300R05900C
Lead Agencies:
U.8.D.A.
Fwwt
D«p»rtnHmt of Ecoloflv
ECO
JANUARY
FINAL
EN VI
IMPACT
CROWN JE
""""^ ,,","
Okanogan
MINE
VOLUME 111
Assembled By:
Terra Matrix
Ea«lm*fM * EnrtronB».t^ Somca.
-------
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
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A List of Unpublished Reports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
-------
APPENDIX A
LIST OF UNPUBLISHED REPORTS
-------
January 1997 Appendix A * List of Unpublished Reports 4 A-1
LIST OF UNPUBLISHED REPORTS
There has been a considerable amount of background data collected for the proposed Crown Jewel
Project, including EIS process documents. Some of this information has been amassed by the
Proponent (Battle Mountain Gold Company). Other information has been amassed by TerraMatrix
(the third-party contractor), and the various resource discipline sub-contractors under the direction
of the Forest Service and Washington Department of Ecology (WADOE). These materials are
considered unpublished documents available for public review and are listed below chronologically
by resource discipline.
Most of the referenced documents in this appendix are located at the WADOE offices in Olympia
and Yakima, Washington and the Forest Service office in Tonasket, Washington for your review.
Documents marked with an "*" are also located at the following locations for public review.
• Forest Service Supervisor's office in Okanogan, Washington
• Bureau of Land Management office in Wenatchee, Washington
• Oroville, Washington Public Library
• Tonasket, Washington Public Library
• Omak, Washington Public Library
• Environment Canada office in North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
• B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks offices in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
• Seattle, Public Library, Main Branch, Washington
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix A * List of Unpublished Reports 4 A-2
DOCUMENT
OPERATING PLANS
Plan of Operations - Gold Axe Area
Plan of Operations - Crystal Butte Area
Plan of Operations - Crown Jewel Project
Amendment to April 12, 1990 Plan
1991 Plan of Operation - Crown Jewel Project
Amendment to 1991 Operating Plan
Amendment to 1991 Operating Plan
Amendment to 1991 Operating Plan
Notice of Intent to Operate - Crown Jewel Project
Amendment to December 16, 1991 Notice of Intent
Notice of Intent to Operate
Plan of Operations
Supplemental Plan of Operation
Supplemental Plan of Operation
Reclamation Plan
Integrated Plan of Operation*
Reclamation Plan
Reclamation Plan*
Plan of Operations - Core Acquisition and
Geotechnical Studies
Amendment to 1991 Operating Plan
Amendment to 1991 Operating Plan
Reclamation Plan
DATE
April 12, 1990
April 12, 1990
April 27, 1 990
April 30, 1 990
March 19, 1991
July 15, 1991
September 30, 1991
December 16, 1991
December 16, 1991
February 5, 1992
February 6, 1992
January 1992
April 1992
September 1992
February 1993
March 1993
July 1996
August 1993
June 30, 1995
December 15, 1995
March 15, 1996
July 1996
SUBMITTED BY
BMGC
BMGC
BMGC
BMGC
BMGC
BMGC
BMGC
BMGC
BMGC
BMGC
BMGC
BMGC
BMGC
Colder Associates Inc.
BMGC
BMGC
BMGC
BMGC
BMGC
BMGC
BMGC
BMGC
SCOPING PROCESS
Scoping Comment Summary*
Scoping Summary Document*
June 1992
July 1993
TerraMatrix/ACZ Inc.
TerraMatrix/ACZ Inc.
AIR QUALITY
Meteorological Data Report - Crown Jewel Project
Air Quality Permit Support Document - Crown Jewel
Project
March 1996
June 1996
ENSR
McVehil-Monnett Associates
GEOCHEMISTRY
Ore and Low Grade Ore, Geochemical Testing
Program, Report in Sampling
Waste Rock Geochemical Testing Program
April 1992
July 1992
ASCI
ASCI
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix A * List of Unpublished Reports + A-3
DOCUMENT
Crown Jewel Joint Venture Project Geochemical
Testing Program
Comments on Humidity Cell Tests Data: Ore and Low
Grade Ore Geochemical Testing Program
Comments on Humidity Cell Tests Data: Waste Rock
Geochemical Testing Program
Report on Geochemical Testing of: Ore and Low
Grade Ore - Crown Jewel Project
Report on the Waste Rock Geochemical Testing
Program
Response to Agency Review Team
Waste Management Issues Report - Crown Jewel
Project
Tailings Geochemical Testing Program
Gold Axe Decline Report
Geochemical Modeling of Pit Lake Water Quality for
the Crown Jewel Project*
Waste Rock Facility Seepage Analysis for the Crown
Jewel Project*
Summary Report Confirmation Geochemistry
Program
Crown Jewel Project, Quality Control Reports -
Geochemical Data
Tailings Geochemical Testing Program, Crown Jewel
Project, Okanogan County, Washington, Addendum
1
Crown Jewel Project - Bioassay Designation of the
Detoxified Tailings Material
Final Calculation of Nitrate Loads for Evaluation of Pit
Qualitative Discussion and Comparison of Potential
Effects on Water Quality of Pit Backfilling Versus a
Pit Lake
Geochemical Modeling of Pit Lake Water Quality for
the Crown Jewel Project Addendum 1 : Pit Lake
Water Quality Model Re-Evaluation
Crown Jewel Waste Rock Facility Seepage Analysis
DATE
October 29, 1992
January 20, 1993
January 20, 1993
September 1993
September 1993
September 1993
December 1993
January 1994
July 1994
February 22, 1995
February 27, 1995
June 1995
February 1996
April 1996
April 1996
April 1996
May 1996
May 1996
Updated August 1996
September 1996
SUBMITTED BY
BMGC
Kea Pacific Holdings, Inc.
Kea Pacific Holdings, Inc.
BMGC
BMGC
Kea Pacific Holdings, Inc.
BMGC
BMGC
Kea Pacific Holdings, Inc.
Schafer & Associates, Inc.
Schafer & Associates, Inc.
TerraMatrix/ACZ Inc.
BMGC
BMGC with assistance from
Geochemica, Inc. and Colder
Associates, Inc.
BMGC
Schafer & Associates, Inc.
Schafer & Associates, Inc.
Schafer & Associates, Inc.
Schafer & Associates Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Geotechnical Characterization Report
Design Report: Starrem Creek Dam and Reservoir
Design Report: Water Supply System
Crown Jewel Project Waste Rock Disposal Facilities
Stability Analysis Report
March 22, 1993
March 31, 1993
April 13, 1993
July 2, 1993
Colder Associates, Inc.
Colder Associates, Inc.
Colder Associates, Inc.
Knight Piesold and Company
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix A * List of Unpublished Reports + A-4
DOCUMENT
DATE
SUBMITTED BY
TAILINGS DISPOSAL FACILITY SITING
Crown Jewel Project: Tailings Disposal Facility Final
Design Report
Tailings Site Selection Report: Crown Jewel Project
Tailings Site Selection Report (Appendix K)
Final Report, Tailings Disposal Facility, Crown Jewel
Project (including Construction Drainage Phase 1)
Technical Memorandum, Review of Off-site Upland
and Side-hill Tailings Disposal, Crown Jewel Project
June 1993
December 1994
April 1995
Revised 1996
May 1996
December 1 996
Knight Piesold and Company
Colder Associates, Inc.
WADOE
Colder Associates, Inc.
TerraMatrix
SOILS
Soils Technical Memorandum*
Soils Technical Memorandum Addendum*
November 1992
June 1993
SURFACE AND GROUND WATER HYDROLOGY
Baseline Ground Water Monitoring Plan (Draft)
Geohydrology Study
Crown Jewel Project Tailings Storage Facility
Proposed Hydrogeological Investigation
Groundwater Supply Investigation
Water Resources Plan - Applications and Technical
Support for the Crown Jewel Project
Memorandum to BMGC on Crown Jewel Pit
Hydrogeology and Proposed Pump Testing Plan
Statistical Comparison of Metals Data, Baseline
Water Quality Program (Appendix C of Final EIS)
Memorandum on Groundwater Inflows to the Crown
Jewel Pit
Crown Jewel Project Tailings Disposal Facility
Solution Balance Report
Baseline Hydrologic Monitoring Plan
All Known Available and Reasonable Technology
(AKART) Evaluation for Cyanide Detoxification
Hydrogeological Study of Proposed Tailings Disposal
Facility
Report on Pumping Test of the North Lookout Fault
Zone
Report on Streamflow Investigations Conducted
Along Myers Creek Near Myncaster, British Columbia
Report on Inflows to the Crown Jewel Pit
Water Supply System for the Crown Jewel Project
March 1992
April 8, 1992
June 12, 1992
November 3, 1992
February 1993
March 1, 1993
March 29, 1993
Updated October 1996
June 18, 1993
July 15, 1993
August 1993
October 1993
Updated May 1996
November 2, 1993
November 8, 1993
January 5, 1994
January 10, 1994
Revised September 2,
1994
October 1994
Cedar Creek Associates, Inc.
Cedar Creek Associates, Inc.
TerraMatrix/ACZ Inc.
Colder Associates Inc.
Knight Piesold and Company
Colder Associates Inc.
BMGC
Colder Associates Inc.
TerraMatrix/ACZ Inc.
Colder Associates Inc.
Knight Piesold and Company
TerraMatrix/ACZ Inc.
Knight Piesold and Company
Knight Piesold and Company
Colder Associates Inc.
Colder Associates Inc.
Colder Associates Inc.
Colder Associates Inc.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix A * List of Unpublished Reports + A-5
DOCUMENT
Report on Myers Creek Streamflows
Potential Effects of the Proposed Crown Jewel Pit on
the Streamflows at Buckhorn Mountain Okanogan
County, Washington
Seepage and Attenuation Study Crown Jewel Tailing
Disposal Facility
Technical Memorandum on Groundwater Supply
Evaluation of Lost Creek Ranch Irrigation Well
A Review of Hydrological Issues, Crown Jewel
Project
Diversion Channels and Sediment Traps - Conceptual
Design Report, Crown Jewel Project (Draft)
Washington Joint Aquatic Resources Permits
Application (JARPA): Hydraulic Project Approvals,
Shoreline Management Permits, Water Quality
Certification and Approval for Exceedance of
Standards and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section
404 Permits
NPDES/State Waste Discharge Permit Application
INCO S02/02 Waste Water Treatment Unit,
Engineering Report
Technical Report, Analysis of the Open Pit Mine
Inflow for the Proposed Crown Jewel Project
Analysis of Stream Depletions Resulting From the
Proposed Crown Jewel Project
DATE
March 27, 1 995
April 28, 1995
June 1995
July 27, 1994
February 16, 1996
March 1996
March 1996
April 1996
May 1996
September 27, 1996
September 27, 1 996
SUBMITTED BY
Colder Associates Inc.
Gotder Associates Inc.
Hydro-Geo Consultants, Inc.
Colder Associates Inc.
David T. Snow, Ph.D &
Associates
Colder Associates Inc.
Parametrix, Inc.
BMGC and Agra Earth &
Environmental
BMGC, Agra Earth &
Environmental
and INCO Limited
Hydro-Geo Consultants Inc.
Hydro-Geo Consultants Inc.
VEGETATION AND WETLANDS
Range Resources and Noxious Weed Surveys*
Timber and Vegetation Resource Studies*
Wetland Delineation Report
Wetland Delineation Report*
Crown Jewel Project 404(b)(1) Alternatives Analysis
Support Information
Wetland Mitigation Plan (Draft)
Biological Evaluation for Proposed Endangered,
Threatened, and Sensitive Plants (Appendix J)
WILDLIFE
Winter Wildlife Survey Report*
Summer Wildlife Survey*
Northern Goshawk Survey (Draft)
Potential Effects of Gold Mines on Wildlife and
Possible Mitigation Strategies (Draft)
December 1992
January 1993
Revised May 27, 1993
February 19, 1993
November 1993
March 1995
Revised September 1996
April 1996
September 1996
A.G. Crook Company
A.G. Crook Company
Pentec Environmental Inc.
A.G. Crook Company
Parametrix, Inc.
Parametrix, Inc.
Forest Service
May 1, 1992
January 1993
July 20, 1 993
April 1994
A.G. Crook Company
A.G. Crook Company
A.G. Crook Company
Beak Consultants Inc.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix A * List of Unpublished Reports + A-6
DOCUMENT
Survey of Bats Near the Crown Jewel Project Site
Hibernacula Study of Bats Near the Crown Jewel
Project
Proposed Crown Jewel Mine Project, Wildlife Habitat
Evaluation Procedures Study
Crown Jewel Project, Wildlife Technical Report
(Draft)
Wildlife Biological Assessment for the Crown Jewel
Mine Project
Wildlife Mitigation Plan
Wildlife Biological Evaluation
DATE
October 1 994
December 12, 1994
March 1995
September 1995
June 1996
September 1996
October 1996
SUBMITTED BY
ENSR Consulting and
Engineering
ENSR Consulting and
Engineering
Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife
Beak Consultants Inc.
Cedar Creek Associates Inc.,
and Beak Consultants, Inc.
ENSR Consulting and
Engineering
Forest Service
AQUATIC RESOURCES
Aquatic Resources for Sections of Myers, Gold,
Nicholson, and Marias Creeks in the Okanogan
National Forest
Aquatic Habitats of Streams in the Marias and
Nicholson Creek Basin (Draft)
Aquatic Resources for Sections of Myers, Gold,
Nicholson, and Marias Creeks in the Okanogan
National Forest
Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Plan for the
Crown Jewel Project
Fall 1994 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Report for the
Crown Jewel Project
1995 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Report - Crown
Jewel Project
Myers Creek IFIM Report
Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat - Biological Evaluation
(Appendix 1 of final EIS)
February 22, 1993
September 1993
November 9, 1993
October 1994
December 1 994
February 1996
March 25, 1996
September 1996
Pentec Environmental Inc.
A.G. Crook Company
Pentec Environmental Inc.
Northwest Management Inc.
Northwest Management Inc.
EcoAnalysts, Inc.
Cascades Environmental
Services, Inc.
Forest Service
RECREATION
Recreation Baseline Report*
January 1993
TerraMatrix/ACZ Inc.
SCENIC RESOURCES
Visual Assessment Baseline Report*
Visual Assessment Baseline Report Addendum*
January 1993
March 1994
TerraMatrix/ACZ Inc.
TerraMatrix/ACZ Inc.
TRANSPORTATION
Transportation Baseline Report*
June 1993
TerraMatrix/ACZ Inc.
NOISE
Baseline Noise Monitoring Report - Proposed Crown
Jewel Mine Site Chesaw, Washington*
January 19, 1993
Hart Crowser
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix A * List of Unpublished Reports • »-7
DOCUMENT
DATE
SUBMITTED BY
SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
Existing Socioeconomic Conditions, Baseline Report
Crown Jewel Project*
Affected Socioeconomic Environment Background
Report*
Existing Socioeconomic Conditions Baseline Report
(1996 Update), Crown Jewel Project
Affected Socioeconomic Environment Background
Report (1996 Update)
February 8, 1994
December 1994
September 1996
September 1996
E.D. Hovee & Company
E.D. Hovee & Company
E.D. Hovee & Company
E.D. Hovee & Company
HERITAGE RESOURCES
Cultural Resources Investigations of the Crown Jewel
Mine Project*
August 1994
Archaeological and Historical
Services
ECONOMICS
Crown Jewel Project Economic and Fiscal Impacts
Analysis
Economic Analysis of Crown Jewel Project
Alternatives
June 15, 1995
March 27, 1995
Huckell/Weinman Associates
Forest Service and BUM
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES
(PERMITS AND APPROVALS)
-------
-------
January 1997 Appendix B * Agency Responsibilities (Permits and Approvals) 4 B-i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 FOREST SERVICE RESPONSIBILITIES 1
3.0 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY RESPONSIBILITIES 3
3.1 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 3
3.2 State Waste Discharge Permit 3
3.3 Water Quality Standards Modification 4
3.4 Water Quality Certification (Section 401-Federal Clean Water Act) 4
3.5 Dam Safety Permit 4
3.6 Reservoir Permit 5
3.7 Permit to Appropriate Public Waters 5
3.8 New Source Construction Approval (Air Quality) 6
3.9 Air Contaminant Source Operating Permit 6
3.10 Air Contaminant Source Registration 7
3.11 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD-Air Quality) 7
3.12 Dangerous Waste Permit 7
3.13 Generator and/or Transporter Identification Number/Reporting Requirements
(Dangerous Waste) 7
3.14 Dangerous Waste Release Notification (Spills or Releases) 7
3.15 Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know 8
3.16 Solid Waste Management 8
3.17 Maximum Environmental Noise Levels 8
3.18 Pollution Prevention Planning 8
4.0 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES RESPONSIBILITIES 8
4.1 Surface Mine Reclamation Permit 8
4.2 Forest Practice Applications 9
4.3 Burning Permit (Fire Protection) 9
4.4 Dumping Permit 9
5.0 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES 9
6.0 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS RESPONSIBILITIES 9
7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES 10
8.0 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSIBILITIES 11
9.0 BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS RESPONSIBILITIES 12
10.0 COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES RESPONSIBILITIES 12
11.0 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RESPONSIBILITIES 12
12.0 TREASURY DEPARTMENT (DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND FIREARMS)
RESPONSIBILITIES 12
13.0 U.S. MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION RESPONSIBILITIES 12
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix B * Agency Responsibilities (Permits and Approvals) 4 B-ii
14.0 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION RESPONSIBILITIES 12
15.0 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE RESPONSIBILITIES 13
16.0 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICE OF
ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION RESPONSIBILITIES 13
17.0 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RESPONSIBILITIES 13
18.0 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH RESPONSIBILITIES 13
19.0 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
RESPONSIBILITIES 14
20.0 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES RESPONSIBILITIES .... 14
21.0 OKANOGAN COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT RESPONSIBILITIES 14
21.1 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit 14
21.2 Noise Ordinance 14
21.3 Building Permits 15
21.4 Growth Management Critical Areas Regulations 15
22.0 OKANOGAN COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT RESPONSIBILITIES 15
23.0 OKANOGAN COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT RESPONSIBILITIES 15
24.0 OKANOGAN COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT RESPONSIBILITIES 16
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix B * Agency Responsibilities (Permits and Approvals) + B-1
AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES
1.0 INTRODUCTION
A number of federal, state and county permits and approvals are or could be required for the
Crown Jewel Mine Project (Crown Jewel Project) as set forth in Table B-1, List of Tentative
Permits and Approvals.
Preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and the actual permitting processes are
related but distinctly separate. An EIS is designed to explore project alternatives and discuss
environmental impacts. The permitting process gives individual government decision makers the
authority to grant, conditionally grant or deny individual permit applications. Permits may be
granted with requirements and conditions to eliminate and/or mitigate specific adverse
environmental impacts which are identified in the EIS.
2.0 FOREST SERVICE RESPONSIBILITIES
The Forest Service is the legal authority to regulate beatable mineral operations on National Forest
System Lands as described in the regulation found in 36 CFR 228. These Forest Service mining
regulations require a Plan of Operations for beatable mineral developments from a proposed
developer. The plans must be approved by the Forest Service and must explain how the Proponent
will minimize environmental damage to the site and provide for the reclamation of the affected
surface resources.
Under these regulations, the Forest Service must decide to either approve, conditionally approve,
modify or disapprove the plan. Prior to approving any Plan of Operations, the Forest Service must
undertake an analysis of the significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts related to the
mining operation and determine the significance of these effects. This analysis is defined by NEPA
and its subsequent guidelines and regulations. Because mining the Crown Jewel Project gold
deposit may significantly affect the quality of the physical, biological, and human environment, the
Forest Service decided to prepare an EIS.
For the Crown Jewel Project, the Forest Service is the lead federal agency in the EIS process and
works as a joint-lead agency with the Washington Department of Ecology (WADOE). The Forest
Service followed a specific procedure that began with scoping and data collection which resulted in
the formation of alternatives and continued with an analysis of those alternatives. The results of
these analyses are documented in the EIS and form the basis for the Forest Service Supervisor's
decision on the Project. The Forest Supervisor for the Okanogan National Forest is the Responsible
Official for this decision.
The selected alternative, identified as a result of the EIS process and all its inherent discussions,
will be the basis of the applicant's development, operation, and reclamation plans for the Crown
Jewel Project. Once a final EIS and associated Record of Decision are published, a final Plan of
Operations and other Forest Service special use permits may be approved by the Forest Service.
The Forest Service will require a reclamation performance security for activities on National Forest
lands but will work with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Washington Department of
Natural Resources (WADNR) in an attempt to maintain a single reclamation performance security.
Once the final Plan of Operations is approved by the Forest Service and an acceptable reclamation
performance security is received, the Crown Jewel Project can then begin, provided that other
necessary federal, state, and local government permit approvals are obtained as necessary for the
development of the Project.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix B * Agency Responsibilities (Permits and Approvals) • B-2
TABLE B.1. LIST OF TENTATIVE AND POTENTIAL PERMITS AND APPROVALS
FSDEI^ <^ERNMENT
Forest Service
Bureau of Land Management
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Federal Communications Commission
Treasury Department (Department of Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms)
Mine Safety and Health Administration
STATE OF WASHINGTON
Washington Department of Energy
Washington Department of Natural Resources
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Washington Department of Community Development,
Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation
Washington Department of Health
Washington Department of Labor and Industries
'jvj^dp'liewSFaiMiNt :
Okanogan County Planning Department
Okanogan County Health District
Okanogan County Public Works Department
Okanogan Public Utility District (PUD)
• Plan of Operations
• Special Use Permits (Right-of-Ways, etc.)
• Plan of Operations
• Special Use Permits (Right-of-Ways, etc.)
• Section 404 Permit - Federal Clean Water Act (Dredge
and Fill)
• Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC)
Plan
• Review of Section 404 Permit
• Notification of Hazardous Waste Activity1
• Threatened and Endangered Species Consultation
(Section 7 Consultation)
• Radio Authorizations
• Explosives User Permit
• Mine Identification Number1
• Legal Identity Report1
• Miner Training Plan Approval
• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES)/Construction Activities Stormwater General
Permit
• State Waste Discharge Permit
• Water Quality Standards Modification
• Water Quality Certification (Section 401 -Federal Clean
Water Act)
• Dam Safety Permits
• Reservoir Permit
• Permit to Appropriate Public Walers
• Changes to Existing Water Rights
• Notice of Construction Approval (Air Quality)
• Air Contaminant Source Operating Permit
• Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) - (Air
Quality)2
• Dangerous Waste Permit2
• Surface Mine Reclamation Permit
• Forest Practice Application
• Burning Permit (Fire Protection)
• Hydraulic Project Approval
• Historic and Archaeological Review (Section 106
National Historic Preservation Act of 1 966)
• Sewage Disposal Permit
• Pui lie Water Supply Approval
• Explosive License
• Safety Regulation Compliance1
-. :v:y'r-:' •-. i" *••' ";l:-*:"'.^^"v^r--':^;.:.^'-f^>:^^
• Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
• Conditional Use Permit/Zoning Requirements
• Building Permits
• Maximum Environmental Noise Levels1
• Socioeconomic Impact Analysis Approval (County
Commissioners)
• Growth Management Critical Areas Regulations
• Solid Waste Handling
• Septic Tanks and Drain Field Approval
• Road Construction and/or Realignment
• Power Service Contract
Note*: 1. Performance standard/requirement - No formal permit necessary.
2. Potential permit - At this time, these permits are not anticipated for the Crown Jewel Project.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix B * Agency Responsibilities (Permits and Approvals) • B-3
A special use permit is required before constructing any dam if the barrier will create a reservoir on
Federal land. A reservoir is defined as a dam or dike that will store water to a depth of ten or more
acre-feet at its deepest point, or a dam or dike that will retain ten or more acre-feet of water. Dam
special use permits require information on the use and capacity of the reservoir proposed
construction, and a legal description of the location of the structure. Processing time varies
depending on the project complexity. Construction and yearly safety reviews are required.
3.0 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY RESPONSIBILITIES
The "lead state agency," responsible for SEPA compliance for the Crown Jewel Project EIS, is the
WADOE.
WADOE is automatically the lead agency for the Crown Jewel Project, because the proposal
includes a new metallic mineral processing plant (WAC 197-11-938 (12)). During consultations
with the Proponent, the WADOE decided that an EIS would be prepared for the Crown Jewel
Project in accordance with WAC 197-11-315.
The WADOE has followed the specific procedures outlined in the Chapter 197-11, WAC, SEPA
Rules, that began with scoping and data collection, and continued with an analysis of the data
necessary to develop and evaluate alternatives, impacts of the Project and mitigation. The results
of this analysis are documented in the EIS and will form the basis along with other regulatory
requirements for the WADOE decisions on the various permits to be issued for the Project.
In February 1994, the Washington State legislature passed the Washington Metal Mining and
Milling Operations Act, Chapter 78.56 RCW. Passage of this act gave the WADOE additional
responsibilities, some of which affected the preparation of the EIS. This law directs the WADOE to
issue a tailings facility site selection report for any proposal meeting the law's definition of a metal
mining and milling operation. A tailings site selection report was developed in conjunction with the
EIS (see Appendix K, Tailings Site Selection Report). Other elements of the act include
requirements for securing financial assurance for remediation purposes, additional inspections,
waste rock plans for new proposals, and tailings impoundment design guidelines.
3.1 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
Under authority delegated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), WADOE regulates
the discharge of pollutants into Washington's surface waters through this permit system. An
application for an individual NPDES permit requires information on water supply volumes, water
utilization, wastewater flow characteristics and disposal methods, planned improvements,
stormwater treatment, plant operation, materials and chemicals used, production and other related
information. Depending upon the type of materials to be mined, EPA regulations may specify
effluent limits for inclusion in an NPDES permit(s) for the discharge of waste waters and
stormwater. Mines for which EPA has not promulgated stormwater effluent limits are required to
obtain coverage under WADOE's NPDES Baseline General Stormwater Permit. The processing time
for an individual NPDES permit ranges from about 180 days to one year but varies upon project
complexity. A public hearing on a proposed NPDES permit may be required. The statutory
authority for this permit is Section 402 of the Federal Clean Water Act, as amended. The state
implementing regulations are Chapter 173-220 WAC and Chapter 173-226 WAC.
3.2 State Waste Discharge Permit
Through this permit, WADOE regulates the discharge of industrial, commercial or municipal waste
material into State of Washington ground waters, and the discharge of industrial or commercial
wastes into municipal sewer systems.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix B * Agency Responsibilities (Permits and Approvals) + B-4
This permit application requires information on the following:
• Water supply volumes;
• Water utilization;
• Waste water flow, characteristics and disposal methods;
• Planned improvements;
• Storm water treatment;
• Plant operation;
• Materials and chemicals used;
• Production; and,
• Other relevant information.
Statutory authority for waste discharge permits are Chapters 90.48, 90.52, 90.54 RCW and
Chapters 173-216, 173-224, and 173-240 WAC.
3.3 Water Quality Standards Modification
Chapter 173-201A WAC provides that a water quality standards modification may be issued on a
short term basis for essential activities. Examples of work that commonly occurs in or adjacent to
waterways which could result in exceedance of the State's water quality standards include
placement of culverts during road construction, construction of the tailings impoundment, and
construction of stormwater retention facilities. A short term modification of the criteria is generally
conditioned to require the use of known and effective "best management practices" to minimize
water quality impacts during the construction period.
3.4 Water Quality Certification (Section 401-Federal Clean Water Act)
A water quality certification is required of any applicant for federal license or permit to conduct any
activity that may result in discharge into surface waters. The federal agency requests certification
from the state that the discharge complies with State Water Quality Standards, WAC 173-201 A.
Usually, the federal agency requests this certification on behalf of the applicant. In the case of the
Corps of Engineers permit applications, timing of the certification is tied to Corps of Engineers 404
permit application. Public notice for a water quality certification is "piggy-backed" with the Corps
of Engineers public notice. Statutory authority for this certification is found in Section 401 of the
Federal Clean Water Act and Chapter 173-225 WAC.
3.5 Dam Safety Permit
The WADOE requires an approval for any person or entity intending to construct, modify, or repair
any dam or controlling works for any storage area of ten acre-feet or more of water. Before
beginning any construction, plans and specifications must be prepared by a properly qualified
Washington State certified professional engineer (carrying the engineer's signature and seal) and
submitted for approval to the WADOE and the appropriate federal agency (on Federal lands). Plan
approval is required before beginning construction. Processing time averages from about six to
eight weeks, but varies depending on project complexity. There is no requirement for a public
hearing. Also, the WADOE is required to periodically inspect the construction of any dams in order
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix B * Agency Responsibilities (Permits and Approvals) 4 B-5
to secure safety to life and property. The statutory authority for dam safety approval is Chapter
90.03 RCW, Chapter 43.21 A RCW, Chapter 508-12 WAC, and Chapter 173-175 WAC.
3.6 Reservoir Permit
A reservoir permit is required by WADOE before constructing any barrier across a stream, channel,
or watercourse, if the barrier will create a reservoir. A reservoir is defined as a dam or dike that
will store water to a depth of ten or more feet at its deepest point, or a dam or dike that will retain
ten or more acre-feet of water. Reservoir applications require information on the use and capacity
of the reservoir and a legal description of the location of the structure. Processing time varies
depending on the project complexity. The process requires publication of a legal notice for two
succeeding weeks. The statutory authority for reservoir permits is Chapter 90.03 RCW and
Chapter 508-12 WAC.
3.7 Permit to Appropriate Public Waters
Authority to use public water is granted through issuance of a permit to appropriate public waters.
A permit is required prior to the development of any diversion of surface water. A permit is required
prior to the withdrawal of ground water for any purpose, except for the following ground water
exemptions (Sections 90.03.250 and 90.44.050 RCW):
• Stock-watering purposes;
• Watering of a lawn or non-commercial garden not exceeding one-half acre in size;
• Single or group domestic uses not exceeding 5,000 gallons per day; and,
• Industrial purposes not exceeding 5,000 gallons per day.
Public notice is required prior to permitting. A 30-day comment period is provided after the public
notice. WADOE evaluates the application and any objections which were filed in response to the
public notice with particular attention to the following questions:
• Is water available to satisfy the Project needs?
• Would the appropriation of water impair the senior rights or injure the instream values of the
water source?
• Does the Project propose a beneficial use of water?
• Would the appropriation be detrimental to the public interest?
Permits may be issued which authorize water use for a limited period of time (a "temporary"
permit). The Crown Jewel Project is proposed to operate for a specific length of time. It is
expected that most of the authorizations to use water for a mining project would be of a limited
time duration. Changes to existing water rights must also be reviewed and approved (i.e. point of
withdrawal, changes in use). The statutory authority for water right permits in Washington State is
found under Chapters 18.104, 43.27A, 90.03, 90.14, 90.16, 90.22, 90.44, and 90.54 RCW.
Administrative rules are found under Chapters 173-100, 173-136, 173-150, 173-154, 173-166,
173-500, 508-12, 173-590 WAC.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix B * Agency Responsibilities (Permits and Approvals) + B-6
Any permit issued must be specific as to the following:
• Water quantities to be appropriated, instantaneous and annual;
• The period of use;
• The point from which water may be obtained;
• The purposes for which water may be used; and,
• The place of use.
Provisions and limitations specific to the proposed water use and a development schedule for
completing the project are normally associated with a permit.
A permit only authorizes development of a project and does not represent the extent of a final
water right. To the extent that water is beneficially used within the limitations of a "regular"
permit, a Certificate of Water Right may be issued documenting a perfected water right.
The processing of a water right often takes a minimum of 18 months. Public notice is required for
water right applications.
3.8 New Source Construction Approval (Air Quality)
The WADOE has review and approval authority over a new source construction or additions or
modifications to existing sources for releasing contaminants into the air.
This permit requires the applicant to submit an emissions inventory listing all sources and amounts
of air pollution released, an analysis of Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and a
demonstration that ambient air quality standards, including levels for toxic air pollutants, will not be
exceeded. The permit processing time is normally four to six months from the receipt of a
complete application to a final permit determination by WADOE.
The statutory authority for new source construction approval is Chapters 43.21A and 70.94 RCW;
and Chapters 173-400 and 173-460 WAC.
3.9 Air Contaminant Source Operating Permit
The Washington State Department of Ecology (WADOE) has a comprehensive Washington State air
operating permit program which is consistent with the requirements of Title V of the Federal Clean
Air Act (FCAA). The statutory authority for the state operating permit program is Chapters 43.21 A
and 70.94 RCW; and Chapters 173-400 and 173-401 WAC.
Facilities will be required to apply for operating permits if they meet the definition of "major
stationary source" as defined in the FCAA and Chapter 173-401 WAC. Facilities that are either
subject to Title IV (acid rain provisions) of FCAA or if the source is in a category defined by EPA
through rule-making as being subject to the operating permit requirements are also required to
obtain permits. For a mining operation, the most likely triggers for inclusion in the operating permit
program would be if the source emits more than ten tons per year (tpy) of any single hazardous air
pollutant (HAP) or more than 25 tpy of a combination of HAP's; or if the source emits more than
100 tpy of a regulated air pollutant.
Air pollution sources subject to the program must submit complete permit applications within six
months after the state program is approved by the EPA; June 7, 1995 in the case of Washington
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix B * Agency Responsibilities (Permits and Approvals) + B-7
State. WADOE has up to three years to process the initial applications. Final action on at least
one-third of all operating permit applications received from sources must occur annually.
3.10 Air Contaminant Source Registration
According to Chapter 70.194.151 RCW and Chapter 173-400 WAC, major air contaminant sources
in Washington State must be registered with the WADOE. The air contaminant source registration
classifies the levels and types of air emissions.
3.11 Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD-Air Quality)
The basic objective of the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) air quality program is to
prevent substantial degradation of air quality in areas that are in compliance with national ambient
air quality standards, while maintaining a margin for future growth. As part of the new source
review, PSD applicability is determined.
Criteria that trigger the requirements for a PSD permit vary depending on the type of facility. In the
case of mining, a PSD permit is not required for operations that emit less than 250 tons per year of
any pollutant regulated under the Federal Clean Air Act. Pollutants can include both paniculate
(dust) and gaseous (S02, CO, NOx, and HC) emissions.
Specific information on PSD requirements can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR
52.221) as adopted and supplemented by Washington State Statute. If a PSD permit is required,
one year of site-specific ambient air quality data collected by the Proponent is typically needed. In
addition, the permit processing time is normally three months to one year.
Washington State statutory authority is Chapters 43.21A and 70.94 RCW and Chapter 173-400
WAC.
3.12 Dangerous Waste Permit
Any person or entity who generates waste is responsible for determining if it is a regulated
dangerous waste. A waste may be a solid, liquid, or contained gaseous material that a person or
entity no longer wishes to use, or which a person or entity throws away, recycles, or stores
temporarily until accumulated enough to recycle or dispose of economically. Dangerous waste is
any waste material which may pose a substantial hazard to human health, wildlife or the
environment (Chapter 70.105 RCW). Permits are required for the treatment, storage (of longer
than 90 days), or disposal of dangerous waste. A detailed facility siting process is required.
Applying for a permit requires detailed information on methods of treatment, storage, and disposal.
Information requirements include engineering drawings, operational plans, and facility closure
procedures. The WADOE regulates the handling of dangerous waste in order to protect public
health and the environment. What constitutes a dangerous waste and the statutory authority for
dangerous waste permits are set forth in Chapter 70.105 RCW and Chapter 173-303 WAC.
3.13 Generator and/or Transporter Identification Number/Reporting Requirements
(Dangerous Waste)
An EPA/Washington State identification number is required for persons or entities that generate
dangerous waste, as well as those who transport or offer to transport dangerous waste going to a
storage, treatment, and/or a disposal facility. Statutory authority is Chapter 70.105 RCW and
Chapter 173-303 WAC.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix B * Agency Responsibilities (Permits and Approvals) • B-8
3.14 Dangerous Waste Release Notification (Spills or Releases)
Prompt notification to WADOE is required when spills or releases of dangerous substances occur
that have the potential to impact public health or the environment. The responsibility for reporting
spills lies with the person or entity that spills or releases the substance; however, any person
aware of such spills is encouraged to contact the WADOE. Statutory authority for this notification
is found in Chapter 70.105 RCW and Chapter 173-303 WAC.
3.15 Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know
Title III of The Superfund Amendments and Re-Authorization Act (SARA), also known as the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act, requires facilities that handle hazardous
substances to provide information on the type, quantities, storage, and environmental fate of the
hazardous substances. These reports provide information for emergency planning agencies and the
public. The reports are filed with the State Emergency Response Commission. The statutory
authority is found in Sections 302, 304, 311, 312, 313 of Title III of SARA 1986.
3.16 Solid Waste Management
According to RCW 70.95, a permit shall be obtained for the operation of any solid waste disposal
site. The Jurisdictional Health Department (in the case of the Crown Jewel Project, the Okanogan
Health Department) will investigate every application to determine whether the existing or proposed
site and facilities meets all the applicable laws and regulations and conforms with the approved
comprehensive solid waste handling plan and complies with all local zoning requirements. When
the Jurisdictional Health Department finds that the permit should be issued, it shall issue such
permit. Every application shall be approved or disapproved by the Jurisdictional Health Department
within 90 days after receipt.
3.17 Maximum Environmental Noise Levels
WADOE has established maximum environmental noise levels that cannot be exceeded. These
noise levels are set forth in Chapter 173-60 WAC. Okanogan County has adopted these noise
levels in a local noise ordinance; therefore Okanogan County will be responsible for noise
abatement and control at the Crown Jewel Project.
3.18 Pollution Prevention Planning
A pollution prevention plan (as described in WAC 70.95C) is required for metal milling and mining
facilities under the Washington Metal Mining and Milling Operations Act (Chapter 78.56 RCW).
These facilities must develop a plan for the voluntary reduction of hazardous substances and
generation of dangerous wastes. An annual report on the progress of implementing these
reduction opportunities is also required.
4.0 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES RESPONSIBILITIES
The Washington Department of Natural Resources (WADNR) is a cooperating agency with Forest
Service and WADOE on the Crown Jewel Project EIS. In February 1994, the Washington State
legislature passed the Washington Metal Mining and Milling Operations Act (Chapter 78.56 RCW)
which gives the WADNR some additional responsibilities in conjunction with the WADOE. The bill
includes requirements for conducting additional inspections. There are a number of permits
required by the WADNR for mining operations. They are addressed below.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix B * Agency Responsibilities (Permits and Approvals) 4 B-9
4.1 Surface Mine Reclamation Permit
Under Chapter 78.44 ROW, Chapter 332.18 WAC, and Chapter 78.56 RCW, the WADNR requires
a permit to regulate surface mining activities. The puroose of the permit is to ensure the area is
reclaimed and the natural resources are conserved within the State of Washington. A performance
security for reclamation activities is required before this permit is granted; the WADNR is working
with the Forest Service and the BLM on a reclamation performance security for the Crown Jewel
Project. Required engineering information includes topographic maps, sequence of mining, disposal
and borrow sites, construction methods, equipment to be used, plans for mitigation of runoff and
erosion, and the proposed schedule of reclamation. Environmental information includes soil
characterization and topsoil management, erosion control measures, reclamation and revegetation
plan, and methods to protect surface water quality.
4.2 Forest Practice Applications
Before any forest practice activities or site conversion activities on forest land (harvesting,
reforestation, road construction or chemical application) can begin on non Federal lands in
Washington State, the WADNR must approve such practices. The statutory authority is under
Chapter 76.09 RCW and Chapter 222 WAC. The WADNR will require information on the location
and extent of harvesting, road construction activities, borrow and disposal activities, methods and
equipment size, need of right-of-ways, reforestation plans, stream crossing and drainage plans,
indication of wildlife habitat to be removed, riparian protection, and location of water bodies.
4.3 Burning Permit (Fire Protection)
Under Chapter 76.04 RCW and Chapter 332-24 WAC, the WADNR regulates certain types of
outdoor fires including burning permits for vegetation, forest or other wood debris, and recreational
fires. The WADNR also helps protect air quality through a smoke management plan. A written
burning permit may be required year-round on land protected by the WADNR.
4.4 Dumping Permit
As part of the forest protection requirements under Chapter 76-04 RCW and Chapter 332-24
WAC, the WADNR requires a permit for the dumping of forest debris of any kind in quantities that
would constitute a forest fire hazard, or would threaten forest lands located within the state.
5.0 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is a cooperating agency with the Forest Service and the
WADOE on the Crown Jewel Project EIS. As such, a number of BLM resource specialists
representing various environmental and technical disciplines have provided input into the Crown
Jewel Project EIS process.
Under the Mining Law of 1872 et. seq, in Sections 302 and 603 of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act of 1976, the BLM is responsible for review, approval, or denial, and "if approved"
monitoring of mineral production and related land use activities under the Proponent's Plan of
Operations. The BLM will require a Plan of Operations that meets the needs of 43 CFR Part 3800,
Mining Claims, under the General Mining Laws. The Proponent may develop a single Plan of
Operations, however, the Forest Service and BLM approval processes are different. Like the Forest
Service, WADOE, and WADNR, the BLM will require a reclamation performance security be filed
with the agency before commencement of activities to ensure that reclamation measures are
properly completed by the Proponent on BLM lands. The BLM is working with the Forest Service
and the WADNR on the reclamation performance security for the Crown Jewel Project. At the time
of the publication of the Crown Jewel EIS, it had not been determined if the Forest Service and
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix B * Agency Responsibilities (Permits and Approvals) • B-10
BLM would require a separate reclamation security from the WADNR; or, they would enter into a
written agreement with the WADNR, whereby the WADNR would hold the (one) reclamation
security, avoiding multiple bonding. On public lands administered by the BLM, the agency has
review and approval authority for any project related right-of-ways, access roads, and special use
permits.
6.0 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS RESPONSIBILITIES
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps of Engineers) is a cooperating agency on the Crown
Jewel Project EIS.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act authorizes the Corps of Engineers to issue permits for "the
discharge of dredged or fill material into the navigable waters." Guidelines promulgated by the EPA
under Section 404(b)(1) generally prohibit the discharge of dredged or fill materials into "waters of
the United States" unless it can be shown that the discharge is the least environmentally damaging
practicable alternative to achieve the basic purpose of the proposed project.
The term "waters of the United States" is broadly defined as waters that are or could be used in
interstate or foreign commerce. In addition to territorial seas and interstate waters, this includes
other waters such as lakes, mudflats, sloughs and wetlands which are or could be used in
interstate or foreign commerce. To the degree that they impact "waters of the United States,"
various activities associated with mining operations, such as road or bridge construction, mining
site development and construction, construction of dams for tailings storage, construction of water
storage dams, etc., may require a Section 404 permit.
The Corps of Engineers must comply with Executive Orders 11990 and 11998 with respect to
impacts to the nation's wetlands and/or floodplains. The "no net loss" wetlands policy is outlined
in an agreement between the Corps of Engineers and the EPA. The policy goal of no net loss to
wetland acreage or function is implemented primarily through permit review. Wetlands in the area
to be affected by the Crown Jewel Project were identified using the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Two types of permits apply to wetland fill proposals. These are nationwide permits and individual
permits. Nationwide Permit 26 authorizes the filling of up to two acres of isolated wetlands or
wetlands above the headwaters of tributary water bodies. If the affected area is not isolated
wetlands or wetlands above the headwaters, or if the proposed activity would affect more than
two acres of jurisdictional wetlands, an individual permit is required. Water quality certification
from the state (WADOE) is required on wetland fills of one acre or more.
In reviewing Section 404 permit applications, the Corps of Engineers must evaluate whether the
benefits from the project outweigh the predicted environmental impacts. This is called a "public
interest review." Factors considered during the public interest review include the following:
• Basic project purpose and need;
• Water dependency;
• Availability of practicable alternatives, taking into consideration cost, logistics, and technology;
and,
• Environmental impacts.
The Corps of Engineers evaluate whether the proposal is the least environmentally damaging
practicable alternative. It may be necessary for the Proponent to include mitigation measures that
will reduce impacts to the aquatic environment to an acceptable level. These measures may
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix B * Agency Responsibilities (Permits and Approvals) + B-11
include avoiding fills to "waters of the United States," reducing the area of fill, creating or restoring
aquatic environments, and/or enhancing the value of an existing aquatic area.
7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES
NEPA documents (draft EIS, final EIS, and Records of Decision by any federal agencies regarding
the Crown Jewel Project) will be filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The EPA has established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program for
regulating surface water quality. This program was principally established by the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act amendments of 1972 and supplemented amendments and re-authorization. In
its amended and re-authorized form, this statute as a whole is now generally referred to as the
Clean Water Act.
The Clean Water Act has established the following surface water programs which may concern the
Crown Jewel Project:
• The NPDES Permit program regulating the point source and stormwater discharge of pollutants;
• The Section 404 Permit program regulating the discharge of dredged or fill material; and,
• The Section 311 program regulating spills of oil and hazardous substances.
The NPDES Permit program is established by Section 402 of the Clean Water Act. The WADOE is
the permitting authority in Washington State for the issuance of NPDES Permits pursuant to
Section 402 of the Clean Water Act.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act authorizes the Corps of Engineers to issue permits "for the
discharge of dredged or fill materials into navigable waters." These permits are addressed under
the heading: "Corps of Engineers" which immediately precedes this discussion. The EPA is
responsible for reviewing the consistency of the proposed 404 action with the Section 404(b)(1)
guidelines.
Section 311 of the Clean Water Act establishes requirements relating to discharges or spills of oil
or hazardous substances. Discharges or spills of oil in "harmful quantities" are prohibited. The
EPA has established a requirement for the preparation of a Spill Prevention Control and
Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan by facilities that handle substantial quantities of oil.
In addition to water quality oversight, the EPA also maintains control over the air resources of an
area as outlined in the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act's most basic goals are to protect public
health and welfare. The EPA can comment on, but is not responsible for, a New Source (Air
Quality) Construction Permit issued by the WADOE.
8.0 U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE RESPONSIBILITIES
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service administers the Endangered Species Act, as re-enacted in 1982,
and the Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended. On the Crown Jewel Project, the Forest
Service and BLM have consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding any federally
listed threatened or endangered species that might be impacted by the proposed operation. This is
known as the Section 7 Consultation. A Biological Assessment (BA) has been prepared by the
Forest Service for any federally listed threatened or endangered species and submitted said
document to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. If adverse impacts to threatened or endangered
species are projected, specific design measures to protect the affected species may need to be
developed.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix B * Agency Responsibilities (Permits and Approvals) 4 5-72
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service administers the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (15 U.S.C.
701-718h). Under this treaty, it is unlawful to kill migratory birds, and no permits are issued to
take migratory birds. Conditions in the tailings impoundment must both meet permit requirements
and prevent mortality to migratory birds which might use the pond. Two methods are available to
preclude bird mortality, physical isolation through barriers (nets or tanks) and chemical
detoxification.
9.0 BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS RESPONSIBILITIES
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is responsible for oversight of federal Indian reservations and has
responsibility to review proposed actions to assure adequate fish and water protection on reserved
lands. The BIA works with Indian tribes on issues affecting tribal members or tribal land. With
regards to the Crown Jewel Project EIS, the BIA has no direct compliance responsibilities relative to
the review, permitting, or oversight for the Crown Jewel Project operations. The agency does,
however, have an interest in the process and will work with the technical specialists of the Colville
Confederated Tribes in the review of NEPA/SEPA documents and the Crown Jewel Project EIS
documents.
10.0 COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES RESPONSIBILITIES
The boundaries of the Colville Indian Reservation once extended northward to the Canadian border
encompassing the area now planned for Crown Jewel Project activities. In the late 1800s, the
boundary was shifted southward to its present location; however, certain hunting, gathering, and
fishing rights were retained by the Colville Confederated Tribes. The Colville Confederated Tribes
have an interest in the Crown Jewel Project in terms of cultural resources, wildlife issues, fishing
and hunting activities, grazing leases, and socioeconomic effects.
The Colville Confederated Tribes have no requirements with regard to review, permitting, or
oversight for the Crown Jewel Project operations; however, the Tribes are interested in the Crown
Jewel Project and will have the opportunity to review and comment on NEPA/SEPA submittals and
the Crown Jewel Project EIS documents.
11.0 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION RESPONSIBILITIES
The Proponent will need to obtain radio and microwave station authorizations from the Federal
Communications Commission. These licenses will be issued for any two-way radio installations
made at the Project site.
12.0 TREASURY DEPARTMENT (DEPARTMENT OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO AND
FIREARMS) RESPONSIBILITIES
Interstate transportation of explosives is regulated by the Department of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms. The Proponent or its explosive supplier will need to obtain a license for transport of such
explosives to the site. In addition, an explosive user permit will also be required by this agency.
13.0 U.S. MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION RESPONSIBILITIES
The health and safety aspects of the Crown Jewel Project would be regulated by Federal Health
and Safety Standards for mining operations. The U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration
(MSHA) will make comprehensive routine inspections of the operation and will be involved in
educational and safety training programs for company personnel. The Crown Jewel Project will
also be responsible for providing MSHA with reports of accidents, injuries, occupational diseases,
and related data. Specific programs for the education and training of all employees are also part of
the Health and Safety Regulations of MSHA.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix B * Agency Responsibilities (Permits and Approvals) 4 B-13
14.0 ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION RESPONSIBILITIES
A copy of both the draft EIS and final EIS documents must be filed with the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation. This agency works in an advisory role to assist the Forest Service and BLM
(on the Crown Jewel Project) with compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act and the
American Indian Religious Freedom Act. In addition, the Washington Department of Community
Development, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation gives concurrence with agency
determined cultural impacts. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation would be available to
serve in an advisory role if requested by the Washington agency. The Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation may also review state program activities and determine relative compliance to the
previously mentioned National Historic Preservation Act.
15.0 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE RESPONSIBILITIES
An Hydraulic Project Approval Permit is required from the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife (WADFW) under Chapter 75.20 RCW and Chapter 220-110 WAC. Any activity or
operation that uses, diverts, obstructs, or changes the natural flow or bed of any fresh water
stream or salt waterbody in Washington State requires approval from the WADFW. There is no
public hearing required for this approval. Applications for the hydraulic project approval must
include general plans for the overall project and complete plans and specifications of the proposed
work. The application must also include complete plans and specifications for the proper
protection of fish life.
The WADFW has provided technical input regarding wildlife and the fisheries resources in the area
of the proposed Crown Jewel Project development.
16.0 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICE OF
ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION RESPONSIBILITIES
Under Chapters 27.44 and 27.53 RCW and Chapter 25-48 WAC, the Washington Department of
Community Development Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation will be contacted prior to
the start of a project to determine if historic and archaeological sites will be affected. The status
of any sites or structures listed in or eligible for State of Washington or National Register of Historic
Places or local landmark designation will need to be determined. Plans for protection or mitigation
measures may be a condition of concurrence with agency determined cultural impacts.
The Washington Department of Community Development, Office of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation will be consulted when projects are subject to review under Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. This Act requires that all federal agencies take into
account the effect of their actions on historic properties. The Washington Office of Archaeology
and Historic Preservation was consulted to determine if the site had been surveyed, if there are
identified historic resources on site, and if the property is listed or eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places. If a project will adversely affect property that meets the National
Historic Register criteria, the Washington Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation will
recommend ways to avoid or mitigate that adverse effect.
17.0 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RESPONSIBILITIES
The Washington Department of Transportation (WADOT) is responsible for compliance with
Washington State requirements for road design and construction along with compliance with
federal and state requirements for transportation of hazardous materials. The WADOT
responsibilities (in the case of the Crown Jewel Project) will probably be limited to review and
approval of applications for any required road construction permits and permit approval and
compliance monitoring for transportation of hazardous materials.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix B * Agency Responsibilities (Permits and Approvals) 4 B-14
18.0 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH RESPONSIBILITIES
The Washington Department of Health (WADOH) will become involved with the approval of on-site
disposal plans and specifications for on-site sewage disposal systems with design flows at any
common point between 3,500 gallons per day and 14,500 gallons per day. Local Health
Departments will issue permits for on-site sewage disposal systems with design flows less than
3,500 gallons per day, while the WADOE will review and approve plans and specifications for
on-site systems exceeding 14,500 gallons per day.
The WADOH may have review and approval authority over water system plans, engineering
reports, plans and specifications for new public drinking water systems under the federal Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA). A public drinking water system is one that furnishes drinking water
to any community, or number of individuals, or if it is made available to the public for human
consumption and domestic use.
As described above, depending on the system plan for the Crown Jewel Project, the WADOH
might not have any regulatory responsibility for the water supply system. In this case, the
Okanogan County Health Department (OCHD) will actually do the review and approval of the
drinking water system.
19.0 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
RESPONSIBILITIES
Washington State maintains a Department of Trade and Economic Development. Although this
agency does not have any regulatory authority, this group monitors and encourages trade and
economic development within Washington State. Responsibilities of this agency are to encourage
trade, i.e. exports of products and services from Washington State industries, and to promote
economic development throughout Washington State. This agency is interested in the
development of any project or industry which promotes beneficial growth within Washington State.
20.0 WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES RESPONSIBILITIES
The Proponent must obtain an explosive license from the Washington Department of Labor and
Industries, as well as comply with this agency's safety requirements.
21.0 OKANOGAN COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT RESPONSIBILITIES
The Okanogan County Planning Department has requested that the operation obtain a number of
permits or approvals.
21.1 Shoreline Substantial Development Permit
The Shoreline Substantial Development Permit is required for any development within shoreline
jurisdiction which exceeds $2,500 or any development which interferes with normal public use of
the water or shoreline of the state. The Crown Jewel Project proposes work on a portion of Myers
Creek which is designated as shorelines of the state. Shoreline jurisdiction encompasses a
minimum of 200 horizontal feet from the Ordinary High Water Mark of this portion of Myers Creek
(Chapter 90.58 WAC and Chapter 173-14 WAC).
The Proponent will have to apply for a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit from Okanogan
County. The specific permit procedures and performance standards are contained within the
County Shoreline Master Program. If a Shoreline Variance or a Conditional Use Permit is required,
the WADOE will have final approval authority.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix B * Agency Responsibilities (Permits and Approvals) • 5-75
21.2 Noise Ordinance
Okanogan County has adopted a noise ordinance and is responsible for noise abatement and
control. Chapter 173-60 WAC, maximum environmental noise level, establishes noise levels that
can not be exceeded.
21.3 Building Permits
Permits to construct permanent buildings will probably be requested by Okanogan County for any
structural facilities at the Crown Jewel Project. The applications will require detailed plans for
structures including electrical plans, plumbing plans, floor lay out, sewage facilities, location of
wells (applicable), drainage plans, size and shape of the buildings, access, size and shape of
foundation walls, beams, air vents, window accesses, and heating and cooling mechanical aspects.
Permits are issued upon approval of the plans. Permit processing time varies depending on the
project, and can average from six to eight weeks. Public hearing requirements also vary depending
on the activity proposed. The County may require the Proponent to hire a qualified building
inspector at their expense.
The Forest Service and BLM retain certain responsibilities for building construction on Federal lands.
County building permits may be deferred on Federal lands.
21.4 Growth Management Critical Areas Regulations
Pursuant to the Growth Management Act of 1990, Okanogan County adopted Critical Area
Regulations to protect wetlands, areas with critical recharging effect on potable water, frequently
flooded areas, geologically hazardous areas, and fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas.
"Critical areas" are characterized as either Resource Critical Areas or hazardous Critical Areas.
Resource Critical Areas - Wetlands, areas with critical recharging effect on potable water, and fish
and wildlife habitat conservation areas are critical areas that are regulated for the purpose of
protecting these resources from human activity that would cause undue damage to wetlands,
wildlife habitat or wildlife movement or would endanger public safety or health by adversely
affecting aquifer recharge areas. Resource critical areas shall not be altered except as otherwise
provided.
Hazard Critical Areas - Frequently flooded areas and geologically hazardous areas are critical areas
that are regulated for the purpose of protecting the public from human activities that would affect
public safety because it would place residential or other permanent human structures in the hazard
critical areas. Hazard critical areas shall not be altered except as otherwise provided.
22.0 OKANOGAN COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICT RESPONSIBILITIES
The Okanogan County Health District has responsibilities for solid wastes handling under the
authority of the Okanogan County Board of Health, solid waste and facilities regulation. The Health
District is also responsible for on-site sewage disposal systems that process 3,500 gallons per day
or less. Larger on-site systems from 3,500 to 14,500 gallons per day are regulated by the
Washington Department of Health. WADOE has primary responsibility for sewer systems with a
capacity of over 14,500 gallons per day. If there will be a public food establishment at the Crown
Jewel Project, the owners or operators are required to contact the Okanogan County Health District
before they build or operate any food establishment. By virtue of being a public health
department, the Okanogan County Health District also has responsibility/input concerning any or all
issues effecting the health and well being of the community.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix B * Agency Responsibilities (Permits and Approvals) 4 B-16
23.0 OKANOGAN COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT RESPONSIBILITIES
The Okanogan County Public Works Department has responsibility for construction and
maintenance of county roads. As such, this agency will be interested in any Crown Jewel Project
transportation activities on county roads. If any county roads are to be improved, upgraded or
snowplowed, the Proponent of the Crown Jewel Project must work with the Okanogan County
Public Works Department to insure that the proposed road upgrades meet public standards.
24.0 OKANOGAN COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT RESPONSIBILITIES
The Proponent will work with the Okanogan County Public Utility District (PUD) on the right-of-way
for the proposed electrical transmission and distribution line planned for the Crown Jewel Project.
A special use permit is required for the transmission line where it crosses Federal lands.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
APPENDIX C
HYDROLOGIC SUMMARY STATISTICS
-------
January 1997 Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics + C-1
HYDROLOGIC SUMMARY STATISTICS
Summary statistics have been calculated for surface water, mine adits, and monitoring wells within and
surrounding the Crown Jewel Project. These statistics are summarized in the following tables included
in this appendix:
• Table C-1, Summary Statistics For Selected Baseline Surface Water Quality Parameters
• Table C-2, Summary Statistics For Selected Baseline Groundwater Quality Parameters - Historic
Mine Workings
• Table C-3, Summary Statistics For Selected Baseline Groundwater Quality Parameters - Monitoring
Wells
• Table C-4, Summary Statistics for Selected Baseline Seep and Spring Water Quality Parameters
• Table C-5, Baseline Field Water Quality Data for Additional Seeps and Springs
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics + C-2
TABLE C-1. SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE
SURFACE WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
Parameter
Bolster Creek
SW-3
SW-11
SW-1 2
SW-13
SW-1 4
Ethel
Creek
SW-6
Gold Creek
SW-4
SW-10
Marias Creek
SW-2
SW-8
Nicholson Creek
SW-1
SW-6
SW-7
SW-9
GENERAL AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Conductance (/jmho*/cm. field)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
Conductance Oimhos/cm
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of sample*
samples below
detection
360
303
384
3
0
369
299
469
26
0
366
303
491
28
0
362
271
476
28
0
388
340
463
26
0
401
317
629
31
0
329
189
410
34
0
663
402
744
18
0
391
329
463
32
0
378
306
464
36
0
314
220
389
32
0
208
107
281
26
0
303
260
366
35
0
376
246
446
16
0
laboratory)
368
292
446
16
0
379
312
424
27
0
384
287
486
34
0
371
293
447
31
0
396
332
444
28
0
421
342
633
48
0
361
188
400
47
0
679
436
660
22
0
410
269
492
60
0
396
284
486
39
0
340
266
476
62
0
216
107
281
29
0
319
260
409
41
0
399
263
499
19
0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l. field)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
Hardne** (mg/l as CaCO,
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
pH (au. field)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samplea below
detection
-
.
.
0
-
)
196
168
221
16
0
8.3
7.7
8.6
14
0
10.4
6.2
12.4
26
0
199
160
226
27
0
8.2
7.4
8.9
26
0
10.9
8.3
13.8
29
0
194
164
223
34
0
8.1
7.6
8.8
33
0
pH Isu. laboratory)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of sample*
•ample* below
detection
8.3
7.6
8.6
16
0
8.3
7.9
8.6
27
0
8.2
7.8
8.6
33
0
11.0
8.4
13.6
27
0
191
161
226
31
0
8.1
7.6
8.6
29
0
8.3
8.0
8.6
31
0
10.3
7.4
12.8
26
0
211
170
239
28
0
7.8
7.2
8.6
27
0
8.0
7.6
8.6
28
0
10.6
8.2
13.6
33
0
219
182
267
48
0
8.1
7.1
8.8
44
0
8.2
7.6
8.7
48
0
11.0
7.8
13.0
31
0
178
86
227
48
0
8.0
7.0
8.7
41
0
8.1
7.3
8.8
48
0
10.3
6.7
12.2
21
0
317
236
369
23
0
8.1
7.9
8.6
16
0
8.2
7.6
8.6
23
0
11.0
7.1
13.6
33
0
213
174
262
61
0
8.1
7.1
8.9
44
0
8.2
7.6
8.7
61
0
9.9
6.6
12.1
34
0
200
168
242
40
0
7.7
6.9
9.3
34
0
7.9 _j
7.6
8.6
39
0
10.9
7.2
13.8
33
0
170
117
227
62
O
8.1
7.O
8.7
47
0
8.3
7.8
8.6
61
0
9.4
1.6
13.3
26
0
106
66
164
29
0
7.6
6.9
8.3
26
0
10.6
7.6
12.6
33
0
167
122
247
41
0
7.8
7.0
8.6
37
0
9.8
6.9
12.0
17
0
212
138
244
19
0
8.2
7.4
8.9
16
0
8.0
7.6
8.4
29
0
8.1
7.3
8.6
41
0
8.2
7.8
8.6
19
0
Note*: 1 . To calculate mean* (arithmetic average*), concentration* below detection limit are assumed to equal Vr detection limit value. Detection limits for some
parameters changed during the monitoring period aa shown in Table 3. 6. 6, Water Quality Analytical Methods and Standards.
2. Data qualified as suspect or anomalous by the reviewer are not included in summary statietics.
3. Total trace metal* were analyzed in unfiltered sample* and dissolved trace metal* were analyzed in filtered sample*.
4. Parameter* Inted are thoee that occurred at concentration* above detection limit*, on* or more time*, at the majority of ground water, surface water or
spring and aeep *tationa. Baaeline cyanide re*ult* are included due to regulatory concern*.
6. Table includes data collected through October 1 996.
6. Station SW-3 was discontinued in June 1992 and replaced by Stations SW-1 2 and SW-13. Water quality data from SW-3 are considered acceptable and
accurate.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics 4 C-3
TABLE C-1. SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE
SURFACE WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
Parameter
Bolster Creek
SW-3
SW-11 | SW-12
SW-13
SW-14
Ethel
Creek
SW-6
Gold Creek
SW-4
SW-10
Marias Creek
SW-2
SW-8
Nicholson Creek
SW-1 | SW-6
SW-7
SW-9
Silica (mo/I. dlMolvad)
mean value
mirwmum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
16.6
10.6
17.8
16
0
21.2
16.2
23.7
27
0
18.8
13.7
20.9
34
0
16.2
13.0
18.1
31
0
12.7
11.6
13.8
28
0
16.8
a.a
18.6
48
0
22.2
14.1
24.9
48
0
23.2
21. 0
24.6
23
0
20.8
13.6
24.9
60
0
21.8
19.8
24.0
40
0
22.8
14.4
26.7
62
0
28.6
23.6
32.3
29
0
26.3
21.8
28.8
41
0
23.6
21.0
24.9
19
0
Temperature (*C. field)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
6.4
1.0
16.1
14
N/A
4.8
-0.7
8.3
27
N/A
6.8
.03
11.1
34
N/A
6.7
0.0
12.8
31
N/A
6.1
0.4
7.0
28
N/A
6.8
0.6
12.8
46
N/A
6.1
0.0
18.2
46
N/A
6.7
0.0
8.2
23
N/A
6.2
0.0
13.9
49
N/A
6.1
2.6
9.6
39
N/A
6.3
0.0
16.9
60
N/A
6.2
0.6
12.0
29
N/A
6.8
1.4
12.9
40
N/A
7.8
2.6
13.8
19
N/A
Total Dissolved Solids (mo/I)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
232
218
248
16
0
230
180
274
27
0
229
196
264
34
0
219
180
262
31
0
232
200
268
28
0
256
192
300
48
0
228
160
284
48
0
416
290
482
23
0
261
208
300
61
0
240
200
280
40
0
212
164
270
62
0
136
62
172
29
0
206
144
266
41
0
268
136
324
19
0
Total Suspended Solids (mg/l)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
11
<2
88
16
4
6
<6
62
26
16
<5
<6
62
34
19
<6
<6
44
31
17
6
<6
64
28
16
6
<6
60
48
20
11
<6
126
48
18
<6
<6
22
23
13
<6
<6
32
61
26
<6
<6
24
4O
26
<6
<6
16
62
26
8
<6
74
29
10
7
<6
24
41
18
7
<5
62
19
6
CATIONS
Calcium (mg/l)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
69
69
77
16
0
72
69
82
27
0
68
68
83
34
0
67
64
80
31
0
78
63
87
28
0
76
63
88
48
0
60
28
81
48
0
111
82
131
23
0
63
61
79
61
0
66
64
82
40
0
63
37
68
62
0
33
17
60
29
0
66
40
89
41
0
74
47
86
18
0
Magnesium (mg/l)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
Potassium (mg/l)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
6
6
7
16
0
4
3
6
27
0
2
2
2
16
0
2
1
3
27
0
6
3
7
34
0
2
1
4
34
0
6
4
7
31
0
2
1
2
30
0
4
3
6
28
0
1
1
2
27
0
7
6
9
48
0
2
1
6
48
0
7
4
8
48
0
2
2
3
48
0
9
8
11
23
0
2
2
9
22
0
14
8
17
61
0
2
<1
2
61
1
9
8
10
40
0
2
1
2
40
0
9
6
14
62
0
1
1
2
62
0
6
3
7
29
0
2
1
2
29
0
7
1
8
41
0
6
6
7
19
0
1
1
2
41
0
2
1
6
19
0
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics 4 C-4
TABLE C-1, SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE
SURFACE WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
Parameter
Sodium (mg/l)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
Bolster Creek
SW-3
6
4
7
16
0
SW-11
3
2
3
27
0
SW-12
6
3
8
34
0
SW-13
6
3
6
31
0
SW-14
2
2
3
28
0
Ethel
Creek
SW-6
6
6
7
48
0
Gold Creek
SW-4
6
4
6
48
0
SW-10
2
2
3
23
0
Marias Creek
SW-2
11
4
17
61
0
SW-8
8
7
14
40
0
Nicholson Creek
SW-1
8
1
14
62
0
SW-6
7
6
8
29
0
SW-7
6
4
7
41
0
SW-9
3
3
6
19
0
ANIONS
Akellnlty (mo/1, as CaC03l
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
Chloride (mo/1)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
Fluoride (mo/I)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
Sulfata (mg/1)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
176
164
194
16
0
1
<1
6
16
6
.1
<.1
.2
16
1
29
10
64
16
0
169
102
200
26
0
<1
<1
3
27
21
<.1
<.1
.3
27
13
37
14
72
27
0
177
134
196
33
0
1
<1
3
34
6
.1
<.1
.4
34
2
33
16
66
34
0
176
110
198
30
0
<1
<1
2
31
21
<.1
<.1
.2
31
11
31
12
84
31
0
197
130
224
27
0
<1
<1
3
28
22
<.1
<.1
.2
28
21
23
4
8O
28
0
197
122
228
48
0
<1
<1
3
47
23
<.1
<.1
.2
48
17
36
10
76
48
0
126
71
146
47
0
<1
<1
4
48
27
.2
.1
.2
47
0
62
20
116
48
0
162
96
206
23
0
<1
<1
2
23
17
<.1
<.1
.1
23
9
173
130
228
23
0
212
170
236
61
0
2
<1
9
61
3
.3
<.1
.4
61
1
20
<10
61
61
4
190
148
210
40
0
1
<1
2
40
12
.2
.1
.2
40
0
30
6
68
40
0
Sulfide (mo/11
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
<.02
<.02
.06
14
13
<.02
<.02
.06
26
21
<.02
<.02
.03
33
27
<.02
<.02
.03
30
24
<.02
<.02
.03
27
22
<.02
<.02
.29
47
40
<.02
<.02
.06
46
33
<.02
<.02
.04
23
18
<.02
<.02
.06
49
44
<.02
<.02
-O3
39
33
164
106
217
62
0
1
<1
6
62
24
.2
.2
.4
61
0
24
<2
82
62
1
<.02
<.02
.09
49
41
107
62
134
29
0
<1
<1
2
29
22
.2
.1
.3
29
0
16
<10
66
29
6
148
112
170
41
0
<1
<1
1
41
28
.1
<.1
.3
41
4
31
<2
116
41
1
<.02
<.02
.04
28
22
<.02
<.02
.04
39
31
166
114
198
19
0
<1
<1
1
19
16
<.1
<.1
.1
19
14
63
19
84
19
0
<.02
<.02
.04
19
16
NUTRIENTS
Ammonia (mg/l aa N)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
.06
<.06
.13
16
<.06
<.06
.16
27
<.06
<.06
.07
34
<.06
<.06
.09
31
<.06
<.06
.09
28
<.OB
<.06
.16
48
<.06
<.06
.16
48
<.06
<.06
.16
23
<.06
<.06
.16
61
•C.06
<.06
.13
39
<.06
<.06
.27
62
•C.06
<.06
.16
29
<.06
<.06
.13
40
<.06
<.06
.13
19
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics • C-5
TABLE C-1, SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE
SURFACE WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
Parameter
samples below
detection
Bolster Creek
SW-3
7
SW-11
26
SW-12
32
SW-13
28
SW-14
27
Ethel
Creek
SW-6
38
Gold Creek
SW-4
39
SW-10
18
Maria* Creek
SW-2
38
SW-8
33
Nicholson Creek
SW-1
38
SW-6
26
SW-7
33
SW-9
17
Nitrate ft Nitrite (mg/l as Nl
mean value
minimum vaiue
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
.03
<.02
.08
16
8
.18
<.02
.34
27
1
.08
<.02
.18
34
6
.06
<.02
.16
31
11
.28
.16
.37
28
0
.09
<.02
.37
48
6
.05
<.02
.24
48
16
.24
.13
.44
23
0
.09
<.02
.26
61
9
.10
<.02
.25
40
2
.04
<.02
.22
52
21
.03
<.02
.16
29
11
.07
<.02
.31
41
11
.33
<.02
1.09
19
1
TRACE METALS/ELEMENTS
Aluminum (mg/l. total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
<.OB
<.06
.07
E
4
.07
<.06
.16
9
3
<.06
<.06
.09
11
6
.10
<.06
.44
10
8
.13
<.06
1.10
10
9
<-06
<.06
.21
16
13
.12
<.06
.90
16
8
<.06
<.06
.14
6
5
<.06
<.06
.11
15
10
<.06
<.06
.14
13
8
<.06
<.06
.17
16
12
.28
<-06
1.88
9
2
<.06
<.06
.20
13
10
.06
<.06
.10
6
3
Aluminum (mgA dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
Arsenic ImgA total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
Arsenic (mo/1, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
Barium (mo/I, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
Barium (mg/l. dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
<.OB
<.OB
<.OB
16
16
.002
.001
.003
6
O
<.06
<.06
<.06
27
27
.007
.006
.009
10
0
<.06
<.06
.16
34
33
.003
.002
.008
11
O
<.06
<.06
.07
31
30
.002
<.001
.004
10
2
<.06
<.OE
<.06
28
28
.002
<.001
.003
10
2
<.06
<.OE
<.06
48
48
.009
.006
.016
16
0
<.06
<.06
.11
48
44
<.001
<.001
.002
16
8
<.06
<.06
<.06
23
23
<.001
<.001
.001
6
4
<.06
<.06
<.06
61
61
.002
<.001
.004
16
2
<.06
<.06
.09
40
39
.002
<.001
.003
13
2
<.05
<.06
.06
62
60
.001
<.001
.003
17
6
.002
.001
.004
16
0
.02
.02
.02
6
0
.02
<.01
.03
16
.006
.001
.011
27
0
<.01
<.01
.03
10
7
<.01
<.01
.01
27
.003
<.001
.007
33
2
.02
.01
.02
11
0
.02
<.01
.02
34
.001
<.001
.003
31
9
.02
.01
.02
10
0
.01
•C.01
.02
31
.001
<.001
.003
28
6
<.01
<.01
.02
10
3
<.01
<.01
.01
28
.008
.003
.014
47
0
<.01
<.01
.01
16
3
<.01
<.01
.02
48
<.001
<.001
.004
48
37
.01
<.01
.02
16
1
.01
<.01
.02
48
<.001
<.001
.002
23
16
.01
<.01
.02
6
2
<.01
<.01
.02
23
.002
•C.001
.004
60
9
.01
.01
.02
16
0
.01
<.01
.02
60
.002
<.001
.004
40
6
.01
<.01
.02
13
1
.01
<.01
.02
40
.001
<.001
.003
61
16
.01
<.01
.03
17
1
<.06
<.06
.07
29
26
<.001
<.001
.002
9
6
<.001
<.001
.002
29
23
.01
.01
.03
9
0
.01
<.01
.03
61
.01
<.01
.02
29
<.06
<.06
<.06
40
39
.002
<.001
.003
13
2
.001
<.001
.004
40
9
<.01
<.01
.01
13
6
<.01
<.01
.01
40
<.06
<.06
<.06
19
19
.003
.002
.003
6
0
.002
<.001
.004
19
4
<.01
<.01
.01
6
1
.01
<.01
.02
19
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics 4 C-6
TABLE C-1. SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE
SURFACE WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
Parameter
samples below
detection
Boron (mg/l, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
Chromium (mg/l, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
Bolster Creek
SW-3
1
<.02
<.02
<.02
16
16
<.01
<.01
<.01
6
6
Chromium (mg/l. dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
Copper (mg/l. total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
Copper (mg/1. dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
Iron (mg/l total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
Iron (mg/l. dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
<.01
<.01
<.01
16
16
<.01
<.01
<.01
6
6
<.01
<.01
<.01
16
16
<.02
<.02
.03
6
3
<.02
<.02
<.02
16
16
SW-11
22
<.02
<.02
<.02
27
27
<.01
<.01
<.01
10
10
SW-12
1
<.02
<.02
<.02
33
33
<.01
<.01
.01
11
10
SW-13
1
<.02
<.02
<.02
30
30
SW-14
16
<.02
<.02
<.02
28
28
<.01
<.01
<.01
10
10
<.01
<.01
<.01
10
10
Ethel
Creek
SW-6
13
<.02
<.02
<.02
48
48
<.01
<.01
<.01
16
16
Gold Creek
SW-4
3
<.02
<.02
<.02
48
48
<.01
<.01
<.01
16
16
<.01
<.01
<.01
27
27
<.01
<.01
.02
10
9
<.01
<.01
.01
33
31
<.01
<.01
<.01
11
11
<.01
<.01
.01
31
29
<.01
<.01
<.01
10
10
<.01
<.01
<.01
28
28
<.01
<.01
<.01
10
10
<.01
<.01
<.01
48
48
<.01
<.01
<.01
16
16
<.01
<.01
.01
48
46
<.01
<.01
<.01
16
16
SW-10
6
<.02
<.02
.02
23
22
<.01
<.O1
<.01
6
6
Marias Creek
SW-2
3
<.02
<.02
.02
61
47
<.01
<.01
.01
16
16
<.01
<.01
.01
23
22
•C.01
<.01
<.01
6
6
<.01
<.01
<.01
60
60
<.01
<.01
<.01
16
16
<.01
<.01
.02
27
26
.03
<.02
.16
9
6
<.02
<.02
.03
27
26
<.01
<.01
.02
34
31
.06
<.02
.24
11
4
<.02
<.02
.07
33
32
<.01
<.01
.02
31
30
.04
<.02
.14
10
8
<.02
<.02
.09
31
29
<.01
<.01
<.01
28
28
.04
<.02
.34
10
9
<.02
<.02
.06
28
27
<.01
<.01
.01
48
47
.02
<.02
.11
16
12
<.02
<.02
.07
48
45
<.01
<.01
.03
48
47
.08
<.02
.21
16
1
<.02
<.02
.09
48
34
<.01
<.01
.02
23
21
.04
<.02
.16
6
4
<.02
<.02
<.02
22
22
<.01
<.01
.02
61
47
.03
<.02
.10
16
6
<.02
<.02
.06
61
49
SW-8
4
<.02
<.02
<.02
40
38
<.01
<.01
<.01
13
13
<.01
<.01
.01
40
38
<.01
<.01
<.01
13
13
<.01
<.01
.02
40
36
.04
<.02
.16
13
6
<.02
<.02
.13
40
39
Nicholson Creek
SW-1
8
<.02
<.02
.03
62
49
SW-6
7
<.02
<.02
.03
29
28
<.01
<.01
<.01
17
17
<.01
<.01
<.01
9
9
SW-7
17
<.02
<.02
.02
41
39
<.01
<.01
<.01
13
13
SW-9
4
<.O2
<.02
<.02
19
19
<.01
<.01
<.01
6
6
<.01
<.01
.01
61
60
<.01
<.01
<.01
16
16
<.01
<.01
.04
29
28
<.01
<.01
<.01
9
9
<.01
<.01
.01
40
39
<.01
<.01
<.01
13
13
<.01
<.01
.01
19
18
<.01
<.01
<.01
6
6
<.01
<.01
.06
62
49
.02
<.02
.06
16
9
<.02
<.02 j
.06
62
48
<.01
<.01
.01
29
28
.23
<.02
1.83
9
4
<.02
<.02
.13
29
24
<.01
<.01
.01
40
38
.04
<.02
.16
13
6
<.02
<.O2
.04
40
36
<.01
<.01
.03
19
18
.06
<.02
.11
6
1
<.02
<.02
<.02
19
19
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics + C-7
TABLE C-1. SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE
SURFACE WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
Parameter
Manganese (mg/t. total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
Bolster Creek
SW-3 | SW-11
<.01
<.01
<.01
6
B
<-01
<.01
.02
9
8
SW-12
<.01
<.01
.02
11
9
SW-13
<.01
<.01
.02
10
9
SW-14
<.01
<.01
.02
10
9
Ethel
Creek
SW-B
<.01
<.01
.02
16
1E
Gold Creek
SW-4
<.01
<.01
.02
16
8
SW-10
<.01
<.01
<.01
6
6
Marias Creek
SW-2
<.01
<.01
.02
IB
14
SW-8
Nicholson Creek
SW-1
<.01
<-01
<.01
13
13
<.01
<.01
<.01
16
16
SW-6
.02
<.01
.16
9
7
SW-7
<.01
<.01
.01
13
12
SW-9
<.01
<.01
<.01
B
E
Manganese (mg/1. dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
<.01
<.01
<.01
16
16
<.01
<.01
.02
27
2B
<.01
<.01
.02
34
31
<.01
<.01
.02
31
29
<.01
<.01
.02
28
26
<.01
<.01
.02
48
46
<.01
<.01
.02
48
42
<.01
<.01
.02
23
22
<.01
<-01
.01
61
60
<-01
<-01
.01
40
39
<.01
<.01
.02
62
B1
<.01
<.01
<.01
29
29
<.01
<.01
.02
40
38
<.01
<.01
<.01
19
19
Molybdenum (mg/l. total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
<.OB
<.OB
<.06
B
6
<.OB
<.OE
<.OB
10
10
<.OB
<.OB
<.OB
11
11
<.OB
<-06
<.OB
10
10
<.OB
<.OB
<.OB
10
10
<.OB
<.OB
<.OB
16
16
<.OB
<.OB
<.OB
1B
14
<.OB
<.OB
<.OB
6
6
<.OB
<.OB
<.OB
1E
16
<.OE
<.OB
<.OB
13
13
<.OB
<.OB
<.OB
16
16
<.OE
<.OB
<.OB
9
a
<.OB
<.OB
<.OB
13
13
<.OB
<.OE
<.06
B
6
Molybdenum (mg/l, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
Selenium (mg/l, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
<.OB
<.06
<.OB
16
16
<.O01
<.001
.002
6
4
<.06
<.OB
<.OB
27
27
<.001
<.001
.001
10
7
<.OB
<.OB
<.OB
34
31
<.002
<.002
.002
11
7
<.OB
<.OB
<.OB
31
31
<.001
<.001
.002
10
7
<.OB
<.OB
<.OB
28
28
•C.001
<.001
.001
10
9
<.OB
<.OB
<.OE
48
47
<.002
<.002
.003
16
12
<.OB
<.OB
<.OB
48
47
.001
<.001
.006
1E
13
<.06
<.OB
<.OB
23
23
<.001
<.001
<.001
6
6
<.OB
<.OB
<.OB
El
B1
<.001
<.001
.002
IE
12
<.OB
<.OE
<.OB
40
40
<.001
<.001
.001
13
11
<.OB
<.OB
<.OE
62
62
<.001
<.001
.002
17
13
<.06
<.06
<.OB
29
29
<.001
<.001
.002
9
8
<.OB
<.06
<.06
40
40
<.001
<.001
<.001
13
13
<.OB
<.06
<.OB
19
19
<.001
<.001
<.001
E
E
Selenium (mg/l, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
Strontium (mg/l, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
<.001
<.001
.002
16
12
.19
.17
.21
E
0
<.001
<.OO1
.004
26
22
•c.ooi
<.001
.002
33
24
.13
.12
.16
10
0
.21
.17
.24
11
0
<.001
<.001
.002
31
27
.20
.18
.23
10
0
<.001
<.001
.001
28
2E
.16
.14
.17
10
0
<.002
<.002
.006
47
40
<.002
<.002
.002
47
46
.28
.23
.31
16
0
.18
.15
.34
1B
0
<.001
<.001
.003
23
22
.17
.16
.17
6
0
<.002
<.002
.006
BO
47
<.002
<.002
.006
39
31
.66
.64
.74
1E
0
.33
.31
.34
13
0
<.002
<.O02
.008
49
46
.62
.46
.60
16
0
<.001
<.001
.001
28
27
.22
.16
.30
9
0
<.002
<.002
.002
40
37
.27
.23
.46
13
0
<.001
<.001
.001
19
18
.16
.16
.17
E
0
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics * C-8
TABLE C-1, SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE
SURFACE WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
Parameter
Bolster Creek
SW-3
SW-11
SW-12
SW-13
SW-14
Ethel
Creek
SW-6
Gold Creek
SW-4
SW-10
Marias Creek
SW-2
SW-8
Nicholson Creek
SW-1
SW-6
SW-7
SW-9
Strontium (mg/l, dissolved}
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
Vanadium (mg/l. total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
sample* below
detection
.20
.17
.22
16
0
<.01
<.01
<.01
6
E
.13
.10
.14
27
0
<.01
<.01
<-01
10
10
.20
.11
.26
34
0
<.01
<.01
<.01
11
11
.20
.13
.23
31
0
<.01
<.01
<.01
10
10
.16
.10
.17
28
0
<.01
<.01
<.01
10
10
.26
.19
.30
48
0
<.01
<.01
<.01
16
16
.17
.11
.34
48
0
<.01
<.01
<.01
14
14
.16
.12
.18
23
0
<.01
<.01
<.01
6
6
.63
.21
.77
60
0
<.01
<.01
<.01
16
16
.33
.27
.37
40
0
<.01
<.01
<.01
13
13
.62
.34
.67
62
0
<.01
<.01
<.01
16
16
.22
.12
.31
29
0
<.01
<.01
<.01
9
9
.26
.20
.43
40
0
<.01
<.01
<.01
13
13
.16
<.01
.17
19
1
<.01
<.01
<.01
6
6
Vanadium (mg/l, dbsolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
Zinc (mg/l. total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
aamples below
detection
Zinc (mg/l. dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samplea
samples below
detection
<.01
<.01
<.01
16
16
<.01
<.01
.01
6
4
<.01
<.01
.01
16
IE
<.01
<.01
<.01
27
27
<.01
<.01
.03
10
6
<.01
<.01
.02
26
23
<.01
<.01
<.01
34
34
<.01
<.01
.01
11
10
<.01
<.01
.02
30
28
<.01
<.01
<.01
31
31
<.01
<.01
.01
11
10
<.01
<.01
.06
28
26
<.01
<.01
<.01
28
28
<.01
<.01
.01
10
9
<.01
<.01
.03
26
23
<.01
<.01
<.01
48
48
<.01
<.01
.01
16
14
<.01
<.01
.04
43
40
<.01
<.01
<.01
48
48
<.01
<.01
<.01
23
23
<.01
<.01
<.01
61
61
<.01
<.01
.02
14
13
<.01
<.01
.03
44
38
<.01
<.01
<.01
6
6
<.01
<.01
.02
21
20
<.01
<.01
.03
15
14
<.01
<.01
.03
47
42
<.01
<.01
<.01
40
40
<.01
<.01
.03
13
12
<.01
<.01
.03
36
31
<.01
<.01
<.01
62
E2
<.01
<.01
.02
16
13
<.01
<.01
.02
47
42
<.01
<.01
<.01
29
29
<.01
<.01
.01
9
8
<.01
<.01
.01
27
24
<.01
<.01
.01
40
39
<.01
<.01
.01
13
10
<.01
<.01
.01
36
32
<.01
<.01
<.01
19
19
<.01
<.01
<.01
6
6
<.01
<.01
.03
18
16
RADIONUCUDES
Gross Alpha IpCI/l)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
Gross Beta (pCi/ll
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samplea
samples below
detection
2
<1
10
13
6
6
<1
11
10
1
2
<1
22
27
17
3
<3
12
27
9
2
<1
20
34
20
3
<3
21
34
16
2
<1
18
31
23
3
<3
14
31
16
2
<1
9
28
16
<3
<3
6
28
14
2
<1
11
47
33
<3
<3
10
44
16
3
<1
12
47
23
3
<3
11
43
13
3
<1
17
23
13
3
<3
19
23
11
3
<1
13
47
23
<3
<3
11
43
13
3
<1
22
40
18
<3
<3
16
37
16
2
<1
16
49
24
<3
<3
16
46
22
1
<1
11
29
22
<3
<3
11
27
12
2
<1
9
40
20
3
<3
14
37
17
2
<1
16
19
14
<3
<3
13
19
14
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics * C-9
TABLE C-1. SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE
SURFACE WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
Parameter
Bolster Creek
SW-3
SW-11
SW-1 2
SW-13
SW-1 4
Ethel
Creek
SW-6
Gold Creek
SW-4 | SW-10
Marias Creek
SW-2
SW-8
Nicholson Creek
SW-1
SW-S
SW-7
SW-9
CYANIDE
Cyanide (mo/1, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
<.002
<.002
.003
4
3
<.002
<.002
<.002
20
20
<.002
<.002
.01
24
21
<.002
<.002
.01
2E
21
<.002
<.002
.003
21
18
<.002
<.002
.003
26
24
<.002
<.002
.01
27
23
.002
<.002
.02
14
12
.002
<.002
.029
26
23
<.002
<.002
.004
26
23
<.002
<.002
.003
27
26
<.002
<.002
.003
21
18
<.002
<.002
.003
26
22
<.002
<.002
<.002
12
12
Cyanide (mg/l. WAD)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samplea
samples below
detection
-
0
<.002
<.002
<.002
20
20
<.002
<-002
<.002
23
23
<.002
<.002
.006
24
23
<.002
<.002
.002
21
20
<.002
<.002
.003
22
21
<.002
<.002
.003
22
20
<.002
<.002
.002
13
12
<.002
<.002
.002
22
21
<.002
<.002
.002
23
22
<.002
<.002
.02
24
23
<.002
<.002
<.002
20
20
<.002
<.002
.002
23
21
<.002
<.002
<.002
12
12
Notes: 1 . To calculate means (arithmetic averages), concentrations below detection limit are assumed to equal % detection limit value. Detection limits for some
parameters changed during the monitoring period as shown in Table 3. 6. 6, Water Quality Analytical Methods and Standards.
2. Data qualified as suspect or anomalous by the reviewer are not included in summary statistics.
3. Total trace metals were analyzed in unfiltered samples and dissolved trace metals were analyzed in filtered samples.
4. Parameters isted are those that occurred at concentrations above detection limits, one or more times, at the majority of ground water, surface water or
spring and seep stationa. Baseline cyanide reaulta are included due to regulatory concerns.
6. Table includes data collected through October 1996.
6. Station SW-3 was discontinued in June 1992 and replaced by Stations SW-1 2 and SW-13. Water quality data from SW-3 are considered acceptable and
accurate.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics 4 C-10
TABLE C-2. SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE
GROUND WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS - HISTORIC MINE WORKINGS
Parameter
Buckhom Adit
Gold Axe Adit
Lower Magnetic Adit
Upper Magnetic Adit
Roosevelt Adit
GENERAL AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Conductance (//mhos/cm, field)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
386
331
506
28
0
821
615
1023
19
0
497
292
908
30
0
535
523
547
3
0
292
239
346
36
0
Conductance (//mhos/cm, laboratory)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
398
319
464
30
0
811
673
1019
5
0
460
266
594
8
0
512
444
597
5
0
303
177
372
32
0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l, field)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
9.9
6.0
11.7
30
0
8.9
5
12.8
19
0
8.9
6.0
11.3
29
0
8.3
6.4
9.6
5
0
9.0
6.0
10.5
35
0
Hardness (mg/l as CaCO,)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
211
176
241
30
0
470
389
590
5
0
267
179
329
8
0
290
255
334
5
0
153
133
170
32
0
pH (su, field)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
7.7
6.1
8.3
23
0
6.3
4.9
7.5
19
0
7.6
5.9
8.5
31
0
7.4
6.9
8.2
4
0
7.8
7.1
8.6
39
0
pH (su, laboratory)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
8.1
7.6
8.6
29
0
5.8
5.5
6.4
4
0
8.0
7.7
8.2
7
0
7.4
6.2
El. 3
5
0
8.0
7.2
8.5
30
0
Silica (mg/l. dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
22.3
20.3
33.8
33.2
22.0
20.4
23.0
19.4
19.5
18.0
Notes: 1 . To calculate means (arithmetic averages), concentrations below detection limit are assumed to equal Vi detection limit
value. Detection limits for some parameters changed during the monitoring period as shown in Table 3. 6. 6, Water
Quality Analytical Methods and Standards.
2. Data qualified as suspect or anomalous by the reviewer are not included in summary statistics.
3. Total trace metals were analyzed in unfiltered samples and dissolved trace metals were analyzed in filtered samples.
4. Parameters listed are those that occurred at concentrations above detection limits, one or more times, at the majority of
ground water, surface water, or spring and seep stations. Baseline cyanide results are included due to regulatory
concerns.
5. Table includes data collected through October 1 995.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics + C-11
TABLE C-2. SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE
GROUND WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS - HISTORIC MINE WORKINGS
Parameter
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
Temperature (°C, Held)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
Buckhom Adit
24.6
29
0
Gold Axe Adit
34.6
3
0
Lower Magnetic Adit
22.9
6
0
4.5
.1
6.3
30
N/A
Total Dissolved Solids (mg/l)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
249
200
284
30
0
3.9
1.1
12.7
19
N/A
4.2
.1
8.2
31
N/A
Upper Magnetic Adit
27.4
4
0
Roosevelt Adit
21.0
32
0
6.6
4.1
8.1
5
N/A
8.2
6.5
9.2
41
N/A
707
567
842
5
0
319
194
400
8
0
383
316
458
5
0
186
156
230
32
0
Total Suspended Solids (mg/l)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<5
<5
12
30
22
6
6
6
1
0
3
<2
6
4
2
3
<2
8
3
2
<5
<5
22
32
23
CATIONS
Calcium (mg/l)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
74
62
85
30
0
144
115
185
5
0
97
65
120
8
0
102
90
117
5
0
52
45
58
32
0
Magnesium (mg/l)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
6
5
7
30
0
26
23
31
5
0
6
4
7
8
0
9
7
10
5
0
6
5
6
32
0
Potassium (mg/l)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
Sodium (mg/l)
mean value
minimum value
2
1
2
30
0
5
4
6
5
0
1
1
1
8
0
1
.8
3
5
0
1
<1
1
32
1
2
2
4
3
2
1
2
2
3
3
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics + C-12
TABLE C-2, SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE
GROUND WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS - HISTORIC MINE WORKINGS
Parameter
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
Buckhorn Adit
2
30
0
Gold Axe Adit
4
5
0
Lower Magnetic Adit
2
8
0
Upper Magnetic Adit
2
5
0
Roosevelt Adit
4
32
0
ANIONS
Alkalinity (mg/l, as CaCO3)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
179
134
212
30
0
6
3
7
5
0
181
172
222
8
0
116
38
174
5
0
126
76
172
32
0
Chloride (mg/l)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<1
<1
2
30
26
1
<1
2
5
2
<1
<1
2
8
5
<1
<:1
1
6
4
<1
<1
2
32
27
Fluoride (mg/l)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<.1
<.1
.2
30
19
.19
.17
.2
5
0
<.1
<.1
<.1
8
8
<.1
<.l
.1
5
3
<.1
<.1
.1
32
17
Sulfate (mg/l)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
39
19
84
30
0
450
372
547
5
O
85
2
140
8
O
174
105
292
5
O
35
4
80
32
O
Sulflde (mg/l)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<.02
<-02
.03
30
26
.04
.04
.04
1
0
<.02
<.02
.03
4
3
.02
<.02
.04
3
2
<.02
•C.02
.04
31
29
NUTRIENTS
Ammonia (mg/l as N)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<.05
<.05
.16
30
24
<.05
<.05
.07
3
2
<.05
<.05
<.05
6
6
<.05
<.05
<.05
4
4
<.05
<.05
.07
32
28
Nitrate & Nitrite (mg/l as N)
mean value
minimum value
.55
.36
1.06
.83
.54
.26
.19
.14
.43
.33
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics 4 C-13
TABLE C-2, SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE
GROUND WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS - HISTORIC MINE WORKINGS
Parameter
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
Buckhom Adit
.72
30
0
Gold Axe Adit
1.33
3
0
Lower Magnetic Adit
.77
6
0
Upper Magnetic Adit
.27
4
0
Roosevelt Adit
.59
32
0
TRACE METALS/ELEMENTS
Aluminum (mg/l, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<.05
•C.05
<.05
11
11
.18
.18
.18
1
0
<.05
<.05
<.05
2
2
<.05
<.05
<.05
2
2
<.05
<.05
<.05
12
12
Aluminum (mg/l, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
•C.05
<.05
<.05
30
30
.15
.10
.19
4
0
<.05
<.05
<.05
7
7
<-05
<-05
.07
4
3
<.05
<.05
.06
32
28
Arsenic (mg/l, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
.026
.022
.029
11
0
<.001
<.001
<.001
1
1
.001
<.001
.002
2
1
<.001
<.001
<.001
2
2
.004
.002
.006
12
0
Arsenic (mg/l, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
.024
<.001
.033
30
1
<.001
<.001
.001
5
4
<.001
<.001
.002
8
5
<.001
<.O01
<.001
5
f>
.004
.002
.008
32
0
Barium (mg/l, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<.01
<.01
<.01
11
11
.01
.01
.01
1
0
<.01
<.01
<.01
2
2
<.01
<.01
<.01
2
2
<.01
<.01
<.01
12
12
Barium (mg/l, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<.01
<.01
<.01
30
30
<.01
<.01
.01
5
1
<.01
<.01
.01
8
7
<.01
<.01
<.01
5
5
<.01
<.01
<.01
32
32
Boron (mg/l, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
<.02
<.02
.02
<.02
<.02
<.02
<.02
<.02
<.02
<.02
<.02
<.02
<.02
<.02
.02
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics • C-14
TABLE C-2, SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE
GROUND WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS - HISTORIC MINE WORKINGS
Parameter
number of samples
samples below detection
Buckhom Adit
30
28
Gold Axe Adit
1
1
Lower Magnetic Adit
4
4
Upper Magnetic Adit
3
3
Roosevelt Adit
32
31
Chromium (mg/l, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
sample* below detection
<.01
<.01
<.01
11
11
•C.01
•C.01
<.01
1
1
<.01
<.01
<.01
2
2
•C.01
•C.01
< 01
2
2
<.01
•C.01
<.01
12
12
Chromium (mg/l, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<.01
<.01
<.01
30
30
•C.01
<.01
<.01
1
1
<.01
<.01
•C.01
4
4
•C.01
<.01
<.01
3
3
<.01
<.01
<.01
32
32
Copper (mg/l, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
•C.01
<.01
<.01
11
11
1.21
1.21
1.21
1
0
<.01
<.01
•C.01
2
2
<.01
<.01
•C.01
2
2
•C.01
<.01
<.01
12
12
Copper (mg/l, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<.01
<.01
.03
30
29
.88
.51
1.18
5
0
•C.01
•C.01
.01
8
6
.05
<.01
1
5
2
<.01
<.01
.02
32
30
Iron (mg/l, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
.03
<.02
.22
11
10
.16
.16
.16
1
0
.04
.03
.05
2
0
.51
.16
.86
2
0
•C.02
<.02
.06
12
11
Iron (mg/l, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<.02
<,02
<.02
30
30
.04
•C.02
.1
4
2
•C.02
<.02
<.02
7
7
.16
<-02
.56
4
1
<.02
<.02
.08
32
29
Manganese (mg/l, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<.01
•C.01
<.01
12
12
.99
.99
.99
1
0
•C.01
<.01
•C.01
2
2
02
<.01
03
2
1
<.01
<.01
<.01
12
12
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics • C-/5
TABLE C-2, SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE
GROUND WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS - HISTORIC MINE WORKINGS
Parameter
Buckhorn Adit
Gold Axe Adit
Lower Magnetic Adit
Upper Magnetic Adit
Roosevelt Adit
Mangamw Img/l, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<.01
<.01
.02
30
29
.98
.82
1.06
4
0
<.01
<.01
.01
8
7
.10
<.01
.27
5
2
<.01
<.01
•C.01
32
32
Molybdenum (mg/l, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
•C.05
<.05
<.05
11
9
<.05
<.05
<.05
1
1
•C.05
<.05
<.05
2
2
<.05
<.05
<.05
2
2
•C.05
<.05
•C.05
12
11
Molybdenum (mg/l, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<.05
<.05
<.05
30
27
<.05
<.05
<.05
1
1
<.05
<.05
<.05
4
4
•C.05
<.05
•C.05
3
3
•C.05
<.05
<.05
32
30
Selenium (mg/l, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<.001
<.001
.001
11
7
.002
.002
.002
1
0
.001
<.001
.002
2
1
•C.001
<.001
.001
2
1
•C.001
•C.001
.002
12
5
Selenium (mg/l, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<.001
<.001
.002
29
23
.002
.002
.002
1
0
<.001
<.001
.001
4
2
<.001
<.O01
.001
3
1
<.OO2
<.002
<.002
31
21
Strontium (mg/l, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
.20
.18
.21
11
0
.18
.18
.18
1
0
.10
.09
.10
2
0
.12
.10
.14
2
0
.15
.13
.17
12
0
Strontium (mg/l, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
.19
.13
.22
30
0
.16
.13
.19
5
0
.10
.08
.11
8
0
.11
.10
.14
5
0
.15
.13
.17
32
0
Vanadium (mg/l, total)
mean value
<.01
<.01
<.01
•C.01
•C.01
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics 4 C-16
TABLE C-2, SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE
GROUND WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS - HISTORIC MINE WORKINGS
Parameter
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
Buckhom Adit
<.01
.01
11
10
Gold Axe Adit
<.01
<.01
1
1
Lower Magnetic Adit
<.01
<.01
2
2
Upper Magnetic Adit
<.01
<.01
2
2
Roosevelt Adit
<.01
<.01
12
12
Vanadium (mg/l, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<.01
<.01
.01
30
29
<.01
<.01
<.01
1
1
<.01
<.01
<.01
4
4
<.01
<.01
<.01
3
3
<.01
<.01
<.01
32
32
Zinc (mg/l, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<.01
<.01
.02
11
9
.41
.41
.41
1
0
<.01
<.01
.01
2
1
.03
.01
.05
2
0
<.01
<.01
<.01
12
12
Zinc (mg/l, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<.01
<.01
.04
27
24
.36
.26
.49
4
0
<.01
<.01
.01
6
5
.02
<.01
.05
6
1
<.01
<.01
.03
28
24
RADIONUCLIDES
Grow Alpha (pCi/l)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
2
<1
14
30
18
1
<1
3
3
2
1
<1
2
7
4
<1
<1
<1
4
4
2
<1
9
32
17
Gross Beta IpCi/l)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<3
<3
8
29
13
4
<3
7
4
1
<3
<3
3
5
2
<3
<3
4
4
1
<3
<3
7
31
19
CYANIDE
Cyanide (mg/l, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
Cyanide (mg/l, WAD)
mean value
<.002
•C.002
.002
20
17
<.O02
<.002
<.002
1
1
<.002
<.O02
<.002
4
4
<.002
•C.002
<.002
3
3
<.O02
<.002
<.002
<.002
<.O02
<.002
<.OO2
20
20
<.002
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics 4 C-17
TABLE C-2, SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE
GROUND WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS - HISTORIC MINE WORKINGS
Parameter
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
Buckhorn Adit
<.002
<.002
20
20
Gold Axe Adit
•C.002
<.O02
1
1
Lower Magnetic Adit
<.002
<.002
4
4
Upper Magnetic Adit
<.OO2
.002
3
2
Roosevelt Adit
<.002
<.002
20
20
Notes: 1 . To calculate means (arithmetic averages), concentrations below detection limit are assumed to equal % detection limit
value. Detection limits for some parameters changed during the monitoring period as shown in Table 3.6.6, Water
Quality Analytical Methods and Standards.
2. Data qualified as suspect or anomalous by the reviewer are not included in summary statistics.
3. Total trace metals were analyzed in unfiltered samples and dissolved trace metals were analyzed in filtered samples.
4. Parameters listed are those that occurred at concentrations above detection limits, one or more times, at the majority ol
ground water, surface water, or spring and seep stations. Baseline cyanide results are included due to regulatory
concerns.
5. Table includes data collected through October 1 995.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics + C-18
TABLE C-3, SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE
GROUND WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
MONITORING WELLS
PARAMETER
BEDROCK MONITORING WELL
MW-1
MW-2
MW-6
GLACIAL SEDIMENTS MONITORING WELL
MW-3
MW-4
MW-6
MW-7
MW-8
MW-9
GENERAL AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Conductance (pmhoa/cm. field)
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
Conductance (pmhos/cm. laboratory)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
Dissolved Oxygen Img/l. field)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
Hardness (mg/l as CaCO,)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of aamples
samples below detection
pH (su. field)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
pH (su. laboratory)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
214
126
260
36
0
230
184
297
36
0
6.4
3.1
7.7
33
0
32
13
167
37
0
8.6
8.0
9.2
31
0
8.6
7.O
9.1
34
0
194
166
246
36
0
198
148
268
34
0
328
288
418
36
0
337
268
494
36
0
261
214
299
37
0
266
210
292
38
0
9.4
4.E
12.3
34
0
93
69
126
36
0
7.1
6.2
8.0
31
0
7.4
6.9
8.2
34
0
7.6
4.1
11.6
34
0
171
146
219
36
0
7.6
7.0
8.3
32
0
7.7
7.1
8.4
36
0
8.7
6.9
10.3
33
0
131
110
176
38
0
7.6
7.0
8.3
36
0
7.8
7.4
8.4
37
0
366
319
412
36
0
366
306
406
36
0
172
144
216
37
0
178
131
216
38
0
290
226
362
36
0
300
220
337
38
0
468
360
638
31
0
477
328
677
36
0
7.7
4.2
10.0
33
0
188
164
214
36
0
7.6
6.9
8.1
34
0
7.8
7.2
8.4
36
0
8.3
4.8
10.6
36
0
6.2
2.3
9.8
34
0
86
68
130
38
0
6.7
6.0
7.6
32
0
7.2
6.6
8.0
37
0
161
126
187
38
0
7.0
6.4
8.2
33
0
7.3
6.8
8.3
36
0
9.3
4.9
13.3
36
0
236
181
281
36
0
7.4
6.6
8.1
33
O
7.8
7.1
8.6
36
0
302
229
372
37
0
310
216
371
37
0
6.2
3.6
9.9
33
0
168
26
241
37
0
6.8
6.2
7.6
30
O
7.3
6.7
8.2
36
0
GENERAL AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Silica (ma/1, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
11.0
9.6
21.9
37
0
26.2
23.3
28.7
36
0
28.6
26.0
36.2
36
0
21.0
19.0
23.7
38
0
21.6
18.1
26.3
36
0
29.0
26.2
33.3
38
0
26.2
.2
29.6
38
0
17.4
16.6
20.2
36
0
23.4
4
27.3
37
0
Notes: 1. To calculate means, concentrations below detection limit are assumed to equal % detection limit value. Detection limits for some parameters
changed during the monitoring period as shown in Table 3. 6. 6. Water Quality Analytical Methods and Standards.
2. Data qualified as suspect or anomalous by the reviewer are not included in summary statistics.
3. Total trace metals were analyzed in unfiltered samples and dissolved trace metals were analyzed in filtered samples.
4. Parameters listed are those that typically occurred in groundwataer at concentrations above detection limits. Baseline cyanide results are included
due to regulatory concerna.
6. Table includes data collected through October 1996.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix C * Hydro/ogle Summary Statistics • C-19
TABLE C-3. SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE
GROUND WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
MONITORING WELLS
PARAMETER
Temperature CC. field)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
Total Dissolved Solids (mg/ll
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
Total Suspended Solids (mg/l)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
BEDROCK MONITORING WELL
MW-1
6.9
6.1
7.8
36
N/A
127
100
164
37
0
MW-2
6.6
4.3
7.0
36
N/A
121
92
160
34
0
18
<5
9O
37
4
74
<2
1108
33
3
MW-6
6.0
4.0
7.2
37
N/A
208
164
260
36
0
8
<6
30
36
9
CATIONS
Calcium (mg/l)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
Megnesium (mg/l)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
Potassium (mg/1)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
Sodium (mg/l)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
9
4
63
37
0
2
<1
6
37
1
<1
<1
1
37
29
29
21
39
36
0
6
4
9
36
0
2
1
2
36
0
68
48
73
36
0
7
2
9
36
0
2
1
2
36
0
GLACIAL SEDIMENTS MONITORING WELL
MW-3
6.9
6.1
8.1
38
N/A
164
116
204
38
0
MW-4
6.7
6.8
8.4
37
N/A
219
190
266
36
0
64
<2
340
37
2
221
<2
748
36
1
MW-6
MW-7
6.8
4.8
8.4
37
N/A
112
76
160
38
0
6.7
3.1
8.4
37
N/A
MW-8
6.2
6.6
7.4
37
N/A
186
146
224
38
0
310
6
930
38
0
396
<2
1000
38
1
289
234
344
36
0
81
10
364
36
0
MW-9
6.7
3.3
8.6
37
N/A
189
100
36
0
22
<6
274
36
40
33
69
38
0
7
6
9
38
0
<1
<1
1
38
12
69
61
66
36
0
10
8
12
36
0
1
<1
2
36
3
26
19
42
38
0
6
6
7
38
0
1
<1
2
2
42
4
61
37
0
4
3
12
36
0
3
3
6
36
0
6
4
10
38
0
9
7
12.4
0
ANIONS
Akellnlty (mg/l. as CaCO3)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
112
82
136
37
0
86
70
112
36
0
6
49
40
66
38
0
7
6
8
38
0
1
2
6
73
66
88
36
0
2
16
36
0
0
12
63
7
88
1
7
2
4
136
114
178
36
0
131
84
198
38
0
188
144
229
36
0
90
64
38
0
O
0
176
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics • C-20
TABLE C-3. SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE
GROUND WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
MONITORING WELLS
PARAMETER
BEDROCK MONITORING WELL
MW-1
MW-2 | MW-6
GLACIAL SEDIMENTS MONITORING WELL
MW-3
MW-4
MW-6
MW-7
MW-8
MW-9
Chloride (mg/ll
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
1
<1
3
37
10
1
<1
4
36
18
1
<1
2
36
7
1
<1
9
38
26
<1
<1
2
36
23
<1
<1
2
38
24
<1
<1
2
38
24
4
<1
64
36
1
1
<1
16
37
26
Fluoride (mg/ll
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
.2
<.1
.3
37
1
<-1
<.1
.2
36
9
<.1
<.1
.7
36
18
.2
.2
1
38
0
.3
.1
.4
36
0
.2
<.1
.7
38
1
.2
<.1
.2
38
2
.3
.2
.6
36
0
<.1
<.1
.3
37
13
Sulfate (mo/11
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
12
<10
41
37
9
18
<10
60
36
3
40
6
80
36
0
13
<10
47
38
7
20
4
61
36
0
11
<10
49
38
10
32
8
70
38
0
38
10
78
36
0
33
<2
80
37
1
Sulfkte (mg/ll
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
.04
<.02
.18
36
22
.06
•C.02
.30
33
16
<.02
<.02
.10
36
23
.03
<.02
.3
36
21
.06
<.02
.29
33
14
.13
<.02
.80
36
14
.06
<.02
.71
36
21
.08
<.02
.63
34
18
.02
<.02
.12
36
28
NUTRIENTS
Ammonie (mg/l as N)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<.OB
<.OB
.12
37
29
<.06
•C.06
.09
36
26
<.06
<.06
.12
36
23
<.OB
<.06
.11
38
28
.26
<.06
.49
36
1
<.06
<.06
.28
38
27
<.06
<.06
.10
38
30
<.06
<.06
.12
36
24
<.O6
<.05
.10
37
33
Nitrate & Nitrite (mg/l el N)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
.06
<.02
.38
37
16
1.16
.91
2.60
34
0
1.64
<.02
3.60
36
1
.13
.06
.36
38
0
.20
.13
.84
36
0
.06
<.O2
.29
38
2
.11
<.02
.62
38
6
.26
.02
1.07
35
0
.16
<.02
1.63
36
3
TRACE METALS/ELEMENTS
Aluminum (mg/l, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
1.10
.62
2.34
7
0
3.86
.16
23.30
8
0
.11
<.06
.21
8
1
.47
<.06
.98
8
2
3.E
<.06
13
8
1
6.6
1.1
14.7
8
0
1.2
.07
1.8
8
0
6.8
2.1
11.1
7
0
1.3
.21
4.16
7
0
Aluminum (mg/1. dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
<.06
<.06
.08
37
26
<.05
<.06
.23
36
24
<.06
<.06
<.06
36
34
<.06
<.06
.08
38
30
<.06
<.06
.10
36
27
<.06
<.06
.22
38
22
<.06
<.06
.14
38
32
<.06
<.06
.09
36
30
<.OB
<.06
.13
37
33
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics • C-21
TABLE C-3, SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE
GROUND WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
MONITORING WELLS
PARAMETER
Arsenic (me/1, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of aamplea
samples below detection
Arsenic (mg/l, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
Barium (ma/1, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
Barium (mg/l. dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
Boron (mo/1, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
Chromium tmg/1, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
Chromium (mg/l. dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
Copper (mg/l, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
Copper (mg/l. dissolved)
mean value
BEDROCK MONITORING WELL
MW-1
.006
<.001
.008
7
1
.006
.002
.011
37
0
.03
.02
.04
7
0
.02
<.01
.03
37
3
<.02
•C.02
.08
37
32
<.01
<.01
.01
7
6
<.01
<-01
.01
36
36
MW-2
.009
.002
.046
8
0
.003
.001
.006
36
0
.04
.01
.23
8
0
•C.01
<.01
.03
36
22
<.02
<-02
.04
36
31
<-01
<.01
.03
8
6
<-01
<.01
.01
36
34
MW-S
.003
•e.ooi
.004
8
1
.004
<.001
.007
36
2
<.01
<.01
.01
8
6
<.01
<.01
.01
36
27
<.02
<.02
<.02
36
36
<.01
<.01
<.01
8
8
<.01
<.01
.01
36
36
.01
<.01
.04
7
2
<.01
.03
<-01
.13
8
2
<.01
<.01
<.01
.01
8
6
<.01
GLACIAL SEDIMENTS MONITORING WELL
MW-3
.002
<.001
.003
8
1
.002
<.001
.004
37
3
<.01
<.01
.01
8
4
<.01
<.01
.01
38
29
MW-4
.024
.007
.041
8
0
.031
.008
.044
36
0
.06
.02
.14
8
0
.03
.02
.03
36
0
<.02
<.02
.03
38
37
<.01
<.01
.01
8
7
<.01
<.01
.01
38
37
<.02
<.02
.03
36
35
MW-6
.004
<.001
.008
8
2
<.001
<.001
.001
38
36
.07
.02
.17
8
0
<.01
<.01
.02
38
24
<.02
<.02
.02
38
37
.01
<.01
.03
8
4
<.01
<.01
.01
36
36
<.01
<.01
.01
8
7
<.01
.01
<.01
.04
8
4
<.01
.01
<.01
.03
8
4
<.01
<.01
<.01
38
38
.02
<.01
.06
8
1
<.01
MW-7
.003
<.001
.004
8
1
.002
<.001
.004
37
6
.02
.01
.03
8
0
<.01
<.01
.03
38
12
<.02
<.02
<.02
38
38
<.01
<.01
.01
8
6
<.01
<.01
<.01
38
38
MW-8
.003
<.001
.010
7
1
<.001
<.001
.003
36
26
.08
.06
.12
7
0
.03
<.01
.04
36
1
<-02
•C.02
.03
36
34
.01
<.01
.02
7
1
<.O1
<.01
.01
36
35
MW-9
.004
.002
.008
7
0
.002
<.001
.006
38
3
.02
.01
.06
7
0
<.01
<.01
.02
37
23
<.02
<.02
<.02
37
37
<.01
<.01
.01
7
6
<-01
<.01
<-01
37
37
<.01
<.01
.01
8
3
<.01
.02
<.O1
.03
7
2
<.01
<-01
<.01
.01
7
4
<.01
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics 4 C-22
TABLE C-3, SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE
GROUND WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
MONITORING WELLS
PARAMETER
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
•ample* below detection
Iron (mg/l total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of •amplea
samples below detection
Iron (mg/l. dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
Mangenese (mg/l. total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
Manganese (mg/l, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
Molybdenum (mg/l, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
Molybdenum (mg/l, dissolved)
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
Selenium (mg/l, total)
number of samples
samples below detection
BEDROCK MONITORING WELL
MW-1
<.01
.06
37
36
1.36
.71
2.87
7
0
<.02
<.02
.07
36
24
.02
<.01
.06
7
1
<.01
<.01
.04
37
36
<.06
<.O6
<.06
7
7
<.06
<.06
<.06
37
37
<.001
<.001
<.001
7
7
<.001
<.001
.001
MW-2
<.01
.06
36
28
6.37
.17
36.00
8
0
.03
<.02
.21
36
21
.09
<.01
.66
8
1
.01
<.O1
19
36
24
<.06
<.O6
<.O6
8
8
<.06
<.06
<.06
36
36
.002
<.001
.007
8
6
MW-6
<.01
.03
36
33
.17
.03
.31
8
0
<.02
<.02
.16
36
30
<.01
<.01
.01
8
7
<.01
<.01
.01
36
36
<.06
<.06
<.06
8
8
<.06
<.06
<.06
36
36
.001
<,001
.006
8
6
<.001
<.001
.003
<.001
<.001
.003
GLACIAL SEDIMENTS MONITORING WELL
MW-3
<.01
.07
38
37
.61
<.02
1.27
8
2
<.02
<.02
.10
38
29
.02
<.01
.03
8
3
<.01
<.01
.01
38
32
MW-4
<.01
.01
36
34
6.08
<.02
19.10
8
1
<.02
<.02
.12
36
28
MW-6
<.01
.01
38
37
6.86
1.33
14.20
8
0
.03
<.02
.20
38
14
.66
.11
.93
8
0
.37
.07
.70
36
0
<.06
<.06
<.06
8
8
<.OB
<.06
<.06
38
30
<.06
<.06
<.06
8
8
<.06
<.06
<.06
36
29
.29
.06
.69
8
0
<.01
<.01
.11
38
31
<.06
<.OE
.06
8
7
<.06
<.06
<.06
38
38
<.001
<.001
.003
8
7
<.OO1
<.001
.001
<.001
<.001
.003
8
7
<.001
<.001
.002
•C.001
<.001
.002
7
6
<.OOI
•C.OOI
.002
MW-7
<.01
.03
38
36
1.70
.12
2.46
8
0
<.02
<.02
.09
38
24
.04
.02
.06
8
0
<.01
<.01
.03
38
22
<.06
<.06
<.O6
8
8
<.06
<.06
<.06
38
36
•e.001
<.001
.004
8
7
<.001
<.001
.002
MW-8
<.01
.03
36
33
8.28
2.99
14.40
7
0
<.02
<.02
.08
36
28
.31
.11
.48
7
0
.02
<.01
.17
36
31
<.06
<.06
<.06
7
7
<.05
<.06
<,06
36
36
<.001
<.001
.001
7
6
<.001
<.001
.001
MW-9
<.01
.03
37
36
2.18
.29
7.10
7
0
.06
<.02
.13
37
6
.09
.03
.18
7
0
.04
<.OI
.07
37
2
<.OB
<.06
<.06
7
7
<.06
<.06
<.06
37
36
<.OO1
<.001
.001
7
6
<.OO1
<.001
.006
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics + C-23
TABLE C-3, SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE
GROUND WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
MONITORING WELLS
PARAMETER
number of samples
samples below detection
Strontium (mo/I, total)
mean value
minimum value
maxtmum value
number of samples
samples below detection
Strontium (mo/1, dissolved!
