Prepared for:
300R05900D
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
-------
APPENDIX L
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT FOR THE DRAFT EIS
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
1.0 INTRODUCTION L-1
2.0 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES L-2
2.1 PUBLIC NOTICES AND NEWS RELEASES L-2
2.2 PUBLIC MEETINGS L-2
2.3 SITE TOURS L-2
2.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS L-2
2.5 NEWSLETTERS L-3
2.6 SPANISH SUMMARY L-3
3.0 COMMENT STATISTICS L-4
4.0 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS L-6
4.1 AIR QUALITY L-6
General L-6
Emission Estimates L-6
Background Data L-6
Miscellaneous L-6
4.2 GEOCHEMISTRY L-6
General L-6
Geochemical Testing Procedures and Data L-6
Geochemistry of Waste Rock Disposal Areas L-7
Pit Water Quality Impacts L-7
Geochemistry of Ore Stockpile L-7
Geochemistry of Tailings Disposal Area L-7
Operational Monitoring and Mitigation of Potential Geochemical Impacts L-7
Comparison to Other Mines L-7
Miscellaneous Comments L-7
4.3 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS L-7
General L-7
Tailings Dam Stability L-7
Tailings Facility Impoundment and Operation L-8
Miscellaneous L-8
4.4 SOILS L-8
General L-8
Soil Availability L-8
Soil Suitability L-8
Erosion Rate Calculations L-8
RUSLE "C" Factor L-8
Contamination of Aquifer Through "Well Drained" Soils L-8
4.5 HYDROLOGY L-8
Climatology L-8
Surface Water Hydrology L-9
Ground Water Hydrology L-9
Water Quality L-9
Water Supply and Water Rights L-10
4.6 VEGETATION L-10
General L-10
Sensitive Plants L-10
Range L-10
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS 4 L-ii
Plant BE L-10
Policy Issues L-10
Miscellaneous L-10
4.7 WETLANDS L-10
General L-10
Wetlands Mitigation L-11
Wetlands Impacts L-11
Indirect Wetlands Impacts L-11
4.8 FISH AND AQUATIC RESOURCES L-11
General L-11
Myers Creek Diversion L-11
Starrem Reservoir L-11
Impacts on Marias and Nicholson Creeks L-11
Downstream Impacts to Toroda Creek and Kettle River Resources L-11
Monitoring and Mitigation Plans L-12
Impacts on Native American Tribal Treaty Rights L-12
Other Comments L-12
4.9 WILDLIFE L-12
General L-12
Toxics L-12
Habitat L-12
Deer Issues L-12
Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species L-13
Habitat Evaluation Procedure L-13
Methods L-13
Noise Impacts L-13
Miscellaneous L-13
Mitigation and Monitoring L-13
4.10 NOISE L-14
General L-14
Regulatory Limits L-14
Background Noise and Mechanical Noise Distinctions L-14
Modeling Methods and Noise Levels L-14
Miscellaneous Noise Effects L-14
4.11 RECREATION L-14
General L-14
Impacts on Beth and Beaver Lakes L-14
Loss of Recreational Income L-15
Diminished Value of Recreation Resources L-15
Data on Projected Camping L-15
Recreational Value of the Post-Mining Lake Formation L-15
Impacts on Hunting and Fishing L-15
4.12 SCENIC RESOURCES L-1 5
General L-15
Forest Service Scenic Management System L-15
Impacts of Project-Related Dust on Visibility L-15
Impacts of Project Lighting L-15
Visual Impacts from Other Viewpoints L-15
Viewpoint Photographs L-16
4.13 HERITAGE RESOURCES L-16
General L-16
Traditional Use and Traditional Cultural Properties L-16
Treaty Rights and Issues L-16
Policy Issues L-16
Graves and Burials L-16
Religion L-16
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-iii
Miscellaneous L-16
4.14 TRANSPORTATION L-17
General L-17
Hazardous Materials Transport L-17
Accidents L-17
Maintenance Responsibilities and Liabilities L-17
Average Daily Traffic L-17
Miscellaneous L-17
4.1 5 LAND USE/RECLAMATION L-17
General L-17
Compliance with Reclamation Regulations L-17
Loss of Biodiversity, Low Stocking Rates L-18
Long-Term Reclamation Monitoring L-18
Patenting L-18
Other Comments L-18
4.16 SOCIOECONOMICS L-18
General L-18
Population, Housing & Land Use L-18
Employment & Income L-18
Community & Public Services L-18
Fiscal Effects L-19
Social Values L-19
Quality of Life L-19
Tourism L-19
Health Care L-19
Divided Community L-19
Agency Credibility L-19
Domestic Water Supply L-19
Effects on Landfills L-19
Historic Mining L-19
4.17 ACCIDENTS AND SPILLS L-20
General L-20
Effects/Consequences of Release L-20
Response and Cleanup L-20
Other Comments L-20
4.18 MISCELLANEOUS L-20
General L-20
EIS Content and Preparation L-20
Alternatives and Project Components L-20
Regulatory Compliance L-20
Future Project Expansion L-21
Other Comments L-21
Policy Issues L-21
4.19 MONITORING L-21
General L-21
Responsibility and Oversight of Monitoring L-21
Monitoring Plan Details L-21
4.20 BONDING/PERFORMANCE SECURITIES L-21
General L-21
Performance Security Details L-21
Proponent Bankruptcy and/or Site Abandonment L-22
Miscellaneous L-22
4.21 MITIGATION L-22
General L-22
Suitability and Effectiveness of Mitigation L-22
Details of Mitigation L-22
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-iv
Other Comments L-22
Policy Issues L-22
4.22 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS L-23
General L-23
Effects on Hydrology L-23
Future Mining L-23
Miscellaneous Cumulative Effects L-23
5.0 LIST OF RESPONDENTS TO THE DRAFT EIS L-24
5.1 FEDERAL AGENCIES L-24
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers L-24
U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management L-24
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency L-24
U.S. Bureau of Mines L-24
U.S.D.I. Bureau of Indian Affairs L-24
Federal Officials L-24
5.2 WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES L-24
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife L-24
Washington Department of Natural Resources L-24
Washington Department of Community Trade and Economic Development . . . L-24
Washington State Officials L-25
5.3 COUNTY AGENCIES L-25
5.4 MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS L-25
5.5 TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS L-25
5.6 PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS L-25
5.7 GENERAL PUBLIC - PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES L-27
5.8 CANADIAN GOVERNMENT L-50
6.0 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES L-52
6.1 AIR QUALITY L-52
General L-52
Emission Estimates L-52
Background Data L-54
Miscellaneous L-55
6.2 GEOCHEMISTRY L-58
General L-58
Geochemical Testing Procedures and Data L-59
Geochemistry of Waste Rock Disposal Areas L-62
Pit Water Quality Impacts L-63
Geochemistry of Ore Stockpile L-64
Geochemistry of Tailings Disposal Area L-65
Operational Monitoring and Mitigation of Potential Geochemical Impacts L-66
Comparison to Other Mines L-67
Miscellaneous Comments L-67
6.3 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS L-68
General L-68
Tailings Dam Stability L-69
Tailings Impoundment Design and Operation L-69
Miscellaneous L-69
6.4 SOILS L-72
General L-72
Soil Availability L-72
Soil Suitability L-72
Erosion Rate Calculations L-73
RUSLE "C" Factor L-74
Contamination of Aquifer Through "Well Drained" Soils L-74
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-v
6.5 HYDROLOGY L-74
Climatology L-74
Surface Water Hydrology L-76
Ground Water Hydrology L-80
Water Quality L-85
Water Supply and Water Rights L-91
6.6 VEGETATION L-95
General L-95
Sensitive Plants L-95
Range L-97
Plant BE L-98
Policy Issues L-99
Miscellaneous L-101
6.7 WETLANDS L-103
General L-103
Wetlands Mitigation L-103
Wetland Impacts L-105
Indirect Wetlands Impacts L-106
6.8 FISH AND AQUATIC RESOURCES L-109
General L-109
Myers Creek Diversion L-109
Starrem Reservoir L-109
Impacts to Marias and Nicholson Creeks L-110
Downstream Impacts to Toroda Creek and Kettle River Resources L-112
Monitoring and Mitigation Plans L-112
Impacts on Native American Tribal Treaty Rights L-113
Other Comments L-113
6.9 WILDLIFE L-116
General L-116
Toxics L-116
Habitat L-123
Deer Issues L-131
Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species L-135
Habitat Evaluation Procedure L-142
Methods ' L-147
Noise Impacts L-148
Miscellaneous L-151
Mitigation and Monitoring L-161
6.10 NOISE L-165
General L-165
Regulatory Limits L-166
Background Noise and Mechanical Noise Distinctions L-166
Modeling Methods and Noise Levels L-167
Miscellaneous Noise Effects L-168
6.11 RECREATION L-168
General L-168
Impacts on Beth and Beaver Lakes L-169
Loss of Recreational Income L-169
Diminished Value of Recreation Resources L-170
Data on Projected Camping L-170
Recreational Value of the Post-Mining Lake Formation L-171
Impacts on Hunting and Fishing L-171
6.12 SCENIC RESOURCES L-172
General L-172
Forest Service Scenic Management System L-172
Impacts of Project-Related Dust on Visibility L-172
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS 4 L-vi
Impacts of Project Lighting L-172
Visual Impacts from Other Viewpoints L-172
Viewpoint Photographs L-173
6.13 HERITAGE RESOURCES L-174
General L-174
Traditional Use and Traditional Cultural Properties L-174
Treaty Rights and Issues L-174
Policy Issues L-177
Graves and Burials L-178
Miscellaneous L-179
6.14 TRANSPORTATION L-180
General L-180
Hazardous Materials Transport L-180
Accidents L-181
Maintenance Responsibilities and Liabilities L-184
Average Daily Traffic L-184
Miscellaneous L-186
6.15 LAND USE/RECLAMATION L-190
General L-190
Compliance with Reclamation Regulations L-190
Loss of Biodiversity, Low Stocking Rate L-193
Long-Term Reclamation Monitoring L-196
Patenting L-197
Other Comments L-198
6.16 SOCIOECONOMICS L-202
General L-202
Population, Housing & Land Use L-202
Employment & Income L-202
Community & Public Services L-203
Fiscal Effects L-203
Social Values L-204
Quality of Life L-204
Tourism L-204
Health Care L-204
Divided Community L-205
Agency Credibility L-205
Domestic Water Supply L-205
Effects on Landfills L-205
Historic Mining L-206
6.17 ACCIDENTS AND SPILLS L-206
General L-206
Effects/Consequences of Release L-207
Response and Cleanup L-207
Other Comments L-208
6.18 MISCELLANEOUS L-210
General L-210
EIS Content and Preparation L-211
Alternatives and Project Components L-213
Regulatory Compliance L-219
Future Project Expansion L-222
Other Comments L-222
Policy Issues L-234
6.19 MONITORING L-238
General L-238
Responsibility and Oversight of Monitoring L-238
Monitoring Plan Details L-240
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-vii
6.20 BONDING/PERFORMANCE SECURITIES L-245
General L-245
Performance Security Details L-246
Proponent Bankruptcy and/or Site Abandonment L-247
Miscellaneous L-248
6.21 MITIGATION L-249
General L-249
Suitability and Effectiveness of Mitigation L-249
Details of Mitigation L-252
Other Comments L-254
Policy Issues L-255
6.22 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS L-258
General L-258
Effects on Hydrology L-258
Future Mining L-259
Miscellaneous Cumulative Effects L-260
7.0 COPIES OF LETTERS FROM AGENCIES, INDIAN TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS,
AND ELECTED OFFICIALS L-262
7.1 FEDERAL AGENCIES .- L-262
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers L-262
U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management L-262
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency L-262
Federal Elected Officials L-262
7.2 WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES L-262
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife L-262
Washington Department of Natural Resources L-262
Washington State Elected Officials L-262
7.3 LOCAL/COUNTY AGENCIES L-263
7.4 TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS L-263
7.5 CANADIAN GOVERNMENT L-263
REFERENCES L-264
LIST OF TABLES
Number Title Page No.
L-1 Comment Origin Information L-4
L-2 Comment Discipline Breakdown L-5
LIST OF EXHIBITS
A Copies of Letters From Agencies, Indian Tribal Governments, and Elected Officials
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • £-7
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This appendix documents Forest Service and WADOE activities to involve and consult the public in
preparing the final EIS for the Crown Jewel Project.
Information in this appendix includes:
Summary of Public Involvement Activity - Section 2.0
This section documents public notices, meetings conducted, and the comment period associated with
the review of the draft EIS.
Comment Statistics - Section 3.0
This section presents the number and origin of comments and summarizes the number of comments
by subject area.
Summary of Comments - Section 4.0
Section 4.0, Summary of Comments, of this document summarizes, by discipline, all the comments
received on the draft EIS. Due to the vast number of individual comments received (over 11,500), not
all comments are specifically represented in this section; however, this section provides the reader with
the general nature of the comments received.
List of Respondents to the Draft ElS-Section 5.0
This section provides a listing of the comment sources (federal, state and local agencies, general
public, Canadian government, etc.)
Summary of Responses - Section 6.0
Section 6.0, Summary of Responses, of this appendix further breaks down the comments listed in
Section 4.0, Summary of Comments, and provides detailed responses. Since many of the comments
received on the draft EIS focused on the same theme, this section has been developed to avoid
redundancy. As in the Summary of Comments section, not all the comments received are specifically
addressed; this is due to the vast number of individual comments received. However, it is believed
that all substantive comments, are addressed in this section. Substantive comments are defined as
those comments pertaining to the adequacy of the draft EIS and associated documents or the merits
of the alternatives. Substantive comments do not include expressions of general belief, opinions, or
votes. All individual comments are addressed in a background document available for review at the
Forest Service office in Tonasket, Washington and the WADOE offices in Yakima and Olympia,
Washington.
Copies of Letters from Agencies, Indian Tribal Governments, and Elected Officials - Section
7.0
Copies of the letters received from federal, state, and local agencies, Indian tribal governments, and
elected officials are contained in this section.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-2
2.0 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES
The Crown Jewel Mine draft EIS was filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on June
23, 1995. The Notice of Availability of the Crown Jewel Mine draft EIS was printed in the Federal
Register on June 30, 1995. The public review period for the Crown Jewel Mine draft EIS extended
from June 30, 1995 to August 29, 1995.
Public involvement activities (post release of Crown Jewel Mine draft EIS) included the following:
2.1 PUBLIC NOTICES AND NEWS RELEASES
As part of the release of the Crown Jewel Mine draft EIS, public notices were put in two local
newspapers: the Omak-Okanogan County Chronicle on June 28, 1995 and the Okanogan Valley
Gazette-Tribune on June 29, 1995. Both of these notices discussed the times and locations for the
three information meetings, the two site tours and information on the August 17th public hearing, plus
discussed the public comment period. Both of the above newspapers also had front page articles on
the release of the draft EIS on those dates. The Wenatchee World had front page articles mentioning
the release of the draft EIS on June 23, 1995 and June 27, 1995 and published a list of the times and
locations of the three information meetings, site tours, and the public hearing on June 28, 1995. A
notice about the information meeting in Midway B.C. was published in Canadian newspapers by the
Canadian government.
A notice of the availability of the Crown Jewel Mine draft EIS for comment was also published in the
Federal Register on June 30, 1995. An update notice on the status of the Crown Jewel Project was
published in the Federal Register on April 18, 1996.
Notices of the Public Hearings (August 15 & 17, 1995) were published in the Seattle Times Inc.,
Spokesman Review, and Wenatchee World on August 4, 1995. This notice was also published in the
Omak-Okanogan County Chronicle on August 9, 1995.
Patty Betts, WADOE Project Coordinator; Phil Christy, Forest Service Project Team Leader; and Craig
Bobzien, Tonasket District Ranger appeared on "Open Line" on KOMW radio (Omak) to discuss the
Crown Jewel Project and answer public questions on July 7, 1995 and July 28, 1995.
2.2 PUBLIC MEETINGS
Three public information meetings were held to explain and answer questions on the Crown Jewel
Mine draft EIS. These meetings were as follows:
• July 20, 1995 in Midway, British Columbia;
• July 26, 1995 in Oroville, Washington; and,
• July 27, 1995 in Riverside, Washington.
2.3 SITE TOURS
The Forest Service and WADOE hosted two site tours to the Crown Jewel Project site. These site
tours were held on July 29, 1995 and August 5, 1995. They were organized to provide interested
individuals the opportunity to observe the site proposed for mining and milling activities and ask
questions of Forest Service, WADOE, and Proponent staffs.
2.4 PUBLIC HEARINGS
Two formal public hearings were held for interested individuals and organizations to make oral
comments and statements on the Crown Jewel Mine draft EIS. These meetings were as follows:
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS 4 L-3
• August 15, 1995 in Ellensburg, Washington; and,
• August 17, 1995 in Oroville, Washington.
2.5 NEWSLETTERS
The Forest Service and WADOE distributed newsletters in June 1995, February 1996, August 1996
and January 1997 to individuals on the Crown Jewel Project mailing list.
The June 1995 newsletter contained a schedule for public meetings and field trips, tips on reviewing
and commenting on the Crown Jewel Mine draft EIS, and general information including how to obtain
a copy of the draft EIS.
The February 1996 newsletter provided individuals on the Crown Jewel Project mailing list with an
update on the status of work on the final EIS, as well as a summary of the comments received on the
draft EIS.
The August 1996 newsletter provided a listing of reports and studies completed since the release of
the draft EIS; this newsletter also contained a "return" card to update the Crown Jewel Project mailing
list and to determine the number of individuals and organizations who wanted a copy of the final EIS.
The January 1997 newsletter announced the release of the final EIS; Forest Service and BLM Record
of Decision; the status of State Agency permits and contact names; and the names and locations of
additional places where the Crown Jewel Mine final EIS could be viewed.
2.6 SPANISH SUMMARY
A Spanish "Summary" of the Crown Jewel Mine final EIS was prepared and made available upon
request to assist the Spanish speaking residents of the area.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-4
3.0 COMMENT STATISTICS
The Forest Service and WADOE received 4,533 written and oral responses from individuals,
organizations, and governmental agencies which contained 11,731 catalogued individual comments
to the Crown Jewel Mine draft EIS. A total of 120 individuals commented on the Crown Jewel Mine
draft EIS at the public hearings held in Ellensburg and Oroville, Washington.
Table L-1, Comment Origin Information, provides information on the number of comments (responses)
received on the Crown Jewel Mine draft EIS, as well as the origin of those comments.
TABLE L-1 , COMMENT ORIGIN INFORMATION
Category /Origin
Written Responses
(Letters, postcards, petitions, etc.)
Oral Responses
(Individuals who had comments at 8/15/95 & 8/17/95 public hearings)
Total Responses" (i.e., letters, post cards, petitions, oral testimony)
Responses from within State of Washington
Responses from Canada
Responses from Other Locations (outside State of Washington and
Canada)
Total Individual Comments*
(Written and Oral)
Number
4,413
120
4,533
3,881
100
552
11,731
Note: * Written and oral responses typically contain several individual comments.
Table L-2, Comment Discipline Breakdown, displays the number of individual comments received on
the Crown Jewel Mine draft EIS by discipline.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft E/S • £-5
TABLE L-2, COMMENT DISCIPLINE BREAKDOWN
Comment Discipline
Air Quality
Geochemistry
Geotechnical Considerations
Soils
Hydrology
Vegetation
Wetlands
Fish and Aquatic Resources
Wildlife
Noise
Recreation
Scenic Resources
Heritage Resources
Transportation
Land Use/Reclamation
Socioeconomics
Accidents and Spills
Miscellaneous1
Monitoring
Bonding/Performance Securities
Mitigation
Cumulative Effects
TOTALS
Number of Comments
260
190
127
30
904
64
92
116
412
77
49
37
129
148
277
490
87
7,826
80
118
191
27
11,731
Percentage (%) of Total
2.2
1.6
1.1
0.3
7.7
0.5
0.8
1.0
3.5
0.7
0.4
0.3
1.1
1.3
2.4
4.2
0.7
66.7
0.7
1.0
1.6
0.2
100%
Note: ' The miscellaneous category includes "form" letters or petitions expressing either
support or opposition to the Crown Jewel Project. Over six thousand individual
comments were statements of support or opposition.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-6
4.0 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
4.1 AIR QUALITY
General
There were comments requesting minor text clarifications, or expressing opinions regarding the air
quality impacts of the proposed Crown Jewel Project without referring to any specific evaluations in
the draft EIS.
Emission Estimates
Commentors expressed concern that the fugitive dust and toxic by-products from the blasting and the
fugitive dust and tailpipe exhaust from the commute vehicles and supply/delivery trucks along the
public roads leading to the Crown Jewel Project site were not included in the emission estimates or
the ambient impact modeling. Some commentors disputed the Proponent's calculations that indicated
that the peak wind speeds at the mine site are not high enough to cause wind erosion of the disturbed
overburden, waste rock areas, and the dewatered tailings pond. Others believed that the Proponent's
calculated emissions from the point'sources (stacks and vents) were based on overly-optimistic high
control efficiencies.
Background Data
The wind speed and wind direction data, collected by the Proponent, were disputed by some
commentors. Other commentors questioned how long-term temperature, precipitation, and evaporation
data for the mine site could be derived by correlating two years of on-site data against long-term data
from the reference station at Republic, Washington. Several commentors questioned how the
Proponent derived the assumed background PM-10 and Total Suspended Paniculate data that were
used for the computer dispersion modeling to demonstrate compliance with the WADOE ambient air
quality standards.
Miscellaneous
There was concern that the proposed Crown Jewel Project would violate either the existing Clean Air
Act or the recently-enacted Washington Metal Mining and Milling Operations Act. In addition, the
visibility assessment was questioned.
Commentors expressed general concern that the air quality impacts caused by the mine would degrade
the quality of life (i.e. religious freedom, lifestyle choices, etc.) in the region.
4.2 GEOCHEMISTRY
General
General comments addressed a wide range of issues but primarily consisted of generalized opinions
of the reviewers. Editorial comments included recommended clarifications, revisions, corrections, and
additions to text, tables, appendices, and maps and figures.
Geochemical Testing Procedures and Data
Reviewers commented on the adequacy of the geochemical testing procedures used, the availability
of geochemical quality assurance (QA)/quality control (QC) data, the correlation between "duplicate"
waste rock sample results, the analysis of ore samples, and the number and type of humidity cell tests
performed.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-7
Geochemistry of Waste Rock Disposal Areas
Comments were received on the geochemistry of the waste rock disposal areas including the number
and percentage of potentially acid-generating waste rock types, the potential to form "hot spots," and
the quality of water that would discharge from the waste rock disposal areas.
Pit Water Quality Impacts
Other reviewers commented on the potential of the open pit mine to impact water quality. Both
general and specific comments were received. Specific comments included the acid generation
potential of pit walls, the time that potentially acid-generating waste rock material would be exposed
to weathering, the adequacy of pit water quality modeling, and potential impacts to water quality if
the pit was backfilled.
Geochemistry of Ore Stockpile
A comment was received on the potential impact to water quality from ore stockpile runoff.
Geochemistry of Tailings Disposal Area
Comments were received on the geochemistry of the tailings including dangerous waste classification
results, cyanide concentrations in the tailings pond, acid generation potential of the tailings, and
confirmation testing of tailings samples.
Operational Monitoring and Mitigation of Potential Geochemical Impacts
Reviewers requested that the final EIS present a selective handling plan for waste rock and discuss
how the Proponent would monitor for and mitigate potential geochemical impacts during and after the
mine operations.
Comparison to Other Mines
Reviewers suggested that geochemical data from the Crown Jewel Project be compared to geologic
and water quality data collected from historic mines.
Miscellaneous Comments
Miscellaneous comments were received from reviewers regarding mapping of geochemical sampling
data, the presence and fate of mercury, impacts from blasting, effects of microbial activity on acid
generation, and the relationship between calcium content and neutralization potential.
4.3 GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
General
The majority of the general geotechnical comments focused on the tailings facility design, construction,
and performance. Limited questions were directed at the stability of waste rock disposal areas at the
site.
Tailings Dam Stability
Comments were received about the stability of the upstream construction of the tailings dam
embankment and its general stability under strong earthquake conditions.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-8
Tailings Facility Impoundment and Operation
There were concerns with the liner system proposed for the Crown Jewel Project tailings facility
impoundment. In particular, how the liner system would function and be incorporated with the
upstream construction techniques proposed for subsequent embankment raises. Other questions
focused on the potential leakage of solutions from the tailings impoundment and the impacts of
solution losses to Marias Creek.
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous comments included requests to review impoundment designs, concerns about the
Starrem Reservoir, responsibility of damage due to earthquakes, underground stability concerns, pit
wall and waste rock stability issue/concerns, and tailings disposal and siting methods selection.
4.4 SOILS
General
There were comments received that requested minor text clarifications, cited typos, and expressed
general opinions concerning the soils sections.
Soil Availability
Concerns about adequate growth medium to perform the required reclamation were expressed.
Soil Suitability
There was concern that the topsoil would be contaminated while in storage or when replaced over
waste rock or tailings. Others asked about the effectiveness of fertilizer on soil suitability.
Erosion Rate Calculations
It was suggested the erosion rate calculations were too conservative based on the values estimated
for various model parameters and that they should be lower than the rates shown on Table 4.5.2,
Summary of Mine Component Erosion Rates by Alternative, of the draft EIS.
RUSLE "C" Factor
Concern about the use of the "C" Factor in the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation {RUSLE) was
expressed.
Contamination of Aquifer Through "Well Drained" Soils
Concern that any spills which may occur might infiltrate through soils described as "well drained" was
expressed.
4.5 HYDROLOGY
Climatology
The comments and concerns for climatology focused on the precipitation and evaporation data sets
used in analyses for the draft EIS. Many comments stated that precipitation estimates were
underestimated while evaporation estimates were overestimated. Effects of microclimates on
precipitation and evaporation were also noted as a concern by some commentors. Additional
discussion was requested concerning the relationship between surface water and precipitation,
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS * £-9
including an expanded discussion of stream flows representing wet, dry, or normal (average)
precipitation years.
Surface Water Hydrology
The surface water hydrology comments included many varying opinions regarding the Project. General
comments were made that the hydrologic impacts were understated in the draft EIS. Comments also
suggested that more emphasis should be placed on conservation of water resources. Specific
comments included requests for surface water monitoring points established lower in the drainages
than the current monitoring reaches, concerns about the validity of Marias Creek flow estimates, and
the influence of the Roosevelt adit on Nicholson Creek. Additional discussion was requested regarding
estimated mean annual flows for the Crown Jewel Project area streams. Stream depletion was an
issue with many commentors. Some commentors believed stream depletion estimates were
underestimated while others commented that the estimates were overestimated. Some comments
suggested that a discussion of drought periods be included in the final EIS. Quantification of the
impacts of storm runoff from the waste rock disposal areas was requested, along with additional
discussion of planned sediment control. It was suggested that the discussion of cumulative impacts
to surface water be expanded to include water availability and minimum streamflows.
Ground Water Hydrology
Comments expressed concerns regarding water level monitoring on site. Other comments suggested
that impacts to the Beaver Creek drainage were not addressed. General questions regarding the
hydrogeologic characterization of the site were raised. Some comments expressed discomfort with
the estimates of ground water inflow into the pit. Some commentors thought inflow estimates were
too low, and others thought inflow estimates were too high. Some commentors questioned the
hydrogeologic methodologies and assumptions. Similarly, many comments expressed discomfort with
pit dewatering and its impacts. Additional discussion was requested regarding the pit dewatering
effects to aquifer storage, the ground water recharge zone, and the ground water contribution to
surface streams. Some comments addressed underground mining induced subsidence and requested
clarification on the impacts from subsidence. Comments were received concerning stream depletion
as well as ground and surface water interaction. More information was requested about pit backfilling
and underground mine alternatives. A re-evaluation of flow from the Roosevelt adit was requested.
Tailings facility comments referred either to design criteria questions or comments concerning seepage
from the tailings facility. Additional discussion was requested to address seepage from the waste rock
disposal areas. There were many questions and comments concerning impacts from mining activities
on springs, seeps, and wetlands. Specifically, many commentors felt that impacts to Beaver Canyon
had not been addressed and should be included in the final EIS.
Water Quality
Comments regarding water quality were focused predominantly on the results of pit water modeling.
Concerns were voiced about modeled levels of cadmium and silver in the pit lake, and potential
contamination of the ground water, surface water, springs, seeps, and wetland areas. Concerns were
voiced that the conservative approach of the pit water model, as well as the limitations and problems
with comparing model results with water quality standards, was not stressed in the draft EIS. Water
quality impacts associated with the tailings facility were an issue addressed by many comments.
Requests were made to expand the discussion concerning water quality impacts from waste rock
disposal areas. Commentors asked questions about water quality impacts to wetlands due to stream
depletion. There were comments that disagreed with the assessment of water quality impacts from
the backfilled pit alternative. Additional discussion was requested regarding water quality impacts from
blasting, dust suppression, and sanitary waste.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-10
Water Supply and Water Rights
Comments on water supply were split between those who felt the plan used too much water and those
who felt the plan was well thought out and stressed conservation of water. Many comments
requested that the water supply plan and its impacts to the Myers and Toroda Creek drainages be
described in more detail. Other comments asked for further clarification of water usage in the form
of a water budget. Specific water rights issues relating to permitting were stated, and questions
regarding the legal standing of water rights in the Myers Creek and Toroda Creek drainages were
raised. It was requested that more discussions regarding the hydrologic characterization of the Myers
Creek and Toroda Creek drainages be presented. Concerns were expressed that removing a portion
of the Myers Creek spring freshet would impact ground water recharge. Additional Instream Flow
Incremental Methodology (IFIM) studies were requested to characterize the required instream flows of
both Myers and Toroda Creeks. Several commentors requested a discussion on Tribal water rights
issues and impacts. It was requested that cumulative impacts be addressed in more detail.
4.6 VEGETATION
General
General vegetation comments included suggestions that existing plant communities be used as a guide
to reclamation work, that more information be included on the quality of plant succession, and that
a discussion be included about possible frog pond impacts if the water available was reduced.
Sensitive Plants
Comments were received regarding the impacts to sensitive plant populations if the hydrologic
characteristics of streams, seeps, and bogs were affected. Additional comments expressed concern
about the adequacy of plant surveys and proposed mitigation.
Range
Comments suggested providing additional information on the quality of range forage, water, and
access, with a specific request for clarification of the term "permitted numbers."
Plant BE
There were comments expressing concern about the adequacy and content of the Plant BE.
Policy Issues
There were vegetation policy comments directed towards the WADOE and Forest Service.
Miscellaneous
Other comments focused on concerns regarding particular plant species.
4.7 WETLANDS
General
Typographic errors were cited as discrepancies between the draft EIS and the Wetland Delineation
Report in regard to wetland acreage. There were a number of complaints regarding a Myers Creek
wetland not being inventoried. The use of the 1987 and 1989 Wetland Delineation Manuals was
questioned.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-11
Wetlands Mitigation
There were comments stating that the mitigation plan for wetlands was unacceptable. Several
commentors wondered how mitigation would be assessed without a functional assessment. Many had
specific concerns about certain areas, such as the frog pond. Pine Chee Springs, and the Nicholson
Creek drainage.
Wetlands Impacts
The comments pertaining to direct wetland impacts focused on acreage figures for different
alternatives. There were several requests for functional assessments of the wetland areas to be
impacted. Several comments expressed concern about the headwaters of Marias Creek being used
as a tailings pond, and several requests were made to detail the linear feet of impacts to the Gold Bowl
drainage, Starrem Creek, and Marias Creek.
Indirect Wetlands Impacts
Concern was expressed about flow reduction and its impacts to wetlands in Myers, Bolster, and Thorp
Creeks. There were several requests for an evaluation of indirect impacts to riparian areas that might
be caused by flow reduction in the above creeks.
4.8 FISH AND AQUATIC RESOURCES
General
Commentors expressed opinions, cited typos, and requested clarifications.
Myers Creek Diversion
Concerns were expressed regarding the need for instream flow requirements to protect fish resources,
Canadian stream flows and aquifers, and senior water rights which would be located downstream of
a diversion of Myers Creek water into the proposed Starrem Reservoir. Some specific comments on
the IFIM study were also received.
Starrem Reservoir
Concerns were expressed about the impacts of Starrem Reservoir construction on fish (if present) in
Starrem Creek and on associated wetlands. The downstream impacts of a possible Starrem Reservoir
failure on the fisheries resource in Myers Creek were also a concern.
Impacts on Marias and Nicholson Creeks
Concerns included impacts of potential water quality degradation from sedimentation, metal levels, or
changes in the source or inflow rate of ground water from the proposed Crown Jewel Project on
existing or potential aquatic resources. Pit water quality as it relates to potential cyanide leaching was
also expressed as a concern.
Downstream Impacts to Toroda Creek and Kettle River Resources
Commentors suggested that Marias and Nicholson Creeks are potential contributors to aquatic
resources downstream in Toroda Creek and/or the Kettle River. Fish in upstream areas emigrate and
colonize downstream reaches. A concern was raised about water quality degradation if sediments or
elevated metals levels were delivered to downstream reaches.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS 4 L-12
Monitoring and Mitigation Plans
Opinions were expressed regarding the adequacy of monitoring and mitigation plans proposed for the
Crown Jewel Project.
Impacts on Native American Tribal Treaty Rights
Concerns were expressed about Crown Jewel Project impacts on Native American Tribal treaty rights.
Other Comments
Concerns were expressed regarding the adequacy of the baseline fisheries surveys, downstream
effects on the Columbia River, spring freshet flows, and macroinvertebrate information.
4.9 WILDLIFE
General
General comments addressed topics such as basic wildlife biology, expressed opinions regarding the
wildlife impacts of the proposed Crown Jewel Project (both that impacts were understated and that
impacts were overstated), and requested a variety of specific editing corrections or revisions.
Toxics
Many comments were received about the potential toxic impacts from the chemicals and petroleum
products that would be used as part of the mining and milling process. These concerns included the
potential for toxic impacts from the tailings facility and recovery solution collection pond and the
potential for toxic impacts to fauna, particularly in relation to migratory birds and aquatic life. Other
comments were about the nature, magnitude, and effects of a potential spill along the transportation
route into a stream or lake. Numerous commentors questioned the effectiveness of the INCO
S02/Air/Oxidation cyanide destruction process.
Habitat
Questions were raised about the impacts that the Crown Jewel Project would have on wildlife habitat.
Were the impacts displayed in the draft EIS overstated or understated? Questions were asked about
why the draft EIS did not use population surveys and instead used changes in habitat and cover types
to estimate wildlife impacts. Numerous commentors noted that mines they had visited operated in
harmony with wildlife. A number of comments related to riparian and wetland cover type losses and
questioned whether these losses would be considered substantial. Numerous questions were raised
about habitat loss, fragmentation, and the wildlife impacts of the Crown Jewel Project on the wildlife
corridor between British Columbia and the Colville Reservation and other forested areas in the
Okanogan Highlands.
Deer Issues
Comments were raised about the impacts of the Crown Jewel Project on local deer populations.
Would the mine create permanent changes in deer migratory patterns? Would deer disappear from the
Crown Jewel Project area not only over the duration of the operations but also for a longer period
before recovering? Were the impacts of timber harvest on Snow Intercept Thermal Cover (SIT)
overestimated or underestimated. Thus, were the impacts on deer over or under estimated? What
would the impacts be on Tribal and recreational hunting?
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft E/S + L-13
Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species
Comments were received that asked questions or made comments related to the impacts of the Crown
Jewel Project on grizzly bear, wolf, northern goshawk, lynx, common loons, bats, and wolverines.
What were the likely impacts to these species? Would the Crown Jewel Project continue a trend
toward a loss of population viability? Would the mine influence the travel of such wide ranging species
as the grizzly bear and wolf during their seasonal wanderings from Canada? Concerns were raised that
parts of the Biological Evaluation verged on the ridiculous, rambling on about threatened and
endangered species which have not been found in the site area, nor the analysis area.
Habitat Evaluation Procedure
Questions were asked about why the results of the Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) process were
not used to describe wildlife habitat effects and mitigation opportunities for the Crown Jewel Project.
Other comments stated that the habitat conditions within the HEP analysis area would not remain
static under the "No Action" alternative. Most forest habitats, based on projections from the land
management agencies, would be significantly impacted by ongoing forest management activities over
the next 60 years without the Crown Jewel Project. Comments were made that the Habitat Suitability
Index (HSI) scores for six species had errors that caused an overestimation of impacts by the Crown
Jewel Project.
Methods
Questions were asked and comments were received that related to how the wildlife analysis was
conducted. These comments and questions related to how the core area was determined, why riparian
buffers were used instead of areas that were actually disturbed in the riparian zones, why distinctions
were made between different cover types, and on what basis assumptions were made on human
presence, road density, and natural forest succession.
Noise Impacts
Questions were raised about the assessment of noise impacts on wildlife. Some commentors
disagreed with using the 10 dBA increase over ambient as a noise impact criteria. They felt that noise
levels exceeding 20 dBA above background were more likely to be the level impacting wildlife.
Miscellaneous
Questions were asked about the following miscellaneous items: wildlife corridors between British
Columbia and the Colville Reservation; Tribal members subsistence rights for hunting and fishing;
impacts to the great blue herons nest on Myers Creek; impacts on aquatic life including fish, macro-
invertebrates and amphibians; over or under estimation of wildlife impacts; and, impacts from noise,
light, and disturbance.
Mitigation and Monitoring
Comments questioned how wildlife losses would be mitigated, how specific monitoring would be
carried out, and what would be the effectiveness of proposed monitoring and wetlands mitigation.
Numerous comments were received from the Proponent questioning how the effectiveness ratings
were derived and disagreeing with how the effectiveness ratings were established. Several questions
and comments were received about the proposed fence around the tailings facility, including those
related to its design and effectiveness at preventing wildlife access to the tailings pond.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS 4 L-14
4.10 NOISE
General
Commentors requested minor text clarifications or expressed opinions regarding the noise impacts of
the proposed Crown Jewel Project without referring to any specific evaluations in the draft EIS.
Regulatory Limits
Clarification was requested on how WADOE's environmental noise limits would be used to minimize
noise impacts at the various residential and rural areas surrounding the proposed Crown Jewel Project.
There were also requests for operational noise monitoring during the life of the Crown Jewel Project
to track compliance with the regulatory noise limits and with any negotiated Project-specific permit
limits. Some commentors asked how the Proponent would monitor worker exposure to noise levels
within the work place and demonstrate compliance with regulatory limits.
Background Noise and Mechanical Noise Distinctions
There were commentors requesting additional discussion on how the background noise measurements
of rural-type noises could be compared against the mechanical noises that would emanate from the
proposed mining activities.
Modeling Methods and Noise Levels
Commentors requested additional discussion on how the ENM noise model was used to calculate the
future noise levels surrounding the proposed Crown Jewel Project. Other commentors questioned why
A-weighted decibels (dBA) and "equivalent noise levels " (L-eq) were used to describe the background
levels and the calculated future noise levels.
It was asked why the noise impacts that would be caused by construction of the Starrem Reservoir
and the noise levels caused by increases in commute traffic vehicles and supply/delivery trucks were
not discussed in the draft EIS.
Miscellaneous Noise Effects
There were questions which asked how the calculated future noise levels would affect wildlife in the
vicinity of the Crown Jewel Project. There were requests for additional discussion on how the range
of calculated noise levels relate to possible human health impacts. A concern was expressed that the
noise impacts caused by the proposed Crown Jewel Project would degrade the quality of life in the
region.
4.11 RECREATION
General
There were comments requesting minor clarifications and text changes or expressing opinions regarding
recreation impacts.
Impacts on Beth and Beaver Lakes
Comments expressed concern about traffic passing the Beth and Beaver Lakes and nearby
campground. Some expressed the opinion that the draft EIS overestimated the traffic impact on Beth
and Beaver Lakes, while others were concerned with future Crown Jewel Project employees impacting
the campground.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS 4 L-15
Loss of Recreational Income
There were comments regarding the potential loss of tourists, due to noise, dust, visual impacts, lights,
etc. from the Crown Jewel Project, and the dollars they contribute to the local economy.
Diminished Value of Recreation Resources
An opinion was expressed that the draft EIS failed to discuss how the Crown Jewel Project would
diminish the value of recreation resources within the mine site and the surrounding area.
Data on Projected Camping
The data on camping increases as a result of Crown Jewel Project employees was questioned.
Recreational Value of the Post-Mining Lake Formation
There were comments which emphasized the potential recreational value of the lake that would form
in the pit once mining is completed.
Impacts on Hunting and Fishing
There were comments regarding the impacts of the Crown Jewel Project on hunting and fishing in the
area, and the potential revenues lost if hunting and fishing decreases.
4.12 SCENIC RESOURCES
General
There were comments requesting minor clarifications and text changes or expressing opinions regarding
the Crown Jewel Project.
Forest Service Scenic Management System
The basic methodology and assumptions of the scenic resources analysis was questioned.
Impacts of Project-Related Dust on Visibility
Comments were received regarding the effect on viewsheds of dust and air pollution created by the
Crown Jewel Project.
Impacts of Project Lighting
Concern was expressed that the effects of Crown Jewel Project lighting was not adequately
addressed.
Visual Impacts from Other Viewpoints
Some comments brought up the potential for scenic impacts to additional recreational sites, such as
Bodie Mountain and Mt. Spock (White Mountain) in the Colville National Forest and the new Virginia-
Lily Trail. Another commentor felt that the Nealey Road Viewpoint should have been taken at a point
further south on the road.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-16
Viewpoint Photographs
The quality of the photographs in Section 3.16, Scenic Resources, of the draft EIS, was the subject
of several comments. It was requested that the mine site be labeled on the viewpoint photos.
4.13 HERITAGE RESOURCES
General
General comments requested minor text or table clarifications, re-illustration of figures, and
supplementary detailed information concerning cultural resources or survey methodology. Statements
and opinions were made related to cultural resources, tribal interaction, and prehistoric-historic land
use in the area of impact.
Traditional Use and Traditional Cultural Properties
Comments were directed at the lack of consideration for traditional subsistence use of usual and
accustomed places in the Crown Jewel Project area by Native American peoples.
Treaty Rights and Issues
There were comments addressing Native American treaty rights in the Crown Jewel Project area.
These claims to rights of use relate to this region's former inclusion in the north half of the Colville
Indian Reservation. Other questions included: "If Battle Mountain Gold succeeds in patenting the
properties, this would result in the permanent loss of Treaty rights on those lands. Is it possible for
the government to transfer ownership of public lands (patent) when the original indigenous inhabitants
retain rights to the use of these properties?"
Other commentors noted that the draft EIS failed to address Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions
to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations.
Policy Issues
There were comments which suggested that the Native Americans in the region were not asked to be
involved in the EIS process and were not consulted concerning cultural resources by the lead agencies.
Graves and Burials
Some comments expressed concern over the status of grave sites which were identified during cultural
resource surveys. Additional comments addressed the potential for Indian burials located in the Crown
Jewel Project area and asked if the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA)
is applicable in the Crown Jewel Project area.
Religion
Similar to comments directed at traditional use and treaty rights, these comments focused on the loss
of access to the Crown Jewel Project area. There were comments which raised the issue of the
Crown Jewel Project's impact on the religion or religious practices of the region's Native Americans.
Another question asked if the proposed powerline upgrade would adversely affect the traditional
cultural property known as the Hee Hee Stone.
Miscellaneous
There was an opinion that the findings of the Cultural Resource Investigations indicated that scarce
research has led to flawed conclusions and that a revised study should include comprehensive
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS * £-77
documentation by tribal members. Comments were received which stated that current academic
sources, as well as extensive interviews with tribal members, would seem essential in an investigation
of Crown Jewel Project impacts. One comment stated that Indian fishing rights in the area need to
be presented and quantified. Another asked: "Why were there never any meetings on the
reservation?"
4.14 TRANSPORTATION
General
Many comments presented an opinion or view on various aspects of the transportation sections of the
Crown Jewel Project draft EIS. In addition, several comments cited typos and the need for minor
edits/clarifications in the text.
Hazardous Materials Transport
Many comments expressed concerns regarding potential impacts created by the transport of supplies
on the roads along Toroda Creek and through Beaver Canyon. The risk of increased accidents and
possible spill events due to the physical conditions/location of these roads was also noted.
Accidents
Comments concerning accidents focused on the assumptions and baseline data used, as well as
predicting the number, type, and result of accidents, and magnitude of potential accidents.
Maintenance Responsibilities and Liabilities
Comments were received on the physical/fiscal responsibility for upgrading, upkeep, and maintenance
of existing county roads as a result of increased Crown Jewel Project-related traffic. Also, there were
questions about who would ultimately pay the costs associated with the cleanup of spills.
Average Daily Traffic
There were comments about both the under-estimation and the over-estimation of traffic impacts. In
particular, some comments suggested the construction phase projections were under-estimated when
projected over a 12-month versus a 6-month period.
Miscellaneous
There were miscellaneous comments about potential traffic dust impacts, monitoring of transportation
mitigation measures (e.g. use of pilot cars, the Proponent's commitment to busing, compliance with
speed limits, etc.), and indirect impacts from unemployed job-seekers.
4.15 LAND USE/RECLAMATION
General
Comments focused on text clarifications, typos, and general opinions about the reclamation plans and
post-mining land use.
Compliance with Reclamation Regulations
There were concerns raised that the Proponent's plan does not satisfy the minimum reclamation
requirements of the Washington Department of Natural Resources (WADNR). Other comments raised
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-18
questions about the success of steep slope reclamation and the reclamation of various Crown Jewel
Project components using various revegetation techniques and materials.
Loss of Biodiversity, Low Stocking Rates
There were concerns that the revegetation plan did not provide a diversity of native plant species and
that the stocking rates for forbs and trees were too low under Alternative B.
Long-Term Reclamation Monitoring
Comments suggested that the draft EIS needed to clarify long term monitoring commitments. These
included monitoring erosion, vegetation success, waste rock disposal area stability, tailings
embankment stability, and acid rock drainage. Others asked what corrective action plans would be
triggered in case of adverse environmental occurrences.
Patenting
There were questions about the patenting process, including land use questions and questions
regarding the status of other Proponent mining claims in the area.
Other Comments
Other comments focused on fencing proposals, zero discharge from tailings, justification for the
preferred alternative, and water infiltration into the waste rock disposal areas.
4.16 SOCIOECONOMICS
General
General comments addressed topics such as history and future of mining in Okanogan and Ferry
Counties, concern that socioeconomic impacts were understated, lost opportunities associated with
the "No Action" Alternative A, comparison with a separate fiscal analysis prepared for Proponent, local
procurement, and a variety of specific editing corrections or revisions.
Population, Housing & Land Use
Comments covered questions regarding extent of a population influx and associated
construction/operations housing needs, current inadequacy of housing and/or land use controls,
potential for an active mine to cause some residents to leave, and potential effects on property values
and tribal lands.
Employment & Income
There were questions and comments relating to assumed local hire rates. Also addressed were
questions regarding mining employment, need for added job opportunities, training programs for
employees, use of profits, and effects of eventual mine closure.
Community & Public Services
It was indicated that effects on community and public services were not adequately addressed or
documented. Topics of concern included schools, law enforcement, water, solid waste, recreation,
roads, electrical power, social and health services, and general effects to unincorporated areas.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS 4 L-19
Fiscal Effects
Comments covered temporary duration of revenue increases; property tax implications associated with
the "No Action" Alternative A; failure to address impacts to local, county, state and federal entities;
and suggestions for ongoing financial monitoring or creation of a reserve fund.
Social Values
Questions raised relate to definition of socioeconomic groups, historical versus current social values,
retention of Native American hunting and fishing rights, documentation of Chesaw/Highlands
community divisions, and the potential role of the Forest Service to ensure "healthy dialogue" in the
community.
Quality of Life
A number of comments covered the importance of "quality of life" and environmental protection to the
local economy, a desire to place an economic value on natural environment and "quality of life"
amenities, the wise use of natural resources, a shift from dependence on natural resource industries,
and the need to better account for the high cost and cumulative effects of environmental degradation.
Tourism
Some commentors noted that tourism activity currently is important to the Chesaw/Highlands
economy, and that potential losses of tourism associated with the Crown Jewel Project need to be
addressed or mitigated.
Health Care
It was stated that "EMTs cannot address the major trauma, respiratory problems, basic health care,
and drug and alcohol related services that would be needed by the (Crown Jewel Project) Employees."
Divided Community
Concerns were expressed that the Crown Jewel Project was dividing the community.
Agency Credibility
There were concerns about agency credibility and motivation regarding the Crown Jewel Project.
Domestic Water Supply
What would be the effects of the Crown Jewel Project on domestic water supplies?
Effects on Landfills
What would be the effects on the local landfills from solid waste generated by the community and the
Proponent?
Historic Mining
What was the role and importance of mining in the study area?
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS 4 1-20
4.17 ACCIDENTS AND SPILLS
General
Commentors presented opinions or views on possible accidents and spills. In addition, several
comments cited typos and the need for minor edits/clarifications in the text.
Effects/Consequences of Release
These comments reflected concerns regarding effects if a spill or accident occurs, the potential for
cyanide and other harmful chemicals to enter the environment, potential long term consequences, and
financial liability in the event of spills and accidents.
Response and Cleanup
Comments focused on the need for containment designs and contingency plans in the EIS.
Other Comments
Comments referred to a variety of topics including potential decrease in property values if there is a
spill, the need for a complete risk analysis, a discussion on cyanide container construction, and a
comparison of the proposed Crown Jewel Project to the Guyana tailings facility incident.
4.18 MISCELLANEOUS
General
There were several thousand comments received as "form" letters, post cards, or petitions expressing
either support or opposition to the Crown Jewel Project. Other commentors requested text
clarifications, cited typos, or expressed opinions.
EIS Content and Preparation
Commentors asked that detailed monitoring and mitigation plans be included in the EIS. Commentors
asked that a discussion of the permitting process be included. Questions were asked about regulatory
responsibilities concerning EIS preparation and about the relationship amongst the lead agencies, the
third party contractor, and the Proponent.
Alternatives and Project Components
Comments were received concerning the alternatives. It was asked "why so many?" Others wanted
additional information on all the alternatives. Questions and concerns revolved around tailings pond
siting and operation, ore processing methods, mining methods, waste rock disposal area siting, work
shifts, blasting schedules, etc.
Regulatory Compliance
It was asked if the Crown Jewel Project was in compliance with all Washington State and federal
regulations, including the Washington Metal Mining and Milling Operations Act, NPDES regulations,
storm water controls, air quality regulations, on-site sewage disposal requirements, and dangerous
waste regulations.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS * L-21
Future Project Expansion
There were concerns about the future expansion of the Crown Jewel Project. Included were questions
about additional Proponent mining claims and the possibility that future adjacent mines would ship ore
to the Crown Jewel Project for processing.
Other Comments
Other comments included concerns about wetland impacts on Nicholson Creek, cyanide degradation
during winter months, liner life, selection of supply vendors, water for dust suppression, and the
Summitville Mine (Colorado) incident.
Policy Issues
There were several comments directed to the WADOE and Forest Service concerning regulatory policy.
4.19 MONITORING
General
These comments expressed general opinions about the proposed monitoring plans, requested text
clarifications, and cited typos.
Responsibility and Oversight of Monitoring
Comments were received questioning whether the agencies or the Proponent would conduct
monitoring. If the Proponent conducts the monitoring, several questions centered on how the agencies
would oversee such monitoring. There was a question whether the Proponent would fund any
independent agency or organization to conduct monitoring. There were questions regarding the final
authority on approval of monitoring plans and who would decide on the placement of various
monitoring stations. It was asked, "who would be responsible for setting compliance levels, and if
monitoring would continue after release of any performance securities for the site?"
Monitoring Plan Details
There were comments concerning the details of monitoring, including the proposed length of
monitoring, planned quality assurance and quality control measures, monitoring locations, monitoring
levels that would trigger action or some type of mitigation, and specific questions on various
monitoring aspects of the Crown Jewel Project. Other comments posed questions regarding
monitoring programs for water quality, stream flow, air, reclamation success, soil, tailings facility,
wetlands, fisheries, dam maintenance, the frog pond, and waste rock disposal area(s).
4.20 BONDING/PERFORMANCE SECURITIES
General
Many comments expressed opinions or views on the performance securities for the Crown Jewel
Project; some cited the need for minor edits or clarifications to the text.
Performance Security Details
There were comments regarding the lack of details for performance securities for reclamation and
potential remediation of the Crown Jewel Project. Questions included what would be the amount of
the performance security or securities, what types of performance security or securities would be
acceptable, who would complete calculations for performance security or securities, what agencies
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS * £-22
would be responsible for holding the performance security or securities. There were additional
comments on how the performance security or securities would be updated to keep pace with inflation
as well as questions regarding the "trigger" mechanisms for forfeiture of performance security or
securities. Some individuals asked who would perform the reclamation or the remediation in the event
of a forfeiture of a bond. There are also questions about how long performance security or securities
would be held by the agencies before release.
Proponent Bankruptcy and/or Site Abandonment
There were comments regarding the possible bankruptcy of the Proponent and what guarantees would
be in place to prevent the site from becoming a "Superfund" site. There were some comments that
asked how regulators in Washington would prevent the Summitville Mine experience in Colorado from
occurring at the Crown Jewel Project.
Miscellaneous
The miscellaneous comments included: who do we sue when our well is impacted and what rights do
Canadian citizens and property owners have in the event of an environmental problem in Canada? It
was also stated that the Proponent should be responsible for reclaiming the damage which has already
occurred.
4.21 MITIGATION
General
Commentors requested minor text clarifications and expressed general opinions about mitigation.
Suitability and Effectiveness of Mitigation
There were questions on the "soundness" of mitigation measures proposed for the Crown Jewel
Project. Some commentors wondered if these mitigation measures would work and be effective, and,
if not, what action would the agencies pursue if mitigation measures prove to be ineffective.
Details of Mitigation
There were comments requesting more detail on mitigation. Additional mitigation details were
requested for final pit water quality, visual resources, accidents and spills, sediment control, and waste
rock storage. There were questions regarding the timing of mitigation. For example, there was a
question whether wetland mitigation would begin prior to mine disturbance. Other comments stated
that contingency plans were needed in case of disasters.
Other Comments
There were questions asked about who would pay for any required clean-up, how would the natural
flora be replaced, and what would be a safe level of cyanide.
Policy Issues
There were concerns about the effectiveness ratings for aquatics and wetlands mitigation, as well as
other mitigation policy aspects of the Crown Jewel Project.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft E/S 4 L-23
4.22 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
General
There were comments received requesting clarifications and minor revisions to the text.
Effects on Hydrology
There were a variety of comments, concerns, and questions on the cumulative effects of the Crown
Jewel Project, in particular on hydrology and water rights.
Future Mining
There were comments focused on the potential of future mining in the region. Some commentors were
concerned that, if the Proponent is allowed to proceed with the Crown Jewel Project, many other
mining companies would move into the region and develop mining and milling operations.
Miscellaneous Cumulative Effects
Other comments, concerns, and questions addressed the cumulative effects on local solid waste
facilities, socioeconomic conditions, and habitat loss from logging.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS * L-24
5.0 LIST OF RESPONDENTS TO THE DRAFT EIS
This section provides a listing of the individuals, organizations, government agencies, and elected
officials who commented on the Crown Jewel Project draft EIS. There were over 4,500 letters, forms,
petition signatures, or oral speakers that submitted comments on the Crown Jewel Project draft EIS.
In some cases, names and addresses were illegible. Thus, this listing may be incomplete, have the last
name only, first name only, or misspelled names.
5.1 FEDERAL AGENCIES
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Erkel, Tim
U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management
Fisher, James
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Parkin, Richard
U.S. Bureau of Mines (department abolished in 1995)
Norberg, John
U.S.D.I. Bureau of Indian Affairs
Socula, Maurice
U.S.D.I. Office of The Secretary
Polityka, Charles
Federal Officials
U.S. House of Representatives - Hastings, Doc
U.S. House of Representatives - Nethercutt, George
U.S. Senate - Gorton, Slade
5.2 WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Friesz, Ron
Washington Department of Natural Resources
Lasmanis, Raymond
Washington Department of Community Trade and Economic Development
Griffith, Gregory
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-25
Washington State Officials
State of Washington House of Representatives - Chandler, Gary
State of Washington House of Representatives - Ballard, Clyde
State of Washington House of Representatives - Schoesler, Mark
State of Washington House of Representatives - McMorris, Cathy
State of Washington House of Representatives - Sheldon, Tim
State of Washington House of Representatives - Stevens, Val
State of Washington House of Representatives - Delvin, Jerome
State of Washington House of Representatives - Koster, John
State of Washington House of Representatives - Thompson, Bill
State of Washington House of Representatives - Fuhrman, Steve
State of Washington House of Representatives - Foreman, Dale
State of Washington House of Representatives - Elliot, Ian
State of Washington Senate - Strannigan, Gary
State of Washington Senate - Swecker, Dan
State of Washington Senate - Snyder, Sid
State of Washington Senate - Seller, George L.
State of Washington Senate - Haugen, Mary Margaret
5.3 COUNTY AGENCIES
Chelan County - Marcellus, Earl - Commissioner
Ferry County - Windsor, Ed - Board Of Commissioners
Ferry County - Hall, Jim
Ferry County Noxious Weed Control Board
Okanogan County - Thiele, Ed
Okanogan County Council For Economic Development - Nielson, Ron
Okanogan County - Higby, Spence - Commissioner
Okanogan County Department of Public Works - Nott, Joseph
Okanogan County Public Utility District - Warner, Harlan
Okanogan County Sheriff - Weed, James
Pend Oreille County - Mckenzie, Karl; Hanson, Mike - Board of Commissioners
Wallowa County - Boswell, Ben - Commissioner (Oregon)
5.4 MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS
Town of Tonasket - Fancher, Tom - Mayor
City of Oroville - Lane, Don - Chief of Police
City of Oroville - Walker, Jimmie D. - Mayor
5.5 TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS
Colville Confederated Tribes - Dick, Matthew
Colville Confederated Tribes - Louie, Deb - Councilman
Colville Confederated Tribes - Passmore, Gary
5.6 PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS
Agricultural Community Alliance - Forrester, Dick
Blue Ribbon Coalition - Cook, Adena
Center for Environmental Law and Policy - Paschal, Raebel
Columbia River Bioregional Education Project - Gillespie, Stuart & Geraldine Payton
Columbia River Valley Dist Council of Carpenters - Johnson, Jerome
Colville Indian Environmental Protection Alliance - Gabriel, Gere
Common Sense Resource League - Hurst, Bob
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-26
Common Sense Resource League - Dart, Richard
Concerned Citizens For Responsible Mining - Brown, Carolyn
Ferry County Action League - Anderson, Anne
Friendship Ministries - Blackmore, George
Kettle River Conservation Group - Peterson, Mike
Knob Hill Stock Assn. - Kurtz, Dale
Laser Inc - Wilson, Jim
Lazer Inc - Williams, John
Methow Valley Resource Alliance - Maples, Jean
Mineral Policy Center - Patric, William
Molson Grange - Dart, Richard
National Parks and Conservation Association - Griedman, Gregory
Natural Resource Defense Council - Wald, Johanna
Northwest Forestry Association - Dick, Bob
Northwest Mining Association - Olson, Tim
Northwest Ecosystem Alliance - Friedman, Mitch
Northwest Mining Association - Urnovitz, R.K. Ivan
Okanogan County Citizens Coalition - Shaver, John
Okanogan County Farm Bureau - Umberger, John
Okanogan Highlands Alliance - Dipretoro, Richard
Okanogan Highlands Alliance - Rehanek, Woody
Okanogan Mining Association - Woolschlager, Hawley
Okanogan Resource Council - Lawrence, Bonnie
Okanogan Wilderness League - Bernheisel, Lee
Okanogan Wildlife Council - Kirchner, Michael
Okanogan Wildlife Council - Christoph, Mark
Okanogan Wildlife Council - Phillips, G.J.
Okanogan Wildlife Council - Sylwames, Roger E.
Okanogan Wildlife Council - Bowes, Jerry
Okanogan Wildlife Council - (name not legible)
Okanogan Wildlife Council - Hahn, Wayne
Okanogan Wildlife Council - Norman, Howard
Okanogan Wildlife Council - Stone, Sr., Melvin R.
Okanogan Wildlife Council - Mason, Jeffrey
Okanogan Wildlife Council - Howell, Rick
Okanogan Wildlife Council - Swayze, Carlos
Oregon Natural Resources Council - Valantine, Diane
Pacific Crest Biodiversity Project - Dodge, Tad
Rivers Council of Washington - Graham, Bill
Schee-Ranium Mines, Inc.
Sierra Club, Cascade Chapter - Lawler, Mark
Sierra Club, Rocky Mt. Chapter - Berman, Jeffrey
Sierra Club, Black Hills Group - Brademyer, Brian
Spokane Audubon Society - Alonso, Joyce
Washington Environmental Council - Cantrell, Dan
Washington Native Plant Society - Davison, Jerry
Washington State Building and Construction Trades Council - Dilger, Bob
Washington State Cattlemen's Organization - Jellison, Bert
Washington State Cattleman's Association - Osmoson, Darrell
Washington State Farm Bureau - Jocobs, Don
Washington State Grange - Joy, Bob
Washington State Grange - Keller, Janelle
Washington State Grange
Washington State Log Truckers Conference - President - Moore, Bill
Washington Wilderness Coalition - Currie, Cathie
Western Shoshone Defense Project - Sewall, Christopher
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS •1-27
Western Mining Action Project - Flynn, Roger
Zaishta Church - Reverend Two Eagles
5.7
GENERAL PUBLIC - PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES
Aasen, James
Abee, Robin
Abernathy-Robinson, Kathy
Abraham, Eric
Abrahamson, Alfred &
Margaret
Acord, Jack L.
Adams, Owen
Adams, Warren
Adams, Wayne & Cleta
Adamsen, Wendy
Adkins, Bob
Adkins, Clinton
Adkins, Mrs. Pat
Adler, Karen
Adrienne, Ross
Agee, Darren
Aguilar, Anthony
Aher, Jim
Ahlwardt, Sam
Ahrens, Jodi
Aiken, Ralph
Aiken, Ted L.
Ailport, John
Alberg, Mike
Alberts, Gene S.
Albrecht, Bill & Heidi
Aldous, Alan
Alexander, Carol
Allard, Gary
Allen, Gary
Allen, Tony
Allen, Ursula
Allstot, Victor
Allyn, David
Almquist, Stuart
Almquist, Francis
Almquist, Kathryn
Altmiller, Clara
Alumbaugh, Verle
Alvarez, Oscar R.
Ambrose, Allen
Ames, Allison
Ames, Hugh J.
Amos E. Coffelt & Assoc.,
Amundsen, Susan
Anders, Nicholas
Andersen, Karen
Anderson, Anne
Anderson, Barbara
Anderson, Bob
Anderson, Chris
Anderson, Daniel
Anderson, David
Anderson, Dennis & Rosalie
Anderson, Eileen
Anderson, G.
Anderson, Gary
Anderson, Gary L.
Anderson, Harold
Anderson, Jerry & Jonnie
Anderson, John
Anderson, John D.
Anderson, Jonas & Sue
Anderson, Karolina
Anderson, Minot
Anderson, Neil
Anderson, Pamela
Anderson, Pat
Anderson, Paul
Anderson, Stephen
Anderson, Todd
Anderson, Wendy
Anderson, William F.
Andreas, Scott
Andres, Leah
Andres, Tammy
Andrew, E.
Andrew, Teresa L.
Andrews, Fletcher
Andrews, Gary
Andrust, John
Aner, Randal
Angell, Michael A.
Angelf, Michael & Sherrill
Anglin, Mike
Anvil, Shirley
Archuleta, Pete
Arepa, Barbara
Armour, Brad
Armour, Stephanie
Armstrong, Jeffery
Arnett, James
Arns, Bill
Arthur, Bill
Ashley, Larry
Ashley, Nancy
Ashmore, Steve
Ashton, Arlene
Asmussen, Daryl
Asmussen, Jan
Assink, Nellie
Atkinson, Ursula
Attwood, Mr. & Mrs. Ray
August, Patricia
Auguston, Herbert C.
Austin, Jeff
Ayers, Dara
Ayers, Tom
Baca, Joe
Bachar, Joel
Bacon, Francis
Bagwell, Barney
Bagwell, Melvin S.
Bailey, David L.
Bailey, Gerald
Bailey, Ramona
Bailey, Robert
Bailey, Walter
Bailey lii, Joseph M.
Baine, Robin
Baines, Olga
Baird, Mike
Baka, Eric
Baker, Barbara
Baker, C.L.
Baker, Christine
Baker, Harry
Baker, Jessica
Baker, Kris
Baker, Marian L.
Baker, Patricia
Baker, Perry E.
Baker, Raymond
Baker, Richard E.
Baker, Sally
Baker, Sibyl L.
Baker, Susan
Baker, Warren
Balanos, Don
Balderson, Aleda
Baldrige, Anne
Baldwin, Dina
Baldwin, Lynne
Baldwin, Marion
Baldwin, Marion & lla
Baldwin, Richard L.
Baldwin, Troy
Ball, Alice
Ballinger, Bonita
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS * L-28
Ballou, Mary L.
Ballow, Edward E.
Baltzley, Barbara
Baltzley, Charles
Banks, Kenneth
Banta, William
Barbre, Paul
Bardwell Logging
Bardwell, Rodger
Bardwell, Sid
Barker, Bruce & Freeda
Barker, George
Barker, Jason
Barker, Jeffrey
Barker, Winnifred
Barnes, Bill & Beth
Barnes, Bob
Barnes, Charlene
Barnes, Jerry
Barnes, Jessie
Barnes, Nancy
Barnes, Wayne
Barnett, Joanie
Barnett, Luis
Barnett, Mary
Barnhart, John
Barnhill, Clifford C.
Barr, Scott
Barrat, Crescent
Barrett, Floyd
Barrett, Jo
Barstad, Mark
Bartels, Jerry
Bartosek, Karin
Bartosek, Trudy
Baser, Don
Bauer, David
Bauer, Forrest
Bauer, Robert
Baumgardner, Patti
Baumgardner, Raymond D.
Bay, Carl
Bayer, Doug & Cheri
Baz-dresch, John
Beach, Joan
Beach, River
Beachel, Glen
Beagles, Gary W.
Bealon, Mary
Beatty, Donald
Beaucharp, Kevin
Bebber, Emily
Beck, Harry Jr
Beck, Rick
Becker, Dave
Becker, Dennis
Becker, Nick
Beckman, Gary & Eileen
Bedord, Lewis R.
Beebe, Kerry
Beebe, Linda J.
Beedie, Kari
Beehner, Bill
Beeman, Bert
Beeman, Chauncey
Beeman, Fred L.
Beeman, Geraldine
Beeman, Jack
Beener, Craig
Beeple, Ernest
Beers, Jennifer
Begnal, Thomas
Beierle, Carole
Beierle, Ray
Belbrai, Arturo
Belknap, Bob
Bell, Alan
Bell, Celeste
Bell, Marsha
Bell, Patty
Bell, Randy
Bell, Ross
Bell, Vaughn C.
Belling, William
Benbold, Harmon
Bencich, Nancy
Bender, Rick S.
Benedict, Mara
Benefield, Dan J.
Bengtson, Don
Benich, Jesse
Bennett, R. Dana
Bensing, Alberta
Sensing, Clifford
Bensley, J.M.
Bentley, Howard
Bentley Jr, John
Benton, Craig H.
Benzing, Cathy
Berda, Cyril
Berdan, Frank
Berg, Charlie
Berg, Forest
Bergen, Linda
Berger, Frieda
Berger, Molly & Adam
Bergh, Arthur R.
Bergh, Helene
Bergh, Jeff
Bergh, Kirsten
Bergman, Lyn
Bergstrom, Brian
Berio, Owen
Berney, G. E.
Berry, Joe & Diane
Berry, Parker
Berry, Stephen R.
Berstrom, Lee
Bertrand, Claudine
Bertrand, Dan
Beshey, Robert A.
Bevier, Fran
Bevier, Judy
Bevier, Roger
Beyers, Ralph & Leona
Bierwagen, Gordon
Biggs, Richard
Biladean, Ted
Biladeau, Maria
Billberg, Pat
Bingham, C.L.
Birch, Al
Birch, Jacqueline
Birch, Lyle
Bittrick, John
Bivens, Eddie
Blackman, Lawrence B.
Blackmore, George
Blackmore, Thelma
Blair, James
Blair, Ken
Blake, James
Blake, Linda
Blaney, Paula
Blaney, Robert
Blank, James
Blankenship, James C.
Blankenship, Larry
Blankenship, Matt
Blankenship, Max J.
Blaski, Paul F.
Blenck, Tony
Blessing, Jack
Bley, Nathalie
Bliss, Carman
Bloom, Colin
Bloomfield, Michael
Blue, Stella
Bodien, Rosie
Boechler, Joseph
Boehn, Kathleen
Boerner, Ron
Boersma, Jim
Boesel, Marcy
Boesel, Mike
Bogue, Michael
Bohinann, Ted
Bokaw, Robert
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-29
Bokma, Alan
Boldman, David
Bolkrom, Clarence L.
