown Jewel Project. Ground water
investigations have been conducted on the
mine area, the tailings pond, waste rock
disposal areas and mill areas, and the general
mine site.
A total of nine monitoring wells (MW-1
through MW-9) were installed in the Crown
Jewel Project area to monitor ground water
quantity and quality. Monitoring wells MW-3,
MW-4, MW-5, MW-7, MW-8, and MW-9
were installed in glacial deposits, and the
other monitoring wells were installed in
bedrock. These wells have been monitored
monthly for water level and water quality
since May and June of 1992. Review of the
site ground water level data show seasonal
fluctuations in the water table range from
less than one to two feet to over 200 feet.
This range of fluctuation indicates a relatively
high recharge potential, and great variability
in hydraulic conductivity and storage.
Project area ground water occurs in the
following hydrogeologic systems:
• Bedrock; and,
• Glacial deposits.
Alluvium deposits within the mine site are not
a substantial hydrologic unit.
Mine Site Bedrock
The mine site consists mostly of an upper
volcanic unit and lower sedimentary units
which were intruded by a granodiorite pluton
as shown on Figure 3.3.1, Geologic Map of
the Proposed Crown Jewel Project Site. The
upper group is composed mostly of andesite
east of the North Lookout Fault, which
crosses the proposed mine area from
northeast to southwest. The lower group
consists of skarns, marble, hornfels, silicified
conglomerate, and silicified volcanoclastics.
The Crown Jewel Project orebody is present
mostly in the skarns of the lower group. The
Buckhorn Mountain granodiorite pluton
underlies the lower group. Numerous dikes
and sills associated with the pluton intrude
the strata of the lower sedimentary units.
East of the Crown Jewel Project deposit, a
structural transition zone (western edge of
the Toroda Creek Graben) separates the
Brooklyn Formation from the Toroda Creek
volcanics. The transition zone contains
andesite volcanics which have been clay
altered, and highly fractured and brecciated.
The fracturing and brecciation is well
cemented and healed with clay gouge,
calcite, and quartz. The Toroda Creek
volcanics consist primarily of andesites.
The Crown Jewel Project site bedrock has
low primary (intergranular) permeability and
porosity, and the ground water flow is
governed by fracture and joint systems
(secondary permeability and porosity). The
ground water flow within the proposed mine
area is impacted by the presence of the North
Lookout Fault (dipping 60° to 70° to the
southeast and striking northeast). A zone of
higher permeability exists along the North
Lookout Fault, and low permeability exists
perpendicular to the fault. A shear zone
developed along the fault is approximately 75
feet wide in the southwest corner of the
proposed mine and as much as 200 feet wide
near the northeast margin of the proposed
mine.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-61
The ground water flow east of the proposed
mine pit area may be impacted by the Toroda
Creek structural zone which dips
approximately 45 degrees to the southeast
striking northeast. The shear zone is
approximately 500 to 700 feet wide.
Hydrogeologic characteristics in the Crown
Jewel Project area bedrock were determined
by numerous air-lift tests in the exploration
boreholes, 78 packer permeability tests,
seven field permeability tests, a pumping test
in the proposed mine area, and 12 packer
tests and nine field permeability tests in the
Marias Creek tailings disposal area.
Locations of boreholes with hydrogeologic
information are shown on Figure 3.8.2,
Hydrogeologic Investigation Map.
Bedrock in the proposed mine area has
hydraulic conductivities ranging from
2.6X1Q-4 ft/day to 0.8 ft/day (9.0x10'8 to
2.8x10"4 cm/sec). The pumping test results
indicate a range of average hydraulic
conductivity from 0.1 ft/day to 0.75 ft/day
(3.5x10'B to 2.6 x10'4 cm/sec) (Colder,
1993b).
Testing for permeability of the bedrock in the
Marias Creek tailings disposal area indicated a
range of hydraulic conductivities from less
than 2.8x10-" ft/day to 1.4 ft/day (1x10'7 to
5.0x10"* cm/sec). The fractured and
brecciated rock associated with the structural
transition zone tested within the Marias Creek
tailings disposal area indicated no increase in
permeability over the non-fractured zones
(Knight Piesold, 1993a).
Ground water elevations ranged from the
ground surface (an active artesian discharge
from boreholes 90-303, and GB-220) to a
depth of 380.7 feet from the ground surface
in borehole 90-218.
Ground water level monitoring in the Crown
Jewel Project area bedrock was initiated in
May 1991. Monitoring of water levels in the
proposed mine area indicated that seasonal
fluctuation of the depth to ground water level
is highly variable. Fluctuation of water levels
over the period of record (1991-1995) ranged
from several feet to 228 feet. The highest
water levels were observed during spring
(April through June), and the lowest levels
were measured through winter (December
through March). The water level fluctuation
is much higher east of the North Lookout
Fault than within the fault zone and west of
the North Lookout Fault. This may be the
result of lower permeability and storage
capacity of the bedrock east of the North
Lookout Fault or the Toroda Creek Graben
Fault (Hydro-Geo, 1993).
The mine site bedrock is recharged by
infiltration of precipitation and snowmelt.
Infiltration from the local streams is minor at
the proposed mine site due to its location on
the top of the watershed. The contribution
to infiltration from the streams is more
pronounced on the lower reaches of the local
streams. The recharge to the ground water
system was estimated to range from 2.0 to
5.4 inches per year or 14.1 % (driest year) to
17% (wettest year) of annual precipitation
(Hydro-Geo, 1996b). Colder Associates
(1993b) estimated the average annual
recharge as 10% to 25% of annual
precipitation. The bedrock water bearing
strata are mostly under unconfined conditions
where bedrock outcrops, and under semi-
confined or confined conditions where the
bedrock is covered with glacial deposits. The
pumping test in the proposed mine area
indicated storage coefficient values from
1.3x10-'to 5.0x10'3 (Colder, 1993b), which
are typical for semi-confined conditions.
Discharge from bedrock is into springs, adits,
streams, and unconsolidated sediments. The
general ground water flow direction in the
mine area is toward the east with an
approximate hydraulic gradient of 0.2 ft/ft.
This is illustrated with a series of three
potentiometric surface maps developed for
the general Crown Jewel Project and
proposed tailings disposal area:
• Figure 3.8.3, Potentiometric Surface
Map, General Project Area, Annual Low
Level (February 19931;
• Figure 3.8.4, Potentiometric Surface
Map, General Project Area, Annual High
Level (May 19931; and,
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-62
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
• Figure 3.8.5, Potentiometric Surface
Map, Proposed Tailings Disposal Area
(October/November 1995).
Note that with the exception of some
differences in the mine area; (attributed to
recharge conditions), the direction of ground
water flow changes little from low to high
levels. On a smaller scale, ground water flow
in the bedrock is likely affected by the series
of northeast trending faults and also by the
presence of abandoned mine adits penetrating
up to 850 feet into the Buckhorn Mountain.
Mine Site Glacial Deposits
In the area of the proposed tailings facility in
Marias Creek, two distinctive glacial deposits
were encountered during drilling. An upper
deposit consists of loose glacial material,
ranging in thickness from 10 feet to 30 feet.
The lower deposit is a dense well graded
glacial material. Glacial deposits with a
thickness of more than 119 feet were
encountered in monitoring well MW-3.
Packer permeability testing of the loose and
dense glacial deposit horizons indicated
values of hydraulic conductivity from less
than 2.8x103 ft/day to 2.8 ft/day (1.0x10'6
to 9.9x10"4 cm/sec), respectively (Knight
Piesold, 1993a). The ground water in the
loose glacial material is seasonally present
and is perched in nature. In general, the
ground water in the dense glacial material is
unconfined; however, artesian conditions
(confined) exist locally where low
permeability strata overlies more permeable
saturated zones. The dense glacial material
forms the upper aquitard above the semi-
confined contact zone between the glacial
deposits and bedrock. Seasonal perched
conditions occur in the dense glacial
material/bedrock contact zone. The glacial
material/bedrock contact has typically higher
permeability than the overlying glacial
material and underlying bedrock. Packer
permeability tests from this zone indicated
hydraulic conductivity values ranging from
less than 1.4x10'3 ft/day to 2.0 ft/day
(5.0x10'7 to 7.0x10-" cm/sec) (Colder,
1996e).
Additional geotechnical and hydrogeological
investigation for the proposed tailings
disposal facility in the Marias Creek drainage
was completed by Colder Associates, Inc. in
the fall of 1995 (Colder, 1996a). The results
of hydrogeological investigations, based on
drilling of boreholes, installation of
piezometers, and excavation of test pits,
indicated that the tailings disposal site is
covered with glacial lodgement material
which acts as an aquitard and perches
ground water above the glacial material. The
major water bearing strata is formed by the
advanced outwash sediments (located below
the low permeable glacial material) and the
fractured bedrock. However, an
interconnection between shallow water
bearing strata in alluvial/colluvial sediments
and the outwash/bedrock water bearing
strata is possible due to the depositional
characteristics of the lodgment glacial
material. The potentiometric surface for the
proposed tailings disposal area is presented
as Figure 3.8.5, Potentiometric Surface Map,
Proposed Tailings Disposal Area
(October/November 1995).
The glacial deposits are recharged by
precipitation, snowmelt, direct infiltration
from the local streams and inflow of bedrock
ground water. The relationship between
ground water systems in the bedrock and
glacial deposits is illustrated on hydrogeologic
cross sections in Figure 3.8.6, Hydrologic
Cross-Section A-A', Figure 3.8.7, Hydrologic
Cross-Section B-B', and Figure 3.8.8,
Hydrologic Cross-Section C-C'. As described
above, ground water flow generally follows
the local topography. Ground water in the
glacial deposits discharges into springs and
seeps and into the surface water streams in
the lower reaches of the local drainages.
3.8.4 Ground Water Quality
Baseline ground water quality samples have
been collected from monitoring wells MW-1
through MW-9 since May and June of 1992.
Ground water quality samples have also been
collected from an existing flowing well (GW-
1) since October 1990, and from five historic
mine workings:
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-63
• Roosevelt Adit (GW-2);
• Upper Magnetic Adit;
• Lower Magnetic Adit (GW-3);
• Buckhorn Adit (GW-4); and,
• Gold Axe Adit (GW-5).
The ground water stations have been
sampled monthly for either field water quality
analyses or for both field and laboratory
water quality analyses. Beginning in June
1995, the ground water stations have been
sampled on a semi-annual basis. A summary
of the ground water quality monitoring
history at the site is provided in Table 3.6.5,
Water Quality Monitoring History.
Field analyses of the ground water samples
are conducted by the Proponent's personnel
and include measurement of DO, pH, specific
conductivity, temperature, and ferrous iron.
Laboratory analyses of these samples are
performed in WADOE accredited laboratories.
The following laboratory water quality
parameters are measured:
• General and Physical Characteristics;
• Major Ions;
• Nutrients;
• Trace Metals/Elements;
• Radionuclides;
• Cyanide (Total and WAD);
• Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH);
and,
• Total Organic Carbon (TOO.
At the request of WADOE, TPH and TOC
were added to the monitoring program and
only analyzed in the well samples. A listing
of the ground water quality parameters,
including methods of laboratory analysis, is
provided in Table 3.6.6, Water Quality
Analytical Methods and Standards.
Ground water quality data collected at the
site through October 1995 are summarized in
Appendix C, Hydrologic Summary Statistics
(Table C-3 Summary Statistics for Selected
Baseline Ground Water Quality Parameters -
Monitoring Wells). The complete record is
maintained in a water quality data base.
Bedrock Wells
Three of the nine monitoring wells are
completed in bedrock. A listing of the wells
and associated bedrock units are provided
below:
• MW-1 - Andesite and/or basalt
• MW-2 - Clastics and granodiorite
• MW-6 - Undifferentiated skarn, garnet
skarn, and diorite
Field analyses indicate that ground waters
sampled from the bedrock wells are near
neutral to moderately alkaline, with values
ranging from pH 6.2 to 9.2. Ground water
temperatures in these wells ranged from
4.0°C (39°F) to 7.9°C (46°F) and averaged
5.8°C (42°F). DO levels ranged from 3.1
mg/l to 12.3 mg/l, although these
measurements may have been affected
somewhat by entrainment of air in the
samples during collection. Field tests for
ferrous iron were negative.
Laboratory analyses indicated that, with the
exception of bedrock well MW-1, calcium and
bicarbonate were the dominant cation and
anion, respectively, measured in all site wells,
including the glacial wells. Sodium (rather
than calcium) was the dominant cation
measured in MW-1. The source of sodium in
this well may be related to the geologic
material (andesite and/or basalt) encountered
during well drilling. None of the other
monitoring wells at the site are completed in
andesite.
TDS levels in the bedrock wells ranged from
92 mg/l to 250 mg/l and averaged 152 mg/l.
By comparison, the average TDS
concentration measured in the glacial wells
was 190 mg/l; TDS concentrations in site
surface waters averaged 235 mg/l. The
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-64
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
similar IDS levels measured in ground waters
and surface waters at the Crown Jewel
Project site suggest a close interrelationship
exists between these two hydrologic systems
as well as between the bedrock and glacial
aquifers. This observation will be discussed
further in Section 3.8.7, Relation of Ground
Water and Surface Water Systems.
In general, dissolved trace metal
concentrations in the bedrock wells were at
or below analytical detection limits. Three
trace metals (arsenic, barium, and strontium)
were, however, commonly detected at levels
above detection levels. Dissolved arsenic
concentrations ranged from less than 0.001
mg/l to 0.011 mg/l and averaged 0.004 mg/l.
Dissolved barium concentrations ranged from
less than 0.01 mg/l to 0.03 mg/l and
averaged 0.01 mg/l. Dissolved strontium
concentrations ranged from 0.09 mg/l to
0.80 mg/l and averaged 0.30 mg/l.
Total trace metal concentrations were
typically higher than associated dissolved
values in both the bedrock and glacial deposit
wells.
Nutrient levels in the bedrock wells were low.
Ammonia concentrations ranged from less
than 0.05 mg/l to 0.12 mg/l and averaged
less than 0.05 mg/l. Nitrate plus nitrite
concentrations ranged from less than 0.02
mg/l to 3.5 mg/l and averaged 0.94 mg/l.
Concentrations of total organic carbon (TOO
ranged from less than 1 mg/l to 53 mg/l and
averaged 3 mg/l. Although TOC is not a
direct measure of nutrients, it is often
associated with elevated nutrient levels, as
would be found in waters impacted by
organic matter. Analyses of ground waters
for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) were
negative, both in the bedrock and glacial
deposit wells.
Hydrogen sulfide was detected in the bedrock
wells at concentrations ranging from less
than 0.02 mg/l to 0.30 mg/l and averaging
0.03 mg/l.
Total and WAD cyanide concentrations in site
ground water were typically below the
detection level of 0.002 mg/l. Cyanide was
occasionally detected in both the bedrock and
glacial deposit wells, with total
concentrations ranging from < 0.002 mg/l to
0.03 mg/l and WAD concentrations ranging
from < 0.002 mg/l to 0.04 mg/l. As
discussed in Section 3.6, Surface Water,
cyanide does occur naturally in the
environment, and its infrequent detection
during baseline monitoring of site ground
water may suggest a natural source. It
should also be noted that measuring cyanide
at these relatively low concentrations is
difficult and the potential for "false" positives
exists.
Analysis of gross alpha and gross beta
activities indicates that the background
radioactivity of site bedrock ground waters is
near detection levels. Gross alpha activities
in the bedrock well samples ranged from less
than 1 pCi/l up to 19 pCi/l and averaged 3
pCi/l. Gross beta activities for these bedrock
well samples ranged from less than 3 pCi/l to
22 pCi/l and averaged less than 3 pCi/l.
Glacial Deposit Wells
In general, water quality data from the
bedrock wells and glacial deposit wells (MW-
3, MW-4, MW-5, MW-7, MW-8 and MW-9)
were similar. Field analyses indicated that
ground water in the glacial deposits was also
near neutral to slightly alkaline with pH
values ranging from 6.0 to 8.3. Ground
water temperatures in the glacial deposit
wells were slightly higher than the bedrock
wells, ranging from 3.1 °C (38°F) to 8.5°C
(47°F) and averaging 6.2°C (43°F). DO
concentrations ranged from 2.3 mg/l to 13.3
mg/l and may have been somewhat affected,
as indicated above, by entrainment of air in
the samples during collection. Field tests for
ferrous iron were also negative.
Laboratory analyses indicated that calcium
and bicarbonate were the dominant cation
and anion, respectively, measured in all
ground water samples from the glacial
deposit wells. TDS levels ranged from 76
mg/l to 344 mg/l and averaged 190 mg/l.
The same trace metals were typically
detected at levels above detection limits in
the glacial deposit and bedrock wells, except
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-65
for iron and manganese which were below
detection levels in the bedrock wells. The
occurrence of iron and manganese in the
glacial deposit wells may be unique to this
glacial material.
Arsenic concentrations in the glacial deposit
wells ranged from less than 0.001 mg/l to
0.44 mg/l and averaged 0.006 mg/l. Barium
concentrations ranged from less than 0.01
mg/l to 0.04 mg/l and averaged 0.01 mg/l.
Iron concentrations ranged from less than
0.02 mg/l to 0.20 mg/l and averaged 0.02
mg/l. Manganese concentrations ranged from
less than 0.01 mg/l to 0.70 mg/l and
averaged 0.07 mg/l. Strontium
concentrations ranged from 0.13 mg/l to
0.54 mg/l and averaged approximately 0.29
mg/l.
Nutrient levels in the glacial deposit wells
were also low. Ammonia concentrations
ranged from less than 0.05 mg/l to 0.49 mg/l
and averaged 0.06 mg/l, and nitrate plus
nitrite concentrations ranged from less than
0.02 mg/l to 1.53 mg/l and averaged 0.15
mg/l. In general, nitrate plus nitrite
concentrations in the bedrock wells and adits
were higher than the glacial deposit wells,
ranging from less than 0.02 mg/l to 3.5 mg/l
and averaging 0.94 mg/l. TOC
concentrations in the glacial deposit wells
ranged from less than 1 mg/l to 77 mg/l and
on average were the same as the bedrock
wells (3 mg/l). Analyses of the glacial
deposit wells for TPH were negative.
As with the bedrock wells, hydrogen sulfide
was detected in the glacial deposit wells.
Sulfide concentrations ranged from less than
0.02 mg/l up to 0.8 mg/l and averaged
approximately 0.06 mg/l.
Background radioactivity of ground water in
the glacial deposits was similar to that
observed in the bedrock. Gross alpha
activities measured in the glacial deposit
wells ranged from less than 1 pCi/l to 17.4
pCi/l and averaged 4 pCi/l. Gross beta
activities in these wells ranged from less than
3 pCi/l to 33 pCi/l and averaged 3 pCi/l.
Radium 226 was measured in both the
bedrock and glacial deposit wells when gross
alpha activities exceeded 5 pCi/l. Radium
activities in the ground water samples ranged
from less than the detection limit (1 pCi/l) to
8.6 pCi/l and averaged less than 1 pCi/l.
Radium activities were above the detection
limit one or more times in all wells except
MW-2, MW-3, and MW-9.
3.8.5 Seasonal Trends In Ground Water
Quality
Review of water quality data from the
bedrock and glacial deposit wells suggest
that seasonal trends in ground water quality
do occur at the Crown Jewel Project site.
TDS levels typically decrease during the
spring months and increase to maximum
values in early to late fall. Differences
between spring and fall TDS concentrations
range from 64 mg/l (MW-1) to greater than
100 mg/l (MW-8 and MW-9). These
differences are attributed to recharge of site
aquifers during the spring by snowmelt
waters, which are presumed to be low in
dissolved solids. Ground water temperatures
were found to be lowest in late fall and early
winter and highest in the summer. Seasonal
temperature variations ranged from 1.8°C to
5.3°C (35°F to 42°F). There appeared to be
little or no seasonal variability in the levels of
nutrients, trace metals, or radionuclides in
site ground waters.
3.8.6 Influence of Past Mining on
Ground Water
The Buckhorn Mountain area of the Myers
Creek mining district has been prospected
and mined for gold, silver, copper, and iron
for the last 100 years, as described in
Section 3.19, Land Use.
Four of the eight historic mine workings in
the vicinity of Buckhorn Mountain
encountered ground water. Table 3.8.1,
Summary of Historic Mine Workings, lists the
mine workings and their characteristics. The
locations of the mine workings are shown on
Figure 3.8.9, Location of Regional Ground
Water Monitoring Sites.
Discharge from the historic mine workings
has been monitored since June 1992. The
most substantial discharge, ranging from 5.6
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-66
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
TABLE 3.8.1, SUMMARY OF HISTORIC MINE WORKINGS
Name of Mine
or Prospect
Aztec
Buckhorn
Caribou
Gold Axe
Magnetic4
Rainbow
Roosevelt5
Western Star
Portal Location
NE'A, NW'/4
Section 24
T40N, R30E
NW'/4, NW%
Section 24
T40N, R30E
SW'/4, SW/4
Section 13
T40N, R30E
SE'/4, SW'/4
Section 24
T40N, R30E
N'/4, NV4
Section 24
T40N, R30E
SW1/4, SW'/4
Section 13
T40N, R30E
NW'/4, NE'A
Section 25
T40N, R30E
NW'A, NW'/4
Section 24
T40N, R30E
Approximate
Portal Elevation
(feet)
5,250
5,160
4,700 - 4,800
5,280
4,800 - 5,200
5,000
4,450 - 4,750
5,350
Approximate
Length of Drift
(feet)
80
990
90
200
485
100
460
750
NA
Direction of
Main Drift
S 20° E
S 62° E
South
N 34° W
SE
S 30° W
S 65° E
S 25° E
S 80° W
NA
Water
Discharge
(gpm)
Dry1
1.9 to 62
"
Less than 1 2'3
Less than 1 2'3
Less than 12'3
Dry1
Dry1
5. 6 to 1212
Notes: 1. Water discharge as measured on November 12, 1992.
2. Flow monitoring history presented in Table 3.6.3, Flow Monitoring History.
3. No measurable surface discharge, but standing water and for the Upper and Lower
Magnetic adits, visible seepage.
4. Three open pits and two adits.
5. Two adits at different elevations, discharge from the lower adit.
gpm (March 3, 1993) to 121 gpm (June 2,
1993), has been measured from the lower
Roosevelt adit. The discharge from the
Buckhorn adit ranged from 1.9 gpm to 6
gpm. Two of the other abandoned mine
adits. Gold Axe and Magnetic, have small
seasonally variable discharge and standing
water at the entrances to the adits. The
standing water observed in the Gold Axe Adit
is believed to have originated from ceiling
seepage that subsequently pooled along the
base of the adit for an unknown period of
time.
Although the total discharge from the
Roosevelt adit is relatively small, the
continuous discharge over a period of at least
80 years (Roosevelt Mine was first mined
between 1902 and 1911) has impacted the
natural (pre-mining) ground water system.
As part of baseline monitoring for the Crown
Jewel Project, water quality samples have
been collected and analyzed from five of the
historic mine workings:
• Buckhorn adit;
• Gold Axe adit;
• Lower Magnetic adit;
• Upper Magnetic adit; and,
• Roosevelt adit.
Water quality data for these adits are
discussed below and are summarized in
Appendix C, Hydrologic Summary Statistics,
(Table C-2, Summary Statistics for Selected
Baseline Ground Water Quality Parameters -
Historic Mine Workings). The adit data are
considered particularly useful in evaluating
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-67
long-term water quality impacts at the
proposed Crown Jewel Project.
Samples of water discharged from the
Buckhorn, Lower Magnetic, and Roosevelt
adits were found to have a similar quality as
samples taken from site monitoring wells.
The following generalizations are made
regarding the water quality conditions in
these adits:
• WAD and total cyanide
concentrations were at or below the
detection level of 0.002 mg/l in all
samples tested.
• Calcium and bicarbonate were the
dominant anion and cation, respectively.
• The total dissolved solids content
averaged 228 mg/l and ranged from 156
mg/l to 400 mg/l.
• Nitrate plus nitrite concentrations
averaged 0.5 mg/l and ranged from 0.26
mg/l to 0.77 mg/l. Ammonia
concentrations averaged less than 0.05
mg/l and ranged from less than 0.05 mg/l
to 0.16 mg/l.
• Dissolved trace metal concentrations
were generally below detection level with
the exception of arsenic and strontium.
• Arsenic concentrations ranged from less
than 0.001 mg/l to 0.004 mg/l for the
Lower Magnetic and Roosevelt adits to
0.024 mg/l for the Buckhorn adit.
• Strontium concentrations averaged 0.16
mg/l and ranged from 0.08 mg/l to 0.22
mg/l.
• Gross alpha activities averaged 2 pCi/l
and ranged from less than 1 pCi/l to 14
pCi/l. Gross beta activities averaged less
than 3 pCi/l and ranged from less than 3
pCi/l to 8 pCi/l.
• WAD and total cyanide concentrations
were at or below the detection level of
0.002 mg/l in all samples tested.
Water ponded in the Upper Magnetic and
Gold Axe adits was found to be chemically
distinct from the wells and other adits
sampled and characterized by:
• Generally lower field pH values, 6.3
in the Gold Axe adit and 7.4 in the
Upper Magnetic adit;
• Relatively high TDS levels with an
average mean value of 545 mg/l;
and,
• High sulfate concentrations relative to
alkalinity.
Waters analyzed from the Upper Magnetic
adit also contained low to moderate levels of
dissolved iron (less than 0.02 mg/l to 0.56
mg/l), manganese (less than 0.01 mg/l to
0.27 mg/l), copper (less than 0.01 mg/l to
0.1 mg/l) and zinc (less than 0.01 mg/l to
0.05 mg/l). Concentrations of others
dissolved metals in this adit were typically at
or below detection levels.
The Gold Axe adit merits specific mention
because of the lower pH values measured in
the standing water at the entrance to this
abandoned adit. Water samples collected
from the Gold Axe adit revealed low to
moderate levels of several dissolved trace
metals including aluminum (0.10 mg/l to 0.19
mg/l), cadmium (0.006 mg/l), cobalt (0.50
mg/l), copper (0.51 mg/l to 1.18 mg/l), iron
(less than 0.02 mg/l to 0.1 mg/l), manganese
(0.82 mg/l to 1.06 mg/l), nickel (0.25 mg/l),
selenium (0.002 mg/l) and zinc (0.26 mg/l to
0.49 mg/l). Field analyses suggest that
water quality conditions in this adit vary
seasonally. During spring runoff, seepage of
alkaline waters into the adit appears to result
in higher pH values and lower dissolved
solids. When the seepage decreases, the pH
of the adit waters declines and TDS rises.
Water collected at the entrance of the Gold
Axe and Upper Magnetic Mine adits does not
flow freely at the surface and remains in
contact with waste rock and ore material
exposed in the adits and assorted debris from
prior mining activities including old
underground mine car rails. One or more of
these conditions may affect the water quality
conditions observed.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-68
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
The quality of water in each of the adits is
affected to some degree by the rock materials
exposed along the adit floor and walls.
Review of mining reports and data provided
by the Proponent shows that the adits were
driven into several materials:
• Buckhorn adit - mostly limestone and
marble with a garnet skarn zone and
altered elastics near the back of the
adit;
• Gold Axe adit - ore-grade skarns
formed from the alteration of
andesites;
• Upper and Lower Magnetic adits -
primarily magnetite skarn with some
garnet skarn; and,
• Roosevelt adit - intrusives, skarns,
and altered elastics.
The historic mine adits appear to be driven
across two or more rock types. This makes it
difficult to directly compare the adit water
quality data to the geochemical properties of
an individual waste rock or ore group. The
water quality data does suggest that
materials historically mined at Crown Jewel
Project are well buffered and not strongly
acid generating. However, as evidenced by
elevated sulfate and metal concentrations in
the Gold Axe and Upper Magnetic adits,
some sulfide oxidation is occurring locally.
Analysis of a skarn ore sample from the Gold
Axe adit confirmed that the material was
potentially acid generating with a net acid
production potential of + 55 TCaC03/KT and
ratio of ANP to AGP of 0.1:1. Humidity cell
testing also confirmed that two rock types
likely exposed in the Upper Magnetic Mine
and Gold Axe adits (magnetite skarn and the
subgroup of the unaltered andesite) exhibit a
marginal to strong tendency to generate acid
and leach metals. Water quality analyses of
the humidity cell leachates show similar trace
metals signatures as the water samples
collected from the two adits. For example,
manganese, and zinc were detected both in
water samples from the Upper Magnetic adit
and in humidity cell leachates from a
magnetite skarn sample found to be
marginally acid generating. Similarly, five
trace metals (copper, iron, manganese,
nickel, and zinc) detected in water from the
Gold Axe adit were also detected in humidity
cell leachates from two andesite samples
determined to be strongly acid generating.
The water quality conditions observed in the
Upper Magnetic and Gold Axe adits should
not, however, be considered representative of
the overall conditions expected to occur in
the proposed final pit or waste rock dumps.
The waste rock types, determined through
humidity cell geochemical testing to have a
marginal to strong potential to generate acid
and leach metals, are estimated to make up
less than 15% of the waste rock volume
generated in Alternatives B, E, F, and G (see
Section 3.3.3, Geochemistry).
3.8.7 Relation of Ground Water and
Surface Water Systems
The Crown Jewel Project site is located near
the peak of Buckhorn Mountain and at the
headwaters of five drainage basins. As a
result of its location, the ground water
system at the site is generally shallow and
most of the recharge occurs locally. The site
baseline data confirms that the ground water
and surface water systems are closely
related.
Stream flows at the Crown Jewel Project site
increase during the spring months in response
to snowmelt. During the same time, a
substantial rise in ground water levels is also
observed in wells and piezometers. It is
common in hydrologic systems for a lag to
exist between peak surface water flows and
peak ground water levels. Typically, ground
water levels are found to rise and peak
several weeks to months after peak surface
water flows. The length of the lag period is
determined by the time required for surface
infiltration to reach and recharge the ground
water system.
At the Crown Jewel Project site, little or no
lag was observed between increased surface
water flows and increased ground water
levels suggesting the close interaction of the
systems. Figure 3.8.10, Comparison of
Ground Water Levels and Surface Water
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-69
Flows in the Proposed Mine Area, shows
hydrographs developed for a surface water
station (SW-9) and bedrock piezometer (90-
272) located along Gold Bowl drainage. Note
that peak surface water flows and ground
water levels occur at approximately the same
time.
A similar trend was observed downgradient
of Gold Bowl drainage at the headwaters of
the south fork of the Nicholson Creek
drainage. As shown in Figure 3.8.11,
Comparison of Ground Water Levels and
Surface Water Flows Near Nicholson Creek
Headwaters, changes in ground water levels
in a glacial sediment well (MW-7) also
correspond closely to changes in flow at a
nearby surface station (SW-7).
Due to the shallow, dynamic nature of the
hydrologic systems at the Crown Jewel
Project site, the quality of site ground waters
and surface waters is also similar.
To compare the surface water and ground
water quality at the site, baseline data were
plotted on a trilinear diagram. Waters of
similar composition and origin will have a
similar chemical signature and plot near the
same position on the diagram. Figure 3.8.12,
Trilinear Diagram for Crown Jewel Site
Waters, shows the composition of water
quality samples collected from site monitoring
wells, surface water stations, springs and
seeps, and mine adits. Review of the figure
confirms the general similarity in water
quality at the site. Calcium and bicarbonate
are typically the dominant cation and anion
measured in all samples collected.
Differences in quality were observed at the
following sampling sites:
• Gold Axe and Upper Magnetic adits;
• Surface water stations SW-4 and
SW-10; and,
• Ground water monitoring well MW-1.
As previously described, waters sampled
from the abandoned Gold Axe and Upper
Magnetic adits are more sulfate-rich than
typically observed at the Crown Jewel Project
site. This is likely the result of the oxidation
of sulfide minerals exposed in the floor and
walls of the adits. Surface water station SW-
10 is located directly downgradient of the
Upper Magnetic Adit and has a similar water
quality, probably a result of oxidation of
sulfides in the local bedrock. SW-4 is located
downgradient of SW-10 and exhibits an
intermediate sulfate content, suggesting
mixing with surface waters not affected by
sulfide oxidation. Ground water sampled
from well MW-1 is rich in sodium (rather than
calcium) and may be affected by local
reaction with the andesite bedrock material in
which the well is completed.
The review of site water quality data
indicates that surface waters and ground
waters also have similar trace metal
concentrations, radionuclide activities, total
dissolved solids, and pH values. This further
substantiates the close interaction between
the surface and ground water hydrologic
systems at the Crown Jewel Project site.
3.9
WATER SUPPLY RESOURCES
3.9.1 Introduction
Individuals living near the Crown Jewel
Project site obtain their water through private
ground or surface water sources. Water in
the area has historically been used for
domestic, irrigation, and stock water
purposes. Water rights in Washington are
obtained through and managed by the
WADOE. There are over 200 Washington
State issued certificates of water right in the
Myers and Toroda watersheds, including 80
adjudicated certificates. The Washington
State adjudication of Myers Creek water
rights (Decree # 7723 Okanogan County)
included Canadian water users along Myers
Creek. In addition to these rights, there are
over 350 claims from both watersheds that
have not been adjudicated. Canadian
authorities have also issued water licenses on
Myers Creek since the adjudication in 1933.
The Colville Confederated Tribes have
interests in water quantity and quality based
on two federal claims. By agreement on May
9, 1891 the Tribe ceded the north half of the
Colville Indian Reservation (established in
1872). In Antoine v.s. Washington, 420 U.S.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-70
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
194 (1975} the court ruled that the 1891
agreement had reserved hunting and fishing
rights for the Tribe within the ceded area.
The Tribe has an additional interest to the
extent that water resources in the subject
area, including Toroda and Myers Creeks,
may be necessary to satisfy the Tribe's
federally reserved water rights. The Tribe's
federally reserved water rights have not been
quantified at this time.
3.9.2 Ground Water
Ground water at the proposed Crown Jewel
Project site is limited because of the physical
location near the top of Buckhorn Mountain
and the low permeability of the bedrock.
Pump testing of a well for ground water
characterization near the proposed mine
indicated that ground water wells could
produce about 20 gallons per minute (Colder,
1993b).
There are a number of productive wells in the
Myers Creek basin that utilize ground water
for irrigation. Ground water in Myers Creek is
found in alluvial fans, in alluvial deposits of
the Myers Creek floodplain, and in glacial
deposits that underlie the alluvial deposits.
Pump testing of an existing irrigation well in
the Bolster Creek alluvial fan on the Lost
Creek Ranch, near the confluence of Bolster
and Myers Creek, indicated a well yield in the
range of 200 gpm to 500 gpm (Colder,
1994b).
Investigations of the glacial fluvial deposits
along Myers Creek near the Canadian border
indicated that the ground water potential was
limited in this area since the deposits are
present as isolated lenses surrounded by low
permeability glacial material (Colder, 1992b).
3.9.3 Surface Water
Myers Creek and Toroda Creek are the two
main drainages in the area adjacent to the
proposed Crown Jewel Project site. Myers
Creek is located west of the Project site.
Toroda Creek is located southeast of the
Project site. Figure 3.6.1, Regional Stream
Network and Figure 3.6.4, Site Stream
Network, show the relative locations of
streams in the region.
Myers Creek
Myers Creek has historically been a water
source for irrigation, domestic use and stock
water since the late 1800's. The Myers
Creek drainage basin has an area of
approximately 89 square miles at its
confluence with the Kettle River in Canada.
The elevation ranges from 7,258 feet at Mt.
Bonaparte to 1,900 feet at its confluence
with the Kettle River in Canada. Stream flow
in Myers Creek was monitored at the
international border by Environment Canada
(station number 08NN010) from 1923
through 1950 and 1968 through 1977 during
the irrigation season. The drainage area of
Myers Creek at this station is approximately
80 square miles; 77 square miles within the
U.S. and three square miles in Canada.
Stream flow is highest during the spring
runoff period. The maximum daily discharge
recorded during the period of record from
1923 through 1950 was 102 cfs on June 11,
1948. The minimum daily discharge for the
same period of record was measured as 0 cfs
on both July 16, 1926 and August 13, 1939.
All diversions from Myers Creek occurring
within the U.S. are located upstream of the
Myers Creek station so that flows at the
gaging station reflect flows in Myers Creek
available for water users in Canada.
An estimate of mean annual flow based on
the Myers Creek streamflow data during the
irrigation season and data from similar
drainages was calculated by Colder
Associates (1994a) as 7 cfs to 8 cfs, or
5,000 acre-feet/year to 5,800 acre-feet/year.
Daily streamflow varies annually from 40 cfs
or more in early spring to less than 5 cfs in
the fall and winter months (Colder, 1994c).
Figure 3.6.2, Estimated Monthly Hydrograph
of Myers Creek (International Boundary),
presents the average annual hydrograph for
Myers Creek.
Stream flow in Myers Creek will be monitored
at the USGS/Proponent cooperative station
named Myers Creek. Data collection was
initiated in October 1995, and would be
maintained until reclamation at the Project
site is completed.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-71
The WADOE has historically regulated junior
water rights in Myers Creek. Documentation
requesting regulation have been recorded in
1957, 1964, 1967, 1970, 1977, 1979,
1988, and 1989. Myers Creek has not been
administratively closed to further water
appropriations by Washington Administrative
Code (WAC).
Water licenses (rights) have been issued on
Myers Creek in Canada for approximately
530 acre-feet/year for direct flow rights and
1,170 acre-feet for storage rights for a total
of approximately 1,700 acre-feet/year
irrigating approximately 740 acres of land
(Michael, 1993).
Toroda Creek
The Toroda Creek drainage basin has an area
of approximately 135 square miles. Elevation
of the drainage ranges from 5,738 feet at
Bodie Mountain to 1,969 feet at the
confluence with the Kettle River. There are
no established monitoring stations on Toroda
Creek. The mean annual flow estimated
using regression equations ranges from 13
cfs to 35 cfs. The distance along Toroda
Creek from the Nicholson Creek confluence
to the Kettle River is approximately 3.4 miles.
In 1953, the Washington Department of
Game (presently Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife [WADFW]) began
recommending denial of water right
applications for uses other than single
domestic and stock water uses. At issue are
concerns that any further appropriations
might be serious threats to stream flows
necessary for fish habitat. Their position has
been that fish populations have already been
depleted and all remaining available flow is
needed to support a reasonable population.
This recommendation has not been formalized
by adoption of a rule closing the basin to
further appropriations, but water right
applications have been denied or partially
denied based on the lack of available water
for further appropriations. Numerous
landowners have submitted water right
applications in this watershed and have had
their applications returned with letters
explaining this closure. However, WADOE
has always informed them of the option of
submitting the application for a formal
decision based on the merits of their
application. Where formal decisions were
made on surface water applications, all uses
other than single domestic and stock water
uses have been denied. It is also clear from
information contained in documents related to
ground water certificates, that ground water
in hydraulic continuity with the surface
waters of Toroda Creek and its tributaries has
also been considered closed to further
appropriations other than single domestic and
stock water uses.
The WADFW has also recommended instream
flows on the Kettle River at the Ferry gage
station and Laurier Station. Recommended
minimum instream flows at the Ferry Station
are 600 cfs from April through July, and 300
cfs from August through September.
3.10 VEGETATION
3.10.1 Introduction
The Crown Jewel Project is located in the
forested area of the Okanogan Highlands
physiographic province. Douglas-fir and
subalpine fir are the most common coniferous
species found in the forest zones. This
section focuses on upland plant communities,
forest resources, noxious weeds, and
threatened, endangered, and sensitive
vegetation species. Wetlands are discussed
in Section 3.11, Wetlands.
Disturbance of vegetation from logging, past
mining and exploration activities, and grazing
is visibly apparent. All these forms of past
and present disturbance have altered the
region's vegetation to some degree.
3.10.2 Upland Plant Communities
The plant associations for the Crown Jewel
Project vegetation study area are shown on
Figure 3.10.1, Plant Association Map.
Additional information on successional stages
of plant communities can be found in Section
3.13.4, Additional Aspects of the Biological
Environment.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-72
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
Of the forested sites in the vegetation study
area, Douglas-fir and subalpine fir form the
major upland closed forest zones. These
species are particularly common in the forest
areas east of the Okanogan River. Western
larch is also common in the vegetation study
area and is found in a variety of sites. Low
shrubs such as twinflower, buffalo-berry,
huckleberries, ninebark, and snowberry are
typically the dominant shrub species, with
pinegrass dominating the understory herb
layer.
Natural openings typically consist of dry
shrublands or grassy openings on hillsides,
which are typified by mountain snowberry
with pinegrass or mountain big sagebrush
with awnless bluebunch wheatgrass. A
listing of plant associations identified in the
vegetation study area, along with
approximate acreages, is set forth in Table
3.10.1, Plant Associations in Crown Jewel
Project Vegetation Study Area.
3.10.3 Forest Resource
Timber stands within the Crown Jewel
Project vegetation study area are composed
primarily of Douglas-fir, western larch,
subalpine fir, with some Engelmann spruce in
the wetter areas, and scattered lodgepole
pine. The federal and state lands within the
Crown Jewel Project area have been
extensively logged in the past, as discussed
in Section 3.19, Land Use. Most of the
private lands in the vegetation study area
were clearcut many years ago and some
regeneration is present. Timber harvest
within the Crown Jewel Project area has
been mostly selective salvage logging or
shelterwood removal methods, a process
which removes most of the trees and retains
6 to 1 5 seed trees per acre for a seed source
to provide for natural regeneration.
The dominant tree species left on the federal
and state lands within the Crown Jewel
Project area are Douglas-fir and western
larch. Timber harvest has resulted in low
density canopy cover, removal of decadent
and dead trees, reduction of large woody
debris, and an increase in grasses and shrubs.
Table 3.10.2, Estimated Timber Volume,
presents an estimate of the timber volumes
by tree species which are found in the
vegetation study area of approximately 1,632
acres prior to harvest from the Nicholson
timber sales.
The effects of both insects and disease are
evident within the vegetation study area.
The occurrence of spruce budworm
defoliation and dwarf mistletoe is light to
moderate in both the under and overstory.
Small, scattered pockets of laminated root rot
were also observed. The
TABLE 3.10.1, PLANT ASSOCIATIONS IN CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
VEGETATION STUDY AREA
Plant Association1
Douglas-Fir/Ninebark (PSME/PHMA)
Subalpine Fir/Twinflower (AGLA 2/LIBOL)
Douglas-Fir/Pinegrass (PSME/CARU)
Douglas-Fir/Huckleberry (PSME/VACCI)
Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-Fir/A wnless
(Bluebunch Wheatgrass) (PIPO-PSME/AGIN)
Subalpine Fir/Pinegrass (ABLA 2/CARU)
Douglas-Fir/Bearberry (PSME/ARUV)
Subalpine Fir/Huckleberry (BLA 2/VACCI)
Douglas-Fir/Mountain Snowberry (PSME/SYOR)
Total
Relative Productivity
(ft3/ac/yr)2
96
73
59
80
25
65
20
55- 93
34
Acres
367
431
360
138
25
21
8
137
145
1,632
Notes: 1 . For plant association locations, see Figure 3. 10. ), Plant Association Map.
2. Source: Forested Plant Associations of the Colville National Forest, USDA Forest
Service; by Clinton K. Williams (Area Ecologist), Terry R. Lillybridge (Associate
Ecologist), Bradley G. Smith (Associate Ecologist); June 1990.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-73
TABLE 3.10.2, ESTIMATED TIMBER VOLUME
Tree Species
Douglas-fir
Western larch
Englemann spruce
Subalpine fir
Lodgepole pine
Total Estimated Volume
Timber Volume1
(thousand board-feet)
3,711
2,472
568
307
83
7,141
Note: 1 . This volume based on a survey of approximately
1,632 acres in and around the Crown Jewel
Project site.
mountain pine beetle has damaged or
destroyed the majority of the lodgepole pine
in the area. Detailed information about the
timber stands within the Project area can be
found in the document: Timber and
Vegetation Resource Studies, Crown Jewel
Project (A.G. Crook 1993a).
3.10.4 Noxious Weeds
Noxious weeds are undesirable plant species
which invade an area and compete with
native vegetation. Surveys for noxious
weeds were undertaken within the vegetation
study area during both the timber resource
and range resource evaluations. The surveys
focused on the following six species of
particular concern to the Forest Service:
• Bull thistle;
• Canada thistle;
• Musk thistle;
• Hound's tongue;
• Diffuse knapweed; and,
• Spotted knapweed.
Bull thistle was the most commonly observed
noxious weed within the vegetation study
area. It was observed on disturbed sites
such as drill pads, landings, roadsides, and
skid trails. Canada thistle was not as
common as bull thistle, but it also occurred
on most sites suitable for bull thistle. Both
species were found at a variety of elevations,
and primarily in open, sunny, disturbed sites.
Musk thistle, a recent invader in the region,
was found at one site in upper Marias Creek
and at two sites southwest of Buckhorn
Mountain in 1 992. In 1 993, 50 to 75 musk
thistle were pulled from the vegetation study
area, mostly from the area of the proposed
mine (Coppock, 1993). Hound's tongue was
most prevalent on the lower east side of the
vegetation study area. In June 1995, the
Proponent observed and removed three
knapwood plants from the gravel pit west of
Forest Road 120 (BMGC, 1995b).
3.10.5 Threatened, Endangered, and
Sensitive Plant Species
No federally listed endangered, threatened, or
proposed plant species are known to occur in
the vicinity of the Crown Jewel Project;
however, three species listed on the Region
6, Regional Forester's sensitive species list
(Listera borealis, Botrychium crenulatum,
Platamhera obtusata] do exist in the vicinity
of the Crown Jewel Project.
Field reconnaissance was conducted in and
adjacent to the proposed Crown Jewel
Project area during 1991, 1992, 1993, and
1994 by the Forest Service and independent
specialists to locate and identify populations
of sensitive species (Forest Service, 1996a).
A total of ten populations of Listera borealis
were discovered, containing over 2,000
plants. One population has approximately
1,700 plants, while the other nine are much
smaller. The plants are situated along
riparian areas at a variety of locations
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-74
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
throughout the surveyed area. This species
usually occurs in moist woods, often in moss
along streams. Most of the plants were
either blooming or fruiting, which indicates
they are reproducing.
Four populations of Platanthera obtusata,
containing over 800 plants, were located.
One population has over 700 plants, while
the other three are much smaller. The
populations are dispersed along riparian and
wet areas. This species normally occupies
damp to wet forested areas. Many of the
plants were either blooming or fruiting during
the surveys, implying they are reproducing.
Three populations of Botrychium crenulatum,
containing over 30 plants, were identified in
the study area, with one population having
21 plants. The plants had produced spores
indicating reproduction. They were growing
in or near wet areas, which is normal habitat
for this species.
3.10.6 Plant Species of Concern
The following plant species of concern for the
Forest Service were searched for: Botrychium
ascendens, Carex capillaris, Carex
chordorrhiza, Carex dioca, Carex tenuiflora,
Carex vallicola, Carex stenophylla, Carex
xerantica, Cryptantha interrupta, Eleocharis
rostellata, Gentiana tenella, Lobelia kalmii,
Salix glauca, and Talinum okanoganense (T.
sediforme).
None were found in the Crown Jewel Project
area. However, two of them, Carex capillaris
and Carex dioca are known on private ground
in the vicinity of the Project.
3.10.7 Range Resource
Three Forest Service grazing allotments are
found around the Crown Jewel Project.
These are the Cedar, Ethel, and Gold grazing
allotments.
Information on range conditions within the
Project area was gathered as part of both the
Timber and Vegetation Resource Studies.
Crown Jewel Project (A.G. Crook, 1993a)
and the Range Resources and Noxious Weed
Surveys, Crown Jewel Project (A.G. Crook,
1992b). Information from these studies
shows that a predominance of the understory
vegetation in the Crown Jewel Project area is
pinegrass (Calamagrostis rubescens).
Pinegrass stays green all summer; its
abundance makes it an important forage
plant. It is normally the least palatable of the
more common native grasses. Seeded
domestic grasses are preferred by livestock
during the summer months when pinegrass
leaf blades become harsh and tough;
however, it is often a key summer grass
when other grasses are dormant. The
allotments within the Crown Jewel Project
area have many areas which are steep and
where water is limited within the area; these
factors reduce the suitability of these areas
for livestock use. Within the allotments,
there are areas which have been harvested
for timber and now provide transitory range
value for cattle. Limited areas of overgrazing
and trampling damage are evident, but
represent an extremely small portion of the
area to be physically disturbed by the Crown
Jewel Project.
On the Ethel allotment, 62 cows with calves
(29 on National Forest land and 33 on
private), are normally permitted to graze from
June 1st to August 30th. These numbers
and season have been consistent since 1993.
On the Gold allotment, 212 cows with calves
(127 on National Forest land and 95 on
private and state land), are normally
permitted graze from June 16th to September
30th. These numbers and seasons have been
consistent since 1987.
On the Cedar allotment from 1983 to 1993,
489 cows with calves (546 on National
Forest land and 43 on private land), were
typically permitted to graze within the
allotment. The season was June 1st to
September 30th. In 1992, a rest-rotation
system of grazing management was initiated.
Now each year, one of the three pastures is
not grazed for an entire season. In 1994,
because some permittees went out of
business and did not waive their numbers in
favor of someone else, the numbers were
reduced to 354 cows with calves on National
Forest land. Because of the activities
associated with mining exploration on BLM
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-75
land, the private land permit (which accounts
for grazing of livestock on non-National
Forest lands within the Cedar Allotment) was
reduced from 43 to 35 cows with calves.
Overall, this is a reduction of 200 cows with
calves, or 34%, from what has been run
historically (refer to Forest Service file 2210,
Cedar allotment, at the Tonasket District
Office in Tonasket, Washington.)
3.11 WETLANDS
3.11.1 Introduction
Wetlands are defined as areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or ground
water at a frequency and duration sufficient
to support, and under normal circumstances
do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions. This type of vegetation, known
as hydrophytic vegetation, is one of the
criteria to determine presence of a wetland.
A second criteria is the presence of hydric
soils. Generally, hydric soils are those soils
that have developed under anaerobic
conditions due to saturation or inundation by
surface or ground water. A third criteria is
wetland hydrology, defined as the permanent
or periodic inundation or saturation of the soil
to the surface.
3.11.2 Wetlands Delineation
Field investigations to identify and delineate
wetlands in the Crown Jewel Project area,
including the proposed water pipeline and
powerline routes, and at the proposed
Starrem Reservoir site, were started in July
1992 and completed in May 1993. All field
work was performed in accordance with the
methodology outlined in the 1987 Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and
the 1989 Federal Manual for Identifying and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands.