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
Vanadium (mo/I, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
Vanadium (mo/I, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
Zinc (mo/I, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
Zinc (mo/I, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
BEDROCK MONITORING WELL
MW-1
37
35
.66
.47
.82
7
0
.68
.17
.80
37
0
<.O1
<.O1
.01
7
5
<.01
<.01
<.01
37
37
.02
<.01
.03
7
1
<.O1
<-01
<.01
32
32
MW-2
34
31
.11
.10
.18
8
0
.11
.08
.13
36
0
.01
<.01
.06
8
6
<.01
<.01
<.01
36
36
.06
.02
.14
8
0
<.01
<.01
.03
30
24
MW-6
36
27
.14
.11
.18
8
0
.19
.12
.24
36
0
<.01
<.01
<.01
8
8
<.01
<.01
<.01
36
36
<.01
<.01
.01
8
3
<.01
<.01
.07
31
29
MW-3
37
36
.21
.19
.22
8
0
.22
.19
.26
38
0
•C.01
<.01
.01
8
6
<.01
<.01
<.01
38
38
.01
<.01
.02
8
2
<.01
<.01
.02
33
29
GLACIAL SEDIMENTS MONITORING WELL
MW-4
36
36
.48
.38
.66
8
0
.49
.42
.64
36
0
.01
<.01
.04
8
3
<.01
<.01
.01
36
36
.03
<.01
.09
8
1
<.O1
<.01
.1
31
28
MW-6
38
34
.23
.13
.40
8
0
MW-7
38
34
.20
.18
.22
8
0
.17
.13
.19
38
0
.01
<.01
.03
8
2
<.01
<.01
<.01
38
38
.03
.01
.07
8
0
<.O1
<.01
.01
33
32
RADIONUCUDES
Gross Alpha (pCI/ll
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below detection
Dross Beta (pCI/1)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
4
<1
10
37
6
<3
<3
10
37
.20
.17
.24
38
0
<.01
<-01
.01
8
6
<.01
<.01
<.01
38
38
.01
<.O1
.03
8
1
<.01
<.01
.03
33
26
MW-8
36
36
.62
.45
.62
7
0
.47
.38
.54
36
0
.01
<.01
.03
7
2
<.01
<.01
<.01
36
36
.03
.01
.06
7
O
<.01
<.01
<.01
32
32
MW-9
37
32
.18
.16
.21
7
0
.18
.16
.21
36
0
<.01
<.01
.02
7
6
<.01
<.01
<.01
37
37
.01
<.01
.02
7
1
<-01
<.01
.03
32
26
3
<1
19
36
17
3
<3
22
36
2
<1
9
37
23
<3
<3
6
37
3
<1
9
38
12
<3
<3
10
37
3
<1
11
36
16
3
<3
11
36
4
<1
17.4
38
8
6
<3
21.4
38
3
<1
17
37
12
4
<3
33
37
6
<1
14
36
7
6
<3
12
36
2
<1
8
37
16
<3
<3
9
36
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics 4 C-24
TABLE C-3. SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE
GROUND WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
MONITORING WELLS
PARAMETER
samples below detection
BEDROCK MONITORING WELL
MW-1
13
MW-2
12
MW-6
13
GLACIAL SEDIMENTS MONITORING WELL
MW-3
17
MW-4
10
MW-6
7
MW-7
11
MW-8
7
MW-9
18
CYANIDE AND OROANICS
Cyanide (mo/1, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samptes
samples below detection
Cyanide (ma/1, WAD)
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samptes below detection
Total Organic Carbon (mg/l)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
samples below detection
.002
<.002
.03
26
22
.003
<.002
.04
26
23
4
<1
63
37
18
<.002
<.002
.004
26
22
<.002
<.002
.002
26
23
3
1
11
34
0
<.002
<.002
.003
24
23
<.002
<.002
.002
24
23
2
<1
7
36
12
<.002
<.002
.002
26
23
<.002
<.002
.002
26
23
1
<1
10
37
26
<.002
<.002
.003
26
23
<.002
<.002
.003
26
24
2
<1
6
36
6
<.002
<.002
.008
26
22
<.002
<.002
.004
26
23
3
1
6
37
0
•C.002
<.002
.002
26
24
<.002
<.002
.002
26
24
3
1
8
37
0
<.002
<.002
.01
26
21
<.002
<.002
.002
24
22
6
<1
77
36
1
<.002
<.002
.003
24
22
<.002
<.002
.002
24
23
3
<1
9
37
2
Notn: 1 . To calculate mean*, concentrations below detection limit are assumed to equal % detection limit value. Detection limits for some parameters
changed during the monitoring period as shown in Table 3. S. S, Water Quality Analytical Methods and Standards.
2. Data qualified as suspect or anomalous by the reviewer are not included in summary statistics.
3. Total trace metals were analyzed in unfiltered samples and dissolved trace metals were analyzed in filtered samples.
4. Parameters listed are those that typically occurred in groundwataer at concentrations above detection limits. Baiieline cyanide results are included
due to regulatory concern*.
6. Table includes data collected through October 1996.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics 4 C-25
TABLE C-4, SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE SEEP AND SPRING WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
Parameter
Bolatar Creak
8N-12^
SN-14
SN-16
8N-17
Ethel Creak
JJ-23
JJ-24
JJ-26
Gold Creek
SN-6
SN-7
Merle* Creek
JJ-3
JJ-6
JJ-10
JJ-14
JJ-1E
JJ-26
Nicholson Creek
JJ-18
JJ-20
JJ-21
SN-3
SN-4
SN-6
SN-16
Unnamed
JJ-1
JJ-2
GENERAL AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Conductance (jfmhos/cm, field)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of aamples
samplea below
detection
Conductance Ornhos/cm,
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
417
393
461
7
0
433
416
466
6
0
387
369
409
6
0
417
387
466
6
0
216
191
266
8
0
307
264
330
7
0
473
438
617
E
0
3E1
193
399
8
0
201
18E
233
E
0
394
347
428
8
0
279
237
326
8
0
393
369
433
7
0
291
233
413
8
0
368
289
400
7
0
343
309
382
7
0
309
234
377
7
0
306
289
339
7
0
466
427
486
7
0
130
102
186
6
0
146
116
202
6
0
189
128
243
7
0
186
79
244
8
0
346
308
364
4
0
249
233
267
7
0
laboratory)
428
372
469
7
0
447
363
5EO
8
0
398
339
431
7
0
441
391
483
7
0
210
192
228
8
0
313
282
360
8
0
472
436
616
6
0
387
344
424
7
0
20E
182
231
3
0
392
363
444
8
0
276
218
328
8
0
38E
363
422
8
0
274
228
432
8
0
372
332
416
8
0
334
287
391
8
0
306
208
360
8
0
304
261
343
8
0
464
416
489
7
0
126
113
162
6
0
140
119
184
6
0
196
134
264
7
0
187
81
243
8
0
362
326
6
0
263
233
272
7
0
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l, field)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
8.6
7.7
9.7
8
0
8.2
6.6
11.0
7
0
9.1
7.6
10.7
7
0
9.6
7.9
11.2
7
0
10.7
0.0
11.1
7
0
9.7
8.0
11.7
7
0
8.5
8
9.2
E
0
9.9
7.8
11.8
8
0
8.1
E.2
9.8
6
0
10.0
8.6
10.9
6
0
10
4.2
17.7
0
9.6
6.0
10.9
0
6.2
1.B
9.9
0
9.6
0.0
10.0
0
9.4
6.2
10.6
0
8.0
0.7
9.6
7
0
E.E
1.3
7.6
7
0
9.1
7.4
11.0
6
0
6.7
0.1
11.1
6
0
9.6
7.6
10.2
6
0
7.9
6.3
9.6
7
0
10.2
6.8
12.4
7
0
9.7
8.4
11.4
4
0
8.9
8.3
9.3
6
0
Hardness (mg/l as CaCO,)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
pH (su, field)
mean value
minimum value
239
173
266
7
0
7.7
7.2
248
176
284
8
0
7.8
7.4
226
207
246
7
0
7.9
7.6
242
174
297
7
0
7.8
7.4
103
90
116
8
0
7.6
6.4
167
138
186
8
0
7.3
6.7
280
261
294
E
0
207
184
233
7
0
7.3
6.E
7.B
6.2
92
80
101
3
0
213
194
241
8
0
144
126
166
8
0
198
168
217
8
0
128
96
227
8
0
208
190
219
8
0
187
167
211
8
0
16E
127
192
8
0
1E3
14E
160
8
0
249
226
291
7
0
7.4
6.3
7.1
6.6
8.2
7.4
7.9
7.6
7.8
7
7.9
7.6
7.9
7.6
7.3
7.1
7.4
6.9
7.0
6.3
62
62
86
6
0
6.8
E.9
64
EE
76
E
0
7.3
6.6
90
60
116
7
0
7.3
6.7
90
4E
120
8
0
7.7
7.4
176
1E2
E
0
7.6
126
103
7
0
6.6
Notes: 1 . To calculate means, concentrations below detection limit are assumed to equal H detection limit value. Detection limits for some parameters changed during the monitoring period as shown in Tibia 3. 6. 6. Water Quality Analytical Mtthodi and Standards
2. Data qualified as suspect or anomalous by the reviewer are not included in summary statistics.
3. Total tract metals were analyzed in unfiltered samplea and dissolved trace metals were analyzed in filtered samples.
4. Parameters listed are those that occurred at concentrations above detection limits, one or more times, at the majority of ground water, surface water, or spring and seep stations. Baseline cyanide results are included due to regulatory concerns)
5. Table includes data collected through October 1996.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics » C-26
TARI F n-4 SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE SEEP AND SPRING WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
Parameter
samples b«low
samples below
samples below
samples below
samples below
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
58
SN-17
0
0
0
0
0
10
8.1
0
6.2
8
0
19.3
20.3
0
6.9
8
0
150
0
10
0
6.6
0
21.7
19.8
0
0
192
0
<2
JJ-26
0
0
16. 1
0
SN-6
0
0
21.7
0
8.2
0
0
8
0
210
0
18
8.2
0
7.6
7.6
0
24.7
24.2
0
2.8
0
126
134
0
JJ-3
0
7.6
6.2
6
0
18.3
0
0
203
0
<2
4
9.8
0
8.1
9.3
0
0
12.1
18.8
0
179
214
0
108
JJ-10
7
0
8.1
7.9
7
0
0
0
243
0
19
38
8.1
0
8.0
7.6
8.4
0
20.7
24.3
0
7.7
10.3
0
166
270
0
107
372
JJ-16
8.6
7
0
8.1
7.8
8.5
7
0
21.6
20.0
24.7
6
0
7.4
8.2
0
242
260
0
7
14
JJ-26
8.1
7
0
7.9
7.6
8.6
7
0
26.6
23.4
27.1
6
0
6.9
6.4
8.8
7
0
224
201
260
8
0
12
30
Nicholson Creek
JJ-18
7.8
7
0
7.9
7.6
8.6
7
0
24.4
22.9
26.6
6
0
7.1
6.3
8.7
8
0
186
162
236
8
0
4
10
JJ-20
7.8
0
7.7
8.6
0
16.0
14.1
16.8
8
0
6.6
6.6
7.6
8
0
183
160
210
0
2
6
JJ-21
7.6
6
0
7.6
6.4
8.0
0
22.7
21.2
23.6
6
0
6.2
6.8
7
0
280
310
7
0
17
48
SN-3
7.3
7.1
8.1
7.9
8
24.6
21.9
27.0
6
0
6.2
2.6
7.0
6
82
66
118
6
0
6
SN-4
5
7.3
6.1
6
29.6
4
0
90
68
110
4
7.8
7.6
8.1
6
27.3
33.7
7.2
1.6
10.2
7
70
168
7
3
8
5
7.6
7.9
7
3.6
<0.2
19.7
6
17.2
166
6
Unnamed
7.9
7.9
7.7
23.6
26.1
8.1
6
228
192
260
5
18
7.4
8.0
21.1
24.5
6
6.3
12.2
144
170
-------
January 1997
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics • C-27
TABLE C-4, SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE SEEP AND SPRING WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
Parameter
number of samples
samples below
detection
Bolster Creek
SN-12
3
1
SN-14
4
0
SN-16
3
1
SN-17
3
0
Ethel Craek
JJ-23
4
1
JJ-24
4
1
JJ-26
3
0
Gold Creek
SN-6
3
1
SN-7
1
0
Maries Creek
JJ-3
4
3
JJ-6
0
JJ-10
0
JJ-14
0
JJ-1E
2
JJ-26
0
JJ-18
4
2
JJ-20
4
3
Nicholson Creek
JJ-21
3
1
SN-3
4
1
SN-4
3
2
SN-6
4
2
SN-16
4
3
Unnamed
JJ-1
3
1
JJ-2
3
1
CATIONS
Calcium (mg/l)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
Magnesium (mg/l)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number-of samples
samples below
defection
Potassium (mg/l)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
Sodium (mg/l)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
89
82
94
7
0
7
6
7
7
0
1
<1
2
7
2
92
80
101
8
0
6
6
8
8
0
3
1
12
8
0
79
73
86
7
0
90
79
109
7
0
36
31
41
8
0
7
6
8
7
0
1
<1
3
7
2
3
3
4
7
0
6
5
8
8
0
6
4
7
7
0
6
5
7
7
0
2
1
2
7
0
3
3
4
8
0
2
2
3
8
0
69
48
67
8
0
4
4
E
8
0
2
2
3
8
0
103
96
107
6
0
6
e
7
5
0
1
1
2
6
0
7
6
8
7
0
6
5
8
8
0
7
6
9
8
0
4
3
4
e
0
73
65
82
7
0
29
26
32
3
0
64
49
62
8
0
6
5
7
7
0
3
2
4
7
0
4
3
5
7
0
4
4
6
3
0
2
2
2
3
0
7
7
7
3
0
19
17
21
8
0
2
1
2
8
0
9
8
12
8
0
46
40
51
8
0
82
65
67
8
0
43
32
78
8
0
70
63
74
8
0
63
67
71
8
0
7
6
7
8
0
3
2
7
8
0
6
6
7
8
0
12
11
13
8
0
2
2
2
8
0
11
10
12
8
0
6
4
8
e
0
-------
January 1997
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics * C-28
Parameter
number of samples
sample* below
detection
Chloride (mg/l)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
sample* below
detection
Fluoride (mg/H
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
Sutfate (mg/l)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
Sulfid* (mgffl
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
TABLE C-4. SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE SEEP AND SPRING WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
BofcMrCrxk
SN-12
6
0
1
<1
2
7
2
<.1
<.1
.1
7
6
11
<2
20
7
1
.02
<.02
.04
3
2
SN-14
7
0
1
<1
3
8
1
<.1
<.1
.1
8
6
34
18
60
8
0
.02
<.02
.04
4
2
SN-16
6
0
<1
<1
2
7
3
<.1
<.1
01
7
6
29
22
60
7
0
SN-17
e
0
EtlMl CfMk
JJ-23
8
0
1
-------
January 1997
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics * C-29
TABLE C-4, SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE SEEP AND SPRING WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
Parameter
number of sample*
samples bolow
detection
Nitrate ft Nitrite (mo/I ea
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
Bolster Creek
SN-12
6
E
N)
.17
<.02
.43
6
1
SN-14
6
3
.08
<-02
.17
6
2
SN-16
E
E
.OS
<.02
.17
E
1
SN-17
E
E
.18
.07
.30
E
0
Ethel Creek
JJ-23
6
6
.20
.04
.30
6
0
JJ-24
6
6
.13
<.02
.26
6
1
JJ-26
4
4
.06
.03
.10
4
0
Gold Creek
SN-6
E
4
SN-7
2
2
.06
.02
.10
E
0
.06
.04
2
0
Maries Creek
6
6
.14
.02
6
0
JJ-6
6
2
.20
<.02
.41
1
6
6
.27
.23
0
6
.06
3
TRACE METALSrtLCMENTS
Aluminum (mg/l. total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
samples below
detection
<.OB
<.06
<.06
1
.07
<.OB
.11
1
.07
.07
.07
0
<.OB
<.OB
<.OB
1
.18
.10
.26
0
.06
<.OB
.1
1
JJ-1E
6
.09
.19
0
JJ-26
E
2
Nicholson Creek
6
.03
3
JJ-20
6
.11
0
B
.96
0
4
.03
.09
E
3
SN-4
4
.04
2
B
.02
3
2
.10
<.02
1
Unnamed
4
2
E
0
<.OB
<.OE
<.OB
1
.06
.06
.06
0
_
_
-
<.B
<.OB
<.OB
2
.85
.07
1.63
0
.06
0
.16
1
.06
1
22
.41
1
2
<.OB
2
0
.34
.67
0
1
0
2
2
0
1
0
Aluminum (mg/l, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of aamples
samples below
detection
Arsenic (mg/l. total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
samples below
detection
Arsenic (mg/l, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
<.06
<.OB
<.06
e
6
<.001
•C.001
<.001
1
<.001
<.001
<-001
<.06
<.06
.06
7
e
.001
.001
.001
0
.002
<.001
.003
<.OS
<.OB
.06
6
S
<.001
<.001
<.001
1
<.001
•C.001
.001
<.OB
<.OB
<.OB
6
6
.003
.003
.003
0
.002
.002
.003
<.OB
<.OB
<.OB
7
7
.004
.003
.004
0
.002
<.001
.003
<.06
<.06
<.OB
7
7
.004
.003
.004
0
.004
.002
.006
<.OE
<.OB
<.OB
4
4
.002
.002
.002
0
.002
.001
.002
<.OB
<.OB
<.OB
6
6
<.001
<.001
<.001
1
<.001
<.001
<.001
<.OB
<.OB
<.OB
2
1
-
_
-
<.001
<.001
<.001
<.OB
<.OB
<.OB
7
7
<.001
<.001
2
<.001
<.001
.002
<.OB
<.OB
0.1
7
6
<.OB
<.OB
<.OB
7
7
.008
.011
0
.002
003
1
.006
.003
.008
.003
<.001
.004
<.OB
<.OB
7
7
.003
0
.003
.004
<.OB
<.06
7
6
6
.003
0
.003
.003
002
0
.002
.003
6
2
7
2
6
1
0
<.OB
<.OB
4
3
<.001
2
3
•C.001
1
1
B
2
2
E
0
3
.008
.008
0
.06
4
0
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics 4 C-30
TABLE C-4, SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE SEEP AND SPRING WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
Parameter
number of samples
samples below
detection
Barium (mg/l, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
Barium (mg/l, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
Boron (mg/l, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
Copper (mo/I, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
Copper (mg/l, dissolved)
mean value
maximum value
Bolster Creek
SN-12
7
7
.01
.01
.01
1
0
.01
.01
.02
7
0
<.02
<.02
<.02
3
3
.02
.02
.02
1
0
<.01
<.01
SN-14
8
2
.02
.01
.03
2
0
.01
<.01
.03
8
3
<.02
<.02
<.02
4
4
<.01
<.01
.01
2
1
< .01
< .01
SN-16
7
6
.02
.02
.02
1
0
.01
<.01
.02
7
3
<.02
<.02
<.02
3
3
<.01
<.01
<.01
1
1
<.01
<.01
SN-17
7
0
.01
.01
.01
1
0
<.01
<.01
.02
7
2
<.02
<.02
<.02
3
3
< .0 1
<.01
< .01
1
1
<.01
<.01
Ethel Creek j
JJ-23
8
3
.01
<.01
.02
2
1
<.01
<.01
.01
8
6
<.02
<.02
<.02
4
4
.03
<01
.06
2
1
<.01
<.01
JJ-24
8
0
.01
<.01
.02
2
1
<.01
<.01
.01
8
4
<.02
<.02
<.02
4
4
<.01
<.01
<.01
2
2
< .01
< .01
JJ-26
E
0
.02
.02
.02
1
0
<.01
<.01
.01
6
2
<.02
<.02
<.02
3
3
.01
.01
.01
1
0
<.01
<.01
OoM Creek
SN-6
7
7
.02
.02
.02
1
0
.02
.02
.03
7
0
<.02
<.02
<.02
3
3
< .0 1
<.01
< .01
1
1
< .0 1
< .0 1
SN-7
3
3
-
-
-
0
-
Maries Creek
JJ-3
8
6
.03
.03
.03
2
0
JJ-6
8
0
.02
<.01
.03
2
1
JJ-10
8
1
<.01
<.01
.01
2
1
JJ-14
8
1
JJ-16
8
0
.06
.02
.07
2
0
.02
.01
.02
3
0
<.02
<.02
<.02
1
1
_
-
-
0
-
<-°1
<.01
.03
.02
.03
8
0
<.02
<.02
<.02
4
4
.02
<.01
.03
2
1
<.01
.01
<.01
<.01
.01
8
3
<.02
<.02
<.02
<.01
<.01
.01
2
1
<.01
.01
<.01
<.01
.01
8
6
<.02
<.02
<.02
<.01
<.01
<.01
2
2
r-01
.01
.02
<.01
.02
8
1
<.02
<.02
<.02
<.01
<.01
.01
2
1
.01
.01
.01
2
0
<.01
<.01
.01
8
4
<.02
<.02
<.02
< .01
<.01
2
2
JJ-26
8
1
Nicholson Creek
JJ-1 8
8
6
JJ-20
8
6
.01
.01
.01
2
0
.01
.01
.01
2
0
<.01
<.01
.01
8
6
<.02
<.02
<.02
<.01
<.01
.01
2
1
< .01
.01
<.01
.01
<.01
.01
< .01
< .0 1
.01
8
3
<.02
<.02
<.02
4
4
<.01
<.01
<.01
2
2
< .01
<.01
<.01
<.01
2
2
<.01
<.01
<.01
8
8
JJ-21
7
0
SN-3
6
6
.03
.03
.03
1
0
0.01
<.01
.01
7
1
<.02
<.02
<.02
4
4
<.01
<.01
<.01
2
2
<.01
<.01
<.02
<.02
<.02
3
3
.31
.31
.31
1
0
<.01
<.01
.02
.01
.02
2
0
<.01
<.01
.01
6
4
<.02
<.02
<.02
4
4
< 01
<.01
<.01
2
2
<.01
<-01
8N-4
E
4
.01
.01
.01
1
0
<.01
<.01
.01
6
3
<.02
<.02
<.02
3
3
< 01
<.01
<.01
1
1
<.01
<.01
SN-6
7
6
.01
.01
.01
2
0
<.01
<.01
.01
7
4
<.02
<.02
<.02
4
4
< .01
.01
2
1
<.01
<.o,
SN-16
8
3
.02
.01
.02
2
0
<01
<.01
.02
8
4
<.02
<.02
<.02
4
4
< 01
<.01
<01
2
2
Unnamed
JJ-1
6
0
.01
.01
.01
1
0
.01
.01
.01
6
0
<.02
<.02
<.02
3
3
< 01
<.01
<01
1
1
<.01
.01
<.01
<,01
JJ-2
7
0
.01
.01
.01
1
0
<01
< 01
< 01
7
7
<.02
<.02
<.02
3
3
< 01
<01
< 01
1
1
<.01
< .0 1
< .0 1
-------
January 1997
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics * C-31
Parameter
number of samples
samples below
detection
Chromium (mg/l, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
TABLE C-4, SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE SEEP AND SPRING WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
SN-12
7
7
<.01
1
1
Bototer CrMk
SN-14
8
8
< .01
< .01
2
2
SN-16
7
7
_^_
1
1
SN-17
7
7
_<£!_
1
1
Ethel CrMk
JJ-23
8
8
-------
January 1997
Appendix C * Hydro/ogic Summary Statistics • C-32
TABLE C-4, SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE SEEP AND SPRING WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
Parameter
number of samples
samples below
Manganese (ma/I. dlssolv«
number of samples
ssmples below
Molybdenum (mart, total!
m nimum value
number of ssmples
samples below
Molybdenum Imfl/l. dieso
ssmples below
minimum value
samples below
Bolster Creek
8N-12
1
id)
o7~
6
<.OB
1
1
ved)
3
<.00i
<.001
1
<.001
0
.26
2
<.06
<.06
2
4
4
<.001
2
SN-16
1
7
<.06
<.OB
1
3
< 001
1
1
7
1
1
3
1
Ethel Creek
JJ-23
2
0
<•<"
8
8
<.OB
2
2
<.OB
4
<.001
2
2
JJ-24
2
8
<.OB
2
2
<.OB
4
JJ-26
1
<•<"
B
B
<.OB
<.OB
1
<.OB
<.OB
3
<.001
2
2
<.001
<- noi
1
<.001
<.001
QoM Creek
1
<•"
<01
7
7
<.OB
<.OB
1
1
<.OB
<.OB
3
< 001
•C 001
< 001
1
1
< 001
<.001
<.001
SN-7
0
.01
.02
3
1
_
-
0
<.OB
<.OB
1
_
0
-
<.001
<.001
•C.001
Merles Creak
JJ-3
2
2
<•<"
.02
8
7
<.OB
<.OB
<.OB
2
2
<.OB
<.OB
<.06
4
<.001
<.001
<.001
2
2
<.001
<.001
<.001
JJ-6
0
.03
.06
8
1
<.OB
<.OB
<.06
2
2
<.OB
<.OB
<.06
<.001
<.001
.001
2
1
<.001
<.001
<.001
JJ-10
2
_<*i-
.01
8
7
<.OB
<.OB
<.OB
2
2
<.OB
<.OB
<.OB
<.001
<.001
<.001
2
2
0.001
<.001
.002
JJ-14
0
.01
.02
8
2
<.OB
<.OB
<.OB
2
2
<.OB
<.OB
<'.06
.001
<.001
.002
2
1
<.001
<.001
<.001
JJ-16
1
_<£L
~7o7
8
8
<.OB
<.OB
<.OB
2
2
<.OB
-------
January 1997
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics • C-33
TABLE C-4. SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE SEEP AND SPRING WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
Parameter
number of samples
samples below
detection
Bolater Creek
SN-12
3
2
Strontium (mg/1, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
.17
.17
.17
1
0
SN-14
4
4
SN-16
3
3
SN-17
3
3
.17
.16
.10
2
0
.15
.16
.16
1
0
.20
.20
.20
1
0
[ Ethel Creek
JJ-23
4
3
JJ-24
4
4
.11
.10
.11
2
0
.17
.16
.18
2
0
JJ-26
3
3
.22
.22
.22
1
0
Oold Creek
SN-6
3
3
.13
.13
.13
1
0
SN-7
1
1
..
„
__
0
-
JJ-3
4
4
Maria* Creek
JJ-6
4
1.63
1.38
1.67
2
0
.12
.10
.13
2
0
JJ-10
2
.26
.24
.26
2
0
JJ-14
4
.96
.94
.96
2
0
JJ-16
4
.22
.21
.22
2
0
JJ-26
4
JJ-18
4
4
.18
.17
.18
2
0
.29
.27
.31
2
0
Nichobon Creek
JJ-20
4
4
.67
.64
.69
2
0
JJ-21
3
3
.16
.18
.16
1
0
SN-3
4
4
.09
.07
.11
2
0
SN-4
3
2
.11
.11
.11
1
0
SN-6
4
3
.23
.23
.23
2
0
SN-16
4
4
.18
.13
.22
2
0
Unnamed
JJ-1
3
3
.27
.27
.27
1
0
JJ-2
3
3
.11
.11
.11
1
0
Strontium (mg/l, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
Venadium (mg/l, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
.18
.18
.19
7
0
<.01
<.01
<.01
1
1
.16
.14
.18
8
0
<.01
<.01
<.01
2
2
.19
.16
.22
7
0
<.01
•C.01
<.01
1
1
.19
.17
.21
7
0
.10
.10
.11
e
0
<.01
i.01
<.01
1
1
<.01
<.01
<.01
2
2
.17
.13
.19
8
0
<.01
<.01
<.01
2
2
.23
.20
.24
E
0
<.01
<.01
<.01
1
1
.14
.11
.17
7
0
.19
.17
.20
3
0
<.01
<.01
<.01
1
1
„
0
-
1.44
1.04
1.71
8
0
<.01
<.01
.01
2
1
.12
.11
.13
8
0
.27
.23
.29
8
0
.91
.44
1.01
8
0
.01
.01
.01
2
0
<.01
<.01
<.01
2
2
<.01
<.01
<.01
2
2
.22
.21
.26
8
0
<.01
<.01
<.01
2
2
.20
.18
.23
8
0
<.01
<.01
<.01
2
2
.29
.26
.32
8
0
<.01
<.01
.01
2
1
.62
.67
.69
8
0
<.01
<.01
•C.01
2
2
.17
.16
.19
7
0
<.01
<.01
<.01
1
1
.09
.08
.13
e
0
<.01
<.01
<.01
2
2
.12
.11
.16
6
0
.20
.14
.24
7
0
<.01
<.01
<.01
1
1
<.01
<.01
<.01
2
2
.20
.10
.29
8
0
<-01
<.01
<.01
2
2
.27
.26
.29
6
0
<.01
<.01
<.01
1
1
.11
.10
.12
7
0
.01
.01
.01
1
0
Vanadium (ma/I, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
<.01
<.01
<.01
3
3
<.01
<.01
<.01
4
4
<.01
<.01
<.01
3
3
<.01
<.01
<.01
3
3
<.01
<.01
<.01
4
4
<.01
<.01
<.01
4
4
Zinc (mg/l, total)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
.02
.02
.02
.02
.01
.03
<.01
<.01
<.01
.01
.01
.01
.02
<.01
.03
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
3
3
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
3
3
<.01
<.01
<.01
1
1
<.01
<.01
<.01
4
4
.02
.02
.02
_
_
-
.02
<.01
.03
<.01
<.01
.01
3
<.01
<.01
<.01
4
<.01
<.01
.01
.01
<.01
.02
<.01
<.01
<.01
4
<.01
<-01
<.01
4
<.01
<.01
<.01
4
<.01
<.01
<.01
.01
.01
.01
<.01
<.01
.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
4
4
<.01
<.01
.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
4
4
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
3
3
.22
.22
.22
<.01
<.01
<.01
4
4
<.01
<.01
.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
3
3
.02
.02
.02
<.01
<.01
<.01
4
4
<.01
<.01
.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
4
4
<.01
<.01
<.01
3
3
.02
.01
.02
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
3
3
.01
.01
.01
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics • C-34
TABLE C-4, SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE SEEP AND SPRING WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
Parameter
number of samples
samples below
detection
Zinc (mg/l, dissolved)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
arose Alpha (pCi/ll
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
Bolster Creek
SN-1 2
1
0
<.01
<01
<.01
E
S
3
<,
6
E
2
Gross Beta (pCi/l)
mean value
minimum value
maximum value
number of samples
samples below
detection
<3
<3
<3
S
4
SN-14
2
0
<.01
<01
.02
e
5
<1
<1
1
e
E
SN-1 8
1
1
<.01
<01
<.01
E
6
8N-17
1
0
<.01
<01
.01
E
4
1
<,
2
5
2
1
<,
4
B
4
4
<3
7
7
2
<3
<3
<3
E
3
<3
<3
6
B
2
Ethel Craek
JJ-23
2
1
< .01
<.01
6
e
2
-------
January 1997
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics • C-35
TABLE C-4, SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR SELECTED BASELINE SEEP AND SPRING WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
Parameter
number of samples
samples below
detection
Bolster Creek
6N-12
3
3
SN-14
4
4
SN-16
3
3
8H-17
2
2
Ethel Creek
JJ-23
4
4
JJ-24
4
4
JJ-26
3
3
Gold Creek
SN-6
3
3
SN-7
1
1
Marias Creek
JJ-3
4
4
JJ-8
4
4
JJ-10
3
3
JJ-14
4
4
JJ-1B
3
3
JJ-26
3
3
JJ-18
4
3
JJ-20
4
4
Nlchotoon Creek
JJ-21
3
3
SN-3
3
3
8N-4
2
2
SN-6
3
3
MI-IB
4
4
Unnamed
JJ-1
2
1
JJ-2
3
3
Notn: 1 . To calculate means, concentrations below detection limit are assumed to equal % detection limit v»lue. Detection limits for some parameters chsnaed during the monitoring period ss shown in Table 3.6.6. Wfttr Quality Analytical Mtthods and Standards.
2. Data quslified as suspect or anomalous by the reviewer are not included in summary statistics.
3. Total trace metals were analyzed in unfiltered samples and dissolved trace metals were analyzed in filtered samples.
4. Parameters listed are those that occurred at concentrations above detection limits, one or more times, at the majority of ground water, surface water, or spring and seep stations. Baseline cyanide results sre included due to regulatory concerns.
6. Table includes data collected through October 1 996.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix C * Hydrologic Summary Statistics 4 C-36
TABLE C-5, BASELINE FIELD WATER QUALITY DATA
FOR ADDITIONAL SEEPS AND SPRINGS
Parameter
Conductance (//mhos/cm)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l)
pH (field)
Temperature (°C)
Nicholson Creek
SN-10
193- 252
2.0- 7.3
7.1 - 7.4
8.3- 16.3
SN-26
345
3.3
8.76
10.2
SN-27
218
6.0
7.72
6.7
Marias Creek
JJ-4
453
„
8.3
20.2
JJ-5
288
..
8.0
14.6
JJ-6A
288
..
8.2
13.9
JJ-6B
305
..
8.0
11.7
JJ-7
348
..
7.1
10.3
Ethel
Creek
JJ 22
471
_
—
12.7
Cedar
Creek
JJ-27
521
1.8
8.09
5.6
Notes: 1 . Data qualified as suspect or anomalous by the reviewer are not included.
2. Table includes data collected through October 1995.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
APPENDIX D
SOIL EROSION RATES
-------
-------
January 1997 Appendix D * Soil Erosion Rates 4 D-1
SOIL EROSION RATES
To calculate estimated erosion rates for the Crown Jewel Project, the following assumptions were
made for each of the factors used in the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE). Table D-1,
"RUSLE" Factors Used to Calculate Current and Potential Erosion Rates, depicts the values
assigned for the factors discussed below for each alternative.
Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) = A (soil loss in tons/acre/year) = RKLSCP, where:
(1) Rainfall-runoff factor (R): A value of 17 has been assigned to the project area and was used
for all calculations (Duncan 1993).
(2) Soil erodibility factor (K): K-factors ranging from 0.17 to 0.21 were used to calculate soil
losses from undisturbed sites. These values were based on data taken directly from the soil
survey completed for the project area and represent the values estimated for the
undisturbed surface soil horizons subject to water erosion. A K-factor of 0.18 was used for
all calculations for reclaimed surfaces. This value represents a weighted-average of
estimated K-factors for the soils to be salvaged and replaced during reclamation. Weighted
averages for the soil horizons as well as the proportion of the total soil salvage volume by
soil series salvaged were completed. All K-values developed for the project site were
compared to SCS (U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Survey) documented values to insure overall
validity.
(3) Slope length and gradient (LS): Effective lengths for existing undisturbed baseline sites was
assumed to be 300 feet. Slope gradients selected for reclaimed areas were based on
proposed grading plans for Alternatives B through G as noted in Chapter 2, Alternatives
Including the Proposed Action, of this document.
(4) Cover-management factor (C): This factor was based on the type of vegetation currently
existing on site or the vegetation community to which the disturbed sites would be
reclaimed, estimated soil roughness factors, estimated soil surface cover and height,
estimated plant canopy cover, and estimated above-ground plant biomass factors. It was
assumed that, following one and five growing seasons, canopy cover values would range
from 22% to 33% and from 64% to 85% of the existing values for grass/shrub meadows
located within the project area, respectively, depending upon slope steepness. Values used
for biomass production were based on these same percentages of estimates of existing
production for grass/shrub meadows.
(5) Supporting practices factor (P): The value used for the "P" factor was 1.0 for existing
baseline conditions. Where supporting management practices were proposed, a value of
0.75 was assigned for this factor for the first growing season. Assuming that soil
disturbances would disappear by the fifth growing season, a value of 1.0 was selected for
the P-factor for this point in time.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix D * Soil Erosion Rates + D-2
TABLE D-1 , "RUSLE" FACTORS USED TO CALCULATE CURRENT
AND POTENTIAL EROSION RATES
Alternative
R
K
LS
C
Year 1/5
P
Year 1/5
Baseline Conditions
North waste rock stockpile area
South waste rock disposal area
Tailings pond area
Alternative tailings pond area
17
17
17
17
0.21
.017
0.19
0.21
12.74
19.75
7.92
10.28
0.005/NA
0.003/NA
0.002/NA
0.00 2/NA
1 .0/1 .0
1.0/1.0
1 .0/1 .0
1 .0/1 .0
Alternative B
Waste rock disposal level area
Waste rock disposal slopes
Tailings surface
Tailings dam faces
17
17
17
17
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.16
16.70
0.17
12.00
0.017/0.007
0.01/0.014
0.017/0.007
0.01/0.014
0.75/1.0
0.75/1.0
0.75/1.0
0.75/1.0
Alternative C
Waste rock disposal slopes
Tailings surface
Tailings dam faces
17
17
17
0.18
0.18
0.18
5.45
0.17
9.04
0.022/0.009
0.017/0.007
0.01/0.014
0.75/1.0
0.75/1.0
0.75/1.0
Alternative D
Waste rock disposal slopes
Tailings surface
Tailings dam faces
17
17
17
0.18
0.18
0.18
5.45
0.17
12.00
0.022/0.009
0.017/0.007
0.01/0.014
0.75/1.0
0.75/1.0
0.75/1.0
Alternative E
Waste rock disposal slopes
Tailings surface
Tailings dam faces
17
17
17
0.18
0.18
0.18
5.45
0.17
12.00
0.022/0.009
0.017/0.007
0.01/0.014
0.75/1.0
0.75/1.0
0.75/1.0
Alternative F
Waste rock disposal slopes
Tailings surface
Tailings dam faces
Pit slopes
17
17
17
17
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
4.34
0.14
17.03
5.45
0.022/0.009
0.017/0.007
0.01/0.014
0.22/0.009
0.75/1.0
0.75/1.0
0.75/1.0
0.75/1.0
Alternative G
Waste rock disposal level area
Waste rock disposal slopes
Tailings surface
Tailings dam faces
17
17
17
17
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.17
5.45
0.17
20.76
0.017/0.007
0.022/0.009
0.017/0.007
0.01/0.014
0.75/1.0
0.75/1.0
0.75/1.0
0.75/1.0
Notes: 1 . The estimated erosion rates for baseline conditions and action alternatives
are set forth in Table 4.5.2, Summary of Mine Component Potential
Erosion Rates by Alternative, found in Section 4.5, Soils, in Chapter 4,
Environmental Consequences.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
APPENDIX E
GEOCHEMISTRY
Appendix E-1, Geochemical Samples Analyzed
Appendix E-2, XRF and Whole Rock Radionuclide Analysis
Appendix E-3, teachability Test Results
Appendix E-4, ABA Results for Waste Rock Samples
Appendix E-5, Histograms of Waste Rock ABA Results
Appendix E-6, ABA Results for Pit Wall Samples
Appendix E-7, Summary of Humidity Cell Test Results
Appendix E-8, Results of Waste Rock Duplicate Analysis
Appendix E-9, Analysis of Confirmation Geochemical Data
-------
-------
January 1997 Appendix E * Geochemistry • E-1
GEOCHEMISTRY
Various testing methods were used to evaluate the potential for mine rock materials from the
Crown Jewel Project to generate acid rock drainage and leach metals and radionuclides. Analysis
of geochemical samples was performed by Core Laboratories Inc. of Denver, Colorado and
included:
• Total metals (x-ray fluorescence or XRF) and whole rock radionuclide analyses;
• Leachability tests (EPA Method 1312);
• Tailings liquid analysis;
• Acid-base accounting (ABA); and,
• Humidity cell tests (HCT).
Additional information regarding the geochemical testing program and methods used for the Crown
Jewel Project can be found in the following reports:
• Report on the Waste Rock Geochemical Testing Program, Crown Jewel Project, prepared by
Kea Pacific Holdings Inc. in association with Colder Associates Inc. for BMGC (September
1993);
• Report on the Waste Rock Geochemical Testing Program, Crown Jewel Project, Response to
Agency Comments, prepared by Kea Pacific Holdings Inc. in association with Colder Associates
Inc. for BMGC (September 1993);
• Report on Geochemical Testing of: Ore and Low Grade Ore. Crown Jewel Project, prepared by
Kea Pacific Holdings Inc. in association with Colder Associates Inc. for BMGC (September
1993);
• Tailings Geochemical Testing Program: Crown Jewel Project, Okanoqan County, Washington,
prepared by BMGC with assistance from Kea Pacific Holdings Inc. (January 1994);
• Tailings Geochemical Testing Program: Crown Jewel Project, Okanoqan County, Washington,
Addendum 1. prepared by BMGC with assistance from Geochemica, Inc. and Colder Associates
Inc. (April 1996);
• Final Summary Report, Confirmation Geochemistry Program, Crown Jewel Project, prepared by
TerraMatrix Inc. for the Forest Service and WADOE (July 1995); and,
• Report on Waste Rock Geochemical Testing Program, Crown Jewel Project, Phase IV,
Additional Humidity Cell Tests, prepared by Geochemica, Inc. for BMGC (April 1996).
Testing Methods
Total Metals Analysis. XRF analysis was used to test the abundance of major and minor
constituents in waste rock, ore, and tailings samples. This analysis is useful in screening samples
for trace metals and elements which could later become dissolved in mine leachates.
Leachability Tests. Geochemical samples were tested for metal and radionuclide teachability using
the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (EPA Method 1312). This testing procedure was
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impacat Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix E * Geochemistry • E-2
developed to assess the effects of short-term leaching of wastes by precipitation. For comparison,
selected waste rock and tailings samples were also analyzed using the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure or TCLP (EPA Method 1311).
EPA Method 1312 specifies that a test sample be crushed to a maximum particle size of 9.5 mm
(less than one-half inch) and leached at a 20:1 liquid-solid ratio in a closed container. The sample
is leached with a synthetic solution prepared with nitric and sulfuric acids to simulate a weakly
acidic condition (pH 5.0). The resulting mixture is agitated for approximately 18 hours and the
leachate generated is filtered and analyzed.
EPA Method 1311 differs from EPA Method 1312 primarily in the use of an organic acid (rather
than inorganic acids) to prepare the synthetic leach solution. EPA Method 1311 was developed by
the EPA to evaluate waste toxicity and, for regulatory purposes, to characterize materials as
hazardous wastes. Analysis of geochemical samples by EPA Method 1311 allowed the Proponent
to compare their sample results with regulatory levels for hazardous wastes. However, because an
organic acid leach solution is used, EPA Method 1311 results are generally considered to be less
representative of field conditions at mining sites and, therefore, only a few samples were tested by
this procedure.
Sample leachates from the EPA Method 1311 tests were analyzed for eight standard trace metals/
elements used for hazardous waste classification: arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead,
mercury, selenium, and silver. Leachates from the EPA Method 1312 tests were analyzed for an
expanded list of parameters including pH, TDS, alkalinity, major cations, and 22 trace metals and
elements.
To assess the potential to leach radionuclides, the gross alpha and gross beta activities in 21 of the
77 waste rock sample leachates were analyzed. The samples tested included at least one sample
from each of the waste rock groups and several samples with relatively elevated sulfide contents.
The latter were considered by the Proponent to have a greater potential to leach radionuclides.
Tailings Sample Preparation and Analysis
To ensure that test materials were representative, the Proponent considered the following factors
when preparing bench-scale tailings samples for geochemical characterization:
• The varying ore types extracted over the life of the Crown Jewel Project;
• Reagents added during milling and processing of the ore; and,
• Detoxification of the tailings slurry using the INCO S02/Air/Oxidation process (all action
alternatives, except G, use the INCO detoxification process during operations to satisfy
regulatory requirements for cyanide).
A total of 11 tailings samples were submitted for laboratory testing. The first three samples tested
were detoxified to a Weak Acid Dissociable (WAD) cyanide level of less than 40 ppm. This
detoxification level had been specified in the Proponent's original Plan of Operations (POO). Upon
further consideration, the Proponent revised the detoxification level to less than 10 ppm WAD
cyanide and eight additional tailings samples were prepared and tested. Four of the additional
tailings samples were prepared and analyzed as part of a bioassay study. Results from this study
are presented in Appendix F, Dangerous Waste Characterization Results for Detoxified Tailings.
Each tailings sample was separated into a liquid and solid fraction. Analysis of the solid fraction
included total metals, leachability tests, ABA and humidity cell tests. The liquid fraction was
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impacat Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix E * Geochemistry • E-3
filtered and analyzed for a variety of chemical parameters including total and WAD cyanide, major
and minor ions, trace metals, and radionuclides.
Acid-Base Accounting (ABA)
To evaluate the potential for rock materials at Crown Jewel to generate acid, acid-base accounting
(ABA) tests were performed on all samples selected for geochemical testing, including the
confirmation waste rock samples. ABA tests relate the acid neutralization potential (ANP) of a
material with its acid generation potential (AGP). Both values are expressed as an equivalent
weight of calcium carbonate.
The net Acid Producing Potential (net APP) of a material is calculated by subtracting ANP from
AGP. A negative value for net APP is considered to represent a potentially neutral material, while a
positive value represents a potentially acid-generating material. The greater the value of net APP,
positive or negative, the more likely the material is to either generate acid or be neutral over the
long term. (SRK, 1989). EPA (1994) considers mine materials with net APP values less than -20
TCaC03/KT (T/KT) to have a low risk of generating acid. Materials with net APP values greater
than + 20 T/KT have a high risk of acid generation and those with values between -20 and + 20
T/KT are uncertain.
An alternative approach to evaluating ABA test data is to calculate the ratio of ANP to AGP. Mine
waste with an ANP:AGP ratio of less than 3:1 may also be considered to have the potential to
generate acid (Smith and Barton Bridges, 1991). EPA (1994) considers mine materials with
ANP:AGP ratios greater than 3:1 to have a low risk of generating acid. Materials with ANP:AGP
ratios less than 1:1 have a high risk of acid generation and those with ratios between 1:1 and 3:1
are uncertain. It should be noted that both approaches to evaluating ABA test data (net APP
values and ANP:AGP ratios) are inherently conservative and incorporate a factor of safety (CMA,
1992).
The ANP of the Crown Jewel samples was analyzed using the method of Sobek and others (1978).
This procedure measures by chemical titration the amount of acid that can be neutralized by
reaction with minerals in the material. The AGP of the samples was determined based on analysis
of total sulfur content by a Leco furnace. It is assumed by this procedure that all sulfur in the
material reacts to form acid which is a conservative assumption if non-sulfide sulfur forms such as
sulfates and organic sulfur are present. It is further assumed that all sulfides in the material will
generate acid at equal rates, which is also conservative. Studies have shown that non-iron sulfides
and large sulfide crystals are typically more resistant to weathering and acid production. (CMA,
1992).
Humidity Cell Tests
To further evaluate acid generation potential, 45 waste rock, two ore, and seven tailings samples
were tested in humidity cells. The humidity cell test (HCT) mimics natural weathering and can be
used to assess the long-term potential of mine materials to generate acid (CMA, 1992). The
procedure was designed to enhance the rate of sulfide oxidation and measure the subsequent
generation and neutralization of acid.
The HCT procedure used a specially designed weathering or humidity cell that controls air,
temperature, and moisture conditions. The sample material tested was placed in the bed of the cell
and subjected to alternating cycles of dry air (three days), moist air (three days) and leaching (one
day) (Sobek et al., 1978). Leachate generated during each week of testing was collected, filtered,
and analyzed for several parameters including pH, acidity, alkalinity, sulfate, and iron. In addition,
the 15-week humidity cell leachates from selected samples were analyzed for major ions and trace
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impacat Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix E * Geochemistry 4 E-4
elements and metals. The following guidelines were used to infer from the leachate chemistry that
a material was not acid generating:
• The presence of alkalinity and absence or low level of acidity;
• A pH value generally above five to six;
• The general absence of iron, except during the beginning of the test; and
• Low levels of sulfate during and at the end of the test.
Humidity cell testing is typically performed for 20 or more weeks depending on the rate of chemical
reactions observed. Thirty-three of the Crown Jewel samples were initially tested for a total of 20
weeks or until the sample was determined to generate acid earlier than 20 weeks, at which time
testing was discontinued. Four additional samples of tailings were tested for a total of 52 weeks
and 17 additional samples of waste rock were tested for a total of from 30 to 50 weeks.
At present, there is no one standard time for completion of a given humidity cell test. In practice,
testing periods can range from a few weeks to more than four or five months and largely depend
on the behavior of the material being tested. For example, longer testing periods may be required
for samples that contain a moderate to high sulfide percentage and high levels of sulfate and
alkalinity. Such sample results can suggest that pyrite oxidation is actively occurring in the
material and that the acidity being generated may eventually exceed the material's neutralization
potential. Alternatively, shorter testing periods are appropriate for samples that have clearly begun
to generate acid or that contain a low sulfide percentage and exhibit low sulfate levels and
sustained teachable alkalinity for ten or more weeks. The latter would suggest that sulfide
oxidation in the material is minimal.
The 20-week testing period used for the majority of the Crown Jewel samples, has become
somewhat of an accepted standard and there is a movement to formally standardize this testing
period through a proposed ASTM method.
In a July 5, 1994 letter from the Proponent to WADOE and the Forest Service, the Proponent re-
examined the adequacy of the humidity cell data in light of the 20-week testing period that was
used for the majority of the samples. As indicated in their letter, six of the original waste rock
samples were found to be strongly acid generating and testing of some of these samples was
terminated prior to 20 weeks. Of the remaining 27 initial humidity cell tests performed, there were
three waste rock samples that exhibited an increase in sulfate levels toward the end of the 20
weeks that, by itself, could indicate that a longer testing period was needed. These samples
included two magnetite skarns (4-405 and 4-407) and a clastic sediment (7-711).
A more complete review of the humidity cell data, however, suggested that additional humidity cell
testing (beyond 20 weeks) was not warranted for these samples. Specifically, a comparison of pH,
alkalinity, acidity, iron and sulfate levels measured at the end of 20 weeks indicated that the
samples would not become strongly acid generating.
Finally, note that the humidity cell samples were not inoculated with bacteria during testing.
Research suggest that the rate of sulfide oxidation in mine materials is not significantly increased
by the presence of bacteria if the sample pH remains above six (Kleinman et al., 1981; CMA,
1992). At higher pH levels, the rate of sulfide oxidation is believed to be primarily governed by the
presence of oxygen. As the pH declines below 6, however, and if ferrous iron (Fe2 + ) becomes
available, the importance of bacteria likely increases. In particular, the presence of the bacterium
Thiobaccilus ferrooxidan has been identified as enhancing acid generation due to its ability to
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impacat Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix E * Geochemistry • E-5
catalyze the oxidation of ferrous iron to ferric iron (Fe3 + ). The presence of ferric iron, in turn, is
reportedly an important factor in the rate of sulfide oxidation in mine materials at low pH's.
Based on the above discussion, it is unlikely that the lack of sample inoculation had a significant
effect on the humidity cell test results for the Crown Jewel Project. For the majority of samples
tested, the pH levels generally remained at or above 6 throughout the testing period. At these pH
levels, the ability of bacteria to enhance acid generation is believed to be minimal and, therefore,
sample inoculation would not have significantly changed the sample results. Some Crown Jewel
samples showed a strong acid generation behavior during humidity cell testing and exhibited pH
levels of 4 or below. Inoculation of these samples may only have further enhanced the rate of acid
generation that was observed.
REFERENCES
California Mining Association (CMA). 1992. Mine Waste Management. Edited by Hutchison,
I.P.G., R.D. Ellison. Lewis Publishers. Michigan.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1994. Final Technical Document, Acid Mine
Drainage Prediction. December 1994.
Kleinman, R., P. Crerar, and R. Pacelli. 1981. Biogeochemistry of Acid Mine Drainage and a
Method to Control Acid Formation. Mining Engineering. March 1981.
Smith, A. and J.B. Barton-Bridges. 1991. Some Consideration in the Prediction and Control of
Acid Mine Drainage Impact on Ground Water from Mining in North America. Proceedings EPPIC
Conference, Johannesburg, South Africa. May 1991.
Sobek, A.A., W.A. Schuller, J.R. Freeman, and R. M. Smith. 1978. Field and Laboratory Methods
Applicable to Overburden and Mine Soils. EPA 600/2-78-054.
Steffen Robertson and Kirsten (SRK). 1989. Draft Acid Rock Drainage Technical Guide, Volume 1.
British Columbia Acid Mine Drainage Task Force. BiTech Publishers LTD. Vancouver, B.C.
August 1989.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impacat Statement
-------
-------
APPENDIX E-1
GEOCHEMICAL SAMPLES ANALYZED
-------
-------
January 1997
Appendix E * Geochemistry * E-1, Page 1
Waste Rock Group
Altered Andesite
Unaltered Andesite
Garnet Skam
Magnetite Skam
Borehole Number
D91-83
091-83
D91-83
D91-83
D91-83
D91-83
091-88
091-88
091-88'
D91-88
091-88
091-88
091-101
091-101
091-83
091-88
091-88
091-88
091-88
091-88
091-88'
091-88
091-88
091-88
091-88
091-88
091-101
091-101
091-101
091-101
D91-101
090-51
090-56
D9O-56
090-56
091-85
091-85
091-85
091 -851
091-88
091-85
091-85
091-85
091-85
091-85
091-85
091-85'
091-119
091-119
091-123
Sample Depth
(feet)
310-315
320-325
325-330
335-340
345-350
355-360
115-120
160-165
210-215
295-300
305-310
315-320
100-105
150-155
340-345
30-35
35-40
70-75
75-80
90-95
120-125
145-150
185-190
220-225
290-295
300-305
30-35
50-55
60-65
140-145
195-200
239-245
200-205
205-209
155-160
190-195
195-200
230-235
235-240
330-335
410-415
415-420
420-425
425-430
455-460
460-465
465-470
385-390
410-415
480-485
WASTE ROCK SAMPLES ANALYZED BY BMQC
BMQC Sample
Designation
-109- A
-113-A
-110-A
-105- A
-111-A
-114-A
-106-A
-101-A
-107- A
-102- A
-108-A
-112-A
-103- A
1-104-A
2-208-B
2-201 -B
2-209-B
2-206-B
2-217-B
2-202-B
2-203-B
2-207-B
2-204-B
2-205-B
2-216-B
2-21 5-B
2-21 0-B
2-21 4-B
2-21 1-B
2-212-B
2-21 3-B
3-301 -A
3-303-A
3-306-A
3-309-A
3-307-A
3-304-A
3-305-A
3-308-A
3-302-A
4-401 -B
4-403-B
4-404-B
4-407-B
4-405-B
4-406-B
4-402-B
4-409-B
4-408-B
4-41 0-B
Analyses Performed
XRF
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
S
/
EPA Method
1311
/
/
/
/
/•
/
/
/
EPA Method
1312
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
EPA Method 1312
w/ RadlonucNde
Indicator!
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
AcM-Ba«e
Accounting
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Humidity Cell
Tests
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix E * Geochemistry • E-1, Page 2
WASTE ROCK SAMPLES ANALYZED BY BMQC
Waste Rock Group
Undifferentiated Skam
Marble
Altered elastics
Unaltered Clastics
Intrusives
Borehole Number
D9O-51
090-51
D90-51
D9O-51'
D90-51
D91-85
091-86
D91-99
D91-99
091-99
091-99
D91-991
091-99
091-99
091-99
091-108
090-51
090-51
090-51
090-51 '
D90-56
090-51
090-51
D9O-51
090-56
D90-56
090-56
090-56
090-85
090-85
090-85
091-88
090-51
090-51
060-56
D 60-56
090-56
D90-561
090-56
Sample Depth
(feet)
10O-105
105-110
110-112
139-145.3
197.4-200.3
50-55
166-170
455-460
47O-475
480-485
485-490
490-495
495-500
5OO-505
515-520
505-510
10-15
15-20
20-25
65-70
140-145
125-130
205-210
220-225
105-110
145-150
170-175
180-185
125-130
140-145
175-180
325-330
150-155
155-160
210-215
215-220
220-225
225-230
230-235
BMQC Sample
Designation
5-507-C
5-501 -C
5-502-C
5-503-C
5-504-C
5-505-C
5-506-C
6-601
6-6O4
6-602
6-605
6-607
6-603
6-608
6-606
6-609
7-710
7-716-A
7-71 5-A
7-708
7-714
7-713
7-704
7-701
7-705
7-711
7-702
7-709
7-712
7-703
7-706
7-707
8-801
8-802
8-803
8-804
8-807
8-805
8-806
Analyses Performed
XRF
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
EPA Method
1311
/
/
EPA Method
1312
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
^
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
EPA Method 1312
w/ RadlonuclMe
Indicators
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Acid-Base
Accounting
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Humidity Cell
Tests
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Note: 1 Duplicate Samples analyzed by the EIS team for acid-base accounting.
-------
CONFIRMATION WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
ANALYZED BY EIS TEAM '
E-1, Page 3
WASTE ROCK
GROUP
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
ALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
BOREHOLE
NUMBER
223
224
354
357
357
398
457
D-112
D-112
D-114
D-114
D-114
D-114
D-133
D-133
D-133
D-136
D-148
D-148
D-30
D-82
D-88
109
109
109
109
109
189
189
189
215
215
215
215
215
215
218
218
218
221
221
223
223
223
223
SAMPLE DEPTH
(FEET)
130-135
145-150
165-170
145-150
45-50
85-90
15-20
165-170
265-270
195-200
245-250
295-300
345-350
205-210
5-10
55-60
70-75
215-220
265-270
165-170
325-330
210-215
165-170
215-220
265-270
315-320
365-370
115-120
15-20
65-70
125-130
175-180
225-230
245-250
25-30
75-80
130-135
30-35
80-85
70-75
85-90
180-185
230-235
280-285
30-35
EIS TEAM SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
223(130-135)
224(145-150)
354(165-170)
357(145-150)
357(45-50)
398(85-90)
457(15-20)
0-112(165-170)
0-112(265-270)
0-114(195-200)
0-114(245-250)
0-114(295-300)
0-114(345-350)
0-133(205-210)
0-133(5-10)
0-133(55-60)
0-136(70-75)
0-148(215-220)
0-148(265-270)
0-30(165-170)
0-82(325-330)
0-88(210-215)
109(165-170)
109(215-220)
109(265-270)
109(315-320)
109(365-370)
189(115-120)
189(15-20)
189(65-70)
215(125-130)
215(175-180}.,
215(225-230)^
215(245-250)
215(25-30)''
215(75-80)
218(130-135)
218(30-35)
218(80-85)
221 (70-75) 2
221(85-90)
223(180-185)
223(230-235)
223(280-285)
223'30-35)
-------
CONFIRMATION WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
ANALYZED BY EIS TEAM '
E-1,Page4
WASTE ROCK
GROUP
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
BOREHOLE
NUMBER
223
224
224
224
343
343
343
354
354
354
354
354
398
455
455
457
463
463
482
482
482
482
482
482
482
482
D-112
D-112
D-114
D-114
D-114
D-114
D-133
D-133
D-133
D-133
D-136
D-145
D-148
D-148
D-148
D-148
D-148
D-30
D-30
D-30
SAMPLE DEPTH
(FEET)
80-85
195-200
245-250
45-50
135-140
185-190
35-40
115-120
15-20
215-220
265-270
65-70
35^0
35^0
50-55
65-70
15-20
50-55
10-15
110-115
160-165
210-215
260-265
310-315
335-340
60-65
215-220
315-320
145-150
395-400
45-50
95-100
105-110
155-160
255-260
305-310
20-25
330-335
115-120
15-20
165-170
315-320
65-70
115-120
15-20
215-220
EIS TEAM SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
223(80-85)
224(195-200)
224(245-250)
224(45-50)
343(135-140)
343(185-190)
343(35-40)
354(115-120)
354(15-20)
354(215-220)
354(265-270)
354(65-70)
398(35-40)
455(35-40)
455(50-55)
457(65-70)
463(15-20)
463(50-55)
482(10-15)
482(110-115)
482(160-165)
482(210-215)
482(260-265)
482(310-315)
482(335-340)
482(60-65)
0-112(215-220)
0-112(315-320)
0-114(145-150)
0-114(395-400)
0-114(45-50)
0-114(95-100)
0-133(105-110)
0-133(155-160)
0-133(255-260)
0-133(305-310)
0-136(20-25)
0-145(330-335)
0-148(115-120)
0-148(15-20)
0-148(165-170)
0-148(315-320)
0-148(65-70)
0-30(115-120)
0-30(15-20)
D-30(215-220)2
-------
CONFIRMATION WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
ANALYZED BY EIS TEAM '
E-1. Page 5
WASTE ROCK
GROUP
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
UNALTERED ANDESITE
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
BOREHOLE
NUMBER
D-30
D-30
D-40
D-49
D-71
D-71
D-82
D-82
D-82
D-82
D-82
D-82
D-88
178
210
224
260
260
272
272
284
284
284
284
302
302
302
302
306
335
335
491
D-145
D-148
D-30
D-38
D-38
D-38
D-40
D-44
D-44
D-451
D-49
D-49
D-49
SAMPLE DEPTH
(FEET)
265-270
65-70
65-70
35-40
10-15
60-65
125-130
175-180
225-230
25-30
275-280
75-80
120-125
160-165
25-30
345-350
340-345
400-405
150-155
155-160
245-250
295-300
345-350
95-100
395-400
445-450
490-495
95-100
375-380
20-25
370-375
180-185
380-385
475-480
315-320
255-260
355-360
405-410
165-170
230-235
380-385
425-430
135-140
185-190
235-240
EIS TEAM SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
0-30(265-270) ^
0-30(65-70)
0-40(65-70)
0-49(35^0)
0-71(10-15)
0-71(60-65)
0-82(125-130)
0-82(175-180)
0-82(225-230)
0-82(25-30)
0-82(275-280)
0-82(75-80)
0-88(120-125)
178(160-165)
210(25-30)
224(345-350)
260(340-345)
260(400-405)
272(150-155)
272(155-160)
284(245-250)
284(295-300)
284(345-350)
284(95-100)
302(395-400) 2
302(445-450) 2
302(490-495)
302(95-100)
306(375-380) Z
335(20-25)
335(370-375)
491(180-185)
0-145(380-385)
0-148(475-480)
0-30(315-320)
0-38(255-260)
D-38{355-360)2
0-38(405-410)
0-40(165-170)
0-44(230-235)
0-44(380-385)
0-451(425-430)
0-49(135-140)
0-49(185-190)
0-49(235-240)
-------
CONFIRMATION WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
ANALYZED BY EIS TEAM
I
E-1, Page 6
WASTE ROCK
GROUP
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
GARNET SKARN
MAGNETITE SKARN
MAGNETITE SKARN
MAGNETITE SKARN
MAGNETITE SKARN
MAGNETITE SKARN
MAGNETITE SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
BOREHOLE
NUMBER
D-49
D-49
D-49
D-49
D-85
284
284
306
D-38
D-44
D-85
218
218
221
224
224
224
260
260
284
302
306
306
330
335
335
354
D-145
D-148
D-148
D-30
D-38
D-38
D-40
D-44
D-451
D-51
D-57
189
200
212
341
341
SAMPLE DEPTH
(FEET)
285-290
335-340
360-365
85-90
235-240
395-400
445-450
475-480
520-525
470-475
465-470
280-285
310-315
20-25
295-300
390-395
95-100
290-295
40-45
195-200
45-50
225-230
325-330
75-80
320-325
385-390
315-320
510-515
365-370
415-420
365-370
105-110
8-15
215-220
280-285
395-400
140-145
165-170
215-220
50-55
25-30
270-175
315-320
EIS TEAM SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
D-49(285-290)
0-49(335-340)
0-49(360-365)
0-49(85-90)
0-85(235-240)
284(395-400)
284(445^50)
306(475-480)
0-38(520-525)
0^4(470-475)
0-85(465-470)
218(280-285)
218(310-315)
221 (20-25) Z
224(295-300)
224(390-395)
224(95-100)
260(290-295)
260(40-45)
284(195-200)
302(45-50)
306(225-230)
306(325-330)'2
330(75-80)
335(320-325)
335(385-390)
354(315-320)
0-145(510-515)
0-148(365-370)
0-148(415-420)
0-30(365-370)
0-38(105-110)
0-38(8-15)
0-40(215-220)
0-44(280-285)
0-451(395-400)^
0-51(140-145)
0-57(165-170)
189(215-220)
200(50-55)
212(25-30)
341(270-275)
341(315-320)
-------
CONFIRMATION WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
ANALYZED BY EIS TEAM '
E-1, Page 7
WASTE ROCK
GROUP
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
MARBLE
BOREHOLE
NUMBER
354
354
354
357
398
398
39B
41
443
443
443
D-114
D-114
D-133
D-133
D-136
D-57
D-71
D-71
D-82
D-99
SAMPLE DEPTH
(FEET)
365-370
415-420
425-430
340-345
135-140
185-190
230-235
20-25
10-15
60-65
70-75
495-500
520-525
355-360
365-370
115-120
105-110
110-115
135-140
475-480
485-490
EIS TEAM SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
354(365-370)
354(415-420)
354(425-430)
357(340-345)
398(135-140)
398(185-190)
398(230-235)
41(20-25)
443(10-15)
443(60-65)
443(70-75)
0-114(495-500)
0-114(520-525)
0-133(355-360)
0-133(365-370)
0-136(115-120)
0-57(105-110)
0-71(110-115)
0-71(135-140)
0-82(475-480)
0-99(485-490)
ALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
306
183
184
184
189
212
212
218
218
234
235
235
235
235
235
235
235
260
260
272
284
302
302
25-30
70-75
40-45
70-75
300-305
110-115
75-80
180-185
230-235
60-65
10-15
110-115
160-165
210-215
260-265
295-300
60-65
190-195
240-245
100-105
45-50
195-200
345-350
306(25-30)
183(70-75)
184(40-45)
184(70-75)
189(300-305)
212(110-115)
212(75-80)
218(180-185).
218(230-235)'
234(60-65)*2
235(10-15)
235(110-115)
235(160-165)
235(210-215)
235(260-265)
235(295-300)
235(60-65)
260(190-195)
260(240-245)
272(100-105)
284(45-50)
302(195-200)
302(345-350)
-------
CONFIRMATION WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
ANALYZED BY EIS TEAM J
E-1, Page 8
WASTE ROCK
GROUP
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
UNALTERED CLASTICS
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
BOREHOLE
NUMBER
306
306
315
315
315
315
315
330
330
330
335
348
348
348
348
348
357
357
357
41
41
41
459
459
459
459
459
459
491
491
491
491
D-27
D-27
D-38
D-44
D-44
D-44
D-451
109
109
109
183
210
210
SAMPLE DEPTH
(FEET)
125-130
75-80
100-105
150-155
200-205
215-220
50-55
175-180
225-230
250-255
270-275
135-140
185-190
235-240
35-40
85-90
195-200
245-250
295-300
120-125
125-130
70-75
135-140
185-190
235-240
335-340
35-40
85-90
230-235
280-285
330-335
380-385
120-125
170-175
205-210
30-35
330-335
80-85
345-350
115-120
375-380
65-70
20-25
75-80
85-90
EIS TEAM SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
306(125-130)
306(75-80)
31 5(1 00-1 05) 2
315(150-155)
315(200-205)
315(215-220)
315(50-55)
330(175-180)
330(225-230)
330(250-255)
335(270-275)
348(135-140)
348(185-190)
348(235-240)
348(35-40)
348(85-90)
357(195-200)
357(245-250)
357(295-300)
41(120-125)
41(125-130)
41 (70-75)
459(135-140)
459(185-190)
459(235-240)
459(335-340)
459(35-40)
459(85-90)
491(230-235)
491(280-285)
491 (330-335)
491(380-385)
0-27(120-125)
0-27(170-175)
0-38(205-210)
0-44(30-35)
0-44(330-335)
0-44(80-85)
D-451 (345-350)
109(115-120)
109(375-380)
109(65-70)
183(20-25)
210(75-80)
210(85-90)
-------
CONFIRMATION WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
ANALYZED BY EIS TEAM I E-1, Page 9
WASTE ROCK
GROUP
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
INTRUSIVE
BOREHOLE
NUMBER
260
260
284
302
343
357
457
457
459
491
D-112
D-112
D-30
D-44
D-44
D-56
D-82
SAMPLE DEPTH
(FEET)
140-145
390-395
145-150
145-150
85-90
95-100
115-120
155-160
285-290
430-435
115-120
15-20
545-550
130-135
180-185
225-230
565-570
EIS TEAM SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
260(140-145)
260(390-395)
284(145-150)
302(1 45-1 50} a
343(85-90)
357(95-100)
457(115-120)
457(155-160)
459(285-290)
491(430-435)
0-112(115-120)
0-112(15-20)
0-30(545-550)
0-44(130-135)
0-44(180-185)
0-56(225-230)
0-82(565-570)
Notes: 1. Acid-base accounting tests were performed by the EIS team on all confimration waste
rock samples.
2. Humidity cell tests were performed on these samples by BMGC.
-------
January 1997
Appendix G * Geochemistry • E-1, Page 10
ORE AND LOW GRADE ORE SAMPLES ANALYZED BY BMGC
Low Grade Ore
Garnet Skarn
Magnetite Skarn
Undifferentiated Skarn
Borehole
Number
D90-46
D90-56
D91-51
D90-85
D90-46
D91-101
Sample Depth
95-100
265-270
540.3-545
500-505
140-145
245-250
BMGC Sample Analyses Performed
Designation ||
10-101
10-102
11-101
11-102
9-101
9-102
Ore
Garnet Skarn
Magnetite Skarn
Undifferentiated Skarn
D90-46
D90-46
D91-88
D91-101
40-45
45-50
445-450
235-240
13-101
13-102
14-101
12-101
1 XRF
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
EPA Method
1312
^
/
y
/
^
/
/
/
/
/
Acid-Base
Accounting
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
Humidity Cell
Tests
/
/
-------
January 1997
Appendix G * Geochemistry • £- 1, Page 11
REPRESENTATIVE TAILING SAMPLES ANALYZED BY BMGC
Ore Type
Magnetite
Magnetite
Magnetite
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Andesite/Garnetite
Andesite/Garnetite
Andesite/Garnetite
Southwest and
Andesite/Garnetite
Cyanide Detox
Level
<40 ppm WAD
Optimal detox
Optimal detox
<40 ppm WAD
Optimal detox
Optimal detox
Optimal detox
<40 ppm WAD
Optimal detox
Optimal detox
Optimal detox
BMGC Sample
Designation
CJC-7/2096-991
CJC-7/2 127-74
2317-107
CJC-1 2/2 11 0-1 35
CJC-1 2/2 127-70
CJC-1 2/2 127-71
CJTest 2317-104
CJC-1 3/2 11 0-1 35A
CJTest 2317-105
CJTest 2317-106
CJC-Blend/2 127-73
Analyses Performed
XRF
(solids)
J
',
',
'
Dissolved
Constituents
(liquid)
;
2
^
'
EPA Method
1311 (solids)
/
S
'
'
EPA Method
1312 (solids)
/
2
/
/
Acid - Base
Accounting
(solids)
1
'',
1
S
Note: 1 = Laboratory referred to this sample as CJC-1 3/2096-99
Humidity
Cell Tests
(solids)
/
;
^
/
Crown Jewel Mine - Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
-------
APPENDIX E-2
XRF AND WHOLE ROCK RADIONUCLIDE ANALYSIS
-------
-------
January 1997
Appendix E * Geochemistry • E-2, Page 1
XRF ANALYSES OF ALTERED ANDESITE WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
Parameter
Major Elements
Aluminum (as AljOj)
Barium (as BaO)
Calcium (as CaO)
Chloride (as Cl)
Iron (as FcjO,}
Magnesium (as MgO)
Manganese (as MnO)
Phosphorus (as P3OJ
Potassium (as K2O)
Silica (as SiOj
Sodium (as Na-jO)
Sulfur (as S)
Titanium (as TiOj)
Minor Elements
Arsenic (As)
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
Lead (Pb)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Ni)
Niobium (Nb)
Rubidium (Kb)
Strontium (Sr)
Thorium (Th)
Tin (Sn)
Tungsten (W)
Uranium (U)
Vanadium (V)
Yttrium (Y)
Zinc (Zn)
Zirconium (Zr)
Parameter
Major Elements
Aluminum (as Al3Oj)
Barium (as BaO)
Calcium (as CaO)
Chloride (as Cl)
Iron (as Fe2Oj)
Magnesium (as MgO)
Manganese (as MnO)
Phosphorus (as P,O j
Potassium (as K3O)
Silica (as SiOJ
Sodium (as Na^O)
Sulfur (as S)
Titanium (as TiO^
Minor Elements
Arsenic (As)
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper fCu)
Leaa (Pb)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Ni)
Niobium (Nb)
Rubidium fRb)
Strontium (Sr)
Thorium fin)
Tin (Sn)
Tungsten (W)
Uranium (U)
Vanadium (V)
Yttrium (Y)
Zinc (Zn)
Zirconium (Zr)
Sample*
101-A
15.1
0.06
11.8
0.02
10.8
6.47
0.23
0.33
1.72
51.7
2.86
ND
0.70
102-A
103-A
104-A
105-A
106-A
% By Weight
12.1
0.05
16.9
ND
12.9
6.76
0.28
0.22
2.00
39.9
1.57
1.59
0.64
13.7
0.04
10.4
0.03
13.0
8.98
0.24
0.13
2.70
43.9
1.91
ND
0.64
14.1
0.09
11.0
ND
11.8
6.36
0.29
0.22
2.34
49.3
2.53
0.19
0.66
14.1
0.08
13.0
ND
10.8
6.92
0.22
0.36
1.27
50.6
2.87
0.86
0.68
15.1
0.05
12.3
ND
11.7
6.88
0.31
0.41
1.38
49.8
2.97
0.08
0.76
107-A
8.60
0.03
19.9
ND
10.3
4.43
0.40
0.18
0.83
42.2
1.23
0.61
0.43
mg/kg
ND
185
32
169
47
ND
57
ND
70
648
10
228
ND
29
208
35
84
56
189
105
36
711
83
10
33
ND
70
757
10
249
ND
21
212
33
43
47
ND
149
25
313
24
ND
34
ND
211
569
ND
290
ND
ND
168
33
too
40
ND
125
34
1580
104
ND
47
ND
125
468
23
294
ND
21
193
30
94
58
ND
97
52
1080
105
ND
46
ND
52
623
ND
254
ND
ND
208
32
95
58
ND
185
64
1090
383
ND
57
ND
67
652
53
309
ND
19
215
35
111
59
ND
112
29
931
259
15
60
ND
42
471
61
180
ND
ND
124
22
78
37
Sample I
108-A
109-A
110-A
111-A
112-A
113-A
114-A
% By Weight
13.0
0.05
16.6
ND
12.1
8.47
0.28
0.24
1.45
46.4
1.12
0.69
0.69
14.6
0.06
12.0
ND
12.0
7.54
0.33
0.37
1.47
49.1
2.49
0.91
0.74
14.6
0.08
11.4
ND
11.9
7.70
0.27
0.27
2.07
49.4
2.31
1.10
0.70
15.3
0.04
9.67
ND
10.6
7.62
0.19
0.25
1.00
51.7
3.81
0.80
0.68
14.3
1.18
13.8
ND
12.0
6.20
0.24
0.27
1.99
45.8
1.54
1.12
0.71
10.8
0.03
19.4
ND
15.1
7.57
0.26
0.26
0.72
42.9
1.81
2.48
0.66
12.8
0.04
11.9
ND
24.2
7.74
0.34
0.19
2.01
39.4
0.77
3.41
0.65
mg/kg
23
361
32
400
56
ND
84
ND
59
574
12
224
ND
16
222
28
89
48
ND
109
37
588
720
12
32
ND
65
563
54
228
ND
ND
232
28
262
54
21
112
42
856
294
11
41
ND
94
544
31
193
ND
20
238
38
118
52
ND
74
38
345
39
ND
24
ND
53
741
12
212
ND
10
206
27
69
56
ND
82
28
528
57
ND
23
ND
79
561
25
212
ND
13
219
29
72
55
ND
189
80
1090
183
12
41
ND
38
615
28
104
10
24
203
33
97
50
384
53
93
918
169
ND
43
10
107
479
21
226
ND
ND
198
26
123
49
Note: ND - Not detected
Crown Jewel Mine * Find Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix E * Geochemistry 4 £-2, Page 2
XRF ANALYSES OF UNALTERED ANDESITE WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
Parameter
Major Elements
Aluminum (as Al3Oj)
Barium (as BaO)
Calcium (as CaO)
Chloride (as Cl)
Iron (as Fe3Oj)
Magnesium (as MgO)
Manganese (as MnO)
Phosphorus (as P3O.)
Potassium (as K?O)
Silica (as SiOj)
Sodium (as Nap)
Sulfur (as S)
Titanium (as TiO^)
Minor Elements
Arsenic (As)
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
Lead (Pb)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Ni)
Niobium (Nb)
Rubidium fRb)
Strontium (Sr)
Thorium (Th)
Tin (Sn)
Tungsten (W)
Uranium (U)
Vanadium (V)
Yttrium (Y)
Zinc (Zn)
Zirconium (Zr)
Parameter
Major Elements
Aluminum (as Al3Oj)
Barium (as BaO)
Calcium (as CaO)
Chloride (as Cl)
Iron (as Fe,Oj)
Magnesium (as MgO)
Manganese (as MnO)
Phosphorus (as P,OJ
Potassium (as K3O)
Silica (as SiOj)
Sodium (as NajO)
Sulfur (as S)
Titanium (as TiOj)
Minor Elements
Arsenic (As)
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
Le»d(Pb)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Ni)
Niobium (Nb)
Rubidium fRb)
Strontium (Sr)
Thorium (Th)
Tin (Sn)
Tungsten (W)
Uranium (U)
Vanadium (V)
Yttrium (Y)
Zinc (Zn)
Zirconium (Zr)
Sample I
201-B
202-B
203-B
204-B
205-B
206-B
207-B
% By Weight
14.9
0.0+
14.3
ND
10.8
6.18
0.30
0.32
1.42
49.8
2.94
0.11
0.73
14.3
0.06
10.4
0.10
11.6
7.37
0.23
0.40
1.37
50.2
2.99
0.08
0.70
16.4
0.09
12.3
ND
11.4
6.41
0.22
0.23
2.87
47.9
1.63
0.18
0.73
15.4
0.07
10.7
ND
10.6
7.26
0.26
0.37
1.67
52.0
2.70
ND
0.76
14.9
0.07
11.7
ND
12.1
8.71
0.26
0.34
1.95
49.2
1.87
0.14
0.72
15.8
0.06
9.46
0.07
11.9
7.63
0.18
0.22
1.49
50.9
3.22
0.10
0.75
14.9
0.03
10.9
0.03
13.2
8.06
0.22
0.24
1.57
49.1
2.51
0.38
0.70
mg/kg
35
145
40
515
82
11
52
ND
85
568
15
233
ND
12
204
28
104
63
29
161
48
569
63
ND
65
ND
56
561
ND
316
ND
15
212
29
87
53
42
152
32
243
41
ND
49
ND
112
480
11
266
ND
ND
201
28
106
53
ND
196
33
635
93
ND
56
ND
69
621
13
281
ND
ND
221
29
97
58
22
172
40
896
106
ND
53
ND
78
707
13
258
ND
21
211
30
109
55
ND
163
33
664
53
ND
50
ND
71
605
14
251
ND
12
219
33
102
55
ND
152
41
93
26
ND
60
ND
84
693
ND
240
ND
16
200
28
92
52
Sample *
208-B
209-B
210-B
211-B
212-B
213-B
214-B
% By Weight
14.4
0.07
10.9
ND
13.4
7.21
0.24
0.31
1.20
48.6
3.06
1.90
0.63
16.0
0.07
10.9
ND
11.5
5.69
0.18
0.22
2.18
50.0
2.88
0.84
0.70
13.4
0.04
12.9
0.04
15.5
8.56
0.36
0.26
1.41
46.6
1.37
0.75
0.73
7.93
ND
25.0
ND
17.8
4.24
0.53
0.13
0.07
40.1
0.45
0.37
0.63
14.5
0.08
10.9
ND
11.9
6.95
0.24
0.22
1.82
51.6
2.91
0.06
0.67
13.5
0.05
11.4
ND
10.6
6.97
0.18
0.17
1.56
46.7
2.25
ND
0.76
14.7
0.03
9.13
0.02
13.0
7.27
0.37
0.22
1.14
50.8
3.48
0.62
0.75
mg/kg
ND
80
74
1020
81
ND
45
ND
52
649
21
263
ND
13
197
34
89
52
ND
148
30
254
30
ND
41
ND
109
442
ND
249
ND
ND
201
27
95
55
ND
182
43
472
85
10
42
ND
80
593
15
199
ND
16
184
36
125
51
ND
13
28
246
93
12
ND
13
29
332
132
71
10
ND
110
27
298
79
26
120
38
869
53
ND
39
ND
84
719
ND
254
ND
10
207
34
105
64
ND
58
31
244
33
ND
22
ND
86
656
ND
264
ND
ND
221
28
80
53
ND
168
36
347
47
19
56
ND
81
577
18
272
ND
ND
214
29
89
61
Note: ND - Not detected
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix E * Geochemistry * E-2, Page 3
Parameter
Major Elements
Aluminum (as A12O3)
Barium (as BaO)
Calcium (as CaO)
Chloride (as Cl)
Iron (as Fe3Oj)
Magnesium (as MgO)
Manganese (as MnO]
Phosphorus (as P,OJ
Potassium (as K3O)
Silica (as SiO,)
Sodium (as Na,O)
Sulfur (as S)
Titanium (as TiO,)
Minor Elements
Arsenic (As)
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
Leiffpb)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Ni)
Niobium (Nb)
Rubidium (Rb)
Strontium fer)
Thorium (Th)
Tin (Sn)
Tungsten W)
Uranium (U)
Vanadium (V)
Yttrium (Y)
Zinc (Zn)
Zirconium (Zr)
XRF ANALYSES OF GARNET SKARN WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
Sample I
J01-A
302-A
303-A
304-A
305-A
306-A
J07-A
308-A
309-A
% By Weight
7.97
ND
28.0
ND
16.6
2.71
0.52
0.16
0.03
35.4
ND
ND
0.51
9.34
ND
21.6
ND
14.7
2.55
0.61
0.15
0.14
49.7
2.52
0.08
0.56
8.27
ND
28.0
0.02
18.9
3.39
0.67
0.15
0.11
40.4
0.22
0.16
0.98
15.8
0.02
6.16
ND
11.4
6.35
0.17
0.21
1.00
52.0
4.71
0.12
0.71
6.29
ND
27.1
ND
17.6
5.49
0.55
0.31
0.04
41.6
0.07
0.36
0.69
6.66
ND
31.8
ND
15.0
1.44
0.74
0.05
0.34
32.1
0.26
0.25
0.57
me/Tee
ND
ND
10
43
43
ND
ND
ND
19
271
16
ND
ND
ND
114
38
57
60
ND
36
16
42
73
81
ND
ND
17
246
38
97
ND
10
93
30
108
785
ND
16
10
154
62
90
ND
13
15
145
28
ND
ND
ND
172
43
95
82
ND
105
30
360
35
ND
36
ND
64
439
ND
292
ND
22
192
33
77
61
ND
11
24
138
72
ND
ND
11
21
186
17
ND
ND
ND
97
31
89
85
ND
14
ND
149
113
68
ND
ND
30
297
10
ND
ND
15
113
31
184
63
7.54
ND
26.5
ND
23.4
3.02
0.54
0.09
0.03
37.6
ND
2.71
0.86
7.05
ND
27.0
ND
19.3
5.13
0.55
0.29
0.05
40.9
0.05
1.42
0.63
7.08
ND
26.5
ND
19.7
3.54
0.60
0.05
0.08
38.8
0.05
0.72
0.37
ND
16
67
673
82
20
43
ND
21
275
29
ND
20
18
135
36
82
72
ND
15
53
353
67
ND
ND
10
20
214
45
ND
14
11
94
39
134
87
ND
25
20
297
62
10
82
11
17
223
38
ND
ND
ND
101
43
113
55
Note: ND - Not detected
XRF ANALYSES OF MAGNETITE SKARN WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
Parameter
Major Elements
Aluminum (as Al2Oj)
Barium (as BaO)
Calcium (as CaO)
Chloride (as Cl)
Iron (as Fe2Oj)
Magnesium (as MgO)
Manganese (as MnO]
Phosphorus (as P,OJ
Potassium (as K3O)
Silica (as SiO,)
Sodium (as Na,O)
Sulfur (as S)
Titanium (as TiO,)
Minor Elements
Arsenic (As)
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
LeifflPb)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Nil
Niobium (Nb)
Rubidium (Rb)
StrontiumfSr)
Thorium (Th)
Tin (Sn)
Tungsten (W)
Uranium (U)
Vanadium (V)
Yttrium (Y)
Zinc (Zn)
Zirconium (Zr)
Sample #
4-401-B
4-402-B
403-B
404-B
405-B
406-B
% By Weieht
4.29
0.01
11.8
ND
68.8
1.39
0.29
ND
0.03
18.8
ND
1.60
0.19
7.65
ND
17.9
ND
47.9
1.46
0.40
0.13
0.06
27.1
ND
2.36
0.27
3.96
0.01
11.3
ND
73.3
1.11
0.25
ND
0.03
18.0
ND
0.78
0.13
5.28
0.01
13.4
ND
65.7
1.22
0.32
0.08
0.04
20.0
ND
1.93
0.21
4.20
ND
11.8
ND
65.2
1.36
0.28
ND
0.04
19.2
ND
4.47
0.13
6.04
ND
18.7
ND
41.8
2.49
0.36
0.18
0.05
30.07
ND
3.74
0.40
ma/ke
28
ND
56
70
91
ND
ND
ND
ND
76
37
ND
39
10
63
17
64
30
31
20
28
148
93
25
ND
ND
ND
264
24
ND
22
ND
73
25
61
38
32
ND
55
167
112
ND
ND
ND
12
95
160
ND
44
ND
55
ND
71
18
33
ND
55
241
103
11
ND
ND
ND
120
ND
ND
30
ND
65
15
74
40
30
14
43
190
100
21
ND
ND
ND
117
85
ND
29
ND
45
ND
95
25
27
20
29
102
83
13
ND
11
ND
261
76
ND
40
ND
68
20
81
55
Note: ND - Not detected
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix E * Geochemistry 4 £-2, Page 4-
XRF ANALYSES OF UNDIFFEKENTIATED SKARN WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
Parameter
Major Elements
Aluminum (as AJ2Oj)
Barium (as BaO)
Chloride \asCI)
Iron (as Fe3O3)
Magnesium (as MgO)
Manganese (as MnO)
Phosphorus (as P,OJ
Potassium (as K5O)
Silica (as SiOj)
Sodium (as Na,O)
Sulfur (as S)
Titanium (as TJO-j)
Minor Elements
Arsenic (As)
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
LeadtPb)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Nil
Niobium (Nb)
Rubidium (Rb)
Thorium (Th)
Tin (Sn)
Tungsten £*)
Uranium (U)
Vanadium (V)
Yttrium (Y)
Zinc (Zn)
Zirconium (Zr)
Sample #
501-C
502-C
503-C
504-C
505<:
506-C
507-C
% By Weight
12.8
0.04
17.9
ND
12.9
4.53
0.45
0.12
1.18
48.4
2.26
ND
0.91
ND
54
21
134
49
ND
12
ND
50
476
18
190
ND
22
170
31
142
83
12.5
0.09
19.5
ND
11.7
2.97
0.41
0.10
1.80
47.5
1.97
0.07
0.75
ND
26
20
299
67
ND
ND
ND
40
426
ND
230
ND
ND
134
41
136
87
11.5
0.13
17.6
ND
12.8
3.85
0.45
0.13
1.90
45.6
1.27
ND
1.02
ND
38
32
143
46
10
13
ND
52
402
ND
241
ND
ND
170
38
113
97
9.18
ND
19.7
ND
15.8
6.17
0.42
0.23
0.26
43.9
0.33
ND
1.29
me/kg
ND
11
33
82
50
18
ND
ND
22
621
67
197
ND
15
208
27
109
109
12.5
0.05
14.3
ND
11.2
2.44
0.45
0.13
1.06
53.3
4.68
ND
1.25
ND
31
21
15
26
ND
ND
ND
26
275
19
192
ND
13
201
36
131
93
9.07
ND
24.4
ND
16.5
2.95
0.68
0.15
0.18
42.5
0.16
0.10
0.88
12.9
0.04
13.5
ND
10.2
3.51
0.35
0.11
1.22
55.1
3.62
0.20
0.66
20
17
14
291
2490
19
ND
ND
29
297
298
73
ND
ND
131
32
124
74
ND
47
27
429
72
14
19
ND
36
492
ND
242
ND
12
130
35
77
75
Note: ND - Not detected
XRF ANALYSES OF MARBLE WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
Parameter
Major Elements
Barium (as BaO)
Calcium (as CaO)
Chloride (as Cl)
Iron (as Fe2Oj)
Magnesium (as MgO)
Manganese (as MnO)
Phosphorus (as PjOJ
Potassium (as K,O)
Silica (as Sib,)
Sodium (as Na,O)
Sulfur (as S)
Arsenic (As)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
LeaT (Pb)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Nil
Niobium (Nb)
Rubidium (Rb)
Strontium fer)
Thorium (Th)
Tin (Sn)
Tungsten W)
Vanadium (V)
Yttrium (Y)
Sample #
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
60S
609
% By Weight
0.05
ND
50.9
ND
3.76
0.31
0.12
ND
ND
4.93
ND
ND
ND
39
26
ND
ND
38
15
ND
ND
24
276
ND
ND
ND
ND
10
22
ND
ND
0.46
ND
52.2
ND
0.47
1.23
0.05
ND
0.11
1.89
ND
ND
0.02
27
16
ND
ND
32
10
ND
ND
28
778
ND
ND
ND
ND
18
20
ND
14
0.44
ND
52.4
ND
0.89
0.55
0.06
ND
0.09
2.07
ND
ND
0.03
2.29
ND
42.3
ND
0.83
9.72
0.05
ND
0.16
8.10
ND
0.11
0.08
179
16
ND
11
38
21
ND
ND
24
587
138
ND
ND
ND
18
22
ND
11
ND
20
ND
ND
20
ND
ND
ND
23
539
ND
ND
ND
ND
24
19
10
19
0.39
ND
49.5
ND
2.38
0.47
0.09
ND
0.15
2.79
ND
ND
0.02
rnc/k
47
15
ND
12
34
17
ND
ND
27
594
105
ND
ND
ND
15
19
ND
ND
3.18
0.01
40.7
ND
5.57
5.36
0.15
ND
0.26
13.0
ND
0.22
0.16
0.16
ND
49.6
ND
3.15
0.26
0.08
ND
0.04
2.09
ND
0.23
0.02
450
17
50
47
32
26
ND
ND
28
373
83
ND
ND
ND
40
22
11
29
197
10
70
96
48
35
ND
ND
36
422
585
ND
ND
ND
16
13
ND
ND
0.45
ND
50.9
ND
1.23
0.44
0.07
ND
0.08
2.24
ND
0.07
0.03
720
26
95
12
36
46
ND
ND
30
543
166
ND
ND
ND
24
23
ND
ND
1.52
ND
46.1
ND
1.44
6.57
0.06
ND
0.23
5.94
ND
0.10
0.06
ND
16
ND
20
29
25
ND
ND
33
789
ND
ND
ND
ND
31
16
ND
17
Note- ND - Not detected
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix E * Geochemistry 4 E-2, Page 5
XRF ANALYSES OF CLAST1CS WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
Parameter
Maior Elements
Aluminum (as AljOJ
Barium (as BaO)
Calcium (as CaO)
Chloride (as Cl)
Iron (as Fe2Oj)
Magnesium (as MgO)
Manganese (as MnOT
Phosphorus (as P,O^
Potassium (as K,O)
Silica (as SiO,)
Sodium (as Na^O)
Sulfur (a. S)
Titanium (as TiO,)
Minor Elements
Arsenic (As)
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
Lead (Pb)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (NO
Niobium (Nb)
Rubidium (Rb)
Strontium (Sr)
Thorium (Th)
Tin(Sn)
Tungsten (W)
Uranium (U)
Vanadium (V)
Yttrium (Y)
T 1*1 \
Zinc (Zn)
Zirconium (Zr)
Sample *
701
702
70J
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
% By Weight
14.1
0.02
8.18
0.08
11.6
4.43
0.20
0.20
0.85
55.2
5.47
ND
1.29
12.0
0.05
16.3
ND
9.42
3.34
0.43
0.16
1.22
51.5
3.53
ND
0.79
ND
ND
31
ND
15
ND
ND
ND
28
273
23
266
ND
16
250
42
72
113
ND
27
21
290
92
ND
23
ND
36
725
ND
217
ND
ND
149
32
126
99
12.9
0.03
12.8
ND
9.19
4.78
0.35
0.23
0.90
54.5
4.60
0.20
0.94
15.5
0.02
5.64
ND
9.74
3.66
0.20
0.16
1.65
55.4
5.08
0.24
1.16
15.6
0.01
13.4
ND
9.85
6.97
0.22
0.37
0.49
50.5
3.07
0.33
0.81
13.6
0.02
11.9
0.04
11.2
5.24
0.28
0.20
0.45
53.0
4.48
0.13
1.22
12.0
0.14
15.6
ND
11.3
3.79
0.41
0.25
2.05
52.8
2.17
0.45
0.56
14.8
0.13
6.60
ND
12.5
4.14
0.37
0.18
3.01
54.7
2.35
2.26
0.55
14.2
0.09
10.8
ND
7.75
3.13
0.28
0.12
1.70
54.
52
0.15
0.72
me/ke
61
59
30
254
132
19
25
ND
51
488
18
197
ND
12
199
44
93
104
ND
13
24
77
17
ND
ND
ND
70
307
19
292
ND
13
246
40
69
102
ND
29
30
108
28
ND
ND
ND
30
918
ND
170
ND
13
238
37
72
59
20
13
29
19
28
ND
ND
ND
24
510
31
183
ND
ND
267
41
73
104
61
70
16
67
37
43
28
ND
46
413
17
187
ND
10
155
43
80
81
27
76
21
203
37
62
55
ND
84
360
19
273
ND
ND
174
32
51
82
ND
12
20
108
100
80
22
ND
42
456
ND
229
ND
15
134
28
154
83
15.8
0.16
8.71
ND
5.79
3.69
0.18
0.21
2.99
58.9
2.22
1.85
0.65
33
87
21
94
29
25
47
ND
72
487
ND
192
ND
ND
183
33
29
89
16.1
0.09
9.41
ND
9.60
6.13
0.41
0.20
2.15
52.3
3.31
0.89
0.69
674
164
67
723
83
71
90
ND
73
382
17
272
ND
11
210
30
76
72
Note: ND - Not detected
XRF ANALYSES OF INTRUSIVES WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
Parameter
Maior Elements
Aluminum (as AI2Oj)
Barium (as BaO)
Calcium (as CaO)
Chloride (as Cl)
Iron (as Fe,Oj)
Magnesium (as MgO)
Manganese (as MnOj
Phosphorus (as P,OJ
Potassium (as K,O)
Silica (as SiO,)
Sodium (as Na,O)
Sulfur (as S)
Titanium (as TiO,)
Minor Elements
Arsenic (As)
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
LeadfPb)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Ni)
Niobium (Nb)
Rubidium (Rb)
Strontium fer)
I horium ( 1 h)
Tin (Sn)
Tungsten fW)
Uranium (U)
Vanadium (V)
Yttnum (Y)
Zinc(Zn)
Ztrcomum (Zr)
Sample *
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
% By Weieht
12.2
0.01
18.8
0.05
13.8
6.02
0.34
0.16
0.39
47.0
1.85
ND
0.96
12.4
0.01
18.3
0.04
13.7
5.77
0.35
0.18
0.49
45.6
2.14
0.13
0.88
15.7
0.04
2.14
ND
2.41
0.49
0.21
ND
4.76
69.7
0.22
0.09
0.08
14.7
0.05
3.28
ND
2.46
0.64
0.21
ND
4.65
70.6
0.28
ND
0.07
me/ka
22
13
42
17
44
ND
ND
ND
24
595
148
140
ND
11
222
27
109
79
33
16
39
ND
40
ND
ND
ND
28
548
130
171
ND
ND
224
30
93
77
45
17
ND
53
12
ND
ND
13
137
49
ND
59
ND
13
10
27
ND
55
ND
20
ND
26
11
14
ND
13
162
61
ND
59
ND
ND
ND
29
10
56
15.1
0.04
2.59
ND
2.44
0.64
0.23
ND
4.47
70.4
0.43
0.07
0.10
15.0
0.03
3.58
ND
7.03
1.26
0.60
ND
3.98
69.3
0.39
0.07
0.15
15.5
0.12
3.96
ND
5.30
0.56
0.43
ND
5.90
68.2
0.47
0.07
0.09
76
20
ND
46
19
16
11
11
141
77
ND
63
ND
ND
15
21
18
57
34
95
12
264
32
51
37
15
136
126
26
186
ND
ND
25
30
25
57
43
52
ND
117
18
39
28
13
181
146
14
142
ND
12
12
29
23
61
Note: ND - Not detected
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix E * Geochemistry + E-2, Page 6
XRF ANALYSES OF LOW GRADE ORE SAMPLES
Parameter
Sample Number
9-101
Major Elements (%)
Aluminum (as A12O3)
Barium (as BaO)
Calcium (as CaO)
Chloride (as Cl)
Iron (as Fe^j)
Magnesium (as MgO)
Manganese (as MnO)
Phosphorus (as P2O5)
Potassium (as K2O)
Silica (as SiO2)
Sodium (as Na,O)
Sulfur (as S)
Titanium (as TiOj
8.45
ND
21.4
ND
15.8
2.88
0.46
0.14
0.04
51.9
ND
0.09
0.72
9-102
10-101
10-102
11-101
11-102
1.36
0.01
20.7
ND
34.1
3.61
0.41
ND
0.20
37.4
ND
5.10
0.02
7.49
ND
29.1
ND
17.0
3.23
0.58
0.07
0.02
39.1
ND
ND
0.41
6.71
ND
28.8
ND
20.4
4.14
0.59
0.12
0.03
40.6
0.05
0.38
0.49
4.15
ND
15.1
ND
46.7
4.56
0.29
0.24
0.06
28.9
ND
4.49
0.50
1.01
0.01
2.74
ND
82.4
1.95
0.10
0.06
0.07
9.03
ND
1.47
0.03
Minor Elements (mg/kg)
Arsenic (As)
Chromium (CR)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
Lead(Pb)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (NO
Niobium (Nb)
Rubidium (Rb)
Strontium (Sr)
Thorium fih)
Tin (Sn)
Tungsten (W)
Uranium (U)
Vanadium (V)
Yttrium (Y)
Zinc (Zn)
Zirconium (Zr^
ND
27
20
123
92
156
ND
ND
12
925
62
70
10
13
106
43
92
100
ND
ND
136
1410
79
99
ND
ND
19
131
24
ND
14
ND
20
16
74
17
ND
15
ND
64
54
ND
ND
10
ND
92
ND
ND
ND
ND
83
34
44
63
ND
ND
10
397
72
34
18
ND
13
94
ND
ND
10
ND
104
59
87
70
21
ND
27
486
105
18
ND
10
ND
109
47
ND
21
ND
117
24
70
53
52
ND
135
118
114
ND
ND
ND
ND
41
345
ND
15
ND
28
ND
88
ND
Note: ND - Not detected.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix E * Geochemistry + E-2, Page 7
XRF ANALYSES OF ORE SAMPLES
Parameter
Sample Number
12-101
13-101
13-102
Major Elements (%)
Aluminum (as Alj03)
Barium (as BaO)
Calcium (as CaO)
Chloride (as Cl)
Iron (as Fe^O,)
Magnesium (as MgO)
Manganese (as MnO)
Phosphorus (asP2O5)
Potassium (as K2O)
Silica (as SiO2
Sodium (as NajO)
Sulfur (as S)
Titanium (as TiOJ
4.67
0.01
32.8
ND
14.7
4.03
0.27
ND
0.59
17.9
0.18
1.29
0.22
9.94
ND
26.7
ND
18.3
2.96
0.50
0.14
0.02
40.8
ND
0.35
0.66
8.46
ND
26.9
ND
17.5
3.04
0.55
0.06
0.03
39.9
ND
0.17
0.51
14-101
0.15
ND
37.0
ND
24.0
1.85
0.21
ND
0.04
15.3
ND
0.61
0.02
Minor Elements (mg/kg)
Arsenic (As)
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
Lead(Pb)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (ni)
Niobium (Nb)
Rubidium fRb)
Strontium (Sr)
Thorium fTh)
Tin (Sn)
Tungsten (W)
Uranium (U)
Vanadium (V)
Yttrium (Y)
Zinc (Zn)
Zirconium (Zr)
ND
45
41
649
54
23
11
ND
53
506
28
51
ND
ND
100
38
65
43
497
30
441
169
99
ND
13
ND
16
525
249
ND
16
ND
112
35
90
93
95
18
22
72
121
18
ND
ND
49
281
1840
ND
17
10
86
ND
59
43
960
ND
486
280
130
ND
ND
ND
36
190
1150
ND
14
ND
10
ND
32
ND
Note: ND - Not detected.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix E * Geochemistry + E-2, Page 8
XRF ANALYSES OF TAILINGS SOLIDSU
Parameter
Sample Number
CJC-12/
2110-135
(Southwest)
CJC-12/
2127-70
(Southwest)
CJC-12/
2127-71
(Southwest)
CJC-13/
2110-135A
(And/Gar)
CJC Bjend/2127-73
(Andesite/Gametite
& Southwest)
CJC-7/
2096-99
(Magnetite)
CJC-7/
2127-74
(Magnetite)
Major Elements(%)
Aluminum (as Al2O3)
Barium (as BaO)
Calcium (as CaO
Chloride (as Cl)
Iron (as FcjO,)
Magnesium (as MgO)
Manganese (as MnO)
Phosphorus (as P2O})
Potassium (as K2O)
Silica as SiOj
Sodium (as NajO)
Sulfur (as S)
Titanium (as TiOj
5.20
0.04
28.1
0.03
14.0
3.39
0.26
ND
1.12
32.7
0.53
0.75
0.32
4.36
0.03
25.9
0.02
18.1
3.08
0.22
ND
0.89
28.3
0.42
1.41
0.29
4.37
0.03
26.1
0.02
18.2
3.08
0.22
ND
0.90
28.7
0.41
1.41
0.29
11.3
0.02
17.7
0.04
18.0
5.27
0.35
0.19
0.76
45.0
1.45
1.31
0.62
6.03
0.03
24.8
ND
18.5
4.17
0.27
0.06
0.98
34.6
0.53
1.21
0.39
8.46
0.01
21.3
0.04
29.6
2.91
0.42
0.15
0.37
37.0
0.89
2.51
0.47
6.64
0.02
19.8
ND
38.4
2.84
0.29
0.07
0.45
31.9
0.51
3.59
0.35
Minor Elements (mg/kg)
Arsenic (As)
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
Leacf(Pb)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Ni)
Niobium (Nb)
Rubidium (Rb)
Strontium (Sr)
Thorium flh)
Tin (Sn)
Tungsten (W)
Uranium (U)
Vanadium (V)
Yttrium (Y)
Zinc ^n)
Zirconium (Zr)
638
185
79
545
167
86
99
ND
57
321
291
ND
23
29
77
21
80
38
1,040
96
119
710
166
49
50
14
44
265
304
ND
32
29
67
ND
60
26
1,050
55
120
698
171
38
32
13
46
266
322
ND
35
24
67
12
57
25
112
476
71
454
144
161
264
10
47
451
322
ND
26
23
159
18
128
60
802
82
120
367
190
61
34
15
61
292
379
ND
38
40
92
12
90
33
107
164
71
667
378
52
91
15
35
313
528
ND
42
27
103
11
146
51
383
52
113
355
209
21
31
13
32
237
424
ND
59
12
78
10
94
24
Notes: 1. ND - Not Detected
2. XRF results for tailinp solids used in bioasssay testing are presented in Appendix F, Dangerous Waste Characterization
Results for Detoxifiea Tailings.
Crown Jewel Mine * Find Environmental Impact Statement
-------
E-2 Page 9
'non Smith MEMORANDUM
.TvjMmg Incorporated
25;£ Ed^moni Boule.crd
Me™ Vancouver. B C.
Conoda V7R 2M9
Teler^--:r*. 604 984-2524 October 21,1 992
fax iu-».VB4-8426
TO: Ms Anne Baldridge, Battle Mountain Gold Company
FROM: Adrian Smith
ASCI. Vancouver, B.C.
Battle En;r:"bold
RE: Radionuclides 'm Rock Samples: Battle Mountain Gold Companylew°od
Crown Jewel Project. WA
RECEIVED
OCT 2 6 ,992
Battle Mountain Gold Company (BMGC) has collected twenty five rock samples from their
Crown Jewel Project with the object of determining the occurrence and range of values for
indicator radionuclides which might be present in these rocks. The locations from which
the samples were collected are shown on the Appended figure.
The twenty five samples were analysed, by geochemical methods, for natural uranium {as
U308) and thorium (as Th), by SVL Analytical Inc., Kellogg, Idaho. The results of the
analyses are given on the appended laboratory data sheet.
All thorium values were found to be below the detection limit of the analytical methods.
Thorium, the likely principal beta emitter in these rock if one were to be present, is not
detectable and not of environmental concern.
Twenty three of the twenty five samples had uranium levels below the analytical detection
limit of 0.1 ppm. Two samples contained uranium at levels of 0.8 ppm (as U308), which is
the equivalent of 0.55 ppm as U.
To put the uranium values in context, natural soils have an average uranium value of about
1 ppm; igneous rocks an average of about 2.5 ppm (range 0.05 to 3.5 ppm); and
sedimentary rock an average of about 4 ppm (range 0.5 to 300 ppm), (Hawkes and Webb,
1962). Consequently, the 0.55 ppm uranium found in two of the twenty five samples from
the Crown Jewel Project can be considered well below average natural background levels in
rocks and are no cause for any concern.
-------
E-2 Page 10
RESULTS OF WHOLE ROCK RADIONUCLIDE ANALYSIS
Hole Number
90-270
90-275
90-306
90-313
90-326
90-331
90-339
90-371
90-376
90-380
90-387
90-419
91-443
91-444
91-461
91-482
91-483
91-485
D90-47
D90-49
D90-63
D91-87
D9 1-107
D91-108
D91-120
Depth
Interval
210-215
105-110
295-300
250-255
5-10
0-5
410-415
170-175
590-595
540-545
340-345
110-115
235-240
275-280
120-125
285-290
450-455
150-155
12-15
0-15
235-240
605-610
0-5
440-445
580-585
U,O,
ppm
-------
APPENDIX E-3
LEACHABILITY TEST RESULTS
-------
-------
January 1997
Appendix E * Geochemistry + E-3, Page 1
ANALYSIS OF EQUILIBRATED FLUIDS FROM US EPA METHOD 1312 LEACH TESTS ON
ALTERED ANDESITE WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
Parameter
pH (Filt., std. units)
Solids, Total Diss. (TDS)
Aluminum, Diss. (Al)
Antimony, Diss. fSb)
Arsenic, Diss. (As)
Barium, Diss. (Bat
Beryllium, Diss. (Be)
Boron, Diss. (B)
Cadmium.Diss. (Cd)
Calcium, Diss. (Ca)
Chromium, Diss. (Cr)
Cobalt, Diss. (Co)
Copper, Diss. (Cu)
Iron. Diss. (Fe)
Lead, Diss. (Pb)
Mercury, Diss. (He)
Magnesium, Diss. JMg)
Manganese, Diss. (Mn)
Molybdenum, Diss. (Mo)
Nickel, Diss. (Ni)
Potassium, Diss. (K)
Selenium, Diss. (Se)
Silver, Diss. (Ac)
Sodium, Diss. (Na)
Strontium, Diss. (Sr)
Titanium, Diss. CTi)
Vanadium, Diss. (V)
Zinc, Diss. (Zn)
Parameter
pH (Filt., std. units)
Solids, Total Diss. fTDS)
Aluminum, Diss. (Al)
Antimony, Diss. fSb)
Arsenic, Diss. (As)
Barium, Diss. (Bat
Beryllium. Diss. (Be)
Boron, Diss. (B)
Cadmium, Diss. (Cd)
Calcium, Diss. (Ca)
Chromium, Diss. (Cr)
Cobalt, Diss. (Co)
Copper, Diss. (Cu)
Iron. Diss. (Fe)
Lead, Diss. (Pb)
Mercury, Diss. (Hg)
Magnesium, Diss. JMg)
Manganese, Diss. (Mn)
Molybdenum, Diss. (Mo)
Nickel, Diss. (Ni)
Potassium, Diss. (K.)
Selenium, Diss. (Se)
Silver, Diss. (Ae)
Sodium, Diss. (Na)
Strontium, Diss. (Sr)
Titanium, Diss. (Ti)
Vanadium, Diss. (V)
Zinc, Diss. (Zn)
BMGC Sample Designation
1-101-A
9.54
49
0.80
<0.1
<0.05
0.06
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
5.5
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.4
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
1-108-A
9.46
36
0.63
<0.1
<0.05
0.05
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
7.8
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.00030.
6
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.04
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
1-102-A
9.28
52
0.55
<0.1
<0.05
0.06
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
7.0
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.4
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.04
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
1-103-A
9.71
46
0.65
<0.1
<0.05
0.07
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
5.1
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
0.04
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.3
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
1-104-A
9.26
58
0.35
<0.1
<0.05
0.10
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
7.4
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.5
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.02
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
1-105-A
9.77
35
0.76
<0.1
<0.05
<0.08
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
6.0
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.04
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.8
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.01
0.01
<0.05
<0.01
1-106-A
9.71
40
0.91
<0.1
<0.05
0.06
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
5.0
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.4
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
1-107-A
9.34
41
0.59
<0.1
<0.05
0.06
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
7.4
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.5
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.02
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
BMGC Sample Designation
1-109-A
9.70
38
0.69
<0.1
<0.05
0.05
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
6.3
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.8
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
-------
January 1997
Appendix E * Geochemistry * E-3, Page 2
ANALYSIS OF EQUILIBRATED FLUIDS FROM US EPA METHOD 1312 LEACH TESTS ON
UNALTERED ANDESITE WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
Parameter
pH (File., std. units)
Solids, Total Diss. fTDS)
Aluminum, Diss. (Al)
Antimony, Diss. (Sb)
Arsenic, Diss. (As)
Barium, Diss. (Bat
Beryllium. Diss. (Be)
Boron, Diss. (B)
Cadmium, Diss. (Cd)
Calcium, Diss. (Ca)
Chromium, Diss. (Cr)
Cobalt, Diss. (Co)
Copper, Diss. (Cu)
Iron. Diss. (Fe)
Lead, Diss. (Pb)
Mercury, Diss. (He)
Magnesium, Diss. |Mg)
Manganese, Diss. (Mn)
Molybdenum, Diss. (Mo)
Nickel, Diss. (Ni)
Potassium, Diss. (K)
Selenium, Diss. (Se)
Silver, Diss. (Ae)
Sodium, Diss. (Na)
Strontium, Diss. (Sr)
Titanium, Diss. (TQ
Vanadium, Diss. (V)
Zinc, Diss. (Zn)
Parameter
pH (Filt., std. units)
Solids, Total Diss. fTDS)
Aluminum, Diss. (Al)
Antimony, Diss. (Sb)
Arsenic, Diss. (As)
Barium, Diss. (BaJ
Beryllium. Diss. (Be)
Boron, Diss. (B)
Cadmium, Diss. (Cd)
Calcium, Diss. (Ca)
Chromium, Diss. (Cr)
Cobalt, Diss. (Co)
Copper, Diss. (Cu)
Iron, Diss. (Fe)
Lead, Diss. (Pb)
Mercury, Diss. (He)
Magnesium, Diss. JMg)
Manganese, Diss. (Mn)
Molybdenum, Diss. (Mo)
Nickel, Diss. (Ni)
Potassium, Diss. (K)
Selenium, Diss. (Se)
Silver, Diss. (Aje)
Sodium, Diss. (Na)
Strontium, Diss. (Sr)
Titanium, Diss. (TO
Vanadium, Diss. (V)
Zinc, Diss. (Zn)
6MGC Sample Designation
2-201-B
9.5
37
1.14
<0.1
<0.05
0.09
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
6.4
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.4
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.02
<0.01
<0.05
0.01
2-202-B
9.51
27
0.88
<0.1
<0.05
0.06
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
5.0
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
0.04
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.4
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
2-203-B
9.71
31
1.18
<0.1
<0.05
0.08
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
6.1
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.3
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
0.1
0.01
<1
0.02
<0.01
<0.05
0.01
2-204-B
9.67
22
1.03
<0.1
<0.05
0.07
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
4.7
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
0.04
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.4
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
2-205-B
9.76
25
0.91
<0.1
<0.05
0.09
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
4.1
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
0.05
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.4
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
0.01
2-206-B
9.52
33
0.79
<0.1
<0.05
0.08
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
4.7
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
0.05
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.5
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
2-207-B
9.67
40
0.88
<0.1
<0.05
0.08
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
4.9
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
0.04
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.4
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
BMGC Sample Designation
2-208-B
9.68
36
0.83
<0.1
<0.05
0.08
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
5.6
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
0.04
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.5
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
2-209-B
9.37
36
0.64
<0.1
<0.05
0.08
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
5.5
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
0.04
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.5
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
0.01
2-210-B
9.30
32
0.62
<0.1
<0.05
0.07
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
3.5
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
0.04
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.5
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.05
0.01
2-211-B
8.58
21
0.28
<0.1
<0.05
0.07
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
4.5
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
0.04
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.4
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
0.01
2-212-B
9.70
35
0.62
<0.1
<0.05
0.07
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
5.5
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.4
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.02
<0.01
<0.05
0.01
2-213-B
9.58
32
0.34
<0.1
<0.05
0.08
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
5.3
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.3
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.02
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
2-214-B
8.34
59
<0.05
<0.1
<0.05
0.08
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
8.3
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
1.6
0.18
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.03
<0.01
<0.05
0.03
Note: All results presented in me/ unless otherwise noted.
< - Concentration less than detection limit.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix E * Geochemistry • E-3, Page 3
ANALYSIS OF EQUILIBRATED FLUIDS FROM US EPA METHOD 1312 LEACH TESTS ON
GARNET SKARN WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
Parameter
pH (Filt., std. units)
Solids, Total piss. (TDS)
Aluminum, DLss. (Al)
Antimony, Diss. (Sb)
Arsenic, Diss. (As)
Barium, Diss. (Bat
Beryllium. Diss. (Be)
Boron, Diss. (B)
Cadmium, Diss. (Cd)
Calcium, Diss. (Ca)
Chromium, Diss. (Cr)
Cobalt, Diss. (Co)
Copper, Diss. (Cu)
Iron. Diss. (Fe)
Lead, Diss. (Pb)
Mercury, Diss. (He)
Magnesium, Diss. JMg)
Manganese, Diss. (Mn)
Molybdenum, Diss. (Mo)
Nickel, Diss. (Ni)
Potassium, Diss. (K)
Selenium, Diss. (Se)
Silver, Diss. (Aje)
Sodium, Diss. (Na]
Strontium, Diss. (Sr)
Titanium, Diss. (Pi)
Vanadium, Diss. (V)
Zinc, Diss. (Zn)
Parameter
pH (Filt., std. units)
Solids, Total Diss. (TDS)
Aluminum, Diss. (Al)
Antimony, Diss. fib)
Arsenic, Diss. (As)
Barium, Diss. (Bat
Beryllium. Diss. (Be)
Boron, Diss. (B)
Cadmium, Diss. (Cd)
Calcium, Diss. (Ca)
Chromium, Diss. (Cr)
Cobalt, Diss. (Co)
Copper, Diss. (Cu)
Iron, Diss. (Fe)
Lead, Diss. (Pb)
Mercury, Diss. (He)
Magnesium, Diss. JMg)
Manganese, Diss. (Mn)
Molybdenum, Diss. (Mo)
Nickel, Diss. (Ni)
Potassium, Diss. (K)
Selenium, Diss. (Se)
Silver, Diss. (Ae)
Sodium, Diss. (Na)
Strontium, piss. (Sr)
Titanium, Diss. (Ti)
Vanadium, Diss. (V)
Zinc, Diss. (Zn)
BMGC Sam
3-301-A
9.49
36
<0.05
<0.1
<0.05
0.07
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
6.4
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
0.05
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.3
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.03
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
3-302-A
9.70
44
0.42
<0.1
<0.05
0.04
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
7.1
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.4
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.02
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
3-303-A
9.97
37
0.49
<0.1
<0.05
0.05
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
7.9
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.4
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
BMGC Sample Designation
3-307-A
9.66
39
0.38
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
7.6
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.5
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
3-308-A
9.79
33
0.37
<0.1
<0.05
0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
7.9
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.6
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
3-309-A
9.50
<10
0.31
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
8.9
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
1.0
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
>le Designation
3-304-A
9.83
33
0.45
<0.1
<0.05
0.04
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
6.7
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.4
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
3-305-A
9.40
41
0.11
<0.1
<0.05
0.04
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
9.2
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.7
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
3-306-A
9.71
46
0.55
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
7.1
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.4
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.02
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
Note: All results presented in me/1 unless otherwise noted.