Booker, Gary
Bordwell, Richard
Borst, Douglas
Boseck, Mike
Bossard, Stan
Boswell, Claudia
Bouar, Harold
Bouer, Cindy
Boulton, William
Bounton, Joe
Bourn, Mike
Bourth, Gloria
Bouta, Charlotte
Bouta, Dale
Bouta, Larry
Bouta, Villiani
Bowe, Carol & Ron
Bowe Construction
Bower, Chris
Bowes, Gerald G.
Bowes, Jerry
Bowles, James W.
Bowles, Tim
Bowling, Chris
Bowman, Tony
Bowmer, Stewart
Box, Lou
Boyce, Barry
Boyd, Greg
Boyer, Joyce
Boyer, Tim
Brack, Eric
Bradbury, James
Bradford, Susann
Bradley, J.C.
Bradley, Robert
Bradley, Robert L.
Brady, Tomas
Braithwaite, Samuel
Branam, George
Branche, RJ.
Brandon, Wesley
Brandt, Fern
Brannon, Jim
Brannon, John
Branson, Jennell
Brashear, Jill
Brattain, Dorothy A.
Braummeling, Sherry
Braun, David
Braunschweig, Jeff
Brazeau, Steve L.
Brazle, Dolly
Brazle, Warren
Brees, Emily
Bremicker, Cloud
Bremmeyer, Bill
Bremner, Arthur
Bremner, Esther R.
Bremner, Fred W.
Bremner, Jaki
Bremner, Terra
Brender, Jeff
Bresee, Gerald
Breshears, Henry
Breshnahan, Rena
Breslin, Brian
Brevik, Ray
Brewster, J.P.
Bride, Vivian
Briggs, Ernie P.
Briggs, Howard
Briggs, Richard E.
Bright, Ken
Brisbois, Gene
Brittain, Michael
Britz, J.V. & Muriel
Brock, Gene
Brockhoff, Mike
Broderson, Dustin
Broemmeling, Rhonda
Brookfield, Richard
Brooks, Jonathon
Brooks, Lyle
Brooks, Richard
Brower, Troy
Brown, Bret M.O.
Brown, C. W.
Brown, Clinton L.
Brown, Columbus
Brown, Cory
Brown, Dan L.
Brown, Deborah E.
Brown, Dennis
Brown, Don
Brown, Edith
Brown, Garn A.
Brown, Gary
Brown, George
Brown, Jane
Brown, Janis
Brown, Jayne
Brown, Ken & Barb
Brown, Marion G.
Brown, Ron
Brown, Scott
Brown, Sonny
Brown, Tami
Brown, Twila
Brown, Vernon
Brownson, Dianne
Bruggman, Ed
Brunei), Don
Bryan, Christina
Bryan, Cody E.
Bryan, Les
Bryan, Leslie
Bryan, Shirley & John
Bryant, Elizabeth
Bryant, Erin
Bryant, Sam
Buchanan, Richard
Buchannan, George B.
Buchert, Ed
Buchert, Evangelene
Buchner, Gerald
Buck, Bonnie
Buckus, Bary
Bucond, Kandee
Buddington, Andrew
Budsey, David
Buell, Jack H.
Buell, Shane
Buitrago, Liz
Bunch, Darrel
Bunch, David
Bunch, Jim
Bunch, Judy
Bunson, Mick
Burbank, Arika
Burbank, Celeste
Burbank, Harold & Rosa Lee
Burbank, Jacob
Burbank, Shelle
Burchett, Floyd
Burchett, Wayne
Burgess, Bill
Burgh, Brian
Burke, Bob
Burke, Constance
Burke, Joseph
Burkhart Sr., Aaron
Burks, Flora Faye
Burks, John C.
Burlen, David
Burnett, Brian
Burnett, Joseph
Burnett, William D.Burns
Burns, David
Burns, John
Burns, Luella
Burns, William L.
Burnside, Chris
Burnside, Jim
Buroken, Michael
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS 4 L-30
Burrill, Bill A.
Burris, Rex D.
Burt, Steven W.
Burton, Denise
Burton, F.J.
Burton, Pete L.
Burwell, John
Bush, Lorraine
Bussell, Cal
Bussler, Duane
Butcher, Charles
Butcher, Jeff
Butler, Ben
Butler, Garold
Butler, Jeff
Butler, Robert
Butler, Rusty
Butschke, Cheryl
Buttle, Kim
Bye, Butch
Bye, Don
Byrd, Donald R.
Byrd, Margaret
Cabbage, Joe
Caddy, Catherine M.
Caddy, James E.
Caddy, Rick
Cadieu, Dale
Cagle, Merrell W.
Caldwell, William
Calhoon, Kenneth
Callander, Terry D.
Calligo, Camilla
Calus, Barbara
Calvert, Thomas
Cameron, Arthur L.
Cameron, Donald E.
Cameron, Erna
Cameron, Larry
Cameron, Robert
Cameron, Robert
Campbell, Charlie
Campbell, Lloyd
Campbell, Minnie
Campbell, Richard
Campbell, Robert
Campbell, Ronald W.
Cannon, Henry
Cantaline, Luella
Canterbury, Joel C.
Canthour, Leanne
Cantlon, Erik
Caple, John
Carden, Gary
Carder, Kathleen
Carlson, A.
Carlson, Robert
Carnett, Carmen
Carpenter, Allison
Carpenter, Frank G.
Carpenter, Jody
Carpenter, M. R.
Carr, Delaney
Carrasco, Joe
Carrel, Chris
Carroll, Denny
Carter, Bruce
Carter, Cloyd
Carter, Dorothy
Carter, Homer
Carter, Renee
Carter, Sandy
Cartwright, David T.
Casebier, James A.
Casey, Helen
Casey, Paul
Casey, Ray
Casey, Tim
Castiglia, Betty J.
Castona, Robert
Castrich, Elroy
Gates, Michael
Catlu, Julie A.
Caton, Tom
Caveness, James
Caves, Milton J.
Caves, Shirley
Cebanno, Kenneth
Certain, Lila
Certain, J. Dave
Chamberlain, Galen
Chamberlin, Bill
Chamberlin, Jim
Chambers, Joyce
Chancey, William, Ruby
Chapman, Richard
Chappel, Mary
Charbonneau, Carl
Charbonneau, M.
Charland, Todd
Chase, Florince
Chase, Harvey
Chastans, Edward
Chavez, Nick
Cheatad, Leo
Cherrington, Ken
Chestnut, Burt
Chiechi, Dolores
Chiechi, Douglas
Chiechi, Michael, Lori
Chiechi, Vito
Childers, Don
Childress, Beatrice
Christensen, Dustin
Christensen, Margaret
Christensen, Shirley
Christensen, Susan
Christensen, Ted
Christensen, Todd
Christenson, Carol
Christenson, Randall R.
Christian, James W.
Christie, Jr., Bruce
Christoph, Jerry
Christopher, Andy
Chuck, M.
Chukinee, Garry
Chun, Soo
Chunn, Murray
Churbermeau, Carl
Church, Liisa
Ciais, Andre J.
Cirtis, William N.
Cisneros, Grace
Claphan, Bobbie
Clark, David R.
Clarke, Dale
Clarkson, Betty L.
Clarkson, James & Lisa
Clarkson, Kenneth J.
Claussen, Eric
Claussen, Kimberzly
Clayton, Alicia
Cleek, Lawrence & Pat
Clem, Joy
Clemen, Howard
Cleuh, Jeffery
Clifford, Bill
Clift, V.S.
Cline, Fred
Cline, Judith Jean
Cline, Susan
Cline Mi, Frank W.
Clough, David R.
Clough, Lesla
Clough, Merle A.
Cloutier, Bruce
Coaxum, Darryl
Cochran, Carleen
Cochran, Phil
Cochran, William
Cockle, Roy
Coffelt, Amos
Coffey, Shelly
Cohee, Joseph
Colberg, Terry
Colbert, Daniel C.
Colbert, Ray
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-31
Cole, Bruce
Cole, Carla
Coleman, Michael
Coleman, Susan
Coleman, Tim
Coles, Thomas
Coder Jr., Richard L.
Collier, Brad
Collin, Colan
Collins, Don
Collins, Larry
Collins, Michael
Collins, Ryan
Collyer, Nathan
Coltrin, Sid
Columbia, Dana L.
Coly, Ted
Combs, Donnie
Combs, E C
Combs, John Jr
Combs, John W.
Combs, Sally
Comeau, Vernia S.
Coneau, Pete
Coney, Marilyn
Connell, Shawn
Conner, Gary
Conner, Skip
Conner, Teresa
Conner, Sr., James L.
Conners, Harry K.
Connor, Jerry
Cook, Fred
Cook, Jim
Cook, Marie
Cook, Regina
Cook, Stan
Cool, Bruce
Coombes, Charlotte
Coon, Walter B.
Cooper, Carmella
Cooper, Karen
Cooper, Richard & Carmela
Cooper, Travis
Corbaley, Daniel L.
Corbet, Jack D.
Core, Ira
Corey, John
Corn, Kay
Cornelius, Moriah
Cornell, Dennis
Cornwall, Corda
Cornwall, David
Cornwall, Robert
Cornwall, Ruth
Cornwall, Saleta
Cornwall, Thelma
Corp, Guy
Corsa, Amoreena
Cortez, Antonio
Cortez, Victor
Corwall, Duane
Corwin, Douglas H.
Cosiento
Cosletela, Roger & Sue
Cotter, Robert
Cotter, Stephen
Cottonwoods Motel
Couelt, Darrell L.
Coultas, Dale
Coulter, Joe W.
Couse, Clifford
Couse, Shirley
Cousins, James C.
Cowardin, John C.
Cowardin, Mike T.
Cowley, Anne
Cowley, J.L.
Cowon, Rachel
Cox, Nells
Coxeis, William D.
Coyle, Kenneth
Crabenstein, Christa
Crackel, Dan
Cramer, Steve
Cramer, Tom
Crampton, Susan
Crawford, Claudia
Crawford, Sibyl
Crawford, Susan
Crawford, Thomas
Creegan, Cindi
Creegan, Jim
Crenshaw, John E.
Creveling, Edna
Cribby, Paul
Critchlow, Mary Jane
Crittenden, Mariah
Croll, Rhea
Crollard, Dave
Cromwell, Kim
Cromwells Used Cars
Crooks, Phillip
Cross, Darren
Croweln, Eric
Cruise, Ceila
Cruse, N.M.
Cruthers, Brent D.
Culbertson, Tricia
Cullier, Laurence
Culver, R.B.
Cunningham, D.E.
Cunningham, Judith L.
Cunningham, Shara
Curdie, David
Curdie, Ella
Currie, Cathie
Currie, Donna
Currin, Robert
Curtis, Lloyd
Curtis, Ruth W.
Curtis, Sheryl
Cusick, John 0.
Cutchie, Jack
Cyr, Roger M.
Dagnon, Hal
Dahcquist, Norman
Daignault, Roger R.
Dailey, Sonnia Hall
Dally, Brett A.
Dalzell, Turii
Dammam, Fred
Dammann, Fred & Nancy
Dammolee, Mike
Daniel, Rajan
Daniels, Cynthia Sue
Daniels, Jerry
Danntree, Douglas & Marcella
Hall-mcmurtrie
Darnell, Robert
Darr, Allan B.
Dart, John
Dart, Phillip
Dart, Richard
Daueber, Lynn
Daugharty, Dale
Daust, L. R.
Davenhall, Matthew
Davey, Gary
Davidson, James
Davidson, Loren
Davis, Alice M.
Davis, Ben
Davis, Chase
Davis, Dale G.
Davis, Dana
Davis, Donald B.
Davis, Donald A.
Davis, Gary
Davis, Greg
Davis, Jack
Davis, Karin
Davis, Kevin
Davis, Lisa
Davis, Mary Lou
Davis, Morgan
Davis, Sam
Davis, Scott G.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS * £-32
Davis, Sidney
Davis, Terry
Davis, William
Davison, David
Dawson, John
Day, John
Day, L.M.
Day, V. L.
Dchutz, Karen
De Noyer, Carl
De Noyer, Ida Mae
De Yonge, Jack
Dearborn, Nick
Debells, Frank
Debord, Dan
Debra, Ted
Decker, Dan
Dedmotley, David
Degerstrom, Neal
Deglee, John
Dehart, Kurt
Delancey, Melbert D.
Delby, Wendy
Deleo, Tim
Delfeld, Billie
Delong, Glen
Deloss, Nicole
Delsignore, A.
Dempsey, Ken
Denaney, Roger
Denis, Greg
Denney, Don & Jan
Dennis, Scott
Deponty, B.B.
Dermott, John
Desautel, Joe
Desjardens, Rebecca & John
Detro, Marguerite
Detro, Russel
Detweiler, Mary
Devaney, Ken
Devine, Brenda
Devlin, Bary
Devo, Rocky
Devon, Dale
Devon, Judy & Larry
Dewitt li, Larry
Dial, Vega
Dick, Kenneth R.
Didra, Henry
Didra, Jo Ann
Diehl, Charlie
Dihger, Robert
Dildine, Tom
Dills, Lynn
Dinkins, Vicki
Dirks, Darcy
Dirks, Darrell
Dixon, Donald
Dixon, Gary
Dixon, June
Dobson, Kenneth
Dodge, Theodore
Doelling, Christine
Doherty, James
Dolly, Brett A.
Donaldson, Genna
Donaldson, James
Donaldson, Janna
Donaldson, William K.
Doner, Gerald Riggs
Doner, Susan
Doran, Dan
Doremus, Llyn
Dorsey, James
Doucett, John
Doucette, Gilbert J.
Dougherty, Gary
Douglas, Jack
Downard, Jerry
Downard, Ton!
Downey, Mike
Doyle, Eldon
Draggoo, C.
Draggoo, Richard B.
Dragnich, Larry
Dragnich, Nick
Dragnich, Vivian
Drake, Cedar
Draper, Louis
Drapnuii, Louie
Dreaming, Dolphin
Dress, Donetta
Drever, Margie
Drinkard, Aron
Drinkard, Jack
Drummond, Barbara
Drummond, Monte
Drury, Brooke
Duchow, Carl
Duchow, Mrs. Carl
Ducote, Danielle
Ducote, Rachel
Dudley, Bradford
Dull, Thomas & Evelyn
Duncan, Ginger
Duncan, J.G.
Duncan, James
Dunham, Dorothy
Dunkelberger, Harris
Dunn, Jerald A.
Dunn, Lois
Dunn, Rosalie M.
Dunning, Dean
Dunoskovic, Krista K.
Durbin, Mike
Durham, Al
Dusenberry, Susan
Dwight, Vern
Dyker, Richard
Eader, Jerry
Eads, Andy
Eagle, Mary
Eagle, Jr., Leonard
Eagles, Two
Earlscourt, Skip
Early, Shelly
Ebisch, Jim
Eckenburg, Max
Eckley, Chris
Ecklon, Shauneen
Eder, Larry
Eder, Lynn
Eder, Terri
Edmonds, Dayton
Edmonds, Taleah
Edwards, Craig
Edwards, D.M.
Edwards, David
Edwards, Ralph
Egbert, William
Eggert, Sharon
Ehlers, George
Ehlers, Jay M.
Ehnis, Rick A.
Eich, Dan & Maria
Eichler, John
Eidukas, John
Eiffert, James
Eisenberg, Jossie
Ellers, Carl
Ellingson, S.D.
Ellington, Audra
Ellington, Ryan
Elliot, Jeremy
Ellis, John W.
Ellis, Norman A.
Ellis, Tom R.
Elting, Amanda
Elvin, Judy
Embrysk, Stanley L.
Embysk, Lee
Emerrich, Martin
Enbysk, Terron & Lee
Engel, Deja Leah
Engel, Elan
Engel, Mary
Engel, Reed H.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-33
Engeland, M. W.
Engelbretson, Jackie
Engle, Don
Engle, Mary & Reed
English, Chris
English, Delmer
English, Steve
Engstrom, George E.
Engstrom, Vivian
Engstrom, Wesley
Ennis, Pat
Ennis, Susan
Enpstrom, George
Epley, Georgina
Epperson, Jeff
Erb, Mike
Erb, Robert
Erbs, Steve
Erdman, Coreena
Erickson, Curt & CJ
Erickson, Judy
Erickson, Ron
Espenhorst, Eric
Ethberg, Mitch
Evans, Chester
Evans, Jim & Carol
Evans, Milford
Evans, Paul
Evans, Susan
Evans, Walter J.
Evans Auto Rebuild
Evant, Joseph
Evarano, Anna
Everhart, John
Evesland, Helsner
Evesland, Peg
Pagan, Mike
Faircloth, Leon
Fancher, Ryan
Faragher, Mary
Farland, Lawrence
Farley, Bill
Farley, John
Farrar, Jeffrey
Farrester, Barbara
Farrester, Dave
Faulkner, M.D.
Faulks, Delmar
Fearter, Ira
Federspiel, Christine
Fedrespiel, Ralph
Fee, Roy
Fegarda, Jose
Fein, Matthew
Feldman, David
Feldman, Mark
Felix, Kathy
Felkosky, Joe
Felmley, Drew
Felmley, Robert
Felmley, Vivian
Felzien, Ray
Ferdette, Jean
Ferguson, Nathaniel
Ferguson, Roger A.
Ferrall, James H.
Fewkes, Casey
Fictitious, Luke
Fife, Dean
Fife, Debbie
Fike, Justin P.
Finch, James
Fine, David D.
Finley, Daisy
Finley, Ronald
Finnell, Alfred F.
Finnell, Floretta R.
Finnigan, Timothy
Finsen, Betty
Finsen, Jack
Finsen, Joseph
Firpo, Leonard & Darlene
Fischer, John S.
Fish, James
Fisher, Clair
Fisher, Denise
Fisher, Jason
Fisher, John
Fisher, Peggy L.
Fisher, Thomas W.
Fisk, Ken
Fitzpatrick, Dan
Fitzpatrick, Melvin L.
Fitzpatrick, Timothy A.
Fitzthum, Julia
Fixer, Newton
Flajole, Matthew
Flemming, Annabelle
Fletcher, Jean
Fletcher, Mike
Fletcher, Wayne
Flora, Connie
Flores, Guadalupe
Flores-pacha, Michele
Flores-pacha, Shelly
Flory, Bridget
Flynn, Joseph
Flynn, Thomas
Fogley, Mike
Folkes, Harry
Fonping, Linda
Ford, Jim
Foreman, Leah
Forest, Ron
Forney, Merlin W.
Forrester, Jayce
Forsman, Ed
Forthun, Leland
Forthun, Leona
Foss, Clayton
Foster, Shanta
Foster, Warren
Fouraker, Eugene
Fowler, Ruth
Fox, Connie
Fox, Jay & Le
Fox, Pete
Fraizer, Gail
Frank, George
Frank, Jess
Franklin, Byron
Franklin, Eric
Frankos, Coletba
Frantz, George
Frantz, Iva Mae
Fraser, Raymond D.
Frazier, Evelyn
Frazier, Jeff
Frazier, Roy
Frazier, T.R.
Frazzell, Doug
Freeman, Daryl
Freeman, Sandra
Freese, Nancy
Freese, Robert
Freudenstein, Tom
Frey, Carla
Fridley, Carol
Fridley, Ray A.
Friedbauer, Karen
Friedbauer, William
Fritz, Arlen
Fromm, Jack L.
Frue, Chris
Fry, Amy
Fry, Dietz
Fry, Nettis
Fry, Stephen
Fulford, Kenneth
Fuller, Judith
Fulsaas, Kris
Funden li, David
Funk, Sarah
Purely, Raymond
Furman
Furman, Scott R.
Furness, Tom F.
Furniss, Ann
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-34
Furniss, Tom
Gadeberg, Delores
Gadeberg, Joe
Gadiwalla, Amir
Gagnat, Robert D.
Galbraith, Daniel
Gallagher, Roberta
Gallagher, Tim
Gallagher, Tom
Galloway, Jim
Galloway, Patty
Galvan, Antonio
Garcher, Kathy
Gardiner, Leah
Gardinier, Dave
Gardinier, Dianne
Gardinier, Jill
Gardinier, Roger
Gardner, Duane
Gardner, Heidi
Gardner, Lula
Garner, Richard
Garoutte, Gordon
Garrett, Paul
Garrett, Wes C.
Gartin, Glenn
Gates, Gene L.
Gates, Greg
Gates, Rudoph L.
Gattman, Jessica
Gattman, Lavonna
Gattman, Robert
Gault, Gorge
Gavin, Dale
Gavin, Jack M.
Gavin, Lillian E.
Gavin, Linda
Gay, Kathryn
Gayle, Amber
Gegg, Diana
Gehl, Danielle K.
Geiger, Kevin
Geigle, Arlen
Geiske, Barry & Sally
Gelbach, Bruce L.
Gelblum, Natasha
Gelvin, Delia
Gelvin, Ed
Gentz, Paul
Gerasche, Joyce
Gerken, Candy
Germain, M. S.
Geroux, Dennis
Gerrer, Dennis D.
Gerringer, Dana
Gersbosch, Rick
Getschmann, Clarence
Gianukakis, William
Gibbon, Trevor
Gibbs, Harry
Gibbs, Raymond
Gibson, Brock C.
Gibson, Wesley
Giddings, Edward P.
Giddings, Kathy
Gietzen, Barbara
Gifford, Robert
Gilchrist, Jack
Gildroy, Art, Karen
Gillespie, Stuart
Gills, Jeff
Gilman, Herman
Gilman, Michael
Gilmer, Chuck
Gilroy, Art & Karen
Girth, Julie
Gjesvold, James
Glaesemann, George
Glasser, Martin
Glaze, Gary K.
Glenn, Nick A.
Glessnur, Ray & Pauline
Glickerman, David
Glover, Gina
Glover, Jim & Jani
Goad, Matthew
Gochnour, Lee Pat
Godwin, Eunice
Goetz, Gregory
Gohl, Joe & Karen
Golde, March
Golde, Stanley
Goldman, Dan
Golec, Matt
Golliday, Max
Gongaware, George
Gonk
Gonzales, Del E.
Gonzalez, Gulalio
Gooding, Susan
Goodman, William
Goodsole, Carol
Goodwin, Gary & Nancy
Goodwin, Marvin
Goodwin, Rich & Judy
Gordon, Mary
Goss, Steve
Gould, Gary J.
Goumans, Greg
Gourchaine, Cheryl
Goytowski, Irv
Grabriel, Gerry
Gradin, Ken
Gradl, Tim
Graham, David
Graham, Martha
Graham, N. F.
Graham, Rand E.
Grahan, Bill
Graling, Mary
Grant, Everett
Grant, Larry
Grant, Lorraine
Grant, Robert
Graser, Jerry
Gratton, Mike
Gray, Arthur A.
Gray, Gary V.
Gray, Terral S.
Greco, Robert
Gredvig, Mikkel
Greeder, Susan
Green, Laura
Green, Eddie
Green, Gerald & Patricia
Green, James
Green, Johce
Green, John
Green, Michelle
Green, Norman Sr.
Green, Patricia
Greenaway, Betty
Greene, Joyce
Greene, Tim
Greenland, Mrs. W.G.
Greenland, William & Mary
Greenway, Rick
Greenwood, Laura
Greenwood-Dennis, Julie
Gregg, Leonard
Gregware, Beatrice
Grene, Dan
Gricno, Gerald
Griesse, Phil
Griff, Alison
Griffin, Stephen
Griffith, Autumn
Griffith, Delbert
Griffith, Gwyneth
Griffith, Steve
Griffith, Tara
Griffitts, Gianetta
Grille, Elaine
Grimes, Michael
Grimm, Robert H.
Grimm, Tonja
Grissom, Ronald & Judy
Groomes, Lloyd
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-35
Groseclose, Dave
Grottan, Jodie
Grottan, Mike
Grove, Sidney
G rover. Ret
Gruich, Daniel
Grumbach, Margaret K.
Grumback, Ken & Aldena
Grunerud, Ralph H.
Grussmuch, Lr
Gubler, Jim
Guerrero, Oscar
Gulley, John
Gump, Forest
Callings, Larry
Gully, Dan
Gunderson, Kathy
Gundlock, Earl
Gurney, David
Guthrie, James R.
Gutierrez, Roberto
Gyory, Stephen
Haase, William G.
Hachton, Michael
Hackius, Michael G.
Hadden, Boyd L.
Hadley, Steven
Haener, Al
Hagel, Be
Hagelstein, Richard
Hagen, Brad
Hager, Steve
Hagerup, Tim C.
Hahn, Bruce A.
Hahn, Judith
Halfhill, Phil
Hall, Earl L.
Hall, James
Hall, Jeannine
Hall, Kevin
Hall, Leslie
Hall, Linda
Hall, Nicholas
Hall, Stan
Hall, Terry
Hall-Mullen, Gillian
Halladay, Diana
Hallauer, Josephine
Hallauer, Wilbur
Halsted, Myrtle
Halvorson, Arden
Hamilton
Hamilton, Casey R.
Hamilton, David
Hamilton, Debra
Hamilton, Gordon
Hamilton, Harry
Hamilton, Jack & Debi
Hamilton, John W.
Hamilton, Joyce
Hamilton, Laura
Hamilton, R. Greg
Hamilton, Rosco & Julianne
Hamilton, William
Hamm, Ralph
Hammer, Barbara
Hammer, Duane L.
Hammer, Jerry E.
Hammersmith, Eugene
Hammersmith, Patricia
Hammond, David R.
Hammond, Jim W.
Hampton, Harlow E.
Hamsher, R.F.
Hamstalk, Jana
Hancock, Theresa
Haney, Lance
Hankins, Marvin D.
Hankins, Michale
Hanks, Vicki
Hanna, David
Hannigan, Kathleen
Hannigan, Linda
Hansen, Armand
Hansen, David
Hansen, Gloria
Hanson, Oroville
Hanson, Sarah
Harb, Edna
Harbin, Klint
Harbison, Randy
Harbison, Toni
Harding, Shane
Hardy, Jill
Hardy, Sheila
Hardy, Steven
Harid, Brenda
Harkness, Vern
Harlan, Francis
Harlow, Jerry L.
Harman, Tim
Harman, Virginia
Harnasek, Grace
Harnasek, June M.
Harries, Jess
Harrington, John
Harris, Ben
Harris, Ben R.
Harris, Bob
Harris, Carl W.
Harris, Charles E.
Harris, Jack
Harris, Tom
Harrison, Mr. & Mrs. Walter
Harrison, Raymond A.
Harrison, Walter
Harsh, Betty
Hart, Ed
Hart, Jim
Hart, Kathleen
Hart, Raymond G.
Hart, Richard C. & Betty E.
Hart, Stacy
Hartley, Cathileen
Hartley, John
Hartman, Barbara & Gilbert
Hartman, Deborah
Hartman, Richard A.
Hartsfield, Nancy
Hartzell, Ward
Harvey, George
Harvey, Jeff
Harvey, P. Allyn
Harvey, Vernon
Harvey, Vernon
Harvey, Vernon
Hastins, Carla
Hatch, Nick
Hatch, Nick
Hatfield, Paul
Hatfield, Wilbert
Hauding, Jeremy
Hauf, Clarence
Haughton, Dennis
Hausen, Peter
Hausken, Dave
Hautchens, Beverly
Haven, Charles
Haven, Roberta & Debbie
Hawes, Robert
Haworth, Andy
Haworth, Jeff
Haye, Stan
Hayes, Chuck
Hayes, Jr., Charles B.
Haynes, Sean A.
Hays, Jean
Hays, Jeff
Hazen, Anthony
Hazen, Michael
Hazen, Rosemarie
Headlee, Gary
Heath, Mike
Hecummus, Howard
Hedlund, Donna
Hedman, L.
Heffelfinger, Tracy
Hefner, Dave
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-36
Heindselman, Clifford
Heindselman, O.K.
Heindselman, Dorothy
Heindselman, Kirk
Heindselman, Kory
Heindselman, Lois
Heindselman, Peggy
Heinlen, Charles & Rita
Heiserman, Ray
Heitzman, Jerry
Helbig, Dale & June
Helderbrand, Bob
Helle, Mary
Hellenbrand, Bob & Sandra
Helm, Delmar
Helnick, Julie & Ken
Helphrey, William
Hemingway, Greydon
Henderson, Art
Henderson, Donald
Henderson, Jay
Henderson, Lori
Henderson, Tom
Hendlerson, S.
Henneman, Chad
Henneman, Marcia
Henneman, Steven
Hennessey, Robert
Hennigh, Dennis
Hennigs, Gordon
Hennings, Wilbur, Jean
Hennum, Karl
Hepburn, Mark
Hepp, Deanna
Herald, Christopher
Heron, Delphine
Herrington, Wayne E.
Hershaw, Brad
Hershey, Mike
Hess, Tadd
Hettiger, Kurt
Heuska, Lyn & Don
Hewitt, Boyd A.
Hewitt, Dianne
Hews, Janet L.
Heye, Thomas
Heyen, Kecia
Hickenbottom, Karen
Hicks, Gregory
Hicks, Shari
Higgins, Gordon
Higgins, Lea H.
Higgins, Marion
Higley, Ted
Hilderbrand, Bob
Hilderbrant, Irene
Hildebrant, Leonard E., Jr.
Hill, Allen
Hill, Aron
Hill, Charlie
Hill, Darrell
Hill, Dave
Hill, Dottie E.
Hill, Kenneth
Hill, Lane
Hill, Lauren
Hillard, Lori
Hilva, Debbie
Hime, Joan
Hindak, Marian
Hinderer, Scott
Hinds, Marilyn
Hines, Jude
Hines, Vincent
Hinman, Dean
Hinsdale, Lloyd
Hinshaw, Raylynn
Hinze, Brant
Hirschstein, Kathleen
Hirsh, George
Hirst, Bob & Margaret
Hirst, Mr. & Mrs. George
Hirst, Richard L.
Hirst, Ronald
Hittinger, Alice
Hochstedler, Sheila
Hockaday, Colleen
Hockstedler, Sheila
Hoffe, Autum A.
Hoffman, Katie
Hoffman, Ken G.
Hoffmann, Walter
Hogan, Ann
Hogan, Mark
Hogan, Norman
Hogan, Steven P.
Hogness, Margaret
Holden, Ashley
Holden, Billie
Holdridge, Chris
Holguin, Consuelo
Holland, Dan
Hollett, John
Holloway, Robyn
Holly
Holmes, Arthur
Holmes, Jennifer
Holmes, Kevin L.
Holmes, Larry
Holmes, T H
Holmes, William
Holt, Ron
Holt, Thomas
Holznetzer, Doris
Hoover, Sue
Hopkins, Brian
Hoppens, David
Hoppens, Jeff
Horak, Frank
Horn, Brad
Home, Sandra
Hoskin, R.
Hotchkiss, Randy
Hottel, Robert
Hottell, Diana
Hotted, Mr. & Mrs. Robert
House, Lena
Houston, Ella
Houston, Wayne B.
Howard, Barney
Howard, Roger
Howard, Ted
Howe, Cora
Howe, Dawn
Howe, Debra & Bob
Howe, Delmar H.
Howe, Hazel
Howe, Kenneth
Howell, Donna
Howell, Kyle
Howell, Marcie
Howell, Mike
Howell, Spike
Howerton, Kenneth & Peggy
Howes, Sr., Larry D.
Hewlett, Judy
Hoyt, Bete
Hoyt, Virginia
Hrouatin, Nancy
Hubbard, Jim
Hubbard, Mike
Hubbs, Bill M.
Huber, Joyce
Huber, T.D. & J.A
Huber, Ted
Hudson, Michael
Hudson, Ryan
Hued, Terry
Huff, Randy
Huffman, Rick
Huggins, Cliff
Huggins, Erika
Hughes, Doris
Hughes, Garry
Hughes, Glen
Hughes, Judy
Hughes, Kathy
Hughes, Robert
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • 1-37
Hulsing, Tim, Janet, Jesse, &
Kylan
Humbel, Will
Hunsaher Hell, Sherrie
Hunt, Walt
Hunter, Wendy
Hunting, Marshall
Huntley, Williams
Husband, Sandra K.
Husen, John & Margaret
Huslid, Oddvar
Hustad, Alan D.
Hutchessen, David
Hutton, Rodney
Hyde, Bob
Hyde, Jenny
Hyde, JK Quill
Hyde, Ron
Hyde, Rose
Hyman, Rob
lanniello, Susan
lanuly, Thed
Imbert, Charlene
Ines, Joselito
Ingebrigbon, Paul
Ingraham, Theresa
Ingram, Bill
Inks, Andrew & Norma
Inskeep, Rick D.
Iribarren, Rick
Irwin, Frieda
Irwin, Robert
Irwin, Stuart
Israel, Gideon
lukes, Georgia
luke, Steven, Jr.
lukes, Steve, Sr.
Iverson, Jay
Jack, Jim
Jackson, Alfred
Jackson, Art & Susan
Jackson, Bernard
Jackson, Clayton
Jackson, Darcy
Jackson, Frank
Jackson, James
Jackson, Jim
Jackson, Marian
Jackson, Roger
Jackson, Roy & Nancy
Jackson, Sally
Jacobs, Don
Jacobs, Kim
Jacobson, James
James, Aaron
James, Raymond & Lavonne
Jameson, Denise
Jameson, Jess
Jameson, Mary
Jann, Lucinda
Jannot, Rusty
Jansen, Hugh
Jaquish, Gordon W.
Jaquish, Rhonda
Jarbeau, Jayne
Jasley, Connie
Jedel, Frank
Jeffery, Skip
Jeffery, Wesley
Jettison, Burt
Jellison, Francis
Jenkins, John
Jenkins, Marlene
Jensen, Becky
Jensen, Beverly
Jensen, Elmer
Jensen, Gary
Jensen, Harold & Chris
Jensen, Jon R.
Jensen, Philip
Jentzen, Karen
Jessup, Alan
Jessup, Phillip
Jewett, Denise
Jockisch, Dan
Johanson, Roger
Johnson, Allen G.
Johnson, Arthur D.
Johnson, Brett
Johnson, Cliff
Johnson, Erik
Johnson, Friz
Johnson, Gary
Johnson, Gerald
Johnson, Grady
Johnson, James
Johnson, Jeffrey L.
Johnson, Jerome
Johnson, Joel
Johnson, Linda
Johnson, Marvin G.
Johnson, Nelda
Johnson, Noel
Johnson, Paul
Johnson, Peter
Johnson, Richard
Johnson, Roy
Johnson, Sherry
Johnson, Steve
Johnson, Tom
Johnston, Clarence
Johnston, Dave L.
Johnston, Loren
Jolly, Ed
Jones, Cherie
Jones, Jean
Jones, Paul C.
Jones, R.D.
Jones, Rhonda
Jones, Robert Levi
Jones, Steve
Jones, Walter
Jordan, C.
Jorgenson, Howard N.
Josig, Walter
Joyner, Lola
Judkins, Alford
Juneau, Sam
Jury, Arthur Jr
Kadaska, Connie
Kahler, David
Kammers, Suzanne
Kammers, Terri
Kanan, Thomas
Kane, James
Karlin, James
Karsin, Erica
Katz, Robin
Keaton, Tiffany R.
Kebler, Karen
Kebler, Marianne
Keen, Tammy M.
Keesling, Maxine
Keeton, Bill
Keeton, Corey
Keeton, Nancy
Keith, Daniel
Keller, Lawrence W.
Keller, Michael
Kelley, Becky
Kelley, Charles
Kelley, Colleen
Kelley, Debora
Kelley, Donald
Kelley, Walt
Kelts
Kelly, Audrie
Kelly, Bill
Kelly, Cliff
Kelly, Florence
Kelly, John
Kelly, Noble L.
Kelly, Peggy
Kemp, Melvin
Kendall, Mike L.
Kendel, Al
Kendrick, Pat
Kennedy, Barbara
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS 4 L-38
Kent, Sam
Kerler, Jim
Kernan, Florence
Kersey, Frank
Kessler, Dallas
Ketley, A.B.
Key, Lucille
Kidwell, Dan
Kidwell, Samuel
Kilburn, Hugh
Kile, Les
Kile, Lorraine
Kilpatrick, Kathleen
Kimble, Jackie
Kimbrell, Pete
Kincaid, Gerald
King, Clayton
King, Donald
King, Doreen
Kingsbury, Donald 0.
Kingsfield, Spencer
Kinney, Karen
Kinney, Lester
Kinpers, Floyd
Kinread, Larry
Kinzer, Kelly
Kirby, Jessie
Kirby, Nina
Kirchenmeister, Joseph
Kirchner, Brian
Kirk, Harold
Kirkpatrick, Gwen
Kitchell, Margaret
Kitterman, Debbie L.
Kitterman, Joe
Kivi, Dick
Kjas, Bob
Kjos, Leonard P.
Klaas, Scott E.
Kiiegman, Edwin
Kliegman, Sara
Kiiegman, Hanna & David
Kline, Roy J.
Klinkert, Susan
Klump, Ted
Kluth, Douglas
Knapp, Angie
Knapper, Fred
Knight, Connie
Knight, Ken L.
Knight, Mark
Knight, Monica
Knight, Tim
Knowles, Leah
Knox, Janet N.
Knudsen, Rachel
Knuth, Mike
Knutz, William
Koch, D.L.
Koch, Jake
Kochsmeier, Karra
Kocol, Jeffrey
Kocol, Lora
Kodya, Traci
Koehn, Christopher & Lynn
Koenig, Gary
Koepke, Jarrod
Koepke, Mary Jane
Koepke, Terry
Kolb, Dorene
Kollman, Jane
Kong, Carol
Kontos, Mike J.
Koontz, Charlie
Kortemeier, Randy
Kosier, Roberta J.
Kostka, Pete
Kowallis, Warren E.
Kramer, James
Krausse, Ron
Krausse, Sarah
Kreis, Richard
Kreisel, Karen
Krinke, Helen
Kristensen, Denise
Kristensen, Karl
Kristensen, Kim
Kroboth, Roger C.
Krossiv, Lester
Kroupa, Dolores
Kruse
Kuchenmeister, Joseph &
Dawn
Kuchne, William
Kuchta, Shirley
Kuhlmann, Irene
Kuhlmann, Melvin E.
Kunell, John H.
Kunkel, Norman
Kuntz, Ray L.
Kurtz, Allan
Kurtz, Dale
Kurtz, John & Lela
Kurtz, Vickie
Kusler, Keith
La Grange, Jacob
La Motte, Vernon
La Pierre, Betty
La Rue, Bob & Jackie
La Rue, Brad
La Shelle, Mary
Labate, John
Labbe, Lucien
Labreck, Jeffrey
Labriole, Madeline
Lacey, H. Jake
Ladoux, Larry
Laeo, Noble & Ardith
Lagge, Rick J.
Lake, Terra
Lambert, Sunflower
Lamberton, Dee
Lamoreaux, Craig
Lamoreaux, Paul
Lamoreaux, Susan
Lamtt, Mcihael
Lancaster, Bob
Lancaster, Rosy
Lancaster, Jr., John
Lange, Donna J.
Lange, Richard H.
Langford, Fred
Langner, Jim
Langton, Debbie
Lanigan, Carol
Lanigan, Colin
Lapp, Barry
Larrabee, John P.
Larsen, Nils
Larsen, Sharlene
Larson, Donald A.
Larson, Justin
Larson, Lonnie
Larson, Lse
Larson, Mark
Lason, Ruth
Lathe, Patricia
Laub, Raymond
Lauerman, Glen M.
Laurie, Harold
Laurie, Ida R.
Laurie, Sharon
Laurie, Sherri
Laurie, Ted
Lavell
Laverman, Bruce
Lawlis, Aubrey R.
Lawrence, Robert E.
Lawson, Justin
Layer, Eric
LB Construction
Le May, Margaret
Leavell, Grant & Sandra
Leavengod, Rob
Leba, John
Lebanno, Marian
Lecompte, Kyle S.
Leder, Murl
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS 4 L-39
Lee, Robert
Lee, Steven A.
Leeds, Todd
Leep, Richard
Leese, Betty
Leflen, John
Legg-jacius, Kim
Lehman, Larry & Dale
Lehrbas, Rose M.
Leighton, Dan
Leighton, Jesse
Leighton, Michael R.
Leighton, Sandra
Lemay, Claudia
Lembeck, Max D.
Lembeke, John & Lame
Lemeur, Roy
Lemon, David
Lenington, Carolyn
Leonard, Joyce
Lepage, Bruce
Lesage, Marianne & Russell
Lesamiz, Francis
Lesamiz, Roy
Lesamiz, Victor & Lola
Leslie, Dave
Leslie, Phyllis
Leslie, Ruth E.
Lesomig, Roy
Lesueur, Justine
Leuthold, Craig
Levi, Jah
Lewis, Allan & Mary
Lewis, Darrell
Lewis, Darrell
Lewis, Grant
Lewis, Guy
Lewis, Thomas
Leysath, Joseph
Lialie, Steve
Lickfold, Bryan
Lidder, Doris L.
Lien, Carsten
Lien, Judy
Liesmaki, Eva
Lind, Vergil L.
Lindberg, Princess
Lindholdt, Paul
Lindner, Tamara
Lindsay, James
Lindsey, Cathy
Lindsey, Louise
Lindsey, Tom
Lindsley, Vicor
Lindsy, Louise
Ling, Raymond
Lingle, Josh
Linville, Rick
Little, Ken
Little, R B
Little, Robert
Littrell, Joel E.
Littrell, Wanda
Llewellyn, Roger
Lock, Dee
Locke, Merle
Locks, Luanne
Lockwood, Fred
Lockwood, Ruth
Loe, Hilda
Lofton, Lamar
Logan, Josh
Loggins, Richard
Lombardi, Donna
Lombardo, Michael E.
Loneoria, Karl
Long, Bobby
Long, Doris
Long, Frances
Longanecker, Ralph
Longfellow, Donald R.
Longfellow, Robert
Longnecker, Robert
Longo, Amy
Loon, Jay
Loon, Quest
Loop, Lloyd
Looper, Marvin C.
Lorenz, Roger
Lorr, Forrest
Lortie, George
Lorz, Cameron
Lorz, Dennis R.
Lorz, Eleanor
Lorz, Fran
Lorz, John D.
Lorz, Rosalie
Lotze, Brian
Louie, Lovina
Lourie, Bernard
Lourie, Jim & Colleen
Love, Cristina
Love, Pat
Loveall, Rachel
Lowdermilk, Jeff
Lowery, Jannine
Lucas, Arthur S.
Lucas, Barney & Darlene
Lucero, Gilbert
Luedders, Wilmer
Luhn, Duane, Janie
Luin, Judy
Lukehart, James
Lumsden, Terry
Lund, James M.
Lunn, Rod
Lusiier, David
Lussier, Lamont
Lutgen, Ed
Lweandowski, Mark & Julie
Lye, Mike
Lyen
Lyles, Nancy
Lynch, Dennis
Lynch, Dennis
Lynch, Jack
Lynch, Mark
Lynch, Michael Jay
Lynn, Marilynn
Lynn, Trudy
Lyons, Carol
Lyons, John M.
Lyons Mcauley, M.C. Wendy
Lyrch, Mark
Lytle, Frank C
Lytle, George
Mabe, James Jr
Mabe, Mary
Macaluso, Amon
MacDonald, Megan
Mace, Douglas H.
MacGregor, Hilary
Mack, Joellen
Mack, Leo J.
Mack, Leona
Mack, Robert
Mackenzie, Billie
Mackie, Ora & George
MacQuarrie, Jerry
MacQuire, J
Maeburg, Bob
Maener, Dan
Maeyon, Bob
Magda, Greg
Magill, E.A.
Magner, Joan M.
Magnison, Sharon
Magnusson, Ronald M.
Magon, Rina
Maher, Patricia
Mahlendorf, Melissa
Mainwaring, William R.
Major, Jane & Al
Makarenko, Mike
Makchant, Tara
Makin, Jack
Malarkey, Theresa
Mall, Dennis
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-40
Mallar, Peter
Mallery, Lillian
Malm, Clifton
Maloney, Ed
Maluy, Patrick
Mandoli, M.J.
Manier, David
Mann, Stephen
Mann, Bob
Mann, David
Mann, Leona
Manning, Douglas
Manning, Roger D.
Manser, Lyle
Manser, Mark
Manthey, Elizabeth
Manthie, Kip
Maple, Kathleen & Fred
Maples, Don
Maples, N. Sean
Marcellue, Linda
Marchand, Jim
Marchesseau, Mildred
Marker, Brian K.
Markinston, Luke
Markley, Samuel A.
Marlatt, Dawes
Marquardt, Marie
Marquez, Jef
Marr, Helga
Marr, James
Marsall, Gary
Marsh, Gerald
Marshall, Amy J.
Marshall, Brenda
Marshall, Don
Marshall, Hank
Marshall, Rockey
Martha, Calus
Marthini, Thomas
Martin, Ausha
Martin, Betty Lou
Martin, Craig & Renee
Martin, Gary L.
Martineu, Gabriella
Marton, Cliff
Marttin, Cheryl
Martz, Harold
Marvin, James L.
Mason, Cheryl
Mason, Erika
Mason, Vernon
Mastel, Doug
Mathews, Lloyd
Matlock, Bert F.
Matson, Russell
Malta, Sky
Mauk, Ernest B.
Mauk, Harry L.
Mauppins, T. Dawn
Maurer Sr, Daniel
Maxwell, Sue
May, Brenda
May, Phyllis
Maycumber, Donald L.
Mazzetti, Johnny
Mazzetti, Michael Buffalo
Mazzetti, Virginia
McAbee, Vivian
McAdams, Kenneth
McAlavy, Robert A.
McAlister, H.S. & Mary
McAuley, Bruce
McAuley, Wendy Lyons
McCalley, Bruce
McCambridge, Nancy
McCann, Ed
McCarrell, Brad
McCarter, Mike
McCarthy, Bill
McCaughan, Joanne
McCleary, Gordon
McClellan, E. Jack
McClellan, John
McClemon, Melissa
McClure, Kenneh & Carol
McClure, Mike
McCord, Justina
McCormack, Tom
McCourt, Tim M.
McCoy, Scott E.
McCulley, Bernice
McCullough, Angie
McDaniel, A.G.
McDaniel, Bill & Jan
McDaniel, Margaret J.
McDaniel, Mark D.
McDaniel, Robert & Linda
McDonald, Dennis
McDonald, George
McDonald, Kay
McDonald, Thomas E.
McDonnell, James A.
McDonough, Dennis J.
McEnaney, Mike
McFadden, Carla
McFall, Doug J.
McFarland, Lawrence
McFarland, Zella
McGlochlin, Steven
McGrath, Freda T.
McGreeny, Mike
McGregor, James
McGuire, John
McGuire, Virginia
Mclntike, Ted
Mclntosh, Howard
Mclntosh, Larry
Mclntyre, Bill W.
Mclntyre, Gordon E.
McKay, Bridget
McKay, Gabe
McKee, Sage
McKendrick, Jonathan
McKenna, Jodi
McKerlie, Bill
McKillip, Michael
McKinney, Barbara
McKinney, Charles
McKinney, Frank
McKinney, Herman
McKinney, Leo
McKinsey, Beryl A.
McKnightt, Rod
McLeod, Heather
McLiment, Michael
McMillan, Dr. Carol
McMunn, Jim
McNale, Grace
McNamara, Jessica
McNamara, Richard
McNight, Bruce
McNitt, Mark
McPheeters, Les & Lila
McPherson, Wendy
McRayde, Doug
McRea, Toby
Meabebasterrachea, Ruferno
Meadows
Meadows, Paul
Medearis, Margaret
Medearis, Myron
Meese, Amie Ellis
Meier, John H.
Meier, Michelle B.
Meredith, Don
Merrical, Cindi
Merritt, Roxara
Mesell, Mike
Meslar, James
Meslar, John
Messer, Howard L.
Messer, Ron
Metz, Donna
Metz, Martin
Meyer, Julie
Michael, Larry
Michaels, Rich
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-41
Michaletz, Sarah
Michel, Charles
Michels, Deb
Middlekoop, P.P.
Milarlin, George
Miles, James
Miller, Bob
Miller, Brad L.
Miller, Catherine
Miller, Cynthia
Miller, David
Miller, Dean
Miller, Donna & Bob
Miller, Dorothy
Miller, Ernest M.
Miller, Gary
Miller, George
Miller, llene
Miller, Jim
Miller, Johnny
Miller, Katie
Miller, Lee
Miller, Lee H.
Miller, Marge
Miller, Mary E
Miller, Matthew
Miller, Michael D.
Miller, Ronald
Miller, Tara
Miller, William A.
Millhouse, Shane
Millikin, Susan
Mills, Aley
Mills, Alison
Mills, Billy
Mills, Cindy
Mills, Greg
Mills, Jerry
Mills, Mike
Mills, Ron
Mills, Terry
Minahan, Catherine
Mineard, Cheri
Mineard, Joe
Minnick, Jeannine
Minnick, Lewis
Mino, Debie
Minster, Joseph B.
Minton, Casey
Minyard, Johnny
Mirand, Bill
Mirse, Gary
Missen, David P.
Mitchell, Aaron
Mitchell, Ken T.
Mitchell, Michael
Mitchell, Nancy
Mitchell, Stan
Mitchell, Virgil M.
Mizer, Opal
Moberg, Jeremy
Mobley, Van
Moceri, Alison
Moen, Alan
Moffatt, Concetta
Moffitt, Christa
Moffitt, Ian
Moffitt, Wanda
Mohae, Chris
Moir, Helen
Mollaeri, Alex
Mondot, Michelle
Monil, Charles
Moniz, Elaine
Monoghan, Jr., Mike M.
Monroe, Richard R.
Montaner, Rick
Montanye, Beverly
Montanye, Ken
Monte, Mike F.
Montgomery, John
Montgomery, Kimberly
Montgomery, Kyle
Montgomery, Mary
Montoya, Marcelo
Moody, Carole
Moon, Hong Suk
Moon, June
Mooney, Dywen
Moonie, William S.
Moore, Bill
Moore, Cecil G.
Moore, David K.
Moore, Hal
Moore, J.H.
Moore, Kerry
Moore, Mark
Moore, Mrs. Wallace H.
Moore, Patricia
Moore, Raymond W.
Moore, Ruth
Moore, Ryan T
Mora, Gilbert
Moran, Debbi
Moran, Jolen T.
Moran, Mary E.
Moreland, Joanne
Morey, Brian
Morgan, Jeffery
Morgan, Juanitia
Morgan, Tim
Morningstar, Michael
Morris, Arthur
Morris, Belva M.
Morris, Dennis
Morris, Dwight
Morris, Eric
Morris, Francis A.
Morris, Frank & Belva
Morris, Melbourne
Morris, Nancy
Morris, Paul
Morris, Robert D.
Morrison, Bruce
Morrison, Charles
Morrison, Leea
Morse, Edward M.
Morse, J.D.
Morse, John
Morse, Susan M.
Mortensere, Willard
Morton, Bob
Mosby, Al
Moser, Gib & Shirley
Mosers, John & Carol Lee
Moses, Harvey Jr
Mossey, Chris
Moulton, Katherine
Mowette, Todd
Moyer, Kim
Moyers, Arthur
Moyn, Sierra
Muir, Daniel A.
Mulgrew, Thomas
Mullica, Gary
Mullikin, Agnes J.
Mullikin, Paula J.
Mullikin, Susan
Mumm, Glen
Mumma, John
Munce, Al & Verna
Mundt, Kathryn
Mundy, Linder G.
Munson, Lisa
Munson, M.W.
Murphy, Lee F.
Mush, John
Mycek, Linda
Mycolk, Deborah
Myers, Dave
Myers, David
Myers, Dean
Myers, James
Myers, Steve
Myers, W.M.
Mylan, Mike & Angie
Mylar, Rich
Myrick, Juanita
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft f/S * L-42
Nahhas, Harold E.
Nam, Davis
Namkung, Damien
Nash, Judi
Nau, Robert N. & Rosalind
Naylor, Brent
Neal, Janette
Neal, Ken
Neal, Marilyn & Glen
Neal, Mary
Neal, Robert
Neal, Ronald
Nealey, Maxine
Nebergall, M. T.
Neeley, Lyle
Neeley, Peggy
Neils, Rodney
Nelson, B.R.
Nelson, Dick
Nelson, Dorothy
Nelson, Elysia
Nelson, Florine N.
Nelson, Frank J.
Nelson, Franklin E.
Nelson, Iris M.
Nelson, Irma Del
Nelson, James
Nelson, John
Nelson, Larry
Nelson, Lillian
Nelson, Louis
Nelson, Richard
Nelson, William J.
Nesbitt, Lance
Nessly, Patricia
Nessly, William
Neuberger, Kerry
Neumiller, Romey
Nevall, Anthony
New, Angel
New, Garry & Shirley
Newberry, Mark
Newbury, Tara
Newell, Matt
Newman, Jen
Newman, John
Newman, Jon
Newman, Pam
Newsom, Roderick
Newton, Jim
Newton, Scott
Nichols, Almon
Nichols, Stephanie
Nicholson, Don
Nicket, Ernie
Nickolson, Mike
Nielsen, Kai
Nielson, Mark A.
Nigg, Leanne
Nigg, Michael
Nigg, William
Nikon, Ruth M.
Nilsey, Shan
Nilson, Heather
Niton, Jim
Nixon, Ruby
Noble, Barbara
Noble, Mike
Nokes, Galen
Noll, Steve
Nordstrom, Nils G.
Norman, Howard
Norris, James R.
Norris, Kyle
North, Alisa
North, Pat
Norton, Roger
Norton, Vickey
Norwick, Richard
Noteboom, Travis
Notson, Bob
Nottingham, Genevieve
Novotney,Clifford&Genevieve
Nulton, Charlene E.
Nulton, John
Nush, Don & Sue
O'Donnell, Terry
O'Hair, Shane
O'Kelly, Don
O'Neil, Larry
Oakes, Gerald
Oberg, Ivan
Oberg, Norman
Odegard, Bern
Odorizzi, R. A.
Oestriech, Gary & Liz
Ogilvie, Bill
Ogle, Analee
Ohashi, Tricia
Ohlde, Roger
Olinghouse, Charlie
Oliver, Jerry
Oliver, Lynn
Oliver, Marilyn
Oliver, Norman
Oliver, Raymond J.
Oliver, Teresa
Olmstead, Bonnie
Olmstead, Mike
Olsen, Heber
Olsen, Kate
Olsen, Vernon M.
Olsen, Walter H.
Olson, Arthur & Doris
Olson, Eleanor
Olson, Floyd
Olson, Gary N.
Olson, Janice
Olson, Marvin
Olson, Rebecca
Olson, Todd
Olton, Maureen
Oneil, Keith
Opperud, Scott
Orcutt, Chester A.
Ormiston, William
Oroville Pharmacy
Osburn, Jason
Osterberg, Joey
Otto, Forest
Owen, Ann D.
Owen, Bob
Owen, Jon
Owen, Laurel
Owen, Quinn
Owens, Brad G.
Owens, Theresa
Oyarzo, William R.
Pack, Steven
Palachuk, Douglas
Pallers, R.
Palmanteer Mi, Eddie
Palmer, Susan A.
Palmer, Tim
Palmer, Virgil
Palmier, Gregory
Pappidas, Macleod
Paris, Nancy
Parisean, John
Park, Richard
Parker, Chuck
Parker, Cliff
Parker, Mark A.
Parker, William
Parker, Zack
Parks, Sam
Paro, Nikola
Parr, John
Parr, Susan
Parsons, Barbara
Parsons, Lisa
Panel, Andrea
Paterson, Elvie & Ralph
Paterson, Ronald
Patrick, Adrienne
Patrick, Debora
Patrick, James
Patrick, Virginia
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-43
Patten, Jeff
Patterson, Donovan
Patterson, Elvie
Patterson, Irene
Patterson, Jeff
Patterson, Ralph
Paul, Mila
Paulson, Amanda
Paulson, Barbara
Paulson, Joshua
Paulson, Seth
Payne, Patrick
Payton, Geraldine
Peacock, Charles D.
Pearce, Doug & Lucy
Pearson, Beverly
Pearson, David
Pearson, John
Pearson, Scott
Peck, Jerry
Peck, William & Johanna
Pecnick, William
Pecoraro, Shannon
Pedersen, Jane
Peine, Francis
Pelton, Brenda
Pelton, Randy
Pena, Randy
Pendergraft, Mike
Pentecut, Donald
Perez, Elco
Perrizo, J.L.
Perry, Betty
Perry, Milt
Perryman, Laurena
Peters, John F.
Petersen, Elden
Peterson, Charles
Peterson, Craig
Peterson, Dan
Peterson, Gene
Peterson, Henry
Peterson, Kara
Peterson, Keith
Peterson, Larry & Judy
Peterson, Nancy
Peterson, Robert
Peterson, Sherry
Petrou, Dena
Petruzzelli, John E.
Peugh, Leonard
Peugh, Vernita
Pevear, Anita
Pfeifer, Dennis
Phillips, Bruce
Phillips, Dawn
Phillips, G.J.
Phillips, James
Phillips, Jerry
Phillips, John
Phillips, Stan
Phillips, Stanley
Phillipson, Andrew
Picard, Jane
Pilarski, Michael
Pillow, Ken
Pinar, Dennis
Pipkin, Rich
Pippel, Kelly
Pittman, Houston
Pitts, Johnny C.
Plahuta, Joseph
Plahuta, Marilyn
Plumbons, Mari
Plumlee, Bobbie
Plussett, Fay
Poirier, Paul
Pollack, Jordan
Pomeroy, Thurman
Pomoroy, Clarisse
Poole, Heibert
Porter, Genna
Porter, Paula
Porter, Ronald D.
Porter, Stan
Porter, Sydne
Porter, Tamara
Posadas, Alfredo
Posadas, Carol
Post, Emily
Poull, Jeanne
Poulson, Mike
Pound, Richard E.
Powell, Fontello
Powell, Travis G.
Prater, Juanita
Prather, Roger
Pratt, Julienne
Prescott, Greg
Presley, Carl
Presswood, Tom
Pricce, Frank
Price, A
Price, Lucille W.
Price, Paul
Prichett, Myra
Pridgen, Anna
Prilchett, Misti
Prine, Steve & Charlotte
Prior, John & Ruth
Pritchard, Kirsten
Pritchard, Michael
Pritchard, Valerie
Pritchett, Raymond
Pritt, Kevin
Proffit, Margie
Proffitt, Christ!
Pruett, Carla
Pruitt, Jim
Pruitt, Kassie
Pruitt, Ken
Pryor, Alvin
Pucket, Carol
Pucket, Roy
Puckett, Don
Quaade, William
Qualheim, Margaret
Querholt, Allen
Quigley, Chuck
Quillen, Tim
Rachilmir, Larry
Rader, Allen
Radford, Willow
Rains, Louise
Rains, Jr., Charles
Rainsberry, Jai
Rajala, John
Ralston, Kenneth
Ramey, Don
Ramirez, Cuauhtemor
Rampley, Elenore
Rampley, Terry & Cara
Ramsay, Barry
Ramsay, Douglas
Ramsden, Mark A.
Ran Den Henzel, Diana
Ran Den Henzel, Hauelne
Range, Clyde
Range!, Cruz G.
Rapp, Stanley
Rate, Juanita
Rawles, Dale
Rawly, Rob
Ray, Casey
Ray, Donald
Ray, Tina
Raybinuald, Mark
Rayner, Gerald
Rea, Thomas M.
Reaves, Jim
Redden, Eddie
Reddington, John
Reed, Don R.
Reed, May
Reeder, Geneva
Rees, Mennos & Jane
Reese, Alysa
Reese, Don
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-44
Reese, John
Regan, Jeff
Rehanek, Woody
Rehanik, Estrarie
Rehl, Kert
Reichard, D.
Reichard, Ms.
Reichert, Debra
Reichert, Eric
Reid, Eliza
Reid, Richard
Reider, Ross
Reinbold, Butch
Relaford, Fred
Relbit, Peter
Remacle, Lawrence
Rentier, Mark
Rendall, Carole
Renegar, Cynthia
Repley, Ken
Republic BPW
Reynolds, Jim
Reynolds, Ken
Reynolds, Tom
Rheanert, Larry
Rhodes, Merron
Rhodes, Ted D.
Rhodes, Valerie
Rice, Lee
Rice, Lynn
Ricevoto, Boomer
Ricevuto, Ann Marie
Ricevuto, Charles
Rich, Charlene
Richards, Fred H.
Richards, Mack
Richardson, Charles
Richardson, Fred & Helen
Richardson, Glenn
Richardson, John
Richardson, Ralph
Richardson, Ronnie L.
Rickard, Mark
Rider, Lew
Ridolfi, Callie
Rigg, Fred
Riker, Bud
Riker, Everett
Riker, Phil
Riley, Frank
Riling, Rochelle
Ripley, Kenneth
Rise, Claire
Rise, Rachel
Rise, Tom
Rishky, Jerry
Risser, John
Ritlett, Michael
Rittel, Sheila
Ritthaler, Jason
Rivera, Ramiro I.
Rivera, Roy
Rivers, Richard
Road, Steven
Robbi, Marc & Tina
Robbins, Alice M.
Robbins, Ben & Myrna
Robbins, Cleta
Robbins, David
Robbins, Tommye
Robecia, Laura
Roberson, Dale
Roberson, Glen
Roberson, Mary
Roberton, Cassandra
Roberts, Ben
Roberts, Cecil
Roberts, Ellen
Roberts, Gerald
Roberts, Gordon
Roberts, Gordon
Roberts, Gordon
Roberts, Kathleen
Roberts, Randall C.
Roberts, Shirley
Roberts, W.C.
Robertson, Alvin
Robertson, Eric
Robertson, Shauna
Robinson, Charles
Robinson, David
Robinson, Kam
Robinson, Leland & Irene M.
Robinson, Marshall
Robinson, Mary Alice
Roblinger, Calvin
Rocchia, Pasquale
Rochelle, Sadie
Rocines, John
Rock, M.D., L.B. & Sandy
Rockstead, Marilyn
Rockwell, William M.
Rodgers, Scott
Rodriguez, Maria
Rodriques, Rigoberto
Roedell, Michael & Carlyn
Rogaan, R.G.
Rogers, Bryan
Rogers, George
Rogers, John W.
Rogers, Paul
Rogers, Rick
Rogers, Rodney
Rogers, Wayne
Roloff, Cheryl M.
Roloff, Keith
Romberg, Harry
Root, Richard
Ropp, Katherine
Rose, Alan
Rose, Dean
Rose, Jessie E.
Rose, Peggy
Rose, Ronald
Roseking
Rosetree, Autumn
Ross, Bob
Rosse, Jennifer
Rossebo, Lida
Roth, Beverly
Roth, Craig & Juanita
Roth, Ed
Roth, Erin
Roth, Mr. & Mrs. Phil
Rothanburg, Rich
Rothberg, Bert
Rothrock, Dorothy J.
Rothrock, Gayle
Rothrock, Leroy
Rouly, Fran
Rounds, Darrel
Rounds, Frank
Rounds, Jennifer
Rounds, Kathy
Rounds, Lori Anne
Rounds, Susan
Rounds, Terry Don
Roundtree, Shannon
Roush, Larry
Rowell, Doug A.
Rowley, Craig
Rowton, Dale
Rowton, Donna
Rowton, Evan
Rowton, Verita
Roy, Melanie
Royal, Bob
Rubert, Gertie
Hubert, Lawerance
Rubert, Pamela
Rudie, Daniel
Rudley, Moss
Runnels, Dan
Running, Dean
Rupp, Jack
Rusch, Joseph
Rusho, Roger
Russell, Charles D.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • 1-45
Russell, Floyd C.
Russell, Frankie
Russell, Kirk
Russell, Larry Dean
Ryan, Jahn
Ryan, James
Rylander, Roger
Sabold, Amanda
Sabold, David
Saeger, Jan P.
Safian, Paul M.
Safountain, Roy
Saint, Donald G.
Saks, Kris
Salazar, Imelda
Salazar, Oscar
Salazar, Susana
Salter, Linda
Sampey, Daryl
San Misuel, John
Sanborn, Anne
Sand, Glenn M.
Sanders, Robert
Sands, Mark
Sanger, Mary Ann
Santerre, Gay & David
Saper, Sarah
Sapler, Brior
Satashell, John
Sates, Archie
Sattler, Dave
Sauer, Louis
Sauer, Norman
Sauers, Jack
Sawiuk, Myron
Sawyer, Maurice & Kay
Sawyer, Rebecca
Sayler, Gary
Sayles, Hayley
Scacco, Dorothy J.
Scarlett, Robert
Schacht
Schaeffer, Ben
Schafer, David
Schaller, Jelka
Schaller, Lisa & Todd
Schaller, Tim
Schanck, Nolan
Schatz, Sandra
Scheel, Dwight
Scheel, Jennifer
Scheffer, Caroline
Scheffler, Daniel
Schett, Lloyd
Schilling, Dixie L.
Schilling, Tim
Schippers, Richard
Schlueter, Michael
Schmidt, Carl
Schmidt, Gary
Schmidt, Kevin J.
Schmitt, James
Schneider, Harvey
Schneider, Philip
Schneider, Phillip
Schneider, Stan
Schneller, Bruce
Schneller, Stanley
Schoffen, Derek H.
Schoo, Mike
Schooley, Stanley D.
Schowen, Sarah
Schrock, Dale
Schrock, Ray
Schrock Jr., Dale
Schroeder, Debi
Schroeder, Glenn
Schroeder, Jack
Schroeder, Marsha
Schultz, James
Schumacher, Gretchen
Schumacher, James
Schumacher, Paul
Schumacher, Sally
Schumacker, David
Schuster, Greg
Schutter, Matt
Schweikert, Mike
Schweitzer, Jeffrey J.
Schwilhe, Ernest Paul
Schwilke, David
Schwilke, Jan
Schwilke, Linda
Schwithe, Ernest
Scott, Chas
Scott, Clay
Scott, Donald
Scott, Edna
Scott, Emalie
Scott, Fren C.
Scott, John
Scott, Lam
Scott, Louise
Scott, Michelle
Scott, Ranona
Scott, Tracy
Scout, Fred C.
Scriver, Arloha
Scriver, L. Fern
Scriver, Larry D.
Scriver, Slim
Scriver, Tim
Seaman, Mary E.
Searcy, Wayne
Seccombe, Thomas
Sedin, Helding
Sedin, Sharon
Seibold, Dauge
Seigrist, Charles
Seims, Tim
Selif, Carolyn
Sellers, Lewie
Sells, Herbert
Selman, Ethel
Serburg, Mark
Severin, Delia
Shafford, Dave
Shah, Chandra
Shannon, James
Sharman, Mary
Sharp, Chet
Sharpe, Roberto
Shatto, Jim
Shaw, Alan
Shaw, Bonnie
Shaw, Cindy
Shaw, Dick M.
Shaw, John & Shay
Shaw, Louis H.
Shaw, Sam
Shea, Jackie
Shearin, Billy
Sheets, Dick
Sheikh, Hoda
Sheldon, Truman
Shepherd, A.
Sheridan, Paul A.
Shifflette, Elena
Shiflett, Sandy
Shillenbarger, Judy
Shiner, Jackie
Shiner, Sam
Shively, Gary
Short, B E
Short, Donna
Short, Roger & Sandy
Shorter, Jack
Shove, V. C.
Shumate, Richard H.
Shunn, John R.
Shunn, Maralee
Shunn, Tanes
Shur, B.
Shurtlett, Walter
Siegrist, Charles
Siegrist, Lucille
Siegwarth, J.L.
Siglin, Sr., Raymond
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS 4 L-46
Silva, Larry
Silverbead
Silverthorn, C. C.
Silverthorn, Charles, Marya
Silverthorn, J.R.
Simeone, Robert
Simms, Marge
Simons, A. Russell
Simons, Rick
Simser, A.E.
Sirrk, Dale
Sites, Stephen
Sitton, Marty
Skatrud, Mark & Julia
Skelton, Allen
Skelton, John
Skinner, Jim
Skinner, Timothy S.
Skirko, Lana
Skirko, Rick
Skye, Raina
Slater, Angela
Slater, Sonia
Slinger, Ralph
Slohr, Jerry
Smart, Jackie
Smidt, Gordon
Smith, Lisa & Sevin
Smith, Ben
Smith, Bonnie
Smith, Bryan
Smith, Carol
Smith, Clayton M.
Smith, Dale
Smith, Donald W.
Smith, Gary
Smith, Gene
Smith, Grant & Nicole
Smith, Ida
Smith, Jason
Smith, Jean Spicer
Smith, Jeffrey S.
Smith, Jerry
Smith, Jim
Smith, Joan
Smith, Justin & Carol
Smith, Kenneth 0.
Smith, Laurie
Smith, Lionel
Smith, Lloyd H.
Smith, Lynn
Smith, Mike & Bonnie
Smith, Omar, Wanda
Smith, Pam
Smith, Raina
Smith, Ray
Smith, Richard
Smith, Ron & Victoria
Smith, Sam
Smith, Scott A.
Smith, Steven
Smith, Susan, Carl
Smith, Tami
Smith, Thomas
Smith, Tom
Smith, Wayne
Smith, Jr., Keith
Smith, Jr., Robert
Smithson, Al
Sneur, Sid
Snyder, August
Snyder, Therese J.
Sodering, Jacquelyn
Solomko, Gina
Solomko, Michael
Solomon, Randy
Songtree, Chris
Sonsteng, Bill
Sorene, Sidney
Sorensen, Lynn
Sorenson, Jim
Soukup, Fred
Southmull, C.