Additionally, each wetland was rated
according to the Washington State Wetlands
Rating System for Eastern Washington.
Wetlands totaling 49.26 acres were identified
in the Crown Jewel Project and adjacent
areas. Wetland plant community types found
during the field investigations include
approximately 26.1 acres of forested broad-
leafed deciduous wetlands (quaking aspen,
and sitka alder), and forested needle-leafed
evergreen wetlands (Engelmann spruce)
[PSO], 16.07 acres of deciduous scrub/shrub
wetlands (red osier dogwood, bebb willow,
prickly currant) [PSS], and 7.09 acres of
persistent emergent wetlands (reed
canarygrass, creeping bentgrass, spike rush,
small winged sedge, cattail, burreed, bulrush)
[PEM]. Although larger acres of wetlands
were identified in the TWHIP and HEP
processes, the analysis areas were larger and
included strips along Beaver and Myers
Creek. The acreage also includes riparian
areas and buffers along streams.
Wetlands were identified at 32 locations
within the areas surveyed as shown in Figure
3.11.1, Project Associated Wetlands
Locations. Twenty four of these areas are
ground water discharge areas. A summary of
wetland acreages, classifications, and types
is presented in Table 3.11.1, Summary of
Wetland Areas. A detailed description of the
wetlands is found in the delineation reports:
Wetland Delineation. Crown Jewel Project
(Pentec, 1993b) and Wetland Delineation
Report, Crown Jewel Project (A.G. Crook,
1993c).
Streams, springs, seeps, and wetlands are
closely interrelated. Background information
on stream hydrology is presented in Section
3.6, Surface Water. Background information
on aquatic resources is presented in Section
3.12, Aquatic Resources. Background
information on springs and seeps is presented
in Section 3.7, Springs and Seeps; water
quantity for springs and seeps is specifically
addressed in Subsection 3.7.3, Water
Quality.
3.12 AQUATIC RESOURCES
3.12.1 Introduction
Stream channel and aquatic habitat
conditions were assessed, and fisheries
studies were conducted in drainages on both
the west and east side of Buckhorn
Mountain. On the west side, studies were
conducted on Myers Creek, which flows
north into Canada and is a tributary to the
Kettle River, and limited surveys were
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-76
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
TABLE 3.1 1.1, SUMMARY OF WETLAND AREAS
Wetland'
Frog pond
C1
CIA
C1B
C1C
C2 or PE
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9
CIO
C11
C12
C13
C14
C15
C16
C17
CIS
C19
C20 ABCDE
C21 ABC
A
B
CA/CB
Area
(ft)2
78,408
387,684
75,225
24,300
17,424
30,492
300
53,750
200
1 20,000
200
350
3,600
3,358
98,010
8,276
13,298
12,364
6,560
3,829
1,000
1,000
22,334
5,568
24,780
Class2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
4
Wetland
Origin1
MM
RC
R
RC
RC
RC
RC
RC
MM
R
R
R
Hydrology
Source'
SM/SW
SP/SW
SP/SW
SP/SW
SP
GW
SM
GW
GW
SP
GW
SM
SM
GW
SP
GW
GW
GW
SWS
GW
GW
S
GW
S
S
S
S
GW
Vegetation
Type3
PEM
PFO/PSS
PSS/PEM/PFO
PSS/PEM
PSS/PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
PSS/PEM
PSS/PEM
PEM
PSS/PEM
PEM
PSS/PEM
PSS/EM
PFO/PSS/PEM
PEM
PEM
PSS/PEM
PSS/PEM
PSS/PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
PSS/PFO
PSS/PFO
PEM
Functions4
WQ.GD,
GR,AD,WH,FA,HD,RS
WQ,FC,GR,GD,WA,HD,RS
WQ,FC,GR,GD,WA,HD,RS
WQ,FC,GR,GD,WA,HD,RS
WQ,FC,GR,GD,WA,RS
SS.WH
WQ,GR,GD,RS,FA
WQ,FC,GR,GD
WQ,FC,GR,GD,WA
WC,FC,GR,GD,WA
Functions limited by
clearcutting & grazing
Functions limited due to
logging & proximity of road
WA.RS.Limited FC.GR.GD
Limited WA,RS,CA-logging
Limited WA.RS.CA-logging
Limited FC,GR,GD,RS,CA,WA-
proximity to road and
trampling
Limitd WA.CA-small size
WQ,FC,GR,GD,AD,WA,FA,
CA.RS
WQ,FC,GR,GD,AD,WA,RS
FA, CA.RS; Limited
WQ,FC,GD,GR,AD-grazing
CA.FA.WA; Limited
WQ,FC,GR,GD,AD-cattle
disturbance
HD.RS; Limited
WQ,FC,GR,GD,AD-cattle
disturbance
Limited
WQ,FC,GR,GD,AD,HD-old skid
roads & cattle disturbance
Limited
WQ,FC,GR,GD,AD,HD-old skid
roads & cattle disturbance
Limited
WQ,FC,GR,GD.AD.HD,RSS-old
skid roads & cattle disturbance
GD.WH
GD
Not currently known if
wetland is performing any
hydrologic functions
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-77
TABLE 3.11.1, SUMMARY OF WETLAND AREAS
Wetland1
DA/DB
FA/FB
PA
PB
PC
PD
RA
Totals
Area
(ft)2
1,098,923
33,243
3,181
8,802
8,420
2,585
10,474
2,145,719
Class2
2
3
3
3
4
3
4
Wetland
Origin6
R
Hydrology
Source
SW
GW
S
S
S
S
S
Vegetation
Type3
PFO/PSS/PEM
PFO/PSS/PEM
PSS/PFO
PFO/PSS
PSS
PSS
PEM/PSS
(49.26 Acres)
Functions4
FH,WH,BM,FC,WQ,SS
GD.WA
GD,WA,NC,SB
GD.WA
GD.WA
Potential functions:
GD.NC.SR.WH, None of these
observed in the field.
GD.SR
Notes: 1. The wetland loctions are shown on Figure 3.11.1, Project Associated Wetland Locations.
2. Areas are classified according to the Washington State Wetlands Rating System for Eastern
Washington.
3. Vegetation Type
PFO: Forested broad-leafed deciduous wetlands (aspen, alder) and forested needle-leafed
evergreen wetlands (spruce).
PSS: Deciduous scrub/shrub wetlands (dogwood, willow, currant, alder).
PEM: Persistent emergent wetlands (bentgrass, canarygrass, sedge, rush).
4. Wetland Functions
AD = Aquatic diversity
SR = Sediment retention/removal
FC = Flood control
WQ = Water quality improvement
BM = high biomass production
NC = Nutrient cycling
GR = Ground water recharge
GD = Ground water discharge
SS = Soil stabilization
Functions to Wildlife
ETS = Refuge for ETS species
WH = Wildlife habitat
FH = Fisheries habitat
HD = Habitat diversity
WA = Water availability
FA = Forage availability
CA = Cover availability
RS = Roosting/resting sites
RSS = Refuge for sensitive species
5. Hydrology Source/Origin
SP = Spring
S = Seep
GW - Ground water
SM - Snow melt
SW = Surface water
MM = Man-made
RC = Road construction
R = Riparian
completed on Gold Creek which flows
into Myers Creek. On the east side of
Buckhorn Mountain, Nicholson and Marias
Creeks were surveyed. Both Marias and
Nicholson Creeks are tributaries to Toroda
Creek, which is also tributary to the Kettle
River. Figure 3.12.1, Regional Drainages,
shows the regional drainage relationships.
Anadromous fish species cannot enter the
Kettle River drainage or tributaries due to
Grand Coulee and Chief Joseph Dams on the
Columbia River; these dams block fish
passage. Steelhead trout (Onchorhynchus
mykiss) may have become "residualized" at
some historical point in some waterways
above the dams. It has not been determined
if residual steelhead trout live in the Kettle
River drainage. The Crown Jewel Project is
within the historical range of redband trout (a
subrace of O. mykiss), but none were
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-78
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
identified during Project aquatic resource
analysis.
Most of the areas that would be affected by
direct disturbance from the action alternatives
are situated in either the Marias or Nicholson
Creek drainages; however, the Proponent has
proposed to divert a certain amount of
seasonal peak water flow from Myers Creek
which would be stored in a water supply
reservoir and pumped to the mine site via a
water supply pipeline.
3.12.2 S urvey Methodology
Aquatic habitats were surveyed using both
the 1992 (Version 6.0) and 1993 (Version
7.0) Forest Service (Region 6) Hankin and
Reeves Stream Inventory Methods (Forest
Service, 1992b, 1993c). Both Level I and II
Hankin and Reeves survey procedures were
used. Stream surveys were conducted for
portions of Marias and Nicholson Creeks
(A.G. Crook, 1993b), and Myers and Gold
Creeks (Pentec, 1993a). Electrofishing
surveys were also conducted to determine
the relative abundance and species of fish in
Myers, Nicholson, and Marias Creeks, as well
as to determine the upstream limits of fish
presence in Marias and Nicholson Creeks.
Level I Protocol
A literature search was undertaken to assess
the general background of the stream system
through an investigation of maps, aerial
photos, and previously collected data. These
materials were used to determine factors
such as gradients, sinuosity, tributary
confluences, valley types, road crossings,
access possibilities, unique features, and
other watershed features.
Level II Protocol
The actual field inventory work along the
streams involved the collection of
quantitative characterizations of aquatic (fish
and water) conditions for various habitat
types. The process involved the identification
of stream habitat types as set forth in Table
3.12.1, Stream Habitat Units and Description.
The relationship amongst stream habitat units
(pools, riffles, and glides) generally indicates
the health of a stream environment and its
ability to support fish productivity. One
method used to gauge the habitat potential is
TABLE 3.12.1, STREAM HABITAT UNITS AND DESCRIPTION
Habitat Unit
Type Code
P
R
G
CA
PW
SC
U
B
C
Description
Pool
Riffle
Glide
Cascade
Pocket Water
Side Channel
Special or Unique
Case
Bridge
Culvert
Definition
Deep, slow water, level water surface with downstream
hydraulic control, small substrate (e.g., sand, silt)
Shallow, rapid flow, moderate slope, moderate turbulence,
medium to large substrate (e.g., gravel, cobble)
Shallow, moderate flow, moderate slope, low turbulence,
medium substrate (e.g., gravel)
Shallow with deeper pockets, rapid flow, steep slope, high
turbulence, large substrate (e.g., cobble, boulder)
Deep, slow water, associated with boulders or other
stream obstructions (e.g., root wads)
Secondary high water channel(s) adjacent to the main flow
channel
Unusual habitat features
Bridge crossing
Stream flows through a culvert
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-79
the pool:riffle:glide (P:R:G) ratio. In general,
the higher the pool portion of the ratio, the
more productive the stream.
Other information was collected as
appropriate during the stream inventory work
including stream cover types, bank width and
depth, embeddedness of substrates, bank
substrates, bank ground cover class,
floodplain vegetative information, stream
temperatures, percent of pocketwater, stream
shade percent, floodplain width, and stream
gradient.
3.12.3 Myers Creek
Myers Creek is the largest of the streams in
the area around Buckhorn Mountain. It flows
northerly through the Chesaw valley along
the westerly flank of Buckhorn Mountain and
meanders through a broad U-shaped glaciated
valley with moderate to steep side slopes
(30% to 60%) and valley floor widths of
approximately 300 feet to 600 feet. The
stream crosses into Canada approximately
four miles north of the community of Chesaw
and enters the Kettle River approximately
three miles west of the Canadian community
of Midway, as shown on Figure 3.12.1,
Regional Drainages.
Agriculture is the primary activity along
Myers Creek, consisting mainly of hay crops
and grazing. The land adjacent to Myers
Creek in the Chesaw valley is private.
Three reaches of Myers Creek were surveyed
as shown on Figure 3.12.2, Myers Creek
Stream Survey Locations (Pentec, 1993a).
Reach 1 and 3 displayed a deeply incised
channel while Reach 2 displayed a
moderately incised channel. Myers Creek
exhibited moderate sinuosity along its
channel course throughout the Chesaw
valley. Channel substrate was dominated by
the following:
• Reach 1: sand or silt and small gravel
material;
• Reach 2: small cobble, sand, and gravel
material; and,
• Reach 3: small gravel and sand material.
Substrate embeddedness for all reaches was
estimated to range between 30% to 50%, a
fairly high value.
Stream canopy cover was less than 20% in
Reaches 1 and 3 and between 20% and 30%
in Reach 2. Both the aquatic and riparian
zones were dominated by grassland-forb
vegetation with subdominant vegetation
cover of either shrub-seedlings or small trees.
Small trees were the dominant vegetation in
Reach 2. The dominant vegetation in the
upland zones of all three surveyed reaches
was grassland-forb. Because of Myers
Creek's incised meandering nature, undercut
banks occur predictably at the outcurves of
channel meanders and overhanging
vegetation occurs regularly throughout the
channel course. Woody debris, turbulence,
and stream depth provided instream cover in
lesser amounts (Pentec, 1993a).
Throughout the length of Myers Creek,
beaver activity appeared to be a dominant
factor in the ongoing change of the stream
channel. A total of 31 beaver dams or sites
of beaver activity were observed as follows:
• Reach 1 - 28 beaver dams;
• Reach 2 - two sites of beaver activity;
and,
• Reach 3 - one site of beaver activity.
The P:R:G ratios of the three surveyed
reaches of Myers Creek were 28%:29%:33%
for Reach 1; 3%:82%:1 5% for Reach 2; and
4%:55%:37% for Reach 3.
Channel stability is rated as fair in the survey
segments of Myers Creek. This rating is the
result of extensive channel modification
activity by beavers and human land
management activities. There is a high
degree of channel migration with new
channels being cut as a result of the ponding
or the failure of ponds behind beaver dams.
The Myers Creek channel was incised
throughout most of the surveyed segments
and showed evidence of substantial sloughing
of the banks.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-80
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
An electro-fishing survey was conducted to
confirm the presence of rainbow trout and
brook trout and to provide data on species
composition. Of the total fish surveyed by
electrofishing in Myers Creek, approximately
75% were brook trout and 25% were
rainbow trout. The mean lengths of the fish
examined by electrofishing on Myers Creek
were 111 mm (4.4 inches) for brook trout
and 106 mm (4.2 inches) for rainbow trout
(Pentec, 1993a). Temperatures in Myers
Creek ranged from 32.4°F (November 3,
1994) to 55.8°F (August 22, 1994).
3.12.4 Gold Creek
Gold Creek is a small perennial stream which
flows west, about three miles, from its
source on the north flank of Buckhorn
Mountain to the confluence with Myers
Creek. The Okanogan National Forest
boundary is located about one mile above the
confluence with Myers Creek. Approximately
1,781 feet of Gold Creek were surveyed.
This portion of the stream flows through a
narrow forested valley and displays deep
entrenchment. The channel has a low
sinuosity rating. Substrates were typically
dominated by cobble and gravel with sand
being subdominate (Pentec, 1993a).
Stream canopy shade was 51 % to 75%.
Both the aquatic and riparian zones are
dominated by a grassland-forb vegetation.
The forested riparian zone provides a regular
source of small and large woody debris.
Undercut banks provide instream cover in
limited amounts (Pentec, 1993a).
There were visual sighting of fish; however,
an electroshock survey was not conducted
because of low stream flow and marginal
habitat (Pentec, 1993a).
3.12.5 Marias Creek
Marias Creek is a small stream, with
intermittent flow in the upper reaches and
perennial flow further downstream. From its
source near Buckhorn Mountain, Marias
Creek flows easterly for approximately seven
miles to its confluence with Toroda Creek as
shown on Figure 3.12.1, Regional Drainages.
All but approximately the last quarter mile of
Marias Creek is located in the Okanogan
National Forest (A.G. Crook, 1993b).
Additional information about Marias Creek
and its hydrologic characteristics is set forth
in Section 3.6, Surface Water.
Marias Creek was surveyed from its
confluence with Toroda Creek upstream to its
source as shown on Figure 3.12.3, Marias
and Nicholson Stream and Fisheries Survey
Locations.
The upstream portions of Marias Creek are
confined in narrow valley topography which
broadens as Marias Creek approaches its
confluence with Toroda Creek. Gradients in
the Marias Creek drainage average
approximately 6% to 7%. Substrates of
Marias Creek were typically gravel and sand
with some cobble and small boulders. The
P:R:G of the lower four miles was
approximately 2%:97%:1 %. The upper three
miles had a P:R:G ratio of approximately
0%:94%:6%. Woody debris was plentiful in
Marias Creek and appeared to contribute to
instream cover and flood plain stability, but
not to pool creation. Overall fish habitat
quality is poor because of low pool numbers
and lack of instream fish cover. Spawning
gravel was adequate throughout Marias Creek
and was estimated to be generally less than
35% embedded, with some areas being
highly embedded with sand and silt. Stream
temperatures during the 1992 and 1993
surveys ranged from 45 °F to 60°F, which
should not limit salmonid survival (A.G.
Crook, 1993b).
Some of Marias Creek has been impacted by
past timber management practices, roads,
and cattle grazing. Impacts include trampled
banks, overbrowsed riparian vegetation,
roadside erosion, and reduced canopy cover.
Most areas would be rated as having a
moderate to low level of impact from cattle
grazing.
Both brook trout and rainbow trout were
visually observed in Marias Creek. However,
large amounts of slash, undercut root wads,
and low streamside vegetation hindered
visual fish observations. Although rainbow
trout were visually observed near the Marias
Creek confluence with Toroda Creek, only
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-81
three individual rainbow trout were
encountered during the electrofishing survey
work on Marias Creek. Brook trout were the
primary species found during electrofishing
surveys in Marias Creek.
The electrofishing survey determined that the
upper limits of fish presence in Marias Creek
was approximately five miles upstream from
the confluence with Toroda Creek or
approximately half a mile above the culvert
crossing at Forest Road 3550. The location
of the electrofishing surveys and the
approximate limit of fish presence in Marias
Creek are shown on Figure 3.12.3, Marias
and Nicholson Stream and Fisheries Survey
Locations.
3.12.6 Nicholson Creek
Nicholson Creek is a perennial stream. From
its source on the east side of Buckhorn
Mountain, Nicholson Creek flows generally
easterly for approximately eight miles to its
confluence with Toroda Creek as shown on
Figure 3.12.1, Regional Drainages. The lower
2.5 miles of Nicholson Creek (upstream of its
confluence with Toroda Creek) are located on
private and state lands; the rest of the stream
is located on Okanogan National Forest lands.
Additional information about Nicholson Creek
and its hydrologic characteristics is set forth
in Section 3.6, Surface Water.
Nicholson Creek flows through a constrained,
moderately V-shaped valley with valley floor
widths generally less than 100 feet. The
average gradient was moderately steep at
7%. Substrates of Nicholson Creek are
predominantly gravel and sand with some
cobble present. The P:R:G was
approximately 3%:85%:12%. There were an
estimated 2.3 pools per mile with an average
residual depth of approximately 1.7 feet.
Cover values are low, ranging from 6% to
20%, with the most cover being provided by
woody debris and undercut banks. Large
woody debris on the floodplain seemed to
contribute to system structure and stability.
Spawning substrates were adequate and
were estimated to be generally less than 35%
embedded with some areas being highly
embedded with sands and silts. Stream
temperatures during the 1992 and 1993
surveys ranged from 48°F to 55°F, which
should not limit salmonid survival (A.G.
Crook, 1993b).
Like Marias Creek, portions of Nicholson
Creek have been impacted by past timber
management practices, roads, and cattle
grazing. Impacts include trampled banks,
overbrowsed riparian vegetation, roadside
erosion, and reduced canopy cover. Most
impacts related to grazing have been
associated with watering areas, particularly
wetlands. The number of water troughs in
the Cedar allotment has been increased from
3 to 50 to reduce impacts over the last three
years.
Both brook trout and rainbow trout were
visually observed in Nicholson Creek. An
electrofishing survey was conducted to
confirm the visual observations, provide data
on species composition, and determine the
upstream limit on fisheries. Although there
appeared to be suitable fish habitat in the
upper reaches of Nicholson Creek, no fish
were observed by either visual or
electrofishing survey techniques above a
natural barrier located approximately five
miles upstream of its confluence with Toroda
Creek (1993b). The barrier consisted of a
woody debris jam with an incised channel
below. The location of the electrofishing
surveys and the approximate limit of fish
presence in Nicholson Creek are shown on
Figure 3.12.3, Marias and Nicholson Stream
and Fisheries Survey Locations (A.G. Crook,
1993b).
3.12.7 North Fork of Nicholson Creek
The North Fork of Nicholson Creek, a
tributary to Nicholson Creek, begins at a
spring and seep area on the eastern slope of
Buckhorn Mountain and intermittently flows
southeasterly approximately 1.5 miles to its
confluence with Nicholson Creek as shown
on Figure 3.12.1, Regional Drainages. The
entire length of the Nicholson Creek tributary
is located on Okanogan National Forest lands.
Three reaches of the North Fork of Nicholson
Creek were surveyed; the locations of these
reaches are shown on Figure 3.12.3, Marias
and Nicholson Stream and Fisheries Survey
Locations.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-82
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
This tributary is located in a narrow V-shaped
valley which is generally less than 50 feet
wide. The average gradient is approximately
9% and channel substrates are predominantly
gravel with sand and cobble present in
subdominant quantities. Streambank
substrates are sand with subdominant
amounts of cobble.
It was estimated that pools were found in 1 %
to 6% of the North Fork of Nicholson Creek.
There were approximately 21 pools per mile
with an average residual depth of about 0.8
feet. Instream cover values were generally
low ranging from 6% td 20% and were
provided almost entirely by overhanging
vegetation. Large woody debris was present
that contributed to instream cover and
system stability. Stream temperatures
measured during the 1993 survey ranged
between 46 °F and 49 °F, which should not
limit fish survival. There are adequate
spawning gravels, although it appeared that
most were embedded greater than 35% (A.G.
Crook, 1993b).
Past timber harvest activities, roads, and
cattle grazing have impacted portions of the
North Fork of Nicholson Creek. Observed
impacts included trampled banks, degraded
channel, overbrowsed riparian vegetation,
roadside erosion, and reduced canopy cover.
There were no fish present in the North Fork
of Nicholson Creek.
3.12.8 Threatened, Endangered, and
Sensitive Fish Species
No threatened or endangered fish species
have been documented in Myers, Marias, or
Nicholson Creeks or any of their tributaries.
Likewise, no anadromous fisheries species
are known to occur in any of these drainages.
Bull trout and redband trout are considered
sensitive species by the Forest Service. Bull
trout are at this time being considered for
listing under the Endangered Species Act.
None of the drainages in the vicinity of
Buckhorn Mountain have bull trout habitat.
No bull trout were found during the visual or
electrofishing surveys.
A limited sample of 13 rainbow trout were
found and collected during electrofishing
surveys in Nicholson Creek (10) and Marias
Creek (3) and were submitted to the
University of Montana's Wild Trout and
Salmon Genetics Laboratory for lactic acid
dehydrogenase (LDH) analysis to determine
possible redband trout genetics. No redband
trout were identified by this genetic testing
(Leary, 1993).
3.12.9 Benthic Macroinvertebrates
Benthic macroinvertebrate surveys were
conducted in the fall of 1994 and again in the
spring and fall of 1995 to provide baseline
data on habitat and species abundance and
variability in Myers, Nicholson and Marias
Creeks (Northwest Management, 1994a, and
EcoAnalysts, 1996). A total of four stations
were sampled; BM1 and BM2 are located on
Myers Creek; BM3 is on Marias Creek, and;
BM4 is on Nicholson Creek. See Figure
3.12.4, Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring
Station Location Map.
Several physical habitat variables were
measured at each station including; air and
water temperature, stream gradient, channel
type, percent canopy cover, bank stability
assessment, etc. Benthic macroinvertebrates
were collected from representative riffle sites
to provide a biological assessment. Riffle,
pool, margin, and coarse particulate organic
matter (CPOM) were sampled to provide data
from all representative habitat types.
The results were compared to values
representing community diversity conditions
typically found in unimpacted mid-order
western streams. Table 3.12.2, Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Biological Integrity
Assessment Parameters, shows the
parameter and description used in the survey
work.
Washington streams are different in that
some parameters (i.e., taxa richness and EPT
richness -the ratio of the number of
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera and Trichoptera to
the number of Chironomidae) are expected to
be lower and the natural disturbance
frequency is expected to be greater.
Conclusions regarding the richness of streams
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-83
TABLE 3.12.2, BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
ASSESSMENT PARAMETERS
Parameter
Total Abundance
Percent Contribution of Dominant Taxon
Taxa Richness
EPT Richness
Rhyacophilidae Richness
Percent Chironomidae
Percent Oligochaeta
Percent Non-Diptera
EPT/Chironomidae
Percent Shredders
Percent Scrapers
Scraper Richness
Percent Collector-Filterers
Percent Predators
Predator Richness
Margalef's Index
Simpson's Index
Shannon-Weiner Index
Hilsenhoff Biotic Index
Pielou's J
Description
Total number of invertebrates per 0.1 square meter.
Percent of total number of individuals belonging to the most
abundant taxa.
Total number of taxonomic units in a sample.
Total number of taxonomic units in a sample belonging to the
insect orders Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera.
Total number of taxa in the genus Rhyacophilidae.
Percent of the total number of individuals belonging to the
Diptera family Chironomidae.
Percent of the total number of individuals belonging to the
class Oligochaeta.
Percent of the total number of individuals that are not in the
insect order Diptera.
Ratio of the number of Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and
Trichoptera to the number of Chironomidae.
Percent of the total number of individuals that are classified as
shredders.
Percent of the total number of individuals that are classified as
scrapers.
Number of taxonomic units in the sample classified as
scrapers.
Percent of the total number of individuals that are classified as
collector-filterers.
Percent of the total number of individuals that are classified as
predators.
Number of taxonomic units in the sample classified as
predators.
Total number of taxa in the sample divided by the log of the
total number of individuals in the sample.
The sum of: (number of individuals in the ith taxon) divided by
(total number of individuals in the sample). This sum,
subtracted from 1 .0 is the value of Simpson's index.
The sum of: the proportion of individuals in the ith taxon
multiplied by the log (In) of the proportion.
A weighted average of the organic tolerance values of all
individuals in the sample.
Shannon's index for the sample divided by the log of the total
number of taxa in the sample.
may need to be adjusted to reflect eastern
Washington differences by using WADOE's
work and other regional studies located closer
to the monitoring sites.
Data collected to date are an initial step in a
longer term process for evaluating trends in
the instream biological condition in the
Myers, Nicholson, and Marias Creeks
watersheds as reflected by benthic
invertebrate meristics.
Myers Creek
Analysis of the physical and biological
parameters for stations BM1 and BM2
indicates that the benthic invertebrate
community has been slightly to moderately
impacted by land management activities,
primarily cattle grazing in the riparian areas as
shown in Table 3.12.3, Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Sampling Comparison.
Myers Creek may also be impacted by
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-84
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
o
V)
ec
5
o
z
vJ
Q.
V)
LU
<
ffi
LU
LU
^
Z
o
cc
M
O
I
LU
CO
ro
r~
CO
LU
CO
m
1
10
CO
CD
•|
«
CM
5
CO
c
g
to
V)
m
c
in
«
U
0)
x"1
LlJ
II Parameter
K*
T5
u.
Q.
O)
__
(D
U.
LA
y}
(0
IT)
O)
0.
CO
Tf
0)
CO
in
0)
==
u_
cn
a
W
O)
(Q
tn
O)
To
in
c»
0.
LL
?
r
§
in
CO
8
0)
5
M
CNl
CO
in
to
in
to
to
a)
CO
CO
CM
O
s
$
co-
ro
8
A
| Total Abundance
o
CM
CN
SR
cn
CN
*
l«
CN
*—
CN
^
CO
rx
CN
CD
CO
CN
0
CN
^
o>
s
^
in
CO
^
rx
CO
CN
CD
CM
A
s
^f
SR
CO
cn
^
IX
'
cn
^
b
00
^
cn
CO
^
CN
CN
O)
^
^
00
LO
|x
00
00
A
|| % Non-Diptera
CM
CO
in
CM
IX
CM
*-
cn
cn
to
o
in
cn
CM
CO
CO
«fr
in
*
cn
CM
CM
ri
in
A
|| EPT/Chironomidae
c£
in
rx
S
CM
c£
in
35
cn
00
q
IX
CM
to
cn
CM
d
*
CD
*~
"?
CO
CO
CN
cn
o
q
CM
CM
S?
in
A
|| % Shredders
CO
CM
CO
tri
*
CM
CO
#
^
CO
*
rx
CN
^
to
CO
q
in
^
cn
in
*
00
rx
CO
^
IX
CO
CO
rx
to
00
in
CO
o
A
|| % Scrapers
rx
*-
Tt
S
in
CO
CN
cn
CO
rx
to
ui
CO
*
«
in
in
to
*
CO
CO
*
in
in
Ti-
to
A
|| Scraper Richness
<^
in
o
o
*~
M?
CO
o
d
£
CO
0
CN
£
to
0
CO
^
cn
d
J«
tn
CN
CO
^
in
ri
CM
o
in
CO
CM
CM
O
A
|| % Collector-Pilferers
,_
CO
CM
r*.
CN
on
CN
rr
CM
*
CD
in
£
CM
CN
^
CN
in
00
cR
Tj-
"~
$
CN
to
in
b
CN
S?
in
A
|| % Predators
CO
o
rx
CO
CO
en
CM
cn
cn
rx
CO
d
-
*^*
cn
CM
CO
U)
Ti-
ed
"*
in
IX
in
CO
CO
CO
Tfr
in
o
A
| Predator Richness
CO
in
in
CO
in
cn
to
CM
in
CN
in
in
in
00
*
rx
CO
d
to
CO
CM
O
IO
in
CM
t
CO
*
o
in
A
|| Margaleff's Index
o
S
o
d
m
CO
o
CO
00
d
tn
00
o
S
o
co
|x
d
CO
CO
o
£
o
|x
o
s
o
s
o
A
l| Simpson's Index
CO
IX
CN
in
CN
cn
in
CN
IX
in
CM
to
CN
CO
Tt
CM
CN
CO
CM
O
cn
O)
CM
S
CM
cn
cn
*~
CD
CO
CN
in
IX
CM
A
V
l| Shannon-Weiner Ind
CO
CO
cn
*
o
in
CO
cn
CO
CO
00
o
CM
CO
cn
o
*
o
cn
o
00
CO
to
CO
CO
CO
o
in
o
CO
in
CM
V
x
c
|| Hilsenhoff Biotic Ind
d
in
rx
o
to
rx
d
00
IX
O
CM
rx
d
o
|x
o
CD
to
O
§
d
rx
CO
o
fx
o
to
o
0
in
IX
o
A
J
b!
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-85
substrate instability and elevated summer
temperatures.
Community diversity, an important attribute
of healthy macroinvertebrate communities,
was low-moderate in Myers Creek, as
indicated by taxa, EPT and Rhyacophila
richness values as well as Margalef, Simpson
and Shannon-Weiner indices. Measures of
community evenness (percent dominant taxa
and Pielou's J) showed that the benthic
community was dominated by a few, highly
abundant taxa. These values also indicate
that the communities are under stress when
compared to western Oregon streams.
Adjusting for eastern Washington stream
expectations, measures of community
diversity and evenness would indicate a
moderate disturbance in stream physical
conditions.
The community trophic structure as indicated
by the percent total fauna show that
scrapers, shredders, and collector-filterer
values are generally above expected values,
while predator numbers were mostly below
expected values. Measures of diversity,
however, increased during the fall samples in
1995, and benthic communities became more
even at both sites. This shift in the fall was
a naturally-occurring phenomenon which
demonstrated the ability of a community to
adapt to natural conditions (i.e., inputs of
leafy material during the fall).
Marias Creek
Analysis of the physical and biological
parameters for station BM3 indicates that the
benthic invertebrate community may have
been slightly to moderately impacted by
previous land use activities, primarily
sediment loading from timber harvest and
road building. See Table 3.12.3, Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Sampling Comparison.
Additional physical measurements such as
embeddedness, preferred substrates, or
canopy cover would verify an impacted
condition that was indicated by examining
the biological data.
Data collected indicated that benthic
communities were moderately diverse, stable,
and generally in healthy condition, although
the communities are by no means pristine.
Elevated summer temperatures may have
limited the number of cold-adapted taxa that
could occur in Marias Creek. Taxa and EPT
richness values were good and within the
range expected for healthy streams similar in
nature to Marias Creek. The Margalef,
Simpson and Shannon-Weiner indices values
indicated the benthic community was diverse.
Rhyacophila richness indicated overall habitat
complexity was moderate.
In the fall period of 1995, there was a slight
increase in community evenness as indicated
by percent dominance and Pielou's J. There
was a shift in trophic status in the fall;
however, as collector-gatherers decreased,
this was followed by an increase in scrapers
and a subsequent increase in shredders.
These shifts follow predicted, annual
patterns, even though overall percentage of
shredders was lower than expected during
the fall.
Nicholson Creek
Analysis of the physical and biological
parameters for station BM4 indicates that the
benthic invertebrate community may have
been slightly to moderately impacted by
previous land use activities, primarily
sediment loading from timber harvest and
road building. See Table 3.12.3, Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Sampling Comparison.
Data collected indicated that benthic
communities were moderately diverse, stable,
and generally in healthy condition, although
the communities are by no means pristine.
Community diversity was good at BM4. Taxa
and EPT richness values were good and
within the range expected for healthy streams
similar in nature to Nicholson Creek. The
Margalef, Simpson and Shannon-Weiner
indices values indicated the benthic
community was diverse.
Community evenness was moderate-high at
BM4, as indicated by percent dominant taxon
and Pielou's J values; however, analysis of
community trophic structure indicated that
the invertebrate community was dominated
by collector-gatherers and excessive organic
particles had settled out in riffles. Scraper
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-86
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
abundance was also lower than expected for
a stream of this type.
In the fall period of 1995, all measures of
community diversity were higher than
observed in the spring samples of 1995.
Community evenness and trophic structure
were similar to the spring; those minor shifts
which did occur between sampling seasons
resembled the patterns observed in Marias
Creek.
West Fork Cedar Creek
In the spring of 1995, a location on the West
Fork Cedar Creek was selected as a potential
control site for the macroinvertebrate
monitoring program. This creek, however,
proved to not be an adequate reference for
the test streams due to its small size, which
yielded low densities of invertebrates as well
as other indices of diversity, which were
depressed.
3.12.10 Instream Flow Incremental
Methodology
The WADFW, WADOE, British Columbia
Ministry of Fish and the Environment, and
Canadian Department of Fish and Oceans
requested an instream flow study in order to
assess the impacts of the proposed diversion
of water from Myers Creek to the Starrem
Reservoir on existing fish habitat, and to
determine appropriate habitat protection in
Myers Creek downstream of the proposed
diversion site.
The study method chosen was the Instream
Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) (Hovee,
1982); this method, developed by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), is used in
the western U.S. and Canada. It relies on a
predictive model, developed from a
combination of site-specific stream channel
measurements and estimates of habitat
preferences of the fish species of concern.
The IFIM study was conducted in accordance
with the Washington State Department of
Wildlife instream flow study guidelines
(WADFW, 1993a). Study objectives were to
predict the relationship between stream
discharge and physical habitat for salmonids
to Myers Creek in British Columbia
downstream of the proposed intake. This
work provided technical data for evaluating
the effects of alternative flow regimes on the
salmonid resources of Myers Creek.
Both brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and
rainbow trout (Onchorhynchus mykiss) are
found in Myers Creek (Pentec, 1993a). The
instream flow study focused on the spawning
life history stage of rainbow trout and the
spring and winter habitat for both species.
New water withdrawals have been proposed
in Myers Creek by the Proponent from
approximately February 1 to July 31.
The overall slope of Myers Creek, below the
point of diversion near the Canadian border,
is approximately 2%. The moderately incised
stream channel meanders through a wide, U-
shaped glacial valley. Habitats include long
low-gradient glide-riffle complexes and small
corner pools with undercut banks. Areas of
braided channel are present. Channel
substrates include sand, silts, and small
gravel and cobble. Canopy cover is variable,
ranging from grassland vegetation to brush
and trees.
Based on slope and channel pattern, two
study sites were selected on Myers Creek as
shown on Figure 3.12.5, IFIM Study Sites.
Study Site #1 is immediately upstream of the
March Creek confluence and contains five
cross-sections (transects). Study Site #2 is
immediately downstream of the international
border between the U.S. and Canada and
contains six transects. The transects and
habitat descriptions for each study site are
shown in Table 3.12.4, IFIM Transects and
Habitat Description. At each study site,
information was gathered at three flow levels
(3 cfs, 7 cfs, and 12 cfs), which allowed
development of the predictive model over the
flow range of interest (2-30 cfs). The model
predicts a habitat versus flow relationship for
each site. This relationship is then combined
with estimates of inflow to develop a
relationship for the reach of Myers Creek,
indexed to a gaging point at or near the
diversion, in the U.S. This relationship is
illustrated in Figure 3.12.6, IFIM Final
Weighted Useable Area Versus Flow.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-87
TABLE 3.12.4. IFIM TRANSECTS AND HABITAT DESCRIPTION
Transect
Myers
Habitat Descriptions
Creek Study Site 1
1
2
3
4
5
Myers
Gravelly riffle/glide
Gravelly riffle-glide
Gravelly riffle-glide
Riffle
Glide with overhanging bank and some wood debris
Creek Study Site 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
Note:
Source:
Shallow pool/small wood debris complex
Glide/small wood debris complex
Glide/small wood debris complex
Corner pool, undercut bank
Glide
Gravelly riffle (near gage)
Habitat type descriptions: USDA Forest Service.
Riffle: moderate to fast water velocities, shallow depths, gravel substrate.
Glide: slow to moderate water velocities, U-shaped channel, cobble or gravel
substrate.
Corner pool: pool at a stream bend, often with an undercut bank providing cover
for fish.
Wood debris complex: wood in stream channel, providing cover for fish and
creating small dammed pools at times.
Cascades Environmental Services, 1996
The IFIM study results provide a technical
basis for evaluating different flow regimes
resulting from the proposed water diversion.
The intent is to determine an instream flow to
protect fish resources in Myers Creek.
Results from the instream flow study are
combined indices of the relationship between
habitat and flow, for each fish lifestage under
consideration. In this case, a relationship
was developed for rainbow trout spawning as
shown on Figure 3.12.6, IFIM Final Weighted
Useable Area Versus Flow, and a relationship
for rainbow trout and brook trout winter
habitat is shown on Figure 3.12.7, Myers
Creek Winter Trout Habitat - Weighted
Useable Area Versus Flow.
3.13 WILDLIFE
3.13.1 introduction
Buckhorn Mountain and surrounding areas
contain a diversity of wildlife species and
habitats that are representative of the
Okanogan Highlands Region. Existing
conditions for wildlife in the area surrounding
Buckhorn Mountain are presented in the
following sections:
• Habitat Overview;
• Land Use Patterns and Human Activities
Influencing Wildlife;
• Additional Aspects of the Biological
Environment;
• Wildlife Species Overview;
• Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive
Species; and,
• Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP)
Analysis.
The wildlife narrative initially describes
habitat components at the large scale
(analysis area) before narrowing focus down
to the area where mine facilities are located
(core area). Discussions of habitat, existing
land use, and human activities lead into
descriptions of wildlife species known or
suspected to occur in the analysis area,
including threatened, endangered, species of
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-88
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
concern, and sensitive species. The final
wildlife section introduces the HEP analysis, a
modeling tool assessing the quality and
quantity of habitat in the Buckhorn Mountain
area. Readers seeking more detail can
request a copy of the Crown Jewel Project,
Wildlife Technical Report (Beak, 1995a).
3.13.2 Habitat Overview
Buckhorn Mountain and the surrounding area
are part of the Okanogan Highlands - a region
characterized by fairly gentle, well rounded
mountain topography that reflects the impact
of Pleistocene glaciation events. Wildlife
biologists from the Forest Service, BLM,
USFWS and WADFW have identified and
delineated the Analysis Area and the Core
Area, Figure 3.13.1, Project Area Map, where
the evaluation of existing wildlife conditions
and expected mine development effects will
be focused.
The analysis area. Figure 3.13.2, Land Type
Map, totals approximately 70,752 acres (111
square miles). It encompasses the core area
and is bounded by Myers Creek and the
Kettle River to the north, by Toroda Creek to
the east, by Beaver Creek to the south and
southwest, and by Myers Creek to the west
and northwest. The analysis area
incorporates the broad spatial scale necessary
to evaluate the following:
• Indirect effects of mine development;
• Cumulative effects;
• Impacts on landscape habitat
connectivity; and,
• Impacts on species with large home
ranges.
The core area, Figure 3.13.3, Cover Type
Map, totals approximately 10,925 acres (17
square miles). It is defined as the area where
direct impacts of the proposed Crown Jewel
Project would occur. The core area
incorporates the mine footprint, mine
facilities, transportation corridors, Starrem
Reservoir, the alluvial fan on Myers Creek,
the in-coming transmission lines, and all land
within approximately one mile radius around
the mine footprint and facilities.
Buckhorn Mountain (approximately 5,602
feet in elevation) is the highest point in the
analysis area, located on a major north-south
trending ridgeline. Radiating away from this
ridgeline are portions of the upper watersheds
for the majority of the larger creeks in the
analysis area, including Ethel Creek, Bolster
Creek, Gold Creek, Cedar Creek, Nicholson
Creek, and Marias Creek. These creeks flow
into either Myers Creek or Toroda Creek, the
lowest elevations in the analysis area
(approximately 2,000 feet elevation).
Topographic features (such as elevation,
slope and aspect) affect the physical and
biotic environment by influencing temperature
and moisture availability. The diverse
vegetative community in the analysis area is
a reflection of the existing diverse
topographic relief repeated across the
landscape. Drought tolerant ponderosa pine
and upland grasslands are common along hot
dry southern aspects, especially at low and
mid elevations. Increasing moisture levels
with higher elevations and on north slopes
develop a mixed conifer forest community
which includes Douglas fir and western larch.
The coldest high elevation environments are
dominated by subalpine fir forest
communities.
The varied topography and associated
vegetative communities provide a range of
habitat conditions supporting a diverse fauna
in the analysis area. Wetlands and riparian
zones within the analysis area also provide
key habitats for wildlife. For example,
wetlands along Myers Creek contain a great
blue heron rookery, black terns and common
loons forage in Beth Lake, and spotted frogs
occur in a pond flanking Buckhorn Mountain.
Additional landscape factors influencing
wildlife diversity in the analysis area include:
the existing pattern of land use allocations,
the presence of the Jackson Creek/Graphite
Mountain unroaded area, and the proximity to
Canadian wildlife sources. Private
landholdings with more intensive and
continuous human activity are located
primarily on the periphery of the analysis
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-89
area. Most of the central part of the analysis
area {and part of the periphery) is managed
by the Okanogan National Forest, the Colville
National Forest, Washington Department of
Natural Resources (WADNR), Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), and the Kettle Provincial
Forest in Canada. These lands managed by
agencies generally provide habitat with
reduced disturbances, especially when tied to
road closures. The Jackson Creek/Graphite
Mountain undeveloped area provides a large
area with high wildlife security in the
northeastern portion of the analysis area.
The Cedar Creek/Jackson Creek/Graphite
Mountain area adjoins the Canadian Kettle
Provincial Forest and provides valuable
habitat connections that facilitate movement
of dispersing animals from Canadian source
populations.
Analysis Area
Wildlife habitats in the analysis area are
categorized by land type, a habitat definition
based on general vegetation composition and
structure, and on land use. Land types
represent broader wildlife habitat
classifications in comparison to core area
cover types. Six different land types
(grassland/shrub, open coniferous/deciduous,
coniferous, riparian/wetland/open water,
agriculture, and disturbed/residential) are
identified in the analysis area and shown in
Table 3.13.1, Acreages of Cover Types and
Land Types in the Crown Jewel Project Core
and Analysis Areas. These land types were
delineated to a minimum size of five acres,
see Figure 3.13.2, Land Type Map. A list of
species known or expected to occur in each
land type is presented in the Crown Jewel
Project, Wildlife Technical Report (Beak,
1995a).
Grassland/Shrub Land. The grassland/shrub
land type includes those areas with less than
20% tree cover. It does not include
agricultural areas or clearcuts.
Open Coniferous/Deciduous Land. The open
coniferous/deciduous land type is classified
as forested areas with 20% to 60% crown
closure, including clearcuts, partial cuts,
shelterwoods, and natural openings not
capable of crown closures exceeding 60%.
Coniferous Land. The coniferous land type is
represented by forested areas with more than
60% crown closure of pole-sized or larger
trees.
Riparian/Wetland/Open Water Land. The
riparian/wetland/open water land type
consists of all areas within 100 feet of, and
including, perennial streams, wetlands, lakes,
TABLE 3.13.1, ACREAGES OF COVER TYPES AND LAND TYPES
IN THE CROWN JEWEL PROJECT CORE AND ANALYSIS AREAS
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
905
2,175
4,479
39
887
106
456
10.925
Percent
15.3
1.0
0.9
8.3
19.9
41.0
0.4
8.1
1.0
4.2
100.0
Analysis Area
Land Type
Grassland/Shrub
Open Coniferous/Deciduous
Coniferous
Riparian/Wetland/Open Water
Agriculture
Disturbed/Residential
Total
Acres
15,612
24,023
27,441
635
2,943
98
70,752
Percent
22.1
33.9
38.8
0.9
4.2
0.1
100.0
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-90
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
or ponds; and includes any area within 50
feet of, and including, intermittent streams.
Agriculture Land. The agriculture land type
includes those lands which have been
cultivated, and includes plowed and planted
land, hay lands, and irrigated pastures.
Disturbed/Residential Land. The
disturbed/residential land type is classified as
towns, mines, rockpits, home sites, and
parking lots. This land type generally does
not provide good wildlife habitat. However,
certain species adaptable to human
disturbance do use this land type.
Core Area
Wildlife habitat in the core area is categorized
by cover type, a habitat definition based on
successional stage, plant association, and
land use information derived primarily from
the Tonasket Wildlife Habitat Inventory
Procedures (TWHIP) stand data. Ten cover
types are defined for the core area. These
include upland grassland, bottomland
grassland, shrub, early successional conifer,
mixed conifer pole, mixed conifer, mature
deciduous, riparian/wetland, lake/pond, and
agriculture, see Figure 3.13.3, Cover Type
Map. Cover types were delineated to a
minimum size of one acre through a
combination of areal photo interpretation and
field-checking during habitat surveys. Cover
type descriptions and amounts shown in
Table 3.13.1, Acreages of Cover Types and
Land Types in the Crown Jewel Project Core
and Analysis Areas, along with a list of
wildlife species known or expected to occur
in each cover type, is presented in the Crown
Jewel Project Wildlife Technical Report.
All cover types provide wildlife with food,
cover for reproduction and concealment, and
water. In addition, the deciduous, mixed
conifer pole, and mixed conifer mature cover
types provide wildlife with thermal cover.
Upland Grassland Cover. The upland
grassland cover type is defined as naturally
occurring (non-irrigated, non-cultivated, and
non-hayed) grassland areas on slopes and
ridges with less than 20% tree cover and less
than 20% shrub cover. The predominant
species of native grasses found in this cover
type include bluebunch wheatgrass,
Sandberg's bluegrass, and pinegrass. Non-
native seeded and naturalized species include
smooth brome, fescues, and other
wheatgrasses.
Bottomland Grassland Cover. The
bottomland grassland cover type describes
naturally occurring (i.e., non-irrigated, non-
cultivated, and non-hayed) grassland habitats
in valley bottoms with less than 20% tree
cover and less than 20% shrub cover.
Predominant native grasses include bluebunch
wheetgrass, bentgrass, and pinegrass. Non-
native seeded and naturalized species include
smooth brome and fescues.
Shrub Cover. The shrub cover type is
represented by areas with less than 20% tree
cover, more than 20% shrub cover, and not
classified as upland grassland, bottomland
grassland, early successional conifer, or
riparian/wetland habitat. Common shrubs in
this cover type include snowberry, ninebark,
red-osier dogwood, sagebrush, currant, and
rose. Other vegetation present includes
Idaho fescue, pinegrass, Sandberg's
bluegrass, sedges, bluebunch wheat grass,
and various forbs.
Early Successional Conifer Cover. The early
successional conifer cover types consist of
typically forested areas currently in a
grass/forb or seedling/sapling successional
stage (i.e., clearcut, seed tree cut, or
shelterwood cut less than 20 years old).
Predominant trees present include Douglas-fir,
western larch, ponderosa pine, Englemann
spruce, and subalpine fir. Predominant shrub
species include ninebark, bearberry,
snowberry, pachistima, huckleberry, red-osier
dogwood, and Cascade azalea.
Mixed Conifer Pole Cover. The mixed conifer
pole cover type includes those stands with
trees 5 inches to 9.9 inches diameter at
breast height (dbh) that are the dominant
class and occupy more than 50% of the area.
Trees larger than ten inches dbh occupy less
than 20% of the stand. Douglas-fir, western
larch, Englemann spruce, subalpine fir, and
ponderosa pine are the most abundant trees
present. Common shrub species include
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-91
ninebark, snowberry, bearberry, pachistima,
huckleberry, red-osier dogwood, and Cascade
azalea.
Mixed Conifer Mature Cover. The mixed
conifer mature cover type is represented by
stands with trees greater than ten inches dbh
occupying more than 20% of the area. This
cover type includes young mature, mature,
and old growth serai stages. Dominant trees
species include Douglas fir, western larch,
Englemann spruce, subalpine fir, and
ponderosa pine. Major shrub species include
ninebark, snowberry, bearberry, pachistima,
huckleberry, and cascade azalea.
Deciduous Cover. The deciduous cover type
is classified as stands with 90% overstory of
aspen or cottonwood, but not necessarily a
climax deciduous hardwood plant association.
The predominant tree species found in
deciduous forests include quaking aspen and
black cottonwood. Major shrubs present
include Sitka alder, Douglas maple,
snowberry, red-osier dogwood, willow
huckleberry, serviceberry, and shiny leaf
spirea.
Riparian/Wetland Cover. The riparian/wetland
cover type consists of all areas within 100
feet of a stream, wetland, lake, or pond, and
within 50 feet of a seep or spring. Subalpine
fir, Englemann spruce, Douglas-fir, western
red cedar, black cottonwood, and quaking
aspen presents the major trees present.