< - Concentration less than detection limit.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix E * Geochemistry * E-3, Page 4-
ANALYSIS OF EQUILIBRATED FLUIDS FROM US EPA METHOD 1312 LEACH TESTS ON
MAGNETITE SKARN WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
Parameter
pH (Filt., std. units)
Solids, Total Diss. (TDS)
Aluminum, Diss. (Al)
Antimony, Diss. (Sb)
Arsenic, Diss. (As)
Barium, Diss. (Bat
Beryllium. Diss. (Be)
Boron, Diss. (B)
Cadmium, Diss. (Cd)
Calcium, Diss. (Ca)
Chromium, Diss. (Cr)
Cobalt, Diss. (Co)
Copper, Diss. (Cu)
Iron. Diss. (Fe)
Lead, Diss. (Pb)
Mercury, Diss. (Hg)
Magnesium, Diss. 'iMg)
Manganese, Diss. (Mn)
Molybdenum, Diss. (Mo)
Nickel, Diss. (Ni)
Potassium, Diss. (K)
Selenium, Diss. (Se)
Silver, Diss. (Ae)
Sodium, Diss. (Na)
Strontium, Diss. (Sr)
Titanium, Diss. (Ti)
Vanadium, Diss. (V)
Zinc, Diss. (Zn)
BMGC Samj
4-401-A
9.28
27
0.15
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
7.7
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.2
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0 1
le Designation
4-404-A
9.31
30
0.21
<0 1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
7.1
<0.01
-------
January 1997
Appendix E * Geochemistry * E-3, Page 5
ANALYSIS OF EQUILIBRATED FLUIDS FROM US EPA METHOD 1312 LEACH TESTS ON
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
Parameter
pH (Filt., std. units)
Solids, Total Diss. fTDS)
Aluminum, Diss. (A.1)
Antimony, Diss. (Sb)
Arsenic, Diss. (As)
Barium, Diss. (Bat
Beryllium. Diss. (Be)
Boron, Diss. (B)
Cadmium.piss. (Cd)
Calcium, Diss. (Ca)
Chromium, Diss. (Cr)
Cobalt, Diss. (Co)
Copper, Diss. (Cu)
Iron. Diss. (Fe)
Lead, Diss. (Pb)
Mercury, Diss. (He)
Magnesium, Diss. JMg)
Manganese, Diss. (Mn)
Molybdenum, Diss. (Mo)
Nickel, Diss. (Ni)
Potassium, Diss. (K)
Selenium, Diss. (Se)
Silver, Diss. (Ae)
Sodium, Diss. (Naj
Strontium, Diss. (Sr)
Titanium, Diss. (Ti)
Vanadium, Diss. (V)
Zinc, Diss. (Zn)
BMGC Sample Designation
5-501-C
9.52
39
0.60
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
6.8
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.4
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
< 1
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
5-502-C
9.48
38
0.53
<0 1
<0.05
0.04
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
6.6
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.5
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
-------
January 1997
Appendix E * Geochemistry + E-3, Page 6
ANALYSIS OF EQUILIBRATED FLUIDS FROM US EPA METHOD 1312 LEACH TESTS ON
MARBLE WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
Parameter
pH (Filt., std. units)
Solids, Total Diss. (TDS)
Aluminum, Diss. (Al)
Antimony, Diss. fSb)
Arsenic, Diss. (As)
Barium, Diss. (Bat
Beryllium. Diss. (Be)
Boron, Diss. (B)
Cadmium, Diss. (Cd)
Calcium, Diss. (Ca)
Chromium, Diss. (Cr)
Cobalt, Diss. (Co)
Copper, Diss. (Cu)
Iron. Diss. (Fe)
Lead, Diss. (Pb)
Mercury, Diss. (He)
Magnesium, Diss. jfMg}
Manganese, Diss. (Mn)
Molybdenum, Diss. (Mo)
Nickel, Diss. (Ni)
Potassium, Diss. (K)
Selenium, Diss. (Se)
Silver, Diss. (Ag)
Sodium, Diss. (Na)
Strontium, DISS. (Sr)
Titanium, Diss. (Ti)
Vanadium, Diss. (V)
Zinc, Diss.JZn)
Parameter
pH (Filt., std. units)
Solids, Total Diss. (TDS)
Aluminum, Diss. (Al)
Antimony, Diss. (Sb)
Arsenic, Diss. (As)
Barium, Diss. (Bat
Beryllium. Diss. (Be)
Boron, Diss. (B)
Cadmium, Diss. (Cd)
Calcium, Diss. (Ca)
Chromium, Diss. (Cr)
Cobalt, Diss. (Co)
Copper, Diss. (Cu)
Iron. Diss. (Fe)
Lead, Diss. (Pb)
Mercury, Diss. (He)
Magnesium, Diss. JMg)
Manganese, Diss. (Mn)
Molybdenum, Diss. (Mo)
Nickel, Diss. (Ni)
Potassium, Diss. (K)
Selenium, Diss. (Se)
Silver, Diss. (Ag)
Sodium, Diss. (Na)
Strontium, Diss. (Sr)
Titanium, Diss. (Ti)
Vanadium, Diss. (V)
Zinc, Diss. (Zn)
BMGC Sample Designation
6-601
9.29
32
<0.05
<0 1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
5.9
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.4
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0 1
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.05
L <0.01
6-602
9.14
39
0.17
<0 1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
5.2
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.6
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0 1
<0.01
0.12
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
6-603
9.45
45
0.22
<0 1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
5.8
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.2
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0 1
<0.01
0.10
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
BMGC Sample Designation
6-607
9.42
35
0.06
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
6.0
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.1
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0 1
<0.01
<1
0.09
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
6-608
9.55
39
0.26
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
5.7
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.2
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0 1
<0.01
<1
0.09
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
6-609
9.74
42
0.10
<0.1
<0.05
0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
5.1
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
1.5
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0 1
<0.01
<1
0.10
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
6-604
9.69
53
0.07
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
4.8
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
1.8
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
0.07
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
6405
9.50
46
0.15
<0 1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
6.0
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.3
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
0.11
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
6-606
9.66
44
0.31
<0 1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
5.7
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
1.2
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
0.05
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
Note: All results presented in mg/1 unless otherwise noted.
< - Concentration less than detection limit.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix E * Geochemistry 4 E-3, Page 7
ANALYSIS OF EQUILIBRATED FLUIDS FROM US EPA METHOD 1312
LEACH TESTS
ON CLASTIC WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
Parameter
pH (Filt., std. units)
Solids, Total Diss. fTDS)
Aluminum, Diss. (Al)
Antimony, Diss. (Sb)
Arsenic, Diss. (As)
Barium, Diss. (Baj_
Beryllium. Diss. (Be)
Boron, Diss. (B)
Cadmium, Diss. (Cd)
Calcium, Diss. (Ca)
Chromium, Diss. (Cr)
Cobalt, Diss. (Co)
Copper, Diss. (Cu)
Iron. Diss. (Fe)
Lead, Diss. (Pb)
Mercury, Diss. (He)
Magnesium, Diss. iMg)
Manganese, Diss. (Mn)
Molybdenum, Diss. (Mo)
Nickel, Diss. (Ni)
Potassium, Diss. (K)
Selenium, Diss. (Se)
Silver, Diss. (Ae)
Sodium, Diss. (Na)
Strontium, Diss. (Sr)
Titanium, Diss. (Ti)
Vanadium, Diss. (V)
Zinc^Diss. (Zn)
Parameter
pH (Filt., std. units)
Solids, Total Diss. (TDS)
Aluminum, Diss. (A.1)
Antimony, Diss. (Sb)
Arsenic, Diss. (As)
Barium, Diss. (Baf
Beryllium. Diss. (Be)
Boron, Diss. (B)
Cadmium, Diss. (Cd)
Calcium, Diss. (Ca)
Chromium, Diss. (Cr)
Cobalt, Diss. (Co)
Copper, Diss. (Cu)
Iron. Diss. (Fe)
Lead, Diss. (Pb)
Mercury, Diss. (He)
Magnesium, Diss. JMg)
Manganese, Diss. (Kin)
Molybdenum, Diss. (Mo)
Nickel, Diss. (Ni)
Potassium, Diss. (K)
Selenium, Diss. (Se)
Silver, Diss. (Ac)
Sodium, Diss. (Na)
Strontium, Diss.jfSr)
Titanium, Diss. (Ti)
Vanadium, Diss. (V)
Zinc, Diss. (Zn)
BMGC Sample Designation
7-701
9.64
53
0.73
<0 1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
6.2
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.5
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0 1
-------
January 1997
Appendix E * Geochemistry 4 E-3, Page 8
ANALYSIS OF EQUILIBRATED FLUIDS FROM US EPA METHOD 1312 LEACH TESTS ON
INTRUSIVE WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
P^f^tnpt'pi"
f oTcUllCtCI
pH (Filt., std. units)
Solids, Total Diss. (TDS)
Aluminum, Diss. fAl)
Antimony, Diss. fSb)
Arsenic, Diss. (As)
Barium, Diss. (Bat
Beryllium. Diss. (Be)
Boron Diss. (B)
Cadmium, Diss. (Cd)
Calcium, Diss. (Ca)
Chromium, Diss. (Cr)
Cobalt, Diss. (Co)
Copper, Diss. (Cu)
Iron. Diss. (Fe)
Lead, Diss. (Pb)
Mercury, Diss. (He)
Magnesium, Diss. j[Mg)
Manganese, Diss. (Mn)
Molybdenum, Diss. (Mo)
Nickel, Diss. (Ni)
Potassium, Diss. (K)
Selenium, Diss. (Se)
Silver, Diss. (Ae)
Sodium, Diss. (Na)
Strontium, Diss.jfSr)
Titanium, Diss. (Ti)
Vanadium, Diss. (V)
Zinc, Diss. (Zn)
BMGC Sample Designation
8-801
9.79
32
0.85
<0 1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
7.2
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.5
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0 1
<0.01
0.02
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
8-802
9.72
35
0.69
<0 1
<0.05
0.04
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
6.9
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.6
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
0.03
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
8-803
9.51
32
1.29
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 6.005
6.1
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
<0 1
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
8-804
9.41
29
1.23
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
6.2
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
<0 1
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
8-805
9.45
32
1.28
<0.1
0.05
<0.05
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
5.6
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.1
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
8-806
9.13
21
0.90
< 0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
3.1
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
<'0 1
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
8-807
9.49
34
1.16
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
7.5
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.2
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
Note: All results presented in me/1 unless otherwise noted.
< - Concentration less than detection limit.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix E * Geochemistry + E-3, Page 9
COMPARISON OF NUMERIC VALUES FROM US EPA METHOD 1312 AND TCLP (METHOD 1311) LEACH TEST SOLUTIONS
Parameter
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Lead(Pb)
Mercury (Hg)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Parameter
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Lead (Pd)
Mercury (Hg)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
BMGC SAMPLE DESIGNATION
1-110-A
TCLP 1312
<0.05 0.05
0.1 0.06
<0.01 < 0.005
0.02 <0.01
<0.05 <0.05
< 0.003 < 0.0003
0.1 <0.1
<0.01 <0.01
1-111-A
TCLP 1312
<0.05 <0.05
0.4 0.09
<0.01 < 0.005
0.02 <0.01
<0.05 <0.05
< 0.003 < 0.0003
<0.1 <0.1
<0.01 <0.01
2-212-B
TCLP 1312
<0.05 <0.05
0.4 0.07
<0.01 < 0.005
0.02 <0.01
<0.05 <0.05
< 0.003 < 0.0003
<0.1 <0.1
<0.01 <0.01
2-214-B
TCLP 1312
<0.05 <0.05
0.4 0.08
<0.01 < 0.005
0.02 <0.01
<0.05 <0.05
< 0.003 < 0.0003
<0.1 <0.1
<0.01 <0.01
BMGC SAMPLE DESIGNATION
3-306-A
TCLP 1312
<0.05 <0.05
0.3 <0.01
<0.01 < 0.005
0.01 <0.01
<0.05 <0.05
< 0.003 < 0.0003
<0.1 <0.1
<0.1 <0.01
3-307-A
TCLP 1312
<0.05 <0.05
0.2 <0.01
<0.01 < 0.005
0.02 <0.01
<0.05 <0.05
< 0.003 < 0.0003
<0.1 <0.1
0.01 <0.01
3-308-A
TCLP 1312
<0.05 <0.05
0.2 <0.01
<0.01 < 0.005
0.02 <0.01
<0.05 <0.05
< 0.003 < 0.0003
0.1 <0.1
0.05 <0.01
6-606
TCLP 1312
<0.05 <0.05
0.2 <0.01
<0.01 < 0.005
0.02 <0.01
<0.05 <0.05
< 0.003 < 0.0003
<0.1 <0.1
<0.01 <0.01
3-304-A
TCLP 1312
<0.05 <0.05
0.2 0.04
<0.01 < 0.005
0.02 <0.01
<0.05 <0.05
< 0.003 < 0.0003
<0.1 <0.1
0.03 <0.01
8-804
TCLP 1312
<0.05 <0.05
0.6 <0.01
0.01 < 0.005
0.02 <0.01
0.18 <0.05
< 0.002 <0.05
<0.1 <0.1
<0.01 <0.01
Note: All results presented in mg/L
< - Concentration less than detection limit
-------
January 1997
Appendix E * Geochemistry 4 E-3, Page 10
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS FOR GROSS ALPHA FROM WASTE ROCK
LEACHATES (pCi/I)
BMGC Sample
Designation
1-102-A
1-110-A
1-112-A
1-113-A
1-114-A
2-208-B
2-210-B
3-307-A
3-309-A
4-402-B
4-405-B
4-406-B
5-506-C
5-507-C
6-606
6-607
7-708
7-709
7-710
8-803
8-805
Waste Rock
Group
Altered
Andesite
Unaltered
Andesite
Garnet
Skarn
Magnetite
Skarn
Undifferentiated
Skarn
Marble
Clastics
Intrusives
Gross Alpha
Dissolved (pCi/1)
0.8
0.5
1.0
0.7
0.9
0.1
ND
0.2
ND
ND
1.2
0.9
0.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.8
2.6
1.2
1.7
Error (+/-)
(pCiVl)
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.8
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.6
0.9
1.0
Lower Limit
of Detection
(pCi/1)
1.3
l.l
l.l
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.4
1.2
1.8
1.1
1.1
Note: ND - Not Detected
RESULTS OF ANALYSIS FOR GROSS BETA FROM WASTE ROCK
LEACHATES (pCi/1)
BMGC
Sample
Designation
1-102-A
1-110-A
1-112-A
1-113-A
1-114-A
2-208-B
2-210-B
3-307-A
3-309-A
4-402-B
4-405-B
4-406-B
5-506-C
5-507-C
6-606
6-607
7-708
7-709
7-710
8-803
8-805
Waste Rock Group
Altered
Andesite
Unaltered
Andesite
Garnet
Skarn
Magnetite
Skarn
Undifferentiated
Skarn
Marble
Clastics
Intrusives
Gross Beta
Dissolved
(pCi/1)
3.5
0.5
4.0
0.6
9.7
0.6
2.6
ND
ND
ND
1.6
2.2
1.9
0.6
0.2
0.8
ND
1.5
2.5
3.3
3.1
Error (+/-)
(pCiVl)
1.9
1.6
1.8
1.6
2.2
1.8
1.7
.5
.5
.6
.7
.8
.7
.6
.6
.6
.7
.8
.7
1.7
1.7
Lower Limit
of Detection
(pCi/1)
2.8
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.8
2.9
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.8
2.8
2.6
2.6
2.6
Note: ND - Not Detected
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix E * Geochemistry + E-3, Page 11
ANALYSIS OF EQUILIBRATED FLUIDS FROM US EPA METHOD 1312 LEACH TESTS
ON LOW GRADE ORE SAMPLES
Parameter
pH (Filt., std. units)
Solids, Total Dissolved (TDS)
Aluminum, Diss. (Al)
Antimony, Diss. fSb)
Arsenic, Diss. (As)
Barium, Diss. (Bat
Beryllium. Diss. (Be)
Boron, Diss. (B)
Cadmium, Diss. (Cd)
Calcium, Diss. (Ca)
Chromium, Diss. (Cr)
Cobalt, Diss. (Co)
Copper, Diss. (Cu)
Iron. Diss. (Fe)
Lead, Diss. (Pb)
Mercury, Diss. (He)
Magnesium, Diss. (Mg)
Manganese, Diss. (Mn)
Molybdenum, Diss. (Mo)
Nickel, Diss. (Ni)
Potassium, Diss. (K)
Selenium, Diss. (Se)
Silver, Diss. (Ajg)
Sodium, Diss. (Na)
Strontium, Diss. (Sr)
Titanium, Diss. (Ti)
Vanadium, Diss. (V)
Zinc, Diss. (Zn)
BMGC Sample Designation
9-101
9.84
35
0.60
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
7.1
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
0.08
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.4
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
-------
January 1997
Appendix E * Geochemistry 4 E-3, Page 12
ANALYSIS OF EQUILIBRATED FLUIDS FROM US EPA METHOD 1312 LEACH
TESTS
ON ORE SAMPLES
Parameter
pH (Filt., std. units)
Solids, Total Dissolved (TDS)
Aluminum, Diss. (AJ)
Antimony, Diss. Kb)
Arsenic, Diss. (As)
Barium, Diss. (Bat
Beryllium. Diss. (Be)
Boron, Diss. (B)
Cadmium, Diss. (Cd)
Calcium, Diss. (Ca)
Chromium, Diss. (Cr)
Cobalt, Diss. (Co)
Copper, Diss. (Cu)
Iron. Diss. (Fe)
Lead, Diss. (Pb)
Mercury, Diss. (HgJ
Magnesium, Diss. jCMg)
Manganese, Diss. (Kin;
Molybdenum, Diss. (Mo)
Nickel, Diss. (Ni)
Potassium, Diss. (K)
Selenium. Diss. (Se)
Silver, Diss. (Ae)
Sodium, Diss. (Na)
Strontium, Diss. (Sr)
Titanium, Diss. (ft)
Vanadium, Diss. (V)
Zinc, Diss. (Zn)
BMGC Sample Designation
12-101
8.91
63
0.28
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
10.1
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.7
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.07
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
13-101
9.45
60
0.27
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
10.4
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.7
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
0.1
<0.01
<1
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.01
13-102
9.31
55
0.17
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
10.2
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.7
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
<0.01
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
14-101
9.66
38
<0.05
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
6.7
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.5
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
<1
0.03
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
Note: All results reported in mg/1, unless otherwise noted.
< - Concentration less than detection limit.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix E * Geochemistry + E-3, Page 13
ANALYSIS OF EQUILIBRATED FLUIDS FROM US EPA METHOD 1312 LEACH TESTS
ON TAILINGS SOLIDS, ,
Parameter
pH (Filt., std. units)
Solids, Total Dissolved fTDS)
Aluminum, Diss. (Al)
Antimony, Diss. (Sb)
Arsenic, Diss. (As)
Barium, Diss. (pat
Beryllium, Diss. (Be)
Boron, Diss. (B)
Cadmium, Diss. (Cd)
Calcium, Diss. (Ca)
Chromium, Diss. (Cr)
Cobalt, Diss. (Co)
Copper, Diss. (Cu)
Iron. Diss. (Fe)
Lead, Diss. (Pb)
Mercury, Diss. (He)
Magnesium, Diss. (Mg)
Manganese, Diss. (Mn)
Molybdenum, Diss. (Mo)
Nickel, Diss. (Ni)
Potassium, Diss. (K)
Selenium, Diss. (Se)
Silver, Diss. (Ae)
Sodium, Diss. (Na)
Strontium, Diss. (Sr)
Titanium, Diss. fTi)
Vanadium, Diss. (V)
Zinc, Diss. ^n)
Parameter
pH (Filt., std. units)
Solids, Total Dissolved CTDS)
Aluminum Oiss. (Al)
Antimony, .Jiss. (Sb)
Arsenic, Diss. 'As)
Bar. urn, Diss. (8af
Beryllium, Diss. (Be)
Boron, Diss. (B)
Cadmium, Diss. (Cd)
Calcium, Diss. (Ca)
Chromium, Diss. (Cr)
Cobalt, Diss. (Co)
Copper, Diss. (Cu)
Iron, Diss. (F e)
Lead, Diss. (Pb)
Mercury, Diss. (He)
Magnesium, Diss. (Mg)
Manganese, Diss. (Mn)
Molybdenum, Diss. (Mo)
Nickel, Diss. (Ni)
Potassium, Diss. (K)
Selenium. Diss. (Se)
Silver, Diss. (Ae)
Sodium, Diss. (Na)
Strontium, Diss. (Sr)
Titanium, Diss. (Tt)
Vanadium, Diss. (V)
Zinc, Diss. (Zn)
BMGC Sample Designation
CJC-12/21 10-135
(Southwest Ore)
8.9
268
<0.05
<0.1
.24
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
67.5
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.5
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
12
<0.1
<0.01
4.5
0.17
<0.05
<0.05
<0.01
CJC-13/2110-135A
(Andesite/Garnetite)
9.1
284
<0.05
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
69.9
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
0.10
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.7
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
11
<0.1
<0.01
6.4
0.12
<0.05
<0.05
<0.01
CJC-7/2096-99
(Magnetite Ore)
8.0
316
<0.05
<0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
78.1
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.8
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
10
0.16
<0.05
<0.05
<0.01
Weighted
"Averase"
8.9
280
<0.05
<0.1
0.12
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
69.6
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
0.06
<0.03
< 0.0003
0.6
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
10.4
<0.1
<0.01
5.9
0.15
<0.05
<0.05
<0.01
BMGC Sample Designation
CIC-12/2127-70/71
(Southwest Ore)
9.92
144
<0.05
<0.1
.12
<0.01
< 0.005
<0.05
< 0.005
27.2
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
< 0.0003
0.6
<0.01
<0.05
<0.04
5.12
<0.1
-------
-------
APPENDIX E-4
ABA RESULTS FOR WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
-------
-------
January 1997
Appendix E * Geochemistry • £-4, Page 1
WASTE ROCK ABA RESULTS BMGC
BMGC Sample
Designation
-101-A
-102-A
-103-A
-104-A
-105-A
-106-A
-107-A
-108-A
-I09-A
-110-A
-111-A
-112-A
-113-A
-114-A
2-201-B
2-202-B
2-203-B
2-204-B
2-205-B
2-206-B
2-207-B
2-208-B
2-209-B
2-210-B
2-21 1-B
2-212-B
2-213-B
2-214-B
2-215-B
2-216-B
2-217-B
3-301-A
3-302-A
3-303-A
3-304-A
3-305-A
3-306-A
3-307-A
3-308-A
3-309-A
4-401-B
4-402-B
4-403-B
4-404-B
4-405-B
4-406-B
4-407-B
4-408-B
4-409-B
4-410-B
5-501-C
5-502-C
5-503-C
5-504-C
5-505-C
5-506-C
5-507-C
6-601
6-602
6-603
6-604
6-605
6,606
6-607
6-608
6-609
Waste Rock
Group
Altered
Andesite
Unaltered
Andesite
Garnet
Skarn
Magnetite
Skarn
Undifferentiated
Skarn
Marble
Total Sulfur
%
<0.01
2.35
<0.01
0.05
0.97
0.01
0.49
0.70
0.97
1.31
0.85
1.76
2.65
4.17
0.01
0.02
0.06
0.01
0.12
0.08
0.37
2.19
0.66
0.72
0.23
<0.01
<0.01
0.66
1.92
1.27
0.05
<0.01
0.07
0.01
0.12
0.22
0.02
2.44
1.06
0.44
0.96
1.99
0.43
1.06
3.55
3.19
2.39
1.09
0.97
6.33
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
0.01
<0.01
<0.01
0.01
0.03
<0.01
0.04
0.10
0.02
0.02
Total Sulfur as
TCaC03/KT
(AGP)
<0.3
73.4
<0.3
1.6
30.3
0.3
15.3
21.9
30.3
40.9
26.6
55.0
82.8
130
0.3
0.6
1.9
0.3
3.8
2.5
11.6
68.4
20.6
22.5
7.2
<0.3
<0.3
20.6
60.0
39.7
1.6
<0.3
2.2
0.3
3.8
6.9
0.6
76.3
33.1
13.8
30.0
62.2
13.4
33.1
111
99.7
74.7
33.8
30.3
198
<0.3
<0.3
<0.3
<0.3
<0.3
0.9
0.3
<0.3
<0.3
0.3
0.9
<0.3
1.3
3.1
0.6
0.6
TESTING PROGRAM
ANPas
TCaCO,/KT
36.6
199
93.8
89.7
23.0
59.6
220
67.3
41.9
47.8
25.4
90.3
123
100
99.1
17.5
31.8
19.5
21.5
14.8
16.8
22.0
28.7
33.4
60.2
68.4
87.3
36.6
53.5
31.1
58.5
110.9
54.2
116
12.8
56.6
224
88.5
34.2
62.5
9.9
26.2
6.5
18.9
21.5
74.3
22.4
63.4
327
237
40.
61.3
42.5
24.8
9.4
40.1
56.6
767
915
903
745
837
927
807
878
741
ANP/AGP
Ratio
> 122:1
2.7:1
>312:1
56:1
0.76:1
198:1
14:1
3:1
1.4:1
1.2:1
0.95:1
1.6:1
1.5:1
0.77:1
330:1
29:1
16:1
65:1
5.6:1
5.9:1
1.4:1
0.32:1
1.4:1
1.5:1
8.3:1
> 228:1
>291:1
1.8:1
0.9:1
0.8:1
36:1
> 369:1
24:1
386:1
3.3:1
8.2:1
373:1
1.2:1
1.03:1
4.5:1
0.33:1
0.42:1
0.48:1
0.57:1
0.19:1
0.74:1
0.3:1
1.9:1
10:1
1.2-1
> 133:1
> 204:1
>141:1
>82:1
>31:1
44:1
188:1
> 2556:1
> 3050:1
> 3010:1
> 827:1
> 2790:1
482:1
260:1
1463:1
1235:1
Net APP as
TCaCO,/KT
-36
-126
-93
-88
-1-7.3
-197
-205
-45
-11
-6.9
+ 1.2
-35
-40
+30
-97
-15
-29
-19
-17
-12
-5
+46
-8
-10
-53
-68
-87
-16
+ 6
+ 8
-56
-110
-52
-115
-9
-49
-223
-12
-1
-48
+20
+34
+7
+ 13
+ 90
+25
+52
-30
-297
-39
-39
-61
-42
-24
-9
-39
-56
-766
-914
-902
-744
-836
-625
-803
-877
-739
Crown Jewel Mine » Find Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix E * Geochemistry + E-4, Page 2
WASTE ROCK ABA RESULTS BMGC TESTING PROGRAM
BMGC Sample
Designation
7-701
7-702
7-703
7-704
7-705
7-706
7-707
7-709
7-711
7-712
7-713
7-708
7-710
7-714-A
7-715-A
7-716-A
8-801
8-802
8-803
8-804
8-805
8-806
8-807
Waste Rock
Group
Unaltered
Clastics
Altered
Clastics
Intrusives
Total Sulfur
%
<0.01
<0.01
0.02
0.27
0.29
0.04
0.47
0.07
0.99
<0.01
<0.01
3.0
1.63
0.31
0.63
1.41
<0.01
0.04
0.07
<0.01
0.06
0.05
0.02
Total Sulfur as
TCaC03/KT
(AGP)
<0.3
<0.3
0.6
8.4
9.1
1.3
14.7
2.2
30.9
<0.3
<0.3
93.8
50.9
9.7
19.7
44.1
<0.3
1.3
2.2
<0.3
1.9
1.6
0.6
ANPas
TCaCO,/KT
235
25.9
23.6
17.7
18.9
5.4
25.9
19.1
21.8
13.7
22.4
34.2
<0.1
34.8
9.5
8.3
29.4
18.9
13.0
24.8
<0.1
20.6
26.0
ANP/AGP
Ratio
783:1
86:1
39:1
2.1:1
2.1:1
4.1:1
1.7:1
8.6:1
0.7:1
>45.1
>74.1
0.36:1
<0.1:l
3.6:1
0.5:1
0.3:1
98:1
14:1
5.9:1
82:1
0.1:1
12:1
43:1
Net APP as
TCaCO,/KT
-234
-25
-23
-9
-9
-3
-11
-17
+9
-13
-22
+59
+50
-25
+ 10
+36
-29
-17
-10
-24
+ 2
-19
-25
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
E-4 Page 3
WASTE ROCK ABA RESULTS
ALTERED ANDESITE (AAD)
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
EIS TEAM
SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
223(130-135)
224(145-150)
354(165-170)
357(145-150)
357(45-50)
398(85-90)
457(15-20)
0-112(165-170)
0-112(265-270)
0-114(195-200)
0-114(245-250)
0-114(295-300)
0-114(345-350)
0-133(205-210)
0-133(5-10)
0-133(55-60)
0-136(70-75)
0-148(215-220)
0-148(265-270)
0-30(165-170)
0-82(325-330)
NUMBER
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
STDDEV
TOTAL
SULFUR
%
0.95
0.01
1.17
0.01
0.14
0.01
0.01
0.29
0.05
0.23
1.33
0.06
0.35
1.24
0.13
0.26
0.74
0.02
0.11
2.14
0.17
21
2.14
0.01
0.45
0.57
TOTAL
SULFUR
uTCaCOa/KT
29.7
0.3
36.6
0.3
4.4
0.3
0.3
9.1
1.6
7.2
41.6
1.9
10.9
38.8
4.1
8.1
23.1
0.6
3.4
66.9
5.3
21
66.90
0.30
14.02
17.91
ACID
NEUTRALIZING
POTENTIAL (ANP)
«• TC«CO3/KT
24
22
215
112
25
49
16
4
89
38
34
28
30
209
166
44
220
80
9
75
30
21
220.00
4.40
72.35
69.01
ANP/AGP
RATIO
0.80
74.33
5.87
373.33
5.77
163.00
54.67
0.48
55.75
5.24
0.82
14.53
2.74
5.39
40.49
5.46
9.52
132.67
2.53
1.13
5.64
21
373.33
0.48
45.72
85.47
NETAPP
MTCtCOVKT
5.80
-22.00
-178.40
-111.70
-21.00
-48.60
-16.10
4.70
-87.60
-30.50
7.60
-25.70
-19.00
-170.20
-161.90
-36.10
-196.90
-79.00
-5.20
-8.40
-24.60
21
7.60
-196.90
-58.32
64.86
-------
WASTE ROCK ABA RESULTS
UNALTERED ANDESITE (UAD) SAMPLES
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
E-4 Page 4
EIS TEAM
SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
109(165-170)
109(215-220)
109(265-270)
109(315-320)
109(365-370)
189(115-120)
189(15-20)
189(65-70)
215(125-130)
215(175-180)
215(225-230)
215(245-250)
215(25-30)
215(75-80)
218(130-135)
218(30-35)
218(80-85)
221 (70-75)
221 (85-90)
223(180-185)
223(230-235)
223(280-285)
223(30-35)
TOTAL
SULFUR
%
0.09
<.01
<.01
0.26
0.09
0.03
0.11
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.76
0.42
0.32
0.01
0.29
0.06
0.03
2.47
2.28
0.17
0.05
1.27
0.17
TOTAL
SULFUR
asTCaC03/KT
2.80
<.30
<.30
8.10
2.80
0.90
3.40
0.60
0.30
1.20
23.80
13.10
10.00
0.30
9.10
1.90
0.90
77.20
71.20
5.30
1.60
39.70
5.30
ACID
NEUTRALIZING
POTENTIAL (ANP)
asTCaCO3/KT
21.90
18.20
19.00
22.10
23.80
22.40
19.70
30.80
25.90
24.70
24.00
28.10
14.80
22.70
17.50
9.40
19.70
<.10
<.10
17.90
20.60
15.40
16.30
ANP/AGP
RATIO
7.82
>61
>63
2.73
8.50
24.89
5.79
51.33
86.33
20.58
1.01
2.15
1.48
75.67
1.92
4.95
21.89
<.01
<.01
3.38
12.88
0.39
3.08
NETAPP
asTCaC03/KT
-19.10
-17.90
-18.70
-14.00
-21.00
-21.50
-16.30
-30.20
-25.60
-23.50
-0.20
-15.00
-4.80
-22.40
-8.40
-7.50
-18.80
77.10
71.10
-12.60
-19.00
24.30
-11.00
-------
WASTE ROCK ABA RESULTS
UNALTERED ANDESITE (UAD) SAMPLES
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
E-4 Page 5
EIS TEAM
SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
223(80-85)
224(195-200)
224(245-250)
224(45-50)
343(135-140)
343(185-190)
343(35-40)
354(115-120)
354(15-20)
354(215-220)
354(265-270)
354(65-70)
398(35-40)
455(35-40)
455(50-55)
457(65-70)
463(15-20)
463(50-55)
482(10-15)
482(110-115)
482(160-165)
482(210-215)
482(260-265)
TOTAL
SULFUR
%
0.03
0.11
1.68
0.01
0.06
1.69
0.05
0.38
1.37
0.09
0.19
1.05
0.01
0.04
<.01
0.04
0.05
0.32
0.01
0.71
0.20
0.22
0.07
TOTAL
SULFUR
asTCaCO3/KT
0.90
3.40
52.50
0.30
1.90
52.80
1.60
11.90
42.80
2.80
5.90
32.80
0.30
1.20
<.30
1.20
1.60
10.00
0.30
22.20
6.20
6.90
2.20
NEUTRALIZING
POTENTIAL (ANP)
as TCaCO3/KT
17.40
25.20
17.80
14.20
48.20
89.40
136.00
38.00
24.70
32.30
26.60
132.00
19.30
18.10
14.60
14.30
25.90
25.90
14.40
111.00
140.00
101.00
85.50
ANP/AGP
RATIO
19.33
7.41
0.34
47.33
25.37
1.69
85.00
3.19
0.58
11.54
4.51
4.02
64.33
15.08
>49
11.92
16.19
2.59
48.00
5.00
22.58
14.64
38.86
NETAPP
as TCaCO3/KT
-16.50
-21.80
34.70
-13.90
-46.30
-36.60
-134.40
-26.10
18.10
-29.50
-20.70
-99.20
-19.00
16.90
-14.30
-13.10
-24.30
-15.90
-14.10
-88.80
-133.80
-94.10
-83.30
-------
WASTE ROCK ABA RESULTS
UNALTERED ANDESITE (UAD) SAMPLES
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
E-4 Page 6
EIS TEAM
SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
482(310-315)
482(335-340)
482(60-65)
0-112(215-220)
0-112(315-320)
0-114(145-150)
0-114(395-400)
0-114(45-50)
0-114(95-100)
0-133(105-110)
0-133(155-160)
0-133(255-260)
0-133(305-310)
0-136(20-25)
0-145(330-335)
0-148(115-120)
0-148(15-20)
0-148(165-170)
0-148(315-320)
0-148(65-70)
0-30(115-120)
0-30(15-20)
0-30(215-220)
TOTAL
SULFUR
%
0.20
0.16
0.22
0.09
0.12
0.01
1.04
<.01
0.05
0.17
<.01
0.12
0.06
0.19
0.05
0.02
0.20
0.02
1.32
0.02
0.03
<.01
0.37
TOTAL
SULFUR
aaTCaC03/KT
6.20
5.00
6.90
2.80
3.80
0.30
32.50
<.30
1.60
5.30
<.30
3.80
1.90
5.90
1.60
0.60
6.20
0.60
41.20
0.60
0.90
<.30
11.60
ACID
NEUTRALIZING
POTENTIAL (ANP)
asTCaCO3/KT
77.40
36.50
33.80
<.10
80.80
24.20
38.20
29.90
28.70
43.60
37.40
35.10
29.40
49.80
181.00
26.90
21.20
28.80
26.60
20.70
75.40
25.60
12.20
ANP/AGP
RATIO
12.48
7.30
4.90
<.04
21.26
80.67
1.18
>100
17.94
8.23
>125
9.24
15.47
8.44
113.13
44.83
3.42
48.00
0.65
34.50
83.78
>85
1.05
NETAPP
a»TCaCO3/KT
-71.20
-31.50
-26.90
2.90
-77.00
-23.90
-5.70
-29.60
-27.10
-38.30
-37.10
-31.30
-27.50
-43.90
-179.40
-26.30
-15.00
-28.20
14.60
-20.10
-74.50
-25.30
-0.60
-------
WASTE ROCK ABA RESULTS
UNALTERED ANDESITE (UAD) SAMPLES
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
E-4 Page 7
EIS TEAM
SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
0-30(265-270)
D-30(65-70)
0-40(65-70)
0-49(35-40)
0-71(10-15)
D-71 (60-65)
0-82(125-130)
0-82(175-180)
0-82(225-230)
0-82(25-30)
D-82J275-280)
0-82(75-80)
NUMBER
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
STDEV
TOTAL
SULFUR
%
1.56
0.05
<.01
2.02
0.05
0.57
0.03
<.01
0.02
0.01
0.04
<.01
81
2.47
<.01
0.32
0.56
TOTAL
SULFUR
as TCaCO3/KT
48.80
1.60
<.30
63.10
1.60
17.80
0.90
<.30
0.60
0.30
1.20
<.30
81
77.20
<.30
10.10
17.43
ACID
NEUTRALIZING
POTENTIAL (ANP)
as TCaCO3/KT
9.80
37.00
4.10
44.80
108.00
209.00
24.20
19.80
28.70
16.70
24.70
25.40
81
209.00
<.10
38.55
39.11
ANP/AGP
RATIO
0.20
23.13
>14
0.71
67.50
11.74
26.89
>66
47.83
55.67
20.58
>85
81
124.67
0.0013
27.21
30.92
NETAPP
asTCaC03/KT
39.00
-35.40
-3.80
18.30
-106.40
-191.20
-23.30
-19.50
-28.10
-16.40
-23.50
-25.10
81
77.10
-191.20
-28.43
42.79
-------
E-4 Page 8
WASTE ROCK ABA RESULTS
ALTERED CLASTIC (ACS)
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
EIS TEAM
SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
TOTAL
SULFUR
%
TOTAL
SULFUR
asTCaC03/KT
ACID
NEUTRALIZING
POTENTIAL
asTCaC03/KT
ANG/AGP
RATIO
NETAPP
asTCaCO3/KT
306(25-30) 0.26 8.10 27.80 3.43 -19.70
-------
WASTE ROCK ABA RESULTS
GARNET SKARN (GSK)
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
E-4 Page 9
EIS TEAM
SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
178(160-165)
210(25-30)
224(345-350)
260(340-345)
260(400-405)
272(150-155)
272(155-160)
284(245-250)
284(295-300)
284(345-350)
284(95-100)
302(395-400)
302(445-450)
302(490-495)
302(95-100)
306(375-380)
335(20-25)
335(370-375)
491(180-185)
0-145(380-385)
0-148(475-480)
0-30(315-320)
0-38(255-260)
TOTAL
SULFUR
%
0.02
0.12
<.01
1.66
0.92
0.38
0.04
0.01
1.25
1.69
0.01
10.50
5.58
1.61
0.16
5.18
0.77
0.01
2.18
0.02
14.50
1.43
0.21
TOTAL
SULFUR
as TCaCO3/KT
0.60
3.80
<.30
51.90
28.80
11.90
1.20
0.30
39.10
52.80
0.30
328.00
174.00
50.30
5.00
162.00
24.10
0.30
68.10
0.60
453.00
44.70
6.60
ACID
NEUTRALIZING
POTENTIAL
as TCaCO3/KT
21.60
55.80
2970.00
106.00
56.80
28.50
42.80
28.60
64.00
108.00
58.40
91.80
105.00
39.00
57.40
57.00
46.80
65.60
101.00
157.00
83.60
14.80
9.00
ANP/AGP
RATIO
36.00
14.68
>9900
2.04
1.97
2.39
35.67
95.33
1.64
2.05
194.67
0.28
0.60
0.78
11.48
0.35
1.94
218.67
1.48
261.67
0.18
0.33
1.36
NETAPP
asTCaC03/KT
-21.00
-52.00
-2969.70
-54.10
-28.00
-16.60
-41.60
-28.30
-24.90
-55.20
-58.10
236.20
69.00
11.30
-52.40
105.00
-22.70
-65.30
-32.90
-156.40
369.40
29.90
-2.40
-------
WASTE ROCK ABA RESULTS
GARNET SKARN (GSK)
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
E-4Page 10
EIS TEAM
SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
0-38(355-360)
0-38(405-410)
0-40(165-170)
0-44(230-235)
0-44(380-385)
D-451 (425-430)
0-49(135-140)
0-49(185-190)
0-49(235-240)
0-49(285-290)
0-49(335-340)
0-49(360-365)
0-49(85-90)
NUMBER
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
STDDEV
TOTAL
SULFUR
%
3.13
0.35
<.01
0.27
1.76
0.31
0.02
0.68
0.01
0.02
1.16
3.30
0.05
36
14.50
<.01
1.65
3.00
TOTAL
SULFUR
as TCaCO3/KT
97.80
10.90
<.03
8.40
55.00
9.70
0.60
21.20
0.30
0.60
36.20
103.00
1.60
36
453.00
<.30
51.47
93.84
ACID
NEUTRALIZING
POTENTIAL
asTCaC03/KT
14.40
9.80
8.00
10.60
9.50
11.00
<.10
54.50
425.00
111.00
80.80
35.60
104.00
36
2970.00
<.10
145.63
482.74
ANP/AGP
RATIO
0.15
0.90
>27
1.26
0.17
1.13
<.17
2.57
1416.67
185.00
2.23
0.35
65.00
36
9900.00
0.15
346.88
1632.06
NETAPP
as TCaCO3/KT
83.40
1.10
-7.70
-2.20
45.50
-1.30
0.50
-33.30
-424.70
-110.40
-44.60
67.40
-102.40
36
369.40
-2969.70
-94.15
499.41
-------
WASTE ROCK ABA RESULTS
MAGNETITE SKARN (MSK)
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
E-4 Page 11
EIS TEAM
SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
284(395-400)
284(445-450)
306(475-480)
0-38(520-525)
0-44(470-475)
NUMBER
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
STDDEV
TOTAL
SULFUR
%
1.81
4.95
2.72
8.75
2.29
5
8.75
1.81
4.10
2.56
TOTAL
SULFUR
asTCaCO3/KT
56.60
155.00
85.00
273.00
71.60
5
273.00
56.60
128.24
79.85
ACID
NEUTRALIZING
POTENTIAL (ANP)
asTCaCO3/KT
135.00
66.80
47.30
19.20
9.80
5
135.00
9.80
55.62
44.55
ANP/AGP
RATIO
2.39
0.43
0.56
0.07
0.14
5
2.39
0.07
0.72
0.85
NETAPP
as TCaC03/KT
-78.40
88.20
37.70
253.80
61.80
5
253.80
-78.40
72.62
106.97
-------
WASTE ROCK ABA RESULTS
UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN (USK)
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
E-4Page 12
EIS TEAM
SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
218(280-285)
218(310-315)
221(20-25)
224(295-300)
224(390-395)
224(95-100)
260(290-295)
260(40-45)
284(195-200)
302(45-50)
306(225-230)
306(325-330)
330(75-80)
335(320-325)
335(385-390)
354(315-320)
0-145(510-515)
0-148(365-370)
0-148(415-420)
0-30(365-370)
0-38(105-110)
0-38(8-15)
0^0(215-220)
0-44(280-285)
0-451(395-400)
0-57(165-170)
NUMBER
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
STDDEV
TOTAL
SULFUR
%
0.09
0.01
2.26
0.51
2.77
0.01
0.31
<.01
0.02
0.02
0.01
3.90
3.02
0.01
0.01
1.07
1.75
3.00
2.86
2.32
0.09
0.02
0.08
<.01
1.12
0.01
26
3.90
<.01
0.97
1.25
TOTAL
SULFUR
••TC»C03/KT
2.80
0.30
70.60
15.90
86.60
0.30
9.70
<.30
0.60
0.60
0.30
122.00
94.40
0.30
0.30
33.40
54.70
93.80
89.40
72.50
2.80
0.60
2.50
<.30
35.00
0.30
26
122.00
<.30
30.38
39.24
ACID
NEUTRALIZING
POTENTIAL (ANP)
a»TC*COa/KT
39.20
<.10
<.10
191.00
61.20
23.20
125.00
147.00
60.00
13.80
15.30
43.10
187.00
42.60
62.40
9.00
156.00
234.00
363.00
7.60
4.60
4.40
9.80
2.60
93.50
352.00
26
363.00
<.10
86.44
102.96
ANP/AGP
RATIO
14.00
<.33
<.01
12.01
0.71
77.33
12.89
>490
100.00
23.00
51.00
0.35
1.98
142.00
208.00
0.27
2.85
2.49
4.06
0.10
1.64
7.33
3.92
>9
2.67
1173.33
26
1173.33
0.0014
90.04
239.33
NETAPP
•sTCaCOa/KT
-36.40
0.20
70.50
-175.10
25.40
-22.90
-115.30
-146.70
-59.40
-13.20
-15.00
78.90
-92.60
-*2.30
-62.10
24.40
-101.30
-140.20
-273.60
64.90
-1.80
-3.80
-7.30
-2.30
-58.50
-351.70
26
78.90
-351.70
-56.05
98.53
-------
WASTE ROCK ABA RESULTS
UNALTERED CLASTIC (UCS)
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
E-4Page 13
EIS TEAM
SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
183(70-75)
184(40-45)
184(70-75)
189(300-305)
212(110-115)
212(75-80)
218(180-185)
218(230-235)
234(60-65)
235(10-15)
235(110-115)
235(160-165)
235(210-215)
235(260-265)
235(295-300)
235(60-65)
260(190-195)
260(240-245)
272(100-105)
284(45-50)
302(195-200)
302(345-350)
306(125-130)
TOTAL
SULFUR
%
1.47
0.87
0.30
0.08
0.04
0.29
1.81
1.80
1.73
0.79
0.51
0.11
0.15
0.01
0.29
0.16
0.83
0.33
0.78
0.34
0.05
1.00
<.01
TOTAL
SULFUR
asTCaC03/KT
45.90
27.20
9.40
2.50
1.20
9.10
56.60
56.20
54.10
24.70
15.90
3.40
4.70
0.30
9.10
5.00
25.90
10.30
24.40
10.60
1.60
31.20
<.30
NEUTRALIZING
POTENTIAL (ANP)
asTCaCO3/KT
20.80
37.60
50.10
101.00
48.30
516.00
8.60
5.60
14.50
42.70
22.10
16.00
15.40
75.00
91.40
55.50
15.10
108.00
25.60
35.60
15.30
15.30
<.10
ANP/AGP
RATIO
0.45
1.38
5.33
40.40
40.25
56.70
0.15
0.10
0.27
1.73
1.39
4.71
3.28
250.00
10.04
11.10
0.58
10.49
1.05
3.36
9.56
0.49
0.33
NETAPP
asTCaC03/KT
25.10
-10.40
-40.70
-98.50
-47.10
-506.90
48.00
50.60
39.60
-18.00
-6.20
-12.60
-10.70
-74.70
-82.30
-50.50
10.80
-97.70
-1.20
-25.00
-13.70
15.90
-0.20
-------
WASTE ROCK ABA RESULTS
UNALTERED CLASTIC (UCS)
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
E-4 Page 14
EIS TEAM
SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
306(75-80)
315(100-105)
315(150-155)
315(200-205)
315(215-220)
315(50-55)
330(175-180)
330(225-230)
330(250-255)
335(270-275)
348(135-140)
348(185-190)
348(235-240)
348(35-40)
348(85-90)
357(195-200)
357(245-250)
357(295-300)
41(120-125)
41(125-130)
41(70-75)
459(135-140)
459(185-190)
TOTAL
SULFUR
%
0.35
1.11
0.12
0.25
0.06
0.16
1.33
0.17
0.01
0.02
0.47
0.18
0.01
<.01
0.02
0.33
1.07
0.02
0.44
0.61
0.48
<.01
0.01
TOTAL
SULFUR
asTCaCO3/KT
10.90
34.70
3.80
7.80
1.90
5.00
41.60
5.30
0.30
0.60
14.70
5.60
0.30
<.30
0.60
10.30
33.40
0.60
13.80
19.10
15.00
<.30
0.30
ACID
NEUTRALIZING
POTENTIAL (ANP)
asTCaC03/KT
11.20
<.10
27.80
82.30
139.00
30.60
128.00
61.00
142.00
22.60
47.50
12.50
75.00
193.00
28.40
40.30
21.40
16.90
67.30
28.60
63.10
83.20
27.30
ANP/AGP
RATIO
1.03
<.01
7.32
10.55
73.16
6.12
3.08
11.51
473.33
37.67
3.23
2.23
250.00
>643
47.33
3.91
0.64
28.17
4.88
1.50
4.21
>277
91.00
NETAPP
asTCaCO3/KT
-0.30
34.60
-24.00
-74.50
-137.10
-25.60
-86.40
-55.70
-141.70
-22.00
-32.80
-6.90
-74.70
-192.70
-27.80
-30.00
12.00
-16.30
-53.50
-9.50
-48.10
-82.90
-27.00
-------
WASTE ROCK ABA RESULTS
UNALTERED CLASTIC (UCS)
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
E-4 Page 15
EIS TEAM
SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
459(235-240)
459(335-340)
459(35-40)
459(85-90)
491 (230-235)
491(280-285)
491 (330-335)
491 (380-385)
D-27(120-125)
D-27(170-175)
D-38(205-210)
0-44(30-35)
D-44(330-335)
0-44(80-85)
D-451 (345-350)
NUMBER
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
STDDEV
TOTAL
SULFUR
%
0.03
0.08
0.23
<.01
0.01
<.01
0.01
0.28
<.01
0.59
0.02
0.45
0.12
<.01
0.59
61
1.81
<.01
0.38
0.48
TOTAL
SULFUR
asTCaC03/KT
0.90
2.50
7.20
<.30
0.30
<.30
0.30
8.80
<.30
18.40
0.60
14.10
3.80
<.30
18.40
61
56.60
<.30
11.99
14.86
ACID
NEUTRALIZING
POTENTIAL (ANP)
asTCaC03/KT
34.40
21.20
24.00
67.80
28.20
14.20
28.20
17.00
486.00
56.90
7.00
4.60
3.00
5.40
187.00
61
516.00
<.10
60.16
91.83
ANP/AGP
RATIO
38.22
8.48
3.33
>226
94.00
>47
94.00
1.93
>1620
3.09
11.67
0.33
0.79
>18
10.16
61
1620.00
0.0029
75.61
229.54
NETAPP
ea TCaCO3/KT
-33.50
-18.70
-16.80
-67.50
-27.90
-13.90
-27.90
-8.20
-485.70
-38.50
-6.40
9.50
0.80
-5.10
-168.60
61
50.60
-506.90
-48.16
95.24
-------
E-4Page 16
WASTE ROCK ABA RESULTS
MARBLE (MB)
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
EISTEAM
SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
189(215-220)
200(50-55)
212(25-30)
341(270-275)
341(315-320)
354(365-370)
354(415-420)
354(425-430)
357(340-345)
398(135-140)
398(185-190)
398(230-235)
41(20-25)
443(10-15)
443(60-65)
443(70-75)
0-114(495-500)
0-114(520-525)
0-133(355-360)
D-1 33(365-370)
0-136(115-120)
0-57(105-110)
0-71(110-115)
0-71(135-140)
0-82(475-480)
NUMBER
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
STDDEV
TOTAL
SULFUR
%
0.05
<.01
0.18
0.05
<.01
0.12
0.05
0.17
2.66
0.01
<.01
0.07
0.50
<.01
0.02
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
<.01
0.01
0.17
0.24
0.06
0.29
25
2.66
-0.01
0.19
0.52
TOTAL
SULFUR
uTCaCOa/KT
1.60
<.30
5.60
1.60
<.30
3.80
1.60
5.30
83.10
0.30
<.30
2.20
15.60
<.30
0.60
<.30
<.30
<.30
<.30
<.30
0.30
5.30
7.50
1.90
9.10
25
83.10
-0.30
5.87
16.18
ACID
NEUTRALIZING
POTENTIAL (ANP)
t»TCaCO3/KT
710.00
94.60
14.80
840.00
1000.00
693.00
906.00
1320.00
302.00
743.00
916.00
524.00
613.00
625.00
737.00
616.00
736.00
684.00
1020.00
1060.00
258.00
304.00
912.00
861.00
190.00
25
1320.00
14.80
667.18
317.61
ANP/AGP
RATIO
443.75
>315
2.64
525.00
>3333
182.37
566.25
249.06
3.63
2476.67
>3053
238.18
39.29
>.30
1228.33
>2053
>2453
>2280
>3400
>3533
860.00
57.36
121.60
453.16
20.88
25
3533.33
2.64
1198.94
1232.36
NETAPP
•sTOCOa/KT
-708.40
-94.30
-9.20
-838.40
-999.70
-689.20
-904.40
-1314.70
-218.90
-742.70
-915.70
-521.80
-597.40
-624.70
-736.40
-615.70
-735.70
-683.70
-1019.70
-1059.70
-257.70
-298.70
-904.50
-859.10
-180.90
25
-9.20
-1314.70
-661.25
322.36
-------
WASTE ROCK ABA RESULTS
INTRUSIVE (INT)
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROJECT
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
E-4 Page 17
EIS TEAM
SMAPLE
DESIGNATION
109(115-120)
109(375-380)
109(65-70)
183(20-25)
210(75-80)
210(85-90)
260(140-145)
260(390-395)
284(145-150)
302(145-150)
343(85-90)
357(95-100)
457(115-120)
457(155-160)
459(285-290)
491(430-435)
0-112(115-120)
0-112(15-20)
0-30(545-550)
0-44(130-135)
0-44(180-185)
0-82(565-570)
NUMBBER
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
STDDEV
TOTAL
SULFUR
%
<.01
0.05
<.01
0.26
0.40
0.27
0.16
0.06
0.01
0.98
0.08
0.06
<.01
<.01
<.01
0.02
0.13
<.01
0.01
<.01
<.01
2.34
22
2.34
<.01
0.22
0.51
TOTAL
SULFUR
oTC«C03/KT
<.30
1.60
<.30
8.10
12.50
8.40
5.00
1.90
0.30
30.60
2.50
1.90
<.30
<.30
<.30
0.60
4.10
<.30
0.30
<.30
<.30
73.10
22
73.10
<.30
6.91
15.93
ACID
NEUTRALIZING
POTENTIAL (ANP)
uTC*CO3/KT
0.40
16.10
4.80
5.30
21.00
19.70
43.40
23.00
75.70
18.60
86.60
26.10
22.80
15.50
43.90
36.60
<.10
10.30
2.60
6.20
3.10
85.60
22
86.60
<.10
25.79
25.84
ANP/AGP
RATIO
>1.33
10.06
>16
0.65
1.68
2.35
8.68
12.11
252.33
0.61
34.64
13.74
>76
>52
>146
61.00
<.02
>34
8.67
>21
>10
1.17
22
252.33
0.02
34.74
58.18
NETAPP
«§TC«C03/KT
-0.10
-14.50
-4.50
2.80
-8.50
-11.30
-38.40
-21.10
-75.40
12.00
-84.10
-24.20
-22.50
-15.20
-43.60
-36.00
4.00
-10.00
-2.30
-5.90
-2.80
-12.50
22
12.00
-84.10
-18.82
23.65
-------
January 1997
Appendix E * Geochemistry + E-4, Page 18
ORE AND LOW GRADE ORE ABA RESULTS
BMGC Sample
Designation
Ore Type
Total Sulfur
(%)
Total Sulfur as
TCaCO,/KT
(AGP)
ANPas
TCaCO,/KT
ANP/AGP
Ratio
Net APP as
TCaCO,/KT
Low Grade Ore
9-101
9-102
10-101
10-102
11-101
11-102
Undifferentiated Skarn
Undifferentiated Skarn
Garnet Skarn
Garnet Skarn
Magnetite Skarn
Magnetite Skarn
<0.01
4.91
<0.01
0.21
3.63
1.09
<0.3
153
<0.3
6.6
113
34.1
36.6
204
71.9
26.9
27.7
29.5
> 122:1
1.3:1
> 240:1
4:1
0.25:1
0.87:1
-36
-51
-72
-20
-85
-5
Ore
12-101
13-101
13-104
14-101
Undifferentiated Skarn
Garnet Skarn
Garnet Skarn
Magnetite Skarn
2.66
0.09
0.03
0.06
83.1
2.8
0.9
1.9
570
52.3
65.3
401
6.9:1
19:1
73:1
211:1
-487
-50
-64
-399
TAILINGS ABA RESULTS'
BMGC Sample
Designation
CJ
C
c
c
c
c
c
C-7/2096-99
C-7/2127-74
C-12/21 10-135
C-12/2127-70
C-12/2127-71
C-13/2110-135A
C-Blend/2127-73
Ore Type
Magnetite
Magnetite
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Andesite/Garnetite
Southwest and Andesite/Garnetite
Total Sulfur
(%)
2.46
3.49
0.93
1.83
1.78
1.27
1.53
Total Sulfur as
TCaCO,/KT
(AGP)
77
109
29
57.3
55.6
40
47.8
ANPas
TCaCOj/KT
117
85.8
184
162
169
52
122
ANP/AGP
Ratio
1.5:1
0.79:1
6.3:1
2.8:1
3.0:1
1.3:1
2.6:1
Net APP as
TCaCO,/KT
-40
+23
-155
-105
-113
-12
-74
Note: 1 ABA results for tailings used in bioassay testing are presented in Appendix F, Dangerous Waste Characterization Results for
Detoxified Tailings.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
APPENDIX E-5
HISTOGRAMS OF WASTE ROCK ABA RESULTS
-------
180-
165-
150-
135-
C/3
— 120 -
Q.
£
OJ 105 -
**- 90-
5
Combined Waste ROCK Groups
FIGURE E-5.1, COMBINED WASTE ROCK ANP/AGP RATIO DATA
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
-------
CO
®
Q.
e
03
CO
.Q
E
~r
ANP/AGP RATIO RANGES
D
FIGURE E-5.2, UNALTERED ANDESITE WASTE ROCK ANP/AGP RATIO DATA
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
-------
CO
0?
Q.
e
ro
CO
0)
JD
E
, A~ -,
ANP/AGP RATIO RANGES
LJ i-i-'^ ;'"~-f>f''r
FIGURE E-5.3, ALTERED ANDESITE WASTE ROCK ANP/AGP RATIO DATA
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
-------
GO
0)
CL
E
CO
GO
_Q
E
3
ANP/AGP RATIO RANGES
FIGURE E-5.4, UNALTERED CLASTIC WASTE ROCK ANP/AGP RATIO DATA
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
-------
oo
jD
Q.
E
CD
C/3
-------
-' • T
JD
a
e
to
GO
ANP/AGP RATIO RANGES
FIGURE E-5.6, GARNET SKARN WASTE ROCK ANP/AGP RATIO DATA
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
-------
00
JD
Q.
e
03
GO
14—
o
02
-O
E
~ AT
ANP/AGP RATIO RANGES
r
FIGURE E-5.7, MAGNETITE SKARN WASTE ROCK ANP/AGP RATIO DATA
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
-------
JP
Q.
E
co
CO
"o
\~
S3
.Q
£
D
? AC.C
C ACC
.? 3 34
ANP/AGP RATIO RANGES
FIGURE E-5.8, UNDIFFERENTIATED SKARN WASTE ROCK ANP/AGP RATIO DATA
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
-------
20-
15 —
w
Q.
e
co
CO
^
v_
5
FIGURE E-5.9, INTRUSIVE WASTE ROCK ANP/AGP RATIO DATA
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
-------
03
CL
E
03
CO
CD
ANP/AGP RATIO RANGES
V a' f
FIGURE E-5.10, MARBLE WASTE ROCK ANP/AGP RATIO DATA
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
-------
w
.5
Q.
E
O3
CO
H—
o
.O
e
H
9?
NET APR RANGES (AS TCaC03/KT)
D
FIGURE E-5.11, COMBINED WASTE ROCK NET APR DATA
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
-------
OJ
Q.
E
ro
GO
O
v-
-------
a.
£
03
CO
.Q
E
NET APP RANGES (AS TCaC03/KT)
FIGURE E-5,13, ALTERED ANDESITE WASTE ROCK NET APP DATA
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
-------
00
Q.
E
TO
CO
"o
W_
-------
M
_CD
CL
£
O3
C/5
0)
J3
E
3
i +
NET APR RANGES (AS TCaC03/KT)
FIGURE E-5.15, ALTERED CLASTIC WASTE ROCK NET APR DATA
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
-------
Q.
£
03
CO
-------
CL
e
CO
GO
o
-------
Q-
£
03
00
-------
C/3
jD
Q.
e
m
HO
u__
NET APR RANGES (AS TCaC03/KT)
FIGURE E-5.19, INTRUSIVE WASTE ROCK NET APR DATA
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
-------
V)
CL
£
CD
CO
o
CD
JO
E
NET APR RANGES (AS TCaCO3/KT!
|
D - <
FIGURE E-5.20, MARBLE WASTE ROCK NET APR DATA
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
-------
APPENDIX E-6
ABA RESULTS FOR PIT WALL SAMPLES
-------
-------
WASTE ROCK ABA RESULTS
PTT WALL SAMPLES
CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMISTRY PROGRAM
CROWN JEWEU PROJECT
E-6, Page 1
E IS TEAM
SAMPLE
DESIGNATION
482(335-340)
41(129-130)
100(375-380)
0-45 1(425-00)
178(190-195)
183(70-75)
184(70-75)
189(300-305)
200(9095)
210(85-90)
212(110-115)
215(245-250)
218(310-315)
221(85-90)
302(490-405)
315(215-220)
330(250-255)
335(385-390)
341(315-320)
34J(185-190)
144(390-395)
234(8045)
235(295-300)
280(400-405)
272(155-180)
030(545-590)
048(520-525)
0-44(470-475)
0-114(520-925)
0-133(385-370)
0-138(115-120)
0-145(510-515)
0-148(475-480)
0-49(380-385)
0-57(185-170)
0-71(135-140)
0*2(985-570)
354(429-430)
357(340445)
398(230-239)
443(70-75)
495(90-55)
497(159-180)
403(90-95)
NUMBER
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
MEAN
STOOEV
WASTE
ROCK
GROUP
UAO
UCS
INT
GSK
GSK
UCS
UCS
UCS
MB
INT
UCS
UAD
USK
UAO
QSK
UCS
UCS
USK
MB
UAO
USK
UCS
UCS
GSK
GSK
INT
MSK
MSK
MB
MB
MB
USK
OSK
GSK
USK
MB
INT
MB
MB
MB
MB
UAO
INT
UAO
TOTAL
SULFUR
«
0 18
081
005
031
002
1 47
OX
0.08
<.01
027
004
042
001
2.28
1.81
008
001
001
<.01
1.89
277
1.73
029
0.92
004
001
875
2.29
<.Q1
•e.01
001
1.75
1450
330
001
008
234
0.17
286
007
<.01
<.01
<.01
0.32
44
1450
<01
1.17
254
TOTAL
SULFUR
MTC4X&KT
500
19 10
1 80
070
080
4590
9.40
290
<.30
8.40
120
13 10
030
71.20
5030
1.90
030
0.30
<.30
5280
8880
54.10
9.10
2880
1.20
0.30
273.00
71.80
<.30
<.30
030
54.70
49300
10300
0.30
1.90
73.10
5.30
8310
220
<.30
<.30
<.30
10.00
44
453.00
<.30
3651
7933
ACID
NEUTRALIZING
POTENTIAL
• TCUCOXT
3650
28.80
16.10
11.00
21.80
2080
50.10
101.00
8490
19.70
48.30
28.10
<.10
<.10
39.00
139.00
142.00
6240
1000.00
89.40
61.20
1450
91.40
58.80
42.80
2.80
10.20
0.80
88400
1060.00
258.00
15600
8380
35.80
352.00
881.00
es.eo
1320.00
302.00
524.00
818.00
1480
15.90
25.90
44
1320.00
<.10
196.37
318 18
ANP/AGP
RATIO
7.30
1.50
1008
1.13
36.00
0.45
533
40.40
>345
2.35
40.29
2.15
<.33
<.01
0.78
7318
47333
2O800
>3333
189
0.71
0.27
1004
187
35.67
8.67
0.07
0.14
>2280
>3533
880.00
265
0.18
0.35
117333
453.18
1.17
24908
383
238.18
>2053
>49
>52
2.59
44
>3933
<.01
354.36
83023
NETAPP
• TUCOXT
-31.90
-9.50
-14.50
-1.30
•21.00
29.10
-4070
-9890
-94.30
-11.30
•47.10
•19.00
040
71.30
11.30
•137.10
•141.70
•82.10
•990.70
-36.80
25.40
30.80
•82.30
-28.00
•41.80
-2.30
253.80
61.80
-483.70
•1050.70
•257.70
•101.30
36940
67.40
-351.70
-859.10
-12.50
•1314.70
-218.90
-521.80
•615.70
•14.30
•15.20
•1590
44
389.40
-1314.70
-159.84
341.38
-------
-------
APPENDIX E-7
SUMMARY OF HUMIDITY CELL TESTS RESULTS
-------
-------
January 1997
Appendix E * Geochemistry + E-7, Page 1
SUMMARY OF HUMIDITY CELL TEST RESULTS
ON WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
BMGC
Sample
Designation
1-105-A
1-110-A
1-111-A
1-114-A
2-207-B
2-208-B
2-209-B3
214-B
2-215-B
2-216-B
215 (25-30)
215 (225-230)
Week
of
Testing
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
12
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
pH (units
7.2
7.0
6.4
6.8
5.5
7.1
6.8
6.5
6.9
6.4
7.4
7.0
6.4
6.9
6.4
7.6
6.9
6.3
6.9
5.1
7.2
6.8
6.4
7.2
6.5
7.2
6.7
7.0
7.2
6.4
4.2
3.8
3.7
3.4
4.8
4.4
4.3
3.7
4.0
7.1
6.8
7.0
7.4
7.1
6.9
6.9
6.5
7.1
7.1
6.56
4.84
5.97
5.67
5.77
5.60
5.99
5.30
5.02
5.42
5.79
7.51
7.79
7.95
7.72
7.74
7.74
6.90
7.48
7.73
7.89
7.98
Alkalinity (as
mg/1 CaCOJ
17
10
13
6
6
17
10
10
6
6
17
13
10
13
10
23
13
13
13
<5
19
10
13
16
10
19
<5
11
13
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
ND
ND
ND
13
16
ND
ND
ND
11
12
8
<5
5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
46
41
33
24
24
24
21
29
25
24
20
Acidity (as mg/
CaCOJ
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
346
255
859
956
23
44
48
70
44
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
11
23
12
22
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
Sulfate
mg/1
12
41
<10
14
11
14
46
32
17
17
37
43
22
21
<10
11
43
32
27
23
16
52
28
15
15
13
23
<10
12
<10
781
957
1640
2050
102
253
164
120
74
13
67
45
49
37
12
33
17
10
<10
285
275
79
51
54
47
42
17
30
15
18
22
42
28
24
43
43
35
10
14
<10
<10
Iron
mg/1
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
154
16
175
308
5
3
8
18
12
<0.03
0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
0.03
<0.03
<0.03
0.08
0.09
0.05
0.15
0.05
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
Waste Rock Group
Altered Andesite
Altered Andesite
Altered Andesite
Altered Andesite
Unaltered Andesite
Unaltered Andesite
Unaltered Andesite
(0/F)'
Unaltered Andesite
(0/F)'
Unaltered Andesite
(0/F)1
Unaltered Andesite
(0/F)'
Unaltered Andesite
Unaltered Andesite
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix E * Geochemistry + E-7, Page 2
SUMMARY OF HUMIDITY CELL TEST RESULTS
ON WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
BMGC
Sample
Designation
221 (70-75)
D-30 (215-220)
D-30 (265-270)
3-307-A
3-308-A
306 (375-380)
DOS (355-360)
302 (395-400)
Week
of
Testing
1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
,
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1
5
10
15
20
25
27
32
37
42
pH (units)
7.35
6.59
7.30
7.18
7.12
6.72
6.24
6.34
6.47
6.20
6.64
7.72
7.75
7.93
7.77
7.86
7.85
7.33
7.61
7.71
7.82
7.76
7.66
7.70
7.73
7.61
7.72
6.89
7.10
7.55
7.69
7.82
7.61
7.6
6.9
7.0
6.4
7.3
7.4
7.1
7.0
6.1
6.4
7.38
3.51
6.76
5.47
6.92
4.54
4.92
4.40
3.99
3.85
3.52
7.46
6.69
7.77
7.64
7.69
7.28
7.06
7.34
7.65
7.78
7.59
7.34
7.02
6.77
6.44
4.00
3.76
3.58
3.34
3.64
3.55
Alkalinity (as
mg/1 CaCOJ
16
7
16
15
6
10
<5
<5
5
<5
<5
37
28
24
24
21
27
24
24
21
20
20
34
27
27
24
19
24
24
24
20
20
19
22
13
19
16
16
17
16
19
21
13
22
<5
10
<5
6
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
33
12
28
24
22
26
26
20
21
21
11
25
16
8
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
Acidity (as mg/1
CaCOJ
<10
17
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
20
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
392
70
78
<10
11
36
113
230
483
866
<10
66
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
17
<10
13
205
1740
6080
1850
1010
1080
Sulfate
mg/1
358
447
195
171
182
109
154
138
105
84
58
48
40
22
18
21
21
10
<10
10
<10
<10
97
86
89
70
47
34
38
25
33
22
20
20
32
45
49
32
<10
13
21
11
10
820
807
468
426
447
254
239
309
293
240
346
132
277
461
310
274
182
171
104
128
100
91
236
313
324
120
316
317
863
732
458
477
Iron
mg/1
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
0.08
0.05
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
0.42
<0.03
0.25
<0.03
0.45
0.49
1.39
6.58
58.00
131.00
<0.03
<0.03
0.09
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
0.41
284.00
676.00
416.00
241.00
252.00
Waste Rock Group
Unaltered Andesite
Unaltered Andesite
Unaltered Andesite
Garnet Skarn
Garnet Skarn
Garnet Skarn
Garnet Skarn
Garnet Skarn
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix E * Geochemistry • E-7, Page 3
SUMMARY OF HUMIDITY CELL TEST RESULTS
ON WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
BMGC
Sample
Designation
302 (445-450)
4-401-B
4-402-B
4-403-B
4-404-B
4-405-B
4-406-B
4-407-B
4-408-B
4-410-B
221 (20-25)
306 (325-330)
Week
of
Testing
1
5
10
15
20
25
27
32
37
42
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
25
30
1
5
10
15
20
25
30
pH (units)
7.35
7.09
6.84
6.94
4.53
3.41
3.71
3.53
3.70
3.60
7.2
6.9
6.7
6.7
6.4
7.5
7.1
7.6
6.9
7.3
7.4
7.0
6.5
6.0
6.5
7.0
6.9
7.3
6.7
6.7
7.2
6.7
6.6
5.9
6.2
7.3
6.8
7.5
7.0
7.3
6.7
6.5
6.5
6.5
6.9
7.0
7.1
7.0
8.1
7.4
7.0
7.0
6.7
7.5
7.5
3.34
3.78
3.52
3.37
3.26
3.02
2.96
4.16
3.22
3.45
3.53
3.54
3.60
3.65
Alkalinity (as
mg/1 CaCOj)
24
9
6
6
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
16
10
8
<5
6
22
<5
14
14
11
19
16
8
6
<10
20
<5
8
6
5
16
10
6
<10
6
18
<5
14
14
11
ND
ND
ND
<5
8
ND
ND
ND
20
22
ND
ND
ND
16
20
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
Acidity (as mg/1
CaCOJ
<10
42
<10
<10
175
3480
2020
1220
601
562
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
16
10
10
10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
12
<10
13
<10
<10
<10
26
<10
<10
<10
10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
338
129
210
274
900
646
900
86
1710
725
618
500
338
450
Sulfate
mg/1
178
294
196
245
149
513
543
373
245
237
<10
14
11
<10
<10
13
24
<10
19
23
<10
10
<10
<10
<10
13
15
<10
14
12
12
87
94
51
57
<10
26
13
26
18
20
49
47
61
59
<10
16
10
<10
<10
14
37
26
27
35
1490
558
509
459
740
926
1160
410
837
459
362
220
186
209
Iron
mg/1
<0.03
<0.03
0.04
<0.03
3.72
516.00
416.00
212.00
140.00
129.00
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
0.04
<0.03
0.03
0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
0.08
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
121.00
13.70
42.00
52.20
97.20
113.00
165.00
27.70
262.00
172.00
154.00
89.20
76.20
96.00
Waste Rock Group
Garnet Skarn
Magnetite Skarn
Magnetite Skarn
Magnetite Skarn
Magnetite Skarn
Magnetite Skarn
Magnetite Skarn
Magnetite Skarn
Magnetite Skarn
Magnetite Skarn
Undifferentiated
Skarn
Undifferentiated
Skarn
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix E * Geochemistry 4 E-7, Page 4
SUMMARY OF HUMIDITY CELL TEST RESULTS
ON WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
BMGC
Sample
Designation
D451 (395-
400)
7-705
7-707
7-711
218 (230-235)
315 (100-105)
234 (60-65)
7-708-A
7-710-A"
7-715-A
Week
of
Testing
1
5
10
15
20
25
27
32
37
42
5
10
15
20
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
1
5
10
15
20
pH (units)
7.73
7.90
7.79
7.90
7.91
7.22
7.37
7.85
7.95
7.04
7.6
7.1
7.1
6.6
6.9
7.4
7.1
7.2
6.5
6.8
6.9
6.3
6.1
5.9
6.2
7.34
7.33
7.21
7.36
7.28
6.74
6.43
6.96
6.67
5.39
6.54
7.74
7.89
7.93
7.66
7.74
7.35
7.00
7.48
7.71
7.30
7.67
7.34
7.59
7.68
7.69
7.35
7.21
6.67
7.23
7.49
7.46
7.24
4.9
4.0
5.3
4.4
6.8
4.2
3.3
4.2
4.3
3.5
3.3
3.1
Alkalinity (as
mg/1 CaCOJ
31
22
24
27
25
24
24
34
29
30
25
13
23
19
23
22
19
21
16
23
11
<5
6
<5
6
17
22
18
17
15
8
7
6
8
<5
<5
42
35
32
38
19
26
7
23
21
19
23
28
24
21
18
14
18
17
17
15
13
16
<5
<5
<5
<5
23
<5
<5
ND
ND
ND
<5
<5
Acidity (as mg/1
CaCOJ
^ 10
^ 10
^ 10
^ 10
^ 10
^ 10
^ 10
^ 10
^ lo
^ 10
^ 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
^ 10
^10
^ 10
< 10
< 10
< 1Q
< jo
10
^ 10
^ 10
^ 10
^10
< 10
< 10
< 10
^ 10
^ 10
^ 10
< 10
^10
^ 10
< 10
< jo
^ 10
^ 10
< 10
< 10
44
118
108
351
699
82
64
90
467
748
Sulfate
mg/1
15
24
14
13
13
17
15
11
10
56
109
56
29
21
11
14
23
49
57
22
29
53
66
30
14
22
23
54
36
37
31
11
92
52
41
26
39
29
20
13
^ 10
< 10
76
63
70
43
40
17
20
< 10
< 10
15
227
345
494
192
247
607
1100
302
383
513
270
992
Iron
mg/1
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
0.06
0.09
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
•C0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
•C0.03
<0.03
0.03
<0.03
0.04
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
0.50
0.31
<0.03
<0.03
0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
10
0.24
0.17
<0.03
<0.03
179
216
38
8
0.3
82
104
Waste Rock Group
Undifferentiated
Skarn
Clastics
Clastics
Clastics
Unaltered Clastics
Unaltered Clastics
Unaltered Clastics
Altered
Clastics
Altered Clastics
Altered Clastics
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix E * Geochemistry 4 E-7. Page 5
SUMMARY OF HUMIDITY CELL TEST RESULTS
ON WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
BMGC
Sample
Designation
7-716-A
306 (25-30)
Week
of
Testing
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
pH (units)
3.2
3.3
3.1
2.7
2.9
6.88
4.78
5.33
6.04
6.01
5.89
4.59
4.85
5.42
5.30
5.45
Alkalinity (as
mg/1 CaCOj)
ND
ND
ND
<5
<5
7
<5
<5
10
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
Acidity (as mg/1
CaCOJ
1040
414
591
1400
1090
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
28
<10
10
<10
<10
Sulfate
mg/1
853
714
763
1620
1210
181
208
77
38
20
17
50
54
39
24
28
Iron
mg/1
320
144
138
404
276
<0.03
<0.03
0.07
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
0.12
0.14
0.06
0.06
Waste Rock Group
Altered Clastics
Altered Clastic*
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix E * Geochemistry + E-7, Page 6
SUMMARY OF HUMIDITY CELL TEST RESULTS
ON LOW GRADE ORE SAMPLES
BMGC
Sample
Designation
11-101
11-102
302 (145-150)
Week
of
Testing
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
pH
(units)
7.2
5.2
6.4
6.6
6.3
7.7
6.9
7.2
6.0
6.3
7.70
7.79
8.09
8.08
7.93
7.56
6.89
7.62
7.88
8.17
8.20
Alkalinity
(mg/L CaCOj)
21
<5
13
6
6
8
10
13
6
13
38
34
36
33
30
32
21
27
24
21
32
Acidity
(mg/L CaCO,)
1
< 10
^ 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
< 10
*v 10
< 10
< jo
< 10
Sulfate
(mg/L)
18
41
11
25
23
64
120
87
66
53
44
16
17
41
29
16
17
Iron
(mg/L)
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
0.04
Low Grade
Ore Group
Magnetite
Skarn
Magnetite
Skarn
Intrusive
-------
January 1997
Appendix E * Geochemistry + E-7, Page 7
SUMMARY OF HUMIDITY CELL TEST RESULTS
ON TAILING SOLIDS SAMPLES
BMGC
Sample
Designation
CJC-12
2110-135
(Southwest Ore)
CJC-13
2110-135A
(Andesite/Garnetite]
CJC-13
2095-99
(Magnetite Ore)
CJC-12
2127-70
(Southwest Ore)
CJC-12
2127-71
(Southwest Ore)
CJC-Blend
2127-73
(Andesite/Garnetite
and Southwest)
CJC-7
2127-74
(Magnetite Ore)
Week
of
Testing
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
1
5
10
15
20
25
27
32
37
42
47
52
1
5
10
15
20
25
27
32
37
42
47
52
1
5
10
15
20
25
27
32
37
42
47
52
1
5
10
15
20
25
27
32
37
42
47
52
pH
(units)
6.8
6.6
7.5
7.5
7.0
6.8
6.0
7.1
7.7
6.9
7.3
7.7
7.9
7.5
7.8
7.7
7.5
N/A
7.1
7.64
7.8
8.0
7.30
7.42
7.53
7.53
7.96
7.6
7.2
N/A
7.2
7.6
7.5
8.0
7.40
7.76
7.51
7.53
7.98
7.7
7.1
N/A
7.2
7.6
7.8
8.0
N/A
7.70
7.23
7.38
7.95
7.7
7.1
N/A
7.2
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.96
7.64
7.24
7.40
7.97
Alkalinity
as
(mg/L CaCOj)
32
22
28
22
33
26
6
22
18
22
29
34
52
24
26
30
30
N/A
50
129
36
35
55
38
50
50
41
23
20
N/A
50
88
37
38
55
45
30
50
45
27
18
N/A
50
64
38
35
N/A
38
50
50
43
30
15
N/A
40
58
34
<12
35
33
35
45
41
Acidity
(mg/L CaCOj)
<10
16
15
<10
<10
<10
80
<10
11
<10
14
31
<10
<10
13
<25
<25
N/A
<50
<25
<25
<25
<50
<10
<50
<50
<12
<25
<25
N/A
<50
<25
<25
<10
<50
<10
<50
<50
<12
<25
<25
N/A
<50
<25
<25
<25
N/A
<10
<50
<50
<10
<25
28
N/A
<50
<25
<25
<25
<50
<10
<50
<50
<10
Sulfate
(mg/L)
248
284
165
125
104
252
243
261
265
143
156
331
215
275
313
228
358
N/A
29
<10
<10
32
<10
<10
<10
<10
<10
170
332
N/A
25
<10
<10
<10
12
<10
<10
<10
<10
226
398
N/A
29
<10
<10
<10
N/A
<10
<10
<10
<10
288
418
N/A
106
47
15
<10
18
<10
<10
<10
<10
Iron
(mg/L)
0.04
0.17
0.06
<0.03
0.03
0.09
0.14
0.11
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
0.04
<0.03
0.07
0.06
0.04
<0.03
N/A
0.8
0.07
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
N/A
<0.6
0.06
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
N/A
<0.6
0.07
<0.03
<0.03
N/A
<0.03
<0.03
<0.03
0.04
<0.03
<003
N/A
<0.6
0.08
<0.03
<0.6
<0.03
<0.03
0.09
0.06
0.04
-------
January 1997
Appendix E * Geochemistry * E-7, Page 8
ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS OF 15-WEEK HUMIDITY CELL LEACHATES ON
SELECTED WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
Parameter
Chloride, Diss. (Cl)
Fluoride, Diss. (Fl)
Antimony, Diss (Sb)
Arsenic, Diss. (As)
Barium, Diss. (pa')
Cadmium, Diss. (Cd)
Calcium, Diss. (Cal
Chromium, Diss. (Cr)
Copperj Diss. (Cu)
Iron. Diss. (Fe)
Lead, Diss. (Pb)
Mercury, Diss. (Hg)
Magnesium, Diss. (Me)
Manganese, Diss. (Mn)
Nickel, Diss. (Ni)
Potassium, Diss. (K)
Selenium, Diss. (Se)
Silver, Diss. (As)
Sodium, Diss. (Na)
Thallium, Diss. (Tl)
Zinc, Diss. (Zn)
PARAMETER
Chloride, Diss. (Cl)
Fluoride, Diss. (Fl)
Antimony, Diss (Sb)
Arsenic, Diss. (As)
Barium, Diss. (Bal
Cadmium, Diss. (Cd)
Calcium, Diss. (Ca)
Chromium, Diss. (Cr)
Copper, Diss. (Cu)
Iron. Diss. (Fe)
Lead, Diss. (Pb)
Mercury, Diss. (Hg)
Magnesium, Diss. (Me)
Manganese, Diss. (Mn)
Nickel, Diss. (Ni)
Potassium, Diss. (K)
Selenium, Diss. (Se)
Silver, Diss. (Ajz)
Sodium, Diss. (Na)
Thallium, Diss. CTl)
Zinc, Diss. ^n)
BMGC SAMPLE DESIGNATION
1-105-A
-------
January 1997
Appendix E * Geochemistry + E-7, Page 9
ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS OF 15-WEEK HUMIDITY CELL LEACHATES ON
SELECTED WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
Parameter
Chloride, Diss. fCl)
Fluoride, Diss. (Fl)
Antimony, Diss (Sb)
Arsenic, Diss. (As)
Barium, Diss. (Ba)
Cadmium, Diss. (Cd)
Calcium, Diss. (Ca)
Chromium, Diss. (Cr)
CoppeTj Diss. (Cu)
Iron. Diss. (Fe)
Lead, Diss. (Pb)
Mercury, Diss. (He)
Magnesium, Diss. (Me)
Manganese, Diss. (Mnj
Nickel, Diss. (Ni)
Potassium, Diss. (K)
Selenium, Diss. (Se)
Silver, Diss. (Aie)
Sodium, Diss. (Na)
Thallium, Diss. (11)
Zinc, Diss. (Zn)
PARAMETER
Chloride, Diss. fCl)
Fluoride, Diss. (Fl)
Antimony, Diss (Sb)
Arsenic, Diss. (A.s)
Barium, Diss. (Ba)
Cadmium, Diss. (Cd)
Calcium, Diss. (Ca)
Chromium, Diss. (Cr)
Copper; Diss. (Cu)
Iron. Diss. (Fe)
Lead, Diss. (Pb)
Mercury, Diss. (He)
Magnesium, Diss. (Me)
Manganese, Diss. (Mn)
Nickel, Diss. (Ni)
Potassium, Diss. (K)
Selenium, Diss. (Se)
Silver, Diss. (Aie)
Sodium, Diss. (Na)
Thallium, Diss. (Tl)
Zinc, Diss. (Zn)
BMGC SAMPLE DESIGNATION
3-307-A
<0.5
^0.1
^0.1
<0.05
<0.01
< 0.005
24.6
<0.01
<0.01
0.03
<0.05
< 0.002
1.9
0.17
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
-------
January 1997
Appendix £ * Geochemistry + E-7, Page 10
ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS OF 15-WEEK HUMIDITY CELL LEACHATES ON
SELECTED WASTE ROCK SAMPLES
Parameter
Chloride, Diss. fCl)
Fluoride, Diss. (Fl)
Antimony, Diss (Sb)
Arsenic, Diss. (As)
Barium, Diss. (Ba)
Cadmium, Diss. (Cd)
Calcium, Diss. (Ca)
Chromium, Diss. (Cr)
Copper, Diss. (Cu)
Iron. Diss. (Fe)
Lead, Diss. (Pb)
Mercury, Diss. (Hg)
Magnesium, Diss. (Me)
Manganese, Diss. (Mn)
Nickel, Diss. (Ni)
Potassium, Diss. (K)
Selenium, Diss. (Se)
Silver, Diss. (A&)
Sodium, Diss. (Na)
Thallium, Diss. (Tl)
Zinc, Diss. (Zn)
BMGC SAMPLE DESIGNATION
7-715-A
<0.5
0.3
0.2
0.07
<0.01
0.014
151
0.14
16.3
73.5
<0.05
< 0.002
10.0
5.78
3.40
<5
0.3
0.04
2
0.3
0.92
7-716-A
<0.5
0.4
0.4
0.2
<0.02
<0.01
50
0.74
13.8
342
<0.1
< 0.002
9.0
1.48
3.12
<10
0.4
0.18
<2
1.0
1.32
Note: All results reported in mg/1.
< — Concentration less than detection limit.
-------
APPENDIX E-8
RESULTS OF WASTE ROCK DUPLICATE ANALYSIS
-------
-------
January 1997 Appendix E * Geochemistry + E-8, Page 1
RESULTS OF WASTE ROCK DUPLICATE ANALYSIS
One goal of the confirmation geochemistry program was to verify that the geochemical data collected
by the Proponent were reproducible. To evaluate the reproducibility of the Proponent's geochemical
data, eight duplicate waste rock samples were selected by the Forest Service and WADOE and
submitted for ABA testing. Table E-8.1, Duplicate Waste Rock Sample Data, lists the duplicate
samples that were tested and the resulting ABA data from the Proponent's and confirmation
geochemistry programs.
Review of Table E-8.1, Duplicate Waste Rock Sample Data, indicates that the duplicate waste rock
sample data from the Proponent's and confirmation geochemistry programs produced similar
conclusions regarding acid generation potential in five out of eight (63%) cases when ANP/AGP ratio
criteria were used. Comparing duplicate net APP values, similar conclusions regarding acid generation
potential also occurred in five out of eight cases (63%).
The differences observed in the duplicate waste rock sample data are largely attributed to natural
variability in the core used for testing and not analytical bias. Note that the duplicate samples were
prepared from separate halves of the same core interval. As presented in the document Final Summary
Report, Confirmation Geochemistry Program, Crown Jewel Project (TerraMatrix, 1995), review of
laboratory Quality Control (QC) reports suggest good analytical precision and accuracy was achieved
during the confirmation geochemistry program. Similar precision and accuracy was reported during the
Proponent's geochemistry program (BMGC, 1996). Core Laboratories of Aurora, Colorado were used
for both testing programs.
The differences observed in the duplicate waste rock sample data were further evaluated using the
following statistical tests:
• Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test; and,
• Mann Whitney U Test.
The Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test evaluates whether paired sample results (in our case, duplicate waste
rock sample data) were taken from an identical population against the alternative that the results were
taken from two populations with unequal means. The Mann Whitney U Test evaluates whether, on
average, there is a significant difference in two sample populations (in our case, the Proponent's data
vs the confirmation data). Further discussion of the statistical tests can be found in the textbooks
Probability and Statistics for Engineers (Miller and Freund, 1977, pp. 275-278) and Probability and
Statistics for Engineers and Scientists (Walpole and Myers, 1985, pp. 534-537).
The computer program Statmost for Windows was used to perform calculations associated with the
statistical tests. Output files from the program are included in the project file and are not presented
here.
Results from the Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test indicated that, at a 0.05 level of significance, it can be
concluded that the duplicate waste rock sample data were collected from the same population.
Similarly, results from the Mann Whitney U Test indicated that, at a 0.05 level of significance, there is
not a significant difference, on average, in the Proponent's and confirmation data.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix E * Geochemistry + E-8, Page 2
TABLE E-8.1, DUPLICATE WASTE ROCK SAMPLE DATA
Sample
Number1
D-88 (120-125)
or (2-203-B)
D-88 (210-215)
or (1-107-A)
D-51 (65-70) or
(7-708)
D-85 (235-240)
or (3-308-A)
D-51 (140-145)
or (5-503-C)
D-85 (465-470)
or (4-402-B)
D-56 (225-230)
or (8-805)
D-99 (485-490)
or (6-607)
Waste Rock
Group
Unaltered
Andesite
Altered Andesite
Unaltered
Clastics
Garnet Skarn
Undifferentiated
Skarn
Magnetic Skarn
Intrusives
Marble
AGP2
(as TCaCO,/KT)
BMGC
1.9
15.3
93.8
33.1
<0.3
62.2
1.9
<0.3
Confirmation
Program
3.1
8.8
41.2
21.6
0.3
73.8
0.6
4.1
ANP5
(as TCaC03/KT)
BMGC
31.8
220
34.2
34.2
42.5
26.2
<0.1
837
Confirmation
Program
104
24.0
12.2
72.9
70.3
126
8.0
652
ANP/AGP Ratio
BMGC
16.7
14.4
0.4
1.0
>142
0.4
<0.05
>2790
Confirmation
Program
33.5
2.7
0.3
3.4
234
1.7
13.3
159
Net APP4
Jas TCaCO,/KT)
BMGC
-29.9
-204.7
59.6
-1.1
-42.2
36
1.8
-836.7
Confirmation
Program
-100.9
-15.2
29
-51.3
-70
-52.2
-7.4
-647.9
Potential to Generate Acid9
ANP/AGP Ratio
Criteria
BMGC
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Confirmation
Program
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Net APP Criteria
BMGC
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Confirmation
Program
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Notes: 1. Sample Numbers - the first number shown is the designation used by the EIS team; the second number is the original BMGC sample designation.
2. AGP - Acid Generation Potential, assumed to equal Total Sulfur.
3. ANP - Acid Neutralization Potential.
4. Net APP - Net Acid Producing Potential, AGP-ANP. . . ....
5. ANP/AGP ratios greater than three and net APP values less than -20 TCaCoj/KT are considered representative of non-acid generating material.
-------
APPENDIX E-9
ANALYSIS OF CONFIRMATION GEOCHEMICAL DATA
-------
-------
January 1997
Appendix E * Geochemistry • E-9, Page 1
Estimated Percentage of Acid Generating Waste Rock Based on Humidity Cell Tests and Confirmation Testing Program
ABA Data - ANP/AGP Ratio Analysis
Waste
Rock
Group
Unaltered
Andesite
Altered Andesite
Unaltered
Clastics
Altered Clastics
Garnet Skarn
Magnetite
Skarn
Undifferentiated
Skarn
Intrusive
Marble
Number of
Confirmation
Samples
81
21
61
1
36
5
26
22
25
Percentage of Confirmation Samples
Potentially Acid Generating by ANP/AGP
Ratio Class
(0:1 to 1:1)
11.1
14.3
18.0
0.0
30.6
80.0
23.1
13.6
4
(1:1 to 2:1)
7.4
4.8
11.5
0.0
19.4
0.0
7.7
13.6
0.0
(2:1 to 3:1)
3.7
9.5
1.6
0.0
13.9
20.0
11.5
4.5
4
Percentage of Acid HCT Samples in ANP/AGP
Ratio Classes'
(0:1 to 1:1)
0.0
0.0
0.0
100
75.0
14.3
100
0.0
100*
(1:1 to 2:1)
33.3
0.0
0.0
1002
0.0
0.0
1002
1002
1002
(2:1 to 3:1)
100*
1002
0.0
1002
1002
1002
0.0
1002
1002
Estimate of
Percentage
of Acid
Generating
Material'
6.2
9.5
0.0
1004
36.9
31.4
30.8
18.1
8.0
Notes: 1. Refer to Appendix E-5, Histograms of Waste Rock ABA Results, for number of humidity cell test samples that were found to
generate acid in each ANP/AGP ratio class.
2. No humidity cell test samples were analyzed in this ANP/AGP ratio class. It was assumed that all samples in this ratio class would
be acid generating.
3. Percentage of acid generating waste rock material was calculated by multiplying the percentage of potentially acid generating
confirmation samples in a given ANP/AGP ratio class by the percentage of acid HCT samples for that same class, and summing for
all classes.
4. Four of five altered elastics humidity cell test samples went acid but only 1 sample from this waste rock group was selected during
confirmation testing. It was assumed that all material in this waste rock group would be acid generating.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix E * Geochemistry + E-9, Page 2
Estimated Percentage of Acid Generating Waste Rock Based on Humidity Cell Tests and Confirmation Testing Program ABA Data -
Comparison of EIS Alternatives Using ANP/AGP Ratio Analysis Results
Waste
Rock
Group
Unaltered Andesite
Altered Andesite
Unaltered Clastics
Altered Clastics
Garnet Skarn
Magnetite Skarn
Undifferentiated
Skarn
Intrusive
Marble
Total
Estimated
Percentage
of Acid
Generating
Material
6.2
9.5
0.0
100.0
36.9
31.4
30.8
18.1
8.0
Estimated Percentage of Total Waste Rock Volume
Alt. B
52.3
6.5
13.0
0.7
9.5
1.5
8.9
2.2
5.5
Alt. C
1.0
2.0
18.0
<0.7
28.0
4.0
36.0
8.0
3.0
Alt. D
14.0
2.0
37.0
<0.7
25.0
9.0
6.0
5.0
3.0
Alt. E
52.3
6.5
13.0
0.7
9.5
1.5
8.9
2.2
5.5
Note: 1. Percentage of total waste rock volume that would be acid generated was ca
waste rock volume.
Alt. F
52.3
6.5
13.0
0.7
9.5
1.5
8.9
2.2
5.5
Alt. G
52.3
6.5
13.0
0.7
9.5
1.5
8.9
2.2
5.5
Estimated Percentage of Total Waste Rock Volume That Would
Be Acid Generating1
Alt. B
3.2
0.6
0.0
0.7
3.5
0.5
2.7
0.4
0.4
(12.0)
Alt. C
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.4
10.3
1.3
11.1
1.4
0.2
(25.0)
Alt. D
0.9
0.2
0.0
0.4
9.2
2.8
1.8
0.9
0.2
(16.4)
Alt. E
3.2
0.6
0.0
0.7
3.5
0.5
2.7
0.4
0.4
(12.0)
Alt. F
3.2
0.6
0.0
0.7
3.5
0.5
2.7
0.4
0.4
(12.0)
Alt. G
3.2
0.6
0.0
0.7
3.5
0.5
2.7
0.4
0.4
(12.0)
culated by multiplying the percentage of acid generating material by the percentage of the total
-------
January 1997
Appendix E * Geochemistry + E-9, Page 3
Estimated Percentage of Acid Generating Waste Rock Based on Humidity
Cell Tests and Confirmation Testing Program ABA Data - Net APP Analysis
Waste Rock
Group
Unaltered
Andesite
Altered
Andesite
Unaltered
Clastics
Altered Clastics
Garnet Skarn
Magnetite Skarn
Undifferentiated
Skarn
Intrusive
Marble
Number of
Confirmation
Samples
81
21
61
1
36
5
26
22
25
Percentage of Confirmation Samples Potentially Acid
Generating by Net APP Class
(-20 to 0 T/KT)
34.6
19.0
29.5
100
13.9
0.0
23.1
45.5
4.0
Notes: 1. Refer to Appendix E-5, Histograms of Waste R(
2. No humidity cell test samples were analyzed in
3. Percentage of acid generating waste rock materis
HCT samples for that same class, and summing
4. Four of five altered elastics humidity cell test sa
waste rock group would be acid generating.
(0 to 20 T/KT)
4.9
14.3
8.2
0.0
8.3
0.0
3.8
13.6
0.0
(20 to 40 T/KT)
3.7
0.0
4.9
0.0
2.8
20.0
7.7
0.0
0.0
(> 40 T/KT)
2.5
0.0
3.3
0.0
10.4
60.0
11.5
0.0
0.0
Percentage of Acid HCT Samples in
Net APP Classes'
(-20 to 0 T/KT)
33.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1002
1002
1002
1002
(0 to 20 T/KT)
0.0
0.0
0.0
100
1002
0.0
1002
0.0
1002
(20 to 40 T/KT)
0.0
0.0
0.0
100
1002
0.0
1002
1002
1002
(>40 T/KT)
0.0
100
0.0
100
75.0
50.0
100
1002
1002
Estimated Percentage
of Acid Generating
Material'
11.5
0.0
0.0
1004
25.7
30.0
46.1
45.5
4
>ck ABA Results, for number of humidity cell test samples that were found to generate acid in each net APP class.
this net APP class. It was assumed that all samples in this net APP class would be acid generating.
was calculated by multiplying the percentage of potentially acid generating confirmation samples in a given net APP class by the percentage of acid
for all classes.
mples went acid but only one sample from this waste rock group was encountered during confirmation testing. It was assumed that all material in this
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix E * Geochemistry + E-9, Page 4
Estimated Percentage of Acid Generating Waste Rock Based on Humidity Cell Tests and Confirmation Testing Program ABA Data -
Comparison of EIS Alternatives Using Net APP Analysis Results
Waste
Rock
Group
Unaltered Andesite
Altered Andesite
Unaltered Clastics
Altered Clastics
Garnet Skarn
Magnetite Skarn
Undifferentiated
Skarn
Intrusive
Marble
Total
Estimated
Percentage of Acid
Generating Material
Using HCT and Net
APP Confirmation
Data
11.5
0.0
0.0
100.0
25.7
30.0
46.1
45.5
4.0
Estimated Percentage of Total Waste Rock Volume
Alt. B
52.3
6.5
13.0
0.7
9.5
1.5
8.9
2.2
5.5
Alt. C
1.0
2.0
18.0
<0.7
28.0
4.0
36.0
8.0
3.0
Alt. D
14.0
2.0
37.0
<0.7
25.0
9.0
6.0
5.0
3.0
Alt. E
52.3
6.5
13.0
0.7
9.5
1.5
8.9
2.2
5.5
Alt. F
52.3
6.5
13.0
0.7
9.5
1.5
8.9
2.2
5.5
Alt. G
52.3
6.5
13.0
0.7
9.5
1.5
8.9
2.2
5.5
Estimated Percentage of Total Waste Rock Volume That Would
Be Acid Generating1
Alt. B
6.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
2.4
0.5
4.1
1.0
0.2
(14.9)
Alt. C
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.4
7.2
1.2
16.6
3.6
0.1
(29.2)
Alt. D
1.6
0.0
0.0
0.4
6.4
2.7
2.8
2.3
0.1
(16.3)
Alt. E
6.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
2.4
0.5
4.1
1.0
0.2
(14.9)
Alt. F
6.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
2.4
0.5
4.1
1.0
0.2
(14.9)
Alt. G
6.0
0.0
0.0
0.7
2.4
0.5
4.1
1.0
0.2
(14.9)
Note: 1. Percentage of total waste rock volume that would be acid generated was calculated by multiplying the percentage of acid generating mataerial by the percentage of the total waste rock volume.
-------
APPENDIX F
DANGEROUS WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
RESULTS FOR DETOXIFIED TAILINGS
-------
-------
BATTLE MOUNTAIN GOLD COMPANY
ANNE C. BALDRIGE 3AHU MOUNIWN
DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL GOlD COMPANY
AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
May 6, 1996
Ms. Polly Zehm
Central Regional Office
Washington Department of Ecology
15 West Yakima Ave., Suite 200
Yakima, WA 98902-3401
RE: Crown Jewel Project
Dear Ms. Zehm:
I have a correction to make regarding Table 1 of the Book Designation of Mill Tailings,
Crown Jewel Project. Total cyanide in tailings decant, was erroneously identified as
toxicity Category "X".rather than Category "A". Category "A" has a multiplier I/1Oth of
the "X" category. Using the 0.1 multiplier for Category A significantly reduces the
resultant liquid fraction equivalent concentration from 0.00036% to 0.00010659%
(0.00011%), thus potentially increasing the 'margin' between proposed discharge and the
DW threshold.
Table 1, Book Designation of Tailings Decant, and the appropriate text have been revised.
Copies are attached for your information.
Please contact me if you have any questions, regarding this information.
Sincerely,
Anne C. Baldrige
attachments
cc: Jeff White
5670 GREENWOOD PLAZA BLVD., SUITE 106 ENGLEWOOD, CO 80III (303) 721-0427 FAX (303) 721 -6813
-------
-------
BA1TLE MOUNTAIN GOLD COMPANY
ANNEC. BAI.DKIGF. ^«O\\\V^>*>^ \\\\ BATTLE MOUNTAIN
DIRK IOR 01 FNVIKONMINIAI _ <*O V ft3\ V>*^ \\\ \ GOID COMPANY
ANIXiOVI KNMI NIAI Al I AIKS
April 10, 1996
Ms. Polly Zehm
Supervisor
Hazardous Waste and Toxics Reduction Section
Central Region Office
Department of Ecology
106 South 6th Avenue
Yakima, Washington 98902
RE: CROWN JEWEL PROJECT - BIOASSAY DESIGNATION OF THE
DETOXIFIED TAJLINGS MATERIAL
Dear Ms. Zehm:
Battle Mountain Gold Company (BMGC) is pleased to provide you with the results
of Parametrix, Inc.'s (Parametrix's) bioassay testing of the Crown Jewel mill tailings
pursuant to WAC § 173-303-100. As you will see from the attached Results of Static
Acute Trout Bioassays (Attachment 1), the detoxified mill tailings do not characterize as
"dangerous waste" or "extremely hazardous waste" pursuant to the fish bioassay protocol.
In fact, observed fish mortality was only 3.4% for samples 104 and 104 and 6.7% for
samples 106 and 107.
The four samples tested represented the four major ore types which will be milled.
As you may be aware, BMGC had to conduct a new drilling program in order to obtain the
samples for testing. BMGC geologists evaluated the information from previous drilling for
the project (comprised of approximately 80,000 feet of core drilling and 280,000 feet of
reverse circulation drilling) to determine the appropriate location and number of holes to
drill in order to obtain representative samples for testing. A drilling crew and equipment
were mobilized to the site to drill to acquire core to conduct the testing program. The core
samples were then composited into the four types of ore. Each ore type was subjected to a
milling process using the same process as proposed for the Crown Jewel mill. INCO
personnel supervised the cyanide detoxification of the four milled ore types using the INCO
SO2/Air/Oxygen system. The entire testing program cost BMGC in excess of 135,000, not
including the time devoted by BMGC personnel and the time taken by agency personnel
who were responsible for review, approval and oversight of the drilling program.
5670GREENWOODiPLAZA BLVD.. SUITE 106 ENGLEWOOD, CO 80111 (303)721-0427 FAX (303) 721-6813
-------
-------
Ms Polly Zehni
April 10, 1996
Page 2
BMGC continues to believe that the detoxified tailings material was fully and
accurately characterized as "nondangerous" by our December 7, 1993 book designation,
and that per our May 2, 1994 letter, there was no need, nor agency authority, to require
duplicative bioassay testing. Nevertheless, we have performed the requested bioassay
testing, and have now confirmed (again) that the detoxified tailings are not a dangerous
waste pursuant to WAC § 173-303-100(5).
In addition, we characterized the four ore types using the book designation process
as part of our ongoing geochemical characterization of the Crown Jewel ore. The book
designation agrees with the bioassay results, that the tailings do not designate as a
"dangerous waste" or "extremely hazardous waste". BMGC continues to believe that the
geochemical characterization provides more information relative to the potential future
behavior of the Crown Jewel tailings than the bioassay testing and that the book designation
test method is the appropriate test method for evaluation of the tailings material.
We believe that submittal of this information eliminates any remaining issues
associated with the dangerous waste characterization of the mill tailings. Please contact me
if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Anne C. Baldrige
cc: R. Quinn
J. White
G. Etter
-------
ATTACHMENT 1
RESULTS OF STATIC ACUTE TROUT BIOASSAYS
-------
Parametrix, Inc.
nls in Emiiiicciiiv) .Mid Environmental Sciences
SHOO l.nko Wnslinu|lon nivd N II Kiikl.nul, WA <)B033-73.r>0
206-fli>2-8880 • I"-,u 200-809-0008
Ms. Anne Baldrige January 23, 1996
Battle Mountain Gold Company
624 Central Avenue
Oroville, Washington 98844
SUBJECT: RESULTS OF STATIC ACUTE TROUT BIOASSAYS
Dear Ms. Baldrige:
Please find enclosed results of 96-hour static acute bioassays using rainbow trout,
Oncorhynchus mykiss, conducted on samples 104, 105, 106 and 107 collected by Battle
Mountain Gold on 10, 11 and 15 January 1996. Testing was initiated on 12 January 1996
for samples 104, 105 and 106. Testing for sample 107 was initiated on 16 January 1996. All
bioassays were conducted in accordance with Washington State Department of Ecology
Guidelines (Methods 80-12). The bioassays were conducted at the 100 mg/L concentrations
in order to determine how the sample should be classified.
In summary, samples 104 and 105 exhibited 3.4% mortality while samples 106 and 107 had
6.7% mortality at 100 mg/L concentrations. Based on these results, none of the samples
should be classified as dangerous waste or extremely hazardous waste. The results of the
reference toxicant test and laboratory control responses were within the expected range.
Copies of the raw data, reference toxicant results and chain-of-custody forms are also
enclosed in this data package.
If you have any questions regarding the results of this test, or are in need of further
assistance, please contact either myself or Mr. Kevin Brix at (206) 822-8880.
Sincerely,
PARAMETRIX, INC.
Brian Coldrick
Project Manager
cc:
K. Brix KvQ
M. Garrett
file
-------
Table 1. Summary of test conditions for static acute O. mykiss bioassay.
Job Name: Battle Mountain Gold
Date: 12-16 January 1996
Sample 107 16-20 January 1996
Test Protocol:
Test Material:
Test Organisms/Age:
Source:
Loading Limit:
Number/Container:
Volume/Container:
Test Chambers:
Replicates:
Test Concentrations:
Reference Toxicant:
Test Duration:
Control:
Lighting:
Photoperiod:
Aeration:
Renewal:
Temperature:
Chemical Data:
Effect Measured:
Test Acceptability:
WDOE, 1994. WAC 173-303-110 (3) (Amended ordinance 92-33),
Washington Stale Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington
Whole effluent (composite)
O. mykiss (rainbow trout); 31 and 35 days from swim up at test initiation
Mt. Lasscn Trout Farm; Red Bluff, California
0.8 g (wet weight) per liter of test solution
10
4 liters
20 L High-density linear polyethylene containers
Three
100 mg/L
Potassium chloride
96 hours
Natural spring water from Gold Creek Trout Farm, Woodinville, WA
Fluorescent bulbs (50-100 foot candles)
16 hours light; 8 hours dark
None
None
12 ± 1° C
Dissolved oxygen, temperature and pH measured at initiation of test and
every 24 hours; hardness, alkalinity and specific conductivity determined at
each concentration
Mortality
Control mortality <, 10%
-------
ATTACHMENT 2
BOOK DESIGNATION
-------
-------
Table 2. Summary of Results Tor samples 104, 105 and 106.
O. mykiss
Sample
104
105
106
Control
Spun Control
Reference Toxicant (LC50) =
N/A = Not applicable
Table 3. Summary of Results for sample 107.
Sample
107
Control
Spun Control
Reference Toxicant (LC50) =
% Survival
97%
97%
93%
100%
100%
2.9
O.
% Survival
93%
93%
97%
2.9
Designation
None
None
None
N/A
N/A
g/L KC1
mykiss
Designation
None
N/A
N/A
g/L KCi
N/A = Not applicable
-------
-------
BOOK DESIGNATION OF MILL TAILINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH 173-303-070
WASHINGTON ADMINISTRATIVE CODE
Book designation of mill tailings anticipated to be generated by milling operations at the
proposed Crown Jewel Mine is based on detailed chemical analyses of tailings samples
representative of the four primary ore containing materials anticipated to be milled.
Analytical data from the samples used for the bioassay were used for this book designation.
The following discussion presents the step-by-step results of waste designation in
accordance with the requirements of Chapter 173-303-070 WAC. Analytical results are
attached.
Based on the results of this book designation, the tailings generated from the Crown Jewel
Project are solid waste only and do not designate as either dangerous or extremely
hazardous waste.
WAC 173-303-081 Discarded Chemical Products
The mill tailings do not designate as a dangerous waste under WAC 173-303-081 since they
are not discarded or off-specification commercial chemical products or manufacturing
chemical intermediates. Nor are the tailings a residue of contaminated soil, water, or other
debris resulting from the cleanup of a spill of a commercial chemical product or
manufacturing chemical intermediate.
WAC 173-303-082 Dangerous Waste Sources
The mill tailings do not designate as a dangerous waste under WAC 173-303-082 since it is
not a waste from, or residue from the management of, a waste source listed in WAC 173-
303-9904.
WAC 173-303-090 Dangerous Waste Characteristics
This material does not designate as a dangerous waste under WAC 173-303-090 because:
173-303-090(5Hgnitability
• It does not have a flash point less than 60° C.
• It is not capable of causing a fire through friction, adsorption of moisture, or
spontaneous chemical changes.
• It is not an ignitable compressed gas.
• It is not an oxidizer as defined in 49 CFR 173.151.
-------
173-303-090(6) Corrosivitv
• It does not have a pH less than 2 or greater than 12.5
• It does not corrode steel (SAE1020) at a rate greater than 0.250 inches per
year.
• It is a slurry of about equal water and solid weight and not a solid or semi-
solid.
173-303-090(7) Reactivity
• It is not normally unstable and does not readily undergo violent change
without detonating.
• It does not react violently with water.
• It does not form potentially explosive mixtures with water.
• When mixed with water, it does not generate toxic gases, vapors, or fumes
in a quantity sufficient to present a danger to human health or the
environment.
• When exposed to pH conditions between 2.0 and 12.5, it does not generate
toxic gases, vapors, or fumes in a quantity sufficient to present a danger to
human health or the environment.
• It is not capable of detonation or explosive reaction if it is subjected to a
strong initiating source or if heated under confinement.
• It is not readily capable of detonation or explosive decomposition or reaction
at standard temperature and pressure.
• It is not a forbidden explosive as defined in 49 CFR 173.51, or a Class A
explosive as defined in 49 CFR 173.53, or a Class B explosive as defined in
49 CFR 173.88.
173-303-090(8) Toxicity
Metals concentrations reported in Table 1 resulting from analyses of the filtrate from
the tailings are all at concentration levels below the toxicity characteristic threshold
which would cause the material to designate as a dangerous waste. The toxicity
characteristics were not evaluated for tailings solids in these samples using the
Toxicity Characteristics Leaching Procedure (TCLP, Appendix II of 40 CFR Part
261) because previous TCLP analyses on similar samples demonstrated that the
tailings do not exhibit the toxicity characteristics. In addition, the EPA Method
1312 leachability tests for the four ore type samples, which were conducted using
2
-------
TCLP methods, but a leachate similar to that expected in a natural, mining type
environment, also showed concentration levels which were below the toxicity
characteristic threshold.
WAC 173-503-100 Toxic Dangerous Wastes
Book designation was performed to confirm bioassay testing results and to determine
whether the tailings material meets the toxicity criteria for designating dangerous waste. As
provided in WAC 173-303-100(5), the book designation procedures is appropriate because:
* The toxic categories for significant toxic constituents in this material have
been researched and identified.
• Extensive analyses have been performed on this material to determine the
concentrations of significant toxic constituents as well as non-toxic
constituents. The sum of known decant solution constituent concentrations
as a percentage of the total dissolved solids is 103%, 80%, 73%, and 107%
for each of the tests. Extensive analyses and mineralogica! studies have been
used to characterize the solid fraction, Mineralogical studies confirm that
constituents exist in an environmentally stable form.
* Analyses are very extensive on the material and demonstrates beyond a
reasonable doubt that any constituents about which BMGC may have limited
or no knowledge cannot significantly affect the toxicity of the tailings. The
constituents without toxicity data that are present in the highest
concentrations are all naturally occurring minerals derived from the original
rock
This material does not designate as hazardous waste under WAC 1 73-303-101 because:
The equivalent concentration of toxic constituents is 0.00013% which is less than
the threshold for designation of 0.001%.
Summar
As noted in the introduction, the representative tailings samples evaluated do not designate
as a dangerous waste under WAC 1 73-303-70. The tailings are not discarded or off-
specification commercial products, do not result from the management of a designated
waste or residue of, tailings material do not exhibit any of the dangerous waste
characteristics identified in WAC 173-303-090. and as demonstrated in Tables 1 and 2, the
equivalent concentrations of constituents present, is less than the threshold for designation
under WAC 173-303-100,
Please note, these results are very similar to the earlier book designation submitted on
December 7? 1993 and further substantiate that the tailings do not designate as dangerous
waste under WAC J 73-303.
-------
February 27,1996
TABLE 1
BOOK DESIGNATION OF TAILINGS DECANT
913-1132.001
Page 1
Ana ly tea
'otal Dissolved Solids
Specific Conductivity
pH
Anions
Ammonia
3icarbonale
Carbonate
Chloride
Cyanide, total
Cyanide, WAD
Hydroxide
Nitrogen, Nitrate as N
Sulfate
Cations
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
'otassium
YDS
NH3 as N
I-1CO3
C03
Cl
01-1
NO3
SO4
Ca
MR
Na
K
Tcsl
Matrix
l:ilt.
Fill.
l;ilt.
Filt.
Fill.
Filt.
Fill.
:ilt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Dis.
Dis.
Dis.
Dis.
Units
mj'/L
rrij'/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
"if^L.
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Worst Case - Residual Raw Material or Possible Salts
Calcium sulfate
Ammonium bicarbonate
'otassium bisulfate
'otassium nitrate
vlagnesium sulfate
Ammonium chloride
'otassium chloride
Sodium chloride
Magnesium chloride
Ammonium sulfate
Calcium chloride
Sodium nitrate
Ammonium nitrate
Calcium nitrate
Sodium sulfate
Sodium cyanide
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Arsenic acid
Barium
Barium chloride
Barium carbonate
Beryllium
Boron
CaSO4
NH4HCO3
K2S04
KNO3
MgS04
NH4Cl
KC1
NaCl
MgCI2
(NH4)2SO4
CaCl2
NaNO3
NH4N03
CaNO32
Na2SO4
Al
Sb
As
HAsO4
Ba
BaCI2
BaCO3
Be
B
Dis.
Dis.
Dis.
Dis.
Dis.
Dis.
mc/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
Vlaxiinuni
5860
5910
7.60
134
87
1.0
1720
1.52
1.36
1.0
13.0
2800
823
15.6
629.0
112
0.05
0.1
0.08
0.11
0.005
0.09
'ercenl Basis
(Maximum)
0.59%
0.013%
0.0087%
BDL
0.17%
0.00015%
0.00014%
BDL
0.0013%
0.2«%
0.082%
0.0016%
0.063%
0.011%
BDI
DDL
0.000008%
0.00001 1 %
BDL
0.000009%
Toxic
Category
D(l)
D(l)
3(1)
X
X
DO)
D(l)
D(l)
D(l)
D(l)
D(l)
Multiplier
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
1
1
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
MoTox Data
D
D
0.0001
0.0001
No RTECS Data
D
D
D
D
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
No RTECS Data
D
0.0001
No RTECS Data
D
0.0001
No RTECS Data
No RTECS Data
X
C
C
D
1
0.001
0.001
0.0001
Equivalent
Concentration
0.000001%
0.0000009%
0.00002%
0.00015%
0.00014%
0.0000001%
0.00003%
0.00001%
0.0000002%
0.000006%
0.000001%
0.000008%
0.00000001%
0.00000001%
0.000000001%
-------
February 27,1996
TABLE 1
BOOK DESIGNATION OF TAILINGS DECANT
913-1132.001
Page 2
Analylcs
Cadmium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Copper sulfate pentahydrate
Iron
Lead
Lead nitrate
Manganese
Manganese chloride
Manganese sulfate
Mercury
Molybdenum
Molybdenum chloride
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Strontium
Strontium chloride or
Strontium nitrate
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Uranium
Cd
Cr
Co
Cu
Fe
Pb
Mn
MnCI2
MnSO4
HR
Mo
MoCl4
Ni
Se
AS
Sr
SrCI2
Sr(N03)2
Ti
V
Zn
U
Test
Matrix
Dis.
Dis.
Dis.
Dis.
Dis.
Dis.
Dis.
Dis.
Dis.
Dis.
Dis.
Dis.
Dis.
Dis.
Dis.
Dis.
Fill.
Solution Phase Equivalent Concentration =
Units
m(!/L
mg/L
m>'/L
mj'/L
mf/L
mj'A
ITlj'/L
mfA
mrA
miA
mfi/L
mf'A
m|'A
mpA
m(A
mR/L
mR/L
Maximum
0.005
0.030
0.540
3.280
0.420
0.05
0.02
0.001
0.26
0.04
0.2
0.02
2.39
0.01
0.05
0.02
0.004
Percent basis
(Maximum)
DDL
0.000003%
0.00005%
0.00033%
0.000042%
BDL
0.000002%
0.000000%
0.000026%
0.000004%
0.00002%
0.000002%
0.00024%
BDL
BDL
0.000002%
0.0000004%
Toxic
Category
B
D
Multiplier
0.01
0.0001
No RTECS Data
C
D
C
D
D
0.001
0.0001
0.001
0.0001
0.0001
No Tox Data
D
D
D
D
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
0.0001
No RTECS Data
D
0.0001
Equivalent
Concentration
0.00000003%
0.00000001%
0.0000003%
0.000000004%
0.000000002%
0.0000000002%
0.00000000001%
0.0000000004%
0.000000002%
0.0000000002%
0.00000002%
0.00000000004%
0 00036%
Notes:
X, A, B, C, or D - WAC 173-303-100 Toxic Category
1 Equivalent concentrations based on concentrations measured for
individual ions using toxicity categories for potential associated compounds.