Soutnwick, Dick
Soya, Ernie
Soya, Spurlin
Spakowky, Pete
Spangler, Dave
Sparks, Jerry
Sparks, Nancy
Spaulding, Bill
Spaulding, Roxy A.
Spear, Gene
Spear, Sharla
Speier, Andy
Spence, John & Marie
Spencer, Karen
Splitt
Spofford, Nadine
Spreadborough, Gary
Springer, Arnold
Springer, Robert
Sproul, Ted
Spurbeck, Charles
Spurgeon, Casey
St John, Vivian
St Peter, Harold
Stabenfeldt, John
Stag, John
Stager, Rich
Stair, James
Stalder, Berta
Standal, Warren J.
Standberg, Eric
Stanford, Deanna
Stansburry, Dean & Lillian
Staples, Cory
Starley, Roger
Steas, Richard
Stedman, Wayne
Steele, Jerry
Steenbrugh, Bruno
Steffens, Jon
Steg, Betty
Stenbom, John R.
Stephens, Janet
Stephenson, Jenny
Stephenson, Jerry
Stephenson, M J
Stevens, Bob
Stevens, Carl J.
Stevens, Hazel J.
Stevens, Jack W.
Stevens, Karrie
Stevens, Laurie
Stevens, Spencer
Stewart, Don T.
Stewart, George
Stillwell, Pauline
Stiner, Sam
Stoddard, Ronald L.
Stoddard, Scott
Stoddard, Valorie
Stog, John
Stohl, Sandy
Stoker, Mary Ann
Stolle, Larietta
Stolp, George H.
Stolp, Mary
Stoltz, Tom Jr
Stone, Jerry
Stone, Lou
Stone, Rob & Donna
Storm, Ted
Storr, W. A.
Stotts, Ellen
Stotts, John
Stotts, Roy
Stover, Christine
Strand, Steve
Strange, Tom
Streiff, Robert
Strenlou, Kerry
Streuli, Ryn
Stringfellow, Tracy
Strohl, Harry
Stromberg, Gary
Struebing, Debbie
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft E/S + L-47
Strum, Doug
Studley, Rose
Stultz, Darrell
Stump, Jeff
Stump, Tim
Sturgeon, Bucky
Sturholm, Janet
Subr, David
Suda, Catherine
Suder, Ross
Suderhn, Jr., Mel
Suhi, Bill
Sukes, Kenneth
Sullivan, Elizabeth
Sullivan, Mary Anne
Sullivan, Mr. & Mrs. John W.
Sump, Bob
Sunderland, Neil
Sundquist, Tammy
Sundstrom, Erick W.
Super, Donald
Super, Joe & Racheal
Super, Kristen
Sutler, Joe
Svennunssen, Jon
Swager, Carol
Swager, Robert
Swain, Vera
Swallom, Laurence E.
Swallom, Lenora L.
Swan, Mark
Swan, Stacy Ann
Swanson, Chris
Swanson, Harvey
Swartsel, Andrew
Sweeney, Gerald
Sweeney, John
Sweeney, Steven
Switzer, Greg
Switzer, Thomas
Swook, Dennis
Sykes, Kenneth
Sylvester, Donald
Sylvester, John
Sylvester, Julie
Taber, David & Judi
Taber, George
Taber, Judi
Taber, Larry
Taber, R.
Tadayoyong, Anthony
Taffer, Gary
Tagg, Ann
Tagg, Rap
Talbert, Jim
Talley, Tim
Tannascoh, Annette
Tanneling, Larry
Tanner, Elliott
Tannot, Shawna
Tarpenning, Adele
Tarr, Trena
Tatlow, Linda
Tayler, Benjamin
Taylor, Byron
Taylor, James
Taylor, James B.
Taylor, Jessica
Taylor, Kelli
Taylor, Lynn
Taylor, Marilynn
Taylor, Melvin R.
Taylor, Michael
Taylor, Morris
Taylor, Mr. & Mrs. Kenneth
Taylor, Oscar
Taylor, Shirley
Taylor, Terry
Taylor, William R.
Teas, Kathleen
Teas, Thomas
Teel, Anthony
Telford, Brett
Tempel, Monte
Terrill, Anthony
Thayer, Mary
Thayer, Shirley
Thayer, Terry
Theis, Jerry
Theis, Paul
Theringer, Wayne
Thiringer, Garry
Thomas, Jason J.
Thomas, Doreen A.
Thomas, Jaqueline
Thomas, Martha
Thomas, Mildred
Thomas, Ray
Thomas, Richard R.
Thomas, Robert
Thomas, Ron
Thompson, Brian & Sandi
Thompson, Doug
Thompson, Georgia
Thompson, Jennifer
Thompson, Jim
Thompson, John
Thompson, Margo
Thompson, Matt
Thompson, Nate
Thompson, Ray G.
Thompson, Rob
Thompson, Ronald
Thompson, Ruth
Thompson, Scott
Thompson, Tim
Thordon, Floyd
Thoren, Denny
Thoresen, Mel
Thornton, Ardis
Thornton, B. Carl
Thornton, Carol,Edith & Ardis
Thornton, Dell & Lyla
Thornton, Edith
Thornton, Florence
Thornton, Floyd
Thornton, Gary
Thornton, Geoffrey
Thornton, Mr. & Mrs. Ernie
Thornton, Pollyanna
Thornton, Randy
Thrasher, Harold H.
Thrasher, Ida
Thrasher, Paul
Thrift, Jim
Thronson, Janet
Thurston, Cache
Tibbs, Lilliam
Tifs, Paul
Tillery, Ruthmae
Tillinghast, Ronald J.
Timm, Brad
Timm, Bryan
Tincher, Ken
Todaro, Nick G.
Tollefson, Richard L.
Tollefson, Robert
Tollefson, Ronna
Tolley, Merl
Tolley, Rick
Tolliver, Jamie L.
Tomita, Sue
Tomlinson, Daryl
Topping, Clark
Toso, Gail
Townsend, Darwin L.
Traboe, Billy
Tracy, Marie-Dominique
Tracy, M.D., Bruce
Trechter, John
Tremblay, Amanda
Triezenberg, Ed
Tritle, Frances H.
Trombley, Tom
Troutner, Tom
Trudell, John
Trudranal, Tom
Truitt, Marilyn
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS 4 L-48
Truitt, Sandra
Trumbel, J.J.
Trumble, Shannon
Try on, Ed R.
Tsapralis, Nancy
Tubbs, Don
Tugan, Carl
Tugan, Enid
Tugaw, Cecil Jr.
Tureck, Kathy
Turnbull, Genevieve H.
Turner, Cynthoa
Turner, Everett L.
Turner, Gilbert
Turner, Kent
Turner, Lela
Turner, Marge
Turner, Marie
Turner, Marion C.
Turner, Maurice
Turner, Muriel
Turner, Philip
Turner, Roberta
Turner, Steve
Turner, Wayne
Tutag, Tim
Turtle, Carol
Tuttle, Kenn
Tyler, Mark
Tyrrell, Katlenia
Tyson, Margaret
Uerhaag, Walter
Uetz, Allan
Uetz, Trish
Umberger, John
Urban, Paul
Urlacher, Craig
Utt, lona
Valdez, Ron
Van Beeck, Kathryn
Van Cleave, Alta
Van Demark, Dick
Van Demark, Karen
Van Gessel, Anthony
Van Geysel, James
Van Slyke, Billie
Van Slyke, Greg
Van Woert, Mrs. Roy
Vanblarion, Richard
Vance, Clifford
Vance, Verbel B.
Vandiver, Gerald
Vandiver, Neoma
Vanel, Steffan
Vangen, Raymond
Vanmuller, Greg
Vannebo, Theodore
Vanzandt, Don
Varner, Jennifer
Vaughn, Dan & Sandra
Vausant, Coralie
Vawter, Donald
Vawter, T G
Vejraska, Craig
Vejraska, L.C.
Vejraska, Mary
Vejrostek, Sheri
Venature, Lyle
Veral, Michelle
Verbeck, Don
Verbeck, Emert
Verhei, Bruce
Verstegen, Gary
Verstegen, Rodney K.
Vester, Deborah
Vet, Al
Veumar, Jim
Viau, Joelle
Vice, Keith L.
Vickerman, Don
Vierra, Jennifer
Villardi, Michael
Vinatieri, Lyle & Fern
Vine, Mark
Vipperman, Raymond G.
Virginia, Petersen
Virtue, George
Visalli, Dana
Visness, James
Visser, Margaret
Visser, Ray G.
Visser, Roy A.
Voggenthgler, Don
Vorhaus, David G.
Vyraska, Todd
Waager, Kenneth A.
Waddell, Dick
Wade, Dale
Wadkins, Alvin W.
Wadkins, Geo
Waffle, Clinton
Wagner, Darcy
Wagner, Earl
Wagner, John
Wagner, Larry
Wagner, Wyatt
Waiss, Joan
Wakefield, Paul
Walen, Tommy
Walker, Bereen
Walker, Brent
Walker, Greg
Walker, Marvin
Walker, Warren Roger
Walkins, Ray
Wall, John
Wall, Stephanie
Walla, Doug
Wallace, Jeff
Wallace, Lee
Wallace, Lydia
Wallace, Ray
Wallace, Virgil
Walsh, Harold J.
Walsh, Jacqueline
Walsh, Kara
Walsh, Leo
Walsh, Sylvia
Walston, Dale
Walter, Dorothy
Walter, Patrick D.
Walter, Ron
Walters, Brent
Walters, Vicky
Walton, Cindy
Walton, Jimmy
Wanechek, Jan & Caryn
Ward, D. Lyn
Ward, Dale
Ward, Daniel W.
Ward, Dennis
Ward, Ken
Ward, Michael A.
Ward, Pat
Wardrip, Don
Warman, T.W.
Warner, Harlan
Warner, Jeff
Warren, Beverly
Warren, Christopher
Warren, Dick
Warring, Mary
Warsher, Ron
Wason, Buddy W.
Waterbury, G. S.
Waters, Lisa
Waters, Shirley
Watkins, Jim
Watkins, Ray
Watkins, Susan
Watson, David
Watson, M.D., David
Watt, Ed
Watts, Randy
Watts, Richard
Weaver, Henry
Weaver, Jack
Weaver, Jerry
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS 4 L-49
Weaver, Jim
Weaver, Richard
Webber, Doreen
Webber, Richard S.
Webber, Richard P
Webber, Stanley A.
Webber, Teresa
Weber, Bruce
Webster, C. Dixie
Webster, Cecil A.
Webster, G.
Webster, Henry
Weedman, Don
Weedman, Tom
Weeks, Mark
Weeks, Ron
Weely, Bill W.
Weismantle Sr., John C.
Welch, George E
Weller, Roberta
Welles, William
Wells, Judy
Wells, Kevin
Welsch, Michael
Wener, Celia Jill
Wentz, Dave
Wepfer, Jill
Werner, Gene
Werner, Richard Thomas
Werny, Isa
Wertz, Richard
West, Gary
Westerdahl, Brian
Westfall, Terry
Westover, Dewayne
Wetchnic, Dennis
Whaley, Lleweilyn
Wheaton, Stanley
Wheeler, Jim
Wheeler, Mary I.
Whinery, Rhonda
Whipple, Clay
Whipple, Clifton C.
Whitaker, Jeff
White, Annette
White, Betty
White, Carol
White, Catherine
White, Darrell
White, David
White, Gordon
White, Jeff
White, John
White, Karen
White, Kirby
White, Larry
White, Malcolm S.
White, Shirley
Whitecar, John
Whitecar, Lenore
Whitehead, James
Whitehorn, John W.
Whiteley, Lorie
Whitfield, Jerry
Whiting, C.L.
Whitley Fuel
Whitmore, Dave & Dolores
Whitner, Jacqueline
Whittaker, Paul
Wickens, John F.
Wickstrom, Pat
Wickstrom, Sheila M.
Widdifield, Bob & Marti
Widell, John
Wieber, Cheryl
Wiener, Francis
Wiese, Tracy
Wietrick, Donalda
Wietrick, Ed
Wietrick, George
Wietrick, Wanda
Wilcox, Douglas
Wilcox, Kathy
Wilcox, Sara
Wilder, Dal
Wilder, Dennis
Wilder, Marilyn
Wiley, R.J.
Wilkerson, Stephen L.
Wilkinson, Roy H.
Willard, James D.
Willard, Jesse R.
Willard, Jim & Chery
Williams, Al
Williams, Alex
Williams, Arnold
Williams, Barry
Williams, Charles
Williams, Chesla
Williams, Chris
Williams, Dick
Williams, Donald
Williams, George
Williams, J.O.
Williams, Joe
Williams, Marvin L.
Williams, Phillip
Williams, Rey
Williams, Robert
Williams, Rowland
Williams, Steve
Williams, W.F.
Williamson, Margorie
Willis, Manny
Willms, Hannah
Willoughby, William
Wilsey, Carolyn
Wilson, Albert
Wilson, Archie
Wilson, Dwight
Wilson, Effie
Wilson, Elizabeth
Wilson, George
Wilson, Grenda R.
Wilson, Henry
Wilson, Jason
Wilson, Jean E.
Wilson, Jon
Wilson, Justin
Wilson, Ken
Wilson, Margaret
Wilson, Nancy
Wilson, Ray I.
Wilson, Ron
Wilson, Ronald R.
Wilson, Roy
Wilson, Russ
Wilson, Ruthann
Wilson, Tom
Wilson, Wally & Agatha
Wilting, Bruce
Wiltz, Don
Wiltz, Doug
Wiltz, Nick
Wiltz, Ruby
Wiltz, Shawn
Wind, Mike
Windsor, Ed & Stella
Wines, Fern
Wingerter, Pete
Winslor, Donna
Winslow, James
Winston, Terry
Winter, John
Wisdom, Leslie
Wiseman, John
Wisener, R.J.
Wisener, Ron
Wisener, Sue
Witt, Lawrence
Wittstack, Thomas
Woda, Janice
Woda, Les
Wolf, Johnny
Wolleat, Alan
Wolleat, Vonetta
Wolley, Don
Wolley, Patricia
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-50
Wonch, Robert
Wood, Allen
Wood, Brad
Wood, Gail
Wood, Gerry
Wood, Linda
Wood, Lisa
Woodard, Kevin
Woodmansee, Gary D.
Woodrow, Doug
Woods, Vicki
Woodson, Matt
Woodson, Sara
Woodward, Jack
Woolery, Rachel
Woolf, Virginia
Wooten, George
Wortel, Reeva
Worthington, Bert
Worthington, Jean
Wraspir, Morris
Wright, Colleen
Wright, Jerry G.
Wright, Martin
Wright, Nick
Wyatt, Mari
Wyatt, Rae Jean
Wyman, Linda S.
Wynn, Dan
Xochitt Small Bear
Yacinich, Matt
Yagi, Kirby
Yagi, Suma
Yeager, Jeff A.
Ylitalo, Gina Maria
Yockey, K.
York, Silma
Young, Carla
Young, Donald
Young, Geary
Young, James
Young, Judee
Young, Lance
Young, Pat
Young, Todd Z.
Zabreznik, Jessie
Zaegar, Helen
Zak, Anthony
Zatin, Douglas
Zerck, Bob
Zieg, Jerry
Zielke, Mark
Zigarlick, M
Zigarlick, Wayne
Zile, Jim
Zindel, Robert
Zink, Shaula
Zink, Zack
Zinns, Jill
Zinns, Rob
Zion, Rebecca
Zulauf, Allen & Ellen
Zurbel, Oliver
Zyskowski, Robert
5.8
CANADIAN GOVERNMENT
Corporation of the Village of Midway - Hatton, R.J.
Stenson, John - Canadian Mayor
5.9
CANADIAN GENERAL PUBLIC
Albo, Jane
Areshenkoff, Harvey
Banman, Terry
Banner, Doug
Bannert, Willow G.
Blaine, Al
Bradshaw, Nicki
Buchinsk, Vic
Bullero, Walter
Caron, Linda
Carson, John W.
Cawston
Chapman, John
Chernoff, Cloyd
Clements, Ellen
Clifton, Ron
Cott, Douglas
Diesel, Dorrin
Evans, Nora
Fitzpatrick, Arlene
Hantley, Leslie
Harper, Gerald Bill
Heiberg, Rolf
Hoodikoff, Nick
Hughes, Gord
Johnstone, A.
Kalmakoff, Dora
Kalmakoff, William
Klenisky, Walter
Koochin, Ann
Koochin, Harry
Koochin, Pete
Koochin, Steve
Kopan, Matthew
Kopan, Shirley
Krulic, Joe
Larabee, Norm
Larcocski, Morris
Lazar, Jim
Lazeroff, Bill
Lazeroff, Ken
Levesque, Darlene
Levesque, Jacques
MacDonald, George
MacDonald, Shelley
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-51
Makortoff, Nettie.
Makortoff, Paul
Mayer, W.
Mayrs, Evelyn
Mayton, Peter
Munro, Kirsten
Munro, Ross
Nedokus, John
Nedokus, Polly
Planidin, Phillip
Plotnekoff, C.P.
Popoff, Mary
Prue, Sharon M.
Ramsey, Neil
Reiner, Jerry
Rilkoff, Polly
Rothery, John
Rusch, Melanie
Russell, M.C.A.
Russell, P.P.
Scott, L
Sheehan, Rebecca
Sheloff, Mary
Sheloff, Paul
Skripnik, Nick
Slabor, Mary
Slots, R.H.
Soviskov, H.
Stewart, George
Struhall, Flo
Struhall, George
Strukoff, Bob
Swift, Larry
Swokoekoff, W. W.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-52
6.0 SUMMARY OF RESPONSES
The comments, as categorized in Section 4.0, Summary of Comments, are further sub-categorized in
this section to facilitate response to the major issues and concerns. All substantive individual
comments are addressed in a background document (Response to Crown Jewel Mine draft EIS
Comments) available for review at the Forest Service office in Tonasket, Washington and at the
WADOE offices in Yakima and Olympia, Washington.
6.1
General
6.1.1
Response:
AIR QUALITY
Commentors requested minor text clarifications or expressed opinions regarding the air
quality impacts of the proposed Crown Jewel Project without referring to any specific
evaluations in the draft EIS. Comments remarked that the draft EIS did not contain
sufficient specifics, such as describing the effects of air pollution.
We appreciate the input of all those individuals, organizations, and agencies who
commented on the "air quality" aspects of the Crown Jewel Mine draft EIS. We have
received your comments and made revisions, as appropriate, to the final EIS.
Emission Estimates
6.1.2
Response:
6.1.3
Response:
Why weren't the fugitive dust and toxic by-products from the blasting included in the
emission estimates or the ambient impact modeling?
The Proponent has proposed that no controls on blasting are required as part of Best
Available Control Technology (BACT). The Proponent has calculated emissions
estimates for the blasting using methods published by EPA. WADOE has reviewed
these estimates and found them appropriate for use in this EIS. The adequacy of the
Proponent's BACT assessment would be determined as part of the Notice of
Construction Air Quality permit process.
Why weren't the fugitive dust and tailpipe exhaust from the commute vehicles and
supply/delivery trucks along the public roads leading to the Crown Jewel Project site
included in the emission estimates or the ambient impact modeling?
Air quality impacts from traffic on public roads due to the Crown Jewel Project are
analyzed in the EIS and mitigation identified when appropriate in Section 4.1, Air
Quality. The Proponent would be required to apply dust controls to the Pontiac Ridge
mine access roadway which falls under the jurisdiction of Okanogan County. In order
for the air quality impact analysis contained in the final EIS to be valid, a dust control
program must be implemented.
Dust from Forest Road 3575-120 would be controlled by the Proponent as part of their
dust abatement program. This would consist of periodic watering and/or the use of
dust abatement chemicals.
A preventative maintenance program for operations vehicles would be a part of the
operation plan. A paragraph has been added to Section 4.1, Air Quality, of the EIS
discussing tail pipe emissions from off-site vehicles.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • 1-53
A discussion of the health impacts of diesel exhaust has also been added to Section
4.1, Air Quality, of the final EIS.
Several commentors disputed the Proponent's calculations which indicated that the
peak wind speeds at the Crown Jewel Project mine site are not high enough to cause
wind erosion of the disturbed overburden, waste rock disposal areas, and the
dewatered tailings facility.
6.1.4
Response:
6.1.5
Response:
6.1.6
Response:
The Proponent used calculations employing methods published by EPA to assess wind
erosion. Based on measured wind speed data from the Crown Jewel Project mine site,
the calculations indicate that no wind erosion of overburden, disturbed areas, or the
reclaimed tailings facility is expected to occur. Section 4.1.4, Effects Common to All
Action Alternatives, of the final EIS contains this information. The EIS states that
reclamation must be conducted properly to avoid blowing dust impacts such as those
which occurred at the Holden Mine.
Several commentors were concerned that the Proponent's calculated emissions from
the point sources (stacks and vents) were based on over-optimistically high control
efficiencies for the baghouses, cyclones, and water-sprays.
The control efficiencies estimated for baghouses in the final EIS are at the upper end
of the range of what could be expected from a baghouse. However, with baghouses,
it is more appropriate to discuss outlet concentrations than control efficiencies. This
is due to the nature of a properly operated baghouse, which yields fairly constant outlet
concentrations over a broad range of inlet loadings. For six of the eight baghouses or
filters that are part of the Crown Jewel Project, the Proponent has projected an outlet
concentration of 0.02 grains per dry standard cubic foot. The other two are projected
at 0.007 and 0.04 grains per dry standard cubic foot. Based on comparison with
permitting and testing of other facilities, these are not overly optimistic projections. For
example, WADOE has required emissions of less than 0.01 grain per dry standard cubic
foot in various permits.
A distinction must be made between Alternative B in which the Proponent proposes to
locate the crusher below surface without ventilation and Alternatives C and D in which
the underground mining method would require ventilation. Under Alternative B, the
Proponent has said that the only emissions from the crusher would come from the feed
hopper. Emissions from dumping into the feed hopper would be controlled by water
spray. Emissions from the crusher itself would be minimal due to the lack of ventilation
and the below surface location, according to the Proponent's proposal. Refer to
Section 4.1.4, Effects Common to All Action Alternatives.
Please clarify how the toxic compounds in the fugitive dust from the mining operations
were determined to be insignificant. How did WADOE establish the allowable ambient
concentration limits for toxic compounds? Please clarify how WADOE's "Small
Quantity Emission Rate" exclusion can allow a proposed facility to demonstrate
compliance with air toxic limits without performing computer modeling of the toxic
compounds.
The concentrations of toxic elements contained in the fugitive dust are shown in the
final EIS in Table 4.1.7, Alternative B Modeled Ambient Air Quality Impacts - Toxic Air
Pollutants. In order for WADOE to approve a Notice of Construction Air Quality Permit,
state regulations require a demonstration that emissions from the source are sufficiently
low to protect human health and safety. One way of satisfying this requirement is to
Crown Jewel M?> e * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-54
show that concentrations of toxic air pollutants predicted at the point of compliance
are less than Acceptable Source Impact Levels (ASIL) published in the regulation (WAC
173-460). WADOE has stated that for the Crown Jewel Project, the fence line would
be the appropriate point of compliance.
A second way to demonstrate compliance with this requirement, without conducting
modeling, is to show that emissions are below the Small Quantity Emission Rate
published in the state regulation. The EIS contains modeling which predicts the
ambient impacts at Chesaw, which is more distant than the fence line. WADOE has
not yet determined whether the emissions of toxic air pollutants are sufficiently low to
protect human health and safety. As noted above, however, such a judgement would
be made by WADOE prior to making a permit decision on the Notice of Construction
Air Quality Permit.
For the purpose of this environmental review, a single numerical threshold was not
developed or used to determine what constitutes a significant air quality impact for the
Crown Jewel Project. Rather, the projected impacts, from this specific site were
determined and compared with existing criteria, both quantitative and qualitative,
known to the agencies. Ultimately, the agencies relied heavily on the best judgment
of air quality professionals in determining what constitutes a significant air quality
impact.
The lead agencies are aware that some air quality laws and regulations contain
definitions which include the word "significant." For example, a federal air quality
regulation (Title 40 CFR 52.21) defines "significant" basically as the amount of actual
or potential emissions necessary to require a Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) permit. A state regulation (WAC 173-400-030) has a similar definition. The
agencies do not believe the use of the word "significant" in an air quality law or
regulation is necessarily equivalent to a "significant" air quality impact under
environmental review laws.
The fact that one jurisdiction had a quantitative threshold (the comment mentions a
California air quality standard) would not be the single determinant of whether an
impact was significant, but could be taken into account in making the determination.
Background Data
6.1.7 Several commentors disputed the wind speed and wind direction data that were
collected by the Proponent.
Response:
The air quality impact assessments in the final EIS will utilize the same wind data set
that was included in the draft EIS. The electronic station that has been operated by the
Proponent since 1991 uses sensors that conform to EPA's standards. During the
period from June 1991 through March 1992, the Proponent conducted semi-annual
third-party station audits to demonstrate that the sensors and data loggers were
calibrated within acceptable tolerances established by EPA. Wind roses from the on-
site weather station are included in Figure 3.1.2, Wind Roses From On-Site Weather
Station, in the final EIS.
6.1.8 Several commentors questioned how long-term temperature, precipitation, and
evaporation data for the mine site could be derived by correlating two years of on-site
data against long-term data from the agency-operated reference station at Republic,
Washington.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-55
Response:
6.1.9
Response:
The WADOE, Forest Service, and Forest Service's contractors worked with the
Proponent to compile the best available historical weather data for the region and to
synthesize the regional data into a unified weather data set for the Crown Jewel Project
mine site. Section 3.1.3, Climate, of the final EIS describes how the unified mine site
weather data set was developed. The estimates for precipitation, evaporation, and
temperature for the mine site have been revised from the draft EIS. A detailed
assessment report entitled Meteorological Data Set, Crown Jewel Project (ENSR,
1996a), discusses the data evaluation methods and procedures.
Several commentors questioned how the Proponent derived the assumed background
PM-10 and Total Suspended Paniculate data that were used for the computer
dispersion modeling to demonstrate compliance with the WADOE ambient air quality
standards.
Figure 4.1.1, Maximum Peak-Year Annual Average TSP and PM-10 Concentrations (Not
Including Background), is included in the final EIS showing several modeled TSP
concentration points from the fence line to Chesaw and Bolster. From these revised
modeling results, it will be more apparent what the concentrations of TSP are at
different distances from the mine site. Section 4.1, Air Quality, of the final EIS has
been revised to show new results of computer dispersion modeling of TSP that includes
contributions from blasting and on-site haul road dust. From these revised modeling
results, it will be more apparent what the concentrations of TSP are at different
distances from the mine site.
The ambient air quality modeling given in the Proponent's revised WADOE air quality
permit application and the final EIS assume a background PM-10 concentration that is
higher than the assumed value that was used for the original modeling. Section 3.1.2,
Air Quality, of the final EIS describes how the revised background concentration
estimate Was derived.
Miscellaneous
6.1.10
Response:
Several commentors expressed concern that the proposed project would violate either
the ambient air concentration limits in the existing Clean Air Act, or the baseline
monitoring requirements stipulated in Washington's recently-enacted Metal Mining and
Milling Operations Act.
Section 3.1.2, Air Quality, and Section 4.1.2, Air Quality Regulations Applicable to All
Alternatives, of the final EIS has been revised to itemize which air quality regulations
do and do not apply to the Crown Jewel Project. As described in Section 4.1.5,
Effects of Alternatives B and E, of the final EIS, the Crown Jewel Project must comply
with all state and federal applicable ambient concentration limits.
The Washington Metal Mining and Milling Operations Act does not stipulate any
specific air quality baseline monitoring requirements. WADOE previously had developed
methods of determining what constitutes adequate air quality baseline data for air
quality permits. One of the criteria for deciding whether on-site preconstruction air
quality monitoring would be required is the amount of emissions produced by the
Crown Jewel Project. Since the passage of the Washington Metal Mining and Milling
Operations Act, WADOE has continued to use these methods. Based on these
methods, on-site preconstruction ambient air quality monitoring normally would not
have been required for the Crown Jewel Project.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-56
6.1.11
Response:
6.1.12
Response:
6.1.13
Response:
Will PSD increments be violated?
The EIS does not evaluate whether or not PSD increments would be exceeded. The
Proponent has stated that emissions from the Crown Jewel Project would not be large
enough to require a PSD permit, which would mean that PSD increments do not apply
to the Crown Jewel Project.
Several commentors disputed the estimated background visual range that was used as
the basis for the visibility impact assessment at Pasayten wilderness area. Other
commentors questioned why the visibility impacts in the immediate vicinity of the
proposed Crown Jewel Project were not modeled.
The Proponent chose not to revise their visibility impact assessment at the Pasayten
Wilderness to reflect more stringent background visual range values used by the Forest
Service. Section 4.1, Air Quality, of the final EIS has been updated to provide a
detailed discussion of the visibility impact assessment at the Pasayten Wilderness using
the Forest Service guidelines. The Proponent's visibility assessment was completed
using EPA methodology. The Forest Service has developed its own guidelines that are
in most cases more stringent than EPA's. Using the Forest Service methodology and
conservative assumptions, it would not be surprising for VISCREEN to show an impact
on visibility in the Pasayten Wilderness, when NOX, PM-10, and SOX conversion to
ammonium are taken into account.
The visibility modeling, as discussed in the draft EIS, used the EPA background visual
range. As with many screening techniques, the VISCREEN model sets up a logical
sequence. The first test, called a VISCREEN LEVEL-1 analysis, incorporates
conservative assumptions so that if a project passes this test, no further investigation
is required. For the VISCREEN LEVEL-1 analysis, the background visual range is taken
from a chart of background values placed on a map of the United States and published
by the EPA. The VISCREEN LEVEL-1 analysis conducted for the Crown Jewel Project
used the EPA value of 60 kilometers (37 miles) taken from this chart and not the Forest
Service value of 285 kilometers (178 miles).
If a project fails VISCREEN LEVEL-1 analysis, the more refined VISCREEN LEVEL-2
analysis is conducted. In place of more general conservative assumptions, VISCREEN
LEVEL-2 guidance allows for inputs which more closely resemble actual project
conditions.
In a VISCREEN LEVEL-2 analysis, it would be appropriate to use a specific background
visual range which differs from the general one recommended for this location.
The key point is that the Crown Jewel Project did not fail VISCREEN LEVEL-1 analysis;
it passed using the EPA background visual range. Under EPA guidelines, the use of
VISCREEN LEVEL-2 analysis and site specific background visual range is, therefore, not
required. Under Forest Service guidelines, the Viscreen Level-2 analysis was required.
Under the worst case scenario, using very conservative assumptions, the Crown Jewel
Project does not meet Forest Service guidelines for the Pasayten wilderness.
Additional information was requested on the specific methods that would be used to
minimize fugitive dust emissions from the mining and hauling operations.
The Proponent's technical support document that was submitted as part of the WADOE
air quality permit application describes the Best Available Control Technology (BACT)
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-57
assessments that WADOE requires to demonstrate that the applicant is using BACT for
emission control. Section 4.1, Air Quality, of the final EIS has been revised to provide
a brief summary of the Proponent's BACT assessments, which would include the use
of water and chemical dust suppressants to control fugitive dust on site.
6.1.14
Response:
6.1.15
Response:
Concerns were expressed about radionuclides contained in dust generated from
blasting.
There are three agencies that have some regulatory authority for radionuclides. Two
agencies in the State of Washington and one federal agency. These include:
• Washington Department of Ecology (WADOE);
• Washington Department of Health; and,
• Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA).
WADOE is charged by the Washington State Clean Air Act [See RCW 70.94.331 (2)(c)]
with adopting air quality and emission standards by rule. Pursuant to this
responsibility, it has adopted WAC 173-480, Ambient Air Quality Standards and
Emission Limits for Radionuclides.
The State of Washington Department of Health is designated as the state radiation
control agency (see RCW 70.98.050) and has adopted rules pursuant to this
responsibility. Among these are WAC 246-247, Radiation Protection-Air Emissions,
and
WAC 402-80, Monitoring and Enforcement of Air Quality and Emission Standards for
Radionuclides.
The federal Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is responsible for worker
protection at mine sites.
The waste rock geochemical testing program conducted for the Crown Jewel Project
EIS showed radionuclide levels of 0.55 part per million (as Uranium) in two of the 25
samples tested. The other 23 samples had uranium levels below the analytical limit of
0.1 part per million. These concentrations are well below the threshold levels of
concern for risks to human health. In addition, standard dust suppression techniques
normally utilized would also effectively remove airborne radiological particulates if
present.
As a point of clarification, BMGC did not unilaterally "choose" not to conduct baseline
ambient air modeling, rather BMGC developed its baseline data collection approach in
consultation with and at the direction of the WADOE. BMGC has also demonstrated
that the Crown Jewel Project is not subject to PSD permit requirements and the
document should so state.
The comment misquotes the draft EIS. The draft EIS says "the Proponent chose not
to conduct ambient air quality monitoring..." (emphasis added). The comment refers
to baseline ambient air modeling (emphasis added). The discussion here will be limited
to ambient air quality monitoring.
WADOE disagrees that the Proponent developed its baseline data collection approach
"at the direction of the WADOE."
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-58
It is true that ambient air quality monitoring was the topic of discussions between
WADOE personnel and the Proponent's representatives and consultants. The
Proponent also submitted a plan for collection of meteorological data to WADOE in
which the company stated its position that pre-construction ambient air quality data
collection was not necessary.
WADOE has informed the Proponent in the past that it normally requires
preconstruction ambient air quality data for sources requiring a PSD permit, and that
it normally does not require such data collection for sources which do not require a PSD
permit and that the Proponent's decision not to conduct such monitoring carries a risk
for the company.
Regarding the comment that the Proponent has demonstrated that PSD permit is not
needed, it would be more accurate to say that the Proponent has presented emissions
estimates that non-fugitive emissions for the Crown Jewel Project are below the 250-
ton per year threshold which applies to some types of sources. Whether or not a PSD
permit is required will be determined by WADOE during air quality permitting and can
be subject to review by EPA.
The language in the EIS is an accurate description of the fact that the responsibility for
the decision not to conduct pre-construction ambient air quality monitoring rests with
the Proponent. The Proponent has been collecting ambient air quality data at the site
for most of 1996.
6.1.16
Response:
6.2
General
6.2.1
Has the Proponent satisfied air quality modeling requirements at the facility boundaries?
At the time the final EIS was published, the Proponent has not demonstrated
compliance with ambient air quality standards at the mine site fence line. They have
submitted modeling showing that predicted concentrations would be less than the
standards at the mine claim boundaries. The language in the EIS is an accurate
reflection of this situation. Since the draft EIS, the Proponent has submitted revised
modeling (June 1996). The fence line for Alternative B was revised since the draft EIS.
The current situation is accurately reflected in Section 4.1, Air Quality, of the final EIS.
The WADOE has not ruled on the acceptability of the Proponent's demonstration that
no ambient air quality standard will be exceeded and will not do so until it makes its
permit decision on the Notice of Construction (WP) Air Quality Permit.
GEOCHEMISTRY
General comments were received on the following geochemistry topics:
• Source of waste rock geochemistry data;
• The number of waste rock samples collected and analyzed;
• Use of Acid-Base Accounting (ABA) tests;
• Natural buffering capacity of site bedrock;
• Potential water quality impacts from the waste rock disposal
areas, pit walls, and ore stockpiles;
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-59
• Estimated percentage and volume of potentially acid-generating waste rock;
• Arsenic levels in sample leachates;
• Leaching of metals from the mine pit into ground water;
• Potential impact to local and Canadian streams from acid rock
drainage (ARD);
• Potential water quality impacts from pit backfilling;
• Potential for leakage from the tailings facility;
• Detoxification of tailings; and,
• Effect of copper and arsenic on recovery of gold from ore.
These comments were general in content and most suggested that the draft EIS either
underestimated or overestimated potential geochemical impacts.
Response:
6.2.2
Response:
We appreciate the input of all individuals, organizations, and agencies who have
commented on the "geochemistry" aspects of the Crown Jewel Mine draft EIS. We
reviewed your comments and made revisions, as appropriate, to the final EIS.
Editorial comments on geochemistry sections of the draft EIS included:
• Clarification of text and table footnotes;
• Updates to references;
• Suggested additions to text, tables, and appendices;
• Revisions to definitions presented in the text and/or
glossary;
• Corrections to maps and figures; and,
• Rewording or removal of sentences to avoid potential
biases.
Editorial comments were carefully reviewed and revisions were made, as appropriate,
to the final EIS.
Geochemical Testing Procedures and Data
6.2.3 Several reviewers indicated that the geochemical testing procedures used (including
ABA, teachability, and humidity cell tests) are not adequate and could underestimate
potential geochemical impacts.
More specifically, reviewers questioned the use of single batch leach tests, believed
that sequential batch tests would more closely simulate field conditions, questioned the
quality of water used to perform teachability tests, and requested an explanation for the
statement that "actual leachate (pH) values would likely be slightly lower."
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-60
Other reviewers suggested that humidity cell tests were biased due to grain size factors
and should have been performed for longer than 20 weeks, should have been
inoculated with Thiobacillus ferroox/dans bacteria, and should have included testing of
confirmation waste rock samples. Still other reviewers indicated that the use of
humidity cell tests was probably appropriate; however, discussion of other testing
methods should be added to the final EIS. Two reviewers suggested that a different
ABA testing procedure be used, and/or the current results should be further compared
to the humidity cell test results.
Another reviewer indicated that humidity cell tests are not a reflection of actual field
conditions. Because they are designed to enhance or accelerate the rate of acid
generation, the test results may overestimate potential geochemical impacts. This
reviewer also asked that further discussion be added to the final EIS of the "semi-
quantitative" nature of the humidity cell test results.
Response:
The teachability test procedure is an approved EPA laboratory method designed to
assess the teachability of a large volume of waste materials. Use of sequential batch
tests to evaluate the teachability of mine materials at the Crown Jewel Project was not
considered appropriate. Sequential batch tests would be useful, for example, at a site
where waste rock materials were not selectively handled and the quality of water in a
waste rock disposal area became sequentially worse as it infiltrated through different
rock types. For the Crown Jewel Project, the Washington Metal Mining and Milling
Operations Act, Forest Service and BLM guidelines, require development of a waste
rock management plan that describes how potential acid-generating rock would be
identified and handled during the mining operation. The single batch teachability test
results, combined with other laboratory geochemical testing results, allows the
Proponent to identify specific mine materials with the potential to leach contaminants
and generate acid. All of this information would be used to prepare the waste rock
management plan.
To simulate the leaching of mine materials by precipitation, geochemical samples from
the Crown Jewel Project were leached using a synthetic precipitation solution. The
solution was prepared by mixing a small quantity of sulfuric and nitric acid with
deionized water. As specified by the EPA Method 1312, the pH of the resulting
mixture was approximately 5.0. The EPA considers this pH to be representative of the
pH of natural precipitation west of the Mississippi River. The statement in the draft EIS
that "actual leachate (pH) values would likely be slightly lower" has been removed from
the final EIS.
Appendix E, Geochemistry, of the final EIS addresses the inoculation of humidity cell
test samples with bacteria and the length of the testing period. Regarding the issue of
sample grain size, geochemists agree that grain size can affect humidity cell test results
or, more specifically, the application of these results to predict field conditions. There
is, however, less agreement on whether grain size and other factors of the testing
procedure result in overestimation or underestimation of "long-term" acid generation
potential and metals teachability. The EPA technical document. Acid Mine Drainage
Prediction (EPA, 1994), describes the different geochemical testing procedures
currently used (including ABA methods) and the advantages and disadvantages of these
methods. It also describes the comparison between ABA and humidity cell test data.
Humidity cell tests, like all laboratory geochemical testing methods, will only provide
an approximation of actual field conditions. The humidity cell test was designed to
enhance or accelerate the rate of acid generation in sulfide-bearing mine materials and,
as such, in some instances may overestimate or underestimate actual field conditions.
The final EIS has been revised to include further discussion of the application of
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-61
humidity cell test results and their use in predicting long-term water quality results.
The Proponent conducted 17 humidity cell tests of 30 to 50 weeks on confirmation
waste rock samples. The results of this testing program are included in the final EIS
in Section 3.3.3, Geochemistry.
6.2.4
Response:
6.2.5
Response:
6.2.6
Response:
6.2.7
Response:
It was requested that QA/QC data verify the validity of the geochemical data presented
in the EIS.
The documents cited in Appendix E, Geochemistry, of the final EIS include a detailed
description of how Crown Jewel Project geochemical samples were collected and
handled prior to analysis. Sample analysis was performed by Core Laboratories (Core)
of Aurora, Colorado. Core is an accredited laboratory by the State of Washington and
meets mandatory QA/QC requirements set forth by the WADOE.
For reference, QA/QC data generated by Core during analysis of the confirmation waste
rock samples are presented in Appendix E, Geochemistry, and Final Summary Report,
Confirmation Geochemistry Program. Crown Jewel Project (TerraMatrix, 1995a).
QA/QC data for the other Crown Jewel Project geochemical samples analyzed by Core
are presented by the Proponent under separate cover (BMGC, 1996d).
Some comments suggested that the correlation between duplicate waste rock
geochemical samples should be defined using statistical criteria. Another comment
suggested that further text be added to the final EIS that discusses the significance of
the correlation between duplicate results.
Appendix E-8, Results of Waste Rock Duplicate Analysis, has been added to the final
EIS. This sub-appendix lists the duplicate sample results and describes a statistical
analysis performed to define the degree of duplicate correlation. Results from the
statistic analysis are described in Section 3.3.3, Geochemistry, of the final EIS.
Comments were received regarding the number of ore samples analyzed and their
representativeness. Another commentor asked why ore samples were analyzed.
The number of ore samples analyzed and their representativeness are described in the
document Report of Geochemical Testing of: Ore and Low Grade Ore, Crown Jewel
Project (Kea Pacific and Colder, 1993c). Section 3.3.3, Geochemistry, of the final EIS
was updated to explain why ore samples were included in the geochemical testing
program and why ten test samples were considered representative of the ore body.
Why were relatively few humidity cell tests performed compared to ABA tests?
A phased approach was used to design the geochemical testing program. Samples
were selected to account for site geologic conditions, sulfide content of the rock
material, and the volume of waste rock and ore material proposed to be mined. Static
Acid-Base Accounting (ABA) tests were performed first to identify mine materials that
have the potential to generate acid. Humidity cell test sample selection was based on
the results of the ABA tests. Section 3.3.3, Geochemistry, in the final EIS, explains
the sample selection process and results of the testing.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-62
Geochemistry of Waste Rock Disposal Areas
6.2.8
Response:
6.2.9
Response:
6.2.10
Response:
6.2.11
Response:
It was suggested that other waste rock types, in addition to those discussed in the
draft EIS, may be potentially acid-generating. One comment also questioned the
percentage of waste rock samples reported to be potentially acid-generating in the draft
EIS and noted an apparent discrepancy between the EIS team and the Proponent
regarding the percentage of waste rock types with certain ABA values.
The percentage of potentially acid-generating waste rock at Crown Jewel Project was
described in the technical report Final Summary Report, Confirmation Geochemistry
Program, Crown Jewel Project (TerraMatrix, 1995a) and further addressed in
memorandums by Rod Lentz (U.S.D.A. Forest Service, October 18, 1995 and May 15,
1996). The final EIS includes additional information and analysis in Section 3.3.3,
Geochemistry.
Several comments were received regarding the potential to form "hot spots" in the
waste rock disposal areas. Some reviewers indicated this potential was understated
in the draft EIS, while other reviewers indicated this potential was overstated.
The potential for "hot spots" to form in the waste rock disposal areas and to impact
water quality would largely depend on identification of potentially acid-generating waste
rock during mine operations. The final EIS includes a discussion of the requirement
under the Washington Metal Mining and Milling Operations Act and Forest Service and
BLM guidelines stating that the Proponent must develop, as part of the Crown Jewel
Project permitting, a waste rock management plan to minimize the potential for
weathering of waste rock material and formation of acidic drainage. Refer to Section
2.12.5.1, Prevention of Acid Rock Drainage, in the final EIS.
It was suggested that the quality of water discharged from the waste rock disposal
areas be further evaluated and quantified in the final EIS.
Section 3.3.3, Geochemistry, Section 4.6.3, Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives, and Section 4.7.3, Effects Common to All Action Alternatives, have been
revised to more clearly describe seepage and runoff and associated impacts from waste
rock disposal areas.
It was suggested that small volumes of potentially acid-generating waste rock be
disposed of in the tailings disposal facility.
This alternative for waste rock disposal would be constrained by logistical aspects and
would increase the overall size of the tailings facility. Mixing of waste rock and tailings
material would create geotechnical stability problems in the tailings facility. Also,
waste rock placed directly on the liner could create "puncture" problems. Delivery of
waste rock to the tailings facility would be constrained by lack of equipment available
to operate on the low-bearing strength of tailings, particularly during the operations of
the facility.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-63
Pit Water Quality Impacts
6.2.12
Response:
6.2.13
Response:
6.2.14
Response:
A general concern was expressed that open pit mining would expose rock material to
water and atmospheric conditions and potentially result in significant impacts to water
quality in the mine pit lake that develops following mine closure.
Section 4.6.3, Effects Common to All Action Alternatives and Section 4.6.4, Effects
of Alternative B, of the final EIS, describe water quality conditions predicted for the pit
lake for three pit filing scenarios including enhanced filling of the pit with water from
the proposed Starrem Reservoir.
One comment stated that additional waste rock samples should be collected and
analyzed to assess the potential to generate acid along the pit walls.
Another comment suggested that fracturing and decomposition of waste rock along pit
walls and within disposal areas should be accounted for when evaluating potential
environmental impacts.
Finally, a third comment suggested that the final EIS include a comparison of pit wall
ABA data with associated humidity cell data, clarify how average pit wall ABA values
were calculated, and restate the relationship between pit wall ABA data and pit water
quality modeling results.
To analyze the potential for acid generation by waste rock, samples were selected to
account for site geologic conditions, sulfide content of the rock material, and the
volume of waste rock. Static Acid-Base Accounting (ABA) tests were performed first
to identify mine materials that have the potential to generate acid. Humidity cell test
sample selection was based on the results of the ABA tests. Humidity cell testing
accounts for fracturing and weathering of waste rock. Section 3.3.3, Geochemistry,
explains the sample selection process and results of the testing.
Section 3.3.3, Geochemistry, has been revised to clarify how average pit wall ABA
data were calculated and to restate the relationship between pit wall ABA data and pit
water quality modeling results.
It was pointed out that potentially acid-generating waste rock would be exposed early
in the mining process and could increase the likelihood of impacts.
Water that enters the open pit during mining would be collected and either used for
process makeup water in the mill or discharged, if it meets required standards in federal
and state permits. As a result, potentially acid-generating waste rock exposed early
in the pit is not expected to impact water quality. After mining, a variety of waste rock
types would be exposed in the final pit walls, including potentially acid-generating
material. Pit water quality simulations accounted for these rock types and incorporated
results from humidity cell tests. The latter are designed to enhance the rate of natural
rock weathering and, therefore, are useful in assessing potential long-term water quality
impacts.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • £-64
6.2.15
Response:
6.2.16
Response:
One comment indicated that modeling of pit water quality conditions was generally
inadequate.
Another indicated that the humidity cell test data used in modeling are only a rough
approximation of reality and questioned the use of 15-week test data, stating that
results from longer testing periods should have been used. This reviewer also
suggested that the final EIS address potential impacts from exposure of potentially acid-
generating waste rock on the southwest side of the proposed open pit, upgradient of
Bolster Creek.
A third comment indicated that input parameters for pit inflow (i.e., the relative
contributions from surface runoff and ground water inflows) were not correct. This
reviewer also believed that results from pit water quality modeling presented in the
draft EIS are extremely conservative and represent worst case conditions since only
humidity cell data for samples with a high potential to generate acid and leach metals
were used.
Section 4.6.3, Effects Common to All Action Alternatives and Section 4.6.4, Effects
of Alternative B, of the final EIS, describe water quality conditions predicted for the pit
lake for three pit filling scenarios including enhanced filling of the pit with water from
the proposed Starrem Reservoir.
Humidity cell tests, like all laboratory geochemical testing methods, will only provide
an approximation of actual field conditions. The humidity cell test was designed to
enhance or accelerate the rate of acid generation in sulfide-bearing mine materials and,
as such, in some instances may overestimate or under estimate actual field conditions.
The final EIS has been revised to include further discussion of the application of
humidity cell test results and their use in predicting long-term water quality results.
The results of this testing program are included in the final EIS in Section 3.3.3,
Geochemistry.
It was pointed out that a quantitative discussion of water quality conditions under the
pit backfill alternative was not performed and should be included in the final EIS. One
of the reviewers presented and described results of their analysis of potential pit water
quality impacts from pit backfilling and stated that relative impacts would be greater
than if the pit was not backfilled.
An evaluation of potential water quality impacts from backfilling the open pit with
waste rock was conducted. As the backfilled waste rock in the open pit becomes
saturated with water after mining, flushing of the backfilled material could result in a
temporary release of trace metals and residual ANFO to surface waters (Schafer,
1996b). Assuming selective handling of the backfilled material, the initial discharge
from the open pit under this alternative would be expected to be of lower quality than
Alternative B. After the initial flushing of the backfilled waste rock with water, the
long-term impact to ground water quality from the partial backfilling (Alternative E) is
predicted to be worse than Alternatives C and D due to a larger area and volume of
exposed pit wall and backfilled waste rock, and similar to or worse than Alternative B.
Refer also to Section 4.6.3, Effects Common to All Action Alternatives, for a detailed
discussion of lake water quality for alternatives with a pit lake.
Geochemistry of Ore Stockpile
6.2.17 The EIS should address the potential impact to water quality from ore stockpile runoff.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-65
Response:
The potential impact to water quality from ore stockpile runoff is described in Section
4.6.3, Effects Common to All Action Alternatives, and Section 4.7.3, Effects Common
to All Action Alternatives, of the final EIS.
Geochemistry of Tailings Disposal Area
6.2.18
Response:
6.2.19
Response:
6.2.20
Response:
It was suggested that the final EIS be updated to include results from bioassay testing
and a discussion of whether tailings material classify as dangerous waste. Another
commented on potential human health and wildlife risks associated with heavy metals
that would be contained in the tailings.
Results from dangerous waste designation tests are presented in the final EIS in
Appendix F, Dangerous Waste Characterization Results for Detoxified Tailings, and in
Section 3.3.3, Geochemistry. Potential risks to wildlife exposed to tailings are
discussed in the final EIS in Section 4.12, Wildlife. Refer also to response 6.18.36 in
this appendix.
There were concerns that cyanide concentrations in the proposed tailings pond would
exceed allowable permit levels, particularly during the winter months. Clarification was
requested regarding achievable cyanide concentrations in the tailings pond. There were
comments that the final EIS should include a brief discussion of the optimization of
cyanide treatment using the INCO SO2/Air/Oxidation process.
The Proponent has proposed to meet a rolling average monthly cyanide concentration
of 10 ppm WAD cyanide in their spent tailings effluent in the pond. The actual
concentration of WAD cyanide will be set in permits, and may be set at a concentration
lower than 10 ppm WAD cyanide based on the reliable application of the INCO
S02/Air/Oxidation cyanide destruct process. Cyanide levels greater than 40 ppm WAD
cyanide at the end of the pipe discharging into the tailings facility would require
mitigation to protect wildlife.
Natural degradation cannot be demonstrated to be a reliable primary treatment method
for the Crown Jewel Project since most natural degradation processes are accelerated
at a neutral to acidic pH; the high buffering (alkaline) characteristics of the tailings
would tend to inhibit some of these reactions. Natural degradation could not be solely
relied upon to meet permit requirements as the primary cyanide destruction process and
is not considered in the EIS.
Instead, WAD cyanide will be regulated at the point of discharge into the tailings facility
(end of pipe), thus eliminating the consideration of seasonal variations in the tailings
pond. Optimization of the INCO/SO2/Air/Oxidation treatment process is discussed in
Section 2.2.11, Cyanide Destruction, of the final EIS and in the Engineering Report:
INCO SOJO, Wastewater Treatment Unit (BMGC. 1996h).
The EIS should address the acid generation potential of the tailings. Would the addition
of sulfate to the tailings through use of the INCO process form sulfuric acid? It was
suggested that statements in the draft EIS be clarified and/or corrected regarding the
impact of INCO byproducts on sulfate concentrations in the tailings.
The Proponent analyzed the long-term acid generation potential of seven bench-scale
tailings samples from the Crown Jewel Project. Test results are summarized in the final
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS * L-66
EIS in Section 3.3.3, Geochemistry, and indicate that the tailings material is not acid-
generating. Additional humidity cell test data through week 52 (of the testing period)
were provided by the Proponent for four of the samples after the draft EIS was
released. These results are included in the final EIS and confirm that the tailings are
not acid-generating.
Regarding the tailings sulfate issue, sulfate is a byproduct of using the INCO
S02/Air/Oxidation process but its addition to the tailings would not result in the
formation of sulfuric acid. Section 3.3.3, Geochemistry, of the final EIS was updated
to clarify this issue.
6.2.21
Response:
Were confirmation tailings samples tested and, if not, why?
Confirmation tailings samples were not tested for the Crown Jewel Project. WADOE
and the Forest Service considered the tailings testing program to be adequate to
characterize the tailings material. However, to determine whether the tailings would
classify as dangerous waste, WADOE did require that the Proponent prepare additional
bench-scale tailings samples to obtain bioassay data. Results from the dangerous
waste designation tests are presented in the final EIS, Appendix F, Dangerous Waste
Characterization Results for Detoxified Tailings, and summarized in Section 3.3.3,
Geochemistry.
Operational Monitoring and Mitigation of Potential Geochemical Impacts
6.2.22
Response:
6.2.23
Response:
The final EIS should explain how the Proponent would identify, isolate, and treat
potentially acid-generating waste rock exposed during the mining operation. The final
EIS should include a detailed monitoring plan designed to detect ARD and metals
leached from the open pit and waste rock disposal areas.
The Washington Metal Mining and Milling Operations Act and Forest Service and BLM
guidelines require that a waste rock management plan be prepared for the Crown Jewel
Project that describes how potentially acid-generating waste rock would be handled.
A description of the Proponent's waste rock management plan has been included in the
final EIS in Section 2.12.5.1, Prevention of Acid Rock Drainage, to address the
comments of several reviewers. The Proponent has included a proposed waste rock
management plan in the Solid Waste and Waste Rock Management Plan, as part of the
NPDES/State Waste Discharge Permit application (BMGC, 1996g)
Section 2.13.1, Water Resources Monitoring, of the final EIS has been revised to
describe the surface and ground water monitoring programs that would be implemented
during operations as well as during closure and post-closure periods.
Several commentors want the final EIS to include a detailed contingency plan that
would explain how the Proponent would mitigate potential ARD and metals leaching.
It was suggested that this plan give special attention to arsenic contamination. Other
reviewers believed the plan should define "trigger levels" for corrective action if
impacts from mining are observed.
Section 2.12.5.2, Water Discharge, has been included in the final EIS to describe the
steps that would be implemented to address situations when water quality
requirements are not met. Water quality requirements would be determined using
baseline water quality data.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-67
Comparison to Other Mines
6.2.24
Response:
6.2.25
Response:
It was stated that the quality of water sampled from two historic mine adits at the site
(Gold Axe and Upper Magnetic Mine) is relatively poor which suggests potential
impacts from mining. Other reviewers believed that geologic and water quality data
from historic mines in the Crown Jewel Project area show a low risk for acid generation
and metals leaching and, therefore, should be further discussed in the final EIS.
Section 3.8.6, Influence of Past Mining on Ground Water, of the final EIS describes
baseline water quality data collected from historic mine adits in the Crown Jewel
Project area and how these data relate to local geologic conditions and potential
impacts.
It was suggested that geochemical data from other mine operations should be
compared to geochemical data collected from if similar rock units and mining depths
were encountered and if those operations had ARD problems.
Every mining operation is unique due to differences in local geologic, topographic,
climatological, hydrologic, and biologic conditions. As such, any comparison between
mine sites would be problematic and can only be used as an approximate guide to what
would or would not work. Experience gained at other mining projects has been used
throughout the EIS process to assess potential impacts to resource areas and to
develop appropriate mitigation measures.
Miscellaneous Comments
6.2.26
Response:
6.2.27
Response:
Data from the geochemical sampling and testing program should be "mapped" to assist
in assessment of metals distribution and acid generation potential around and within
the proposed open pit.
Section 3.3.3, Geochemistry, describes the acquisition and application of the various
geochemical test data for the Crown Jewel Project. The testing program was designed
to account for the variety of rock materials that would be exposed by the pit over the
life of the Crown Jewel Project. Through this testing process, some of these rock
materials were identified as acid-generating and thus would require special handling.
Section 2.12.5.1, Prevention of Acid Rock Drainage, of the final EIS, discusses this
issue. Pit lake water quality predictions were also made using these data. Section
4.6.4, Effects of Alternative B, of the final EIS, discusses pit lake water quality.
Due to the potential for mercury to bioaccumulate, its presence in the orebody and its
fate during ore processing should be described in the final EIS.
The potential for mercury to bioaccumulate at the Crown Jewel Project appears to be
low, based on the following geochemical and baseline water quality data:
• The mercury concentration in leachate from 79 waste rock samples, seven
tailings solid samples, six low grade ore samples, and four ore samples
analyzed by EPA Method 1312 was less than 0.0003 mg/l;
• The mercury concentration in leachate from 17 waste rock humidity cell tests
ranged from less than 0.002 mg/l to less than 0.004 mg/l. The mercury
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft E/S • L-68
concentration in leachate from another waste rock humidity cell test was less
than 0.008 mg/l;
Over a 31/2 year period, the mercury concentration in baseline water quality
samples from 25 springs and seeps, 14 surface water stations, nine ground
water monitoring wells, and five historic mine adits has been less than or equal
to 0.0002 mg/l; and,
Based on bench scale testing, the concentration of mercury in the tailings pond
could range from 0.0004 mg/l to 0.0023 mg/l and, on a volume basis, average
about 0.001 mg/l.
6.2.28
Response:
6.2.29
Response:
6.2.30
The final EIS should address potential impacts to water quality from blasting.
An evaluation of nitrate loading from blasting was performed by Schafer and Associates
and summarized in the technical memorandum. Revised Final Calculation of Nitrate
Loads for Evaluation of Pit Water Quality (Schafer, 1996b). Results from this
evaluation are included in the final EIS in Section 4.6, Ground Water, Springs and
Seeps, and Section 4.7, Surface Water. Refer also to response 6.5.46 in this
appendix.
The EIS should address the importance of microbial activity in the acid generation
process.
The importance of microbial activity in the acid generation process is discussed in the
final EIS in Appendix E, Geochemistry, as it relates to the interpretation of humidity cell
test data.
There were errors in the draft EIS regarding the comparison between the calcium
content of site mine materials and neutralization potential.
Response:
6.3
General
6.3.1
Response:
As correctly pointed out, there is not a direct comparison between the calcium content
of site mine materials based on X-ray fluorescence (XRF) data and neutralization
potential. Section 3.3.3, Geochemistry, of the final EIS was corrected and updated
accordingly.
GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The majority of the geotechnical comments received on the draft EIS focused on the
tailings facility design, construction, and performance. A few commentors addressed
the stability of the waste rock disposal areas. Other comments cited typos and
suggested clarifications.
We appreciate the input of all those individuals, organizations, and agencies who
commented on the "geotechnical" aspects of the Crown Jewel Mine draft EIS. We
have reviewed your comments and made revisions, as appropriate, to the final EIS.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-69
Tailings Dam Stability
6.3.2 Will the tailings dam be stable under severe earthquake loads and will upstream
construction over tailings material be stable?
Response:
Since the issuance of the Crown Jewel Mine draft EIS, the Proponent has revised the
proposed tailings facility to incorporate downstream construction of the embankments.
This revised embankment construction plan has been designed to satisfy the
Washington State Department of Ecology, Dam Safety Guidelines Part IV, dated July
1992.
Knight Piesold (1993a) estimated the Maximum Credible Earthquake (MCE) for the area
and placed such an earthquake at the epicenter distance of 10 miles from the Crown
Jewel Project site. They then attenuated the ground acceleration and predicted a
maximum bedrock acceleration of 0.19 g based on historic earthquake records, (g =
32 ft/sec2) for a 50,000+ year return event. This peak acceleration was used in
stability analyses for the original "modified centerline" constructed embankment and
indicated that the tailings facility may undergo small displacements but would not fail.
The proposed revised Crown Jewel Project tailings facility would incorporate an initial
starter dam. Subsequent lifts would begin at the toe of the existing embankment and
be constructed upward until the required crest elevation is achieved, thereby reinforcing
the initial embankment. See Section 2.2.14, Tailings Embankment Design and
Construction, of the final EIS for further discussion and Final Design Report, Tailings
Disposal Facility, Crown Jewel Project, Okanooan County, Washington (Colder. 1996a).
Tailings Impoundment Design and Operation
6.3.3 Will the tailings liner system perform adequately and prevent the loss of solution into
Marias Creek which functions as the underdrain system?
Response:
Since the issuance of the Crown Jewel Mine draft EIS, the Proponent has revised the
proposed tailings facility to incorporate downstream construction of the embankments
and a double synthetic liner system, which would include a leak detection system. See
discussion in Section 2.2.14, Tailings Embankment Design and Construction, and
Section 2.2.15, Tailings Liner System Design, of the final EIS.
The liner system proposed for the tailings facility is an upgraded variation of the current
most commonly accepted liner design for tailings facilities. The revised system would
incorporate two geosynthetic liners with an overdrain, a leak detection system, and an
underdrain for surface water. The overdrain system serves for tailings dewatering and
the underdrain system serves to route surface and ground water intercepted beneath
the facility on downstream. These are separate systems as implied by the description.
The overdrain system and the leak detection system would discharge to the recovery
solution collection pond for recycle to the mill, while the underdrain would be routed
around the collection pond. The liner system also meets AKART, All Known Available
and Reasonable Technology.
Miscellaneous
6.3.4 Will there be an opportunity for independent evaluation and public comment on the
tailings designs as the plans are developed?
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS * L-70
Response:
6.3.5
Response:
6.3.6
Response:
6.3.7
Response:
6.3.8
Response:
6.3.9
Response:
While there is no formal public review and comment requirement other than in the
SEPA/NEPA process, the WADOE Dam Safety Section files are public records and the
public has the right to visit state offices and review file contents. Plans and technical
documents used in the preparation of the EIS and in decisions made on permits would
be available for public review.
Was fracturing and exfoliation of waste rock and pit walls considered?
Over time, the surface of the waste rock and the pit walls would weather and exfoliate.
However, the overall slope angles of the waste rock piles and pit walls would not be
expected to change substantially as a result of weathering.
Concerns were expressed about construction and stability of Starrem Reservoir.
The Starrem Reservoir embankment would be designed and built according to WADOE
Dam Safety rules and regulations. These rules and regulations are designed to ensure
that dams are stable.
Will the Proponent be responsible for damage from earthquakes?
The Proponent would be responsible to the extent that earthquake damage affecting
the integrity of facilities for continued operation or failure of facilities would be repaired.
However, the cost of earthquake damage occurring post-operation would be included
in the performance securities and would not be the direct responsibility of the
Proponent once reclamation is complete and if the Proponent is not the landowner.
Will glacial sediments cause stability problems for the north waste rock pile?
The proposed waste rock disposal area is located over an area that contains a drainage
channel. The surface water drainage would be diverted around the waste rock disposal
area to the extent practicable; however, it is expected that some water may still flow
below the waste rock disposal area. Since the waste rock is a very coarse, free
draining material, it is unlikely that any seepage pressures would develop in the fill.
However, it has been recommended that a drainage layer be placed below the waste
rock fill, particularly in existing drainages, to ensure adequate drainage. The waste rock
disposal area design considers the underlying foundation material.
There was a request for seismic research by independent sources. What is basis for
concluding that the faults are inactive?
Seismic activity in the region has been recorded by the United States Geological
Survey, National Earthquake Center (see Figure 3.4.1, Earthquake Epicenters, in the
final EIS). This data, in conjunction with on-site geologic mapping and interpretation,
formed the basis for the analysis in the EIS.
The bibliography section beginning on page 104 of the final design report in Volume 1
of the Tailings Disposal Facility. Final Design Report (Knight Piesold, 1993a), cites the
actual sources consulted in estimating the seismic events the impoundment should be
capable of surviving. These independent studies included:
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS 4 L-71
6.3.10
Response:
6.3.11
Response:
6.3.12
Response:
6.3.13
Response:
• USGS, Earthquake Hazards in the Pacific Northwest; An Overview, Open-File
Report 91-441-0, 1991;
• Basham, Weichert, Anglin, & Berry, New Probabilistic Strong Seismic Ground
Motion Maps of Canada: A Compilation of Earthquake Source Zones, Methods
and Results, Earth Physics Branch Open-File Report 82-33, 1982; and
• Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources, Various Earthquake
Circulars on the region.
The independent seismic risk assessment of the Crown Jewel Project site as completed
by the WADOE, Dam Safety Section, and relied heavily on independent studies done
for the Bureau of Reclamation and for Seattle City Light's Boundary Dam Project.
These studies included:
• Geomatrix Consultants, Inc., 1989, Seismotectonic Evaluation of the Northwest
Rocky Mountains - Okanogan Uplands Geomorphic Province, U.S. Department
of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation; and
• PRC Engineering, Inc., 1985, Phase A Report, Seismotectonic Study Boundary
Hydroelectric Project.
Is geotechnical stability a justifiable concern?
Stability is always a concern when fills with steep side slopes and large impoundment
construction are proposed.
The objective should be to ensure that mine pit highwalls are stable over the long-term.
As part of reclamation, the WADNR has stipulated that portions of the final pit walls
and benches would be blasted down to create a rough irregular surface or be obscured
by filling in order to reduce rectilinear features. Ravelling and instability of remaining
highwalls can be expected. Attaining immediate stability by reducing slopes would be
impractical and result in substantially greater pit area and associated environmental
effects.
How does the plan to tunnel underground mitigate the future possibility of tunnel
collapse due to limestone solubility?
Limestone solubility can be a concern as is the case in the state of Florida and other
locations. However, the limestone sinkholes which occur in Florida and other locations
are in a completely different geologic regime than what is present at the Crown Jewel
Project. The carbonates in the Crown Jewel Project area are marbles. Karst or solution
features are not prevalent in the marble (or its altered products) at the Crown Jewel
Project site. Moreover, most underground workings, as contemplated in Alternatives
C and D, would intersect rock types which are predominately non-carbonate.
Benefits of dewatered tailings disposal should be studied further.
The concept of dewatering tailings is a very expensive process involving filter presses
and possibly thermal dryers to lower the moisture content of the tailings slurry to a
point where a stable disposal pile could be constructed and maintained. The area
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-72
needed to construct a dewatered tailings disposal facility would probably exceed 100
acres (the approximate area of the proposed tailings pond), depending on the site
selected. The Washington Metal Mining and Milling Operations Act requires that these
tailings be placed in a lined tailings facility similar to what would be required for tailings
deposited in solution. Rain and/or snowfall during placement would severely affect the
stability of the disposal area. Construction of a permanently covered, dewatered
tailings disposal is not considered practical for the Crown Jewel Project. The potential
impacts of a failure in the disposal area would be similar to a failure in the waste rock
disposal facilities. Potential mitigation for these instabilities would be to construct an
embankment/berm around the disposal area. See Section 2.2.12, Tailings Disposal, in
the EIS for further discussion of the pros and cons of this method of tailings disposal.
6.3.14
Response:
6.4
How were the sites of the proposed tailings facilities located?
Rationale and selection criteria for the tailings facilities locations are presented in
Section 2.2.13, Tailings Disposal Locations, and supported by an evaluation of tailings
disposal sites around Buckhorn Mountain (Colder, 1994d) submitted by the Proponent,
Appendix K, Tailings Site Selection Report, as prepared by the WADOE, and in the
Technical Memorandum - Review of Off-site Upland and Side-Hill Tailings Disposal
(TerraMatrix, 1996).
SOILS
General
6.4.1
Response:
There were several comments received which agreed with the soils sections in the draft
EIS. Other comments cited typos, requested minor clarifications, or expressed general
opinions.
We appreciate the input of all those individuals, organizations, and agencies who
commented on the "soil" aspects of the Crown Jewel Mine draft EIS. We have
reviewed your comments and made revisions, as appropriate, to the final EIS.
Soil Availability
6.4.2
Response:
Is there adequate growth medium to perform the required reclamation?
Yes, for all alternatives except Alternative C, for which a slight deficiency is estimated.
The analyses comparing available soil versus required soil for the various alternatives
is provided on Table 4.5.1, Summary of Reselling Considerations, of the final EIS.
Section 2.11.4, General Reclamation Procedures, has been clarified in the final EIS, to
indicate the availability of adequate growth medium.
Soil Suitability
6.4.3
Will the salvaged topsoil be contaminated or lose its nutrients while in storage? Upon
replacement, will the topsoil be contaminated by the waste rock or tailings? Can
fertilizer help replace lost nutrients?
