Lead Agencies:
U.S.D.A.
Forest Service
STATE
E'C'O'L O"G°Y
JANUARY 1997
300R05900B
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT STATEMENT
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Okanogan County, Washington
VOLUME
93*
™ I^B^F^
Assembled By:
Terra Matrix
Engineering & Environmental Services
-------
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 4 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
2.1 1 .1 Introduction
2.1 1 .2 Reclamation Goals and Objectives
2.1 1.3 Reclamation Schedule
2.1 1.4 General Reclamation Procedures
2.1 1 .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
2.1 5 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 2-1 55
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
3.5 SOILS
3.5.1 Introduction
3.5.2 General Soil Properties
3.5.3 Reclamation Suitability of Soils of the Study Area
3.5.4 Erosion Hazard of Soils of the Study Area
3.6 SURFACE WATER
3.6.1 Introduction
3.6.2 Regional Surface Water Hydrology
3.6.3 Regional Surface Water Quality
3.6.4 Project Area Surface Water Hydrology
3.6.5 Site Surface Water Quality
3.7 SPRINGS AND SEEPS
3.7.1 Introduction
3.7.2 Location and Description
3.7.3 Water Quantity
3.7.4 Water Quality
3.7.5 Origin
3.8 GROUND WATER
3.8.1 Introduction
3.8.2 Regional Hydrogeology
3.8.3 Mine Site Hydrogeology
3.8.4 Ground Water Quality
3.8.5 Seasonal Trends In Ground Water Quality
3.8.6 Influence of Past Mining on Ground Water
3.8.7 Relation of Ground Water and Surface Water Systems
3.9 WATER SUPPLY RESOURCES
3.9.1 Introduction
3.9.2 Ground Water
3.9.3 Surface Water
3.10 VEGETATION
3.10.1 Introduction
3.10.2 Upland Plant Communities
3.10.3 Forest Resource
3.10.4 Noxious Weeds
3.10.5 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Species
3.10.6 Plant Species of Concern
3.10.7 Range Resource
3. 1 1 WETLANDS
3.1 1 .1 Introduction
3.1 1 .2 Wetlands Delineation
3.12 AQUATIC RESOURCES
3.12.1 Introduction
3.12.2 Survey Methodology
3.12.3 Myers Creek
3.12.4 Gold Creek
3.12.5 Marias Creek
3.12.6 Nicholson Creek
3.12.7 North Fork of Nicholson Creek
3.12.8 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Fish Species
3.12.9 Benthic Macroinvertebrates
3.12.10 Instream Flow Incremental Methodology
3.13 WILDLIFE
3.13.1 Introduction
3.13.2 Habitat Overview
3.13.3 Land Use Patterns and Human Activities Influencing Wildlife . .
3-28
3-28
3-28
3-28
3-31
3-31
3-32
3-32
3-33
3-35
3-36
3-44
3-52
3-52
3-52
3-53
3-57
3-59
3-59
3-59
3-59
3-60
3-62
3-65
3-65
3-68
3-69
3-69
3-70
3-70
3-71
3-71
3-71
3-72
3-73
3-73
3-74
3-74
3-75
3-75
3-75
3-75
3-75
3-78
3-79
3-80
3-80
3-81
3-81
3-82
3-82
3-86
3-87
3-87
3-88
3-91
Crown Jewel Mine 4 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
4.1.3 Effects of Alternative A (No Action) 4-5
4.1.4 Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 4-6
4.1.5 Effects of Alternatives B and E 4-11
4.1.6 Effects of Alternative C 4-20
4.1.7 Effects of Alternative D 4-20
4.1.8 Effects of Alternative F 4-20
4.1.9 Effects of Alternative G 4-20
4.1.10 Cumulative Effects 4-20
4.1.11 Climate 4-21
4.2 TOPOGRAPHY/PHYSIOGRAPHY 4-21
4.2.1 Summary 4-21
4.2.2 Effects of Alternative A (No Action) 4-22
4.2.3 Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 4-22
4.2.4 Effects of Alternative B 4-23
4.2.5 Effects of Alternative C 4-23
4.2.6 Effects of Alternative D 4-23
4.2.7 Effects of Alternative E 4-24
4.2.8 Effects of Alternative F 4-24
4.2.9 Effects of Alternative G 4-24
4.3 GEOLOGY 4-24
4.3.1 Summary 4-24
4.3.2 Effects of Alternative A (No Action) 4-24
4.3.3 Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 4-25
4.4 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS 4-25
4.4.1 Summary 4-25
4.4.2 Effects of Alternative A (No Action) 4-26
4.4.3 Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 4-26
4.4.4 Effects of Alternative B 4-31
4.4.5 Effects of Alternative C 4-31
4.4.6 Effects of Alternative D 4-32
4.4.7 Effects of Alternative E 4-32
4.4.8 Effects of Alternative F 4-32
4.4.9 Effects of Alternative G 4-32
4.5 SOILS 4-33
4.5.1 Summary 4-33
4.5.2 Effects of Alternative A (No Action) 4-34
4.5.3 Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 4-34
4.5.4 Effects of Alternative B 4-37
4.5.5 Effects of Alternative C 4-38
4.5.6 Effects of Alternative D 4-39
4.5.7 Effects of Alternative E 4-39
4.5.8 Effects of Alternative F 4-40
4.5.9 Effects of Alternative G 4-40
4.6 GROUND WATER, SPRINGS AND SEEPS 4-41
4.6.1 Summary 4-41
4.6.2 Effects of Alternative A (No Action) 4-42
4.6.3 Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 4-42
4.6.4 Effects of Alternative B 4-53
4.6.5 Effects of Alternative C 4-56
4.6.6 Effects of Alternative D 4-58
4.6.7 Effects of Alternative E 4-58
4.6.8 Effects of Alternative F 4-59
4.6.9 Effects of Alternative G 4-60
4.7 SURFACE WATER 4-60
4.7.1 Summary 4-60
4.7.2 Effects of Alternative A (No Action) 4-62
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page via 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
.... 4-159
. . . . 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 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Pagex 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 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN 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 • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page xii 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 Biologicallntegrity 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 • 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
3.15.1 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 3-1 53
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 4.54
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
-------
Page xiv 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) 3-192
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
4.1 5.4 Toroda Creek Viewpoint, Alternative D 4-275
4.15.5 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 + 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 4
Environmental Consequences
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-7
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
This chapter of the environmental impact
statement (EIS) provides the analytical basis
for comparison of the Crown Jewel Project
alternatives (Chapter 2, Alternatives Including
the Proposed Action) with the existing
environmental resources (Chapter 3, Affected
Environment). Chapter 4, Environmental
Consequences, examines the anticipated
environmental effects associated with the
implementation of the action alternatives in
comparison to the no action alternative.
The descriptions in Chapter 2, Alternatives
Including the Proposed Action, include
mitigation and reclamation measures which
were developed to limit the occurrence or
severity of environmental impacts. The
environmental analyses and results for the
action alternatives presented in the following
sections of Chapter 4, Environmental
Consequences, represent mitigated effects,
based on the mitigation measures listed in
Chapter 2, Alternatives Including the
Proposed Action.
For ease of presentation and comparison, the
impact analysis discussions are grouped by
the same technical disciplines as addressed in
Chapter 3, Affected Environment. Although
the anticipated environmental effects of
alternatives were analyzed for each resource
discipline, impact analyses emphasize those
disciplines that relate to the key issues and
concerns identified in Chapter 1, Purpose of
and Need for Action. Each alternative would
have effects on existing land and resource
conditions described in Chapter 3, Affected
Environment. Some effects are expressed in
qualitative terms, others in quantitative
terms. All effects disclosed in this chapter
assume compliance with direction contained
in existing Management Plans or that these
plans would be modified so the Project is in
compliance and that the mitigation measures
identified in Chapter 2, Alternatives Including
the Proposed Action, are implemented.
Impact descriptions under each resource area
are divided into the following categories:
• Effects of the no action alternative;
• Effects common to all action alternatives;
and,
• Effects unique to each action alternative.
Under each resource area, as applicable, the
direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts for
the alternatives are evaluated. These impacts
are defined as follows:
• Direct impacts - Those effects which occur
at the same time and in the same general
location as the activity causing the effects.
• Indirect impacts - Those effects which
occur at a different time or different
location than the activity to which the
effects are related.
• Cumulative impacts - Those effects which
result from the incremental impact of the
action when added to other past, present,
and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
• Irreversible commitments. Those
commitments that cannot be reversed,
except perhaps in the extreme long-term.
• Irretrievable commitments. Those
commitments that are lost for a period of
time.
Proposed mitigation measures are addressed
in Chapter 2, Alternatives Including the
Proposed Action. Effective mitigation avoids,
minimizes, rectifies, reduces, or compensates
for potential effects. After mitigation is
applied, any unavoidable adverse impacts to
each resource area are addressed.
Cumulative Effects of Other Projects
Proposed and ongoing activities in the
Buckhorn Mountain block within the next
decade include the Park Place timber sale in
Section 36, Township 40 North, Range 30
East, on land managed by the WADNR. This
sale was harvested during the summer of
1996. The three Nicholson timber sales on
National Forest land have been harvested, but
other sale activities such as timber sale
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-2
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
improvement activities, burning and planting
are proposed to take place on these sales
through 1999. Three additional timber sales,
covering an estimated 800 acres, on land
managed by the WADNR are proposed in the
next ten years. A 200 acre thinning is
proposed on BLM-managed lands within the
next decade. The Okanogan National Forest,
5-Year Action Plan, lists no timber sales on
National Forest land at least through 1999, in
the Buckhorn Mountain block. Conversion of
private forest land around the fringes of the
Buckhorn Mountain block is expected to
continue over the next decade. Much of this
development is expected to be south of the
Crown Jewel Project or along Nicholson
Creek. The amount of development is not
quantifiable.
4.1 AIR QUALITY
4.1.1 Summary
Fugitive dust emissions would occur in all
action alternatives during the operating life of
the Crown Jewel Project, as shown in Table
4.1.1, Summary of Emissions By Alternative.
The Proponent used emission calculations
employing methods published by EPA and air
quality computer models to estimate the
ambient concentrations of fugitive dust and
hydrogen cyanide during the peak year of the
Project. Quantitative methods such as these
often are more precise than qualitative
methods of comparing environmental
impacts. However, it must be remembered
that the quantitative methods also carry
uncertainty.
The reader and decision-maker should use the
air quality numbers in this EIS to compare
relative impacts from various activities,
alternatives or even sources. Washington
State law requires that WADOE determine
whether this project will cause or contribute
to an exceedance of an ambient air quality
standard prior to approving a Notice of
Construction Air Quality Permit. The
Proponent has stated that its air quality
analysis demonstrates compliance with these
requirements. At the time of issuance of the
final EIS, WADOE has not yet made its
determination regarding this point.
Air quality impacts from dust and hydrogen
cyanide generated directly by proposed mine
operations would cease when mining and
milling operations cease. No long-term air
quality impacts would occur from the Crown
Jewel Project after mining and reclamation
because the tailings impoundment surface
and other disturbed surface areas would be
properly stabilized and reclaimed to control
potential wind erosion. Reclamation activities
required by the Forest Service, WADOE,
WADNR, and BLM for the Crown Jewel
Project are designed to prevent wind erosion
off the tailings and disturbed areas.
None of the alternatives would emit enough
participates or water vapor to cause cloud
formation, fogging or icing, which might
otherwise contribute to local weather
impacts. The emissions of "greenhouse
gases" from the mining operations would be
low compared to similar emissions from non-
Crown Jewel Project activities elsewhere in
the region.
It appears that the existing baseline nitrogen
deposition rate at the Pasayten Wilderness is
already near the level that could cause
impacts to plants. If a combination of worst-
case meteorological and chemical
assumptions are used (upper level winds
transporting the mine emissions westward;
100% conversion of NO emissions to nitrate)
then the mine-related nitrogen deposition
would add substantially to the existing
baseline loading, and the resulting total
nitrogen deposition would be higher than the
published threshold values. However, this
assessment is based on a combination of
worst-case assumptions. If it assumed that
north-south valley winds along the Okanogan
River valley would disrupt the westward
transport of mine-related emissions or if it is
assumed that relatively little of the tailpipe
emissions oxidize in the atmosphere, then the
calculated mine-related deposition would be
much lower than the published no-impact
thresholds.
The fugitive dust and tailpipe emissions from
the proposed Crown Jewel Project could
cause visibility impacts at the Pasayten
Wilderness Area, if a combination of worst-
case conditions are assumed to occur.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
i
I
I
CO
sr
TABLE 4.1.1, SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS BY ALTERNATIVE
Issue
TSP (tons)
Peak Year
Total
PM- 10 (tons)
Peak-year
Total
Hydrogen Cyanide (tons)
Peak-year
Total
NOX (tons)
Peak-year
Total
Alternative
A
None
From
Project
None
From
Project
None
None
None
From
Project
Alternative
B
403
2,689
188
1,224
0.203
1.21
369
3,546
Alternative
C
109
478
55
218
0.203
0.61
150
763
Alternative
0
247
1,364
117
612
0.203
0.91
190
1,483
Alternative
E
403
2,689
188
1,224
0.203
1.21
369
3,546
Alternative
F
212
5,428
99
2,469
0.174
2.08
185
5,665
Alternative
G
442
2,919
206
1,329
0
0
370
3,558
Notes: Peak-year annual tons represents estimated amounts during Year 3 of operations.
"Total" tons include: Construction Phase; Operation Phase, and; Reclamation Phase.
TSP = Total Suspended Particulates
PM-10 = Paniculate Material Less Than 10 Microns
NOX = Nitrogen Oxides
Emission estimates in this table have been developed for the purpose of comparing relative emissions from the alternatives and are approximations.
The peak year and total project numbers used in Table 4. 1. 1, Summary of Emissions by Alternative and Table 4. 1.4, Comparison of Peak Year PM-10 Emissions
for Project Alternatives, include project generated emissions from mine access roads.
to
M
i
§
I
Co
-------
Page 4-4
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
Observers looking either east or west along
the plume centerline might be affected by
substantial reductions in the "standard visual
range" or SVR compared to pristine
background conditions. However, this
assessment is based on a combination of
worst-case assumptions. If it is assumed
that north-south valley winds along the
Okanogan River valley would disrupt the
westward transport of mine-related emissions
or if it is assumed that relatively little of the
tailpipe emissions oxidize in the atmosphere,
then the calculated mine-related visibility
impacts would be lower than the accepted
no-impact thresholds.
4.1.2 Air Quality Regulations Applicable
to All Alternatives
In order for the Crown Jewel Project to
necessitate a Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) permit, the non-fugitive
emissions from the proposed mine site would
have to exceed 250 tons per year of a
regulated pollutant. The emissions inventory
as submitted to WADOE and summarized in
this section indicates that the non-fugitive
emissions would be only about 10 tons/year,
which is much less than the 250 tons per
year PSD threshold.
In the Notice of Construction permit process,
the predicted concentrations (including
background) are compared to the allowable
air quality standards (referred to as the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or
NAAQS) that have been set by EPA. The
federal and state ambient air limits were
developed with two sets of conservatively
low values: the primary standards designed
to protect off-site areas from human health
risks; and lower secondary standards
designed to prevent crop damage and
aesthetic impacts. This level should also
protect forest vegetation due to the
temporary nature of the Crown Jewel Project.
EPA and WADOE have adopted the more
stringent secondary standards as the
allowable air quality limits. In addition,
WADOE has developed acceptable source
impact levels for toxic air pollutants.
"Ambient air" means that portion of the
atmosphere, external to buildings, to which
the general public has access. For the
purpose of state air quality permits, a
facility's boundary such as a fence line is
typically used as the point at which to
demonstrate compliance with ambient air
quality standards.
WADOE has stated that, for the Crown Jewel
Project, the fence line is the appropriate point
to demonstrate compliance with ambient air
quality standards. Initial plans submitted by
the Proponent called for the fence line to
enclose an area of 1,159 acres. Air quality
modeling submitted by the Proponent in 1994
showed that ambient air quality standards
would be exceeded for TSP and PM-10 in
some areas outside of this fence line but
inside of the Proponent's mining claim
boundaries.
In May of 1996, the Proponent proposed a
new fence line which covers an area of
approximately 2,000 acres. Revised air
quality modeling submitted by the Proponent
in June of 1996 (BMGC, 1996b), showed no
exceedances of ambient air quality standards
outside of this expanded fence line.
The reader and decision-maker should use the
air quality numbers in this EIS to compare the
relative impacts from various activities and
alternatives (or even other projects).
Washington State law requires that WADOE
determine whether this project will cause or
contribute to an exceedance of an ambient air
quality standard prior to approving a Notice of
Construction Air Quality Permit. Quantitative
methods (those using numbers) such as these
often are more precise than qualitative
methods (those using only words) for
comparing environmental impacts. However,
it must be remembered that the quantitative
methods also carry uncertainty.
The Proponent has stated that its air quality
analysis demonstrates compliance with these
requirements. WADOE has not yet made a
final decision regarding the acceptability of
the Proponent's modeling of ambient impacts.
Additional analysis, or more stringent
assumptions, may be required during the
permit process. Regardless, WADOE will
require the Proponent to demonstrate the
emissions from the source do not exceed the
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-5
acceptable source impact levels and ambient
air quality standards, and which are designed
to protect human health and safety, prior to
issuance of any air quality permit.
The below surface crusher and the on-site
processing conducted above ground such as
grinding and milling are regulated under
federal New Source Performance Standards
for metallic mineral processing plants (40 CFR
Part 60, Subpart LL). Under this rule, the
baghouses affixed to the crusher and the
processing plant sources would be tested in
an initial performance test to assure they
would attain emission rates less than the
paniculate emissions and opacity limits set
forth in this rule. The Proponent proposes to
keep emissions below these limits throughout
the duration of the Crown Jewel Project by
conducting periodic maintenance on the
baghouses.
Toxic air pollutants emitted from the
proposed mine are regulated by the WADOE
under WAC 173-460. This rule requires the
Proponent to demonstrate best available
control technology (BACT) for toxics,
quantify the toxic emissions, and
demonstrate that human health and safety
are protected by showing that the modeled
air toxics concentrations at a facility
boundary are less than WADOE's Acceptable
Source Impact Level (ASIL) limits. The ASIL
limits were developed by WADOE based on
health-based risk factors, and are designated
to protect human health. In the air permit
application to WADOE, the Proponent
proposes that these requirements are properly
satisfied. Modeled concentrations of toxic air
pollutants emitted to the ambient air are
summarized in Section 4.1.5, Effects of
Alternatives B and E, and compared to
WADOE's acceptable source impact levels
per WAC 173-460.
WADOE has requested additional information
regarding potential emissions of one
additional toxic air pollutant, hexavalent
chromium. As with the criteria pollutant
ambient impacts, WADOE cannot issue a
Notice of Construction Air Quality Permit until
impacts from toxic air pollutants are
demonstrated to be acceptable.
On-site worker exposure to fugitive dust,
tailpipe emissions, hydrogen cyanide, and
other air pollutants is regulated under several
existing guidelines developed by various
federal and state agencies such as the Mine
Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) and
the Washington Industrial Safety and Health
Administration. After the start of the Crown
Jewel Project, the Proponent must conduct
periodic monitoring of on-site workers to
demonstrate compliance with the industrial
exposure limits.
WADOE has not yet established the
requirements for periodic monitoring to
measure compliance with the ambient air
quality standards. Such monitoring is likely
to be a requirement of any Notice of
Construction Air Quality Permit approval.
4.1.3 Effects of Alternative A (No
Action)
Under Alternative A (No Action), the Crown
Jewel Project area would essentially remain
unchanged in regards to air quality. The
regional area consists mainly of undeveloped
forest land, with little industrial activity or
few cities to contribute to air pollution. The
nearest industrial activity is the Pope and
Talbot mill located at Midway, British
Columbia, about six miles from the Project
site and Steve Brown's mill on Toroda Creek,
also about six miles from the Project site.
Under Alternative A, the fugitive dust
concentrations near Chesaw and Buckhorn
Mountain would probably remain unchanged.
The area currently is classified as being in
attainment with National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for all pollutants. The nearest
agency-operated ambient air quality
monitoring was 50 miles or more from the
Crown Jewel Project site. If the no action
alternative is implemented, the area would
continue to be classified as being in
attainment with existing standards. In the
absence of industrial, commercial or
population growth, there is little likelihood
that ambient monitoring would be conducted
and, thus, little chance that the classification
would change.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-6
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
4.1.4 Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives
Direct Impacts
Construction/Reclamation. All the action
alternatives would cause a short-term
increase in air pollution emissions during
construction and reclamation, which are not
expected to have a major impact. The
emission rates during construction and
reclamation would be lower than they would
be during the operation phase.
The Forest Service, WADOE, WADNR, and
BLM must approve a Reclamation Plan for the
Crown Jewel Project before any construction
or operations, and the Proponent would be
required to post a reclamation performance
security (bond) to ensure that adequate funds
are available to perform the reclamation.
These actions are designed to prevent future
problems such as those that occurred at the
Holden Mine project, where windblown dust
impacts occurred until a rigorous reclamation
project was implemented. No long-term air
quality impacts would occur from the Crown
Jewel Project after mining and reclamation
because the tailings impoundment surface
and other disturbed surface areas would be
properly stabilized and reclaimed to control
potential wind erosion. Reclamation activities
must be designed to prevent wind erosion off
the tailings and disturbed areas.
Operation. All of the action alternatives
would cause an increase in air pollutant
emissions during the life of the Crown Jewel
Project, and for a short period thereafter, and
would result in corresponding short-term
increases in the air pollutant concentrations
near the Crown Jewel Project site. As shown
in Table 4.1.2, Peak-Year Emissions for the
Operations Phase (Alternative B), a majority
of the dust would be generated from the haul
roads, although loading, dumping, and dozer
operations would also contribute to dust
generation.
During the duration of the Crown Jewel
Project, the pollutant concentrations are
expected to dissipate to near-background
levels within ten miles downwind of the site.
The Crown Jewel Project emissions are
expected to cause increases in particulate
concentrations which are measurable but not
large (less than 15% of the ambient air
quality standards) at nearby population
centers in Chesaw and Bolster. The Crown
Jewel Project emissions are not expected to
cause measurable increases in particulate
concentrations in the Midway, British
Columbia, population center.
Several federal and state agency guidelines
would regulate and limit on-site worker
exposure to fugitive dust, tailpipe emissions,
hydrogen cyanide and other air pollutants.
Nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur
dioxide, and volatile organic compounds
would be emitted from the tailpipes of the on-
site construction vehicles. Hydrogen cyanide,
hydrogen chloride, and ammonia would be
emitted from the processing plant for all
alternatives except Alternative G. Trace
metals including arsenic, chromium, cobalt,
copper, lead, molybdenum, nickel, niobium,
rubidium, strontium, thorium, tin, tungsten,
uranium, vanadium, yttrium, zinc, and
zirconium are naturally present in the gold ore
and the overlying soil, and would be emitted
by all action alternatives. These trace
metals, emitted as part of fugitive dust, are
not expected to cause significant air quality
impacts.
Wind Erosion. Calculation methods taken
from EPA publications were used to assess
wind erosion. Based on measured wind
speed data from the mine site, the
calculations indicate that no wind erosion of
overburden, disturbed areas, or the reclaimed
tailings pond is expected to occur. Based on
the calculations, the minimum "fastest mile"
wind gust necessary to disturb a pile under
the mine site conditions is 26 miles per hour.
By inspection of 24 months of hourly-average
wind data at the mine site, the maximum
"fastest mile" wind gust was 21.4 miles per
hour. Therefore, measurable wind erosion is
not expected.
Point Sources. Baghouses are proposed as
best available control technology for point
sources of particulate matter at the proposed
mine. For control of particulate emissions,
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
I
I
I
(6
S1
I
o
CO
TABLE 4.1.2, PEAK YEAR EMISSIONS FOR THE OPERATIONS PHASE
(ALTERNATIVE B)
Category
Drilling Exhaust
Drilling - Fugitive Dust
Blasting
Front-End Loader - Exhaust
Front-End Loader - Fugitive Dust
Front-End Loader - Drop Emissions
Haul Truck - Exhaust
Haul Truck - Fugitive Dust
Haul Truck - Unloading
FEL - Crusher Hopper - Exhaust
FEL - Crusher Hopper - Fugitive Dust
Dumping Ore Into Crusher Hopper
Dozer Operation - Exhaust
Dozer Operation - Fugitive Dust
Motor Grader - Exhaust
Motor Grader - Fugitive Dust
Miscellaneous Vehicles - Exhaust
Miscellaneous Vehicles - Fugitive Dust
In-Pit Diesels
Mill Activities
Wind Erosion
Waste Oil Burners
Subtotal
Forest Road 1 20-Access Road
Total
Peak Year Emissions
(tons per year)
TSP
3.16
0.78
16.43
0.89
6.36 (7.97)
11.67
2.45
236.50
11.67
0.08
0.69 (0.86)
0.52
1.01
12.00
0.10
17.54
16.19 (12.7)
0.17
5.91
Not substantial
4.10
348.22 (346.51)
54.44
402.66 (400.95)
PM-10
3.16
0.10
8.55
0.89
2.90 (3.58)
5.83
2.45
106.38
5.83
0.08
0.31 (0.39)
0.26
1.01
2.31
0.10
5.99
7.29 (5.72)
0.17
5.91
Not substantial
3.43
162.95 (162.14)
24.53
187.48 (186.67)
S02
4.14
1.26
3.89
14.72
0.37
1.89
0.57
0.16
0.01
3.42
30.43
0
30.43
NO,
50.00
21.42
36.13
223.22
3.44
18.76
8.53
0.47
2.43
1.00
1.58
366.98
1.9
368.88
VOC
0.52
1.67
4.91
0.16
1.35
0.45
0.57
0.20
0.45
0.13
10.41
2.3
12.71
CO
14.89
84.42
5.56
34.34
0.53
2.70
0.94
4.90
0.52
0.03
6.57
155.40
19.5
174.9
Notes: TSP = Total Suspended Particulate PM-10 = Paniculate Matter Smaller Than 10 Microns Diameter
SO2 = Sulfur Dioxide NOX = Oxides of Nitrogen
VOC = Volatile Organic Compounds CO = Carbon Monoxide
Forest Service Road 1 20 Access Road emissions are presented separately in this table for two reasons:
1 . Depending on the baseline time period used for calculating emissions, the project may be shown to cause either an increase or a decrease in dust
emissions from the mine access road. The numbers appearing in the table for TSP and PM-10 were calculated by WADOE using an assumption
of no logging truck traffic in the baseline calculation. Using a baseline traffic count that included five logging trucks per day, BMGC calculated
that, although traffic would increase, actual particulate emissions during operations would decrease because the reduction in emissions due to
dust suppression efforts would more than offset the increase in traffic.
2. Emissions from the mine access road would not be part of the WADOE Ambient Standard comparison calculation.
Emissions presented in this table are Crown Jewel Project only. Background emissions have not been included.
Source: Figures not enclosed in parentheses are from BMGC, June 1996.
Figures enclosed in parentheses are calculated by WADOE using the same methods as the BMGC document cited above, which constitute a "realistic
worst-case estimate" according to BMGC. A more rigorous worst-case assumption would increase the on-site TSP and PM-10 totals by approximately
40% according to WADOE.
}o
to
i
i
I
i;
I
-------
Page 4-8
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
baghouses are normally considered to be the
"top case" control strategy.
Table 4.1.2, Peak Year Emissions for the
Operations Phase (Alternative B), predicts
emissions both from point sources such as
the furnaces and bins which are part of the
mill and from fugitive sources such as those
generated by equipment haul road travel.
Fugitive emissions comprise approximately
97% of total project TSP emissions and point
source emissions comprise approximately 3%
of total project TSP emissions.
BACT Assessment for Haul Road Dust.
Control of dust from roads can be completed
by (in descending order of control efficiency)
paving, application of chemicals, and
watering. The BACT assessment in the air
permit application determined that paving is
not feasible for mining operations due to the
heavy mining vehicles. A search of the
mining industry revealed no mining operations
in the United States using paved haul roads.
Paving of a road for mining operations would
require the equivalent of airport runway
construction posing an infeasible cost impact.
The tires on haul trucks are not designed to
operate on paved surfaces, and they are
rapidly worn out by the abrasive
characteristics of the paved surface. Haul
roads at mining operations are constantly
being re-aligned and moved as the mining
operation progresses. Paving of haul roads
was therefore ruled out in the BACT
assessment provided by the Proponent.
The application of dust control chemicals was
judged to be BACT for the proposed Crown
Jewel Project in this BACT assessment. It is
possible that concerns over water quality
might limit the use of chemicals for dust
control. In such an event, the water
application rate to roads would have to be
increased to effectively produce the same
level of control as is attainable with dust
control chemicals.
Control of emissions of Project-related
vehicles along public roads are normally not
included in air quality permits, but they are
impacts from the Project which are subject to
mitigation when appropriate. The Proponent
is proposing to perform mitigations to reduce
fugitive dust emissions along Forest Road
3575-120, which serves as the access road
to the Crown Jewel Project. The Proponent
proposes to apply dust control agents during
the life of the Crown Jewel Project in order to
achieve an estimated 80% reduction in
fugitive dust emissions. Based on traffic
counts along Forest Road 3575-120 by the
Proponent, the estimated existing dry-
weather fugitive dust emissions of TSP are
1,212 pounds/day. During the peak year of
the Crown Jewel Project the dry-weather TSP
emissions along Forest Road 3575-120 would
be reduced to 527 pounds/day if the dust
mitigations are implemented.
The Proponent calculates that there will be a
decrease in Project related paniculate
emissions on Forest Road 3575-120 due to
the reduction in emissions from dust
suppression efforts which would more than
offset the increase in traffic. Using a
different estimate of the current traffic,
WADOE calculates that there will be an
increase of 54 tons of TSP and 25 tons of
PM-10 from Forest Road 3575-120. The
Proponent's traffic estimates are based on
two days of traffic counts and include the
emissions from five logging trucks per day.
At the time of the Proponent's traffic count,
the Park Place timber sale, on WADNR land,
was in operation. The estimate for baseline
traffic used by WADOE is lower than that
used by the Proponent and does not include
any logging trucks. The estimates used in
Section 4.17, Transportation, are based on
traffic counts from the Okanogan County
Public Works Department of traffic on the
Pontiac Ridge road in 1992.
The particulate emissions calculations are
estimated from conditions which include an
unpaved road and more than 100 vehicle
trips daily, with dust suppression efforts
employed. It is the experience of the
WADOE that unpaved roads which
experience traffic increases result in impacts
of dust settling on land of nearby property
owners. Whether this will be an
improvement or deterioration over the
baseline situation depends on what time is
chosen to represent the current situation.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-9
Visibility. A summary of the visibility
modeling and resulting impacts is presented
in Section 4.1.5, Effects of Alternatives B
and E.
Toxic Elements in Fugitive Dust. Section
4.1.5, Effects of Alternatives B and E,
contains a discussion on the toxic elements
contained in the mine site dust.
Health Impacts of Diesel Exhaust. In a recent
study by EPA titled Air Quality Criteria for
Particulate Matter (EPA, 1995), diesel
exhaust was examined for acute toxic
effects. It was found that toxic effects
caused by exposure to diesel exhaust are
mainly attributable to exposure within
enclosed areas (i.e., mortality from carbon
monoxide intoxication and lung injury from
respiratory irritants). Diesel emissions from
vehicles and equipment are diluted in the
ambient air, giving low exposure to humans.
When diesel exhaust is diluted to limit the
concentrations of the gaseous components to
satisfy NAAQS limits, acute effects are not
found (EPA, 1995).
Several respiratory tract studies on animals
have been conducted to show health effects
to the lungs due to direct exposure to diesel
fumes. However, potential effects to humans
could only be studied on populations exposed
occupationally such as miners, truck drivers,
railroad workers, bus maintenance shop
workers, and heavy equipment operators. In
the case of the proposed Crown Jewel
Project, the public would not be exposed
directly to diesel exhaust as the above
mentioned populations typically are.
As a result of limited evidence in the various
animal and human studies, it was concluded
that diesel engine emissions best fit into
cancer weight-of-evidence Category B1 and
thus considered to be probable human
carcinogens (EPA, 1995). Risk estimates of
lifetime exposure to diesel particulate matter
were derived using a linearized multistage
model. A unit cancer risk estimate of 3.4 x
10"6 per 1 yug/m3 concentration of diesel
particulate was derived assuming a 70 year
life (EPA, 1995). Given that the proposed
Crown Jewel Project has an operational life
expectancy of ten years, the unit cancer risk
for the mine is 4.9 x 10~6 per 1 /vg/m3 of
diesel particulate.
Computer dispersion modeling results for
annual TSP emissions at the proposed fence
line for the Crown Jewel Project give a
concentration of 31.2 //g/m3. The total diesel
particulate emissions equal 2.3% of the total
TSP emissions. Therefore, the concentration
of diesel particulate at the nearest residence
according to the model is 0.72 //g/m3. At
this concentration of diesel particulate, the
unit cancer risk would be 3.5 x 10~6, which is
considered a very low risk to humans.
Indirect Impacts
Fugitive dust and associated impacts to
vegetation and visibility would be generated
on off-site unpaved roads by Project-related
traffic during both the construction phase and
operations phase.
The construction phase is predicted to add
305 to 535 average daily traffic (ADT) and
the operations phase is predicted to add 89
to 160 ADT onto the roads accessing the
Crown Jewel Project assuming that 75% of
the employees are bused to the Project.
Busing/van pooling of personnel is proposed
for the operations phase of the Project.
Other forms of mitigation for off-site dust
generation could include speed control on all
unpaved roads and dust suppression on off-
site unpaved roads. Speed control has been
proven effective in controlling a percentage of
dust (as much as 50% reduction when
speeds are reduced from 40 mph to 20 mph).
Dust suppression through the use of water or
chemicals has also been shown to reduce
dust generation by at least 50%.
The Proponent is working with Okanogan
County to apply dust control measures along
some of the public road segments that would
be affected by traffic from the proposed
mine. Table 4.1.3, Dust Suppression
Methods, presents characteristics of some
types of dust suppression products that are
available for potential use on haul roads and
access roads.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
1
1
I
(6
5-
i
I
o
"*
G-)
I
TABLE 4.1.3, DUST SUPPRESSION METHODS
Product Name
Water
Coherex
Soil-Sement
Calbinder
Dustlock
EMC2
Road Oyl
Dust-Off
Calcium Chloride
Chemical Name
Formula
H20
Petroleum Hydrocarbon in Water
Emulsion
Polymer Emulsion
(Acrylic & Vinyl Acetate Polymer)
Ammonium Lignin Sulfonate
Calcium Lignosulfonate
Ammonium Lignosulfonate
Flaxseed oil
Biocatalyst Stabilizer
Resin Modified Emulsion
MgCI
CaCI
Application Rate
Very frequent depending on
weather and traffic conditions.
1 gal Coherex:6 gal water.
Application - 0.2 gal/yd2.
2 initial applications, re-treatment
dictated by local conditions.
1 gal Soil-Sement:9 gal water.
Application - 0.2 gal/yd2.
1 initial application, re-treatment
dictated by local conditions.
1 gal CalbindenIO gal water.
Application - 0.25 to 0.5 gal/yd.
1 initial application, re-treatment
dictated by local conditions (4 to
6 times/year)
1 gal Dustlock:4 gal water.
Application - 0.5 gal/yd2.
1 initial application, re-treatment
dictated by local conditions.
1 gal EMC2 :> 30 gal water.
Application - 0.01 gal/yd2.
1 initial application, re-treatment
dictated by local conditions.
Based on site-specific conditions.
Re-treatment 4 to 6 times/year.
Application: 30% solution.
0.5 gal/sq yd.
Re-treatment 2 to 4 times/year.
Re-treatment 2 to 4 times/year.
Application: Flake 1 .0 to 1 .5
Ib/sq yd.
Pellet 0.8 to 1:3 Ib/sq yd.
35% solution 0.2 to 0.3 gal/sq
yd.
Note: All information presented on this table has been provided by the manufacturer or vendor.
Toxicity
Non-toxic
Environmentally safe
No acute toxicological data
available.
Fish 96TL50 - 95 ppm
Non-toxic
Non-combustible
Toxicological properties have
not been quantified. > 20,000
mg/kg oral-Ret LD50.
Non-toxic
Nuisance dust - exposure limit
1 5 mg/m3 for dust
Non-toxic
Non-toxic
Repeated applications could
result in chloride migration to
surface and ground water.
Could affect adjacent plant
growth.
Potential migration of chloride
is minimal.
Remarks
Water consumption high.
Labor intensive.
When used as a mulching agent,
actually accelerates seed
germination. Resins are in
suspension; therefore, would not
leach.
Environmentally safe to
vegetation
pH 4.0 to 9.5
Derived from tree pulp (wood
sugars). Typically requires two
initial applications 0.5 gal/sq yd
each.
bio-degradable, non-corrosive,
environmentally friendly.
pH3.0
pH 4.8 to 3.0
Formulated from natural forest
product ingredients (pine tar
derivatives).
Produced from natural sea
water, composed of 66% water,
21 % chloride, 7.5% magnesium,
3% sulfate, and 2% potassium
and trace metals.
i
•*
a
§
I
I
I
(o
(0
M
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-11
For the conclusion in this EIS regarding
emissions from the mine access road to be
accurate, the dust control described above
must be carried out by the Proponent. This
conclusion, and therefore the analysis of
impacts in this EIS document, would not be
valid if this dust control does not occur.
Crown Jewel Project related traffic will also
generate tailpipe exhaust emissions on off-
site paved and unpaved roads. These
exhaust emissions were not included in the
emissions estimates and modeling conducted
for the Project. (Exhaust emissions from
vehicles operated on-site were included in
emissions calculations and modeling.) A
rough approximation of the impacts from
these off-site exhaust emissions may be
gained by assuming that carbon-monoxide,
nitrogen oxide, volatile organic compounds,
sulphur dioxide and participate matter will
increase over background levels near the
roads by the same percentage as the traffic
increases predicted in Section 4.17,
Transportation.
4.1.5 Effects of Alternatives B and E
Emission Estimates
The Proponent has prepared an updated
technical report to support their Air Quality
Permit application (BMGC, 1996b). This
document provides emission inventories for
all point sources, tailpipe sources and fugitive
emissions for particulate matter, hydrogen
cyanide, particulate air toxins, and gaseous
pollutants from tailpipes. Table 4.1.2, Peak-
Year Emissions for the Operations Phase
(Alternative B), itemized the annual emissions
that would occur during the operation.
Table 4.1.4, Comparison of Peak Year PM-10
Emissions for Project Alternatives, lists the
estimated peak year PM-10 emissions for
each of the Crown Jewel Project alternatives
during the construction phase, operation
phase, and reclamation phase. The values
shown in that table are approximate values
that were derived only for rough comparison
purposes in this EIS. The values for
Alternative B, Table 4.1.2, Peak-Year
Emissions for the Operations Phase
(Alternative B), were taken from the
Proponent's Air Quality Permit application
package (BMGC, 1996b). The emission rates
for the other alternatives were approximated
by scaling from the Alternative B values, and
accounting for engineering values such as
relative haul road lengths, relative production
rates, etc.
The most noticeable emission source is the
fugitive dust that would be produced by the
haul trucks and other mining equipment. The
fugitive dust emission rates listed in Table
4.1.2, Peak-Year Emissions for the
Operations Phase (Alternative B), are based
on the application of either an approved
chemical stabilizer to the unpaved haul roads
or the use of water on unpaved haul roads
during dry weather. Table 4.1.2, Peak-Year
Emissions For Operations Phase (Alternative
B), also lists the peak-year emissions for
carbon monoxide, (CO) nitrogen oxides (NOX),
and sulfur dioxide (SOX), all of which are
emitted primarily from the construction
equipment tailpipes.
The maximum daily emission rates for
cyanide evaporating from the tailings pond
were estimated based on an assumed
aqueous cyanide concentration in the pond of
10.0 parts per million (ppm) (WAD), and
evaporation rates based on conservatively
high ambient temperature and wind speed.
The predicted cyanide emission rate is 0.203
tons per year for the peak year 1999, based
on a five acre tailings pond lake.
The emission rates for particulate toxic air
pollutants generated as fugitive dust from the
proposed mining operations were estimated
from the known concentration of trace metals
in the ore and waste rock. The estimated
particulate air toxics emission rates are
presented in Table 4.1.5, Emission Rates of
Toxic Air Pollutants.
Modeled Ambient Air Quality Impacts
Air quality modeling for the peak year of
operation was conducted by the Proponent
for Alternative B. The modeled impacts
caused by fugitive dust and cyanide at the
Proponent's proposed fence line boundary are
less than the allowable limits set by WADOE.
The modeled visibility impacts at the
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Envr-onmental Impact Statement
-------
I
fe-
ll
I
TABLE 4.1.4, COMPARISON OF PEAK YEAR PM-10 EMISSIONS FOR PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Peak Year PM-10 Emissions
(tons /year)
Alternative
B
Alternative
C
Alternative
D
Construction Phase
Mine Activities
FS 1 20 Access Road
Total
41
12
53
21
12
33
41
12
53
Operation Phase'
Drilling/Blasting/Loading/Hauling
Dozing/Grading
Crushing/Milling
FS 1 20 Access Road
Other
Total
Reclamation Phase
Mine Activities
FS 1 20 Access Road
Total
144
9
7
24
4
188
64
12
76
17
2
7
26
3
55
13
12
25
72
5
7
30
3
117
34
12
46
Alternative
E
41
12
53
144
9
7
24
4
188
64
12
76
Alternative
F
41
12
53
72
5
3
17
2
99
64
15
79
Alternative
G
41
12
53
144
9
7
42
4
206
64
12
76
Note: 1 . Emissions estimates in this table have been developed for the purpose of comparing relative emissions from the alternatives and are approximations.
The peak year and total project numbers used in Table 4.1.1, Summary of Emissions by Alternative and Table 4. 1.4, Comparison of Peak Year PM-10
Emissions for Project Alternatives, include project generated emissions from mine access roads.
I
K)
i
1
I
I
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-13
TABLE 4.1.5, ALTERNATIVE B EMISSION RATES OF TOXIC AIR POLLUTANTS
Element
Arsenic
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Lead
Molybdenum
Nickel
Tin
Tungsten
Uranium
Vanadium
Yttrium
Zinc
Zirconium
Hydrogen Cyanide
Total
Average Concentration in
Mined Rock
(mg/kg)
49
69
31
323
110
15
24
152
3
7
145
29
83
59
Emission Rate
(tons/year)
0.0162
0.0228
0.0103
0.1070
0.0364
0.0050
0.0079
0.0503
0.0010
0.0023
0.0480
0.0096
0.0275
0.0195
0.2030
0.5668
Note: Emissions were calculated by applying the average concentration to the total TSP emitted in the
peak year. Since BMGC has characterized the TSP emissions as a "realistic worst-case"
estimate, that description would also apply to emission rates for toxic air pollutants. A more
rigorous worst-case assumption would increase the total TSP, and thus the toxic air pollutant
emission rate, by approximately 40% according to WADOE.
Source: June 1996 Air Quality Permit Support document. Battle Mountain Gold Corporation, Crown
Jewel Project.
Pasayten Wilderness Area are less than the
guidelines set by EPA. This modeling should
be viewed with the same caution previously
noted. WADOE has not determined whether
this project will cause or contribute to an
exceedance of an ambient air quality
standard. Such a determination will be made
prior to approval of a Notice of Construction
Air Quality Permit.
Three different computer models were used
to estimate the ambient air impacts: Fugitive
Dust Model (FDM) for TSP, and PM-10;
Industrial Source Complex Short Term
(ISCST3) for criteria pollutants and toxic air
pollutants; and VISCREEN for plume visibility
impacts. ISCST3 has been shown by EPA to
predict a conservatively high ambient
concentration. The meteorological data from
the on-site weather station were used as
modeling input.
The results of the peak-year modeling for TSP
and PM-10 impacts are shown in Figure
4.1.1, Maximum Peak-Year Annual Average
TSP and PM-10 Concentrations (Not Including
Background), and Figure 4.1.2, Maximum
Peak-Year 24-Hour TSP and PM-10
Concentrations (Not Including Background).
These figures show concentrations at
representative receptor locations of maximum
24-hour and maximum annual impacts in
/yg/m3 for TSP and PM-10. A summary of the
dispersion modeling results for all of the
criteria pollutants is presented in Table 4.1.6,
Alternative B, Modeled Ambient Air Quality
Impacts - Criteria Pollutants.
The modeled concentrations of toxic air
pollutants at Chesaw are summarized in Table
4.1.7, Alternative B, Modeled Ambient Air
Quality Impacts - Toxic Air Pollutants. As
shown in the table, these concentrations are
compared to the WADOE ASILs. Washington
State law requires that compliance shall be
demonstrated in any area which does not
have restricted or controlled access. WADOE
interprets this to mean the area outside the
Crown Jewel Project fence line, which will
experience higher concentrations than the
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
I
I
I
I
5
Co
TABLE 4.1.6, ALTERNATIVE B, MODELED AMBIENT AIR QUALITY IMPACTS - CRITERIA POLLUTANTS2*
(all modeling results in f/GIM3)
Pollutant and
Averaging Time1
1 -Hour Average
CO
Maximum Model Prediction
Without Background3
Assumed Background
Modeled Total
WADOE
Ambient Standard
863.9
10,000
10,800
40,000
3-Hour Average
S02
148.3
325
473
1,300
8-Hour Average
CO
236.6
2,500
2,736
10,000
24-Hour Average
TSP
PM-10
S02
132.9
128.0
51.1
13.1
8.1
91.3
146
136
142
150
150
365
Annual Average
TSP
PM-10
S02
NOX
18.1
15.1
5.4
50.4
13.1
8.1
20.0
25.0
31
23
25
75
60
50
80
100
Notes: 1 . TSP = Total Suspended Paniculate
PM-10 = Paniculate Mater Smaller Than 10 Microns Diameter
S02 = Sulfur Dioxide
NOX = Oxides of Nitrogen
VOC = Volatile Organic Compounds
CO = Carbon Monoxide
2. Modeling is based on emissions calculations which constitute a "realistic worst-case estimate"
according to BMGC. A more rigorous worst-case assumption would increase the on site TSP and
PM-10 totals by approximately 40% according to WADOE. Prior to approving a Notice of Construction
Air Quality Permit, WADOE must determine whether the project will cause or contribute to a violation
of an ambient air quality standard. WADOE has not yet made this determination.
3. The maximum impacts are modeled to occur along the western project boundary.
4. Emissions from Forest Road 3575-120 are not included in this table since they would not be part of
the WADOE Ambient Standard comparison calculation.
Source: BMGC, 1996b
i
5
i
I
i
(o
M
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-15
TABLE 4.1 .7, ALTERNATIVE B MODELED AMBIENT AIR QUALITY IMPACTS -
TOXIC AIR POLLUTANTS
(all values in //g/m3)
Arsenic
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Molybdenum
Nickel
Tin
Tungsten
Uranium
Vanadium
Yttrium
Zinc
Zirconium
HCN
Allowable ASIL
0.00023
1.7
0.17
3.3
33
0.0021
6.7
17
0.67
0.17
3.3
17
17
37
Average Period
Annual
24-hour
24-hour
24-hour
24-hour
Annual
24- hour
24- hour
24-hour
24- hour
24-hour
24-hour
24-hour
24-hour
Predicted Value
at Chesaw
0.000029
0.0087
0.0039
0.041
0.0019
0.00014
0.019
0.00038
0.00088
0.0183
0.0037
0.011
0.0074
1.36
Note: State Law requires that compliance shall be demonstrated in any area which does not have restricted or
controlled access. WADOE interprets this to mean the area outside the project fence line, which will
experience higher concentrations than the more distant Chesaw. The source must demonstrate
compliance with this provision prior to approval by WADOE of the Notice of Construction Air Quality
Permit. For most of the toxic air pollutants this demonstration can be made without conducting
modeling by showing that the emission rate is below the Small Quantity Emission Rates published in the
state regulation. For pollutants such as arsenic, modeling or more sophisticated analysis may be
required.
Source: BMGC, 1996b
more distant Chesaw. The Proponent must
demonstrate compliance with this provision
prior to approval by WADOE of the Notice of
Construction Air Quality Permit. For most of
the toxic air pollutants, this demonstration
can be made without conducting modeling by
showing that the emission rate is below the
Small Quantity Rates published in the state
regulations. For pollutants such as arsenic,
modeling or more sophisticated analysis may
be required.
Impacts to Visibility at Pasayten Wilderness
Area
If the fugitive dust and the tailpipe emissions
from the proposed Crown Jewel Project were
transported by upper-air winds across the
Okanogan River valley for 60 to 150
kilometers westward toward the Pasayten
Wilderness Area, then the increases in
airborne paniculate concentrations could have
an adverse impact on visibility there.
It is uncertain how often, if ever, upper-level
winds could actually transport the mine-
related pollutants as far to the west as the
Pasayten Wilderness. As a worst-case
assumption for this impact assessment, it
was assumed that the wind speed and wind
direction data from the Proponent's ground-
level meteorological station on the eastern
slope of Buckhorn Mountain can be used to
represent the upper-air wind fields for
purposes of modeling the impacts at
Pasayten Wilderness. In reality, it must be
recognized that under most conditions the
prevailing wind directions likely consist of
westerly upper-air winds along the jet stream
and north-south winds along the Okanogan
River valley. The combination of those
expected prevailing winds would indicate that
the mine-related emissions would seldom, if
ever, be transported to the Pasayten
Wilderness.
After assuming that the mine-related
pollutants would be transported to the
Pasayten Wilderness, the visibility impacts
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-16
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
were calculated under a range of scenarios
that represent different vistas within the
wilderness area, different assumptions for the
background visual range, and different
mechanisms for how the sulfur and nitrogen
in the mine-related tailpipe emissions could
react in the atmosphere to form secondary
particles that would contribute to visibility
degradation.
In general, the screening-level visibility
assessment methods described in IWAQM,
1993 were used. The "standard visual
range" or SVR was used as the indicator to
quantify the calculated visibility under each
scenario. The SVR is the distance from the
observer that a large, black object would be
just perceptible against bright daytime sky
(quantitatively, this corresponds to a 2%
contrast between the black object and the
sky). The SVR can be reduced by dust
particles emitted directly from industrial
activities or by "secondary particles," which
can be formed when sulfur and nitrogen gas
that is emitted from tailpipes reacts in the
atmosphere to form additional particulate
downwind from the source. Studies have
indicated that reductions in the SVR can be
especially noticeable to the public in
mountainous areas where there is a
continuous string of landmarks that can serve
as indicators of air pollution (Pitchford and
Malm, 1994).
The visibility impacts were calculated using
the following methods:
Modeling of Airborne Pollutant
Concentrations. The ISC3 computer model
was used to calculate the maximum 24-hour
average concentrations of fugitive dust, NOx
and S02 at the Pasayten Wilderness during
the summertime period (April-October) when
dust generation at the Crown Jewel Project
would be highest. The sequential hourly
meteorological data from the Proponent's
monitoring station at Buckhorn Mountain
were used for the model runs. A grid of
receptor points was used to define the spatial
patterns of the maximum 24-hour
concentrations in and around the Pasayten
Wilderness. Based on that model, the highest
24-hour average PM-10 concentration (not
including secondary sulfate or nitrate
particulate) at Pasayten Wilderness caused by
the Crown Jewel emissions is about 1.1
//g/m3. That concentration increase above
background would probably not be detectable
using conventional air quality samplers, but
as shown in the following sections it could
result in visibility degradation.
Sulfur and Nitrogen Conversion to Form
Secondary Particulate. Two values for sulfur
conversion were used: a lower-bound value
of 1.5% per hour (resulting in 12%
conversion to secondary particulate during
the eight hours of plume travel between the
proposed Crown Jewel Project and the
Pasayten Wilderness); and an upper-bound
value of 100% conversion. Two values for
the nitrogen conversion rate were used: a
lower-bound value of zero nitrogen
conversion based on the presumed lack of
any significant amounts of manmade
photochemical ozone in the regional
atmosphere; and an upper-bound value of
100% conversion. All of the converted sulfur
and nitrogen particulate was assumed to
react with natural water vapor in the
atmosphere to increase the concentrations of
secondary particulate, using the calculation
procedures from IWAQM, 1993. For that
calculation a summertime relative humidity of
65% was assumed, based on data from the
Spokane, Washington weather station.
Based on these calculations, the
concentrations of secondary particulate at
each of the ISC3 grid points were estimated.
Background SVR. Published camera data
collected throughout the Northwest (Forest
Service, 1994a) indicate that the background
summertime SVR near the Pasayten
Wilderness ranges from 184 kilometers
(median summertime value) to 296 kilometers
(cleanest 80th percentile value). Those two
values for the background SVR were used in
the calculations to determine the visibility
impacts.
Assumed Vistas. The plume from the Crown
Jewel Project would impact a relatively
narrow area during any 24-hour period, so
the visibility impacts depend on where the
observer is assumed to stand and in what
direction the observer is assumed to look.
For this assessment, two assumed scenarios
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-17
were used. In both cases, the plume was
assumed to blow westward based on the
maximum 24-hour ISC3 model results. The
first scenario is the "cross-plume vista,"
whereby the observer stands on Cathedral
Peak at the northern boundary of the
Pasayten Wilderness and look southward
across the maximum 24-hour plume. The
second scenario is the "downplume vista,"
whereby the observer stands at the eastern
boundary of the Pasayten Wilderness and
look westward down the maximum 24-hour
plume. Note that for each of the two vistas,
the observer is looking through a plume that
has spatial variations in the particle
concentrations as defined by each ISC3
receptor grid point.
Calculated Light Extinction Coefficients and
SVR Calculations. After the paniculate
concentrations at each ISC3 grid point were
calculated, the light extinction coefficient at
each point was estimated using the screening
level procedure from IWAQM, 1993. The
SVR for each of the two assumed vistas was
then calculated by applying the light
extinction equations for each of the light path
sectors defined by the ISC3 grid points.
Deciviews" Used to Quantify Visibility
Impacts. For this assessment, the potential
degradation of regional visibility was
expressed as an increase in the "deciviews."
The deciview index was developed to provide
a consistent indicator to allow comparison of
baseline versus impacted vistas (Pitchford
and Malm, 1994). The deciview indicator is
a logarithmic scale, similar to the decibel
scale that is commonly used to quantify noise
levels. In general, a high amount of air
pollution corresponds to a high deciview
value. A value of zero deciviews corresponds
to pristine conditions with no significant
particulate, while heavily polluted areas such
as Los Angeles exhibit averages of about 32
deciviews. In general, new sources of air
pollution can be assessed by calculating the
increase in the deciview value caused by the
source. WADOE and other agencies
recommend the following rating system
(Bowman, 1996): increases of less than 1
deciview are not noticeable; increases of 2 to
5 deciviews are generally acceptable; and
increases of more than 5 deciviews indicate
unacceptable degradation of regional
visibility.
Calculated Visibility Impacts for Each
Scenario. Table 4.1.8. Alternative B,
Calculated Visibility Impacts at Pasayten
Wilderness, summarizes the results of the
plume visibility calculations for each scenario.
The calculations indicate that plume visibility
impacts could occur for the down-plume vista
where the observer looked downwind along
the plume, and if the upper-bound nitrogen
and sulfur oxidation rates occurred in the
plume. For that combination of scenarios,
the calculated reductions in SVR correspond
to 5.2 deciviews to 7.1 deciviews increases
in the deciview values, which are considered
to be unacceptable increases according to
WADOE guidance. The calculated plume
visibility impacts for the other scenarios
(cross-plume vista, and lower-bound oxidation
rates) are lower than the WADOE guidance
thresholds.
In summary, the fugitive dust and tailpipe
emissions from the proposed Crown Jewel
Project could cause visibility impacts at the
Pasayten Wilderness Area, if a combination
of worst-case conditions are assumed to
occur. Observers looking either east or west
along the plume centerline might be affected
by substantial reductions in the SVR
compared to pristine background conditions.
However, this assessment is based on a
combination of worst-case assumptions. If it
is assumed that north-south valley winds
along the Okanogan River valley would
disrupt the westward transport of mine-
related emissions or if it is assumed that
relatively little of the tailpipe emissions
oxidize in the atmosphere, then the calculated
mine-related visibility impacts would be lower
than the accepted no-impact thresholds.
Air Quality Impacts to Vegetation at Pasayten
Wilderness Area
The air quality modeling for Alternative B
mining activities reveals estimated emissions
of 365 tons/year of NOx and 30 tons/year of
S02. If the emissions were transported by
upper-air winds across the Okanogan River
valley for 60 to 150 kilometers westward
toward the Pasayten Wilderness Area, then
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-18
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
TABLE 4.1.8, ALTERNATIVE B CALCULATED VISIBILITY IMPACTS
AT PASAYTEN WILDERNESS
Item
Maximum 24-hour Primary
Paniculate, //gm3
Maximum 24-hour Secondary
Paniculate, //gm3
24-hour Total Paniculate, //mg3
Calculated SVR, KM
Deciview Index
Increase in Deciviews Above
Background
184-KM Background SVR
Background
NA
NA
NA
184
7.6
0
Cross
Plum*
Vista
1.1
0.05
1.15
180
7.8
0.2
Down
Plum*
Vista
1.1
0.05
1.15
168
8.4
0.8
296-KM Background SVR
Background
NA
NA
NA
296
2.8
0
Cross
Plum*
Vista
1.1
0.05
1.15
290
3.0
0.2
Down
Plume
Vista
1.1
0.05
1.15
261
4.1
1.3
Upper-Bound Sulfur and Nitrogen Conversion Rates (100% Conversion to Secondary Particulate)
Maximum 24-hour Primary
Paniculate, //gm3
Maximum 24-hour Secondary
Particulate, //gm3
24-hour Total Particulate, //mg3
Calculated SVR, KM
Deciview Index
Increase in Deciviews Above
Background
NA
NA
NA
184
7.6
0
1.1
6.8
7.9
158
9.1
1.5
1.1
6.8
7.9
109
12.8
• ^:-gr v*::;'
NA
NA
NA
296
2.8
0
1.1
6.8
7.9
255
4.3
1.5
1.1
6.8
7.9
145
9.9
7.1
Note: Shaded areas indicate conditions where the calculated increase in the deciview index exceeds the threshold
for acceptable impacts based on WADOE guidance.
Source: ENSR, 1996d
the increases in airborne nitrate
concentrations could have an adverse impact
on vegetation there.
It is uncertain how often, if ever, upper-level
winds could actually transport the mine-
related pollutants as far to the west as the
Pasayten Wilderness. As a worst-case
assumption for this impact assessment, it
was assumed that the wind speed and wind
direction data from the Proponent's ground-
level meteorological station on the eastern
slope of Buckhorn Mountain can be used to
represent the upper-air wind fields. In reality,
it must be recognized that under most
conditions the prevailing wind directions
probably consist of westerly upper-air winds
along the jet stream and north-south winds
along the Okanogan River valley. The
combination of those expected prevailing
winds would indicate that the mine-related
emissions would seldom, if ever, be
transported to the Pasayten Wilderness.
The screening-level methodologies from
IWAQM (1993) were used to estimate the
annual deposition rates of nitrogen and sulfur
at the Pasayten Wilderness that would be
caused by tailpipe emissions from the Crown
Jewel Project. The results of the calculations
are summarized in Table 4.1.9, Alternative B,
Calculated Worst-Case Nitrate and Sulfate
Deposition at Pasayten Wilderness Area. For
this worst-case impact assessment, the
meteorological data from the Proponent's
meteorological station at Buckhorn Mountain
were used with the ISC3 model to estimate
the annual-average concentrations of NOx
and S02 at the Pasayten. Next, all of the
airborne NOx was assumed to oxidize to
nitric acid, and all of the S02 was assumed to
oxidize to form sulfate. In reality, it would be
expected that less than 100% conversion of
those compounds would occur in north-
central Washington, because the sulfur
oxidation would be retarded by the low
relative humidity and the nitrogen oxidation
would be retarded by the lack of man-made
photochemical oxidants (e.g., ozone) in this
isolated rural area. In the next step, the
annual deposition rates of nitrogen and sulfur
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-19
TABLE 4.1.9, ALTERNATIVE B, CALCULATED WORST-CASE NITRATE AND
SULFATE DEPOSITION AT PASAYTEN WILDERNESS AREA
Parameter
Nitrate Deposition
Calculated Worst-Case Deposition Rates
ISC3-Modeled Annual Average Ambient Concentration //g/m3
Dry Deposition Velocity, cm/sec
Calculated Dry Deposition Rate, kg/ha/yr
Estimated Wet Deposition Rate, kg/ha/yr
Total Mine-Related Deposition Rate, kg/ha/yr
Published Existing Baseline Deposition Rate, kg/hr/yr
Sum of Baseline Plus Mine-Related Deposition, kg/ha/yr
NOX = 0.18
1.0
0.78
0.78
1.56
1.8- 2.6
3.36-4.16
Sulfate Deposition
S02 = 0.015
0.5
0.048
0.048
0.96
2.0 - 3.6
2.1 -3.7
No-Effect Deposition Rate Thresholds for Pasayten Vegetation, kg/ha/yr
Coniferous Forest
Shrubs
Herbaceous Plants
3 - 15
3- 5
3 - 10
5
5
5
Source: ENSR, 1996c
were calculated by multiplying the ISC3-
modeled ambient concentrations times dry
deposition rates taken from Seinfeld, 1986.
The calculated worst-case dry deposition
rates for nitrate and sulfate are 0.78
kg/hectare-year and 0.048 kg/hectare-year,
respectively. The next step is to estimate the
wet deposition rate for nitrate and sulfate. In
the absence of any firm data or calculation
methodologies, the wet deposition rate was
arbitrarily assumed to be equal to the
calculated dry deposition rate. The final step
is to sum the estimated wet and dry
deposition rates to calculate the total mine-
related deposition at the Pasayten
Wilderness.
There are no firm data regarding the existing
baseline deposition rates at the Pasayten
Wilderness. The Forest Service and the
National Park Service have conducted a
variety of surface water, rainwater and
snowfall chemistry studies at various
wilderness areas in the northwest (Peterson
et. al., 1992; Eilers et. al, 1994). The
baseline nitrogen and sulfur deposition rates
listed in Table 4.1.9, Alternative B,
Calculated Worst-Case Nitrate and Sulfate
Deposition at Pasayten Wilderness Area, are
based on data for rainfall and snowfall
sampling only. It is likely that the true
deposition from all airborne sources could be
higher than the values listed in that table.
The published thresholds for defining adverse
nitrogen and sulfur deposition rates for
representative plant types are listed in Table
4.1.9, Alternative B, Calculated Worst-Case
Nitrate and Sulfate Deposition at Pasayten
Wilderness Area based on Peterson et.al,
1992. As shown in that table, the estimated
baseline deposition rates at the Pasayten
Wilderness are already near levels that could
cause adverse impacts to plants. If the
worst-case nitrogen deposition rates caused
by the mine-related emissions are added to
the baseline values, then the total nitrogen
deposition appears to be well within the
range that could begin to cause adverse
impacts. The mine-related contribution is a
substantial portion of the total.
As shown in Table 4.1.9, Alternative B,
Calculated Worst-Case Nitrate and Sulfate
Deposition at Pasayten Wilderness Area, the
worst-case sulfate deposition rate does not
appear to be of concern. The calculated
worst-case sulfur deposition rate is a small
fraction of the existing baseline value, and
the combined sulfur deposition rate is
considerably lower than the published no-
impact threshold value.
In summary, it appears that the existing
baseline nitrogen deposition rate at the
Pasayten Wilderness is already near the level
that could cause impacts to plants. If a
combination of worst-case meteorological and
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-2O
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
chemical assumptions are used (upper level
winds transporting the mine emissions
westward; 100% conversion of NO emissions
to nitrate) then the mine-related nitrogen
deposition would add substantially to the
existing baseline loading, and the resulting
total nitrogen deposition would be higher than
the published threshold values. However,
this assessment is based on a combination of
worst-case assumptions. If it assumed that
north-south valley winds along the Okanogan
River valley would disrupt the westward
transport of mine-related emissions or if it is
assumed that relatively little of the tailpipe
emissions oxidize in the atmosphere, then the
calculated mine-related deposition would be
lower than the published no-impact
thresholds.
4.1.6 Effects of Alternative C
This alternative features underground mining,
and is calculated to cause lower emission
rates for all air pollutants than those for
Alternative B (see Table 4.1.1, Summary of
Emissions by Alternative). Therefore, this
alternative would be expected to result in
lower peak year and total ambient air
pollutant concentrations than Alternatives B,
D, E, F, and G.
4.1.7 Effects of Alternative D
Since Alternative D would be a combination
of open pit and underground mining, the peak
year TSP emissions during operation are
predicted to be less than Alternatives B and
G, but more than Alternatives C and F. This
alternative is expected to cause total ambient
air pollutant concentrations lower than those
for Alternatives B, E, F, and G, but greater
than those for Alternative C.
4.1.8 Effects of Alternative F
For this alternative, the mining would be
conducted at a lower annual rate but for a
longer period of time than for Alternatives B,
E, and G. The maximum annual average and
daily average air pollutant emission rates are
expected to be 50% to 86% of those
modeled for Alternatives B and E. The
ambient air pollutant concentrations would be
correspondingly lower. However, the total air
pollution impacts would occur over a period
of impact about three times as long as they
would under Alternatives B and E and would
be expected to be 160% to 200% greater.
The peak year cyanide emissions would be
86% of Alternatives B, C, D and E, however,
the total emissions would be 341 % of
Alternative C, 229% of Alternative D, and
172% of Alternatives B and E.
The fugitive dust emission rate during
reclamation would be greater, and the
duration of impact would be longer for
Alternative F than for any other action
alternative. The reclamation phase of this
alternative would generate additional dust
emissions as a result of hauling all the waste
rock from a temporary location back to the
pit. The total, life of Project, TSP and PM-10
produced would be more than twice that
produced by Alternatives B and E and 86%
greater than Alternative G. Refer to Table
4.1.1, Summary of Emissions by Alternative.
This reclamation activity would have about a
16-year duration.
4.1.9 Effects of Alternative G
The estimated peak year fugitive dust
emission rate during operations would be
larger for Alternative G than for all other
action alternatives due to the additional
hauling distance and associated fugitive dust
generated from a single waste rock stockpile
and from hauling 12 loads/day of concentrate
to Oroville. The ambient TSP concentrations
at the Proponent's fence line were not
modeled for this alternative, but they are
expected to be higher than those for
Alternatives B and E which resulted in
modeled concentrations only slightly below
the WADOE standard. No on-site cyanide
emissions would occur with Alternative G.
4.1.10 Cumulative Effects
None of the alternatives are expected to have
major effects on local or regional climate.
The emissions from the alternatives would be
small relative to the overall emissions from
the regional area, which already experiences
urban, industrial, agricultural and logging
activities. The emission of "greenhouse
Crown Jewel Mine f Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-21
gases" such as carbon dioxide from
construction equipment tailpipes would be
low compared to existing emissions from
residential heaters and tailpipes at Tonasket,
Oroville, and Omak. None of the alternatives
would emit large amounts of water vapor,
which might otherwise cause localized
fogging or icing. Furthermore, the
concentrations of the emitted pollutants
would be expected to dissipate to near-
background levels within ten miles from the
mine site. The Crown Jewel Project
emissions are expected to cause increases in
paniculate concentrations which are
measurable but not large (less than 15% of
the ambient air quality standards) at nearby
population centers in Chesaw and Bolster.
The Crown Jewel Project emissions are not
expected to cause measurable increases of
paniculate concentrations in the Midway,
British Columbia, population center.
No long-term, adverse impacts to air quality
would be expected to result from
implementation of slash disposal on this
Crown Jewel Project and adjacent projects
(i.e. Nicholson and Park Place timber sales) in
either the U.S. or Canada due to smoke
management for all projects in the State of
Washington by the WADNR. It would not be
very likely that land clearing and/or slash
burning from the various projects would be
undertaken at the same time. Slash burning
of the residual vegetation from the most
recent timber tracks is proposed to occur in
1999.
It appears that the existing baseline nitrogen
deposition rate at the Pasayten Wilderness is
already near the level that could cause
impacts to plants. If a combination of worst-
case meteorological and chemical
assumptions are used (upper level winds
transporting the mine emissions westward;
100% conversion of NO emissions to nitrate)
then mine-related nitrogen deposition would
add substantially to the existing baseline
loading, and the resulting total nitrogen
deposition would be higher than the published
threshold values.
4.1.11 Climate
None of the alternatives would emit enough
particulates or water vapor to cause cloud
formation, fogging or icing, which might
otherwise contribute to local weather
impacts. The emissions of "greenhouse
gases" from the proposed mining operations
would be low compared to similar emissions
from non-Project activities elsewhere in the
region.
In eastern Washington valleys, cold air often
flows down slopes and collects in low places.
Interrupting this flow can result in a "cold air
dam" by creating another place for cold air to
collect. The remaining embankment around
the reclaimed tailings and the walls of the
north pit would have the potential to act as
cold air dams potentially reducing
revegetation success during reclamation.
4.2 TOPOGRAPHY/PHYSIOGRAPHY
4.2.1 Summary
The construction and operation of the Crown
Jewel Project would introduce a noticeable
topographic change in the immediate area of
Buckhorn Mountain. Development of a
comprehensive reclamation plan that involves
regrading and recontouring, and strict
adherence to this plan would lessen the
topographic intrusion on the site. The degree
of topographic impact would be a function of
the acreage disturbed, the type of mining, the
final configuration of the open pit, waste rock
disposal piles, tailings facility, and the extent
of subsidence that develops over
underground mine workings. The variations
in acreage are shown on Table 4.2.1,
Acreage Impacts of Major Facilities.
Although the topographic changes are long-
term, the regrading and recontouring aspects
of the reclamation efforts would be
conducted in such a manner that the waste
rock and tailings areas would be, to the
extent possible, blended into the adjacent
undisturbed terrain.
As described in detail in Section 2.11.4,
General Reclamation Procedures, subsection
"Grading and Stabilization," reclamation
blasting would be conducted to create
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-22
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
TABLE 4.2.1, ACREAGE IMPACTS OF MAJOR FACILITIES1
Surface Facility
Waste Rock Disposal Areas
Tailings Facility
Pit Area
Subsidence Area
Alt. A
0
0
0
0
Alt. B
288
101
1382
0
Alt. C
26
89
0
27
Alt. D
98
101
73
3
Alt. E
379
101
138
0
Alt. F
21 53
157
138
0
Alt. G
294
137
138
0
Notes: 1 . For total disturbance, refer to Table 2. 1, Alternative Comparison Summary.
2. The Proponent's Plan of Operations included a pit area of 1 16 acres. A 22 acre safety buffer has been
added by the lead agencies to aid in comparison with Alternatives E, F, and G.
3. Temporary storage, waste rock to be backfilled into pit.
irregular cliffs and talus slopes in an effort to
eliminate and minimize the artificial
topographic appearance created by the
rectilinear activities of open pit mining.
Alternative F would require that all waste
rock be returned to the pit. Since loose
material would "swell" as much as 35%
when removed from the pit area, it would
take more room to replace it in the pit. This
could result in a slightly higher summit on
Buckhorn Mountain and gentler slopes within
the Gold Bowl drainage than currently exist.
Alternative C could have up to 27 acres of
potential subsidence, while Alternative D
could have up to three acres of potential
subsidence. The subsidence areas would
probably have unstable edges and steep talus
slopes.
Waste rock disposal areas would be
configured such to eliminate rectilinear
features, as much as possible, while the
slopes would vary from angle of repose to
3H:1 V or flatter. In Alternative B, the south
disposal area would have overall average
2.5H:1V slopes; the slopes on the north
disposal area would mostly vary from
2.51-1:1 V to 3H:1 V. Waste rock disposal
areas would be graded to mostly a slope of
31-1:1 V or flatter on public lands administered
by the BLM. Waste rock disposal piles, in all
the other alternatives, would have overall
average 3H: 1V slopes. In all action
alternatives, the slopes would be varied to
comply with the Washington State Surface
Mining Law ROW 78.45, Chapter 78.45 RCW
administered by the WADNR.
All action alternatives would have a tailings
facility. In Alternatives B, C, D, and E the
facility would be located in the Marias
drainage and be 84 acres to 101 acres in
size. Alternative F and G tailings facilities
would be located in Nicholson drainage and
be 1 57 or 137 acres, respectively. These
areas would appear somewhat unnatural due
to the large flat areas that would be created
and the uniform, high steep dam faces.
However, proposed revegetation efforts
would help these areas blend into the natural
surroundings.
4.2.2 Effects of Alternative A (No
Action)
If the no action alternative is selected, the
Proponent would probably discontinue
exploration and pre-development activities
and complete reclamation of areas disturbed
by exploration operations as required by
existing environmental decision documents.
Reclamation would essentially restore and
replicate the pre-exploration topography.
4.2.3 Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives
Direct Effects
The approval of any of the action alternatives
would result in changes to the topography of
the area.
Tailings impoundments would be created with
all action alternatives, which would create
long-term, irreversible transformation of the
existing topography. Depending on the
alternative, topographic changes would vary
with the size of the particular tailings facility
and whether located in the Marias or the
Nicholson Creek drainage.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-23
Permanent waste rock disposal areas would
be constructed in all action alternatives,
except Alternative F, where complete
backfilling is proposed. These waste rock
disposal areas would permanently alter the
existing landscape by changing the present
topography.
Although these topographic changes are long-
term, the regrading and recontouring aspects
of the reclamation efforts would be
conducted in such a manner that the waste
rock and tailings areas would be blended into
the surrounding undisturbed terrain to achieve
a resemblance to the pre-mining terrain. For
Alternatives B, D, E, and G, reclamation
blasting would be completed to create
irregular cliffs and talus slopes in an effort to
eliminate and minimize the artificial,
rectilinear, topographic appearance created
by open pit mining.
Visual aspects of the action alternatives are
discussed in detail in Section 4.15, Scenic
Resources.
Indirect Effects
There are no anticipated indirect topographic
effects expected for any of the action
alternatives.
Cumulative Effects
There are no anticipated cumulative
topographic effects expected for any of the
action alternatives.
4.2.4 Effects of Alternative B
The final topographic configuration of
Alternative B is set forth on Figure 2.17,
Alternative B - Proponents Proposed
Postmining Plan. The major changes in post-
operational topography would be the final
mine pit (138 acres total: 116 acres of pit
and 22 acres of buffer zone area cleared for
safety around pit), the two waste rock
disposal areas (288 acres) and the tailings
facility in the Marias Creek drainage (101
acres). A lake would develop in the north
portion of the mine pit. Reclamation blasting
of several locations on the pit wall would be
completed to create a more natural looking
environment. Some waste rock would be
returned to the south pit to eliminate some of
the benches along the southwest wall of the
pit.
4.2.5 Effects of Alternative C
The final topographic configuration of
Alternative C is set forth on Figure 2.18,
Alternative C - Operational Site Plan. The
major change in the post-operational
topography would be the 89 acre tailings
facility in the Marias Creek drainage. Other
changes include the 26 acre underground
development waste rock disposal area to the
northeast of the mining area, and 25 acres of
surface quarry, one quarry southeast of the
summit of Buckhorn Mountain and the other
quarry adjacent to the tailings facility.
Surface subsidence features (up to 27 acres)
could develop above some of the
underground operation. Because some of the
Crown Jewel Project ore zones are located in
close proximity to the surface, the extraction
of such resources by underground techniques
would probably cause caving to the surface.
The extent of subsidence is difficult to
predict, but it is assumed that there would be
caving to the surface above ore zones lying
less than 100 feet in depth from the surface.
One of the mining techniques proposed for
Alternative C is glory hole mining; this
technique (as described in Chapter 2,
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action) is
a method of planned extraction of near-
surface ore zones by underground means that
would leave "funnel-shaped" or "crater-
shaped" depressions on the surface.
4.2.6 Effects of Alternative D
The final topographic configuration of
Alternative D is set forth on Figure 2.19,
Alternative D - Operational Site Plan. The
major changes in post-operational topography
would be the final mine pit (73 acres), the
waste rock disposal area (98 acres), and the
tailings facility in the Marias Creek drainage
(101 acres). Some surface subsidence
features, an estimated three acres, could
develop over the area of underground mining
similar to Alternative C. A lake would
develop in the final open pit area.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-24
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
Reclamation blasting of several locations on
the pit wall would be completed in an effort
to create a more natural looking environment.
4.2.7 Effects of Alternative E
The final topographic configuration of
Alternative E is set forth on Figure 2.20,
Alternative E - Operational Site Plan. The
major changes in post-operational topography
would be the final mine pit (138 acres total:
116 acres of pit and 22 acres of buffer zone
cleared for safety around pit), the two waste
rock disposal areas (379 acres) and the
tailings facility in the Marias Creek drainage
(101 acres). The northern portion of the final
mine pit would be partially backfilled with
waste rock that would create a relatively flat
area. No surface lake would develop in the
final open pit area. Reclamation blasting of
several locations on the pit wall would be
done to create a more natural looking
environment. Some waste rock would be
returned to the south pit to eliminate some of
the benches along the southwest wall of the
pit.
4.2.8 Effects of Alternative F
The final topographic configuration of
Alternative F is set forth on Figure 2.21,
Alternative F - Operational S/te Plan. During
operations, a waste rock stockpile (215
acres) would be created northeast of the
mine pit; this waste rock would be backfilled
into the final mine pit after the permanent
cessation of mining. The major changes in
post-operational topography would be the
tailings facility (1 57 acres) in the Nicholson
Creek drainage. Because of the estimated
35% swell factor anticipated for the waste
rock, the final topography of the pit area
would be 20 feet to 50 feet higher in
elevation after backfilling than the pre-
disturbance topography. The final
topography of the temporary waste rock
stockpile area would approximate the pre-
disturbance topography.
4.2.9 Effects of Alternative G
The final topographic configuration of
Alternative G is shown on Figure 2.22,
Alternative G - Operational Site Plan. The
major changes in post-operational topography
would be the final mine pit (138 acres total:
116 acres of pit and 22 acres of buffer zone
cleared for safety around pit), the waste rock
disposal area (294 acres), and the tailings
facility in the Nicholson Creek drainage (137
acres). A lake would develop in the north
portion of the mine pit. Reclamation blasting
of several locations on the pit wall would be
done to create a more natural looking
environment. Some waste rock would be
returned to the south pit to eliminate a
portion of the benches along the southwest
wall of the mine pit.
4.3 GEOLOGY
4.3.1 Summary
If the Crown Jewel Project proceeds, a
certain amount of geologic material (ore and
waste rock) would be removed, altered
and/or re-arranged. The gold values would be
gone, and the existing geological structure
and lithologic continuity in the area of the ore
deposit would be altered.
Alternatives B, E, F, and G would remove
and/or relocate about 63.1 million cubic yards
of material (both ore and waste rock),
Alternative D would remove about 24 million
cubic yards, while Alternative C would
remove about 4.8 million cubic yards of
material. The relocation of this material
would affect the surface topography of the
area. These effects were discussed in
Section 4.2, Topography/Physiography.
4.3.2 Effects of Alternative A (No Action)
If the no action alternative is selected, gold
ore would not be removed and processed.
The gold resource and the structural and
lithologic integrity of Buckhorn Mountain
would remain in-place. The potential to
recover the precious metal resource at some
time in the future would remain.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-25
4.3.3 Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives
Direct Effects
In ail action alternatives, rock material (ore)
would be mined and processed for the
recovery of gold. The rock material from
which the gold is extracted would become
tailings which would be deposited in either a
Marias or Nicholson Creek tailings facility.
The tailings would be a finely ground rock
mixture composed of magnetite, garnet and
undifferentiated skarn deposits from which
the gold values have been extracted. To
recover the ore, waste rock would be
removed from either the surface or
underground mine and placed in waste rock
disposal area(s). Mining would alter the
existing geologic structure and lithologic
continuity in the pit area.
Alternatives B, E, F, and G would alter the
geologic continuity of about 54 million cubic
yards of waste rock material and 9.1 million
cubic yards of ore material.
Alternative D would remove 18.8 million
cubic yards of waste ropk and about 5.2
million cubic yards of ore material.
Alternative C would remove about 0.5 million
cubic yards of waste rock and an estimated
4.3 million cubic yards of ore material.
Indirect Effects
The only possible indirect geologic effects
expected for any of the action alternatives
would result from the maximum creditable
earthquake (MCE). MCE is defined as the
largest earthquake that is projected to occur
in a given area (California Division of Mines
and Geology, 1975). MCE estimates are
typically used for long-lived, high-risk projects
such as large dams (USCOLD, 1985).
Disruption of the geology in other locations
by placement of the material removed during
mining could contribute to the effects
experienced by other resources (i.e.;
vegetation, soils, hydrology, visuals, wildlife,
etc).
Cumulative Effects
Although a small portion of the geology in
and around Buckhorn Mountain has been
altered by historic mining activities, there are
no anticipated local or regional cumulative
geologic effects expected for any of the
action alternatives.
4.4 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
4.4.1 Summary
Geologic events, such as earthquakes, could
result in damage or destruction of any or all
components comprising the action
alternatives. In addition, the release of
chemicals into the environment could result
from the occurrence of a major geologic
event. The damage, destruction, or chemical
contamination would vary depending on the
severity of the event and could lead to direct
and indirect impacts. Although it is possible
for an earthquake to occur in the region
surrounding the Crown Jewel Project, the
potential for damage to a facility and release
of chemicals or tailings material would be
minimized through engineering design and
proper construction.
No active faults are known to exist in the
Crown Jewel Project area. There is a low
potential for damaging seismic activity.
All buildings on the Crown Jewel Project site
would be designed and constructed according
to the latest Okanogan County and Uniform
Building Code standards.
The tailings facilities and the Starrem water
storage reservoir would be designed and
constructed to withstand a Maximum
Creditable Earthquake (MCE) for the area
(magnitude 6.0 on the Richter scale) with an
estimated peak bedrock acceleration at the
site of 0.19 g (gravity).
Possible catastrophic consequences
associated with a tailings facility or dam
failure from an earthquake event greater than
the MCE are discussed in Section 4.22,
Accidents and Spills. If an earthquake of this
intensity occurred in this area, with or
without the development of the Crown Jewel
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-26
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
Project, it could result in severe property
destruction, loss of electric and other utility
services, and possible loss of life in this
region of Washington and Canada.
The waste rock disposal areas would be
designed to meet or exceed factors of safety
on the order of 1.2 static and 1.1 dynamic
(pseudo-static). A static factor of safety
measures the safety of the facility under
normal conditions. The dynamic factor of
safety, sometimes expressed as pseudo-
static, shows the ability to resist failure from
earthquake loading.
4.4.2 Effects of Alternative A (No
Action)
Under this alternative, no mining would
occur, and no waste rock disposal areas or
tailings facilities would be constructed;
therefore, no Project-related geotechnical
consequences would occur. The possibility
of a moderate earthquake, as described in
Section 3.4, Geotechnical Considerations,
remains; however, given the local geological
conditions of the Crown Jewel Project area,
large scale slope instabilities and mass
wasting are not likely. Glaciofluvial deposits
are generally stable because the material is
primarily deposited on flat terrain and along
the drainage basins of Marias, Nicholson, and
Myers Creek. Steeper slopes in the area
occur in bedrock units composed of volcanic
material which is not easily influenced by
unfavorable structural trends (bedding and
joints) which could result in slope instability.
4.4.3 Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives
Direct Effects
Effects related to stability can be discussed in
terms of probability of failure and
consequences of failure. The probability of
failure would be a function of engineering
design calculations and construction quality
control. The consequences of failure are
discussed for waste rock dumps, the tailings
facilities, and drainage control structures. Pit
wall stability and the effects of subsidence
from underground mining operations are
discussed under individual alternatives.
Design Considerations. Preliminary design
work used the historic earthquake records
and attenuated accelerations from the largest
earthquakes. It was estimated that the peak
bedrock acceleration at the Crown Jewel
Project site could reach 0.19 g for a 1,000
year return event for such an earthquake.
Knight Piesold (1993a) estimated the MCE for
the area and placed such an earthquake at an
epicenter distance of ten miles from the
Crown Jewel Project site; they then
attenuated the ground acceleration and
predicted a maximum bedrock acceleration of
0.19 g. This peak acceleration was then
utilized in the performance of a displacement
analysis. This means that displacements
associated with the earthquake of this
severity, within ten miles of the Crown Jewel
Project site, would not result in failure of the
tailings facility in Alternative B (Knight
Piesold, 1993a). This assessment would also
apply to the other alternative tailing facilities
for Alternatives C, D, E, F, and G.
Engineering design calculations indirectly rate
the probability of failure of a Crown Jewel
Project component. Engineers customarily
express failure probabilities as factors of
safety. The higher the factor of safety, the
more certain one can be about the stability of
a structure. A factor of safety equal to 1.0
implies the facility is exactly strong enough to
support itself.
Factors of safety less than 1.0 imply that the
facility could experience some measure of
failure, while factors of safety greater than
1.0 imply the facility is more than strong
enough to carry the calculated loads.
Engineers design facilities with factors of
safety somewhat greater than 1.0 to allow
for unknowns that might affect either the
strength of the structure or the load that it
must sustain.
A factor of safety is generally calculated for
static conditions. A static factor of safety
measures the safety of the facility under
normal (static) conditions. A pseudo-static
factor of safety can be calculated to assess
the stability under dynamic loading
conditions. To calcuJate the pseudo-static
factor of safety, a seismic coefficient is used
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-27
as the dynamic input. Depending on ground
conditions, the seismic coefficient is generally
less than the bedrock acceleration.
Alternatively, a more rigorous analysis can be
used that calculates the amount of
displacement based on an expected
earthquake time history.
Both static stability and displacement
analyses were completed by the Proponent
for the south waste rock pile (Colder, 1995a)
and indicate that an adequate static factor of
safety (factor of safety equal to or greater
than 1.3) can be achieved by the current
design. In addition, the expected
displacements in waste rock pile from the
design earthquake are on the order of a few
inches and can easily be accommodated by
the waste rock pile without impacts to
operations.
Specific stability analyses for the ore
stockpile pad were also conducted (Colder,
1995b). These results indicate static factors
of safety that are greater than 1.3.
Displacement analyses for the design
earthquake indicate small displacements, on
the order of a few inches. Based on these
results, it is concluded that the proposed ore
stockpile would adequately resist the design
earthquake with essentially no damage and
no risk of an overall failure.
The waste rock materials to be placed in the
north waste rock disposal area and the
foundation conditions are expected to be
similar to the ore stockpile pad as reported by
Colder Associates (Colder, 1995b) and are
expected to have a greater factor of safety
than the south waste rock areas since the
terrain is less steep. Therefore, provided that
similar measures for control of surface water
drainage are implemented, the stability
analyses are expected to be similar. See
Table 4.4.1, Waste Rock Disposal Areas -
Calculated Factors of Safety.
from wet debris slides at each waste rock
disposal area. The findings are summarized
in Table 4.4.2, Flow Failure Consequences -
Waste Rock Disposal Areas. The reader
should bear in mind that these are potential
risks inherent with the construction of the
waste rock disposal areas; however, based
on the stability analyses conducted, they are
not predicted to occur.
In the short-term, during operations, the
Proponent might suffer economic
consequences from a waste rock disposal
area failure, but it is expected that they
would be able to remediate the problem. In
the long-term, after reclamation, the
Proponent would still be liable for damages
resulting from such failures subject to the
existing federal or Washington State laws and
performance securities in effect at the time.
The waste rock disposal areas in Alternative
B would generally be re-contoured to 3H:1 V
or lesser slopes. The waste rock disposal
areas in Alternatives C, D, E, and G would be
re-contoured to overall 3H:1V or lesser
slopes. The potential for waste rock disposal
area slope failures in the long-term are low
based on slope angles and the results of the
design slope stability analyses for the
TABLE 4.4.1, WASTE ROCK DISPOSAL AREAS - CALCULATED FACTORS OF SAFETY
Alternative
B'
C2
D2
E2
G2
Facility
Waste Rock Disposal Area A (North)
Waste Rock Disposal Area B (South)
Underground Development Waste Rock
Disposal Area
Waste Rock Disposal Area (North)
Waste Rock Disposal Area I (North)
Waste Rock Disposal Area C (South)
Waste Rock Disposal Area J (North)
Static Factor
of Safety
£1.3
2.7
2.7
2.7
2.7
Notes: 1 . Factor of Safety Numbers from BMGC, 1995b.
2. Assumptions used in calculating factors of safety are addressed in
(TerraMatrix, 1994).
Dynamic
(Pseudo-Static)
Factor of Safety
>1.07
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
Slope Stability Analysis
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-28
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
TABLE 4.4.2, FLOW FAILURE CONSEQUENCES - WASTE ROCK DISPOSAL AREAS
Alternative
B
C
D
E
F
G
Facility
Waste Rock Disposal Area A (North)
Waste Rock Disposal Area B (South)
Underground Development Waste
Rock Disposal Area
Waste Rock Disposal Area (North)
Waste Rock Disposal Area I (North)
Waste Rock Disposal Area C (South)
No Permanent Disposal Area
Waste Rock Disposal Area J (North)
Wet Slide Runout1
400 foot runout from toe would encroach on frog pond.
1 ,700 foot runout from the tow would block North
Nicholson Creek.
50 foot runout from toe would cover main access road.
600 foot runout from toe would encroach on tailings.
500 foot runout from toe would encroach on frog pond.
400 foot runout from toe would encroach on frog pond.
1,700 foot runout from toe would block North Nicholson
Creek.
400 foot runout from toe would encroach on frog pond.
200 foot runout would block north Nicholson Creek.
750 foot runout from toe would encroach on tailings
facility.
400 foot runout from toe would encroach on frog pond.
600 foot runout would block north Nicholson Creek.
350 foot runout from toe would-block North Nicholson
Creek.
Note: 1 . These are not predicted effects, but very low probability risks.
waste rock disposal areas as set forth in
Table 4.4.1, Waste Rock Disposal Areas -
Calculated Factors of Safety. There would be
no long-term waste rock disposal areas in
Alternative F as all waste rock would be
backfilled into the mined-out pit.
Water Reservoir. The Starrem Reservoir
embankment would be designed and
constructed to withstand failure from a MCE
for the area with an estimated peak bedrock
acceleration at the site of 0.19 g (6 ft/s2)
(Colder, 1993a). There should be no
geotechnical effects as a result of the normal
operation of this facility. Possible destructive
consequences associated with a water
reservoir failure from an earthquake event
greater than the MCE are discussed in
Section 4.22, Accidents and Spills. If an
earthquake of this intensity occurred in the
vicinity of the Crown Jewel Project (with or
without the Project), it could result in severe
property destruction, loss of electric and
other utility services, and possible loss of life
in this region of Washington and Canada.
Drainage Control. Failure of drainage and
sediment control structures, such as ponds
and diversion ditches, could result in the
release of sediments and any impounded
water to surrounding drainages.
Since the issuance of the draft EIS, the
Proponent has revised and submitted a more
detailed storm water control plan as part of
their WADOE NPDES permit application. The
following is a summary of the Proponent's
proposed goals as extracted from the NPDES
application.
Design goals are:
• Delineate the storm water conveyance
system so that the developed site drainage
generally flows to the same natural
drainage basins as pre-development;
• Provide adequate retention/detention time
in sediment traps to remove and retain
suspended solids (WAC 173-240-130);
• Provide conveyance of the 100-year/24-
hour storm (NPDES 40 CFR and INFISH
Requirements) without overtopping the
ditches or sediment traps;
• Provide erosion protection of the
conveyance system from the 10-year/24-
hour storm (WAC 332-18-100);
• Estimate the infiltration, evaporation, and
discharge from the sediment traps for
average conditions (WAC 173-240-130);
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-29
• Provide capacity for one year of predicted
sediment yield (BMGC requirement); and,
• Provide capacity to contain the 10-
year/24-hour storm event without
discharge (BMGC requirement).
The sediment traps would perform a dual
function, collecting suspended solids for
appropriate disposition, and providing
storm water detention. The sediment traps
would be constructed of compacted, specific
gradation soil, and perimeter embankments
would be finished to slopes of no greater
than 2H:1 V. Inlets to the sediment traps
would incorporate a weir lined with high
density polyethylene and armored with rip
rap. In addition, each trap would incorporate
an overflow spillway sized to carry a 100-
year, 24-hour storm. The spillways would be
constructed over a foundation of at least six
inches of compacted soil and a 12 ounce
geotextile liner, and would be armored with
riprap. Each trap would also be provided
with sufficient excess capacity to hold up to
one year of collected sediment. The
sediment traps would be periodically
inspected, and sediment would be removed
as necessary to maintain the design capacity.
With the successful application of these
goals, the potential for failure of surface
water diversions and sediment and drainage
detention ponds is low during the life of the
facilities.
Slope Angles, Erosion Potential and
Reclamation. Erosion potential is of concern
given the limited volume of soil available and
the desire to establish viable vegetation
communities on areas proposed to be
disturbed by mining operations. An estimate
of the potential erodibility of soils on differing
slope angles can be made based on soil K-
factors (Washington Forest Practices Board
1993), using the formula; "soil K factor x
slope angle (in percent)" and comparing the
results to a U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation
Service rating system. A calculated value of
less than four represents a "low" erosion
potential, a value between four and eight
represents a "moderate" potential, and a
value greater than eight indicates a "high"
erosion potential. This approach was used
for comparative purposes to assess the
potential erodibility of soils on various slope
angles proposed under Alternatives B through
G. See Table 4.4.3, Slope Angle Versus
Erosion Potential. The same soil K-factor was
used in this assessment as was applied in the
Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation used to
calculate the potential erosion rates from the
Crown Jewel Project facilities under various
alternatives in Section 4.5, Soils.
Assuming a K-Factor of 0.18 for replaced
soils, the potential erodibility of soils on
3H:1 V slope angles (33%) is rated as
"moderate." Soils on 2H:1V slope angles
(50%) are rated as "high." Soils overlying a
slope angle of 1.5H:1V (67%) are also rated
as having a "high" erodibility potential. (For
comparative purposes, soils having K-Factors
greater than 0.25 on slopes steeper than
about 3H:1V are accorded "high" ratings.)
Slope angles can affect reclamation
machinery access and efficiency. With
respect to earth-moving equipment, large
dozers can access and spread soil efficiently
on slopes of 3H:1 V. Work on 21-1:1 V slopes
can proceed safely, but, at this slope angle,
efficiency is reduced due to the need for the
dozer to track back uphill to continue
reapplication activities. Side-hill work is
generally considered to be safe and efficient
TABLE 4.4.3, SLOPE ANGLE VERSUS EROSION POTENTIAL
Slope Angle
1.5H:1V
2.0H:1V
2.5H:1V
3.0H:1V
4.0H:1V
Erosion Potential
12
9
7.2
5.9
4.5
Source: Washington Forest Practices Board (1993) and U.S.D.A.
Conservation Service Rating System.
Soil
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-30
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
at 4H:1 V slopes with 3H:1 V slopes or greater
resulting in a decrease in equipment
efficiency and an increase in safety concerns.
In terms of equipment use, a 4H:1 V slope is
generally regarded to be the maximum slope
angle on which normal farm equipment can
operate efficiently. However, successful
revegetation using tractors, drills, crimpers,
etc. commonly occurs on mine sites on
slopes of 3H:1 V. Revegetation on slopes up
to 2H:1 V using similar equipment is possible
but efficiency can decrease noticeably.
Revegetation potential is also affected by
slope angle and is generally related to the
erosion potential and equipment efficiency
analyses presented above. As slope angle
increases, revegetation potential generally
decreases, though lesser angles up to 3H:1 V
(and possibly 2.5H:1V) do not inhibit
reclamation potential unduly. Up to this
angle, erosion potentials are acceptable, and
the site is readily accessible to both earth-
moving and revegetation equipment.
Comparatively inexpensive and efficient
mulching methods (e.g., crimped straw
mulch) can be applied to stabilize the applied
soil. However, approximately 75% more soil
is required to resoil a 3H:1 V slope as
compared to the steeper 1,5H:1 V slope. A
greater acreage (up to 50% more) must be
disturbed to construct a lesser slope angle
(3H: 1V versus 2H:1V).
Conversely, slope angles of 2H:1V and
steeper required a smaller disturbance area
for construction, a lesser volume of soil for
reapplication, and a smaller acreage requiring
revegetation. These are considered to be
positive aspects of steeper slopes. However,
equipment access is more difficult and soil
reapplication less accurate, consistent and
efficient which is of particular concern on a
site typified by a limited soil resource. In
addition, more intensive and generally more
costly mulching and soil stabilization
techniques (e.g., water bars, etc.) are
required with such steeper slope angles. This
is not to say that the effects of steeper
slopes are unmitigable, but that substantial
input of time, money, and effort is required to
overcome the characteristics of slope angles
steeper than 2H:1V.
Advantages and disadvantages with regard to
slope "shapes" are less quantifiable yet can
be assessed. Smooth or gently undulating
slope shapes are essentially subject to the
reclamation advantages and disadvantages as
discussed for slope angles above. Those
associated with talus slopes are primarily
associated with post mining land use.
Unresoiled rock talus slopes are generally not
subject to erosion or mass movement if
residing at the angle of repose or less, and
are not typically subject to mass movement.
Given that 5% to 10% of the predisturbance
acreage is composed of rock outcrops, it
might be appropriate that a certain
percentage of the reclaimed acreage be
dedicated to this land form. Talus slopes
would provide a certain amount of habitat
diversity within reclaimed waste rock disposal
areas that would not be attained if the entire
waste rock disposal area were revegetated.
Further, more soil would be available for
resoiling other areas if talus slopes were
included as a part of waste rock disposal area
reclamation. The disadvantage is the inability
to revegetate talus slopes in the short-term.
Benches created on the waste rock disposal
areas would serve to reduce slope lengths of
the reclaimed facility and reduce the erosion
potential of the site. At steeper slopes, a
smaller area would need to be disturbed for
facility construction, less soil would be
required for revegetation, and less acreage
overall would require reclamation. In
addition, the level benches could be
revegetated using reclamation techniques
common to more gently sloping areas.
However, unsoiled slope faces between
benches would exist and, if not screened,
could create a scenically displeasing slope
shape. A limited acreage of slope faces
(talus slopes) could be incorporated into the
revegetation plan for the waste rock disposal
areas to serve the habitat functions of the
rock outcrops common to the existing
undisturbed area.
Benches, which serve to help stabilize the
mine pit walls during operations, would not
readily provide access for earthmoving and
reclamation equipment. Where revegetation,
to some degree, would be required in the pit,
benches and talus slopes would have low
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-31
reclamation potential. If safety
considerations could be overcome and
adequate soil was available, benches could be
resoiled prior to abandonment. Talus slopes
would not likely be candidates for such a
practice due to steepness of the slopes. The
nearly level slopes of benches would provide
a more acceptable seedbed than talus slopes.
Further, seedbed material moisture conditions
would be more amenable with benches since
runoff would be much less than with talus
slopes.
Indirect Effects
There are no anticipated indirect geotechnical
effects expected for any of the action
alternatives.
Cumulative Effects
There are no anticipated cumulative
geotechnical effects expected for any of the
action alternatives.
4.4.4 Effects of Alternative B
The primary mine components with potential
geotechnical consequences include; the open
pit surface mine, two waste rock disposal
areas, the tailings facility, and the water
storage reservoir.
Short-term failure of the mine pit walls is for
the most part a mining personnel health and
safety issue but also has economic
consequences. Generally, mine pit wall
failures result in waste rock material covering
ore. The Proponent must stabilize the failure
and excavate the failed material prior to
extracting the ore. The Mine Safety and
Health Administration (MSHA) regulates the
stability of mine pit walls to ensure worker
safety.
The consequences of mine pit slope failure
after completion of mining are relatively
limited. The pit slopes would be in a
condition much like that of natural cliffs. All
natural cliffs tend to "ravel," particularly
during the spring months. Freeze-thaw action
on rocks tend to pry surface rocks away from
the intact slope. The rocks then roll some
distance down the slope before they come to
a stop. In abandoned mine pits, it is
expected that ravelling would be more active
in the early years following mine closure.
After some period of time, the rate of
ravelling would approach that found in
nature. The mine pit walls would be
expected to eventually form talus slopes that
would weather to an appearance similar to
natural slopes. The blasting of portions of
the pit walls as part of reclamation should
hasten this.
The geotechnical consequences for the two
waste rock disposal areas, the tailings
facility, and the water storage reservoir are
discussed in Section 4.4.3, Effects Common
to All Action Alternatives.
4.4.5 Effects of Alternative C
The primary mine components which could
have potential geotechnical impacts include
the surface subsidence from underground
mining, two surface quarries, one for
underground backfill material and the other
for borrow material for tailings embankment
construction, a single underground
development waste rock disposal area, the
tailings facility, and a water storage reservoir.
Subsidence is a potential consequence of
underground mining; it may be small and
localized or extend over considerable area (up
to 27 acres), and it may be immediate or
delayed for many years. Whenever a cavity
is created underground due to mining, the
natural equilibrium of the rock masses are
disturbed, causing stress redistributions in the
vicinity of the excavation with corresponding
horizontal and vertical displacements.
Subsidence of the ground surface would
occur when these displacements propagate
from the mine opening, through the overlying
strata, to the surface. Such ground
movements would cause surface
disturbances ranging from simple land
settlement to large surface depressions.
Deeper mine workings offer less chance for
surface subsidence due to the swell factor of
collapsing roof rock. To minimize the
potential for subsidence, all cavities created
within 100 feet of the surface could be
backfilled, but this would add operational,
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-32
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
safety, and economic constraints to the
underground mining.
Surface subsidence manifests itself in three
major ways:
• Cracks, fissures, or step fractures;
• Pits or sinkholes; or,
• Troughs or sags.
Surface cracks and fissures formed through
subsidence would form pathways to drain
water away from the topsoil, thus being
detrimental to plant growth. Flow of water
into the cracks could also cause erosion,
thereby widening them. Subsurface
hydrology patterns would be modified; water
would migrate through subsidence cracks and
openings eventually discharging from the
adits, similar to how water is now
discharging from some of the historic adits in
the Crown Jewel Project area. Flows from
the Crown Jewel Project adits would be
higher than the historic adit flows given the
much larger area of influence of the
underground workings. Vegetation and soil
would be drawn into subsidence pits and
sinkholes. Pits and sinkholes caused by
surface subsidence might also accumulate
water.
The effects of pit wall failure in the surface
quarries would be similar to those described
in Section 4.4.4, Effects of Alternative B, but
less given the smaller size of the quarries as
compared to the open pit proposed in
Alternative B.
The geotechnical consequences for the waste
rock disposal area, the tailings facility, and
the water storage reservoir are discussed in
Section 4.4.3, Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives.
4.4.6 Effects of Alternative D
Alternative D would combine underground
mining with open pit surface mining. The
effects of the surface mining would be similar
to those discussed under Alternative B. The
area subject to surface subsidence above the
underground workings would be smaller than
for Alternative C, but the subsidence impacts
would be similar to those described for
Alternative C.
The geotechnical consequences for the waste
rock disposal area, the tailings facility, and
the water storage reservoir are discussed in
Section 4.4.3, Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives.
4.4.7 Effects of Alternative E
Although the final pit area would be partially
filled with waste rock, the geotechnical
effects of the surface mining would be similar
to those discussed under Alternative B.
The geotechnical consequences for the two
waste rock disposal areas, the tailings
facility, and the water storage reservoir are
discussed in Section 4.4.3, Effects Common
to All Action Alternatives.
4.4.8 Effects of Alternative F
This alternative includes a single temporary
waste rock dump. At the cessation of
operations, all stockpiled waste rock would
be returned to the mine pit. The final
topography of the mine pit area would be
higher than the original topography prior to
mining due to the estimated 35% swell factor
associated with the waste rock material.
This increase in post-reclamation elevation
would occur even with the removal of the ore
material, which accounts for approximately
10% of the volume of the in-place (bank)
material removed as part of mining. Long-
term differential settlement of the replaced
waste rock could cause depressions in the
reclaimed area of the backfilled mine pit.
The geotechnical consequences for the
temporary waste rock stockpile, the tailings
facility, and the water storage reservoir are
discussed in Section 4.4.3, Effects Common
to All Action Alternatives.
4.4.9 Effects of Alternative G
The geotechnical effects of the surface
mining would be the same as those discussed
under Alternatives B and E.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-33
The geotechnical consequences for the single
waste rock disposal area, the tailings facility,
and the water storage reservoir are discussed
in Section 4.4.3, Effects Common to All
Action Alternatives.
4.5 SOILS
4.5.1 Summary
A number of effects to soils would occur as a
result of implementing any of the action
alternatives. These effects range from
changes in chemical and physical
characteristics due to blending during salvage
operations to a reduction in soil microbial
populations resulting from stockpiling. Many
of these direct effects would be mitigated
through proposed reclamation techniques.
The quality of the soil proposed to be
salvaged is suitable for the reclamation
planned. The 12 inch and 18 inch resoiling
depths proposed for reclamation would be
sufficient to support the proposed post
mining vegetation communities assuming care
is taken during soil reapplication.
Given proposed soil handling plans, sufficient
soil exists on-site to reclaim the disturbed
areas of all action alternatives except
Alternative C, which has an estimated soil
shortage of 23,400 cubic yards. The lack of
a substantial buffer volume of soils salvaged
under Alternative B requires proper care be
taken during salvage and reapplication
activities such that revegetation objectives
can be met. Test plots, to be constructed in
support of reclamation operations, would be
appropriate and beneficial for identifying
optimal resoiling depths, as well as other
necessary refinements prior to implementing
the proposed reclamation plans.
The potential for wind erosion at the Crown
Jewel Project area is low, given site
characteristics including a rolling topography
(short "field length") and a dense forest
canopy (high vegetative cover) (Radek, 1992;
Woodruff et al., 1972). Also see discussion
in Section 4.1, Air Quality.
Water erosion rates were calculated, for
existing site conditions and selected
components of all action alternatives, at the
end of one and five growing seasons
following reclamation. Estimated rates for
existing conditions ranged from 0.051 to
0.227 tons/acre/year. Rates estimated for
selected components of Alternatives B
through G ranged from 0.003 to 0.889
tons/acre/year over one to five growing
seasons. The annual soil loss tolerance level
for reclaimed areas at the Crown Jewel
Project site is 1.00 ton/acre/year given the
depths of soil reapplication proposed as well
as substrate characteristics (SCS, 1983).
"Tolerance" in this case indicates that at a
potential erosion rate of 1.00 ton/acre/year,
there should be no detrimental effect on soil
productivity. All values calculated using
conservative Revised Universal Soil Loss
Equation (RUSLE) values for reclaimed Crown
Jewel Project components were below this
figure, under all action alternatives.
Table 4.5.1, Summary of Resoiling
Considerations and Table 4.5.2, Summary of
Mine Component Potential Erosion Rates by
Alternative, depict soil mass balance and
erosion rate variations between the evaluated
alternatives. These calculated erosion/soil
loss rates would not result in direct increases
in sedimentation of the Crown Jewel Project
area streams. The eroded soil would simply
redeposit down slope prior to reaching the
sediment detention structures or would settle
out in the sediment detention structures,
which would be located below all disturbed
areas. See Section 2.12, Management and
Mitigation, for proposed measures to reduce
erosion and sedimentation potential.
Under any alternative, the forest-dominated
vegetation community overlying the majority
of the Crown Jewel Project area would be
replaced by a reclaimed grass/forb/shrub/tree
community in the short-term. This represents
an irreversible effect to the soil resource in
terms of soil productivity, though the
reclaimed community would return to a forest
type over time. Any subsoil materials not
salvaged prior to disturbance at the pit site or
covered by waste rock or tailings materials
under any alternative would be considered an
irretrievable loss of the soil resource.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-34
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
TABLE 4.5.1. SUMMARY OF RESOILING CONSIDERATIONS
Alternative
B3
C
D
E
F
G
Total Acreage To
Be Affected
787
415
558
928
817
893
Total Acreage To
Be Re-topsoiled1
549
282
377
663
564
631
Soil Volume
Salvaged
(bank cubic yards)2
1,122,500
398,500
696,100
1,381,000
1,228,200
1,401,300
Soil Volume
Required
(bank cubic yards)2
1,066,400
421,900
617,900
1,281,700
1,093,000
1,156,000
Variance
(cubic yards)
56,100
-23,400
78,200
99,300
135,200
245,300
Notes: 1 . Non-re-topsoiled acreage consists of a portion of the pit disturbances, topsoil stockpile areas, power line
right-of-way, subsidence zones, soil borrow pits, and main access road upgrade. Resoiling of various pit
acreages included for Alternatives B, E, F, and G. This practice is not applicable to Alternatives C and D,
(see Chapter 2, Alternatives Including the Proposed Action.
2. Assumes salvage and soil replacement program identical to Alternative B for all components of
Alternatives C through G. Water reservoir and soil borrow pit disturbances not included. Sufficient soil
exists under all alternatives for water storage reservoir reclamation. Sediment control structure
disturbances not included for alternatives since final location of such is not known at this time. The soil
volumes calculated for all alternatives represent 100% of the "suitable" soil available for salvage according
to the baseline report prepared for the soils discipline (Cedar Creek, 1992).
3. Soil volumes and acreage totals taken from the BMGC Reclamation Plan (BMGC, 1996f).
4.5.2 Effects of Alternative A (No
Action)
Under the No Action alternative, the soils in
the Crown Jewel Project area would remain
in their endemic state supporting current land
uses. Natural erosion would continue at the
same rate that currently exists. Soils
disturbed during exploration activities would
be stabilized and revegetated as required,
reducing erosion potentials and returning the
disturbed areas to a productive condition in
terms of the soil resource.
4.5.3 Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives
Direct Effects
Impacts to the soil resource include those
which would affect the chemical, microbial,
and physical nature of the endemic soils as
well as the volumes available for reclamation.
Erosion is a potential impact. Soil chemical
parameters would be permanently modified
as a result of the proposed soil salvage
program. Soil horizons would be mixed
during salvage resulting in a blending of
characteristics as compared to the soils in
their natural state. Given that only soils rated
as suitable for reclamation are proposed for
salvage, blending should not result in the
degradation of soil resources in terms of
reclamation potential. Soil chemistry would
also be modified through soil stockpiling as
anaerobic conditions within the disposal areas
develop. Soil chemical changes of this
nature, due specifically to stockpiling and
microbial population modifications, are
considered to be short-term and redeemable
to a level commensurate with vegetation
establishment following resoiling through soil
sampling and fertilization.
If the chipping and blending of woody debris
with soils is incorporated into the soil salvage
plan, additional impacts to soil chemistry
could occur depending on the amount
incorporated. It is likely that the woody
debris to be incorporated into the soil would
have a high carbon:nitrogen ratio. When
woody material, such as wood chips, are
introduced into the soil system, soil microbes
utilize the available soil nitrogen to
decompose the added debris with the result
that the nitrogen becomes unavailable to
higher plants (Tisdale and Nelson, 1975).
Over time, this process may be reversed,
though the greater the amount of debris
added to the soil, the longer it would take the
soil to reach a carbon:nitrogen "equilibrium" .
and the longer the soils reapplied to disturbed
sites remain in a nitrogen-depleted state. The
storage time may be discounted since soil
microbial activities would be much reduced
throughout the majority of the storage area.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-35
TABLE 4.5.2, SUMMARY OF MINE COMPONENT POTENTIAL EROSION RATES
BY ALTERNATIVE
Alternative/Component2 Total
Acreage
Baseline Conditions (Alternative A)
North waste rock disposal area NA
South waste rock disposal area NA
Tailings pond area NA
Alternative tailings pond area NA
Alternative B
Waste rock disposal area, level area 37.4
Waste rock disposal area slopes 250.6
Tailings surface 75.3
Tailings dam faces 1 1 .3
Alternative C
Waste rock disposal area slopes 26.0
Tailings surface 49.0
Tailings dam faces 6.0
Alternative D
Waste rock disposal area slopes 98.0
Tailings surface 59.8
Tailings dam faces 1 1 .6
Alternative E
Waste rock disposal area slopes 379.0
Tailings surface 75.3
Tailings dam faces 1 1 .3
Alternative F
Waste rock stockpile slopes 215.0
Tailings surface 91.8
Tailings dam faces 17.7
Pit slopes' 114.9
Alternative G
Waste rock disposal area, level area 35.3
Waste rock disposal area slopes 258.7
Tailings surface 59.8
Tailings dam faces 33.0
Resoiling Estimated Erosion Total Estimated
Depth Potential in Erosion Potential
(feet) Tons/Acre/Year in Tons/Year
Year 1/Year 5 Year 1/Year 5
NA 0.227/NA NA
NA 0.171/NA NA
NA 0.051 /NA NA
NA 0.073/NA NA
1.0 0.006/0.003 0.22/0.11
1.5 0.380/0.720 95.23/180.43
1 .0 0.007/0.004 0.53/0.30
1.5 0.275/0.514 3.11/5.81
99.09/186.65
1.5 0.275/0.150 7.15/3.90
1.0 0.007/0.004 0.34/0.20
1.5 0.207/0.387 1.25/2.32
8.74/6.42
1.5 0.275/0.150 26.95/14.70
1.0 0.007/0.004 0.42/0.24
1.5 0.275/0.514 31.9/5.96
59.27/20.90
1.5 0.275/0.150 104.23/56.85
1 .0 0.007/0.004 0.53/0.30
1.5 0.275/0.514 3.11/5.81
107.87/62.96
1.5 0.219/0.120 47.09/25.80
1.0 0.007/0.004 0.61/0.37
1.5 0.319/0.730 5.65/12.92
1.5 0.275/0.150 31.61/17.24
84.96/56.33
1.0 0.007/0.004 0.25/0.14
1.0 0.275/0.150 71.14/38.81
1.5 0.007/0.004 0.42/0.24
1.5 0.476/0.889 15.71/29.34
87.52/68.53
Notes: 1 . Erosion potential for pit slopes calculated since the pit would be completely backfilled under this
alternative.
2. "Tailings" disturbance does not include "Recovery Solution Collection Pond" disturbance.
Large additions of fertilizer-nitrogen to the soil
system can ameliorate this condition though
an impact to soil productivity during the first
few growing seasons could result depending
upon soil nitrogen balance.
The positive effects of woody debris blending
would include a decrease in the volume of
woody material requiring disposal following
land clearing and, assuming acceptable
decomposition, an increase in basic soil
fertility, water holding capacity, and micro-
nutrient content. Recommendations from a
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-36
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
qualified soil scientist or silviculturist would
be used as guidance to ensure that over
application of fertilizer does not result in
impacts to ground water or surface water.
Isolated spill accidents could result in soil
contamination from oils, solvents, etc. Such
spills would normally result in soils deemed
unsuitable for reclamation. Soils so affected
would be disposed of in accordance with
Washington State and federal laws. The
volume of soil subject to spills should be
limited. Given the plan to salvage suitable
soils prior to operational disturbances and the
proposed implementation of a Spill Prevention
Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan, no
impact to revegetation potential is
anticipated.
Subsurface materials upon which salvaged
soils would be replaced consist of subsoils,
waste rock, and tailings. Baseline data
indicate that subsoils (including glacial till)
contain no chemical constituents which
would degrade soil reapplied for revegetation
purposes. The potential for waste rock to
generate acidic conditions is limited and it is
doubtful that such conditions, if they did
form, would affect soil applied to the surface
of waste rock disposal areas given the
potential for soil drainage.
Tailings material, according to pore water
analyses (Table 3.3.7, Analysis of Tailings
Liquid,) exhibits electrical conductivities of
4.08 mhos/cm to 5.91 mhos/cm, calculated
sodium adsorption ratios of 3.0 to 7.5, and
heavy metal concentrations that are
acceptable for reclamation purposes. The pH
values of the tailings pore water is circum-
neutral ranging from 7.07 to 7.60. These
values are all well within the tolerance ranges
of typical soil microbe, soil fungi, and plant
species which would occur or are to be
planted on site. Short-term leachates from
tailings solids (table entitled: Analysis of
Equilibrated Fluids From US EPA Method
1312 Leach Tests On Tailings Solids in
Appendix E, Geochemistry (E-3, Leachability
Test Results), after short term exposure,
could produce pH values from 8.0 to 9.92,
given the type of testing procedure used.
Heavy metal and ion concentrations are all
low, similar to those observed for the pore
water. The pH of tailings solid leachates is
considered to be high with respect to the
adoptabilities of soil microbial, fungal, and to
some degree the plant species to be
established on site.
Appendix E, Geochemistry (E-7 Summary of
Humidity Cell Tests Results), presents a table
entitled: Summary Of Humidity Cell Test
Results On Tailing Solids Samples that
depicts the results of humidity cell tests
conducted on tailings material. These results
suggest that the pH of the tailings solids,
following long term exposure, would return to
values below 8.0, reflecting a pH value within
the tolerance range of typical soil microbe
and fungi populations as well as the
vegetation species to be planted. The
proposed revegetation test plots, to be
constructed on tailings materials, should
permit the assessment of tailings
characteristics with respect to soil/tailings
chemical interactions and foster the
development of corrective measures, if
necessary.
Soil microbial populations would also change
temporarily with a potential overall loss of
nitrifying-type species. Soil microbial
populations should reestablish over time
through natural invasion from adjacent
undisturbed soils. The reclamation technique
proposed, by which surface soil materials
from disposal areas would be spread over
resoiled areas to enhance microbial population
restoration, would minimize this concern. No
long term reduction in reclamation potential is
expected as a result of impacts to soil
microbial populations.
Physical characteristics such as structure,
texture, and rock fragment content would be
permanently modified through blending during
soil salvage and replacement operations. Soil
quality is not expected to be negatively
affected, in terms of reclamation potential,
since only soils rated as suitable for
reclamation would be salvaged.
The soils, in their natural state, are subject to
compaction due to the presence of
pyroclastic materials in the upper horizons.
However, blending through soil salvage would
essentially eliminate the potential for
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-37
compaction given the presence of loamy soil
textures and soil rock fragment content.
Compaction could occur adjacent to haul
roads and ancillary facilities and would likely
reduce the aeration, permeability, and water-
holding capacity of impacted soils. The
effects of compaction would be reduced to a
short-term impact through the proper
application of proposed ripping techniques,
and natural freeze-thaw cycles, over time.
The volume of subsoil materials not salvaged
prior to mining or waste rock and tailings
deposition, and considered unsuitable for
salvage, would be permanently lost in terms
of vegetation productivity.
Subsoils not salvaged at the Starrem
Reservoir site would be protected from
flooding and saturation during the life of the
Crown Jewel Project owing to the installation
of a liner system prior to reservoir flooding.
It is assumed that the pre-disturbance
productivity of these subsoils would return
with the ripping of the compacted subsoil and
the reapplication of salvaged topsoil materials
following reservoir draining and removal of
the liner.
Indirect Effects
The Forest Service estimates that long-term
soil productivity, in terms of the tree strata,
would decrease on the order of 10% to 15%
for a period of up to 100 years on resoiled,
revegetated Crown Jewel Project
components. The loss of productivity for
grasses would be a decrease of less than 5%
and would have a duration of less than 15
years.
There are no other anticipated indirect soils
effects expected for any of the action
alternatives.
Cumulative Effects
In the past, soil has been impacted primarily
through timber harvesting, mineral
exploration, and road building. The
implementation of any proposed alternative
would result in a loss in soil productivity and
the potential for increased soil erosion on 41 5
to 928 acres of land. The potential for soil
erosion from the Crown Jewel Project area is
not expected to result in large increases in
sedimentation of area streams due to the
extensive drainage and sediment control
systems planned. There are differences in
professional opinion on how measurable and
detectable sedimentation might be. There are
concerns that the sedimentation of area
streams would be greater than expected.
The contribution by Crown Jewel Project
disturbances to overall soil erosion within the
watershed would be small given the erosion
potentials calculated for all Crown Jewel
Project alternatives and the revegetation and
erosion/sediment control techniques to be
implemented.
4.5.4 Effects of Alternative B
Direct Effects
This alternative would result in the
disturbance of 787 acres, as shown on Table
4.5.1, Summary of Reselling Considerations.
An estimated total of 1,122,500 cubic yards
of suitable soil would be salvaged and
stockpiled from the areas to be disturbed,
excepting the power line access, borrow
pit(s), tailings slurry pipeline, diversion
ditches, and water pipeline disturbances. Soil
from these disturbances would be windrowed
adjacent to each disturbance until reclamation
operations for these disturbances begin.
Soils salvaged from the reservoir site are not
included in the calculations. Approximately
1,066,400 cubic yards are required for
resoiling. Therefore, a surplus of 56,100
cubic yards of soil, representing a 5%
variance over that needed for resoiling, exists
under this alternative. Salvage of deeper
soils may be necessary to account for losses
during soil salvage and re-application.
The potential for sheet and rill (water) erosion
was estimated for existing and reclaimed
conditions for comparative purposes using
the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation
(Renard et al., 1992). Appendix D, Soils
Erosion Rates (Table D-1 "RUSLE" Factors
Used to Calculate Current and Potential
Erosion Rates) summarizes the factors
involved in erosion prediction computations
and depicts the parameter values used for
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-38
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
calculating site-specific erosion potentials for
the action alternatives.
Table 4.5.2, Summary of Mine Component
Potential Erosion Rates By Alternative,
presents the results of the erosion
calculations along with acreage and resoiling
depth information for selected components of
each alternative as well as for baseline
conditions. Baseline conditions are those
conditions (average slope angles, average
slope lengths, average soil cover by
vegetation, litter, coarse fragments, etc.)
currently existing at the identified proposed
Crown Jewel Project component sites. It is
assumed these conditions would continue to
dominate in the future barring any site
disturbances.
The alternative components selected for
analysis represent those involving the largest
acreages for each alternative; therefore,
representing the greatest potentials for
erosion. Calculations were completed for
two time periods including the end of one
(Year 1) and five (Year 5) growing seasons.
Potential erosion under existing undisturbed
baseline conditions ranges from a calculated
0.051 to 0.227 tons/acre/year with higher
rates reflecting steeper slopes. In
comparison, potential erosion on reclaimed
sites under Alternative B at the end of one
growing season ranges from 0.006 to 0.380
tons/acre/year for nearly level and overall
2.51-1:1 V graded slopes, respectively.
Potential erosion on reclaimed sites at the
end of five growing seasons ranges from
approximately 0.003 to 0.720 tons/acre/year
for nearly level and overall 2.5H:1 V graded
surfaces, respectively. The notably higher
fifth year rates for overall 2.5H:1 V reclaimed
slopes versus existing conditions is related
primarily to the lower percent ground surface
and vegetation canopy cover values
estimated for the reclaimed areas as
compared to existing conditions.
Potential erosion rates for the tailing and
waste rock nearly level surfaces of this and
all other alternatives are virtually identical due
to the similar slope angles and slope lengths
involved. Potentials for the tailings dam are
equal to or slightly greater for this alternative
as compared to Alternatives C, D, and E.
The soil erosion potentials for the tailings
dam faces of Alternative F and G are greater
than those of this alternative due to the
greater slope length/angle factor of
Alternatives F and G.
The erosion potentials of Alternative B are
notably greater for the sloping portions of the
waste rock disposal areas than for any other
alternative. This variation is due primarily to
the fact that the slopes of the Alternative B
waste rock disposal areas would be built to
an overall 2.5H:1 V slope while those of the
disposal areas of the other alternatives would
be built to an overall 3H:1 V slope or less. In
addition, slope length for Alternative B are
assumed to 300 feet, whereas slope lengths
for the other action alternatives were set at
100 feet as per engineering design. In terms
of total estimated erosion potential, that of
Alternative B is the highest at the end of both
one and five year periods of all Project
alternatives. This is due primarily to the large
acreage of overall 2.5H:1 V waste rock
disposal slopes proposed.
The annual soil loss tolerance level for
reclaimed areas at the Crown Jewel Project
site is 1.00 ton/acre/year (SCS, 1983) given
the depth of soil reapplication proposed (12
inches to 18 inches) as well as the substrate
characteristics of waste rock and tailings. All
values computed for reclaimed areas, using
conservative RUSLE parameter values, are
notably below this level indicating an
acceptable potential level of soil loss, in
terms of soil productivity, for the waste rock
and tailings acreages one and five years
following planting. A limited volume of soil
material would be displaced from revegetated
sites and enter the sediment control system.
As revegetated areas mature, erosion and
sedimentation rates should return to
approximate baseline (background) levels.
4.5.5 Effects of Alternative C
This alternative would result in the
disturbance of 41 5 acres of soils as shown
on Table 4.5.1, Summary of Resoiling
Considerations. A total of 421,900 cubic
yards of soil are required for reclamation in
Alternative C. A calculated 398,500 cubic
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-39
yards are potentially available following
salvage of areas to be disturbed, resulting in
a net shortage of approximately 23,400 cubic
yards. This insufficiency is due primarily to
the lack of soil overlying the proposed quarry
site and the assumed requirement for
resoiling and reclaiming this disturbance.
This deficiency could be made up through
applying a thinner layer of soil during
reclamation, obtaining soil from off-site or not
resoiling certain sites.
Potential erosion rates for the nearly level
slopes of the tailings facility at the end of one
and five years are 0.007 and 0.004
tons/acre/year, respectively. Rates for the
3H:1 V and 2H:1 V slopes of the waste rock
disposal area and tailings facility are 0.207 to
0.275 tons/acre/year at the end of the first
growing season, respectively. Erosion rates
for these Project components following the
fifth growing season are 0.150 and 0.387
tons/acre/year, respectively. All values are
within the soil loss tolerance limits set by
SCS (1983). Post-operational values are
essentially comparable to existing conditions
as well as Alternatives D, E, and F and are
equal to (or less than) those estimated for
Alternative B on a component-by-component
basis. The erosion potentials for the tailings
dam faces are less for this alternative than
for Alternatives F and G due to the
differences in slope lengths and angles. This
alternative would have the lowest potential
erosion volumes for one and five years. This
is primarily a function of the low number of
acres proposed to be disturbed along with the
emphasis on 3H:1 V versus steeper slopes,
and short slope lengths.
4.5.6 Effects of Alternative D
This alternative would result in the
disturbance of 558 acres of soil. A total of
696,100 cubic yards of soil are potentially
salvageable under Alternative D (Table 4.5.1,
Summary of Resoiling Considerations). An
estimated 617,900 cubic yards are required
for resoiling and reclamation, resulting in a
surplus of 78,200 cubic yards of soils.
Estimated soil erosion rates for Alternative D
are identical to those of Alternative E and
comparable to those of Alternative C, F, and
G with the exception of those related to the
tailings facility as previously noted. Rates
estimated for the first and fifth years
following planting range from 0.004 to 0.514
tons/acre/year under this alternative. All
estimated rates are within the soil loss
tolerance levels set by the SCS. Erosion
potentials for the waste rock slopes for this
alternative are noticeably less than for
Alternative B given the greater slope lengths
and steeper slope angles of Alternative B.
Total potential one and five year erosion
volumes for Alternative D are among the
lowest for all proposed alternatives. This is
due in part, to the low total acres to be
disturbed, the emphasis on 3H:1V versus
steeper waste rock disposal area slopes and
shorter slope lengths.
4.5.7 Effects of Alternative E
This alternative would result in the
disturbance of 928 acres as shown on Table
4.5.1, Summary of Resoiling Considerations.
An estimated total of 1,381,000 cubic yards
are potentially available as a result of salvage
of areas to be disturbed. Approximately
1,281,700 cubic yards of soil are required for
reclamation in Alternative E. In effect, there
is a surplus of 99,300 cubic yards of soil for
reapplication under this alternative. This
represents a variance of over 7.5%. This is
considered to be a reasonable volume
sufficient to account for the inherent
inefficiency of soil salvage and reapplication.
If deficiencies of topsoil do occur, this
deficiency could be made up through
obtaining additional soil from off site, by
using some deeper subsoil (C horizon
material), or by applying a thinner soil layer
over selected areas.
Estimated one and five year erosion rates for
the waste rock disposal area slopes and
tailings dams of Alternative E are similar to
those of Alternative D. One and five year
potential erosion totals for this alternative are
comparable with those of Alternatives F and
G, which are notably less than Alternative B
in most cases. Total erosion is greater than
Alternatives C and D.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-40
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
4.5.8 Effects of Alternative F
This alternative would result in the
disturbance of 817 acres. An estimated total
of 1,228,200 cubic yards of soil are
potentially salvageable under Alternative F.
An estimated 1,093,000 cubic yards are
required for resoiling, given reclamation
objectives, resulting in a net surplus of
135,200 cubic yards, (see Table 4.5.1,
Summary of Resoiling Considerations). This
represents a variance of over 12%. There is
sufficient suitable soil available under this
alternative to meet resoiling goals. If
deficiencies of topsoil do occur, this
deficiency could be made up through
obtaining additional soil from off site, by
using some deeper subsoil
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-41
4.6 GROUND WATER, SPRINGS AND
SEEPS
4.6.1 Summary
During the mining operation, ground water
within the mine recharge catchment area
would flow toward the mine workings.
Water levels in the bedrock water bearing
fractures would be lowered within the zone
of influence due to mine dewatering. The
approximate maximum extent of the 100, 10,
and 1 foot drawdown at the end of open pit
mining, as predicted by the finite-element
ground water flow model, is presented on
Figure 4.6.1, Zone of Influence Due to Pit
Dewatering and the Pit Recharge Catchment
Area.
After cessation of the dewatering operations,
the open pit and/or underground workings
would begin to fill with water. In the case of
the open pit workings, a portion of the flow
would come from ground water. For
underground mining alternatives, nearly all
water entering the mine workings would be
from ground water.
In 5 years to 26 years, depending on whether
water from the Starrem Reservoir is used to
augment filling of the pit, the hydrologic
balance of the ground water system would
reach a new equilibrium. In all action
alternatives, this equilibrium would result in a
water table lower than the pre-mining
conditions.
The open or backfilled mine workings would
be more permeable than the surrounding
rock, creating a pathway for ground water
flow. This would tend to lower the
potentiometric surface of the ground water in
the area near the mine. The alternatives with
underground mining, a combination of open
pit and underground mining, or complete
back-filling of the pit (Alternatives C, D, and
F) would have similar though somewhat
smaller effects than described above. This
reduction of the potentiometric surface could
reduce the flow of nearby springs and seeps
and flows to streams that are fed by ground
water. These impacts are addressed in
Section 4.7.3, Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives, and Sections 4.7.4 through
4.7.9, Effects of Alternatives B through G.
The action alternatives that include
permanent waste rock disposal sites
(Alternatives B, C, D, E, and G) would reduce
recharge to the ground water system, and
possibly lower the water table in the vicinity
of the waste rock sites. The discharge from
springs covered by waste rock would be
routed to sediment traps down-gradient of
the waste rock disposal area.
At the initiation of construction, surface
water would be diverted around the tailings
and permanent waste rock disposal areas and
discharged to the drainages below the
facilities. Ground water encountered beneath
the tailings disposal facility would be
collected in an underdrain system and
returned to the drainage downstream of the
tailings disposal facility.
Water from the tailings or waste rock
underdrain systems would be periodically
sampled and analyzed.
Potential impacts could include contamination
of ground water by infiltration of water
containing the following:
• Acid rock drainage;
• Elevated dissolved metals;
• Leached radionuclides;
• Nitrates from blasting;
• Nutrients from fertilizers used in
reclamation;
• Cyanide and ammonia from tailings facility
leakage; and,
• Chemical or fuel spills.
Impacts to ground water quality are not
expected to be substantial with proper
design, construction, operation, and
reclamation of Crown Jewel Project facilities.
A network of ground water wells would be
located downgradient of facilities and
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-4-2
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
disturbed areas and monitored to detect
ground water quality impacts resulting from
construction or operation of the Crown Jewel
Project facilities. A description of ground
water mitigation and monitoring measures are
presented in Section 2.12, Management and
Mitigation, and Section 2.13, Monitoring
Measures.
4.6.2 Effects of Alternative A (No
Action)
Because of past timber harvesting, recent
mineral exploration, and historic mining
activities, some impacts to the original
ground water hydrology have already
occurred. A total of eight abandoned mines
are located in the Crown Jewel Project area
shown on Figure 3.19.1, Historic Mine Sites.
Discharges from these abandoned mines
range from no outflow to over 120 gpm
(Section 3.8.6, Influence of Past Mining on
Ground Water). Discharges from these
abandoned mines have lowered the local
ground water potentiometric surface. Other
abandoned mines, which are not currently
discharging water, may have redistributed
recharge and created preferential pathways
for ground water flow. The impacts of the
past mining activities have affected the site
ground water system substantially more than
the recent exploration activities by the
Proponent.
As discussed in Section 3.8, Ground Water,
ground water discharged from three historic
adits (Buckhorn, Lower Magnetic, and
Roosevelt) was found to be similar in quality
to water sampled from site ground water
wells and is characteristically alkaline and
contains low metals concentrations. Slightly
acidic ground water containing detectable
levels of several trace metals was sampled
from the Gold Axe and Upper Magnetic adits;
water in these two adits is not considered
generally representative of the site ground
water quality.