BDL - Below Detection Limits. Analyte was not detected above the analytical detection limit.
No RTECS Data - The compound was not identified in RTECS.
No Tox Data - The compound was indetified in RTECS, however,
no applicable toxicity data was available.
-------
February 27,1996
TABLE 2
BOOK DESIGNATION OF TAILINGS SOLIDS
913-1132.00
Page
Item
Potential Species
Aluminum (Al) as AI2O3
-95% as Garnets: (Fe,Mg,Mn)AI2(Si04)3
-5% as Feldspar: KAIS1308
Arsenic (As)
—80% as Arsenopyrile: FeAsS
-20%asCobalile:CoAsS
3arium(Ba) as BaO
Wilherite: BaC03
Bnrite: BnSO4
Calcium (Ca) as CaO
-99.9% as Calcite: CaC03
~0.1%asTitani(e: CaTiSiOS
Chlorine ( as Cl)
Plagioclase (Scapolile):
(Na.CaVll(AlSi)408]3(C].C03)
Chromium (Cr)
Magnetite Subst: Cr,Fe304
Pyrrhotite Subst: Cr,FeS
Garnet Subst: Ca3Cr2(Si04)3
Cobalt (Co)
In Arsenopyrite: CoFeAsS
Cobalite: CoAsS
Copper (Cu)
Copper hydroxide: Cu(OH)2
-99.9% inoreasChalcopyrite: CuFeS2
— 1% in ore as Covellite: CuS
Copper ferrocyanide: Cu2Fe(CN)6*7H20
Iron(Fe)asFe2O3
-3%asGoethite: FeO(OH)
-1% as Hematite: Fe203
-1% asllmenile: FeTi03
-30% as Magnetite: Fe304
-2% as Marcasite: FeS2
-5%asPyrite: FeS2
-58% as Pyrrholite: FeS
Lead (Pb)
Galena: PbS
Vlagnesium (MR) as MgO
Pyroxenes: MgSi206
Manganese (Mn) as MnO
-97% as Pyroxenes: Mn(M(!;Si206)
—3% as Manganese dioxide: MnO2
VIolybdenum (Mo)
Molybdenite: MoS2
Nickel (Ni)
Pyrite Subst: Ni(x)Fe(l-x)S
Niobium (Nb)
Units
% by Wt
rig/Kg
% by Wt
% by Wt
% by Wt
trip/Kg
nig/Kg
mg/Kg
% by Wt
mg/Kg
% by Wt
% by Wt
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
Maximum
8.3-1
240
0.02
24.4
0.03
520
220
1090
53.3
HO
5.04
0.36
40
20
10
lie in
% Basis
4.41
8.34
0.024
0.02
0.02
17.4
0.03
0.052
0.022
0.109
37.3
53.3
0.014
3.024
0.28
0.004
0.002
BDL
I'oxicity
Category
Multiplier
No RTECS Data
No RTECS Data
D
0.0001
No RTECS Data
D
—
0.0001
0.001
^JoTox Data
NoToxData
No RTECS Data
1
NoToxDala
1
NoToxDala
No RTECS Data
No RTECS Data
D
c
0.0001
0.001
NoToxData
No RTECS Data
No RTECS Data
No RTECS Data
NoTox Data
No RTECS Data
No Tox Data
No RTECS Data
No RTECS Data
No RTECS Data
1
No Tox Da ta
No Tox Da la
No RTECS Data
No Tox Data
No Tox Data
No RTECS Data
Equivalent
Concentration
Components
0.000002
0.000002
0.00002
0.000002
0.0001
-------
February 27,1996
TABLE 2
BOOK DESIGNATION OF TAILINGS SOLIDS
913-1132.001
Page 2
Item
Potential Species
Garnet Subst: NbAI2(Si04)3
Phosphorus (P) as P2O5
-70% as Apatite:
(Co3.Fe3.Ni3MP04}2.8.H20
-30% as Vivianile: Fe3(P04)2.8.H20
Potassium (K)
Fddspar: KAISDUS
Rubidium (Rb)
Garnet Subst: RbAI2(SK)4)3
Silica (Si02)
Listed elsewhere as Si(x)O(y):
Garnets, Feldspars, Pyroxenes,
Plagioclase.ctc.
Silver (AR)
ArRentite: Aj;2S
Acanthiferrous Galena AR2S in PbS
Sodium(Na)asNa2O
PiaRioclase: Ca,Na(Al,Si)AISi208
Strontium (Sr)
Garnet Subst: SrA12(Si04)3
Sulfur
Sulfides listed elsewhere
Thorium (Th)
Garnet Subst: ThAI2(Si04)3
Tin (Sn)
Titanium (Ti) as TiO2
-49% as Ilmenite FeTi03
-2%asRutile: Ti02
~49%asTitanite: CaTiSiOS
TunRSten (W)
Garnet Subst: WAI2(Si(M)3
Uranium (U)
Garnet Subsf. UAI2(SK)4)3
Vanadium (V)
Garnet Subst: VAI2(Si04)3
Yttrium (Y)
Garnet Subst: YAI2(Si04}3
Zinc (Zn)
Sphalerite: ZnS
Zirconium (Zr)
Garnet Subst: ZiAI2(Si(M)3
Acid Neutralization Potential
Total sulfur
Total sulfur as S (Leco furnace)
1312 Extraction
Units
% by Wt
% by Wt
mg/Kg
% by Wt
% by Wt
rr,R/KR
% by Wt
mR/Kg
mR/KR
% by Wt
IHR/KB
mR/Kg
mR/Kg
ing/Kg
mR/Kg
m,./K(;
mf/KR
mj^Kj;
mR/KR
Tns CaCO3/Kt
Tns CaCO3/Kt
%
Maximum
0.07
0.43
30
44.1
0.55
0
280
4.73
730
50
0.47
7(1
30
110
20
100
20
,_ 251
148
4.73
Item
% Basis
0.031
0.36
0.003
20.64
Not Ann Ij
0.41
0.028
4.73
0.073
0.005
0.28
0.007
0.003
0.011
0.002
0.01
0.002
Toxicily
Category
Multiplier
No RTECS Data
No RTECS Data
No RTF.CS Data
No RTECS Data
No RTECS Da la
zed
No RTECS Data
No RTECS Data
No RTECS Data
No RTECS Data
No RTECS Data
No RTECS Data
No Tox Data
No RTECS Data
No RTECS Data
No RTECS Data
No RTECS Data
No RTECS Data
D
0.0001
No RTECS Data
Solid Phase Equivalent Concentration
Equivalent
Concentration
Components
0.000001
0.00014
-------
CORE LABORATORIES
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Job Number: 960076 Report Date: 02/01/96
CUSTOMER: Battle Mountain Gold Company PROJECT: CROWN JEWEL TAILINGS ATTIM: Anne Baldrige
Customer Sample ID: TAILINGS SOLIDS
Sample Date *
Samole Time
TEST DESCRIPTION
Acid Neutralization Potential
Total Sulfur (Tons CaC03/Kt)
Total Sulfur as S (Leco Furnace)
312 Extraction
Aluminum (as A1203)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (as BaO)
Calcium (as CaO)
Chlorine (as CD
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
Iron (as Fe203)
Lead (Pb)
Magnesium (as MgO)
Manganese (as MnO)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Ni)
Niobium (Nb)
Phosphorus (as P205)
Potassium (as K20)
Rubidi.im (Rb)
Silica Dioxide (Si02)
Sodium (as Na20)
Strontium (Sr)
/TEST 2317-104 , . , >
S^^-th VJUi-^JV.
EST MATRIX
olid
olid
olid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Sol id
Solid
Sol id
Solid
Solid
Solid
Sol id
Sol id
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
FINAL RESULT
251
57.8
1.85
Complete
2.62
90
0.02
24.4
<0.02
30
110
1090
31.6
110
3.31
0.23
40
<10
<10
<0.05
0.43
30
29.2
0.12
150
ETECTION LIMIT
0.1
0.3
0.01
0.02
20
0.01
0.01
0.02
10
10
10
0.01
10
0.03
0.01
10
10
10
0.05
0.01
10
0.02
0.05
10
Laboratory Sample ID: 960076-5
3ate Received : 01/15/96
Time Received : 08:00
UNITS
ons CaC03/Kt
ons CaC03/Kt
•
/. by Wt
mg/Kg
/o by Wt
/. by Wt
/o by Wt
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
/. by Ut
mg/Kg
% by Wt
% by Wt
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
% by Wt
% by Wt
mg/Kg
% by Wt
% by Wt
mg/Kg
TEST METHOD
PA 600 3.2.3
STM D4239-85C
ASTM D4239-85C
SW-846 1312
XRF-Powder
XRF- Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
NALYZE
1/P8/9
1/30/9
01/30/9
01/18/9
01/24/9
01/24/9
01/24/9
01/24/9
01/24/5
01/24/S
01/24/S
01/24/S
01/24/c
01/24/<
01/24/<
01/24/'
01/24/<
01/24/'
01/24/1
01/24/1
01/24/'
01/24/
01/24/
01 /24/
01/24/
Page 6
The analyses, opinions or interpretations conlamed in this reporl are based upon observations and material supplied by the client lor whose exclusive and conlidenl.al use this report has beer, made The inlerprelal.ons or opinions expressed repre-
sent the best tudgment ol Core Laboratones Core Laboratories, however, assumes no responsibility and mokes no warranty or represental.ons, express or ,mpl,ed. as to the productiv.ly. proper operalions, or prot.Ubleness ol any oil gas. coal or
other mineral, property, well or sand ,n connection with which such report is used or relied upon lor any reason wholsoever This report shall not be reproduced except in .Is entirety, wilhout Ihe wr.tten approval ol Core Laboratories
-------
CORE LABORATORIES
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Job Mumber: 960076 Report Date: 02/01/96
CUSTOMER: Battle Mountain Gold Company PROJECT: CROWN JEWEL TAILINGS ATTN: Anne Baldrige
Customer SampU ID. TAILINGS SOLIDS/TEST 2317-104 Laboratory Sample ID: 960076-5
Sample Date • Date Received : 01/15/96
Sample Time • Time Received : 08:00
Sample Matrix :
TEST DESCRIPTION
Sulphur (S)
Thorium (Th)
Tin (Sn)
Titanium (as Ti02)
Tungsten (W)
Uranium (U)
Vanadium (V)
Yttrium (Y)
Zinc (Zn)
Zirconium (Zr)
TEST MATRIX
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
FINAL RESULT
1.72
140
<50
0.12
70
<10
50
<10
50
<10
DETECTION LIMIT
0.05
10
50
0.01
10
10
10
10
10
10
UNITS
% by Ut
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
% by Wt
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
TEST METHOD
XRF-Powder
XRF- Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
ANALYZED
01/24/96
01/24/96
01/24/96
01/24/96
01/24/96
01/24/96
01/24/96
01/24/96
01/24/96
01/24/96
Page 7
The analyses, opinions or interpretations contained m this repoil are based upon observations and material supplied by the client lor whose exclusive and confidential use this report h is bean made The interpretations or opinions expressed repre
sent the best juri >nent of Core Laboratories Core Laboratories, however, assumes no responsibility and makes no warranty or representations, express or implied, as to the productivity, proper operations, or profitableness of any oil, gas, coal or
)thef mineral, property, well or sand in connection with which such report is used or relied upon lor any reason whatsoever This report shall not be reproduced except in its entirety, without the written approval ot Core Laboratories
-------
CORE LABORATORIES
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Job Number: 960076 Report Date: 02/01/96
CUSTOMER: Battle Mountain Gold Company PROJECT: CROWN JEWEL TAILINGS ATTN: Anne Baldrige
Customer Sample ID: TAILINGS SOLIDS
Sample Date
Sample Time
TEST DESCRIPTION
Acid Neutralization Potential
Total Sulfur (Tons CaC03/Kt)
Total Sulfur as S (Leco Furnace)
1312 Extraction
Aluminum (as A 1 203)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (as BaO)
Calciui (as CaO)
Chlorine (as CD
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
Iron (as Fe203)
Lead (Pb)
Magnesium (as MgO)
Manganese (as MnO)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Ni)
Niobium (Nb)
Phosphorus (as P205)
Potassium (as K20)
Rubidium (Rb)
Si lica Dioxide (Si02)
Sodium (as Na20)
Strontium (Sr)
/TEST 2317-105 ftlvWVv^ GcL««Avie_
EST MATRIX
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Sol id
Sol id
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
FINAL RESULT
94.6
47.2
1.51
Complete
8.34
240
0.01
21.8
0.03
520
220
320
19.9
120
5.04
0.36
<10
20
<10
0.07
0.40
30
44.1
0.55
280
ETECTION LIMIT
0.1
0.3
0.01
0.02
20
0.01
0.01
0.02
10
10
10
0.01
10
0.03
0.01
10
10
10
0.05
0.01
10
0.02
0.05
10
Laboratory Sample ID: 960076-6
Date Received : 01/15/96
Time Received : 08:00
UNITS
ons CaC03/Kt
ons CaC03/Kt
/o
/, by Wt
mg/Kg
/. by Wt
/. by Ut
/. by Wt
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
% by Wt
mg/Kg
% by Wt
% by Ut
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
% by Ut
% by Ut
mg/Kg
% by Wt
% by Wt
mg/Kg
TEST METHOD
PA 600 3.2.3
ASTM D4239-85C
ASTM D4239-85C
SU-846 1312
XRF-Powder
XRF- Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
ANALYZE
01/28/9
01/30/9
01/30/9
01/18/9
01/24/9
01/24/9
01/24/9
01/24/9
01/24/9
01/24/9
01/24/5
01/24/5
01/24/5
01/24/5
01/24/5
01/24/'
01/24/'
01/24/<
01/24/'
01 /24/'
01/24/1
01/24/1
01 /24/'
01/24/
01 /24/
Page 8
The analyses, opinions or tnterprelalions contained In this report are based upon observations and material supplied by the client lor whose exclusive and confidential use this report has been made The interpretations or opinions expressed repre-
sent the best judgment ol Core Laboratories Core Laboralones. however, assumes no responsibility and makt--. no warranty or representations, express 01 implied, as to the productivity, proper operations, or profitableness ol any oil, gas. coal or
other mineral, property, well or sand in connection with which such report is used or relied upon lor any reason whatsoever This report shall not be reproduced except in us entirety without the written approval ol Core Laboratories
-------
CORE LABORATORIES
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Job Number: 960076 Report Date: 02/01/96
CUSTOMER: Battle Mountain Gold Company PROJECT: CROWN JEWEL TAILINGS ATTN: Anne Baldrige
Customer Sample ID: TAILINGS SOLIDS/TEST 2317-105 Laboratory Sample ID: 960076-6
Sample Date • Date Received • 01/15/96
Sample Time • Time Received • 08:00
Sample Matrix :
TEST DESCRIPTION
Sulphur (S)
Thorium (Th)
Tin (Sn)
Titanium (as Ti02)
Turvjsten (W)
Uranium (U)
Vanadium (V)
Yttrium (Y)
;Zinc (Zn)
Zirconium (Zr)
TEST MATRIX
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
FINAL RESULT
1.58
730
<50
0.47
20
20
110
10
100
20
DETECTION LIMIT
0.05
10
50
0.01
10
10
10
10
10
10
UNITS
% by Wt
mg/Kg
mg/ICg
% by Wt
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
TEST METHOD
XRF-Powder
XRF- Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
ANALYZED
01/24/96
01/24/96
01/24/96
01/24/96
01/24/96
01/24/96
01/24/96
01/24/96
01/24/96
01/24/96
Page 9
The analyses, opinions or interpretations contained in this report are based upon observations and material supplied by the client lor whose exclusive and confidential use this report has been made The interpretations or opinions expressed repre-
sent the best judgmem of Core Laboratories Core Laboratories however, assumes no responsibility and makes no warranty or representations, express or implied, as to the productivity, proper operations, or profitableness ot any oil, gas, coal or
other mineral properly well or sand in connexion with which such report is used or relied upon lor any reason whatsoever This report shall not he reproduced except in its entirety, without the written approval ot Coie Laboratories
-------
CORE LABORATORIES
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Job Number: 960076 Report Date: 02/01/96
CUSTOMER: Battle Mountain Gold Company PROJECT: CROWN JEWEL TAILINGS ATTN: Anne Baldrige
Customer Sample ID: TAILINGS SOLIDS/TEST 2317-106 5\ e_nU
Sample Date .....:
Sample Time
Snmple Matrix :
TEST DESCRIPTION
Acid Neutralization Potential
Total Sulfur (Tons CaC03/Kt)
Total Sulfur as S (Leco Furnace)
1312 Extraction
Aluminum (as A1203)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (as BaO)
Calcium (as CaO)
Chlorine (as CD
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper fCu)
Iron (as Fe203)
Lead (Pb)
Magnesium (as MgO)
Manganese (as MnO)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Ni)
Niobium (Nb)
Phosphorus (as P205)
Potassium (as K20 >
Rubidium (Rb)
Silica Dioxide (Si02)
Sodium (as Na20)
Strontium (Sr)
TEST MATRIX
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
FINAL RESULT
174
51.2
1.64
Complete
5.65
180
0.02
23.9
<0.02
30
170
720
26.8
140
4.20
0.31
20
<10
<10
<0.05
0.43
30
37.4
0.33
230
DETECTION LIMIT
0.1
0.3
0.01
0.02
20
0.01
0.01
0.02
10
10
10
0.01
10
0.03
0.01
10
10
10
0.05
0.01
10
0.02
0.05
10
Laboratory Sample ID: 960076-7
Date Received : 01/15/96
Time Received : 08:00
UNITS
Tons CaC03/Kt
Tons CaC03/Kt
/
a
/. by Wt
mg/Kg
/. by Wt
/. by Wt
% by Wt
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
% by Wt
mg/Kg
% by Wt
% by Wt
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
mg/Kg
% by Wt
% by Wt
mg/Kg
% by Wt
% by Wt
mg/Kg
TEST METHOD
EPA 600 3.2.3
ASTM D4239-85C
ASTM D4239-85C
SW-846 1312
XRF- Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF -Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
XRF-Powder
ANALYZED
01/28/96
01/30/96
01/30/96
01/18/96
01/24/96
01/24/96
01/24/96
01/24/96
01/24/96
01/24/96
01/24/96
01/24/96
01/24/96
01/24/96
01/24/96
01/24/96
01/24/9<
01/24/9<
01/24/9*
01/24/9*
01/24/9*
01/24/9*
01/24/9*
01/24/91
01/24/9i
Page 10
The analyses, opinions or interpretations contained in this report are based upon observations and material supplied by the client tor whose exclusive and confidential use this report has been m.ide The interpretations or opinions expressed repre-
sent the best judgment ol Core Laboratories Core Laboratones, however, assumes no responsibility and makes no warranty or representations, express or implied, as to the productivity proper operations, or profitableness of any oil. gns, coat or
other mineral nroperty well or sand in connection with which such report is used or relied upon tor any reason whatsoever This report shall not be reproduced except in its entirety, withcul the written approval o( Core Laboratories
-------
CORE LABORATORIES
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Job Number: 960076 Report Date: 02/01/96
CUSTOMER: Battle Mountain Gold Company PROJECT: CROWN JEWEL TAILINGS ATTN: Anne Baldrjge
Customer Sample ID: TAILINGS SOLIDS/TEST 2317-106 Laboratory Sample ID: 960076-7
Sample Date : Date Received . • 01/15/96
Sample Time : Time Received • 08*00
Cample Matrix ....*
TEST DESCRIPTION
Sulphur (S)
Thorium (Th)
Tin (Sn)
Titanium (as Ti02)
Tungsten (W)
Ui anium (U)
V.madium (V)
Yttrium
-------
CORE LABORATORIES
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Job Number: 960076 Report Date: 02/01/96
CUSTOMER: Battle Mountain old Company PROJECT: CROWN JEWEL TAILINGS ATTN: Anne Baldrige
Customer Sample ID: TAILINGS SOLIDS/TEST 2317-107 f1cx
-------
CORE LABORATORIES
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Job Number: 960076 Report Date: 02/01/96
CUSTOMER: Fattle Mountain Gold Company PROJECT: CROWN JEWEL TAILINGS ATTN: Anne Baldrige
Customer Sample ID: TAILINGS SOLIDS/TEST 2317-107 Laboratory Sample ID: 960076-8
Sample Date : Date Received • 01/15/96
Sample Time : Time Received - 08'00
Sample Matrix :
TEST DESCRIPTION
Sulphur (S)
Thorium (Th)
Tin (Sn)
Titanium (as Ti02)
Tungsten (W)
Uranium (U)
Vanadium (V)
Yttrium (Y)
Zinc (Zn)
Zirconium (Zr)
TEST MATRIX
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
Solid
FINAL RESULT
4.73
20
<50
0.07
40
<10
30
-------
CORE LABORATORIES
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Job Number: 960076 Report Date: 02/01/96
CUSTOMER: Battle Mountain Gold Company PROJECT: CROWN JEWEL TAILINGS ATTM: Anne Baldrige
Customer Sample ID: TAILINGS DECANT/TEST 2317-104
Sample Date :
Sample Time :
Sample Matrix :
TEST DESCRIPTION
Ami on i a (NH3), as N
Bic arbonate (HC03)
Cai bonate (C03)
Chloride
Cyanide, Total
Cyanide, Weak Acid Dissociable (WAD)
Hydroxide (OH)
Nitrogen, Nitrate as N (N03-N)
Solids, Total Dissolved (TDS)
Specific Conductivity a 25 degrees C
Sulfate (S04)
pH
Aluminum (Al)
Antimony (Sb)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Beryllium (Be)
Boron (B)
Cadmium (Cd)
Calcium (Ca)
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
TEST MATRIX
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss-.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
FINAL RESULT
92
81
<1
740
0.2,
0.22
<1
9.6
4500
4980
2510
7.47
<0.05
0.1
<0.05
0.11
<0.005
0.08
<0.005
506
<0.01
0.24
<0.01
0.42
<0.05
DETECTION LIMIT
2
5
1
4
0.04
0.04
1
0.5
10
1
200
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.05
0.01
0.005
0.05
0.005
0.1
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.05
Laboratory Sample ID: 960076-9
Date Received : 01/15/96
Time Received : 08:00
UNITS
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
umh os/cm
mg/L
pH Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
TEST METHOD
EPA 350.1
SM 2320 B
SM 2320 B
EPA 325.2
EPA 335.2
SM 4500 CN I
SM 2320 B
EPA 353.2
EPA 160.1
EPA 120.1
EPA 375.2
SU-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SU-846 6010A
SU-846 6010A
SW-846 601 OA
SW-846 6010A
SU-846 601 OA
SW-846 601 OA
SU-846 6010A
SU-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SU-846 6010A
SU-846 6010A
ANALYZEC
01/26/9<
01/22/9<
01/22/9*
01/19/9<
01/1 7/9<
01/18/9<
01/22/9<
01/16/9<
01/17/91
01/16/9(
01/25/91
01/22/9i
01/18/9i
01/18/9
01/18/9
01/18/9
01/18/9
01/18/9
01/18/9
01/18/9
01/18/9
01/18/9
01/18/9
01/18/9
01/18/9
Page 14
The analyse*, opmkxu or interpretations contained m IIM report at based upon observations and malarial supplied by Ihe clienl lor who* exclusive and oonlidential use this report has been made the interpretations or opinions expressed repre-
sent me best judgment ol Core Laboratories Core Laboralones. however, assumes no responsibility and makes no warrant. or rewsenlmons. express or implied, as to Ihe productivity, proper operations, or proMabkmess ol any oil. gas. coal at
other mineral, properly, well or sand in conneclion wilh which such repot! is used or relied upon lor any reason whalsoevt This report shall nol be reproduced except in its entirely, wilhoul Ihe wntten approval ol Core leboratones
-------
CORE LABORATORIES
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Job Number: 960076 Report Date: 02/01/96
CUSTOMER: Battle Mountain Gold Company PROJECT: CROWN JEWEL TAILINGS ATTN: Anne Baldrige
Customer Sample ID: TAILINGS DECANT/TEST 2317-104 Laboratory Sample ID: 960076-9
Sample Date : Date Received • 01/15/96
Sample Time : Time Received • 08-00
Sample Matrix *
TEST DESCRIPTION
Magnesium (Mg)
Manganese (Mn)
Mercury (Hg)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Ni)
Potassium (K)
Selenium (Se)
Si Iver (Ag)
Sod urn (Na)
Str ntium (Sr)
Titanium (Ti)
Vanadium (V)
Zinc (Zn)
Uranium (U)
Gross alpha/beta
Gross alpha
Gross alpha, -rror +/-
Gross alpha, LD
Gross beta
Gross beta, error +/-
Gross beta, LLD
Radium 226
Radium-226
error +/-
LLD
TEST MATRIX
Diss.
D i ss .
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Fitt.
FINAL RESULT
15.6
0.02
0.0004
0.26
<0.04
62
0.1
<0.01
629
2.10
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
4.8
25.6
26.6
35.8
91.4
28.5
39.5
0.4
0.2
0.3
DETECTION LIMIT
0.1
0.01
0.0002
0.05
0.04
5
0.1
0.01
1
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
UNITS
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
TEST METHOO
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 7470
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 601 OA
SW-846 601 OA
SW-846 6010A
EPA 908.1
EPA 900.0
EPA 903.1
ANALYZED
01/18/96
01/18/96
01/26/96
01/18/96
01/18/96
01/18/96
01/18/96
01/18/96
01/18/96
01/18/96
01/18/96
01/18/96
01/18/96
01/22/96
01/23/96
01/23/96
01/23/96
01/23/96
01/23/96
01/23/96
01/22/96
01/22/96
01/22/96
Page 15
Th« analyses, opinions or interpretations Contained in this report are based upon observahons and material supplied by the client lor whose exclusive and confidential use this report has been made Tlie interpretations or opinions expressed repre-
sent the best judgmeni of Core Laboratories Core Laboratories, however, assumes no responsibility and makes no warranty or representations, express or implied, as to the productivity proper operations or profitableness of any oil. gas, coal or
other mineral, properly well or sand in connection with which such report is used or relied upon for any reason whatsoever This report shall not be reproduced except in its entirely, without the written approval of Core Laboratories
-------
CORE LABORATORIES
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Job Number: 960076
Report Date: 02/01/96
CUSTOMER: Battle Mountain Gold Company
PROJECT: CROWN JEWEL TAILINGS
ATTN: Anne Baldrige
Customer Sample ID: TAILING; DECANT/TEST 2317-105
Sample Date :
Sample Time :
Sample Matrix :
Laboratory Sample ID: 960076-10
Date Received : 01/15/96
Time Received : 08:00
TEST DESCRIPTION
Ammonia (NH3), as N
Bicarbonate (HC03)
Carbonate (C03)
Chloride
Cyanide, Total
Cyanide, Weak Acid Dissociable (WAD)
Hydroxide (OH)
Nitrogen, Nitrate as N (N03-N)
Solids, Total Dissolved (TDS)
Specific Conductivity a 25 degrees C
Sulfate (S04)
PH
Aluminum (AD
Antimony (Sb)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Beryl lium (Be)
Boron (B)
Cadmium (Cd)
Calcium (Ca)
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
TEST MATRIX
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
FINAL RESULT
96
87
<1
Filt. 479
Filt. 0.68
Filt. 0.64
Filt. <1
Filt. 13.0
Fil:. 5270
Fil:. 5390
Filt.
Filt.
Diss.
D i ss .
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
2390
7.60
<0.05
<0.1
<0.05
0.09
<0.005
0.06
<0.005
549
<0.01
0.21
1.30
<0.03
<0.05
DETECTION LIMIT
2
5
1
4
0.04
0.04
1
0.5
10
1
200
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.05
0.01
0.005
0.05
0.005
0.1
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.05
UNITS
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ug/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
umh os/cm
mg/L
pH Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
TEST METHOD
EPA 350.1
SM 2320 B
SM 2320 B
EPA 325.2
EPA 335.2
SM 4500 CN I
SM 2320 B
EPA 353.2
EPA 160.1
EPA 120.1
EPA 375.2
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 601 OA
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 60 IDA
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
ANALYZED
01/26/96
01/22/96
01/22/96
01/19/96
01/17/96
01/18/9(5
01/22/96
01/16/96
01/17/96
01/16/96
01/25/96
01/22/96
01/18/9C
01/18/9<
01/18/9<
01/18/9*
01/18/9(
01/18/9*
01/18/9<
01/18/91
01/18/91
01/18/9(
01/18/91
01/18/9i
01/18/9i
Page 16
The analyses, opinions or interpretations contained in this report are based upon observations and material supplied by the client for whose exclusive and confidential use this report has been made The interpretations or opinions expressed repre-
sent the best judgment of Core Laboratories Core Laboratories however, assumes no responsibility and makes no warranty or representations, express or implied, as to the productivity, proper operations, or profitableness of any oil, gas, coal or
other mineral, property, well Of sand in connection with which such report is used or relied upon lor any reason whatsoever This report shall not be reproduced except in Us entirely withoji Ihe written approval of Core Laboratories
-------
CORE LABORATORIES
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Job Nunber: 960076 Report Date: 02/01/96
CUSTOMER; Battle Mountain Gold Company PROJECT: CROWN JEWEL TAILINGS ATTN: Anne Baldrige
Customer Sfmple ID: TAILINGS DECANT/TEST 2317-105 Laboratory Sample ID: 960076-10
Sample Date : Date Received : 01/15/96
Sample Tims • Time Received - 08*00
Sample Matt i x :
TEST I ESCRIPTION
Magnesium (Kg)
Manganese (Mn)
Mercury (Hg)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Ni)
Potassium (K)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Sodium (Na)
Strontium (Sr)
Titanium (Ti )
Vanadium (V)
Zinc (Zn)
Uranium (U)
Gross alpha/beta
Gross alpha
Gross alpha, error +/-
Gross alpha, LLD
Gross beta
Gross beta, error +/-
Gross beta, LLD
Radium 226
Radium- 226
error +/-
LLD
TEST MATRIX
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Filt.
F i 1 1 .
Fi tt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
FINAL RESULT
12.2
0.02
0.0013
0.16
<0.04
95
0.2
0.01
468
1.86
<0.01
<0.05
0.02
2.0
24.8
28.0
38.5
68.6
29.3
42.7
0.3
0.2
0.3
DETECTION LIMIT
0.1
0.01
0.0002
0.05
0.04
5
0.1
0.01
1
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
UNIT ;
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
TEST METHOD
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 601 OA
SW-846 7470
SU-846 6010A
SW-846 601 OA
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 601 OA
SU-846 6010A
SW-846 601 OA
SW-846 6010A
SU-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
EPA 908.1
EPA 900.0
EPA 903.1
ANALYZED
01/18/96
01/18/96
01/26/96
01/18/96
01/18/96
01/18/96
01/18/96
01/18/96
01/18/96
01/18/96
01/18/96
01/18/96
01/18/96
01/22/96
01/23/96
01/23/96
01/23/96
01/23/96
01/23/96
01/23/96
01/22/96
01/22/96
01/22/96
Page 17
The analyses, opinions or interpretations contained m Ihts report are based upon observations and material supplied by Ihe client tor wnose exclusive and confidential use this report has been made The interpretations or opinions expressed repre-
sent the best judgment of Core Laboratories Core Laboratories, however, assumes no responsibility and makes no warranty or representations, express or implied, as to the productivity, proper operations, or profitableness of any oil, gas, coal or
other mineral, properly, well or sand In connerUon with which such report is used or relied upon for any reason whatsoever This report shall no] be reproduced e*rept in Ms entirety wilhoui fhe wnlten approval ol Core Laboratories
-------
CORE LABORATORIES
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Job Number: 960076 Report Date: 02/01/96
CUSTOMER: Battle Mountain Gold Company PROJECT: CROWN JEWEL TAILINGS ATTN: Anne Baldrige
Customer Sample ID: TAILINGS DECANT/TEST 2317-106
Sample Date :
Sample Time :
Sample Matrix :
TEST DESCRIPTION
Ammonia (N 13), as N
Bicarbonate (HC03)
Carbonate !C03)
Chloride
Cyanide, Total
Cyanide, Weak Acid Dissociable (WAD)
Hydroxide (OH)
Nitrogen, Nitrate as N (NO>N)
Solids, Total Dissolved (TDS)
Specific Conductivity 3 25 degrees C
Sulfate (S04)
pH
Aluminum (Al)
Antimony (Sb)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Beryllium (Be)
Boron (B)
Cadmium (Cd)
Calcium (Ca)
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
TEST MATRIX
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
)iss.
) i ss .
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
D i ss .
Diss.
D i ss .
Diss.
FINAL RESULT
134
84
<1
547
0.52
0.52
<1
10.8
5860
5910
2800
7.59
<0.05
<0.1
0.08
0.05
<0.005
<0.05
<0.005
352
<0.01
0.34
0.05
0.32
<0.05
DETECTION LIMIT
2
5
1
4
0.04
0.04
1
0.3
10
1
200
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.05
0.01
0.005
0.05
0.005
0.1
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.05
Laboratory Sample ID: 960076-11
Date Received : 01/15/96
Time Received : 08:00
UNITS
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
umhos/cm
mg/L
pH Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
TEST METHOD
EPA 350.1
SM 2320 B
SM 2320 B
EPA 325.2
EPA 335.2
SM 4500 CN I
SM 2320 B
EPA 353.2
EPA 160.1
EPA 120.1
EPA 375.2
SW-846 601 OA
SW-846 6010A
SU-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 601 OA
SW-846 6010A
SW 846 f010A
SW-846 601 OA
SW-846 6010A
ANALYZE
01/26/9
01/22/9
01/22/9
01/19/9
01/17/9
01/18/9
01/22/9
01/16/9
01/17/9
01/16/9
01/25/9
01/22/5
01/18/?
01/18/S
01/18/5
01/18/?
01/18/S
01/18/S
01/18/<;
01/18/S
01/18/<
01/18/<
01/18/'
01/18/'
01/18/'
Page 18
The analyses, opinions or interpretations contained in this report are based upon observations and material supplied by the client tor whose exclusive and conltdenlial use this report has been made The interpretations or opinions expressed repre-
sent the beet Judgment of Cora Laboratories. Core Laboratories, however, assumes no responsibility and makes no warranty or representations, express or implied, as lo the productivity proper operations, or profitableness of .my oil, gas, coal or
other mineral, property, well or sand in connection with which such report is used or relied upon lor any reason whatsoever This report shall not be reproduced except in its entirely, without the written approval of Cora Laboratories
-------
CORE LABORATORIES
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Job Number: 960076 Report Date: 02/01/96
CUSTOMER: Battle Mountain Gold Company PROJECT: CROWN JEWEL TAILINGS ATTN: Anne Baldrige
Customer Sample ID: TAILINGS DECANT/TEST 2317-106 Laboratory S.,mpl( ID: 960076-11
Sample Date : Date Received : 01/15/96
Sample Time * Time Received • 08*00
Sample Matrix :
TEST DESCRIPTION
Magnesium (Mg)
Manganese (Mn)
Mercury (Hg)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Ni)
Potassium (K)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Sodium (Na)
Strontium (Sr)
Titanium (Ti)
Vanadium (V)
Zinc (Zn)
Uranium (U)
Gross alpha/beta
Gross alpha
Gross alpha, error +/-
Gross alpha, LLD
Gross beta
Gross beta, error +/-
Gross beta, LLD
Radium 226
Radium- 226
error +/-
LLD
TEST MATRIX
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Di>s.
Di ;s.
Diss.
Diss.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
FINAL RESULT
9.1
0.02
<0.0002
0.09
<0.04
112
<0.1
<0.01
223
1.16
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
3.0
47.5
35.7
44.3
71.7
31.9
46.8
ND
0.1
0.3
DETECTION LIMIT
0.1
0.01
0.0002
0.05
0.04
5
0.1
0.01
1
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
UNITS
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
TEST METHOD
SW-846 601 OA
SW-846 601 OA
SW-846 7470
SW-846 601 OA
SW-846 601 OA
SW-846 601 OA
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 601 OA
SW-846 6010A
EPA 908.1
EPA 900.0
EPA 903.1
ANALYZED
01/18/96
01/18/96
01/26/96
01/18/96
01/18/96
01/18/96
01/18/96
01/18/96
01/18/96
01/18/96
01/18/96
01/18/96
01/18/96
01/22/96
01/23/96
01/23/96
01/23/96
01/23/96
01/23/96
01/23/96
01/22/96
01/22/96
01/22/96
Page 19
The analyse*, opinions or interpretations contained In this report are baaed upon observations and material • upplied by the client (or whose exclusive and confidential use this report has been made The interpretations or opinions expressed repre-
sent the best judgment of Core Laboratories Core Laboratories, however, assumes no responsibility and mn ves no warranty or representations, express or implied, as lo the productivity, proper operations, or profitableness of any oH, gas, coal or
other mineral, property, well or sand in connection with which such report is used or reUed upon lor any rea< >n whatsoever This report shall not be reproduced except in its entirely, without the wntten approval of Core Laboratories
-------
CORE LABORATORIES
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Job Number: 960076 Report Date: 02/01/96
CUSTOMER: Battle Mountain Gold Company PROJECT: CROWN JEWEL TAILINGS ATTN: Anne Baldrige
Customer Samp e ID: TAILINGS DECANT/TEST 2317-107
Sample Date :
Sample Time :
Sample Matrix ... •
TEST DESCRIPTION
Ammonia (NH3), as N
Bicarbonate (HC03)
C;.rbonate (C03)
Chloride
Cyanide, Total
Cyanide, Weak Acid Dissociable (WAD)
Hydroxide (OH)
Nitrogen, Nitrate as N (N03-N)
Solids, Total Dissolved (TDS)
Specific Conductivity a 25 degrees C
Sulfate (S04)
pll
Aluminum (A I)
Antimony (Sb)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Beryllium (Be)
Boron (B)
Cadmium (Cd)
Calcium (Ca)
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
TEST MATRIX
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
D i ss .
Diss.
D i ss .
FINAL RESULT
30.0
49
<1
1720
1.52
1.36
<1
9.1
5270
5520
2450
7.07
<0.05
<0.1
<0.05
0.06
<0.005
0.09
<0.005
823
0.03
0.54
3.28
0.05
<0.05
DETECTION LIMIT
0.5
5
1
10
0.08
0.08
1
0.4
10
1
200
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.05
0.01
0.005
0.05
0.005
0.2
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.05
Laboratory Sample ID: 960076-12
Date Received • 01/15/96
Time Rereived ~ 08*00
UNITS
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
umhos/cm
mg/L
pH Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
TEST METHOD
EPA 350.1
SM 2320 B
SM 2320 B
EPA 325.2
EPA 335.2
SM 4500 CN I
SM 2320 B
EPA 353.2
EPA 160.1
EPA 120.1
EPA 375.2
SW-846 601 OA
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 601 OA
SU-846 6010A
SW-846 601 OA
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 601 OA
SW-846 601 OA
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 601 OA
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
ANALYZEI
01/26/9i
01/22/9!
01/22/9
01/19/9i
01/17/9i
01/18/9(
01/22/9i
01/16/9i
01/17/9i
01/16/9i
01/25/9
01/22/9
01/18/9
01/18/9
01/18/9
01/18/9
01/18/9
01/18/9
01/18/9
01/18/9
01/18/9
01/18/9
01/18/9
01/18/9
01/18/9
Page 20
The analyses, opinions or mt> rpretations contained in this report are based upon observations and material supplied by the client lor whose exclusive and confidential use this report has been made The interpretations or opinions expressed repre-
sent the best judgment ot Coi • Laboratories Core I aboratones. however, assumes no responsibility and makes no warranty or representations, express or impbed. as to the producllvrty, proper operations, or protltableness ol any oil. gas. coal or
other mineral. propeMy, well << sand HI connection with which such report is used or r.-lied upon lor any reason whatsoever This report shall not be reproduced except in tls entirely, without the written approval ol Core I aboratones
-------
CORE LABORATORIES
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Job Number: 960076 Report Date: 02/01/96
CUSTOMER: Battle Mountain Gold Company PROJECT: CROUN JEWEL TAILINGS ATTN: Anne Batdrige
Customer Sample ID: TAILINGS DECANT/TEST 2317-107 Laboratory Sample ID: 960076-12
Sample Date : Date Received • 01/15/96
Sample Time : Time Received • 08*00
Sample Matrix
TEST DESCRIPTION
Magnesium (Mg)
Manganese (Mn)
Mercury (Hg)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Ni)
Potassium (K)
Selenium (Se)
Si ' ver (Ag)
Sodium (Na)
Strontium (Sr)
Titanium (Ti)
Vanadium (V)
Zinc (Zn)
Uranium (U)
Gross alpha/beta
Gross alpha
Gross alpha, error +/-
Gross alpha, LLD
Gross beta
Gross beta, error +/-
Gross beta, LLD
Radium 226
Radium- 226
error +/-
LLD
TEST MATRIX
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Diss.
Fitt.
F i 1 1 .
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
Filt.
FINAL RESULT
10.0
0.02
<0.0002
<0.05
<0.04
78
0.1
0.02
459
2.39
<0.01
<0.05
0.02
3.1
21.6
26.9
37.7
97.0
32.0
44.8
0.1
0.2
0.3
DETECTION LIMIT
0.1
0.01
0.0002
0.05
0.04
5
0.1
0.01
1
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
UNITS
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
pCi/L
TEST METHOD
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 7470
SW-846 60 IDA
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 601 OA
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 601 OA
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
EPA 908.1
EPA 900.0
EPA 903.1
ANALYZED
01/18/96
01/18/96
01/26/96
01/18/96
01/18/96
01/18/96
01/18/96
01/18/96
01/18/96
01/18/96
01/18/96
01/18/96
01/18/96
01/22/96
01/23/96
01/23/96
01/23/96
01/23/96
01/23/96
01/23/96
01/22/96
01/22/96
01/22/96
Page 21
The analyses, opinions at interpretations contained in this report are based upon observations and malenal suppfcad by Ihe dienl lor whose exclusive and confidential use this report has been made The interpretations or opinions expressed repre
sent the best judgment ol Core Laboratories Cora Laboratories, however, ai umes no respon ibibly and makes no warranty or rop.esental.ons, express or implied, as to Ihe produclivrty. proper operations, or prolnaUeness ot any oil. gas. coal or
other mineral, properly, wen or sand in connection with which such report is i ed or r. «d upr< lor any reason whatsoever This report shall not be reproduced excepl m its entirely, without Ihe wnllen approv.il ol Core Laboralones
-------
CORE LABORATORIES
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Job Number: 960076 Report Date: 02/01/96
CUSTOMER: liattle Mountain Gold Company PROJECT: CROWN JEWEL TAILINGS ATTN: Anne Baldrige
Customer Sample ID: 1312 LEACHATE/T
Sample Date • 01/19/96
Sample Time . • 14-00
Sample Matrix
TEST DESCRIPTION
Solids, Total Dissolved (Tl>S)
pH
Acid Digestion, Total Metals
Aluminum (Al)
Antimony (Sb)
Arsenic (As)
'Barium (Ba)
Beryllium ( 3e)
Boron (B)
Cadmium (Cc )
Calcium (C; )
Chromium (C •)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
Magnesium (Mg)
Manganese (Mn)
Mercury (Hg)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Ni)
Potassium (K)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Sodium (Na)
EST 2317-104
TEST M/ TRIX
Filt.
Unfilt.
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
FINAL RESULT
240
8.98
Complete
<0.05
<0.1
01/23j
01/22,
01/22,
01/23,
Page 22
The analyses, opinions or Interpretations contained in this report are based upon observations an. I material supplied by the diem lor whose exclusive and conlidenlial use this report has been made The interpretations or opinions expressed repre-
sent the best judgment ol Core Laboratories Core Laboratories however, assumes no responsibi ly and makes no warranty or representations, express or implied, as to the productrvlly. proper operations, or proMableneu ol any oil. gas. coal or
other mineral, property, wen or sand in connection with which such report is used or relied upon I, any reason whalsoever This report shall not be reproduced ««cepl in its entirely, withoul the written approval ol Core Laboratories
-------
CORE LABORATORIES
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Job Number: 960076 Report Date: 02/01/96
CUSTOMER: Battle Mountain Gold Company PROJECT: CROWN JEWEL TAILINGS ATTN: Anne Baldrige
Customer Sample ID: 1312 LEACHATE/TEST 2317-104 Laboratory Sample ID: 960076-13
Sample Date • 01/19/96 Date Received : 01/15/96
Sample Time • 14:00 Time Received : 08:00
Sample Matrix :
TEST DESCRIPTION
Strontium (Sr)
Titanium (Ti )
Vanadium (V)
Zinc (Zn)
TEST MATRIX
Total
Total
Total
Total
FINAL RESULT
0.13
<0.01
<0.05
0.07
DETECTION LIMIT
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.01
UNITS
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
TEST METHOD
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
ANALYZED
01/22/96
01/22/96
01/22/96
01/22/96
Page 23
The analyses, opinions or interpret itions contained tn this report are based upon observations and mate la) supplied by the client lor whose exclusive and confidential use this report has been .nade The interpretations or opinions expressed repre-
sent the best judgment ol Core Laboratories Core Laboratories, however, assumes no responsibility ami makes no warranty or representations, express or implied, as to the productivity, prop, operations, or profitableness ot any oil, gas. coal or
other mineral, property, well or sand in connection with which such report is used or relied upon lor any aason whatsoever This report shall not be reproduced except in its entirety, without th. written approval ot ( ore Laboratories
-------
CORE LABORATORIES
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Job Number: 960076 Report Date: 02/01/96
CUSTOMER: Battle Mountain Gold Company PROJECT: CROWN JEWEL TAILINGS ATTN: Anne Baldrige
Customer Sanple ID: 1312 LEACHATE/TEST 2317-105
Sample Date : 01/19/96
Sample Time • 14-00
Sample Matrix
TEST DESCRIPTION
Solids, Total Dissolved (IDS)
pH
Acid Digestion, Total Metals
Aluminum (Al)
Antimony (Sb)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Beryllium (Be)
Boron (B)
Cadmium (Cd)
Calcium (Ca)
Chron ium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Coppt r (Cu)
Iron (Fe)
Lead (Pb)
Magnesium (Mg)
Manganese (Mn)
Mercury (Hg)
Molybdenum (Ho)
Nickel (Hi)
Potassium (K)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ati)
Sodium (Na)
TEST MATRIX
Filt.
Un1 i 1 1 .
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
FINAL RESULT
160
8.96
Complete
<0.05
0.1
<0.05
0.01
<).005
<0.05
<0.005
27.7
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
0.7
<0.01
O.0002
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
10
DETECTION LIMIT
10
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.05
0.01
0.005
0.05
0.005
0.1
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.05
0.1
0.01
0.0002
0.05
0.04
5
0.1
0.01
1
Laboratory Sample ID: 960076-14
Date Received : 01/15/96
Time Received : 08:00
UNITS
mg/L
pH Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
TEST METHOD
EFA 160.1
El A 150.1
SW-846 3010
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-346 601 OA
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SU-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 601 OA
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 601 OA
SW-846 7470
SW-846 601 OA
SW-846 6010A
EPA 258.1
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
EPA 273.1
ANALYZI
01/22/1
01 /22/'
01/22/1
01/22/'
01/?2/
01/22/
01/22/
01/22/
01/22/
01/22/
01/22/
01/22/
01/22/
01/22/
01/22/
01/22/
01/22/
01 /22/
01/26/
01 /22/
01/22/
01 /23/
01/22y
01/22/
01/23;
Page 24
The analyses, opinions or interpretations contained .n this report are based upon observations and material su, plied by (he client lor whose exclusive and confidential use this report has been made The interpolations or opinions expressed repre-
sent the bust judgment d Core Laboratories Core Laboratories, however, assumes no responsibility and makes no warranty or representations, express or implied, as to the productivity, proper operations, or profitableness ol any oil, gas, coal or
other mineral, property, 'veil or sand in connection with which such report is used or relied upon lor nny reason wh.ilso. JHI Thi' report shall not be reproduced excepl m ils entirety, without Ihe written approval ol Core Laboratories
-------
CORE LABORATORIES
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Job Number: 960076 Report Date: 02/01/96
CUSTOMER: Battle Mountain Gold Company PROJECT: CROWN JEWEL TAILINGS ATTN: Anne Baldrige
Customer Sample ID: 1312 LEACHATE/TEST 2^17-105 Laboratory S.impU ID: 960076-H
Sam-ale Date : 01/19/96 Date Received • 01/15/96
Sample Time : 14:00 Time Received • 08:00
Sample Matrix :
TEST DESCRIPTION
Strontium (Sr)
Titanium (Ti )
Vanadium (V)
Zinc (Zn)
TEST MATRIX
Total
Total
Total
Total
FINAL RESULT
0.08
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
DETECTION LIMIT
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.01
UNITS
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
TEST METHOD
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 601 OA
ANALYZED
01/22/96
01/22/96
01/22/96
01/22/96
Page 25
The analyses, opinions or mtf nretattons com nned in this report are based upon observations and material supplied by the client tor whose exclusive and confidential use this report has been made The interpretations or op" ions expressed repre-
sent the best judgment ol Coi Laboi ones ore laboratory, however, assumes no responsibility and makes no warranty or representations express or implied, as to the productivity, proper operations, or profitableness c t any ott, gas, coal or
other mineral, property, well n sand m conne< on with which >uch report is used or relied upon lor any reason whatsoever This report shall not be reproduced except in its entirety without th. written approval ol Cote Labor,itories
-------
CORE LABORATORIES
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Job Number: 9600^6 Report Date: 02/01/96
CUSTOMER: Battle Mountain Gold Company PROJECT: CROWN JEWEL TAILINGS ATTN: Anne Baldrige
Customer Sample ID: 1312 LEACHATE/TEST 2317-106
Sample Date.. . .: 01/19/96
Sample Time : 14:00
Sample Matrix :
TKST DESCRIPTION
Solids, Total Dissolved (TDS)
pll
Acid Digestif i. Total Metals
Aluminum (Al)
Antimony (Sb)
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Beryllium (Be )
Boron (B)
Cadmium (Cd)
Calcium (Ca)
Chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
Iron (Fe)
Load (Pb)
Magnesium (Mg)
Manganese (Mn)
Mercury (Hg)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Ni)
Pctassium (K)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Sodium (Na)
TEST MATRIX
Filt.
Unf i 1 1 .
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
otal
lota I
otal
,otal
Total
otal
Total
Total
Total
FINAL RESULT
150
9.13
Complete
<0.05
<0.1
<0.05
0.01
<0.005
<0.05
<0.005
23.5
<0.01
<0.03
<0.01
<0.03
<0.05
0.7
<0.01
0 0002
<0 05
<0 04
<5
<0 1
<0 01
8
DETECTION LIMIT
10
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.05
0.01
0.005
0.05
0.005
0.1
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.03
0.05
0.1
0.01
0.0002
0.05
0.04
5
0.1
0.01
1
Laboratory Sample ID: 960076-15
Date Received • 01/15/96
Time Received • 08'00
UNITS
mg/L
pH Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
ng/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
TEST METHOD
EPA 160.1
EPA 150.1
SW-846 3010
SW-846 601 OA
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 601 OA
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SU-846 6010A
SW-846 601 OA
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 601 OA
SW-846 7470
SW-846 601 OA
SW-846 6010A
EPA 258.1
SW-846 t>010A
SW-846 "010A
EPA 273 1
ANALYZI
01/22/<
01/22/<
01/22/'
01/22/'
01/22/'
01/22/'
01 /22/'
01/22/'
01/22/'
01/22/1
01/22/1
01/22/1
01/22/1
01/22/'
01/22/
01/22/
01 1221
01 /22/
01/26/
01/22/
01 /22/
01/23/
01/22/
01/22/
01/23/
Pa ie 26
The analyse^ opinions or interpretations contained in this report are based upon observations and material supplied by th« client tor whose exclusive and confidential use this report has be. n made The interpretations or opinions expressed repre-
sent the best judgment ol Core Laboratories Core Laboratory s, however, assumes no responsibility and makes no warrar ,< or representations, express or implied, as to ihe produclivily, proper operations, or profitableness o( any oil, gas, coal or
other mineral, property, well or sand in connection with which ,uch report is used or relied upon lor any reason whaisoevc This report shall not be reproduced except in i'. entirety, wilhout the written approval ol Core I aboralooes
-------
CORE LABORATORIES
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Job Number: 960076 report Date: 02/01/96
CUSTOMER: Battle Mountain Gold Company PROJECT: CROWN JEWEL TAILINGS ATTN: Anne Baldrige
Customer Sample ID: 1312 LEACHATE/TEST 2317-106 Laboratory Sample ID: 960076-15
Sample Date : 01/19/96 Date Received : 01/15/96
Stmple Time : 14:00 Time Received : 08:00
Sanple Matrix :
TEST DESCRIPTION
Strontium (Sr)
Titanium (Ti )
Vanadium (V)
Zinc (In)
TEST M/JRIX
Total
Total
Total
Total
FINAL RESULT
0.07
<0.01
<0.05
<0.01
DETECTION LIMIT
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.01
UNITS
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
TEST METHOD
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 601 OA
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
ANALYZED
01/22/96
01/22/96
01/22/96
01/22/96
Page 27
The analyses, opinions or interpretations contained m this report are ba ad upon observations a< >J material supplied by lh« client for whose exclusive and confidential use (his report has t>een made The interpretations or GJ uons expressed repre-
sent the best fudgment of Core Laboratories Core Laboratories, however, assumes no responsib lity and makes n i warranty or representations, express or implied, as to the productivity, proper operations, or profitableness ir any oil, gas, coal or
olher mineral, properly, wetl or sand in connection wlh which such repon is used or relied upon tor any reason wl> itsoever Ttiis report shatl not be reproduced except in its entirety, without the written ipproval ot Core Labor, lories
-------
CORE LABORATORIES
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Job Number: 960076 Report Date: 02/01/96
CUSTOMER: Battle Mountain Gold Company PROJECT: CROWN JEWEL TAILINGS ATTN: Anne Baldrige
Customer Sample ID: 1312 LEACHATE/TEST 2: 17-107
Sample Date : 01/19/96
Sample Time : 14:00
Sample Matrix •
TEST DESCRIPTION
'.olids, Total Dissolved (TDS)
pH
Acid Digestion, Total Metals
Aluminum (A I)
/.ntimony (Sb)
Arsenic (As)
I'.arium (Ba)
lieryllium (Be)
lioron (B)
( admiurn (Cd)
calcium (C, )
chromium (Cr)
Cobalt (Co)
Copper (Cu)
ron (Fe)
I ead (Pb)
Magnesium Mg)
Manganese ;Mn)
Mercury (Hi)
Molybdenum (Mo)
Nickel (Ni)
Potassium (K)
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
Sodium (Na)
TEST MATRIX
Filt.
Unf i 1 1 .
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
Total
FINAL RESULT
100
9.02
Complete
0.10
<0.1
<0.05
0.15
<0.005
DETECTION LIMIT
10
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.05
0.01
0.005
0.09 0.05
<0.005 0.005
15.6 0.1
<0.01 0.01
<0.03 0.03
<0.01 0.01
1.16 0.03
<0.05 0.05
0.5 0.1
0.01
<0.0002
<0.05
<0.04
<5
<0.1
<0.01
6
0.01
0.0002
0.05
0.04
5
0.1
0.01
1
Laboratory Sample ID: 960076-16
Date Received * 01/15/96
Time Received * 08*00
UNITS
mg/L
pH Units
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
TEST METHOD
EPA 160.1
EPA 150.1
SW-846 7010
SW-846 601 OA
SW-846 601 OA
SW-846 601 OA
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 601 OA
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 7470
SW-846 601 OA
SW-846 601 OA
EPA 258.1
SW-846 601 OA
SW-846 6010A
EPA 273.1
ANALYZEI
01/22/9-
01/22/9'
01/22/9i
01/22/9i
01/22/9i
01/22/9i
01/22/9i
01/22/9i
01/22/91
01/22/9(
01/22/91
01/22/91
01/22/9i
01/22/9i
01/22/9i
01/22/91
01/22/9<
01/22/91
01/26/91
01/22/91
01/22/9(
01/23/9*
01/22/91
01/22/91
01/23/9i
Page 28
The .vmlyses, opinions or i ilerpretations contained 11 this report are based upon observations and material suppli ;d by Ihe client for whose exclusive and confidential use this r. port h, . been made The interpretations or opinions expressed repre-
sent I 19 best judgment of' ore Laboratories Core I iboratones, however, assumes no responsibility and makes no warranty or representations, express or implied, as to the pn clucttvi /, proper operations, or profitableness of any oil, gas. coat or
other .nineral, property, we. or sand in connection w th which such report is used or relied upon tor any reason wl,,ilsoever This report shall nol be reproduced except in its entuHy. *M iout the written approval of Core Laboratories
-------
CORE LABORATORIES
LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Job Number: 960076 Report Date: 02/01/96
CUSTOMER: Battle Mountain Gold Company PFOJECT: CROWN JEWEL TAILINGS ATTN: Anne Baldrige
Customer Sample ID: 1312 LEACHATE/TEST 2317-10' Laboratory Sample ID: 960076-16
Sample Date • 01/19/96 Date Received : 01/15/96
Sample Time • 14-00 Time Received : 08:00
Sample Matrix :
TEST DESCRIPTIO I
Strontium (Sr)
Titanium (Ti)
Vanadium
Zinc (Zn)
TEST MATRIX
Total
Total
Total
Total
FINAL RESUIT
0.05
<0.01
<0.05
0.10
DETECTION LIMIT
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.01
UNITS
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
TEST METHOD
SW-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
SU-846 6010A
SW-846 6010A
AHALYZf D
01/22/' 6
01/22/96
01/22/96
01/22/96
Pag 3 29
I tie an.iiyses. opinions or interpretations contained in this report are ba^d upon . i>servatior , and m iteoal supplied by the • iient loi jvhose exclusive and confidential use i us report has been made The mi ^relations or opinions expressed rep
ent Ihe best judgment ot Core t abototories Coca Labotatoiws, howevti assume no tesp> .isibilrty and makes no wairanVt or iepn enlaliorts. express or implied, as lo » productivity, proper operalions r profitableness o) any oil, gas coal >
i her mineral, property, well or s,ind m connection with which such repon is used or relied m n for any reason whatsoever his rep it shall not be reproduced except in K •nurety, without the written appit il ol Core Laboratories
-------
-------
NOTE: Quality control documentation and laboratory bench notes are provided with
the original letter from the Proponent but have not been included in this
Appendix.
-------
-------
APPENDIX G
TRAFFIC ASSUMPTIONS
-------
-------
January 1997 Appendix G - Traffic Assumptions + G-i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
1.0 CONSTRUCTION PHASE (Common to All Alternatives) 1
1.1 Employee Traffic 1
1.2 Supply Traffic 2
1.3 Other Traffic 2
2.0 OPERATION PHASE 3
2.1 Employee Traffic 3
2.2 Supply Traffic 5
2.3 Other Traffic 7
3.0 RECLAMATION 7
3.1 Employee Traffic 7
3.2 Supply Traffic 9
3.3 Other Traffic 10
4.0 SUMMARY 10
Crown Jewel Mine - Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
-------
January 1997 Appendix G - Traffic Assumptions • G* 7
TRAFFIC ASSUMPTIONS
This appendix presents the various assumptions used to determine the Crown Jewel Project related
average daily traffic (ADT) for the construction, operation and reclamation phases of the Crown
Jewel Project. ADT 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 will 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 vehicles. The information is
used to support the conclusions reached in Section 4.17, Transportation, and other sections of
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences.
1.0 CONSTRUCTION PHASE (Common to All Alternatives)
1.1 Employee Traffic
The Proponent has estimated that a peak number (250) of employees would be required for a short
period of time (a few weeks) and then the employee numbers would taper off until the operations
phase starts. However, for calculation purposes we have assumed 250 employees over a 12
month period. We recognize that this assumption is very conservative, but it should also be
recognized that this situation will occur at some time during the year of construction. It is
assumed that no busing would be used during the construction phase of the Crown Jewel Project;
most of the workers would probably car pool (two persons per vehicle) to the site in individual
vehicles. The employee traffic for the construction phase assumes that 25 individuals would be
employed for the operations portion of construction (pre-mine development) and 225 individuals for
the actual construction aspects of the Crown Jewel Project. Two shifts would be utilized, and
traffic would be proportionally split between the two shifts.
For the 25 operations people, this would mean 12 and 13 individuals per shift, classified as
follows:
• Seven and eight per shift in general work force
• Five per shift in management
For calculation purposes, it is assumed that the general work force would car pool (two
individuals/vehicle), but management personnel due to varying schedules would take individual
vehicles. In this scenario, both operations shifts would require nine vehicles. The ADT would be
calculated by multiplying 9 vehicles x 2 shifts x 2 ways (round trip). Therefore, the ADT for the
operations segment of construction would be 36.
For the 225 construction people, this would mean 112 and 113 individuals per shift, classified as
follows:
• 108 and 109 per shift in general work force
• Four per shift in management
For calculation purposes, it is assumed that the general work force would car pool (two
individuals/vehicle), but management personnel due to varying schedules would take individual
vehicles. In this scenario, one shift would require 58 vehicles and the other shift would require 59
vehicles (117 vehicles per day). The ADT would be calculated by multiplying 117 vehicles x 2
ways (round trip). Therefore, the ADT for the construction segment would be 234.
Crown Jewel Mine - Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix G - Traffic Assumptions • G-2
The total estimated employee ADT during the construction phase would be 270 (36 + 234). To
be conservative, assuming that no employees chose to car pool, a maximum employee ADT for the
construction phase would be 500.
The total estimated construction phase employee ADT would range from 270 (minimum) to 500
(maximum).
1.2 Supply Traffic
The majority of the supplies required for construction would be hauled over the six month period of
May through October. The majority of the construction supplies would involve the delivery of steel
and cement. It is assumed that these materials would be hauled during daylight only, and an
estimated three trucks per day would be needed over the six month period for these construction
materials. The estimated traffic for steel and cement construction materials would be 396 trucks,
calculated by multiplying 3 trucks per day x 22 days per month x 6 months.
An estimated additional two trucks per day would be needed over the full 12 month construction
phase for fuel and other miscellaneous supplies, such as general earthmoving equipment necessary
for construction or with actual mining and mill equipment. The estimated traffic for fuel and
miscellaneous supplies would be 520 trucks, calculated by multiplying 2 trucks per day x 260 days
per year (five days per week).
It is assumed that a pilot vehicle would be needed during construction on a varying basis; however,
for calculation purposes, it is assumed that there would be the need for one pilot vehicle per day.
The estimated traffic for a pilot vehicle would be 260 vehicles, calculated by multiplying 1 vehicle
per day x 260 days per year.
Additional supply-related traffic would consist of equipment and supply representatives. It is
estimated that a range of two to five representatives per day would visit the site during the
concentrated six month construction period. The estimated traffic for these representatives would
be 520 to 1,300 vehicles, calculated by multiplying 2 to 5 vehicles per day x 260 days per year.
The total annual supply-related construction traffic is estimated to range from 1,696 to 2,476
vehicles. Based on 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.
1.3 Other Traffic
Throughout the construction phase of the Crown Jewel Project, it is assumed that government
personnel, consultants, engineering contractors, sales representatives, and the general public would
visit the site. For calculation purposes, it is estimated that an average of three vehicles per day
(seven days a week for 365 days) would transport these individuals to the site. The total for this
traffic would be 1,095 vehicles. The estimated ADT for this traffic would be 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 vehicles to transport the
workers doing the harvesting. This estimated traffic equates to an ADT of 13 vehicles.
(1,111 trucks)/260 days x 2 (round trip) = 8.55 (use 9) ADT
(500 vehicles)/260 days x 2 (round trip) = 3.85 (use 4) ADT
Crown Jewel Mine - final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix G - Traffic Assumptions 4 G-3
The total ADT for the category of "Other Traffic" during the construction phase would be
approximately 19 (6 + 9 + 4).
2.0 OPERATION PHASE
2.1 Employee Traffic
During the operations phase as proposed, the Proponent has indicated that busing/van pooling
would be provided and encouraged as primary employee transportation to the Crown Jewel Project
site from a location in or near Oroville. The bus/van capacities have not been determined, but they
could vary in capacity from 8 to 48 passengers; for purposes of this analysis it is assumed that 24
passenger buses would be used. This analysis presents three potential levels of employee
transport; (1) 93% of employees are bused; (2) 75% of the employees are bused; and, (3) 0% of
the employees are bused. Also included in the assumptions are a minimum of five individual
vehicles representing management transport.
Alternatives B and E
The Proponent has estimated that 144 employees would be employed at the Crown Jewel Project
over the eight year operations phase of Alternative B. Alternative E assumes the same employment
requirements. This analysis assumes that there will be two, 10 or 12 hour shifts 365 days per
year and that 50% (72) people work each shift.
1) 93% Busing
1 st shift - 72 people (67 bused, five individual vehicles)
2nd shift - 72 people (67 bused, five individual vehicles)
In this scenario, both shifts would require three buses and five individual vehicles. The ADT would
be calculated by multiplying 8 vehicles x 2 shifts x 2 (round trip). Therefore, the ADT would be 32
for this scenario.
2) 75% Busing
1st shift - 72 people (54 bused, 18 individual vehicles)
2nd shift - 72 people (54 bused, 18 individual vehicles)
In this scenario, both shifts would require three buses and 18 individual vehicles. The ADT would
be calculated by multiplying 21 vehicles x 2 shifts x 2 (round trip). Therefore, the ADT would be
84 for this scenario.
3) 0% Busing
If there was no busing or car pooling, and each employee drove separately, the ADT would be 288,
calculated by multiplying 72 vehicles x 2 shifts x 2 (round trip). This would be the maximum
employee traffic expected.
Alternatives C and D
An estimated 225 people would be required at the Crown Jewel Project during the operations
phase (four years for Alternative C and six years for Alternative D). This analysis assumes that
Crown Jewel Mine - Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix G - Traffic Assumptions 4 G-4
there will be two, 10 to 12 hour shifts, with 115 people working the first shift: and 110 people
working the 2nd shift.
1) 93% Busing
1st shift - 115 people (107 bused, eight individual vehicles)
2nd shift - 110 people (102 bused, eight individual vehicles)
In this scenario, both shifts would require five buses and eight individual vehicles. The ADT would
be calculated by multiplying 13 vehicles x 2 shifts x 2 (round trip). Therefore, the ADT would be
52 for this scenario.
2) 75% Busing
1 st shift - 115 people (86 bused, 29 individual vehicles)
2nd shift - 110 people (82 bused, 28 individual vehicles)
In this scenario, 1st shift would require four buses and 29 individual vehicles while 2nd shift would
require four buses and 28 individual vehicles. The ADT would be calculated by multiplying 65
vehicles x 2 (round trip). Therefore, the ADT would be 130 for this scenario.
3) 0% Busing
If there was no busing or car pooling, and each employee drove separately, the ADT would be 450,
calculated by multiplying 225 individual vehicles x 2 (round trip). This would be the maximum
employee traffic expected.
Alternative F
An estimated 125 people would be employed at the Crown Jewel Project over the 16 year
operations phase. Under this alternative, the mine would operate one shift per day while the mill
would operate two shifts per day. This analysis assumes that approximately 65% of the
employees work the 1st shift and 35% work the 2nd shift. This analysis assumes that there would
be two, 10 to 12 hour shifts, with 81 people working the first shift and 44 people working the
second shift.
1) 93% Busing
1st shift - 81 people (76 bused, five individual vehicles)
2nd shift - 44 people (39 bused, five individual vehicles)
In this scenario, 1st shift would require four buses and five individual vehicles while 2nd shift
would require two buses and five individual vehicles. The ADT would be calculated by multiplying
16 vehicles x 2 (round trip). Therefore, the ADT would be 32 for this scenario.
2) 75% Busing
1st shift - 81 people (61 bused, 20 individual vehicles)
2nd shift - 44 people (33 bused, 11 individual vehicles)
Crown Jewel Mine - Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix G - Traffic Assumptions + G-5
In this scenario, 1st shift would require three buses and 20 individual vehicles, while the 2nd shift
would require two buses and 11 individual vehicles. The ADT would be calculated by multiplying
36 vehicles x 2 (round trip). Therefore, the ADT would be 72 for this scenario.
3) 0% Busing
If there was no busing or car pooling and each employee drove separately, the ADT would be 250,
calculated by multiplying 125 individual vehicles x 2 (round trip). This would be the maximum
employee traffic expected.
Alternative G
An estimated 210 employees would be employed at the Crown Jewel Project over the eight year
operations phase of Alternative G. This analysis assumes that there will be two, 10 or 12 hour
shifts 365 days per year and that 50% (105 people) work each shift.
1) 93% Busing
1st shift - 105 people (98 bused, seven individual vehicles)
2nd shift - 105 people (98 bused, seven individual vehicles)
In this scenario, both shifts would require five buses and seven individual vehicles. The ADT would
be calculated by multiplying 12 vehicles x 2 shifts x 2 (round trip). Therefore, the ADT would be
48 for this scenario.
2) 75% Busing
1st shift - 105 people (79 bused, 26 individual vehicles)
2nd shift - 105 people (79 bused, 26 individual vehicles)
In this scenario, both shifts would require four buses and 26 individual vehicles. The ADT would
be calculated by multiplying 30 vehicles x 2 shifts x 2 (round trip). Therefore, the ADT would be
120 for this scenario.
3) 0% Busing
If there was no busing or car pooling, and each employee drove separately, the ADT would be 420,
calculated by multiplying 105 vehicles x 2 shifts x 2 (round trip). This would be the maximum
employee traffic expected.
2.2 Supply Traffic
This analysis assumes delivery would take place 260 days per year (Monday through Friday);
however, the Proponent has indicated to Okanogan County officials that most deliveries would
occur Monday through Thursday (208 days).
Of the supplies delivered, there would be a varying number of loads of potentially environmentally
hazardous materials hauled to the Crown Jewel Project site per year. As a mitigation measure, the
transport of this environmentally hazardous materials to the Crown Jewel Project site would be
escorted by a pilot vehicle. This analysis has assumed that materials would be escorted in
caravans; therefore, only two pilot vehicles would be required each day. To evaluate a potential
range for this analysis, it is projected that a caravan of environmentally hazardous materials could
Crown Jewel Mine - Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix G - Traffic Assumptions 4 G-6
be escorted to the Crown Jewel Project site twice a day (morning and afternoon); however this
situation would not be expected on a daily basis.
Alternatives B, D and E
As shown on Table G-2, Consumable Estimate Alternatives B, D and E, it is estimated that there
would be 1,399 truck loads of various supplies per year during operational life of Alternatives B, D
and E.
Assuming 260 days (Monday through Friday delivery) and two pilot vehicles needed per day, the
estimated ADT would be approximately 15; this ADT is calculated as follows:
• (1,399 + 520) x 2/260 = 14.8 ADT
Assuming 208 days (Monday through Thursday delivery) and two pilot vehicles needed per day,
the estimated ADT would be approximately 18; this ADT is calculated as follows:
• (1,399 + 416) x 2/208 = 17.5 ADT
Alternative C
As shown on Table G-3, Consumable Estimate Alternative C, it is estimated that there would be
1,130 truck loads of various supplies per year during operational life of Alternative C.
Assuming 260 days (Monday through Friday delivery) and two pilot vehicles needed per day, the
estimated ADT would be approximately 13; this ADT is calculated as follows:
• (1,130 + 520) x 2/260 = 12.7 ADT
Assuming 208 days (Monday through Thursday delivery) and two pilot vehicles needed per day,
the estimated ADT would be approximately 15; this ADT is calculated as follows:
• (1,130 + 416) x 2/208 = 14.9 ADT
Alternative F
The anticipated supply trucks would be estimated to be 50% of Alternatives B, D and E.
Assuming 260 days (Monday through Friday delivery) and two pilot vehicles needed per day, the
estimated ADT would be approximately 10; this ADT is calculated as follows:
• (700 + 520) x 2/260 = 9.4 ADT
Assuming 208 days (Monday through Thursday delivery) and using two pilot vehicles per day, the
estimated ADT would be approximately 11; this ADT is calculated as follows:
• (700 + 416) x 2/208 = 10.7 ADT
Alternative G
As shown on Table G-4, Consumable Estimate Alternative G, it is estimated that there would be
591 truck loads of various supplies per year during the operational life of Alternative G.
Crown Jewel Mine - Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix G - Traffic Assumptions + G-7
Assuming 260 days (Monday through Friday delivery) and two pilot vehicles per day, the estimated
ADT would be approximately 9; this ADT is calculated as follows:
• (591 + 520) x 2/260 = 8.5 ADT
Assuming 208 days (Monday through Thursday delivery) and two pilot vehicles per day, the
estimated ADT would be approximately 10; this ADT is calculated as follows:
• (591 + 416) x 2/208 = 9.7 ADT
2.3 Other Traffic
Alternatives B, C, D, E and F
Throughout the operational phase of Alternatives B, C, D, E and F, it is assumed that government
personnel, sales representatives, and the general public would visit the site. For calculation
purposes, it is estimated that an average of three vehicles per day (seven days a week for 365
days) would transport these individuals to the site. The estimated ADT for this traffic would be 6.
Alternative G
Throughout the operational phase of Alternative G, it is assumed that government personnel, sales
representatives, and the general public would visit the site. For calculation purposes, it is
estimated that an average of three vehicles per day (seven days a week for 365 days) would
transport these individuals to the site. The estimated ADT for this traffic would be 6.
Ore concentrate haulage would require 12 truck loads per day, seven days per week, from the
Crown Jewel Project site to Oroville. It is projected that approximately 300 tons of ore
concentrate per day would be generated at the flotation mill in Alternative G. Tractor-trailer units
would be used to carry about 25 tons of concentrate each trip.
Assuming 365 days (seven days per week transport), the estimated ADT for ore concentrate
haulage and other traffic would be approximately 30; this ADT is calculated as follows:
• (12 + 3) x2 = 30 ADT
3.0 RECLAMATION
3.1 Employee Traffic
As in the operations phase, it has been assumed that busing would be provided and encouraged as
the primary method of employee transportation to the Crown Jewel Project site from a location in
or near Oroville. The bus/van capacities have not been determined, but they could vary in capacity
from 8 to 48 passengers. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that 24 passenger buses
would be used. This analysis presents three potential levels of employee transport; (1) (93%) of
employees are bused; (2) 75% of the employees are bused; and, (3) 0% of the employees are
bused. Also included in the assumptions are a minimum of two individual vehicles on day shift and
one individual vehicle on second shift representing management transport.
Alternatives B, C, D, E and G
The Proponent has estimated that 50 people would be required for reclamation activities over a one
year period; this period would allow for facility decommissioning and completion of the grading, top
soiling, mulching, and possibly the seeding of the Crown Jewel Project site. Reclamation activities
Crown Jewel Mine - Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix G - Traffic Assumptions 4 G-8
would occur primarily during daylight hours; however, there would be maintenance and security
people on duty during the 2nd shift. For this portion of the traffic analysis, it was assumed that
70% (35 people) of the work force will be assigned to 1st shift and 30% (1 5 people) to 2nd shift.
1) 93% Busing
1st shift - 35 people (33 bused, two individual vehicles)
2nd shift - 15 people (14 bused, one individual vehicle)
In this scenario, 1st shift would require two buses and two individual vehicles while 2nd shift
would require one bus and one individual vehicle. The ADT would be calculated by multiplying 6
vehicles x 2 (round trip). Therefore, the ADT would be 12 for this scenario.
2) 75% Busing
1st shift - 35 people (26 bused, nine individual vehicles)
2nd shift - 15 people (11 bused, four individual vehicles)
In this scenario, 1st shift would require two buses and nine individual vehicles while 2nd shift
would require one bus and four individual vehicles. The ADT would be calculated by multiplying 16
vehicles x 2 (round trip). Therefore, the ADT would be 32 for this scenario.
3) 0% Busing
If there were no busing and each employee drove a separate vehicle, the ADT would be 100,
calculated by multiplying 50 individual vehicles x 2 (round trip). This would be the maximum
employee traffic expected.
Alternative F
It has been estimated that 75 people would be required to perform reclamation activities over a 16
year duration. This includes backfilling the pit, facility decommissioning, as well as to complete
final grading, top soiling, mulching, and seeding of the Crown Jewel Project site. Reclamation
activities would occur primarily during daylight hours; however, there would be maintenance and
security people on duty during the 2nd shift. For this portion of the traffic analysis, it was
assumed that 70% (52 people) of the work force will be assigned to 1st shift and 30% (23 people)
to 2nd shift.
1) 93% Busing
1 st shift - 52 people (48 bused, four individual vehicles)
2nd shift - 23 people (21 bused, two individual vehicles)
In this scenario, 1st shift would require two buses and four individual vehicles while 2nd shift
would require one bus and two individual vehicles. The ADT would be calculated by multiplying 9
vehicles x 2 (round trip). Therefore, the ADT would be 18 for this scenario.
Crown Jewel Mine - Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix G - Traffic Assumptions + G-9
2) 75% Busing
1st shift - 52 people (39 bused, 13 individual vehicles)
2nd shift - 23 people (17 bused, six individual vehicles)
In this scenario, 1st shift would require two buses and 13 individual vehicles while 2nd shift would
require one bus and six individual vehicles. The ADT would be calculated by multiplying 22
vehicles x 2 (round trip). Therefore, the ADT would be 44 for this scenario.
3) 0% Busing
If there were no busing and each employee drove a separate vehicle, the ADT would be 150,
calculated by multiplying 75 individual vehicles x 2 (round trip). This would be the maximum
employee traffic expected.
3.2 Supply Traffic
Alternatives 6, C, D, E and G
To complete the reclamation activities in Alternatives B, C, D, E and G, it is estimated that 120
truck loads of fuel per year would be necessary, this is based on the fact that the haul trucks
would not be hauling ore or waste material and only regrading and topsoiling activities would be
conducted. This would assume 5,000 gallons of fuel per tanker truck load. Fuel tanker trucks
would only travel to the Crown Jewel Project site during weekdays (Monday through Friday). Each
fuel truck would be escorted to the Crown Jewel Project site by a pilot vehicle. In addition, an
additional 25 truck loads of supplies would be required during the reclamation activities; this would
include items such as miscellaneous supplies, mulch, and seed.
The estimated ADT for reclamation supplies in Alternatives B, C, D, E and G would be 3, calculated
as follows:
• (120 + 120 + 25) x 2/260 = 2.1 ADT
Alternative F
To complete the reclamation activities in Alternative F, it is estimated that a minimum of 120 truck
loads of fuel per year would be necessary for the 16 years of reclamation. This would assume
5,000 gallons of fuel per truck. Fuel trucks would only travel to the Crown Jewel Project site
during weekdays (Monday through Friday). Each fuel truck would be escorted to the Crown Jewel
Project site by a pilot vehicle. An additional 25 truck loads of supplies per year would be required
during the reclamation activities; this would include miscellaneous maintenance and reclamation
supplies.
The estimated ADT for reclamation supplies in Alternative F would be approximately 3, calculated
as follows:
• (120 + 120 + 25) x 2/260 = 2.1 ADT
Crown Jewel Mine - Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix G - Traffic Assumptions + G-10
3.3 Other Traffic
Alternatives B, C, D. E, F and G
Throughout the reclamation phase of all action alternatives, it is assumed that government
personnel, sales representatives, and the general public would visit the site. For calculation
purposes, it is estimated that an average of three vehicles per day (seven days a week for 365
days) would transport these individuals to the site. The total traffic for this traffic would be 1,095
vehicles. The estimated ADT for this traffic would be six. For Alternatives B, C, D, E and G, this
ADT would occur for a year while occurring 16 years in Alternative F.
4.0 SUMMARY
The following tables summarize the ADT (by scenario) for each alternative.
TABLE G-1. AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC BY ALTERNATIVE
(by employee traffic scenario)
Alt A
AltB
AltC
AltD
Alt E
Alt F
AltG
Alt A
AltB
AltC
AltD
Alt E
Alt F
AltG
Alt A
AltB
AltC
AltD
Alt E
Alt F
AltG
Construction
Employee
Supply
Employees Car Pool
0
270
270
270
270
270
270
0
16
16
16
16
16
16
Other
0
19
19
19
19
19
19
Total
0
306
306
306
306
306
306
Employees Car Pool
0
270
270
270
270
270
270
0
16
16
16
16
16
16
0
19
19
19
19
19
19
0
306
306
306
306
306
306
Employees Car Pool
0
600
600
600
600
600
BOO
0
16
16
16
16
16
16
0
19
19
19
19
19
19
0
636
636
E36
636
636
636
Operations
Employee
Supply
Other
Total
93% of Employee Bused
0
32
62
62
32
32
48
0
18
16
18
18
11
10
0
6
6
6
6
6
30
0
66
73
76
66
49
88
76% of Employees Bused
0
84
130
130
84
72
120
0
18
16
18
18
11
10
0
6
6
6
6
6
30
0
108
161
164
108
89
160
0% of Employees Bused
0
288
460
460
288
260
420
0
18
16
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
6
6
6
6
12
21
21
21
21
27
21
76% 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
63
41
0% of Employees Bused
8
100
100
100
100
160
100
0
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
12
109
109
109
109
169
109
Note: Employee and Other traffic ADT band on travel 366 days per year. Supply traffic based on travel 208 days per year (Monday through Thursday).
Crown Jewel Mine - final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix G - Traffic Assumptions + G-11
TABLE G-2, CONSUMABLE ESTIMATE, ALTERNATIVES B, D AND E
Consumable
GRINDING
Steel Balls
LEACHING
Sodium Cyanide
Cement
Flocculent
Lead Nitrate
Oxygen
RECOVERY
Activated Carbon
Hydrochloric Acid
Caustic
Antiscalant
Steel Wool
REFINERY
Silica Sand
Anhydrous Borax
Soda Ash
Sodium Nitrate
CYANIDE
DESTRUCT
Sulfur Dioxide
Copper Sulfate
Lime
Oxygen
BLASTING
Ammonium
Nitrate3
GENERAL
Fuel3
Miscellaneous
TOTALS
Daily Use
(tons)
6.38
4.69
18.75
0.19
0.47
5.0
0.30
0.60
0.57
0.09
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.01
4.23
0.15
3.15
7.0
8.75
3,300 gal
Annual Use
(tons)
2,327
1,711
6,844
68
171
1,825
110
220
207
34
0.30
8
16
8
3
1,543
53
1,149
2,555
3,194
1,204,500 gal
Physical
Form
solid
solid
briquettes
powder
liquid
powder
liquid gas
granules
liquid
liquid
liquid
solid
solid
solid
solid
solid
liquid
solid
powder
liquid
granules
liquid
Truck Shipments'
Weekly
2.3
1.7
6.6
0.1
0.2
1.8
0.1
0.2
0.2
1.5
0.1
1.1
2.5
3.1
4.8
0.9
27.2
Yearly2
117
86
343
4
9
92
6
11
11
2
1
These
materials
combined will
require only 2
truck loads
per year
78
3
58
128
160
240
48
1,399
Notes: Daily use based on 3,000 tons of ore per day.
1 . Number of truck shipments based on maximum payload of 20 tons.
2. Based on usage requirements for 365 days per year.
3. Based on 33,000 tons/day (ore and waste).
Crown Jewel Mine - Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix G - Traffic Assumptions 4 G-12
TABLE G-3, CONSUMABLE ESTIMATE, ALTERNATIVE C
Consumable
GRINDING
Steel Balls
LEACHING
Sodium Cyanide
Cement
Flocculent
Lead Nitrate
Oxygen
RECOVERY
Activated Carbon
Hydrochloric Acid
Caustic
Antiscalant
Steel Wool
REFINERY
Silica Sand
Anhydrous Borax
Soda Ash
Sodium Nitrate
CYANIDE
DESTRUCT
Sulfur Dioxide
Copper Sulfate
Lime
Oxygen
BLASTING
Ammonium
Nitrate3
GENERAL
Fuel3
Miscellaneous
TOTALS
Daily Use
(tons)
6.38
4.69
18.75
0.19
0.47
5.00
0.30
0.60
0.57
0.09
0.01
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.01
4.23
0.15
3.15
7.00
3.00
300 gal
Annual Use
(tons)
2,327
1,711
6,844
68
171
1,825
110
220
207
34
0.30
8
16
8
3
1,543
53
1,149
2,555
1,095
1 20,500 gal
Physical
Form
solid
solid
briquettes
powder
liquid
powder
liquid gas
granules
liquid
liquid
liquid
solid
solid
solid
solid
solid
liquid
solid
powder
liquid
granules
liquid
Truck Shipments1
Weekly
2.3
1.7
6.8
0.1
0.2
1.8
0.1
0.2
0.2
1.5
0.1
1.1
3.0
1.1
0.5
2.0
22.7
Yearly2
117
86
343
4
9
92
6
11
11
2
1
These
materials
combined will
require only 2
truck loads
per year
78
3
58
128
55
24
100
1,130
Notes: Daily use based on 3,000 tons of ore per day.
1 . Number of truck shipments based on maximum payload of 20 tons.
2. Based on usage requirements for 365 days per year.
3. Based on 33,000 tons/day (ore and waste).
Crown Jewel Mine - Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix G - Traffic Assumptions + G-13
TABLE G-4, CONSUMABLE ESTIMATE, ALTERNATIVE G
Consumable
GRINDING
Steel Balls
RECOVERY
Flotation Reagents
Potassium Amyl Xanthate
MIBC (frother)
AP404 (promoter)
DP-6 (promoter)
Copper sulfate (activator)
Na,S (sulfidizer)
BLASTING
Ammonium Nitrate
GENERAL
Fuel3
Miscellaneous
TOTALS
Daily Use
(tons)
6.38
1.97
8.75
3,300 gal
Annual Use
(tons)
2.327
717
3,194
1,204,500 gal
Physical
Form
solid
liquid
granules
liquid
Truck Shipments1
Weekly
2.3
These materials
combined would
require 1 truck
load every
2 weeks
3.1
4.8
0.9
11
Yearly2
117
26
160
240
48
591
Notes: Daily use based on 3,000 tons of ore per day.
1 . Number of truck shipments based on maximum payload of 20 tons.
2. Based on usage requirements for 365 days per year.
3. Based on 33,000 tons/day (ore and waste).
Crown Jewel Mine - Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
-------
APPENDIX H
WILDLIFE BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
AND
BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION
-------
-------
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
for the
CROWN JEWEL MINE PROJECT
Prepared
for
U.S. Forest Service,
Tonasket Ranger District
Tonasket, Washington
Prepared
by
Cedar Creek Associates, Inc.
Fort Collins, Colorado
and
Beak Consultants Inc.
Portland, Oregon
June 1996
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 5
2.1 Project Location 5
2.2 Environmental Setting 5
2.3 Project Description 7
3.0 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS 17
3.1 Step 1 - Pro-Field Review 17
3.2 Step 2- Field Reconnaissance 17
3.3 Step 3 - Risk Assessment 18
3.4 Step 4 - Biological Investigation 20
4.0 ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS 21
4.1 Gray Wolf 21
4.1.1 Determination of Effects for Gray Wolf 23
4.2 Grizzly Bear 28
4.2.1 Determination of Effects for Grizzly Bear 30
4.3 Northern Bald Eagle 32
4.3.1 Determination of Effects for Northern Bald Eagle 34
4.4 American Peregrine Falcon 38
4.4.1 Determination of Effects for American Peregrine Falcon 39
5.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS SUMMARY 43
6.0 LITERATURE CITED 45
APPENDIX A - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Listing of Threatened and Endangered Species for
the Crown Jewel Project
APPENDIX B - Security Analysis Diagrams
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Page No.
1 General Location Map 2
2 Project Area Map 6
3 Land Type Map 8
4 Cover Type Map 10
5 Forest Road Closures 25
6 Potential Peregrine Falcon Nest Cliffs 40
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Page No.
1 Threatened and Endangered Species Evaluated for the Crown Jewel Project 4
2 Analysis Area Land Types, Core Area Cover Types, and Cover Types
Affected by Mine Development 12
3 Mine Disturbance Areas 14
4 Deer Security Analysis Summary 28
Crown Jewel Project BA i June 7,1996
-------
-------
BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
for the
CROWN JEWEL MINE PROJECT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Biological Assessment (BA) is prepared for the proposed Crown Jewel Mine Project and associated
exploration activities. Battle Mountain Gold Company (BMGC) proposes to develop a gold mine on a site
located approximately 3.5 miles east of Chesaw, Washington on private and public lands (Figure 1). An
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Crown Jewel Project is being prepared by the
U.S. Forest Service and the Washington Department of Ecology (WADOE) as co-lead agencies.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (the Act) requires Federal agencies to "insure that any action
authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
any listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat of such species."
The purpose of the Act is "to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species
and threatened species depend may be conserved" and "to provide a program for the conservation of
such endangered species and threatened species...."
Section 4 of the Act (Determination of Endangered Species or Threatened Species) grants the Secretary
of the Interior power to determine whether any species is considered threatened or endangered, based
on the present status of the species such as population numbers, limited habitat, disease, existing
regulatory mechanisms, or any man-made influences jeopardizing the species' continuing existence.
Section 7 of the Act (Interagency Cooperation) specifies that, to more effectively carry out the purpose of
the Act, all other Federal departments and agencies shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of
the Secretary [of Interior], utilize their authorities by "taking such action necessary to insure that actions
authorized, funded, or carried out by them (Federal departments and agencies) do not jeopardize the
continued existence of any listed species (pursuant to Section 4) or result in the destruction or
modification of critical habitat of such species."
The consultation process is designed to assist Federal agencies when complying with the Act, and
authority of consultation has been delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Director of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The consultation process involves several phases. First, a general
description of the proposed action and a formal request for a listing of proposed and listed endangered
and threatened species potentially affected by the proposed action is submitted to the USFWS by the
affected agency. The USFWS responds with a list of proposed, candidate, and listed species within the
proposed project area. When the project is a construction project, the agency then prepares a Biological
Crown Jewel Project BA June 7,1996
-------
o
BRITISH COLUMBIA
ro
r
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
BRITISH COLUMBIA
FERRY
COUNTY
FERRY
COUNTY
OREGON
FIGURE 1, GENERAL LOCATION MAP
Filename CJFBE-1 DWG
-------
Assessment which identifies the project, details the biology of the species on the list submitted by the
USFWS, analyzes the cumulative effects of the project, and determines if there is likely to be an effect
(either beneficial or adverse) on any listed or proposed species. When the BA is completed the agency
requests consultation with the USFWS.
The requested consultation can be formal or informal, depending on the determination of effects in the
BA. If the BA concludes the project "is not likely to adversely affect" listed species or critical habitat, the
agency has the discretion to choose either informal or formal consultation. If informal consultation is
chosen, the agency asks for written concurrence by the USFWS for the BA's conclusion of "not likely to
adversely affect." Consultation is complete if a USFWS concurrence letter is obtained. When formal
consultation is chosen by the agency, it requests and the USFWS prepares and issues a Biological
Opinion (BO), which completes the consultation.
If the BA concludes the project "likely to adversely affect" listed species or critical habitat, the agency must
request formal consultation and a BO.
Using information contained in the BA, the USFWS provides an opinion in the BO on whether the project
is: 1) "likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat" (a "jeopardy" biological opinion) or 2) "not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical
habitat" (a "no jeopardy" biological opinion). If the USFWS issues a "jeopardy opinion, it must include any
"reasonable and prudent alternatives" to the project that would avoid jeopardy. If the USFWS issues a "no
jeopardy" opinion, it may include discretionary "conservation recommendations," which are steps the
USFWS believes could be taken to further minimize potential effects on listed species or critical habitat.
This BA assesses potential impacts of the proposed project on wildlife species listed as Proposed,
Endangered, or Threatened by the USFWS and ensures compliance with the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, P.L. 93-205 (87 Stat. 884), as amended. The U.S.D.A. Forest Service
(Forest Service) has had correspondence with the USFWS regarding the Crown Jewel Project since May
1992 when environmental analysis was initiated for the exploration phases of the project. Since that time
there have been several requests and responses relating to updates of listed species potentially affected
by exploration and possible project development. The most recent Forest Service request for a USFWS
listing of threatened, endangered, or proposed species potentially occurring within the project area was
on March 10,1996. The USFWS list of potential species was provided in response on March 12,1996
(see Appendix A). The USFWS response did not designate any areas of critical habitat potentially
affected by project development but did indicate that potential effects on four species would need to be
addressed. Table 1 lists the species identified in the USFWS response that are analyzed in this BA.
Crown Jewel Project BA 3 June 7,1996
-------
Table 1
Threatened and Endangered Species Evaluated for the Crown Jewel Project
Common Name
Scientific Name
USFWS
Status1
State
Status
MAMMALS
Gray wolf
Grizzly bear
Canis lupus
Ursus arctos
Endangered
Threatened
Endangered
Endangered
BIROS
Northern bald eagle
American peregrine falcon
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Falco peregrinus anatum
Threatened
Endangered
Threatened
Endangered
Species listing based on USFWS 3/12/96 response to Forest Service request for listed species (see Appendix A).
Crown Jewel Project BA
June 7,1996
-------
2.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
2.1 Project Location
BMGC's proposed Crown Jewel Mine Project would be within Okanogan County, Washington (T40N,
R30E and R31E; and T39N, R30E and R31E). The proposed mine and most ancillary facilities would be
on the eastern flank of Buckhom Mountain, which lies approximately 3.5 miles east of the town of Chesaw
and approximately 25 miles east of Oroville (Figure 1). The water storage reservoir and portions of the
water supply system would be located in the Myers Creek valley near the Washington/British Columbia
border.
The proposed mine area includes private and public lands. Public lands are administered by the Tonasket
Ranger District of the Okanogan National Forest, U.S. Forest Service, and the Wenatchee Resource Area
of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Current public land use includes mineral exploration, timber
harvest, firewood gathering, grazing, and recreation. This BA addresses listed threatened and
endangered wildlife species within the Crown Jewel Core and Analysis Areas, including private, State,
U.S. Forest Service, and BLM lands. No species proposed for listing occur within the Core and Analysis
Areas (see Table 1).
The boundaries of the Core and Analysis areas were designated and delineated by Forest Service, BLM,
USFWS, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WADFW) wildlife biologists as the areas
containing habitats that may be affected by direct, indirect, or cumulative effects associated with the
proposed mining activities (Figure 2). The Core Area totals approximately 10,962 acres and encompasses
the mine footprint, mine facility sites, transportation and transmission corridors, and lands within a 1-mile
radius of the mine footprint and facilities. It is defined as the area where direct impacts of the proposed
project could occur. The Analysis Area totals approximately 72,700 acres and includes the Core Area and
a much larger surrounding area within which indirect impacts or cumulative effects could occur.
2.2 Environmental Setting
The landscape of the Analysis Area is dominated primarily by two prominent ridgeline features. Within the
Core Area, the prominent physical feature is Buckhorn Mountain and its associated north-south oriented
ridgeline. This ridge divides the generally east and west flowing drainages within the Core and Analysis
Areas, including Ethel, Bolster, and Gold creeks (west-flowing) and Cedar, Nicholson, and Marias creeks
(east-flowing). The other prominent ridgeline within the Analysis Area runs between the east flowing
Nicholson Creek and Cedar Creek drainages and connects Buckhom Mountain and Graphite Mountain.
Less prominent east-west ridge systems extend between Cedar Creek and Myers Creek, Marias Creek
Crown Jewel Project BA 5 June 7,1996
-------
o>
r
\
LEGEND
CORE AREA BOUNDARY
ANALYSIS AREA BOUNDARY
PAVED HIGHWAY
GRAVEL ROAD
DIRT ROAD
OKANOGAN NATIONAL FOREST BOUNDARY
NATIONAL BORDER
COUNTY LINE
STREAMS
TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES
CANADIAN PROVINCIAL HWY
COUNTY ROAD
FOREST SERVICE ROAD
MINE PIT AREA
FIGURE 2, PROJECT AREA MAP
-------
and Beaver Creek, and Nicholson Creek and Marias Creek (Figure 2). Areas of rock outcrop and cliffs are
present in the Core Area as well as Beaver Creek Canyon in the Analysis Area.
Creeks draining the Core Area vary from relatively flat drainages with slow-moving water to steep, deeply-
incised drainages with swift currents. Near the headwaters of Nicholson and Marias Creeks, sufficient
surface water collects to sustain small wetland areas (Crown Jewel Mine EIS, Section 3.11). Small ponds,
both natural and man-made, are found on the east side of Buckhom Mountain.
The Analysis Area is bounded by Myers Creek and the Kettle River to the north and northeast, by Toroda
Creek to the east, by Beaver Creek to the south and southwest, and by Myers Creek to the west and
northwest (Figure 2). The Core Area includes Buckhom mountain, Gold Creek, and the headwaters of
Bolster, Ethel, Marias, and Nicholson creeks. Six land types were delineated in the Analysis Area (Figure
3), while 10 cover types were delineated in the Core Area (Figure 4). Descriptions of land and cover types
are provided in the Crown Jewel Mine EIS, Section 3.13.2 and in the Wildlife Technical Report for the
Crown Jewel Project (Beak 1995). Table 2 lists land types and cover types with corresponding acreages
for the Analysis and Core Areas.
2.3 Project Description
The draft Crown Jewel EIS considered seven action alternatives, including BMGC's then-proposed plan of
operations, which was Alternative B. Following issuance of the draft EIS, BMGC modified its proposal to
include slightly different configurations and locations for the waste rock facilities and to include artificial
filling of the post-mining pit lake with water piped from Starrem Creek Reservoir. BMGC's modified
proposal will be one of the alternatives considered in the final EIS.
This BA examines the potential impacts on listed species for BMGC's modified proposal. BMGC's
modified proposal was chosen for analysis because its potential effect on listed species and their habitat -
which is primarily a function of the amount of surface disturbance and human activity and the use and
transport of potentially harmful reagents and fuel -- would likely be as great as, or greater than, the other
EIS alternatives. Waste rock facilities in Alternative E would have a slightly greater area of initial
disturbance, but this alternative would also include backfilling and revegetation of part of the pit, resulting
in an area of long-term disturbance very close to that of BMGC's modified proposal. Upon issuance of the
final EIS and the record of decision, the Forest Service will determine whether the selected alternative
would be likely to have measurably greater impacts on listed species than are predicted in this BA, in which
case, further analysis and/or consultation may be necessary. However, if the selected alternative is
determined to have impacts on listed species equal to or less than BMGC's modified proposal, further
analysis and/or consultation would not be necessary for the selected alternative.
Crown Jewel Project BA 7 June 7.1996
-------
n't „ f t
Crown Jewel Project BA
8
June 7.1996
-------
X
V
N
LEGEND
— ANALYSIS AREA BOUNDARY
OKANOGAN NATIONAL
FOREST BOUNDARY
— NATIONAL BORDER
COUNTY LINE
MINE PIT AREA
COVER TYPE
I I GRASSLAND / SHRUB
| | OPEN CONIFEROUS / DECIDUOUS
| | CONIFEROUS
| | AGRICULTURE
| "] DISTURBED / RESIDENTIAL
I I RIPARIAN / WETLAND / OPEN WATER
ACHES
15,612
24.O23
27,441
2,943
98
635
FIGURE 3, LAND TYPE MAP
Crown Jewel Project BA
June?. 1996
-------
Crown Jewel Project BA
10
June 7.1996
-------
\
COVER TYPE
I UPLAND GRASSLAND
LEGEND
CORE AREA BOUNDARY
, _ _ ANALYSIS AREA BOUNDARY
OKANOGAN NATIONAL
FOREST BOUNDARY
NATIONAL BORDER
MINE PIT AREA
ACRES
1,675
BOTTOMLAND GRASSLAND 107
CZ3
SHRUB 96
EARLY SUCCESSIONAL SOS
CONIFER
MIXED CONIFER POLE 2175
MIXED CONIFER MATURE ««79
LAKE/POND 106
I I RIPARIAN/WETLAND 887
[[ DECIDUOUS 39
AGRICULTURE 456
J" '-** *
n
\
FIGURE 4, COVER TYPE MAP
-------
Table 2
Analysis Area Land Types, Core Area Cover Types, and
Cover Types Affected by Mine Development
Analysis Area
Land Type
Grassland/Shrub
Open Coniferous/
Deciduous
Coniferous
Riparian/Wetland/
Open Water
Agriculture
Disturbed/
Residential
Totals
Acres
15,728
25,824
27,465
635
2,949
99
72,700
Core Area
Cover Type
Upland Grassland
Bottomland
Grassland
Shrub
Early Successtonal
Conifer
Mixed Conifer Pole
Mixed Conifer
Mature
Deciduous
Riparian/Wetland1
Lake/Pond
Agriculture
Acres
1,675
107
96
887
2,178
4,526
40
891
106
456
10,962
Mine
Disturbance
(acres)
143.3
5.8
8.5
93.0
108.7
354.1
51.6
765.0
Percent
of Core
Area
8.6
5.4
8.8
10.5
5.0
7.8
5.8
7.0
1 The riparian/wetland cover type consists of all areas within 100 feet of a stream, wetland, lake, or pond, and within
50 feet of a seep or spring. Subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, Douglas-fir, western red cedar, black cotton wood,
and quaking aspen represent the major trees present. Predominant shrub species found in riparian//wetland areas
include Sitka alder, Douglas maple, huckleberry, red-osier dogwood, bearberry, snowberry, twisted stalk, arrowleaf
groundsel, and bunchberry dogwood. Common ferns include lady fern and oak fern.
Crown Jewel Project BA
12
June 7,1996
-------
The proposed Crown Jewel Project would include an open pit mine, waste rock disposal areas, crushing
and milling facilities, a tailings disposal facility, and ancillary support facilities. Ancillary facilities include
access and haul roads, power supply, substation, transmission line, water supply, fuel storage area,
explosive storage area, topsoil stockpiles, chemical and reagent storage areas, and buildings for an office,
laboratory, warehouse and maintenance shop. Supply transport would be via the Wauconda to mine site
route. Disturbance acreages associated with principal mine features and facilities are summarized in Table
3. Corresponding acres of disturbance are summarized by cover type in Table 2.
The mine would operate 24 hours per day, seven days per week, 365 days per year, and would produce
an average of 3,000 tons of ore per day. Approximately 9.1 million tons of ore would be mined and
processed from approximately 97 million tons of rock taken from a 116-acre pit area that would be several
hundred feet deep. The overall pit slopes (straight line between the top and the bottom of the pit) would
be between 45 and 55 degrees, depending on rock stability, haul road placement, and other engineering
considerations. Individual bench slopes would be steeper, ranging from approximately 65 to 75 degrees.
Most of the waste rock produced by the mining operations would be placed in two waste rock disposal
areas, one to the northeast and one to the south of the pit. There would be no backfill of the pit, and a pit
lake would form in the north half of the pit after cessation of mining and reclamation activities. Discharge
from the final open pit would either flow down the Gold Bowl drainage which is tributary to Nicholson
Creek, or be piped from the lake to Nicholson Creek and possibly Marias Creek. Any point source
discharges to waters of the state would have to meet water quality standards set by the Washington
Department of Ecology.
Ore processing would involve underground crushing, above-ground grinding, milling, cyanide
detoxification, and gold recovery facilities. Gold extraction includes conventional milling with the tank
cyanidation process and carbon-in-leach gold recovery. Residual cyanide in the tailings would be reduced
using the cyanide destruction process known as the INCO SO2/Air/C>2 process. The spent ore tailings
would be conveyed by pipeline to a tailings disposal facility. A surface quarry and borrow material from the
mine footprint area would provide material to construct the tailings embankments in the Marias Creek
drainage. The tailings disposal facility would consist of a composite-lined disposal system located
between two embankments, and a lined reclaim solution collection pond south of the disposal area in
Marias Creek drainage. Impounded tailings water would be recycled back to the mill to minimize the pond
size and the need for new process water sources. Storm water and sediment control structures would
route water around the tailings facility with a series of ditches, culverts, and basins.
Ancillary facilities would include power transmission facilities, a water storage and supply system, support
buildings, and other structures including explosives storage, crusher, fuel storage and containment, and
Crown Jewel Project BA 13 June 7.1996
-------
Table 3
Mine Disturbance Areas
Facility
Tailings Facility and Slurry Pipeline
Waste Rock Disposal Areas
Pit Area
Topsoil Stockpiles
Mine Facilities including Borrow Areas, Ore Stockpiles,
Erosion and Sediment Control Facilities, and Other
Ancillary Facilities
Access and Haul Roads, Poweriine Right-of-Way
Water Reservoir, Pumphouse, and Supply Pipeline
Totals
Acres Disturbed
101
288
116
48
65
102
45
765
Crown Jewel Project BA
14
June 7.1996
-------
fencing. Employees would be bused or van pooled to the site. The power transmission facilities would
include a 115 kv power line (wood pole H frame) and substation. The water storage and supply system
would consist of a diversion structure on Myers Creek as well as pumping facilities and a pipeline to a
storage reservoir in Starrem Creek. Employee housing would be offsite, and workers would be
transported to the site.
The life of mine would be about 10 years: 1 year for construction and development; 81/2 years of mine
operation; and 1+ years for decommissioning of facilities and the completion of most reclamation.
Proposed reclamation of the mine after closure would target the reestablishment of conifer forest
(Douglas-fir and subalpine spruce), riparian shrub, open forest/grassland (ponderosa pine/pinegrass), and
talus communities depending on revegetation prescription. Stockpiled tppsoil would be distributed on all
disturbed surfaces except for portions of the pit. Within the pit, a pit lake would form in the north half, and
the southwestern wall would be blasted, graded and topsoiled to allow movement of wildlife into and out
of the pit. In addition, selective placement of waste rock and reclamation blasting would be utilized to
create post-mining landforms. Natural appearing talus slopes and regraded, topsoiled slopes would be
created around the pit. A 20-acre pit lake would form within 5 years after reclamation is completed as a
result of groundwater inflow and pumping from Starrem Reservoir. A discontinuous riparian shrub
community and recreational facilities would be developed along the pit lake shoreline. In the remainder of
disturbance areas, trees, shrubs, grasses, and forbs would be planted on level areas and on slopes of less
than 2 (horizontal) to 1 (vertical) on the tailings facility and waste rock piles. Trees and shrubs would be
planted relatively uniformly at a stocking rate of 250 trees and 400 shrubs per acre.
Starrem Creek Reservoir would be removed following completion of other reclamation activities and filling
of the pit lake. Administration buildings and the power line would be dismantled and removed. Water
quality would be monitored according to WADOE permits. Reclaimed areas would be returned to forest,
open forest/grass, shrub, and grass habitats depending on the revegetation prescription. The majority of
the site would be returned to Douglas-fir and subalpine fir forested habitats.
Mitigation and monitoring measures discussed in the Crown Jewel EIS (Sections 2.12 and 2.13) include
practices designed to preclude, minimize, or compensate for potential wildlife impacts. Prevention
measures include building fences, closing roads, and construction of transmission lines that would be
raptor electrocution-proof. Measures to be used to minimize impacts to wildlife include timing restrictions
for disturbance activities (such as blasting), employee busing, and plowing wildlife runouts during winter
snows. Possible compensation measures could include the creation and/or enhancement of wildlife
habitat through snag creation; planting of palatable grasses, forbs, and shrubs; installation of nest boxes;
Crown Jewel Project BA 15 June 7.1996
-------
designing pit walls for raptor habitat; erecting raptor perches; and purchase of private land for habitat
restoration or enhancement.
Crown Jewel Project BA 16 June 7,1996
-------
3.0 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT PROCESS
3.1 Step 1 - Pro-field Review
The pre-field review (Step 1) followed FSM 2672.4, R-6 Supplement 2600-90-5 for threatened,
endangered, or proposed species. The Forest Service has had correspondence with the USFWS
regarding the Crown Jewel Project since May 1992 when environmental analysis was initiated for the
exploration phases of the project. Since that time there have been several requests and responses
relating to updates of listed species potentially affected by exploration and possible project development.
The most recent Forest Service request for a USFWS listing of threatened, endangered, or proposed
species potentially occurring within the project area was on March 10,1996. The USFWS list of potential
species was provided in response on March 12,1996 (see Appendix A). The USFWS response did not
designate any areas of critical habitat potentially affected by project development but did indicate that
potential effects on four species would need to be addressed (see Table 1).
Forest Service District occurrence records of federally listed species and Washington Priority Species and
Habitats database information were reviewed, and agencies and knowledgeable individuals were
contacted for information on species or habitat occurrence for species listed in Table 1. Agencies
contacted included the U.S. Forest Service; USFWS; WADFW; BLM; Colville Confederated Tribes (CCT);
and the British Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (BCE). Individuals contacted included
Canadian trappers and guides. Literature searches for information on occurrence, species range, and
habitat requirements of those species being considered in the BA also were completed. The habitat
requirements of listed species were compared with habitats present in the Core and Analysis Areas to
determine if suitable habitats were present.
If no evidence of species occurrence or suitable habitat exists for a listed threatened or endangered
species within the Core and Analysts Areas, a "no effect" determination can be made and the BA analysis
is complete for that species. Typically, where a "no effect" determination cannot be made with available
information, then Step 2, Field Reconnaissance, is performed to determine if listed species or suitable
habitats are present. For this BA, field surveys were completed prior to the initiation of the BA and Step 1,
because wildlife surveys of sufficient detail for the BA process were completed earlier as a part of the
NEPA analysis for the Crown Jewel Project.
3.2 Step 2 - Field Reconnaissance
Field surveys applicable for the Crown Jewel BA included all field work and data gathering conducted for
the EIS, starting in 1991 and continued through 1994. Data gathering for listed species included winter
Crown Jewel Project BA 17 June 7,1996
-------
and summer wildlife surveys performed by A.G. Crook (1992a, 1993) and Tonasket Wildlife Habitat
Inventory Procedures (TWHIP) surveys conducted in the Core Area. TWHIP surveys, specific to this BA
analysis, were used to collect stand information to assess deer cover within the Core Area. Deer
represent a potential prey source for gray wolf and can provide carrion for the bald eagle and grizzly bear.
Information on survey techniques and habitat assessment procedures are provided in A.G. Crook (1992a,
1993) and the Wildlife Technical Report prepared for the Crown Jewel Project (Beak 1995). Copies of
these and other wildlife reports are available at the Tonasket Ranger District, Okanogan National Forest.
3.3 Step 3 - Risk Assessment
A risk assessment (Step 3) was carried out if a listed species (see Table 1 and Appendix A) or suitable
habitat were documented during the field reconnaissance. The risk assessment considers direct, indirect,
and cumulative effects of exploration and proposed mining activities under the preferred alternative. The
risk assessment is based on the following factors:
1) the dependency of the species on specific habitat components,
2) habitat abundance,
3) population levels of the species,
4) the degree of habitat impact, and
5) the potential to mitigate for the adverse effect.
Risk assessment for a population or habitat considers the size, density, vigor, and location of the
population (when information is available), habitat requirements, and timing of the project in relation to life
requirements.
Direct effects of the Crown Jewel Project that were assessed included habitat loss, alteration, or
conversion; habitat loss due to displacement from noise, roads, and light; and potential toxic effects of the
tailings pond. Indirect effects included human presence, secondary land-use or development, hunting
and trapping, and toxic impact of a tailings liner breach or accidental spills. Cumulative effects analyzed the
incremental effects reasonably foreseeable future actions on State and private lands, not involving
Federal activities (Section 7 Regulations). The extent of habitat loss or change were determined as acres
of cover types in the Core Area.
Ammonia was the only constituent determined from risk assessment modeling to have potential sublethal
toxic effects on wildlife (shorebirds and bats) exposed to tailings impoundment waters (Beak 1995). WAD
cyanide levels would be less than 10 ppm (Winter 1996). Most terrestrial species, except bats and birds,
would be excluded from the tailings pond by fencing. A risk assessment model was used to assess the
potential toxic impacts of the tailings pond to bald eagle and other bird species. The model was used to
calculate the amount of a toxicant that would be taken in by a species (predicted dose). The predicted
Crown Jewel Project BA 18 June7,1996
-------
dose was compared to chronic reference values (no observed effect levels) since exposure to toxins
could occur over a prolonged period. The detailed methods of the model used to evaluate the potential
toxic impacts of the tailings pond on bald eagle and other wildlife are presented in the Wildlife Technical
Report (Beak 1995). As indicated in the Crown Jewel Project EIS (Section 4.12.4), water quality in the pit
lake would not have any toxic effects on wildlife or their habitats.
The potential for an indirect impact on listed species from exposure to ammonia, cyanide, or metals from
an accidental tailings pond liner breach was determined to be negligible (Hydro-Geo 1994; Beak 1995).
However, accidental transportation spills of process chemicals into a stream also could create a risk of
indirect adverse impacts to listed species. For the purposes of the EIS analysis (Section 4.12.4), possible
worst-case scenarios were evaluated to determine the impact of an accidental spill of four chemicals
(sodium cyanide, ammonium nitrate, cement/lime, and diesel) at three hypothetical spill sites (Beaver
Creek, Myers Creek, and Toroda Creek).
Although the potential adverse effects of accidental spills are discussed in the EIS for wildlife, the risk of
exposure of a listed species to a process chemical or diesel fuel spill into Analysis Area streams would be
minimal for several reasons. Hazardous chemicals would be transported via U.S. Department of
Transportation certified containers and transporters. Transportation of sodium cyanide and other chemical
reagents would comply with Department of Transportation, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), and Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) rules and regulations.
Sodium cyanide is transported in dry form and must come into contact with water to pose a toxic danger.
Because of the potential extreme toxicity of cyanide, containers used for shipment of sodium cyanide are
virtually indestructible, making accidental release of cyanide unlikely even in the event of a transport
accident. As a result, millions of pounds of sodium cyanide are transported annually without incident
(Crown Jewel Mine EIS, Section 4.22.3).
Ammonium nitrate and cement/lime also would be shipped in dry form in bags or as containerized bulk
transport. A release of these chemicals into aquatic habitats could only occur in the event of a transport
truck crash directly into a stream channel along with a rupture of a container. Even with this highly unlikely
scenario, only small amounts of these dry chemicals would be released into the stream. Ammonium nitrate
is a commonly used form of agricultural fertilizer. Nitrate is considered toxic to animals only under reducing
conditions when ingested. Also nitrate is toxic to aquatic biota only in high concentrations. In the event of
a spill, anticipated effects would be very localized and minor since containment and cleanup of the dry
material could be readily accomplished. Cement/lime can be toxic to fish, but in dry form this material is not
highly soluble. As a result in the unlikely event of a spill of cement/lime directly into water, anticipated
Crown Jewel Project BA 19 June7.1996
-------
effects would be very localized and minor since containment and cleanup of the dry material could also be
readily accomplished.
Diesel fuel could be released in the event of a tanker truck turnover and tank rupture accident, and a spill
of this fuel or other liquid petroleum products would be more difficult to contain than chemicals in dry form.
A spill into Beaver or Toroda creeks could spread fuel a considerable distance downstream if containment
measures such as placement of oil booms or temporary dikes and removal of the fuel source are not
initiated quickly. The risk of this type of accident and spill would be minimized by using pilot cars to escort
transport trucks through Beaver Creek Canyon (along County Road 9480) to the project site. Transport
and pilot car personnel would be trained in emergency procedures and carry emergency response plans
and materials during the transport. Transport trucks and pilot cars would also carry emergency
containment equipment appropriate for the materials being transported. In the event of a spill, a carriers
would be required to implement appropriate emergency response measures as stipulated by state and
federal regulations. Specifics on spill response measures are provided in Section 4.22.3 of the Crown
Jewel Mine EIS.
In addition, BMGC would develop and maintain a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan
(SPCC), a Hazardous Material Handling Plan, and a Transportation Spill Response Plan (Crown Jewel Mine
EIS, Section 2.12.4). These plans would describe and provide for onsite containment equipment that
would be available for response to transport accidents involving hazardous materials near the mine along
Beaver and Toroda creeks.
3.4 Step 4 - Biological Investigation
A biological investigation (Step 4) is performed when the risk assessment concludes that project-related
effects are adverse and unavoidable. The biological investigation is conducted to develop information
regarding the significance of the impact on the population as a whole (i.e., on the species over its entire
range). The risk assessment for this BA concluded that individuals or local populations in the Analysis
Area are unlikely to be adversely affected. Therefore, no biological investigation was completed for the
Crown Jewel Project.
Crown Jewel ProjectBA 20 June7,1996
-------
4.0 ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS
This section contains the findings of Step 1 (Pre-Field Review), Step 2 (Field Reconnaissance), and Step
3 (Determination of Effects). Steps 1 and 2 were not conducted in consecutive order. The field portion of
the BA started prior to and continued during the literature review for each species. Potential effects of the
proposed Crown Jewel project are considered for four evaluation species (Table 1).
4.1 Gray Wolf
The gray wolf is a wide-ranging carnivore that was once abundant across North America. Trapping and
shooting eliminated wolves from most of eastern North America by 1900. However, the introduction of
strychnine in the late 1800s resulted in the virtual extinction of wolves throughout most of the United
States by 1930 (Peterson 1986). The status of wolves in Minnesota improved in the late 1960s as poison
was banned, aerial gunning declined, and government bounties were eliminated (Peterson 1986). Since
legal protection was initiated in 1974, wolves from Canada have been slowly recolonizing parts of
Montana, Idaho, and Washington. The current distribution of wolves in North America is mainly confined
to the northern half of the continent, including portions of Washington, Idaho, Montana, Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and Michigan within the conterminous lower 48 states. Human/wolf land use conflicts and
resultant shootings or poisonings remain as the major sources of wolf mortality in most areas today
(Frederick 1991; Mech 1989; Mech et al. 1988).