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-73
Response:
All soils suitable for salvage would be excavated and placed into topsoil storage
stockpiles prior to any disturbance or directly applied to regraded areas. These
procedures are described in Section 4.5, Soils, in the final EIS. The storage stockpiles
would be isolated from the mining and milling operation until reclaimed for replacement.
No contamination of the soils would occur while in the topsoil stockpiles.
The nutrient-supplying capability of a soil is a function of several soil characteristics
including soil texture, cation exchange capacity, organic matter content, material
volume, clay mineralogy, soil moisture regime, etc. It is true that a portion of this
capability may be diminished as a result of soil stockpiling over time, and that the
longer a soil is stockpiled the greater is the temporary loss of the soil's nutrient-
supplying capability. However, it is also true that a fertilization program, based on
accepted soil sampling and laboratory analysis techniques, would serve to correct this
loss within the time frame envisioned for the Crown Jewel Project regardless of the
alternative selected. This is the type of soil fertilization program that is proposed by
the Proponent as a part of the reclamation plan for the proposed action. It would also
apply to the preferred alternative, or any alternative, by default.
The types of areas where salvaged soils would be replaced include subsoils, waste
rock, and tailings. A discussion of the potential interaction between subsoils, waste
rock, tailings, and the salvaged soils is presented in the final EIS in Section 4.5.3,
Effects Common to All Action Alternatives. No contamination of the replaced soils is
anticipated.
Erosion Rate Calculations
6.4.4 There were comments concerning the calculation of erosion rates; specifically: Section
4.5.4, Effects of Alternative B, Paragraph 2, of the draft EIS: "The assumption that
revegetated 2H:1V slopes in Alternative B would have significantly lower ground
surface and canopy cover is invalid. Existing slopes, both natural and revegetated have
high ground cover values and - depending upon plant community - significant canopy
cover. The potential erosion rates should be corrected."
Response:
It is true that existing slopes have high ground covers and, depending upon plant
community, significant canopy cover values. However, existing conditions obviously
reflect vegetation communities which have had more than one to five years to develop
and become topographically and vegetatively stable. The total percent ground and
canopy cover estimates used in the RUSLE equation for the 2H: 1V slopes of Alternative
B was 88% and 78% for the one and five year time frames, respectively. (The lower
fifth year percentage represented an estimated major decrease of ground cover due to
mulch decomposition which was not totally compensated for by canopy cover. This
AS notably (perhaps not "significantly" as stated by the commentor) less than the
100 + % value used for existing conditions.
To complete an analysis of this nature for a NEPA document, a conservative case
situation must be assumed in the absence of applicable data to the contrary. No site-
specific revegetation data is known to be available but, at the same time, site
revegetation potentials can be considered to be comparatively high based on proposed
soil reapplication depths, mulching practices, and the regional climatic regime.
Therefore, ground and canopy cover values were selected that were believed to
conservatively represent both existing conditions and revegetation potentials. As a
reflection of the overall potential accuracy of the RUSLE equation, in terms of mining
disturbances, these estimates are considered to be valid. A correction of potential
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS 4 L-74
erosion rates, given that they are all below National Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS) soil loss tolerance levels for loss of soil productivity seems unwarranted.
RUSLE "C" Factor
6.4.5
Following reclamation treatments, it is likely that the actual RUSLE 'C' factor for
reclaimed site surfaces would be in the range of 0.003 to 0.005 as a result of mulching
alone. Other factors would further serve to maintain a lower RUSLE 'C' than that
presented.
Response:
The "C" factors used in RUSLE were calculated using values for a number of
parameters (used in model sub-routine calculations) required by the model itself. These
parameters included existing and proposed reclaimed vegetation types as well as
estimated surface roughness, percent ground cover, percent canopy cover, average
canopy cover height (ft.), a root mass factor, above ground biomass (Ibs./ac.), and
below ground biomass (Ibs./ac.). With respect to the effect of mulching, it is true that
at the time of application, and for some time thereafter, ground cover values would be
extremely high. However, some allowance must be made for mulch loss and
decomposition over time which would result in a lower ground cover value related to
mulch application. This is particularly true for a five year time-frame where it was
estimated that the majority of the mulch-effect would be lost. The C factors used,
following reassessment, still appear to represent reasonable values applicable to the
Crown Jewel Project. (See response 6.4.4 in this section concerning selected values
and the perceived requirements for a conservative approach to model application.)
Contamination of Aquifer Through "Well Drained" Soils
6.4.6
Response:
6.5
The facilities will be constructed on what appears to be soil mapping unit D, which is
described as a well-drained soil. Does this mean that any contaminate spills will
infiltrate immediately into the aquifer?
No. All suitable soils would be salvaged prior to construction of the facilities. Soils in
the facilities area are considered 100% salvageable (Cedar Creek Associates, Inc.,
1992). Areas surrounding the facility structures would be comprised of roads, storage
areas, and parking areas which would be compacted as a function of developing these
areas. The compacted surfaces would limit infiltration of contaminants into the ground.
In the event of a spill, the ground which is contaminated would be excavated and
disposed of properly. The storm water runoff plan developed for the facilities area
would route water to detention ponds. Oil/water separators would be installed, (as a
condition of a site-specific Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure [SPCC] plan)
as necessary to separate hydrocarbons from the water. The oil collected would be
periodically reclaimed and reused or disposed of properly.
HYDROLOGY
Climatology
6.5.1
Many comments discussed a lack of on-site precipitation and evaporation data. The
correlation of precipitation data with the Republic station was said to be an inadequate
substitute for on-site data. Another comment stated that temperature and wind data
needed to be included in the determination of an appropriate evaporation calculation.
Commentors stated that conditions vary over short distances and that Republic was too
far from the site. Other comments stated that precipitation was understated and
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-75
evaporation was overstated. Another comment stated that data had been collected for
an insufficient time period. Precipitation, temperature, and wind data from long term
weather stations located at Molson, Havillah, and Canada were suggested for
correlation.
Response:
6.5.2
Response:
6.5.3
Response:
The surface water and ground water impact assessments in the final EIS are based on
a revised set of temperature, precipitation, and evaporation data. The WADOE, the
Forest Service and the Forest Service's contractors worked with the Proponent to
compile the best available historical weather data for the region and to synthesize the
regional data into a unified weather data set for the mine site. Section 3.1, Air
Quality/Climate, of the final EIS describes how the unified mine site weather data set
was developed. A detailed assessment report entitled Meteorological Data Set. Crown
Jewel Project (ENSR, 1996a) discusses the data evaluation methods and procedures.
The air quality impact assessments in the final EIS utilize the same wind data set that
was included in the draft EIS. The electronic station that has been operated by the
Proponent since 1991 uses sensors that conform to EPA's standards. During the
period from June 1991 through March 1992, the Proponent conducted semi-annual
3rd-party station audits to demonstrate that the sensors and data loggers were
calibrated within acceptable tolerances established by EPA. Section 3.1, Air
Quality/Climate, of the final EIS includes a brief discussion of the Proponent's quality
control methods that were used to establish the validity of the wind data.
Several comments were made regarding variation of precipitation and evaporation as
a result of microclimates at the site. Other comments suggested that changing the
configuration of the Buckhorn Mountain summit may affect precipitation patterns at the
site.
Section 3.1, Air Quality/Climate, of the final EIS has been revised to discuss how wind,
temperature, and precipitation data sets were developed.
Concerning the removal of part of Buckhorn Mountain, only a portion of the mountain
top would be removed by the mining operation. Please refer to Figure 2.16, Alternative
B, Operational Site Plan, of the final EIS. This figure shows that most of Buckhorn
Mountain would remain intact. No climate changes are anticipated due to the mining
operation.
A description of the relationship between precipitation and surface water flow at the
site was requested.
The surface water and ground water impact assessments in the final EIS are based on
a revised set of temperature, precipitation, and evaporation data. The WADOE, the
Forest Service and the Forest Service's contractors worked with the Proponent to
compile the best available historical weather data for the region and to synthesize the
regional data into a unified weather data set for the mine site. Section 3.1, Air
Quality/Climate, of the final EIS describes how the unified mine site weather data set
was developed.
Streamflow at the site was compared to precipitation data. The relationship of
streamflow to precipitation data is addressed in the final EIS, in more detail, in Section
4.7, Surface Water and in the detailed assessment report entitled Analysis of Stream
Depletions Resulting from the Proposed Crown Jewel Project (Hvdro-Geo. 1996a).
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-76
6.5.4
Response:
6.5.5
Response:
On-site temperature data needs to be discussed in the EIS document. Other comments
asked about the purpose of temperature data. One comment stated that degradation
of cyanide was temperature dependent and this relationship needed to be explored in
the EIS. Others commented that the average annual temperature presented in the draft
EIS seemed high for the area.
The WADOE, the Forest Service and the Forest Service's contractors worked with the
Proponent to compile the best available historical weather data for the region and to
synthesize the regional data into a unified weather data set for the mine site. Section
3.1.3, Climate, of the final EIS, describes how the unified mine site weather data set
was developed and Table 3.1.1, Weather Data, displays the temperature data.
This comment noted that an average annual precipitation value was of limited use and
that a range of high and low precipitation amounts should be used in the analyses.
For purposes of modeling the hydrological impacts to ground water flow, stream flow,
and wetlands, two sets of wet year and dry year precipitation values were derived by
inspecting the historical wet/dry cycles at the Molson weather station. Based on the
patterns at Molson, the extreme wet year at the mine site is estimated to be 31.7
inches per year (which corresponds to an 86-year recurrence interval). The extreme
dry year at the mine site is estimated to be 14.2 inches per year (which corresponds
to a 13-year recurrence interval).
Surface Water Hydrology
6.5.6
Response:
6.5.7
Response:
6.5.8
General comments included many varying opinions regarding the Crown Jewel Project.
Statements ranged from the opinion that the hydrology impacts were understated, to
the opinion that the operation was a good plan which was trying to conserve water
resources. Other comments stated that the Crown Jewel Project was using too much
water and creating too much pollution. None of these comments asked specific issues
to be addressed.
We appreciate the input of all those individuals, organizations, and agencies who
commented on the "surface water hydrology" aspects of the Crown Jewel Mine draft
EIS. We have reviewed your comments and made revisions, as appropriate, to the final
EIS.
There were many comments that addressed minor clarifications, editorial changes, and
cited typos.
All requested corrections and modifications were considered and revisions were made,
as appropriate, in the final EIS.
The availability of sufficient surface water flow data on the lower portions of drainages
in the Crown Jewel Project area was questioned. One comment stated that obtaining
this information was necessary for a complete EIS. Other comments stated that there
was a low level of agreement within the available on-site stream flow data and that the
data is then unreliable. Others stated the opinion that an average streamflow could not
be estimated from the data available and that the period of data collection was too
short. There were other comments that questioned the amount of snow cover that
would be lost when the top of Buckhorn Mountain is removed.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-77
Response:
6.5.9
Response:
6.5.10
Response:
6.5.11
Response:
Additional data has been collected at locations near the confluence of the Crown Jewel
Project area streams to Toroda and Myers Creeks. This data is presented in Section
3.6.2, Regional Surface Water Hydrology, of the final EIS. Extensive work was
completed to review surface water flow data collected at the Crown Jewel Project site.
All of the surface water hydrology data was reviewed. The peak surface water flows
in the upper portions of drainages vary significantly from year to year and from site to
site. This reflects differences in runoff response to changes in precipitation annually
and between drainages due to their aspect, vegetative cover, and infiltration into the
soil. The regression equation used to calculate mean annual flow in the draft EIS and
the associated discussion has been deleted from the final EIS. Changes in snow
accumulation on the north-east side of Buckhorn Mountain due to the mining operation
have been considered in the stream depletion calculations, and are discussed in Section
4.7, Surface Water, of the final EIS.
Several comments were received regarding the validity of the Marias Creek flow data.
There were comments that stated that flows from the Roosevelt adit have been illegally
diverted from Marias to Nicholson Creek, and that any stream flow monitoring done on
Marias Creek was flawed due to this diversion.
There was no illegal diversion of the flow from the Roosevelt adit. A description of the
Roosevelt adit discharge history is included in Section 3.6.4, Project Area Surface
Water Hydrology, subsection "Project Area Drainage Characteristics," of the final EIS.
Baseline surface water flow monitoring conducted as a part of the baseline monitoring
program was intended to establish pre-mining conditions. Refer to response 6.18.48
in this appendix, for further discussion of Roosevelt adit flows.
A comment was made that the estimated mean annual flow estimates presented in the
draft EIS should be discussed in more detail.
The estimated mean annual flow data for the Buckhorn Mountain streams have been
removed from the final EIS. These have been replaced with estimates of the runoff for
each of the Crown Jewel Project area streams. Surface water flows measured during
the monitoring program have been plotted in hydrographs for each station and the
water year that each station has been monitored. Based on the hydrographs, a water
balance was prepared. Refer to Section 3.6.4, Project Area Surface Water Hydrology,
subsection "Analysis of Surface Water Monitoring," of the final EIS.
Comments stated that stream depletion was not adequately addressed, that reduced
stream flow will be a problem for aquatic life, that reduced stream flow will affect the
Kettle River, and that recreational uses (canoeing) will be compromised. More specific
comments asked how stream depletions would be mitigated. Some comments stated
that the EIS should identify water users and their water requirements and assess the
impact of stream depletion on these users. Still other comments asked for
identification of the lineal feet of streams that would be dredged and filled, along with
the number of lineal feet and specific location along streams that would have reduced
flow. Other comments stated that stream depletion would be less than what was
reported in the draft EIS.
Stream depletion modeling has been revised in the final EIS. This revision includes a
re-evaluation of climatology, pit inflow modeling, analyses of hydrographs of streams
in the Crown Jewel Project area, and inclusion of additional data collected subsequent
to the draft EIS. The results of stream depletion modeling are found in Table 4.7.3,
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-78
Impacts of Mining on Buckhom Mountain Drainages, discussed in Section 4.7.4, Effects
of Alternative B, and shown on Figure 4.7.2, Zone of Influence Due to Pit Dewatering,
of the final EIS. Stream depletion along specific locations and lineal footage along
streams that would have reduced flows are shown on Figure 4.7.3, Schematic -
Average During and Post Mining Stream Depletions and Table 2.15, Summary of
Impacts by Alternative for Each Issue. Predicted stream depletion at the end of mining
from all streams on Buckhorn Mountain is 46 acre-feet for an average precipitation
year. This compares with a mean annual discharge for the Kettle River at Carson,
British Columbia of approximately 1.08 million acre-feet/year. Construction of the mine
is expected to result in the depletions referenced in tables above. Mitigation for
impacts resulting from those depletions can be found in Section 2.12.16, Wetlands,
and Section 2.12.18, Wildlife and Fish - Public Land Enhancement, of the final EIS.
Comments concerning the impact of reduction in stream flow on individual water rights
are beyond the scope of the final EIS and will be considered during evaluation of the
water right permit applications for the Project.
6.5.12
Response:
6.5.13
Response:
Comments were made regarding the need to address drought periods in the final EIS.
Other comments suggested that stream flows be correlated to precipitation and that
a discussion should be included that presents a range of expected flows from extreme
high flow periods to extreme low flow periods.
Additional data has been collected near the confluence of the Crown Jewel Project area
streams with Toroda and Myers Creeks. This data is presented in Section 3.6.2,
Regional Surface Water Hydrology, of the final EIS. The period of record for stream
flows monitored at the project site correspond to a period of high precipitation
variability. For more information regarding the climatology referenced above, please
see Section 3.1, Air Quality/Climate, and Section 3.6.4, Project Area Surface Water
Hydrology, subsection "Analysis of Surface Water Monitoring," of the final EIS.
Extensive work has been done to review surface water flow data collected at the site
since the issuance of the draft EIS. Please refer to Section 4.7, Surface Water of the
final EIS.
Most of the comments about "impacts to wetlands" focused on the frog pond.
Comments stated that the evaluation should focus on long term as well as short term
impacts to the frog pond, that baseline seasonal water levels from the frog pond should
be collected, questioned whether tailings would be deposited within the frog pond, and
questioned how the reduction of flow to the frog pond was calculated. (Other
comments asked about direct and indirect impacts to the frog pond from the mining
operation.) Another comment suggested that all the alternatives be reviewed for
consistency regarding the size of the frog pond.
Seasonal water level data was not collected for the frog pond as part of the baseline
monitoring program. The Proponent has been collecting data on water levels at the
frog pond. Seasonal water level monitoring of the frog pond is described in Section
2.13.1, Water Resources Monitoring, of the final EIS. Also, as stated in Section
2.13.5, Wildlife and Fish Monitoring, in the final EIS, the frog pond would be monitored
annually using chorus surveys to determine the relative abundance of spotted frogs.
No alternative would result in tailings being deposited in the frog pond. Alternative G
would result in placement of waste rock that would cover the frog pond. The frog
pond fills during the spring snow melt and overflows to the north and east into
Nicholson Creek. During the year, the water surface in the frog pond is reduced by
evapotranspiration, seepage, and cattle and wildlife usage. By late summer and fall
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-79
6.5.14
Response:
6.5.15
Response:
6.5.16
Response:
only a small pool remains. The drainage basin which contributes surface water runoff
to the frog pond is about 50-60 acres. There is no obvious evidence of springs
providing water to the pond during the low water period in the fall. The pit inflow
numerical modeling and stream depletion modeling cannot be used to precisely quantify
impacts to the frog pond due to the localized nature of this hydrologic system.
Monitoring and mitigation measures are described in Section 2.13.1, Water Resources
Monitoring, of the final EIS. Additional monitoring of the frog pond may be required as
part of the Corps of Engineers 404 permit.
The final EIS has been revised to list the frog pond with an area of 1.8 acres.
Comments stated that there was a lack of information regarding the impact of pit
dewatering and blasting on flows in Beaver Creek and other drainages south of Pontiac
Ridge.
Pit inflow modeling and stream depletion modeling predict no hydrologic changes as a
result of the mine operation further south than Ethel Creek and Marias Creek. See
Section 4.6, Ground Water, Springs and Seeps, and Section 4.7, Surface Water, of the
final EIS. Refer also to response 6.5.34, in this appendix.
Several comments related strictly to the flow from the waste rock disposal areas. One
comment was a request to quantify runoff. Another comment said that the draft EIS
failed to show that waste rock was located more than 200 feet from streams. One
comment asked that the effect of waste rock placement on snow melt should be
considered.
A hydrologic water balance has been developed for the driest, average, and wettest
precipitation periods. Runoff is one element of this water balance, (See Section 4.7.3,
Effects Common to All Action Alternatives, subsection "Waste Rock Disposal"). Refer
to response 6.18.42, in this appendix, for solid waste regulations applicable to waste
rock. Changes in snow melt runoff on the north-east side of Buckhorn Mountain due
to construction of the waste rock disposal areas are considered in the stream depletion
calculations as revised in the final EIS, and are presented in Section 4.7, Surface
Water.
Several comments asked what the impacts of sediment loading would be to streams
and aquatics. Design criteria used in the sediment control plan was questioned. One
comment asked whether design criteria using 10-year and 25-year recurrence intervals
were sufficient for the Crown Jewel Project. Another asked what happens when the
storm event exceeds the design criteria. Another comment stated that the inches of
rainfall listed for design storm events seemed low and wanted to know the source of
information. Other comments questioned the effectiveness of the sediment control
structures. Another group of comments expressed concern that sediment modeling
was required in order to estimate tons per year of sediment entering streams on the
Crown Jewel Project site. One comment stated that a discussion of NPDES and storm
water permitting needed to be included in the final EIS. Several commentors suggested
alternatives that would minimize impacts from sedimentation.
The discharged water could cause seasonal erosion to the drainage channels and add
sediment during high flow periods, as discussed in Section 4.7, Surface Water, of the
final EIS. These impacts are not expected to substantially affect resident fisheries.
Impacts to fisheries are discussed in Sections 4.11, Aquatic Habitats and Populations,
and 4.12, Wildlife.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-80
Alternative B includes designs for retaining storm water runoff for the 24-hour peak
snowmelt, the volume of one year of accumulated sediment, and the 10-year, 24-hour
storm. If a runoff event exceeds the design criteria, water would be discharged from
the sediment traps to either Nicholson Creek or Marias Creek. Refer also to response
6.18.22 in this appendix. Drainage channels to the sediment traps will be designed to
pass the 100-year, 24-hour storm event without overtopping on federal lands.
The precipitation-frequency data used to calculate the storm event volume were
determined using data taken from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) Atlas, which is commonly used for the design of hydrologic
structures.
Modeling was completed to evaluate soil loss associated with site reclamation for each
alternative. Table 4.5.2, Summary of Mine Component Potential Erosion Kates by
Alternative, shows the soil loss in tons per year. Modeling was also done by Colder
Associates as a part of the NPDES permit application. To determine the TSS
concentration in water discharged from the sediment traps, refer to the Crown Jewel
Project: Diversion Channels and Sediment Traps Conceptual Design Report (Colder,
1996b). Additional information relating to NPDES permitting and storm water controls
is found in responses 6.18.22 and 6.18.33 in this appendix.
6.5.17 It was requested in several comments that cumulative impacts to drainages further
from the Crown Jewel Project area need to be discussed. These drainages were
specified as Myers, Marias, Nicholson, and Toroda Creeks, and the Kettle and
Okanogan Rivers.
Response:
There would be direct hydrologic impacts within Myers, Marias, Nicholson, and Toroda
Creeks and the Kettle River basins. These impacts are discussed in Section 4.7,
Surface Water, of the final EIS. Cumulative indirect hydrologic impacts within the
Okanogan River basin would result from increased water demand to serve additional
residents moving into the Tonasket and Oroville areas who work at the mine or provide
support services for those residents. Section 4.19, Socioeconomic Environment, of the
final EIS discusses these impacts.
Ground Water Hydrology
6.5.18 Some commentors believed that the hydrogeologic systems were not fully understood
and that the draft EIS was inadequate. Comments that the draft EIS lacked sufficient
data to address impacts to ground water were also expressed. Some commentors
believed that wells would dry up off-site, water would be contaminated, quality
assurance and quality control of water quality data were not presented, and stream
flow would be reduced. These comments are grouped here as general; however, more
specific comments on these subjects are responded to later in this section.
Response:
We appreciate the input of all those individuals, organizations, and agencies who
commented on the "ground water" aspects of the Crown Jewel Mine draft EIS. We
have reviewed your comments and made revisions, as appropriate, to the final EIS.
Additional work on the hydrogeological aspects of the Crown Jewel Project has been
completed since the draft EIS was published in June 1995. Additional hydrogeologic
investigations were conducted in the open pit area and in the proposed tailings disposal
area. The results of field investigation were incorporated into ground water flow
modeling using ABCFEM, a finite-element model (Hydro-Geo, 1996b) and SEEP/W
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • 1-57
analytical model (Colder, 1996c). Additional technical reports addressing the issues
raised in many of the comments on surface and ground water hydrology have been
completed. This modeling is discussed in Sections 4.6, Ground Water, Springs and
Seeps, and 4.7, Surface Water, of the final EIS.
The following measures were taken to ensure that the baseline surface and ground
water quality data collected for the Crown Jewel Project EIS were valid:
• Field and laboratory water quality samples were collected in accordance with
methods described in the report Baseline Hvdroloqic Monitoring Plan (ACZ,
1993). This report was reviewed by the WADOE and Forest Service;
• As specified in the above plan, quality assurance samples were collected in the
field on a routine basis;
• Water quality analyses were performed by laboratories certified or accredited
by the State of Washington;
• Samples were analyzed in strict accordance with Quality Assurance (QA)/
Quality Control (QC) specifications required by EPA-certified laboratories; and,
• All water quality data were carefully validated following procedures outlined in
the report Baseline Hvdroloqic Monitoring Plan (ACZ, 1993). Data validation
results were summarized and reported to WADOE and other agencies on a
monthly basis. Copies of the data validation reports are available from WADOE
upon request.
6.5.19
Response:
6.5.20
Response:
6.5.21
There were many comments that requested minor clarifications, editorial changes, and
cited typographical errors.
All requested corrections and modifications were considered and revisions were made,
as appropriate, in the final EIS.
Several comments addressed specific wells and asked. "How do I know my well is
going to be safe and productive, in terms of quantity?" Several commentors expressed
concern about their wells going dry. Another comment asked, "Who will be
responsible?"
Figure 4.6.1, Zone of Influence Due to Pit Dewatering and the Pit Recharge Catchment
Area, identifies the area which is predicted to be influenced by the mining operation.
Ground water levels inside the zone are predicted to decline one foot or more. Ground
water levels outside the zone are predicted to experience declines of less than one foot.
The question of who would be responsible if a domestic well should go dry would
depend on a number of site specific factors such as the location of the well, whether
the well fully penetrates the aquifer, and whether the decline can be directly
attributable to a specific cause.
Water level fluctuations on site need further discussion in the final EIS. The ground
water monitoring network needs to be expanded further downstream of the Crown
Jewel Project site. The Pontiac Ridge area also needs to be included in the ground
water monitoring network.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L -82
Response:
6.5.22
Response:
6.5.23
Response:
6.5.24
Response:
6.5.25
The ground water monitoring program in the general area of the Crown Jewel Project
may change as a result of the mine permitting process. See Section 2.13.1, Water
Resources Monitoring, of the final EIS for further details. No impacts to ground water
in the Pontiac Ridge area are predicted.
Comments were received that questioned the testing procedure used at the site to
evaluate hydrologic properties. Specifically, that hydraulic conductivity outside the pit
area was not evaluated, and that only one pump test was used to characterize the
entire aquifer system.
The aquifer system in the general Crown Jewel Project area was assessed from
numerous air-lift tests, slug tests, a pump test, packer tests, by monitoring of water
levels in numerous wells, and by monitoring discharge from the existing mine adits.
The results of field investigations were verified by the calibration of the ABCFEM, a
finite-element computer model. These tests are discussed in Section 3.8, Ground
Water, of the final EIS.
Comments questioned the methodology, terminology, assumptions, and the data used
in determining ground water inflow into the pit. Some commentors believed that
predicted inflows were seriously overestimated; others believed that predicted inflows
were seriously underestimated.
The estimates of ground water inflow into the pit have been revised and are discussed
in Section 4.6, Ground Water, Springs and Seeps, in the final EIS. This revision
includes a revaluation of climatology, pit inflow modeling, analyses of hydrographs of
streams in the Crown Jewel Project area, and inclusion of additional data collected
subsequent to the release of the draft EIS. Results of the ground water flow model
calibration support the approximate range of ground water inflow as previously
presented in the draft EIS.
The issue of dewatering the open pit was the subject of several comments. Some
commentors believed that dewatering would reduce aquifer storage, change the
location of the ground water drainage divide, reduce the ground water recharge zone,
and reduce the ground water contribution to surface water streams. Others believed
a contrary view that the drainage divide would remain stationary and that the recharge
zone would not expand during dewatering. Several comments requested discussion on
the impact to the fracture flow system from blasting.
Impacts from pit dewatering have been revised in the final EIS. This revision includes
a reevaluation of climatology, pit inflow modeling, analyses of hydrographs, and the
inclusion of additional data collected subsequent to the draft EIS. The results of
additional studies are summarized in Section 4.6, Ground Water, Springs and Seeps,
in the final EIS.
The impacts of blasting bedrock is expected to extend only 10-15 feet into the pit
walls.
The statement in the draft EIS that mine induced subsidence would only impact the
ground water system locally was questioned. The comment asked, "what is the
definition of locally impact" and asked, "how will subsidence affect the five drainage
basins with headwaters at the site, and how far downstream will these impacts
extend?"
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-83
Response:
6.5.26
Response:
6.5.27
Response:
6.5.28
Response:
6.5.29
Response:
The local impact areas of subsidence are shown on Figure 2.18, Alternative C,
Operational Site Plan, and Figure 2.19, Alternative D, Operational Site Plan, designated
as "potential subsidence zone." The impacts of subsidence on the ground water
system during and after the underground mining alternative would depend on the
mining method, geology, and hydrogeology of the site. Mining methods with any form
of backfilling would have a minimal impact on surface and ground water resources.
Mining with caving methods could impact surface and ground water resources to a
larger degree, but not as much as open pit mining. The effects of underground mining
on the ground water system are discussed in Sections 4.6.5, Effects of Alternative C,
and 4.6.6, Effects of Alternative D.
Some commentors stated that the effects of dewatering on the streams were
underestimated and others stated that these effects were overestimated.
The ground water flow computer modeling was revised regarding the potential stream
depletion and the interaction between surface and ground water. The model was
calibrated to the measured water levels in the wells, flow in surface streams, and
discharge from the Roosevelt adit. The results of modeling and of the assessment of
stream depletion are presented in the Analysis of Stream Depletions Resulting from the
Proposed Crown Jewel Project {Hydro-Geo, 1996a), and the Analysis of Open Pit Mine
Inflow for the Proposed Crown Jewel Project (Hydro-Geo, 1996b). Section 3.8.7,
Relation of Ground Water and Surface Water Systems, Section 4.6, Ground Water,
Springs and Seeps, and Section 4.7, Surface Water, in the final EIS discuss the results
of the modeling.
Several comments disputed conclusions in the draft EIS that total seepage from the pit
would be lowered as a result of backfilling. Several clarifications were requested
regarding selective backfilling of waste rock material. The conclusion that water would
discharge from the pit largely in the form of springs and seeps, rather than at a defined
outflow point was disputed.
The sections of the final EIS (Sections 4.6, Ground Water, Springs and Seeps and 4.7,
Surface Water) that discuss outflow and seepage from the backfilled pit have been
revised to address these comments.
More detail describing the underground mine alternative was requested. Another
comment stated that inflow rates to the underground mine were derived using very
simplistic empirical equations that are based on idealized assumptions and that inflow
is overestimated.
The underground mine alternative is discussed in Section 2.6, Alternative C. Ground
water flow modeling has been revised. See Section 4.6.5, Effects of Alternative C, of
the final EIS.
Re-evaluation of the flow analysis from the Roosevelt adit was requested. Clarification
that the Gold Axe adit has never discharged was requested. The issue of diverted
flows from the Roosevelt adit feeding Marias or Nicholson Creek was also raised.
Re-evaluation of flow analysis from the Roosevelt adit is presented in the report
Analysis of Open Pit Mine Inflow for the Proposed Crown Jewel Project (Hydro-Geo,
1996b). The text in the final EIS has been revised, correspondingly. Discussion on
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-84
flows from the Gold Axe adit in Section 3.8.6, Influence of Past Mining on Ground
Water, has been clarified. Response 6.18.48, in this appendix addresses Roosevelt adit
discharge history.
6.5.30
Response:
6.5.31
Response:
Comments questioned the placement of the tailings pond over a fault in Marias Creek.
Presence of adverse geologic conditions, such as faults, are addressed in Appendix K,
Tailings Site Selection Report of the final EIS.
Many comments expressed disbelief that the tailings facility could be labeled "zero-
discharge." Other comments questioned how the tailings would dry out after
operations are ended without discharging water. Another comment requested that
modeling similar to that performed for Marias Creek be performed for the alternative
that places the tailings disposal area in Nicholson Creek.
The proposed Crown Jewel Project tailings facility is designed as a "closed circuit"
facility. "Zero discharge" means that no discharge of process water will be permitted
from the tailings facility. Refer also to Section 2.2.15, Tailings Liner System Design.
6.5.32
Response:
Reclamation of the proposed Crown Jewel Project tailings facility would involve
recontouring of the surface area, draining of the facility, application of a three foot layer
of coarse material followed by 12 inches of topsoil, and revegetation. During the final
year of operation, the tailings deposition sequence would be modified to achieve final
surface configuration. The final surface configuration would prevent any ponding,
promote overall drainage to the reclamation spillway, and reduce infiltration of direct
precipitation. Following reclamation, evaporation and plant respiration should be
sufficient to prevent most surface moisture from entering the tailings materials during
the growing season months. In the winter, during the time of greatest precipitation and
lowest evaporation and plant respiration, moisture would pass through the reclaimed
soil profile to the soil/tailings interface. Most of this infiltration would collect above the
interface in the soil profile and seasonally could enter the tailings. Refer to response
6.15.2 in this appendix for additional information on the reclamation plan.
Seepage modeling was not conducted for a tailings facility in Nicholson Creek drainage
because the Nicholson alternative tailings disposal site would be very similar to the
Marias Creek area. Impacts from this facility on the ground water system would be
similar to those described in the Marias Creek drainage.
Comments suggested that seepage from waste rock facilities had not been adequately
addressed. Another comment stated that the assumptions made in modeling waste
rock seepage were overly conservative.
Ground water recharge through the waste rock disposal areas during operations would
be greater than premining conditions. Modeling (Schafer, 1996a) predicts a decrease
in seepage through the waste rock disposal areas after reclamation and such seepage
would be less than premining recharge rates.
As a result of the large surface area of waste rock exposed to weathering, water
quality impacts from waste rock disposal sites could result from the formation of acidic
drainage and leachate that contains trace metals. Refer also to Section 4.6.3, Effects
Common to All Action Alternatives. All surface seepage from waste rock disposal
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L -85
areas would be captured during operations and reclamation and routed to a sediment
detention pond before being released.
6.5.33
Response:
6.5.34
Response:
Clarification was requested in the sections describing springs and seeps. The
statement, "number of springs and seeps found only once" should be clarified.
Clarification was requested in the description of the interconnection of surface and
ground water. One comment stated the pit dewatering has little effect on springs in
the area. Another comment requested that the proposed mitigation account for a
reduction in springs and seeps.
Springs and seeps are listed in Table 3.7.1, Spring and Seep Investigation Summary,
of the final EIS. The number of times each spring or seep was located can be
determined by the presence of a measurement value or a "NM" (NM indicates No
Measurement). Section 4.6, Ground Water, Springs and Seeps, and Section 4.7,
Surface Water, of the final EIS discuss ground water and surface water, describe the
inherent variability in spring flow, and the potential effects of pit dewatering. The
proposed mitigation for potential flow reduction to springs and seeps is discussed in
Section 2.12.16, Wetlands.
Section 3.8.7, Relation of Ground Water and Surface Water Systems, addresses the
interconnection between ground and surface water.
Discussion on the impacts from the mining operation on ground water, springs, seeps,
and wetlands in the Beaver Canyon area were requested.
Computer modeling of ground water flow during the mining operation indicated that the
zone of influence due to open pit drainage would not extend into the Beaver Canyon
drainage. Therefore, no impacts to local water supply wells, springs, seeps and
wetlands are anticipated. Refer to Figure 4.6.1, Zone of Influence Due to Pit
Dewatering and the Pit Recharge Catchment Area.
Water Quality
6.5.35
Response:
There were many general water quality comments. These included comments that
suggested the following:
• The final EIS should include the development of new or revised alternatives that
would have less impact on water quality;
• The draft EIS glosses over long term impacts;
• Mitigation measures for water quality need more discussion; and,
• Water pollution can not be controlled from the Crown Jewel Project. These
comments are grouped here as general; however, more specific comments on
these subjects are responded to later in this section.
We appreciate the input of all those individuals, organizations, and agencies who
commented on the "water quality" aspects of the Crown Jewel Mine draft EIS. We
have reviewed your comments and made revisions, as appropriate, to the final EIS.
Crown Jewel Mine i Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft E/S 4 L-86
6.5.36
Response:
6.5.37
Response:
6.5.38
Response:
There were many comments that requested minor clarifications, editorial changes, and
cited typographical errors.
All requested corrections and modifications were considered and revisions were made,
as appropriate, in the final EIS.
Several comments addressed specific wells and asked "How do I know my well is
going to be safe, in terms of water quality."
In compliance with state ground water quality regulations (Chapter WAC 173-200,
October 1990) and federal water quality regulations, WADOE, the Forest Service, and
BLM would require that the Proponent monitor site ground water quality conditions
both during and after the mining operation in those areas where ground water impacts
are predicted to occur or are reasonably foreseeable including, but not limited to, the
proposed tailings facility, waste rock disposal area(s), and mining areas. Monitoring
would ensure early detection of potential ground water quality degradation before
downgradient users are affected. If ground water quality degradation is detected and
confirmed, WADOE would require that the Proponent mitigate impacts as required
under state law. A 0erformance security would be posted for remediation of any water
quality impacts. Refer to Section 2.13.1, Water Resources Monitoring, for monitoring
measures and Section 2.14, Performance Securities, for a discussion of performance
securities.
Some comments questioned the validity of the water quality data collected and
requested QA/QC data. One comment noted that the presence of H2S in many springs
inventoried suggested anaerobic conditions were present in the ground water. Further
discussion was requested on the topic of acid mine drainage as a result of oxidation on
pit walls and waste rock.
The following measures were taken to ensure that baseline surface and ground water
quality data collected for the EIS were valid:
• Field and laboratory water quality samples were collected in accordance with
methods described in the report Baseline Hvdrologic Monitoring Plan (ACZ,
1993). This report was reviewed by the WADOE and Forest Service and, to
ensure collection of representative and reproducible samples, included
requirements to filter surface and ground water in the field before laboratory
analysis of trace elements and metals;
• As specified in the above plan, quality assurance samples were collected in the
field on a routine basis;
• Water quality analyses were performed by laboratories accredited by the State
of Washington;
• Samples were analyzed in strict accordance with Quality
Assurance(QA)/Quality Control(QC) specifications required by the EPA-certified
laboratories; and,
• All baseline water quality data from were carefully validated following
procedures outlined in the Baseline Hvdrologic Monitoring Plan (ACZ, 1993).
Data validation results were summarized and reported to WADOE and Forest
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS » L-87
Service on a monthly basis. Data validation reports are available for review at
the WADOE office in Yakima, Washington.
Presentation of QA/QC data and validation results from the baseline water quality
monitoring program was considered too voluminous for inclusion of the Crown Jewel
Project final EIS. This information is available for review at the WADOE office in
Yakima, Washington.
Based on chemical equilibrium calculations alone, it can be shown that it would be
impossible for sulfide to exist in water that also contains dissolved oxygen (Snoeyink
and Jenkins, 1980). The baseline ground and surface water quality data from Crown
Jewel Project sampling stations suggest, however, that the oxidation-reduction
reactions predicted to control hydrogen sulfide and oxygen concentrations are not in
equilibrium.
See Sections 4.6.3, Effects Common to All Action Alternatives, and 4.6.4, Effects of
Alternative B, in the final EIS, regarding the potential for acid rock drainage from
oxidation of pit walls and waste rock.
6.5.39 Some comments cited that elevated concentrations of silver and cadmium predicted in
the pit lake water were unacceptable. Related comments requested a discussion on
the proposed mitigation of the silver and cadmium concentrations, and expressed
concerns over long term impacts. Several comments questioned the stratification of
the pit lake and its effect on the model if the lake was not oligotrophic. Other
comments suggested that the draft EIS failed to explain the conservative nature of the
pit water quality modeling and the limitations and problems with comparing model
results to freshwater aquatic standards. Several comments stated that drawing specific
conclusions of exceedence from the pit water quality modeling was inappropriate.
Other comments noted that NPDES permitting would need to be completed for any
discharge of pit water to Nicholson Creek. Discussion of impacts of using Nicholson
Creek as a mixing zone were also requested. Another comment requested a discussion
on the length of time monitoring would be required for pit water discharge.
Response:
Section 4.6.4, Effects of Alternative B, of the final EIS, describes water quality
conditions predicted for the pit lake for three pit filling scenarios, including enhanced
filling of the pit with water from the proposed Starrem Reservoir. Refer also to Section
4.6.3, Effects Common to All Action Alternatives.
Section 4.6.3, Effects Common to All Action Alternatives, in the final EIS was revised
to include a more complete explanation of the assumptions used including static factor
of the pit lake and limitations of predicting pit water quality conditions at the Crown
Jewel Project.
Pit water quality predictions were directly compared to Washington ground water
quality and fresh water aquatic life standards and presented in Table 4.6.2, Comparison
of Predicted Water Quality Conditions in the Proposed Open Pit to Washington Ground
Water Quality Criteria, and Table 4.7.4, Comparison of Predicted Water Quality
Conditions in the Proposed Open Pit to Washington Aquatic Life Criteria. A column
was added to each table that lists the range of baseline surface and ground water
quality concentrations measured at the site. These comparisons were made to predict
potential regulatory compliance problems and to establish an adequate performance
security.
If predicted water quality exceedences occur, the Proponent would be required to
implement the mitigation measure described in Section 2.12.5.2, Water Discharge and
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-88
Section 2.12.18.14, Pit Lake. The pit lake water quality would be monitored as
described in Section 2.13.1, Water Resources Monitoring.
If the pit lake water quality exceeds the water quality standards, the Proponent would
be required to obtain an NPDES permit for releasing treated water from the lake.
6.5.40 Comments requested further discussion on background levels of cyanide found in some
adit samples. Another comment stated that water from the Roosevelt adit (or any adit)
is not ground water and therefore requires an NPDES permit for discharge. It was
suggested that these discharges be captured and routed to the tailings facility.
Response:
There is no documentation that cyanide was used at the site in the past to process
ores. The infrequent detection of cyanide during baseline monitoring in historic mine
discharges and in downgradient streams suggests either a natural source or, due to the
relatively low laboratory detection levels employed, an artifact of the analysis.
Flows from historic mine adits at the Crown Jewel Project site originate as ground
water that is discharged at the surface. The adit discharges are described in Section
4.6, Ground Water, Springs and Seeps. Capture and diversion of the adit discharges
to the tailings facility is one method to comply with water quality standards. Another
method is treatment and discharge. Refer to Section 2.12.5.2, Water Discharge. Adit
discharges are subject to an NPDES permit.
6.5.41 Comments stated that water in the tailings facilities represents a long term risk for
impacting ground water quality. More specific comments asked when it could be
determined if the tailings liner system is leaking; and, if a leak is detected, what would
be the impact to ground water. Another comment asked if there are metals in the
tailings impoundment that exceed "any water quality standard." Other comments
asked about the direction of surface water flow after reclamation and about subsequent
water quality impacts. One commentor stated that the worst case tailings pond failure
scenario did not account for the diversion of Roosevelt adit flows to Nicholson Creek.
Response:
6.5.42
Impacts to ground water quality due to loss of solids or liquids from the tailings facility
are described in Section 4.6.3, Effects Common to All Action Alternatives.
Leaks from the primary liner would be detected by the leak detection system. Leaks
from the secondary liner could be detected by monitoring of the underdrain or by the
ground water monitoring network. Refer to Sections 2.12.13.4, Tailings Disposal
Facility and 2.13.1, Water Resources Monitoring. Table 3.3.7, Analysis of Tailings
Liquid. Table 4.6.3, Predicted Ground Water Contaminant Concentrations Downgradient
from a Release of the Tailings Impoundment, Assuming Worst Case Conditions, and
Table 4.12.5, Risk or Probability of Toxic Impact at the Tailings Pond, disclose potential
changes in several parameters including metals. Refer also, to Appendix F, Dangerous
Waste Characterization Results for Detoxified Tailings, for more information on
detoxified tailings.
After reclamation, runoff from the tailings disposal facility would discharge to Nicholson
Creek. Discharges from the Roosevelt adit are also expected to go to Nicholson Creek
as they currently do.
Comments requested additional discussion of seepage from the waste rock disposal
areas. Another comment stated that seepage from waste rock should be discharged
to ground water rather than surface water. However, the opposite viewpoint was also
expressed, that discharge to ground water was unacceptable. It was stated that more
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-89
work was needed to characterize the water quality of seepage from the waste rock
disposal areas. Some commentors said that "hot spots" would form in the waste rock
disposal areas. A request was made that information pertaining to Total Suspended
Solids (TSS) from waste rock areas be discussed. Other comments stated that waste
rock is a solid waste requiring a liner, and that a storm-water NPDES permit is not
applicable to runoff from waste rock, rather a traditional NPDES permit would be
required.
Response:
6.5.43
Response:
6.5.44
Response:
Section 3.3.3, Geochemistry, Section 4.6.3, Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives, and Section 4.7.3, Effects Common to All Action Alternatives, have been
revised to more clearly describe seepage and runoff and associated impacts from waste
rock disposal areas. The potential for "hot spots" to form in the waste rock disposal
areas and impact water quality would largely depend on identification of potentially
acid-generating waste rock during mine operations. The final EIS was revised to
include a discussion of the requirement under the Washington Metal Mining and Milling
Operations Act and Forest Service and BLM guidelines that the Proponent develop as
part of the Crown Jewel Project permitting a "waste rock management plan" to
minimize the potential for acidic drainage. Refer to Section 2.12.5.1, Prevention of
Acid Rock Drainage, of the final EIS.
Modeling was completed to evaluate soil loss associated with site reclamation for
each alternative. Table 4.5.2, Summary of Mine Component Potential Erosion Rates
by Alternative, shows the soil loss in tons per year. Modeling was also performed
by Colder Associates as a part of the NPDES permit application. For information on
the predicted TSS concentration in water discharged from the sediment traps, refer
to the Crown Jewel Report: Diversion Channels and Sediment Traps Conceptual
Design Report (Colder. 1996d).
For information concerning the regulations which affect waste rock, refer to response
6.18.42 in this appendix. An NPDES permit is required for all discharges of pollutants
to waters of the United States. Waste rock effluent, derived from seepage or runoff
from waste rock or overburden stockpiles, is subject to 40 CFR, Part 440, Effluent
Limit Guidelines. Waste rock effluent is also subject to effluent limits to protect aquatic
life and human health.
Comments were received regarding impacts on wetland areas from increased sediment.
A commentor stated that as sediment fills in the wetland area temperature increases,
dissolved oxygen decreases, and there would be increased nutrient loading.
Potential impacts to wetlands from the waste rock facilities are discussed in Section
4.7.3, Effects Common to All Action Alternatives.
A comment expressed concerns regarding water quality impacts including temperature,
dissolved oxygen, and bacteria as a result of reduced flow.
Potential water quality impacts from mine-related stream depletion are described in
Section 4.7, Surface Water. No detectable water quality impacts are predicted in the
lower reaches of site streams either during or after mining. Measurable flow reductions
are predicted for some project alternatives during and after mining along the upper
reaches of Bolster, Gold, and Nicholson Creeks. The major water quality impact
associated with these flow reductions is expected to be the rate of daily temperature
change. Increases in maximum daily dissolved oxygen concentrations are not expected
due to the strong dependence of this parameter on air temperature and ground water
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS 4 L-90
inflow. As a result, changes in dissolved oxygen and bacteria populations in site
streams are not expected.
6.5.45 Many comments requested that water quality impacts from complete and partial
backfilling alternatives be modeled. Several comments stated that mitigation of water
quality impacts would be more difficult in the backfilled options because water would
not discharge at a single point. Other comments disagreed with the draft EIS
statement that water quality impacts could be less due to the lack of exposed pit walls,
and instead asserted instead that backfilled material would result in poorer water quality
due to the leaching of the backfill material as the water level rises.
Response:
An evaluation of potential water quality impacts from complete and partial backfilling
of the open pit with waste rock was conducted. Under Alternatives E and F, as the
backfilled waste rock becomes saturated, flushing of the backfilled material could result
in a temporary release of trace metals and residual ANFO to surface waters (Schafer,
1996b). Even assuming selective handling of the backfilled material, the initial
discharge from the backfilled pit under these alternatives would be expected to be of
lower quality than Alternative B.
Under Alternatives E and F, after the initial flushing of the backfilled waste rock, the
long-term impact to ground water quality is predicted to be worse than Alternatives C
and D, due to a larger area of exposed pit wall and waste rock, and similar to or worse
than Alternative B. Refer also to Section 4.6.3, Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives, for a detailed discussion of lake water quality for alternatives with a pit
lake.
6.5.46 There were several comments that requested more discussion on the water quality
impacts of blasting and the use of ANFO at the site. What is the impact of remnant
ANFO on metal concentrations in the ground and surface water, and does ANFO cause
chemical or biological degradation or alteration? Other comments requested that other
sources for nitrate and phosphate be identified.
Response:
Section 4.6, Ground Water, Springs and Seeps, and Section 4.7, Surface Water, of the
final EIS provide a discussion of potential impacts to ground water and surface water
quality from ANFO use. These final EIS sections have been updated with a study
performed by Schafer and Associates, Inc. (1996b) to predict impacts from ANFO on
pit water quality under various Crown Jewel Project alternatives. The study concluded
that the nitrate concentration in water discharged from the pit area would be
substantially greater if waste rock is used for pit backfilling and could exceed ground
water standards.
Remnant ANFO is not expected to impact the metal concentrations in the Crown Jewel
Project area ground and surface waters. Nitrate in the ANFO would facilitate biological
activity if released into site streams.
Other sources of nitrate and phosphate at the Crown Jewel Project include sanitary
wastes and fertilizers used with site reclamation. Impacts to ground water quality
associated with sanitary wastes and fertilizers are presented in Section 4.6.3, Effects
Common to All Action Alternatives, and Section 4.7.3, Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives, of the final EIS.
6.5.47 Most comments regarding dust suppression asked what choices are available for
chemical dust suppression and what the impacts on water quality would be from those
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-91
chemicals. One comment asked about the water quality impacts from road sanding and
salting.
Response:
Section 4.1.4, Effects Common to All Action Alternatives, subsection "BACT
Assessment for Haul Road Dust," addresses the use of chemicals for dust suppression.
Table 4,1.3, Dust Suppression Methods, of the final EIS lists the characteristics of
some dust suppression products which may be used on haul and access roads at the
Crown Jewel Project. Use of dust suppressants and, during the winter months, the use
of sand and/or salt on roads are not expected to result in substantial environmental
impacts at the Crown Jewel Project. The runoff from mine roads would be diverted to
sediment traps and may be monitored as required in the NPDES permit. This permit
would specify the allowable concentration and loading of potential pollutants in the
runoff based on current state water quality standards and technology-based criteria.
6.5.48 Comments requested more discussion be added to the final EIS regarding sanitary
waste disposal. Another comment asked about the impact of waste water infiltrating
into the ground water.
Response:
A discussion of the sewage disposal system for the Crown Jewel Project and potential
impacts to site ground water quality is presented in Section 4.6.3, Effects Common to
All Action Alternatives, of the final EIS. Requirements to treat and dispose of sanitary
waste at the site would be specified in a sewage disposal permit issued by the
Washington Department of Health or Okanogan County Health Department.
Water Supply and Water Rights
6.5.49 There was a wide variety of general comments. Many felt the draft EIS should have
been more positive discussing the Proponent's water supply plan. Others questioned
if water was available in light of a perceived shortage of water on the Myers and
Toroda Creek drainages. Mining, as a beneficial use over agriculture, was questioned.
More discussion of existing water rights was requested. Others questioned whether
the mine would shut down if their water usage were deemed out of priority. Several
comments asked why the Proponent applied for rights to more water than documented
usage suggested. Other comments suggested that the Proponent monitor residential
wells. Many comments expressed concern for maintenance of instream flow for
aquatic life. More information was requested on tribal water rights.
Response:
A description of the water supply plan has been added in Section 2.2.19, Water
Supply, of the final EIS. The WADOE determines water availability and authorizes
appropriations of water through permit decisions.
Decisions whether to grant or deny the requests are made based on information
available concerning the application. For approval, the project must meet four tests as
follows:
1. There will be no impairment to existing water rights nor injury to the
instream values for fish and other instream resources.
2. There is water available for appropriation.
3. The water use will be beneficial.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-92
4. Issuance of the requested water right will not be detrimental to the
public's interest.
Both irrigation and mining are considered beneficial uses of water under state law.
Therefore, it is allowable to change water rights from irrigation to mining, as long as
there is no impairment to existing water rights, and the right(s) to be changed are not
enhanced or expanded.
The appropriation of water would be curtailed when other rights become impaired or
instream flows are not met. This probably would not affect the use of water at the
mine site since the water supply plan includes a storage reservoir just for this purpose.
Water storage is proposed to reduce conflicts. Water would be withdrawn for storage
during high flow periods.
The strategy of the water supply plan was to apply for water rights from as many
sources as practical, knowing that water would not be available for appropriation from
all sources at all times of the year. For example, one application requested the
theoretical maximum amount of water that might be available from Starrem Creek
during an extreme storm event.
Effects of the Crown Jewel Project on aquatic habitats are discussed in Section 4.11,
Aquatic Habitats and Populations. Instream flow protection for resident fish
populations in Myers Creek is presented in Section 4.11.7, Instream Flow Incremental
Methodology (IFIM).
Figure 4.6.1, Zone of Influence Due to Pit Dewatering and the Pit Recharge Catchment
Area, identifies the predicted zone of influence from pit dewatering. Ground water
levels inside the zone are predicted to decline one foot or more.
Ground water levels outside the zone are predicted to experience declines of less than
one foot. No residential wells have been identified inside the zone of influence;
therefore, no monitoring of residential wells have been proposed as a requirement for
the Crown Jewel Project.
See Section 3.9, Water Supply Resources, subsection "Introduction," of the final EIS
for a description of tribal water rights within the Crown Jewel Project area.
Suggestions were made to expand and correct the discussion of Water Supply and
Water Rights in the final EIS.
6.5.50
Response:
6.5.51
Response:
6.5.52
Section 2.2.19, Water Supply, of the final EIS discusses water supply and water rights.
We have reviewed comments and made revisions, as appropriate, to the final EIS.
Comments expressed concern about the availability of water to their existing or future
domestic water wells.
Existing ground water uses would be protected if the well fully penetrates the aquifer.
Future appropriations are not protected under Washington State Law which is based
on the doctrine "first in time, first in right."
Many comments stated that they did not understand why the water use stated in the
draft EIS did not add up to the amount needed to operate the mine. Others requested
that a comprehensive water balance be presented to account for all impacts the Myers
and Toroda Creek drainages.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-93
Response:
6.5.53
Response:
6.5.54
Response:
6.5.55
Response:
Water use in the draft EIS was based on water rights applications filed by the
Proponent of the Crown Jewel Project. The Proponent applied for water rights from
as many sources as practical, realizing that water would not be available for
appropriation from each source at all times of the year. As a result, the total amount
requested appears to be more water than necessary for the Proponent's proposal.
Water balance for the site is discussed in Section 4.7.3, Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives, and Section 2.2.18, Water Use, of the final EIS. Operational water
balances are displayed in three figures in Chapter 2, Alternatives Including the Proposed
Action, these include Figure 2.13, Operational Water Balance Schematic - Average
Year, Figure 2.14, Operational Water Balance Schematic - Dry Year, and Figure 2.15,
Operational Water Balance Schematic - Wet Year.
There was concern that the Proponent may acquire water rights in Toroda Creek when
others have been denied water rights for many years. Others believed that Myers
Creek was over appropriated. Several asked how a change in diversion point and time
of diversion from the Lost Creek well would be handled.
WADOE will evaluate the Proponent's water right applications under the same set of
rules as the earlier applications; however, under the different conditions of each
application, different decisions could be arrived at. This is especially true if the
Proponent has the capability to store water in a reservoir for use when water is not
directly available from the other water sources. Myers Creek has been adjudicated and
use can be regulated according to the adjudication during water short periods.
The application to change the right from the Lost Creek well does not include a change
in the point of withdrawal, nor does it include a change in the timing of the withdrawal.
The Crown Jewel Project EIS cannot address the comments concerning the end result
of the water right permit decision process.
Comments suggested that the use of the Lost Creek well pumping test was taken out
of context and should be corrected.
Discussion of the Lost Creek well pump test in Section 3.9.2, Ground Water, of the
draft EIS was corrected in the final EIS to refer specifically to the Lost Creek well.
Comments requested that the Proponent's water supply plan be explained in more
detail and that impacts to the surrounding wetlands, domestic wells, and instream
flows be addressed in more detail. Some concern was expressed regarding diversion
of a portion of the Myers Creek spring freshet. Comments stated that diverting a
portion of the Myers Creek freshet may affect ground water recharge to Myers Creek
basin later in the irrigation season. Comments requested that IFIM studies be
conducted on all applicable streams in the Myers Creek basin. One comment asked if
all or a portion of the large Canadian storage right on Myers Creek has been
relinquished due to nonuse.
The water supply plan and impacts to surrounding wetlands, domestic wells and
instream flow discussion was updated in Section 2.2.19, Water Supply, and in Section
4.8, Water Supply Resources and Water Rights, of the final EIS. Impacts to wetlands
are discussed in Section 4.7.4, Effects of Alternative B, and displayed on Table 4.10.1,
Wetlands, Springs, and Seeps Narrative Description and Impact Classification. For
impacts to domestic wells, refer to Figure 4.6.1, Zone of Influence due to Pit
Dewatering and the Pit Recharge Catchment Area, which identifies the zone of
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-94
influence. Ground water levels inside the zone are predicted to decline one foot or
more. Ground water levels outside the zone are predicted to experience declines of
less than one foot.
The proposed Myers Creek diversion is located approximately 1 /4 mile south of the
Canadian border. Any water rights upstream from this site would not be affected by
this diversion. The IFIM study has recommended minimum flows on Myers Creek in
the range of 6 to 12 cfs, below which the proposed new diversion rights could not be
exercised. The proposed new diversions would not dewater Myers Creek.
The proposed changes to the Leslie and Lost Creek Ranch irrigation rights would still
be subject to regulation in favor of downstream senior rights. The decisions regarding
the changes to the irrigation rights would consider the issue of return flows. Only
water consumptively used by plant growth would be considered for change.
Fish biologists from British Columbia's Ministry of Environmental Lands and Parks,
Canada's Oceans and Parks, WADOE, Forest Service, and Washington Fish and
Wildlife, examined Myers, Nicholson, Marias, and Gold Creeks to identify suitable
locations for setting up transects for IFIM modeling. Based upon the Proponent's water
supply plan, the size of each stream, its fish population, and predicted stream
depletions, only Myers Creek was deemed amenable to IFIM Modeling.
Canadian storage licenses CL 45154 and CL 36709 authorize 1,170 acre-feet to be
diverted from Myers Creek and are dependent upon the spring freshet. Since Canadian
(British Columbia) water licenses remain valid until formally relinquished by the
government, these rights are still valid and will be protected.
6.5.56 Commentors asked for clarification on the water appropriation status of Myers and
Toroda Creeks.
Response:
6.5.57
Response:
6.5.58
The discussion regarding stream depletion has been revised in Section 4.7, Surface
Water, in the final EIS. Additional studies, both ground water modeling and the
resulting stream depletion were completed. Section 3.9.3, Surface Water, has been
revised to clarify the water appropriation status on Myers and Toroda Creeks.
It was requested that more information about the operation of the Starrem Reservoir
be presented in the final EIS. Another comment asked how the Proponent would keep
Starrem Reservoir from freezing in the winter. Other comments suggested that
monitoring from Starrem Creek is not occurring and should commence.
The main water source for the reservoir would be the diversion on Myers Creek during
the spring freshet, with some contribution from the changes to the irrigation rights
during the irrigation season. Rainfall and snowmelt within the Starrem catchment
would also be impounded in the reservoir when flows on Myers Creek are above
minimum flows as set by IFIM. Surface freezing may occur in Starrem Reservoir,
however, it would not inhibit the pumping operation.
Stream flow monitoring on Starrem Creek was initiated in October of 1994 and will
continue throughout the duration of the Crown Jewel Project.
Many comments requested additional information be provided concerning water rights
appurtenant to the Colville Reservation. Native American fishing rights also exist in the
area and need to be discussed.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • £-95
Response:
6.5.59
Response:
6.6
The Colville Confederated Tribes have interests in water quantity and quality based on
two federal claims. By agreement on May 9, 1891, the Tribe ceded the north half of
the Colville Indian Reservation (established in 1872). In Antoine v.s. Washington. 420
United States 194 (1975), the court ruled that the 1891 agreement had reserved
hunting and fishing rights for the Tribe within the ceded area. The Tribe has an
additional interest to the extent that water resources in the subject area, including
Toroda and Myers Creeks, may be necessary to satisfy the Tribe's federally reserved
water rights. The Tribe's federally reserved water rights have not been quantified at
this time.
One comment stated cumulative impacts regarding water rights should evaluate all
existing and pending water rights. If none are pending, then the impact should be
limited to water rights applications from the Proponent.
The water rights permitting process would evaluate all existing and pending Proponent
water right applications and would also consider the impacts of the increased water
demand from expected population growth in the area due to the Crown Jewel Project.
Section 4.19, Socioeconomic Environment, of the final EIS discusses the effects of
population growth.
VEGETATION
General
6.6.1
Response:
Several comments simply presented an opinion or view on various aspects of the
vegetation sections. There were comments that are beyond the scope of the EIS. In
addition, several comments cited typos or the need for minor edits/clarifications in the
text.
We appreciate the input of all those individuals, organizations and agencies who
commented on the "vegetation" aspects of the Crown Jewel Mine draft EIS. We have
reviewed your comments and made revisions, as appropriate, to the final EIS.
Sensitive Plants
6.6.2
Response:
Reduced ground and surface water available in Myers Creek will have adverse impacts
on sensitive plants.
Hydrological and IFIM studies were completed on Myers Creek and indicated little
impact on stream flow from water withdrawals. Likewise, only minor impact is
expected from withdrawal from the Lost Creek well since it is presently used for
irrigation. Under the Proponent's proposal to change the diversion point of the Leslie
Ranch water rights, there may actually be more water flowing down Myers Creek in the
summer from Mary Ann Creek to the diversion point north of Forest Road 3575.
Table 4.7.3, Impacts of Mining on Buckhorn Mountain Drainages, indicates that
anticipated reductions in annual flows would average less than 0.1 % of Myers Creek
flows during mining and post mining. This small reduction in flow should have no
effect on sensitive plants.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-96
6.6.3
Response:
6.6.4
What do the scientific names used in the draft EIS mean? What are the common names
of the sensitive plants found in the Crown Jewel Project area? What are the plants used
for? Where else do these plants grow?
Scientific names are used to avoid confusion by being precise about which species is
being referred to. Many common names apply to more than one species of plant. For
example, a number of species look like dandelions. A list of common names for
sensitive species is provided in Appendix J, Biological Evaluation for Proposed,
Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Plants, of the final EIS.
No known specific use is made of the sensitive plant species. Information on
abundance of these plants and their comment names and distribution in other areas can
be found in Appendix J, Biological Evaluation for Proposed, Endangered, Threatened,
and Sensitive Plants, of the final EIS. Information on other known locations of these
plants can be obtained from sources such as the Washington State Natural Heritage
Program.
The nature and extent of plant inventories for the draft EIS are not adequately
described.
Response:
6.6.5
Response:
6.6.6
Response:
6.6.7
Plant inventory surveys are discussed in Appendix J, Biological Evaluation for Proposed,
Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Plants, of the final EIS. As described in this
appendix, the Intuitive Controlled method for surveys was used in most of the area.
The nature of other plant inventories are described in the reports entitled Timber and
Vegetation Resource Studies (A.G. Crook, 1993a); Crown Jewel Project. Wildlife
Technical Report (Beak, 1995a); and Proposed Crown Jewel Mine Project, Wildlife
Habitat Evaluation Procedures Study (WADFW. 1995).
The quality or successional status of the plant communities are not mentioned until you
get to the wildlife section where old growth is mentioned.
Quality and successional status of plant communities are mentioned in Section 3.10.3,
Forest Resource, of the final EIS. This section specifically mentions that nearly all of
the forested plant communities have been altered by either clear cutting or the selective
harvest method. Since all plant communities had to be fully described in Section 3.13,
Wildlife, to complete HEP modeling, it does not seem necessary to also describe them
in Section 3.10, Vegetation. A reference to the plant community descriptions in the
vegetation section will be made to assist the reader in getting a more complete
understanding of the plant communities present within the Crown Jewel Project area.
Water, containing acids and leach metals, will flow from the lip of the pit down Bolster
Creek impacting water quality and rare plant populations.
The Proponent's proposed drainage control system would direct any flow from
disturbed areas to control structures, situated on the east side of Buckhorn Mountain.
Therefore, any runoff from the lip of the pit lake would not travel down to Bolster
Creek, but would exit down the Gold Bowl drainage to Nicholson Creek.
Ground water flow to the frog pond will be altered and possibly reduced by all action
alternatives. What will be the impact to plant life?
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-97
Response:
6.6.8
Response:
Range
6.6.9
Response:
There are no threatened, endangered, or sensitive plant species identified in proximity
to the frog pond. As such, any potential impacts to plant life is not viewed as being
significant. There has been a water level monitoring program implemented to
characterize existing conditions and variability of frog pond water levels to determine
effects to vegetation and animal life. Mitigation for impacts to this wetland will be
required as described in Section 2.12.16, Wetlands.
The draft EIS should state whether seeps and springs were surveyed for sensitive
plants and what the impacts of mine dewatering would have on these seeps and
springs. Impacts to sensitive plants could be reduced by transplanting or collecting and
propagating seed.
Existing seeps and springs were surveyed for sensitive plants (Appendix J. Biological
Evaluation for Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Plants). This
information is contained in Section 3.7, Springs and Seeps. Impacts to seeps and
springs are displayed in Sections 4.6, Ground Water, Springs and Seeps and 4.10,
Wetlands. Transplanting or seed collection is not deemed necessary to maintain the
viability of sensitive plant species, but the Forest Service plans to try transplanting
several populations of Platanthera obtusata. Refer to response 6.6.4 in this section.
Additional information on grass species, predominance of pinegrass, limited livestock
value of pinegrass, water availability, steepness of terrain, and transitory range should
be included in Section 3.10.7, Range Resource, of the final EIS.
There is an abundance of additional information available from both the Timber and
Vegetation Resource Studies report (A.G. Crook, 1993a) and the Range Resources and
Noxious Weed Surveys report (A.G. Crook, 1992b). It is correct that there is a
predominance of pinegrass in the understory in the Crown Jewel Project area, and it
is considered fair forage for cattle. Water is indeed a limiting factor, and there are
areas of steep ground which are unsuitable for grazing. Transitory range is available
in the area, primarily on the private land, where more domestic grass seeding has taken
place. The following has been added to Section 3.10.7, Range Resource, providing
additional range information.
"Information on range conditions within the Crown Jewel Project area
was gathered in both the Timber and Vegetation Resource Studies
(A.G. Crook, 1993a) and the Range Resources and Noxious Weed
Surveys (A.G. Crook, 1992b). Information from these studies shows
that a predominance of the understory vegetation in the Crown Jewel
Project area is pinegrass (Calamagrostis rubescens). Pinegrass stays
green all summer; its abundance makes it an important forage plant.
It is normally the least palatable of the more common native grasses.
Seeded domestic grasses are preferred by livestock during the summer
months when pinegrass leaf blades become harsh and tough; however,
it is often a key summer grass when other grasses are dormant."
The livestock grazing allotments within the Crown Jewel Project area have portions
which are too steep to be considered suitable for livestock grazing and where water is
limited. Within the allotments, there are areas which have been harvested for timber
and which now provide transitory range value for cattle. Limited areas of overgrazing
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-98
6.6.10
Response:
Plant BE
6.6.11
Response:
6.6.12
Response:
6.6.13
and trampling damage are evident, and represent less than 1 % of the total area within
the Crown Jewel Project boundary.
The statement, "permitted numbers on private lands were reduced," should be clarified.
Section 3.10.7, Range Resources, of the final EIS has been revised to clarify the
statement.
The draft Plant BE fails to adequately evaluate impacts to extremely rare off-site plant
species (p 10) and communities downstream and down gradient of the proposal; it lists
Cypripedium parviflorum as a rare off-site plant. There are other rare plants as well;
a full botanical inventory of the botanical resources of Myers Creek may be needed.
There are other plant species of concern in the area. However, they are not on the
Regional Forester's sensitive species list and are therefore not considered in the final
Biological Evaluation for Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Plants
(Appendix J).
The document analyzes the Crown Jewel Project area, not Myers Creek. A full
botanical inventory of Myers Creek is beyond the scope of this document and not
necessary. Predicted impacts to Myers Creek, south of the Canadian border, conclude
that flows would generally be greater than at the present time due to the proposed
change in the point of diversion for a portion of the Leslie Ranch water rights to further
downstream on Myers Creek.
The Plant BE states "These [rare plant] pops, are in a drainage that would have little
if any runoff from the mine project, yet the SW lip of Alt. B's proposed pit would be
located in the S. Fork Bolster Creek drainage. Bolster Creek is a preferential flowpath
which could carry potential contaminants from the SW pit lip to rare wetlands at the
confluence of Bolster and Myers Creeks."
Based on WADOE permitting requirements (NPDES permit), any runoff from Crown
Jewel Project disturbance would be routed through the drainage and sediment control
network for water quality monitoring prior to discharge to area streams. Therefore, the
water quality in Bolster Creek would not be affected. Refer also to response 6.6.6, of
this appendix regarding flows down Bolster Creek.
As stated in the final Biological Evaluation for Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and
Sensitive Plants, there would be little or no runoff from the Crown Jewel Project into
Bolster Creek. If acid generation occurs, whether in the surface or ground water, it is
expected to flow into the pit area or into the sediment traps for water flowing off the
waste rock areas. There it would be neutralized or buffered, if needed, before it can
be released to the environment. Refer to Section 6.2, Geochemistry, in this appendix
for comments and responses concerning acid potential from waste rock.
The Biological Evaluation for Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Plants
states, "Transportation of supplies is not planned along a route (Bolster and Myers
Creeks) near the populations of these species, so there should be no problem from dust
or accidental spill of chemicals;" this neglects the fact that there would be impacts on
plants during the Starrem Reservoir construction.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • £-99
Response:
Impacts from the construction of Starrem Reservoir were judged to be very small if not
nonexistent to off-site plants, as there would not be significant traffic over a period of
more than four months. Dust on the Bolster Creek road, from construction traffic,
would be controlled during construction. Therefore, it was not discussed in the
Biological Evaluation for Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Plants. A
sentence has been added to clarify this.