Predominant shrub species found in
riparian/wetland areas include Sitka alder,
Douglas maple, huckleberry, red-osier
dogwood, bearberry, snowberry, twisted
stalk, arrowleaf groundsel, and bunchberry
dogwood. Common ferns include lady fern
and oak fern.
Lake/Pond Cover. The lake/pond cover type
includes areas of open water and emergent
vegetation, excluding rivers and streams.
Beth, beaver and Little Beaver Lakes are
mapped as lake/pond cover types. Emergent
vegetation includes cattails, reed canary
grass, creeping bentgrass, spike rush, and
sedges.
Agriculture Cover. The agriculture cover type
represents those areas which are currently
being cultivated. Included are plowed and
planted land, hay lands, and irrigated
pastures.
3.13.3 Land Use Patterns and Human
Activities Influencing Wildlife
Land use, land management, and disturbance
for human activities may directly affect the
type, amount, and quality of habitat available
to wildlife. Changes in land use may be
detrimental or beneficial to wildlife. Wildlife
response to disturbance is variable and
dependent upon the type, intensity and
duration of the disturbance, the activity of
the individual prior to the disturbance, the
time of day and/or season, the proximity to
the sources of the disturbance, previous
experience with the disturbance, the mobility
of the species, and sensitivity of the species
or individual to the type of disturbance.
The following sections describe human
activities that may influence wildlife in the
analysis area. Added emphasis is placed on
information pertaining to species highlighted
later in Section 3.13.5, Wildlife Opecies
Overview.
Human Presence
Human presence affects wildlife behavior in
numerous ways. Wildlife sensitive to human
presence may suffer declines in productivity,
depressed feeding rates, and avoidance of
otherwise suitable habitat (Henson and Grant,
1991). Ward (1985) noted differential
response by big game to human presence; elk
were less tolerant of human activity than
deer. Nesting ferruginous hawks flushed
40% of the time if a person walked within
130 yards of the nest (White and Thurow,
1985). In contrast, random observations by
Wedgewood (1992) indicated considerable
tolerance by sharp-tailed grouse to short-term
human presence.
As previously mentioned, most of the central
part of the analysis area and part of the
periphery are managed by agencies including:
the Okanogan National Forest, Colville
National Forest, BLM, WADNR, and the Kettle
Provincial Forest. Human presence in these
areas is relatively low as few permanent
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-92
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
residences occur there. Seasonal activities
associated with forest management, firewood
cutting, and recreation do increase human
presence during certain times of the year.
The dominant recreational activity is hunting,
primarily in the fall. Other recreational
activities occur mostly during the summer
and include sightseeing, hiking, camping,
berry-picking, and wildlife watching. Human
presence during the winter is limited by deep
snow conditions. Principal winter recreational
activities are cross-country skiing and
snowmobiling. The overall effect on wildlife
of these intermittent seasonal activities is
considered minimal. The lands managed by
agencies generally provide habitat with
reduced disturbances.
Most of the residential development occurs
along the periphery of the analysis area. The
presence of residential development may
have a direct influence on wildlife distribution
and populations. As development occurs
(i.e., structures, roads, and the conversion of
forest/range to agricultural lands), wildlife are
subjected to the loss and/or alteration of
habitat and increased disturbance. Habitat
suitability is reduced for species sensitive to
disturbance. However, in some situations,
wildlife are attracted to areas of
development. For example, both mule deer
and white-tailed deer are attracted to forage
provided by agricultural fields in the Toroda
Creek and Myers Creek valleys.
Residential development in the analysis area
is concentrated at Chesaw and at Midway,
British Columbia. Homes are also located
along Myers Creek, Toroda Creek, the Kettle
River, lower Nicholson Creek (on Forest Road
3575), and along County Road 4895. In
recent years, several areas have been
subdivided for residences on private land
south and west of Buckhorn Mountain (i.e.,
Pine Chee) providing a potential for greater
residential development. There has been a
13% increase in the population for the
Chesaw-Oroville subdivision (the closest U.S.
town to the Project site) between 1980 and
1990. However, with 41 % of the available
housing in Chesaw-Oroville vacant in 1990
(Section 3.20.3, Housing), extensive
residential development in the analysis area is
unlikely in the near future in the absence of
mine development.
Noise
Noise effects on wildlife can be primary
(direct physical auditory effects such as
temporary or permanent hearing loss, or
masking of auditory signals), secondary (non-
auditory effects such as stress, elevated
metabolism, increased energy costs, or
behavioral changes), or tertiary (direct results
of primary and secondary effects - e.g.,
localized population declines or range
reductions) (Janssen, 1980).
In general, existing noise levels within the
analysis area are relatively low in all but
inhabited and farmed areas. The forest
vegetation and variable topographic relief act
to buffer noises. Nonetheless, wildlife are
subject to intermittent episodes of noise
disturbance primarily from logging, firewood
cutting, farm machinery, aircraft, road traffic,
and recreational activities including hunting
and the use of vehicles (e.g., snowmobiles,
motorcycles, all-terrain vehicles). Within the
core area, additional noise disturbance
resulted from mineral exploration activities.
Existing day time and nighttime ambient noise
levels were measured at five locations in the
analysis area. The levels recorded ranged
from 35 dBA to 52 dBA (Leq/daytime) and 30
dBA to 40 dBA (Leq/nighttime) at two sites
outside the Chesaw and Bolster areas (i.e.
away from residential lands). Wintertime
noise levels are generally less than
summertime. The U.S. Department of
Transportation applies a noise abatement
criterion of 57 dBA (Leq) for lands where
quiet and serenity are of extraordinary
importance (USDOE, 1982). This level could
be used as a reasonable approximation of
ambient, where actual measures are not
available.
Light and Glare
The presence of artificial lights has the
potential to affect wildlife in both beneficial
and harmful ways. The existing light and
glare in the core and analysis areas is minimal
based on the low population density and the
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-93
distance from cities or activities that generate
extensive artificial light. The greatest
existing light and glare occurs around the
town of Chesaw; along the Kettle River valley
near Midway, British Columbia; from
residences along Myers and Toroda Creeks;
and from residences along the Pontiac Ridge
Road.
Road Density and Road Kills
The presence of road can contribute to death
or injury to wildlife from collisions with
moving vehicles. The principal factors
affecting the incident of wildlife-vehicle
accidents include road condition (gravel or
paved), traffic speed, and road location
relative to wildlife habitat. In Okanogan
County, wildlife vehicle accidents account for
approximately 14% of the accidents on state
highways (A.G. Crook, 1993d).
Existing road density is relatively low over the
analysts area (2.2 miles per square mile).
Road densities within the core area is higher
(6.1 miles per square mile) due to past
mineral exploration and timber harvest
activities. There is no data available on
wildlife related accidents or wildlife road kills
for Forest Roads in the analysis area or
County Roads leading to the Project area.
The road closest to the analysis area where
data on wildlife road kills have been collected
is Highway 20. There were 22 reported deer
road kills, mostly white-tails, along a ten-mile
stretch of Highway 20 (mile post 280-290)
during a 14 year period from September
1979 through December 1993 (A.C. Crook,
1993d).
Hunting and Trapping
Hunting is the dominant recreational activity
in the core and analysis areas. Most hunting
(archery and firearm) is for deer (mule and
white-tail) and black bear, although there is
some hunting for cougar, coyote, and bobcat
(Swedberg, 1994). Small game hunting is
primarily for grouse (blue and ruffed),
snowshoe hare and quail. The analysis area
is a popular hunting site for both local
residents and out-of-area hunters (1,831 big
game hunter days and 146 small game hunter
days, see Section 3.15.4, Recreation
Activities). It is also part of the former North
Half of the Colville Reservation. The Colville
tribe retains hunting rights on the North Half
where tribal members have a separate deer
season (Murphy, 1994). Illegal hunting of
deer also occurs, but is difficult to quantify.
Recent trapping efforts within the analysis
area are low, primarily due to low pelt prices
(Friesz, 1994a). The primary trapping areas
are along Beaver and Myers Creeks, and to a
lesser extent Mary Ann and Toroda Creeks.
The species most frequently trapped are
beaver and muskrat, with some coyote and
raccoon taken (Pozzanghera, 1994). An
important location of bobcat trapping is
Beaver Canyon. Badgers, weasels, and
raccoons are trapped incidentally. One
registered Canadian trapline (taking beaver,
coyote, marten, squirrel, bobcat, raccoon,
and lynx) is located near the northern border
of the analysis area between Rock Creek and
Midway, British Columbia (Pennoyer, 1994).
3.13.4 Additional Aspects of the
Biological Environment
Okanogan Forest Plan Management Areas
and Standards and Guidelines
The Okanogan National Forest Land and
Resource Management Plan (Okanogan Forest
Plan) provides direction for how the national
forest will be managed including; forest-wide
standards and guidelines, management area
standards and guidelines, and desired future
conditions for the various lands on the
national forest. The core area contains three
management areas: MA14, MA25, and
MA26 (see Figure 3.13.4, National Forest
Management Areas in the Core and Analysis
Areas). Each management area has its own
set of goals and objectives, and standards
and guidelines (see Section 1.6, Okanogan
Forest Plan Consistency). The sections that
follow will incorporate relevant discussions of
the Okanogan Forest Plan as it applies to
wildlife issues in the core and analysis area.
Riparian/Wetland Habitat
Riparian/wetland habitat is identified in the
Okanogan Forest Plan as a "limiting habitat"
that is important to numerous wildlife species
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-94
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
such as waterbirds, amphibians and
songbirds. Wetlands contain a mosaic of
microhabitats which provide a richer amount
and variety of plant and animal food sources
to support wildlife than when compared to
other systems. The value of adjacent cover
types to wildlife is enhanced by the presence
of a nearby wetland. Okanogan Forest Plan
standards and guidelines and application of
the Inland Native Fish Strategy serve to
protect riparian/wetland ecosystems from
physical alteration of damage when activities
occur there. Approximately 340 acres of
riparian/wetland habitat occur on Forest
Service lands within the core area, see Figure
3.13.5, Riparian, Deciduous and Ridgetop
Habitat Map. The riparian/wetland cover type
consists of all areas within 100 feet of a
stream, wetland, lake, or pond, and within 50
feet of a seep or spring. This broad definition
was used to portray a zone of influence
where species associated with riparian areas
were more likely to occur.
Successional Stage Diversity
The Okanogan Forest Plan includes a
standard and guideline for successional stage
diversity to ensure that a variety of forest
stand habitats are available to support a wide
range of wildlife. Successional stage
diversity is measured on a township basis.
Successional stage diversity in Township 40
North, Range 31 East meets Forest Plan
standards and guidelines for pole, young
mature, and mature serai stages, see Figure
3.13.6, Successional Stage Diversity. The
grass/forb and seedling/sapling serai stages
have less acres than the prescribed minimum
amount. In Township 40 North, Range 30
East, successional stage diversity meets
Forest Plan standards and guidelines for all
serai stages except seedling/sapling.
Old Growth
The intent of the Okanogan Forest Plan
standards and guidelines for old growth is to
ensure that habitat is available for old
growth-associated species (e.g., goshawk),
to maintain ecosystem diversity, and to lend
aesthetic qualities to the landscape. Old
growth is measured on a township basis.
Approximately 1,823 acres of Forest Service
lands in Township 40 North, Range 31 East
have been designated as old growth,
representing 12% of the Forest Service land
base suitable for timber production in the
township. Designated old growth in
Township 40 North, Range 30 East totals
149 acres (97 acres in Section 12 and 52
acres in Section 25) and represents 4% of
the suitable Forest Service land base in the
township. The amount of designated old
growth in Township 40 North, Range 30 East
does not currently meet Forest Plan standards
and guidelines, see Figure 3.13.6,
Successional Stage Diversity. To comply
with the Forest Plan, approximately 54 acres
of replacement old growth were designated
by the Forest Service in Ethel Creek in order
to reach the required 5% level.
Road Density
The Okanogan. Forest Plan standards and
guidelines for maximum allowable road
density are based on the goals of the
Management Area and are implemented to
limit disturbance to wildlife. Road densities
are lowest and access restrictions greatest in
Management Areas which emphasize deer
winter range (MA26 and MA14). For
example, in MA26 road densities are limited
to one mile of road open to motorized use per
square mile of discrete individual
management area, in MA 14 road density is
limited to no more than two miles of open
roads per square mile, in contrast to MA25
which allows no more than three miles of
open roads per square mile. A discrete
Management Area is a block of forest in a
particular Management Area (see Figure
3.13.4, National Forest Management Areas in
the Core and Analysis Areas).
Road densities in discrete Management Area
25-18 meet Okanogan Forest Plan standards
and guidelines. Road densities in discrete
Management Areas 14-16, 14-17, 14-18, 14-
19, 26-13, 26-15, and 26-16 exceed Forest
Plan Standards and Guidelines. Discrete
Management Areas 14.16, 14.19, 26-13,
and 26-15 are closed to motorized vehicles
from December 1 through March 31 to
minimize disturbance in deer winter range.
All off-road travel is prohibited within the
seasonally closed areas.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-95
3.13.5 Wildlife Species Overview
Wildlife emphasized in this document attempt
to represent a broad range of fauna that
highlight those species occurring on priority
habitats, those managed under standards and
guidelines in the Okanogan Forest Plan,
management indicator species, species of
high human value, and species assigned
protective status by state or federal agencies
(i.e., Endangered, Threatened, Forest Service
Sensitive) as shown in Table 3.13.2, Wildlife
Species List. Several songbirds are included
that occupy and represent avian species
using grassland, shrub and riparian/wetland
habitats. Water birds are discussed as a
group because of the importance of aquatic
habitats in the core and analysis areas.
The species are organized according to the
following categories: large mammals; medium
and small-sized mammals; reptiles and
amphibians; woodpeckers; songbirds;
waterbirds; upland game birds; raptors; and
endangered, threatened, and sensitive
species. Each species account includes
sufficient life history information to
understand habitat needs and assess the
potential effects of proposed Project
activities. Site-specific information on
occurrences and habitat use in the core and
analysis areas is presented. Okanogan Forest
Plan management direction which specifically
apply to individual wildlife species (e.g., deer)
are discussed within respective species
sections. The Crown Jewel Project, Wildlife
Technical Report (Beak, 1995a) provides a
detailed description of life history, habitat
requirements, habitat suitability, and species
occurrence.
Large Mammals
Large mammals known to occur in the core
and analysis areas include black bear,
mountain lion, mule deer, white-tailed deer,
Rocky Mountain elk, and moose. California
bighorn sheep, grizzly bear, and gray wolf are
non documented in the analysis area but are
addressed in the Section 3.13.6, Threatened,
Endangered, and Sensitive Species. Natural
history, known occurrences, and habitat
assessments are presented in the following
section for deer (mule and white-tailed), black
bear, and mountain lion.
Mule and White-Tailed Deer. Mule deer and
white-tailed deer are common in the analysis
area throughout the year, having adapted to
seasonal differences in availability of
resources. Deer in the analysis area and
surrounding Okanogan Highlands are not
migratory in the traditional sense of moving
between geographically separated high
elevation summer range and lower elevation
winter range. Rather, they opportunistically
seek out areas of higher forage quality and
quantity that occur seasonally at differing
locations within the surrounding landscape
mosaic.
For example, good quality spring range
provides essential forage to quickly boost
energy reserves depleted by winter
conditions. The earliest spring ranges are
often located on south facing slopes, where
the favorable south aspect results in an
earlier progression from sonwmelt, to ground
exposure, and finally growth of succulent
grasses and forbs containing the higher
protein and soluble carbohydrate content
sought out by deer. However, the south
aspect also leads to earlier arid conditions.
Plants become less succulent since there is a
higher content of less digestible cellulose and
lignin. Consequently, deer will shift use and
follow the "green-up" in the landscape, in
tune with the forage areas providing higher
levels of nutrients needed to rebuild energy
reserves in the spring, support the growth of
fawns in the summer, and finally build up to
peak conditions in the fall with adequate fat
reserves needed to cope with severe winter
conditions (and the rut for bucks).
Deer are commonly seen foraging in
agricultural fields in Myers Creek and Toroda
Creek. By late summer and fall, deer may
concentrate around wetlands or
riparian/wetland areas for succulent forage
and water (Witmer et al., 1985). Shrubs at
this time become a more important
component in the diet. Cover provided by
vegetation and topography is utilized by deer
during non-winter months for summer thermal
heat regulation and hiding cover.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-96
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
TABLE 3.13.2. WILDLIFE SPECIES LIST
Common Name
Scientific Name
USFS
Status
Large Mammals
Mule deer
White-tailed deer
Black bear
Mountain lion
Odocoileus hem/onus
Odocoileus virgin/anus
Ursus americanus
Felis concolor
MIS
MIS
Medium and Small-sized Mammals
Pine marten
Bobcat
Martes americana
Felis rufus
MIS
Federal
Status
State
Status
Habitat or
Species
Occurrence
PHS Game
PHS Game
Game
Game
Documented
Documented
Documented
Documented
PHS Game
Game
Documented
Documented
Woodpeckers
Hairy woodpecker
Three-toed woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker
Picoides villosus
Picoides tridactylus
Dryocopus pileatus
MIS
MIS
MIS
Monitor
Candidate
Documented
Documented
Documented
Songbirds
Winter wren
Orange-crowned warbler
Vesper sparrow
Troglodytes
Vermivora celata
Pooecetes gramineus
Upland Game Birds
Ruffed grouse
Blue grouse
Bonasa umbel/us
Dendragapus obscurus
MIS
Documented
Documented
Documented
Game
PHS Game
Documented
Documented
Raptors
Golden eagle
Barred owl
Great gray owl
Boreal owl
Aquila chrysaetos
Strix varia
Strix nebu/osa
Aegolius funereus
Candidate
Monitor
Monitor
Monitor
Documented
Documented
Documented
Documented
Endangered, Threatened, Candidate, and Sensitive Species
California bighorn sheep
Grizzly bear
Gray wolf
Pacific fisher
California wolverine (MIS)
North American lynx (MIS)
Pygmy rabbit
Townsend's big-eared bat
Spotted frog
Loggerhead shrike
Common loon
Long-billed curlew
Black tern
Columbian sharp-tailed
grouse
Northern bald eagle
Northern goshawk
Ferruginous hawk
Peregrine falcon
Ovis canadensis
californiana
Ursus arctos
Cam's lupus
Martes pennant!
Guto luteus
Felis lynx canadensis
Brachylagus idahoensis
Plecotus townsendii
Rene pretiosa
Lanius hidovicianus
Gavia immer
Numenius americanus
Childonias niger
Tympanuchus
phasianelkjs
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Accipiter gentilis
Buteo regalis
Fako peregrinus
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
soc
Threatened
Endangered
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
Threatened
SOC
SOC
Endangered
PHS Game
Endangered
Endangered
Candidate
PHS Monitor
Threatened
Endangered
Candidate
Candidate
Candidate
Candidate
PHS Monitor
PHS Monitor
Candidate
Threatened
Candidate
Threatened
Endangered
Suspected
Suspected
Documented
Documented
Documented
Documented
Suspected
Documented
Suspected
Documented
Suspected
Documented
Documented
Suspected
Suspected
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-97
TABLE 3.13.2, WILDLIFE SPECIES LIST
Common Name
Myotis sp.
Little willow flycatcher
Olive-side Flycatcher
Northern spotted owl (MIS)
Scientific Name
Empidonax trailii
Contopus borea/is
Strix occidentals caurina
USFS
Status
Sensitive
Federal
Status
SOC
SOC
SOC
Threatened
State
Status
Candidate
Endangered
Endangered
Habitat or
Species
Occurrence
Documented
Documented
Documented
Notes: MIS = Management Indicator Species
PHS = Priority Habitats and Species Program, Washington
Documented = Known to Occur
Suspected = Likely to Occur or Habitat present
SOC = Species of concern. These species were formally listed as Candidate. Category 2 species by the WAFWS
The spring, summer, and fall are times in the
deer's energy balance when energy gains
exceed losses. In winter, energy losses
exceed gains. Deer must cope with the
worst environmental conditions while
consuming the poorest quality food. Suitable
winter range providing shallow snow,
adequate food, and sufficient shelter help
deer slow the rate of weight loss during the
winter.
Mule deer are indicator species on the
Okanogan National Forest. Multi-agency
biologists have identified winter range as the
limiting factor/habitat associated with
maintaining populations of mule deer, and
that snow intercept thermal cover (SIT) is an
essential component of deer winter range and
the major determinant of winter range in the
Okanogan Highlands. SIT is defined as multi-
storied stands with at least 12 inches dbh
conifer trees with greater than 60% overstory
canopy closure. The interlocking crowns
intercept the snow resulting in lower snow
depths below the trees compared to adjacent
openings. The multi-story stand component
provides both a windbreak reducing heat loss,
and hiding cover offering security. The best
SIT is associated with mature/old growth
stands with an abundant Douglas fir
component. These SIT stands also provide
arboreal lichens and conifer needles which
form a substantial portion of the winter diet
(Friesz, 1994b, Forest Service, 1989).
With the exception of severely disturbed
lands, all of the cover types in the core area,
and all of the land types in the analysis area
provide suitable deer habitat at least part of
the year. Within the analysis and core area
are patches of summer thermal and summer
hiding cover, fawning areas, water sources,
winter thermal cover, winter hiding cover,
and SIT. The Okanogan Highlands has a
history of providing high quality deer hunting
opportunities (Friesz, 1992). Area biologists
note that white-tailed deer populations are
increasing throughout the country, while mule
deer populations appear to be declining.
There is speculation that declining mule deer
numbers are tied to reductions in winter
range. White-tail deer appear to be more
versatile and adaptable to human settlement
and habitat disturbance.
The Okanogan Forest Plan goal for
Management Area 14 (discrete MA 14-6, 14-
17, 14-18, and 14-19) and Management
Area 26 (discrete MA 26-13 and 26-15) is to
manage for deer winter range. The standards
and guidelines for these Management Areas
outline the deer cover conditions that must
exist to meet the Forest Plan's management
goals unless the Forest Plan is amended. The
Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and the
existing condition for each management area
within the core area are provided in Table
4.12.6, Summary of Forest Plan Consistency
by Alternative. The TWHIP analysis of deer
winter cover in the core area indicates that
SIT cover standards and guidelines are not
currently being met in these portions of the
Management Areas. Minimum requirements
for winter thermal cover and winter hiding
cover are met in discrete Management Areas
14-16 and 26-15. Discrete Management
Area 14-17 meets only winter hiding cover
standards and guidelines, and discrete
Management Areas 14-18, 14-19, and 26-13
are below standards and guidelines for all
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-98
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
winter cover components.
Deer are known to spend at least part of the
winter on Buckhorn Mountain (Friesz, 1994a;
Haines, 1993). Observations of deer use of
the Buckhorn Mountain area during the winter
were documented during the Buckhorn and
Nicholson timber sales. However,
observations suggest that less deer are
utilizing the area with the recent Nicholson
timber sales compared to numbers seen
during the Buckhorn timber sale. It is likely
that current limited deer use of the area is
partially caused by past timber harvests in
the area, including the Marias, Bat, and
Buckhorn timber sales. SIT cover is in short
supply and likely limiting the number of
wintering deer.
Summer cover within the core area portions
of discreet Management Areas 14-16, 14-17,
and 25-18 meet or exceed Forest Plan
standards. Summer thermal cover conditions
meet Forest Plan standards for discrete
Management Areas 14-18 and 14-19, but
summer hiding cover levels do not meet
standards for these management areas.
Black Bear. The black bear occurs
throughout forested regions of North America
(Banfield, 1947; Penton, 1982). Preferred
habitat is a coniferous forest matrix
interspersed with deciduous forest, open
forest-shrub, shrub, meadow, and
riparian/wetland cover types (Unsworth et al.,
1989). Open areas are typically avoided
(Jonkel and Cowan, 1971; Unsworth et al.,
1989).
The black bear is omnivorous but primarily
vegetarian. Forbs and grasses are consumed
in the spring and a wide variety of berries
sought in the summer and early fall
(Dalquest, 1948; Banfield, 1974; Unsworth
et al., 1989). Animal matter, especially
insects, make up a small portion of their diet
(Danquest, 1948; Poelker and Hartwell,
1973; Rogers and Allen, 1987). Carrion also
serves as a source of food (Banfeld, 1974).
Habitat use and movements by black bear are
influenced by the availability of food.
Timbered areas are used throughout the year
for bedding, travel and escape cover
(Amstrup and Beecham, 1976; Lindzey and
Meslow, 1977; Pelton, 1982; Unsworth
et.al., 1989). Bears are most active at lower
and middle elevations particularly within
small clearings or meadows where grasses,
sedges, and forbs are abundant (Amstrup and
Beecham, 1976; Unsworth et al., 1989).
Higher elevation slopes and ridgetops are
used in late summer and fall (Amstrup and
Beecham, 1976; Unsworth et al., 1989).
Black bears are generally solitary and are
most active during the day (Poelker and
Hartwell, 1973; Lindzey and Meslow, 1977).
Black bears become dormant in the winter,
denning in late October to November. They
emerge from their dens in April or May
(Dalquest, 1948; Jonkel and Cowan, 1971).
During the denning period, black bears can be
easily aroused and will react to a disturbance
(Jonkel and Cowan, 1971). Although
adaptable to human presence, bears are most
abundant in remote areas (Pelton, 1982;
Rogers and Allen, 1987).
Black bears occur within the core area.
Several sightings of bear and bear sign (i.e.,
tracks, scat, clawed trees) are reported from
the Nicholson timber sale wildlife surveys
conducted by the U.S. Forest Service in 1990
and TWHIP habitat sampling performed by
Beak Consultants. Vegetation types and
foods typically used by black bear are present
in the core and analysis areas.
Approximately 10,363 acres of the grassland,
shrub, early successional conifer, mixed
conifer pole, mixed conifer mature,
riparian/wetland, and deciduous cover types
may provide suitable habitat for black bears
in the core area, as shown on Figure 3.13.3,
Cover Type Map. No other bear observations
are documented for the analysis area, but one
black bear was observed in July 1994 just
outside the analysis area boundary
approximately one mile southwest of Beaver
Lake (English, 1994). Suitable habitat within
the analysis area is represented by 67,076
acres of grassland/shrub, open
coniferous/deciduous, and coniferous land
types as shown on Figure 3.13.2, Land Type
Map.
Mountain Lion. The mountain lion is a large
carnivore which historically ranged
throughout North and South America
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-99
(Banfield, 1974; Russell, 1978; Dixon, 1982).
Its current distribution in North America is
limited to areas west of, and including, the
Rocky Mountains (Russell, 1978; Dixon,
1982). They occur throughout Washington
except for the treeless areas in the eastern
part of the state (Dalquiest, 1948). Mountain
lions use a wide variety of habitat types.
Preferred habitat includes areas with cliffs
and ledges, rugged terrain and dense cover
(Banfield, 1974; Russell, 1978; Dixon 1982;
Halfpenny and Biesiot, 1986). Stream
courses and high ridges are favored travel
routes (Russell, 1978). Mountain lions are
solitary (Banfield, 1974). Estimates of home
range size for the mountain lion vary widely
based on season and gender (Banfield, 1974;
Russell, 1978; Dixon, 1982; Seidensticker et
al., 1973). Summer and fall ranges are larger
than winter and spring; females without
kittens occupy larger ranges than those with
kittens; and the range of males is larger than
that of females. Mountain lions feed
primarily upon larger mammals, birds, and
small amounts of grass (Dixon, 1982;
Seidensticker et al., 1973; Banfield, 1974).
Mountain lions hunt by stalking, prefer fresh
meat, and normally do not scavenge
(Banfield, 1974).
Mountain lions occur in the core area. One
lion was sighted during TWHIP habitat
sampling by Beak (1995a); A.G. Crook
(1992a) recorded a set of lion tracks during
winter wildlife surveys. Mountain lions use
the same habitat as deer, their primary prey
species (refer to deer above for habitat
amounts).
Medium and Small-Sized Mammals
Medium and small-sized mammals known to
occur in the core and analysis areas include
shrews, various species of bats, snowshoe
hare, yellow-pine chipmunk, red squirrel,
beaver, muskrat, western jumping mouse,
porcupine, raccoon, coyote, pine marten,
mink, California wolverine, North American
lynx, and bobcat. Species expected to occur
in the area include Columbian ground squirrel,
northern pocket gopher, western harvest
mouse, deer mouse, voles, Norway rat, house
mouse, Pacific fisher, and long-tailed weasel,
among others. This group of species inhabits
a wide range of cover types and habitats.
Natural history, known occurrences, and
habitat assessments are presented for pine
marten, bobcat, and bats in the following
sections. Townsend's big-eared bat, pygmy
rabbit, pacific fisher, California wolverine, and
North American lynx are addressed below
and in Section 3.13.6, Threatened,
Endangered, and Sensitive Species.
Pine Marten. The pine marten occurs
throughout the coniferous forests of Canada,
Alaska, and the northeastern and western
U.S. (Banfield, 1974). Although the marten
prefers late-successional and old-growth
forest, they will use a variety of forest types
(Koehler and Hornocker, 1977; Soutiere,
1979; Stevenson and Major, 1982; Hargis
and McCullough, 1984). The most important
habitat is mature spruce/fir forest with
canopy closures greater than 30% and high
densities of coarse wood debris (Koehler and
Hornocker, 1977). Soutiere (1979) found
that marten numbers declined where mature
forest habitat was decreased to less than
25% to 35% of the total forest area.
Throughout the year, mesic habitats are
preferred and appear to provide the most
abundant prey (Koehler and Hornocker,
1977). Marten are opportunistic and will eat
a variety of small mammals and plants.
Population densities are related to quality of
habitat (Buskirk and McDonald, 1989).
The marten is known to occur in the
Okanogan Highlands (Rodrick and Milner,
1991). Several sets of marten tracks were
recorded by A.G. Crook during winter wildlife
surveys, confirming presence in the core
area. Marten may use all forest cover types
within the core area. Approximately 1,543
acres of mature and old-growth mixed conifer
forest (having a canopy closure greater or
equal to 30%) are present within the core
area, representing 14% of the total area.
Preferred winter habitat (mature and old-
growth mixed-conifer forest containing spruce
and high densities of coarse woody debris) is
present on 133 acres. The analysis area
contains 27,441 acres of coniferous land
type, portions of which provide suitable
marten habitat as shown on Figure 3.13.2,
Land Type Map.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-100
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
Bobcat. The bobcat is found throughout
much of the mainland U.S., and is gradually
expanding its range into Canada. Bobcats
were once common within forests of the
Okanogan National Forest and may have been
associated with rocky areas. Due to high pelt
prices in the 1970's, this species was
intensively pursued during this time by hound
hunters and trappers. This harvest pressure,
coupled with increased road access from
intensified logging, likely depressed
populations from former numbers (Friesz,
1994b). In the northwest, bobcats are most
numerous in logged areas, conifer forests,
and rock outcrops (Larrison, 1976). Ledges
serve as centers for activities such as
denning, and provide protection from weather
and harassment. Bobcats also use brush
piles, hollow trees, and logs as rest or
denning sites (Gashwiler et al., 1961). The
diet of the bobcat includes snowshoe hares,
cottontail rabbits, squirrels, mice, rats, and
other rodents, as well as porcupines, birds,
and occasionally insects, reptiles, vegetation,
livestock and deer. The range of the bobcat
varies by gender and age. An area of 4.5
square miles has been recorded for a female
and as much as 47.4 square miles for male
bobcats (Knick, 1990).
Three bobcat observations were documented
by A.G. Crook (1992a) and three
observations were documented by Beak
personnel. Beak personnel observed two
kittens in a pole size (8" dbh) Douglas-fir
stand in September 1993. Bobcat tracks
were also seen by Beak personnel in
November 1993 in two locations. In August
of 1994, Beak personnel observed one kitten
in a young mature Douglas-fir stand. Tracks
of an8 adulWere seen several days later
within one-quarter mile of the kitten's
location.
Approximately 633 acres of seedling/sapling
serai stage, 2,496 acres of pole serai stage,
and 3,456 acres of young mature serai stage
stands provide potential bobcat habitat in the
core area, see Figure 3.13.7, Successions!
Stage Map. Early successional conifer stands
provide forage and the conifer pole and
conifer mature stands provide cover for
bobcats. Important habitat features such as
ledges, rock piles, and down logs are
scattered throughout the core area.
The analysis area contains approximately
27,441 acres of the coniferous forest land
type that is potential bobcat habitat.
Important habitat features like ledges and
rock outcroppings are found along south
slopes and ridges of the analysis area (e.g.,
ridges between Beaver and Marias Creek, and
between Marias and Nicholson Creek).
Bats. As more is learned about bats, it
becomes apparent that generalizations within
and between species must be made with
caution. Behavior and habitat characteristics
of a species may vary widely between
different geographic locations, even as close
as 100 miles (Perkins, 1994). Refer to the
Crown Jewel Project, Wildlife Technical
Report for information on life histories of bats
(Beak, 1995a). Seven species of bats have
been observed in the analysis area, mostly at
mine adits and ponds. Occurrences of bats
within or near the core and analysis areas are
summarized in Table 3.13.3, Bat Detections
in or Near the Analysis Area.
Reptiles and Amphibians
Several species of reptiles and amphibians are
known or expected to occur in the core and
analysis areas. Of the species discussed in
this section, only the spotted frog. Pacific
chorus frog, and garter snake have been
observed in the area where mine operations
are proposed on Buckhorn Mountain.
Permanent water sources are important for a
number of these species during one or more
of their life stages. Bullfrogs, spotted frogs,
and painted turtles spend the majority of their
lives in or very near perennial water. The
terrestrial adults of the tiger salamander, the
long-toed salamander, and the western toad
may wander some distance from water, but
seasonal or perennial bodies of water are
important for certain life stages of all three
species. Pacific chorus frogs may be found
in a variety of habitats as adults, but require
shallow, vegetated wetlands for egg-laying
and larval development.
Additional species are found in
riparian/wetland habitats, but may not be
dependent on them. Western skinks and
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-101
TABLE 3.13.3. BAT DETECTIONS IN OR NEAR THE ANALYSIS AREA
Common Name
Western small-footed myotis/
California myotis1
Western long-eared myotis
Little brown myotis/Yuma myotis1
Northern long-eared myotis
Fringed myotis
Long-legged myotis
Western red bat
Hoary bat
Silver-haired bat
Big brown bat
Spotted bat
Townsend's big-eared bat
Pallid bat
Western pipistrelle
Scientific Name
Myotis ciliolabrum/
Myotis californicus
Myotis evotis
Myotis lucifugas/
Myotis yumanensis
Myotis septentrionalis
Myotis thysanodes
Myotis volans
Lasiurus blossevillii
Lasiurus cinereus
Lasionycteris noctivagans
Eptesicus fuscus
Euderma maculatum
Plecotus townsendii
Antrozous pallidus
Pipistrellus hesperus
Location
Upper Magnetic Mine
Upper Magnetic Mine
Lower Magnetic Mine
Gold Axe
Lower Magnetic Mine
Upper Nicholson Creek Pond
No Detections Recorded
Approximately 50 Miles Southwest of
Analysis Area
Upper Magnetic Mine
Lower Magnetic Mine
Approximately 1 5 Miles West of
Analysis Area
Approximately 100 Miles South of
Analysis Area
Upper Nicholson Creek Pond/Starrem
Reservoir
Upper Nicholson Creek Pond
Starrem Reservoir
Approximately 10 Miles West of
Analysis Area
Approximately 3 Miles Southeast of
Analysis Area
Myers Creek Valley
Approximately 40 Miles Southwest of
Analysis Area
Approximately 50 miles Southwest of
Analysis Area
Note: 1 . Due to similarities between these species, identification was not definitive (ENSR, 1 994).
Sources: ENSR, 1994, Perkins, 1989, Sarell and McGuinness, 1993.
rubber boas may be found in forested
habitats with rotting logs, or at rocky streams
near meadows. The rubber boa has been
observed on open slopes at lower elevations
in the core and analysis area. The common
garter snake and the western terrestrial garter
snake are typically associated with
riparian/wetland zones. The western
terrestrial garter snake is not as aquatic as
the common garter snake, but it spends a
considerable amount of time near water.
The core and analysis areas contain cover
types which provide habitat characteristics
important for other species of reptiles and
amphibians. Northern alligator lizards are
frequently found in woodland and forest
habitats hiding under rotting logs, bark, and
other debris. Racers and gopher snakes are
commonly seen in grassland and shrub cover
types which contain many rocks and logs.
The racer has been observed on open slopes
at lower elevations in the core and analysis
area. Although the western rattlesnake can
be found in many habitat types, they are
typically near rocky streams, rock outcrops,
and talus slopes. Western rattlesnakes have
been observed along dry rocky slopes in arid
grassland/Ponderosa pine areas of Myers
Creek and Beaver Canyon. Short-horned
lizards are also found in a variety of habitats,
but are usually associated with the presence
of at least some pockets of fine, loose soil
within areas of rocky, sandy or firm soils.
Woodpeckers
Woodpeckers excavate their own cavities in
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-102
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
dead and decayed trees for nesting and
roosting. Most foraging takes place on dead
and decayed wood, including down logs and
stumps. Woodpeckers occurring in the
Crown Jewel Project analysis area include
norther flicker, Lewis' woodpecker, white-
headed woodpecker, Williamson's sapsucker,
red-breasted sapsucker, red-naped sapsucker,
downy woodpecker, hairy woodpecker, three-
toed woodpecker, black-backed woodpecker,
and pileated woodpecker. Several of these
woodpeckers are migratory, including the
northern flicker, Lewis' woodpecker, and the
sapsuckers.
Snags are a key component for maintaining
viable populations of woodpeckers (primary
cavity excavators) which in turn provide
cavities for use by other wildlife species. The
Okanogan Forest Plan assigns each
Management Area a level of biological
potential (snag densities capable of
supporting a given percent of the maximum
population level possible) for primary cavity
excavators to assure that snags of adequate
sizes are available and well distributed. Snag
densities in Management Areas 14 and 25
are managed at the 60% level of biological
potential (i.e., snag densities capable of
supporting 60% of the maximum population
possible) and snag densities in Management
Area 26 is managed at the 80% level. In
addition to these Management Area
allocations, snag densities in riparian/wetland
management zones and old growth areas are
managed at the 100% level of biological
potential (i.e., snag levels do not limit the
population.
Current snag densities in discrete
Management Areas 14-16, 14-17, 14-18 and
25-18 meet Forest Plan standards and
guidelines for desired number and distribution
of various size snags. Management Areas
14-17 and 14-18, and all riparian/wetland
areas meet standards and guidelines for all
snag size classes combined. Discrete
Management Areas 14-19 and 26-15, and all
old growth areas do not meet the Forest Plan
Standards and Guidelines for small (i.e., 10-
20 inch dbh) snags, but the standards and
guidelines are met for snags greater than 20
inches dbh. The portion of Management Area
26-13 within the core area has no snags and
does not meet Forest Plan standards and
guidelines.
Snag densities meet Forest Plan standards
and guidelines on 1,546 acres but are below
the desired level on 2,291 acres (32% and
47% of the total area respectively). Snags
are absent on 990 acres (21 % of the total
area). Stands where snag densities meet
standards and guidelines are typically large,
and are primarily found in the eastern portion
of the core area.
Hairy Woodpecker. The hairy woodpecker is
a non-migratory cavity nesting species that
occurs in all forest types throughout North
America (Terres, 1980). It is a widespread
year-round resident in Washington and the
Okanogan Valley (Cannings et al., 1987;
Jewett et al., 1953). The hairy woodpecker
usually excavates cavities in soft decayed
wood of both live and dead standing trees
(Brown, 1985). Cavities are also used for
roosting and winter cover, as well as for
nesting and rearing young (Thomas, 1979).
Insects account for most of the hairy
woodpecker's annual diet (Ehrlich et al.,
1988).
Suitable habitat for the hairy woodpecker is
present on 8,485 acres of the core area
within the riparian/wetland, deciduous, early
successional conifer, mixed conifer pole, and
mixed conifer mature cover types, see Figure
3.13.3, Cover Type Map. About 27,441
acres of hairy woodpecker habitat,
represented by the coniferous land type, are
scattered throughout the analysis area as
shown on Figure 3.13.2, Land Type Map.
Three-toed Woodpecker. The three-toed
woodpecker is a non-migratory species that
occurs from the boreal forests of Canada
south through the mountains of the western
U.S. (Terres, 1980), including Washington
(Jewett et al., 1953). The three-toed
woodpecker prefers mature and old-growth
stands of lodgepole pine and Engelmann
spruce for nesting and foraging; mixed
conifer and aspen stands are used to a lesser
degree (Cannings et al., 1987; Goggans et
al., 1988). Mixed-conifer stands are selected
for roosting (Goggans et al., 1988). A key
habitat component is abundant diseased,
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-103
dead, and decaying trees which provide
forage and nest sites (Goggans et al., 1988).
The three-toed woodpecker feeds on wood-
boring beetle larvae and adult beetles (Terres,
1980; Bull et al., 1986, Goggans et al.,
1988). The species requires soft wood for
excavating cavities and selects trees with
heartrot (Goggans et al., 1988).
The three-toed woodpecker is documented to
occur in the core area. Sightings are reported
from wildlife surveys conducted by A.G.
Crook and TWHIP habitat sampling performed
by Beak. Mature and old-growth forest
stands containing Engelmann spruce, western
larch and lodgepole pine (1,217 acres)
provide suitable foraging habitat. These
stands may also be used for nesting by three-
toed woodpeckers where suitable snags are
available. Lodgepole pine, preferred by the
three-toed woodpecker for nesting, is a
component of stands totaling 685 acres in
the core area. However, lodgepole pine
occurs only as a dominant canopy species
(i.e., > 50% of stand trees) on 45 acres;
snags average ten per acre in these stands.
The analysis area contains 27,441 acres of
coniferous land type, portions of which may
provide suitable three-toed woodpecker
habitat.
The Okanogan Forest Plan states that wildlife
management strategies will design and
manage habitat conditions for wildlife
management indicator species and other
represented wildlife. The three-toed
woodpecker is an indicator species for the
Okanogan National Forest. Three
management requirement cells providing
preferred habitat for the three-toed
woodpecker are identified in the core area.
The strategy of using management
requirement cells, on Okanogan National
Forest lands, is to provide a grid of habitats
which are limiting to indicator species. One
management requirement cell along Forest
Road 3575-150 totals 113 acres, a
management requirement cell near the end of
Forest Road 3550-120 totals 78 acres, and a
management requirement cell near South
Bolster Creek totals 75 acres. Two additional
three-toed woodpecker management
requirement cells occur in the analysis area.
Pileated Woodpeckers. The pileated
woodpecker occurs in large tracts of
contiguous mature and old-growth forest
throughout Canada and the U.S. (Terres,
1980). It is a year-round resident throughout
the Okanogan Valley (Cannings et al., 1987).
Pileated woodpeckers excavate nest cavities
in large diameter (greater than 20 inches)
snags or live defective trees with heartrot.
According to Madsen (1986), pileated
woodpeckers on the Okanogan National
Forest prefer large western larch or
ponderosa pine snags over other species for
nesting. Pileated woodpeckers forage
primarily on carpenter ants (Aney and
McClelland, 1990; Bull, 1987). Other wood-
boring insects, fruits, and nuts are eaten to a
lesser extent (Cannings et al., 1987).
Foraging habitat suitability is a function of
canopy closure, and the accessibility and
abundance of snags and down logs (Aney
and McClelland, 1990).
The pileated woodpecker commonly occurs in
the core area. Suitable nesting and foraging
habitat is determined by an abundance of
large live trees and snags, presence of larch
and ponderosa pine snags, moderate canopy
closure and an abundance of down logs.
Approximately 7,441 acres of riparian, mixed
conifer pole, and mixed conifer mature cover
types provide suitable habitat within the core
area (Figure 3.13.3, Cover Type Map). These
forested habitats have an average of 0.4
snags (>20 inches dbh) per acre. The
predominant snag species is Douglas-fir,
though larch and ponderosa pine snags are
also found. About 27,441 acres of pileated
woodpecker habitat, represented by the
coniferous land type, are scattered
throughout the analysis area as shown on
Figure 3.13.2, Land Type Map.
The pileated woodpecker is also an indicator
species on the Okanogan National Forest.
Four pileated woodpecker management
requirement cells occur in the analysis area.
In addition, a portion (150 acres) of a 610
acre management requirement cell for the
pileated woodpecker lies within the core area
near the headwaters of the North Fork of
Gold Creek. Pileated woodpecker
management requirement cells are divided
into reproductive and feeding areas.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-104
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
Reproductive areas are 300 acres of mature
or old-growth forest and must contain at least
45 large-diameter snags (greater than 20
inches) for nesting. Feeding areas are 300
acres but not required to be mature or old
growth forest. They must however, contain
a minimum average of two snags per acre
which are greater than ten inches in diameter.
All management requirement cells for pileated
woodpecker meet the minimum size required
by the Forest Plan.
Songbirds
Songbirds (passerines) are a large and diverse
group, and include flycatchers, swallows,
jays, crows, chickadees, wrens, thrushes,
waxwings, vireos, warblers, grosbeaks,
sparrows, blackbirds, tanagers, and finches.
More than 75 species of songbirds have been
observed in the analysis area. Songbirds are
found in virtually all available habitats. The
majority of the songbird species occurring in
the analysis area are migratory; most of these
are neotropical migrants (i.e., they winter
south of the Tropic of Cancer). The winter
wren, orange-crowned warbler, and the
vesper sparrow were selected as
representative birds for the guilds using
riparian areas, shrubland, and grasslands
respectively.
Winter Wren. The winter wren is found
throughout North America, Asia, and Europe
and is a widespread year-round resident in
Washington and the Okanogan Valley
(Cannings et al., 1987; Jewett et al., 1953).
In northeastern Washington, the winter wren
occurs in dense coniferous or conifer-
hardwood forests along streams or creeks
(Jewett et al., 1953; Brown, 1985).
Important habitat features required by the
winter wren include logs and down material,
and substrate for foraging (Brown, 1985).
Winter wrens usually nest in natural cavities
in or under trees, stumps, roots of upturned
trees, down logs, rock crevices, and stream
banks (Ehrlich et al., 1988; Terres, 1980;
Headstrom, 1951). Insects and other
invertebrates account for most of the winter
wren's diet, with some plant material also
consumed (Holmes and Robinson, 1988;
Wiens and Nussbaum, 1975). The winter
wren forages by gleaning and probing bark,
foliage, and ground litter (Holmes et al.,
1979; Holmes and Robinson, 1988). Almost
all foraging occurs within a defended territory
(Armstrong, 1956) which is generally up to
three acres in size (Brown, 1985; Cody and
Cody, 1972a, 1972b; Holmes et al., 1979).
Approximately 887 acres (delineated at one-
acre resolution) of the riparian/wetland cover
type provide suitable nesting and foraging
habitat in the core area. Figure 3.13.3, Cover
Type Map.
Orange-Crowned Warbler. The orange-
crowned warbler is a neotropical migrant that
breeds in central Alaska, northwestern and
southern Canada, and the western U.S.
Orange-crowned warblers use a variety of
deciduous and coniferous forests and scrub-
shrub and forested wetlands for nesting and
foraging (Brown, 1985). The orange-
crowned warbler nests in or beneath dense
underbrush or shrubs, usually on or within
three feet of the ground (Ehrlich et al., 1988).
The diet of the orange-crowned warblers
consists of insects, berries, and plant galls
(Ehrlich et al., 1988). They forage by
gleaning foliage, mostly on the lower
branches of trees and shrubs, and also feed
by flycatching (Brown, 1985).
Sightings in the core area are reported in the
1993 Curlew Breeding Bird Survey, by the
Forest Service, and from TWHIP habitat
surveys performed by Beak. Shrub and early
successional cover types provide a total of
1,001 acres of suitable habitat for the
orange-crowned warbler in the core area as
shown on Figure 3.13.3, Cover Type Map.
About 39,635 acres of grassland/shrub and
open coniferous/deciduous land types
representing potential orange-crowned
warbler habitat occur in the analysis area,
Figure 3.13.2, Land Type Map.
Vesper Sparrow. The vesper sparrow is a
neotropical migrant that breeds in grassland
habitats across southern Canada and the U.S.
(Terres, 1980). In northeastern Washington,
the vesper sparrow is a summer resident of
sagebrush grasslands, bunchgrass range, and
open ponderosa pine forests (Jewett et al.,
1953; Larrison and Sonnenberg, 1968).
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-105
Suitable grassland habitat at elevations above
5,000 feet are sometimes used after nesting
(Jewett et al., 1953). Vesper sparrows nest
in small excavated depressions on the ground
in grasslands, burned over land, clearcuts,
and agricultural fields. Vesper sparrows feed
by gleaning from the ground. Their diet
consists of insects and the seeds of grasses
and forbs (Ehrlich et al., 1988). Elevated
perches provided by shrubs or tall vegetation
are an important habitat feature for vesper
sparrows (Wiens, 1979). Fence posts and
wires provide important artificial perches.
Approximately 1,878 acres of bottomland
grassland, upland grassland, and shrub cover
types provide potential suitable habitat for
the vesper sparrow in the core area, Figure
3.13.3, Cover Type Map. About 15,612
acres of vesper sparrow habitat represented
by the grassland/shrub land type, occur in the
analysis area, Figure 3.13.2, Land Type Map.
Waterbirds
Waterbirds live part of their life in or around
water, especially the swimming, diving, and
wading birds (Terres, 1980). Waterbirds
include loons and grebes, pelicans,
cormorants, wading birds, waterfowl, rails
and coots, shorebirds, gulls, and terns.
These birds are migratory species that
summer in the area. They require water
bodies such as lakes, ponds, creeks,
marshes, wetlands, and rivers for breeding,
foraging, brooding, resting, and security.
Loons, grebes, and ducks prefer the open
water of ponds and lakes adjacent to
marshes and wetlands. Herons select ponds,
creeks, marshes, and rivers near trees large
enough to support their nests. Rails occupy
dense marshes and emergent wetlands.
Shorebirds prefer marshes, mud flats, and
shores of lakes and ponds.
Water bodies in the core area include the frog
pond, portions of Myers Creek, the
headwaters of Nicholson and Marias Creeks,
and Beaver Creek. Riparian habitat along
portions of Myers and Beaver Creeks provide
excellent waterbird habitat. The frog pond is
a 1.8 acre emergent wetland located near the
center of the core area. A sora was observed
on the frog pond during a summer survey by
Beak in 1994. Habitat for waterbirds
provided by Myers Creek consists of standing
water, marshes, and shrubby wetlands. Birds
observed along Myers Creek include mallards,
sora rails, and great blue herons (A.G. Crook,
1993d). A great blue heron rookery occurs
on Myers Creek.