The gray wolf utilizes a wide variety of habitats, from dense forest to open tundra. They are not
dependent on specific habitats as long as areas free of human persecution that maintain suitable prey
populations are available. The key components of wolf habitat are: 1) a sufficient, year-long prey base of
ungulates (deer, elk, and moose) and alternative prey (Carbyn 1987; Frederick 1991), 2) suitable and
somewhat secluded denning and rendezvous sites (Carbyn 1987; Mech 1970), and 3) sufficient space
with minimal interaction with humans (Thiel 1985). Wolves are opportunistic predators that feed primarily
on ungulates and small animals (Carbyn 1987; Paradiso and Nowak 1982). Reproducing packs inhabit
territories that range from 40 to 1,000 square miles (Peterson 1986) depending on pack size and prey
density. In natural habitat situations (i.e., with no human-caused wolf mortality) wolf numbers and
distribution are directly related to ungulate biomass and availability (Fuller 1989; Frederick 1991, Peterson
and Page 1988; Pimtott 1967). Because of their size and complex social organization, wolves could rarely
survive on a prey base consisting solely of small mammals (Pimtott 1967).
Research in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota has indicated that wolves were most vulnerable to
human-caused mortality in areas of high human density and high open road density (Frederick 1991, Thiel
1985). However, in the western United States, two wolf packs in Montana have survived in areas with
Crown Jewel PrpJBCtBA 21 June7.1996
-------
relatively high road densities for at least three years (USFWS 1994). These populations indicate that
wolves can adapt to higher road densities and associated human presence in historic range, as long as full
or partial protection is provided and prey sources remain adequate.
Road densities in the Analysis Area are currently 2.2 miles per square mile. Although recent research
indicates that road densities may not directly affect wolves recotonizing historic ranges in the West, road
densities may indirectly affect wolves by reducing the extent of secure habitat available for deer
populations during the hunting season. Consequently, potential prey populations for gray wolf could be
reduced as a result of increased vulnerability to human hunting pressure.
Deer represent the main prey species of a potential wolf population in the Analysis Area. Winter deer
habitat currently does not meet Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines in Management Area (MA) 14 and
MA 26 in the Core Area. However, based on numbers of deer observed during winter wildlife surveys,
A.G. Crook (1992b) estimated a relatively high population density of approximately 10 deer per square
mile within the Core Area. During the winter of 1991/1992, most deer moved from the Core Area to lower
elevation habitats when snow depths reached 12 to 16 inches (A.G. Crook 1992b). Groups of 200 deer
or more have been observed in the Myers Creek drainage at the western boundary of the Analysis Area.
It is not known if current deer densities in the Core and Analysis Areas could sustain a viable wolf
population. However, populations of deer, various small animals, and grouse may be sufficient to support
a dispersing wolf traveling through the Core and Analysis areas.
An increasing number of recent wolf sightings have been reported throughout the northern portions of
Washington (Laufer and Jenkins 1989). There have been 120 reports of wolf sightings since 1989 in
Okanogan and Ferry counties (WADFW 1994a). Of these, four were confirmed sightings (Class 1) and 26
were classified as highly reliable sightings (Class 2). The closest confirmed sightings to the Analysis Area
were two wolves killed in British Columbia, one near Princeton (75 miles northwest of the Core Area) and
one near Grand Forks (23 miles northeast of the Core Area) (Dyer 1994). Although wolves have not been
confirmed on the Tonasket Ranger District, it is possible that wolves may use the Analysis Area as part of a
larger home range or for dispersal.
A.G. Crook and Tonasket Ranger District personnel conducted howling surveys and monitored carcass
bait stations in 1992 for signs of wolf presence but did not elicit any responses or record any other
evidence of wolves in the Core or Analysis areas (A.G. Crook 1992b).
Crown Jewel Project BA 22 June 7,1996
-------
4.1.1 Determination of Effects for Gray Wolf
Although no viable wolf population is known to exist in the Core or Analysis areas, the area could support
dispersing wolves or eventual recolonization since it falls within the species' historic range and is near
known population areas in British Columbia. It is possible that dispersing individuals may occasionally
wander through the area. All cover types within the Core Area could provide suitable habitat for the gray
wolf, and availability of suitable habitat is not believed to be a limiting factor for wolf reestablishment. The
determination of effect of the Crown Jewel Project on gray wolf was based primarily on an assessment of
the project's effect on potential movement linkages through the Okanogan Highlands and the project's
effect on deer populations that could provide a prey base for dispersing wolves.
Although the project area could serve as a portion of a larger home range or as a travel linkage for wolves,
increased human disturbance may reduce the likelihood of wolves using the immediate vicinity of the
project area. Increased human presence could result in disturbance impacts to any wolves passing
through the area, as well as deer and other prey species. The effects of increased human presence
would occur in an area already substantially altered by timber harvest, road building, and human
recreational activity. Mine exploration and development would not impact any existing unroaded areas,
and increased human presence would be relatively short-term (10 years). Road densities would decrease
following reclamation.
The Analysis Area includes a portion of the northern Okanogan Highlands, one of several mountain
ranges that form peninsular extensions from Canada and provide landscape links between British
Columbia and northern Washington. Although movement of wolves between British Columbia and the
southern portions of the Okanogan Highlands has not been documented recently, dispersal between the
two areas is possible. Landscape features favorable to dispersing animals are represented by north-south
oriented mountain ranges with limited amounts of human development. The Kettle River Range provides
a continuous mountain connection between British Columbia and the southern portions of the Okanogan
Highlands. As indicated in the Crown Jewel Mine EIS (Section 4.12.3), potential movement linkages in
the vicinity of Buckhorn Mountain could be disrupted by the mine footprint and associated human
activities. The mine disturbance area would be only about 1 percent of the total acreage within the
Analysis Area. Dispersing wolves would likely avoid the active mine disturbance, but there would remain
considerable areas with limited human influence in the eastern portions of the Analysis Area, including the
unroaded Jackson Creek drainage. The majority of the Analysis Area would not be physically altered by
the proposed mine, and these areas would continue to provide functional travel linkages for potential wolf
travel from British Columbia into the southern portions of the Okanogan Highlands. For a wide-ranging
Crown Jewel Project BA 23 June 7.1996
-------
species such as gray wolf, a mine caused shift in gray wolf dispersal travel through the Analysis Area would
be insignificant.
Prey (deer) availability could be directly affected by the loss and conversion of habitat associated with mine
development. As indicated above, snow intercept/thermal (SI/T) winter deer habitat currently does not
meet Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines in MA 14 and MA 26 in the Core Area. Mine development
would further reduce available SI/T cover on Buckhom Mountain. There would be a long-term loss of
approximately 47 acres or a 20 percent reduction of existing SI/T cover in MA 14 and MA 26. Long-term
losses are represented by reclaimed areas which would require in excess of 100 years to redevelop
characteristics of suitable SI/T cover. These losses could directly affect prey availability for gray wolf within
the Core Area.
It is uncertain to what extent existing deer populations within the Analysis Area could be affected by
reductions of SI/T cover within the Core Area. There is no data available on current deer population
numbers or the total amount of deer SI/T cover within the Analysis Area, and it is not known if the extent of
SI/T cover is a limiting factor for resident deer populations. It is possible that there would be at least some
reduction in Core Area deer numbers associated with a reduction in SI/T cover. However, there is some
evidence that deer in the Buckhorn Mountain area may not be dependent on SI/T cover for survival during
severe winter periods. Studies by A.G. Crook (1992b) indicated that deer populations are relatively high
and that most deer move off Buckhom Mountain to lower elevation habitats when winter snow depths
reached 12 to 16 inches. Even in the event that deer numbers are reduced in the Core Area, the
reduction would be relatively minor in comparison to the total deer population in the Analysis Area, and
there would be little risk for adverse effects on a wide-ranging predator such as gray wolf.
Potential reductions in available habitat and local deer herd numbers will be mitigated somewhat by current
and future road closures planned by the Forest Service (see Figure 5). Forest Service roads 140 and 120
are currently closed, while the Marias Creek Road (3550) and other roads (100,150) would be closed at
project initiation. The Marias Creek Road would be closed for the life-of-mine, while the others would be
permanent closures. These road closures would reduce the current open road density of 2.2 miles per
square mile to 1.9 miles per square mile in the Analysis Area and increase the extent of secure habitat
areas.
In addition, the proposed Crown Jewel mine operation could increase the extent of secure habitat since
no hunting and firearms will be permitted within the mine area and undisturbed areas of suitable habitat
would remain within the fenced mine perimeter. Approximately 427 acres of habitat not directly impacted
by the mine footprint would remain within the fenced mine perimeter. Of this acreage, approximately 330
acres would be comprised of mixed conifer pole, mixed conifer mature, and riparian/wetland cover types
Crown Jewel Project BA 24 June?, 1996
-------
L EGEND
OKANOQAN NATIONAL
FOREST BOUNDARY
" ' --
FIGURE 5, FOREST ROAD CLOSURES
-------
that provide suitable habitat and cover for deer. The mine perimeter would be defined by a standard range
fence that could be easily circumvented by deer. This circumstance often creates a "refuge effect" that
has been demonstrated at a number of western mining operations. In these situations, hunted animals,
such as deer and elk, appear to acclimate to constant noises and human activities so long as they are not
associated with negative experiences such as being chased or hunted (Busnel 1978).
There would be minimal risk of exposure of gray wolf to waters in the tailings impoundment since wildlife
would be excluded from the area by fencing comprised of chain link and wire mesh. Also as long as
garbage disposal is handled properly, wolves would not be attracted to the mine facilities because of the
extent of human activity. In the unlikely event of a transport spill in Beaver or Toroda creek, the risk of a
wolf drinking contaminated water is very low since a spill would be a short-term accidental event (see
Section 3.3). 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 wolves. With any spill scenario,
recovery of water quality 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.
Cumulative Effects. The cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
activities have reduced or could reduce the suitability of wolf habitat within the Analysis Area, principally
through the reduction and loss of large blocks of habitat secure from human presence. Since wolves are
not specifically habitat dependent, the main historic factors that have affected habitat quality for wolves
within the Analysis Area have been timber harvest, road development, and increases in human presence.
Timber harvest has impacted wolf habitat directly primarily by reducing the extent and continuity of secure
areas through road construction. Timber harvest has also indirectly impacted wort habitat by reducing
suitable winter and summer cover and secure habitat areas for Analysis Area deer populations. Roads
result in increased levels of human presence and decrease security for deer during the hunting seasons.
Increased human presence and human/wolf conflicts with resultant wolf mortalities are the principal
causative factors in the loss of historic populations and may preclude the reestablishment of wolf
populations in the Analysis Area in the future. However, recent evidence tends to indicate that wolves
can reestablish populations in historic range as long as continued legal protection is provided and suitable
prey populations remain available.
As indicted in the Crown Jewel EIS (Section 4.12.3 and Table 4.12.4), project development would result
in a long-term (100 years or more) reduction of SI/T cover for deer in the Core Area. However, Section
4.12.5 of the Crown Jewel EIS also states that timber harvest and road construction on state and federal
lands within the Analysis Area have declined dramatically over the last 3 years, and no specific proposals
Crown Jewel Project BA 26 June 7,1996
-------
have been enacted which would return these activities to the levels that occurred from 1969 to 1989.
Since current reduced levels of timber harvest are expected to continue, available SI/T cover for deer
would is likely to increase as stands mature, thus resulting in a long-term trend of habitat improvement for
deer.
The extent of secure habitat areas for deer would also be increased from current conditions during mine
operations and after mine closure. An analysis was completed by the Forest Service to evaluate the
cumulative effect of past and future road densities on available secure habitat areas. Three different
scenarios were analyzed: 1) prior to Crown Jewel exploration activities ("pre-exploration"), 2) after
exploration but during mine operation ("post-exploration"), and 3) after mine closure and completion of
reclamation activities ("post-reclamation''). For the analysis, areas greater than 0.5 mile away from open
roads were classified as secure habitat. The post-exploration scenario includes closures on Forest
Service Roads 100,140,120,150, and 3550, while in the post-reclamation scenario, road 3550 would be
v
reopened, but all mine roads and previous closures would be closed. The results of this analysis are
summarized in Table 4 and graphically portrayed in Appendix B. As indicated in Table 4, road closures
during mine operation would increase the total extent of secure areas nearly three-fold over the level that
existed prior to mine exploration activities. Following mine closure and the completion of reclamation
activity, road 3550 would be reopened, but the extent of secure habitat would still be maintained above
the pre-exploration level.
Determination of Effects Conclusion. Mine development would not adversely affect existing
populations of gray wolf because no viable wolf populations occur in the Analysis Area. Mine
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 mine development.
Impacts associated with mine operation and increased human presence would be short-term and cease
after the completion of reclamation. The mine area could result in minor shifts in potential movement by
dispersing wolves through the Kettle River Range, but mine 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 mine disturbance
area would be only about 1 percent of the total acreage within the Analysis Area. For a wide-ranging
species such as gray wolf, a mine 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 mine operations and after mine closure habitat security would be maintained at levels
higher than those present prior to mine exploration. Therefore, mine development is not likely to
adversely affect the gray wolf or its potential reestablishment in the Okanogan Highlands.
Crown Jewel Project BA 27 June7,1996
-------
Table 4
Deer Security Analysis Summary1
Security Habitat Element
Total Acres of Security Habitat
Number of Secure Blocks
Mean Block Size (acres)
Maximum Block Size (acres)
Minimum Block Size (acres)
Pre-Exploratlon
2,431
25
97.2
1 ,453.5
<0.1
Post-Exploration
7,163
16
447.7
5,355.9
<0.1
Post-Reclamation
4,027
32
125.8
2,250.8
<0.1
1 Source: Forest Service, Tonasket Ranger District files
4.2 Grizzly Bear
The grizzly bear is a wide-ranging species that formerly occurred in the northern Okanogan Highlands
(USFWS 1993). It has not been permanent resident of the Okanogan Highlands for many years, and the
Analysis Area and the Okanogan Highlands are located well outside of the recovery zones designated for
this species (USFWS 1993). Grizzly bears presently occur in the Selkirk Range (Selkirks Recovery Zone)
75 miles east of the Crown Jewel Project, the North Cascades 50 miles to the west (Northern Cascades
Recovery Zone), the Monashee Mountains 40 miles to the north-northeast, and the Cathedral Park -
Ashnola River Region 50 miles to the northwest.
The availability of secure travel linkages between known population areas and/or proposed recovery
zones is an important consideration in the maintenance and reestablishment of grizzly bear populations.
Because of the presence of extensive areas of open habitats and human development as well as state
highways (State Highways 97 and 395) on both sides of the Okanogan Highlands, the Highlands have not
been identified as a movement linkage for grizzly bears between the Selkirks and Northern Cascades
Recovery Zones (USFWS 1993). However, because of their wide-ranging habits a grizzly bear may
occasionally wander into the Okanogan Highlands from areas of suitable habitat in EJritish Columbia.
Crown Jewel Project BA
28
June 7.1996
-------
The nearest permanent population, and most likely source of any grizzly bear immigration, is 40 miles
north-northeast in the Monashee Mountains of British Columbia. Movement of a grizzly bear from the
Monashee Mountains to the Okanogan Highlands would entail crossing the Kettle River Valley and British
Columbia Provincial Highway 3. The Kettle River Valley from Midway to Rock Creek, B.C. is 1 to 2 miles
wide and contains numerous farms, houses, and towns (e.g., Midway, Kettle Valley, and Rock Creek). A
grizzly bear would probably encounter humans, but records of bear-human encounters are rare (Peatt
1992) so known movements of grizzly bears into the Kettle River Valley are considered rare. Given the
inverse relation between human presence and grizzly bear, it is possible, but not probable, that grizzly
bears could cross the Kettle River Valley and move south to the Analysis Area.
No records of grizzly bear are known for the Core or Analysis areas. Tonasket Ranger District files indicate
that a grizzly bear track (Class 2 record) was reported in the Fourth of July Ridge area in 1993,
approximately 14 miles south-southwest of Buckhorn Mountain. Almack (1994) had no record of this
report. Older District records indicate that a grizzly bear was seen in 1962 in Long Alec Creek,
approximately 24 miles east of the Core Area, and in 1952 at Palmer Lake, 28 miles west of the Core Area.
The WADFW Nongame Data System (WADFW !994a) contains a number of records for grizzly bear for
Okanogan and Ferry counties from 1989 to the present. All of these sightings, except for the Tonasket
grizzly bear track record, are more than 30 miles from the Analysis Area. The British Columbia Ministry of
Environment (Peatt 1992) has no records of grizzly bears within 12 miles of the Canadian-U.S. border in
the Analysis Area since 1984.
Grizzly bear habitat has been described and evaluated using seven essential characteristics (Craighead et
al. 1982; Almack et al. 1993): space, isolation, sanitation, denning, safety, vegetation types, and food.
Each characteristic contributes to the overall quality of the area. If one item is missing or severely
depleted, the ability of the entire ecosystem to sustain a grizzly bear population rapidly diminishes. The
Core and Analysis areas contain some of the necessary characteristics for suitable grizzly bear habitat
(e.g., vegetation types and food sources), but other important habitat factors relating to isolation,
sanitation, and safety have been compromised by human development and presence. As a
consequence, the potential for grizzly bear movement through, or occupation of, habitats in the Core and
Analysis Areas has been diminished.
Grizzly bears occupy very large home ranges which accommodate their omnivorous feeding habits,
complex population and social interactions, winter denning, and aggressive infra-specific and inter-
specific behavior (Craighead and Mitchell 1982). Adult bears are individualistic in behavior and normally
are solitary wanderers. Home ranges vary between sexes and age classes, with adult males usually
occupying the largest home ranges and subadult females occupying the smallest home ranges. Seasonal
trends in movements are similar for both sexes. In the Yellowstone, Northern Continental Divide, and
Crown Jewel Project BA 29 June 7,1996
-------
Selkirk Mountains Ecosystems, adult female home ranges of 11 to 564 square miles, and adult male home
ranges of 64 to 2,072 square miles have been reported (Almack 1986a; National Wildlife Federation 1987;
Blanchard and Knight 1991). If a grizzly bear wandered into the Okanogan Highlands, the 16 square mile
Jackson Creek unroaded area could provide isolation for one female but would be too small for a male.
Isolation and safety are functions of available space and the amount of human activity present (Almack
1986b). Areas of human occupation do not necessarily create areas of unsuitable habitat, or preclude
grizzly bear presence, but do increase the potential for conflicts between grizzly bears and humans.
Because of their wide-ranging movements, omnivorous food habits, and natural aggressiveness, grizzly
bears are likely to find sites of human habitation within their home range and obtain food there, if possible
(Knight et al. 1988).
Any bear-human interaction is a potential threat to either human or grizzly. Bear mortality resulting from
such interactions often exceeds grizzly birth rates and is considered the major cause of historical declines
in grizzly populations (Craighead and Mitchell 1982). Human garbage is cited as one of the major
contributors to bear conflicts with humans (Herrero 1985). Once food is obtained at one of these sites, it
may be checked periodically for more food. Use of these food sources leads to grizzly habitation to areas
of human activity and inevitable bear-human interactions that are usually detrimental to grizzly bears.
Garbage habituated bears can be relocated, but a nuisance bear often has to be destroyed. Thus the
availability of human-produced artificial food sources is a detrimental habitat characteristic for grizzly bears,
rather than a positive habitat factor. The probability of encounters between a dispersing grizzly bear and
humans would be moderate to high in the Analysis Area. The likelihood for human-caused bear mortality
from such an encounter would be moderate to high as well, thus reducing the suitability of the Analysis
Area and surrounding country as potential grizzly bear habitat.
4.2.1 Determination of Effects for Grizzly Bear
Proposed mining development would have no direct impact on existing grizzly bear populations or critical
habitats and would not sever any travel linkages between existing recovery zones and/or known
population areas. Mine development could have minor adverse impacts on potential grizzly bear habitat.
Space would remain available to grizzly bears, except for a relatively small portion of the Analysis Area
(about 1 percent) during active operations. Vegetation cover types providing potential habitat would be
reduced during the 10-year period of construction, operation, and reclamation. Reclamation of disturbed
sites would produce potentially suitable grizzly bear habitat. Early serai vegetation types would provide
potential plant food quickly (over the short-term), while older vegetation types providing forested cover
would require 100 years or more to develop. Habitat security for grizzly bear in the Analysis Area would be
increased during mining by road closures and after mining by reclamation of mine roads.
Crown Jewel Project BA 30 June7,1996
-------
The Okanogan Highlands have not been identified as a movement linkage between the Selkirks and
Northern Cascades Recovery Zones (USFWS 1993). Grizzly bears may, however, occasionally wander
into the Okanogan Highlands from adjacent areas of suitable habitat in British Columbia. Portions of
potential movement linkages in the vicinity of Buckhorn Mountain could be disrupted by the mine footprint
and associated human activities. The mine disturbance area would be about 1 percent of the total acreage
within the Analysis Area. Dispersing grizzly bears would likely avoid the active mine disturbance, but there
would remain considerable areas with limited human influence in the eastern portions of the Analysis Area,
including the unroaded Jackson Creek drainage. The majority of the Analysis Area would not be
physically altered by the proposed mine and would continue to provide functional travel linkages if grizzly
bears wandered from British Columbia into the southern portions of the Okanogan Highlands. For a wide-
ranging species such as grizzly bear, a mine caused shift in dispersal travel through the Analysis Area
would be insignificant.
There would be no risk of exposure of grizzly bear to contaminated waters in the tailings impoundment.
The impoundment would be fenced and bears would not be likely to occur near the mine facilities
because of the extent of human activity. Indirect toxic impacts to individual grizzly bears could occur in the
unlikely event of an accidental transport spill of chemicals into Beaver or Toroda creeks. With any potential
spill, the likelihood of a grizzly bear drinking contaminated water is very tow since a spill would be a short-
term event as long as appropriate spill response and clean-up measures are implemented as stipulated by
state and federal regulations and agency consultation. The extent of human activity associated with
emergency containment and cleanup activities would be avoided by grizzly bears. In addition, a grizzly
bear would likely avoid areas the mine facility or highway corridors.
Cumulative Effects. The cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
activities have reduced or could reduce the suitability of grizzly bear habitat within the Analysis Area,
principally through the reduction and loss of large blocks of habitat secure from human presence.
Increased human presence and human/grizzly bear conflicts with resultant grizzly bear mortalities are the
principal causative factors in the loss of historic populations and may preclude the reestablishment of
grizzly bear populations in the Analysis Area in the future. Proposed mine development could reduce
habitat suitability for grizzly bears in the Analysis Area (in the short-term) for the life of the mine.
The main historic factor that has affected habitat quality for grizzly bear within the Analysis Area has been
timber harvest and human development in the lowland areas surrounding the Okanogan Highlands.
Timber harvest has impacted grizzly bear habitat primarily by reducing the extent and continuity of secure
areas through road construction. Increased human presence and human/grizzly bear conflicts with
resultant bear mortalities are the principal causative factors in the loss of historic populations and may to
preclude the reestablishment of grizzly bear populations in the Analysis Area in the future.
Crown Jewel Project BA 31 June?, 1996
-------
Proposed mining activities would have no direct impact on existing grizzly bear populations or critical
habitats. In addition, mine development would not preclude travel by dispersing individuals between
current population areas and the southern Okanogan Highlands, and suitable travel linkages would remain
along the Kettle River Range.
Determination of Effects Conclusion. The Analysis Area is not situated in designated critical
habitat or a recovery zone for the grizzly bear. The lack of some suitable habitat characteristics make it
unlikely that a grizzly bear population could be established in the future. No currently unroaded areas or
blocks of secure habitat would be affected by mine development. In addition, mine development would
not sever any potential grizzly bear travel linkages between existing population areas and/or recovery
zones. The proposed mine development would reduce potential habitat suitability of about 1 percent of
the Analysis Area during the life of the mine. For a wide-ranging species such as grizzly bear, a mine
caused shift in grizzly bear dispersal travel through the Analysis Area would be insignificant. Habitat
security for grizzly bear in the Analysis Area would be increased by road closures and reclamation of mine
roads (see Table 4 and Appendix B). Therefore, mine development is not likely to adversely affect grizzly
bears or their potential movement through the Okanogan Highlands.
4.3 Northern Bald Eaala
The northern bald eagle is found throughout the Pacific Northwest in close association with freshwater,
estuarine, and marine ecosystems that provide abundant prey and suitable habitat for nesting and
communal roosting (Watson et al. 1991). In Washington, breeding territories are located near water in
predominantly coniferous, uneven-aged stands with old-growth structural components (Anthony et al.
1982; Stalmaster 1987). Favored nest trees are usually the largest tree or snag in a stand that provide an
unobstructed view of the surrounding area and a clear flight path to and from the nest (Stalmaster 1987;
Rodrick and Milner 1991). Additional snags and trees with exposed lateral limbs or dead tops within a
nesting territory may serve as perching or roosting sites (USFWS 1986). Wintering bald eagles
concentrate in areas where food is abundant and easily obtainable (Rodrick and Milner 1991). Wintering
habitat consists of day perches in tall trees close to a food source and night roosts in uneven-sized, multi-
layered, mature or old-growth stands that provide protection from weather and human disturbance
(Rodrick and Milner 1991). Bald eagles are opportunistic scavengers and predators that feed on a variety
of prey items including migrating and spawning salmon, other fish, small mammals, waterfowl, seabirds,
and carrion (Snow 1981; Rodrick and Milner 1991).
The historic decline of the bald eagle has been attributed to the toss of feeding and nesting habitat,
shooting, organochloride pesticide residues, poisoning, and electrocution (Snow 1981; USFWS 1986).
Human interference has been shown to adversely affect the distribution and behavior of wintering bald
Crown Jewel Project BA 32 Ajne7,1996
-------
eagles (Stalmaster and Newman 1978). Disturbances may result in increased energy expenditure due to
avoidance flights and decreased energy intake due to interference with feeding activity (Knight 1984).
The Pacific States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (USFWS 1986) outlines the steps for bald eagle
management and habitat protection on federal lands. The Recovery Plan identifies the Kettle River as a
key bald eagle recovery area with the goal of one target recovery territory. The Kettle River forms the
northeastern boundary of the Analysis Area, approximately 7 to 10 miles north and northeast of the
proposed mine site.
Suitable bald eagle winter habitat is located within the Analysis Area along the Kettle River and Toroda
Creek, and potential nesting, foraging, and roosting habitat is present there as well. However, there are
no documented bald eagle nesting or winter roost sites along the Kettle River or Toroda Creek in the
Analysis Area (WADFW 1994a; Swedberg 1994). The Kettle River is the only waterbody in the Analysis
Area that supports wintering populations of waterfowl.
Wintering bald eagles are known to occur along Toroda Creek in the Analysis Area (Swedberg 1994) and
along the portion of the Kettle River (USFWS 1986; Swedberg 1994) that forms the northeastern
boundary of the Analysis Area. According to Zender (1994), five to six eagles have been observed along
the Kettle River between the Canadian border and Curlew, Washington from October to April. Midwinter
bald eagle surveys were conducted in or near the Analysis Area in January from 1983 through 1990 as a
part of a statewide eagle survey for the WADFW (Owens 1996). A listing of winter bald eagle observations
summarized from these surveys and an Okanogan National Forest bald eagle sighting map is summarized
below.
January 1984 -1 bald eagle on Toroda Creek near confluence with Nicholson Creek (WADFW)
January 1987 -1 bald eagle on Kettle River downstream of confluence with Toroda Creek (WADFW)
• January 1988 - 3 bald eagles on Kettle River downstream of confluence with Toroda Creek (WADFW)
1 bald eagle on Kettle River upstream of confluence with Toroda Creek (WADFW)
3 bald eagles on Toroda Creek? (specific location not given on data sheet - WADFW)
January 1989 - 2 bald eagles on Kettle River downstream of confluence with Toroda Creek (WADFW)
• January 1990 -1 bald eagle on Kettle River downstream of confluence with Toroda Creek (WADFW)
3 bald eagles on Kettle River upstream of confluence with Toroda Creek (WADFW)
• November 1990 -1 bald eagle 0.9 mile east of Core Area, upslope from Nicholson Creek (U.S. Forest
Service 1992)
The Core Area does not contain preferred potential bald eagle nesting or winter habitat, and there are no
known bald eagle nesting, foraging, or roosting sites within the Core Area. There also are no documented
sightings of bald eagles in the Core Area. Since bald eagles forage along Toroda Creek and the Kettle
River during the winter, it is possible that wintering eagles may occasionally wander over open habitats in
the Core area in search of carrion. Field surveys documented winter concentrations of deer along the
Myers Creek drainage at the western boundary of the Analysis Area (A.G. Crook I992b; see Section 4.1).
Winter-killed deer in open habits along Myers Creek could serve as an attractant to bald eagles, although
Crown Jewel Project BA 33 June 7.1996
-------
no winter bald eagle use of the Myers Creek drainage has been documented. Habitats in the vicinity of
the proposed mine facilities, except for Starrem Creek Reservoir, are too forested and would not provide
sufficient prey or carrion sources to be suitable winter foraging habitat for bald eagle.
4.3.1 Determination of Effects for Northern Bald Eagle
Project development would not result in the direct loss or disturbance of suitable bald eagle habitat within
the Analysis Area. Minor increases in traffic noise from truck transport traffic along the Kettle River and
Toroda Creek could have minor negative impacts to bald eagles wintering (October-April) in those areas.
However, these effects would be relatively minor since eagles wintering along Toroda Creek and the
Kettle River have habituated to existing levels of traffic and human presence along these drainages.
Noise attenuation modeling results indicate that increased noise levels from proposed mining activities,
such as blasting and road construction, would not reach or adversely affect bald eagles along Toroda
Creek or the Kettle River (Beak 1995).
Ammonia was the only constituent determined from risk assessment modeling to have potential sublethal
toxic effects on wildlife (shorebirds and bats) exposed to tailings impoundment waters (Beak 1995).
Projected concentrations of cyanide and metals in the tailings water would be too low to have any
detrimental effect on eagles (Beak 1995). WAD cyanide levels would be less than 10 ppm (Winter 1996).
There is a very small risk that a wandering bald eagle could be exposed to potentially sublethal levels of
ammonia contained in the waters of the tailings impoundment.
The risk of an eagle drinking from the tailings pond or being attracted to waterbirds prey or carrion at the
tailings impoundment is extremely low for several reasons. First, because of a lack of suitable winter
habitat, bald eagles are not likely to wander over the project area, and even if an eagle did, there would be
no aquatic life (fish) in the impoundment pond to attract eagles. Second, during most of the time period of
potential presence for wintering bald eagles (October through April), waters in the tailings impoundment
would be frozen or partially frozen and unavailable to waterfowl or bald eagles. In addition, the tailings
pond is not likely to attract other terrestrial prey species preferred by bald eagle. Most potential terrestrial
prey for eagles, except for waterbirds, would be excluded from the tailings impoundment by fencing.
During winter periods when the tailings pond would be unfrozen, it would not be an attractive source of
drinking water or aquatic habitat for waterbird species, especially since alternate natural sources of surface
water are readily available in the area. During operation, water in the tailings impoundment would consist
of a small, shallow pond that would vary in size depending on operations, weather, and natural inflow. As
tailings deposition occurs, the pond would be moved around within an area surrounded by barren
"beaches" comprised of tailings fines. No vegetation, food sources, or security cover that could attract
waterbirds would establish within the pond or on the surrounding beaches during operation. Even if there
Crown Jewel Project BA 34 June 7.1996
-------
were waterbird mortalities in the tailings impoundment, carrion would likely only be available for a very short
time period since mine personnel would monitor the impoundment and report any observed mortalities. If
directed by the USFWS or WADFW, carrion would be removed by mine personnel on a daily basis (White
1996).
Finally, levels of ammonia in Crown Jewel's tailings impoundment are not likely to pose a toxic risk to bald
eagles. Ammonia is a byproduct of the INCO SO2/Air/O2 cyanide destruct process. In the aqueous
tailings solution, un-ionized ammonia (NHs) would exist in equilibrium with the ammonium ton (NH4+) and
the hydroxide ton (OH') (EPA 1985). Total ammonia refers to the sum of NHs and NH4+. Toxicity of
aqueous solutions is primarily attributable the NHs portion of aqueous ammonia solutions, while NH4+ is
essentially non-toxic (EPA 1985). For the Crown Jewel Mine tailings water, total ammonia levels are
projected to be approximately 50 parts per million (ppm) or less (Winter 1996). The actual concentration of
NHs would be considerably less. At a pH of less than 9.3 and a temperature range of natural waters, the
percentage of unionized ammonia (NHs) ranges from approximately 0.05% to 15% of total ammonia
(Ontario Ministry of the Environment 1991). Crown Jewel's tails would be at a pH of 7 to 8 (Winter 1996).
Ammonia is not considered a significant mammalian toxicant, and drinking water criteria have not been
established (Beak 1994). In addition, ammonia is not persistent in the environment, and the toxic
unionized form is rapidly volatilized out of solution (Beak 1994). In an open environment, such as the
tailings impoundment, ammonia gas would be rapidly dissipated and would not pose a health hazard to
wildlife in the area.
Further actual operational evidence regarding the potential toxicity of ammonia to wildlife, is available from
Echo Bay Minerals Company's McCoy/Cove Mine near Battle Mountain, Nevada. This mine has
substituted ammonium bisulfide (ABS) for SO2 and lime in the INCO cyanide destruct process. Use of
ABS has reduced costs, created a more stable reaction environment for the destruct process, and
reduced total dissolved solids (TDS) in the tailings water but has also resulted in much higher NHs levels
(Daniels 1996). Since switching to ABS, NHs levels have ranged from 400 ppm at the^ outlet point to 238
ppm in the pond (Daniels 1996). Prior to switching to the use of ABS in the cyanide destruct process, the
McCoy/Cove Mine had had some problems with waterbird mortalities. These mortalities were determined
to be the result of stressed birds drinking tailings waters with high levels of TDS (10,000 to 12,000 ppm)
rather than acute toxicity caused by potentially lethal constituents such as cyanide, metals, or ammonia
(Woodward-Clyde 1993, as cited by Daniels 1996). Since switching to ABS, the McCoy/Cove Mine has
had no mortalities on the tailings pond even though ammonia levels have increased. The elimination of
mortalities has been attributed primarily to a reduction in TDS to 4,000 to 5,000 ppm. The Nevada Division
of Wildlife confirmed that the McCoy/Cove Mine has had no mortalities since switching to ABS, but
indicated there are uncertainties regarding potential chronic problems if there was long-term exposure to
the tailings water (Lamp 1996). Ammonia levels projected for the Crown Jewel tailings impoundment
Crown Jewel Project BA 35 June 7,1996
-------
would be much lower (50 ppm) than those at the McCoy/Cove Mine (see preceding paragraph) and would
pose little risk to wildlife species including bald eagle.
Bald eagles wintering along Toroda Creek or the Kettle River may be indirectly impacted by project-
induced disturbances such as human presence, secondary development, the incidence of roadkill, and
an accidental toxic spill. An increase in human presence would occur throughout the project vicinity.
Increases in human presence and subsequent increases in recreational use (e.g., fishing) along Toroda
Creek or the Kettle River could adversely impact eagles. However, these effects would be relatively minor
since eagles wintering along Toroda Creek and the Kettle River have habituated to existing levels of traffic
and human presence along these drainages. Road kills of deer and other mammals could increase as the
result of projected increases in vehicle traffic (Beak 1995), but this potential increase would be slight since
most truck transport would be during daylight hours. The Crown Jewel EIS (Section 4.12.3) predicts that
the overall incidence of roadkills would be low. An increased availability of carrion may have a minor
influence on the distribution of eagles in the area and result in a slight increase in the risk of roadkill for bald
eagles.
There is a remote chance for an accidental spill of toxic chemicals along the transportation corridors. As
indicated in Section 3.3, 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 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 (see Section 3.3).
Eagles could drink contaminated water or be attracted to feed on dead or dying fish and waterbirds
exposed to contaminants. However, with any of the spill scenarios that could affect wintering bald eagles
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
eagles. In addition, the chance of secondary exposure through ingestion of contaminated flesh would be
minimal for eagles since cleanup activities would collect and dispose of contaminated animals. Therefore,
the risk of a bald eagle being directly or indirectly affected by an accidental spill would be negligible.
Based on water quality projections for the pit lake (Crown Jewel EIS, Table 4.7.2), waters in the pit lake
would not create a toxic risk for waterbirds or a risk of secondary exposure to bald eagles through
ingestion of contaminated waterbirds.
Crown Jewel Project BA 36 June7.1996
-------
Project related losses in SI/T snow cover could result in reductions in wintering populations of deer within
the Core Area (see Section 4.1.1) along Myers Creek. Reductions in wintering deer populations could
indirectly affect the availability of carrion as winter food for bald eagles, but this effect would be negligible
since no bald eagle winter foraging use of the Myers Creek has been documented. As indicated
previously, winter foraging habitat within the Analysis Area exists primarily along Toroda Creek and the
Kettle River.
It is uncertain to what extent existing deer populations within the Analysis Area could be affected by
reductions of S\fT cover within the Core Area. There is no data available on current deer population
numbers or the total amount of deer SI/T cover within the Analysis Area, and it is not known if the extent of
SI/T cover is a limiting factor for resident deer populations. It is possible that there would be at least some
reduction in Core Area deer numbers associated with a reduction in SI/T cover. However, there is some
evidence that deer in the Buckhorn Mountain area may not be dependent on SI/T cover for survival during
severe winter periods. Studies by A.G. Crook (1992b) indicated that deer populations are relatively high
in the Core Area, and most deer move off Buckhom Mountain to lower elevation habitats when winter
snow depths reached 12 to 16 inches.
Potential reductions in available habitat and local deer herd numbers will be mitigated somewhat by future
road closures planned by the Forest Service (see Figure 5). These road closures would reduce the
current open road density of 2.2 miles per square mile to 1.9 miles per square mile in the Analysis Area
and increase the extent of secure habitat areas. It is anticipated that hunting-related reductions in the local
deer population would be less with these road closures. In addition, the proposed operation could
increase the extent of secure habitat since no hunting and firearms will be permitted within the mine area.
This situation often creates a "refuge effect" that has been demonstrated at a number of western mining
operations. Hunted animals, such as deer and elk, appear to acclimate to constant noises and human
activities so long as they are not associated with negative experiences such as being chased or hunted
(Busnel 1978). Even if deer numbers are reduced in the Core Area, the reduction would be relatively
minor in comparison to the total deer population in the Analysis Area, and there would be little risk for
adverse effects on a wide-ranging species such as bald eagle.
Another consideration regarding the potential effects of project development on carrion availability is that
project-related increased traffic levels could increase the incidence of road-killed deer and consequently,
carrion availability for bald eagles. The extent to which carrion could increase is impossible to predict, but it
is unlikely to result in any measurable change in the distribution or numbers of wintering bald eagles in the
Analysis Area. An increased availability of road-killed deer could also increase the risk of eagle/vehicle
collisions, but this risk would be low since road-killed deer carcasses are usually quickly moved off the
highway surface for highway safety reasons.
Crown Jewel Project BA 37 June 7,1996
-------
There would be no risk of electrocution of bald eagles with construction of the transmission line for the
Crown Jewel project, since the proposed electric transmission line would be designed in accordance with
guidelines provided in Olendorff et al. (1981) to prevent the accidental electrocution of bald eagles and
other large raptors.
Cumulative Effects. The historic distribution of bald eagles and their use of habitats in the Analysis
Area is unknown, but cumulative impacts to potential bald eagle habitat would be relatively minor. Since
the banning of use of organochloride pesticides, populations of bald eagles have increased throughout
most of their former range in the conterminous United States. Minor cumulative impacts to the bald eagle
would be expected to occur as human presence, noise, traffic, and residential development increase
within the project vicinity. Threats by electrocution, shooting, poisoning, and organochloride pesticide
residue threats would continue, regardless of project development, to cumulatively impact the bald eagle
and could prolong the recovery of the bald eagle in north-central Washington.
Determination of Effects Conclusion. No breeding pairs of bald eagles are known to exist in the
Analysis Area, and no suitable breeding or wintering habitat would be directly affected by mine
development. Increases in human 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 is not likely to adversely affect bald eagles.
4.4 American Peregrine Falcon
Peregrine falcons generally nest on sheer cliff faces greater than 50 feet in height (Ehrlich et al. 1988).
Eyries are usually within 0.5 mile of riparian, lacustrine, or marine habitat that provide diverse and/or
abundant prey (Page! 1992). Peregrines feed primarily on avian prey including doves, pigeons, upland
birds, shorebirds, waterfowl, and passerines which they capture in flight (Ehrlich et al. 1988; Sharp 1992;
Henny and Nelson 1981), but small mammals, insects, and fish also are occasionally taken (Sharp 1992;
Pacific Coast American Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team 1982).
Peregrine falcon winter habitat needs are not well known along the Pacific Coast (Pacific Coast American
Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team 1982). Some adults may remain near the nest site year-round while
others may range widely. In Washington, intertidal mudflats, estuaries, and agricultural river basins are
important winter habitats (Pacific Coast American Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team 1982; Allen 1992).
Crown Jewel Project BA 38 June 7.1996
-------
The historic decline of the peregrine falcon is attributed to organochtorine-induced eggshell thinning that
led to widespread reproductive failure (Aulman 1992; Pacific Coast American Peregrine Falcon Recovery
Team 1982). Other reasons for decline include the loss and degradation of nesting and foraging habitats,
other pollutants, shooting, and collisions. Peregrines are most susceptible to disturbance during
courtship and nesting activities (Pacific Coast American Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team 1982). Land
management activities, low-flying planes, recreational disturbance (e.g., rock climbing, hikers,
photographers) may induce desertion of the nest site and nest failure. The Pacific Coast Recovery Plan
(Pacific Coast American Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team 1982) for the peregrine falcon outlines the
steps for peregrine falcon management and habitat protection. The Recovery Plan identifies north-central
and northeastern Washington as management areas for the peregrine falcon. The Analysis Area is
included within a portion of a management unit which has been identified for potential occupancy by at
least one breeding pair.
Currently, 16 pairs of peregrine falcons are known to breed in Washington (Sharp 1992). Breeding by two
pairs has been documented in south-central Washington (Naney 1996). Historic peregrine falcon
population information for eastern Washington is unknown or poorly documented (Allen 1992).
Peregrines were known to successfully breed in the Okanogan Valley, British Columbia (Cannings et al.
1987) and were believed to have been present on the Okanogan National Forest (Pagel 1993).
Currently, peregrine falcons may occasionally wander over the Analysis Area during migration.
There are no documented sightings of peregrines or known peregrine eyries or foraging areas in the Core
or Analysis areas (Swedberg 1994). Pagel (1993) identified two cliff sites in the Core Area that have
medium potential for peregrine falcon occupancy (see Figure 6). These were defined by Pagel (1992) as
cliffs that have an acceptable level of potential occupancy, or are otherwise low potential cliffs with a
possibility that a nesting ledge is not visible or is suspected. The cliffs identified by Pagel are between
100 and 150 feet tall and are located just south of Beaver Creek (T39N. R31E, Sections 27, 28, and 29)
and near Beth Lake (T39N, R30E, Sections 23 and 24). Cliff habitat along Beaver Creek also is identified
in the WAOFW Priority Habitats and Species database (WADFW 1994a). The WAOFW (1994a) lists one
other small area of potential cliff nesting habitat in the Analysis Area. This site is located west of Chesaw
on Porphyry Peak (T40N, R30E, Sections 17 and 20) outside of the Analysis Area.
4.4.1 Determination of Effects for American Peregrine Falcon
No peregrine falcon breeding activity has been documented in or near the Core or Analysis areas, and
potential nesting and habitat is limited primarily to the Beaver Creek drainage. Suitable hunting habitat is
limited to the Beaver Creek, Toroda Creek, and Kettle River drainages. No nesting activity has been
documented in the Beaver Creek drainage, and project development would not have any direct affect on
Crown Jewel Project BA 39 June7,1996
-------
Crown Jewel Project BA
40
June 7,1996
-------
o
•j •
r
\
\
LEGEND
\
CORE AREA BOUNDARY
ANALYSIS AREA BOUNDARY
OKANOGAN NATIONAL
FOREST BOUNDARY
NATIONAL BORDER
MINE PIT AREA
\
COVER TYPE
POTENT!/"
NEST CLIFFS
| | POTENTIAL PEREGRINE FALCON
FIGURE 6, POTENTIAL PEREGRINE FALCON NEST CLIFFS
-------
potential nesting habitat in Beaver Creek. If a breeding pair of peregrines occupied suitable nesting
habitat in the Beaver Creek drainage in the future, their presence would indicate accommodation of
existing levels of human activity and vehicle traffic along the drainage.
Peregrine falcons may occasionally wander over the Analysis Area during migration. The riparian corridors
along Beaver Creek, Toroda Creek, and the Kettle River could provide suitable foraging habitat for
migrating birds. There is a slight risk for an accidental spill of toxic chemicals along the transportation
corridors. As indicated in Section 3.3, a spill of sodium cyanide, ammonium nitrate, or lime is highly
unlikely. The risk for a diesel spill is slightly higher but still very low. If a spill did occur, the effects would
most likely be localized with appropriate emergency spill response and cleanup measures (see Section
3.3). A spill of sodium cyanide, lime, ammonium nitrate, or diesel into Beaver Creek, Toroda Creek, or the
Kettle River could be toxic to waterfowl or other birds in the localized area of the spill until cleanup
measures are completed. There is a remote chance that an individual falcon could be exposed to these
contaminants through consumption of tainted prey. However, the risk of secondary exposure through
ingestion of contaminated birds would be minimal for a peregrine falcon since cleanup activities would
collect and dispose of dead and dying animals. With any of the spill scenarios that could affect foraging
habitat along these drainages, recovery of water quality and prey populations would be relatively rapid as
long as appropriate spill response and clean-up measures are implemented.
Based on water quality projections for the pit lake (Crown Jewel EIS, Table 4.7.2), waters in the pit lake
would not create a toxic risk for waterbirds or a risk of secondary exposure to peregrine falcons through
ingestion of contaminated waterbirds.
Cumulative Effects. The historic distribution of peregrine falcons and their use of habitats in the
Analysis Area is unknown, but cumulative impacts to potential peregrine falcon habitat would be relatively
minor. Since the banning of use of organochloride pesticides, populations of peregrines have increased
throughout most of their former range in the conterminous United States. Minor cumulative impacts to
potential peregrine falcon habitat would be expected to occur as human presence, noise, traffic, and
residential development increase within the project vicinity.
Determination of Effects Conclusion. 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.
Crown Jewel Project BA 42 June 7.1996
-------
5.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS SUMMARY
Cumulative effects evaluated by this BA are effects of future State or private activities, not involving
Federal activities, that are reasonably foreseeable within the Analysis Area (Section 7 Regulations).
Activities on State and private lands, potentially affecting threatened and endangered species within and
outside of the Analysis Area, include timber harvest, livestock grazing, farming, and human population
increases with concomitant losses in wildlife habitat associated with increases in human presence and land
development. Reasonably foreseeable actions on State and private lands have been evaluated by the
Crown Jewel EIS (Section 4.12.5). Grazing, farming, and other land use/disturbance impacts are
expected to continue at current levels. Timber harvest in the Analysis Area has decreased dramatically
over the last few years, and current reduced levels of timber harvest are expected to continue. The
human population in Okanogan and Ferry counties is expected to increase, with rural populations
increasing at a faster rate than urban populations. The rate of population growth since 1990 has been at
1.8 percent per year (Crown Jewel EIS, Section 3.20.2). This increase would result in an incremental
increase in losses of wildlife habitat outside of National Forest lands and in an increase in human
recreational use of National Forest lands. Cumulative losses of wildlife habitat on private lands would have
relatively minor direct effects on habitat for threatened and endangered species since much of these
areas currently do not provide suitable habitat. Increased recreational use of the Analysis Area would
result in a slight increase in the risk for human/gray wolf or grizzly bear interactions.
Deer represent the main prey species of a potential wolf population in the Analysis Area. Grizzly bear also
prey on deer, and winter-killed deer represent a potential carrion source for bald eagle. Activities on State
and private lands have the potential to indirectly affect gray wolf, grizzly bear, and bald eagle by impacting
deer populations in the Analysis Area. The principal activities affecting deer populations in the Analysis
Area are hunting, loss of habitat to development, and habitat conversion from timber harvest. The levels
of these activities may increase as the human population increases in surrounding areas. As a result,
relatively minor reductions in deer numbers could possibly occur in association with a population growth
rate of 1.8 percent per year.
Hunting is one of the principal management tools used by the WADFW for control of deer population
numbers. Currently, hunting in the Analysis Area is restricted to the fall months with a take of one deer
permitted for hunting applicants. Native American subsistence hunting is permitted within the Analysis
Area, however, for 6 months (July through December) with a permitted take of six deer per hunter per
year. Although no deer population trend information is available for the deer management unit that
contains the Analysis Area, hunting regulations imposed by the WADFW and the Colville Indian
Crown Jewel Project BA 43 June 7,1996
-------
Reservation have remained the same over last few years, providing an indirect indication that deer
populations have remained fairly stable.
As indicated in previous sections, snow intercept/thermal (SI/T) winter deer habitat does not meet Forest
Plan Standards and Guidelines in MA 14 and MA 26 in the Core Area. Continued timber harvest on state
and private lands could continue to reduce SI/T cover within the Analysis Area, although the extent of
available SI/T cover in the Analysis Area and on state or federal lands is unknown. It is uncertain to what
extent existing deer populations within the Analysis Area could be affected by reductions of SI/T cover.
There are no data available on current deer population numbers or the total amount of deer SI/T cover
within the Analysis Area, and it is not known to what extent SI/T cover is a limiting factor for resident deer
populations. It is possible that further reductions in SI/T cover could reduce deer populations and prey
availability for gray wolf or carrion availability for grizzly bear and bald eagle. Potential local reductions in the
deer herd would be relatively minor in comparison to the total deer population in the Analysis Area, and
there would be little risk for adverse effects on wide-ranging predators such as gray wolf, grizzly bear, and
bald eagle.
With the decrease in timber harvest over the last few years and the projection that current levels of timber
harvest are expected to continue, available SI/T cover for deer would be expected to increase as young
timber stands mature. This situation should result in a tang-term trend of habitat improvement for deer.
Additional habitat improvement has been provided by road closures that have increased the overall extent
of secure habitats within the Analysis Area. With improved habitat conditions it is likely that deer
populations will increase thus increasing available prey for gray wolf and carrion for grizzly bear and bald
eagle.
Crown Jewel Project BA 44 June 7.1996
-------
6.0 LITERATURE CITED
A.G. Crook Co. I992a. Winter wildlife survey report, Crown Jewel Project. Unpublished report submitted
to ACZ Inc., Steamboat Springs, Colorado. May 1,1992.
A.G. Crook Co. 1993. Summer wildlife survey, Crown Jewel Project. Unpublished report submitted to
ACZ Inc., Steamboat Springs, Colorado. January 1993.
A.G. Crook Co. 1992b. Biological Evaluation for the Crown Jewel exploration project, amendment to
June 1990 report, September 9,1992.
Allen, H. 1992. Status and management of the peregrine falcon in Washington. Pages 72-74 in J.E.
Page), ed. Proceedings symposium on peregrine falcons in the Pacific Northwest, January 1991.
Rogue River Nat. For. 125 pp.
Almack, J.A. 1986a. 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. U.S.D.A. Forest
Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-207.
Almack, J.A. 1986b. North Cascades grizzly bear project annual report 1986. Wash. Dept. Game,
Olympia, WA. 31 pp.
Almack, J.A. 1994. Personal communication with R. Floyd (Beak), November 1,1994.
Almack, J.A., W.L. Gaines, R.H. Naney, P.M. Morrison, J.R. Eby, G.F. Wooten, M.C. Snyder, S.H. Fitkin,
and E.R. Garcia. 1993. North Cascades grizzly bear ecosystem evaluation; final report. Interagency
Grizzly Bear Committee, Denver, CO. 156 pp.
Anthony, R.G., R.L. Knight, and G.T. Allen, B.R. McClelland, and J.I. Hodges. 1982. Habitat use by
nesting and roosting bald eagles in the Pacific Northwest. Trans. N. Am. Wild!. Nat. Res. Conf.
47:332-342.
Aulman, D.L. 1992. The impacts and pressures on West Coast peregrines. Pages 55-65 in J.E. Pagel,
ed. Proceedings symposium on peregrine falcons in the Pacific Northwest, January 1991. Rogue
River Nat. For. 125 pp.
Battle Mountain Gold Company (BMGC). 1993. Integrated Plan of Operations, Crown Jewel Joint
Venture Project. Battle Mountain Gold Company and Crown Resources Corporation, Okanogan
County, WA.
Beak Consultants Incorporated (Beak). 1994. Potential effects of gold mines on wildlife and possible
mitigation strategies. Draft unpublished report submitted to TerraMatrix, Inc., Steamboat Springs,
Colorado.
Beak Consultants Incorporated (Beak). 1995. Crown Jewel Project Wildlife Technical Report.
Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Forest Service, Tonasket Ranger District.
Blanchard, B.M. and R.R. Knight. 1991. Movements of Yellowstone grizzly bears. Biol. Conserv. 58:41-
67.
Busnel, R.G. 1978. Effects of noise on wildlife. Introduction, pp. 7-22 In: Fletcher, J.L. and R.G. Busnel
(eds.). Academic Press, New York.
Crown Jewel Project BA 45 June7.1996
-------
Cannings, R.A., R.J. Cannings, and S.G. Cannings. 1987. Birds of the Okanogan Valley, British
Columbia. The Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria, B. C. 420 pp.
Carbyn, LN. 1987. Gray wolf and red wolf. Pages 359-376/nM. Novak, G.A. Baker, M.E. Obbard, and B.
Maltoch, eds. Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America, Ont. Trappers Assoc.,
Ministry of Nat. Resources, Ont.
Craighead, J.J. and J.A. Mitchell. 1982. Grizzly bear. Pages 515-556 in J.A. Chapman and G.A.
Feldhamer, eds. Wild mammals of North America, biology, management, and economics. Johns
Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD. 1,147 pp.
Craighead, J.J., U.S. Sumner, and G.B. Scaggs. 1982. A definitive system for analysis of grizzly bear
habitat and other wilderness resources utilizing LANDSAT multispectral imagery and computer
technology. Wildlife-Wildlands Institute Monogr. No. 1. U of M Foundation, Univ. of Montana,
Missoula, MT. 279pp.
Daniels, E. 1996. McCoy/Cove Mine. Echo Bay Minerals Company, Battle Mountain, Nevada. Personal
communication to M. Phelan, Cedar Creek Associates, Inc., Fort Collins, Colorado. April 17,1996.
Dyer, O. 1994. Wildlife Technician, Wildlife Management Program, British Columbia Ministry of
Environment. Letter to Randy Floyd (Beak), February 7,1994.
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.
Frederick, G. P. 1991. Gray wolf. Pages 33-50 in Effects of forest roads on grizzly bears, elk, and gray
wolves: a literature review. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Kootenai National Forest. R1-91-73.
Fuller, T.K. 1989. Population dynamics of wolves in North-Central Minnesota. Wildl. Mono. 105:1-41.
Henny, C.J. and M.W. Nelson. 1981. Decline and present status of breeding peregrine falcons in
Oregon. The Murrelet. 62:43-53.
Herrero, S. 1985. Bear attacks, their causes and avoidance. Winchester Press. Piscataway, New Jersey.
287pp.
Hydro-Geo Consultants, Inc. 1994. Draft seepage and attenuation study. Crown Jewel tailings disposal
facility. March 25,1994. Prepared for TerraMatrix, Inc.
Knight, R.L. 1984. Response of wintering bald eagles to boating activity. J. Wildl. Manage. 48(3):999-
1004.
Knight, R.R., B.M. Blanchard, L.L. Eberhart. 1988. Mortality patterns and populations sinks for
Yellowstone grizzly bears, 1973-1985. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:121-125.
Laufer, J.R. and P.T. Jenkins. 1989. Historical and present status of the gray wolf in the Cascade
Mountains of Washington. The Northwest Env. J. 5:313-327.
Lamp, R. 1996. Biologist, Nevada Division of Wildlife, Elko, Nevada. Personal communication to M.
Phelan, Cedar Creek Associates, Inc., Fort Collins, Colorado. April 11,1996.
Mech, D.L 1970. The wolf. Natural History Press, Doubleday and Co., FNC., New York, NY. 384pp.
Mech, D.L 1989. Wolf population survival in an area of high road density. Am. Midi. Nat. 121:387-389.
Crown Jewel Project BA 46 June7.1996
-------
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.
Naney, R. 1996. Wildlife biologist, Okanogan National Forest, Okanogan, Washington. Personal
communication to M. Phelan, Cedar Creek Associates, Inc., Fort Collins, Colorado. May 8,1996.
National Wildlife Federation. 1987. Grizzly bear compendium. Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee.
Olendortf, 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. Raptor Research Report No. 4. Raptor Research Foundation, Inc.
111 pp.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 1991. Best available pollution control technology. Metals Mining
Section, MISA Group A.
Owens, T. 1996. Manager, Wildlife Survey Data Management Section, WADFW, Olympia, Washington.
Letter and data sheets provided to M. Phelan, Cedar Creek Associates, Inc., Fort Collins, Colorado.
April 2, 1996.
Pacific Coast American Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team. 1982. Pacific Coast recovery plan for the
American peregrine falcon (Fatco peregrinus anaturri). USDI Fish and Wild). Sen/. 86 pp.
Pagel, J.E. 1992. Protocol for observing known and potential peregrine falcon eyries in the Pacific
Northwest. Pages 83-96 in J.E. Pagel, ed. Proceedings symposium on peregrine falcons in the
Pacific Northwest, January 1991. Rogue River Nat. For. 125pp.
Pagel, J.E. 1993. Analysis of potential peregrine falcon nest sites on the Okanogan National Forest.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 10 pp.
Paradise, J.L. and R.M. Nowak. 1982. Wolves (Canis lupus and allies). Pages 460-474 in J.A. Chapman
and G.A. Feldhamer, eds. Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and economics.
The John Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD.
Peatt, A.D. 1992. Senior Wildlife Biologist, Wildlife Management Program, British Columbia Ministry of
Environment. Letter to Phil Lee (A.G. Crook), November 25,1992.
Peterson, R.O. 1986. Gray wolf. Pages 951-967 in Audubon wildlife report, 1986. The National
Audubon Society, New York, NY.
Peterson, R.O. and R.E. Page. 1988. The rise and fall of Isle Royale wolves, 1975-1986. J. Mamm.
69(1)89-99.
Pimlott, D.H. 1967. Wolf predation and ungulate populations. Am. Zoologist. 7:267-278.
Rodrick, E. and R. Milner. eds. 1991. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats
and species. Wildl. Manage., Fish Manage., and Hab. Manage. Div., Wash. Dept. Wildl. np.
Sharp, B.E. 1992. Neotropical migrants on national forests in the Pacific Northwest: a compilation of
existing information. U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 587 pp.
Snow, E. 1981. Southern bald eagle and northern bald eagle. Habitat management series for
endangered species. Rep. No. 5, USDI Bureau of Land Management. 58 pp.
Stalmaster, M.V. 1987. The bald eagle. Universe Books, New York, NY. 227 pp.
Crown Jewel Project BA 47 June 7.1996
-------
Stalmaster, M.V., and J.R. Newman. 1978. Behavioral responses of wintering bald eagles to human
activity. J. Wild). Manage. 42(3):506-513.
Swedberg, D. 1994. Wildlife Agent, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Telephone
conversation with Randy Floyd (Beak), October 24,1994.
Thiel, R.P. 1985. Relationship between road densities and wotf habitat suitability in Wisconsin. Am. Midi.
Nat. 113:404-407.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1985. Ambient water quality criteria for ammonia -1984.
EPA 440.5-85-001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development
Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, Minnesota. 217 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1986. Recovery plan for the Pacific bald eagle. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 160 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Northern Rocky Mountain wolf recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Denver, Colorado. 119 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Grizzly bear recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula,
Montana. 181 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Final environmental impact statement, the reintroductfon of gray
wolves to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho. USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6.
misc pagings.
U.S. Forest Service. 1990. Bald eagle sighting map. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Okanogan National
Forest.
U.S. Forest Service. 1992. Biological Evaluation: Nicholson Timber Sale. U.S.D.A. Forest Service,
Okanogan National Forest. 20 pp.
U.S. Forest Service. 1994. Reclamation maps of alternatives. Tonasket Ranger District. Five maps and
reclamation key.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WADFW). 1994a. Priority habitats and species data release,
February 7,1994.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. I994b. Nongame data printout of wolf and grizzly records
for Okanogan and Ferry counties, April 28,1994.
Watson, J.W., M.G. Garrett, and R.G. Anthony. 1991. Foraging ecology of bald eagles in the Columbia
River estuary. J. Wild. Manage. 55(3):492-499.
White, J. 1996. Environmental Superintendent, Battle Mountain Gold Company, Tonasket, Washington.
Personnal communication to M. Phelan, Cedar Creek Associates, Inc., Fort Collins, Colorado. April
10, 1996.
Winter, J. 1996. Battle Mountain Gold Company, Tonasket, Washington, personal communication to M.
Phelan, Cedar Creek Associates, Inc. April 11,1996.
Woodward-Clyde. 1993. Summary report, chemical and ecotoxicological characterization, tailings
impoundment, McCoy Mine, Nevada. Unpublished report prepared for Echo Bay Minerals Company,
Battle Mountain, Nevada.
Crown Jewel Project BA 48 June 7.1996
-------
lender, S. 1994. Wildlife Biologist, Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. Telephone conversation with
Susan Barnes (Beak), May 9,1994.
Zieroth, E. 1993. District Ranger, Tonasket Ranger District. Letter to Alan Czamosky, ACZ, Inc. July 21
1993.
Crown Jewel Project BA 49 June 7.1996
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Listing of Threatened and Endangered Species
for the Crown Jewel Project
-------
-------
United States Department of the Interior
FISH ANt> WILDUFE SERVICE
Upper Columbia River Basin Field Office
11 f 03 E, Montgomery Drive, Suite #2
Spokane, WA 99206
March 12, 1996
Jean
Tona«k«t Ranger District
S»0 Box 466
WA 98855
FVS Reference: 1-9-96-SP-09S t 1333. 4000)
Cross reference: 1-3-93-SF-910
D$ar Ms. Lavell:
This is in response to your request of March 6, 1996- Enclosed i« a list of
listed threatened and endang*rwd Species, candidate species and species of
concern (Enclosure A) , that way be present within the area of the proposed
Crown Jewel Mine In Okanogan County, Washington, The list fulfills the
requirement-s of the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under Section 7(c} of
the Endangered sp«ei«s Ace of 1973, as amended (Act). We have also enclosed a
copy of the requirements for U3 Forest Service (U5FS) coraplian<;« under ta« Act
(Enclosure 3) .
Should the biological assessment deteml nft that a lifted species is likely to
be affected {adversely or beneficially) by tht project, the USFS should
request section 7 consultation through thl* offiea. If th« biologicai.
asaessment- •determines that the propocod action is "not likely to adversely
affect' a listed apeciea, the Osra should request Service concurrence witft
that determination through the informal consultation process. Even if the
utolo
-------
In addition, please be advised that federal »nd state regulations may
permits in areas where wetlands are identified. You should contact the
Seattla District of the U.S. Array Corps of Engineers for federal permit
requirements and the Washington state Department or Ecology ror state permit
requiremen ts.
Your interest in endangered species is appreciated. If you have *A4±cional
questions regarding your responsibilities under the Act, please contact Linda
or Michelle. Esvnes o£ tliisj office at 509-921-0160.
Sincerely,
Field
Enclosures
FWS 1-3-96-SP-098
c: WDSV, Region 2
-------
ENCLOSURE A
LISTED WTO PROPOSED XNEONGBBED AHD THREATENED SPEC TBS,
CMTOZD&TB S7ECXKS 2ND S2ECX2S OF COHCERN
WHICH HAY OCCUR IB THS VZCXKITC OF
THE CROWN JEWEL MINE,
COUNTY, WASHINGTON
T-iON R30-31E
PWS Reference: 1-9-96-SF-098
LISTED
Gray wolf fCsnj;^ Juptis; - volves may occur in the vicinity of the
project.
Peregrine falcon (Falco pexegrlnus) - peregrine falcons may occur
in the vicinity or the project.
Bald a agio (jjaJiaeetus leucocepAaJus) - wintering tald eagles may
occur in the vicinity from about November 1 through March
31.
Grizzly bear (Ursus atctes = cr.a. harrjJbiJiiJ - may occur in the
vicinity of the project.
Major concerns that should be addressed in your biological
assessment of project impacts to these listed species ares
1. Level of use of the project area by listed species.
2. Effect of the project on listed species' primary food stocks
and foraging areas in all areas influenced by the project.
3. Impacts from project construction, and implementation (e«g.
increased noise levels, increased human activity and/or
access, loss or degradation 'of habitat) which way result in
disturbance to listed species and/or their avoidance of the
project area.
PROPOSED
None
CANDIDATE
The following candidate species may occur in the vicinity of the
project:
Bull trout (Salveliniis confluentus)
-------
SPECIES OF COUCEJUJ
The following species of concern to the us Fish and Wildlife
Set-vice may occirc in the vicinity of the project:
BlacK. tern (cni±doniaa alg&r)
California wolverine (Gulo guio
Fringe^ rayotis (bat) (Myotls
LOhg-eared myotia (b«t).
Long-legged jnyotis (bat) (Myotis voisns)
North American lynx fF«ii* lynx canadensis)
HorthcCTl goshawk M'cc^pifcer gentllls)
Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus boroalis)
Pacific fisher (Mart&a pennaaki pjibdl-ics)
Pacific lanrprey ^i^qp«tjra tricf^ntata;
Palo Townsand's (= western) big-eared bat (Piece tas
pallescens)
Small-footed myotie (bat) fmyotj.s cilioiahrua)
spotted frog (Ran* jsr^eio^a;
Westslope cufChirisat trout foncornyncnus (= Salmo) ciarxj.
Yuaia ayotis (bat) (Myotis yimanensisj
-------
APPENDIX B
Security Analysis Diagrams
-------
-------
Crown Jewel
Security - Pre-Exploration
LEGEND
Qj Areas >.5 miles from Open Roads
/\j Open Roads
,'V Closed Roads
/ / Analysis Area Boundary
/y Forest Bounda^
Work Map
Scale: Unsealed Projection: Stateplane
kktull-MAY-4996
-------
Crown Jewel
Security - Post-Exploration
LEGEND
S Areas >.5 miles from Open Roads
t\f Open Roads
,'V Closed Roads
// Analysis Area Boundary
/ v Forest Boundary
Work Map
Scale: Unsealed Projection: Stateplane
Idttu 11-MAY-H996
-------
Crown Jewel
Security - Post-Reclamation
' ' <'- -*! ' ' ' /" ' *
I '\ * -•' I I , t. X
LEGEND
^ Areas >.5 miles from Open Roads
ty Open Roads
,'V Closed Roads
/ / Analysis Area Boundary
/ v Forest Boundao'
Work Map
Scale. Unsealed Projection: Stateplane
kktu 11-MAY-I996
-------
-------
BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION
CROWN JEWEL MINE PROJECT
Prepared
for
U.S. Forest Service,
Tonasket Ranger District
Tonasket, Washington
Prepared
by
Cedar Creek Associates, Inc.
Fort Collins, Colorado
and
Beak Consultants Incorporated
Portland, Oregon
November 1996
-------
-------
9 INC.
916 Willshire Ave. • Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 • (970) 493-4394
November 15, 1996
Jean Lavell
Tonasket Ranger District
1 West Winesap
Tonasket, WA 98855
Dear Jean:
Enclosed is one loose-leaf copy of the final Crown Jewel Project Biological Evaluation (BE). This version
has incorporated the revisions and corrections provided by you and Phil Christy on the October 25 draft. I
have submitted a camera-ready original to TerraMatrix so the BE can be printed and incorporated into the
Final EIS. Pages in the EIS version of the final BE will be reproduced as double sided copies to reduce
the thickness of the document. Also included for Forest Service project files is a disk with a BE file in Word
for Windows format.
Jean, this should be a wrap-up for my involvement on the Crown Jewel Project. I have enjoyed working
with you and other Forest Service personnel throughout my involvement on this project. I hope I have the
chance to work with again on other projects. Best of luck in any remaining tasks for the final EIS.
Sincerely,
CEDAR CREEK ASSOCIATES, INC.
T. Michael Phelan
Principal
enclosure
pc: Al Czamowski - TerraMatrix w/ original
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 4
2.1 Project Location 4
2.2 Environmental Setting 4
2.3 Description of the Action Alternatives 4
2.3.1 Alternative B (Modified Applicant's Proposal) 11
2.3.2 Alternative C 13
2.3.3 Alternative D 13
2.2.4 Alternative E 13
2.2.5 Alternative F 13
2.2.6 Alternative G 13
3.0 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION PROCESS 16
3.1 Step 1 - Pre-Field Review 16
3.2 Step 2- Field Reconnaissance 16
3.3 Step 3 - Risk Assessment 17
3.4 Step 4 - Biological Investigation 19
4.0 ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS 20
4.1 Townsend's Big-eared and Myotis Bats 20
4.1.1 Townsend's Big-eared Bat 20
4.1.2 Myotis Bats 21
4.1.3 Determination of Effects for Townsend's Big-eared and Myotis Bats 22
4.2 Pygmy Rabbit 25
4.3 Gray Wolf 25
4.3.1 Determination of Effects for Gray Wolf 26
4.4 Grizzly Bear 31
4.4.1 Determination of Effects for Grizzly Bear 32
4.5 Pacific Fisher 33
4.5.1 Determination of Effects for Pacific Fisher 34
4.6 California Wolverine 35
4.6.1 Determination of Effects for California Wolverine 36
4.7 North American Lynx 37
4.7.1 Determination of Effects for North American Lynx 38
4.8 California Bighorn Sheep 39
4.9 Common Loon 39
4.9.1 Determination of Effects for Common Loon 40
4.10 Northern Bald Eagle 41
4.10.1 Determination of Effects for Northern Bald Eagle 43
4.11 American Peregrine Falcon 46
4.11.1 Determination of Effects for American Peregrine Falcon 46
4.12 Northern Goshawk 49
4.12.1 Determination of Effects for Northern Goshawk 51
4.13 Ferruginous Hawk 53
4.14 Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse 53
4.14.1 Determination of Effects for Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse 54
4.15 Long-billed Curlew 55
4.15.1 Determination of Effects for Long-billed Curlew 55
4.16 Black Tern 56
4.16.1 Determination of Effects for Black Tern 57
4.17 Olive-sided Flycatcher 58
4.17.1 Determination of Effects for Olive-sided Flycatcher 58
4.18 Little Willow Flycatcher 58
4.18.1 Determination of Effects for Little Willow Flycatcher 58
Crown Jewel Project BE i November 14,1996
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
4.19 Spotted Frog 59
4.19.1 Determination of Effects for Spotted Frog 60
5.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS SUMMARY 62
6.0 CONCLUSIONS 63
7.0 LITERATURE CITED 65
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Page No.
1 General Location Map 2
2 Project Area Map 5
3 Land Type Map 6
4 Cover Type Map 8
5 Forest Road Closures 29
6 Potential Peregrine Falcon Nest Cliffs 47
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Page No.
1 PETS Species and Other Species of Concern Evaluated for the
Crown Jewel Project 3
2 Land Types and Cover Types Within the Analysis and Core Areas 10
3 Cover Type Disturbance by Alternative 12
4 Losses of Deer Snow Intercept/Thermal (SI/T) Cover 27
5 Deer Security Analysis Summary 30
6 Northern Goshawk Habitat Losses 51
Crown Jewel Project BE » November 14,1996
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Biological Evaluation (BE) is prepared for the proposed Crown Jewel Mine Project. Battle Mountain
Gold Company (BMGC) proposes to develop a gold mine on a site located approximately 3.5 miles east of
Chesaw, Washington on private and public lands (Figure 1). An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for
the proposed Crown Jewel Project is being prepared by the U.S. Forest Service and the Washington
Department of Ecology (WADOE) as co-lead agencies and by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) as a
cooperating agency.
This BE complies with the Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2672.4. The BE process (FSM 2672.43)
documents the potential direct and indirect effects of the proposed mine and the cumulative effects of
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions to ensure that the proposed mining development
would not jeopardize or adversely modify critical habitat of any federally listed species, or contribute to a
loss of species viability for sensitive species. This BE assesses potential impacts of the proposed project
on wildlife species listed as Proposed, Endangered, or Threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) or as Sensitive by the U.S. Forest Service, Region 6 (collectively known as PETS species). As a
result of multi-agency agreement, this BE also addresses several federal Species of Concern (SOC) that
were formerly listed as federal Candidate (Category 2) species. These species do not have protection
under the Endangered Species Act, but sufficient information exists to warrant concern about habitat and
populations over portions of their range. This BE addresses 24 wildlife species, including 13 PETS
species on the Okanogan National Forest and 11 SOC (Table 1). No species proposed for federal listing
occur within the Core and Analysis Areas (see Table 1). PETS fish and plant species are addressed in
separate BEs.
Crown Jewel Project BE 1 November 14,1996
-------
RiTISH COLUMBIA
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
BRITISH COLUMBIA
OKANOGAN
COUNTY
FERRY
COUNTY
OREGON
FIGURE H-1, GENERAL LOCATION MAP
-------
Table 1
PETS Species and Other Species of Concern Evaluated for the Crown Jewel Project
Common Name
MAMMALS
Western small-footed myotis
Lona-eared mvotis
Fringed myotis
Long-legged myotis
Yuma myotis
Townsend's big-eared bat
Pygmy rabbit
Gray wolf
Grizzly bear
Pacific fisher
California wolverine
North American lynx
California bighorn sheep
Scientific Name
USFWS
Status
Myotis dltolabrum (was leibil)
Mvotis evotis
Myotis thysanodes
Myotis volans
Myotis yumanensis
Plecotus townsendii
Brachylagus idahoensis
Canis lupus
Ursus arctos
Martes pennant! pacifica
Gulo gulo luteus
Felis lynx canadensis
Ovis canadensis calif orniana
SOC1
soc
soc
soc
soc
soc
soc
Endangered
Threatened
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
USFS
Region 6
Status
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
BIRDS
Common loon
Northern bald eagle
Northern goshawk
Ferruginous hawk
American peregrine falcon
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse
Long-billed curlew
Black tern
Olive-sided flycatcher
Little willow flycatcher
Gavia immer
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
Accipiter gentilis
Buteo regalis
Falco peregrinus anatum
Tympanuchus phasianellus
Numenius americanus
Chlidonias niger
Contopus borealis
Empidonax traillii brewsteri
Threatened
SOC
SOC
Endangered
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
SOC
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
Sensitive
AMPHIBIANS
Spotted frog
Ranapretiosa
SOC
1 SOC « Species of Concern. These species were formerly listed as Candidate, Category 2 species by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
Crown Jewel Project BE
November 14,1996
-------
2.0 PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
2.1 Project Location
BMGC's proposed Crown Jewel Mine Project would be within Okanogan Count/, Washington (T40N,
R30E and R31E; and T39N, R30E and R31E). The proposed mine and most ancillary facilities would be
constructed on the eastern flank of Buckhorn Mountain, which lies approximately 3.5 miles east of the
town of Chesaw and approximately 25 miles east of Oroville (Figure 1). The water storage reservoir and
portions of the water supply system would be located in the Myers Creek valley near the
Washington/British Columbia border.
The proposed mine area includes private and public lands. Public lands are administered by the Tonasket
Ranger District of the Okanogan National Forest, U.S. Forest Service, and the Wenatchee Resource Area
of the BLM. Current public land use includes mineral exploration, timber harvest, firewood gathering,
grazing, and recreation. The analysis area of this BE addresses the entire Crown Jewel Core and Analysis
Areas, including private, State, U.S. Forest Service, and BLM lands.
The boundaries of the Core and Analysis areas were designated and delineated by Forest Service, BLM,
USFWS, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WADFW) wildlife biologists as the areas
containing habitats that may be affected by direct, indirect, or cumulative effects associated with the
proposed mining activities (Figure 2). The Core Area totals approximately 10,925 acres and encompasses
the mine footprint, mine facility sites, transportation and transmission corridors, and lands within a 1-mile
radius of the mine footprint and facilities. It is defined as the area where direct impacts of the proposed
project could occur. The Analysis Area totals approximately 70,752 acres and includes the Core Area and
a much larger surrounding area within which indirect impacts or cumulative effects could occur.
2.2 Environmental Setting
The landscape of the Analysis Area is dominated primarily by two prominent ridgeline features. Within the
Core Area, the prominent physical feature is Buckhorn Mountain and its associated north-south oriented
ridgeline. This ridge divides the generally east and west flowing drainages within the Core and Analysis
Areas, including Ethel, Bolster, and Gold creeks (west-flowing) and Cedar, Nicholson, and Marias creeks
(east-flowing). The other prominent ridgeline within the Analysis Area runs between the east flowing
Nicholson Creek and Cedar Creek drainages and connects Buckhorn Mountain and Graphite Mountain.
Less prominent east-west ridge systems extend between Cedar Creek and Myers Creek, Marias Creek
and Beaver Creek, and Nicholson Creek and Marias Creek (Figure 2). Areas of rock outcrop and cliffs are
present in the Core Area as well as Beaver Creek Canyon in the Analysis Area.
Creeks draining the Core Area vary from relatively flat drainages with slow-moving water to steep, deeply-
incised drainages with swift currents. Near the headwaters of Nicholson and Marias Creeks, sufficient
surface water collects to sustain small wetland areas (Crown Jewel Mine EIS, Section 3.11). Small ponds,
both natural and man-made, are found on the east side of Buckhorn Mountain.
The Analysis Area is bounded by Myers Creek and the Kettle River to the north and northeast, by Toroda
Creek to the east, by Beaver Creek to the south and southwest, and by Myers Creek to the west and
northwest (Figure 2). The Core Area includes Buckhorn Mountain, Gold Creek, and the headwaters of
Bolster, Ethel, Marias, and Nicholson creeks. Six land types were delineated in the Analysis Area (Figure
3), while 10 cover types were delineated in the Core Area (Figure 4). Descriptions of land and cover types
are provided in the Crown Jewel Mine EIS, Section 3.13.2 and in the Wildlife Technical Report for the
Crown Jewel Project (Beak 1995). Table 2 lists land types and cover types with corresponding acreages
for the Analysis and Core Areas.
2.3 Description of the Action Alternatives
The Crown Jewel Mine EIS analyzes seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative. With the No
Action Alternative (Alternative A), no mine and associated facilities would be constructed. If the No Action
Crown Jewel Project BE 4 November 14,1996
-------
\
LEGEND
CORE AREA BOUNDARY
ANALYSIS AREA BOUNDARY
PAVED HIGHWAY
GRAVEL ROAD
DIRT ROAD
OKANOGAN NATIONAL FOREST BOUNDARY
NATIONAL BORDER
COUNTY LINE
STREAMS
TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES
CANADIAN PROVINCIAL HWY
COUNTY ROAD
FOREST SERVICE ROAD
MINE PIT AREA
FIGURE H-2, PROJECT AREA MAP
FILENAME, CJFBA-H2.DWS
-------
-------
—_— « — ^
/
I
/
LEGEND
AREA
ANALYSIS AREA BOUNDARY
OKANOGAN NATIONAL
FOREST BOUNDARY
NATIONAL BORDER
COUNTY LINE
MINE PIT AREA
C.Q.¥£B...T.Y.PE.
/
GRASSLAND / SHRUB
[ | OPEN CONIFEROUS / DECIDUOUS
Q'J CONIFEROUS
[__] AGRICULTURE
|| DISTURBED / RESIDENTIAL
[__] RIPARIAN / WETLAND / OPEN WATER 838
24,023
27.441
2,943
96
FIGURE H-3, LAND TYPE MAP
-------
-------
\
\
LEGEND
CORE AREA BOUNDARY
• ANALYSIS AREA BOUNDARY I
OKANOGAN NATIONAL •
FOREST BOUNDARY \
NATIONAL BORDER
MINE PIT AREA
ACRES
1,875
;y| BOTTOMLAND GRASSLAND 107
COVER TYPE
II UPLAND GRASSLAND
SHRUB
EARLY SUCCESSIONAL
CONIFER
MIXED CONIFER POLE
MIXED CONIFER MATURE
LAKE/POND
[ 1 RIPARIAN/WETLAND
[ | DECIDUOUS
[ [ AGRICULTURE
96
90S
2175
4479
106
867
39
456
\
FIGURE H-4, COVER TYPE MAP
FILENAME CJFBA-H4 DWG
-------
Table 2
Land Types and Cover Types Within the Analysis and Core Areas
Analysis Area
Land Type
Grassland/Shrub
Open Coniferous/Deciduous
Coniferous
Riparian/Wetland/Open Water
Agriculture
Disturbed/Residential
Total
Acres
15,612
24,023
27,441
635
2,943
98
70,752
%
22.1
33.9
38.8
0.9
4.2
0.1
100.0
Core Area
Cover Type
Upland Grassland
Bottomland Grassland
Shrub
Early Successional Conifer
Mixed Conifer Pole
Mixed Conifer Mature
Deciduous
Riparian/Wetland1
Lake/Pond
Agriculture
Total
Acres
1,675
107
96
905
2,175
4,479
39
887
106
456
10,925
%
15.3
1.0
0.9
8.3
19.9
41.0
0.4
8.1
1.0
4.2
100.0
1 The riparian/wetland cover type consists of all areas within 100 feet of a stream, wetland, lake, or pond, and within
50 feet of a seep or spring. Subalpine fir, Engelmann spruce, Douglas-fir, western red cedar, black cottonwood,
and quaking aspen represent the major trees present. Predominant shrub species found in ripariarV/wetland areas
include Sitka alder, Douglas maple, huckleberry, red-osier dogwood, bearberry, snowbeny, twisted stalk, arrowleaf
groundsel, and bunchberry dogwood. Common ferns include lady fern and oak fern.
Crown Jewel Project BE
10
November 14,1996
-------
Alternative is selected, reclamation of existing disturbance would commence at the first available
opportunity, as already approved in previous NEPA documents. Reclamation would consist of plugging
and capping existing drill holes, recontouring drill pads and access roads, rehabilitating mud and cutting
sumps, redistributing topsoil, revegetation of disturbed sites with grasses, shrubs and/or trees, and
monitoring of water quality. The No Action Alternative is not evaluated by this BE. The six action
alternatives developed for the Crown Jewel Project (Alternatives B, C, D, E, F and G) are analyzed.
Alternative B is described below in detail while the remaining subsequent alternative descriptions focus
principally on those features that are different from Alternative B. Chapter 2 of the Crown Jewel Mine EIS
and BMGC's Integrated Plan of Operations (on file with the Tonasket Ranger District) provide more
detailed descriptions of all the alternatives and proposed reclamation.
2.3.1 Alternative B (Modified Applicant's Proposal)
The Crown Jewel Mine Draft EIS considered seven action alternatives, including BMGC's then-proposed
plan of operations, which was Alternative B. Following issuance of the draft EIS, BMGC modified its
proposal to include slightly different configurations and locations for the waste rock facilities and to include
artificial filling of the post-mining pit lake with water piped from Starrem Creek Reservoir. BMGC's modified
proposal is now analyzed as Alternative B in this BE and the Final EIS.
Alternative B would include an open pit mine, waste rock disposal areas, crushing and milling facilities, a
tailings disposal facility, and ancillary support facilities. Ancillary facilities include access and haul roads,
power supply, substation, transmission line, water supply, fuel storage area, explosive storage area,
topsoil stockpiles, chemical and reagent storage areas, and buildings for an office, laboratory, warehouse
and maintenance shop. Supply transport would be via the Wauconda to mine site route. Disturbance
acreages by cover type for Alternative B and the other action alternatives are summarized in Table 3.
The mine would operate 24 hours per day, seven days per week, 365 days per year, and would produce
an average of 3,000 tons of ore per day. Approximately 9.1 million tons of ore would be mined and
processed from approximately 97 million tons of rock taken from a 116-acre pit area that would be several
hundred feet deep. The overall pit slopes (straight line between the top and the bottom of the pit) would
be between 45 and 55 degrees, depending on rock stability, haul road placement, and other engineering
considerations. Individual bench slopes would be steeper, ranging from approximately 65 to 75 degrees.
Most of the waste rock produced by the mining operations would be placed in two waste rock disposal
areas, one to the northeast and one to the south of the pit. There would be no backfill of the pit, and a pit
lake would form in the north half of the pit after cessation of mining and reclamation activities. Discharge
from the final open pit would flow down the Gold Bowl drainage which is tributary to Nicholson Creek. Any
point source discharges to waters of the state would have to meet water quality standards set by the
Washington Department of Ecology.
Ore processing would involve underground crushing, above-ground grinding, milling, cyanide
detoxification, and gold recovery facilities. Gold extraction includes conventional milling with the tank
cyanidatfon process and carbon-in-leach gold recovery. Residual cyanide in the tailings would be reduced
using the cyanide destruction process known as the INCO SO2/Air/O2 process. The spent ore tailings
would be conveyed by pipeline to a tailings disposal facility. A surface quarry and borrow material from the
mine footprint area would provide material to construct the tailings embankments in the Marias Creek
drainage. The tailings disposal facility would consist of a composite-lined disposal system located
between two embankments, and a lined reclaim solution collection pond south of the disposal area in the
Marias Creek drainage. Impounded tailings water would be recycled back to the mill to minimize the pond
size and the need for new process water sources. Storm water and sediment control structures would
route water around the tailings facility with a series of ditches, culverts, and basins.
Ancillary facilities would include power transmission facilities, a water storage and supply system, support
buildings, and other structures including explosives storage, crusher, fuel storage and containment, and
fencing. Employees would be bused or van pooled to the site. The power transmission facilities would
include a 115 kv power line (wood pole H frame) and substation. The water storage and supply system
would consist of a diversion structure on Myers Creek as well as pumping facilities. A pipeline would carry
Crown Jewel Project BE 11 November 14,1996
-------
Table 3
Cover Type Disturbance 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
Totals
Existing
Condition
1,675
107
96
905
2,175
4,479
39
887
106
456
10,925
Acres Disturbed by 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
Crown Jewel Project BE
12
November 14,1996
-------
water to a storage reservoir in Starrem Creek. Employee housing would be offsite, and workers would be
transported to the site.
The life of mine would be about 10 years: 1 year for construction and development; 81/a years of mine
operation; and 1+ years for decommissioning of facilities and the completion of most reclamation.
Proposed reclamation of the mine after closure would target the reestablishment of conifer forest
(Douglas-fir and subalpine spruce), riparian shrub, open forest/grassland (ponderosa pine/pinegrass), and
talus communities depending on revegetation prescription. All disturbance areas, except the vertical walls
of the pit, would be revegetated. Stockpiled topsoil would be distributed on all disturbed surfaces except
for portions of the pit. Within the pit, a pit lake would form in the north half, and the southwestern wall
would be blasted, graded and topsoiled to allow movement of wildlife into and out of the pit. In addition,
selective placement of waste rock and reclamation blasting would be utilized to create post-mining
landforms. Natural appearing talus slopes and regraded, topsoiled slopes would be created around the
pit. A 20-acre pit lake would form within 5 to 6 years after reclamation is completed as a result of
groundwater inflow and pumping from Starrem Reservoir. A discontinuous riparian shrub community and
recreational facilities would be developed along the pit lake shoreline.
Starrem Creek Reservoir would be removed following completion of other reclamation activities and filling
of the pit lake. Administration buildings and the power line would be dismantled and removed. Water
quality would be monitored according to WADOE permits and Forest Service and BLM Plans of
Operations. Reclaimed areas would be returned to forest, open forest/grass, shrub, and grass habitats
depending on the revegetation prescription. The majority of the site would be returned to Douglas-fir and
subalpine fir forested habitats.
Mitigation and monitoring measures discussed in the Crown Jewel Mine EIS (Sections 2.12 and 2.13)
include practices designed to preclude, minimize, or compensate for potential wildlife impacts.
Prevention measures include building fences, closing roads, and construction of transmission lines that
would be raptor electrocution-proof. Measures to be used to minimize impacts to wildlife include timing
restrictions for disturbance activities (such as blasting), employee busing, and plowing wildlife runouts
during winter snows. Compensation measures also include the creation and/or enhancement of wildlife
habitat through snag creation; planting of palatable grasses, forbs, and shrubs; designing pit walls for
raptor habitat; erecting raptor perches; and purchase of private land for habitat restoration or
enhancement (Crown Jewel Mine Project Conceptual Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Plan, ENSR 1996).
2.3.2 Alternative C
Alternative C differs from Alternative B in that ore would be extracted by underground mining methods.
This alternative would have the least amount of surface disturbance due primarily to the lack of a mine pit
and the need for only one small waste rock disposal area. Ore processing and tailings impoundment
operation would be similar to Alternative B. Two surface quarries would be required to provide rock
material for the construction of the tailings embankments and for backfill in the mine. Supply transport
would be via the Oroville to Chesaw to mine site option.
The mine would be accessed by two adits. These adits would be used as haul routes for both ore and
underground waste rock. Waste rock would be stored in one waste rock disposal area located to the north
of the mine. Room and pillar mining would be the predominant method of mining. Sublevel sloping,
breast sloping (post and pillar sloping), and glory hole mining techniques would also be used to mine the
Crown Jewel deposit. Ground subsidence would be expected to occur above areas where the ore is near
the surface.
Reclamation and mitigation would be similar to Alternative B except for the lack of a pit and associated pit
lake. Mitigation measures described for Alternative B would also be implemented.
Crown Jewel Project BE 13 November 14,1996
-------
The life of Alternative C would be 6 years including: 1 year for construction and development (drilling,
blasting, removal of rock, and haulage), 4 years of mine operation, and 1 year for decommissioning and
the completion of most reclamation.
2.3.3 Alternative D
Alternative D proposes that the Crown Jewel gold deposit be extracted by a combination of surface and
underground mining with an open pit to access the northern portion of the deposit and an underground
operation to access the southern portion. This alternative would have the second least amount of surface
disturbance due primarily to a smaller pit and the need for only a single waste rock disposal area. Ore
processing and tailings impoundment operation would be similar to Alternative B.
Mining techniques would be a combination of Alternative B and C. Waste rock would be stored in one
permanent waste rock disposal area located to the north of the proposed pit. A portion of the waste rock
would be backfilled into the underground mine. A small area of subsidence (up to 3 acres) would be
expected with this alternative.
Reclamation and mitigation would be similar to aspects of Alternatives B and C. Reclamation activities
would include the permanent sealing of the adits and ventilation shafts. The open pit in the northern
portion of the Crown Jewel deposit would not be backfilled and would fill with water approximately 26 years
after the end of mining.
The life of Alternative D would be 8 years: 1 year for construction and development, 6 years of mine
operation, and 1 year for decommissioning and the completion of most reclamation.
2.3.4 Alternative E
Alternative E is similar to Alternative B except that the pit would be sequentially mined to allow partial
backfill of the northern portion of the pit. The partial backfill would allow drainage from the pit area and
prevent the formation of a pit lake after reclamation. This alternative would result in the greatest extent of
surface disturbance due primarily to the size of the waste rock disposal areas and topsoil stockpiles
required for this alternative.
The life of Alternative E would be 10 years: 1 year for construction and development; 8 years of mine
operation; and 1 year for decommissioning and the completion of most reclamation.
2.3.5 Alternative F
Alternative F is similar to Alternative B except that the tailings impoundment would be constructed in the
Nicholson Creek drainage, and mine operations would only occur during a single 12-hour shift per day
rather than 24 hours per day. Milling activities, however, would operate on a 24-hour per day schedule.
Waste rock would be stored in a single disposal area to the north of the pit, and the pit area would be
completely backfilled after completion of mining. The Nicholson tailings impoundment would be a
narrower and longer structure with higher dams than the Marias Creek impoundment. Utilizing a 12-hour
mine shift would result in an extended life-of-mine period.
The life of Alternative F would be 33 years: one year for construction and development; 16 years of mine
operation; and 16 years for decommissioning, completely filling the mine pit, and the completion of other
reclamation activities.
2.3.6 Alternative G
Alternative G would be similar to Alternative B except that the tailings impoundment would be constructed
in the Nicholson Creek drainage and ore processing on site would involve the use of a flotation process
for gold extraction. The flotation tailings would be pumped to a lined tailings impoundment located in
Nicholson Creek drainage. Flotation concentrates would be shipped offsite for cyanidation and smelting.
Supply and flotation concentrate transport would be via the Oroville to Chesaw to mine site option. It is
Crown Jewel Project BE 14 November 14,1996
-------
assumed that flotation concentrates would be shipped by truck to Oroville where they would be loaded on
rail cars for transport to Tacoma or Seattle for shipping overseas for cyanidation and final smelting.
The life of Alternative G would be 10 years: 1 year for construction and development; 8 years of mine
operation; and 1 year for decommissioning and the completion of most reclamation. The pit would not be
backfilled and a pit lake would form approximately 26 years after the end of mining.
Crown Jewel Project BE 15 November 14,1996
-------
3.0 BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION PROCESS
Each of the PETS species and other SOC were evaluated using the standard 4-step Forest Service BE
process. The BE for any species may be complete at the end of any step in the process. A description of
the steps required to complete the process for each species follows.
3.1 Step 1 - Pre-fleld Review
The pre-field review (Step 1) followed FSM 2672.4, R-6 Supplement 2600-90-5 for threatened,
endangered, or proposed species. The pre-field review began with acquisition of the Regional Forester's
Sensitive Species List, FSM 2670, Interim Directive No. 90-1, revised March 1989 for sensitive animals.
Eleven wildlife species were identified from this list as potentially occurring within the Analysis Area. For
threatened and endangered species, the Forest Service has had correspondence with the USFWS
regarding the Crown Jewel Project since May 1992 when environmental analysis was initiated for the
exploration phases of the project. Since that time there have been several requests and responses
relating to updates of listed species potentially affected by exploration and possible project development.
The most recent Forest Service request for a USFWS listing of threatened, endangered, or proposed
species potentially occurring within the project area was on March 10,1996. The USFWS list of potential
species was provided in response on March 12, 1996 (see Appendix A). The USFWS response did not
designate any areas of critical habitat potentially affected by project development but did indicate that
potential effects on four species would need to be addressed (see Table 1). Inter-agency consultation
identified 11 additional SOC as requiring analysis. The pre-field review addressed PETS and other SOC
for the entire Core and Analysis Areas, including private, state, and federal lands.
Forest Service District occurrence records of PETS species and Washington Priority Species and Habitats
database information were reviewed, and agencies and knowledgeable individuals were contacted for
information on species or habitat occurrence for species listed in Table 1. Agencies contacted included
the U.S. Forest Service; USFWS; WADFW; BLM; Colville Confederated Tribes (CCT); and the British
Columbia Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks (BCE). Individuals contacted included Canadian
trappers and guides. Literature searches for information on occurrence, species range, and habitat
requirements of those species being considered in the BE also were completed. The habitat
requirements were compared with habitats present in the Core and Analysis Areas to determine if suitable
habitat exists for analysis species.
If no evidence of species occurrence or suitable habitat existed for a sensitive or other SOC within the
Core and Analysis Areas, the evidence was documented and the BE was complete for that species. If a
"no impact" statement could not be made, an assessment was made as to whether implementation of the
project would contribute to adverse impacts to a population, result in loss of species viability, or cause a
species to move toward federal listing. Where this determination could not be made with available
information, then Step 2, Field Reconnaissance is performed to determine if analysis species or suitable
habitats are present. For this BE, field surveys were completed prior to the initiation of the BE and Step 1,
because wildlife surveys of sufficient detail for the BE process were completed earlier as a part of the
NEPA analysis for the Crown Jewel Project.
3.2 Step 2 - Field Reconnaissance
Field reconnaissance for the Crown Jewel BE included all field work and data-gathering conducted for the
EIS, starting in 1991 and continuing through 1994. Data gathering for evaluation species included winter
and summer wildlife surveys performed by A.G. Crook (1992a, 1993a), bat surveys by ENSR (1994a,
1994b), and Tonasket Wildlife Habitat Inventory Procedures (TWHIP) surveys and Habitat Evaluation
Procedures (HEP) data collection in the Core Area. The TWHIP stand information included information on
North American lynx cover, raptor nests (including northern goshawk), riparian areas (potential spotted
frog and black tern habitat), and deer cover within the Core Area. Deer represent a potential prey source
for gray wolf and can provide carrion for the bald eagle, grizzly bear, and wolverine. The HEP data include
habitat information for fisher and black tern. Information on survey techniques and habitat assessment
procedures are provided in A.G. Crook (1992a, 1993a), ENSR (1994a, 1994b), WADFW (1995), and the
Crown Jewel Project BE 16 November 14,1996
-------
Wildlife Technical Report prepared for the Crown Jewel Project (Beak 1995). Copies of these and other
wildlife reports are available at the Tonasket Ranger District, Okanogan National Forest.
3.3 Step 3 - Risk Assessment
A risk assessment (Step 3) is carried out if a PETS species, SOC, or suitable habitat are documented
during the field reconnaissance. The risk assessment considers direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of
exploration and proposed mining activities under each of the six action alternatives. The risk assessment
is based on the following factors:
1) the dependency of the species on specific habitat components,
2) habitat abundance,
3) population levels of the species,
4) the degree of habitat impact, and
5) the potential to mitigate for the adverse effect.
Risk assessment for a population or habitat considers the size, density, vigor, and location of the
population (when information is available), habitat requirements, and timing of the project in relation to life
requirements.
Direct effects of the Crown Jewel Project that were assessed included habitat loss, alteration, or
conversion; habitat loss due to displacement from noise, roads, and light; and the potential for toxic
impacts from the tailings pond and/or pit lake. Indirect effects included human presence; secondary land-
use or development; hunting and trapping; and the potential for toxic impacts from a tailings liner breach or
accidental spills. Cumulative effects analyzed the incremental effects of the proposed mine when added
to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on State and private lands, not involving
Federal activities (Section 7 Regulations).
Proposed mining alternatives would result in a variety of permanent changes to existing habitat. An
increase in the grassland/shrub/open forest cover types would occur for all alternatives. Under
Alternatives B, D, and G, a pit would be constructed, converting an area of existing disturbed forest (i.e.,
the exploration area) into rocky pit walls, talus slopes, and open water. Losses of existing disturbed forest
habitats in the pit area would be permanent. However, the pit walls and lake may provide habitat for wildlife
that currently do not occur in the footprint (e.g., raptors and waterbirds). A 20-acre portion of the pit would
fill with water within 5 to 6 years after reclamation is completed as a result of groundwater inflow and
pumping from Starrem Reservoir. This water would be a resource for some species of wildlife since water
quality modeling indicates that pit waters would not have toxic effects on terrestrial wildlife or adjacent
habitats. Water quality modeling does indicate that levels of lead could pose a low risk to amphibians while
mercury and silver levels in the pit waters could be a high risk for certain fish and aquatic invertebrate
species (Beak 1996). Pit water quality would have to meet or exceed state and federal water quality
standards prior to release from the pit.
The pit wall could provide nest and perch sites for raptors while the pit wall and associated talus could
provide roosting habitat for myotis bats in crevices. Roads into the area that are upgraded and maintained
for the long-term would also represent permanent conversions of habitat. Most roads created for the
project would be reclaimed as part of mine closure. Mitigation such as closures of other existing roads
could (depending on the level of implementation) compensate for such permanent conversions.
Ammonia was the only constituent determined from risk assessment modeling to have potential sublethal
toxic effects on wildlife (shorebirds and bats) exposed to tailings impoundment waters (Beak 1995). WAD
cyanide levels would average less than 10 ppm in the tailings pond waters (Winter 1996). If a level of 40
ppm of WAD cyanide is exceeded in the tailings slurry as it leaves the mill outlet, mitigation will be
implemented to either exclude all wildlife from the tailings pond (e.g., covering open water) or provide for
additional detoxification efforts (e.g., diluting with recycled tailings water).
Most terrestrial species, except bats and birds, would be excluded from the tailings pond by fencing. A
risk assessment model was used to assess the potential toxic impacts of the tailings pond to bald eagle
and other bird species. The model was used to calculate the amount of a toxicant that would be taken in
Crown Jewel Project BE 17 November 14,1996
-------
by a species (predicted dose). The predicted dose was compared to chronic reference values (no
observed effect levels) since exposure to toxins could occur over a prolonged period. The detailed
methods of the model used to evaluate the potential toxic impacts of the tailings pond on bald eagle and
other wildlife are presented in the Wildlife Technical Report (Beak 1995).
Analyses indicate the risk of impact due to cyanide would be negligible for all taxa examined. Similar
results were obtained for all other elements examined except ammonia. There would be a high risk of
impact to bats (e.g., myotis and Townsend's big-eared bat) and water birds from ammonia concentrations
in the tailings pond and a moderate risk to passerines (impact due to ammonia would be sub-lethal). In
Alternative G, potassium amyl xanthate would be used as a flotation agent to recover gold; no cyanide
would be used. Xanthates in tailings ponds have not been considered an issue for other mine operations,
and the predicted concentration of xanthate in the tailings pond is unknown.
As indicated the risk of toxicity from cyanide by itself would be negligible. However the potential toxic
effects of low levels of cyanide in combination with metals or other chemicals are largely unknown.
Shorebirds drinking tailings water with high ammonia concentrations could become sick and remain on the
tailings pond, thereby increasing exposure time to low levels of cyanide and metals. Increased exposure
duration could lead to a low risk of adverse impact from cyanide and metals. A low or negligible risk of
adverse impact implies that a small number of mortalities could occur, but the number of mortalities would
not be significant.
The potential for an indirect impact on PETS species and other SOC from exposure to ammonia, cyanide,
or metals from an accidental tailings pond liner breach was determined to be negligible, except for possibly
spotted frog (Beak 1995). A hypothetical liner breach was evaluated by Hydro-Geo (1995). Based on this
evaluation, ground water would discharge at a constant rate to a 5-acre wetland immediately down gradient
of the impoundment and the wetland would be entirely fed by this discharge. 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, metals from the tailings pond would not be detectable in the wetland
(Hydro-Geo). None of the tailings pond contaminants in the wetland would reach levels high enough to
pose any risk to terrestrial wildlife (Beak 1995). However, concentrations of ammonia and cyanide in the
wetland impoundment could have detrimental effects on amphibians, but the impact cannot be estimated
due to the lack of appropriate reference values (Beak 1995).
Accidental transportation spills of process chemicals into a stream also could create a risk of indirect
adverse impacts to certain PETS species and other SOC. For the purposes of the EIS analysis (Section
4.12.4), possible worst-case scenarios were evaluated to determine the impact of an accidental spill of
four chemicals (sodium cyanide, ammonium nitrate, cement/lime, and diesel) at three hypothetical spill
sites (Beaver Creek, Myers Creek, and Toroda Creek). Spills were evaluated based on the size, location,
and timing of a hypothetical, worst-case spill as described by the U.S. Forest Service (Zieroth 1993).
Although the potential adverse effects of accidental spills are discussed in the EIS for wildlife, the risk of
exposure of a listed species to a process chemical or diesel fuel spill into Analysis Area streams would be
negligible for several reasons. Hazardous chemicals would be transported via U.S. Department of
Transportation certified containers and transporters. Transportation of sodium cyanide and other chemical
reagents would comply with Department of Transportation, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA), and Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) rules and regulations.
Sodium cyanide is transported in dry form and must come into contact with water to pose a toxic danger.
Because of the potential extreme toxicity of cyanide, containers used for shipment of sodium cyanide are
virtually indestructible, making accidental release of cyanide unlikely even in the event of a transport
accident. As a result, millions of pounds of sodium cyanide are transported annually without incident
(Crown Jewel Mine EIS, Section 4.22.3).
Ammonium nitrate and cement/lime also would be shipped in dry form in bags or as containerized bulk
transport. A release of these chemicals into aquatic habitats could only occur in the event of a transport
truck crash directly into a stream channel along with a rupture of a container. Even with this highly unlikely
scenario, only small amounts of these dry chemicals would be released into the stream. Ammonium nitrate
Crown Jewel Project BE 18 November 14,1996
-------
is a commonly used form of agricultural fertilizer. Nitrate is considered toxic to animals only under reducing
conditions when ingested. Also nitrate is toxic to aquatic biota only in high concentrations. In the event of
a spill, anticipated effects would be very localized and minor since containment and cleanup of the dry
material could be readily accomplished. Cement/lime can be toxic to fish, but in dry form this material is not
highly soluble. As a result in the unlikely event of a spill of cement/lime directly into water, anticipated
effects would be very localized and minor since containment and cleanup of the dry material could also be
readily accomplished.
Diesel fuel could be released in the event of a tanker truck turnover and tank rupture accident, and a spill
of this fuel or other liquid petroleum products would be more difficult to contain than chemicals in dry form.
A spill into Beaver or Toroda creeks could spread fuel a considerable distance downstream if containment
measures such as placement of oil booms or temporary dikes and removal of the fuel source are not
initiated quickly. The risk of this type of accident and spill would be minimized by using pilot cars to escort
transport trucks through Beaver Creek Canyon (along County Road 9480) to the project site. Transport
and pilot car personnel would be trained in emergency procedures and carry emergency response plans
and materials during the transport. Transport trucks and pilot cars would also carry emergency
containment equipment appropriate for the materials being transported. In the event of a spill, a carrier
would be required to implement appropriate emergency response measures as stipulated by state and
federal regulations. Specifics on spill response measures are provided in Section 4.22.3 of the Crown
Jewel Mine EIS.
In addition, BMGC would develop and maintain a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan
(SPCC), a Hazardous Material Handling Plan, and a Transportation Spill Response Plan (Crown Jewel Mine
EIS, Section 2.12.4). These plans would describe and provide for onsite containment equipment that
would be available for response to transport accidents involving hazardous materials near the mine along
Beaver and Toroda creeks.
3.4 Step 4 - Biological Investigation
A biological investigation (Step 4) is performed when the risk assessment concludes that project-related
effects are adverse and unavoidable. The biological investigation is conducted to develop information
regarding the significance of the impact on the population as a whole (i.e., on the species over its entire
range). The risk assessment for this BE concluded that individuals or local populations (Analysis Area) of a
few of the analysis species may be adversely affected, but that the proposed project would not adversely
affect the population of any species over its entire range. Therefore, no biological investigation was
completed for the Crown Jewel Project.
Crown Jewel Project BE 19 November 14,1996
-------
4.0 ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS
This section contains the findings of Step 1 (Pre-Field Review), Step 2 (Field Reconnaissance), and Step
3 (Determination of Effects). Steps 1 and 2 were not conducted in consecutive order. The field portion of
the BE started prior to and continued during the literature review for each species. Potential effects of the
proposed Crown Jewel Project are considered for 24 evaluation species (Table 1). After completion of
Step 1, it was determined that no further assessment was required for three of these species: pygmy
rabbit, California bighorn sheep, and ferruginous hawk.
4.1 Townsend's Big-eared and Myotls Bats
Townsend's big-eared and five species of myotis bat were evaluated. They included western small-footed
myotis, long-eared myotis, fringed myotis, long-legged myotis, and Yuma myotis. The results of surveys
conducted by Perkins (1989), Sarell and McGuinness (1993), and ENSR Consulting and Engineering
(1994) were used to generate a list of bat species which may exist in the Core and Analysis Areas. These
studies also provided the only site specific information on the life history of bats found in or near the
Buckhorn Mountain area. The study area of Sarell and McGuinness (1993) included Okanogan, Grant,
Douglas, Chelan, Lincoln, and Ferry Counties, but no surveys were conducted in the Core or Analysis
Areas. Perkins' (1989) study area included the Wenatchee, Okanogan, and Colville National Forests.
Some mine searching surveys for bats were conducted in the Core and Analysis Areas in T39N, R30E
Section 24; T39N, R31E, Section 19; T40N, R30E, Sections 16, 21, and 24; and in T40N, R31E, Section
19. Perkins detected no bats during the searching surveys, but noted considerable activity near the Lake
Beth Campground in the transportation corridor portion of the Core Area. The surveys conducted by
ENSR (1994) were restricted to the Core Area and the Starrem Reservoir site. General life history
information was obtained primarily from Nagorsen and Brigham (1993).
The Core and Analysis Areas are located within the known ranges of Townsend's big-eared bat and the
five myotis species and contain suitable habitats for all five species. However, presence and distribution
of the five myotis species within the Core and Analysis Areas may be restricted by their known
preferences for habitats within certain elevational limits. Fringed myotis and western small-footed myotis
generally occur at lower elevation arid grassland and ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forest habitats from 990
to 2,800 feet elevation (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993). However as indicated in Section 4.1.2, one
possible western small-footed myotis was mist netted in the Core Area at the upper Magnetic Mine adit.
Yuma myotis are found up to 2,500 feet, while long-legged myotis and long-eared myotis are typically
found from sea level to as high as 3,500 feet and 4,500 feet, respectively (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993).
Townsend's big-eared bat is a permanent resident throughout Washington (Kunz and Martin 1982). Its
occurrence may be restricted more by the availability of suitable cave or cave-like hibernacula and roost
sites than habitat types (Perkins 1987 and 1994, Marshall et al. 1992). In eastern Washington, it is
primarily found at elevations below 3,600 feet (Nagorsen and Brigham 1993).
Within areas of preferred habitat, each species selects and uses microhabitats which meet their individual
life history needs. The availability of roosting and maternity sites is an important factor in determining the
distribution and abundance of bats (Barbour and Davis 1969, Christy and West 1993, Nagorsen and
Brigham 1993). The Townsend's big-eared bat and myotis species addressed by this BE use natural
caves, mine adits and shafts, buildings, trees, and rock crevices for roost and maternity sites.
4.1.1 Townsend's Big-eared Bat
Big-eared bats favor caves and abandoned mine tunnels for hibernation, nurseries, and roosting but will
use buildings and bridges (Barbour and Davis 1969, Perkins 1987, Christy and West 1993). Their
roosting habits make them particularly vulnerable to human disturbance. Big-eared bats hang from open
ceilings and never enter cracks or crevices (Barbour and Davis 1969). They are intolerant of disturbance
and are known to permanently desert disturbed roosts (Maser et al. 1981, Barbour and Davis 1969).
Disturbance during hibernation may reduce over-winter survival of big-eared bats.
Big-eared bats normally hibernate from mid-October until mid-April (Banfield 1974), typically in caves
having multiple entrances which allow ventilation (Perkins 1989, Perkins 1994). They cluster inside the
Crown Jewel Project BE 20 November 14,1996
-------
cave near an entrance or other well ventilated area, moving deeper into the cavern if temperatures
become too extreme (Banfield 1974, Kunz and Martin 1982). Big-eared bats typically use the portion of
the cave or mine with the coldest, non-freezing temperatures. They may require cool conditions within
hibernacula to maintain low metabolic rates and conserve fat reserves (Banfield 1974). Temperatures in
selected caves generally range from 35° to 54° F (Perkins 1994).
Maternity roosts are almost always caves although buildings and bridges are known to be used (Perkins
1989, Christy and West 1993). The maternity roosts are usually warm (60° F), and have a dome-like
structure to trap warm air (Perkins 1989). Maternity colonies consist of females and their young; males and
non-breeding females roost alone or in small groups separate from the nursery (Christy and West 1993).
The maternity colonies generally disband by August (Kunz and Martin 1982). Big-eared bats exhibit a
high degree of site attachment and will return to the same maternal roost year after year (Kunz and Martin
1982).
Big-eared bats use caves, bridges, and open buildings as night roosts (Barbour and Davis 1969, Christy
and West 1993). Males and non-lactating females sometimes use large hollow trees for roosting (Perkins
1994). They do not always use the same roost each night (Maser et al. 1981). Night roosts are often
shared with other species (Kunz and Martin 1982).
The big-eared bat is an aerial feeder, feeding mostly along forest edges, roads, or forest openings (Kunz
and Martin 1982, Christy and West 1993). They feed principally on small moths but may take other insects
including representatives of Neuroptera, Coleoptera, Diptera, and Hymenoptera (Kunz and Martin 1982).
Historical records document occurrences of big-eared bats 30 miles west and 40 miles east of the project
site. Surveys in 1988 (Perkins 1989) found scattered populations of big-eared bats at hibernating sites
between 30 and 60 miles east of the proposed Crown Jewel mine site. Bat surveys conducted within the
Core and Analysis Areas (Perkins 1989, Sarell and McGinness 1993, ENSR 1994) did not find this
species even though old mine adits in the Core Area could provide suitable habitat for big-eared bats.
Townsend's big-eared bats were documented during winter bat roost surveys conducted by ENSR
(Paulus 1994). A small number of big-eared bats were found roosting in mine adits near Chesaw and the
proposed Starrem Reservoir site.
4.1.2 Myotis Bats
Day and maternity roosts of western small-footed myotis have been found in crevices in cliffs and boulders
and on talus slopes. They prefer small protected dry crevices. Night and hibernation roosts are located in
small caves and abandoned mine adits. Buildings are also used as temporary night roosts between flights.
Western small-footed myotis hunt caddisflies over the edge of rocky bluffs. Flies, moths, and beetles are
also documented as prey. Western small-footed myotis hibernate near the entrance of caves and mine
adits (Banfield 1974). One western small-footed/California myotis was mist netted by ENSR (1994) in the
Core Area at the upper Magnetic Mine adit. Identification was not conclusive due to taxonomic similarities
between these two species. No other observations of this species have been recorded within the Core or
Analysis Area.
Fringed myotis use mines, caves, rock crevices, and buildings for day roosts. Temporary night roosts
have been found in mines, and large maternity colonies have been observed in caves and buildings.
Little is known about the migration habits of the fringed myotis, but individuals have been documented
hibernating in caves. Fringed myotis typically hunt airborne insects in thickets along streams and rivers.
The species is also known to glean insects from foliage. Moths, flies, beetles, leaf hoppers, lacewings,
crickets, and harvestmen are documented as prey. Fringed myotis have not been documented in the
Core or Analysis Areas. One detection was documented in the Okanogan National Forest during surveys
conducted by Perkins (1989). This detection was near Hunter Mountain, over 50 miles southwest of the
Analysis Area.
Long-eared myotis are strongly associated with coniferous forests in coastal Oregon and Washington
(Maser et al. 1981). Throughout their range, long-eared myotis day roosts are found in buildings and
under the bark of trees. Long-legged myotis use similar sites as well as crevices in rock cliffs and fissures
in the ground as day roosts. Both species typically use caves and abandoned mines for temporary
Crown Jewel Project BE 21 November 14,1996
-------
roosting between foraging flights at night. Three or four small maternity colonies ot long-eared myotis are
documented in Oregon. All were located under cedar shakes on roofs. One colony was reported in an
attic in Clallum County, Washington (Perkins 1989). Long-legged myotis may use attics as well, but
nurseries have also been found under the bark of trees and in fissures in the ground.
Long-eared myotis are adaptable in their feeding habits. They chase airborne prey, as well as glean
insects from the ground and off plants. Long-eared myotis feed primarily on moths with beetles, flies, and
spiders also consumed (Perkins 1989). Long-legged myotis forage over water, among trees and above
the canopy. In Alberta, this species prefers to hunt along forest edges and cliff faces. The major prey of
long-legged myotis is moths, but termites, spiders, flies, beetles, leaf hoppers, and lacewings have also
been documented as prey.
Both species probably migrate southward prior to hibernation, and both have been known to hibernate in
caves and mine adits. All hibernating western long-eared myotis have been found west of the Cascades
(Perkins 1989). Occurrences of long-eared and long-legged myotis in the Core Area were reported by
ENSR (1994) from summer surveys. Several individuals of both species were captured during mist net
surveys at the upper and lower Magnetic Mine adits. Long-eared myotis were also netted at the Gold Axe
adit. Myotis use of these adits appeared to be primarily for foraging since little evidence of roosting use
was encountered (ENSR 1994). During winter surveys, a few individuals of long-eared myotis were found
roosting in a mine shaft near Chesaw and in the lower Magnetic Mine adit (Paulus 1994). No other
detections of either species have been reported within the Okanogan National Forest.
Yuma myotis is restricted to lower elevations and is closely associated with water. The species exhibits a
dependency for man-made structures, especially as maternity sites (Barbour and Davis 1969). Day roosts
are usually located in buildings, but some have been found in rock crevices in the Okanogan Valley. Yuma
myotis use man-made structures such as buildings and bridges for roosting between foraging bouts at
night. Nursery colonies, consisting of large numbers of females, are typically located in the attics of
buildings. All roosts are located near a source of water. Some Yuma myotis have been found hibernating
in caves, but little is known about the migration and hibernation habits of this species. Yuma myotis
forages over lakes, rivers, and streams. In the Okanogan Valley, their diet varies seasonally. Midges are
the main prey in the spring and mayflies and caddisflies are the predominant food in summer.
ENSR (1994) recorded several Yuma/little brown myotis during summer mist netting surveys at the upper
Nicholson Creek Pond and the tower Magnetic Mine adit. In addition, ENSR documented two Yuma/little
brown myotis roosting in the Buckhorn and lower Roosevelt adits during winter surveys (Paulus 1994).
Taxonomic similarities precluded positive identification. No other occurrences are documented for the
Okanogan National Forest.
4.1.3 Determination of Effects for Townsend's Big-eared and Myotis Bats
Numerous human-related threats exist for bats. One of the most serious is human disturbance of
hibernacula and maternity roost sites. Bat species that use buildings as roosts (e.g., Yuma myotis) are
considered pests and are often exterminated. Obstruction or modification of cave entrances during winter
months can cause detrimental climate changes in hibernacula. Recreational activities, such as rock
climbing and spelunking, have been shown to cause Townsend's big-eared bat roost abandonment
(Barbour and Davis 1969). Excessive visits to caves by spelunkers and researchers may also accelerate
depletion of fat reserves by hibernating bats, resulting in starvation (Humphrey 1982). Studies by ENSR
(Paulus 1994) indicated that mine adits and buildings near the proposed mine development sites were
not important roost sites or winter hibernacula for bats. No evidence of extensive roosting use (large
numbers of bats or accumulations of guano) was found in any of the surveyed adits. The ceilings and walls
were wet along most of the length of the adits, and the few bats located were found in drier areas,
especially at the end of bore holes.