Surface disturbances associated with past
access road construction, timber harvesting,
and drill site construction have had only
minor effects on the natural recharge to the
ground water system. There have been also
only minor effects due to the alteration of
surface runoff patterns and increased
infiltration rates.
Exploration drilling activities could have
potentially impacted the local ground water
hydrology. Drilling activities could
interconnect different water-bearing horizons
such as perched zones in the surficial
glacial/colluvial materials and the bedrock
aquifer. The ground water quality could have
been locally impacted by the loss of drilling
fluid additives during well construction.
Possible fuel or oil spills from exploration
activities could also have caused minor
effects to the local ground water quality.
Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) were
not detected in any of the ground water wells
sampled during baseline monitoring.
4.6.3 Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives
Direct Effects
The Crown Jewel Project components that
could impact the ground water system
include the following:
• Surface disturbance;
• Open pit or underground workings - water
quantity;
• Open pit or underground workings - water
quality;
• Ore stockpiling;
• Tailings disposal;
• Waste rock disposal;
• Sewage disposal; and,
• Accidental spills.
Crown Jewel Project components would have
effects that are expected to be common to all
alternatives. Variations of these effects are
discussed for each alternative separately.
Surface Disturbance. Approximately 41 5
acres to 928 acres of land surface within the
Crown Jewel Project area (depending on the
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-43
action alternative) would be impacted by
construction and mine development
operations. In general, this area would
remain disturbed for the life of the Crown
Jewel Project. Clearing and disturbance of
natural vegetation, waste rock disposal,
tailings disposal, and underground or surface
mining would affect water quality and the
elevation of the water table at the mine site.
Open Pit or Underground Workings - Water
Quantity. All action alternatives for mining
the Crown Jewel Project ore deposit would
involve either an open pit mine, underground
mine, or a combination of the two.
Regardless of the mining method, there
would be effects on the local ground water
system.
During mining operations (after the mine is
excavated below ground water level), mine
dewatering would be necessary. During and
after operations, ground water in the Crown
Jewel Project area would flow toward the
mine. The approximate maximum zone of
influence from the mine dewatering is shown
in Figure 4.6.1, Zone of Influence Due to Pit
Dewatering and the Pit Recharge Catchment
Area.
Mine dewatering would cause changes in the
local ground water flow direction, recharge
rates, and discharge rates to springs, seeps,
wetlands, and streams. Impacts of mine
dewatering on the discharge of ground water
into the surface streams would also be
anticipated. These impacts are discussed in
Section 4.7, Surface Water.
Mine inflows, during and after the mining
operation, were calculated in the pit inflow
study completed by Hydro-Geo (1996b). The
area of impacts caused by the mine drainage
was calculated for the proposed mining
operations with the application of a finite-
element computer model (ABCFEM). The
computer simulations defined the pit inflow
during the mining operation, the extent of the
pit recharge capture zone, and the zone of
influence, including the areas of drawdown
(See Figure 4.6.1, Zone of Influence Due to
Pit Dewatering and the Pit Recharge
Catchment Area).
Three ground water recharge scenarios,
resulting from the dry year, average year, and
wet year precipitation, were modeled. The
recharge rates are as follows:
• 2.5 inches (dry year precipitation of 14.2
inches);
• 3.7 inches (average annual precipitation of
20 inches); and,
• 5.4 inches (wet year precipitation of 31.7
inches).
The recharge rates were derived from the
basef low component by separation of the
hydrographs for surface water monitoring
stations SW-9, SW-10, SW-11, and SW-14
into baseflow and surface runoff components
(Hydro-Geo, 1996a). The model was
successfully calibrated using the average
recharge and the baseline water level
monitoring data (Hydro-Geo, 1996b).
A similar modeling study was performed by
Golder Associates (1996c) using the SEEP/W
computer model. The SEEP/W model uses
two-dimensional vertical slices through the
proposed mine pit. The purpose of this
modeling was to determine the extent of the
ground water recharge capture zone along
four modeled vertical slices through the
proposed pit area. The Golder model was
calibrated using slightly different assumptions
for recharge and hydraulic conductivity. The
study indicated that pit dewatering would
cause the ground water divide along
Buckhorn Mountain to move westerly 40 feet
to 600 feet from its pre-mining location.
ABCFEM computer simulations (Hydro-Geo,
1996b) indicated pit dewatering would
develop a pit recharge capture zone that
would range in size from 160 acres to 241
acres. Within the pit recharge capture zone,
ground water would flow toward the mine,
and there would be a reduction in recharge to
the ground water system.
Pit dewatering would develop a zone of
influence outside the capture zone, within
which ground water levels would be lowered.
This zone of influence is substantially larger
than the pit recharge capture area. The
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-44
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
following areas of drawdown due to pit
dewatering were indicated by the computer
model at the end of mining (year 8):
One-foot drawdown area = 1,180 acres
Ten-foot drawdown area = 861 acres
One hundred-foot drawdown area = 214
acres
The Hydro-Geo (1996b) modeling results
indicated that mine drainage would cause the
ground water divide along Buckhorn Mountain
ridge to move westerly, 200 feet to 800 feet
from its pre-mining location. Within and near
the zone of influence, varying levels of
impacts on the springs, seeps and wells could
occur, depending on the drawdown. See
Figure 4.6.1, Zone of Influence Due to Pit
Dewatering and the Pit Recharge Catchment
Area and Figure 4.6.2, Schematic
Hydrogeologic Cross-Section at Conclusion of
Mining.
The Hydro-Geo study (1996b) concluded
that, when the pit is excavated to its
maximum depth, the average pit inflow, due
to ground water seepage, runoff, and
precipitation, would range from approximately
160 gpm to 190 gpm. Springs, seeps and
wells within the pit recharge capture zone
would experience substantial reduction of
ground water level or flow.
Hydro-Geo (1996b) also calculated pit filling
rates. The study indicated that pit filling to an
outflow elevation of 4,850 feet, would take
approximately 26 years. After the pit is filled
to an elevation of 4,850 feet, an estimated
average annual outflow of 71 gpm into the
Gold Bowl drainage would occur. A second
scenario of pit filling with water included
pumping of 330 gpm from Starrem Reservoir
into the open pit. In this scenario, the pit
would fill with water to a level of 4,850 feet
in approximately 5.2 years.
At the completion of pit filling, a small
amount of water would seep from the pit lake
through the east pit wall. Results of
computer modeling indicated that the
seepage rate would range from 2.1 gpm to
5.0 gpm. The pit lake seepage is predicted
to flow through the undisturbed bedrock east
of the pit and surface approximately 1,500
feet from the pit in the Gold Bowl drainage,
as shown on Figure 4.6.3, Post Mining
Hydrogeologic Cross-Section D-D'. The
computer generated potentiometric surface
maps and ground water flow direction maps
indicate that seepage from the pit lake (when
filled) would flow east and southeast and
seepage would not flow toward the Roosevelt
adit. (Hydro-Geo, 1996b)
Seasonal changes in spring and seep flows
are indicated in Table 3.7.1, Spring and Seep
Investigation Summary. Recently-measured
(1992-1995) variation in the flow of many of
these springs due to natural meteorological
causes is more than 250% season-to-season
and year-to-year. A comparison of springs
and seeps that would be impacted by action
alternatives is set forth in Table 4.6.1,
Springs and Seeps Impacted by Mining
Operations.
Open Pit or Underground Workings - Water
Quality. Removal of waste rock and ore from
a mining operation would expose a large
volume of material to atmospheric conditions.
Oxidation of sulfide minerals exposed in the
walls of the pit or underground mine walls
could potentially result in generation of acidic
drainage and release of contaminants to the
site surface water and ground water.
To evaluate this potential, geochemical
modeling was performed to predict the
quality of water that would accumulate in the
pit and discharge from the open pit. A
summary of the model approach and results
is presented below. A more detailed
discussion is provided in the report,
Geochemical Modeling of Pit Lake Water
Quality for the Crown Jewel Project (Schafer
and Associates, Inc., 1995a) and in an
addendum to that report (Schafer and
Associates, Inc., 1996c). Results from this
model of open pit mining served as the basis
for comparing water quality impacts between
the action alternatives. A map showing the
waste rock types that would be exposed in
the final, proposed open pit is presented in
Figure 3.3.3, Waste Rock Types Exposed in
Final Pit Walls (Alternatives B and G).
Pit water quality modeling consisted of
mixing pit wall runoff water with ground
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-45
TABLE 4.6.1, SPRINGS AND SEEPS IMPACTED BY MINING OPERATIONS
Spring or Seep
Designation1
Nearby
Wetland
Action Alternative Impact2
B
C
D
E
F
G
Drainage
Basin
Marias Creek
JJ-3
JJ-4
JJ-5
JJ-6
JJ-6a
JJ-6b
JJ-7
JJ-9
JJ-10
JJ-14
JJ-15
JJ-26
JJ-34
None Delineated
None Delineated
None Delineated
None Delineated
None Delineated
None Delineated
None Delineated
None Delineated
None Delineated
C4
C6
PE or C2
C7
N
N
N
P
P
P
P
N
N
D
N
D
P
N
N
N
P
P
P
P
N
N
D
N
D
P
N
N
N
P
P
P
P
N
N
D
N
D
P
N
N
N
P
P
P
P
N
N
D
N
D
P
N
N
N
P
P
P
P
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
P
P
P
P
N
N
N
N
N
N
East Fork
Middle Fork
Middle Fork
South Fork
South Fork
South Fork
South Fork
South Fork
South Fork
South Fork
Middle Fork
Middle Fork
South Fork
Gold Creek
SN-6
SN-7
SN-18
None Delineated
RA
None Delineated
P
N
N
P
N
N
P
N
N
P
N
N
P
N
N
P
N
N
Gold Creek
Gold Creek
Gold Creek
Bolster Creek
SN-12
SN-14
SN-16
SN-17
C17
None Delineated
C18
C19
P
P
N
N
P
P
N
N
P
P
N
N
P
P
N
N
P
P
N
N
P
P
N
N
South Fork
South Fork
South Fork
South Fork
Ethel Creek
JJ-22
JJ-23
JJ-24
JJ-25
JJ-33
SN-21
None Delineated
None Delineated
None Delineated
None Delineated
None Delineated
None Delineated
IP
N
N
P
N
N
IP
N
N
P
N
N
IP
N
N
P
N
N
IP
N
N
P
N
N
IP
N
N
P
N
N
IP
N
N
P
N
N
Ethel Creek
Ethel Creek
Ethel Creek
Ethel Creek
Ethel Creek
Ethel Creek
Cedar Creek
JJ-27
JJ-28
JJ-29
JJ-30
None Delineated
None Delineated
None Delineated
None Delineated
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Cedar Creek
Cedar Creek
Cedar Creek
Cedar Creek
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-46
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
TABLE 4.6.1, SPRINGS AND SEEPS IMPACTED BY MINING OPERATIONS
Spring or Seep
Designation1
JJ-31
JJ-1
JJ-2
JJ-32
Nearby
Wetland
None Delineated
None Delineated
None Delineated
None Delineated
Action Alternative Impact2
B
N
N
N
N
C
N
N
N
N
D
N
N
N
N
E
N
N
N
N
F
N
N
N
N
G
N
N
N
N
Drainage
Basin
Cedar Creek
Unnamed
Unnamed
Unnamed
Nicholson Creek
JJ-1 6
JJ-1 8
JJ-20
JJ-21
SN-3
SN-4
SN-5
SN-10
SN-15
SN-19
SN-20
SN-22
SN-26
SN-27
None Delineated
C13, C3
C14
C11
None Delineated
None Delineated
None Delineated
None Delineated
Frog Pond
None Delineated
C8
C13
C14
C9
D
N
N
D
D
D
N
N
IP
N
D
D
N
D
IP
N
N
D
P
P
N
N
IP
N
N
D
N
N
D
N
N
D
D
D
N
N
IP
N
D
D
N
N
IP
N
N
D
D
D
N
N
IP
N
D
D
N
D
IP
N
N
D
D
D
N
N
IP
N
D
D
N
D
IP
N
N
D
D
D
N
N
D
N
D
D
N
D
South Fork
South Fork
South Fork
South Fork
North Fork
North Fork
North Fork
North Fork
North Fork
North Fork
North Fork
South Fork
South Fork
South Fork
Notes: 1 . See Table 3. 7. 1, Spring and Seep Investigation Summary, for description and measurement record of
springs and seeps.
2. Impact Classification:
Symbol Definition
None (N) A spring or seep which does not fall within any of the classifications listed below.
Direct (D) A spring or seep which is located within the proposed pit, tailings disposal area, waste
rock disposal area, or other physically covered or disturbed area. Direct impacts are
considered to be permanent, although hydrologic function may be partially restored after
pit filling.
Indirect Permanent (IP) A spring or seep which is located within or immediately adjacent to the area as
Indirect Temporary (IT) defined by the computer model predicted one-foot drawdown contour for the proposed
open pit (Alternative B). Indirect impacts may be either permanent (IP) or temporary (IT)
depending on the effects of pit filling on the particular spring or seep.
Possible (P) A spring or seep which is situated within the hydrologic regime associated with the zone of
influence of the proposed open pit, as listed below. Possible impacts are assumed to be
temporary.
e Within a buffer zone extending 1,000 feet downgradient of the one foot drawdown
contour;
• At an elevation above the 4,500 foot contour;
• Along or near mapped geologic structures hydraulically connected to the pit zone of
influence; and,
• Within or along streams having a predicted depletion of more than 1 %.
For example, Spring JJ-23 is located on the far side of Ethel Creek with respect to the
proposed open pit and the predicted one foot drawdown contour and, therefore, is not
hydraulically connected to the one foot drawdown contour.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-4-7
water inflow using the United States
Geological Survey (USGS) geochemical
computer program PHREEQE (Parkhurst et al.,
1980). The quality of the pit wall runoff was
characterized using humidity cell data from
baseline geochemical testing that were
"weighted" to account for the percentage of
waste rock types exposed in the proposed
pit. Samples used for humidity cell testing
were comprised of waste rock with a much
higher potential to generate acid than the
majority of material to be mined and are
considered biased. The nitrate concentration
in pit wall runoff was estimated using a mass
balance model based on blasting efficiency
and pit filling (Schafer and Associates, Inc.,
1996b). Water quality data representative of
runoff were mixed with data considered
representative of ground water quality at
ratios estimated from pit inflow simulations.
Three hydrologic pit inflow conditions were
evaluated using a range of input chemistry
scenarios (Hydro-Geo, 1996b). The three
conditions were:
• At a point in time approximately one year
after the pit initially would begin to fill
under natural conditions;
• At a point in time when the pit would be
full due to natural filling and would begin
to discharge to the Gold Bowl drainage;
and,
• At a point in time when the pit would be
full due to enhanced filling (natural filling
would be augmented with water from
Starrem Reservoir) and would begin to
discharge to the Gold Bowl drainage.
Results from mixing pit runoff and ground
water components were used as input to the
EPA geochemical computer program
MINTEQA2 (Felmy et al., 1984). This
geochemistry code (computer program) was
employed to predict which solids might
precipitate out of the water mixtures and the
extent of sorption of metals onto the solids.
Final water quality conditions were
determined from these simulations.
It was assumed, based on the geometry of
the pit and local climatic conditions, that a
lake formed in the pit would "turn over" in
the autumn of each year and would be
oligotrophic (Priscu, 1996). Oligotrophic
lakes are characterized by a moderate to high
dissolved oxygen content, well mixed waters,
and low biological activity. To evaluate how
this assumption of lake conditions would
affect the model results, sensitivity analyses
were performed on two important
geochemical variables:
• Redox (reduction/oxidation) potential; and,
• Concentration of carbon dioxide gas.
It was further assumed for modeling purposes
that all model input parameter concentrations
below laboratory detection limits were equal
to the detection limit values during pit water
quality modeling. This biased assumption
affected predicted concentrations of
cadmium, lead, mercury, and silver in the pit
lake since these parameters were at
concentrations below the detection limit in
most, if not all of the samples used for model
input.
The ground water flow modeling study
determined that less than 5 gpm would seep
to the ground water from the open pit lake
(Hydro-Geo, 1996b). This seepage is
predicted to occur through the east wall of
the open pit and flow approximately 1,500
feet before surfacing as springs or seeps in
the Gold Bowl drainage. As the water seeps
through native bedrock and soil material, it is
reasonably expected that chemical
attenuation of some dissolved constituents,
such as metals, would occur. Table 4.6.2,
Comparison of Predicted Water Quality
Conditions in the Proposed Open Pit to
Washington Ground Water Quality Criteria,
lists the range of parameter concentrations
predicted to occur in the pit water during and
after the pit has filled and the range of
parameter concentrations measured in
baseline ground water samples from the
Crown Jewel Project area. The study made
several biased assumptions that were
intended to cause the prediction to be at the
upper bounds of what would be expected.
Water that fills and/or ultimately discharges
from the open pit is predicted to exceed
Washington State's primary or secondary
Crown Jewel Mine t Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-48
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
TABLE 4.6.2, COMPARISON OF PREDICTED WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS IN THE
PROPOSED OPEN PIT TO WASHINGTON GROUND WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
Parameter1
Antimony6'7
Arsenic6-7
Barium
Cadmium4
Copper
Chromium
Iron
Lead3
Manganese6'7
Mercury3
Nickel6
Selenium6
Silver4
Thallium67
Zinc
Calcium
Magnesium
Potassium
Sodium
Alkalinity
(as CaCO3)
Chloride
Fluoride
Nitrate (as N)
Sulfate6
PH7
Hardness
(as CaCO3)
TDS6
Predicted Range
in Pit Water
Quality During
Initial Stages of
Natural Pit
Filling2
(mg/l)
0.066-0.069
< 0.0001 -0.045
0.011-0.012
O.OO07-0.0022
O.O05-0.010
0.012-0.022
0.0004-O.OO05
<0.0001 -0.037
0.08-1.27
0.0016
0036-0.154
0.067-0.072
0.011-0.022
0.067-0.079
0.01-0.02
13-98
3-4
4-5
1-5
56-121
1
0.11-0.15
0.19-0.21
29-386
7.8-8.16
44-263
215-621
Predicted Range
in Pit Water
Quality When Pit
is Full Assuming
Natural Pit
Filling2
(mg/l)
0.049-0.050
<0.0001-0.049
0.011
0.0008-0.0021
0.005-0.01 1
0.015-0.069
0.0004-O.OO06
<0.0001-0.041
0.09-1.46
0.0012
0.040-0.162
0 049-0.051
0.011-0.024
0.051-0.060
0.02-0.03
14-116
3-5
5
1-6
53-115
1
0.11-0.16
0.16-0.18
30-443
7.77-8.14
46-310
211-684
Predicted Range
in Pit Water
Quality When Pit
is Full Assuming
Starrem
Reservoir
Enhancement2
(mg/l)
0.016-0.017
<0. 0001-0 010
0.029-0.031
0.0006-0.0007
0.006-0.009
0.010-0.012
0.0004
<0.0001-0021
0.03-0.29
0.0005
0 022-0.061
0.015-0.022
0.009-0.012
0.016-0025
0.01
5-9
14-15
3
11-12
158-209
2
0 26
0.17
40-117
8.27-8.4
70-82
353-394
Measured Range
in Baseline
Ground Water
Samples5
I mg/l)
<0.002-0.012
< 0.001 -0.044
< 0.01 -0.04
< 0.003- < 0.005
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-49
ranging from 7.8 to 8.1, and TDS
concentrations between 211 mg/l and 684
mg/l.
With flow augmentation from Myers Creek
water impounded in Starrem Reservoir, the
pit lake pH during initial outflow was
estimated to range from 8.3 to 8.4 with a
TDS concentration between 353 mg/l and
394 mg/l. As the effects of augmented filling
diminish in time, the pit lake water quality
would approach the results predicted in the
natural pit filling scenario.
Pit water quality would be monitored during
and after mining as described in Section
2.13.1, Water Resources Monitoring.
Response strategies identifying corrective
actions and financial security appropriate to
accomplish the corrective actions can be
found in Section 2.12.13.5, Pit Lake.
In light of the relatively low flow and short
ground water flow path predicted (the pit
acts as a ground water sink, except for the
extreme northeast corner), seepage from the
open pit is expected to have a low overall
impact on ground water quality in the vicinity
of the pit. Furthermore, due to the biased
assumptions used in the pit water quality
study, predicted pit lake pollutant
concentrations may overestimate the
concentrations that would be observed under
field conditions. This includes impacts from
blasting which are expected to be short-lived
since residual ANFO on the pit walls would
be flushed during mining and subsequent pit
filling. Flooding of the lower pit would also
retard potential long-term acid production
from submerged wall rock.
Regardless of which action alternative is
selected, the Proponent would be required to
monitor ground water wells and designated
springs, seeps, and wetlands downgradient of
the mine workings for water quantity and
quality. See Section 2.13.1, Water
Resources Monitoring. During mining
operations, if ground water contamination is
detected down gradient of the mine
workings, appropriate mitigation would be
required as described in Section 2.12.5,
Geochemistry - Acid or Toxic Forming
Capability and Section 2.12.13, Surface
Water and Ground Water - Quality and
Quantity. After mine operations have ended,
certain operational permits may lapse;
however, an environmental protection
performance security would be required by
the WADOE and other agencies to insure
continued ground water monitoring and
remediation. See Section 2.14.2,
Environmental Protection Performance
Security.
Ore Stockpiling. The ore stockpile pad
proposed in Alternative B would be
constructed by filling a portion of the Gold
Bowl drainage. The maximum depth of fill
would be approximately 200 feet. A
permanent replacement channel would be
built around the southern side of the ore
stockpile pad to convey surface flow to
Nicholson Creek. Other action alternatives
considered a side-hill location for this ore
stockpile pad so filling in Gold Bowl drainage
channel would be minimized. Once the ore is
depleted and milling operations cease, the
stockpile area would be regraded and
reclaimed.
If acid rock drainage were to occur from the
ore and ore pad, it would likely result in
elevated levels of dissolved metals. Similarly,
radionuclides could be leached by infiltration
of precipitation or runoff through the exposed
ore and the ore pad. Dissolved metals and
radionuclides could present a risk to aquatic
and terrestrial wildlife and humans who drink
water and eat aquatic organisms.
Geochemical testing indicates that the ore
has a low potential to generate acid, leach
metals, or release radionuclides. These tests
and results are described in Section 3.3.3,
Geochemistry.
Surface water diversions would be placed up-
slope of the ore stockpile pad. See Section
2.12.13.2, Diversion Ditches and Sediment
Traps. Any runoff from the ore stockpile
during operations would be routed to a
detention pond. Additional treatment to
remove dissolved or suspended contaminants
might be necessary to meet permit
requirements prior to discharge. See Section
2.12.13.2, Diversion Ditches and Sediment
Traps. Monitoring of the sediment trap water
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-50
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
quality, as would be required in an NPDES
permit issued by the WADOE, would be
conducted to verify the effectiveness of the
facilities. See Section 2.13.1, Water
Resources Monitoring.
To minimize potential long-term impacts from
construction of the ore stockpile pad, only
waste rock materials demonstrated not to be
acid-generating would be used. See Section
2.12.5.1, Prevention of Acid Rock Drainage.
During normal operation, the ore would be in
the stockpile for an average of approximately
60 days before processing. In the event of a
temporary or permanent mill shut down, the
appropriate agencies would require a revised
reclamation plan that specifically addresses
closure and handling of ore remaining in the
stockpile. See Section 2.11.3, Reclamation
Schedule.
Water quality impacts from acid drainage,
dissolved metals, or radionuclide leaching
from the ore stockpile are expected to be
low.
Tailings Disposal. All of the action
alternatives would require a tailings disposal
facility. All action alternatives, except
Alternative G, would use cyanide for ore
processing. Alternative G would use a non-
cyanide flotation process. For all of the
action alternatives, the tailings disposal
facility would be constructed as a closed-
circuit (zero discharge) operation,
incorporating double synthetic liners, a leach
detection system, and a low-permeability
bedding layer for the lower synthetic liner.
An underdrain system would be installed
beneath the tailings facility to collect and
route ground water, seep and spring flow.
The cyanide process mill tailings would be
treated by the INCO S02/Air/Oxidation
process before placement in the
impoundment. The tailings would be
dewatered by a gravel and pipe overdrain
system that would be installed on top of the
upper synthetic liner and would collect inflow
from the tailings during operation and route
the solution to a recovery solution collection
pond at the toe of the primary embankment.
The collected tailings solution would be
pumped to the mill and would be recycled. A
gravity decant and evaporation system would
remove excess supernatant solution after this
solution is no longer needed for processing at
the mill.
A system of diversion channels would be
constructed to divert surface water away
from the tailings disposal area and into the
existing drainage downstream of the facility.
A detailed description of the tailings facility
design (Alternative B) is presented in the Final
Report: Tailings Disposal Facility, Final Design
Report (Colder, 1996a), and in the
preliminary SEEP/W modeling results (Colder,
1996c).
Springs and seeps occur at tailings disposal
sites in the Marias and Nicholson Creek
drainages. Low permeability glacial deposits
predominantly cover the tailings disposal
sites.
Precipitation on the tailings facility would be
routed to the mill during operations, which
would cause a slight reduction in recharge to
ground water in Marias or Nicholson
drainages, depending on the tailings facility
location. The local ground water system
would also be affected by diversion of
surface water runoff around the tailings
facility.
Following reclamation, evaporation and plant
respiration should be sufficient to prevent
most infiltration from entering the tailings
materials during the growing season months.
In the winter, during the time of greatest
precipitation and lowest evaporation and
plant respiration, moisture would pass
through the reclaimed soil profile to the
soil/tailings interface. Most of this infiltration
would collect above the interface in the soil
profile and seasonally could enter the tailings.
Run-off from the surface of the tailings
facility would drain into the Nicholson Creek
drainage for all three action alternative
tailings sites.
A study of the potential seepage and
attenuation of contaminants at the proposed
Marias Creek tailings disposal facility was
completed for the Crown Jewel Project
(Hydro-Geo, 1995b). The extreme case of
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-51
liner failure was modeled as a tear of ten feet
by ten feet of both synthetic liners per each
acre of the impoundment. This study is
discussed in more detail in Section 4.6.4,
Effects of Alternative B.
Long-term effects of the tailings disposal
facility would be mitigated by the
decommissioning and reclamation of the site.
Decommissioning and reclamation of the
tailings disposal facility would be designed to
minimize long-term effects. Reclamation of
the site includes stabilizing the facility with
respect to the potential for the release of
contaminants to the environment, and
recontouring and revegetating the site. See
Section 2.11.4, General Reclamation
Procedures, subsection "Tailings Disposal
Facility."
If leakage is detected, it would be returned to
the mill, and the tailings underdrain system
monitoring would be increased. See Section
2.13.1 Water Resources Monitoring.
Additional downstream monitoring wells
would be installed to detect any seepage of
contaminants to ground water. See Section
2.12.13.4, Tailings Disposal Facility.
With proper design, construction, and
operation of the tailings facility, negligible
impacts to ground water quality are
anticipated.
Waste Rock Disposal. Each action alternative
considers temporary or permanent storage of
waste rock. Differences between the action
alternatives regarding waste rock storage are
mainly the size and location of the waste
rock disposal sites and whether material
would be backfilled into the open pit
(Alternatives E and F) or underground mine
(Alternative D).
In all action alternatives, waste rock would be
used at the site for construction purposes
such as the construction of haul roads, the
tailings embankment, and pads for the
crusher and ore stockpile.
Humidity cell tests and confirmation
geochemical testing indicated that 5% to
1 5% of the total waste rock material mined
under Alternatives B, E, F, and G would
potentially generate acid and leach metals. In
Alternative C, 25% to 29% of the total
waste rock material could potentially generate
acid and leach metals. In Alternative D,
approximately 16% of the total waste rock
material could potentially generate acid and
leach metals. The tests and results are
described in Section 3.3.3, Geochemistry.
Ground water recharge through the waste
rock disposal areas would be greater than
pre-project conditions. Modeling (Schafer
and Associates, Inc., 1996a) predicts a
decrease in seepage through the waste rock
disposal areas after reclamation which would
be less than pre-project recharge rates.
As a result of the large surface areas of the
waste rock exposed to weathering, water
quality impacts from waste rock disposal
sites could result from the formation of acidic
drainage and leachate that contains trace
metals. Radionuclides could be leached by
infiltration of precipitation or runoff through
the exposed waste rock. Other potential
impacts are local increases in sediment
loading to streams and a temporary release of
ammonia and/or nitrates to site waters from
residual ANFO contained on the waste rock.
Dissolved metals, radionuclides, and nitrate
could present a risk to aquatic and terrestrial
wildlife and humans who drink water and eat
aquatic organisms.
The north sites for waste rock disposal
(Alternatives B, C, D, E, F, and G) are located
in the upper Nicholson Creek drainage and
situated in areas with several springs and
seeps and with low permeable glacial
deposits covering most of the disposal sites.
The south sites for the waste rock disposal
(Alternative B and E) are located in the upper
Marias Creek drainage. No springs or seeps
were identified at the proposed south waste
rock disposal sites. If needed, an underdrain
(french drain) system would be installed to
intercept any identified spring and seep flow.
See Section 2.12.6.1, Geotechnical Stability.
The underflow from the waste rock disposal
area(s) would be collected in detention ponds
located downgradient of the waste rock
disposal areas. See Section 2.12.13.2,
Diversion Ditches and Sediment Traps.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-52
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
During operations, all water draining from, or
through, waste rock areas would be collected
in sediment traps. See Section 2.12.13.2,
Diversion Ditches and Sediment Traps. Water
collected in the ponds would be allowed to
seep into the ground water system if quality
is suitable. The water could also be utilized to
supplement the water supply requirements for
the operation. See Section 2.12.5.2, Water
Discharge. Post operational monitoring of the
waste rock disposal area(s) would also be
performed as required by the regulatory
agencies. See Section 2.13.1, Water
Resources Monitoring.
The frog pond could be impacted by the
reduction of ground water recharge and
seepage due to the north waste rock facilities
(Alternatives B, C, D, E and F); however, the
majority of the hydrologic impacts to the frog
pond would result from detention of surface
water (runoff and waste rock springs/seeps)
from the waste rock disposal areas (see
Section 4.7, Surface Water).
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 drainage. The plan is described in
Section 2.12.5.1, Prevention of Acid Rock
Drainage, and must be approved by the
WADOE, WADNR, BLM, and the Forest
Service prior to Project development.
Waste rock selected for construction use,
such as the ore stockpile pad, roads, and mill
foundation, would be those materials
demonstrated not to be acid generating.
Section 2.12.5.1, Prevention of Acid Rock
Drainage.
Based on the above discussion and
operational controls, short-term impacts to
ground water quality from the waste rock
disposal areas are not expected to be
substantial. Potential long-term ground water
quality impacts from the waste rock disposal
site(s) are expected to be somewhat less
than during operations.
Sewage Disposal. The domestic sewage
system for the Crown Jewel Project would be
located in the Nicholson Creek drainage and
could disturb between one and three acres of
area. The system would consist of either a
water tight septic tank/dosing chamber with
a pressurized drainfield or a package
treatment plant. Regardless of the system,
the final choice selected for use at the Crown
Jewel Project would be designed and sited to
meet Washington State Department of Health
(WSDOH) standards and any local
requirements. The domestic sewage system
would be located near the proposed mill.
A potential effect to the quantity of the local
ground water could result from the
disturbance and construction of the domestic
sewage system. However, due to the limited
area for disturbance (one to three acres),
WSDOH construction inspection requirements
and the licensing of all domestic sewage
installation contractors, no measurable
impacts would De expected.
During mine development, operation and
reclamation, any impacts to the ground water
quality from the domestic sewage system
would be localized in an area downgradient of
the system. Water quality impacts may be
characterized by elevated levels of dissolved
major ions, organic carbon, nutrients, and/or
bacteria. Lab waste and other toxic materials
would be prohibited from discharging into the
domestic sewage system.
The domestic sewage system would be
designed and located to minimize impacts to
water quality that affect public health.
Mitigation of any potential impacts to water
quality and public health would be assured
through proper operation and maintenance
under a WSDOH Large On-site Sewage
System Operating Permit.
No long term impacts from the domestic
sewage system would be anticipated. After
reclamation is completed, the system would
be properly abandoned in accordance with
WSDOH regulations and requirements.
Accidental Spills. An accidental spill of
hazardous materials at the Crown Jewel
Project site could have an impact to the
ground water system. The impacts could
include temporary and local ground water
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-53
contamination at the site of the spill. A
detailed discussion of accidental spills and
the possible impacts are discussed in Section
4.22, Accidents and Spills.
Indirect Effects
The potential for indirect ground water
impacts to the region are expected to be
minimal, if employees choose to live in
communities with established water and
sewer systems. If employees choose to live
in rural areas, domestic water wells would be
drilled, where possible. These wells should
have little indirect effects on ground water
quality or quantity. Septic systems could
locally impact ground water quality.
Cumulative Effects
No cumulative ground water impacts are
expected to occur as a result of logging,
mineral exploration or other activities.
4.6.4 Effects of Alternative B
Surface Disturbance
An estimated 787 acres would be impacted
by construction and mine development
operations of Alternative B. The area of
surface disturbance and layout of the
proposed mine facilities for Alternative B are
shown on Figure 2.16, Alternative B -
Operational Site Plan.
Long-term effects of the surface disturbances
would be mitigated by the decommissioning
and reclamation of the site. Reclamation of
the site includes recontouring and
revegetation.
Open Pit Mine
Alternative B involves the development of an
open pit mine. The mine would be located
near the top and on the northeastern flank of
Buckhorn Mountain. The actual mine pit
would cover an area of approximately 138
acres, and the final pit bottom would reach
an elevation of approximately 4,505 feet.
The completion of mining in Alternative B
would take approximately nine years after
Crown Jewel Project initiation. Impacts to
ground water from this alternative are not
expected to be substantially different from
other alternatives.
Tailings Disposal
The proposed tailings disposal facility would
disturb a total of 101 acres with
approximately 98 acres within the Marias
Creek drainage and three acres within the
Nicholson Creek drainage. The site is
underlain by low permeability glacial deposits.
The potentiometric (water table) surface for
the Marias Creek tailings facility is shown on
Figure 3.8.5, Potentiometric Surface Map -
Proposed Tailings Disposal Area
(October/November 19951.
A study of contaminant seepage and
attenuation in the tailings disposal area was
conducted by Hydro-Geo Consultants
(1995b). In the study, two computer
programs were used to analyze various
seepage and attenuation scenarios. The
computerized version of the McWhorter-
Nelson method was used to estimate the rate
of vertical seepage through the partially
saturated zone beneath the tailings pond
(McWhorter and Nelson, 1980). A second
program, developed by Colder (1992a), was
used by Hydro-Geo Consultants to simulate
the resulting horizontal transport of
contaminants through the aquifer system
beneath the tailings disposal facility. Column
leach tests were performed on soil types from
the site foundation to estimate attenuation of
selected contaminant species.
Six different seepage and attenuation
scenarios were simulated. The scenarios
represent a range of conditions for the
tailings liner system. With an intact liner
system, virtually no seepage (0.0007 gpm)
from the tailings facility would result.
At the other end of the range, seepage from
the facility was modeled assuming the
following conditions:
• A ten foot by ten foot tear in each acre of
the liner system;
• A dysfunctional underdrain system;
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-54
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
• A constant rate of seepage for the eight
year life of the mine;
• No chemical attenuation of the tailings
solution in the subgrade materials; and,
• The highest measured permeability values
based on slug testing (Knight Piesold,
1993a).
The model results for this scenario predicted
a seepage rate of 2.4 gpm.
Transport modeling indicated that the leading
edge of a contaminant plume, with
concentrations below natural background
levels, would extend approximately 489 feet
downgradient from the source after four
years of seepage, 763 feet in eight years,
and 1,430 feet in 20 years. The leading edge
of the contaminant plume in this scenario
would not extend beyond the footprint of the
tailings facility even after 20 years.
Table 4.6.3, Predicted Ground Water
Contaminant Concentrations Downgradient of
a Release From the Tailings Impoundment,
Assuming Worst-Case Conditions, lists the
contaminant concentrations predicted along
the leading edge of the contaminant plume,
the location of the leading edge of the plume
over time and, for comparison, the associated
Washington State ground water standards.
Because of the conservative assumptions
used in the modeling effort, the potential for
ground water contamination from the tailings
disposal facility would be expected to be less
than indicated by the simulation.
A leak detection system would be installed
between the synthetic liners as a mechanism
to monitor for seepage from the tailings
disposal facility. In the event that a leak in
the primary liner is detected, the underdrain
system beneath the tailings disposal facility
would also be used to monitor for seepage.
See Section 2.12.13.5, Tailings Disposal
Facility and Section 2.13.1, Water Resources
Monitoring. Downstream monitoring wells
would be installed to detect any seepage of
contaminants to ground water. See Section
2.13.1, Water Resources Monitoring.
With proper design, construction, and
operation of the tailings facility, negligible
impacts to ground water quality are
anticipated.
Waste Rock Disposal
The proposed waste rock disposal sites
would disturb approximately 131 and 157
acres in the Marias and Nicholson Creek
drainages, respectively. The affected
drainage areas are covered by low
permeability glacial and colluvial deposits.
The upper Nicholson and Marias Creek
drainages have a gaining character, as
evidenced by numerous springs and seeps.
Seepage rates through the waste rock
disposal sites were calculated (Schafer and
Associates, Inc., 1995band 1996a). A
water balance simulation was utilized to
analyze various scenarios of potential
seepage during operations and after
reclamation, based on wet year, dry year, and
average annual precipitation. The flow rates
were calculated at the completion of mining
and with maximum disposal area size. Also,
it was assumed that the waste rock disposal
areas would initially be at "field capacity", or
wet enough that any infiltrating water would
produce seepage and not be stored in the
dump.
The calculated average seepage rates for the
unreclaimed north waste rock disposal areas
(in Nicholson Creek) during operations ranged
from 36 gpm to 86 gpm. The calculated
seepage rate for the unreclaimed south waste
rock disposal area (in the Marias Creek
watershed) during operations ranged from 31
gpm to 75 gpm.
After the initiation of operations (mining), it
might take one or more years for seepage to
first occur at the waste rock disposal area
sites. Also, seepage rates were estimated for
the waste rock disposal sites at full area!
extent and volume, without reclamation.
During operations, waste rock disposal areas
would be smaller and not reach full capacity
until the end of mining; therefore, seepage
rates would be less than indicated. Further,
concurrent reclamation of waste rock
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
1
I
I
CD
I
o
~*
Go
s?
TABLE 4.6.3, PREDICTED GROUND WATER CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS DOWNGRADIENT OF A RELEASE
FROM THE TAILINGS IMPOUNDMENT, ASSUMING WORST CASE CONDITIONS1
Parameter
Cyanide (WAD)
Arsenic
Copper
Mercury
Nickel
Ammonia (as N)
Nitrate (as N)
Calcium
Sodium
Potassium
Iron
Sulfate
Chloride
Bicarbonate
Assumed Tails
Contaminant
Concentrations at
Source2
(mg/l)
27
0.21
6.85
O.OOO8
0.1
19.3
10.5
680
298
43
0.3
1,930
388
63
Predicted Tailings
Contaminant
Concentrations in
Ground Water Along
the Leading Edge of a
Downgradient
Contaminant Plume
(mg/l)
0.0027
2.1 x 10"
6.8 x 10"
8. x 107
1. x 105
0.0019
0.0010
0.068
0.0298
0.0043
3. x 10 5
0.193
0.0388
0.0063
Notes: 1 . Based on results presented in the rep
1995c).
2. Based on average concentration of ta
concentration of less than 40 ppm.
3. From WAC 173-200, Water Quality S
include revisions to EPA MCL's effect
4. Range of background water quality frc
5. Dissolved metal concentration.
Distance Between the Contaminant
Source and Leading Edge of the
Contaminant Plume Over Time
(feet)
4 Years
489
489
489
489
489
489
489
489
489
489
489
489
489
489
8 Years
763
763
763
763
763
763
763
763
763
763
763
763
763
763
20 Years
1,430
1,430
1,430
1,430
1,430
1,430
1,430
1,430
1,430
1,430
1,430
1,430
1,430
1,430
Washington
Primary Ground
Water Quality
Criteria3
(mg/l)
0.2
O.0005
0.002
0.1
10
Washington
Secondary
Ground Water
Quality
Criteria3
(mg/l)
1.0
0.3
250
250
Range of
Background Ground
Water Quality"
<0.002-0.04
<0.001-0.0115
<0.01-0.065
<0.0001-<0.00025
<0.01-<0.025
<0.05-0.12
<0.02-1.07
4-88
4-51
<1-3
<0.02-0.08
< 10-78
<1-54
72-268
Drt Seepage and Attenuation Study, Crown Jewel Tailings Disposal Facility, June 1995, (Hvdro-Geo,
lings liquid reported by the Proponent for bench scale samples detoxified to a WAD cyanide
tandards for Ground Waters of the State of Washington. Primary standards have been updated to
ve January 1994, per R. Raforth, WADOE.
>m wells MW-1 and MW-8 over the period May 1992 through October 1995.
<0
1
i
I
£
0|
Ul
-------
Page 4-56
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
disposal areas would also cause seepage
rates to be less than predicted.
During operations, all water draining from, or
through, waste rock areas would be collected
in detention ponds. See Section 2.12.13.2,
Diversion Ditches and Sediment Traps. Water
collected in the ponds would be allowed to
seep into the ground water system if quality
is suitable or utilized to supplement the water
supply requirements for the operation. See
Section 2.12.5.2, Water Discharge. Post
operational monitoring of the waste rock
disposal area(s) would also be performed as
required by the regulatory agencies. See
Section 2.13.1, Water Resources Monitoring.
After reclamation, the average long-term
seepage rate for the north waste rock
disposal area was calculated to range from 5
gpm to 6 gpm. The average long-term
seepage rate for the south waste rock
disposal area was calculated as
approximately 4 gpm.
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 drainage. The plan is described in
Section 2.12.5.1, Prevention of Acid Rock
Drainage and must be approved by the
WADOE, WADNR, Forest Service, and BLM
prior to development of the Crown Jewel
Project.
Reduced ground water recharge, to the
extent that ground water supports the frog
pond, might possibly impact it. Waste rock
seepage quality due to the operation of the
waste rock facility in the Nicholson Creek
watershed might change the frog pond's
uses.
4.6.5 Effects of Alternative C
Surface Disturbance
In Alternative C, approximately 415 acres
would be impacted by construction and mine
development operations. The surface
disturbance and layout of the proposed mine
facilities for Alternative C are shown on
Figure 2.18, Alternative C - Operational Site
Plan.
Underground Mine
Alternative C involves the development of an
underground mine. The mine production
adits would be located in the Gold Bowl
drainage basin (in the upper Nicholson Creek
watershed) at approximately the 4,500 and
4,850 foot elevations. The mine
development for Alternative C would take
approximately one year for the adit
construction and early mine development,
and four years for actual ore production
operations.
During the mining operations, because the
level of the mine adits and workings would
be below the zone of saturation, ground
water would seep into the mine.
Groundwater inflow during adit construction
was estimated by Hydro-Geo Consultants to
range from approximately 37 gpm to 53 gpm.
At the maximum mine development, inflows
were estimated to range from 74 gpm to 105
gpm. After completion of mining, the
sustained inflow was calculated to range
from 27 gpm to 57 gpm (Hydro-Geo, 1996b).
The zone of influence from the mine drainage
was estimated for the proposed mining
operations based on the computer modeling
and water balance calculation as
approximately 20% smaller than the zone of
influence of the proposed open pit (Hydro-
Geo, 1996b).
Ground water would flow toward the
underground mine workings, thereby reducing
recharge to the ground water system.
Seepage and subsequent mine dewatering
would cause changes in the local ground
water flow direction and recharge rate.
Water sources within the zone of influence
above the underground workings would
experience reduction of ground water level or
flow. The potentially impacted surface areas,
due to mine drainage, would be less than 1 %
of the total watershed areas of Ethel, Bolster,
Gold, Marias and Nicholson Creeks. During
operations, the water from underground mine
drainage would be used to supplement the
water supply requirements of the operation if
water rights are granted.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-57
After mining operations, the underground
mine adit would be sealed (closed) with a
concrete plug and bulkhead. The bulkhead
would be installed to prevent long-term
human access into the abandoned workings
but would be completed with a drain pipe for
long-term mine discharge and provisions for
bat access.
After the mine is sealed, it would begin to fill
with ground water; a reduction in ground
water levels above the underground mine
workings would occur as a result of long-term
post mining discharge. Changes in mine
outflow related to seasonal variations in
precipitation and runoff are anticipated in a
similar range as measured for the historic
Roosevelt adit (see Section 3.8, Ground
Water).
Mine induced subsidence would locally
impact the ground water system. The effects
of subsidence are related to the mining
method, site specific geologic and
hydrogeologic characteristics, including
thickness of overburden, rock type, terrain
configuration, and aquifer hydraulic
properties. Surface subsidence would
increase recharge to the ground water system
by increasing the infiltration from runoff and
precipitation. Subsidence induced fracturing
of the rock above the underground workings
overburden material would also cause
changes in the local aquifers. The potential
effects include the interconnection of
different water bearing zones and the
reduction of ground water levels. Springs or
seeps within the area of subsidence induced
impacts could also be affected by the
reduction in flow.
Mine filling and drainage could result in a
temporary flushing of sulfide oxidation
products and residual ANFO from previously
unsaturated sections of the workings. This
alternative would expose a smaller
percentage of potentially acid generating rock
than the mine workings proposed under
Alternative B. The initial flush of oxidation
products from the walls of the underground
mine is expected to result in less short-term
impact to ground water quality than predicted
for the proposed open pit.
Under Alternative B, the majority of pit water
would discharge to surface water, with only a
very small amount, less than 5 gpm predicted
to seep to ground water. Similarly, ground
water intercepted by the underground
workings under Alternative C would
principally be discharged from the adits to the
Nicholson Creek drainage. Only a small
amount of intercepted water would be
expected to seep into the rock from the adit.
Short term impacts to ground water quality
from Alternative C are expected to be similar
to Alternative B.
After closure, the underground mine would
continue to drain, and rock in the abandoned
workings would continue to be exposed to
oxygen. Therefore, the long-term impacts to
ground water quality from this alternative
would be predicted to be similar to
Alternative B.
Underground Development Waste Rock
Disposal
The proposed underground development
waste rock disposal area would disturb
approximately 26 acres in the Nicholson
Creek drainage. This represents less than
1 % of the total Nicholson Creek watershed
area.
As described in Section 3.3.3, Geochemistry,
waste rock generated under Alternative C
would have a greater potential to generate
acid rock drainage than under Alternative B.
As with the other action alternatives, the
Proponent would be required to develop a
waste rock management plan as part of the
Crown Jewel Project permitting to address
the potential for formation of acid-generating
"hot-spots" and prevention of acid drainage.
See Section 2.12.5.1, Prevention Acid Rock
Drainage.
No measurable impact to the recharge-
discharge system of the ground water would
be expected as a result of Alternative C. Due
to its limited size, this waste rock disposal
area would have the least effect of all waste
rock disposal area alternatives.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-58
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES January 1997
4.6.6 Effects of Alternative D
Surface Disturbance
Approximately 558 acres would be impacted
by construction and mine development
operations of Alternative D. The surface
disturbance and layout of the proposed mine
facilities for Alternative D are shown on
Figure 2.19, Alternative D - Operational Site
Plan.
Open Pit and Underground Mining
During surface mining operations, after the
level of the open pit is excavated below the
water table, ground water would seep into
the pit. Because the underground mining
would be below the water table, ground
water would continually seep into the
underground workings.
After mining operations cease, the open pit
and underground mine workings would flood.
The outflow and seepage from the open pit
would be less than predicted in Alternative B
because of the reduced size of the pit area.
The underground workings would also
discharge from the adit, but this discharge
would be less than the adit outflows
predicted for Alternative C because of the
reduced underground mine workings area in
Alternative D. The combined discharge from
the pit and adit would be less than the pit
discharge for Alternative B.
The seepage and zone of influence for
Alternative D would be slightly less than
calculated for Alternative B; however,
potential impacts from within the zone of
influence, both during and after mining, could
include the reduction of flow to streams,
springs and seeps, and wetlands.
Based on the percentage of waste rock types
estimated to be exposed in the open pit and
underground mine workings, the short-term
impact to ground water quality from
Alternative D would be expected to be
greater than Alternative B. The long-term
impact to ground water quality from
Alternative D would be expected to be less
than the effects noted for Alternative C.
4.6.7 Effects of Alternative E
Surface Disturbance
Approximately 928 acres would be impacted
by construction and mine development
operations of Alternative E. The surface
disturbance and location of the proposed
mine facilities for Alternative E are shown on
Figure 2.20, Alternative E - Operational Site
Plan.
Open Pit Mine
Alternative E involves the development of a
single open pit mine with the same size and
depth as described for Alternative B. During
mining operations, the pit would be partially
backfilled with waste rock to an elevation
above the water table. Therefore, no final pit
lake would form. The pit backfilling would
eliminate water evaporation losses that would
occur from a pit lake. Ground water flowing
into the backfilled pit would slowly saturate
the waste rock placed in the pit and the
potentiometric surface of the ground water
would reach a new ground water hydraulic
balance in approximately five to six years.
The zone of influence for Alternative E would
be expected to be similar to Alternative B.
Regrading and revegetation performed as part
of the reclamation activities would limit
infiltration into the mine pit. Water that would
fill the partially backfilled mine pit would
primarily discharge in the form of springs
and/or seeps at the low point of the pit crest
and flow into the Gold Bowl drainage.
Geochemical testing of the waste rock
material indicates that the overall impact from
a release of trace metals from the waste rock
would be minimal. As described in Section
3.3.3, Geochemistry, humidity cell tests
indicated that 5% to 1 5% of the waste rock
volume could potentially generate acid and
leach metals.
Water quality impacts as a result of this
alternative would be different than Alternative
B primarily due to the use of waste rock
material to partially backfill the open pit. As
the backfilled waste rock in the open pit
becomes saturated with water after mining,
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-59
flushing of the backfilled material could result
in a temporary release of trace metals and
residual ANFO to surface waters (Schafer and
Associates, Inc., 1996b). Even assuming
selective handling of the backfilled material,
the initial discharge from the open pit under
this alternative would be expected to be of
lower quality than Alternative B. After waste
rock saturation, and assuming long-term
infiltration through the backfilled material is
reduced, the potential for further acid
production should be lower.
Installation of ground water monitoring wells
downgradient of the mine would be required
to confirm that no ground water degradation
is occurring. Water quality monitoring would
also include selected springs or seeps that
formed in the area of the backfilled waste
rock material, in particular at the low point of
the pit crest in the Gold Bowl drainage. See
Section 2.13.1, Water Resources Monitoring.
Response strategies identifying corrective
actions and financial security appropriate to
accomplish the corrective actions can be
found in Section 2.12.13.5, Pit Lake and
Section 2.14.2, Environmental Protection
Performance Security.
After the initial flushing of the backfilled
waste rock with water, the long-term impact
to ground water quality from the partial
backfilling is predicted to be worse than
Alternatives C and D due to a larger area of
exposed pit wall and waste rock, and similar
to or worse than Alternative B. Seepage to
ground water from the partially backfilled pit
is predicted to be similar to Alternative B and
total less than 5 gpm (Hydro-Geo, 1996b).
Waste Rock Disposal
Similar to Alternative B, the waste rock
disposal areas for Alternative E would be
located in the upper Nicholson and Marias
Creek drainages; however, during the mining
operation, approximately 11 % of the waste
rock would be used to directly backfill the
final open pit to an elevation of approximately
4,850 feet; this waste rock would not be
hauled to a disposal area outside the pit.
Even with this reduction in size, short-term
and long-term seepage and water quality
from the Alternative E waste rock disposal
areas would be similar to Alternative B.
4.6.8 Effects of Alternative F
Surface Disturbance
Approximately 817 acres would be impacted
by construction and mine development
operations of Alternative F. The surface
disturbance and location of proposed mine
facilities for Alternative F are shown on
Figure 2.21, Alternative F - Operational Site
Plan.
Open Pit Mine
After completion of mining, the waste rock
which will be placed in a temporary stockpile
in the upper Nicholson Creek drainage, would
be used to completely backfill the open pit,
and the temporary stockpile area would be
reclaimed.
The final topography of the Crown Jewel
Project area would be slightly higher than pre-
mining conditions due to an increase in the
volume of waste rock after blasting. With
complete backfilling, the surface inflow
contribution to the mine pit area from
precipitation and runoff would be reduced,
and the total seepage out of the pit area
would be somewhat less than estimated for
Alternative B. The pit area outflow would
occur as springs and seeps along the east
side of the pit rather than an open flow, as in
Alternatives B, D, and G. These springs and
seeps would be expected to develop in the
Gold Bowl drainage similar to Alternative E.
The short term zone of influence for
Alternative F would be the same as
Alternative B.
The long-term zone of influence for
Alternative F would be expected to be less
than Alternative B given the proposed pit
backfilling.
The impacts to ground water quality would
be similar to those discussed for Alternative E
because the same volume of waste rock
would be expected to saturate with ground
water in both Alternatives E and F. Although
there would be no pit highwall runoff in
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-60
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
Alternative F, there would be greater waste
rock surface area exposed to infiltration.
These two actions would be expected to
offset each other, thereby causing the water
quality impacts of Alternative E and F to be
similar. Schafer and Associates, Inc. (1996b)
predicted that the long-term potential to
release nitrate from the completely backfilled
pit would be greater than for Alternatives B
or E. Seepage to ground water from the
completely backfilled pit is predicted to be
similar to Alternatives B, D, E, and G and
total less than 5 gpm (Hydro-Geo, 1996b).
Tailings Disposal
Ground water quality impacts from the
Alternative F tailings facility would be
expected to be similar to those described for
Alternative B assuming that the overall
facility design, quality of the tailings, seepage
rate, and ground water flow gradient are not
substantially different.
Waste Rock Disposal
The temporary waste rock stockpile for
Alternative F would be located in the upper
Nicholson Creek drainage. After mining,
waste rock would be used to backfill the
open pit. Potential short-term water quality
impacts from this temporary waste rock
stockpile would be similar to impacts
discussed in Alternative B.
After completion of mining operations, the
waste rock would be used to backfill the
open pit and the disposal area would be
recontoured and revegetated. As a result, no
long-term impacts on ground water would be
expected in the area of the temporary waste
rock disposal area.
4.6.9 Effects of Alternative G
Surface Disturbance
Approximately 893 acres would be impacted
by construction and mine development
operations. The proposed mine facility layout
is shown on Figure 2.22, Alternative G -
Operational Site Plan.
Tailings Disposal
Flotation ore processing, without the
application of cyanide, would change the
chemistry of the tailings material. Assuming
the design and operation of the Alternative G
tailings disposal facility would be similar to
other action alternatives, and accounting for
expected differences in the tailings solution
chemistry, impacts from Alternative G to
ground water quantity and quality would be
expected to be similar to or less than other
action alternatives. This is because metals
complexed with surfactants and frothers
would be expected to be strongly attenuated
in soils beneath the facility due to the large
molecular size of the organic polymers used
in the flotation process.
Waste Rock Disposal
The frog pond would be completely and
permanently covered by the waste rock. See
Section 4.10, Wetlands. Short-term and long-
term seepage and water quality from the
Alternative G waste rock disposal area would
be similar to the Alternative B north waste
rock disposal area.
4.7 SURFACE WATER
4.7.1 Summary
All action alternatives would alter the surface
and ground water regimes of the five streams
originating on Buckhorn Mountain. The
surface water runoff would be impacted by
the mining itself as well as other grading and
fill operations. The ground water which
provides base flow to the streams would be
impacted by the mine and by mine
dewatering. The temporary impact to surface
water would be greatest during mine
dewatering and after the mine is completely
excavated. After the permanent cessation of
operations, the mine would fill with water
and discharge to the Gold Bowl drainage in
the Nicholson Creek watershed. Likewise,
after mining is completed, the ground water
table would recover to levels lower than the
premining condition. Permanent impacts after
the mine fills with water are, therefore,
expected to be less than the short-term,
during-mining impacts.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-61
In Alternatives B and G, the pit lake would
discharge water into the Gold Bowl drainage
in approximately 26 years of natural pit filling
following completion of mining. If water is
pumped from Starrem Reservoir to refill the
pit, the pit would refill in approximately five
years. Flows after filling would be about 71
gpm under average conditions. After
completion of underground mining
(Alternative C), flows from the mine workings
could be expected to immediately discharge
27 gpm to 57 gpm almost immediately.
Alternatives involving a combination of
surface and underground mining, partial or
complete backfilling (Alternatives D, E, and F,
respectively) would be expected to discharge
slightly less water to surface flow than
Alternatives B and G.
Some of the pit lake water would be lost to
evaporation. The discharged water could
cause some erosion to the Gold Bowl
drainage channel seasonally and could add a
minor amount of sediment loading during high
flow periods.
Potential impacts to surface water quality
from sediment loading would be minimized by
construction and maintenance of sediment
control structures, as well as reclamation
required under site permits.
Construction and operation of the tailings
disposal areas for all action alternatives
would permanently disturb the original
surface area and cover some springs and
seeps in the Marias Creek drainage
(Alternatives B, C, D, and E) or the Nicholson
Creek drainage (Alternatives F and G). The
action alternatives that include permanent
waste rock disposal sites would permanently
disturb the premining topography
(Alternatives B, C, D, E, and G) and alter
ground water recharge and surface water
flows to areas immediately downgradient of
the sites, including the frog pond. Alternative
F would include a temporary waste rock
stockpile that, at the end of 32 years, would
be completely returned to the mine pit, and
the stockpile and mine pit site would be
restored to a topography similar to the
premining condition. In Alternative G, the
waste rock disposal area would completely
cover the frog pond.
A network of surface water monitoring
stations in drainages surrounding the Crown
Jewel Project would be monitored at a
frequency specified in permits to detect
potential water quality problems resulting
from the construction or operation of the
Crown Jewel Project facilities. The
Proponent would be required to obtain an
NPDES permit before releasing any
stormwater runoff and mine water discharge
to waters of the state and United States.
The NPDES permit would specify allowable
concentrations and loading of potential
pollutants in the discharges based on current
state water quality standards and technology
based criteria. Effluent limits would be
established that would be appropriate for the
type of water discharged and account for its
relationship to the mining operations. Should
increased sedimentation or other degradation
of surface water quality occur, activities or
facilities responsible for the impact would be
suspended or modified, and additional
mitigation actions would be implemented to
reduce future impacts.
Reduction of stream flow in area drainages
would be unavoidable for all action
alternatives due to mine dewatering. Minor
losses to stream flow would also occur in the
alternatives with open pit mining due to
precipitation collected in the open pit and the
resulting loss of overland flow. Alternatives
with underground mining would have less
impact primarily because overland flow would
only be affected through subsidence or near-
surface ground fracturing. Some minor loss
of stream flow would likewise occur from all
action alternatives due to precipitation on the
tailings disposal facilities, where water would
be re-cycled to the mill or lost to evaporation.
The maximum reduction in stream flow due
to open pit mining occurs in the uppermost
reaches of the watersheds at the completion
of mining, when the pit has been fully
excavated and dewatered to facilitate
operations, and before pit filling would occur.
The reduction would result from the
interception of the surface runoff component
of the stream flow by the open pit, and the
interception of a portion of the ground water
flow (base flow) component by the
drawdown caused by pit excavation and
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-62
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
dewatering. The reduction in stream flow
would decrease at the completion of pit
filling, which is estimated to occur between 5
years to 26 years after the cessation of
mining and pumping. This is because the
higher water surface in the pit would reduce
the ground water table drawdown and,
therefore, increase base flows. The
percentage of reduction in stream flow would
be greatest in the higher reaches of the
watersheds and would decrease in a
downstream direction as the drainage area
increases.
The estimated reduction in stream flow has
been determined by analysis of stream flow
measurements in each of the affected
drainages. The reduction would vary from
drainage to drainage based on the portion of
drainage impacted by the pit, the ground
water table elevation change, and the amount
of precipitation falling on the drainage. A
range of annual precipitation amounts, as
discussed in Section 3.1.3, Climate, have
been used to estimate stream flow
reductions.
Potential impacts to water quality from
mining are:
• Sedimentation;
• Acid drainage;
• Increases in dissolved metals;
• Nitrate increases from blasting; and,
• Temperature increases from reduction in
stream flow and installation of habitat
improvement structures.
Sedimentation results from erosion of
disturbed areas. Mitigation measures to
minimize sedimentation include best
management practices such as reduction of
sediment at its source, stormwater
management, and sediment trapes. Impacts to
water quality as a result of sedimentation are
not expected to be substantial with proper
design, construction, and operation of mine
drainage and stormwater facilities, followed
by reclamation of disturbed sites.
If it were to occur, acid rock drainage from
waste rock, the ore stockpile, or the mine pit
would likely result in elevated levels of
dissolved metals. Similarly, radionuclides
could be leached by infiltration of
precipitation or runoff through exposed ore
and waste rock, or from mine pit walls.
Dissolved metals and radionuclides could
present a risk to aquatic and terrestrial
wildlife and humans who drink water and eat
aquatic organisms.
Geochemical testing indicates that the ore
and waste rock have a low potential to
generate acid, leach metals, or release
radionuclides. These tests and results are
found in Section 3.3.3, Geochemistry.
There would likely be increases of nitrate
concentration in surface streams as a result
of blasting in the pit (ANFO), seepage
through the waste rock disposal areas
(residual ANFO), and sewage disposal.
Increased nitrate and phosphorus loading
could also result from the application of
fertilizer for revegetation during mine
reclamation.
The potential to increase nitrates and
phosphorus in surface streams would be
lessened through proper blasting and
fertilization practices.
Impacts to water quality from stream
depletion are not expected to be substantial
but could include an increase in the rate of
daily temperature changes along the upper
reaches of some site streams both during and
after mining. In the lower reaches of site
streams, daily stream temperatures are not
expected to increase from stream depletion;
therefore, dissolved oxygen concentrations
and bacterial populations are not expected to
change substantially from background
conditions. Use of proposed habitat
improvement structures could, however,
increase stream temperatures locally.
4.7.2 Effects of Alternative A (No
Action)
Surface disturbances from past road
construction, timber harvesting, mineral
exploration, and historic mining activities
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-63
have already occurred at and near the Crown
Jewel Project site, as described in Section
3.19, Land Use and Section 4.6.2, Effects of
Alternative A (No Action). Surface
disturbances from timber harvesting
(including Nicholson Timber sales and Park
Place Timber sale), and exploration related
activities near the Crown Jewel Project site
could cause temporary increases in total and
suspended solids concentrations in local
surface waters. Potential short-term surface
water quality impacts could result from oil
and fuel spills associated with future mineral
exploration, logging, recreation, and other
forest uses.
Flows from historic adits present at the site,
in particular the Roosevelt adit and the
Buckhorn adit, contribute flow to Nicholson
and Bolster Creeks, respectively. Adit flows
and water quality are expected to remain the
same as the current conditions documented
in the baseline water quality monitoring
program. Section 3.8.6, Influence of Past
Mining on Ground Water, and Section 3.8.7,
Relationship of Ground Water and Surface
Water Systems.
Baseline sediment concentrations in local
streams indicate that no substantial long-term
increases in sedimentation have occurred
from previously logged areas or where
mineral exploration and historic development
have taken place (TerraMatrix, 1995b). Also,
with the exception of the upper reaches of
Gold Creek, there appears to be no evidence
of stream degradation related to sulfide
oxidation from mineral development. Baseline
water samples collected from upper Gold
Creek did contain elevated sulfate levels
(average of 173 mg/l at SW-10) that may be
related, in part, to development of the
Magnetic Mine (now abandoned). However,
surface waters in lower Gold Creek were
alkaline and contained metals concentrations
below aquatic standards.
4.7.3 Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives
Direct Effects
The Crown Jewel Project components that
could impact the surface water system
include the following:
• Surface Disturbance;
• Open Pit or Underground Mine Workings;
• Ore Stockpile;
• Tailings Disposal;
• Waste Rock Disposal;
• Accidental Spills; and,
• Starrem Reservoir.
Crown Jewel Project components could have
effects that would be common to all
alternatives. Variations to these effects are
discussed for each alternative separately.
Surface Disturbance. Surface disturbance
from the action alternatives range from
approximately 415 to 928 acres as discussed
in Chapter 2, Alternatives Including the
Proposed Action.
Disturbed areas contributing to sedimentation
include the haul road and access roads, the
construction of the power line corridor, ore
stockpile and waste rock disposal areas,
diversion structures around the ore stockpile
and waste rock disposal areas, Starrem
Reservoir embankment, and the tailings
facility embankment. Erosion from surface
disturbance would vary among alternatives
depending on the area and steepness of
slopes disturbed, roads constructed, slopes of
areas to be reclaimed, and measures taken to
control erosion. Surface disturbance within
each watershed for all action alternatives is
compared in Table 4.7.1, Summary of Total
and Watershed Disturbance for Action
Alternatives.
The potential for erosion and sediment
loading below the areas of disturbance would
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-64
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
Alternative
Total Disturbance Area
(Acres)1
B
787
C
415
D
558
E
928
F
817
G
893
Marias
Nicholson
Starrem
Other
283 (4%)
431 (4%)
39 (1%)
34 «1%)
174(2%)
168 (2%)
39 (1%)
34«1%)
167 (2%)
318 (3%)
39 (1%)
34 «1%)
260 (3%)
595 (6%)
39 (1%)
34«1%)
24«1%)
720 (7%)
39 (1%)
34 «1%)
24 « 1 %)
796 (8%)
39 (1 %)
34 «1%)
TABLE 4.7.1, SUMMARY OF TOTAL WATERSHED DISTURBANCE
FOR ACTION ALTERNATIVES
Disturbance Area in Watershed (Acres)/Percentage (%) of Total Watershed 2-3
Lineal Feet of Drainage Altered or Eliminated
Marias
Nicholson*
Gold Bowl6
Starrem
Total
4,200
2,025
2,300
2,200
10,725
3,550
0
1,350
2,200
7,100
4,200
550
1,500
2,200
8,450
4,200
3,900
1,500
2,200
11,800
0
8,525
1,500
2,200
12,225
0
8,300
1,500
2,200
12,000
Notes: 1. This area includes acreage such as the mine pit area, tailings facility, subsidence, etc. that would not
contribute to sedimentation in Marias and Nicholson Creeks because these areas would be internally
drained.
2. Physical disturbances in Bolster, Gold, and Ethel Creeks as a result of the Crown Jewel Project would
amount to less than 1 % of the total watershed area.
3. Estimated acreage for mine area watersheds follows:
Marias Creek Watershed (confluence with Toroda Creek): 7,774 acres (12.1 mi2)
Nicholson Creek Watershed (confluence with Toroda Creek): 10,310 acres (16.1 mi2)
Bolster Creek (confluence with Myers Creek): 1,722 acres (2.7 mi2)
Gold Creek (confluence with Myers Creek): 2,280 acres (3.6 mi2)
Ethel Creek (confluence with Myers Creek): 1,924 acres (3.0 mi2)
Starrem Creek (confluence with Myers Creek): 2,752 acres (4.3 mi2)
4. These lineal feet do not include disturbances to the Gold Bowl drainage.
5. The Gold Bowl drainage is part of the Nicholson Creek watershed area.
6. The disturbance acres for each watershed were estimated by determining where the disturbed area for
each facility would ultimately drain to.
be greatest during the construction phase.
Most sediment transported would occur
either during snowmelt or periods of heavy
rainfall such as a summer thunderstorm.
Removal of the forest canopy could result in
accelerated snowmelt and subsequent runoff.
Sedimentation can result in a loss of aquatic
habitat. These effects are discussed in
Section 4.11, Aquatic Habitats and
Populations, and Appendix I, Fisheries and
Aquatic Habitat Biological Evaluation.
Actual sediment loading in streams would
depend largely on climatic conditions, the
design, construction, and maintenance of
sediment control structures, and the timing
and success of reclamation. Construction of
stormwater conveyance and detention
facilities would occur prior to removal of
topsoil as part of construction of the mill,
tailings embankments, other major structures,
and initiation of actual mining. See Section
2.12.13.2, Diversion Ditches and Sediment
Traps. Best management practices (BMP's)
would be employed to ensure stabilization of
disturbed areas. Sediment control structures
would remain in place until the reclamation
objectives are achieved. Mitigation measures
to address erosion and sedimentation are
found in Section 2.12.13.1, Erosion and
Sediment Control.
During construction, operations and
reclamation, the effects of water transport of
sediment off the Crown Jewel Project site is
not expected to be substantial when erosion
practices, and diversion and sediment control
structures are in place.
The Crown Jewel Project would result in the
loss of stream channel on Gold Bowl,
Starrem, Marias, and Nicholson Creeks. The
flows, seasonal variation of flows,
sedimentation, functions, and values could
change in the upper portions of Marias,
Nicholson, Ethel, Bolster, and Gold Creeks.
The current mitigation proposal includes
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-65
minimal on-site, in-kind mitigation for these
losses/changes.
An estimated 7,100 to 12,200 lineal feet of
stream channel would be affected in the
headwaters of these systems. (See Table
4.7.1, Summary of Total Watershed
Disturbance for Action Alternatives.) Without
active steps to replace the channels, it may
take longer for the system to reach a new
equilibrium. For these reasons, it would be
desirable to design, construct, and monitor
replacement channel systems on-site which
would provide aquatic functions and values.
Open Pit or Underground Mine Workings.
Direct effects from the mining method would
vary depending on the alternative.
Alternatives involving open pit mining would
include impacts from water flowing into the
pit, then discharging to surface water.
Alternatives involving underground mining
would include impacts from water
discharging from adits to surface water.
Surface and ground water systems at the
Project site are interconnected. An analysis
of the potential impacts to surface water
flows from mining activities was conducted
(Hydro-Geo, 1996a); this study focused on
the surface runoff and baseflow reductions
due to the open pit dewatering. The
drainages that would be impacted by the
mine dewatering include Nicholson, Marias,
Bolster, Gold, and Ethel Creeks.
A summary of the results of this study
{Hydro-Geo, 1 996a) are presented in Table
4.7.2, Summary of Average Precipitation
Year (20.0 Inches) Impacts on Buckhorn
Mountain Drainages and Table 4.7.3, Impacts
of Mining on Buckhorn Mountain Drainages,
and shown on Figure 4.7.1, Watersheds and
Monitoring Sites.
Potential surface water quality impacts from
mine dewatering would depend on several
factors including:
• The quantity of drainage from the mine
workings; and,
• The potential for generation of acid and
leaching of contaminants from exposed
rock and the resulting quality of the
drainage.
There could be increased nitrate
concentration in streams as a result of
blasting in the pit (ANFO), seepage through
the waste rock disposal areas (residual
ANFO), and sewage disposal. Increased
nitrate and phosphorus loading could also
result from the application of fertilizer for
revegetation during mine reclamation.
The potential to increase nitrates and
phosphorus in surface streams would be
lessened through proper blasting and
fertilization practices. See Section 2.12.5.3,
Nitrate Contamination, and Section 2.11.4,
General Reclamation Procedures, subsection
"Fertilization."
Potential impacts to temperature due to
stream depletion are not expected to be
substantial for any of the action alternatives.
Increases in maximum daily stream
temperatures during mining operations are
not expected due to the strong dependence
of this parameter on air temperature and
ground water inflow. Local increases in
stream temperature could result from use of
proposed habitat improvement structures.
Ore Stockpile. The ore stockpile pad
proposed in Alternative B would be
constructed by filling a portion of the Gold
Bowl drainage. The maximum depth of fill
would be approximately 200 feet. A
replacement channel would be built around
the southern side of the ore stockpile pad to
convey surface flow to Nicholson Creek.
Once the ore is depleted and milling
operations cease, the stockpile area would be
regraded and reclaimed; the replacement
channel constructed around the southern side
of the ore stockpile would be permanent.
Other action alternatives considered a side-hill
location for this stockpile pad to minimize
filling in Gold Bowl drainage channel.
If it were to occur, acid rock drainage from
the ore and ore pad would likely result in
elevated levels of dissolved metals. Similarly,
radionuclides could potentially be leached by
infiltration of precipitation or runoff through
the exposed ore and the ore pad. Dissolved
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
I
I
*
1
(I
TABLE 4.7.2, SUMMARY OF AVERAGE PRECIPITATION YEAR (20.0 INCHES) IMPACTS OF BUCKHORN MOUNTAIN DRAINAGES
(Impacts in Acre-Feet Per Year)
Drainage
Existing Volume
(Pro-mining)
Base
Flow
Surface
Runoff
Volume Gain ( + I/Loss (-) at End of Mining
Base
Flow
Percent
Surface
Runoff
Percent
Volume Qain ( + I/Loss (-) Post Reclamation
(Following Pit Lake Fining and Discharge)3
Base
Flow
Percent
Surface
Runoff
Percent
Nicholson Creek3
SW-9
SW-7
SW-6
SW-1
At Toroda
Creek1
Marias Creek
SW-8
SW-2
At Toroda
Creek1
2.14
152
49.1
444
2,062
92.4
288
1,620
8.3
40
13.4
148
687
-19.6
-26.9
+ 0.1
-26.7
-26.7
91.6
-17.7
+ 0.2
-6.0
-1.3
-4.9
-6.9
__2
-6.9
-6.9
-59.0
-17.1
__2
-4.6
-1.0
-16.8
-19.8
__2
-19.8
-19.8
-78.5
-13.0
M2
-4.5
-1.0
+ 108
+ 106
f_2
+ 106
+ 106
+ 1,300
+ 265
__2
+ 72
+ 15
33.0
80.6
453
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
-.01
""
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.6
-0.2
--
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
-0.4
-O.1
—
-0.2
-0.2
-0.2
-0.6
-0.2
—
Gold Creek
SW-10
SW-4
At Myers
Creek1
11.2
74.6
418
6.0
61.0
342
-4.6
-4.9
-4.9
-41
-6.6
-1.2
__2
__2
__2
__2
__2
__2
-0.9
-0.9
-0.9
-8.1
-1.2
-0.2
__2
__2
__2
__2
__2
__2
Bolster Creek
SW-1 4
SW-1 3
SW-11
SW-1 2
At Myers
Creek'
36.8
124
21.0
72.8
297
20.1
43.3
9.6
23.2
100
-3.2
-3.3
-6.4
-6.9
-10.2
-8.7
-2.7
-30.5
-9.5
-3.4
-1.2
-1.2
-0.5
-0.5
-1.8
-6.0
-2.8
-5.2
-2.2
-1.8
-2.6
-2.7
-3.7
-4.0
-6.7
-7.1
-2.2
-17.6
-5.5
-2.3
-1.2
-1.2
-0.5
-0.5
-1.7
-6.0
-2.8
-5.2
-2.2
-1.7
i
•0
a
I
I
I
{
<0
SI
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-67
LU
i
0
z
*t
:HORN MOUNT/
ac
U
13
m
LL
O
(_
0
^f
a.
1 ~
V) *
LU ^"
0 *
z ^
~ «
" U»
§§
§ =
>" M
Z o
2 a
S I
; PRECIPm
(
LU
0
UJ
^
u.
O
4.7.2, SUMMARY
UJ
m
r-
ft
ll
11
alume Gain ( + )/Lon
Following Pit Lake Fl
> ~
1
=
*o
I
Ul
a
I
5
£
Volume Qa
Existing Volume
(Pre-minlng)
S
£
Surface
Runoff
Percent
J*
m u.
~
!
s.
S £
*?
S
1
3 i
££
Surface
Runoff
Jl
gi
1
o
J
UJ
«,
**,
N,
N,
~,
~.
~,
*
00
m
m
U)
(A
«,
N,
"
*",
**",
~,
™!
~,
1
§
CM
0)
s
fl
|
1
I
E "^
a ^
" £
~o c
g
0>
C
f>
1
J
g
o
(0
i
I
S"
0)
6 1 1?
1 f H
o f •
? 'o. a
•i « ?
1 & B
c • -s
£ * i
1 I «
w rates extrapolated bat
icates less than 0.1 %.
it reclamation values inc
imes Lost During and Po
III 1
s
(O
1
0
- v
cc >
Crown Jewel Mine • ft/?*/ Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-68
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
TABLE 4.7.3, IMPACTS OF MINING ON BUCKHORN MOUNTAIN DRAINAGES2*5
Drainage Basin
Nicholson Creek
Nicholson Creek
Nicholson Creek
Nicholson Creek
Nicholson Creek
Marias Creek
Marias Creek
Marias Creek
Gold Creek
Gold Creek
Gold Creek
Bolster Creek
Bolster Creek
Bolster Creek
Bolster Creek
Bolster Creek
Ethel Creek
Ethel Creek
Monitoring Site
SW-9
SW-7
SW-6
SW-1
At Toroda Creek
SW-8
SW-2
At Toroda Creek
SW-10
SW-4
At Myers Creek
SW-1 4
SW-1 3
SW-11
SW-1 2
At Myers Creek
SW-5
At Myers Creek
Drainage Basin Area1
(acres)
143
479
536
2,222
10,310
792
1,381
7,774
42
407
2,280
105
743
72
397
1,722
1,365
1,924
Stream Flow Gain ( + I/Loss (-)
% Normal3 e
End of Mining
-82.4
-17.6
+ 0.2
-5.7
-1.2
-0.4
-0.1
-27
-3.6
-0.6
-7.7
-2.7
-22.6
-7.8
-3.0
„
—
Reclamation/Post Pit-Filling
+ 306
+ 55.2
+ 14.6
+ 3.1
-0.4
-0.1
__
-5.3
-0.7
-0.1
-6.8
-2.4
-13.9
-4.7
-2.1
„
-
Notes: 1 . See Figure 3.6.3, Surface Water Monitoring Stations, for drainage basin location map.
2. See figure 4. 7.3, Schematic - Average During and Post Mining Stream Depletions.
3. - indicates less than 0.1 %
4. Normal annual precipitation estimated at 20.0 inches.
5. Stream flows in this column include flow from the pit lake to Nicholson Creek in the Post-Reclamation
scenario for the normal precipitation of 20.0 inches. This flow would average about 71 gpm to Gold Bowl
drainage in the Nicholson Creek Watershed.
6. Stream flow gain/loss includes the impacts on both base flow and surface runoff.
metals and radionuclides could present a risk
to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife and humans
who drink water and eat aquatic organisms.
Geochemical testing indicates that the ore
has a low potential to generate acid, leach
metals, or release radionuclides. These tests
and results can be found in Section 3.3.3,
Geochemistry.
Surface water diversions would be placed up
slope of the stockpile. Any runoff from the
ore stockpile area during operations would be
routed to a sediment trap. See Section
2.12.13.2, Diversion Ditches and Sediment
Traps. Monitoring would be required in an
NPDES permit issued by the WADOE, to
verify the effectiveness of the water and
sediment control facilities. See Section
2.13.1, Water Resources Monitoring.
Treatment to remove dissolved or suspended
contaminants may be necessary to meet
permit requirements prior to discharge. See
Section 2.12.5.2, Water Discharge.
To minimize potential long-term impacts from
construction of the ore stockpile, only waste
rock materials demonstrated not to be acid-
generating would be used for construction of
the stockpile pad. See Section 2.12.5.1,
Prevention of Acid Rock Drainage.
During normal operation, the ore would be in
the stockpile for an average of approximately
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-69
60 days before processing. In the event of a
temporary or permanent mill shut down, the
appropriate agencies would require a revised
reclamation plan that specifically addresses
closure and handling of ore remaining in the
stockpile. See Section 2.11.3, Reclamation
Schedule.
Water quality impacts from acid drainage,
dissolved metals, or radionuclide leaching
from the ore stockpile are expected to be
low.
Tailings Disposal. Three different tailings
impoundment locations are proposed for the
various alternatives; however, the impacts to
surface water are common to all alternatives.
For all of the action alternatives, the tailings
disposal facility would be constructed as a
closed-circuit operation, incorporating two
synthetic liners, a leak detection system, and
a low-permeability bedding layer for the lower
synthetic liner. An underdrain system would
be installed beneath the tailings facility to
collect ground water, seep, and spring flow.
The tailings would be dewatered by an
overdrain system that would be installed on
top of the upper synthetic liner and would
collect inflow from the tailings during
operation and reclamation and route the
solution to a recovery solution collection pond
at the toe of the primary embankment. The
collected tailings solution would be pumped
to the mill and recycled. A gravity decant
and evaporation system would remove
excess supernatant solution after this solution
is no longer needed for processing at the mill.
A system of diversion channels would be
constructed to divert surface water runoff
away from the tailings disposal area and into
the existing drainage downstream of the
facility. A detailed description of the tailings
facility design (Alternative B) is presented in
the Final Report:Tailings Disposal Facility.
Crown Jewel Project (Colder. 1996a). All
action alternatives except Alternative G
would use the INCO S02/Air/Oxidation
system to reduce cyanide levels in the tailings
effluent to levels required by approved
permits.
A study of potential seepage from the Marias
Creek tailings impoundment into the ground
water system indicated that even during an
extreme case of liner failure, potential
contaminants would not substantially degrade
downgradient water sources (Hydro-Geo,
1995b). This study was specific to the
tailings facility in Marias Creek, as described
in Alternatives B, C, D, and E. Operation of a
tailings facility in the Nicholson Creek
drainage, as described in Alternatives F and
G, would be expected to have similar results
because of the similar hydrologic
characteristics of the area and similar tailings
facility design requirements. Further
discussion of potential impacts to ground
water quality from tailings disposal is
presented in Section 4.6.3, Effects Common
to All Action Alternatives.
Catastrophic failure of the tailings
embankment was evaluated by examining
two failure modes; an earthquake-induced
embankment failure and a breach by
overtopping. See Section 4.22.2, Tailings
Dam Failure.
Sediment released from the tailings facility
could contain metal compounds, which can
affect benthic organisms. Sediment could
also release dissolved metals, radionuclides,
ammonia, and cyanide which could present a
risk to aquatic and terrestrial wildlife and
humans who drink water and eat aquatic
organisms.
A leak detection system would be installed
between the synthetic liners as a mechanism
to monitor for seepage from the tailings
disposal facility. In the event that a leak in
the primary liner is detected, the underdrain
system beneath the tailings disposal facility
would also be used to monitor for seepage.
See Section 2.12.13.4, Tailings Disposal
Facility and Section 2.13.1, Water Resources
Monitoring. Downstream monitoring stations
would be installed to detect any migration of
contaminants to surface water. See Section
2.13.1, Water Resources Monitoring. During
operations the tailings pond would be
monitored and, during and after mining, the
recovery solution collection pond would be
monitored. See Section 2.13.1, Water
Resources Monitoring.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-70
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
With proper design, construction, operation,
and reclamation of the tailings facility,
negligible impacts to surface water quality are
anticipated.
Waste Rock Disposal. Each action alternative
considers temporary or permanent storage of
waste rock. Differences between alternatives
regarding waste rock storage are mainly the
size and location of the waste rock disposal
sites and whether material would be
backfilled into the open pit (Alternatives E
and F) or underground mine (Alternative D).
Regardless of the alternative selected, waste
rock would be used at the site for
construction purposes such as the
construction of haul roads, the tailings
embankment, and pads for the crusher and
ore stockpile.
Humidity cell tests and confirmation
geochemical testing indicated that 5% to
15% of the total waste rock material mined
under Alternatives B, E, F, and G could
potentially generate acid and leach metals. In
Alternative C, 25% to 29% of the total
waste rock material could potentially generate
acid and leach metals. In Alternative D,
approximately 16% of the total waste rock
could potentially generate acid and leach
metals. The tests and results are described
in Section 3.3.3, Geochemistry.
As a result of the large surface areas of the
waste rock exposed to weathering, water
quality impacts from waste rock disposal
sites could result from the formation of acidic
drainage and leachate that contains trace
metals. Radionuclides could be leached by
infiltration of precipitation through waste rock
or runoff from the exposed waste rock.
Other potential impacts are local increases in
sediment loading to streams and a temporary
release of ammonia and/or nitrates to site
waters from residual ANFO contained on the
waste rock. Dissolved metals, radionuclides,
and nitrate could present a risk to aquatic and
terrestrial wildlife and humans who drink
water and eat aquatic organisms.
During operations, all waters draining from, or
through, waste rock areas would be collected
in sediment traps. See Section 2.12.13.2,
Diversion Ditches and Sediment Traps.
Water collected in the sediment traps would
be allowed to seep into the ground water
system if its quality is suitable or utilized to
supplement the water supply requirements for
the operation. See Section 2.12.5.2, Water
Discharge. If the capacity of the sediment
traps is exceeded, flow from the waste rock
disposal areas would be released to Marias or
Nicholson Creeks.
The diversions around the various alternative
north waste rock disposal areas would reduce
flows to the frog pond, except Alternative G,
where the frog pond would be completely
covered. Post operational monitoring of the
waste rock disposal area(s) would be
performed as required by the regulatory
agencies. See Section 2.13.1, Water
Resources Monitoring. Modeling (Schafer
and Associates, Inc., 1996a) predicts a
decrease in seepage through the waste rock
disposal areas after reclamation is complete.
The Proponent would be required to develop
a waste rock management plan as part of the
Crown Jewel Project permitting. This plan
would address the potential for formation of
acid generating "hot spots" and prevention of
acid drainage. The plan is described in
Section 2.12.5.1, Prevention of Acid Rock
Drainage, and must be approved by the
WADOE, WADNR, BLM, and Forest Service
prior to development of the Crown Jewel
Project.
Waste rock selected for construction use,
such as the ore stockpile pad, roads, and mill
foundation, would be those materials
demonstrated not to be acid generating. See
Section 2.12.5.1, Prevention of Acid Rock
Drainage.
Based on the above discussion and
operational controls, short-term impacts to
surface water quality from the waste rock
disposal areas are not expected to be
substantial if nitrates from blasting are
minimized and adequate waste rock handling
plans are developed and implemented. See
Section 2.12.5.3, Nitrate Contamination.
With proper reclamation, potential long-term
surface water quality impacts from the waste
rock disposal site(s) are expected to be less
than during operations.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-71
Accidental Spills. If they were to occur,
impacts to surface water from accidental
spills would be common to all alternatives.
Surface water quality impacts from spills
could occur as a result of an accident during
transportation, storage, or use of the
materials at the site. A detailed discussion of
accidental spills and possible impacts are
discussed in Section 4.22, Accidents and
Spills.
Starrem Reservoir. The creation of a water
reservoir in the Starrem Creek drainage would
cause the temporary loss of 2,200 feet of
stream channel during construction,
operations, pit filling augmentation, and
reclamation. These impacts would be
temporary until the area has been reclaimed,
and the stream would again establish a
channel.
Indirect Effects
With the implementation of monitoring and
mitigation measures as described in Chapter
2, Alternatives Including the Proposed Action,
impacts to surface water quality outside of
the Crown Jewel Project area should be
minimal. Potential impacts that would result
from certain hypothetical off-site spills or
releases are addressed in Section 4.22,
Accidents and Spills.
Cumulative Effects
Implementation of the Crown Jewel Project
combined with the ongoing Nicholson timber
sales and planned and proposed BLM and
WADNR timber harvests, and potential
mineral exploration in adjacent areas could
result in short-term cumulative effects to the
sediment levels within area streams.
Potential soil erosion from the Crown Jewel
Project area is expected to result in only a
slight increase in sedimentation of area
streams due to the drainage and sediment
control systems planned. No long-term
cumulative effects to the area streams are
expected.
4.7.4 Effects of Alternative B
Alternative B would disturb approximately
787 acres. The proposed facility locations
are shown on Figure 2.16, Alternative B -
Operational Site Plan.
Surface disturbance during construction, and
to a lesser extent during operations, could
temporarily increase sedimentation of local
streams, in particular, Nicholson, Marias, and
Starrem Creeks. Proper mitigation, such as
diversion channels, berms, and sediment
traps, would minimize this effect.
Impacts to stream flow for Buckhorn
Mountain streams are shown in Figure 4.7.2,
Zone of Influence Due to Pit Dewatering, and
Table 4.7.3, Impacts of Mining on Buckhorn
Mountain Drainages. A schematic showing
the impacts of mining related depletions for
various locations and the drainages is
presented as Figure 4.7.3, Schematic -
Average During and Post Mining Stream
Depletions.
Nicholson Creek
During mining and until the pit refills, the
headwaters of Nicholson Creek in the Gold
Bowl drainage (SW-9) would incur a reduction
of 88% of the average annual flow in a dry
year (14.2 inches of precipitation) and a 79%
reduction in a wet year (31.7 inches of
precipitation). At the confluence of
Nicholson Creek and Toroda Creek, the total
depletion percentages range from 1.0% for
the dry year to 1.3% for the wet year.
After the pit refills in five to 26 years,
depending on whether or not Myers Creek
water is used to refill the mine pit, the pit
would discharge about 71 gallons per minute
into the Gold Bowl drainage (SW-9) in a year
with average precipitation (Hydro-Geo,
1996b). The net increase to Nicholson Creek
from the premining condition in the average
flow rate would range from about 300% at
SW-9 to about 3% at the Nicholson Creek
confluence with Toroda Creek.
The quality of water discharged from the
proposed pit was evaluated (Schafer and
Associates, Inc., 1996a), and a discussion of
the model approach and assumptions is
presented in Section 4.6.3, Effects Common
to All Action Alternatives. The study made
several conservative assumptions that were
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-72
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
intended to cause the prediction to be at the
upper bounds of what would be expected.
Based on this study, pit water is predicted to
be alkaline and have moderate to high levels
of total dissolved solids. Table 4.7.4,
Comparison of Predicted Water Quality
Conditions in the Proposed Open Pit to
Washington Aquatic Life Quality Criteria, lists
the concentrations of parameters predicted to
occur in the pit water during and after filling,
as well as the range of parameters
concentrations measured in baseline surface
waters samples from the Crown Jewel
Project area.
Water that would fill and ultimately discharge
from the open pit is predicted to exceed the
Washington fresh water chronic criteria for
cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, and
selenium and the Washington State fresh
water acute criteria for silver and selenium.
Of these parameters, copper, lead, and
selenium have been detected at least once in
baseline receiving streams at concentrations
above the criteria. Expected impacts to
aquatic resources from these predicted
exceedances are described in Section 4.11,
Aquatic Habitats and Resources.
Pit water quality would be monitored during
and after mining as described in Section
2.13.1, Water Resources Monitoring.
Response strategies identifying corrective
actions and financial security appropriate to
accomplish the corrective actions can be
found in Section 2.12.13.5, Pit Lake.
Marias Creek
Surface runoff to Marias Creek would be
slightly reduced because a small amount of
the pit excavation would occur in the Marias
Creek watershed. As a result, surface water
intercepted by the mine pit would be routed
to the mill during mine operation and would
drain to Gold Bowl after mining ceases.
When the pit approaches its full depth, the
ground water contribution to base flow in
Marias Creek would decrease due to the
westerly movement of the ground water
divide along Buckhorn Mountain. The net
effect would result in a decrease in total flow
of 0.4% at SW-8 for both the dry and wet
precipitation years. The predicted impacts at
the confluence with Toroda Creek would be
less than 0.1%.
The tailings disposal facility would be located
in the Marias Creek drainage. Interception of
precipitation on the tailings facility would
slightly reduce flow at SW-8. Discussion of
potential contaminant seepage and
attenuation from the tailings disposal area is
presented in Sections 4.6.3 and 4.7.3,
Effects Common to All Action Alternatives.
Effects On Toroda Creek
The combined drainage areas of Nicholson
and Marias Creek total about 18,100 acres
compared to the 100,000 acre drainage area
of Toroda Creek at its confluence with
Nicholson Creek. Total runoff from Nicholson
and Marias Creeks is approximately 2,800
acre-feet (dry year) and 8,460 acre-feet (wet
year). During mining, a net loss of 17 acre-
feet (dry year) and 62 acre-feet (wet year)
would occur. These losses would be less than
1 % of the total Toroda Creek flow.
During mining, 11 acre-feet/year (dry year)
and 29 acre-feet/year (wet year) would flow
to the pit from the Myers Creek .side of
Buckhorn Mountain. This gain in the Toroda
Creek drainage would reflect the predicted
migration of the ground water divide and the
capture of some surface runoff in upper North
and South Bolster Creek by the pit.
After pit refilling, a net gain of 63 acre-
feet/year (dry year) and 247 acre-feet/year
(wet year) would result.
Gold Creek
There would be no direct mining impacts to
Gold Creek; however, the upper reaches of
the drainage would be affected by water
table drawdown and migration of the
groundwater divide.
During mining the headwaters (SW-10) of
Gold Creek would incur a reduction of 41 %
(dry year) and 18% (wet year). At the
confluence of Gold Creek with Myers Creek,
the total depletion percentages would be
1.2% in a dry year and less than 1 % in a wet
year. After the pit fills, SW-10 would incur a
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-73
TABLE 4.7.4, COMPARISON OF PREDICTED WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS IN THE
PROPOSED OPEN PIT TO WASHINGTON AQUATIC LIFE QUALITY CRITERIA
Parameter1
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium4'6
Copper
Chromium
Iron
Lead3-6-7
Manganese
Mercury3-6
Nickel
Selenium67
Silver46
Thallium
Zinc
Calcium
Magnesium
Potassium
Sodium
Alkalinity
(as CaCO,)
Chloride
Fluoride
Nitrate (as N)
Sulfate6
PH7
Hardness
(as CaCO3)
TDS6
Predicted Range
in Pit Water
Quality During
Initial Stages of
Natural Pit
Filling2
(mg/l)
0.066-0.069
< 0.0001 -0.045
0.011-0.012
O.OO07-0.0022
0.005-0.010
0.012-0.022
0.0004-0.0005
< 0.0001 -0.037
0.08-1.27
0.0016
0.036-0.154
0.067-0.072
0.011-0.022
0.067-0.079
0.01-0.02
13-98
3-4
4-5
1-5
56-121
1
0.11-0.15
0.19-0.21
29-386
7.8-8.16
44-263
215-621
NOTES: 1 . All model input parame
values.
2. Based on results preser
and an addendum to th
concentrations.
3. Lead and mercury cone
input.
4. Cadmium and silver cor
used for model input.
5. Baseline surface water
Upper Nicholson Creek
6. Predicted to exceed act
7. Exceeded acute or chro
8. From WAC 1 73-200. W
Standards for cadmium
as CaCO3). This hardn
and SW-9 along the Go
9. General use criteria for
Predicted Range
In Pit Water
Quality When Pit
Is Full Assuming
Natural Pit
FWIng2
(mg/l)
0.049-0.050
<0.0001-0.049
0.011
O.O008-O.OO21
0.005-0.01 1
0.015-0.069
0.0004-0.0006
-------
Page 4-74
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
pit would be routed to the mill during mine
operation and would drain to Gold Bowl after
mining ceases. The upper reaches of both
North Bolster and South Bolster Creeks would
be affected by water table drawdown and
migration of the groundwater divide.
During mining the headwaters (SW-11) of
North Bolster Creek would incur a reduction
of 26% (dry year) and 20% (wet year).
During mining, the headwaters (SW-14) of
South Bolster Creek would incur a loss of 9%
(dry year) and 7% (wet year).
Post reclamation, after the pit fills, flows in
North Bolster Creek at SW-11 would incur a
reduction of 15% (dry conditions) and 13%
(wet conditions). South Bolster Creek at SW-
14 would incur a 7% reduction in streamflow
post reclamation for both wet and dry years.
At the confluence of Bolster Creek with
Myers Creek, the total depletion percentages
would be about 3% during mining and about
2% following pit filling for all precipitation
scenarios.
Ethel Creek
There would be no direct mining impacts to
Ethel Creek; however, the upper reaches of
the drainage would be slightly affected by
water table drawdown. At the confluence of
Ethel Creek with Myers Creek, there would
be no depletion of flow in any of the
precipitation scenarios.
The Starrem Reservoir would disturb less
than 2% of the Starrem Creek drainage and
would include temporary alteration or
elimination of approximately 2,200 lineal feet
of Starrem Creek. Surface disturbance during
construction, and to a lesser extent during
operations, could temporarily increase
sedimentation.
Effects On Myers Creek
The combined drainage areas of Gold,
Bolster, and Ethel Creeks total about 5,930
acres as compared to the approximately
49,300 acre drainage area of Myers Creek at
Bolster Road. Total runoff from Gold,
Bolster, and Ethel Creeks is approximately
1,000 acre-feet/year (dry year) and 3,350
acre-feet/year (wet year). During mining a
net loss of 11 acre-feet/year (dry year) and
29 acre-feet/year (wet year) would occur.
These losses would be about 1 % of the total
Myers Creek flow. This loss of flow would
reflect an exchange of water from the Myers
Creek side to the Toroda Creek side of
Buckhorn Mountain as a result of migration of
the ground water divide and the capture of
some surface runoff in upper North and South
Bolster Creek by the pit.
In addition, up to six cfs could be diverted
between February 1 and July 31 from Myers
Creek into the Starrem Reservoir and stored
for use at the mine site. This would not
include existing irrigation water rights (about
one cfs) which might be transferred to meet
mine water demands but which would be
available from beginning of the irrigation
season through the end of the irrigation
season. See Section 4.8, Water Supply
Resources and Water Rights and Section
4.11, Aquatic Habitats and Populations, for a
more thorough discussion of this topic.
No change in Myers Creek flow downstream
of the Starrem Reservoir diversion would be
expected from the use of existing upstream
irrigation rights. Between the present point
of diversion of these rights and the Starrem
Reservoir diversion, flows in Myers Creek
would increase. Additional description of
Starrem Reservoir operations is presented in
Section 4.8.3, Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives.
After the pit refills, Myers Creek diversions
would revert to pre-Project conditions, and
the ground water divide would move back
westerly toward its approximate premining
location. There would be a total loss of five
acre-feet (dry year) and 18 acre-feet (wet
year).
Springs and Seeps
Seasonal changes in spring and seep flows
are indicated in Table 3.7.1, Spring and Seep
Investigation Summary. Springs and seeps
that would potentially be affected by pit
dewatering are shown in Table 4.6.1, Springs
and Seeps Impacted by Mining Operations.
As measured during the baseline monitoring
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-75
program, flow variation of most of these
springs due to natural meteorological causes
is more than 250% season-to-season and
year-to-year.
Frog Pond
The frog pond is located on glacial deposits
northeast of the proposed open pit. No
waste rock would be placed into the frog
pond; however, a portion of the slope above
the frog pond would be covered by the north
waste rock disposal area. The detention and
diversion structures associated with the north
waste rock disposal site would reduce the
watershed area contributing surface flow to
the frog pond by about 80%. After
completion of reclamation, surface flows to
the frog pond would be slightly greater than
present flows since the surface run-off area
would be increased over the area presently
contributing flows.
Nine Acre Wetland
Known locally as the "nine-acre wetland,"
Wetland C1B (see Figure 3.11.1, Project
Associated Wetland Locations) in the
Nicholson Creek drainage would be directly
affected by installation of a fence across the
south end. No tailings would be placed into
the nine acre wetland. This wetland is
partially supported by the discharge of water
from the Roosevelt adit (GW-2). Flows from
the adit collected during the baseline
monitoring program showed a minimum and a
maximum discharge of 5.6 gpm and 121
gpm, respectively. The average discharge
from the Roosevelt adit was 55 gpm to 60
gpm. Pit dewatering is expected to reduce
Roosevelt adit discharge to approximately 36
gpm at the maximum pit drawdown, which is
scheduled for the eighth year of mining. After
the pit has filled, the Roosevelt adit discharge
would increase to approximately 41 gpm.
(Hydro-Geo, 1996b).
After closure and reclamation, tailings
disposal facility surface runoff would be
directed through a spillway on the secondary
(north) embankment into the nine acre
wetland.
4.7.5 Effects of Alternative C
Alternative C would disturb approximately
41 5 acres. The proposed facility locations
are shown on Figure 2.18, Alternative C -
Operational Site Plan.
The waste rock disposal area would
encompass about 26 acres in the Nicholson
Creek drainage. This disposal would probably
not require an underdrain and would be
smaller (approximately 90%) than the waste
rock disposal area proposed for Alternative B.
The tailings facility for this alternative would
be similar in design as the Marias Creek
tailings disposal facilities described in
Alternatives B, D, and E, but the Alternative
C tailings facility would be slightly smaller in
size (89 acres). Discussion of potential
contaminant seepage and attenuation from
the tailings disposal area is presented in
Sections 4.6.3 and 4.7.3, Effects Common to
All Action Alternatives.
Any subsidence from underground mine
workings could cause local changes in
surface water drainage patterns. These
alterations could include localized ponding of
water and increased recharge to ground
water from surface depressions and cracks.
Flow reductions in all Buckhorn mountain
drainages due to mine dewatering would be
less than those predicted for Alternative B
(see Section 4.6.5, Effects of Alternative C).
The ground water divide would not migrate
as far to the west as in Alternative B; thus,
the predicted exchange of water between the
Myers Creek basin and Toroda Creek basin
described in Alternative B would be less.
Nicholson Creek
Flow from the adits would occur during and
after mining. In Alternative C, production
adits at the 4,500 foot level and the 4,850
foot level and the exploration adit (See Figure
2.18, Alternative C - Operational Site Plan)
would flow to the Nicholson Creek drainage.
Flows to surface water from these workings
are expected to range from 27 gpm to 57
gpm (Hydro-Geo, 1996b).
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-76
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
Initial and long-term discharge from the
underground workings to site streams is
predicted to be of better quality than the
water discharged from the open pit in
Alternatives B, D, and G (see Section 4.6.5,
Effects of Alternative C).
Springs and Seeps
Impacts to Springs and Seeps JJ-16, SN-3,
SN-4, SN-20, and SN-27 would be less than
for Alternative B.
Frog Pond
Placement of the waste rock disposal facility
upslope from the frog pond would reduce the
watershed area contributing to the surface
flow to the frog pond by about 30%.
Nine Acre Wetland
Roosevelt adit flows would be reduced from
premining flows, but impacts to the nine acre
wetland (C1B) and Nicholson Creek would be
less than expected for Alternative B.
4.7.6 Effects of Alternative D
Alternative D would disturb approximately
558 acres. The proposed facility locations
are shown on Figure 2.19, Alternative D -
Operational Site Plan.
Surface disturbance during construction, and
to a lesser extent during operations, could
temporarily increase sedimentation of local
streams, in particular, Nicholson, Marias, and
Starrem Creeks. Proper mitigation, such as
diversion channels, berms, and sediment
traps, should minimize this effect. See
Section 2.12.13.2, Diversion Ditches and
Sediment Traps.
Flow reductions in all Buckhorn mountain
drainages due to mine dewatering would be
similar to those predicted for Alternative B.
Minor differences in effects to Marias and
Nicholson Creeks are described below. The
ground water divide would not migrate as far
to the west in Alternative D as in Alternative
B; thus the predicted exchange of water
between the Myers Creek basin and Toroda
Creek basin described in Alternative B would
be less.
Nicholson Creek
The waste rock disposal area would
encompass about 98 acres in the Nicholson
Creek drainage. This disposal area would
require an underdrain and would be
approximately 39% smaller than the north
disposal area in Alternative B.
During and after mining, the flow impacts in
the Nicholson Creek drainage would be
similar to Alternative B.
The quality of water that would be
discharged from the mine workings would be
expected to initially have a similar quality as
predicted for Alternative B (see Section
4.7.4, Effects of Alternative B) and over the
long term have a quality between that
predicted for Alternatives B and C. Expected
impacts to aquatic resources from these
predicted exceedances are described in
Section 4.11, Aquatic Habitats and
Resources.
Pit water quality would be monitored during
and after mining as described in Section
2.13.1, Water Resources Monitoring.
Response strategies identifying corrective
actions and financial security appropriate to
accomplish the corrective actions can be
found in Section 2.12.13.5, Pit Lake.
Marias Creek
The pit excavation would not extend into the
Marias Creek drainage as in Alternative B;
however, water intercepted in the
underground workings, which are located in
the Marias drainage, would be routed via the
production and exploration adits into the
Nicholson Creek drainage.
Any subsidence from underground mine
workings could cause local changes in
surface water drainage patterns. These
alterations could include local ponding of
water and increased recharge to ground
water from surface depressions and cracks.
The increased recharge could result in a larger
amount of ground water intercepted by the
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-77
mine workings than in Alternative B. The net
effect would be that Marias Creek flows are
expected to be similar to those predicted in
Alternative B.
The tailings disposal facility would be located
in the Marias Creek drainage. Discussion of
potential contaminant seepage and
attenuation from the tailings disposal area is
presented in Sections 4.6.3 and 4.7.3,
Effects Common to All Action Alternatives.
Bolster Creek
The pit excavation would not extend into the
Bolster Creek drainage as in Alternative B;
however, water intercepted in the
underground workings, which are located in
the Bolster Creek drainage, would be routed
into the Nicholson Creek drainage.
Any subsidence from underground mine
workings could cause local changes in
surface water drainage patterns. These
alterations could include local ponding of
water and increased recharge to ground
water from surface depressions and cracks.
The increased recharge could result in a larger
amount of ground water intercepted by the
mine workings than in Alternative B. The net
effect to Bolster Creek flows would be similar
to those predicted in Alternative B.
The upper reaches of both North Bolster and
South Bolster Creeks would be affected by
water table drawdown and migration of the
groundwater divide.
Springs and Seeps, Frog Pond, and Nine-Acre
Wetland
Effects on springs, seeps, and wetlands are
expected to be similar to Alternative B.
4.7.7 Effects of Alternative E
Alternative E would disturb approximately
928 acres and is shown on Figure 2.20,
Alternative E -Operational Site Plan.
Surface disturbance during construction, and
to a lesser extent during operations, could
temporarily increase sedimentation of local
streams, in particular, Nicholson, Marias, and
Starrem Creeks. Proper mitigation, such as
diversion channels, berms, and sediment
traps, should minimize this effect. See
Section 2.12.13.2, Diversion Ditches and
Sediment Traps.
Open pit mining would proceed as described
in Alternative B. Mining would be sequenced
for the partial backfill. Toward the end of the
operation, approximately six million cubic
yards (11 % of the total) of waste rock would
be routed from the south pit area into the
north pit area. Backfilling the waste rock into
the pit would prevent the formation of a pit
lake. As a result of partial backfilling, pit
water would be discharged from the pit
largely in the form of springs and seeps
located in the area where pit outflow would
occur if there was no backfilling.
Flow reductions in all Buckhorn mountain
drainages due to mine dewatering would be
similar to those predicted for Alternative B.
The tailings disposal facility for this
alternative is the same as described for
Alternative B and the effects would be
similar.
Nicholson Creek
Water quality impacts from waste rock
disposal under this alternative would be
different from Alternative B primarily due to
the use of waste rock material to partially
backfill the open pit. As the backfilled waste
rock in the open pit becomes saturated with
water after mining, flushing of the backfilled
material could result in a temporary release of
trace metals and residual ANFO to surface
waters (Schafer and Associates, Inc.,
1996b). Even assuming selective handling of
the backfilled material, the initial discharge
from the open pit under this alternative would
be expected to be of lower quality than
Alternatives B, C, and D. After waste rock
saturation and assuming long-term infiltration
through the backfilled material is reduced, the
potential for further acid production should be
lower. Water quality impacts are described in
detail in Section 4.6.7, Effects of Alternative
E.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-78
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
Pit water quality would be monitored during
and after mining as described in Section
2.13.1, Water Resources Monitoring.
Response strategies identifying corrective
actions and financial security appropriate to
accomplish the corrective actions can be
found in Section 2.12.13.5, Pit Lake and
Section 2.14.2, Environmental Protection
Performance Security.
Springs and Seeps
Spring and seep impacts would be similar to
Alternative B, except Spring JJ-16 would not
be covered by a road but instead would be
permanently dewatered by the pit.
Frog Pond
Placement of the waste rock disposal facility
upslope from the frog pond would reduce the
watershed area contributing to the surface
flow to the frog pond by about 66%.
Nine Acre Wetland
Effects on the nine acre wetland are expected
to be similar to Alternative B.
4.7.8 Effects of Alternative F
Alternative F would disturb approximately
817 acres. The proposed facility locations
are shown on Figure 2.21, Alternative F -
Operational Site Plan. Most of the
disturbance, approximately 720 acres (88%),
would be confined to the Nicholson Creek
drainage.
At the end of the mining operation, the entire
waste rock volume of 54 million cubic yards
would be backfilled into the open pit. No
permanent waste rock disposal area would
remain. The final topography of the pit area
would be higher than original topography, as
explained in Section 4.2, Topography/
Physiography.
Surface disturbance during construction, and
to a lesser extent during operations, could
temporarily increase sedimentation of local
streams, in particular, Nicholson and Starrem
Creeks. However, reclamation of the
temporary waste rock stockpile site and the
pit area would not be completed until the
waste rock is returned to the pit
(approximately 32 years). Continuing erosion
of the temporary waste rock stockpile during
this time would occur and require
maintenance, including sediment cleanout, of
downgradient sediment traps. See Section
2.12.13.1, Erosion and Sediment Control.
During mining, flow reductions in all
Buckhorn mountain drainages due to mine
dewatering would be similar to those
predicted for Alternative B, except as noted
below in Nicholson and Marias drainages.
Nicholson Creek
The effects of tailings disposal are expected
to be similar to Alternative B; however, the
tailings facility would be located in the
Nicholson Creek drainage. The hydrologic
characteristics of Nicholson Creek are similar
to Marias Creek, and the tailings facility
design would be similar as described in other
alternatives. Precipitation on the tailings
facility would be routed to the mill during
operations, which would cause a slight
reduction in flows to Nicholson Creek.
Alternative F tailings facility would require a
substantially higher and longer spillway (than
the Marias tailings facility) to safely remove
run-on and rain fall from the reclaimed
facility. Potential impacts from failure of this
spillway are proportionately greater than
Alternative B.
Long-term impacts to surface water quality
might be similar to those discussed for
Alternative E due to the volume of waste
rock that would become saturated. However,
the lower percentage of exposed pit wall
would result in a smaller loading of metals
from runoff. This, in turn, may be offset by a
greater volume of waste rock through which
meteoric water would infiltrate. Schafer
(1996b) predicted that the long-term potential
to release nitrate from the completely
backfilled pit would be greater than for
Alternative B or Alternative E.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-79
Marias Creek
Surface runoff to Marias Creek would be
slightly reduced because a small amount of
the pit excavation would occur in the Marias
Creek watershed; as a result, surface water
would be intercepted by the pit and would be
routed to the mill during mine operation.
Conversely, when the pit approaches its full
depth, the ground water contribution to base
flow at Marias Creek would increase slightly
due to a westerly movement of the ground
water divide along Buckhorn Mountain.
As compared to Alternative B, placement of
the tailings impoundment in the Nicholson
Creek drainage would result in an increase in
the amount of surface water runoff and
ground water recharge within the Marias
Creek drainage. Following reclamation of the
backfilled mine pit, surface runoff from
Buckhorn Mountain would return to
approximate premining conditions. Infiltration
through the backfilled pit would tend to flow
toward Gold Bowl drainage because of the
high permeability of the backfilled waste
rock.
The net effect of this alternative as compared
to Alternative B would be a slight increase in
the Marias Creek flows during mining and
post-mining.
Bolster Creek
Surface runoff to North and South Bolster
Creek would be slightly reduced because a
small amount of the pit excavation would
occur in the South Bolster Creek watershed;
as a result, some surface water would be
intercepted by the pit and would be routed to
the mill during mine operation. The upper
reaches of both North Bolster and South
Bolster Creeks would be affected by water
table drawdown and migration of the
groundwater divide.
After the pit is backfilled and reclaimed,
surface runoff from Buckhorn Mountain into
Bolster Creek would return to approximate
premining conditions. Infiltration through the
backfilled pit would tend to flow toward Gold
Bowl drainage because of the high
permeability of the backfilled waste rock.
Impacts to Bolster Creek from this alternative
would be less than described for Alternatives
B, E and G.
Myers Creek
After the pit is backfilled and reclaimed,
surface runoff from Buckhorn Mountain into
Bolster Creek would return to approximate
premining conditions. The exchange of water
from the Myers Creek side to the Toroda
Creek side of Buckhorn Mountain would be
less than in Alternative B because of the
backfilling of the pit.
Springs and Seeps
Impacts to Springs and Seeps JJ-14, JJ-15,
JJ-16, JJ-26, and JJ-34 would be less than
for Alternative B.
Frog Pond
Although the frog pond would not be covered
by waste rock, placement of the waste rock
disposal facility upslope of the frog pond
would reduce the watershed area contributing
to the frog pond by about 78% for greater
than 33 years. Flows to the frog pond would
be restored once the waste rock is removed
from the disposal area, returned to the pit
area, and successful revegetation established.
Nine Acre Wetland
Flows into wetland C1B (see Figure 3.11.1,
Project Associated Wetland Locations) would
be slightly less than described in Alternative
B since the tailings facility has been relocated
to Nicholson Creek in Alternative F.
4.7.9 Effects of Alternative G
Alternative G would disturb approximately
893 acres. The proposed facility locations are
shown on Figure 2.22, Alternative G -
Operational Site Plan. Like Alternative F, most
of the impacts from mining would be
confined to the Nicholson Creek drainage
basin.
Surface disturbance during construction, and
to a lesser extent during operations, could
temporarily increase sedimentation of local
Crown Jewel Mine t Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-80
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
streams, in particular, Nicholson and Starrem
Creeks. Proper mitigation, such as sediment
traps, should minimize this effect. See
Section 2.12.13.2, Diversion Ditches and
Sediment Traps.
Flow reductions in all Buckhorn mountain
drainages due to mine dewatering would be
similar to those predicted for Alternative B,
except for those noted in Nicholson and
Marias drainages.
Nicholson Creek
The effects of tailings disposal are expected
to be similar to Alternative B; however, the
tailings facility would be located in the
Nicholson Creek drainage. The hydrologic
characteristics of Nicholson Creek are similar
to Marias Creek, and the tailings facility
design would be similar as described in other
alternatives. Precipitation on the tailings
facility would be routed to the mill during
operations, and this routing would cause a
slight reduction in flows to Nicholson Creek.
The Alternative G tailings facility would
require a substantially higher and longer
spillway (than the Marias tailings facility) to
safely remove run-on and rain fall from the
reclaimed facility. Potential impacts from
failure of this spillway are proportionately
greater than Alternative B.
The quality of water that would be
discharged from the proposed pit is expected
to be similar to Alternative B (see Section
4.7.4, Effects of Alternative B). Expected
impacts to aquatic resources from these
predicted exceedances are described in
Section 4.11, Aquatic Habitats and
Resources.
Pit water quality would be monitored during
and after mining as described in Section
2.13.1, Water Resources Monitoring.
Response strategies identifying corrective
actions and financial security appropriate to
accomplish the corrective actions can be
found in Section 2.12.13.5, Pit Lake and
Section 2.14.2, Environmental Protection
Performance Security.
Marias Creek
As compared to Alternative B, placement of
the tailings impoundment in the Nicholson
Creek drainage would result in an increase in
the amount of surface water runoff and
ground water recharge within the Marias
Creek drainage. The net effect of this
alternative as compared to Alternative B
would be a slight increase in the Marias
Creek flows.
Springs and Seeps
Impacts to Springs and Seeps JJ-14, JJ-15,
JJ-16, JJ-26, and JJ-34 would be less than
for Alternative B.
Frog Pond
The frog pond would be completely covered
with waste rock in this alternative. The
effects are discussed in Section 4.10,
Wetlands.
Accidental Spills
Accidental spills under this alternative would
be different from the other action
alternatives, mainly due to the use of
flotation reagents rather than cyanide to
process ore. The effects of accidental spills
are addressed in Section 4.22, Accidents and
Spills.
4.8 WATER SUPPLY RESOURCES AND
WATER RIGHTS
4.8.1 Summary
The Proponent has applied for new water
right permits and authorizations to change
existing water rights as presented in Table
4.8.1, Water Right Applications for the
Crown Jewel Project. These applications
would apply to all action alternatives.
A water right is a right to use publicly owned
waters of the state for a beneficial purpose.
This right is limited to the amount actually
put to the beneficial use, both in
instantaneous quantity and annual quantity,
in addition to the period or time of use. A
water right is incident to the principal
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-81
TABLE 4.8.1, WATER RIGHT APPLICATIONS FOR THE CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
Application and
Source
Starrem Creek Reservoir
Tailings Facility Reservoir
Mary Ann/Myers
Lost Creek Well
Starrem Creek
Myers Creek
Pit Sump
Dewatering Wells
Tailings Underdrain
Domestic Well
Basin
Myers Creek
Toroda Creek
Myers Creek
Myers Creek
Myers Creek
Myers Creek
Toroda Creek
Toroda Creek
Toroda Creek
Toroda Creek
Reference
Number
R4- 13558
R4-31741
S4-47067J to 70 J incl.
S4-47045J
S4-47047J and 48J
G4-22893C
S4-31555
S4-31554
G4-31611
G4-31556
G4-31612
G4-31272
Status
New
New
Change
Change
New
New
New
New
New
New
Purpose of Use
Water Storage
Water Storage
General Mining
General Mining
General Mining
General Mining
General Mining
Pit Dewatering
and General
Mining/Mitigation
General Mining
Domestic Supply
Amount
(acre-feet)
580
Up to 360
At least 1 1 5
156
Up to 500
Up to 650
Up to 240
Up to 81
Up to 50
Up to 25
Notes: Total quantity requested from all sources from consumptive use would not exceed 675 acre-feet per year.
During milling operations, dewatering well water would either be used for mill make-up or will be discharged to
enhance wetland areas.
This table does not include:
1) Non-consumptive applications, for example Pine Chee (S4-31768); or
2) Earlier applications on Marias Creek (S4-31271, S4-31 740) and Nicholson Creek (S4-31270) that are being
held pending approval of the above applications.
Previous ground water applications G4-31274 and G4-31557 are planned to be withdrawn pending the
outcome of the above water system applications.
Source: Colder Associates (1994b)
property upon which the water is used for
purposes such as passage of title,
conveyance, or inheritance.
A water right is different from a real property
right in that it is a usufructuary right (the
right to utilize something belonging to another
so long as the property is not damaged or
altered) requiring continued use of the water.
Non-use of the right, or portion of the right,
for a period of five successive years without
sufficient cause can result in the
relinquishment of the right.
Washington State water law is based, as is
most western water law, on the doctrine of
prior appropriation. This is usually
paraphrased as "first in time, first in right,"
meaning that earlier appropriators have more
senior rights than more recent authorizations
or requests. One of the basic tenants of this
doctrine is that these senior rights are
protected from impairment from later
appropriations.
In the State of Washington, the WADOE has
the statutory and regulatory responsibility to
grant or deny water right applications,
including applications to change existing
water rights. Any WADOE approval of a
water right application may contain special
provisions or conditions which must be
satisfied for the water right to be used.
Permit authorization is required for all uses of
surface waters and ground waters, with the
exception of ground water uses of less than
5,000 gallons per day, and the irrigation of
less than one-half acre of non-commercial
lawn and garden.
4.8.2 Effects of Alternative A (No
Action)
All existing water rights would retain their
present status. No additional water use
would be required under Alternative A.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-82
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
Existing flow and habitat conditions in Myers
Creek would remain unchanged.
4.8.3 Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives
Water for use at the Crown Jewel Project
would be obtained through new water right
application requests and from changes to
existing irrigation water rights. Water would
be used for the Crown Jewel Project action
alternatives as presented in Table 2.6,
Estimated Water Use Requirements.
Water use at the Crown Jewel Project would
be a temporary use that would cease once
the operation is decommissioned and
reclaimed. Permit authorization to use water
would then be canceled. Changes to existing
water rights would also be temporary, and
the rights would return to the present lands
and uses; however, certain long-term impacts
would remain (i.e., pit lake evaporation,
changing hydrologic balance, etc.).
The maximum annual quantity of water
requested by the Proponent for all uses at the
mine and from all sources is 675 acre-feet.
The following requests for water rights are
common to all alternatives.
The Proponent proposes to construct a
reservoir near the mouth of the Starrem
drainage which would impound runoff from
this basin. A water right application has been
submitted requesting authorization to capture
up to 20 cfs (500 acre-feet/year) of water
from this basin through out the year.
Another application requests authorization to
divert up to six cfs of water from Myers
Creek from February 1 through July 31. This
water would be pumped into the Starrem
Reservoir until needed at the mine site.
These new water rights from the Myers
Creek drainage, if approved, would be subject
to instream flow requirements on Myers
Creek.
Sections 3.12.10 and 4.11.7, Instream Flow
Incremental Methodology, describe the
Instream Flow Incremental Methodology
(IFIM) study methodology, results and
recommendations.
The Proponent seeks to transfer seven
existing water rights from MaryAnn Creek
and Myers Creek downstream to the
proposed Myers Creek diversion to Starrem
Reservoir. Transferring the point of diversion
downstream would result in additional water
in the reach between the existing and
proposed point of diversion during those
times when water would have been used for
irrigation.
Application has been made to transfer
irrigation rights presently being used from a
well at the Lost Creek Ranch for use at the
mine. The water would be conveyed by
pipeline from the well to the Starrem
Reservoir. Water withdrawal would be
limited to the historical consumptive use,
resulting in no hydrologic change to Myers
Creek.
The Proponent has applied for 1 5 gpm, up to
25 acre-feet per year, from a well for
domestic supply at the mine. The Proponent
would withdraw 1 5 gpm from a 500-foot
well located near the mill site. It is expected
that this well would draw water from the
bedrock water bearing strata. The domestic
water would be used for purposes other than
drinking such as washing, showering, and
restrooms. Effluent would be treated using
either a septic tank/ drainfield or a package
treatment plant; any discharge would be to
glacial deposits. This would have the effect
of locally increasing flow to near-surface
water features.
The water right applications were submitted
before the alternatives in the draft EIS were
developed, based on what the Proponent
projected was needed for the Crown Jewel
Project. The strategy of the water supply
plan was to apply for water rights from as
many sources as practical, realizing that
water would not be available for appropriation
from each source at all times of the year. As
a result, the total amount requested, (see
Table 4.8.1, Water Right Applications for the
Crown Jewel Project), is larger and cannot be
directly compared to the rates and volumes
presented in the Crown Jewel Project water
balance found in Section 2.2.18, Water Use.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-83
The volume of water used would also vary
depending on the phase of the operation.
The maximum utilization of water would
occur during operational start-up because
there would be no water in the milling circuit
or the tailings facility. This situation could be
compared to "priming of a pump," where
sufficient water must be added to the system
in order to initiate the process. Also, as part
of the operational start-up, water would be
needed to fill the Starrem Reservoir.
The water volumes listed for "mine use" in
Table 2.6, Estimated Water Usage
Requirements, specifies water use for each
alternative. No dust control chemicals are
considered in these estimates. Water
volumes used for mine road dust suppression
would be reduced by approximately 42 acre-
feet if the use of these chemicals are
authorized. This would be a reduction of
approximately 20% of the dust control water
demand or approximately 6% of the total
mine water demand. Dust suppression
chemicals that could be considered are listed
in Section 2.2.18, Water Use.
Impacts of cumulative effects would not only
include the water right applications filed by
the Proponent, but would also take into
consideration the impacts of the increased
water demand as a result of the expected
population growth in the area due to the
mine.
As described in Section 4.7, Surface Water,
hydrologic models predict a permanent shift
in the hydrologic divide between Myers Creek
and Toroda Creek as a result of the Crown
Jewel Project. Special conditions may be
required in any water right permits authorized
by WADOE to protect senior water rights
from impairment associated with the
hydrologic divide shift. Those conditions
could include requirements for actions that
cause physical changes to the environment.
Actions which might result in physical
changes to the environment would be subject
to additional environmental review before
they would be authorized.
4.8.4 Effects of Alternative B
The duration of water use would vary with
the proposed life of each action alternative.
Alternative B would use water for
approximately 16 years. There would be one
year of construction, eight years of operation,
and an additional year for decommissioning
and reclamation. Six years would be the
length of time projected to fill the pit by
pumping water from the Starrem Reservoir.
4.8.5 Effects of Alternative C
The duration of water use for Alternative C
would be six years including one year for
construction, four years of operation, and one
year of decommissioning and reclamation.
4.8.6 Effects of Alternative D
The duration of water use for Alternative D
would be eight years including one year for
construction, six years of operation, and one
year of decommissioning and reclamation.
No supplemental filling of the final pit is
planned for Alternative D; the final pit would
be allowed to fill naturally.
4.8.7 Effects of Alternative E
The duration of water use for Alternative E
would be ten years including one year for
construction, eight years of operation, and
one year of decommissioning and
reclamation.
4.8.8 Effects of Alternative F
The duration of water use for Alternative F
would be 33 years including one year for
construction, 16 years of operation, and 16
years of decommissioning and reclamation
including complete backfilling of the open pit.
Alternative F would have the lowest annual
average water use of all action alternatives;
however, the duration of the water use, as
stated above, would be the longest of all
action alternatives.
4.8.9 Effects of Alternative G
The duration of water use for Alternative G
would be ten years including one year for
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-84
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
construction, eight years of operation, and
one year of decommissioning and
reclamation. The flotation processing would
require the highest annual average use of
water of all action alternatives. No
supplemental filling of the final pit is planned
for Alternative G; the final pit would be
allowed to fill naturally.
4.9 VEGETATION
4.9.1 Summary
Native vegetation in the area plays an
important role in controlling erosion, providing
wildlife habitat, and maintaining biological
diversity. Disturbance to the vegetation
resources can result in impacts to these
ecosystem functions.
Anticipated impacts to vegetation are directly
related to the estimated acres of disturbance.
Alternative C would disturb the least amount
of vegetation (415 acres) while Alternative E
would disturb the greatest amount of
vegetation (928 acres). With the exception
of the final pit area (Alternatives B, D, E, and
G), the surface subsidence created above the
underground mine workings (Alternatives C
and D), and the proposed quarry in
Alternative C, reclamation would eventually
mitigate most impacts to vegetation.
Merchantable timber would be harvested
from the areas proposed for direct
disturbance and would be conducted in
accordance with Forest Service, BLM, and
WADNR direction and their applicable
regulatory requirements. The impacts
resulting from timber harvesting would, for
the most part, not be irreversible. Some
irreversible and irretrievable commitment of
the timber resource would be realized with
the implementation of any of the action
alternatives due to the loss of soil
productivity and old-growth ecosystems.
Proposed reclamation practices are expected
to gradually restore the timber resources
within the Crown Jewel Project area.
The Crown Jewel Project is located within
portions of the Cedar, Ethel Creek and Gold
Creek Cattle and Horse Allotments. During
the life of the Crown Jewel Project, the
Project site would be fenced, to exclude
livestock. This action would temporarily
suspend livestock grazing inside the fenced
areas. Implementation of any of the action
alternatives would result in the direct physical
loss of useable range and forage production,
during the life of the Crown Jewel Project, for
an estimated 12 to 39 years depending on
the timing, extent, and success of
reclamation efforts.
No federally listed endangered, threatened, or
proposed plant species are known to occur in
the vicinity of the Project. However, three
species listed on the Region 6, Regional
Forester's Sensitive Species List (Botryium
crenulatum, Listera borealis and Plantanthera
obtusata) do exist in the vicinity of the
Project.
Table 4.9.1, Sensitive Plants Impacted by
Alternative, shows the anticipated effects to
these sensitive plants for each alternative. It
has been determined that the loss of sensitive
populations predicted for each action
alternative would be unlikely to affect the
viability of these species on Forest lands
(Forest Service, 1996a).
4.9.2 Effects of Alternative A (No
Action)
Under Alternative A, only minor further
impacts would occur to vegetation resources
during the recontouring of drill roads.
Reclamation of the areas affected by
exploration would be initiated according to
previously approved reclamation plans and
would mitigate most exploration impacts.
4.9.3 Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives
Direct Effects
Vegetation. Implementation of any of the
action alternatives would require the clearing
of vegetation from all Crown Jewel Project
facility areas. To minimize the amount of
cleared area at one time, no area would be
cleared more than a year ahead of when the
area is needed for Crown Jewel Project
facilities. Most of these areas would be
devoid of vegetation and functional wildlife
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-85
TABLE 4.9.1, SENSITIVE PLANTS IMPACTED BY ALTERNATIVE
Species
Botrychium crenutatum
existing1
direct impact2
indirect effect3
Ah. A
population/
plants
3/- 33
0/0
0/0
Alt. B
population/
plants
AH. C
population/
plants
AH. D
population/
plants
AH. E
population/
plants
AH. F
population/
plants
AH. Q
population/
plants
3/-33
2/12
0/0
3/o 33
2/12
0/0
3/» 33
2/12
0/0
3/» 33
2/12
0/0
3/o 33
1/21
0/0
3/o 33
0/0
0/0
Listen borealis
existing
direct impact
indirect effect
10/- 2088
0/0
0/0
10/- 2088
4/01828
3/-105
10/o2088
3/^1805
4/o117
10/- 2088
3/-1805
4/-128
10/-2088
6/o1862
2/»71
10/o2088
5/o228
2/o 71
10/o2088
5/-22B
2/o 71
Platanthera obtusa
existing
direct impact
indirect effect
4/o815
0/0
0/0
4/o815
2/o704
1/15
4/o815
2/o704
1/15
4/o815
2/<» 704
1/15
4/o815
2/o704
1/15
4/o815
2/o100
1/15
4/o815
2/o100
1/15
Notes: 1 . Represents the populations and plants identified within the core area.
2. Represents the populations and plants which exist within the footprint of proposed disturbance.
3. Represents the populations and plants which could be effected outside the footprint disturbance.
habitat for the life of the mine. Cleared (or
land disturbance) acreage ranges from 415
acres (Alternative C) to 928 acres
(Alternative E). The duration and severity of
these impacts would depend on the life of the
operation, which would vary for each action
alternative as explained in Chapter 2,
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action.
Alternative C would have a life of
approximately six years while Alternative F
has a projected life span of 33 years.
Vegetation in the Crown Jewel Project area
would be directly affected by clearing, pit
excavation, surface subsidence, and
placement of tailings and waste rock.
Specific vegetation resources which would be
affected or potentially impacted by the action
alternatives include: young, mature and old-
growth forest, and sensitive plant species.
Wildlife habitat impacts are discussed in
Section 4.12, Wildlife.
Minor impacts to vegetation are anticipated
as a result of dust generated along access
roads within and adjacent to the Crown
Jewel Project and from blasting. Deposition
of dust may result in the loss of vigor of
plants because they would have reduced
capability of photosynthesis as a result of
lessened light availability. These effects are
not considered substantial and would be
minimized by the proposed dust control
measures (watering of roads, chemical dust
suppressions).
At mine closure, disturbed areas would be
stabilized and reclaimed according to
reclamation plans approved by the Forest
Service, BLM, WADOE, and WADNR.
Timber Resource. Merchantable timber
would be harvested from the areas proposed
for direct disturbance and would be
conducted in accordance with Forest Service,
BLM, and WADNR direction and their
applicable regulatory requirements. The
amount of merchantable timber would vary as
each action alternative affects different
acreage and different timber types. The
timber harvested ahead of the Crown Jewel
Project activities would not result in a major
change in timber availability on the Okanogan
National Forest or the Wenatchee Resource
Area of the BLM. Most of the timber
harvested would be sold by the Proponent on
the local market.
Timber losses in the areas covered by waste
rock and tailings would be long-term, but
generally not irreversible. This is based on a
comparison of endemic soil profile
characteristics versus reapplied soil/waste
rock and reapplied soil tailings stratigraphies.
Soil characteristics were observed at
approximately 325 points within the Project
area during the soil survey conducted within
the Project area boundaries in 1992 (Cedar
Creek Associates, Inc. 1992). The vast
majority of these sites supported some type
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-86
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
of forest community dominated by one or
more tree species including Englemann spruce
(Picea engelmannii), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga
menziesii), and western larch (Larix
occidentalis). These sites typically exhibited
subsurface soil horizons with high coarse
fragment contents (rocks, cobbles, and
gravels) overlain by comparatively shallow
surficial horizons characterized by moderate
textures and low coarse fragment contents.
Tree-dominated vegetation communities were
ubiquitous throughout the Crown Jewel
Project area and appeared to be well
established regardless of soil type.
Undisturbed grass- and shrub-dominated
communities were rare within the Crown
Jewel Project area boundaries. Where they
occurred, soils supporting grass vegetation
communities were typically characterized by
soil depths less than 12 inches to bedrock.
Shrub vegetation communities were typically
supported by soils 40 + inches deep having a
low percentage of coarse fragments
throughout the soil profile.
The Proponent proposes to reclaim the
sloping portions of the waste rock disposal
sites by applying approximately 18 inches of
salvaged soil having a low coarse fragment
content. The waste rock material would
consist of rock material size classes ranging
from boulders to gravels to fine materials.