Water bodies located along Beaver Creek
include Beth Lake (33.9 acres), Beaver Lake
(30.9 acres) and Little Beaver Lake (22.4
acres). USFWS Breeding Bird Surveys
conducted in 1993 and 1994 (Stepniewski,
1993, 1994) recorded red-necked grebe,
mallard, blue-winged teal, cinnamon teal,
ring-necked duck, Barrow's goldeneye, sora,
American coot, killdeer, and spotted
sandpiper on and near the lakes on Beaver
Creek. Birds such as the pied-billed grebe,
green-winged teal, gadwall, and Barrow's
goldeneye were also observed on these lakes
(Beak, 1995a). The common loon and black
tern has been observed by WADFW personnel
(Friesz, 1994b; English, 1994). Bufflehead,
horned grebe, lesser scaup, merganser,
wigeon, and wood duck observations have
also been documented (English, 1994) on
these lakes and associated wetlands.
Downstream from the above mentioned lakes
are five, two to three acre marshes and
emergent wetlands with cattails, sedges, and
rushes. Birds observed using these wetlands
include American coot, pied-billed grebe,
common snipe, and ducks such as the green-
winged teal, blue-winged teal, gadwall and
mallard (Beak, 1995a).
In the analysis area, known water bodies
include small creeks (e.g., Nicholson, Marias)
as well as the larger Myers Creek, Toroda
Creek, and the Kettle River. The smaller
forested creeks generally receive little use by
waterbirds because of dense canopies along
most of their lengths and a lack of open
water large enough to meet the habitat needs
of these species. However, the larger creeks
and the Kettle River, which forms the eastern
boundary of the analysis area, provide habitat
for waterbirds ranging from ducks to great
blue herons.
The common loon, long-billed curlew, and
black tern are addressed in detail in Section
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-106
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
3.13.6, Threatened, Endangered, and
Sensitive Species.
Upland Game Birds
Upland game birds known to occur in the
core and analysis areas include ruffed grouse,
blue grouse, California quail, and mourning
dove. Occurrences and habitat assessments
are presented below for ruffed and blue
grouse because habitats for those species are
managed under Okanogan Forest Plan
standards and guidelines. The Columbian
sharp-tailed grouse is addressed in the
Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive
Species section.
Ruffed Grouse. The ruffed grouse is a
resident species throughout its range across
Canada and the northern U.S. In
Washington, ruffed grouse are fairly common
in low to mid-elevation forests (Larrison and
Sonnenberg, 1968). Preferred habitat is early
and mid-successional deciduous forest,
although mixed and coniferous forests in
some areas also provide winter thermal
habitat, escape cover, and roost sites (Lewis
etal., 1968; Stoll et al., 1977).
The critical components of ruffed grouse
habitat are winter food, and cover during fall,
winter, and spring (Cade and Sousa, 1985).
Aspen forests are the preferred winter
habitat, but cottonwood and red alder are
also used. Deciduous shrubs, deciduous
trees, coniferous trees, or a mixture of these,
are essential for ruffed grouse cover and for
predation avoidance. Ruffed grouse nests are
usually located at the base of trees and
stumps, or at the edge of brushpiles or slash.
Drumming sites are used by male ruffed
grouse as part of courtship display and
territoriality. Ruffed grouse winter forage
consists primarily of buds, twigs, and flowers
of hardwood trees (primarily aspen, but also
cottonwood, willow, black cherry, birch,
alder, and hazelnut) (Servello and Kirkpatrick,
1987).
Shrub, mixed conifer pole, mixed conifer
mature, deciduous, and riparian/wetland
cover types provide a total of 7,676 acres of
suitable ruffed grouse habitat in the core
area, Figure 3.13.3, Cover Type Map. About
67,711 acres of grassland/shrub, open
coniferous/deciduous, coniferous, and
riparian/wetland/open water land types
provide suitable ruffed grouse habitat in the
analysis area, Figure 3.13.2, Land Type Map.
Deciduous habitat is identified as a "limiting
habitat" on the Okanogan National Forest.
The Forest Plan identifies the ruffed grouse as
the management indicator species for this
habitat type. Because dry conditions limit
deciduous habitat quantities on the Okanogan
National Forest, the Forest Plan includes a
standard and guideline to perpetuate
hardwoods as a stand component wherever
they occur. No specific amounts are required
to be maintained or managed. There is less
than one acre of deciduous habitat (exclusive
of riparian/wetland habitat) on Forest Service
lands within the core area.
Blue Grouse. Blue grouse are found
throughout the mountainous regions of
western North America. Winter habitat
consists of mature conifer stands at higher
elevations. Favored stands are predominately
Douglas-fir. During the summer breeding
season, blue grouse are found in open (25%
to 50% canopy cover) deciduous and mixed
shrub stands at lower elevations (Schroeder,
1984; Stauffer and Peterson, 1985). In the
Okanogan Valley, blue grouse winter on ridge
tops in open stands of mature Douglas-fir
that have live limbs distributed along the
entire length of the trunk. The grouse move
to open hillsides at lower elevations following
spring snow melt (Cannings et al., 1987).
Male blue grouse utilize both forested and
non-forested habitats in close juxtaposition
for nesting territories (Martinka, 1972).
Hooting and display by males to attract
females usually occurs in open areas that are
closely associated with woody cover.
Clumps of small trees and shrubs are
important for nest concealment (Stauffer and
Peterson, 1986). In the Okanogan Valley,
nests are typically found in open woodlands
near the base of a tree, log or fence
(Cannings et al., 1987). Important features
of brood-rearing habitat include areas of tall
herbaceous cover interspersed with open
areas used as travel corridors. In all habitats,
trees used for roosting are usually the largest
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-107
Douglas-fir present in a patch of trees
(Stauffer and Peterson, 1986). The diet of
the blue grouse consists of conifer needles,
large leaf vegetation, seeds, berries, and
insects.
Approximately 707 acres of suitable
wintering habitat is represented by mature
Douglas-fir stands along ridge lines in the
core area, see Figure 3.13.5, Riparian,
Deciduous, and Ridgetop Habitat Map. Shrub
and deciduous cover types contain potential
summer and breeding habitat. Within the
core area, about 135 acres of habitat with
these qualities exist. One block of blue
grouse habitat has been delineated by the
Forest Service (Forest Service, 1984) in the
analysis area. This area is located near the
southeast boundary of the core area.
Although blue grouse are not a management
indicator species, the Forest Plan does
include a standard and guideline to maintain
suitable habitat on ridge-tops providing
wintering areas for the species. The standard
and guideline does not require that specific
amounts be managed or maintained. Suitable
ridge-top wintering areas for blue grouse
within the core area on Forest Service
managed lands total approximately 426
acres.
Raptors
The following section describes existing
conditions for raptors. Raptors are large,
carnivorous birds characterized by large
talons and heavy, hooked bills. This group of
birds includes vultures, kites, hawks
(accipiters, harriers, and buteos), eagles,
ospreys, falcons, and owls.
Raptors known to occur in the core and
analysis areas include turkey vulture, golden
eagle, northern bald eagle, northern harrier,
sharp-shinned hawk, Cooper's hawk,
northern goshawk, red-tailed hawk, rough-
legged hawk, American kestrel, merlin, short-
eared owl, long-eared owl, great horned owl,
barred owl, great gray owl, northern pygmy-
owl, northern saw-whet owl, and boreal owl.
Species known or expected to occur in the
Okanogan Highlands include Swainson's
hawk, ferruginous hawk, osprey, prairie
falcon, peregrine falcon, snowy owl, western
screech owl, and flammulated owl. Natural
history, known occurrences, and habitat
assessments are presented below for the
golden eagle, barred owl, great gray owl, and
boreal owl. The northern bald eagle, northern
goshawk, ferruginous hawk, peregrine falcon,
and northern spotted owl (included in the
Forest Service Sensitive Species List) are
addressed in Section 3.13.6, Threatened,
Endangered and Sensitive Species.
Five raptor nest sites exist within the core
area. These nest sites are known to have
been occupied by red-tailed hawk (two nest
sites), a Cooper's hawk, a saw whet owl,
and a barred owl. All the nest sites are
considered to be actively used by raptors.
Forest Plan standards and guidelines for nest
site protection require a primary protection
zone extending 500 feet from the nest site
(an area of approximately 18 acres) and a
secondary restricted activity zone extending
up to one-quarter of a mile from the nest (an
area of approximately 126 acres). The
primary and secondary zones for each of the
five nest sites all lie entirely within the core
area.
Golden Eagle. The golden eagle is common
in western North America, typically
associated with habitats that provide cliffs or
large trees for nesting and open areas for
hunting (National Geographic Society, 1987).
The home range size of golden eagles varies
depending upon prey and nest site
availability. Golden eagles are opportunistic
foragers, feeding on small mammals, birds,
reptiles, fish, and carrion (Bent, 1937;
Collopy, 1983). Yellow-bellied marmots are a
favored mammalian prey in the Okanogan
Valley (Cannings et al., 1987). Golden eagles
typically return to the same nesting territories
in successive years, but may have more than
one nest site within a territory (Rodrick and
Milner, 1991). In the Okanogan Valley,
eagles that nest in alpine habitats are
believed to overwinter at lower elevations
(Cannings et al., 1987).
Major causes of golden eagle mortality
include non-target poisoning, accidental
capture in traps set for predators or
furbearers, electrocution, shooting, and
collisions (Bortolotti, 1984; Phillips, 1986).
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-108
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
Golden eagles seem to tolerate regular
(predictable) activity, such as that associated
with highways and ranches. Erratic human
disturbance, such as road building, blasting,
and recreational use, is believed to be a major
cause of nest failure (Rodrick and Milner,
1991). Despite these dangers, golden eagle
populations appear to be relatively stable
throughout most of their range (Phillips,
1986), including the Okanogan Valley
(Cannings et al., 1987).
According to the WADFW, non game
database, there are two golden eagle nesting
territories within the analysis area. One
nesting territory is located east of Chesaw
with two known nests and the second is
located in Beaver Canyon with at least one
tree nest and three cliff nests. There may be
other nesting territories in the analysis area
(WADFW, 1994). About 2,334 acres of
golden eagle foraging habitat, represented by
the grassland, shrub and agricultural cover
types, exists within the core area, Figure
3.13.3, Cover Type Map. Potential foraging
habitat within the analysis area is represented
by 18,555 acres of the grassland/shrub and
agriculture land types, Figure 3.13.2, Land
Type Map. Between August and October
1994, numerous golden eagle sightings were
reported in the Cedar Creek, Ethel Creek, and
North Fork Beaver Creek drainages within the
analysis area (WADFW, 1994).
Barred Owl. The barred owl is a year-round
resident of the eastern U.S., southeastern
and central Canada, and southeastern Alaska
to northeastern California (Terres, 1980;
Johnsgard, 1988). Barred owls use a variety
of forest types, but are most closely
associated with mature deciduous or mixed
deciduous/coniferous forests (Allen, 1987).
Barred owls typically nest in interior portions
of extensive mature forests, requiring some
large trees which provide suitable cavities for
nesting, but often use abandoned hawk or
crow nests (Allen, 1987; Johnsgard, 1988).
The same nest site may be used from year to
year if it remains intact (Johnsgard, 1988).
The, barred owl is primarily nocturnal although
owls with young may hunt during the day
(Terres, 1980; Johnsgard, 1988). Small
mammals are the primary component of the
barred owl's diet, but the species is
opportunistic and also preys on birds, fish,
reptiles, amphibians, and insects (Allen,
1987; Johnsgard, 1988). Suitable foraging
areas provide cover, lack dense understories,
and have an abundance of dead trees and
downed logs (Johnsgard, 1988).
Barred owls were heard during A.G. Crook's
winter wildlife survey (A. G. Crook, 1992a)
and TWHIP surveys conducted by Beak
personnel. An active nest site was located
during wildlife surveys conducted by the
Forest Service for the Nicholson timber sales.
Barred owls were detected on two occasions
during the 1994 field season (Oakerman,
1994). Suitable nesting habitat for barred
owls in the core area totals 1,190 acres of
mixed conifer mature and deciduous forest
stands with greater than 60% canopy
closure, Figure 3.13.3, Cover Type Map.
These stands contain an average of 0.5
snags per acre that are greater than 20
inches dbh. Allen (1987) estimated that two
snags (^ 20" dbh) per acre meet nesting
requirements for barred owls. Approximately
27,441 acres of coniferous forest landtype
within the analysis area could potentially
provide areas for nesting; 25,669 acres of
the open coniferous forest landtype may
provide additional areas for foraging, Figure
3.13.2, Land Type Map.
Great Gray Owl. The great gray owl is a
year-round resident of the northern forests in
Canada and Alaska south to the northern
U.S. and mountains of the west (Johnsgard,
1988; Bull et al., 1988). The great gray owl
nests in mature, over-mature, and old-growth
forest stands, but may use young stands with
remnant large overstory trees (Bryan and
Forsman, 1987; Bull et al., 1988). It nests in
abandoned nests of goshawk and red-tail
hawks, large cavities, or broken-topped dead
trees (Bryan and Forsman, 1987; Bull and
Henjum, 1990). Great gray owls usually
forage in open forest stands, use meadow or
forest edges, and avoid large clearings having
no cover (Bull and Henjum, 1990). They feed
primarily on voles and pocket gophers but are
opportunistic and will prey upon other small
mammals (Bull et al., 1989; Bull and Henjum,
1990). During winter great gray owls
relocate to avoid areas of deep snow which
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-109
reduce the availability of prey (Bull et al.,
1989; Bull and Henjum, 1990).
Great gray owls have been documented in
the core area. Suitable nesting habitat for
great gray owls in the core area totals 1,190
acres of mixed conifer mature cover type
with greater than 60% canopy closure;
however, no nests are known to occur.
Suitable foraging habitat, represented by
mixed conifer pole and mixed conifer mature
cover types with canopy closure between
11 % and 59%, totals 3,836 acres in the core
area. Within the analysis area, approximately
27,441 acres of the coniferous land type may
potentially provide suitable areas for nesting
habitat and the open coniferous land type
provides 24,023 acres of suitable foraging
habitat. Figure 3.13.2, Land Type Map.
Boreal Owl. Boreal owls are found in
northern forests throughout the northern
hemisphere (Hayward and Verner, 1994). In
northeastern Washington, they typically
inhabit dense mature to old growth
Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir forests at
high elevations. Boreal owls are thought to
breed at higher elevations in the Okanogan
Valley (Cannings et al., 1987) and are
permanent residents in suitable habitat above
4,500 feet throughout northeastern
Washington (O'Connell, 1987). Home ranges
of boreal owls are large (exceeding 2,900
acres), and typically include several core
areas of high use separated by unused forest.
Home ranges overlap extensively, with
defense typically limited to the immediate
area around a nest (Hayward et al., 1987;
Hayward et al., 1992; and, Hayward and
Verner, 1994). The diet of the boreal owl
consists of small mammals, birds, and
insects. Boreal owls are cavity nesters, often
using abandoned pileated woodpecker or
other large woodpecker cavities (Terres,
1980) in large dead or dying conifers or large
aspen within mature spruce forests (Forest
Service, 1989). A nest is typically used for
only one season (Hayward et al., 1992).
Individual boreal owls roost at many different
sites, usually in coniferous trees, distributed
widely throughout their home range (Hayward
and Verner, 1994).
Boreal owls are known to occur within the
core area (A.G. Crook, 1992a), and suitable
habitat (above 4,500 feet with mature and
old growth spruce/subalpine fir or Engelmann
spruce) is present on the east side of
Buckhorn Mountain (A.G. Crook, 1992a).
Approximately 148 acres of suitable habitat
exists within the core area. Areas above
4,500 feet elevation in the analysis area total
4,068 acres; mature spruce/fir stands within
this area may potentially provide boreal owl
habitat.
3.13.6 Threatened, Endangered, and
Sensitive Species
This section describes existing conditions for
19 endangered, threatened, candidate, and
sensitive wildlife species, Table 3.13.2,
Wildlife Species List, that may be affected by
the proposed Crown Jewel Project.
Endangered and threatened species are those
species federally listed by the USFWS under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. Sensitive species are those
species found on the Forest Service Regional
Forester's Sensitive Species List (FSM 2670,
Interim Directive No. 90-1, revised March
1989 for sensitive animals). Sensitive
species include federally listed species and
other species not listed by the USFWS that
the Forest Service considers susceptible to
disturbance or threat. Thirteen of the 19
species described in this section were
selected for consideration based on their
status as Forest Service sensitive species.
As requested by the Forest Service, six
additional USFWS Species of Concern,
including the Townsend's big-eared bat, are
also included.
NOTE - Some of the sensitive species that
are discussed in the following sections may
not occur in the analysis area. However, part
of the process in evaluating the Regional
Foresters' Sensitive Species list for the
Okanogan National Forest is to identify
whether the Project area is within the
geographic range of the particular species and
whether the Crown Jewel Project area
contains suitable habitat for the species.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-110
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
California Bighorn Sheep
The California bighorn sheep occurs as
scattered groups along the eastern slopes of
the Cascade Mountains in British Columbia,
Washington, and Oregon (Rodrick and Milner,
1991). Its historic range was once more
widespread across northeastern Washington,
with distribution along the Okanogan and
Columbia River Valleys (Wishart, 1978).
Bighorn sheep inhabit remote areas where
human disturbance is limited (Lawson and
Johnson, 1982). They forage in open grass
and shrublands and generally avoid areas of
dense, tall vegetation that restricts visibility
(Van Dyke et al., 1983; Wakelyn, 1987).
Precipitous rocky slopes, ridges, and cliffs or
rugged canyons are important for cover,
escape, and lambing (Van Dyke et al., 1983;
Wakelyn, 1987; Rodrick and Milner, 1991).
No suitable habitat for the California bighorn
sheep exists in either the core or analysis
areas. The few cliffs that occur within the
analysis area are not extensive enough to
provide escape terrain (King, 1994).
California bighorn sheep are found locally on
Mount Hull (20 miles west of the analysis
area) and on Vulcan Mountain (eight miles
east of the analysis area).
Grizzly Bear
The grizzly bear is a generally solitary, wide-
ranging species that presently occurs in the
Selkirk Range 75 miles to the east, in the
North Cascades 50 miles to the west (verified
grizzly tracks were documented in 1989 and
1990 [Almack et al., 1991]), in the
Monashee Mountains 40 miles to the north-
northeast, and in the Cathedral Park -
Ashnola River Region 50 miles to the
northwest. Essential features contributing to
the overall quality of grizzly bear habitat are
space, isolation, sanitation (i.e., the control of
artificial food from human activities), denning,
safety, and most importantly, a variety of
seasonal foods and mosaic of vegetation
types and habitat conditions (Craighead et al.,
1982, Almack et al, 1993). If one item is
missing or severely depleted, the ability of
the entire ecosystem to sustain a grizzly bear
population rapidly diminishes.
The grizzly bear's diet consists of both plants
and animals and, depending on season and
region, may include carrion, deer, elk, moose,
fish, rodents, insects, roots, bulbs, fungi,
berries, nuts, grasses and sedges. Optimal
habitat conditions for grizzlies are found in
forests that are interspersed with moist
meadows and grasslands (Lowe et al., 1990).
Grizzly bears are found in a variety of
habitats and generally occupy very large
home ranges depending on region, season,
gender, and age. Winter dens are excavated
chambers, often supported by tree roots or
rock outcrops, or natural caves at high
elevations (above 5,800 feet) on slopes with
deep snow accumulations (Almack et al.,
1993). Isolation of den sites from humans
and other animals is considered the most
essential denning criterion (Craighead et al.,
1982). The availability of human-produced
artificial food sources is detrimental to grizzly
bears. Human-caused mortality and
competitive use of habitat are a potential
threat to the grizzly bear, and are considered
a major cause of historical declines in grizzly
populations (Craighead and Mitchell, 1982).
The core and analysis areas occur at the
northern end of the Okanogan Highlands (an
area of approximately 4,000 square miles).
Approximately 67,076 acres (95%) of the
analysis area (including the core area) is
potential grizzly bear habitat, representing the
grassland/shrub, open coniferous/deciduous,
and coniferous land types, Figure 3.13.2,
Land Type Map. About 10,363 acres (95%)
of the core area is potential habitat, including
the grassland, shrub, early successional
conifer, mixed conifer pole, mixed conifer
mature, riparian/wetland, and deciduous
cover types, Figure 3.13.3, Cover Type Map.
Based on known home ranges (Almack,
1986; Blanchard and Knight, 1991), and
considering space only, the Okanogan
Highlands and the analysis area could support
grizzly bear.
Grizzy bears have not been permanent
residents of the Okanogan Highlands for
many years, and the Analysis Area and the
Okanogan Highlands are located well outside
the recovery zones designated for this
species (USFWS, 1993). Grizzly bears
presently occur in the Selkirk Range (Selkirks
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-111
Recovery Zone) 75 miles east of the Crown
Jewel Project, the North Cascades 50 miles
to the west (Northern Cascades Recovery
Zone), the Monashee Mountains 40 miles to
the north-northeast, and the Cathedral Park -
Ashnola River Region 50 miles to the
northwest. The nearest permanent
population, and potential source of grizzly
bear immigration, is 40 miles north-northeast
in the Monashee Mountains of British
Columbia. Movement of a grizzly bear from
the Monashee Mountains to the Okanogan
Highlands would entail crossing the Kettle
River Valley and British Columbia Provincial
Highway 3. The Kettle River Valley from
Midway to Rock Creek, British Columbia is
one to two miles wide, and densely occupied
by continuous farms, houses, and towns (i.e.,
Midway, Kettle Valley, and Rock Creek). A
grizzly bear would probably encounter
humans, but records of bear-human
encounters are rare (Peatt, 1992), so known
movements of grizzly bears into the Kettle
River Valley are rare. Given the inverse
relation between human presence and grizzly
bear, it is possible, but not likely that grizzlies
would cross the Kettle River Valley and move
south to the analysis area. If a grizzly bear
did cross this valley, the Jackson Creek
unroaded area could provide isolation for one
female, but would be too small for a male
(based on home range studies cited above).
The summit of Buckhorn Mountain, the
highest point within 12 miles, is 5,602 feet.
The tallest peaks in the northern Okanogan
Highlands are approximately 7,000 feet, with
most; however, being 6,000 feet or below.
The core and analysis areas, and northern
Okanogan Highlands, do not provide deep
soils necessary for digging at elevations
recently recorded for den sites in the nearest
occupied ecosystems (i.e., above 5,800 feet
in the Northern Cascades and Selkirk
Mountains) (Almack, 1986; Almack et al.,
1993).
More than 50 species of plant foods known
to be used by grizzly bears in the North
Cascades (Almack et al., 1993a), Selkirk
Mountains (Almack, 1986), and in other
occupied grizzly ecosystems (Almack et al.,
1993) also occur in the analysis area.
No records of grizzly bear are known for the
core or analysis areas. Tonasket Ranger
District files indicate that a grizzly bear track
was reported in the Fourth of July Ridge area
in 1993, approximately 14 miles south-
southwest of Buckhorn Mountain. Older
District records indicate that a grizzly bear
was seen in 1962 in Long Alec Creek,
approximately 24 miles east of the core area,
and in 1952 at Palmer Lake, 28 miles west of
the core area. The WADFW Nongame Data
System (WADFW, 1994) contains a number
of records for grizzly bear for Okanogan and
Ferry Counties from 1989 to the present. All
of these sightings are more than 30 miles
from the analysis area. The British Columbia
Ministry of Environment (Peatt, 1992) has no
records of grizzly bears within 12 miles of the
Canadian-U.S. border since 1984.
The core and analysis areas contain some of
the necessary characteristics for suitable
grizzly bear habitat (space, vegetation types
and food); however, other important habitat
characteristics are less than optimal
(isolation, sanitation, denning, safety). As a
result, it is unlikely that grizzly bears occur in
the core or analysis areas, although the
analysis area may provide habitat
connectivity between recovery zones.
Gray Wolf
The gray wolf is a wide-ranging carnivore
that was abundant across North America in
pre-settlement times. The current distribution
of wolves in North America is mainly
confined to the northern half of the continent
(Paradiso and Nowak, 1982). Gray wolves
use a wide variety of habitats, from dense
forest to open tundra. The key components
of wolf habitat are a sufficient year-long prey
base (Carbyn, 1987; Frederick, 1991),
suitable and somewhat secluded denning and
rendezvous sites (Carbyn, 1987; Mech,
1970), and sufficient space with minimal
interaction with humans (Thiel, 1985).
Wolves are opportunistic predators that feed
primarily on deer, moose, and small animals
(Carbyn, 1987; Paradiso and Nowak, 1982).
Territories range from 40 to 1,000 square
miles (Peterson, 1986) depending on pack
size and prey density. Dens are usually
burrows constructed in sandy soil in well
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-112
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
drained areas near water (Mech, 1970).
Abandoned beaver lodges, hollow trees and
logs, rock caves, and shallow surface beds
are also used for denning. Pups remain in
semi-open areas next to swamps or beaver
ponds, near forest cover, and away from
human activity while the adults hunt
(Frederick, 1991). Human disturbance and
accessibility to wolf habitats (primarily
through open roads) are the main factors
limiting wolf recovery, and account for the
major sources of wolf mortality in most areas
today (Frederick, 1991; Mech, 1989; Mech
etal., 1988).
Although there are no known viable wolf
populations in Washington, an increasing
number of wolf sightings have been reported
throughout the state (Laufer and Jenkins,
1989). Almack et al., (1993) document
visual sightings and howling survey
responses of wolf pups in two locations in
the North Cascades, evidence of wolf
denning. There have been 120 reports of
wolf sightings since 1989 in Okanogan and
Ferry Counties (WADFW, 1994). Of these,
four were confirmed sightings (Class 1) and
26 were classified as highly reliable sightings
(Class 2). The closest confirmed sightings to
the Analysis Area were 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).
Several unconfirmed wolf sightings have been
reported on the Tonasket Ranger District,
while numerous wolf sightings have been
reported on the Twisp and Winthrop Districts
of the Okanogan National Forest and on the
adjacent Republic District of the Colville
National Forest.
Although wolves have not been confirmed on
the Tonasket Ranger District, it is possible
that wolves may use the Analysis Area as
part of a larger home range or for dispersal.
A.G. Crook and Tonasket Ranger District
personnel conducted howling surveys and
monitored carcass bait stations in 1992, but
did not elicit any responses or reveal the
presence of wolves in the core or analysis
areas (A.G. Crook, 1992a).
Deer would be the main prey species of a
potential wolf population. Winter deer
habitat is currently deficient and does not
meet Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines in
the core area. Winter wildlife surveys
conducted by A.G. Crook (1992a) estimated
approximately ten 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 inches to 16 inches (A.G.
Crook, 1992a).
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 are sufficient to
support a dispersing wolf traveling through
the core and analysis areas.
Road densities in the analysis area (excluding
Canadian roads) are currently 2.2 miles per
square mile. Research in Wisconsin,
Michigan, and Minnesota has indicated that
wolves were most vulnerable to human-
caused mortality in areas of high human
density and high open road density (Frederick
1991, Thiel 1985). However, in the western
United States, two wolf packs in Montana
have survived in areas with relatively high
road densities for at least three years
(USFWS, 1994). The Jackson Creek
unroaded area, which comprises
approximately 14% of the analysis area, lies
in the eastern portion of the analysis area. It
is remote and could possibly serve as a
portion of a wolf population's larger home
range or as a travel corridor for dispersing
wolves if retained in a roadless or near-
roadless condition. The Jackson Creek
unroaded area has been allocated to multiple
use management by the Okanogan National
Forest Plan and may not remain unroaded in
the future. If future road densities exceed
approximately one mile per square mile then
its potential as wolf habitat may be
diminished.
Pacific Fisher
The Pacific fisher inhabits conifer and mixed
conifer habitats throughout Canada and
northern portions of the U.S. (Strickland et
al., 1982). Preferred foraging, denning, and
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-113
cover habitat is mature forest with a dense
canopy (Powell, 1982) and an abundance of
snags and downed logs (Rodrick and Milner,
1991), although other habitats may also be
used (Heinemeyer and Jones, 1994).
Coniferous ridges and riparian/wetland areas
are particularly important to fisher (Raine,
1981; Heinemeyer and Jones, 1994). Areas
with less than 50% canopy closure are
avoided by fisher (Allen, 1983). The fisher is
an opportunistic feeder that preys primarily
on snowshoe hare, but may also feed on
small mammals, grouse, carrion (especially
deer), berries, and nuts (Powell, 1982; Allen,
1983). Allen (1983) determined that no less
than 100 square miles of suitable contiguous
habitat is required to successfully sustain a
population of fisher.
The core and analysis areas are considered
potential fisher habitat because they are
located within the fisher's historic range
(Heinemeyer and Jones, 1994). Although
fisher have been reported near the analysis
area, no confirmed observations have been
documented. Approximately 5,065 acres
(7.9 square miles) of young mature, mature,
and old-growth forest are present within the
core area as shown on Figure 3.13.7,
Successional Stage Map. Preferred habitat of
mature and old-growth forest with greater
than 50% canopy closure totals 1,388 acres
(2.2 square miles) in the core area. About
794 acres have less than 50% canopy
closure and would probably be avoided by
fisher. The analysis area contains 27,441
acres (42.9 square miles) of coniferous land
type having a canopy cover greater than
60%, Figure 3.13.2, Land Type Map. Those
portions in young mature, mature and old
growth successional stages would provide
potential fisher habitat, though these forested
areas are fragmented and do not provide a
contiguous block of habitat that may be
necessary for the fisher. However, several
blocks of habitat are narrowly linked into a
combined area of 20,205 acres (31.6 square
miles).
California Wolverine
The California wolverine is a wide-ranging
carnivore that inhabits remote mountainous
areas in the western U.S. (Hash, 1987).
They prefer extensive areas of moderately
dense to scattered mature trees and avoid
large openings created by burns or clearcuts
(Hornocker and Hash, 1981). In Washington,
wolverine habitat consists of Douglas-fir and
mixed conifer forests (Hash, 1987). Forests
interspersed with cliffs, talus slopes,
marshes, and meadows provide the wolverine
with cover, a diverse food source, and
adequate den sites. Wolverine den in snow
tunnels, among boulders, in caves, and under
fallen trees (Wilson, 1982). Wolverines feed
primarily on carrion, but will also prey upon
snowshoe hare, grouse, squirrels, mice, and
voles (Hornocker and Hash, 1981; Hash,
1987). High densities of wolverine
populations have been correlated with large
and diverse ungulate populations (Hornocker
and Hash, 1981). Because of their
scavenging nature, they tend to have large
home ranges and frequently travel over long
distances (Hornocker and Hash, 1981).
Ruggiero et al., (1994) report on home range
sizes of wolverines in Montana. The mean
home range size of nine adult males was 163
square miles. The mean home range size of
11 females without young was 1 50 square
miles. Two adult females with young
occupied mean home ranges of 39 square
miles. The historic decline of the wolverine
has been attributed to liberal hunting,
trapping and habitat degradation (Hash,
1987).
No wolverines sightings are documented for
the core area, though two wolverine sightings
are reported for the analysis area (Bossier,
1992; Payton, 1992). Wolverines have been
documented about 17 miles north of the
analysis area (Pennoyer, 1994). The core
and analysis areas could serve as a portion of
a larger home range for wolverines. The core
area contains approximately 4,479 acres (7.1
square miles) of mixed conifer mature cover
type which could provide suitable habitat for
the wolverine (approx. 109 square miles),
Figure 3.13.3, Cover Type Map. The analysis
area contains various land types which,
except for agriculture and disturbed areas,
provide potential habitat for the wolverine,
Figure 3.13.2, Land Type Map. The home
ranges of wolverines reported by Ruggiero et
al. (1994) suggest the possibility that the
analysis area might be large enough to
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-114
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
support an adult female with young.
However, the fragmented distribution of
mature forest across the analysis area
effectively reduces the amount of suitable
habitat available, and increases the effective
home range size of an animal attempting to
live there. Road densities for the analysis
area, which could affect wolverine habitat
suitability, are currently at 2.2 miles per
square mile. The Jackson Creek unroaded
area, a 10,218 acre (16 square miles) remote
area in the eastern portion of the analysis
area, could provide security, sources of food,
and denning sites within a small portion of a
wolverine's home range.
North American Lynx
The North American lynx is a specialized
predator that is adapted to travel in deep
snow (Koehler and Brittell, 1990; Koehler
1990). Lynx inhabit northern forests of
Canada and Alaska and isolated mountains of
the northwestern U.S. (Koehler and Brittell,
1990). Within Okanogan County, lynx use
areas above 4,000 feet dominated by
lodgepole pine, spruce, and subalpine fir
(Koehler and Brittell, 1990).
Lynx require a mosaic of forest conditions for
hunting, denning, and travel. The average
home range size in Washington is 24 square
miles (Brittell et al., 1989). Dens are
typically within hollow logs or stumps, and
beneath large logs, log piles, or root wads
(Jackson, 1961) in mature (greater than 200
years old) lodgepole pine and
spruce/subalpine fir forests with a high
density of down logs (Brittell et al., 1989;
Koehler, 1990). Lynx prey almost exclusively
on snowshoe hare; however, grouse and
squirrels may also be taken. Snowshoe hare
abundance, which is dependent on availability
of winter habitat, is considered the major
limiting factor for the Washington lynx
population (Rodrick and Milner, 1991).
One lynx sighting is known from the core
area and two sightings are documented for
the analysis area (Forest Service, 1991 a;
WADFW, 1994; Swedberg, 1994). Lynx
occur in Canada north of Vulcan Mountain
and in areas north of the analysis area
(Pennoyer, 1994). The current range of lynx
in Washington includes the Vulcan Mountain
Zone, seven miles east of the analysis area.
Although this zone is considered too small to
support a population of lynx, it is important
as a travel corridor (WADFW, 1993b). The
Forest Service has identified areas above
4,000 feet within the core area as potential
lynx habitat (Rose, 1994). This land base
encompasses 6,450 acres and includes shrub
(96 acres), early successional conifer (756
acres), mixed conifer pole (1,265 acres),
mixed conifer mature (3,084 acres) and
riparian (277 acres) cover types. The core
and analysis areas are at the periphery of lynx
range and are not likely to support resident
lynx. Forest vegetation within the core area
is dominated by Douglas-fir with a small
amount of lodgepole pine present.
Approximately 71 % of the core area is
potential lynx travel habitat, 2% is identified
as potential foraging habitat and hiding cover,
and less than 1 % is potential denning habitat.
The remaining 26% is non-cover for lynx. In
the analysis area, lands above 4,000 feet
extend north to the Kettle River and south to
Beaver Canyon. Coniferous and open
coniferous/deciduous land types above 4,000
feet may potentially provide lynx habitat.
However, because lynx are known to expand
their home range size during periods of low
hare abundance, the core and analysis areas
may serve as an extension of lynx territories
north and east of the analysis area. The core
and analysis areas may also serve as a travel
area for dispersing juveniles.
The lynx is a management indicator species
for lodgepole pine forests on the Okanogan
National Forest. It is also included on the
Regional Forester's list of sensitive species.
Forest Plan standards and guidelines for lynx
are specific to Management Area 12, which
does not occur in the core or analysis area.
No other standards and guidelines are
applicable for assessing lynx habitat on
Forest Service lands.
Pygmy Rabbit
The pygmy rabbit is found in southern Idaho,
western Utah, northern Nevada, southeastern
Oregon, and eastern Washington (Ashley,
1992a). Although the pygmy rabbit may still
occur in Grant and Lincoln counties, its
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-115
known present range in Washington is five
active sites in Douglas County (WADFW,
1993c). Cover appears to be the critical
habitat component required by the pygmy
rabbit (Green and Flinders, 1980). Pygmy
rabbits inhabit areas which contain sagebrush
(WADFW, 1993c), and they are seldom
found in areas with sparse vegetation
(Ashley, 1992a). Unlike other species of
native rabbits, pygmy rabbits usually dig their
own burrows in areas where soils are deep,
soft, and cobble free (Ashley, 1992a).
Burrows are usually excavated under big
sagebrush plants and into slopes (WADFW,
1993c). Sagebrush is a major food item for
the pygmy rabbit (Green and Flinders, 1980)
and wheatgrass and bluegrass are highly
preferred foods.
The analysis area is outside the historical and
current range of the pygmy rabbit. No
sightings of the pygmy rabbit are documented
for the core or analysis areas. Extensive
areas of mature sagebrush which could
provide suitable habitat for the pygmy rabbit
do not occur in either the core or analysis
areas.
Townsend's Big-Eared Bat
Townsend's big-eared bats are broadly
distributed in western North America
(Banfield, 1974) at elevations below 3,600
feet (Nagorsen and Brigham, 1993). They
are permanent residents throughout
Washington (Kunz and Martin, 1 982)
although occurrence may be restricted by the
availability of suitable sites for winter
hibernation and nighttime roosting (Perkins,
1989). In eastern Washington availability of
suitable undisturbed caves or cave-like
structures is an important habitat feature
(Marshall et al., 1992; Perkins, 1994). Big-
eared bats favor caves and abandoned mine
tunnels for hibernation, nurseries, and
roosting but will use buildings and bridges
(Barbour and Davis, 1969; Perkins, 1987;
Christy and West, 1993). Males and non-
lactating females sometimes roost in large,
hollow trees (Perkins, 1995). They do not
always use the same roost each night (Maser
et at., 1981). Their roosting habits make
them particularly vulnerable to human
disturbance. Disturbance during hibernation
may reduce over-wintering survival of big-
eared bats (Barbour and Davis, 1969;
Perkins, 1989). Big-eared bats normally
hibernate from mid-October until mid-April
(Banfield, 1974), typically in caves having
multiple entrances which allow ventilation
(Perkins, 1989; Perkins, 1994). They may
require cool conditions to maintain low
metabolic rates and conserve fat reserves
(Banfield, 1974). Maternity roosts are almost
always caves although buildings and bridges
are known to be used (Perkins, 1989; Christy
and West, 1993). The maternity colonies
generally disband by August (Kunz and
Martin, 1982). Big-eared bats exhibit a high
degree of site fidelity and will return to the
same maternal roost year after year (Kunz
and Martin, 1982). The big-eared bat forages
only after darkness (Barbour and Davis,
1969). It is an aerial feeder, feeding
principally on small moths along forest edges,
roads, or forest openings (Kunz and Martin,
1982; Christy and West, 1993). Open water
is required for water consumption.
Two documented occurrences of big-eared
bats are reported in the Myers Creek Valley
(Paulus, 1994). Other documented
occurrences of big-eared bats are reported 30
miles west and within 30 to 60 miles east of
the Crown Jewel Project site (Perkins, 1989).
Several adits in the analysis area could
provide suitable habitat for big-eared bats.
Spotted Frog
The spotted frog is found from Alaska to
northern California and eastward to
Wyoming, Montana, and Utah (Leonard et al.,
1 993). They are widespread east of the
Cascades Mountains in Washington (Rodrick
and Milner, 1991). The spotted frog is highly
aquatic and inhabits the marshy edges of
ponds, lakes, and streams which contain
dense vegetation and a thick underwater
layer of decaying material or thick algal
growth (Nussbaum et al., 1983). Spotted
frogs hibernate in muddy substrates near
breeding areas (Rodrick and Milner, 1991).
Spotted frogs become active February to
March and breed as soon as the ice melts
from the breeding sites (Licht, 1971).
Females deposit egg masses in water only a
few inches deep. The same communal
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-116
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
breeding sites are typically used in successive
years (Nussbaum et al., 1983). The larvae
feed on algae, vascular plants, and
scavenged animal material (Rodrick and
Milner, 1991). Adults feed on a wide variety
of insects (Whittaker et al., 1982). Juveniles
may move up to two miles, following
watercourses until a permanent source of
water is found (Hayes, 1994).
Spotted frogs are known to occur in the core
and analysis areas. The spotted frog inhabits
Nicholson and Marias Creeks (English, 1994),
Myers Creek, ponds along Beaver Creek, and
the frog pond (Friesz, 1994b). The spotted
frog is also likely to occur in suitable habitat
along Toroda Creek.
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 forest
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 core and
analysis areas. 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.
Willow Flycatcher
The 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). 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 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 willow flycatcher was recorded on
USFWS Breeding Bird Surveys along Beaver
and Toroda Creeks (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.
Loggerhead Shrike
The loggerhead shrike is a neotropical migrant
that nests from southern Canada to Mexico
(Terres, 1980). Shrikes are typically found in
the Okanogan Valley between May and late
September, and may occasionally winter in
the area (Cannings et al., 1987).
The loggerhead shrike prefers short-grass
prairie, pasture, and shrub habitats for
foraging (Thomas, 1979; Brown, 1985;
Brooks and Temple, 1990; Tefler, 1992).
Primarily insectivorous, the shrike is a ground-
feeding bird which hunts from perches such
as fences, posts, unobstructed branches, and
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-117
powerlines (Prescott and Collister, 1993;
Yosef and Grubb, 1993; Brooks and Temple,
1990). Shrub habitat is preferred for nesting
although the loggerhead shrike will nest in
deciduous forest stands (Brown, 1985). The
primary component of breeding habitat is
dense vegetation for concealing nest sites
(Brooks and Temple, 1990, Gawlik and
Bildstein 1990). Loggerhead shrikes
frequently nest near roads and collisions with
vehicles can be a major cause of mortality
(Gawlik and Bildstein, 1990; Tefler, 1992).
There are no observations of loggerhead
shrikes in the analysis area, although
potential habitat is present. The core area is
primarily coniferous forest, Figure 3.13.3,
Cover Type Map, which is not suitable
habitat for the shrike. However, a 467 acre
block of upland grassland cover type in the
extreme northwest portion of the core area
(Starrem Reservoir site), 2,324 acres of
grassland/shrub landtype along Myers Creek,
and a large block of grassland/shrub landtype
(2,051 acres) in the eastern portion of the
analysis area along Nicholson and Toroda
Creeks could provide both foraging and
breeding habitat for the loggerhead shrike.
Common Loon
The common loon nests in Alaska, Canada,
and the northern U.S. (Terres, 1980). Loons
typically arrive in Okanogan County from mid-
March to early May and leave on fall
migration as early as mid-September
(Cannings et al., 1987). Common loons
inhabit and breed on large wooded lakes
which have healthy fish populations and may
visit shallow lakes which lack fish to feed on
amphibians, snails, and aquatic insects
(Terres, 1980, Cannings et al. 1987, Rodrick
and Milner, 1991). Nests are built of matted
grasses, rushes, and twigs within four feet of
the water's edge (Terres, 1980). Islands
appear to be preferred for nesting and loons
may use the same nest site each year
(Rodrick and Milner, 1991). An adult and a
chick were reported on Beth Lake (English,
1994), and loons have been reported at Beth,
Beaver, and Little Beaver Lakes
(Baumgardner, 1994; Swedberg, 1994)
within the transportation corridor.
Long-Billed Curlew
The long-billed curlew is an early spring
migrant arriving in Okanogan County in late
March to April (Cannings et al., 1987). They
are often seen in agricultural fields upon their
first arrival during spring migration, and will
stage in these areas prior to fall migration
(Melland, 1977). Long-billed curlews prefer
short grassland cover types for nesting and
avoid areas of tall, dense cover (Pampush,
1980). Curlews forage extensively on
grasshoppers as well as other insects while
on the breeding grounds (Melland, 1977;
Pampush, 1980; Terres, 1980).
Approximately 467 acres of upland grassland
cover type in the extreme northwest portion
of the core area (along Myers Creek) are
potential nesting habitat for the long-billed
curlew. In this same area, 263 acres of
agriculture cover type provides potential
foraging habitat. In the analysis area, 2,324
acres of grassland/shrub and 1,603 acres of
agriculture land types along Myers Creek
provide potential nesting and foraging habitat
for the long-billed curlew. Limited potential
habitat also occurs in grassland/shrub
communities along Nicholson and Toroda
Creeks. Curlews have been observed in the
vicinity of Molson, Washington,
approximately seven miles west of the
analysis area (Friesz, 1994b).
Black Tern
The black tern is a neotropical migrant that
breeds in temperate North America. It arrives
in Okanogan County the latter half of May
and departs by the first week of September
(Cannings et al., 1987). Marshes and wet
meadows with standing water and emergent
vegetation are critical components of black
tern foraging and nesting habitat. They are
known to fly half a mile from the nest site to
feed (Stern, 1993). Black terns feed on
aquatic insects, beetles, spiders, juvenile
frogs, fish, crayfish, and mollusks (Ehrlich et
al., 1988, Stern, 1993).
The transportation corridor portion of the core
area contains eight bodies of open water
which are suitable habitat for black terns. At
least five breeding pairs are known to occur
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-118
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
on Beaver and Little Beaver Lakes (Friesz,
1994b).
Columbian Sharp-Tailed Grouse
In Eastern Washington, the Columbian sharp-
tailed grouse is a resident upland gamebird
inhabiting northern Douglas, central Lincoln,
and central Okanogan counties (Ashley,
1992b). Preferred nesting habitat is
grasslands of tall dense grass on flat to rolling
terrain with patches of sagebrush-grassland,
mountain shrub, and riparian/wetland
communities. They avoid areas heavily
grazed by livestock (Ashley, 1992b). Most
habitats used throughout the year occur
within two to three miles of leks (mating
display areas) (Ashley, 1992b). Sharp-tailed
grouse feed primarily on the leaves and
flowers of grasses and forbs, insects, buds,
twigs, and fruit from waterbirch, cottonwood,
aspen, willows, serviceberry, snowberry, and
common chokecherry (Klott and Lindzey,
1 990; Ashley et al. 1 990; Ashley 1 992b).
Preferred wintering habitat is undisturbed
riparian/wetland areas, usually within one
mile of leks (Ashley, 1992b). They roost in
snow burrows, trees, and tall shrubs (Marks
and Marks, 1988; Ashley, 1992b).
Sharp-tailed grouse are not documented in
the analysis area, though they may have
historically occurred there (Shroeder, 1994).
Occupied habitat occurs one-half mile west of
Myers Creek (Shroeder, 1994).
Approximately 311 acres of riparian/wetland
and 2,324 acres of the grassland/shrub land
types are present along Myers Creek within
the analysis area. Figure 3.13.2, Land Type
Map. This area is within 1.5 miles of known
leks and could provide potential habitat for
local populations of sharp-tailed grouse.
Northern Bald Eagle
The northern bald eagle is found throughout
the Pacific Northwest in close association
with freshwater, estuarine, and marine
ecosystems (Watson et al., 1991). In
Washington, breeding territories are located
in mature, coniferous forests near water.
Bald eagle wintering habitat consists of day
perches in tall trees close to a food source
(primarily fish and waterfowl) and night
roosts in forests that provide protection from
weather and human disturbance (Rodrick and
Milner, 1991). Bald eagles are opportunistic
scavengers and predators, feeding on a
variety of prey items including fish, small
mammals, waterfowl, seabirds, and carrion
(Snow, 1981b; Rodrick and Milner, 1991).
Human interference has been shown to
adversely affect bald eagles (Stalmaster and
Newman, 1978). The historic decline of the
bald eagle has been attributed to the loss of
feeding and nesting habitat, shooting,
organochloride pesticide residues, poisoning,
and electrocution (Snow, 1981b; USFWS,
1986). The USFWS's Pacific States Bald
Eagle Recovery Plan identifies the Kettle
River, which forms the northeastern boundary
of the analysis area (approximately seven to
ten miles north and northeast of the Crown
Jewel Project area) as a key bald eagle
recovery area.
There are no documented sightings of bald
eagles in the core area. A bald eagle was
observed in the Nicholson Creek drainage in
1990, about 0.9 mile east of the core area
(Forest Service, 1990). Bald eagles may
opportunistically feed on carrion throughout
the analysis area. Suitable nesting, foraging,
roosting, and winter habitat occurs along the
Kettle River, Myers Creek, and Toroda Creek.
Use of these areas by wintering bald eagles
occurs from October to April and seems to be
increasing (Zender, 1994; USFWS, 1986;
Swedberg, 1994). There are no known bald
eagle nesting sites along the Kettle River in
the analysis area (WADFW, 1 994). No major
eagle migration routes have been identified
along the Kettle River (Zender, 1994).
Northern Goshawk
The northern goshawk breeds in dense
mature or old-growth mixed coniferous
forests in Canada and the northern and
western U.S. and is generally a year-round
resident (Terres, 1980). Goshawks generally
arrive at their nesting territories in mid- to
late-March (Cannings et al., 1987). They
often use the same nest for several years or
alternate between two or more nests within
the same territory, which generally
encompasses 20 to 25 acres (Reynolds,
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-119
1983). Habitat use by adults and fledglings
is concentrated within a 300 to 600 acre
post-fledgling family area (Reynolds et al.,
1992) which provides prey as well as
protection from predators and weather. This
area is used for approximately two months
before the juveniles disperse (Reynolds et al.,
1992). Goshawks typically hunt in dense
woodlands, clearings, and open fields,
preying on a variety of birds and mammals
(Jones, 1979; Reynolds and Meslow, 1984;
Bull and Hohmann, 1993).
Eight confirmed goshawk sightings are
reported for the core area between 1990-
1994; however, no active goshawk nests are
known. Approximately 614 acres of suitable
goshawk nesting habitat were identified in
the core area. Another 2,497 acres were
identified as potential post-fledgling family
area habitat. Suitable foraging habitat totals
approximately 5,065 acres within the core
area. Ten goshawk sightings have been
reported for the analysis area including the
core area, in addition to three inactive
goshawk nest sites (A.G. Crook, 1993e;
Forest Service, 1991 a, 1992a; English,
1994). About 2,030 acres of potential
goshawk nesting habitat represented by the
old growth successional stage is present
within the analysis area. Approximately
27,441 acres of coniferous land type in the
analysis area (inclusive of the core area)
could provide potential post-fledgling family-
area and foraging habitat for goshawk.
Ferruginous Hawk
The ferruginous hawk inhabits shrub-steppe
and grassland habitats within the semi-arid
plains region of the U.S. and the southern-
most portion of the Canadian prairie
provinces (Snow, 1981 a). In Washington,
the ferruginous hawk historically occurred in
the southeast portion of the state (Bent,
1937; Jewett et al., 1953). Ferruginous
hawks nest in scattered, isolated trees, on
cliffs and rock outcrops, or on the ground
(Snow, 1981 a; Woffinden and Murphy,
1983). Ferruginous hawks are sensitive to
human activity and even slight disturbances
may cause them to abandon nests (White and
Thurow, 1985). Undisturbed areas are an
important habitat component as they hunt
open areas and pastures (Wakeley, 1978;
Schmutz, 1987; 1989; Woffinden, 1989;
Bechard et al., 1990). Ferruginous hawks
primarily prey upon rabbits, hares, and
rodents (Evans, 1982).