Destruction of habitat is another source of concern for bats. Deforestation and habitat losses due to
development or dewatering of wetlands and riparian areas can reduce foraging habitat and result in
reductions in bat populations dependent upon these habitat types (Humphrey 1982, Sarell and
McGuinness 1993). All cover types in the Core Area provide potential foraging and roosting habitat for
Townsend's big-eared bat and one or more Myotis species. Habitat loss from mining could directly impact
Crown Jewel Project BE 22 November 14,1996
-------
these species by reducing the extent of potential foraging and/or roosting habitat during mine operation
and until reclamation is complete. Loss of habitat would range from nine to thirteen percent of the Core
Area for the action alternatives. Under proposed reclamation, the proportion of forest cover types would
be permanently reduced. This would result in a long-term minor reduction in available forested habitat for
forest-dwelling bats such as the big-eared bat, western long-eared myotis, long-legged myotis, and Yuma
myotis. Disturbed areas could provide foraging habitat (edge) for long-eared and long-legged myotis
soon after reclamation is complete; however, tree roosting habitat would be lacking. Yuma myotis which
were documented over the upper Nicholson Creek pond could also be directly affected by potential
habitat loss resulting from mine development. Construction of the tailings facility would result in the
permanent loss of riparian habitat which represents preferred Yuma myotis foraging habitat. Required
wetland mitigation would create or enhance existing wetlands thereby offsetting this loss of habitat.
With Alternatives B, D, E, and F construction of the north waste rock disposal area would alter the
hydrology of the Frog Pond. The water level would be lower until reclamation is complete and the water
diversion structure below the waste rock disposal area has been removed, but open water would remain
since augmentation of water is proposed to maintain some wetlands functions and values. This change
should not affect bat use of the Frog Pond. The frog pond would be eliminated and permanently tost to
the waste rock disposal area in Alternative G. Construction of Starrem Reservoir for all alternatives would
increase the amount of available open water during operations, although the reservoir would be removed
during reclamation.
Long-eared and long-legged myotis generally roost under the bark of large trees. It is unknown if any
important tree roost sites for these species would be lost to project development. Reforested sites are
not likely to provide suitable roosting habitat until at least 100 years after reclamation. Proposed mitigation
to create snags in forest stands adjacent to the footprint would partially compensate for this toss. The
conversion of forested habitat to more open cover types may increase the amount of potential foraging
habitat for fringed and western small-footed myotis.
Townsend's big-eared bat and all myotis bats addressed will use caves as roost sites, either as primary
roosts or temporary roosts while foraging at night. The Gold Axe and Double Axe adits would be
destroyed by the mine pit in Alternatives B, E, F, and G, resulting in a permanent toss of potential cave
roosting and foraging habitat. However, no evidence of roosting bats was located in these adits. A minor
amount of winter roosting activity was documented for a mine shaft near Chesaw, two adits near Starrem
Reservoir, Buckhorn adit, upper and tower Magnetic Mine adits, and upper and lower Roosevelt Mine
adits. These sites would not be directly disturbed by mine development, but may be rendered unsuitable
for roosting activity during project operations due to impacts of noise (particularly blasting). Frequent
disturbance during hibernation could also arouse bats and induce a sequence of increased rates of
metabolism, depletion of fat reserves, starvation, and mortality. As indicated previously, only minor
amounts of bat roosting activity was detected in these adits, and possible disturbance would only affect a
few individual bats.
Development of the mine pit in Alternatives B, D, E, and G would create the potential for additional rock
crevice roosting habitat after cessation of mining. The pit lake that would be formed in Alternatives B, D,
and G would create additional available drinking water for bats and foraging habitat for species such as
Yuma myotis which prefer to feed over open water. Modeling indicates that levels of mercury and silver in
the pit water could be toxic to certain fish and aquatic invertebrate species but would not pose a risk to
terrestrial vertebrate species such as bats. Subsidence associated with Alternative C and D, following
cessation of underground mining, could provide talus and cave roosting habitat suitable for Townsend's
big-eared bat and some myotis bats.
The presence of night lighting for mining operations could also serve to attract foraging bats to the vicinity
of the mining operation. Night lights attract moths and other night flying insects which are preyed on by
bats. However, illuminated areas near mine operations may not serve as suitable bat foraging sites
because of noise levels associated with heavy equipment operation. Loud noises could affect bat's
abilities to find prey by echo-location.
Another concern for bats within the Core Area is the exposure of bats to potentially harmful waters in the
tailings impoundment. Bats drink water once each night and require open water for consumption (Perkins
Crown Jewel Project BE 23 November 14,1996
-------
1994). During mine operations, bats may be attracted to open water in the tailings pond. Analyses have
indicated that concentrations of ammonia in the water could adversely impact bats, but the toxic risk from
cyanide and metals would be tow (Beak 1995). Effects of low levels of cyanide in combination with low
levels of metals or other chemicals are largely undetermined for species of bats. II is possible that some
mortality of bats could be associated with use of the tailings impoundment. Monitoring animal mortalities at
the tailings impoundment would be a stipulated requirement of mine operation. If significant mortalities of
bats or other species occur, corrective actions would be required to preclude additional mortalities.
Indirect effects would be caused by increased human presence, secondary development, and accidental
spills of toxic materials during transport. Residential development may remove minor amounts of myotis
bat foraging and roosting habitat. Since some myotis bats, particularly the Yuma myotis, sometimes roost
in attics and under roof shakes, the construction of houses could create a small amount of roosting habitat
for these species. Recreational use of the Analysis Area by workers and their families could result in a
minor increase of disturbance at roost sites and cause bats to abandon the roosts. In the event of an
accidental spill of sodium cyanide into Toroda, Beaver, or Myers creeks, concentrations could be acutely
lethal to bats (Beak 1995). The risk of mortality would decline downstream and with time. A spill of
ammonium nitrate or cement/lime could also have adverse effects on bats. There would be no acute
impacts to bats resulting from a spill of diesel fuel.
Cumulative Effects. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities in the Analysis Area
constitute a minor incremental impact on suitable habitat for bats. Past timber harvest has altered forest
structure, but is not considered a significant change to bat habitat. Past mining has created cave habitat
with documented use. While proposed mining activities would cause mortality to bats through habitat loss
and exposure to the tailings pond, the incremental effect, and therefore significance, of any resulting
population decline cannot be determined and cannot be placed in a regional population context because
population levels are unknown.
Determination of Effects Conclusion. Presence within the Core Area was documented for all
species except fringed myotis. All species evaluated, except long-eared myotis, generally prefer habitats
below 3,500 to 3,600 feet in elevation. However, knowledge of bat populations and distribution is limited.
Even though most mine facility development would occur at elevations above 3,600 feet, suitable habitat
exists within the mine footprint area and may be used to some extent by the other species, as indicated by
survey results (ENSR 1994). The loss of snags and existing adits in the mine footprint area would reduce
the number of potential roost sites for myotis and big-eared bats. However, no evidence of roosting
activity was found in adits to be directly disturbed by mine development. Noise from mining operations
and increased human presence may cause bats to abandon adit roost sites that would not be directly
impacted by surface disturbance. Surveys indicated that bat roosting use of these adits was relatively
minor. Mitigation to create snags would partially compensate for the loss of possible tree roost sites. Pit
development would not compensate for the loss of cave roosting habitat, but would create additional rock
crevice roosting habitat for some species.
Myotis and Townsend's big-eared bats may use the tailings pond as a source of drinking water. The
ammonia or combinations of other chemical constituents present in the pond would have a tow potential to
adversely impact bats, and some mortalities could occur. Mortality could also occur in the event of a
sodium cyanide, ammonium nitrate, or cement/lime, spill. The probability of a spill occurring and likelihood
of toxic exposure to bats would be extremely low. The duration of risk of toxic effects from the tailings
impoundment and accidental spills would be greatest with Alternative F since this alternative would have
the longest period of operation; however, overall risk would still be very low. Toxic risk would be
eliminated after reclamation. The habitat, land use, and toxic impacts could result in individual mortalities
and reductions in local summer populations of bat species of concern. Adverse effects to populations of
SOC bats cannot be predicted with certainty due to a lack of regional knowledge for populations of these
species. However, impacts to populations of bat species are not likely since mine development would not
affect any important maternity or winter roost hibernation sites. Therefore, for Townsend's big-eared bat
mine development may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal
listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species. For the five Myotis species mine
development may adversely affect individual bats or their habitat but is unlikely to result in an adverse
effect to populations of these species.
Crown Jewel Project BE 24 November 14,1996
-------
4.2 Pygmy Rabbit
The pygmy rabbit is found in southern Idaho, western Utah, northern Nevada, southeastern Oregon, and
eastern Washington (Ashley 1992a). In Washington, the pygmy rabbit historically occurred in Adams,
Benton, Douglas, Franklin, Grant, and Lincoln counties. Although it may still occur in Grant and Lincoln
counties, its known present range in Washington is five active sites in Douglas county (WADFW 1993b).
Cover appears to be the critical habitat component required by the pygmy rabbit (Green and Flinders
1980). Pygmy rabbits inhabit areas which contain sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) with an average height of 32
inches and average canopy cover of 32.7 percent (WADFW 1993b). They are seldom found in areas with
sparse vegetation (Ashley 1992a). Preliminary studies find no differences in pygmy rabbit densities on
grazed and ungrazed sites although male average home range sizes were larger in grazed areas than in
ungrazed areas (WADFW 1993b).
Sagebrush is a major food item for the pygmy rabbit. It comprises up to 99 percent of the winter diet and is
the single most important food throughout the year (Green and Flinders 1980). During the winter, pygmy
rabbits will excavate snow burrows to forage on sagebrush (Ashley 1992a). In spring and summer,
grasses and forbs constitute 49 percent of their diet with the remaining 51 percent being sagebrush
(Green and Flinders 1980). Wheatgrass and bluegrass (Poa spp.) are highly preferred foods; forbs are
eaten only occasionally.
The Analysis Area is outside the known and historical range of the pygmy rabbit, and no sightings of the
pygmy rabbit have been documented within the Core or Analysis Areas. In addition, suitable habitat of
mature sagebrush does not exist in the Core or Analysis Areas. Therefore project development would
have no impact on pygmy rabbit, and further analysis will be provided for this species in this BE.
4.3 Gray Wolf
The gray wolf is a wide-ranging carnivore that was once abundant across North America. Trapping and
shooting eliminated wolves from most of eastern North America by 1900. However, the introduction of
strychnine in the late 1800s resulted in the virtual extinction of wolves throughout most of the United
States by 1930 (Peterson 1986). The status of wolves in Minnesota improved in the late 1960s as poison
was banned, aerial gunning declined, and government bounties were eliminated (Peterson 1986). Since
legal protection was initiated in 1974, wolves from Canada have been slowly recolonizing parts of
Montana, Idaho, and Washington. The current distribution of wolves in North America is mainly confined
to the northern half of the continent, including portions of Washington, Idaho, Montana, Minnesota,
Wisconsin, and Michigan within the conterminous lower 48 states. Human/wolf land use conflicts and
resultant shootings or poisonings remain as the major sources of wolf mortality in most areas today
(Frederick 1991; Mech 1989; Mech et al. 1988).
The gray wolf utilizes a wide variety of habitats, from dense forest to open tundra. They are not
dependent on specific habitats as long as areas free of human persecution that maintain suitable prey
populations are available. The key components of wolf habitat are: 1) a sufficient, year-long prey base of
ungulates (deer, elk, and moose) and alternative prey (Carbyn 1987; Frederick 1991), 2) suitable and
somewhat secluded denning and rendezvous sites (Carbyn 1987; Mech 1970), and 3) sufficient space
with minimal interaction with humans (Thiel 1985). Wolves are opportunistic predators that feed primarily
on ungulates and small animals (Carbyn 1987; Paradiso and Nowak 1982). Reproducing packs inhabit
territories that range from 40 to 1,000 square miles (Peterson 1986) depending on pack size and prey
density. In natural habitat situations (i.e., with no human-caused wolf mortality) wolf numbers and
distribution are directly related to ungulate btomass and availability (Fuller 1989; Frederick 1991, Peterson
and Page 1988; Pimlott 1967). Because of their size and complex social organization, wolves could rarely
survive on a prey base consisting solely of small mammals (Pimlott 1967).
Research in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota has indicated that wolves were most vulnerable to
human-caused mortality in areas of high human density and high open road density (Frederick 1991, Thiel
1985). However, in the western United States, two wolf packs in Montana have survived in areas with
relatively high road densities for at least three years (USFWS 1994). These populations indicate that
Crown Jewel Project BE 25 November 14,1996
-------
wolves can adapt to higher road densities and associated human presence in historic range, as long as full
or partial protection is provided and prey sources remain adequate.
Road densities in the Analysis Area are currently 2.2 miles per square mile. Although recent research
indicates that road densities may not directly affect wolves recolonizing historic ranges in the West, road
densities may indirectly affect wolves by reducing the extent of secure habitat available for deer
populations during the hunting season. Consequently, potential prey populations for gray wolf could be
reduced as a result of increased vulnerability to human hunting pressure.
Deer represent the main prey species of a potential wolf population in the Analysis Area. Winter deer
habitat currently does not meet Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines in Management Area (MA) 14 and
MA 26 in the Core Area. However, based on numbers of deer observed during winter wildlife surveys,
A.G. Crook (I992b) estimated a relatively high population density of approximately 10 deer per square
mile within the Core Area. During the winter of 1991/1992, most deer moved from the Core Area to tower
elevation habitats when snow depths reached 12 to 16 inches (A.G. Crook 1992b). Groups of 200 deer
or more have been observed in the Myers Creek drainage at the western boundary of the Analysis Area.
It is not known if current deer densities in the Core and Analysis Areas could sustain a viable wolf
population. However, populations of deer, various small animals, and grouse may be sufficient to support
a dispersing wolf traveling through the Core and Analysis areas.
An increasing number of recent wolf sightings have been reported throughout the northern portions of
Washington (Laufer and Jenkins 1989). There have been 120 reports of wolf sightings since 1989 in
Okanogan and Ferry counties (WADFW 1994a). Of these, four were confirmed sightings (Class 1) and 26
were classified as highly reliable sightings (Class 2). The closest confirmed sightings to the Analysis Area
were two wolves killed in British Columbia, one near Princeton (75 miles northwest of the Core Area) and
one near Grand Forks (23 miles northeast of the Core Area) (Dyer 1994). Although wolves have not been
confirmed on the Tonasket Ranger District, it is possible that wolves may use the Analysis Area as part of a
larger home range or for dispersal.
A.G. Crook and Tonasket Ranger District personnel conducted howling surveys and monitored carcass
bait stations in 1992 for signs of wolf presence but did not elicit any responses or record any other
evidence of wolves in the Core or Analysis areas (A.G. Crook 1992b).
4.3.1 Determination of Effects for Gray Wolf
Although no viable wolf population is known to exist in the Core or Analysis areas, me area could support
dispersing wolves or eventual recolonization since it falls within the species' historic range and is near
known population areas in British Columbia. It is possible that dispersing individuals may occasionally
wander through the area. All cover types within the Core Area could provide suitable habitat for the gray
wolf, and availability of suitable habitat is not believed to be a limiting factor for wot) reestablishment. The
determination of effect of the Crown Jewel Project on gray wolf was based primarily on an assessment of
the project's effect on potential movement linkages through the Okanogan Highlands and the project's
effect on deer populations that could provide a prey base for dispersing wolves.
Although the project area could serve as a portion of a larger home range or as a travel linkage for wolves,
increased human disturbance may reduce the likelihood of wolves using the immediate vicinity of the
project area. Increased human presence could result in disturbance impacts to any wolves passing
through the area, as well as deer and other prey species. The effects of increased human presence
would occur in an area already substantially altered by timber harvest, road building, and human
recreational activity. Mine exploration and development would not impact any existing unroaded areas.
Potential disturbance impacts would occur over a 6 to 33-year project duration, depending on alternative.
Alternative F would have the greatest long-term impact with a project duration of 33 years. Road densities
would decrease following reclamation.
The Analysis Area includes a portion of the northern Okanogan Highlands, one of several mountain
ranges that form peninsular extensions from Canada and provide landscape links between British
Columbia and northern Washington. Although movement of wolves between British Columbia and the
Crown Jewel Project BE 26 November 14.1996
-------
southern portions of the Okanogan Highlands has not been documented recently, dispersal between the
two areas is possible. Landscape features favorable to dispersing animals are represented by north-south
oriented mountain ranges with limited amounts of human development. The Kettle River Range provides
a continuous mountain connection between British Columbia and the southern portions of the Okanogan
Highlands. As indicated in the Crown Jewel Mine EIS (Section 4.12.3), potential movement linkages in
the vicinity of Buckhorn Mountain could be disrupted by the mine footprint and associated human
activities. The mine disturbance area would be only about 1 percent of the total acreage within the
Analysis Area. Dispersing wolves would likely avoid the active mine disturbance, but there would remain
considerable areas with limited human influence in the eastern portions of the Analysis Area, including the
unroaded Jackson Creek drainage. The majority of the Analysis Area would not be physically altered by
the proposed mine, and these areas would continue to provide functional travel linkages for potential wolf
travel from British Columbia into the southern portions of the Okanogan Highlands. For a wide-ranging
species such as gray wolf, a mine caused shift in gray wolf dispersal travel through the Analysis Area would
be insignificant.
Prey (deer) availability could be directly affected by the loss and conversion of habitat associated with mine
development. As indicated above, snow intercept/thermal (SI/T) winter deer habitat currently does not
meet Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines in MA 14 and MA 26 in the Core Area. Mine development
would further reduce available SI/T cover on Buckhorn Mountain. There would be a long-term loss of
approximately 28 to 55 acres or a 12 to 23 percent reduction of existing SI/T cover in MA 14 and MA 26,
depending on alternative (see Table 4). Long-term losses are represented by reclaimed areas which
would require in excess of 100 years to redevelop characteristics of suitable SI/T cover. These losses
could directly affect prey availability for gray wolf within the Core Area.
Table 4
Losses of Deer Snow Intercept/Thermal (SI/T) Cover
Alternative
B
C
D
E
F
G
Acres
47
31
31
55
37
28
Percent Reduction
In Core Area
20
13
13
23
15
12
Crown Jewel Project BE
27
November 14,1996
-------
It is uncertain to what extent existing deer populations within the Analysis Area could be affected by
reductions of SI/T cover within the Core Area. There is no data available on current deer population
numbers or the total amount of deer SI/T cover within the Analysis Area, and it is not known if the extent of
SI/T cover is a limiting factor for resident deer populations. It is possible that there would be at least some
reduction in Core Area deer numbers associated with a reduction in SI/T cover. However, there is some
evidence that deer in the Buckhorn Mountain area may not be dependent on SI/T cover for survival during
severe winter periods. Studies by A.G. Crook (1992b) indicated that deer populations are relatively high
and that most deer move off Buckhorn Mountain to lower elevation habitats when winter snow depths
reached 12 to 16 inches. Even in the event that deer numbers are reduced in the Core Area, the
reduction would be relatively minor in comparison to the total deer population in the Analysis Area, and
there would be little risk for adverse effects on a wide-ranging predator such as gray wolf.
Potential reductions in available habitat and local deer herd numbers will be mitigated somewhat by current
and future road closures planned by the Forest Service (see Figure 5). Forest roads 100,120,140,150,
and 3550 (Marias Creek road) would be closed at project initiation. The roads would be closed for the life-
of-mine and would reduce the current open road density of 2.2 miles per square mile to 1.9 miles per
square mile in the Analysis Area, thereby increasing the extent of secure habitat areas.
In addition, the proposed Crown Jewel mine operation could increase the extent of secure habitat since
no hunting and firearms will be permitted within the mine area and undisturbed areas of suitable habitat
would remain within the fenced mine perimeter. The majority of this area would be comprised of mixed
conifer pole, mixed conifer mature, and riparian/wetland cover types that provide suitable habitat and
cover for deer. The mine perimeter would be defined by a standard range fence that could be easily
circumvented by deer. This circumstance often creates a "refuge effect" that has been demonstrated at a
number of western mining operations. In these situations, hunted animals, such as deer and elk, appear
to acclimate to constant noises and human activities so long as they are not associated with negative
experiences such as being chased or hunted (Busnel 1978).
There would be minimal risk of exposure of gray wolf to waters in the tailings impoundment since wildlife
would be excluded from the area by fencing comprised of chain link and wire mesh. Also as long as
garbage disposal is handled properly, wolves would not be attracted to the mine facilities because of the
extent of human activity. In the unlikely event of a transport spill in Beaver or Toroda creek, the risk of a
wolf drinking contaminated water is very low since a spill would be a short-term accidental event (see
Section 3.3). 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 wolves. With any spill scenario,
recovery of water quality 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.
Cumulative Effects. The cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
activities have reduced or could reduce the suitability of wotf habitat within the Analysis Area, principally
through the reduction and loss of large blocks of habitat secure from human presence. Since wolves are
not specifically habitat dependent, the main historic factors that have affected habitat quality for wolves
within the Analysis Area have been timber harvest, road development, and increases in human presence.
Timber harvest has impacted wolf habitat directly primarily by reducing the extent and continuity of secure
areas through road construction. Timber harvest has also indirectly impacted wolf habitat by reducing
suitable winter and summer cover and secure habitat areas for Analysis Area deer populations. Roads
result in increased levels of human presence and decrease security for deer during the hunting seasons.
Increased human presence and human/wolf conflicts with resultant wolf mortalities are the principal
causative factors in the loss of historic populations and may preclude the reestablishment of wolf
populations in the Analysis Area in the future. However, recent evidence tends to indicate that wolves
can reestablish populations in historic range as long as continued legal protection is provided and suitable
prey populations remain available.
As indicted in the Crown Jewel Mine EIS (Section 4.12.3 and Table 4.12.4), project development would
result in a long-term (100 years or more) reduction of SI/T cover for deer in the Core Area. However,
Section 4.12.5 of the Crown Jewel Mine EIS also states that timber harvest and road construction on state
and federal lands within the Analysis Area have declined dramatically over the last 3 years, and no specific
Crown Jewel Project BE 28 November 14,1996
-------
o
3D
m
I
i
Ol
O
30
m
0)
O
r~
O
0)
c
73
m
-------
proposals have been enacted which would return these activities to the levels that occurred from 1969 to
1989. Since current reduced levels of timber harvest are expected to continue, available Sl/T cover for
deer would is likely to increase as stands mature, thus resulting in a long-term trend of habitat
improvement for deer.
The extent of secure habitat areas for deer would also be increased from current conditions during mine
operations and after mine closure. An analysis was completed by the Forest Service to evaluate the
cumulative effect of past and future road densities on available secure habitat areas. Three different
scenarios were analyzed: 1) prior to Crown Jewel exploration activities ("pre-exploration"), 2) after
exploration but during mine operation ("post-exploration"), and 3) after mine closure and completion of
reclamation activities ("post-reclamation"). For the analysis, areas greater than 0.5 mile away from open
roads were classified as secure habitat. The post-exploration scenario includes closures on Forest
Service Roads 100,140,120,150, and 3550, while in the post-reclamation scenario, road 3550 would be
reopened, but all mine roads and previous closures would be closed. The results of this analysis are
summarized in Table 5. As indicated in Table 5, road closures during mine operation would increase the
total extent of secure areas nearly three-fold over the level that existed prior to mine exploration activities.
Following mine closure and the completion of reclamation activity, road 3550 would be reopened, but the
extent of secure habitat would still be maintained above the pre-exploration level.
Table 5
Deer Security Analysis Summary1
Security Habitat Element
Total Acres of Security Habitat
Number of Secure Blocks
Mean Block Size (acres)
Maximum Stock Size (acres)
Minimum Block Size (acres)
Pre-Exploratlon
2,431
25
97.2
1,453.5
<0.1
Post-Exploration
7,163
16
447.7
5,355.9
<0.1
Post-Reclamation
4,027
32
125.8
2,250.8
<0.1
1 Source: Forest Service, Tonasket Ranger District files
Determination of Effects Conclusion. Mine development would not adversely affect existing
populations of gray wolf because no viable wolf populations occur in the Analysis Area. Mine
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 mine development.
Impacts associated with mine operation and increased human presence would be short-term and cease
after the completion of reclamation. The mine area could result in minor shifts in potential movement by
dispersing wolves through the Kettle River Range, but mine 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 mine disturbance
Crown Jewel Project BE
30
November 14,1996
-------
area would be only about 1 percent of the total acreage within the Analysis Area. For a wide-ranging
species such as gray wolf, a mine caused shift in gray wolf dispersal travel through the Analysis Area would
be insignificant. Habitat security for gray wolf in the Analysis Area would be increased by proposed road
closures. During mine operations and after mine closure habitat security would be maintained at levels
higher than those present prior to mine exploration. Therefore, mine development is not likely to
adversely affect the gray wolf or its potential reestablishment in the Okanogan Highlands.
4.4 Grizzly Bear
The grizzly bear is a wide-ranging species that formerly occurred in the northern Okanogan Highlands
(USFWS 1993). It has not been a permanent resident of the Okanogan Highlands for many years, and the
Analysis Area and the Okanogan Highlands are located well outside of the recovery zones designated for
this species (USFWS 1993). Grizzly bears presently occur in the Selkirk Range (Selkirks Recovery Zone)
75 miles east of the Crown Jewel Project, the North Cascades 50 miles to the west (Northern Cascades
Recovery Zone), the Monashee Mountains 40 miles to the north-northeast, and the Cathedral Park -
Ashnola River Region 50 miles to the northwest.
The availability of secure travel linkages between known population areas and/or proposed recovery
zones is an important consideration in the maintenance and reestablishment of grizzly bear populations.
Because of the presence of extensive areas of open habitats and human development as well as
highways on all sides of the Okanogan Highlands (Highways 20, 21,97, and 395 in the U.S. and Highway
3 in Canada), the Highlands have not been identified as a movement linkage for grizzly bears between the
Selkirks and Northern Cascades Recovery Zones (USFWS 1993). However, because of their wide-
ranging habits a grizzly bear may occasionally wander into the Okanogan Highlands from areas of suitable
habitat in British Columbia.
The nearest permanent population, and most likely source of any grizzly bear immigration, is 40 miles
north-northeast in the Monashee Mountains of British Columbia. Movement of a grizzly bear from the
Monashee Mountains to the Okanogan Highlands would entail crossing the Kettle River Valley and British
Columbia Provincial Highway 3. The Kettle River Valley from Midway to Rock Creek, B.C. is 1 to 2 miles
wide and contains numerous farms, houses, and towns (e.g., Midway, Kettle Valley, and Rock Creek). A
grizzly bear would probably encounter humans, but records of bear-human encounters are rare (Peatt
1992) so known movements of grizzly bears into the Kettle River Valley are considered rare. Given the
inverse relation between human presence and grizzly bear, it is possible, but not probable, that grizzly
bears could cross the Kettle River Valley and move south to the Analysis Area.
No records of grizzly bear are known for the Core or Analysis areas. Tonasket Ranger District files indicate
that a grizzly bear track (Class 2 record) was reported in the Fourth of July Ridge area in 1993,
approximately 14 miles south-southwest of Buckhorn Mountain. Almack (1994) had no record of this
report. Older District records indicate that a grizzly bear was seen in 1962 in Long Alec Creek,
approximately 24 miles east of the Core Area, and in 1952 at Palmer Lake, 28 miles west of the Core Area.
The WADFW Nongame Data System (WADFW 1994a) contains a number of records for grizzly bear for
Okanogan and Ferry counties from 1989 to the present. All of these sightings, except for the Tonasket
grizzly bear track record, are more than 30 miles from the Analysis Area. The British Columbia Ministry of
Environment (Peatt 1992) has no records of grizzly bears within 12 miles of the Canadian-U.S. border in
the Analysis Area since 1984.
Grizzly bear habitat has been described and evaluated using seven essential characteristics (Craighead et
al. 1982; Almack et al. 1993): space, isolation, sanitation, denning, safety, vegetation types, and food.
Each characteristic contributes to the overall quality of the area. If one item is missing or severely
depleted, the ability of the entire ecosystem to sustain a grizzly bear population rapidly diminishes. The
Core and Analysis areas contain some of the necessary characteristics for suitable grizzly bear habitat
(e.g., vegetation types and food sources), but other important habitat factors relating to isolation,
sanitation, and safety have been compromised by human development and presence. As a
consequence, the potential for grizzly bear movement through, or occupation of, habitats in the Core and
Analysis Areas has been diminished.
Crown Jewel Project BE 31 November 14,1996
-------
Grizzly bears occupy very large home ranges which accommodate their omnivorous feeding habits,
complex population and social interactions, winter denning, and aggressive intra-specific and inter-
specific behavior (Craighead and Mitchell 1982). Adult bears are individualistic in behavior and normally
are solitary wanderers. Home ranges vary between sexes and age classes, with adult males usually
occupying the largest home ranges and subadult females occupying the smallest home ranges. Seasonal
trends in movements are similar for both sexes. In the Yellowstone, Northern Continental Divide, and
Selkirk Mountains Ecosystems, adult female home ranges of 11 to 564 square miles, and adult male home
ranges of 64 to 2,072 square miles have been reported (Almack 1986a; National Wildlife Federation 1987;
Blanchard and Knight 1991). If a grizzly bear wandered into the Okanogan Highlands, the 16 square mile
Jackson Creek unroaded area could provide isolation for one female but would be too small for a male.
Isolation and safety are functions of available space and the amount of human activity present (Almack
1986b). Areas of human occupation do not necessarily create areas of unsuitable habitat, or preclude
grizzly bear presence, but do increase the potential for conflicts between grizzly bears and humans.
Because of their wide-ranging movements, omnivorous food habits, and natural aggressiveness, grizzly
bears are likely to find sites of human habitation within their home range and obtain food there, if possible
(Knight et al. 1988).
Any bear-human interaction is a potential threat to either human or grizzly. Bear mortality resulting from
such interactions often exceeds grizzly birth rates and is considered the major cause of historical declines
in grizzly populations (Craighead and Mitchell 1982). Human garbage is cited as one of the major
contributors to bear conflicts with humans (Herrero 1985). Once food is obtained at one of these sites, it
may be checked periodically for more food. Use of these food sources leads to grizzly habitation to areas
of human activity and inevitable bear-human interactions that are usually detrimental to grizzly bears.
Garbage habituated bears can be relocated, but a nuisance bear often has to be destroyed. Thus the
availability of human-produced artificial food sources is a detrimental habitat characteristic for grizzly bears,
rather than a positive habitat factor. The probability of encounters between a dispersing grizzly bear and
humans would be moderate to high in the Analysis Area. The likelihood for human-caused bear mortality
from such an encounter would be moderate to high as well, thus reducing the suitability of the Analysis
Area and surrounding country as potential grizzly bear habitat.
4.4.1 Determination of Effects for Grizzly Bear
Proposed mining development would have no direct impact on existing grizzly bear populations or critical
habitats and would not sever any travel linkages between existing recovery zones and/or known
population areas. Mine development could have minor adverse impacts on potential grizzly bear habitat.
Space would remain available to grizzly bears, except for a relatively small portion of the Analysis Area
(about 1 percent) during active operations. Vegetation cover types providing potential habitat would be
reduced during the 10-year period of construction, operation, and reclamation. Reclamation of disturbed
sites would produce potentially suitable grizzly bear habitat on all but the pit area (Alternatives B, D, E, and
G). Early serai vegetation types would provide potential plant food quickly (over the short-term), while
older vegetation types providing forested cover would require 100 years or more to develop. Habitat
security for grizzly bear in the Analysis Area would be increased during mining by road closures and after
mining by reclamation of mine roads (see Table 5).
The Okanogan Highlands have not been identified as a movement linkage between the Selkirks and
Northern Cascades Recovery Zones (USFWS 1993). Grizzly bears may, however, occasionally wander
into the Okanogan Highlands from adjacent areas of suitable habitat in British Columbia. Portions of
potential movement linkages in the vicinity of Buckhorn Mountain could be disrupted by the mine footprint
and associated human activities. The mine disturbance area would be about 1 percent of the total acreage
within the Analysis Area. Dispersing grizzly bears would likely avoid the active mine disturbance, but there
would remain considerable areas with limited human influence in the eastern portions of the Analysis Area,
including the unroaded Jackson Creek drainage. The majority of the Analysis Area would not be
physically altered by the proposed mine and would continue to provide functional travel linkages if grizzly
bears wandered from British Columbia into the southern portions of the Okanogan Highlands. For a wide-
ranging species such as grizzly bear, a mine caused shift in dispersal travel through the Analysis Area
would be insignificant.
Crown Jewel Project BE 32 November 14,1996
-------
There would be no risk of exposure of grizzly bear to contaminated waters in the tailings impoundment.
The impoundment would be fenced and bears would not be likely to occur near the mine facilities
because of the extent of human activity. Indirect toxic impacts to individual grizzly bears could occur in the
unlikely event of an accidental transport spill of chemicals into Beaver or Toroda creeks. With any potential
spill, the likelihood of a grizzly bear drinking contaminated water is very low since a spill would be a short-
term event as long as appropriate spill response and clean-up measures are implemented as stipulated by
state and federal regulations and agency consultation. The extent of human activity associated with
emergency containment and cleanup activities would be avoided by grizzly bears. In addition, a grizzly
bear would likely avoid areas the mine facility or highway corridors.
Cumulative Effects. The cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
activities have reduced or could reduce the suitability of grizzly bear habitat within the Analysis Area,
principally through the reduction and loss of large blocks of habitat secure from human presence.
Increased human presence and human/grizzly bear conflicts with resultant grizzly bear mortalities are the
principal causative factors in the loss of historic populations and may preclude the reestablishment of
grizzly bear populations in the Analysis Area in the future. Proposed mine development could reduce
habitat suitability for grizzly bears in the Analysis Area (in the short-term) for the life of the mine.
The main historic factor that has affected habitat quality for grizzly bear within the Analysis Area has been
timber harvest and human development in the lowland areas surrounding the Okanogan Highlands.
Timber harvest has impacted grizzly bear habitat primarily by reducing the extent and continuity of secure
areas through road construction. Increased human presence and human/grizzly bear conflicts with
resultant bear mortalities are the principal causative factors in the loss of historic populations and may to
preclude the reestablishment of grizzly bear populations in the Analysis Area in the future.
Proposed mining activities would have no direct impact on existing grizzly bear populations or critical
habitats. In addition, mine development would not preclude travel by dispersing individuals between
current population areas and the southern Okanogan Highlands, and suitable travel linkages would remain
along the Kettle River Range.
Determination of Effects Conclusion. The Analysis Area is not situated in designated critical
habitat or a recovery zone for the grizzly bear. The lack of some suitable habitat characteristics make it
unlikely that a grizzly bear population could be established in the future. No currently unroaded areas or
blocks of secure habitat would be affected by mine development. In addition, mine development would
not sever any potential grizzly bear travel linkages between existing population areas and/or recovery
zones. The proposed mine development would reduce potential habitat suitability of about 1 percent of
the Analysis Area during the life of the mine. For a wide-ranging species such as grizzly bear, a mine
caused shift in grizzly bear dispersal travel through the Analysis Area would be insignificant and would not
adversely affect their potential movement through the Okanogan Highlands. Habitat security for grizzly
bear in the Analysis Area would be increased by road closures and reclamation of mine roads (see Table
5). Therefore, mine development is not likely to adversely affect grizzly bear or critical habitat.
4.5 Pacific Fisher
The Pacific fisher is a medium-size carnivore that inhabits various conifer and mixed conifer cover types
within the Canadian and Transition Life Zones of North America (Strickland et al. 1982). The selection of
specific cover types by the Pacific fisher appears to be based in part on the availability of prey species
(Allen 1983). One consistent characteristic of fisher habitat is dense overstory canopy (Powell 1982).
Ideal habitat is described as having a canopy closure of 80 to 100 percent, while areas with less than 50
percent canopy closure are avoided (Allen 1983). Although fishers will forage in second growth forest,
mature forest is preferred because it provides adequate cover with ample amounts of snags and downed
logs for denning (Rodrick and Milner 1991). During the winter, fisher prefer coniferous ridges although
riparian areas and lake shores are important as well (Raine 1981).
Heinemeyer and Jones (1994) report that 53 percent of Pacific fisher records east of the Cascade crest
were from the subalpine fir zone. According to Jones (1991, as cited in Heinemeyer and Jones 1994),
the majority of observations of fishers in Idaho occurred in mesic grand fir habitat types, while more xeric
grand fir habitat types and subalpine, ponderosa pine, and Douglas-fir habitats were avoided. In Idaho,
Crown Jewel Project BE 33 November 14,1996
-------
there was a seasonal shift in the use of successional stages (Jones and Garton 1994, as cited in
Heinemeyer and Jones 1994). During winter 46 percent of animal re-locations occurred in young forests.
A broader range of habitats may be used for hunting than for resting (Jones 1991, as cited in Heinemeyer
and Jones 1994). In Idaho, fishers preferred stands with canopy cover of at least 61 percent for resting,
and stands with canopy cover greater than 80 percent for hunting (Heinemeyer and Jones 1994).
Forested stands containing, or located immediately adjacent to, riparian areas are particularly important to
fishers (Heinemeyer and Jones 1994).
The Pacific fisher is an opportunistic feeder that will prey on whatever animals it can overpower (Powell
1982). The snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus) appears to be a primary food of the fisher; however, they
also prey on mice, ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus), blue grouse (Dendragapus obscurus), pine squirrels
(Tamiasciurus spp.), and shrews (Sorexspp.) (Powell 1982, Allen 1983). The fisher's diet also includes
carrion, especially deer. When prey is unavailable, the fisher will eat berries and nuts (Powell 1982).
Declines in fisher populations have been linked primarily to overlapping (Powell 1981), although
reductions in the contiguous extent of mature and old growth forest from timber harvest may also be a
contributing factor. The potential for risk of incidental trapping of fishers is usually linked to the extent of
open roads. Existing roads increase the potential for snowmachine access during the winter trapping
period, especially in forested areas. The general management recommendation for minimizing the risk of
trapping to fisher and other sensitive furbearers is to maintain road densities below 1 mile of road/square
mile (U.S. Forest Service 1992a).
Fishers are typically solitary and wide-ranging. Home ranges vary from 15 to 35 square kilometers (5.8 to
13.5 square miles) (Powell 1981). Allen (1983) determined that no less than 100 square miles of suitable
contiguous habitat is required to successfully sustain a population of fisher. Smaller areas may maintain
fisher populations if the area is near or adjacent to larger areas of suitable habitat. Isolated areas less than
38.6 square miles would be insufficient.
The Pacific fisher historically occurred in the Cascades as far east as the Okanogan Valley (Rodrick and
Milner 1991). Documented occurrence for Okanogan County includes a report from 1955 in the
Cascades National Park (Yocom and McCollum 1973). Other documented sightings include a 1975
record of an animal trapped on Moses Mountain; sightings in 1977 and 1979 on Eightmile Road, 1 mile
below Billy Goat trailhead; a 1988 record 4 miles west of Loomis; and a 1990 sighting near Bryan Butte
(WADFW 1994c). Two of these documented sightings of the fisher occurred on the Okanogan National
Forest (WADFW 1994c). Heinemeyer and Jones (1994) include the Okanogan Highlands on a map of the
distribution of potential Pacific fisher habitat. However no records of Pacific fisher have been documented
for the Okanogan Highlands or the Analysis Area, and a Canadian trapper reports he has never
encountered fisher in his traplines within and immediately north of the Analysis Area (Pennoyer 1994).
Potential fisher habitat of mature and old-growth forest with greater than 50 percenl canopy closure totals
1,388 acres (2.2 square miles) in the Core Area. The Analysis Area contains 27,465 acres (42.9 square
miles) of coniferous forest having a canopy cover greater than 60 percent. These forested areas in the
Core and Analysis Areas are fragmented and do not provide a contiguous block of suitable habitat.
Several blocks of habitat are narrowly linked into a combined area of 20,205 acres (31.6 square miles).
These areas would provide sufficient habitat to support a few individual fishers but not enough to maintain
a viable population of fishers (see above). In addition, the road densities for the Analysis Area are
currently at 2.2 miles of road per square mile. The Jackson Creek unroaded area (10,218 acres or 16
square miles), which comprises only 14 percent of the Analysis Area, is the only existing block of secure
unroaded habitat. The lack of large, contiguous blocks of suitable habitat with low road densities reduces
the likelihood of Pacific fisher occurring within the Analysis Area.
4.5.1 Determination of Effects for Pacific Fisher
With mine development, approximately 145 to 320 acres (or 10 to 23 percent) of the most suitable fisher
habitat (mature and old-growth forest with greater than 50 percent canopy closure) within the Core Area
would be lost. Losses of preferred habitat would be the greatest with Alternatives B and E and the least
with Alternatives F and G. These direct losses would result from operational impacts (land alteration and
Crown Jewel Project BE 34 November 14,1996
-------
disturbance) over the 6 to 33-year life of the project, depending on alternative. These impacts would be
limited to the mine footprint.
Permanent habitat loss and conversion would result from land alteration at sites such as the mine pit,
waste rock disposal areas, and tailings facility. Reclamation of the some portions of the mine footprint is
not expected to produce suitable fisher habitat. The emphasis of reclamation would be on the
reestablishment of forested habitats; however, reclaimed forested habitat would require more than 100
years to reach mature forest conditions preferred by fisher. All alternatives would result in some long-term
fragmentation of suitable fisher habitat.
The risk of other potential direct and indirect impacts of the proposed project (e.g., exposure to toxins,
increased trapping pressure, and roadkill), on fisher would be minimal since fishers would avoid disturbed
areas associated with the mine and transportation corridors.
Cumulative Effects. The cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
activities, especially timber harvest has resulted in the loss of potential fisher habitat represented by large,
contiguous blocks of mature forest. The total extent of these habitat losses is unknown, and past impacts
to fisher are uncertain since they have not been found within the Analysis Area. As a result of past habitat
conversions and road building, current habitat conditions within the Analysis Area are unsuitable to
maintain a population of fishers. Proposed mining activities would remove additional incremental amounts
of potential fisher habitat but impacts to existing populations would not occur. The lack of sufficient
suitable habitat to maintain a population of Pacific fisher will continue until a sufficient extent of forested
stands are allowed to develop mature or old growth characteristics preferred by fisher.
Determination of Effects Conclusion. Pacific fisher have not been documented in the Analysis
Area, and a sustainable population is unlikely given the lack of sufficient blocks of suitable habitat.
Consequently, potential habitat loss associated with mine development could potentially impact individual
fishers but not likely to have any adverse effects on populations of Pacific fisher.
4.6 California Wolverine
The California wolverine is a wide-ranging carnivore that inhabits remote mountainous areas in California,
Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming (Hash 1987). They prefer
extensive areas of moderately dense to scattered mature trees and avoid large openings created by burns
or clearcuts (Hornocker and Hash 1981). Within the interior forests of Washington, wolverine habitat
consists of Douglas-fir and mixed conifer forests (Hash 1987). Forests interspersed with cliffs, talus
slopes, marshes, and meadows provide the wolverine with cover, a diverse food source, and adequate
den sites. Wolverine den in snow tunnels, among boulders, in caves, and under fallen trees (Wilson
1982).
The wolverine is opportunistic and will feed on a wide variety of food items depending on availability (Hash
1987). They prey upon snowshoe hare, grouse, squirrels, mice, and voles (Hash 1987); however, carrion
is eaten more frequently than live prey and appears to be a major part of their winter diet (Hornocker and
Hash 1981). Prey availability is an important factor in habitat selection. High densities of wolverine
populations have been correlated with large and diverse ungulate populations (Hornocker and Hash
1981). Because of their scavenging nature, they tend to have large home ranges and travel frequently
over long distances (Hornocker and Hash 1981). An average home range for an adult male is 163 square
miles and can be as large as 372 square miles (Hornocker and Hash 1981).
Historical records for wolverines in the Okanogan Highlands suggest that the area may have served as a
dispersal corridor but did not support a self-sustaining populations of wolverines (Banci 1994). In
Washington, most reports come from remote portions of the North Cascades. Two wolverine sightings are
reported for the Analysis Area (Bossier 1992, Payton 1992). Wolverine also have reportedly been
sighted in Canada about 17 miles north of the Analysis Area (Pennoyer 1994).
Declines in wolverine populations have been attributed to hunting, trapping, and habitat degradation
(Hash 1987). Hornocker and Hash (1981) proposed that wilderness or remote areas where human
activities are limited are required as refuges and reserves for viable wolverine populations. Banci (1994)
Crown Jewel Project BE 35 November 14,1996
-------
suggests that wolverine require very large refugia similar to conservation strategies for other large
carnivores such as the wolf and grizzly bear. The Jackson Creek unroaded area totals 10,218 acres (16
square miles) and lies in the northeastern portion of the Analysis Area. It is remote and could provide
security for dispersing wolverines but may be too small to support a self-sustaining population.
Incidental trapping is considered one of the principal threats to populations of wolverine. It is illegal to trap
wolverines in Washington, but their curiosity, wide-ranging habits, and dependence on carrion make them
susceptible to incidental trapping. Research has shown that wolverines can travel several kilometers to
bait (Copeland and Groves 1992). The potential for risk of incidental trapping of wolverine is usually linked
to the extent of open roads. The general management recommendation for minimizing the risk of trapping
for fisher and other sensitive furbearers is to maintain road densities below 1 mile of road/square mile (U.S.
Forest Service 1992a). Existing roads increase the potential for snowmachine access during the winter
trapping period, especially in forested areas. Road densities of less than 1 mile of road/square mile is the
general recommendation for minimizing the risk of trapping to sensitive furbearer species such as
wolverine (U.S. Forest Service 1992a)
Most higher elevation portions of the Core and Analysis Areas provide suitable habitats and could serve as
a portion of a larger home range for wolverines. Road densities for that portion of the Analysis Area which
could affect wolverine habitat suitability are currently at 2.28 miles per square mile (pre-exploration
condition). Road densities at the current level reduce habitat suitability and the potential for establishment
of viable populations of wolverine in the Analysis Area.
4.6.1 Determination of Effects for Wolverine
Mine development would result in the loss of approximately 501 to 708 acres (or 11 to 16 percent) of
potential California wolverine habitat (i.e., mature, mixed conifer forest) within the Core Area during
operations. Losses of potential habitat would be the greatest with Alternative E and the least with
Alternative C. Restoration of disturbed portions of the mine footprint is not expected to produce suitable
wolverine habitat for at least 100 years following reclamation. Furthermore, some portions of the mine
footprint (e.g., pit and waste rock disposal areas) would be permanently unreclaimed or would regenerate
to grass or shrub habitats. Larger blocks of early successional stage or non-forested habitats would be
avoided by wolverine and could disrupt potential wolverine movement through the Core Area.
Project implementation (construction, operation, and reclamation) could present a slight risk of mortality to
wolverine from roadkill. Because of the wolverine's preference for remote areas, project operation could
displace wolverines from a much larger area than the immediate disturbance sites. The duration of
potential disturbance and displacement impacts would be 6 to 10 years for all action alternatives except
Alternative F, which would be for 33 years.
Indirect impacts to the California wolverine could result from secondary development, increases in human
presence and activities in the Analysis Area, and potential spills of toxic materials during transport. While
some residences may be constructed in areas away from established townsites, most secondary
development would be in previously developed areas that are unsuitable for wolverine. An increase in
recreational use (including hunting and trapping) due to an increased population is expected to present a
minor increase in the potential for adverse impact to wolverine. The potential impact of disturbance and
displacement would be short-term over the 6 to 10-year project period for all actions alternatives, except
Alternative F (33 years). Road densities within the Core area would decrease during mining and following
reclamation, providing a minor long-term benefit to wolverine. However, overall road densities would
remain above the recommended maximum unless additional road closures (unrelated to the mine) occur
(see Table 5). The pit and waste rock disposal areas would increase talus and cliff habitat in the Core Area.
This could provide den sites for wolverine if disturbance and lack of isolation do not preclude use.
The risk of other direct and indirect impacts of the proposed project from potential wolverine exposure to
toxins (i.e. from tailings pond or accidental spills) would be remote since it is unlikely that a wolverine would
occur in the disturbed mine areas or adjacent to roadways.
Cumulative Effects. The cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
activities, especially timber harvest and associated road building has resulted primarily in the loss of large
Crown Jewel Project BE 36 November 14,1996
-------
blocks of remote and secure habitat required to maintain wolverine populations. Road development has
reduced the extent of unroaded habitats or habitats with road densities less than 1 mile per square mile.
The Jackson Creek is the only remaining unroaded portion of the Analysis Area, and it may be too small to
support a self-sustaining population of wolverines. Cumulative impacts to wolverine within the Analysis
Area are uncertain because their past population status is unknown. As indicated, historical records for
wolverine in the Okanogan Highlands suggest that the area may have served as a dispersal corridor but
did not support a self-sustaining population of wolverines (Banci 1994). Proposed mining development
would result in minor incremental increase in habitat fragmentation and in losses of potentially suitable
habitat. Road densities would increase slightly with mining but would decrease below the existing
condition after mine closure. These impacts would contribute to a reduced likelihood that the Analysis
Area could support a population of wolverines in the future, but impacts to existing populations of
wolverine would not occur.
Determination of Effects Conclusion. Suitable habitat in the Core and Analysis areas could
potentially support part of an individual wolverine's larger home range or serve as a movement corridor for
this species. However, potential habitat in the Core and Analysis areas is highly fragmented and does not
provide the large contiguous blocks of remote habitat preferred by wolverine. No currently unroaded
areas or blocks of secure habitat would be affected by mine development. Mine development would
result in minor reductions in potential wolverine habitat, but impacts to individuals is unlikely considering
the marginal suitability of the available habitat, their very large home range size, and the typically low
population density of the species. Therefore, mine development may impact individuals or habitat, but will
not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or
species.
4.7 North American Lynx
The North American lynx is a specialized predator that is adapted to travel in deep snow (Koehler and
Brittell 1990, Koehler 1990). Lynx inhabit boreal forests of Canada and Alaska and isolated mountains of
the northwestern United States. This species requires a mosaic of forest conditions for hunting, denning,
and travel (Koehler and Brittell 1990). They avoid crossing openings wider than 300 feet but will travel
through thinned stands of timber (Koehler 1990). Lodgepole pine and spruce/fir cover types with tree
densities of greater than 180 stems per acre and tree heights of at least 6 feet satisfy travel cover
requirements (Brittell et al. 1989, Koehler and Brittell 1990, WADFW 1993a). Within Okanogan County,
lynx use areas above 4,000 feet dominated by lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), spruce, and subalpine fir
(Koehler and Brittell 1990).
Dens are typically within hollow logs or stumps, and underneath large logs, log piles, or root wads (Jackson
1961). In Washington, denning sites are characterized by mature lodgepole pine and spruce/subalpine fir
forests older than 200 years, with north and northeast aspects, mesic habitat associations, and a high
density of down logs (greater than or equal to 40 logs per 150 linear feet, 1 to 4 feet above ground)
(Brittell et al. 1989, Koehler 1990). Suitable denning habitat ranges from 1 to 5 acres, contains more than
one den site, and is connected to foraging areas by travel cover (Koehler and Brittell 1990).
Primary prey of the lynx is the snowshoe hare, especially during the winter months, and preferred lynx
foraging habitat coincides with habitats where snowshoe hares are abundant (Saunders 1963, Koehler et
al. 1979, Parker et al. 1983). During the summer, grouse and small mammal species also are taken, but
snowshoe hares are typically still the lynx's main prey item. Snowshoe hare abundance, which is
dependent on availability of winter habitat, is considered the major limiting factor for the Washington lynx
population (Rodrick and Milner 1991). Snowshoe hares prefer dense, early successional habitats and use
conifer stands in sapling and pole stages extensively (Bittner and Rongstad 1982). Koehler (1990) found
that in winter snowshoe hares forage almost exclusively on the tips of lodgepole pine trees less than 1
inch in diameter and at least 2 to 3 feet above the snow surface. Stands with tree and shrub densities of
6,336 stems per acre provide security and thermal cover for hares (Koehler 1990). Suspended down logs
are also a valuable habitat components, providing security cover for hares.
Lynx home range size and movement patterns are related to snowshoe hare density. Lynx remain within
well defined home ranges when hares are abundant but increase home range sizes during periods of low
hare abundance (Berrie 1973, Brand and Keith 1979, O'Connor 1984, Parker et al. 1983). The average
Crown Jewel Project BE 37 November 14.1996
-------
home range size for lynx in Washington is 24 square miles (Brittell et al. 1989). Koehler (1990) found that
average home range size is 15.6 square miles for female lynx and 27.6 square miles for male lynx in north-
central Washington.
Lynx occur in Canada north of Vulcan Mountain and in areas north of the Analysis Area (Pennoyer 1994).
The current range of lynx in Washington is identified by six discrete zones (WADFW I993a). The Vulcan
Mountain Zone lies 7 miles east and is the nearest zone to the Analysis Area. Although this zone is
considered too small (4,253 acres) to support a population of lynx, it is important as a travel corridor
(WADFW I993a). The Forest Service identifies areas above 4,000 feet within the Core Area as potential
lynx habitat (Rose 1994). One lynx sighting is known from the Core Area, and two sightings are
documented for the Analysis Area (U.S. Forest Service 1992b, WADFW 1994a, Woodruff 1994,
Swedberg 1994). No lynx or lynx sign were observed during wildlife surveys conducted in the Core Area
(Beak 1995).
The Core and Analysis areas are at the periphery of lynx range and are not likely to support a resident
population of lynx. Forest vegetation within the Core Area is dominated by Dougias-fir. Lodgepole pine
does not comprise a substantial portion of any cover type in the Core Area, although small stands are
present. Because lynx are known to expand their home range size during periods of low hare abundance,
the Core and Analysis areas may serve as an extension of lynx territories to the north and east of the
Analysis Area. The Core and Analysis areas may also serve as a travel area for dispersing juveniles.
Approximately 6,450 acres of the Core Area are above 4,000 feet. TWHIP surveys indicate that
approximately 56 percent (3,618 acres) of this area is potential lynx travel habitat (i.e., above 4,000 feet
and greater than 180 trees per acre at least 6 feet high). Approximately 254 acres (4 percent) are
identified as foraging habitat and hiding cover, 13 acres (less than 1 percent) are denning habitat, and
2,862 acres (44 percent) are non-cover for lynx. In the Analysis Area, the area above 4,000 feet extends
north to the Kettle River and south to Beaver Canyon. Coniferous and open coniferous/deciduous land
types above 4,000 feet may provide suitable lynx habitat.
4.7.1 Determination of Effects for North American Lynx
Mine development would result in losses of potential lynx habitat for the life of the mine. Most disturbance
would be in potential lynx travel habitat. Losses of travel habitat would range from 322 to 547 acres (9 to
15 percent), depending on alternative. Alternative C would affect the least amount (222 acres) of travel
habitat, while Alternatives E, F, and G would affect the greatest amount (515 to 547 acres). Impacts to
potential denning habitat would be minor (only 3 to 4 acres) while there would be 55 acres or less of
disturbance in potential foraging habitat. These direct losses would result from operational impacts (land
alteration and disturbance) over the 6 to 33-year life of the project, depending on alternative. These
impacts would be limited to the mine footprint. However, noise and human activity disturbance would
extend beyond the footprint and could affect a much larger area during mine construction and operation.
The potential impacts of disturbance and displacement from the area would be short-term (6 to 10 years)
for all alternatives except Alternative F which would extend over a 33-year time period. After project
closure and completion of reclamation activities, road densities would decline since existing mine and
exploration roads would be closed to all but administrative traffic or recontoured and revegetated.
Reclaimed areas would not be expected to produce suitable lynx denning habitat, however suitable winter
foraging habitat for the snowshoe hare, and consequently the lynx, would eventually be created in some
disturbance areas, depending on the reclamation scenario. Travel habitat would also be restored in areas
where trees would be reestablished in sufficient density to provide suitable travel cover. The pit area in
Alternatives B, D, E, and G would not be reclaimed to suitable lynx habitat.
Mine development would result in a slight increased risk of direct mortality to lynx from vehicle traffic.
There would be little risk of direct toxic exposure because the tailings pond would be fenced to exclude
lynx.
Indirect impacts of the proposed project include secondary development, increased human presence and
activities, and potential spills of toxic substances during transport. While some residences may be
constructed in areas away from established townsites, most secondary development would be in
Crown Jewel Project BE 38 November 14,1996
-------
previously developed areas and at elevations below that typically used by lynx. An increase in recreational
use (including hunting and trapping) due to population increases is expected in the Core and Analysis
areas. These impacts should be minor based on the limited availability of suitable lynx habitat (primarily
travel) in the Core and Analysis areas. The potential for indirect toxic effects to lynx from hypothetical spills
or liner breaches would be extremely low because most of the potentially hazardous spill sites would be at
lower elevations unsuitable for use by the lynx.
Cumulative Effects. The temporary disturbance and anticipated permanent loss and fragmentation of
suitable travel habitat for the North American lynx would contribute toward minor cumulative adverse
effects in the Analysis Area. The impacts would reduce the likelihood that the Core and Analysis areas
would be used for travel by the North American lynx during mine operation and until reclaimed areas
develop habitat conditions suitable for lynx.
Determination of Effects Conclusion. Suitable foraging and denning habitat for the North
American lynx is uncommon in the Core and Analysis areas. The Analysis Area is at the periphery of the
species' range and lynx presence (other than occasional dispersing individuals) is considered unlikely.
There is a slight chance that an individual lynx could use the Core Area for dispersal or as part of an
expanded home range. Mine development may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely cause a
trend toward federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.
4.8 California Bighorn Sheep
The California bighorn sheep occurs as scattered groups along the eastern slopes of the Cascade
Mountains in British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon (Rodrick and Milner 1991). This species historic
range was more widespread across northeastern Washington, with distribution along the Okanogan and
Columbia River Valleys (Wishart 1978).
Bighorn sheep inhabit remote areas where human disturbance is limited (Lawson and Johnson 1982).
They forage in open grass and shrublands and generally avoid areas of dense, tall vegetation that restrict
visibility (Van Dyke et al. 1983, Wakelyn 1987). Optimum winter range is found on south-facing slopes
where snow depths are low and native bluebunch wheatgrass, Sandberg's bluegrass (Poa sandbergii),
junegrass (Koeleria cristata), and Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoensis) are available as forage (Rodrick and
Milner 1991).
Steep rocky escape cover appears to be the most important feature of sheep habitat (Wakelyn 1987).
The extent and distribution of escape terrain (precipitous rocky slopes, ridges, and cliffs or rugged
canyons) determines the extent to which other habitat components are used (Van Dyke et al. 1983,
Wakelyn 1987). Bighorn sheep generally do not use forage areas greater than 0.5 miles from escape
terrain (Van Dyke et al. 1983). Ewes appear to select the most rugged areas for lambing; however, they
are typically within 0.3 miles of water (Rodrick and Milner 1991).
No suitable habitat for the California bighorn sheep exists in either the Core or Analysis areas. Existing
habitats are primarily forested and do not contain adequate isolated foraging habitat in proximity to escape
terrain. The few cliffs that occur within the Analysis Area are not sufficiently extensive to provide escape
terrain (King 1994). There are no plans to introduce bighorn sheep into the area (King 1994). California
bighorn sheep are found locally on Mount Hull (20 miles west of the Analysis Area) and on Vulcan
Mountain (8 miles east of the Analysis Area). Although rams are known to wander outside of established
territories, these herds are sedentary and are not known to use the Core or Analysis areas (King 1994).
Mine development will have no impact on California bighorn sheep, and no further analysis will be
provided for California bighorn sheep in this BE.
4.9 Common Loon
The common loon nests in Alaska, Canada, and the northern United States. It winters primarily along the
Atlantic and Pacific coasts and on the Great Lakes (Terres 1980). Loons typically arrive in Okanogan
County from mid-March to early May and leave on fall migration as early as mid-September (Cannings et al.
1987).
Crown Jewel Project BE 39 November 14,1996
-------
Common loons inhabit large wooded fakes which have an ample supply of fish and are of sufficient size to
allow loons to take flight and clear surrounding trees (Terres 1980, Rodrick and Milner 1991). Preferred
nesting habitat is considered to be clear, secluded lakes larger than 10 acres and below 5,000 feet in
elevation (Reel et al. 1989). They typically breed on lakes which have healthy fish populations and may
visit shallow lakes which lack fish to feed on amphibians, snails, and aquatic insects (Cannings et al. 1987,
Rodrick and Milner 1991). Nests are built of matted grasses, rushes, and twigs within 4 feet of the water's
edge (Terres 1980). Loons will nest on artificial nesting platforms but prefer to nest on protected islands
near shallow water habitat for the rearing of chicks. The same nest site may be used each year (Rodrick
and Milner 1991). Loons are generally very sensitive to human disturbances, particularly during the
breeding season. Disturbances to nesting loons may cause nest abandonment and failure. Fluctuating
water levels and nest predation may also cause nest failure. Nest predation by raccoons, skunks, crows,
and gulls is often common in areas with human habitation because of the availability of garbage. Islands
offer more protection from mammalian predators than shoreline habitat. Territory size ranges from 15 to
100 acres (Brown 1985).
Breeding populations of the common loon are low in north-central Washington. Records of common
loons within the Core Area include an adult and chick on Beth Lake (English 1994) and a few individuals
on Beth, Beaver, and Little Beaver lakes (Baumgardner 1994, Swedberg 1994). The observations
indicate at least occasional loon use of these lakes for resting, foraging, and possibly nesting. The lakes
could provide nesting habitat, but their suitability as nesting habitat is marginal because of small size,
proximity to an existing road, and current levels of recreational use. The lakes range in size from 22 to 34
acres and are smaller than Lost Lake (58 acres), which is considered marginal size for a breeding pair of
loons (Friesz 1994). A nesting pair of loons has been reported for Lost Lake, which lies approximately 2
miles southwest of the Analysis Area (Friesz 1994). Nesting loons also occur on Bonaparte Lake,
approximately 10 miles south of the Analysis Area (U.S. Forest Service records).
4.9.1 Determination of Effects for Common Loon
Project development would not result in the direct loss of nesting or foraging habitat within the Core or
Analysis Areas. However, loons using lakes in Beaver Creek Canyon could be exposed to direct
disturbance impacts from light and glare, and noise. Noise attenuation modeling results indicate that
increases in noise from facility construction and mine operation would not adversely impact loon
populations on Beth, Beaver, and Little Beaver lakes (Beak 1995). Loons would likely acclimate to the
moderate increases in traffic noise and associated light in the transportation corridor in Alternatives B, D,
E, and F. Although the common loon would not nest or forage on the tailings pond, there would be a
slight possibility that an individual would land on the pond to rest there for a short period of time. The
probability of this occurrence would be very low since areas of more suitable and attractive habitat exist
nearby in Beaver Creek Canyon. However if a loon landed in the tailings pond, modeled projections
indicate that levels of metals and cyanide in the tailings water would have negligible effects on this species
(Beak 1995). There would be a risk of impact to a loon drinking from the tailings pond due to ammonia
concentrations. Birds drinking tailings water with high ammonia concentrations could become sick and
remain on the tailings pond, thereby increasing exposure time to low levels of cyanide and metals.
Increased exposure duration could lead to a low risk of adverse impact from cyanide and metals. A low risk
indicates that a small number of mortalities could occur, but the number of mortalities are not predicted to
be significant (see ammonia discussion under Section 4.10.1, Determination of Effects for Bald Eagle).
Individual loons on Beth, Beaver, and Little Beaver Lakes may be indirectly impacted by project-
associated disturbances, such as human presence, secondary development, and an accidental toxic spill
(with Alternatives B, D, E, and F). A slight increase in human presence would occur throughout the
project vicinity. Increases in human presence throughout the project area would be the greatest for
Alternative C but for the shortest duration (6 years). Alternative F would result in the smallest increase in
human population but would have the longest duration of increased human presence with a project life of
33 years. Minor incremental impacts to the common loon could occur as recreational use and residential
development continue to increase within the project vicinity (Beak 1995). Increased recreational use
(e.g., fishing, boating) could impact loons in Beaver Creek Canyon, particularly during the breeding
season (March-September). For example, disturbance to nesting loons may cause nest abandonment,
and an increase in fishing could deplete the loon's prey base and result in chick starvation. Increased
human use also could degrade shoreline and open water habitats which would reduce the suitability of the
Crown Jewel Project BE 40 November 14,1996
-------
lakes as nesting, feeding, or resting habitat. Raccoon and skunk populations may increase in areas of
human inhabitation or recreation due to the greater availability of garbage. Loons nesting on islands
protected from these mammalian predators would not be affected, but the risk of predation of nests along
potential shoreline nesting habitat may increase.
An accidental spill of sodium cyanide, ammonium nitrate, diesel, or lime at the hypothetical spill site on
Beaver Creek could adversely impact individual loons by direct mortality and degradation of existing
habitats (Beak 1995). As indicated previously a spill of sodium cyanide, ammonium nitrate, or lime is highly
unlikely. The risk for a diesel spill is slightly higher but still very low. In the remote event of an accidental
spill, a release of sodium cyanide into Beaver or Toroda Creek would be acutely lethal to common loons
(Beak 1995). A Beaver Creek spill would dilute to nonlethal levels in Beth and Beaver Lakes. Adverse
impacts from a spill of ammonium nitrate or cement/lime also would occur. Concentrations of these toxins
would remain highly lethal to aquatic life (e.g., fish) and result in the loss of food sources for common loon
as far downstream as the Kettle River. Loss of a prey base would preclude nesting and feeding in the
drainage until suitable habitat conditions are restored. Any accidental spill in Toroda Creek (Alternatives B,
D, E, and G) or Myers Creek (Alternatives C and F) would have no effect on common loons since suitable
habitat for loons is not present along these creeks.
A spill of diesel fuel also would result in mortalities of fish and aquatic invertebrates, also rendering habitat
unsuitable for foraging loons. Most of a spill in Beaver Creek would be contained in the ponds along the
creek and losses of fish and aquatic invertebrates below the ponds would be low. Loons drinking from
diesel contaminated water would not be subjected to lethal levels (Beak 1995), but birds coming in direct
contact with a surface diesel film could die as a result of ingestion from preening or a loss of insulation from
oil coated feathers.
With any of the spill scenarios that could affect loons in the Beaver Creek drainage, impacts would result in
the loss of individual loons and a short-term reduction in suitable habitat. Recovery of water quality and
prey populations would be relatively rapid as long as appropriate spill response and clean-up measures are
implemented.
Development of Starrem Reservoir and the pit lake (with Alternatives B, D, and G) would have minimal
beneficial effect on common loon, in terms of creation of additional habitat. The reservoir would not
provide suitable nesting or foraging habitat due to moderate levels of human presence; fluctuating water
levels; and the lack of vegetated shoreline habitat, protected island habitat, and aquatic prey. The pit lake
is projected to be approximately 20 acres in size. Common loons could occasionally land and rest on the
pit lake created after mine closure. Loons would not be expected to remain on the lake for extended
periods because of a lack of suitable nesting and feeding habitat. Based on water quality projections for
the pit lake (Crown Jewel EIS, Table 4.7.2), pit lake waters would not create a toxic risk for loons or other
waterbirds.
Determination of Effects Conclusion. Increases in human disturbance with project development
could have minor adverse effects on the common loon in the Beaver Creek drainage. The potential for
adverse impact is associated primarily with the extremely low risk of a spill of toxic chemicals or diesel fuel
into Beaver Creek. An accidental spill of toxic substances into Beaver Creek would adversely impact
suitable habitat and could adversely impact individual foraging loons or a breeding pair, if it occurred during
the breeding season (March-September). Loss of a breeding pair of loons and/or suitable habitat on
Beaver Creek would result in a short-term reduction in the known breeding loon population in north-
central Washington. The effects would not be long-term because suitable habitat conditions would
eventually be recovered. In the remote event of an accidental spill, individual loons or a breeding pair
could be adversely affected. Therefore, mine development may impact individuals or habitat, but will not
likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.
4.10 Northern Bald Eagle
The northern bald eagle is found throughout the Pacific Northwest in close association with freshwater,
estuarine, and marine ecosystems that provide abundant prey and suitable habitat for nesting and
communal roosting (Watson et al. 1991). In Washington, breeding territories are located near water in
predominantly coniferous, uneven-aged stands with old-growth structural components (Anthony et al.
Crown Jewel Project BE 41 November 14,1996
-------
1982; Stalmaster 1987). Favored nest trees are usually the largest tree or snag in a stand that provide an
unobstructed view of the surrounding area and a clear flight path to and from the nest (Stalmaster 1987;
Rodrick and Milner 1991). Additional snags and trees with exposed lateral limbs or dead tops within a
nesting territory may serve as perching or roosting sites (USFWS 1986). Wintering bald eagles
concentrate in areas where food is abundant and easily obtainable (Rodrick and Milner 1991). Wintering
habitat consists of day perches in tall trees close to a food source and night roosts in uneven-sized, multi-
layered, mature or old-growth stands that provide protection from weather and human disturbance
(Rodrick and Milner 1991). Bald eagles are opportunistic scavengers and predators that feed on a variety
of prey items including migrating and spawning salmon, other fish, small mammals, waterfowl, seabirds,
and carrion (Snow 1981; Rodrick and Milner 1991).
The historic decline of the bald eagle has been attributed to the loss of feeding and nesting habitat,
shooting, organochloride pesticide residues, poisoning, and electrocution (Snow 1981; USFWS 1986).
Human interference has been shown to adversely affect the distribution and behavior of wintering bald
eagles (Stalmaster and Newman 1978). Disturbances may result in increased energy expenditure due to
avoidance flights and decreased energy intake due to interference with feeding activity (Knight 1984).
The Pacific States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (USFWS 1986) outlines the steps for bald eagle
management and habitat protection on federal lands. The Recovery Plan identifies the Kettle River as a
key bald eagle recovery area with the goal of one target recovery territory. The Kettle River forms the
northeastern boundary of the Analysis Area, approximately 7 to 10 miles north and northeast of the
proposed mine site.
Suitable bald eagle winter habitat is located within the Analysis Area along the Kettle River and Toroda
Creek, and potential nesting, foraging, and roosting habitat is present there as well. However, there are
no documented bald eagle nesting or winter roost sites along the Kettle River or Toroda Creek in the
Analysts Area (WADFW 1994a; Swedberg 1994). The Kettle River is the only waterbody in the Analysis
Area that supports wintering populations of waterfowl.
Wintering bald eagles are known to occur along Toroda Creek in the Analysis Area (Swedberg 1994) and
along the portion of the Kettle River (USFWS 1986; Swedberg 1994) that forms the northeastern
boundary of the Analysis Area. According to Zender (1994), five to six eagles have been observed along
the Kettle River between the Canadian border and Curlew, Washington from October to April. Midwinter
bald eagle surveys were conducted in or near the Analysis Area in January from 1983 through 1990 as a
part of a statewide eagle survey for the WADFW (Owens 1996). A listing of winter bald eagle observations
summarized from these surveys and an Okanogan National Forest bald eagle sighting map is summarized
below.
January 1984 -1 bald eagle on Toroda Creek near confluence with Nicholson Creek (WADFW)
• January 1987 -1 bald eagle on Kettle River downstream of confluence with Toroda Creek (WADFW)
January 1988 - 3 bald eagles on Kettle River downstream of confluence with Toroda Creek (WADFW)
1 bald eagle on Kettle River upstream of confluence with Toroda Creek (WADFW)
3 bald eagles on Toroda Creek? (specific location not given on data sheet - WADFW)
• January 1989-2 bald eagles on Kettle River downstream of confluence with Toroda Creek (WADFW)
• January 1990-1 bald eagle on Kettle River downstream of confluence with Toroda Creek (WADFW)
3 bald eagles on Kettle River upstream of confluence with Toroda Creek (WADFW)
• November 1990 -1 bald eagle 0.9 mile east of Core Area, upslope from Nicholson Creek (U.S. Forest
Service 1992)
The Core Area does not contain preferred potential bald eagle nesting or winter habitat, and there are no
known bald eagle nesting, foraging, or roosting sites within the Core Area. There also are no documented
sightings of bald eagles in the Core Area. Since bald eagles forage along Toroda Creek and the Kettle
River during the winter, it is possible that wintering eagles may occasionally wander over open habitats in
the Core area in search of carrion. Field surveys documented winter concentrations of deer along the
Myers Creek drainage at the western boundary of the Analysis Area (A.G. Crook 1992b; see Section 4.1).
Winter-killed deer in open habits along Myers Creek could serve as an attractant to bald eagles, although
no winter bald eagle use of the Myers Creek drainage has been documented. Habitats in the vicinity of
the proposed mine facilities, except for Starrem Creek Reservoir, are too forested and would not provide
sufficient prey or carrion sources to be suitable winter foraging habitat for bald eagle.
Crown Jewel Project BE 42 November 14,1996
-------
4.10.1 Determination of Effects for Bald Eagle
Project development would not result in the direct loss or disturbance of suitable bald eagle habitat within
the Analysis Area. Minor increases in traffic noise and light from possible nighttime truck transport traffic
along the Kettle River and Toroda Creek (Alternatives B, D, E, and F) could have minor negative impacts to
bald eagles wintering (October-April) in those areas. Noise attenuation modeling results indicate that
increased noise from proposed project activities, such as blasting and road construction, would not
adversely affect bald eagles along Toroda Creek or the Kettle River (Beak 1995).
Ammonia was the only constituent determined from risk assessment modeling to have potential sublethal
toxic effects on wildlife (shorebirds and bats) exposed to tailings impoundment waters (Beak 1995).
Projected concentrations of cyanide and metals in the tailings water would be too low to have any
detrimental effect on eagles (Beak 1995). WAD cyanide levels would be less than 10 ppm (Winter 1996).
There is a very small risk that a wandering bald eagle could be exposed to potentially sublethal levels of
ammonia contained in the waters of the tailings impoundment.
The risk of an eagle drinking from the tailings pond or being attracted to waterbirds prey or carrion at the
tailings impoundment is extremely low for several reasons. First, because of a lack of suitable winter
habitat, bald eagles are not likely to wander over the project area, and even if an eagle did, there would be
no aquatic life (fish) in the impoundment pond to attract eagles. Second,.during most of the time period of
potential presence for wintering bald eagles (October through April), waters in the tailings impoundment
would be frozen or partially frozen and unavailable to waterfowl or bald eagles. In addition, the tailings
pond is not likely to attract other terrestrial prey species preferred by bald eagle. Most potential terrestrial
prey for eagles, except for waterbirds, would be excluded from the tailings impoundment by fencing.
During winter periods when the tailings pond would be unfrozen, it would not be an attractive source of
drinking water or aquatic habitat for waterbird species, especially since alternate natural sources of surface
water are readily available in the area. During operation, water in the tailings impoundment would consist
of a small, shallow pond that would vary in size depending on operations, weather, and natural inflow. As
tailings deposition occurs, the pond would be moved around within an area surrounded by barren
"beaches" comprised of tailings fines. No vegetation, food sources, or security cover that could attract
waterbirds would establish within the pond or on the surrounding beaches during operation. Even if there
were waterbird mortalities in the tailings impoundment, carrion would likely only be available for a very short
time period since mine personnel would monitor the impoundment and report any observed mortalities. If
directed by the USFWS or WADFW, carrion would be removed by mine personnel on a daily basis (White
1996).
Finally, levels of ammonia in Crown Jewel's tailings impoundment are not likely to pose a toxic risk to bald
eagles. Ammonia is a byproduct of the INCO SOa/Air/O2 cyanide destruct process. In the aqueous
tailings solution, un-ionized ammonia (NHa) would exist in equilibrium with the ammonium ion (NH4+) and
the hydroxide ion (OH") (EPA 1985). Total ammonia refers to the sum of NHa and NH4+. Toxicity of
aqueous solutions is primarily attributable the NHs portion of aqueous ammonia solutions, while NH4+ is
essentially non-toxic (EPA 1985). For the Crown Jewel Mine tailings water, total ammonia levels are
projected to be approximately 50 parts per million (ppm) or less (Winter 1996). The actual concentration of
NHs would be considerably less. At a pH of less than 9.3 and a temperature range of natural waters, the
percentage of unionized ammonia (NHa) ranges from approximately 0.05% to 15% of total ammonia
(Ontario Ministry of the Environment 1991). Crown Jewel's tails would be at a pH of 7 to 8 (Winter 1996).
Ammonia is not considered a significant mammalian toxicant, and drinking water criteria have not been
established (Beak 1994). In addition, ammonia is not persistent in the environment, and the toxic
unionized form is rapidly volatilized out of solution (Beak 1994). In an open environment, such as the
tailings impoundment, ammonia gas would be rapidly dissipated and would not pose a health hazard to
wildlife in the area.
Further actual operational evidence regarding the potential toxicity of ammonia to wildlife, is available from
Echo Bay Minerals Company's McCoy/Cove Mine near Battle Mountain, Nevada. This mine has
substituted ammonium bisulfide (ABS) for SO2 and lime in the INCO cyanide destruct process. Use of
ABS has reduced costs, created a more stable reaction environment for the destruct process, and
reduced total dissolved solids (TDS) in the tailings water but has also resulted in much higher NHa levels
Crown Jewel Project BE 43 November 14,1996
-------
(Daniels 1996). Since switching to ABS, NHa levels have ranged from 400 ppm at the outlet point to 238
ppm in the pond (Daniels 1996). Prior to switching to the use of ABS in the cyanide destruct process, the
McCoy/Cove Mine had had some problems with waterbird mortalities. These mortalities were determined
to be the result of stressed birds drinking tailings waters with high levels of IDS (10,000 to 12,000 ppm)
rather than acute toxicity caused by potentially lethal constituents such as cyanide, metals, or ammonia
(Woodward-Clyde 1993, as cited by Daniels 1996). Since switching to ABS, the McCoy/Cove Mine has
had no mortalities on the tailings pond even though ammonia levels have increased. The elimination of
mortalities has been attributed primarily to a reduction in TDS to 4,000 to 5,000 ppm. The Nevada Division
of Wildlife confirmed that the McCoy/Cove Mine has had no mortalities since switching to ABS, but
indicated there are uncertainties regarding potential chronic problems if there was long-term exposure to
the tailings water (Lamp 1996). Ammonia levels projected for the Crown Jewel tailings impoundment
would be much lower (50 ppm) than those at the McCoy/Cove Mine (see preceding paragraph) and would
pose little risk to wildlife species including bald eagle.
Bald eagles wintering along Toroda Creek or the Kettle River may be indirectly impacted by project-
induced disturbances such as human presence, secondary development, the incidence of roadkill, and
an accidental toxic spill. An increase in human presence would occur throughout the project vicinity.
Increases in human presence and subsequent increases in recreational use (e.g., fishing) along Toroda
Creek or the Kettle River could adversely impact eagles. However, these effects would be relatively minor
since eagles wintering along Toroda Creek and the Kettle River have habituated to existing levels of traffic
and human presence along these drainages. Road kills of deer and other mammals could increase as the
result of projected increases in vehicle traffic (Beak 1995), but this potential increase would be slight since
most truck transport would be during daylight hours. The Crown Jewel Mine EIS (Section 4.12.3) predicts
that the overall incidence of roadkills would be low. An increased availability of carrion may have a minor
influence on the distribution of eagles in the area and result in a slight increase in the risk of roadkill for bald
eagles.
There is a remote chance for an accidental spill of toxic chemicals along the transportation corridors. As
indicated in Section 3.3, 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 into Beaver Creek, Myers 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 (see Section 3.3).
Eagles could drink contaminated water or be attracted to feed on dead or dying fish and waterbirds
exposed to contaminants. However, with any of the spill scenarios that could affect wintering bald eagles
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
eagles. In addition, the chance of secondary exposure through ingestion of contaminated flesh would be
minimal for eagles since cleanup activities would collect and dispose of contaminated animals. Therefore,
the risk of a bald eagle being directly or indirectly affected by an accidental spill would be negligible.
The development of the pit lake in Alternatives B, D, and G may not create additional foraging habitat for
bald eagle since it is projected that silver and mercury concentrations in the pit waters may reach levels
toxic to fish and other aquatic life (Beak 1996). The pit lake may be used by waterfowl, but without fish,
aquatic invertebrates, and shoreline vegetation, waterfowl concentrations sufficient to attract foraging bald
eagles would be unlikely. Based on water quality scenario projections for the pit lake (Beak 1996), waters
in the pit lake would not create a toxic risk for waterbirds or a risk of secondary exposure to bald eagles
through ingestion of contaminated waterbirds.
Project related losses in SI/T snow cover could result in reductions in wintering populations of deer within
the Core Area (see Section 4.1.1) along Myers Creek. Reductions in wintering deer populations could
indirectly affect the availability of carrion as winter food for bald eagles, but this effect would be negligible
since no bald eagle winter foraging use of the Myers Creek has been documented. As indicated
Crown Jewel Project BE 44 November 14,1996
-------
previously, winter foraging habitat within the Analysis Area exists primarily along Toroda Creek and the
Kettle River.
It is uncertain to what extent existing deer populations within the Analysis Area could be affected by
reductions of SI/T cover within the Core Area. There is no data available on current deer population
numbers or the total amount of deer SI/T cover within the Analysis Area, and it is not known if the extent of
SI/T cover is a limiting factor for resident deer populations. It is possible that there would be at least some
reduction in Core Area deer numbers associated with a reduction in SI/T cover. However, there is some
evidence that deer in the Buckhorn Mountain area may not be dependent on SI/T cover for survival during
severe winter periods. Studies by A.G. Crook (1992b) indicated that deer populations are relatively high
in the Core Area, and most deer move off Buckhorn Mountain to lower elevation habitats when winter
snow depths reached 12 to 16 inches.
Potential reductions in available habitat and local deer herd numbers will be mitigated somewhat by future
road closures planned by the Forest Service (see Figure 5). These road closures would reduce the
current open road density of 2.2 miles per square mile to 1.9 miles per square mile in the Analysis Area
and increase the extent of secure habitat areas. It is anticipated that hunting-related reductions in the local
deer population would be less with these road closures. In addition, the proposed operation could
increase the extent of secure habitat since no hunting and firearms will be permitted within the mine area.
This situation often creates a "refuge effect" that has been demonstrated at a number of western mining
operations. Hunted animals, such as deer and elk, appear to acclimate to constant noises and human
activities so long as they are not associated with negative experiences such as being chased or hunted
(Busnel 1978). Even if deer numbers are reduced in the Core Area, the reduction would be relatively
minor in comparison to the total deer population in the Analysis Area, and there would be little risk for
adverse effects on a wide-ranging species such as bald eagle.
Another consideration regarding the potential effects of project development on carrion availability is that
project-related increased traffic levels could increase the incidence of road-killed deer and consequently,
carrion availability for bald eagles. The extent to which carrion could increase is impossible to predict, but it
is unlikely to result in any measurable change in the distribution or numbers of wintering bald eagles in the
Analysis Area. An increased availability of road-killed deer could also increase the risk of eagle/vehicle
collisions, but this risk would be low since road-killed deer carcasses are usually quickly moved off the
highway surface for highway safety reasons.
There would be no risk of electrocution of bald eagles with construction of the transmission line for the
Crown Jewel Project, since the proposed electric transmission line would be designed in accordance with
guidelines provided in Olendorff et al. (1981) to prevent the accidental electrocution of bald eagles and
other large raptors.
Cumulative Effects. The historic distribution of bald eagles and their use of habitats in the Analysis
Area is unknown, but cumulative impacts to potential bald eagle habitat would be relatively minor. Since
the banning of use of organochloride pesticides, populations of bald eagles have increased throughout
most of their former range in the conterminous United States. Minor cumulative impacts to the bald eagle
would be expected to occur as human presence, noise, traffic, and residential development increase
within the project vicinity. Threats by electrocution, shooting, poisoning, and organochloride pesticide
residue threats would continue, regardless of project development, to cumulatively impact the bald eagle
and could prolong the recovery of the bald eagle in north-central Washington.
Determination of Effects Conclusion. No breeding pairs of bald eagles are known to exist in the
Analysis Area, and no suitable breeding or wintering habitat would be directly affected by mine
development. Increases in human 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 is not likely to adversely affect bald eagles or critical
habitat.
Crown Jewel Project BE 45 November 14,1996
-------
4.11 American Peregrine Falcon
Peregrine falcons generally nest on sheer cliff faces greater than 50 feet in height (Ehrlich et al. 1988).
Eyries are usually within 0.5 mile of riparian, lacustrine, or marine habitat that provide diverse and/or
abundant prey (Pagel 1992). Peregrines feed primarily on avian prey including doves, pigeons, upland
birds, shorebirds, waterfowl, and passerines which they capture in flight (Ehrlich et al. 1988; Sharp 1992;
Henny and Nelson 1981), but small mammals, insects, and fish also are occasionally taken (Sharp 1992;
Pacific Coast American Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team 1982).
Peregrine falcon winter habitat needs are not well known along the Pacific Coast (Pacific Coast American
Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team 1982). Some adults may remain near the nest site year-round while
others may range widely. In Washington, intertidal mudflats, estuaries, and agricultural river basins are
important winter habitats (Pacific Coast American Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team 1982; Allen 1992).
The historic decline of the peregrine falcon is attributed to organochlorine-induced eggshell thinning that
led to widespread reproductive failure (Aulman 1992; Pacific Coast American Peregrine Falcon Recovery
Team 1982). Other reasons for decline include the loss and degradation of nesting and foraging habitats,
other pollutants, shooting, and collisions. Peregrines are most susceptible to disturbance during
courtship and nesting activities (Pacific Coast American Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team 1982). Land
management activities, low-flying planes, recreational disturbance (e.g., rock climbing, hikers,
photographers) may induce desertion of the nest site and nest failure. The Pacific Coast Recovery Plan
(Pacific Coast American Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team 1982) for the peregrine falcon outlines the
steps for peregrine falcon management and habitat protection. The Recovery Plan identifies north-central
and northeastern Washington as management areas for the peregrine falcon. The Analysis Area is
included within a portion of a management unit which has been identified for potential occupancy by at
least one breeding pair.
Currently, 16 pairs of peregrine falcons are known to breed in Washington (Sharp 1992). Breeding by two
pairs has been documented in south-central Washington (Naney 1996). Historic peregrine falcon
population information for eastern Washington is unknown or poorly documented (Allen 1992).
Peregrines were known to successfully breed in the Okanogan Valley, British Columbia (Cannings et al.
1987) and were believed to have been present on the Okanogan National Forest (Pagel 1993).
Currently, peregrine falcons may occasionally wander over the Analysis Area during migration.
There are no documented sightings of peregrines or known peregrine eyries or foraging areas in the Core
or Analysis areas (Swedberg 1994). Pagel (1993) identified two cliff sites in the Core Area that have
medium potential for peregrine falcon occupancy (see Figure 6). These were defined by Pagel (1992) as
cliffs that have an acceptable level of potential occupancy, or are otherwise low potential cliffs with a
possibility that a nesting ledge is not visible or is suspected. The cliffs identified by Pagel are between
100 and 150 feet tall and are located just south of Beaver Creek (T39N, R31E, Sections 27, 28, and 29)
and near Beth Lake (T39N, R30E, Sections 23 and 24). Cliff habitat along Beaver Creek also is identified
in the WADFW Priority Habitats and Species database (WADFW 1994a). The WADFW (1994a) lists one
other small area of potential cliff nesting habitat in the Analysis Area. This site is located west of Chesaw
on Porphyry Peak (T40N, R30E, Sections 17 and 20) outside of the Analysis Area.
4.11.1 Determination of Effects for Peregrine Falcon
No peregrine falcon breeding activity has been documented in or near the Core or Analysis areas, and
potential nesting and habitat is limited primarily to the Beaver Creek drainage. Suitable hunting habitat is
limited to the Beaver Creek, Toroda Creek, and Kettle River drainages. No nesting activity has been
documented in the Beaver Creek drainage, and project development would not have any direct affect on
potential nesting habitat in Beaver Creek. If a breeding pair of peregrines occupied suitable nesting
habitat in the Beaver Creek drainage in the future, their presence would indicate accommodation of
existing levels of human activity and vehicle traffic along the drainage.
»'eregrine falcons may occasionally wander over the Analysis Area during migration. The riparian corridors
(long Beaver Creek, Toroda Creek, and the Kettle River could provide suitable foraging habitat for
'Migrating birds. There is a slight risk for an accidental spill of toxic chemicals along the transportation
Town Jewel Project BE 46 November 14,1996
-------
-------
-------
LEGEND
CORE AREA BOUNDARY
ANALYSIS AREA BOUNDARY
OKANOGAN NATIONAL
FOREST BOUNDARY
NATIONAL BORDER
POTENTIAL PEREGRINE FALCON
NEST CLIPPS
FIGURE H-6, POTENTIAL PEREGRINE FALCON NEST CLIFFS
-------
-------
corridors. As indicated in Section 3.3, a spill of sodium cyanide, ammonium nitrate, or lime is highly
unlikely. The risk for a diesel spill is slightly higher but still very low. If a spill did occur, the effects would
most likely be localized with appropriate emergency spill response and cleanup measures (see Section
3.3). A spill of sodium cyanide, lime, ammonium nitrate, or diesel into Beaver Creek, Toroda Creek, or the
Kettle River could be toxic to waterfowl or other birds in the localized area of the spill until cleanup
measures are completed. There is a remote chance that an individual falcon could be exposed to these
contaminants through consumption of tainted prey. However, the risk of secondary exposure through
ingestion of contaminated birds would be minimal for a peregrine falcon since cleanup activities would
collect and dispose of dead and dying animals. With any of the spill scenarios that could affect foraging
habitat along these drainages, recovery of water quality and prey populations would be relatively rapid as
long as appropriate spill response and clean-up measures are implemented.
Based on water quality projections for the pit lake (Crown Jewel Mine EIS, Table 4.7.2), waters in the pit
lake would not create a toxic risk for waterbirds or a risk of secondary exposure to peregrine falcons
through ingestion of contaminated waterbirds.
Cumulative Effects. The historic distribution of peregrine falcons and their use of habitats in the
Analysis Area is unknown, but cumulative impacts to potential peregrine falcon habitat would be relatively
minor. Since the banning of use of organochloride pesticides, populations of peregrines have increased
throughout most of their former range in the conterminous United States. Minor cumulative impacts to
potential peregrine falcon habitat would be expected to occur as human presence, noise, traffic, and
residential development increase within the project vicinity.
Determination of Effects Conclusion. 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 falcon or critical habitat.
4.12 Northern Goshawk
The northern goshawk inhabits coniferous and mixed forests in much of the northern hemisphere. In the
Northwest, goshawks prefer to nest in dense, old growth coniferous forest (Wilson et al. 1987), but
foraging can occur in a variety of forest types. In most areas of suitable habitat in North America, the
northern goshawk is a permanent resident. Some birds winter along the Pacific coast, in the southern
United States, and in northern Mexico (Terres 1980).
Goshawks generally arrive at their nesting territories in mid to late March (Cannings et al. 1987). They
appear to exhibit preference for particular areas, often using the same nest for several years or alternating
between two or more nests within the same territory (Reynolds 1983). Traditional nesting territories may
contain one to five nests (Jones 1979). The goshawk selects nest sites in mixed-conifer forest which
meet the following criteria: closed canopy (75 to 85 percent), moderate slope (15 to 35 percent), north or
east aspect, and within 1,600 feet of water (Hayward and Escano 1989). Nesting territories are generally
20 to 25 acres (Reynolds 1983). Nests are typically located in one of the larger trees on the site and are
frequently adjacent to small breaks in the canopy or openings in the understory (Reynolds et al. 1992).
Surveys conducted on the Okanogan National Forest found nest trees had a mean dbh of 27.5 inches
(Finn 1992).
Young goshawks fledge in June to early July (Bull and Hohmann 1993). Habitat use by adults and
fledglings is concentrated within a 300 to 600 acre post-fledgling family-area (PFA) (Reynolds et al. 1992).
The PFA provides fledglings with hiding cover from predators, protection from weather, and prey to
develop hunting skills. The family uses the area for approximately two months before the juveniles
disperse (Reynolds et al. 1992). The average home range for adult goshawks is 6,000 to 7,500 acres
(Reynolds 1983). According to Hayward et al. (1990), at least 1,500 to 6,000 acres of suitable foraging
habitat (depending on overall habitat quality) should be available within a goshawk's home range.
Crown Jewel Project BE 49 November 14,1996
-------
Goshawks typically hunt dense woodlands, clearings, and open fields, preying on a variety of birds and
mammals (Jones 1979, Reynolds and Meslow 1984, Bull and Hohmann 1993). Prey items taken can vary
seasonally, geographically, and by individual preference for specific prey (Jones 1979). Representative
food items which are found to be important prey species for goshawk include American robin (Turdus
migratorius), Steller's jay (Cyanocitta stellen), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), common crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), ruffed grouse, snowshoe hare, and ground and pine squirrels (Jones 1979, Reynolds
and Meslow 1984). Prey items are plucked on top of stumps, fallen logs, rocks, or on large horizontal
limbs below the canopy (Reynolds et al. 1982).
Surveys for goshawks were conducted from 1990 through 1994 during the spring and summer. Survey
methods included Region 6 protocol, broadcasting of taped vocalizations, intuitive walk throughs of
suitable habitat, and checks of inactive known nest sites (Tonasket Ranger District file information). A total
of 10 sightings (8 in the Core Area and 2 in the Analysis Area) of goshawks were recorded. Three
northern goshawk nest sites have been located within the Analysis Area but none are within the Core
Area (U.S. Forest Service 1991a, U.S. Forest Service 1992b). The presence of adult birds in the Core
area suggests the overlap of a goshawk territory with a portion of the Core Area.
TWHIP data and the Successional Stage Diversity Map were used to identify suitable goshawk habitat
within the Core Area. Approximately 614 acres of mature mixed conifer forest with at least 75 percent
canopy closure and within 0.25 mile of stream courses were identified which could provide suitable
nesting habitat for the goshawk. Another 2,491 acres were identified as potential PFA habitat. Suitable
foraging habitat (old-growth, young mature, and mature mixed conifer forest) within the Core Area totals
approximately 5,065 acres. About 2,030 acres of suitable nesting habitat for the goshawk, is present
within the Analysis Area, and approximately 27,465 acres of old-growth, mature, and young mature forest
occur could provide potential PFAs and foraging habitat for goshawk within the Analysis Area (inclusive of
the Core Area). As indicated, the extent of suitable nesting habitat is the most limited habitat component
within the Core and Analysis areas.
No management guidelines have been developed for maintaining goshawk populations in the Okanogan
National Forest, but a number of studies have evaluated goshawk habitat requirements in the western and
southwestern United States. Management guidelines developed for the northern Rocky Mountain
Region (Hayward et al. 1990) and the southwestern United States (Reynolds et al. 1992) are relatively
similar and were assumed to be applicable to the Okanogan National Forest.
Studies reviewed by Hayward et al. (1990) and Reynolds et al. (1992) indicate that goshawks require
home ranges of approximately 5,000 to 6,000 acres. Distances between occupied home ranges range
from 1 to 4 miles apart (Hayward et al. 1990). Each home range must contain minimum levels of suitable
nesting, PFA, and foraging habitat to support a nesting pair and successful rearing of young. Goshawks
forage in a variety of forested cover types, and availability of suitable foraging habitat is usually not
considered limiting. On the other hand, the availability of suitable nesting habitat is often considered the
most limiting factor in the reproductive success of northern goshawks (Austin 1989, as cited in USDA
Forest Service 1991).
Recommendations for minimum levels of suitable nesting habitat range from two to three suitable nest
stands with minimum sizes of no less than 25 to 30 acres (Hayward et al. 1990; Reynolds et al. 1992).
Nest stands of at least 125 acres are considered optimal (Hayward et al. 1990). Reynolds et al. (1992) also
recommends at least three replacement nest stands so that a minimum of 180 acres of suitable nesting
habitat is available within a home range. Hayward et al. (1990) does not provide any recommendations for
PFA habitat, but Reynolds et al. (1992) recommends at least 420 acres of suitable PFA habitat in addition
to nesting habitat. PFA habitat should be centered around suitable and replacement nest stand areas.
For foraging habitat, Hayward et al. (1990) recommends from 1,500 to 6,000 acres of suitable habitat
within a 10,000 acre area depending on the quality of available foraging habitat. Reynolds et al. (1992)
recommends approximately 5,400 acres of suitable foraging habitat in addition to nesting and PFA habitat.
Based on existing information on home range sizes, distances between home ranges, and available
suitable habitat (mature and old growth forest), the 10,962-acre Core Area could support a maximum of
one nesting pair of goshawks while the Analysis Area (inclusive of the Core Area) could support from four
to 12 nesting pairs.
Crown Jewel Project BE 50 November 14,1996
-------
4.12.1 Determination of Effects for Northern Goshawk
Noise and habitat disturbance could preclude nesting within suitable habitat near the mine area, or
otherwise adversely affect a breeding pair of goshawks. If construction was initiated after nesting had
begun, noise disturbance could cause nest abandonment, failed reproduction, or mortality of the young.
Because goshawk select nest sites based on a stand's overall characteristics (e.g., structure, size, and
extent), modification to even a portion of a stand where a nest site exists could cause goshawks to
abandon a nest stand (Reynolds 1983). Impacts from noise disturbance outside the breeding season
would likely displace goshawk from the mine footprint and additional areas of suitable adjacent habitat for
the life of the project.
Habitat losses associated with project development were evaluated with respect to known habitat
requirements and management recommendations discussed above. Short-term habitat losses were
based on the overlap of direct disturbance and projected noise levels on areas of identified suitable
habitat (Table 6). Habitat losses resulting from noise and human influence would be relatively short-term
(except for Alternative F - 33 years) and last for the life of the mine operation.
Table 6
Northern Goshawk Habitat Losses
Alternative
B
C
D
E
F
G
Acres of Short-term Habitat Loss
(life-of-mine)
Nesting Habitat
143
146
139
145
102
79
PFA
435
271
310
476
420
429
Acres of Long-term Habitat Loss
(at least 100 years)
Nesting Habitat
73
65
64
64
47
16
PFA
232
68
110
246
214
239
The project area represents less than 10 percent of the Core Area, but potential goshawk habitat would
be impacted disproportionately by project development. During mine construction and operation, losses
of potential nesting habitat would range from 79 to 146 acres (13 to 24 percent) depending on alternative
(Table 6). For potential PFA habitat, losses would range from 271 to 476 acres (11 to 19 percent), while
reductions in potential foraging habitat would range from 565 to 833 acres (11 to 16 percent). Short-term
and long-term nesting habitat losses would be the greatest and relatively similar for Alternatives B, C, D,
and E, while Alternative G would disturb the least amount. Alternatives B, E, F, and G would result in the
Crown Jewel Project BE
51
November 14,1996
-------
greatest losses of PFA habitat (Table 6). Direct impacts from habitat removal in the pit, subsidence, waste
rock disposal area, and tailings facilities areas would be long-term. Long-term losses of nesting habitat and
PFAs would range from 16 to 73 acres and 68 to 246 acres, respectively, depending on alternative (Table
6).
It is important to note that direct impacts to a nesting pair are not anticipated since no goshawk nest sites
were located near the project area. Project development could have an indirect adverse affect on
goshawks by reducing the extent of suitable habitat that could be occupied in the future. Noise and
human activity associated with mine implementation would create a short-term (life of mine) reduction in
available nesting and PFA habitat within the Core Area. However, during and after mine operation, at least
468, 2,015, and 4,232 acres of nesting habitat, PFA habitat, and foraging habitat, respectively, would
remain in the Core Area regardless of which alternative is selected. As a result, adequate levels of
nesting, PFA, and foraging habitat would be sustained within the Core Area to support one nesting pair of
goshawks, and therefore, adverse effects to populations of northern goshawk within the Analysis Area is
unlikely.
After cessation of mining, the primary focus of mitigation will be reclamation targeting the replacement of
forested habitats. Although stand characteristics suitable for goshawk nesting and PFA habitat could take
100 years or more to develop (suitable foraging habitat would establish more quickly), the long-term trend
would be for no net loss of suitable goshawk habitat.
The risk of toxic exposure of the northern goshawk to tailings pond waters would be negligible (Beak
1995). The size of the opening created by the tailings impoundment would not attract northern
goshawks. Indirect effects such as increased human presence, secondary development, and accidental
toxic spills also are not likely to result in any adverse effects to local goshawk populations. Human
presence in the Core and Analysis areas (apart from mine operations) would primarily be concentrated
around residential and developed recreational areas, although some use of more isolated areas could
occur. Most residential construction would occur in currently developed areas that are unsuitable for
goshawk. The risk of a goshawk drinking from a portion of a stream shortly after contamination by an
accidental spill would be low.
Cumulative Effects. The cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future
activities, especially timber harvest has resulted in the conversion of late successional forest to early
successional habitats and open coniferous forest stands. This conversion has resulted from a 40 percent
reduction of late successional and old-growth forest, primarily in the western portion of the Analysis Area.
It is unknown what effect this habitat loss has had on Analysis Area populations of goshawk because
information on population trends is not available. It can be reasonably assumed, however, that reductions
in suitable habitat have resulted in population reductions. Proposed mining activities would remove
additional incremental amounts of potential northern goshawk habitat, but adequate levels of nesting,
PFA, and foraging habitat would be sustained within the Core Area to support one nesting pair. Current
Forest Service guidelines (Forest Plan as amended) do not permit harvest in existing late and old
successional forest stands or in Forest Plan designated old growth. In addition, the EIS analysis (Section
4.12.5) indicates that timber harvest in the Analysis Area has decreased dramatically over the last few
years, and that current levels of timber harvest are expected to continue. With these management
guidelines and harvest trends, additional timber stands should progress toward developing the mature
and old growth forest characteristics preferred by goshawks for nesting and PFA habitat, resulting in a
long-term trend of habitat improvement.
Determination of Effects Conclusion. Adverse effects of habitat loss and noise disturbance from
mining activities would result in a short-term loss of northern goshawk habitat during mine operation.
Long-term reductions (after mine closure) in potential goshawk habitat would be relatively minor.
Although habitat losses associated with mine operation could affect the potential nesting territory of one
pair of goshawks, no goshawk nesting use on, or near, the project area has been documented. Current
Forest Service guidelines (Forest Plan as amended) require buffers around active nests (750 feet for
goshawk). During mine operation, adequate levels of nesting, PFA, and foraging habitat would be
maintained within the Core Area to support one nesting pair of goshawks. In addition, because of current
trends in timber harvest and Forest Service management emphasis on maintaining existing old growth and
allowing additional stands to progress toward old growth, the long-term trend should be toward an
Crown Jewel Project BE 52 November 14.1996
-------
increase in suitable habitat for northern goshawks within the Analysis Area. Therefore, although mine
development would result in a reduction of potential goshawk habitat in the Core Area during operation, it
is unlikely to result in adverse effects to populations of northern goshawk within the Analysis Area.
4.13 Ferruginous Hawk
The ferruginous hawk inhabits shrub-steppe and grassland cover types within the semi-arid plains region
of the United States and the southern-most portion of the Canadian prairie (Snow 1981 a). It winters in the
southwest United States and south to Baja California and northern Mexico (Terres 1980, Evans 1982). In
Washington, the ferruginous hawk historically occurred in the southeast portion of the state (Bent 1937,
Jewettetal. 1953).
Ferruginous hawks nest in scattered, isolated trees, on cliffs and rock outcrops, or on the ground (Snow
1981 a, Woffinden and Murphy 1983). In the treeless Columbia Basin region of Washington, they nest in
high cliffs and basalt outcrops (Bechard et al. 1990). Ferruginous hawks are sensitive to human activity
and even slight disturbances may cause them to abandon nests (White and Thurow 1985).
Ferruginous hawks are diurnal foragers (Wakeley 1978). Although they hunt open areas and pastures
free of cover that would conceal prey, undisturbed (i.e., uncultivated) areas which provide habitat for prey
are an important habitat component (Wakeley 1978, Schmutz 1987, Schmutz 1989, Woffinden 1989,
Bechard et al. 1990). Ferruginous hawks primarily prey upon lagomorphs and rodents (Evans 1982).
Over most of its range, the black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus) is the hawk's primary prey item
(Howard and Wolfe 1976, Evans 1982, Woffinden 1989). In Washington, the northern pocket gopher
(Thomomys talpoides), ground squirrel (Spermophilus Washington!), western meadowlark (Sturnella
neglecta), yellow-bellied racer (Coluber constrictoi), and bullsnake (Pituophis melanoleucus) are the most
frequently consumed food items of the ferruginous hawk (Fitzner et al. 1977).
No sightings of the ferruginous hawk are documented for the Core or Analysis Areas. Although it is
possible that they could occasionally visit the Okanogan Valley (approximately 16 miles west of the
Analysis Area), there are no substantiated reports of breeding there (Cannings et al. 1987). No recently
active nesting territories are known to occur north of Black Rock Coulee in Grant County (Friesz 1994).
There is no suitable or potential habitat for ferruginous hawks within either the Core or Analysis areas.
Extensive areas of flat or rolling sagebrush and grassland similar to currently occupied areas in
southeastern Washington are absent. The Core and Analysis areas are mountainous and primarily
forested. It is unlikely that the ferruginous hawk would occur there other than as an occasional visitor.
Therefore, no impact to ferruginous hawk is expected, and no further analysis is provided for this species
in the BE.
4.14 Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse
The Columbian sharp-tailed grouse is a resident upland gamebird which historically occupied native
grasslands and shrub-steppe habitats throughout eastern Washington. Its current distribution includes
north Douglas, central Lincoln, and central Okanogan counties (Ashley 1992b). Preferred habitat is
grasslands on flat to rolling terrain with patches of sagebrush-grassland, mountain shrub, and riparian
communities (Ashley 1992b). Most habitats used throughout the year occur within 2 to 3 miles of leks
(Ashley 1992b). Sharp-tailed grouse leks (traditional courtship and mating sites) are usually located on
barren areas with little or no vegetation (Terres 1980, Ashley et al. 1990).
Sharp-tailed grouse nest in areas of tall, dense grass and avoid areas that are heavily grazed by livestock
(Ashley 1992b). Residual grass is important in providing cover for the nest. The nests are built on the
ground beneath clumps of bunchgrass or near shrub cover (Ashley et al. 1990). Brooding occurs in areas
of dense grass and forbs with less than 30 percent shrub cover (Klott and Lindzey 1990). Sharp-tailed
grouse feed primarily on the leaves and flowers of grasses and forbs during spring, summer, and fall,
although their diet also includes insects in summer and fall (Ashley et al. 1990). Chicks feed mostly on
insects (Terres 1980). During September, sharp-tailed grouse gather into large coveys for the winter
(Cannings et al. 1987). Preferred wintering habitat is undisturbed riparian areas, usually within 1 mile of
leks (Ashley 1992b). They roost in snow burrows when snow is deep and use trees and tall shrubs when
Crown Jewel Project BE 53 November 14,1996
-------
snow is shallow or crusted (Marks and Marks 1988, Ashley 1992b). Their winter diet includes buds, twigs,
and fruit from water birch (Betula occidentalis), cottonwood, aspen, willows, serviceberry, snowberry, and
common chokecherry (Prunus virginianus) (Klott and Lindzey 1990, Ashley I992b).
Columbian sharp-tailed grouse have not been documented in the Core or Analysis areas. However,
sharp-tailed grouse and leks are known to occur about 1.5 miles west of the Analysis Area (Shroeder
1994a, Shroeder 1994b, WADFW 1994a). The WADFW is currently monitoring the sharp-tailed grouse
which occur west of the Analysis Area. Initial results indicate that grouse occupy sites located 0.5 to 3
miles west of Myers Creek (Shroeder 1994a). The habitats used by this group of sharp-tailed grouse
contain shrubs such as Wood's rose (Rosa woodsii); sagebrush is not common in the area. Areas of rolling
topography away from grazing are preferred and steep slopes are generally not used (Shroeder 1994b).
Approximately 1,675 acres of upland grassland and 96 acres of shrub cover type are present within the
Core Area. These cover types are generally interspersed within forested areas and do not form extensive
blocks of habitat. About 467 acres of upland grassland cover type form a nearly contiguous block of
habitat in the extreme northwest portion of the Core Area. Sharp-tailed grouse may have historically
occurred in this area (Shroeder 1994b). Currently, approximately 347 acres within this area are moderately
to heavily grazed and managed as pasture or hayfields. These areas do not provide the dense grass
cover required for nesting. The remaining 120 acres of grassland are not adequately extensive to provide
suitable nesting or brooding areas for sharp-tailed grouse. Although riparian areas (185 acres) within this
grassland area could provide winter cover and forage, they occur along established roads and are subject
to frequent disturbance.
Approximately 185 acres of riparian and 467 acres of the grass/shrub/steppe land types are present along
Myers Creek within the Core Area. This area is within 1.5 miles of a known lek and could provide potential
habitat for local populations of sharp-tailed grouse.
4.14.1 Determination of Effects for Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse
With project development, potential sharp-tailed grouse habitat (approximately 12 acres of
riparian/wetland and 72 acres of upland grassland cover type) would be lost to the proposed Starrem
Reservoir with all alternatives. Noise disturbance from heavy equipment and blasting, and human
presence during construction of the water reservoir would impact upland grassland and riparian/wetland
cover types near the reservoir site. During the mine operation period, noise and human presence at the
reservoir site would be reduced to occasional low level disturbance during maintenance and inspection.
Water for use in mine operations would be diverted from Myers Creek downstream of the current
agricultural diversions and pumped into the reservoir. Wetland/riparian habitat at the reservoir site may be
enhanced during operations by the more consistent presence of water, while wetland/riparian habitat
below the diversion may be negatively impacted since spring runoff and episodes of high flow would be
reduced downstream of the diversion. After mine operations have been completed, the reservoir would
be drained, top-soiled, and seeded. Reclamation would return the reservoir site to pasture and the pre-
existing hydrology of Myers Creek would be restored.
Sharp-tailed grouse have not been observed using suitable habitat within the Core Area, but sharp-tailed
grouse and a lek have been documented approximately 4 miles southwest of the reservoir site. It is
possible that sharp-tailed grouse could occasionally use of the proposed reservoir area. Disturbance
during construction would displace sharp-tailed grouse from the immediate area. The proposed Starrem
Reservoir site has been moderately to heavily grazed by livestock and is too disturbed to provide
preferred habitat for sharp-tailed grouse. Wetland/riparian areas along Myers Creek are currently disturbed
and are not known to be used as wintering habitat by sharp-tailed grouse. Therefore, impacts to possible
sharp-tailed grouse use of the reservoir area and wintering habitat along Myers Creek would be negligible.
The transportation route leading to the mine facilities would pass through Chesaw and cross Myers Creek
in Alternatives C and G. A potential exists for an accidental spill of toxins into Myers Creek; however, the
likelihood of such an event would be low. If a toxic spill did occur, concentrations of cyanide into Myers
Creek would be acutely lethal to sharp-tailed grouse exposed to the spill (Beak 1995). Concentrations of
ammonium nitrate and lime also would result in adverse impacts to grouse. Although local populations of
Crown Jewel Project BE 54 November 14,1996
-------
sharp-tailed grouse are not known to winter in riparian habitat along Myers Creek, some use may occur,
and individuals could be exposed to toxic materials if an accidental spilled occurred in the drainage during
the winter.
Cumulative Effects. Past human settlement, fire suppression, livestock grazing and agriculture have
cumulatively adversely impacted sharp-tailed grouse habitat in the Analysis Area through modification and
conversion. Grazing and agriculture are expected to continue at present levels into the reasonably
foreseeable future. Proposed mining activities would have minor incremental impacts on potential sharp-
tailed grouse habitat but would not impact any individuals or currently occupied habitats.
Determination of Effects Conclusion. Columbian sharp-tailed grouse have not been documented
within the Core Area, although suitable habitat is present along Myers Creek. Any birds present could be
impacted by noise disturbance during construction of Starrem Reservoir. Habitat alterations would be
short-term and are not expected to substantially modify use of the Core Area. Cumulative effects relative
to land use and disturbance are not expected to have major impacts on habitat. Therefore, project
development may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal
listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species.
4.15 Long-billed Curlew
The long-billed curlew is a neotropical migrant which breeds from southwestern Canada to Texas and
winters in the southwestern United States to Guatemala (Terres 1980). Locally it is an early spring migrant
arriving in Okanogan County in late March to April; it is seldom seen in the area after July (Cannings et al.
1987). During migration, long-billed curlews frequent lake shores, seacoasts, fresh and salt water
marshes, and rivers, feeding upon crayfish, small crabs, snails, and amphibians (Terres 1980). They are
often seen in agricultural fields upon their first arrival during spring migration, and will stage in these areas
prior to fall migration (Melland 1977). It appears that nesting habitat selection is associated with agricultural
fields (Pampush 1980).
Long-billed curlews prefer short grassland cover types for nesting and avoid areas of tall, dense cover
(Pampush 1980). Optimal nesting habitat appears to be in areas of annual grasses with few shrubs
(Melland 1977, Pampush 1980). Nest territories range from 15 to 50 acres (Allen 1980). During the
nesting period, curlews spend a majority of their time on the breeding grounds and away from water
(Cannings et al. 1987). Areas of annual grass and fresh cut alfalfa fields are preferred foraging areas,
although bunchgrass habitat is also used (Pampush 1980). Dense forb habitat is avoided because it
hampers movements of chicks (Pampush 1980). Curlews forage extensively on grasshoppers, as well as
other insects, while on the breeding grounds (Melland 1977, Pampush 1980, Terres 1980).
No occurrences of long-billed curlews are documented for either the Core or Analysis areas.
Observations of curlews have been made in the vicinity of Molson, Washington, approximately 7 miles
west of the Analysis Area (Friesz 1994). Nesting of long-billed curlews also is suspected in the Aeneas
Valley in Okanogan County (Forest Service file information).
Approximately 467 acres of grassland in the extreme northwest portion of the Core Area represents
potential nesting habitat for the long-billed curlew. Within this same area, 263 acres of agriculture cover
type provides potential foraging habitat. In the Analysis Area, 2,324 acres of grassland/shrub and 1,603
acres of agriculture land types along Myers Creek provide potential nesting and foraging habitat for the
long-billed curlew.
4.15.1 Determination of Effects for Long-billed Curlew
The proposed Starrem Reservoir would eliminate approximately 72 acres of potential long-billed curlew
nesting and foraging habitat provided by the upland grassland cover type. No other potentially suitable
curlew habitat would be affected by mine development. The reservoir site would be restored to curlew
habitat following reclamation, and no permanent loss of curlew habitat would occur. During construction of
the reservoir, noise from heavy equipment and blasting could impact upland grass cover type surrounding
Crown Jewel Project BE 55 November 14,1996
-------
the site. Following the 1-year construction period, disturbance during the following years of operations
would be reduced to low level noise and human presence at the site during maintenance and inspections.
Shoreline and adjacent mud flats that develop around the reservoir edge could provide foraging habitat
for curlew during operations. Dewatered agricultural fields adjacent to the Lost Creek Well would become
pasture and also provide potential curlew habitat. Following mine operations, fallow agricultural fields
would be returned to cultivation.
Although the long-billed curlew habitat use has not been documented in the Core Area, suitable habitat
does exist. Disturbance during construction of the reservoir may displace curlews; however, low-level
disturbance concentrated along roads and the reservoir site and short-term conversion of some
agricultural fields to upland pasture would not appreciably modify long-billed curlew use of the area. No
long-term or permanent loss of habitat would occur. No toxic effects on the curlew are likely. Curlews
would not be attracted to the tailings pond due to its location within forest habitat and the distance to
suitable upland grassland cover type. Curlews are not known to occur along Beaver Canyon, Toroda
Creek, or Myers Creek, and the likelihood of exposure to an accidental spill in these drainages would be
very low. However, if curlews were exposed to toxic substances in the event of an accidental spill, sodium
cyanide would be acutely lethal for a period of several days (Beak 1995). Concentrations of ammonium
nitrate and lime also would adversely impact curlews. Long-billed curlews drinking from diesel
contaminated water would not be subjected to lethal levels (Beak 1995), but birds coming in direct contact
with a surface diesel film could die as a result of ingestion from preening or a loss of insulation from oil
coated feathers.
Cumulative Effects. It is unknown whether long-billed curlews historically occupied the Analysis Area.
Nonetheless, past human settlement, fire suppression, livestock grazing and agriculture have had a
cumulative adverse impact on long-billed curlew through conversion and modification of formerly suitable
habitat in the Analysis Area. Grazing and agriculture are expected to continue at present levels into the
reasonably foreseeable future. Proposed mining activities would have minor incremental impacts on
potential curlew habitat but would not impact any individuals or currently occupied habitats.
Determination of Effects Conclusion. The long-billed curlew is not documented for the Core or
Analysis areas, but suitable habitat does exist. If curlews do occur in the areas, mine development may
impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of
viability to the population or species.
4.16 Black Tern
The black tern is a neotropical migrant that breeds in temperate North America and winters in South
America. It arrives in Okanogan County the latter half of May and departs by the first week of September
(Cannings et al. 1987). Standing water with emergent vegetation is a critical component of black tern
foraging and nesting habitat.
Black terns forage over open water, marshes, and wet meadows. They feed on aquatic insects, beetles,
spiders, juvenile frogs, fish, crayfish, and mollusks (Ehrlich et al. 1988, Stern 1993). Black terns nest in
marshes near open water and are known to fly half a mile from the nest site to feed (Stern 1993). Nests are
placed on muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) lodges and feeding platforms, meadow grasses or sedges,
floating platforms of old vegetation, and abandoned grebe (Podiceps spp.) nests (Bergman et al. 1970,
Stern 1987, Stern 1993). They do not nest in dense tules. Some studies of nesting habitat of the black
tern infer that concealment is not a habitat requirement since nests are often placed on open water with no
surrounding vegetation (Bergman et al. 1970, Stern, 1993). Black terns apparently prefer emergent
vegetation surrounding floating nests to reduce wind and wave action. Region-wide declines are largely
due to the decline in wetland habitat. Reports of low nest success in the midwest may be attributed to
agricultural chemicals (Ehrlich et al. 1988).