This soil/waste rock stratigraphy compares
favorably with the soil characteristics of
portions of the Crown Jewel Project site
currently supporting established tree
vegetation communities. It is believed that
tree communities would become established
over the waste rock disposal sites given the
overall similarities of the pre and post mining
soil and soil/waste rock characteristics,
respectively, and the apparent adaptability of
the tree species common to the Crown Jewel
Project area.
The long-term losses in timber productivity
associated with the Crown Jewel Project
would not be substantial when compared to
the timber base in the Okanogan National
Forest or lands administered by the BLM or
WADNR.
Implementation of the mine would reduce
timber productivity by an estimated 10% to
15% on reclaimed slopes returned to timber
production during the first 100 years after the
completion of reclamation. Timber
production would be lost on disturbed lands
for the life of the mining operation. Some
sites, such as portions of the mine pit, are
not planned to be revegetated to trees during
reclamation and could result in permanent
loss of timber production capability for those
sites.
As explained in Section 1.6, Okanogan Forest
Plan Compliance, if an action alternative is
selected, the Forest Service proposes to alter
the existing management prescriptions for the
area to be directly disturbed on Okanogan
National Forest lands by the Crown Jewel
Project. The change to a new management
prescription would be temporary and continue
in effect through successful revegetation.
The new management prescription would
maintain standards and guidelines to ensure
short-term and long-term stability of the
disturbed areas. Following permanent
cessation of mining activities and
implementation of reclamation practices, the
management of the disturbed areas would
revert to existing, or revised Okanogan Forest
Plan goals and standards.
Rangeland Resources. The Crown Jewel
Project is located primarily within portions of
the Forest Service Cedar Cattle and Horse
Allotment. However, the power line right-of-
way, pit boundary, and security fence cross
into the Ethel Creek allotment, and the
security fence and water line cross the Gold
Creek allotment. Cattle are grazed on Forest
Service, BLM, WADNR, and adjacent private
lands under these permits.
The construction of the power and water
lines would be of short duration and would
not have a lasting impact on the forage
resources.
The Ethel and Gold allotments, located on the
west side of the Crown Jewel Project, would
not have their grazing capacities seriously
affected since much of the area that would
be enclosed in the fence is classified as
unsuitable for grazing. The only changes
would occur in the allotment boundaries.
Approximately one animal unit month (AUM)
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-87
would be lost for every ten acres of area
excluded from each allotment. This reduction
(about 3%) would primarily affect the Cedar
Allotment; however actual cow/calf units
using the allotment has decreased 34% in the
last few years (Forest Service, 1993a).
During the life of the Crown Jewel Project,
the Proponent would fence the site to
exclude livestock. The Crown Jewel Project
area and wetland mitigation fencing does not
vary much by alternative. The acres
affecting long-term forage resources and the
longevity of Crown Jewel Project area
fencing varies by alternative and are
discussed below. The acres of wetland area
to be excluded from grazing are described in
Section 4.10, Wetlands.
Because of lost forage on the Cedar
Allotment due to the cumulative effects of
the Crown Jewel Project and wetlands
mitigation, the North unit would have a
division fence constructed that would divide
this pasture into two units. This would allow
proper management of the allotment using a
rest-rotation grazing system. The livestock
permittee would maintain this fence.
Implementation of any of the action
alternatives would result in the direct physical
loss of useable range and forage production.
This disruption would be primarily during the
life of the Crown Jewel Project, but could
extend beyond mine closure for up to ten
years depending on the timing, extent, and
success of reclamation efforts. Fencing
would remain in place until revegetation
meets the success requirements established
by the Forest Service, BLM, and WADNR.
Wetland mitigation fencing might be in place
for up to 20 years, from when wetland
mitigation occurs.
During operations, there could be additional
pressure on adjacent riparian and wetland
areas as cattle are displaced. In addition, the
grazing permittees could be inconvenienced
by having to move livestock from one pasture
to another more frequently due to the loss of
forage and watering options. The Forest
Service and the BLM have the statutory
authority to manage grazing activities.
Increased traffic on the main access roads
could impact livestock grazing through
collision mortality and increased dust. Dust
management on these roads would minimize
the dusting of forage and may reduce
livestock/vehicle collisions. Speed control
would also reduce the risk of collision. With
dust management and speed control, the
impacts to range resources are expected to
be low.
Noxious Weeds. Noxious weeds are
currently a problem in the area. Areas
physically disturbed by any of the action
alternatives could be invaded by undesirable
or noxious plant species such as bull thistle,
Canada thistle, musk thistle, Hound's-tongue,
and spotted and diffuse knapweed as well as
other potential invader noxious weeds. All of
these species are known to be rapid invaders,
particularly into disturbed timber areas.
Effects by alternative are proportional to the
amount of ground disturbance. Alternatives
that cause more ground disturbance would
likely have more control problems. These
species would continue to persist unless an
effective weed control program employing
prevention, biological, mechanical, and/or
chemical methods is implemented. There are
requirements for revegetation of disturbed
areas and treatment, if necessary, to prevent
or eliminate the propagation of noxious
weeds. The majority of weed infestations
would occur on travel corridors and are
introduced by the movement of machinery
and other vehicles. With proper reclamation,
all action alternatives are predicted to have a
moderate incidence of noxious weed
invasion. Long-term control would be
required past the end of reclamation
revegetation.
Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant
Species. No federally listed endangered,
threatened, or proposed plant species are
known to occur in the vicinity of the Project;
however, three species listed on the Region
6, Regional Forester's sensitive species list
(Listera borea/is, Platanthera obtusata,
Botrychium crenulatum) do exist in the
vicinity of the Project.
Any of the action alternatives would disturb
some plants of all three species (except
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-88
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
Alternative G which would impact only two
species), primarily by covering the plants with
tailings and/or waste rock. Alternatives B, C,
D, and E would disturb two populations of
Botrychium crenulatum consisting of 12
plants, while Alternative F would cover a
different population consisting of about 21
plants.
Alternative B would disturb four populations
of Listera borealis consisting of about 1,828
plants, Alternatives C and D would disturb
three populations consisting of about 1,805
plants. Alternative E would disturb six
populations consisting of about 1,862 plants,
while Alternatives F and G would disturb five
populations consisting of about 228 plants.
Alternatives B, C, D, and E would disturb two
populations of Platanthera obtusata
consisting of about 704 plants, while
Alternatives F and G would eliminate two
other populations consisting of about 100
plants.
It has been determined in the Biological
Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered, and
Sensitive Plants (See Appendix J, Biological
Evaluation for Proposed Endangered,
Threatened, and Sensitive Plants) that the
elimination of the above mentioned
populations would be unlikely to reduce the
forest viability of these sensitive species
(Forest Service, 1996a). Table 4.9.1,
Sensitive Plants Impacted by Alternative,
summarizes the anticipated loss to these
sensitive plants.
Species of Concern. Carex capillari and
Carex dioca occur in a drainage that would
receive little, if any, impact from the Crown
Jewel Project operations. Therefore, these
species are judged unlikely to be impacted by
the Crown Jewel Project.
Indirect Effects
Removal of vegetation would increase the
potential for erosion, runoff, and eliminate
certain wildlife habitat, causing displacement
or possible decline of resident wildlife
populations. These impacts are discussed in
Section 4.12, Wildlife.
Other potential adverse effects on sensitive
populations could be caused by reductions in
stream flow, reductions in flows to springs,
seeps and wetlands, increased sedimentation
along streams, and accidental spills along
streams. The potential indirect effects of
lower flows to springs, seeps and wetlands,
as well as dust from the Crown Jewel
Project, could impact or eliminate one to five
additional populations consisting of 86 to
132 plants (see Table 4.9.1, Sensitive Plants
Impacted by Alternative). Further discussion
of effects is presented in Appendix J,
Biological Evaluation For Proposed,
Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Plants
(Forest Service, 1996a).
Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects to vegetation resources
would primarily involve adjacent timber
harvesting activities, mainly proposed or
presently being conducted on National Forest,
BLM, and/or WADNR lands. Historic and
ongoing logging operations have been
conducted on thousands of acres in the area
surrounding the Crown Jewel Project,
including recent clearcutting activities which
occurred on the flanks of Buckhorn Mountain
previous to the Proponent's exploration
program and the Park Place timber sale on
WADNR controlled lands and the Nicholson
timber sales on National Forest lands.
The recent Forest Service Nicholson timber
sale harvested 351 acres of Okanogan Forest
lands adjacent to the Crown Jewel Project.
The Nicholson Salvage 2 Sale harvested an
additional 1 50 acres in the summer of 1995
and the Nicholson Salvage 1 Sale harvested
an additional 124 acres. The WADNR timber
sale, south of the proposed Crown Jewel
Project, involves an estimated 250 acres.
Only five acres of these sales were harvested
using clearcuts. The remaining harvest was a
mix of shelterwood, overstand removal, and
partial cut methods. Future proposed timber
sales, within the next decade, on federal and
Washington State lands within about five
miles of the Crown Jewel Project, are
estimated to harvest timber on 1,200 acres
of timber lands.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-89
About 50 acres of the Nicholson timber sales
and 37 acres of the Buckhorn timber sales
would not be reforested because of facilities
that would be placed on top of units.
Section 3.19, Land Use, contains additional
discussion on past and present logging
activities. Implementation of any of the
action alternatives would not cause a
noticeable change to future timber sales on
the Okanogan National Forest or BLM
administered lands. Logging activities in
adjacent areas would remove timber
resources which would alter the existing
vegetation communities in the logged areas.
The implementation of the Crown Jewel
Project could delay future timber harvest on
lands administered by the Okanogan National
Forest in the Buckhorn Mountain area.
Decisions on future timber sales would be
made, project by project, based on direct,
indirect and cumulative impacts of the Crown
Jewel Project.
Implementation of Project activities would
affect up to 105 AUM's (3.4%) in the Cedar
Cattle and Horse Allotment for a minimum of
six years after reclamation. The past and
future timber harvest would increase short-
term grazing capacity through creation of
transitory range. Therefore, the cumulative
effects from the Project and timber harvests
could be a trade-off.
4.9.4 Effects of Alternative B
Alternative B would directly disturb 787 acres
of vegetation. Merchantable timber exists on
about 666 acres of the 787 acres to be
disturbed. These acres are estimated to
contain approximately 5.3 MMBF (million
board feet) of timber.
The fenced area surrounding the Crown
Jewel Project would be closed to livestock
use for the life of the operation plus about six
years after the commencement of reclamation
or about 16 years. Project components such
as waste rock disposal areas, tailings ponds,
pits, roads and borrow areas could affect
forage production for the long-term on
approximately 512 acres. Reclamation
activities would off set the loss of forage on
much of this acreage but time to recovery
could take as long as ten years after Crown
Jewel Project completion. The total forage
resource in the affected area is less than 2%
of the total in the Cedar Allotment. Less
than 1 % is expected to be affected over the
long-term.
4.9.5 Effects of Alternative C
Alternative C would directly disturb 41 5
acres of vegetation. Merchantable timber
exists on about 392 acres of the 415 acres
to be disturbed. These acres are estimated
to contain 3.1 MMBF of timber.
The fenced area would be closed to livestock
use for the life of the Crown Jewel Project
plus about six years after the commencement
of reclamation, for a total of about 12 years.
Project components such as waste rock
disposal areas, tailings ponds, roads and
borrow areas could affect forage production
for the long-term on approximately 176
acres. Reclamation activities would off set
the loss of forage on much of this acreage
but time to recovery could take as long as ten
years after completion of the Crown Jewel
Project. The total forage resource in the area
affected is less than 2% of the total in the
Cedar Allotment. Less than 1 % is expected
to be affected over the long-term.
4.9.6 Effects of Alternative D
Alternative D would directly disturb 558
acres of vegetation. Merchantable timber
exists on about 514 acres of the 558 acres
to be disturbed. These acres are estimated
to contain 4.1 MMBF of timber.
The fenced area would be closed to livestock
for the life of the operation plus about six
years after the commencement of reclamation
or about 14 years. Project components such
as waste rock disposal area, tailings, pits,
roads and borrow areas could affect forage
production for the long-term on approximately
290 acres. Reclamation activities would off
set the loss of forage on much of this
acreage but time to recovery could take as
long as ten years after completion of the
Crown Jewel Project.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-90
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
4.9.7 Effects of Alternative E
Alternative E would directly disturb 928 acres
of vegetation. Merchantable timber exists on
about 879 acres of the 928 acres to be
disturbed. These acres are estimated to
contain 7.0 MMBF of timber.
The fenced area would be closed to livestock
use for the life of the Crown Jewel Project
plus about six years after the commencement
of reclamation, for a total of about 16 years.
Project components such as waste rock
disposal areas, tailings ponds, pits, roads and
borrow areas could affect forage production
for the long-term on approximately 637
acres. Reclamation activities would off set
the loss of forage on much of this acreage
but time to recovery could take as long as ten
years after completion of the Crown Jewel
Project. The total forage resource in the area
affected is less than 2% of the total in the
allotment. About 1 % is expected to be
affected over the long-term.
4.9.8 Effects of Alternative F
Alternative F would directly disturb 817 acres
of vegetation. Merchantable timber exists on
about 774 acres of the 817 acres to be
disturbed. These acres are estimated to
contain 6.2 MMBF of timber.
The fenced area would be closed to livestock
for the life of the operations plus about six
years after the commencement of
reclamation, for a total of 39 years. Project
components such as the waste rock disposal
area, tailings, pits, roads and borrow areas
could affect forage production for the long-
term on approximately 553 acres.
Reclamation activities would off set the loss
of forage on much of this acreage but time to
recovery could take as long as ten years after
the Crown Jewel Project completion. The
total forage resource in the area affected is
less than 2% of the total in the allotment.
About 1 % is expected to be affected over the
long-term.
4.9.9 Effects of Alternative G
Alternative G would directly disturb 893
acres of vegetation. Merchantable timber
exists on about 848 acres of the 896 acres
to be disturbed. These acres are estimated
to contain 6.8 MMBF of timber.
The fenced area would be closed to livestock
use for the life of the operations plus about
six years after commencement of
reclamation, for a total of 16 years. Project
components such as waste rock disposal
area, tailings pond, pits, roads and borrow
area could affect forage production for the
long-term on approximately 632 acres.
Reclamation activities would off set the loss
of forage on much of this acreage but time to
recovery could take as long as ten years after
completion of the Crown Jewel Project. The
total forage resource in the area affected is
less than 2% of the total in the allotment.
About 1 % is expected to be affected over the
long-term.
4.10 WETLANDS
4.10.1 Summary
Wetlands have notable ecosystem functions
such as biological diversity, productivity, and
sedimentation control. A series of wetland
investigations were conducted over an area
of approximately 4,000 acres and determined
that 49.26 acres of wetlands exist in the area
(see Table 3.11.1, Summary of Wetland
Areas, and Figure 3.11.1, Project Associated
Wetland Locations).
As a result of all action alternatives, it is
expected that both direct, indirect,
temporary, and permanent effects would
occur. Wetlands, springs, and seeps that
would potentially be affected by facility
construction (i.e., tailings facility, water
reservoir), pit dewatering, and other mining
related activities are show in Table 4.10.1,
Wetland, Springs, and Seeps Narrative
Description and Impact Classification.
Table 4.10.2, Wetland Direct Impact
Acreage, identifies, by component, the direct
loss or reduction in acreage which would
result from all action alternatives; these
losses due to filling or physical disturbance
would range as follows:
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-91
TABLE 4.10.1, WETLANDS, SPRINGS, AND SEEPS NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
AND IMPACT CLASSIFICATION
Wetland Designation
and Ana
Nearby Spring
or Seep
Description
Impact Classifications
Frog Pond
1.8 acre
SN-15
Seep
Manmade pond in glacial deposits reportedly excavated
by ranchers many years ago, and supported by
ambankment for Forest Service Road 3575-120. Pond
fills each spring, (55.1 acre surface runoff and interflow
catchment area), overflows to north into North Fork
Nicholson Creek. Full pond reduces to a small pond in
late summer and fall through evaporation, seepage, and
livestock use. Classified as a semi-permanently flooded
PEM Class II wetland. No springs in evidence (Seep SN-
15 has had no flow in June or October of 1992 through
1995). Waste rock pile runoff will be captured in
diversion ditches and sediment ponds for Alternatives B,
D, E, and F. See Section 4.7, Surface Water, for
percentages of catchments impacted.
IP for Alternatives B, O, E, and F.
0 for Alternative G due to
coverage of waste rock pile.
P for Alternative C.
C1A
0.8 acre
None
Identified
A steep PFO/PSS Class II wetland located in glacial
deposits at crest of Nicholson/Marias Creek divide,
beginning near outflow from sediment pond at end of
Forest Road 3575-120 culvert which captures Roosevelt
adit (RA) flows emanating from adit's dump. Supplied
by RA flows as well as surface/ground water. Impact
from reduced adit flows, and surface/ground water
dimunition, RA is at the edge of 1' Zone of Influence.
Pit lake filling to elevation 4850' will restore most of RA
and other flows. Lower hydraulic conductivity and
higher storativity of glacial deposits will buffer impact
IT for all alternatives.
C1B
8.0 acres
None
Identified
A PFO/PEM/PSS Class III wetland located in glacial
deposits downstream of C1A in the upper South Fork
Nicholson drainage. Supplied by continuation of C1A
flows and about 80 to 100 acres of surface water and
interflow catchment area. Impact from reduced RA
flows and surface/ground water diminution. Pit lake
filling to elevation 4850' will restore most of RA and
other flows. 800' to 1800' from edge of 1' Zone of
Influence. Lower hydraulic conductivity and higher
storativity of glacial deposits will buffer impact.
Possible impact due to portion being within 1,000'
buffer zone and stream flow depletion.
P for all alternatives.
C1C
0.1 acre
None
Identified
A PEM/PSS Class III wetland located in glacial deposits
downstream of CIA in the upper North Fork Marias
drainage. Supplied by possible subsurface continuation
of C1A flows and about 8O to 100 acres of surface
water and interflow catchment area. Direct impact from
tailings dam in Alternatives B, C, D, and E. Possible
Impact due to being within 1,000' buffer zone.
Alternatives F and G.
D for Alternatives B, D, and E.
P for Alternatives F and G.
C2 or PE
1.73 acres
None
Identified
A PSS/PEM Class II wetland located in glacial deposits
downstream of C1C in upper North Fork Marias Creek
drainage. Supplied by continuation of C1C flows and
about 100 acres of surface water and interflow
catchment area. Direct impact from tailings dam in
Alternatives B, C, D, and E. No impacts Alternatives F
and G.
D for Alternatives 8, C, D, and E.
N for Alternatives F and G.
C3
0.56 acre
JJ-18
(Spring)
A small PEM Class III seep wetland located in Gold Bowl
drainage about 2,000' downstream of SW-9 and 1,500'
upstream of SW-7 near edge of glacial deposits, about
1,600' from 1' drawdown limit. Marginally hydric soils.
No impacts
N for all alternatives.
C4
0.40 acre
JJ-14
(Drill Hole)
A PEM Class II wetland in the upper reaches of the
Marias drainage apparently created by road
construction. Supplied partially by JJ-14 flows and
about 100 acres of surface water and interflow
catchment area. Direct impact from tailings dam in
Alternatives B, C, D, and E No impacts Alternatives F
and G.
D for Alternatives B, C, D and E.
N for Alternatives F and G.
C5
0.70 acre
None
Identified
A PEM Class III wetland apparently formed by road
construction located in Nicholson drainage to north of
CIA. About 400' from V drawdown limit in glacial
deposits, few wetland functions and values. Pit filling
reduces impacts to minimal. Possible due to proximity
to 1' drawdown all alternatives.
P for all alternatives.
C6
300 feet2
JJ-16, JJ-34
(Seeps)
A PEM/PSS Class III wetland in a clearcut area in a side
canyon entering the Marias drainage near toe of tailings
dam In glacial deposits, supply from spring to west.
Impacted by tailings dam and borrow area in
Alternatives B, C, D, and E. No impacts Alternatives F
and G.
D for Alternatives B, C, D and E
N for Alternatives F and G.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-92
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
TABLE 4.10.1, WETLANDS, SPRINGS, AND SEEPS NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
AND IMPACT CLASSIFICATION
Wetland Designation
and Area
C7
1.23 acre
C8
200 feet2
C9A.B.C
2.75 acre
C10
200 feet2
C11
350 feet2
C12
0.08 acre
C13
840 feet2
C14
2.25 acres
C15
0.19 acre
C16
0.31 acre
C17
0.05 acre
Nearby Spring
or Seep
JJ-34
(Seep)
SN-20
(Seep)
SN-27
(Seep)
SN-10
(Spring)
JJ-21
(Spring)
JJ-18
(Spring)
JJ-18
(Spring)
SN-22
(Seep)
JJ-20
(Spring)
SN-26
(Seep)
JJ-20
(Spring)
None
Identified
SN-12
(Spring)
Description
A PEM/PSS Class II wetland in a depression in a small,
shallow canyon in glacial deposits, tributary to Marias
Creek drainage. Logged and overgrazed-wetland values
severely restricted. 1 ,800' from 1 ' drawdown zone.
Topographic water supply area not impacted by
facilities. No impacts for any alternatives.
A PEM Class III wetland in North Fork Nicholson Creek
along intermittent stream, formed by logging road
crossing stream. Wetland functions limited: under toe
of Alternative B. E, F, and G waste rock. 2,400' from
1 ' drawdown zone. Pit filling reduces impacts to
minimal.
Three PEM/PSS Class II wetlands in shallow valley in
North Fork Nicholson Creek, east of frog pond.
Between Forest Service roads, partially in glacial
deposits, disturbed by grazing, positive wetland values.
700' from Alternative B waste rock toe, 600' from
Alternative B, 1 00' to 200' from Alternatives E and F,
and covered by Alternative G. 2.0OO' from 1 '
drawdown zone. Waste rock pile runoff will be
captured in diversion ditches and sediment ponds and
impact surface water and interflow catchment area for
Alternatives B, D, E, and F. Severity of impacts
dependent on distance from waste rock toe and
hydrologic parameters attained by waste rock at
equilibrium.
A PEM Class III wetland north of C8 in the North Fork
Nicholson Creek in abandoned road bed. Logged, very
little wetland function. 600' from Alternative B waste
rock toe, 3,100' from 1' drawdown. No impacts to
surface water and interflow catchment area for
Alternatives B, C, and D. Alternatives E, F, and G
waste rock piles directly impact wetland. Alternative 0
topsoil stockpile temporary impact.
A PEM/PSS Class III wetland in the Gold Bowl drainage.
Previously logged, very little wetland value. Impacted
by pit or underground workings for dll alternatives.
A small Class III wetland on the north side of the road
near C1B in the South Fork Nicholson Creek. In glacial
deposits, 1,900' from 1' drawdown, water supply in
glacial deposits, upstream recharge. 1,800' from
drawdown and buffered by glacial deposit storage.
Limited wetland function due to livestock and road. No
impact from Alternatives B, C. D, and E. About 1,000'
above Alternative F tailings dam. Indirect temporary
impact due to Alternative G tailings facilities.
A PFO/PSS/PEM Class III wetland in the Gold Bowl
drainage, located in glacial deposits about 9OO' from V
drawdown, water supply from glacial deposits,
upstream recharge. Limited wetland function due to
small size. Possible impact by facilities construction for
all alternatives.
A PEM Class II wetland in a depression at intersection of
Nicholson drainage and side canyon in glacial deposits.
Logged in past but presently undisturbed. 2.7OO' from
1 ' drawdown zone. Water supply from glacial deposits,
upstream and side slope surface and ground water
recharge. Too far from drawdown zone, and buffered
by glacial deposit storage to be impacted Alternatives B.
C, D, and E. Covered by tailings Alternatives F and G.
A small PEM Class II wetland in glacial deposits created
by damming Nicholson Creek and adjacent seeps.
3,000' from 1' drawdown. Grazed and occupied by
campers. Too far from drawdown zone, and buffered
by glacial deposit storage to be impacted by
Alternatives B, C, D, and E. Covered by tailings
Alternatives F and G.
A PEM/PSS Class III wetland in South Bolster Creek.
wetland function limited, on toe of north facing slope,
500' from 1 ' drawdown zone. Water supply from
surface runoff and ground water. Possible impact due
to proximity of 1 ' drawdown zone.
A PEM/PSS Class II wetland in South Bolster Creek,
very little wetland function on south facing slope, 300'
from 1' drawdown zone. Water supply from surface
water runoff and ground water. Possible impact due to
proximity of 1 ' drawdown zone.
Impact Classifications
N for all alternatives.
D for Alternatives B, E, F and G.
N for Alternatives C and D.
IT for Alternatives B and D.
N for Alternative C.
IP for Alternatives F and E.
D for Alternative G.
N for Alternatives B and C.
IT for Alternative D
D for Alternatives E, F, and G.
D for all alternatives.
N for Alternatives B, C, D, E and
F.
IT for Alternative G.
P for all alternatives.
N for Alternatives B, C, D and E.
D for Alternatives F and G.
N for Alternatives B, C, D, and E.
D for Alternatives F and G.
P for all alternatives.
P for all alternatives.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-93
TABLE 4.10.1, WETLANDS, SPRINGS, AND SEEPS NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
AND IMPACT CLASSIFICATION
Wetland Designation
and Area
CIS
0 1 6 acre
C19
0.09 acre
C20. A.B.C.D
1 ,000 feet2
C21 A.B.C.D
1 .000 feet2
PA
0.07 acre
PB
0.20 acre
PC
0.06 acre
PD
0.06 acre
RA
0.24 acre
A
0.52 acre
B
5,600 feet2
CA/CB
0.57 acre
DA/DB
25.2 acres
FA/FB
0.76 acre
Nearby Spring
or Seep
SN-16
SN-17
(Spring)
JJ-20
(Spring)
None
Identified
None
Identified
None
Identified
SN-7
(Spring)
None
Identified
None
Identified
None
Identified
None
Identified
None
Identified
Description
A PEM/PSS Class III wetland in South Bolster Creek,
very little wetland function, on south facing slope, 300'
from 1 ' drawdown zone. Supply from surface and
ground water. Possible impact due to 1 ' drawdown
zone.
A PEM Class III wetland in South Bolster Creek, very
little wetland function, on south facing slope 1,700'
from V drawdown zone. Water supply from surface
water and ground water. Too far from 1 ' drawdown
zone to be impacted.
Class III wetlands formed by seeps in glacial deposits
along the banks of Nicholson Creek, very little wetland
function. 3,500' from 1' drawdown zone. Water
supply from surface and ground water from adjacent
slopes. Too far from 1' drawdown to be impacted.
Class II wetlands formed by seeps along bank in North
Fork Nicholson Creek beginning about 2,000'
downstream of SW-6 and continuing for 2,000'. About
5,000' to 6,000' away from 1' drawdown. Too far
from 1 ' drawdown zone to be impacted.
These are PSS and PFO Class III and IV wetlands
located near the glacial deposits boundary and near the
1 ' drawdown boundary. They may be impacted by a
temporary reduction in surface and ground water
recharge and by facility construction for all alternatives.
A PSS Class III hillside seep on the ridgeline at elevation
5,200 ± between Marias and Ethel Creek on proposed
power line alignment, 600' from 1' drawdown zone.
Possible impact from water table reduction at this
relatively high elevation for all alternatives.
A PEM/PSS Class IV hillside seep wetland on Gold Creek
along the waterline route, about 1,200' from 1'
drawdown zone. Surface and ground water supply from
slopes not impacted by de watering. No impacts from
any alternative.
A PSS/PFO Class II wetland located west of Myers
Creek. No impacts.
A PSS/PFO Class III wetland located west of Myers
Creek. No impacts.
A PEM Class IV wetland located west of Myers Creek at
the proposed Starrem Reservoir site. Impacted by
reservoir.
A PEM/PSS and PFO Class II wetland located along
Myers Creek at the Canadian Border. No impacts.
A PFO/PSS and PEM Class III riparian wetland located
on the west side of the road along Myers Creek.
impacted by Starrem Reservoir embankment.
Impact Classifications
P for all alternatives.
N for all alternatives.
N for all alternatives.
N for all alternatives.
IT for all alternatives.
P for all alternatives.
N for all alternatives.
N for all alternatives.
N for all alternatives.
D for all alternatives.
N for all alternatives.
D for all alternatives.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-94
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
TABLE 4.10.1, WETLANDS, SPRINGS, AND SEEPS NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
AND IMPACT CLASSIFICATION
Nearby Spring
or Seep
JJ-3
(Spring)
JJ-4
JJ-5
(Spring)
JJ-6
JJ-6a
JJ-6b
JJ-7
(Springs)
JJ-9
(Seep)
JJ-10
(Spring)
JJ-14
(drill hole)
JJ-15
Spring
JJ-26
(Spring)
JJ-34
(Seep)
SN-6
(Spring)
SN-7
(Spring)
SN-18
(Seep)
SN-12
(Spring)
SN-14
(Spring)
SN-16
(Spring)
SN-17
(Spring)
Wetland Area
None
Delineated
None
Delineated
None
Delineated
None
Delineated
C4
C6
PEorC2
C7
None
Delineated
RA
None
Delineated
C-17
None
Delineated
C18
C19
Description
East Fork Marias Creek-Flows collected and routed to
water trough. Across ridge and 4,500' from predicted 1 '
drawdown. Flows ranged from 0.2 to 15 gpm.
On Middle Fork Marias Creek-Flows originate from till
material distributed by road construction. Over 5,000
feet from predicted 1' drawdown. 6/92 flows <0.5 gpm,
no measurement in recent years.
JJ-6 springs originate above FS Road 1 20; partially
developed in past. Flows disappear, resurface as JJ-7
below road, then disappear again. Approx. 1,600' from
predicted 1 ' drawdown. Near 4,500' contour and
bedrock/glacial deposits contact. Possible impact due to
4,500' elev.
On South Fork Marias Creek near logging road and 1 8"
culvert. Occurs above inferred bedrock fault in glacial
sediments, flowing during each measurement from <0.5
to 3.5 gpm.
On Middle Fork Marias Creek-originates at uncased drill
hole in glacial sediments at elev. 4,400, about 700' from
predicted 1' drawdown. Flowing during each
measurement from 1 to 1 5 gpm. Would be covered by
proposed tailings disposal facility.
On Middle Fork Marias Creek-downstream end of seepage
area below C6 at elev. 4,250', 2,100' from predicted 1'
drawdown. Occurs above inferred bedrock fault in glacial
sediments. Flowing during each measurement from 2 to
1 2 gpm. Adjacent to toe of proposed tailings dam, and
road for reclaim solution pond.
On Middle Fork Marias Creek-occurs above inferred
bedrock fault in glacial sediment-would be covered by
proposed tailings disposal facility.
Seep above inferred bedrock fault in glacial sediments
containing intermittent standing water. No flow in 1992,
not measured in subsequent years. Elev. 4,350', 1,700'
from predicted 1 ' drawdown.
Located at elev. 4,100', about 900' from predicted 1'
drawdown. Flows during each measurement from 1 to
10 gpm. Possible impact due to proximity to 1*
drawdown.
Located at elev. 4.05O' about 1,200' from predicted 1'
drawdown on north side of Gold Creek. Recharge area
from ridge between Gold Creek and North Fork Nicholson
Creek. Would not be affected by proposed pit or facilities
because of distance, elevation, and hydraulic isolation of
lower elevation Gold Creek thalweg.
Seep along road across Gold Creek-see SN-7 discussion
above.
Along road above stream bed at elev. 4,250' about 400'
from predicted 1 ' drawdown. No flows most years when
measured. Possible impact due to distance from 1'
drawdown.
Along logging road at elev. 4,250' about 600' from
predicted 1 ' drawdown. Flows ranged from no flow to
1 .8 gpm. Originates from fault and change in bedrock
lithology. Possible impact due to distance from 1 '
drawdown.
Along road adjacent to Bolster Creek at elev. 4,000'
about 1,100' from predicted 1' drawdown. Flows ranged
from 0.5 to 2 gpm. There would be no impact due to
distance and elevation.
Along road adjacent to Bolster Creek at elev. 3,850'
about 2,000' from predicted 1 ' drawdown. No flow to 2
gpm measured. There would be no impact due to
distance and elevation.
Impact Classifications
N for all alternatives.
N for all alternatives.
P for all alternatives.
N for all alternatives.
D due to tailings pond.
Alternatives B, C, D and E.
N for Alternatives F and G.
D for Alternatives B, C, D and E.
N for Alternatives F and G.
D due to tailings pond.
Alternatives B, C, D and E.
N for Alternatives F and G.
P due to access road. Alternative
B, C, D and E.
N for Alternatives F and G.
P for all alternatives.
N for all alternatives.
N for all alternatives.
P for all alternatives.
P for all alternatives.
N for all alternatives.
N for all alternatives.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-95
TABLE 4.10.1, WETLANDS, SPRINGS, AND SEEPS NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
AND IMPACT CLASSIFICATION
Nearby Spring
or Seep
JJ-22
(Seep)
JJ-23
(Spring)
JJ-24
(Spring)
JJ-25
(Spring)
JJ-33
SN-21
(Seeps)
JJ-27
(Spring)
JJ-28
(Seep)
JJ-29
(Seep)
JJ-30
(Seep)
JJ-31
(Seep)
JJ-1
(Spring)
JJ-2
(Spring)
JJ-32
(Spring)
JJ-1 6
(Seep)
JJ-1 8
(Spring)
JJ-20
(Spring)
JJ-21
(Spring)
SN-3
(Spring)
SN-4
(Spring)
SN-5
(Spring)
SN-10
(Spnng)
SN-15
(Seep)
Wetland Area
None
Delineated
None
Delineated
None
Delineated
None
Delineated
None
Delineated
None
Delineated
None
Delineated
None
Delineated
C13
C3
C14
C11
None
Delineated
None
Delineated
None
Delineated
None
Delineated
Frog Pond
Description
Elev. 5,050' near edge of predicted 1 ' drawdown-pond,
no flows, indirect permanent due to change in water
table.
Across Ethel Creek from proposed mining operation.
There would be no hydraulic connection.
In Ethel Creek channel at elev. 4,400' about 2,400' from
predicted 1 ' drawdown. Predicted stream flow depletions
would be zero in Ethel Creek. No impacts.
North side of Ethel Creek at elev. 4,350' about 2,400'
from predicted 1 ' drawdown. Possible geologic structure
connection to JJ-22 and pit area. Possible impact.
Seeps located on the slope across Ethel Creek from the
proposed mine. There would be no hydraulic connection.
f
no hydraulic connection to the proposed mine facilities.
These features are located in an unnamed creek and
would have no hydraulic connection to the proposed mine
facilities.
Would be impacted by mine facilities under Alternatives B
and D, and by dewatering impacts for Alternatives C, E,
f, and G.
Gold Bowl Drainage near confluence with South Fork
Nicholson Creek. Elev. 4,3OO' about 1,400' from
predicted 1 ' drawdown Located in glacial sediments
above inferred bedrock fault not directly connected to
proposed pit. No impacts predicted.
Near confluence of Gold Bowl Drainage and South Fork
Nicholson Creek. Elev. 4.1OO' about 3,000' from
predicted 1 ' drawdown. Located in glacial sediments
above inferred bedrock fault not directly connected to
proposed pit. No impacts predicted.
Uppermost flows in Gold Bowl Drainage-Spring would be
directly impacted by proposed pit under Alternatives B, D,
E, F and G, and by office and shop areas under
Alternative C.
Uppermost flows in North Fork of Nicholson Creek-
developed spring 300' from predicted V drawdown at
elev. 4,800'. Would be direct impact from waste rock
disposal areas under Alternatives B, D, E, F and G.
Probable continuation of SN-3 flows about 1,300' from
predicted 1' drawdown at elev. 4,600'. Would be direct
impact from waste rock disposal areas under Alternatives
B, D, E. F and G.
Elev. 4,150', 5,000' from predicted V drawdown. No
impacts predicted.
Elev. 4.3OO', 3,500' from predicted V drawdown. No
impacts predicted.
No flows during measurement period-Frog Pond tributary
area would be impacted by waste rock Alternatives B, D,
E, and F. Frog Pond would be covered by waste rock
disposal area under Alternative G. 800' from predicted 1 '
drawdown at elev. 4,500'.
Impact Classifications
IP for all alternatives.
N for all alternatives.
N for all alternatives.
P for all alternatives.
N for all alternatives.
N for all alternatives.
N for all alternatives.
D for Alternatives B and D.
IP for Alternatives C, E, F and G.
N for all alternatives.
N for all alternatives.
D for all alternatives.
D for Alternatives B, D, E, F and
G.
P for Alternative C.
D for Alternatives B, D, E, F and
G.
P for Alternative C.
N for all alternatives.
N for all alternatives.
IP for Alternatives B, D, E and F.
D for Alternative G.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-96
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
TABLE 4.10.1, WETLANDS, SPRINGS, AND SEEPS NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION
AND IMPACT CLASSIFICATION
Nearby Spring
or Seep
Wetland Area
Description
Impact Classifications
SN-19
(£eep)
None
Delineated
6,500' from predicted V drawdown No impacts
predicted.
N for all alternatives
SN-20
(Seepl
C8
2.200' from predicted 1' drawdown at elev. 4,300'
Would be impacted by waste rock under Alternatives 6, E,
F and G and by sediment pond under Alternative D
D for Alternatives-B, D, E, F and
G.
N for Alternative C
SN-27
(Seep!
C9
2,300' from predicted 1' drawdown at elev. 4,250'.
Would be impacted by waste rock dump under
Alternatives B, E, F and G.
D for Alternatives B, E, F and G.
N for Alternatives C and D
SN-22
(Seep)
C13
900' from predicted 1' drawdown at elev. 4,400' Would
be impacted by proposed facilities in all alternatives
D for all alternatives
SN-26
(Seepl
C14
2,900' from predicted V drawdown at elev 4,150' in
glacial sediments. No impacts predicted.
N for all alternatives.
Notes: 1 See Table 3.7 t. Spring and Seep Investigation Summary, for further description and measurement record of springs and
seeps.
2 Impact Classification'
None (N)
Direct (Dl
Definition
A spring or seep which does not fall within any of the classifications listed below.
A spring or seep which is located within the proposed pit, tailings disposal area, waste rock disposal area,
or other physically covered or disturbed area Direct impacts are considered to be permanent, although
hydrologic function may be partially restored after pit filling.
Indirect permanent (IP) A spring or seep which is located within or immediately adjacent to the area as defined by
Indirect Temporary (IT) the computer model predicted one-foot drawdown contour for the proposed open pit (Alternative B).
Indirect impacts may be either permanent (IP) or temporary (IT) depending on the effects of pit filling on
the particular spring or seep.
Possible IP)
A spring or seep which is situated within the hydrologic regime associated with the zone of influence of
the proposed open pit, as listed below Possible impacts are assumed to be temporary.
• Within a buffer zone extending 1,000 feet downgradient of the one foot drawdown contour,
• At an elevation above the 4,500 foot contour;
* Along or near mapped geologic structures hydraulically connected to the pit zone of influence; and,
• Within or along streams having a predicted depletion of more than 1 %
For example. Spring JJ-23 is located on the far side of Ethel Creek with respect tc the proposed open pit
and the predicted one foot drawdown contour and, therefore, is not hydraulically connected to the one
foot drawdown contour.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-97
TABLE 4.10.2, WETLAND DIRECT IMPACT ACREAGE
Facility
Waste Rock
Disposal
Area
Project Area
Tailings
Facility
Haul/Access
Roads
Soil Borrow
Pits
Starrem
Reservoir
Myers Creek
Intake/
Pipeline
Total
Wetlands
ID
C8
C9
C10
Frog Pond
C11
C1C
C2
C4
C5
C14
C15
C20
C1A
PA
C13
CA-CB
DA-DB
Type
PEM
PSS/PEM
PEM
PEM
PSS/PEM
PSS/PEM
PSS/PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
PEM
PFO/PSS
PEM
PFO/PSS/PEM
PEM
PFO/PSS/PEM
Acres
0.01
0.40
0.01
1.80
0.01
0.40
1.72
0.40
0.70
2.30
0.20
0.02
0.80
0.07
0.02
0.57
25.23
Alternative
B
(acres)
0.01
0.01
0.27
1.72
0.40
0.07
0.23
0.06
0.57
0.06
3.40
C
(acres)
0.27
1.72
0.40
0.07
0.23
0.06
0.02
0.57
0.06
3.40
D
(acres)
0.01
0.27
1.72
0.40
0.07
0.23
0.06
0.02
0.57
0.06
3.41
E
(acres)
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.27
1.72
0.40
0.07
0.23
0.06
0.02
0.57
0.06
3.43
F
(acres)
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.20
0.02
0.02
0.57
0.06
0.90
G
(acres)
0.01
0.40
0.01
1.80
0.01
2.30
0.20
0.02
0.02
0.57
0.06
5.40
Note: Alternative B acres determined by the Proponent. All other acres determined by TerraMatrix.
PEM: Persistent emergent wetland
PSS: Deciduous scrub/shrub wetland
PFO: Forested broad-leafed deciduous and needle-leafed evergreen wetlands
• Alternative A - 0.01 acres;
• Alternative B - 3.40 acres;
• Alternative C - 3.40 acres;
• Alternative D - 3.41 acres;
• Alternative E - 3.43 acres;
• Alternative F - 0.90 acres; and,
• Alternative G - 5.40 acres.
The tailings facility, in all action alternatives
except Alternative F, would account for the
greatest permanent acreage disturbance to
wetlands (2.46 acres to 2.52 acres). A total
of 0.63 acres of wetlands (0.57 acres in
Starrem Creek drainage and 0.06 acres in
Myers Creek valley) would be covered or
disturbed from construction of the Starrem
Reservoir and associated intake
facility/pipeline. Construction of the reservoir
would also eliminate, temporarily, about
2,200 feet of Starrem Creek. This portion of
the creek would return after decommissioning
of the reservoir.
Indirect effects to the wetlands of Buckhorn
Mountain could occur, as a result of the
alteration (reduction) in stream flows and
ground water flows due to pit construction/
dewatering, and surface runoff at the mine
site. The nine-acre (C1) wetland would
experience a reduction in water inflow in all
alternatives due to decreases in flow from the
Roosevelt adit. This decrease would be most
pronounced during the latter part of mining
and until the mine area reached a new
hydrologic balance. The frog pond would
have a reduction in the watershed area
contributing to surface flow (66% to 80% for
Alternatives B, D, E, F and 30% for
Alternative C) due to the interception of
surface water flow off the north waste rock
disposal areas. This decrease would be most
pronounced during operations and
reclamation while the diversion ditches and
sediment ponds are operating and
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-98
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
intercepting flows. Alternative G would
permanently cover the frog pond. Much, if
not all, of this reduction, except Alternative
G, would be eliminated after the diversion
ditches are reclaimed.
Temporary inflow and storage reductions in
wetlands adjacent to Myers Creek could
occur in the Myers drainage basin adjacent to
and downstream of the Starrem Reservoir
due to interception and diversion of waters in
Myers and Starrem Creeks for the mine water
supply.
The development of an underground mine
would probably have fewer indirect impacts
than an open pit due to the amount of
surface recharge area left after cessation and
reclamation of operations; however,
underground workings could redirect the
surface expression of the ground water
recharge in different directions than currently
exist.
A comparison of direct, indirect temporary,
indirect permanent, and possible wetland
impacts for all action alternatives is displayed
in Table 4.10.3, Wetlands Impacted by
Mining Operations.
Sedimentation into area streams, from the
Crown Jewel Project as well as other
adjacent activities, in conjunction with
potential minor long-term reductions in Crown
Jewel Project area stream flows, could result
in slight cumulative effects to wetland
acreage and functions.
A description of mitigation measures for
wetlands is found in Section 2.12.16,
Wetlands. Additional mitigation measures
(i.e., monitoring/contingency plans for
hydrologic augmentation, additional
compensation) may be imposed during
permitting or as part the Corps of Engineers
Record of Decision.
4.10.2 Regulations
The federal government, through Executive
Orders 11988 and 11900, has mandated that
federal agencies provide leadership for
preserving floodplains and minimizing losses
to wetlands. The State of Washington
(Executive Order 90-04, Shoreline
Management Act - RCW 90.58, Water
Quality Standards - RCW 90.48/WAC
173.201 (a)) and Okanogan county (Growth
Management Critical Areas Ordinance) have
also provided direction and/or regulations for
protecting wetlands.
Impacts to wetlands are governed by the
provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act, which requires permit approval for any
dredge or fill alterations to waters of the U.S.
including wetlands under 404 jurisdiction.
The Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1)
guidelines specifically require that "no
discharge of dredge or fill material shall be
permitted if there is a practicable alternative
to the proposed discharge which would have
less adverse impact on the aquatic
ecosystem, so long as the alternative does
not have other significant adverse
environmental consequences" (40 CFR
230.10(a)>. Compliance with Section
404(b)(1) guidelines is determined by the
Corps of Engineers and EPA. The State
participates in the Section 404 permit
process by reviewing the proposal to certify
that it meets state aquatic protection
regulations (Section 401 Water Quality
Certification) and may approve, deny, or
condition issuance of the 404 permit.
Wetlands and the buffers, on non-federal
lands, such as Myers Creek valley, are also
regulated under the Okanogan County
Growth Management Critical Areas
Ordinance. A Shoreline Development permit,
issued by Okanogan County, would be
required for activities (i.e., instream diversion
structure, pump station) along Myers Creek
and its associated wetlands. The State also
regulates wetlands as Waters of the State.
4.10.3 Effects of Alternative A (No
Action)
An estimated 0.01 acres of wetlands would
be disturbed during reclamation of exploration
activities resulting from recontouring of roads
and removal of sediment controls.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-99
TABLE 4.10.3, WETLANDS IMPACTED BY MINING OPERATIONS
Wetland Designation
Frog Pond
C1A
C1B
C1C
C2 or PE
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
C8
C9A,B,C
C10
C11
C12
C13
C14
C15
C16
C17
C18
C19
C20A,B,C,D
C21A,B,C,D
PA
PB
PC
PD
RA
A
B
CA/CB
DA/DB
FA/FB
Nearby Spring or Seep
SN-15
None Identified
None Identified
None Identified
None Identified
JJ-18
JJ-14 (Drill Hole)
None Identified
JJ-16, JJ-34
JJ-34
SN-20
SN-27
SN-10
JJ-21
JJ-18
JJ-18, SN-22
JJ-20, SN-26
JJ-20
None Identified
SN-12
SN-16
SN-17
JJ-20
None identified
None Identified
None Identified
None Identified
None Identified
SN-7
None Identified
None Identified
None Identified
None Identified
None Identified
Action Alternative Impact
B
IP
IT
P
D
D
N
D
P
D
N
D
IT
N
D
N
P
N
N
P
P
P
N
N
N
IT
IT
IT
P
N
N
N
D
D
D
C
P
IT
P
D
D
N
D
P
D
N
N
N
N
D
N
P
N
N
P
P
P
N
N
N
IT
IT
IT
P
N
N
N
D
D
D
D
IP
IT
P
D
D
N
D
P
D
N
N
IT
IT
D
N
P
N
N
P
P
P
N
N
N
IT
IT
IT
P
N
N
N
D
D
D
E
IP
IT
P
D
D
N
D
P
D
N
D
IP
D
D
N
P
N
N
P
P
P
N
N
N
IT
IT
IT
P
N
N
N
D
D
D
F
IP
IT
P
P
N
N
N
P
N
N
D
IP
D
D
N
P
D
D
P
P
P
N
N
N
IT
IT
IT
P
N
N
N
D
D
D
G
D
IT
P
P
N
N
N
P
N
N
D
D
D
D
IT
P
D
D
P
P
P
N
N
N
IT
IT
IT
P
N
N
N
D
D
D
Drainage Basin
Nicholson Creek
Nicholson Creek
Nicholson Creek
Marias Creek
Marias Creek
Nicholson Creek
Marias Creek
Nicholson Creek
Marias Creek
Marias Creek
Nicholson Creek
Nicholson Creek
Nicholson Creek
Nicholson Creek
Nicholson Creek
Nicholson Creek
Nicholson Creek
Nicholson Creek
Nicholson Creek
Nicholson Creek
Nicholson Creek
Nicholson Creek
Nicholson Creek
Nicholson Creek
Nicholson Creek
Nicholson Creek
Marias Creek
Marias Creek
Gold Creek
Myers Creek
Myers Creek
Starrem Creek
Myers Creek
Starrem Creek
Notes: See Table 4. 10. 1, Wetland Narrative Description and Impact Classification, for description of wetlands.
Impact Classification
Symbol Definition
None (N) A wetland which does not fall within any of the classifications listed below.
Direct (D) A wetland which is located within the proposed pit, tailings area, waste rock area, or
other physically covered or disturbed area. Direct impacts are considered to be
permanent, although hydrologic function may be partially restored after pit filling.
Indirect Permanent (IP) A wetland which is located within or immediately adjacent to the
Indirect Temporary (IT) area as defined by the computer model predicted one-foot drawdown contour. Indirect
impacts may be either permanent or temporary depending on the effects of pit filling on
the particular wetland.
Possible (P) A wetland which is situated within the hydrologic regime associated with the zone of
influence of the pit, as listed below. Possible impacts are assumed to be temporary.
• Within a buffer zone extending 1 ,000 feet downgradient of the one foot drawdown
contour;
• At an elevation above the 4,500 foot contour;
• Along or near mapped geologic structures hydraulically connected to the pit zone 01
influence;
• Within or along streams having a predicted depletion of more than one percent.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-1'00
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
4.10.4 Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives
Direct Effects
Given the scattered locations of wetlands,
springs, and seeps in the Crown Jewel
Project area, complete avoidance of impacts
would be impossible with any of the action
alternatives.
If development of an action alternative
occurs, compensatory mitigation in the form
of enhancement, restoration or creation of
other wetlands would be required prior to the
impacts occurring. See Section 2.12.16,
Wetlands, for a description of mitigation
measures.
A comparison of wetlands filled or physically
disturbed for all action alternatives is set
forth in Table 4.10.2, Wetland Direct Impact
Acreage. The acres of impacted wetlands
are based on conceptual locations of the
Crown Jewel Project components. If an
action alternative is selected and
implemented, the location of some minor
components (e.g., haul roads, and access
roads, 0.29 acres; and soil borrow pits, 0.2
acres) might be able to be adjusted on the
ground to further avoid or reduce impacts to
some wetlands.
Streams, springs, seeps, and wetlands are
closely interrelated, and all may be
considered waters of the U.S. falling under
Clean Water Act jurisdiction. Information
regarding hydrologic impacts to streams is
presented in Table 4.7.2, Summary of
Average Precipitation Year (20.0 inches)
Impacts on Buckhorn Mountain Drainages,
and Table 4.7.3, Impacts of Mining on
Buckhorn Mountain Drainages. Information
regarding direct impacts to spring and seeps
is presented in Table 4.10.1, Wetlands,
Springs and Seeps Narrative Description and
Impact Classification, and Table 4.6.1,
Springs and Seeps Impacted by Mining
Operations.
The tailings facility, in all action alternatives
except Alternative F, would account for the
greatest acreage disturbance to wetlands
(2.46 acres to 2.52 acres). The Alternative F
tailings facility would impact 0.22 acres.
Construction of the tailings facility for
Alternatives B, C, D, and E would include
filling 1.99 acres of palustrine scrub/shrub
wetlands (PSS) and 0.47 acres of palustrine
emergent wetlands (PEM) in the upper Marias
Creek drainage. The Alternative G tailings
facility would include filling a 2.3 acre PEM
wetland located in a depression at the
intersection of Nicholson Creek drainage and
a side canyon.
The Starrem Reservoir would cover 0.57
acres of mostly emergent wetland (CA-CB) in
all of the action alternatives (see Table
4.10.2, Wetland Direct Impact Acreage). The
construction of the reservoir would also
capture most of the flows that support
wetlands (FA-FB) which are located directly
below the reservoir. These impacts would be
temporary (approximately 10 to 16 years).
The current proposal includes puncturing,
folding, and covering (with five feet of graded
material) the reservoir liner into the toe of the
embankment. The area would be ripped to a
depth of 12 inches to 18 inches covered with
18 inches of topsoil and reseeded with a
grass species. Along Starrem Creek, near the
Canadian border, some woody vegetation
would be planted to replace a small existing
hardwood stand. Drainage channels would
be reestablished in areas where they
previously existed. Once the reservoir has
been removed and reclaimed, hydrologic
function would be partially restored for both
wetlands (CA-CB and FA-FB).
The Myers Creek intake facility and pipeline
for the Starrem Reservoir would affect 0.06
acres (see Table 4.10.2, Wetland Direct
Impact Acreage). The associated intake
structure would be dismantled upon
completion of mining and reclamation
(approximately 10 to 16 years). At a
minimum, the wetlands would be restored to
the approximate original condition by
regrading and planting with native
herbaceous species adapted for wetland
conditions.
In Alternatives B, C, D and E, haul and
access roads would fill or physically disturb
0.29 acres of wetlands (see Table 4.10.2,
Wetland Direct Impact Acreage). These
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-101
wetlands are located on the hillside below
Forest Road 3575-120 and are partially fed
by the flow from the Roosevelt adit. In
Alternatives F and G, haul and access roads
would not directly impact wetlands.
Indirect Effects
The potential indirect effects to wetlands
outside the footprint of the Crown Jewel
Project disturbance are difficult to quantify
but include ground water reductions due to
loss of recharge areas and changes to surface
water flow. An impact comparison was
developed for wetlands, springs, and seeps in
the different action alternatives (see Table
4.10.1, Wetlands, Springs, and Seeps
Narrative Description and Impact
Classification, and Table 4.10.3, Wetlands
Impacted by Mining Operations).
Because of the lack of physical data and the
cost of collecting, reviewing, and analyzing
data, the Forest Service and WADOE chose
not to quantify indirect hydrologic impacts to
wetlands. Not enough data on ground water
movement and bedrock permeabilities
downgradient and away from the proposed
mine was available to reliably predict the flow
changes to wetlands or how the functions or
values of the wetlands could change. The
information currently available is presented to
make a conservative estimate of the greatest
extent of adverse impacts to wetlands. It is
possible additional information could be
developed during permit review to support a
conclusion, given a particular mine
configuration or water supply system design,
that some of the predicted or possible indirect
impacts identified in the final EIS would not
occur.
Nine Acre Wetland
The stream depletion analysis (see Section
4.7, Surface Water) predicts the percent of
depletion of headwater stream flows on
Buckhorn Mountain. One area of concern is
the wetland C1 (nine acres) fed partially by
the flow from Roosevelt adit. This wetland
extends more than 2,400 feet down the
Nicholson Creek drainage.
During mining and after pit filling, the flow
from the Roosevelt adit is expected to be less
than the current condition. Alternatives B, D,
E, F, and G would result in similar reductions
(average flow reduction from current 55-60
gpm to 36 gpm at maximum pit drawdown).
Alternative C reductions would be less than
other action alternatives. Once the pit has
refilled, flows would recover to approximately
42 gpm. As a result of this flow reduction,
there exists a potential for indirect impacts to
the upstream portion of wetland C1 (the area
closest to the Roosevelt adit). Approximately
70% of the C1 wetland area is located over
1,000 feet from the Roosevelt adit. Due to
the long length of wetland C1, the large
surface area that proceeds down-gradient,
and the short time period during which the
highest reductions would occur, it is unlikely
that substantial changes would occur in C1
wetland functions or values as a result of the
Crown Jewel Project and reduced flows from
the Roosevelt adit. Because the nine-acre
wetland (C1) is a large, forested wetland with
multiple functions, a monitoring and
contingency plan would be developed to
identify and mitigate hydrologic impacts
which might occur.
Frog Pond
Another area of concern is the wetland
described as the frog pond (1.8 acres). It is
believed that most of the frog pond's water
supply is derived from surface water runoff,
in particular snowmelt. During operation and
reclamation, diversion ditches and sediment
traps for Alternatives B, C, D, E and F would
capture runoff from the north waste rock
disposal area. For Alternatives B and D, an
approximate 80% reduction of the surface
area contributing to the surface flow to the
frog pond would occur. Implementation of
Alternatives C, E, and F would result in a
30%, 66%, and 78% reduction, respectively,
of the surface area contributing to the
surface flow to the frog pond. Once the
diversion ditches/sediment ponds are
removed, it is possible some effects would
remain due to changes in surface runoff
characteristics on the north waste rock
disposal area. For any of the action
alternatives (except G), a monitoring and
contingency mitigation plan would be
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-102
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
developed to address potential hydrologic
impacts.
Other Wetlands
Temporary hydrologic effects, such as
changes in size/acreage, and functions, could
occur in wetlands along Myers Creek
adjacent and downstream of the Starrem
Reservoir. These effects would be caused by
the diversion of Myers Creek water for the
mine water supply and interruption of
subsurface Starrem Creek water flow by the
reservoir.
Other wetlands along stretches of Gold,
Marias, and Nicholson Creeks could
potentially experience changes in size/acreage
and functions due to hydrologic changes.
Isolated wetlands, in the same drainage
basins, and at similar elevations to these
reaches of streams also would potentially
experience changes in size/acreage and
functions due to hydrologic changes. These
wetlands may dry up earlier, stay dry longer,
or dry up completely. The wetland
vegetation community may change toward an
upland vegetation community. Table 4.10.1,
Wetlands, Springs, and Seeps Narrative
Description and Impact Classification,
identifies the wetlands and their potential
effects.
Except for the frog pond, indirect impacts are
predicted to be temporary (during the life of
the Crown Jewel Project including
reclamation). Once the mine and initial
reclamation of the site (including pit filling) is
completed, a new hydrologic equilibrium
would be reached resulting in a water table
lower than the pre-mining conditions. At that
time, some of the short-term impacts to
wetlands would be reduced or eliminated.
The approximate length of time for indirect
temporary impacts varies by alternative: B -
16 years, C - 12 years, D - 14 years, E - 16
years, F - 39 years, G - 16 years. These time
projections include augmentation of natural
pit filling. If no augmentation of pit filling
with flows from Myers Creek are planned, the
time to fill the open pit alternatives and the
length of time of indirect, temporary impacts
would be longer.
Several wetlands (including C5, C13, C16,
C17, C18, PD) have been identified with a
"possible" impact classification. The data
collected and analysis conducted did not
predict the probability for hydrologic impacts
to these wetlands. Therefore, using a set of
criteria set forth in Table 4.10.3, Wetlands
Impacted by Mining Operations, these
wetlands have been identified as having the
possibility for temporary hydrologic impacts
due to pit construction/dewatering.
Cumulative Effect
Implementation of the Crown Jewel Project
combined with planned and proposed timber
harvests, continued livestock grazing, and
potential mineral exploration in adjacent areas
could result in short-term increases to the
sediment levels within the area streams as
previously described in Section 4.7, Surface
Water. Sedimentation in conjunction with
potential minor long-term reductions in Crown
Jewel Project area stream flows could result
in slight cumulative effects to wetland
acreage and functions.
4.10.5 Effects of Alternative B
Alternative B would fill or physically disturb a
total of 3.40 acres of wetlands. The tailings
facility would cover 2.46 acres of wetlands.
The projected wetland types which would be
directly impacted are shown on Table 4.10.2,
Wetland Direct Impact Acreage. A
comparison of direct, indirect temporary,
indirect permanent, and possible wetland
impacts by alternative is displayed on Table
4.10.3, Wetlands Impacted by Mining
Operations. There would be a temporary
reduction (from the current 55-60 gpm to 36
gpm) in flow from the Roosevelt adit to the
nine-acre wetland (C1B). There would be a
temporary 80% reduction in the watershed
area contributing to surface runoff to the frog
pond. Temporary impacts would last
approximately 16 years. The location of
identified springs, seeps, and wetlands in
relation to the facilities footprint of
Alternative B is illustrated on Figure 4.10.1,
Location of Features Related to Wetland
Impact Classification - Alternative B. The
Proponent's reclamation plan proposes to
increase long-term flows to the frog pond
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-103
after completion of reclamation of the
diversion ditches.
4.10.6 Effects of Alternative C
Alternative C would fill or physically disturb a
total of 3.40 acres of wetlands. The tailings
facility would impact the same wetland
acreage (2.46 acres) as Alternative B. The
projected wetland types which would be
impacted are shown on Table 4.10.2,
Wetland Direct Impact Acreage. The location
of identified springs, seeps, and wetlands in
relation to the facilities footprint of
Alternative C is illustrated on Figure 4.10.2,
Location of Features Related to Wetland
Impact Classification - Alternative C.
The development of an underground mine
would probably have fewer indirect impacts
than an open pit due to the amount of
surface recharge area left after cessation and
reclamation of operations; however,
underground workings could redirect the
surface expression of the ground water
recharge in different directions than currently
exist.
A comparison of direct, indirect temporary,
indirect permanent, and possible wetland
impacts by alternative is displayed on Table
4.10.3, Wetlands Impacted by Mining
Operations. The temporary reduction in flow
to the nine-acre wetland (C1B) would be
lower than for Alternative B. There would be
a temporary 30% reduction in the watershed
area contributing to surface flow to the frog
pond and permanent changes in surface
runoff to the frog pond would be unlikely.
Temporary impacts would last approximately
12 years.
4.10.7 Effects of Alternative D
Alternative D would fill or physically disturb a
total of 3.41 acres of wetlands. The tailings
facility would impact the same acreage (2.46
acres) as Alternative B. The projected
wetland types which would be impacted are
shown on Table 4.10.2, Wetland Direct
Impact Acreage. The location of identified
springs, seeps, and wetlands in relation to
the facilities footprint of Alternative D is
illustrated on Figure 4.10.3, Location of
Features Related to Wetland Impact
Classification - Alternative D.
4.10.8 Effects of Alternative E
Alternative E would fill or physically disturb a
total of 3.43 acres of wetlands. The tailings
facility would impact the same acreage (2.46)
as Alternative B. The projected wetland
types which would be impacted are shown
on Table 4.10.2, Wetland Direct Impact
Acreage. The location of identified springs,
seeps, and wetlands in relation to the
facilities footprint of Alternative E is
illustrated on Figure 4.10.4, Location of
Features Related to Wetland Impact
Classification - Alternative E.
A comparison of direct, indirect temporary,
indirect permanent, and possible wetland
impacts by alternative is displayed on Table
4.10.3, Wetlands Impacted by Mining
Operations. Temporary reductions in flow to
the nine-acre wetland would be similar to
Alternative B. There would be a temporary
66% reduction in the watershed area
contributing to surface flow to the frog pond.
Temporary impacts would last approximately
16 years. Long-term impacts would be
similar to Alternative B as long as final
reclamation of the north waste rock disposal
area directed a similar amount of flow to the
frog pond. Flows after reclamation would
depend on final reclamation slopes.
4.10.9 Effects of Alternative F
Alternative F would fill or physically disturb a
total of 0.90 acres of wetlands. The
component affecting the most wetlands in
this alternative would be the Starrem
Reservoir (0.57 acres). The tailings facility
would be in Nicholson Creek and would fill
0.22 acres of wetlands. The projected
wetland types which would be impacted are
shown on Table 4.10.2, Wetland Direct
Impact Acreage. The location of identified
springs, seeps, and wetlands in relation to
the facilities footprint of Alternative F is
illustrated on Figure 4.10.5, Location of
Features Related to Wetland Impact
Classification - Alternative F.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-104
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
A comparison of direct, indirect temporary,
indirect permanent, and possible wetland
impacts by alternative is displayed on Table
4.10.3, Wetlands Impacted by Mining
Operations. There would be slightly lower
temporary reductions in flow to the nine-acre
wetland than in Alternative B due to a
different location of the tailings facility.
There would be a temporary 78% reduction
in the watershed area contributing to surface
flow to the frog pond. Temporary impacts
would last approximately 39 years. Flows to
the frog pond after reclamation is completed
should be similar to premining conditions.
4.10.10 Effects of Alternative G
Alternative G would fill or physically disturb a
total of 5.40 acres of wetlands including the
frog pond (1.8 acres). The tailings facility, in
Nicholson Creek, would have the largest
component impact (2.52 acres). This
alternative, as a whole, encompasses the
largest area of disturbance to wetlands in
terms of total acreage and impacts from the
tailings disposal facilities. The projected
wetland types which would be impacted are
shown on Table 4.10.2, Wetland Direct
Impact Acreage. The location of identified
springs, seeps, and wetlands in relation to
the facilities footprint of Alternative G is
illustrated on Figure 4.10.6, Location of
Features Related to Wetland Impact
Classification - Alternative G.
A comparison of direct, indirect temporary,
indirect permanent, and possible wetland
impacts by alternative is displayed on Table
4.10.3, Wetlands Impacted by Mining
Operations. Temporary reductions in flow to
the nine-acre wetland would be similar to
Alternative B and would last approximately
16 years. The frog pond would be
permanently buried.
4.10.11 Waters of the United States
Under Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water
Act (CWA), guidelines have been
promulgated by the EPA at 40 CFR 230 for
evaluating discharges of dredged or fill
material into the waters of the United States.
Under the guidelines, no discharge of dredged
or fill material is permitted if there is a
practicable alternative which would have less
adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem.
For a project that is not water dependent,
practicable alternatives that do not involve
special aquatic sites such as wetlands are
presumed to be available, unless it is clearly
demonstrated otherwise. An alternative is
considered to be "practicable" if it is available
and capable of being completed, taking into
consideration cost, existing technology, and
logistics.
All comparisons and analyses of alternatives
are made in light of the proposed project's
overall purpose and need. Factors that must
be considered include environmental concerns
such as impacts to wetlands, aesthetics, land
use, water supply, and water quality as well
as economics and the public benefit to be
derived from the project.
The burden of proof to demonstrate
compliance with the Section 404(b)(1)
guidelines rests with the applicant; where
insufficient information is provided to
determine compliance, the guidelines require
that no permit be issued. This section
consolidates information on the impacts to
waters of the U.S. from the proposed Crown
Jewel Project.
Compensatory mitigation is required for
unavoidable adverse impacts which remain
after all appropriate steps have been taken to
avoid and minimize impacts. The final
assessment of compensatory mitigation
would be analyzed by the permitting agencies
and is outside the scope of this final EIS.
4.10.12 Location and Description of
Project Components Affecting
Waters of the United States
Seeps and springs, perennial and intermittent
streams, and wetlands occur in locations
throughout the Crown Jewel Project area. As
proposed, features of the Crown Jewel
Project that would directly impact Waters of
the U.S. include the water storage and supply
facilities; the tailings disposal facility; the
mine pit and the north waste rock stockpile;
access and haul roads; and a construction
materials borrow pit.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-105
The seeps and springs, streams, and
wetlands located in the Crown Jewel Project
area were investigated as part of the project
baseline environmental studies (A.G. Crook,
1993c).
Impacts to wetlands, springs, and seeps, are
displayed in Table 4.7.1, Summary of Total
Watearshed Disturbance for Action
Alternatives, and Table 4.10.1, Wetlands,
Springs, and Seeps Narrative Description and
Impact Classification. These effects are
further discussed in Section 4.6, Ground
Water, Springs and Seeps; Section 4.7,
Surface Water; and Section 4.11, Aquatic
Habitats and Populations. Components
considered for inclusion in the alternatives
and the reasoning for elimination from
additional analysis certain components is
discussed in Section 2.2, Project Components
and Options.
If development of an action alternative
occurs, compensatory mitigation in the form
of preservation, enhancement, restoration, or
creation of other wetlands would be required
prior to the impacts occurring. In some
instances, monitoring, with a contingency
mitigation plan, may be the required
mitigation. The Proponent has submitted a
document entitled Joint Aquatic Resource
Permit Application, dated March 22, 1996
which includes a Conceptual Wetland
Mitigation Proposal and 404(b)(1)
Alternatives Analysis support information.
Because no-final decisions have been made
regarding the adequacy of the current
mitigation proposal from the Proponent, it is
possible additional mitigation could be
required during the permit process.
Additional mitigation sites and mitigation
actions which have been mentioned by
regulatory agencies and may be explored
further are listed below. Some of the
suggested sites, upon further investigation,
would most likely be eliminated from further
consideration due to low mitigation value.
However, it is likely some of these measures
would be incorporated into the mitigation
plan.
• In-kind, in-drainage enhancement of
portions of Nicholson Creek or the Marias
Creek drainage down gradient of the
tailings impoundment as mitigation for
stream channel and riparian habitat losses
on Marias Creek, Nicholson Creek, and
Gold Bowl drainages. Additional acreage
at Bear Trap Canyon beyond the four acres
which are currently proposed has been
identified as a possible location. Other
potential locations could include the
wildlife mitigation sites: Cow Camp and
Lower Nicholson Creek. Actions
associated with enhancement could
include: planting upland/riparian/wetland
vegetation, placement of woody debris in
the channel to increase pools and escape
habitat, and/or installation of fencing or
strategic placement of down
trees/vegetation to prevent cattle access.
These actions could benefit aquatic,
riparian, and wetland resources and
support the productivity of the total
drainage system.
Because cattle access to water and stock
trails would be impacted, additional
measures such as new water sources and
adjustments to pasture boundaries and
fences could be needed.
In-kind, in-drainage creation of a new
stream channel in the Gold Bowl drainage
adjacent to the ore stockpile or Marias
Creek drainage adjacent to the tailings
impoundment, as mitigation for loss of
headwater stream channel and loss of
associated wetland and riparian areas on
Gold Bowl, Nicholson Creek and Marias
Creek drainages. Replacement of the Gold
Bowl drainage would occur as part of
reclamation. At present, information is
limited regarding post reclamation
hydrology, gradient, and adjacent
topography. These factors would affect
the extent of possible mitigation actions as
well as the functions and values of any
created channel. Actions associated with
creation would, at a minimum, include
those currently proposed. They could also
include, if feasible, creation of a
meandering channel with pool/riffle/
cascade sections, placement of appropriate
material for channel bed and banks,
creation of small wetland zones along the
channel, incorporation of woody debris,
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-106
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
planting of riparian/wetland vegetation to
stabilize banks, and installation of fencing
to prevent cattle access until vegetation is
successfully established. The objective of
these actions would be to primarily benefit
aquatic resources.
• In-kind, in-drainage creation of another frog
pond as mitigation for losses of wetlands,
springs and seeps on Buckhorn Mountain.
At present, no locations have been
identified; possible sites include the
proposed mill site (following reclamation),
lower Bear Trap Canyon Creek or along
Marias Creek below the junction with Bear
Trap Canyon Creek and lower Nicholson
Creek. Actions associated with creation
would be similar to those proposed at the
existing frog pond except that investigation
and drilling of a potential site to confirm
suitable hydrology, excavation of the
wetland, and planting would occur.
Diversion of adequate stream flow could
also occur. These actions could benefit
wetland resources by providing a water
source for wildlife and habitat for wetland-
dependent plant and animal species.
If creation of a wetland were associated
with or adjacent to an existing drainage,
hydrology of the drainage could be
changed.
• In-kind, off-site enhancement of additional
sections of Myers Creek or tributaries to
Myers Creek as mitigation for losses of
stream channel on Buckhorn Mountain
and/or as in-kind, on-site mitigation for
temporary losses of stream channel and
wetlands in Starrem Creek. At present, no
locations have been identified. Actions
associated with enhancement could be
similar to those at the proposed Myers
Creek wetland mitigation site, except that
installation of water level control structures
might not be included. These actions
could benefit wetland resources by
providing more wetland vegetation to
support wetland-dependent species.
Any actions associated with the stream
channel would need to be evaluated for
possible adverse effects to existing aquatic
functions.
• Off-site enhancement of land adjacent to
Myers Creek immediate south of the
Canadian border (currently proposed as a
mitigation site) as mitigation for losses of
riparian zone on Buckhorn Mountain.
Actions associated with enhancement
could include additional plantings of upland
vegetation in a designated buffer zone.
These actions could increase the functions
of the riparian zone and the transition zone
to upland.
Additional sites have been identified for
wildlife mitigation but have not been fully
assessed for potential wetland/stream/aquatic
resource mitigation. An example of those
sites and some of the current proposed or
possible mitigation associated with water
resources include:
• Cow Camp/Upper Marias Creek - In-kind,
in-drainage protection and enhancement of
Marias Creek, associated wetlands and an
unnamed drainage immediately
downstream of the Marias Creek tailings
impoundment site. Proposed actions could
include fencing to exclude livestock to
prevent degradation of riparian habitat on
the eastern portion of the site. Additional
actions could include revegetation with
wetland/riparian/ upland hardwood and
conifer trees and shrubs
• Lower Nicholson Creek - In-kind, in-
drainage protection of Lower Nicholson
Creek, proposed actions include repairing
fences to reduce degradation of riparian
habitats by livestock.
• Hungry Hollow (approximately eight miles
southwest of the mine site) - In-kind, off-
site enhancement and protection of a
stream on the site. Proposed actions
include: fencing to protect riparian
habitats, planting, water birch, and
stimulating the development of aspen
regeneration in riparian habitats.
4.10.13 Mitigation
Wetland mitigation sites would be monitored
per the 401 certificate issued by WADOE and
the 404 permit issued by the Corps of
Engineers. Wetland mitigation sites along
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-107
Myers Creek could also be monitored by
Okanogan County under the Growth
Management Critical Areas and Shoreline
permits. Wetland mitigation and monitoring
measures which would be required, are
presented in Section 2.12.16, Wetlands, and
Section 2.13.1, Water Resources Monitoring.
Some wetlands, on and adjacent to the
Crown Jewel Project site, would be
monitored for changes in wetland types,
functions, and area (i.e., frog pond and nine-
acre wetland (C1). As part of a contingency
plan, it would be possible to augment both
the nine-acre wetland and the frog pond
during operations and reclamation with water
from another source such as Myers Creek
(via the Starrem Reservoir). The monitoring
and mitigation plan prepared, as part of the
404 permit process, could include a set of
monitoring parameters (i.e., water depth,
flow, water temperature, transects of
vegetative communities, shallow piezometers,
timing for data collection) with numerical
thresholds which would trigger additional
mitigation. The timing, location, quantity,
and source of water augmentation would also
need to be identified.
A possible scenario for augmenting the frog
pond during the operation of the storm water
diversion ditches and sediment ponds could
include two steps: 1) in the spring, water
would be added to the frog pond, if needed,
during a two week period shortly following
the snowmelt period to bring the elevation of
the frog pond up to an agreed upon elevation
(i.e., average annual maximum elevation), and
2) in late summer, the frog pond would be
monitored and augmented to prevent it from
dropping below an agreed upon elevation.
The first measure would simulate surface
runoff that would be lost to the diversion
ditches; the second measure would prevent
the frog pond from totally drying up.
4.11 AQUATIC HABITATS AND
POPULATIONS
4.11.1 Summary
No short or long-term effects on fisheries
resources or other aquatic organisms from
the use of cyanide are expected.
Geochemical testing suggests that the
majority of material to be placed in the waste
rock disposal areas would have a low
potential to generate acid and leach metals.
Therefore, little or no short-term or long-term
impacts to water quality and aquatic
resources are expected from waste rock
disposal.
Short-term, local increases in turbidity and
suspended sediments are likely to occur
during initial construction, road
building/improvements and earth-moving
activities in the Marias and Nicholson Creek
drainages. Short-term increases in sediment
yield could result in short-term losses of
habitat. Sediment yields would be reduced
once construction was complete and all
mitigation measures were implemented.
With proper drainage and detention
structures, regulated by federal and state
standards, the risk of both short-term and
long-term impacts to fisheries would be low
for any of the action alternatives. However,
there could be limited short-term impacts due
to increases in sediment levels in local stream
segments due to reclamation activities and
road use.
Hydrologic processes in the headwater
streams of the Buckhorn Mountain area are
important to maintaining water quality,
quantity and timing of stream flow. Impacts
on headwater streams have the potential to
impact stream sediment and gravel storage
and/or transport. An finally, the headwater
systems play a part in organic material
recruitment and storage in the stream.
Changes in the hydrologic regime due to
changes to infiltration rates,
evapotranspiration, snow accumulation, snow
melt, in headwater streams may result in
higher winter and spring-runoff flows and
lower summer and fall stream flows.
An IFIM analysis was conducted to determine
the habitat/flow relationship for the
protection of rainbow trout spawning in
Myers Creek. (See Section 3.12.10,
Instream Flow Incremental Methodology and
Section 4.11.7, Instream Flow Incremental
Methodology.) The IFIM analysis
recommended that a minimum instream flow
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4- 1O8
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
during the rainbow trout spawning period
during the spring and early summer of the
year be 12 cfs in Myers Creek as measured
at the point of diversion into the Starrem
reservoir. The IFIM also determined that an
appropriate flow for brook and rainbow trout
winter habitat needs would be six cfs as
measured at the diversion point. As the
seven day average temperature in Myers
Creek rises to or over 6°C (42.8°F) in the
spring, the IFIM analysis recommended that
an interim minimum instream flow of nine cfs
would be appropriate to protect trout during
the period before the beginning of the
rainbow trout spawning period. When the
seven day running average stream
temperature of 8°C (46.4°F) was reached,
the minimum instream flow would increase to
the 12 cfs level. These recommendations
would be considered by WADOE when
making decisions on the water right
applications.
There is a possibility of cumulative impacts
as a result of increased sedimentation from
adjacent timber harvest and mineral
exploration activities. The extent of these
impacts would be based on the drainage and
sediment control practices implemented in all
activities, and specifically on the Crown
Jewel Project where it is planned for
sediment to be captured in the detention
ponds.
4.11.2 Effects of Alternative A (No
Action)
No direct, long-term effects to fisheries or
other aquatic organisms would be anticipated
from implementation of the no action
alternative since complete reclamation of
previous exploration activities would
commence as soon as weather permits.
Aquatic resources would be maintained at
current conditions.
4.11.3 Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives
Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Fish
Species
No threatened, endangered or sensitive fish
species are known to occur in Myers, Marias
or Nicholson Creeks or their tributaries. See
Section 3.12, Aquatic Resources, and
Appendix I, Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat
Biological Evaluation, for further discussion.
These streams are within the historic range of
the redband trout (prior to Euro-American
development).
Direct Effects
Potential effects by alternative vary only in
the potential impacts from a tailing
impoundment failure scenario and the use of
chemicals (different) in Alternative G than
other action alternatives. Variations in
potential effects are discussed separately for
each alternative. The effects of action
alternatives on the surface water resources
directly relates to potential impacts to the
fisheries resources. The effects of the action
alternatives on the surface water resources is
discussed in detail in Section 4.7, Surface
Water.
Hydrologic Regimes. Headwater streams play
a role in the hydrologic cycle. The
headwaters receive water from precipitation
and immediately release it or store it for later
release. The prolonged release of water aids
season-long base-flow lower in the drainage
as stream headwaters for each of the minor
tributaries flow toward the larger drainages of
Marias Creek, Nicholson Creek, Myers Creek,
or Toroda Creek. The stream headwaters for
drainages on Buckhorn Mountain generally
have adequate surface water flow to
influence channel shape.
Water quality is also enhanced by the storage
and release of water from the headwaters.
As water percolates through the soil, some
dissolved nutrients adhere to soil particles,
where the nutrients can be taken up by
growing plants. Any fine sediments in
overland flow become part of the soil profile
as the overland flow infiltrates into the
stream headwater area. Sediment from
overland flow draining directly into a surface
stream will settle quickly in the low gradient
stream reaches.
Water quality can be affected by the
mechanisms of soil infiltration, soil erosion,
and channel erosion and deposition. When
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4- 709
ground-disturbing activities reduce both soil
pore size and the rate water moves into the
soil, soil infiltration decreases. Soil
compaction resulting from ground disturbing
activities, increases water runoff. Changing
energy relationships of the slope (creating
steeper, more compacted slopes) reduces the
time water has to penetrate and can also
reduce infiltration; a fill slope such as on the
waste rock disposal areas or the cut banks on
a road that is steeper than the natural slope
gradients can produce this effect.
Soil erosion increases as additional water
(higher energy) concentrates on the slopes.
The increased soil/rock materials could
eventually be deposited in a stream channel.
If there was no sediment retention structures,
this would increase the streams sediment
load. Stream channel erosion, another major
source of sediment, may reduce water use by
aquatic organisms and fish.
Changes in the headwater site conditions can
change the infiltration rate or amount of
water released or stored. Excavation of the
headwater locations can increase the rate of
surface water flow from ground water seeps
and springs. Surface water flows would
likely occur over a shorter period and would
be higher during spring runoff and lower
during the summer and fall periods. The
impacts on lower reaches would be lower
summer and fall stream flows. Reduced
thickness of soil profiles resulting from
construction activities would reduce the
potential water quality improvement by water
moving through the surface soil profile.
Higher nutrient levels could occur. More
sediment would occur in lower stream
reaches as stream flow is concentrated into a
shorter period, and there is more water to
carry more sediment. There may also be
increased stream channel erosion in the
lower, steeper reaches with higher stream
flows. Impacts are more likely if several
headwater stream areas are impacted.
Potential impacts would be reduced if fewer
stream headwater areas are impacted.
Water quantity is impacted by
evapotranspiration (the total water loss from
the soil, including loss by direct evaporation
and by transpiration from plant surfaces).
Activities that reduce or increase vegetation,
a major user of water on the site, will change
water quantity. Diversions of surface water
also impact water quantity by reducing the
amount of water available as stream flows.
Changing snow accumulation and rate of
snowmelt by removing vegetation that could
intercept snow may slightly alter the timing
of stream flows. If greater amounts of snow
collect on the ground, and the rate of snow
melt declines, water has more time to
infiltrate into the ground. If greater amounts
of snow collect on the ground, but the rate of
snow melt increases, water may have less
time to infiltrate into the ground. These
conditions can be important at elevations
between 3,500 feet and 4,000 feet. Timing
of runoff shortens when construction
activities intercept relatively slow-moving
round water, changing it to more rapidly
moving surface runoff.
Several factors have the potential to directly
impact fisheries. These factors include:
• Water Quantity;
• Water Quality; and,
• Physical Habitat Loss.
Water Quantity. Reductions in stream flow
as a result of diversions can be directly
detrimental to both spawning and rearing
habitats for salmonids. Reduced stream flow
can impede or block both downstream fish
movements and adult upstream migrations,
increase water temperatures, and reduce
available rearing and spawning habitats.
A description of water quantity and the water
supply system, and associated direct effects
to surface water resources, including direct
loss or alteration of stream channel, are
discussed in Section 4.7, Surface Water.
Water intercepted in the mine pit area could
decrease the baseflow levels in fish-bearing
reaches of Nicholson Creeks by less than 5%
during mining. Reduction of less than 1 % is
predicted in Marias Creek upstream of fish
bearing waters during mining. Reduction of
4% to 6% is predicted in Nicholson Creek at
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-110
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
the upstream limit of fish-bearing waters
during mining with predicted baseflows
between 0.5 cfs and 1.0 cfs. Baseflow
reductions of 15% to 88% are predicted
during mining in the South Fork of Nicholson
Creek upstream of fish-bearing waters. This
reduction is the greatest at the headwaters
and decreases in a downstream direction. An
increase in flow ranging from 55% to 306%
to the South Fork of Nicholson Creek is
predicted after reclamation when flow from
the pit lake to Nicholson Creek is included.
However, instream impacts are not expected
to be substantial, since baseflow reductions
range from less than 0.01 cfs to 0.2 cfs in
the reach upstream of fish-bearing waters.
Predicted baseflow depletions in Nicholson,
Bolster, Gold and Ethel Creeks upstream of
fish-bearing waters are presented in Section
4.7, Surface Water. Baseflow provides the
majority of water during the low flow (dry)
season. Baseflow reductions occurring
during mining could be offset through
monitoring and supplementation with water
from Myers Creek.
The depletions of flows in these small
streams would not affect fish-bearing waters
of Myers Creek, due to the relatively large
amount of streamflow in Myers Creek in
comparison -to its tributaries. These
estimated decreases are less than normal
year to year stream flow variations. After
cessation of the pit dewatering operation and
after the open pit or underground mine
workings water levels reach equilibrium, the
hydrologic balance would return to a stable
condition, and the amount of water
intercepted would decrease to less than 2%
of flows in Bolster, Gold and Ethel Creeks at
their confluence with Myers Creek.
An estimated 25% to 30% decrease in spring
freshet stream flow could be realized at the
international border on Myers Creek due to
the proposed diversion. Impacts of this
diversion is based on the Proponent's
proposal to divert six cfs or less. However,
due to the timing of proposed diversions, few
environmental impacts should be seen during
the low flow periods. No new impacts to
fisheries resources are expected at low flow
conditions due to the proposed diversions and
the minimum flows established by the IFIM
procedure.
Flows of sufficient magnitude are necessary
to maintain channel integrity through the
transport and flushing of fine sediments,
nutrients and large organic debris. If too
much of the peak flows are taken, the
potential exists to reduce peak flows enough
as to not provide sufficient flows for the
purpose of channel maintenance, spawning
and rearing, aquifer recharge, and wetland
recharge. If aquifer and wetland recharge are
affected, this could cause reduced
streamflows in Myers Creek during the late
summer and the fall. The structures
proposed as part of the Myers Creek
wetlands mitigation site would trap sediment
thus reducing spawning gravels in this
section of the stream, but could possibly
reduce gravel embeddness downstream
increasing spawning there.
Decreasing stream flows to the point where
fisheries are impacted would violate the state
antidegradation regulations, WAC 173-201A-
070, RCW 90.22 and 90.54. Determination
of appropriate diversion amounts wouJd be
made through the water rights permitting
process.
Water Quality. Potential water quality
impacts from the spill of chemicals and fuels,
discharge of acidic waters, input of sediment
and increase in stream temperatures could
influence fisheries resources. The potential
effects on water quality are discussed in
detail in Section 4.7, Surface Water.
The impacts of chemicals and fuels on
aquatic resources depends on the magnitude,
proximity and timing of the reagent. These
potential impacts are more fully addressed in
Section 4.22, Accidents and Spills. Chemical
reagents and fuels are proposed for use to
varying degrees in all action alternatives.
While nearly all chemicals can have acute and
chronic effects, the chemicals that have the
greatest potential to adversely affect fisheries
include:
• Sodium Cyanide;
• Ammonium Nitrate;
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-111
• Cement/Lime; and,
• Petroleum Products.
Tank cyanidation is proposed for use to
process ore in all action alternatives except
Alternative G. Cyanide is an extremely toxic
chemical to aquatic organisms. Cyanide
rarely occurs freely in nature; but, when used
in mining operations, it often forms
complexes with other metals. These
complexes are often less toxic than free
cyanide, but dissociation to release free
cyanide can occur.
Cyanide achieves its toxicity by interfering
with cellular oxygen intake by organisms.
Lethal concentrations for fish are reached at
about 0.05 mg/l to 0.1 mg/l free cyanide
(Norris et al., 1991). Levels above 0.2 mg/l
are rapidly fatal for most fish species, and a
variety of sublethal effects have been
reported at lower concentrations (Nelson et
al., 1991). A level as low as 0.01 mg/l free
cyanide has been shown to inhibit the
swimming ability of fish (EPA, 1973).
Cyanide would be stored above-ground in
concrete containment structures, and the
tailings impoundment structures would be
designed, constructed, and operated to be a
closed-circuit facility. Therefore, the only
likely method for cyanide to reach stream
surface waters is through accidental spill.
Cyanide spills typically would occur as a
single, short-term event. If cyanide were to
reach a stream, lethal short-term effects to
fisheries and other aquatic organisms would
occur.
Depending on species, aquatic invertebrates
are generally less sensitive to cyanide toxicity
than trout. Acidity also increases the toxicity
to fish of metallic pollutants that are
generated by mining activities. Metals which
can bio-accumulate in fish tissue at relatively
high rates and pose health risks for
consumers, including predators of fish, are
mercury, cadmium, and lead. These metals
are not expected to increase in concentration
in the stream unless they are present in the
leachate and there is drainage from the
tailings facility. Other metals which may be
present above baseline concentrations but do
not bio-accumulate at rates that are
substantial health hazards to fish and other
aquatic organisms are silver, arsenic,
manganese, iron, and zinc. The potential for
these metals to be released to the surface
water is low.
Ammonium nitrate (in solid form) in relatively
low concentrations could cause lethal toxicity
to fish. The extent of the impact would
depend on the volume of solid material that
would actually reach the stream and dissolve.
Materials in solid form would generally be
less mobile in the event of a spill than liquids
and easier to clean up. Unless spilled directly
into surface waters, ammonium nitrate would
not likely impact streams and aquatic
resources.
Cement and lime could elevate the stream pH
(alkaline) to chronic toxicity levels for fish
and other aquatic organisms. The extent of
the impact would depend on the volume of
solid material that would actually reach the
stream. Similar to ammonium nitrate, cement
and lime are solids that are more easily
cleaned up than liquid spills.
Petroleum products exhibit both acute lethal
toxicity (short-term) and long-term sublethal
toxic effects on aquatic organisms (EPA,
1986). Accidents involving fuel spills could
result from transport of fuels to the site, or
accidental on-site spills. Diesel fuel is
extremely toxic to aquatic life by acting to
deplete oxygen. A major fuel spill could
rapidly contaminate Marias, Beaver, Toroda,
Myers, and/or Nicholson Creeks resulting in a
potential loss of salmonids, salmonid embryos
and other aquatic organisms. Fuel oil spills
would probably have a short residence time in
Marias or Nicholson Creeks due to their
gradients and velocities. The extent of
damage would be determined by the volume
and duration of the spill. A containment area
is planned for the on-site fuel storage
facilities, and spills to the environment are
unlikely. Comprehensive emergency spill
response is planned for both on-site and off-
site events.
Stream temperatures in Marias and Nicholson
Creeks may increase slightly in response to
timber harvest and resulting loss of canopy
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-112
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
cover in and adjacent to the Crown Jewel
Project area and from entrapment of water in
settling ponds and its eventual release. The
majority of the water in the Crown Jewel
Project area is present as ground and
subsurface water; therefore, temperature
elevations to the degree which could affect
salmonid survival are unlikely as a result of
mining operations.
Ore stockpiling, waste rock disposal, and
accidental spills pose the greatest risk of
toxic chemicals reaching the stream. The
tailings facility, in each action alternative, is
designed to be a closed-circuit system with a
double lined tailings impoundment (with a
leak detection facility) and a double lined
recovery solution collection pond downstream
of the constructed embankment.
Little or no short-term impacts to water
quality and fisheries are expected from ore
stockpiling. The potential long-term impacts
to fisheries are expected to be low.
Geochemical testing suggests that the
majority of material to be placed in the waste
rock disposals would have a low potential to
generate acid and leach metals. "Hot spots"
could occur locally in the waste rock disposal
sites. Monitoring of waste rock placement
and water discharged from the waste rock
disposal areas would be performed by the
Proponent as required by the regulatory
agencies.
Physical Habitat Loss. The stream
headwaters for the drainages on Buckhorn
Mountain also provide organic debris to the
channel. Smaller pieces of organic debris,
stems, twigs and leaves fall directly into the
headwater streams. Some of this material
may be transported down stream during the
highest seasonal flows. Some organic
material simply decomposes in place and is a
source of nutrients in the water supply.
Larger organic debris such as trees and large
limbs will stay on site, since there is not
enough stream flow to transport large
material. Larger organic material for down
stream reaches of the streams must come
from those locations. This larger organic
material decomposes, although probably at a
slower rate than the smaller material, and is
carried through the surface water system into
Myers Creek and/or Toroda Creek.
Modification of the stream headwaters may
slightly reduce the nutrient status of the
surface water flow further down stream, but
it will not affect the amount of larger organic
debris in the lower reaches of the stream.
The stream headwaters flow relatively low
volumes of surface water for most of the
year. The late summer and fall seasons often
have no surface flow. Spring snow melt can
increase surface water flow as the surface
soil profile is nearly saturated and seeps and
springs are supplying water. Even with the
largest flows of the season in moderately
defined channels, the relatively low channel
gradients keep stream energy levels low
enough to transport only small volumes of
sediment. Sediment is often stored behind
small and medium sized debris. The
headwater streams on Buckhorn Mountain are
not a major supplier of gravels that would be
used by downstream aquatic life. Most of
the downstream gravels are moved from
stream reaches where surface water flows
are large enough to carry the gravel some
distance, or are left in place as surface water
flow erodes the finer sediments and leaves
the coarser material.
Modification of the stream headwaters may
increase the rate of surface water flow from
the site. Higher water flow levels and
velocities will increase the channel erosion
and sediment transport at downstream
reaches. Some additional sediment may
move from the headwater reaches to lower
reaches if the small and medium debris is
cleared during construction activities.
Increases in sedimentation to streams from
ground disturbing activities can be
detrimental to the aquatic environment. A
review of the literature generally supports the
hypothesis that salmonid embryonic survival
declines in substrates as quantities of fine
sediment increase (Gill, 1994). Fine
sediments tend to reduce gravel permeability
and pore space, as well as, dissolved oxygen
in water available to embryos, thus
influencing incubation success. In addition,
fine sediment in deposits or suspension can
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page
reduce primary production and invertebrate
abundance and thus can affect the availability
of food within the stream. Low gradient
stream sections generally contain the highest
quality salmonid spawning and rearing
habitat. These are the most likely areas to
experience the greatest impact to habitat
from increased sedimentation.
Potential sedimentation impacts from surface
disturbance would vary among alternatives
depending on the area disturbed and the
potential for sediment to be transported to
streams. A description of surface
disturbance and subsequent sediment yield
increases is discussed in Section 4.7, Surface
Water.
The potential for silt and sediment loading in
Marias and Nicholson Creeks is high without
required sediment control measures;
however, due to the required control
measures, the probability is moderate to low.
Some permanent changes to stream channel
morphology are expected; but they would not
substantially change the functions or values
of the creek. During the construction
activities and initial removal and disposal of
waste rock, ample opportunity would exist
for erosional events, particularly during
snowmelt and storm water runoff, unless
adequate preventive measures are in place.
Regardless of measures taken, periods of
above ambient levels of suspended sediments
are likely to occur during initial construction,
road building/improvements, timber harvest,
and earthmoving activities in the Marias and
Nicholson Creek headwaters, especially
during episodic high water events. These
events would have the greatest risk of
violating the state turbidity standard for AA
waters of Washington State and contributing
sediment to the streams. With proper
drainage and sediment control structures, the
risk of long-term impacts to fisheries and
other aquatic organisms is low for any of the
action alternatives.
The probability of a tailings impoundment
structure failure is extremely low as
discussed in Section 4.4, Geotechnical
Considerations, and Section 4.22.2, Tailings
Dam Failure. Depending on the alternative
selected, a major tailings impoundment failure
could affect downstream fisheries. If the
tailings impoundment were to suffer a
catastrophic breach and the tailings were
transported to headwater streams, sediments
would impact stream habitats and cause
short-term reductions in fish populations and
aquatic organisms.
In the event of a tailings impoundment
failure, a clean-up program would be initiated.
The extent of such a program would depend
on the severity of the failure, the time of
year, the weather conditions, and flow
conditions in the stream(s). With prompt
program implementation, the potentially
impacted aquatic resources would be
expected to recover over a period of several
years. Time needed for recovery would
depend on future sediment supply and the
availability of flushing flows.
Macroinvertebrate populations would be
expected to quickly reestablish if affected.
Indirect Effects
Road use can be a major factor contributing
to sedimentation. Sediment concentrations
produced during periods of active road use
represent a combination of flushing of
accumulated material from the road and
movement of sediment being produced at the
time (Bilby et al., 1989). Reid and Dunne
found that heavily used roads contributed
substantially higher rates of sediment than
abandoned or lightly used roads (1984).
The amount of stream sedimentation resulting
from roads depends largely on the quality of
construction and maintenance. Roads
requiring surface aggregate reduced sediment
production by approximately 80% over un-
graveled road surfaces (Burroughs and King,
1989). Most project roads would be
graveled. Burroughs and King (1989) also
reported drastic reductions in sediment
production by treating cut and fill slopes with
erosion control measures such as, erosion
mats, chips, gravel, straw or hydromulch.
Mitigation measures outlined in Section
2.12.13.1, Erosion and Sediment Control,
require stabilizing road cuts and fills.
The acres of roads constructed is similar
between Alternative B, C, D, and E.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-174
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
Alternatives F and G construct about 25%
more roads than the other alternatives. The
miles of use would be the largest factor in
predicting stream sedimentation impacts from
roads. Alternative F, with complete
backfilling of the pit and only a north waste
rock disposal area, would have the highest
potential for stream sedimentation. This
would be followed by Alternative G with only
a north waste rock disposal area and the
need for off-site transport of the ore for
further refinement. This would be followed
by Alternatives B and E. Alternative D and
Alternative C would have the lowest potential
for road related sedimentation. With the
required mitigation measures, sedimentation
from roads should be low for all alternatives.
Increased recreational fishing pressure due to
human population increases in the area may
directly affect local fish populations. Fishing
is regulated by the WADFW.
Cumulative Effects
If one of the action alternatives is chosen,
there is a possibility of cumulative impacts as
a result of increased sedimentation from
adjacent timber harvest and mineral
exploration activities. The extent of these
impacts would be based on the drainage and
sediment control practices implemented in all
activities, specifically on the Crown Jewel
Project. The extent to which fisheries
resources would be impacted depends on the
magnitude, timing, and proximity of the
potential impact on fisheries habitat; the
cumulative impacts are expected to be low.
4.11.4 Effects of Alternatives B, C, D,
and E
A tailings impoundment failure could impact
about 2.6 miles of Marias Creek, of which
the lower 1.4 miles currently supports fish.
A tailings impoundment failure could also
impact approximately 300 feet of Nicholson
Creek. The potential impacts of a failure
scenario is discussed in Section 4.11.3,
Effects Common to All Action Alternatives.
4.11.5 Effects of Alternative F
A tailings impoundment failure could affect
two to three miles of Nicholson Creek below
the tailings structure of which 2.9 miles
supports fish. The potential impacts of a
failure scenario is discussed in Section
4.11.3, Effects Common To All Action
Alternatives.
4.11.6 Effects of Alternative G
Alternative G uses flotation rather than tank
cyanidation to process ore. Flotation
chemicals would be stored in the processing
facility under similar conditions as the
cyanide-related reagents. Chemical spills and
potential effects would occur through
pathways discussed in Section 4.11.3,
Effects Common To All Action Alternatives.
A tailings impoundment failure could affect
two to three miles of Nicholson Creek below
the tailings structure of which all but 0.3
miles supports fish; however, there would be
no cyanide concentrations in the flotation
tailings leachate. The potential impacts of a
failure scenario is discussed in Section
4.11.3, Effects Common To All Action
Alternatives.
4.11.7 Instream Flow Incremental
Methodology (IFIM)
Myers Creek supports a brook trout and
rainbow trout fishery. Water diversion by the
Proponent to the Starrem Reservoir during the
late winter, spring, and early summer would
reduce the flow in Myers Creek. The
Proponent has proposed to divert up to 650
acre-feet of water under a new water right
during the period from February 1 until July
31 each year. This diversion is proposed to
not exceed six cfs. This schedule of
diversion would allow for the capture of a
portion of the spring runoff under a wide
range of highly variable runoff patterns.
Habitat requirements for brook and rainbow
trout were evaluated using a technique
known as Instream Flow Incremental
Methodology (IFIM). The results of the IFIM
study show that a six cfs flow, or the natural
flow if less than six cfs, needs to be
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-115
maintained in Myers Creek in order to protect
winter habitat for juvenile and adult rainbow
and brook trout. This instream flow level
was then compared to typical winter flow
levels, and found to be higher than the
average flow levels of four cfs. An instream
flow of six cfs was found to also protect
brook trout eggs that are deposited in the
gravels in the fall, incubate over the winter,
and emerge from the gravels the following
spring. An instream flow of six cfs provides
rearing habitat for rainbow and brook trout
throughout the winter, but the IFIM results
indicate that brook trout habitat is
incrementally increased with creek flows up
through 30 cfs. (See Figure 4.11.1, Myers
Creek Winter Rearing WUA Rainbow and
Brook Trout.) Protection of rainbow trout
spawning in the spring or early summer
requires a minimum flow of 12 cfs.
Table 4.11.1, Proposed Water Diversion
Schedule for New Myers Creek Water Right,
summarizes the adaptive management plan
agreed upon for minimum instream flows on
Myers Creek. Impacts to instream resources
would not be expected to result from water
diversion given the establishment of minimum
instream flows. These instream flows would
apply to any new water rights.
4.11.8 Forest Service Inland Native
Fish Strategy
In 1995, the Forest Service published an
interim strategy for protecting native inland
fish habitats and populations in the Northern,
Intermountain, and Pacific Northwest regions
of the National Forest (Forest Service,
1995a). This strategy is in the form of
riparian management objectives, standards
and guidelines, and monitoring requirements.
Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCA)
would be delineated on all streams in each
National Forest; until this occurs, default
RHCA widths are defined for fish-bearing
streams; perennial non-fish bearing streams;
ponds, lakes, reservoirs and wetlands greater
than one acre; and, intermittent streams and
small wetlands. The last three categories of
RHCA exist on the Crown Jewel Project site.
The proposed siting of ore stockpiles, tailings
facility, and associated roads under various
alternatives would encroach on the standard
RHCA boundaries in the upper Nicholson
Creek, upper Marias Creek, and the Gold
Bowl drainages.
The RHCA strategy presents standards and
guidelines for management of timber, roads,
grazing, recreation, minerals and mining, as
well as general management and riparian and
stream restoration. The standards for roads,
minerals and mining specify siting, monitoring
and mitigation criteria. The standards require
siting all structures, support facilities and
roads outside of RHCAs. If no alternative
exists to locating mine wastes (waste rock,
spent ore, tailings) facilities in RHCAs, and
releases can be prevented and stability can
be ensured then:
• Analyze the waste material using the best
conventional methods and analytic
techniques to determine its chemical and
physical stability characteristics.
• Locate and design the waste facilities
using the best conventional techniques to
ensure mass stability and prevent the
release of acid and toxic materials. If the
best conventional technology is not
sufficient to prevent such releases and
ensure stability over the long-term, prohibit
such facilities in Riparian Habitat
Conservation Areas.
• Monitor waste and waste facilities to
confirm predictions of chemical and
physical stability, and make adjustments to
operations as needed to avoid adverse
effects to inland native fish and to attain
Riparian Management Objectives.
• Reclaim and monitor waste facilities to
assure chemical and physical stability and
revegetation to avoid adverse effects to
inland fish, and to attain the Riparian
Management Objectives.
• Require reclamation performance securities
(bonds) adequate to ensure long-term
chemical and physical stability and
successful revegetation of mine waste
facilities.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-116
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES January 1997
Diversion Period
1 February - 31 July
7-day running mean temperature
<6°C3
After 1 April
7-day running mean temperature
>6°C but <8°C3-*
After 1 April
7-day running mean temperature
>80C3.5
Minimum Instream Flow2
6 cfs
9 cfs
12 cfs
Fish Species/Lifestage
Brook trout and rainbow trout
habitat, brook trout incubation
of Interest
winter rearing
Transition flow
Rainbow trout spawning
TABLE 4.11.1, PROPOSED WATER DIVERSION SCHEDULE
FOR NEW MYERS CREEK WATER RIGHT
Notes: 1. This water diversion schedule was agreed upon during the IFIM process by representatives of WADFW,
WADOE, British Columbia Ministry of Fish and the Environment, and Canadian Department of Fish and
Oceans.
2. Measured immediately downstream of diversion structure.
3. Hourly water column temperature would be monitored and mean daily water temperature (MDWT) would
be used to evaluate water temperature conditions. MDWT would be used in calculating a 7-day running
mean temperature. When the 7-day mean temperature exceeds the indicated threshold, the appropriate
flow regime would be implemented the next day. 7-day mean temperature is proposed for consistency
with other fisheries programs (e.g. INFISH, PACFISH).
4. When the 7-day mean temperature meets or exceeds 6°C, the minimum instream flow downstream of the
diversion would be increased to 9 cfs. If the 7-day temperature drops below 6°C prior to 1 April, the
minimum instream flow would revert to 6 cfs. After 1 April, should the 7-day mean temperature drop
below 6°C, the minimum instream flow requirement would not revert to 6 cfs.
5. After the 9 cfs transition flow is implemented, the 7-day running mean temperature would continue to be
monitored. When the 7-day running mean temperature meets or exceeds 8°C, the 12 cfs flow regime
would be implemented on the next day. Once the 12 cfs instream flow requirement is implemented, it
would remain the instream flow requirement until 31 July.
The plans delineated for all action alternatives
present an approach consistent with the
RHCA guidelines.
4.12 WILDLIFE
Potential beneficial and adverse effects on
wildlife likely to result from the
implementation of the action alternatives are
addressed below. The Crown Jewel Project
Wildlife Technical Report (Beak, 1995a)
provides methods, assumptions, detailed
analyses of potential wildlife impacts, and
cites information used in the assessment
process.
This section is organized into eight
subsections:
• Summary;
• Habitat Effects;
• Land Use/Disturbance;
• Toxics;
• Cumulative Effects;
• Forest Plan Compliance;
• Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive
Species; and,
• HEP.
The period of analysis spans 100 years, the
amount of time estimated to reestablish
young mature forest structure and function
on reclaimed areas. Impacts to wildlife could
occur through the direct, indirect and
cumulative effects of construction, operation,
maintenance, and reclamation activities
associated with each of the proposed mining
alternatives. The area! extent of the impact
analysis is defined by the analysis area, core
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-117
area, and footprint (see Section 3.13,
Wildlife).
The analysis area (approximately 70,752
acres) defines the land base for evaluating
cumulative effects and addressing wildlife
species with large home ranges (i.e., grizzly
bear, gray wolf and California wolverine).
The core area (approximately 10,925 acres)
is a subset of the analysis area that includes
all proposed facilities for all alternatives; the
transmission, transportation, and water
pipeline corridors; Starrem Reservoir; and
potential zones of influence as described in
Section 3.13, Wildlife.
The footprint, a subset of the core area,
varies with each alternative and consists of
disturbed and undisturbed areas within the
perimeter fence boundaries or a 200 foot
buffer around Project facilities, whichever is
farther.
It is assumed that proposed mining activities
would directly affect all wildlife within the
footprint (e.g., loss of habitat) and some
wildlife within the core area (e.g., reduced
habitat effectiveness due to noise). Indirect
effects on wildlife would only occur outside
of the footprint within the core and analysis
areas.
4.12.1 Summary
The action alternatives would result in both
short-term and long-term impacts to wildlife.
Proposed reclamation plans and mitigation
measures would eventually restore wildlife
habitat, but not to the same quality or
quantity as pre-disturbance condition.
Therefore a net loss to wildlife may occur.
The magnitude of the impact to wildlife
would be a function of the size and duration
of habitat loss; changes in land use,
disturbance, and noise; and the risk of
exposure to toxic substances.
The net adverse impact to wildlife (following
reclamation and mitigation) would be greatest
under Alternative F and least under
Alternative C. Alternative F would have
substantial impacts due to the duration of
habitat loss (33 years), the duration of noise
and other mining related disturbance (33
years) and the lengthened risk of exposure to
potential toxics (16 years). Alternative C
would have the least impact of all action
alternatives due to the short Project life (six
years), and having the smallest area impacted
(990 acres). Alternative E would impact the
largest amount of acres (1,484 acres)
followed closely by Alternative G (1,418
acres) and Alternative F (1,369 acres).
Alternative B would impact 1,280 acres, a
lesser amount than Alternatives E, G and F
due primarily to having steeper waste rock
reclamation slopes which result in smaller
waste rock disposal areas. Loss of wildlife
habitat therefore occurs in all action
alternatives. While some of these impacts
would be permanent (e.g., the pit), others
would be reversible (e.g., loss of forest
habitat).
Impacts to wildlife would continue after
operations cease and for some time following
revegetation when early succession cover
types (e.g., grass, shrub) prevail. Species
preferring early successional cover types are
expected to be among the first colonizers of
reclaimed slopes. However, species requiring
mature forest and associated components
(e.g., snags, tree size, density) would be
impacted until the structure (e.g., multi-
storied stands, snags) and function (e.g.,
hiding cover, thermal regulation, snow
intercept cover) of mature interior forests is
realized. The likelihood that mature forest
structure and function would be achieved on
the reclaimed mine sites would be reduced
by: a loss of soil productivity on reclaimed
lands; and the permanent conversion of some
forest habitat to grass, shrub, and open
forest (e.g., pit creation, some waste rock
slopes).
The Crown Jewel Project would result in a
net loss of wildlife productivity after
implementation of reclamation and mitigation.
Mature forest capable of providing deer SIT
cover would take over 100 years to grow
back. While this habitat and function could,
to some degree, be regrown on-site, the
interim (100 year period) loss of productivity
would not be compensated for even when
the resource has recovered.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-118
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
Artificial light and glare from the facility is
expected to have a negative effect on wildlife
and wildlife habitats in the Project area, but
beyond the mine footprint these impacts are
expected to be minor. An increase in wildlife
roadkill on roads serving the facility would
result from an increase in traffic volume and
speed (based on road improvements). The
impact would be greatest under Alternative F
based on the Project duration, and under
Alternative G based on a traffic volume nearly
twice as great as the other alternatives. The
supply route under Alternatives B, D, E, and F
would pass by Beth and Beaver Lakes, which
contain habitat for federal candidate and
Forest sensitive species. This presents a
potential risk to these species from an
accidental spill of toxic substances. All
action alternatives would result in a decrease
in the suitability and effectiveness of habitats
adjacent to transportation routes; though
implementation of proposed road closures
would result in a long-term decrease in the
density of roads in the core area compared to
current levels. There would be little
difference in road density between
alternatives. However, based on Project
duration, under Alternative F it would be
considerably longer before habitat
effectiveness could be restored and the full
benefit of reduced road density achieved.
Noise from activities associated with Project
implementation would result in disturbance to
wildlife in habitats beyond the mine footprint
under all action alternatives. Up to 5,600
acres beyond the mine footprint could be
affected. Alternative F would pose the
greatest risk of noise disturbance to wildlife
because of the 33-year duration of
operations, which includes blasting in the
open pit mine for 16 years. Alternatives B, E,
and G also include open pit mines and above-
ground blasting (including during
reclamation), but the duration would be
limited to ten years. Alternatives C and D
would have the lowest risk of noise
disturbance to wildlife because of the shorter
duration of Project operation and the
comparatively minor amount of surface
blasting required.
The number of residential dwellings in the
area would increase due to the expected
increase in local population. An increase in
recreational use (including hunting) of the
analysis area would also be expected. The
increase in population, with associated
adverse effects to wildlife habitat, would be
greatest under Alternatives C and D.
However, the overall indirect impact on
wildlife and wildlife habitat due to these
types of impacts is expected to be minor.
For all action alternatives considered, the
tailings pond would present a low risk of
population-level impacts for bats, shorebirds,
and passerines. This is supported by
mitigation (such as wildlife hazing or
additional detoxification measures) that
would be implemented if cyanide levels in the
supernatant exceed 40 ppm at the tailings
discharge monitoring site. The risk to raptors
and waterfowl would be negligible. There
would be a negligible risk to mammals,
amphibians and reptiles based on proposed
mitigation to fence the tailings pond with
material that would exclude access to non-
flying wildlife, including small animals. The
risk of toxic impacts to wildlife would be the
greatest under Alternative F due to the longer
Project life (16 years of processing). The
degree of impact anticipated would be similar
for the other cyanide-based alternatives
(Alternatives B, C, D, and E) because the
tailings disposal process would be the same
and the duration of potential exposure would
range between five and nine years.
Alternative G, the xanthate-based alternative,
is assumed to have similar toxic impacts to
wildlife because there are no data to support
a different conclusion at this time. The risk
of an accidental spill of sodium cyanide,
ammonium nitrate, cement/lime, or petroleum
products along the supply route is low.
However, if a spill into Toroda, Myers or
Beaver Creeks did occur similar to the
hypothetical spill scenarios described in
Section 4.12.4, Toxics, the concentrations of
toxics would be acutely lethal to aquatic life
at the spill site and downstream. Impacts to
terrestrial wildlife would vary between taxa
depending on exposure and vulnerability to
toxic substances. Conservative modeling of
projected metals levels in the pit lake indicate
that metals (such as mercury and silver) may
pose a toxic threat to fish and aquatic
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-119
invertebrates, but pose negligible risks to
terrestrial species.
Forest Plan compliance was assessed by
comparing anticipated wildlife impacts to
relevant standards and guidelines prescribed
in the Forest Plan. Most noncompliance
determinations result from proposed actions
that would reduce habitat already below
threshold levels. The greatest number of
noncompliance determinations (11) would
occur for Alternative E. The fewest
noncompliance determinations of the action
alternatives (3) would occur under Alternative
C. None of the action alternatives (B through
G) would fully comply with the Forest Plan
which is why this Project would require a
Forest Plan Amendment (see Section 1.6,
Okanogan Forest Plan Consistency, and
Figure 2.1, Management Prescription 27).
4.12.2 Effects of Alternative A (No
Action)
With Alternative A (No Action), existing land
management and other activities (e.g., forest
management, recreation, livestock grazing)
would be expected to continue. Any impacts
to wildlife and wildlife habitat associated with
these activities would continue. Reclamation
of the mineral exploration site would be
implemented as soon as weather permits
following a decision of no action (see Section
2.4, Alternative A - No Action Alternative, for
a description of proposed reclamation), and
would be completed within one year.
Reclamation of the exploration sites would
result in impacts to wildlife and wildlife
habitat. Existing early serai vegetation would
be altered to remove roads and drill pads, and
restore natural site contours. Wildlife would
be subjected to disturbance from increased
human presence and noise. However, the
primary impact from reclamation would be
beneficial (i.e., the restoration of coniferous
forest habitat). Restored habitat would
undergo serai progression from a grass/forb
state in the first ten years to young mature
forest habitat after 80 to 100 years. Wildlife
use would vary over time depending upon the
suitability of the various serai stages for
individual species. Road density within the
exploration area would be reduced following
reclamation of exploration roads. Road
density in MA 14-19 would go from 37.3
miles/square mile to 3.0 miles/square mile.
Road density in MA 25-16 would go from 2.7
miles/square mile to 2.5 miles/square mile.
All other road densities would remain
unchanged.
4.12.3 Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives
This section addresses the effects of the
proposed mining activities on wildlife habitat,
and the implications of habitat loss on wildlife
species. The Crown Jewel Project Wildlife
Technical Report (Beak, 1995a) contains
detailed analyses of habitats and wildlife
species that form the basis for some of the
discussions in the final EIS.
Habitat Effects
Habitat analysis is a standard approach used
to assess the impacts of land management
activities on wildlife. Habitat relates the
presence of a species to the physical (e.g.,
slope, aspect and elevation) and biological
(e.g., plant composition and cover) attributes
of the environment (Block and Brennan,
1993). These attributes can be delineated as
cover types, areas of land or water with
similar characteristics. Once the landscape is
delineated as a group of cover types, the
relationship between the occurrence of cover
types and the presence of various wildlife
species can be determined. This relationship
can be used to assess whether or not a
certain species is likely to occur in a
particular area. If such an area is likely to be
altered by the proposed mine, it is possible to
assess whether the loss or change in cover
types would influence wildlife species
occurrence.
The types of direct habitat effects that could
potentially affect wildlife can be categorized
according to the following factors:
• Landscape connectivity;
• Size of the footprint;
• Duration of operation;
• Decline in forest productivity;
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-120
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
• Time (short and long-term) for reclamation
and mitigation to become effective; and,
• Permanent habitat conversions.
These six factors form the basis for the
analysis of habitat impacts, and are explained
in their respective subsections below.
Landscape Connectivity. The analysis area
for the Crown Jewel Project includes a
portion of the northern Okanogan Highlands,
one of several mountain ranges that form
peninsular extensions from Canada and
provide forested landscape links between
northern Washington and British Columbia.
These forested links serve as north-south
movement corridors for species (e.g.,
American marten) that use interior forest
habitat for travel (Hatler, 1988; Hatler, 1989;
Weaver, 1993).
Mining activities would affect wildlife
travel/dispersal patterns within the footprint.
Many wildlife species demonstrate seasonal
and dispersal movements within and beyond
their home ranges (e.g., black bear, mule
deer, lynx, many small mammals). Potential
travel routes have been identified by the
Forest Service (1993) in portions of the core
and analysis areas based upon presence of
forest stands at least 400 feet wide with at
least 50% canopy cover and containing trees
with an average diameter of 9 inches or
larger.
Buckhorn Mountain and the headwaters of
Marias and Nicholson Creeks, which occur in
the western portion of the analysis area, are
located on identified movement corridors
(Forest Service, 1993a). This western
portion of the analysis area is highly
fragmented from past and ongoing land
management activities. The proposed mine
.footprint would further fragment wildlife
habitats in this area, and decrease the
likelihood that interior forest species would
move along affected corridors. The affected
corridors include the ridgeline running
north/south away from Buckhorn Mountain;
the adjacent upper watershed of Nicholson
and Marias Creeks; a corridor running east-
west between the headwaters of Nicholson
and Marias Creeks and the Gold Bowl; and a
corridor running north-south along the north
fork of Nicholson Creek.
The eastern portion of the analysis area,
including the unroaded Jackson Creek
drainage, is characterized by larger blocks of
contiguous mature conifer forest dissected by
east-west oriented drainages. This portion of
the analysis area would not be physically
altered (i.e., fragmented) by the proposed
mine and would still contain functional travel
corridors, thereby increasing its importance
for interior forest species. Proposed road
closures in the Marias Creek drainage would
also facilitate animal movements due to
decreased human disturbance.
Size of Footprint. The greater the amount of
habitat impacted by physical alteration
(construction of Project facilities) and
disturbance, the greater the potential impact
would be to wildlife. Loss of habitats or
changes to their physical structure,
vegetation composition or spatial
configuration (e.g., fragmentation) would
reduce or alter the capacity of the habitat to
support wildlife. This analysis assumes that
the mine footprint would have no habitat
value for wildlife during operations, a result of
the physical alteration of habitat and the
effects of disturbance from mining activities.
Some habitat in the footprint would be
physically removed or covered during
construction and operation. Other habitat
between facilities would be physically
present, but would, to a large extent, not be
used by wildlife due to a variety of
disturbance factors such as noise, human
presence, light and glare.
The footprints (the area within the perimeter
fence or a 200 foot buffer around facilities,
whichever is farther) of the action
alternatives range in size from 990 acres to
1,484 acres, Table 4.12.1, Status of
Reclamation Within the Alternative
Footprints. The existing habitat in these
footprints varies from highly disturbed areas
such as roads and areas of past mining
activity to relatively undisturbed forest,
shrub, and grassland cover types.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-121
TABLE 4.12.1, STATUS OF RECLAMATION WITHIN THE ALTERNATIVE FOOTPRINTS
Reclamation Treatment
Permanently Unreclaimed
Reclaimed to Grass, Shrub, or Open Forest
Reclaimed Long-Term to Fully Stocked Stand1
Actual Facility Impact2
Recovered Short-Term3
Total Footprint Size4
Acres by Alternative
B
97
188
502
787
493
1,280
C
11
55
349
415
575
990
D
60
112
386
558
518
1,076
E
77
220
631
928
556
1,484
F
0
221
596
817
552
1,369
G
97
181
615
893
525
1,418
Notes: 1 . Fully stocked stand (i.e., 200 to 300 trees per acre at young mature stage, less than 1 2 inch dbh).
Young mature forest achieved in 100 years.
2. Actual facility impact was taken from summary tables in Chapter 2, Alternatives Including the
Proposed Action, of the EIS.
3. Habitat within the footprint not physically altered by facilities which would regain wildlife habitat
value at Project completion and reclamation.
4. Land area within a 200 foot buffer from facilities. Actual facility impact, when added to habitat
recovered short-term, add up to total footprint size.
Sources: Footprints were digitized from WADFW (1995) alternatives maps of footprints. Reclaimed and
unreclaimed areas were digitized using information from proposed reclamation plans for facilities
(BMGC, [1993b] Reclamation Plan; Forest Service, |1994b] Reclamation Schemes and Key for
Alternatives C through G).
Table 4.12.2, Loss of Cover Types (Acres) in
the Core Area by Alternative, summarizes
cover type losses during operations from the
proposed mining alternatives. The footprints
would contain proposed'facilities and
unaltered patches of habitat between the
facilities. The area of habitat which would be
physically lost to facility construction ranges
from 415 to 928 acres, Table 4.12.1, Status
of Reclamation Within the Alternative
Footprints. Although patches of trees,
shrubs, and grass would remain within the
various footprints, noise disturbance and
human presence would render these habitats
unsuitable during operations for most wildlife.
Areas not physically altered during operations
would regain wildlife habitat value following
reclamation for species that benefit from
forest fragmentation or habitat edge (e.g.,
brown-headed cowbird). Unaltered, isolated
habitats would be unsuitable for at least 100
years following reclamation for species that
require large contiguous tracts of habitat
(e.g., northern goshawk, California wolverine)
or stands sufficiently large to provide security
cover (e.g., Pacific fisher).
Duration of Operation. The longer the period
of mine operations, the longer the time
interval when impacts to wildlife would
occur. The duration of the action alternatives
varies from six to 33 years. As previously
discussed, habitat which occurs within the
footprints is assumed to have no value for
wildlife during operations. Therefore, a net
habitat loss would occur during the period of
operations until post-closure reclamation and
mitigation activities are completed. The
creation of open water habitat at Starrem
Reservoir may provide a beneficial impact
(e.g., waterfowl resting area) for some
species; however, potential value is lowered
due to the fluctuating water level and the
lack of wetland or riparian vegetation around
the reservoir. The implementation of
mitigation measures proposed during
operation on areas outside of the footprint
(e.g., road closures) would benefit wildlife.
Various off-footprint impacts could directly
influence wildlife habitat quality during the
period of operation. Off-footprint operational
impacts include alteration to ground and
surface water of the creeks and drainages on
Buckhorn Mountain (i.e., Marias, Nicholson,
Ethel, Bolster and Gold Creeks), and on
Myers Creek. A temporary reduction in mean
annual flow in the upper parts of several
creeks (e.g., Nicholson and Marias,
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-122
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
TABLE 4.12.2, LOSS OF COVER TYPES (ACRES) IN THE CORE AREA BY
ALTERNATIVE
Cover Type
Upland Grassland
Bottomland Grassland
Shrub
Early Successional Conifer
Mixed Conifer Pole
Mixed Conifer Mature
Deciduous
Riparian/Wetland
Lake/Pond (Open Water)
Agriculture
Total
Existing
Condition
1,675
107
96
905
2,175
4,479
39
887
106
456
10,925
Alternative
B
230
20
13
118
139
650
<1
110
0
0
1,280
C
190
15
9
92
101
501
<1
82
0
0
990
D
186
15
10
117
132
524
<1
92
0
0
1,076
E
238
17
19
155
181
738
<1
133
3
0
1,484
F
224
7
9
182
187
639
<1
118
3
0
1,369
G
247
7
9
204
195
626
<1
127
3
0
1,418
depending on the alternative) could reduce
the extent of wetlands and riparian
vegetation downstream of the footprints (see
Section 4.10, Wetlands, for additional
discussion). Within the zone of influence,
wetlands along Marias and Nicholson Creeks
could take on riparian characteristics as drier
conditions prevail during operations; and
existing riparian vegetation may revert to
upland habitat.
Alteration of the hydrology at the frog pond
may reduce the open water component of the
pond during operations. Existing wetland
vegetation in the center of the frog pond
would likely remain, but wetland habitat
along the perimeter could convert to riparian.
Hydrology of the frog pond would be partially
restored following completion of reclamation
activities by augmenting flows to the frog
pond with the exception of Alternative G.
Wetlands along portions of Myers Creek
could benefit from the water regime proposed
to operate the mine. If water from the Leslie
Ranch water rights are allowed to remain in
Myers Creek between the point of the current
diversion and the proposed diversion for
Starrem Reservoir (depending on Water
Rights Permits), then wetlands along this
reach of Myers Creek may be enhanced.
However, diversion may negatively impact
wetland recharge and the annual charging of
the Myers Creek water table below the point
of diversion. This may affect late season
flows.
Decline in Forest Productivity. The Forest
Service (Soderquist, 1994) estimates that
reclaimed mine lands would suffer a long-
term reduction in soil productivity on the
order of 10% to 15% because the landscape
would be converted to bedrock covered with
stored topsoil. Declines in soil productivity
on reclaimed lands would contribute to
declines in both plant and wildlife habitat
productivity. Ways to regain site productivity
(e.g., conservation of topsoil, microbial
inoculation, addition of organic material or
fertilizer) are identified in the Proponent's
reclamation plan, including a proposal to
establish test plots during mine operation
(BMGC, 1993b). Modification of reclamation
activities based on test plot results should
improve reclamation success. Nonetheless,
the likelihood of completely replicating the
properties and processes of the existing
forest soil ecosystem (e.g., the nitrogen,
phosphorus, and water cycles that naturally
occur in the subsoil, soil, humus and duff of
non-mined forested land) is not known, but
would not be expected within the 100-year
analysis period.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-123
The projected reduction in soil productivity
would result in a commensurate reduction of
plant productivity. A loss of plant
productivity results in reduced wildlife habitat
quality and productivity. More than 100
years would be required to develop mature,
productive soil horizons, organic matter and
surface structure (e.g., down logs, humus)
necessary to achieve rates of plant growth,
vegetative structure and composition that are
considered optimal for the site. Since soils
and plants are major components of wildlife
habitat, wildlife habitat productivity on the
mine footprint that is a product of mature
structure and function could not be fully
restored to pre-mine levels during the 100-
year period of impact analysis.
This loss of habitat productivity would vary
across the reclaimed footprint, as well as by
alternative as shown on Table 4.12.1, Status
of Reclamation Within the Alternative
Footprints. For example, tailings dam and
waste rock disposal areas with slopes greater
than 2H:1V are areas where it would be
difficult to replicate the nitrogen, phosphorus
and water cycles of the forested habitats that
currently exist.
Time for Reclamation and Mitigation to
Become Effective. The potential benefits to
wildlife from two reclamation plans were
considered, the Proponent's reclamation plan
for Alternative B, (BMGC, 1993b) and the
Forest Service (1994b). It was assumed that
reclamation as proposed would be successful
based on experience at other mines. The
extent of natural regeneration of forested
species on altered lands has not been
quantified, but was considered the same for
all alternatives. However, the descriptions of
habitat restoration reflect reclamation as
proposed.
As part of mine reclamation, various facilities
(e.g., waste rock disposal area) would be
covered with stockpiled soil and then seeded,
fertilized, and replanted. Normal physical and
biological processes on these reclaimed sites
would be substantially altered for an
undetermined amount of time. A very
simplified environment would exist following
reclamation. The complex soil ecosystem
containing various organisms that occur in
the humus and duff of the current forest
ecosystem would not reestablish on
reclaimed lands for many years. Soil
inoculation proposed in the Proponent's
(BMGC, 1993b) reclamation plan would
reintroduce some micro-flora and micro-fauna
earlier than would be expected under natural
succession. Unlike successional development
that typically occurs following farming or
timber harvest, the reclaimed sites would lack
key organic components of the soil (i.e.,
humus and duff) to facilitate secondary
succession. The Proponent's (BMGC, 1993b)
reclamation plan proposes to accelerate
organic decomposition and humus/duff
development to replicate natural forest
succession. Nonetheless, it is estimated that
an additional 20 years would be required for
reclaimed areas to reach a pole or young
mature forest (less than 12 inch dbh) cover
type as compared to growth following timber
harvest, Table 4.12.3, Comparison of Forest
Succession on Buckhorn Mountain Under
Reclaimed and Natural Scenarios. Simplified
grassland and shrub habitats would develop
on restored lands within a few years of
reclamation. However, much more than 100
years following mine closure would be
necessary to establish mature habitat
conditions characterized by well-developed
vegetative structure (e.g., snags, down logs,
rich humus layer, multi-layered canopies). In
comparison to the other action alternatives,
mining activity associated with Alternative F
would delay completion of reclamation on the
waste rock disposal areas and pit area 23
years longer than the other action
alternatives.
Early successional communities on reclaimed
lands (e.g., grass/forb) would support a
variety of wildlife which use disturbed sites
(e.g., juncos, deer). However, the time
necessary to create later successional
structural habitat would take many years.
For example, up to 21 % of avian species in
the analysis area excavate cavities in trees or
use cavities excavated by other species. It is
unlikely that trees suitable for such cavities
would be present on reclaimed lands during
the first 60 years following reclamation. The
time required to reach the later stages of
succession represents an ongoing impact to
those species that utilize the structure of a
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-124
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
TABLE 4.12.3, COMPARISON OF FOREST SUCCESSION ON BUCKHORN MOUNTAIN
UNDER RECLAIMED AND NATURAL SCENARIOS
Scenario
Succession on
Reclaimed Lands1
Natural Forest
Succession2
Forest
Characteristic*
Tree Diameter
(inches)
Tree Age
(years)
Tree Diameter
(inches)
Tree Age
(years)
Mean Stand
Height
Trees Per Acre
Cover Ty
Gran
Forb
0- 10
0- 10
Early
Succemlonal
<5
11-35
<5
11-20
5 feet - 20
feet
Mixed Conifer
Pole
5-9
36- 60
4- 9.4
21 - 40
Age 35 = 49 feet
191
pes
Mixed Conifer
Young
9-12'
60- 1001
9.4- 12.0
41 - 80
Age 45 = 53 feet
Age 75 - 72 feet
191 - 258
Mature
12 + 1
100 + '
12.0 + 1
81 +'
Age 85 = 75 feet
258 +
Notes: 1 . Extrapolated from Forest Service projections (Forest Service, 1 994b|.
2 Data for site index = 70 and site class = V, from: Chambers, C.J., 1989. Empirical Growth and Yield Tables for the Douglas
Fir Zone. WADNR Report No. 41 .
mature forest system. Although later serai
stages would ultimately be achieved on
reclaimed lands planted with conifers, this
would not replace the loss of habitat during
the period required to grow mature cover
types. This ongoing loss would be in addition
to the 10% to 15% reduction in forest
productivity described above. Mitigation
proposed to create snags in nearby forested
areas, outside of the mine footprint, would
partially replace snag habitat lost from mining
activities.
Permanent Habitat Conversions. Proposed
mining alternatives would result in a variety
of permanent changes to existing habitat,
Table 4.12.1, Status of Reclamation Within
the Alternative Footprints. Under
Alternatives B, D and G, a pit would remain
after reclamation, converting an area of
existing disturbed forest (i.e., the exploration
area) into rocky pit walls, talus slopes and
open water. A net loss of habitat for species
which utilized the exploration area would
remain after implementation of proposed
reclamation and mitigation. The pit lake
might eventually provide drinking water for
wildlife and waterfowl resting habitat.
However, water in the pit lake may be
unsuitable for use by fish and aquatic
invertebrates. The pit wall and associated
talus would be designed to provide nesting
habitat for raptors and possibly provide
roosting habitat for bats in crevices. Roads
into the area that are upgraded and
maintained would also represent permanent
conversions of habitat. Mitigation, such as
closures and obliteration of existing roads,
could partially compensate for such
permanent conversions.
4 Water availability within the zone of influence
and above the new ground water surface
would be reduced. Local wetland and
riparian communities would likely convert to
cover types adapted to drier conditions. The
tailings facility would permanently convert
riparian/wetland habitat to drier forest,
although wetlands mitigation would partially
compensate for losses.
Indirect effects. Indirect effects on wildlife
habitat would result from secondary
development. The level of impact would
depend upon the amount and type of habitat
(e.g., mature coniferous forest, riparian,
wetland areas) modified or developed into
residential, commercial, or other human uses.
A few acres of habitat could be lost near
Chesaw, and some wildlife could be
displaced. However, the potential indirect
effects to wildlife from secondary
development would be minor.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-125
Comparison of Habitat Loss by Alternative
Alternative B would directly impact
approximately 787 acres of wildlife habitat,
and render unsuitable the remaining areas
within the mine footprint (Table 4.12.1,
Status of Reclamation Within the Alternative
Footprints). The actual facility impact (787
acres) and footprint size (1,180 acres) would
be less than Alternatives E, F and G. The
main difference contributing to lower impact
acres with Alternative B in comparison to
Alternatives E, F and G is that Alternative B
proposes steeper reclamation slopes which
result in smaller waste rock piles. The
advantage of smaller waste rock piles is that
less existing habitat gets covered over. The
disadvantage of steeper slopes on portions of
the reclaimed sites, is that reclamation site
conditions are more challenging than the
slopes considered most favorable to achieve
successful reclamation (3H:1V). For
example, the small proportion of steep
(2H:1 V) south facing slopes are not likely to
support a fully stocked forest. However, the
revised Proponent's reclamation plan now
proposes higher stocking levels that would
result in fully stocked stands with higher
canopy closures in areas with favorable site
conditions. Higher canopy closures are
required to create future snow intercept
thermal cover for deer. Permanent habitat
loss (97 acres) would be the same as under
Alternative G, and would occur in the
proposed pit area. Operational impacts to
wildlife would occur over a ten-year period,
intermediate between the minimum operation
period of six years (Alternative C) and the
maximum of 33 years (Alternative F).