No sightings of the ferruginous hawk are
documented for the core or analysis areas.
Although it is likely they occasionally visit the
Okanogan Valley (approximately 16 miles
west of the analysis area), there are no
reports of breeding (Cannings et al., 1987).
There is no suitable or potential habitat for
ferruginous hawks within the core and
analysis areas.
American Peregrine Falcon
The American peregrine falcon historically
occurred throughout North America, and
currently breeds in western Washington
(Allen, 1992). Peregrine falcons generally
nest on sheer cliff faces (Ehrlich et al., 1988)
and feed primarily on birds (Ehrlich et al.,
1988, Sharp, 1992, Henny and Nelson,
1981). Small mammals, insects, and fish are
occasionally taken (Sharp, 1992; Pacific
Coast American Peregrine Falcon Recovery
Team, 1982). Some adults may remain near
the nest site year-round while others may
range widely. In Washington, intertidal
mudflats, estuaries, and agricultural river
basins are important winter habitats (Pacific
Coast American Peregrine Falcon Recovery
Team, 1982; Allen, 1992).
The historic decline of the peregrine falcon is
attributed to eggshell thinning, induced by
organochlorine pesticides, resulting in
widespread reproductive failure (Aulman,
1992; Pacific Coast American Peregrine
Falcon Recovery Team, 1982). Other
reasons for decline include the loss and
degradation of nesting and foraging habitats,
other pollutants, shooting, and collisions.
Peregrines are most susceptible to
disturbance during courtship and nesting
activities (Pacific Coast American Peregrine
Falcon Recovery Team, 1982). Land
management activities, low-flying planes, and
recreational disturbance (e.g., rock climbing,
hikers, photographers) may induce desertion
of the nest site or nest failure.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-120
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
Currently, 16 breeding pairs of peregrine
falcons are known in Washington (Sharp,
1992). Peregrine falcons are not known to
occur in or near the core or analysis areas,
although, it is possible that an occasional
peregrine falcon could pass through the area
during migration. A prey base of birds is
available to foraging falcons throughout the
analysis area. There are no documented
sightings of peregrines or known peregrine
eyries in the core area (Swedberg, 1994);
however, there are two cliff sites that have
medium potential for peregrine falcon
occupancy just south of Beaver Creek (Pagel,
1992; WADFW, 1994) and near Beth Lake
(Pagel, 1992). There are no documented
sightings of peregrines or known peregrine
eyries in the analysis area. There are;
however, three unique cliff habitats that may
be potential peregrine habitat, located just
north of Beaver Creek, on Porphyry Peak and
east of Chesaw (WADFW, 1 994). The
analysis area is included within a portion of a
management unit in north-central Washington
which has been identified by the Pacific
Coast American Peregrine Falcon Recovery
Team (1982) for occupancy by at least one
breeding pair.
Northern Spotted Owl
The northern spotted owl is resident in
western and central Washington. The
northern spotted owl is typically found in
mature forests; however, they may
sometimes occur in younger forests that
contain remnant large trees or patches of
large trees from earlier stands. In northern
Washington, spotted owls eat a wide variety
of prey but primarily small mammals,
including the northern flying squirrel, bushy-
tailed woodrat, northern pocket gopher, deer
mouse, hare, and rabbit.
The core and analysis areas are 50 miles east
of the known range of the northern spotted
owl. Dispersal of spotted owls to the
analysis area is possible but unlikely due to
the presence of a large expanse of non-forest
habitat between the designated range and the
analysis area.
3.13.7 HEP Analysis
The Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) was a
method used to evaluate the impact on
wildlife and their habitats from mine
exploration and the six proposed mining
operation alternatives (B through G)
(WADFW, 1995). HEP is an accounting
procedure, developed by the USFWS, that
measures changes in wildlife habitat quality
and quantity over time - expressed as
changes in Habitat Units. The HEP compares
the analysis of each "With Mining Project"
alternative to the "Without Project" analysis.
The "Without Project" analysis included
expected management of the area had the
Project (including mine exploration) not
occurred. The With Project/without
mitigation analysis contained exploration,
proposed mining and reclamation activities.
HEP indicator species were chosen because
their habitat requirements would reflect the
habitat needs of a variety of species within
the Crown Jewel Analysis Area. Eleven
wildlife species/groups were selected
including the following: veery, shrub-steppe
nesting birds, vesper sparrow, spotted frog,
black tern, fisher, pileated woodpecker,
sharp-shinned hawk, mule deer winter range,
and deer summer range. Each evaluation
species is dependent on key habitat
components which provide resources and
environmental conditions supporting the
animal's survival. These components were
identified by the HEP Team and then
measured in the field by representatively
sampling vegetation cover classes within the
24,000 acre study area around Buckhorn
Mountain. The field measurements are then
incorporated into models that provide a
measure of the quality of the habitat (Habitat
Suitability Index - HSI).
The HEP combines measures of the quality
(HSI) and quantity (acres) of available habitat
for each evaluation species into a single
value, termed a Habitat Unit. Habitat Units
are a measure of an area's inherent ability to
support wildlife. If either the amount of
habitat or the quality of habitat changes, then
the ability of that area to support wildlife will
change.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-121
Habitat Unit production could be measured
for each year and summed for the entire
study period (60 years) to determine total
production of wildlife habitat for an
evaluation species. This monumental task is
shortened by measuring habitat quality at
times when substantial habitat changes may
occur (target years) and then averaging the
production between target years. These
estimates of habitat production between
target years are then totaled. The five target
years selected by the HEP Team for this
study are: 1) pre-Project, 2) initiation of
exploration, 3) initiation of mining, 4)
completion of mining and milling, and 5) end
of the 60 year evaluation time period.
Total production of Habitat Units can be
averaged over the study time period to
produce Average Annual Habitat Units
(AAHU). AAHU are a measure of the average
annual productivity of wildlife habitat for an
area. Habitat Units and AAHU can not be
added or subtracted between different
species. .Each species was chosen to
represent separate wildlife habitat attributes.
HEP Analysis
HEP has evaluated the changes in habitat unit
value over the 60 year period of analysis.
However, the following section describes the
quality of the affected wildlife environment
before exploration occurred.
Habitat quality for each evaluation species is
expressed as an HSI which ranges from 0.0
to 1.0, with 1.0 representing perceived
optimum conditions. To facilitate the
analysis, the diversity of habitats analyzed for
the Crown Jewel Project has been grouped
into four habitat types:
• Wetland/deciduous riparian habitats;
• Open herbaceous/shrubland habitats;
• Coniferous forest habitats; and,
• Multi-cover type habitats.
Wetland/Deciduous Riparian Habitats
Less than 9% of the study area (_<_ 1,000
acres) is wetland/deciduous riparian habitat.
Wetland/deciduous riparian habitats provide
medium to high quality habitat for wildlife
species used specifically to evaluate these
habitats (spotted frog: HSI = 0.46, wetland
veery: HSI = 0.51; non-wetland veery: HSI
= 0.67; black tern: HSI = 0.74). Water
fluctuations during the breeding season and
lack of herbaceous vegetation cover were the
two most limiting characteristics of these
habitats.
Open Herbaceous/Shrubland Habitats
About 30% of the study area (7,000 acres) is
comprised of open upland herbaceous/shrub
dominated habitats. Herbaceous habitats
provide high quality habitat for wildlife
species specifically used to evaluate these
habitats (vesper sparrow: HSI = 0.50 to
1.00, used 0.60). These habitats provide
medium habitat quality for shrubland
evaluation wildlife species (shrub steppe
breeding birds: HSI = 0.46). Low shrub
cover was observed to be the most limiting
characteristic of these habitats.
Coniferous Forest Habitat
Coniferous forests from the pole to old
growth successional stages currently
comprise approximately 67% of the study
area (16,200 acres). Coniferous forests
provide medium to high quality habitat for
wildlife species used to evaluate these
habitats. Evaluation species that utilize
younger successional stage forests had more
habitat and higher quality habitat (1 5,600 -
16,200 acres; fisher: HSI = 0.64 to 0.68;
pileated woodpecker: HSI = 0.31; and sharp-
shinned hawk: HSI = 0.77 to 0.78), than
species that were used to only evaluate the
more mature evergreen coniferous forests
(5,300 acres; mule deer winter range: HSI =
0.45).
The small size (<10" dbh) of the youngest
successional stages of coniferous forest and
the overall lack of understory layering were
the most limiting factors to coniferous forest
evaluation species. The nearly complete
absence of large snags and trees within
silviculturally treated forest stands were the
most limiting factors to the snag evaluation
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-122
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
species (pileated woodpecker). The quality of
mule deer winter range within the study area
was limited by low amounts of palatable
forage found in the understory and human
harassment as measured by high road
densities (2.7 - 3.0 miles of road/sq. mile).
Multi-Cover Type Habitat
The summer mule deer habitat model was
used to evaluate the multi-cover type habitat
characteristics of the study area. The
proximity of cover types that provide forage,
cover and water influences the quality of deer
summer habitat. Most of the study area is
considered deer summer range (23,297
acres). The study area produces medium
quality mule deer summer range (HSI =
0.43). The quality of palatable forage and
human disturbances as measured by road
densities were observed to be the most
limiting habitat characteristic of the study
area (3.4 miles of road/sq. mile).
3.14 NOISE
3.14.1 Introduction
Noise can be defined as unwanted, disturbing
sound. The impact of a noise source
depends on the levels and characteristics of
the background sound, as well as the
characteristics of the source. Sound is
transmitted through the atmosphere as low-
intensity pressure waves. People can detect
and respond to a wide range of sound
intensities and frequencies.
The logarithmic decibel scale (dB) is used to
indicate the intensity of sound. To measure
sound on a scale that approximates the way
people hear, more emphasis must be placed
on those sound frequencies (or pitch) that
people hear best. The EPA recommends the
use of the "A-weighted" sound pressure
levels, expressed as A-weighted decibels or
dBA, for analyzing community noise issues.
Note that there are other decibel scales other
than the "dBA scale." For example, OSHA
sometimes uses the C-weighted scale to
measure very loud noises at industrial areas.
However, both EPA and WADOE stipulate the
use of the dBA scale to assess community
noise, so that is the one that is used in this
EIS.
Figure 3.14.1, Typical Range of Common
Sounds, shows the range of dBA sound
intensities that are produced by various noise
sources. The threshold of human hearing is 0
dBA. Quiet whispers and bird calls produce
about 25 to 35 dBA. Chainsaws can produce
over 110 dBA.
Because decibels are a logarithmic scale, a
doubling of the sound pressure corresponds
to a noise increase of 3 dBA. For example, a
single bulldozer typically produces about 85
dBA of noise at a distance of 50 feet from
the bulldozer. Therefore, two identical
bulldozers operating side by side (with each
bulldozer producing 85 dBA) produce a
theoretical noise level of 88 dBA.
There are many factors that determine
whether an increase in the noise level above
the existing background is "audible." The
most important factor is the nature of the
new noise source as compared to the nature
of the background noise. In the case of the
proposed Crown Jewel Project, the noise
caused by the mining equipment would be
different from the rural background sounds,
so relatively small increases in noise levels
caused by the mechanical equipment might
be noticeable. During the background noise
measurements described in Section 3.14.3,
Baseline Noise Levels, the noise from
exploratory equipment operating at the site
was noticeable even when the equipment
caused noise increases as low as 2 dBA.
Based on those observations, it is assumed
that the proposed mining activities would
probably be noticeable if they are loud
enough to cause an increase of as little as 1
dBA above background.
3.14.2 Health Effects of Community
Noise
In the 1970s, the EPA sponsored studies on
environmental noise effects on public health
and welfare. In these studies, on the basis of
its interpretation of available scientific
information, the EPA identified a range of
yearly Day-Night Sound Levels sufficient to
protect public health and welfare from the
Crown Jewel Mine f Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-123
effects of environmental noise. This is
summarized in what is referred to as the
"Levels Document" (EPA, 1978). The
identified protective levels are not viewed as
standards, criteria, regulations, or goals by
the EPA, but are a basis for several state and
local agencies' noise regulations.
According to the Levels Document, the basic
premises for diagnosing a health effect from
environmental noise is a change in individual
hearing level greater than 5 dBA. Changes
smaller than 5 dBA are considered
insignificant. The study concluded that 5
dBA noise-induced hearing damage would
occur with a 24 hour per day equivalent
sound level (Leq) of 70 dBA occurring over a
40 year period. The daily Leq at the Crown
Jewel Project facility boundary is not
expected to reach any level above 70 dBA,
and the proposed mine would have only a
ten-year operational life.
Noise annoyance is also addressed in the
Levels Document. For the purpose of
identifying protective noise levels, annoyance
was quantified by using the percentage of
people who are annoyed by certain noise
levels. The study concluded that for outdoor
activity the 24 hour per day Leq threshold for
annoyance is 55 dBA. Maintaining daily
average noise levels less than or equal to 55
dBA are sufficient to protect public health
and welfare. Maintaining 55 dBA outdoors
would in turn ensure adequate protection for
indoor living.
3.14.3 Baseline Noise Levels
Three rounds of baseline noise monitoring
were performed in the vicinity of the
proposed mine:
• A summertime round from August 14 to
17, 1992;
• A second summertime round from June
19 to 24, 1993; and,
• A wintertime round from January 10 to
11, 1994.
The 1992 summertime measurements were
repeated in 1993, because the 1992 daytime
noise levels at some of the monitoring
locations were affected by noise-making
insects, which appeared to be similar to
locusts. Insects are part of the natural
background noise that should normally be
accounted for in noise assessments.
However, conversations with local residents
indicated that the insects are prevalent for
only a short time during the mid-to-late
summer. It was reasonable to assume that
the noise levels during the rest of the year,
when the insects are not prevalent would be
quieter, and therefore represent a more
conservative measurement of the baseline
condition. For that reason, the August 1992
measurements were repeated in June-1993
when noise-making insects were not as
active.
The 1994 wintertime round was performed in
response to public requests. The baseline
monitoring programs were developed to
address two objectives: first, to measure the
daytime and nighttime noise levels at
representative locations around the proposed
Crown Jewel Project site; and second, to
assess the impacts of temperature inversions
on sound propagation from the mine site to
surrounding areas.
The measured sound levels at each of the
monitoring locations are summarized in Table
3.14.1, Measured Background Noise Levels.
During all three of the survey periods, data-
logging electronic noise monitors (Larson
Davis Model 820) were used. Noise
monitoring was done at five locations:
Chesaw townsite; near the Bolster area;
along Toroda Creek Road near Nicholson
Creek Road; the Pine Chee area south of
Chesaw; and, at the undeveloped South
Corral area near the southern boundary of the
Project. The locations of the noise
monitoring stations are illustrated on Figure
3.14.2, Noise Monitoring Station Locations,
and Figure 3.14.3, Noise Source Locations
and Baseline Monitoring Locations. The
measured data shown in Table 3.14.1,
Measured Background Noise Levels, are
expressed as the ranges of daytime and
nighttime sound levels, and as the statistical
"L-n sound level," which is the noise level
that was exceeded "n" percent of the
monitoring period. The table indicates which
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
1
I
I
(6
TABLE 3.14.1, MEASURED BACKGROUND NOISE LEVELS
Bolster
Chesaw
Pine Chee
Toroda/Nicholson
South Corral
August 1992 Data
Day
Leq
42-45
(insect noise)
50-60
(insect noise)
ND
49-52
(insect noise)
38
Night
Leq
40-60
45-50
ND
28-33
34
June 19-24, 1993 Data
Average Day
Leq
45.3
48.2
52.6
ND
ND
L-25
41.5
43.9
45.7
ND
ND
L-90
32.9
34.0
31.1
ND
ND
Average Night
Leq
36.8
38.9
38.6
ND
ND
L-25
35.5
34.7
32.0
ND
ND
L-90
31.7
30.1
26.1
ND
ND
January 10-11, 1994 Data
Average Day
Leq
35.1
49.4
43.7
ND
36.9
L-25
31.6
36.0
34.5
ND
31.1
L-90
29.6
27.2
30.3
ND
28.3
Average Night
Leq
30.6
31.7
33.0
ND
28.8
L-25
30.2
23.9
31.1
ND
28.9
L-90
29.3
22.5
29.7
ND
28.1
Note: ND = No Data
"Insect noise" indicates that insects were clearly audible during the monitoring.
i
Co
a
s
I
CO
<0
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-125
of the August 1992 readings were affected
by insect noise.
The wintertime noise levels were considerably
quieter than were the summertime levels. For
example, the nighttime average Leg (one hour
equivalent sound level) at Bolster was 36.8
dBA in the summertime, as compared to 30.6
dBA in the wintertime. Similar results were
found at the other monitoring stations.
All of the baseline noise measurements were
taken during calm weather, and there was no
indication that wind noise contributed
substantially to the background levels. The
baseline measurements therefore represent
very quiet noise conditions that can be
reasonably expected at the monitored site for
extended periods of time. Windy conditions
would be expected to cause increases in the
background noise levels by as much as 5 dBA
during the daytime and by as much as 10
dBA during the nighttime.
3.14.4 Temperature Inversion Study
Temperature inversions at the site could
enhance sound propagation, and thereby
increase noise impacts in the surrounding
vicinity. The on-site meteorological station
operated by the Proponent indicated that
temperature inversions occurred during the
evening to early morning hours on each day
of the August, 1992 baseline monitoring.
The potential adverse impacts caused by
temperature inversions were assessed by
operating a drill rig at the proposed mine pit
area, then observing the sound levels at
various distances from the rig (Hart Crowser,
1993).
Sound levels within the existing pine forest
were measured using handheld monitors at
distances of 50 and 200 feet from the drill
rig. Continuous data-logged readings were
taken at a location about 0.5 miles south of
the drill rig, at the South Corral area that was
one mile from the drill rig, and at Chesaw and
Bolster. The test was completed during two
different weather conditions: on a clear
afternoon when there was no temperature
inversion, and on a clear morning with a
strong temperature inversion.
Sound did not travel far during the afternoon,
when there was no temperature inversion.
The sound attenuation caused by the pine
forest within the first 200 feet of distance
away from the rig was about 12 dBA during
both the morning and afternoon tests, and
was therefore not affected by the morning
temperature inversion. During the afternoon,
the noise from the drill rig was inaudible and
undetectable by any of the electronic
monitors, including the monitor that was only
0.5 miles away from the rig.
However, sound traveled much better during
the morning test run, during a temperature
inversion. At that time, dogs that were
believed to be about two miles away were
clearly audible at the South Corral. The drill
rig was clearly audible at the South Corral
about one mile away, and the drill rig caused
a detectable noise level increase of about 1.5
dBA at South Corral when it was cycled on
and off. Based on that drill rig study, it was
confirmed that temperature inversions would
cause increases in noise levels in the areas
surrounding the mine.
It is likely that nighttime and morning
temperature inversions are frequent at the
Crown Jewel Project area. Therefore, it is
important to consider the adverse effects
caused by inversions. The predictive noise
impact assessments described in Chapter 4,
Environmental Consequences, were
completed using a computer model that
accounts for temperature inversions.
3.14.5 Noise Regulations
County Noise Ordinance
Prevention of public disturbances caused by
loud, unpleasant, or raucous noise is
governed by Okanogan County Ordinance 88-
1. However, that regulation is not well suited
to develop limits on routine, continuous
noises that would originate from the
proposed mining activities. Noise from
industrial operations is best regulated by the
WADOE noise regulations, as described
below.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-126
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
Washington State Noise Regulations
Allowable noise levels at existing or potential
residential areas caused by industrial
operations are set by the WADOE regulations,
WAC-173-60, "Maximum Environmental
Noise Levels." That regulation specifies
maximum noise levels at the receiving
property boundary. Allowable limits are
based on the "Environmental Designation for
Noise Abatement" (EDNA), classification of
the source and receiving properties. The
allowable limits are based on the EDNA
zoning of the receiving property, the EDNA
zoning of the source property, the time of
day (daytime versus nighttime), and the
duration of the noise occurrence.
For this assessment, it is assumed that all
privately-held property is designated as EDNA
Class A (Residential) regardless of whether
there are existing full-time homes there,
because such property can potentially be
used for dwellings. The public lands
immediately adjacent to the proposed facility
boundary are assumed to be EDNA Class B,
which are not zoned for human habitation but
require protection against speech
interference, as specified in WAC-173-60-
030:
(b) Class B EDNA - Lands involving uses
requiring protection against noise
interference with speech. Typical Class B
EDNA will be the following types of
property:
(vii) Recreation and entertainment,
property not used for human
habitation....
(viii) Community services, property not
used for human habitation....
For noises caused by industrial activity, the
allowable noise levels at residential (EDNA A)
and non-residential (EDNA B) receiving
properties are listed in Table 3.14.2,
Allowable Noise Levels at Residential and
Non-Residential Receiving Property for
Industrial Noise Source. The Washington
regulations set limits based on the number of
minutes per hour of allowable exceedance.
For this assessment, the Washington
regulations shown in Table 3.14.2, Allowable
Noise Levels at Residential and Non-
Residential Receiving Property for Industrial
Noise Source, have been converted to the
equivalent "L-n" statistical descriptors. The
following industrial activities are exempt from
the WADOE daytime noise limits, but subject
to the nighttime limits:
• Temporary construction activities, such
as blasting; and,
• Forest harvesting.
The following noise sources are exempt from
both the daytime and nighttime noise limits:
• Warning devices (such as backup alarms)
that are operated for less than five
minutes per hour.
• Trucks operated on public roads are
exempt from these noise regulations.
Haul trucks and mobile construction
equipment that are routinely operated on
private land are considered as regular
industrial equipment, and the noise caused by
those haul trucks is subject to the WADOE
regulations.
EPA Region 10 EIS Guidance
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has no enforceable noise limits applicable to
industrial operations. However, EPA Region
10 has published general guidance for noise
assessments in EIS documents. According to
that guidance, the significance of predicted
noise levels is governed by the increase in the
Leq above background. The following criteria
are recommended to assess noise increases
at existing residences and noise sensitive
areas (e.g., hospitals):
• An increase in the Leq of 0 to 5 dBA
above existing background constitutes a
"slight" impact.
• An increase in the Leq of 5 to 10 dBA
above existing background constitutes a
"significant" impact.
• An increase in the Leq exceeding 10 dBA
constitutes a "very serious" impact.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-127
TABLE 3.14.2, ALLOWABLE NOISE LEVELS AT RESIDENTIAL
AND NON-RESIDENTIAL RECEIVING PROPERTY
FOR INDUSTRIAL NOISE SOURCE
Noise Duration
No more
(L-25)
No more
(L-08)
No more
(L-2.5)
than 1 5 minutes per hour
than 5 minutes per hour
than 1.5 minutes per hour
Allowable Daytime Levels
in dBA From
7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
60 (Residential)
65 (Non-residential)
65 (Residential)
70 (Non-residential)
70 (Residential)
75 (Non-residential)
Allowable Nighttime Levels
in dBA From
10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
50 (Residential)
65 (Non-residential)
55 (Residential)
70 (Non-residential)
60 (Residential)
75 (Non-residential)
Forest Service Guidelines for Recreational
Areas
The Forest Service recommends that
recreational noise area impacts caused by
new industrial activity should be limited
based on the recreational classification of the
recreational area (Forest Service, 1980).
Table 3.14.3, Recommended Maximum Noise
Impacts to Recreational Areas, lists the
recommended allowable noise increase above
existing baseline values. It is not intended
that these values be used as strict numerical
limits. Instead, the potential noise impacts in
recreational areas are intended to be
assessed on a case by case basis, accounting
for factors such as the noise duration and the
time of day when the noise would occur.
3.15 RECREATION
3.15.1 Introduction
Existing recreational facilities and use
patterns were identified based on a review of
existing recreation documents, interviews
with government agencies and private
organizations involved with recreation, and
observations during field visits. Data on
recreational use at developed Forest Service
sites were provided by the Forest Service.
Hunting is an important recreational activity
in the study area and was estimated by
taking a prorated share of the harvest data
provided by the WADFW for the entire game
management unit, based on the acreage of
the study area. The data is presented for
1994 and 1995, the two most recent
seasons for which data was available.
Due to the lack of developed recreation
facilities in the immediate vicinity of the
Crown Jewel Project, detailed recreation use
data were not available for this area; thus,
the discussion is based primarily on
information gained during personal interviews
and on field observations. Future recreation
development and recreation use projections
were also analyzed.
TABLE 3.14.3, RECOMMENDED MAXIMUM NOISE
IMPACTS TO RECREATIONAL AREAS
Recreational Site Classification
Primitive Area
Recommended
Noise Impact
Allowable
in dBA1
1
Semi-primitive Areas
Trail Camps
Undeveloped Roadside Camps
5
10
Semi-modern Areas
Roadside Campgrounds
Highly Developed Campgrounds
20
40
Noise: 1. Increase in dBA above background.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-128
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
A primary study are and an analysis area
were delineated for the recreation analysis.
The primary study area includes publicly
owned lands situated between County Roads
(CR) 4883, 9480, 9495, and the Canadian
border. The purpose of the primary study
area was to determine the direct effect of the
Crown Jewel Project features on existing
resources, and the direct effect on access to
those resources.
The analysis study area includes lands lying
between Molson, Havillah, Lake Bonaparte,
Beaver and Beth Lakes, Beaver Creek, Toroda
Creek, and Provincial Highway 3, north of the
Canadian Border. It also includes recreation
facilities within the communities of Tonasket,
Oroville, Republic, and Curlew. The purpose
of the analysis area was to look at facilities
that might be indirectly impacted by changes
in population as a result of the Crown Jewel
Project.
3.15.2 Current Management Direction
The Land and Resource Management Plan for
the Okanogan National Forest (Forest Service,
1 989) provides an inventory of recreation
opportunities in the National Forest, as well
as current management prescriptions for the
area. The BLM has not adopted such
recreation management plans for their lands
within the study area; therefore, Forest
Service plans were used to analyze these
lands.
According to the Forest Service inventory,
the west side of Buckhorn Mountain can
provide a "Semi-Primitive, Non-Motorized"
type of recreation setting, as shown on
Figure 3.15.1, Recreation Opportunity
Spectrum Inventory.
This designation indicates that recreation
opportunities could be provided in a natural
appearing environment, where visitors could
have a high probability of experiencing
solitude, freedom, closeness to nature,
tranquility, self-reliance, personal enrichment,
challenge, and risk.
The east side of Buckhorn Mountain could
provide a "Roaded Natural" setting, meaning
recreation activities could occur in a mostly
natural appearing environment. Some
developed recreation sites are allowed, and
access is gained by sedan, trailer, and
recreation vehicle.
The above designations were used by the
Forest Service to describe existing conditions
in the forest during development of the Forest
Plan. After developing the inventory,
management prescriptions were developed to
guide future activities in the area. The plan's
management prescriptions designate the
Buckhorn area to be managed as a "Roaded
Modified" recreation opportunity. This means
that "recreation opportunities are provided in
a substantially modified environment, except
for campsites. Roads, landings, slash and
debris may dominate the area, except from
distant sensitive roads. Access is relatively
easy, provided by sedan, trailer, and
recreation vehicles" (Forest Service, 1989).
3.15.3 Recreation Resources
There are no developed recreation facilities
operated by the Forest Service or other
agencies within the primary study area. A
number of undeveloped, dispersed recreation
sites have been observed near the Crown
Jewel Project site, as shown on Figure
3.15.2, Dispersed Recreation Sites - Primary
Study Area. These undeveloped, dispersed
recreation sites generally consist of
undeveloped hunting camps or fire rings.
Forest Roads 3575 and 3575-120 are the
main gravel roads traversing the National
Forest lands and providing access for
dispersed recreation. Additional access is
provided by the many improved (coarse
gravel or dirt) or primitive (high clearance)
Forest roads in the area. Travel on a large
portion of the primary study area is
unrestricted throughout the year but roads
are not snow plowed in the winter.
The Forest Service topographic maps indicate
two trails to the northeast of Buckhorn
Mountain, the Denny Trail, and the Fawn's
Mill Trail. These are historic trails used
during past mining, logging, and smuggling
activities, but are not considered system trails
by the Forest Service and are not maintained.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
------- OCR error (C:\Conversion\JobRoot\000003VD\tiff\2000CSPT.tif): Unspecified error
-------
Page 3-130
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
Although there are no developed campsites in
the primary study area and thus no data on
camping, some dispersed camping does
occur. This is indicated by the several
hunting camps and campsites observed in the
field, as shown on Figure 3.15.2, Dispersed
Recreation Sites - Primary Study Area. Much
of this camping is most likely related to
hunting activity. The greatest amount of
fishing activity in the primary study area is
found along Toroda Creek. Public access is
limited along Toroda Creek, but there is some
public land providing access and private
landowners often grant access for fishing.
WADFW's goal is to improve the fishery in
the Kettle River by restricting fishing in the
tributaries - including Toroda Creek. This
would allow a higher percentage of fish to
spawn over a longer period. Fish reared in
the tributaries would recruit population into
the Kettle River (Williams, 1992).
Other recreation activities occur in the
primary study area, but on a limited basis due
to the lack of developed facilities. Comments
received during the scoping process mention
rockhounding and ascending the summit of
Buckhorn Mountain as recreation activities.
Field observations indicate that some informal
hiking around or to the summit of Buckhorn
Mountain occurs, most of which is by local
residents along existing roads or wildlife
trails.
Since Buckhorn Mountain used to have a
lookout tower, many people hiked up to the
summit in the past (Fry, 1992). It is currently
considered a Class 1 climb by the
Mountaineers club (out of five classes, with
five being the most difficult). The mountain
has been listed in a publication as the 103rd
highest peak in Washington with a 2,000-
foot prominence above the ridgeline (Fry,
1991).
Many of the old mines in the area also show
signs of visitation, as does the frog pond
located northeast of the mountain. The area
may be used for plant gathering and berry
picking. Most of this takes place along
existing roads. Local residents in the Chesaw
area also gather plants and medicinal herbs in
the area (Payton, 1993).
Although there is no data to indicate that any
formal astronomy activities occur in the area,
the scoping comments mention star-gazing as
part of the local lifestyle requiring protection.
Some use of the area's roads include
horseback riding, off-road vehicle four-
wheeling, and snowmobiling. These activities
occur on an individual basis. Cross-country
skiing is limited due to the lack of maintained
trails and the availability of higher quality
trails at Highlands SnoPark and in the
Methow Valley in western Okanogan County.
Since the Okanogan Highlands, in general, are
popular with bird watchers, the primary study
area may be used for bird watching. Due to
the primitive roads and lack of camping
facilities, birdwatching in the primary study
area is fairly limited in extent as compared to
the Five Lakes area to the south (Friesz,
1992).
Analysis Area
There is considerably more recreational use of
the analysis area than the primary study area,
due in part to the lake amenities found south
of Chesaw, as set forth in Table 3.15.1,
Recreation Use - Forest Service Facilities.
The campgrounds in the Five Lakes area
receive heavy use on the weekends and
moderate use during the week. The most
popular site is the Bonaparte Campground
with an average of 5,633 recreation
occasions a year and 3,279 visitor days. The
campgrounds are usually full on weekends,
except Beth Lake, which accommodates
overflow from the other campgrounds.
Although use levels are high, campground
use is currently not considered to be at over-
capacity (Yenko, 1992). The Johnstone
Creek campground in Canada also tends to fill
up on summer weekends.
Trout fishing in the Five Lakes Area is
popular. Fishing in Myers Creek is also
popular with local residents. The U.S.
portion of Myers Creek was stocked in the
past with brook trout.
Snowmobiling is popular around Bonaparte
Lake and cross-country skiing is popular in
the Highlands Snopark area used by an
average of 600 skiers per year. Mountain
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-131
TABLE 3.15.1. RECREATION USE - FOREST SERVICE FACILITIES
Recreation Site
Beaver Lake Campground
Beth Lake Campground
Lost Lake Campground
Bonaparte Campground
Mt. Bonaparte Lookout
Highlands Snowpark
Boy Scout Camp
Kiwanis Camp
Lutheran Camp
Big Tree Botanical Area
Bonaparte Recreation
Residences
Recreation Occasions
1995
921
1,026
4,722
5,678
400
NA
NA
NA
NA
400
NA
1994
915 (1993)
1,008
3,197
5,587
400
600
4,505
5,918
3,047
400
467
Recreation Visitor Days
1995
537
599
2,755
3,299
100
NA
NA
NA
NA
100
NA
1994
534 (1993)
588
1,865
3,259
100
150
805
1,604
514
100
285
Notes: Recreation Occasions: A measure of recreation use in which one visits one particular site which
would log one individual.
Recreation Visitor Day: A measure of recreation use in which one RVD equals 12 visitor hours,
which may be aggregated continuously, intermittently, or simultaneously by one or more
person(s).
NA: Not available.
Source: Kirkpatrick, 1996.
biking is popular in the Bonaparte Mountain
area (Payton, 1993). Motorized dirt bikes, all
terrain vehicles, and horseback riding are also
popular around Bonaparte Lake. The
Okanogan Highlands, in general, are popular
with bird watchers. The Five Lakes Area is
popular in particular, due to the water birds,
diverse habitat, and camping facilities (Friesz,
1992). Driving for pleasure and viewing
scenery is another recreational activity,
comprising approximately 20% of the forest's
recreational use (Forest Service, 1989).
Recreation use is considerably higher in the
Okanogan Valley than the rest of the study
area, since a large number of visitors from
Canada utilize the area. The Oroville Visitor
Center had 22,057 visitors in 1 991.
The Crown Jewel Project is located 45 miles
east of the Pasayten Wilderness and 66 miles
west of the Salmon-Priest Wilderness. There
are no rivers or streams in, or near, the
Crown Jewel Project area that would be
potentially eligible to be classified as a Wild,
Scenic or Recreational River.
Past and Current Mining and Timbering
Activities
Past mining and timber harvest activities have
created visual changes in the landscape.
Those preferring a roadless setting might be
adversely affected by past mining and timber
harvest activities. However, for others, the
large number of roads used for past
exploration, mining, and timber harvest has
improved access to the area. The abandoned
mines themselves are often an attraction for
hikers and recreationists. Some of the old
mines in the area also provide an opportunity
for interpretive sites. These sites have been
investigated for eligibility to the register of
National Historic Places. One sight was
found to be eligible.
Exploration for the Crown Jewel Project has
resulted in a number of road closures due to
drilling and other activities. Recreationists
can still traverse the study area via Forest
Roads 3575-100, 120, 140, and 150, which
link the Pontiac Ridge Road (CR 4895) to the
Nicholson Creek Road (Forest Road 3575)
north of Buckhorn Mountain.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-132
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
3.16 SCENIC RESOURCES
3.16.1 Introduction
Existing scenic resources were analyzed using
the scenic management system developed by
the Forest Service (Forest Service, 1974).
Neither the WADNR nor the BLM have
adopted scenic resource plans for their lands
within the study area, and thus the Forest
Service management system was used to
analyze these lands.
The analysis began with identification of the
key viewpoints. Key viewpoints were
selected points in the vicinity of the Crown
Jewel Project that would most likely have
views of the proposed Crown Jewel Project
and thus serve to establish the general
baseline conditions for scenic resources.
They do not include every location with a
possible view of the Crown Jewel Project,
but generally the locations were considered
to be of highest use and best views.
Six viewpoints were established through a
detailed map and cross section analysis and
several visits to the Crown Jewel Project
Area. Cross sections were developed
between the summit of Buckhorn Mountain
and any towns, groups of houses, roads, or
recreation sites from which the Crown Jewel
Project might be visible. This task was
completed to identify the most populated
places that have the best views of the Crown
Jewel Project site, in order to describe the
general scenic quality of the area. Specific
views of individual Crown Jewel Project
features from these and other locations are
discussed in more detail in Section 4.15,
Scenic Resources.
The scenic resources of the Crown Jewel
Project area were inventoried, as seen from
each viewpoint, based on the Forest Service
system of form, line, color, and texture. The
distance of the Crown Jewel Project site from
each viewpoint was determined and classified
in terms of foreground, middleground, or
background. Five of the six viewpoints
selected were considered background views.
The visual absorption capability from each
viewpoint was determined, which indicates
the ability of the Crown Jewel Project site to
absorb change before it begins to degrade the
scenic quality of the area. The scenic quality
of the view was also analyzed, based on a
number of factors, including the degree of
variety in the view and the balance between
variety and other factors. The sensitivity of
each viewpoint was also determined, based
on the number and types of people exposed
to the resource.
3.16.2 Scenic Management System
The Land and Resource Management Plan for
the Okanogan National Forest, completed by
the Forest Service in 1989, provides an
inventory of existing scenic resources, as
well as future management prescriptions for
the area. According to the inventory, much
of the west side of Buckhorn Mountain has
moderate scenic significance. Most of the
mountain's east side is shown as having low
scenic significance.
A number of scenic viewsheds, or areas
which can be seen from relatively populated
areas or highly travelled road corridors are
shown on Figure 3.16.1, Scenic Viewsheds
and Key Viewpoints. The scenic viewshed
closest to the Crown Jewel Project is the
Oroville-Chesaw viewshed, but only the area
north of the Crown Jewel Project area in the
North Fork Gold Creek drainage is inventoried
as a Sensitivity Level 1 corridor. Crown
Jewel Project activities are only planned for
areas outside of Scenic Viewsheds
inventoried under the Forest Plan. Under the
Forest Plan, the Scenic Quality Objective of
maximum modification applies to these areas.
In areas classified as "maximum
modification," development activities "...may
dominate the characteristic landscape. When
viewed as background, scenic characteristics
must be those of natural occurrences within
the surrounding area. When viewed as
foreground or middleground, scenic
characteristics may not appear to completely
borrow from naturally established form, line,
color or texture. Alterations may also be out
of scale or contain detail which is incongruent
with natural occurrences as seen in
foreground or middleground" (Forest Service,
1989).
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-133
3.16.3 Project Area Description
Characteristic Landscape
Buckhorn Mountain and the surrounding
Okanogan Highlands landscape are
characterized by moderately steep
topography, ranging from rugged,
mountainous terrain to rolling hills. The
area's hills and mountains are characterized
by broad, rounded summits. In the higher
elevations, the landscape is forested with
coniferous trees, such as Douglas fir and
western larch. Occasional clearings are
apparent, some of which are natural and
some of which are a result of past or current
logging and exploration operations. In the
lower elevations, frequent clearings dominate
the landscape, used primarily for agricultural
purposes. The dominant colors in the higher
elevations include the blues and greens of the
forest vegetation, the light browns in cleared
areas, and the buff, dark brown, and red
colored rock outcroppings (BLM, 1992). In
the lower elevations, yellows and light greens
predominate, due to the extensive grazing
lands interspersed with coniferous vegetation.
Site Visibility
The hills and ridges surrounding Buckhorn
Mountain obscure the site from much of the
study area. Views of the site that do exist
generally extend up river valleys and road
corridors. Based upon a detailed map
analysis, five major corridors and one minor
corridor as well as the summit of Mt.
Bonaparte, located 13 miles to the southwest
were found to have intermittent views of
Buckhorn Mountain as shown on Figure
3.16.1, Scenic Viewsheds and Key
Viewpoints. The Crown Jewel Project would
be visible from Mt. Baldy in British Columbia,
but its distance from Buckhorn Mountain
(approximately 18 miles) would make the
Crown Jewel Project features difficult to
distinguish.
To the west of the Crown Jewel Project, the
Oroville - Toroda Creek Road (CR 9480) has
several viewpoints between the Hee Hee
Stone and MaryAnn Creek of the west side of
Buckhorn Mountain. To the southwest, the
Myers Creek Valley allows views of Buckhorn
Mountain from portions of the Nealey Road
corridor (CR 4861). After its intersection
with CR 4887, the Myers Creek valley is
screened from most of the Crown Jewel
Project site by the intervening hills. The
steep canyon along Beaver Creek prevents
views of the Project site from Beth and
Beaver Lakes.
On the east, the Crown Jewel Project would
be visible from several locations along the
Toroda Creek Road, looking up the Nicholson
Creek drainage. The Crown Jewel Project
site is not visible from Toroda Creek Road
south of Nicholson Creek, due to the steep
hills rising immediately above the valley.
To the north, a portion of the Crown Jewel
Project would be visible from British Columbia
Highway 3, as it climbs out of the Kettle
River Valley, west of Rock Creek. East of
Rock Creek, Highway 3 travels along the
Kettle River Valley, which is too low in
elevation to provide views of Buckhorn
Mountain.
The view from Forest Road 3575-125, is less
important than the others in terms of the
amount of traffic, but has the closest and
thus clearest view of the site. Forest Road
3575-125 is a narrow dirt road immediately
east of Buckhorn Mountain, which has been
closed by the Forest Service to vehicle
access.
Mt. Bonaparte, located 13 miles to the
southwest of the Crown Jewel Project site,
also provides views of portions of the Crown
Jewel Project area, but the distance involved
would make Crown Jewel Project features
difficult to distinguish.
The summit of Buckhorn Mountain is not
visible from Chesaw or the Bolster area, due
to their proximity to the base of the ridge.
The Crown Jewel Project site is also not
visible from the Canadian towns of Midway
and Rock Creek. Portions of the Crown
Jewel Project may be visible from the Byers
and Latham Ranches located west of
Chesaw. The ranches are currently operated
by the WADFW for protecting critical habitat
of Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, although
recreation such as hunting and wildlife
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-134
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
observation is allowed. Although the primary
mine facilities would not be visible from any
communities, other Crown Jewel Project
features, such as the transmission line, may
be visible from other areas.
For each road, one location was selected as a
representative view of the site and
designated as the key viewpoint for the
purpose of analyzing existing scenic quality,
as presented in Figure 3.16.1, Scenic
Viewsheds and Key Viewpoints. Each of
these roads and the key viewpoint selected
for each corridor are addressed in more detail
in the following discussion.
3.16.4 Roads and Viewpoints
Oroville - Toroda Creek Road (CR 9480)
Buckhorn Mountain is visible from four
segments of CR 9480, located between the
Hee-Hee Stone and a point 3.4 miles east of
the stone and totalling 2.6 miles in length.
The key viewpoint selected for this road is
located near the intersection of CR 9480 and
CR 9467, as shown on Figure 3.16.2,
Oroville - Toroda Creek Road Viewpoint. This
view is dominated by the horizontal lines of
the ridgeline and treeline and the form
created by the Buckhorn Mountain ridgeline.
There is no strong focal point, other than the
ridgeline. The actual summit of Buckhorn
Mountain does not provide a strong focal
point due to its lack of prominence over the
ridgeline. The Crown Jewel Project site is
5.3 miles from this viewpoint and lies within
the background of this view. The scenic
quality of the view would be considered
moderately varied, since it is similar to other
views in the area, and there are no
outstanding physical features or water bodies
to distinguish it.
The Crown Jewel Project area would have a
moderate ability to absorb visual change
(visual absorption capability) from this
viewpoint, due to various physical and
perceptual factors, such as the moderate
slopes, irregular topography, the existing
condition, and the intermittent views of the
site. Although the Oroville-Toroda Creek
corridor has been identified in the Forest Plan
as a Sensitivity Level 1 corridor, none of the
lands affected by Crown Jewel Project
activities are designated as Sensitivity Level
1, and have a Scenic Quality Objective of
maximum modification. The view currently
meets the established objective.
Nealey Road (CR4861)
Nealey Road is a partly paved and partly
graveled road with views of Buckhorn
Mountain along approximately 4.5 miles of its
length. The key viewpoint selected for this
corridor is approximately one mile south of
the road's intersection with CR 9480 as
shown on Figure 3.16.3, Nealey Road
Viewpoint. The view looks up the Ethel
Creek drainage and is very similar to the
Oroville - Toroda Creek Road Viewpoint.
Most of the mountain is obscured from view
by intervening topography. The dominant
elements of this view are the horizontal lines
created by the ridgeline and treeline and the
form of the background ridge. The view does
not have a strong focal point, but the eye is
drawn, to some extent, to the converging
lines of the Ethel Creek drainage. The
summit of Buckhorn Mountain is
approximately 4.2 miles from this viewpoint
and thus within the background view.
The visual absorption capability and the
existing visual condition from the Nealey
Road viewpoint would be similar to that of
the Oroville-Toroda Creek road. This site has
a low sensitivity level and under the Forest
Plan management activities are required to
meet the "maximum modification" scenic
quality objective. This view is currently not
natural in appearance due to the large
clearcut in the background and agricultural
activities in the foreground.
Toroda Creek Road (Ferry CR 502)
Three short segments of the Toroda Creek
Road, totalling approximately three-quarters
of a mile, have views of the Crown Jewel
Project site. The segments are all located
east of the road's intersection with the
Nicholson Creek Road (Forest Road 3575).
The key viewpoint is located approximately
one mile west of Toroda, and has the
broadest view of the Crown Jewel Project
site of the three segments as shown on
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental hnpact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-135
Figure 3.16.4, Toroda Creek Road Viewpoint.
The Crown Jewel Project site would be
approximately 9.5 miles from this viewpoint
and thus is within the background view. The
dominant elements of this view are the strong
lines created by the curving road, the treeline,
and the Buckhorn Mountain ridgeline.
Buckhorn Mountain is the focal point of this
view, in spite of its distance, because of the
winding road leading towards it and the
converging middleground hills. The scenic
quality would be considered moderately
varied, due to the Class B variety level and
the lack of unique or outstanding features.
The visual absorption capability of this view
would be moderate, due primarily to the
irregular, sloping topography; the height and
density of existing vegetation; soil color; and
the existing openings in the tree cover. The
Toroda Creek Road has been designated as a
Level 2 Sensitivity corridor by the Forest
Service, due to the low traffic volumes.
Views of any future management activities
are required to meet the "maximum
modification" scenic quality objective.
Canadian Highway 3
The Crown Jewel Project site can be viewed
from Canadian Highway 3, west of Rock
Creek, as it rises out of the Kettle River
Valley. The view extends approximately 1.4
miles west of Rock Creek. The key viewpoint
for this corridor is located at the western end
of the corridor, which is the closest point to
the Crown Jewel Project site, as shown on
Figure 3.16.5, Highway 3 Viewpoint. The
summit of Buckhorn Mountain is about 7.6
miles from this point and thus within the
background view. The dominant elements
from this view are the landforms of the
background mountains and middleground hills
and the horizontal lines of the ridgeline and
treelines. There is no strong focal point in
this view.
The Highway 3 view would have a moderate
visual absorption capacity due to the slope,
existing openings, soil color and vegetation.
The highway receives high traffic volumes
(2,700 vehicles per day), and a large number
of tourists use the highway. Although there
are several existing clearcuts visible that
contrast with natural form, line and texture, a
scenic quality objective of maximum
modification would be met.
Forest Road 3575-125
The Crown Jewel Project site is visible from
portions of the forest in the immediate
vicinity of the Crown Jewel Project. Most of
these areas would be closed to the public
during Crown Jewel Project operation, but
could eventually be opened again after Crown
Jewel Project completion. For example,
approximately one mile of Forest Road 3575-
125 (presently closed to vehicle access)
would have a relatively clear and
unobstructed view of various Crown Jewel
Project features and thus a key viewpoint
was designated to assess scenic conditions
from this area. The viewpoint is located
approximately 1.2 miles from the intersection
of Forest Road 3575-125 and Forest Road
3575-120, as shown on Figure 3.16.6,
Forest Road 3575-125 Viewpoint. The
Crown Jewel Project features would be
between one-half to two miles from this
viewpoint, and thus would lie within the
middleground. The dominant elements from
this view are the coarse texture of the
foreground trees and the rounded form and
horizontal lines created by the background
ridge. This view does not have a strong focal
point. The scenic quality of this view is low
relative to the other views, because there is
little variety in terms of color and texture.
This view has a moderate visual absorption
capability, due primarily to the topography,
slope, dense vegetation and existing
openings. This viewpoint has a low
sensitivity level, and management activities
must meet the "maximum modification"
scenic quality objective. Past management
activity is evident in the various clearcuts and
roads seen from this point.
Mt. Bonaparte
The proposed Crown Jewel Project site is
visible from the summit of Mt. Bonaparte, as
shown on Figure 3.16.7, Mt. Bonaparte
Viewpoint, Located 13 miles southwest of
the proposed Crown Jewel Project site, Mt.
Bonaparte has an historic and actively used
Crown Jewel Mine f Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-136
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
fire lookout tower and a popular trail leading
up to it. The summit is not accessible by
passenger vehicles. The view towards
Buckhorn Mountain is dominated by the
parallel horizontal lines of the foreground
treeline and the mountain range in the
background. Buckhorn Mountain provides a
focal point in the view, due to its prominence
above ridgeline, although it is not
substantially higher than surrounding
landforms. The foreground trees create a
coarse texture and dark green color, which
contrasts with the lighter blues and greens of
the background mountains. The many
clearings and forest openings in the
background also lend a coarse texture to the
view. Although the view from Mt.
Bonaparte, in general, is outstanding, due to
its panoramic nature, the view of Buckhorn
Mountain would be considered moderately
varied in quality, since it does not provide a
dramatic rise from the surrounding terrain and
has no other outstanding feature. The
proposed Crown Jewel Project site lies within
the background portion of the view from Mt.
Bonaparte.
The Crown Jewel Project area would have a
moderate ability to absorb change from this
viewpoint, due primarily to its distance, the
existing number of natural and man-made
openings in the forest, and the irregularly
shaped landforms and forest edges. The fact
that Buckhorn Mountain is a focal point from
this viewpoint would lower its absorption
capability. Mt. Bonaparte receives
approximately 400 visitors per year. The
scenic quality objective for the Crown Jewel
Project activities would be maximum
modification. This objective is currently being
met primarily due to the 13 mile distance.
Past management activities viewed from Mt.
Bonaparte appear to borrow from natural
occurrences.
Other Scenic Conditions
The viewpoints addressed in the preceding
discussion represent views looking into the
Crown Jewel Project site from the
surrounding area. Views of the Crown Jewel
Project within the site should also be
considered. Although these areas would be
inaccessible to the public during Crown Jewel
Project operation, they would likely be
accessible after Crown Jewel Project
completion.
Most of the proposed mine pit site was
clearcut in the late 1980s, prior to the
Proponent's exploration program. To
accommodate exploration, a series of roads
were constructed as shown on Figure 3.16.8,
Existing Conditions Within the Project Site.
This area currently does not appear natural,
due to its size and straight edges, but it
would meet the "maximum modification"
scenic quality objectives.