The transportation corridor portion of the Core Area contains eight bodies of open water which are
suitable habitat for black terns. At least five breeding pairs are known to occur on Beaver and Little Beaver
Lakes (Friesz 1994). It is likely they use adjacent lakes for feeding. Two other ponds which occur within
Crown Jewel Project BE 56 November 14.1996
-------
the central portion of the Core Area are not suitable breeding habitat due to their small size, dense
forested perimeter, or lack of emergent vegetation. They are greater than 1 mile from known nest sites
and therefore are unlikely to be used for foraging. No other sightings of black terns are reported for the
Analysis Area.
4.16.1 Determination of Effects for Black Tern
No direct loss of suitable black tern nesting or foraging habitat would occur within the Core or Analysis
areas from project development. However, terns on Beaver and Little Beaver Lakes would be exposed to
direct disturbance impacts from light and glare, roads, and noise. Noise attenuation modeling results
indicate that increases in noise from facility construction and mine operation would not adversely impact
terns in Beaver Creek Canyon (Beak 1995). Terns would likely acclimate to the moderate increases in
traffic noise and associated light in the transportation corridor. Although terns would not nest or forage on
the tailings impoundment area, they may investigate the pond or rest there for a short period of time. If a
black tern wandered onto the tailings impoundment, projected concentrations of metals and cyanide in
the tailings water would not have a detrimental effect on black terns (Beck 1995). Birds drinking tailings
water with high ammonia concentrations could become sick and remain on the tailings pond, thereby
increasing exposure time to low levels of cyanide and metals. Increased exposure duration could lead to a
low risk of adverse impact from cyanide and metals. A low risk indicates that a small number of mortalities
could occur, but the number of mortalities are not predicted to be significant.
Terns on Beaver and Little Beaver Lakes would be indirectly affected by slight increases in human
presence throughout the project vicinity. Increased recreational use (e.g., fishing, boating) could have
minor negative impacts on terns in Beaver Creek Canyon, particularly during the breeding season (May-
September). For example, disturbance to nesting terns may cause nest abandonment and/or failure.
In the remote event of an accidental spill, a release of sodium cyanide into Beaver Creek (Alternatives B,
D, E, and F) would be acutely lethal to black terns (Beak 1995). A Beaver Creek spill would dilute to
nonlethal levels in Beth and Beaver Lakes. Adverse impacts from a spill of ammonium nitrate or lime also
would occur. Concentrations of these toxins would remain highly lethal to aquatic life downstream of the
spill site to the confluence with the Kettle River, thus impacting the food supply of terns. Terns do not
occur along Toroda Creek or Myers Creek, therefore, an accidental spill into these drainages would have
no effect on black terns.
A spill of diesel fuel also would result in mortalities of fish and aquatic invertebrates, also rendering habitat
unsuitable for foraging terns. Most of a spill in Beaver Creek would be contained in the ponds along the
creek and losses of fish and aquatic invertebrates below the ponds would be low. Black terns drinking
from diesel contaminated water would not be subjected to lethal levels (Beak 1995), but birds coming in
direct contact with a surface diesel film could die as a result of ingestion from preening or a loss of
insulation from oil coated feathers.
With any of the spill scenarios that could affect black terns in the Beaver Creek drainage, impacts would
result in the loss of individual terns and a short-term reduction in suitable habitat. Recovery of water quality
and prey populations would be relatively rapid as long as appropriate spill response and clean-up
measures are implemented.
Cumulative Effects. Black terns have apparently expanded their distribution in the Okanogan
Highlands in recent years in spite of recreational development and use of lakes in Beaver Canyon. As a
result, past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions are considered to be cumulatively minor
for the black tern. Potential disturbance to terns resulting from increased recreational activity and human
presence in Beaver Canyon would constitute a minor incremental impact. The development of the pit lake
in Alternatives B, D, and G may not create additional foraging habitat for black tern since it is projected that
silver and mercury concentrations in the pit waters may reach levels toxic to fish and other aquatic life.
Determination of Effects Conclusion. Increases in human disturbance following project
development would have minor adverse effects on the black tern. The potential for adverse impact is
associated primarily with the extremely low risk of a spill of toxic chemicals or diesel fuel into Beaver Creek.
A spill occurring during the breeding season could be acutely lethal if terns are exposed. Tern habitat may
Crown Jewel Project BE 57 November 14,1996
-------
be rendered unsuitable for a year or more following a spill due to the highly lethal effects of toxins to
aquatic life. Only a few breeding pairs of black terns are known to occur in the project vicinity, and the
availability of suitable tern habitat is limited. The loss of a breeding pair of terns due to a toxic spill may
result in a short-term local population decline. The effects would not be long-term because suitable
habitat conditions would eventually be recovered. Although project development may impact individual
black terns or pairs, it is not likely to have an adverse effect on populations of black tern.
4.17 Olive-sided Flycatcher
The olive-sided flycatcher is a neotropical migrant songbird that is widespread in open, mature stands of
coniferous forest from the Rocky Mountains westward. In the Okanogan Valley, this flycatcher is found in
the wetter subalpine and Columbian forests more often than in the drier Douglas-fir forests of the valley
(Cannings et al. 1987). Foraging habitat consists of mature forest in the Cascades, various-aged stands in
the Blue Mountains, and broken canopy or openings with high hunting perches provided by live trees or
snags (Sharp 1992). The species is known to use burns and clearings, including clearcuts, for foraging.
Olive-sided flycatchers select older stands for nesting in the Blue Mountains and mature and old-growth
stands in the Cascades (Sharp 1992). Diet consists of flying insects captured by hawking. Feeding and
advertising behavior is characterized by conspicuous perching near the top of dominant trees or snags in
the landscape.
Olive-sided flycatchers occur in the Analysis Area and Core Area. The species was recorded on USFWS
Breeding Bird Surveys along Beaver and Toroda Creeks in 1993 and 1994 (Stepniewski 1993, 1994).
The Core Area provides abundant potential habitat represented by the mixed conifer mature cover type,
which is interspersed with natural and man-made openings, providing edge habitat for foraging. The
Analysis Area contains suitable habitat in the coniferous land type.
4.17.1 Determination of Effects for Olive-sided Flycatcher
Proposed mining activities would cause the loss of nesting and foraging habitat during operations.
However, suitable habitat resulting from reclamation would exceed that currently available. Abundant
forest edge would be created, some permanent, and open conifer forest would develop on most
reclaimed facilities sites, providing suitable flycatcher habitat 60 to 100 years after reclamation. Short-term
habitat loss could affect some individuals, but mine development is not likely to have an adverse effect on
populations of olive-sided flycatcher.
4.18 Little Willow Flycatcher
The little willow flycatcher inhabits wooded stream bottoms and in deciduous thickets and wet shrubby
meadows. East of the Cascades, the species occurs in riparian habitats and in dry shrubby uplands in
eastern Washington (Sharp 1992). In the Okanogan Valley, the willow flycatcher prefers to nest in
deciduous shrubs and trees in riparian thickets at lower elevations. However, nests have been recorded
in deciduous brush associated with water at elevations up to 5,500 feet (Cannings et al. 1987). Diet
consists of flying insects, seeds and caterpillars. Foraging behavior includes hawking and gleaning.
Nests are placed in willows or shrubs usually near the ground. Studies indicate that little willow flycatchers
are heavily parasitized by cowbirds in the Okanogan Valley (Cannings et al. 1987).
The willow flycatcher occurs in riparian willows along Myers Creek, Beaver Creek, Toroda Creek, and the
lowest reaches of Marias and Nicholson Creeks in the Analysis Area. The only portion of the Core Area
where willow flycatchers occur is along Myers Creek. The willow flycatcher was recorded on USFWS
Breeding Bird Surveys along Beaver and Toroda Creeks in 1993 and 1994 (Stepniewski 1993, 1994).
Willow flycatcher habitat is represented by riparian/wetland cover type along Myers Creek in the Core Area,
and by riparian/wetland/open water land type in the Analysis Area.
4.19.1 Determination of Effects for Little Willow Flycatcher
Riparian habitat suitable for willow flycatcher nesting and foraging (i.e., willow thickets and riparian shrubs)
occurs only along Myers Creek, Beaver Canyon, and Toroda Creek. These areas would not be physically
Crown Jewel Project BE 58 November 14,1996
-------
altered during operations. However, wetland/riparian habitat at the reservoir site may be enhanced during
operations by the more consistent presence of water, while wetland/riparian habitat below the diversion
may be negatively impacted since spring runoff and episodes of high flow would be reduced downstream
of the diversion. After mine operations have been completed, the reservoir would be drained, top-soiled,
and seeded. Suitable riparian habitat does not occur for willow flycatchers at the tailings impoundment
sites in the headwaters of Marias or Nicholson Creeks. Disturbance from project construction would not
affect the species or its habitat.
Indirect impacts due to secondary development and minor population increases would likewise have no
effect on the willow flycatcher. An accidental spill of sodium cyanide into Beaver or Toroda Creek would
be acutely lethal to the willow flycatcher (Beak 1995). A Beaver Creek spill would dilute to nonlethal levels
in Beth and Beaver Lakes. A Toroda Creek spill would remain lethal until dilution with the Kettle River.
Adverse impacts from a spill of ammonium nitrate or cement/lime also would occur. Under Alternative C
and G, the risk of toxic spill exists solely within Myers Creek. The potential adverse impacts of ammonium
nitrate would remain until diluted in the Kettle River. A cyanide spill would cause lethal impacts to the
willow flycatcher for several miles downstream. A spill of lime would increase pH with the potential of
adverse impacts until dilution with the Kettle River. Willow flycatchers drinking from diesel contaminated
water would not be subjected to lethal levels (Beak 1995), but birds coming in direct contact with a surface
diesel film could die as a result'of ingestion from preening or a loss of insulation from oil coated feathers.
Cumulative Effects. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future cumulative effects on willow
flycatcher are considered minor because they are still common along riparian systems in the Analysis Area
in spite of degradation of habitat through timber harvest, grazing, and road-building. Proposed mining
activities would have no adverse effect on willow flycatcher habitat, although minor positive and negative
alternations in wetland/riparian habitat.
Determination of Effects Conclusion. Proposed mining activities would have very little impact on
the willow flycatcher. The potential for adverse impact is associated primarily with the extremely low risk of
a spill of toxic chemicals or diesel fuel into drainages occupied by willow flycatcher. In the event of an
accidental spill, exposure to sodium cyanide, ammonium nitrate, cement/lime, and diesel fuel could cause
mortality to individuals. However, mine development is not likely to have an adverse effect on populations
of little willow flycatcher. Wetland mitigation required for replacement of lost wetland/riparian habitats could
create additional areas of suitable habitat for little willow flycatcher depending on the wetland vegetation
communities established.
4.19 Spotted Frog
The spotted frog is found from Alaska to northern California and eastward to Wyoming, Montana, and Utah
(Leonard et al. 1993). It is widespread east of the Cascade Mountains in Washington (Rodrick and Milner
1991). The spotted frog inhabits the marshy edges of ponds, lakes, and streams which contain dense
emergent vegetation and a thick underwater layer of decaying material or thick algal growth (Nussbaum et
al. 1983). Highly aquatic, they generally stay within a few feet of permanent water, moving farther during or
shortly after rain (Rodrick and Milner 1991). Spotted frogs hibernate in muddy or highly saturated
substrates near breeding areas (Rodrick and Milner 1991).
Spotted frogs become active February to March and breed as soon as the ice melts from the breeding
sites (Licht 1971). Females deposit egg masses in water only a few inches deep with as much as half of
the egg mass exposed to the air. The same communal breeding sites are typically used in successive
years (Nussbaum et al. 1983). The larvae feed on algae, vascular plants, and scavenged animal material
(Rodrick and Milner 1991). Adults feed on a wide variety of insects (Whittaker et al. 1982). Juveniles may
disperse up to 2 miles, following watercourses until a permanent source of water is found (Hayes 1994).
Wildlife surveys confirmed that the spotted frog inhabits the headwaters of Nicholson Creek, a pond along
Beaver Creek, and a perennial pond in the Core Area known as the "frog pond" (Beak 1995). The spotted
frog is also likely to occur in suitable habitat along Marias, Toroda, and Nicholson creeks.
Crown Jewel Project BE 59 November 14,1996
-------
4.20.1 Determination of Effects for Spotted Frog
Aquatic habitat and associated peripheral wetland habitats represent potential spotted frog habitat within
the Core Area. There would be a direct loss of 0.90 to 5.40 acres of wetland habitat depending on
alternative. The tailings facility, in all action alternatives except Alternative F, would account for the
greatest permanent acreage disturbance to wetlands (2.44 to 2.52 acres). A total of 0.63 acre of wetlands
(0.57 acre in Starrem Creek drainage and 0.06 acre in Myers Creek valley) would be covered or disturbed
by construction of the Starrem Reservoir and associated intake facility/pipeline. A similar area of wetlands
would be created once reclamation of the Starrem Creek Reservoir is complete in 5 to 34 years. The 1.8-
acre Frog Pond would be buried under the waste rock disposal area in Alternative G, resulting in additional
permanent loss of known spotted frog foraging and breeding habitat. Construction of the tailings facility in
all alternatives and the waste rock disposal area in Alternative G could displace spotted frogs or result in
direct mortality.
Indirect effects to the wetlands of Buckhorn Mountain could also occur as a result of alteration (reduction)
in stream flows, ground water flows due to pit construction/dewatering, and surface runoff at the mine site.
It is difficult to predict eventual effects of flow alterations on the function of potentially impacted wetlands.
Except for the frog pond, indirect impacts are predicted to be temporary (during project operation and
reclamation). Once the mine and initial reclamation of the site, including hydrologic equilibrium of the pit
area, is completed, a new hydrologic equilibrium would be reached resulting in a water table lower than the
pre-mining conditions.
With Alternative B, C, D, E, and F, construction of the waste rock disposal areas would alter the hydrology
of the frog pond during operations. It is believed that most of the frog pond's water supply is derived
primarily from surface water runoff, but it may also be partially fed by spring flow. During operation and
reclamation, diversion ditches and sediment traps constructed for these alternatives would capture
surface water runoff from the North Waste Rock Disposal area. For Alternatives B and D, an approximate
80 percent 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 percent reduction,
respectively, of contributing surface flow to the frog pond without augmentation. The EIS has proposed
to augment flows to the frog pond to replace lost water volume from spring runoff.
The potential effects of surface water diversion on wetland functions and the existing frog population in
the frog pond are uncertain. It is likely that the open water component would be reduced, and existing
wetland vegetation would be more constricted to the center of the pond. Wetland vegetation along the
perimeter may convert to riparian habitat, and existing wetland habitat for spotted frog would be reduced.
The Forest Service will require monitoring for changes in wetland types, functions, and area at project area
wetlands, including the frog pond. The frog pond would be monitored in the spring and fall for water
levels and wetland types, functions, and acreage. In addition, the current wetlands mitigation plan
proposes planting shrubs and trees along the northern perimeter of the frog pond and fencing the pond
from livestock. If monitoring detects a drop in water level or a change in wetland functions, additional
mitigation measures, including possible water augmentation, would be implemented. An additional
mitigation measure would involve the placement of a small population of spotted frogs from the frog pond
in created replacement wetlands once a suitable food base for spotted frogs is established. This would
speed up possible colonization of the created wetlands and increase the distribution of spotted frogs in
the Analysis Area.
Spotted frogs in or near the proposed mine footprint could also be directly impacted by increased light,
glare, and noise. Light, glare, and noise could adversely affect frog activities, but effects to populations
would be localized and minor. Increased traffic levels during mine operations would increase the
incidence of roadkill; however, impacts to local spotted frog populations would remain low. Toxic
contaminants in the tailing pond should pose no direct hazard to the spotted frog since a fence
surrounding the pond would exclude most amphibians.
Spotted frogs may be indirectly impacted by project-associated disturbance such as human presence,
secondary development, and an accidental spill of toxic chemicals during transport. Additional permanent
housing units would be built to accommodate the population growth. Expected human population
Crown Jewel Project BE 60 November 14,1996
-------
increases related to project development would increase the demand on available water, potentially
lowering the water table level and causing the loss or alteration of existing wetlands. Given the small
incremental population increase expected and its wide distribution, such an impact is unlikely. An
accidental breach of the tailings pond liner, or a spill of sodium cyanide, ammonium nitrate, cement/lime,
and diesel into Beaver or Toroda Creek could occur. Accidental spills could eliminate spotted frogs along
portions of the affected drainage until cleanup and habitat recovery is completed. Population and habitat
losses would be relatively short-term as long as appropriate spill response and clean-up measures are
implemented. The likelihood of a liner breach or spill occurring is extremely low.
Although Starrem Reservoir would provide temporary open water habitat during operations, it would not
develop characteristics (e.g., emergent vegetation, the proper substrate) required by spotted frogs. The
proposal to cease new water withdrawals from Myers Creek when flow rates are reduced to specified levels
would protect spotted frog habitat along the creek. However, diversion of water from Myers Creek may
have minor adverse impacts to wetland/riparian habitat below the diversion since spring runoff and
episodes of high flow would be reduced downstream of the diversion. The development of the pit lake in
Alternatives B, D, and G may not create additional habitat for spotted frog since it is projected that silver
and mercury concentrations in the pit waters may reach levels harmful to fish and other aquatic life.
Cumulative Effects. Although past human activities (e.g., timber harvest, grazing, road-building) have
resulted in cumulative degradation of riparian habitats, spotted frogs are well distributed across the
Analysis Area. A local population decline would be expected in the Core Area as a result of habitat loss,
but it would be a minor incremental impact when placed in the context of the Analysis Area population.
Determination of Effects Conclusion. Habitat loss would result in local reductions in suitable
habitat and possibly the reduction of loss of local populations of spotted frog. Increases in human
presence and associated increases in light and glare, road traffic, and noise may contribute additional
minor impacts. A tailings pond liner breach or accidental spill of toxic process chemicals would also
adversely affect populations along the portions of affected drainages, but the risk for these events would
be extremely low. Project development would directly impact occupied wetland/riparian habitats, but
habitat losses would be compensated by required wetland mitigation. Although project development
could impact individuals and habitat, it is not likely to have an adverse effect on populations of spotted frog
since populations are well distributed across the Analysis Area and there would be no net loss of wetland
habitat.
Crown Jewel Project BE 61 November 14,1996
-------
5.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS SUMMARY
Proposed mining activities would result in additional minor losses of suitable or potential habitat for
sensitive species, federally listed species, and SOC. These habitat losses, in conjunction with past land
use/disturbance impacts, can be considered incremental additions to significant cumulative impacts
across a species' range that have already led to their status as sensitive, threatened, or endangered. Past
impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat have resulted primarily from timber harvest activities which have
reduced the extent of late successional forest and increased the acreage of early successional habitats
and open coniferous forest stands. Additionally, road development, in conjunction with harvest activities,
has reduced the extent of secure habitats for sensitive species such as lynx and wolverine.
Reasonably foreseeable future actions include additional timber harvests (Wheaton and Coogan).
According to the Environmental Assessment prepared for the Nicholson Timber Sale (U.S. Forest Service
1992c), harvest activities would result in additional losses in mature forest habitat for species such as
northern goshawk. Reductions in secure habitats and mature forested stands also would occur with
future harvests. However, harvest in disease infected stands would eventually improve stand health and
result in trends toward improved stand diversity. Additional roads would be created but likely closed after
harvest activities. The BE prepared for Nicholson project reached "no effect" or "not likely to adversely
affect" conclusions for all PETS species evaluated.
Development of the Crown Jewel Project would result in short-term losses of forested habitats and
conversion of some areas of mature and old growth stands to grass, shrublands, or more open coniferous
forest over the long-term (100 years or more). Because of the current roaded condition of the proposed
mine area, mine development would not result in any reduction in existing secure habitats within the Core
or Analysis areas. Road densities would be decreased after mine closure once reclamation is completed.
Human population change associated with mine development could result in minor incremental increases
in recreational use of the Analysis Area, causing a slight increase in the risk for human disturbance of
sensitive wildlife species.
Conclusions reached in the previous sections on determination of effects (Section 4.0, BE - Step 3)
provide the basis for assigning a cumulative impact determination to each species evaluated. As indicated
in the previous sections, the incremental impact of the mine was determined to be relatively minor for all
species except the northern goshawk and spotted frog. Mine development could result in the short-term
loss of one potential goshawk nest territory for the life of mine and reclamation activities. Individual
spotted frogs and portions of occupied habitat could also be lost in the short-term. These effects are not
expected to contribute to a loss of population viability for northern goshawk or result in adverse impacts to
populations of spotted frog within the Analysis Area. For the goshawk sufficient suitable habitat would
remain the Core Area to support a nesting pair of goshawks after mining. Proposed monitoring and
mitigation measures should be sufficient to protect the spotted frog population in the frog pond, and
there would be no net loss in wetland habitats. The cumulative effects of the action alternatives on SOC
bats cannot be predicted with certainty due to a lack of regional knowledge for populations of triers
species. However, adverse effects on bat populations are not likely since mine development would not
affect any important maternity or winter roost sites.
Crown Jewel Project BE 62 November 14,1996
-------
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
No breeding pairs of bald eagles or peregrine falcons are known to exist in the Analysis Area, and no
suitable bald eagle breeding or wintering habitat or potential peregrine falcon nesting habitat would be
directly affected by mine development. 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 for peregrine falcon or bald eagle through ingestion
of contaminated flesh would also be negligible for these species as long as appropriate cleanup activities
are implemented. Therefore, development of the Crown Jewel Project is not likely to adversely affect bald
eagle and peregrine falcon or their critical habitats.
Until project closure and reclamation is completed, the proposed project would contribute to a small
incremental adverse cumulative effect of reduced available habitat for grizzly bear and gray wolf within the
Analysis Area. However, the mine disturbance area would be only about 1 percent of the total acreage
within the Analysis Area. For wide-ranging species such as gray wolf and grizzly bear, a mine caused shift
in dispersal travel through the Analysis Area would be insignificant. Habitat security for gray wolf and
grizzly bear in the Analysis Area would be increased by proposed road closures. During mine operations
and after mine closure habitat security would be maintained at levels higher than those present prior to
mine exploration. Therefore, mine development is not likely to adversely affect the gray wolf or grizzly
bear or their potential reestablishment in the Okanogan Highlands.
Proposed activities, including an accidental spill, would cause minor incremental impacts which could
result in losses of individuals or habitat of several sensitive species but will not likely contribute to a trend
towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to a population of sensitive species. Sensitive species for
which losses of existing or potential habitat could occur include Townsend's big-eared bat, California
wolverine, North American lynx, common loon, and long-billed curlew. No effect on pygmy rabbit,
California bighorn sheep, or ferruginous hawk would occur because no suitable habitat for these species
exists in the Analysis Area.
Adverse effects to populations of other SOC would also be unlikely. Although, adverse effects to bat
SOC cannot be predicted with certainty due to a lack of regional knowledge for populations of these
species, impacts to bat populations are not expected since mine development would not affect any
important maternity or winter roost sites. As with sensitive species, mine development, including an
accidental spill, could cause minor incremental impacts through losses of existing/potential habitat or
individuals but is not likely to result in adverse impacts to populations of the Pacific fisher, northern
goshawk, black tern, olive-sided flycatcher, little willow flycatcher, and spotted frog. For olive-sided
flycatcher, impacts to potential habitat would be relatively short-term because reclamation would more than
offset habitat losses.
Although mine development is not likely to adversely affect any listed threatened or endangered species,
reduce the population viability of sensitive species, or have an adverse effect on populations of other
SOC, the relative level of potential adverse impacts to some of these species would vary depending on
the alternative. Alternatives E and G would create the greatest extent of overall surface disturbance, while
Alternatives C and D would create the least. No pit lake would be created with Alternatives C, E, and F,
and the corresponding potential for poor water quality development in the pit would not exist. Long-term
creation of the pit and associated permanent losses in habitat would be avoided by underground mining in
Alternative C and complete backfill of the pit in Alternative F. However, Alternative F has a project duration
more than three times longer than all the other action alternatives and would create the longest duration of
risk for human disturbance impacts to sensitive species.
With respect to sensitive bat species, impacts would be generally similar between the action alternatives
except that Alternatives B, E, F, and G would remove potential roosting habitat by eliminating the Gold Axe
and Double Axe adits. Alternatives B and E would result in the greatest long-term loss of deer SI/T cover,
although these losses would not be substantially greater than the other alternatives. Losses of potential
Pacific fisher habitat would be greatest for Alternative E and the least for Alternative C. Alternative G 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
Crown Jewel Project BE 63 November 14,1996
-------
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 habitats and bury the 'Irog pond."
Alternative F would remove the least extent of suitable spotted frog habitat (wetlands). Any wetland
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 species such as common loon,
black tern, and bald eagle would be alleviated with the Oroville-to-mine site transport route associated with
Alternatives C and G. This transport route would pass through the Town of Chesaw and parallel Myers
Creek which does not provide suitable habitat for common loon, black tern, and bald eagle.
Crown Jewel Project BE 64 November 14,1996
-------
7.0 LITERATURE CITED
A.G. Crook Co. 1992a. Winter wildlife survey report, Crown Jewel Project. Unpublished report submitted
to ACZ Inc., Steamboat Springs, Colorado. May 1,1992.
A.G. Crook Co. 1992b. Biological Evaluation for the Crown Jewel exploration project, amendment to
June 1990 report, September 9,1992.
A.G. Crook Co. 1993a. Summer wildlife survey, Crown Jewel Project. Unpublished report submitted to
ACZ Inc., Steamboat Springs, Colorado. January 1993.
A.G. Crook Co. 1993b. Northern Goshawk Survey Report, Crown Jewel Project, July 20,1993.
Allen, A.W. 1983. Habitat suitability index models: Fisher. USDI Fish and Wildl. Serv. FWS/OBS-
82/10.45.
Allen, H. 1992. Status and management of the peregrine falcon in Washington. Pages 72-74 in J.E.
Pagel, ed. Proceedings symposium on peregrine falcons in the Pacific Northwest, January 1991.
Rogue River Nat. For. 125 pp.
Allen, J.N. 1980. The ecology and behavior of the long-billed curlew in southeastern Washington. Wildl.
Mono. 73. 67 pp.
Almack, J.A. 1986a. 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. U.S.D.A. Forest
Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-207.
Almack, J.A. 1986b. North Cascades grizzly bear project annual report 1986. Wash. Dept. Game,
Olympia, WA. 31 pp.
Almack, J.A. 1994. Personal communication with R. Floyd (Beak), November 1,1994.
Almack, J.A., W.L. Gaines, R.H. Naney, P.H. Morrison, J.R. Eby, G.F. Woolen, M.C. Snyder, S.H. Fitkin,
and E.R. Garcia. 1993. North Cascades grizzly bear ecosystem evaluation; final report. Interagency
Grizzly Bear Committee, Denver, CO. 156 pp.
Anthony, R.G., R.L. Knight, and G.T. Allen, B.R. McClelland, and J.I. Hodges. 1982. Habitat use by
nesting and roosting bald eagles in the Pacific Northwest. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Res. Conf.
47:332-342.
Ashley, P. I992a. Grand Coulee Dam wildlife mitigation program pygmy rabbit programmatic management
plan. Douglas County, WA. Bonneville Power Admin. Portland, OR. 87pp.
Ashley, P. 1992b. Sharp-tailed grouse management plan: Columbia River wildlife mitigation, Grand
Coulee Dam Project. Bonneville Power Administration, Div. Fish and Wildl. 88 pp.
Ashley, P. et at. 1990. Sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasinnellus). Unpublished HEP models,
Wash. Dept. Wildl., Olympia, WA. 5 pp.
Aulman, D.L. 1992. The impacts and pressures on West Coast peregrines. Pages 55-65 in J.E. Pagel,
ed. Proceedings symposium on peregrine falcons in the Pacific Northwest, January 1991. Rogue
River Nat. For. 125pp.
Crown Jewel Project BE 65 November 14,1996
-------
Banci, V. 1994. Wolverine. Pages 99-127 in Ruggiero, L.F., Aubry, K.B., Buskirk, S.W., Lyon, L.J.,
Zielinski, W.J., tech. eds. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten,
fisher, lynx and wolverine in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. Ft. Collins, CO.
USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 184 pp.
Banfield, A.W.F. 1974 Mammals of Canada. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, Canada.
Barbour, R.W. and W.H. Davis. 1969. Bats of America. Univ. Press of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.
286 pp.
Battle Mountain Gold Company (BMGC). 1993. Integrated Plan of Operations, Crown Jewel Joint
Venture Project. Battle Mountain Gold Company and Crown Resources Corporation, Okanogan
County, WA.
Baumgardner, P. 1994. Biological Technician, Tonasket Ranger District, USDA Forest Service.
Telephone conversation with Dale Lindeman (Beak), March 16,1994.
Beak Consultants Incorporated (Beak). 1994. Potential effects of gold mines on wildlife and possible
mitigation strategies. Draft unpublished report submitted to TerraMatrix, Inc., Steamboat Springs,
Colorado.
Beak Consultants Incorporated (Beak). 1995. Crown Jewel Project Wildlife Technical Report.
Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Forest Service, Tonasket Ranger District.
Beak Consultants Incorporated. 1996. Examination of potential for toxicity to aquatic and terrestrial
species in and near the proposed pit pond for the Crown Jewel Mine. Unpublished report submitted
to the U.S. Forest Service, Tonasket Ranger District. August 19,1996.
Bechard, M.J., R.L Knight, D.G. Smith, and R.E. Fitzner. 1990. Nest sites of syrnpatric hawks (Buteo
spp.) in Washington. J. Field Ornithol. 61 (2) :159-170.
Bent, A.C. 1937. Life histories of North American birds of prey. Dover Publications Inc., New York, NY.
409 pp.
Bergman, R.D., P. Swain, and M.W. Weller. 1970. A comparative study of nesting Forster's and black
terns. Wilson Bull. 82: 435-444.
Berrie, P.M. 1973. Ecology and status of the lynx in Interior Alaska. Pages 4-41 in R.L. Eaton, ed. The
world's cats, Vol. 1 World Wildl., Safari, Winston, OR. 349 pp.
Bittner, S.L. and O.J. Rongstad. 1982. Snowshoe hare and allies. Pages 146-163 in J.A. Chapman and
G.A. Feldhamer, eds. Wild mammals of North America. John Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD.
1,147 pp.
Blanchard, B.M. and R.R. Knight. 1991. Movements of Yellowstone grizzly bears. Biol. Conserv. 58:41-
67.
Bossier, D. 1992. Midway, B.C. resident. Wolverine sighting reported to Kent Woodruff (Tonasket
Ranger District Wildlife Biologist). October 1992.
Brand, C.J. and LB. Keith. 1979. Lynx demography during a snowshoe hare decline in Alberta. J. Wildl.
Manage. 43:827-849.
Crown Jewel Project BE 66 November 14,1996
-------
Brittell, J.D., R.J. Poelker, S.J. Sweeney, and G.M. Koehler. 1989. Native cats of Washington - Section III:
Lynx. Wash. Dept. Wildl. Olympia, WA.
Brown, E.R., tech. ed. 1985. Management of wildlife and fish habitats in forests of western Oregon and
Washington. Ag. Pub. R6-FW&L-192-1985. USDA Forest Service.
Bull, E.L. and J.E. Hohmann. 1993. Breeding biology of northern goshawks in northeastern Oregon.
Paper presented at: Sixty-third annual meeting of the Cooper Ornithological Society, Sacramento,
California, 14-15 April, 1993.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1985. Final Spokane Resource Management Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement.
Busnel, R.G. 1978. Effects of noise on wildlife. Introduction, pp. 7-22 In: Fletcher, J.L. and R.G. Busnel
(eds.). Academic Press, New York.
Cannings, R.A., R.J. Cannings, and S.G. Cannings. 1987. Birds of the Okanogan Valley, British
Columbia. The Royal British Columbia Museum, Victoria, B. C. 420 pp.
Carbyn, L.N. 1987. Gray wolf and red wolf. Pages 359-376 in M. Novak, G.A. Baker, M.E. Obbard, and B.
Malloch, eds. Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America. Ont. Trappers Assoc.,
Ministry of Nat. Resources, Ont.
Christy, R.E. and S.D. West. 1993. Biology of bats in Douglas-fir forests. USDA For. Serv. Pac.
Northwest Res. Sta. Gen. Tech. Report PNW-GTR-308. 28 pp.
Copeland, J. and C. Groves. 1992. Progress report: wolverine ecology and habitat use in central Idaho.
Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise.
Craighead, J.J. and J.A. Mitchell. 1982. Grizzly bear. Pages 515-556 in J.A. Chapman and G.A.
Feldhamer, eds. Wild mammals of North America, biology, management, 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, Univ. of Montana,
Missoula, MT. 279 pp.
Daniels, E. 1996. McCoy/Cove Mine, Echo Bay Minerals Company, Battle Mountain, Nevada. Personal
communication to M. Phelan, Cedar Creek Associates, Inc., Fort Collins, Colorado. April 17,1996.
Dyer, O. 1994. Wildlife Technician, Wildlife Management Program, British Columbia Ministry of
Environment. Letter to Randy Floyd (Beak), February 7,1994.
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.
English, E.I. 1994. Habitat Biologist, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Letter to Paul
Whitney, Beak Consultants, Inc. 2 December 1994.
ENSR Consulting and Engineering. 1994a. Survey of bats near the Crown Jewel Mine Site, Okanogan
County. October 13,1994. misc. pagings.
Crown Jewel Project BE 67 November 14,1996
-------
ENSR Consulting and Engineering. 1994b. Hibernacula study of bats near the Crown Jewel Mine Site,
Okanogan County. December 12,1994. 6pp.
Evans, D.L 1982. Status reports on twelve raptors. Special Scientific Report, Wildlife No. 238, USDI Fish
and Wildl. Serv. 68pp.
Fielder, P.C. 1982. Food habits of bald eagles along the Mid-Columbia River, Washington. The Murrelet.
63:46-50.
Finn, S.P. 1992. Northern goshawk activity and productivity in Okanogan National Forest in 1992. Wash.
Dept. Wild!., Ephrata, WA. unpublished.
Fftzner, R.E., D. Berry, L.L. Boyd, and C.A. Reick. 1977. Nesting of ferruginous hawks (Buteo regalis) in
Washington 1874-1975. Condor 79:245-249.
Frederick, G. P. 1991. Gray wolf. Pages 33-50 in Effects of forest roads on grizzly bears, elk, and gray
wolves: a literature review. USDA Forest Service, Kootenai National Forest. R1-91-73.
Friesz, R. 1994. Wildlife Biologist, Washington Department of Wildlife. Letter to Randy Floyd (Beak),
February 10,1994.
Fritts, S.H. 1983. Record dispersal by a wolf from Minnesota. J. Mamm. 64(1):166-167.
Fuller, T.K. 1989. Population dynamics of wolves in North-Central Minnesota. Wildl. Mono. 105:1-41.
Green, J.S. and J.T. Flinders. 1980. Habitat and dietary relationships of the pygmy rabbit. J. Range
Manage. 33(2):136-142.
Hash, H.S. 1987. Wolverine. Pages 574-585 in M. Novak, J. Baker, M. Obbard, and B. Maltoch, eds. Wild
furbearer management and conservation in North America. Ministry of Nat. Resourc. Ontario.
Hayes, M. 1994. Marsh Habitat Specialist, Portland Community College. Telephone conversation with
Susan Barnes (Beak), January 21,1994.
Hayward, G.D. and R.E. Escano. 1989. Goshawk nest-site characteristics in western Montana and
northern Idaho. Condor 91:476-479.
Hayward, G.D., T. Holland, and R. Escano. 1990. Goshawk habitat relationships, pp. 19-27 In: Warren,
N.M. (ed.). 1990. Old-growth habitats and associated wildlife species in the northern Rocky
Mountains. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region Wildlife Habitat Relationships Program, R1-90-
42. 47pp.
Heinemeyer, K.S. and J.L. Jones. 1994. Biology and Management: A literature review and adaptive
management strategy. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, Missoula, MT. 108 pp.
Henny, C.J. and M.W. Nelson. 1981. Decline and present status of breeding peregrine falcons in
Oregon. The Murrelet. 62:43-53.
Herrero, S. 1985. Bear attacks, their causes and avoidance. Winchester Press, Piscataway, New Jersey.
287 pp.
Hornocker, M.G. and H.S. Hash. 1981. Ecology of the wolverine in northwestern Montana. Can. J. Zool.
59:1286-1301.
Crown Jewel Project BE 68 November 14,1996
-------
Howard, P.P., and M.L. Wolfe. 1976. Range improvement practices and ferruginous hawks. J. Range
Manage. 29(l):33-37.
Humphrey, S.R. 1982. Bats. Pages 52-72 in J.A. Chapman and G.A. Feldhamer eds. Wild Mammals of
North America. The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, MD.
Hydro-Geo Consultants, Inc. 1995. Seepage and attenuation study, Crown Jewel tailings disposal facility.
Unpublished report prepared for Terramatrix. June 1995.
Interagency Scientific Committee to Address the Conservation of the Northern Spotted Owl. 1990. A
conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl. USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land
Management, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI National Park Service, Portland, OR. 427 pp.
Jackson, H.H.T. 1961. Mammals of Wisconsin. Univ. Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wl. 504pp.
Jewett, S.A., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington state. Univ. of
Washington Press, Seattle, WA. 767 pp.
Jones, S. 1979. The accipiters: goshawk, Cooper's hawk, sharp-shinned hawk. USDI Bureau of Land
Management, Habitat Management Series for Unique or Endangered Species, Report No. 17. 51
PP-
King, J. 1994. Wildlife Biologist Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Telephone conversation
with Dale Lindeman (Beak), May 18,1994.
Klott, J.H. and F.G. Lindzey. 1990. Brood Habits of sympatric sage grouse and Columbian sharp-tailed
grouse in Wyoming. J. Wildl. Manage. 54(1):84-88.
Knight, R.L 1984. Response of wintering bald eagles to boating activity. J. Wildl. Manage. 48(3) :999-
1004.
Knight, R.R., B.M. Blanchard, L.L. Eberhart. 1988. Mortality patterns and populations sinks for
Yellowstone grizzly bears, 1973-1985. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:121-125.
Koehler, G.M. 1990. Population and habitat characteristics of lynx and snowshoe hares in north-central
Washington. Can. J. Zool. 68:845-851.
Koehler, G.M., and J.D. Brittell. 1990. Managing spruce-fir habitat for lynx and snowshoe hares. J.
Forestry. 88(10):10-14.
Koehler, M.G., M.G. Hornocker, and H.S. Hash. 1979. Lynx movements and habitat use in Montana.
Can. Field-Nat. 93:441-442.
Kunz, T.H. and R.A. Martin. 1982. Plecotus townsendii. Mamm. Species. No. 175. 6pp.
Lamp, R. 1996. Biologist, Nevada Division of Wildlife, Elko, Nevada. Personal communication to M.
Phelan, Cedar Creek Associates, Inc., Fort Collins, Colorado. April 11,1996.
Laufer, J.R. and P.T. Jenkins. 1989. Historical and present status of the gray wolf in the Cascade
Mountains of Washington. The Northwest Env. J. 5:313-327.
Lawson, B. and R. Johnson. 1982. Mountain Sheep. Pages 1036-1055 in J. A. Chapman and G.A.
Feldhamer, eds. Wild Mammals of North America: biology, management, and economics. John
Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD. 1,147 pp.
Crown Jewel Project BE 69 November 14,1996
-------
Leonard, W.P., H.A. Brown, L.C. Jones, K.R. McAllister, and P.M. Storm. 1993. Amphibians of
Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, WA. 168 pp.
Licht, I.E. 1971. Breeding habits and embryonic thermal requirements of the frogs Rana aurora aurora
and Rana pretiosa pretiosa in the Pacific Northwest. Ecology 52(1): 116-124.
Lowe, D.W., J.R. Matthews, and C.J. Moseley, eds. 1990. Grizzly bear. Pages 548-552 in Official World
Wildlife Fund Guide to Endangered Species of North America.
Marks, J.S. and V.S. Marks. 1988. Winter habitat use by Columbian sharp-tailed grouse in western Idaho.
J. Wildl. Manage. 52(4):743-476.
Marshall, D.B., M. Chilcote, and H. Weeks. 1992. Sensitive vertebrates of Oregon. First edition, June
1992. Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildl., Portland, Oregon.
Maser, C., B.R. Mate, J.F. Franklin, and C.T. Dyrness. 1981. Natural history of Oregon Coast mammals.
USDA For. Serv. Pac. Northwest Res. Sta. Gen. Tech. Report PNW-133. 496 pp.
Mech, D.L. 1970. The wolf. Natural History Press, Doubleday and Co., FNC., New York, NY. 384 pp.
Mech, D.L. 1989. Wolf population survival in an area of high road density. Am. Midi. Nat. 121:387-389.
Mech, D.L., S.H. Fritts, G.L. Radde, and W.J. Paul. 1988. Wolf distribution and road density in Minnesota.
Wildl. Soc. Bull. 16:85-87.
Melland, J. 1977. Nongame wildlife report: Long-billed curlew study (Numenius americanus), Morrow and
Umatilla Counties, unpubl. rep.
Nagorsen, D.W., and R.M. Brigham. 1993. Bats of British Columbia. UBC Press, Vancouver, BC.
Naney, R. 1993. Wildlife biologist, Okanogan National Forest, Okanogan, Washington. Telephone
conversation with Randy Floyd (Beak), December 6,1993.
Naney, R. 1996. Wildlife biologist, Okanogan National Forest, Okanogan, Washington. Personal
communication to M. Phelan, Cedar Creek Associates, Inc., Fort Collins, Colorado. May 8,1996.
Nassbaum, R.A., E.D. Bodie. Jr., and R.M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and reptiles of the Pacific
Northwest. Univ. of Idaho Press, Moscow, ID. 332 pp.
National Wildlife Federation. 1987. Grizzly bear compendium. Interagency Grizzly Etear Committee.
O'Connor, R.M. 1984. Population trends, age structure, and reproductive characteristics of female lynx in
Alaska, 1961 through 1973. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Alaska, Fairbanks, AK. 111 pp.
Olendorff, 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. Raptor Research Report No. 4. Raptor Research Foundation, Inc.
111 pp.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment. 1991. Best available pollution control technology. Metals Mining
Section, MISA Group A.
Owens, T. 1996. Manager, Wildlife Survey Data Management Section, WADFW, Olympia, Washington.
Letter and data sheets provided to M. Phelan, Cedar Creek Associates, Inc., Fort Collins, Colorado.
April 2,1996.
Crown Jewel Project BE 70 November 14,1996
-------
Pacific Coast American Peregrine Falcon Recovery Team. 1982. Pacific Coast recovery plan for the
American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum). USD! Fish and Wild). Serv. 86 pp.
Pagel, J.E. 1992. Protocol for observing known and potential peregrine falcon eyries in the Pacific
Northwest. Pages 83-96 in J.E. Pagel, ed. Proceedings symposium on peregrine falcons in the
Pacific Northwest, January 1991. Rogue River Nat. For. 125 pp.
Pagel, J.E. 1993. Analysis of potential peregrine falcon nest sites on the Okanogan National Forest.
USDA Forest Service. 10pp.
Pampush, G.J. 1980. Breeding chronology, habitat utilization, and nest-site section of the long-billed
curlew in northcentral Oregon. Unpubl. M.S. thesis. Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR. 49 pp.
Paradiso, J.L. and R.M. Nowak. 1982. Wolves (Cam's lupus and allies). Pages 460-474 inJ.A. Chapman
and G.A. Feldhamer, eds. Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and economics.
The John Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD.
Parker, G.R., J.W. Maxwell, L.D. Morton, and G.E.J. Smith. 1983. The ecology of the lynx (Lynx
canadensis) on Cape Breton Island. Can. J. Zool. 61:770-786.
Paulus.S.L 1994. Program manager, ENSR Consulting and Engineering. Letter to Jeffrey White (Battle
Mountain Gold Company). Re: Hibernacula study of bats near the Crown Jewel Project. December
12, 1994.
Payton, G.B. 1992. Local resident. Letter to Kent Woodruff (Tonasket Ranger District Wildlife Biologist),
March 16,1992.
Peatt, A.D. 1992. Senior Wildlife Biologist, Wildlife Management Program, British Columbia Ministry of
Environment. Letter to Phil Lee (A.G. Crook), November 25,1992.
Peatt, A.D. 1994. Personal communication with R. Floyd (Beak), November 4,1994.
Pennoyer, W. 1994. Registered Canadian trapline holder. Telephone conversation with Dale Lindeman
(Beak), March 7,1994.
Perkins, J.M. 1987. Distribution, status, and habitat affinities of Townsend's big-eared bat (Plecotus
townsendii) in Oregon. Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildl. Tech. Report #86-5-01. 50 pp.
Perkins, J.M. 1989. Three year bat survey for Washington National Forests results of year three -
Wenatchee, Okanogan, and Colville National Forests. Unpublished report. 54 pp.
Perkins, J.M. 1994. Telephone conservation with Dale Lindeman (Beak), October 7, 1994 and
telephone conversation with Tiffany LaGrave (Beak), December 2,1994.
Peterson, R.O. 1986. Gray wolf. Pages 951-967 in Audubon wildlife report, 1986. The National
Audubon Society, New York, NY.
Peterson, R.O. and R.E. Page. 1988. The rise and fall of Isle Royale wolves, 1975-1986. J. Mamm.
69(1)89-99.
Pimlott, D.H. 1967. Wolf predation and ungulate populations. Am. Zoologist. 7:267-278.
Powell, R.A. 1981. Maries pennanti. Mammalian Species 156:1-6.
Crown Jewel Project BE 71 November 14,1996
-------
Powell, R.A. 1982. The fisher, life history, ecology, and behavior. Univ. Minn. Press, Minneapolis, MN
271 pp. *"
Raforth, R., Hydrogeologist, Washington Department of Ecology. 1992. Letter to Conrad Parrish (ACZ
Inc.), June 18, 1992.
Raine, R.M. 1981. Winter habitat use and responses to snow cover of fisher (Maries pennant!) and
marten (Manes amertoana) in southeastern Manitoba. Can. J. Zool. 61(1):25-34.
Reel, S., L. Schassberger, and W. Ruediger. 1989. Caring for our natural community: Region 1 -
threatened, endangered & sensitive species program. USDA, Forest Service, Northern Region
Wildlife and Fisheries. 309 pp. + appendices.
Reynolds, R. T. 1983. Management of western coniferous forest habitat for nesting accipiter hawks.
Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-102. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Exp. Sta., Ft.
Collins, CO. 7 p.
Reynolds, R. T., E.C. Meslow, and H.M. Wight. 1982. Nesting habitat of coexisting Accipiter in Oregon.
J. Wildl. Manage. 46(1): 124-138.
Reynolds, R.T. and E.C. Meslow. 1984. Partitioning of food and niche characteristics of coexisting
Accipiter during breeding. Auk 101: 761-779.
Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L Kennedy, D.A. Boyce, G. Goodwin, R.
Smith, and E.L. Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the
southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-217. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain
Forest and Range Exp. Sta., Ft. Collins, CO. 90 pp.
Rodrick, E. and R. Milner. eds. 1991. Management recommendations for Washington's priority habitats
and species. Wildl. Manage., Fish Manage., and Hab. Manage. Div., Wash. Dept. Wildl. np.
Rose, D. 1994. Acting District Ranger, Tonasket Ranger District. Letter to Paul Whitney (Beak), March
16, 1994.
Sarell. M.J. and K.P. McGuinness. 1993. Rare bats of the shrub-steppe ecosystem of eastern
Washington.
Saunders, U.K. 1963. Movements and activities of the lynx in Newfoundland. J. Wildl. Manage. 27:390-
400.
Schmutz, J.K. 1987. The effect of agriculture on ferruginous and Swainson's hawks. J. Range Manage.
40(5):438-440.
Schmutz, J.K. 1989. Hawk occupancy of disturbed grasslands in relation to models of habitat selection.
Condor 91:362-371.
Sharp, B.E. 1992. Neotropical migrants on national forests in the Pacific Northwest: a compilation of
existing information. USDA Forest Service. 587 pp.
Shroeder, M. 1994a. Upland Bird Research Biologist, Washington Department of Wildlife. Telephone
conversation with Dale Lindeman (Beak), March 22,1994.
Shroeder, M. 1994b. Telephone conversation with Dale Lindeman, April 22,1994.
Crown Jewel Project BE 72 November 14,1996
-------
Snow, C. 1981 a. Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis). Habitat management series for unique or
endangered species. Rep. No. 13, USD! Bureau of Land Management. 23 pp.
Snow, E. 1981 b. Southern bald eagle and northern bald eagle. Habitat management series for
endangered species. Rep. No. 5, USDI Bureau of Land Management. 58 pp.
Stalmaster, M.V. 1987. The bald eagle. Universe Books, New York, NY. 227pp.
Stalmaster, M.V., and J.R. Newman. 1978. Behavioral responses of wintering bald eagles to human
activity. J. Wildl. Manage. 42(3):506-513.
Stepniewski, A. 1994. Curlew breeding bird survey. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, MD.
Stern, M.A. 1987. Site tenacity, mate retention and sexual dimorphism in black terns. M.S. Thesis,
Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR.
Stern, M.A. 1993. Zoologist, Nature Conservancy. Telephone conversation with Randy Floyd (Beak),
August 13, 1993.
Strickland, M.A., C.W. Douglas, M. Novak, and N. Hunzinger. 1982. Fisher. Pages 586-598 inJ. A.
Chapman and G. A. Feldhamer, eds. Wild Mammals of North America: biology, management, and
economics. John Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore, MD. 1,147 pp.
Swedberg, D. 1994. Wildlife Agent, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Telephone
conversation with Randy Floyd (Beak), October 24,1994.
Terres, U.K. 1980. The Audubon Society encyclopedia of North American birds. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc.,
New York, NY. 1,109pp.
Thiel, R.P. 1985. Relationship between road densities and wolf habitat suitability in Wisconsin. Am. Midi.
Nat. 113:404-407.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1985. Ambient water quality criteria for ammonia -1984.
EPA 440.5-85-001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development
Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, Minnesota. 217 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1986. Recovery plan for the Pacific bald eagle. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 160 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Northern Rocky Mountain wolf recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Denver, Colorado. 119 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Grizzly bear recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula,
Montana. 181 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Final environmental impact statement, the re introduction of gray
wolves to Yellowstone National Park and central Idaho. USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6.
misc pagings.
U.S. Forest Service. 1989. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Land and resource management plan,
Okanogan National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.
U.S. Forest Service. 1990. Bald eagle sighting map. USDA Forest Service, Okanogan National Forest.
Crown Jewel Project BE 73 November 14,1996
-------
U.S. Forest Service. 1991 a. Bat timber sale planting unit map. USDA Forest Service, Okanogan National
Forest.
U.S. Forest Service. 1991b. West Moyie final environmental impact statement. Idaho Panhandle National
Forests, Bonners Ferry Ranger District, misc. pagings.
U.S. Forest Service. 1992a. Interim management recommendations for sensitive species. Unpublished
March 1992 guidelines for Region 1.
U.S. Forest Service. 1992b. Biological Evaluation: Nicholson Timber Sale. USDA Forest Service,
Okanogan National Forest. 20 pp.
U.S. Forest Service. 1992c. Goshawk map. USDA Forest Service, Okanogan National Forest.
U.S. Forest Service. 1994. Reclamation maps of alternatives. Tonasket Ranger District. Five maps and
reclamation key.
Van Dyke, W.A., A. Sands, J. Yoakum, A. Polenz, and J. Blaisdell. 1983. Wildlife habitats in managed
rangelands - the great basin of southeastern Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-159. USDA Forest
Service.
Wakeley, J.S. 1978. Factors affecting the use of hunting sites by ferruginous hawks. Condor 80:316-
326.
Wakelyn, L.A. 1987. Changing habitat conditions on bighorn sheep ranges in Colorado. J. Wildl.
Manage. 51(4):904-912.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WADFW). 1993a. Status of the North American lynx (Lynx
canadens/s) in Washington. Wash. Dept. Wildl., Olympia, WA.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1993b. Status of the pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis)
in Washington. Wash. Dept. Wildl., Olympia, WA. 25 pp.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1994a. Priority habitats and species data release, February
7, 1994.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1994b. Nongame data printout of wolf and grizzly records
for Okanogan and Ferry counties, April 28,1994.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1994c. Nongame data printout of Pacific fisher records for
Okanogan County, November 1994.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1995. Proposed Crown Jewel Mine Project, wildlife habitat
evaluation procedures study. Unpublished report prepared by the Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife. March 1995.
Watson, J.W., M.G. Garrett, and R.G. Anthony. 1991. Foraging ecology of bald eagles in the Columbia
River estuary. J. Wild. Manage. 55(3):492-499.
White, C.M. and T.L. Thurow. 1985. Reproduction of ferruginous hawks exposed to controlled
disturbance. Condor 87:14-22.
Crown Jewel Project BE 74 November 14,1996
-------
White, J. 1996. Environmental Superintendent, Battle Mountain Gold Company, Tonasket, Washington.
Personnal communication to M. Phelan, Cedar Creek Associates, Inc., Fort Collins, Colorado. April
10, 1996.
Whittaker, J.O., S.P. Cross, J.M. Skovlin, and C. Maser. 1982. Food habits of the spotted frog (Rana
pretiosa) from managed sites in Grant County, Oregon. Northwest Sci. 57(2): 147-154.
Wilson, A., D. Gleisner, M. Morache, and D. Ronayne. 1987. Idaho's birds of prey part I: eagles, falcons,
hawks, osprey, vulture. Nongame Wildlife Leaflet 4. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, no
pagings.
Wilson, D.E. 1982. Wolverine. Pages 644-652 in J. A. Chapman and G. A. Feldhamer, eds. Wild
mammals of North America: biology, management, and economics. John Hopkins Univ. Press,
Baltimore, MD. 1,147pp.
Winter, J. 1996. Battle Mountain Gold Company, Tonasket, Washington, personal communication to M.
Phelan, Cedar Creek Associates, Inc. April 11,1996.
Wishart, W. 1978. Bighorn Sheep. Pages 161-171 in J. L. Schmidt and D. L. Gilbert eds. Big game of
North America, ecology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. 494 pp.
Woffinden, N.D. 1989. Decline of a ferruginous hawk population: a 20 year summary. J. Wildl. Manage.
53(4):1127-1132.
Woffinden, N.D. and J.R. Murphy. 1983. Ferruginous hawk nest site selection. J. Wildl. Manage.
47(1):216-219.
Woodruff, K. 1994. Tonasket Ranger District Wildlife Biologist, USDA Forest Service. Telephone
conversation with Dale Lindeman (Beak), March 20,1994.
Woodward-Clyde. 1993. Summary report, chemical and ecotoxicological characterization, tailings
impoundment, McCoy Mine, Nevada. Unpublished report prepared for Echo Bay Minerals Company,
Battle Mountain, Nevada.
Yocom, C.F. and M.T. McCollum. 1973. Status of the fisher in northern California, Oregon, and
Washington. Calif. Fish and Game. 59(4):305-309.
Zender, S. 1994. Wildlife Biologist, Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. Telephone conversation with
Susan Barnes (Beak), May 9,1994.
Zieroth, E. 1993. District Ranger, Tonasket Ranger District. Letter to Alan Czarnosky, ACZ, Inc. July 21,
1993.
Crown Jewel Project BE 75 November 14,1996
-------
-------
APPENDIX I
FISHERIES AND AQUATIC HABITAT
BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION
-------
-------
Okanogan National Forest
1240 South Second
Okanogan. WA. 98840
REPLY TO: 2600 DATE: September 24, 1996
SUBJECT: FINAL:CROWN JEWEL PROJECT FISHERIES AND AQUATIC HABITAT-
BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION:
TO: Phil Christy and Craig Bobzien
Team Leader District Ranger
Introduction: The following is an updated version of the original
Biological Evaluation (BE) submitted for the proposed Crown Jewel
Mine Project (C JM) . The changes arid clarifications are the result
of different water quality predictions from the proposed action
alternatives, clarification of need for a BE, and the relationship
of potential project impacts as related to the Inland Native Fish
Policy (INFISH).
Project Area: The project area is located in Okanogan County,
north-central Washington, approximately 3 miles east of the town of
Chesaw, Wa. As proposed, the project entails several alternatives
including construction of an open pit mine (Alternatives B, D, E,
F, and G), and an underground mining alternative (Alternative C),
waste rock disposal areas, crushing and milling areas, a tailings
disposal area, and support facilities. The immediate area disturbed
by the proposed project action alternative scenarios will range
from 440-896 acres on the east side of Buckhorn Mountain (A.G.
Crook 1993 ) .
The area proposed for mining activity and surrounding analysis area
is an intricate complex of seeps, springs, wetlands and
intermittent and perennial tributaries (A.G. Crook 1993).
Fisheries Resource: The lower reaches of Myers, Nicholson, and
Marias Creeks all have populations of both rainbow and brook trout,
with brook trout primarily found in the upper headwater reaches of
the streams (A.G. Crook 1993 and Pentec Environmental, Inc 1993).
Nicholson and Marias Creeks flow easterly from the project area
into Toroda Creek, and then into the Kettle River. Myers Creek, the
primary project water supply flows north to its confluence with the
Kettle River in British Columbia.
Brook trout are an introduced species native to the east coast. Due
to extensive historical fish stocking activities in the region it
is unknown if rainbow trout observed in the streams are native,
introduced, or most likely a genetic admixture of both native and
introduced rainbow trout stocks.
Under the proposed action alternatives the potential predicted
water quality modifications, potential adverse water quality
impacts, specifically chemical and metal toxicities, to Columbia
-------
River salmon and steelhead runs is anticipated to be negligible due
to the distance from the proposed site (180 plus miles) to
downstream anadromous fish bearing waters. This assessment includes
a worst case scenario (hazardous material accident) and the
distances and corresponding dilution rates to waters utilized by
anadromous fish species. Only inland fish species (trout species,
cottids, and dace, etc) found in the immediate proposed project
area would be affected by any CJM Project related water quality
accidents.
INLAND NATIVE FISH STRATEGY: The proposed Crown Jewel Mine Project
falls under the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFS 1995), which has
designated Riparian Area Management Goals. The goals establish an
expectation of the characteristics of healthy, functioning
watersheds, riparian areas and associated fish habitats. Since the
quality of water and fish habitat in aquatic systems is inseparably
related to the integrity of upland and riparian areas within
watersheds, the strategy identifies several goals for watershed,
riparian, and stream channel conditions. The goals of the INFS are
to maintain and restore:
1) water quality, to a degree that provides for stable and
productive riparian ecosystems;
2) stream channel integrity, channel processes, and the
sediment regime (including the elements of timing, volume, and
character of sediment and transport) under which the riparian and
aquatic ecosystems developed;
3) instream flows to support healthy riparian habitats, the
stability and effective function of stream channels, and the
ability to route flood discharges;
4) natural timing and variability of the water table elevation
in meadows and wetlands; and
5) diversity and productivity of native and desired non-native
plant communities in riparian zones;
Buffer zones are identified in the INFS for fish bearing,
perennial, intermittent, and pond/wetlands riparian areas to
achieve site specific Riparian Management Objectives (INFS 1995).
Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCA) are portions of
watersheds where riparian-dependent resources receive primary
emphasis, and management activities are subject to specific
standards and guidelines for management activities (i.e., mining,
silviculture, recreation, road building, grazing, etc).
Interim RHCA widths apply where watershed analysis has not been
completed. Site-specific widths may be increased or decreased where
interim widths necessary to achieve riparian management goals or
objectives can be achieved without adverse effects. Establishment
of RHCA would require completion of watershed analysis to provide
the ecological basis for the change. A watershed analysis has not
been completed for drainages in the CJM analysis area. However,
whether or not a watershed analysis has been completed, interim
-------
RHCA may be "modified" by amendment where stream reach or site-
specific data support the change. In all cases, the rationale
supporting the modification of RHCA widths and their effects
require "documentation" within the context of INFS mining standards
arid guidelines (INFS 1995).
The Inland Native Fish Strategy addresses minerals management
activities to minimize adverse effects to inland native fish
species habitat from mineral operations. The following are INFISH
Standards and Guidelines for Minerals Management (INFS 1995):
MM-1: Minimize adverse effects to inland native fish species from
mineral operations. If a notice of intent indicates that a mineral
operation would be located in a Riparian Habitat Conservation Area
(RHCA), consider the effects of the activity on inland native fish
in the determination of significant surface disturbance pursuant to
36 CFR 228.4. For operations in a RHCA ensure operators take all
practicable measures to maintain, protect, and rehabilitate fish
and wildlife habitat which may be affected by the operations. When
bonding is required, consider (in the estimation of the bond
amount)the cost of stabilizing, rehabilitating, and reclaiming the
area of operations.
MM-2: Locate structures, support facilities, and roads outside
RHCA. Where no alternative to siting facilities in RHCA exists,
locate and construct the facilities in ways that avoid impacts to
RHCA and streams and adverse effects on inland native fish. Where
no alternative to road construction exists, keep roads to the
minimum necessary for the approved mineral activity. Close,
obliterate and revegetate roads no longer required for mineral or
land management practices.
MM-3: Prohibit solid and sanitary waste facilities in RHCA. If no
alternative to locating mine waste (waste rock, spent ore,
tailings) exists, and stability can be ensured, then:
a) analyze the waste material using the best conventional
sampling methods and analytic techniques to determine its chemical
and physical stability characteristics.
b) locate and design the waste facilities using the best
conventional techniques to ensure mass stability and prevent the
release of acid or 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 RHCA.
c) 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 (RMO).
d) reclaim and monitor waste facilities to assure chemical and
-------
physical stability and revegetation to avoid adverse impacts to
inland native fish, and to attain the RMO.
e) require reclamation bonds adequate to ensure long-term
chemical and physical stability and successful revegetation of mine
waste facilities.
MM-4: For leasable minerals, prohibit surface occupancy within RHCA
for oil, gas, and geothermal exploration and development activities
where contracts arid leases do not already exist, unless there are
no other options for location and RMO can be attained and adverse
effects to inland native fish can be avoided. Adjust the operating
plans of existing contracts to (1) eliminate impacts that prevent
attainment of RMO; and (2) avoid adverse effects to inland native
fish.
MM-5: Permit sand and gravel mining and extraction within RHCA only
if no alternatives exist, if the actions would not retard or
prevent attainment of RMO, and adverse effects to inland native
fish can be avoided.
MM-6: Develop inspection, monitoring, and reporting requirements
for mineral activities. Evaluate and apply the results of
inspection and monitoring to modify mineral plans, leases or
permits as needed to eliminate impacts that prevent attainment of
RMO and avoid adverse effects on inland native fish.
These INFISH criteria have been addressed by both Federal and State
DOE agencies with regard to the proposed Crown Jewel Mine Project.
This has been accomplished through almost 5 years of interagency
and project proponent cooperation and planning, and resource
analysis to meet the previously mentioned Inland Native Fish Mining
Standards and Guidelines. This has been conducted in conjunction
with numerous aquatic resource studies in the affected proposed
project area to address potential impacts from the project. Through
the planning process and resulting action plan, restorative and
mitigative measures have been identified, and will be implemented.
The potential resource risks are further identified with regard to
each alternative later in this document.
Sensitive Species - Potential fish species of concern in the
Marias, Nicholson, and Myers Creek drainages within the analysis
area include rainbow trout (redband variety) and bull trout
(formerly dolly varden).
Rainbow trout of the redband variety (Oncorhynchus mykiss
gairdnerii ) , a species considered sensitive by the Forest Service,
were initially reported to be present in the analysis area. The
historic range of redband trout includes the analysis area
drainages (Figure 1). Limited numbers of rainbow trout were
collected in Marias, Nickolson and Myers Creeks by A.G. Crook
Company Consultants for electrophoretic analysis to determine if
-------
they were redband trout or descendants of upper Columbia River
redband populations. The collected fish were submitted to Rob Leary
of the University of Montana's Wild Trout and Salmon Genetics
Laboratory for Lactic Acid (LDH) analysis to determine if they were
redbands. The results of this analysis determined that the rainbow
trout populations in the analysis area were not of the pure redband
variety (A.G. Crook 1993).
However, since the drainages which will be affected by this project
are within the historical range of redband trout (Behnke 1992), and
there are no passage barriers to have historically prevented access
of these populations to drainages potentially affected by this
project, a fisheries BE of the project has been completed (Figure
1 ) . It is probable that land and water management related habitat
modifications, interspecific species competition and interbreeding
with introduced species, and historical water management practices
may have extirpated the pure redband species within the project
area watersheds. Habitat still exists for this species, although
impacted by the previously mentioned historical management
activities. Redband trout are on the Regional Forester's Sensitive
Species List.
Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentis) are at this time being
considered for listing under the Endangered Species Act. Extensive
stream and fisheries presence/absence sampling conducted for the
Crown Jewel Project analysis area have riot identified any bull
trout in any of the potentially affected basins (A.G. Crook 1993
and Pentec Environmental, Inc. 1993), nor are there any historical
records of this species fish ever having been present in the
proposed project basins (K. Williams, Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife, personal communication, 1994).
No sensitive macroinvertebrate species have been identified in the
proposed project/analysis area (A.C. Crook 1993, Pentec
Environmental, Inc. 1993, and Northwest Management, Inc. 1994).
Baseline habitat assessment and macroinvertebrate bioassessments
have been conducted in Marias, Nicholson and Myers Creeks to be
used for population trend monitoring for the Crown Jewel Mine
Project (Northwest Management, Inc. 1994).
Biological Evaluation-Proposed, Endangered, Threatened or Sensitive
Species (PETS): Sensitive species are those plants and animals
identified by a Regional Forester for which population viability is
a concern, as evidenced by:
1) Significant current or predicted downward trends in
population numbers or density.
2) Significant current or predicted downward trends that would
reduce a species' existing distribution.
-------
Criteria for Conclusions of Effects for Use in Biological
Evaluations for Sensitive Species (USDA Forest Service-Regions 1,
4, and 6; August 1995):
1 ) No Impact
A determination of "No impact" for sensitive species occurs when a
project or activity will have no environmental effects on habitat,
individuals, a population or a species.
2) May Impact Individuals Or Habitat. But Will Not Likely
Contribute To A Trend Towards Federal Listing Or Cause A Loss Of
Viability To The Population Or Species
Activities or actions that have effects are immeasurable, minor or
are inconsistent with Conservation Strategies would receive this
conclusion. For populations that are small or vulnerable-each
individual may be important for short or long term viability.
3) Will Impact Individuals Or Habitat With A Consequence That The
Action May Contribute To A Trend To Federal Listing Or Cause A Loss
Of Viability To The Population Or Spjecies
Loss of individuals or habitat can be considered significant when
the potential effect may be: 1) contributing to a trend toward
Federal Listing (C-l species); 2) results in a significantly
increased risk of loss of viability to a species; or 3) results in
a significant increased risk of loss of viability to a significant
population (stock).
Alternative Analysis:Current Status and Potential Effects Common To
All Alternatives: Basins potentially impacted by the proposed
project include Myers, Marias, Nicholson and Toroda Creeks.
Trampled and eroded streambanks, streambed sedimentation, stream
channel instability, reduced canopy cover, lack of large woody
debris complexes, and reduced instream cover are common throughout
the drainages in the proposed project area (A.G. Crook 1993).
Current fisheries and aquatic habitat impacts from historical
management activities are most evident in the lower sections of the
watersheds draining the project area (A.G. Crook 1993). All streams
potentially affected by the project either directly or indirectly
flow into the Kettle River and then into the Columbia River (Lake
Roosevelt).
Sediment: Potential downstream sedimentation increases from the
proposed action alternatives (Alternatives B,C,D,E,F and G) are
expected to be moderated by stream buffers, and mitigative
measures. The proposed project (depending on alternative and acres
involved) is estimated to last approximately 8-10 years.
Additionally, post project revegetation and soil stabilization will
require an unknown number of years to fully return the site to near
pre-development conditions. Erosion control structures for the
-------
FIGURE 1. HISTORICAL P*STRlglJTlON
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^S^^^^^B
PACIFIC NORTHWEST
*^——~~—
OREGON
DESERT
SASINS
LAHONTAN
3ASITI
BONN EV ILLS
BASIN
PACIFI
OCEAN
REDBAND TROUT IN THE
*j /11t*'T"
A P| coastal rainbow trout
B m redbana trout
From Behnke 1992
-------
project are designed for a ten year storm event. It is assumed that
with erosion control structures designed for a ten year event,
based on local climatic conditions, that there is approximately a
100 percent chance (ten percent/per year) that the erosion control
structures will be breached by a storm or runoff event to some
degree during the course of the project or post project time-frame.
Thus, the relatjve potential for sediment recruitment to streams
within the project area or downstream from the project to enter
project area watersheds is relatively high, depending on acres
disturbed.
The relative magnitude of sediment recruitment potential to streams
will be proportionate to the area disturbed by any given action
alternative (Table 1).
Table 1. Comparison between alternatives of the relative
magnitude of cumulative effects with regard to potential
project related downstream sedimentation
Sedimentation
Potential a/
Alternative
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
Marias
None
Mod
Low
Mod
Mod-High
Very Low
Very Low
Nicholson
None
Mod
Low
Low
High
Very High
Very High
a/ Ratings are relative comparisons between alternatives, based on
existing stream channel conditions and projected acres of land
disturbed by mining activity.
All native trout species evolved to spawn in flowing water that
circulates dissolved oxygen through the redd. Embryos need the
oxygen when their development is most rapid, which occurs just
before hatching. Most streams during the spring have supersaturated
levels of dissolved oxygen (9-12 mg/L), which is more than adequate
for developing trout eggs. The crucial parameter, however, is the
concentration of dissolved oxygen at the surface of the developing
egg, which depends on the permeability of the redd. When stream
gravels become clogged with fine materials, as has occurred to
varying degrees in the proposed project watersheds, water and
dissolved oxygen flow through the redd is impeded and less oxygen
reaches the embryos, substantially reducing egg-fry survival
(Figure 2). Due to the existing channel embededness levels, and
corresponding limited spawning habitat observed in the system, it
is possible that lack of suitable spawning substrate may be
partially responsible for the decline of native stocks.
8
-------
Figure 2. Percentage Egg To Swim-Up
Fry Survival In Sand Gravel Mixture
(Rainbow and brook trout)
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
S
u
r
v
•
i
v
a
I
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Percent Coarse Sand (<2-6.4mm)
Adapted From Bjornn (1968); Phillips et
al. (1976); Hausel and Coble (1976); and
McCuddln (1977).
-------
Substrate "roughness" and interstitial space is also an important
factor for juvenile and adult trout, especially at high elevations
in the winter (Alexander and Hanson 1986). Interstitial space, or
lack of, is an important stream characteristic for fish survival as
a result of the combination of two factors: 1) interstitial space
is an especially important local variable in snow melt 'dominated
hydrograph, cold winter water temperatures resulting in frazzle and
anchor ice conditions, and the demonstrated winter behavior of
juvenile and adult salmonids to use interstitial spaces as winter
refuges from winter icing conditions; and 2) coarse granitic sands
are especially prone to filling streambed interstices (Burns and
Edwards 1985; Potondy 1988).
Observed degraded riparian area conditions, low pool/riffle ratios,
and observed high sediment levels in project area streams, if
further exacerbated by project related activities will have
detrimental effects on aquatic biota and system functions (T.
Melville, A.G. Crook Company, personal communication).
Toxic Materials: Potential water quality and fishery habitat
impacts, excluding possible sedimentation increases from site
disturbances discussed above, include the spill of chemicals and
fuel, discharge of acidic waters, possible increases in water
temperature, and downstream metal toxicLty from leaching processes
in the pit lake affecting groundwater and surface waters, leachates
from the waste rock and tailings facility, and post project surface
discharges from the mining pit. Fish and aquatic organisms are very
sensitive to low levels of toxic metals i.n water (Tables 2, 3 and
4). Potential downstream effluent effects on aquatic resources
would depend on seasonal water flow fluctuations, water
temperatures, and concentrations of toxic metals.
Surface runoff and/or ground-water sources of cyanide and potential
impacts on fisheries are considered to be minimal. If an accidental
spill or ground-water seepage were to occur it would be localized,
and could potentially have an effect on fisheries as far downstream
as cyanide was at toxic concentrations. Cyanide when in solution
with water (on surface) comes off as a gas when aerated (as in
stream riffles). Cyanide Is not environmentally persistent, and
degrades naturally to less toxic compounds by a variety of
volatilization, oxidation, photodecompos i t. ion, and biodegradation
mechanisms. Thus, the further an potent ial accidental spill/seepage
would travel, it would become less toxic with distance, with the
distance of toxicit.y dependent on initial cyanide concentrations,
stream discharge, stream aeration, water temperature and existing
water chemistry (Nelson et al. 1991). The potential of a
catastrophic cyanide related water quality event is low, however,
if such an event were to occur it would be catastrophic for
localized down stream aquatic biota.
Metals are naturally present in varying concentrations (referred to
as background levels) in all surface waters, and many are required
10
-------
by fish and aquatic organisms in trace quantities for proper
physiological function. Mining activities, however, may cause
concentrations of dissolved metals to exceed background levels. In
general, mortality is usually attributed to high metal
concentrations, however, exposure to sublethal levels may produce
such chronic effects as behavioral changes and reproductive
failure, both effects ultimately determine species survival in the
effected habitat. Runoff and discharge from mine tailing materials
may introduce toxic metals into streams. These substances may
produce toxic effects alone, in combination, or synergistically, or
they may behave antagonistically to reduce toxicity.
Meta] concentrations which are of most concern to aquatic
ecosystems from the proposed CJM Project, based on preliminary post
project pit water quality modeling (Beak 1996) are mercury,
selenium, nickel, silver, cadmium and copper (Tables 2, 3 and 4).
Aquatic organisms will concentrate mercury within their bodies. If
exposed to sources of mercury over time, accumulated mercury can
become toxic and eventually lethal if concentrations are high
enough. Mercury toxicity can occur through both adsorption and the
food chain with aquatic organisms. Mercuric ions are considered to
be highly toxic to aquatic life. For some freshwater fish species,
concentrations of 0.004 mg/1 to 0.02 mg/1 of mercury can have
severe toxic effects. However, Schweiger 1961 reported that 0.2
rng/1 of mercury were not harmful to one-two year old carp, tench,
rainbow trout and char species, exposed for short periods of time.
Mercury concentrations are estimated to be 0.0005 mg/1 with the
Crown Jewel Mine Project Proponent Starrem Creek Reservoir
Enhancement proposal (Table 2). As previously mentioned mercury is
accumulated in aquatic organisms, and the long term effects at the
modeled levels are unknown (Nelson et al. 1991). Based on metals
toxicity modeling mercury has a high risk or probability of toxic
impacts from the pit lake for fish species for all pit filling
scenarios. The impacts to macroinvertebrates ranges from high to
negligible depending on the pit filling scenario.
Selenium concentrations and effects on aquatic organism from the
pit water supply are considered to be negligible and will not be
further addressed in the text (Nelson et al. 1991, and Beak 1996).
Lead is one of the most toxic elements known, however, research
into the effects of lead on aquatic life is relatively recent.
Relatively low concentrations can cause mortality in incubating
trout eggs (Table 2). It is suspected that adult trout acquire lead
primarily through the food chain and are therefore more tolerant,
however, spinal deformities (scoliosis) and neurological damage
have been attributed to lead toxicity, especially with the progeny
of adults exposed to chronic levels of lead (Davies et al. 1976).
Based on pre project water quality modeling, it is assumed that
lead toxicity will not be a water quality issue with the pit water
(Nelson et al., 1991 and Beak 1996).
11
-------
Nickel toxicity varies widely between species of fish, depending on
synergism, species, pH, and other factors. Toxic effects are more
acute in soft water than hard water. Based on water quality
modeling of the Crown Jewel Mine Project Proponent Starrem Creek
Reservoir Enhancement Project, it is estimated that nickel may be
moderately toxic in the mine pit, and post project pit water
discharges (Beak 1996).
Silver in minute quantities in water is very toxic to fish,
probably by interference with gas exchange by the gills (Gough et
al. 1979). Lethal concentrations of silver for some fish species
are as low as 0.004/mg/l, depending on exposure time (McKee et al.
1963). Increased exposure time to silver increases mortality rates.
Macroinvertebrate species appear to be more resilient to silver
toxicity with toxic concentrations for some species ranging from
0.03 mg/1 to 0.05 mg/1 (Mckee, et al. 1963). Modeling of post
project mine pit water quality indicate that silver toxicity will
be high with all pit filling scenarios (Beak 1996).
Cadmium appears to be highly toxic to aquatic organisms at low
concentrations dependent on exposure time, and can act
synergistically with other substances such as zinc to increase
toxic effects on aquatic organisms (McKee et.al. 1963). Fish
exposed to toxic concentrations of cadmium become hyperactive, then
suffer respiratory distress and paralysis (Nelson et al . 1991).
Modeling of post project mine pit water quality indicate that
cadmium toxicity will be negligible with all pit filling scenarios
for fish species (Beak 1996). However, modeling indicates that
cadmium toxicity potential will be moderate to high depending on
the pit filling scenario, for aquatic macroinvertebrates (Beak
1996).
Copper-induced mortality of fishes occurs when insoluble copper-
protein compounds form on gill surfaces. This causes sloughing of
gill epithelia, and eventually results in the suffocation of the
organism. Mortality of fish as a result of copper toxicity has been
documented at various concentrations for the same species. For
aquatic organisms copper is one of the most toxic heavy metals
(National Research Council 1977). The discrepancies in copper
bioassays are generally attributable to differences in water
hardness, or copper toxicity decreases as calcium carbonate
concentration and alkalinity increases. Modeling of post project
mine pit water quality indicate that copper toxicity will be
negligible-low for fish species, and moderate to high for aquatic
macroinvertebrates, for all pit filling scenarios (Beak 1996).
Specific effluent limits and impacts from the pit discharge alternatives
(surface), and spring and seep water quality would be established on a site
specific basis by the Washington State Department of Ecology and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. If water quality criteria (Table 2) are not
being met under established monitoring criteria, then effluent would be treated
to comply with State and Federal Water Quality Standards. Treatment of
12
-------
potentially toxic metal discharges from groundwater sources draining the pit
complex, waste rock and tailings will be difficult to identify and treat. It
should be noted that all predicted pit water quality data assumes the Crown Jewel
Mine Project Proponents Starrem Creek Water Enhancement strategy. This strategy
would expedite the filling of the pit lake resulting in higher pit water quality.
Table 2. Reported toxicities of metals for Washington State Department of Ecology
Aquatic Life Criteria in soft (50 mg/1 CACOj) and hard (200mg/l CACOj) as related
predicted pit water quality, a/
Sub-
stance
Mercury
Lead
Nickel
Silver
Cadmium
Copper
Fish
Species
Rainbow
Rainbow
Rainbow/egg
Rainbow
Rainbow
E. Brook
Rainbow
E. Brook
Rainbow
Reported
Toxicity At
50mg/l CACOj
Method mg/1
Washington Range
Fresh Water Predicted
Criteria At Pit Water
50 mg/1 CACOj Quality At
Acute/Chronic 200mg/l CACOj
LC50/33.0
LC50/8.
MATC/0.
LC50/35
MATC/0 .
MATC/0.
LC50/0.
MATC/0.
LC50/0.
0000
0041
.5
0042 c/
0012 c/
0066
0017
0570
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0232/0.
0232/0.
7500/0.
0007/0.
0007/0.
0016/0.
0016/0.
0079/0.
0009 <.
0009 <.
0833 0.
0007 0.
0007 0.
0057 0.
0057 0.
0056 0.
0.0005
0001-0.
0001-0.
2200-0.
0090-0.
0090-0.
0006-0.
0008-0.
0060-0.
0410
0410
0610
0880
0880
0026
0026
0090
Washington
Fresh Water
Criteria At
200 mg/1 CAC03
Acute/Chronic
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
.0024/0.
.1360/0.
.1360/0.
.4200/0.
.0071/0.
.0071/0.
.0074/0.
.0074/0.
.0290/0.
00001
00530
00530
26900
00710
00710
00170
00170
01800
a/ Reported fish toxicity data from Nelson et al. 1991, and predicted pit water
quality conditions as related to Washington State Water Quality Standards (WAC
173-201A) in pit lake from Table 4.7.3. Crown Jewel Mine-Final Environmental
Impact Statement. All pit water quality data assumes the Crown Jewel Mine
Proponent Starrem Water Enhancement Project will be implemented.
b/ Cadmium and silver concentrations were below laboratory detection limits in
all but 2 of the water quality samples used to model predicted pit water quality.
c/ No fresh water chronic criteria established for silver, however, acute
criteria is assumed for this table that they are the same as chronic criteria.
LC50 = lethal concentration for 50% of test organisms.
MATC = maximum acceptable toxic concentration.
Water Supply: The water supply plan (for all alternatives except A-
no action) as proposed by Battle Mountain Gold Company would be to
divert 5 cfs of Myers Creek (20-25 percent of peak flows) during
spring runoff to a storage reservoir, arid would be limited to
periods when all senior water rights and minimum instream flow
conditions are satisfied (Golder Associates, Inc. 1994).
The maximum annual surface water diversion would be 500 ac/ft,
which would require approximately 50 days of 5 cfs withdrawals.
Battle Mountain Gold Company has also purchased some additional
water rights upstream from the reservoir. The combination of
reduced peak flows and diverting the acquired water rights to
reservoir storage may have an impact on the annual charging of the
Myers Creek hyporheic.
13
-------
Reduction of spring runoff flows may affect hyporheic recharge
through withdrawal of peak flows, and changes iri water uses due to
water right lease agreements which may result in a detrimental
effect on late season downstream fish populations. This flow
reduction impact would be potentially acute in the lower reaches of
Myers Creek above the confluence with the Kettle River where late
season flows have been historically intermittent on a seasonal
basis since Euro-North American settlement of the area. This is the
result of existing water uses and the variability of average annual
precipitation events (D. Smith, personal communication, B.C.
Ministry of Environment-Fisheries Branch, 1996). Reduced late
season flows may also affect downstream water temperatures and
reduced minimum flows could affect both early arid late season water
supplies for wetlands in the Myers Creek floodplain, below the
point of diversion (R. Wissmar, personal communication, University
of Washington, 1995 ) .
Proposed fish passage facilities at the diversion site would have
to provide passage for spring spawning rainbow trout during high
spring runoff flows, and low flow passage for fall spawning brook
trout populations.
Alternative A - No Action Alternative: No adverse impacts to
fisheries, aquatic and macroinvertebrate species are anticipated
from this alternative (Table 1).
This alternative will have no impact on aquatic habitats or
populations.
Alternative B - Proposed Action: Potential fisheries, aquatic and
macroinvertebrate species consequences from this alternative
include: Increased sedimentation of Marias and Nicholson Creeks is
anticipated, with 253 and 453 headwater acres respectively
disturbed, respectively. The degree of increase in sedimentation
from site disturbing activities on Marias and Nicholson Creeks, and
potentially Toroda Creek will be dependent on annual variations in
meteorologic, and project modified hydraulic conditions. Stream and
fisheries surveys conducted for the proposed project indicate
sediment loading in the channel from road wash and skid road
sources, as well as bank trampling from livestock use. Existing
stream channel ernbededness exceeds the Okanogan National Forest
Standards and Guidelines in parts of Nicholson Creek. It is
estimated that the sedimentation potential for this alternative is
moderate (Table 1 ) .
Post project discharges of 0.3-0.4 cfs are estimated to flow from
the pit complex into the Nicholson Creek Basin. It is estimated
that it will take the pit 5-26 years to fill after project
excavation ceases, if pit filling is not augmented with Myers Creek
(Starrem Creek Reservoir) withdrawals. Based on conservative
modeling, projected pit water quality may exceed the freshwater
chronic criteria for toxic metals (Tables 2, 3 and 4). Depending on
14
-------
post, project pit water quality, project related discharges may
require treatment prior to downstream release.
The potential for toxic metals discharges into the Nicholson Creek
drainage would be dependent on the validity of the discharge
modeling results, and the dilution rates when pit water discharges
mix with Nicholson Basin waters. The rate of mixing/dilution will
be seasonally variable, as will be the potential toxic effects of
pit discharge on the fisheries and aquatic organisms in the
Nicholson Creek Basin, if not treated prior to downstream release.
As previously discussed, pit water quality discharges will be
monitored, arid if found to not meet the Washington State Department
of Ecology Surface Water Quality Standards, will be treated prior
to downstream release.
This alternative may impact aquatic habitats or populations.
Alternative C: Potential fisheries, aquatic and macroinvertebrate
species consequences from this alternative include:
a) Increased sedimentation of Marias and Nicholson Creeks is
anticipated, with 128 and 220 headwater acres disturbed,
respectively. However, due to the underground mining proposed for
this alternative and a reduction of surface disturbing activities,
sedimentation potential is reduced in Marias and Nicholson Creeks,
and potentially Toroda Creek. Sedimentation potential will be
dependent on annual variations in meteorologic, and project
modified hydraulic conditions. Stream and fisheries surveys
conducted for the proposed project indicate sediment loading in the
channel from road wash and skid road sources, as well as bank
trampling from livestock use. Existing stream channel embededness
exceeds the Okanogan National Forest Standards and Guidelines in
parts of Nicholson Creek. It is estimated that the sedimentation
potential for this alternative is low (Table 1).
Subsurface flows to surface water and water quality, specifically
with regard to toxic metal transport in the Nicholson Basin have
not been modeled for this alternative. However, the predicted
surface flow water quality from this alternative is not anticipated
to be as potentially toxic as with the open pit alternatives (i.e.,
alternatives B, D, E and G). The potential magnitude of groundwater
and seep discharge sources of toxic metals from the pit complex,
waste rock and tailings will be difficult to identify and treat.
The potential for sedimentation and toxic metal discharges
affecting fish and other aquatic organisms from this alternative is
expected to be low (Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4).
This alternative will have no impact on aquatic habitat or
populations.
Alternative D: Potential fisheries, aquatic and macroinvertebrate
species consequences from this alternative include:
15
-------
a) Increased sedimentation of Marias and Nicholson Creeks is
anticipated, with 117 and 357 headwater acres disturbed,
respectively. The degree of increase in sedimentation from site
disturbing activities on Marias and Nicholson Creeks, arid
potentially Toroda Creek will be dependent on annual variations in
meteorologic, and project modified hydraulic conditions. Stream and
fisheries surveys conducted for the proposed project indicate
sediment loading in the channel from road wash and skid road
sources, as well as bank trampling from livestock use. Existing
stream channel embededriess exceeds the Okanogan National Forest
Standards arid Guidelines in parts of Nicholson Creek. It is
estimated that the sedimentation potential for this alternative is
low-moderate (Table 1).
The potential for toxic pit water discharges into the Nicholson
Creek Basin is anticipated to be less than Alternative B (Tables 2,
3 and 4), as will be the potential toxic effects of pit water
discharge on fish arid aquatic organisms in the Nicholson Creek
Basin. The potential magnitude of groundwater and seep discharge
sources of toxic metals from the pit complex, waste rock and
tailings will be difficult to identify arid treat.
This alternative may impact aquatic habitats or populations.
Alternative E: Potential fisheries, aquatic and macroinvertebrate
species consequences from this alternative include:
a) Increased sedimentation of Marias and Nicholson Creeks is
anticipated, with 262 and 548 headwater acres disturbed,
respectively. The degree of increase in sedimentation from site
disturbing activities on Marias and Nicholson Creeks, and
potentially Toroda Creek will be dependent on annual variations in
meteorologic, and project modified hydraulic conditions. Stream and
fisheries surveys conducted for the proposed project indicate
sediment loading in the channel from road wash and skid road
sources, as well as bank trampling from livestock use. Existing
stream channel embededness exceeds the Okanogan National Forest in
parts of Nicholson Creek. It is estimated that the sedimentation
potential for this alternative is moderate-high (Table 1).
It is anticipated that the levels toxic metals in the pit lake
complex will be the highest of all alternatives. Although the pit
will be backfilled, it will not prevent the hydraulics of springs
and overland flow from filling the voids between backfill
materials, and a lake partially filled with rock will most likely
be the result. Due to the increased surface area of the backfilled
material in the pit, much more material will be exposed to the
leaching process, thus increasing the concentrations of toxic
(D.Hart and N.Munn, Beak Consultants, personal communications,
1995). Although initial leaching rates of toxic metals may be
reduced as a result of decreased availability of oxygen, the long
term concentrations are anticipated to be substantially higher,
16
-------
with the magnitude depending on the acidity of the material and the
amount of dissolved oxygen in the filled pit lake (D. Hart and N.
Munn, 1995. Beak Consultants, Inc., personal communication).
This alternative will impact aquatic habitats and populations.
Alternative F: Potential fisheries, aquatic and macroinvertebrate
species consequences from this alternative include:
Increased sedimentation Nicholson Creek is anticipated to be the
second highest with this alternative, with 699 headwater acres
disturbed. Little site disturbance is anticipated in Marias Creek.
The degree of increase in sedimentation from site disturbing
activities in the Nicholson Creek drainage, and potentially Toroda
Creek will be dependent on annual variations in meteorologic, and
project modified hydraulic conditions. Stream and fisheries surveys
conducted for the proposed project indicate sediment loading in the
channel from road wash and skid road sources, as well as bank
trampling from livestock use. Existing stream channel embededness
exceeds the Okanogan National Forest Standards and Guidelines on
sections of Nicholson Creek. It is estimated that the sedimentation
potential for this alternative is low for Marias Creek and very
high for Nicholson Creek (Table 1).
This alternative would have a low potential impact on downstream
water quality (toxic metals), fisheries and aquatic organisms,
resulting from leaching in the pit complex. This assumption is
based on reestablishing pre-project overland flow away from the pit
complex, thus minimizing or preventing any potential toxic water
discharges from the pit lake or a partially filled pit lake. It is
anticipated that some groundwater and seep discharge sources of
toxic metals from the pit complex, waste rock and tailings may
occur, however, the degree to which this will occur is difficult to
assess.
This alternative may impact aquatic habitats and populations.
Alternative G: Potential fisheries, aquatic and macroinvertebrate
species consequences from this alternative include: Increased
sedimentation Nicholson Creek is anticipated to be the highest with
this alternative, with 896 headwater acres disturbed. Little site
disturbance is anticipated in Marias Creek. The degree of increase
in sedimentation from site disturbing activities in the Nicholson
Creek drainage, and potentially Toroda Creek will be dependent on
annual variations in meteorologic, and project modified hydraulic
conditions. Stream and fisheries surveys conducted for the proposed
project indicate sediment loading in the channel from road wash and
skid road sources, as well as bank trampling from livestock use.
Existing stream channel embededness exceeds the Okanogan National
Forest Standards and Guidelines on sections of Nicholson Creek. It
is estimated that the sedimentation potential for this alternative
is low for Marias Creek and very high for Nicholson Creek (Table
17
-------
1).
It is anticipated that due to the open pit nature of this
alternative, the potential for discharges of toxic metals are
equivalent to that identified in Alternative B.
This alternative will impact aquatic habitats and populations.
Table 3.. Risk or probability of impacts from project related
sedimentation in Marias and Nicholson Creek drainages, and post
Crown Jewel Mine Project toxic metal impacts to aquatic
macroinvertebrates in the pit pond for the proposed Alternative, a/
Sediment Mercury Selenium Lead Nickel Silver Cadmium Copper
Moderate None None None High High Moderate High
a/ These are relative ratings based on conservative modeling
assuming the use of supplemental water sources to fill the pit
pond. For further information on alternative pit filling scenarios
see, "Beak Consultants, Inc., 1996. The examination of potential
toxicity to aquatic and terrestrial species in and near the
proposed pit pond for the Crown Jewel Mine".
Table 4. Risk or probability of impacts from project related
sedimentation in Marias and Nicholson Creek drainages, and post
Crown Jewel Mine Project toxic metal impacts to fish populations in
and near the pit pond for the proposed Alternative, a/
Sediment Mercury Selenium Lead Nickel Silver Cadmium Copper
Moderate None None None High High Moderate High
a/ These are relative ratings based on conservative modeling (high
range) assuming the use of supplemental water sources to fill the
pit pond. For further information on alternative pit filling
scenarios see, "Beak Consultants, Inc., 1996. The examination of
potential toxicity to aquatic and terrestrial species in and near
the proposed pit pond for the Crown Jewel Mine".
Cumulative Effects Summary: Cumulative effects are defined as,
"the impact on the environment which results from incremental
impact of action when added to other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions".
Cumulative watershed effects analysis involves a wide range of
hydrologic, road miles constructed/re-constructed, stream
crossings, landform characteristics, riparian forests, hill-slope
forests, acres disturbed by management activities, aquatic organism
and channel interactions that couple together by series of both
natural and management related "causes and effects" over time,
projected into the future. Cumulative effects can be difficult to
define both scientifically and practically. Potential cumulative
18
-------
effects may include; "off-site, downstream changes in hydrology,
chemical toxicity, sediment production, transport, and temporary
storage in response to mining and road construction practices
within the watershed", and those effects on the aquatic biological
communities.
Based on the previously cited analysis criteria in Tables 1, 2, 3
and 4, the alternatives which will most likely have a potential
impact on the aquatic resources in order of decreasing magnitude
are; E, G, F, B, D, C and A. This analysis is based on acres
disturbed, erosion control criteria, potential metal toxicities,
and pre and post project landform drainage patterns. The preferred
alternative B "may impact" aquatic habitats and populations.
/s/ Jim Spotts
JIM SPOTTS
Forest Fisheries Biologist
Okanogan National Forest
19
-------
References
Alexander, G.R., and E.A. Hanson. 1986. Sand bed load in a trout
stream. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 6:9-23.
Beak Consultants, Inc., 1996. The examination of potential for
toxicity to aquatic and terrestrial species in and near the
proposed pit pond for the Crown Jewel Mine. Prepared for the
Okanogan National Forest-Tonasket Ranger District, Tonasket, WA.
4 p. plus appendices. Revised edition 9/13/96.
Behnke, R.J., 1992. Native trout of North America. American
Fisheries Society Monograph 6. American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda, MD. 275 p.
Bjornn, T.C., 1968. Survival and emergence of trout and salmon fry
in various gravel-sand mixtures. Logging and Salmon: Proceedings of
a forum. American Institute of Fisheries Research Biologists. IN
Habitat Requirements. American Fisheries Society Special
Publication 19:83-138.
Burns, D.C., and R.E. Edwards. 1985. Embededness of salmonid
habitat of selected streams in the Payette National Forest. McCall,
ID. 38 p.
Cascade Environmental Services, Inc., and Caldwell and Associates,
Inc. 1996. Myers Creek Project fisheries and instreara flow studies-
Final Report. Prepared for Terramatrix and the Myers Creek Instream
Flow Committee. 25 p. plus appendices.
Crook, A.G., 1993. Aquatic habitats of streams in the Marias and
Nicholson Creek Basin. A.G. Crook Company. Portland, OR. 47 p. plus
appendices.
Davies, P.H., Goettl, J.P., Sinley, J.R., and N.F. Smith. 1976.
Acute and chronic toxicity of lead to rainbow trout, in hard and
soft water. Water Research 10:199-206.
Golder Associates, Inc. 1994. Streamflow investigations conducted
along Myers Creek near Myncaster, British Columbia. Prepared for
Battle Mountain Gold Company.
Hart, D. 1995. Personal Communication. Biochemist-Beak Consultants.
Toronto, ON.
Hausel, D.A., and D.W. Cobble. 1976. Influence of sand in redds of
brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Transactions of the American
Fisheries Society 105:57-63.
Gough, L.P., H.t. Shacklette, and A.A. Case. 1979. Element
concentrations toxic to plants, animals and man. U.S. Geological
Survey Bulletin 1466. GPO 1979-677129/23. 80 p.
20
-------
McCuddin, M.E., 1977. Survival of salmon and trout embryos and fry
in gravel-sand mixtures. Masters Thesis. University of Idaho.
Moscow, ID. 39 p.
McKee, J.E., and H.W. Wolf. 1963. Water quality criteria.
California State Water Resources Board. Pub. No. 3-A. 548 p.
Munn, D. 1995. Biologist. Beak Consultants, Portland, OR. Personal
Communication.
National Research Council, Committee on Biological Effects of
Atmospheric Pollutants. 1977. Copper. National Academy of Science.
Washington, D.C. 115 p.
Nelson, R.L., McHenry, M.L., and W.S. Platts. 1991. Mining.
American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:425-457.
Northwest Management, Inc. 1994. Fall, 1994 benthic
macroinvertebrate report for the Crown Jewel Project. Northwest
Management, Inc. Moscow, ID. 12 p. plus appendices.
Pentec Environmental, Inc., 1993. Aquatic resources for sections of
Myers, Gold, Nickolson Creeks in the Okanogan National Forest. 34
p. plus appendices.
Phillips, R.W., Lantz, R.L., Claire, E.W., and J.R. Moring. 1975.
Effects of gravel mixtures on emergence of coho salmon and
steelhead trout fry. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
104:461-466.
Potyondy, J.P., 1991. Boise National Forest cobble embededness
inventory: results and relationships to management activities. USDA
Forest Service. Boise, ID. 41 p. plus appendices.
Schweiger, G. 1961. The toxic action of heavy metal salts on fish
and organisms which fish feed. Water Pollution. 34:9. 1744.
Smith, D. 1996. Personal Communication. B.C. Ministry of
Environment-Fisheries Branch. Pentiction, B.C.
U.S.D.A. Forest Service, 1995. Decision notice and finding of no
significant impact for the Inland Native Fish Strategy. USDA Forest
Service, Northern Region, Intermountain Region, and Pacific
Northwest Region. 18 p.
Williams, K. 1994. Personal Communication. Area Fisheries
Biologist-Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Pateros, WA.
Wissmar, R.C. 1995. Personal Communication. School of Fisheries.
Center for Streamside Studies. Univ. of Washington. Seattle, WA.
21
-------
-------
APPENDIX J
BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FOR PROPOSED,
ENDANGERED, THREATENED AND
SENSITIVE PLANTS
-------
-------
BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FOR PROPOSED, ENDANGERED,
THREATENED, AND SENSITIVE PLANTS
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT ANALYSIS AREA
Prepared By:
Okanogan National Forest
Tonasket Ranger District
Tonasket, Washington
-------
-------
SIGNATURE PAGE
Written by:
i'^f. n r^'i^- _ L'/:LC>
/ i'^f. ^^- _
Larry l^bftis lj Date
Botanist
Okanogan National Forest
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
PRE-FIELD REVIEW 1
REVIEW OF EXISTING INFORMATION 1
CONSIDERATION OF IMPACT 3
FIELD RECONNAISSANCE 3
DESCRIPTION OF SURVEY METHODOLOGY 3
SURVEY RESULTS 4
RISK ASSESSMENT 5
Size, Density, Vigor, and Location of Population(s) 5
Analysis of Effects 6
Direct Effects 6
Indirect Effects 8
Cumulative Effects 19
OKANOGAN NATIONAL FOREST VIABILITY 21
STATEWIDE SPECIES DISTRIBUTION 22
TOTAL SPECIES DISTRIBUTION 23
DETERMINATION OF EFFECT 25
RECOMMENDATIONS 26
REFERENCES 28
APPENDIX 1: List of Sensitive Plants That Could Occur in the Analysis Area
APPENDIX 2: Tonasket Ranger District Sensitive Plant List
-------
-------
INTRODUCTION
Battle Mountain Gold Company (BMGC) proposes to develop and operate a gold and silver
mining and processing operation in north-central Washington. The project is located in
Okanogan County, Washington, approximately 3.5 air miles east of Chesaw. The area is
located on and around Buckhorn mountain and is characterized by mountainous terrain ranging
from approximately 2000 to 5600 feet in elevation. Major creeks in the project area include:
Myers, Bolster, Ethel, Gold, Marias, Nicholson, and Toroda creeks. The study area for this
Biological Evaluation consists of approximately 6,000 acres. The project is located on U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service and BLM lands, patented and unpatented
mining claims, state leased lands controlled by the project, and private lands. Waste rock
disposal areas, crushing and milling facilities, a tailings disposal facility, roads, and ancillary
support facilities would need to be constructed. Marias and Nicholson headwaters arise close
to each other and this area holds the majority of the wetland and riparian area found in the
portion where most mining activities are planned. This area of major activities is hereafter
referred to as the core area. Figure 1 contains a location map for the project.
The Forest Service Manual (FSM) section 2670, requires that activities that impact species that
are proposed (P), endangered (E), threatened (T) or sensitive (S) (PETS) be reviewed. To
carry out this policy, a Biological Evaluation is completed to assess and document the impacts
of proposed projects.
PRE-FIELD REVIEW
REVIEW OF EXISTING INFORMATION
Sources consulted prior to undertaking field studies for this Biological Evaluation (BE) include
the 1989 Final Environmental Impact Statement, Land and Resource Management Plan,
Okanogan National Forest, the Tonasket Ranger District (RD) Sensitive Plant List, (Appendix
2); the Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP); Mr. Larry Loftis, Botanist for the
Tonasket Ranger District; Mr. George Wooten, Biological Technician for the Winthrop Ranger
District; Ms. Ann Sprague, Wildlife Biologist for the Twisp Ranger District (for sightings of
Listera by Steve Heywood, Biological Technician); field studies conducted by Miss Kathryn
Beck, private contractor, for the Nicholson Timber Sales; the June 1990 Biological Evaluation
for the Crown Jewel Exploration Project conducted by ACZ Inc. (Crofts, 1990); the August 1991
Crown Jewel Project Vegetation Studies document prepared by ACZ Inc. Additional documents
are listed in the Reference section of this report. In addition a visit was made to the herbarium
at the University of Washington, Seattle, (by Robert Stockhouse) to look at plant specimens.
A list of sensitive species that might be found in the analysis area was compiled (Appendix 1).
Because of lack of suitable habitat the following species were considered unlikely to occur in
the analysis area, Agrostis borealis, Draba aurea, Draba cana, Gentiania glauca, Loiseleuria
procumbens, Potentilla diversifolia var. perdissecta, Potentilla nivea, and Saxifraga debilis.
-------
One species listed as threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is suspected to occur on
the Okanogan National Forest, Howellia aquatilis. However, neither H. aquatilis nor any other
Federally listed endangered, threatened, or proposed plant species are known to occur in the
vicinity of the project (USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service, 1996).
Surveys were done on portions of the area in 1990, but sensitive plants were not discovered
then (Crofts, 1990). Carex collections were done by Crofts, who sent his specimens to Ownbey
herbarium at Washington State University. None of the specimens identified were sensitive
species (Joy Mastrogiuseppe, pers. comm. to Kent Crofts). On June 13-17 and July 22-27,
1991, contractors with ACZ Inc. conducted surveys of the upland habitat within the project core
area. These surveys were completed to search for the existence of any upland sensitive
species which flower from early to mid-summer. Two site visits were done, one for early
blooming species and one for later species. Wetland and late-summer surveys were
specifically exempted from the 1991 survey and were scheduled to be conducted in the
summer of 1992. Numerous species of Carex were observed, however, none that are listed as
PETS species.
Kathryn Beck, a private contractor employed by the Forest Service, conducted plant surveys in
the adjacent Nicholson Timber Sales Area, which includes a portion of the project area. Miss
Beck's surveys, conducted in 1991, and Forest Service crew surveys in 1992, discovered the
following sensitive species both within and near the Crown Jewel analysis area:
Botrychium minganense (Mingan moonwort), which was later identified as Botrychium
crenulatum.
Listera borealis (northern twayblade).
Platanthera obtusata (small northern bog orchid).
These findings are discussed in the Biological Evaluation for Nicholson (Loftis, 1992). Forest
Service personnel at the Tonasket Ranger District collected specimens of Botrychium from the
Nicholson timber sale area and sent them to Dr. W. H. Wagner, University of Michigan, for
expert identification.
Botrychium crenulatum is not currently shown to occur in Washington on the Regional
Forester's sensitive species list, this is because it was unknown in the state at the last revision
of that list in 1991. For the purpose of this biological evaluation this species would be
considered sensitive.
8. crenulatum, L borealis, and P. obtusata are all on the Region 6, Regional Forester's
sensitive species list.
-------
CONSIDERATION OF IMPACT
Since mining activities are planned there would be considerable disturbance in the area,
especially where most of the activities are proposed to occur, i.e. the core area. Any sensitive
plant populations that may be in these areas might therefore be at risk. A statement of "no
impact" cannot be made at this point. Therefore more field reconnaissance would be done.
FIELD RECONNAISSANCE
DESCRIPTION OF SURVEY METHODOLOGY
The Intuitive Controlled method for surveys was used in most of the project area, which is
defined as follows: The surveyor has given the area a closer look by conducting a complete
reconnaissance through a specific area of the project after walking through the project area and
perimeter or by walking more than once through the area. Most of the project area is
examined.
Those portions not examined with the intuitive controlled method had complete surveys, which
are defined as follows: The surveyor has walked throughout the area being examined until all
of the area has been examined.
Surveys were done by employees of the A.G. Crook Company (Company) in conjunction with
wetland delineation and stream survey work during 1992. Two visits to the analysis area were
completed, one during 6-10 July, 1992 and the other during 20-24 July, 1992. During this effort
no field surveys were completed in the portion of the study area within the proposed Nicholson
Timber Sale Area since the Forest Service had completed field surveys in 1991 and 1992 in
Nicholson (Loftis, 1992).
A map produced by ACZ Inc. was provided to Company field personnel that indicated the
location of wetland areas, seeps, and springs in the study area. This map was used to target
sites that may contain wetland associated sensitive plants. As wetland delineation and riparian
survey work progressed, adjustments and refinements were made to the seep and spring map
to ensure that all wetland areas were surveyed. Additionally, the team went to other probable
locations on the property not shown on the map to determine the presence of wetland
characteristics.
Additional surveys were done in 1993 by Dr. Robert Stockhouse. Working from a list of plants
provided by the U.S. Forest Service surveys were conducted from June 15 to June 25, and
from July 19 to July 23, 1993. Both efforts included the powerline corridor from Oroville to
Buckhorn Mountain, Ethel Creek, Forest Service roads 3575-120 and 3575-100 from Bolster to
the Magnetic Mine area, the wet meadow, stream and surrounding hills of the potential
reservoir site located in T40N, R31E, Section 3, potential mitigation sites, Forest Service Road
-------
3575-120 from its junction with 4895 to the Frog Pond, all roads and spur roads within the
project area and all drainages within the project area. Dr. Stockhouse's work was inspected by
Larry Loftis.
In addition Forest Service personnel did surveys in parts of the Crown Jewel analysis area
outside of the Nicholson analysis area. Surveys were done on September 3, 1992, June 2 and
August 11, 1993, July 4 and July 14, 1994. The surveyors were Larry Loftis and Ellen Nelson.
Surveys were done at the time of year when plants are identifiable.
SURVEY RESULTS
Several Carex species were collected by A. G. Crook staff during the 1992 surveys and
identified by Dr. Robert Stockhouse of Pacific University. None of the species collected were
found to be sensitive. No sensitive species were found during the 1992 surveys.
The most likely habitat in the analysis area that might contain Howellia aquatilis, which is listed
as threatened by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, is the pond called the Frog pond. The Frog
pond is believed to have been constructed by humans and is therefore recent. There is a slight
chance there could be habitat for this species along the edge of the pond if it dries out in the
summer (Lesica, 1992, p 418). However, this species was not found during surveys and has
never been found on the Okanogan National Forest.
During the 1993 surveys, more populations of the same three species of sensitive plants found
previously were discovered, Botrychium crenulatum, Listera borealis, and Platanthera obtusata.
The identification of 8. crenulatum was verified by Dr. W. H. Wagner of the University of
Michigan (pers. comm. to Robert Stockhouse). Since sensitive species are present a Risk
Assessment is needed for this biological evaluation.
-------
RISK ASSESSMENT
Size, Density, Vigor, and Location of Population(s)
The number of populations and approximate number of plants per species in the analysis area
is listed in Table 1. For the sake of discussion here, a group of plants in the analysis area was
usually considered to be a separate population if they were in a different fork of a drainage, or if
they were separated by a distance of approximately 1/4 mile. The number of plants can only be
considered approximate, as population sizes tend to vary with climate, time of year, and also
from year to year (Lesica and Stelle, 1994) (Meinke, 1994, pp 36 & 38).
Table 1. The total number of populations over the approximate number of plants by species discovered in the
analysis area.
SPECIES
Botrychium
crenulatum
Listera
borealis
Platanthera
obtusata
NUMBER OF
POPULATIONS
APPROXIMATE
NUMBER OF PLANTS
3 POPULATIONS
-33 PLANTS
10 POPULATIONS
-2088 PLANTS
4 POPULATIONS
-81 5 PLANTS
Botrychium crenulatum.
Three populations of this species were discovered in the analysis area, one consisting of one
plant, another with 11, the other having 21 plants. The plants had produced spores. The plants
were growing in and near wet areas, which is normal habitat for this species (Wagner and
Wagner, 1993, p 96).
Listera borealis.
A total of 10 populations were discovered, containing over two thousand stems. One
population has approximately 1700 plants, although a revisit to this site in the summer of 1996
-------
produced only 10 plants. Plants of another species of Listera were found in the area, indicating
the possibility of a misidentification in the original sighting. The other 9 populations are much
smaller. The plants were situated along riparian areas at a variety of locations throughout the
study area. This species usually occurs in light to deep moist woods, often in moss along
streams (Hitchcock, et al, 1969, p 852). Most of the plants were, in a reproductive stage, either
blooming or fruiting.
Platanthera obtusata.
A total of 4 populations with over 800 stems of this species were found in the analysis area.
One population has over 700 plants, the other 3 are much smaller. The populations were
dispersed along riparian and wet areas. This species normally occupies damp to wet forested
areas (Hitchcock, et al, 1969, p 846). About half of the plants were in a reproductive stage,
either blooming or fruiting.
Timing of the Project
Disturbance of the project area by mining activities would be year-round, for an estimated 10
year period. Due to the nature of the project, varying the disturbance seasonally so as to have
less effect on plant populations would not be feasible.
Analysis of Effects
Alternative A, the no action alternative, would have little or no impact on the sensitive plant
populations. Clean up of exploration activities should not harm populations, assuming
reasonable precautions are taken to control erosion. Natural succession might allow crown
closure of overstory trees, thus shading out plants, or some natural calamity such as fire or
disease might damage plants. However, succession, fire, and disease may or may not happen
regardless of whether this alternative is chosen.
DIRECT EFFECTS
The action alternatives would directly impact at least some plants of all three species, primarily
by covering the populations with mining spoils. Table 2 summarizes the direct impacts on the
species. The following discussion examines these impacts in detail.
-------
Botrychium crenulatum.
Alternatives B, C, D, and E would impact two populations containing 12 plants. Alternative F would
impact one population of 21 plants. Alternative G would not impact any plants of this species.
Impacts would be by covering with mining spoils.
Listera borealis.
Alternative B: this alternative would impact 4 populations by covering with mining spoils. The largest
impact would be to a population with approximately 1700 plants. About 1828 total plants would be
impacted.
Alternatives C and D: these alternatives would impact 3 populations by covering with mining spoils, and
a few less plants population than alternative B. The largest impact would be to a population of about
1700 plants.
Alternative E: would impact 6 populations by covering with mining spoils, and the most plants of any
alternative. The largest population has about 1700 plants.
Alternatives F and G: these alternatives would impact 5 populations, again by covering with mining
spoils. Only about 228 plants, a much smaller number than alternatives B, C, D, and E would be
impacted by this alternative.
Platanthera obtusata.
Alternatives B, C, D, and E: would impact two known populations of this species, approximating a total
of 704 plants, by covering them with mining spoils. One of the populations is very large, containing
about 700 plants. -
Alternatives F and G: these alternatives impact two populations, again by covering with mining spoils.
Both populations together contain about 100 plants.
The impacts are summarized in Table 2.
-------
Table 2. Comparison of the DIRECT EFFECTS of the action alternatives, listing the number of populations
(POPS) over the approximate number of plants of each species that could be impacted by alternative (ALT).
SPECIES
Botrychium
crenulatum
Listera
borealis
Platanthera
obtusata
ALTB
2 POPS
-12
PLANTS
4 POPS
-1828
PLANTS
2 POPS
-704
PLANTS
ALTC
2 POPS
-12
PLANTS
3 POPS
-1805
PLANTS
2 POPS
-704
PLANTS
ALTD
2 POPS
-12
PLANTS
3 POPS
-1805
PLANTS
2 POPS
-704
PLANTS
ALTE
2 POPS
-12
PLANTS
6 POPS
-1862
PLANTS
2 POPS
-704
PLANTS
ALTF
1 POP
-21
PLANTS
5 POPS
-228
PLANTS
2 POPS
-100
PLANTS
ALTG
OPOP
0 PLANTS
5 POPS
-228
PLANTS
2 POPS
-100
PLANTS
INDIRECT EFFECTS
Possible indirect impacts on populations include increased human disturbance within the
project area, dust, sedimentation along streams, accidental start of a forest fire,
changes in hydrology, changed grazing patterns of livestock, weeds, and introduction of
chemicals into the environment. The populations that are not directly impacted are far
enough away from the proposed operations that it is unlikely enough artificial light would
be present to change their growth patterns. Also trees surrounding the populations
would filter out extraneous light.
Off Site Populations
Populations of other species on the Regional Forester's Sensitive species list are known
within a few miles of the project area, some on non Forest Service land. One species,
Cypripedium parviflorum, is also listed by the state of Washington as Endangered
(Washington Natural Heritage Program, 1994, p 1-7). However C. parviflorum is not
listed as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, nor is it
proposed, nor does it have candidate status. The sensitive species Sisyrinchium
septentrionale and Carex buxbaumii are also known to occur in the area of the C.
parviflorum. These populations are in a drainage that would have little if any run off
from the mine project. Nearly all of the project lies in another drainage. Any impact
8
-------
from the portion of the project in the drainage with these species should be contained by
barriers around construction areas and stabilizing vegetation. Transportation of supplies
is not planned along a route near the populations of these species, so there should be
no problem from dust or accidental spill of chemicals. Construction of a reservoir is
planned in the Myers creek drainage. The reservoir is far enough away from these
populations and the construction would be of a few months duration, so that impacts,
e.g. dust, is unlikely.
A well that is proposed as a water source for the project lies in the drainage containing
the populations described in the previous paragraph. A well in this area has been used
for irrigation in the past. A new well would be drilled near the existing well. The well
would be pumped from each year until the amount allowed by the water right is used up,
or a senior water right requires cessation of pumping (Colder associates, 1993, p 50).
The certificate for the well states "regulation of withdrawal from this well would be
initiated if at any time such withdrawal is determined to effect surface water rights..."
(Philip Kerr, pers. comm.). So if creek flows are disturbed by pumping, action can be
taken to stop the pumping. This should prevent any negative impacts on sensitive
plants that might be in the vicinity of the well.
A population of Ribes oxyacanthoides subspecies cognatum, occurs beside a road that
may be used for a transportation route for the mine. This population is several miles
from the mine site. The road is paved, so dust should not be a problem. Accidental
spills of chemicals along the transportation route might impact plants. R.
oxyacanthoides ssp. cognatum has recently been dropped from sensitive down to
monitor group 3 status by Washington Natural Heritage Program (Washington Natural
Heritage Program, p A-2, 1994).
Caution would also need to be exercised when transporting supplies along riparian
areas, as all 3 sensitive species found around the mine tend to occupy riparian habitat.
A spill of fuel or chemical could be transported down a creek to sensitive plants.
Transportation of supplies should be over roads that have the smallest likelihood of
impacting sensitive plant habitat, e.g. wetlands and streams.
On Site Populations
Increased human activity in the project area could disturb the populations of these
species. Reducing the number of vehicles entering the area should help alleviate this
problem.
Deposition of dust generated as a result of traffic and operations may result in some
impact to populations of sensitive species in the project area. The dust could drift to
sensitive plant populations and impair photosynthesis and respiration. Any portions of
the ore and waste rock that were acid generating would be especially important in this
-------
regard. Water or other dust suppressants would need to be applied to roads and mining
activity areas to control dust. Lignin compounds should work well as dust suppressants.
However, calcium chloride, sodium chloride, and magnesium chloride, are all salts that
might dissolve from the roads when wet and migrate toward plant populations, perhaps
harming plants. Research and modeling of dust and other emissions has been done for
the project that recommends controls for dust. These controls include water or dust
control chemicals on roads. For crushing, conveying, and transferring ore, ducts, fans,
enclosure, electrostatic precipitators, water spray, baghouses, and other methods are
recommended (Winges, 1994, pp 33-34).
Soil runoff from mining activities and reclamation could cause sedimentation into
streams and harm sensitive plants, as all three species are usually found in close
proximity to water. Sediments would need to be contained by some sort of barrier.
Diversion channels and sediment traps have been designed to contain sediments, and
take into consideration large inflows from storms (Knight Piesold and Company, 1993,
Appendix Q, pp 1-15). Revegetation needs to be done as soon as practicable to help
contain soil. Sedimentation and revegetation are addressed in the reclamation plan for
the project (Battle Mountain Gold Co., in preparation). Since alternatives C and D
disturb the least amount of ground, they would probably cause the least problems with
sedimentation.
Since large amounts of fuel, explosives, chemicals, and many vehicles are proposed for
use, there is the possibility of an accident starting a forest fire and changing the
environment of the plants or even destroying them. Therefore a plan for emergency fire
fighting needs to be developed to quickly control such an event.
Water for the project is proposed to be withdrawn from Myer's creek north of Chesaw,
near the Canadian border. A hydrological study indicated stream flows are not likely to
be affected much by this withdrawal, as this would occur during peak flows (Colder
Associates, 1994, pp 20-21). Therefore withdrawal there should not impact sensitive
plants.
There would be a reduction in stream flows in the drainages in the project area. Most of
the change would be in the upper portions of the streams, near the mine pit. Farther
downstream stream flows would be reduced less, usually from 1-10% (Hydro-Geo
Consultants, 1996). A population of 15 plants of Platanthera obtusata occurs along one
stream that may have reduced flow. There is also a possibility of populations of Listera
borealis in the upper reaches of streams being impacted by reduced stream flow in the
action alternatives. The reductions in stream flow may not actually occur, but to be
conservative, these populations would be considered impacted. These population
impacts are included in table 3 at the end of the Indirect Effects section.