Alternative C would result in the least impact
to wildlife habitat due to its short six-year
period of operations (the shortest of all
alternatives) combined with underground
mining operations which would reduce
surface disturbance. This alternative would
produce the least physical alteration of
habitat (415 acres of actual facility impact),
the smallest amount of habitat conversion
(55 acres) from fully stocked forest to
grass/shrub/open forest, and only 11 acres of
permanent habitat loss.
Alternative D would result in a moderate
impact to wildlife habitat as compared to the
other alternatives. Duration is relatively short
(eight years) and operations would be similar
to Alternative C in that part of the mining
activities would take place underground. The
additional surface mining would cause more
actual facility impact (143 additional acres for
a total of 558 acres), more habitat conversion
(112 acres total) and more permanent habitat
loss (60 acres total) than Alternative C. The
longer duration (eight instead of six years)
would also contribute to greater impacts to
wildlife.
Alternative E would result in the largest
actual facility impact (928 acres) of the
action alternatives. Habitat conversion to
grass/shrub/open forest (220 acres) would be
considerable, due to difficulty of plant growth
on the south-facing aspect of the south
waste rock disposal area. Permanent habitat
loss would total 77 acres and duration of
operational impacts would extend for ten
years.
Alternative F would result in the highest net
adverse impact to wildlife habitat, primarily
due to the long duration of operations (33
years, the longest of the action alternatives).
No permanent habitat loss would occur
because of complete back-filling of the mine
pit and subsequent reclamation (with the
exception of unreclaimed roads). Actual
facility impact of 817 acres would be less
than Alternatives E and G. However the time
that habitat would be lost due to mine
operations combined with the added time
until reclamation efforts are successful results
in high cumulative impacts to habitat.
Habitat conversion from fully stocked forest
to grass/shrub/open forest (221 acres) would
be sizeable (similar to Alternative E).
Alternative G would result in an overall
impact to wildlife habitat similar to
Alternative E. Actual facility impact would be
large (893 acres) but not as large as under
Alternative E. Permanent habitat loss (97
acres) would be the same as Alternative B.
Habitat conversion to grass/shrub/ open
forest (181 acres) would be much less than
Alternative B, and duration of operational
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-126
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
impacts (ten years) would be moderate (the
same as Alternative B).
The implications of these findings are that
Buckhorn Mountain and the core area would
sustain long-term and permanent habitat loss
or conversion under any of the action
alternatives. Mature wildlife habitat in the
core area would sustain more than 100 years
of alteration. Identified landscape corridors
within the footprint area would be further
disrupted thereby compromising its ability to
serve as a movement corridor for wildlife.
Net impacts to wildlife habitat would remain
after implementation of the proposed
reclamation and mitigation measures.
Impacts to mature conifer forest would
contribute to a cumulative loss of deer winter
habitat in the core area.
Effects of Habitat Loss on Wildlife Species
Wildlife species exhibit a range of responses
to habitat conditions. Species like the willow
flycatcher, three-toed woodpecker or boreal
owl have habitat needs that are only provided
by one or two cover types. Other species
such as mule deer and Yuma myotis bats are
able to meet at least part of their life
requisites from most cover types present in a
landscape.
A detailed assessment of the predicted
impacts of the mining alternatives to over 40
wildlife species is presented in the Crown
Jewel Project Wildlife Technical Report (Beak,
1995a). Loss of habitats identified as
important to these species (see Section 3.13,
Wildlife) are displayed in Table 4.12.4,
Impacts to Habitat Within the Core Area by
Selected Wildlife Species and Alternative. A
summary of the impacts to species
representative of the cover types contained in
the core area follows. This analysis assumes
that the mine footprint would have no habitat
value for wildlife during operations, a result of
the physical alteration of habitat and the
effects of disturbance from mining activities.
Loss of upland grassland cover type ranges
from 186 acres (Alternative D) to 247 acres
(Alternative G), as shown on Table 4.12.2,
Loss of Cover Types (Acres) in the Core Area
by Alternative; impacts are comparatively
similar for all alternatives. These losses are
not considered substantial for species which
use this cover type, such as the vesper
sparrow and Columbian sharp-tailed grouse.
Habitat loss would be short-term under
proposed mining alternatives, and primarily
associated with construction of Starrem
Reservoir. Upland grassland habitat at the
reservoir site would be restored following
reclamation.
Bottomland grassland losses vary from seven
acres (Alternatives F and G) to 20 acres
(Alternative E). Habitat impacts are
comparatively similar for all alternatives, and
are not considered substantial for species
that use bottomland grassland habitat. The
long-billed curlew is an example of a species
that uses bottomland grassland habitat. Loss
of potential habitat for the curlew would be
short-term because bottomland grassland
habitat would be restored following
reclamation.
Losses of shrub cover type range from nine
acres (Alternatives C, F and G) to 19 acres
(Alternative E), and would impact species
such as the orange-crowned warbler. These
habitat impacts would be similar for all
alternatives. Shrub habitat would be regained
after reclamation. No substantial impacts
would occur to species which use shrub
habitat because of the small acreage
impacted.
Early successional conifer losses due to the
mining alternatives range from 92 acres under
Alternative C to 204 acres under Alternative
G. Impacts to wildlife habitat are relatively
similar for the action alternatives. No
substantial impacts would be expected for
species which use early successional conifer
habitat because this cover type is relatively
abundant (905 acres) in the core area and no
species depends exclusively on this habitat.
Loss of mixed conifer pole cover type ranges
from 101 acres (Alternative C) to 195 acres
(Alternative G). Alternatives E, F and G
would cause the largest losses of this cover
type and would have relatively more impact
on species that use mixed conifer pole
habitat. However, these habitat losses are
not considered substantial because no
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
1
I
(41)
(14)
(15)
(16)
(51)
(12)
(14)
(22)
(14)
(12)
(25)
(7)
(11)
(12)
(12)
(12)
(9)
(14)
(14)
(o
I
I
i
I
-------
1
1
n
•»
9
TABLE 4.12.4, IMPACTS TO HABITAT WITHIN THE CORE AREA BY SELECTED WILDLIFE SPECIES AND ALTERNATIVE3
Wildlife Species and Habitat
Pacific Fisher potential
preferred
avoided
California Wolverine suitable
North American Lynx travel2
foraging2
denning2
non-cover2
Townsend's Big-Eared foraging
Bat
potential roost trees
Olive-sided Flycatcher suitable
Loggerhead Shrike foraging & breeding
Long-Billed Curlew potential nesting
Col. Sharp-Tailed riparian/wetland
Grouse
grassland/shrub
Northern Goshawk nesting
potential post-fledgling/
family area
foraging
Existing Conditions
Acres
(unless
specified)
5065
1388
794
4479
3607
254
13
2873
6654
3538
4479
467
467
185
467
614
2491
5065
Percent
of Core
Area
46
13
7
41
33
2
<1
26
61
NA
41
4
4
2
4
6
23
46
Alternative B
Acres
Impacted
778
320
570
650
489
35
4
448
789
493
650
72
72
12
72
143
435
778
Percent
Change
(+ or -)
(15)
(23)
(72)
(15)
(14)
(14)
(30)
(16)
(12)
(14)
(15)
(15)
(15)
(61
(151
(23)
(17)
(15)
Alternative C
Acres
Impacted
565
216
418
501
322
17
3
306
6O2
351
501
72
72
12
72
146
271
565
Percent
Change
(+ or-l
(11)
(16)
(53)
(11)
(9)
(7)
(23)
(11)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(15)
(15)
(6)
(15)
(24)
(11)
(11)
Alternative D
Acres
Impacted
591
203
794
524
386
30
3
272
656
359
524
72
72
12
72
139
310
591
Percent
Change
(+ or -I
(12)
(15)
(100)
(12)
(11)
(12)
(23)
(13)
(10)
(10)
(12)
(15)
(15)
(6)
(15)
(23)
(12)
(12)
Alternative E
Acres
Impacted
794
278
663
708
533
40
3
518
889
549
708
72
72
12
72
145
476
833
Percent
Change
<+ or-l
(16)
(20)
(84)
(16)
(15)
(16)
(23)
(18)
(13)
(16)
(16)
(15)
(15)
(6)
(15)
(24)
(19)
(16)
Alternative F
Acres
Impacte
d
728
162
722
639
515
4B
3
526
826
363
639
72
72
12
72
102
420
728
Percent
Chang*
(+ or-l
(14)
(12)
(91)
(14)
(14)
(19)
(23)
(18)
(12)
(10)
(14)
(15)
(15)
(6)
(15)
(17)
(17)
(14)
Alternative Q
Acres
Impacted
721
145
734
626
547
55
3
558
821
424
626
72
72
12
72
79
429
722
Percent
Change
(+ or -I
(14)
(10)
(92)
(14)
(15)
(22)
(23)
(20)
(12)
(12)
(14)
(15)
(15)
(6)
(15)
(13)
(17)
(U)
Notes: 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 ().
i
•*
a
§
I
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-129
species depends exclusively on this cover
type, and mixed conifer pole is abundant
(2,175 acres) in the core area.
Mixed conifer mature losses for the life of the
Project, including old-growth habitat, vary
between 501 acres under Alternative C and
738 acres under Alternative E. These losses
represent a substantial impact to species that
occur in mature and old-growth habitats (e.g.,
three-toed woodpecker, pileated woodpecker,
blue grouse, barred owl, boreal owl, Pacific
fisher and northern goshawk). Several
species would experience a greater than 20%
reduction in mixed conifer mature habitat in
the core area, including the three-toed
woodpecker (nesting) (Alternatives B, D, E, F
and G), blue grouse (all alternatives) (winter
habitat) and barred owl (nesting) (Alternatives
B and E). Alternatives B, C, D, and E would
remove up to 24% of the existing goshawk
nesting habitat. Following reclamation,
adequate levels of nesting and post fledgling
family area (PFA) habitat exists to support a
nesting pair of goshawks. During the life of
the mine, any birds potentially nesting in the
area would be displaced due to disturbance.
Additional losses of snow intercept thermal
cover in the core area would occur with all
alternatives ranging from 28 acres
(Alternative G) to 55 acres (Alternative E).
Snow intercept thermal cover is a critical
habitat component of deer winter range in the
Okanogan Highlands. Existing low levels of
snow intercept thermal cover would be
further reduced. The opportunity for existing
stands to grow into replacement snow
intercept thermal cover would also be delayed
as a result of habitat alteration of earlier
successional stages. Consequently,
additional losses would increase the already
substantial fragmentation of this important
habitat structure and further reduce the
ability of the Buckhorn Mountain area to
support wintering deer. Deer are the principal
prey for some of the larger predators
occurring in the analysis area, as well as an
important game species for hunters.
Riparian/wetland cover type losses range
from 82 acres (Alternative C) to 133 acres
(Alternative E). Such losses are considered
substantial for all alternatives. Permanent
loss of riparian/wetland habitat important for
spotted frog, winter wren, ruffed grouse and
great gray owl would occur in Marias Creek
under Alternatives B, C, D and E. Permanent
loss of riparian/wetland habitat for these
species would occur in Nicholson Creek under
Alternatives F and G. Losses of habitat for
the spotted frog would cause loss of
productivity, but is not considered significant
because the species is well distributed in
riparian/wetland habitats across the analysis
area. This loss is partially compensated by
wetlands mitigation required as part of the
401 and 404 permitting process (Clean Water
Act).
A comparison of alternatives shows that
Alternatives E and G would cause the largest
short-term losses of cover types, Table
4.12.4, Impacts to Habitat Within the Core
Area by Selected Wildlife Species and
Alternative. Alternative E would cause the
largest loss of shrub cover type (19 acres)
and mixed conifer mature cover type (738
acres). Alternative G would result in the
largest losses of upland grassland cover type
(247 acres), early successional conifer (204
acres), and mixed conifer pole (195 acres).
All cover types occurring in the footprint
would be recovered to some extent in the
long-term following reclamation and
mitigation.
Land Use/Disturbance
Light and glare, roads, and noise are aspects
of disturbance associated with the proposed
mine activities that would result in direct
impacts to wildlife and their habitat. Few
studies have quantified the impacts of these
factors on wildlife.
Light and Glare. The presence of artificial
lights has the potential to affect wildlife in
both beneficial and harmful ways. Artificial
light can attract insects (prey for birds and
bats). The negative effects on wildlife
include disorientation (potentially affecting
migratory birds), changes in foraging behavior
and efficiency (potentially affecting insects
and bats), changes in daily rhythms
(potentially affecting birds and small
mammals), and even direct mortality due to
collisions or changes in the behavior of
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-130
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
predators {such as bats and owls) (Hocklin et
al., 1992). Artificial illumination may render
habitats unsuitable for those species
intolerant to artificial light.
Under all action alternatives, illumination
would be provided in localized areas for
nighttime mining activities (e.g., waste rock
dumping, rock crushing, drilling). Necessary
lighting would be directed toward the work
areas, although some light would be
reflected above the facilities. Little direct
light is expected to be emitted beyond the
boundary of the footprint, other than light
from nighttime vehicle traffic on roads.
Consequently, light and glare are not
expected to pose a substantial adverse
impact to wildlife or wildlife habitat beyond
the mine footprint. There would be little
difference in the level of artificial illumination
between alternatives, with the exception of
Alternatives C and F. Under Alternative F,
only the milling facility would operate at
night, thereby minimizing the light level
expected to be emitted from within the mine
footprint. The duration of this alternative;
however, would result in nighttime
illumination over 16 years, nearly twice that
of the other alternatives. Under Alternative
C, mining operations would be conducted
underground and much less waste material
would be moved to the disposal areas, thus
the need for outside lighting would be
reduced.
Wildlife-Power line Interactions. Wildlife
along transmission line rights-of-way may be
exposed to human activity on access roads,
metal towers and conductors. The corona
noise produced by low voltage transmission
(e.g., 115 kv), does not appear to disturb
nesting birds (Ellis et al., 1978). However,
wildlife mortality may result from the
transmission conductors and support
structures themselves, primarily from bird
collisions. This has been well documented
for many species (Thompson, 1978),
including the ring-necked pheasant (Krapu,
1974), ducks and geese (Stout and Cornwall,
1976; Anderson, 1978; Faanes, 1987),
sandhill crane (Walkinshaw, 1956), and
numerous migrating birds (Thompson, 1978).
Electrocution hazards on power lines greater
than 88 kv can occur, but Project design
would minimize that potential. Reference
Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on
Power Lines, the State of the Art (Olendorf et
al 1981).
Power transmission corridors and support
towers may also have beneficial effects for
wildlife. Deer, elk and bighorn sheep may
benefit from additional food plants found
along power line corridors (Taber et al.,
1973). Ravens, eagles, hawks and other
birds may use support towers as nest sites.
Towers may also provide supplemental roost
sites, foraging perches, and congregation
areas for birds. All action alternatives have
the same power supply system and the
effects are common to all.
Roads. Wildlife injury and death is expected
to directly result from increased traffic
volume on the roads servicing the mine (i.e.,
County Roads 4895, 9495, and 9480, and
Forest Road 3575-120). Information on the
current frequency of wildlife roadkills on
these roads is not available. Current daily
traffic levels range from five vehicles (County
Road 4895 and Forest Road 3575-120) to
259 (County Road 9480) (see Section 4.17,
Transportation). An increase of 89 to 160
vehicle trips per day is expected on these
roads during operation (depending on
alternative). The greatest increase in traffic
levels would be during Project construction.
Due to the expected increase in traffic
volume on these roads, wildlife fatalities
would be expected to at least double over
current levels. Nonetheless, the overall
incidence of roadkill would likely be low.
Deer, rodents, rabbits, small mammals,
snakes, frogs, and birds would probably be
the most common species affected.
The increase in traffic levels would vary (89
to 154 ADT) between Alternatives B, D, E,
and F on County Road 9495, County Road
9480, County Road 4895, and Forest Road
3575-120. The impacts under Alternative F;
however, would occur over the proposed 33-
year Project duration. The employee
transportation route for all alternatives is the
same as the supply route for Alternatives C
and G (County Road 9480 to Chesaw,
County Road 4895, and Forest Road 3575-
120). Alternative C and G routes do not pass
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-131
by Beth and Beaver Lakes, substantially
reducing the risk of a spill into these lakes
which provide habitat for the black tern (a
species of concern) and the common loon (a
Forest Service, Region 6 sensitive species).
Habitat suitability for some wildlife would be
reduced in areas adjacent to roads. Although
the proposed access routes are currently in
use, additional declines in the suitability of
habitats adjacent to the roads are expected to
occur due to increased traffic volume,
vehicular noise and nighttime traffic. The
extent of additional loss of habitat suitability
from Project traffic is unknown. Habitat use
by big game may decline within up to 0.5
mile from roads (Perry and Overly, 1977;
Rost and Bailey, 1979). Road densities
exceeding one mile per square mile are
reported to have negative effects on wolves
(Frederick, 1991).
The current road density and the Project road
density in the core area is estimated to be
greater than six miles per square mile. Road
closures during and after Project completion
would reduce densities to less than four miles
per square mile for all action alternatives in
the core area. This road density would likely
be maintained until the end of monitoring.
However, many of these roads would only be
open to administrative traffic. Under
Alternative F it would be longer before this
reduced level of overall road density would be
achieved.
Noise. The evaluation of potential noise
impacts to wildlife is based on analyses and
data provided in the Baseline Noise
Monitoring Report (Hart Crowser 1993a) as
described in Section 4.13, Noise. A
summary of the noise levels and impacts is
presented in Table 4.13.1, Comparison of
Noise Impacts for All Alternatives. As
described in that section, the noise analysis
summarizes the worst-case expected sources
and levels of noise for the action alternatives.
Although noise levels can be measured and
predicted, the impacts of noise on wildlife are
largely unknown, and assessment of impacts
remains subjective. Wildlife are receptive to
different sound frequency spectrums, much
of which may be inaudible to humans.
Furthermore, different species of wildlife, or
individuals within the same species, may
respond in dissimilar ways to increases in
sound pressure level, or changes in the
nature of sound. The potential effect
depends upon the nature of the noise
(continuous or impulse), the sound pressure
level increase above background, the
behavior of the species (related to season and
time of day), the level of wildlife use of the
area, and the tolerance of the species or
individual.
Some species are known to habituate to
types or levels of noise. Wildlife are most
likely to habituate to noises that are steady or
continuous, or frequently occur (e.g., traffic,
rock dumping, rock crushers, operation of
heavy equipment). Wildlife which do
habituate to noise often show an initial period
of avoidance. Wildlife are less likely to
habituate to sudden, infrequent impulse
noises such as from blasting. Generally,
noise has the greatest potential to adversely
affect wildlife during breeding, nesting,
hibernation, denning, roosting, or other
critical life functions. For example, noise may
cause raptors or other birds to flush from
nests, leaving young or eggs exposed to the
elements or predators. Noise may disrupt
hibernating or denning animals (e.g., bats,
bear, frogs), resulting in abandonment of the
site, increased stress, reduced energy
reserves, or death from exposure. Noise
disturbance may reduce foraging time and/or
increase energy expenditures (e.g., due to
fleeing or flushing).
Noise levels decrease from a source over
distance. The actual rate of reduction,
however, varies due to factors such as
vegetation, topography and atmospheric
conditions. All action alternatives would
disturb wildlife over a substantial area beyond
the mine footprint, particularly at night (with
the exception of Alternative F) when ambient
noise levels are lower. An increase of ten
decibels is considered substantial enough to
result in detrimental impacts and is
considered a conservative estimate of the
level which could potentially affect wildlife.
Under normal conditions, a three-decibel
change in noise level (a doubling of sound
pressure level) is barely detectable to the
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-132
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES January 1997
human ear, a five-decibel change is
considered to be readily noticeable, while a
ten decibel increase (judged by most people
to be twice as loud) represents a substantial
increase (Bruel and Kjaer, 1984; USDOT,
1980; Bottorffetal., 1987). Because
animals vary in their response to noise, it is
not possible to estimate a single displacement
distance that applies to all wildlife. Published
studies for big game suggest that
displacement from noise may range from
0.125 to 0.5 mile (Ward, 1985; Ferguson
and Keith, 1982; Perry and Overly, 1977;
Rost and Bailey, 1979).
Increased noise levels expected during Crown
Jewel Project construction, operation, and
reclamation would result in direct, short-term
impacts to wildlife in proximity to the Project
footprint. Wildlife avoidance due to noise
from construction and operation of the
proposed Project would result in the
displacement of individuals into areas where
noise levels are lower. Since operation of the
Project would occur year-round, the potential
impact of noise disturbance would affect
both resident species (e.g., Northern
goshawk, Myotis bats) and those occupying
the area seasonally (e.g., black tern, common
loon, orange-crowned warbler, vesper
sparrow). The expected impacts to wildlife
would vary by alternative based on the type
and location of facilities (e.g., crusher, mine,
stockpiles, quarries). However, there are
some similarities (see Section 4.13, Noise).
Under all alternatives, mining activities would
take place 24 hours per day (except
Alternative F), with heavy equipment and
truck operation being the primary noise
sources. Noise associated with upgrading of
the transmission line would occur over
approximately one month. Maintenance of
the transmission line would require minimal
effort resulting in negligible noise disturbance
to wildlife.
Project construction, to be completed within
one year, is expected to result in noise levels
of 90 dBA (Leq) at 100 feet (see Section
4.13, Noise). This would generally be a
constant noise from the operation of heavy
equipment (e.g., graders, bulldozers, trucks).
Project operation would also result in a
constant noise from on-site activities.
Operation is expected to produce a noise
level of 100 dBA (Leq) at 100 feet (see Table
4.13.4, Noise Sources Used for Modeling).
The expected noise levels for construction
and operations represent worst-case
predictions for the proposed activities.
Blasting, the loudest potential noise source of
all Project activities, is estimated to be 105
dBA at 100 feet (based on surface-delay
blasting; see Section 4.13.4, Effects of
Alternative B). Blasting would likely
represent the greatest potential for noise
disturbance to wildlife associated with the
mine.
The noise analysis (see Section 4.13, Noise)
indicates that daytime noise levels would
exceed ambient noise levels by greater than
10 dBA during summer operation over an
estimated area of 1,250 acres beyond the
footprint (see Figure 4.13.2, Modeled Noise
Results: Continuous Operation, Summer,
Prevailing West Wind). During winter,
approximately 70 acres of habitat beyond the
footprint would potentially be affected during
the daytime by operation noise. Nighttime
operations would substantially exceeded
ambient noise levels over approximately
5,200 acres outside the mine footprint during
the summer (see Figure 4.13.2, Modeled
Noise Results: Continuous Operation,
Summer, Prevailing West Wind) and 1,260
acres during the winter (see Figure 4.13.4,
Modeled Noise Results: Continuous
Operation, Winter, Prevailing East Wind).
Blasting (which would occur only during
daytime) would result in adverse noise impact
to an area of about 5,600 acres beyond the
footprint in the winter (see Figure 4.13.5,
Modeled Noise Results: Blasting, Winter, East
Wind) and 2,900 acres beyond the footprint,
in the summer (see Figure 4.13.6, Modeled
Noise Results: Blasting, Summer, West
Wind).
The predicted extent of noise impacts to
wildlife, as described above, is based on the
implementation of Alternative B. Noise levels
are expected to exceed ambient and
adversely impact wildlife over as much as
5,600 acres (based on blasting during the
summer). The noise levels would range from
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-133
105 dBA in the mine pit attenuating to 55
dBA on the periphery marking the boundary
where a ten decibel level change would
occur. These impacts would extend over a
period of ten years. Potential impacts would
be the same under Alternative E, based on
similarities in the mine facilities and
configuration. Both alternatives include
above-ground mine pits, and would include
blasting during reclamation.
The overall noise level from the operation of
Alternative C is expected to be similar (only
one decibel louder) to Alternative B, but
limited to the six-year Project life. The slight
difference is attributed to the above-ground
crushing operation and three ventilation fans.
While some surface blasting would be
necessary, it would occur only during Project
construction and operation, and would be
minimal compared with the other action
alternatives. Noise from underground
blasting would be quieter than that for
surface blasting. Based on these
considerations, the potential for disturbance
to wildlife under Alternative C would be less
than Alternatives B, E, F, and G.
Alternative D would be similar to Alternative
B. Less surface blasting would occur during
operation due to the underground mine
component, but would be included during
mine reclamation. The duration of potential
impacts would be eight years. Based on
these considerations, the potential for
disturbance to wildlife under Alternative D
would be less than Alternatives B, E, F, and
G.
Under Alternative F, mining and reclamation
activities would take place during 12-hour
daytime shifts, with noise levels from
operation and blasting similar to Alternative
B. However, the duration of the entire
Project would extend over 33 years, including
16 years of reclamation (backfilling). Only
the milling facility would operate at night
(approximately 85 dBA at 50 feet), thereby
minimizing potential nighttime noise impacts
to wildlife and wildlife habitat. No blasting is
proposed during reclamation, and the overall
noise levels during reclamation would be
slightly lower than operation levels estimated
for Alternative B (see Section 4.13, Noise).
Alternative F is expected to result in the
greatest potential disturbance to wildlife and
wildlife habitat based on duration.
Noise levels during operation under
Alternative G are estimated to be slightly
lower (one to two decibels) than Alternative B
based on the use of fewer exhaust fans at
the milling facility. However, transport of ore
from the facility would result in greater truck
traffic along the transportation corridor. As
with Alternatives B, E, and G, surface
blasting would occur during operation and
reclamation of the open pit mine, and noise
impacts would be expected over the ten-year
Project life.
Indirect Impacts
Human presence, secondary land use or
development, and changes in the level of
hunting and trapping are indirect effects of
the Project which would impact wildlife and
wildlife habitats.
Human Presence. At most, a 2% increase in
human presence in Okanogan and Ferry
Counties is projected during mine
construction and operation. Impacts to
wildlife associated with this increase would
occur to some degree throughout the analysis
area where workers, their families and
domestic animals would reside and recreate.
The primary indirect impact of human
presence would be in proximity to home sites
located outside the developed areas, and in
recreation areas. Wildlife would be displaced
from these areas. Increases in the number of
free-roaming pets (dogs and cats) would
further displace wildlife from their usual
habitats, and may inflict direct injury or
mortality. Proposed road closures would limit
human presence in some areas where the
general public currently has vehicular access.
Higher population levels would also lead to
increased recreational use of wildlife habitats
in the analysis area, with subsequent
increases in the level of disturbance from
these activities. Under all alternatives,
increased boating and fishing on Beth,
Beaver, and Little Beaver Lakes may result in
disturbance to populations of common loon,
black tern, and other waterfowl, particularly if
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-134
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
it occurred during the breeding season. Gray
wolf, wolverine, and other species sensitive
to human disturbance would likely be
affected to a limited extent by increases in
recreational activities (e.g., hunting, camping,
and use of off-road vehicles and snow-
mobiles). Overall, the potential impacts from
human presence linked to indirect effects of
mine development are expected to be
minimal.
Secondary Land-Use or Development. The
impact of secondary development on wildlife
would be dependent upon the amount and
type of habitat (e.g., mature coniferous
forest, riparian, wetland areas) modified or
developed into residential, commercial, or
other human uses. Construction of
permanent housing units for workers would
mostly occur within or in proximity to
established communities. Some homes might
be built near Chesaw or in more isolated
locations causing some habitat loss and
wildlife displacement. However, the majority
of dwellings would be in the developed areas
such as Oroville and Tonasket. With the
expected increase in human population levels
there are potential adverse impacts to wildlife
from continued loss of habitat to secondary
development.
The greatest overall population increase, and
hence greatest potential for disturbance to
wildlife from population increases, is
expected under Alternatives C and D.
Hunting and Trapping. An increase in hunting
and poaching may occur with projected
population increases. It is estimated that
approximately 690 hunters currently use the
area (WIAC, 1990). If one person from each
new household hunted, the increase would be
less than 10% (see Section 4.14,
Recreation). Deer would be the key game
species which would be affected by changes
in the level of hunting (legal and illegal) in the
analysis area. Black bear would also be
subject to impacts from increased hunting,
but the increase is expected to be minor and
would not vary substantially between
alternatives. Over the long-term (post-
Project), proposed closure or obliteration of
roads within the footprint would limit
accessibility and likely reduce hunting
pressure and poaching.
Very little trapping occurs in the analysis
area. A substantial increase in trapping due
to population increases is unlikely. Bobcat
and coyote would be the primary target
species affected by any changes in trapping
activities in the analysis area. Changes in
trapping levels may also affect species such
as marten, ermine, and other small mammals.
The potential effect to these species is
expected to be minor, and would not vary
between alternatives.
4.12.4 Toxics
Gold mines use chemicals that, in some
situations, can be toxic to wildlife. The
chemicals can adversely impact wildlife in
different ways and through different exposure
pathways. The response can be immediately
(acutely) lethal, or the lethal response may
result after several weeks or months of
exposure (chronic). The following toxics
analysis addresses the likelihood of adverse
impacts to wildlife posed by the mine
environment. A detailed description of
methods is provided in the Crown Jewel
Project Wildlife Technical Report (Beak,
1995a).
Gold mines differ in their methods for
removing gold from the ore, and the different
processing methods vary in the situations
where wildlife may be exposed to toxic
chemicals. Impacts to wildlife were assessed
by exposure source (e.g., tailings pond, spill).
Results were obtained from a comparison
between the predicted amount of chemical
taken up as a result of exposure and a known
toxic dose. The models incorporated the
uncertainties in toxic threshold values, and in
exposure to chemicals of concern. Exposure
impacts were addressed for species groups
and individual species after considering
proposed mitigation (e.g., fencing of the
tailings pond).
The analysis assumes that the interaction of
the individual chemicals is additive. This is
the simplest assumption to make although
more complex interactions are possible
(Suter, 1993). Synergisms and antagonisms
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-135
are nonadditive and are more difficult to
address, particularly when no definitive
information is available on how the chemicals
of concern interact. For example, ammonia
toxicity has been reported to be synergistic
with cyanide toxicity (Smith et al., 1979), but
other analyses have reported additivity or
antagonistic interactions (Alabaster et al.,
1983).
For most parameters, the effects are based
on mortality and impacts to reproduction and
growth. However, sub-lethal effects can also
impact animal behavior (e.g. avoidance or
attraction) or alter activity levels as a result
of sickness (perhaps increasing vulnerability
to predation). This analysis does look at
potential sub-lethal ammonia impacts. Since
the levels where toxic exposure to high pH or
high concentrations of ammonia on terrestrial
species are not known, NIOSH (1985) levels
for health protection of humans were
extrapolated to wildlife.
Direct Impacts
The impacts described below would be the
direct consequence of proposed facilities and
operations.
Pit Lake. The wildlife analysis is based on
utilizing conservative geochemical modeling
of projected pit water quality obtained from
Table 4.7.4, Comparison of Predicted Water
Quality Conditions in the Proposed Open Pit
to Washington Aquatic Life Criteria. The
geochemical inputs to the model represent
conservative data because humidity cell
testing was only performed on the worst case
samples. The analysis of projected metal
levels in the pit lake indicate that metals
(such as mercury and silver) may pose a toxic
threat to fish and aquatic invertebrates, but
pose negligible risks to terrestrial species
(Beak, 1996).
Waste Rock Disposal Area(s). Seepage from
disposal areas could be a source of potential
impacts to wildlife. Results from
confirmation testing analysis indicate that
from 12% to 15% of waste rock mined under
Alternative B has the potential to generate
acid and leach metals, if adequate waste rock
characterization and handling plans are not
followed as part of the Proponent's plan of
operations. Mitigation is proposed to isolate,
encapsulate, and neutralize the potentially
acid generating material. Monitoring of
waste rock runoff would occur. Should acid
generation occur, there is a risk of wildlife
exposure to low pH and degraded water
quality in the environment. The level of
impact would depend on the type of the
metal and the amount.
Tailings Pond. A mathematical model was
used to determine the potential toxic risks of
the tailings pond to certain wildlife species.
The parameters of concern were cyanide,
ammonia, arsenic, lead, copper, nickel, and
xanthates (Alternative G only). Chronic
reference values at "no observed effect
levels" (therefore worst case) were used
since exposure to toxins could occur over a
prolonged period. The primary exposure
pathways were assumed to be through
drinking from the tailings pond and inhalation.
Ingestion was assumed to be minimal since
no prey base would exist at the tailings pond.
Dermal exposure is expected to be negligible
since the feathers and fur of birds and
mammals would minimize the likelihood of
substantial dermal exposure (Sample and
Suter, 1994). The detailed methods of the
model used to evaluate the toxic impacts of
the tailings pond on wildlife are presented in
the Crown Jewel Project Wildlife Technical
Report (Beak, 1995a).
Estimates of contaminant concentrations in
the tailings pond were obtained from the
Seepage and Attenuation Study (Hydro-Geo,
1995b), and air concentration estimates were
based on a dispersion model described in the
BMGC (1994) Air Quality report (revised
1996). Reference doses for the
contaminants were obtained from the Oak
Ridge National Laboratory benchmark data
set (1994) and the primary toxicology
literature (Beak, 1996).
Proposed mitigation plans for the tailings
pond include a fence sufficient to exclude
large and small mammals including burrowing
mammals, reptiles and amphibians. However,
birds and bats would have access to the
tailings pond. Additional mitigation is
proposed if cyanide levels exceed 40 ppm in
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-136
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
the supernatant as it leaves the mill outlet
and before entering the tailings pond.
Mitigation options include exclusion measures
(such as wildlife hazing or covering the
supernatant) or additional detoxification (such
as diluting the supernatant with recycled
tailings pond water). Note: The Proponent
has Indicated that cyanide levels upon leaving
the mill would be 10 ppm or less for 95% of
operational time. No estimate has been
provided for the remaining 5% of operation
time. To predict worst-case estimates of
impact, it was assumed that roosts or nests
were adjacent to the tailings pond.
Analyses indicate the risk of impact due to
cyanide would be negligible for all bird and
bat taxa examined, see Table 4.12.5, Risk or
Probability of Toxic Impact at the Tailings
Pond. Similar results were obtained for all
other parameters examined except ammonia.
There would be a high risk of illness to bats
and shorebirds from ammonia concentrations
in the tailings pond, and a moderate risk to
passerines. The difference in impact between
the bird taxa results from the difference in
length of exposure and the different response
thresholds.
As stated in the paragraph above, cyanide
alone has negligible toxicity to terrestrial
wildlife at the predicted concentration in the
tailings pond. However, interactions between
the chemicals present could alter this result.
For example, there is a high risk that a
shorebird could become sick after drinking
the tailings water with high ammonia
concentrations. Because the shorebird would
not feel well, it may not fly away as soon,
thus increasing it's exposure time to cyanide.
The increased exposure could lead to a low
risk of impact due to cyanide and metals.
Under Alternative G, potassium amyl
xanthate would be used as a flotation reagent
to recover the gold; cyanide would not be
used. Xanthates in tailings ponds generally
have not been considered an issue and the
predicted concentration of xanthate in the
tailings pond is not known. Toxicological
studies of xanthates are extremely rare. The
aquatic toxicity of xanthate to Daphnia
magna (zooplankton) is estimated to be
between 0.1 mg/l and 1 mg/l (Ontario
Ministry of the Environment, 1972). The
chronic reference dose for mammals is 9.2
mg/kg of body weight/day (Dow Chemical
Co., 1976).
Post-closure Tailings. The post-closure
environment for the reclaimed tailings area
could be a source of metals for wildlife.
Rufus Chaney, a USDA soil scientist/toxics
specialist, has reviewed the projected tailings
solids obtained from Appendix E,
Geochemistry, XRF Analyses of Tailings
Solids, and concludes that projected arsenic
and molybdenum levels are a toxicity concern
in a surface environment without mitigation.
Excessive wildlife exposure to arsenic is
TABLE 4.12.5, RISK OR PROBABILITY OF TOXIC IMPACT
AT THE TAILINGS POND1
Species
Bat
Shorebird
Waterfowl
Raptor
Passerine
Aquatic Invertebrate
Mammals
Amphibians
Reptiles
Risk of Impact by Compound/Element
Cyanide
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
High
None
None
None
Ammonia
High
High
Negligible
Negligible
Moderate
High
None
None
None
Arsenic
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
None
None
None
Lead
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
High
None
None
None
Copper
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
High
None
None
None
Nickel
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
Negligible
High
None
None
None
Overall Risk
of Population
Level Impacts
Low
Low
Negligible
Negligible
Low
High
None
None
None
Note: 1 . Level of risk is based on results from mathematical models. Adverse impact is defined as illness for ammonia
exposure and impacts such as mortality or reduced reproduction for other parameters.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-137
correlated with a significant but small slope
of increasing cancer risk. Excessive
molybdenum can be toxic to ruminants like
livestock and deer because it interferes with
the utilization of copper in the animal.
Molybdenum can concentrate in plant foliage
and therefore be available to foraging
ruminants. Proposed reclamation plans call
for covering the tailings solids with three feet
of coarse material and 12 inches of soil. This
would help reduce the potential exposure of
wildlife to these metals of concern. Soil
fauna, including shrews and most worms,
operate in the upper 12 inches of soil.
Abundant ferric oxides and organic matter in
the soil help immobilize soluble arsenic
compounds. As long as the tailings solids
remain covered with four feet of material,
wildlife exposure to arsenic should be
minimal.
A risk remains for ruminants from ingestion of
plant foliage with potentially higher levels of
molybdenum. The risk is probably low based
upon the transitory feeding habits of deer and
livestock, especially as molybdenum uptake
in the plants would be a function of the
percentage of root mass actually entering and
utilizing the tailings horizon. An exception is
that some plants bioconcentrate molybdenum
to elevated levels. Consequently, monitoring
of molybdenum levels in plant foliage growing
on the tailings pond test plots is proposed to
determine whether additional mitigation
would be necessary to prevent exposure.
Indirect Impacts
Hypothetical scenarios were developed to
describe potential impacts to wildlife in the
unlikely event of a tear in the tailings liner or
a spill during the transportation of a
hazardous chemical. These scenarios are a
worst case analysis and assume that the
mitigation proposed on the Project would not
be effective.
Accidental Liner Breach. The risk of impact
due to a breach in the lining of the tailings
pond was analyzed. The liner breach was
assumed to occur as described in the
Seepage and Attenuation study (Hydro-Geo,
1995b), and to continue undetected for one
month. A conservative approach was used
which assumed that the liner breach would
occur near the edge of the tailings facility
close to the Nicholson Creek wetlands. After
detection, pumping would be implemented to
reduce the rate of leakage to ground water,
and the reduced rate of leakage would
continue for the duration of mine operation.
Ground water would discharge at a constant
rate to a five-acre wetland immediately down
gradient of the tailings area and the wetland
would be entirely fed by this discharge (path
length of 200 feet). Metals would be
retarded by adsorption during transit to the
wetland. Cyanide and ammonia would not be
retarded, but would be influenced by
volatilization in the wetland. Based on these
assumptions and the initial concentrations of
contaminants in the tailings pond (Hydro-Geo,
1995b), metals from the tailings pond would
not be detectable in the wetland. Ammonia
concentrations in the wetland would be
acutely lethal to many aquatic species. The
cyanide concentrations in the wetland could
have only marginal effects on the most
sensitive aquatic species (e.g., amphipod) but
would not substantially impair the aquatic
community. Terrestrial wildlife would not be
adversely affected by any of the
contaminants considered. Potential impact of
cyanide and ammonia to amphibians and
reptiles cannot be estimated due to the lack
of appropriate reference values.
Accidental Transportation Spills. The impact
of toxic compounds accidentally spilled
directly into a stream during transport was
estimated for three hypothetical accident
sites along the proposed and alternate
transportation routes. The hypothetical spill
sites are: (1) on County Road 9480 crossing
of Myers Creek in the town of Chesaw; (2)
along County Road 9480 into Beaver Creek in
Section 23 just above the wetlands leading
into Beth Lake; and (3) into Toroda Creek
where County Road 9495 crosses Toroda
Creek in Sections 3/4, Township 38 North,
Range 31 East, near the junction of Toroda
Creek with Bodie Creek and Vaughn Creek.
Toxic impacts resulting from the unlikely
event of direct spills into waterways were
evaluated based on the size, location, and
timing of the spill as described by the Forest
Service (Zieroth, 1993). Beaver Creek has
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-138
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
the greatest retention time because of a
series of ponds immediately downstream of
the hypothetical spill site. The spill materials
evaluated include cyanide, ammonium nitrate,
cement/lime, and diesel. The spills were
hypothesized to occur in late summer during
low flow conditions thus maximizing impacts.
Impacts were evaluated based on potential
stream concentrations at the spill sites, and
concentrations as the material moved
downstream. Concentrations of
contaminants would decrease downstream
according to dilution, natural degradation,
adsorption to sediments, and retention time in
each stream segment. In Toroda Creek and
Myers Creek, the retention time would be
sufficiently short such that only acute
response thresholds are relevant. However,
in the Beaver Creek system, the retention
time in Beth and Beaver Lakes could be
sufficient to consider chronic thresholds.
A large cyanide spill into Toroda Creek or
Myers Creek could be acutely lethal to fish
and aquatic invertebrates in the Kettle River.
A spill in Beaver Creek would be lethal to fish
and aquatic invertebrates through the Beth
and Beaver Lakes ponds and downstream in
Toroda Creek. Assuming wildlife would drink
at the spill site within 24 hours of the
accident, a cyanide spill in Toroda, Beaver or
Myers Creek would be acutely lethal to bats,
waterfowl, passerines, and shorebirds at the
spill sites. The risk of lethality at the spill
sites would be low for raptors, and small or
large mammals. Within Beth and Beaver
Lakes in the Beaver Creek system, dilution
and natural degradation would reduce
concentrations to levels no longer lethal for
any wildlife taxa. For a spill in Toroda Creek,
the risk of lethality for bats, waterfowl,
passerines or shorebirds would be reduced to
low levels by the time the slug reached
Nicholson Creek. The risk of lethality to
shorebirds in Myers Creek would be reduced
to low levels a few miles before the
confluence with the Kettle River. The risk to
bats, waterfowl and passerines would be
minimal after dilution with Gold Creek.
A spill of ammonium nitrate at any of the
three spill sites could result in high
concentrations of ammonia in the stream. A
spill in Toroda or Myers Creeks would be
lethal to fish and aquatic invertebrates
downstream in the Kettle River, and a spill in
Beaver Creek would be lethal until dilution
with the Kettle River. Ammonia
concentrations following a spill at Toroda or
Myers Creeks would result in adverse impacts
to bats, passerines, and shorebirds until
dilution with the Kettle River. A spill at the
Beaver Creek site would impact these taxa as
far downstream as Beth and Beaver Lakes.
There would be a moderate risk of impact for
waterfowl at the spill sites in Toroda and
Myers Creeks, and a low risk at the Beaver
Creek spill site. At all sites, the risk to small
mammals would be low and would be
negligible within a few miles of the spill site.
Negligible impacts would be expected for
raptors and large mammals at all sites.
If cement/lime were to spill during transport,
the pH of the stream water at spill sites in
Toroda, Beaver, and Myers Creeks would all
be greater than 12. This pH would be
acutely lethal to fish and aquatic
invertebrates; lethal impacts could occur
downstream in the Kettle River following a
spill in Toroda and Myers Creek, and in lower
Toroda Creek following a spill in Beaver
Creek. Although the impacts to birds and
mammals as a result of drinking water with a
high pH are unknown, drinking water with a
pH greater than 10.7 would be expected to
make humans sick based on a threshold limit
value for sodium hydroxide (NIOSH, 1985).
It is assumed that wildlife respond similarly to
pH. Therefore, birds and mammals drinking
at the hypothetical spill sites could be made
sick. On Toroda and Myers Creeks, stream
water pH would not drop below 10.7 until
the confluence with the Kettle River. It
would take approximately one day for the
high pH slug to arrive at the lower reaches of
Toroda and Myers Creeks. In the Beaver
Creek system, the cement/lime would be
diluted such that pH in Beth and Beaver
Lakes would likely be below ten. While toxic
impacts to wildlife species would not likely
occur in Beth and Beaver Lakes, aquatic life
would be affected, and the impact could last
over four months (Beak 1995a).
A diesel spill at any of the spill sites would
result in the death of fish and aquatic
invertebrates. Lethal impacts would likely
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-139
occur in the Kettle River if a spill occurred in
Toroda and Myers Creek, and if the diesel
could not be contained. If the spill occurred
in Beaver Creek, the ponds along the creek
would retard the downstream flow of diesel,
and the risk of lethality to fish and aquatic
invertebrates downstream of the ponds
would be reduced. The drinking of diesel-
contaminated water by birds and mammals
would not be acutely lethal at any of the
three spill sites. However, contact with the
diesel surface film may impair movement
away from the contaminated water or may
induce preening. This would increase the
animal's exposure to diesel and could result
in a lethal situation for waterfowl, shorebirds,
passerines, bats and small mammals.
The risk of lethal impact to reptiles and
amphibians from a toxic spill is not known at
this time due to the difficulty in finding
appropriate reference values in the literature.
Few toxicological studies have used
amphibians as representative aquatic
vertebrates. From information available, the
vulnerability of reptiles and amphibians to
toxicity varies between contaminants. For
example, birds and fishes appear more
susceptible to pesticide metals poisoning than
mammals, reptiles and amphibians (Peterle,
1991}. However, in a study by Hedtke and
Pulisi (1982), frog larvae were generally more
sensitive than fish larvae to fuel
contamination.
4.12.5 Cumulative Effects
Cumulative effects are the impacts of the
proposed actions added to other past
(including Nicholson and Park Place timber
sales), present and reasonably foreseeable
actions. Significant cumulative effects can
result from individually minor impacts that
may be overlooked if they are not considered
collectively with other actions taking place
over time. Past activities include actions
which occurred after Euro-American
settlement in the analysis area (about 1890).
The conditions prior to 1890 are considered
the "natural" conditions which are the
baseline for comparison.
The cumulative effects analysis considered
two spatial scales for changes in habitat, the
core and analysis areas. The larger analysis
area is used to assess landscape-level issues
and species with large home ranges (e.g.,
wolverine, wolf, grizzly bear). The smaller
core area is used to assess the cumulative
effects on those species in close proximity to
the proposed mine.
Landscape Altering Processes
Recent assessments of forest ecosystems in
the inland west identify substantial changes
which have occurred as a result of timber
harvest, grazing, fire suppression, and human
population increases (Covington et.al., 1994).
Environmental conditions in the analysis area
reflect these changes to varying degrees.
While suitable habitat remains for many
wildlife species, the changes in wildlife
habitat have been substantial for almost all
core area cover types, analysis area land
types, and special habitats and functions
(e.g., snags, down woody debris, SIT cover,
old-growth, migration corridors).
Timber Harvest. Timber harvesting has
occurred on most of the analysis area except
in portions of the Jackson Creek unroaded
area. The effects of timber harvests have
included:
• The loss of mature forest cover and an
increase in early successional stage
forests;
• The fragmentation of forest cover and loss
of continuous cover for interior forest
species;
• A shift in composition of tree species to
shade tolerant species such as spruce and
fir from shade intolerant species such as
larch and ponderosa pine;
• The reduction of habitat diversity including
loss of snags and complex forest structure;
and,
• Road construction throughout the analysis
area which has contributed to
sedimentation in streams, facilitating the
spread of noxious weeds, and reducing
security for wildlife.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-140
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
Grazing and Agriculture. Much of the
analysis area has been subject to grazing by
livestock. Agriculture is concentrated in the
valleys around the edges of the analysis area.
Range and watershed conditions have been
altered by:
• The introduction and spread of exotic
species such as noxious weeds.
• The degradation and loss of
wetland/riparian vegetation.
• The alteration of ground water and surface
water resources.
Human Population Increases. Human
population has increased in the analysis area
with most permanent settlements
concentrated around the edges of the
analysis area. The interior of the analysis
area has a very low density of homes, but
transitory use of the interior for recreational
and commercial activities has increased. The
increase in human populations has
contributed to significant changes in wildlife
populations and habitats including:
• The extirpation of grizzly bears from the
analysis area; and,
• The reduction in use of habitat by some
species due to disturbance such as noise
or human presence.
Fire Suppression. The mixed conifer forests
of the analysis area were subject to frequent
low intensity fires and infrequent stand
replacement fires. The fire suppression
policies imposed since the 1920's have been
successful in reducing the amount of land
burned. Burning by Native Americans which
was common throughout the West has also
been almost eliminated (Covington et.al.,
1994). The reduction of natural and
aboriginal fires has resulted in significant
changes in habitat in the analysis area
including:
• An increase in tree density in unmanaged
stands;
• The increased risk of occurrence and
damage from large fires; and,
• A change in forest composition from larch
and pine dominance to spruce and fir.
Foreseeable Actions
Timber harvest and road construction on the
Okanogan National Forest; in the Wenatchee
Resource area of the BLM; and on WADNR-
managed lands in Okanogan County have
declined dramatically during the last three
years, and no specific proposals have been
enacted which would return it to the levels of
1960 to 1989. Timber harvest is expected
to continue at approximately current levels on
private and state lands in the analysis area.
Substantial changes in habitat are anticipated
as forest stands grow. Successional changes
in forest stands are expected to be the most
dramatic in very young stands.
No substantial changes in land
use/disturbance impacts are expected. The
population in Okanogan and Ferry counties is
expected to increase, with rural populations
increasing at a faster rate than urban
populations. No substantial changes are
projected for livestock grazing. Grazing on
public and private lands is expected to
continue at current levels. Fire suppression
policies have not changed, but the
recognition of the role of fire in maintaining
ecosystem health is increasing. This may
someday lead to changes in fire policy.
Insects and diseases, associated with the
more shade tolerant trees, are killing more
trees than under natural conditions. The
focus of future actions on ecosystem health
may improve conditions.
Effects of the Mine on Habitat
The direct and indirect effects of the
proposed mining alternatives are described in
detail elsewhere in this section. Those
effects which contribute to landscape level
changes in the analysis area include:
• The Crown Jewel Project development
would remove forest cover for facilities
including mature forest, and attributes of
these forests such as snags, down woody
debris and structural diversity;
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-141
• The mine would substantially increase
human presence in a sparsely populated
portion of the analysis area and would
increase the population in Ferry and
Okanogan counties;
• Mining activities would increase noise
levels over several thousand acres;
• Cattle which grazed the proposed mine site
would be forced to graze outside the
mining facility;
• Lands disturbed by mining would provide
potential sites for infestations of noxious
weeds and exotic species; and,
• The removal of forest cover combined with
disturbance would further reduce the use
of wildlife movement corridors on
Buckhorn Mountain.
Conclusion
The proposed mine would add to the
significant changes in habitat which have
occurred in the analysis area over time. An
evaluation of the significance of the
cumulative impacts of the mine follow:
Impact on Threatened, Endangered and
Sensitive (TES) species. Proposed mining
activities, when combined with past, present
and future impacts, could result in the long or
short term alteration of habitat and continue
the trend of altering potential habitat to be
unsuitable for many of the threatened,
endangered, and sensitive species as well as
for the species of concern included on the
Crown Jewel Project species list. Four TES
species do not occur in the analysis area and
would not be subject to cumulative effects.
Many of the other species (e.g. wolverine)
have been adversely impacted by
fragmentation and loss of forest structure
associated with timber harvest. These
habitat losses, in conjunction with land
use/disturbance impacts, would be additions
to significant past impacts which have led to
their status as threatened, endangered and
sensitive. No TES species would benefit
from the proposed mine.
Impact on aggregations of animals. Past
actions (primarily the loss of SIT cover due to
timber harvest) have already reduced deer
winter habitat in the core area. Actual
acreage losses of deer SIT cover from the
proposed Project would be small.
Nevertheless, substantial areas which contain
forest that could develop into SIT cover in the
near future would be impacted by the Project
and would require more than 100 years post-
reclamation to restore SIT cover structure and
function. These incremental effects would
exacerbate past adverse effects on deer from
loss of SIT cover on Buckhorn Mountain.
Past actions have lead to the fragmentation
of forest cover along an identified wildlife
movement corridor which includes Buckhorn
Mountain. Impacts associated with the
Project would further reduce the likelihood
that wildlife would use the movement
corridor during operations and until forest
cover is reestablished on disturbed areas.
Impacts associated with the Project would
contribute to the trend of significant changes
in habitat which have occurred over the last
100 years. None of the observed trends
identified in the analysis or other parts of
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences,
would be reversed by any of the proposed
mine activities. Many of the changes have
adversely impacted wildlife species.
4.12.6 Forest Plan Consistency
This Forest Plan Consistency section
assesses Project impacts, on lands managed
by the Okanogan National Forest relative to
the thresholds (standards and guidelines)
prescribed for wildlife elements as defined by
the Forest Plan. The Forest Plan, in the
Resource Summary for the Minerals Program,
recognized that "Project specific
environmental analyses for potential future
mineral development may show a need for
Plan amendments." This analysis determines
whether habitat losses resulting from
proposed actions would remain above
threshold levels (compliance), be reduced
below prescribed threshold levels
(noncompliance), or exacerbate situations
where thresholds are not currently being met
(noncompliance). Habitat reductions which
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-142
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES January 1997
approach minimum thresholds are also
identified.
The analysis for Forest Plan Consistency is
based upon physical losses of habitat that
would not be recovered upon Project
completion. Habitat loss would result from
land alterations in MAs 14-17, 14-19, 25-18
and 26-15. Other standards and guidelines
which place seasonal access restrictions on
certain MAs and raptor nest site protection
zones are also addressed. None of the action
alternatives considered would improve
wildlife habitat conditions with regard to
standards and guidelines, or fully comply with
the Forest Plan, which is why all alternatives
would require a Forest Plan amendment.
Reductions in road densities would occur;
however, disturbances associated with roads
would remain high after the end of
reclamation due to the need for roads for
monitoring.
Alternative A. No land disturbance from mine
operations would occur and habitat values
would not change, Table 4.12.6, Summary of
Forest Plan Consistency by Alternative.
Roads which were created during mineral
exploration would be removed and road
density would decrease in reclaimed areas.
Alternative B. Land disturbances would
result in noncompliance determinations for
nine elements of deer cover, snags, old-
growth and MR cells (Table 4.12.6, Summary
of Forest Plan Consistency by Alternative).
Losses of deer cover and snags would not be
large; however, the elements are currently
below threshold levels and further reductions
would not move these Management areas
towards Forest Plan desired future conditions.
The loss of old-growth in Township 40 North,
Range 30 East (a 16% reduction) would
contribute to a 78 acre old-growth deficit in
meeting standards and guidelines for the
township.
Impacts from land disturbance would also
reduce 12 other wildlife elements, but values
would remain in compliance with Forest Plan
Standards and Guidelines. Three additional
Forest Plan elements (riparian habitat, blue
grouse habitat, and raptor nest sites) would
be impacted. Habitat reduction would
adversely impact species dependent on these
habitats. Loss of blue grouse habitat could
affect winter survival of some blue grouse
occupying the core area. No known raptor
nest sites would be physically removed under
Alternative B; however, land-clearing
activities and noise disturbance within
secondary protection zones may cause
raptors to abandon the identified nest sites.
The secondary protection zone is the area
within a 0.25-mile radius of a raptor nest site
where Project activities are restricted during
the active nesting season.
Standards and guidelines for road density
would be met where roads (primarily created
during exploration) would be eliminated or
rendered inaccessible. However, the use of
motorized vehicles, mining equipment and
blasting during operations would not comply
with standards and guidelines for seasonal
restrictions in MA 14-19 and MA 26-15.
Noise disturbance and human presence may
disrupt deer winter use of the area.
Alternative C. Non-consistency
determinations would result for three
elements of deer cover and snags under
Alternative C as shown on Table 4.12.6,
Summary of Forest Plan Consistency by
Alternative. These habitat losses would be
similar to Alternative B. Habitat loss would
occur for ten other elements, but losses
would not approach threshold levels or
noncompliance. Impacts to riparian habitat,
blue grouse habitat, raptor nest sites, road
density and seasonal access restrictions
would be similar to Alternative B. There
would be no impacts to old-growth from land
disturbance.
Alternative D. Four non-consistency
determinations would occur for deer cover,
Management Requirement (MR) Cells and
snags, Table 4.12.6, Summary of Forest Plan
Consistency by Alternative. Impacts to deer
cover and snags would be similar to
Alternatives B and C. Habitat loss to MR
Cells would be small, but sufficient to reduce
it below threshold. Other habitat reductions
(ten elements for deer cover, snags, and
successional stage diversity), and impacts for
riparian habitat, blue grouse habitat, raptor
nest sites, road density and access
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
I
I
1-
I
o
«•*
to
TABLE 4.12.6, SUMMARY OF FOREST PLAN COSISTENCY BY ALTERNATIVE
Element
1. DEER HABITAT
MA14-16: Snow
Intercept/Thermal
Winter Thermal
Winter Hiding
Summer Thermal
Summer Hiding
MA14-17: Snow
Intercept/Thermal
Winter Thermal
Winter Hiding
Summer Thermal
Summer Hiding
MA14-18: Snow
Intercept/Thermal
Winter Thermal
Winter Hiding
Summer Thermal
Summer Hiding
Forest Plan
Standard
£25%
>67 acres
>5%
> 1 3 acres
>15%
£40 acres
£20%
2 54 acres
£20%
254 acres
£25%
242 acres
>5%
>8 acres
£15%
£25 acres
>20%
£ 33 acres
£20%
£33 acres
£25%
£ 1 3 acres
>5%
>3 acres
£15%
£ 8 acres
£20%
£ 1 1 acres
£20%
£ 1 1 acres
Values1
Existing
Condition
6%
1 8 acres
17%
46 acres
29%
80 acres
45%
1 23 acres
30%
81 acres
3%
6 acres
4%
6 acres
52%
87 acres
72%
1 22 acres
70%
117 acres
0%
0 acres
0%
0 acres
9%
5 acres
21%
1 1 acres
17%
9 acres
I Alternative
•
6%
18
17%
46
29%
80
45%
123
30%
81
3%
6
4%
6
52%
87
72%
122
70%
117
0%
0
0%
0
9%
5
21%
11
17%
9
B
6%
18
17%
46
29%
80
45%
123
30%
81
3%
6
4%
6
52%
87
72%
122
70%
117
0%
0
0%
0
9%
5
21%
11
17%
9
C
6%
18
17%
46
29%
80
45%
123
30%
81
3%
6
4%
6
52%
87
72%
122
70%
117
0%
0
0%
0
9%
5
21%
11
17%
9
D
6%
18
17%
46
29%
80
45%
123
30%
81
3%
6
4%
6
52%
87
72%
122
70%
117
0%
0
0%
0
9%
5
21%
11
17%
9
E
6%
18
17%
46
29%
80
45%
123
30%
81
3%
6
4%
6
52%
87
72%
122
70%
117
0%
0
0%
0
9%
5
21%
11
17%
9
F
6%
18
17%
46
29%
80
45%
123
30%
81
3%
E
3%
5
60%
84
68%
114
66%
112
0%
0
0%
0
9%
5
21%
11
17%
9
Q
6%
18
17%
46
29%
80
45%
123
30%
81
3%
6
4%
6
52%
87
72%
122
70%
117
0%
0
0%
0
9%
5
21%
11
17%
9
Status1 • 2
Exbting
Condhlo
n
BELOW
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
BELOW
BELOW
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
BELOW
BELOW
BELOW
MEETS
BELOW
Alternative
A
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
B
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
C
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
D
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
E
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
F
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
C-
c-
A-
A-
A-
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
Q
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
(o
(o
1
I
I
Co
-------
Page 4-144
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
LU
H
DC
111
m
u
tu
CO
CO
o
u
z
Q_
CO
111
cc
£
u.
o
>-
cc
<
2
2
CO
h.
CD
ONJ
r-
UJ
N
S
.
J
f
«
£
|
UJ
i
1
o
u.
UJ
O
O
a
<
I =
S
a
u.
Q
U
m
<
xttting
inditbn
« Q
IT
i. •
c
ui
U
u
6
0
CJ
CJ
o
1 BELOW
#^
*-
fo
*-
3? -
# -
t"
2j
u
o
£ 8
^!§
Al
Snow
Intercept/Therma
O)
4
^
Z
o
0
u
0
z
u
o
1 BELOW
•A (Q
CO
CO
£"
•^ (0
S10
sP (0
CO
>^ (O
CO
o
*a
(O
10
o
S I
A o>
A
Winter Thermal
6
o
d
6
6
6
CJ
z
BELOW
» ""
b *~
8-
|»
o *~
*s
3? »
O
O g
0>
ta
U7 a
Al S
Al
Winter Hiding
*
<*
o>
*
*
*
O
MEETS
t*
"~
O) *~
*t
o> "~
01 1
CO
w
-« £
b 8
MS
Al
Summer Hiding
i
*
-1
*
^
*
o
MEETS
'!
»
*-
#?;
w
fl
#5
8 8
^
SE
S £
CM
"~.
""
£15%
£470 acres
Summer Thermal
CO
10
CM
£
<
<
4
*
*
*
CJ
(MEETS
•—
P
wl
Al
Winter Thermal
O
O
<
O
z
<
*
o
8
gs
tp ft
"
£8
S «
P
P
n m
O *-
S 8
CO
i!
Al J
71
Winter Hiding
<
<
•*
U
CJ
z
*
o
LU
Si
0)
S
2
"
2
CO
o
CO
"-
75 acres
d
0)
d Woodpecker {.
^ £
B i
i If
CM
O
Z
o
CJ
z
o
z
CJ
0
0
MEETS
00
IV
00
|v
00
(V
CO
IV
00
IV
CO
IV
00
|v
ea
u
IB
00
|v
£
u
10
in
IV
,8
d Woodpecker (
i
,E «
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
fe-
I
5'
CD
3
s?
i
O
TABLE 4.12.6, SUMMARY OF FOREST PLAN COSISTENCY BY ALTERNATIVE
Element
Three-Toed Woodpecker (Sec.
30)
Pileated Woodpecker
3. DEAD TREE HABITAT
MA14-16 (Exclusive of Riparian and Old-
Growth Areas):
10-20' DBH
> 20- DBH
MA14-17 (Exclusive of Riparian and Old-
Growth Areas):
10-20" DBH
>20" DBH
MA 14- 18 (Exclusive of Riparian and Old-
Growth Areas):
10-20' DBH
>20" DBH
MA14-19 (Exclusive of Riparian and OkJ.
Growth Areas):
10-20" DBH
>20" DBH
MA25-18 (Exclusive of Riparian and Old-
Qrowth Areas):
10-20" DBH
> 20" DBH
MA26-13 (Exclusive of Riparian and Old-
Growth Areas):
10-20" DBH
>20" DBH
MA26-15 (Exclusive of Riparian and Old-
Growth Areas):
10-20" DBH
Forest Plan
Standard
75 acres
600 acres
108/100
acres
8/100 acres
108/100
acres
8/100 acres
108/100
acres
8/100 acres
108/100
acres
8/1 OO acres
108/100
acres
8/100 acres
1 08/1 00
acres
8/100 acres
144/100
acres
Values1
Existing
Condition
75 acres
610 acres
115
36
108
26
108
125
49
32
166
40
0
0
29
Alternative
A
75
610
115
36
108
26
108
125
49
32
166
40
0
0
29
B
46
610
115
36
108
26
108
125
45
29
163
39
O
0
29
C
75
610
115
36
108
26
108
125
48
31
159
38
0
0
29
D
74
610
115
36
108
26
108
125
47
31
168
38
0
0
29
E
74
610
115
36
108
26
108
125
41
26
152
35
0
> 0
29
F
75
610
115
36
88
26
108
125
46
28
160
38
0
0
29
G
75
610
115
36
108
26
108
125
44
28
161
36
0
0
29
Status1-2
Existing
Condltk)
n
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
BELOW
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
BELOW
BELOW
BELOW
Alternative
A
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
B
B-
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
C-
NC
NC
NC
C
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
C-
NC
NC
NC
D
B
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
C-
NC
NC
NC
E
B-
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
C-
NC
NC
NC
F
NC
NC
NC
NC
B-
NC
NC
NC
C-
NC
NC
NC
G
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
C-
NC
NC
NC
5°
<0
8
O
1
I
*
-*
01
-------
I
I
I
r>
*•»
Co
3
TABLE 4.12.6, SUMMARY OF FOREST PLAN COSISTENCY BY ALTERNATIVE
Element
>20' DBH
Old-Growth:
10-20" DBH
>20" DBH
Riparian:
10-20' DBH
> 20' DBH
4. RIPARIAN HABITAT (Acres)
5. DECIDUOUS HABITAT (Acres)
6. BLUE GROUSE HABITAT
(Acre*)
7. RAPTORS
Number of Nests Remaining
Number of Secondary
Protection Zones Disturbed
Acres of Primary Protection
Zones Impacted
8. SUCCESSIONAL STAGE
DIVERSITY:
T40NR31E: Grass/Forb
Seedling/Sapling
Pole
Young Mature
Mature
T40N R30E: Grass/Forb
Seedling/Sapling
Forect Plan
Standard
11/1 00 acres
180/100
acres
14/100 acres
180/100
acres
14/100 acres
no threshold
no threshold
no threshold
no threshold
no threshold
no threshold
5%
10%
10%
5%
5%
5%
10%
Values1
Existing
Condition
84
96
84
170
23
340 acres
<1 acre
426 acres
5
0
0
3%
7%
10%
40%
29%
14%
9%
Alternative
A
84
96
84
170
23
340
<1
426
5
0
0
3%
7%
10%
40%
29%
14%
9%
B
84
94
82
166
22
297
<1
411
5
3
0
3%
7%
10%
40%
29%
13%
9%
C
84
96
84
164
20
308
<1
416
5
2
0
3%
7%
10%
40%
29%
17%
9%
D
84
96
84
164
21
304
<1
424
5
3
1
3%
7%
10%
40%
29%
17%
9%
E
84
82
66
161
20
283
<1
403
4
3
11
4%
6%
10%
39%
29%
18%
9%
F
84
85
74
165
20
298
<1
410
3
4
27
4%
6%
10%
39%
28%
14%
9%
G
84
95
84
166
22
297
<1
414
4
4
26
4%
6%
10%
39%
28%
15%
9%
Status' 2
Existing
Condltlo
n
MEETS
BELOW
MEETS
BELOW
MEETS
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
BELOW
BELOW
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
BELOW
Alternative
A
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
B
NC
C-
A-
C-
A-
NA
NC
NA
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
A-
NC
C
NC
NC
NC
C-
A-
NA
NC
NA
NC
NA
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
A+
NC
D
NC
NC
NC
C-
A-
NA
NC
NA
NC
NA
NA
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
A +
NC
E
NC
C-
A-
C-
A-
NA
NC
NA
NA
NA
NA
C +
c-
NC
A-
NC
AH-
NC
F
NC
C-
A-
C-
A-
NA
NC
NA
NA
NA
NA
C +
c-
NC
A-
A-
NC
NC
G
NC
C-
NC
C-
A-
NA
NC
NA
NA
NA
NA
C+
c-
NC
A-
A-
A +
NC
1
3
i
I
I
<0
(o
-------
I
I
I
(b
I
31
i-
CO
TABLE 4.12.6, SUMMARY OF FOREST PLAN COSISTENCY BY ALTERNATIVE
Element
Pole
Young Mature
Mature
9. OLD-GROWTH:
T40N R31E: Existing
Replacement
Total
T40N R30E: Existing
Replacement
Total
10. ROAD DENSITY
MA14-16
MAI 4-1 7
MA 14-1 8
MA14-19
MA25-18
MA26-13
MA26-15
Forest Plan
Standard
10%
5%
5%
£5%
no threshold
£5%
925 acres
>5%
no threshold
>5%
203 acres
2.0 mi/mi2
2.0 mi/mi2
2.0 mi/mi2
2.0 mi/mi2
3.0 mi/mi2
1 .0 mi/mi2
1.0 mi/mi2
Values1
Existing
Condition
12%
35%
26%
12%
0
12%
1,823
4%
1%
4%
149
2.1
2.5
4.1
37.3
2.7
4.3
3.2
Alternative
A
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Status' 2
Existing
Condltlo
n
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
MEETS
BELOW
BELOW
BELOW
BELOW
BELOW
MEETS
BELOW
BELOW
Alternative
A
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
C +
A +
NC
NC
B
A-
NC
C-
NC
NC
NC
B +
A +
NC
NC
C
A-
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
B +
A +
NC
NC
D
A-
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
8 +
A +
NC
NC
f.
A-
NC
C-
NC
NC
NC
B +
A +
NC
NC
F
NC
A-
NC
NC
NC
NC
8 +
A +
NC
NC
Q
A-
A-
NC
NC
NC
NC
B +
A-f
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 currently below minimum
standards and guidelines and would be reduced further; A+ indicates that the element currently meets standards and guidelines and value would increase; B+ indicates the
element is below standards and guide ines, value would increase and would meet standards and guidelines; C + indicates the element is currently below standards and
guidelines, would increases in value but not meet standards and guidelines (i.e., value would increase but status would not); NC indicates no change from existing conditions;
NA indicates habitat cannot be assessed relative to a threshold (bolding indicates the element would be reduced). B- and C- represent noncompllance.
}0
<0
XI
8
o
I
is
i
fc
«4
SI
-------
Page 4-148
CHAPTER 4 • ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
restrictions would be similar to Alternatives B
and C. There would be no impact to old-
growth from land disturbance.
Alternative E. The implementation of
Alternative E would result in the largest
number of non-consistency determinations
(11) of the alternatives considered, Table
4.12.6, Summary of Forest Plan Consistency
by Alternative. Reductions to elements for
deer cover, MR Cells, snags, and old-growth
would result in not meeting Standards and
Guidelines in the Forest Plan. Land
disturbance would result in the largest deer
cover reductions and old-growth losses (in
Township 40 North, Range 30 East) of the
action alternatives. Old-growth in Township
40 North, Range 30 East would be reduced
by 34%, resulting in a deficit of 104 acres
for the township. Reductions would occur to
12 other elements of deer cover, MR Cells,
snags, and successional stage diversity, but
the elements would remain in compliance
with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines.
However, these losses would be larger than
the other actions alternatives. Impacts to
riparian habitat and blue grouse winter habitat
would also be greater than in other action
alternatives. Habitat would be removed from
raptor primary protection zones and a raptor
nest would be lost. Primary protection zones
extend 500 feet from the nest site. Impacts
to road density and access restrictions would
be similar to Alternatives B through D.
Alternative F. Habitat loss would result in
nine noncompliance determinations for deer
cover, snags, successional stage diversity
and old-growth. Table 4.12.6, Summary of
Forest Plan Consistency by Alternative. Two
discrete MAs managed for deer winter range
would be impacted and deer cover losses
would be greater than in Alternatives B, C
and D.
Reductions to 16 elements of deer cover,
snags and successional stage diversity would
not be large enough to result in
noncompliance. Impacts to riparian habitat
and raptors would be greater than
Alternatives B, C and D; impacts to blue
grouse habitat would be similar. Road
density would be highest of the action
alternatives.
Alternative G. Under Alternative G, land
disturbance would result in seven non-
consistency determinations for deer cover,
snags, successional stage diversity and old-
growth, Table 4.12.6, Summary of Forest
Plan Consistency by Alternative. Impacts to
deer cover and snags would be similar to
Alternatives B, C and D. Habitat loss would
occur but compliance would be retained for
13 elements of deer cover, snags and
successional stage diversity. Impacts to
riparian habitat, blue grouse habitat and
raptors would be greater than Alternative B,
C and D. Road density and seasonal access
would be similar to Alternatives B through E.
4.12.7 Threatened, Endangered, and
Sensitive Species
Proposed mining activities would result in
some losses of suitable or potential habitat
for several Forest Service sensitive, and
federally listed wildlife species. These habitat
losses in conjunction with land
use/disturbance impacts can be considered
incremental additions to existing cumulative
impacts across species' ranges that have
already lead to their status as threatened,
endangered, or sensitive. Proposed
mitigation does not fully compensate for the
potential habitat losses. Refer to the Wildlife
Biological Assessment for the Crown Jewel
Mine Project, prepared by Cedar Creek
Associates and Beak Consultants Inc. (1996).
The Analysis Area is not situated in
designated critical habitat or a recovery zone
for the grizzly bear. The lack of some
suitable habitat characteristics make it
unlikely that a grizzly bear population could
be established in the future. No currently
unroaded areas or blocks of secure habitat
would be affected by Project development.
In addition, Project development would not
sever any potential grizzly bear travel linkages
between existing population areas and/or
recovery zones. The proposed Project
development would reduce potential habitat
suitability of about 1 % of the Analysis Area
during the life of the mine. For a wide-
ranging species such as grizzly bear, a Project
caused shift in grizzly bear dispersal travel
through the Analysis Area would be
insignificant. Habitat security for grizzly bear
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-149
in the Analysis Area would be increased by
road closures and reclamation of Project
roads. Therefore, Project development is not
likely to adversely affect grizzly bears or their
potential movement through the Okanogan
Highlands.
Project development would not adversely
affect existing populations of gray wolf
because no viable wolf populations occur in
the Analysis Area. Project development
would also have little adverse affect on
dispersing individuals that wander into the
Analysis Area. No currently unroaded areas
or blocks of secure habitat would be affected
by Project development. Impacts associated
with Project operations and increased human
presence would be short-term and cease after
the completion of reclamation. The Project
area could result in minor shifts in potential
movement by dispersing wolves through the
Kettle River Range, but Project development
would not preclude travel by dispersing
wolves from current population areas through
the Okanogan Highlands. Until Project
closure and reclamation is completed, the
proposed project would contribute to a small
incremental adverse cumulative effect of
reduced available habitat within the Analysis
Area. However, the Project disturbance area
would be only about 1 % of the total acreage
within the Analysis Area. For a wide-ranging
species such as gray wolf, a Project caused
shift in gray wolf dispersal travel through the
Analysis Area would be insignificant. Habitat
security for gray wolf in the Analysis Area
has been increased by current road closures.
During Project operations and after Project
closure habitat security would be maintained
at levels higher than those present prior to
Project exploration. Therefore, Project
development is not like to adversely affect
the gray wolf or its potential reestablishment
in the Okanogan Highlands.
No breeding pairs of bald eagles are known to
exist in the Analysis Area, and no suitable
breeding or wintering habitat would be
directly affected by mine development.
Increases in human presence could have
minor adverse impacts to wintering bald
eagles along Toroda Creek and the Kettle
River. There is a remote chance for an
accidental spill of toxic chemicals along the
transportation corridors, but the risk of a bald
eagle being directly affected by an accidental
spill would be negligible. The risk of
secondary exposure through ingestion of
contaminated flesh would also be negligible
for bald eagles as long as appropriate cleanup
activities are implemented. Therefore,
development of the Crown Jewel Project js
not likely to adversely affect bald eagles.
Potential peregrine falcon nesting habitat
within the Analysis Area would not be
physically altered or disturbed by project
construction or operation. There is a remote
chance for an accidental spill of toxic
chemicals along the transportation corridors,
but the risk of secondary exposure through
ingestion of contaminated flesh would be
negligible for peregrine falcon as long as
appropriate cleanup activities are
implemented. Therefore, development of the
Crown Jewel Project is not likely to adversely
affect peregrine falcons.
No effect on the northern spotted owl is
expected because the proposed Project is
located approximately 50 miles east of its
designated range.
Proposed Crown Jewel Project activities may
contribute to losses of individuals or habitat
of several Forest Service sensitive species
but would not be expected to contribute to a
loss of viability for any species. In addition,
activities may adversely effect individuals or
habitat of species of concern but is not likely
to have adverse effects on the populations.
The incremental impact of the proposed mine
on northern goshawk habitat would add to
existing cumulative habitat losses. Project
development could have an adverse impact
on goshawks by reducing the extent of
suitable nesting habitat due to disturbance.
All action alternatives would cause a
reduction in nesting habitat, although once
mine cessation occurs, adequate nesting,
PFA, and foraging habitat would exist within
the territory to support a nesting pair of
goshawks. As a result, no long term loss is
expected within the analysis area.
Adverse impacts relating to population
decreases to bats cannot be predicted with
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-150
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
certainty due to a lack of regional knowledge
for populations of these species. However,
substantial reductions in populations are not
likely since mine development would not
affect any important maternity or roost sites.
Proposed activities, including an accidental
spill, would result in minor incremental
impacts which are not likely to cause a trend
toward federal listing or loss of population
viability in the following sensitive species;
California wolverine, North American lynx,
common loon, Columbian sharp-tailed grouse,
long-billed curlew, and, loggerhead shrike.
Adverse effects of the Crown Jewel Project
may result in minor effects to individuals, but
these effects are not likely to result in
population declines in the following species
of concern: Pacific fisher, black tern, little
willow flycatcher, and spotted frog. No
effect on pygmy rabbit, California bighorn
sheep, or ferruginous hawk is expected
because no suitable habitat for these species
exists in the analysis area. Proposed mining
activities would have no long-term effect on
the olive-sided flycatcher because reclamation
would more than offset habitat losses.
Although Crown Jewel Project development
is not likely to adversely affect any
threatened or endangered species or reduce
the population viability of forest sensitive
species, the relative level of potential adverse
impacts to some of these species would vary
depending on the alternative. Alternatives E
and G would create the greatest extent of
overall surface disturbance, while Alternatives
C and D would create the least. No pit lake
would be created with Alternatives C, E, and
F, and the corresponding potential for poor
water quality development in the pit would
not exist. Long-term creation of the pit and
associated permanent losses in forested
habitat would be avoided by underground
mining in Alternative C and complete backfill
of the pit in Alternative F. However,
Alternative F has a Project duration more than
three-times longer than all the other action
alternatives and would create the longest
duration of risk from human disturbance
impacts to sensitive species.
With respect to Townsend's big-eared bat
species, impacts would be generally similar
between the action alternatives except that
Alternatives B, E, F, and G would remove
potential roosting habitat by eliminating the
Gold Axe adit. Alternatives B and E would
result in the greatest long-term loss of deer
SIT cover. Alternatives C and D would have
the least effect on deer SIT cover. Losses of
potential Pacific fisher habitat would be
greatest for Alternative E and the least for
Alternative G. Alternative G also would
create the least amount of short and long-
term disturbance to potential northern
goshawk nesting habitat. Alternative C
would create the least amount of short and
long-term overall disturbance to potential
goshawk nesting and foraging habitat.
Adverse impacts to spotted frog populations
would be greatest with Alternative G since it
would remove the greatest extent of
wetland/riparian habitats. Alternatives C and
D would remove the least extent of suitable
spotted frog habitat. Wetland/riparian habitat
losses would be compensated for by required
wetland mitigation.
As indicated previously, the risk of an
accidental spill of toxic chemicals or diesel
fuel into analysis area streams would be
extremely low. The potential for such a spill
to impact sensitive species and species of
concern such as common loon, black tern,
and bald eagle would be alleviated with the
Oroville-to-mine site transport route
associated with Alternatives C and G. This
transport route would pass through the Town
of Chesaw and parallel Tonasket Creek
which does not provide suitable habitat for
common loon, black tern, or bald eagle.
There is a remote chance for an accidental
spill of toxic chemicals along the
transportation corridors. A spill of sodium
cyanide, ammonium nitrate, or lime that could
have toxic effects on aquatic resources is
highly unlikely. The risk for a diesel spill is
slightly higher but still very low. A spill of
sodium cyanide, lime, ammonium nitrate, or
diesel fuel into Beaver Creek, Toroda Creek,
or the Kettle River could be lethal to fish and
other aquatic life, but effects would be
localized in the area of the spill with
appropriate emergency spill response and
cleanup measures.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-151
Eagles could drink contaminated water.
Wolves, grizzly bears, or eagles could be
attracted to feed on dead or dying fish and
waterbirds exposed to contaminants.
However, with any of the spill scenarios that
could affect wildlife along Toroda Creek or
the Kettle River, recovery of water quality
and prey populations would be relatively rapid
as long as appropriate spill response and
clean-up measures are implemented, as
stipulated by state and federal regulations
and agency consultation. In addition, human
activity associated with emergency
containment and cleanup activities at the spill
and possible affected downstream sites
would be continuous until safe conditions are
reestablished. These areas of human activity
would be avoided by wildlife. In addition, the
chance of secondary exposure through
ingestion of contaminated flesh would be
minimal since cleanup activities would collect
and dispose of contaminated animals.
Therefore, the risk that these species would
be directly or indirectly affected by an
accidental spill would be negligible.
4.12.8 HEP Consequences
With Project: Mining Alternative Impacts
The effect of the Project action alternatives
on wildlife species and their habitat was
evaluated using the Habitat Evaluation
Procedure (HEP). Refer to Chapter 3,
Affected Environment, for an explanation of
the HEP process. HEP is an accounting
procedure that measures changes in wildlife
habitat quality and quantity over time and
then compares the results of the With
Project/Without Mitigation analysis by
alternative to the Without Project analysis
(prior to exploration activities). For the HEP
analysis the difference is considered the
impact of the Project (WADFW, 1995). [Note
- This HEP analyzes the original Alternative B
as proposed in the draft EIS, and not the
revised alternative included in the final EIS].
The HEP analysis did not evaluate the "No
Action" Alternative A. The following
narrative provides a scenario for what may
occur should Alternative A be selected.
Reclamation activities on lands administered
by the Okanogan National Forest would take
place as soon as conditions are favorable and
follow the reclamation plan identified in the
1990 Crown Jewel Project Exploration
Environmental Assessment. Specific
reclamation activities include plugging and
capping existing drill holes; recontouring drill
pads and access roads; rehabilitating mud
and cutting sumps; redistributing topsoils;
and revegetating disturbed sites with grasses,
shrubs, and/or trees. Disturbed sites are
expected to go through a succession from
initial grass/shrub stages eventually leading to
pole-size stands of trees by the end of the 60
year analysis period.
Results of the HEP analysis for Alternatives B
though G show that Alternatives B, E, and G
produce net negative impacts to ten of the
11 evaluation species. Alternatives Q and F
produced net negative impacts to nine of the
11 evaluation species. Alternative C
produced net negative impacts to eight of the
11 evaluation species. The black tern model
showed no impacts would occur to existing
black tern habitat in any action alternative.
Impacts to wildlife evaluation species and
their habitats varied by the amount of habitat
disturbed, the quality of habitat disturbed, the
length of time that the habitat was disturbed,
the extent that the mine site was reclaimed
and the types of habitat produced by
reclamation.
Habitat losses occurred for eight of the 11
evaluation species for all Project alternatives
when suitable habitats were converted into
non habitat. Long-term habitat degradation
also occurred to most affected evaluation
species when reclaimed habitats provided
tower quality replacement habitat. Temporal
degradation of habitat occurred due to human
disturbances during the mining and milling
phase of operation. Habitat enhancement
occurred for some species when non habitat
was converted during reclamation into
suitable habitat.
The range of habitats analyzed for the Crown
Jewel Project can be grouped into four
habitat types: wetland/deciduous riparian
habitats, open herbaceous/shrubland habitats,
coniferous forest habitats, and multi-cover
type habitats.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-152
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
Wetland/Deciduous Riparian Habitats.
Negative impacts to wildlife species chosen
to evaluate wetland/deciduous riparian
habitats (veery non-wetland, veery wetland,
and spotted frog) would occur in all action
alternatives. The impacts are primarily a
function of habitat loss due to disturbance
and habitat degradation due to the reduction
of stream flows and lowering of the ground
water levels.
Open Herbaceous/Shrubland Habitats. In all
action alternatives, negative impacts to open
herbaceous/shrubland habitat wildlife
evaluation species (vesper sparrow and shrub
steppe nesting birds) occur from temporal
loss of existing habitat due to disturbance.
Some of this negative impact is compensated
for by the conversion during reclamation from
pre-disturbance forest habitats replaced with
reclaimed herbaceous/shrub habitats. In fact,
the net impact over the length of the 60 year
analysis period is positive for herbaceous
habitats with Alternatives C and D.
Coniferous Forest Habitat. Coniferous forest
habitat wildlife evaluation species (fisher,
pileated woodpecker, sharp-shinned hawk
and mule deer winter range) received the
greatest negative impacts from all the mining
alternatives. The greatest loss of forest
habitat resulted from the conversion of
suitable forest habitats into non forest
habitats, and from habitat degradation when
reclaimed sites provided low quality
replacement habitat for some of the
evaluation species.
In addition, habitat effectiveness of intact
forested stands near mining activity is
lowered due to disturbances such as noise
impacts. Due to the Project life being three
to five times longer than other alternatives,
Alternative F has the highest amount of
human disturbance impacts to wildlife.
Multi-Cover Type Habitats. In all the action
alternatives, negative impacts for summer
deer habitat would occur due to loss of
habitat, temporal loss of habitat quality due
to human disturbance, and long-term habitat
degradation due to reclamation producing low
quality replacement habitats.
Table 4.12.7, Crown Jewel Project HU and
AAHU Net Impact Summary, highlights the
impacts to the HEP evaluation species from
each action alternative (as proposed in the
draft EIS). The numerical values given reflect
changes in Habitat Units and Average Annual
Habitat Units.
Note: The Proponent has documented its
proposed private land wildlife mitigation in a
Conceptual Mitigation Plan (ENSR. 1996b).
As described in the Plan, seven privately-
owned areas have been identified as potential
sites for wildlife habitat mitigation.
4.13 NOISE
4.13.1 Summary
Modeling indicates that noise levels during
the operational phase would be below the
allowable limits for residential areas set by
WADOE. The noise levels are predicted
based on Year 3 of the Crown Jewel Project,
during which time the production rate would
be at its maximum, but during which time the
noise sources would not yet be naturally
mitigated by the mine pit. Table 4.13.1,
Comparison of Noise Impacts for All
Alternatives, summarizes the modeled noise
levels and impacts for all alternatives.
The predicted noise levels are compared with
the following criteria: at the facility boundary,
the noise levels must satisfy daytime, non-
residential noise limits set by WADOE; the
nighttime noise levels must comply with
residential nighttime WADOE noise limits; and
at the residential areas west of the mine, the
noise increases above the nighttime
background are compared with guidelines set
by EPA Region 10. See Table 3.14.2,
Allowable Noise Levels at Residential and
Non-Residential Receiving Property for
Industrial Noise Source.
The modeled noise levels at Chesaw are
slightly above the existing background levels
measured during the quietest hours of the
night during the winter. Therefore, the
mining activities might be slightly noticeable
outdoors during the winter if the prevailing
winds are from the east. However, it is
unlikely that the mining noise would be
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
\
-------
I
1
Sr
3'
(D
i
CO
Alternative
A - No Action
B
C
D
E
F
G
TABLE 4.13.1, COMPARISON OF NOISE IMPACTS FOR ALL ALTERNATIVES
Impacts at Chesaw, Bolster and
Pinechee
Noise levels would decrease
slightly, compared to noise levels
during actual exploration.
Modeled summertime nighttime
noise at 39 dBA including
background. This is lower than
WADOE nighttime limits and 0-5
dBA above background; "Slight
Impact" by EPA criteria.
Modeled noise level is 41 dBA, 2
dBA higher than Alternative B.
This is less than the WADOE
nighttime noise limit.
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B.
Nighttime levels would be much
lower than Alternative B. Daytime
levels same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B.
Impacts at Other Private Land
Noise levels would decrease slightly,
compared to noise levels during
actual exploration.
Modeled nighttime noise levels at all
parcels are less than 45 dBA. This
is less than the allowable WADOE
residential nighttime limit.
Modeled noise levels are comparable
to Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B.
Nighttime levels would be much
lower than Alternative B. Daytime
levels same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B.
Impacts at Public Land East of
Project
Noise levels would decrease
slightly, compared to noise levels
during actual exploration.
Modeled noise level at the eastern
facility boundary is 59 dBA, which
is less than the 65 dBA allowable
non-residential limit.
Modeled noise level is 60 dBA,
which is slightly higher than
Alternative B, but less than the
WADOE non-residential noise limit.
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B.
Nighttime levels would be much
lower than Alternative B. Daytime
levels same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B.
s
i
•o
a
1
1
s
<0
<0
NJ
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-155
noticeable indoors unless the residents had
their windows open at night during the winter
under windy conditions.
Blasting would occur only during daylight
hours. The blast noise would dissipate
quickly with distance from the source, and is
expected to be relatively low at all areas
outside the facility boundary.
The construction and operational mining noise
would probably not be audible at the
developed campgrounds south of the Crown
Jewel Project site (e.g., Lost Lake, Beth Lake,
etc.), which are over six miles from the site.
Modeled noise levels, to the south of the
mine site, are less than the existing
background levels at distances greater than
approximately four miles away.
4.13.2 Effects of Alternative A (No
Action)
Under Alternative A, there would be a slight
reduction in the noise levels as compared to
1993 levels at the residential areas
surrounding the proposed mine site. The
exploratory drilling operations that have been
conducted to date would probably not be re-
initiated by the Proponent. Under most
weather conditions, the exploratory drill rigs
are inaudible at off-site locations, so ceasing
the drilling probably would have no impact in
most cases.
4.13.3 Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives
Ambient noise levels surrounding the site
would increase during the life of the Crown
Jewel Project for all action alternatives. The
noise levels would decrease to existing
background levels upon completion of the
Crown Jewel Project. The noise levels under
all of the action alternatives are predicted to
be lower than allowable daytime and
nighttime limits that have been set by
WADOE.
Noise Modeling Methods. The predicted
noise levels at the surrounding areas were
determined by a three step process: 1) an
inventory of equipment was developed; 2)
each equipment item was assigned a source
noise level; and 3) a computer model used to
simulate sound propagation under
representative weather conditions (Ebasco,
1993).
The type and number of each piece of noise-
producing equipment was inventoried based
on the Alternative B mine plan. The source
noise levels for each equipment item were
derived based on a combination of literature
values and on-site noise measurements at
comparable facilities. It was assumed that all
of the equipment is at the ground surface,
and that all of the existing forest vegetation
within the facility boundary has been clear-
cut, even though this assumption was merely
used to be extremely conservative.
The Environmental Noise Model (ENM) was
used to simulate sound propagation under a
variety of representative weather conditions.
ENM uses a combination of theoretical
equations and empirical coefficients to
account for sound attenuation by
atmospheric absorption, upwind/downwind
conditions, natural topography and ground
cover, and man-made berms. ENM also
accounts for the occurrence of temperature
inversions, by allowing the user to input the
vertical temperature gradient. The noise
levels within a four-mile radius around the
mine site were modeled under the following
representative weather conditions (which are
described in detail in Section 4.13.4, Effects
of Alternative B):
• Summer, with the prevailing west wind;
• Summer, with non-prevailing east wind
blowing toward Chesaw;
• Winter, with snow on the ground and the
prevailing east wind toward Chesaw;
• Blasting, under Winter conditions with the
prevailing east wind toward Chesaw; and,
• Blasting, under Summer conditions with
the prevailing west wind blowing toward
potential recreational users east of the
mine.
For each case, the noise levels were modeled
for early morning conditions, with the
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-156
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
occurrence of a strong temperature inversion;
this represents a conservative modeling
approach. Figure 4.13.1, Noise Source
Locations and Baseline Monitoring Locations,
displays the baseline monitoring and noise
source locations.
Table 4.13.1, Comparison of Noise Impacts
for All Alternatives, summarizes the modeled
noise levels and regulatory status for all of
the alternatives. Detailed descriptions for
each alternative are given in the following
sections.
Worker health and safety which would
include noise effects are regulated by the
MSHA. If noise levels are above regulatory
limits within the confines of specific work
areas, protective hearing apparel would be
worn by employees in these areas. For the
EIS, it is assumed that state and federal
agencies would require the noise levels within
the work place to comply with the
occupational noise limits and to ensure that
appropriate hearing protection is provided for
by the Proponent. In that case, worker
safety is not an issue that warrants further
assessment.
Traffic Noise Impacts
Noise caused by highway traffic near the
proposed mine was modeled with the Federal
Highway Administration Highway Traffic
Noise Prediction Model (FHWA model). Three
road segments were modeled: County Road
9480 from Oroville, County Road 9495
(Toroda Creek), and the entry road (County
Road 4895) to the proposed mine. The
model observed each segment under existing
traffic flow conditions and proposed traffic
increases. The impacts of the proposed
increases were based on maximum one-hour
rush hour conditions. The existing traffic
volumes and expected traffic increases due to
the Crown Jewel Project are shown in
Sections 3.18 and 4.17, Transportation.
Traffic flow distribution for the modelling is
summarized in Table 4.13.2, Assumed Traffic
Volumes Used for Noise Modeling. This table
shows the breakdown of total cars, medium
sized trucks, and heavy trucks at each road
segment. In order to simplify the model, it
was assumed that all traffic flow along each
segment occurs within a six hour daylight
period. An addition of vehicles such as
busses and pickups carrying workers, supply
delivery trucks, and pilot cars were added for
the proposed conditions. All mine-related
commute traffic (busses and pickups) is
assumed to occur in four hours: two hours in
the morning and two hours in the evening.
All mine related delivery truck traffic is
assumed to occur during a six hour daytime
period at a rate of one truck per hour (six
trucks per day, 1,440 trucks per year, 260
days per year).
The FHWA noise model summary can be seen
on Table 4.13.3, Maximum 1-Hour Traffic
Noise Impact Summary. The summary
indicates an increase in noise levels due to
traffic from existing to proposed conditions at
each road segment assuming a receptor
located 200 feet from each road segment.
The sound levels summarized by the FHWA
model do not take into account the actual
background sound levels. The FHWA model
only considers sound levels contributed by
traffic. Actual daytime background sound
levels exclusive of traffic were measured for
an area near the mine entry road. The
measured daytime background sound levels
exclusive of traffic were 38 dBA.
Table 4.13.3, Maximum 1-Hour Traffic Noise
Impact Summary, shows the modeled
increases in traffic noise that would occur
along the three main access roads during the
twice-daily shift changes. Note that the
WADOE noise regulations do not apply to
traffic noise along public roads. The modeled
noise levels are expressed as one-hour
averages, to demonstrate the noise increases
that would occur during the shift changes.
The increased traffic along County Road
9480 west of the mine would cause an
increase from the existing 51 dBA up to 57
dBA. This short-term increase of 6 dBA
corresponds to a "significant" impact
according to the EPA Region 10 guidance.
For perspective, the modeled 57 dBA traffic
noise level is within WADOE's 60 dBA
daytime residential noise limit, although that
limit does not apply to traffic noise. A similar
result is shown for the traffic noise increase
along County Road 9480 east of the Crown
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-157
TABLE 4.13.2, ASSUMED TRAFFIC VOLUMES USED FOR NOISE MODELING
Traffic Count per Figure 3. 18. 1, Traffic
Counts and Road Systems, of the EIS
Average traffic per hour assuming
almost all traffic occurs in six hours
County Road 9480
(West)
259 vehicles/day
44 vehicles/hour
Existing Conditions (Vehicles Per Hour)
Cars - 90%
Medium Trucks - 7%
Heavy Trucks - 3%
40
3
1
County Road 9480
(East)
92 vehicles/day
1 6 vehicles/hour
County Road 4895
5 vehicles/day
1 vehicle/hour
14
2
1
0.5
0.5
0
Additional Vehicles for Mining Operations (Vehicles Per Hour)1
Pilot Cars
Pickups (medium)
Busses (heavy)
Delivery Trucks (heavy)
18
3
2
7
2
18
3
7
Total Proposed Conditions (Vehicles Per Hour)
Cars
Medium Trucks and Pickups
Heavy Trucks
40
21
4
16
2
8
2.5
18.5
10
Note: 1 . Proposed traffic increases taken from Appendix G, Traffic Assumptions (Section 2.0). Assumes
75% busing.
Jewel Project: the traffic noise increase is 7
dBA which corresponds to a short-term
"significant" impact according to EPA Region
10 guidance, but the modeled noise level of
56 dBA is well within WADOE's daytime
residential noise limit, although that limit does
not apply to traffic noise. The modeled noise
increase along County Road 4895 (the mine
entrance road) is 15 dBA, which is relatively
large only because there is essentially no
existing traffic along that road segment. The
1 5 dBA increase corresponds to a "very
serious" impact according to the EPA
guidance, but the modeled noise level along
that road is 54 dBA, which is again lower
than the WADOE residential noise limit.
Noise Levels at Recreational Areas
The construction and operational mining noise
would probably not be audible at the
developed campgrounds south of the Crown
Jewel Project site (e.g., Lost Lakes, Beth
Lake, etc), which are over six miles from the
site. As shown in Figure 4.13.2, Modeled
Noise Results: Continuous Operation
Summer, Prevailing West Wind, Figure
4.13.3, Modeled Noise Results: Continuous
Operation, Summer, Uncommon East Wind,
and Figure 4.13.4, Modeled Noise Results:
Continuous Operation, Winter, Prevailing East
Wind, the modeled noise levels to the south
of the mine site are less than the existing
background levels for distances more than
about four miles away. Therefore, it is highly
unlikely that the mine noise would be audible
at the developed campgrounds. The greatest
noise impact would be from the increased,
but sporatic heavy truck traffic going by Beth
and Beaver Lakes.
The continuous mine noise would be audible
at the dispersed recreational sites east of
Buckhorn Mountain during the summer with
prevailing west winds. As shown in Figure
4.13.2, Modeled Noise Results: Continuous
Operation, Summer, Prevailing West Wind,
the modeled noise level exceeds the
background noise levels (38 dBA daytime and
34 dBA nighttime based on the South Corral
monitoring station) for about five miles east
of the facility boundary. It is likely that the
mechanical mine noise could be audible for
distances up to five miles away to the east of
the site.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
a
I
is-
1
I
(6
S1
I
n
"*
Co
sr
TABLE 4. 13.3,
Highway Segment
CR 9480 (west)
CR 9480 (west)
CR 9480 (east)
CR 9480 (east
CR 4895
CR 4895
Existing/Proposed
Condition
Existing
Proposed
Existing
Proposed
Existing
Proposed
Average Vehicle
Speed
Imph)
45
45
45
45
25
25
MAXIMUM 1-HOUR TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT SUMMARY1
Volume of
Care
(veh/hr)
40
40
14
16
0.5
2.5
Volume of
Medium Trucks
and Pickups
(veh/hr)
3
21
2
2
.05
18.5
Volume of
Heavy Truck*
and busses
(veh/hr)
1
4
1
8
0
10
Traffic Only
1-HourLeq
South Levels
IdBA)
51
57
49
56
33
54
Natural Daytlma
Background
IdBA)
38
38
38
38
38
38
Traffic Plus
Background
IdBA)
51
57
49
56
39
54
Net
Increase
(dBA)
-
6
-
7
-
15
Notes: 1 . All modeling assumes 2OO feet from roadway.
2. Noise impact values are derived from the Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model.
I
•o
a
§
1
r>
I
I
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-159
Cumulative Effects
No cumulative noise impacts are anticipated
since no other projects are taking place at the
same location as the Crown Jewel Project.
Noise impacts for other projects would have
impacts individually, but not cumulatively
with the Crown Jewel Project.
4.13.4 Effects of Alternative B
The proposed mining operations model results
indicate noise levels at Chesaw and Bolster
that are 6 dBA to 10 dBA higher than the
quietest nighttime background periods.
Therefore, it is concluded that the proposed
operations would be audible outdoors during
the nighttime early morning hours. However,
the modeled noise levels are much lower than
the WADOE limits that are used to define
acceptable noise levels at residential areas.
The calculation procedure developed by the
Army (U.S. Army, 1978) was used to
calculate the equivalent noise level (Leq) for
each equipment item and operational area of
the Project. Each piece of equipment was
assigned a "Utilization Factor" that indicates
the fraction of each hour that the equipment
operates at full capacity! Note that each haul
truck, which are the loudest items at the site,
was assigned a Utilization Factor of 1.0,
indicating that they were assumed to operate
continuously.
If every piece of equipment was to somehow
operate at maximum capacity simultaneously,
then the overall noise emissions would be
about 2 dBA higher than the Leq noise values
listed in Table 4.13.4, Noise Sources Used
for Modeling.
Construction Phase Impacts
The construction phase operations of
Alternative B would cause slight, temporary
and localized noise impacts at some
homesites. The construction operations
would be temporary and, if limited to daylight
hours, would be exempt from the WADOE
noise regulations. The construction
operations that would cause noise increases
include: logging and land clearing within the
fenced facility boundary on the eastern slope
of Buckhorn Mountain; construction of the
haul roads; construction of the mill facility
and tailings dam; and construction of the
Starrem Reservoir near the Canadian border
and adjacent to Myers Creek. Based on the
type of earthmoving equipment needed to
construct the tailings facility and the location
of the facility in the drainage bottom of
Marias Creek, the construction noise levels
should be less than during operations.
The Starrem Reservoir would be developed by
constructing an instream diversion in Myers
Creek. The design of the reservoir includes
the placement of an impermeable synthetic
liner and the construction of an earthen
embankment at the southern end of the
reservoir site. Construction of the
embankment and synthetic liner placement is
anticipated to take approximately two
months. Most construction is scheduled to
take place during daylight hours.
Construction noise calculations of the worst
one-hour Leq have been developed. The
maximum noise impact would occur during
earthwork construction when the following
equipment would be used together on the
site: bulldozer, grader, two scrapers,
compactor, and water truck. Sound levels
approximately 2,000 to 2,500 feet from the
construction site were calculated to be in the
range of 58 dBA to 60 dBA. This range is
above the daytime background sound levels
of 42 dBA to 45 dBA, and would be
noticeable outdoors at the nearest residence.
The construction noise was calculated to
exceed the daytime background level up to
two miles away, outside, and without
attenuation. Therefore, the daytime
construction noise is expected to be
noticeable outside for up to two miles from
the site.
Most construction activities scheduled for the
Starrem Reservoir would be considered
temporary daytime construction, which is
exempt from WADOE environmental noise
regulations. Irregardless, the nose levels
more than 2,000 feet away are calculated to
be just below the WADOE daytime noise limit
of 60 dBA.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-160
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
TABLE 4.13.4, NOISE SOURCES USED FOR MODELING
Equipment Type
Designation
Number of
Pieces
Each Piece
Fractional
Utilization
Maximum
Individual
Noise Unit
(dBA, SPL)
Equivalent
Noise
at 50 Feet
(dBA, SPL)
South Waste Rock Area
Rock Dumping1
Haul Trucks'
Front-End Loaders1
Bulldozers5
Graders5
Water Truck2
Pickup Trucks'
Backup Alarms3
Total Source SPL
--
85 tons
13 cy
D9 Class
14G Class
85 ton
3/4 ton
Ambient, Sensitive, 5 dB
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
4
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
0.1
72
87.3
76
88
84
72
76
93
72.0
87.3
76.0
85.0
81.0
69.0
80.8
89.0
93
Mine-to-Mill Haul Road
Uphill Haul Trucks1
Downhill Haul Trucks1
Water Truck2
Pickup Trucks3
Total Source SPL
85 ton
85 ton
1 5K gal
-
1
1
1
4
1
1
0.5
1
87.3
87.3
72
76
87.3
87.3
69.0
82.0
91
Run-of-Miil Coarse Ore Stockpile and Below Surface Ore Crusher
Rock Dumping1
Haul Trucks1
Rubber-Tire Dozer2
Water Truck2
Pickup Truck3
Backup Alarms3
Primary Crusher1
Dust Collection Fan1
Baghouse Cleaning*
Coarse Pile Vent Fan1
Total Source SPL
85 ton
-
1 5K gal
-
Ambient, Sensitive 5 dB
1
2
1
1
4
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
1
0.1
1
1
0.1
1
72
87.3
83
80
76
93
70
71.3
79.5
71.3
72.0
90.3
80.0
77.0
82.0
89.0
70.0
71.3
69.5
71.3
94
Milling Facility
General Outdoor Sound1
Crushed Rock
Conveyors1
Fine Ore Baghouse Fan
Fine Ore Baghouse
Cleaning4
Grinder Vent Fans1
Leach Tank Blowers1
Acid Wash Vent Fan1
Drying Oven Vent Fan
Smelt Furnace Vent Fan1
1
3
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.1
1
1
1
1
1
65.0
70.0
71.3
79.5
71.3
67.0
71.3
71.3
71.3
65.0
74.8
71.3
69.5
71.3
73.0
71.3
71.3
71.3
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-7 61
TABLE 4.13.4. NOISE SOURCES USED FOR MODELING
Equipment Type
Carbon Kiln Vent Fan1
Tailings Slurry Pump4
Total Source SPL
Designation
Number of
Pieces
1
1
Each Piece
Fractional
Utilization
1
1
Maximum
Individual
Noise Unit
(dBA, SPL)
71.3
58
Equivalent
Noise
at 50 Feet
(dBA, SPL)
71.3
58.0
85
Project Area
Front-End Loaders1
Haul Trucks1
Bulldozers6
Rubber-Tire Dozer2
Shovel2
Rock Drills1
Water Trucks2
Pickup Trucks3
Backup Alarms3
Total Source SPL
13 cy
85 ton
D9 Class
-
13.5 cy
DM45
1 5K gal
3/4 ton
Ambient, Sensitive, 5 dB
1
2
1
1
1
5
1
6
4
1
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
0.5
0.5
0.1
76
87.3
88
83
88
77.8
72
76
93
76.0
90.3
85.0
80.0
85.0
84.8
69.0
80.8
89.0
95
North Waste Rock Area
Rock Dumping1
Haul Trucks1
Front-End Loaders1
Bulldozers6
Graders6
Water Truck2
Pickup Truck3
Backup Alarms3
Total Source SPL
-
85 ton
13 cy
D9 Class
1 4G Class
1 5K gal
3/4 ton
Ambient, Sensitive, 5 dB
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
4
1
1
1
0.5
0.5
0.5
1
0.1
72
87.3
76
88
84
72
76
93
72.0
87.3
76.0
85.0
81.0
69.0
80.8
89.0
93
Tailings Pond Area
Return Water Pump4
Total Source SPL
1
1
58
58
58
Sources: 1. Field Measurements (Hart Crowser, 1993)
2. U.S. Army, Construction-Site Noise: Specification and Control (U.S. Army, 1978)
3. Predicting Impact of Noise on Recreationists (EPRI, 1980)
4. Electric Power Plant Environmental Noise Guide (1981)
5. Caterpillar, Inc. Data, 1992. Smith, 1992, 199 la, 1991b)
Any construction occurring outside of a
typical work day schedule, between 7:00
a.m. and 6:00 p.m., would be increasingly
noticeable to residents within a two mile
radius because the background sound levels
during these time periods would be lower
than daytime levels. If construction activities
continued into the evening and night, at full
or near-full intensity, resulting in the
predicted 58 dBA to 60 dBA noise level at
2,000 feet to 2,500 feet, it is possible
sounds from the construction activities may
not only be audible but also be considered
distracting or disruptive by nearby residents.
Construction during the daytime hours
between 7.:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. is
considered temporary daytime construction
and is exempt from WADOE environmental
noise regulations which would otherwise limit
the noise to 60 dBA. Construction between
10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. affecting
residential zones is not exempt and must
meet the environmental noise regulations for
night time noises of 50 dBA.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-162
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
Assumed Noise Sources
To be conservative in the calculation of noise
effects, noise levels during the peak
operational year (Year 3) of Alternative B
were modeled. During that year, the mine is
expected to produce 1,095,000 tons of ore
and 22,300,000 tons of waste rock.
The Crown Jewel Project was divided into
five operational areas, which were shown
previously in Figure 4.13.1, Noise Source
Locations and Baseline Monitoring Locations.
The type and quantity of equipment that
would operate at the various operational
areas of the Project during Year 3 are listed in
Table 4.13.4, Noise Sources Used for
Modeling.
The source noise levels (expressed as the
sound pressure at 50 foot reference distance)
for each piece of equipment were determined
from a combination of manufacturer data,
published estimates, and measurements at
comparable facilities. To remain
conservative, it was assumed that all of the
equipment would operate at surface ground
level, rather than at deeper levels of the
mine.
The noise source inventory includes about 90
pieces of equipment, most of which consists
of construction equipment that operates
sporadically. It is unreasonable to assume
that all of those numerous individual pieces of
equipment operate continuously at their peak
capacity, because the WADOE and EPA
Region 10 noise impact criteria are based
mainly on hourly-average values. Instead, the
hourly-average noise emissions for each type
of equipment were calculated by accounting
for their typical operating cycles.
Blasting within the mine pit would occur only
during daylight hours. It is assumed that
typical surface-delay blasting methods would
be used. An assumed blast noise source
level of 105 dBA (sound pressure at a 100-
foot reference distance) was used to model
the ambient blast noise levels. Note that the
blast noise levels would dissipate quickly with
distance from the blast, and are expected to
be relatively low at all areas outside the
facility boundary.
Each of the operational areas at the Crown
Jewel Project was assigned a source noise
level and sound frequency spectrum, based
on the calculated noise levels from the
individual pieces of equipment.
The ENM noise model accounts for natural
noise attenuation that is caused by
topography. The elevation contours of
Buckhorn Mountain were digitized into the
computer model based on USGS
topographical maps. The five composited
noise sources that represent the numerous
pieces of individual equipment were all
assumed to be point sources located five feet
above the ground surface, at the following
elevations:
Source 1, Mine Pit Area: 5,400 ft.
Source 2, North Waste Rock Area: 4,540 ft.
Source 3, South Waste Rock Area: 5,000 ft.
Source 4, Haul Road: 5,000 ft.
Source 5, Coarse Ore Mill Area: 4,530 ft.
Modeled Noise Levels
The modeled noise levels shown in Figure
4.13.2, Modeled Noise Results: Continuous
Operation, Summer, Prevailing West Wind,
Figure 4.13.3, Modeled Noise Results:
Continuous Operation, Summer, Uncommon
East Wind, Figure 4.13.4, Modeled Noise
Results: Continuous Operation, Winter,
Prevailing East Wind, Figure 4.13.5, Modeled
Noise Results: Blasting, Winter, East Wind,
and Figure 4.13.6, Modeled Noise Results:
Blasting, Summer, West Wind, were
calculated using weather conditions
representative of Buckhorn Mountain, and
were based on wind speed and temperature
measurements that were taken at the mine
site by the Proponent using an electronic
weatherstation. Table 4.13.5, Weather
Conditions Used for Noise Modeling, shows
the weather conditions that were used for
each modeling scenario. The temperature
lapse rate represents a mild temperature
inversion, which is likely to occur often at the
site in the morning.
The noise impacts modeled at any given
receptor site (for example, the Bolster area)
depend on the temperature and wind
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-163
TABLE 4.13.5, WEATHER CONDITIONS USED FOR NOISE MODELING
Modeled Parameter
Temperature (°C)
Wind Speed (meters/second)
Wind Direction From (°)
Relative Humidity (%)
Temperature Lapse Rate ("C/100 meters)
Ground cover
Modeling Scenario
Summer, West Wind
+ 10
2.6
270
50
+ 2
Grassland
Summer, East Wind
+ 10
1.77
90
50
+ 2
Grassland
Winter, East Wind
-4
1.97
90
85
+ 2
Snow
direction that is assumed in the modeling. As
discussed in Section 3.14, Noise, it is likely
that the mine noise would be audible if the
noise level caused by the mechanical
equipment is more than about 1 dBA above
the natural background level. Brief
discussions of the modeled noise levels under
each weather scenario are given below.
Figure 4.13.2, Modeled Noise Results:
Continuous Operation, Summer, Prevailing
West Wind, shows the modeled noise levels
(excluding background) at a condition that
corresponds to a common summer morning
with the prevailing winds from the west. The
boxes shown on the figure next to the
background monitoring sites at Bolster,
Chesaw, Pine Chee and South Corral show
the average of the hourly daytime and
nighttime Leq background noise values. As
shown in that figure, the topography of
Buckhorn Mountain and the west wind result
in minimal noise impacts at the communities
west of the proposed mine site. The modeled
noise levels at the communities are less than
the background noise measurements, which
indicates that the mine noise would probably
not be audible there even during the quiet
nighttime condition.
Figure 4.13.3, Modeled Noise Results:
Continuous Operation, Summer, Uncommon
East Wind, shows the modeled noise
conditions corresponding to a summer
morning, with an uncommon summertime
wind direction that blows from the mine
toward the communities west of the site.
The boxes on the figure next to the
background monitoring sites at Bolster,
Chesaw, Pine Chee and South Corral show
the average of the hourly daytime and
nighttime Leq background noise values. In
this case the topography of Buckhorn
Mountain partially attenuates the noise
impacts at the communities. The modeled
noise levels at Chesaw and Pine Chee are
less than the nighttime background levels, so
the mine noise is not expected to be audible
there even under quiet nighttime conditions.
The modeled noise level at Bolster is slightly
higher than the nighttime value, so the mine
noise might be audible there during the quiet
nighttime conditions.
Figure 4.13.4, Modeled Noise Results:
Continuous Operation, Winter, Prevailing East
Wind, shows the modeled noise levels during
morning hours with prevailing wintertime
winds. The noise levels caused by the mine
operations would be slightly higher than they
are during the summer, because noise
propagates better in cold weather. In
addition, the nighttime background levels are
lower in the winter. As a result, the modeled
outdoor noise levels at Chesaw, Bolster, and
the mine boundary are considerably higher
than the summertime values, and exceed the
measured nighttime background by
approximately 6 dBA at Chesaw and 12 dBA
at Bolster. Therefore, it is likely that the
mine noise would be audible outdoors at
Chesaw and Bolster on calm mornings during
the winter and at other locations within
several miles of the mine site on Federal
lands.
Figure 4.13.5, Modeled Noise Results:
Blasting, Winter, East Wind, shows the
blasting noise levels under the prevailing
wintertime wind condition. The background
values shown in the boxes on the figure at
the four background monitoring locations
show the average daytime L-02 background
level, which is the average of the loudest
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-164
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
minute for each daytime hour. The blast
noise is expected to occur no more than
twice per day, for about one second, and
would be similar to a quiet thunder clap. The
modeling was completed with the assumption
that the blast would occur at the existing
ground surface, without the benefit of the
mine pit to attenuate the sound. Even
without the mine pit, the topography of
Buckhorn Mountain would shield Chesaw and
Pine Chee from any substantial blast noise.
The modeled blast noise at Bolster is about
55 dBA, which would be clearly audible
above the daytime background but not loud
enough to cause any speech disturbance.
Figure 4.13.6, Modeled Noise Results:
Blasting, Summer, West Wind, shows the
blast noise under wind conditions that tend to
accentuate noise impacts to recreational
areas east of the mine. In this scenario, the
blast noise would not be audible in the
communities west of the proposed mine.
Table 4.13.6, Alternative B: Modeled Noise
Levels at Residential Areas and Comparison
With Nighttime Background Leq, shows the
modeled noise levels at Chesaw, Bolster, and
Pine Chee under the various weather
conditions. In all cases, the modeled noise
levels (including the measured background)
are much lower than the allowable WADOE
nighttime noise limit of 50 dBA. For the
prevailing summertime weather condition of
westerly winds, the noise modeled levels
caused by the proposed mining operations
alone are much lower than the existing
background levels. For the uncommon
summertime weather condition where the
wind blows from the east, the conservatively
modeled noise levels at Chesaw and Bolster
are 2 dBA to 3 dBA higher than existing
background. According to the EPA Region
10 criteria, this constitutes only a "slight"
impact. If the noise levels are higher than the
background, then the mining operations
would be audible outdoors.
Under the Winter/East Wind condition, the
conservatively modeled noise levels (including
background) are 3 dBA to 10 dBA higher than
the measured nighttime background levels.
According to the EPA Region 10 criteria, that
range of increases constitutes a "slight
impact" to a "substantial impact." However,
the modeled noise levels are 9 dBA lower
than the WADOE outdoor noise limits that
define unacceptable noise. Assuming that
people usually keep their windows closed at
night during the winter when the prevailing
winds are blowing, then noise levels inside
homes at Chesaw, Bolster, and Pine Chee
TABLE 4.13.6, ALTERNATIVE B, MODELED NOISE LEVELS AT RESIDENTIAL AREAS
AND COMPARISON WITH NIGHTTIME BACKGROUND L-eq
Location
Bolster
Chesaw
Pine Chee
Summer, West Wind (Prevailing Condition)
Nighttime Background L-eq
Modeled L-eq Without Background
Modeled L-eq Including Background
Increase Above Background L-eq
37
<20
37
0
39
<20
39
0
39
<20
39
0
Winter, East Wind (Prevailing Condition)
Nighttime Background L-eq
Modeled L-eq Without Background
Modeled L-eq Including Background
Increase Above Background L-eq
Summer, East Wind (Uncommon
Nighttime Background L-eq
Modeled L-eq Without Background
Modeled L-eq Including Background
Increase Above Background L-eq
31
40
41
10
Condition)
37
37
40
3
32
37
38
6
39
36
41
2
33
32
36
3
39
28
39
0
Note: All noise levels are expressed as dBA
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-165
TABLE 4.13.7. ALTERNATIVE B: MODELED NOISE AT NEAREST PRIVATE LAND
AND COMPARISON WITH NIGHTTIME L-25 EDNA LIMITS
Location
Bolster
(Section 14)
Section 25
Winter, East Wind (Prevailing Condition)
Background L-25 (nighttime)
Modeled L-25 Without Background
Modeled L-25 Including Background
30
40
40
29
47
47
Summer, West Wind (Prevailing Condition)
Background L-25 (nighttime)
Modeled L-25 Without Background
Modeled L-25 Including Background
36
<20
32
32
38
39
Summer, East Wind (Uncommon Condition)
Background L-25 (nighttime)
Modeled L-25 Without Background
Modeled L-25 Including Background
36
40
36
32
45
45
Note: All noise levels are expressed as dBA.
Allowable WADOE nighttime residential limit = 50 dBA. (See Table 3. 14. 1, Measured
Background Noise Levels.
would not be noticeably changed.
Table 4.13.7, Alternative B: Modeled Noise at
Nearest Private Land and Comparison With
Nighttime L-25 EDNA Limits, shows the
modeled nighttime noise levels at the nearest
privately-held parcels: the parcels in Section
14 near Bolster, about two miles northwest
of the mine pit; and the parcels in Section
25, about one to two miles southwest of the
mill facility. Although those parcels contain
no existing permanent residences, it is
assumed that the noise levels there must
conform with the WADOE residential limits
because the owners of the parcels can legally
build homes there. Under all of the
representative weather conditions, the
conservatively modeled noise levels at
Section 14 (Bolster) and Section 25 are
below the allowable WADOE nighttime limit
of 50 dBA. (See Section 3.14.5, Noise
Regulations, for a discussion of allowable
noise levels.) During the summer with a
prevailing west wind there would be an
expected 7 dBA increase at Section 25.
During the winter both Section 14 and 25
would experience an increase in dBA of 10
and 18, respectively.
Table 4.13.8, Alternative B: Modeled Blasting
Noise and Comparison With Daytime L-02
Levels, shows the conservatively modeled
blast noise levels at the residential areas west
of the Crown Jewel Project. The blast noise
levels are compared to the measured daytime
TABLE 4.13.8, ALTERNATIVE B: MODELED BLASTING NOISE
AND COMPARISON WITH DAYTIME L-02 LEVELS
Measured Daytime Background Levels (L-02)
Location
Bolster
54
Chesaw
57
Pine Chee
62
Modeled Noise Levels at Chesaw: Winter, East Wind
Modeled L-02 Without Background
Modeled L-02 Including Background
Increase Above Background L-02
57
59
5
55
59
2
48
62
0
Note: All noise levels are expressed as dBA
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-166
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
background L-02 noise levels, which
represent the loudest 2% of the time
(typically caused by passing cars). The
modeled blast noise is 2 dBA to 5 dBA louder
than the measured background L-02 eq.
Therefore, it is concluded that even under
worst-case weather conditions, the blasting
noise would not be substantially different
from existing common noise occurrences,
such as passing vehicles, thunder, or passing
commercial jets. According to the EPA
Region 10 guidance, the 2 dBA to 5 dBA
increase corresponds to a "slight" impact.
4.13.5 Effects of Alternative C
The equipment for Alternative C that are not
included with Alternatives B and E would
include a rock quarry and a rock crusher at
the quarry, three ventilation fans located
adjacent to mine raises, and the use of an
above-ground primary crusher at the ore mill.
The quarry area equipment would be along
the ridgeline of Buckhorn Mountain, where
noise would be difficult to mitigate. Table
4.13.9, Comparison of Modeled Nighttime
Noise Levels for Alternatives B, C, and E, lists
the noise levels that were modeled for each
of the Alternative C noise sources. The
methods that were used to estimate each
noise source were as follows:
Rock Crusher at Buckhorn Mountain Quarry
The source sound power levels and the noise
spectra emitted by the rock crusher were
taken from U.S. Bureau of Mines data
(Muldoon and Bobick, 1984). Those noise
data were taken at a rock crusher that was
fitted with noise-dampening rubber plates
installed on the feed and discharge chutes,
which provided about 3 dBA of noise
reduction compared to an unmodified crusher.
The rock crusher was assumed to operate at
ground level at the rock quarry. Rock
crushers operating above ground on the
Crown Jewel Project site would be required
to use noise-dampering rubber plates.
Quarry Operations
It was assumed that the quarry would use an
equivalent of one-half of the construction
equipment that is proposed for each of the
waste rock areas under Alternatives B and E.
Therefore, the source sound power levels for
the quarry would be 3 dBA lower than the
corresponding sound power levels at the
waste rock areas. It was assumed that the
equipment would be operating at the ground
surface, with no natural attenuation provided
by the walls of the quarry.
Ventilation Fans
As described in Chapter 2, Alternatives
Including the Proposed Action, there would
be three ventilation fans used to continuously
draw fresh air through the underground mine
passages. It was assumed that each fan
would be sized for 2,000 horsepower, with a
flow rate of 750,000 cubic feet per minute.
That assumed flow rate was based on design
data for the underground AJ mine in Juneau,
Alaska. It was also assumed that induced
draft fans would be used, with the fan placed
in a weatherproof structure at the ground
surface. The noise spectra caused by the
stack exhaust and the fan housing were
estimated using published data (EEI, 1984).
It was assumed that each fan would be in a
separate structure, with typical frequency-
specific sound absorption coefficients ranging
from 0.2 Hz at 31 Hz to 0.8 Hz at 16,000
Hz. Under those assumed conditions, the
stack exhaust noise would dominate over the
fan housing noise.
Ore Mill with Surface Rock Crusher
The primary rock crusher would be above-
ground for this alternative. This would add
an estimated 3 dBA of noise emissions to the
total sound power level emitted from the ore
mill area.
Modeled Noise Levels
During prevailing wintertime east winds,
Alternative C would cause higher noise levels
at Chesaw than would Alternatives B and E.
The ENM computer model was used to
predict the noise levels at Chesaw for
Alternatives B, C, and E under the same
weather conditions that were used to model
Alternative B: east wind at 1.97
meters/second; -4°C; 85% relative humidity;
and a 2°C per 100 meter temperature
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-167
TABLE 4.13.9. COMPARISON OF MODELED NIGHTTIME NOISE LEVELS
FOR ALTERNATIVES B. C, AND E
Location
Noise Source Contribution
Mine
North Waste Rock
South Waste Rock
Haul Roads
Ore Mill Fans/Pumps
Ore Mill Crusher
Rock Quarry and Crusher
Vent Raise Fans
Project Total
Nighttime Background L-eq
Total Noise Level
Noise Source Contribution
Mine
North Waste Rock
South Waste Rock
Haul Roads
Ore Mill Fans/Pumps
Ore Mill Crusher
Rock Quarry and Crusher
Vent Raise Fans
Project Total
Nighttime Background L-eq
Total Noise Level
Noise Level (dBA) Alt.
Alternatives B and E
Noise Levels at Chesaw/Bolster
(Winter, East Wind)
40
19
10
19
40
NA
NA
NA
40
39
43
Noise Levels East of Facility
(Summer, West Wind)
50
44
48
51
56
NA
NA
NA
59
39
59
Alternative C
Noise Levels at Chesaw/Bolster
(Winter. East Wind)
NA
NA
NA
NA
10
10
43
33
43
39
45
Noise Levels East of Facility
(Summer, West Wind)
NA
NA
NA
NA
56
56
47
44
60
39
60
inversion. Under those conditions, the
modeled noise levels at Chesaw for
Alternatives B and C are listed in Table
4.13.9, Comparison of Modeled Nighttime
Noise Levels for Alternatives B, C, and E, for
comparative purposes. The modeled noise
level for Alternative C is 2 dBA higher than
for Alternatives B and E. The higher noise
level for Alternative C is due to the rock
crusher being the dominant noise source.
However, the conservatively modeled noise
levels at Chesaw and Bolster for Alternatives
B, C, and E, are lower than the allowable
WADOE nighttime limit of 50 dBA.
During prevailing summertime west winds,
Alternative C would cause higher noise levels
than Alternatives B and E within the public
lands east of the facility boundary. The ENM
computer model was used to predict the
noise levels for Alternatives B, C, and E at a
location one mile east of the facility
boundary, under the following summertime
weather conditions: west wind at 2.6
meters/second; +10°C; 50% relative
humidity; and a 2°C per 100 meter
temperature inversion. Under those
conditions, the modeled noise levels at
Chesaw are listed in Table 4.13.9,
Comparison of Modeled Nighttime Noise
Levels for Alternatives B, C, and E. The
modeled noise level for Alternative C is about
1 dBA louder than for Alternatives B and E.
For Alternative C, the ore mill operations
(coarse ore stockpile, ore mill, and tailings
dam) and the above-ground crusher at the ore
mill are by far the dominant noise sources.
The above-ground mining sources that
dominate Alternatives B and E (waste rock
areas and haul roads) are absent from
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-168
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
Alternative C. For Alternative C, the modeled
noise level one mile east of the facility
boundary is just equal to the WADOE limit of
60 dBA.
4.13.6 Effects of Alternative D
For the areas near Chesaw/Bolster, west of
the proposed mine and the unpopulated areas
directly east of the proposed mine, the noise
levels for Alternative D would be similar to
those for Alternatives B and E. The mining
equipment for the surface pit would operate
near the top of the ridge of Buckhorn
Mountain, in a configuration that is
comparable to the mine pit for Alternatives B
and E. The waste rock operations would be
completed in comparable locations for
Alternatives B and E and Alternative D, and
the mill would be comparable for both
alternatives.
It is assumed that during the years when the
surface mine pit is being operated, the same
number and type of surface mining equipment
that are proposed for Alternative B would be
used for Alternative D. Therefore, the noise
caused by the above-ground equipment at the
mine pit would cause noise levels at Chesaw
and Bolster that would be similar to
Alternatives B and E. The noise levels east of
the facility would also be similar to
Alternatives B and E, because the locations of
the above-ground sources that dominate the
eastern noise levels (mine pit, haul road,
north waste rock and ore mill) are similar to
Alternatives B and E.
Alternative D would probably cause lower
noise levels at the private land in Sections 25
and 35, Township 40 North, Range 30 East,
southwest of the facility boundary than
would Alternatives B and E. There would be
no southern waste rock area for this
alternative, so there would be minimal pieces
of equipment operating along the southern
facility boundary.
4.13.7 Effects of Alternative E
The Alternative E noise levels would be the
same as those modeled for Alternative B.
4.13.8 Effects of Alternative F
Alternative F would limit the mining and
reclamation activities to a 12-hour period
during the daytime, while the mill would
operate around the clock. Therefore, during
the operations phase (which would be
extended to 16 years), there would be no
loud nighttime noise emissions, except for the
relatively quiet fans and motors at the mill.
The nighttime noise levels at all locations
outside the facility boundary would be lower
than the WADOE limits. The mill would not
be audible above background at night at any
permanent residential areas.
The daytime noise levels at all locations
would be the same for Alternative F as they
are for Alternatives B and E, because the
daytime equipment usage would be similar.
The daytime noise levels at all locations
outside the facility boundary would be lower
than the WADOE daytime limits. During the
morning daytime hours, the mining activities
could be audible above background at
Chesaw and Bolster.
The reclamation activities (pit backfilling)
would stop at night, so there would be no
nighttime noise impacts during the 16 year
reclamation period. During the 16 year
daytime reclamation phase, the haul trucks
and backfilling operations would cause noise
levels east and south of the Project that
would be only slightly lower than the
operational phase.
During reclamation, there would be extensive
activity at the waste rock areas, and fully
loaded haul trucks would travel up relatively
steep haul roads. These loaded trucks would
emit more noise than the mining trucks used
to haul waste rock and ore down the
mountain. However, during reclamation, the
mill would not be active, and initially the
backfilling operations would be completed at
the bottom of the mine pit. However, as
backfilling operations approach the top of
Buckhorn Mountain, overall noise emissions
would increase over those predicted for
Alternatives B and E. Such activities would
probably be audible above background at
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-169
Chesaw and Bolster during the morning
daylight hours.
The overall noise emissions during
reclamation are expected to be slightly lower
than they would be during the mining
operations.
4.13.9 Effects of Alternative G
The Alternative G noise levels from mining
and milling at Chesaw/Bolster would be the
same as for Alternatives B and E, because
these alternatives would use the same mining
equipment, mining rates, and similar ore
processing equipment. Therefore, the
daytime and nighttime noise levels at
Chesaw/Bolster, which are governed by the
mining activities, would be the same as for
Alternatives B and E. The mining activities
would be audible during nighttime and
morning periods with a quiet background.
With Alternative G, 12 ore concentrate trucks
per day (seven days per week, one truck per
hour) would make round trips to Oroville,
passing through Chesaw. These trucks
would operate on a round-the-clock basis
from the Crown Jewel Project site and would
increase noise levels in Chesaw.
The mill for Alternative G would use fewer
fans and blowers than the mill for
Alternatives B and E, so the sound power
levels emitted from the flotation mill could be
1 dBA to 2 dBA lower than for Alternatives B
and E. In that case, the ambient sound levels
at locations within about one mile of the mill
could be slightly lower (about 1 dBA to 2
dBA) than the modeled sound levels for
Alternatives B and E.
4.14 RECREATION
4.14.1 Summary
Adverse effects on recreation resources
would occur during the construction and
operational phase (less than ten years) except
Alternative F (33 years) and would affect
primarily dispersed recreational activities
within the primary study area. The Crown
Jewel Project would diminish recreational
values in and immediately adjacent to the
proposed mine. Impacts from Crown Jewel
Project alternatives would comply with the
"Roaded Modified" recreation opportunity
spectrum established by the Forest Service
management prescriptions for the area.
Direct, short-term impacts of all of the
alternatives would consist of the closure of
numerous Forest Roads and the consequent
interruption of access throughout the Crown
Jewel Project area; increased traffic on
access roads; the closure of the area within
Crown Jewel Project boundaries; and noise
and visual impacts as shown on Table
4.14.1, Recreation Impacts Comparison of
Alternatives.
Alternatives C and D would have the fewest
acres disturbed and inaccessible to the public
for the shortest time period, while
Alternatives E and G would have the greatest
number of acres disturbed. Alternative F
would have the Crown Jewel Project area
inaccessible to the public for the longest time
period.
TABLE 4.14.1, RECREATION IMPACTS COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
Alternative
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Disturbed
Acres
55
787
415
558
928
817
893
Employees
4
144
225
225
150
125
210
Additional
Housing
Units
0
56
177
154
56
50
82
Increased
Camping
Visits
0
Project
Duration
(years)
1
870 10
2,750
1,980
870
780
1,275
6
8
10
33
10
Total
Traffic
(ADTI
12
108
151
154
108
89
160
Supply
Traffic
(ADT)
0
18
15
18
18
11
10
Supply
Route
--
Wauconda
Chesaw
Wauconda
Wauconda
Wauconda
Chesaw
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-170
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
Estimated operational traffic would vary
considerably between alternatives, ranging
from an estimated 89 trips per day under
Alternative F to 160 trips under Alternative
G, assuming 75% participation in busing.
The proposed route for supply vehicles
through Chesaw under Alternatives C and G
would minimize effects on the Beth and
Beaver Lakes campgrounds over the other
alternatives, but would increase noise effects
on residents of the Chesaw area. A primary
concern with Alternative F is the 33-year
duration of the Crown Jewel Project which
would extend the impacts over a much longer
period than the other alternatives.
The permanent, direct impacts of Alternatives
B, E, and G would be the lowered summit of
Buckhorn Mountain, as well as other
alterations to the area's visual characteristics.
Hikers visiting the summit of Mt. Bonaparte,
Bodie Mountain, Graphite Mountain, and
other peaks east of the Crown Jewel Project
would be able to see portions of the mine pit
and waste rock disposal areas. Alternative F
may result in a slight increase in the height of
Buckhorn Mountain. Permanent direct effects
of Alternatives C and D would consist of the
potential subsidence hazard over the
underground workings. While Alternatives B,
D, and G would result in a permanent lake in
the final mine pit, this could pose a safety
hazard to recreationists, as well as becoming
a recreation resource.
Indirect impacts would consist of the
potential for construction workers and job
seekers to use state or Forest Service
campgrounds for housing, as well as
potentially increased demands placed on
recreational facilities by Crown Jewel Project-
related population increases. Alternatives C
and D would result in the largest, long-term
population increases of all of the alternatives
due to the larger number of employees and
greater predicted non-local workforce.