Existing scenic conditions along the powerline
route from Oroville to Chesaw must also be
considered, since the powerline would be
upgraded and the alignment changed slightly
from the existing route. The view of the
eastern portion of the powerline route,
between Chesaw and the Crown Jewel
Project site, is described under the Nealey
Road Viewpoint. Most of the western portion
of the powerline route, between Oroville and
Chesaw, is visible from CR 9480 or 9485.
This portion of the powerline runs through
open, rolling terrain, used primarily for
agriculture. The landscape is characterized
by the rounded forms of the hills; the
horizontal lines of the hills, background
ridges, and skyline; and the golden-yellow
color and relatively fine texture of the grasses
in the foreground. The existing powerline is
compatible with the surrounding landscape in
terms of color and texture, due to the
wooden poles. The vertical lines of the
poles, however, contrast with the horizontal
lines that dominate the landscape.
3.16.5 Summary
Most of the views of Buckhorn Mountain are
background views, and all are required to
meet the scenic quality objective of
"maximum modification." The most
important view, primarily due to the high
traffic volume, is along Canadian Highway 3,
followed by the Mt. Bonaparte and Oroville-
Toroda Creek road views. The views from
five of the six sites are considered moderately
varied, due to the lack of unique or
outstanding physical features, and all six
views have a moderate ability to absorb
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-137
change. Forest Road 3575-125, two miles or
less from the Crown Jewel Project site, has
an essentially unvaried existing scenic
condition due to the relative uniformity of
color and texture. In general, additional large
clearings located at the higher elevations
should be minimized, or where necessary,
should borrow as much as possible from
natural forms. Views of any other
modifications, such as structures, roads, or
powerlines, should also have characteristics
compatible with natural features when
viewed as background.
3.17 HERITAGE RESOURCES
3.17.1 Introduction
The heritage resources investigation of the
Crown Jewel Project involved locating,
recording, and evaluating prehistoric and
historic sites within areas that could be
affected by the proposed actions. Areas of
potential effect associated with the Crown
Jewel Project include the proposed mine,
powerlines, water lines, water reservoir, and
access roads. The sites documented in the
Crown Jewel Project area were evaluated for
significance in order to make
recommendations on eligibility to the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Heritage
resource investigations on the Crown Jewel
Project began in 1990 (AHS, 1990) and were
completed in 1993 (AHS, 1994).
Work completed as part of the Crown Jewel
Project followed appropriate laws, rules, and
regulations pertaining to the protection and
management of heritage resources. These
compliance procedures are set forth in the
following regulations, laws, and guidelines:
• Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended
(16 USC, Section 470) implemented
through regulations at 36 CFR 800
Protection of Historic and Cultural
Properties;
• National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 USC Sections 4321-4327);
• American Indian Religious Freedom Act of
1978 (PL 95-341);
• Archaeological Resources Protection Act
of 1979 (16 USC Sections 470a-470m);
and,
• Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act of 1990 (PL 101-601).
A review of the list of National Historic
Landmarks, the World Heritage List, the
National Registry of Natural Landmarks, and
subsequent addenda indicated no such
properties are listed in the Crown Jewel
Project area. Overviews summarizing the
heritage resources in the region include:
Lyman, 1978; Uebelacker, 1978; Mierendorf
etal., 1981; and, Salo, 1987.
The historian for the Colville Confederated
Tribes was consulted in regard to areas of
traditional tribal use. Consultations with the
State Historic Preservation Officer of
Washington, the Okanogan National Forest
Service archaeologist, and the BLM
archaeologist were completed regarding
eligibility of sites for the NRHP and for
findings of effect of the proposed Crown
Jewel Project prior to consultation with the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
3.17.2 Prehistory
Ethnographic information indicates the Crown
Jewel Project area was located within the
traditional territory of the Northern Okanogan
Indians. This group utilized the lower
Similkameen River and the section of the
Okanogan River from the Canadian boundary
south to Tonasket (Spier, 1936). Teit
recorded Okanogan village sites at and near
the mouth of the Similkameen River (Teit,
1930).
Salo summarized the prehistoric adaptive
sequence for the Okanogan region (Salo,
1987). He indicates there is little evidence of
occupation before 6,500 years ago, and the
populations were probably small and
dispersed. Early assemblages seem to occur
in the vicinity of small lakes, suggesting a
heavy reliance on fish for subsistence. This
continued into the Kartar Phase, from about
6,500 to 5,000 years ago.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-138
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
During the latter part of the phase, from
5,000 to 4,000 years ago, the adaptive
system became strongly central-base
oriented. Populations appear to have
concentrated activities near winter range and
along the larger rivers, where there were a
diverse fauna! assemblage.
During the Hudnut Phase (4,000 to 2,000
years ago), the number of sites increases and
appears to be more diverse. Use of upland
areas is more frequent and fishing seems to
have become a greater focus of economic
interest.
Late in the phase (2,500 to 2,000 years ago),
there is a distinct drop in the number of
recorded sites, perhaps as a result of
populations concentrating in larger central
residential bases.
A distinct cultural change appeared during the
Coyote Creek Phase, around 2,000 years
ago. Larger villages appeared and seem to
have been occupied for a long time. There
was considerable expansion in the number of
sites, the bow and arrow was introduced,
and the cultural system in place at the time
of Euro-American contact (early 1800s) was
established. The introduction of the horse in
the 1700s increased mobility (Salo, 1987),
and is one of two major factors producing
important changes in native adaptations. The
second factor is epidemic diseases.
3.17.3 History
Historic events in the region were initially
centered in the Okanogan River valley and
began in the early 1800s with the Hudson's
Bay Company fur traders and explorers.
Subsequent Euro-American intrusions in the
mid-1800s included Catholic missionaries and
the establishment of the U.S. and Canadian
border in 1846.
Gold was found near the mouth of the
Similkameen River; and, by 1861, the
resultant boom camp had nearly 3,000
people. Oroville was incorporated and platted
in 1892 (Kirk and Alexander, 1990). In the
period 1894 to 1896, several placer claims
were located on the east side of the
Similkameen River in present-day Oroville
(U.S. Surveyor General, 1894-1896).
The town of Chesaw was named after Chee
Saw, a Chinese placer miner who married a
native woman, Julia Lumm, and settled down
to farm land on Myers Creek. In the 1890s,
when the northern half of the Colville
Reservation was opened to mining, a
boomtown sprang up at "Chee Saw's"
stream crossing. By 1900, Chesaw's
population had grown to about 200.
Establishments included two hotels, a bank, a
post office, a newspaper office, several
saloons, a millinery shop, and an assay office
(Kirk and Alexander, 1990). Deposits of
gold, silver, copper, lead, zinc, and
molybdenum were discovered, and the mining
districts of Myers Creek, Bodie, and
Wauconda were established. Many mineral
deposits underwent exploratory and
development work, but few deposits proved
to be large or rich enough to mine.
The first mine located on Copper Mountain
(renamed Buckhorn Mountain by the Forest
Service) was located by Jim Grant after his
stepson Johnnie Louis found ore with copper
stains while hunting grouse. This was named
the "Copper Queen" and was located early in
the spring of 1895 (Molson et. al., 1962).
The early producing mines on Buckhorn
Mountain included the Roosevelt, Gold Axe,
Western Star, and Caribou. Around 1908,
large outcrops of magnetite were discovered
on the northern slope of the mountain, and
the area was soon covered by mining claims.
Among these claims was the Neutral, site of
the Magnetic iron mine.
Sporadic mining activity took place on
Buckhorn Mountain during the early 1900's.
The presence of copper, gold, and silver on
the mountain attracted the attention of the
Granby Consolidated Mining, Smelting and
Power Co. Ltd. This company core-drilled the
most promising occurrences in 1911 and
shipped around 12 carloads of copper-gold-
silver ore from the Roosevelt mine on the
eastern slope of Buckhorn Mountain.
In 1918, mining of iron ore at the Magnetic
and Roosevelt mines began, with the first
shipments made to Northwest Magnetite
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-139
Company at Chewelah. Mining of copper-
gold-silver ore ceased in 1920, but with the
increase in the price of gold in 1934, small
shipments of gold ore were made from the
Gold Axe and Mother Lode properties until
1942 (Moen, 1980). Mining of magnetite
from the Magnetic Mine assumed importance
during World War II as the magnetite was
used as ship ballast. Operations ceased at
the Magnetic Mine in 1950.
Since 1951, no mine has operated on
Buckhorn Mountain. However, gold, silver,
iron, and copper mineralization has continued
to attract the attention of mining companies
(Moen, 1980).
3.17.4 Known Heritage Resources in
Crown Jewel Project Area
Heritage resources located within the Crown
Jewel Project area include sites previously
recorded with the Office of Archaeology and
Historic Preservation in Olympia, the Forest
Service, and the BLM. In addition places of
prehistoric or historic importance described
via interpretive signs and/or local histories,
and sites located and described during the
fieldwork completed for the Crown Jewel
Project. Of the latter, sites were recorded in
two geographically separate locales, in the
mine development area on Buckhorn
Mountain or in off-mountain locations
associated with other mine-related
improvements. Only historic resources were
recorded on Buckhorn Mountain, while sites
of prehistoric and historic significance were
identified in nearby areas to be affected by
construction of powerlines, water lines, the
water reservoir, or access roads.
Although no prehistoric resources are
presently known in the Crown Jewel Project
area, the potential for their presence cannot
be discounted. Should future mine
development result in discovery of prehistoric
sites, burials, and/or grave goods, work in the
vicinity would be halted until representatives
of the Colville Confederated Tribes, Office of
Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Forest
Service, and BLM are notified.
Identified heritage resources are summarized
in the following tables:
• Table 3.17.1, Buckhorn Mountain Mining
Properties Identified by Survey and
Historic Research;
• Table 3.17.2, Buckhorn Mountain Mining
Properties Identified by Historic Research;
and,
• Table 3.17.3, Heritage Resources
Identified by Survey of Powerline Route
and Related Construction Features.
Figure 3.17.1, Locations of Sites and
Features Along Powerline Corridor, shows
results of powerline corridor investigations.
Figure 3.17.2, Project Area Sites and
Features, shows sites in and around the
immediate Crown Jewel Project area.
As part of the Crown Jewel Project, heritage
resource sites within the areas of potential
effect were evaluated to make
recommendations of significance for
nomination to the NRHP. Isolated features
(such as historic rock piles, the slat fence,
the pole platform, and isolated prospects) and
sites that have been previously destroyed
were not evaluated for NRHP significance.
3.18 TRANSPORTATION
3.18.1 Introduction
A transportation analysis of the study area
was conducted based on location and
ownership, road standards, traffic load, public
safety, environmental safety, and
maintenance. The study area and associated
transportation network for the Crown Jewel
Project has been defined to include the major
transportation routes, the Crown Jewel
Project access routes and the on-site roads.
The roads in the region are shown on Figure
3.18.1, Traffic Counts and Road Systems.
Traffic loads/traffic counts are identified as
average daily traffic (ADT). ADT is further
defined as the measure of traffic over a 24
hour period and is determined by counting the
number of vehicles passing a specific point
on a particular road from either direction.
3.18.2 Major Transportation Routes
The major transportation routes servicing
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-140
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
TABLE 3.17.1, BUCKHORN MOUNTAIN MINING PROPERTIES
IDENTIFIED BY SURVEY AND HISTORIC RESEARCH
Complex
Caribou
Gold Axe
Jack Pot
Magnetic
Magnetic
Type
Caribou Claim
Gold Axe
Camp
Gold Axe
Claim
Jack Pot
Aztec Claim
Copper Queen
Camp
Copper Queen
Claim
Magnetic
Camp
Magnetic
Camp
Site
24-79
24-64
24-80
24-86
45OK48H
45OK479H
45OK480H
24-79
24-76
24-76
45OK476H
45OK476H
Feature
No.
1
2
3
4
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
16
1
2
3
1
2
3
12
13
14
15
1
7
2
3
4
5
6
5
6
7
8
1
2
14
15
16
17
Feature Type
audit
bunker
adit
adit
cabin
cabin
cabin
cabin, shed
privy pit
foundation
foundation,
remains
structure
well
cabin
privy pit,
collapsed
structure
root cellar
structure
adit, lumber
scatter
adits In = 3)
bunker
collapsed
structure
adit
remains of
structure
cuts
adits, prospects
cabin pits
bunker
cabin, can dump
cabin, pit
cabin
root cellar
outhouse
shaft
adit
adit
blacksmith shop
collapsed cabin
adit
can dump, now
destroyed
pit, now
destroyed
pit, now
destroyed
foundation, now
destroyed
NRHP1
Eligibility
no
yes
yes
no
no
no
yes
no
yes
no
no
yes
no
no
no
Dates
1897-1900
1916
1914-1935?
1914-1935?
1911,
1914-1915,
1934, 1935,
1938
1902
1980s, 1911?
1890s?- 1950?
1890s-?
19377-1950
19377-1950
19377-1950
Patent
no
no
no
no
yes
no
no
no
no
no
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-141
TABLE 3.17.1, BUCKHORN MOUNTAIN MINING PROPERTIES
IDENTIFIED BY SURVEY AND HISTORIC RESEARCH
Complex
Magnetic
Monterey
Rainbow
Type
Magnetic
Camp
Neutral Claim
Nucleus Claim
Rainbow Claim
Mexico
Fraction
Site
400K476H
45OK477H
24-67
24-68
24-66/86OK50H
(Lower Buckhorn
24-69
Feature
No.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
2
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
Feature Type
can dump, now
destroyed
pit, now
destroyed
foundation, now
destroyed
pit, now
destroyed
pit, now
destroyed
privy, now
destroyed
springbox, now
destroyed
bridge, now
destroyed
fuel tanks,
loading platform
pond, now
destroyed
bunker
shaft
ramp
(45OK482H
bunker
bunker
(450K481H)
structure
remains
adit
ramp
can dump
large cut,
bunker
blacksmith shop
large cut
adit
buried logs
bunker
adit, trough,
pad
structure
(bunker)?
structure
structure
collapsed
structure, pit
blacksmith shop
log structure
adit
shaft, adit
structure
NRHP'
Eligibility
no
no
yes
no
no
yes
no
Dates
19377-1950
1890s-1911,
1917,
1918-1950
1896,
1898-1911?,
(MS2 673)
1896-1911,
(MS2 1034)
1903, 1911?
Patent
no
no
yes
yes
no
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-142
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
TABLE 3.17.1, BUCKHORN MOUNTAIN MINING PROPERTIES
IDENTIFIED BY SURVEY AND HISTORIC RESEARCH
Complex
Roosevelt
Western Star
Type
Roosevelt
Camp
Velvet Claim
Western Star
Claim
Site
24-65
24-65
24-65
24-77
24-78
24-87
Feature
No.
1
2
3
6
7
8
9
15
4
5
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
1
2
3
1
1
2
3
4
5
Feature Type
structure
collapsed
structure
collapsed
structure
rock structure
structure
lumber scatter
structure
remains
collapsed
structure
prospect
adit
bunker
adit, shaft
adit
cabin
blacksmith shop
bunker
structure debris
collapsed
structure
adit
shaft
structure
prospect
shaft,
blacksmith shop
adit
shaft
shaft
NRHP1
Eligibility
no
no
no
no
Dates
1901-1920
1901-1920
(MS2 1255)
1901-?
1896-1914,
1915
Patent
no
yes
yes
no
Notes: 1. NRHP = National Register of Historic Places
2. MS = Mineral Survey. On file, BLM, Spokane.
3. Assessment compiled by Archaeological and Historic Services, Eastern Washington University.
Okanogan County are U.S. Highway 97 (U.S.
97) and Washington State Route 20 (SR 20).
U.S. Highway 97 (U.S. 97)
U.S. 97 is a major U.S. highway which
traverses the State of Washington from south
to north. It serves as a route into southern
British Columbia. The northern portion of
U.S. 97 is a primary route for local residents
and also serves both tourist and commercial
traffic between the U.S. and Canada.
U.S. 97 is an asphalt, all-weather two-lane
highway. In Okanogan County, the road is
within the Okanogan River Valley and has
minimal grades. The road passes through the
downtown sections of the communities of
Tonasket and Oroville. Traffic flow
information in 1991 as obtained from the
Washington Department of Transportation
(WADOT) shows varying ADT volumes from
Omak to the Canadian border. The
permanent traffic recorder just north of Omak
recorded 4,505 ADT; traffic counts just south
of Tonasket showed 6,100 ADT; traffic
counts between Tonasket and Oroville
indicated 3,400 ADT; and 2,100 ADT were
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
I
Sr
I
I
i
05
«*
CO
S
Jack Pot
Nip & Tuck
TABLE 3.17.2, BUCKHORN MOUNTAIN MINING PROPERTIES
IDENTIFIED BY HISTORIC RESEARCH
Type
Iron Horse Claim
Iron King Claim
Iron Mask Claim
No. 9 Claim
Polaris Claim
A & R Claim
Buckhorn Claim
Umatilla Fraction Claim
Double Standard Claim
Elk Claim
Farmington Claim
Ruby Fraction
Sir Robert Fraction
Snowshoe Claim
Feature Type
cuts (n = 2), shafts (n = 2)
cuts (n=4), adit, cabin
open pits, cuts, shafts
discovery cuts (n = 2)
cuts, adits, shaft, cabin
discovery cut, shaft
shaft
discovery cuts (n = 2)
discovery cut, shaft
discovery cut
cuts (n = 2), shafts (n = 2)
discovery cut, shafts (n = 2)
discovery cut
discovery cut
cut, shaft, adits (n = 2)
discovery cut, structures
adit, shaft
cuts (n = 3), shaft
discovery cut, prospects
discovery cut
cuts (n = 3), trench, shaft
discovery cut, prospects
discovery cut
discovery cut, prospects
Comment
1898-1907, (MS' 886)
1901-1902, (MS- 670)
1937-1950
1897, undeveloped (MS' 673)
1899 (MS' 674)
1 896, undeveloped (MS' 673)
1902, undeveloped (MS' 673)
1897, undeveloped (MS' 673)
1896, undeveloped (MS' 673)
1900, undeveloped (MS' 673)
1902, undeveloped MS' 673)
1901, undeveloped (MS' 673)
1902, undeveloped (MS1 1145)
1903-1911, (MS' 1035)
1903-1911, (MS' 1035)
1903, undeveloped (MS' 1255)
ca. 1901, undeveloped
1901, undeveloped (MS' 1255)
ca. 1901, undeveloped
1901, undeveloped (MS' 1255)
ca. 1901, undeveloped
Potential
modern mining
modern mining
modern mining
modern mining
modern mining
modern mining
modern mining
modern mining
modern mining
modern mining
modern mining
modern mining
modern mining
Patent
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
no
no
jo
to
sj
i
I
ifi
i
Co
«•*
fe
Co
-------
Co
I
I
5-
CD
S1
Co
5?
I
TABLE 3.17.3, HERITAGE RESOURCES IDENTIFIED BY SURVEY OF POWER LINE ROUTE
AND RELATED CONSTRUCTION FEATURES
Type
Prehistoric
Historic
Site
45OK361
450K830 (Hee Hee Stone)
24-70 (Erwin Homestead)
24-71 (W&GN Railway)
24-72
24-73
24-74
24-75
24-81 (Thomas Homestead)
24-82 (East Homestead)
Austin Goat Ranch
Buckhorn Mountain Lookout
Bolster
Pole platform
Rock piles
Physical Remains
open camp with burial
Hee Hee Stone locale, sign
orchard, road, structures
railbed, structures, cuts
irrigation flume
structures, remains of same
adits (n = 2), dugouts (n = 2)
burial site
dugouts (n = 2), lumber scatter
granary, hay barn
fence
U.S. Forest Service structure
townsite
pole structure
rock piles (n = 4)
Comment
burials removed
traditional cultural property
ca. 1910-1930s
1907-1932
(near Circle City)
1915-1970
ca. 1900-1940
ca. 1896-1920
burial removed
ca. 1903-1 930s
ca. 1901-1940
1930s
demolished, burned
1899-1939,
no surface remains
built by the Boy Scouts,
1988
historic field clearing
Potential Impact
substation construction
scenic, power line rebuild
power line rebuild
power line rebuild
power line rebuild
power line rebuild
reservoir construction
road construction
power line rebuild
power line rebuild
road construction
modern mining
pumphouse, waterline
road construction, mining
power line rebuild
DOE
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
NRHP-Eligible
X
X
Note: DOE = Determination of Eligibility for National Register of Historic Places
NRHP = National Register of Historic Places
i
Co
i
-s
<0
(O
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-145
recorded at the Canadian border. Figure
3.18.1, Traffic Counts and Road Systems,
shows U.S. 97 and other roads with their
traffic counts and location of counts.
Accident records provided by WADOT show
76 average annual accidents on U.S. 97
between mile post 286 and 336.5 (the
junction of SR 20 at Okanogan and the
Canadian border), from 1988 through 1991.
Of the average 76 accidents, 28 involved
personal injury and 48 were property damage
only. During this period, there were two
fatalities (WADOT, 1992).
U.S. 97 is not proximate to streams or rivers
except for the limited locations where there
are bridge crossings. The term "proximate,"
as it applies to transportation in this EIS,
means any roads within 100 feet of streams
or rivers. Most of U.S. 97 from Omak to the
Canadian border is separated from the
Okanogan River by the railroad tracks.
Washington State Route 20 (SR 20)
SR 20 is a scenic route which traverses the
State of Washington from west to east. SR
20 connects the communities of Tonasket
and Republic. The highway is maintained and
controlled by the State of Washington.
Between Tonasket and Republic, SR 20 is
40.6 miles of asphalt, all-weather two-lane
highway. SR 20 consists of grades varying
from 0% to 6% with speed limits ranging
from 20 mph (school zones) to 55 mph. SR
20 climbs from 903 feet elevation at
Tonasket to 4,310 feet elevation at
Wauconda Summit (approximately 26.5 miles
at an overall grade of 2%). SR 20 then
descends for approximately 14 miles into
Republic (elevation 2,600 feet) at an overall
grade of 2%. There are an estimated 10.6
miles of grades exceeding 5% on SR 20
between Tonasket and Republic.
According to 1991 traffic flow information
from WADOT, SR 20 experiences 1,700 ADT
on the east city limits of Tonasket and 3,250
ADT on the west city limits of Republic.
Accident records provided by WADOT show
18 average annual accidents between
Tonasket and Republic from 1988 through
1990. Of the average 18 accidents, seven
involved personal injury and 11 involved
property damage only. There were two
fatalities during this reporting period.
There are approximately 13.5 miles of SR 20
proximate to streams (34%). Approximately
8.8 miles are proximate to Bonaparte Creek,
and 4.7 miles are proximate to the West Fork
of Granite Creek.
3.18.3 Project Access Routes
As shown on Figure 3.18.1, Traffic Counts
and Road Systems, there are five main
Okanogan County roads in the region. These
are:
• CR 9495 (Toroda Creek Road);
• CR 9480 (Oroville - Toroda Creek Road);
• CR 9467 (Tonasket - Havillah Road);
• CR 4895 (Pontiac Ridge Road); and,
• CR 4883 (Bolster Road).
These roads are all rural roads used by a wide
variety of vehicles and other forms of
transportation.
CR 9495 (Toroda Creek Road)
CR 9495 is an Okanogan County Road which
proceeds northeasterly from SR 20 near
Wauconda to the Okanogan/Ferry County
line. CR 9495 is a paved, two-lane road
which parallels Toroda Creek for the entire
length of the road. The portion of interest
extends for approximately 12 miles along
Toroda Creek from SR 20 to the intersection
with CR 9480. CR 9495 descends from
Wauconda toward Toroda at an overall grade
of approximately 2%.
The most current traffic volume data for CR
9495 was recorded by Okanogan County on
May 10, 1996 about 0.05 miles north of
Wauconda and showed an ADT count of 312
vehicles. On September 26, 1995, ten miles
north of Wauconda, an ADT of 161 was
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-146
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
counted. Accident records provided by
Okanogan County show an average of three
accidents per year between milepost 0 and
1 5.5 (Wauconda and the junction with Forest
Road 3575, Nicholson Creek Road) between
1988 and 1992, while in 1995 there were
two reported accidents. Approximately 65%
of the accidents were personal injury
accidents.
There are approximately 2.9 miles of road
proximate to streams (Toroda Creek) between
SR 20 and CR 9480 (approximately 24%).
Okanogan County is responsible for
maintenance of this road. Periodically during
spring thaw, sections of CR 9495 are closed
to heavy truck traffic to avoid major damage
to the road. Initiation of road closures
(location and timing) is based on road and
weather conditions and on the experience of
the Okanogan County Department of Public
Works.
With funds from the U.S. Department of
Transportation and WADOT ("Rural Arterial
Program"), there are plans to reconstruct CR
9495 to meet federal highway standards.
This work would involve widening,
straightening certain sections, and upgrading
bridges. There is no connection between this
reconstruction work and the Crown Jewel
Project. The road upgrade work for CR 9495
was proposed and planned independently of
any mine operation.
CR 9480 (Oroville - Toroda Creek Road)
CR 9480 is an Okanogan County Road that
proceeds east from Oroville to Chesaw then
southeast past Beth and Beaver Lakes and
joins CR 9495.
CR 9480 is a paved, two-lane road with
grades varying from 0% to 6%. There are an
estimated nine miles of grades exceeding 4%
and an estimated 21.5 miles of speed
restrictions (40 mph or less). A portion of CR
9480 west of Beth Lake was widened and
paved with asphalt during the summer of
1993.
The Okanogan County Department of Public
Works recorded traffic volumes in 1995
ranging from 628 ADT, six miles east of
Oroville, to 82 ADT at the junction with CR
9495.
Accident records (1988-1992) provided by
Okanogan County show an average of 11
accidents per year between Oroville and the
junction with Toroda Creek Road (CR 9495)
(33.5 miles). Approximately 40% of these
accidents involved personal injury with one
fatality. During 1995, there were four
reported accidents in which three had
personal injuries.
There are approximately ten miles of the total
34 miles of CR 9480 proximate to streams
(about 29%).
Okanogan County is responsible for
maintenance of this road. Periodically during
spring thaw, sections of CR 9480 are closed
to heavy truck traffic to avoid damage to the
road. Initiation of road closures (location and
timing) is based on road and weather
conditions and on the experience of the
Okanogan County Department of Public
Works. The Okanogan County Department of
Public Works has indicated that this road has
inadequate base and is in general need of
maintenance and has been proposed for
"Rural Arterial Program" funding. A portion
of this road on Molson Grade has been
proposed as a "Hazard Elimination Project."
CR 9467 (Tonasket - Havillah Road)
CR 9467 is an Okanogan County road that
provides access from the Chesaw area
southwest to Tonasket. CR 9467 is a paved,
two-lane, county road with grades varying
from 0% to 7%. The road consists of 1 2
foot lanes from Tonasket to Havillah and then
narrows to ten foot lanes to the intersection
with CR 9480. In general, the road climbs
from 903 feet elevation in Tonasket to
approximately 4,440 feet elevation at the
Sitzmark ski area (about 19.0 miles at an
overall grade of 4%) and then descends to
3,620 feet elevation at the intersection with
CR 9480 (approximately 6.4 miles at an
overall grade of 2%). There are numerous
sharp corners on this route.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-147
There are an estimated 11.2 miles of road
with grades of 4% and greater and
approximately 8.4 miles of speed restricted
road (40 mph or less).
Traffic counts recorded in May 1992 by the
Okanogan County Department of Public
Works show ADT's of 1,035 at the outskirts
of Tonasket, 371 at South Siwash Creek
Road, 242 at North Siwash Creek Road, 179
south of Havillah, 148 at Nealey Road, 74 at
Kipling Road, and 70 at the intersection with
CR 9480 (Oroville - Toroda Creek Road).
Accident records provided by Okanogan
County show an average of six accidents per
year between milepost 0 and 20 between
1988 and 1992. Approximately 32% of
these accident involved personal injury with
two fatalities.
There are approximately 1.8 miles of CR
9467 proximate to streams or water
(approximately 7%).
Okanogan County is responsible for
maintenance of this road. Periodically during
spring thaw, sections of CR 9467 are closed
to heavy truck traffic to avoid damage to the
road. Initiation of road closures (location and
timing) is based on road and weather
conditions and on the experience of the
Okanogan County Department of Public
Works. The Okanogan County Department of
Public Works has indicated that this road has
inadequate base and is in general need of
maintenance.
CR 4895 (Pontiac Ridge Road)
CR 4895 is an Okanogan County road which
provides access to private and public lands.
The road section that would be most affected
by Crown Jewel Project traffic begins at the
intersection with CR 9480 and proceeds east
to the intersection with Forest Road 3575-
120. This section of road is approximately
two miles in length. CR 4895 is a gravel
surfaced road, with varying lane width,
depending on location. The road contains
steep grades and sharp corners. The overall
condition of this road should be considered as
fair, and it requires frequent maintenance.
The most recent Okanogan County
Department of Public Works traffic count
shows an ADT count of five over an eight
day period in May of 1992. There were two
reported accidents between 1988 and 1992.
The Proponent conducted a traffic count on
Forest Road 3575-120 over a two day period
in 1996. The count estimated daily usage by
20 vehicles of which five were logging trucks
(BMGC, 1996b).
The portion of CR 4895 under consideration
for use by Crown Jewel Project traffic is
proximate to a stream for approximately
1,500 feet (approximately 15%).
Okanogan County is responsible for the
maintenance of this road. Periodically during
spring thaw, sections of CR 4895 could be
closed to heavy truck traffic to avoid damage
to the road. Initiation of road closures
(location and timing) is based on road and
weather conditions and on the experience of
the Okanogan County Department of Public
Works.
CR 4883 (Bolster Road)
CR 4883 is an Okanogan County road which
provides access to private and public lands.
The road begins at Chesaw and proceeds
north along Myers Creek for approximately
3.2 miles where it joins with Forest Road
3575 (Gold Creek/Nicholson Creek Road).
CR 4883 is a narrow two-lane gravel road
with numerous driveways accessing private
property. The sight distance for most of the
driveways is generally restricted. There are
no posted speed restrictions, but the
condition of the road surface and the
restricted sight distances dictate that
maximum speeds should not exceed 35 mph.
The overall condition of this road should be
considered as fair. It needs frequent
maintenance. There were two accidents
reported between 1987 and 1992.
There are approximately 0.9 miles of CR
4883 proximate to Myers Creek
(approximately 28%).
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-148
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
Okanogan County is responsible for the
maintenance of this road. Periodically during
spring thaw, sections of CR 4883 could be
closed to heavy truck traffic to avoid damage
to the road. Initiation of road closures
(location and timing) would be based on road
and weather conditions and on the
experience of the Okanogan County
Department of Public Works.
3.18.4 On-Site Roads
The Crown Jewel Project site is accessed via
Forest Roads from the north, the south and
the east as illustrated on Figure 3.18.2,
Forest Roads.
Access from the north is via Forest Road
3575 to Forest Road 3575-100 (Magnetic
Mine Road) and into the Project area. Forest
Road 3575-100 provides access through the
Crown Jewel Project area and connects back
to Forest Road 3575 on the east along
Nicholson Creek. From Forest Road 3575,
access to the Crown Jewel Project area can
also be via Forest Road 3575-150.
Access to the Crown Jewel Project area from
the south is via Forest Road 3575-120.
Forest Road 3575-140 branches off from
Forest Road 3575-120 south of the Crown
Jewel Project area and proceeds toward the
top of Buckhorn Mountain. Forest Road
3575-120 proceeds through the Crown Jewel
Project area and intersects with Forest Road
3575-100 and Forest Road 3575-150.
Forest Road 3575
Forest Road 3575 provides access from CR
4883 on Myers Creek east to CR 9495 on
Toroda Creek and is located just to the south
of the U.S./Canadian border. This road
provides service for logging, exploration and
recreation activities.
Forest Road 3575 is a single lane gravel road
with turnouts for passing oncoming traffic.
The portion of Forest Road 3575 within the
Gold Creek drainage contains continuous 4%
to 6% grades and a switchback. Overall, the
road is in good condition.
The Forest Service has recorded seasonal
average daily traffic (SADT) counts at the
west Forest boundary on Forest Road 3575.
These counts were 4,031 vehicles over 176
days (23 SADT) in 1989 and 3,955 vehicles
over 182 days (22 SADT) in 1990.
The Forest Service is responsible for the
maintenance of roads within the National
Forest system. Forest Road 3575 is
maintained on a semi-annual basis (usually
grading in the spring and fall).
Forest Roads 3575-100, 120, 140 and 150
The Forest Service controls access and use of
Forest Roads 3575-100, 120, 140, and 150.
These roads provide access to the immediate
Crown Jewel Project area from the north,
east and south, as shown on Figure 3.18.2,
Forest Roads. The roads are narrow,
primitive, and generally suitable for high
clearance vehicles.
3.19 LAND USE
3.19.1 Introduction
Land uses within the region are logging,
agriculture, residential development,
recreation, and mineral exploration activities.
As discussed in Section 1.4, Proposed
Action, mixed land ownership occur within
and around the Crown Jewel Project area.
This section describes various land uses
which serve multiple purposes for numerous
land owners and the various land users.
3.19.2 Crown Jewel Project Exploration
Activities
Since 1988, Crown Resources Corporation
and the Proponent have conducted
exploration activities on claims on or near the
summit of Buckhorn Mountain. These
activities involved drilling to delineate the
mineralized zone and evaluate ore grades.
Exploration activities have occurred on Forest
System Lands under plans of operations and
subsequent amendments approved by the
Forest Service. Also, exploration on BLM
Lands has occurred under a notice-of-
operations filed with the BLM. A chronology
of the Proponent's exploration activities as
Crown Jewel Mine f Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-149
filed with the Forest Service and BLM are set
forth in Table 3.19.1, Crown Jewel Project
Exploration Summary.
As a result of the Proponent's success during
exploration activities to identify and delineate
what they perceive as an economically
recoverable ore deposit, a proposal for mining
and milling of the Crown Jewel Project was
filed with the Forest Service, WADOE, BLM,
and WADNR.
There has been considerable discussion
regarding the possibility of future additional
and adjacent mining activity in the vicinity of
the proposed Crown Jewel Project. Although
some limited exploration activities, other than
the Proponent's work occurred in the late
1980's north of the Crown Jewel Project
area and in 1993 south of the Crown Jewel
Project area, it is not reasonably foreseeable,
at this time, that any mining or ore
processing (other than the Crown Jewel
Project proposal) would be proposed or
developed on Buckhorn Mountain since no
proposals for such work currently exist. If
such a mining and ore processing
development is proposed, it would be subject
to the preparation of an environmental
analysis as required by NEPA and SEPA (as
applicable) and related regulatory review.
The location of past mining operations in and
around Buckhorn Mountain are shown on
Figure 3.19.1, Historic Mining Sites and listed
in Table 3.17.1, Buckhorn Mountain Mining
Properties Identified by Survey and Historic
Research.
During the summer of 1993, Consolidated
Ramrod Gold Company conducted exploration
activities on claims controlled by Keystone
Mining Company in an area adjacent to the
Crown Jewel Project claim block as shown
on Figure 3.19.2, Consolidated Ramrod
Exploration Site. The Forest Service
approved these exploration activities in a
categorical exclusion and a Decision Memo
dated November 30, 1992. The Consolidated
Ramrod Gold Company indicated that they
must initiate exploration drilling prior to
reaching any decision regarding development
of a mining and ore processing facility on-
site. Additional exploration drilling occurred,
near the Proponent's proposed south waste
rock disposal area, in 1993. There has been
no indication that further development or
exploration would occur. In fact, the actual
extent of the exploration activities were
substantially less than those approved by the
Forest Service. As of 1996, Keystone Mining
Company still controls the claims in question,
but has optioned them to the Proponent.
3.19.3 Historic and Present Timber
Operations
Logging has been one of the dominant land
management uses in the vicinity of the
Crown Jewel Project, with numerous acres
being logged as set forth in Table 3.19.2,
Past Timber Sales in the Crown Jewel Project
Area. Over the past 35 years, about 8,000
acres have been logged in and around the
vicinity of the proposed Crown Jewel Project.
Logging has occurred on public and private
lands in the general area. Both commercial
harvests and firewood cutting occur. The
location of historic timber sales are shown on
Figure 3.19.3, Historic Timber Sales; many of
the areas shown on this map represent the
planning areas and not solely the actual
harvest areas.
Timber has been harvested throughout most
of the Project area. Heavy cutting has
occurred in Sections 13, 23, 24, 25, 26 and
35 of Township 40 North, Range 30 East.
Harvesting has been a combination of
clearcutting, shelterwood, seedtree, and
partial removal. The shelterwood and
seedtree methods remove most of the trees
in a stand and leave a few selected trees to
either provide seed for natural regeneration
and/or as shelter for young trees. The most
recently selected "leave" trees have been
western larch and Douglas-fir.
Approximately 560 acres of timber were
harvested during the Buckhorn Mountain Sale
which sold in 1979. About 62 acres of this
Forest Service sale were clearcuts including
the 38 acres of land in Section 24, Township
40 North, Range 30 East where part of the
proposed mine pit area is located. The
remaining area was harvested using
shelterwood removal methods.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
I
5.
I
(b
§
I
TABLE 3.19.1, CROWN JEWEL PROJECT EXPLORATION SUMMARY
FOREST SERVICE
Document
Plan of Operations - 8/1 /88
Supplemental Plan of Operations -
9/6/88
Request to Remove Snow - 2/20/89
Winter 1989 Supplemental Plan of
Operations - 2/20/89
Supplemental Plan of Operations -
3/23/90
Plan of Operations Update - 5/1 7/89
Supplemental Plan of Operations -
6/13/89
Supplemental Plan of Operations -
8/22/89
Supplemental Plan of Operations -
11/13/89
Plan of Operations - 4/30/90
1991 Amendment to 1990 Operating
Plan - 3/19/91
Amendment to Crown Jewel Project
1991 Operating Plan - 9/30/91
Remarks
0.68 acres of disturbance requested in
two locations.
Requests disturbance at three additional
sites- Total 1988 disturbance requested
0.86 acres.
Snow removal from roads accessing
Gold Axe, Gold Buck and Double Axe
Mines.
This plan requests 1 .48 acres of
disturbance. Cumulative estimate
disturbance - 1 .85 acres.
Request 0.57 acres of disturbance in
the Double Axe area.
Revised and updated disturbance to
date - 1.64 acres (0.90 miles).
Requests additional 3.24 acres of
disturbance. Total proposed
disturbance - 4.88 acres (2.68 miles).
Only 1 .2 acres of preceding Plan was
disturbed (1.56 miles). Total
disturbance - 2.84 acres (1.56 miles).
This Plan requests an additional 2.01
acres of disturbance.
Request for infill delineation drilling
approximately 7.3 acres. Total
disturbance - 10.2 acres (approximately
5.6 miles). Only about 2.7 acres
outside clearcut.
An EA was completed in June 1990.
Total estimated additional disturbance
4.6 acres (2.8 miles). This is step-out
drilling adjacent to the clearcut. Total
disturbance - 14.8 acres (8.4 miles).
Request 6.4 acres of disturbance.
Total disturbance - 21 .2 acres (11 .9
miles). By letter dated 3/14/91 and
3/19/91.
Requests six additional holes on
existing roads (no additional
disturbance).
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Document
Notice of Intent to Operate - 8/3/88
Notice of Intent to Operate - 3/29/89
Notice of Intent to Operate - 2/27/90
Notice of Intent - 4/22/90
Remarks
0.74 acres of disturbance requested in
one location. (0.3 miles of road)
No additional disturbance requested.
Snow removal only. Approved 4/6/89
No additional disturbance requested,
snow removal only.
Co
••»
01
o
i
t)
a
Co
I
I
I
•*
to
-------
I
I
CD
I
31
i
8
1
0)
CO
3
TABLE 3.19.1, CROWN JEWEL PROJECT EXPLORATION SUMMARY
FOREST
Document
Amendment to Crown Jewel Project
1991 Operating Plan - 12/16/91
Amendment to Crown Jewel Project
1991 Operating Plan - 2/6/92
1 992 Exploration Operating Plan -
2/6/92
Crown Jewel Project Data Gathering -
6/15/92
Notice of Modification to 1992
Operating Plan - 6/1 6/92
Addition to 1992 Amendment - 8/4/92
Proposed Reclamation - 10/9/92
Crusher Mill Site Geotechnical
Investigations- 10/13/93
Reclamation Work on Exploration Drill
Roads -09/17/93
Geohydrology Investigation of the
Tailings Basin - 07/06/93
1995 Crown Jewel Project Data
Gathering for Geochemical Analysis
1995 Crown Jewel Project Data
Gathering Tailings Facility Design
SERVICE
Remarks
Estimated surface disturbance 2.7
acres (1 .6 miles). Total disturbance -
23.9 acres 13.5 miles).
Forest Service calculations indicate
1 2.0 acres of disturbance in 1991.
Cumulative total 1988 through 1991 -
37.4 acres (15.5 miles).
Approximately 1,500 feet of old road
would be upgraded (no additional
disturbance).
Request an estimated 7.9 acres of
additional disturbance (3.25 miles)
Total disturbance - 31.8 acres 16.75
miles).
Six temporary trenches, within existing
road disturbance. Not approved.
Would require about 0.75 acres of
additional disturbance (0.3 miles). Not
approved.
Catchment sump in the Gold Bowl.
Reclaimed 1.1 miles of exploration
roads (2.7 acres).
No additional disturbance.
Reclaimed 0.98 miles of exploration
roads (2.4 acres).
Eight well and test pits within existing
disturbance.
1 7 test pits within planned soil borrow
areas, six core holes for geochemical
analyses.
23 drill holes and 25 test pits to
confirm and optimize design of tailings
facilities.
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Document
Reclamation Update - 6/3/91
Notice of Intent to Operate - 12/16/91
Amendment to Notice of Intent dated
12/16/91 -2/5/92
Notice of Intent to Operate - 2/6/92
Amended Notice of Intent to Operate -
4/30/92
Amendment to 1992 Notice of Intent -
6/18/92
Remarks
Requested 0.4 acres of disturbance for
geotech trenches (0.25 miles of road).
Approved 12/24/91.
Request additional 0.15 acres of
disturbance for geotech (0.06 miles).
Approved 2.6.92. Cumulative
disturbance is 0.95 acres (0.6 miles of
road).
Request 3.37 acres of disturbance for
access to 34 drill sites (1 .9 miles of
road). Approved 2/1 1/92
The preceding request revised to
request 1 .8 acres of disturbance to
access 41 drill sites (0.98 miles of
road). Approved 5/12/92. Cumulative
disturbance is 2.75 acres 1.5 miles of
road).
Request additional 0.47 acres for EIS
testing (0.26 miles of road). Approved
7/7/92. Cumulative disturbance is
3.3. acres (1.9 miles of road).
I
0)
JO
<0
o
1
I
01
-------
I
is-
(D
5'
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-153
TABLE 3.19.2, PAST TIMBER SALES IN THE CROWN JEWEL PROJECT AREA1
Name of Sale
Date of
Sale
Date
Closed
Location
Township/Range
Section
Estimated
Total Acres
Logged4
USDA Forest Service
Marias (Buyout)
Nick 1 (Resale)(82)
Buckhorn
Nick II
Gold
Bishop
Prince
Marias Creek
Gold Creek
Hoodoo
Upper Nicholson
Cow Camp
High Risk
Ethel Creek
High Risk
Nicholson Creek #2
Nicholson Creek
Pontiac Ridge #2
Bat Resale
Mine
Mine II
Nicholson Salvage II
Nicholson Salvage I
Gold Mine
Beaver Lake High
Risk
Nicholson
Gold Thinning
Salvage
7/08/86
5/06/86
11/15/84
4/23/82
1976
1974
1972
1966
1964
1964
1964
1962
1962
1962
1960
1975
1986
1980
1980
1994
1994
1988
1962
1994
1989
1 /1 6/90
11/15/89
10/18/89
11/04/87
1 980-8 12
1977-782
NA
2/18/72
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1989
1986
1988
open
open
1988
1962
open
1989
T40N/R31E
T39N/R31E
T40N/R30E
T40N/R31E
T40N/R30E
T40N/R31E
T40N/R30E
T40N/R30E
T40N/R31E
T40N/R31E
T39N/R30E
T39N/R31E
T40N/R31E
NA
T40N/R30E
T40N/R31E
T40N/R30E
T40N/R30E
T40N/R31E
T40N/R31E
T40N/R30E
T39N/R30E
T39N/R31E
T40N/R30E
T40N/R30E
T40N/R31E
T40N/R31E
T40N/R31E
T40N/R30E
T40N/R31E
T39N/R30E
T40N/R30E
T40N/R31E
T40N/R30E
29,30,31,32
5,6
25
8,9,16,17,19,
20,21,28
22,23,24,26,27
20,21,27,28,29
1,2,11,12
24,25
17,18,19,20,29,
30,32,33
4,5,6,7,8,17,18
1
4,5,6
31,32
NA
25
18,19
25
26
16,17,18,20,21
18,19,20
36
1
4,5,6,8
11,12
1,12
6,7
17,18,19
7,8,17,18
1,2,11,12
6,7
23,24,25
24,25
6,7,18,19,30
11
810
1,257
560
4643
560
400
NA
NA
585
NA
NA
256
NA
4806
2205
640
697
493
243
155
124
453
NA
350
21
Washington Department of Natural Resources
Park Place 1994
1994
open
T40N/R30E
36
250
Notes: 1. This table represents data available as of May 1996, and may not be a complete list.
2. Closing dates were estimated based on other timber sales in the area of similar size.
3. Acreage estimated from a timber sale map.
4. Total acres logged was assumed to be approximately 70% of the total acreage of sale (Forest Service,
1993d).
5. Acreage estimate from old cutting records.
NA Not available.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-154
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
In addition to logging on National Forestlands,
the State of Washington and BLM have
harvested their lands within the vicinity of
Buckhorn Mountain using both shelterwood
and overstory removal methods.
Most private lands around the Crown Jewel
Project area have been harvested at some
time in the past. Private sawmills worked in
the area from around the turn of the century
into the 1 950's. Much of the private lands in
Sections 21, 22 and 28 of Township 40
North, Range 30 East were logged by Biles-
Coleman in the late 1950's.
On January 1 5, 1993, the Forest Service
published an EA for the Nicholson timber
sales. A discussion of the Crown Jewel
Project, including issues, alternatives, and
environmental consequences is set forth in
that document. Timber harvest and other
resource management activities planned with
the Nicholson timber sales are consistent
with direction contained in the Okanogan
National Forest Land Use Plan. These sales
were harvested in 1995 and 1996. All
timber harvest activity has been completed.
The Forest Service sold and awarded three
sales from within the 4,220 acre Nicholson
Planning Area. The timber sales were known
as the Nicholson timber sale, the Nicholson
Salvage I timber sale, and the Nicholson
Salvage II timber sale. The location is
northeast of Buckhorn Mountain in Sections 6
and 7, 17 through 19 and 30, Township 40
North, Range 31 East and Sections 24 and
25, Township 40 North, Range 30 East. The
sales consisted of approximately 423 acres of
shelterwood harvest, five acres of clearcuts
(for aspen regeneration), 200 acres of
overstory removal, and one acre of road right-
of-way. This represents a total harvest of
629 acres.
In 1994, the WADNR sold a timber sale (Park
Place timber sale) on approximately 250
acres in Section 36, Township 40 North,
Range 30 East. This sale contained about
one million board feet of timber and was a
selective harvest that removed 50% of the
standing timber volume. Harvest was
completed in 1996.
3.19.4 Proposed Timber Operations
The Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS for the
Jackson timber sale was cancelled in 1994
due to lack of funding.
3.19.5 Agricultural Activities
Agricultural land uses are more prominent in
Okanogan County than in the immediate
proposed Crown Jewel Project area. The
area around the Crown Jewel Project is
subject to summer livestock grazing under
permit from the Forest Service as explained in
Section 3.10.7, Range Resource.
Agriculture in the Okanogan Highlands
involves livestock grazing with small
production of hogs, alfalfa hay, barley, oats,
and winter and spring wheat. The prominent
agriculture in the lower reaches of Okanogan
County, namely the Okanogan River valley,
involves apple and pear production.
3.19.6 Residential Activities
Residential development in the immediate
vicinity of the Crown Jewel Project area is
concentrated at Chesaw, with scattered
development along Myers Creek, Gold Creek,
Nicholson Creek, Bolster Creek and the
Pontiac Ridge south of the Project area. Two
new homes were built in 1992 in Section 35,
Township 40 North, Range 30 East in the
Ethel Creek drainage. In recent years, there
have been several areas subdivided in 5 to 20
acre tracts for residences on private ground
south and west of Buckhorn Mountain.
Numerous new homes have been built south
of the Crown Jewel Project area within the
past five years.
Residential uses within the general region are
typically concentrated in the nearby existing
communities of Oroville, Tonasket, Omak,
Okanogan, Republic, and Curlew. Residential
development and uses are also scattered
throughout the rural portions of both
Okanogan and Ferry Counties. See Section
3.20, Socioeconomic Environment.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-155
3.19.7 Recreation
Recreation is another land use in the area.
Forest Service and BLM-managed lands
surrounding the Crown Jewel Project area are
subject to hunting, fishing, hiking, camping,
sightseeing, and picnicking. See Section
3.15, Recreation. Big game hunting for deer
is the major source of recreation within the
Crown Jewel Project area.
3.19.8 Patenting of Crown Jewel Project
Mining Claims
As allowed under the General Mining Law
and 43 CFR 3860, Crown Resources
Corporation has made application to the BLM
to patent certain mill site claims and lode
mining claims at the Crown Jewel Project
site. Refer to Section 1.2, Background, for a
discussion of the relationship between Crown
Resources Corporation and the Proponent.
The applications involve 11 unpatented
mining claims covering approximately 195
acres and 11 7 mill site claims covering
approximately 565 acres. The total acreage
subject to the two patent applications is
approximately 760 acres. The location of the
claims for which applications for patent have
been made are shown on Figure 3.19.4,
Claim Patent Application Location Map.
An unpatented mining claim allows the
claimant the right to extract and remove
locatable minerals but does not give the
claimant absolute title to the ground subject
to the claim. A patented mining claim is one
in which the Federal Government has passed
title to the claimant, giving the applicant
exclusive title to the location minerals, and, in
most cases, the surface and all resources
except water. At any time prior to the
issuance of patent, the Federal Government
may challenge the validity of a claim; and, if
successful, the claim can be cancelled with
all rights forfeited.