10
-------
A population of Platanthera obtusata is known to occur near one of the proposed
wetland mitigation sites for the project. No decision has been made at the time of this
writing if this site would be developed. If this site is constructed it would likely have a
beneficial impact on this population, as the site would be fenced, which would restrict
cattle access.
There may be reduced stream flow below the tailings facility with all of the alternatives.
This could impact plant habitat below the facility until stream flow resumes somewhere
below the impoundment. In alternatives B, C, D, and E this would be on private ground
for a few hundred feet, and then Forest Service land. In alternatives F and G this would
all be on federal land.
If an alternative is chosen that constructs a pit, eventually the pit would fill with water
and overflow. A water quality modeling study was done to predict future pit water
quality. The results of the study indicate the water would be alkaline and have moderate
to high hardness. The dissolved concentration of all metals were relatively low.
Cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, selenium, and silver were predicted to be above
aquatic life quality criteria, but still low (Schafer & Associates, Inc. 1994, p 6-12)
(Schafer and Associates, Inc., 1996). Cadmium, mercury, selenium, and silver might
cause problems if high amounts were present, but are unlikely to at the low levels
predicted. Gough, et al (1979) discusses these elements and the amounts that might
impact plants. Copper and lead are discussed elsewhere in this document. All
elements, including those not discussed above, would be subject to adsorption in water
and soil, which would tend to immobilize them. This is discussed in greater detail below,
e.g. in the section on lead.
Cattle can damage plants, e.g. by trampling them. If the mine is constructed there
would be changes in the grazing patterns of cattle in the area. Cattle would be fenced
out of the mine area. Livestock numbers have already been adjusted to compensate for
any forage lost due to the mine activities. Historically 584 cows with calves were run 6/1
to 9/30 on the Cedar grazing allotment. Current numbers permitted on the Cedar
allotment are 354 cows with calves, 6/1 to 9/30. This is 61 % of historical stocking. This
current stocking is well within the carrying capacity adjustment needed to compensate
for lost forage due to mining activities. When an allotment management plan is
completed in the future it is anticipated that more livestock could be permitted than the
existing numbers (Don Rees, pers. comm.). The reduction in numbers should reduce
the concentrating of livestock and thus lower the likelihood of damage to sensitive
plants.
If mulching needs to be done to control erosion, any plant products used would need to
be certified as free of noxious weeds. This would help prevent weeds from getting
established and competing with sensitive species.
11
-------
Chemicals.
The introduction of chemicals into the environment within the project area is a concern
for protection of sensitive species. Some chemicals, e.g. lime should have little or no
impact or perhaps even a beneficial effect, since lime is often applied to crops (Brady,
1990, pp 232-242). Others, e.g. lead, could have negative impacts.
Plans would need to be developed to control any spills of chemicals and fuel to prevent
movement into the environment and possible damage to the plants or their habitat. If
chemicals such as cyanide, hydrochloric acid, caustics, etc. entered streams in large
quantities it could impact sensitive plants.
Fertilization during reclamation could add excess fertilizer to the environment of the
sensitive species if done in excess. Therefore only the amount of fertilizer necessary to
do the job of restoration should be used. This amount can be established as test plots
are done for reclamation.
Another possible source of chemical pollution is the use of ammonium nitrate/fuel oil
blasting agent. If a portion of the blasting agent does not explode then ammonium
nitrate could be left exposed to the elements. During heavy rain storms some of this
could wash into the soil and adjacent streams. This contamination should be relatively
minor, as most of the blasting agent should be consumed when detonated (Hawley,
1977, pp 235-236). The diversion channels and sediment traps should help contain any
excess that runs off. If very small amounts of ammonium nitrate do escape it is unlikely
sensitive plants would be harmed, as ammonium nitrate is used as fertilizer (Brady,
1990, pp 473-475). Monitoring should detect any excess ammonium nitrate that might
escape.
The process of extracting gold from ore may involve the use of cyanide and other
chemicals. In addition, metals such as antimony, cadmium, lead, zinc, etc. may be
present in varying concentrations within the ore. Ore processing unbinds these metals
from the ore matrix and releases them into the environmental media. If Alternative G is
chosen other chemicals may be used, such as potassium amyl xanthate, methyl isobutyl
carbinol (MIBC), the promoter chemicals AP 404 and DP-6, copper sulfate, and sodium
sulfide.
Laboratory analysis was done on both waste rock and ore samples. In the waste rock
tests, the majority of the rock was found not to be acid generating, and to have alkaline
pH values (Kea Pacific Holdings, 1993a). The smaller percentage of waste rock that
would be acid generating would be mixed with the non acid generating portions (AGRA
Earth and Environmental, Inc., 1996, p 15). This should effectively neutralize any acid
generated. Alternative C could have more acid generating rock than the other
12
-------
alternatives (up to 25%), which might require more treatment. The tests also indicated
only trace to nondetectable levels of metals present (Kea Pacific Holdings, 1993a).
The amount of heavy metals in the ore body at Buckhorn Mountain is low, and the ore is
unlikely to be acid generating (Kea Pacific Holdings, 1993b). Tests on the tailings
indicate little acid generating potential also, and generally low leach amounts of metals
(Battle Mountain Gold Company and Kea Pacific Holdings, Inc., 1994, pp 4, 6-10)
(Battle Mountain Gold Company, 1996). The alkalinity and low acid generating potential
of the ore and waste rock should reduce the solubility of toxic and heavy metals, as
acidified water increases the solubility of toxic metals (Newman, et al, 1992, p 186) (Hill,
1978, p 690). As pH decreases and soils become more acid heavy metals generally
become more available for biological uptake (Smith, 1992, p 248) (Brady, 1990, pp 533-
534). Since the waste rock, ore, and tailings studies indicate little chance of acid
generation, there should be little likelihood of the water in the drainages becoming acid
or carrying metals that would impact the plants. Arsenic can be toxic to plants (Gough,
et al, 1979). Arsenic is an anion, and can be mobile under basic conditions, however
most soils tie up arsenic, (Brady, 1990, p 532). It was also found present in small
amounts and is thus unlikely to cause problems.
As mentioned above the tests on the tailings indicate only small amounts of metals, < 1
mg/l for most, are likely to leach from the tailings (Battle Mountain Gold Company and
Kea Pacific Holdings, Inc., 1994, pp 6-8, tables 5-7). Those metals that do leach out
would be subject to being tied up in the soil as they travel (Elliot, et al, 1986). Most
metal ions that are toxic are also strongly adsorbed by the minerals in aquifers (Davis, et
al, 1991, pp53, 59).
Studies on areas where sewage sludge contaminated with heavy metals (including lead)
was applied to crop lands indicates the metals tend to be tied up in the soil, and thus are
not readily available to plants (Chang, et al, 1984, p 33) (Skousen and Clinger, 1993, p
146) (Chaney and Ryan, 1993, pp 460-467). Therefore it seems unlikely the low
amounts of metals at Crown Jewel are going to travel enough to affect sensitive plants.
Nor are such low levels of metals likely to affect mycorrhiza that might be associated
with the plants. One study on mycorrhiza indicated much higher levels of contamination
could be tolerated by legumes (Angle, et al, 1988) (Chaney and Ryan, 1993, pp 485-
486).
In addition, the INCO SO2 process that is proposed to reduce the amount of cyanide
going into the tailings would precipitate heavy metals as metal ferrocyanide salts or
hydroxides (Smith and Mudder, 1991, pp 303-304, 313) (Higgs associates, et al, 1992, p
7-5). Ferrocyanides are essentially insoluble, and thus largely unavailable biologically.
Being in hydroxide form should also make metals less available biologically, e.g. lead in
hydroxide form has low solubility in water and is relatively immobile in the soil (Callahan,
et al, 1979, p 13-2) (Battelle Columbus Labs, 1979, pp 16, 168, 170).
13
-------
Lead.
Lead nitrate may be used in the gold extraction process. One review of the literature
noted lead nitrate was experimented with in the early part of the century as a fertilizer
(providing nitrogen), and it was found to increase crop yields. However in some
experiments deleterious effects were noted, especially in larger concentrations (Holl and
Hampp, 1977, pp 94-95). In another literature review the root growth of sheep fescue
was noted to be measurably retarded with 10 ppm of lead nitrate in solution culture, and
markedly reduced at 30 ppm (Gough, et al, 1979, p 29). Lead has also been known to
inhibit plant growth, and reduce photosynthesis, mitosis, and water absorption (Eisler,
1988, p 56) (Battelle Columbus Labs, 1979, pp 157-159). There is also evidence that
lead can be toxic to trees at threshold levels of exposure (Smith, 1992, p 248). Lead
nitrate is quite water soluble which makes the lead available to plants (Battelle
Columbus Labs, 1979, pp 15-16). However, the lead nitrate would dissolve and react to
form other compounds in the cyanadation process.
BMGC believes that some of the lead may react to form lead sulfide, (Jeffrey White,
pers. comm. to Don Rose). Work was done by Pittsburgh Mineral & Environmental
Technology, Inc. (PMET), on tailings samples from the Crown Jewel Project (letters from
PMET to Scott Hartman). PMET analyzed the samples with optical microscopy,
electron microprobe analysis, and micro screening. Some later tests involved X-ray
diffraction, more micro screen analysis, and leach tests. The findings from the research
imply the lead nitrate forms lead sulfide or lead bearing jarosite, both of which are stable
compounds. Lead sulfide has very low solubility in water, thus making it less available
biologically (Battelle Columbus Labs, 1979, pp 15-16) (Simon and Morrison, 1991, p
582) (Brady, 1990, p 532). The leach test done by PMET didn't record any lead being
extracted at pH 5 or pH 7.
As discussed above, the INCO SO2 process precipitates heavy metals as hydroxides,
so any lead not becoming sulfide or jarosite should form lead hydroxide which is not
readily available biologically. All of the lead from the lead nitrate would go into the
tailings.
Geochemical tests on seven samples of the tailings indicate very low levels of lead
would leach into the environment, less than 0.05 mg/l, in all but one sample, which had
0.18 mg/l (Battle Mountain Gold Co. and Kea Pacific Holdings, Inc. 1994, Table 7). The
small amounts that might leach into the environment would be subject to being bound
up in the surrounding soils (Battelle Columbus labs, 1979, pp 152, 330).
The addition of phosphate to the tailings material might help further bind lead (Ruby, et
al, 1994). However phosphate might also release other elements such as arsenic
(Peryea, 1991) (Davenport and Peryea, 1991). Therefore phosphate additions should
only be done in the topsoil as needed.
14
-------
As discussed above, the low acid generating potential of the waste rock, ore, and
tailings should help keep the lead immobile. Any lead that leached into the water would
again be subject to sorption processes and thus would not be very available to plants
(Callahan, et al, 1979, pp 13-9 --13-13) (Davis, et al, 1991, p 53).
Copper.
Copper sulfate is being proposed for use in the cyanide destruction process, and may
also be used if alternative G is selected. Copper is an essential element for plant
growth, but only small amounts are required, i.e. it is a micronutrient (Brady, 1990, pp
14, 381). Various compounds of copper are used as fungicides on crops, aquatic
herbicides, and as a root growth regulator for container grown plants, and are labeled
for such uses (Griffin Corp., n.d.). However, copper can be toxic to plants if present in
high enough concentrations (Brady, 1990, pp 381-382) (Moriarty, 1988, pp 89-97). The
copper from the copper sulfate would go into the tailings. However, only very small
amounts of copper are likely to be available, as tests on the tailings indicated < 0.01
mg/l would leach out (Battle Mountain Gold Co. and Kea Pacific Holdings, Inc., 1994,
Tables 5 & 6).
A high proportion of copper can be bound by soil organic matter (Brady, 1990, p 532).
The tailings area is planned to be capped with topsoil during reclamation, and this soil
should contain some organic material. With time microorganisms should build up and
produce more organic matter in the soil (Insam and Domsch, 1988) to help tie up copper
and other metals.
Any copper that should leach out would be subject to being tied by the processes
previously discussed above. Any copper that got into the streams would also be subject
to adsorption on other materials, thus reducing the bioavailabilty and toxicity (Callahan,
etal, 1979, pp 11-6--11-12) (Meador, et al, 1993, pp 149, 151-153).
Flocculant.
A flocculant is planned on being used in conjunction with the cyanadation process. The
recommended flocculant would be a very high molecular weight 40% charge density
anionic polyacrylamide. Two commercial products that would meet these specifications
are Nalclear 9709 PULV flocculant and Cytek Superfloc 218 (Scott Hartman, pers.
comm.). The Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for Nalclear 9709 indicates the
chemical has no hazardous ingredients in it. There is some toxicity to an aquatic
organism (Ceriodaphnia dubia) (Nalco Chemical Co. 1994). However, once this
substance reacts with tailings it is tied up and unavailable biologically (W. S. Utby, pers.
comm.). It therefore would not likely impact plants. Also only small amounts of this
substance are planned on being used, approximately 0.19 ton flocculant/3000 tons of
15
-------
ore. Similar flocculants are described as relatively non toxic to animals (Hawley, 1977,
pp 187-188), which may indicate they are also non toxic to plants.
Cyanide.
Cyanide can be toxic to plants under some circumstances. For example there is
evidence that cyanide can have negative effects on some plants, although not all
species (Towhill, et al, 1978, pp 95-101) (Eisler, 1991, pp 19-21). However some plant
species can metabolize externally added hydrogen cyanide, others naturally produce
cyanide containing compounds e.g. sorghum (Towhill, et al, 1978, p 78) (Fuller, 1985, p
22). Also cyanides, including sodium cyanide, have been used as fertilizer in the past
(Fuller, 1985, pp 26-31). The preliminary results of one study on a few plant species
indicate some plants can grow and perhaps benefit in soil contaminated with cyanide.
The controls in this study again indicated that some species (chokecherry in this case)
naturally produce cyanide (Noble and Howe, 1983, pp 504-505).
Cyanide in tailings tends to degrade with time from natural processes. The cyanide can
volatilize, complex with other compounds, adsorb to soil and soil organic matter (such
as would be applied to cover the tailings in reclamation), biodegrade, and decompose in
other ways (Smith and Mudder, 1991, pp 47-104) (Higgs Associates, et al, 1992, pp 8-4-
-8-5). Most biodegradation is done by microorganisms who thus help break down the
substance (Towhill, et al, 1978, pp 40, 48) (Fuller, 1985, p 24), which overtime should
reduce the amount in the tailings. One of the byproducts of cyanide breakdown is
ammonia (Higgs Associates, et, al 1992, p 7-5) (Smith and Mudder, 1991, p 156).
However ammonia should not be a problem, since only small amounts of cyanide are
planned to be in the tailings (about 10 ppm weak acid dissociable about 95% of the
time), only small amounts of ammonia should be produced. Ammonia also tends to
volatilize into the atmosphere and is used as a fertilizer for plants (Brady, 1990, pp 320-
321, 472-474). Any cyanide that volatilizes would be in very small amounts (Winges,
1994, p 47), and should not pollute the air enough to impact sensitive plant populations.
In 1986 a heap leaching facility at a Montana gold mine was in danger of being over
topped by heavy rain. To deal with this problem the leaching solution was treated with
calcium hypochlorite using different strategies, which did not always neutralize all of the
cyanide. The treated solution was then applied to surrounding land with sprinkler
irrigation. The most noticeable effect on plants was some browning of some vegetation
and surficial "burning" of pine needles, believed to be caused by excess chlorine left
from cyanide neutralization, overall adverse effects on vegetation were judged to be
minimal (Spano, et al, n.d., p 12). However at the Crown Jewel project heap leaching is
not proposed for gold extraction, but rather a tank cyanadation process, or if alternative
G is selected a flotation process would be used to concentrate gold, with the
concentrate then taken off site for further processing. In addition the cyanide
16
-------
destruction method proposed for alternatives B-F is the INCO SO2 process, rather than
the use of calcium hypochlorite (alkaline chlorination) used in Montana.
Also the tailings impoundment area is designed to contain large inflows from storms
(Knight Piesold and Company, 1993, pp 8, 14, 18-19). If a catastrophic storm did cause
overflow of the tailings pond then the cyanide and other chemicals would be greatly
diluted, although sedimentation would be likely be severe enough to damage plant
populations.
If a tailings facility dam collapsed there would be release of chemicals and sediment that
could impact plants. However, the tailings facility is designed to remain stable during an
earthquake (Knight Piesold and Company, 1993, pp 52-70).
It is proposed to detoxify the tailings to low levels of cyanide concentration, about 10
ppm of Weak Acid Dissociable (WAD) cyanide. The 10 ppm is believed to be
achievable about 95% of the time. The planned chemical process for gold extraction is
self contained. The process is a closed circuit, zero discharge system which includes a
lined tailings impoundment area. Safeguards are made to prevent loss of cyanide from
the system even under extreme rainfall, equipment failure, or puncture of the liner. A
compacted clay layer below an impervious liner should prevent significant entry of
cyanide to the underdrain, as the clay should attenuate cyanide movement by
adsorption (Smith and Mudder, 1991, p 59). In addition, the compaction of the tailings
themselves would create a barrier to passage of cyanide during and after mining
operations. If cyanide should penetrate the liners and soil and enter the creeks it would
be greatly diluted by the water. It would also continue to be subject to degradation
processes and sorption (Callahan, et al, 1979, pp 12-1-12-12) The supernatant pond is
expected to usually cover about 4 to 6 acres at any one time, a relatively small portion of
the total tailings impoundment area (Knight Piesold and Company, 1993, p 85). The
small size of the pond should leave plenty of area to contain supernatant should a storm
dump large amounts of water in the area.
Since water from the solution pond is recycled, any cyanide released accidentally would
be recycled into the system. Monitoring of cyanide in the entire system would detect
such an occurrence.
Other Chemicals
If alternative G is selected other chemicals would be used for ore processing. These
chemicals would include potassium amyl xanthate, MIBC, AP 404, DP-6, copper sulfate,
and sodium sulfide. Little information is available on what impacts these compounds
have on plants. One document states (translated) "at the environmental level xanthates
become toxic for animals and aquatic plants even when present in low concentrations.
It is necessary to not throw this product in bodies of water" (Larue and Giroux, n.d., p 9).
17
-------
There is also some information available on toxicity to animals, which may give some
indication of effects on plants. Xanthate has a moderate to high toxicity to animals,
which might carry over to plants. Xanthates do decompose rapidly to less toxic
substances (Hawley, 1977, pp 90-91, 222-223). MIBC (Methyl iso butyl carbinol or
Methyl Amyl Alcohol) is relatively non toxic to animals (Hawley, 1977, p 83) (Union
Carbide Co., n.d.). AP 404 has a moderate toxicity to animals (Hawley, 1977, p 100)
(American Cyanamid Co., 1975). DP-6 is essentially non toxic to animals (American
Cyanamid Co. 1981). Copper sulfate is also proposed to be used at the rate of about
0.3 Ibs./ton of ore, which should not be enough to be toxic to plants (see also the
discussion above about copper). Sodium sulfide might cause some problems if enough
was used to make soils saline (Brady, 1990, pp 246-247), however the small amounts
proposed (again 0.3 Ib/ton of ore) would make this unlikely. Likewise any sulfur left over
from the process should not be enough to harm plants. Sulfur is important for plant
growth and is sometimes added to soil for crop production (Brady, 1990, pp 338-344).
The chemicals and chemical by products of ore processing and any metals not captured
by the gold recovery process would go into the tailings. When reclamation is done the
tailings impoundment is to be covered by a layer of topsoil (Battle Mountain Gold
Company, 1993, pp 59-61) which should restrict the movement of chemicals. The soil
and organic matter it contains should restrict the movement of heavy metals (Elliot, et al,
1986) and cyanide (Smith and Mudder, 1991, p 95). See also the previous discussion
of immobilization of contaminants. Immobilization of these chemicals should prevent
movement of concentrations large enough to be harmful to sensitive plant populations in
the area.
Table 3. Comparison of the estimated INDIRECT EFFECTS of the action alternatives, listing
the number of populations (POPS) over the approximate number of plants of each species that
could be impacted by alternative (ALT). See pg 12 for discussion.
SPECIES
Listera
borealis
Platanthera
obtusata
ALTB
3 POPS
-105
PLANTS
1 POP
-15
PLANTS
ALTC
4 POPS
-117
PLANTS
1 POP
-15
PLANTS
ALTD
4 POPS
-128
PLANTS
1 POP
-15
PLANTS
ALTE
2 POPS
-71
PLANTS
1 POP
-15
PLANTS
ALTF
2 POPS
-71
PLANTS
1 POP
-15
PLANTS
ALTG
2 POPS
-71
PLANTS
1 POP
-15
PLANTS
A modeling study was done on the proposed Marias creek tailings facility. The study
predicted the potential for movement of cyanide, metals, and other contaminants into
18
-------
groundwater. Under a worst case scenario the movement of contaminants was
predicted to not go beyond about 1430 feet from the source of origin after 20 years. At
that time the fringe of the contaminant plume would have a concentration of 0.0001
times the original source concentration. Any contamination at that time would be at
background levels. The contaminants are predicted to not move into surface waters.
Also this study found a variety of minerals in the soil at this site that would attenuate the
movement of contaminants, e.g. kaolinite, which is a clay (Hydro-Geo Consultants, pp
38-44, 1994).
Table 4. Comparison of the possible DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS of the action
alternatives, listing the number of populations (POPS) over the approximate number of plants of
each species that could be impacted by alternative (ALT).
SPECIES
Botrychium
crenulatum
Listera
borealis
Platanthera
obtusata
ALTB
2 POPS
-12
PLANTS
7 POPS
-1933
PLANTS
3 POPS
-719
PLANTS
ALTC
2 POPS
-12
PLANTS
7 POPS
-1922
PLANTS
3 POPS
-719
PLANTS
ALTD
2 POPS
-12
PLANTS
7 POPS
-1933
PLANTS
3 POPS
-719
PLANTS
ALTE
2 POPS
-12
PLANTS
8 POPS
-1933
PLANTS
3 POPS
-719
PLANTS
ALTF
1 POP
-21
PLANTS
7 POPS
-299
PLANTS
3 POPS
-115
PLANTS
ALTG
OPOP
0 PLANTS
7 POPS
-299
PLANTS
3 POPS
-115
PLANTS
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
There has been past mining activity in this area. These activities began in 1896 and
continued on until 1950. Some of the past mining entries in the Buckhorn Mountain
area were Aztec, Buckhorn Adit, Caribou, Crystal Butte (Mother Lode), Crystal Butte
Iron, Gold Axe, Magnetic (Neutral), Rainbow, Roosevelt, and Western Star (Moen,
1980, pp 41-54). These past entries have been relatively small. Some of these sites
would be covered by the current proposed project. These projects have caused some
disturbance in the area and probably released silt and perhaps metals that may harm
plants.
19
-------
Logging and recreation have taken place and continue to happen in and around the
analysis area. These activities could impact sensitive plants, although the Forest
Service implements mitigation to try and prevent this from happening. In the past a
number of timber sales have occurred in the vicinity of the analysis area. These sales
include Nicholson Creek, Nicholson Creek #2, Ethel Creek High Risk, Cow Camp High
Risk, Upper Nicholson, Hoodoo, Gold Creek, Marias Creek, Prince, Bishop, Gold, Nick
II, Buckhorn, Nick 1 (Resale), and Marias (Buyout), Gold thinning salvage, Mine, Mine II,
Bat resale, Goldmine, Nicholson, Nicholson Salvage 1, and Nicholson Salvage 2.
These old sales might have released sediment into plant habitat, created transitory
range that changed cow grazing patterns, and in some cases removed shade from
riparian habitat.
The Nicholson, Nicholson Salvage 1, and Nicholson Salvage 2 timber sales have been
recently harvested. These sales are located adjacent to and overlap the Crown Jewel
Project on its eastern side. Besides timber harvest these sales included road building,
slash burning, and other activities. Since these sales are recent there might be
cumulative impacts on sedimentation and stream flow. It is likely that most impacts
would come from the mine. The potential for increased sedimentation was analyzed for
these sales and found to be well within the range of natural variability. The percent
change in sedimentation was predicted to be 18% above background. Stream flow
timing was also predicted to not change substantially because of Nicholson (USDA
Forest Service, 1992b, pp 62-69). The activities for the Nicholson sales were also
analyzed through a screening process. This process determined that the sales did not
shift the historic ranges of variability beyond normal ranges for the affected biophysical
environment (Michael Alvarado, pers comm.).
The Buster timber sale is planned a few miles south of the project area. This sale is
probably far enough away to not have cumulative effects on plants.
The State of Washington, Department of Natural Resources sold the Park Place timber
sale south of the mine area, in T40N, R30E, Sec. 36. This sale is currently being
harvested. Both the state and BLM have had timber sales on their lands in the area in
the past. A population of Listera borealis was discovered in the analysis area on non
Forest Service land that had been logged in the past. Sedimentation was noted in the
stream where the population was located, presumably caused by the logging.
Grazing has also occurred in the area for many years, livestock may occasionally
browse and trample plants and habitat. As discussed in the indirect effects, the number
of Animal Unit Months of grazing would be varied to compensate for the loss of grazing
area caused by the mine.
20
-------
OKANOGAN NATIONAL FOREST VIABILITY
Botrychium crenulatum.
There are 18 populations of 6. crenulatum known on the Okanogan National Forest (Jack
McMillen, pers. comm.). Population size varies from 1 plant to hundreds. At least 1097 plants
have been counted on sighting reports across the forest. Other populations are known north,
west, east, and south of the Crown Jewel project area. If an action alternative is selected the
number of populations and plants left is summarized in table 5. It seems unlikely that the loss
of two populations containing 12 plants on the Crown Jewel Project would reduce forest
viability.
Listera borealis.
At present there are 82 occurrences of L borealis in the Washington Natural Heritage Data
Base that occur on the Okanogan National Forest (Jack McMillen, pers. comm.). About 3340
plants have been counted in these populations. Other populations are known north, west, east,
and south of the Crown Jewel area. If an action alternative is selected the number of
populations and plants left is summarized in table 5. In addition another four populations with
47 plants have been found on the forest this summer. These populations are not in the Natural
Heritage Data Base yet and are not included in table 5. It seems unlikely that forest viability
would be reduced by the loss of plants on the Crown Jewel Project. A revisit to the population
site where most plants (-1700) were said to occur was done in the summer of 1996. A survey
of most of the population are turned up only 10 plants, although plants of another species of
Listera were found in the area. There is a possibility the plants were identified wrong.
Platanthera obtusata.
At present there are 39 occurrences of P. obtusata the Washington Natural Heritage Data
Base that occur on the Okanogan National Forest (Jack McMillen, pers. comm.). About 5627
plants have been counted in these populations. Other populations are known north, west, east,
and south of the Crown Jewel area. If an action alternative is selected the number of
populations and plants left is summarized in table 5. In addition to the numbers in the table
another three populations with 20 plants have been found on the forest this summer, which are
not in the database yet. Again it would seem unlikely that forest viability would be reduced by
the loss of plants on the Crown Jewel Project.
21
-------
Table 5. The number of populations and approximate number of plants on the Okanogan
National Forest left if an action alternative is selected. Displayed are the number of populations
(POPS) over the approximate number of plants of each species by alternative (ALT).
SPECIES
Botrychium
crenulatum
Listera
borealis
Platanthera
obtusata
ALTB
16 POPS
1085
PLANTS
75 POPS
1407
PLANTS
36 POPS
4908
PLANTS
ALTC
16 POPS
1085
PLANTS
75 POPS
1418
PLANTS
36 POPS
4908
PLANTS
ALTD
16 POPS
1085
PLANTS
75 POPS
1407
PLANTS
36 POPS
4908
PLANTS
ALTE
16 POPS
1085
PLANTS
74 POPS
1407
PLANTS
36 POPS
4908
PLANTS
ALTF
17 POPS
1076
PLANTS
75 POPS
3041
PLANTS
36 POPS
5512
PLANTS
ALTG
18 POPS
1097
PLANTS
75 POPS
3041
PLANTS
36 POPS
5512
PLANTS
STATEWIDE SPECIES DISTRIBUTION
Botrychium crenulatum.
There are at least 52 known occurrences of this species in the State of Washington (Jack McMillen, pens.
comm.). There are 19 in Ferry County, 18 in Okanogan County, 3 in Pend Oreille County, and 12 in Stevens
County. About 3321 plants are known to occur in these populations. If an action alternative is selected the
number of populations and approximate number of plants left is summarized in table 6.
Listera borealis.
There are 88 known occurrences of L. borealis in the Natural Heritage Data Base for Washington State at the
time of this writing (Jack McMillen, pers. comm.). There are in 2 in Ferry county, 80 in Okanogan county, 2 in
Pend Oreille county, 2 in Stevens county, and 2 in Whatcom county. About 4072 plants have been counted in
these populations. If an action alternative is selected the number of populations and plants left is summarized
in table 6. As mentioned above there are four populations not in the Natural Heritage Data Base yet that are
not included in table 6.
22
-------
Platanthera obtusata.
There are at least 41 occurrences of P. obtusata in the Natural Heritage Data Base for the state of
Washington. There are two extra occurrences in the Natural Heritage Data Base that may be identified wrong,
(in King and Whatcom Counties). 39 populations are known to occur in Okanogan County and 2 in Ferry
County (Jack McMillen, pers. comm.). At least 5787 plants of this species have been counted in the state. If
an action alternative is selected the number of populations and plants left is summarized in table 6. As
mentioned previously there are three populations not in the Natural Heritage Data Base yet that are not
included in table 6.
Table 6. The number of populations and approximate number of plants in the state of Washington left if an
action alternative is selected. Displayed are the number of populations (POPS) over the approximate number
of plants of each species by alternative (ALT).
SPECIES
Botrychium
cr6nulatum
Listera
borealis
Platanthera
obtusata
ALTB
50 POPS
3309
PLANTS
81 POPS
2139
PLANTS
38 POPS
5068
PLANTS
ALTC
50 POPS
3309
PLANTS
81 POPS
2150
PLANTS
38 POPS
5068
PLANTS
ALTD
50 POPS
3309
PLANTS
81 POPS
2139
PLANTS
38 POPS
5068
PLANTS
ALTE
50 POPS
3309
PLANTS
80 POPS
2139
PLANTS
38 POPS
5068
PLANTS
ALTF
51 POPS
3300
PLANTS
81 POPS
3773
PLANTS
38 POPS
5672
PLANTS
ALTG
52 POPS
3321
PLANTS
81 POPS
3773
PLANTS
38 POPS
5672
PLANTS
TOTAL SPECIES DISTRIBUTION
Botrychium crenulatum.
This species is on List 1 of the State of Oregon's special plants (Oregon Natural Heritage Program, 1993, p
73). B. crenulatum is listed as S-U, i.e. status unknown, on Idaho's rare plant list (Conservation Data Center,
1994, p 9). The Flora of North America describes the range for this species as being Arizona, California,
Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Nevada, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming, (Wagner and Wagner, 1993, p 96).
Another reference adds Alberta to this list (Zika, 1992, p 20). This species is not known in British Columbia
(George Douglas, pers. comm).
23
-------
List era borealis.
This species is not on the plant tracking list of the British Columbia Conservation Data Centre. According to
Hitchcock, et al (1969, p 852), this species ranges from Alaska to Hudson Bay, south to north central
Washington (Okanogan County) (found in other counties since then), Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and Utah.
Platanthera obtusata.
P. obtusata is listed as a category S-1 (taxa endangered or in danger, typically 5 or fewer occurrences) on
Idaho's rare plant list (Conservation Data Center, 1994, p 17). This species is not on the plant tracking list of
the British Columbia Conservation Data Centre. It is on list 2 of the state of Oregon's special plants (Oregon
Natural Heritage Program, 1993, p 74). According to Hitchcock, et al (1969, p 846), this species is known to
occur in the mountains from Alaska to Newfoundland, south to southern British Columbia, Idaho, northeastern
Oregon (Wallowa Mtns.), Montana, Utah, Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New York, and Europe.
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVES
If an action alternative is selected there would be a loss of sensitive plant populations in the study area.
There are however other populations in the analysis area and adjacent areas that would be left.
The number of populations and plants not having impacts is summarized in Table 7. Also see tables 2 and 3
to compare the effects of the alternatives.
Table 7. The number of populations and number of plants within the analysis area NOT having Effects from
the action alternatives, listing the number of populations (POPS) over the approximate number of plants of
each species by alternative (ALT).
SPECIES
Botrychium
crenuldtum
Listera
borealis
Platanthera
obtusata
ALTB
1 POP
-21
PLANTS
3 POPS
-155
PLANTS
1 POP
-96
PLANTS
ALTC
1 POP
-21
PLANTS
3 POPS
-166
PLANTS
1 POP
-96
PLANTS
ALTD
1 POP
-21
PLANTS
3 POPS
-155
PLANTS
1 POP
-96
PLANTS
ALTE
1 POP
-21
PLANTS
2 POPS
-155
PLANTS
1 POP
-96
PLANTS
ALTF
2 POPS
-12
PLANTS
3 POPS
-1789
PLANTS
1 POP
-700
PLANTS
ALTG
3 POPS
-33
PLANTS
3 POPS
-1789
PLANTS
1 POP
-700
PLANTS
24
-------
Field work and draft documents of conservation strategies have been developed for all 3 species (Zika, 1992)
(Zika, 1994) (Salstrom and Gamon, 1993) (Beck, 1994).
Table 8. The known number of populations over the approximate number of plants by species located outside
of but within a 5 mile radius of the analysis area.
SPECIES
Botrychium
cronulatum
Listera
borealis
Platanthera
obtusata
NUMBER OF
POPULATIONS
APPROXIMATE
NUMBER OF PLANTS
1 POPULATION
-41 8 PLANTS
2 POPULATIONS
-47 PLANTS
5 POPULATIONS
-316 PLANTS
DETERMINATION OF EFFECT
Since Howellia aquatilis was not discovered in the project area, there would be no effect on this species.
DETERMINATION FOR H. aquatilis - No Effect.
If an action alternative is selected populations of three sensitive species would be impacted. However, most
of the area of these plant's habitat outside this project should not be seriously disturbed. Other populations of
these species exist both inside of and out of the analysis area. Nearly all of the known populations of all 3
species occur on Federal Land, most on Forest Service land, a few on BLM land. Populations occurring in
riparian areas are normally protected from impact by management guidelines in the Forest Plan, as amended
by the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning
Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (President's Forest Plan), Decision Notice for the
Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish Producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and Washington,
Idaho, and Portions of California (PACFISH), and the Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for
the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH). In the future there would likely be additional riparian protection
guidelines from the Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management project. Washington Natural
25
-------
Heritage Program has been informed of the possible impacts on these plants. For all three species this
project may impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.
DETERMINATION FOR SENSITIVE SPECIES - May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to
federal listing or loss of viability.
RECOMMENDATIONS
If an action alternative is selected:
Control dust using water and perhaps chemicals, e.g. lignin or something similar, so that dust doesn't
settle on plants.
Construct only the roads necessary to do the job needed in the area. Establish these roads away from
the creeks.
Transport employees to the job site in large vehicles to reduce dust and the chance of human
interference with the plant populations.
Use pilot cars to lead vehicles transporting chemicals and fuel into the area. Transport chemicals in
containers designed to be secure if an accident occurs.
Monitor sensitive plant populations in the project area for impacts from livestock. Fencing, barriers, or
changes in livestock management may be needed to reduce or eliminate impacts to populations.
Coordinate with the local Range Conservationist to address salting plans to prevent trampling and
grazing damage near populations of sensitive species. Range revegetation using exotic species which
may attract the cattle to the areas of sensitive species should be evaluated to determine impacts on
sensitive species.
If an action alternative is selected, transplant some of the sensitive plants to wetland and riparian
areas.
Establish monitoring plots in populations of the three species to see if impacts from mining activities
can be detected on the populations.
Monitoring of surface waters in Nicholson and Marias Creeks should be done during rain storm events
to determine if chemicals resulting from blasting or ore processing are within prescribed levels.
Control sedimentation and oil runoff into streams so that sensitive plants are not adversely impacted.
Use diversion ditches, settling ponds, and mulching around topsoil, waste rock, and other disturbed
areas to control sedimentation.
26
-------
Use mulches that are certified noxious weed free to avoid spreading weeds and having them compete
with sensitive species.
If alternative F is chosen route the tailings pipeline away from streams in the area to protect sensitive
species habitat.
During reclamation use only enough fertilizer to do the job needed for reclamation, so excess fertilizer
doesn't run into streams. Store fertilizer in facilities that contain it and don't allow runoff into the
environment.
Develop an emergency plan to respond quickly to fires, chemical spills, or other disasters and contain
them.
If alternative C is selected, monitor the acid generation potential closely. If enough acid is generated
that it increases the mobility of contaminants such as metals in the environment use special methods
to control the acidity, e.g. addition of lime to the rock.
Acknowledgments. A. G. Crook Company did the preliminary work on this document. Pamela Camp of the
Wenatchee BLM reviewed and provided many helpful comments to this document. Leo Torba of the
Okanogan National Forest assisted by translating French into English.
27
-------
REFERENCES
Agra Earth and Environmental, Inc. Solid Waste and Waste Rock Managemen4 P'an, Battle Mountain Gold
Company, Crown jewel Project, Okanogan County, Washington. April, 1996.
ACZInc. Crown Jewel Project Vegetation Studies. August 1991
ACZ Inc. Crown Jewel Joint Venture Project - Battle Mountain Gold Company and Crown Resources
Corporation, Summary of Applicant's Plan of Operation. November 1992.
A.G. Crook Company. Crown Jewel Project Wetland Delineation Report. January 1993.
Alvarado, Michael. Forester, U.S. Forest Service, Tonasket Ranger District. Conversation, May 6, 1994.
American Cyanamid Company. Information Sheet on Aqueous Aero 404 promoter. 2pp. 1975.
American Cyanamid Company. Information Sheet on Cyquest DP-3 and DP-6 mineral processing aids. 2 pp.
1981.
Angle, J. S., M. A. Spiro, A. M. Heggo, M. EI-Kherbawy, and R. L. Chaney. Soil Microbial - Legume
Interactions in Heavy Metal Contaminated Soils at Palmerton, PA. Pp 321-336. In: Delbert D. Hemphill, ed.
Trace Substances in Environmental Health-XXII. Proceedings of the University of Missouri's 22'nd Annual
Conference on Trace Substances in Environmental Health. University of Missouri. 1988.
Battelle Columbus Labs. The Health and Environmental Impacts of Lead and an Assessment of a Need for
Limitations. Environmental Protection Agency Report Number EPA-560/2-79-001. Available from National
Technical Information Service, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Springfield, VA. 484 pp plus appendix. April, 1979.
Battle Mountain Gold Company. Crown Jewel Joint Venture Project, Battle Mountain Gold Company, and
Crown Resources Corporation, Okanogan County, Washington, Integrated Plan of Operations. 79 pp plus
Tables and Figures. March, 1993.
Battle Mountain Gold Company, Reclamation Plan. In preparation.
Battle Mountain Gold Company and Kea Pacific Holdings, Inc. Tailings Geochemical Testing Program: Crown
Jewel Project, Okanogan County, Washington. 10 pp plus tables and sample set data. January, 1994.
Battle Mountain Gold Company, with assistance from Geochimica, Inc. Tailings Geochemical Testing
Program, Crown Jewel Project, Okanogan County, Washington, Addendum 1. 6 pp plus tables and reports.
April 1996.
28
-------
Beck, Kathryn. R-6 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plant Sighting Forms: Nicholson Timber Sale
Area. August, 1991.
Beck, Kathryn. Draft Species Conservation Strategy for Platanthera obtusata in Washington and Oregon.
1994.
Brady, Nyle C. The Nature and Properties of Soils. 10'th edition, Macmillan publishing, 621 pp. 1990.
Callahan, Michael A., Michael W. Slimak, Norman W. Gabel, Ira P. May, Charles F. Fowler, J. Randall Freed,
Patricia Jennings, Robert L. Durfee, Frank C. Whitmore, Bruno Maestri, William R. Mabey, Buford R. Holt, and
Constance Gould. Water-Related Environmental Fate of 129 Priority Pollutants. Volume 1: Introduction and
Technical Background, Metals and Inorganics, Pesticides and PCBs. Environmental Protection Agency
Report Number EPA 440/4-79-029a. Available from National Technical Information Service, U.S. Dept. of
Commerce, Springfield, VA. 37 chapters. December, 1979.
Chaney, Rufus L., and James A. Ryan. Heavy Metals and Toxic Organic Pollutants in MSW-Composts:
Research Results on Phytoavailabilty, Bioavailability, Fate, Etc. Pp 451-506. In: Harry A. J. Hoitink and
Harold M. Keener, eds. Science and Engineering of Composting: Design, Environmental, Microbiological and
Utilization Aspects. Renaissance Publications (The Ohio state University). 1993.
Chang, A. C., A. L. Page, J. E. Warneke, and E. Grgurevic. Sequential Extraction of Soil Heavy Metals
Following a Sludge Application. Journal of Environmental Quality. 13:33-38. 1984.
Conservation Data Center. Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Animals of Idaho. 3'rd edition.
Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. 1994.
Crofts, Kent, ACZ Inc. Biological Evaluation for the Crown Jewel Exploration Project. June 1990.
Davenport J. R. And F. J. Peryea. Phosphate fertilizers influence leaching of lead and arsenic in a soil
contaminated with lead arsenate. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution. 57-58:101-110. 1991.
Davis, J. A., D. B. Kent, B. A. Rea, Stephen P. Garabedian, and L. D. Anderson. Effect of the Geochemical
Environment on Heavy-Metal Transport in Ground Water. Pp 53-61. In: Gail E. Mallard and David A.
Aronson, eds. U.S. Geological Survey Toxic Substances Hydrology Program — Proceedings of the technical
meeting, Monterey, California, March 11-15, 1991. Water-Resources Investigations Report 91-4034. U.S.
Geological Survey, Reston, VA. 730pp. 1991.
Douglas, George. Botanist, British Columbia Conservation Data Centre, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
Telephone conversation, December 6, 1996.
Eisler, R. Lead Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: a Synoptic Review. U.S Fish and Wildlife Service
Biological Report 85(1.14). 134pp. 1988.
29
-------
Eisler, R. Cyanide Hazards to Fish, Wildlife, and Invertebrates: a Synoptic Review. U.S Fish and Wildlife
Service Biological Report 85(1.23). 55 pp. 1991.
Elliot, H. A., M. R. Liberati, and C. P. Huang. Competitive Adsorption of Heavy Metals by Soils. Journal of
Environmental Quality 15:214-219. 1986.
Fuller, Wallace H. Cyanides in the environment with particular attention to soil. Pp 19-44. In: Dirk Van Zyl,
ed. Cyanide and the environment, Vol. 1. Proceedings of a conference, Tucson, Arizona, Dec. 11-14, 1984.
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. 1985.
Colder Associates, Inc. Design Report, Water Supply System, Crown Jewel Project, Battle Mountain Gold
Company. 55 pages + Figures. 1993.
Golder Associates, Inc. Streamflow Investigations Conducted along Myers Creek near Myncaster, British
Columbia. 22 pp plus tables, figures, and appendices. January, 1994.
Gough, Larry P., Hansford T. Shacklette, and Arthur A. Case. Element Concentrations Toxic to Plants,
Animals, and Man. U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1466. (Available from USGS, Denver, CO). 80 pp. 1979.
Griffin Corporation. Valdosta, Georgia. Manufactures copper compounds for various uses. The labels
describe the correct use of these compounds. No date.
Hartman, Scott N. Mill Superintendent, BMGC. Telephone conversation, April 27, 1994.
Hawley, John R. The Use, Characteristics and Toxicity of Mine-Mill Reagents in the Province of Ontario.
Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 244 pp. 1977.
Higgs, T. W., Associates Ltd., E.V.S Consultants Ltd., ASL Laboratories Ltd., and Gormely Process
Engineering. Technical Guide for the Environmental Management of Cyanide in Mining. British Columbia
Technical and Research Committee on Reclamation. 1992.
Hill, Ronald D. Methods for Controlling Pollutants. Pp 687-704. In: Frank W. Schaller and Paul Sutton, eds.
Reclamation of Drastically Disturbed Lands. American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of
America, Soil Science Society of America. Madison, Wisconsin. 742pp. 1978.
Hitchcock, C. Leo, Arthur Cronquist, and Marion Ownbey. Vascular Plants of the Pacific Northwest. Part 1:
Vascular Cryptograms, Gymnosperms, and Monocotyledons. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA.
914pp. 1969.
Holl, Wolfgang and Rudiger Hampp. Lead and Plants. Residue Reviews 54:79-111. 1975.
Hydro-Geo Consultants, Inc. Seepage and Attenuation Study, Crown Jewel Tailings Disposal Facility. March
25, 1994.
30
-------
Hydro-Geo Consultants, Inc. Analysis of Stream Depletions Resulting from the Proposed Crown Jewel
Project. 1996.
Insam, H. and K. H. Domsch. Relationship Between Soil Organic Carbon and Microbial Biomass on
Chronosequences of Reclamation Sites. Microbial Ecology 15:177-188. 1988.
Kea Pacific Holdings Inc., in association with Golder Associates Inc. Report on the Waste Rock Geochemical
Testing Program Crown Jewel Project. September, 1993.
Kea Pacific Holdings Inc., in association with Golder Associates Inc. Report on Geochemical testing of: Ore
and Low Grade Ore Crown Jewel Project. September, 1993.
Kerr, Philip. Department of Ecology, State of Washington. Yakima, Washington. Telephone conversation,
November 7, 1994.
Knight Piesold and Co. Battle Mountain Gold Company Crown Jewel Project Tailings Disposal Facility Final
Design Report, 3 Volumes. 109 pp plus tables, figures, drawings, and appendices. June 1, 1993.
Larue, Marie and Denise Giroux. Risques Relies A L'Utilisation De Xanthates Dans Le Processus De
Flottaison Des Metaux. Commission de la Sante et de la Securite du Travail (CSST). CREF: 84020201.
Quebec, Canada. 18 pp + Annexes. No Date, but probably 1984.
Lesica, Peter. Autoecology of the Endangered Plant Howellia aquatilis; Implications for Management and
Reserve Design. Ecological Applications 2(4):411-421. 1992.
Lesica, Peter and Brian M. Stelle. Prolonged Dormancy in Vascular Plants and Implications for Monitoring
Studies. Natural Areas Journal 14:209-212. 1994.
Loftis, L. Botanist, USDA Forest Service, Tonasket Ranger District, Okanogan National Forest.
Loftis, Larry. Biological Evaluation for Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Plants, Nicholson
Analysis Area. 1992.
Mastrogiuseppe, Joy. Botanist, Washington State University. Letter of determination to Kent Crofts. April 2,
1992.
McMillen, Jack. Assistant data manager, Washington Natural Heritage Program, Olympia, WA. Computer
printouts, Septembers, 1996.
Meador, James P., Frieda B. Taub, and Thomas H. Sibley. Copper Dynamics and the Mechanism of
Ecosystem Level Recovery in a Standardized Aquatic Microcosm. Ecological Applications 3(1): 139-155.
1993.
31
-------
Meinke, Robert J. Investigations into the Conservation Status of Mimulus pygmaeus and Mimulus tricolor
(Scrophulariaceae) on the Winema and Fremont National Forests. Part II: Conservation Strategy. Document
prepared for Winema and Fremont National Forests by Oregon Department of Agriculture and Dept. of Botany
and Plant Pathology, Oregon State University. Pp 35-43. 1994.
Moen, Wayne S. Myers Creek and Wauconda Mining Districts of Northeastern Okanogan County,
Washington. Washington Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and Earth Resources,
Bulletin 73. 96 pages. 1980
Moriarty, F. Ecotoxicology. 2'nd edition. Academic press. 289pp. 1988.
Nalco Chemical Company. Material safety data sheet for Nalclear 9709 pulv flocculant. 6 pages. 1994.
Newman, James R., R. Kent Schreiber, and E. Novakova. Air Pollution Effects on Terrestrial and Aquatic
Animals. Pp 177-233. In: Jerry R. Barker and David T. Tingey eds. Air Pollution Effects on Biodiversity. Van
Nostrand Reinhold, 322 pp. 1992
Noble, Daniel L. and Marmion Howe. Cyanide in Riparian Vegetation. Pp 498-505. In: Maurice C.
Fuerstenau and Bruce R. Palmer, eds. Gold, Silver, Uranium, and Coal, Geology, Mining, Extraction, and the
Environment. The American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers, Inc. New York, New
York. 1983.
Oregon Natural Heritage Program. Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Animals of Oregon.
Oregon Natural Heritage Program, Portland, Oregon. 79 pp. 1993.
Peryea, Frank J. Phosphate induced release of arsenic from soils contaminated with lead arsenate. Soil
Science Society of America Journal 55:1301 -1306. 1991.
Pittsburgh Mineral & Environmental Technology, Inc. Letters to Scott Hartman of BMGC, dated June 24 and
August 10, 1994.
Rees, Donald. Range conservationist, U.S. Forest Service, Tonasket Ranger District. Conversation, February
25, 1994.
Ruby, Michael V., A. Davis, and A. Nicholson. In Situ formation of lead phosphates in soils as a method to
immobilize lead. Environ. Sci. Technol. 28:646-654. 1994.
Salstrom, Debra and John Gamon. Draft Species Conservation Strategy for Listera borealis Morong on the
Colville National Forest. Document prepared by the Washington Natural Heritage Program, Olympia,
Washington. 1993.
Schafer and Associates. Geochemical Modeling of Pit Lake Water Quality for the Crown Jewel Project.
Schafer and Associates, Bozeman, MT. 1994.
32
-------
Schafer and Associates. Geochemical Modeling of Pit Lake Water Quality for the Crown Jewel Project,
Addendum 1: Pit Lake Water Quality Model Reevaluation. Schafer and Associates, Bozeman, MT. 1996.
Simon, Nancy S. and Janet F. Morrison. The Role of Bed Sediments and Drift in the Transport and Fate of
Metallo-Organic Compounds in the Calcasieu River Estuary, Louisiana. Pp 579-582. In: Gail E. Mallard and
David A. Aronson, eds. U.S. Geological Survey Toxic Substances Hydrology Program — Proceedings of the
technical meeting, Monterey, California, March 11-15, 1991. Water-Resources Investigations Report 91-4034.
U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. 730 pp. 1991.
Skousen, J. and C. Clinger. Sewage sludge land application program in West Virginia. Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation. 48:145-151. 1993.
Smith, William H. Air Pollution Effects on Ecosystem Processes. Pp 234-260. In: Jerry R. Barker and David
T. Tingey eds. Air Pollution Effects on Biodiversity. Van Nostrand Reinhold, 322 p. 1992.
Smith, Adrian and Terry Mudder. The Chemistry and Treatment of Cyanidation Wastes. Mining Journal
Books Limited, London, 345 pp. 1991.
Spano, Scott, Scott Haight, and Joe Frazier. Emergency Treatment and Land Application of Excess Cyanide
Solution at the Zortmann Mine, Phillips County, Montana. Apparently unpublished paper, author Spano was
with Montana Dept. of State Lands, Haight and Frazier with Bureau of Land Management, Lewiston, MT. 17
pp plus figures and appendices. No Date.
Sprague, A. Wildlife Biologist. USDA Forest Service, Twisp Ranger District, Okanogan National Forest.
(Reporting findings of S. Heywood, Biological Technician).
Stockhouse, Robert. Botanist, Pacific University, Forest Grove, Oregon.
Towhill, Leigh E., John S. Drury, Brad L. Whitfield, Eric B. Lewis, Elizabeth Galyan, and Anna S. Hammons.
Reviews of the Environmental Effects of Pollutants: V. Cyanide. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Tennessee.
ORNL/EIS-81. EPA-600/1-78-027. 190 pages. 1978.
Union Carbide Company. Technical information sheet on Methyl Amyl Alcohol. 1 p. No date.
USDA Forest Service. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Land and Resource Management Plan,
Okanogan National Forest. 1989.
USDA Forest Service. Tonasket Ranger District Sensitive Plant List, (Compiled from information from the
Washington Natural Heritage Program and Sensitive Species list of the Region 6 Regional Forester).
Okanogan National Forest. March, 1992.
USDA Forest Service. Nicholson Timber Sale, Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact,
Environmental Assessment. October, 1992.
33
-------
USDA Forest Service. Tonasket Ranger District Five Year Action Plan: FY 1991 - FY 1996. Okanogan
National Forest. No Date.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS Reference 1-9-96-SP-098. Letter dated March 12, 1996 to Tonasket
Ranger District Wildlife Biologist Jean Lavell, discussing listed and proposed endangered and threatened
species which may occur within the area of the proposed gold mine and milling facility. 1996.
Utby, W. S. Employee of Nalco Chemical Company, Naperville, Illinois. Telephone conversation, April 28,
1994.
Wagner, Warren H. and Florence S. Wagner. Ophioglossaceae. Pp 85-106. In: Flora of North America
Editorial Committee, eds. Flora of North America North of Mexico. Vol 2. Oxford University Press. 475 pp.
1993.
Washington Natural Heritage Data System. Special plant records by Ranger District, computer printout. For
Okanogan National Forest, Tonasket Ranger District. February, 1991.
Washington Natural Heritage Program. Species Status Summaries for Listera borealis and Platanthera
obtusata. Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Olympia. November 1992 and update January
1993 (pers. comm.).
Washington Natural Heritage Program. Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Vascular Plants of
Washington. Department of Natural Resources. Olympia, WA. 52pp. 1994.
White, Jeffrey S. Environmental Superintendent, BMGC. Letters to Don Rose, 11 March, and 14 September,
1994.
Winges, Kirk D. 1994. Battle Mountain Gold, Crown Jewel Project Air Quality Permit Support Document.
McCulley, Frick & Oilman, Inc. Atmospheric Sciences Group. Lynwood, WA. 48 pp + appendices.
Wooten, G. Biological Technician. USDA Forest Service, Winthrop Ranger District. Okanogan National
Forest.
Zika, P.F. Draft Management Guide for Rare Botrychium Species (Moonworts and Grape-ferns) for the Mount
Hood National Forest. Oregon Natural Heritage Program, Portland. February, 1992.
Zika, P.F. Draft Management Plan for the Moonworts Botrychium ascendens, B. crenulatum, B. paradoxum, &
B. pedunculosum in the Wallowa-Whitman, Umatilla & Ochoco National Forests. Oregon Natural Heritage
Program, Portland. June, 1994.
34
-------
APPENDIX 1
SENSITIVE PLANTS THAT COULD OCCUR IN THE ANALYSIS AREA
Agoseris elata
Astragalus microcystis
Botrychium lanceolatum
Botrychium lunaria
Botrychium minganense
Botrychium montanum
Botrychium pinnatum
Botrychium simplex
Carex atrata var. atrosquama
Carex atrata var, erecta
Carex buxbaumii
Carex comosa
Carex flava
East of Okanogan river
Carex hystricina
Carex norvegica
Carex paupercula
Carex saxitalis var. major
Carex scirpoidea var. scirpoidea
Carex scopulorum var. prionophylla
Carex sychnocephala
Chrysosplenium tetrandrum
Cicuta bulbifera
Cryptogramma stelleri
Cypripedium calceolus var. parviflorum
Cypripedium fasciculatum
Dodecatheon pulchellum var. watsonii
Dryas drummondii
Eleocharis atropurpurea
Epipactus gigantea
Erigeron acris var. elatus
Erigeron humilis
Eriophorum viridicarinatum
Eritrichium nanum var. elongatum
Geum rivale
Howellia aquatilis
Iliamna longisepala
Listera borealis
Lycopodium dendroideum
Tall Agoseris
Least bladdery milk vetch
Lance leaved grape fern
Moonwort
Victorin's grape fern
Mountain moonwort
St. John's moonwort
Little grape fern
Blackened sedge
Erect blackened sedge
Buxbaum's sedge
Bristly sedge
Yellow sedge
Porcupine sedge
Scandinavian sedge
Poor sedge
Russet Sedge
Canadian single spike sedge
Saw leaved sedge
Many headed sedge
Northern golden carpet
Bulb bearing water hemlock
Steller's rockbrake
Yellow lady's slipper
Clustered lady's slipper
Few-flowered shooting star
Yellow mountain aven's
Purple spike rush
Giant helleborine
Tall bitter fleabane
Artie alpine daisy
Green keeled cotton grass
Pale alpine forget me not
Purple water avens
Howellia
Long sepal globemallow
Northern twayblade
Tree like club moss
-------
Mimulus suksdorfii
Nicotiana attenuata
Orobanche pinorum
Parnassia kotzebuei
Phacelia franklini
Platanthera obtusata
Poa grayana
Polemonium viscosum
Potentilla quinquifolia
Ribes oxyacanthoides ssp. cognatum
Ribes oxyacanthoides ssp. irriguum
Rubus acaulis
Salix Candida
East of Okanogan river
Salix tweedyi
Sanicula marilandica
Saxifraga cernua
Sisyrinchium septentrionale
Spiranthes romanzoffia var. porrifolia
Teucrium canadense ssp. viscidum
Tillaea aquatica
Vaccinium myrtilloides
Suksdorf's monkey flower
Coyote tobacco
Pine broomrape
Kotzebue's grass of Parnassus
Franklin's phacelia
Small northern bog orchid
Gray's bluegrass
Skunk polemonium
Five leaved cinquefoil
Umatilla gooseberry
Idaho gooseberry
Nagoonberry
Hoary willow
Tweedy's willow
Black snake root
Nodding saxifrage
Blue eyed grass
Western ladies tresses
Woodsage
Pygmy weed
Velvet leaved blueberry
-------
APPENDIX 2
REGION 6 SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES AND HABITAT LIST FOR TONASKET RANGER DISTRICT
(03/92)
Compiled from information from the Washington Natural Heritage Program and
the Sensitive Species list of the Region 6 Regional Forester. The Regional
Forester's sensitive species list includes Federally listed endangered,
threatened, and proposed species (FSM R-6 Supplement 2600-91-1, 2670.44, 1.
a.), however none of these species are presently known to exist on the Okanogan
National Forest. Much of the habitat information came from Vascular Plants of
the Pacific Northwest, Parts 1-5, By Hitchcock, Cronquist, Ownbey, and
Thompson, 1955-1969.
(D = documented on district)
(S — suspected on district)
SPECIES
HABITAT
S Agoseris elata
S Agrostis borealis
S Astragalus microcystis
S Botrychium lanceolatum
D Botrychium lunaria
D Botrychium minganense
S Botrychium montanum
D Botrychium pinnaturn
Meadows and open woods, from lowlands to
timberline in the mountains.
Alpine talus slopes, fellfields, and
ridges.
In the Olympic mountains it is found
above 6000 feet in the alpine zone. In
eastern Washington, it is found at
moderate elevations, in gravelly, sandy
areas, often in open woods.
Wet to moist grassy and rocky slopes,
meadows, woods, and roadsides in cold,
mostly subacid soil.
Grassy or marshy meadows and on sandy or
gravelly riverbanks, in acid to
circumneutral soil.
Meadows, prairies, and woods and on sand
dunes and riverbanks, in acid to
circumneutral soil.
Western red cedar forests and along
grassy trail edges.
Grassy slopes, streambanks, roadsides
and in mossy woods, in moist to wet
soil.
-------
S Botrychium simplex
Meadows, barrens, and woods in usually
subacid soil.
D Carex atrata
var. atrosquama
D Carex atrata
var. erecta
D Carex buxbaumii
S Carex comosa
S Carex flava
S Carex hystricina
D Carex norvegica
D Carex paupercula
S Carex saxitalis
var. maior
S Carex scirpoidea
var. scirpoidea
Mid to high elevation forest and
subalpine meadows.
Wet meadows to open, dry slopes;
subalpine and alpine.
Peat bogs, marshes, wet meadows, and
other wet places.
Marshes, lake margins, drainage ditches,
rivulets, and wet meadows in lowlands.
Wet areas around fens, bogs, streams,
and lakes; from low to moderate
elevations. East of the Okanogan
river.
Wet areas along streams, lowlands to mid
montane.
Streambanks, seepage areas, and moist
meadows at moderate to high elevations.
Also exposed, rocky ridges, talus
slopes; subalpine to alpine.
Sphagnum bogs and sedge meadows.
Wet meadows and the margins of streams
and ponds.
Moist meadows, rocky outcrops with some
soil development at high elevations,
5900-7400 ft.
D Carex scopulorum
var. prionophylla
S Carex sychnocephala
D Chrysosplenium tetrandrum
Wet to moist places.
Moist or wet low ground, especially in
marshes or along beaches and shores.
In rock crevices, on wet banks, and in
other wet areas.
-------
S Cicuta bulbifera
S Cryptograroma stelleri
S Cypripedlum calceolus
var. parviflorum
S Cypripedium fasciculatum
D Dodecatheon pulchellum
var. watsonii
S Draba aurea
S Draba cana
S Dryas drummondii
S Eleocharis atropurpurea
S Epipactus gigantea
S Erigeron acris
var. elatus
S Erigeron humilis
S Eriophorum viridicarinatum
S Eritrichium nanum
var. elongatum
D Gentiana glauca
In marshes, bogs, wet meadows, and
shallow standing water.
Moist shaded cliffs and ledges at upper
and middle elevations.
In bogs to damp mossy woods, often with
aspen and red osier dogwood.
In moist to rather dry and rocky open
coniferous forest.
Subalpine to alpine zone; meadows, damp
rock outcrops, rocky open Douglas fir -
lodgepole pine forests.
Fellfields, dry slopes, to lush meadows,
subalpine to alpine zone.
Open, dry meadows and knolls and in rock
crevices, alpine to subalpine zones.
This species is D. lanceolata in
Hitchcock.
In crevices of rocky, dry cliffs.
Wet places, lake shores.
Streambanks, lake margins, and around
springs and seepage areas.
Generally in swampy places.
High elevation areas, the only known
site in Washington is in an opening with
very rocky soil in Engelmann spruce,
subalpine fir, and lodgepole pine.
Cold swamps and bogs at moderate to
higher elevations.
Open, rocky places at high elevations.
Alpine meadows and tundra, primarily
where its seasonally moist.
-------
S Geum rivale
S Howellia aquatilis
S Iliamna longisepala
D Listera borealis
S Loiseleuria procumbens
S Lycopodium dendroideum
S Mimulus suksdorfii
S Nicotiana attenuata
S Orobanche pinorum
D Parnassia kotzebuei
S Phacelia franklini
D Platanthera obtusata
S Poa grayana
S Polemonium viscosum
S Potentilla diversifolia
var. perdissecta
D Potentilla nivea
Streambanks, lake shores, bogs and wet
meadows.
In vernal ponds and lakes.
Dry, open hillsides, gravelly
streamsides, and open Ponderosa pine
forests, low to mid elevations.
In damp Engelmann spruce woods with
red-osier dogwood, lady fern, and
stinking currant.
Alpine slopes.
Dry, rocky slopes and open coniferous
forests, mid elevations in mountains.
(keys to L. obscuram in Hitchcock et al)
Wet to dry open places; lowlands to
rather high in the mountains.
Dry sandy bottom lands, and in other dry
open places.
Mostly in coniferous woods and
associated with Holodiscus discolor.
Moist, near vertical, north facing
granitic cliffs.
Stream banks, meadows, and open slopes,
especially in gravelly soil, at moderate
elevations in the mountains, sometimes
in burns or other disturbed sites.
Damp to wet forested areas.
Alpine to subalpine, on screes, open
ridges, meadowland and streambanks.
In sandy soil with much coarse rock and
on talus slopes.
Rocky alpine slopes.
Alpine slopes, meadows, ridgetops and
scree.
-------
S Potentilla quinquifolia
S Ribes oxyacanthoides
ssp. cognatum
S Ribes oxyacanthoides
ssp. irriguum
D Rubus acaulis
S Salix Candida
D Salix tweedyi
S Sanicula marilandica
D Saxifraga cernua
D Saxifraga debilis
D S isyr inchium septentrionale
S Spirantb.es romanzoffia
var. porrifolia
S Teucrium canadense
ssp. viscidum
S Tillaea aquatica
D Vaccinium myrtilloides
Rocky ridgetops, associated with grasses
and sedges.
Along streambanks, ephemeral streams,
and adjacent moist hillsides to mid
elevations, (R. cognatum in Hitchcock).
Along streams, and slopes of moist to
dry canyons, (R. irriguum in Hitchcock).
Tundra to mountain meadows, bogs, and
woods.
Bogs and swamps. East of Okanogan
river.
Moist to boggy areas, generally at
moderate elevations.
Moist woods, margins of bogs.
Stream banks, seeps, moist rocks and
cliffs.
Damp cliffs, rock crevices, and talus
near snowbanks; alpine.
Dry meadows and pastures or streambanks
in unglaciated areas.
Moist to wet meadows.
Stream banks, moist bottom lands, and
the periphery of small (sometimes
vernal) ponds.
Growing in mud flats and vernal pools.
Moist or dry soil and bogs.
-------
EXTRA Listera borealis POPULATIONS ON THE METHOW VALLEY RANGER DISTRICT
I have talked with George Wooten and Christina Bauman on the Methow Valley
Ranger District of the Okanogan National Forest. They informed me that there
were at least another seven populations of the plant Listera borealis found
during the field season of 1996 on that district. The sighting reports for
these discoveries were not sent to Washington Natural Heritage Program in
Olympia until two or three weeks ago. Therefore the information for these
populations was not included in the numbers used for writing the Biological
Evaluation for Crown Jewel project.
These seven populations contain about 133 plants. These extra populations
along with those discussed in the Biological Evaluation help establish that
this species will remain viable on the forest if this project goes forward.
Larry Loftis
District Botanist
November 13, 1996.
-------
APPENDIX K
TAILINGS SITE SELECTION REPORT
-------
-------
January 1997 Appendix K * Tailings Site Selection Report • K-i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 TAILINGS SITING CRITERIA (RCW 78.56.09) 1
2.1 Consideration of Proponent's Objectives 1
2.2 Primary Screening Phase 2
2.3 Technical Site Investigation Phase 2
3.0 PRIMARY SCREENING PHASE 2
3.1 Marias Creek Drainage 2
3.2 Nicholson Creek Drainage 3
3.3 Ethel Creek/Lime Creek Drainage 4
3.4 Bolster Creek Drainage 5
3.5 Gold Creek Drainage 6
3.6 Myers Creek Drainage 7
3.7 Primary Screening Summary 8
3.8 Primary Screening Results 11
4.0 TECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION 12
4.1 Marias Creek Location 12
4.2 North Nicholson Location 13
4.3 South Nicholson Location 14
4.4 Upper South Nicholson Location 15
4.5 Lower South Nicholson Location 16
4.6 Technical Site Investigation Summary 18
5.0 INTEGRATION WITH SEPA AND NEPA 19
LIST OF FIGURES
Number Title
K-1 Regional Screening Areas
K-2 Tailings Facility Options
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
-------
January 1997 Appendix K * Tailings Site Selection Report + K-1
TAILINGS SITE SELECTION REPORT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This tailings Site Selection Report is intended to address the tailings site selection process for the
Crown Jewel Project tailings facility in satisfaction of the requirements of Chapter 78.56 RCW
(Washington Metal Mining and Milling Operations Act). The site selection report is required to be
developed in conjunction with and contained in the environmental impact statement prepared for
the Crown Jewel Project.
Battle Mountain Gold Company (BMGC) proposes to develop, construct, and operate a surface
metals mining and milling operation with associated facilities known as the Crown Jewel Project.
The Crown Jewel Project site is located on and near the summit of Buckhorn Mountain,
approximately 3.5 air miles east of the community of Chesaw in northeastern Okanogan County.
As proposed by BMGC, the mine would process about 3,000 tons per day of ore to extract about
180,000 ounces per year of gold by using conventional milling and .tank cyanidation. The expected
life of the mine is about eight years.
The non-economic residue from the extraction process is called tailings. Tailings are a slurry of fine
rock debris that consist of about 45% to 50% solids by weight. Over the expected eight-year life
of the Crown Jewel Project, about nine million tons of tailings would be generated. This material
must be transported to, and deposited and contained in, a tailings facility. A tailings facility, in
general design, consists of one or more embankments to impound the tailings, with liners and leak
detection and collection measures for isolation of the tailings. Depending on its ultimate location, a
tailings facility for the Crown Jewel Project would occupy an area of about 100 acres. Supporting
infrastructure, such as access roads, embankment quarries, and slurry and return pipelines would
add to the disturbed area. As a result, the total area disturbed by the tailings facility and the
supporting infrastructure would be dependent on the distance from the mill and various site specific
considerations that are covered in this report.
2.0 TAILINGS SITING CRITERIA (RCW 78.56.09)
Washington State law. Chapter 78.56 RCW, (Washington Metal Mining and Milling Operations Act)
requires the Washington Department of Ecology (WADOE) to prepare a site selection report to
determine the preferred location of tailings facilities of metals mining and milling operations. In
addition to addressing these criteria, the report must analyze the feasibility of reclamation and
stabilization of the tailings facility. The process that is mandated consists of a primary screening
phase followed by a technical site investigation of one or more feasible sites identified in the
preliminary phase. As provided in the law, data for the site selection report was furnished by the
applicant, by the lead and cooperating agencies, and by consultants for the lead agencies.
2.1 Consideration of Proponent's Objectives
Implementation of the siting criteria requires the department to take into account the objective of
the Proponent's application relating to mining and milling operations. Specifically, the objectives
that must be considered include (but are not limited to):
1. Operational feasibility;
2. Compatibility with optimum tailings placement methods;
3. Adequate volume capacity;
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix K * Tailings Site Selection Report » K-2
4. Availability of construction materials; and,
5. An optimized embankment volume.
2.2 Primary Screening Phase
The primary screening phase is used to reduce the number of available tailings facility sites to one
or more feasible locations. The primary screening phase requires consideration of, but is not
limited to, the following siting criteria:
1. Proximity to the 100-year floodplain, as indicated in the most recent Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) maps;
2. Proximity to surface and ground water;
3. Topographic setting;
4. Identifiable adverse geologic conditions, such as landslides and active faults; and,
5. Visibility impacts of the public generally and residents more particularly.
Potential tailings sites that are feasible based on the considerations are assessed by use of the
technical site investigation phase.
2.3 Technical Site Investigation Phase
The technical site investigation phase is intended to verify the adequacy of the remaining potential
sites. The technical site investigations phase consists of, but is not limited to, the following:
1. Soil characteristics;
2. Hydrologic characteristics;
3. A local and structural geology evaluation, including seismic conditions and related
geotechnical investigations;
4. A surface water control analysis; and,
5. A slope stability analysis.
3.0 PRIMARY SCREENING PHASE
Potential tailings sites in the six major drainages in the vicinity of the project were considered. In
addition, the potential for locating a tailings facility that would not be in a valley bottom was
considered in the Myers Creek Valley. Figure K-1, Regional Screening Areas, of this report is an
area map showing the location of drainages in the area. The six drainages were compared using
the criteria established by Chapter 78.56 RCW.
3.1 Marias Creek Drainage
Marias Creek trends generally eastward from its confluence with Toroda Creek. The upper reaches
of Marias Creek consist of two parallel streams which flow generally to the south. The streams
parallel each other for about 1.5 miles before combining and trending east. The Marias Creek
drainage area is 12.1 square miles with a length of 7.3 miles.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix K * Tailings Site Selection Report • K-3
3.1.1 Proximity to the One Hundred Year Flood Plain, as Indicated in the Most Recent Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Maps
No flood plain mapping has been conducted on Marias Creek by FEMA. However, Marias Creek
has a limited drainage area and a relatively steep gradient that promotes rapid runoff of storm
events. As a result, there is limited potential for flood plain development along the creek.
3.1.2 Proximity to Surface Water and Ground Water
The upper 2.5 miles of Marias Creek is an intermittent stream, while in the lower 4.8 miles the
stream is perennial. Within the area of the spring and seep sampling survey the west fork of the
stream was found to include five springs and two seeps; the east fork contains one spring, which
has been developed for watering cattle. The upper reaches of the perennial portion of the stream
have limited habitat for fish due to a lack of pools; a study shows that no fish were found in the
upper two miles of the stream. Marias Creek is classified as Class AA by WADOE. Aquifer testing
in the Crown Jewel Project area indicates a connection between surface water and ground water.
Thus, the depth to ground water will vary seasonally, but is expected to occur at shallow depths in
the valley bottom where alluvium is present. Depth to ground water in bedrock is controlled by
fractures and joints, resulting in highly variable seasonal water table depths.
3.1.3 Topographic Setting
The potential site is located within the Okanogan Uplands, a region of historically low seismicity. A
review of geologic mapping in the project area by the Washington Department of Natural Resources
(WADNR) and the US Geological Survey did not reveal any mapped landslide deposits or evidence
of recent fault movement.
3.1.4 Identifiable Adverse Geologic Conditions, Such as Landslides and Active Faults
The potential site is located within the Okanogan Uplands, a region of historically low seismicity. A
review of geologic mapping in the project area by the WADNR and the US Geological Survey did
not reveal any mapped landslide deposits or evidence of recent fault movement.
3.1.5 Visibility Impacts of the Public Generally and Residents More Particularly
All but the lower 0.25 miles of Marias Creek is located on land administered by the Forest Service.
There are no developed recreational facilities along the creek. The stream has a poor quality for
fisheries due to lack of pools. Thus, it is likely that the stream has a low fishing and recreational
use resulting in low visibility for the general public. This would be particularly true for the upper
reach, which is an intermittent stream. The portion of Marias Creek that is on Forest Service
administered land has been designated as having low visual significance and as "roaded modified"
for recreational opportunities. The only dwelling structures in the Marias Creek drainage are
located approximately one mile west of the stream, on Forest Road 3575-120. The upper drainage
is heavily timbered and oriented away from nearby roads and structures, resulting in some natural
screening capability.
3.2 Nicholson Creek Drainage
Nicholson Creek is a perennial stream that flows eastward from its headwaters on the east flank of
Buckhorn Mountain a distance of 7.6 miles to its confluence with Toroda Creek. The upper portion
of Nicholson Creek drainage includes two forks. The North Fork drains the northern portion of the
Crown Jewel Project area and flows generally southeast for approximately one mile before
combining with the South Fork. The South Fork drains the central portion of the proposed Crown
Jewel Project area and flows to the east approximately 0.75 miles where it joins the North Fork.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix K * Tailings Site Selection Report • K-4
The total drainage area is 15.8 square miles.
3.2.1 Proximity to the One Hundred Year Rood Plain, as Indicated in the Most Recent Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Maps
No flood plain mapping has been conducted on Nicholson Creek by FEMA. However, Nicholson
Creek has a limited drainage area and a relatively steep gradient that promotes rapid runoff of
storm events. As a result, there is limited potential for flood plain development along the creek.
3.2.2 Proximity to Surface Water and Ground Water
Nicholson Creek is a perennial stream within the study area. A tailings facility sited in this drainage
would require diversion of this streamflow. Within the area of the spring and seep sampling
survey, six springs and eight seeps were located along the stream. Flow rates in these springs
range from 2.4 to 9.0 gallons per minute. Nicholson Creek is classified as Class AA by WADOE.
A study shows that brook trout and rainbow trout were found in the lower five miles of the
drainage. Aquifer testing in the Crown Jewel Project area indicates a connection between surface
water and ground water. Thus, the depth to ground water will vary seasonally, but is expected to
occur at shallow depths in the valley bottom where alluvium is present. Depth to ground water in
bedrock is controlled by fractures and joints, resulting in highly variable seasonal water table
depths.
3.2.3 Topographic Setting
The gradient of the upper reach of Nicholson Creek is about 5%, while the lower reach has a
gradient of about 10%. The valley containing the upper reach is broader and has a lower slope
than the lower reach. Valley side slopes in the upper reach range from 1.5H:1 V to 2.5H:1 V. The
lower reach tends to have somewhat steeper side slopes, typically steeper than 2H:1 V.
3.2.4 Identifiable Adverse Geologic Conditions, Such as Landslides and Active Faults
The potential site is located within the Okanogan Uplands, a region of historically low seismicity. A
review of geologic mapping in the project area by WADNR and the US Geological Survey did not
reveal any mapped landslide deposits or evidence of recent fault movement.
3.2.5 Visibility Impacts of the Public Generally and Residents More Particularly
The upper 5.3 miles of Nicholson Creek are located on land administered by the Forest Service.
The lower 2.3 miles are on private lands. There are no developed recreational facilities along the
creek. The portion of Nicholson Creek that is on Forest Service administered land has been
designated as having low visual significance and "roaded modified" for recreational opportunities.
3.3 Ethel Creek/Lime Creek Drainage
Ethel Creek flows westward about three miles from its headwaters on Buckhorn Mountain to its
confluence with Myers Creek. Lime Creek is tributary to Ethel Creek about one mile above the
Myers Creek confluence. The combined drainage area for the two streams is about three square
miles.
3.3.1 Proximity to the One Hundred Year Flood Plain, as Indicated in the Most Recent Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Maps
No flood plain mapping has been conducted on Ethel Creek or Lime Creek by FEMA. However,
with a limited drainage area and a relatively steep gradient that promotes rapid runoff of storm
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix K * Tailings Site Selection Report + K-5
events, there is limited potential for flood plain development along either creek.
3.3.2 Proximity to Surface Water and Ground Water
Both Ethel Creek and Lime Creek are perennial streams. Within the area of the spring and seep
sampling survey, three seeps were located near the headwaters of Ethel Creek, with flows ranging
from 0.9 gallons per minute (gpm) to 12 gpm. Wetlands occur in the stream channel areas. The
streams are classified as Class AA by WADOE. No fish survey has been conducted. However,
Ethel Creek and Lime Creek have steep gradients and lack pools with the likely result that fisheries
potential is limited. Aquifer testing in the Crown Jewel Project area indicates a connection
between surface water and ground water. Thus, the depth to ground water will vary seasonally,
but is expected to occur at shallow depths in the valley bottom where alluvium is present. Depth
to ground water in bedrock is controlled by fractures and joints, resulting in highly variable seasonal
water table depths.
3.3.3 Topographic Setting
The average channel slope is about 10%. Valley side slopes range from a moderate 4H:1 V to a
steep 1.5H:1V.
3.3.4 Identifiable Adverse Geologic Conditions, Such as Landslides and Active Faults
The potential site is located with in the Okanogan Uplands, a region of historically low seismicity.
A review of geologic mapping in the Crown Jewel Project area by WADNR and the US Geological
Survey did not reveal any mapped landslide deposits or evidence of recent fault movement.
3.3.5 Visibility Impacts of the Public Generally and Residents More Particularly
The upper 1.5 miles of Ethel Creek are located on lands administered by the US Forest Service.
The lower 1.5 miles are on private lands. There are no developed recreational facilities along the
creek. The portion of Ethel Creek that is on Forest Service administered land has been designated
as having moderate visual significance and "roaded modified" for recreational opportunities. Most
of this drainage is visible from portions of the Toroda-Oroville road (County Road 4895). Two new
private residences have been constructed in the Ethel Creek drainage. There are approximately a
dozen other structures on the lower reach of Ethel Creek.
3.4 Bolster Creek Drainage
Bolster Creek flows westward from its headwaters on the western flank of Buckhorn Mountain to
its confluence with Myers Creek and consists of two branches, North Bolster Creek and South
Bolster Creek. The total drainage area is 2.8 square miles.
3.4.1 Proximity to the One Hundred Year Flood Plain, as Indicated in the Most Recent Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Maps
No flood plain mapping has been conducted on Bolster Creek by FEMA. However, with a limited
drainage area and a relatively steep gradient that promotes rapid runoff of storm events, there is
limited potential for flood plain development along the creek except on the alluvial fan near the
confluence with Myers Creek.
3.4.2 Proximity to Surface Water and Ground Water
Both North Bolster Creek and South Bolster Creek are perennial to their confluence. Below this
point of confluence, Bolster Creek is perennial to the point where it exits the canyon, approximately
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix K * Tailings Site Selection Report + K-6
one-half mile from Myers Creek. At this point it becomes intermittent on an alluvial fan. Bolster
Creek resumes flowing just before it enters Myers Creek. The mean discharge at the confluence
with Myers Creek is estimated to be in the range of 0.4 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 1.0 cfs.
Within the area of the spring and seep sampling survey, six springs were located along Bolster
Creek. About 0.6 acres of wetlands occur in the stream channel areas. No fish survey has been
conducted. However, with a steep gradient, lack of pools, and no surface connection between
Bolster Creek and Myers Creek, it is likely that fisheries potential is limited. Bolster Creek is
classified as Class AA by WADOE. Aquifer testing in the Crown Jewel Project area indicates a
connection between surface water and ground water. Thus, the depth to ground water will vary
seasonally, but is expected to occur at shallow depths in the valley bottom where alluvium is
present. Depth to ground water in bedrock is controlled by fractures and joints, resulting in highly
variable seasonal water table depths.
3.4.3 Topographic Setting
The average channel slope along Bolster Creek is about 10%. Valley side slopes are steep,
averaging about 1.6H:1V.
3.4.4 Identifiable Adverse Geologic Conditions. Such as Landslides and Active Faults
The potential site is located within the Okanogan Uplands, a region of historically low seismicity. A
review of geologic mapping in the project area by WADNR and the US Geological Survey did not
reveal any landslide deposits or evidence of recent fault movement.
3.4.5 Visibility Impacts of the Public Generally and Residents More Particularly
The upper reaches of Bolster Creek are located on lands administered by the Forest Service.
The lower reach is on private lands. There are no developed recreational facilities along the creek.
The portion of Bolster Creek that is on Forest Service administered land has been designated as
having moderate visual significance and "roaded modified" for recreational opportunities. Most of
this drainage is visible from portions of the Toroda-Oroville road (County Road 4895). A number of
private residences are located on the lower reach of Bolster Creek.
3.5 Gold Creek Drainage
Gold Creek flows westward from its headwaters in a narrow valley north of Buckhorn Mountain
approximately 3.5 miles to its confluence with Myers Creek at a point 0.75 miles south of the
Canadian border. The basin drainage area is 3.6 square miles.
3.5.1 Proximity to the One Hundred Year Flood Plain, as Indicated in the Most Recent Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Maps
No flood plain mapping has been conducted on Gold Creek by FEMA. However, with a limited
drainage area and a relatively steep gradient that promotes rapid runoff of storm events, there is
limited potential for flood plain development.
3.5.2 Proximity to Surface Water and Ground Water
Gold Creek is a perennial stream. The mean discharge at the confluence with Myers Creek is
estimated to be in the range of 0.5 cfs to 1.0 cfs. Within the area of the spring and seep sampling
survey, one spring was located along Gold Creek. About 0.35 acres of wetlands occur in the
stream channel areas along the length of the creek. Brook trout and rainbow trout were identified
in Gold Creek during a fish survey. Gold Creek is classified as Class AA by WADOE. Aquifer
testing in the Crown Jewel Project area indicates a connection between surface water and ground
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix K * Ta/l/ngs Site Selection Report » K-7
water. Thus, the depth to ground water will vary seasonally, but is expected to occur at shallow
depths in the valley bottom where alluvium is present. Depth to ground water in bedrock is
controlled by fractures and joints, resulting in highly variable seasonal water table depths.
3.5.3 Topographic Setting
The average channel slope along Bolster Creek is about 10%. Valley side slopes range from about
2H:1Vto3H:1V.
3.5.4 Identifiable Adverse Geologic Conditions, Such as Landslides and Active Faults
The potential site is located within the Okanogan Uplands, a region of historically low seismicity. A
review of geologic mapping in the project area by WADNR and the US Geological Survey did not
reveal any mapped landslide deposits or evidence of recent fault movement.
3.5.5 Visibility Impacts of the Public Generally and Residents More Particularly
In its upper reaches, Gold Creek flows on lands administered by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land
Management, and WADNR. The lower 0.9 miles are on private land. There are no developed
recreational facilities along the creek. Gold Creek is part of the Oroville-Chesaw viewshed, and has
been designated as having moderate visual significance and is classed as a Level 1 Viewshed.
Activities in this area "...must borrow from naturally established form, color or texture at such a
scale that the visual characteristics are those of natural occurrences of the surrounding area." The
Forest Service land is classified as "roaded modified" for recreational opportunities.
3.6 Myers Creek Drainage
Myers Creek is the largest stream in the vicinity of Buckhorn Mountain. It flows in a northerly
direction along the Chesaw valley past the town of Chesaw and into Canada. The channel
meanders through a broad U-shaped valley. The drainage area is approximately 80 square miles.
3.6.1 Proximity to the One Hundred Year Flood Plain, as Indicated in the Most Recent Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Maps
No flood plain mapping has been conducted on Myers Creek by FEMA. However, the broad valley
bottom configuration and large drainage area sets Myers Creek apart from the other drainages
studied in this report. For these reasons, there is greater potential for widespread flooding of low
lying areas adjacent to Myers Creek than would likely occur adjacent to the other drainages in the
area.
3.6.2 Proximity to Surface Water and Ground Water
The mean annual discharge of Myers Creek at its confluence with Ethel Creek has been estimated
to range from 4.17 cfs to 10.37 cfs. Using a prediction equation, mean annual discharge at the
confluence with Gold Creek has been estimated to range from 7.47 cfs to 19.1 cfs. Myers Creek
is classified as Class AA by WADOE. Surface water and ground water in Myers Creek are utilized
for irrigation, domestic and stock water. Water is supplied by surface diversions and wells. As
part of the baseline studies, approximately 27 acres of wetlands have been delineated in the area
to the north of the confluence with Gold Creek. The remainder of the drainage has not been
surveyed as part of the baseline studies, but the Soil Conservation Service has classified the soils
on approximately 75 acres in the Chesaw valley as "Marsh" soil, which would likely qualify as
wetlands. Another study, the National Wetlands Inventory, was Consulted for information on
delineated wetland areas in Myers Creek. Approximately 500 acres of wetlands were estimated
using maps prepared for the inventory. Brook trout and rainbow trout were identified during a fish
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix K * Tailings Site Selection Report + K-8
survey. Aquifer testing in the Crown Jewel Project area indicates a connection between surface
water and ground water. Thus, the depth to ground water will vary seasonally, but is expected to
occur at shallow depths in the valley bottom where alluvium is present. Depth to ground water in
bedrock is controlled by fractures and joints, resulting in highly variable seasonal water table
depths.
3.6.3 Topographic Setting
The channel meanders through a broad U-Shaped glaciated valley with side slopes ranging from
30% to 60%, valley bottom widths of 300 feet to 600 feet and channel gradient of approximately
1.5%.
3.6.4 Identifiable Adverse Geologic Conditions. Such as Landslides and Active Faults
The potential site is located within the Okanogan Uplands, a region of historically low seismicity. A
review of geologic mapping in the Crown Jewel Project area by WADNR and the US Geological
Survey did not reveal any mapped landslide deposits or evidence of recent fault movement.
3.6.5 Visibility Impacts of the Public Generally and Residents More Particularly
The primary land uses along Myers Creek are agricultural, consisting of pasture crops and livestock
grazing. The adjacent land is privately owned. Approximately 90 structures were identified on the
USGS (1988) quad map. Residences are found in the town of Chesaw and at numerous farms.
3.7 Primary Screening Summary
The primary screening phase evaluates the general characteristics of a drainage while the next
step, the technical site investigation phase, evaluates specific sites within a drainage. To
accomplish this step, this report considered certain consequences that are not specified for
consideration in the Act that affect site selection. Use of these additional evaluation aspects
supplements, but does not replace, the requirements of the Act.
For example, the volume of tailings impounded compared to the size (or volume) of the required
impoundment structure is regarded as an important siting consideration. There is a relationship
between the valley gradient, steepness of the valley walls and the size of the embankment
necessary to contain the tailings. This means that a valley with a steep stream gradient and with
narrow steep walls is an undesirable location because it requires a low but lengthy and, ultimately,
massive impoundment structure.
The location of the tailings facility relative to aquatic resources is another example of an important
siting consideration. It is desirable to minimize potential impacts of facility construction and
operation on riparian habitat and fisheries, as well as habitat associated with threatened,
endangered or sensitive plant and wildlife species. Isolation of the tailings facility by proper design
and by selecting a site that is removed from, or minimizes as much as possible, impacts to these
sensitive environments should be one goal of the site selection process.
Another important consideration is minimizing the volume of non-process water that flows into the
tailings facility from the surrounding terrain. Water introduced into the tailings facility during the
operational life of the mine is considered process water and may not be discharged. In most
circumstances, to avoid enlarging the tailings facility to contain this excess water, it would be
desirable to intercept this flow of water and route it back into the drainage downstream of the
operation. The size of the upstream drainage area (catchment area) affects the extent and design
considerations for the interception infrastructure. The infrastructure could require construction of
ditches or channels, detention ponds, drop boxes, or piping. Construction, operating, and
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix K * Tailings Site Selection Report 4 K-9
maintenance costs; the amount of disturbed area dedicated to redirecting water flows; and the
complexity of the structures necessary to redirect the water flows would all increase with an
increase in the size and steepness of the drainage area upstream of a tailings facility.
The information presented in the Primary Screening Phase Drainage Analysis section was used to
evaluate the suitability of drainages or segments of drainages for locating a tailings facility.
Unsuitable drainages or segments of drainages were eliminated from further consideration. Specific
potential sites for locating the tailings facility were identified and carried forward to the next step in
the siting process. The following discusses this evaluation for each drainage.
3.7.1 Marias Creek Drainage
Using the preliminary screening criteria, favorable conditions are predicted to exist for siting a
tailings facility in the upper portions of Marias Creek, particularly near the Crown Jewel Project
area. These conditions include a low valley floor gradient, less steep valley wall sideslopes, and a
small catchment area. Unfavorable conditions were identified for the sections of the valley further
downstream. In these sections the narrow V-shaped valley has sideslopes generally steeper than
2H:1 V. These slopes would require construction of a relatively large embankment.
The lower reach of Marias Creek is perennial, requiring diversion of streamflows around the facility
during operation and possibly after closure. Increased maintenance would be required to prevent
erosion of diversion structures. Although there is access to most of Marias Creek drainage, some
road building and road maintenance would be required if a tailings facility was constructed in the
lower reaches of Marias Creek.
In addition, the presence of fish in the lower reaches of the stream make these reaches much less
attractive. Location of a facility below the upper two miles of the stream would place the facility in
direct proximity to fisheries and greatly increase the potential to impact the fish population. The
possibility of degradation of fish habitat due to diversion of flows and increased sedimentation
would be a concern.
Finally the catchment area for the main stem of Marias Creek immediately above the confluence
with the East Fork (about 1.5 miles below the headwaters) is approximately 900 acres. Any
location downstream of this point will have a contributing area which increases significantly above
1,000 acres, due to the additional contributing area drained by the East Fork, Bear Trap Canyon,
and Bat Canyon. For these reasons, the lower reaches of Marias Creek were not evaluated further.
One potential site for the tailings facility was identified in the Marias Creek drainage. This site is in
the upper reaches of Marias Creek, below the drainage divide with Nicholson Creek. Two
embankments would be required to contain the tailings generated. The facility would disturb about
100 acres. This potential site was evaluated using the technical screening criteria.
3.7.2 Nicholson Creek Drainage
Several sites in the upper reaches of Nicholson Creek would potentially be considered as favorable
locations for the tailings facility by minimizing the upstream drainage area and minimizing the size
of the impoundment structure necessary to contain the volume of tailings generated by mining.
Unfavorable conditions were similar to those identified for the lower segments of Marias Creek.
Location of a facility below the upper 2.6 miles of the stream would place the facility in direct
proximity to fisheries and greatly increase the potential to impact the fish population. The narrow
V-shaped valley has sideslopes steeper than 21-1:1 V. These slopes will require a relatively large
embankment and present access problems, again causing closure difficulties and excessive road
building.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix K * Tailings Site Selection Report • K-10
Finally, the catchment area for the main stream immediately above the confluence with the North
Fork (about 1 mile downstream of the upper reaches) is approximately 950 acres. Any location
downstream of this point will have a contributing area significantly greater than 1,00 acres. For
these reasons, the sections of Nicholson Creek below the confluence with the North Fork were not
evaluated further.
Four potential sites located in the upper reaches of the two branches of Nicholson Creek were
identified for the tailings facility. These potential sites were evaluated using the technical
screening criteria.
3.7.3 Ethel Creek/Lime Creek Drainage
Ethel Creek and Lime Creek are both steep, narrow drainages with valley floor gradients of nearly
10% and valley sideslopes generally steeper than 2H:1 V. Large portions of the Lime Creek and
Ethel Creek drainages are classified as deer winter range by the Forest Service. A tailings disposal
facility in this drainage would be visible from the town of Chesaw and/or County Road 9480. All
drainages on Forest Service administered land on the west side of Buckhorn Mountain are
designated as moderate visual significance, which is a higher level of significance than areas on the
east side of Buckhorn Mountain in the Crown Jewel Project area. Forest Service administered
lands on the west side of Buckhorn Mountain are designated as prime deer winter range and are
closed to all motorized use December 1 to March 31 which would conflict with the construction
and operation of a tailings impoundment. The lower mile of the Lime Creek drainage contains
several residences which would have a much higher potential to be impacted by a facility in Lime
Creek or Ethel Creek. The distance from the Crown Jewel Project to these facilities would make it
infeasible to haul construction material from the mine. Material for the embankment would need to
be borrowed from near the facility, resulting in additional disturbance for borrow pits.
For these reasons, the Lime Creek and Ethel Creek drainages were eliminated from consideration as
potential sites for a tailings facility.
3.7.4 Bolster Creek Drainage
Unsatisfactory conditions identified by the preliminary screening criteria in the Bolster Creek
drainage are essentially identical to those previously identified for Lime Creek and Ethel Creek. The
Bolster Creek drainage is a narrow, steep drainage with stream gradient of approximately 10% and
valley sideslopes generally steeper than 2H:1 V. A facility would be visible from Chesaw and
County Road 9400, which conflicts with the Forest Service moderate visual significance
designation. Additionally, facilities located in these drainages would require motorized access.
Forest Service administrative lands in the South Fork of Bolster Creek are prime deer winter range
and are closed to all motorized use December 1 to March 31.
Private residences in the Bolster Creek drainages increase the possibility of adverse impacts to
people. Additional disturbance would be necessary for borrow material. For these reasons, the
Bolster Creek drainage was not considered further.
3.7.5 Gold Creek Drainage
The Gold Creek drainage is located in the Oroville-Chesaw viewshed, which is an area classified by
the Forest Service as a Level 1 Viewshed. A tailings disposal facility would conflict with the
requirement that modifications blend in with the existing form, color and texture. The stream
valley is steep, narrow and V-shaped, with stream gradients of 10% and sideslopes approaching
21-1:1 V. The upper portion of the watershed is designated as deer winter range by the Forest
Service and is closed to motorized access December 1 to March 31. Soils in the lower reaches are
characterized by large highly permeable aeolian and alluvial deposits unsuitable for tailings facility
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix K * Tailings Site Selection Report + K-11
siting. A facility in the Gold Creek drainage would require pumping of tailings and return solution
over Buckhorn Mountain.
Private residences along lower Gold Creek increase the possibility of adverse impacts to people.
For these reasons, the Gold Creek drainage was eliminated from consideration as a potential site
for a tailings facility.
3.7.6 Myers Creek Drainage
There are numerous unsatisfactory siting issues associated with locating a tailings disposal facility
in the Myers Creek valley, of which the most obvious are close proximity to the town of Chesaw
and to domestic water supplies. The large catchment area (up to 80 square miles) would
necessitate either a major stream diversion or construction of a ring dike facility away from Myers
Creek. Any location in the valley would place the facility in immediate proximity to fisheries and
beneficial water uses.
All of the ownership in Myers Creek is private and includes numerous residences. This greatly
increases the potential for adverse visual and environmental impacts on local residents. The Myers
Creek substrate consist of highly permeable alluvial and aeolian deposits which would act as a
direct conduit for any spill or leaks to the ground water table, which is only a few feet below the
surface in most areas.
The size of the valley and relatively large drainage area make the construction of a cross-valley
tailings facility infeasible. A tailings disposal facility in Myers Creek would require a side-valley or
ring dike facility. A side-valley facility in Myers Creek would require construction of an
embankment on three sides. A ring dike would require construction of an embankment on all sides.
These facilities require much larger volumes of embankment material per volume of tailings. This
would result in a larger disturbance area for the facility itself and in larger additional disturbances to
excavate the embankment material. In addition, due to the large embankment volume, these
facilities are much more susceptible to leakage, embankment failure, and erosion.
For these reasons, the Myers Creek valley was eliminated from consideration as a potential site for
a tailings facility.
3.8 Primary Screening Results
Based on the primary screening analysis, the following areas were eliminated from further
consideration:
• Marias Creek below the confluence with the East Fork;
• Nicholson Creek below the confluence with the North Fork;
• Ethel Creek/Lime Creek;
• Bolster Creek;
• Gold Creek; and,
• Myers Creek/Chesaw.
The primary screening phase identified five potential sites for locating a tailings facility to carry
forward into the technical site investigation phase:
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix K * Tailings Site Selection Report • K-12
• Upper Marias Creek;
• North Nicholson Creek;
• South Nicholson Creek;
• Upper South Nicholson Creek; and,
• Lower South Nicholson Creek.
These sites are located on Figure K-2, Tailings Facility Options, of this report.
4.0 TECHNICAL SITE INVESTIGATION
After consideration of the available information in the preliminary screening phase, as summarized
above, the next step required in the site selection process is a technical site investigation to verify
the adequacy of the remaining potential sites. Five potential tailings sites were evaluated using the
criteria specified by law.
4.1 Marias Creek Location
This facility would be located within the upper reaches of Marias Creek. The facility would trend
north-south with the upstream (north) end just below the saddle separating the Nicholson Creek
and Marias Creek drainages. Two embankments would be required. The main embankment would
have a downstream toe to crest height of 240 feet and a crest length of approximately 1,500 feet.
The secondary embankment would be located at the upstream end of the facility. The final crest
elevation would have a downstream toe to crest height of 95 feet and a crest length of
approximately 1,200 feet.
The valley is dominated by forest. The facility would disturb approximately 100 acres.
Approximately 1.5 miles of access and haul roads would be required to support this facility.
Tailings can be transported by gravity for all but a short time near the end of the facility's life when
pumping would be required.
4.1.1 Soil Characteristics
The site is underlain by loose and dense glacial tills, which are suitable subsoils for the tailings
facility construction. Suitable construction materials have been identified on-site, within the
footprint of the facility. However, an additional borrow site will be required in 1:h£ Upper Nicholson
Creek drainage.
4.1.2 Hydrologic Characteristics
The valley gradient is about 5%. The tailings disposal facility is located in the upper portion of the
Marias Creek drainage in an area of intermittent flow. This was the only site to have this distinct
advantage. Approximately 2.46 acres of wetlands were identified within the footprint of a facility
at this location. The general area, other than the wetlands, is not considered to be critical wildlife
or fish habitat and is not a sensitive or unique ecosystem.
4.1.3 Local and Structural Geology Evaluation, Including Seismic Conditions and Related
Geotechnical Investigations
The Crown Jewel Project is located in the Okanogan Uplands, which is a region of historically low
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix K * Tailings Site Selection Report • K-13
seismicity. The largest recorded seismic events in the area of the proposed Crown Jewel Project
site are magnitude 6.0. The closest of these occurred at a distance of 84 miles from the Crown
Jewel Project site. A maximum credible earthquake of 6.0 has been estimated for the site.
All the sites are near a fault zone. Geologic data indicate no movement along this fault zone since
44 million years before the present. Sediments in the area do not exhibit surface evidence
(escarpments, truncations, etc.) which would indicate relatively recent fault activity. Current
seismic data indicate a lack of any moderate or strong seismic activity in the area.
4.1.4 Surface Water Control Analysis
The upstream drainage area is approximately 280 acres. This is a small drainage area, easily
manageable through appropriate engineering design. The upstream drainage would require
diversion around the facility during the operational phase. This would necessitate channelization of
upstream flows and diversion to the existing stream channel downstream of the facility.
4.1.5 Slope Stability Analysis
The sideslopes range from 1.9H:1 V to 3.3H:1 V. The topography in the area is not too steep for a
tailings facility.
4.2 North Nicholson Location
A tailings facility at this site would disturb about 120 acres. One embankment would be required
which would span the valley from northeast to southwest with a crest length of approximately
2,100 feet. The embankment would be 320 feet high to contain the volume of tailings. The site is
about 1.5 miles from the mill, requiring a long tailings transport line, a fail safe system for capturing
tails from possible transport line facility from the mill, requiring pumping stations to pump the
tailings to the impoundment. A minimum of four miles of access roads and haul roads would also
be required for operation and maintenance of this facility.
4.2.1 Soil Characteristics
Soils inventories performed by the Forest Service indicated that the soils in this area are similar to
those which were mapped in Marias Creek and the South Fork of Nicholson Creek. The soils
immediately to the west are predominately deep and well drained with slight to moderate erosion
potential. If the assumption is made that the soils are similar to the mapped areas, the foundation
conditions are considered suitable for tailings construction. The construction of the required 320
foot high embankment for this facility would require a borrow site for some of the construction
materials. Suitable construction materials have been identified in the vicinity, although a specific
borrow site has not been identified. The borrow site would create a substantial disturbance in an
area close to the facility.
4.2.2 Hydrologic Characteristics
The average valley gradient is approximately 10%. The stream is perennial in this reach and would
require diversion around the facility. Streamflow data have been collected monthly since July
1992 at a point about one-half mile upstream of this site. These data indicate that for the period
of record a maximum streamflow of 0.49 cfs has been recorded with a minimum no flow (0.0 cfs).
The average maximum streamflow is 0.33 cfs with an average minimum flow of less than 0.01
cfs. Approximately 1.6 acres of wetlands have been identified to occur within the footprint of a
facility at this location. Indirect impacts to wetlands above and below the facility are possible.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix K * Tailings Site Selection Report • K-14
4.2.3 Local and Structural Geology Evaluation. Including Seismic Conditions and Related
Geotechnical Investigations
The Crown Jewel Project is located in the Okanogan Uplands, which is a region of historically low
seismicity. The largest recorded seismic events in the area of the proposed Crown Jewel Project
site are magnitude 6.0. The closest of these occurred at a distance of 84 miles from the Crown
Jewel Project site. A maximum credible earthquake of 6.0 has been estimated for the site.
All the sites are near a fault zone. Geologic data indicate no movement along this fault zone since
44 million years before the present. Sediments in the area do not exhibit surface evidence
(escarpments, truncations, etc.) which would indicate relatively recent fault activity. Current
seismic data indicate a lack of any moderate or strong seismic activity in the area.
4.2.4 Surface Water Control Analysis
The drainage area above the facility is 745 acres. The upstream drainage would require diversion
around the facility during its operational phase. This would necessitate channelization of upstream
flows and diversion back into the existing stream channel downstream of the facility. The difficulty
in accomplishing this is related to the runoff flow and volume generated by the design storm, the
catchment area, the steepness of the terrain, and the elevation differences involved. A large
embankment for this site would have a downstream tow to crest height of 320 feet. Due to the
high embankment height, the flows would have to travel through a protected channel and drop the
320 feet from the top of the facility to the stream below in a relatively short distance. This would
require a very steep and expensive channel utilizing drop structures of other protective measures.
The potential for erosion in man-made channels and at the confluence with the existing channel is
directly related to flow volumes and velocities. The large volume, due to the large catchment area,
and high velocities, due to the steep slope, combine to produce increased erosion. There would
also be increased maintenance and an increased risk of failure associated with such a spillway.
4.2.5 Slope Stability Analysis
Sideslopes range from 2.5H:1 V to 6H:1 V. No evidence of slope instability, such as landslides,
were identified from geologic mapping in the area.
4.3 South Nicholson Location
This option would disturb about 122 acres. A tailings facility at this site would require one
embankment which would cross the Nicholson Creek valley from the southeast to the northwest.
The embankment crest would be 2,300 feet long, with a downstream tow to crest height of about
315 feet. About 4.3 miles of haul roads and access roads would be required for this facility.
Approximately 8,300 feet of tailings slurry pipeline would be required with a fail safe system for
capturing tails from possible transport line failures, and decant water return pump stations and
pipelines would be required.
4.3.1 Soil Characteristics
The soils in the area consist of deep well drained glacial till. These gravelly loam soils are similar to
those soils found in the area of the Marias facility and are considered suitable for tailings
construction. Suitable construction materials have been identified on-site.
4.3.2 Hydrologic Characteristics
The average stream gradient is approximately 8%. The stream is perennial in this reach.
Streamflow data have been collected monthly since July 1992 at a point about one-half mile
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix K * Tailings Site Selection Report • K-15
upstream of this site. These data indicate that for the period of record a maximum streamflow of
1.3 cfs has been record with a minimum flow of 0.04 cfs. The average maximum streamflow is
0.78 cfs with and average minimum of 0.06 cfs. About 2.46 acres of wetlands have been
identified within the footprint of a facility at this location. In addition, there are wetlands above
and below the facility that could be indirectly impacted.
4.3.3 Local and Structural Geology Evaluation, Including Seismic Conditions and Related
Geotechnical Investigations
The Crown Jewel Project is located in the Okanogan Uplands, which is a region of historically low
seismicity. The largest recorded seismic events in the area of the proposed Crown Jewel Project
site are magnitude 6.0. The closest of these occurred at a distance of 84 miles from the Crown
Jewel Project site. A maximum credible earthquake of 6.0 has been estimated for the site.
All the sites are near a fault zone. Geologic data indicated no movement along this fault zone since
44 million years before the present. Sediments in the area do not exhibit surface evidence
(escarpments, truncations, etc.) which would indicate relatively recent fault activity. Current
seismic data indicate a lack of any moderate or strong seismic activity in the area.
4.3.4 Surface Water Control Analysis
The upstream drainage area is about 625 acres. This is a large drainage area, but not
unmanageable through appropriate design. The upstream drainage would require diversion around
the facility during the operational phase. This would necessitate channelization of upstream flows
and diversion back into the existing stream channel downstream of the facility. The smaller
catchment area and less steep topography make diversions at this location substantially easier and
less costly than the North Nicholson location. Closure of this facility could be accomplished
relatively easily by redirecting the drainage across the tailings surface to the east, combining it with
the diversion channel around the facility, directing it along the valley side to Nicholson Creek below
the facility. Since the valley is not excessively steep in this area, and the embankment is situated
fairly far up the drainage, a suitable spillway could be developed.
4.3.5 Slope Stability Analysis
The valley sideslopes at this site range from about 2.5H:1 V to 6H:1 V. The topography of the area
is not too steep for a tailings disposal facility. No evidence of slope instability, such as landslides,
were identified from geologic mapping in the area.
4.4 Upper South Nicholson Location
This facility would be located in the upper reaches of South Nicholson Creek, immediately east of
the proposed mill. About 178 acres would be disturbed by a tailings disposal facility at this site.
Three embankments would be required to contain the expected 9.1 million tons of tailings. The
main embankment would have a downstream toe to crest height of 320 feet. The embankment
would span the Nicholson Creek valley from north to south with a crest length of 2,600 feet. The
secondary embankments would be located to the north and south of the main embankment. The
south embankment would confine tailings north of Marias Creek. This embankment would be 87
feet high and 1,200 feet in length. The north embankment would be located approximately 1,000
feet north of the main embankment and would be approximately 50 feet high with a crest length of
approximately 600 feet.
4.4.1 Soil Characteristics
This site is underlain by a thick layer of unconsolidated glacial till. This type of till would not
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix K * Tailings Site Selection Report • K-16
provide a suitable foundation for a tailings facility and would require removal during construction.
Borrow sites for construction materials are required for this alternative because the necessary
materials can not be found entirely within the footprint of the facility.
4.4.2 Hydrologic Characteristics
This facility would be located at the head of two drainage basins. Nicholson Creek is perennial in
this reach. Streamflow data have been collected monthly since July 1992 at this site. These data
indicate that for the period of record a maximum streamflow of 1.3 cfs has been recorded with a
minimum of 0.06 cfs. The valley gradient is approximately 6%. Approximately 8.28 acres of
wetlands would be directly impacted by this facility. In addition, there are wetlands below the area
of the facility. Given this large area of wetlands, the general area is considered to be a sensitive or
unique ecosystem.
4.4.3 Local and Structural Geology Evaluation, Including Seismic Conditions and Related
Geotechnical Investigations
The Crown Jewel Project is located in the Okanogan Uplands, which is a region of historically low
seismicity. The largest recorded seismic events in the area of the proposed Crown Jewel Project
site are magnitude 6.0. The closest of these occurred at a distance of 84 miles from the Crown
Jewel Project site. A maximum credible earthquake of 6.0 has been estimated for the site.
All the sites are near a fault zone. Geologic data indicate no movement along this fault zone since
44 million years before the present. Sediments in the area do not exhibit surface evidence
(escarpments, truncations, etc.) which would indicate relatively recent fault activity. Current
seismic data indicate a lack of any moderate or strong seismic activity in the area.
4.4.4 Surface Water Control Analysis
The upstream drainage area is approximately 435 acres. The Roosevelt adit drains directly into the
area, and would have to be diverted or otherwise rerouted. The upstream drainage would require
diversion around the facility during its operational phase. This would necessitate channelization of
upstream flows and diversion to the existing stream channel downstream of the facility. Given the
relatively small catchment area and moderate topography, diverting upstream flows would not be
difficult at this location.
4.4.5 Slope Stability Analysis
The topography is gentle and acceptable for a tailings facility, with sideslopes ranging from
2.51-1:1 V to 7.5H:1 V. The soils in the area consist of loose glacial tills which are considered
unsuitable for containment purposes and would require removal during construction and increased
engineering design requirements.
4.5 Lower South Nicholson Location
The facility would disturb approximately 176 acres. One large embankment would be required
which would have a final downstream toe to crest height of 370 feet. The embankment would
span the valley from northwest to southeast with a crest length of approximately 1,900 feet.
Operational components would be the same as those required for the other facilities. Construction
of approximately 4.2 miles of haul road and access road would be required and 18,000 feet of
pipeline would be required to transport tailings to this facility and return reclaim water.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix K * Tailings Site Selection Report 4 K-17
4.5.1 Soil Characteristics
Soils in the area were not mapped. Assuming that the soils are similar to the areas that were
mapped, the foundation conditions are considered suitable for tailings construction. Suitable
construction materials have not been identified on-site within the footprint of the facility.
Therefore, a borrow site would be required.
4.5.2 Hydrologic Characteristics
The average valley gradient is about 9%. The stream is perennial in this reach. Streamflow data
have been collected monthly since July 1992 at a point about one mile upstream of this site.
These data indicate that for the period of record a maximum streamflow of 1.3 cfs has been
recorded with a minimum flow of 0.04 cfs. The average maximum streamfiow is 0.78 cfs with an
average minimum of 0.06 cfs. Streamflow measurements are also collected monthly since October
1990 at a point about one-half mile downstream of this site. This monitoring location measures
combined flow from North and South Nicholson Creek. These data indicate that for the period of
record a maximum streamflow of 2.53 cfs has been recorded with a minimum flow of less than
0.01 cfs. Approximately 0.21 acres of wetlands were identified within the footprint of a facility at
this location. In addition, there are wetlands above and below the facility. The site is lower in the
drainage and therefore closer to fish populations located in Lower Nicholson Creek.
4.5.3 Local and Structural Geology Evaluation, Including Seismic Conditions and Related
Geotechnical Investigations
The Crown Jewel Project is located in the Okanogan Uplands, which is a region of historically low
seismicity. The largest recorded seismic events in the area of the proposed Crown Jewel Project
site are magnitude 6.0. The closest of these occurred at a distance of 84 miles from the Crown
Jewel Project site. A maximum credible earthquake of 6.0 has been estimated for the site.
All the sites are near a fault zone. Geologic data indicate no movement along this fault zone since
44 million years before the present. Sediments in the area do not exhibit surface evidence
(escarpments, truncations, etc.) which would indicate relatively recent fault activity. Current
seismic data indicate a lack of any moderate or strong seismic activity in the area.
4.5.4 Surface Water Control Analysis
The upstream drainage area is approximately 950 acres. The upstream drainage would require
diversion around the facility during its operational phase. This would necessitate channelization of
upstream flows and diversion to the existing stream channel downstream of the facility. The
closeness of the large embankment to the confluence of the North and South Nicholson tributaries
would require that the spillway be short and steep. The flows would have to travel through a
protected channel and drop the 400 feet from the top of the facility to the stream below. A
distance constraint would be imposed by the closeness of the embankment to the confluence of
the tributary with North Nicholson Creek as mentioned above. This would require a very steep and
expensive channel utilizing drop structures or other protective measures.
4.5.5 Slope Stability Analysis
The sideslopes range from 1.9H:1 V to 8.9H:1 V. For the most part, the topography in the area is
not too steep for a tailings disposal facility although the steep stream gradient requires a large
embankment.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix K * Tailings Site Selection Report • K-18
4.6 Technical Site Investigation Summary
4.6.1 Marias Creek Location
Access would be relatively easy for this alternative. In addition to being located second closest to
the ore body, this alternative would require the least embankment and infrastructure construction
effort due to the smaller embankments and close borrow materials. The proximity of this location
to the mill and its requirement for only 1.5 miles of access and haul roads reduces the potential for
a pipeline failure and release of tailings slurry. The construction and maintenance efforts would be
considerably lower for this alternative than the others. The site is located at the top of the
drainage where the stream is intermittent. As a result, the upstream drainage area is the smallest
of all the potential sites and it requires the least infrastructure for diversions around the facility.
This site was carried forward for additional evaluation in the tailings siting process.
4.6.2 North Nicholson Creek Location
This site has complex infrastructure requirements due to the distance from the mill and topographic
impediments. To overcome these conditions requires extensive road construction and installation
of additional pumping stations. There is an inherent risk of contamination to surface and ground
water resources as a result of this additional infrastructure which increases with distance from the
mill site. Based on the type and depth of soil at the site, the foundation conditions are considered
adequate to construct the embankment. Similarly, the sideslope topography is not too steep for a
tailings disposal facility. The valley gradient, at an average of 10%, is the steepest of all the
potential sites. This steep gradient requires a higher embankment to contain the volume of tailings
generated. The steep gradient coupled with the relatively large catchment area (second largest of
all the potential sites) and the presence of a perennial stream leads to design, construction and
maintenance complexities relating to routing of streamflow and storm water runoff around the
tailings facility. This location was dropped from further consideration.
4.6.3 South Nicholson Creek Location
The site has some characteristics of the North Nicholson site. However, in contrast to the North
Nicholson facility, this location for a tailings facility would not require the intricacy of a large
tailings pumping system, and since it is located near the mill site, would require less infrastructure
and construction disturbance. The valley is broad in this area, with relatively flat sideslopes and a
moderate stream gradient. These characteristics are adequate for siting a tailings facility. The
footprint (disturbed area) for this site is about the same as the North Nicholson site, and less than
the Upper South Nicholson or the Lower South Nicholson sites. This site was carried forward for
additional evaluation in the tailings siting process.
4.6.4 Upper South Nicholson Location
This potential tailings disposal site is the closest to the mill site. Access would not be a problem
for this location. Due to its proximity to the mill site, a minimal amount of piping and other
infrastructure would be required to access and operate this facility. The necessity for three
embankments to contain the tailings would increase the design, construction, and maintenance
requirements. The upstream drainage area is moderate. The topography in the area is not too
steep for a tailings facility. This site is not as heavily forested as the other potential sites.
However, the large trees and shrubs and relatively flat topography would provide good screening
capability. This facility would have the greatest impact on wetlands of all potential sites and would
eliminate a sensitive ecosystem. This facility would also cause the greatest area of surface
disturbance. The soils consist of loose glacial till material which would require removal during
construction.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix K * Tailings Site Selection Report + K-19
The wetlands impacts, size of disturbed area, the large amount of excavation of glacial deposits
and a complex infrastructure requirements of three embankments cause this site to be eliminated
from further investigation.
4.6.5 Lower South Nicholson Location
In addition to being located the furthest from the ore body, this alternative would require the
largest embankments and infrastructure construction effort of the five locations considered. The
maintenance requirements would be considerably higher for this alternative than the others. The
drainage area of 950 acres is the largest of all potential sites. Combined with the perennial
character of the stream at this location, a large and extensive water management system to route
streamflow around the facility would be necessary. This site would cause the second largest area
of surface disturbance of all the alternatives considered. This site was not considered further in
the tailings site selection process.
5.0 INTEGRATION WITH SEPA AND NEPA
Neither the Preliminary Screening phase of the siting analysis nor the Technical Site Investigation
phase identified issues of concern which would constitute a fatal flaw for locating a tailings
disposal facility in either Marias Creek or at the South Nicholson Creek site. Either of the two sites
would accomplish the objectives of the Proponent's application relating to mining and milling
operations. Construction of a tailings facility at either of these sites is technically feasible and
would result in a suitably sized facility.
According to Washington State law, tailings site selection criteria include, but are not limited to,
the prescribed criteria. The Marias Creek site and the South Nicholson site are selected for further
analysis using additional criteria established by the SEPA and NEPA environmental process.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
KETTLE VALLEY
BRIT/SH COLUMBIA
WASHINGTON
LEGEND
CROWN JEWEL PROJECT SITE
| OKANOGAN NATIONAL FOREST
CREEKS / CANYONS
ROADS
FIGURE K-1,
REGIONAL SCREENING AREAS
FILENAME CJK-1DWG
-------
NORTH
NICHOLSON
TAILINGS
LOWER SOUTH
NICHOLSON TAILINGS
UPPER SOUTH
NICHOLSON
TAILINGS
SOUTH NICHOLSON
TAILINGS
TAILINGS
LEGEND
•* M!N! Pi I ARf A
/ ) T AH INGS AHE A otn-on UOUNOARV
\
FIGURE K-2, TAILINGS FACILITY OPTIONS
------- |