Alternative F is predicted to cause the lowest
population increase during operations, but
would have a larger reclamation workforce
than other alternatives and operations which
would last 23 years longer.
4.14.2 Effects of Alternative A (No Action)
Under Alternative A, pre-development mine-
related and exploration traffic would cease
after reclamation. Areas affected by
exploration would be reclaimed, which would
restore the recreational value of the area to
near pre-exploration conditions. Recreational
activities in the Project area could resume
approximately a year after reclamation
begins, although it would take considerably
longer than that for the area to appear natural
and for replanted trees and shrubs to mature.
4.14.3 Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives
Direct Effects
Direct effects would include both temporary
and permanent alterations to the recreational
resources in the Buckhorn Mountain area.
The most important temporary impact would
result from the road closures required by the
Crown Jewel Project, since most of the
current recreation occurs along these roads.
Portions of Forest Roads 3575-100, 120,
127, 140, and 150, which provide access
through the Crown Jewel Project area, would
be closed to the public at Crown Jewel
Project boundaries. Other Forest roads within
the Marias Creek drainage would also be
closed as part of mitigation for the Crown
Jewel Project. Consequently, recreationists
such as hunters, plant gatherers,
snowmobilers, off-road vehicle users, hikers,
and horseback riders that might use these
roads would be temporarily displaced.
Closure of portions of Forest Roads 3575-
100, 120, 140, and 150 would interrupt the
north-south access across the primary study
area, preventing recreationists from travelling
between the Pontiac Ridge Road (south of
the Crown Jewel Project) and the Nicholson
Creek and the Gold Creek roads to the north.
No alternative route to maintain north-south
access would be provided during operations
as part of the proposed mitigation.
Hunting would be affected by the road and
area closures resulting from the Crown Jewel
Project, as well as increased hunting pressure
by Crown Jewel Project employees.
Increased hunting pressure is discussed
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-171
below under indirect effects. Although the
road closures would reduce access to the
area for hunting, they can sometimes improve
the quality of hunting by reducing disturbance
to habitat. Land fenced off from the public
during the 12 to 39 year mining and
reclamation operation would displace existing
hunting activity to other portions of the study
area. Wildlife game species could also be
displaced out of the facility areas for the life
of the mining and reclamation operation. In
the immediate vicinity of the Crown Jewel
Project, wildlife and hunters may be affected
by noise, dust, lighting, and traffic.
Birdwatching would be affected by road and
area closures. Although birdwatching would
not be possible in the Crown Jewel Project
area during the operation of the mine, there
would be slight impacts to birdwatching in
the surrounding areas due to the reduced
access caused by road closures and from
noise disturbance.
There are no fisheries resources within the
Crown Jewel Project core area. Most current
fishing activities occur several miles
downstream of the proposed Crown Jewel
Project in the Myers Creek, Toroda Creek,
and the Kettle River. A minor fishing
opportunity exists in Marias and Nicholson
Creek drainages. Given spill-prevention
measures and drainage and sediment controls
installed and maintained for any of the action
alternatives, there would be no impact to
fishing activities in these areas except from
possible spills along the transportation route
and possible minor impacts due to
sedimentation.
The transportation of employees and supplies
to and from the Crown Jewel Project site
could have a minor impact on recreation.
Crown Jewel Project-related traffic would
reduce the quality of the recreation
experience along these roads, as noise levels
and the possibility of an accident would
increase. Some recreationists may be
displaced to other areas by this traffic,
particularly those using Beth and Beaver
Lakes and Forest Road 3575-120. Existing
logging traffic in this area has already
displaced off-road vehicle users to other areas
(Barker, 1992). Since the alternatives
contain several different transportation
routes, specific traffic impacts on recreation
are discussed in more detail under each
alternative.
If recreationists are close enough to the
Crown Jewel Project area, they may hear
Project-related noise. Blasting would be the
single loudest noise. This would occur during
daylight hours, generally once or twice per
day. This sound would resemble a sonic
boom or thunder. Most of the other noise
impacts would be considered "slight to
substantial" impacts under EPA Region 10
criteria and would only occur under unusual
climatic conditions, which would be during
early morning hours (7:00 to 8:00 A.M.) on
days when background noise levels are low
and temperature inversions have developed.
Indirect Effects
Indirect effects to recreational resources
would result from Crown Jewel Project-
related population increases in Okanogan and
Ferry Counties. All of the action alternatives
would require a temporary workforce during
construction, which would be imported to the
Okanogan Valley and western Ferry County
and would need to find temporary housing
(see Section 4.19, Socioeconomic
Environment). An estimated 60% of the
temporary workforce would be from outside
the local area. Given limited temporary
housing currently available in the area, many
of these workers may choose to live in mobile
home and recreational vehicle parks. Space
at these facilities is also limited and may
result in increased stay limit violations at
Lake Osoyoos State Park or Forest Service
campgrounds in the Five Lakes Area. This
would place pressure on these resources and
could impact the recreation setting at these
facilities. Job seekers who do not find work
may also increase demand on these facilities.
Crown Jewel Project-related population
growth could place increased demand on
recreational resources in the area, especially
the developed recreation facilities in the Five
Lakes Area. Under current conditions, use of
these Forest Service campgrounds is
approaching capacity during weekends, and
the lakes tend to be over-fished. Crown
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-172
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES January 1997
Jewel Project-related population growth could
also increase demand for hunting, fishing,
hiking, snow mobiling, cross country skiing,
and mountain biking. Additional fishing
pressure in the Five Lakes Area may require a
change in the fisheries management policy.
The added population could increase pressure
to a very minor extent on community parks
and recreation facilities. If the new
households are distributed among Tonasket,
Oroville, Republic, and Curlew, the overall
population increase would represent a
relatively small increase in demand. Because
many facilities are already below standard,
any substantial increase in demand would be
difficult to accommodate. Traffic generated
by indirect population growth would also
have a slight impact on recreational use of
the area's roads.
Cumulative Effects
Prior to recent exploration and logging
activities, Buckhorn Mountain provided a
"Roaded Natural" recreation setting
(recreation opportunity spectrum) on the east
side of the mountain and a "Semiprimitive
Non-Motorized" recreation setting on the
west side of Buckhorn Mountain. The
cumulative effects of an action alternative
combined with past and future logging, mine
exploration, and road construction would alter
the recreation setting to "Roaded Modified"
by increasing roads and decreasing the
natural appearance of the area. A
considerable percentage of the area around
Buckhorn Mountain has been logged to date.
Park Place timber sale was sold in 1994 on
WADNR land to the south of the Project and
was harvested this summer. Three additional
sales, covering an estimated 800 acres, are
proposed on WADNR land within the next ten
years. A 200 acre sale, thinning, is planned
on BLM lands within the next ten years in the
vicinity of the Project. No new timber sales
are planned on National Forest lands in the
Buckhorn block through the year 1999. Log
hauling from these sales may conflict with
recreational use of Forest roads.
Cumulative effects on recreational resources
could also result from the combined effects
of normal increases in recreation demand
unrelated to the Crown Jewel Project and
Project-related recreation. Without Project-
related increases, demand for dispersed
camping along roaded areas is expected to
increase by 29% by the year 2020 (WIAC,
1990). Demand for developed recreation
opportunities is expected to increase by 42%
over the same period (Forest Service, 1989).
Relative to these projections, Crown Jewel
Project-related demand would place a small
amount of additional pressure on existing
recreational resources, especially on the
developed facilities within the region.
4.14.4 Effects of Alternative B
Direct Effects
Alternative B would result in the disturbance
of 787 acres of land. Two thousand acres
inside the fence would be closed to the public
over at least a ten year period. The closure
of this area would make the summit of
Buckhorn Mountain inaccessible and would
reduce the land available for dispersed
recreation opportunities such as hunting,
hiking, camping, rockhounding, etc. In the
long-term, the primary impact of Alternative B
would be the topographic effect of the mine
pit on the summit of Buckhorn Mountain,
perhaps changing its status as a hiking
destination. After completion of the Crown
Jewel Project, the summit would be about 50
feet lower than and 500 feet to the south of
the present summit. The lowered summit
and reduced scenic value could reduce the
value of Buckhorn Mountain to hikers and
climbers as Washington's 103rd highest peak
(out of approximately 200 in the state) with
2,000 feet of prominence above ridgeline.
Formation of a lake in the mine pit, after
completion of the Crown Jewel Project, could
benefit recreation, but may also pose a safety
hazard, due to the pit's steep walls and water
quality.
The Crown Jewel Project would employ an
annual average of 144 people during the
operation phase. This would result in
approximately 108 vehicle trips per day using
County Roads 9480 and 4895, and Forest
Road 3575-120 from Oroville to the Crown
Jewel Project site. Since the Proponent
would be busing and/or van pooling
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-173
employees to the site from Oroville, traffic
passing by the Beth and Beaver Lake Forest
Service Campgrounds would consist of 18
supply and pilot vehicles per day along
County Road 9480 during peak operations.
Supply vehicles would normally use these
roads weekdays only. The Crown Jewel
Project-related traffic activity could affect the
quality of the recreation experience for those
using recreation facilities or driving for
pleasure along these roads. There would be
little to no impact on those using Bonaparte
and Lost Lakes Campgrounds, since these
facilities are generally accessed from the
south along County Road 4953, and this
alternative does not use County Road 4953
for employee or supply transport. Job
seekers moving to the area may place
additional demands on these recreational
facilities.
Indirect Effects
Alternative B could result in the addition of
56 households to the study area, which
would increase pressure on recreation
resources. Based on regional household trip
data, the additional households could increase
the annual demand for camping by 870
recreation visits (WIAC, 1990). Only a
portion of these trips would likely occur in the
Five Lakes Area, but any additional use would
increase pressure on these heavily used
facilities. This additional use, however, may
also be mitigated in part by a slight reduction
in visitors to Beth and Beaver lakes. It is
possible that some of these campers may
choose to camp outside the Five-Lakes Area
due to the traffic impacts discussed above
under direct impacts.
Population growth resulting from Alternative
B could increase hunting in the study area.
There are currently an estimated 733 hunters
per year distributed throughout the primary
recreation study area, which is estimated to
increase to 836 by the year 2000, based on
the Washington Outdoors: Assessment and
Policy Plan (WIAC, 1990). If an average of
one person from each new household hunted,
the increase in hunters in the Project vicinity
would be less than 7% of the estimated
hunters. Since only a portion of these
individuals are likely to hunt in the study
area, the actual increase in hunters would
most likely be much less than 7%. As with
camping, this potential increase in hunting
may be mitigated by a slight decrease in the
number of hunters from outside the county
that elect to not return due to Crown Jewel
Project impacts such as traffic, road closures,
and the Crown Jewel Project area closures,
as discussed above under direct impacts.
4.14.5 Effects of Alternative C
Direct Effects
Alternative C would result in the disturbance
of 415 acres of land. The effects of
Alternative C on recreation resources would
be similar to those of Alternative B because
portions of several Forest roads would be
closed to public access. The area closed to
the public during mining and the area
disturbed would be less than all of the other
action alternatives. The duration of road and
Project area closures would be at least six
years with Alternative C. The major
difference between Alternatives B and C in
terms of recreation would be the underground
mining, which would allow the summit of
Buckhorn Mountain to remain intact. The
potential for subsidence with Alternative C,
however, would threaten public safety to the
extent that the area of subsidence may have
to be permanently fenced. The mountain
would thus retain its status as the 103rd
highest peak in Washington State with 2,000
feet of prominence, but may not be fully
accessible to hikers.
The routing of supplies through Chesaw
would benefit recreation in comparison to
Alternatives B, D, E, and F since supply
trucks would not pass by the Beth and
Beaver Lakes campgrounds facilities.
However, Alternative C would require a larger
workforce, which would increase general
traffic on the roads between Oroville and the
Crown Jewel Project site.
Indirect Effects
During mining operations, Alternative C
would require a greater number of out-of-area
workers than Alternative B, which would
result in a greater increase in pressure on
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-174
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
recreation resources. There would be an
estimated 177 new households, compared to
56 households under Alternative B. These
new households would increase the annual
demand for camping by an estimated 2,750
recreation visits, based on regional household
trip data (WIAC, 1990). Some of these trips
would occur in the Five Lakes area, which is
currently approaching capacity on weekends.
If an average of one person from each new
household hunted each year in the primary
study area, there would be an increase of
approximately 21 % over the projected 836
annual hunters by year 2000.
4.14.6 Effects of Alternative D
Direct Effects
Alternative D would result in fewer acres
fenced off from the public and fewer acres
disturbed (558) than all of the other action
alternatives except C. Due to the partial
underground operation, this alternative would
allow the summit of Buckhorn Mountain to
remain intact, although a portion of it may
need to be permanently fenced off from the
public after mining due to the threat of
subsidence. Impacts on hunting and fishing
would be similar to those for Alternative B,
except there could be a greater increase in
hunting and fishing pressure as discussed
below under indirect effects. The estimated
average of 18 supply vehicle trips per day
would have the same effects on the Beth and
Beaver lakes campgrounds as for Alternative
B. The employee traffic impacts would be
the same as for Alternative C because of the
relatively large workforce required for
underground mining.
Indirect Effects
The indirect Effects of Alternative D would be
similar to those of Alternative C, due to the
larger non-local workforce over the other
alternatives. There would be an estimated
154 new households under Alternative D,
compared to 56 for Alternative B and 177 for
Alternative C. The new households could
increase pressure on hunting, fishing and
other recreational resources, increasing the
annual demand for camping by 1,980 visits.
If an average of one person from each new
household hunted each year in the primary
study area, there would be an increase of
approximately 19% over the projected 836
annual hunters by year 2000.
4.14.7 Effects of Alternative E
Direct Effects
The effects of Alternative E on recreation
resources would be similar to those of the
other action alternatives because portions of
the Crown Jewel Project area and several
Forest roads would be closed to public
access. Alternative E, however, would have
a slightly larger area fenced off from the
public than any other alternative. Alternative
E also would have the largest disturbed area
(928 acres) of all the alternatives. The
primary difference between Alternative E and
the other surface mining alternatives is the
partial backfill of the mine pit, which would
preclude formation of a lake and the
associated recreational activities and hazards.
Traffic impacts would be the same as
Alternative B, with 108 vehicle trips per day,
including 18 supply trips per day between
Wauconda and the site, which would affect
the Beth and Beaver lakes campgrounds.
Indirect Effects
Indirect effects would be similar to
Alternative B, with 56 new households
resulting in an increase of an estimated 870
camping visitor days. As with Alternative B,
hunting in the study area would increase by
less than 7%, assuming that an average of
one person per household hunted, compared
to the projected 836 annual hunters by year
2000 without the Crown Jewel Project.
4.14.8 Effects of Alternative F
Direct Effects
Alternative F would result in similar road and
area closures as the other action alternatives,
except that a greater portion of Forest Road
3575-100 would be closed (over two
additional miles) due to the proposed tailings
facility location in the Nicholson Creek
drainage. The area disturbed by Alternative F
(817 acres) would be larger than all of the
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-175
alternatives except E and G. Due to the 12-
hour per day mining schedule proposed as
part of Alternative F, the Crown Jewel
Project would last 33 years, which would
extend the duration of Project-related road
and area closures. Alternative F would
backfill the final mine pit which could raise
the summit of Buckhorn Mountain and would
preclude formation of a lake in the mine pit.
The traffic impacts of Alternative F would be
similar to those of Alternative B, because
there would be 89 trips per day for employee
and other vehicles, but there would be less
supply trips (11 per day) passing through
Beaver Canyon. During the 16-year
reclamation phase, supply traffic is estimated
at three trips per day, with 50 trips per day
from other types of vehicles.
Indirect Effects
Since Alternative F would last for 33 years
instead of the six to ten years proposed for
the other alternatives, the duration of indirect
impacts on recreation resources would last
much longer. During operations, Alternative
F would have the smallest population
increase of all the alternatives (50
households) and thus less additional pressure
on hunting, fishing, camping and other
recreation resources (780 visits). If an
average of one person from each new
household hunted each year in the primary
study area, there would be an increase of
approximately 6% over the projected 836
annual hunters by year 2000. Alternative F,
however, would require 50% more workers
during the 16-year reclamation phase than
any of the other action alternatives which
would increase pressure on the region's
recreation resources for a longer period of
time.
4.14.9 Effects of Alternative G
Direct Effects
Alternative G would result in similar road and
Crown Jewel Project area closures the other
action alternatives, except that, like
Alternative F, a greater portion of Forest Road
3575-100 would be closed (over two
additional miles) due to the proposed tailings
facility location in the Nicholson Creek
drainage. A total of 893 acres would be
disturbed. The duration of Alternative G
would be the same as for Alternative B (ten
years). The traffic impacts of Alternative G,
however, would be substantially higher than
the other alternatives, since the concentrate
would be transported by truck through
Chesaw to Oroville. This alternative would
require 210 employees, increasing traffic
impacts to a total of 160 trips per day
through Chesaw (see Section 4.17,
Transportation). Since supplies would be
transported through Chesaw, there would be
minimal new impact on the Beth and Beaver
lakes campgrounds.
Indirect Effects
During mining operations, Alternative G
would require a greater number of non-local
workers than Alternative B, even though the
percentage of local hire is the same, and thus
could result in greater pressure on recreation
resources. There would be an estimated 82
new households with Alternative G. These
new households could increase the annual
demand for camping by an estimated 1,275
recreation visits, based on regional household
trip data (WIAC, 1990). If an average of one
person from each new household hunted
each year in the primary study area, there
would be an increase of approximately 10%
over the projected 836 annual hunters by
year 2000.
4.15 SCENIC RESOURCES
The scenic impact analysis is based on the
premise that visitors to the National Forest
prefer to see the forest in a condition as close
as possible to its natural state, and thus
facility development, such as the proposed
Crown Jewel Project, should be as
compatible as possible to the landscape's
natural form, line, color, and texture,
consistent with other resource requirements
of the forest. In the case of Buckhorn
Mountain, mining was designated as potential
resource use of the area in the Okanogan
National Forest, 1989 Land and Resource
Management Plan, and thus a certain degree
of changes to scenery is considered
acceptable by the Forest Service to allow
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-176
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
development of the mining resource (Forest
Service, 1989). The Forest Service has
assigned a "maximum modification" scenic
quality objective for the Buckhorn Mountain
area.
Major impacts would be actions that create a
level of contrast with the adjacent natural
landscape that would not meet the
"maximum modification" scenic quality
objective, regardless of mitigation and
reclamation. Impacts to scenery of land
owned by private individuals or other
government agencies are analyzed based on
Forest Service scenic management
objectives, since scenic standards for scenery
have not been adopted for these other
governmental or private lands.
4.15.1 Summary
All of the action alternatives would result in
general disturbance to the area from dust,
lights, and traffic, as well as construction of
the topsoil stockpiles, waste rock disposal
areas, borrow areas, roads, support buildings,
lighting, water supply system, and the power
line. The new section of power line to be
constructed southeast of Chesaw would be
the most visible of these features, altering the
view from the Oroville-Toroda Creek Road,
Nealey, and Forest Road 3575-125
Viewpoints. Once mining and reclamation is
completed and the Crown Jewel Project
facilities are removed, the public would again
have access to the area and thus be able to
see the sites of these facilities. As these
areas gradually revegetate over time,
contrasts in texture and color would be
reduced.
Where the alternatives differ is primarily in
the configuration or presence of the mine pit,
the waste rock disposal areas, and the
tailings disposal area. Alternative C would
not require the open pit, but would require
two quarries, one of which would be on the
ridgeline. The only visible evidence of
Alternative C from outside the Crown Jewel
Project mining area could be a moisture cloud
in the winter months. Alternative D could
also create a moisture cloud, as well as long-
term impacts from the mine pit. Alternatives
C and D may also result in surface
subsidence above the underground works.
Alternatives B and E are similar in terms of
impacts to scenery, with the greatest impacts
consisting of the view of the north waste
rock disposal area from Canada, the view of
the south waste rock disposal area from Mt.
Bonaparte, and the view of the mine pit and
south waste rock disposal area from Toroda
Creek. In the long-term. Alternative F would
have the least impact to scenery, because the
pit would be completely backfilled, the
summit would be re-established (albeit
slightly higher), and there would be no
remaining waste rock disposal areas; likewise
the lighting impacts of Alternative F would be
lower due to the shorter work days. Tripling
the length of the Crown Jewel Project to 33
years would extend the duration of the
impacts, including views of the north waste
rock disposal area and mine pit. Alternative
G would have the least short-term impacts to
scenery, because there would be no south
waste rock area and the north waste rock
disposal area would be only slightly visible
outside the immediate vicinity of the Crown
Jewel Project.
Table 4.15.1, Summary of Short-Term and
Long-Term Scenic Impacts, show each
alternatives compatibility with the Forest
Service's scenic quality objectives.
4.15.2 Effects of Alternative A (No
Action)
Under Alternative A, existing mine exploration
activities would cease. The area disturbed
for exploration and all roads used exclusively
for exploration activities would be reclaimed.
In the short-term under Alternative A, signs
of mine exploration may be visible to those
using the immediate area as vegetation
gradually becomes established, but the
"maximum modification" scenic quality
objective would be met. There would be no
major long-term impacts, once the area is
reclaimed and revegetated.
4.15.3 Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives
The effects common to all action alternatives
would include the power line corridor and
associated structures proposed for the Ethel
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
?
1
I
5'
CD
I
S1
I
I
o
Alternative
==^=^^^^g- ' ———. j-j*—" •—
TABLE 4.15.1. SUMMARY OF SHORT TERM AND LONG TERM SCENIC IMPACTS
Oroville-Toroda
Road
(max, modification)
Nealey Road
(max. modification)
Mt. Bonaparte
(max. modification)
Forest Road
3575-125
(max, modification)
Highway 3
(max. modification)
Notes: Y = Meets scenic quality objective.
N = Does not meet scenic quality objective.
Toroda Creek
(max. modification)
JO
<0
SI
O
1
is
I
|
SI
SI
-------
Page 4-178
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
Creek drainage, the Starrem Reservoir and
buried pipeline along Gold Creek, the support
buildings, and the topsoil and borrow areas,
as well as general disturbance due to dust
and traffic.
The western portion of the proposed power
transmission line, between Oroville and
Chesaw, would run primarily along an
existing power line right-of-way and thus
would not require any large right-of-way
clearings. Since the power line corridor
would be visible from County Roads 9480
and 9485, the sensitivity is relatively high.
Impacts to scenery would result from
upgrading the existing poles to wood H-frame
poles, but this would meet the scenic quality
objective since it would only slightly increase
the contrast in form and line over existing
conditions.
The new power line and right-of-way required
east of Chesaw would be routed through
open ranchland for approximately one mile
and through forested mountainside, within
the Ethel Creek drainage, the remaining four
miles. The 100-foot wide right-of-way
clearing would create a contrast with the
natural surroundings due to its straight edges,
lighter color, and finer texture. From the
Nealey Road Viewpoint, the power line
corridor would be visible in the lower Ethel
Creek drainage, but would be only
intermittently visible as it rises up the
drainage due to its location on the northern
side of the drainage and at the base of the
slope. The corridor would be less visible
from the Oroville-Toroda Creek Road
Viewpoint, because the angle of view is
parallel to much of the route and because the
lower drainage is screened by topography.
The corridor would be visible from both
viewpoints, as it reaches the top of the
drainage and crosses over the saddle. The
right-of-way clearing would create the most
contrast at the top of the ridge, since the
saddle is perpendicular to the line-of-sight.
The power line corridor may also appear in
the left edge of Forest Road 3575-125
Viewpoint as it crosses over the ridge.
The power line corridor east of Chesaw
would meet the "maximum modification"
scenic quality objective. In the long-term, the
power line east of Chesaw would be removed
and the right-of-way reclaimed. Since the
power line from Oroville to Chesaw would
remain after completion of the Crown Jewel
Project, the impacts to scenery would
continue.
The proposed water supply reservoir in the
Starrem Creek drainage would be located on
private property, 3.5 miles northeast of
Chesaw, and disturb approximately 35 to 40
acres of ranchland. Since the reservoir site is
not visible from any roads or other public
places, it would have no major, long-term
impacts to scenery. In the long-term, the
proposed reservoir would be drained, the
embankment slopes removed, and the entire
site revegetated. The proposed pump station
would be visible to the public from the
intersection of Myers Creek and County Road
4883. The pump station would be similar in
impact as other developments in the valley.
The pump station would be removed after
completion of the Crown Jewel Project and
the site reclaimed.
Construction of the proposed, underground
water pipeline would require disturbing about
three acres. The pipeline route would most
likely be visible from County Road 4883,
north of Bolster or Forest Road 3575. The
water pipeline would impact a narrow (about
20 feet wide), relatively straight line of
vegetation going to the summit of Buckhorn
ridge. Although it would contrast with
natural line and form, the pipeline would meet
the "maximum modification" scenic quality
objective.
The support buildings and ancillary facilities
would cover approximately 28 acres and
include an administration building, plant
facilities building, maintenance shop/truck
shop/warehouse, secondary and tertiary
crushing building, fuel storage tank farm,
water storage tanks, power substation, and
security. The facilities would introduce
contrasting line, form, color, and texture to
the area, but would only be visible from
Forest Road 3575-125 Viewpoint and would
meet the "maximum modification" scenic
quality objective from this viewpoint. Since
the support facilities would be removed after
completion of the Crown Jewel Project, they
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-179
would have no long-term impacts. Once the
site is recontoured and revegetated, as
proposed, contrasts in form, line, color, and
texture would be reduced.
The proposed topsoil stockpiles would most
likely not be visible from any of the
viewpoints, except the Forest Road 3575-
125 Viewpoint, assuming trees are left in
place to provide screening. Stockpiles east
of the Buckhorn Ridge would meet the
"maximum modification" scenic quality
objective from Forest Road 3575-125
Viewpoint. None of the stockpiles would
create long-term impacts, since the topsoil
would be reused and sites reclaimed after
completion of the Crown Jewel Project.
Several borrow areas would be required near
the tailings disposal facility for construction
of the embankments. During mining these
may be visible from the Forest Road 3575-
125 Viewpoint, but would be reclaimed as
soon as they are no longer required.
Light and glare could create a glow at night
visible from quite a distance away, depending
on the type, intensity, location of lighting
used, and on weather conditions. Lighting
could impact nighttime recreational activities,
such as camping and stargazing, as well as
the general scenic quality of the area during
the evening hours. Lighting at the pit and
waste rock areas would be provided by
portable light plants and would be focused
into the Crown Jewel Project area. Lighting
around the crusher and mill area would be
mounted stationary structures. Since fully
shielded, low pressure sodium lights would
be used, lighting impacts would be further
mitigated. There would be no adverse
environmental effects from implementing this
mitigation measure.
Indirect Effects
Indirect impacts to scenery would result
primarily from the new residential
development associated with all of the
alternatives, since the Crown Jewel Project is
not expected to cause enough new
commercial development to create impacts to
scenery. Since new home construction
would most likely be distributed throughout
the region, including the communities of
Tonasket and Oroville and possibly Republic
and Curlew, the overall impacts in any single
area would be minimal. New housing
demand would range in magnitude from 50
units for Alternative F to 177 units for
Alternative C during the Crown Jewel Project
operation phase. Alternatives B and E would
have the second lowest housing demand at
56 units. Alternatives D and G would require
1 54 and 82 units, respectively (Section 4.19,
Socioeconomic Environment).
Cumulative Effects
Past activities have substantially altered the
scenery in the Buckhorn Mountain area.
Recent activities including the Nicholson,
Nicholson Salvage 1, Nicholson Salvage 2
and Park Place timber sales continue to alter
the setting, as have home and road
construction, historic mining, and the more
recent mining exploration activities. All of
the timber sale units meet scenic quality
objectives. None of these sales are expected
to increase viability of Crown Jewel Project
facilities from the analyzed viewpoints. No
new timber sales are planned on National
Forest lands in the Buckhorn block through at
least the year 1999. Approximately 800
acres of additional timber harvest by the
WADNR is planned in and near the Buckhorn
block in the next decade. Approximately 200
acres of thinning is proposed in the Buckhorn
block by the BLM in the next decade. All of
the timber sale units meet scenic quality
objectives.
4.15.4 Effects of Alternative B
Direct Effects.
The mine pit would be located at the summit
of Buckhorn Mountain, extending down the
eastern flank of the ridge and disturbing
approximately 138 acres, 37 of which were
previously cleared during past timber
harvesting. Contrasting elements introduced
by the mine pit could include the parallel
horizontal lines created by the benches and
the white marble deposits exposed by mining,
which would reflect light and increase the
pit's visibility. In the long-term, the linear
effect would be reduced during final
reclamation.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-180
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
Views into the mine pit would be screened
from the Highway 3, Mt. Bonaparte, Oroville-
Toroda Creek Road and Nealey Road
Viewpoints either by topography or by trees
left in place along the top edge of the mine
pit, although mining activities may be visible
at the beginning of the Crown Jewel Project.
The mine pit would permanently alter the
form of the mountain from all of these
viewpoints by shifting the summit
approximately 500 feet to the south and
lowering it by approximately 50 feet.
Although altered by the Crown Jewel Project,
the form of Buckhorn Mountain, as seen from
these viewpoints would be similar to naturally
established form, because intervening peaks
would break up the straight line of the mine's
top edge. The views of the mine pit area
from the west, north and south would thus
meet the "modification" scenic quality
objective.
A portion of the northwest wall of the mine
pit would be visible from the Toroda Creek
viewpoint, with the rest screened by
intervening topography or the top of the
south waste rock disposal area once final
elevation is reached (Figure 4.15.1, Toroda
Creek, Viewpoint Alternative B). The inside
of the mine pit would most likely also be
visible from the top of Graphite Mountain,
and Bodie Mountain. These peaks all have
informal, user-maintained trails or
unmaintained roads to their summits and thus
have some limited recreational use. The
visible portion of the mine pit would create a
permanent, noticeable change from existing
color, but changes in form, line, and texture
would be difficult to detect due to the
distance. The area of the pit visible from
these viewpoints would meet the "maximum
modification" scenic quality objective, due to
its small size relative to other openings and
the forested ridge rising behind it. Although
the mine pit would also be visible from the
Forest Road 3575-125 Viewpoint,
contrasting with the natural form, line, color,
and texture, it would meet the "maximum
modification" scenic quality objective.
In the long-term, the mine pit would be visible
to those visiting the immediate Crown Jewel
Project site after mine completion, since the
pit walls and benches would not be
reforested. The mine pit would continue to
contrast with its surroundings, although
reclamation blasting and the formation of
talus slopes over time would gradually reduce
the level of contrast in line and form. In
addition, a lake would form in the northern
portion of the mine pit, which could improve
aesthetic resources to those in the immediate
vicinity.
The north waste rock disposal area would
disturb approximately 161 acres, most of
which are currently forested. The color of
the waste rock would be a mixture of whites,
greys, browns, and black. The top elevation
of the disposal area would be approximately
5,000 feet. The north waste rock area might
be screened from the Mt. Bonaparte, Oroville-
Toroda Creek Road and Nealey Road
Viewpoints by the top of the ridgeline.
Topography would also screen the north
waste rock area from the Byers Ranch. The
top of the north waste rock area would
visible from the Toroda Creek Viewpoint.
The north waste rock disposal area would be
visible against the skyline from Highway 3 in
Canada. The geometric form of the waste
area seen against the skyline would stand out
from the surroundings (Figure 4.15.2,
Highway 3 Viewpoint Alternative B).
However, Highway 3 has not been
designated by the Forest Service as a
"Sensitivity Level 1 Route" as this highway is
located in Canada. The "maximum
modification" scenic quality objective from
Forest Road 3575-125 would be met because
this objective allows contrast with natural
form, line, color, and texture within the
foreground and middleground views. In the
long-term, reclamation and revegetation
would help reduce the contrast in color, line
and texture and thus mitigate impacts to the
Highway 3 and Forest Road 3575-125
Viewpoints.
The south waste rock disposal area would
extend in a southeasterly direction from the
mine pit along the eastern flank of the ridge,
disturbing approximately 127 acres. The
waste rock disposal area would introduce
contrasting form, line, color, and texture
similar to the north waste rock area. The
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-181
south waste rock disposal area would be
visible from the Mt. Bonaparte (Figure
4.15.3, Mt. Bonaparte Viewpoint Alternative
B), Toroda Creek, and Forest Road 3575-125
Viewpoints. The area would likely be visible
from the summit of Graphite and Bodie
Mountains also. It also may be possible to
see the south waste areas through the timber
from a few short segments of the northwest
side of the newly constructed Virginia Lily
Old-Growth Trail. The trail currently receives
relatively little use, but may be used more in
the future as it becomes better known. The
"maximum modification" scenic quality
objective from Forest Road 3575-125
Viewpoint would be met.
Although the south waste rock area could be
viewed from Mt. Bonaparte, and because of
the long distance (13 miles), it would meet
the scenic quality objective of "maximum
modification." Although the distance from
the Toroda Creek Viewpoint is long (nine
miles) and the view duration is short, in the
short term, the south waste rock disposal
area would not meet the "maximum
modification" scenic quality objective from
the Toroda Creek Viewpoint, because it
would not borrow from natural line, form,
color or texture.
In the long-term, reclamation, mitigation and
revegetation measures would lessen the
impact of the south waste rock disposal area
on the Mt. Bonaparte, Toroda Creek and
Forest Road 3575-125 Viewpoints. These
reclamation measures, combined with the
proposed mitigation measures, would allow
the south waste rock area, in the long-term,
to meet the scenic quality objective from
Toroda Creek Road.
The tailings facility would be located
southeast of the mine pit, most of which
would be screened from the viewpoints by
topography. The tailings pond would be
visible to those using the area after
completion, but the "maximum modification"
scenic quality objective would be met.
The proposed access roads along Forest
Roads 3575-120 and 140 would most likely
not be visible from any of the viewpoints.
Within the Crown Jewel Project boundaries.
an 80-foot wide, haul road would be
constructed, totalling 7,000feet to 8,000 feet
in length and disturbing a total of 48 acres.
The cut and fill slopes for most of the haul
roads would be visible from the Forest Road
3575-125 Viewpoint, with the upper haul
road (between the pit and north waste area)
slightly visible from the Toroda Creek
Viewpoint. The haul roads and associated
cut and fill slopes would introduce a relatively
straight, engineered quality of form and line,
a lighter color, and finer texture to the
landscape. In the long-term, proposed
regrading and revegetation would help reduce
the contrast in form, line, color, and texture.
4.15.5 Effects of Alternative C
Direct Effects
Underground mining would allow the summit
of Buckhorn Mountain to remain in place, and
thus there would be no impact on the form of
the ridge as seen from all viewpoints.
Underground mining would require a limited
amount of clearing, regrading, and
construction, but with mitigating measures,
these activities would not create excessive
contrasts from the viewpoints and thus
would meet the "maximum modification"
scenic quality objectives. Alternative C
would require a small north waste rock area
which would not be visible from outside of
the Crown Jewel Project area. Alternative C
would also require two quarries, one quarry
on the Buckhorn ridgeline, which would be
screened from all but the Forest Road 3575-
1 25 and Highway 3 Viewpoints and the other
quarry adjacent to the tailings pond, which
would be screened from all viewpoints.
Crown Jewel Project features associated with
Alternative C would not be highly visible from
the viewpoints, with the exception of the
Forest Road 3575-125 Viewpoint. The
primary change in the view would result
during the winter months when the exhaust
fans required for underground ventilation
could create a moisture cloud that would
most likely be slightly visible from Chesaw
and from all of the viewpoints.
Since there would be no open pit with
Alternative C, there would be less impact on
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-182
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
scenery from lighting than with the other
alternatives. The mill building lights would be
the primary source of lighting impacts.
Effects on scenery of the tailings disposal
area would be similar to those for
Alternatives B, D, and E, except only
disturbing 89 acres, but screened from all of
the viewpoints. Alternative C would have
fewer roads than most of the other
alternatives, requiring only a single main haul
road to the north waste disposal area. The
haul road would disturb approximately 30
acres and be visible only from the Forest
Road 3575-125 Viewpoint. An access road
to the top of Buckhorn Mountain would also
be required, which would be within the
Toroda Creek viewshed, but would be most
visible from the Forest Road 3575-125
Viewpoint.
In the long-term, the adits and raises would
be sealed (closed), the structures removed,
and the area reclaimed and there would be no
long-term impact from the six viewpoints. To
those using the area after mining, water
discharging from around the adits might be
visible. Subsidence associated with the
underground workings would also impact
those using the Buckhorn Mountain area, but
the subsided areas could be fenced off from
the public for safety reasons.
4.15.6 Effects of Alternative D
Direct Effects
The effects on scenery of Alternative D
would be similar to those of Alternative C in
that the summit of Buckhorn Mountain would
essentially remain in place, but it would also
have a 73 acre open pit in the northern
portion of the mine, which would be visible
from Toroda Creek and Forest Road 3575-
125 Viewpoints (Figure 4.15.4, Toroda Creek
Viewpoint Alternative D). As with
Alternative C, a moisture cloud could be
visible from the surrounding area, and the
potential for subsidence could require fencing
of the Crown Jewel Project area after mining.
Alternative D would require a smaller north
waste area than Alternative B, E, F, and G,
disturbing a total of 98 acres. Although the
top portion may be visible from the Toroda
Creek or Highway 3 Viewpoints, it would not
create enough contrast to prevent the scenic
quality objective from being met. Haul roads
would be required to access the north waste
area, disturbing 35 acres and most likely only
visible from the Forest Road 3575-125
Viewpoint. An access road would also be
required to the top of Buckhorn Mountain,
similar to Alternative C.
Lighting effects would be reduced over
Alternative B, due to the underground mining;
however, night lighting would be required for
the open pit portion of the mine. This would
cause light trespass and glare, which could
create a glow at night visible from quite a
distance away, depending on the type,
location, and intensity of lighting used and
weather conditions. It is proposed to light
the minimum necessary area and not use
stadium type lighting. Lighting would be
portable and focused into the Crown Jewel
Project area.
4.15.7 Effects of Alternative E
Direct Effects
The primary difference between Alternative E
and the other open pit action alternatives
would be the partial backfill of the mine pit,
which would only be visible from the Forest
Road 3575-125 Viewpoint. In the long-term,
backfilling would reduce contrasts with
existing color and texture over Alternatives B,
D, and G. Reestablishing tree cover in the
backfilled area would screen portions of the
pit's back wall, also helping to reduce
contrasts. Due to the partial backfill, there
would be no lake formed in the pit after
mining.
The view of the north waste area would be
similar to that of Alternatives B and F except
that the crest may appear narrower, which
would make it more compatible with natural
forms (Figure 4.15.5, Highway 3 Viewpoint
Alternative E). The south waste area would
have similar impacts as Alternative B, being
visible from the Mt. Bonaparte, Forest Road
3575-125, and Toroda Creek Viewpoints, as
well as the summit of Graphite and Bodie
Mountains. The constant slope of the
disposal area and lack of benches would
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-183
make it less compatible with existing form
than the Alternative B proposal.
The effects of Crown Jewel Project lighting
would be similar to those for Alternative B.
Light and glare could create a glow at night
visible from the surrounding areas, depending
on the weather conditions, type, intensity,
and location of lighting used.
4.15.8 Effects of Alternative F
Direct Effects
Effects of Alternative F would extend over
33 years, including 16 years for reclamation,
resulting in a longer period during which
many of the Crown Jewel Project features
and facilities would be visible to the public,
although the scenic quality objective of
"maximum modification" would be met.
The short-term effects of the mine pit on all
of the viewpoints, except the Toroda Creek
Viewpoint, would be the same as for
Alternatives B and E, with a change in the
form of the mountain perceived from these
viewpoints as shown on Figure 4.15.6,
Toroda Creek Viewpoint Alternative F. The
backfilling of the mine pit would restore the
form of the Buckhorn Mountain summit as
seen from all of the viewpoints. The
backfilled pit area would be slightly higher
than original topography, due to swelling of
the backfill. In the long-term, once the pit is
backfilled and revegetated, the mine pit
would be compatible with natural form, line,
color, and texture, and thus would meet the
scenic quality objectives from all of the
viewpoints.
Although the north waste rock disposal area
would be larger in size than that for
Alternative B, covering 215 acres compared
to 161 acres, it would be the same elevation,
and thus have similar impacts from the
Highway 3 Viewpoint (Figure 4.15.7,
Highway 3 Viewpoint Alternative F). The
waste area would meet the "maximum
modification" scenic quality objective from
Highway 3. The waste area would be visible
from the Forest Road 3575-125 Viewpoint
and may be slightly visible from short
segments of the Toroda Creek Road. It
would be screened from the other viewpoints
by the top of the ridgeline. The area would
have no long-term impacts as seen from any
of the viewpoints since the waste rock would
eventually be placed back in the mine pit and
the site reclaimed.
The proposed tailings area disposal in the
Nicholson Creek drainage would create long-
term impacts to scenery from the Forest Road
3575-125 Viewpoint, since its embankment
would be less than a mile from the viewpoint,
but the "maximum modification" scenic
quality objective would be met. The tailings
pond would not be visible from the other
viewpoints.
Alternative F would reduce the impacts of
lighting over Alternative B, D, E, and G,
because there would be only 12 hours of
mining per day. Some lighting would be
required for the mill building and for the mine
pit in the early morning and evening hours
during the winter months, which would be
visible from the surrounding area, depending
on the type, intensity, and location of
lighting.
4.15.9 Effects of Alternative G
Direct Effects
The mine pit would have similar short-term
effects as Alternative F. causing a change in
the form of the mountain from the south,
west, and north. From the Toroda Creek
Viewpoint, a greater portion of the inside of
the pit would be visible than under
Alternative B, because of the absence of the
south waste area, but would still meet the
scenic quality objective. Unlike Alternative F,
this would create a long-term impact since
the mine pit would not be backfilled.
Although the north waste rock area for
Alternative G would be considerably larger
than that under Alternative B, it would be
less visible from the Highway 3 and Toroda
Creek Viewpoints due to the lower height
(Figure 4.15.8, Highway 3 Viewpoint
Alternative G). The waste area would cover
the frog pond, impacting an existing scenic
resource in the immediate Crown Jewel
Project area. Since Alternative G would not
require a south waste area, impacts would be
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-184
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
reduced from the Mt. Bonaparte and Forest
Road 3575-125 Viewpoints compared to
Alternatives B and E. Effects of the tailings
disposal would be similar to Alternative F,
located within the Nicholson Creek drainage
and visible from the Forest Road 3575-125
Viewpoint.
4.16 HERITAGE RESOURCES
4.16.1 Summary
All action alternatives would impact a
minimum of four individual sites. Of these
sites, only features 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Gold
Axe Camp (site #24-64) have been
determined eligible for the National Register
of Historic Places (NRHP). A Determination
of Eligibility for many of the mining properties
within the Crown Jewel Project area has
been reviewed by the Washington State
Office of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation (OAHP).
As recommended by that office, appropriate
mitigation of proposed impacts to these four
features (all historic cabins) at site #24-64 is
a Historical American Building Survey (HABS)
recording or equivalent. These features are
considered as one site and not a historic
district, nor are they a component of a
historic landscape.
Upon completing HABS recording for these
features, moving of the cabins (as opposed to
destruction) for the purpose of adaptive re-
use and/or interpretive and educational
purposes is additionally recommended.
However, once moved, cabin rehabilitation
should only be carried out in accordance with
the Secretary's Standard for Rehabilitation.
Recommendations concerning NRHP-eligible
properties at site #24-64 also apply to all
NRHP properties in the Crown Jewel Project
area which may be adversely impacted.
Additional historic mining-related properties
would be removed or buried as a result of
mining and related Crown Jewel Project
activity on Buckhorn Mountain, but none of
these properties are considered eligible for
inclusion on the NRHP. There are two NRHP-
eligible properties located along the proposed
Crown Jewel Project transmission line
corridor from Oroville to the mine site; these
are the Hee Hee Stone (site #450K830) and
a historic irrigation flume (site #24-72). The
Hee Hee Stone would be avoided during the
construction of the proposed transmission
line and the historic irrigation flume would
only be spanned by the line, and therefore
not affected.
4.16.2 Effects of Alternative A (No
Action)
Under the no action alternative, the present
status of historical and archaeological cultural
resources would remain unchanged.
Recognized cultural resources in the Crown
Jewel Project area would therefore be
unaffected. Mining-related properties
including the NRHP-eligible Gold Axe Camp
cabins and Neutral Claim bunker (450K481H)
would continue to deteriorate through benign
neglect.
4.16.3 Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives
Direct Effects
All action alternatives would impact a
minimum of four individual sites. Of these
sites, only Features 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Gold
Axe Camp (site #24-64) appear eligible for
the NRHP. A Determination of Eligibility for
many of the mining properties within the
Crown Jewel Project area has been reviewed
by OAHP. As recommended by that office,
appropriate mitigation for impacts to these
four features (all historic cabins) at site #24-
64 is HABS recording. These resources are
considered as a site that does not constitute
a historic district nor does it represent a
component of a historic landscape.
Four recorded sites would be removed and/or
buried as a result of mining and related
activity in all action alternatives:
• Gold Axe Camp (#24-64);
• Magnetic Camp (#450K477H);
• Roosevelt Camp (#24-65); and,
• Velvet Claim (#24-65 and #24-78).
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-185
Table 4.16.1, Summary of Effects to Cultural
Resources, presents a summary of impacts to
known sites.
There could be impacts to the utilization of
the subsistence rights that the members of
the Colville Tribe currently exercise (e.g.,
hunting and gathering). The basic impact
would be as a result of fencing the Crown
Jewel Project area to restrict public access
and to limit vehicle access to other areas
through road closures for wildlife mitigation.
Indirect Effects
Mining activity within the Crown Jewel
Project area would result in some indirect
effects to historic properties. Increased
Crown Jewel Project area visitation may
occur due to improved road conditions. An
increased human presence could result in
vandalism and other random acts which could
impact cultural resources. Some old
abandoned structures could be weakened by
blasting vibrations. In addition, to the extent
that visual attributes or physical setting
contributes to the significance of any historic
property, changes in the visual environment
could be considered a potential adverse
effect. All alternatives share a similar degree
of indirect effect on a minimum of four
historic mine sites.
Cumulative Effect
Future timber harvesting, mineral exploration,
and residential development on and around
Buckhorn Mountain could bring increased
human visitation and other potentially adverse
impacts to bear on the area's historic
resources. For properties eligible under the
NRHP development and implementation of a
mitigation plan would be required to address
specific impacts to any eligible properties.
4.16.4 Effects of Alternatives B, C,
and D
Sites to be potentially impacted include the
four sites addressed in Section 4.16.2,
Effects of Alternative A (No Action), as well
as the Gold Axe Claim (#24-86) and site
#450K476H of the Magnetic Camp. The
indirect and cumulative effects of Alternative
B, C, and D would remain the same as
discussed in Section 4.16.3, Effects Common
to All Action Alternatives.
4.16.5 Effects of Alternative E, F, and
G
Sites potentially directly impacted by
Alternative E, F, and G include those
described in Section 4.16.4, Effects of
Alternatives B, C, and D, as well as one
additional site, #24-76 associated with the
Magnetic Camp. Site #24-76 is not eligible
for inclusion to the NRHP.
The indirect and cumulative effects to these
sites would remain the same as described in
Section 4.16.3, Effects Common to All
Action Alternatives.
4.17 TRANSPORTATION
4.17.1 Summary
Effects to the existing transportation network
would result from an increase in daily traffic
to the site. This projected increase would
come from employee related traffic combined
with supply and material transport. The
magnitude and duration of impacts associated
with traffic or transportation related activities
would depend on the alternative selected.
Three potential levels of impact (scenarios)
were examined for the Project:
• 93% of the employees are bused to
Project;
• 75% of the employees are bused; and,
• No busing provided (either car pooling or
individual vehicles).
Some transportation effects or aspects would
be the same or very similar while others
would have varying effects. Each action
alternative scenario has been further
separated into three phases: construction,
operations, and reclamation. Table 4.17.1,
Average Daily Traffic by Alternative, (based
on calculations presented in Appendix G,
Traffic Assumptions) presents and compares
the estimated average daily traffic (ADT) for
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
i
I
S1
§
o
"H.
CO
s
TABLE 4.16.1, SUMMARY OF EFFECTS TO CULTURAL RESOURCES
Complex
Caribou
Gold Axe
Magnetic
Monterey
Rainbow
Western Star
Roosevelt
Type
Caribou Mine Site
Gold Axe Camp
Gold Axe Claim
Aztec Claim
Copper Queen Camp
Copper Queen Claim
Magnetic Camp
Neutral Claim
Nucleus Claim
Rainbow Claim
Western Star Claim
Roosevelt Camp
Velvet Claim
Site No.
24-79
24-64
24-80
24-86
45OK478H
450K479H
450K480H
24-79
24-76
450K476H
450K477H
24-67
24-68
45OK481H
450K482H
24-66/860K50H
24-69
27-87
24-65
24-77
24-78
Alt. A
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
NE
Alt. B
O
P
O
P
0
O
0
0
O
O
D
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M
0
M
Alt. C
O
M
0
O
0
O
0
0
O
O
0
M
O
O
O
0
0
O
0
M
0
M
Alt. D
0
P
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
O
0
M
0
O
0
O
0
O
0
M
0
M
Alt. E
0
P
0
P
0
0
O
0
0
D
D
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
M
0
M
Alt. F
0
P
O
P
0
0
O
0
0
D
D
D
O
O
O
0
0
O
O
M
O
M
Alt. Q
0
P
0
P
0
0
0
0
0
D
D
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
M
0
M
Notes: Alt = Alternative
D = Waste Rock Disposal Area Impacts
M = Miscellaneous Facilities (access roads, diversion ditches, power lines, exploration adits, vent raises, or water supply lines)
0 = Outside Impact Area or Unaffected by Alternatives
P = Mine Impacts
NE = No Effect
ft
i
"0
§
I
I
I
I
<0
<0
SJ
-------
I
I
I
C6
sr
TABLE 4.17.1, AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC BY ALTERNATIVE
(by employee traffic scenario)
Alt. A
Alt. B
Alt. C
Alt. D
Alt. E
Alt. F
Alt. G
Alt. A
Alt. B
Alt. C
Alt. D
Alt. E
Alt. F
Alt. G
Alt. A
Alt. B
Alt. C
Alt. D
Alt. E
Alt. F
Alt. G
Construction
Employee
Supply
Other
Total
Employee Car Pool
0
270
270
270
270
270
270
0
16
16
16
16
16
16
0
19
19
19
19
19
19
0
305
305
305
305
305
305
Employee Car Pool
0
270
270
270
270
270
270
0
16
16
16
16
16
16
0
19
19
19
19
19
19
0
305
305
305
305
305
305
0% of Employees Car Pool
0
500
500
500
500
500
500
0
16
16
16
16
16
16
0
19
19
19
19
19
19
0
535
535
535
535
535
535
Operations
Employee
Supply
Other
Total
93% of Employee Bused
0
32
52
52
32
32
48
0
18
15
18
18
11
10
0
6
6
6
6
6
30
0
56
73
76
56
49
88
75% of Employees Bused
0
84
130
130
84
72
120
0
18
15
18
18
11
10
0
6
6
6
6
6
30
0
108
151
154
108
89
160
0% of Employees Bused
0
288
450
450
288
250
420
0
18
15
18
18
11
10
0
6
6
6
6
6
30
0
312
471
474
312
267
460
Reclamation
Employee
Supply
Other
Total
93% of Employees Bused
8
12
12
12
12
18
12
0
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
6
6
1}
8
6
6
12
21
21
21
21
27
21
75% of Employees Bused
8
32
32
32
32
44
32
0
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
12
41
41
41
41
53
41
0% of Employees Bused
8
100
100
100
100
150
100
0
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
12
109
109
109
109
159
109
Note: Employee and Other traffic ADT based on travel 365 days per year. Supply traffic based on travel 208 days per year (Monday
through Thursday).
5°
<0
sj
i
I
is
i
*
••»
03
-------
Page 4-188
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
each phase of all alternatives. ADI is defined
as the measure of traffic over a 24-hour
period and is determined by counting the
number of vehicles (from both directions)
passing a specific point on a given road. In
the case of the Crown Jewel Project, it has
been assumed that all traffic would return on
the same day and on the same road that was
used for initial access; therefore, one vehicle
going to and from (round trip) the Crown
Jewel Project would result in an ADT of two.
All action alternatives assume that the
majority of the employees would reside along
the Tonasket-Oroville corridor and that busing
would be provided from a location in or near
Oroville. Table 4.17.2, Traffic Summary by
Road, shows the percent of traffic increase
projected for each affected road at the 75%
busing level.
Construction Phase
All of the action alternatives are projected to
have similar volumes of construction related
traffic. The Proponent has estimated that a
peak number (250) of employees would be
required for a short period of time (a few
weeks) during construction and then the
employee numbers would decline until the
operations phase starts. However, for
calculation purposes, it has been assumed
that 250 employees would be transported
over a 12 month period. This assumption is
very conservative, but it should also be
recognized that this situation would occur at
some time during the year of construction. It
has been assumed that most of the
construction employees would car pool to the
Crown Jewel Project site.
Alternatives B, D, E, and F would route
supplies through Wauconda to the site, while
employees are routed from Oroville.
Alternatives C and G would route all traffic,
employee and supply, from Oroville to the
Crown Jewel Project. For all action
alternatives, there would be some traffic
through Chesaw to the Starrem Reservoir site
during its construction.
There would be an expected increase in the
number of accidents per year, due to the
volume of traffic projected during this phase
of the operation. However, the accident rate,
based on annual miles traveled on each road,
could be lower than currently experienced
due to the safety and mitigation measures
proposed, but the actual number of accidents
could increase.
Operations Phase
The proposed action alternatives vary
considerably between employees needed and
the life span of the operation. As shown on
Table 4.17.1, Average Daily Traffic By
Alternative, Alternatives B, C, D, E, F and G
vary from 89 to 160 vehicle trips per day.
The duration of effect varies from four to
eight years, except for Alternative F which
extends for 16 years.
Again, there could be an increase in the
number of accidents per year, due to the
volume of traffic projected during this phase.
However, the increase would be much less
than expected in the construction phase.
Annual supply requirements would vary from
1,399 truck loads (Alternatives B, D, and E),
1,130 for Alternative C, 700 for Alternative
F, and 591 loads in Alternative G. All action
alternatives would transport environmentally
hazardous materials including sodium
cyanide, chemicals/reagents, lime/cement,
ammonium nitrate and fuel annually to the
Crown Jewel Project. Alternative G would
require about 400 annual loads of ammonium
nitrate and fuel, but no cyanide would be
used in this scenario. The Proponent has
indicated that most supplies would be
delivered Monday through Thursday.
Reclamation Phase
Alternatives B, C, D, E and G are projected to
have the same volume (41 ADT) of
associated traffic; employee, supply and
miscellaneous visitors over a one year period.
Alternative F would require a larger work
force for 16 years with an associated 53
ADT.
Environmentally Hazardous Materials
There would be materials required for
operation of the Crown Jewel Project that are
considered environmentally hazardous. The
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
1
is-
I
I
5-
"•*
Co
5?
!
TABLE 4.17.2, TRAFFIC SUMMARY BY ROAD
State Highway 20
(ADT 860)
Increase
% Increase
County Road 9495
(ADT 161)
Increase
% Increase
County Road 9480
(ADT 92e/259w)'
Increase
% Increase
County Road 4895
(ADT 5)
Increase
% Increase
Forest Road 3575-120
(ADT <6(
Increase
% Increase
Alternative A
Construction
Operations
Reclamation
12w
4.2w
12
240
12
>240
Alternative B
Construction
Operations
Reclamation
16
18
3
1.9
2.1
0.3
16
18
3
1.9
11.2
1.9
16e/289w
18e/90w
3e/38w
17.4e/111.6w
19.6e/31.3w
3.3e/14.7w
305
108
41
6100
2160
820
305
108
41
>6100
>2160
>820
Alternative C
Construction
Operations
Reclamation
305w
151w
41 w
117.8w
58.3w
15.8w
305
151
41
6100
3020
820
305
151
41
>6100
>3020
>820
Alternative D
Construction
Operations
Reclamation
16
18
2
1.9
2.1
0.3
16
18
3
9.9
11.2
1.9
1 6e/289w
18e/136w
3e/38w
1 7.4e/1 11.6w
19.6e/52.5w
3.3e/14.7w
305
154
41
6100
3080
820
305
154
41
>6100
>3080
>820
Alternative E
Construction
Operations
Reclamation
16
18
3
1.9
2.1
0.3
16
18
3
9.9
11.2
1.9
16e/289w
183/90W
3e/38w
17.4e/111.6w
19.6e/34.7w
3.3e/14.7w
305
108
41
6100
2160
820
305
108
41
>6100
>2160
>820
Alternative F
Construction
Operations
Reclamation
16
11
3
1.9
1.3
0.3
16
11
3
9.9
6.8
1.9
16e/289w
11e/78w
3e/50w
17.4e/111.6w
12e/30.1w
3.3e/19.ew
305
89
53
6100
1780
1060
305
89
53
>6100
>1780
>1060
Alternative G
Construction
Operations
Reclamation
305w
160w
41w
117.8w
61. 8w
IS.Sw
305
160
41
6100
3200
820
305
160
41
>6100
>3200
>820
Notes: 1 . "e" represents the portion of County Road 9480 east of the intersection with County Road 4895, "w" is west of the intersection with County Road
4895.
Traffic numbers represent expected and mitigated conditions.
ADT = average daily traffic.
See Appendix G, Traffic assumptions, for details and calculations.
<0
(o
NJ
1
1
Si
I
I
po
-------
Page 4-190
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
TABLE 4.17.3, ANNUAL HAZARDOUS MATERIAL TRANSPORT
Sodium Cyanide
Ammonium Nitrate
Chemicals/Reagents
Lime/Cement
Fuel
Lead Nitrate
Alternative
A
0
0
0
0
0
0
B
86
160
105
401
240
9
C ] D
86
55
105
401
24
9
86
160
105
401
240
9
E
86
160
105
401
240
9
F
43
80
53
201
120
5
G
0
160
26
0
240
0
Note: Numbers represent annual truck loads during operations.
type and amount of these materials needed
annually are summarized by alternative on
Table 4.17.3, Annual Hazardous Material
Transport. Although numerous mitigation
measures have been proposed to reduce or
eliminate an accident or spill of this type of
material, it must be recognized that the
potential, however slight, remains. Section
4.22, Accidents and Spills, discusses what
could happen if there would be a spill into
surface waters along a supply route.
4.17.2 Effects of Alternative A (No
Action)
If the Crown Jewel Project does not proceed,
the Proponent's exploration and pre-
construction activities would cease, resulting
in the elimination of Project-related road
traffic currently accessing the site.
After cessation of exploration activities, roads
constructed for exploration purposes on lands
administered by the Forest Service and the
BLM would be closed and reclaimed under
the terms of previously approved exploration
plans of operations and notices of intent. It
has been estimated that reclamation activities
would contribute an ADT volume of 12
vehicles. The traffic would include an
estimated:
• Four light or personal vehicles (employee
transport); and,
• Two light vehicles (agency personnel).
This anticipated traffic is summarized on
Table 4.17.1, Average Daily Traffic By
Alternative and Table 4.17.2, Traffic
Summary By Road.
The anticipated impact of this traffic would
be less than previously experienced during
the exploration program.
4.17.3 Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives
Direct Effects
If an action alternative is selected, direct
effects to the existing transportation network
would result from an increase in daily traffic
to the site. This would result from employee
related traffic combined with supply and
material transport. In addition, there would
be the need for upgrading segments of
County Road 4895 and Forest Road 3575-
120.
With all proposed action alternatives, there
are three separate phases;
1) Construction;
2) Operations; and,
3) Reclamation.
The construction phase for all alternatives
would last approximately a year and would
have the largest impact to traffic loads.
Table 4.17.1, A verage Daily Traffic By
Alternative, presents the expected traffic
conditions for the construction phase
projected for a whole year (12 months).
The peak employment expectation is 250
persons during the construction phase.
These employee ADT projections are quite
conservative because 250 employees are a
peak projection and only expected for a few
weeks during construction. A lesser number
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-191
of people would be required the majority of
the time during the construction phase.
Due to this variability in the number of
workers required at any specific time during
the construction phase, mandatory busing
was not considered. Most of the workers
would probably car pool (two persons per
vehicle) to the Crown Jewel Project in
personal vehicles.
The employee traffic estimates for the
construction phase assumes that 25 people
would be employed for the operations portion
of construction (pre-mine development) and
225 people for the actual construction
aspects of the Crown Jewel Project. Two
shifts would be utilized, and the traffic would
be proportionally split between the two
shifts.
For the 25 operations people, the shift split
would equate to 12 and 13 individuals per
respective shift, classified as follows:
• Seven and eight people in the general
workforce per respective shift; and,
• Five management people per respective
shift.
The assumed 225 construction people would
be divided into 112 and 113 people per
respective shift, categorized as follows:
• An estimated 108 and 109 people in the
general workforce per respective shift;
and,
• Four management people per respective
shift.
The total estimated employee ADT during the
construction phase would be 270. No matter
whether these people work for six months or
for the conservative projection of 12 months,
it would equal an average daily traffic number
of 270 vehicles per day for the transport of
the construction workers and other
personnel.
In order to fully evaluate the potential traffic
impacts, the supply traffic ADT was added.
The total annual supply-related construction
traffic is estimated to range from 1,696 to
2,476 vehicles. Based on a 260 day
schedule, the supply traffic would range from
6.5 to 9.5 vehicles per day or an average
ADT of 16 supply vehicles per weekday.
During the six months of concentrated
construction, it is estimated that as many as
16 transport vehicles per day (ADT 32) could
use the roads to the Crown Jewel Project.
Throughout the construction phase of the
Crown Jewel Project, it is assumed that
government personnel, consultants,
engineering contractors, sales
representatives, and the general public would
visit the site. For calculation purposes, it is
estimated that an average of three vehicles
per day (seven days a week for 365 days)
would transport these individuals to the site.
The total traffic would be 1,095 vehicles
with an estimated ADT of six.
In addition, there would be traffic associated
with the timber removal. This traffic would
be required only during the construction
phase of the Crown Jewel Project. It is
assumed that this activity would require a
total of 1,111 truck loads to haul logs and
500 vehicle trips to transport the workers
doing the harvesting. This estimated traffic
equates to an ADT of 13 vehicles.
The total ADT for the category of "Other
Traffic" during the construction phase would
be approximately 19. Table 4.17.2, Traffic
Summary By Road, shows the anticipated
traffic increase on roads in the affected
transportation network. Appendix G, Traffic
Assumptions, presents the assumptions,
methodologies, and calculations used in the
traffic analysis.
County Road 4883 (Bolster Road) would
experience a noticeable increase in traffic
during the construction of the water supply
facilities (Starrem Reservoir and pipeline to
the Crown Jewel Project). The construction
would probably last throughout the summer
months; however, the peak period would
probably last for approximately two months.
This increase in traffic would consist of
transporting some heavy equipment (e.g.,
scrapers, dozer, motor grader, backhoe, etc.)
to the reservoir site. This equipment would
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-192
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
impact Bolster Road only twice, once when it
is hauled to the site and then when it is
hauled from the site. Daily traffic would
consist of workers and the supervisors, dust
suppression equipment (probably a water
truck) and agency personnel. Once the
equipment is on site, the peak average daily
traffic should not exceed 28 vehicles per day
(ADT). As necessary, depending on weather
conditions, a water truck would water the
Bolster Creek road twice a day just prior to
shift change. If a dust suppressant is used
other than water, then a water truck would
be used only periodically.
During the operations phase, employees
would be bused and/or van pooled from a
location in or near Oroville to the mine site
via County Road 9480 to County Road 4895
to Forest Road 3575-120 and north on to the
Crown Jewel Project site. The traffic
increase for the operation phase (75% busing
assumed) would vary from an estimated 72
ADT (Alternative F) to 130 ADT (Alternative
C and D) and would last from four to 16
years. This anticipated traffic is summarized
on Table 4.17.1, Average Daily Traffic By
Alternative and Table 4.17.2, Traffic
Summary By Road. An estimated ADT of
four is expected on County Road 4883 during
the operations phase. The Starrem Reservoir
and associated facilities would be visually
inspected twice a day, probably at shift
change.
Once the mining is completed, the number of
employees required to conduct reclamation
activities would be less than the operational
work force. The reclamation phase would
last for approximately a year with an
estimated ADT of 41, except for Alternative
F which would continue for 16 years and
have an estimated ADT of 53. This
anticipated traffic is summarized on Table
4.17.1, Average Daily Traffic By Alternative
and Table 4.17.2, Traffic Summary By Road.
County Road 4883 could experience a peak
ADT of 20 for a short time (probably less
than a month) while the Starrem Reservoir is
removed and the area regraded and topsoiled.
With the increase in traffic and the transport
of supplies to the Crown Jewel Project site,
there is also a potential for accidents
involving employees or the supplies hauled to
the site (see Section 4.22, Accidents and
Spills). However, this potential is expected
to be low given the plans for employee
busing and/or van pooling to the site and
special safeguards for supply transport as
outlined in Section 2.12, Management and
Mitigation.
Under all action alternatives, the impacts to
transportation systems would be minor with
the upgrades on County Road 4895 and
Forest Road 3575-120 being discussed with
Forest Service and Okanogan County officials
and if proper maintenance is sustained
throughout the life of the Crown Jewel
Project. The potential for the spill of a
hazardous or environmentally sensitive
material resulting in a substantial impact
would be very remote if proper transportation
safeguards are maintained, and appropriate
spill control and cleanup measures are
implemented in the event of a transport
accident resulting in a spill.
Several specific aspects of the transportation
network in Okanogan County would be
affected by employee and supply transport to
the Crown Jewel Project site. These aspects
include:
• Public Access;
• Traffic Load;
• Public Safety;
• Environmental Safety; and,
• Road Maintenance.
Public Access. Under all action alternatives,
public access to the Crown Jewel Project
area would be affected. In particular, all or
portions of Forest Roads 3575-100, 120,
125, 127, 140 and 150 would be closed to
through traffic during the life of the
operation. There are no plans under any of
the action alternatives to construct a through
road around the Crown Jewel Project during
operations to allow passage for the general
public. However, once mining is completed
and reclamation underway, a through route
would be constructed by connecting Forest
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-193
Roads 3575-120, 100 and 150. The final
location has yet to be determined and would
depend on the alternative selected.
Traffic Load. All proposed action alternatives
would result in increased traffic; however
actual traffic volumes would vary depending
on the alternative. Traffic sources would be
employee commuting, supply transport,
general public, state and federal agency
personnel, miscellaneous visitors and, in the
case of Alternative G, hauling of ore
concentrates from the Crown Jewel Project
site to Oroville. The types of vehicles would
consist of buses/vans and light vehicles for
employee transport, trucks and tractor-trailer
units (semi's) for supply transport, and light
vehicles for miscellaneous traffic.
The predominant increases in traffic load
would be expected on County Road 9480
and 4895, and Forest Road 3575-120. All
alternatives include busing and/or van pooling
employees from the town of Oroville to the
Crown Jewel Project site which would greatly
reduce the effects of employee vehicles on
these roads, thereby minimizing traffic loads.
Predicted increases in traffic loads are based
on using 24 passenger buses/vans with at
least 75% of employees'participating in the
busing program, and five light vehicles per
shift.
Employee traffic would be most evident
during shift change periods. Supply traffic
would be scattered throughout the daylight
hours on weekdays except during spring
breakup when some supply traffic may
operate at night. The impacts of increased
employee and supply traffic load would be
short-term and would cease upon closure of
the Crown Jewel Project.
A comparison of the existing estimated daily
traffic volumes and the projected daily
employee and supply traffic volumes for each
alternative is set forth on Table 4.17.2,
Traffic Summary By Road. Existing traffic
loads are based on information from the
Washington Department of Transportation
(WADOT), Okanogan County, and the Forest
Service.
Public Safety. Accident frequency data was
obtained from the WADOT and the Okanogan
County Department of Public Works indicate
that an average of 32.4 accidents occur
annually on the routes proposed for the
Crown Jewel Project. The data combines
private and commercial accidents 24 hours a
day and consists of all types of causes
including speeding, drinking, etc.
Historically, the reported accidents occurring
since 1988 in the Crown Jewel Project area
average:
• State Highway 20: 18/year;
• County Road 9495: 3/year;
• County Road 9480: 11/year; and,
• County Road 4895: 0.4/year.
It is understood that not all "accidents" are
reported to the authorities; however, they do
happen. There are no enforced "mitigative"
measures in place, except for the limited
visits by the Sheriff's department. Therefore,
the accident statistics for the County Roads
in and around the Crown Jewel Project area
probably understate the actual conditions.
With the potential increase in daily traffic
from the Crown Jewel Project, it is
reasonable to assume that accidents would
increase over the life of the operation.
However, the increase in accidents would
probably not be directly proportional to the
increase in traffic because of the proposed
mitigation measures proposed in Section
2.12.14, Transportation. Other measures
which would include trucking companies
using trained drivers, upgrade of some roads,
adherence to speed limits, and general public
awareness of increased traffic.
With the mitigation measures implemented
and recognition of the other measures, the
baseline accident rate (accidents/miles
traveled) could actually decrease rather than
increase.
Environmental Safety. Most supplies and
materials needed for mining and milling
operations would be purchased from U.S. and
Canadian vendors outside Okanogan County;
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-194
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
however, some supplies would be purchased
locally.
Whenever transporting environmentally
hazardous materials, such as sodium cyanide,
explosives, chemical reagents, lime/cement,
fuel, and lead nitrate, there is a potential for
an accidental spill. These materials would be
transported to the Crown Jewel Project site
in conformance with U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT) regulations. Spill
prevention would be the principle objective
during transportation of these materials to the
site.
About nine miles of State Highway 20,
between Tonasket and Wauconda, are
proximate to streams and could be
susceptible to degradation if an accident
resulting in a spill happened to occur. There
are approximately 2.9 miles of County Road
9495 proximate to streams. About 10.1
miles of County Road 9480 are proximate to
streams, including Beth and Beaver Lakes. A
pilot car would accompany hazardous
material shipments, from the intersection
with County Road 9495 to the Crown Jewel
Project site, to reduce the risk of an accident.
There are very limited portions of County
Road 4895 and Forest Road 3575-120
proximate to streams. With upgrading and
reconstruction of portions of these roads, no
effects to environmental safety would be
expected. Based on these examinations,
mitigation measures were stipulated to
reduce or eliminate the potential for these
types of accidents and spills. See Section
2.12, Management and Mitigation, for the
mitigation measures proposed for
implementation. Section 4.22, Accidents and
Spills, discusses what could happen if there
was a spill into surface waters along the
supply routes.
Road Maintenance. Under all action
alternatives, portions of both County Road
4895 and Forest Road 3575-120 would
require signing along with alignment, grade,
and width reconstruction to handle Crown
Jewel Project related traffic. Depending on
the type of upgrade work implemented, these
roads would require routine maintenance
during operations. Such maintenance
measures would probably include grading,
watering or other dust controls, and snow
plowing and sanding in the winter months.
All action alternatives would require the
Forest Service, WADNR, Okanogan County,
and the Proponent to complete an agreement
for year round maintenance of both County
Road 4895 and Forest Road 3575-120.
Specifically, a written agreement between
Okanogan County and the Proponent would
be necessary for maintenance of any
Okanogan County Road that would require
increased maintenance that is directly
attributable to the mining activity.
Indirect Effects
Indirect effects to the transportation network
would result from additional non-work related
trips made by the new persons (workers and
their families) that would move into the
region as a result of the Crown Jewel Project.
The projected number of new workers varies
by alternative. The increase in traffic
however, would probably be dispersed
throughout Okanogan County and would not
be concentrated in the vicinity of the Crown
Jewel Project. Therefore, this traffic would
be only a minor component in the cumulative
impacts on any roads near the proposed mine
site.
Cumulative Effects
Project traffic combined with traffic
associated with future timber harvests, over
the next decade, on federal, state, and
private lands, as well as continuing
exploration, logging, recreational, and
residential traffic in the immediate vicinity of
the Crown Jewel Project site, would result in
some cumulative effects.
The traffic resulting from adjacent and
surrounding activities would increase the
traffic volume in the area and would add to
the possibility of accidents. The combined
use of Forest roads for Crown Jewel Project
access and harvest unit access could result in
conflicts. The addition of timber harvest
activity could add an additional two vehicles
per acre of harvest to the projected traffic
load. Administrative, recreational, and other
Project related traffic is estimated to average
less than 15 ADT.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-195
Even with the projected traffic volumes
associated with the Crown Jewel Project and
surrounding activities, it is not expected that
such activities would effect the operational
conditions of Washington State Highways 20
and 97, County Road 9495 or County Road
9480.
4.17.4 Effects of Alternative B
The duration of the transportation impacts
anticipate one year of construction activity,
an eight year operating life, and one year of
reclamation activity.
Employee Traffic
Construction Phase. Construction related
traffic is discussed in Section 4.17.3, Effects
Common to All Action Alternatives.
Operation Phase. It is expected that most of
the projected 144 employees would reside in
and around the Tonasket, Oroville and
Chesaw areas. Although some shift
staggering may occur, it is anticipated that
most employees would be assigned to one of
two daily 12 hour shifts. The employee route
and the supply route would join at the
intersection of County Road 4895 with
County Road 9480.
The employee daily traffic usage of these
roads would increase by about 84 vehicle
trips per day. The expected increase in
traffic load, vehicle types, ease of access,
and the need for winter maintenance would
be the prime factors for requiring upgrade and
reconstruction of portions of County Road
4895 and Forest Road 3575-120.
Reclamation Phase. This traffic has been
discussed in Section 4.17.3, Effects Common
to All Action Alternatives.
Supply Transport
Project supplies would be routed through
Wauconda on State Highway 20, then north
on County Road 9495 about 12 miles to
County Road 9480. At this point, a pilot car
would accompany trucks carrying
environmentally hazardous materials the
remaining 16 miles via County Road 9480 to
County Road 4895 to Forest Road 3575-120
and on to the site.
Construction Phase. The ADT associated
with the transport of supplies is estimated at
16. This traffic consists of transport trucks
and pilot cars and has been discussed in
Section 4.17.3, Effects Common to All
Action Alternatives.
Operations Phase. It is estimated that about
1,399 truck loads of supplies would be
needed annually to supply the Crown Jewel
Project, this equates to an ADT of 18
consisting of trucks and pilot cars (BMGC,
1993a). Table 4.17.2, Traffic Summary By
Road, shows the increase in traffic to each
road in the transportation system. Appendix
G, Traffic Assumptions, presents the
rationale and calculations used to determine
the traffic numbers.
Of the estimated 1,399 loads of supplies,
about 1,001 truck loads would contain
environmentally hazardous materials,
consisting of:
• Sodium Cyanide - 86 loads per year;
• Ammonium Nitrate - 160 loads per year;
• Chemicals/Reagents - 105 loads per year;
• Lime/Cement - 401 loads per year;
• Fuel - 240 loads per year; and,
• Lead Nitrate - 9 loads per year.
There are about 22 miles of the proposed
supply route proximate to streams, including
Beth and Beaver Lakes. Based on the
management and mitigation measures
proposed, the potential for a stream spill or
long-term degradation of surface water is
unlikely; however, accidental spill scenarios
with effects have been presented in Section
4.22, Accidents and Spills.
Reclamation Phase. The majority of the
supply trucks would be carrying fuel during
this phase, about 120 truck loads (three
ADT) for the year.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-196
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
Other Traffic
It is estimated there would be three additional
Project-related vehicles per day (six ADT).
These vehicles would be associated with
agency personnel, general public, etc.
4.17.5 Effects of Alternative C
The duration of the transportation impacts
are anticipated at one year of construction
activity, a four year operating life, and one
year of reclamation activity.
Employee Traffic
Construction Phase. Construction related
traffic is discussed in Section 4.17.3, Effects
Common to All Action Alternatives.
Operations Phase. It is expected that most of
the projected 225 employees would reside in
and around the Tonasket, Oroville and
Chesaw areas. Although some shift
staggering may occur, it is anticipated that
most employees would be assigned to one of
two daily 12 hour shifts.
The daily employee traffic usage of these
roads would increase by about 130 vehicle
trips per day. The expected increase in
traffic load, vehicle types, ease of access,
and the need for winter maintenance would
be the prime factors for requiring upgrade and
reconstruction of portions of County Road
4895 and Forest Road 3575-120.
Reclamation Phase. This traffic is discussed
in Section 4.17.3, Effects Common to All
Action Alternatives.
Supply Transport
Project supplies would be routed from
Oroville through Chesaw on County Road
9480 to County Road 4895 and then north
on Forest Road 3575-120 to the Crown
Jewel Project. This is the same route that
employee traffic would use.
Construction Phase. The traffic associated
with the transport of supplies is estimated at
eight trucks per day (16 ADT), Monday
through Friday. This traffic consists of
transport trucks and pilot cars and is
discussed in Section 4.17.3, Effects Common
to All Action Alternatives.
Operations Phase. It has been estimated that
about 1,130 truck loads of supplies would be
needed annually to supply the Project, this
equates to an ADT of 15, five days per week,
consisting of trucks and pilot cars. Table
4.17.2, Traffic Summary By Road, shows the
increase in traffic to each road in the
transportation system. Appendix G, Traffic
Assumptions, presents the rationale and
calculations used to determine the traffic
numbers.
Of the estimated 1,130 loads of supplies,
about 680 truck loads would contain
environmentally hazardous materials,
consisting of:
• Sodium Cyanide - 86 loads per year;
• Ammonium Nitrate - 55 loads per year;
• Chemicals/Reagents - 105 loads per year;
• Lime/Cement - 401 loads per year;
• Fuel - 24 loads per year; and,
• Lead Nitrate - 9 loads per year.
There are about 6.3 miles of County Road
9480 proximate to streams and very limited
portions of County Road 4895 and Forest
Road 3575-120, which could be susceptible
to degradation if a spill happened to occur.
Based on the management and mitigation
measures proposed, the potential for a stream
spill or long-term degradation of surface
water is unlikely; however, accidental spill
scenarios with effects have been presented in
Section 4.22, Accidents and Spills.
Reclamation Phase. The majority of the
supply trucks would be carrying fuel during
this phase, about 120 truck loads (three
ADT) for the year.
Other Traffic
It is estimated there would be three additional
Project-related vehicles per day (six ADT).
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-197
These vehicles would be associated with
agency personnel, general public, etc.
4.17.6 Effects of Alternative D
The duration of the transportation impacts
are anticipated at one year of construction
activity, a six year operating life, and one
year of reclamation activity.
Employee Traffic
Construction Phase. Construction related
traffic is discussed in Section 4.17.3, Effects
Common to All Action Alternatives.
Operations Phase. As discussed in
Alternative C, it is expected that most of the
projected 225 employees would reside in and
around the Tonasket, Oroville and Chesaw
areas. Although some shift staggering may
occur, it is anticipated that most employees
would be assigned to one of two daily 12
hour shifts.
The daily employee traffic usage of these
roads would increase by about 130 vehicle
trips per day. The expected increase in
traffic load, vehicle types, ease of access,
and the need for winter maintenance would
be the prime factors for requiring upgrade and
reconstruction of portions of County Road
4895 and Forest Road 3575-120.
Reclamation Phase. This traffic is discussed
in Section 4.17.3, Effects Common to All
Action Alternatives.
Supply Transport
Project supplies would be routed through
Wauconda on State Highway 20, then north
on County Road 9495 about 12 miles to
County Road 9480. At this point, a pilot car
would accompany trucks carrying
environmentally hazardous materials the
remaining 16 miles via County Road 9480 to
County Road 4895 to Forest Road 3575-120
and on to the site.
Construction Phase. The traffic associated
with the transport of supplies is estimated at
16 ADT, Monday through Friday. This traffic
consists of transport trucks and pilot cars and
has been discussed in Section 4.17.3, Effects
Common to All Action Alternatives.
Operations Phase. As discussed in
Alternative B, it is estimated that about
1,399 truck loads of supplies would be
needed annually to supply the Crown Jewel
Project, this equates to eight vehicles per
day, five days per week, consisting of trucks
and pilot cars. Table 4.17.2, Traffic
Summary By Road, shows the increase in
traffic to each road in the transportation
system. Appendix G, Traffic Assumptions,
presents the rational and calculations used to
determine the traffic numbers.
Of the estimated 1,399 loads of supplies,
about 1,001 truck loads would contain
environmentally hazardous materials,
consisting of:
• Sodium Cyanide - 86 loads per year;
• Ammonium Nitrate - 160 loads per year;
• Chemicals/Reagents - 105 loads per year;
• Lime/Cement - 401 loads per year;
• Fuel - 240 loads per year; and,
• Lead Nitrate - 9 loads per year.
There are about 16 miles of the proposed
supply route proximate to streams, including
Beth and Beaver Lakes. Based on the
management and mitigation measures
proposed, the potential for a stream spill or
long-term degradation of surface water is
unlikely; however, accidental spill scenarios
with effects have been presented in Section
4.22, Accidents and Spills.
Reclamation Phase. The majority of the
supply trucks would be carrying fuel during
this phase, about 120 truck loads (three
ADT) for the year.
Other Traffic
It is estimated there would be three additional
Project-related vehicles per day (six ADT).
These vehicles would be associated with
agency personnel, general public, etc.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-198
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
4.17.7 Effects of Alternative E
The estimated effects for Alternative E are
the same as discussed under Section 4.17.4,
Effects of Alternative B.
4.17.8 Effects of Alternative F
The duration of the transportation impacts
are anticipated at one year of construction
activity, a 16 year operating life, and 16
years of reclamation activity.
Employee Traffic
Construction Phase. Construction related
traffic has been discussed in Section 4.17.3,
Effects Common to All Action Alternatives.
Operations Phase. This alternative would
require an estimated 125 employees to
operate the mine 12 hours per day and to
operate the mill 24 hours per day. Again, it
is expected that most of the employees
would reside in and around the Tonasket,
Oroville and Chesaw areas. Although some
shift staggering may occur, it is anticipated
that most employees would be assigned to
one of two daily 12 hour shifts. The
employee route and the supply route would
join at the intersection of County Road 4895
with County Road 9480.
The daily traffic usage of these roads would
increase by about 72 vehicle trips per day.
The expected increase in traffic load, vehicle
types, ease of access, and the need for
winter maintenance would be the prime
factors for requiring upgrade and
reconstruction of portions of County Road
4895 and Forest Road 3575-120.
Reclamation Phase. The workforce would
decrease to 75 people for the last 14 years of
the projected 16 year reclamation phase.
During this phase, the employee traffic load
would decrease to an ADT of 44. This
anticipated traffic is summarized on Table
4.17,1, Average Daily Traffic By Alternative,
and on Table 4.17.2, Traffic Summary By
Road.
Supply Transport
Project supplies would be routed through
Wauconda on State Highway 20, then north
on County Road 9495 about 12 miles to
County Road 9480. At this point, a pilot car
would accompany trucks carrying
environmentally hazardous materials the
remaining 16 miles via County Road 9480 to
County Road 4895 to Forest Road 3575-120
and on to the site.
Construction Phase. The transport of
supplies is estimated at eight trucks (16 ADT)
per day, five days per week. This traffic
consists of transport trucks and pilot cars and
has been discussed in Section 4.17.3, Effects
Common to All Action Alternatives.
Operations Phase. It is estimated that this
scenario would require less supplies annually
than Alternatives B, D, and E, since ore
processing has been reduced by 50%
annually. This equates to an ADT of 11
consisting of trucks and pilot cars. Table
4.17.2, Traffic Summary By Road, shows the
increase in traffic to each road in the
transportation system.
Of the estimated 700 loads of supplies, about
502 truck loads would contain
environmentally hazardous materials,
consisting of:
• Sodium Cyanide - 43 loads per year;
• Ammonium Nitrate - 80 loads per year;
• Chemicals/Reagents - 53 loads per year;
• Lime/Cement - 201 loads per year;
• Fuel - 120 loads per year; and,
• Lead Nitrate - 5 loads per year.
There are about 22 miles of the proposed
supply route proximate to streams, including
Beth and Beaver Lakes. Based on the
management and mitigation measures
proposed, the potential for a stream spill or
long-term degradation of surface water is
unlikely; however, accidental spill scenarios
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-199
with effects have been presented in Section
4.22, Accidents and Spills.
Reclamation Phase. The majority of the
supply trucks would be carrying fuel during
this phase, about 120 truck loads (three
ADT) for the year. This traffic consists of
transport trucks and pilot cars and has been
discussed in Section 4.17.3, Effects Common
to All Action Alternatives.
Other Traffic
It has been estimated that there would be
three additional Project-related vehicles per
day (six ADT). These vehicles would be
associated with agency personnel, general
public, etc.
4.17.9 Effects of Alternative G
The duration of the transportation impacts
are anticipated at one year of construction
activity, an eight year operating life, and one
year of reclamation activity.
Employee Traffic
Construction Phase. Construction related
traffic is discussed in Section 4.17.3, Effects
Common to All Action Alternatives.
Operations Phase. This alternative would
require an estimated 210 employees to
operate the mine, mill and ore haulage. It is
expected that most of the employees would
reside in and around the Tonasket, Oroville
and Chesaw areas. Although some shift
staggering may occur, it is anticipated that
most employees would be assigned to one of
two daily 12 hour shifts. The employee route
and the supply route would both use County
Road 9480 from Oroville.
The daily employee traffic usage of these
roads would increase by about 120 vehicle
trips per day. The expected increase in
traffic load, vehicle types, ease of access,
and the need for winter maintenance would
be the prime factors for requiring upgrade and
reconstruction of portions of County Road
4895 and Forest Road 3575-120.
Reclamation Phase. This traffic is discussed
in Section 4.17.3, Effects Common to All
Action Alternatives.
Supply Transport
Project supplies would be routed from
Oroville through Chesaw on County Road
9480 to County Road 4895 and then north
on Forest Road 3575-120 to the Project.
This is the same route that employee traffic
would use.
Construction Phase. The ADT associated
with the transport of supplies is estimated at
16. This traffic consists of transport trucks
and pilot cars and has been discussed in
Section 4.17.3, Effects Common to All
Action Alternatives.
Operations Phase. It is estimated that about
601 truck loads of supplies would be needed
annually to supply the Crown Jewel Project,
this equates to an ADT of ten vehicles
consisting of trucks and pilot cars. Table
4.17.2, Traffic Summary By Road, shows the
increase in traffic to each road in the
transportation system. Appendix G, Traffic
Assumptions, presents the rational and
calculations used to determine the traffic
numbers.
Of the estimated 591 loads of supplies, about
400 truck loads would contain
environmentally hazardous materials,
consisting of:
• Ammonium Nitrate - 160 loads per year;
and,
• Fuel - 240 loads per year.
There are about 6.3 miles of County Road
9480 proximate to streams and very limited
portions of County Road 4895 and Forest
Road 3575-120, which could be susceptible
to degradation if a spill happened to occur.
Based on the management and mitigation
measures proposed, the potential for a stream
spill or long-term degradation of surface
water is unlikely; however, accidental spill
scenarios with effects have been presented in
Section 4.22, Accidents and Spills.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-200
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
Reclamation Phase. The majority of the
supply trucks would be carrying fuel during
this phase, about 120 truck loads for the
year. This equates to an ADT of 3, which
consists primarily of fuel transports, pilot
cars.
Other Traffic
It is estimated that there would be three
additional Project-related vehicles per day (six
ADT). These vehicles would be associated
with agency personnel, general public, etc.
In addition, an estimated 12 truckloads of ore
concentrate would be hauled from the mill to
Oroville per day. The flotation concentrate
would equal about 10% of the total ore
processed or about 300 tons per day.
Assuming 25 ton haul trucks, there would be
12 truckloads per day leaving the Project
area, seven days a week. Traffic in this
category would increase the ADT to 30.
4.18 LAND USE/RECLAMATION
4.18.1 Summary
In the long-term, successful reclamation
would enable the area to be used much as it
was before the Crown Jewel Project. In the
short-term, land could be used at a reduced
capability. The various buildings at the site
would be removed. The waste rock disposal
and tailings areas would be reclaimed and
would be suitable for land uses they now
support. As discussed in Section 4.2,
Topography/Physiography, there would be
topographic modifications to the Crown
Jewel Project area following mining. Most
notable would be the final mine pit left open
in Alternatives B, D, E, and G as well as
surface subsidence in the underground mining
operations expected for Alternatives C and D.
Land affected by the open mine pit and
surface subsidence would be lost in terms of
their pre-mining land use. Even with these
topographic changes, successful reclamation
of the action alternatives would not cause a
substantial long-term change in land use
within the immediate Crown Jewel Project
area. Disturbance caused by the action
alternatives varies from 415 acres
(Alternative C) to 928 acres (Alternative E).
The areas would experience short-term
effects, but reclamation would return most of
the acreage to pre-mining uses.
This is based on a summary of considerations
discussed throughout the EIS. The climate of
the Crown Jewel Project area exhibits an
annual precipitation rate of approximately 20
inches. Such a rate is sufficient to support a
wide variety of adapted, commercially-
available vegetation species which can be
planted to restore site productivity and create
wildlife habitat, and at the same time is of
such a moderate nature so as not to
engender excessive erosion potentials. The
soils existing on site are inherently
productive. The higher quality soil materials
would be salvaged prior to mining, stockpiled,
and replaced over the disturbed areas to be
revegetated to provide a competent seedbed
material. Proposed soil replacement depths
are adequate, in terms of water holding
capacity, for the vegetation communities they
are intended to support. Analyses of waste
rock, tailings, and subsoil materials over
which salvaged soils would be replaced
indicate that there are no physical or
chemical characteristics which would
preclude successful reclamation.
The reclamation and revegetation techniques
proposed for use by the Proponent are
comparatively simplistic, commonly accepted
techniques with a history of successful
application in the western states. Techniques
for overcoming problems associated with soil
fertility, microbial populations, and erosion
are included in the Reclamation Plan prepared
for the Crown Jewel Project. Erosion and
sediment control features are proposed to
address problems of this nature. Both interim
and concurrent (segmental) reclamation
would be utilized to address overall site
stability concerns. Revegetation test plots
are also proposed to test the applicability of a
variety of reclamation techniques, or
variations of techniques, on waste rock and
tailings sub-base materials.
4.18.2 Effects of Alternative A (No
Action)
If Alternative A is selected, the land use of
the Crown Jewel Project area would not
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-201
change. In this situation, the Proponent
would discontinue exploration and pre-
development activities and complete the
reclamation of areas disturbed by exploration
activities.
4.18.3 Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives
Although mining activities have historically
occurred within and adjacent to the Crown
Jewel Project area, the construction and
operation of the proposed mine would
introduce a noticeable land use change in the
area around Buckhorn Mountain. However,
on a more regional basis, the Crown Jewel
Project would not substantially change other
land uses in Okanogan or Ferry Counties, or
on Okanogan National Forest, WADNR, or
BLM administered lands. The disturbance of
public and private lands for the action
alternatives is set forth in Table 4.18.1, Land
Status Disturbance. Reclamation of the
surface disturbance would be planned to re-
establish wildlife habitat, livestock grazing,
and timber resources after closure of the
Crown Jewel Project. With mitigation and
reclamation, the approval of any of the action
alternatives would not substantially affect the
long-term land use or land use planning on
Okanogan National Forest, WADNR, BLM, or
adjacent private areas.
The Crown Jewel Project would cause a
short-term loss of multiple use resources in
the affected area, mostly as a loss of range,
timber, dispersed recreation, and wildlife
habitat. Some restriction of access to the
site would occur during and immediately
following mining, until reclamation is deemed
successful. These impacts are short-term for
the most part, with the exception of long-
term loss of timber and mature timber related
wildlife resources which, unmanaged, would
probably not be restored for at least 100
years. Use of the area for range would be
restored after reclamation. These impacts
would be similar for all action alternatives,
differing primarily in the number of acres
disturbed.
The approval of any of the action alternatives
would result in changes in the appearance of
the area (see Section 4.15, Scenic
Resources). The scope of such changes
would depend on the alternative approved.
There would be short-term interruptions to
the current Forest Service standards and
guidelines of Management Areas 14, 25, and
26; however, as described in Section 1.6,
Okanogan Forest Plan Consistency, a new
Management Area 27 would be temporarily
implemented for the affected area for each of
the action alternatives.
Varying forest resources would be removed,
altered, and/or dislocated as a result of each
action alternative. There would be some loss
of wetlands with each action alternative, this
acreage would vary depending on the action
alternative (see Section 4.10, Wetlands).
The wildlife use of the area would also be
altered during operations as addressed in
Section 4.12, Wildlife.
Reclamation objectives for all the action
alternatives would be to return disturbed
areas to a stabilized and productive condition
and to protect and maintain long-term land
and water resources in the area. Preliminary
evaluations of the reclaimed exploration roads
of the Crown Jewel Project indicate that
revegetation can be successfully
accomplished at the time of closure.
Revegetation test plots would be established
during the operational years of the mine to
determine the most appropriate methods and
TABLE 4.18.1, LAND STATUS DISTURBANCE
Forest Service
BLM
Washington State
Private
Total
Alternative B
Acres
469
189
13
116
787
%of
Total
59
24
2
15
10O
Alternative C
Acres
266
70
20
59
415
% of
Total
64
17
5
14
1OO
Alternative D
Acres
292
147
20
99
558
% of
Total
52
26
4
18
1OO
Alternative E
Acres
575
195
47
111
928
% of
Total
62
21
5
12
10O
Alternative F
Acres
527
153
38
99
817
%of
Total
64
19
5
12
100
Alternative G
Acres
544
197
44
108
893
% of
Total
61
22
5
12
100
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-202
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
vegetation species to be used for permanent
reclamation. The test plots would be used
toevaluate the relative merits of varying
resoiling depths over waste rock and tailings
materials as well as the need for soil
amendments, including fertilizer. The plots
comparing the various resoiling depths (12
inches and 18 inches as applicable) would be
important given the limited soil resource
available on-site for resoiling purposes.
Capillary barrier thickness would be tested on
the tailings material test plots.
Three pit reclamation techniques are
proposed. These techniques include the
creation of wetlands over a portion of the pit
bottom, the establishment of vegetation on
graded pit areas, and pit wall reduction
through selective blasting.
The northern portion of the mine pit would
begin to fill soon after the cessation of
mining. Filling would continue to occur
through time until the water in the pit reaches
a level whereby it would discharge into the
Gold Bowl drainage. At this time, the water
would have reached a static level and
wetlands would be created along the
southwest border of the pit lake, assuming
sufficient soil would be available to support a
wetland vegetation community. However, it
should be noted it would take approximately
26 years for the pit to completely fill with
water naturally and reach a static level
whereby wetland community establishment
could be initiated. The Proponent has
indicated that the proposed pit lake would be
artificially filled by pumping 330 gpm from
the Starrem Reservoir. The pumping,
combined with natural ground water inflow,
would allow the pit lake to fill in
approximately five to six years.
The establishment of vegetation in the mine
pit is possible, on areas not subject to
flooding, so long as a sufficient depth of soil
could be replaced over a fractured rock sub-
base and the slope of the planting site(s) was
such that the soil could be effectively applied
and stabilized. This would parallel the
potential for vegetation establishment on the
waste rock disposal areas. The Proponent's
reclamation plan for Alternative B includes
topsoiling and revegetation of portions of the
south pit (BMGC, 1995c).
The reduction of the pit walls by reclamation
blasting would serve to reduce the long-term
visual effects associated with the linear
appearing safety benches created during
mining and to provide natural appearing talus
slopes in various segments of the pit walls.
The final configuration is being discussed by
the WADNR, the Forest Service, and the
Proponent.
The process of claim patenting is summarized
in Section 3.19.8, Patenting of Crown Jewel
Project Mining Claims. If patenting is
approved, property ownership of the claims
would be transferred from the federal
government to Crown Resources Corporation,
the claims holder, and patent applicant. The
patented area would become private
property. The patenting of claims would
have little effect on the proposed Crown
Jewel Project, environmental controls, and
reclamation activities. During mining, the
area would still be regulated under permits
issued by Washington State agencies, such
as the WADOE and WADNR, as well as other
appropriate federal and Okanogan County
approvals and permits. The principal change
caused by patenting would be the removal of
Forest Service and BLM from direct
management oversight of the patented lands
during and after mining. Long-term
management of the patented area would be
the responsibility of Crown Resources
Corporation as the private surface owner.
Any long-term land use changes or
developments would be subject to applicable
federal, state and local laws and regulations.
Patenting is a separate process and is not a
part of the decision to be made by this
document.
Post mining land use would be similar for all
action alternatives. If patenting did not
occur, this would include livestock grazing,
timber growing, dispersed recreation, and
wildlife habitat, with a long-term potential for
timber harvesting in approximately 100 years.
If patenting occurred, future land uses could
include a variety of considerations, such as
residential development, mitigation site
development and could exclude all, or many,
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-203
uses for which the site is currently managed
as part of Federal lands (i.e., recreation,
grazing, timber harvest, wildlife habitat, tribal
treaty rights).
Indirect Effects
Population increases associated with the
Crown Jewel Project may cause some minor
changes in private land use within Ferry and
Okanogan Counties. Some undeveloped or
agricultural land may be converted to
residential uses if incoming mine workers
choose to construct homes in these areas.
The amount of such development would
depend on the alternative and the number of
newcomers that may be expected. See
Section 4.19, Socioeconomic Environment.
Cumulative Effects
There are no anticipated major cumulative
land use effects expected for any of the
action alternatives if appropriate reclamation
measures are implemented. Logging, grazing
and other agricultural activities, real estate
development, recreation, and mineral
exploration activities would probably remain
the dominant land uses in the immediate area
of the proposed Crown Jewel Project.
4.18.4 Effects of Alternative B
Alternative B would disturb approximately
787 acres. This Alternative is scheduled to
be ten years in duration, with the last year
being utilized to accomplish the majority of
the reclamation activities. Revegetation
would be completed on all but select portions
of the open pit area; a lake would form in the
bottom of the mine pit which would
eventually drain down the Gold Bowl drainage
into Nicholson Creek.
4.18.5 Effects of Alternative C
Alternative C would disturb approximately
415 acres. This Alternative is scheduled to
be of six years duration, with the last year
being utilized for reclamation activities.
Revegetation would be completed on all but
the rock quarry and surface subsidence areas
that could develop over the underground
workings. Subsidence is difficult to predict
with accuracy, but it is assumed that there
would be caving to the surface where ore
zones, less than 100 feet below surface,
would be extracted. Subsidence areas would
be fenced to discourage use of the area. To
minimize the potential of subsidence
occurring, all ore zones less than 100 feet
below the surface could be backfilled, but
this backfilling could only occur after
subsidence occurred. There is no way to
accurately predict the timing of subsidence,
whether such subsidence would propagate to
the surface, and the areal extent of such
subsidence. Backfilling of these zones with
waste rock would be a major undertaking,
especially if they occur after mine closure,
could have environmental effects to air
quality, water quality, etc., and could create
minor economic impacts to the Proponent or
a governmental authority responsible for such
backfilling. Reducing, or eliminating
subsidence potential, however, would have a
positive long-term effect on the environment
through these areas being able to be utilized
by the recreating public and as wildlife
habitat.
4.18.6 Effects of Alternative D
Alternative D would disturb approximately
558 acres. This Alternative is scheduled to
be of eight years duration, with the last year
being utilized for reclamation activities.
Revegetation would be completed on all but
the open pit area and subsidence areas. A
lake would form in the bottom of the mine
pit which would eventually drain into
Nicholson Creek down the Gold Bowl
drainage. Subsidence areas would be fenced
to discourage use of the area. See the
discussion in Section 4.18.5, Effects of
Alternative C, for discussion on subsidence.
4.18.7 Effects of Alternative E
Alternative E would disturb approximately
928 acres. This Alternative is scheduled to
be of ten years duration, with the last year
being utilized to accomplish the majority of
the reclamation activities. Revegetation
would be completed on all areas but the open
pit walls. Partial backfilling in the northern
part of the mine pit area would eliminate the
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-204
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
formation of a surface lake. The backfilled
area would be resoiled.
4.18.8 Effects of Alternative F
Alternative F would disturb approximately
817 acres. This alternative is scheduled to
be of 33 years duration, with the last 16
years being utilized for backfilling the final pit
and reclamation activities. Revegetation
would be completed on all disturbed areas
because the open pit area would be
completely backfilled.
4.18.9 Effects of Alternative G
Alternative G would disturb approximately
893 acres. This Alternative is scheduled to
be of ten years duration, with the last year
being utilized to accomplish the majority of
the reclamation activities. Revegetation
would be completed on all but the open pit
area. A lake would form in the bottom of the
mine pit which would eventually drain down
the Gold Bowl drainage into Nicholson Creek.
4.19 SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT
4.19.1 Summary
As described in the review of existing
socioeconomic conditions (Section 3.20,
Socioeconomic Environment), the general
study area for which impacts are assessed is
defined generally to include all of Okanogan
and Ferry Counties, but with a smaller
primary study area encompassing
approximately 60% of the two-county
population. This primary study area covers
northeastern Okanogan and western Ferry
County, extending south and west to
encompass the cities of Omak and Okanogan,
north to the Canadian border, and east into
the Republic and Curlew communities of
Ferry County.
Whenever possible, effects are identified in
quantitative or numerical terms (such as
number of jobs, housing units or school
students). Some impacts (such as effects on
social values) are more difficult to evaluate
numerically and so are described primarily in
a qualitative or narrative manner.
All of the action alternatives would have
socioeconomic effects. Table 4.19.1,
Socioeconomic Assumptions for the Action
Alternatives, and Table 4.19.2, Anticipated
Population Increase, present an overview of
the expected effects to the socioeconomic
environment. However, statistical measures
such as population, employment, school
enrollments and housing would change by
less than 2% based on total (direct and
indirect) effects of the proposed Crown Jewel
Project.
Because of its shorter duration, greater levels
of mine employment, and the need for a more
skilled employment pool, Alternative C could
create a greater need for temporary worker
housing through the six year duration of mine
construction, operation and reclamation.
Conversely, Alternative F would create the
least amount of major change in
socioeconomic conditions due to the longer
duration of mining activity and lower levels of
mining employment.
Many of the socioeconomic effects evaluated
are directly related to the question of how
many workers are hired locally versus from
outside the area. 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.
Experience with other comparable mine
projects suggests that in some situations the
proportion of non-local hires could be greater
than what has been indicated by the
Proponent, particularly in the absence of
active efforts to encourage local hiring. The
Proponent has indicated a commitment to
achieve stated local hire targets, consistent
with its operating experience elsewhere in the
U.S.
A greater proportion of non-local hires would
increase the total effect on study area
employment, incomes, development and
government revenues. However, non-local
hires would also generate added community
and public service expense, limit the degree
to which existing local residents benefit, and
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
1
I
S1
TABLE 4.19.1, SOCIOECONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE ACTION ALTERNATIVES
Alternative
B
c
D
E
F
G
Years of Operation
Construction
Operation
Reclamation
Total
1
8
1
10
1
4
1
6
1
6
1
8
1
8
1
10
1
16
16
33
1
8
1
10
Employment (FTE)
Construction
Operation
Reclamation (Avg.)
145
144
50
145
225
50
145
225
50
145
144
50
145
125
75
145
210
50
Percent of Local Employment
Construction
Operation
Reclamation
40%
80%
95%
25%
40%
95%
30%
50%
95%
40%
80%
95%
40%
80%
95%
40%
80%
95%
Annual Wage Levels
Construction
Operation
Reclamation
$50,800
$40,800
$40,800
$50,800
$40,200
$40,200
$50,800
$40,200
$40,200
$50,800
$40,800
$40,800
$50,800
$41,700
$41,700
$50,800
$38,900
$38,900
Capital Expenditures
Construction
Reclamation
$47,800,000
$0
$89,800,000
$ 0
$78,600,000
$0
$47,800,000
$ 0
$47,800,000
$20,200,000
$58,800,000
$0
Annual Expenditures
Mine Operation Budget
Mine Operation Purchases
Reclamation Purchases
$30,000,000
$16,700,000
$ 3,000,000
$39,400,000
$26,100,000
$ 3,000,000
$39,400,000
$26,100,000
$ 3,000,000
$30,000,000
$16,700,000
$ 3,000,000
$30,000,000
$16,700,000
$ 3,000,000
$37,700,000
$24,400,000
$ 3,000,000
Assessed Valuation
Total
Percent of Alternative B
$67,400,000
100%
$40,400,000
60%
$43,900,000
80%
$59,200,000
88%
$67,400,000
100%
$35,000,000
52%
Note: FTE indicates full-time equivalent average annual employment.
Source: TerraMatrix Inc., Chapter 2, Alternatives Including the Proposed Action, and information provided by the Proponent. Assessed
valuation is estimated by E.D. Hovee & Company based on the amount of recoverable gold resource of each alternative when
compared to the Proposed action (Alternative B).
to
1
I
K)
O
Ui
-------
Page 4-206
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
TABLE 4.19.2, ANTICIPATED POPULATION INCREASE
Mine Phase
Alternative
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Construction Phase
Direct Effect
Indirect Effect
Total Effect
0
0
0
116
28
144
144
28
172
136
28
164
116
28
144
116
28
144
116
28
144
Operation Phase
Direct Effect
Indirect Effect
Total Effect
0
0
0
81
76
157
379
118
497
315
118
433
81
76
157
70
70
140
118
112
230
Reclamation Phase
Direct Effect
Indirect Effect
Total Effect
0
0
0
6
28
34
6
28
34
6
28
34
6
28
34
11
42
53
6
28
34
Note: Any population effect associated with Alternative A occurs prior to the construction, operation and
reclamation phases of mine activity. Population projections are estimates based on assumptions
contained in the EIS and Affected Socioeconomic Environment Background Report, and are
therefore subject to change to the degree that actual conditions vary from forecast assumptions.
Source: E.D. Hovee, 1996s.
could be more disruptive to existing social
values of the area.
4.19.2 Effects of Alternative A (No
Action)
Direct Effects
Direct socioeconomic effects of Alternative A
would be related primarily to the loss of
temporary personnel and purchases that
have been involved in mine exploration and
related Crown Jewel Project planning
activities. These effects are described as
follows:
Population and Demographics
Alternative A would have little or no direct
impact on population of the primary study
area. Most of the temporary personnel and
contractors employed in exploration activity
(drillers, geologists, driller helpers,
consultants, etc.) were in the area on
temporary assignment, staying in motels.
Most of the pre-development personnel have
purchased homes in the area. Those who
were hired from outside the local area would
probably relocate if Alternative A is selected.
Employment. There currently are no
exploration activities underway, and 13
employees are working for the Proponent in
Okanogan County as of February 1996.
Previously there were approximately 18 to 22
people in mine related planning activities
employed by the Proponent.
These types of jobs would likely be lost to
Okanogan and Ferry Counties as a result of
abandoning the proposed Crown Jewel
Project. There also would be a short-term
increase in jobs related to reclamation of
exploration activities, planting and seeding of
disturbed areas including clear-cut areas.
Income. The loss in income associated with
termination of employment for exploration
would be an amount equal to local payroll of
the Proponent. No noticeable loss in local
purchases by the Proponent would be
anticipated since the exploratory work is now
completed. However, it is noted that prior
exploration activity involved purchases of
local supplies and services.
Community and Public Services. Because of
the temporary nature of recent exploratory
work, Alternative A would have little effect
on public and community services, with the
exception that public agency staff time
expended on the EIS and related aspects of
the Crown Jewel Project proposal should no
longer be required.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-207
Housing. Many of the employees associated
with exploration work (drillers, geologists,
driller helpers, consultants, etc.) have not
lived in permanent housing, but have stayed
at area lodging establishments for their
portion of on-site work. Most of the pre-
development employees hired from outside
the area (managers, purchasing personnel,
mining and metallurgical engineers,
environmental specialists, technical support
personnel, etc.) have purchased homes in the
area and would probably sell their homes and
leave the area if Alternative A is selected.
Of the 13 employees working in Okanogan
County as of early 1996, seven were local
hires and six were hired from outside the
local area. A total of six previously non-local
personnel have purchased homes in the study
area. Because the homes that would be sold
by these pre-development employees
represents less than 0.1 % of the study area's
housing stock, direct impacts to the housing
market are expected to be minimal.
Consequently, Alternative A would be
expected to have little if any direct effect on
the market for housing in Okanogan and Ferry
Counties.
Fiscal Conditions. With the exception of
sales tax revenues, little or no additional
direct effect on the fiscal conditions of state,
county or municipal entities in the study area
would be expected. This is because the
initial exploration activity is completed,
independent of whether or not the proposed
Crown Jewel Project proceeds.
Sales tax revenues could be negatively
affected somewhat (at least in the short run)
due to reductions in lodging and purchases of
goods and services by the Proponent and
mine-related employees. However, the
extent of the impact is not likely to be
substantial because of the small number of
employees remaining in the area after 1993.
The Okanogan County Assessor's office
indicates that property tax revenues from
mine-related property are not expected to be
negatively affected, as long as mining rights
to the gold resource are retained.
Social Values. Discontinuation of the
proposed Crown Jewel Project could reduce
the potential for long-term changes to the
social values of the study area that might be
associated with mining activity, particularly in
the more immediate Chesaw/Highlands area.
However, public meetings and deliberations
over the proposed Crown Jewel Project have
already engendered considerable discussion
and debate throughout the study area.
Particularly in the Chesaw/Highlands area,
this debate may have resulted in community
divisions that are not easily reconciled, even
if the proposed Crown Jewel Project is
terminated.
Because of the high degree of interest and
intensity around environmental and land use
issues in the region, there may be continued
demand for a more formalized and extensive
land use planning process to address these
concerns on an ongoing basis. This publicity
could result in increased demand for real
estate from those seeking a quiet, relatively
pristine environment in which to live.
Increased attention from county government
to previously underemphasized issues such as
code compliance may also be a consequence
of recent events.
Land Ownership and Values. Alternative A
has the potential to reduce the upward
pressure on land values and changes in
ownership that might accompany the
proposed mine. In the immediate
Chesaw/Highlands area, land prices might
decline as the current speculative level of
demand in anticipation of the Crown Jewel
Project is abated.
Indirect Effects
The primary indirect effect associated with
Alternative A is that the loss of exploration
and pre-development employment would
result in the loss of less than ten jobs, largely
in hospitality, restaurant and related
retail/service activity. This economic loss
could conceivably be offset if the area
attracts more in-migrants seeking a remote,
pristine environment. These in-migrants
would be more apt to move to the Okanogan
Highlands once it became clear that further
mining activity was not likely to occur.
However, the degree to which this might
occur is difficult to reliably gauge in advance.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-208
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
Total Effects
The total of direct and indirect quantitative
impacts potentially associated with
discontinuance of the proposed Crown Jewel
Project would likely involve the loss of less
than 23 direct and indirect jobs.
The longer term effects of Alternative A may
be represented by the loss of potential
socioeconomic opportunities that are
associated with the action alternatives.
4.19.3 Comparative Effects Common
to All Action Alternatives
Key socioeconomic assumptions used for the
evaluation of Alternatives B through G are
provided by Table 4.19.1, Socioeconomic
Assumptions for the Action Alternatives.
Socioeconomic effects of the action
alternatives would vary primarily due to
differences in assumptions regarding duration
of operation (in years), employment levels,
rates of local hire, annual wage levels, capital
expenditures, annual expenditures and
assessed valuation.
Alternatives B, E, and G would have a
combined duration for construction, operation
and reclamation of ten years. By comparison.
Alternatives C and D involving underground
mining would have shorter durations of six
and eight years respectively, while the
complete backfill and 12-hour shifts
associated with Alternative F would occur
over a much longer period (of about 33
years).
All of the action alternatives involve
comparable levels of construction
employment, but have varying levels of
employment during operations and
reclamation. Rates of local hiring are
comparable for the action alternatives except
for the underground Alternatives C and D
which are expected to involve lower rates of
local hiring and greater numbers of employees
both during construction and operations.
For all of the action alternatives, it is
expected that worker training would be
available, particularly to support local hiring
objectives. Based on contacts with other
mine operators, lead time for worker training
can typically be expected to range between
one and six months for production staff (e.g.
truck drivers, laborers, loader drivers,
bulldozer drivers). Underground mining
operations associated with Alternatives C and
D would likely involve somewhat higher rates
of pay due to the more specialized skills of
workers involved.
Capital and annual operating expenditure
estimates pertinent to the socioeconomic
assessment are assumed to be comparable
for the Proposed Action (Alternative B) and
the backfill options (E and F), except that the
complete backfill option (Alternative F) would
involve additional capital expenditures during
the reclamation period. There are other
financial differences between Alternatives B
and E, but these differences do not affect the
socioeconomic evaluation.
Capital construction costs and annual
operation expenses would be greater for the
underground and non-cyanide process
Alternatives (C, D, and G). Assessed
valuations would be related to economic
value of the resource recovered (as a
percentage of Alternative B).
Based on these assumptions, the
socioeconomic effects of the action
alternatives are compared as follows:
Population and Demographics
Changes in population and demographics
within the study area are essentially driven by
three factors:
1. The number of new (or non-local)
employees transferred or recruited to
the study area by the Proponent;
2. The number of households and average
household size associated with mine
employees that become new residents;
and,
3. The number of new (non local) workers
and their families drawn to the area in
industries that provide goods or services
to those employed at the mine (i.e.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-209
secondary or support service
population).
Added population represents the result of a
number of employment, housing, and other
factors described in more detail in subsequent
sections of this analysis. Results of this
analysis are summarized by Table 4.19.2,
Anticipated Population Increase.
Direct Effects. Construction jobs are not
expected to have a long-term impact on
population of the study area because of their
temporary duration. Average construction
employment is estimated at 120 FTE or full-
time annual equivalent employees with 225
employees at the peak of construction, plus
25 mine related employees for a total of 145
FTE jobs during the first year of activity.
Depending on the time when construction
would begin and the phases of construction,
it is possible that there could be fewer on-site
employees for construction. Consequently,
construction employment numbers indicated
should be construed as a maximum potential
effect.
Construction workers generally are not
expected to bring their families to the area
due to the relatively short duration of
construction activities. About 60% to 75%
of construction workers are expected to be
non-local (depending on the alternative), due
to a need for highly trained and specific task
experienced workers who have experience in
mine and mill construction.
Depending on the action alternative, it is
estimated by the Proponent that between
20% to 60% of mine operations personnel
would be new (or non-local) residents of the
study area. As previously noted, for
purposes of this EIS, the term "local hire" is
intended to mean persons who have 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.
The range in the proportion of non-local hires
depends on the Alternative selected. The
underground Alternatives (C and D) would
have the greatest rates of non-local hire, due
to needs for more specialized training.
Estimates for all action alternatives are based
on an assumption derived from updated
contacts with other comparable mine
operators indicating that most if not all office
and non-office mine personnel who have
families would likely relocate their families to
the area. It is assumed that mine personnel
would have families with characteristics
(such as household size and number of
children) similar to the population (under age
65) already living in the study area.
For Alternatives B, E, F and G, an estimated
80% of the workforce would consist of local
hires. This represents a fairly high rate of
local hiring based on the experience of other
mines contacted, but has been accomplished
in other areas, particularly in communities
with adequate existing local labor force
and/or programs to encourage local hires.
Implications of not achieving these targets
are identified in the discussion of cumulative
effects.
Indirect Effects. Local expenditures made
directly by the mine and by mine personnel
would result in an increased demand for
goods and services in the study area. Some
of this demand would be met by existing
residents working in stores, real estate
offices, and other businesses. However, the
new demands generated by the mine would
be expected to draw new service providers
and residents into the area, even though they
are not directly connected with the Crown
Jewel Project.
Given the current relatively high availability of
local labor force, it has been assumed that
approximately 75% of the new indirect jobs
would be taken by existing study area
residents. About 25% would involve non-
local hires.
It is also assumed that employees added
indirectly as a result of the Crown Jewel
Project would have household characteristics
similar to those of the existing study area
population. As of the 1990 U.S. Census, the
study area had a ratio of 2.8 residents per
working age household (under age 65).
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-210
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
Total Effects. Independent of the Crown
Jewel Project, the population of Okanogan
and Ferry Counties is forecast by the State of
Washington Office of Financial Management
(OFM) to increase by an estimated 6,100
residents between 1995 and 2005. This
represents a 14% gain over ten years.
Population within the study area can be
expected to increase by 3,955 residents
during this ten year period, assuming a
continuation of historic study area shares of
Okanogan and Ferry County population
growth.
It is noted that OFM has updated population
forecasts of Ferry and Okanogan Counties
since the draft EIS. In the draft EIS, it was
reported that population of the two-county
area was expected to increase by 2,900
residents, independent of the proposed
Crown Jewel Project. In effect, population
growth associated with the updated ten year
baseline forecast for the final EIS is now
more than twice the growth forecast with the
prior OFM projection.
For purposes of the EIS discussion, this
analysis assumes that mine construction is
underway by 1997, However, it is noted
that actual start of construction is contingent
on receiving regulatory approvals (see
Chapter 1, Purpose of and Need for Action)
and a decision by the Proponent to proceed.
The combined direct and indirect effects of
the action alternatives would lead to an
increase of from 140 to 497 additional study
area residents during the years of active mine
operations. Population increases would be
greatest with Alternative C due to a greater
rate of non-local hires for underground
mining, and least with Alternative F due to
the longer duration of operations and lower
employment levels. Each of the action
alternatives represents an increase of less
than 2% in study area population and
approximately 1 % or less in the combined
populations of Okanogan and Ferry Counties
over baseline projections.
Comparisons of population growth in the
study area expected as a result of normal
baseline expectations (state OFM forecast)
versus the added maximum effects of Crown
Jewel Project operations for each of the
action alternatives are portrayed graphically
by Figure 4.19.1, Population Effects of
Action Alternatives and Figure 4.19.2,
Maximum Population Effect Versus Baseline
Forecast Growth.
Population growth associated with the
maximum effect of various action alternatives
is compared with a forecast based on the
State of Washington OFM projection for
Okanogan and Ferry Counties. In these
projections, the study area is assumed to
maintain a 60% to 62% share of the two-
county population. In 1990, the study area
represented 60% of the two-county
population, up from 59% in 1 980.
With the maximum envelope effect indicated
by Figure 4.19.2, Maximum Population Effect
Versus Baseline Forecast Growth, population
attributable directly and indirectly to the
Crown Jewel Project represents less than a
2% increase to study area population --
above and beyond baseline forecast
conditions.
Employment
Employment estimates are based on
assumptions as outlined by Table 4.19.1,
Socioeconomic Assumptions for the Action
Alternatives. Table 4.19.3, Forecast Annual
Employment and Payroll, compares direct,
indirect and total employment effects of the
Alternatives. Table 4.19.4, Multi-Year
Employment and Payroll, compares multi-year
employment and payroll effects of the
alternatives.
Direct Effects. Employment projections
potentially associated with various phases of
construction, operations and reclamation are
estimated as follows:
• It is estimated that, on average, there
would be 145 FTE workers over a
construction period that would last
approximately one year. For each of the
action alternatives, employment is
estimated to comprise 120 full-time
construction and 25 mine workers.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
1
I
I
CD
3
S
TABLE 4.19.3, FORECAST ANNUAL EMPLOYMENT AND PAYROLL
Mine Phase
Alternative
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Construction Phase
Employment
Direct Effects
Indirect Effects
Total Effect
0
0
0
145
40
185
145
40
185
145
40
185
145
40
185
145
40
185
145
40
185
Total Payroll
Direct Effects
Indirect Effects
Total Effects
$0
$0
$0
$7,426,000
$702,000
$8,128,000
$7,445,000
$707,000
$8,152,000
$7,445,000
$707,000
$8,152,000
$7,426,000
$702,000
$8,128,000
$7,426,000
$702,000
$8,128,000
$7,426,000
$702,000
$8,128,000
Operations Phase
Employment
Direct Effects
Indirect Effects
Total Effect
0
0
0
144
110
254
225
170
395
225
170
395
144
110
254
125
100
225
210
160
370
Total Payroll
Direct Effects
Indirect Effect
Total Effect
$0
$0
$0
$5,871,000
$1,585,000
$7,456,000
$9,042,000
$2,441,000
$11,483,000
$9,042,000
$2,441,000
$11,483,000
$5,871,000
$1,585,000
$7,456,000
$5,210,000
$1,407,000
$6,617,000
$8,168,000
$2,205,000
$10,373,000
Reclamation Phase
Employment
Direct Effects
Indirect Effect
Total Effect
0
0
0
50
40
90
50
40
90
50
40
90
50
40
90
75
60
135
50
40
90
Total Payroll
Direct Effects
Indirect Effect
Total Effect
$0
$0
$0
$2,040,000
$551,000
$2,591,000
$2,010,000
$543,000
$2,553,000
$2,010,000
$543,000
$2,553,000
$2,040,000
$551,000
$2,591,000
$3,128,000
$845,000
$3,973,000
$ 1 ,945,000
$525,000
$2,470,000
Note: Any employment and payroll associated with Alternative A occurs prior to the time periods referenced by this table. Indirect
employment is rounded to the nearest ten employees.
Source: E.D. Hovee, 1996a.
t
JO
to
SI
1
I
|
I
-------
Page 4-212
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
Mine Prune
TABLE 4.19.4, MULTI-YEAR EMPLOYMENT AND PAYROLL
Alternative
A
B
C
D
E
F
Q
Multi-Year Employment (in person-years)
Direct Effects
Indirect Effects
Total Effects
Multi-Year Payroll
Direct Effects
Indirect Effects
Total Effects
0
0
0
$0
$0
$0
1,350
960
2.310
$56.434.000
$13,933,000
$70,367,000
1.100
760
1.86O
$45,623,000
$11,014,000
$56,637,000
1,550
1,100
2,650
$63,707,000
$15,896,000
$79,603,000
1,350
960
2,310
$56,434.000
$13,933,000
$70,367,000
3,350
2,600
5,950
$140.834,000
$36,734.000
$177.568,000
1,880
1,360
3,240
$74,715,000
$18,867,000
$93,582,000
Note: Any employment and payroll associated with Alternative A occurs prior to the time periods referenced by this table.
Source: E.D. Hovee, 1996a.
• Mine operations employment ranging from
125 to 225 including mill and maintenance
workers (including 40 office and
supervisory workers with each action
alternative).
• Employment levels are expected to be
greatest with Alternatives C and D (the
underground Alternatives), and least with
Alternative F (that involves extension of
mine operations to a period of 16 years).
• Termination of mine personnel at
completion of operations, except for
reclamation personnel. The reclamation
crew could employ an estimated 50 to 75
workers. Employees are expected to be
greatest with Alternative F, and least with
Alternatives B, C, D, E, and G. The
reclamation crew would consist of
equipment operators, supervisors including
an environmental supervisor, and the
assistance of contractors and consultants
as needed.
Indirect Effects. New jobs would be created
in the service, retail or other non-mine sectors
of the economy to support the Crown Jewel
Project and its employees constitutes indirect
employment. Indirect employment of 40
additional people would be expected to occur
during construction. Indirect employment is
limited by the single year duration of
construction activities and the time needed to
actually experience business increases before
hiring additional personnel.
For this analysis, the employment multiplier
associated with gold mine operations is
estimated to approximate 2.66 for the State
of Washington and 1.76 for Okanogan and
Ferry Counties combined. Impact Analysis
for Planning (IMPLAN) multipliers have been
developed by the University of Minnesota for
every county in the U.S. through a
cooperative relationship with the Forest
Service. The most recent IMPLAN multiplier
estimates are as of 1993.
The 1.76 multiplier means that for every 100
new basic mine related jobs in the study area,
another 76 support retail and service sector
jobs would be generated in Okanogan and
Ferry Counties. This also assumes a pattern
of mine related purchases similar to that of
other precious metal mines which have been
operating recently in the study area (primarily
Ferry County).
Consequently, this analysis yields an estimate
of:
• An additional approximate 100 to 170
indirect jobs would be supported in the
study area over the life of mine operations
depending on the Alternative. Added
yearly indirect jobs are expected to be
greatest with the underground Alternatives
C and D, and least with Alternative F.
• An approximate decline to between 40 to
60 jobs supported indirectly during post-
closure and reclamation activities.
Reclamation related employment is
expected to be greatest with Alternative F.
Total Effects. This analysis yields the
following yearly and multi-year estimates of
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-213
total direct and indirect jobs created as a
result of the action alternatives:
• An estimated 185 FTE jobs during
construction. Effects are expected to be
the same for all of the action alternatives.
• 225 to 395 average annual employment
during mine operations. Annual
employment effects are expected to be
greatest with the Alternatives C and D,
and least with Alternative F.
• Potentially 90 to 135 jobs per year
associated with post-closure reclamation
activities. Reclamation related
employment is expected to be greatest
with Alternative F.
• A range of 1,860 to 5,950 person-years of
employment are associated with the action
alternatives. The greatest number of
person-years of employment is associated
with Alternative F {due to its total
projected duration of 33 years). The
lowest number of person-years of
employment is associated with Alternative
C (due to its short six year total projected
duration).
As operations are curtailed with mine closure
and reclamation, local unemployment rates
can be expected to increase at least
temporarily. The duration over which higher
rates of local unemployment would persist is
difficult to predict in advance, but would
depend on factors such as: availability of
other employment or business opportunities
in the area; potential for employee transfers
by the Proponent or hire by other mining
companies outside the study area; and/or
willingness of former mine workers to
relocate from the study area.
Income
Income gained or lost directly as a result of
construction and operation of the action
alternatives could be attributable to:
• Payroll to employees;
• Local purchases of goods and services
made directly by the Proponent; and/or,
• Change in recreation and tourism activity
related to the Crown Jewel Project.
Direct Effects. As is detailed by Table
4.19.3, Forecast Annual Employment and
Payroll, and Table 4.19.4, Multi-Year
Employment and Payroll, the payroll directly
associated with the Crown Jewel Project is
estimated to range between $5.2 and $9.0
million per year over the life of operations (in
1995 dollars). Annual payroll would be
greatest for Alternatives C and D, and least
for Alternative F.
Over a multi-year period, total direct payroll is
estimated to range between $45.6 million
and $140.8 million. Total multi-year payroll
is greatest for Alternative F, followed by
Alternative G, Alternative D, Alternatives B
and E, and Alternative C (in descending
order).
In addition, the Proponent would be expected
to purchase between $16.7 to $26.1 million
in goods and services annually out of an
estimated $30.0 to $39.4 million operating
budget, depending on the action alternative
(see Table 4.19.1, Socioeconomic
Assumptions for the Action Alternatives).
Based on statewide and local sales data, an
estimated 42% of purchases would be made
within Okanogan and Ferry Counties.
Income effects directly attributable to the
Crown Jewel Project also include potential
gains or loss of tourism related expenditures.
Gains in tourism could occur as a result of
educational tours of the Crown Jewel Project
committed to by the Proponent as part of any
Mineral Showcase Program agreement with
the Forest Service. The number of visitors
that might visit the Crown Jewel Project is
not known, so no quantitative estimates are
made for this EIS.
Negative tourism effects could occur due to
such factors as loss of area for hunting,
together with visual, noise, and aesthetic
effects. A potential loss of up to 2,848
visitors and 1,413 visitor days annually is
estimated for the immediate
Chesaw/Highlands area attributable to the
Crown Jewel Project. These losses occur
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-214
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
from reductions in hunting, camping, hiking,
and driving for pleasure.
Applying the statewide average campground-
related expenditure of $21.83 per day if
people avoided the area because of the
mining, there could be a potential loss of
approximately $31,000 annually to the
Chesaw/Highlands area. This loss represents
2% of current tourism in the
Chesaw/Highlands area and less than 0.1 of
1 % of tourism activity in Okanogan and Ferry
Counties combined. It also could be
anticipated that at least some of the
recreation-tourism activity lost to the
Chesaw/Highlands area would be shifted to
other portions of the two-county area.
Indirect Effects. For this analysis, an
earnings multiplier of 1.27 is applied (Chase,
R.A. et al., 1987). This means that for every
$100.00 in payroll by the mine, another
$27.00 would be generated in additional
income for study area residents. This
multiplier is less for Okanogan County than
for more urbanized areas due to limited
development of the local economy and people
going outside the county to shop.
It is also noted that the indirect earnings
multiplier is well below the jobs multiplier
because service sector jobs have
substantially lower wage levels than for direct
mine related workers. However, there is the
possibility that the high wage levels of mine
workers could put upward pressure on wage
rates for service-related workers in the study
area. If this occurs, the earnings multiplier
would increase above and beyond the
projections made in this report.
Indirect earnings are estimated to range
between $1.4 to $2.4 million yearly over the
duration of mine operations, declining to $0.5
to $0.9 million annually during the period of
reclamation activity.
Total Effects. The total yearly added direct
and indirect income effects associated with
action alternatives are expected to
approximate:
• $8.1 to $8.2 million during construction
with relatively little difference between
Alternatives.
• $6.6 to $11.5 million annually over the
years of the mine operation. Increased
annual income would be greatest with the
Alternatives C and D, and least with
Alternative F, although the economic
benefits of Alternative F would last twice
as long.
• An estimated $2.5 to $4.0 million during
the year(s) of post-closure reclamation
activity. Income effects during reclamation
are expected to be greatest with complete
backfill Alternative F, and least with
Alternative G.
• Multi-year cumulative direct and indirect
payroll associated with the action
alternatives ranges from $57 million to
$178 million. Effects are greatest with
Alternative F due to 33 year combined
span of construction, operations and
reclamation, and are least with Alternative
C.
At assumed peak operations, the cumulative
payroll earnings resulting from the mine
would represent an additional 2% to 4% in
personal earnings for residents of Okanogan
and Ferry Counties.
Community and Public Services
All of the action alternatives could be
expected to generate both direct and indirect
effects for a variety of community and public
services. Consideration of these effects is
important because many of the community
and public service providers have at times
been strained in their ability to meet demands
of the existing population and population
growth over the last several years. However,
public service capacities have recently been
improved in several of the study area's larger
communities, notably Omak, Oroville, and
Tonasket.
Direct Effects. Effects that mine operations,
mine personnel, and their families would have
directly on community and public services
cover the following items:
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-215
• Calculations of added school enrollment
are based on the estimates of the number
of new families that would relocate to the
study area directly and indirectly as a
result of the Crown Jewel Project. Using
1990 census data, approximately 26% of
persons in households headed by an adult
under age 65 comprise school age
children. As per Table 4.19.5, Anticipated
School Enrollment Effects, a range of 19 to
100 additional students are expected from
families of mine personnel during the
period of mine operations.
The enrollment impact is potentially
greatest with the underground mine
proposed in Alternative C due to a larger
work force and higher rate of non-local
hires. However, this impact occurs over a
shorter time period due to the shorter
duration of mining-related activity. Added
yearly enrollment would increase the least
with Alternative F, but would be sustained
over the longest period of time (33 years).
It is noted that both Tonasket and Oroville
districts have been operating at
approximately 95% of indicated school
facility capacity. As of October 1995,
each of these two districts had capacity to
accommodate an added 40 students.
Enrollment at the other four area school
districts averages 78% to 80% of
indicated facility capacity, with the ability
to accommodate enrollment of more than an
added 1,000 students.
• Need for law enforcement services would
be expected to increase, particularly in the
immediate Chesaw/Highlands area which is
lightly patrolled now by the Okanogan
County Sheriff Department. It is expected
that at least one full-time officer might be
assigned to patrol this area. A full-time
officer is not available to the area
currently, nor has funding been available to
date within budget resources for this
added expense.
• Fire protection requirements would be
provided for on-site needs by the
Proponent. The other provider most
affected could be the Chesaw-Molson
district (Okanogan County Fire District
#11). The mine site would have fire
protection systems installed in building
facilities as required by code and for
insurance purposes. Trained personnel
with the necessary equipment to provide
on-site fire protection would be required.
• Need for ambulance service on the site of
the proposed operation would be the
responsibility of the Proponent. The mine
would have trained EMT personnel on site,
together with an on-site ambulance and an
equipped first aid room.
TABLE 4.19.5, ANTICIPATED SCHOOL ENROLLMENT EFFECTS
Mine Phase
Alternative
A
B
C
0
E
F
G
Construction Phase
Direct Effect
Indirect Effect
Total Effect
0
0
0
16
8
24
19
7
26
19
8
27
16
8
24
16
8
24
16
8
24
Operations Phase
direct Effect
Indirect Effect
Total Effect
0
0
0
21
19
40
100
31
131
83
31
114
21
19
40
19
19
38
31
29
60
Reclamation Phase
Direct Effect
Indirect Effect
Total Effect
0
0
0
2
7
9
2
8
10
2
8
10
2
7
9
3
11
14
2
8
10
Note: Enrollment associated with Alternative A occurs prior to mine-related activities noted in
this table.