The various state directors of the BLM are
authorized to take all actions on mining
claims under the general mining laws. The
Chief of the Division of Technical Services,
subordinate to each BLM state director, is
further authorized to take actions on mining
claims. However, the actual processing of all
mineral patent applications is handled by
mining law adjudicators. These adjudicators
are responsible for processing all mineral
applications, regardless of which agency
manages the surface of the lands.
There is no specific time period to process a
patent application. The specific time period
depends on many variables such as the
number of claims, location of claims,
experience of the applicant or the applicant's
attorney, necessity for a mineral survey, title
problems, adverse claimants, nature of the
mineral deposit status of mining activity,
direction from the BLM State Director or
Secretary of the Interior. Under ideal
conditions, the entire process may be
accomplished within a couple of years, but
more likely the process will require additional
time.
On March 2, 1993, the Secretary of Interior
issued Order No. 3163, which revoked the
existing delegations of authority to the BLM
for the issuance of first half final certificates
and mineral patents pursuant to the General
Mining Law. The Secretary stated that this
action was necessary "to enable the
Secretary to assume the review and issuance
of such documents and instruments during
consideration by the 103rd Congress of bills
which, if adopted, would reform the mining
laws and the rights and obligations
thereunder."
It has not yet been determined whether
patents would be granted for the mining and
mill site claims subject to the Patent
Applications. However, a First Half-Mineral
Entry Final Certificate has been issued for the
11 mining claims. Even if patented, the
Crown Jewel Project claims would still be
subject to the numerous federal, state and
local laws and regulations that apply to
mining operations. If patented, the federal
agencies that manage the surface (in the case
of the Crown Jewel Project, the Forest
Service and BLM) would no longer have
oversight of the reclamation of such lands;
however, in the case of Crown Jewel Project,
both WADOE and WADNR would maintain
oversight for reclamation, and the WADNR
would maintain a reclamation surety for such
reclamation. On any unpatented claims that
are part of the operation, the federal agencies
would likewise maintain operations and
reclamation oversight. The actual patenting
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-156
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
process is not covered by SEPA or NEPA.
The Records of Decision for the Crown Jewel
Project will not make a decision on patenting.
3.20 SOCIOECONOMIC
ENVIRONMENT
3.20.1 Introduction
Socioeconomic research and data
reconnaissance for the area which would
potentially be affected by the development of
the Crown Jewel Project was first initiated in
the latter half of 1992 and updated to reflect
1996 conditions as presented in the Existing
Socioeconomic Conditions Baseline Report
(1996 Update) - Crown Jewel Project (E.D.
Hovee, 1996b).
The geographic area considered for describing
the affected Socioeconomic environment
consists generally of Okanogan and Ferry
Counties. A portion of the two-county area
covering northeast Okanogan and western
Ferry Counties represents a more defined
primary study area which consists of the
following communities plus associated rural
areas:
Okanogan County:
Chesaw (unincorporated)
Conconully
Molson (unincorporated)
Okanogan
Omak
Oroville
Riverside
Tonasket
Ferry County:
Curlew (unincorporated)
Republic
Location of the Socioeconomic study area
within the State of Washington together with
location of the census subdivisions and
incorporated cities is shown on Figure
3.20.1, Socioeconomic Study Area Location.
The locations of Chesaw and Molson are
identified although these communities are not
incorporated.
The study area includes the census
subdivisions of Chesaw/Oroville,
Conconully/Riverside, Curlew,
Okanogan/Omak, Republic, and
Tonasket/Pine Creek. The Okanogan/Ferry
county subdivisions of Early Winters, Methow
Valley, Brewster-Wakefield, Colville
Reservation and Orient-Sherman are not
included in this study area. It is expected
that factors of distance and/or length of
travel would result in minimal Socioeconomic
impacts outside the primary study area.
Similarly, Socioeconomic effects on the
Canadian side of the border are expected to
be relatively minimal. Hiring restrictions,
tariffs and duties would limit Socioeconomic
effects of the proposed Crown Jewel Project
on the Canadian labor force and expenditures
respectively. Probably the biggest Canadian
beneficiary of the Crown Jewel Project would
be motels, hotels, eating establishments and
recreation facilities in the town of Osoyoos.
3.20.2 Population and Demographics
Information on key population and
demographic trends in Okanogan and Ferry
counties and, more specifically, in the primary
study area has been compiled from U.S.
Censuses for 1970, 1980 and 1990, as set
forth in Table 3.20.1, Population Trends
(1970-19951. Updated 1992 and 1995
population estimates for the incorporated
cities and the two counties are also-available
from the Washington Office of Financial
Management.
As of the 1 990 U.S. Census, Okanogan and
Ferry counties had a combined population of
39,645 -- representing 0.8% of the
population of the state of Washington.
Theprimary study area had a population of
23,762 -- accounting for almost 60% of the
population of the two counties. As of 1995,
population of the two-county area had
increased to 44,000, adding 4,355 residents
since 1990 which equates to an 11 %
population increase.
After experiencing relatively slow rates of
growth in the 1980s, higher rates of
population growth are being experienced by
Okanogan and Ferry Counties in the 1990s.
Current rates of growth are similar to what
was previously experienced in the decade of
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-157
TABLE 3.20.1, POPULATION TRENDS
(1970-1995)
Community
1970
1980
1990
1992
1995
City/Town
Conconully1
Okanogan
Omak
Oroville
Republic
Riverside
Tonasket1
Subtotal Study Area Cities
Subtotal Unincorporated
Study Area
Total Study Area
122
2,015
4,164
1,555
862
228
951
9,897
--
--
157
2,302
4,007
1,483
1,018
243
985
10,195
1 1,460
21,655
174
2,370
4,117
1,505
940
223
900
10,229
13,533
23,762
160
2,395
4,130
1,505
1,040
250
960
10,440
--
--
193
2,410
4,365
1,550
1,100
270
1,025
10,913
--
--
County Subdivisions in Study Area
Chesaw/Oroville
Conconully/Riverside
Curlew
Okanogan/Omak
Republic
Tonasket/Pine Creek
--
--
--
--
--
--
4,974
1,574
1,214
8,628
2,344
2,921
5,726
1,871
1,430
9,072
2,531
3,132
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
--
--
--
-
--
County and State
Okanogan County
Ferry County
Subtotal Okanogan/Ferry
County Area
State of Washington'
25,867
3,655
29,522
3,409,169
30,639
5,811
36,450
4,132,156
33,350
6,295
39,645
4,866,663
34,400
6,700
41,100
5,116,700
36,900
7,100
44,000
5,429,900
Note: 1. Indicates a special Census was conducted and a correction was made to the 1990 Census.
Source: U.S. Census for 1980 and 1990 numbers (Bureau of Census, 1980, 1990). Population numbers for
1992 and 1995 are from the Washington Office of Financial Management (OFM, 1992, 1995) and
are not available for county subdivisions (other than incorporated cities).
the 1970s -- with population again increasing
at rates in excess of 2% per year.
The largest city in the two counties (and in
the study area) is Omak, with 4,365
residents as of 1995. Taken together, the
incorporated cities experienced a 3% gain in
population between 1980 and 1990, with a
7% increase in the succeeding years from
1990-1995.
The population of the unincorporated study
area increased by 18.1% from 1980-1990.
Comparable figures for the unincorporated
portion of the study area are not available for
the period since 1990. However, as of the
1990 census, the unincorporated portion of
the study area had over 13,500 residents.
accounting for 57% of study area population,
while incorporated cities had over 10,200
residents.
Updated population estimates for
incorporated cities and counties are indicated
for 1992 and 1995 based on data from the
Washington Office of Financial Management.
Between 1990 and 1995, the population of
Okanogan County has increased by an
estimated 3,550 residents (or by 11 %) to
36,900 residents as of 1995. The population
of Ferry County has also increased by 805
residents (13%) to 7,100 people in 1995.
From 1990-1995, Washington Office of
Financial Management estimates indicate that
the population within the area's incorporated
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-158
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
communities is increasing at a faster rate
than was experienced during the decade of
the 1980s. The rate of population growth for
unincorporated areas within Okanogan and
Ferry Counties has continued to exceed that
of the incorporated cities.
For the two counties combined, the rate of
population growth averaged 2.1 % per year
from 1970-80, then 0.8% annually from
1 980-90, increasing to 1.8% per year from
1990-1992 (the period covered by the Crown
Jewel Project draft EIS). From 1992-1995,
the population of the two-county area has
increased even more rapidly, at an average
rate of 2.3% per year.
As is true throughout the U.S., the median
age of the population in Okanogan and Ferry
counties increased substantially between
1980 and 1990. This is due to factors such
as increased longevity and lower birth rates.
As of the 1990 census, the median age of
Okanogan County residents (at 35.0 years)
was above the statewide median age figure
(33.1) and above that of Ferry County (32.8).
All of the incorporated communities in the
study area have a population that is older
than the statewide median figure. Median
age of Conconully residents is highest of
these communities at 48.6 years.
The county subdivisions vary greatly.
Population of the Curlew area (in Ferry
County) is relatively young (with a median
age of 28.9 years). Like the towns, the other
county subdivisions tend to have populations
with a higher median age than is the case
statewide.
One factor affecting the high median age of
the local population is the relatively high
proportion of retirees living in the study area
as well as more generally throughout Ferry
and Okanogan Counties. Between 1980 and
1990, the proportion of persons age 65 and
over increased from 12.0% to 13.4% of the
two-county population.
As of 1995, persons age 65 and over
constitute 12.8% of the two-county
population. This represents a decline in the
65 + age proportion of the population, but
remains above the statewide proportion of
11.6%.
The most rapid growth during the decade of
the 1980s and more recently has been with
persons in the age group 35-54. This age
group has accounted for 47% of two-county
population growth between 1990 and 1995.
Overall educational attainment of adult
residents in the two counties and the study
area tends to be below that of the entire
state. This is typical for rural areas of the
state. The 1990 census indicates that a
relatively high proportion of adults in the
Chesaw/Oroville area (almost 31%) have not
completed high school.
A higher proportion of the population in both
counties are Native Americans than is the
case statewide. However, the proportion of
the population in the study area that is Native
American is well below the proportion of the
population that is Native American for the
remainder of the two county area. In large
part, this is because the Colville Indian
Reservation is located outside the study area.
The Hispanic proportion of study area
population is above the statewide figure, but
below the proportion for Ferry and Okanogan
Counties combined. Greater proportions of
Hispanic residents live in southern Okanogan
County, outside the primary study area.
3.20.3 Housing
The most comprehensive source of
information for housing in Okanogan and
Ferry County is from the U.S. Census.
Pertinent 1990 census data for the
Chesaw/Oroville area, the entire study area,
Ferry and Okanogan Counties is presented by
Table 3.20.2, 1990 Housing Characteristics.
As of 1990, Ferry and Okanogan Counties
had a combined total of just under 19,900
housing units. Overall, a lower proportion of
housing units in this two county area are
owner occupied (50%) than is the case
statewide (58%). In the Chesaw/Oroville
area, less than 39% of all housing units are
owner occupied on a year-round basis. A
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-159
TABLE 3.20.2. 1990 HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Occupancy and Tenure
Number of
Housing Units
Owner Occupied
Renter Occupied
Chesaw/Oroville
1,452
761
Study
Area
6,182
2,930
Ferry
County
1,568
679
Okanogan
County
8,439
4,215
Washington
State
1,171,580
700,851
Vacant Units
For Sale or Rent
Seasonal'
Other Vacant'
Total Units
Percent Owner Occupied
126
513
908
3,760
38.6%
377
1,084
1,606
12,179
50.8%
107
613
272
3,239
48.4%
586
1,620
1,769
16,629
50.7%
58,784
55,832
45,331
2,032,378
57.6%
Percent Vacant Units
For Sale or Rent
Seasonal
Other Vacant'
Units in Structure
1 unit (detached)
1 (attached to 4 units)
5+ Units
Mobile Homes
Total
Median House Valuation
Median Contract Rent
3.4%
13.6%
24.1%
3.1%
8.9%
13.2%
2,678
213
150
719
3,760
$46,300
$211
8,299
659
531
2,690
12,179
$48,900
$237
3.3%
18.9%
8.4%
3.5%
9.7%
10.6%
2,128
71
74
966
3,239
$50,100
$197
11,281
918
677
3,753
16,629
$50,300
$222
2.9%
2.7%
2.2%
1,272,721
186,871
365,589
207,197
2,032,378
$93,400
$383
Housing Costs as Percent of Income
Owner Occupied
Less than 20%
20-35%
35% +
Not Computed
61.6%
19.2%
16.8%
24%
69.9%
19.4%
9.7%
0.9%
75.8%
15.3%
8.2%
0.7%
70.5%
19.0%
9.8%
0.7%
58.6%
30.3%
10.6%
0.5%
Renter Occupied
Less than 20%
20-35%
35% +
Not Computed
23.3%
33.1%
21.1%
22.5%
35.8%
27.7%
22.0%
14.5%
55.3%
18.3%
14.4%
12.1%
34.4%
27.5%
21.0%
17.1%
31.2%
34.8%
29.0%
5.0%
Note: 1. The U.S. Census distinguishes between units that are vacant on a seasonal basis (as for
vacation or recreational use) versus "other vacant units" (including residences for migrant
workers and units that have been rented or sold but not occupied).
Source: Bureau of Census, 1990.
substantial proportion were identified by the
census as vacant or in seasonal use (41 %).
While 41 % of housing units in the Chesaw/
Oroville area are classified by the 1990
census as vacant, only just over 3% of the
units were identified as available for sale or
rent.
About 14% of units are indicated as being
available on a seasonal basis (as for vacation
use) and over 24% are vacant for other
reasons (including migrant worker housing).
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-160
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
While the majority of units are single family
detached residences, an important share are
mobile homes. Throughout the study area,
mobile homes account for 22% of all
residential units; they account for 19% in the
Chesaw/Oroville area.
While housing costs have increased
substantially since 1990, as of 1990, home
prices in Ferry and Okanogan Counties were
only 54% of the statewide median house
value. Prices in the Chesaw/Oroville area
have been below those of the entire
Okanogan County area, although Oroville is
currently experiencing more rapid
appreciation in values.
As of the 1 990 census, median contract rent
was $237 per month for the study area,
compared to $383 statewide. Recent market
conditions clearly indicate that rents have
increased sharply since 1 990 to reported
levels averaging approximately $340 for a
one bedroom, $440 for two bedroom and
$545 for three bedroom units.
As of the 1990 census, a relatively low
proportion of Ferry and Okanogan County
renters paid 35% or more of their income in
housing costs, as compared to the entire
state. However, issues of affordability have
become more pronounced in recent years due
to rapid increases in rents.
Between 1990 and 1995, a total of 2,033
new housing units have been added
throughout Okanogan and Ferry counties.
This represents an increase of 10% in the
housing inventory for the two-county area.
Approximately 82% of the housing
development in Okanogan and Ferry counties
from 1990-1995 has occurred outside of
incorporated communities. Omak has
experienced the most new residential
development ( + 110 units), accounting for
close to one-third of construction in
incorporated cities throughout the two-county
area.
Mobile homes represent 51 % (+ 1,028 units)
of the growth in housing inventory since
1990, followed by single family homes
( + 775 units) and multifamily structures
( + 230 units).
Contacts have been made with realtors and
property managers throughout the study area
to ascertain more recent availability and
pricing information regarding for-sale and
rental housing. Contacts were made initially
in the fall of 1 992 and subsequently in
January-February 1996. In addition,
classified advertisements were reviewed for
three newspapers in the study area.
A total of 200 units were identified as being
on the market for sale or rent in the two-
county area during the period of January-
February 1996. These 200 units represent
approximately 0.9% of the total housing
inventory in the study area.
This 1996 vacancy figure of 0.9% compares
to a 3.1 % vacancy rate of units for sale or
for rent reported as of the 1990 U.S. Census.
This data indicates that the area's housing
market is increasingly tight, with recent
vacancy rates well below the 1990 level.
A 1995 Housing Needs Assessment and
Strategies for Okanogan County (Tom Phillips
and Associates, 1995) indicates that rents
countywide have increased by 60% over a
four year period and there are "virtually no
rental vacancies." Housing prices in the
north region of Okanogan County are noted
to have increased more rapidly than
elsewhere in the County (Tom Phillips and
Associates, 1995).
Of the 200 identified available units, 27 units
are in Ferry County and 173 are in Okanogan
County. A total of 1 52 residences were for
sale, with only 48 rental vacancies (homes
and apartments) identified.
Based on contacts with area realtors and
property managers, residences for rent or
purchase are extremely difficult to find
throughout the study area. Many properties
are rented or sold by word-of-mouth and so
are not captured by this inventory.
Residential development is affected by local
land use planning. Both Okanogan and Ferry
counties have planning departments that
administer adopted plans and land use
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-161
regulations for housing and other
developments. The incorporated cities in the
two counties also typically have planning
commissions, with staffing services often
provided on a part-time contractual basis.
Services of the Okanogan Office of Planning
and Development include administration of
the comprehensive plan, development and
administration of the zoning code,
administration of the master program for
Okanogan County shoreline management,
building permits, inspections and conditional
use permits.
The current Comprehensive Plan was adopted
in 1964. The Methow Valley (outside the
study area) is subject to a Methow Review
District. Much of the rest of the county
(including the Chesaw/Highlands area) is
zoned as a Minimum Requirement District.
While Okanogan County has not opted to
comply with all the provisions of the State of
Washington Growth Management Act, the
county is required by the Growth
Management Act to inventory and manage
critical lands. An extensive planning and
public involvement process was initiated in
1992, coordinated by a 40 member citizen
advisory committee. Critical land regulations
were adopted by the Okanogan County Board
of Commissioners in February 1994.
As of September 1996, mining activity is a
conditional use in Okanogan County
(pursuant to the Zoning Code - Title 1 7)
requiring a conditional use permit. Okanogan
County also is involved in reviewing and
issuing conditional use permits required in the
Minimum Requirement District for explosives
storage, fuel storage, and hazardous
chemicals.
While federal lands are typically exempt from
local jurisdiction planning, zoning and building
requirements, the Forest Service and
Okanogan County have been considering a
possible memorandum of agreement whereby
Okanogan County would assume
responsibility for building permitting,
sanitation and garbage on the federal portion
of the Crown Jewel Project site (as well as
private lands used for the Crown Jewel
Project). The Proponent has also indicated
plans to apply to Okanogan County for a
conditional use permit for the entire Project
(covering portions on both federal and other
lands).
Historically, there have been relatively few
controls in place in Okanogan County to
regulate housing. Most of the rural area
within the study area is designated as a
Minimum Requirement District.
However, the Minimum Requirement District
does have a variety of controls in place which
help to regulate development, including a
minimum lot size of one acre and density of
dwelling-unit per acre. Site plans are required
for each RV park or mobile home park, and
will not be approved unless there is
demonstration of adequate water, roads,
sewage disposal, etc.
Every building constructed in the county must
meet Uniform Building Code requirements,
and each residential structure must show
adequate water before a building permit is
issued. Every division of land into lots
smaller than 20 acres is subject to the
Okanogan County Subdivision Ordinance 92-
1 adopted in 1992.
Availability of water is a particular concern in
the Chesaw/Molson and greater Okanogan
Highlands area. As a result, in November
1992, Okanogan County adopted a
Chesaw/Molson plan overlay. This overlay
has the effect of limiting lot size for
residential use to a minimum of 20 acres,
except for areas previously platted. All
residential units constructed also must meet
Okanogan County Health District regulations
for septic and water development.
Ferry County's Planning and Building
Department is responsible for county
planning, comprehensive plan administration,
zoning code enforcement, building permit
issuance, inspection and enforcement. There
currently is no zoning in the unincorporated
area of the county. However, Ferry County
has opted to comply with the Growth
Management Act. A Comprehensive Plan
was adopted in September 1995.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-162
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
A review of housing potential on a
community-by-community basis indicates that
developing housing throughout the study area
has been problematic. Currently or in recent
years, all of the incorporated communities
have faced some combination of topographic,
water supply, sewer and/or floodplain
constraints.
The Chesaw Highlands rural area is affected
by limitations on securing potable water due
to the difficulty of finding productive
domestic wells. The majority of wells drilled
in this area reportedly yield an average of
three to seven gallons per minute (gpm).
New state regulations, particularly regarding
water supply, may limit rural area
development, particularly with larger
developments that may be increasingly likely
to occur within or near cities rather than in
rural unincorporated areas.
Most, though not all of the incorporated
communities, appear to have at least some
capacity near term to accommodate
residential growth based on capacity of
infrastructure and availability of suitable
building lots. As the study area's largest
city, Omak appears to be in the best position
to support added development, particularly
with the recent completion of water system
improvements.
Okanogan, Oroville, Republic and Riverside
have capacity for added growth, albeit with
some limitations. Much of Okanogan County
is located in the 100 year floodplain, and the
sewer system is operating in excess of 85%
of capacity. Oroville's primary limitations
have been associated with strained school
capacity and limited availability of building
lots, although properties with residential
development potential are being annexed to
the city and added water service has been
extended to the airport area.
Republic also has limited availability of
building lots and a sewage treatment facility
nearing capacity, although capacity may be
added. Riverside is affected by location in
the 100 year floodplain and questions of lot
availability.
Two study area cities, Conconully and
Tonasket, appear to have less capability of
accommodating residential development for
at least the near term. Conconully's sewer
system exceeds treatment facility capacity in
the summer, and few building lots are
reportedly available. Tonasket is operating at
98% of sewage treatment capacity (peak
flow month), and is in violation of WADOE
standards (as of 1995). Tonasket schools
are also close to capacity (even with recent
improvements), and buildable lots are in
relatively short supply although property
being annexed to the city has potential for
future development.
3.20.4 Employment
There are major differences in the
composition of the employed labor force in
Ferry and Okanogan Counties. Census data
for labor force and employment are presented
in the following:
• Table 3.20.3, 1990 Labor Force and
Employment Data;
• Figure 3.20.2, Employment Distribution
for Ferry County; and
• Figure 3.20.3, Employment Distribution
for Okanogan County.
The Washington State Employment Security
Department also collects employment data on
a countywide basis (but not for cities or
census subdivisions of a county).
Employment Security data differs from
census data in three key respects.
(1) Employment Security excludes
proprietors, the self-employed, members
of armed services, and workers in private
households. Census data covers all types
of workers.
(2) Employment Security assigns all
government workers (including school
employees) to the governmental
category. Census data counts only
administrative workers in the public
administration category; other
government workers may be assigned to
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-163
TABLE 3.20.3, 1990 LABOR FORCE AND EMPLOYMENT DATA
Chesaw/Oroville
Study
Area
Ferry
County
Okanogan
County
Washington
State
Labor Force (16 years +)
% in Labor Force
% Unemployed
60.1%
11.4%
60.5%
9.9%
60.3%
16.8%
61.4%
10.2%
66.7%
5.7%
Occupational Status (% of Total)
Managerial, Professional
Technical, Sales, Administrative
Service
Farm, Forestry, Fisheries
Product Craft & Repair
Operators, Fabricators, Laborers
Total
14.6%
21.6%
9.2%
27.1%
8.3%
19.3%
100.0%
19.6%
23.0%
11.7%
16.1%
1 1 .0%
18.6%
100.0%
22.7%
18.5%
13.8%
10.8%
16.6%
17.6%
100.0%
19.1%
22.8%
12.8%
18.6%
9.2%
17.6%
100.0%
27.7%
31.3%
12.8%
3.4%
1 1 .6%
13.2%
100.0%
Industry of Employed Persons (% of Total)
Agriculture
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Transportation, Communication,
Public Utilities
Wholesale & Retail Trade
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate
Services
Public Administration1
Total
Total Number Employed
23.9%
1.7%
5.1%
1 1 .0%
6.7%
25.9%
2.6%
18.1%
4.9%
100.0%
2,315
16.1%
3.1%
5.8%
12.4%
5.1%
3.3%
25.4%
6.1%
100.0%
9,745
11.5%
1 1 .4%
9.1%
1 1 .5%
4.0%
3.8%
26.4%
8.2%
100.0%
2,296
19.3%
0.4%
6.1%
1 1 .0%
5.8%
2.8%
25.6%
6.8%
100.0%
13,632
3.7%
0.2%
6.3%
17.5%
7.3%
6.4%
31.8%
4.9%
100.0%
2,293,961
Note: 1 . The Census category of public administration includes some but not all government
workers.
Source: Bureau of Census, 1990. Detailed employment data for county subdivisions is not available.
other industry sectors, such as services for
school teachers.
(3) Employment Security tracks workers by
their place of work, while the census
tracks workers by their place of
residence.
The composition of 1990 employment for
Okanogan and Ferry Counties, using U.S.
Census data, is illustrated on Figure 3.20.2,
Employment Distribution for Ferry County and
Figure 3.20.3, Employment Distribution for
Okanogan County.
As of the 1990 Census, the percentage of
those who are age 16 and over who are in
the labor force in Ferry and Okanogan
Counties was below the statewide
participation rate of 66.7%. See Table
3.20.3, 1990 Labor Force and Employment
Data. Unemployment rates have also been
well above the state average, particularly in
Ferry County, but less so for the study area.
Relatively high proportions of the Okanogan
and Ferry County labor force is employed in
farm, forestry, fishery and operator,
fabricator and laborer occupations. By
industry, relatively high proportions of area
workers are employed in agriculture, mining,
construction, and public administration; while
relatively low proportions are employed in
manufacturing, transportation,
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-164
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
communications, public utilities, finance,
insurance, real estate and services.
It is noted that the proportion of the labor
force employed in mining and construction
has been appreciably higher for Ferry than
Okanogan County. As of 1990, mining
represented 11 % of Ferry County, 3% of the
study area and less than 1 % of Okanogan
County employment. Within the
Chesaw/Oroville area, mining has accounted
for less than 2% of employment by place of
residence.
More recent data on employment and payroll
is provided by Table 3.20.4, 1994 Covered
Employment and Wages Paid by Sector
(Okanogan and Ferry Counties). Okanogan
and Ferry Counties had a combined
employment base of over 20,000 jobs in
1994. The single largest employment sector
is agriculture with close to 5,800 jobs (or
29% of the employment total). The next
largest sectors are government, retail trade
and services -- which together with
agriculture account for 80% of the two-
county employment base. With 310
employees, mining represents 1.5% of the
two-county employment total.
Washington State Employment Security data
for 1994 indicates that a majority of
Okanogan County employment (52%) has
been provided by two industries: agriculture
(32% of all jobs), followed by government
(20%). In Ferry County, the top three
employment sectors account for 66% of total
employment: government (at 38%), retail
trade (14%) and mining (14%).
The State of Washington Employment
Security Department also has compiled
information on the characteristics of
unemployment claimants for 1994. The data
indicates that of 5,303 unemployment claims
filed in Ferry and Okanogan Counties, 3,106
(or 59%) were filed by persons living in the
study area. This is similar to the percentage
of residents in the two counties who live in
the study area (60%).
However, the characteristics of
unemployment claimants in the study area
are different from those of the entire two-
TABLE 3.20.4, 1994 COVERED EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES PAID BY SECTOR
(OKANOGAN AND FERRY COUNTIES)
Employment Sector
Agriculture & Forestry
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Transportation, Communication, Public
Utilities
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate
Services
Government
Federal
State
Local
Not Elsewhere Classified
Total Employment
Employment
5,788
310
450
1,406
319
1,159
2,899
340
2,851
4,458
1,087
355
3,016
38
20,018
Wages Paid
$52,945,894
$12,578,581
$8,713,874
$33,589,714
$7,903,214
$19,458,245
$35,783,323
$5,461,259
$42,770,748
$116,037,657
$40,091,495
$8,953,855
$66,992,307
$636,684
$335,879,193
Wages Per
Employee
$9,148
$40,576
$19,364
$23,890
$24,775
$16,789
$12,343
$16,063
$15,002
$26,029
$36,883
$25,222
$22,212
$16,755
$16,779
Note: Data are provided for employees covered by unemployment insurance.
Source: State of Washington Employment Security Department, 1996.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-165
county area. Relatively high proportions of
study area residentemployed in
manufacturing and trade. Comparatively low
proportions of unemployment claimants have
employment experience in agriculture and
services.
Characteristics of the existing labor force are
important for assessment of local hiring
potentials associated with the Crown Jewel
Project. For purposes of this EIS, the term
"local hire" is intended to mean persons who
lived in the study area of northeastern
Okanogan County and western Ferry County
prior to hiring and who did not move into the
study area in anticipation of being hired at
the Crown Jewel Project.
3.20.5 Income
A variety of measures and sources can be
used to profile characteristics and trends
related to income in Okanogan and Ferry
Counties and in the study area.
Household Income
Household income data for the
Chesaw/Oroville subdivision, entire study
area, Ferry and Okanogan Counties and the
entire state are shown by Table 3.20.5, 1989
Household Income Data.
As of the 1990 Census, median household
income for Ferry County residents was
$25,170 (81% of the state median figure of
$31,183). Median income in Okanogan
County was $20,303 (65% of the statewide
median).
Both Okanogan County and the
Chesaw/Oroville area are at the lower end of
median household incomes reported for rural
(i.e. non-metropolitan) counties in the state of
Washington. For 24 non-metropolitan
counties statewide, median household
incomes reported for the 1990 census (for
calendar year 1989) range from $20,029 to
$31,278.
Between 1979 and 1989, overall household
incomes increased more rapidly in Ferry
County ( + 72%) than in Okanogan County
( + 47%). Statewide, median household
income increased by 70% during the decade
of the 1980s. More recent data from the
Washington State Office of Financial
Management indicates that, from 1989-1994,
median household incomes of residents
increased by 23% and 15% in Okanogan and
Ferry Counties respectively, compared to a
24% increase statewide.
Within the six census subdivisions
encompassed by the study area, 1989
median incomes vary considerably (from
TABLE 3.20.5, 1989 HOUSEHOLD INCOME DATA
Median Household Income
% Change 1979-1989
Chesaw/Oroville
$16,134
-
Study
Area
$16,134 to $30,040
-
Ferry
County
$25,170
71.6%
Okanogan
County
$20,303
46.7%
% Distribution of Household Income
Less than $10,000
$10,000 - $24,999
$25,000 - $49,999
$50,000 +
Total
% Below Poverty Level1
31.9%
38.5%
22.8%
6.8%
100.0%
27.8%
24.1%
34.9%
30.1%
10.9%
100.0%
21.5%
20.9%
28.6%
37.3%
13.2%
100.0%
23.7%
23.8%
35.9%
29.6%
10.7%
100.0%
21.5%
Washington
State
$31,183
69.8%
12.9%
26.3%
36.4%
24.3%
100.0%
10.9%
Note: 1 . Poverty levels are based on total 1989 income of the family or a non-family householder, adjusted for
size of family, number of children and age of family householder or unrelated individual for one and two
person households.
Source: Bureau of Census, 1990. Detailed income data from the 1980 Census is not available for county
subdivisions.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-166
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
$ 16,134 to $30,040). Lowest median
income (of $16,134) is reported for the
Chesaw/Oroville area, which is only 52% of
the statewide median income figure.
Chesaw/Oroville also has had a relatively high
proportion of households (28%) with incomes
that are below poverty level. This proportion
is considerably higher than the statewide
household figure of 11 % with below poverty
level incomes.
Sources of Income
The U.S. Census also provides information
covering sources of household income for
Ferry and Okanogan Counties as well as the
entire state, as detailed by Table 3.20.6,
1979 and 1989 Sources of Household
Income. In 1989, 72% of households in the
two-county area received wage and salary
income, a figure which is below the
statewide proportion of about 78%. In
contrast, relatively high proportions of
households in the two-county area receive
income from self-employment, social security
and public assistance.
More recent information regarding sources of
income is available from the U.S. Bureau of
Economic Analysis. As of 1993, 61 % of
income in the two-county area was received
from earnings versus 69% statewide.
Investments constitute 14% of income in
Okanogan and Ferry Counties compared to
15% statewide, while transfer payments
represent 26% and 16% of income for the
two-county area and State of Washington
respectively. Between 1989 and 1993,
transfer payments increased from 22% to
26% of incomes in the Okanogan and Ferry
County area.
Based on comments made in social values
interviews, at a public meeting regarding
socioeconomics on December 17, 1992, and
in response to the draft EIS, it is noted that
reported income data alone does not provide
a complete picture of economic activity in the
study area. Particularly in the
Chesaw/Highlands area, a substantial amount
of barter activity has been indicated. As in
many rural areas, other cash income is
generated that may go unreported. For these
reasons, the local standard of living may be
higher than would be indicated by income
data alone.
Wage Income
A useful indicator of wage-related incomes is
provided by Table 3.20.4, 1994 Covered
Employment and Wages Paid by Sector
(Okanogan and Ferry Counties).
As of 1994, 1,896 workers were employed
in Ferry County and 18,122 in Okanogan for
a total employment in both counties of
20,018. Total wages paid in both counties
was almost $336 million, averaging out at
close to $16,800 per employee.
TABLE 3.20.6, 1979 AND 1989 SOURCES OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Source of Income
Wage & Salary Income
Self -employment Income
Investment Income
Social Security Income
Public Assistance Income
Other Income
Total Households
1980 Census (1979 Data)
Okanogan and
Ferry Counties
76.2%
20.6%
32.2%
27.8%
7.0%
29.2%
13,427
Washington
State
79.1%
13.8%
45.1%
23.0%
6.4%
27.2%
1,542,685
1990 Census
Okanogan and
Ferry Counties
72.0%
19.4%
28.6%
29.7%
10.9%
28.5%
15,016
(1989 Data)
Washington
State
15.2%
44.7%
24.0%
6.7%
29.5%
1,875,508
Source: Bureau of Census, 1 990.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-167
Highest study area wages on a per employee
basis are paid in mining (approximately
$40,600 per employee), followed by federal
government employment (approximately
$36,900 per employee), state government,
and then transportation, communication,
public utilities employment. Lowest average
payrolls are in retail trade (approximately
$12,300 per employee) and agriculture (less
than $9,200).
Tourism Income
A key component of the Okanogan County
economy is tourism. Tourism impacts a
variety of economic sectors, notably services
(such as motels and campgrounds), and retail
trade (including restaurants, gas stations, and
a variety of other store types). As of 1994,
Ferry and Okanogan Counties experienced
over $102 million in travel-related
expenditures, $89 million of which is
attributable to Okanogan County. The two-
county area accounts for 1.4% of travel
expenditures statewide, which exceeds the
two-county area's 0.8% share of the state's
population.
Statistical data related to travel expenditures,
payroll and employment in Okanogan and
Ferry Counties and the entire state is
provided by Table 3.20.7, 1994 Comparative
Travel Impacts.
Travel-related employment of 1,740
represents 9% of the total job base and 5%
of the payroll in Ferry and Okanogan
Counties. Average payroll per employee is
$10,100.
The distribution of travel-related expenditures
between the Ferry/Okanogan County area and
State of Washington can be compared in two
ways as noted by Figure 3.20.4, 1994 Travel
Expenditures by Type of Business, and Figure
3.20.5, 1994 Travel Expenditures by Type of
A ccommodation.
When reviewed by type of business,
relatively high proportions of total travel
expenditures in Okanogan and Ferry Counties
are spent for transportation,
accommodations, dining, recreation, and
groceries as compared to the entire state.
When viewed by type of accommodation,
79% of travel-related expenditures in Ferry
and Okanogan Counties are attributable to
visitors using overnight lodging or
campgrounds and to day travelers.
Compared to the entire state, relatively high
proportions of visitors to the two-county area
(49%) either use campgrounds or are day
travelers (with no overnight stay).
Of more specific interest to the
Chesaw/Highlands area is tourism-related
activity linked directly to recreation. Section
3.15, Recreation Activities, identifies
recreation in the study area comprising:
• A variety of recreation activities including
camping, hunting, fishing, snowmobiling,
cross-country skiing, mountain biking,
bird watching and scenic drives are noted
as area attractions.
• 448 large game hunters and 1,831 hunter
days annually, based on a four year
average.
TABLE 3.20.7, 1994 COMPARATIVE TRAVEL IMPACTS
Geographic
Area
Ferry County
Okanogan County
Ferry and Okanogan
Counties
Washington State Total
Travel
Expenditures
(x $1,000)
$13,010
$89,480
$102,490
$7,529,420
Total Payroll
(x $1,000)
$2,080
$15,510
$17,590
$1,505,430
Total
Employment
(x $1,000)
240
1,500
1,740
96,310
Tax Receipts
(x $1,000)
Local
$90
$750
$840
$104,900
State
$920
$5,990
$6,910
$411,670
Source: Washington State Community, Trade and Economic Development, 1 995.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-168
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
• Recreation use of USDA Forest Service
facilities averaging 13,1 50 visits and
7,390 recreation visitor days per year.
• Persons driving for pleasure estimated at
16,470 people and 1,370 visitor days per
year.
Statewide, the average campground-related
expenditure per visitor day is just over
$21.83 (WACTED, 1995). Applying this per
visitor day expenditure to the quantitative
measures of hunting and camping activity
noted above results in a direct expenditure
estimate just over $0.2 million per year for
the study area. This expenditure represents
less than 1 % of total combined travel-related
expenditures in Ferry and Okanogan
Counties. It is noted that the tourism (i.e.
non-local) portion could be less than the $1.3
million indicated, as some (albeit
undocumented) portion of recreation activity
likely represents use by residents of the study
area.
Summary of Income Analysis
In summary, it is noted that natural resource
based activities have contributed less than a
majority but still a relatively stable proportion
of real income to the Okanogan and Ferry
County economy in recent years. As of
1994, resource based employment in
agriculture, forestry and mining accounted for
31 % of employment and close to 20% of
total wages paid in the two-county area.
From 1990-1994, mining's share of total
income declined while that of agriculture and
forestry increased.
Other important sources of wage income
include government, services, retail trade and
manufacturing. Tourism is important to the
local economy, with relatively high
expenditures in Okanogan and Ferry Counties
compared with the rest of the State of
Washington.
As has occurred in other non-metropolitan
counties throughout western states, non-
wage incomes (including sources such as
retirement, investment, public assistance and
social security) have come to represent an
increased share of total income. However,
earned income continues to account for the
majority (61 %) of total income for Okanogan
and Ferry Counties.
3.20.6 Community and Public Services
During the EIS scoping process, concerns
were raised as to the impact of the proposed
Crown Jewel Project on community and
public services in the area during
construction, operations and, ultimately,
during decommissioning/reclamation.
Assessing community and public services
involved contacts first in 1992 for the draft
EIS and then more recently in 1996 for the
final EIS with the following providers:
• Education;
• Law Enforcement;
• Fire Protection;
• Ambulance Services;
• Hospital and Medical Services;
• Social Services;
• Water Supply;
• Wastewater Treatment;
• Solid Waste; and,
• Electrical Utilities.
Education
Six public school districts provide K-12
education services within the study area.
The Okanogan, Omak, Oroville and Tonasket
districts serve the Okanogan County portion
of the study area; and Curlew and Republic
serve the Ferry County portion.
Current enrollment statistics for each of the
six districts are provided by Table 3.20.8,
1995 School Enrollments by Grade.
Total 1995 enrollment of these six districts is
6,474 students. Combined, the Omak,
Okanogan, Oroville and Tonasket districts in
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-169
TABLE 3.20.8, 1995 SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS BY GRADE
Grade
K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total 1995
Enrollment
Total 1992
Enrollment
Total 1990
Enrollment
Change from
1990-1992
Change from
1992-1995
Change from
1990-1995
Enrollment
Capacity1
Okanogan
83
105
85
81
86
80
109
80
75
99
71
90
58
1,102
989
982
+ 7
+ 113
+ 120
1,652
Omak
199
188
174
165
197
185
178
219
186
209
164
119
128
2,311
2,221
2,141
+ 80
+ 90
+ 170
2,500
Oroville
70
84
70
90
75
79
84
57
60
75
53
50
44
891
885
822
+ 63
+ 6
+ 69
931
Tonasket
81
106
94
89
100
92
126
108
97
102
96
66
53
1,210
1,105
1,107
-2
+ 105
+ 103
1,250
Curlew
29
18
22
24
23
33
25
26
34
43
26
26
30
359
348
331
+ 17
+ 11
+ 28
395/600
Republic
39
47
47
42
46
38
60
50
49
53
51
50
29
601
631
600
+ 31
-30
+ 1
800
Total by
Grade
501
548
492
491
527
507
582
540
501
581
461
401
342
6,474
6,179
5,983
+ 196
+ 295
+ 491
7,528/7,733
Note: 1. Enrollment capacity is as reported by the school district. Figures for Omak, Tonasket and
the upper figure for Curlew represent capacity data provided by the State Superintendent
of Public Instruction.
Source: ESD 101, 1996; North Central ESD, 1996. Reported enrollments are as of October 1995.
Okanogan County account for 85% of study
area enrollment.
Enrollment is relatively consistent across all
grade levels (in a range of 491 to 582
students per grade) up through grade nine.
Grades 10-12 currently have substantially
smaller class sizes at 461, 401 and 342
students per class, respectively.
Enrollment in the study area districts
increased by 196 students (or by 3.3%)
between the fall of 1990 and 1992.
Enrollment increased by another 295 students
from 1992-1995, for a five year gain of 491
students (8.2%) between 1990 and 1995.
The greatest enrollment gains between 1990
and 1995 have been experienced in the
Omak (+ 170 students), Okanogan (+ 120),
and Tonasket ( + 103) districts, though the
greatest percentage increases have been in
the Okanogan and Tonasket School Districts.
Currently, enrollment across all six districts is
at approximately 85% of reported school
facility capacity. The Okanogan district
appears to have the fewest constraints
(operating at 67% of capacity) while
enrollment in the Oroville and Tonasket
districts exceeds 95% of indicated capacity.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-170
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
Two of the six districts (Omak and Curlew)
report that they are facing current or
prospective facility deficiencies as a result of
enrollment growth and/or levy failures.
Okanogan and Republic have capacity to
handle significant added enrollment growth
currently; Oroville and Tonasket have some,
albeit limited, added capacity as a result of
recent facility improvements.
Oroville School District reconstructed several
schools in 1993, providing additional student
capacity of 100 students over grades K-12.
The reconfigured schools were intended to
accommodate growth for 50 students each in
the K-6 and 7-12 facilities. However, much
of the additional space is now filled, with
enrollment just 40 students below capacity
as of October 1995. In addition, the Oroville
School District is constructing a lunch facility
for the 7-12 building.
School construction in the Tonasket School
District involves Phase I of a new high school
which was completed and occupied as of
October 1 995, except for a music room
which will be completed in Phase II. Also in
Phase II, an older portion of the high school is
being removed to enable construction of a
new middle school. Occupancy of the new
elementary school has been completed.
Middle school occupancy (part of Phase II)
was completed in September 1996.
The combined capacity for the Tonasket
district is estimated at 1,250 students. With
enrollment of 1,210 students as of October
1 995, it appears that these improved
facilities will provide increased capacity for
an estimated 40 additional students.
The north campus of Wenatchee Valley
College (Wenatchee) is located in Omak, as is
the privately-run Heritage College. Enrollment
at Wenatchee Valley College is at 400 full-
time equivalent students as of 1995. Current
economic conditions are leading more
residents to take a course or stay in school
longer to improve job opportunities.
Wenatchee Valley College also offers adult
basic education in Tonasket and Oroville.
Maximum facility capacity is 425 students.
While Wenatchee Valley College enrollment is
under its maximum enrollment lid, existing
facilities are described as overused on
weekday evenings, and Saturdays. The
college is increasingly looking to serve a role
in job training by both retraining for ex-forest
products workers as well as training for new
industries to the area.
Heritage College (Omak Campus) operates a
four year private college with degree
programs in education, business, and
psychology, and have recently added
programs in public administration and
gerontology, together with a masters of
social work. Of the 120 students enrolled
(including part-time students), 80% are
women and many are single parents.
Heritage College has been in the community
for 13 years, with an emphasis on quality
education for minorities and isolated
populations.
Law Enforcement
Law enforcement services are provided for
the rural unincorporated portions of the study
area by the Okanogan and Ferry County
Sheriff Departments. Most of the
incorporated cities have their own police
departments. However, the City of
Okanogan contracts with the Okanogan
County Sheriff's Department for law
enforcement services.
The Okanogan County Sheriff has added two
deputies in the north district and one in the
south district. The north district office covers
the Chesaw/Molson and Okanogan Highland
areas. Patrols through the Chesaw/Molson
area occur approximately two to three times
per week.
The Okanogan County Sheriff's Department
estimates needing half-time clerical staff at
the north district office in Tonasket to enable
current deputy staff to adequately cover an
expected increase in population of this
district. The office is unstaffed and not open
to the public except when officers are on-site
to prepare reports.
Conconully has a part-time marshal! with
backup provided by the Okanogan Sheriff's
Crown Jewel Mine i Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-171
Department, and with no local financial
capacity currently to support additional
service.
Since 1992, the Omak police department has
remodeled existing facilities, updated its
vehicle fleet and increased staff by two patrol
officers and one support position, bringing
staff total to 15.
Oroville has an eight person police
department. As of December 31, 1995, the
city discontinued its jail, city court and
dispatch, opting to contract with Okanogan
County for these services.
The Republic police department consists of a
two person operation; the Ferry County
Sheriff provides backup for 24-hour
protection. Ferry County's ability to provide
adequate rural area law enforcement is
reported to be increasingly strained.
Riverside has no paid police but contracts
with the Okanogan County Sheriff's
Department for law enforcement service.
The Washington State Patrol also provides
informal protection to Riverside.
Tonasket has a five person police department
plus volunteer reserves. However, a need for
added reserve support is noted, and plans are
being considered for future construction of a
combined fire and police station.
The Washington State Patrol has one
sergeant and nine officers assigned to
Okanogan County. Officers are responsible
for patrolling all Washington state highways
in Okanogan County. In addition, they
provide assistance on secondary county
roads on an "as needed" basis.
There are a total of five Department of Fish
and Wildlife enforcement officers for
Okanogan County (one sergeant and four
officers). The four officers are responsible for
enforcing all game related regulations.
Fire Protection
Fire protection, for the more populated
portions of the study area, is provided by five
city and eight rural fire districts in Okanogan
County and by the Curlew district together
with the City of Republic/Republic district in
Ferry County. The cities generally have
cooperative relationships, including joint
staffing with the rural districts providing
funding for adjoining rural areas.
All of the cities and fire districts operate with
volunteer personnel. Some of the cities have
a paid fire chief. All cities and most rural fire
districts have personnel with emergency
medical treatment and first response
capability.
Substantial portions of the study area are
outside the boundaries of any fire district.
However, the Forest Service provides
coverage for their holdings. Most local
districts provide assistance outside their
immediate districts through formal or informal
mutual aid agreements.
The WADNR provides fire protection for
state, BLM and private wildlands throughout
the county. Interagency agreements between
the WADNR, the Forest Service and rural fire
departments provide for initial response,
mutual aid, and cooperative fire control.
Ambulance Services
Ambulance and related emergency transport
services are provided in a variety of ways in
Okanogan and Ferry Counties. Most of the
city fire departments assist with emergency
medical services. The Oroville Emergency
Medical Services District provides emergency
transport services within the northern portion
of Okanogan County. Ferry County
Emergency Medical Services District #1
provides service from the Canadian border
south to the Colville Indian Reservation.
Tonasket also provides ambulance service.
Life-Line serves the Omak-Okanogan area
with a fully-equipped, licensed ambulance
operated on a 24-hour call basis along with
helicopter and fixed wing plane transport
services.
Air flight transport is also provided by Life
Bird helicopter service to Deaconess Hospital
and fixed wing plane service to Sacred Heart
Hospital. Both hospitals are located in
Crown Jewel Mine f Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-172
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
Spokane.
Hospital and Medical Services
Hospitals located within the study area are
the Mid-Valley Hospital in Omak, North Valley
Hospital in Tonasket and Ferry County
Memorial Hospital in Republic. North Valley
also operates a medical clinic in Oroville. All
of the hospitals are partially tax supported,
each with its own property tax base.
Combined, the three study area hospitals
have a total of 76 acute care beds available.
Hospital occupancy as of early 1996 ranges
from approximately 25% to less than 45%.
A variety of other medical and related
services are located within the study area,
including local clinics, nursing/congregate
care facilities, and general care centers.
There are no medical facilities located in the
immediate Chesaw/Highlands area.
Social Services
As in most urban and rural communities, a
variety of social service programs are
available in both Okanogan and Ferry
Counties. Comprehensive listings of social
service providers and activities are difficult to
develop because providers include a mix of
state, federal, county and local agencies;
non-profit organizations ranging from
churches to non-profit organizations
contracting with government agencies; and
private providers such as counselors.
The services provided by individual
organizations are constantly changing in
response to community needs, funding
availability, and volunteer interest.
The major state agency with social service
responsibilities is the Washington Department
of Social and Health Services. Washington
Department of Social and Health Services has
offices in Omak and Republic.
Within Okanogan County, the Okanogan
County Community Action Council serves in
the role of an umbrella agency and provides
housing, emergency, and other human service
programs. In Ferry County, the Ferry County
Community Services Department provides a
similar umbrella agency role, as well as
serving some clients in eastern Okanogan
County.
Water Supply
Public water supply systems in the study area
are currently provided by a mix of local
municipalities and community systems. With
the exception of a few community systems,
most rural area residents rely on their own
domestic well systems.
Curlew and the more immediate Chesaw and
Molson areas each have community water
systems; the remainder of the rural area
depends primarily on private domestic wells.
The feasibility of securing water in a rural
area for domestic use is related both to
conditions of ground water availability and
regulatory requirements.
Domestic wells can draw up to 5,000 gallons
per day, including stock water and irrigation,
with no permit required, but are subject to
health department standards regarding water
quality. Okanogan County currently requires
a capacity for 400 gallons per day in order to
issue a building permit for a single residential
structure with its own domestic well. Type B
community water systems require a minimum
of 1,250 gallons per day per connection
which includes water for irrigation and
domestic use.
In the valleys along streams, it has not been
difficult to date to obtain adequate flows
from domestic wells. Contacts with realtors
suggest that drilling wells with adequate
water production can be considerably more
problematic in upland and plateau areas.
Typically, quantities of water actually
appropriated are well below what is allowed
with existing water rights. To date, there
have been no reported problems with
excessive water appropriation (WADOE,
1996).
While most domestic wells are exempt from
the permitting process, domestic water users
are not exempt from regulation in favor of
senior water rights if the need arises. It is
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-173
possible that future residential development in
the Highlands area could lead to over-
appropriation, resulting in subsequent
limitations on new development. Emergency
closures limiting new development have
occurred, for example, in the Methow Valley
area of Okanogan County.