Noise is unlikely to impact plants. The amount of dust from the Starrem Reservoir
construction is judged to be small, and is far enough away from plant populations that
impacts, if any, should be very small. Chemicals are unlikely to be used in the Starrem
Reservoir area except as part of the wetlands mitigation to control reed canarygrass.
Exhaust from construction equipment are far enough away from plant populations that
it is unlikely there would be any impact to sensitive plants.
Policy Issues
6.6.14 When such a large fraction (%) of the known state population of a species is at risk
(namely Botrychium crenulatum. Listers borealis, and Plantanthera obtusata), and
because additional mining and timber sales on National Forest lands may affect these
species (Appendix J, The Biological Evaluation for Proposed, Endangered, Threatened,
and Sensitive Plants, pages 23-25), I request the Forest Service to reconsider the draft
EIS until comprehensive conservation plans for the impacted species can be
completed.
Response:
All three species tend to be associated with moist riparian habitats. These habitats
would generally be protected from timber harvest by riparian guidelines in the Forest
Plan, as modified by the Pacific and Inland Native Fish Strategy documents. The future
disturbance of riparian area by projects, such as this mine, are anticipated to be
unusual. Thus habitat for these species should normally be protected.
Only one of these species was ever considered for federal listing, Botrychium
crenulatum. This species is a "Species of Concern" with the USFWS and is on the
Washington State Sensitive Species list. Many additional populations of this species
have been found since it was first considered. This species would be impacted the
least of the three from the Crown Jewel Project.
As discussed in the final Biological Evaluation for Proposed, Endangered, Threatened,
and Sensitive Plants, the number of plants in a population can vary depending on
climate, the time of year, and from year to year (Wagner and Wagner, 1990). The
plant populations in the Crown Jewel Project area were surveyed at prime times of the
year to observe the most plants. Most of the populations were visited more than once,
some over a period of years, with population numbers being lower (at least for Listera
borealis) as summer progressed. Some populations varied year to year.
The other populations on the Okanogan National Forest that are not in the Crown Jewel
Project area were discovered over a period of years, at varying times of the year, often
late in the summer. If all of these sites could be visited at prime times of the year, it
is likely the total number of plants would increase for Listera borealis. and perhaps for
the other two species as well.
Prior to 1990, only four populations of Listera borealis were known in Washington
(Salstrom and Gamon, 1993). Since then, many more populations have been
discovered. Additional populations of this and the other two species continue to be
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-100
discovered each year, and it is reasonable to assume more populations would be
discovered in the future. On the Methow Valley Ranger District, four new populations
of Listera borealis were discovered in 1995, containing at least 49 plants. On Tonasket
Ranger District, 11 new Listera borealis populations were discovered consisting of at
least 155 plants total, and four new Platanthera obtusate sightings with 880 plants
during the summer of 1995. Additional populations of these species were discovered
in 1996. There may have been additional sightings on other forests and districts.
If an action alternative is selected, there would be impacts on the plants. Although the
number of plants of Listera borealis would presumably be greatly reduced (but as
discussed above the size of populations vary over time), the number of populations (at
least 80 in the State of Washington) would remain quite large, including the ones found
in 1995. Less than 25% of the Tonasket Ranger District has been surveyed for plants.
As surveys are completed in the future for other projects, more area would be covered.
If populations continue to be discovered at the rate they have in the past few years
(roughly a 20 fold increase since 1990), this species could have 100 observed
occurrences. This could make it eligible for S-4 status; i.e., apparently secure
(Washington Natural Heritage Program, 1994).
There would also be more plants of Platanthera obtusata with a total of 38 populations
left in the state, if an action alternative is selected. (See Table 6 in the final Biological
Evaluation for Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Plants, in Appendix J
of the final EIS.) More populations and plants may be known to have been discovered
on other forests when information is requested from the Washington State Natural
Heritage Database Program in the future.
Considering the large number of populations of Listera borealis, it seems unlikely this
species is in immediate peril of disappearing. Likewise, the same is true for Platanthera
obtusata and Botrychium crenulatum.
In the Forest Plan for the Okanogan National Forest Standards and Guideline 6-19
states "Sensitive plants and animals should be protected." For nearly all projects,
sensitive plant populations would be protected. However, the very nature of the Crown
Jewel Project makes it difficult, if not impossible, to avoid impacts on plant species.
The field work completed for the conservation strategies for both Listera borealis and
Platanthera obtusata included visits to sites on both the Okanogan and Colville National
Forests. These plans have not been completed because of lack of funding to support
such work. The conservation strategies in Oregon for Botrychium crenulatum did not
include field work for the Okanogan National Forest. However, any future work on a
conservation strategy for the Okanogan would no doubt rely heavily on the work
completed in Oregon. A study has also been done on the genus for the Interior
Columbia River Basin project (Zika, et al, in press). For now, other species are of higher
priority to study on the Okanogan.
6.6.15 Federal regulation 40 CFR 230.10 (b) requires demonstration that projects would not
lead to unacceptable adverse impacts to federally listed threatened and endangered or
candidate species.
Response:
No threatened or endangered plants were encountered in the analysis area.
Threatened, endangered, and candidate plant species are discussed in Appendix J,
Biological Evaluation for Proposed, Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-101
Miscellaneous
6.6.16 Rare plant species hi Myers Creek wetlands include:
a. Yellow lady slipper .... which may be a unique cross with Cypripedium
montanum.
b. Three rare sedges ICarex d/oca, C. capillaris, C. buxbaumii] which are only
documented in one to three other places in the entire Northwest;
c. Certain plants, like the Blue-eyed grass, are extremely rare; the Myers Creek
[and possibly Mary Ann] Creek wetlands plant communities...
d. Golden Corydalis ...
e. Bog Birch ...
Response:
Yellow lady slipper may cross with Cupripedium montanum; however, that is beyond
the scope of this document.
Carex capillaris and Carex dioca are not discussed in the final Biological Evaluation for
Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Plants because they are not on the
Regional Forester's sensitive species list, although they are species of concern to the
Forest Service. Carex capillaris occurs in Oregon, Idaho, and Nevada (Oregon Natural
Heritage Program, 1995, p 47). Carex dioca occurs in Oregon and Nevada (Oregon
Natural Heritage Program, 1995, p 47). Both species are circumboreal, and thus more
common in Canada. Both species are proposed Washington State Sensitive Species.
Carex buxbaumii has populations in Chelan, Clallam, Grays Harbor, Kittitas, Mason,
Okanogah, Pend Oreille, Skagit, Snohomish, Stevens, and Whatcom Counties
(Washington Natural Heritage Program, 1994). Carex buxbaumii \s discussed in the
Biological Evaluation for Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Plants.
Sisyrinchium septentrionale (Blue eyed grass) is discussed in the final Biological
Evaluation for Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Plants. It is sensitive
in Washington, and occurs in Northeastern Washington in Okanogan, Ferry, Pend
Oreille, and Stevens Counties. It also occurs north to British Columbia, Alberta,
Saskatchewan, and Manitoba (Henderson, 1976; Washington Natural Heritage Program,
1994).
Sisyrinchisum septentrionale is on the Yellow list (watch list) of the British Columbia
Conservation Data Center. "The Yellow list includes many of the infrequent, locally
frequent, or locally common native plants treated in The Vascular Plants of BC. These
are mainly plants which may be vulnerable in the near future due to continuation of
present day development. There are two lists that, on a scale of rarity are above the
Yellow list. These include the Red list, which is the rarest, and the Blue list, which is
intermediate.
Golden Corydalis is a monitor species, not a sensitive species. It is therefore not
considered in the final Biological Evaluation for Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and
Sensitive Plants.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS 4 1-702
Bog Birch is not a sensitive species and also has a wide range (Hitchcock and
Cronquist, 1964). It is therefore not considered in the final Biological Evaluation for
Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Plants.
As cited in the final Biological Evaluation for Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and
Sensitive Plants, nearly all of the Crown Jewel Project is situated in a different drainage
from the one the plants are described in. Containment barriers are planned to be
constructed around the Crown Jewel Project area, as well as stabilization of soils with
vegetation. Little if any disturbance is considered likely outside the Crown Jewel
Project boundary.
6.6.17 The draft Biological Evaluation for Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive
Plants refers to the effects of pumping the Lost Creek Well. "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." This
analysis completely overlooks potential effects of pit de-watering on reduced creek
flows and diminished aquifer/wetland recharge. The draft EIS does not evaluate effects
of pit de-watering on reducing ground water in the Bolster alluvial fan or on rare plant
communities and wetlands on Myers Creek.
Response:
6.6.18
Response:
The possible reduction of Bolster Creek stream flows is discussed in the final Biological
Evaluation for Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Plants with most
reduction of stream flows occurring above 4,505 feet elevation. (See also Hydro-Geo,
1996a.) In the report from Hydro-Geo Consultants, the potential impacts of mining on
Bolster Creek stream flows (both base and surface flow) were estimated to be a
maximum reduction of about 3.0% at the end of mining before the pit fills with water,
and about 2.1 % following pit filling, at the confluence with Myers Creek (Section 4.7,
Surface Water, of the final EIS). Work completed for the Proponent by Colder
Associates (1995c) predicts a reduction of flows in Bolster Creek of 1.7% at the
confluence with Myers Creek. These changes in hydrology should have no effect on
sensitive plant species.
There is no inventory of native cultural, medicinal, and food plants in or adjacent to the
Crown Jewel Project area. The Forest Service has an obligation to develop such an
inventory.
A forest-wide ethnographic overview was completed in 1993, which included Buckhorn
Mountain and vicinity. It was based, in part, on interviews with tribal members and
research in the tribal Department of History and Archaeology. The overview also
contains a list of culturally sensitive plant species and their uses. A detailed vegetation
inventory was conducted over the Crown Jewel Project area for plants of concern or
which were unusual.
The Tonasket Ranger District wrote a letter to the Cultural Committee of the Colville
Confederated Tribes, with copy to Brett Dumas, a Tribal Vegetation Ecologist, on
August 28,1995 requesting "Input from you for the planning process concerning plants
of cultural concern to the tribes would be appreciated. If you have concerns about the
vegetation in the area, please forward this information to Larry Loftis, Tonasket Ranger
District." No reply was received.
6.6.19 Cyanide can be toxic to plants under some circumstances. The effects of cyanide on
rare plants is not thoroughly analyzed.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-103
Response:
6.6.20
Response:
6.6.21
Response:
6.7
Cyanide and plants are discussed in detail in the final Biological Evaluation for
Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Plants (Appendix J), with numerous
references cited. Cyanide associated with the Crown Jewel Project is predicted to have
no effects on sensitive plants.
The final Biological Evaluation for Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive
Plants discussion of heavy metals potential on Buckhorn Mountain is based on
unproven assumptions. Analyses by Maest, Chambers, Robinson et. al. reveal that the
AGP of pit water, waste rock, and tailings must be much higher than the Proponent
anticipates. Higher AGP and lower water phis could have a profound impact on metals
solubility and mobility and bioavailability through plant uptakes.
A detailed response to these and other comments related to pit water quality modeling
is presented in response 6.5.39 of this appendix. Regarding the issue that the
geochemical testing procedures used (including ABA, teachability, and humidity cell
tests) are not adequate, please refer to responses 6.2.3 and 6.2.9 in this appendix.
The statement that the various plants "...were either blooming or fruiting, which
indicates they are reproducing" is misleading. Many plant species may produce non-
viable propagules and/or viable propagules which may be eaten by insects or rendered
non-viable through disease. A better measure of reproduction would be recruitment of
new individuals of the species into the existing population.
Measuring recruitment of new individuals would be a better measure. However, to
collect information would require establishing and collecting data from monitoring plots
over a period of several years. This would be an expensive and time consuming
process. In the meantime, production of flowers and fruits makes it reasonable to
assume that reproduction is occurring in the populations.
WETLANDS
General
6.7.1
Response:
Several comments simply presented an opinion or view on various aspects of the
wetlands sections or presented comments that are beyond the scope of the EIS. In
addition, several comments cited the need for minor edits/clarifications or correction
of typos in the text.
We appreciate the input of all those individuals, organizations, and agencies who
commented on the "wetland" aspects of the Crown Jewel Mine draft EIS. We have
reviewed your comments and made revisions, as appropriate, to the final EIS.
Wetlands Mitigation
6.7.2
Response:
Replacing quality wetlands with wetlands degraded by man's activities is an
unacceptable practice. Why doesn't the EIS consider avoidance as the first priority?
Avoidance was considered as the first priority. Where it was not reasonable to avoid
a wetland, then mitigation for the impact needs to be considered. There is limited
opportunity for creation of quality wetlands on-site; therefore, off-site wetland
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-104
enhancement has been proposed as the primary mitigation measure. Restoration of
degraded wetlands is often considered as part of a mitigation package. The probability
of success is higher than in enhancement or creation areas. However, the ultimate goal
of mitigation is no net loss of wetland functions and values. This type of mitigation
would be combined with restoration, creation, or enhancement of other wetlands. The
final mitigation package would likely include a combination of these different types of
mitigation.
Avoidance of wetlands is considered as a first priority. Avoidance is included in the
definition of mitigation provided in Chapter 7, Glossary, of the final EIS.
6.7.3
Response:
6.7.4
Response:
Wetland mitigation measures that have a low rating are unacceptable. Please come up
with stronger mitigation measures. Why are the details of mitigation postponed until
the permit process?
Only mitigation with a potential for success would be included in the final mitigation
package. This package would include monitoring and contingency plans to further
assure success. Refer to Corps of Engineers 404 Permit Application (Joint Aquatic
Resources Permit Application). Additional information has been added to Section
2.12.16, Wetlands, and Section 2.13.1, Water Resources Monitoring, and Section
4.10.13, Mitigation, of the final EIS.
A re-evaluation of effectiveness ratings by the Forest Service and WADOE has
upgraded Pine Chee to a high, Myers Creek to a moderate, and Bear Trap Canyon to
a low-moderate. The nine acre wetland and the frog pond remained at low
effectiveness for wetland functions. Some of the mitigation sites have dual purposes.
Besides replacing/improving wetland functions and values, they have value in
compensating for some of the impacts to wildlife. See Section 2.12.16, Wetlands, in
the final EIS.
Wetland mitigation proposals are normally developed and submitted to the appropriate
agencies by the Proponent as part of the permit application process. Once the
application/proposed mitigation plan is submitted, the agencies would begin review.
The mitigation plan can be returned for revisions, approved, approved with conditions,
or denied. Most often, proposed mitigation plans are revised during the review process.
A final approved mitigation plan would be required before State Certification and the
Corps of Engineers 404 permit, as well as Okanogan County permits related to
wetlands, can be issued.
An assessment of riparian values for the affected areas along the impacted creeks
should be made as well as a functional assessment for the areas proposed for
mitigation. Some kind of accounting system will be necessary to determine the credits
to be allocated for restoration of existing degraded systems to replace direct losses of
intact systems.
Performing a hydrological functional assessment of riparian corridors was not identified
in the EIS scoping process except as part of the wildlife impact assessment in Chapter
4, Environmental Consequences. Stream depletion studies indicate that flows would
be reduced. The highest stream flow reductions would be in the upper reaches which
do not contain well-developed riparian zones and stream flows recover quickly moving
down stream. Effects from potential changes in riparian areas on wildlife is displayed
in Section 4.12, Wildlife. Refer also to Section 4.10, Wetlands, of the final EIS.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-105
Compensation ratios would be determined during the Corps of Engineers 404 permit
process. Compensation ratios will not be determined in the EIS.
Wetland Impacts
6.7.5
Response:
6.7.6
Response:
The impacts of "entombing" 2.4 acres of Marias Creek wetlands under tailings needs
to be addressed, as well as reductions in Gold, Nicholson, and Myers Creek wetlands.
Impacts to Marias Creek wetlands as well as other wetlands are discussed in Section
4.10, Wetlands, of the final EIS.
Impacts from discharging fill or dredge material to all waters of the United States must
be addressed with increased specificity. Impacts to creek systems and their associated
riparian corridors must be included.
Impacts to waters of the United States and State are displayed in several sections of
the final EIS. In addition, a new Waters of the United States section has been added
to Section 4.10, Wetlands; please refer to Section 4.10.11, Waters of the United
States.
Impacts to wetlands are displayed in Section 4.10, Wetlands, including Table 4.10.1,
Wetlands, Springs and Seeps Narrative Description and Impact Classification, Table
4.10.2, Wetlands Direct Impact Acreage, and Table 4.10.3, Wetlands Impacted by
Mining Operations.
Impacts to streams, springs and seeps are included in Section 4.6, Ground Water,
Springs and Seeps, and Section 4.7, Surface Water, including Table 4.6.1, Springs and
Seeps Impacted by Mining Operations.
Lineal feet of direct disturbance to streams is displayed in Table 2.15, Summary of
Impacts by Alternative for Each Issue. This table also displays the number of springs
and seeps directly and indirectly affected, along with decreases in area stream flows
at an average annual precipitation of 20 inches. Table 4.7.3, Impacts of Mining on
Buckhorn Mountain Drainages, identifies the stream flow water gain or loss (in
percentages) at the end of mining and once a new hydraulic state has been achieved
for several reaches along Nicholson, Marias, Gold, Bolster, and Ethel Creeks. Table
4.7.2, Summary of Average Precipitation Year (20.0 Inches! Impacts on Buckhorn
Mountain Drainages, divides the same information into base flow and surface flow.
More specific information is provided in the report Analysis of Stream Depletions
Resulting from the Proposed Crown Jewel Project (Hvdro-Geo. 1996a).
Section 4.11, Aquatic Habitats and Populations, discusses the potential effects on the
fish resources and other aquatic organisms.
Riparian areas are discussed from several different perspectives in the final EIS.
Riparian areas are discussed in Section 3.12, Aquatic Resources. Section 3.12.2,
Survey Methodology, describes the information collected which includes stream cover
types, bank width and depth, bank substrates, bank ground cover class, floodplain
vegetative information, stream shade percent, and floodplain width. Vegetation in
riparian areas is discussed as part of Section 3.10.5, Threatened, Endangered, and
Sensitive Plants Species, and Section 4.9.3, Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives. Wetlands as part of the riparian area are discussed as part of Section
4.10.4, Effects Common to All Action Alternatives. The baseline information and
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-106
effect to wildlife as it relates to riparian areas are discussed in Sections 3.13, Wildlife,
and 4.12, Wildlife.
Also please refer to the Proponent's Corps of Engineers 404 Permit
Application/Washington Joint Aquatic Resource Permit Application For: Hydraulic
Project Approvals, Shoreline Management Permits, Water Quality Certification,
Approval for Exceedence of Standards, and U.S. Army corps of Engineers Section 404
and 10 Permits, and. Crown Jewel Project Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan
(Parametrix, 1996a).
6.7.7
Response:
6.7.8
Response:
Reductions in flows in Gold. Nicholson and Myers Creeks affect accompanying
wetlands.
Hydrologic data indicates that there would be no substantial indirect changes to
wetland hydrology from stream flow reductions. Refer to Section 4.7, Surface Water,
and Section 4.10, Wetlands, of the final EIS. Table 4.10.1, Wetlands, Springs and
Seeps Narrative Description and Impact Classification, identifies any wetlands which
may be impacted from stream reductions. Refer also to response 6.5.11 in this
appendix concerning stream depletion.
Impacts to the nine-acre high quality wetland system at the headwaters of Nicholson
Creek must be addressed in the EIS.
Section 4.10, Wetlands, discusses impacts to this nine acre wetland. See Table
4.10.2, Wetland Direct Impact Acreage. See also Section 2.12.16, Wetlands. The
Proponent's plan. Alternative B, has been revised in the final EIS to avoid direct impacts
to this wetland except for the fence around the tailings facility. This wetland is fed by
both surface water, such as the Roosevelt adit discharge, and ground water. The
greatest impact to this wetland would be from reduced flows discharged by the
Roosevelt adit. Flows from the Roosevelt adit at the end of mining are predicted to be
reduced from an average of about 56 gpm to 36 gpm for the open pit alternatives.
Once the pit has filled, Roosevelt adit flows are predicted to return to an average of
about 42 gpm. These changes in flows in conjunction with the geology of the area,
should result in minimal effects on the nine acre Nicholson Creek wetland.
Indirect Wetlands Impacts
6.7.9 The EIS should contain an assessment of secondary impacts to wetlands.
Response:
6.7.10
Secondary (indirect) impacts are difficult if not impossible to quantify. Table 4.10.1,
Wetlands, Springs and Seeps Narrative Description and Impact Classification, Table
4.10.2, Wetlands Direct Impact Acreage, and Table 4.10.3, Wetlands Impacted by
Mining Operations, are included in the final EIS to display direct and indirect effects to
wetlands. Indirect effects are not quantified. Indirect impacts are discussed in
Sections 4.7, Surface Water, and Section 4.10.4, Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives, Subsection "Indirect Effects," of the final EIS. Also, see response 6.7.7
in this appendix.
Concern was expressed about impact to large wetland on both sides of Myers Creek,
just south of Bolster Creek. This wetland is not mentioned in the draft EIS. Specific
mention should be made about impacts to a heron rookery adjacent to one portion of
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • £-707
Response:
6.7.11
Response:
6.7.12
Response:
this wetland as well as effects to threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant species
in this wetland.
The wetland area on Myers Creek, just south of Bolster Creek, is locally known as the
"Triple Creek" wetland. Although the Triple Creek wetland is outside the designated
wetlands analysis area, the Forest Service and WADOE have considered whether any
impacts from mining or water right withdrawals, including the Lost Creek Ranch well,
would affect these wetlands. The Forest Service and WADOE have concluded
wetlands along Myers Creek would not be measurably affected by mine dewatering.
Surface flows in Bolster Creek, at the confluence with Myers Creek, are predicted to
be reduced by less than 2.5% on an annual average basis as a result of mine operation.
Table 4.7.2, Summary of Average Precipitation Year (20.0 Inches) Impacts on
Buckhorn Mountain Drainages, describes the expected changes in both the surface and
base flows during mining and post mining for Bolster Creek. The Triple Creek wetland
is mentioned in Section 4.10.1, Summary, and Appendix J, Biological Evaluation for
Proposed, Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants, of the final EIS which
discusses potential impacts to plant life in this wetland.
The Crown Jewel Project proposal involves changing the point of diversion for some
of the Leslie Ranch water rights (upstream of the Triple Creek Ranch wetlands) to a
point near the Canadian border. Flows through the portion of Myers Creek supporting
the Triple Creek wetland could be enhanced during the irrigation season due to this
change in point of diversion. Reductions in ground water recharge and base flows are
not anticipated to be substantially reduced due to mining operations. Wetland values
are not influenced by endangered or threatened plant species, as none are present in
the Crown Jewel Project area.
The Forest Service and WADOE do not anticipate any impacts to the heron rookery
along Myers Creek. Refer to response 6.9.97 of this appendix. Additional monitoring
of wetlands would be part of the overall wetland mitigation package. Specific
parameters, criteria, and response triggers, and contingency plans would be included
in the approved Corps of Engineers 404 permit.
Mine water flowing down Bolster Creek would negatively impact the Triple Creek
wetlands. Pollution of wetlands from ground water and to Ethel and Thorpe Creeks
caused by the mine operation are also a concern.
We recognize the hydrologic and water quality values of wetlands along this area of
Myers Creek. All discharge and storm water would be controlled by the drainage
control system. This system would be a condition of an approved NPDES permit. No
discharge to the Bolster, Ethel, or Thorpe Creek drainages is planned. Refer also to
response 6.6.12 in this appendix.
Impacts on existing off-site wetlands are not included in measurements of potential
impacts.
Impacts to off-site wetlands are identified. Many of these impacts are identified as
indirect impacts. Please refer to Table 4.10.1, Wetlands, Springs and Seeps Narrative
Description and Impact Classification.
Unimpacted off-site wetlands would not require mitigation measures. However,
mitigation is proposed to enhance several off-site wetlands, as described in the
Washington Joint Aquatic Resource Permits Application For: Hydraulic Project
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft £18 4 L-108
6.7.13
Response:
6.7.14
Response:
6.7.15
Response:
6.7.16
Response:
Approvals. Shoreline Manaaement Permits, Water Quality Certification. Approval for
Exceedence of Standards, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 and 10
Permits), and the Crown Jewel Project Conceptual Wetland Mitigation Plan
(Parametrix, 1996a). Additional effects resulting from the mitigation actions which
have been identified are also addressed.
The impacts to all wetlands, not just jurisdictional wetlands, should be assessed and
mitigated.
Biological wetlands have been addressed in Section 4.10, Wetlands, of the final EIS.
Refer also to response 6.7.10 in this appendix.
No basis is presented for the statement that wetlands in the Myers Creek watershed
or other watersheds may experience a reduction in size or productivity as a result of
reduced stream flows due to mining activity.
The final EIS was revised based on additional hydrologic modeling conducted between
the draft and final EIS. The predicted reductions in stream flows and their associated
impacts to wetlands are discussed in Section 4.10, Wetlands, Section 4.6, Ground
Water, Seeps and Springs, and Section 4.7, Surface Water, of the final EIS.
How was the 600 foot buffer around riparian areas determined? What is the difference
between a riparian area and a stream?
These distances are tied to Corps of Engineers, USFWS, EPA, and WADOE policy or
guidelines for wetlands mitigation. Protection of perennial streams or wetlands, as
called for in the Inland Fish Plan, PACFISH and the Northwest Forest Plan is a 300-foot
buffer on each side of the water body of fish bearing streams (300 feet on each side
= 600 feet). The WADNR places emphasis on sediment impacts from roads and
harvest activities within 200 feet of water bodies. The scientific basis of the number
"300" represents best professional judgement of the Forest Service and WADOE for
no or minimal impacts.
Streams are distinct water bodies which drain in a more-or-less discrete location over
a long period of time. Riparian areas have a general wetness at least during part of the
year, and surface water may or may not be present. Indicators of riparian areas are
general site wetness, general topographic location of swales, depressions, etc.;
vegetation with specific water requirements and/or soil conditions which develop under
wet or moist conditions. Riparian areas may be associated with streams. Typically,
a riparian zone is the transition area between a stream and an upland area.
For purposes of administering the Federal Clean Water Act, the Crown Jewel Project
is not a water dependent project; therefore, it must be assumed that alternative non-
wetland sites are available.
Review of the proposal, under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act by the Corps of
Engineers, determines if this is a water dependent project. Then, as appropriate, the
Corps of Engineers considers whether alternative practicable non-wetland sites are
available. An alternative is considered to be "practicable" if it is available and capable
of being accomplished, taking into consideration cost, existing technology, and
logistics.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-109
6.8 FISH AND AQUATIC RESOURCES
General
6.8.1 Commentors expressed numerous opinions, cited typographical errors, and questioned
unclear sentences. Commentors expressed opinions regarding the adequacy of baseline
aquatics studies, information, etc., associated with the Crown Jewel Project.
Additionally, comments were received on the potential downstream effects of the
Crown Jewel Project on the aquatic environments of the Columbia River.
Response:
We appreciate the input of all individuals, organizations, and agencies who commented
on the "fish and aquatic resources" aspects of the Crown Jewel Mine draft EIS. We
have reviewed your comments and made revisions, as appropriate, to the final EIS.
Due to the distances and dilution rates involved it was determined by the Forest Service
and WADOE that any impacts to the Columbia River were non-existent to negligible.
Myers Creek Diversion
6.8.2 What are the impacts of the Myers Creek diversion on downstream fisheries? What
would be the impact on stream flows in Canada, and on Canadian aquifers? How
would the diversion operate under the current water rights structure?
Response:
In Section 4.8, Water Supply Resources and Water Rights, of the final EIS, the existing
and proposed new water rights are described for the Crown Jewel Project. As stated
in Section 4.11.7, Instream Flow Incremental Methodology, of the final EIS, an
instream flow study using the USFWS Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM)
model was conducted to evaluate the relative effects of the Crown Jewel Project
related flow and withdrawal scenarios to determine water withdrawal effects on the
fish populations downstream of the diversion to provide water supplies from Myers
Creek to store in the Starrem Reservoir for use on the Crown Jewel Project. Based on
the results of the IFIM study, instream flows were evaluated which would provide
adequate stream flows for trout spawning and rearing below the point of the Myers
Creek diversion. The stream flows identified were agreed on in the IFIM process by
WADFW, WADOE, British Columbia Ministry of the Environment, Land and Parks, and
Canadian Department of Fish and Oceans, as adequate to protect fisheries and aquatic
resources below the point of diversion. The Crown Jewel Project diversion water
supplies would be regulated by the WADOE, consistent with both Washington and
Canadian water right laws.
Starrem Reservoir
6-8.3 Would the failure of the reservoir dam constructed in Starrem Creek for the Crown
Jewel Project water storage cause detrimental downstream effects in Canada and
United States reaches of Myers Creek?
Response:.
In the event of a failure of the Starrem Reservoir embankment there could be
downstream channel and property damage. However, due to construction criteria for
the dam structure, the probability of such an event during the life of the Crown Jewel
Project is extremely low to negligible. The dam is designed to withstand greater than
a 10,000-year, 24-hour storm event. For further information on the potential impacts
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-110
of a Starrem Reservoir failure, refer to Section 4.22.1, Water Reservoir Rupture, in the
final EIS.
Impacts to Marias and Nicholson Creeks
6.8.4
Response:
6.8.5
Response:
What would be the potential impacts on Marias and Nicholson Creeks from the Crown
Jewel Project site disturbances (sediment) and road construction, specifically with
regard to water quality degradation, effects on macro-invertebrate populations, and
stream channel substrate composition necessary for trout spawning and juvenile
habitat?
The actual sediment recruited from the Crown Jewel Project to streams draining the
disturbed parts of these watersheds would depend on the area disturbed, climatic
conditions during the period of time the Crown Jewel Project is operating, during post
Crown Jewel Project rehabilitation activities, and the effectiveness of the proposed
erosion control practices. It is anticipated that even with normal climatic phenomena,
the Crown Jewel Project would probably increase sediment levels to some degree;
however, the degree to which channel sedimentation would occur and affect riparian
ecosystems and functions is estimated to be minimal to moderate during the course of
the Crown Jewel Project, depending on the previously listed criteria. Refer also to
response 6.5.16 in this appendix.
Would an accidental spill or leakage of cyanide have detrimental downstream effects
to aquatic habitats and the fisheries resource? Would partial backfilling of the mine pit
with waste rock materials, as identified in Alternative E, potentially increase the
concentrations of toxic metals? What would be the effect of silver, cadmium, and
mercury from the pit lake and sub-surface flows have on the fisheries resources of
Nicholson Creek?
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
was to occur, it would be localized and could potentially have an adverse effect on
fisheries downstream until the cyanide was diluted below toxic concentrations (refer
to Section 4.22.4, Other Types of Accidents, and Section 4.22.3, Transportation Spill).
Cyanide, when in solution with water (on surface), escapes 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, photodecomposition, and
biodegradation mechanisms. Thus, the further the accidental spill/seepage travels, the
less toxic it becomes. The rate of cyanide degradation depends on the initial cyanide
concentrations, the volume of discharge, the amount of stream aeration, the
temperature of the water, and existing water chemistry.
Partial backfilling of the pit would increase the surface area of material available for
chemical reactions to occur. It is projected that with the additional material in the pit,
concentrations of metals and nitrate would be elevated, as may other chemicals and
compounds. Refer also to responses 6.5.39 and 6.5.45 of this appendix.
Metals such as cadmium, silver, and mercury are naturally present in varying
concentrations (referred to as background levels) in all surface waters, and many are
required 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
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-111
effects as behavioral changes and reproductive failure. Both of these effects can
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. Refer to Section
4.11.3, Effects Common to All Action Alternatives, and Appendix I, Fisheries and
Aquatic Habitat Biological Evaluation. Refer also to response 6.5.39 in this appendix.
6.8.6
Response:
6.8.7
Response:
What would be the impacts on Marias and Nicholson Creeks from potential changes in
ground water inflow (baseline) during operation and after reclamation of the Crown
Jewel Project? Would there be sedimentation and release of toxic metals, as well as
degradation of fish habitat from reduced flow levels?
There are not expected to be any significant changes in the stream-flow regimen
(average baseflow) resulting from the Crown Jewel Project on either Nicholson or
Marias Creeks, with the exception of the South Fork of Nicholson Creek (Gold Bowl
drainage). This reduction would only occur through the life of the Crown Jewel Project
until the pit lake fills, at which time it is predicted that the Gold Bowl drainage would
flow perennially. Currently, the Gold Bowl drainage is intermittent and flows only
during spring runoff. However, due to the predicted changes in the hydrology of the
watersheds, it is estimated that changes in baseline flow in the lower reaches of
Buckhorn Mountain drainages would be negligible, as well as flow related changes to
the aquatic habitats. Flows after the pit has filled should be the same or slightly
greater than present flows. Base flows, at the conclusion of mining, would be
decreased about 6% at the upper extent of fish habitat on Nicholson Creek. Flows on
Marias Creek at the upper extent of fish habitat would be reduced less than 1 %. See
Section 4.11.3, Effects Common to All Action Alternatives. Refer also to response
6.5.11 in this appendix. The potential effects of ground water on sediment transport
would be negligible since subsurface flow would not be affecting sediment transport.
Sediment transport would only be affected by surface flows.
The subsurface transport of metals through ground water to the Crown Jewel Project
area stream-courses is difficult to quantify, and the effect of those metals on aquatic
ecosystems would be dependent on concentrations in the ground water, and dilution
which would occur when subsurface flows mix with surface flows. Required mitigation
to minimize the transport of metals and sediment are described in Section 2.12.13,
Surface Water and Ground Water-Quality and Quantity. Required monitoring is
described in Section 2.13.1, Water Resources Monitoring. An environmental protection
performance security (see Section 2.14, Performance Securities) would provide
sufficient funding for monitoring and clean-up of potential problems revealed during or
after closure of the Crown Jewel Project in the event the Proponent failed to meet
various permit commitments.
Fisheries and aquatic surveys conducted in Marias and Nicholson Creeks were
inadequate for the Crown Jewel Project and ignore the overall aquatic habitat in
streams potentially affected by the Project.
Fisheries habitat surveys conducted in Marias and Nicholson Creeks were based on the
U.S. Forest Service, Region 6 Stream Survey Protocol (Hankin and Reeves). This
survey process evaluates channel conditions, channel substrate composition, riparian
area vegetation habitat, plant community serai stages, presence/absence and relative
abundance of fish species, and historical land management practices. The data is
summarized by stream-reach. Stream-reaches are determined by the geomorphological
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-112
uniqueness of stream segments within a watershed and channel form. Additionally,
species presence/absence data were collected by electro-fishing methods by several
different contractors in streams which would potentially be affected by the Crown
Jewel Project. Reaches of perennial and intermittent streams for which fish populations
were not documented were identified, and this and other aquatics data were used for
evaluations of the various alternatives. The surveys conducted for the Crown Jewel
Project represent the state-of-the-art estimates of fish distribution and riparian habitat
conditions.
Downstream Impacts to Toroda Creek and Kettle River Resources
6.8.8 Have adequate macro-invertebrate studies been conducted to adequately monitor the
proposed Crown Jewel Project and potential downstream project related effects to
Nicholson, Marias, and Toroda Creeks, and the Kettle River?
Response:
Pre-Project macro-invertebrate studies have been conducted to provide baseline data
for monitoring of macro-invertebrate species (Northwest Management, Inc., 1994a and
EcoAnalysts, Inc., 1996). Monitoring sites have been established on tributaries which
most likely would indicate any changes in water quality and corresponding changes in
macro-invertebrate population richness as a result of the proposed Crown Jewel
Project. The sites and monitoring protocol are identified in, Benthic Macro-invertebrate
Monitoring Plan for the Crown Jewel Project (Northwest Management, Inc. 1994b).
The agencies involved with the aquatic aspects of the Crown Jewel Project determined
that data collected on Toroda Creek and its tributaries was adequate for baseline
monitoring and also adequate to make an informed decision on the Crown Jewel
Project. Impacts to macro-invertebrates and fisheries in Toroda Creek and the Kettle
River are not anticipated as a result of the Crown Jewel Project. Monitoring of Toroda
Creek was deemed unnecessary, since monitoring sites on Marias and Nicholson Creeks
are in closer proximity to the Crown Jewel Project area and would provide data which
would better reflect potential impacts to fisheries and aquatic resources that might be
related to the Crown Jewel Project.
Monitoring and Mitigation Plans
6.8.9 Have adequate Crown Jewel Project monitoring plans been identified as part of the
operation and closure of the Crown Jewel Project? Issues include water quality, macro-
invertebrate population richness, and fish population condition.
Response:
Crown Jewel Project water quality evaluations have been conducted for both ground
and surface water sources. Baseline habitat and water quality parameters have been
identified based on existing pre-Project conditions as part of the planning process.
Monitoring and evaluation of potential changes in ground and surface water quality
would be conducted throughout the life of the Crown Jewel Project, and would include
monitoring and evaluation of potential toxic metal releases into ground and surface
waters, as well as sedimentation and water temperature (Refer to Section 2.12.18,
Wildlife and Fish - Public Land Enhancement, and Section 2.13, Monitoring Measures).
These comparisons would be based on the pre-Project evaluations. Water quality
would be monitored and primarily regulated by the WADOE.
Macro-invertebrate surveys have been conducted as part of the pre-Project baseline
evaluations and any changes in the richness of the macro-invertebrate community
would also be used as a monitoring tool to evaluate potential changes in population
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-113
structure as a result of the Crown Jewel Project (refer to Section 2.13.5, Wildlife and
Fish Monitoring).
Additionally, fisheries populations would be monitored (refer to Section 2.13.5, Wildlife
and Fish Monitoring) to determine any changes in population structure and biomass
which may result from changes in water quality. This would be accomplished by
conducting fish population density and condition surveys in permanent sample plots.
Impacts on Native American Tribal Treaty Rights
6.8.10
Response:
The BLM and Forest Service have fiduciary responsibility to protect tribal water rights
in the Myers Creek watershed. No discussion of this issue is presented in the draft EIS.
The BLM and Forest Service do not have a fiduciary responsibility because they do not
have the authority to manage tribal assets. The Bureau of Indian Affairs has the
fiduciary responsibility to manage tribal assets.
Tribal water rights are discussed in Section 4.8, Water Supply Resources and Water
Rights, of the final EIS, and responses to comments concerning tribal water rights are
presented in Section 6.5, Hydrology and Section 6.13, Heritage Resources, of this
appendix.
Other Comments
6.8.11
Response:
6.8.12
Response:
6.8.13
Are the macro-invertebrate studies and monitoring protocol identified for the Crown
Jewel Project adequate to monitor potential changes in water quality?
The macro-invertebrate studies conducted for the Crown Jewel Project are believed to
be adequate to monitor potential water quality changes which may change population
structure or richness. The pre-Project baseline monitoring stations have been
established at locations which would reflect potential Crown Jewel Project related
impacts. It is felt that monitoring stations established in areas remote from the project
may provide little useable information due to the interference caused by other land uses
such as silvicultural, road construction, recreation, range utilization, agricultural
activities, and residential related activities.
The WADOE should establish minimum stream flows in the Crown Jewel Project area
streams such as Marias and Nicholson Creeks.
Flow in the portions of Nicholson Creek, which contain fish populations, are too small
and variable to utilize minimum flow processes such as the IFIM. Predicted baseline
flow reductions in the portions of Nicholson Creek which contain fish are estimated to
be 4-5% of existing baseline flows at the end of operations and before the pit has
filled. Predicted baseflow reductions in the portions of Marias Creek which contain fish
are estimated to be less than 1 % of existing baseline flows. Once the pit has filled,
flows would be about the same as pre-Project or slightly greater. Refer to Table 4.7.2,
Summary of Average Precipitation Year 120.0 Inches) Impacts on Buckhorn Mountain
Drainages. Models such as the IFIM are not able to evaluate such small changes in
streamflow.
Have sufficient fisheries studies been conducted to assess the potential impacts of the
proposed Crown Jewel Project on the affected bodies of water?
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-114
Response:
6.8.14
Response:
6.8.15
Response:
6.8.16
Response:
Numerous fisheries studies have been conducted for the proposed Crown Jewel Project
and potentially affected tributaries, and include: 1) habitat condition surveys (A.G.
Crook, 1993b and Pentec, 1993a); 2) instream flow studies (Colder, 1994a and
Cascades Environmental Services and Caldwell Associates, 1996); 3) fisheries
population surveys which include species presence/absence, relative abundance, length
frequency data (A.G. Crook, 1993b, Pentec, 1993a and Cascades Environmental
Services, 1996), and genetic analysis of fish stocks in the Crown Jewel Project area
(A.G. Crook, 1993b). Complete literature citations for these documents are referenced
in Appendix I, Fisheries and Aquatic Biological Evaluation, and in Appendix A, List of
Unpublished Reports, of the final EIS.
The (aquatic) Biological Evaluation (BE) should be withdrawn because no proposed
endangered, threatened, or sensitive (PETS) aquatic species have been observed in the
Crown Jewel Project area.
The objectives of the (aquatic) Biological Evaluation (BE) for sensitive species are: 1)
to ensure that Forest Service actions do not contribute to loss of viability of any native
or desired non-native species, or contribute to trends towards Federal listing of any
species; and 2) to provide a process and standard that ensures sensitive species receive
full consideration in the decision making process (FSM 2672.41; R6 SUPP 2600-90-5;
2672.41).
In Appendix I, Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat Biological Evaluation, data are provided to
document, based on limited electrophoretic analysis of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykis), that no redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykis gairdnerii) were identified in the
Crown Jewel Project area. However, this area is within the historical range of redband
trout (Behnke, 1992). Habitat for this species does exist, although impacted by
historical management activities. There are no passage barriers within the waters
potentially affected by the Crown Jewel Project. The redband trout is considered a
sensitive species (PETS) by the Forest Service. Therefore, an (aquatic) Biological
Evaluation was completed to evaluate potential effects by alternative resulting from the
Crown Jewel Project to the aquatic habitats.
Existing aquatic habitat has been impacted by historical land management activities.
Management of this area should be directed toward improving impacted conditions.
Current stream survey data and field reviews of existing aquatic conditions indicate
riparian ecosystem habitats have been compromised to varying degrees by historic
management activities, such as silviculture, grazing, and road construction activities.
Based on stream survey data and other studies, specific mitigation measures, such as
the input of large woody complexes, wetlands development, water developments for
livestock, and stock driveway construction have been identified as aquatic habitat
mitigation opportunities for water potentially affected by the Crown Jewel Project.
Baseline water quality monitoring indicates that the area streams are presently
transporting low levels of sediment.
The Crown Jewel Project draft EIS does not adequately address impacts to fisheries
and aquatic resources potentially affected by the Crown Jewel Project.
It is agreed that some adverse impacts to fish habitat may be realized from the Crown
Jewel Project. The potential impacts to the fisheries and aquatic resources from the
Crown Jewel Project have been studied and analyzed for the past five years by
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-115
biological consulting firms, the WADFW, the WADOE, and the Forest Service. Studies
were conducted with regard to current aquatic habitat and water quality conditions and
compared to aquatic habitat and water quality conditions that are predicted to occur
both during operations and after reclamation of the Crown Jewel Project. Through
these analyses, it has been determined that there would be the potential for short-term
sedimentation conditions downstream from the Crown Jewel Project site, which would
be dependent on climatological conditions during the life of the Crown Jewel Project
(including post closure time frames until reclamation activities have been completed).
Additionally, it has also been identified, based on pre-Project chemical modeling, that
there may be some toxic metal problems associated with the pit lake downstream
discharges following closure of the Crown Jewel Project and filling of the pit lake.
These potential concerns associated with the aquatic resource would be monitored
throughout the life of the Crown Jewel Project, and if these potential problems manifest
themselves, the Proponent would be required to take remedial action to correct any
water quality or aquatic resource problems associated with the Crown Jewel Project.
Finally, site specific mitigation activities have been prescribed to offset the potential
impacts associated with the Crown Jewel Project. These mitigation activities have
been agreed to by the planning agencies previously mentioned in accordance with the
best available technology to maintain and restore the potentially affected resources.
6.8.17
Response:
6.8.18
Response:
Mitigation for wetlands or the loss of wetlands affected by the proposed Crown Jewel
Project were not adequately addressed in the draft EIS. Of particular concern was the
loss of the frog pond.
The mitigation for wetlands is discussed in the final EIS in Section 2.12.16, Wetlands.
Particular mitigation for the frog pond is discussed and includes several mitigative
features such as movement of the waste rock facilities to increase buffering of the site,
planting of trees and shrubs to create a more complex vegetation community structure,
creation of snags, and fencing to prevent livestock use for 16 to 20 years after the
initiation of the Crown Jewel Project. The frog pond would be monitored for loss of
functions and values during Project operation. Additionally, construction of new
wetlands would be conducted to further mitigate for loss of wetland values.
Discussions of toxicity occurring at specific concentrations are not relevant unless
related to water hardness?
It is agreed concentrations of cadmium and silver are less toxic for many aquatic
organisms in hard water, as per the chemical modeling (assuming 200 mg/l as calcium
carbonate). It is also true that toxicity of cadmium and silver varies greatly between
different species of macro-invertebrates and fish species. For example, brook trout
experience toxic effects of cadmium and silver at substantially lower levels than
rainbow trout (Nelson et al., 1991). Brook trout are the most common fish species in
the area immediate to the proposed Crown Jewel Project area. The range of toxicity
also is true of many macro-invertebrate species, which experience a very wide range
of toxic effects, depending on species. In general, mortality is usually attributed to
elevated metal concentrations; however, exposure to sublethal levels over time can
produce chronic effects such as behavioral changes and reproductive failure, with both
effects ultimately determining species survival in the affected habitat. As discussed
in the final EIS, Appendix I, Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat Biological Evaluation, actual
toxicity of cadmium and silver would also be dependent on validity of chemical
modeling, concentrations in pit water, underground seepage, and flow-dependent
dilution rates from perennial streams which would be seasonally variable.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS 4 L-116
6.8.19
Response:
6.9
The draft (aquatic) Biological Evaluation (BE) states that trampled and eroded stream
banks, stream-bed sedimentation, and stream channel instability are common
throughout the area. This is not consistent with Page 4-44, Section 4.7.2, Paragraph
4 of the draft EIS, which states that there is no indication of long-term increases in
sedimentation from previously logged areas or where mineral exploration and historic
development have taken place.
In the executive summary for stream surveys conducted by A.G. Crook Company
(1993b), it is stated, "It appears that historical mining impacts are relatively minor
compared to impacts to the stream/riparian areas resulting from timber harvest, road
construction, and grazing. Trampled and eroded stream banks, stream-bed
sedimentation, stream channel instability, lack of canopy cover, large debris jams, and
instream cover reduction are common throughout the drainage. These impacts are
particularly evident in the lower sections of the drainage, below the proposed () mining
project."
WILDLIFE
General
6.9.1
Response:
Toxics
6.9.2
Response:
6.9.3
Response:
Commentors requested minor text clarifications, asked basic wildlife biology questions,
expressed opinions regarding the wildlife resource impacts of the proposed project
without referring to any specific evaluations or without presenting any supporting
documentation for their point of view.
We appreciate the input of all those individuals, organizations, and agencies who
commented on the "wildlife" aspects of the Crown Jewel Mine draft EIS. We have
reviewed your comments and made revisions and clarifications, as appropriate, to the
final EIS.
The transport and storage of fuel, 189,000 gallons of diesel and 2,500 gallons of
unleaded gas, by accident or carelessness, could find its way into the ground water or
surface water and become a hazard to aquatic and human life. The transport and
storage of chemicals, if accidentally spilled, could poison fish, wildlife, and humans
alike.
Your comments are addressed in Section 4.12.4, Toxics, and in Section 4.22,
Accidents and Spills, of the final EIS.
The tailings pond and the recovery solution collection pond can attract migratory birds
and result in bird and other wildlife deaths. Destruction of cyanide in these ponds may
appear to be at acceptable levels; however, the pH in a birds digestive system may
change the chemical makeup of a nontoxic substance into a toxic substance.
The acid conditions in the digestive system of birds can potentially trigger toxic effects
at a later point in time than when initially exposed. The toxics analysis does not
conclude that the proposed tailings pond cyanide levels are nontoxic. It concludes that
for some species, with tailings pond access, there would be negligible to low levels of
mortality over the life of the Crown Jewel Project. There would be daily monitoring of
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS 4 L-117
the tailings pond to note any wildlife presence or mortality during the first year of
operation. The frequency of monitoring would be reevaluated after that point in time.
6.9.4
Response:
6.9.5
Response:
6.9.6
Downstream effects on the rich neotropical migrant songbird nesting populations in the
Okanogan Highlands need to be addressed. Although the draft EIS lists three songbird
species, this does not take into account the downstream neotropical migrant songbird
nesting population that would be effected by any changes in water quality or quantity
from the mine and tailings themselves.
Neotropical migrant birds migrate from wintering areas to take advantage of the
seasonal pulse of food availability in northern latitudes. An abundant source of food
combined with longer daylight feeding hours provide conditions supporting successful
reproduction. While neotropical migrant birds collectively use a variety of habitats in
northern latitudes, riparian and wetland habitats are key components for a majority of
species.
Mine impacts to neotropical migrants result from loss of habitat and the reduced prey
base supported by that habitat. Reducing the amount of available habitat can lower the
numbers of animals that can be supported in a given area. Table 4.12.2, Loss of Cover
Types (Acres) in the Core Area by Alternative, of the final EIS outlines the loss of cover
types that would occur with each alternative. The HEP models for Veery, Black Tern,
and Vesper sparrow would reflect changes in habitat suitability for these representative
migrants. Sections 4.12.3, Effects Common to All Action Alternatives, of the final EIS
describes the general implications of reduced water flows. In addition, fragmentation
of forest habitats has been linked with the increase of brown-headed cowbirds, which
are nest parasites of neotropical migrants. Brown-headed cowbirds do occur in the
Okanogan Highlands.
According to the National Wildlife Federation, thousands of animals have perished as
a result of drinking and/or swimming in cyanide ponds. Wildlife are naturally attracted
to these ponds and waterfowl in particular are not kept out by a fence. How would the
potential plight of waterfowl be addressed? The Buckhorn Mountain area lies in a
corridor for migrating waterfowl.
Most of the waterfowl mortality associated with cyanide is likely the result of exposure
to heap leach tailings operations. With heap leach tailings operations cyanide levels
occur around 200 ppm and are highly toxic. In contrast, the Crown Jewel Project
utilizes cyanide to extract the gold within agitated tanks at the mill. Cyanide levels
would be detoxified to levels below 10 ppm before entering the tailings pond about
95% of the time where waterfowl could be exposed for an estimated 95% of
operational time. Cyanide levels at 10 ppm are projected to reduce mortality risk to
waterfowl down to negligible levels. The Proponent has not provided an estimate of
how high cyanide levels would exceed 40 ppm or how long cyanide levels would
exceed 40 ppm during the remaining 5% of operational time, between the tailings pipe
outlet and the tailings pond. However, when cyanide levels exceed 40 ppm at the end
of the pipe then mitigation measures (such as wildlife hazing or diluting supernatant
solutions with recycled tailings water) are expected to be in place and fully functional.
Monitoring the tailings pond for mortality would be a part of operational requirements
to confirm whether projections are correct. The USFWS would be informed of any
mortality and would decide whether additional mitigation measures are needed to meet
the intent of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
There are so many uncertainties in predictions about toxins. How can determinations
of no significant impact be made on such incomplete data?
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-118
Response:
6.9.7
Response:
In the past, scientists who wanted to reduce the risk to wildlife from toxins typically
added several orders of magnitude to the permitable limits as a safety factor. New
methods for conducting ecological risk assessment are being used worldwide to
increase the usefulness of the predictions. A discussion of uncertainty in ecological
risk assessment was presented by Smith and Shugart (1994). There are many types
of uncertainties; for our purposes, the two primary types are lack of knowledge (e.g.,
how would a certain species respond to a chemical) and natural variability. The
methods used in the wildlife analysis incorporated both types of uncertainties and
presented information based on probabilities of exceeding a certain level of risk. This
approach provides a range of risks as well as a central measure of risk. Impact
assessments indicate that, based on the range of uncertainties of the input parameters,
there is no risk of impact.
Tailings ponds and collection ponds can attract migratory birds and result in bird and
other wildlife deaths. Destruction of cyanide in these ponds may appear to be at
acceptable levels, however the pH in their digestive system can cause what was
considered to be non toxic to be toxic. Concentrations of 10 ppm cyanide are lethal.
HCN may be generated from tailings pond water as turbidity decreases and from
exposed tailings solids and increase their toxicity to wildlife.
The draft EIS omits discussions of "safe" levels to wildlife of tailings cyanide.
According to Bruce Humphries of the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division, 20 -
40 ppm is enough to kill wildlife (Denver Post, 4/4/92), yet the mining industry often
holds to 50 ppm as the threshold for wildlife kills-a position disputed by the Nevada
Department of Fish and Wildlife Enhancement in Reno.
The level of cyanide allowed in the tailings pond is a permit issue and would be
determined by the WADOE as part of the permitting process. There is no universal
cyanide threshold defining where safe levels of cyanide occur.
The USFWS is reluctant to set a numerical criterion defining safe levels because factors
such as highly variable ore constituents; variable exposure and response for different
types of animals; potential additive, offsetting or synergistic reactions all confound the
prediction of hazard to wildlife.
Concentrations of chemicals in tailing ponds have been shown to vary through time.
Consequently, finding a dead bird at or near a pond may not be the result of the
concentration at the time of discovery but rather at the time of exposure. The
concentrations are not necessarily the same. The view of the USFWS is to require that
the level of detoxification of a pond should be such that bird mortality does not occur
as a result of ingestion of pond water (Hallock, 1993).
The wildlife analysis projects that cyanide impacts alone at 40 ppm should be
negligible. However, ammonia exposure may lengthen the time fauna are exposed to
cyanide which increases the overall risk to low for bats, passerine birds and shorebirds.
Because the total cyanide and WAD cyanide concentrations in the tailings are nearly
the same, only a very minor increase in the WAD concentration could occur with
conversion of cyanide complexes to HCN (WAD can not exceed total cyanide). In
addition, under conditions in the pond and on the tailings "beach" the small amounts
of HCN generated would rapidly volatilize and be further diluted and carried away into
the atmosphere. The potential effect on exposed wildlife would be so small that it
would be difficult or impossible to measure.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS * L-119
6.9.8
Response:
What affects to wildlife are anticipated by elevated metals in the waters of Buckhorn
Mountain?
Section 4.12.4, Toxics, of the draft EIS addresses your question. It states that the pit
lake would not have direct toxic impacts to terrestrial wildlife or their habitats. The
potential risk of toxic metals in the pit lake to fish and aquatic invertebrates will vary
for each of the following three scenarios: 1) the pit lake is filled, augmented with
Myers Creek water; 2) the pit lake is completely filled without Myers Creek water; and,
3) while the pit lake is filling and without Myers Creek water. Conservative
geochemical modeling of projected pit water quality suggest that levels of mercury and
silver pose a high toxic risk to fish for all scenarios, while values for lead, nickel and
copper range from negligible to high risk depending on the scenario. The toxic risk for
aquatic invertebrates for mercury, lead, nickel, silver, cadmium and copper vary from
negligible to high depending on the specific scenario (Beak, 1996).
Seepage from waste rock disposal areas could be a source of potential impacts to
wildlife. Initial screening indicated that the potential for toxic impact is low.
Mathematical models were used to determine toxic impacts of cyanide, ammonia,
arsenic, lead, copper, and nickel in the tailings pond. The results of that model are
displayed in Table 4.12.5, Risk or Probability of Toxic Impact at the Tailings Pond, in
the final EIS. Also, displayed in Section 4.12.4, Toxics, of the final EIS are the
potential impacts from an accidental liner breach and accidental transportation spills.
6.9.9 Tailings that are dewatered and dry are susceptible to photo-oxidation which increases
their toxicity and exposure. There is no support for the assertion that dewatered
tailings disposal would result in "...virtual elimination of potential mortality of birds
which would be attracted to a tailings pond."
Response:
6.9.10
Response:
The statement concerning the elimination of toxicity by dewatered tailings has been
dropped from Section 2.2.12, Tailings Disposal, of the final EIS.
Cadmium is lethal to fish from 10 - 100 parts per billion [ppb]; its reactions with other
substances such as zinc may increase cadmium's toxicity to aquatic organisms. Silver
is toxic to fish as low as 4 ppb depending on exposure time. Macroinvertebrate silver
toxicity ranges from 30 - 50 ppb.
Predicted potential post- Project metals concentrations are addressed in Chapter 4,
Environmental Consequences, of the final EIS, and the potential effects of
concentrations of metals on aquatic biota are addressed in Appendix I, Fisheries and
Aquatic Habitat Biological Evaluation. The readers need to understand that the
predicted potential concentrations of metals in the EIS may be a result of the input
parameters for the modeling and, in reality, would likely be much lower. The potential
detrimental effects of metals concentrations on aquatic organisms varies widely
between different macro invertebrate and fish species. Thus, concentrations which
may not affect one species may be lethal to another (Nelson et al., 1991). Refer also
to Sections 4.6.3, Effects Common to All Action Alternatives, and 4.6.4, Effects of
Alternative B, in the final EIS.
6.9.11 To make such a statement (draft EIS. page 4-72); "The common loon and northern bald
eagle may be subject to a large degree of negative impact if a spill occurred" in the
summary section on environmental consequences to wildlife and not also include the
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-120
fact that the statement is a highly unlikely scenario gives readers a wrong impression
that these situations would occur.
A spill in the Beth and Beaver Lake system could be catastrophic, not only to the fish
eating loons, but to all the wildlife dependent on the lakes. The draft EIS says that a
chemical spill is an unlikely event, but the Tonasket Ranger District has already had one
such event in the area. In the 1994 field season, a pickup truck carrying herbicides had
an accident resulting in a spill. The consequences in this case may have been small.
This would not be true if a semi-truck loaded with cyanide had a similar mishap.
Response:
6.9.12
Response:
6.9.13
Response:
6.9.14
Response:
The wildlife analysis looked at three hypothetical accident scenarios for the sole
purpose of predicting the impacts of a transportation spill in the unlikely event that one
did occur. The likelihood of a spill occurring was not addressed in this wildlife section,
but is covered in Section 4.22, Accidents and Spills, of the final EIS. Section 4.12.4,
Toxics, of the final EIS presents a more detailed explanation of the hypothetical
scenarios used to evaluate the effects of a spill. The narrative describes, "Toxic
impacts resulting from the unlikely event of large, direct spills into waterways was
evaluated based on the size, location, and timing of the spill as described by the Forest
Service (Zieroth, 1993)."
Tailings ponds in the head of drainages is not a very good idea. Leaks in liners and/or
structural failures in the dam can result in the transport of toxic materials, including
trace elements, into ground and surface waters. These elements can result in fish and
wildlife deaths and affect the human population too. Upwelling of ground water in a
stream system, if it contained contaminants or toxic elements could affect fish
reproduction, since upwelling of ground water often occurs in gravels where fish
spawn.
For tailings site selection, refer to response 6.18.6 in this appendix. For liner system
and embankment design refer to responses 6.3.2 and 6.3.3 in this appendix. For
effects to ground and surface water refer to Section 6.5, Hydrology, in this appendix.
Many factors would determine the nature and magnitude of effects on aquatic life at
a spill site. Thus, to say that a spill would be acutely lethal is misleading, and the
discussion should be reworded.
It is true that many factors determine the nature and magnitude of effects (e.g., the
stream flow at the time of the spill, or whether the entire contents of the load were
dumped directly into the streams, etc.). However, many of these uncertainties were
removed for the purpose of the spill analysis. In a series of letters culminating in a
letter from Zieroth (1993), the size, location, and timing of the spill scenario were
defined before the analysis was conducted (see Section 4.12.4, Toxics, of the final
EIS). Spills were hypothesized to occur in summer (during low flow), and the rate of
spill into the water was defined for each chemical. Based on these assumptions, the
concentrations would be acutely lethal to aquatic life.
The assumptions used to develop the toxic analysis are unrealistic (especially for bats)
and tend to overstate the potential impact (assuming that levels of cyanide and other
toxics are near or below levels used in the models).
All assumptions are referenced and specific assumptions for each scenario or species
are provided on data sheets in Crown Jewel Project Wildlife Technical Report (Beak,
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-121
1995a). Standard databases were used for the toxicity data (Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, 1994) and species exposure data (EPA, 1993). Estimates for time spent
by each species in various habitats were provided by wildlife experts after review of
predicted conditions. An evaluation of specific assumptions is provided in response
6.9.16 in this appendix.
6.9.15 Commentor feels it is unrealistic to assume that the interaction of individual chemicals
is additive since the effects of one chemical may supersede or mask the impacts of
another chemical.
Response:
The reasons for assuming additive reactions are outlined in Section 4.12.4, Toxics, of
the final EIS. The assumption is still valid, and is the most common assumption made
when the question of chemical interaction is raised. In addition, the comment ignores
the possibility of synergisms. In his book, Suter (1993) states on page 373 that "as
with the interactions of individual chemicals, the simplest assumption is that they are
additive, but more complex interactions are possible." Synergisms and antagonisms
are nonadditive and are more difficult to address, particularly when no definitive
information is available on how the chemicals of concern interact. For example,
ammonia toxicity has been reported to be synergistic with cyanide toxicity (Smith et
al., 1979), but others have reported additive or antagonistic interactions (Alabaster et
al., 1983).
6.9.16 Risk estimates to bats and birds for ammonia and cyanide are overestimated due to the
local environment being less favorable (lack of food, high human activity). Estimates
of ammonia concentrations are overstated and harmful levels to mammals appears to
have been set too low. Commentor questions conclusions of ammonia toxicity on birds
and small mammals and offers information about Patuxent Environmental Science
Center tests involving Dr. Vyas.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L -122
Response:
6.9.17
Response:
The estimates for bat exposure resulted from detailed discussions with Mark Perkins,
an acknowledged bat expert in this geographic area. Bats tend to drink immediately
after leaving the roost, and that tends to be the only time they drink. When looking for
a place to drink, the presence or absence of a food source is not an issue. Therefore,
if the roost is adjacent to the tailings pond, then it is reasonable to assume that they
take their drink from this location. The rest of the time off the roost is spent in
foraging for food (i.e., not drinking water). The analysis assumed that bats were not
eating at or near the tailings pond, and that there would be no food source at the
tailings pond. The analysis concludes that the overall risk from cyanide is low for bats
and shorebirds (see last column of the Table 4.12.5, Risk or Probability of Toxic Impact
at the Tailings Pond, in the final EIS). Based on the definition of adverse impact for
ammonia (i.e., illness), the risk is high for ammonia; however, the overall population
level impact would be low.
The wildlife analysis utilized concentration levels of 94 mg/L. These concentrations are
net concentrations that consider chemical transformations with both the soil and
atmosphere.
Attempts to contact Dr. Vyas directly have not been successful. A number of voice
mail exchanges have taken place. Based on the voice mail messages, it appears that
the studies referred to involved feeding fire retardant chemicals to wildlife. While these
chemicals contained ammonia salts, the concentrations of the constituent compounds
in the fire retardant are proprietary. Since the concentration of ammonia in the fire
retardant is not known, the results of Vyas studies are not useful for calculating
reference doses. The Vyas studies involved very short-term exposures which is
another reason his results are not particularly suitable for deriving reference doses for
the Crown Jewel Project. It is impossible to assess what form the chemical is in (i.e.,
availability), the dose over time, or the amount of ammonia in the chemical.
Describe the methodology used to extrapolate NIOSH standards for humans to wildlife.
The NIOSH standard was described on page 195 of the Crown Jewel Project Wildlife
Technical Report (Beak, 1995a). It was assumed that wildlife and humans respond
similarly to ammonia and high pH. We used 500 ppm (water) and 35 mg/m3 (air) from
the NIOSH handbook to calculate the reference dose for wildlife species. In his book,
Suter (1993) extensively discusses (starting on page 196) the relative sensitivities of
different species and the use of extrapolation and allometric regression to estimate
toxic response of one species based on the results from tests with another species.
While the data clearly shows a great deal of variation in responses between chemicals,
test situations and species, there does tend to be generalizations. Based on the best
available information, NIOSH values for human response to ammonia are used to
estimate the response of various wildlife species.
Page 195 of the Crown Jewel Project Wildlife Technical Report (Beak, 1995a) states,
"For most parameters, the effects are based on mortality and impacts to reproduction
and growth. Sub-lethal responses that could alter behavior (e.g., avoidance or
attraction), or alter activity levels as a result of sickness (perhaps increasing
vulnerability to predation) are not included. However, the impacts of exposure to high
pH (cement/lime) or high concentrations of ammonia on terrestrial wildlife species are
not known. To assess impact as a result of pH and ammonia, NIOSH (1985) levels for
health protection of humans were extrapolated to wildlife. NIOSH limits were set based
on human responses such as gastrointestinal illness. A similar sub-lethal response is
likely for wildlife species. Sub-lethal impacts on behavior may occur for parameters in
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-123
6.9.18
Response:
6.9.19
Response:
Habitat
6.9.20
Response:
addition to ammonia and cement/lime, but are not generally considered in this analysis
because of uncertainties in the link between sub-lethal effects and population success."
As stated above, the 500 mg/L suggested for drinking (NIOSH, 1985) is based on
irritation of mucosal membranes for humans (the dose for humans would be 14
mg/kg/day). NIOSH standards were not used to determine mortality, but rather suggest
concentrations that would likely lead to illness in wildlife. According to IJC (1985), a
1% to 3% ammonia solution is toxic at 285 mg/kg/day (based on the same
calculations). This number is probably closer to reality for toxicity, rather than illness
resulting from ingestion.
Invertebrates should not be a concern since the tailings pond is not designed to provide
habitat for invertebrates.
While not designed for use by wildlife, the analysis looked at impacts to species that
could occur there. The tailings pond poses a high toxic risk to invertebrates and is so
noted.
There are inconsistencies and discrepancies in the worst case scenario of accidental
liner breach between the Hydro-Geo scenario and the wildlife analysis.
The wildlife analysis used a conservative 1-D model which allows for no dilution
between the tailings pond and the wetland. Moreover, since Kd (adsorption factor) is
very low for both CN and NH3, there is essentially no retardation of these chemicals by
adsorption. Volatilization is assumed to occur in the wetland and is significant for CN.
The 2-D Hydro-Geo model allows for dilution prior to breakthrough, but does not
consider any differential adsorption or volatilization of chemicals.
Beak assumed that the wetland was located 200 feet from the liner breach. Since a
small wetland presently exists near the edge of the tailings footprint, this path-length
seems plausible. The Hydro-Geo (Seepage and Attenuation Study) (Hvdro-Geo. 1995b)
conclusion that the plume would not extend beyond the footprint would seem to be
highly dependent on where in the footprint the breach is assumed to occur. The Hydo-
Geo description does not indicate where the model locates the liner breach relative to
the liner edge. The breach in the wildlife model is assumed to occur near the edge.
This is a conservative assumption.
Note that the concentration of the plume at 200 feet could be much higher than that
at 489 feet (about 1000 times higher judging from the Hydro-Geo (Figure 7) results
after four years of seepage). Figure 7 gives approximately the same ammonia
concentration that the wildlife analysis estimated for a wetland 200 feet downgradient.
The consequence of this is that although different assumptions were made, the results
are not inconsistent through time.
Consider this: destroying the habitat of several animals whose critical wildlife habitat
would be replaced by the tailings of the mine.
The wildlife analysis in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, of the final EIS
describes the habitat losses that would occur with mine development alternatives.
Impacts to habitat are likely to lead to displacement or loss for dependent species.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-124
However, it is important to clarify the issue of the term "critical habitat." This is a term
utilized by the USFWS (and delineated by the USFWS) as the habitat necessary to
support the recovery of an endangered or threatened species. No "critical habitat" has
been delineated in the analysis area.
6.9.21
Response:
6.9.22
Response:
6.9.23
Waste water leaching into the ground and streams would greatly impact the water
quality of ground water as well as fish and game habitat.
Mine waste water would have to meet Washington State and federal water quality
standards before being released into the surface and ground water systems. Meeting
Washington State water quality standards should ensure minimal impacts to fish and
wildlife habitat. Should waste water enter ground water systems, potential impacts to
fish and game habitat would not occur unless the ground water reached the surface.
If ground water surfaces, the degree of potential impact to fish and wildlife habitat
would depend on the levels of contaminants. Dilution is expected to occur with this
scenario, but exposure to metals is possible. Continued ground and surface water
monitoring is an integral part of the permitting process.
Perhaps not all wildlife disturbance in the 113 square mile study area would be an
effect of the mine site but as a result of other environmental issues over which Battle
Mountain Gold Company has no control.
This comment may refer to a projection derived from the HEP study which modeled
what future impacts may take place over time if mine development didn't occur. The
intent of modeling this "without the mine/no-action" scenario is to determine the actual
projected impact of each mine development alternative. The impact is determined by
comparing the differences in Habitat Units when "action mine development
alternatives" are compared to the "without the mine" scenario. The modeling was
based on applying management direction provided by each respective land management
agency. For the Okanogan National Forest, three different management approaches
were utilized (MA-25, MA-14, and MA-26). A large portion of the project area is in
MA-25 which does not manage for Snow Intercept Thermal Cover (SIT). This was
partially the basis for the comment that SIT cover would be eliminated anyway.