Source: E.D. Hovee, 1996a.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-216
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
Off-site emergency medical response
would be the responsibility of existing
providers; this would include off-site
ambulance or Emergency Medical
Treatment (EMT) services. While receiving
• Hospital and medical services would be
directly affected for treatment of personnel
injured at the Crown Jewel Project site, as
a result of highway related accidents and
the increased population due to out of local
area hires. Initial emergency medical and
non-acute care would probably be provided
by the North Valley (Tonasket), Mid Valley
(Omak) and/or Ferry County Memorial
(Republic) hospitals, and potentially by the
Oroville Clinic (operated by North Valley
Hospital). Patients requiring intensive care
would typically be transported either to
Mid Valley Hospital (Omak) or out of the
area, such as to hospitals in Wenatchee,
Spokane, and Seattle.
• Social services are provided by a variety of
public and non-profit organizations in
Okanogan and Ferry Counties. If the age
and sex ratios of the mine related
population are similar to existing study
area ratios, there should be no
disproportionate increase in demand for
social services as a result of mine
construction and operation. However,
with federal and related state and local
budget cuts, it is noted social services are
increasingly strained in their ability to meet
existing service needs.
However, effects of the action alternatives
could exceed indicated proportionate
shares of study area population or
employment if construction and/or
operations personnel are disproportionately
comprised of young adult males. An
employment base of younger adult males
and/or males without families could
potentially result in disproportionate effects
on social services such as alcohol and
substance abuse programs, as has
occurred in other mining communities
initially contacted for the evaluation of
existing socioeconomic conditions (Chapter
3, Affected Environment). This type of
situation is more apt to occur during mine
construction, and much less likely during
the period of mine operations.
• Difficulties in meeting water demands
would be most pronounced if new housing
for mine related households is developed
outside of areas currently served by public
or community water systems, particularly
in the Chesaw/Highlands area.
• Domestic sewage would be treated on-site
with an approved septic and drainfield
system or package treatment system. The
Crown Jewel Project would not directly
affect effluent in residential communities
(from mine operations) as treatment would
be handled by a private on-site system;
effects would be related to added housing
and population within incorporated study
area cities. As with water supply,
wastewater needs would be greatest if
employees construct housing in areas
without public sewer that cannot easily
accommodate septic systems or in
communities with sewage treatment
systems already operating at capacity.
As of 1995, the communities of
Conconully, Okanogan, Republic and
Tonasket are experiencing average peak
monthly flows in excess of 85% of
wastewater treatment facility design
capacity. The WADOE typically requires
local planning for wastewater treatment
expansion to be initiated when usage
exceeds 85% of capacity. Cities with
adequate existing wastewater treatment
capacity are Omak and Oroville.
• Solid waste on-site can be expected to be
generated at rates of: four to five pounds
per day of trash per employee during
construction; and two to three pounds per
day per employee during operations. This
equates to total volumes of 211,700 to
264,600 pounds during the year of
construction, 91,300 to 246,400 pounds
per year during operations, and 36,500 to
82,100 pounds annually during
reclamation. This trash consists of inert
materials such as untreated wood waste,
paper and cardboard products, office and
lunchroom wastes, uncontaminated piping
and liner materials.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-217
The Proponent would be responsible for
recycling or off-site disposal of all
controlled or hazardous materials in
compliance with applicable state and
federal regulations. Non-hazardous
consumable materials would be either
recycled (as area recycling programs
become available) or transported to an
appropriate local landfill.
Assuming that no recycling programs are
affected for inert materials, the Crown
Jewel Project would account for 0.2% to
0.6% of the current annual tonnage of
trash landfilled in Okanogan County during
operations. The proposed mine would not
impact landfill growth projections. The
programmed life of the present landfill is
about 50 years. (Okanogan County Solid
Waste Advisory Committee, February 12,
1996 meeting notes.)
• Electrical utility providers appear to have
adequate capacity to serve both the mine
operation and any added housing needed
for mine employees.
Indirect Effects. Indirect effects of the action
alternatives on community and public
services would result largely from the
increase in population. For most services,
demands would likely increase proportionate
with overall household and population
growth.
Total Effects. The combination of direct and
indirect effects of the action alternatives on
community and public services were
evaluated on a service-by-service basis. For
purposes of clarity, the discussion focuses
primarily on effects during the years of active
mining operations. This is the time period
over which yearly effects on community and
public service providers would be at peak
levels.
• Total increase in school enrollment would
range between an additional 38 to 131
students at the K-12 level (Table 4.19.5,
Anticipated School Enrollment Effects).
Added enrollment would be greatest with
Alternative C and least with Alternative F.
Added students would increase enrollment
within the six study area school districts
by 2% or less over 1995 levels.
Because two of six school districts in the
study area are currently operating at 95%
of indicated facility capacity, additional
enrollment conceivably could lead to the
need for constructing new classrooms or
use of added portables. However,
enrollment attributable directly and
indirectly to the Crown Jewel Project is not
likely, by itself, to require new school
facility construction unless a substantial
portion of the added students attend just
one of the study area's six districts, for
example, either Oroville or Tonasket.
When spread out over grades K-12, a
range of 38 to 131 students equals 3 to
11 students per grade. Spread out over
six school districts, this is less than two
additional students per grade per district.
The Oroville school district would be the
only school district receiving property
taxes generated directly from the mine
site. But is the district which most likely
would receive the greatest proportion of
new students.
• Total direct and indirect need for law
enforcement could be an additional two
full-time positions, plus one or two
volunteer reserve positions serving
primarily in the Sheriff's Departments of
Okanogan and Ferry Counties. This
personnel projection is based on applying
existing per capita law enforcement
staffing to peak year total population
growth that is related to the mine. The
potential for an added deputy covering the
Chesaw/Highlands area also has been
suggested as a result of contacts with
study area community and public service
providers.
• Fire protection services would increase in
proportion to the population growth related
to the proposed mine, plus any special
needs generated directly at the mine site
including issues associated with
transporting materials and personnel to and
from the mine. The fire districts within the
study area have had a combined total of
over 100 primarily volunteer fire fighters.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-218
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
The greatest impact would likely be on the
Chesaw-Molson fire district due to its
proximity to the proposed mine site.
However, the Crown Jewel Project site is
not within the boundaries of the Chesaw-
Molson fire district, so the fire district
would not receive any revenue directly
from increased assessed valuation of the
mine property.
• Use of hospital and medical services would
increase proportionally to the population
growth attributable to the Crown Jewel
Project, or by less than 2% for the years of
mine operations. These additional
demands should be easily accommodated
because capacity utilization is currently
well below 50% at area hospitals.
Increased utilization could improve the
financial viability of the area's three
hospitals, particularly to the extent that
mine employees and others employed at
retail and service businesses resulting from
the mine are covered by health insurance.
• The impact on social service providers
would be at least proportional to the
increase in population in the two-county
area attributable to the mine, i.e., an
estimated increase of less than 2% during
the years of mining operations. Social
service needs could be even greater if mine
workers are disproportionately young
single males and/or the Crown Jewel
Project draws more people into the area
than would actually be employed directly
or indirectly as a result of the Crown Jewel
Project. Substantial demands on social
service agencies have been reported in
other mining communities, particularly
those who have experienced major mining
activity of relatively short duration.
• Effects on water supply would be related
to population and housing growth in the
study area, i.e., less than 2% with all
action alternatives. All of the incorporated
communities have adequate water capacity
(as of 1996) to serve additional residential
development.
• As with water supply, effects on
wastewater treatment would be related to
the new housing developed within existing
urban areas, or in rural communities that
may require shifting from individual septic
systems to a community treatment facility.
Impacts would be minimal if added housing
is developed in communities with adequate
existing sewage treatment capacity.
As of 1995, the incorporated communities
of Oroville and Omak currently have
adequate wastewater (i.e. public sewer or
septic) systems to accommodate additional
residential growth. Incorporated
communities whose sewer systems are
currently operating in excess of 85% of
system capacity during one or more
months of the year include Conconully,
Okanogan, Republic, and Tonasket.
• Any of the action alternatives can be
expected to generate a need for solid
waste facilities. In addition to non-
hazardous waste generated directly on-
site, an additional three to four pounds per
person per day can be attributed to new
residents relocating to the study area
directly and indirectly as a result of the
Project. This equates to total direct and
indirect added solid waste of 153,300 to
725,600 pounds per year during Crown
Jewel Project operations (depending on the
action alternative selected).
This added waste volume is roughly
proportional to the increase in population
of Okanogan and Ferry Counties
attributable to the Crown Jewel Project,
i.e. less the 2% increase in total solid
waste landfilled annually for the years of
mine operations. Additional volume can, in
some cases, help to defray costs once
facility investments are made.
Ferry County closed its landfill October
1993, and has constructed a transfer
station for the transfer of solid waste
outside of the county. Okanogan County
closed its old landfill and opened a new
facility in early 1 994.
Implementation of further recycling
programs, whether on-site by the
Proponent or off-site by local jurisdictions,
would serve to reduce the amounts of solid
waste that is disposed of in a landfill.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-27 9
• Total electrical load for the proposed mine
and resulting population growth is
projected to increase kilowatt hours sold
for the Okanogan PUD by approximately
10% (during peak years of operation).
Added population and housing growth
could increase the combined load of the
Okanogan and Ferry County PUDs, but by
less than an additional 2%. Electrical
service needs are well within the load
capabilities available for these two utilities,
provided that satisfactory arrangements
are made for transmission lines by
Okanogan PUD to the Crown Jewel Project
site. Because the Proponent would pay
both the costs of added transmission lines
and fund other incremental service costs,
none of the action alternatives are
expected to affect electrical rates.
Housing
A careful evaluation of the effects of the
action alternatives on housing is important for
potential ramifications to other
socioeconomic factors, particularly
community and public services. However,
predicting in advance the types and locations
of housing needed is problematic because so
many of the factors affecting demand would
not be fully known until after the fact. These
factors include questions such as: size and
composition of families associated with mine
workers; the nature of off-site employee bus
or van-pool programs; whether a mine or
support service related job is perceived as
temporary or permanent; availability of
existing suitable housing; and lifestyle and
social preferences.
For purposes of this analysis, the following
five assumptions are made:
• Existing study area residents who are
employed directly or indirectly by the mine
would create no new net demand for
added housing. This assumption reflects
the fact that existing study area residents
are already housed in some fashion.
• Short-term construction workers would
generate no demand for net added
permanent housing. Because the
construction period is relatively short (i.e.
one year or less), workers who are not
local residents can generally be expected
to make temporary housing arrangements.
Experience with other mine projects
suggests that many construction workers
can be expected to use recreation vehicle
campsites and motels as well as rent
homes and apartments, to the extent that
space is available. This means they may
displace other tenants or may cause rents
to rise. Demand for permanent housing
during the construction period is related to
employees hired early on who would be
retained beyond the end of construction
activity for mine operations.
• Households that relocate to the area for
jobs created directly or indirectly as a
result of the mine's operation would
require an equal amount of new housing to
be constructed. The percentage of vacant
rental and for sale units currently available
(as of January-February 1996) appear to
be well below rates needed to
accommodate even normal turnover within
a stable (or no growth) housing market.
Consequently, any additional population
growth would be accompanied by
construction of new housing units located
within the study area.
• New housing construction would occur
within the study area in both incorporated
and rural communities which have the
capacity to support new development.
Several communities within the study area
are considering or have recently
undertaken to expand their utility
infrastructure. Increased demand for
housing could stimulate implementation of
some of these plans, provided that
adequate funding resources are available.
• While the EIS does not involve allocating
housing demand to specific communities, it
is assumed that most of the added housing
development related to the Crown Jewel
Project would occur within or near an
existing incorporated community.
Relatively little of the added housing
development is expected to occur directly
in the Chesaw/Highlands area due to:
current 20-acre per building lot minimum
(except for prior plats), practical limitations
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-220
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
of securing adequate private domestic well
water, and Proponent-sponsored busing or
van-pool programs with parking sites
located away from the mine site closer to
incorporated cities. The Proponent
expects to strongly encourage its
employees to utilize off-site parking and
bus/van pooling, with the exception of
professional office personnel who may be
assigned vehicles.
Table 4.19.6, Anticipated Permanent Housing
Demand, compares projected housing
requirements for the action alternatives based
on the above assumptions.
Direct Effects. Housing demand for new
residents attracted into the area to work at
the proposed Crown Jewel Project is
estimated as follows:
• Approximately 11 residential units would
be needed to accommodate peak demand
from 25 mine workers initially hired during
the first year of Project activity. Another
120 FTE construction workers would need
to be housed on a temporary basis for up
to one year. Most of the construction
related demand would likely be
accommodated within the existing
inventory of motel rooms, rental housing,
RV/fifth-wheel and campground sites.
• During the years of mining operations, a
range of between 25 to 135 units of
permanent new housing might be needed
in the study area. Demand would be
greatest with Alternative C, and least with
Alternative F. Because of its longer 33
year duration, Alternative F would have
less of a "boom and bust" effect than may
be anticipated with the other more short-
lived action alternatives.
Based on experience with the construction of
Echo Bay's project in Republic, the local
housing market was not able to respond to
the inflow of people during the construction
phase of the project. Rental housing has
typically been very difficult to find in northern
Okanogan County. Several apartment houses
have up to two year waiting lists. It is not
believed that builders in the Oroville/Tonasket
area can respond, within a year, to the need
for an additional 25 to 135 new housing
units. If workers can be assumed to live as
far away as Omak/Okanogan, northern
Okanogan County would be better able to
respond to the increase in population since
there seems to be a good supply of houses
available there, presently.
Indirect Effects. Added housing demand
would be generated by households attracted
into the area by the availability of jobs in
TABLE 4.19.6, ANTICIPATED PERMANENT HOUSING DEMAND
Mine Phase
Alternative
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Construction Phase
Direct Effect
Indirect Effect
Total Effect
0
0
0
11
10
21
11
10
21
11
10
21
11
10
21
11
10
21
11
10
21
Operations Phase
Direct Effect
Indirect Effect
Total Effect
0
0
0
29
27
56
135
42
177
112
42
154
29
27
56
25
25
50
42
40
82
Reclamation Phase
Direct Effect
Indirect Effect
Total Effect
0
0
0
2
10
12
2
10
12
2
10
12
2
10
12
3
15
18
2
10
12
Note: Construction phase demand for permanent housing is calculated on the basis of
operations employees only. Construction workers would generate an additional
temporary housing need for a period of up to one year. Housing demand related to
Alternative A would occur prior to mine construction and subsequent activities noted by
this table.
Source: E.D. Hovee, 1996a.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-227
businesses or agencies benefiting from the
proposed mine's operation. Estimates of
demand are as follows:
• The construction period would generate a
demand for about ten added permanent
housing units, for all Alternatives.
• Over the years of operations, demand
would be generated for an additional 25 to
42 units of housing, tapering to need for
10 to 15 units during the period of
reclamation activity. Operations related
demand would be greatest with
Alternatives C and D, and least with
Alternative F.
• It is also possible that the Crown Jewel
Project would attract other people to the
area hoping to find work, who may remain
even in the absence of securing
employment. This potential effect is
discussed further as a possible cumulative
effect later in this analysis.
Total Effects. Total demand for housing
expected to be created directly and indirectly
as a result of the Crown Jewel Project is
estimated at:
• Approximately 21 added permanent
housing units generated solely as a result
of construction activities. Need for added
housing is expected to be the same for all
action alternatives during the construction
period. Construction workers would
generate an additional need for temporary
housing for a period of up to one year.
• A range of between 50 to 177 new
permanent housing units during the years
of active mining operations, dropping to
between 12 to 19 units during the period
of post-closure reclamation. Demand
would be greatest with Alternative C and
least with Alternative F. For all action
alternatives, the housing need represents
an addition of approximately 2% or less to
the primary study area's inventory of
existing occupied units (as of 1990).
However, it is noted that current
conditions of low vacancy rates combined
with demand for added housing to
accommodate in-migrants could potentially
create competition and/or displacement for
housing currently available to agricultural
workers and low income residents. This
situation is most apt to occur during
construction and initial start-up of mine
operations.
A potential downside to this housing effect
is that 31 to 165 homes may come on the
real estate market as active mining
operations end. The placement of this
many homes on the market could depress
housing prices unless other population
growth independent of the mine operation
is occurring.
Based on the most recent state OFM
population forecast, population of the two-
county study area is expected to increase
by approximately 575 residents each year
over the 25 year forecast period 1995-
2020. It also is noted that recent growth
of over 870 residents per year (from 1990-
1995) has been well in excess of OFM
projections. This level of continued
population and household growth would
serve to absorb housing placed on the
market within less than one year from the
date that mine operations cease.
Fiscal Conditions
A comparison of effects of the action
alternatives on state and local government
revenues and expenditures is presented by
Table 4.19.7, Anticipated Multi-Year Fiscal
Effects. A detailed description of the
methodology used to estimate fiscal effects is
provided by the Affected Socioeconomic
Environment Background Report: 1996
Update, Crown Jewel Project (E.D. Hovee,
1996a).
The comparison of revenues generated with
public expenses produces a calculation of net
fiscal gain (or loss) to the public as a result of
the Crown Jewel Project. Due to the
different durations of mine related activities
associated with different action alternatives,
calculations are presented on a combined
multi-year basis, covering the entire period of
construction, operation and reclamation
activity.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-222
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
TABLE 4.19.7, ANTICIPATED MULTI-YEAR FISCAL EFFECTS
Alternative
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Direct Effect
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Gain/(Loss)
$0
$0
$0
$23,300,000
$ 3,200,000
$20,100,000
$21,600,000
$ 7,300,000
$14,300,000
$28,400,000
$ 9,000,000
$19,400,000
$22,400,000
$ 3,200.000
$19,200,000
$47.100,000
$ 6,200,000
$40,900,000
$25,600,000
$ 4,600,000
$21,000,000
Indirect Effect
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Gain/(Loss|
$0
$0
$0
$12,800,000
$ 1,500,000
$11,300,000
$12,400,000
$ 3,400,000
$ 9,000,000
$15,900,000
$ 4,200,000
$11,700,000
$12,400,000
$ 1,500,000
$10,900,000
$25,900,000
$ 2,900,000
$23,000,000
$15,100,000
$ 2,200,000
$21,900,000
Total Effect
Revenues
Expenditures
Net Gain/ (Loss)
$0
$0
$0
$36,100,000
$ 4,700,000
$31,400,00
$34,000,000
$10,700,000
$23,300,000
$44,300,000
$13,200,000
$31,100,000
$34,800,000
$ 4,700,000
$30,100,000
$73,000,000
$ 9,100,000
$63,900,000
$40,700,000
$ 6,800,000
$33,900,000
Note: Fiscal effects are aggregated over the entire multi-year period encompassing construction, operation, and reclamation
activities. Any fiscal effects associated with Alternative A occur prior to mine related construction, operation and post-
operation reclamation activities.
Source: A more detailed description of the impact methodology is provided by the Affected Socioeconomic Environment Background
Report U996 Update) Crownjewel Project (E.D Hovee, 1996a).
It is noted that while an estimation of fiscal
impacts involves extensive quantitative
analysis, key assumptions must be made that
reflect informed opinion which may or may
not prove out in the future. Assumptions
inevitably involve educated guesses about the
future, which can subsequently be altered by
unexpected or unforeseen events.
Among the key assumptions made for this
fiscal analysis are the following items:
• Assessed valuation of the mine with
Alternative B is estimated to be
approximately $67.4 million. Assessed
valuations for each of Alternatives C
through G are varied based on the ratio of
expected ore recovery compared with
Alternative B. The Alternative B valuation
includes $19.6 million of assessed
valuation already estimated by the
Okanogan County Assessor for mineral
rights. Valuation also reflects an estimated
$47.8 million in construction
improvements (including labor).
However, it is noted that the Okanogan
County Assessor would plan to reassess
the mine after its opening, in part based on
a calculation of the net present value of
the income to be generated over the life of
the mine. Consequently, the resulting
determination of assessed valuation could
vary substantially from the $67.4 million
preliminary estimate used for this impact
evaluation.
• No additional public capital improvement
expenditures are anticipated to be required
for upgrading of infrastructure to serve the
mine site. Capital expenditures for state
and local governments are assumed to
increase proportional to population growth
created directly and indirectly by the
proposed Crown Jewel Project. This is
based on the following considerations:
- Impacts on public facilities attributable
directly and indirectly to the Crown
Jewel Project are generally less than 2%
depending on the action alternative
under consideration; these incremental
levels of demand on public facility usage
are not likely to be sufficient to require
major new or expanded public facilities
solely as a result of mine related
activity.
- Within Okanogan and Ferry Counties,
current major public facility needs are
largely the result of existing deficiencies
or deferral of prior maintenance and
improvement requirements. Public
facility improvements designed to cure
existing deficiencies could also be sized
to accommodate 2% added growth
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-223
factors associated with the Crown
Jewel Project action alternatives at
relatively nominal added incremental
facility expense.
- One exception to this overall assumption
relates to effects of increased vehicular
traffic on Pontiac Ridge Road which
directly serves the mine site. However,
the Proponent has agreed to both
upgrade and maintain the road over the
duration of mine-related activity.
- A second exception is possible for the
immediate Chesaw-Molson community.
If a substantial share of the added
population generated by the mine were
to locate in the Chesaw-Molson area,
existing local community and public
facilities that are related to community
water, sewage, law enforcement and
fire capabilities could be severely
strained.
• Revenues and cost estimates generally are
allocated to taxing jurisdictions based on
the residence locations of persons living in
the study area together with current retail
sales patterns. For example, incorporated
cities account for about 43% of total
population in the study area. Fiscal
impacts for cities would be understated if
more than 43% of the added study area
population resulting from the proposed
Crown Jewel Project actually resides
directly within an incorporated community.
This could potentially happen in the
Oroville/ Tonasket areas due to busing
from Oroville.
• Anticipated increases in state and local
governmental revenues are categorized
based on the following considerations:
- Sales, property and business and
occupation taxes directly attributable to
the mine operation.
- Sales, property and business and
occupation taxes resulting from direct
and indirect population growth which
are assumed to be consistent with
existing per capita revenues for
Okanogan and Ferry Counties and for
other taxing jurisdictions within the
study area.
Other governmental revenues which are
also assumed to increase for new
residents based on existing per capita
receipts.
• Similarly, local expenditures attributable
directly and indirectly to the proposed mine
are expected to increase on a basis
proportional to existing per capita
expenditures in Okanogan and Ferry
Counties. A per capita method is also
used to estimate expenditures associated
with new residents for other local
jurisdictions throughout the study area.
School district expenditures are calculated
on a per student basis. School revenues
from local property tax sources are
calculated on a per capita basis, while
state share revenues are calculated on a
per student basis.
Direct Effects. Over the entire multi-year
period of construction, operation and
reclamation, between $21.6 to $47.1 million
in direct revenues would be generated, versus
an estimated $3.2 to $9.0 million in direct
expenditures. Multi-year net fiscal gain
ranges from $14.3 million with Alternative C
to $40.9 million with Alternative F. Between
63% and 77% of the net fiscal gain accrues
to the State of Washington, with 23% to
37% accruing to local governmental
jurisdictions in Ferry and Okanogan Counties.
Indirect Effects. Additional state and local
government tax revenues would be paid by
employees and businesses benefitting directly
and indirectly from the proposed mine
operations. Revenues would increase in
proportion to area population and income
growth (assuming a per capita tax figure
adjusted upwards by the higher than average
wages associated with mine employees).
Indirect expenditures are also calculated on a
per capita basis for the share of population
growth that may be indirectly attributable to
the proposed mine operation.
Combined multi-year governmental revenues
associated with construction, operation and
reclamation would range between $12.4 and
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-224
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
$25.9 million. Combined indirect expenses
are estimated to range between $1.5 and
$4.2 million. Multi-year net fiscal gains are
estimated to range from $9.0 million with
Alternative C to $23.0 million with
Alternative F.
Total Effects. The combination of direct and
indirect public agency fiscal impacts
estimated for the years of construction,
operations and reclamation are as follows:
• A range of combined multi-year annual
revenues of $34.0 to $73.0 million.
Revenue benefits are expected to be
greatest with Alternative F and least with
Alternative C.
• Multi-year expenditures of $4.7 to $13.2
million. Public expenditures would be
greatest with Alternative D and least with
Alternatives B and E.
• Combined multi-year net fiscal gain ranging
from $23.3 to $63.9 million. Net fiscal
benefits over the entire period of mine
related activity would be greatest with
Alternative F and least with Alternative C.
There are two additional types of fiscal
effects that are not directly incorporated in
the above calculations: (a) effects on retail
sales tax equalization payments; and (b)
effects on future capital facilities needs.
Currently, both Okanogan and Ferry Counties
and three study area cities (Conconully,
Republic, and Riverside) receive tax
equalization payments based on a statewide
formula for jurisdictions with sales tax
revenues below 70% of the statewide per
capita average. These payments could be
lost as the result of the mine's local
purchases. In addition, all city jurisdictions
have received distributions from an excess
fund not expected to be available after 1995-
1996.
Due to retail sales tax revenues generated
directly and indirectly from the Crown Jewel
Project, equalization payments to Okanogan
and Ferry Counties would be reduced by a
range of $99,000-$ 177,000 during
construction, by $28,000-$41,000 annually
during operations, and by $6,000-$9,000
annually during reclamation depending on the
action alternative.
The three cities currently receiving
equalization payments could also experience
sales tax revenue reductions, although the
amount of the reduction depends both on
changes in local community population and
retail sales which have not been calculated
on a community specific basis for the EIS.
There could also be considerable variability in
the county revenue effects due to similar
uncertainties over distribution of added
revenues and population between
incorporated and unincorporated areas of
Okanogan and Ferry Counties.
Effects on future capital expenditures ranging
from roads to public school facilities have not
been specifically forecast for two reasons.
First, the less than 2% increase in population
of the two-county area attributable directly
and indirectly to the Crown Jewel Project
means that few if any additional facilities are
likely to be required solely as a result of the
Project. Public capital facilities generally are
constructed in sizes that serve larger
increments of community needs.
Second, a substantial portion of public capital
facility funding typically is derived from non-
tax revenue sources, notably user fees and
grants. For example, 87% of the special
revenue and capital project funds budgeted
for capital development in Okanogan and
Ferry Counties is derived from non-local tax
sources.
It is important to note that revenue increases
are relatively temporary in nature.
Government revenues would be high during
construction and during the four to 16 years
of mine operation. During reclamation, the
net revenue surplus created by the Crown
Jewel Project would decrease sharply,
followed by further reductions once
reclamation activities are completed.
Consequently, mine related governmental
revenues could appropriately be viewed as a
means to fund short-term programs or capital
improvements rather than long-term
continuing government programs. However,
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-225
experience indicates that the impetus to
increase ongoing governmental programs may
be difficult to avoid. Other mining
communities, including Ferry County,
reportedly have experienced public agency
funding problems when mines have curtailed
or ceased operations because local
governments had come to rely on mine-
related revenues.
Social Values
Unlike the other components of this analysis,
it is difficult to assign meaningful numerical
figures to changes in social values that may
occur directly or indirectly as a result of the
Crown Jewel Project. However, based on
the results of individual interviews and a
review of other pertinent documents, it is
possible to make a qualitative assessment of
changes in social values that may occur as a
result of the action alternatives. Effects have
been reported as they are perceived by study
area residents.
A detailed evaluation of potential effects of
the alternatives on distinct social groups is
provided in the Affected Socioeconomic
Environmental Background Report: (1996
Update) Crown Jewel Project (E.D. Hovee,
1996a). The following is a brief summary of
potential effects on social values of study
area residents.
Based on the social interviews conducted and
the nature of the comments in the EIS
scoping review process and comments
received on the draft EIS, it is apparent that
there is considerable polarization and intensity
of viewpoints, particularly in the immediate
vicinity of the mine. The intensity of feeling
seems to diminish as distance from the
Crown Jewel Project increases. For example,
persons interviewed in Omak and Okanogan
reportedly did not see themselves affected as
much, and therefore had not thought as
extensively about the issues as much as
people in Tonasket and Oroville.
Objections to the proposed Crown Jewel
Project expressed by those interviewed
typically related to concern over unknown
changes, loss of personal or local control,
concern for the long-term well being of the
environment, and protection of one's
lifestyle. Local residents who oppose the
mine express concern that water quality and
quantity would become negatively impacted
with the operation of the mine. Coupled with
concerns about aesthetic qualities of the
environment (such as air, noise, ambient
light, traffic and population growth), some of
those interviewed indicated that local
residents could consider leaving the area to
seek another place to live.
Most values supporting the Crown Jewel
Project relate to employment potentials,
economic benefit to the region, and
stimulation of change and growth in areas
such as housing, social services,
infrastructure, and population. Also identified
are interests in providing jobs for area youth
and displaced timber workers, and
maintaining an ongoing tradition of mining
activity in the region.
One common factor ties all viewpoints
together: there would be change with little
consensus about what changes are preferred.
As a result, it may be important for those
who live and work in the region to develop
some means to discussing these issues in a
way that makes it more possible to find new
common ground for residents throughout the
Chesaw/Highlands and wider study area --
independent of the alternative that is selected
for the Crown Jewel Project.
Efforts have been made by study area
residents to establish a community dialogue
involving people with diverse viewpoints
regarding the Crown Jewel Project.
Representatives of the Proponent have
indicated their willingness to participate as
invited on an ongoing basis whether for
formalized or informal discussion of issues or
concerns as they arise. In conjunction with
established regulatory and Crown Jewel
Project monitoring procedures, ongoing
discussions should be encouraged as initiated
by individuals, organizations, or public
agencies in the study area.
Land Ownership and Values
The overall distribution of land ownership in
Okanogan and Ferry Counties would not
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-226
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
change appreciably as a result of any of the
action alternatives. Potential changes in
ownership are limited to the 23% of
Okanogan County and 18% of Ferry County
land that is currently in private ownership.
Direct Effects. Assessed valuation of
Okanogan County would be increased by an
estimated $19.6 million plus $47.8 million (or
$67.4 million total) directly from the value of
mineral rights and improvements at the
proposed Crown Jewel Project site (with the
Applicant's Proposal of Alternative B). This
constitutes a 4.3% increase in the combined
tax assessed valuations of Okanogan and
Ferry Counties.
To this amount can be added another $9.6
million in added assessed valuation
attributable to residences purchased or built
by mine-related employees. Total direct
increase in assessed valuation would
therefore be close to an estimated $77 million
(with Alternative B).
Estimates of assessed valuation changes for
other alternatives are made on the basis of
level of gold ore recovery compared to
Alternative B. The change in direct assessed
valuation associated with the other action
alternatives (C through G) ranges from $49 to
$76 million. The increase in assessed
valuation is likely to be greatest with
Alternative F and least with Alternative G,
based primarily on the relative amounts of
gold ore recovered with each of the action
alternatives.
Indirect Effects. The assessed valuation of
Okanogan and Ferry Counties could be
expected to further increase due to new
residential construction to house workers
employed indirectly as a result of mine
operations. By the years of peak operations,
assessed valuations are expected to increase
by an additional $2.5 to $4.2 million. Added
valuation is expected to be greatest with
Alternatives C and D, and least with
Alternative F.
Changes in land ownership may occur in
response to the demand for added housing
and support business activity in the study
area. Land ownership changes could be
substantial in the Chesaw/Highlands area
based on existing subdivided and large
acreage properties currently or potentially
available for sale. However, actual
development of Highlands area housing may
be limited by adequacy of sources for potable
water available from on-site domestic wells
and the cost of getting power to property.
Otherwise, changes in land ownership would
be relatively dispersed throughout the study
area. It is possible that certain individuals
might move out of the Chesaw/Highlands
area or study area if the Crown Jewel Project
is approved.
Total Effects. The total of direct and indirect
effects on property values would be an
increase ranging between $52.7 to $79.7
million in the tax assessed valuation for
Okanogan and Ferry Counties. This
represents a 3% to 6% increase in the tax
assessed valuation of the two-county area
depending on the action alternative chosen.
Valuation effects could be expected to be
greatest with Alternative B and least with
Alternative G.
These estimates are in 1995 dollars, and do
not reflect the potential for further
appreciation in land values as has occurred in
recent years. Whether or not land values
continue to escalate above overall rates of
inflation depends on a number of factors that
are difficult to anticipate in advance,
including population migration patterns
independent of the proposed Crown Jewel
Project.
In summary, the demand for property in the
study area may increase starting at or prior to
construction and peaking at about the mid-
point of the years of mine operation. As
mine operations are scaled back, property
values could stabilize and possibly drop if
displaced mine workers start to move away
from the area. However, continued baseline
population growth expected in Okanogan and
Ferry Counties, even in the absence of the
Crown Jewel Project, means that the demand
for housing and developable property could
remain strong, thus supporting property
values when mine operations are eventually
completed.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-227
Variables That Could Affect Direct and
Indirect Effects. Generally, the
socioeconomic effects associated with the
action alternatives considered for the Crown
Jewel Project could be considered to
substantially represent the combination of
direct and indirect effects as delineated in
this report. Direct effects are those which
are caused by the action and occur at the
same time and place. Indirect effects are
caused by the action and are later in time or
further removed in distance, but are still
reasonably foreseeable. U.S. Council of
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations note
that indirect effects may include growth
inducing effects and other effects related to
induced changes in the pattern of land use,
population density, or growth rate.
For this socioeconomic analysis, direct
effects have been construed to represent all
activity directly associated with mine-related
employment, purchases, and employee needs
(as for housing and public services).
Quantitatively measured indirect effects are
based on standard multiplier analyses which
are defined to include induced changes in
growth.
Total effects could exceed the combination of
direct and indirect effects if the multipliers
applied prove to underestimate the long-term
ripple effects of any of the action
alternatives. Examples of circumstances that
could result in greater than anticipated
cumulative effects include:
• A lower rate of hiring local residents than
is projected for the action alternatives
considered;
• A higher ratio of student enrollment per
worker (or household) than is typical of the
existing labor force in Okanogan and Ferry
Counties;
• More in-migrants drawn to the area in
hopes of employment than can actually be
employed as a direct and indirect result of
the Crown Jewel Project;
• Potential notoriety of the Crown Jewel
Project which draws additional visitors or
residents (whether as supporters,
opponents, or interested observers);
• Increase in mining exploration and claims
as a result of an in-place, permitted Crown
Jewel Project; and,
• Increase in other industrial development,
ranging from suppliers interested in
locating closer to the mine or unrelated
industries drawn by increased awareness
of Okanogan and Ferry Counties.
There are also circumstances which could
cause indirect effects to be less than the
projections identified in this analysis.
Examples include:
• Hiring of local residents in proportions
greater than projected for the action
alternatives considered;
• Fewer families brought into the area to the
extent that operations personnel elect to
not make a permanent move (however,
this could increase some public and
community service effects);
• Reduction in indirect expenditures and
employment if greater than expected
proportions of mine-related and employee
purchases are made outside the study
area; and,
• Reduction in current underlying patterns of
in-migration and population growth to the
extent that a mine is perceived as making
the area a less desirable place to live.
4.19.4 Sensitivity Analysis
Of the factors identified, the potential effects
of two factors can be specifically assessed in
quantitative terms: (a) variation in local hire
ratio; and (b) number of school-age children
associated with new families who relocate to
the area.
A summary of quantitative estimates of the
effects of varying the assumptions regarding
these factors is provided by Table 4.19.8,
Sensitivity Analysis.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-228
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
TABLE 4.19.8, SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
Sensitivity Factor
Direct and Indirect Effect*
Alternative B
Alternative C
Alternative D
Alternative E
Alternative F
Alternative Q
A. EIS Assumptions
Operations Employment
Annual Payroll
Population
Housing Demand
School Enrollment
254
$7,456,000
157
56
40
395
$11,483,000
497
177
131
395
$11,483,000
433
154
114
254
$7,456.000
157
56
40
225
$6,617,000
140
50
38
370
$10,373,000
230
82
60
Fiscal Effect*
Revenues ($ million)
Expenses ($ million)
Surplus/Deficit ($ million)
$3.7
$0.5
$3.2
$5.8
$2.5
$3.3
$5.7
$2.1
$3.6
$3.5
$0.5
$3.0
$3.6
$0.5
$3.1
$4.1
$0.8
$3.3
B. Reduce Local Hire Ratio From 80% to 60%1
Operations Employment
Annual Payroll
Population
Housing Demand
School Enrollment
254
$7.456,000
239
85
63
Fiscal Effects
Revenues ($ million)
Expenses ($ million)
Surplus/Deficit ($ million)
$4.1
$1.1
$3.0
395
$11,483,000
371
132
98
395
$11.483,000
371
132
98
254
$7,456,000
239
85
63
225
$6,617,000
210
75
57
370
$10,373,000
348
124
91
$5.1
$1.7
$3.4
$5.4
$1.7
$.37
$4.0
$1.1
$2.9
$4.0
$0.9
$3.1
$4.7
$1.6
$3.1
C. Increase Student Generation Ration From 0.71 to 1.19
Operations Employment
Annual Payroll
Population
Housing Demand
School Enrollment
Fiscal Effects
Revenues ($ million)
Expenses ($ million)
Surplus/Deficit ($ million)
254
$7,456,000
191
56
68
$3.9
$0.7
$3.2
D. Combination of B + C1
Operations Employment
Annual Payroll
Population
Housing Demand
School Enrollment
254
$7,456.000
290
85
101
395
$11,483,000
603
177
211
395
$11,483.000
525
154
184
254
$7,456,000
191
56
68
225
$6,617,000
170
50
6O
$6.7
$3.4
$3.3
$6.5
$2.8
$3.7
$3.8
$0.7
$3.1
$3.8
$0.6
$3.2
395
$11.483,000
450
132
158
395
$11,483,000
450
132
158
254
$7,456,000
290
85
101
Fiscal Effects
Revenues ($ million)
Expenses ($ million)
Surplus/Deficit ($ million)
$4.5
$1.5
$3.0
$5.7
$2.3
$3.4
$6.0
$2.3
$3.7
$4.4
$1.5
$2.9
225
$6,617,000
255
75
91
$4.3
$1.3
$3.0
370
$10,373,000
279
82
98
$4.4
$1.1
$3.3
370
$10,373,000
422
124
148
$5.3
$2.1
$3.2
Note: 1 . Alternatives C and D already have a local hiring rate below 60%. Therefore, the effect of increasing the local hiring
rates of these two alternatives to 60% reduces their overall effect (i.e., population, housing and school enrollments) as
compared to the EIS assumptions.
Source: E.D. Hovee. 1996a.
Changing from an 80% to 60% local hire rate
has the effect of increasing the population
associated with the action alternatives
(excluding Alternatives C and D) by 50% to
52%. Increasing the estimate of children per
direct worker from 0.71 to 1.19 increases
total direct and indirect student enrollment
projected by between 58% to 70% for the
action alternatives. This higher student
estimate is consistent with Proponent
experience elsewhere, but results in a
substantially greater ratio of students per
household and consequently higher average
household size than presently exists in
Okanogan and Ferry Counties.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-229
A final variation of the sensitivity analysis
involves both a greater rate of non-local hire
and new student generation. This has the
effect of increasing the population by a range
of 82% to 85% depending on the action
alternative considered (excluding Alternatives
C and D). Net fiscal benefit is decreased by
3% to 7%.
Quantitative estimates have not been placed
for any of the other factors which could pose
long-term cumulative effects. This is because
these factors are more speculative and
depend on social and psychological factors
not easy to predict or quantify in advance. It
is also noted that some effects are likely to
fully or partially offset others.
Some factors could be expected to further
induce population growth in the study area;
others could retard growth. The net effect
depends on decisions of numerous individuals
acting independently of actions directly
attributable to mine-related decisions for the
action alternatives considered.
4.19.5 Alternative Crown Jewel
Project Economic and Fiscal
Impact Analysis
A separate Crown Jewel Project Economic
and Fiscal Impacts Analysis was prepared for
the Proponent by Huckell/Weinman
Associates, Inc. (1995). The EIS
socioeconomic analysis and the Proponent's
economic and fiscal impact analysis are two
separate, independent reports. Although the
two analyses are similar in many respects,
they differ in their purposes, approach, level
of detail, and approval process.
It is also noted that these analyses differ in
terms of their respective dates of preparation.
The Proponent has continued to refine plans
including economic and financial estimates
for the Crown Jewel Project. Consequently,
analyses prepared at different times may
reflect different economic assumptions.
However, an effort has been made to
standardize these input assumptions, to the
extent possible. In this section, similarities
and differences between the EIS and the
Proponent's report are briefly described.
These comparisons cover topics of impact
analysis purpose, methodology and
assumptions, and comparative conclusions.
Purpose of the Two Reports
The socioeconomic impact analysis for the
EIS has been prepared to address applicable
standards of SEPA and NEPA. Issues to be
addressed by the EIS were determined as the
result of a public scoping process.
In comparison, the Proponent's economic and
fiscal impact analysis was prepared to fulfill
the requirements of the Washington Metal
Mining and Milling Operations Act (RCW
78.56, Section 13). The act is intended to
assure that mining firms proposing projects in
Washington State identify and estimate
potential economic impacts in an effort to
"balance expected revenues, including
revenues derived from taxes paid by the
owner of such an operation, and costs
associated with the operation to determine to
what degree any new costs require mitigation
by the metals mining applicant."
Specific State of Washington statutory
requirements of the economic impact analysis
are limited to providing "at least" the
following information related to:
• Timetable for operation;
• Estimated number of new persons coming
into the impacted area;
• Estimated increase in capital and operating
costs to affected local governments; and,
• Estimated increase in tax or other revenues
to local governments.
Similar assessments are made as part of the
NEPA process for this Crown Jewel Project
EIS. However, the EIS also encompasses a
broader array of other socioeconomic factors
as determined through the scoping process.
Finally, it is noted that the Washington Metal
Mining and Milling Operations Act authorizes
a county to assess impact fees to address
adverse economic impacts associated with
development of a mining operation, pursuant
to "at least one public hearing on the
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-230
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
economic impact analysis and any proposed
mitigation measures."
County action is required to approve or
disapprove the economic impact analysis and
proposals to address economic impacts to
local governmental units. The economic and
fiscal impact analysis prepared for the
Proponent was approved by the Okanogan
County Board of Commissioners in July
1995.
Methodology and Assumptions
The methodology and assumptions applied for
the EIS and the Proponent's analyses can be
described both in terms of similarities and
differences. Note: This discussion applies
only to Alternative B, the Applicant's
Proposal, which is the only alternative that
has been evaluated by Huckell/Weinman
Associates, Inc. for the Proponent.
Similarities in ElS/Proponent Methodology and
Assumptions are:
• Study area: Both reports provide similar
definitions of the geographic study area
considered for analysis.
• Local hiring: Both the EIS and Proponent
reports assume an 80% local hire rate for
operations employees.
• Operating characteristics: While some
differences are noted between the EIS and
the Proponent's analysis, this final EIS
uses the Proponent's updated input data
for construction cost, construction and
operations employment, and annual
operations budget (including local
procurement).
• Fiscal impacts: Both reports consider fiscal
impacts for an array of local public service
providers including: county government,
city governments, hospital, fire, EMS and
school districts.
• Mitigation: The final EIS has been revised
to include measures identified in the draft
EIS together with added measures
identified in the Proponent's economic and
fiscal impact analysis.
Differences in ElS/Proponent Assumptions
and Methodology are:
• Payroll: Proponent indicates construction
payroll of $3.6 million and annual
operations payroll of $4.4 million which
excludes benefits; the EIS analysis is
adjusted to include benefits as part of total
employee compensation.
• Public services analysis: Proponent
identifies 28 affected study area
government agencies, but provides detailed
impact estimates for the nine most
affected; the EIS provides fiscal impact
evaluation covering 30 local agencies plus
the State of Washington.
• Multiplier analysis: Two important
differences between the two analyses are
noted: (a) Proponent applies indirect (or
multiplier estimates) only to employment
and labor income (or payroll), while the EIS
applies direct and indirect calculations to
all quantitative socioeconomic factors (e.g.
population, housing, school enrollment,
fiscal effects); and (b) Proponent applies
higher multipliers of 2.67 (for construction)
and 2.43 for mining employment than the
final EIS multipliers of 1.0 used for
construction jobs, 1.76 multiplier for
operations employment, and 1.27
(earnings).
• Residence Location: The Proponent's
analysis provides estimates of the number
of new households that would reside in
different study area communities; the EIS
makes no allocation of added households
to specific communities in the study area.
• New Housing Demand: The Proponent
assumes that one-half of all in-migrant
operation employees would need to
construct new housing; the EIS concludes
that net new housing would be needed to
accommodate all net new in-migrant
household growth due to current low
housing vacancy rates in the study area --
whether or not the new housing
constructed was directly occupied by a
Proponent employee.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-231
• Other Technical Factors: The Proponent
and EIS reports also differ in their
assumptions and/or methodologies used to
address a variety of other technical
analytical issues including: retail sales
leakage, annual mine worker wages, post
reclamation activity, estimation of mine
assessed valuation, and methods applied
to calculation of tax revenues and service
requirements (E.D. Hovee, 1996).
• Sensitivity Analysis: The Proponent report
includes a separate section evaluating the
sensitivity of the economic and fiscal
evaluation to seven different variables: (a)
80% local hire; (b) student per household
generation rates; (c) proportion of in-
migrants building new homes; (d)
construction sales leakage; (e) operations
sales leakage; (f) average cost of home
and land; and (g) proportion of income
spent on non-taxable items. Only items
(a)-(c) were viewed by Proponent as
having an important bearing on the overall
economic and fiscal impacts evaluated.
The draft EIS did not include formal
sensitivity analysis, with the exception of
discussing implications of a local hire rate
below the 80% rate indicated by the
Proponent. While this type of sensitivity
analysis is not explicitly required by the EIS
process, this final EIS includes quantitative
evaluation of the effects of alternative
scenarios related to: (a) lower local hire
rate; and (b) higher proportion of non-local
hires that relocate families or households
to the study area.
A detailed quantitative comparison of output
measures calculated in the final EIS and the
Proponent analysis is provided by Table
4.19.9, Comparison of ElS/Proponent
Economic Effects (Alternative B).
In summary, while the analysis prepared for
Okanogan County by the Proponent differs
somewhat in intent and methodology from
the socioeconomic analysis in this report, the
overall conclusions of these two analyses are
generally consistent. The Proponent's
analysis generally takes a relatively
conservative approach, particularly to
estimating fiscal effects, but applies an
employment multiplier that is greater than the
multiplier used in the EIS.
4.19.6 Potential Additional Mitigation
The following mitigation measures are not
part of the current proposal and are provided
as information to consider for possible
inclusion in the Crown Jewel Project. For
example, the listed items could be
incorporated into the Crown Jewel Project by
the Proponent or could be required by
Okanogan County. Items for which more
specific mitigation measures have been
considered include:
• Agreement between the Molson-Chesaw
Fire District (Okanogan Rural district #11)
and the Proponent for mutual aid response
in the event of major accidents or events
involving fire and life safety.
• Posting of current school bus schedules
and maintenance of signing on appropriate
county roads.
• Provision of incentives by Proponent to
workers to use busing or van pooling if
80% compliance of workers using this
system is not achieved on county roads.
Due to relatively low study area vacancy
rates, mitigation to stimulate development of
added housing has been suggested. This
type of mitigation has not been included in
the EIS since private development is generally
expected to provide added housing for mine-
related employees as demand materializes.
However, the Proponent (or Okanogan
County) could consider additional steps as
potential mitigation if added housing demand
within the locally available housing inventory
is not addressed by added private sector
development, including;
• Construction and/or operation of facilities
for short-term housing, such as a mobile
home/RV park facility (particularly during
mine construction).
• Development of a second off-site parking
location to serve employees commuting
from Ferry County (e.g. Republic and
Curlew).
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-232
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
TABLE 4.19.9. COMPARISON OF EIS/PROPONENT ECONOMIC EFFECTS (ALTERNATIVE B)
Economic Impact Measure
In-migrant Operations Employment
In-migrant Operations Population
Direct Effect
Final EIS
29
81
Proponent
34
87
Total Direct + Indirect Effect
Final EIS
56
157
Proponent
NA
NA
Employment
Construction'
Operations (Mining)2
145
144
95
144
185
254
254
350
Annual Labor Income (x $1.000)3
Construction1
Operations (Mining)
Housing Demand (operations)
School Enrollment (operations)4
Assessed Valuation of Mine Site (x $1 million)
$7,426
$5,871
29
21
$47.8
$3,600
$4,400
17
17
$47.8
$8,128
$7,456
56
40
NA
$7,900
$9,400
NA
NA
NA
Cumulative Fiscal Impacts (x $ 1 ,000)B
Total of All Local Jurisdictions Evaluated
Revenues
Expenses
Surplus/Deficit
$23,300
$3,200
$20,100
$6,144
$2,404
$3,746
$36,100
$4,700
$41 ,400
Notes: 1 . Final EIS construction employment figure includes 1 20 construction jobs and 25 mine wor
EIS estimate of payroll during construction is also adjusted to include 25 operations emplo
during the construction period.
2. Proponent report indicates 170 full-time equivalent (FTE) workers when operations comme
FTEs average over eight years of operations.
3. Final EIS estimate of payroll income includes fringe benefits. Proponent estimate is exclus
benefits.
4. Proponent estimate is for the Oroville School district. If Proponent's method is applied to 1
area, then the number of students increases to 40. The final EIS estimate is for all school
study area.
5. Fiscal impacts are cumulative over all years of construction, operations and reclamation. F
includes estimates of fiscal impacts for seven study area cities; Proponent estimates fiscal
Oroville and Tonasket. Final EIS estimates school impacts for six school districts; Propone
covers the Oroville School District; final EIS covers nine fire districts; Proponent estimates
three districts; final EIS covers two EMS districts; Proponent analysis covers the Oroville E
final EIS covers three hospital districts; Proponent report estimates fiscal impacts for Okan
Hospital District #4; final EIS covers one cemetery district; Proponent report estimates no
for cemetery districts. Proponent adjusts for sales tax equalization; final EIS adjustment is
part of these estimates but is addressed in the body of this report.
Sources: Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc., Crown Jewel Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis, prepar
Proponent, June 15, 1995 and TerraW
Mine, Okanogan County, Washington,
evaluation for final EIS is from worksh
atrix Draft Environmental Impact Statement (draft EIS):
NA
NA
NA
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-233
include the Proponent, community
representatives, and the local
jurisdiction(s).
• Creation of a process for ongoing contact
and coordination with the Colville
Confederated Tribes to assure protection
of their reserved rights. Members of the
Tribes could also participate in the advisory
group/dialogue committee, if one were
formed.
4.20 ENERGY CONSUMPTION AND
CONSERVATION
The principle energy products used at the
Crown Jewel Project would be petroleum
(non-renewable) and electricity for mining
equipment, motor vehicles, and ore
processing. The petroleum products would
consist primarily of diesel fuel and gasoline.
The estimated fuel consumption would vary
by alternative, based on equipment
requirements. Annual energy consumption
during operation varies by alternative as
shown on Table 4.20.1, Energy
Consumption.
Electrical power for the Crown Jewel Project
facilities and water supply system would be
provided through the PUD via an overhead
115 kv transmission line. As with fuel, the
annual electricity requirements would vary
with specific alternatives.
The Proponent has estimated that 1.2 million
gallons of fuel would be required annually
during operations for Alternative B. Based on
this calculation, fuel consumption for the
other action alternatives was extrapolated as
follows: Alternative C, with no surface
mining equipment, would use approximately
40% less fuel annually; Alternative D, with
some surface mine equipment, would use
about 20% less fuel annually; Alternative E
would use the same amount of fuel as
Alternative B; Alternative F, operating 12
hours per day, would use 50% less fuel
annually; while Alternative G, hauling ore to
Oroville 24 hours per day, would use about
100% more fuel than Alternative B annually.
Fuel consumption by the mobile mining
equipment would be a major energy
requirement of non-renewable energy
products. Regular maintenance for all
vehicles and mining equipment would be an
opportunity for energy conservation. In
addition, the proposed employee busing/van
pooling would further reduce fuel
consumption.
4.21 MINING ECONOMICS
4.21.1 Introduction
The evaluation of a mining project is a
complex and detailed activity. It involves the
interaction of mineral sciences and
engineering with finance and economics in
the analysis of whether a project is
economically viable to shareholders and
investors.
Mine evaluation denotes the assessment of a
variety of factors and variables that are
essential in establishing the worth of a mining
project. In determining the economic viability
of a mining project or investment opportunity,
estimates of ore reserves, mining rates,
revenues, costs, expected returns and
associated risks are made (Hartman, 1992).
TABLE 4.20.1. ENERGY CONSUMPTION
Fuel (gal)
Annual
Total
Electricity (Kwh)
Annual
Total
A
< 1 ,000
< 1 ,000
Not
Applicable
B
1 .2 million
9.6 million
63 million
504 million
Alternative
C
0.7 million
2.8 million
63 million
252 million
D
1 million
5.8 million
63 million
378 million
E
1 .2 million
9.6 million
63 million
p
0.6 million
42 million
Q
2.4 million
63 million
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-234
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
The mine evaluation procedure is iterative in
nature, as illustrated on Figure 4.21.1,
Generalized Interactive Procedure for Mine
Evaluation (Gentry and O'Neil, 1984). The
estimated ore reserve and grade, as
established from the exploration program, are
important variables in determining optimum
mine size. In turn, mine size, affects
production costs (both capital and operating
expenses), as economics of scale are often
enjoyed with larger production rates.
Ultimately, project production costs
determine what material can be mined at a
profit (cutoff grade) and therefore determines
the magnitude of the ore reserve (Hartman,
1992).
It is important to remember that each time a
variable changes, the impact of the change
on all the other variables must be assessed as
well as the effect on subsequent financial and
economic results. The iterative procedure
must be repeated to determine the most
economic design. This is a time-consuming
process (Hartman, 1992).
The investment environment associated with
the mining industry is unique when compared
to most other industries. As described by
Gentry (1988) and Gentry and O'Neil (1984),
some of the special features associated with
the economics of the mining industry are
described in the following subsections.
Capital Intensity
Mining ventures are extremely capital
intensive. Even small, high grade precious
metal operations that employ a small
workforce may require multi-million dollar
investments.
Cost Structure
The total average cost of mine production
includes a high fixed cost component, that
primarily reflects capital cost recovery. For
this reason, the break even production level
for mining facilities is closer to capacity than
for other types of facilities with lower fixed
costs. This is the major justification for mine
operations to run at capacity, often
employing three-shift, seven day per week
work schedules.
Long Pre-Production Periods
Even after the occurrence of an ore deposit
has been established, several years of
intensive effort are required to develop the
operation. The pre-production period
depends on the mining and processing
methods, size and location of the deposit,
and the complexity of the regulatory
framework.
The importance of long lead times is amplified
when considered in conjunction with the
capital intensity of the mining industry. Not
only are companies committing extremely
large capital resources to a new mining
venture, but they also are exposed financially
for a considerable period prior to project start-
up. Also, since capital expenditures are
required throughout the pre-production
period, the longer the lead time, the greater
are the returns required to off set the lost
investment opportunities represented by the
pre-production period.
Nonrenewable Resources
Unlike most other industries, one unique
aspect of the minerals industry is the
extraction of a nonrenewable resource.
Mining revenues result from the "disposal" of
the project's major asset - the ore body. As
a result, the return of and return on the
capital investment must be obtained within
the finite life of the ore body.
Risk
Besides the risks associated with capital
intensity and long pre-production periods,
mining operations are subject to geologic and
engineering risks, economic or market risks,
and political and regulatory risks. Technical
risks (geologic and engineering) have been
notably reduced in recent years with the
improvement in planning methods and tools.
Economic or market risks are typically outside
the control of the operation; these include
fluctuating metals prices, inflation, and
generally unpredictable future economic
conditions.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-235
Although often under-estimated, political and
regulatory risk has been increasingly
important in recent years when considering
mining investments. There is an accelerating
trend to greater political participation and
regulatory oversight in mining projects.
Mineral Markets
Mineral markets are known for their volatility.
There are literally thousands of factors that
affect mineral markets and prices. Some are
economic, like the traditional supply and
demand theories; others are political, such as
decisions made by domestic and foreign
governments. Even the most experienced
and sophisticated observer of mineral markets
is likely to err in predicting the future course
of gold or other mineral prices (Hartman,
1992).
An added difficulty in predicting mineral
prices is that the currency of any given
country may lose or gain value at a different
rate than the currencies of other countries.
This has been true since the early 1970's,
when the system of fixed exchange rates
instituted by the International Monetary Fund
following World War II was replaced by
floating exchange rates (Hartman, 1992).
For most mineral commodities, including gold,
the currency standard is the U.S. dollar.
Given changes in the value of other leading
currencies in relation to the dollar, a rise in
the price of gold in terms of U.S. dollars may
equate to a loss in the commodity price in
terms of a different currency, such as the
Japanese yen or German mark.
For example, between February 1985 and
March 1987, gold prices rose from $299/oz
to $409/oz or a 37% increase. However,
during the same period, the value of the U.S.
dollar decreased in relation to the major
currencies. In terms of the Japanese yen, the
price of gold declined by 21 %; in terms of
German marks, the price of gold fell by 24%
(Hartman, 1992).
As you can see, this leads to difficulty in
describing the gold market. People in the
U.S. would say that the price was rising, yet
people in Japan and Germany would say the
price is falling.
In the event of a sharp decline in gold prices,
the Proponent would probably elect to put
the Crown Jewel Project into temporary
shutdown. This situation would probably
persist until gold prices rebound or the
decision was made to permanently
decommission and close the operation.
4.21.2 Potential Mine Expansion
No information or data indicate economic
mineralization in the skarn to the north of the
proposed pit which would cause the proposed
mine to expand in that direction or for the
operation to go deeper. In an April 1996
letter to the Forest Service, the Proponent
states that they have not "engaged in any
exploration near the Crown Jewel Project for
a number of years [and are] not presently
engaged in such exploration, and [have] no
proposals or budget for such exploration.
While it is possible that during mining of the
Crown Jewel Project deposit BMGC would
explore adjacent areas for potential
replacement reserves, the company has not
developed any plans for such exploration.
Further, it would be highly speculative to try
and guess what the results of such
exploration might be...it is possible that
BMGC could in the future explore for and,
although unlikely, find additional, significant
developable gold reserves in the near-Project
area."
Because such expansion would be highly
speculative without details regarding the
location, scope, or nature of such a
development, effects cannot be predicted to
allow a meaningful analysis. If such an
action were proposed at some time in the
future, it would be subject to NEPA and/or
SEPA documentation and compliance, and
applicable regulations, but at this point in
time it is highly speculative and therefore not
"reasonably foreseeable."
The proposed mining operations in
Alternatives B, E, F, and G would leave
subeconomic gold resources beneath the final
pit. The Proponent has stated that
approximately 3.5 million tons of additional
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-236
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
ore could be mined provided the market price
of gold reached $800 per ounce. Should gold
prices rise significantly so that mining this
additional ore would become economical, that
proposal would be covered under a separate
environmental analysis, since it is not
proposed or reasonably foreseeable at this
time.
4.21.3 Economic Analysis of the
Alternatives
A pre-feasibility economic comparison of the
action alternatives was performed in 1995
order to assess general feasibility and relative
economics. The accuracy of cost figures
utilized in the study generally falls within a
range of +/- 25% and is typical for pre-
feasibility mine evaluations (Lentz and
Courtright, 1995). This analysis was based
on reserves calculated in 1995. With the rise
in the price of gold in 1996, the Proponent
has increased their reserve estimate from 8.7
million tons to 9.1 million tons.
A simple discounted cash flow analysis was
used to compare each alternative. This
involved using a software program called
APEX, Version 2.01 (Western Mine
Engineering, 1995). APEX considers negative
and positive cash flows resulting from the
operation and discounts (adjusts for the time
value of money) net revenues back to the
present. Discounted cash flow analysis is a
standard tool for evaluating mining and other
long-term investments.
The Crown Jewel Project is a joint venture
between Battle Mountain Gold Company and
Crown Resources Corporation, collectively
referred to as the "Proponent." The
partnership agreement requires BMGC to
construct and start-up a 3,000 ton-per-day
mine and mill. BMGC and Crown Resources
Corporation would then share operating costs
and revenues based upon a 54/46% split.
The analysis; therefore, includes two
approaches. In the first approach, BMGC's
investment position was developed because
BMGC is the primary partner. The second
analysis examined the combined partnership
or total Crown Jewel Project.
Analyses included estimated exploration,
acquisition and permitting costs incurred by
the Proponent since 1990, mine and mill
facility capital and operating costs, the cost
of reclamation bonding and reclamation,
environmental mitigation, Washington State
and federal taxes, cost of financing, and the
joint venture partner contributions/payments.
Cost estimates are based on mid-1994
dollars. Commodity prices were current as of
December 1994 and were not fluctuated over
the mine life.
Cost estimates were derived from various
sources: the Proponent's proposed operating
plan and other data submitted by the
Proponent or by its consulting mine
engineering firms; professional cost-
estimating guides such as Mine Cost Service
(Western Mine Engineering, 1995);
individuals working in mining and related
fields; current literature; and professional
judgement. Estimates submitted by the
Proponent or its contractors were reviewed
independently by Forest Service and BLM
personnel before use. Operating costs were
not escalated or de-escalated over time.
Figure 4.21.2, Comparison of NPV (15%) of
Crown Jewel Project Alternatives to
Alternative B, provides an economic
comparison of the alternatives. The figure
compares the Net Present Value (NPV) of
each alternative to Alternative B. NPV is the
value, in 1994 dollars, of the net sum of cash
flows from each alternative over time,
assuming a 15%, minimum after-tax rate of
return. Because of the risk involved, mining
projects must provide a high return on their
investments. The actual rate of return
required for a project depends on many
factors including the fiscal conditions of the
company, financing arrangements, etc.
Fifteen percent is about mid-range for a
mining company.
Economic Feasibility of the Alternatives
Assuming a minimum after-tax rate of return
of 15%, an alternative may be considered
economically feasible if, for the Total Project
and Primary Partner, a positive NPV is
returned.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-237
Based upon the above criterion, Alternatives
B, C, D, and E are potentially feasible
projects, while Alternatives F and G, which
return 0% or negative returns, are not. The
NPV is very sensitive to mill recovery. For
example, reducing gold and silver mill
recovery by five percentage points in
Alternative B could result in a 23% reduction
of NPV.
Comparison of Alternatives
The Total Project NPV of Alternative E would
return about 87% of that projected for
Alternative B, while Alternatives C and D
return 65% and 73%, respectively. Looking
at Primary Partner NPV, Alternative E returns
about 89% of Alternative B's value, while
Alternatives D and C return 41 % and 52%
respectively, to the Proponent. Changes in
the time order in which higher grade ores are
produced in Alternative E is the main reason
for its reduced NPV compared to Alternative
B. Reduced NPV of Alternatives C and D is
due to the increased cost of underground
mining. Ore cut-off grades were increased in
these alternatives to compensate for the
added costs. Total minable gold was
therefore reduced to 1.36 and 1.52 million
ounces, respectively, compared with 1.57 for
Alternative B.
The failure of Alternative F is attributed to
increased cost associated with the reduced
(less efficient) production rate, the large
$101 million end-of-mine pit backfill cost, and
the single north waste rock disposal area.
The single greatest factor in the failure of
Alternative G is the reduced recovery of gold
(45%) using the flotation processing.
Note that the effects of the smaller side-hill
ore stockpile pad have not been included in
the economic analysis because of their
uncertainty. Such a facility might result in
reduced mill throughput or reduced recovery
at the proposed 3,000 tons per day
production rate. Either scenario could result
in reduced Net Present Value for Alternatives
B, E, and G.
4.22 ACCIDENTS AND SPILLS
There are an infinite number of accident and
spill scenarios that could be developed for a
project like the Crown Jewel Project.
Analysis of such scenarios can include
varying levels of complexity and portray a
variety of results. The following provides a
reasonable assessment of risk from potential
accidents and spills. For example, an
accident assessment of a trip in an
automobile or an airplane could be very
frightening. We know that, but we continue
to take those trips anyway. However, the
knowledge of a certain type of accident may
persuade us to take extra precautions in
route.
In this section, special care has been taken to
distinguish between a predicted effect and a
potential effect or risk. Predicted effects are
specifically identified as such, and described
in terms of magnitude and duration. These
are the effects likely (high probability) to
occur.
Effects or risks that are not predicted, but
which have a potential to occur have been
selected and presented in the following
discussions. These potential effects are
recognized and described to ensure that
reasonable steps are taken to further
minimize them. Potential effects or risks are
not predicted to occur and are not approved
or sanctioned by the agencies.
The following discussion does not predict
numerical probabilities for an accident or spill
event, but instead discusses the type and
relative magnitude of impacts that could
result. With respect to these considerations,
the following accident and spill scenarios are
presented:
• Water Reservoir Rupture;
• Tailings Dam Failure;
• Transportation Spill;
• Accident/Spill in the Mill;
• Leak in the Tailings Facility;
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-238
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
• Well Depletion; and,
• Increase in Nitrate Loading Due to
Explosives Handling.
4.22.1 Water Reservoir Rupture
This event could be initiated by a
catastrophic event (earthquake, flood, etc.), a
design flaw, or other causes which could
result in severe structural damage to the
embankment causing leakage from the
reservoir. The leak causes a portion of the
embankment to collapse releasing several
million gallons of water into the Myers Creek
drainage. This scenario has a very remote
possibility of happening.
The impacts would include damage of the
pumping station, flooding of the ranching and
housing structures immediately downstream,
erosion and reconfiguration of the stream
channels, destruction of wetlands and
riparian areas, and alteration of aquatic
habitats. Further downstream, the level and
velocity of the released water would dissipate
as the valley widens. The water would
eventually be absorbed into the Kettle River
system with little further effect.
The magnitude of the impacts to vegetation,
wildlife, aquatic life, and personal property is
difficult to predict other than it is realized that
environmental and property damage would
occur close to the source and diminish with
distance. There would not be any expected
human or large mammal fatalities; however,
there could be some loss of small mammals
and aquatic life due to drowning and the
sediment content (mud) of the runoff. The
duration of impact would vary with the
particular environmental area affected.
The water reservoir would be designed and
constructed according to the stringent criteria
of the WADOE Dam Safety Division. In order
to put the cause and result of this type of
accident into perspective, it should be
considered that an earthquake or flood event
of the magnitude that would rupture the
embankment would not be isolated to only
the water reservoir, but would result in
severe, and possibly catastrophic, impacts to
the entire Okanogan region (U.S. and
Canada).
4.22.2 Tailings Dam Failure
Again, this event could be initiated by a
catastrophic event (earthquake, flood, etc.), a
design flaw, or other causes which could
result in severe structural damage to the
embankment causing a breach or break of the
embankment.
Two modes of failure were analyzed for the
proposed tailings facility (Knight Piesold,
1993a);
1) earthquake induced embankment failure
(flow slide failure); and,
2) dam breach by overtopping.
These scenarios have an extremely remote
possibility of happening. The tailings
embankments would be designed and
constructed according to the stringent criteria
of the WADOE Dam Safety Division.
Earthquake Induced Failure
The analysis was conducted using a MCE
with a magnitude of 6.0 which is a
magnitude above anything previously
experienced in the general region. The
analysis was performed on the primary
embankment (Marias drainage) since its size
would make it less stable than the secondary
embankment (Nicholson drainage). The
results of the analysis indicate that the
embankment would not fail and would have a
factor of safety greater than 1.3 during
construction and 1.5 thereafter.
Unsaturated rockfill structures are considered
by the geotechnical profession to exhibit
excellent behavior under intense earthquake
loadings. The seismic induced settlement of
such dams is estimated to be on the order of
one to two feet under levels of shaking much
greater than is believed possible at the Crown
Jewel Project site. Considering the ample
freeboard provided, the embankments are
capable of undergoing the design earthquake
without a realistic possibility of a failure
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-239
allowing the uncontrolled release of the
impoundment contents.
As shown, the embankments would be
designed to withstand the expected seismic
events for the region, but could experience
cylindrical or planer failure under more
extreme events. An embankment failure
could result in a flow slide failure of the
tailings material in the impoundment behind
the embankment.
A flow slide failure is a mud slide, resulting
from embankment collapse, which could
release the entire tailings deposit, which is
conservatively assumed to be in a fluid state.
Under the proposed operating conditions, the
tailings are expected to be drained and
consolidated in the area of the embankments
and impossible to liquify (Knight Piesold,
1993a). However, the extremely
conservative assumption was assumed that
total liquification would occur. Initial analysis
of this scenario shows that failure of the
primary embankment could flow 2.6 miles
down Marias Creek and a failure of the
secondary embankment could flow only 300
feet down Nicholson Creek.
Dam Breach by Overtopping
This is an erosional failure which could be
caused by overfilling. This scenario would
occur only on the secondary embankment
(Nicholson drainage) because it would be
lower than the primary embankment in the
Marias drainage. The breaching occurs at the
completion of placing the total 9.1 million
tons of tailings. This results in the exposure
of maximum surface area.
This analysis was conducted using the
computer program BREACH developed by
D.L. Fread (1988) as referenced in Knight
Piesold (1993a). It was elected that twice
the predicted runoff volume from a 72-hour
storm event would be assumed. The
impoundment at this stage would contain a
supernatant pond amounting to about 360
acre-feet at the crest level of the secondary
embankment. This volume is more than
twice the required design storage volume.
This is an extremely unlikely scenario since it
in effect assumes that more than two design
storm events follow each other (in excess of
20 inches of rain in less than six days).
In order to put the cause and result of this
type of accident into perspective, it should be
considered that a situation whereby the
Okanogan region received 20 inches of rain in
less than six days would result in
catastrophic flooding that would certainly
result in massive loss of life to humans,
wildlife, and livestock. Furthermore property
and environmental damage would be
enormous to the whole Okanogan region
(U.S. and Canada).
Analysis of the tailings material that would
settle below the supernatant pond show that
this material would be very unlikely to join
the breach flow. The depth of the of
breaching was therefore assumed to stop
four feet into the tailings since the upper four
feet may be sufficiently saturated to flow
(Knight Piesold, 1993a). Since the facility
would be built in stages with tailings added
during each stage, the impoundment could
never fill entirely with water.
A dam break analysis was conducted in
conjunction to predict the dam-break wave
formation and the downstream progression,
using the computer model DAMBRK
developed by the National Weather Service.
The analysis was performed along the 6.5
miles of Nicholson Creek downstream to the
junction with Toroda Creek. The following is
a summary of the results of Knight Piesold's
Breach and Dam Break Analysis:
• The time from initial overtopping to
breaching could be very short. Warning
and evacuation downstream must be
completed prior to overtopping.
• Peak discharge would occur very rapidly,
within minutes after breaching starts.
• A peak discharge of 18,800 cfs is
predicted at the point of breach and a peak
flow of 14,700 cfs 6.5 miles downstream.
• The peak flow could reach the first
dwellings, 6.5 miles downstream, in about
one-half hour after the start of breaching.
Crown Jewel Mine f Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-240
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
• The peak is predicted to be 15 feet deep at
this point (6.5 miles downstream).
The magnitude of the impacts to vegetation,
wildlife, aquatic life, and personal property is
difficult to predict other than it is realized that
environmental and property destruction would
occur all along the 6.5 miles of Nicholson
Creek downstream to the confluence with
Toroda Creek and diminish as the valley
widens at Toroda Creek. Human life,
personal property, and domestic water
sources close to Nicholson Creek and within
the predicted peak depth of the flow could be
in jeopardy. There would be loss of wildlife,
vegetation, aquatic life and wetlands within
the flood zone. The erosional effects of the
peak flow could be severe.
Within the flow slide area, vegetation,
wetlands and aquatic habitats would be
destroyed. Based on the leach test
conducted on the tailings solids, there would
be no anticipated toxic impacts, only the
inundation of very fine-grained material within
the slide zone. The impacts would remain
until cleanup and restoration is completed.
4.22.3 Transportation Spill
The chemical reagents and fuels considered
for use in Alternative B through F are as
follows:
Chemical Reagents
• Sodium cyanide (briquette);
• Lead nitrate (powder);
• Copper sulfate (powder);
• Ammonium nitrate (prills);
• Sodium nitrate (powder);
• Soda ash (solid);
• Anydrous borax (powder);
• Lime and cement (powder);
• Hydrochloric acid (liquid);
• Sulfur dioxide (liquid);
• Solvents (liquid); and,
• Coolants (liquid).
Fuels and Lubricants
• Diesel (liquid);
• Gasoline (liquid); and,
• Oils and greases (liquid).
An alternative processing method (flotation
with no tank cyanidation) is used in
Alternative G and the constituents used in
that process are described in Section 4.7.9,
Effects of Alternative G.
The risk of accidental spills during
transportation is related directly to the
number of miles that the materials are
transported and the safety measures that are
employed by the transporter. A discussion of
the transportation network and associated
risk factors is included in Section 4.17,
Transportation.
As described in Section 4.17, Transportation,
approximately 20 miles of roads in the
proposed transportation network are proximal
to streams. The impact from a transport-
related spill near the proposed mine would
depend on a number of conditions including:
• Accident severity and volume of spill;
• Integrity of the transport containers;
• Chemical/physical properties of the
material being transported;
• Clean-up response time and effectiveness;
• Weather conditions;
• Local soil and vegetation types;
• Proximity of accident to a stream; and,
• Volume of receiving water body.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-241
Materials in solid form would generally be
less mobile in the event of a spill than liquids
and easier to clean up. Assuming a
sufficiently rapid and effective response, solid
materials would be less likely than liquids to
impact surface waters, unless spilled directly
into a stream or pond. Liquids spilled or
leaked during transportation could impact
surface waters via the following pathways:
• Direct spillage onto water surfaces;
• Overland flow or runoff from liquids spilled
onto hillsides adjacent to streams; or,
• Transport of dissolved material in ground
water into streams and lakes.
The types of environmentally hazardous
material categorized for discussion are as
follows:
• Sodium Cyanide;
• Explosives (ammonium nitrate);
• Chemicals and Reagents;
• Cement/Lime; and,
• Fuels.
These types of accident scenarios are not
predicted to occur due to the specific nature
of each and the mitigative measures that
would be employed. The types of mitigative
measures to be employed are discussed in
Section 2.12, Management and Mitigation.
Sodium Cyanide
During the period 1983 through 1994, there
were 114 reported incidents involving liquid
and solid sodium/potassium cyanide in the
U.S. Of these 114 total incidents, five were
due to vehicle (transport truck) accidents; the
remainder were due to defective packaging or
handling during loading/unloading.
There were 90,020.7 gallons of cyanide
solution involved in incidents with an
estimated 3,052.3 gallons (3.4%) actually
spilled, while there were 265,303 pounds of
solid cyanide (briquettes) involved in incidents
with 267.2 pounds (0.1 %) spilled. The most
recent reported transport vehicle accident
was the spillage of cyanide in 1988 in
Nevada, where a truck carrying 47,600
pounds of cyanide contained in 14 bins was
involved in an accident. One bin was
damaged and released 75 pounds of cyanide.
There have been no human injuries or
fatalities resulting from the transport of
cyanide during the time period 1983 through
1994. Sodium cyanide is transported on a
regular basis along Highway 97 (through
Tonasket and Oroville) and to the mining
operations around Republic and in Canada.
There has been no wildlife fatalities from
transport of cyanide on Highway 97 in
Okanogan County.
The occurrence of a massive cyanide spill is
not predicted because sodium cyanide is
generally transported in dry form in individual
specially designed containers and must come
in contact with water to pose immediate
toxic and acute health dangers.
Most containers containing solid cyanide
have been Flo-bins, which are used to
transport a solid (briquette) form of cyanide
and are stainless steel containers designed to
withstand damage, leakage and/or water
contamination. Another recent transport
containerization method is DuPont's Excel II
method of delivery which transports dry
cyanide to the site in a stainless steel tanker
also designed to withstand damage, leakage
and/or water contamination. The Proponent
plans to use this second system for this
project. DuPont Company has shipped bulk
sodium cyanide over the road for 20 years
without ever having an accident (Whitworth,
1994).
Cyanide only poses an environmental threat if
handled improperly. What is most important
environmentally is to prevent cyanide from
reaching surface water or ground water
because cyanide is much more toxic to
aquatic life than to humans and other land
animals. If solid sodium cyanide is spilled on
dry ground, it does not present a danger to
people or the environment as long as the
sodium cyanide remains dry and is swept up
and properly contained for disposal.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-242
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
Upon contact with water or acid, cyanide
dissolves into a liquid form and portions
volatize into HCN gas. Free cyanide is highly
lethal to aquatic organisms. Fish are
generally found to be more sensitive than
invertebrates with acute levels estimated in
the range of 40 to 200 ppb HCN (EPA,
1985). Cyanide acts rapidly in aquatic
environments, but does not persist for
extended periods and is highly species
selective; organisms usually recover quickly
on removal to clean water (USFWS, 1991).
In a gaseous state, concentrated levels of
cyanide are lethal to all terrestrial life.
Concentrations of 2,000 mg HCN/liter are
fatal within a minute to humans.
In the event of an accident with release of
sodium cyanide into surface waters, all
aquatic life in the immediate area would be
killed. In flowing streams, the effects would
continue downstream until dilution and/or
volatilization reduced the cyanide content to
non-toxic levels. In a lake, the anticipated
impacts would be longer lasting due to the
lack of flowing water; however, the overall
toxicity would still be relatively short-term.
Any humans, mammals, or birds in the
immediate vicinity of the gas cloud, produced
through volatilization, would probably be
overcome quickly and possibly die; however,
the gas should dissipate rapidly having only a
short-term but deadly effect.
Cleanup would be limited to removing and
protecting the undissolved sodium cyanide
briquettes from further potential contact with
the water. The cyanide already dissolved or
volatized cannot be recovered and would be
left to run its course, which would probably
be completed by the time cleanup could be
initiated. Response times on County Roads
9480 and 4895 and Forest Road 3275-120
would be short due to presence of pilot
vehicles with trained personnel in radio
contact with the mine and the Sheriff's
department.
Although cyanide is highly toxic, the duration
of impacts from a release of cyanide would
likely be short-term. Cyanide is relatively
reactive and does not persist in the aquatic
environment nor does it bioaccumulate in the
food chain.
Explosives (Ammonium Nitrate)
Ammonium nitrate is transported in solid form
(small beads or prills) and is a commonly used
form of agricultural fertilizer.
Nitrate is considered toxic to mammals only
under reducing conditions when ingested.
This situation would be unlikely since there
would be human presence until cleanup.
Nitrate is toxic to aquatic biota only in high
concentrations (EPA, 1986). Lethal
thresholds for freshwater fish range from 420
to 2,000 mg/l. This situation could occur if
sufficient amounts were spilled into a lake
condition. Likely effects would be a resultant
algal bloom due to the introduction of the
nitrate.
In the event of an accident and spill, the
anticipated effects would be very minor and
remediation would revolve around
containment and cleanup of the undissolved
portion of the ammonium nitrate prills.
Chemicals and Reagents
A spill involving chemicals or reagents could
affect the pH of the receiving stream to the
point that the water would be toxic to
aquatic life. Spill response measures would
be initiated to neutralize the pH of the
affected waters and to contain and remove
contaminated soils.
The magnitude of such an event would be
dependent on the specific type and amount
of chemical involved. There would be the
potential for short-term loss of aquatic
resources, fish and invertebrates, and riparian
vegetation. However, as soon as the pH
stabilizes, aquatic resources could return.
Cement/Lime
Cement/lime is toxic to fish when exposed to
levels of 92 ppm for 28 minutes, or 198 ppm
for ten minutes. Since this material is not
highly reactive (soluble) and would be
transported in dry form, adverse effects
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-243
would be minimal if an accidental spill were
to occur into water.
Fuels
Accidents of petroleum products could cause
both short and long-term adverse effects to
aquatic organisms if a spill reaches a stream.
Since this material is transported as a liquid in
bulk tanks, there is a high potential that a
spill into water could be of sufficient volume
to result in multiple effects to the
environment. The duration of the impacts
would depend heavily on the location of the
spill and the response time to initiate
containment and begin cleanup.
These types of accident scenarios are not
predicted to occur due to the specific nature
of each and the mitigative measures that
would be employed. The types of mitigative
measures to be employed are discussed in
Section 2.12, Management and Mitigation.
A spill into a stream like Myers Creek or
Toroda Creek could spread the fuel a
considerable distance downstream if
containment measures, such as placement of
oil booms, installation of temporary dikes,
removal of the fuel source, etc., are not
initiated quickly. There would likely be
adverse impacts to aquatic life, riparian and
wetland areas, and possibly waterfowl.
Other effects that could possibly occur would
be personal property impacts and
contamination of domestic water supplies
that are in close proximity to the stream. The
magnitude of effects would depend on the
volume of fuel spilled, the location of the
accident, the time of year (spring runoff or
fall low flow), and the time required to initiate
containment. The time required to initiate
containment and cleanup would depend on
the location and availability of spill response
personnel, materials, and equipment.
A similar type spill into an environment like
Beaver Lake could probably be contained
easier than a stream situation. However, the
same type and magnitude of impacts could
result. Once cleanup was completed, the
affected habitats would rapidly recover.
Response time on County Roads 9480 and
4895 and Forest Road 3575-120 would be
short due to the presence of pilot cars with
trained personnel in radio contact with the
mine, small caches of spill cleanup materials
in the pilot vehicles, and caches of
emergency response materials at strategic
locations. Response time on other access
roads to the Crown Jewel Project would be
longer due to the absence of pilot vehicles.
4.22.4 Other Types of Accidents
Potential release of materials stored at the
processing facility to surface waters could
result from:
• Rupture or leakage of the storage tanks
and subsequent failure of the containment
systems;
• Explosion of flammable materials;
• Accidental spillage during the unloading or
loading of trucks; and,
• Rupture of the silos.
Potential spills of chemicals and products
during their use would occur mainly within
buildings and could be easily monitored and
controlled.
Outside of the process area, fuel leaks could
originate from trucks and machinery along the
haul road, in the pit area, on waste rock piles,
and in areas along Myers Creek where the
water reservoir is constructed. Fuel leaks
could also occur in areas being reclaimed
after mining. Ammonium nitrate could be lost
from accidental spills and unexploded ANFO.
Several materials considered for use in the
proposed mining operation could impact area
surface and ground water in the event of a
spill or release.
Accounting for the volume and relative
toxicity of the materials that would be
transported, sodium cyanide, ammonium
nitrate, lead nitrate, copper sulfate,
cement/lime, and fuel have the greatest
potential to adversely impact surface or
ground water quality.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-244
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
Relatively low concentrations of cyanide,
copper, lead, and ammonia in water could
cause acute toxicity to aquatic species. A
release of cement or lime to surface waters
could result in elevated pH (alkaline) water
that could have chronic toxicity to some
aquatic species. Accidental spills of fuel
during transport could directly impact surface
water quality by a depletion of oxygen. Fuels
spilled or leaked into soil could also migrate
either in a vapor or liquid form and
contaminate shallow ground waters.
All fuels and chemicals used at the mine,
except for blasting agents, would be stored
at the main processing facility. To contain
certain spills that could occur at the facility,
the complex would be enclosed within a berm
and drained internally. This would be
required under an SPCC Plan as discussed in
Section 2.12.4.1, Spill and Handling Plans.
Surface waters would be prevented from
entering this area by construction of a
diversion ditch outside of the berm on the
north and west sides of the facility. Impacts
from spills at the main processing facility are
expected to be minimal.
Fuel and cyanide would be stored in above
ground tanks placed in concrete containment
basins. Chemical reagents would be stored in
secured areas with drainage control. Lime,
cement, and ammonium nitrate would be
stored in silos.
As discussed in Section 4.6, Ground Water,
Seeps and Springs, the amount of ANFO
released in the pit area and contained in the
waste rock is difficult to predict and would
be controlled largely by the blasting efficiency
achieved.
Alternative G
Accidental spills under this alternative would
be different from the other action
alternatives, mainly due to the use of
flotation reagents rather than cyanide to
process ore. The following chemicals would
replace the cyanide used in other action
alternatives:
• Potassium amyl xanthate (liquid);
• MIBC (liquid);
• AP404 (liquid);
• DP-6 (liquid); or,
• NA2S (liquid).
These flotation chemicals would be stored in
the processing facility under similar
conditions as the cyanide-related reagents.
Contamination of surface waters from spills
under this alternative could occur by the
same pathways as the other action
alternatives but would not include the
potential effects of cyanide.
Xanthates are relatively unstable in the
environment and would degrade to carbon
disulfide and volatilize (ACZ, inc., 1992).
Release of this compound to site surface
waters could, however, result in a depletion
of dissolved oxygen and/or reach toxic levels
that impact aquatic life. The other chemicals
listed include frothers and modifiers that have
varying solubilities in water and could also
impact surface water quality by depleting
oxygen. There are currently no state aquatic
standards for these flotation chemicals.
Accidents in the Mill
Scenarios for accidents in the mill are
unlimited; however, as a point of perspective,
assume a potential situation which could
involve malfunction in pH control of the
cyanide solutions or a faulty valve which
results in a large spill of cyanide leach
solution inside the mill building.
If this situation (albeit unlikely) occurred,
where the pH of the cyanide solution could
not be controlled, the result would be the
rapid formation of HCN gas. In this type of
scenario, some mill workers could be killed
before the gas dissipated; however, the
warning systems would provide time for
evacuation from the area. This scenario has
a very remote possibility based on the safety
and operational systems designed into the
milling and processing circuits. There have
been no accidental deaths from cyanide in
the mining industry, but there have been
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-245
deaths in the electroplating industry which
also uses cyanide.
A large spill of cyanide solution within the
mill building would probably pose no harmful
human or environmental effects as long as
proper containment and cleanup measures
were employed. Mill buildings are designed
to provide containment of potential accidental
spills. If the spill were to escape from the
building, there could be contamination of soil
and vegetation resources. It would be very
unlikely that this type of spill would reach
any surface water resource. The
contaminated soils and vegetation would be
neutralized and could be placed in the tailings
impoundment.
Leak in the Tailings Facility
The likelihood of a leak in tailings liner
causing environmental problems is extremely
low. A Seepage and Attenuation Study
(Hydro-Geo, 1995b) was conducted to assess
the magnitude of potential impact. Results of
the study indicate that, even in the case of a
"massive" leak in the tailings liner, there
would be no detectable contamination below
the footprint of the tailings area.
Since the issuance of the Crown Jewel
Project draft EIS, the Proponent has revised
the proposed tailing facility to incorporate a
double synthetic liner system, which would
include a leak detection system. See
discussion in Section 2.2.15, Tailings Liner
System Design.
The liner system proposed for the tailings
facility is an upgraded variation of the most
common, currently accepted liner design for
precious metals tailings facilities. The revised
system would incorporate two geosynthetic
liners with an overdrain, a leak detection
system and an underdrain for surface water.
The overdrain system would serve for tailings
dewatering, and the underdrain system would
serve to route surface and ground water
intercepted beneath the facility on
downstream. These would be separate
systems as implied by the description. The
overdrain system and the leak detection
system would discharge to the recovery
solution collection pond for recycle to the
mill, while the underdrain would be routed
around the collection pond. The liner system
would also meet AKART, all known available
and reasonable technology.
The Proponent would maintain a water
balance to account for water used and water
loss or discharged.
If monitoring wells detected leakage from this
facility, mitigation measures such as pump-
back of ground and/or surface water into the
tailings facility, digging up the tailings facility
liner system, or other appropriate measures
would be taken to stop or mitigate this leak.
Well Depletion
Given the location of the proposed Crown
Jewel Project, it seems very unlikely that the
proposed operation would impact any
surrounding private wells or ground water
rights. In the extreme case that such a
situation occurs, it is possible that the
Proponent could be required to replace the
water source or change their operations.
Increase in Nitrate Loading Due to Explosives
Handling
The most plausible scenario to describe and
assess this condition would be as follows:
During the life of the operation, water
monitoring stations begin to show increasing
levels of nitrate. An investigation of potential
causes is made. Blasting practices are
examined to determine whether incomplete
combustion of the ANFO blasting agent
caused by excessive water in the blast holes
or other reasons is occurring, or whether
ANFO handling practices result in excessive
spillage. Poor practices would be corrected
and/or other blasting agents or packaging
utilized where necessary. Should ongoing
monitoring indicate a continuing problem,
appropriate water treatment or disposal (e.g.
into the tailings facility) may be required as
specified by the NPDES permit.
Some elevation of nitrate in surface and/or
ground water is likely in the immediate
vicinity of the mine. Accurately predicting
the nitrate concentrations is not possible, due
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-246
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
to the range of variables involved. Similarly,
the potential that nitrate permit standards
would be exceeded also cannot be estimated.
4.23 IRREVERSIBLE AND
IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT
OF RESOURCES
Irreversible resource commitments are those
that cannot be reversed (loss of future
options), except perhaps in the extreme long-
term. It relates primarily to nonrenewable
resources, such as minerals or cultural
resources or those resources that are
renewable only over long periods of time,
such as old-growth forest. A mining
operation removes minerals from the ground,
this results in an irreversible loss of the
mineral resource.
Irretrievable resource commitments are those
that are lost for a period of time. Examples
are: the loss of production, harvest, or use of
natural resources, such as the lost of timber
production and harvest until the Crown Jewel
Project site is reclaimed and revegetation
success is achieved. Another example is: if a
grazing allotment is in poor condition and is
likely to remain so, the time gap between its
current condition and its ideal (potential)
productivity is in itself an ongoing
irretrievable loss (Shipley Associates, 1992).
Use of land in the Crown Jewel Project area
would displace existing land uses on a short-
term basis. Existing grazing, timber, wildlife
habitat, and recreation uses would be
disrupted or eliminated during the estimated
life-of-mine and for a period thereafter. With
reclamation of the disturbed lands, land uses
would essentially return to current uses and
levels of use or even be enhanced, but this
could take a long period of time for some
resources such as mature wildlife habitat.
4.23.1 Irreversible Resource
Commitment
The irreversible commitment of resources
would include the consumption of non-
renewable energy or materials, such as diesel
fuel and gasoline, and effects to topography,
mineral resources, and cultural resources.
The topography would be permanently altered
by the creation of an open pit and the
construction of waste rock disposal areas and
a tailings facility. Although most of these
changes would blend with the landscape
following completion of reclamation, the pit
highwalls would remain apparent in the
landscape in Alternatives B, D, E and G.
Surface subsidence would persist following
Alternatives C and D. Alternative F could
result in the top of Buckhorn Mountain being
slightly higher than original.
Recent reports suggest that to replace the
ecosystem of an old-growth western forest
might take 180 to 500 years. It is suggested
that to create a new forest stand that would
provide SIT cover for deer might take 100 to
150 years. Given the long-term nature of the
effects, clear-cutting an old-growth forest
essentially becomes an irreversible
commitment of resources. Harvest of SIT
cover is a long-term irretrievable commitment
of resources.
Fossil fuels used during the operation and
transportation phases of the Crown Jewel
Project would result in irreversible
commitments.
The mining of the Crown Jewel Project ore
deposit would be an irreversible use of a
precious metals reserve. On the other hand,
however, the extraction and processing of
the gold would make this resource available
for use by society.
Any soil or subsoil materials not salvaged
prior to disturbance at the pit site or covered
by waste rock or tailings material would
result in an irreversible commitment.
Four cultural sites, in the area of the mine pit,
would be lost; however, research values
would be recovered prior to the physical loss.
4.23.2 Irretrievable Resource
Commitments
Timber and other vegetation would be
removed in areas of proposed facilities. Once
this timber is removed any future harvest
would be delayed for many decades.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-247
Proposed mining activity would displace
wildlife within the direct area of disturbance
(e.g. loss of habitat) and some wildlife within
the larger core area (e.g. reduced habitat
effectiveness due to noise). These effects
would likely cause a reduction in wildlife
population. Reclamation plans and mitigation
measures would eventually restore wildlife
habitat, but not the same quality and quantity
that would be lost.
Populations of sensitive plants could be
irreversibly and irretrievably affected by the
placement of mine facilities.
There would be a consumption of water
resources, both for the life of the Crown
Jewel Project and from changes caused by
the Crown Jewel Project such as pit lake
evaporation.
Recreation opportunities would be restricted
within the Crown Jewel Project area and
Marias Creek drainage during the short-term.
Partial or complete backfill of the open pit
could result in an irretrievable loss as possible
future gold reserves would be covered.
4.24 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE
EFFECTS
There are unavoidable impacts which could
occur as a result of implementing an action
alternative. Some of these effects would be
short-term, while others could be long-term.
These unavoidable effects could include:
• The generation of fugitive dust (short-
term);
• The loss of vegetation and wildlife habitat
(short and long-term);
• The destruction of cultural resources (long-
term);
• The consumption of water resources
(short-term);
• The permanent alteration of the
topography (long-term);
• The increased demand on public services
and utilities (short-term);
• The hydrologic balance on Buckhorn
Mountain would be changed with resulting
flow changes in Gold, Bolster, Marias,
Nicholson, Toroda and Myers Creeks (long-
term);
• Loss of wetlands, springs and seeps and
changed functions and values of wetlands
(short and long-term);
• Increases in noise levels which would
effect human aesthetics and wildlife use
and effectiveness (short-term);
• Increased road traffic (short-term);
• Soil productivity (long-term);
• Timber production (short and long-term);
and,
• Loss of sensitive plants (long-term).
The fugitive dust produced during the mining
activities could contribute to a decrease in
the quality of the air resources in the Crown
Jewel Project area.
Crown Jewel Project related surface
disturbance would disturb 415 to 928 acres
of vegetation. There are currently 55 acres
of disturbance, associated with the
exploration activities. This type of impact
would continue for the duration of the
Project.
Past actions (primarily the lost of SIT) have
already reduced deer winter habitat on
Buckhorn Mountain. The incremental effects
of the proposed Crown Jewel Project on deer
would be considered substantial because any
additional loss of SIT cover would exacerbate
past adverse effects. Impacts associated
with the proposed mine could continue the
trend of significant changes in wildlife habitat
which have occurred over the last 100 years.
Four identified cultural sites, located in the
Crown Jewel Project area, would be lost.
These sites would be recorded as required by
the OAHP prior to destruction or removal.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-245
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
To conduct mining operations and ore
processing activities, there would be an
unavoidable consumption of water resources.
The creation of an open pit or surface
subsidence features, along with the
construction of a tailings impoundment and
waste rock disposal areas, would
permanently alter the topography of the
Crown Jewel Project area by lowering the
elevation of the top of Buckhorn Mountain,
filling a valley, and raising some side slopes
on Buckhorn Mountain.
The estimated increase in population, due to
Crown Jewel Project employment
requirements, would place an increased
demand on public services and utilities
(including water). Except for the predicted
lack of housing during the construction
phase, these demands would be small if the
local hiring goals are met.
Implementation of an action alternative would
result in flow changes in Gold, Bolster,
Marias, Nicholson, Toroda, and Myers
Creeks.
The changes to area stream flows and the
physical disturbance of wetlands and springs
and seeps would result in changes to
functions and values of wetlands and the
alteration of flow characteristics of springs
and seeps.
Increases in noise levels would effect human
aesthetics immediately adjacent to the Crown
Jewel Project and wildlife use of the Crown
Jewel Project area.
There would be an unavoidable increase in
traffic volume during the life of the Crown
Jewel Project.
There would be a reduction of soil
productivity due to changes in physical and
chemical characteristics and microbial
populations resulting from salvage and
stockpiling.
Merchantable timber would be harvested
from areas within the footprints of the
facilities. Proposed reclamation practices
would gradually restore the timber resources
to the Crown Jewel Project area.
The selection of any action alternative would
cover existing populations of three sensitive
plant species decreasing the number in
Okanogan County (two species in Alternative
G).
4.25 SHORT-TERM USE VERSUS
LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
Short-term uses are those that generally
occur on a year to year basis. Examples are
wildlife and livestock use of forage, timber
management, other wood harvesting,
recreation, and uses of the water resource.
Long-term productivity is the capability of the
land to provide resources, both market and
non-market, for future generations.
Relationships between short-term uses of the
environment and long-term productivity occur
in all action alternatives. Short-term uses
such as mining (vegetation removal) may be
said to represent irretrievable commitments of
resources. As an example: The removal of
timber and vegetation from the facility sites
certainly prevents the vegetation from serving
as forage for livestock or as hiding cover for
wildlife for a certain period of time.
However, after a period of time, which would
vary from site to site based on reclamation
objectives, trees and other vegetation would
again re-establish and serve the desired
purpose. This would occur because basic
long-term productivity would not be
destroyed by the short-term use; therefore,
no irreversible damage would occur.
Crown Jewel Project operations would be
short-term use, with mining and initial
reclamation expected to last from six to 33
years. The short-term use of the Crown
Jewel Project area would be to recover as
much gold as is economically feasible. The
amount of area disturbance needed to recover
this gold would vary by alternative, (415 to
928 acres).
Long-term impacts to site productivity from
roads, mining, and soil disturbance are
discussed previously in this chapter under the
individual resource areas. In addition, the
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-249
alteration of ecological systems by mining
and related activities would impact nutrient
storage and cycling processes. While the
replacement of older stands with managed
stands may increase the quality and quantity
of usable timber produced, care must be
taken to ensure that a long-term reduction in
site quality does not result from the mine
operations.
Long-term productivity refers to the basic
capability of the land to produce according to
the desired future levels (e.g., timber, wildlife
habitat, water quality). Long-term
productivity would depend on the reclamation
measures applied, the ability to retain soil
productivity, and the desired long-term
management objectives. Timber production
and mature growth wildlife habitat would be
lost for about 100 years within the Crown
Jewel Project disturbance areas.
In addition to site conditions, the contribution
of mature and old-growth forest habitats in
providing for a unique and diverse mix of
species is reduced through removal of
standing timber and intensive management of
the site. Timber production and mature
growth wildlife habitat would be lost for
about 100 years within the area of physical
disturbance. Wildlife habitat also could be
lost within the area affected by noise impacts
for the duration of mining.
Any impacts on fish and wildlife habitat due
to sedimentation and the introduction of
toxics into the environment can have both
short and long-term impacts on these
habitats, and to populations of fish and
wildlife species.
The short-term benefits of mining gold would
have long-term impacts on scenic values
within the Crown Jewel Project area and on
several long-distance views from public roads
and other mountain peaks. Such changes in
scenic resources may discourage those
visitors expecting a natural environment.
However, the formation of a lake in the pit
after mining is completed, which is proposed
under some alternatives, may attract other
types of visitors to the area.
All of the action alternatives result in short-
term uses which irretrievably commit certain
resources, specifically timber production and
various levels of wildlife habitat. The relative
amount of area that would experience short-
term uses (wildlife analysis area versus
disturbed area) varies from 0.6% to 1.3%.
The short-term use would affect 4% to 8.5%
of the area, using the wildlife core area as a
basis for comparison.
4.26 RESERVATION OF PROJECT FOR
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT
SEPA rules [WAC 197-11-440(5)(c)(vii)]
require that an EIS discuss the benefits and
disadvantages of reserving for some future
time the implementation of the proposal, as
compared with possible approval at this time.
The benefits of reserving the implementation
of the Crown Jewel Project for some future
time would include:
• Postponing environmental effects
addressed in the EIS (i.e., service demands
on the socioeconomic infrastructure).
• Temporarily retaining the current land use
of livestock grazing, aquatic resource
environments, wildlife habitat, timber
production, and miscellaneous recreational
activities such as hunting and hiking.
• Possibly reducing the environmental
effects (i.e., land disturbance, water use,
and chemical use) due to improved
extraction technologies that would improve
resource recovery.
• Possibly reducing or minimizing
environmental effects caused by the
proposal due to potential future advances
in reclamation and environmental control
technologies.
• Increasing environmental protection due to
potential future increased environmental
regulations which affect mining activities.
• Retaining the gold deposit as a potential
future natural resource.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-250
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
The disadvantages of reserving the
implementation of the Crown Jewel Project
for some future time would include:
• Decreasing environmental protection due
to potential future reduced environmental
regulations which affect mining activities.
• Increasing the cumulative environmental
effects associated with the urban
environment due to increased growth and
an increased urban environment.
• Increasing the cumulative environmental
effects due to increased growth and
increased activities in the area which
affect the elements of the environment.
• Eliminating the ability to implement the
Crown Jewel Project or increasing the
environmental and economic cost due to
the depletion of energy resources.
The two bullet items listed below could be
considered as environmental advantages
and/or disadvantages, because they involve
changes which affect both impacts (i.e.,
increased service demands) and associated
mitigation (i.e., jobs and tax revenue)
identified in the EIS.
• Postponing new job creation and taxes to
be generated from the proposal and
postponing increased service or
infrastructure needs (i.e., road
improvements, police, school student
capacity).
• Creating possibly fewer jobs given some
technological extraction or mining
advances and creating fewer service
demands (than with the current proposal)
on the socioeconomic infrastructure.
4.27 SPECIALLY REQUIRED
DISCLOSURES
4.27.1 Floodplains and Wetlands
All of the action alternatives would adversely
affect wetland areas. No impacts to
designated floodplains are projected. These
effects on wetland areas are described in
Section 4.10, Wetlands. This project would
require a Corps of Engineers 404 permit due
to the impacts on wetlands. The Corps of
Engineers 404 permit would require
compensatory mitigation for the Crown Jewel
Projects effects on wetlands.
4.27.2 Social Groups
Alternatives that create the most economic
benefit in terms of local jobs would be most
beneficial to women, Native Americans, and
other minorities. There are no differences
between alternatives on the civil liberties of
any American Citizen.
There would be impacts to the utilization of
the subsistence rights that the members of
the Colville Tribe currently exercise (e.g.,
hunting and gathering). The basic impact
could be as a result of fencing off the Crown
Jewel Project area to public access and
limiting vehicle access to other areas through
road closures for wildlife mitigation and from
the potential patenting of the land.
4.27.3 Threatened and Endangered
Species
There would be no effects on threatened or
endangered species that would affect their
viability. The effects on these species are
analyzed in Section 4.12, Wildlife, and in the
Biological Evaluations and Assessments
included in the appendices of this EIS
document or on file at the Tonasket Ranger
District (Forest Service).
4.27.4 Prime Range Land, Farm Land,
and Forest Land
The alternatives considered are in compliance
with the Federal Regulations for prime land.
Most of the lands in the Crown Jewel Project
area do not quality as "prime" forest land,
although there may be isolated pockets of
forest land that do meet the definition
because growth rates may exceed 85 cubic
feet/acre/year at culmination of mean annual
increment. The Crown Jewel Project area
does not contain any prime range land or
prime farm land. In each alternative, Federal
and State lands would be managed with
appropriate sensitivity to the effects on
adjacent lands.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-251
4.27.5 Energy Requirements and
Conservation Potential of
Alternatives
With relation to national and global petroleum
reserves, the energy consumption associated
with the individual alternatives, as well as the
differences between alternatives, would not
be significant.
4.27.6 Heritage Resources
All area of proposed ground disturbing
activities have been inventoried for cultural
resources. Effects are disclosed in Section
4.16, Heritage Resources.
4.27.7 Conflicts Between Proposed
Action and Other Federal, State
and Local Plans, Policies,
Controls and Laws
Air Quality. Burning proposed under the
action alternatives would comply with State
and Federal air quality regulations. Burning of
clearing slash would be performed under all
action alternatives. This would be regulated
by the WADNR smoke management
guidelines.
American Indian Treaty Rights. None of the
alternative should conflict with treaty
provisions. Portions of the former North Half
of the Colville Confederated Tribes
Reservation would not be available for a
period of time during operations and
reclamation. This would not affect their
subsistence rights under the treaty.
Heritage Resources. All areas of proposed
ground-disturbing activities on Federal lands
have been inventoried for cultural resources.
The Crown Jewel Project would comply with
all aspects of the National Historic
Preservation Act.
Threatened and Endangered Species. The
effects on threatened and endangered species
has been analyzed. In compliance with the
Endangered Species Act, consultation with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Serve has been
completed.
Water Quality. The Crown Jewel Project has
the potential to adversely affect water
quality. To minimize the potential to affect
water quality, Best Management Practices
(BMPs) and several Washington State Water
Quality permits (such as National Pollution
Discharge Eliminate Systems [NPDESl/State
Waste Discharge Permit and Construction
Activities Stormwater General Permit) would
be required prior to the commencement of
construction.
The final EIS complies with all applicable laws
including but not limited to the National
Environmental Policy Act; National Forest
Management Act; Federal Land Policy and
Management Act, General Mining Law of
1872, as amended; Clean Air Act;
Endangered Species Act; Migratory Bird
Treaty Act; National Materials and Minerals
Policy, Research and Development Act;
National Historic Preservation Act, as
amended; Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act; Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act, and
Executive Order 11990 on wetlands.
The Crown Jewel Project, as amended herein,
is consistent with the amended Okanogan
National Forest Land and Resource
Management Plan and the Inland Native Fish
Strategy, and is in conformance with the
approved BLM Spokane Resource
Management Plan, as amended December
1992.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-252
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES January 1997
CANADA
UNITtO STA rtS
NEARBY PRIVATE PROPERTY
T40N
T39N
LEGEND
<§) RECEPTOR POINT
TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICIPATE
PARTICULATE MATTER <10 MICRONS
f f PERIMETER FENCE
(ALTERNATIVE Bi
USFS LANDS
STATE LANDS
8LM LANDS
PRIVATE/FEE LANDS
FIGURE 4.1.1, MAXIMUM PEAK-YEAR ANNUAL AVERAGE TSP
AND PM-10 CONCENTRATIONS (NOT INCLUDING BACKGROUND)
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-253
ANADA
UWJID STAUS
NEARBY PRIVATE PROPERTY
LEGEND
RECEPTOR POINT
TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICIPATE
PARTICIPATE MATTER <10 MICRONS
USFS LANDS
STATE LANDS
BLM LANDS
PRIVATE/FEE LANDS
<• /• PERIMETER FENCE
{ALTERNATIVE Bl
FIGURE 4.1.2, MAXIMUM PEAK-YEAR 24-HOUR TSP AND PM-10
CONCENTRATIONS (NOT INCLUDING BACKGROUND)
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-254
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES January 1997
R30 t
SW-4*
R31 F
SW-B
MW-SO
PIT RECHARGE
CATCHMENT AREA
4C
3C
ZONE OF INFLUENCE DUE
TO PIT DEWATERING AT
THE END OF MINING
MW-6
o
JJ-6
JJ-24
JJ-2J
JJ-33
SW-8
LEGEND
QUH-3 GROUND WATER MONITORING WELL
• SW-8 SURFACE WATER MONITORING STATION
±JJ-7/SN-18 SPRINQ OR SEEP LOCATION
C C1
i i CROSS SECTION LOCATION
ZONg
MINE PIT AREA
OF INFLUENCE DUE TO MINE PIT OEWATEHING AND DRAINAGE
[ I > 100 FOOT DRAWDOWN ZONE
10 FOOT TO 100 FOOT DRAWDOWN ZONE
^ | 1 FOOT TO 10 FOOT DRAWDOWN ZONE
\
V 'H '' <''< Lj'fcpwf m-A
FIGURE 4.6.1, ZONE OF INFLUENCE DUE TO PIT
DEWATERING AND THE PIT RECHARGE CATCHMENT AREA
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-255
U3331 NOU VA313
0
°
oo
coz
.o
01 [I
-------
Page 4-256
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES January 1997
Q
LU
LU
o
o
o
-I
o
UJ
o
o
§9
So
CO
kj
I
u- <
_?
D
-------
i
i
I
CJ
~»
c^
sr
GOLD CREEK
DRAINAGE BASIN
2.280 AC.
1023% STREAM QRAOIENT
BOLSTER CREEK
DRAINAGE BASIN
1.722 AC
10.23% STREAM QRAOIENT
NICHOLSON CREEK
DRAINAGE BASIN
10.310 AC.
5.06% STREAM QRAOIENT
THORP CREEK
DRAINAGE BASIN
414 AC
1794% STREAM GRADIENT
ETHEL CREEK
DRAINAGE BASIN
1.924 AC
973% STREAM GRADIENT
MARIAS CREEK
DRAINAGE BASIN
7.774 AC.
5.98% STREAM GRADIENT
L EGEND
- - EPHEMERAL SECTIONS
MAJOR STREAMS
BOUNDARY OF IMPACT
BY ALTERNATIVE 8
-- BOUNDARY OF AREA
SW-2 IMPACTED BY ALTERNATIVE 8
SURFACE WATER STATION
MINE AOIT
MINE PIT AREA
DRAINAGE BASIN BOUNDARY
FIGURE 4.7.1, WATERSHEDS AND MONITORING SITES
\
\
5°
-------
Page 4-258
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES January 1997
H 30 t
12
R 31 E
JJ-27 8
BUCKHORN MOUNTAIN
TOPOGRAPHIC AND GROUND WATER
DIVIDE (PRE-UIMNG)
32
JJ-2 \
X
JJ'32
S/V-Jt
LOCATION OF TRIBUTARY
STREAM MONITORING SITES
WETLANDS AREA
SPRING LOCATION AND NUMBER
SEEP LOCATION AND NUMBER
MAJOR CREEK DRAINAGE
BASIN DIVIDE
MONITORING SITE DRAINAGE
BASIN
POST-MINING GROUND WATER
DIVIDE
STREAM
ZONE OF INFLUENCE DUE TO MINE PIT DEWATERING AND DRAINAGE
^"ONI BOu"*t-*R*!: ADA*»*fO FKOW -*BC',*.C rt* T(« i , i A t*.-r>ti iL*"-M«-»W'W
D^AA'tOWN i OHC* '»ONS
I - 1
I _ |
I I
' - '
J
. _
~
.
t •
\~J
> 10° FOOT DRAWDOWN ZONE
10 FO°T TO ^00 FOOT DRAWDOWN ZONE
1 FOOT TO 10 FOOT DRAWDOWN ZONE
ROAD
MINE PIT AREA
"JR ,*i't**VAl ."tSr *
FIGURE 4.7.2, ZONE OF INFLUENCE
DUE TO PIT DEWATERING
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
1
1
I
I
S1
1
r>
SW2
APPROXIMATE
UPPER LEVEL
MONITORING SITES
LECEND
SURFACE WATER MONITORING LOCATION
AGW2 ROOSEVELT ADIT
/ MILES FROM CONFLUENCE
% DEPLETION
DURING MINING
NOTES 11 DEPLETION CALCULATIONS REPRESENT THEORETICAL
AVERAGE CONDITIONS AND MAY VARY SIGNIFICANTLY
11 POST-MINING PIT OUTFLOWS IN NICHOLSON CREEK
ARE SHOWN AS NEGATIVE STREAM DEPLETIONS
% DEPLETION
POST MINING
FIGURE 4.7.3, SCHEMATIC-AVERAGE DURING AND POST
MINING STREAM DEPLETIONS
I
(o
to
NJ
i
1
fs
I
FU. EfJA Me CJF4 7- 3D WG
-------
Page 4-260 CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES January 1997
_ , .UCF »31V
ej'r/.-S" CO-. mw-< _ - - -
., jo^W^V • CA-CB i ^
'v v "J ' : J
3
)A-(
8 -——~ , " .W-JO
.*/•»
CHESAW
33
JJ-32*
,.
I?
LEGEND
LL_J PROJECT FACILITIES AREA STREAM (
[~~| AREA WHERE DRAWDOWN IN THE "00 FOOT ELEVATION CONTOUR LINE V
BEDROCK AQUIFER IS PREDICTED C-11 WETLANDS AREA
TO EXCEED 1 FOOT FROM I
PROPOSED PIT DEWATERING • JJ-1 SPRING LOCATION AND NUMBER I
ACTIVITIES AND DRAINAGE I
. . SN-t8 SEEP LOCATION AND NUMBER I
I I "BUFFER ZONE" EXTENDING 1000 *
FEET BELOW PREDICTED 1 FOOT
DRAWDOWN
FIGURE 4.10.1, LOCATION OF FEATURES RELATED TO
WETLAND IMPACT CLASSIFICATION - ALTERNATIVE B
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-261
' CA-CB )
JJ-31
FA-FB
JJ-JO
/
/
CHESAW
28
NO""
Go/ff
r~0rk
/
I
I
I
/
/
'J.'ft.
SN-6
I
I
SN-7N
/
/
I
I
f JJ-19
JJ-27
SN-19
o
P<
18
Fharp
11
s,,,.°" >,;-
,U
SN-16«C18IN
!J A \
" / "v- »C17
I NWS
J SN-W^_C^
r-^'f
19 cj° >
IVf6^CZO°
™-'?6r -C20A
^
0 /
/
V:-^
X. x-v"»
fct*lB'
/
^
\
JJ-2S
^-v..
I
I
V
<
/—C21A
/.. C21B
Z* .y C21C
20
-C20E
"»*
SN-21
JJ-1
JJ-3J*
32
c/
LEGEND
C~1 PROJECT FACItlieS AREA
II AREA WHERE DRAWDOWN IN THE
BEDROCK AQUIFER IS PREDICTED
TO EXCEED 1 FOOT FROM
PROPOSED PIT DEWATEHING
ACTIVITIES AND DRAINAGE
C'"~) "BUFFER ZONE' EXTENDING '000
FEET BELOW PREDICTED 1 FOOT
DRAWDOWN
STREAM
«SOO FOOT ELEVATION CONTOUR LINE
c'" WETLANDS AREA
• JJ-t SPHINQ LOCATION AND NUMBER
SN-ta SEEP LOCATION AND NUMBER
FIGURE 4.10.2, LOCATION OF FEATURES RELATED TO
WETLAND IMPACT CLASSIFICATION - ALTERNATIVE C
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-262
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES January 1997
'•? * v- CO- uf>W--'<
/, -•>'•' \G *:':'V '".CA-CBJ
JJ-31
FA-FB ,/
B—-*""" ,
DA-DB
JJ-30
-ork
CHESAW
'-•C'ff
Q0.
\
i
/
i
SN-7X
1C, N-
/}'
i ' JJ-19
I /
f (
/
1 SN-99
•JJ-"
* \0?**
iv, /
\N--vA
\ <4/
SN-tO,
~\
"SN-S-
i •
i
/
/CJQ
VLr¥i P»'«
V >73«Hk>/(-
JJ-32*
..P1
LEGEND
\ '.....I PROJECT FACILITES AREA
I I AREA WHERE DRAWDOWN IN THE
BEDROCK AQUIFER IS PREDICTED
TO EXCEED 1 FOOT FROM
PROPOSED PIT DEWATEHING
ACTIVITIES AND DRAINAGE
I I "BUFFER ZONE" EXTENDING 1000
FEET BELOW PREDICTED 1 FOOT
DRAWDOWN
STREAM
4500 FOOT ELEVATION CONTOUR LINE
C'11 WETLANDS AREA
• JJ-1 SPRING LOCATION AND NUMBER
SH-18 SEEP LOCATION AND NUMBER
FIGURE 4.10.3, LOCATION OF FEATURES RELATED TO
WETLAND IMPACT CLASSIFICATION - ALTERNATIVE D
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-263
CA-CB
JJ-31
FA-FB
JJ-30
CHESAW
JJ-27
L-
JJ-28
SN-17
~fh
•\ SN-16«C18\
CD A \
_} SN'«\.C«
- ^l^*8tegv
^ «jf^jifT^
O >7.ij| ^\^'^^ 0f/C2s .
tL"*, »" *" %*; •/}<•, '*
?e PD ""y^'''
'X—Oa-2«
v«"* •»•' «
jj-J5
/"^J
SN-11
/'&*•:
4-?':\ to is
JJ-6.6A,6B^ ja] f 15
• JJ-3
,JJ-23
JJ-33
/Jf-> ;;j.9
' ! * JJ-5%
/ JJ-10 JJ-*
/
/
/
Ma-ias
JJ-2
I \'^-^\
t **
I
I
I
f
I
\
\
**l
1
I
\ I
. \ /
JJ-1 \ )
JJ-32*
LEGEMD
[ :.'.' 1 PROJECT FACILITES AREA
I I AREA WHERE DRAWDOWN IN THE
BEDROCK AQUIFER IS PREDICTED
TO EXCEED 1 FOOT FROM
PROPOSED PIT DEWATERING
ACTIVITIES AND DRAINAGE
I I "BUFFER ZONE" EXTENDING 1000
FEET BELOW PREDICTED 1 FOOT
DRAWDOWN
c'11
• JJ-1
STREAM
4500 FOOT ELEVATION CONTOUR LINE
WETLANDS AREA
SPRING LOCATION AND NUMBER
SEEP LOCATION AND NUMBER
\
FIGURE 4.10.4, LOCATION OF FEATURES RELATED TO
WETLAND IMPACT CLASSIFICATION - ALTERNATIVE E
SAM* i 4'" 4 A "
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-264
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES January 1997
" CA-CB ',
j
FA-FB
/ "
' DA.DB
JJ-31
JJ-30
CHESAW
JJ-3J
LEGEND
\ '. I PROJECT FACILITES AREA
I I AREA WHERE DRAWDOWN IN THE
BEDROCK AQUIFER IS PREDICTED
TO EXCEED 1 FOOT FROM
PROPOSED PIT DEWATERING
ACTIVITIES AND DRAINAGE
I I "BUFFER ZONE' EXTENDING 1000
FEET BELOW PREDICTED 1 FOOT
DRAWDOWN
STREAM
4SOO FOOT ELEVATION CONTOUR LINE
C'" WETLANDS AREA
• JJ-t SPRING LOCATION AND NUMBER
SN-18 SEEP LOCATION AND NUMBER
FIGURE 4.10.5, LOCATION OF FEATURES RELATED TO
WETLAND IMPACT CLASSIFICATION - ALTERNATIVE F
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-265
COi
OA-DB
JJ-30
CHESAW
jj-i \ ;
JJ-32
LEGEND
CHH PROJECT FACILITES AREA
L__l AREA WHERE DRAWDOWN IN THE
BEDROCK AQUIFER IS PREDICTED
TO EXCEED 1 FOOT FROM
PROPOSED PIT DEWATERING
ACTIVITIES AND DRAINAGE
CZZ3 "BUFFER ZONE" EXTENDING 1000
FEET BELOW PREDICTED 1 FOOT
DRAWDOWN
STREAM
4500 FOOT ELEVATION CONTOUR LINE
c-'1 WETLANDS AREA
• JJ-1 SPRING LOCATION AND NUMBER
SN-tS SEEP LOCATION AND NUMBER
\
FIGURE 4.10.6, LOCATION OF FEATURES RELATED TO
WETLAND IMPACT CLASSIFICATION - ALTERNATIVE G
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-266
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
BPiT'SH COLUMBIA
MA SUING f ON
H30E
H3T.
CANADA
UNITED STA res
.,&///%/',}
,#////'//,. /
fi. ">m{>
• ,**• -.•'/
T40N
139N
® BASELINE MONITORING STATION
A3 NOISE SOURCE LOCATION
I USFS LANDS
I STATE LANDS
I BLM LANDS
~~~~\ PRIVATE/FEE LANDS
e r PERIMETER FENCE
(ALTERNATIVE 8)
NOISE SOURCES
1 - MINE PIT AREA
2 - NORTH WASTE ROCK AREA
3 - SOUTH WASTE ROCK AREA
4 • HAUL ROAD
5 - COARSE ORE MILL AREA
\
FIGURE 4.13.1, NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS AND
BASELINE MONITORING LOCATIONS
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-267
BB/'ISH COLUMBIA
WASHINGTON
R30r
CAHADA
UNITED sr* res
®
LEGEND
MEASURED BACKGROUND NOISE,
AVERAGE OF 1HR L-«q
A NOISE SOURCE LOCATION
•30— MODELED SOUND LEVEL IN dBA,
EXCLUDING BACKGROUND
US.F.S LANDS
STATE LANDS
8LM LANDS
PRIVATE/FEE LANDS
r s PERIMETER FENCE
(ALTERNATIVE Bl
NOISE SOURCES
MINE PIT AREA
2 - NORTH WASTE ROCK AREA
3 - SOUTH WASTE ROCK AREA
4 -
HAUL ROAD
5 • COARSE ORE MILL AREA
FIGURE 4.13.2, MODELED NOISE RESULTS:
CONTINUOUS OPERATION, SUMMER, PREVAILING WEST WIND
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-268
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES January 1997
R31E
Bft/r/SH COLUMBIA '1-iilL- •
CANADA
UNITED STATES
LEGEND
®
A3
•30«
MEASURED BACKGROUND NOISE,
AVERAGE OF 1HR L-eq
NOISE SOURCE LOCATION
MODELED SOUND LEVEL IN dBA,
EXCLUDING BACKGROUND
| | US.FS. LANDS
( | STATE LANDS
( | BLM LANDS
( | PRIVATE/FEE LANDS
r~
<• /- PERIMETER FENCE
(ALTERNATIVE B)
NOISE SOURCES
1
MINE PIT AREA
2 - NORTH WASTE ROCK AREA
3 - SOUTH WASTE ROCK AREA
HAUL ROAD
5 - COARSE ORE MILL AREA
FIGURE 4.13.3, MODELED NOISE RESULTS:
CONTINUOUS OPERATION, SUMMER, UNCOMMON EAST WIND
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-269
CANADA
UNITED STATES
LEGEND
®
•30«
MEASURED BACKGROUND NOISE.
AVERAGE OF 1HR L-«q
NOISE SOURCE LOCATION
MODELED SOUND LEVEL IN dBA.
EXCLUDING BACKGROUND
U.SFS. LANDS
STATE LANDS
BLM LANDS
PRIVATE/FEE LANDS
f /• PERIMETER FENCE
(ALTERNATIVE 8)
NOISE SOURCES
1
2
3
4
5
MINE PIT AREA
NORTH WASTE HOCK AREA
- SOUTH WASTE ROCK AREA
HAUL ROAD
- COARSE ORE MILL AREA
FIGURE 4.13.4, MODELED NOISE RESULTS:
CONTINUOUS OPERATION, WINTER, PREVAILING EAST WIND
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 4-270
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES January 1997
BRITISH COLUMBIA
WASHINGTON
R30E
R31E
CAHADA
UNITED STATES
I
LEGEND
MEASURED BACKGROUND NOISE.
AVERAGE OF 1HR 1-02
A NOISE SOURCE LOCATION
•30— MODELED SOUND LEVEL IN
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 4-271
BRITISH COLUMBIA
WASHINGTON
R31E-
CANADA
UNITED STATES
\
LEGEND
®
•30-
MEASURED BACKGROUND NOISE,
AVERAGE OF 1HR C-02
NOISE SOURCE LOCATION
MODELED SOUND LEVEL IN DBA,
EXCLUDING BACKGROUND
C /"
USFS LANDS
STATE LANDS
BLM LANDS
PRIVATE/FEE LANDS
PERIMETER FENCE
(ALTERNATIVE Bi
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 4.13.6
MODELED NOISE RESULTS: BLASTING, SUMMER, WEST WIND
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
FIGURE 4.15.1
TORODA CREEK VIEWPOINT ALTERNATIVE B
-------
Filename CJF415-2DWG
FIGURE 4.15.2
HIGHWAY 3 VIEWPOINT ALTERNATIVE B
-------
FIGURE 4.15.3
BONAPARTE VIEWPOINT ALTERNATIVE
-------
to
to
sj
i
i
i
Filename CJF415-4 DWG
FIGURE 4.15.4
TORODA CREEK VIEWPOINT ALTERNATIVE D
I
a
-------
FIGURE 4.15.5
HIGHWAY 3 VIEWPOINT ALTERNATIVE E
-------
FIGURE 4.15.6
TORODA CREEK VIEWPOINT ALTERNATIVE F
-------
FIGURE 4.15.7
HIGHWAY 3 VIEWPOINT ALTERNATIVE F
-------
Filename CJ4-15-8 D WG
FIGURE 4.15.8
HIGHWAY 3 VIEWPOINT ALTERNATIVE G
-------
Page 4-280
CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
January 1997
u
UJ
1
--I
p1
l_
6
i" ""*"""
f
—
>
2
a
UJ
T
—
S
I
<
T
•« "~
,-i
i
i
i
^5 C» O
n o u'j
c«
V
"•m.
••w
--f
!
!
i
i
1
I.
' —
""T~ " T" ~
O 0
f> <^*
oaatai INSC
UJ
CO
UJ
(T
.4
u,
UJ
I
UJ
K
-J
O
^
X
V"
T
\
JJ_ ,
•Ml
O
o
••> *
«*i.
Idf
r x
/
^ — x
3
N- <*
*~ O
~s v* CO
"! ^ >
*" *"* ^ *' MM*
" " C '* rf
„ o • **, ^2
m *• 2»
-s :'•'•„ OC
? ;,: UJ
o ^ h
<*> s "* •••
~a j: <
-1 : ' O
-« 0
LL
„ > S <•*
i t- t°f t-- h r~ ^^
Uj s i i % s
^•J 1 S I 1 £ m
I t41 VM UJ UJ U* *••
n ^**sJ .j -j j w ~j DC
< € < < < jj?
Ill); 3
i I t i i 4H
i i i i i O
1 1 i 1 1 j£
O 0 0 O
'i? ° ****
*3 IVIOJ
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
i
1
S1
§
I
o
i
45 000 -i
40 000 -
U 35 000 -
30.000 -
25 000 -
20000
PROJECTED MAXIMUM
POPULATION EFFECT
BY CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
STATE OF WASHINGTON OFFICE
OF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT (OFMI
POPULATION FORECAST FOR
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
SOCIOECONOMIC STUDY AREA
2010
(YEARSI
2015
2020
2025
2030
to
to
i
i
I
FIGURE 4.19.2, MAXIMUM POPULATION EFFECT VS BASELINE FORECAST GROWTH
-------
ORE RESERVE ESTIMATION
Co
K)
1
fe
9
i
5'
(D
CUTOFF GRADE CALCULATION
MINE SIZE OR MINING RATE SELECTION
I
r>
Co
PRODUCTION COST ESTIMATION
(OPERATING AND CAPITAL)
SOURCE GENTRY,D W AND O'NEIL.T J , 1984.
MINE INVESTMENT ANALYSIS SME-AIME,
NEW YORK, 488 PAGES
i
I
2
r-
I
I
FIGURE 4.21.1, GENERALIZED INTERACTIVE PROCEDURE FOR MINE EVALUATION
FILENAME CJF421-WWG
(0
<0
SJ
-------
0
s
i
5..
.
!
•*
$
~»
•*
150 -
QD
i.
^
I 50-
Uj
-0
j. 0 "
O
Uj
^ c A „
5
Uj
O
Ct
IT inn ~
UJ - f V U
, . ,v. j • . .1
• -.• -."-•-'
-^ — -%r~~" ••-
, „ , --•*" ~^""
B C D E F G
CROWN JEWEL ALTERNATIVES
LEGEND hw-;,^.
PRIMARY PARTNER
TOTAL PROJECT
NPV = NET PRESENT VALUE
FIGURE 4.21.2, COMPARISON OF NPV (15%) OF
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT ALTERNATIVES TO ALTERNATIVE B
s*
a>
a
§
*
•*
(0
(0
SJ
o
30
0
1
5
i
S
^
^
^
£
Co
-------
-------
Chapter 5
List Of Preparers
-------
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 5-1
5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The U.S.D.A. Forest Service (Forest Service)
and the Washington Department of Ecology
(WADOE) are the lead agencies for the Crown
Jewel Project EIS and are responsible for the
contents of this EIS document. The Bureau
of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps of Engineers), and
Washington Department of Natural Resources
(WADNR) are cooperating agencies on this
EIS project. TerraMatrix (formerly ACZ Inc.)
served as the third-party EIS contractor under
the direction of the lead agencies and utilized
numerous subcontractors in the assemblage
of the EIS. A number of individuals have
contributed to this document. The academic
background and experience of individuals are
presented in this chapter.
5.2 U.S.D.A. FOREST SERVICE
Mel Bennett* - Forest Hydrologist - B.S. in
Forest Management, 1970, Washington State
University. M.S. in Forestry (Forest
Hydrology and Soils), 1975, Washington
State University. Soil Scientist, Boise
National Forest, Boise, Idaho, 1971-1972.
Soil Scientist, Clearwater National Forest,
Orofino, Idaho, 1972-74. Hydrologist,
Clearwater National Forest, Orofino, Idaho,
1974-1977. Soil Scientist, Okanogan
National Forest, Okanogan, Washington,
1982-86. Assistant Range Staff Officer,
Okanogan National Forest, Okanogan,
Washington, 1986-1991. Hydrologist,
Okanogan National Forest, Okanogan,
Washington, 1978-1996.
Craig Bobzien - District Ranger - B.S. in
Forest Management Science, 1978, Colorado
State University. Eighteen years experience
on National Forests located in Colorado,
Montana, Idaho, and Washington with
responsibilities in minerals, wilderness, timber
sales, and watershed prior to becoming
District Ranger.
William Butler* - Engineer - B.S. in Forest
Management, 1982, University of
Washington. B.S. in Logging Engineering,
1982, University of Washington. B.S. in Civil
Engineering, 1988, Washington State
University. Two and a half years professional
experience with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. One year as an Engineer in
Training. One and a half years as a structural
designer. Three years with the Forest
Service as a Civil Engineer with areas of
responsibility in facilities, water systems,
hazardous materials, road and trail bridges,
dams, recreation projects and road design.
Jessica Childs Dole - Landscape Architect,
Recreation - B.S. in Geography and
Environmental Studies, 1978, University of
Oregon. Master's of Landscape Architecture,
1985, Cornell University. Landscape
Architect, Klamath National Forest, Yreka,
California, 1985-1986. Park Planning Aide,
City of Eugene, Eugene, Oregon, 1986.
Private landscape work, Eugene and Portland,
Oregon, 1987-1988. District Landscape
Architect, Tonasket Ranger District, 1989-
1993.
Phil Christy* - Mineral Coordinator - B.S. in
Forest Management, 1971, University of
Washington. Forest Engineering Institute,
1980, Oregon State University. Peace Corps
and CARE in Niger, 1971-1977. Eighteen
years as a Forester with the Forest Service,
1978-1996.
Dick Coppock - Mineral Field Inspector -
Twelve years private industry logging,
lumber, heavy construction and heavy
equipment experience. Twenty years
experience on the Okanogan National Forest
working in administration of minerals, timber
sales and special projects. Tonasket Ranger
District Hazardous Materials Coordinator.
Mark Deleon - Cultural Resources - B.A. in
Anthropology, University of Alabama, 1978.
M.S. in Anthropology, University of Southern
Mississippi, 1981. Seventeen years
employed by the Forest Service as a cultural
resource specialist providing technical review
and guidance to cultural resource contractors
and Forest Service employees.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 5-2
CHAPTER 5 - LIST OF PREPARERS
January 1997
Oren B. Erickson* - Forest Landscape
Architect - B.S. in Music and Art, Minnesota
State University, Masters Studies in
Architecture, University of Oregon, Bachelor
of Landscape Architecture, University of
Oregon. Masters Studies in Urban and
Regional Planning, California Polytechnical
University, San Luis Obispo, California.
Twenty-one years experience in two regions,
on five forests with the Forest Service and
four years with the BLM.
* NEPA interdisciplinary team member.
Jan Flatten, Forest NEPA Coordinator - B.A.
in Geography, 1977, California State
University at Northridge. Post graduate
studies in Geography at Oregon State
University, 1979 and in Paralegal Series at
USDA Graduate School, 1992 and 1996.
Fifteen years of experience with the Forest
Service in environmental coordination, forest
planning, and timber sale planning. Three
years experience in the private sector in land-
use planning.
George Halekas* - Wildlife Biologist - Wildlife
Ecology Studies, University of Idaho. B.A. in
Philosophy and Comparative Religion,
Lafayette College, Pennsylvania. Ten years
as a Wildlife Biologist with the Forest Service.
Jean A. Lavell - Wildlife Biologist - B.S. in
Botany. Post Graduate work at the
University of Montana in Wildlife, Ecology
and Secondary Teacher Certification.
Thirteen years experience as a biologist with
the Forest Service.
Rod Lentz* - Area Mining Geologist - B.S. in
Geology, 1974, and M.S. in Geology, 1977,
Portland State University, Oregon. Two
years industry experience, 1974-1975.
Nineteen years of government experience
with the BLM, 1977-1981, and Forest
Service, 1981-Present. Certified Forest
Service Mineral Examiner.
Larry Loftis* - Botanist - B.A. in Biology,
1977, Southern Oregon State College, plus
additional classes at Oregon State University.
Nineteen years experience with the Forest
Service, as a Forestry Technician and
Botanist, 1977-1995. Okanogan National
Forest Botanist since 1991.
Don Lyon - Planning/Minerals Staff Okanogan
National Forest - B.S. in Forest Management,
1965, Washington State University.
Okanogan National Forest Planning/Minerals
Staff, 1991-1995. Region 6 Forest Plan
Implementation and Monitoring Coordinator,
1989-1991. Team Leader, Tongass National
Forest Plan Revision, 1986-1989. Planning
Staff, Wenatchee National Forest, 1980-
1986. Varied assignments on several Ranger
Districts in Regions 1 and 6, 1965-1980.
Kenneth J. Radek* - Forest Soil Scientist -
B.S. in Resource Management and Soils,
1973, University of Wisconsin at Stevens
Point. Soil Science Institute at Texas A&M.
Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, 1973.
Soil Conservation Service, 1974-1976.
Twenty years as a Soil Scientist with the
Forest Service, 1976-1996.
William Randall - Supervisory Forestry
Technician - 36 years experience on the
Okanogan National Forest; specializing in
timber, fire and other resources, 1957-1994.
John Ridlington - Mineral Coordinator - B.S. in
Forest Management from the Washington
State University, 1969. Graduate level
credits from the University of Idaho,
University of Montana and Washington State
University. Twenty-four years of professional
experience with the Forest Service in
Washington, Oregon and California in project
coordination, forestry and range.
Don Rose* - District Silviculturist, Acting
District Ranger - B.S. in Forest Management
from Humboldt State University of California
in Arcata. Certified Region 6 Silviculturist.
Fourteen years experience with the Forest
Service in environmental analysis, silviculture
and timber sale planning.
Joe Sanchez - Timber Management, Range,
Soils, Water, Air Quality and Lands Staff
Officer - B.S. in Range/Forest Management
from Colorado State University. Thirty years
experience with the Forest Service. Four
years as Staff Officer on the Okanogan
National Forest. Eight years as District
Ranger on the Santa Fe National Forest.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 5-3
Pete Soderquist - Acting District Ranger -
B.S. in Forest Management, University of
Montana. Certified Region 1 and 6
Silviculturist. Nineteen years experience with
the Forest Service.
James V. Spotts - Fisheries Biologist - B.S. in
Fisheries Management. Fisheries Biologist
with Washington Department of Wildlife,
1982-1989. State Trout Biologist, Arkansas
Trout Program, 1990-1992. Okanogan
National Forest Fisheries Biologist, Okanogan
National Forest, 1992-1996. Certified
Fisheries Scientist (AFS).
Elaine Zieroth - District Ranger - B.A. in
Biological Sciences from University of
California at Davis. M.A. in Wildlife Ecology
from California State University, Fresno.
Post-graduate work in Behavioral Genetics at
the University of Iowa. Twenty-one years of
experience in the Forest Service, BLM, and
Experimental Station. Main focus in wildlife
biology and management.
* NEPA Interdisciplinary Team Member
5.3 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF
ECOLOGY
Bob Barwin - Water Quality Section Manager-
B.S. in Civil Engineering, Oregon State
University, Corvallis, Oregon, 1977.
Nineteen years of experience in water
resources and water quality management
with the states of Oregon and Washington.
Patricia Betts - SEPA Coordinator - B.S. in
Zoology, University of California, Davis,
California. Thirteen years experience in
salmon research and habitat protection. Five
years experience in SEPA implementation and
coordination, EIS project management, and
wetland project review and protection.
Phil Crane - Water Resources - B.S. in Marine
Resources, Huxley College of Environmental
Sciences, Western Washington University,
Bellingham, Washington. Seven years
experience at WADOE in well drilling, water
resources, and water right permitting.
Jerald LaVassar - Geotechnical Engineering -
M.S. in Civil Engineering, University of
Washington. B.S. in Civil Engineering,
University of Washington. B.A. in History,
University of Washington. Professional
Engineer, Registration No. 18650. Seven
years as a geotechnical consultant for
Shannon & Wilson, Inc. Fourteen years with
the Dam Safety Section, WADOE.
Tom Luster - Water Quality - M.S. in
Resource Geography, Oregon State
University, Corvallis, Oregon. B.S. in
Geography, Humboldt State University,
Arcata, California. Seven years experience at
WADOE in water quality certification, project
review, freshwater sediment research, and
sediment policy issues.
Tom Mackie - Hydrogeology - M.S. in
Geology, Washington State University,
Pullman, WA. B.S. in Geology, Washington
State University, Pullman, WA. Eight years
experience in water resource and
contaminant hydrogeology.
(Catherine March - Biologist, Wetlands - B.S.
Zoology, University of Washington, 1984.
Twelve years experience in Washington
State, including five years specifically in
wetlands, four of these with the WADOE.
Recently transferred to the Washington State
Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Andy McMillan - Wetlands Specialist - B.A.
and B.S. in Biology and Chemistry, Evergreen
State College, Olympia, Washington. Eleven
years experience in wetland field studies,
project review, policy development and
regulatory activities.
Robert L. Raforth - Hydrogeologist - B.A. in
Geology, University of Wyoming, Laramie,
Wyoming. Twenty-five years industry and
state government experience as a geologist,
geophysicist, and hydrogeologist. WADOE
Technical Coordinator for Central Regional
Office and Water Quality Program Regional
Hydrogeologist.
Robert D. Swackhamer - Air Quality - B.S. in
Metallurgical Engineering, University of
Washington, Seattle, Washington. Eight
years experience in state government in air
quality and cleanup of contaminated sites.
Five years in private industry with nonferrous
smelter process metallurgy. Registered
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 5-4
CHAPTER 5 - LIST OF PREPARERS
January 1997
Professional Engineer in the State of
Washington, No. 29886.
Al Wald - Hydrogeologist - B.S. in Renewable
Natural Resources Management, 1971,
University of California at Davis. M.S. in
Forest Hydrology, Univeristy of Washington,
1975. Hydrologist, Senior Hydrologist,
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources,
1975-1979. Geologist (Groundwater) and
Hydrogeologist, WADOE, 1979-1996.
Polly Zehm - Hazardous Waste Reduction and
Management - B.S. in Biological Sciences,
Central Washington University, Ellensburg,
Washington. Six years experience in
industrial hazardous waste reduction and
management technical assistance and
regulatory programs in state government.
Ten years experience in waste water process
control, laboratory analysis, and permitting in
local and state government.
5.4 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Rich Baily - Archaeologist - B.S. in Sociology
and Anthropology, Montana State University;
Bozeman, Montana. Six years graduate work
in Department of Anthropology, Washington
State University, Pullman, Washington.
Sixteen years experience in archaeology and
cultural resource management.
George Brown* - District Geologist (Asst.
Project Manager) - B.S. in Science (Geology),
Pennsylvania State University, University
Park, Pennsylvania. Eighteen years
experience in project planning and
management, coordination of environmental
analysis, mining feasibility evaluations and
permitting.
Ralph Cornwall - Forester - B.S. in Forest
Management, Washington State University,
Pullman, Washington. Thirty years
experience as a Forester with BUM in Coeur
d'Alene, Idaho and Spokane, Washington.
Kelly Courtright* - Mining Engineer - M.S. in
Mining Engineering, College of Mines,
University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. B.S. in
Geology, College of Mines, University of
Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. Eleven years
experience in exploration, mining operations,
mine design, and planning in North and South
America. Eleven years experience with BLM
involving the independent verification of
mineral production and royalties, coordination
of environmental analysis, and technical
assistance to the government of Hungary.
Brent Cunderla* - Geologist (Team Leader) -
M.S. in Geology, Portland State University,
Portland, Oregon. B.S. in Earth Sciences,
University of Wisconsin-River Falls, River Fall,
Wisconsin. Eleven years experience with
BLM in surface compliance and review of
environmental documents, mine plan and
bond calculations for mineral exploration and
mining projects on BLM and Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA) administered lands.
Al Gardner - Silviculturist - B.S. in Forestry,
Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York.
C.E.F.E.S. University of Idaho, Washington
State University, University of Montana.
Twenty years of experience as a Forester and
Silviculturist with the BLM in Colorado and
Washington State.
Neal Hedges - Wildlife Biologist - M.S. in
Zoology, University of Guelph, Guelph,
Ontario, Canada. B.S. in Zoology,
Washington State University, Pullman,
Washington. Twenty years of experience
with the BLM in wildlife and range
management in the western United States.
Joel "Jake" Jakabosky* - Environmental
Protection Specialist - B.S. in Range
Management - Wildlife Science, Oregon State
University, Covallis, Oregon. Ten years
experience in range management and forestry
in the western United States. Fifteen years
in environmental analysis and hazardous
materials management with BLM.
Tom Olsen - Denver Service Center
Geological Engineer (Hydrology) - Ph.D. in
Geological Engineering SWU, Louisiana; M.S.
in Geology, University of Pennsylvania; B.S.
in Geology, University of Wisconsin,
Madison, Wisconsin. Four years private
industry, thirteen years federal government.
Dana Peterson - Range Conservationist - B.S.
in Wildlife Science, Oregon State University,
Corvallis, Oregon. B.S. in Range
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 5-5
Management, Humbolt State, Arcata,
California. Sixteen years experience in
grazing administration and rangeland
management, including rangeland vegetation
assessment and rehabilitation.
Judy Thompson* - Archaeologist - M.A. in
Anthropology, University of Nevada, Reno,
Nevada. B.S. in Anthropology, Portland State
University, Portland, Oregon. Twenty-three
years experience in archaeology and cultural
resources management.
Bob Troiano* - Hydrologist - B.S. in Forest
Management/Forest Engineering, North Idaho
College, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. Water
Resources Management/Soils Program,
Spokane Community College, Spokane,
Washington. Five years experience with
Forest Service, five years experience with
Soil Conservation Service, and six years
experience with BLM as program lead for soil,
water, air, and noxious weeds.
Gary Yeager - Planning and Environmental
Coordination - B.S. in Agronomy,
Pennsylvania State University, University
Park, Pennsylvania. Nineteen years
experience in land use planning and project
level planning, implementation and
monitoring.
* NEPA Interdisciplinary Team Member
5.5 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES
Raymond Lasmanis - Geologist - B.S. in
Geology, Mining Engineering minor,
University of Missouri at Rolla. Twenty one
years mineral exploration and mine
development experience and thirteen years
managing Washington State Geological
Survey with environmental law enforcement
duties.
David Norman - Reclamation Geologist
B.S. in Geology, Portland State University,
Portland Oregon. M.S. in Geology, University
of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah. Six years
experience in mine regulation and reclamation
in Washington for Department of Natural
Resources. Five years experience in
geological consulting and laboratory analysis.
Seven years of experience in mineral
exploration and research on hydrothermal
geochemistry of ore deposits.
5.6 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Tim Erkel* - Biologist - B.S. in Environmental
Resources Management, 1979, Pennsylvania
State University. Ten years of regulatory
experience with the Pittsburgh, Walla Walla
and Seattle Districts of the Corps of
Engineers.
5.7 TERRAMATRIX INC.
Richard Burtell, Geochemistry - M.S. in
Hydrology, 1989 University of Arizona. B.S.
in Geology, 1986 University of Pittsburgh.
Project experience in environmental project
work, permit preparation, baseline data
collection, and evaluation of hydrogeologic
and geochemical data.
Karen Conrath, Drafting - B.S. in Geology,
Mesa State, Grand Junction, Colorado.
Experience in computer drafting and mapping,
civil CAD design and graphics.
Susan Corser, Visuals, Recreation and Land
Use - Masters of Urban Planning, 1989,
University of Washington, Seattle. M.A. in
Landscape Design, 1983, Conway School of
Landscape Design, Conway, Massachusetts.
B.A. in Geography and Environmental
Studies, 1977, Macalester College, St. Paul,
Minnesota. Experience in landscape planning,
with emphasis on recreation, land use, visual
assessment and environmental impact
analysis.
Alan Czarnowsky, Project Manager - B.S. in
Mining Engineering, 1974, Colorado School
of Mines. Experience in mining operations
and environmental aspects of mining
activities in Western North America.
Rita Edinger, Document Coordination/Word
Processing - U.S. Army Training Center, Fort
Jackson, South Carolina, 1974. Clerical,
management and administrative experience.
Jay James. Assistant Project Manger - B.A.
in Geology, 1969, Western State College.
Experience with exploration, mining and
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 5-6
CHAPTER 5 - LIST OF PREPARERS
January 1997
Alan Krause, Principal-in-Charge,
Geotechnical - M.S. in Geological
Engineering, 1979, University of Nevada,
Mackay School of Mines. B.S. in Geology,
1976, Pacific Lutheran University. Eighteen
years of progressive technical and
management experience. Professional
Geologist and President at TerraMatrix.
Dan Keuscher, Senior Mining Engineer - B.S.
in Mining Engineering, 1974, University of
Nevada, Mackay School of Mines. A.A.S. in
Hazardous Materials Management, Mt. Hood
Community College. Additional college
course work in Ecology, Reclamation, and
Wildlife Habitat. Experience in mine planning,
operations and reclamation in western hard
rock, coal, and sand and grave mining
operations.
Suzanne Maddux, Document
Coordination/Word Processing - Colorado
State University, 1995. Business
Administration and Word Processing, Santa
Barbara Business College, 1985, Santa Maria,
California. Social Science, Monterey
Peninsula College, 1983, Monterey,
California. Management/administrative and
clerical experience.
Joe Nagengast, Drafting and Graphics -
Billings VO-Tech College, AA Drafting
Technology, 1978. Design Technology
studies at Northern Montana College.
Geology studies as Eastern Washington
University. Studies in AutoCAD I, II, III and
AutoCAD Management at CAD Institute in
Phoenix, Arizona. Experience in geologic,
mining, permitting, and environmental
graphics exploration and design.
Tim Smith, Graphics/Maps - A.S.
Cartographic Drafting, 1981, Engineering
Drafting School. Professional Draftsman.
Responsibilities include drafting and graphics,
computer hardware and software review and
selection.
5.8 ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL
SERVICES
Keo Boreson, Historical and Cultural - M.A.
Anthropology, 1975, University of Idaho,
Moscow, Idaho. Archaeologist III with
Archaeological and Historical Services,
Eastern Washington University. Twenty one
years of cultural resource field experience in
the Pacific Northwest.
Dr. Jerry Galm, Archeology, Historical and
Cultural - Ph.D. in Anthropology, 1981,
Washington State University, Pullman,
Washington. M.A. Anthropology, 1975,
Washington State University, Pullman,
Washington. B.A. in Anthropology, 1971,
Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan. Program Director of Archaeological
and Historical Services, Eastern Washington
University. Twenty one years of cultural
resource field and administrative experience,
including 1 5 years in the Pacific Northwest.
Charles Luttrell, Archaeology, Historical and
Cultural - B.A. in Anthropology, 1989,
Eastern Washington University, Cheney,
Washington. Archaeologist/Historian with
Archaeological and Historical Services,
Eastern Washington University. Areas of
specialization include American architecture
and historic preservation, as well as historic
and prehistoric archaeological field work.
5.9 A.G. CROOK COMPANY
George Berscheid, Vegetation and Wetlands,
Streams and Fisheries - B.S. in Forest
Management, 1957, M.S. in Forestry, 1958,
University of Idaho. Vice President for
Natural Resources at A.G. Crook Company.
Project management for the A.G. Crook
Company and considered a range ecology
expert. Thirty years experience with the
Forest Service.
Philip Lee, Wildlife - B.S. in Wildlife
Management/Range Management, 1962
Colorado State University. Certified Wildlife
Biologist with A.G. Crook Company. Twenty
years experience in wildlife and resource
management with the Forest Service.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 5-7
Thomas Melville Sr., Fisheries Programs
Director - B.S. in Fish and Wildlife
Management, Cornell University. Experience
in fisheries management work for the New
York State Department of Environmental
Conservation.
Rita Mroczek, Wetlands Program Manager -
B.S. in Forest Resources, 1975, North
Carolina State University. Responsible for
wetlands delineations and mitigation plans.
Eight years experience as a regulatory
specialist with the Corps of Engineers.
5.10 CEDAR CREEK ASSOCIATES
Steve Long, Soils - M.S. in Regional Resource
Planning/Soil Science-Reclamation, 1977,
Colorado State University. B.S. in Wildlife
Biology, 1972, Colorado State University.
Principal of Cedar Creek Associates, served
as the soils specialist. Twenty years of
experience in environmental management and
remediation design.
Mike Phelan - Wildlife Biologist - B.A. in
Zoology, University of California, with
postgraduate studies in Biology and Ecology
from San Diego State University. Twenty
two years experience in mining operations
and environmental aspects of mining
activities in Western North America.
5.11 ENSR CONSULTING AND
ENGINEERING
James Wilder, Air Quality/Meteorology and
Noise - Associate Air Quality/Noise Engineer.
M.S. in Environmental Engineering, 1981,
University of Washington. B.S. in Civil
Engineering, 1975, University of California at
Davis. Ten years of experience with air
quality and noise assessment.
5.12 HYDRO-GEO CONSULTANTS
Scott Effner, Hydrology - B.S. Geology,
1988. M.S. Geological Science, 1992,
University of Idaho. Senior hydrogeologist
and geochemist with Hydro-Geo Consultants.
Seven years experience working with mining
projects in the Western United States.
Experience in well installation and testing,
packer permeability testing, water quality
sampling, and computer modeling of ground
water flow and geochemistry.
Joe Frank, Surface Water Hydrology - B.S. in
Geology, 1978. M.S. in Hydrogeology/
Geology, 1987, University of Colorado.
Senior hydrogeologist/geologist with Hydro-
Geo Consultants. Sixteen years experience in
hydrogeological studies for mining projects in
the Western United States. Experience
includes well installation and logging, aquifer
testing and analysis, water quality sampling,
and ground water and surface water
computer modeling.
Mike McDermid, Hydrology - B.S. Civil
Engineering, 1969. M.S. Civil Engineering,
1971, California State University at Long
Beach. Manager of engineering for Hydro-
Geo Consultants. Twenty seven years
experience working with surface water
hydrology. Registered Professional Engineer
in several western states.
Janet Shangraw, Surface Water
Hydrology/Water Rights - B.S. in Watershed
Science/Hydrology, Colorado State
University. Senior Hydrologist at Hydro-Geo
Consultants. Professional Hydrologist,
Certified by the American Institute of
Hydrology. Fifteen years experience in
hydrologic evaluations and water resource
development.
Vladimir Straskraba, Hydrogeology - M.S. in
Geological Engineering, 1958, School of
Mines, Ostrava, Czechoslovakia. B.S. in
Mining Engineering, 1958, School of Mines,
Ostrava, Czechoslovakia. Principal
Hydrogeologist for Hydro-Geo Consultants.
Thirty eight years experience in hydrologic
evaluations and water resource development
projects throughout the world.
5.13 SCHAFER AND ASSOCIATES
Lisa Bithell Kirk, Senior Geochemist - B.S. in
Geology and Environmental Science, 1983,
University of Pennsylvania. M.S. in Geology
and Aqueous Geochemistry, 1990, University
of Colorado. Ten years experience in
assessment of environmental compliance for
historic and active mining. Specializes in
geochemical modeling of rock water
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 5-8
CHAPTER 5 - LIST OF PREPARERS
January 1997
interactions, particularly in the prediction of
acid mine drainage.
William M. Schafer, Principal, Soil Scientist -
Ph.D. in Soil Science, 1979, Montana State
University. M.S. in Soil Science, 1976,
University of California at Davis. B.S. in
Watershed Science, 1974, Colorado State
University. Principal of Schafer and
Associates. Specializes in soil geochemistry,
vadose zone monitoring, and in-situ
remediation alternatives.
Ed Spotts, Senior Soil Chemist/Geochemist -
B.S. in Geology and M.S. in Land Re-
habilitation from Montana State University,
Bozeman, Montana. Seven years experience
in vadose zone geochemistry and organic
contaminant fate and transport modeling.
5.14 E.D. HOVEE & COMPANY
Eric Hovee, Socioeconomics - Real Estate
Finance and Environmental Economics, 1977,
Portland State University, Portland Oregon.
Economics and Urban Studies, 1973,
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. Seventeen years experience in
public service work. Owner and Principal of
E.D. Hovee and Company, a consulting firm
providing economic and development
services.
John Koleda, Socioeconomics - B.A. in
Natural Science and Sociology, 1969, Adelphi
University, Oakdale, New York. Assistant to
Eric Hovee. Conducted social interviews for
the socioeconomic portion of the Crown
Jewel Project EIS work.
5.15 BEAK CONSULTANTS
Susan Barnes, Wildlife Biologist - B.S. in
Wildlife Management, Forestry minor, 1991,
University of New Hampshire. Scientist I of
Beak Consultants Inc. Experience in wildlife
ecology and management, endangered
species, and forest ecology. Certified in
Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP).
Randy Floyd. Wildlife Biologist - B. S. Wildlife
Science, 1975, Oregon State University.
Scientist II of Beak Consultants Inc. Ten
years experience in the areas of wildlife
ecology and management, endangered
species, and NEPA implementation.
Chuck Howe, Biologist/Forester - B.S. in
Forestry, Wildlife minor, 1990, University of
Montana. A.S. Wildlife Management, 1987,
Hocking College. Scientist I for Beak
Consultants Inc. Experience in CAD
Graphics, NEPA implementation, terrestrial
ecology, and endangered species.
Paul Whitney, Terrestrial Ecologist - Ph.D. in
Ecology/Physiology, 1972, University of
Alaska. M.A. Zoology, 1967, Indiana
University. B.A. in Biology, 1965, Earlham
College. Postgraduate work in Population
Ecology at the University of Calgary.
Principal of Beak Consultants Inc. Twenty
years experience in project management,
terrestrial ecology, wildlife monitoring and
mitigation, wetland determination and
permitting, NEPA implementation, and Habitat
Evaluation Procedures (HEP).
5.16 CASCADES ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES
John Blum - Fisheries Biologist - B.S. in
Environmental Biology, 1975, Eastern Illinois
University. B.S. in Business, Business
Management, 1975, Eastern Illinois
University. M.S. in Fisheries, 1988,
University of Washington. Fifteen years
experience as a fisheries biologist and
consultant in fisheries research,
enhancement, management, water resources
assessment, watershed planning, and
environmental biology.
Jean Caldwell - Biologist - B.S. in Ecosystems
Analysis, 1978, Western Washington
University. Principal of Caldwell and
Associates Environmental Consulting.
Twelve years experience as an Environmental
Biologist.
5.17 SNOW & ASSOCIATES
David Snow, Hydrology - B.A. in Geology,
1951, Harvard University. M.A. in Geology,
1957, and Ph.D. in Engineering Science,
1964, University of California at Berkeley.
Taught Geology and Hydrology, 1965-1977,
at Colorado School of Mines. Forty years of
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 5-9
consultation service experience to industry
and government, primarily in ground water
hydrology and geotechnical engineering for
mining and civil projects.
5.18 HERTZMAN & ASSOCIATES
Randy Hertzman, Consulting Hydrologist -
B.S. Political Science with concentrations in
Electrical Engineering and Computer Science,
1988, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology. Ten years experience in
hydrology and ground water flow modeling.
Author of the ABCFEM, a finite element
computer model for simulating ground water
flow. Additional experience in mine
dewatering and water supply studies,
contaminant fate and transport modeling,
well installation and testing, packer
permeability testing, and water quality
sampling.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
-------
Chapter 6
References
-------
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 6-1
6.0 REFERENCES
Abt Associates, Inc. (Abt). 1991. Use and Substitutes Analysis for Sodium Cyanide in
Benefication of Gold and Silver (draft). Report Submitted to the Regulatory Impacts Branch
of the Office of Toxic Substances, US Environmental Protection Agency, Contract No.
68d90169.
ACZ Inc. 1993. Baseline Hydrologic Monitoring Plan. Unpubl. Rpt.
ACZ Inc. 1992. Kensington Gold Project Final Environmental Impact Statement: prepared for
USDA Forest Service, Tongass National Forest.
A.G. Crook Company. 1993a. Timber and Vegetation Resource Studies, Crown Jewel Project.
Unpubl. Rpt.
A.G. Crook Company. 1993b. Aquatic Habitats of Streams in the Marias and Nicholson Creek
Basin. Unpubl. Rpt.
A.G. Crook Company. 1993c. Wetland Delineation Report, Crown Jewel Project. Unpubl. Rpt.
A.G. Crook Company. 1993d. Summer Wildlife Survey, Crown Jewel Project. Unpubl. Rpt.
A.G. Crook Company. 1993e. Northern Goshawk Survey, Crown Jewel Project (draft). Unpubl.
Rpt.
A.G. Crook Company. 1992a. Winter Wildlife Survey Report, Crown Jewel Project. Unpubl. Rpt.
A.G. Crook Company. 1992b. Range Resources and Noxious Weed Surveys, Crown Jewel
Project. Unpubl. Rpt.
Alabaster, J.S., D.G. Shurben, and M.J. Mallett. 1983. The Acute Lethal Toxicity of Mixtures of
Cyanide and Ammonia to Smolts of Salmon, Salmo Salar L. at Low Concentrations of
Dissolved Oxygen. J. Fish Biol. 22:215-222.
Algermissen, ST., D.M. Perkins, P.C. Thenhause, S.L. Hanson, and B.L. Bender. 1982.
Probabilistic Estimates of Maximum Acceleration and Velocity in Rocks in the Contiguous
United States. USDI Geological Survey. Open File Report 82-1033.
Allen, A.W. 1987. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Barred Owl. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service.
Biol. Rep. 82(10.143). 17 pp.
Allen, A.W. 1983a. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Fisher. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service.
FWS/OBS-82/10.45. 19pp.
Allen, H. 1992. Status and Management of the Peregrine Falcon in Washington. Pages 72-74 in
J.E. Page), (eds). Proceedings Symposium on Peregrine Falcons in the Pacific Northwest,
January 1991. Rogue River National Forest. 125pp.
Almack, J.A., W.L. Gaines, R.H. Naney, P.H. Morrison, J.R. Eby, G.F. Woolen, M.C. Snyder, S.H.
Fitkin, and E.R. Garcia. 1993. North Cascades Grizzly Bear Ecosystem Evaluation; Final
Report. Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, Denver, CO. 1 56 pp.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 6-2 CHAPTER 6 - REFERENCES January 1997
Almack, J.A., W.L. Gaines, P.M. Morrison, J.R. Eby, R.H. Naney, G.F. Wooten, S.H. Fitkin, and
E.R. Garcia. 1991. North Cascades Grizzly Bear Ecosystem Evaluation; Final Report.
Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, Denver, CO. 146 pp.
Almack, J.A. 1986. Grizzly Bear Habitat Use, Food Habits, and Movements in the Selkirk
Mountains, Northern Idaho. Pages 150-157 (in Proceedings - Grizzly Bear Habitat
Symposium, Missoula, Montana, April 30 - May 2, 1985). Contreras, G.P. and K.E. Evans,
compilers. USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-207.
American Geologic Institute. 1987. Glossary of Geology (third edition). Bates, R.L. and Jackson,
J.A. fed). American Geological Institute, Alexandria, Virginia.
Amstrup, S.C., and J. Beecham. 1976. Activity Patterns of Radio-collared Black Bears in Idaho.
J. Wildl. Manage. 40(2):340-348.
Anderson, W.L. 1978. Waterfowl Collisions with Powerlines at a Coal-Fired Plant. Wild. Soc.
Bull. 6(2):77-83.
Aney, W.C. and B.R. McClelland. 1990. Pileated Woodpecker Habitat Relationships. Pages 10-17
in N.M. Warren fed), Old Growth Habitats and Associated Wildlife Species in the Northern
Rocky Mountains. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Wildlife Habitat Relationships
Program. R1-90-42. 47pp.
Archaeological and Historical Services (AHS). 1994. Cultural Resources Investigations of the
Crown Jewel Mine Project, Okanogan County, Washington. Short Report 406, C.T.
Luttrell. Unpubl. Rpt.
Archaeological and Historical Services (AHS). 1990. A Cultural Resources Survey of the Crown
Jewel Exploration Project, Okanogan County, Washington. Short Report 21 5, Galm, J.R.,
C.T. Luttrell. Unpubl. Rpt.
Armstrong, E.A. 1956. Territory of the Wren Troglodytes troglodytes. Ibis 98: 430-437.
Ashley, P. 1992a. Grand Coulee Dam Wildlife Mitigation Program Pygmy Rabbit Programmatic
Management Plan. Douglas County, WA. Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR.
87 pp.
Ashley, P. 1992b. Sharp-tailed Grouse Management Plan: Columbia River Wildlife Mitigation,
Grand Coulee Dam Project. Bonneville Power Administration, Div. Fish and Wildl. 88 pp.
Ashley, P. et al. 1990. Unpublished HEP models, Washington Department of Wildlife, Olympia,
WA.
Aulman, D.L. 1992. The Impacts and Pressures on West Coast Peregrines. Pages 55-65 (in J.E.
Pagel, (ed). Proceedings Symposium on Peregrine Falcons in the Pacific Northwest,
January 1991). Rogue River National Forest. 125pp.
Banfield, A.W.F. 1974. Mammals of Canada. Univ. of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada.
Barbour, R.W. and W.H. Davis. 1969. Bats of America. Univ. Press of Kentucky, Lexington,
Kentucky. 286 pp.
Barker, J. 1992. Half-Fast Off-Road Vehicle Club. Oroville, Washington. Personal
Communication.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 6-3
Battle Mountain Gold Company, Geochemica, Inc., Colder Associates, Inc. (BMGC). 1996a.
Tailings Geochemical Testing Program, Crown Jewel Project, Okanogan County,
Washington, Addendum 1. Unpubl. Rpt.
Battle Mountain Gold Company and McVehil-Monnett Associates, Inc. (BMGC). 1996b. Air
Quality Permit Support Document, Crown Jewel Project. Unpubl. Rpt.
Battle Mountain Gold Company (BMGC). 1996c. Memorandum from Paul Schumacher to Rich
Burtell Regarding Ore Composites Used for Preparation of Bench-scale Tailings Samples for
Bioassay Testing.
Battle Mountain Gold Company (BMGC). 1996d. Letter from Sandra Brown to Rich Burtell
Transmitting Additional Quality Control Data for the Proponent's Waste Rock Geochemistry
Testing Program.
Battle Mountain Gold Company (BMGC). 1996e. Memorandum from Paul Schumacher to Rod
Lentz Regarding Ore Composites Used for Preparation of Original Set of Bench-scale
Tailings Samples for Geochemical Testing.
Battle Mountain Gold Company (BMGC). 1996f. Reclamation Plan. Unpubl. Rpt.
Battle Mountain Gold Company and AGRA Earth and Environmental (BMGC). 1996g. NPDES/State
Waste Discharge Permit Application.
Battle Mountain Gold Company, AGRA Earth and Environmental and, INCO Limited (BMGC).
1996h. Engineering Report: INCO S02/02 Wastewater Treatment Unit. Unpubl. Rpt.
Battle Mountain Gold Company (BMGC). 1996i. BMGC Letter Report from Jeff White to Patty
Betts and Phil Christy Regarding Revised Proposal II - Crown Jewel Mine.
Battle Mountain Gold Company (BMGC). 1996J. Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application.
Unpubl. Rpt.
Battle Mountain Gold Company (BMGC). 1995a. Letter from Anne Baldrige to Rich Burtell
Regarding Crown Jewel Project, Quality of Recycled Water.
Battle Mountain Gold Company (BMGC). 1995b. Letter from Anne Baldrige to Phil Christy
Regarding BMGC Comments on Crown Jewel Mine Project Draft EIS.
Battle Mountain Gold Company (BMGC). 1995c. BMGC Letter Report from Jeff White to Patty
Betts and Phil Christy Regarding Revised Proposal - Crown Jewel Mine Project.
Battle Mountain Gold Company (BMGC). 1995d. Letter from Paul Schumacher to Rich Burtell
Regarding Estimation of Waste Rock Type Percentages for the EIS Alternatives.
Battle Mountain Gold Company, Kea Pacific Holdings Inc. (BMGC). 1994a. Tailings Geochemical
Testing Program: Crown Jewel Project, Okanogan County, Washington. Unpubl. Rpt.
Battle Mountain Gold Company (BMGC). 1994b. Supplemental Correspondence Letter from Jeff
White of Battle Mountain Gold Company to Mr. Bob Swackhamer of WADOE to Address
WADOE Comments.
Battle Mountain Gold Company (BMGC). 1993a. Integrated Plan of Operation.
Battle Mountain Gold Company (BMGC). 1993b. Reclamation Plan.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 6-4 CHAPTER 6 - REFERENCES January 1997
Battle Mountain Gold Company, Kea Pacific Holdings Inc. (BMGC). 1993c. Report on Geochemical
Testing of Ore and Low Grade Ore Crown Jewel Project. Unpubl. Rpt.
Battle Mountain Gold Company (BMGC). 1993d. Letter from Anne Baldrige to Elaine Zieroth
Regarding Draft Alternatives: Request for Additional Information.
Baumgardner, P. 1994. Biological Technician, Tonasket Ranger District, USDA Forest Service.
Telephone conversation with Dale Lindeman, Beak Consultants Inc.
Beak Consultants, Limited (Beak). 1996. Examination of Potential for Toxicity to Aquatic and
Terrestrial Species in and Near the Proposed Pit Pond for the Crown Jewel Mine. August
1996 Report and September 1996 Update. Unpubl. Rpt.
Beak Consultants, Limited (Beak). 1995a. Crown Jewel Project, Wildlife Technical Report.
Prepared for USDA Forest Service, Tonasket, Washington and Washington Department of
Ecology, Olympia, Washington. Unpubl. Rpt.
Beak Consultants Limited (Beak). 1995b. Potential Effects of Gold Mines on Wildlife and Possible
Mitigation Strategies. Unpubl. Rpt.
Bechard, M.J., R.L. Knight, D.G. Smith, and R.E. Fitzner. 1990. Nest Sites and Habitats of
Sympatric Hawks (Buteo spp.) in Washington. J. Field Ornithol. 61 (2):1 59-170.
Behnke, R.J. 1992. Native Trout of Western North America. American Fisheries Society
Monograph 6. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Md. 275p.
Bent, A.C. 1937. Life Histories of North American Birds of Prey. Dover Publications Inc., New
York, NY. 409 pp.
Bilby, R. E., K. Sullivan, and S. H. Duncan. 1989. The Generation and Fate of Road-Surface
Sediment in Forested Watersheds in Southwestern Washington. Forest Science.
Blanchard, B.M. and R.R. Knight. 1991. Movements of Yellowstone Grizzly Bears. Biol. Conserv.
58: 41-67.
Block, W.M. and L.A. Brennan. 1993. The Habitat Concept in Ornithology. Pages 35-91 (in
Power D.M., fed). Current Ornithology, Volume II. Plenum Pres, New York.
Bortolotti, G.R. 1984. Trap and Poison Mortality of Golden and Bald Eagles. J. Wildl. Manage.
48(4):1173-1179.
Bossier, D. 1992. Midway, B.C. Resident. Wolverine Sighting Reported to Kent Woodruff
(Tonasket Ranger District Wildlife Biologist).
Bottorff, J., J. Shafer, and D. Swanson. 1987. Noise Disturbances Study on Bald Eagles at Orcas
and Shaw Island Ferry Terminals, San Juan County, WA. Washington State Department of
Transportation, Environment Unit, Olympia.
Bovee, K.D. 1982. A Guide to Stream Habitat Analysis Using the Instream Flow Incremental
Methodology. Instream Flow Information Paper #12. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort
Collins, Colorado.
Bowman, C. 1996. Personal Communication, Clint Bowman of WADOE and James Wilder of
ENSR Consulting.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 6-5
Brittell, J.D., R.J. Poelker, S.J. Sweeney, and G.M. Koehler. 1989. Native Cats of Washington -
Section III: Lynx. Washington Department of Wildlife. Olympia, Wash.
Brooks, B.L. and S.A. Temple. 1990. Habitat Availability and Suitability for Loggerhead Shrikes in
the Upper Midwest. Am. Midi. Nat. 123(1):75-83.
Brown, E.R. fed). 1985. Management of Wildlife and Fish Habitats in Forests of Western Oregon
and Washington. Part 2 - Appendices. Ag. Pub. R6-FW&L-192-1985. USDA Forest
Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 302 pp.
Bruel and Kjaer. 1984. Measuring Sound. K. Larson & Sons, Naerum, Denmark. 42pp.
Bryan, T. and E.D. Forsman. 1987. Murrelet 68:45-49. Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat of
Great Gray Owls in Southcentral Oregon.
Bull, E.L. 1987. Ecology of the Pileated Woodpecker in Northeastern Oregon. J. Wildl. Manage.
51(2):472-481.
Bull, E.L. and M.G. Henjum. 1990. Ecology of the Great Gray Owl. USDA Forest Service. Pac.
Northwest Res. Sta. Gen. Tech. Report PNW-GTR-265. 37 pp.
Bull, E.L., M.G. Henjum, and R.S. Rohweder. 1989. Diet and Optimal Foraging of Great Gray
Owls. J. Wildl. Manage. 53(1):47-50.
Bull, E.L., M.G. Henjum, and R.S. Rohweder. 1988. Nesting and Foraging Habitat of Great Gray
Owls. J. Raptor Res. 22{4):107-115.
Bull, E.L. and J.E. Hohmann. 1993. Breeding Biology of Northern Goshawks in Northeastern
Oregon. Paper presented at: Sixty-third Annual Meeting of the Cooper Ornithological
Society, Sacramento, California, 14-15 April, 1993. 13 pp.
Bull, E.L., S.R. Peterson, and J.W. Thomas. 1986. Resource Partitioning Among Woodpeckers in
Northeastern Oregon. USDA Forest Service. PNW-444. 19pp.
Bureau of Census. 1990. 1990 Census of Population and Housing. STF1A and STF3A on CD-
ROM.
Bureau of Census. 1980. 1970 and 1980 Census of Population and Housing Publications.
Burroughs, E. R. Jr. and J. G. King. 1989. Reduction of Soil Erosion on Forest Roads. USDA
Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. General Technical Report
INT-264.
Buskirk, S.W. and L.L. McDonald. 1989. Analysis of Variability in Home-Range Size of the
American Marten. J. Wildl. Manage. 53(4):997-1004.
Cade, B.S. and P.J. Sousa. 1985. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Ruffed Grouse. USDI Fish and
Wildlife Service Biol. Rep. 82(10.86). 31 pp.
California Division of Mines and Geology. 1975. Recommended Guidelines for Determining the
Maximum Credible and the Maximum Probable Earthquakes. Calif. Geology. 28:6, 136pp.
CDMG Note No. 43.
Cannings, R.A., R.J. Cannings, and S.G. Cannings. 1987. Birds of the Okanogan Valley, British
Columbia. Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria, B.C. 420 pp.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 6-6 CHAPTER 6 - REFERENCES January 1997
Carbyn, L.N. 1987. Gray Wolf and Red Wolf. Pages 359-376 (M. Novak, G.A. Baker, M.E.
Obbard, and B. Malloch, (edt. Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation in North
America. Ont. Trappers Assoc., Ministry of Natural Resources, Ont).
Cascades Environmental Services, Inc. and, Caldwell and Associates. 1996. Final Fisheries
Studies Report, Myers Creek Project. Prepared for TerraMatrix, Inc. and Myers Creek
Instream Flow Committee. 82p. Unpubl. Rpt.
Cedar Creek Associates, Inc. 1993. Soils Technical Memorandum Addendum, Water Storage
Reservoir Alternative B, Crown Jewel Project. Unpubl. Rpt.
Cedar Creek Associates, Inc. 1992. Soils Technical Memorandum, Crown Jewel Project. Unpubl.
Rpt.
Cedar Creek Associates, Inc. and Beak Consultants Inc. 1996. Biological Assessment for the
Crown Jewel Mine Project. Unpubl. Rpt.
Chase, R.A., P.J. Bourque, R.S. Conway, Jr. 1987. The 1987 Washington Input-Output Study.
Christy, R.E. and S.D. West. 1993. Biology of Bats in Douglas-fir Forests. USDA Forest Service
Pacific Northwest Res. Sta. Gen. Tech. Report PNW-GTR-308. 28 pp.
Cody, M.L. and C.B.J. Cody. 1972a. Areal Versus Lineal Territories in the Wren, Troglodytes .
Condor 74:477-478.
Cody, M.L. and C.B.J. Cody. 1972b. Territory Size, Clutch Size, and Food in Populations of
Wrens. Condor 74: 473-477.
Collopy, M.W. 1983. A Comparison of Direct Observations and Collections of Prey Remains in
Determining the Diet of Golden Eagles. J. Wildl. Manage. 47(2):360-368.
Coppock, R. 1993. USDA Forest Service, Tonasket Ranger District. Personal Communication.
Covington, W.W., R.L. Everett, R. Steele, L.L. Irwin, T.A. Daer, and A.N.D. Auclair. 1994.
Historical and Anticipated Changes in Forest Ecosystems of the Inland West of the United
States. J. Sustainable For. 2Y2:13-63.
Craighead, J.J. and J.A. Mitchell. 1982. Grizzly Bear. Pages 515-556 (in J.A. Chapman and G.A.
Feldhamer, (ed). Wild Mammals of North America, Biology, Management, and Economics).
Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD. 1,147 pp.
Craighead, J.J., J.S. Sumner, and G.B. Scaggs. 1982. A Definitive System for Analysis of Grizzly
Bear Habitat and Other Wilderness Resources Utilizing Landsat Multispectral Imagery and
Computer Technology. Wildlife-Wildlands Institute Monogr. No. 1. U of M Foundation,
University of Montana, Missoula, MT. 279 pp.
Czarnowsky, A. 1996. TerraMatrix Inc. Personal Communication.
Dalquest, W.W. 1948. Mammals of Washington. University of Kansas Publ., Lawrence, Kansas.
Danison, K. 1992. Highlands Associates. Tonasket, Washington. Personal Communication with
Susan Corser.
DeVuyst, E. 1996. Technical Representative for INCO. Personal communication.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 6-7
Dixon, K.R. 1982. Mountain Lion. Pages 711-727 (in J.A. Chapman and G.A. Feldhamer (ed).
Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management, and Economics). The John
Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD.
Doudoroff, P. 1976. Toxicity to Fish of Cyanides and Related Compounds: A Review. Ecol. Res.
Series, EPA 600/376-038, Environ. Res. Lab., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Duluth, Mn.
Dow Chemical Co. 1976. A Thirty Day Repeated Inhalation Toxicity Study of Potassium Amyl
Xanthate 'Z-6' in Laboratory Animals. Toxicology Research Laboratory, Health and
Environmental Research, Midland, Michigan. Dow Reference Number CAP00251.
Dyer, 0. 1994. Wildlife Technician, Wildlife Management Program, British Columbia Ministry of
Environment. Letter to Randy Floyd, Beak Consultants Inc.
EcoAnalysts, Inc. 1996. 1995 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Report, Crown Jewel Project.
E.D. Hovee and Company (E.D. Hovee). 1996a. Affected Socioeconomic Environmental
Background Report (1996 Update) Crown Jewel Project. Unpubl. Rpt.
E.D. Hovee and Company (E.D. Hovee). 1996b. Existing Socioeconomic Environmental Conditions
Baseline Report (1996 Update) Crown Jewel Project. Unpubl. Rpt.
E.D. Hovee and Company (E.D. Hovee). 1995. Memorandum from Paul Dennis to Eric Hovee
Regarding Review of Huckell/Weinman and Associates, Inc. Crown Jewel Economic and
Fiscal Impact Analysis (Preliminary Draft).
E.D. Hovee and Company (E.D. Hovee). 1994a. Affected Socioeconomic Environment Background
Report, Crown Jewel Project. Unpubl. Rpt.
E.D. Hovee and Company (E.D. Hovee). 1994b. Existing Socioeconomic Conditions Baseline
Report, Crown Jewel Project. Unubl. Rpt.
\
Edison Electric Institute (EEI). 1984. Electric Power Plant Environmental Noise Guide. Volume II,
Second Edition. Prepared by Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc.
Education Service District (EDS 101). 1996. Spokane, WA. Telecon Re: Enrollment Figures for
Curlew and Republic Schools as of October 1995. E.D. Hovee.
Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The Birder's Handbook: a Field Guide to the
Natural History of North American Birds. Simon and Schuster, Inc., New York, NY. 785
pp.
Eilers, J., Rose, C., and T. Sullivan. 1994. Status of Air Quality and Effects of Atmospheric
Pollutants on Ecosystems in the Pacific Northwest Region of the USDI National Park
Service. NPS/NRAQD/NRTR-94/160. USDI National Park Service, Denver, Colorado.
Ellis, D.H, J.G. Goodwin, and J.R. Hunt. 1978. Wildlife and Electric Power Transmission. In:
Effects of Noise on Wildlife. Academic Press.
English, E.I. 1994. Habitat Biologist, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Letter to Paul
Whitney, Beak Consultants, Inc.
ENSR Consulting and Engineering (ENSR). 1996a. Draft Meteorological Data Set, Crown Jewel
Project, Chesaw, Washington. Unpubl. Rpt.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 6-8 CHAPTER 6 - REFERENCES January 1997
ENSR Consulting and Engineering (ENSR). 1996b. Wildlife Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for the
Crown Jewel Mine Ore Processing and Tailings Disposal Facility. Unpubl. Rpt.
ENSR Consulting and Engineering (ENSR). 1996c. NOX and S02 Deposition Calculations for
Paysaten Wilderness. Unpubl. Rpt.
ENSR Consulting and Engineering (ENSR). 1996d. Crown Jewel Project: Visibility Impact
Assessment at Pasayten Wilderness Area. Unpubl. Rpt.
ENSR Consulting and Engineering (ENSR). 1994. Survey of Bats Near the Crown Jewel Mine Site.
Unpubl. Rpt.
Environment Canada. 1992. Letter from Andrea Ryan Transmitting Water Quality Database
Printouts.
EPRI. 1981. Electric Power Plant Environmental Noise Guide. Noise Control Engineering Journal.
Evans, D.L. 1982. Status Reports on Twelve Raptors. Special Scientific Report, Wildlife No. 238,
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 68 pp.
Faanes, C.A. 1987. Bird Behavior and Mortality in Relation to Powerlines in Prairie Habitats. U.S.
Fish and Wildl. Serv. Tech Rpt. #7. 24pp.
Felmy, A.R., D.C. Girvin, and E.A. Jenne. 1984. MINTED - A Computer Program for Calculating
Aqueous Geochemical Equilibria, USEPA Report PB-84-157-148.
Ferguson, M.D. and L.B. Keith. 1982. Influence of Nordic Skiing on Distribution of Moose and Elk
of Fermont Cottonwood. Range Mgmt. 38:135-130.
Frederick, G.P. 1991. Gray wolf. Pages 33-50 In: Effects of Forest Roads on Grizzly Bear, Elk,
and Gray Wolves: a Literature Review. USDA Forest Service, Kootenai National Forest,
R1-J1-73.
Friesz, R. 1994a. Washington Department of Wildlife. Telephone Conversation with Randy Floyd,
Beak Consultants Inc..
Friesz, R. 1994b. Washington Department of Wildlife. Letter to Randy Floyd, Beak Consultants
Inc.
Friesz, R. 1992. Washington Department of Wildlife. Personal Communication.
Fry, S. 1992. Puget Sound Air Pollution Control Agency. Seattle, Washington. Personal
Communication.
Fry, S. 1991. Washington's Highest Mountains and Steepest Faces. The Mountaineer Annual
(1983-1990). The Mountaineers Press, Seattle, Washington. Pp 40-53.
Gashwiler, J. S., W.L. Robinette, and O.W. Morris. 1961. Breeding Habits of Bobcats in Utah. J.
Mammal. 42(1):76-84.
Gawlik, D.E. and K.L. Bildstein. 1990. Reproductive Success and Nesting Habitat of Loggerhead
Shrikes in North-Central South Carolina. Wilson Bull. 102(1):37-48.
Gentry, D.W. 1988. Minerals Project Evaluation - An Overview, Transactions, Institution of Mining
and Metallurgy, Vol 97, pp. A25-A35.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 6-9
Gentry, D.W. and T.J., O'Neil. 1984. Mine Investment Analysis. SME-AIME, New York, 488 pp.
Geochimica, Inc. 1996. Report on Waste Rock Geochemical Testing Program, Crown Jewel
Project, Phase IV, Additional Humidity Cell Tests. Unpubl. Rpt.
Gill, R. E. 1994. Sediment Delivery to Headwater Stream Channels Following Road Construction
and Timber Harvest in the Blue Mountains, Oregon. Master's Thesis. Oregon State
University, Corvallis, Oregon.
Goggans, R.f R.D. Dixon, and L.C. Seminara. 1988. Habitat Use by Three-toed and Black-backed
Woodpeckers. ODFW Nongame Report 87-3-02. xvii + 49 pp + 34 figures/tables.
Colder Associates, Inc. (Colder). 1996a. Final Report: Tailings Disposal Facility, Final Design
Report. Unpubl. Rpt.
Colder Associates, Inc. (Colder). 1996b. Summary of Surface Water Discharge Data Collected by
the Battle Mountain Gold Company for the Crown Jewel Project, Chesaw, Washington,
Water Year 1995. Unpubl. Rpt.
Colder Associates, Inc. (Colder). 1996c. SEEP/W Modeling Results. Unpubl. Rpt.
Colder Associates, Inc. (Colder). 1996d. Battle Mountain Gold Crown Jewel Project: Diversion
Channels and Sediment Traps Conceptual Design Report. Unpubl. Rpt.
Colder Associates, Inc. (Colder). 1996e. Report on Packer Injection Tests at the Crown Jewel
Mine, Okanogan County, Washington. Unpubl. Rpt.
Colder Associates, Inc. (Colder). 1995a. Results of Stability Analyses, South Waste Rock Slope,
Battle Mountain Gold's Crown Jewel Project, Okanogan County, Washington (in BMGC
Comments on Crown Jewel Draft EIS).
Colder Associates, Inc. (Colder). 1995b. Results of Stability Analyses, Proposed Course Ore
Stockpile and Waste Rockfill Pad, Battle Mountain Gold's Crown Jewel Project (in BMGC
Comments on Crown Jewel Draft EIS).
Colder Associates, Inc. (Colder). 1995c. Potential Effects of the Proposed Crown Jewel Pit on the
Streamflows at Buckhorn Mountain, Okanogan County, Washington.
Colder Associates, Inc. (Colder). 1994a. Streamflow Investigations Conducted Along Myers Creek
Near Myncaster, British Columbia. Unpubl. Rpt.
Colder Associates, Inc. (Colder). 1994b. Technical Memorandum on Groundwater Supply
Evaluation of the Lost Creek Ranch Irrigation Well. Unpubl. Rpt.
Colder Associates, Inc. (Colder). 1994c. Water Supply System for the Crown Jewel Project.
Unpubl. Rpt.
Colder Associates, Inc. (Colder). 1994d. Tailings Site Selection Report: Crown Jewel Project,
Chesaw, Okanogan County, Washington. Unpubl. Rpt.
Colder Associates, Inc. (Colder). 1993a. Design Report, Starrem Creek Dam and Reservoir.
Colder Associates, Inc. (Colder). 1993b. Report on Pumping Test of the North Lookout Fault
Zone, Crown Jewel Mine Site, Okanogan County, Washington (Volume I and II). Unpubl.
Rpt.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 6-10 CHAPTER 6 - REFERENCES January 1997
Colder Associates, Inc. (Colder). 1992a. Monitoring Analysis Package, Crown Jewel Project
(MAP), Users Manual - Version 1.1.
Colder Associates, Inc. (Colder). 1992b. Letter Report from Mark Birch and David Banton to Brant
Hinze, Battle Mountain Gold Company Regarding Ground Water Supply Investigation:
Johnny Thorpe Property, Chesaw, Washington.
Greaves, J.N., Palmer, G.R., and W.W. White III. 1990. Refactory Ore Gold Recovery by Carbon-
in-Chlorine Leach. Presented at the TMS Annual Meeting, Anaheim, California.
Green, J.S. and J.T. Flinders. 1980. Habitat and Dietary Relationships of the Pygmy Rabbit. J.
Range Manage. 33(2):136-142.
Haines, R. 1993. Forest Wildlife Staff, Malheur National Forest. Telephone conversation with
Randy Floyd, Beak Consultants Inc.
Halekas, G. 1994. USDA Forest Service, Tonasket Ranger District. Tonasket, Washington.
Personal Communication.
Halfpenny, J.C. and E.A. Biesiot. 1986. Field Guide to Mammal Tracking in Western America.
Johnson Publ. Co., Boulder, CO.
Hallock, Robert J. 1993. Cyanide and Migratory Birds at Gold Mines in Nevada. Ecotoxicology,
1993.
Hargis, C.D. and D.R. McCullough. 1984. Winter Diet and Habitat Selection of Marten in
Yosemite National Park. J. Wildl. Manage. 48(11:140-146.
Hart Crowser. 1993. Baseline Noise Monitoring Report. Proposed Crown Jewel Mine Site,
Chesaw, Washington. Unpubl. Rpt.
Hartman, H.L. 1992. SME Mining Engineering Handbook, second edition, 2 volumes, 2,260 pp.
Hash, H.S. 1987. Wolverine. Pages 574-585 (in M. Novak, J. Baker, M. Obbard, and B. Malloch,
(eds). Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America). Ministry of Natural
Resources, Ontario.
Hatler, D.F. 1988. A Lynx Management Strategy for British Columbia, B.C. Ministry of
Environment WR-34.
Hayes, M. 1994. Marsh Habitat Specialist, Portland Community College. Telephone conversation
with Susan Barnes, Beak Consultants Inc.
Hayward, G.D., P.H. Hayward, and E.O. Carton. 1987. Movements and Home Range Use by
Boreal Owls in Central Idaho. Pages 175-184 (in Biology and Conservation of Northern
Forest Owls; Symposium Proceedings). USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-142.
Hayward, G.D., T. Holland, and R. Escano. 1990. Goshawk Habitat Relationships, pp. 19-27 In:
Warren, N.M. (Ed). 1990. Old-growth Habitats and Associated Wildlife Species in the
Northern Rocky Mountains. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region Wildlife Habitat
Relationships Program, R1-90-42. 47pp.
Hayward, G.D., R.K. Steinhorst, and P.H. Hayward. 1992. Monitoring Boreal Owl Populations
with Nest Boxes: Sample Size and Cost. J. Wildl. Manage. 56(4):777-785.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 6-11
Hayward, G.D. and J. Verner. 1994. Review of Technical Knowledge: Boreal Owls. Pages 92-127
(in Flammulated, Boreal, and Great Grey Owls in the United States: a Technical
Conservation Assessment). USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-253.
Headstrom, R. 1951. Birds' Nests of the West, a Field Guide. Ives Washburn, Inc., New York.
177pp.
Hedtke, S.F. and F.A. Pulisi. 1982. Short-term Toxicity of Five Oils to Four Freshwater Species.
Arch. Environm. Contam. Toxicol. 11:425-430.
Heinemeyer, K.S. and J.L. Jones. 1994. Fisher Biology and Management: a Literature Review and
Adaptive Management Strategy. USDA Forest Service Northern Regions. Missoula,
Montana. 108pp.
Henderson, D.M. 1976. A Biosystematic Study of Pacific Northwestern Blue-Eyed Grasses
(Sisyrinchium, Iridaceae). Brittonia 28:149-176.
Henny, C.J. and M.W. Nelson. 1981. Decline and Present Status of Breeding Peregrine Falcons in
Oregon. The Murrelet. 62:43-53.
Henson, P. and T.A. Grant. 1991. The Effects of Human Disturbance on Trumpeter Swan
Breeding Behavior. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 19:248-257.
Heyer, Ronald W. led). 1994. Measuring and Monitoring Biological Diversity. Standard Methods
for Amphibians. Institution Press, Washington D. C.
Hiskey, J.B. and F.W. DeVries. 1991. Environmental Considerations for Alternates to Cyanide
Processing.
Hitchcock, C.L. and A. Cronquist. 1964. Vascular Plants of the Pacific Northwest, Part 2.
University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. 597pp.
Hocklin, D., M. Ounsted, M. Gorman, D. Hill, V. Keller, and M.A. Barker. 1992. Examination of
the Effects of Disturbance on Birds with Reference to its Importance in Ecological
Assessments. J. of Environ. Manage. 36:253-286.
Holmes, R.T. and S.K. Robinson. 1988. Spatial Patterns, Foraging Tactics, and Diets of Ground-
Foraging Birds in a Northern Hardwoods Forest. Wilson Bull. 100(3): 377-394.
Holmes, R.T., R.E. Bonney, Jr., and S.W. Pacala. 1979. Guild Structure of the Hubbard Brook
Bird Community: A Multivariate Approach. Ecology 60(3): 512-520.
Hornocker, M.G. and H.S. Hash. 1981. Ecology of the Wolverine in Northwestern Montana. Can.
J. Zool. 59:1286-1301.
Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. 1995. Crown Jewel Project Economic and Fiscal Impact
Analysis. Prepared for Battle Mountain Gold Company. Unpubl. Rpt.
Hydro-Geo Consultants, Inc. (Hydro-Geo). 1996a. Analysis of Stream Depletions Resulting From
the Proposed Crown Jewel Project. Unpubl. Rpt.
Hydro-Geo Consultants, Inc. (Hydro-Geo). 1996b. Technical Report: Analysis of the Open Pit
Mine Inflow for the Proposed Crown Jewel Project. Unpubl. Rpt.
Crown Jewel Mine f Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 6-12 CHAPTER 6 - REFERENCES January 1997
Hydro-Geo Consultants, Inc. (Hydro-Geo). 1995a. Pit Filling Study Crown Jewel Project. Unpubl.
Rpt.
Hydro-Geo Consultants, Inc. (Hydro-Geo). 1995b. Seepage and Attenuation Study Crown Jewel
Tailings Disposal Facility, Crown Jewel Project. Unpubl. Rpt.
Hydro-Geo Consultants, Inc. (Hydro-Geo). 1993. Ground Water Level Fluxuation Analysis, Crown
Jewel Project. Unpubl. Rpt.
International Joint Commission (UC). 1985. 1985 Annual Report. Report of the Aquatic
Ecosystem Objectives Committee to the UC, Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
INCO. 1995. Letter from Dr. E.A. Devuyst to Rich Burtell Regarding INCO Cyanide Destruction
Fate of Arsenic and Antimony.
Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM). 1993. Phase I Report: Interim
Recommendation for Modeling Long Range Transport and Impacts on Regional Visibility.
EPA-454/R-93-015.
Jackson, H.H.T. 1961. Mammals of Wisconsin. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wl.
504 pp.
Janssen, R. 1980. Future Scientific Activities in Effects of Noise on Animals. Pages 632-637 (in
J.V. Tobias, G. Jansen, and W.D. Ward, feds). Proceedings of the Third International
Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem). Am. Speech-Language-Hearing Assoc.,
Rockville, Maryland.
Jewett, S.A., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington State.
University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington. 767 pp.
Johnsgard, P.A. 1988. M. Abbate fed). North American Owls. Smithsonian Institute.
Jones, P.C. 1993. Summitville and Beyond: A Presentation at the Northwest Mining Association
Conference.
Jones, S. 1979. The Accipiters: Goshawk, Coopers Hawk, Sharp-Shinned Hawk. USDI Bureau of
Land Management, Habitat Management Series for Unique or Endangered Species, Report
No. 17. 51 pp.
Jonkel, C.J. and I.McT. Cowan. 1971. The Black Bear in the Spruce-fir Forest. Wildl. Monogr.
27. 57 pp.
Kea Pacific Holdings Inc. and Colder Associates Inc. 1993a. Report on the Waste Rock
Geochemical Testing Program, Crown Jewel Project. Unpubl. Rpt.
Kea Pacific Holdings Inc. and Colder Associates Inc. 1993b. Report on the Waste Rock
Geochemical Testing Program, Crown Jewel Project, Responses to Agency Comments.
Kea Pacific Holdings Inc. and Golder Associates Inc. 1993c. Report on Geochemical Testing of:
Ore and Low Grade Ore, Crown Jewel Project. Unpubl. Rpt.
King, J. 1994. Wildlife Biologist, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Telephone
conversation with Dale Lindeman, Beak Consultants Inc.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 6-13
Kirk, R. and C. Alexander. 1990. Exploring Washington's Past, A Road Guide to History.
University of Washington Press, Seattle, Washington.
Kirkpatrick, R. 1996. Okanogan National Forest, personal communications with Susan Corser,
TerraMatrix. June.
Klott, J.H. and F.G. Lindzey. 1990. Brood Habitats of Sympatric Sage Grouse and Columbian
Sharp-tailed Grouse in Wyoming. J. Wildl. Manage. 54(1):84-88.
Knick, S.T. 1990. Ecology of Bobcats Relative to Exploitation and a Prey Decline in Southeastern
Idaho. Wildlife Monographs 108:1-42.
Knight Piesold. 1993a. Tailings Disposal Facility; Final Design Report, Rev. 2. Unpubl. Rpt.
Knight Piesold. 1993b. All Known Available and Reasonable Technology (AKART) Evaluation for
Cyanide Detoxification. Unpubl. Rpt.
Koehler, G.M. 1990. Population and Habitat Characteristics of Lynx and Snowshoe Hares in
North-Central Washington. Can. J. Zool. 68:845-851.
Koehler, G.M. and J.D. Brittell. 1990. Managing Spruce-Fir Habitat for Lynx and Snowshoe Hares.
J. Forestry. 88(10): 10-14.
Koehler, G.M. and M.G. Hornocker. 1977. Fire Effects on Marten Habitat in the Selway-Bitterroot
Wilderness. J. Wildl. Manage. 41{3):500-505.
Krapu, G.L. 1974. Avian Mortality from Collisions with Overhead Wires in North Dakota. Prairie
Nat. 6(1): 1-6.
Kunz, T.H. and R.A. Martin. 1982. Plecotus townsendii. Mamm. Species. No. 175. 6pp.
Landreth, R.E. 1990. Service Life of Geosynthetics in Hazardous Waste Management Facilities.
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1990, pp26-33.
Langhans, J.W., Jr., Lei, K.P.V., and T.G. Carnahan. 1992. Copper-Catalyzed Thiosulfate
Leaching of Low-Grade Gold Ores. In: W.C. Cooper and D.B. Dreisinger, (eds),
Hydrometallurgy, Theory and Practice. Proceedings of the Ernest Peters International
Symposium. Hydrometallurgy, 29: 191-203.
Larrison E.J. 1976. Mammals of the Northwest. Seattle Audobon Society.
Larrison, E.J. and K.G. Sonnenberg. 1968. Washington Birds, Their Location and Identification.
The Seattle Audubon Society. 258 pp.
Laufer, J.R. and P.T. Jenkins. 1989. Historical and Present Status of the Grey Wolf in the Cascade
Mountains of Washington. The Northwest Env. J. 5:313-327.
Lawson, B. and R. Johnson. 1982. Mountain Sheep. Pages 1036-1055 (in J.A. Chapman and
G.A. Feldhamer, (eds). Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management, and
Economics). John Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD. 1,147 pp.
Leary, R. 1993. Letter to Phil Hilgert (Beak Consultants Inc.) dated November 2, 1993.
Lee, Phil. 1992. Wildlife Biologist with A.G. Crook Company, Beaverton, Oregon. Personal
Communication with L. Labovitch, TerraMatrix.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 6-14 CHAPTER 6 - REFERENCES January 1997
Lenfesty, C.D. 1980. Soil Survey of Okanogan County Area, Washington. Soil Conservation
Service. Okanogan, Washington. 143 pp. Appendix and Maps.
Lentz, Rod. 1996a. Memorandum from Rod Lentz, Forest Service.
Lentz, Rod. 1996b. Memorandum from Rod Lentz, Forest Service to Paul Schmacher, BMGC.
Lentz, Rod. 1995. Memorandum from Rod Lentz, Forest Service.
Lentz, R. and K. Courtright. 1995. Economic Analysis of Crown Jewel Project Alternatives.
Forest Service and U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management.
Leonard, W.P., H.A. Brown, L.C. Jones, K.R. McAllister, and R.M. Storm. 1993. Amphibians of
Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, Washington. 168 pp.
Lewis, J.B., J.D. McGowan, and T.S. Baskett. 1968. Evaluating Ruffed Grouse Reintroduction in
Missouri. J. Wildl. Manage. 32(1): 17-28.
Licht, L.E. 1971. Breeding Habits and Embryonic Thermal Requirements of the Frogs Rana
auroraaurora and Rana pretiosa pretiosa in the Pacific Northwest. Ecology 52(1): 116-124.
Lindzey, F.G. and E.G. Meslow. 1977. Home Range and Habitat Use by Black Bears in
Southwestern Washington. J. Wildl. Manage. 41(31:413-425.
Lowe, D.W., J.R. Matthews, and C.J. Moseley (ed). 1990. Grizzly Bear. Pages 548-552 (in
Official World Wildlife Fund Guide to Endangered Species of North America).
Lyman, R.L. 1978. Cultural Resource Overview, Chelan, Okangogan, and Douglas Counties.
Occasional pater No. 6, Washington Archaeological Society.
Madsen, S.J. 1986. Woodpeckers in the Okanogan National Forest. M.S. Thesis. University of
Washington.
Marks, J.S. and V.S. Marks. 1988. Winter Habitat Use by Columbian Sharp-Tailed Grouse in
Western Idaho. J. Wildl. Manage. 52(4):743-746.
Marshall, D.B., M. Chilcote, and H. Weeks. 1992. Sensitive Vertebrates of Oregon. Oregon
Department of Wildlife, Portland, Oregon.
Martinka, R.R. 1972. Structural Characteristics of Blue Grouse Territories in Southwestern
Montana. J. Wildl. Manage. 36(2):498-510.
Maser, C., B.R. Mate, J.F. Franklin, and C.T. Dyrness. 1981. Natural History of Oregon Coast
Mammals. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Res. Sta. Gen. Tech. Report PNW-133.
496 pp.
McWhorter, D.B. and J.D. Nelson. 1980. Seepage in the Partially Saturated Zone Beneath Tailings
Impoundment. Mining Engineering 32;4, pg 432-439. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and
Exploration, Littleton, CO.
Mech, D.L. 1989. Wolf Population Survival in an Area of High Road Density. Am. Midi. Nat.
121:387-389.
Mech, D.L. 1970. The Wolf. Natural History Press, Doubleday and Co., FNC., New York, NY.
384 pp.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 6-15
Mech, D.L., S.H. Fritts, G. L. Radde, and W.J. Paul. 1988. Wolf Distribution and Road Density in
Minnesota. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 16:85-87.
Melland, J. 1977. Nongame Wildlife Report: Long-Billed Curlew Study (Numenius americanus),
Morrow and Umatilla Counties, unpubl. rep.
Michael, B. 1993. Ministry of Environment, B.C. Personal Communication.
Mierendorf R.R., T.K. Eller, D. Carlevato, and P.A. McLeod. 1981. A Cultural Resources Predictive
Land Use Model for the Okanogan Highlands; An Impact Assessment for the Bonneville
Power Administration's Chief Joseph Dam-Tonasket and Grand Coulee-Keller Transmission
Lines. Bonneville Cultural Resources Group Report Number 100-2. Eastern Washington
University Reports in Archaeology and History, Cheney.
Ministry of Environment, Ontario. 1972 The Use, Characteristics, and Toxicity of Mine-Mill
Reagents in the Province of Ontario.
Moen, W.S. 1980. Myers Creek and Wauconda Mining Districts of Northeastern Okanogan
County, Washington. Bulletin 73, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Division
of Geology and Earth Resources, Olympia.
Molson, et. al. 1962. Molson, Chesaw, Knob Hill Communities Okanogan Highland Echoes, by the
Committee, Oroville. 5th Edition.
Moss, M.E and W.L. Haushild. 1978. Evaluation and Design of a Streamflow-Data Network in
Washington. USGS Open File Report 73-167.
Muldoon, T.L. and T.G. Bobick. 1984. Retrofit Noise Controls for Crushing and Screening Plants.
USDI Bureau of Mines Information Circular #8986. Proceedings of Mine Technical
Transfers Seminars, Pittsburgh PA.
Murphy, M.A. 1994. Letter to Randy Floyd, Beak Consultants, Inc.
Nagorsen, D.W. and R.M. Brigham. 1993. Bats of British Columbia. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC.
National Geographic Society. 1987. Field Guide to the Birds of North America. National
Geographic Society, Washington D.C. pg. 184.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, (NIOSH). 1990. NIOSH Pocket Guide to
Chemical Hazards. US Department of Health and Human Services.
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, (NIOSH). 1985. NIOSH Pocket Guide to
Chemical Hazards. US Department of Health and Human Services.
Nelson, R.L., M.L. McHenry, and W. S. Platts. 1991. Mining. American Fisheries Society Special
Publication 19:425-457.
North Central EDS. 1996. Wenatchee, Washington, Fax Re: Enrollment Figures for Omak,
Okanogan, Tonasket and Oroville Schools as of October 1995.
Northwest Management, Inc. 1994a. Fall, 1994 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Report for the Crown
Jewel Project. Unpubl. Rpt.
Northwest Management, Inc. 1994b. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Plan for the Crown
Jewel Project. Unpubl. Rpt.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 6-16 CHAPTER 6 - REFERENCES January 1997
Morris, L. A., H. W. Lorz and S. V. Gregory. 1991. Forest Chemicals. American Fisheries Society
Special Publication.
Nussbaum, R.A., E.D. Bodie. Jr., and R.M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Pacific
Northwest. University of Idaho Press, Moscow, Idaho. 332 pp.
Oakerman, G. 1994. Telephone conversation with Randy Floyd, Beak Consultants, Inc.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 1994. Screening Benchmarks for Ecological Risk Assessment.
Draft Report. Prepared for US Department of Energy, Washington D.C.
O'Connell, M.W. 1987. Occurrence of the Boreal Owl in Northeastern Washington. Pages 185-
188 (in Biology and Conservation of Northern Forest Owls; Symposium Proceedings,
January 1991). USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-142.
Okanogan County. 1995. Letter from Tom Hinger, Okanogan County Department of Public Works
to John Ridlington, Tonasket Ranger District Regarding the Transportation Baseline Report.
Okanogan County. 1993. Letter from Tom Hinger, Okanogan County Department of Public Works
to John Ridlington, Colville National Forest Regarding Comments on the Transportation
Baseline Report.
Olendorf, R.R., A.D. Miller, and R.N. Lehman. 1981. Suggested Practices for Raptor Protection on
Power Lines: The State of the Art in 1981. Rapter Research Report No. 4, Raptor Research
Foundation, Inc. 111pp.
Oregon Natural Heritage Program. 1995. Rare, Threatened and Endangered Plants and Animals of
Oregon. Portland, Oregon, p.84.
Oroville. 1989. Town of Oroville Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan. Town of Oroville,
Washington.
Pacific Coast American Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team. 1982. Pacific Coast Recovery Plan for
the American Peregrine Falcon. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 86 pp.
Pacific Northwest Economists. 1995. Economic Well Being and Environmental Protection in the
Pacific Northwest. A Consensus Report by Pacific Northwest Economists.
Pagel, J.E. 1992. Protocol for Observing Known and Potential Peregrine Falcon Eyries in the
Pacific Northwest. Pages 83-96 (in J.E. Pagel, fed). Proceedings Symposium on Peregrine
Falcons in the Pacific Northwest, January 1991). Rogue River National Forest 125 pp.
Pampush, G.J. 1980. Breeding Chronology, Habitat Utilization, and Nest-site Section of the Long-
Billed Curlew in Northcentral Oregon. Unpublished M.S. thesis. Oregon State University,
Corvallis, Oregon. 49 pp.
Paradise, J.L. and R.M. Nowak. 1982. Wolves (Cam's lupus and allies). Pages 460-474 (in J.A.
Chapman and G.A. Feldhamer, (eds). Wild Mammals of North America: Biology,
Management, and Economics). The John Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD.
Parametrix, Inc. 1996a. Crown Jewel Project Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan. Unpubl. Rpt.
Parametrix, Inc. 1996b. Noxious Weed Management Plan, Crown Jewel Mine. Unpubl. Rpt.
Parametrix, Inc. 1995. Crown Jewel Project 404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis Support Information.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 6-17
Parkhurst, D.L., D.C Thorstenson, and L.N. Plummer. 1980. PHREEQE - A Computer Program for
Geochemical Calculations, USGS Water-Resource Inventory Paper 80-96.
Paulus, S.L. 1994. Letter to Jeffrey White (Battle Mountain Gold Company). Re: Hibernacula
study of bats near the Crown Jewel Project.
Payton, G.B. 1993. The Columbiana Magazine. Chesaw, Washington. Personal Communication.
Payton, G.B. 1992. Letter to Kent Woodruff (Tonasket Ranger District Wildlife Biologist).
Peatt, A.D. 1992. Wildlife Management Program, British Columbia Ministry of Environment.
Letter to Phil Lee (A.G. Crook).
Pelton, M.R. 1982. Black bear. Pages 504-514 (in J.A. Chapman and G.A. Feldhamer (edsj.
Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management, and Economics). The John
Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
Pennoyer, W. 1994. Telephone conversation with Dale Lindeman, Beak Consultants.
Pentec Environmental, Inc. 1993a. Aquatic Resources for Sections of Myers, Gold, Nicholson, and
Marias Creeks in Okanogan National Forest. Unpubl. Rpt.
Pentec Environmental, Inc. 1993b. Wetland Delineation, Crown Jewel Project, Okanogan County,
Washington. Unpubl. Rpt.
Perkins, J.M. 1995. Telephone conversation with Tiffany LaGrave, Beak Consultants, Inc.
Perkins, J.M. 1994. Telephone conservation with Dale Lindeman, Beak Consultants Inc.
Perkins, J.M. 1989. Three Year Bat Survey for Washington National Forests Results of Year Three
-Wenatchee, Okanogan, and Colville National Forests. Unpubl. Rpt. 54 pp.
Perkins, J.M. 1987. Distribution, Status, and Habitat Affinities of Townsent's Big-eared Bat
(Plecotus Townsendii) in Oregon. Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildl. Tech. Rpt #36-5-01.
50pp.
Perry, C. and R. Overly. 1977. Impact of Roads on Big Game Distribution in Portions of the Blue
Mountains in Washington, 1972-73. Applied Research Bull. No. 11. Washington State
Game Department, Olympia, Washington.
Peterle, T.J. 1991. Wildlife Toxicology. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.
Peterson, J., Schmoldt, D., Peterson, D., Eilers, J., Fisher, R., and R. Bachman. 1992. Guidelines
for Evaluating Air Pollution Impacts on Class I Wilderness Areas in the Pacific Northwest.
PNW-GTR-299.
Peterson, R.O. 1986. Gray Wolf. Pages 951-967 (in Audubon Wildlife Report, 1986). The
National Audubon Society, New York, New York.
Phillips, R.L. 1986. Current Issues Concerning the Management of Golden Eagles in Western
USA. Birds of Prey Bull. No. 3, pp.149-155.
Pitchford, M.L. and W.C. Malm. 1994. Development and Applications of a Standard Visual Index.
Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 28, No. 5, pp. 1049-1054.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 6-18 CHAPTER 6 - REFERENCES January 1997
Pittsburg Mineral and Environmental Technology, Inc. (PMET). 1994. Letters to Scott Hartman of
BMGC, dated June 24 and August 10, 1994.
Poelker, R.J. and H.O. Hartwell. 1973. Black Bear of Washington. Washington State Game Dept.
Biol. Bull. No. 14. 180pp.
Powell, R.A. 1982. The Fisher, Life History, Ecology, and Behavior. University of Minnesota
Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 271 pp.
Pozzanghera, S. 1994. Manager, Carnivore and Furbearer Program, Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife. 1992-1993 and 1993-1994 Trapping Season Results, by Drainage and
Species for Okanogan County. Tabulated data.
Prescott, D.R.C. and D.M. Collister. 1993. Characteristics of Occupied and Unoccupied
Loggerhead Shrike Territories in Southeastern Alberta. J. Wildl. Manage. 57(2):346-352.
Priscu, J.C. 1996. Comments on CE-QUAL Output for the Crown Jewel Pit Mine Project.
Radek, K. 1992. USDA Forest Service. Okanogan National Forest Supervisors Office. Okanogan,
WA. Personal communication with S. Long (Cedar Creek Associates).
Raine, R.M. 1981. Winter Habitat Use and Responses to Snow Cover of Fisher (Martes pennanti)
and Marten {Martes americana) in Southeastern Manitoba. Can. J. Zool. 61{1):25-34.
Reel, S., L. Schassberger, and W. Ruediger. 1989. Caring for Our Natural Community: Region 1 -
Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species Program. USDA, Forest Service, Northern
Region Wildlife and Fisheries. 309 pp. plus appendices.
Renard, K. G., G. R. Foster, G. A. Weesies, D. K. McCool, and D. C. Yoder (Coordinators). 1992.
Predicting Soil Erosion by Water: a Guide to Conservation Planning with the Revised
Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). US Department of Agriculture. Washington, D C.
Reid, L. M. and T. Dunne. 1984. Sediment Production from Forest Road Surfaces. Water
Resources Research.
Reynolds, R.T. 1983. Management of Western Coniferous Forest Habitat for Nesting Accipiter
Hawks. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-102. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Forest and
Range Exp. Sta., Ft. Collins, CO. 7 p.
Reynolds, R.T. and E.G. Meslow. 1984. Partitioning of Food and Niche Characteristics of
Coexisting Accipiter During Breeding. Auk 101: 761-779.
Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce, G. Goodwin, R.
Smith, and E.L. Fisher. 1992. Management Recommendations for the Northern Goshawk
in the Southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-217. USDA Forest Service.
Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Exp. Sta., Ft. Collins, CO. 90 pp.
Richardson, B. Z. 1985. Reclamation in the Intermountain Rocky Mountain Region (in McCarter,
M.K., fed) Design of Non-Impounding Mind Waste Dumps: Society of Mining Engineers of
the American Institute of Mining, . American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and
Petroleum Engineers, Inc., New York, N.Y. pp 175-192.
Rodrick, E. and R. Milner (edj. 1991. Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority
Habitats and Species. Wildl. Manage., Fish Manage., and Hab. Manage. Div., Wash. Dept.
Wildl. np.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 6-19
Rogers, L.L. and A.W. Allen. 1987. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Black Bear, Upper Great
Lakes Region. USD! Fish and Wildlife Service, Biol. Rep. 82(10.144). 54 pp.
Rose, D., Tonasket District Ranger 1994. Letter to Paul Whitney, Beak Consultants, Inc.
Rost, G.R. and J.A. Bailey. 1979. Distribution of Mule Deer and Elk in Relation to Roads. J.
Wildl. Manage. 43(3): 634-641.
Rother, E.W. 1977. Soil Resource Inventory - Okanogan National Forest. USDA Forest Service.
Okanogan National Forest. Okanogan, WA 194 pp.
Rudzitis, Gundars, Christy Watrous and Harley Johansen. 1995. Public Views of Public Lands.
The Migration, Regional Development, and Changing American West Project. Department
of Geography, University of Idaho.
Russell, K.R. 1978. Mountain Lion. Pages 207-225 (in J.L. Schmidt and D.L. Gilbert, (eds). Big
Game of North America, Ecology and Management). Wildl. Manage. Inst. Stackpole
Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Salo, L. V. 1987. Similkameen River Multipurpose Project Feasibility Study, Cultural Resource
Reconnaissance, Technical Report. US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District.
Salstrom, D. and J. Gamon. 1993. Draft Species Conservation Strategy for Listera Borealis
Morong on the Colville National Forest.
Sample, and Suter, G.W., II. 1994. Estimating Exposure of Terrestrial Wildlife to Contaminants.
Sarell, M.J. and K.P. McGuiness. 1993. Rare Bats of the Shrub - Steppe Ecosystem of Eastern
Washington.
Schafer and Associates, Inc. (Schafer). 1996a. Addendum 1 to the Waste Rock Facility Seepage
Analysis. Unpubl. Rpt.
Schafer and Associates, Inc. (Schafer). 1996b. Technical Memorandum on Revised Final
Calculation of Nitrate Loads for Evaluation of Pit Water Quality, Crown Jewel Project.
Schafer and Associates, Inc. (Schafer). 1996c. Geochemical Modeling of Pit Lake Water Quality
for the Crown Jewel Project. Addendum 1: Pit Lake Water Quality Model Re-Evaluation.
Unpubl. Rpt.
Schafer and Associates, Inc. (Schafer). 1995a. Geochemical Modeling of Pit Lake Water Quality
for the Crown Jewel Project. Unpubl. Rpt.
Schafer and Associates, Inc. (Schafer). 1995b. Waste Rock Facility Seepage Analysis for the
Crown Jewel Project. Unpubl. Rpt.
Schmutz, J.K. 1989. Hawk Occupancy of Disturbed Grasslands in Relation to Models of Habitat
Selection. Condor 91:362-371.
Schmutz, J.K. 1987. The Effect of Agriculture on Ferruginous and Swainson's Hawks. J. Range
Manage. 40(5):438-440.
Schroeder, R.L. 1984. Habitat Suitability Index Models: Blue Grouse. USDI Fish and Wildlife
Service, Biol. Rep. 82(10.81). 19pp.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 6-20 CHAPTER 6 - REFERENCES January 1997
Schumacher, P. 1996. Personal Communication to Phil Christy, USDA Forest Service.
Schumacher, P. 1994. Personal Communication.
Seidensticker, J.C.JV, Hornocker, M.G., Wiles, W.V., and Messick, J.P. 1973. Mountain Lion
Social Organization in the Idaho Primitive Area. Wild). Monogr. 35. 60 pp.
Seinfeld, J.H. 1986. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics of Air Pollution. Chapter 16. John
Wiley and Sons, New York.
Servello, F.A. and R.L. Kirkpatrick. 1987. Regional Variation in the Nutritional Ecology of the
Ruffed Grouse. J. Wildl. Manage. 51:749-770.
Sharp, 8.E. 1992. Neotropical Migrants on National Forests in the Pacific Northwest: a
Compilation of Existing Information. USDC NTIS PB93-128825. 45 pages, 3 tables, 10
appendices.
Shipley Associates. 1992. How to Write Quality EISs and EAs. Bountiful, Utah.
Shroeder, M. 1994. Upland Bird Research Biologist, Washington Department of Wildlife.
Telephone conversation with Dale Lindeman, Beak Consultants Inc.
Smith, D.L. 1992. Caterpillar, Inc. Technical Bulletin.
Smith, D.L. 1991 a. Caterpillar, Inc. Technical Bulletin.
Smith, D.L. 1991b. Caterpillar, Inc. Technical Bulletin.
Smith, L.L., SJ. Broderius, D.M. Oseid, G.L. Kimball, W.M. Kownst and D.T. Lind. 1979. Acute
and Chronic Toxicity of HCN to Fish and Invertebrates. US Environmental Protection
Agency Report 600/3-79-009. 129 p.
Smith and Schugart. 1994. Ecological Risk Assessment Papers. US Environmental Protection
Agency Report 630/R-94/009.
Snoeyink, V. L. And Jenkins. 1980. Water Chemistry. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY
1980.
Snow, C. 1981 a. Ferruginous Hawk (Buteo regalis). Habitat Management Series for Unique or
Endangered Species. Rep. No. 13, USDI Bureau of Land Management. 23 pp.
Snow, C. 1981b. Southern Bald Eagle and Northern Bald Eagle. Habitat Management Series for
Endangered Species. Rep. No. 5, USDI Bureau of Land Management. 58 pp.
Soderquist, P., Tonasket Ranger District. 1994. Letter to P. Whitney, Beak Consultants Inc.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1983. National Soils Handbook. Superintendent of Documents.
US Government Printing Office. Washington, D. C.
Soutiere, E.G. 1979. Effects of Timber Harvesting on Marten in Maine. J. Wildl. Manage.
43(4):850-860.
Spier, L. 1936. Tribal Distribution in Washington. General Series in Anthropology, Number 3.
George Banta Publishing Company, Menasha.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 6-21
Stalmaster, M.V. and J.R. Newman. 1978. Behavioral Responses of Wintering Bald Eagles to
Human Activity. J. Wildl. Manage. 42(3):506-513.
Stauffer, D.F. and S.R. Peterson. 1986. Seasonal Microhabitat Relationships of Blue Grouse in
Southeastern Idaho. Great Basin Naturalist 46(1 }:117-122.
Stauffer, D.F. and S.R. Peterson. 1985. Ruffed and Blue Grouse Habitat Use in Southeastern
Idaho. J. Wildl. Manage. 49(2):459-466.
Stepniewski, A. 1994. Curlew Breeding Bird Survey. USDA Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel,
Maryland.
Stepniewski, A. 1993. Curlew Breeding Bird Survey. USDA Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel,
Maryland.
Stern, M.A. 1993. Zoologist, Nature Conservancy. Telephone conversation with Randy Floyd,
Beak Consultants Inc.
Stevenson, J.D. and J.T. Major. 1982. Marten Habitat Use in a Commercially Clear-cut Forest. J.
Wildl. Manage. 46(1 ):175-182.
Stoll, R.J., Jr., M.W. McClain, and G.C. Hart. 1977. Ruffed Grouse Fall and Winter Food
Preferences. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, Wildlife In-Service
Note 370. 8 pp.
Stout, I.J. and G.W. Cornwall. 1976. Nonhunting Mortality of Fledged North American Waterfowl.
J. Wildl. Manage. 40: 681-693.
Strickland, M.A., C.W.Douglas, M.Novak, and N. Hunzinger. 1982. Fisher. Pages 586-598 in
J.A. Chapman and G.A. Feldhamer, (eds). Wild Mammals of North America; Biology,
Management, and Economics. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
Suter, G.W., II. 1993. Ecological Risk Assessment. Lewis Publishers, Michigan.
Swedburg, D. 1994. Washington Dept. of Wildl. Enforcement Officer. Personal communication.
Telephone conversation with Randy Floyd, Beak Consultants Inc.
Taber et al. 1973. Wildlife Response to Right-of-Way Management. Research Project 63-1013.
College of Forest Resources, University of Washington, Seattle. 24pp.
Tefler, E.S. 1992. Habitat Change as a Factor in the Decline of the Western Canadian Loggerhead
Shrike, Lanius ludovicianus. Population. Can. Field Nat. 106(31:321-326.
Teit, J.A. 1930. The Salishan Tribes of the Western Plateaus. Bureau of American Ethnology,
45th Annual Report, 1927-28, edited by Franz Boas, pp. 23-296. Facsimile Reproduction.
1973. The Shorey Book Store, Seattle.
TerraMatrix Inc. (TerraMatrix). 1996. Technical Memorandum - Review of Off-Site Upland and
Side-Hill Tailings Disposal, Crown Jewel Project. Unpubl. Rpt.
TerraMatrix Inc. (TerraMatrix). 1995a. Final Summary Report, Confirmation Geochemistry
Program, Crown Jewel Project. Unpubl. Rpt.
TerraMatrix Inc. (TerraMatrix). 1995b. Baseline Water Quality Data, Crown Jewel Project.
Unpubl. Rpt.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 6-22 CHAPTER 6 - REFERENCES January 1997
TerraMatrix Inc. (TerraMatrix). 1994. Slope Stability Analysis; Assumptions and Calculations for
Waste Rock Slope Stability.
Terres, J.K. 1980. The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North American Birds. Alfred A. Knopf,
Inc. New York, NY. 1,109pp.
Thiel, R.P. 1985. Relationship Between Road Densities and Wolf Habitat Suitability in Wisconsin.
Am. Midi. Nat. 113:404-407.
Thomas, J.W. (tech. ed.) 1979. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forest; the Blue Mountains of
Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service, Agric. Hand. 553. Wildl. Manage. Inst.,
Washington, D.C., and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 512 pp.
Thompson, L.S. 1978. Transmission Line Wire Strikes: Mitigation Through Engineering Design and
Habitat Modification. Pages 27-52 (in Avery, M.L. (ed). Impacts of Transmission Lines on
Birds in Flight: Proceedings of a Workshop). USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Biol. Serv.
Program, FWS/OBS-78-48.
Thornburg, A.A. 1982. Plant Materials for Use on Surface-mined Lands in the Arid and Semi-arid
West. (SCS-TP-157). Superintendent of Documents. Washington, D.C. 88pp.
Tisdale, S.L. and W.L. Nelson. 1975. Soil Fertility and Fertilizers. Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.
New York.
Tom Phillips and Associates. 1995. A Housing Needs Assessment and Strategies for Okanogan
County.
Tonasket. 1989. Town of Tonasket Comprehensive Park and Recreation Plan. Town of Tonasket,
Washington.
Towill, L.F., J.J. Drury, B.L. Whitfield, E.B. Lewis, E.L. Galyan,and A.J. Hammers. 1978.
Reviews of the Environmental Effects of Pollutants: V. Cyanide. Interagency Report, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory Report No. ORNL/EIS-81 and EPA Report No. EPA-600/1-78-027,
U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Uebelacker. 1978. Cultural Resource Overview of the Tonasket Planning Unit (for Okanogan
National Forest, Okanogan, Washington).
United States Army. 1978. Construction Site Noise Control, Cost-Benefit Estimating Procedures.
Construction Engineering Research Lab, AD-A051737.
United States Committee on Large Dams (USCOLD). 1985. Guidelines for Selecting Seismic
Parameters for Dam Parameters for Dam Projects. USCOLD Report.
Unites States Geological Survey (USGS). 1988. Toroda, Washington Quadrangle Map.
Unsworth, J.W., J.J. Beecham, and L.R. Irby. 1989. Female Black Bear Use in West-central
Idaho. J. Wildl. Manage. 53(3):668-673.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service (Forest Service). 1996a. Biological Evaluation for Proposed, Endangered,
Threatened, and Sensitive Plants: Crown Jewel Project Analysis Area.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service (Forest Service). 1996b. Letter from Craig Bobzien to Janet Shangraw,
Hydro-Geo, Consultants Regarding Roosevelt Adit Flow Diversion.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 6-23
U.S.D.A. Forest Service (Forest Service). 1995a. Inland Native Fish Strategy, Environmental
Assessment. Coeur d'Alene, ID.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service (Forest Service). 1995b. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-360.
Forested Plant Associations of the Colville National Forest.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service (Forest Service). 1994a. Visual Air Quality in the Pacific Northwest, An
Analysis of Camera Data 1983-1992.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service (Forest Service). 1994b. Reclamation Maps of Alternatives. Tonasket
Ranger District. Five Maps and Reclamation Key.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service (Forest Service). 1994c. Continuation of Interim Management Direction
Establishing Riparian Ecosystem and Wildlife Standards for Timber Sales.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service (Forest Service). 1993a. Nicholson Timber Sale Environmental
Assessment.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service (Forest Service). 1993b. Landscape Aesthetics, A Handbook for Scenery
Management. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service (Forest Service). 1993c. Stream Inventory Handbook, Region 6, 1993 -
Version 7.0.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service (Forest Service). 1993d. Past timber sale information provided by
Tonasket Ranger District to L. Labovitch, TerraMatrix.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service (Forest Service). 1992a. Goshawk Map. USDA Forest Service,
Okanogan National Forest.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service (Forest Service). 1992b. Stream Inventory Handbook, Region 6, 1992 -
Version 6.0.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service (Forest Service). 1991 a. Wildlife Sighting Forms. USDA Forest Service,
Okanogan National Forest.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service (Forest Service). 1991b. West Moyie Final Environmental Impact
Statement. Idaho Panhandle National Forests, Bonners Ferry Ranger District, misc.
pagings.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service (Forest Service). 1990. Bald Eagle Sighting Map. Okanogan National
Forest.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service (Forest Service). 1989. Land and Resource Management Plan for the
Okanogan National Forest.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service (Forest Service). 1988. General Water Quality Best Management
Practices, pp 6-7.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service (Forest Service). 1984. Buckhorn Mountain Timber Sale Wildlife Map.
USDA Forest Service, Okanogan National Forest.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service (Forest Service). 1974. National Forest Landscape Management. Volume
2, Chapter 1, The Visual Management System. US Government Printing Office,
Washington D.C.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 6-24 CHAPTER 6 - REFERENCES January 1997
U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1992. Buckhorn Inventory Block, Okanogan Planning
Unit. Unpublished Inventory Data.
U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1985. Spokane Resource Management Plan (RMP)
as amended in 1992.
U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan. Missoula, Mt.
181p.
U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1991. Cyanide Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and
Invertebrates; A Synoptic Review, Biological Report 85(1.23).
U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1986. Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. USDI Fish
and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 160 pp.
U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). 1982. Federal-Aid Highway Program Manual.
USDOT, Federal Highway Administration. Transmittal 348.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1995. Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter.
EPA/600/AP-95/001a.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1994. Final Technical Document, Acid Mine
Drainage Prediction. EPA 530-R-94-036.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1986. Quality Criteria For Water. EPA-440/586-
001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1985. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Cyanide,
1984. Criteria and Standards Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C., EPA-440/5-84-028.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1978. Protective Noise Levels, Condensed Version
of EPA Levels Document. EPA/500/9-79-100.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1973. Water Quality Criteria 1972. Prepare by
National Academy of Sciences-National Academy of Engineering, for USEPA, EPAR3-73-
033. Washington, D.C.
Van Dyke, W.A., A. Sands, J. Yoakum, A. Polenz, and J. Blaisdell. 1983. Wildlife Habitats in
Managed Rangelands - the Great Basin of Southeastern Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW159.
USDA Forest Service.
von Michaelis, Dr. H. 1987. The Prospects for Alternative Leach Reagents, Engineering and
Mining Journal.
Wagner Jr., W.H. and F.S. Wagner. 1990. Moonworts of the Upper Great Lakes Region, USA and
Canada with Descriptions of Two New Species. 17:313-325.
Wakeley, J.S. 1978. Factors Affecting the Use of Hunting Sites by Ferruginous Hawks. Condor
80:316-326.
Wakelyn, L.A. 1987. Changing Habitat Conditions on Bighorn Sheep Ranges in Colorado. J.
Wildl. Manage. 51(4):904-912.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 6-25
Walkinshaw, L.H. 1956. Sandhill Cranes Killed by Flying into Power Lines. Wilson Bull. 68:325-
326.
Ward, A.L. 1985. The Response of Elk and Mule Deer to Firewood Gathering on the Medicine
Bow Range in South-central Wyoming. Pages 28-40 (in R.W. Nelson, (ed). Proceedings of
the 1984 Western States and Provinces Elk Workshop). Wild). Branch, Fish and Wildl. Div.,
Edmonton, Alberta.
Washington Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (WIAC). 1990. Washington Outdoors:
Assessment and Policy Plan, 1990-1995. Tumwater, Washington.
Washington State Auditor's Office. 1996. Detailed Revenue and Expenditure Data for Ferry and
Okanogan Counties.
Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (WACTED).
1995. Washington Travel Impacts and Visitor Volume - 1994.
Washington State Department of Ecology (WADOE). 1996. Personal Comumication between Phil
Crane (WADOE) and Eric Hovee (E.D. Hovee) Regarding Chesaw-Molson Water Rights.
Washington State Department of Ecology (WADOE). 1992. Water Quality Standards for Surface
Waters of the State of Washington, Chapter 173-201A WAC.
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WADFW). 1995. Wildlife Habitat Evaluation
Procedure Study, Proposed Crown Jewel Mine Project.
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WADFW). 1994. Priority Habitats and Species
Data Release; Nongame Data System Report; and, Priority Habitats and Species and Natural
Heritage Wildlife Data Maps: Bodie, 4811878; Buckhorn Mtn, 4811888; Chesaw,
4811981; and Toroda, 4811887.
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WADFW) and Washington Department of
Ecology (WADOE). 1993a. Instream Flow Study Guidelines.
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WADFW). 1993b. Status of the North
American lynx (Lynx canadensis) in Washington. Washington Department of Wildlife,
Olympia, Washington.
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WADFW). 1993c. Status of the Pygmy Rabbit
(Brachylagus idahoensis) in Washington. Washington Department of Wildlife, Olympia,
Washington. 25 pp.
Washington State Department of Transportation (WADOT). 1992. A History and Summary of
Reported Accidents.
Washington State Employment Security Department. 1996. Labor Market and Economic Analysis
Branch, Employment and Payrolls in Washington State by County and Industry.
Washington State Forest Practices Board. 1993. Standard Methodology for Conducting
Watershed Analysis, under Chapter 222-22 WAC, Version 2.0.
Washington State Office of Financial Management. 1995. 1995 Population Trends for
Washington State.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 6-26 CHAPTER 6 - REFERENCES January 1997
Washington State Office of Financial Management. 1992. 1992 Population Trends for
Washington State.
Washington State Natural Heritage Program. 1994. Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive
Vascular Plants of Washington. DNR 52p.
Wasser, C.H. 1982. Ecology and Culture of Selected Species Useful in Revegetation of Disturbed
Lands in the West. U.S.D.I., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. 347pp.
Watson, J.W., M.G. Garrett, and R.G. Anthony. 1991. Foraging Ecology of Bald Eagles in the
Columbia River Estuary. J. Wild. Manage. 55(3):492-499.
Weaver, J. 1993. Lynx, Wolverine, and Fisher in Western United States. Northern Rockies
Conservation Cooperative, Jackson Hole, Wyoming.
Wedgewood, J. 1992. Tolerance of Short-term Disturbances by Sharp-tailed Grouse. Blue Jay
50(2):96-100.
Western Mine Engineering. 1995. APEX. Software for Mining Economic Analysis (Version 2.01).
Spokane, Washington.
White, C.M. and T.L. Thurow. 1985. Reproduction of Ferruginous Hawks Exposed to Controlled
Disturbance. Condor 87:14-22.
Whitaker Jr., J.O., S.P. Cross, J.M. Skovlin, and C. Maser. 1982. Food Habits of the Spotted
Frog (Rana pretiosa) from Managed Sites in Grant County, Oregon. Northwest Sci. 57(2):
147-154.
Whitworth, D. 1996. Safety Service Manager Dupont Mining Services. Personal communication
with Terry Starki.
Whitworth, D. 1994. Safety Service Manager Dupont Mining Services. Letter from Don
Whitworth (Dupont) to Suzanne Maddux (TerraMatrix, Inc.) Regarding Transportation of
Sodium Cyanide.
Wiens, J.A. 1979. Diet Niche Relationships Among North American Grassland and Shrub-Steppe
Birds. Oecologia 42: 253-292.
Wiens, J.A. and R.A. Nussbaum. 1975. Model Estimation of Energy Flow in Northwestern
Coniferous Forest Bird Communities. Ecology 56: 547-561.
Williams, K, 1992. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Ephrata, Washington. Personal
Communications.
Wilson, D.E. 1982. Wolverine. Pages 644-652 (in J.A. Chapman and G.A. Feldhamer, feds). Wild
Mammals of North America: Biology, Management, and Economics). John Hopkins Univ.
Press, Baltimore, MD. 1,147 pp.
Wishart, W. 1978. Bighorn Sheep. Pages 161-171 (in J.L Schmidt and D.L. Gilbert, leds). Big
Game of North America, Ecology and Management). Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA.
494 pp.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 6-27
Witmer, G.W., M.P. Kuttel, M. Wisdom, I.D. Luman, E.P. Harshman, J.A. Rochelle, R.J. Anderson,
R.W. Scharpf, C. Carey, and D. Smithey. 1985. Deer and Elk. Pg 231-258 in Brown, E.R.,
(tech.ed), Management of Wildlife and Fish Habitats in Forests of Western Oregon and
Washington. USDA Forest Service, Pac. Northwest Reg., Portland, Oregon.
Woffinden, N.D. and J.R. Murphy. 1989. Decline of a Ferruginous Hawk Population: a 20 Year
Summary. J. Wildl. Manage. 53(4): 1127-1132.
Woffinden, N.D. and J.R. Murphy. 1983. Ferruginous Hawk Nest Site Selection. J. Wildl.
Manage. 47(1):216-219.
Woodruff, N. P., L. Lyles, F. H. Siddoway, and D. W. Fryrear. 1972. How to Control Wind
Erosion. Agricultural Information Bulletin No. 354. Superintendent of Documents. US
Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C.
Yenko, D. 1992. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Okanogan National Forest, Supervisor's Office.
Personal Communication with Susan Corser.
Yosef, R. and T.C. Grubb, Jr. 1993. Effect of Vegetation Height on Hunting Behavior and Diet of
Loggerhead Shrikes. Condor 95(1 }:127-131.
Zender, S. 1994. Wildlife Biologist, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Telephone
conversation with Susan Barnes, Beak Consultants Inc.
Zieroth, E. 1993. District Ranger, Tonasket Ranger District. Letter to Alan Czarnowsky, ACZ, Inc.
Zika, P.F., R. Brained, and B. Newhouse. 1995. Grapeferns and Moonworts in the Columbia
Basin.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
-------
Chapter 7
Glossary, Acronyms, And Abbreviations
-------
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 7-1
7.0 GLOSSARY, ACRONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS
Abandonment: Discontinuing project operation, salvaging project facilities, and rehabilitating the
site when future mining is determined to be technically or economically infeasible.
Acid-base-accounting (ABA): An evaluation of the potential for acid generation by comparing
various levels and forms of acid-forming and acid-neutralizing materials found in ore or waste
rock.
Acid drainage: Water from pits, underground workings, waste rock, and tailings containing free
sulfuric acid. The formation of acid drainage is primarily due to the weathering of iron pyrite
and other sulfur-containing minerals. Acid drainage can mobilize and transport heavy metals
which are often characteristic of metal deposits.
Acid generation potential (AGP): A material's potential to generate acid and produce acid drainage.
Analytical tests used to assess acid generating potential are either static or kinetic.
Acid mine drainage (AMD): 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.
Acid neutralizing potential (ANP): The measure of a carbonate material theoretically available to
neutralize potential acid generated by ore or waste rock.
Acid rock drainage (ARD): See acid drainage.
Acre-foot: The amount of water or sediment volume which covers an acre of land to a depth of
one foot; an acre-foot is equal to 325,851 gallons or 43,560 cubic feet.
Activity: An action, measure of treatment undertaken that directly or indirectly produces,
enhances, or maintains forest and rangeland outputs, or achieves administrative or
environmental quality objectives (FSM 1309, Management Information Handbook). An activity
can generate multiple outputs.
Acute conditions: Changes in the physical, chemical, or biologic environment which are expected
or demonstrated to result in injury or death to an organism as a result of short-term exposure
to the substance or detrimental environmental condition.
Adit: An underground mining term. A horizontal or nearly horizontal access opening into an ore
deposit with a single opening to the surface. Different from a tunnel which has both ends
opening to the surface.
Adsorption: The adherence of molecules in solution to the surface of solids with which they are in
contact. Dissolved gold adsorbs to activated carbon.
Adjudicated: In law, to hear and decide judicially.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 7-2 CHAPTER 7 - GLOSSARY January 1997
ADT: Average daily traffic. A measure of traffic over a 24-hour period and is determined by
counting the number of vehicles (from both directions) passing a specific point on a given
road.
Aerial: Consisting of, moving through, found, or suspended in the air.
Affected environment: A physical, biological, social, and economic environment within which
human activity is proposed.
Affects (ESA): Includes both direct and indirect effects to the listed species and/or its habitat.
May Affect Any action that would result in a beneficial effect or could result in an adverse
impact to a listed species. A "may effect" determination would necessitate the
need for informal (or formal) consultation with the U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
No Effect A proposed action would not have any impact on a listed species or its habitat.
Age class: An interval, usually 10 to 20 years, into which the age range of vegetation is divided
for classification or use.
AKART: An acronym for: All Known Available and Reasonable Technology.
Alkaline chlorination: A treatment method by chemical reaction used to break down cyanide into
non-toxic sodium bicarbonate, nitrogen, sodium chloride, and water. This method may be
used to treat mill effluent and tailings.
Alluvium: Unconsolidated sedimentary material (including clay, silt, sand, gravel, and mud)
deposited by flowing water.
Alternatives: The different means by which objectives or goals can be attained. One of several
policies, plans, or projects proposed for decision making.
Ambient: The environment as it exists at the point of measurement and against which changes
(impacts) are measured.
Ambient air quality standard: Air pollutant concentrations of the surrounding outside environment
which cannot legally be exceeded during fixed time intervals within specific geographic areas.
Ambient noise level: The composite of noise from all sources near and far. In this context, the
ambient noise level constitutes the normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given
location.
AMD: An acronym for: Acid mine drainage.
Anadromous: Those species of fish that mature in the sea and swim up freshwater rivers and
streams to spawn. Salmon, steelhead, and searun cutthroat trout are examples.
Analysis area: A delineation of land subject to analysis of: 1) responses to proposed management
practices in the production, enhancement, or maintenance of forest and rangeland outputs and
environmental quality objectives, and 2) economic and social impacts (FSM 1905). Tracts of
land with relatively homogeneous characteristics in terms of the outputs and effects that are
being analyzed.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 7-3
Andesite: A dark-colored, fine-grained extrusive rock (an igneous rock that reaches the surface)
which contains sodium plagioclase.
ANFO: A mixture of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil which is used as a blasting agent.
Animal unit month (AUM): The amount of forage required by one cow and calf, or their equivalent,
for one month. Approximately 800 pounds of air-dried feed (26 pounds/day).
APP: An acronym for: Acid Producing Potential. The difference between a material's acid
generating potential (AGP) and its acid neutralizing potential (ANP), usually expressed as an
equivalent weight of calcium carbonate.
Aquatic: Growing, living in, frequenting, or taking place in water; in this EIS, used to indicate
habitat, vegetation, and wildlife in freshwater.
Aquifer: A zone, stratum, or group of strata acting as a hydraulic unit that stores or transmits
water in sufficient quantities for beneficial use.
Aquitard: A confining bed that retards but does not prevent the flow of water to or from an
adjacent aquifer; a leaky confining bed. It does not readily yield water to wells or springs, but
may serve as a storage unit for ground water.
Areal: The spatial extent or location.
Artesian: Refers to ground water under hydrostatic pressure. Water in a well rises above the level
of the water table under hydrostatic pressure (artesian) and usually flows at the surface.
Artifact: An object made or modified by humans.
ASIL: Acceptable Source Impact Level. Limits developed by WADOE based on health related
risk factors, and are designated to protect human health.
Aspect: The direction toward which a slope faces.
Attainment area: A geographic region with which National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) are met; three categories of attainment are defined as Class I, Class II, and Class III
on the basis of the level of degradation of air quality which may be permitted.
Audible: Capable of being heard.
B
Background: (scenic distance zone.) The distant part of a landscape. The seen or viewed area
located more than four miles from the viewer, and generally as far as the eye can detect
objects.
Backfill: Waste material (i.e. rock) that is placed back in surface or underground mine workings.
BACT: Best Available Control Technology - pollution controls as defined by EPA for a specific
emission or pollutant discharge and required for meeting pollution control regulations.
Ball mill: Equipment used to reduce ore particles to a finer size; includes a large rotating cylinder
partially filled with steel balls.
Barren solution: Non gold-bearing cyanide solution.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 7-4 CHAPTER 7 - GLOSSARY January 1997
Base flow: A sustained or fair-weather flow of a stream.
Baseline data: Data gathered prior to the proposed action to characterize pre-development site
conditions.
BMGC: Battle Mountain Gold Company.
BCME: British Columbia Ministry of Environment.
Bench: A ledge, which in open-pit mines and quarries, forms a single level of operation above
which mineral or waste materials are excavated from a single bank or bench face.
Bench scale: Refers to samples prepared in a laboratory to simulate large (field) scale conditions.
Benthic macroinvertebrate: Small animals without a backbone or spinal column that reside in
water.
Berm: An earthen structure, generally several feet high, which acts as a barrier to make it difficult
for a vehicle to cross, or which redirects the flow of traffic, water, or other materials.
Best management practices (BMP): Management actions that are designed to maintain water
quality by preventative rather than corrective means.
Big game: Large animals hunted, or potentially hunted, for sport. These include animals such as
deer, bear, elk, moose, bobcats, and mountain lions.
Bioaccumulation: Pertaining to concentration of a compound, usually potentially toxic, in the
tissues of an organism.
Biodegradable: Capable of being broken down by the action of living organisms such as micro-
organisms.
Biological Assessment (BA): Refers to the information prepared by or under the direction of the
Federal agency concerning listed and proposed species and designated and proposed critical
habitat that may be present in the action area and the evaluation of potential effects of the
action on such species and habitat.
Biological Evaluation (BE): Refers to the information prepared by or under the direction of the
Forest Service concerning listed and Regional Forester Sensitive Species that may be present
in the action area and the evaluation of potential affects of the alternatives on such species
and habitat.
Biological Opinion (ESA): A document that states the opinion of the U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife
Service as to whether or not the Federal action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
Biomass: The total weight of all living organisms in a biological community.
BOD: Biological Oxygen Demand - The quantity of oxygen utilized in the biochemical oxidation of
organic matter in a specified time and temperature.
Bond: A sum of money which, under contract, one party pays another party under conditions that
when certain obligations or acts are met, the money is then returned; such as after mining
reclamation occurs. Also referred to as performance security. See reclamation guarantee.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 7-5
Borrow area: Rock quarry; earthen construction material source area such as sand and gravel or
topsoil taken from specific area for use in construction or reclamation.
British Thermal Unit (BTU): The amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one pound of
water one degree Fahrenheit.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM): The agency of the United States Government, under the
Department of the Interior, responsible for administering certain public lands of the United
States.
c
°C: Degrees Celsius.
Calcite: A mineral, calcium carbonate (CaC03). One of the most common minerals; the principal
constituent of limestone. The primary acid neutralizing material in the Crown Jewel Project
deposit.
Canopy: The more-or-less continuous cover of branches and foliage formed collectively by the
crown of adjacent trees and other woody debris.
Capability: The potential of an area of land to produce resources, supply goods and services, and
allow resource uses under an assumed set of management practices at a given level of
management intensity. Capability depends upon current conditions and site conditions such
as climate, slope, landform, soils, and geology, as well as the application of management
practices.
Carrying capacity: The number of organisms of a given species and quality that can survive in,
without causing deterioration of, a given ecosystem through the least favorable environmental
conditions that occur within a stated interval of time.
CEQ: An advisory council to the President of the United States; established by the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969. It reviews federal programs for their effect on the
environment, conducts environmental studies, and advises the President on environmental
matters.
CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (1980); also
known as Superfund. This act provided the authority for money administered by the EPA to
identify and clean up hazardous waste sites.
CFR: Code of Federal Regulations. A codification of the general and permanent rules published in
the Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government.
cfs: Cubic feet per second; 1 cfs equals 448.33 gallons per minute.
Chlorine: A toxic, yellow-green irritating gas of disagreeable odor belonging to the halogen group
of diatomic molecules.
Chronic conditions: Changes in the physical, chemical, or biologic environment which are expected
or demonstrated to result in injury or death to an organism as a result of repeated or constant
exposure over an extended period of time to a substance or detrimental environmental
condition.
Chronically: Continually and repeatedly over a long period of time.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 7-6 CHAPTER 7 - GLOSSARY January 1997
CIL: Carbon-in-leach method of gold recovery from cyanide solutions.
CIP: Carbon-in-pulp method of gold recovery from cyanide solutions.
Climax plant communities: The stabilized plant community on a particular site. The plant cover
does not change so long as the environment remains the same.
Climax species: Those species that dominate a climax stand in either numbers per unit area or
biomass.
Closure: An administrative order restricting either location, timing, or type of use in a specific area.
CMAI: Culmination of mean annual increment.
CMP: Corrugated metal pipe; culverts used in road/stream crossings.
Coarse fragments: That portion of the soil larger than two millimeters, including gravels, cobbles,
rocks, and boulders.
COE: U.S Army Corps of Engineers; agency responsible for regulating and permitting wetland
disturbances.
Colluvium: Soil material or rock fragments moved down slope by gravitational force in the form of
creep, slides, and local wash.
Color: The property of reflecting light of a particular wavelength that enables the eye to
differentiate otherwise indistinguishable objects. A hue (red, green, blue, yellow and so on),
as contrasted with a value (black, white, or gray).
Community stability: A community's capacity to handle change without major hardships or
disruptions to component groups or institutions. Measurements of community stability require
identification of the type and rate of proposed change and an assessment of the community's
capacity to accommodate that level of change.
Concern: A point, matter, or questions raised by management or the public that must be
addressed in the planning process.
Conditional use: Usually refers to a local (city or county) permit with specific scope and
conditions.
Cone of depression: The geometry or shape of an inverted cone on the water table or artisan
pressure surface caused by the pumping of a well. The cone of depression will disappear over
time when well pumping ceases.
Consumptive use: A use of resources (such as by mining) that permanently reduces the supply.
Contrast: Diversity of adjacent parts, as in color, tone or emotions. The closure the juxtaposition
of two dissimilar perceptions, in time or space, the more powerful the appeal to the attention.
Corridor: A strip of land identified for the present or future location of transportation or utility
rights-of-ways.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 7-7
Costs:
Direct costs A cost that directly contributes to the production of the primary outputs of an
activity, project, or program.
Economic cost Total fixed and variable costs for inputs, including costs incurred by other public
parties and, if appropriate, opportunity costs and cost savings.
Fixed cost A cost that is committed for the time horizon of planning or the decision being
considered. Fixed costs include fixed ownership requirements, fixed protection,
short-term maintenance, and long-term planning and inventory costs.
Investment costs A cost of creating or enhancing capital assets, including costs of administrative
or common-use transport facilities and resource management investments.
Joint cost A cost contributing to the projection of more than one type of output.
Opportunity cost The value of a resource's foregone net benefits in its most economically
efficient alternative use.
Unit cost or
cost per unit Total cost of production divided by the number of units produced.
Variable cost A cost that varies with the level of controlled outputs in the time horizon
covered by the planning period or decisions being considered.
Cost effective: Achieving specified outputs or objectives under given conditions for the least cost.
Cost efficiency: The usefulness of specified inputs (costs) to produce specified outputs (benefits).
In measuring cost efficiency, some outputs, including environmental, economic, or social
impacts, are not assigned monetary values, but are achieved at specified levels in the least
costly manner. Cost efficiency is usually measured using net present value, although use of
benefit-cost ratios and internal rate-or-return may be appropriate.
Council on Environmental Quality: See CEQ.
Cover: Living or non-living material (e.g., vegetation) used by fish and wildlife for protection from
predators, to ameliorate conditions of weather, or reproduce. The proportion of the ground
occupied by a perpendicular projection to the ground from the outline of the aerial parts of the
members of a plant species.
CPOM: Coarse participate organic matter.
Criteria: Data and information which are used to examine or establish the relative degrees of
desirability among alternatives or the degree to which a course of action meets an intended
objective.
Cultural resources: The remains of sites, structures, or objects used by humans in the past,
historic or prehistoric. More recently referred to as heritage resources.
Cumulative effects or impacts: Cumulative effect or impact is the impact on the environment
which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present,
and reasonable foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal)
or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor
but collectively significant actions taken place over a period of time (40 CFR 1508.7 - these
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 7-8 CHAPTER 7 - GLOSSARY January 1997
regulations use effects and impacts synonymously). For example, the impacts of a proposed
timber sale and the development of a mine together result in cumulative impacts.
Cutoff grade: Lowest grade of mineralized rock that qualifies as ore in a given deposit; assay grade
below which an ore body cannot be profitably exploited.
Cyanide: A naturally occurring organic compound composed of carbon and nitrogen (CN); a solid
chemical compound (sodium or calcium cyanide) is dissolved in water to form a solution which
is suitable for the extraction of precious metals from ore by using a leaching process.
Cyanidation: The type of milling where prepared ore is exposed to cyanide, under a set of specific
conditions which dissolves precious metals such as gold. Various cyanidation processes are
capable of extracting gold, with up to 90% efficiency, in grades as low as 0.0025 ounces of
gold per ton of ore.
D
dB: Decibel scale.
DBH: Diameter of a tree at breast height (four feet, six inches from ground level).
Decibel (dBA): A unit for expressing the relative intensity (loudness) of sound (decibel or dBA),
weighted along the audible frequencies.
Decommissioning: Suspension and/or closure of operations and possible removal of facilities.
Demography: A statistical study of the characteristics of human populations with reference to size,
density, growth, distribution, migration, and effect on social and economic conditions.
Density: The number of individuals in a given area. Expressed per unit area.
Depletion: Use of a resource (such as water) in a manner that makes it no longer available to other
users in the same system.
Deposit: A natural accumulation, such as precious metals, minerals, coal, gas, oil, etc. that may be
pursued for its intrinsic value; gold deposit.
Desorb: To remove by the reverse of adsorption.
Desired future condition (DFC): A portrayal of the land or resource conditions which are expected
to result if goals and objectives are fully achieved (30 CFR 219).
Detection limit: The lowest concentration of a chemical that can be reliably reported to be different
from zero concentration. Various analytical instrumentation has different detection limits.
Detention ponds: Structures constructed by excavation and/or by building an embankment whose
purpose is to retain water and allow for settlement of fines (total suspended solids) and
reduction in turbidity.
DFO: Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Diamond drilling: Rock drilling that makes use of a diamond-tipped drill bit. Often used when
recovering a core sample of rock.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 7-9
Dilution: The act of mixing or thinning, and therefore decreasing a certain strength or
concentration.
Dip: The angle at which rock stratum, vein, or any plane (fault) is inclined from a horizontal plane.
Direct impacts: Impacts which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place.
Discharge: The volume of water flowing past a point per unit time, commonly expressed as cubic
feet per second, million gallons per day, gallons per minute, or cubic meters per second.
Discount rate: An interest rate that represents the cost or time value of money in determining the
present value of future costs and benefits.
Disposal area: An area where waste rock is placed during mining either temporarily or
permanently. Also called a fill, storage site, or stockpile. For the Crown Jewel Project EIS,
disposal area refers to a permanent fill.
Dispersion: The act of distributing or separating into lower concentration or less dense units.
Dissociable: A chemical combination that can break up into simpler constituents.
Distance zones: Areas of landscapes denoted by specified distances from the observer. Used as a
frame of reference in which to discuss landscape characteristics or activities of man.
Diversion: Removing water from its natural course or location, or controlling water in its natural
course or location, by means of a ditch, canal, flume, reservoir, bypass, pipeline, conduit, well,
pump, or other structure or device.
Diversity: An expression of community structure. High if there are many equally abundant
species; low if only a few equally abundant species. The distribution and abundance of
different plant and animal communities and species within the area covered by a land and
resource management plan (36 CFR 219.3).
DNR: SeeWADNR.
DO: Dissolved Oxygen.
DOE: Determination of Eligibility.
Dor6: Uncoined gold or silver in the mass; precious metals when smelted but not perfectly refined;
found in bars, ingots, or in any form uncoined, as in plate. Sometimes referred to as bullion.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS): The draft statement of environmental effects which
is required for major federal actions under Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy
Act, and released to the public and other agencies for comment and review. Under the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), a DEIS is required for proposals which may have probable
significant adverse impacts.
Drift: An underground mining term. A primary or secondary horizontal or nearly horizontal mine
passageway driven off the adit or other drifts to access the ore body and provide haulage
ways.
E
EA: Environmental Assessment.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 7-10 CHAPTER 7 - GLOSSARY January 1997
Earthquake: Sudden movement of the earth resulting from faulting, volcanism, or other
mechanisms within the earth.
Ecosystem: An interacting system of organisms considered together with their environment; for
example aquatic, marsh, watershed, and lake ecosystems.
Effects: "Effect" and "impact" are synonymous as used in this document. Environmental changes
resulting from a proposed action. Included are direct effects, which are caused by the action
and occur at the same time and place, and indirect effects, which are caused by the action
and are later in time or further removed in distance, but which are still reasonably foreseeable.
Indirect effects may include growth-inducing effects and other effects related to induced
changes in the pattern of land use, population density, or growth rate, and related effects on
air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.
Effervescence: Reaction of a soil mass to the addition of 0.1 N hydrochloric acid indicating the
concentration of free calcium in the soil.
Electrofishing: The taking of fish by a system based on their tendency to become immobilized by
direct electric current.
Electrowinning: A means of recovering metals from solution using electrochemical processes. It is
usually found as a primary metal recovery in conjunction with cyanide leaching. It is used to
recover the gold from the pregnant solution stripped from the activated carbon.
Employment: Labor input into a production process, measured in the number of person-years or
jobs. A person-year is approximately 2,000 working hours by one person working year long or
by several persons working seasonally. The number of jobs required to product the output of
each sector. A job may be one week, one month, or one year.
EMT: Emergency Medical Technician.
Endangered species: Any species of animal or plant that is in danger of extinction throughout all or
a significant portion of its range. Plant or animal species identified by the Secretary of the
Interior as endangered in accordance with the 1973 Endangered Species Act.
ENM: Environmental Noise Model.
Environment: The physical conditions that exist within the area that will be affected by a proposed
project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of
historical or aesthetic significance. The sum of all external conditions that affect an organism
or community to influence its development or existence.
Environmental impact statement (EIS): An analytical document prepared under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Washington State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) that
portrays potential impacts to the environment of a Proposed Action and its possible
alternatives. An EIS is developed for use by decision makers to weigh the environmental
consequences of a potential decision.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): An agency of the Executive Branch of the Federal
Government which has responsibility for environmental matters of national concern.
Ephemeral stream: A stream or portion of a stream that flows only in direct response to
precipitation or snow melt. Such flow is usually of short duration.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 7-11
Epicenter: The part of the earth's surface directly above the focus or origin of an earthquake.
Erodibility (K-factor): A means or factor used to estimate the erosion potential of soils through the
use of the "Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE)".
Erosion: The wearing away of the land surface by running water, wind, ice, or other geologic
agents, including gravitation creep.
ESA: Endangered Species Act.
Escape cover: Usually vegetation dense enough to hide an animal; used by animals to escape from
potential predators.
Essential habitat (ESA): Those areas designated by the Regional Forester of the Forest Service as
possessing the same characteristics as critical habitat without having been declared as critical
habitat by the Secretary of the Interior. The term includes habitat necessary to meet recovery
objectives for endangered, threatened, and proposed species, and those necessary to maintain
viable populations of sensitive species.
Ethnographic: Descriptive anthropology. The study of man in relation to distribution, classification,
origin, environmental and social relations, and culture.
Exploration: The search for economic deposits of minerals, gas, oil or coal through the practices of
geology, geochemistry, geophysics, drilling, shaft sinking, and/or mapping.
F
°F: Degrees Fahrenheit.
Fan: Rock and soil material deposited at the toe of a slope by the action of fluvial and gravitational
forces.
Fault: A displacement of rock along a sheer surface or linear plane.
Feasible: Capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of
time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.
Feasibility study: As applied to mining, the feasibility study follows discovery of the mineral and is
prepared by the mining company or an independent consultant. Its purpose is to analyze the
rate of monetary return that can be expected from the mine at a certain rate or production.
Based on this study, the decision by the company to develop the ore body may be made.
Final environmental impact statement (final EIS): Means a detailed written statement as required
by Section 12{2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1508.11). It is a
revision of the draft environmental impact statement to include public and agency comments
to the draft.
Fisheries habitat: Streams, lakes, and reservoirs that support fish populations.
Fishery: All activities related to human harvest of a fisheries resource.
Floodplain: The lowland and relatively flat area adjoining inland waters, including, at a minimum,
that area subject to a 1 % or greater chance of flooding in any given year.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 7-12 CHAPTER 7 - GLOSSARY January 1997
Flotation: A milling process wherein finely ground ore material is introduced to a circuit where
chemical reagents and/or air are introduced to concentrate valuable minerals. The valuable
minerals adhere to air bubbles and float to the top, whereas the less valuable components sink
to the bottom and are removed as tailings.
Fluvial: Of or relating to a stream or river.
Forage: All browse and non-woody plants that are available to livestock or game animals for
grazing or harvestable for feed.
Forb: Broad-leafed, small plants composed of soft tissue, not woody material. Any herb other
than grass.
Foreground: (scenic distance zone) A term used in scenic resource management to describe the
area immediately adjacent to the observer, usually within % to % mile.
Forest Plan: Each of the National Forests administered by the Forest Service is operated under a
"Land and Resource Management Plan" as required by the National Forest Management Act of
1976. The 1976 Act was an amendment to the Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960
and the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974. Forest Plans are
prepared under the authority of these acts.
Form: Structure, mass, or shape of a landscape or of an object. Landscape form is often defined
by edges or outlines of landforms, rockforms, vegetation patterns, or waterforms, or the
enclosed spaces created by these attributes.
Free cyanide: Cyanide molecules that are unattached to any other atoms; chemically uncombined.
French drain: A water passage made by filling a trench with loose stones and covering with earth.
Frequency: The number of samples in which a plant or animal species occurs divided by the total
number of samples.
Freshet: A large increase in stream flow due to heavy rains or snow melt.
Fugitive dust: Dust particles suspended randomly in the air, usually from road travel, excavation,
and/or rock loading operations.
Game species: Any species of wildlife or fish for which seasons and bag limits have been
prescribed and which are normally harvested by hunters, trappers, and fishermen under state
or federal laws, codes and regulations.
Garnetite: A metamorphic rock material consisting primarily of garnet.
Genetic variation: The variety of genes present within and among individuals in a population,
which influences how well a population can adapt to environment changes over time.
Geohydrology: Refers to the hydrologic or flow characteristics of subsurface waters. Often
interchangeable with hydrogeology.
Geomorphic: Pertaining to the form of the surface of the earth.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 7-13
Geotechnical engineering: A branch of engineering that is essentially concerned with the
engineering design aspects of slope stability, settlement, earth pressures, bearing capacity,
seepage control, and erosion.
Glacial till: Glacial materials deposited directly by ice with little or no transportation by water.
gpd, gph. gpm: Gallons per day, gallons per hour, gallons per minute.
Goal: A concise statement that describes a desired condition to be achieved sometime in the
future. It is normally expressed in broad, general terms and can be timeless if it has no
specific date by which it is to be completed. Goal statements form the principal basis from
which objectives are developed.
Graben: An elongated, relatively depressed block that is bounded by faults on the long sides.
Grade: A slope stated as so many feet per mile or as ft/ft (%); the content of precious metals per
mass of rock (oz/ton).
Grass/forb: An early forest successional stage where grasses and forbs are the dominant
vegetation.
Grizzly: Typically, in mining, a heavy steel grate used to size, and grade materials into required size
categories. Also, a nickname for grizzly bear, an endangered species.
Ground water: Water found beneath the land surface in the zone of saturation below the water
table.
Growth media: All materials, including topsoil, specified soil horizons, vegetative debris, and
organic water, which are classified as suitable for stockpiling and/or reclamation.
Guideline: An indication or outline of policy or conduct; i.e., any issuance that assists in
determining the course of direction to be taken in any planned action to accomplish a specific
objective.
H
Habitat: The natural environment of a plant or animal, including all biotic, climatic, and soil
conditions, or other environmental influences affecting living conditions. The place where an
organism lives.
Habitat capability: The estimated ability of an area, given existing or predicted habitat conditions,
to support a wildlife, fish or plant population. It is measured in terms of potential population
numbers.
Haul road: A road used by large (typically off-highway) trucks to haul ore and overburden from a
mine to other locations, such as a mill facility or waste rock disposal area.
Hazardous waste: A waste is considered hazardous by the EPA if it exhibits one or more of these
characteristics: ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and/or toxicity. These are listed in 40 CFR
261.3 and 40 CFR 171.8.
HCT: Humidity cell tests.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 7-14 CHAPTER 7 - GLOSSARY January 1997
Heavy metals: A group of elements, usually required by organisms in trace amounts, but can be
toxic in higher concentrations; includes lead, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, copper, cobalt,
chromium, iron, silver, etc.
HDPE: High density polyethylene - a high density man-made material used for liners. This material
deforms with a low probability of puncturing or splitting. Seams are usually heat welded
instead of glued, thus minimizing potential rupture.
HEP: Habitat Evaluation Process.
Hiding cover: Vegetation that will hide 90% of an adult deer or elk from the view of a human at a
distance of 200 feet or less. The distance at which the animal is essentially hidden is called a
"sight distance".
HSI: Habitat suitability index.
Hydraulic conductivity: A measure of the ability of rock or soil to permit the flow of ground water
under a pressure gradient; permeability.
Hydrologic system: All physical factors, such as precipitation, stream flow, snowmelt, ground
water, etc., that effect the hydrology of a specific area.
Hydrothermal alteration: Alteration of rocks or minerals by the reaction of hydrothermal water with
pre-existing solid phases.
I
IFIM: Instream Flow Incremental Methodology. A method to estimate the minimum stream flows
needed to maintain spawning and rearing habitat for fish.
Impact Analysis for Planning (IMPLAN): A comprehensive and detailed database covering the entire
United States broken down by county and in some cases down to zip code level. IMPLAN is
primarily used for assessing potential impacts to a community due to changes in the local
economy. Originally developed through a cooperative between the USDA Forest Service,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, BLM, and the University of Minnesota. Currently,
the database is maintained in Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc.
Impermeable: Property of a substance that inhibits passage of fluids through its mass.
Impoundment: The collection and confinement, usually of water (in the case of mining, tailings
material), in a reservoir or other storage area.
Incidental take (ESA): Refers to takings that result from, but are not for the purpose of, carrying
out an otherwise lawful activity conducted by an agency or applicant.
Incised: A narrow, steep-walled valley caused by erosion.
Increment: The amount of change from an existing concentration or amount; such as air pollutant
concentrations.
Indirect impacts: Impacts which are caused by the action but are later in time or farther removed
in distance, although still reasonably foreseeable.
Inert: A substance that is chemically unreactive; not affecting any substance it comes in contact
with.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 7-15
Infiltration: The movement of water or some other fluid into the soil through pores or other
openings.
Informal consultation (ESA): An optional process that includes all discussions, correspondence,
etc. between the U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service and another Federal agency or the
designated non-Federal representative prior to formal consultation, if required.
Infrastructure: The underlying foundation or basic framework; substructure of a community (i.e.
schools, police, fire services, hospitals, water and sewer systems).
Interdisciplinary team (IDT): The interdisciplinary team is comprised of a group of personnel with
different training assembled to solve a problem or perform a task. The team will consider
problems collectively, rather than separate concerns along disciplinary lines. This interaction is
intended to insure systematic, integrated consideration of physical, biological, economic
environmental design arts and sciences.
Intermittent stream: A stream that runs water in most months, but does not contain water year-
round.
Interstitial: Occupying the spaces between sediment particles.
Irretrievable: Applies to losses of production, harvest, or commitment of renewable natural
resources. For example, some or all of the timber production from an area is irretrievably lost
during the time an area is used as a winter sports site. If the use changes, timber production
can be resumed. The production lost is irretrievable, but the act is not irreversible.
Irreversible: Applies primarily to the use of nonrenewable resources, such as minerals or cultural
resources, or to those factors that are renewable only over long time spans, such as soil
productivity. Irreversible also includes loss of future options.
Isothermal: Having equal temperatures.
Issue: A point, matter, or question of public discussion or interest to be addressed or decided
through a planning process.
Jeopardy or jeopardize the continued existence of (ESA): Means to engage in an action that
reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of
both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction,
numbers, or distribution of that species. A jeopardy opinion would result in the U.S.D.I. Fish
and Wildlife Service developing reasonable and prudent alternatives for the proposed action.
Jurisdictional wetland: A wetland area delineated and identified by specific technical criteria, field
indicators and other information for purposes of public agency jurisdiction. The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers regulated "dredging and filling" activities associated with Jurisdictional
wetlands. Other federal agencies that can become involved with matters that concern
Jurisdictional wetlands include the U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Environmental
Protection Agency, and the Natural Resource Conservation Service.
K
K-factor: See erodibility.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 7-16 CHAPTER 7 - GLOSSARY January 1997
Key viewpoint: The point(s) commonly in use or potentially in use where the view of a
management activity is the most disclosing. The location which provides the means of
studying the visual impact of alternatives to the scenery.
Kinetic test: A category of tests used to predict the occurrence of acid drainage from mine wastes
or workings (e.g., humidity cell tests). Kinetic tests involve repetitive cycles of leaching and
monitoring under controlled conditions. Ideally, kinetic tests yield information on the extent
acid generation.
kw: Kilowatt.
kwh: Kilowatt hour.
Landform: Any physical, recognizable form or feature on the earth's surface having a characteristic
shape, and produced by natural causes. Landforms provide an empirical description of similar
portions of the earth's surface.
Land management: The intentional process of planning, organizing, programming, coordinating,
directing, and controlling land use actions.
Land management plan: See Forest Plan.
Landscape: The sum total of the characteristics that distinguish a certain area on the earth's
surface from other areas. These characteristics are a result not only of natural forces but of
human occupancy and use of the land. An area composed of interacting and interconnected
patterns of habitats (ecosystems), that are repeated because of geology, landforms, soils,
climate, biota, and human influences throughout the area.
Land status: The ownership status of lands.
Land use allocation: The assignment of a management emphasis to particular land areas with the
purpose of achieving the goals and objectives of some specified use(s) (e.g. campgrounds,
wilderness, logging, mining, etc.).
Lands not appropriate for timber production: Includes lands that: 1) are proposed for resources
used that preclude timber production such as wilderness; 2) have other management
objectives that limit timber production to the point where management requirements set forth
in CFR 219.27 cannot be met; or 3) are not cost efficient over the planning horizon in meeting
forest objectives including timber projection.
Lands not suited (unsuitable) for timber production: Includes lands that: 1) are not forest land as
defined in CFR 219.3; 2) are likely, give current technology, to suffer irreversible resource
damage to soils productivity, or watershed conditions; 3) cannot be adequately restocked as
provided in 36 CFR 219.27(c)(3); or 4) have been withdrawn from timber production by an
Act of Congress, the Secretary of Agriculture, or the Chief of the Forest Service. In additions,
Forest lands other than those that have been identified as not suited for timber production
shall be reviewed and assessed prior to formulation of alternatives to determine the costs and
benefits of a range of management intensities for timber production.