Irrigation water is provided for many rural
landowners in the study area by the Oroville-
Tonasket, Whitestone, Riverside, Duck Lake,
and Omak-Okanogan Irrigation Districts.
Many of these districts have been developed
or improved through cooperative efforts with
the Bureau of Reclamation.
All of the incorporated communities in the
study area have adequate water capacity to
serve additional development, as does the
community system for the unincorporated
Curlew area. Conconully is the only
incorporated community without a public
water system, as individual property owners
use their own wells.
Omak has obtained an additional water
source capable of delivering 2,300 gpm. In
the spring of 1 995, the system began
pumping 1,500 gpm. This added source is
expected to accommodate residential growth
in Omak over the next 10 to 15 years. Omak
also has installed water meters and in June
1995 began billing consumers under a new
rate structure to encourage consumer
conservation efforts.
Wastewater Treatment
The only identified sanitary, storm, or related
wastewater treatment systems in Okanogan
and Ferry Counties are operated by local
municipalities. The incorporated community
of Riverside and unincorporated areas do not
provide sewer, as residents typically use on-
site septic systems.
As of 1995, wastewater treatment facilities
for Conconully, Okanogan, Tonasket and
Republic are operating in excess of 85% of
total influent (peak month) design capacity,
although Republic could potentially
accommodate a doubling of population with
utilization of alternate sewage treatment
ponds. Omak and Oroville have capacities
which would accommodate residential
development. Violations of regulatory
standards are noted for the Tonasket sewage
treatment facility by the WADOE in 1995.
Residences in rural areas typically are on
individual septic systems. Some of these are
unapproved septic systems and outhouses,
especially in the Okanogan Highlands. These
unapproved facilities have the potential to
cause water pollution and health problems
now or in the future.
Solid Waste
Okanogan County opened a new landfill one-
quarter mile south of the Okanogan City
limits on January 4, 1994. The landfill has a
47 year design life and does not accept
hazardous or moderate risk waste, but does
accept asbestos. The landfill diverts wood
wastes and yard wastes which is used or
sold for mulch. The county operates three
transfer stations located at: Ellisforde in north
county; Bridgeport Bar in south county; and
Twisp located on the west side of Okanogan
County.
Operated in conjunction with the landfill is a
recycling center which takes newspaper,
cardboard, office paper, aluminum, and motor
oil. The recycling center cannot accept glass,
tin, or magazines. Five hundred poplars have
been planted around the perimeter of the
landfill to improve visual aesthetics and serve
as a wind break.
The Ferry County landfill closed October 9,
1993. The transfer station which served the
northwest part of Ferry County
(approximately 4,000 residents) currently
transfers solid waste to a Stevens County
landfill. Duration of the current arrangement
with Stevens County is three years, after
which solid waste will be transported to a
regional landfill.
Electrical Utilities
Electric power in both the incorporated and
unincorporated areas of the study area is
provided by public utility districts operating in
Okanogan and Ferry Counties. Okanogan
County holds an 8% interest in the Wells
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-174
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
Dam hydroelectric facility on the Columbia
River.
Pertinent statistics regarding system
capacities and demand (by residential and all
customers) are provided by Table 3.20.9,
Okanogan and Ferry County Electric Utility
Data.
Electric load growth in Okanogan County has
been increasing at a rate of over 2% per year
with a combined 7% increase in load growth
experienced from 1991-1994. A major share
of total demand is from residential customers,
followed by commercial and agricultural
users, including industrial customers (such as
mills and fruit packing operations).
In Ferry County, total kilowatt hours (KWH)
of load decreased by 4% between 1991 and
1994. Major Ferry County industrial
customers include Vaagen Brothers Lumber
and Echo Bay Mining. The residential
customer base is increasing slowly, mostly in
the north county/Curlew area.
Extensive discussions have taken place
regarding electrical service to the proposed
Crown Jewel Project. It is proposed that a
new power transmission line would be
constructed on Okanogan PUD right-of-way
along an existing powerline from Oroville to
the south of Chesaw. A new 115 kw
(kilowatt) line would be constructed from
south of Chesaw up the Ethel Creek drainage
the mine site, providing power to the Crown
Jewel Project from the Okanogan County
PUD.
The Proponent for the Crown Jewel Project
has already spent funds for purchase of right-
of-way and engineering. Power consumption
is estimated to be in the range of ten
megawatts per day, representing
approximately a 10% increase in the load of
the Okanogan PUD. The Proponent would
pay incremental cost for power purchased, if
the Crown Jewel Project is approved.
3.20.7 Fiscal Conditions
Current data and trends regarding
expenditures and revenues for local county,
city and other public agency service providers
have been obtained through direct contacts
with the pertinent public and community
service providers.
Major revenue sources for most local
governments include:
• Taxes, including property, sales and use
taxes (local option for cities and
counties);
• Licenses, permits and fees (including user
fees as for water and sewer);
• Federal and state grants and
reimbursements (i.e. intergovernmental
revenue); and,
TABLE 3.20.9, OKANOGAN AND FERRY COUNTY ELECTRIC UTILITY DATA
Total Customer
Residential Customers
Total Kilowatt-Hour Sales (x $1,000)
Residential Kilowatt-Hour Sales
Total Average Revenue Per KWH Sold
Residential Revenue Per KWH Sold
Number of Employees
Okanogan County
PUD#1
18,569
14,488
566,664
261,277
$2.70
$2.73
55
Ferry County
PUD #1
2,752
2,246
113,348
29,269
$4.80
$5.66
15
Miles of Line Owned (34.5 KV and less)
Overhead
Underground
1,227
153
801
16
Source: Washington Public Utilities Source Book Data & Statistics/Resource Directory, 1 994,
and contacts by E.D. Hovee & Company with the Okanogan and Ferry County PUDs.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-175
• Other sources (including beginning cash
balance, charge for services, fines and
forfeits, and miscellaneous).
Consolidated property tax rates in Okanogan
County range from a low of $9.37 to a high
of $1 5.91 per $1,000 of tax assessed value.
Total 1996 levy rate for the Chesaw area is
$13.92 per $1,000 of tax assessed
valuation. Tax rates for Ferry County range
from a low of $8.64 to a high of $12.39 per
$1,000 tax assessed valuation.
Most properties are assessed every four years
at 100% of fair market value, based on
comparable sales. Due to increasing property
values and the time lag between assessment
cycles, properties are often assessed at
below true market value.
Revenues and expenditures for Okanogan and
Ferry Counties and for the incorporated cities
within the primary study area are provided on
Table 3.20.10, 1994 County Government
Revenues and Expenditures, Figure 3.20.6,
County Genera/ Fund Revenues by Source,
and Figure 3.20. 7, County General Fund
Expenditures by Type.
For 1994, Okanogan County had
approximately $9.7 million in general fund
revenues and Ferry County had $2.9 million.
When revenues from other funds are added,
total 1994 revenues increase to over $43.9
million for Okanogan County and $10.7
million for Ferry County.
Other funds include special revenue, debt
service, capital projects, enterprise fund,
internal service fund, and trust and agency
fund. In Okanogan County, other funds
include a special revenue (50% of other
funds), an enterprise fund (9%), and an
internal service fund (41 %). In Ferry County,
other funds consist of special revenue (65%),
debt service (1 %), capital project fund (2%),
enterprise fund (7%), and internal service
fund (25%).
In Okanogan County, 39% of general fund
revenues are from tax sources, another 31 %
constitutes intergovernmental revenues.
Together, tax and intergovernmental sources
account for 15% of Okanogan County total
revenues (all funds).
Approximately 51 % of Ferry County general
fund revenues are from tax sources; 23% of
income represents intergovernmental
revenues. Together, tax and
intergovernmental sources account for 20%
of Ferry County total revenues (all funds).
On the expenditure side, general
governmental services account for 43% of
Okanogan County and 41 % of Ferry County
general fund expenditures. Expenditures for
security of persons and property account for
35% of the Okanogan County and 32% of
the Ferry County general fund budget. Ferry
County expends a greater proportion of its
general fund budget for other expenditures
(27%) than does Okanogan County (22%).
Other expenses include funding for planning
and capital outlay.
Expenses for Okanogan County have
increased rapidly over the last several years,
as indicated by a 71 % increase in the general
fund and 62% increase in total expenditures
from 1989-1994. Some of the greatest
growth (in percentage terms) has been in the
category of physical environment which
consists of natural resources, engineering,
and public utilities (e.g. water, sewer, solid
waste).
Ferry County general fund expenditures have
increased by 65% from 1989-1994, with
total expenditures increasing by 57%.
Expenditures for security of persons and
property have increased by 79% during this
time period.
A comparison of expenditures for the cities
and towns within the study area is provided
in the following:
• Figure 3.20.8, 1994 Total Expenditures
for Study Area Cities; and,
• Figure 3.20.9, 1994 Expenditures per
Capita for Study Area Cities.
Figure 3.20.8, 1994 Total Expenditures for
Study Area Cities, illustrates total
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-176
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
TABLE 3.20.10, 1994 COUNTY GOVERNMENT REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES
Revenue/Expenditure Item
Ferry
County
Okanogan
County
Comments
General Fund Revenues
Taxes
Intergovernmental Revenue
Other Revenue
General Fund Subtotal
Other Fund Subtotal
Total Revenue (all funds)
$1,476,591
$675,814
$770,873
$2,923,278
$7,796,419
$10,719,697
$3,708,783
$3,035,049
$2,950,017
$9,693,849
$34,084,543
$43,667,392
Ferry County taxes have increased by 40% since
1989; Okanogan County by 36%.
Okanogan County intergovernmental revenues
have increased by 130% since 1989; Ferry
County by 32%.
Since 1989, Okanogan County other general
fund revenues have increased by 78% with
beginning cash balance consisting of 39% in
1994; Ferry County funding has only increased
by 15% with beginning cash balance consisting
of 43% in 1994.
Okanogan County general fund revenues have
increased by 70% since 1989; Ferry by 31%.
Okanogan County other fund revenues have
increased by 64% since 1989; Ferry by 42%.
Okanogan County total revenues have increased
by 66% since 1989; Ferry County by 39%.
General Fund Expenses
General Government Services
Security of Persons & Property
Other Expenditures
General Fund Subtotal
Other Fund Subtotal
Total Expenditures (all funds)
$1,222,010
$926,136
$785,132
$2,933,278
$7,785,426
$10,718,704
$4,189,829
$3,387,034
$2,196,376
$9,773,239
$34,187,802
$43,961,041
Ferry County general governmental services have
increased 43% since 1989; Okanogan by 42%.
Okanogan County Security of persons and
property have increased by 80% since 1989;
Ferry County by 79%.
Since 1989, Okanogan County other
expenditures have increased by 144% with
ending cash balance consisting of 57% in 1994;
Ferry County expenditures have increased by
94% with ending cash balance consisting of
46% in 1994.
Okanogan County general fund expenditures
have increased by 71% since 1989; Ferry
County by 65%.
Okanogan County other fund expenditures have
increased by 60% since 1989; Ferry County by
54%.
Okanogan County total expenditures have
increased by 62% since 1989; Ferry County by
57%.
Source: Washington State Auditor's Office. Revenue and expenditure data are for calendar year 1994.
expenditures, while Figure 3.20.9, 1994
Expenditures per Capita for Study Area
Cities, provides calculations of expenditures
on a per capita basis.
While the City of Omak has the highest total
budget (including general fund and other
sources), Tonasket appears to spend the
most on a per capita basis. Other cities with
relatively high per capita budgets (above
$1,500 per person) are Okanogan, Omak,
Oroville and Republic. Municipalities with
relatively low budgeted resources (on a per
capita basis) are Conconully and Riverside.
3.20.8 Social Values
The Existing Socioeconomic Condition
Baseline Report Crown Jewei Project (E.D.
Hovee, 1994b) included an assessment of
quality of life factors in the study area. This
analysis has occurred in two study phases:
• Phase I: Review of existing research for
Okanogan/Ferry Counties and the study
area (as covered in this preliminary
report) plus contacts with
community/public service providers.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-177
• Phase II: Primary research based on a
more in-depth analysis of current values
using interviews with a broad cross-
section of community interests within the
study area.
Phase I - Review of Existing Research
Current social values of the Okanogan and
Ferry Counties and of the study area have
been examined in the context of longer term
historical social values of the region. Several
factors are particularly important to note in
tracing these linkages:
• The history of Caucasian settlements in
Okanogan County dates to the earliest
days of British and then American
occupation of the Pacific Northwest.
• The Colville Indian Reservation was
created in 1872 and initially extended
from east of the Okanogan River, north
and west from the Columbia River to the
Canadian border. Subsequently, the
reservation was reduced in 1891 to its
present configuration, in part due to the
discovery of gold and other mineral
deposits in the northern portions of Ferry
and Okanogan Counties.
• From a reported 1861 date of initial gold
discovery, mining has played an
important role in the historical and
continuing development of both
Okanogan and Ferry Counties; many of
the highlands communities such as
Chesaw and Molson were started as
mining towns. While precious metal
mining in Okanogan County declined
sharply in about the 1920s, commercially
viable precious metal mining activities
have continued in Ferry County to the
present.
• For longer than most areas of the Pacific
Northwest, Okanogan and Ferry Counties
have been culturally and ethnically
heterogeneous beginning with the original
Native American Indian tribes which
experienced early contact with European
fur traders and military personnel.
• Chinese laborers were brought into the
area to work on railroad, mining, and
irrigation dam projects. More recently, a
Hispanic population has migrated to the
area for employment in agricultural and
other occupations.
• Residents of Okanogan and Ferry
Counties have become accustomed to the
seasonal and cyclical ups and downs of a
natural resource based economy.
Changes in Economic Development
As traditional natural resource based sources
of employment have declined in recent years,
more attention has been placed on economic
development and diversification activities in
both Okanogan and Ferry Counties.
A clear indication of this change in emphasis
is provided by the 1985 formation of the
Okanogan County Council for Economic
Development (OCCED). Ferry County has
participated over a longer time period in the
Tri-County Economic Development District
(TRICO), a three county economic
development organization recognized by the
U.S. Economic Development Administration.
In 1991, a preliminary Economic
Diversification Strategy for Okanogan County
was completed as a basis for diversification
for timber dependent regions in Washington.
This strategy was revised as a result of local
jurisdiction input in February 1992. The
action plan of the strategy identified "Chesaw
Mine" Comprehensive Plan and Infrastructure
funding as a potential priority project.
Subsequently, OCCED prepared an Overall
Economic Development Plan for Okanogan
County: 1992 Update. This plan identified
the Crown Jewel Project as a top priority
economic development project (tied with
Oroville Airport Light Industrial Park for top
rating).
The Washington State Department of
Community Development and the TRICO
Economic Development Board funded the
preparation of an Economic Profile, Changes
in the Forest Products Industry and
Community Response in 1991 for Ferry,
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-178
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
Stevens, and Pend Oreille Counties. This
document identifies a goal to target
recruitment of diversified industries;
additional mining potentials are noted though
not specifically identified as a priority for
Ferry County.
It is noted that mining remains a part of the
socioeconomic fabric of the study area,
though its relationship to the community
continues to change. The Hecla mine in
Republic, which ceased operations in 1995,
had been an active mining site since the turn
of the century, with continuous operations
from 1937 to the recent closure. Echo Bay
Minerals opened the Kettle River Project in
1989 and expanded operations with the
Lamefoot and Overlook deposits in 1994. As
of 1995, the WADNR has identified 16
properties in Ferry County where precious
metals mining or mineral exploration is
underway, and another 17 properties in
Okanogan County.
The major active mining operations have been
those of Hecla and Echo Bay in Ferry County,
although the Hecla operation ceased in 1995.
Another Ferry County mine is operated by
Seattle Mine Partnership/Sunshine Valley
Minerals.
There is no precious metals mine operating in
Okanogan County, although exploration or
reconnaissance is noted for a number of
properties. There are six active industrial
operations mining limestone, peat moss,
gypsite and dolomite, of which five are in the
Okanogan County portion of the study area.
Social Values Research
A 1995 survey of attitudes of people living in
100 counties of the interior Columbia River
basin (comprising portions of Washington,
Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah and
Nevada) reported in Public Views of Public
Lands (Rudzitis et al., 1995), provides
additional updated information regarding
broad social values of the basin area. While
not specific to the two-county region or study
area, quantitative findings of this basin-wide
research complement many of the results of
the more qualitative research conducted as
part of Phase II in the Crown Jewel Project
study area. The survey produced the
following:
• Employment opportunities were cited
most frequently (by 34% of respondents)
as the reason for moving to or living in
the Columbia River basin region; quality
of life related factors are cited by the
other 66% covering attributes of the
social and physical environment including
access to family and friends, pace of
lifestyle, access to outdoor recreation,
the landscape scenery, general
environment, climate, cost of living, and
low crime rates.
• People in the Columbia River basin feel
protection of public lands is very
important but also support some degree
of commodity production. Public land
uses cited as "important" by a majority of
responses are, in order: water and
watershed protection; fish and wildlife
habitat; recreation; preservation of
wilderness values; protection of
ecosystems; timber harvesting; grazing;
and ranching. Less than a majority
assign a value of importance to:
protection of endangered species and
mineral exploration/extraction. In effect,
respondents' answers appear to support
what the report terms an "inclusive
approach to public land management."
• Migration of people into this 100 county
interior Columbia Basin area is expected
to continue unabated, with amenity
based considerations attracting in-
migrants together with strong preferences
for habitat protection strategies involving
public land management.
Finally, a report, Economic Well Beino and
Environmental Protection in the Pacific
Northwest (Pacific Northwest Economists,
1995) provides the results of research
involving 30 Pacific Northwest economists.
This economic analysis is generally consistent
with results of the above noted public opinion
survey. The report concludes that:
"Economic growth in the Pacific Northwest is
two to three times the national rate, primarily
due to quality of life factors, and
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-179
environmental quality is particularly
important."
Specifically noted is the economic disruption
caused by transition away from natural
resource industries in some rural
communities, but a negative relationship
between extractive industries and economic
performance is also identified. The report
suggests that future jobs and incomes in the
region would depend more on environmental
protection than degradation.
Phase II - Primary Research
Phase II of the social values analysis for
involved primary research with 27 personal
interviews conducted with a broad cross-
section of interests who could be affected by
the proposed Crown Jewel Project.
Approximately one-half of the interviews
were with persons who lived within roughly a
ten mile radius of the Project.
The study area was generally described to
those interviewed as the Okanogan Valley
from Malott to the Canadian border,
northeastern Okanogan County together with
northwest Ferry County. Most of this region
(east of the Okanogan River) had been set
aside in 1872 as reservation lands for the
Colville Confederated Tribes (a combination
of 12 dissimilar tribal bands) until 1891 when
gold was discovered and the boundary was
truncated to its current borders.
Because of its remoteness, difficult terrain,
harsh weather and dry climate, this area was
one of the last regions of the continental U.S.
to be settled by white men. Due to the rich
deposits of gold, silver and other minerals,
the area grew quickly when opened up to
white settlement. Towns sprung up
overnight and railroads were built to move
ore, supplies, and people. The construction
of railroads created a demand for timber,
creating a strong timber industry which
survives to this day, although the forest
products industry has declined in recent
years.
A swelled population of miners, loggers, and
settlers also created a need for agriculture
and produce. The profuse orchards and
agricultural economy are a modern legacy of
that demand, although today agriculture
products are shipped to wider markets
nationally and internationally.
Mining began to vanish almost as quickly as
it grew once the primary deposits were
exhausted. Much of the mineral extraction
was dwindling by 1920, leaving a number of
homesteaders/ranchers, loggers, and
eventually ghost towns. The communities of
Chesaw, Molson, Havillah, Curlew, while still
sparsely populated, are vestiges of once large
and thriving mining communities.
The people who stayed in the region after the
mines were closed fall into several categories:
Indians. Many of the original families have
since moved out of the area onto the
reservation or elsewhere. There still are
some lands owned by enrolled members and
their relatives; but, more importantly, these
people have retained hunting, fishing,
gathering, and heritage rights in this region.
Farmers/Ranchers. Many of the original
homesteading families who stayed in the area
developed ranches to raise cattle and other
limited agricultural products. Many of these
"old families" still practice their livelihood and
retain some of their original mining claims and
patents.
Orchardists/Farmers. Primarily located in the
irrigated "banana belt" of the Okanogan
Valley, these families became more involved
in the development of valley communities and
commodity exchange. The sons and
daughters of these early agriculturists became
the entrepreneurs and the merchants of the
valley where lumber processing, fruit
warehousing, and the service industry grew
and flourished. This is where the vast
majority of population growth has occurred in
Okanogan County.
These original homesteaders, settlers, and
their descendants brought and have
maintained many of the strong values that
remain a major influence in the culture today.
The personal interviews conducted during
Phase II revealed the following values:
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-180
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
• Self reliance, independence, self
confidence, respect of neighbors, and
recognition of interdependence.
• Resistance to authority, planning,
regulation.
• Strong desire to maintain status quo --
resistant to change.
• Appreciation of natural beauty and
wildness.
• An orientation that natural resources are
given to use and to be utilized.
• Hard work and honesty.
• Quality of lifestyle which is a higher
priority than material wealth.
• Distrust for government and big business.
• Children and family which are highly
prioritized.
It would appear that those who have
remained in this region for a considerable
period of time embrace these values if they
did not already arrive with them.
However, major change is taking place in this
region due to a number of circumstances. A
heavy influx of population has not only put
additional stress on housing and land use, but
has introduced a wider variety of social
values. To simply list the categories of
recent immigrants there are:
• Educated wilderness migrants;
• Hispanic/migrant workers;
• Retired middle class migrants; and,
• Urban refugees.
This region seems to be attractive to these
new "migrants" because of a number of
factors including the area's natural beauty,
low land costs, sparse population, minimal
land use controls, and low cost of living. The
diverse values of these "new people"
sometimes conflict with the more historic and
traditional values of the area.
3.20.9 Land Ownership and Values
Approximately 77% of the land in Okanogan
County (as of 1989) and 82% of Ferry
County is owned by the federal government
or is part of the Colville Indian Reservation.
Reservation lands are located in the south
half of both counties, east of the Okanogan
River, and managed by the Colville
Confederated Tribes and U.S. Bureau of
Indian Affairs.
The majority of non-reservation lands are
managed primarily by the Forest Service. The
BLM also manages substantial holdings,
particularly at the edges of the Okanogan
Valley. The State of Washington also owns a
substantial amount of land in the study area,
primarily managed by the WADNR or the
WADFW.
Total assessed valuation of property in
Okanogan County approximates $1.3 billion
as of 1995. Assessed valuation of the
County has increased by almost 141 % since
1980, equating to an average annual increase
in property valuation of 6%.
Total assessed valuation of Ferry County
approximates $261 million as of 1995.
Assessed valuation has increased by 223%
since 1980, for an average increase of 8%
annually in property valuation. Much of this
increase has been attributable to mining
activity in Ferry County, particularly the
opening of the Echo Bay operation.
However, since 1992, total assessed
property value of Ferry County has declined
by 5%, reflecting closure of the Hecla mine.
Residential property values are continuing to
increase throughout the study area,
particularly in the Oroville area. As of early
1996, values of building lots ranged from
about $6,000 in Chesaw to $25,000 in
Oroville. Rural acreage with or without
water, power and road access may range
from less than $1,400 per acre (20+ acres in
Chesaw/Highlands area) up to $25,000 per
acre (Oroville).
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 3-181
Rural acreage appears to be least expensive
(on a per acre basis) in the highland areas of
northeast Okanogan County (encompassing
the Chesaw, Molson, Toroda Creek,
Wauconda, Havillah, and other nearby areas).
However, assuring availability of water can
be very uncertain unless a well is already on
site or an existing water right (to a stream) is
already in place.
By comparison, building a home or placing a
mobile home/modular home on a smaller (one
to five acre lot) has been more common in
the Okanogan Valley and the Republic area.
High demand has reportedly depleted much of
the supply of buildable small acreage parcels
in the Okanogan Valley; however, some local
jurisdictions are planning for future
development through annexation of currently
undeveloped property.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-182
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
R. 30 E. R. 31 E.
WEATHER
STATION
LOCATION
SOURCE BATTLE MOUNTAIN GOLD COMPANY
NOTE
LEGEND
UPON PROJECT DEVELOPMENT THE WEATHER
STATION WOULD BE MOVED FROM PRE-MINING
LOCATION TO AREA NEAR OFFICE COMPLEX
MINE PIT AREA BOUNDARY
WEATHER STATION LOCATION
CONTOUR INTERVAL SOFT
'LEMAME CJF31-1 DWG
FIGURE 3.1.1,
LOCATION OF ON-SITE WEATHER STATION
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-183
WINTER 1992
N
E W
SPRING 1992
N
PEAK DIRECTION = ENE
PEAK FREQUENCY - 18.6%
PEAK DIRECTION = W
PEAK FREQUENCY - 18.2%
SUMMER 1992
N
E W
PEAK DIRECTION = W
PEAK FREQUENCY = 23.3%
1) WIND ROSE DISPLAYS THE DIRECTION FROM WHICH THE WIND IS COMING
?) KNOTS [k] x 1151= MILES PER HOUR (mphl
AUTUMN 1992
N
PEAK DIRECTION = W
PEAK FREQUENCY = 29,8%
FIGURE 3.1.2, WIND ROSES FROM ON-SITE
WEATHER STATION
FILENAME CJF31-20WG
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-184
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
22
19
30
LEGEND
EOCENE VOLCANICS
SKARN ilNCUOES GARNET. MAGNETITE
AND UNDIFFEHENTIATE SKARNI
ANDESITE VOLCANICS (INCLUDES
ALTERED AND UNALTERED ANDESITE
INTRUSIVE DIKES/SILLS
CLASTIC/VOLCANICIASTIC
GRANODIORITE
MARBLE/LIMESTONE
CLASTICS ("CRYSTAL 8UTTE SEQUENCE"!
FOOTWALL MYLONITE (APPROXIMATE)
FAULT/FAULT ZONE (APPROXIMATE)
FAULT/FAULT ZONE
(REASONABLY INFERRED!
FAULT/FAULT ZONE
(TENTATIVELY LOCATED)
MINE PIT AREA
CONTACT SYMBOLS
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
• — GRADATIONAL
INFERRED
HIGHLY TENTATIVE
\
FIGURE 3.3.1, GEOLOGIC MAP
OF THE PROPOSED CROWN JEWEL PROJECT SITE
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-185
LEGEND
EOCENE VOLCANICS
['•" "I SKARN (INCUDES GARNET, MAGNETITE
AND UNDIFFERENTIATE SKARN!
| | ANDESITE VOLCANICS (INCLUDES
ALTERED AND UNALTERED ANDESITE
DIOHITE
INTRUSIVE DIKES/SILLS
| | CLASTIC/VOLCANICLASTIC
GRANODIORiTE
MARBLE/LIMESTONE
FOOTWALL MYLONITE (APPROXIMATE!
D91-119|
463 ±
FAULT/FAULT ZONE (APPROXIMATE!
FAULT/FAULT ZONE
(REASONABLY INFERRED!
FAULT/FAULT ZONE
(TENTATIVELY LOCATED]
MINE PIT AREA
DRILL HOLES SELECTED FOR
GEOCHEMICAL TESTING BY
BATTLE MOUNTAIN GOLD COMPANY
DRILL HOLES SELECTED FOR CONFIRMATION
GEOCHEMICAL TESTING BY EIS TEAM
CONTACT SYMBOLS
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
GRADATIONAL
INFERRED
HIGHLY TENTATIVE
\
FIGURE 3.3.2, LOCATION OF DRILL HOLES
USED FOR GEOCHEMICAL TESTING
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-186
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
E 2 064 000
R 30 E
6 2.086 QOO
T
40
N
LEGEND
\ ] UNALTERED ANOESITE
[ | ALTERED ANDESITE
[ | GARNET SKARN
[ | MAGNETITE SKARN
| | UNDIFFERENTIATE SKARN
| | UNALTERED CLASTICS
DRILL HOLES SELECTED POR CONFIRMATION
ABA TESTING THAT INTERSECTED ESTIMATED
BASE OF PIT AND WERE SAMPLED
MARBLE
CD
INTRUSIVE (INCLUDES DIORITE. GRANODIORITE
INTRUSIVE DIKES AND SILLS)
FIGURE 3.3.3, WASTE ROCK TYPES EXPOSED IN
FINAL PIT WALLS (ALTERNATIVE B & G)
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-187
* *
*# *
* •
V ACM I OD! UNKNOWN
MAGN"Ji:i ;'l
VIA UM Tim ')!
VAGNiT,i')t U)
FIGURE 3.4.1, EARTHQUAKE EPICENTERS
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-188
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
o
CO
LLJ
I-
co
Q
UJ
111
Q.
<
LJU
Z
O
N
CO
OC
O
2
CO
UJ
CO
CM"
•
^t
CO
UJ
QC
g
LL
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-189
iO E R
/>T2-'?>7i'Tl ''/Vc „.
finrlww $*,
tsuar \u^C
S-&&K//T. {» -1 \ 4
/T/0'X..V-'1-'- ''K''
V_x
0 DD
\ ""*"
B
-V ':^>M/lm/Ki
-'X'-^^'K ,V /
V-^,-,'—J',
\
. '^
*&
j " ')
VuA/
v^
LEGEND
FIGURE 3.5.1
SOIL MAP UNITS - MINE AREA
Crown Jewel Mine 4 F//?a/ Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-190
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
ki
^>
Uj
\ co I
-. j m i
UJ
K
CO
cc
o
cc
UJ
CO
UJ
cc
UJ
cc
cc
co
CO
Q.
<
o
CO
of
IT)
CO
UJ
cc
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-191
// "
5 X
|| O U
UJ 2 Z
~> E £
ZOO
S t b O
O Z Z LU
CC O O 5
O 5 2 D
O
I—
O
DC
O
*-
UJ
UJ
CC
o
CJ
UJ
DC
CD
CO
LU
OC
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-192
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
LL
O
o
2
<
LLJ
CC ,
Si
C5 -
o;
Q:
05!^ »w
Uj
LU
O LU
2CC
0<
5Z
DC
O LU
LU I-
COLU
LU DC
>O
CM
DC ^
ip IS
C ^ LL. 1- __
J S O w ^
Crown Jewel Mine 4 /VVia/ Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-193
CO
z
O
H
CO
O
DC
O
H
Z
O
DC
111
UJ
O
<
LL
DC
CO
CO
(D
C*>
UJ
DC
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-194
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
QC
O
H
LU
UJ
oc
K
co
UJ
H
CO
CD
CO
UJ
fiC
-X33UO SU3AW
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
LEGEND
1
I
51
i
§
sr
f
\
(o
(o
SJ
s
O
1
I
FIGURE 3.7.1, SPRING AND SEEP LOCATIONS
CB
Co
•«»
(o
-------
Page 3-196
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
LEGEND
SURFICIAL DEPOSITS (Qualarnaryl
undifferentlated
Alluvium and glacial drill
VOLCANIC ROCKS Hate Eocene] - Klondike Mountain Formation
consisting of lithoidal lava flows and pyroclastic breccias
VOLCANIC ROCKS (middle Eocenel - Dacitic. andesitic. and minor
trachytic lava flows and hypabyssal intrusive rocks
EPICLASTIC AND VOLCANICLASTIC ROCKS learly Eocenel - Sandstone.
graywracke. tuff, conglomerate, and shale Includes O'Brien
Creek Formation
PARAGNEISS. ORTHOGNEISS. AND ASSOCIATED GRANITIC ROCKS OF
THE OKANOGAN GNEISS DOME - A. paragnelss. B. orthognelss
GRANITIC ROCKS (Trlssslc to lower Tertiary! - Includes granodionte.
quartz monzonite quartz dionte. dtorite. and monzonite
EUGEOSYNCLINAL DEPOSITS IPerman to Cretaceousl - Greenstone
greenschist, slate, pnyihte, schist, metawacke. quartzite Imets-
chen!, limestone and marble
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
\
FIGURE 3.8.1, REGIONAL GEOLOGIC MAP
OF NORTHEASTERN OKANOGAN COUNTY
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-197
Z. EGEND
^V* ' MC!N,:-jm\;i Wl . i'j: AC -A! i,'!
^^ *"V"J'"*.«.. .',:«.*, r,.; ^ ^ (, , ^ ^
\
FIGURE 3.8.2, HYDROGEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION MAP
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-198
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
FIGURE 3.8.3, POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE MAP, GENERAL
PROJECT AREA, ANNUAL LOW LEVEL (FEBRUARY 1993)
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-199
%
v
"*>
-J
c
LEGEND
• '•:.,'•« A(,l A'A '(- n • ' A ' ON
A GHOuNU WA'IH MON '''/"'N'j W
• •• ;. Tfy» •., V>N! A-}"
','.(. AV
, [),,[ Vi "A, ", '. t AM
FIGURE 3.8.4, POTENTIOMETRIC SURFACE MAP, GENERAL
PROJECT AREA, ANNUAL HIGH LEVEL (MAY 1993)
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-200
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
L EGEND
V'-N 'OK'NU W L
:< ', 'f>
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-201
U33M NO11VA313
o
h-
O
UJ
CO
CO
CO
O
cc
o
o
o
O
_l
UJ
o
o
DC
o
X
(D
00
CO
UJ
oc
(133JI NOIJ.VA313
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-202
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
tr
O
z
=> CD
O
CO
x g <
t NJ >
SOT
Q UJ
1
<£
kj
^i
5 o o
5
5
O
z
DO
i
CD
O
UJ
CO
i
CO
CO
O
oc
O
O
UJ
O
O
oc
O
N.
00
CO
UJ
QC
C3
u.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-203
8 a
2! UJ
3
-------
Page 3-204
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
R 30 E R 31 E
[CARIBOU ADIT
*" i i i»- NI • .•
LOWER MAGNETIC ADIT |
| AZTEC ADIT \
| UPPER MAGNETIC ADIT (GW-31 |
JBUCKHORN ADIT IGW-41
AXE ADIT (GW-51
| ROOSEVELT ADIT IGW-211
LEGEND
ADIT
PERENNIAL STREAM
INTERMIT TENT STREAM
\ \ MARIAS CREEK TAILINGS
N . IMPOUNDMENT AREA
FIGURE 3.8.9, LOCATION OF
REGIONAL GROUND WATER MONITORING SITES
T
40
N
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
4950
I
Sr
I
to
sr
i
4650
- 100
090
0.80
0.70 _
060
0.40
0,30
020
0.00
MAY-92
SEP-95
LEGEND
• PIEZOMETER 90-272
® STATION SW-9
(O
(O
SJ
O
1
I
FIGURE 3.8.10, COMPARISON OF GROUND WATER LEVELS AND
SURFACE WATER FLOWS IN THE PROPOSED MINE AREA
FILENAME CJF3S-10DWG
Co
KJ
O
01
-------
I
I
I
ft)
I
S1
Co
sr
1,35
MAY-92 SEP-92 JAN-93 ' MAY-93 \ SEP-93 JAN-94 MAY-94 \ SEP-94 JAN-95 MAY-95 SEP-95
JUL-92 NOV-92 MAR-93 JUL-93 NOV-93 MAR-94 JUL-94 NOV-94 MAR-95 JUL-95 NOV-95
LEGEND
m WELL MW-7
© STATION SW-7
FIGURE 3.8.11, COMPARISON OF GROUND WATER LEVELS AND
SURFACE WATER FLOWS NEAR NICHOLSON CREEK HEADWATERS
Ki
O
OJ
1
•X)
Co
I
i
I
FILENAME CJF33-1WWO
I
(O
<0
SI
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-207
LEGEND
o
FIGURE 3.8.12, TRILINEAR DIAGRAM
FOR CROWN JEWEL SITE WATERS
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-208
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
/. EGEND
•j .'-Ml ,.,",.UA '16! 4 ACM' "•
9 A*I A;/. >;,~, '4306 A":-!*::
3 ;>->M
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-209
1
<£>
kj
j
CO
z
o
h-
<
O
O
CO
o
z
LU
Q
LU
H
<
O
O
CO
CO
I-
O
LU
"0
O
tr
a.
co
LU
DC
D
O
Crown Jewel Mine f /v/ia/ Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-210
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
CO
UJ
o
<
z
<
tc
z
o
<5
UJ
QC
CM
CO
111
QC
g
LL
Crown Jewel Mine 4 f/na/ Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-211
f
/
BRITISH COLUMBIA . __ /_ ^>>_ .
'WASHINGTON * \^
4
/
I-J
r--4-\
u
16 })
fa-
r/.-f Gold^ /
\,y/
^S^
BREACH M-2|
— -^
30
-- I
Creaj,
STREAM
STREAM REACH SURVEY LOCATIONS
• ELECTROFISHING LOCATIONS
•jf CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
5
8
T
40
N
17
^ „
' -. Creek
29
I
M
0 2500' 5000'
FIGURE 3.12.2, MYERS CREEK
STREAM SURVEY LOCATIONS
FILENAME CJf3K!OWa
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-212
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
Uj
w
z
o
<$ O
Q o
O
OC
s 2> O
^ O o
85S
m w3
m
ui
OC
zo
5
o
5
Q
ZOC
CO
UJ
QC
Crown Jewel Mine • F/na/ Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-213
Crown Jewel Mine • /7/na/ Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-214
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
KETTLE VALLEY
LEGEND
IFIM
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT SITE
MYERS CREEK IFIM STUDY SITE
FIGURE 3.12.5,
IFIM STUDY SITES
FILENAME CJf 311-5 DWO
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-215
13 Q
QUJ
cn !~
-0
•guj
O<:
CD
Zc/i
< UJ
a: (3
.c/>
la
rx 5
LU O
Uj
UJ
_j
CD
<
UJ
CO
D
D
UJ
UJu_
CO
-J Z>
< CO
•Z. tL
t>
2<
LL UJ
— QC
O
T-
co
UJ
QC
D
g
LL
Crown Jewel Mine • /v/ia/ Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Co
N)
I
I
CO
3-
I
MYERS CREEK WINTER REARING VVUA
RAINBOW AND BROOK TROUT
LEGEND
I
"XI
a
Co
I
§
g
5
I
-H
FIGURE 3.12.7, MYERS CREEK WINTER TROUT
HABITAT - WEIGHTED USEABLE AREA VERSUS FLOW
,
(o
VI
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-217
}\
Uj
<
UJ
QC
<
O
UJ
->
O
QC
a
CO
co
in
DC
J o
Crown Jewel Mine • F/na/ Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-218
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
FILENAME CJF313-2 DWG
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-219
- V ~~
V
.. x*
f
\ y1
v>/
/
I
I
I
^
\
LEGEND
CORE AREA BOUNDARY
ANALYSIS AREA BOUNDARY
OKANOGAN NATIONAL
FOREST BOUNDARY
NATIONAL BORDER
COUNTY LINE
MINE PIT AREA
COVER TYPE ACRES
| | GRASSLAND / SHRUB 15.612
| | OPEN CONIFEROUS / DECIDUOUS 24,023
| | CONIFEROUS 27.441
| | AGRICULTURE 2.943
[ | DISTURBED / RESIDENTIAL 98
[ ] RIPARIAN / WETLAND / OPEN WATER 635
FIGURE 3.13.2, LAND TYPE MAP
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-220
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-221
DDDDDDnnnn
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
re
Is)
I
I
I
I
o
"t
CO
sr
I
I x—
\
EGEND
V Nr P " APEA
V
CANADIAN DR.VATE .AND
PR VA'E LAND ''N v, S A ',
FIGURE 3.13.4, NATIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT AREAS
IN THE CORE AND ANALYSIS AREAS
i
t>
\
i
§
i
I
Jo
<0
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-223
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-224
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
CO
O
UJ
~
OCX
1°
^H
.Ul
LU
tr
D
O
LL
O
Q~Z
*5
z
ILJ
UJ
o
z
2
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-225
Crown Jewel Mine f Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-226
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
LEGEND
OKANOGAN NATIONAL
FOREST BOUNDARY
— NATIONAL BORDER
COUNTY LINE
USFS MANAGEMENT AREA
BOUNDARY
MINE PIT AREA
USFS MANAGEMENT AREAS
CQJtEfi_LYEE ACRES
GRASS / FORB 1052
SEEDLING / SAPLING 1107
POLE 2027
YOUNG MATURE 7094
MATURE 5334
OLD GROWTH 2037
NON - FOREST 3897
\
FIGURE 3.13.6, SUCCESSIONAL STAGE DIVERSITY
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-227
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-228
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
Q.
<
UJ
O
O
(ft
UJ
O
O
D
U)
CO
CO
LU
tr
O
LL
Crown Jewe/ Mine 4 F/na/ Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
FILENAME
\
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
C
S
D
H
M
H
S
P
T
F
A
A
H
F
V
A
C
U
R
HAIN SAW (1)
NOWMOBILE (INCLUDING WIN
IESEL LOCOMOTIVE AT 50 F
EAVY TRUCK AT 50 FT. (2)
OTORCYCLE (1)
ELICOPTER AT 50 FT. ELEV
UBWAY (INCLUDING SCREEC
LEASURE MOTORBOAT (1)
RAIN PASSENGER (1)
OOD DISPOSER (3)
UTOMOBILE AT 50 FT (2)
UTOMOBILE PASSENGER (1)
OME SHOP TOOLS (3)
OOD BLENDER (3)
ACUUM CLEANER (3)
IR CONDITIONER (WINDOW 0
LOTHES DRYER (3)
/ASHING MACHINE (3)
EFRIGERATOR (3)
(11 OPERATOR/PASSENGER
(2) OUTDOORS
(3) IN HOME
D EFFECTS (1)
:T. (2)
<\TION (2) . .
H NOISE) (1)
NITS) (3)
4
0 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
MAXIMUM A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL IN dB
/
FIGURE 3.14.1, TYPICAL RANGE OF COMMON SOUNDS
CJF3U-1DWG
I
-------
Page 3-230
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-231
8»HISH COLUMBIA
WASHINGTON
R31F-
CANADA
UNITED
T40H
T39N
LEGEND
®
r-
c r
BASELINE MONITORING STATION
NOISE SOURCE LOCATION
USFS LANDS
STATE LANDS
BLM LANDS
PRIVATE/FEE LANDS
PERIMETER FENCE
(ALTERNATIVE &l
NOISE SOURCES
1
2
3
4
5
- MINE PIT AREA
- NORTH WASTE ROCK AREA
- SOUTH WASTE ROCK AREA
HAUL ROAD
- COARSE ORE MILL AREA
\
FIGURE 3.14.3, NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS AND
BASELINE MONITORING LOCATIONS
FILENAME CJP3
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
-------
Page 3-232 CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT January 1997
T
,- A
i
K~ • •,
\ ,. - ^
^ /
/ ' ' ' - ,
D
CHOWN JfWs-l PHOjiCI S°'l S.
| "H SfMiPH'MUVf NON MOl DH'/f D |
[^ '] Sf Ml S'RiMiTiVt MOfOR!/i:l I
1 . ~" ".] IfOAOf ,'J «Mri/'*Ai
" ' ROAiit;! MOOii 1 I)
FIGURE 3.15.1
RECREATION OPPORTUNITY SPECTRUM INVENTORY
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-233
WASHINGTON
\
_
UNITED STATE
CROWN JEWd PROJECT
PAVED ROAD
AGGREGATE ROAD
HIGH CLEARANCE
. TRAIL
COUNTY ROAD
FOREST SERVICE COLLECTOR ROAD
FOREST SERVICE LOCAL ROAO
ROAD CLOSED TO MOTORIZED
VEHICLES OCT l - DEC 31
ROAD OPEN TO MOTORIZED
VEHICLES IN »N AREA THAT
IS OTHERWISE RESTRICTED
DISPERSED RECREATION SITES
\
FIGURE 3.15.2, DISPERSED RECREATION
SITES - PRIMARY STUDY AREA
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-234
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
LEGEND
f^ CROWN Jf WE i
WOJ! C'< Slff
\
MS CRtATIOf. S'UDY
ANAl VSlS AH! A
> ORf-S' (SOUNDARY
1 CANADA Pf?OVIVCIA!
l OW S" I ANDS
Hi CRi AliON S'lf
FIGURE 3.15.3
EXISTING DEVELOPED RECREATION FACILITIES
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 3-235
V' -^ \'
\
'
l-X
24 ( } S I \
"^ -\ ., / <\
j
}-
o
I ,. '- ^
,-.. J /- C
«t , - ^.——
" -•
I 17
-
•Si
12
LEGEND
0
0
0
* — A- FIGURE 3.16.1
SCENIC VIEWSHEDS AND KEY VIEWPOINTS
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-236 CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT January 1997
FIGURE 3.16.2
OROVILLE-TORODA CREEK ROAD VIEWPOINT
FILENAME CJF316-2 DWG
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-237
FIGURE 3.16.3, NEALEY ROAD VIEWPOINT
FILENAME CJF316.3DWS
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-238 CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT January 1997
FIGURE 3.16.4, TORODA CREEK ROAD VIEWPOINT
FILENAME CJf316-4 Owe
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-239
FIGURE 3.16.5, HIGHWAY 3 VIEWPOINT
CJf3<6-5DWQ
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-240
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
O
0.
LU
in
CM
T-
IO
h*
LO
CO
O
CC
CO
UJ
CC
O
LL
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-241
Z
o
o_
UJ
HI
h-
QC
<
Q.
<
Z
O
CD
is.
(6
CO
UJ
cc
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-242
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
Q
LLJ
CO
o
Q_
O
DC
CL
LL
O
LU
Q
CO
DC
O
O
cr
LL
C/D
CL
LU
Q
LU
-------
I
I
I
I
CJ
"•»
c/j
i
450K361
W&GN RAILBED
AND FOUNDATION
POWER LINE
\
LEGEND
VA.OR H G^WA'*
COJSTY RQATS
» Vf-RS
I
I
5°
(o
SI
i
I
i
;H • :\
FIGURE 3.17.1, LOCATIONS OF SITES
AND FEATURES ALONG POWER LINE CORRIDOR
U)
-------
Page 3-244
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
CO
LU
or
LU
LL
CO
LU
K
CO
UJ
QC
O
LU
-5
O
QC
Q.
CM"
co
LU
DC
u.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-245
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-246
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
I
(D
Uj
CO
o
<
o
cc
ft
CO
UJ
DC
O
LJL
ff
/ " v
t ,
:'iUL
M t N
00
UJ
cc
15
g
H
Crown Jewel Mine 4 F/Via/ Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-247
LOWER MAGNETIC ADIT
11
UPPER MAGNETIC ADIT
BUCKHORN ADIT
AND WORKINGS
i
GOLD AXE ADIT
ROOSEVELT ADIT
AND WORKINGS
Z.
r vvsie-1 Sin-
c,'
MINI IT ARf A
\
FIGURE 3.19.1, HISTORIC MINING SITES
Crown Jewel Mine 4 F/Via/ Environmental Impact Statement
-------
I
Sf
I
I
I
E SA W
L EGEND
I 'I uSf S -ANDS
S'A";_ LANDS
B..VI : ANDS
ns> >
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-249
CO
UJ
CO
oc
UJ
CO
H
O
oc
O
H
CO
<*>
O)
T-
co
UJ
QC
UL
Crown Jewel Mine 4 /»ia/ Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 3-250
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
January 1997
r- •»
6'
L EGEND
\
FIGURE 3.19.4
CLAIM PATENT APPLICATION LOCATION MAP
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 3-251
o g
£ 5
a o
11
O (/)
o H v a i
o
o
LLJ
CC
0
o
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Co
K)
01
Hi
I
!
I
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE IB 2%)
51
I
r>
~v
CO
SERVICES 1264%)
AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHING (11.5V.)
MINING (11.4%)
CONSTRUCTION 191%)
FINANCE. INSURANCE
AND REAL ESTATE (38%!
WHOLESALE AND
RETAIL TRADE 114.1%)
MANUFACTURING (115%l
TRANSPORTATION. COMMUNICATIONS,
PUBLIC UTILITIES (40%!
i
Co
8
i
FIGURE 3.20.2, EMPLOYMENT DISTRIBUTION FOR FERRY COUNTY
to
(0
VI
-------
5
••N
It
(6
I
S1
0>
3
(o
PUBLIC ADMINISTRATIVE 16.8%)
SERVICES (256%)
FINANCE, INSURANCE.
AND REAL ESTATE (28%)
AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND FISHING (193%]
MINING (0 4%)
CONSTRUCTION (6 HO
MANUFACTURING M10V.I
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATIONS
PUBLIC UTILITIES (58%)
WHOLESALE AND
RETAIL TRADE !22.2%l
FIGURE 3.20.3, EMPLOYMENT DISTRIBUTION FOR OKANOGAN COUNTY
o
I
is
I
(Q
(D
Co
K)
01
Co
-------
1
I
I
(b
I-
I
o
FERRY & OKANOGAN COUNTIES
j [ ACCOMMODATIONS ) - j DINING
[ ] RECREATION [ \ RETAIL SALES
STATE OF WASHINGTON
GROCERY \ ] TRANSPORTATION
NON-DESTINATION
I
8
I
•fc
s!
Co
I
3
§
i
f
Q)
<0
(O
SJ
FIGURE 3.20.4 1994 TRAVEL EXPENDITURES
BY TYPE OF BUSINESS
-------
I
I
i
I
:ERRY & OKAMOGAN COUNTiES
STATE OF WASHINGTON
r
Jo
<0
i
i
i
I
o
§
~*
LODGING
CAMPGROUNDS
PRIVATE HOME
DAV TRAVEL
UNALLOCATED
FIGURE 3.20.5 1994 TRAVEL EXPENDITURES
BY TYPE OF ACCOMMODATION
CO
Kj
01
Oi
-------
FERRY COUNTY
OKAMOGAN COUNTY
(31
O)
(b
I
I
I
I
1
t>
a
CO
I
§
I
=0
1
\ I TAXES
INTERGOVERNMENTAL \ \ OTHER REVENUE
FIGURE 3.20.6 COUNTY GENERAL FUND
REVENUES BY SOURCE
(o
(o
SI
-------
I
I
I
I
FERRY COUNTY
OKANOGAN COUNTY
[ { GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES ( ] SECURITY OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY [ | OTHER EXPENDITURES
-------
Co
KJ
c«
00
S1
i
I
/
i
Co
i
if
!
FIGURE 3.20.8, 1994 TOTAL EXPENDITURES FOR STUDY AREA CITIES
CO
CO
SI
-------
3
••*
(0
i
Sr
I
o
0)
£
•*
1
s
o
1
I
2"
FIGURE 3.20.9, 1994 EXPENDITURES PER CAPITA FOR STUDY AREA CITIES
to
-------
|