However, it is important to recognize that the HEP modeling for "without the mine" is
only a modeling tool that helps to determine the impact of proposed action alternatives.
The projected actions "without the mine" are an attempt to define a likely scenario,
rather than an effort to precisely identify where and when actions would take place.
For example, recent Interim Management Direction Establishing Riparian, Ecosystem
and Wildlife Standards for Timber Sales have modified the Forest Plan and Management
Area direction that was the basis for the HEP modeling projected impacts on National
Forest lands. Late and old structural stages (which often provide SIT cover) now would
be retained even in MA-25, when the existing level of late and old structural stages is
below the range of what would have historically occurred. Refer also to response
6.9.71 in this appendix.
The mines I have visited appear to operate in harmony with native wildlife. I have seen
deer, small game and birds all peacefully living and grazing within a stones throw to
operating open pits and processing facilities. I find a fairytale aspect in consideration
of wildlife, almost mythical in its endeavor to create a wildlife population that withers
at the mere sight of humanity. Would your current analysis support such empirical
observations? Or does your current model indicate wildlife being driven a significant
distance from the mine? If it is the latter, which is how I read the current draft EIS, I
would suggest you modify the analysis.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS 4 L-125
Response:
6.9.24
Response:
6.9.25
Response:
The term "wildlife" encompasses a wide diversity of animals with different approaches
to finding food, cover and raising young. Some habitat general list species would
adapt. However, other species are more vulnerable. In broad terms, species that are
more vulnerable include those with specialized niche requirements or have limited
population sizes and ranges. Species which do not readily move, have low rates of
population increase. Species with low genetic variability are less adaptable.
The people who work the mine would not be prone to suddenly chasing a curious
animal except to keep it from getting hurt. The mine would not be leaving garbage
behind like picnickers have a tendency to do. Since the Crown Jewel Project is
contained, routine and the people aren't there to do anything with the animals, I doubt
that wildlife would be diminished in the rest of the Okanogan National Forest at all.
See Section 4.12.3, Effects Common to All Action Alternatives, of the final EIS for a
discussion of the direct impacts of mine development within the core area, as well as
indirect and cumulative impacts to wildlife in the analysis area.
While there may be an impact to habitat, the animal population study results show little
or no effect on the number of animals potentially present on the property. In addition,
the document doesn't mention that for certain species, existing habitat has not reached
species saturation so existing populations.could move onto other locations within the
analysis area.
How many fauna would be killed after filling in the wetlands and during the mine site
preparation?
The Crown Jewel Project wildlife analysis focused on assessing changes in habitat
rather than changes in populations. Animal populations naturally vary over time due
to the influence of changes in weather, climate and habitat (such as the impacts of
severe winters, prolonged drought, and wild fire affecting the availability of food), as
well as the effects of food competition between species, predation intensity, and
disease outbreaks. Determining the cause of population change, or whether a
population has reached carrying capacity can be challenging. Rigorous surveying
methods consistently applied over time, and specific to the animal being studied, are
needed to isolate the impact of each factor on a population.
Considering the diversity of species that have been documented to use the analysis
area and the range of factors causing variation in population levels, the most cost
effective and timely way to analyze the mine impacts is to assess changes in habitat.
Habitat is defined as the combination of resources (food, cover, water) and
environmental conditions (temperature, precipitation, presence or absence of predators
and competitors) that allows a species to occupy, survive and reproduce in an area.
Loss of habitat is considered the greatest single factor in wildlife population declines.
The Crown Jewel Project wildlife analysis described types of habitat at different spatial
scales (such as the analysis area, core area, HEP study area, as well as specific
attributes of stands such as the presence of snags or down logs. Wildlife evaluation
species were selected from the total biodiversity of the area based on being either a
species with protective status by state or federal agencies, an indicator species that
highlights limiting habitats, species of high human value, or animals that represent a
group that use environmental resources in a similar way. Changes in habitat availability
and suitability were then analyzed for the selected species.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-126
6.9.26
Response:
6.9.27
Response:
6.9.28
Response:
6.9.29
Response:
Surrogate Species do not reflect impact to actual species; i.e.. Red Tailed Hawk not
suitable surrogate to Northern Goshawk.
Wildlife species often differ in their approaches to obtaining basic life requirements.
However, the use of surrogate species in assessing potential effects of environmental
contamination for the final EIS is appropriate and consistent with the procedures
outlined in the Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook (EPA. 1993). The assumption used
in the analysis is that species of similar size and metabolism, with similar approaches
to obtaining food (eg. carnivore, insect!vore, herbivore) will have similar food ingestion
rates, water ingestion rates, and inhalation rates. These ingestion rates are key factors
used in the analysis for projecting the amount of potential toxic exposure. Therefore
we can use the detailed information on one species, like the food and water ingestion
rates and inhalation rate for the red-tailed hawk, and assume that a similar species like
the goshawk will have similar exposure rates.
Would a 40 percent reduction in surface flow to the frog pond prevent the pond from
filling and functioning?
It is believed that the frog pond, besides capturing surface flow, could be partially fed
by a spring. It is proposed to monitor the frog pond on at least a yearly basis to
determine if there is a reduction in function and a reduction in numbers of spotted
frogs. If there is a reduction in function, then mitigation would be designed to alleviate
this effect. Wetlands mitigation proposes to plant shrubs and trees along the northern
perimeter, fence the area off from livestock use for about 15 years, and monitor the
pond. Additional mitigation would include diversion of water to augment flows to the
pond during operations and until reclamation is complete.
Riparian and wetland cover type losses range from 82 acres (Alternative C) to 127
acres (Alternative G). Such losses are considered substantial for all alternatives.
Permanent loss of riparian and wetland habitat important for spotted frog, winter wren,
ruffed grouse and great gray wolf would occur in Marias Creek under Alternatives B,
C, D and E.
Impacts to habitats of these species are documented in the final EIS in Section 4.12,
Wildlife. In addition, as documented in Section 4.12, Wildlife, a detailed assessment
of the predicted impacts of the mining alternatives to over 40 species is presented in
the Crown Jewel Project Wildlife Technical Report by Beak(1995a), which includes the
above mentioned species. This report is part of the analysis file for the EIS. Impacts
to functions and values of wetlands are required to be compensated for under the Clean
Water Act and Okanogan County ordinances. Potential wetlands mitigation is proposed
at Pine Chee Springs; on Myers Creek near the international border; around the frog
pond; in the headwaters of Bear Trap Canyon; and, in the headwaters of Nicholson
Creek (Section 2.12.16, Wetlands, of the final EIS).
The delineation of riparian cover types versus actual riparian zones is unclear.
There is a difference in how riparian areas were measured, for different resources, in
the EIS.
1. Riparian/wetland cover types were defined in the wildlife analysis as all areas
within 100 feet of a stream, wetland, lake, or pond, and 50 feet of a seep or
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS * L-127
6.9.30
Response:
6.9.31
Response:
spring. This broad definition was used to portray a zone of influence where
species associated with riparian areas were likely to occur.
2. The HEP study more closely identified riparian and wetland habitats tied to
actual mesic vegetation and soil saturation. Both of the above approaches
were used to look at larger areas and provide a general picture of available
habitats.
3. In contrast, the most detailed survey of wetlands was conducted (See Section
3.11, Wetlands, of the final EIS) using narrow specific measures of wetland
hydrology, hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation, and focused on the
footprint area. This survey measured the wetland area more precisely in square
feet and was based on the methodology outlined in the 1987 Corps of
Engineers wetlands Delineation Manual and the 1989 Federal Manual for
Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. Additionally, each wetland
was rated according to the Washington State Wetlands Rating System for
Eastern Washington.
The Forest Service used the Tonasket Wildlife Habitat Inventory Procedures (TWHIP)
to evaluate deer habitat on Forest Service lands. This methodology tends to
overestimate the amount of Snow Intercept/Thermal (SIT) cover and other winter cover
by ignoring the availability and value of forage in an area and by including all acres
within stands as SIT or other winter cover even if SIT cover is found at less than 40%
of sampling stations. Commentor objects to method where if a stand is found to
contain any habitat that may be suitable, then the entire stand was designated as
suitable.
When agencies received a draft of the Crown Jewel Project Wildlife Technical Report.
the misapplication of TWHIP was also identified. However, the resulting reanalysis that
followed was not available for the draft EIS. Revised calculations show both a reduced
level of existing snow-intercept thermal cover and a narrowing of differences between
alternatives for this habitat. Revisions have been incorporated into the final EIS.
Analysis implies that because specific cover types are present, then these cover types
provide suitable habitat. This gives the impression that most, if not all, of these PETS
species may use the area, when in fact the likelihood that they would occur on the site
is negligible. This tends to exaggerate the amount of suitable habitat, probable value,
on the site for these species.
One standard method utilized in the wildlife analysis proceeds with the following steps:
1. Define the differing habitat types in the project area (cover types);
Identify key species of concern to use as evaluation species;
2.
3.
Identify the cover types these species are known to utilize based on literature
reviews; and,
4. Document changes in the cover types as a consequence of mine development.
The evaluation species are selected animals that either are known to occur, suspected
to occur, or have historically occurred in the analysis area. This method does not imply
that the species would be found in the available habitat at any given point in time even
though the analysis area is within the geographic range of all the evaluation species.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS ^ L-128
Specific information documenting the known occurrence of species is provided in
Section 3.13.5, Wildlife Species Overview, of the final EIS.
6.9.32
Response:
6.9.33
Response:
6.9.34
Response:
The fact that designated recovery zones for these species (Threatened and Endangered
Species) do not include the Analysis Area indicates that federal and state biologists
recognized that the area would not provide suitable habitat for these species.
Recovery zones have been identified as those areas needed for the recovery of the
species. The analysis area is outside of the Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone. However, the
Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan recognizes that grizzly bears would move and even reside
permanently outside the recovery zone. In fact, the plan notes that "Bears can and are
expected to exist outside recovery zone lines in many areas."
Some commentors felt that draft EIS statements are incorrect concerning: habitat lost
with the mine, that reclamation features are of lower quality, that new features would
have little habitat value, and that currently much higher quality habitat is found on the
site and it would improve over time even without the mine. Others felt that no loss of
wildlife habitat would occur at the site; it would just be changed to cover types that
are less preferred by some species of wildlife analyzed in the EIS.
The wildlife analysis considers unreclaimed roads and the extensive pit walls to be
habitat lost with the mine. Mitigation utilizing blasting techniques to provide structure
for cliff dwelling animals is proposed, but much of the pit wall would be unused talus
and rock wall. The draft EIS projects that reductions in soil productivity of 10% to
15%, are expected. This can directly translate to declines in both plant and animal
productivity. Also, what may be described as successful reclamation is often not the
same as a restored ecosystem. Reclaimed lands are generally very simplified in
structure, function and community compared to surrounding existing conditions.
Part of the intent to manage wildlife habitat on public lands is to provide secure habitat
for maintaining viable populations, and to minimize the impacts that occur when wildlife
are displaced by settlements or development from habitat that historically was used.
An overall reduction in available habitat can lead to a reduced capacity to support the
affected species. The wildlife analysis documents the changes in habitat availability
that would occur as a result of mine development.
Summary of impacts to wildlife (Table 2.15, Summary of Impacts by Alternative for
Each Issue, of the draft EIS) are misleading because it lumps several cover types into
groups that should be considered separately (i.e., young mature, mature, and old-
growth stands, with no differentiation between managed and unmanaged stands).
This section (Section 3.13.5, Wildlife Species Overview, of the draft EIS, Paragraph 4)
and other sections imply that all habitat within cover types is suitable for the species
just because some habitat within the cover type is suitable. Some riparian areas and
other cover types listed provide little habitat for hairy woodpeckers. Yet, because
stands with different habitat features were lumped together, it appears that more
habitat is available than is the case. Although habitats may appear "suitable" based
on human definitions, lack of use of such habitats by wildlife species suggests that
habitats are less suitable or unsuitable to species which should be taken into account
in the analysis.
In both the HEP and TWHIP, core area cover type analysis, some grouping occurred.
The biologists decided to group cover types where appropriate after determining that
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-129
the evaluation species were not discriminating by use or avoidance between the
grouped cover types.
The wildlife analysis looked at the available habitat with both site specific and general
approaches. The TWHIP and HEP site specific analysis did measure and rate each
individual stand in terms of its varying suitability as habitat. The general approach
described by the commentor was used to measure changes in land and cover type in
the core and analysis area, and to measure habitat values to ensure compliance with
Okanogan National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan direction. Both site
specific and general approaches can provide appropriate and useful information.
General approaches are typically used on large scales to provide a broad overview.
Determining "lack of use" for the wide range of evaluation species for any particular
stand or drainage or analysis area is difficult. Just because an animal is not seen during
a stand walk-through does not mean that the habitat is unsuitable, or that the animal
is absent from the area. For example, suitable habitat for cougar is provided by almost
the entire analysis area, yet how often are cougar sighted other than by being in the
right place at the right time or by establishing costly and time-consuming surveys. The
exception would be surveying habitat that are restricted to limited and easily surveyed
locations (e.g., surveying for black tern nesting use of Beth and Beaver Lakes). The
habitat-based approach is an effective method for looking at large area impacts on a
range of evaluation species, especially after taking into consideration the time and
expense of long-term animal surveys.
6.9.35
Response:
6.9.36
Response:
6.9.37
The document should note that human activities also benefit wildlife, such as use of
human structures for nest sites, feeding on road kills, and use of human by-products
and waste.
Habitat loss and fragmentation associated with human activities are considered the
factors most responsible for loss of biodiversity. Land stewardship activities that
incorporate the needs of wildlife are necessary to ensure long-term survival for some
species. However, the artificial replacement of nesting structure or food sources such
as road kills is not considered a desirable long term substitute for loss of natural habitat
providing food, cover and security.
The EIS needs to address the favorable benefits of the Starrem Reservoir. One of the
benefits of the reservoir is that water levels would fluctuate. Few aquatic bird species
favor stable water levels and those are primarily species that nest over water, such as
loons and terns, and might lose nests to higher water. However, most ducks and other
birds favor fluctuating water levels because they provide a variety of micro habitats and
feeding areas and because many insects and other prey require periods of wetness and
dryness to reproduce and mature (Weller, 1986). The reservoir would also be
surrounded by grassland vegetation that could be used by nesting ducks and other
birds.
The wildlife analysis recognizes that the Starrem Reservoir may provide a beneficial
impact as a waterfowl resting area. However, because the impoundment is a synthetic
lined structure without shoreline vegetation, with highly fluctuating water levels that
provide no food value (in comparison to the range of what naturally occurs in wetland
environments), its utility is expected to be limited.
The document should clarify what is meant by an "ongoing loss." At some point, the
forest would return to the condition it was before the Crown Jewel Project. Based on
WADFW (1995) analysis, 45 percent of the young mature and mature forest within the
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-130
core area would be harvested within the next 60 years. This would result in a greater
loss of snags and other habitat needed by cavity nesting species than would occur with
the Crown Jewel Project.
Response:
6.9.38
Response:
6.9.39
Response:
6.9.40
Response:
The time framework for the wildlife analysis looked out 100 years. The reference to
"ongoing loss" refers to the fact that more than 100 years following mine closure
would be necessary to establish mature habitat conditions characterized by well-
developed vegetative structure (e.g., snags, down logs, rich humus layer, multi-layered
canopies).
The mix of grasses, shrubs and trees that would result under the BMGC proposed
reclamation plan would attract a greater mix of wildlife. Total biomass production of
plant and animals may exceed levels found in more densely stocked stands proposed
under Alternatives C-G. BMGC feels that Alternative B reclamation would result in
similar numbers of large trees as occur on the site today (100 trees/acre).
Alternative B, reclamation, as proposed in the draft EIS, states that trees would be
planted in several clumps totaling about 100 trees per acre, except for south aspects
where 20-25 seedlings would be planted. The other alternative reclamation plans
propose similar levels of shrub and grass planting as Alternative B, but more uniformly
planted trees with a density of around 250 trees per acre. Trees are planted at higher
density on the expectation that some attrition and mortality would occur over time.
The commentor feels that original Alternative B would make up the numbers of trees
to fill the gaps and get to 100 trees/acre by regeneration seeding from adjacent
forested stands. The reason why stand densities may be less in Alternative B
reclamation are the following: 1) attrition is likely to occur in the clumps thereby
lowering stocking levels; 2) the 2H:1V slopes in Alternative B would provide less
favorable conditions for successful reclamation; and 3) seed fall is likely in areas with
favorable topography. However, not all the reclaimed areas have favorable topography.
Commentor wants it noted that despite the impacts that have and would occur,
suitable habitat remains for a variety of wildlife. The site may provide habitats in
different amounts than currently exist on the site, but changes in the mix of habitat
types would occur under traditional forest management, as well. Large areas within
the Analysis Area would not be impacted and can be managed to provide most habitats
lost due to the mine project and integrated with habitats created after reclamation.
Section 4.12.5, Cumulative Effects, of the final EIS notes that suitable habitat occurs
in the analysis area (as detailed in Section 3.13.5, Wildlife Species Overview, of the
EIS), while continuing to focus on the key cumulative changes over time.
Primary comparison criteria should include: 1) permanent and long-term changes in
vegetative community types; 2) the isolation of remaining habitat; 3) interruption of
habitat corridors; and 4) the relative importance of snow intercept thermal cover to deer
winter range.
There is nothing in NEPA requiring evaluation criteria. While permanent and long-term
changes in vegetative community types are not an identified evaluation criteria, this
issue is addressed in Table 4.12.1, Status of Reclamation Within the Alternative
Footprints, of the final EIS.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-131
6.9.41
Response:
6.9.42
Response:
Deer Issues
6.9.43
Response:
6.9.44
Response:
The number of acres of suitable habitat for Townsends big-eared bats is high, since
they tend to prefer lower elevations.
While it is noted that Townsends big-eared bats may prefer lower elevations, they also
have been documented at higher elevations. Therefore, higher elevation habitat is also
quantified for the table.
As compared to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Evaluation
Procedures (HEP) Study (1996), the definition of mixed conifer mature cover is much
more generous in the draft EIS and implies much greater suitable habitat for some
species than actually exists on the site.
The value for the beginning diameter of mature conifer cover was incorrectly stated as
greater than 9 inches d.b.h. However the values collected in the field were consistent
with Okanogan National Forest Implementation Guidelines ( > 10" d.b.h.), and the HEP.
The correction has been made to the final EIS narrative.
Concern that there would be permanent changes in deer migratory patterns.
The Methow Valley deer herd is migratory in the traditional sense of moving between
geographically separated summer and winter ranges. In contrast, deer in the Okanogan
Highlands can be seen in the same general area throughout the year. They take
advantage of available forage provided within their home range - seeking out succulent
vegetation in the forest as well as agricultural alfalfa fields, utilizing lichen in mature
forest with snow intercept thermal cover in the winter, as well as seeking out south
face exposures with reduced snow depths and earlier forage. Knowledge of home
ranges and movement pathways is acquired by offspring while accompanying their
mother in their first year of life. Crown Jewel Mine impacts would change habitats and
patterns of area use by deer, but continued occupancy of the general area is expected.
Some environmental experts believe that deer would be impacted to an extreme degree
which would force mountain lions down into the more populated areas of the valley.
My experience in Republic, as mountain lions have begun to have difficulty finding
suitable prey in the forest was to seek out family pets or children as more vulnerable
prospects. In addition, deer would move down to the valley and have a negative
impact on the primary employer of Okanogan Valley, namely farms and orchards.
Development of the Crown Jewel Project is expected to impact deer habitat with
particular concern for additional loss of critical winter habitat which is already in short
supply. The loss of habitat associated with the mine would be cumulative to other
ongoing impacts from timber management, housing development, and road
construction. The cumulative loss of habitat will likely result in a net loss of total deer
in the area over time. The loss of deer habitat in the Okanogan Highlands is not viewed
as an "extreme degree," but rather as an unfavorable trend, especially for mule deer.
Deer are primary prey species for cougar, but how a change in the deer population will
affect cougar numbers and behavior would be extremely difficult to predict. The recent
trend of cougar incidents involving people and domestic animals in Okanogan County
and across the state is believed to be connected to conservative hunting seasons of the
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-132
past several years that has allowed the cougar population to build to possibly record
numbers.
Cougars have very large home ranges of 75-130 square miles see the Crown Jewel
Project Wildlife Technical Report (Beak, 1995a). Therefore, it is expected the habitat
impacts resulting from development and operation of the mine would have minimal
impacts to the cougar population.
No data exists to suggest deer associated with Buckhorn Mountain area will be
displaced to the lower valleys to cause damage to orchards and other farm crops.
There may be some incremental and temporary increase of deer foraging in farm fields
associated with Myers and Toroda Creeks. More than likely, there will be adjustment
in total numbers of deer based on the carrying capacity of the natural habitat.
6.9.45 Deer would disappear from the Crown Jewel Project area (pg. 4-118 draft EIS), what
with the loss of SIT, forage and habitat not only through the duration of the mine (any
alternative except A) but also for the 100 years needed for recovery. They would
never return to their former numbers (pg. 4-73 draft EIS).
Snow intercept/thermal (SIT) cover for deer in the Wildlife Core Area is in short supply
and is likely limiting the deer population. We believe the action alternatives of the
Crown Jewel Project would have significant adverse impacts to the mature conifer
habitats and associated wildlife populations. We are particularly concerned for the
long-term status of mule deer.
Response:
There were interpretation and assessment errors associated with the original delineation
and analysis of cover types for deer and several other wildlife species in the draft EIS.
As a result, estimates of available suitable habitat and projections of habitat losses
were incorrect. The Forest Service and wildlife specialist personnel have corrected and
updated the cover type mapping and recalculated potential impacts to habitats for each
action alternative. Methods and rationale for the development of the corrected cover
type map and analysis of potential impacts are available at the Tonasket Ranger District
in the Administrative Record for the Crown Jewel Project EIS.
Snow intercept/thermal (SIT) winter deer habitat is currently deficient and does not
meet Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines in Management Areas 14 and 16 in the Core
Area. Crown Jewel Mine development would further reduce available SIT cover on
Buckhorn Mountain. The impact analysis for deer has been corrected to indicate that
28 to 55 acres of SIT cover would be lost depending on action alternative. (See Table
4.12.4, Impacts to Habitat Within the Core Area by Selected Wildlife Species and
Alternative, of the final EIS).
It is uncertain to what extent existing deer populations within the Analysis Area would
be affected by reductions of SIT cover within the Core Area. There is no data available
on current deer population numbers or the total amount of deer SIT cover within the
Analysis Area. It is possible that there would be at least some reduction in Core Area
deer numbers associated with a reduction in SIT cover.
Potential reductions in available habitat and local deer herd numbers would be mitigated
somewhat by road closures planned with the project. 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.
32a7b80 2P
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft E/S + L-133
Losses in deer SIT cover would be long-term since suitable SIT cover conditions would
take over 100 years to reestablish on reclaimed areas. Cumulative losses in SIT cover
have been primarily the result of past timber harvest. As indicted in Section 4.12.5,
Cumulative Effects, of the final EIS, timber harvest in the Analysis Area has decreased
dramatically over the last few years, and current levels of timber harvest are expected
to continue. With these projections, available SIT cover for deer would be anticipated
to increase, resulting in a long-term trend of habitat improvement for deer.
The recreation section notes that deer are likely to be displaced, not disappear, from
the facility areas for the life of the mine operation. Since deer utilize a variety of cover
types, deer would be using the area well before the 100 years needed for recovery
[Note - recovery refers to reestablishing a young mature forest, not the wildlife
population]. In fact, mitigation is proposed to facilitate deer movement through the
project fenced perimeter. See response 6.9.25 in this appendix, for a discussion of
influences on population densities.
6.9.46 Another concern is movement by displacement of the deer herds of Buckhorn
Mountain. Who would pay for the studies that need to be done on the impact on other
hunting areas next to Buckhorn? I understand that the Washington Department of Fish
and Wildlife manages these areas to specks of maximum carrying capacity the areas
would hold. Would there be studies done on the impact to the hunting population of
all these areas?
Response:
It is difficult to ascertain the intent of this comment, but we believe it expresses
concern for loss of hunting opportunity on Buckhorn Mountain as well as in adjacent
areas and how would these losses be documented.
This concern is addressed in Section 4.14, Recreation, that covers hunting
opportunities. The mine is expected to impact deer habitat which would result in a net
loss of deer over time. This loss would also represent an incremental loss of hunting
opportunity in the area. Some of this loss will be minimized or compensated by
proposed mitigation listed in the final EIS.
Other hunting opportunities would be lost by closing the project area to public hunting
during the life of the mine. It is possible some portion of the deer herd utilizing
Buckhorn Mountain would be displaced to other areas open to hunting. Although, it
is believed many of the deer will acclimate to the mine and remain on site. Some deer
may actually move into the area and use the mine site as a reserve during the hunting
season.
Displaced hunters who have traditionally hunted the project area may either choose to
hunt elsewhere, or may choose to stop hunting altogether. Those who choose to hunt
elsewhere may contribute to crowded conditions which could further reduce the overall
quality of the recreational hunting opportunity.
Studies designed to specifically document impacts to hunting opportunity are not
planned. Studies conducted during the development of the final EIS have determined
direct impacts to habitats and indirect impacts to activities such as recreation. Some
indication of impacts to hunting may be illustrated in the annual hunting season harvest
report prepared by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
6.9.47 Commentor notes that impacts to winter range are higher when impacts outside of
Forest Service Management Areas 14 and 26 are factored in. The actual loss of deer
winter range is much greater than estimated when cover is based on the total available
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-134
cover within the entire Core Area and not just those MA's managed for deer winter
range.
Response:
6.9.48
Response:
6.9.49
Response:
It was necessary to isolate the impacts to deer winter range for Management Areas 14
and 26 in order to assess whether the impacts comply with Okanogan National Forest
Land and Resource Management Plan direction. In contrast, the HEP analysis looked
at impacts to mule deer winter range throughout the entire core area without regard to
land ownership or jurisdiction.
Agencies have discounted studies, including field studies in the area itself, indicating
that deer do not depend on SIT cover that is above 4,600 feet in elevation.
Observations by A.G. Crook Company (1993d) and WADFW (G. Oakerman, WADFW,
personal communication) indicated that deer used mostly open, south-facing slopes
found at lower elevations during winter and that patches of mature forest cover near
the proposed mine site were little used by deer during winter. Most blocks of SIT in
the core area are too small to be of much value to deer. We believe that the quality
and quantity of SIT cover has been overstated.
Wintering deer use SIT that is higher than 4,600 feet in the Okanogan Highlands. This
is documented in a number of areas throughout the Highlands such as Cayuse
Mountain and Beehive/Tunk Mountain. There is no elevation break, other than where
higher elevations do not provide growing conditions that support the tree species and
stand conditions providing snow interception (e.g. high elevation lodgepole pine stands
and alpine conditions). The conditions on Buckhorn Mountain do support Douglas-fir
stands that provide snow intercept thermal cover. Observations of deer use of the
Buckhorn Mountain area during the winter are documented from sightings noted during
the Buckhorn and Nicholson timber sales. However, observations suggest that less
deer are utilizing the area with the recent Nicholson timber sale compared to numbers
seen during the Buckhorn timber sale. It is likely that current limited deer use of the
area in winter is primarily caused by past timber harvests and high road densities, but
also the result of impacts associated with mining exploration disturbance and habitat
loss. Both types of impacts reduced the level of snow intercept thermal cover.
When agencies received a draft of the Crown Jewel Project Wildlife Technical Report
(Beak, 1995a), the misapplication of TWHIP was also identified. Revised calculations
show both a reduced level of existing snow-intercept thermal cover and a narrowing
of differences between alternatives for this habitat. Revisions have been incorporated
into the final EIS.
Without question, it is desirable to have larger block sizes of SIT cover to provide more
effective winter use. However, Okanogan National Forest standards and guidelines do
not specify a minimum size requirement for SIT unlike the 30-acre minimum size for old
growth designation. Within deer winter range management areas, stand surveys
measure cover conditions at 10 points on a linear transect. Every survey point
represents 10% of the stand (e.g., 3 points of SIT correspond to 30% of the stand).
Mule deer are not a sensitive or listed species. They are common and adaptable. Any
impacts to winter range are likely to be largely offset by increased forage and forest
diversity of the reclaimed mine area.
Mule deer are indicator species on the Okanogan National Forest. Multi-agency
biologists have identified winter range as the limiting factor/habitat associated with
maintaining viable populations of mule deer, while recognizing that all seasonal ranges
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS * L-135
are important for survival. Good quality spring range can quickly boost energy reserves
depleted by winter conditions. Good summer and fall forage support the growth of
fawns and enable deer to reach their best physical condition necessary for entering
winter in good shape with adequate fat reserves. During winter, mule deer must cope
with the worst environmental conditions while consuming the poorest quality food.
Suitable winter range providing shallow snow, adequate food, and sufficient shelter
help deer maintain their energy balance by slowing the rate of weight loss during
winter. Deer can quickly lose weight and die if winter range is scarce or of poor
quality. Consequently, good winter range is essential for mule deer survival and
productivity.
One cannot totally offset the loss of winter range with similar acres of reclamation
forage. Among the reasons for this conclusion, the projected loss of soil productivity
would negatively affect forage quality and quantity. Also, there would be a time lag
when forage is unavailable until reclamation efforts have successfully restored some
level of forage.
Area biologists note that white-tailed deer populations are increasing throughout the
county, while mule deer populations appear to be declining. There is speculation that
declining mule deer numbers are tied to reductions in-winter range. White-tails appear
to be more adaptable to human settlement and disturbance.
6.9.50
Response:
All cover types provide wildlife with thermal cover, not just those types listed in
Section 3.13.2, Habitat Overview, of the EIS.
Thermal cover, as used in the section, is consistent with terminology used in the
Okanogan National Forest Land Resource Management Plan.
Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species
6.9.51
Response:
The northern goshawk is a candidate species under the Endangered Species Act for
listing at both the state and federal level. We are very concerned with the likely
impacts to goshawk, which the BE and EIS both state "may contribute to a trend
toward loss of population viability within the analysis area." Habitat would not be
suitable in the area to support goshawks for at least 100 years after reclamation
activities are completed.
Both the BE and draft EIS overstate the value of the Core Area to goshawks. Only two
(or possibly three) goshawks were seen within the 10,962 acre Core Area during
surveys done in 1993, and only three northern goshawk nests were found in the
72,700 acre Analysis Area several years ago. During more recent surveys conducted
by the Forest Service, no goshawks were found near the mine site. Thus statements
in the BE and especially the draft EIS on potential impacts of the Crown Jewel Project,
including habitat loss, noise, and light, on breeding and foraging goshawks are
overstated.
The goshawk and other candidate species found on the Tonasket Ranger District have
been down graded from "candidate species" to "species of concern" by the US Fish
and Wildlife Service. These species no longer have protection under the Endangered
Species Act, yet sufficient information exists to warrant concern about habitat and
populations over portions of their range.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-136
There were interpretation and assessment errors associated with the original delineation
and analysis of cover types for northern goshawk and several other wildlife species in
the draft EIS. As a result, estimates of available suitable habitat and projections for
habitat losses were inaccurate. Forest Service and TerraMatrix personnel have
corrected and updated the cover type mapping and recalculated potential impacts to
habitats for each action alternative. Methods and rationale for the development of the
corrected cover type map and analysis of potential impacts are available at the
Tonasket Ranger District in the Administrative Record for the EIS.
The revised baseline condition analysis for northern goshawk indicates that
approximately 614 acres, 2,491 acres, and 5,065 acres of nesting habitat,
post-fledging family area (PFA) habitat, and foraging habitat, respectively, are available
within the Core Area. Revised impact projections indicate that losses of potential
nesting habitat would range from 79 to 146 acres (13% to 24%) depending on
alternative. For potential PFA habitat, losses would range from 271 to 475 acres (11 %
to 19%), while reductions in potential foraging habitat would range from 565 to 778
acres (11 % to 15 %). At a minimum 468, 2,016, and 4,287 acres of nesting habitat,
PFA habitat, and foraging habitat, respectively, would remain in the Core Area
regardless of which alternative is selected.
A further consideration is that northern goshawk surveys in the Core area did not locate
any goshawks or goshawk nests within or near the Crown Jewel Project area. Surveys
for goshawks were conducted 1990 through 1994 during the spring and summer.
Survey methods included Region 6 protocol, taped voice calls, intuitive walk through
of likely habitat and checks of inactive known nests.
No management guidelines for maintaining goshawk populations in the Okanogan
National Forest are available. 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 vary from one to four 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 (Forest Service, 1991 a).
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 10,962 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.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS » L-137
Existing habitat conditions and habitat losses associated with project development were
reevaluated with respect to known habitat requirements and management
recommendations discussed above. Based on existing information on home range
sizes, distances between home ranges, and available suitable habitat, the 10,962 acre
wildlife Core Area studied for the Crown Jewel Project could support a maximum of
one nesting pair of goshawks. The project area represents less than 10% of the Core
Area, but potential goshawk habitat would be impacted disproportionately by project
development. As noted above reductions in nesting and PFA habitat would range from
13% to 24% and 11 % to 19%, respectively. It is important to note, however, that
direct impacts to a nesting pair are not anticipated since no goshawk nest sites were
located near the project area. Development of the Crown Jewel Project could have an
indirect adverse effect on goshawks by reducing the extent of suitable habitat that
could be occupied in the future. Noise and human activity associated with the mine
implementation would create a short term (life of the mine) reduction in available
nesting and PFA habitat within the core area. Following mine cessation, adequate
levels of nesting, PFA, and foraging habitat would remain within the Core Area to
support one nesting pair of goshawks, and therefore, reductions in the population
viability of northern goshawk within the Analysis Area is unlikely.
After cessation of mining, the primary focus of mitigation would 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. In addition, the EIS analysis (Section 4.12.5,
Cumulative Effects, of the final EIS) 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 projections, 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.
6.9.52 The mine would influence the travel of such species as the grizzly bear and wolf during
their seasonal wanderings from Canada.
Response:
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. Movement of gray
wolf or grizzly bear between British Columbia and the southern portions of the
Okanogan Highlands has not been documented, but dispersal between the two areas
is possible over the long-term. The Okanogan Highlands have not been identified as
a movement linkage between the Selkirk and Northern Cascades Recovery Zones
designated for grizzly bear (USFWS, 1993).
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. Portions of existing movement
linkages in the vicinity of Buckhorn Mountain would be disrupted by the mine footprint
and associated human activities. Dispersing grizzlies or gray 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 mine disturbance area would represent less than 1 % of
the total acreage within the Analysis Area. The majority of the Analysis Area would
not be physically altered by the proposed mine and would continue to provide
functional travel linkages for potential grizzly and gray wolf movement from British
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS * 1-735
Columbia into the southern portions of the Okanogan Highlands. For wide-ranging
species such as grizzly bear or gray wolf, a mine caused minor shift in dispersal travel
through the Analysis Area would be insignificant.
6.9.53 I think some of the Biological Evaluations verge on the ridiculous. The draft EIS
rambles on about potential impacts to endangered, threatened, candidate and sensitive
species-many of which don't even occur in the site or analysis areas. (Examples:
California Bighorn Sheep, Grizzly Bear, Gray Wolf, Pygmy Rabbit.) No threatened or
endangered species have been found in the site area, nor is the site within the bounds
of any recovery zone or close to a sensitive wilderness area or park. Wildlife studies
show unreasonable concern for the responsibility that the project disturbance (< 1.0%)
would have on 72,700 acres of the greater analysis area.
Instead of just objectively seeking out the truth about the proposal about the feasibility
of the mine, the draft EIS has taken this opportunity to enter a fantasy land about
grizzly bear, gray wolves, California wolverines, and California bighorn sheep. It
becomes impossible to decide if the draft EIS was looking at a mine or a possible zoo.
The discussions in the EIS tend to overstate the importance of the project area to
grizzly bear and wolf since they are wide ranging species. This is especially true for
the wolf and grizzly bear, which may never use the site, or rarely at best.
Response:
One standard method utilized in the wildlife analysis proceeds with the following steps:
1. Define the differing habitat types in the project area (cover types);
2. Identify key species of concern to use as evaluation species (refer to response
6.9.25 in this appendix);
3. Identify the cover types these species are known to utilize based on literature
reviews; and
4. Document changes in the cover types as a consequence of mine development.
The evaluation species are selected animals that either are known to occur,
suspected to occur, or have historically occurred in the analysis area. This
method does not imply that the species would be found in the available habitat
at any given point in time even though the analysis area is within the
geographic range of all the evaluation species. Specific information
documenting the known occurrence of species is provided in Section 3.13.5,
Wildlife Species Overview, of the final EIS.
The wildlife analysis does point out the impact human activity has on these species.
However that does not negate the need to evaluate the availability of habitat. For
example, where habitat is present, the impact from human activities can be mitigated
by effective area road closures. Note - the HEP specifically modeled the impacts that
occur from human disturbance in the sharp-shinned hawk model. Refer also to
Sections 4.1 and 4.2 of the Biological Assessment (Appendix H) Wildlife Biological
Assessment/Wildlife Biological Evaluation, of the final EIS.
The Core and Analysis areas contain some of the necessary characteristics for suitable
grizzly bear and gray wolf habitats (e.g., vegetation types and food sources), but other
important habitat characteristics are missing. Missing characteristics for the grizzly
bear include isolation, sanitation, suitable den sites, and safety. The general lack of
isolation, sanitation, suitable den sites, and safety habitat features reduces the
likelihood that grizzly bears would occupy habitats in the Core and Analysis areas in the
future.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS 4 L-139
Development of the Crown Jewel Project would not adversely affect existing
populations of gray wolf because no viable wolf populations occur in the Analysis Area.
Crown Jewel Mine development would have little adverse effect 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. 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. The Crown Jewel Project would contribute to a small incremental
adverse, cumulative effect of reduced available habitat.
6.9.54
Response:
6.9.55
Response:
6.9.56
Response:
6.9.57
I am afraid we would lose two breeding pair of loons on Beth & Beaver Lakes due to
increased traffic, noise, disturbance, recreation and spills. The short-term reduction of
the Loon population may lead to an important loss of genetic diversity.
This comment has been addressed in Appendix H, Wildlife Biological Assessment and
Biological Evaluation, and Section 3.13.6, Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive
Species, subsection" Common Loon," which concludes that project development would
not result in the direct loss of nesting or foraging habitat within the Core or Analysis
Area. However, loons using lakes in Beaver Creek Canyon could be exposed to direct
disturbance impacts from light and glare, and noise. Loons would likely acclimate to
the moderate increases in traffic noise and associated light in the transportation
corridor. Increases in human disturbance, with project development, could have minor
adverse effects on the common loon. 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. If a spill of toxic materials should occur near common loons, individual
loons or a breeding pair could be adversely affected.
Don't we have to deal with the Endangered Species Act since bears are in the area?
A Biological Assessment (BA) has been prepared that documents the effects of the
mine on threatened and endangered species. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is
consulted on the determinations reached in the BA as required by Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act. Refer to Appendix H, Wildlife Biological Assessment and
Biological Evaluation.
Both my wife and myself have observed a bald eagle at Beaver Lake.
The Wildlife Biological Assessment (Appendix H) Section 12.7, of the final EIS clarifies
the Determination of Effects for Bald Eagles expected from the project.
The formation of a pit lake would provide habitat for a breeding pair of common loons.
I disagree with the draft EIS statement that the pit lake would be too small for a pair
of loons. Loons use Lost Lake and it is smaller than the proposed pit lake. I am
concerned that loons would become attracted to this open water as it is rare in the
Analysis Area. Also that they could become sick from toxins while resting on the open
water.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS * L -140
Response:
6.9.58
Response:
6.9.59
Common loons inhabit large wooded lakes which have an ample supply of fish and are
of sufficient size to allow loons to take flight and clear surrounding trees (Terres, 1980,
Rodrick and Milner, 1991). Preferred nesting habitat is considered to be clear, secluded
lakes larger than 10 acres and below 5,000 feet in elevation (Reel et al., 1989). They
typically breed on lakes which have healthy fish populations (Cannings et al., 1987,
Rodrick and Milner, 1991). Nests are built of matted grasses, rushes, and twigs within
four feet of the water's edge (Terres, 1980).
The pit lake is projected to be approximately 20 acres in size. The EIS and the
Biological Evaluation have been revised to indicate that 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 (Table
4.7.3, Impacts of Mining on Buckhorn Mountain Drainages, of the final EIS), pit lake
waters would not create a toxic risk for loons or other waterbirds.
Habitat changes would result in effects to Candidate 2 species.
Due to the revisions in the candidate species list by the USFWS, no candidate species
occur within the Core or Analysis area. Previously listed candidate species occurring
in the project area are now considered species of concern and have no protection under
the Endangered Species Act.
Effects to these species have been addressed in Section 3.13.6, Threatened,
Endangered, and Sensitive Species, and Section 4.12, Wildlife.
The draft Biological Evaluation for the Crown Jewel Project states that suitable foraging
and breeding habitat for amphibians and the spotted frog at the frog pond should be
unaffected by project-related activities. This seems unlikely as numerous wetlands
would have reduced flows for at least ten years and probably greater than 15 to 20
years. As a consequence, the vegetational structure and diversity of the wetlands, and
particularly for the frog pond, would change. Wetlands would be reduced in size and
the value of the frog pond, as a wetland, would diminish. The alteration of the pond
and other wetlands would negatively impact wildlife dependent on wetland/riparian
habitat.
Response:
6.9.60
The spotted frog was selected as a HEP evaluation species to focus on how mine
development may affect amphibians. The HEP addressed and documented changes in
habitat quality and quantity. The Biological Evaluation in Appendix H, focused on
impacts to spotted frogs, noting the effects of habitat loss, and increases in light, noise
and road traffic. The main area where impacts to amphibians may occur is the frog
pond. Surface flow reductions to the frog pond of at least 40% are projected with
mine development alternatives. The HEP study assumed that wetland habitats would
be replaced by riparian habitat in the affected area of the frog pond and other wetlands.
The cumulative effect of changes in habitat quality, and potential impacts from noise,
lights and road traffic may lead to reductions in the number of spotted frogs and other
amphibians in the frog pond. Additional impact to amphibians would occur where
wetland habitats are replaced by the mine operation or dewatered due to altered flows
going into the pit. Mitigation augmenting flows to the frog pond and nearby nine-acre
wetland has been identified.
Information on the occurrence of spotted bats near the analysis area is speculative as
no spotted bats were captured at these sites and no analysis was done of call
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS 4 L-141
frequencies of the bats. We question the relevance of bat sightings 15 to 100 miles
away from the Analysis Area, and whether such sightings are "near the Analysis Area"
as stated in the table and associated text.
Response:
6.9.61
Response:
6.9.62
Response:
The information on bats utilizes the best available information. Note that the spotted
bat information comes from three and ten miles away from the Analysis Area.
Given the need for seclusion, it is highly unlikely that 95 percent of the analysis area
and core area is suitable for grizzly bear. On page 3-133, paragraph 5 of the draft EIS,
the statement is made that it is unlikely that grizzly bears occur in the core or analysis
areas due to levels of human activity found in the areas. We agree with this latter
statement, and believe the 95 percent figure should be significantly reduced.
This comment is addressed in Section 4.2 of the Wildlife Biological Assessment and
Biological Evaluation (Appendix H). The Core and Analysis areas contain some of the
necessary characteristics for suitable grizzly bear habitat (e.g., vegetation types and
food sources), but other important habitat characteristics including isolation, sanitation,
suitable den sites, and safety are lacking. The general lack of isolation, sanitation,
suitable den sites, and safety habitat features reduces the likelihood that grizzly bears
would occupy habitats in the Core and Analysis areas in the future.
What is the source of the statement that grizzly bears were once permanent residents
in the Okanogan Highlands? Unless this can be documented, the sentence should be
revised.
Historic range maps for the grizzly bear are found in the North Cascades Grizzlv Bear
Ecosystem Evaluation Final Report. September 1993. This document is located on the
Tonaskef Ranger District. For more information on grizzly bear sightings refer to
Section 4.2 of Appendix H, Wildlife Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation.
6.9.63
Response:
6.9.64
Response:
6.9.65
Because WADFW does not always verify sightings or the ability of the observer to
make identifications, data on wolf sightings may include coyote, coyote/dog, or
wolf/dog hybrids. This should be noted in the discussion.
Clarifications on the validity of sightings is provided in the wildlife narrative in Section
3.13, Wildlife, of the final EIS.
Some mention should be made at the end of the paragraph (Section 3.13.6,
Endangered, Threatened, Candidate and Sensitive Species, draft EIS Paragraph one) of
the fact that despite the presence of food and some cover, it is unlikely that wolves
would use the area due to the level of human disturbance. In addition, again, a general
note should be made for wide-ranging species that the number of individuals, if any,
that would use the site would be small.
Section 4.1, Gray Wolf, of the Wildlife Biological Assessment (Appendix H) in the final
EIS addresses your comments.
The discussion should note that although Townsend's bats may use the adits, data
collected to date suggest they do not.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-142
Response:
6.9.66
Response:
6.9.67
Response:
6.9.68
Response:
Your comment is addressed in Table 3.13.3, Bat Detections In or Near the Analysis
Area, of the final EIS and in response 6.9.41 in this appendix.
Define what is meant by Goshawk foraging habitat.
For purposes of this analysis, goshawk foraging habitat was determined using the
successional stage vegetation groups. Foraging habitat included old growth, young
mature, and mature mixed conifer forests including nesting habitat and post fledging
areas.
The impact of road densities on wolves has no apparent relevance to this Project.
Your comment is addressed in Section 4.1, Wildlife Biological Assessment (Appendix
H), of the final EIS. Impacts associated with mine operations, increased roads and
increased human presence would be short-term and cease after completion of mining
operations. 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. The Crown Jewel Project would contribute to a small incremental
adverse, cumulative effect of reduced available habitat.
There is no evidence to suggest that bats use the Gold and Double Axe for roosts
based on observations in the adits during the day, from trapping operations, and use
of bat ecolocators (ENSR, 1994).
Your comment is addressed in Section 4.12.7, Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive
Species, of the EIS.
Habitat Evaluation Procedure
6.9.69
Response:
6.9.70
The commentor wants a documented review of wildlife in the proposed route area.
What are the impacts of noise and traffic on animals in Beaver Canyon.
Since logging trucks use the road in Beaver Canyon, the type of noise associated with
transport trucks already occurs in the canyon. However, the volume of traffic and
duration of noise would increase. The impacts of noise on wildlife is discussed in
Section 4.12.3, Effects Common to All Action Alternatives, Subsection "Noise."
Traffic impacts are discussed in Section 4.12.3, Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives, Subsection "Roads." Forest Service monitoring of golden eagle, loon, and
black tern activity is planned in Beaver Canyon to help determine whether key species
are being affected.
HEP surveys and TWHIP surveys were conducted on the habitats in the proposed route
area. Wildlife sightings were noted during these surveys. In addition, Breeding Bird
Surveys have been conducted on a portion of Beaver Canyon. These sightings have
been incorporated into the species list for the Crown Jewel Project area.
The EIS should use the results of the HEP to describe wildlife habitat effects and
mitigation opportunities. In addition, when addressing impacts to various wildlife
species using the Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP), it is important to include the
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Puttl/c Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-143
amount of habitat units (HUs) within the core and to determine both the extent of
impact and the extent of mitigation that should be required.
Response:
6.9.71
Response:
The Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) was used to model impacts of both mine
exploration and mine development. The EIS focuses on the impacts of mine
development, since mine exploration was covered under a previous NEPA document.
The use of a mitigation HEP is not required in order to complete the final EIS.
However, the option to use HEP to measure the effectiveness of mitigation is still
available to the WADFW if they choose to pursue it.
The HEP did assess habitat quality and quantity for the entire core area (approximately
24,000 acres), defining the habitat units (HUs) for each of the ten evaluation species
or guilds. The evaluation species included spotted frog which evaluated small wetland
emergent cover quality and water stability, black tern which evaluated lacustrine,
wetland and aquatic bed wetlands, and veery which evaluated deciduous riparian and
forested wetlands. The HEP summary is included in both the draft EIS and final EIS
showing the changes in HUs for each species or guild with the differing mine
development alternatives. Changes in HUs from baseline conditions could form the
basis for the level of mitigation that would be required for compensation. At this time,
a mitigation HEP which would quantify the value of proposed reclamation activity to
offset losses in HUs has not been pursued. Negotiations between the Proponent and
WADFW concerning compensatory mitigation are still ongoing.
Habitat conditions within the core area would not remain static under the "No Action"
alternative. Based on WADFW HEP (1996) projections using land management
information provided by the Forest Service, BLM and WADNR, most forest habitats
within the core area would be significantly impacted by ongoing forest management
activities. For example, loss of deer SIT cover is predicted to be much greater without
the Crown Jewel Project than with the Project during the next 60 years. The
discussio'n should be revised to reflect these projections.
For some species, and in particular species that rely upon young mature and mature
forest habitat conditions in the year 2040, with or without the Crown Jewel Project,
would be very similar. For example, the amount of suitable habitat available for the
fisher, pileated woodpecker, sharp-shinned hawk and mule deer in winter would differ
by less than 100 acres with or without the project in the year 2048. Given that the
analysis area in the WADFW HEP study was 24,000 acres, these differences are
insignificant. The draft EIS wildlife discussions and impact calculations should be
revised to consider these and other similar results of the WADFW HEP study, so that
the Crown Jewel Project impacts are not exaggerated by an erroneous assumption of
a static condition under the "no action" alternative.
This comment refers to a projection derived from the HEP study which modeled what
future impacts may take place over time if mine development didn't occur. The intent
of modeling this "without the mine/no-action" scenario is to determine the actual
projected impact of each mine development alternative. The impact is determined by
comparing the differences in Habitat Units when "action mine development
alternatives" are compared to the "without the mine" scenario. The modeling was
based on applying management direction provided by each respective agency. For the
Okanogan National Forest, three different management area approaches were utilized
(MA-25, MA-14, and MA-26). A large portion of the project area is in MA-25 which
is not managed for SIT. This was partially the basis for the comment that SIT would
be eliminated anyway.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-144
However, it is important to recognize that the HEP modeling for "without the mine" is
only a modeling tool that helps to determine the impact of proposed action alternatives.
The projected actions 'without the mine' are an attempt to define a likely scenario,
rather than an effort to precisely identify where and when actions would take place.
For example, recent Interim Management Direction Establishing Riparian, Ecosystem
and Wildlife Standards for Timber Sales have modified the Forest Plan and Management
Area direction that had been the basis for the HEP modeling future impacts on national
forest lands. In contrast to previous direction, late and old structural stages (which
often provide SIT) now would be retained even in MA-25, when the existing level of
late and old structural stages is below the range of what would have historically
occurred.
The draft EIS recognized in the "no action" alternative that forest management,
recreation and livestock grazing would continue and that impacts associated with these
activities would be expected to continue. The commentor chooses to interpret this as
"conditions would remain essentially unchanged." One can talk in generalities about
what may happen in the area without the mine, but it is difficult to go into detail
without specific projects to assess. In contrast, the proposed "mine development
action alternatives" provide very site specific actions that are the basis for detailed
analysis of effects.
The final EIS is required to document and analyze the impacts of proposed mine
development alternatives. To use a clarifying example, trees would be harvested to
facilitate the development of mine operations. In this case, timber harvest would be
an impact connected with mine development. In contrast, if the mine is not developed
and a timber sale occurs in the same area, then the impact is connected with the
timber sale.
The final EIS clearly points out that putting a mining operation on Buckhorn Mountain
area would include differing impacts to wildlife besides changes in habitat. The
analysis addresses both large (analysis area) and narrower (core area) scales in defining
the impact.
6.9.72 A map showing the HEP study area would be helpful. Why did the area of analysis
differ from that used for the TWHIP and other habitat studies done for the draft EIS?
What were the criteria used to select species for the HEP analysis?
Response:
The HEP analysis area slightly increases the study area from that used by the TWHIP
survey. The revisions were made to more completely incorporate the areas where
impacts were projected.
There were two primary criteria used to select species for the HEP analysis. The first
was that the models were expected to assess potential changes in priority habitats
which are:
a. Old growth forests as defined by the Forest Service;
b. Mature forests;
c. Riparian habitat regardless of its vegetation composition;
d. Shrublands/steppe habitat;
e. Prairie/steppe habitat;
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-145
f. Aspen (hardwood) habitat;
g. Snags (large and small diameter);
h. Wetlands in at least five major categories (palustrine forest, palustrine scrub
shrub, palustrine emergent, aquatic bed, and lacustrine); and,
i. Downed woody material.
The second criteria was that the models were expected to assess potential changes in
habitat quantity and quality of the following priority wildlife species that potentially
occur on or would be impacted by the mine, including:
a. Common loon;
b. Black tern;
c. Northern goshawk;
d. Swainson's hawk;
e. Golden eagle;
f. Ruffed grouse;
g. Blue grouse;
h. Sharp-tailed grouse;
i. Great blue heron;
j. Pileated woodpecker;
k. Black-backed woodpecker;
I. Vaux's swift;
m. Western bluebird;
n. Mountain bluebird;
o. Deer winter snow intercept thermal cover;
p. Deer summer range;
q. Marten;
r. Neotropical migrant birds;
s. Cavity nesting birds; and,
t. Spotted frog.
6.9.73 Several habitat suitability index (HSI) scores in the draft EIS and HEP study are
incorrect. These include the spotted frog (0.46), the vesper sparrow (0.92), the fisher
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-146
(0.66) and the sharp-shinned hawk (0.78). The correct mule deer summer range HSI
is 0.42.
Due to an error in calculating the HSI score for the pileated woodpecker, its HSI score
is reduced to 0.31. This reflects the lack of large (greater than 20 inches d.b.h.) trees
on the Core Area due to past forest management practices. Based upon the revised
model, the quality of the habitat for pileated would be similar before and after the
Crown Jewel Project.
Response:
6.9.74
Response:
6.9.75
Response:
The HSI computer model for the pileated woodpecker contained an error in the
determination of the suitability index for large snags <> 20" d.b.h.). Forest stands with
low snag densities had higher habitat quality than the correct model would ascribe to
them. While this means that the quality of pileated woodpecker habitat impacted is
overestimated, the quality of developing and reclaimed forest stands is also
overestimated. WADFW does not think it necessary to reanalyze the HEP using the
corrected model for pileated woodpeckers because of this "compensation" effect.
Consistent application would also allow a reasonable comparison between impacts and
benefits from the developing mitigation plan.
The draft EIS states that the HEP analysis predicts impacts to wildlife species chosen
to evaluate wetland/deciduous riparian habitats. The statement is made that "the
impacts are primarily a function of habitat loss due to disturbance and habitat
degradation due to the reduction of stream flows and lowering of the ground water
levels." Because the streamflow reduction data are expressed only in terms of overall
impacts to drainage basins, it is not clear how this data was used in the HEP analysis.
Neither the draft EIS nor the HEP Study Summary indicate how the generalized
streamflow data were used to make quantitative predictions about changes to specific
habitat types. Additional supporting data should be presented about more accurate
predictions of streamflow and ground water impacts.
The following reports and letters address your comments. The HEP Final Report and
Comments on the draft EIS; Ron Friesz, WADFW letter of August 29, 1996 to Patty
Betts, WADOE; Hydro-Geo Study, Technical Report - Analysis of the Open Pit Mine
Inflow for the Proposed Crown Jewel Project: and, Ron Friesz, WADFW letter of
January 1996 to Patty Betts, WADOE.
A great deal of time was spent cover typing the wildlife habitats within the core and
analysis areas by the HEP Team. The final EIS should explain why these cover types,
and associated wildlife habitats which are more descriptive than those presented, were
not used in the draft EIS.
The HEP analyzed the impacts of both mine exploration and mine development.
Baseline conditions for the HEP were based on the pre-exploration environment. In
contrast, this EIS is analyzing the impacts of proposed mine development. The baseline
condition for the EIS is based on the post-exploration environment. Consequently the
EIS did not utilize the HEP to describe baseline and mine development impacts. The
HEP is valuable for assessing the total impact of mine exploration and development and
can be used to assess the level of mitigation required to offset project total impacts.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft E/S • L-147
Methods
6.9.76
Response:
6.9.77
Response:
6.9.78
Response:
6.9.79
Response:
6.9.80
Response:
6.9.81
Response:
What is the justification for defining the core area as one mile out from the footprint?
Agency biologists from the Forest Service, BLM, WADFW, and USFWS delineated the
Core Area to include the area within one mile of the footprint. It was the professional
opinion of the biologists that impacts may go out one mile from the footprint, and
therefore should be included as part of the Core Area.
The distinction between wet and moist bottom land habitats is unclear.
No distinction was made between wet and moist bottomland habitats. A distinction
is made between upland grassland and bottom land grasslands. The areas were
delineated based on topography. Upland grasslands occur on ridges and upper slopes
whereas bottom land grasslands occur in the bottom of drainages.
The commentor questions the use of riparian buffers rather than what actually exists,
especially in situations near steep slopes and hills.
Riparian buffers, as a concept, have been utilized by the Forest Service to indicate a
zone of influence supporting riparian functions. For example, the Inland Native Fish
Strategy guidelines outline distances surrounding fish bearing streams where
management activities are limited.
Human presence within the core area is not low based on information provided in
Section 3.15, Recreation, of the final EIS.
The statement made is that human presence is low in regard to permanent residences
but increases due to recreation. The statement about human presence made in
cumulative effects (Section 3.13.3, Land Use Patterns and Human Activity Influencing
Wildlife), does not contradict statements made in Section 3.15, Recreation.
Additionally, the statement is qualitative. For quantitative information the reader should
refer to Section 3.15, Recreation, of the final EIS.
The draft EIS should reflect that a high road density in the core area is also due to past
logging activities and not just mineral exploration.
The final EIS has been edited to note that road density within the core areas is high
(6.08 miles per square mile) due to past mineral exploration and logging activities.
However, road density is higher within the core area primarily due to past mineral
exploration. Other areas in the Forest do not have comparably high road density (more
that 6 mi/mi2) where only logging activities have occurred.
The statement in the draft EIS that pileated woodpeckers are common in the area may
be misleading or wrong.
Pileated woodpeckers were frequently observed during TWHIP surveys (wildlife
observations were recorded on the TWHIP forms). Ron Friesz described his
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-148
observations of pileated woodpeckers within the area in a personal communication
(2/10/94).
6.9.82
Response:
6.9.83
Response:
6.9.84
Response:
What is meant by long-term? Also, the landscape is currently covered with topsoil.
As stated in Section 4.12.3, Effects Common to All Action Alternatives, long-term is
more than 100 years. Reclaimed areas would be bedrock covered with stored topsoil.
Stored topsoil placed on bedrock would not have the same characteristics (components
and structure) as naturally occurring topsoil on bedrock.
Estimates of trees per acre under natural forest succession presented in Table 4.12.3,
Comparison of Forest Secession on Buckhorn Mountain Under Reclaimed and Natural
Scenarios, of the draft EIS do not match field data presented by Beak (1995a).
The estimates of trees per acre under natural forest succession presented in Table
4.12.3, Comparison of Forest Secession on Buckhorn Mountain Under Reclaimed and
Natural Scenarios, of the final EIS were derived from WADNR empirical growth and
yield tables for the site index and site class representative of the core area. Differences
between these estimates and that collected on-site likely reflect past management
activities which have occurred on-site. However, the point of this table was to
illustrate the estimated differences in tree age to reach specified tree diameters for
forest succession on reclaimed land as compared to natural forest succession. No
conclusions were drawn for number of trees present.
The assumption for future timber harvest in the analysis area presented under
cumulative effects differs from that presented in the HEP.
The cumulative effects analysis looked at reasonably foreseeable future actions. This
included the activities that are identified by the Okanogan National Forest five year
action plan. This process is consistent with how cumulative effects are completed on
other Forest Service projects. The HEP is a modeling tool, where projections of likely
timber harvest scenarios based on the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (but not
identified site specific projects) are modeled to portray impacts within a 60 year period.
The scenario under HEP is not a likely scenario since it did not consider reductions in
future timber harvests on National Forest lands based on the impacts from the Crown
Jewel Project. It also did not consider interim direction on riparian protection which is
part of the Inland Native Fish Strategy Decision or direction based on the Continuation
of Interim Management Direction Establishing Riparian Ecosystem and Wildlife
Standards for Timber Sales (Forest Service, 1994).
Noise Impacts
6.9.85 The noise impacts to wildlife are overstated. Noise doesn't bother coyotes and deer.
Response:
Section 4.12.3, Effects Common to All Action Alternatives, of the EIS recognizes that
some species are known to habituate to noise. The section also describes situations
where noise has the potential to negatively affect wildlife. It's important to recognize
that different kinds of animals (or even different individuals of the same species) may
not react in the same way to noise disturbance. Timing of a disturbance is a factor.
For example, interruptions during the critical times of breeding, nesting, and hibernation
can affect reproductive success or survival.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-149
6.9.86
Response:
6.9.87
Response:
6.9.88
Response:
Nighttime operations during the summer would substantially exceed ambient noise
levels over approximately 5,200 acres outside the mine footprint [4-85]. Blasting
(which would occur only during daytime) would result in adverse noise impact to an
area of about 5,600 and 2,900 acres beyond the footprint.
The areas that define where noise would impact wildlife are centered around Buckhorn
Mountain. With noise attenuation, noise levels would continue to drop with increasing
distance away from Buckhorn Mountain. The noise section makes a statement about
hearing from the vantage point of the nearest residential dwellings and not from being
on Buckhorn Mountain.
Concern for the effects of night time blasting and the impact to hibernating animals.
All routine blasting would occur during the day. No blasting is proposed during the
night except in an extreme emergency to protect life or property. Mitigation to
minimize the effects of blasting includes establishing regular blasting times in order to
provide animals the best chance of acclimating to blasting disturbance.
There are limited available studies on the effects of blasting on hibernating animals.
As described in the wildlife analysis, noise disrupting hibernating animals can increase
stress and reduce energy reserves needed to survive the winter. Disturbance can lead
to abandoning a den which places an animal at risk unless it can find an alternate
shelter.
The commentor disagrees with using the 10 dBA increase over ambient as a noise
impact criteria. Noise levels exceeding 20 dBA above background noise are more likely
to be the level impacting wildlife, rather than the 10 dBA level.
A 20-decibel increase above ambient would be perceived by humans as four times
louder. This level would underestimate potential adverse effects to wildlife. An
increase of 10 decibels above ambient is considered substantial enough to result in
detrimental impacts to wildlife. Under normal conditions, a three-decibel change in
noise level (a doubling of sound pressure level) is barely detectable to the human ear,
a five-decibel change is considered to be readily noticeable, while a ten-decibel increase
(judged by most people to be twice as loud) represents a substantial increase (Bruel and
Kjaer, 1984, and USDOT, 1980).
The data provided in the Baseline Noise Monitoring Report (Hart Crowser, 1993)
represents the worst-case expected sources and levels of noise for the action
alternatives. The data are provided on an A-weighted scale representing the frequency
spectrum audible to the human ear (the evaluations were of potential noise impacts on
humans).
Wildlife are receptive to different sound frequency spectrums, much of which may be
inaudible to humans (i.e., outside the range represented by "A-weighted" sound
pressure levels). Furthermore, different wildlife species may be sensitive to different
sound pressure levels. Different species of wildlife, and different individuals within the
same species, may respond differently to increases in sound pressure level or changes
in the nature of the sound. The potential effect depends upon the nature of the noise
(continuous or impulse), the sound pressure level increase above background, the
behavior of the species (related to season and time of day), the level of wildlife use of
the area, and the tolerance of the species or individual.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-150
Some species are known to habituate to certain types of noise or certain noise levels
(e.g., noise from highway traffic). Some species are generally much more tolerant of
loud noises than other species. In general, wildlife are most likely to habituate to
noises that are steady or continuous, or frequently occur (e.g., traffic, operation of
heavy equipment). Wildlife which do habituate to noise often show an initial period of
avoidance. Wildlife are less likely to habituate to sudden, infrequent impulse noises
such as from blasting or rock dumping.
Generally, noise has the greatest potential to adversely affect wildlife when they are
breeding, nesting, hibernating, denning, roosting, or performing critical life functions.
For example, noise may cause raptors or other birds to flush from nests leaving young
or eggs exposed to weather or predators. Noise may disrupt hibernating or denning
animals (e.g., bats, bear, frogs), resulting in abandonment of the site, increased stress,
reduced energy reserves, or death from exposure. Noise disturbance may reduce
foraging time and/or increase energy expenditure (e.g., due to fleeing or flushing). For
these reasons, it is not possible to identify a specific sound pressure level which would
adversely affect individual wildlife species. Nonetheless, a ten-decibel increase in
sound pressure level above ambient is considered a conservative estimate of the level
which could potentially affect wildlife.
6.9.89 The commentor feels that 45 - 60 dBA levels would not affect wildlife and notes
studies done by ENSR at military installations.
Response:
The ENSR reports do not identify specific noise levels associated with the human
activities discussed. The reports do identify some tolerance and lack of statistical
association between human activities (e.g., firing, fence construction, vehicle traffic,
etc.) and Swainson's hawk (n = 25) and burrowing owl (n = 5) nest activity, success,
and productivity, between human activities and raven nest productivity. However, the
reports attribute military and other human activities to nesting failure of Swainson's
hawks, burrowing owls, ravens, red-tailed hawks, and Cooper's hawks. Furthermore,
the reports recommend restriction on military and other human activities around raptor
nest sites.
The evaluation of potential impacts of noise from the mining operation was done for
wildlife in general. Published data on the response of wildlife to noise is limited to a
few species only. It is true that some individuals of some species would not be
affected whatsoever. Many species and individuals within a species are tolerant of, or
would acclimate to, some types or levels of noise and are probably unaffected by
natural noises such as thunder. It is also true that at the same noise level, some
species would be adversely affected. However, analyzing potential effects of noise to
each species which could potentially occupy the project area is not possible or
practical. It is also inappropriate to determine effects to all wildlife based on
documented evidence from a few species alone. Consequently, the analysis is
conservative, and in no way implies that all individuals or all wildlife species would be
adversely affected. Impacts could be less than those indicated, but the approach is not
extremely conservative and the actual impacts would not be significantly less than
indicated.
Perhaps noise levels of 45 to 55 dBA would be tolerated by some individuals or some
species of wildlife. Indeed, there are some species that do occur and thrive in semi-
rural areas and along noisy roadsides. However, the mining operation is expected to
produce a noise level of 100 dBA, with blasting expected to be as loud as 105 dBA
(Section 4.13.3, Effects Common to All Action Alternatives, draft EIS page 4-110).
A noise level of 100 to 105 dBA would be about the same as a jet flying over at less
than 1,000 feet, or a rock band at 15 feet. In the 5,600-acre noise impact zone
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • 1-757
predicted when blasting during the summer, the noise level would range from 105 dBA
to 55 dBA. This would be perceived by humans to be as much as 64 times as loud as
the 45 dBA ambient level. In the predicted summer nighttime impact zone of 5,200
acres, the noise level would range from 100 dBA to 45 dBA. This would be perceived
to be as much as 64 times as loud as the 35 dBA ambient level. It is only at the
perimeter or limits of the impact zones where noise would be perceived as twice as
loud as ambient noise (i.e., exceed ambient by 10 dBA).
The commentor disagrees with the statement that noise represents the greatest
potential effect to wildlife of the Crown Jewel Project.
The language in the final EIS has been clarified. The effects of noise on wildlife is
emphasized because it can be quantified and represents a considerable potential for
disturbance to wildlife from the proposed project. However, noise is just one of the
factors reducing habitat suitability. The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on
habitat quality and quantity are likely the greatest impacts to wildlife associated with
mine development.
The commentor questions the use of USDOT standards.
6.9.90
Response:
6.9.91
Response:
The USDOT standard is provided as an example of an average noise level for natural
areas at which, if substantially exceeded by a proposed action, would require the
consideration of noise abatement measures. Logging, hunting, snowmobiling, etc. do
occur in the area, but these activities are occasional and intermittent and generally do
not occur continuously from a large fixed location as the mine operation would.
Miscellaneous
6.9.92
Response:
Buckhorn Mountain is located in a strategic wildlife corridor between British Columbia
and the Colville Reservation used by deer, lynx and wolverines. The mine with its
roads and activity would make this area impassable. There is a need to address the
impacts of the mine on the wildlife corridor between British Columbia and the Colville
Reservation.
The concept of maintaining wildlife corridors in forested environments is based on the
intuition that linking separate habitat patches with forested cover would assist animal
movement and connections between isolated populations. The probability that a
particular corridor would be used would vary by species (their mobility, habitat and
security requirements), and the landscape context. For example, aquatic animals would
heavily use riparian corridors that upland species may use infrequently. Section 4.12.3,
Effects Common to All Action Alternatives, of the draft EIS addressed the issue of how
travel corridors on Buckhorn Mountain and the western portion of the analysis area
would be impacted by mining activities, specifically identifying disrupted forested
corridors. These forested corridors were identified using the guidelines provided by the
Interim Management Direction Establishing Riparian, Ecosystems, and Wildlife
Standards for Timber Sales. The draft EIS section also noted that functional wildlife
corridors would remain in the eastern portion of the analysis area, including the
unroaded Jackson Creek drainage.