LDH: Lactic acid dehydrogenase.
Leaching: The process of applying a chemical agent, such as cyanide, TO bond preferentially and
dissolve materials, such as precious metals, into solution. The precious metal complexes in
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 7-17
solution are called a "pregnant" solution. The pregnant solution is collected for processing to
recover the precious metals.
Lead agency: In NEPA (40 CFR 1501.5) and SEPA (WAC 197-11-050), the agency(s) with main
responsibility for complying with NEPA and SEPA procedural requirements, such as supervising
the preparation of an environmental impact statement.
Least cost analysis: Determination of the least cost means of attaining specified results.
Limits of acceptable change: A process of deciding what kind of resource conditions are
acceptable and prescribing actions to protect or achieve these conditions.
Line: An intersection of two planes; a point that has been extended; a silhouette of form. In
landscapes (ridges, skylines, structures, changes in vegetation, or individual trees and
branches) may be perceived as line.
Listed species (ESA): Species that are listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (as amended).
Lixiviant: A substance used to extract a soluble compound (from a soil or rock mixture) by
washing, leaching, or percolation.
Locatable minerals: Generally refers to hardrock minerals on Public Domain lands or National Forest
System lands reserved from the Public Domain that are mined and processed to recover
metals, such as gold and copper, chemical grade limestone, and asbestos.
Lode: A mineral deposit that is contained in consolidated rock, as opposed to a placer deposit.
Long-term impacts: Impacts that normally result in permanent changes to the environment. An
example is a topographic change resulting from tailings disposal in a drainage. Each resource,
by necessity, may vary in its definition of long-term.
Low-grade ore: Ore with a relatively low ore-mineral content.
M
Magazine: A storage facility for explosives. Magazines are built to specifications set by the Mine
Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) and are usually located in a secure but remote area
of a mine site.
Management activity: An activity of man imposed on a landscape for the purpose of harvesting,
traversing, transporting, or replenishing natural resources.
Management area: An area with similar management objectives and a common management
prescription.
Management concern: An issue, problem, or condition which influences the range of management
practices identified in a planning process.
Management direction: A statement of multiple use and other goals and objectives, and the
associated management prescriptions, and standards and guidelines for attaining them (36
CFR 219.3).
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 7-18 CHAPTER 7 - GLOSSARY January 1997
Management indicator species: A species selected because its welfare is presumed to be an
indicator of the welfare of other species using the same habitat. A species whose conditions
can be used to assess the impacts of management actions on a particular area.
Management requirements (MR's): Standards for resource protection, vegetation manipulation,
silvicultural practices, even-aged management, riparian areas, soil and water diversity, to be
met in accomplishing National Forest System goals and objectives.
Mature forest: Trees that have obtained full development, particularly in height and are in full seed
production. When used in an economic sense, indicates a forest that has attained harvest
age. The point after which a decline in health and vigor is noted.
Maximum modification: A Scenic Quality Objective meaning man's activity may dominate the
characteristic landscape but should appear as a natural occurrence when viewed as
background.
MCE: Maximum credible earthquake.
MBF: Thousand board feet. A measure of wood volume.
Mean: A statistical value calculated by dividing the sum of a set of sample values by the number
of samples. Also ieferred to as the arithmetic mean or average.
Mesic: Characterized by, relating to, or requiring a moderate amount of moisture.
Metallurgy: A science and technology that deals with the extraction of metals from their ores,
refining, processing, etc.
Meteoric: Atmospheric or meteorological. Hail, rain, and snow are meteoric phenomenon.
Microenvironment: The local environment/climate of a given area or habitat characterized by
uniformity over the site.
Middleground: (Scenic distance zone) The space between the foreground and the background in a
picture or landscape. The area from % to 4 miles from the viewer.
Migratory: Moving from place to place, daily or seasonally.
Milling: The general process of separating the valuable constituent (gold) from the undesired or
non-economic constituents of the ore material (called tailings after milling).
Mine pit: Surface mine from which ore and overburden are removed.
Mineral entry: The filing of a mining claim upon Public Domain or related land to obtain the right to
any minerals it may contain. Valid mining claims may be purchased in full (patented) under
the 1872 mining law, as amended.
Minimum streamflow requirement: A set amount of water to be maintained in a water course for
the purpose of reasonably maintaining spawning and rearing habitat for fish and/or other
aquatic resources.
Mining claim: A portion of the Public Domain or related lands which is held, for mining purposes, in
accordance with mining laws.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 7-19
Mining plan: See operating plan.
Mitigation: Mitigation includes; (a) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or
parts of an action; (b) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action
and its implementation; (c) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the
affects environment; (d) reducing or elimination of the impact over time by preservation and
maintenance of operations during the life of the action; and, (e) compensating for the impact
by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments (40 CFR Part 1508.20).
MMBF: Million board feet. A measure of wood volume. The amount of wood contained in 100
average homes.
Modification: A scenic quality objective meaning man's activity may dominate the characteristic
landscape but must, at the same time, utilize naturally established form, line, color, and
texture. It should appear as a natural occurrence when viewed in foreground or middleground.
Monitoring and evaluation: A watching, observing or checking, in this instance, a testing of
specific environmental parameters and of project waste streams for purposes of comparing
with permit stipulations, pollution control regulations, mitigation plan goals, etc. The periodic
evaluation of management practices on a sample basis to determine how well objectives have
been met.
MOU: Memorandum of Understanding, usually documenting an agreement reached amongst
federal agencies.
MSHA: Mine Safety and Health Administration - Federal agency under the Department of Labor
which regulates worker health and safety in mining operations.
Multiple use: The management concepts under which National Forest and BLM lands are managed.
The management of the lands and their various resource values so they are utilized in the
combination that will best meet the present and future needs of the American people.
N
NAAQS: National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): An act declaring a National policy which encourages
productive and enjoyable harmony between humankind and the environment, promotes efforts
which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the
health and welfare of humanity, enriches the understanding of the ecological systems and
natural resources important to the Nation, and establishes a Council on Environmental Quality.
(The Principal Laws Relating to Forest Service Activities, Agriculture Handbook No 453,
USDA, Forest Service, 359 pp).
National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan: A Plan which "....shall provide for multiple
use and sustained yield of goods and services from the National Forest System in a way that
maximizes long-term net public benefits in an environmentally sound manner." (36 CFR 219).
National Forest Management Act (NFMA): A law passed in 1976 as an amendment to the Forest
and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act, requiring the preparation of Regional
Guidelines and Forest Plans and the preparation of regulations to guide development on Forest
lands.
NEPA process: Measures necessary to comply with the requirements of Section 2 and Title I of the
National Environmental Policy Act.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 7-20 CHAPTER 7 - GLOSSARY January 1997
Net present value (NPV): The difference between the discounted value (benefits) of all outputs to
which monetary values or established market prices are assigned and the total discounted
costs of managing the planning area.
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS): Standards set by EPA defining the allowable pollutant
discharge (air and water) and applicable pollution control for new facilities; by industrial
category. (Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act.)
Non-game species: Animal species which are not hunted, fished, or trapped.
Nonpoint air pollution: Pollution caused by sources that are non-stationary. In mining, nonpoint air
pollution results from such activities as blasting and hauling minerals over roads, as well as
dust from ore and topsoil stockpiles, tailings, and waste rock disposal areas.
NOX: Nitrogen oxides. A product of vehicle exhaust.
NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System - A program authorized by Sections 318,
402 and 405 of the Clean Water Act, and implemented by regulations 40 CFR 122. NPDES
program requires permits for the discharge of pollutants from any point source into waters of
the United States.
NRHP: National Register of Historical Places.
NWS: National Weather Service.
o
OAHP: State of Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation.
Objective: A concise, time-specific statement of measurable planned results that respond to pre-
established goals. An objective forms the basis for further planning to define the precise steps
to be taken and the resources to be used in achieving identified goals.
OFM: State of Washington Office of Financial Management.
Old-growth stand (old-growth): Any stand of trees generally containing the following
characteristics: 1) mature and over-mature trees in the overstory and well into the mature
growth stage; 2) a multi-layered canopy and trees of several age classes; 3) the presence of
standing dead trees and down material; and 4) evidences of man's activities but not significant
in altering the other characteristics and a subordinate factor in a description of such a stand.
Oligotrophic: A lake having abundant dissolved oxygen with no marked stratification; well mixed.
Lakes characterized by a low accumulation of dissolved nutrient salts, supporting only sparse
plant and animal life.
Open pit mining: A type of surface mining that involves excavation of the ore and overburden by
above ground techniques. The result of such a mining operation is known as an "open pit."
Ore: A mineral or group of minerals present in sufficient value as to quality and quantity which
may be mined at a profit.
Oxide: A mineral compound of oxygen with one or more metallic elements.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 7-21
Ozone: Form of oxygen found largely in the stratosphere; a product of reaction between ultraviolet
light and oxygen.
Pan evaporation: An instrument for determining the quantity of water evaporated in a given time.
Parent material: Unconsolidated organic and inorganic mineral material in which soils form.
Partial retention: A scenic quality objective which in general means man's activities may be
evident but must remain subordinate to the characteristic landscape.
Particulates: Small particles suspended in the air or generally considered pollutants.
Patented claims: Private land which has been secured from the U. S. Government by compliance
with the mining laws relating to such lands.
Percolation/infiltration: The act of water seeping or filtering through the soil without a definite
channel.
Perennial stream: A stream that flows year round.
Performance bond: See reclamation guarantee.
Permeability: The property or capacity of a porous rock, sediment, or soil for transmitting a fluid; it
is a measure of the relative ease of fluid flow under unequal pressure.
pH: Symbol for the negative common logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration (acidity) of a
solution. The pH of 7 is considered neutral. A pH number below 7 indicates acidity, and a pH
value above 7 indicates alkalinity or a base.
Physiographic province: A region having a particular pattern of relief features or land forms that
differs significantly from that of adjacent regions (e.g. Okanogan Highlands).
Piezometer: A device for measuring moderate ground water pressures.
Piezometric surface: Any imaginary surface coinciding with the hydraulic pressure level of the
water in a confined aquifer, or the surface representing the static head of ground water and
defined by the level to which water will rise in a well. A water table is a particular piezometric
surface.
Planning records: The body of information documenting the NEPA and/or SEPA decisions and
activities which result from the process of developing environmental documents; also known
as an administrative record.
Plan of operations: A description presenting the methods, timing and contingencies to be used
during the operation of a project. A document required from any organization and/or person
proposing to conduct mineral related activities on federal land while utilizing earth moving
equipment and which will cause disturbance to surface resources or involve the cutting of
trees.
Plant communities: A vegetation complex unique in its combination of plants which occurs in
particular locations under particular influences. A plant community is a reflection of integrated
environmental influences on the site such as soils, temperature, elevation, solar radiation,
slope aspects, and precipitation.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 7-22 CHAPTER 7 - GLOSSARY January 1997
PMF: Probable Maximum Flood - A statistically determined flood event that would be assumed to
be the maximum possible for a given site.
PM-10: Particulates of 10 microns in size or less, usually describing a source of air quality
degradation.
Point source: Stationary sources of potential pollutants. In terms of mining, some examples of
point sources are crushing and screening equipment, conveyor transfer points, and pond
outlets.
Policy: A guiding principle upon which is based a specific decision or set of decisions.
Pollution: Human-caused or natural alteration of the physical, biological, and radiological integrity
of water, air, or other aspects of the environment producing undesired effects.
POO: Plan of operations.
Portal: The entrance to a tunnel or underground mine.
Potable water: Suitable, safe, or prepared for drinking.
Potentiometric surface: Surface to which water in an aquifer would rise by hydrostatic pressure.
(See piezometric surface).
ppm: parts per million.
Precious metal: Any of the less common and highly valuable metals, such as gold, silver, and
platinum.
Pregnant solution: The resulting metal-laden solution collected from a leaching process which
contains dissolved metal values. The precious metals values are recovered from this pregnant
solution, which then becomes the barren solution that is typically refortified and reintroduced
to the leaching circuit.
Prescription: The set of management practices applied to a specific area to attain specific
objectives.
Prescriptive mitigation: The rules or directive in-place giving precise instructions on the abatement
or alleviation of certain issues.
Prehistoric: Relating to the times just preceding the period of recorded history.
Prevention of significant deterioration (PSD): A special permit procedure established in the Clean
Air Act, as amended, used to ensure that economic growth occurs in a manner consistent
with the protection of public health; preservation of air quality related values in national special
interest areas; the opportunity for informed public participation in the decision-making process.
P:R:G: Pool: riffle: glide.
Priority pollutant: Toxic aqueous pollutants specified as a particular concern in the Clean Water
Act; EPA sets limits for discharge of these pollutants.
Pristine: Pertaining to pure, original, and uncontaminated conditions.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 7-23
Project: The whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in a physical change in the
environment. An organized effort to achieve an objective identified by location, timing,
activities, outputs, effects, and time period and responsibilities for executions.
Proposed action: A description of the project as proposed by a project proponent in a plan of
operations.
Proposed critical habitat (ESA): Habitat proposed in the Federal Register to be designated or
revised as critical habitat under Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act for listed or proposed
species.
PSD: See Prevention of significant deterioration.
Public participation: Meetings, conferences, seminars, workshops, tours, written comments,
responses to survey questionnaires, and similar activities designed and held to obtain
comments from the public about planning.
Public scoping: Giving the public the opportunity for oral or written comments concerning the
intentions, activity, or influence of a project on an individual, the community, and/or the
environment.
R
Radionuclide: Radioactive nuclides of certain elements.
Raise: An underground mining term. A vertical or inclined passageway which connects two or
more levels in a mine.
Range allotment: An area designated for use of a prescribed number and kind of livestock under
one management plan.
Raptor: Bird of prey, including eagles, hawks, falcons, and owls.
RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
RCW: Revised Code of Washington.
Reagent: A chemical substance used in the treatment of ores.
Reasonable and prudent measures (ESA): Those actions that the Director of the U.S.D.I. Fish and
Wildlife Service believes necessary or appropriate to minimize the impacts, i.e., amount or
extent of incidental take. These measures are stated in a biological opinion issued by the
U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Recharge: Absorption and addition of water to the zone of saturation.
Reclamation: Returning disturbed land to a productive form, usually in conformity with a
predetermined land management plan or a government approved plan or permit.
Reclamation guarantee: A binding commitment payable to a governmental agency in the event that
decommissioning and reclamation of an operation is not completed according to an approved
plan or permit. See bond.
Reclamation Plan: A document that details the measures to be taken by a project proponent
(permit holder) to reclaim the project lands; such a document can contain reclamation
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 7-24 CHAPTER 7 - GLOSSARY January 1997
measures to be employed during mining operations but typically describes measures to be
used after mining and milling have been completed.
Record of Decision (ROD): A document separate from but associated with an Environmental
Impact Statement which states the decision, identifies alternatives, specifying which were
environmentally preferable, and states whether all practicable means to avoid environmental
harm from the alternative have been adopted, and if not, why not (40 CFR 1505.2).
Recovery plan (ESA): A plan developed by the U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service for the recovery
of listed species.
Resident: A species, which is found in a particular habitat for a particular time period (i.e. winter
resident, summer resident, year-round) as opposed to those found only when passing through
on migration.
Retention: A scenic condition objective meaning human activities are not visually evident. In
retention areas, activities may only repeat attributes of form, line, color, and texture found in
the natural or natural-appearing landscape character.
RHCA: Riparian Habitat Conservation Area.
Richter Scale: A numerical (logarithmic) measure of earthquake intensity.
Rills: Small erosional channels or grooves made by water.
Riparian: A type of ecological community that occurs adjacent to streams and rivers and is directly
influenced by water. It is characterized by certain types of vegetation, soils, hydrology, and
fauna and requires free or unbound water or conditions more moist than that normally found in
the area.
Riparian zone: Terrestrial areas where the vegetation and microclimate are influenced by perennial
and/or intermittent water, associated high water tables and soils which exhibit some wetness
characteristics; this habitat is transitional between true bottom land wetlands and upland
terrestrial habitats.
Riprap: A layer of typically large, broken rock placed together irregularly to prevent erosion of
embankments, causeways, or other surfaces.
Road density: The number of miles of road per square mile of land.
ROS: Recreational Opportunity Spectrum - Used in describing potential recreational uses of an
area.
Runoff: Precipitation that is not retained on the site where it falls, not absorbed by the soil; natural
drainage away from an area.
Runout: The distance a potential waste rock or embankment failure would have to travel to impact
a stream, road or another facility.
RUSLE: Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (refer to Appendix D, Soil Erosion Rates, of this EIS
document).
S
SADT: Seasonal average daily traffic.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 7-25
Safety factor: A safety factor is a ratio of resisting forces to driving forces. By determining a
structure's safety factor, a numerical index of stability is obtained.
SAG mill: Semi-Autogenous Grinding Mill - A mill which uses the ore itself as a grinding medium
and supplements with steel balls as required to obtain the proper size.
Salmonid: Any of a family of elongate soft-finned fishes (such as salmon and trout).
Scarified: Land in which the topsoil has been broken up or loosened in preparation for regeneration
by direct seeding or natural seedfall. Also refers to ripping or loosening road surfaces to a
specified depth.
Scenery Management: The art and science of arranging, planning, and designing landscape
attributes relative to the appearance of places and expanses in outdoor settings.
Scenic absorption capability: Classification system used to denote relative ability of a landscape to
accept human alterations without loss of character of scenic quality.
Scenic management system: The system devised by the Forest Service in the early 1970's to
incorporate scenic values into their forest management system. It involves classifying
landscapes, determining scenic objectives, understanding how much change a landscape can
absorb, and mitigating impacts so that scenic quality objectives are met.
Scenic quality: The essential attributes of landscape that when viewed by people, elicit
psychological and physiological benefits to individuals and, therefore, to society in general.
Scenic Quality Objective (SQO): Degree of acceptable alteration of the natural landscape. These
include preservation, retention, partial retention, modification, maximum modification, and
enhancement. Used by the Forest Service in classifying scenic resources of an area.
Scenic resource: Attributes, characteristics, and features of landscapes that provide varying
responses from, and varying degrees of benefits to, humans.
Scenic sensitivity levels: A three-level rating system used to delineate areas receiving different
amounts of exposure (present or potential) to user groups with differing attitudes towards
changes in scenic quality. When combined with distance zones and Variety Class, make up
Visual Quality Objectives.
Scoping process: A part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) process; early and open activities used to determine the scope and
significance of the issues, and the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered
in an Environmental Impact Statement (40 CFR 1501.7 & WAC 197-11-360).
SCS: Soil Conservation Service (recently changed to Natural Resource Conservation Service) -
Federal agency under the Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Sedentary organisms: Not migratory; staying in one place; stationary.
Sediment: Earth material transport, suspended, or deposited by water; also, the same material
once it has been deposited.
Seen area: The total landscape area observed based upon landform screening. Seen-areas may be
divided into zones of immediate foreground, foreground, middleground, and background.
Some landscapes are seldom seen by the public.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 7-26 CHAPTER 7 - GLOSSARY January 1997
Seismicity: The likelihood of an area being subject to natural earthquakes; the relative frequency,
magnitude, and kind of natural earthquakes.
Sensitive species: Plant or animal species which are susceptible or vulnerable to activity impacts or
habitat alterations. Those species that have appeared in the Federal Register as proposed for
classification or are under consideration for official listing as endangered or threatened species,
that are on an official State list, or that are recognized by the Regional Forester as needing
special management to prevent placement on Federal or State lists.
Sensitivity level: A particular degree of measure of viewer interest in and concern for the scenic
quality of the landscape.
Selective blasting: Specialized blasting of pit walls and benches, typically for reclamation to create
either slopes or stable, natural appearing cliffs.
SEPA: State Environmental Policy Act.
Serai: A biotic community which is a developmental, transitory stage in an ecologic succession.
SHPO: State Historic Preservation Office.
Short-term impacts: Impacts occurring during project construction and operation, and normally
ceasing upon project closure and reclamation. Each resource, by necessity, may vary in its
definition of short-term.
Significant: Requires consideration of both context and intensity. Context means that the
significance of an action must be analyzed in several contexts such as society as a whole, and
the affected region, interests, and locality. Intensity refers to the severity of impacts. The
severity of an impact should be weighted along with the likelihood of its occurrence.
Sinking Fund: A fund set up and accumulated during mining by regular deposits, usually for paying
for reclamation when mining operations cease.
Skarn: The term skarn refers to coarse-grained calc-silicates which replace carbonate-rich rocks
during regional or contact metamorphism. Ore skarns may contain significant quantities of ore
minerals and their bulk composition bears no simple relation to the enclosing rocks.
Slurry: A watery mixture or suspension of insoluble matter such as mud or lime.
Snag: A standing dead tree from which the leaves and most of the branches have fallen.
Snow intercept thermal cover (SIT): Vegetation that reduces energy expense due to movement
and temperature regulation by deer, and provides forage during periods of deep snow (18
inches or greater).
SO,: Sulfur oxides, including sulfur dioxide (S02). A product of vehicle tailpipe emissions.
SO2: Sulfur dioxide. Used in the INCO S02/Air/Oxidation Process to assist in cyanide destruction.
Socioeconomic: Pertaining to, or signifying the combination or interaction of social and economic
factors.
Soil horizon: A layer of soil material approximately parallel to the land surface differing from
adjacent genetically related layers in physical, chemical, and biological properties.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 7-27
Soil pedon: A three-dimensional body of soil with lateral dimensions large enough to permit the
study of horizon shapes and relations.
Soil productivity: The natural capacity of a soil to produce a specified plant or sequence of plants
under a specified system of management. Productivity is generally dependent on availability
of soil moisture and nutrients, as well as the length of growing season.
Soil profile: A vertical section of the soil through all its horizons and extending into the parent
material or to a depth of 60 inches.
Solid waste: Garbage, refuse, and/or sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment
plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded material, including solid, liquid, semi-
solid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industrial, commercial, mining, agricultural,
and community activities.
Sound level (dBA): The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using
the A-weighing filter network. The A-weighing filter de-emphasizes the very low and very
high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the response of the human ear
and gives good correlation with subjective reactions to noise.
SPCC: Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan - A plan which the EPA requires having
on file within six months of project inception. It is a contingency plan for avoidance of,
containment of, and response to hazardous materials spills or leaks.
Special Use Permit: A permit issued under established laws and regulations to an individual,
organization, or company for occupancy or use of Federal or State lands for some special
purpose.
Stand diversity: Any attribute that makes one timber stand biologically or physically different from
other stands. The difference can be measured by, but not limited to, different age classes,
species, densities, or non-tree floristic composition.
Standard: A model, example, or goal established by authority, custom, or general consent as a rule
for the measurement of quantity, weight, extent, value, or quality.
Standards and guidelines: Principles specifying conditions or levels of environmental quality to be
achieved.
Stream gradient: The rate of fall or loss of elevation over the physical length of a segment or total
stream usually expressed in ft/ft (%).
Subsidence: A lowering of surface land caused by the collapse of rock and soil into an
underground void; it can result in stability failures such as landslides and mine roof cave-ins.
Substantive comment: A comment that provides factual information, professional opinion, or
informed judgement germane to the action being proposed.
Succession: The progression of plant communities that occurs on a site that previously contained
a plant community that was removed by disturbances such as fire or logging. An orderly
process of biotic community development that involves changes in species, structure, and
community processes with time.
Suitability: The appropriateness of applying certain resource management practices to a particular
area of land, as determined by an analysis of the economic and environmental consequences
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 7-28 CHAPTER 7 - GLOSSARY January 1997
and the alternative uses foregone. A unit of land may be suitable for a variety of individual or
combined management practices. (FSM 1905).
Supernatant: The supernatant pond, in a tailings impoundment, is the water that is gathered above
the settled tailings material.
Synthetic liner (see HOPE and VLDPE): A protective layer composed of man-made materials
installed along the bottom, sides and/or top of a disposal area to reduce the migration of fluids
into or out of a disposal area.
Tabular: In mining, an ore body which has two dimensions that are much larger or longer than the
third dimension (e.g., a coal seam or a gravel bed).
Take (ESA): To harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, trap or collect, or attempt to engage in
any such conduct.
Tailings: The non-economic, ground rock material that remains after the valuable minerals have
been removed from the ore by milling or washing.
Talus: Heaps of coarse debris at the foot of cliffs and steep slopes resulting from gravity transport
and weathering processes.
Tank cyanidation: The process of extracting gold from ore in enclosed containers such as concrete
and/or steel tanks.
TDS: Total Dissolved Solids - Any finely divided materials (with a diameter smaller than a few
hundred micrometers) suspended in liquids such as water.
Terrestrial: Of or relating to the earth, soil, or land; an inhabitant of the earth or land.
Texture: The visual manifestation of the interplay of light and shadow created by variations in the
surface of an object.
Thalweg: A line following the lowest part of a valley. Subsurface water percolating under and in
the same direction as a surface stream course.
Thermal cover: Cover used by animals to lessen the effects of weather.
Threatened species: Those plants or animal species likely to become endangered species
throughout all or a significant portion of their range within the foreseeable future.
Thiourea: A solvent used for the extraction of metals from finely crushed ores.
Third-party contractor: An independent firm, usually contracted by a government agency, to
perform work related to a proposed action of another organization; due to the financial and
contractual arrangements governing such relationships, the third-party contractor has no
financial or other interest in the decision to be reached on the project.
Timber slash: The residue left on the ground after tree falling and tending, and/or accumulating
there as a result of storm, fire, girdling, or poisoning. It includes unutilized logs, uprooted
stumps, broken or uprooted stems, the heavier branchwood, etc.
TOC: Total Organic Carbon.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 7-29
Topography: A configuration of a surface including its relief, elevation, and the portion of its
natural and human-created features.
Toxicity tests: Refers to predescribed laboratory analysis generally used to determine the degree of
danger posed by a substance to animal or plant life.
tpd: Tons per day.
TPH: Total petroleum hydrocarbons.
Transect: A sample area in the form of a long narrow continuous strip that is used for the
tabulation of data.
TRICO: Tri-County Economic Development District.
Trophic: Of or pertaining to the nutritive processes.
TSP: Total Suspended Particulates. Any finely divided material (solid or liquid) that is airborne
with an aerodynamic diameter smaller than a few hundred micrometers.
TSS: Total Suspended Solids, as it applies to sediments in streams.
Turbidity: Reduced water clarity resulting from the presence of suspended matter.
TWHIP: Tonasket Wildlife Habitat Inventory Procedures.
u
Unavoidable effects: Many effects which could occur from a project can be eliminated or
minimized by management requirements and constraints and mitigation measures. Effects that
cannot be eliminated are identified as unavoidable.
USDA: United States Department of Agriculture.
USFWS: United States Fish and Wildlife Service - United States Department of Interior.
USGS: United States Geological Survey - United States Department of Interior.
Underflow: Movement of water through subsurface material.
Understory: A foliage layer lying beneath and shaded by the main canopy of a forest.
V
Variety Class: A rating system that classifies the landscape into different degrees of variety. This
determines those landscapes which are most important and those which are of lesser value
from the standpoint of scenic quality.
Viable population: A population which has adequate numbers and dispersion of reproductive
individuals to ensure the continued existence of the species population on the planning area.
(Okanogan National Forest) (FSM 1905).
Visual absorption capability: The physical capacity of a landscape to support proposed
development and still maintain its inherent visual character.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 7-30 CHAPTER 7 - GLOSSARY January 1997
Visual management system: The system devised by the Forest Service in the early 1970's to
incorporate visual values into their forest management system. It involves classifying
landscapes, determining visual objectives, understanding how much change a landscape can
absorb, and mitigating impacts so that visual quality objectives are met.
Visual Quality Objective (VQO): Degree of acceptable alteration of the natural landscape. These
include preservation, retention, partial retention, modification, maximum modification, and
enhancement. Used by the Forest Service in classifying scenic resources of an area.
Visual sensitivity levels: A three-level rating system used to delineate areas receiving different
amounts of exposure (present or potential) to user groups with differing attitudes towards
changes in scenic quality. When combined with distance zones and Variety Class, make up
Visual Quality Objectives.
VLDPE: Very Low Density Polyethylene - a low density man-made material used for liners. This
material deforms with a low probability of puncturing or splitting. Seams are usually heat
welded instead of glued, thus minimizing potential rupture.
w
WAC: Washington Administrative Code.
WAD: Weak Acid Dissociable. Refers to a testing procedure to measure the amount of cyanide
that can be chemically liberated using a prescribed mixture of diluted acids.
WADFW: Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife.
WADNR: Washington State Department of Natural Resource.
WADOE: Washington State Department of Ecology.
WADOT: Washington State Department of Transportation.
Waste rock: Waste rock is the non-ore rock that is removed to access the ore zone. It contains no
gold or gold below the economic cutoff level, and must be removed to gain access to the ore
zone.
Water balance: A measure of continuity of water flow in a fixed or open system.
Watershed: The entire land area that contributes water to a particular drainage system or stream.
Water quality: The interaction between various parameters that determines the usability or non-
usability of water for on-site and downstream uses. Major parameters that affect water
quality include: temperature, turbidity, suspended sediment, conductivity, dissolved oxygen,
pH, specific ions, discharge, and fecal coliform.
Weathering: The process whereby larger particles of soils and rock are reduced to finer particles by
wind, water, temperature changes, and plant and bacteria action.
Weir: A device (as a notch in a dam) for determining the quantity of water flowing over it by
measuring the depth of water over the crest or sill, and knowing the dimensions of the notch.
Wetlands (Biological Wetlands): Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground
water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances,
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 CROWN JEWEL MINE Page 7-31
do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, etc. (See jurisdictional wetlands).
Wilderness: Land designated by Congress as a component of the National Wilderness Preservation
System.
Wind rose: A diagram showing the relative frequency of winds blowing from different directions.
XYZ
Xanthate: An organic compound which is used as a chemical collecting agent. They are the
principal collecting agents for heavy and precious metals in sulfide and oxidized materials.
XRF: X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy.
10-year recurrence interval flood: A flood that occurs on the average once every 10 years.
10-year, 24-hour event: The precipitation that is predicted to occur during a 24-hour period with a
10-year recurrence interval.
25-year, 24-hour event: The precipitation that is predicted to occur during a 24 hour period with a
25- year recurrence interval.
404 Permit: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act specifies that anyone wishing to place dredged or
fill materials into the waters of the United States and adjacent jurisdictional wetlands shall
apply to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps of Engineers) for approval. A permit issued
by the Corps of Engineers for these activities is known as a 404 permit.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Chapter 8
List Of Agencies, Organizations & Individuals To
Whom Copies Of The Final EIS Were Sent
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 8-1
8.0 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS & INDIVIDUALS
TO WHOM COPIES OF THE FINAL EIS WERE SENT
Copies of the final EIS are available for review at the following public locations:
Okanogan National Forest
Forest Supervisor's Office
1240 South Second Avenue
Okanogan, WA 98840
Tonasket Ranger District
1 West Winesap
Tonasket, WA 98855
Bureau of Land Management
Wenatchee Resource Area
915 Walla Walla Street
Wenatchee, WA 98801
Bureau of Land Management
Spokane District Office
1103 N. Fancher Road
Spokane, WA 99212-1275
Washington Department of Ecology
300 Desmond Drive
Lacey, WA 98503
Washington Department of Ecology
Central Regional Office
106 South 6th Avenue
Yakima, WA 98902-3387
Washington Department of Ecology
Eastern Regional Office
North 4601 Monroe Street, Suite 100
Spokane, WA 99205-1295
Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks
Mine Development Reviews
Fifth Floor
1312 Blanshard Street
Victoria, BC V8V 1X5
Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks
201-3547 Skaha Lake Road
Pentichton, BC V2A 7K2
Environment Canada
Environmental Assessment Coordination
224 West Esplanade
North Vancouver, BC V7M 3H7
Brewster Public Library
1206 Columbia Avenue
Brewster, WA 98812
Chelan Public Library
317 E. Johnson
Chelan, WA 98816
Colville Public Library
195S. Oak
Colville, WA 99114
Grand Coulee Public Library
Grand Coulee, WA 99133
North Central Regional Library
230 Old Station Road
Wenatchee, WA 98804
Omak Public Library
Box J
30 S. Ash
Omak, WA 98841
Oroville Public Library
1276 Main
Oroville, WA 98844
Republic Public Library
194 S. Clark Avenue
Republic, WA
Seattle Public Library
Government Publications Department
1000 4th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104
Spokane Public Library
West 811 Main
Spokane, WA 99201
Tonasket Public Library
Box 629
209 S. Whitcomb Avenue
Tonasket, WA 98855
Twisp Public Library
P.O. Box 237
Twisp, WA 98856
Wenatchee Public Library
310 Douglas
Wenatchee, WA 98801
Crown Jewel Mine - Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 8-2
CHAPTER 8 - AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, INDIVIDUALS January 1997
Winthrop Public Library
P.O. Box 519
Winthrop, WA 98862
Village of Midway
R.J. Hatton
Box 160
Midway, BC VOH 1MO
Copies of the final environmental impact statement (EIS) or final EIS Summary (Summary) were
distributed to the following individuals, organizations, and government agencies. Those individuals
specifically requesting copies of the final EIS or Summary were mailed a copy. All individuals,
organizations, and government agencies on the Crown Jewel EIS contact list were notified and
given the opportunity to request a copy. Copies of the final EIS were distributed free of charge.
8.1 FEDERAL AGENCIES
Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation
Western Office of Review
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Nespelem, Washington
Maurice Socula
Bureau of Land Management
Oregon State Office
Ecology and Conservation
Office
Donna Wietling
Environmental Protection
Agency; Office of
Environmental Review
Environmental Protection
Agency; EIS Review
Coordinator
Federal Aviation
Administration,
Northwest Region; Office of
the Regional -Administrator
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, Advisor on
Environmental Quality;
Environmental Compliance
Branch
Federal Highway
Administration
Region 10, Regional
Administrator
Federal Railroad Administration
Research and Special Program
Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Office of Transportation and
Regulatory Affairs
General Services
Administration
Office of Planning and
Analysis
Interstate Commerce
Commission
Energy and Environment
Northwest Power
Planning Council
Office of Economic
Opportunity
Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission
William Goggins
United States Department of
Agriculture; Forest Science
Lab,
Pacific Northwest Range
Experimental Station
George Scherer
United States Department of
Agriculture; Forest Service
Colville National Forest
United States Department of
Agriculture; Forest Service
Methow Ranger District
United States Department of
Agriculture; Forest Service
Republic Ranger District
United States Department of
Agriculture; Forest Service
Pacific Northwest Region
United States Department of
Agriculture; Office of Equal
Opportunity
Robert Sranco
United States Department
of Agriculture; OPA
Publication Stockroom
United States Department
of Agriculture; Animal & Plant
Health Inspection Service
Deputy Director
United States Department
of Agriculture; Office of
Equal Opportunity
United States Department
of Agriculture;
Natural Resources
Conservation Services
United States Department
of Agriculture; National
Agricultural Library
United States Department
of the Army; Corps of
Engineers
Tim Erkel
United States Department
of Commerce; Northwest
Regional Unit of National
Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservationist
Division
United States Department
of Defense; U.S.
Army Engineers Division
Crown Jewel Mine - Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 8-3
United States Department
of Energy, Office of
Environmental Compliance
Director
United States Department
of the Interior, Office of
Environmental Affairs
United States Department
of Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service
Michelle Eames
United States Department
of Transportation, Assistant
Secretary for Policy
NW Power Planning Council
851 SW 6th Avenue,
Suite 1100
Portland, OR 97204
8.2 STATE GOVERNMENT
Montana Department of State Lands
Mike DaSilva
Oregon Department of Geology
Allan H. Throop
Washington Department of Community, Trade, and
Economic Development
Archaeology and Historic Preservation
Gregory Griffith
Washington Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 190
Colville, WA 99114
Chuck Gulick
Washington Department of Natural Resources
Olympia
Dave Norman
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Tracy Lloyd
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Gordy Zillges
Washington Department of Health
Tom Justus
Washington Parks and Recreation Commission
Dave Heiser
Washington State,
Office of the Governor
Bob Nichols
Washington Department of Transportation
Fred Suter
8.3 COUNTY & LOCAL GOVERNMENT
City of Okanogan
City of Omak
City of Oroville
City of Republic
Ferry County Planning Dept.
Okanogan County Planning Dept.
Okanogan County Assessor
Jim Hand
Okanogan County Health District
Okanogan County P.U.D.
Okanogan Department of Public Works
County Engineer
Okanogan Department of Public Works
Joseph Nott
Oroville Chamber of Commerce
Tonasket Chamber of Commerce
Town of Tonasket
Thomas W. Fancher
Okanogan County Board of Commissioners
Okanogan, WA 98840
8.4 TRIBAL OFFICIALS
Colville Confederated Tribes
Maureen Murphy
Colville Confederated Tribes
Dean Pilkington
Colville Confederated Tribes
Patti Stone
Crown Jewel Mine - Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 8-4
CHAPTER 8 - AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, INDIVIDUALS January 1997
Colville Confederated Tribes
Office of Preservation Attorney
Stephen H. Suagee
Yakima Indian Nation
Fisheries Resource Management
Lee Carlson
Colville Confederated Tribes
National Resource Commission
Deb Louie
8.5 CANADIAN GOVERNMENT
Boundary Forest District
Forestry Manager
Ken Weaver
Environment Canada
Stephen Sheehan
Ministry of Agriculture
District Agriculturist
John E. Parsons
Ministry of Energy
District Inspector
Ed Beswick
Ministry of Energy, Mines,
and Petroleum Resources
A.L. O'Byran
Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks
Gary Alexander
Ministry of Environment Lands & Parks
Peter Jarman
Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans
Gordon Ennis
8.6 ELECTED OFFICIALS
Member U.S. House of Representatives
Richard Hastings
Member U.S. House of Representatives
George Nethercutt
United States Senator
Slade Gorton
United States Senator
Patty Murray
Washington State Senator Bob Morton
Washington State Senator George L. Sellar
State Representative
Clyde Ballard
State Representative
Gary Chandler
P.O. Box 4
416 John L. O'Brien Bldg.
Olympia, WA 98504-7504
State Representative
Kathy McMoris
P.O. Box 40600
435 John L. O'Brien Bldg.
Olympia, WA 98504-0600
State Representative
Bob Sump
844 Taylor Road
Republic, WA 99166
8.7 BUSINESS, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS
Gates & Erb Inc.
Center for Environmental Equity
Columbiana
Ferry County Planning Department
Gazette-Tribune
Greystone
Okanogan County Citizens Coalition
Okanogan County Health District
Okanogan County Office of Planning
& Development
Okanogan Highlands Alliance
Republic Public Library
Riverview Market
Washington State Military Dept.
Washington State Parks &
Recreation Commission
Washington Environmental Council
Wenatchee Public Library
Wayne & Cleta Adams
Allison Ames
Anne Anderson
Gary L. Anderson, Anderson
Property Management
James L. Arnett
Dave Babcock, Washington
Wilderness Coalition
Larry L. Bailey
Mike Baird
Sibyl L. Baker
Aleda Balderson
Ian Barnett, Ducks Unlimited Canada
Gary D. Bates
Joyce Beck, Bateman Engineering
Molly & Adam Berger
Lori Bialic
Bill Bickstrap
John, Pam & Joe Bigas
C.L. Bingham
Chris W. Blana
Alice Blendon, University of
Washington
Kevin Brackney
James A. Bradbury, N.A.
Degerstrom, Inc.
Brian Breslin
Crown Jewel Mine - Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 8-5
Vivian Bride
Ken Bright, Chemex
Michael R. Brittain
R.J. Brooks
Floyd Burchett
Bill Burgess
Aaron Burkhart, Farm Bureau Policy
Dep. Chairman
John Callen, E.H.D. Okanogan Co.
Health District
May M. Carrell
Virginia Causely
David M. Chambers
George Chicha
George Chirst
David Christensen, Merrill Lynch
James & Bettie Christian
Stan Cliff
Terry J. Colberg
Jim Compton
Charlotte Coombes
R. L. (Dick) Coppock
Randall Courtney
Jim Creegan
Roger R. Daignault
Fred Dammann, Twisp Valley Grange
Mike Dasilva, Montana DEQ
Dave Davison
Jerry Davison
Norm Day, RLM
Neal Degerstrom
David Dehlin, Battle Mountain
Exploration Co.
Harris Dinkelberger
James Doherty
John Donoghue, Sun Cove Resort
Brooke Drury
Craig Edwards
Jim Eiffert
Larry L. Emmett
Stanley L. Enbysk
Wesley C. Engstrom
Steven Excel!, Paragon
Joe Falkoski
Timothy Finnigan
James Fisher, Bureau of Land
Management
Randy Floyd, Beak
Roger Flynn, Western Mining Action
Project
Sherrie Ford
Bob Forney
Clayton Foss
Warren Foster
Adeline Fredin
Carla M. Frey
Evan Frost, NWEA
Dietz Fry
Stephen & Karen Fry
Roger Gardinier
Alton G. Gaskill
Robert & Lavonna Gattman
John Geddie
Harry Gibbs
Lee "Pat" Gochrour
Carl R. Goodwin, U.S. Geological
Survey
Bruce Gray
William Gregory
John Grindeland
Boyd L. Hadden
Gillian R. Hall-Mullen
David Hamilton
William Hamilton
Sheila Hardy
Pat Hartman
Clarence W. Hauf, Lazy H Ranch of
Omak
Stanley J. Haye
Rich Helmon
Hannelore Vanden Hengel
Chris Herald
Cesar Hernandez, The Cabinet
Resource Group
Robert Hickey
Gregory Hicks
John E. Hiner
T. H. Holmes
Marvin & Sue Hoover
David Hoppens
Kris Horton
Dick Howe
Donna Howell
Judy Hewlett
Jim Hubbard
Lisa Huff
Joy F. Humphries
Sarah Humphries, Rivers Council of
Washington
Brian Huntoon
The Hyde Family
Stuart Jackson
P.W. Jarman
Bob & Denise Jewett
Dan Jockisch
David Jones
Paul C. Jones
Randy Kelley, DC Natural Resources
Conservation Services
Noble L. Kelly
Kathleen Kilpatrick
Michael Kirchner
Gwen Kirkpatrick
David Kliegman
Edwin J. Kliesman
P. Robert Klonoff
Rodney D. Knutson
Jeff Kocol
Norman C. Kunkel
Kale Kurtz
Vernon La Motte
John Labate
Jeffrey E. Labreck
Mark Larson
Bonnie Lawrence, Okanogan
Resource Council
Louis A. Lepry Jr.
Jacques Levesque
Guy Lewis
Robert Lopresti
Roger S. Lorenz
Thomas Loucks, Environmental
Strategies Inc.
Jack Mack, Highland Mining
Company
Maurice Magee
E. A. Magill
Mike Malmquist, Parsons Behle &
Latimer
L. Manchester, Canadian Earthcare
Society
Ron M. Mangnusson
David Mann, Bricklin & Gendler
Mary Beth Marks, Humboldt NF
Amy Marshall
Hank Marshall
David Maureen
Michael Buffalo Mazzetti
Bruce & Wendy McAuley
John McClellan
Daniel McConvey
A.G. & Margaret McDaniel
Linda McDaniel
K. McDonald
Cada K. McDadden
Steve Mclntosh
Donna & Bob Miller
Richard Moore, Hart Crowser, Inc.
Bruce Morrison
Pierre Mousset-Jones, Mackay
School of Mines
Gary Mullica
Glen Mumm
Wialliam J. Mundt
Maureen Murphy, U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Dept.
Linda Mycek
Mona Nelson
Jon & Pam Newman
Jim Newton
Dave Norman, WA Dept. of Natural
Resources
Clifford & Genevieve Novotney
Kate Olsen
Darton Overby
Jim Owens
Cheryl Page, Battle Mountain
Exploration
Rachael Paschal, Center For
Environmental Law & Policy
Gary Passmore, Colville Confederate
Tribes
Merlyn Paulson, Colorado State
University
Stuart Paulus, ENSR
Michael M. Perkins
Jerry Phillips
Genna Porter
Pat Rasmusen
Bob Rathvon
M. G. Rees
Woody Rehanek
Mario Reyes
Lew H. Rider
David Robbins, Keystone Gold Inc.
William Paul Robinson
Jim Romero
Frank Ruggiero
Charles Russell, Pegasus Gold
Corporation
Luke Russell
Imelda Salazar
The Sandys Family
Myron Sawink
Rebecca Sawyer
Larry & Fern Schimer
James Michael Schultz
Gretchen Schumacher
Richard L. Schumate
Greg Schuster
Mary E. Seaman
Bill C. Sevey
Chris Sewall, Western Shoshone
Defense Project
Forest Shomer
Matt Shutter
Keith Sienfeld, KPLU Radio
Silvermoon
Jerry Sloan
August Snyder
Maurice Socula, Colville
Confederated Tribes
Lynn M. Sorensen
Ron Sorenson, W.H. Reoves &
Company
Richard D. Southwick
Patricia St. August
William K. Steele
Janet Stephens
Jerry Stephenson
Pasquale Strocchia
Andy Studebaker
James H. Stumpf
Stephen Suagee, Office of
Reservation Attorney
David 0. Suhr
Yagi Suma
Crown Jewel Mine - Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 8-6 CHAPTER 8 - AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, INDIVIDUALS January 1997
Donald Super
Joe & Rachael Super
Jeff Tayer
Benjamin I. Taylor
The Taber Family
Mildred Thomas
Robert T. Thomas
Scott Thompson
Mel Thoresen
Richard Thorpe
Allen Throop, Oregon Dept. of
Geology
Richard Trenholme
Tom Troutner
Dan Truckle
Paul Urban
Paul Urbon
Ivan Urnovitz, Northwest Mining
Association
Raymong G. Vipperman
Johanna Wald, NRDC
Tommy Walen
Jimmie Dale Walker, Mayor
Denzil L. Walters
Jan & Caryn Wanechek
Jeff Warner
Jim Weaver
Patrick & Linda Welsh
Betty L. White
Jeff & Annette White
Kirby White
Malcolm & Carol White
John Williams
Willian Willoughby
Ed & Stella Windsor
Fern Wines
Morris Wraspir
K. Yockey
Crown Jewel Mine - Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Chapter 9
Index
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 9-1
9.0 INDEX
Access: S-11,
S-24, S-26, S
S-40, S-42, S
S-107, S-110,
S-132, 1-137,
2-160, 2-161,
2-171, 2-176,
2-193, 2-194,
2-207, 2-208,
2-232, 2-234,
2-241, 2-242,
2-249, 2-252,
2-272, 2-273,
2-287, 2-295,
3-44, 3-46, 3-
3-130, 3-131,
3-145, 3-146,
4-4, 4-8, 4-9,
4-30, 4-34, 4-
4-87, 4-94, 4-
4-105, 4-106,
4-135, 4-142,
4-170, 4-171,
4-182, 4-185,
4-196, 4-197,
4-250
S-16, S-17, S-19, S-21, S-22,
-27, S-29, S-31, S-33, S-39,
-43, S-45, S-46, S-70, S-79,
S-111, S-11 5, S-116, S-117,
1-138, 1-139, 1-149, 2-159,
2-163, 2-165, 2-166, 2-168,
2-177, 2-189, 2-191, 2-192,
2-195, 2-196, 2-198, 2-206,
2-227, 2-229, 2-230, 2-231,
2-235, 2-238, 2-239, 2-240,
2-243, 2-245, 2-246, 2-248,
2-254, 2-255, 2-256, 2-271,
2-277, 2-278, 2-281, 2-285,
2-298, 2-299, 2-318, 3-42,
53, 3-78, 3-94, 3-100, 3-128,
3-133, 3-135, 3-137, 3-139,
3-147, 3-148, 3-177, 3-179,
4-11, 4-13, 4-15, 4-28, 4-29,
•37, 4-42, 4-57, 4-63, 4-85,
97, 4-100, 4-101, 4-104,
4-118, 4-130, 4-131, 4-133,
4-148, 4-151, 4-156, 4-169,
4-173, 4-174, 4-176, 4-181,
4-188, 4-192, 4-194, 4-195,
4-198, 4-199, 4-201, 4-243,
Accident: S-12, S-35, S-119, S-125, S-127,
1-150, 2-265, 3-145, 3-146, 3-147, 4-71,
4-137, 4-138, 4-171, 4-188, 4-190, 4-192,
4-193, 4-194, 4-237, 4-238, 4-239, 4-240,
4-241, 4-242, 4-243
Acid Rock Drainage (ARD): S-7, S-36, S-54,
S-96, 1-13, 2-114, 2-119, 2-144, 2-150, 2-
154, 3-7, 3-10, 3-13, 3-26, 4-41, 4-49, 4-
50, 4-52, 4-56, 4-57, 4-62, 4-65, 4-68, 4-70
Aesthetics: S-129, 2-200, 2-201, 2-202,
3-172, 4-104, 4-247, 4-248
Air Quality: S-5, S-6, S-32, S-34, S-50, S-51,
S-53, S-80, S-133, 1-140, 1-145, 2-189,
2-199, 2-200, 2-201, 2-202, 2-223, 2-229,
2-252, 2-260, 2-261, 2-294, 2-296, 2-297,
3-1, 3-2, 3-3, 3-5, 3-37, 4-2, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6,
4-8, 4-9, 4-11, 4-13, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-21,
4-33, 4-135, 4-203, 4-251
Alternatives: S-1, S-4, S-6, S-13, S-14, S-16,
S-17, S-27, S-32, S-35, S-37, S-42, S-55,
S-64, S-80, S-90, S-91, S-92, S-94, S-95,
S-98, S-100, S-102, S-103, S-104, S-105,
S-106, S-107, S-108, S-109, S-111, S-112,
S-113, S-115, S-116, S-117, S-119, S-120,
S-124, S-125, S-1 28, S-130, S-131, S-132,
S-133, 1-134, 1-135, 1-136, 1-137, 1-138,
1-139, 1-142, 1-143, 1-144, 1-145, 1-150,
2-153, 2-154, 2-155, 2-156, 2-158, 2-160,
2-161, 2-167, 2-170, 2-173, 2-175, 2-188,
2-190, 2-203, 2-208, 2-225, 2-228, 2-229,
2-230, 2-238, 2-245, 2-247, 2-252, 2-259,
2-261, 2-265, 2-267, 2-268, 2-275, 2-276,
2-277, 2-279, 2-304, 2-307, 3-8, 3-9, 3-10,
3-13, 3-14, 3-18, 3-19, 3-27, 3-28, 3-68,
3-78, 3-120, 3-153, 4-1, 4-2, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6,
4-9, 4-11, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24,
4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-29, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33,
4-34, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42,
4-43, 4-44, 4-49, 4-50, 4-51, 4-52, 4-53,
4-57, 4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 4-63, 4-64, 4-65,
4-69, 4-70, 4-71, 4-72, 4-74, 4-75, 4-76,
4-77, 4-78, 4-79, 4-80, 4-82, 4-83, 4-84,
4-85, 4-87, 4-88, 4-89, 4-90, 4-91, 4-92,
4-93, 4-94, 4-95, 4-96, 4-97, 4-98, 4-100,
4-101, 4-102, 4-104, 4-105, 4-107, 4-108,
4-110, 4-111, 4-113, 4-114, 4-115, 4-116,
4-117, 4-118, 4-119, 4-120, 4-121, 4-123,
4-124, 4-125, 4-126, 4-129, 4-130, 4-131,
4-132, 4-133, 4-134, 4-140, 4-142, 4-148,
4-149, 4-150, 4-151, 4-152, 4-155, 4-156,
4-166, 4-167, 4-168, 4-169, 4-170, 4-171,
4-173, 4-174, 4-175, 4-176, 4-179, 4-182,
4-183, 4-184, 4-185, 4-188, 4-190, 4-192,
4-193, 4-194, 4-195, 4-196, 4-197, 4-198,
4-199, 4-200, 4-201, 4-202, 4-203, 4-204,
4-208, 4-209, 4-210, 4-212, 4-213, 4-214,
4-216, 4-217, 4-218, 4-219, 4-220, 4-221,
4-222, 4-223, 4-224, 4-225, 4-226, 4-227,
4-228, 4-229, 4-233, 4-235, 4-236, 4-237,
4-244, 4-246, 4-248, 4-249, 4-250, 4-251
Ancillary Facilities: S-16, S-19, S-21, S-24,
S-26, S-29, S-31, 2-200, 2-232, 2-235,
2-240, 2-243, 2-246, 2-249, 4-37, 4-178
ANFO: S-36, S-98, 2-231, 2-236, 2-242,
2-245, 2-248, 2-267, 4-49, 4-51, 4-57,
4-59, 4-62, 4-65, 4-70, 4-77, 4-243, 4-244,
4-245
Aquatic: S-42, S-44, S-46, S-47, S-63, S-64,
S-95, S-98, S-99, S-112, S-126, S-127,
S-131, S-132, 2-186, 2-189, 2-192, 2-195,
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 9-2
CHAPTER 9 - INDEX
January 1997
2-196, 2-197, 2-198, 2-200, 2-201, 2-202,
2-203, 2-214, 2-218, 2-255, 2-257, 2-276,
2-277, 2-280, 2-286, 2-287, 2-288, 2-299,
3-75, 3-77, 3-78, 3-79, 3-80, 3-95, 3-101,
3-11 5, 3-117, 4-49, 4-51, 4-62, 4-63, 4-64,
4-65, 4-68, 4-69, 4-70, 4-72, 4-73, 4-74,
4-76, 4-80, 4-98, 4-104, 4-105, 4-106,
4-107, 4-108, 4-109, 4-110, 4-111, 4-112,
4-113, 4-118, 4-124, 4-135, 4-136, 4-137,
4-138, 4-139, 4-150, 4-238, 4-240, 4-241,
4-242, 4-243, 4-244, 4-249
Average Daily Traffic (ADT): 3-139, 3-142,
3-145, 3-146, 3-147, 3-148, 4-9, 4-130, 4-
169, 4-185, 4-188, 4-190, 4-191, 4-192, 4-
194, 4-195, 4-196, 4-197, 4-198, 4-199, 4-
200
Blasting: S-6, S-7, S-36, S-45, S-47, S-90,
S-94, S-95, S-98, S-115, 1-146, 2-208,
2-209, 2-226, 2-227, 2-228, 2-231, 2-233,
2-234, 2-236, 2-241, 2-244, 2-245, 2-248,
2-251, 2-255, 2-267, 2-285, 2-287, 3-108,
3-126, 4-21, 4-23, 4-24, 4-31, 4-41, 4-47,
4-49, 4-59, 4-62, 4-65, 4-70, 4-85, 4-118,
4-131, 4-132, 4-133, 4-142, 4-155, 4-162,
4-163, 4-164, 4-165, 4-166, 4-171, 4-180,
4-185, 4-202, 4-244, 4-245
Bolster Creek: S-34, S-56, S-57, S-61, S-71,
S-97, S-105, S-107, S-110, 2-168, 2-195,
2-196, 2-204, 2-213, 2-262, 2-290, 3-6,
3-33, 3-36, 3-37, 3-40, 3-42, 3-43, 3-44,
3-51, 3-52, 3-53, 3-54, 3-58, 3-70, 3-88,
3-103, 3-153, 4-45, 4-64, 4-68, 4-72, 4-73,
4-74, 4-77, 4-79, 4-92, 4-93, 4-94, 4-192
Bureau of Land Management (BLM): S-1, S-4,
S-5, S-11, S-1 9, S-21, S-24, S-26, S-29, S-
31, S-32, S-33, S-35, 2-36, 2-37, 2-38, S-
39, S-40, S-42, S-43, S-47, S-49, S-60, S-
52, S-54, S-67, S-70, S-71, S-78, S-80, S-
90, S-102, S-133, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 1-
6, 1-7, 1-8, 1-134, 2-2, 2-4, 2-73, 2-80, 2-
83, 2-85, 2-88, 2-91, 2-92, 2-93, 2-94, 2-
95, 2-97, 2-98, 2-99, 2-101, 2-104, 2-105,
2-107, 2-109, 2-110, 2-111, 2-112, 2-113,
2-114, 2-116, 2-117, 2-118, 2-119, 2-120,
2-125, 2-126, 2-127, 2-128, 2-136, 2-141,
2-144, 2-145, 2-146, 2-147, 2-148, 2-144,
2-150, 2-151, 2-152, 2-154, 2-155, 2-165,
3-40, 3-74, 3-88, 3-89, 3-89, 3-91, 3-128,
3-132, 3-133, 3-137, 3-139, 3-142, 3-148,
3-149, 3-153, 4-2, 4-6, 4-22, 4-52, 4-56, 4-
70, 4-71, 4-84, 4-85, 4-86, 4-87, 4-88, 4-
89, 4-140, 4-172, 4-179, 4-190, 4-201, 4-
202, 4-236, 4-251
Canadian: S-8, S-12, S-44, S-54, S-61, S-64,
S-69, S-74, S-77, S-106, S-120, 1-142,
1-147, 1-150, 2-190, 2-213, 2-214, 3-5,
3-33, 3-35, 3-38, 3-69, 3-70, 3-79, 3-86,
3-88, 3-89, 3-93, 3-111, 3-11 2, 3-119,
3-128, 3-133, 3-135, 3-136, 3-137, 3-138,
3-142, 3-145, 3-148, 3-155, 3-170, 3-176,
3-178, 4-93, 4-100, 4-106, 4-116, 4-1 59,
4-193, 4-204
Canopy: S-64, S-65, S-66, S-92, 2-283,
2-289, 2-290, 2-291, 3-72, 3-79, 3-80,
3-81, 3-82, 3-85, 3-86, 3-97, 3-99, 3-103,
3-106, 3-108, 3-109, 3-113, 3-116, 4-33,
4-38, 4-64, 4-111, 4-120, 4-1 25
Chesaw: S-1,
S-26, S-27, S-
S-54, S-64, S-
S-76, S-77, S-
1-136, 1-146,
2-209, 2-210,
2-240, 2-243,
2-277, 2-290,
3-79, 3-92, 3-
3-125, 3-129,
3-138, 3-146,
3-157, 3-158,
3-163, 3-164,
3-173, 3-174,
4-5, 4-6, 4-13
4-134, 4-137,
4-163, 4-164,
4-169, 4-170,
4-181, 4-188,
4-199, 4-207,
4-217, 4-218,
4-231
S-7, S-17, S-19, S-21, S-24,
-29, S-31, S-35, S-42, S-53,
-67, S-69, S-71, S-72, S-74,
-79, S-115, S-116, S-119,
2-159, 2-161, 2-207, 2-208,
2-222, 2-232, 2-235, 2-238,
2-246, 2-249, 2-250, 2-265,
3-3, 3-5, 3-6, 3-31, 3-35,
93, 3-108, 3-120, 3-123,
3-130, 3-132, 3-133, 3-136,
3-147, 3-153, 3-155, 3-156,
3-159, 3-160, 3-161, 3-162,
3-165, 3-166, 3-169, 3-171,
3-176, 3-178, 3-179, 3-180,
, 4-15, 4-21, 4-124, 4-130,
4-150, 4-152, 4-155, 4-159,
4-165, 4-166, 4-167, 4-168,
4-173, 4-175, 4-176, 4-178,
4-195, 4-196, 4-197, 4-198,
4-213, 4-214, 4-215, 4-216,
4-219, 4-223, 4-225, 4-226,
Climate: S-53, S-120, 2-281, 3-1, 3-3, 3-37,
3-177, 3-178, 4-20, 4-21, 4-62, 4-200
Closure
S-115,
2-192,
2-212,
2-239,
2-253,
2-269,
2-293,
S-49,
2-155,
2-194,
2-214,
2-241,
2-255,
2-270,
2-294,
S-50, S-51, S-
2-158, 2-168,
2-195, 2-200,
2-231, 2-233,
2-242, 2-248,
2-256, 2-260,
2-271, 2-276,
2-295, 2-296,
62, S-79,
2-169, 2-191,
2-201, 2-202,
2-237, 2-238,
2-250, 2-252,
2-261, 2-267,
2-277, 2-278,
2-298, 2-302,
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 9-3
2-303, 2-304, 2-306, 2-318, 3-22, 3-71,
3-89, 3-97, 3-99, 3-103, 3-108, 3-109,
3-113, 3-177, 3-179, 4-31, 4-50, 4-57,
4-69, 4-75, 4-85, 4-87, 4-121, 4-123,
4-134, 4-136, 4-149, 4-169, 4-170, 4-172,
4-193, 4-201, 4-203, 4-212, 4-213, 4-214,
4-221
Colville Confederated Tribes: S-6, S-61, S-70,
S-78, S-133, 1-143, 1-144, 1-145, 3-69,
3-137, 3-139, 3-178, 3-179, 4-233, 4-251
Consequences: S-6, S-53, S-80, S-91,
S-112, 1-142, 1-143, 1-145, 1-146, 2-153,
2-177, 2-200, 2-201, 2-202, 2-228, 2-260,
2-261, 2-295, 2-296, 2-307, 3-1, 3-27,
3-28, 3-125, 3-153, 4-1, 4-25, 4-26, 4-27,
4-28, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 4-98, 4-141, 4-151
Cultural Resources: S-6, S-128, S-129,
S-133, 1-145, 3-1, 4-184, 4-185, 4-246,
4-247, 4-251
Cumulative Impacts: S-113, 2-269, 4-1,
4-89, 4-108, 4-114, 4-1 25, 4-141, 4-148,
4-194
Cyanide: S-6, S-9, S-14, S-17, S-19, S-21,
S-22, S-24, S-26, S-27, S-29, S-31, S-34,
S-35, S-40, S-41, S-46, S-47, S-55, S-57,
S-59, S-60, S-80, S-94, S-112, S-119,
S-127, 1-142, 1-145, 1-147, 1-148, 2-154,
2-159, 2-160, 2-161, 2-172, 2-173, 2-174,
2-175, 2-176, 2-177, 2-178, 2-179, 2-180,
2-181, 2-182, 2-183, 2-184, 2-185, 2-186,
2-189, 2-191, 2-208, 2-209, 2-228, 2-229,
2-231, 2-232, 2-235, 2-240, 2-243, 2-246,
2-248, 2-249, 2-251, 2-263, 2-264, 2-271,
2-274, 2-275, 2-287, 2-298, 2-302, 2-306,
3-10, 3-20, 3-21, 3-22, 3-23, 3-26, 3-27,
3-35, 3-36, 3-44, 3-50, 3-54, 3-58, 3-59,
3-63, 3-64, 3-67, 4-2, 4-5, 4-6, 4-11, 4-13,
4-20, 4-41, 4-50, 4-60, 4-69, 4-80, 4-107,
4-110, 4-111, 4-114, 4-118, 4-135, 4-136,
4-137, 4-138, 4-150, 4-188, 4-190, 4-194,
4-195, 4-196, 4-197, 4-198, 4-208, 4-240,
4-241, 4-242, 4-243, 4-244, 4-245
Deer: S-10, S-32, S-44, S-45, S-67, S-71,
S-128, 1-137, 1-138, 1-148, 2-198, 2-207,
2-252, 2-285, 2-289, 2-290, 2-291, 2-292,
2-293, 3-91, 3-92, 3-93, 3-94, 3-95, 3-96,
3-97, 3-98, 3-99, 3-100, 3-110, 3-111,
3-112, 3-113, 3-120, 3-121, 3-122, 3-129,
3-1 54, 4-11 7, 4-120, 4-123, 4-125, 4-126,
4-129, 4-130, 4-134, 4-137, 4-141, 4-142,
4-148, 4-150, 4-152, 4-246, 4-247
Developed Recreation: S-67, 3-127, 3-128,
3-129, 4-171, 4-172
Dewatering: S-8, S-92, S-94, S-95, S-102,
S-106, S-108, S-111, 1-147, 2-171, 2-186,
2-187, 2-196, 2-206, 2-212, 2-217, 2-250,
4-41, 4.43, 4-44, 4-56, 4-60, 4-61, 4-62,
4-65, 4-71, 4-74, 4-75, 4-76, 4-77, 4-78,
4-80, 4-81, 4-90, 4-93, 4-95, 4-97, 4-102,
4-110, 4-245
Diesel Fuel: S-9, S-124, S-128, 1-148,
2-223, 4-111, 4-1 50, 4-233, 4-246
Dispersed Recreation: S-32, S-33, S-67,
2-252, 2-258, 3-128, 3-130, 4-172, 4-201,
4-202
Diversity: S-9, S-10, S-45, S-66, S-67,
S-100, S-102, 1-137, 1-147, 1-148, 2-227,
2-284, 2-286, 2-299, 3-77, 3-82, 3-85,
3-86, 3-87, 3-88, 3-94, 3-121, 4-30, 4-84,
4-90, 4-139, 4-140, 4-142, 4-148
Drainages: S-56, S-62, S-64, S-66, S-94,
S-95, S-112, 2-169, 2-190, 2-191, 2-193,
2-195, 2-196, 2-197, 2-198, 2-199, 2-202,
2-203, 2-210, 2-214, 3-36, 3-37, 3-38,
3-39, 3-42, 3-50, 3-51, 3-52, 3-59, 3-62,
3-70, 3-75, 3-77, 3-78, 3-79, 3-80, 3-81,
3-82, 3-108, 3-129, 4-28, 4-41, 4-50, 4-54,
4-59, 4-61, 4-62, 4-65, 4-71, 4-75, 4-76,
4-77, 4-78, 4-80, 4-100, 4-105, 4-107,
4-108, 4-112, 4-115, 4-120, 4-121, 4-171
Dust Control: 2-166, 2-199, 2-200, 2-210,
2-216, 2-217, 2-220, 2-221, 2-262, 2-277,
4-8, 4-9, 4-11, 4-83, 4-85
Earthquake: S-56, S-91, S-125, S-126,
2-205, 3-28, 4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-28, 4-69,
4-238
Economic Conditions: 3-169, 4-234
Economics: S-124, 2-166, 2-171, 2-227,
2-245, 4-104, 4-233, 4-234, 4-236
Education: S-48, S-73, 2-292, 3-167, 3-169
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 9-4
CHAPTER 9 - INDEX
January 1997
Emissions: S-6, S-7, S-34, S-80, S-90,
1-145, 1-146, 2-169, 2-170, 2-177, 2-199,
2-203, 2-259, 2-261, 3-2, 4-2, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6,
4-8, 4-9, 4-11, 4-13, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18,
4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-159, 4-162, 4-166,
4-168, 4-169
Employment: S-11, S-17, S-19, S-21,
S-22, S-24, S-26, S-27, S-29, S-31, S-39,
S-72, S-73, S-77, S-120, S-124, 1-149,
2-159, 2-164, 2-232, 2-233, 2-235, 2-238,
2-240, 2-241, 2-243, 2-244, 2-246, 2-247,
2-249, 2-250, 2-271, 3-161, 3-162, 3-163,
3-164, 3-165, 3-166, 3-167, 3-176, 3-177,
4-190, 4-204, 4-206, 4-207, 4-208, 4-209,
4-210, 4-212, 4-213, 4-216, 4-221, 4-225,
4-227, 4-228, 4-230, 4-231, 4-232, 4-248
Energy: S-5, S-7, S-124, S-128, S-131,
S-132, 1-140, 1-145, 1-146, 2-177, 2-189,
2-203, 3-92, 3-95, 3-97, 4-109, 4-112,
4-131, 4-233, 4-246, 4-250, 4-251
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):
S-5, S-32, S-35, S-53, S-80, S-113, 1-7,
1-10, 1-143, 2-263, 3-2, 3-5, 3-10, 3-11, 3-
13, 3-15, 3-17, 3-19, 3-21, 3-28, 3-122, 3-
123, 3-126, 4-2, 4-4, 4-6, 4-9, 4-13, 4-36,
4-47, 4-48, 4-104, 4-111, 4-1 52, 4-162, 4-
164, 4-166, 4-171, 4-242
Erosion and Sediment Control: S-37,
S-40, S-120, 2-254, 2-268, 2-272, 4-64,
4-78, 4-113, 4-200
Ethel Creek: S-45, S-56, S-71, S-97,
S-102, S-105, S-108, S-109, 2-77, 2-78, 2-
111, 2-112, 2-144, 2-191, 2-195, 2-196,
2-204, 2-222, 2-285, 2-286, 3-6, 3-33,
3-36, 3-38, 3-40, 3-42, 3-43, 3-51, 3-52,
3-53, 3-54, 3-88, 3-94, 3-108, 3-134,
3-152, 3-153, 3-173, 4-45, 4-46, 4-64,
4-68, 4-74, 4-84, 4-86, 4-93, 4-95, 4-96,
4-178
Evaporation: S-54, S-95, S-100, S-103,
S-129, 2-166, 2-212, 2-213, 2-215, 2-216,
2-221, 2-256, 3-5, 3-23, 3-37, 4-11, 4-28,
4-50, 4-58, 4-61, 4-69, 4-82, 4-91, 4-109,
4-247
Floodplain: S-61, S-65, 2-281, 2-282,
3-31, 3-70, 3-79, 3-81, 3-161
Forest Plan: S-10, S-14, 1-135, 1-137,
1-138, 1-139, 1-148, 2-156, 2-158, 2-230,
3-93, 3-94, 3-95, 3-97, 3-98, 3-102, 3-103,
3-104, 3-106, 3-107, 3-112, 3-114, 3-128,
3-132, 3-134, 4-86, 4-116, 4-119,4-141,
4-142, 4-148, 4-201
Frog Pond: S-44, S-47, S-57, S-94,
S-103, S-104, S-108, S-110, S-111, 2-170,
2-197, 2-203, 2-229, 2-248, 2-269, 2-282,
2-283, 2-284, 2-288, 2-296, 2-299, 2-301,
3-39, 3-53, 3-59, 3-76, 3-105, 3-116,
3-130, 4-28, 4-46, 4-52, 4-56, 4-60, 4-61,
4-70, 4-75, 4-76, 4-77, 4-78, 4-79, 4-80,
4-91, 4-92, 4-95, 4-97, 4-98, 4-99, 4-101,
4-102, 4-103, 4-104, 4-106, 4-107, 4-122,
4-183
Geochemical Testing: S-54, S-98,
S-112, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-10, 3-15, 3-17, 3-18,
3-19, 3-26, 3-27, 3-68, 4-47, 4-49, 4-51,
4-58, 4-62, 4-68, 4-70, 4-107, 4-112
Geochemistry: S-7, S-36, S-50, S-54,
1-145, 1-146, 2-179, 2-266, 3-1, 3-6, 3-7,
3-8, 3-9, 3-10, 3-11, 3-13, 3-14, 3-15, 3-16,
3-17, 3-18, 3-19, 3-21, 3-68, 4-36, 4-47,
4-49, 4-51, 4-57, 4-58, 4-62, 4-68, 4-70,
4-136
Geology: S-6, S-37, S-54, S-90, 1-135,
1-145, 1-146, 2-162, 2-189, 2-218, 2-234,
2-267, 3-1, 3-6, 3-59, 4-24, 4-25
Geotechnical: S-6, S-37, S-50, S-56,
S-59, S-91, 1-145, 1-146, 2-189, 2-197,
2-203, 2-204, 2-218, 2-267, 2-294, 2-297,
3-28, 3-62, 4-25, 4-26, 4-28, 4-31, 4-32,
4-33, 4-51, 4-113, 4-238
Gold Creek: S-56, S-64, S-71, S-97,
S-102, S-106, S-107, S-110, 2-195, 2-196,
2-204, 2-215, 2-216, 2-218, 3-6, 3-33,
3-36, 3-37, 3-40, 3-42, 3-43, 3-49, 3-51,
3-52, 3-53, 3-54, 3-77, 3-80, 3-88, 3-103,
3-132, 3-147, 3-148, 3-152, 3-153, 4-45,
4-63, 4-64, 4-68, 4-72, 4-73, 4-84, 4-86,
4-93, 4-94, 4-99, 4-138, 4-170, 4-178
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 9-5
Goshawk: 2-198, 3-94, 3-96, 3-107,
3-108, 3-118, 3-119, 4-121, 4-129, 4-132,
4-149, 4-150
Grazing: S-9, S-32, S-33, S-37, S-63,
S-64, S-65, S-66, S-71, S-102, S-104,
S-128, S-131, 1-148, 2-200, 2-201, 2-202,
2-252, 2-258, 2-268, 2-269, 2-281, 2-283,
2-284, 2-291, 3-36, 3-50, 3-71, 3-74, 3-75,
3-76, 3-79, 3-80, 3-81, 3-82, 3-83, 3-133,
3-153, 3-177, 4-84, 4-86, 4-87, 4-89, 4-92,
4-102, 4-115, 4-119, 4-139, 4-140, 4-201,
4-202, 4-203, 4-246, 4-249
Grizzly Bear: S-67, 3-95, 3-96, 3-110,
3-111, 4-117, 4-139, 4-148
Habitat: S-9, S-10, S-32, S-33, S-37,
S-45, S-46, S-47, S-48, S-62, S-63, S-64,
S-65, S-66, S-67, S-95, S-100, S-112,
S-113, S-120, S-128, S-129, S-130, S-131,
1-137, 1-138, 1-139, 1-145, 1-147, 1-148,
1-149, 2-155, 2-195, 2-197, 2-198, 2-199,
2-200, 2-201, 2-202, 2-203, 2-220, 2-223,
2-227, 2-252, 2-258, 2-268, 2-279, 2-280,
2-281, 2-282, 2-283, 2-284, 2-285, 2-286,
2-287, 2-288, 2-289, 2-290, 2-291, 2-292,
2-299, 2-318, 3-38, 3-52, 3-71, 3-74, 3-75,
3-77, 3-78, 3-80, 3-81, 3-82, 3-85, 3-86,
3-87, 3-88, 3-89, 3-90, 3-91, 3-92, 3-93,
3-94, 3-95, 3-96, 3-97, 3-98, 3-99, 3-100,
3-101, 3-102, 3-103, 3-104, 3-105, 3-106,
3-107, 3-108, 3-109, 3-110, 3-111, 3-112,
3-113, 3-114, 3-115, 3-116, 3-117, 3-118,
3-119, 3-120, 3-121, 3-122, 3-129, 3-131,
3-133, 3-177, 4-30, 4-62, 4-64, 4-65, 4-82,
4-84, 4-85, 4-88, 4-105, 4-106, 4-107,
4-108, 4-109, 4-112, 4-113, 4-114, 4-11 5,
4-116, 4-117,4-118, 4-119, 4-120, 4-121,
4-122, 4-123, 4-124, 4-125, 4-126, 4-129,
4-130, 4-131, 4-132, 4-133, 4-134, 4-139,
4-140, 4-141, 4-142, 4-148, 4-149, 4-150,
4-151, 4-152, 4-171, 4-200, 4-201, 4-202,
4-203, 4-246, 4-247, 4-249
Haul Road: 2-163, 2-169, 2-176,
2-177, 2-190, 2-198, 2-199, 2-200, 2-201,
2-202, 2-226, 4-8, 4-11, 4-63, 4-160,
4-162, 4-168, 4-181, 4-182, 4-243
Hazardous Materials: S-35, S-42,
S-119, 2-263, 2-264, 2-265, 2-277, 2-292,
4-52, 4-188, 4-194, 4-195, 4-196, 4-197,
4-198, 4-199, 4-217
Heritage Resources: S-6, S-34, S-70,
S-116, S-133, 1-145, 2-262, 3-137, 3-139,
4-184, 4-251
Impacts: S-1, S-6, S-7, S-8, S-9, S-10,
S-11, S-12, S-17, S-32, S-33, S-34, S-35,
S-37, S-38, S-40, S-44, S-46, S-47, S-49,
S-50, S-55, S-56, S-65, S-66, S-80, S-90,
S-91, S-94, S-95, S-97, S-98, S-100, S-102,
S-103, S-104, S-106, S-108, S-109, S-110,
S-111, S-112, S-113, S-11 5, S-116, S-117,
S-120, S-125, S-1 26, S-127, S-129, S-130,
S-131, S-132, 1-134, 1-135, 1-139, 1-145,
1-146, 1-147, 1-148, 1-149, 1-150, 2-155,
2-158, 2-162, 2-165, 2-166, 2-169, 2-176,
2-179, 2-188, 2-193, 2-196, 2-198, 2-199,
2-200, 2-201, 2-202, 2-203, 2-204, 2-206,
2-207, 2-213, 2-214, 2-216, 2-218, 2-220,
2-223, 2-226, 2-227, 2-229, 2-230, 2-251,
2-252, 2-253, 2-259, 2-260, 2-261, 2-262,
2-265, 2-267, 2-268, 2-269, 2-270, 2-271,
2-273, 2-275, 2-276, 2-280, 2-283, 2-284,
2-286, 2-288, 2-289, 2-293, 2-302, 2-306,
2-307, 3-2, 3-3, 3-7, 3-28, 3-50, 3-67, 3-80,
3-81, 3-82, 3-86, 3-88, 3-123, 3-125,
3-127, 3-155, 3-166, 4-1, 4-2, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6,
4-8, 4-9, 4-11, 4-13, 4-15, 4-16, 4-17, 4-18,
4-19, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-25, 4-27, 4-31,
4-32, 4-34, 4-36, 4-41, 4-42, 4-43, 4-44,
4-46, 4-49, 4-50, 4-51, 4-52, 4-53, 4-54,
4-57, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 4-62, 4-63,
4-65, 4-68, 4-69, 4-70, 4-71, 4-72, 4-74,
4-76, 4-77, 4-78, 4-79, 4-80, 4-82, 4-83,
4-84, 4-85, 4-87, 4-88, 4-89, 4-91, 4-92,
4-93, 4-95, 4-96, 4-98, 4-99, 4-100, 4-101,
4-102, 4-103, 4-104, 4-105, 4-107, 4-108,
4-109, 4-110, 4-112, 4-113,4-114, 4-11 5,
4-116, 4-117, 4-118, 4-119, 4-120, 4-121,
4-125, 4-126, 4-129, 4-130, 4-131, 4-132,
4-133, 4-134, 4-135, 4-136, 4-137, 4-138,
4-139, 4-140, 4-141, 4-142, 4-148, 4-149,
4-150, 4-151, 4-152, 4-156, 4-159, 4-162,
4-163, 4-164, 4-168, 4-169, 4-170, 4-171,
4-173, 4-174, 4-175, 4-176, 4-178, 4-179,
4-180, 4-182, 4-183, 4-184, 4-185, 4-191,
4-192, 4-193, 4-194, 4-195, 4-196, 4-197,
4-198, 4-199, 4-201, 4-203, 4-204, 4-207,
4-208, 4-218, 4-222, 4-223, 4-224, 4-229,
4-230, 4-231, 4-232, 4-237, 4-238, 4-240,
4-242, 4-243, 4-244, 4-247, 4-248, 4-249,
4-250
Indicator Species: S-10, 1-148, 3-95,
3-97, 3-103, 3-106, 3-107, 3-114, 3-120
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 9-6
CHAPTER 9 - INDEX
January 1997
Issues: S-4, S-6, S-13, S-14, S-48,
S-50, 1-134, 1-139, 1-141, 1-142, 1-143,
1-144, 1-145, 1-150, 2-153, 2-154, 2-155,
2-156, 2-187, 2-293, 2-298, 2-299, 2-307,
3-1, 3-93, 3-122, 3-153, 3-159, 4-1, 4-139,
4-207, 4-217, 4-225, 4-229, 4-231, 4-232
Land Use: S-11, S-32, S-33, S-37,
S-67, S-70, S-78, S-113, S-119, S-131,
1-145, 1-149, 2-226, 2-252, 2-268, 3-65,
3-72, 3-85, 3-87, 3-88, 3-89, 3-90, 3-91,
3-148, 3-153, 3-154, 3-159, 3-179, 4-30,
4-63, 4-89, 4-104, 4-116, 4-117, 4-129,
4-133, 4-140, 4-141, 4-148, 4-200, 4-201,
4-202, 4-203, 4-207, 4-227, 4-249
Law Enforcement: S-73, 3-167, 3-169,
3-170, 4-215, 4-217, 4-223
Management Areas: 1-137, 1-139,
2-158, 3-93, 3-94, 3-97, 3-98, 3-102,
4-142, 4-201
Marias Creek: S-8, S-10, S-17, S-19,
S-21, S-22, S-24, S-26, S-45, S-46, S-48,
S-54, S-56, S-58, S-59, S-63, S-65, S-66,
S-94, S-97, S-98, S-103, S-104, S-107,
S-110, S-126, 1-147, 1-149, 2-159, 2-160,
2-188, 2-191,
2-200, 2-201,
2-214, 2-216,
2-169
2-195
2-212
2-231
2-232, 2-235,
2-192,
2-202,
2-217,
2-237,
2-193,
2-203,
2-229,
2-194,
2-204,
2-230,
2-239, 2-240,
2-243, 2-285, 2-286, 2-289, 2-290, 3-5,
3-6, 3-33, 3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 3-39, 3-40,
3-42, 3-44, 3-51, 3-52, 3-53, 3-54, 3-58,
3-61, 3-62, 3-73, 3-80, 3-81, 3-82, 3-85,
3-86, 3-88, 3-100, 3-152, 4-23, 4-24, 4-40,
4-45, 4-50, 4-51, 4-53, 4-54, 4-59, 4-61,
4-64, 4-68, 4-69, 4-72, 4-75, 4-76, 4-77,
4-78, 4-79, 4-80, 4-81, 4-91, 4-92, 4-94,
4-99, 4-100, 4-105, 4-106, 4-108, 4-109,
4-114, 4-11 5, 4-120, 4-129, 4-1 59, 4-170,
4-239, 4-247
Milling Facility: 2-230, 2-234, 2-239,
2-242, 2-245, 2-248, 4-130, 4-133, 4-160
Minerals: S-128, S-133, 1-138, 2-156,
2-172, 2-173, 2-174, 2-248, 2-302, 2-318,
3-6, 3-7, 3-19, 3-49, 3-69, 3-154, 3-177,
3-178, 4-44, 4-115, 4-141, 4-234, 4-246,
4-251
Mining Operation: S-32, S-38, S-92,
S-108, S-128, 2-156, 2-176, 2-190, 2-200,
2-201, 2-202, 2-230, 2-262, 2-270, 2-298,
3-120, 4-8, 4-41, 4-43, 4-44, 4-59, 4-78,
4-86, 4-95, 4-229, 4-243, 4-246
Mitigation: S-1, S-4, S-33, S-41, S-44,
S-45, S-46, S-47, S-48, S-49, S-52, S-80,
S-98, S-112, S-113, S-11 6, S-117, S-119,
S-129, S-131, S-132, 1-134, 1-135, 1-137,
1-139, 1-142, 2-153, 2-154, 2-155, 2-158,
2-184, 2-189, 2-195, 2-198, 2-200, 2-202,
2-203, 2-206, 2-225, 2-229, 2-230, 2-259,
2-260, 2-261, 2-269, 2-270, 2-275, 2-279,
2-280, 2-281, 2-282, 2-283, 2-284, 2-285,
2-287, 2-289, 2-290, 2-291, 2-292, 2-293,
2-299, 2-300, 2-301, 2-302, 2-317, 3-38,
3-120, 4-1, 4-8, 4-9, 4-33, 4-42, 4-49, 4-52,
4-61, 4-62, 4-64, 4-65, 4-71, 4-76, 4-77,
4-80, 4-81, 4-87, 4-98, 4-100, 4-101,
4-104, 4-105, 4-106, 4-107, 4-110, 4-113,
4-114, 4-115, 4-117, 4-118, 4-120, 4-121,
4-123, 4-124, 4-126, 4-129, 4-134, 4-135,
4-136, 4-137, 4-148, 4-150, 4-151, 4-152,
4-170, 4-176, 4-179, 4-181, 4-184, 4-185,
4-188, 4-190, 4-192, 4-193, 4-194, 4-195,
4-196, 4-197, 4-198, 4-199, 4-201, 4-202,
4-229, 4-230, 4-231, 4-236, 4-241, 4-243,
4-245, 4-247, 4-250
Monitoring: S-33, S-41, S-47, S-49,
S-50, S-51, S-52, S-53, S-56, S-57, S-58,
S-59, S-60, S-62, S-67, S-94, S-97, S-98,
S-99, 1-142, 2-153, 2-154, 2-155, 2-158,
2-164, 2-179, 2-189, 2-190, 2-191, 2-192,
2-193, 2-194, 2-195, 2-196, 2-197, 2-198,
2-199, 2-206, 2-221, 2-230, 2-233, 2-237,
2-241, 2-244, 2-247, 2-250, 2-253, 2-259,
2-260, 2-263, 2-266, 2-267, 2-269, 2-270,
2-271, 2-273, 2-274, 2-275, 2-276, 2-279,
2-287, 2-291, 2-292, 2-293, 2-294, 2-295,
2-296, 2-297, 2-298, 2-299, 2-300, 2-301,
2-302, 2-303, 2-304, 2-306, 2-307, 2-317,
3-2, 3-33, 3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 3-38, 3-40,
3-42, 3-43, 3-44, 3-46, 3-49, 3-50, 3-51,
3-52, 3-60, 3-61, 3-62, 3-63, 3-64, 3-65,
3-66, 3-67, 3-69, 3-71, 3-82, 3-83, 3-86,
3-123, 3-125, 4-5, 4-16, 4-42, 4-43, 4-48,
4-49, 4-50, 4-51, 4-52, 4-54, 4-56, 4-59,
4-61, 4-63, 4-65, 4-68, 4-69, 4-70, 4-71,
4-72, 4-73, 4-74, 4-75, 4-76, 4-78, 4-80,
4-98, 4-101, 4-105, 4-107, 4-110, 4-112,
4-115, 4-118, 4-131, 4-135, 4-137, 4-142,
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 9-7
4-156, 4-157, 4-162, 4-163, 4-225, 4-232,
4-245
Myers Creek: S-8, S-44, S-46, S-48,
S-54, S-56, S-60, S-61, S-62, S-64, S-66,
S-67, S-69, S-71, S-97, S-100, S-106,
S-110, S-111, S-112, S-126, 1-134, 1-147,
2-165, 2-168, 2-169, 2-176, 2-177, 2-190,
2-195, 2-196, 2-197, 2-199, 2-201, 2-202,
2-204, 2-213, 2-214, 2-215, 2-216, 2-217,
2-218, 2-219, 2-220, 2-221, 2-257, 2-280,
2-281, 2-282, 2-286, 2-287, 2-289, 2-290,
2-296, 3-6, 3-33, 3-35, 3-36, 3-40, 3-43,
3-65, 3-69, 3-70, 3-71, 3-75, 3-78, 3-79,
3-80, 3-82, 3-83, 3-85, 3-86, 3-87, 3-88,
3-92, 3-95, 3-101, 3-105, 3-115, 3-116,
3-117,3-118, 3-130, 3-133, 3-138, 3-147,
3-148, 3-153, 4-26, 4-49, 4-64, 4-68, 4-71,
4-72, 4-73, 4-74, 4-75, 4-76, 4-79, 4-81,
4-82, 4-83, 4-93, 4-97, 4-98, 4-99, 4-100,
4-102, 4-106, 4-107, 4-108, 4-110, 4-112,
4-114, 4-11 5, 4-116, 4-121, 4-1 22, 4-137,
4-138, 4-139, 4-159, 4-171, 4-178, 4-238,
4-243
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA): S-1, S-4, S-14, S-17, 1-134, 2-154,
3-137, 3-149, 3-155, 4-251, 4-229, 4-235
Nicholson Creek: S-8, S-10, S-17,
S-22, S-27, S-29, S-31, S-44, S-45, S-46,
S-48, S-56, S-57, S-64, S-65, S-66, S-67,
S-69, S-70, S-71, S-94, S-97, S-98, S-99,
S-103, S-104, S-105, S-107, S-108, S-110,
S-112, S-126, S-127, 1-1, 1-3, 1-8,, 1-9, 1-
10, 1-11, 1-147, 1-149, 2-2, 2-4, 2-6, 2-7,
2-78, 2-115, 2-123, 2-124, 2-128, 1-166,
2-159, 2-160, 2-161, 2-169, 2-191, 2-192,
2-193, 2-194, 2-195, 2-196, 2-204, 2-212,
2-214, 2-215, 2-216, 2-226, 2-230, 2-233,
2-241, 2-246, 2-248, 2-249, 2-251, 2-269,
2-282, 2-286, 2-289, 2-290, 2-291, 2-301,
3-6, 3-33, 3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 3-38, 3-39,
3-40, 3-42, 3-44, 3-49, 3-51, 3-52, 3-53,
3-54, 3-58, 3-69, 3-71, 3-78, 3-81, 3-82,
3-85, 3-88, 3-92, 3-100, 3-101, 3-118,
3-123, 3-131, 3-133, 3-134, 3-146, 3-147,
3-148, 3-152, 3-153, 4-2, 4-22, 4-24, 4-25,
4-28, 4-46, 4-49, 4-50, 4-51, 4-52, 4-53,
4-54, 4-56, 4-57, 4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 4-64,
4-65, 4-68, 4-69, 4-71, 4-72, 4-73, 4-75,
4-76, 4-77, 4-78, 4-79, 4-80, 4-81, 4-91,
4-92, 4-93, 4-94, 4-95, 4-99, 4-100, 4-101,
4-103, 4-104, 4-105, 4-106, 4-107, 4-108,
4-109, 4-110, 4-113, 4-114, 4-1 1 5, 4-120,
4-129, 4-137, 4-138, 4-170, 4-171, 4-174,
4-175, 4-183, 4-184, 4-203, 4-204, 4-239,
4-240
Nitrates: S-36, S-94, S-112, 2-267,
4-41, 4-51, 4-62, 4-65, 4-70
No Action Alternative: S-4, S-14, S-80,
1-136, 1-137, 2-153, 2-154, 2-155, 2-159,
2-228, 2-230, 2-261, 4-1, 4-5, 4-22, 4-24,
4-34, 4-108, 4-119, 4-184
Noise:
S-113,
1-143,
2-170,
2-202,
3-123,
4-118,
4-131,
4-152,
4-161,
4-167,
4-225,
S-5, S-7, S-11,
S-115, S-129,
1-145, 1-146,
2-171, 2-177,
2-270,
3-126,
4-120,
4-133,
4-156,
4-163,
2-203,
3-125,
4-119,
4-132,
4-155,
4-162,
4-168, 4-169,
4-232, 4-247,
S-38, S-67,
S-130, 1-140, 1-141,
1-149, 2-164, 2-169,
2-199, 2-200, 2-201,
3-1, 3-92, 3-122,
3-127, 4-17, 4-117,
4-121, 4-129, 4-130,
4-140, 4-141, 4-142,
4-157, 4-159, 4-160,
4-164, 4-165, 4-166,
4-170, 4-171, 4-213,
4-248, 4-249
Okanogan National Forest: S-4, S-56,
S-64, S-65, S-116, S-133, 1-134, 1-135,
1-136, 1-137, 1-144, 2-156, 2-259, 3-28,
3-32, 3-40, 3-80, 3-81, 3-89, 3-91, 3-93,
3-97, 3-100, 3-103, 3-106, 3-109, 3-112,
3-114, 3-128, 3-132, 3-137, 3-153, 4-2,
4-85, 4-86, 4-89, 4-140, 4-141, 4-151,
4-175, 4-201, 4-251
Old Growth: S-10, 1-148, 3-91, 3-94,
3-97, 3-102, 3-104, 3-109, 3-113, 3-119,
3-121
Ore: S-1, S-14, S-1 6, S-17, S-19, S-21,
S-22, S-24, S-26, S-27, S-29, S-31, S-32,
S-54, S-55, S-61, S-71, S-90, S-95, S-98,
S-124, S-125, S-128, 1-135, 1-136, 2-154,
2-159, 2-160, 2-161, 2-162, 2-163, 2-164,
2-165, 2-166, 2-170, 2-171, 2-172, 2-173,
2-174, 2-175, 2-176, 2-177, 2-178, 2-179,
2-180, 2-181, 2-182, 2-184, 2-185, 2-186,
2-187, 2-188, 2-190, 2-196, 2-198, 2-199,
2-200, 2-201, 2-208, 2-209, 2-210, 2-212,
2-221, 2-226, 2-227, 2-228, 2-229, 2-230,
2-231, 2-232, 2-233, 2-234, 2-235, 2-236,
2-237, 2-238, 2-239, 2-240, 2-241, 2-242,
2-243, 2-245, 2-246, 2-247, 2-248, 2-249,
2-250, 2-251, 2-262, 2-268, 2-282, 2-305,
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 9-8
CHAPTER 9 - INDEX
January 1997
3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-10, 3-11, 3-19, 3-20,
3-21, 3-22, 3-26, 3-27, 3-67, 3-68, 3-138,
3-139, 3-1 48, 3-149, 3-178, 4-6, 4-11,
4-23, 4-24, 4-25, 4-27, 4-31, 4-32, 4-42,
4.43, 4-44, 4-49, 4-50, 4-51, 4-52, 4-56,
4-60, 4-62, 4-63, 4-65, 4-68, 4-69, 4-70,
4-80, 4-105, 4-111, 4-112, 4-114, 4-11 5,
4-133, 4-134, 4-160, 4-162, 4-166, 4-167,
4-168, 4-169, 4-193, 4-198, 4-199, 4-200,
4-203, 4-222, 4-226, 4-233, 4-234, 4-236,
4-237, 4-244, 4-246, 4-248
Overburden: 4-6, 4-57
Participate: S-66, 2-296, 3-2, 3-3,
3-82, 4-5, 4-6, 4-8, 4-9, 4-11, 4-15, 4-16,
4-17, 4-18, 4-21
Permit: S-1, S-5, S-33, S-34, S-36,
S-41, S-49, S-50, S-52, S-71, S-80, S-95,
S-100, S-112, S-132, S-133, 1-135, 1-139,
1-140, 1-141, 2-158, 2-180, 2-184, 2-204,
2-212, 2-222, 2-224, 2-238, 2-241, 2-251,
2-253, 2-259, 2-261, 2-262, 2-266, 2-267,
2-270, 2-275, 2-277, 2-293, 2-294, 2-295,
2-296, 2-297, 2-298, 2-301, 2-302, 2-303,
2-304, 2-306, 2-307, 2-317, 3-2, 3-5, 3-10,
3-75, 3-153, 3-160, 3-171, 4-2, 4-4, 4-5,
4-8, 4-11, 4-13, 4-15, 4-28, 4-36, 4-49,
4-50, 4-52, 4-61, 4-68, 4-81, 4-82, 4-98,
4-101, 4-104, 4-105, 4-106, 4-107, 4-245,
4-246, 4-250, 4-251
pH: S-51, S-56, S-57, S-59, S-60,
S-61, 2-173, 2-174, 2-175, 2-179, 2-180,
2-181, 2-182, 2-183, 2-257, 2-260, 2-294,
2-306, 3-7, 3-11, 3-18, 3-19, 3-20, 3-21,
3-23, 3-26, 3-28, 3-30, 3-31, 3-35, 3-44,
3-46, 3-49, 3-54, 3-58, 3-63, 3-64, 3-67,
3-69, 4-36, 4-48, 4-49, 4-111, 4-135,
4-138, 4-242, 4-244
Pit Dewatering. S-92, S-102, 2-212,
2-217, 4-41, 4-43, 4-44, 4-65, 4-71, 4-74,
4-75, 4-81, 4-90, 4-110
Plan of Operations: S-1, S-4, S-5, S-16,
1-134, 1-135, 1-137, 1-140, 1-141, 2-156,
2-162, 2-217, 2-230, 2-251, 2-253, 2-270,
2-293, 2-297, 2-303, 2-307, 3-10, 4-22,
4-135
Plant Association: 3-71, 3-72, 3-90, 3-91
Policy: S-1, S-14, S-133, 1-134, 1-135,
2-154, 2-225, 3-137, 4-140, 4-172, 4-173,
4-251
Population: S-11, S-34, S-62, S-71,
S-75, S-77, S-78, S-113, S-115, S-116,
S-120, S-122, S-129, 1-137, 1-149, 2-262,
2-288, 2-299, 2-300, 3-71, 3-73, 3-74,
3-92, 3-99, 3-102, 3-110, 3-111, 3-112,
3-113, 3-114, 3-128, 3-129, 3-130, 3-138,
3-155, 3-156, 3-157, 3-166, 3-169, 3-172,
3-176, 3-178, 3-179, 4-5, 4-6, 4-21, 4-34,
4-36, 4-83, 4-85, 4-88, 4-114, 4-118,
4-133, 4-134, 4-136, 4-139, 4-140, 4-141,
4-148, 4-149, 4-150, 4-170, 4-171, 4-172,
4-173, 4-175, 4-203, 4-204, 4-206, 4-208,
4-209, 4-210, 4-214, 4-216, 4-217, 4-218,
4-219, 4-220, 4-221, 4-222, 4-223, 4-224,
4-225, 4-226, 4-227, 4-228, 4-229, 4-230,
4-232, 4-247, 4-248
Power Line Corridor: 2-237, 4-63,
4-176, 4-178
Precipitation: S-53, S-57, S-58, S-59,
S-95, S-97, S-110, S-120, 2-173, 2-174,
2-177, 2-178, 2-179, 2-212, 2-215, 2-221,
2-222, 2-254, 2-258, 2-267, 2-273, 2-296,
3-3, 3-5, 3-11, 3-19, 3-21, 3-23, 3-26, 3-36,
3-37, 3-43, 3-44, 3-49, 3-50, 3-54, 3-59,
3-61, 3-62, 4-43, 4-44, 4-49, 4-50, 4-51,
4-54, 4-57, 4-59, 4-61, 4-62, 4-65, 4-68,
4-70, 4-71, 4-72, 4-74, 4-78, 4-80, 4-100,
4-108, 4-200
Proposed Disturbance: S-56, 3-36, 4-85
Public Involvement: 1-136, 1-141,
3-160
Radioactive: S-7, 1-146
Range: S-1, S-
S-54, S-56, S-
S-66, S-67, S-
S-91, S-98, S-
1-136, 1-137,
2-163, 2-173,
2-192, 2-193,
2-199, 2-200,
2-219, 2-220,
2-291, 2-318,
3-18, 3-19, 3-
3-32, 3-37, 3
10, S-14, S-32, S-53,
58, S-61, S-62, S-63, S-64,
71, S-73, S-76, S-79, S-80,
99, S-102, S-132, 1-135,
1-138, 1-148, 2-153, 2-154,
2-175, 2-180, 2-181, 2-182,
2-194, 2-196, 2-197, 2-198,
2-201, 2-207, 2-215, 2-218,
2-227, 2-252, 2-256, 2-290,
3-5, 3-9, 3-11, 3-15, 3-17,
20, 3-26, 3-28, 3-30, 3-31,
43, 3-44, 3-49, 3-58, 3-60,
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 9-9
3-61, 3-65, 3-70, 3-73, 3-74, 3-77, 3-79,
3-85, 3-86, 3-88, 3-92, 3-94, 3-95, 3-97,
3-99, 3-100, 3-104, 3-106, 3-107, 3-108,
3-109, 3-110, 3-111, 3-112, 3-113, 3-114,
3-11 5, 3-119, 3-120, 3-121, 3-122, 3-129,
3-136, 3-138, 3-149, 3-152, 3-153, 3-164,
3-168, 3-173, 3-174, 3-179, 4-1, 4-4, 4-16,
4-19, 4-33, 4-36, 4-39, 4-40, 4-42, 4-43,
4.44, 4-47, 4-48, 4-49, 4-53, 4-56, 4-57,
4-62, 4-63, 4-71, 4-72, 4-73, 4-75, 4-84,
4-87, 4-89, 4-90, 4-108, 4-110, 4-114,
4-118, 4-120, 4-1 26, 4-129, 4-130, 4-132,
4-137, 4-140, 4-142, 4-148, 4-149, 4-151,
4-152, 4-159, 4-164, 4-168, 4-179, 4-191,
4-201, 4-208, 4-209, 4-213, 4-214, 4-215,
4-217, 4-220, 4-221, 4-223, 4-224, 4-229,
4-236, 4-242, 4-246, 4-250
Reclamation: S-5, S-8, S-9, S-10, S-14,
S-17, S-19, S-21, S-22, S-24, S-26, S-27,
S-29, S-31, S-32, S-33, S-37, S-38, S-39,
S-40, S-44, S-45, S-47, S-48, S-49, S-50,
S-51, S-52, S-56, S-80, S-90, S-91, S-92,
S-94, S-95, S-97, S-98, S-102, S-111,
S-112,5-113,5-116, S-117, S-119, S-120,
S-122, S-123, S-128, S-129, S-130, S-131,
S-133, 1-135, 1-138, 1-139, 1-140, 1-142,
1-145, 1-147, 1-148, 2-153, 2-154, 2-155,
2-156, 2-158, 2-159, 2-160, 2-161, 2-162,
2-165, 2-168, 2-186, 2-187, 2-195, 2-198,
2-200, 2-201, 2-202, 2-203, 2-204, 2-208,
2-210, 2-212, 2-216, 2-225, 2-226, 2-227,
2-228, 2-229, 2-230, 2-232, 2-233, 2-234,
2-235, 2-237, 2-238, 2-239, 2-240, 2-241,
2-242, 2-243, 2-244, 2-245, 2-246, 2-247,
2-248, 2-249, 2-250, 2-251, 2-252, 2-253,
2-254, 2-255, 2-256, 2-257, 2-259, 2-260,
2-261, 2-267, 2-268, 2-269, 2-270, 2-271,
2-272, 2-273, 2-279, 2-283, 2-284, 2-285,
2-286, 2-287, 2-288, 2-292, 2-293, 2-294,
2-296, 2-298, 2-299, 2-300, 2-301, 2-302,
2-303, 2-304, 2-305, 2-306, 2-307, 2-317,
2-318, 3-22, 3-31, 3-33, 3-70, 3-120,
3-154, 3-167, 3-172, 4-1, 4-2, 4-6, 4-11,
4-20, 4-21, 4-22, 4-23, 4-24, 4-27, 4-29,
4-30, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 4-36, 4-37,
4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4-50, 4-51, 4-52,
4-53, 4-54, 4-56, 4-58, 4-61, 4-62, 4-64,
4-65, 4-68, 4-69, 4-70, 4-71, 4-74, 4-75,
4-78, 4-79, 4-83, 4-84, 4-85, 4-86, 4-87,
4-89, 4-90, 4-97, 4-98, 4-100, 4-101,
4-102, 4-103, 4-104, 4-105, 4-106, 4-107,
4-108, 4-110, 4-115, 4-116, 4-11 7, 4-118,
4-119, 4-120, 4-121, 4-122, 4-123, 4-124,
4-125, 4-126, 4-129, 4-132, 4-133, 4-137,
4-141, 4-142, 4-149, 4-150, 4-151, 4-152,
4-168, 4-169, 4-170, 4-171, 4-175, 4-176,
4-179, 4-180, 4-181, 4-183, 4-185, 4-188,
4-190, 4-192, 4-195, 4-196, 4-197, 4-198,
4-199, 4-200, 4-201, 4-202, 4-203, 4-204,
4-206, 4-208, 4-210, 4-212, 4-213, 4-214,
4-215, 4-216, 4-220, 4-221, 4-222, 4-223,
4-224, 4-231, 4-232, 4-236, 4-246, 4-247,
4-248, 4-249, 4-251
Recreation: S-11, S-32, S-33, 5-39,
S-67, S-69, S-70, S-71, S-115, S-128,
S-129, S-130, 1-137, 1-138, 1-139, 1-145,
1-149, 2-252, 2-258, 2-271, 2-290, 2-293,
2-318, 3-92, 3-93, 3-126, 3-127, 3-128,
3-129, 3-130, 3-131, 3-132, 3-133, 3-148,
3-154, 3-155, 3-166, 3-167, 3-177, 4-63,
4-115,4-119, 4-133, 4-134, 4-169, 4-170,
4-171, 4-172, 4-173, 4-174, 4-175, 4-201,
4-202, 4-203, 4-213, 4-214, 4-219, 4-246,
4-247, 4-248
Reservoir: S-5, S-16, S-17, S-19, S-21,
S-24, S-26, S-29, S-31, S-34, S-37, S-38,
S-51, S-64, S-70, S-91, S-92, S-94, S-95,
S-99, S-100, S-102, S-106, S-110, S-111,
S-112, S-119, S-125, S-126, 1-140, 2-159,
2-199, 2-214, 2-215, 2-216, 2-217, 2-218,
2-219, 2-220, 2-221, 2-222, 2-231, 2-232,
2-233, 2-234, 2-235, 2-237, 2-239, 2-240,
2-242, 2-243, 2-244, 2-245, 2-246, 2-247,
2-248, 2-249, 2-250, 2-253, 2-256, 2-257,
2-260, 2-262, 2-267, 2-270, 2-281, 2-297,
3-28, 3-30, 3-75, 3-78, 3-86, 3-88, 3-101,
3-117, 3-137, 3-139, 4-25, 4-28, 4-31,
4-32, 4-33, 4-34, 4-37, 4-41, 4-44, 4-47,
4-48, 4-49, 4-61, 4-63, 4-71, 4-73, 4-74,
4-81, 4-82, 4-83, 4-90, 4-93, 4-97, 4-98,
4-100, 4-102, 4-103, 4-107, 4-108, 4-114,
4-117, 4-121, 4-122, 4-126, 4-159, 4-178,
4-188, 4-191, 4-192, 4-202, 4-237, 4-238,
4-243
Revegetation: S-9, S-33, S-37, S-39,
S-44, S-50, S-51, S-90, S-91, S-98, S-113,
S-120, S-128, 1-148, 2-155, 2-158, 2-168,
2-186, 2-225, 2-226, 2-227, 2-230, 2-233,
2-237, 2-238, 2-241, 2-244, 2-247, 2-250,
2-251, 2-252, 2-253, 2-255, 2-256, 2-257,
2-258, 2-259, 2-260, 2-268, 2-272, 2-273,
2-279, 2-294, 2-299, 2-300, 2-303, 2-318,
4-21, 4-22, 4-30, 4-33, 4-36, 4-37, 4-53,
4-58, 4-62, 4-65, 4-79, 4-86, 4-87, 4-106,
Crown Jewel Mine t Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 9-10
CHAPTER 9 - INDEX
January 1997
4-11 5, 4-117, 4-180, 4-181, 4-200, 4-201,
4-202, 4-203, 4-204, 4-246
Riparian: S-10, S-47, S-64, S-65, S-66,
S-106, S-126, 1-137, 1-138, 1-139, 1-148,
2-196, 2-198, 2-201, 2-202, 2-203, 2-256,
2-269, 2-280, 2-281, 2-282, 2-283, 2-287,
2-289, 2-290, 2-291, 2-292, 3-44, 3-52,
3-73, 3-74, 3-75, 3-77, 3-79, 3-80, 3-81,
3-82, 3-83, 3-88, 3-89, 3-90, 3-91, 3-93,
3-94, 3-95, 3-98, 3-100, 3-101, 3-102,
3-103, 3-104, 3-105, 3-106, 3-107, 3-110,
3-113, 3-114, 3-116, 3-118, 3-121, 4-87,
4-93, 4-105, 4-106, 4-115, 4-121, 4-122,
4-124, 4-129, 4-134, 4-140, 4-142, 4-148,
4-150, 4-151, 4-152, 4-238, 4-242, 4-243
Safety Factors: S-6, 1-146
Scenic Impacts: 4-176
Scoping: S-4, 1-136, 1-141, 1-142,
1-143, 1-144, 2-156, 2-173, 3-130, 3-167,
4-225, 4-229
Sediment Control: S-37, S-40, S-94,
S-113, S-120, 2-200, 2-254, 2-255, 2-268,
2-272, 2-279, 4-28, 4-34, 4-37, 4-38, 4-61,
4-64, 4-68, 4-71, 4-78, 4-108, 4-113,
4-114, 4-200
Seepage: S-61, S-98, S-103, S-107,
2-206, 2-274, 2-298, 3-39, 3-66, 3-67,
4-44, 4-47, 4-49, 4.50, 4-51, 4-52, 4-53,
4-54, 4-56, 4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-62, 4-65,
4-69, 4-70, 4-72, 4-75, 4-77, 4-91, 4-94,
4-135, 4-137, 4-245
Sensitive Plant: 2-269, 2-281, 2-283,
3-73, 4-85, 4-87, 4-248
Sensitive Species: S-10, S-63, S-66,
S-102, S-113, 1-148, 2-292, 3-73, 3-77,
3-82, 3-87, 3-88, 3-95, 3-96, 3-99, 3-106,
3-107, 3-109, 3-114, 4-84, 4-87, 4-88,
4-116, 4-118, 4-131, 4-141, 4-148, 4-149,
4-150
Snag: S-45, 2-286, 3-102, 3-103,
3-121, 4-124
Snow Intercept Thermal Cover (SIT): S-128,
2-137, 2-138, 2-139, 3-97, 3-98, 4-117, 4-
125, 4-129, 4-139, 4-141, 4-150, 4-246, 4-
247
Socioeconomic: S-5, S-71, S-77,
S-120, S-122, S-123, S-131, S-132, 1-140,
2-164, 2-189, 3-153, 3-155, 3-175, 3-177,
4-171, 4-179, 4-203, 4-204, 4-206, 4-208,
4-210, 4-213, 4-216, 4-219, 4-221, 4-222,
4-225, 4-227, 4-229, 4-230, 4-231, 4-232,
4-249, 4-250
Soil Productivity: S-8, S-92, S-102,
S-129, S-130, 1-147, 4-33, 4-35, 4-37,
4-38, 4-84, 4-117, 4-122, 4-123, 4-247,
4-248, 4-249
Soils: S-8, S-39, S-40, S-56, S-91,
S-103, S-120, 1-145, 1-147, 2-189, 2-202,
2-215, 2-223, 2-257, 2-258, 2-272, 2-273,
2-280, 3-1, 3-11, 3-28, 3-30, 3-31, 3-32,
3-49, 3-52, 3-75, 3-101,3-111, 3-11 5,
4-25, 4-29, 4-33, 4-34, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38,
4-39, 4-40, 4-60, 4-86, 4-91, 4-123, 4-200,
4-242, 4-245
Solid Waste Disposal: S-14, 2-155,
2-162, 2-224, 2-225, 2-228
Spill: S-5, S-12, S-35, S-36. S-119,
S-125, S-127, 1-140, 1-150, 2-224, 2-263,
2-264, 2-265, 2-292, 4-36, 4-52, 4-53,
4-110, 4-111, 4-118, 4-131, 4-134, 4-137,
4-138, 4-139, 4-149, 4-150, 4-151, 4-171,
4-190, 4-192, 4-194, 4-195, 4-196, 4-197,
4-198, 4-199, 4-237, 4-240, 4-241, 4-242,
4-243, 4-244, 4-245
Springs and Seeps: S-8, S-42, S-57,
S-63, S-92, S-94, S-109, S-129, 1-147,
2-268, 2-276, 3-15, 3-52, 3-53, 3-54, 3-59,
3-62, 3-69, 3-75, 4-41, 4-44, 4-45, 4-46,
4-50, 4-51, 4-54, 4-58, 4-59, 4-61, 4-74,
4-76, 4-77, 4-78, 4-79, 4-80, 4-96, 4-100,
4-105, 4-106, 4-247, 4-248
Starrem Creek (Reservoir): S-17, S-38, S-64,
S-91, S-92, S-94, S-95, S-98, S-100, S-106,
S-110, S-111, S-119, 2-7, 2-47, 2-63, 2-64,
2-65, 2-66, 2-67, 2-68, 2-69, 2-70, 2-81, 2-
104, 2-105, 2-110, 2-118, 2-129, 3-28, 3-
30, 3-35, 3-75, 3-86, 3-88, 3-101, 3-117, 4-
28, 4-37, 4-41, 4-44, 4-47, 4-49, 4-61, 4-
63, 4-64, 4-71, 4-74, 4-76, 4-77, 4-78, 4-
80, 4-81, 4-82, 4-83, 4-93, 4-97, 4-98, 4-
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 9-11
99, 4-100, 4-102, 4-103, 4-106, 4-107, 4-
114, 4-117, 4-121, 4-122, 4-126, 4-159,
4-178, 4-188, 4-191, 4-192, 4-202
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA):
S-1, S-4, S-14, S-17, S-131, 1-1, 1-3, 1-6,
1-8, 1-9, 1-10, 1-134, 2-2, 2-4, 2-6, 2-7, 2-
78, 2-115, 2-123, 2-124, 2-154, 3-149, 3-
155, 4-229, 4-235, 4-249
Stormwater: S-5, S-9, S-95, S-133,
1-140, 1-147, 2-257, 2-294, 4-29, 4-61,
4-62, 4-64, 4-251
Streamflow: S-62, 3-44, 3-50, 3-70,
4-74, 4-110
Subsidence: S-6, S-16, S-21, S-37
S-90, S-95, S-100, S-115, S-116, S-119,
S-128, 1-146, 2-235, 2-236, 2-238, 2-241,
2-268, 4-21, 4-22, 4-23, 4-26, 4-31, 4-32,
4-34, 4-57, 4-61, 4-64, 4-75, 4-76, 4-77,
4-84, 4-85, 4-170, 4-173, 4-174, 4-176,
4-182, 4-200, 4-203, 4-246, 4-248
Successional Stage: 3-90, 3-94, 3-100,
3-113, 3-119, 3-121, 4-139, 4-142, 4-148
Tailings: S-6, S-7, S-8, S-9, S-12, S-14,
S-16, S-17, S-19, S-21, S-22, S-24, S-26,
S-27, S-29, S-31, S-33, S-37, S-40, S-41,
S-42, S-45, S-46, S-47, S-50, S-51, S-54,
S-55, S-58, S-59, S-80, S-90, S-91, S-94,
S-95, S-100, S-102, S-103, S-104, S-105,
S-107, S-109, S-110, S-111, S-116, S-119,
S-120, S-125, S-126, S-127, S-128, 1-142,
1-146, 1-147, 1-149, 2-154, 2-155, 2-158,
2-159, 2-160, 2-161, 2-162, 2-168, 2-169,
2-172, 2-174, 2-175, 2-176, 2-179, 2-180,
2-181, 2-182, 2-183, 2-184, 2-185, 2-186,
2-187, 2-188, 2-189, 2-190, 2-191, 2-192,
2-193, 2-194, 2-195, 2-196, 2-197, 2-198,
2-199, 2-200, 2-201, 2-202, 2-203, 2-204,
2-205, 2-206, 2-210, 2-212, 2-214, 2-215,
2-216, 2-217, 2-218, 2-220, 2-221, 2-222,
2-225, 2-226, 2-228, 2-229, 2-230, 2-231,
2-232, 2-234, 2-235, 2-237, 2-239, 2-240,
2-241, 2-242, 2-243, 2-244, 2-245, 2-246,
2-247, 2-248, 2-249, 2-252, 2-253, 2-254,
2-256, 2-257, 2-260, 2-262, 2-267, 2-270,
2-272, 2-273, 2-274, 2-275, 2-276, 2-283,
2-285, 2-287, 2-294, 2-295, 2-296, 2-297,
2-298, 2-299, 2-300, 2-301, 2-304, 2-305,
2-306, 2-318, 3-5, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-10, 3-11,
3-20, 3-21, 3-22, 3-23, 3-26, 3-27, 3-60,
3-61, 3-62, 4-2, 4-6, 4-11, 4-21, 4-22, 4-23,
4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 4-28, 4-31, 4-32, 4-33,
4-35, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-39, 4-40, 4-41,
4-42, 4-43, 4-46, 4-50, 4-51, 4-53, 4-54,
4-60, 4-61, 4-63, 4-64, 4-69, 4-70, 4-72,
4-75, 4-77, 4-78, 4-79, 4-80, 4-81, 4-83,
4-85, 4-88, 4-89, 4-90, 4-91, 4-92, 4-94,
4-96, 4-97, 4-99, 4-100, 4-102, 4-103,
4-104, 4-105, 4-106, 4-111, 4-112, 4-113,
4-114, 4-11 5, 4-118, 4-123, 4-124, 4-134,
4-135, 4-136, 4-137, 4-159, 4-161, 4-167,
4-174, 4-175, 4-176, 4-179, 4-181, 4-182,
4-183, 4-184, 4-200, 4-202, 4-237, 4-238,
4-239, 4-240, 4-245, 4-246, 4-248
Tailings Impoundment: S-12, S-27,
S-41, S-80, 1-149, 2-161, 2-176, 2-180,
2-193, 2-195, 2-201, 2-210, 2-212, 2-218,
2-220, 2-221, 2-230, 2-231, 2-234, 2-239,
2-242, 2-243, 2-245, 2-246, 2-248, 2-249,
2-270, 2-273, 2-275, 2-298, 2-299, 3-22,
4-2, 4-6, 4-54, 4-69, 4-79, 4-80, 4-105,
4-106, 4-111, 4-112, 4-113, 4-114, 4-245,
4-248
Temperature: S-10, S-46, S-53, S-54,
S-66, S-95, S-98, S-112, 1-149, 2-179,
2-180, 2-181, 2-182, 2-254, 2-286, 2-294,
2-296, 3-3, 3-5, 3-37, 3-38, 3-44, 3-46,
3-50, 3-51, 3-54, 3-63, 3-65, 3-82, 3-88,
3-123, 3-125, 4-11, 4-62, 4-65, 4-107,
4-108, 4-112, 4-116, 4-155, 4-156, 4-162,
4-163, 4-166, 4-167, 4-171
Threatened and Endangered Species:
S-5, S-67, S-132, S-133, 1-140, 2-293,
4-250, 4-251
Timber: S-9, S-10, S-32, S-33, S-34,
S-37, S-43, S-50, S-63, S-65, S-67, S-102,
S-113, S-128, S-129, S-130, S-131, 1-137,
1-138, 1-139, 1-148, 2-252, 2-253, 2-258,
2-262, 2-268, 2-278, 2-279, 2-281, 2-282,
2-290, 2-291, 2-294, 2-299, 2-318, 3-1,
3-39, 3-51, 3-72, 3-73, 3-74, 3-80, 3-81,
3-82, 3-85, 3-93, 3-94, 3-98, 3-108, 3-131,
3-149, 3-152, 3-153, 3-176, 3-177, 3-178,
4-1, 4-2, 4-8, 4-21, 4-37, 4-42, 4-62, 4-63,
4-71, 4-84, 4-85, 4-86, 4-87, 4-88, 4-89,
4-90, 4-102, 4-108, 4-111, 4-113, 4-114,
4-115, 4-123, 4-139, 4-140, 4-141, 4-172,
4-179, 4-181, 4-185, 4-191, 4-194, 4-201,
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 9-12
CHAPTER 9 - INDEX
January 1997
4-202, 4-203, 4-225, 4-246, 4-247, 4-248,
4-249
Tonasket: S-67, S-70,
S-74, S-75, S-76, S-1
1-143, 2-206, 2-208,
3-75, 3-90, 3-111, 3-
3-137, 3-142, 3-145,
3-155, 3-156, 3-161,
3-170, 3-171, 3-172,
4-150, 4-172, 4-179,
4-196, 4-197, 4-198,
4-216, 4-217, 4-218,
4-232, 4-241, 4-250
S-71, S-73,
17, S-132, 1-142,
2-209, 2-210, 2-259,
112, 3-128, 3-129,
3-146, 3-147, 3-153,
3-167, 3-168, 3-169,
3-175, 4-21, 4-134,
4-188, 4-194, 4-195,
4-199, 4-214, 4-215,
4-220, 4-223, 4-225,
Topography: S-22, S-44, S-53, S-54,
S-56, S-65, S-67, S-69, S-90, S-91, S-92,
S-94, S-1 28, S-129, 2-160, 2-167, 2-168,
2-169, 2-175, 2-189, 2-190, 2-191, 2-192,
2-193, 2-194, 2-197, 2-200, 2-201, 2-202,
2-213, 2-218, 2-226, 2-227, 2-233, 2-245,
2-253, 2-255, 2-256, 2-257, 2-280, 2-284,
3-1, 3-5, 3-6, 3-28, 3-60, 3-62, 3-80, 3-88,
3-95, 3-133, 3-134, 3-135, 4-21, 4-22,
4-23, 4-24, 4-32, 4-33, 4-59, 4-61, 4-78,
4-105, 4-131, 4-155, 4-162, 4-163, 4-164,
4-178, 4-180, 4-181, 4-183, 4-200, 4-246,
4-247, 4-248
Topsoil: S-8, S-16, S-19, S-21, S-24,
S-26, S-29, S-31, S-32, S-33, S-39, S-44,
S-104, S-116, 1-147, 2-191, 2-192, 2-193,
2-194, 2-218, 2-225, 2-230, 2-232, 2-235,
2-240, 2-243, 2-246, 2-247, 2-249, 2-252,
2-253, 2-254, 2-257, 2-258, 2-259, 2-272,
2-274, 2-279, 2-283, 4-32, 4-34, 4-37,
4-39, 4-40, 4-64, 4-92, 4-100, 4-122,
4-176, 4-178, 4-179
Transportation
S-21, S-24, S-
S-42, S-43, S-
S-127, S-128,
2-155, 2-161,
2-213, 2-228,
2-240, 2-241,
2-249, 2-250,
2-294, 2-299,
3-139, 3-142,
3-166, 4-8, 4-
4-130, 4-133,
4-171, 4-175,
4-193, 4-194,
4-199, 4-237,
: S-11, S-12. S-14, S-19,
26, S-29, S-31, S-34, S-35,
50, S-70, S-73, S-117, S-125,
1-135, 1-145, 1-149, 1-150,
2-176, 2-199, 2-206, 2-207,
2-232, 2-233, 2-235, 2-238,
2-243, 2-244, 2-246, 2-247,
2-263, 2-264, 2-277, 2-278,
3-38, 3-88, 3-92, 3-117,
3-145, 3-146, 3-162, 3-163,
11, 4-71, 4-117, 4-118,
4-137, 4-149, 4-150, 4-156,
4-185, 4-190, 4-191, 4-192,
4-195, 4-196, 4-197, 4-198,
4-240, 4-241, 4-246
Unavoidable Impacts: S-129, 2-284,
4-247
Vegetation: S-9, S-33, S-37, S-40,
S-43, S-44, S-47, S-50, S-62, S-63, S-64,
S-65, S-66, S-91, S-100, S-102, S-120,
S-127, S-129, S-130, 1-135, 1-145, 1-148,
2-158, 2-189, 2-200, 2-201, 2-202, 2-223,
2-253, 2-254, 2-255, 2-256, 2-268, 2-272,
2-273, 2-274, 2-278, 2-279, 2-280, 2-281,
2-282, 2-284, 2-287, 2-290, 2-291, 2-292,
2-294, 2-297, 2-300, 2-318, 3-32, 3-51,
3-52, 3-71, 3-72, 3-73, 3-74, 3-75, 3-76,
3-77, 3-79, 3-80, 3-81, 3-82, 3-86, 3-89,
3-90, 3-91, 3-92, 3-95, 3-98, 3-100, 3-105,
3-107, 3-110, 3-111, 3-114, 3-11 5, 3-117,
3-120, 3-121, 3-133, 3-135, 4-4, 4-9, 4-17,
4-18, 4-19, 4-21, 4-25, 4-29, 4-32, 4-33,
4-34, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38, 4-43, 4-84, 4-85,
4-86, 4-88, 4-89, 4-90, 4-100, 4-102,
4-105, 4-106, 4-109, 4-119, 4-120, 4-121,
4-122, 4-131, 4-140, 4-155, 4-176, 4-178,
4-200, 4-202, 4-238, 4-240, 4-242, 4-245,
4-246, 4-247, 4-248
Waste Rock: S-1, S-6, S-7, S-8, S-9,
S-10, S-12, S-14, S-16, S-1 7, S-1 9, S-21,
S-22, S-24, S-26, S-27, S-29, S-31, S-32,
S-33, S-36, S-37, S-40, S-47, S-51, S-54,
S-55, S-61, S-90, S-91, S-92, S-94, S-95,
S-98, S-103, S-104, S-108, S-109, S-110,
S-111, S-11 2, S-113, S-11 5, S-11 6, S-11 9,
S-120, S-125, S-128, 1-136, 1-146, 1-147,
1-148, 1-149, 2-154, 2-155, 2-159, 2-160,
2-161, 2-163, 2-164, 2-165, 2-166, 2-167,
2-168, 2-169, 2-170, 2-172, 2-176, 2-186,
2-187, 2-200, 2-201, 2-202, 2-203, 2-204,
2-212, 2-226, 2-227, 2-228, 2-229, 2-230,
2-231, 2-232, 2-234, 2-235, 2-236, 2-237,
2-239, 2-240, 2-242, 2-243, 2-244, 2-245,
2-246, 2-247, 2-248, 2-249, 2-253, 2-255,
2-256, 2-258, 2-266, 2-267, 2-268, 2-270,
2-272, 2-273, 2-274, 2-282, 2-284, 2-287,
2-288, 2-290, 2-294, 2-295, 2-296, 2-297,
2-298, 2-301, 2-305, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9,
3-10, 3-11, 3-13, 3-14, 3-15, 3-16, 3-17,
3-18, 3-19, 3-21, 3-26, 3-27, 3-39, 3-60,
3-67, 3-68, 3-149, 4-11, 4-20, 4-21, 4-22,
4-23, 4-24, 4-25, 4-26, 4-27, 4-28, 4-30,
4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 4-35, 4-36, 4-37, 4-38,
4-39, 4-40, 4-41, 4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 4-46,
4-47, 4-50, 4-51, 4-52, 4-54, 4-56, 4-57,
4-58, 4-59, 4-60, 4-61, 4-62, 4-63, 4-65,
4-68, 4-70, 4-75, 4-76, 4-77, 4-78, 4-79,
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
CROWN JEWEL MINE
Page 9-13
4-80, 4-85, 4-86, 4-88, 4-89, 4-90, 4-91,
4-92, 4-95, 4-96, 4-97, 4-99, 4-101, 4-103,
4-104, 4-107, 4-109, 4-11 2, 4-113, 4-114,
4-115,4-117, 4-123, 4-125, 4-130, 4-135,
4-160, 4-161, 4-162, 4-166, 4-167, 4-168,
4-170, 4-176, 4-179, 4-180, 4-181, 4-183,
4-200, 4-202, 4-203, 4-237, 4-243, 4-244,
4-246, 4-248
Water Quality: S-5, S-8, S-32, S-33,
S-36, S-38, S-41, S-42, S-46, S-47, S-51,
S-55, S-56, S-57, S-58, S-59, S-60, S-61,
S-94, S-95, S-98, S-99, S-112, S-130,
S-133, 1-140, 1-142, 1-147, 2-188, 2-203,
2-206, 2-224, 2-230, 2-252, 2-254, 2-256,
2-260, 2-261, 2-267, 2-271, 2-275, 2-276,
2-277, 2-281, 2-287, 2-294, 2-295, 2-296,
2-298, 2-306, 2-307, 3-15, 3-16, 3-21,
3-23, 3-27, 3-32, 3-35, 3-37, 3-38, 3-44,
3-46, 3-49, 3-50, 3-53, 3-54, 3-58, 3-59,
3-60, 3-62, 3-63, 3-64, 3-65, 3-66, 3-67,
3-68, 3-69, 3-75, 3-77, 3-171, 4-8, 4-41,
4-42, 4-43, 4-44, 4-47, 4-48, 4-49, 4-50,
4-51, 4-52, 4-53, 4-54, 4-57, 4-58, 4-59,
4-60, 4-61, 4-62, 4-63, 4-65, 4-69, 4-70,
4-71, 4-72, 4-73, 4-76, 4-77, 4-78, 4-80,
4-98, 4-104, 4-107, 4-108, 4-109, 4-110,
4-112, 4-135, 4-1 50, 4-151, 4-172, 4-203,
4-225, 4-243, 4-244, 4-249, 4-251
Water Rights: S-5, S-8, S-46, S-61,
S-62, S-98, S-100, S-113, 1-140, 1-142,
1-143, 1-144, 1-147, 2-213, 2-214, 2-215,
2-216, 2-221, 2-286, 3-69, 3-70, 3-71,
3-171, 4-56, 4-74, 4-80, 4-81, 4-82, 4-83,
4-110, 4-115, 4-122, 4-245
Water Storage Reservoir: S-16, 2-215,
2-218, 2-220, 2-231, 2-234, 2-237, 2-239,
2-240, 2-242, 2-244, 2-245, 2-247, 2-248,
2-250, 2-253, 2-297, 3-28, 3-30, 4-25,
4-31, 4-32, 4-33, 4-34
Water Supply:
S-21, S-24, S-
S-74, S-98, S-
S-116, S-124,
2-212, 2-213,
2-218, 2-219,
2-232, 2-234,
2-242, 2-243,
2-248, 2-249,
3-69, 3-78, 3-
4-56, 4-70, 4-
S-5, S-14, S-16, S-19,
26, S-29, S-31, S-61, S-64,
104, S-105, S-106, S-111,
1-140, 2-155, 2-161, 2-199,
2-214, 2-215, 2-216, 2-217,
2-220, 2-221, 2-228, 2-231,
2-235, 2-237, 2-239, 2-240,
2-244, 2-245, 2-246, 2-247,
2-250, 2-253, 2-269, 3-30,
161, 3-167, 3-171, 4-52,
74, 4-80, 4-82, 4-92, 4-93,
4-98, 4-101,4-102, 4-104, 4-109, 4-112,
4-176, 4-178, 4-191, 4-216, 4-218, 4-233
Water Use: S-8, S-14, S-100, S-131,
1-147, 2-155, 2-161, 2-195, 2-210, 2-217,
2-221, 3-38, 4-81, 4-82, 4-83, 4-109, 4-249
Wetlands: S-8, S-9, S-44, S-47, S-50,
S-63, S-66, S-98, S-102, S-103, S-104,
S-105, S-107, S-110, S-111, S-112, S-126,
S-127, S-129, S-132, S-133, 1-143, 1-145,
1-147, 2-168, 2-169, 2-192, 2-193, 2-194,
2-195, 2-197, 2-202, 2-203, 2-210, 2-218,
2-219, 2-220, 2-259, 2-267, 2-269, 2-279,
2-280, 2-281, 2-282, 2-283, 2-284, 2-288,
2-289, 2-294, 2-301, 3-3, 3-39, 3-52, 3-71,
3-75, 3-77, 3-81, 3-88, 3-89, 3-94, 3-95,
3-100, 3-104, 3-105, 4-43, 4-49, 4-58,
4-60, 4-77, 4-80, 4-87, 4-88, 4-90, 4-91,
4-92, 4-93, 4-94, 4-97, 4-98, 4-99, 4-100,
4-101, 4-102, 4-103, 4-104, 4-105, 4-106,
4-107, 4-110, 4-115, 4-122, 4-124, 4-129,
4-137, 4-201, 4-202, 4-238, 4-240, 4-247,
4-248, 4-250, 4-251
Wildlife: S-5, S-7, S-9, S-10, S-16,
S-32, S-33, S-37, S-40, S-41, S-42, S-44,
S-45, S-46, S-47, S-48, S-50, S-62, S-66,
S-67, S-73, S-95, S-100, S-113, S-117,
S-120, S-127, S-128, S-129, S-130, S-131,
S-132, S-133, 1-137, 1-138, 1-139, 1-140,
1-142, 1-143, 1-145, 1-146, 1-147, 1-148,
2-158, 2-162, 2-179, 2-181, 2-184, 2-189,
2-190, 2-195, 2-198, 2-199, 2-200, 2-201,
2-202, 2-203, 2-206, 2-207, 2-214, 2-223,
2-227, 2-252, 2-255, 2-258, 2-269, 2-275,
2-279, 2-280, 2-281, 2-282, 2-283, 2-284,
2-285, 2-286, 2-287, 2-288, 2-289, 2-290,
2-291, 2-292, 2-293, 2-294, 2-298, 2-299,
2-300, 2-318, 3-1, 3-22, 3-36, 3-39, 3-71,
3-77, 3-86, 3-87, 3-88, 3-89, 3-90, 3-91,
3-92, 3-93, 3-94, 3-95, 3-96, 3-98, 3-99,
3-100, 3-102, 3-103, 3-108, 3-109, 3-112,
3-120, 3-121, 3-129, 3-130, 3-133, 3-170,
3-177, 4-25, 4-49, 4-51, 4-62, 4-68, 4-69,
4-70, 4-84, 4-85, 4-88, 4-105, 4-106,
4-116, 4-117, 4-118, 4-119, 4-120, 4-121,
4-122, 4-123, 4-124, 4-125, 4-126, 4-129,
4-130, 4-131, 4-132, 4-133, 4-134, 4-135,
4-136, 4-137, 4-138, 4-139, 4-140, 4-141,
4-142, 4-148. 4-151, 4-152, 4-171, 4-185,
4-200, 4-201, 4-202, 4-203, 4-238, 4-239,
4-240, 4-241, 4-246, 4-247, 4-248, 4-249,
4-250, 4-251
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
Page 9-14 CHAPTER 9 - INDEX January 1997
Wolf: S-67, 3-95, 3-96, 3-111, 3-112,
4-117, 4-134, 4-139, 4-149
Workforce: S-116, 2-233, 2-238,
2-241, 2-250, 4-170, 4-171, 4-173, 4-174,
4-191, 4-198, 4-209, 4-234
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
------- |