Animal movements of large mammals can be characterized in four ways.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS 4 L-152
1. Local movements are those daily travels to obtain food, water, escape cover,
den sites, etc.
2. Migrations are movements between different geographic areas in response to
seasonal changes in resource availability (such as the movements of the large
Methow Valley deer herd between high elevation summer range and valley
winter range).
3. Dispersal implies the successful establishment (usually by juvenile animals) of
a breeding territory in an area distant from the natal area.
4. Nomadism are broad random movements typical of the plains bison.
Animal migrations and nomadism between British Columbia and the Colville Reservation
have never been documented and are highly improbable. However, dispersal between
the two areas is expected over the long term. Landscape features favorable to
dispersing animals include the north-south mountain corridors linking British Columbia
and the Colville Reservation. The Kettle Range provides a continuous mountain
connection between the two areas. Toroda Creek and flanking ridge lines including the
unroaded Jackson Creek, Bodie Mountain, and Clackamas Mountain areas link up with
Fir Mountain, Cornell Butte, and Dugout Mountain areas to provide a segmented mosaic
of additional opportunities for dispersal to the Colville Reservation.
Since dispersal tends to be the opportunistic settlement of available habitat, the impact
of the Crown Jewel Project on dispersing animals is expected to be localized around
the actual footprint of the mine where loss of habitat and travel cover have been
identified. Topographically, the footprint impact would occur along the longest, most
gradual north-south linkage connecting the upper headwaters of Gold, Nicholson, and
Marias Creeks.
Refer to response 6.9.52 in this appendix.
6.9.93 The mine would affect tribal members and their ability to harvest fish and wildlife for
subsistence purposes in usual and accustomed areas.
Response:
Wildlife and game populations have always fluctuated in response to environmental or
other pressures. Technically, there are no treaty rights over the area in question.
There are; however, requirements embodied in historic preservation law and federal
policies on government to government relationships that have been, and continue to
be, followed.
The Crown Jewel Project would not affect Colville Confederated tribal members
reserved rights to hunt and fish on the North Half. It would limit, for a period of time,
where they can exercise their reserved rights. The Okanogan National Forest
recognizes its obligation to manage for wildlife and fish on the lands it manages on the
North Half, which must be balanced with competing legal mandates. It is not possible
to quantify any perceived loss of fish and wildlife due to the mine, therefore the Forest
Service has displayed the loss of habitat caused by the mine. The Proponent has
offered the WADFW approximately 300 acres of land near the mine in compensation
for the loss of wildlife habitat.
6.9.94 Increased traffic would increase wildlife/vehicle collisions, reducing huntable game
populations affecting subsistence use by tribal members.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS 4 L-153
Response:
6.9.95
Response:
6.9.96
Response:
6.9.97
Response:
We agree with the statement that increased traffic may increase wildlife/vehicle
collisions. There is not necessarily a one-to-one relationship between increased
vehicles, increased collisions, and decreased wildlife populations. Vehicle collisions
with wildlife would not affect tribal members reserved rights to hunt and fish on the
North Half. Refer also to response 6.9.93 in this appendix.
Increased subdivision of lands can affect winter range and result in game populations
that would affect subsistence use by tribal members.
We agree with the statement that increased subdivision of lands can affect wildlife
populations for some species. There is not necessarily a one-to-one relationship
between increased subdivision of lands and decreased wildlife populations. Increased
subdivision of land would not directly affect tribal members reserved rights to hunt and
fish on the North Half since the rights are only on Federal lands though it could
indirectly affect populations since there would be less habitat available. Refer also to
response 6.9.93 in this appendix.
Operations of the mine may result in stress to wildlife negatively affecting reproduction
resulting in a loss of subsistence use by tribal members.
Wildlife population numbers are attributable to a number of complex causes, and a
correction between human population pressures and wildlife population numbers are
difficult to demonstrate. Refer also to response 6.9.93 in this appendix.
There is a need to address the impacts of the mine on the Myers Creek great blue
heron rookery.
Great blue herons nest in colonies, selecting a location that provides both security and
suitable nearby feeding areas. Documented impacts to colonies have been caused by
the actual physical loss of nesting habitat, disturbance from activities adjacent to a
rookery that lead to displacement of nest sites, and disturbance during the critical
period of reproduction (just before and during egg laying). Changes in food availability
would also affect the number of birds that can be supported in the colony.
Project activities in the vicinity of the heron rookery include the construction and
operation of the Starrem Reservoir, road construction near the reservoir, laying water
pipe from Lost Creek Ranch to the Starrem Reservoir, and increased traffic. These
activities would not physically alter the actual rookery site but would occur in close
proximity. Great blue herons have been shown to readily habituate to activities that
pose no direct threat. When activities occur near a rookery that are threatening, the
nests closest to the disturbance may be abandoned and nesting activities are displaced
to other sites further away from disturbance.
A potential well and pipeline from Lost Creek Ranch, approximately 1,300 feet from the
rookery, is the closest Crown Jewel Project related activity to the rookery. This activity
is not expected to be detrimental to the heron rookery. Similar types of activity, such
as road work, has already taken place on parts of County Road 4883 and the rookery
remains active. This indicates that the herons are tolerant of this level of nearby
activity. All anticipated mining related activities would occur far enough away from the
rookery so that disturbance during the critical reproductive period before and during egg
laying is avoided. This type of disturbance typically occurs when people are within or
near enough to a rookery to cause the adults to flush from the nests.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-154
Great blue herons feed primarily on fish, but are opportunistic feeders that would also
eat frogs, worms, and small mammals. Great blue herons range far afield in search of
their food (14 miles is considered a reasonable foraging distance). Most of the creek
and lake foraging area within 14 miles of the rookery would not be impacted by the
mine. The potential exists that withdrawal of peak flows from Myers Creek may
reduce hyporheic recharge that could affect downstream fisheries. (See Fisheries
Section.) If this occurs, great blue herons may be forced to forage over greater
distances. If an accidental spill occurs in Myers Creek there may be an impact to the
forage base for herons (See Section 4.12.4, Toxics, of the final EIS).
In summary, routine mining related impacts to the heron rookery are expected to be
minor. Dust abatement on Myers Creek would be utilized during reservoir construction.
Crown Jewel Mine operating plans wouki contain strategies for spill prevention and
control of hazardous materials to minimize pollution should an accidental spill occur.
6.9.98
Response:
6.9.99
Response:
6.9.100
Response:
6.9.101
None of the alternatives relate to wildlife displaced by the 1.000-9,000 acre impact
area. Impacts to surrounding game units must be evaluated. The same is true for
affected hunters who have come to the Buckhorn/Chesaw area for generations.
Wildlife and game populations have always fluctuated in response to environmental or
other pressures. If hunting kill ratios drop in the Buckhorn Mountain block, hunters are
likely to try other areas or may stop hunting.
The key to a species' long term survival is whether it can successfully reproduce and
maintain viable population levels. Part of the intent to manage wildlife habitat on public
lands is to provide secure habitat for maintaining viable populations and to minimize the
impacts that occur when wildlife are displaced by settlements or development from
habitat that historically was used. An overall reduction in available habitat can lead to
a reduced capacity to support the affected species. The wildlife analysis documents
the changes in habitat availability that would occur as a result of mine development.
The draft EIS does not discuss the impacts on fish and amphibians from reduction in
streamflow and sediment loading in Myers Creek.
Possible impacts on the fisheries resource in Myers Creek from the project are displayed
in Section 4.11.7, Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM), of the final EIS.
Sediment loading in Myers Creek is not predicted to be a concern. Short-term sediment
impacts to Myers Creek are only predicted to possibly occur during installation of the
water diversion flume and during installation of rock sills, part of the proposed wetland
mitigation.
The impact on wildlife from power lines needs to be discussed including the risk of
collision with power lines.
The wildlife analysis appropriately points out that collisions may occur, as well as
noting that some beneficial effects are possible.
Refer to Section 4.12.3, Effects Common to All Action Alternatives, of the final EIS for
a discussion of power line impacts to wildlife.
Wildlife impacts of the mine are overestimated. Bear, cougar and moose are seen in
Oroville.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvtur.ent for the Draft EIS 4 L-155
Response:
6.9.102
Response:
6.9.103
Response:
6.9.104
Response:
6.9.105
Response:
6.9.106
Response:
The key to a species' long term survival is whether it can successfully reproduce and
maintain viable population levels. The rare sighting of these animals in Oroville are
likely to be dispersing animals or thooe that opportunistically look for food from a more
secure and isolated base habitat (such as the nearby Mt. Hull area). It is highly unlikely
that these animals would find security to reproduce, or be tolerated, in settled town
communities. Part of the intent to manage wildlife habitat on public lands is to provide
secure habitat for maintaining viable populations and to minimize the impacts that occur
when wildlife are displaced by settlements or development from habitat that historically
was used. An overall reduction in available habitat can lead to a reduced capacity to
support the affected species. The wildlife analysis documents the changes in habitat
availability that would occur as a result of mine development. Refer also to response
6.9.33 in this appendix.
I want to see a drawing of what poles discouraging raptor uses looks like.
Figure 2.24, Proposed Power Pole Design, of the final EIS provides three designs of
power poles. The intent of these power pole designs is to protect raptors from
potential electrocution hazards.
The commentor points out that black bear occur in the analysis area, but suggests that
the draft EIS implies that black bears do not occur.
Section 3.13.5, Wildlife Species Overview, of the final EIS discusses the occurrence
of black bears in the analysis area. The commentor may have meant the discussion on
grizzly bears, which have not been sighted during surveys in the analysis area.
The commentor doesn't feel that migrating birds were surveyed at the right time.
The wildlife analysis utilized the results of the Breeding Bird Surveys in Beaver Canyon.
These surveys were conducted during optimal time periods for monitoring migrant
breeding birds.
Industrial noise, lights and activity would discourage wildlife from the surrounding
areas. Do "life requisites" include noise, light and disturbance?
Impacts from noise, light and disturbance are considered in the wildlife evaluation when
they are important habitat factors in determining the quality of the habitat. The
impacts from these disturbance factors are addressed in Section 4.12.3, Effects
Common to All Action Alternatives, of the final EIS.
Does the wildlife data collected in the fall adequately extrapolate to other seasons?
It is believed that the data collected can adequately be extrapolated to all seasons.
Much of the TWHIP data was collected in August, September, October and November.
Information collected for the summer wildlife survey was gathered in June and July
1992. Information collected for the winter wildlife survey was collected between
November 1991 and March 1992. Field data collection for the HEP study was
completed in September and October 1994. Wildlife field data has been collected on
the project during at least 10 months of the year.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-156
6.9.107 The Crown Jewel Project Wildlife Technical Report (Section 5.1.6) lists only 99 acres
of disturbed area. Over 500 acres has been just clearcut in analysis area by Golden
Phoenix et al. Is this not considered disturbed?
Response:
6.9.108
Response:
6.9.109
Response:
6.9.110
Response:
6.9.111
Response:
Harvest activities do not fall under the definition applied to the "disturbed/residential"
land type. Harvest activities fall under the classification of "open coniferous."
Disturbed/residential is classified as towns, mines, rock pits, home sites, and parking
lots.
Are the conception rates for cattle expected to be reduced from the nitrates?
The conception rates for cattle are not expected to be reduced from nitrates. Cattle
would be fenced out of the Crown Jewel Project area during operations and for a period
of six years thereafter unless cattle grazing was determined to be beneficial for
restoration of the site. Nitrate levels may be slightly elevated over background after
the Crown Jewel Project. These levels are not expected to be detrimental to cattle.
Before water from the project can be released to the environment, it would have to
meet State and federal water quality standards.
No pre-exploration baseline data is included for fish and wildlife other than A.G. Crook's
scant field studies. This is another serious omission.
The Crown Jewel Project EIS evaluates the effects of proposed mine development,
while discussion of exploration and past timber harvest is included in the discussion of
cumulative effects. The baseline utilized for this EIS is post-exploration. A previous
Environmental Assessment looked at the effects of mine exploration activities and
utilized pre-exploration baseline field studies. It should also be noted that the HEP
analysis looked at the impacts of both exploration and development on wildlife.
I don't want these workers poaching deer on my property and using my property when
I'm not there.
The Crown Jewel Project would increase human activity in the Chesaw/Wauconda
area. As a result, there would likely be more awareness of the wildlife populations
which could lead to incremental increased interest in hunting, both legal and illegal.
The increase of hunting interests could aggravate trespass problems on private
property. Trespass is an enforcement problem which the Okanogan County Sheriff's
Office has the primary responsibility for enforcement. The WADFW enforcement
program would cooperate closely with the County on trespass and would take the lead
role on other poaching problems on private property. Illegal hunting is also an
educational problem to be addressed in training programs by the mining company (See
Section 2.12.20, Employee Training, of the final EIS).
Burrowing fauna may open containment pathways from the tailings pond into the food
chain. Monitoring shrews and earthworms would not prevent transmutation of toxins
and heavy metals into the food chain. Appropriate mitigation such as an impermeable
barrier between the tails and top soil must be included in the draft EIS.
Approximately 171 tons of lead nitrate are projected to be used annually for milling
operations. Some of this lead would end up in the tailings impoundment where it could
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-157
be accessible to earthworms. Section 4.12.4, Toxics, of the draft EIS has noted that
bioaccumulation of lead and cadmium can occur in earthworms. Fauna that consume
earthworms, such as moles and shrews can then become receptors for any lead
contaminants. James Ryan (US-EPA), a leading expert scientist in this specific field,
was contacted concerning the specific levels of lead in the Crown Jewel Project. His
assessment was that the expected levels of lead in the tailings (less than 400 ppm or
a doubling above background level) "should not be a problem." Lead becomes a
concern when levels are in the thousands of ppm.
Consequently, monitoring is proposed to measure lead levels in the tailings pond to
verify projections that operational levels would occur in the hundreds/ppm range.
Monitoring would directly test the levels of lead in the tailings rather than the indirect
method of testing small mammals for accumulations over time. The basis for changing
the monitoring approach is to identify lead concentrations in the tailings more directly,
and earlier during mine operations. Testing small mammals would only be conclusive
if conducted a number of years following fauna! recolonization.
6.9.112 Benthic macro invertebrates collected from pool habitats were identified and
enumerated, but there are limited comparisons to riffle habitats and overall diversity in
streams. Two benthic macro invertebrate sampling-stations on Myers Creek are too
far downstream of the mine to distinguish between impacts from the proposal and
unrelated land uses in Myers Creek basin. There should be sampling stations on Ethel,
Bolster, and Gold Creeks.
Response:
Extensive pre-project macroinvertebrate studies have been conducted to provide
baseline data for project monitoring of macroinvertebrate species (Northwest
Management, Inc., 1994; and EcoAnalysts, Inc., 1996). Crown Jewel Project
monitoring sites have been established on tributaries which most likely would indicate
any changes in water quality and macroinvertebrate population richness as a result of
the proposed Crown Jewel Project. The sites and monitoring protocol are identified
in The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Monitoring Plan for the Crown Jewel Project
(Northwest Management, Inc., 1994b).
6.9.113 Potential impacts due to Starrem Reservoir construction, equipment hauling and
employee transportation are not even mentioned in the draft EIS, much less evaluated.
These potential impacts include, but are not limited to, noise, fugitive dust, chemical
spills, exhaust fumes, increased traffic stressing wildlife, etc.
Response:
The wildlife analysis has evaluated the changes in habitat resulting from the Starrem
Reservoir construction. Impacts from the reservoir construction are described as
changes in cover types for both the HEP and wildlife core area analysis. Changes in
wildlife habitat are addressed in Section 4.12, Wildlife, of the final EIS. See response
6.9.97, in this appendix, for a discussion of how activities on Myers Creek may impact
the great blue heron rookery.
6.9.114 How can agencies realistically determine that all effects to wildlife are the result of the
mine?
Response:
Section 4.12.5, Cumulative Effects, of the final EIS evaluates the impacts to wildlife
from the Crown Jewel Project as well as the other types of activities that affect wildlife
such as timber harvest and increased human settlement. The HEP analysis attempted
to isolate the effects of the mine from other activities by comparing expected
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-158
management actions that would occur in the absence of mine development to impacts
occurring with each mine development alternative.
6.9.115 This summary section informs the reader that the net adverse impacts to wildlife under
the proposed action would be greater than the preferred alternative. The author places
great emphasis on the loss of deer snow intercept/thermal cover. However, when you
compare the impacts of the preferred alternative to Alternative B other important
species and habitat would be effected. There needs to be more justification for this
determination and subjective analysis. The draft EIS on page 4-72 even goes on to
contradict itself. It begins by stating that the net adverse impacts to wildlife (following
reclamation and mitigation) would be greatest under Alternatives B and F and it explains
why in greater detail in the following few paragraphs. However, on the same page, it
explained that "the loss of wildlife habitat would be common to all action alternatives
and that the magnitude of impacts would vary between alternatives, depending upon
the size of the footprint, the duration of construction, operation and reclamation, and
the amount of habitat."
Response:
6.9.116
Response:
6.9.117
Response:
The section referred to by the commentors has been looked at in detail. The section
is consistent, but there appears to be a misunderstanding by the reviewer. Modified
Alternative E was identified by the Forest Service and BLM as the recommended
alternative. While the analysis shows that Alternative E has major impacts, it was not
identified as the alternative with the greatest impacts.
The EIS analyzes the impacts to a range of environmental components ranging from air
quality, soils, water resources to wildlife. Choices that are advantageous to one
resource may not be as positive to another resource. For example, it is desirable to
have more gentle slopes (3H:1V) to facilitate successful reclamation. However, this
means that in the short-term more existing wildlife habitat is covered by waste rock
piles. Consequently, there are tradeoffs involved with all the alternatives. These are
described in more detail in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, of the final EIS.
Why compare the wildlife impacts of the mine which occurs on a small area to the large
72,700 acre analysis area?
Elements of biodiversity occur in different organizational levels ranging from genetic,
to species, populations, community, and ecosystems levels. These organizational levels
operate at different spatial and temporal scales. While the bulk of the wildlife analysis
clearly focused on impacts within the core area, the use of the 72,700 acre analysis
area was necessary to evaluate cumulative effects as well as impacts to predators with
large home ranges.
A Forest Plan amendment is required because none of the action alternatives would
fully comply with Forest Plan standards and guidelines for wildlife. Until these
amendments are identified, WADFW is unable to support any amendment that would
further reduce habitat below minimums set in the Forest Plan.
The amendment is identified in Figure 2.1, Management Prescription 27, and in Section
2.1.5, Project Alternative Comparison, of the draft EIS. The Forest Plan identified this
area as having the potential for mining at the time of its release. The overall objective
of this proposed new management area is to return the land to the underlying
management area prescriptions over time. The amount of cover lost and retained under
each of the alternatives is identified in Table 4.12.6, Summary of Forest Plan
Consistency by Alternative, of the final EIS. These are the cover standards that would
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-159
be set for the MA under each alternative. The Forest Plan recognized that amendments
might be necessary in the case of mine development on page 4-21 of the Forest Plan.
6.9.118
Response:
6.9.119
Response:
6.9.120
Response:
6.9.121
Response:
Hunting pressures are expected to increase due to both Project-related and unrelated
population growth. Construction of power lines could lead to increased human
presence and future wildlife impacts.
It is acknowledged in the wildlife analysis that human population increases would occur
as a result of the mine, and with expected population growth in the county. Increased
settlement would occur in areas not managed by public land agencies. Crown Jewel
Projections show limited growth from the mine. However, growth carries the risk of
wildlife displacement or habitat loss.
Why does the draft EIS assume there is no toxic threat to amphibians from the tailings
impoundment? Won't frogs, toads, salamanders, etc., get into the tailings pond? How
would wildlife attraction to the tailings pond be prevented?
A deer proof fence (96 inches above ground) combined with a mesh fence (or other
acceptable material) 18 inches above and below ground would be constructed around
the tailings facility to exclude small and large animals that do not fly. While it is
impossible to guarantee total exclusion (e.g., some climbing animals may breach the
fence), the proposed mitigation is designed to eliminate most access for non-flying
animals. Birds and bats would have access to the tailings pond. The tailings pond
would be monitored for the presence of any wildlife mortality within the fence
perimeter. It is recognized that any mortality of a migratory bird linked to tailings
operations is considered a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as administered
by the USFWS. The USFWS would be notified of any mortality that occurs within the
tailings p'ond fenced perimeter. Should daily monitoring of the tailings pond identify
any migratory bird mortality, then additional measures would be taken.
The draft EIS points out that ground water flow to the frog pond would be altered and
possibly reduced by all action alternatives. What is the impact of the dewatering to the
plant and animal life in and adjacent to these wetlands?
The wildlife analysis notes that the alteration of the frog pond would reduce the open
water component of the pond during operations. Existing wetland vegetation in the
center of the frog pond would likely remain, but wetland habitat along the perimeter
may convert to riparian habitat (only seasonally saturated). The effect on animal life
would be a slight reduction in habitat for species dependent on wetland communities.
Mitigation augmenting flows to the frog pond and nine-acre wetlands has been
identified.
The apparent justification for the draft EIS preferred alternative (modified Alternative
E) was to avoid snow intercept thermal cover deer habitat south of the pit.
The main reasons for selecting the preferred alternative was not driven by
considerations of deer habitat. The driving force was to design an alternative with
3H:1 V slopes, avoiding the frog pond and one that met the guidelines of Inland Native
Fish Strategy. Environmental Assessment (Forest Service. 1995a). Providing 3H: 1V
slopes was emphasized in order to encourage successful reclamation in comparison to
results that could be expected with the steeper slopes proposed by Alternative B.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft E/S + L-160
6.9.122
Response:
6.9.123
Response:
6.9.124
Response:
6.9.125
Response:
Other forces were the visual impacts of having a south waste rock disposal area and
concerns about the impacts from the possibility of having metals exceeding State and
Federal water quality standards in the pit lake.
Suggests habitat won't be lost, but merely change over time. Wetland habitats would
be created in the pit and sought out by wildlife.
The wildlife analysis recognizes that succession in reclamation and animal use would
occur over time. The HEP analysis points out that species adapted to grassland shrub
communities would have more available habitat compared to existing conditions. The
HEP also notes that the remaining habitat groups of wetland/riparian, coniferous forest
habitat, and multi-cover type habitats would see negative impacts. It is recognized that
wildlife is attracted to wetland habitats. However, conservative modeling suggests that
pit lake water quality may be toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates.
The successional stage diversity analysis points out that the seedling/sapling
component is below the Okanogan National Forest LRMP levels and it should be noted
that reclamation would increase those levels.
The reclaimed mine would provide this component in the future as would currently
regenerating timber harvest units. The way the information is presented in Section
4.12.6, Forest Plan Consistency, of the final EIS is consistent with environmental
documents addressing timber sales. Specifically, the changes from existing condition
are presented rather than projecting future succession.
The discussion should also focus on the effects of connectivity of current and future
forest management activities under the Forest and BLM Plans.
Current and future timber harvests on the Okanogan National Forest are applying the
direction to maintain at least two wildlife corridors between late and old structural
stages and MR cells. The BLM does not have the same policy guidelines. Therefore,
impacts to corridors may be possible. Currently, there are no site specific BLM
proposed actions available to evaluate the potential for impact.
Commentor wants name changed to "Forest Plan Consistency" rather than "Forest Plan
Compliance." Based on our assessment of this table (Pg. 4-95. Table 4.12.6,
Summary of Forest Plan Consistency by Alternative, of the draft EIS), it appears that
the proposal would have little impact on the "Forest Plan" species of concern based on
current conditions. However, the Project may slow progress toward meeting certain
objectives of the Plan.
Activities on the Okanogan National Forest are either required to meet Forest Plan
Standards and Guidelines or an approved amendment to the Forest Plan. The use of
the terms compliance and noncompliance are appropriate when identifying whether
actions meet or fail to meet Forest Plan direction. The Forest Plan compliance section
clearly delineates between whether habitat losses resulting from proposed actions
would remain above threshold levels (compliance), be reduced below prescribed
threshold levels (noncompliance), or exacerbate situations where thresholds are not
currently being met (noncompliance). The measure is based on whether actions comply
or not comply with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, not how much or little an
action is in noncompliance.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-161
6.9.126
Response:
6.9.127
Response:
6.9.128
Response:
Areas of concern involving wildlife habitat include:
1. The isolation of remaining habitat, thereby decreasing the habitat's
effectiveness;
2. Interruption of habitat corridors; and,
3. The relative importance of the snow intercept thermal cover to deer winter
range in light of other Forest practices near and/or adjacent to the proposed
Crown Jewel Project.
The areas of concern listed in the draft EIS include loss of habitat and habitat
effectiveness. The wildlife analysis itself assumed that any fragmented habitat within
the core area would be considered habitat lost during the duration of the project.
Interruption of habitat corridors is addressed in the section on landscape connectivity.
Refer to response 6.9.92 in this appendix. The list of areas of concern would
incorporate this issue. Impacts to deer habitat would include the effect on snow
intercept thermal cover.
When comparing total and open road densities between with or without the proposed
Crown Jewel Project, attention needs to be on the percent change within the core
analysis area and not on the whole forest.
The wildlife analysis does address road density changes in the core area as well as
evaluating road densities by Okanogan National Forest management areas.
The draft EIS should discuss the following impacts to vegetation. The acreage of old
growth forest that would be lost should be reported, as this would be an irreversible
impact. Reclamation would be unable to replace the existing biodiversity and the intact
functioning ecosystem for long time period.
Refer to Table 4.12.6, Summary of Forest Plan Consistency by Alternative, and Section
4.12.6, Forest Plan Consistency, of the final EIS for a discussion on changes in old
growth habitat. Refer to Section 4.12.3, Effects Common to All Action Alternatives,
of the final EIS for a discussion on the long term impact that would occur before
mature conditions (such as snags, down logs, rich humus layer, and multi-layered
canopies) are achieved.
Mitigation and Monitoring
6.9.129 How would wildlife losses be mitigated (biomass, wetlands, and habitat)?
Response:
See Section 2.12, Management and Mitigation, of the final EIS. Wetland mitigation is
covered in Section 2.12.16, Wetlands, of the final EIS. Wildlife mitigation is covered
in Section 2.12.18, Wildlife and Fish - Public Land Enhancement, of the final EIS.
Reclamation procedures describing the revegetation goals are found in Section 2.11.4,
General Reclamation Procedures, of the final EIS. Also, the Washington Department
of Fish and Wildlife (WADFW) and the Proponent are currently involved in negotiations
on additional compensatory mitigation to offset project impacts. The Proponent has
proposed to WADFW to acquire and protect approximately 300 acres of land, with
covenants attached to the land, as compensatory mitigation for impacts to wildlife.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS * L-162
6.9.130
Response:
6.9.131
Response:
6.9.132
Response:
6.9.133
Response:
There is a concern that bats and shorebirds aren't excluded from the tailings pond.
Alternative B proposes other lackluster approaches which are inherently unsound.
Among them is the refusal to build a net over tailings to exclude bats & shorebirds,
which have a "high" risk potential due to tailings ammonia.
The toxics analysis suggested that projected cyanide levels in the tailings pond would
result in negligible risk of toxic impact for fauna evaluated (with the exception of
aquatic invertebrates) when cyanide levels are 10 ppm or less. The Proponent has
indicated that cyanide levels at the end of the pipe leaving the mill will be at 10 ppm
or less for 95% of operational time. The Proponent has not estimated what the
cyanide levels would be for the remaining 5% of operational time. Consequently
mitigation requiring exclusion or further detoxification is required when cyanide levels
exceed 40 ppm at the end of the pipe leaving the mill. The toxics analysis notes that
synergistic effects are possible, specifically identifying the synergism between ammonia
and cyanide. Ammonia which causes nausea, could lengthen the time fauna (such as
bats, shorebirds, and songbirds) are exposed to cyanide. Consequently, the overall risk
may increase from negligible levels to low levels. Monitoring would be implemented
on a daily basis, for the first year of the Crown Jewel Project, to determine if mortality
is occurring and whether additional mitigation or monitoring would be required as
described in responses 6.9.3, 6.9.7, and 6.9.119 in this appendix. This approach is
used in situations where no or very low levels of mortality are projected.
Once a year monitoring of frogs is inadequate.
The Forest Service plans to count calling frogs in the spring using Audio-Strip
Transects. This monitoring approach is considered an effective way to inventory not
only species composition but also to provide an approximation of relative abundance
of breeding frogs (Heyer, 1994).
In the draft EIS on pg. 2-97, Myers Creek is mentioned. The statements are made that
virtually all of the land along that creek is privately owned. I am confused by the lead
agencies making observation about buying that land, fencing that creek, and
establishing additional habitat.
There are two wetlands mitigation sites are proposed for Myers Creek on private land.
One is located at Pine Chee springs and the other is located just south of the
International border. The Proponent, not the agencies, has investigated options to
purchase wetlands and wildlife habitat along Myers Creek as mitigation to partially
offset project impacts. The Clean Water Act requires compensatory mitigation for all
impacts to "Waters of the United States" As part of this mitigation, the Proponent has
explored purchasing Pine Chee wetlands and a 50-acre parcel along Myers Creek just
south of the Canadian border.
If birds land on the tailings pond and die, what is the effect on the species.
The tailings pond would be monitored to record any mortality. It is expected that
mortality levels would be negligible to low. If mortality occurs, then mitigation would
be imposed to reduce the risk. The intent of the mitigation would be to insure that
mortality levels would be low and that population level impacts affecting species would
not occur. If monitoring detects mortality, the USFWS would determine the appropriate
level of additional mitigation.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-163
6.9.134
Response:
6.9.135
Response:
6.9.136
Response:
6.9.137
Response:
6.9.138
Response:
Replacement wetlands habitat should be created for spotted frogs.
Mitigation measures include creating replacement wetlands and transplanting spotted
frogs to suitable habitats.
There is concern with the loss or reduction in habitat in Management Requirement (MR)
cells.
Management Requirement (MR) cells are part of a strategy to meet National Forest
Management Act direction to maintain viable populations of existing native and
desirable nonnative vertebrate species. MR cells on National Forest lands within the
analysis area are located in mature or old growth stands, habitat considered limited for
the Okanogan National Forest indicator species (pileated woodpecker and three-toed
woodpecker). The intent is to provide a network of "limiting" habitat (MR cells) that
is well distributed to support viability and promote interactions for the indicator species.
The wildlife analysis identified which MR cells would be affected by mine development
alternatives. If the final selected alternative eliminates an MR cell, an alternate existing
mature/old growth stand would be identified as a MR cell replacement.
I feel that the mitigation measures imply that good habitat would be created in the pit
lake walls and pit lake for species that do not occur there or cannot survive the
conditions.
The wildlife analysis considers unreclaimed roads and the extensive pit walls to be
habitat lost with the mine. Mitigation measures are proposed that increase the
likelihood that the pit walls would be used by raptors, bats, and other cliff dwelling
birds. It is expected that the talus, to a limited extent, would be used by rock dwelling
animals, including reptiles such as garter snakes. The draft EIS noted that the pit lake
water, based on conservatively modeled water quality conditions, may have levels of
metals that exceed State of Washington acute or chronic freshwater aquatic criteria.
These levels may be toxic to certain species of fish and aquatic invertebrates.
However, in some situations it is advantageous to create wetlands and aquatic habitat
to help address potential water quality problems.
The permanent conversion of wetlands to drier types could impact wildlife for longer
than 100 years.
The wildlife analysis did not look out beyond 100 years. However, the analysis did
identify irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which included the loss
of wetlands. The Corps of Engineers 404(b)(1) permit requires compensatory
mitigation for all loss of wetlands functions and values. The Proponent's wetlands
mitigation program involves treatments on approximately 90 acres of land.
Monitoring and mitigation is inadequately described. Mitigation needs to be more
specific and quantifiable. WADFW wants full mitigation of mine impacts, and therefore
requests complete mitigation be developed and implemented. The draft EIS lacks
mitigation that meets the state intent to fully mitigate Crown Jewel Project impacts.
Wetland mitigation is covered in Section 2.12.16, Wetlands, wildlife mitigation is
covered in Section 2.12.18, Wildlife and Fish - Public Land Enhancement, and
reclamation procedures describing the revegetation goals are found in Section 2.11.4,
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-164
General Reclamation Procedures, of the final EIS. Also, the Washington Department
of Fish and Wildlife (WADFW) and the Proponent are currently involved in negotiations
on additional compensatory mitigation to offset project impacts. The Proponent has
proposed to acquire and protect approximately 300 acres for long term wildlife
management.
The approach used to describe mitigation has been revised to provide additional
clarification. The mitigation includes a goal statement, or target, combined with an
effectiveness rating providing an assessment of how likely the target or goal can be
reached.
Mitigation has been identified that attempts to minimize impacts, avoid impacts, or
replace part of the impacted habitats.
There are no policies or regulations that require the Forest Service to fully mitigate all
wildlife impacts from a mining project.
6.9.139 High road densities in the core area during and after mine operations would impact
deer.
Response:
6.9.140
Response:
6.9.141
Response:
6.9.142
The final EIS notes that road densities are high in the core area and that impacts to
deer and other animals would occur. Road closures have been implemented to reduce
the level of impact. However, projected levels of 4 mi./sq. mi. following project
completion would continue to impact deer. It should be noted that the delineation of
the core area has contributed to high road densities since the core area includes long
narrow sections of the supply transportation route.
The use of "stand-up logs" to provide perches and act as snags throughout the
reclaimed areas is suggested as a way to supplement creation of snags in surrounding
forests.
Mitigation returning structure to reclaimed sites includes replacing seven tons/acre of
down woody material (such as logs and stumps), and setting up a limited number of
raptor perches. The length of time "stand-up logs" would remain vertical is expected
to be considerably less than the longevity of natural snags. Current mitigation therefore
focuses on creating snags in the remaining surrounding forests rather than putting up
"stand-up logs."
Yarded deer should be monitored particularly in areas near transportation routes so
preventative measures can be taken to minimize harassment and mortality.
Environmental training and education could be provided to employees. In the interest
of safety for employees and for deer, employees would be asked to be aware of areas
where deer may be concentrating along roads. Safety sessions should include the
identification of areas where deer concentrations are occurring. Should heavy road kill
occur, WADFW may negotiate with the Proponent for additional road signing that
would alert motorists about deer concentration areas.
A number of individual comments were received about the effectiveness rating given
to different mitigation measures in Section 2.12, Management and Mitigation, of the
final EIS.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-165
Response:
6.9.143
Response:
6.9.144
Response:
6.9.145
Response:
6.10
To reduce confusion, a goal statement was added to each individual mitigation measure
and the effectiveness rating was compared against this goal statement. In some cases
when the goal statement was identified the effectiveness rating went from moderate
to high. All mitigation measures that had an effectiveness rating of low were
reevaluated to determine if the measure could be made more effective or if the measure
should be dropped since it was not very effective at achieving the desired mitigation.
A small number of mitigation measures were dropped.
Commentor questions basis for requirement burying the fence. It should be justified
by a known impact.
Underground fencing is utilized by the Forest Service in nursery areas to minimize
access by burrowing animals. The goal for underground fencing, in combination with
above ground fencing, is to minimize animal access to the tailings environment. The
determinations for negligible impacts to small non-flying animals is based on the fact
that fencing would restrict access. Section 4.12.4, Toxics, and Table 4.12.5, Risk or
Probability of Toxic Impact at the Tailings Pond, of the final EIS point out the increased
risk of toxic impact to bats, shorebirds and songbirds that occurs due to access.
All wildlife impact evaluations to date (including the Habitat Evaluation Procedure Study
for the Proposed Crown Jewel Mine Project, Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife, 1995), have assumed that fish and wildlife impacts would be through loss or
alteration of habitat and that no direct mortality through contamination or other means
would occur. If this assumption is invalid and direct mortality of trust wildlife resources
does occur, immediate rectification of the cause of mortality and compensatory
mitigation should be made.
Monitoririg requirements state that any wildlife mortality that occurs within the fenced
perimeter would be reported to the USFWS on the day that they are located. The
tailings pond area would be inspected daily for any mortality during the first year of
operation. While significant numbers of mortality aren't expected, monitoring would
confirm whether the assumptions are correct. After that point, the need for daily
inspections would be reevaluated. Since the USFWS would be informed of mortality
within the fenced perimeter, the agency would be aware of situations that may require
additional rectification and mitigation.
The potential toxicity from waste rock detention ponds should be assessed.
Section 2.12, Management and Mitigation, notes that any water discharged from the
mine pit or Crown Jewel Project collection and infiltration ponds must meet WADOE
water quality permit requirements and Federal water quality standards. Water quality
monitoring standards include testing water quality for water that has come in contact
with waste rock.
NOISE
General
6.10.1
Commentors requested minor text clarifications, or expressed opinions regarding the
noise impacts of the proposed Crown Jewel Project without referring to any specific
evaluations in the draft EIS.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-166
Response:
We appreciate the input of all those individuals, organizations and agencies who
commented on the "noise" aspects of the Crown Jewel Mine draft EIS. We have
reviewed your comments and made revisions, as appropriate, to the final EIS.
Regulatory Limits
6.10.2
Response:
6.10.3
Response:
6.10.4
Response:
How would WADOE's environmental noise limits be used to minimize noise impacts at
the various residential and rural areas surrounding the proposed Crown Jewel Project?
Section 3.14.5, Noise Regulations, of the final EIS describes the WADOE regulatory
limits as well as other noise guideline values that are used by EPA and Forest Service.
Table 3.14.2, Allowable Noise Levels at Residential and Non-Residential Receiving
Property for Industrial Noise Source, summarizes the WADOE allowable noise
regulations. The discussions on the calculated environmental impacts presented in
Section 4.13, Noise, have been revised to direct the reader back to Section 3.14,
Noise, of the final EIS, for the baseline information.
Operational noise monitoring should be required during the life of the Crown Jewel
Project to track compliance with the regulatory noise limits and with any negotiated
Project-specific permit limits.
We acknowledge that some other mining projects in the western United States have
been required to perform periodic operational noise monitoring to demonstrate
compliance. Section 2.12.8, Noise, of the final EIS discusses mitigation for
operational noise.
Modeling indicates that noise levels during the operation phase would be below the
allowable limits for residential areas set by WADOE standards and a Okanogan County
noise ordinance. If there were noise ordinance exceedences at residential areas, it
would be enforced by Okanogan County. No noise monitoring of the Crown Jewel
Project is planned.
How would the Proponent monitor worker exposure to noise levels within the work
place, and how would the Proponent demonstrate compliance with regulatory limits?
Allowable worker exposures to peak noise levels and continuous noise levels within the
mining and milling operations are regulated by a federal agency (MSHA) and a state
agency (WISHA). Under regulations enforced by these agencies, the Proponent could
be required to conduct periodic monitoring of work place noise levels and to take
corrective action, as needed, to comply with the noise limits and/or hearing protection
work practices. For purposes of assessing environmental impacts in this final EIS, it
is assumed that the Proponent would comply with all work place noise regulations and
that they would conduct all required work place monitoring.
Background Noise and Mechanical Noise Distinctions
6.10.5 How can the background noise measurements of rural-type noises be related to the
mechanical noises that would emanate from the proposed mining activities.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS 4 L-167
Response:
The baseline monitoring program was designed to collect noise data under a variety of
existing conditions that include a mixture of natural sounds and man-made sounds such
as: "small town" residential conditions at Chesaw; ranch activities near Bolster and
Pine Chee; and unpopulated rural conditions near South Corral. The baseline monitoring
was conducted during calm weather periods when the noise levels were conservatively
low. Section 3.14, Noise, of the final EIS includes a discussion of how some of the
baseline monitoring was devoted to assessing how mechanical noises were audible
when they impacted exceptionally quiet rural areas. Section 3.14, Noise, and Section
4.13, Noise, of the final EIS have been updated to explain how the modeled mechanical
noises relate to the measured rural background noises.
Modeling Methods and Noise Levels
6.10.6
Response:
6.10.7
Response:
6.10.8
Response:
How was the ENM noise model used to calculate the future noise levels surrounding
the proposed Crown Jewel Project. Why were A-weighted decibels (dBA) and
"equivalent noise levels" (L-eq) used to describe the background levels and the
calculated future noise levels.
The baseline noise measurements and the calculated noise levels surrounding the
proposed Crown Jewel Project have been presented using the units of measure that are
consistent with EPA's research into noise impacts and with WADOE's noise
regulations. Several other units of measure exist for describing noise levels, but they
are not relevant for noise impact assessments in Washington State. Regarding the
specific assumptions that were used in the predictive noise modeling, Section 3.14,
Noise, of the final EIS has been revised to clarify the data sources that were used (e.g.,
assumed wind speed and direction, specific location and elevation of noise sources,
etc.).
Why were the noise impacts that would be caused by construction of the Starrem
Reservoir not discussed in the draft EIS.
Section 4.13.4, Effects of Alternative B, of the final EIS has been revised to present
calculations of the construction noise levels at the nearest representative residential
areas. The calculations are based on published Construction Engineering Research
Laboratory (EPA) estimates for noise emissions from representative construction
activities. During construction and removal of the Starrem Reservoir, audible noises are
expected during daylight hours up to two miles from the reservoir site.
Why were the noise levels caused by increases in commute traffic vehicles and
supply/delivery trucks not discussed in the draft EIS?
Section 4.13.4, Effects of Alternative B, subsection "Traffic Noise Impacts", of the
final EIS has been revised to include a discussion of the calculated noise increases at
several representative public road segments that would result from increases in
commute vehicle traffic and supply/delivery truck traffic. The noise calculations were
completed using an EPA-approved computer model.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS * L-168
Miscellaneous Noise Effects
6.10.9
Response:
6.10.10
Response:
6.10.11
Response:
6.10.12
Response:
How would the calculated future noise levels affect wildlife in the vicinity of the Crown
Jewel Project?
The potential impacts of noise on wildlife caused by a range of factors are one of the
elements in this EIS. Section 4.12.3, Effects Common to All Action Alternatives,
subsection "Land Use/Disturbance," of the final EIS describes the possible impacts from
blasting noise and by continuous operational noise on wildlife.
How does the range of calculated noise levels relate to possible human health impacts?
Section 3.14, Noise, of the final EIS has been revised to include a brief discussion of
the health and psychological effects of impulse noises (e.g., blasting) and continuous
low-level noises such as might be expected at the residential and rural areas
surrounding the Crown Jewel Project mine site. Section 3.14.3, Baseline Noise Levels,
discusses health effects of community noise based on data taken from EPA studies.
The noise impacts caused by the Crown Jewel Project would degrade the subjective
quality of life (e.g., solitude, religious freedom, lifestyle choices, etc.) in the region.
The Forest Service and WADOE appreciate the importance of subjective environmental
factors which can affect the enjoyment of living in or visiting rural areas such as the
area surrounding the Crown Jewel Project site. However, in some cases, an EIS cannot
quantify and compare the "quality of life" that would result under the range of Crown
Jewel Project alternatives. To the most practical extent, the final EIS addresses
"quality of life" issues by focusing on the regulatory limits and guidelines that were
developed by the agencies to protect public well-being.
Where will the blasting and heavy equipment operational noise be audible?
concerned about hearing it where I live.
I am
6.11
Section 4.13.3, Effects Common to All Action Alternatives, of the final EIS has been
revised to more clearly indicate the modeled noise levels and the distance from the
proposed mine that the noise would be heard under various climatic conditions and
during various operational functions such as blasting, hauling, rock crushing, etc. (see
Figure 4.13.2, Modeled Noise Results: Continuous Operation, Summer, Prevailing West
Wind, through Figure 4.13.6, Modeled Noise Results: Blasting, Summer, West Wind).
RECREATION
General
6.11.1
Response:
There were a number of comments requesting minor clarifications and text changes or
expressing opinions regarding recreation impacts. There was disagreement with the
data on Native American hunting. Other comments expressed general opinions about
the alternatives and their effects on recreation.
We appreciate the input from all those individuals, organizations, and agencies who
commented on the "recreation" aspects of the Crown Jewel Mine draft EIS. We have
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-169
reviewed your comments and made revisions, as appropriate, to the final EIS. Data on
Native American hunting was updated based on data obtained from the Colville Indian
Tribe.
Impacts on Beth and Beaver Lakes
6.11.2 There were several comments regarding Beth and Beaver Lakes. Some commentors
expressed concern about traffic past the lakes and campground; another stated that the
impact of traffic on the lakes was overestimated; and another was concerned with
construction and mine employees impacting the Forest Service campground at Beth and
Beaver Lakes.
Response:
The issue of the impact of traffic on those using the facilities at Beth and Beaver Lakes
was discussed in Section 4.14.3, Effects Common to All Action Alternatives. In
response to the comment that impacts were overstated, the text was clarified to state
that the impact would mostly occur on weekdays and that the projected 10 to 18
supply vehicles per day would occur during the peak operations year. The statement
regarding traffic impacts at the lakes was not deleted as requested by the commentor,
because this traffic is of concern to the public, as evidenced by comments to the draft
EIS. Section 4.14.4, Effects of Alternative B, of the final EIS discusses employee
impacts on the Five Lakes area and Section 4.14.3, Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives, of the final EIS discusses possible construction and mine employee
impacts on campgrounds.
Transportation of supplies past Beth and Beaver Lakes is a concern, as evidenced by
public comments on that subject. The area around Beth and Beaver Lakes is used for
camping and picnicking and both lakes are fished. It can be assumed that people
camping are generally seeking some degree of quiet. According to the Forest Service,
Beth Lake is often used to accommodate overflow from Lake Bonaparte and thus the
campground is not just used by those seeking a convenient place to fish. Although the
impact of 18 or fewer supply vehicles passing the campground per day (round trip)
during the week would be considered a minor impact, it is still a concern to the public.
The text has been changed to reflect the fact that impacts would mostly only occur on
weekdays.
Of the seven setting indicators within the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS), only
the number of social encounters apply, with the result of increased traffic and increased
noise modifying the experience of the recreationist. The existing ROS class of this area
is Roaded Natural. With a significant increase in weekday or weekend traffic, the ROS
class would drop to a Roaded Modified level. See Figure 3.15.1, Recreation
Opportunity Spectrum Inventory, in the final EIS.
Loss of Recreational Income
6.11.3 There were numerous comments regarding the potential loss of tourists due to noise,
dust, visual impacts, lights, etc. and the dollars they contribute to the economy.
Response:
The recreation analysis indicates that there would be an increase in recreation in the
analysis area due to the Crown Jewel Project employees and their families; thus no
projected net reduction in recreation. Although tourists may contribute more dollars to
the local economy than the employees, who would be local residents, there is little
evidence to support the assertion that tourists would completely avoid the area once
the mine begins operations. Crown Jewel Project-related noise would be barely audible
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS 4 L-170
during the nighttime and early morning hours within three miles of the mine site. The
Crown Jewel Project would be visible from several points on public roads and trails, but
the view would be of fairly short duration, i.e. brief glimpses as one drives down the
road. To those hiking the area mountaintops, such as Mt. Bonaparte and Graphite
Mountain, the view would be of longer duration and thus some of those visitors may
not come back to the area. Since Mt. Bonaparte contributes only 400 recreation visitor
occasions, compared to almost 28,000 recreation visitor occasions for the Five Lakes
campgrounds, the loss of any Mt. Bonaparte visitors would have negligible impacts on
the area's economy. The majority of tourists would not be affected by Crown Jewel
Project lighting depending on the type of lighting used. The main concern regarding
tourism would be the effect of up to 18 supply vehicles per day passing by Beth and
Beaver Lakes. This would mostly occur during the weekdays. Thus the majority of the
tourists would not be affected. Effects regarding the potential loss of tourists is further
displayed in Section 4.19.3, Comparative Effects Common to All Action Alternatives,
Subsection "Income."
Diminished Value of Recreation Resources
6.11.4 Will the Crown Jewel Project diminish the value of recreation resources within the mine
site and the surrounding area, due to noise and mine visibility?
Response:
The text was revised in the final EIS to reflect the diminished recreational value of the
area within the mine site and in the immediate vicinity. Since there would be no
recreation allowed in the mine area, the activities would likely be displaced to other
portions of the National Forest. Refer to Section 4.14.3, Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives, of the final EIS. The noise and scenic impacts are discussed in Section
4.14, Recreation, and Section 4.15, Scenic Resources, of the final EIS.
Data on Projected Camping
6.11.5 The data on camping increases as a result of Crown Jewel Project employees was
questioned. Specifically questioned was why the camping days per household varied
by alternative and whether or not recreation visits refer to the same thing as recreation
visitor days.
Response:
Data on additional camping visits resulting from the Crown Jewel Project was derived
from multiplying the camping trips per household data, (WAICA, 1990), by the persons
per household figure estimated for each alternative which was provided in Section
4.19, Socioeconomic Environment. Since the persons per household number varies by
alternative, as do the number of employees, there is not one consistent "camping days
per household figure" that one can apply to all the alternatives. The camping data is
intended to be presented in terms of "recreation visits," which means one visit to a
particular site, of any duration, in contrast to a recreation visitor day which equals
twelve visitor hours. This measure was used because the camping data from the state
recreation plan was in the form of recreation visits.
The primary impacts of increased population would be increased demand for recreation,
social services, and traffic, as well as the aesthetic impacts caused by increased
development. Recreational impacts are discussed in Sections 4.14.3 through 4.14.9
under subsections entitled "Indirect Effects." Aesthetic impacts of increased population
are discussed in Section 4.15.3, Effects Common to All Action Alternatives.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • 1-777
Recreational Value of the Post-Mining Lake Formation
6.11.6 Several commentors felt that the recreational benefits of the Crown Jewel Project were
not emphasized, in particular the recreational value of the lake that would form in the
pit once mining is completed.
Response:
A possible beneficial effect of the Crown Jewel Project would be the formation of a
lake in the pit after operations cease. This is discussed in Section 4.14.4, Effects of
Alternative B, in the final EIS. After mine closure and reclamation, some individuals
may choose to picnic at the pit lake site or view the closed mine from a historic
viewpoint. The potential for safety problems, however, at the post-mining lake due to
the steep walls and talus slopes were mentioned as well as the concern about water
quality. Water quality at the site may require management to meet federal and state
water quality requirements.
There are other aspects of the Crown Jewel Project that could be considered a
beneficial or adverse effect, depending on one's perspective. The increase in recreation
due to Crown Jewel Project employees would increase pressure on the resource, but
may also bring in more revenues. Closure of roads around the Crown Jewel Project
would reduce access for hunting but may also increase deer populations, thus possibly
improving hunting success rates.
Impacts on Hunting and Fishing
6.11.7 What would be the impacts on hunting and fishing and the potential revenues lost if
hunting and fishing decreases?
Response:
The draft EIS does not conclude that the deer or hunters would disappear entirely from
the study area. A small percentage of the estimated 448 hunters that use the study
area currently use the Crown Jewel Project area and immediate vicinity. Those that
usually hunt within the Crown Jewel Project boundaries would be displaced to other
areas. Some of those that hunt in the immediate vicinity of the Crown Jewel Project
would also be displaced due to the reduced access and aesthetic qualities of the area
(traffic, noise, etc.) A portion of these displaced hunters may be discouraged
altogether and hunt elsewhere in Okanogan County or choose to hunt completely
outside Okanogan County. The closure of many of the roads in the vicinity of the
Crown Jewel Project may actually increase the deer population due to the reduction in
hunting pressure. This reduction in access and subsequent increase in deer numbers
could attract other types of hunters to the area.
In the long term, the proposed Crown Jewel Project would decrease certain types of
deer habitat but would increase the open forage habitat. This may initially benefit deer
populations, especially in the smaller openings with increased edge effect. In the long
run this may result in over-harvesting of the deer due to a lack of cover. This would
ultimately decrease the quality of the hunting experience within the Crown Jewel
Project boundaries. Hunting within the Crown Jewel Project boundaries, however,
constitutes a relatively small percentage of the total hunting which occurs in the study
area. Thus hunting in the study area is not expected to be substantially reduced in the
long term.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-172
6.12 SCENIC RESOURCES
General
6.12.1 There were a number of comments requesting minor clarifications and text changes or
expressing opinions regarding the Crown Jewel Project. Other comments contained
general opinions about the alternatives and their effects on scenic resources.
Response:
We appreciate the input of all those individuals, organizations, and agencies who
commented on the "scenic resources" aspects of the Crown Jewel Mine draft EIS. We
have reviewed your comments and made revisions, as appropriate, to the final EIS.
Forest Service Scenic Management System
6.12.2 What are the basic methodology and assumptions of the scenic resources analysis?
Response:
The Forest Service is required to evaluate scenic impacts based on the Forest Service
Visual Management System (currently being revised as the Scenic Management
System). The National Forest Landscape Management Manual, Volume 2, Chapter 1,
provides definitions for background, middleground, foreground view and provides
criteria for identifying distinctive versus common landscapes. The new Landscape
Aesthetics, a Handbook for Scenery Management (Forest Service, 1993b), page 21,
presents research supporting the assumption that people prefer a natural setting in the
National Forest. The Okanogan National Forest Plan, developed the visual significance
designations, sensitive viewsheds, and visual quality objectives upon which the scenic
resource section was based. These designations were reviewed in 1989 for the
updated plan. Very few changes resulted.
Impacts of Project-Related Dust on Visibility
6.12.3 What will be the effect of dust and air pollution created by the Crown Jewel Project on
views.
Response:
Refer to responses 6.1.11 and 6.1.12 in this appendix. Refer also to Section 4.1.5,
Effects of Alternatives B and E, subsection "Impacts to Visibility at Pasayten
Wilderness Area."
Impacts of Project Lighting
6.12.4 Project lighting has not been adequately addressed.
Response:
The effects of lighting cannot be quantified, because the Proponent has not specified
the exact types of lighting to be used. In general, they have committed to using
portable lighting focused into the Crown Jewel Project area, which should reduce light
trespass into adjacent areas. Refer also to Section 2.12.17, Scenic Resources,
subsection "Exterior Lighting."
Visual Impacts from Other Viewpoints
6.12.5 Several commentors mentioned the potential for impacts to additional recreational sites,
such as Bodie Mountain and White Mountain in the Colville National Forest and the new
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS » L-173
Virginia-Lily Trail. Another commentor felt that the Nealey Road Viewpoint should have
been taken at a point further south on the road.
Response:
Mt. Bodie is outside the 10-mile radius that was designated as the study area. Mt.
Bonaparte, which is 13 miles away from Buckhorn Mountain was included only because
it is a developed site. It is very doubtful that the Crown Jewel Project would be visible
from White Mountain (Mt. Spock). White Mountain is located approximately 48 miles
from the Crown Jewel Project, and there are two intervening peaks that are taller than
Buckhorn Mountain.
The new Virginia-Lily trail is located eight miles south of the site on mostly south and
east-facing slopes and would not have close-up or extensive views of the Crown Jewel
Project site. This site was not included as a viewpoint, but is addressed in Section
4.15, Scenic Resources.
The intent in selecting viewpoints was not to select every point with a view of the
Project site, but to select a few viewpoints that have the closest and best views of the
site. A selected view point provides a unique view that would allow analysis of a
particular Project feature, such as the Nealey Road viewpoint. The Nealey Road
Viewpoint was selected because it has a good view of the powerline corridor and is
near existing homes. Although other points along the road may have a view of
Buckhorn Mountain, the map analysis indicated that the inside of the pit would not be
visible from points west of the ridge due to obstruction by the ridge itself.
Viewpoint Photographs
6.12.6 The quality of the photographs in Section 3.16, Scenic Resources, of the final EIS was
the subject of several comments, including the remark that a wide-angle lens was used,
that the quality of the Mt. Bonaparte viewpoint photo was poor and that the Toroda
Creek Viewpoint photo showed too much of the road. It was requested that the mine
site be labeled on the viewpoint photos in Chapter 3, Affected Environment.
Response:
The viewpoint photos were not taken with a wide-angle lens. Some were composed
of several photos spliced together to create a panorama which may make them appear
to be taken with a wide-angle lens. The panoramas were considered necessary to
show the context of the view which more closely resembles how scenes are perceived
by the human eye. The Mt. Bonaparte photo does show some haze which frequently
occurs in the area and is difficult to avoid when photographing an object that is thirteen
miles away. The road in the Toroda Creek Viewpoint shows what the observer actually
sees from this viewpoint. The winding road in the foreground is important because it
leads the eye directly to Buckhorn Mountain.
Figure 3.16.3, Nealey Road Viewpoint, through Figure 3.16.8, Existing Conditions
Within the Project Site, of the final EIS, were not modified to point out the Crown
Jewel Project site, as requested, because this was completed for the computer visual
simulations in Section 4.15, Scenic Resources, of the final EIS and because the mine
site would not be visible from some of the viewpoints. Highlighting the Crown Jewel
Project area on these photographs would tend to exaggerate the impacts of the Crown
Jewel Project.
6.12.7 Why was Forest Road 3275-125 selected as a viewpoint?
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS 4 L-174
Response:
Forest Road 3275-125 was included as a viewpoint because the area around the mine
could be opened to the public after mining operations are completed. Thus one
viewpoint was selected to analyze the long-term, close-up impacts.
6.13 HERITAGE RESOURCES
General
6.13.1 Several comments requested minor text or table clarifications, re-illustration of figures,
and supplementary information concerning cultural resources or survey methodology.
Additional general statements and opinions related to cultural resources were also
expressed.
Response:
We appreciate the input of all those individuals, organizations, and agencies who
commented on the "heritage resources" aspects of the Crown Jewel Mine draft EIS.
We have reviewed your comments and have made revisions, as appropriate, to the final
EIS.
Traditional Use and Traditional Cultural Properties
6.13.2 The Heritage Resources section of the draft EIS failed to consider traditional use or
traditional cultural properties (including locales for hunting or gathering) important to
Indian peoples within the Crown Jewel Project impact area.
Response:
The Crown Jewel Project would not affect Colville Confederated tribal members
reserved rights to hunt and fish on the former "north half" of the Colville Indian
Reservation. It would limit, for a period of time, where they can exercise their reserved
rights. The Forest Service recognizes its obligations to manage wildlife and fish on the
"north half", but the Forest Service must balance this wildlife and fish management
with competing legal mandates. It should be noted that little response was obtained
from the Colville Tribes to Forest Service requests for tribal input to the cultural
resources study, although the tribe has conducted its own traditional cultural property
inventory.
Treaty Rights and Issues
6.13.3 The Heritage Resource section fails to consider Native American treaty rights with
regard to lands once contained in the north half of the Colville Indian reservation, some
of which are now included within the Crown Jewel Project area.
Response:
A discussion of the relationship between the Forest Service and the Colville Tribes has
been included in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need for Action, in the final EIS. The Colville
Tribe's reserved water, hunting, and fishing rights on the former "north half" of the
Colville Indian reservation are recognized. There are also requirements embodied in
historic preservation law and federal policies on government to government
relationships that have been, and continue to be, followed.
Technically, there are no treaty rights to specifically recognize the Buckhorn Mountain
area, rather, there are "reserved rights." Attempts to learn specific cultural, historical,
and religious concerns from the responsible Colville Tribal Government departments
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft £18 • 1-775
occurred throughout the 4 + year life of the cultural resource work on the Crown Jewel
Project, and very little information was obtained from the Colville Tribes.
6.13.4
Response:
6.13.5
Response:
6.13.6
Response:
6.13.7
Response:
6.13.8
Response:
If the Proponent succeeds in patenting the properties, this would result in the
permanent loss of Treaty rights on those lands. Is it possible for the government to
transfer ownership of public lands (patent) when the original indigenous inhabitants
retain rights to the use of these properties?
Yes, the land can be patented under existing laws. If the land is patented, this action
could result in the permanent loss of use of these lands by the Colville Confederated
Tribes since the land would no longer be under federal ownership. This EIS does not
determine if the land can be patented or not. Patenting is a completely separate
process as explained in Section 3.19.8, Patenting of Crown Jewel Project Mining
Claims, and Section 4.18.3, Effects Common to All Action Alternatives.
The Forest Service has special obligations to understand the nature of the Colville
Tribes' rights in the "north half" and to make decisions consistent with a proper
understanding of these rights.
The Forest Service recognizes its obligation and trust responsibility to respect the
Colville Tribe's reserved rights in the "north half." The agency's own enabling
legislation, however, assigns primary responsibility to manage habitat which it believes
is consistent with the obligation to manage tribal reserved rights.
The draft EIS fails to address Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations.
EO 12898 on Environmental Justice is a recent policy that targets minority populations
in urban areas and is not believed to be within the scope of the Crown Jewel Project.
The Forest Service strategy and program responsive to EO 12898 was issued in
December 1995, and concerns programs that are unrelated to the Crown Jewel Project.
Indian fishing rights exist in the area. No discussion of this issue is presented. In order
to protect these rights they need to be quantified, particularly in regards to fish and fish
habitat loss.
The Forest Service has a clear obligation to manage resources for sustainability.
Outside of Alaska, the Forest Service does not have a trust duty to manage habitat or
resources expressly for the benefit of tribal members. The quantification of habitat or
resources is not assigned to the Forest Service in legislation affecting the "north half."
Why were there never any meetings on the reservation?
Government to government communications have occurred. Public meetings were
located where it is believed to be central to the most people interested in the Crown
Jewel Project. Notices of public meetings were published in the Omak Chronicle, the
Gazette Tribune, and the Wenatchee World; broadcast on K.OMW radio; and mailed to
tribal members on the Crown Jewel Project mailing list. A scoping meeting was held
in the City of Okanogan in February 1992 to make the meeting more convenient for
tribal members to attend. A public information meeting was held in Riverside,
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS 4 L-176
Washington regarding the draft EIS to be convenient for tribal members and residents
of omak and Okanogan to attend.
6.13.9
Response:
6.13.10
Response:
6.13.11
Response:
6.13.12
Response:
There is no inventory of native cultural, medicinal, and food plants in or adjacent to the
Crown Jewel Project area. The Forest Service has an obligation to develop such an
inventory.
There are generic lists of culturally-significant plants in the ethno-botanical literature.
The Colville Tribes have performed their own inventory for such resources since
publication of the draft EIS. In addition, a forest-wide ethnographic overview was
completed in 1993 which included Buckhorn Mountain and vicinity and was based, in
part, on interviews with Colville Tribal members and research in the tribal Department
of History and Archaeology. The overview also contains a list of culturally sensitive
plant species and their uses. A detailed vegetation inventory was conducted over the
Crown Jewel Project area for plants of concern or which were unusual.
The Crown Jewel Project would affect tribal members and their ability to harvest fish
and wildlife for subsistence purposes on the former Colville reservation "north half."
It was stated that the effects on fish and wildlife can not be fully mitigated to off-set
the losses to fish and wildlife and subsistence over the life of the mine.
The Crown Jewel Project would not affect tribal members reserved rights to hunt and
fish on the "north half." The Forest Service recognizes its obligations to manage for
wildlife on the lands it manages on the "north half" which must be balanced with
competing legal mandates. It is not possible to quantify any perceived loss of fish and
wildlife due to the mine. The Forest Services agrees, therefore, that it is not possible
to fully mitigate negative effects on fish and wildlife numbers. However, it is possible
to mitigate loss of habitat. Habitat mitigation is contained in Sections 2.12.18, Wildlife
and Fish - Public Land Enhancement, and 2.12.19, Wildlife and Fish - Private Land
Enhancement.
The high road density after Crown Jewel Project completion would make the core area
less attractive to some tribal members for subsistence purposes, thereby reducing tribal
hunting opportunities in the area.
Hunting opportunities would still exist in the area, but would be lost within the Crown
Jewel Project boundaries during operations. It is not possible, or legally required, to
accommodate personal preferences for certain locations for subsistence activities. See
also response 6.13.10 in this appendix. The open road density during Crown Jewel
Project operations and post-closure would be less than presently exists. Refer to
Section 4.12, Wildlife.
The loss of about 11,000 acres of huntable lands in the Crown Jewel Project area
coupled with increased "No Trespassing" and "No Hunting" signs on private lands and
the resulting increase in local/regional human populations from the Crown Jewel Project
would increase the competition for local harvestable fish and wildlife and affect
subsistence use of tribal members.
This effect is disclosed in Section 4.11, Aquatic Habitats and Populations, Section
4.12, Wildlife, Section 4.14, Recreation, and Section 4.16, Heritage Resources, of the
final EIS. Competition for resources due to population increases are, however,
inevitable social forces that would happen absent of the Crown Jewel Project. The loss
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-177
of huntable land would be about 2,000 acres during Crown Jewel Project operations.
Access to an additional 6,000 acres may be more difficult due to road closures to
provide security cover for wildlife.
Policy Issues
6.13.13
Response:
6.13.14
Response:
6.13.15
Response:
Native Americans in the region were not asked to be involved in the EIS process and
were not consulted concerning cultural resources by the lead agencies.
A discussion on Forest Service - tribal relations has been added in Section 1.9.3,
Consultation with the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation
Government to Government Relations, of the final EIS. In addition, Forest Service
records show that communications with the Tribal Business Council and the Tribal
Government Departments occurred regularly. The record shows clear intent to learn
information and concerns from the relevant Tribal government and departments.
There is a legal requirement for notification with the Colville Tribes under the existing
regulations governing compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966,
as amended, 1980. The 1992 amendments to the act obligates a federal agency to
consult with Indian tribal governments who may have an interest in a project's effect
on religious or cultural sites, but the regulations implementing the 1992 amendments
have been stalled. Never-the-less, the Department Director received a copy of the
cultural resource survey on November 30, 1995. Receipt of written comments are still
pending and would be welcomed.
A separate additional section should document the considerable outreach and
consultation that took place between the agencies and the Colville Tribes during
preparation of the draft EIS.
Information on tribal interests, the Forest Services responsibility in this area, and
communicational and consultation measures undertaken for the Crown Jewel Project
is included throughout this section of Appendix L. Additional discussion is included in
Section 1.9.3, Consultation with the Confederate Tribes of the Colville Indian
Reservation Government to Government Relations, in the final EIS.
Work performed for the Crown Jewel Project does not comply with the provisions of
the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), Native
American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA). and Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act, as amended.
Cultural resource surveys and investigations have been completed and meet compliance
with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, 1980. Note that,
although this Act was substantially amended in 1992, the implementing regulations
have not yet been issued. NAGPRA does not apply to the Crown Jewel Project
because it refers to archaeological collections housed in museums. AIRFA may apply
to the Crown Jewel Project, but the ethnographic work conducted to date have failed
to identify religious sites that would apply. The Colville Tribes have not offered
contrary documentation.
President Clinton's Executive Order (EO) on Government to Government Relationships
is a reaffirmation of policy that the Forest Service strives to uphold, which is to
communicate and solicit information from the tribe at the appropriate point in the
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-178
planning process. The EO on Environmental Justice is a recent policy that has recently
been interpreted for Forest Service Field units and does not apply to the Crown Jewel
Project.
6.13.16 The Colville Tribes urge the Forest Service as trustee of reserved rights to consider
these comments carefully, and would be pleased to further discuss our management
concerns during the coming weeks.
Response:
The Forest Service accepts these comments and has strived to strengthen the final EIS
based on their substantive content. The Forest Service holds that it is a trustee of
habitat in a multiple-use framework. The Colville Tribe's reserved rights are recognized
and would be protected.
The Forest Service met with the Natural Resource Committee of the Colville Tribes in
November 1995 to discuss their concerns. This was an open meeting where several
interested tribal members attended. The Forest Service also hosted a number of people
from the Colville Tribes and the BIA for a site visit to the Crown Jewel Project on
August 21, 1995.
Graves and Burials
6.13.17 What is the present condition and past history of burials or graves identified during
cultural resource surveys for the draft EIS? Did AHS consider the potential for extant
burials in the Crown Jewel Project area? Is the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) applicable in the Crown Jewel Project area?
Response:
An inventory for unrecorded archaeological sites, including burial sites, has been
performed according to the process required in 36 CFR 800, which included requesting
specific locations known to the responsible Tribal Government department. No
additional burial sites were identified. Should any burials encountered during Crown
Jewel Project activities, they would be accorded full protection and respect under the
law.
During the cultural resources survey which preceded the draft EIS, two areas containing
"graves" were identified, please refer to Table 3.17.3, Heritage Resources Identified by
Survey at Power Line Route and Related Construction Features, of the final EIS. Site
45OK361, an open camp with a burial component, was recorded in 1976 on land
owned by the Public Utility District (PUD), Oroville. At that time, professional
excavations of the site were not carried out. However, the site was disturbed by the
initial PUD construction efforts and subsequent vandalism by amateur collectors
(450K361 Site Form on file, Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, Olympia).
At site 24-75, a "burial" was removed by the Okanogan County Sheriff's Department
with the full knowledge of the Colville Confederated Tribes (CCT). No human remains
were reportedly found, but soil from the site was removed and reburied at St. Marie's
Mission (24-75 Site Form on file. Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation,
Olympia, Washington).
While it is true that prehistoric burials could be present on Buckhorn Mountain, none
have been discovered or reported to date. Issues concerning the Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) are only applicable if and when
burials are discovered on lands under federal or Native American jurisdiction. NAGPRA
applies to the Crown Jewel Project, if graves or funerary items are discovered. Should
graves or funerary objects be discovered during Crown Jewel Project development.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-179
work would be stopped in that immediate area. A programmatic Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) would then need to be entered into between the Proponent, the
Colville Tribes, and SHPO. In terms of cultural patrimony, the Colville Tribes would
represent local Native American interests.
Religion
6.13.18
Response:
The Heritage Resources section of the draft EIS failed to consider Native American
concerns over the Crown Jewel Project's impacts on religion and religious practices.
Will the proposed power line upgrade adversely affect the traditional cultural property
known as the Hee Stone?
The Colville Tribe's reserved water, hunting, and fishing rights on the "north half" are
recognized. There are also requirements embodied in historic preservation law and
federal policies on government to government relationships that have been, and
continue to be, followed.
Even though there are no treaty rights to recognize on the Buckhorn Mountain area,
attempts to learn specific cultural, historical, and religious concerns from the
responsible Tribal Government department occurred throughout the 4 + year life of the
cultural resource work on the Crown Jewel Project. Very little information was
obtained from the Colville Tribes.
Concerning the Hee Hee Stone (450K830), this National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) eligible property is presently located adjacent to a transmission line. The
planned upgrade to this line would not adversely effect this traditional cultural property.
Please refer to Section 4.16, Heritage Resources, of the final EIS.
Miscellaneous
6.13.19
Response:
6.13.20
Response:
Current academic sources, as well as extensive interviews with tribal members, would
seem essential in an investigation with impacts of the magnitude of this mine proposal.
The separate cultural resources report for the Crown Jewel Project adequately
summarized current archaeological research for the area (AHS, 1994).
A recent ethnographic overview for the Okanogan National Forest, written at the same
time the cultural resource investigations for the Crown Jewel Project were performed,
did interview a number of tribal members with mixed success. Some tribal members
who claimed to possess traditional knowledge of the area simply refused to disclose
what they knew. Others claimed there was little traditional significance to the Crown
Jewel Project area. Still others opined that the fact that the area was off the
reservation generally kept Colville tribal members traditional activities to the reservation
proper, or to areas south and west of the reservation.
In reviewing the findings of the cultural resource investigations, scarce research has led
to flawed conclusions, and the revised study should include comprehensive
documentation by Colville tribal members.
The cultural resource investigations are legally subject to the National Historic
Preservation Act as regulated under 36 CFR 800, which have been met. Federal
Regulation 36 CFR 800 allows for the tribal government to come forward with
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-180
additional documentation to augment the original cultural resource investigations and,
if they provide such information, the cultural resource investigations would be so
revised.
Since the draft EIS was issued, the Colville Tribes has performed their own Traditional
Cultural Property Study of the Crown Jewel Project area. No information from that
study has been presented to the lead agencies as of October 10, 1996.
6.14
TRANSPORTATION
General
6.14.1
Response:
Many comments simply presented an opinion or view on various aspects of the
transportation sections or that are beyond the scope of this EIS. In addition, several
comments cited the need for minor edits, clarifications, or typos in the text.
We appreciate the input of all those individuals, organizations, and agencies who
commented on the "transportation" aspects of the Crown Jewel Mine draft EIS. We
have reviewed your comments and made revisions, as appropriate, to the final EIS.
Hazardous Materials Transport
6.14.2 County Roads 9495 (Toroda Creek) and 9480 (Beaver Canyon portion) should not be
considered for the supply route due to adverse and unique winter conditions and the
risk of increased accidents and possible spill events due to the physical conditions and
location of these roads.
Response:
6.14.3
Response:
6.14.4
The planned supply route from Wauconda was recommended based on a number of
factors including directness of route, year-round accessibility, general road conditions,
grades, existing traffic, road capability to withstand heavy loads, relative uniform
elevation, better safety record, etc. The route from Oroville was also analyzed in
Section 4.17, Transportation, of the final EIS. It showed no particular advantage and
notable disadvantage over the proposed supply route selected. See Section 2.2.17,
Supply Transportation, in the final EIS for further discussion of the rationale for
selections of supply route options.
Not factored in are the miles along the road that are wetlands.
documented and spill impacts analyzed.
This must be
Neither the regulations of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the WADOE require that
wetland determinations be made along existing supply routes. Accident and spill
scenarios have been discussed in Section 4.22, Accidents and Spills, of the final EIS.
This discussion includes a possible cyanide spill into Beaver Lake.
The possibility of traffic jams (i.e., jack-knifed semi) on the supply route is not
addressed. The EIS must include a worst-case scenario for the supply route.
Response:
The Forest Service and WADOE note the concern that a jack-knifed semi could result
in "quite a traffic jam" on the supply route. It is a possibility, but the risk of this
happening is remote. Accident and spill scenarios addressed in Section 4.22,
Accidents and Spills, of the final EIS, include several different types of contaminants.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-181
Accidents
6.14.5
Response:
The projected materials use should be calculated for each of the hazardous materials
to be transported, how often, and quantities historically released during transport.
Engineering evaluations should then be made as to how these materials would be
contained and cleaned up, and the medical needs of any involved victims.
Data was obtained from the U.S. Department of Transportation regarding incidents
involving the transport of hazardous materials. In particular, statistics regarding the
transport of sodium cyanide and diesel fuel were obtained for the period of 1983
through 1994. These materials represent the bulk of hazardous material shipments.
The estimated loads of all consumables are shown on Table 2.4, Materials and
Supplies, and Table 2.5, Consumables Estimate - Underground Mining, of the final EIS.
Table 4.17.3, Annual Hazardous Material Transport, summarizes yearly estimates of
hazardous materials that would be transported by Alternative.
Cyanide: During the period 1983 through 1994, there were 114 reported incidents
nationwide involving liquid and solid sodium/potassium cyanide in the United States.
Of these 114 total incidents, five were due to vehicle (transport truck) accidents. The
remainder were due to defective packaging or handling during loading/unloading. The
incidents during loading/unloading happened within containment structures, thus there
was little effect on the environment.
There were 90,020.7 gallons of cyanide solution involved in the five transport incidents
with an estimated 3,052.3 gallons (3.4%) actually spilled, while there were 265,303
pounds of solid cyanide (briquettes) involved in the five incidents with 267.2 Ibs (0.1 %)
spilled. The most recent reported transport vehicle accident with spillage of cyanide
happened in 1988 in Nevada, where a truck carrying 47,600 pounds of cyanide
contained in 14 bins was involved in an accident. One bin was damaged and released
75 pounds of cyanide. There have been no human injuries or fatalities resulting from
the transport of cyanide during the time period 1983 through 1994.
Du Pont, a major supplier of cyanide and a potential supplier for the Crown Jewel
Project, has delivered more than 1,000,000,000 (one billion) pounds of sodium cyanide
to its customers in the past 60 years. Through their Conoco subsidiary, Du Pont owns
and operates a fleet of over 400 transportation units in North America with a safety
record (1.55 accidents per 1,000,000 miles) nearly six times better than the industry
average. In addition, since Conoco began transporting sodium cyanide from Du Pont's
Carlin, Nevada terminal (August 1989), they have not had an accident.
Safety in handling and transport is emphasized through the help and assistance of
major producers who provide detailed guidelines to customers outlining basic safety
precautions for working with cyanide to emergency treatments for cyanide poisoning
to providing rapid assistance in the event of a transport incident. The major cyanide
suppliers also emphasize the use of only highly qualified, specially trained carriers. In
addition, most producers have a toll-free "cyanide hotline" for assistance during
emergencies.
In the case of a transport release, the following minimum precautions and guidelines
should apply:
• Remember that cyanide is highly toxic;
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-182
• Good general ventilation should be provided to keep dust, mist, and HCN gas
below exposure limits;
• Have available and use as appropriate: face shields; rubber suits, aprons and
boots; disposable toxic dust and mist respirators; and self-contained breathing
air supply (in case of emergency); and,
• HCN detector, first aid, and medical treatment supplies.
To contain a spill of sodium cyanide, sweep up and shovel the material into a covered
container or plastic bag. Cover and keep spillage dry- Flush spill area with a dilute
solution of sodium or calcium hypochlorite. Dispose of according to federal, state, and
local regulations.
Diesel Fuel: During the period of 1983 through 1994, there were 2,700 reported
incidents involving diesel fuel nationwide including Alaska and Hawaii, of which 370
incidents (13.7%) resulted from vehicular accidents. In the state of Washington, during
the period of 1983 through 1994, there were 31 reported incidents of which nine
(29%) were vehicle accidents resulting in 4 to 4,750 gallons of spillage per incident.
The most recent reported accident was in 1989. There were no injuries or fatalities
associated with the accidents in Washington. However, there were three injuries and
three fatalities nationwide over the 12 year period.
In event of a release during transport, an attempt to contain the spill should be made
by shoveling a berm, dam, or other containment and using absorbent pillars at the
nearest culvert/barrier. At a minimum, a shovel and two absorbent pillars should be
carried by the carrier. These measures can help reduce the impacts until additional
response measures can be implemented by designated response teams.
Any attempt to provide a hypothetical type, extent and/or severity of potential injuries
due to an accident would be highly speculative. The Forest Service and WADOE prefer
to emphasize worker training to avoid accidents and to maintain measures to respond
to accidents which could result in injuries. The Mine Safety and Health Administration
(MSHA) requires safety training for the handling of mine related materials. The
Proponent's Integrated Plan of Operations (BMGC, 1993), outlines the minimum
employee education and training that would be implemented. The Proponent plans to
provide training to local emergency services personnel to handle potential incidents
involving cyanide and diesel fuel.
"Containment and clean-up plans" are discussed in Section 2.12.4, Spill Prevention,
Hazardous Materials, Fire Prevention and First Aid, of the final EIS. The Proponent
would prepare site specific detailed plans for emergency response and spill containment
as required by law as part of the permitting process.
There are too many assumptions and unknowns (i.e., spill location, weather, personnel
availability and location, etc.) to provide an estimation of travel time to a spill. It is
expected that response to a potential spill would occur as rapidly as possible.
It is expected that area hospitals would be equipped to handle "chemically poisoned
victims." The Proponent has indicated that cyanide antidote kits or funding would be
made available to the local hospitals. See Section 4.19, Socioeconomic Environment,
of the final EIS for further discussion.
The Proponent would have trained emergency response personnel on staff at the Crown
Jewel Project. In addition, the emergency services at the Crown Jewel Project would
include capability for emergency helicopter transport for injured personnel. Okanogan
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-183
6.14.6
Response:
6.14.7
Response:
County would be responsible for having additional training provided for private
individuals and Okanogan County response teams.
What would be the effect of increased traffic on the existing accident rate?
The Okanogan County and Forest Service roads within the Crown Jewel Project
transportation network are similar in nature to other mountainous rural roads in the
United States At the same time, they should not be compared to urban, highly
traveled, better maintained roads. For that reason, the Forest Service and WADOE
have primarily used data collected for these roads in the analysis.
The historical accident data (1988-1992) obtained from the state and county
transportation departments indicate an average of 32.3 accidents occur annually on the
transportation routes proposed for the Crown Jewel Project. See Section 4.17.3,
Effects Common to All Action Alternatives, of the final EIS. These 1988-1992 accident
statistics indicate the following:
• Hwy 20 has an annual average of 0.23 accidents per 100,000 miles traveled.
• County Road 9495 (Toroda Creek) has an annual average of 0.4 accidents per
100,000 miles traveled.
• County Road 9480 (west) (Oroville - Toroda Road) has an annual average of
0.44 accidents per 100,000 miles traveled.
• County Road 9480 (east) (Oroville - Toroda Road) had no reported accidents
between 1988-1992.
• County Road 4895 (Pontiac Ridge Road) has had annual average of 8.2
accidents per 100,000 miles traveled (based on 2 reported accidents).
It is understood that not all "accidents" are reported to the authorities; however,
accidents do happen. There are no enforced "mitigative" measures in place, except for
the limited visits by the Sheriff's department. Therefore, the accident statistics for the
Crown Jewel Project area county roads probably understate the actual conditions.
With the potential increase in daily traffic from the Crown Jewel Project, it is possible
that the number of accidents could increase over the life of the operation. However,
any increase in accidents would probably not be directly related to the increase in
traffic because of the mitigation measures proposed in Section 2.12.14, Transportation,
of the final EIS. Other mitigation measures would include trucking companies using
trained drivers, upgrade of some roads, adherence to speed limits, and general public
awareness of increased traffic.
With the mitigation measures implemented and the general public awareness of
increased traffic, it might be possible that the potential for accidents per 100,000 miles
traveled would decrease rather than increase as has been suggested.
Slow moving water trucks on Bolster Road controlling dust could cause accidents.
A slow moving water truck could cause accidents. However, the Forest Service and
WADOE suspect the likelihood is remote and probably no greater than the farm
equipment, local resident's vehicles, and the other traffic currently using Bolster Road.
Watering the road to control dust during construction activities may actually decrease
accidents due to improved visibility.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L -184
Maintenance Responsibilities and Liabilities
6.14.8
Response:
6.14.9
Response:
Who would be responsible and pay for upgrading, upkeep and maintenance of existing
Okanogan County roads? What would be the cost to the Okanogan County and
taxpayers?
Okanogan County has indicated that they do not anticipate any changes to their winter
maintenance schedule; but, if a change in the schedule was needed, an additional
employee and truck would probably be required. In a verbal agreement, the Proponent
has said they would pay for the extra cost. The Proponent and Okanogan County are
in negotiations about the maintenance responsibilities of County Road 4895. The
maintenance of all other county roads would remain the responsibility of Okanogan
County. Okanogan County would receive additional property and fuel taxes.
Who would ultimately pay for cleanup of spills?
The carrier would be financially responsible for each shipment until the Proponent has
accepted delivery. For example, Du Pont Chemical Company indicated that they:
1. Are self insured for spills up to $1 million;
2. Carry additional insurance for spills over $1 million;
3. Are liable for the merchandise until it is delivered to the site;
4. Have never had a spill of a bulk container of cyanide; and,
5. Have an emergency response team in Spokane, Washington.
Average Daily Traffic
6.14.10 Concerns were proposed about traffic volume estimates.
Response:
Section 4.17, Transportation, of the final EIS has provided a projection for Crown
Jewel Project related traffic including employee traffic, supply, and miscellaneous
traffic. See Table 4.17.1, Average Daily Traffic By Alternative, and Table 4.17,2,
Traffic Summary By Road, of the final EIS for the actual projections.
Table 4.17.1, Average Daily Traffic By Alternative, presents the expected conditions
for the construction phase projected for a whole year (conservative case). The peak
employment expectation is 250 persons during the construction phase, 225 individuals
for the actual construction aspects and 25 individuals for the operations portion. This
represents an average daily traffic (ADT )of 270. Refer to Appendix G, Traffic
Assumptions, of the final EIS for how this number is derived. To this projected ADT
of 270, an ADT of 19 has been added to represent regulatory and miscellaneous
(mostly logging traffic, [13 vehicles]} traffic, for a total of 289 ADT for personnel
transport. No matter whether these people work for six months or for the conservative
projection of 12 months, it still equals an average daily traffic number of 289 vehicles
per day for the transport of the construction workers, other personnel, and logging
traffic related to Crown Jewel Project construction.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-185
These employee ADT projections are quite conservative because 250 employees are
a peak projection and are only expected for a few months during construction. A lesser
number of people would be required the majority of the time during the construction
phase. Due to this variability in the number of workers required at any specific time
during the construction phase, mandatory busing was not considered.
In order to fully evaluate the potential traffic impacts, we then added the supply traffic
ADT. 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. Appendix G, Traffic Assumptions, in the final EIS presents the
assumptions, methodologies, and calculations used in the traffic analysis. The draft EIS
incorrectly stated an ADT of 18 for construction supply traffic and has been revised to
accurately reflect the above discussion.
The construction phase has been conservatively projected to last for 12 months, which
are the numbers presented in Table 4.17.2, Traffic Summary By Road.
6.14.11
Response:
6.14.12
Response:
6.14.13
Response:
Will busing to the Crown Jewel Project be mandatory?
The Proponent has indicated that busing/van pooling would be provided and encouraged
during operations as the primary employee transportation from a location in or near
Oroville to the Crown Jewel Project site. The EIS analysis assumes that most
employees would live in the Tonasket-Oroville corridor. The employee transport
analysis presents three scenarios: (1) 93%of the employees would be bused; (2)
75% of the employees would be bused; and, (3) none of the employees would be
bused. These scenarios were selected to present a range within which the actual
condition would fit. Appendix G, Traffic Assumptions, of the final EIS presents the
assumptions and the estimated effects of the 93%, 75%, and 0% busing levels.
Effects in the EIS were displayed based on 75% busing during operations.
Traffic increases on Havillah Road have not been addressed. There appears to be
inadequate studies of impacts to Havillah and Nealey Roads.
Based on the proposed Crown Jewel Project routes, there would be no anticipated
direct effects to either Havillah or Nealey Roads from Crown Jewel Project traffic.
However, it is acknowledged that employee traffic could occur on any routes within the
area of the Crown Jewel Project, but it would be minimal. There could be some
indirect effects as a result of increased population, but this impact is also expected to
be minor.
What is the definition of ADT? The definition should be improved over the one now in
the draft EIS and Glossary.
ADT is a measure of traffic over a 24-hour period and is determined by counting the
number of vehicles (from both directions) passing a specific point on a given road. In
the case of the Crown Jewel Project, it has been assumed that all traffic would return
on the same day and on the same road that was used for initial access. Therefore, one
vehicle going to and from (round-trip) the Crown Jewel Project would result in an ADT
of 2. The above definition has been included in Section 3.18, Transportation, and in
Chapter 7, Glossary, of the final EIS.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-186
6.14.14 Why was carpooling analyzed when, on page 2-41, of the draft EIS carpooling was
eliminated from further evaluation?
Response:
Carpooling as a mitigation for the construction period would be encouraged by the lead
agencies. It would be difficult to schedule busing for construction workers from
different companies based on the specialized work and expertise needed to construct
the facilities within a reasonable timeframe. Therefore, it was recommended that
carpooling be used during the construction period.
Carpooling was analyzed for the construction period only, while busing was used as the
mitigating factor for the operational period. Mitigation measures and method analyzed
in the final EIS were proposed by the Proponent or suggested by the lead agencies.
Miscellaneous
6.14.15 Do Table 2.4, Materials and Supplies, and Table 2.5, Consumables Estimate -
Underground Mining, include supply consumption by the Crown Jewel Project testing
labs?
Response:
6.14.16
Response:
6.14.17
Response:
6.14.18
Yes, supply consumption by the on-site testing laboratory is included in the
miscellaneous category in both Table 2.4, Materials and Supplies, and Table 2.5,
Consumables Estimate - Underground Mining.
Who will enforce rules, regulations, weight restrictions, and mitigation on Okanogan
County roads?
Okanogan County would enforce rules, regulations and mitigation on County roads.
State and Okanogan County law enforcement would continue to be responsible for all
enforcement of applicable laws on County roads. The Crown Jewel Project would not
affect how weight restrictions are placed on County roads. The Crown Jewel Project
is being designed with excess storage capacity for project materials given that weight
restrictions could be in place for several months at a time during spring break-up. The
Proponent has proposed at least six weeks of storage capacity for most materials
needed in the mining operation. Section 3.18, Transportation, of the final EIS identifies
the roads that have weight restrictions imposed during the spring thaw.
On Okanogan County roads, pilot cars would be self monitored. The Forest Service
and WADOE expect some private citizen monitoring would occur by local residents
reporting infractions to authorities.
During spring breakup load restrictions, is there a plan for the stockpiling of supplies?
The Proponent has proposed at least six weeks of storage capacity for all supply items,
including the high consumption items. However, in extreme or emergency situations,
travel at night over frozen roads could occur.
"I am appalled that the mining company was allowed to build 27 miles of road, albeit
described as 'test platforms', in a pristine wilderness, when your own Forest Service
Plan dictates a reduction in road density. Who gave permission for this travesty?"
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft E/S • 1-757
Response:
6.14.19
Response:
6.14.20
Response:
6.14.21
Response:
Table 3.19.1, Crown Jewel Project Exploration Summary, of the final EIS displays the
history of the Crown Jewel Project from initiation in 1988 through March 1996. This
history portrays the sequencing of current disturbance and the agencies permitting the
activities. Federal mining laws require Federal agencies to provide a mining claimant
reasonable access to their claims for further prospecting, mining, or necessary related
activities.
It is suggested that the operational conditions of the roads and highways on the supply
route will not be affected. How can this be?
The "operational conditions" of roads and highways on the supply route would continue
to be paved or gravel as they are now. These roads and highways would be two-lane
where two-lane traffic now exists and they would accommodate Crown Jewel Project
and general public traffic as they do now. The supply route currently accommodates
logging/commercial trucks and general public traffic. Maintenance and snow-plowing
would continue, and none of the supply route would be closed to public traffic.
Okanogan County has indicated that the proposed supply route (Toroda Creek Road via
Highway 20) is the safest route available. The other alternatives have structural
inadequacies as well as long steep grades which would make winter driving even more
hazardous.
Highway 20 is already an industrial route used by many large trucks.
Forest Service Road 3575-120 from Pontiac Ridge Road to the mine site would be
upgraded from the current operating condition to a 24-foot wide gravel surfaced road.
The proposed final design is currently under review by the Forest Service. Costs of the
upgrade and ongoing maintenance would be the responsibility of the Proponent.
County Road 4895 would be upgraded by the Proponent during the first year of
operations.
The traffic impacts to Bolster Road are not covered.
Transportation impacts to Bolster Road as a result of Starrem Reservoir construction
and operation have been included in Section 4.17, Transportation, of the final EIS.
The cumulative effects study on transportation is extremely minimal and does not
adequately address or represent the potential impacts. Impacts from job-seekers who
come looking for work and find none are not included.
The Forest Service and WADOE believe the discussion is adequate. Impacts from
logging are already included in the historic baseline numbers. The Forest Service and
WADOE have no information that any existing mines plan to expand or that any new
mines would be proposed in the future; therefore, identifying potential impacts from
other potential mines would be inappropriate.
Indirect and cumulative impacts due to a Crown Jewel Project related population
increase are discussed qualitatively in Section 4.14, Recreation, and Section 4.19,
Socioeconomic Environment, of the final EIS.
Predicting a number for "job seekers who come looking for work and find none" is
speculative. The EIS does qualitatively mention that in-migration of people could affect
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-188
6.14.22
Response:
6.14.23
Response:
6.14.24
Response:
6.14.25
Response:
6.14.26
Response:
6.14.27
various resources. However, we have no evidence that substantial increases in impacts
would result.
There were comments concerning the March 94 Draft Transportation Impact Report.
The March 24 Draft Transportation Impact Report was an internal working draft
document. Assumptions, methodologies, and data were re-examined and the results
are presented in the final EIS in Appendix G, Traffic Assumptions. No "final"
transportation impact report is planned.
County Road 4895 is a gravel road, and it is incorrect to state that the road might be
closed during spring breakup.
The Okanogan County Department of Public Works stated "Gravel roads are not
normally restricted unless severe mud conditions or rutting develop" (Hinger, 1993) and
"All county roads are subject to restrictions during the Spring thaw" (Hinger, 1995).
Restrictions on paved roads accessing the site effectively create restrictions on the
gravel roads. There was a heavy load restriction placed on one gravel road, in 1996,
in Okanogan County.
The list of roads identified for closure on Page 4-143 is slightly different than on the
list on Page 2-100.
The list of road closures on page 2-100, of the draft EIS are proposed wildlife
mitigation measures which would result in permanent or temporary closures of those
roads. The list on page 4-143 of the draft EIS refers to roads which would be closed
to through traffic during the life of the operation due to facility disturbance. However,
after further study, the roads to be closed for wildlife mitigation would be associated
with the Marias Creek Road 3550, from Bat Canyon west to the boundary with State
land. See Section 2.12.18, Wildlife and Fish - Public Land Enhancement, of the final
EIS.
Pontiac Ridge Road is closer to four miles in length to Forest Road 3575-120 at the
mine and is dirt and dust not gravel.
County Road 4895 (Pontiac Ridge Road) is about two miles in length from the
intersection of County Road 9480, on the west, to the intersection with Forest Road
3575-120 and has been surfaced with material from the Pine Chee pit located in
Section 3 (USGS Map).
Will local trucking companies be used, such as ....?
The Proponent has not identified the specific companies or people to be employed, nor
is it relevant to the EIS to require them to do so.
What would be the return route for semi trucks; would they run 24 hours a day; and
who would enforce restrictions?
Response:
The analysis assumed the transport (semi) trucks would use the same road for access
and return. Pilot cars were not considered for "non-hazardous" supplies. According
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • I-759
to the Proponent's operating plan, deliveries would only be accepted during daylight
hours. The Proponent has indicated that supply deliveries would be scheduled Monday
through Thursday. In rare cases, night or weekend travel could occur.
6.14.28
Response:
6.14.29
Response:
6.14.30
Response:
6.14.31
Response:
6.14.32
Response:
Our cows have to cross Cow Camp Road at least once a day to get water in the NE
part of our land. Heavy traffic on Cow Camp and the Pontiac Ridge Road could hurt
or kill our cows.
With any increase in traffic, there would be an increased chance of a cow/vehicle
accident. But, considering the number of vehicles anticipated, the risk should be
minimal.
The transport of cyanide, explosives, diesel fuel, etc. on the Beth-Beaver Lake Road
(County Road 9480) is insane. The road would have to be modified drastically. The
draft EIS does not address this.
The Okanogan County Public Works Department feels the road is adequate for transport
of supplies to the Crown Jewel Project. There is one bad curve in the vicinity of Beth
and Beaver Lakes, but widening the road at this point would require putting fill in the
lake.
Transportation of mining supplies and personnel will be more hazardous than described
by the Proponent.
"Transportation of mining supplies and personnel will be more hazardous than described
by the Proponent" is a misconception. The impact analysis was conducted under the
guidance of the Forest Service and WADOE, and not the Proponent. The roads
proposed for use have been used by logging trucks for years with a very good safety
record.
Estimated driving speed on unpaved access roads will be higher than 25 m.p.h. as
stated in the draft EIS. No one around here drives at 25 m.p.h. on dirt roads, thus dust
emissions will be higher than stated.
The 25 m.p.h. speed limit would be enforced on the portions of the Crown Jewel
Project area where haul trucks or other large equipment normally operate or any other
portions of Crown Jewel Project roads that the Proponent deems applicable due to
human or environmental safety. Forest Service roads have a speed limit of 25 m.p.h.
Otherwise the speed limits would be as posted by Okanogan County and enforced by
the Sheriff's department.
The unique nature of local Okanogan County roads, particularly in winter conditions,
must be addressed more fully.
Okanogan County roads are not any more unique in nature than other mountainous
county roads in the United States Forest Service personnel have talked to truck drivers
that deliver to mines in Eastern Washington, Northern Idaho and Western Montana, and
these truck drivers indicated to the Forest Service that the roads accessing the Crown
Jewel Project are much better than some of the other roads that they have to travel in
the winter.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS 4 L-190
6.15 LAND USE/RECLAMATION
General
6.15.1 There were many comments which expressed general positive an negative opinions
concerning the reclamation alternatives. Other comments cited typos or requested
minor clarifications not requiring a specific response.
Response:
We appreciate the input of all those individuals, organizations, and agencies who
commented on the "land use/reclamation" aspects of the Crown Jewel Mine draft EIS.
We have reviewed your comments and made revisions, as appropriate, to the final EIS.
Compliance with Reclamation Regulations
6.15.2 The reclamation discussions are too sketchy in the draft EIS. The plans presented in
the draft EIS do not meet the minimum requirements of the WADNR or other agencies;
i.e. Forest Service, BLM, or WAOOE. Bonding amounts are not defined, so what will
stop the operator (Proponent) from just walking away.
Response:
The proposed reclamation plan for Alternative B consists of a 90 + page document plus
tables, maps, and appendices, which is on file with the Tonasket Ranger District, U.
S. Forest Service. This plan is summarized in Section 2.11, Reclamation Measures, of
the EIS, including additional measures required by the agencies. Short, topic-specific
summaries are also provided throughout Chapter 2, Alternatives Including the Proposed
Action, of the EIS to aid the reader in understanding how reclamation activities could
vary by Crown Jewel Project alternative. The Proponent's plan has recently been
revised (July 1996) which provides for segmental reclamation, reduces overall waste
rock slopes to 2.51-1:1 V, and increases woody plant stocking rates.
The reclamation plan summary presented in the final EIS defines revegetation goals and
objectives, addresses revegetation schedules and temporary shutdown procedures, and
summarizes (in some detail) the reclamation and revegetation techniques proposed by
the Proponent. As appropriate for a NEPA/SEPA document, this discussion is in
summary form and is tiered to the Proponent's detailed Reclamation Plan which is
available for review by interested parties. Based on reclamation plan discussions
presented in EIS documents prepared for similar mining operations, the reclamation plan
information presented in the Crown Jewel Project EIS is considered to be informative
and complete.
As discussed in Section 2.11.5, Reclamation and Environmental Protection Performance
Securities and Section 2.14, Performance Securities, of the final EIS, bond amounts
cannot be calculated at this time since it is uncertain how many performance securities
would be required, which federal or state agency would hold such securities, or what
type of financial instrument would be used to back the guarantee. This section goes
on to note that, by state and federal law, no mining or milling operations can
commence without the approval of permits and plans by the Forest Service, BLM,
WADOE, or WADNR. Agency approval of these permits would depend, in part, on the
calculation of adequate performance securities and execution of the appropriate
financial guarantees.
The Washington Metal Mining and Milling Operations Act, as amended in 1995,
requires the Proponent to provide a performance security that includes funding of
cleanup before permits are issued (RCW 232.11 (2) (c)). These securities include both
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft CIS • L-191
6.15.3
Response:
6.15.4
Response:
6.15.5
a reclamation performance security and an environmental protection performance
security. If the Proponent "walks away" from the Crown Jewel Project, the securities
would be available to reclaim or clean up the abandoned site, as necessary. Refer also
to Section 2.14, Performance Securities, of the final EIS.
Section 2.14.1, Reclamation Performance Security, subsection "Metals Mine
Reclamation Performance Security Comparisons," lists the approximate reclamation
performance security amounts currently in place for certain western United States
precious metals mining operations.
The Proponent has included in their revised reclamation plan (BMGC, 1996f) a
performance security cost estimate which proposes $4,259,150 in year one;
$6,119,869 in year four; $6,111,266 in year nine; and $1,061,290 in year ten. The
Forest Service presently holds two reclamation bonds for the past exploration work
which total $530,000.
There were various opinions expressed concerning the need to have overall 3H: 1V final
slopes versus 2H:1V to reduce erosion potential and ensure revegetation success.
The Proponent has revised their reclamation plan (BMGC, 1996f), available for review
at the Tonasket Ranger District office, which reduces overall reclaimed slopes to
2.5H:1 V. The final EIS has been revised to reflect this change.
The analysis presented in Section 4.4.3, Effects Common to All Action Alternatives,
described a 1.5H:1V and 2H:1V slope angles as having "high" erosion potentials.
Further, the text indicates that reclamation on 21-1:1 V slope angles typically requires a
greater input of time, money, and effort, but that the effect of slope is mitigatable.
There was no intention in the section to indicate that reclamation on such slope angles
was impossible.
Please see the revised Section 4.4, Geotechnical Considerations, for the current
analysis of erosion (erodibility) potentials.
The reclamation plan does not describe the impacts from ARD from the reclaimed pit
whether left as a lake or partially backfilled.
Please refer to Section 3.3.3, Geochemistry, of the final EIS for a discussion on the
potential for ARD from either backfilled waste rock or exposed pit walls. In summary,
teachability tests indicated that precipitation would not leach substantial concentrations
of metals or radionuclides from the waste rock or the pit walls. Also, depending on the
alternative, humidity cell tests indicated that 5-29% of the total waste rock volume
generated at the mine could be potentially acid-generating. A discussion of the
potential impacts to ground and surface water are presented in Sections 4.6, Ground
Water, Springs and Seeps, and 4.7, Surface Water, of the final EIS.
Refer also to responses 6.5.39 and 6.5.45 of this appendix.
General reclamation concerns included:
• Burying of concrete and other solid waste on site;
• Netting of pit lake or tailings facility to prevent birds from encountering ponded
water;
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-192
Response:
6.15.6
Response:
The use of a sprinkler system to evaporate tailings solution; and.
The existing clear cut area on Buckhorn mountain.
Burying of concrete - All clean concrete could be buried on site. Other solid waste
could be transported off site to an approved solid waste landfill. Building foundations
could be buried, covered with soil and revegetated.
Netting - Using Alternative B as an example, the pit lake would cover approximately 20
acres and the tailings facility (at peak), with pooled solutions, would cover about 58
acres. To net areas of this size would involve a considerable engineering effort.
Section 4.12.4, Toxics, of the final EIS discusses the potential impacts to bird and bat
taxa. Table 4.12.5, Risk or Probability of Toxic Impact at the Tailings Pond, of the final
EIS lists the overall risk of population level impacts to birds and bats as "low" or
"negligible." Risks of impacts from the pit pond to terrestrial species is negligible based
on the report Examination of Potential for Toxicitv to Aquatic and Terrestrial Species
in and Near the Proposed Pit Pond for the Crown Jewel Mine (Beak, 1996).
Monitoring of the tailings pond would be required, as discussed in Section 2.12.18.12,
Wildlife Exposure to Toxic Substances, Section 2.13.5, Wildlife and Fish Monitoring,
Section 2.12.13.4, Tailings Disposal Facility, Section 2.13.1, Water Resources
Monitoring, Section 2.13.3, Geotechnical Monitoring, and Section 2.13.4, Geochemical
Monitoring. If migratory bird deaths occur in the tailings facility, measures would be
taken to discourage use. These measures may require hazing, netting the pond,
covering the pond, etc.
The pit lake would not contain cyanide or other chemicals associated with the milling
process. The geochemistry analyses presented in Section 3.3.3, Geochemistry, of the
final EIS indicates that no substantial concentrations of metals or radionuclides would
be leached from the waste rock or pit walls.
Sprinklers - It is anticipated that evaporation would remove remaining solutions from
the tailings and solution ponds at reclamation. However, sprinklers may be used to aid
evaporation during final reclamation. Sprinklers would only be used for a short duration
during the dry season. The impacts of particles blown by the wind during sprinkling
are anticipated to be negligible.
Clear cut - The logging which occurred on Buckhorn Mountain, at the site of the
proposed pit, was conducted by a company unrelated to the Crown Jewel Project.
That timber sale was sold in 1977, a number of years before the commencement of
exploration. No planting was conducted due to the exploration drilling which occurred
after the logging and because of the proposed mining disturbance. Under Alternative
A, No Action, the Proponent would be required to reclaim the site, which would include
reforestation.
Several letters were received requesting examples of open pit (gold mine) reclamation
sites, both in and outside Washington. Others requested information on the
Proponent's reclamation record.
The Proponent is conducting reclamation at their other mining operations in Colorado,
Nevada, Australia, and Bolivia (South America). In Colorado, the Proponent has
reclaimed portions of the waste rock disposal areas and the pit area under standards
of the Colorado Division of Mining and Geology. In Nevada, the Proponent is reclaiming
waste rock sites and other facilities in accordance with the standards of the Nevada
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-193
6.15.7
Response:
6.15.8
Response:
Division of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Mining and Reclamation. Australia has
similar requirements for reclamation. In Colorado, the Proponent has filed a surety
bond with the State of Colorado in the amount of $6.4 million for reclamation.
The reclamation plan for the proposed pit lake is sketchy. More details on proposed
vegetation types and fish species is required.
Reclamation of the proposed pit lake is a concept introduced by the EIS interdisciplinary
team during the evolution of this EIS. The Proponent has revised their reclamation plan
for the pit area. Refer to Section 4.3, Pit and Highways, of the Reclamation Plan
(BMGC, 1996f). A summary of the revised plan is included in the final EIS. The plan
has become a part of a mining permit application to be submitted to the Washington
Department of Natural Resources (WADNR) for approval. The WADNR permit is a
document, separate from this EIS, which is required to operate a mining operation of
this type within the State of Washington. This reclamation plan would also be part of
the Plan of Operations submitted to the Forest Service for approval on the portions of
the pit on National Forest land and to the BLM for approval on the portions of the pit
on land that they administer.
The draft EIS is not clear as to when and how the recovery solution collection pond and
the storm water control system will be reclaimed.
Reclamation schedules and procedures for the recovery solution collection pond and the
storm water control system are discussed in Sections 4.5.5 and 4.7, respectively, of
the Reclamation Plan (BMGC, 1996f). Section 2.11.4, General Reclamation
Procedures, of the final EIS has been modified to summarize these procedures.
Loss of Biodiversity, Low Stocking Rate
6.15.9
Response:
The following are comments received regarding biodiversity and stocking rates:
a) "...some wildlife habitat and biological diversity would likely be irreversible and
irretrievable due to the loss of soil productivity and old growth..." The
statement that timber losses in areas covered by waste rock are not irreversible
is not supported.
b) Proposed plant species for revegetation are invasive, not native; and as such,
are inconsistent with the intent of NEPA to ensure protection of biodiversity.
In addition, the cumulative impacts of logging, grazing, and mining involve a
loss of biodiversity.
c) Within the species selection for revegetation, no mention of forbs is included
with seeds and shrubs.
It is true that the effects to soil productivity as a result of mining versus clear-cutting
are not the same. The effects of mining operations on soil productivity would be
restored, in large measure, as a result of the stockpiling of suitable soil materials,
fertilization techniques, soil reapplication, microbial inoculation, and mulching. This is
not the case with regard to the effects of clear-cutting where less rigorous soil
mitigation actions are required.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-194
Recent reports suggest that to replace the ecosystem of an old-growth western forest
might take 180 to 500 years. It is suggested that to create a new forest stand that
would provide SIT cover for deer might take 100 to 150 years. Given the long-term
nature of the effects, clear-cutting an old-growth forest essentially becomes an
irreversible commitment of resources. Harvest of SIT cover is a long-term irretrievable
commitment of resources. (See Section 4.23.1, Irreversible Resource Commitment, in
the final EIS.)
Timber losses in areas covered by waste rock are considered to be generally reversible,
in the long term, given observations made during the soil survey conducted within the
Crown Jewel Project area boundaries in 1992. Soil pedon characteristics were
observed at approximately 325 points within the Crown Jewel Project area, including
18 formal sampling points as recorded in the document Soils Technical Memorandum-
Project (Cedar Creek Associates, Inc., 1992). The vast majority of these sites
supported some type of forest community dominated by one or more tree species
including Englemann spruce (Picea engelmannii), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii),
and western larch (Larix occidenta/is). These sites typically, though by no means
exclusively, exhibited subsurface soil horizons with high coarse fragment contents
(rocks, cobbles, and gravels) overlain by comparatively shallow surficial horizons
characterized by moderate textures and low coarse fragment contents. In effect, tree-
dominated vegetation communities were essentially ubiquitous throughout the Crown
Jewel Project area and appeared to be well established regardless of soil
characteristics. Undisturbed grass- and shrub-dominated communities were rare within
the proposed Crown Jewel Project area boundaries. Where they occurred, soils
supporting grass vegetation communities were typically characterized by soil depths
less than 12 inches to hard bedrock. Shrub vegetation communities were typically
supported by soils 40+ inches deep having a low percentage of coarse fragments
throughout the soil profile.
The Proponent proposes to reclaim the sloping portions of the waste rock disposal sites
by applying approximately 18 inches of salvaged soil having a low coarse fragment
content. The waste rock material would consist of rock material size classes ranging
from boulders to gravels to some finer materials. This soil/waste rock stratigraphy
compares favorably with the soil characteristics of a number of pedon sample points
currently supporting established tree vegetation communities in the areas of the
proposed waste rock disposal sites. These pedon sample points include M-11, M-14,
M-15, and M-17, all of which are located in or near the proposed boundaries of either
the north or south waste rock disposal sites of Alternative B. There are, of course,
differences between the waste rock material and the endemic subsurface soil material
in terms of pore space, chemistry, and fines content. Differences in pore space and
fines content may be reduced to some degree by weathering over the long term. It is
believed that tree communities would become established over the waste rock disposal
sites given the overall similarities of the pre- and post-mining soil and soil/waste rock
characteristics, respectively, and the apparent adaptability of the tree species common
to the proposed Crown Jewel Project area. Species dominance and tree densities are
unknown, hence the phrase "generally not irreversible."
A 12-inch resoiling depth is proposed for the level benches of the waste rock disposal
sites. An eventual tree-dominated vegetation community occurring over these benches
is also assumed to be valid. The natural soil profiles exhibiting a deeper surficial soil
layer over the high coarse fragment subsurface layer occur over moderate to steeply
sloping terrain. It is believed that a lesser reapplied soil depth is sufficient to support
a future tree community on nearly level slopes due to higher soil moisture infiltration,
coupled with a higher tree seed retention rate due to decreased runoff potential.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-195
Section 4.9.3, Effects Common to All Action Alternatives, of the final EIS has been
modified to more fully explain this concept.
Of the 19 species proposed for revegetation, only two forb species are considered to
be non-native. These species are cicer milkvetch (Astragalus cicer) and sanfoin
(Onobrychis viciaefoilia).
Cicer milkvetch, a native of Eurasia, is tolerant of a wide variety of soil and site
characteristics and is palatable to both livestock and wild ungulates. This species also
has a well-rated potential for restoring big game range in the Intermountain West
(Wasser, 1982). It has been used widely in reclamation plantings due to its hardiness,
nitrogen-fixing capability, and commercial availability. Though considered to be
strongly competitive in well-established stands, the seeds/ft2 planting rate for cicer
milkvetch is about 10% of the seeds to be planted as proposed in the Reclamation Plan
prepared by the Proponent for the Crown Jewel Project.
Sanfoin, a native of southern Europe, is also adapted to a wide variety of environmental
conditions including those characterizing the Crown Jewel Project site. It is a non-
bloating, commercially available legume (Thornburg, 1982) which has a history of being
planted for reclamation purposes in the West. Not as competitive as cicer milkvetch,
the planting rate proposed by the Proponent is about 5% of the seeds to be planted per
square foot.
The subsection entitled "Seeding and Planting" in Section 2.11.4, General Reclamation
Procedures, page 2-84 of the draft EIS, is in error. Forb species are included in the
Proponent's proposed seed mixtures to be used to revegetated areas disturbed by
Project components. The forb species proposed for seeding include cicer milkvetch
(Astragalus cicer), American vetch (Vicia americana), Rocky Mountain penstemon
(Penstemon strictus), and sanfoin (Onobrychis vicaefolia). Planting specifics may be
found in the proposed Reclamation Plan for the Crown Jewel Project (BMGC, 1996f)
prepared by the Proponent in consultation with Colder Associates, Inc. and Shepherd
Miller, Inc. Section 2.11.4, General Reclamation Procedures, of the final EIS has been
modified to indicate that forb species are included in the proposed seed mixtures.
Refer to Section 2.11.4, General Reclamation Procedures, of the final EIS which states
"As much natural, local vegetation seed sources (grasses, forbs, shrubs, and trees)
would be used as feasible." Seed sources from sites with similar environments would
be selected to ensure that the plants are adapted to the elevation, precipitation,
temperature, and soil conditions present at the Crown Jewel Project. As much of the
seed as possible would be collected locally.
6.15.10 Why does the draft EIS propose 50-100 tress per acre in Alternative B and up to 250
trees per acre in the other alternatives? Alternative B would turn a forest land into a
shrub/grass land.
Response:
The tree planting rate for Alternative B (50-100 trees/acre where trees are to be
planted) was proposed by the Proponent in their Reclamation Plan as revised in
November 1993. The rate of 250 trees per acre (where trees are to be planted) was
made a part of the reclamation plans for the other action alternatives by the Tonasket
Ranger District of the U.S. Forest Service.
In the revised Reclamation Plan (BMGC, 1996f), the Proponent has committed to
stocking rates of 250 seedlings per acre in random patterns (page 3-38). Actual
stocking rates would be agreed upon by the Forest Service, BLM, WADNR, and the
Proponent, and would become a permit condition.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS 4 L-196
Long-Term Reclamation Monitoring
6.15.11
Response:
6.15.12
Response:
The reclamation plan does not address long-term waste rock and tailings monitoring in
regard to erosion, vegetation, and stability. In addition, tailings reclamation does not
address the impacts on deep-rooting trees or burrowing animals. Monitoring in
perpetuity for acid mine drainage should be planned.
The Proponent has committed to extensive monitoring before, during, and after mining.
Details of the monitoring efforts are summarized in Section 2.13, Monitoring Measures,
of the final EIS. Monitoring would include ground and surface water quantity and
quality, erosion of tailings pond (refer to response 6.15.18), geotechnical monitoring,
geochemical monitoring, wildlife and fish monitoring, revegetatation monitoring (refer
also to Sections 5.0 and 6.0 of the Proponent's Reclamation Plan, [July 1996]), and
reclamation monitoring. Section 2.13, Monitoring Measures, states that environmental
monitoring would be part of any action alternative. Monitoring programs would include
reclamation and post closure aspects of the Crown Jewel Project. There would be
periodic review of monitoring data, and the Proponent would prepare an annual report
for monitoring studies. Besides meeting periodically with representatives of state and
federal agencies, a public meeting, if desired, could be held annually to discuss
monitoring information.
Implementation of the reclamation plans should preclude the need for monitoring in
perpetuity.
Deep rooting trees and burrowing animals: Based on the geochemistry analyses
presented in Section 3.3.3, Geochemistry, of the final EIS, and the Proponent's
proposal to cover the tailings pond with three feet of coarse material before applying
soil, no adverse impacts to vegetation is anticipated. The Proponent has committed to
a vegetation monitoring plan which would serve to assess any impacts to vegetation.
Refer to Section 2.13.9, Reclamation Monitoring, of the final EIS and Sections 5.0 and
6.0 in the Proponent's Reclamation Plan (BMGC, 1996f).
The impacts on birds or mammals which have consumed worms or small rodents which
have burrowed into the reclaimed tailings is discussed in Section 4.12.4, Toxics, in the
final EIS. Monitoring of wildlife would be required. Section 2.13.5, Wildlife and Fish
Monitoring, of the final EIS discusses the monitoring which would be conducted.
Detailed monitoring plans, including parameters and schedules, would be developed by
the Proponent and approved by the appropriate regulatory authorities i.e., WADNR,
WADOE, Forest Service, and BLM prior to permit approval.
There are no detailed Corrective Action Plans (CAP's) in the reclamation plan sections.
Also, missing are the trigger mechanisms which would prompt the corrective actions.
Details of Corrective Action Plans (CAP's) or trigger mechanisms have not been
finalized as part of the EIS process. Monitoring and mitigation requirements have been
summarized in Section 2.12.13.4, Tailings Disposal Facility, and Section 2.13.1, Water
Resources Monitoring, of the final EIS. During the permitting process, the regulatory
agencies would use the recommendations developed as part of the EIS to define the
CAP's and trigger mechanisms. These plans and triggers would then become
conditions of permit approvals.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-197
Patenting
6.15.13
Response:
6.15.14
Response:
6.15.15
Response:
Several letters were received requesting clarification on the patenting process. Others
asked "what is the Proponents's status in the process?"
BMGC and Crown Resources Corporation are in a joint venture to develop the Crown
Jewel Project. The mining and mill site claims are in Crown Resources Corporation
name. Subsequent to the development of the discussion used in Section 3.19.8,
Patenting of Crown Jewel Project Mining Claims, of the draft EIS, Crown Resources
Corporation received approval from the BLM for the first-half certificates of the "mining
claims" for which patenting is sought. Although it appears that the Secretary of
Interior is on a path to approving the final patents, the U.S. House of Representatives
has recently reinstated an unconditional one-year ban on the issuance of new patents.
The outcome of patenting is unclear pending various mining law reform proposals. The
Budget Reconciliation Act (H.R. 2491) had produced the most comprehensive reform
measure for mining law reform; however, President Clinton vetoed this bill. The budget
reconciliation measure provided that patenting be preserved, but patents issued after
the date of enactment would require the payment of a fair market value for the surface
and grant the government a right of re-entry if the land is used for non-mining
purposes.
Section 3.19.8, Patenting of Crown Jewel Project Mining Claims, of the final EIS
discusses the potential for patenting of lode claims and mill sites underlying the Crown
Jewel Project. If and until patents are actually issued, it is appropriate to retain the
ownership status of these lands as "Federal" in the analysis.
If the Proponent patents the land and receives ownership, how will this affect the
proposed post mining land use?
Patenting represents a change in land ownership from public to private land, as
explained in Section 3.19.8, Patenting of Crown Jewel Project Mining Claims, of the
final EIS. The Crown Resources Corporation has made application for patenting
approximately 760 acres at the Crown Jewel Project site. This would involve 11
mining claims and 117 mill site claims. Long-term land use would probably be for
wildlife mitigation (Section 2.12.19, Wildlife and Fish - Private Land Enhancement).
What about the Proponent's additional claims encompassing about 9,000 acres in the
area adjacent to the proposed Buckhorn mine. Does the Proponent plan to develop this
area?
The potential impact to the various resource areas for the identified alternatives is set
forth in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, of the final EIS. Acreage to be
disturbed by each of the action alternatives is set forth in Tables 2.7 through 2.12 of
the final EIS. The projected disturbance area for all action alternatives is less than one
thousand acres. The Proponent may control 9,000 acres (in the form of claim and
private property in the region), but the Plan of Operations submitted by the Proponent
portrays physical disturbance of less than one thousand acres. This situation is not
atypical in the mining industry. In the search for minerals, companies would generally
acquire (through purchase lease, or claim procedures) a large block of area from which
the search for economically recoverable reserves would be based. The Proponent has
defined a Crown Jewel Project that they believe is economically viable. If an
expansion of that operation or a separate future operation is proposed, it would require
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
AppencffxL * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-198
a separate NEPA and SEPA analysis and documentation. There is no proposal to
expand the tailings facility to include tailings material from other ore bodies in the
future.
The Proponent explained in an April 1996 letter to the Forest Service that the 9,000
acres referred to in their stock prospectus included all lands owned or controlled by the
joint ventures, which is several thousand more acres than would be directly affected
by development of the Crown Jewel Project facilities. The Proponent's letter went on
to explain that the control of surrounding lands was for a variety of reasons such as to
ensure access, create a safety and security buffer, or avoid conflicts with third parties.
Other Comments
6.15.16
Response:
6.15.17
Response:
Although the fencing would prevent cattle from disturbing recently planted areas, is the
idea practical and necessary. Why is so much area being fenced?
The discussion presented in Section 3.12.7, Cattle Enclosures, of the Proponent's
Reclamation Plan (BMGC, 1996f), states that cattle would be excluded from reclaimed
areas until revegetation success standards have been attained. This approach is
summarized in Section 2.11.4, General Reclamation Procedures, of the final EIS. The
statement regarding controlled grazing refers to an accepted management practice
which may be employed to achieve certain vegetation community diversity objectives.
Termed "controlled" grazing, it can be assumed that it would only be used in the latter
stages of vegetation establishment and where the benefits of the activity would out-
weigh the potential negative effects.
The only areas on federal lands proposed to be fenced are areas that would be
disturbed/reclaimed. These include a safety buffer required around the Crown Jewel
Project boundary and two wetland mitigation sites that logically fall within the Crown
Jewel Project fence boundary. The Bear Trap Canyon wetland mitigation site would
also be fenced as part of the mitigation plan. These fences are envisioned to be in
place for about 16 years, or less, (from the initiation of construction) in all action
alternatives except Alternative F where some fencing may be in place up to 39 years
(see Section 2.12, Mitigation and Management).
The Forest Service would like to see a smaller area fenced than what the Proponent has
proposed but recognizes that a certain amount of area needs to be fenced off for safety
and that claim boundaries are a logical place to put the fence, where possible.
How is it possible to have a "zero discharge" tailings disposal system? How will the
tailings facility be monitored?
The tailings facility for the Crown Jewel Project is designed as a "zero discharge"
(closed circuit) system. That is, no discharge of effluent from the tailings facility would
be permitted.
Solutions, which drain from the tailings pond, would be collected at the toe of the
tailings embankment in a double-lined recovery solution collection pond and pumped
back to the mill for recycling. Section 2.11, Reclamation Measures, has been expanded
in the final EIS to discuss the recycling system during operations and after reclamation.
Section 2.2.15, Tailings Liner System Design, of the final EIS discusses the tailings
facility liner system. An analysis of the potential water quality impacts is presented in
Section 4.7.3, Effects Common to A1I Action Alternatives, of the final EIS.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-199
6.15.18
Response:
6.15.19
Response:
6.15.20
Response:
At reclamation, solutions still remaining on the tailings pond or in the recovery solution
collection pond would be allowed to evaporate. Most likely evaporation would be
completed during the dryer summer months. A sprinkler system may be installed on
the tailings pond to aid in evaporation.
A detailed discussion of the tailings pond system is presented in Final Report, Tailings
Disposal Facility (Colder, 1996a).
Monitoring of the tailings facility is described in Section 2.12.13.4, Tailings Disposal
Facility, Section 2.13.1, Water Resources Monitoring, Section 2.13.3, Geotechnical
Monitoring and Section 2.13.4, Geochemical Monitoring. Refer also to response
6.18.33 in this appendix.
There is no mention of how runoff would be handled during and after reclamation of
the tailings pond. What is the potential for the soils cap over the tailings pond to erode
and possibly erode the tailings?
As noted on pages 3-24 to 3-27 and 4-13 of the Proponent's Reclamation Plan.
(BMGC, 1996f), available for review at the Tonasket Ranger District, U.S. Forest
Service, "Sediment traps and diversion channels will be removed following successful
establishment of revegetation sufficient to control erosion." Section 2.11.4, General
Reclamation Procedures, of the EIS has been modified to reflect this. The tailings
facility, after reclamation, would be sloped about 2%-4% to drain to the north and
down an engineered structure to the nine acre wetland.
The potential for the three foot layer of coarse material and the soil cap over the
tailings pond to erode, thereby exposing the tailings, is very low. This assumes that
the proposed revegetation plan is successfully implemented and that vegetation
establishment is successful the first two years prior to any high intensity precipitation
event occurring. As noted on Table 4.5.2, Summary of Mine Component Potential
Erosion Rates by Alternative, of the EIS, the estimated erosion rates from the surface
of the tailings pond for all alternatives is 0.007 and 0.004 tons per acre per year for
the one and five year time spans, respectively. Using the 0.004 rate, it would take
250 years to reach the USDA-NRCS soil loss tolerance of 1.0 ton per acre. One ton
per acre of soil loss, in terms of soil thickness, is approximately equal to one-fifth the
thickness of a dime. If it can be assumed that this essentially level site would easily
achieve vegetative stability within this time-frame, there should be no potential for the
soils cap over the tailings to erode.
Justification for the preferred alternative (modified Alternative E) is needed.
Upon review of new information and technical reports prepared after the draft EIS,
Modified Alternative E was dropped as the Preferred (selected) Alternative. Please refer
to the Record of Decision for a discussion of the Selected Alternative.
What measures will be taken to reduce the infiltration of water into the waste rock
storage piles or the tailings.
Not all precipitation which falls on the waste rock disposal area(s) or tailings area can
be prevented from infiltrating into these areas. However, with the implementation of
the proposed reclamation plan, particularly resoiling, much of the water infiltration
would be prevented (refer to Waste Rock Facility Seepage Analysis. Schafer and
Associates, Inc., 1996a). As more vegetated growth is achieved, water infiltration
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS 4 L-200
would decrease. The grading proposed for these areas would also enhance water
runoff from the reclaimed areas rather than pooling.
During operations, water which accumulates on the waste rock disposal area(s) would
be diverted, managed, and controlled by the drainage and sediment control system
network. Where it interferes with operations, snow which accumulates on the waste
rock disposal area(s) would be plowed over the edge, and, as temperatures rise, the
snow will melt and the resulting water would flow to drainage and sediment control
systems installed for the Crown Jewel Project.
Refer to Section 2.11, Reclamation Measures, and Proponent's Reclamation Plan
(BMGC, 1996f), and to response 6.15.2 in this appendix.
6.15.21
Response:
6.15.22
Response:
6.15.23
The Minnie Mine demonstrates the potential for cyanide and other harmful chemicals
to enter the environment and is an example how the Forest Service follows through on
mining operations and cleanup.
The abandoned Minnie mill site has been successfully reclaimed. Lengthy study and
monitoring at the site confirms that cyanide or heavy metals did not escape the heap
liner or the process ponds during or after mine operation. Cyanide compounds were
successfully detoxified during the cleanup and heavy metals in process waters and
sludge were removed from the site. Only arsenic, which was naturally present in the
ore remains in the treated ore heap material. This material was isolated with a soil
layer and revegetated. Ground water monitoring to date has shown no evidence that
arsenic is leaching from these materials.
Total cleanup costs at the Minnie Mine operation were much greater than the Forest
Service reclamation bond. This is largely because the ultimate cleanup went well
beyond that required when the operating plan was originally approved by the Forest
Service and the permits issued by the WADOE. State requirements associated with the
Model Toxic Control Act (MTCA), which was enacted after the fact, changed standards
and other requirements and were not envisioned when the Minnie Mine was originally
permitted. To avoid this situation with the Crown Jewel Project, the Forest Service
would consider MTCA in developing mitigation and monitoring measures and would be
a factor in developing state permits and financial assurances.
The Forest Service made an arbitrary decision on the Crown Jewel Project early on
when it assigned the Buckhorn area to commodity and commodity-wildlife management
areas. For all practical purposes, this decision resulted in a violation of road density
standards and guidelines.
Management area decisions made in the Okanogan National Forest Land and Resource
Management Plan (LRMP) were by the Regional Forester after a long planning and
NEPA process involving substantial public outreach and comment. Due to the nature
of mineral exploration and development, the Forest Service planning team was aware
that some standards and guidelines, including road density, might not be reasonably
met. In fact, it was known that many areas of the Forest would not meet the
standards and guidelines at the time the LRMP was approved. Exploration activities
were reviewed using project-specific NEPA analyses which were tiered to the LRMP.
Reclamation should begin within two years of the opening of the mill instead of after
mill closure. This is done in Nevada mines.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-201
Response:
6.15.24
Response:
6.15.25
Response:
6.15.26
Response:
Reclamation efforts would be ongoing from the start of the Crown Jewel Project, as
described under Section 2.11.3, Reclamation Schedule, of the final EIS until completion
of the Crown Jewel Project when the reclamation goals and objectives have been met.
Some facility disturbance, such as the water pipeline, would be reclaimed as it is
installed. Exposed soil which is not again going to be disturbed for several years would
be seeded with a temporary erosion control seed mixture. The waste rock disposal
areas would be reclaimed in three to five phases throughout the life of the Crown Jewel
Project with reclamation of the first phase taking place within about three years of the
start of milling.
Based on the Proponent's reclamation plan, trees would be planted in clumps with open
areas surrounding clumps of trees. These clumps, along with trees that established
from local seed sources, are expected to show stocking densities of 200 + trees per
acre after 100 years.
Replanting trees in clumps would not meet Forest Service objectives of returning the
reclaimed areas to their underlying management area in a reasonable time frame. Much
of the Crown Jewel Project area was classified as Management Area 25, which has a
primary emphasis on fiber production while considering other environmental resources.
The amount of large woody debris that would be stockpiled for use in reclamation
needs to be quantified. The USFWS recommends that the appropriate number, size,
and species of debris logs, that would be necessary for reclamation, be quantified and
that these resources be stockpiled during initial vegetation removal. This
recommendation was provided in previous (USFWS) comments on the reclamation plan.
Removing debris logs from nearby timber sales would be unacceptable.
It is proposed to return approximately seven tons per acre of large woody debris to
revegetated sites on federal lands. Under Alternative B, a replacement of 4,600-5,000
tons of large woody debris would be required by federal and state agencies. No more
than 10% of this requirement could be met using stumps. Large woody debris would
be stockpiled throughout the operation of the Crown Jewel Project to ensure there
would be adequate amounts at the time of reclamation. This would likely be
accomplished through stockpiling of cull and low value material in the first several years
of clearing and stockpiling the remaining necessary material from clearing that occurred
during the mid to later portions of the operation. Wood from outside the area being
cleared would not be cut on Federal lands to provide the large woody debris
component, unless purchased on the open market.
The 100 years cited in the text for the reclaimed area to be restored to its natural
productivity was disputed.
A new surface soil base would be created by disturbing, storing, mixing, and then
applying the salvaged soil. As such, one cannot expect conditions to return to pre-
disturbance conditions quickly, but rather, it is expected to take a long period of time,
100 years or possibly longer, for the soils to develop and move toward a condition
similar to pre-disturbance conditions. Adding amendments to the soil would help
restore nutrients to the soil but does not necessarily duplicate all the conditions that
existed prior to disturbance.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS 4 L-202
6.15.27
Response:
6.16
What WACs apply to reassignment of WADNR lands to use by a private party? Is this
loss of public lands mitigated?
A trade of land of equal value would need to take place between the WADNR and the
Proponent before the land can be utilized. RCW 79.08 and RCW 76.12 specify the
conditions under which lands can be exchanged.
SOCIOECONOMICS
General
6.16.1
General comments addressed topics such as history and future of mining in Okanogan
and Ferry Counties, concern that socioeconomic impacts are understated, foregone
opportunities associated with the "No Action" Alternative A, comparison with separate
fiscal analysis prepared for Proponent, local procurement, and a variety of specific
editing corrections or revisions. Other comments cited typos or requested minor
clarifications.
Response:
We appreciate the input of all those individuals, organizations and agencies who
commented on the "socioeconomic" aspects of the Crown Jewel Mine draft EIS. We
have reviewed your comments and made revisions, as appropriate, to the final EIS.
Additional discussion is being provided in the final EIS regarding history and future of
mining and the separate fiscal analysis conducted by the Proponent. Analysis of
foregone opportunities as part of Alternative A is discussed in Section 4.26,
Reservation of Project For Future Development.
Population, Housing & Land Use
6.16.2
Response:
Comments covered questions regarding extent of a population influx and associated
construction/operations housing needs, current inadequacy of housing and/or land use
controls, potential for an active mine to cause some residents to leave, and potential
effects on property values and tribal lands.
Issues related to population influx beyond what might be supported directly and
indirectly by the Crown Jewel Project, potentials for some existing residents to relocate
and/or effects on property values are addressed in qualitative fashion as cumulative
effects in the final EIS. Evaluation of housing needs is updated to reflect current
(1996) conditions consistent with the draft EIS methodology in Section 4.19,
Socioeconomic Environment, of the final EIS. No additional discussion of effects on
tribal lands has been conducted as part of the socioeconomic evaluation, as these
topics are covered elsewhere (e.g. Sections 3.17, Heritage Resources, and 4.16,
Heritage Resources) in the final EIS.
Employment & Income
6.16.3 A number of questions and comments relate to the assumed 80% local hire rates. Also
addressed were questions regarding mining employment, need for added job
opportunities, training programs for employees, use of profits, and effects of eventual
mine closure.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft E/S 4 L-203
Response:
The term "local" is intended to cover persons who lived in the study area (or
northeastern Okanogan or western Ferry County) prior to hiring and did not move to the
area for purposes of seeking work at the Crown Jewel Project. This clarification is
provided in Section 4.19.1, Summary, in the final EIS.
The final EIS includes a more detailed quantitative assessment of the effects of a range
of local hire rates together with additional mitigation proposed by the Proponent.
Clarification of questions regarding trends in mining employment, more current
unemployment data, training programs, distribution of profits, and effects of eventual
mine closure on area incomes and employment are addressed in more detail in Section
4.19, Socioeconomic Environment, in the final EIS, and supporting reports.
Community & Public Services
6.16.4 Many comments indicated that effects on community and public services are not
adequately addressed or documented. Topics of concern identified include schools, law
enforcement, water, solid waste, recreation, roads, electrical power, social and health
services, and effects to unincorporated areas.
Response:
Updated (1996) information regarding the status of study area community and public
service providers is provided in the final EIS in Section 3.20, Socioeconomic
Environment, and Section 4.19, Socioeconomic Environment. Additional analysis of
Proponent effects on solid waste/landfill operations, roads, and development capacity
of unincorporated areas is also incorporated in the final EIS in Section 4.19,
Socioeconomic Environment, in subsection "Community and Public Services."
Fiscal Effects
6.16.5 Comments covered temporary duration of revenue increases, property tax
implications associated with Alternative A, failure to address impacts to local,
county, state and federal entities, and suggestions for ongoing financial
monitoring or creation of a reserve fund. Will the local taxing jurisdictions
become dependent on the income?
Response:
Quantitative fiscal analyses have been revised to reflect updated budgetary
conditions and Proponent provided data in the final EIS, including updated and
more detailed assessments for local, county and state entities. Fiscal impacts
to the federal government are not covered by the NEPA/SEPA process for the
Crown Jewel Project EIS.
The degree to which local government jurisdictions would become dependent
on income from the Crown Jewel Project depends on budgeting decisions of
pertinent jurisdiction officials. The final EIS does indicate that other mining
communities, including Ferry County, reportedly have experienced public
agency funding problems when mines have curtailed or ceased operations
because local governments had come to rely on mine-related revenues (see
Section 4.19.3, Comparative Effects Common to All Action Alternatives,
subsection "Fiscal Conditions").
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-204
Social Values
6.16.6
Response:
Questions were raised that relate to the definition of socioeconomic groups, historical
versus current social values, retention of Indian hunting and fishing rights, and
documentation of Chesaw/Highlands community divisions.
Additional discussion of social values issues (previously provided as part of separate
socioeconomic background reports to supplement the draft EIS) is directly incorporated
in the final EIS, in Section 4.19.3, Comparative Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives, subsection "Social Values." Special attention was made in this section
with respect to the clarification of retention of Indian hunting and fishing rights.
Quality of Life
6.16.7
Response:
A number of often detailed comments covered the importance of quality of life and
environmental protection to the local economy, desire to place an economic value on
natural environment and quality of life amenities, wise use of natural resources, shift
from dependence on natural resource industries, and need to better account for the
high cost and cumulative effects of environmental degradation.
Additional narrative discussion of socioeconomic implications for quality of life,
environmental protection and wise use values is provided in the final EIS in Section
3.20.8, Social Values, and Section 4.19.3, Comparative Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives, subsection "Social Values", together with a more detailed quantitative
assessment of employment and incomes associated with natural resource industries
versus other sources of economic activity. Techniques such as contingent valuation
studies suggested to place an economic value of natural environment and quality of life
amenities are beyond the NEPA/SEPA scope for the EIS. Additional narrative regarding
potential long-term effect of environmental degradation is contained as part of the final
EIS discussions of cumulative effects.
Tourism
6.16.8
Response:
Some comments noted that tourism activity currently is important to the
Chesaw/Highlands economy, and that potential losses of tourism associated with
mining activity need to be addressed or mitigated.
The final EIS contains both quantitative data and narrative to assess the current
importance and potential effects of Crown Jewel Project Alternatives for tourism in
Okanogan and Ferry Counties and more specifically for the Chesaw/Highlands area in
Section 3.20.5, Income, and Section 4.19.3, Comparative Effects Common to All
Action Alternatives, subsection "Income." This discussion is consistent with additional
analysis provided for the recreation assessment in Section 4.14, Recreation, of the final
EIS.
Health Care
6.16.9
There were comments that remarked that EMTs cannot address the major trauma,
respiratory problems, basic health care, and drug and alcohol related services that will
be needed by Crown Jewel Project employees.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • £-205
Response:
The EIS did not mean to imply that EMTs would take the place of doctors or major
trauma facilities. It is also not prudent to assume that the mine employees would
develop drug and alcohol problems. Lifestyles suggested by this comment are
consistent with traditional views of mining activity, but are changing as the workforce
requirements of current mine operators are changing. Discussions with other
comparable mines indicated little documentation of drug and alcohol related concerns.
Divided Community
6.16.10 There were comments which expressed concern that the Crown Jewel Project was
dividing the community.
Response:
It is not within the scope of the EIS to try to reconcile differences of opinions between
individuals. It would be up to the community leaders, county and city governments,
and the Proponent to become good neighbors. As noted in the final EIS, in Sections
3.20 and 4.19, Socioeconomic Environment, it is important to find new common
ground. Potential mechanisms for cooperative dialogue and planning are described in
greater detail by the Affected Socioeconomic Background Report 1996 Update Crown
Jewel Project (E.D. Hovee, 1996a), in Section 2.12.11, Socioeconomics and Section
4.19.3, Comparative Effects Common to All Action Alternatives, subsection "Social
Values."
Agency Credibility
6.16.11 There were concerns about agency credibility and motivation.
Response:
We acknowledge the dissatisfaction of the commentor with the environmental review
process as it has been perceived. However, the commentor's concerns about (1)
agency credibility, political motivation, or performance to the commentor's expectation
of time of review, and (2) issuance of public participation grants under the provisions
of Initiative 97, are outside the scope of the Crown Jewel Project EIS.
Domestic Water Supply
6.16.12 What will be the effects on domestic water supplies?
Response:
Effects on domestic water supplies are addressed as part of the discussion of
community and public services for both rural and incorporated communities. The draft
EIS notes that "Difficulties in meeting water demands would be most pronounced if
new housing for mine related households is developed outside of areas currently served
by public or community water systems, particularly in the Chesaw/Highlands area."
All of the incorporated communities have adequate water capacity (as of 1996) to
serve additional residential development. Refer to Section 4.19.3, Comparative Effects
Common to All Action Alternatives, subsection "Community and Public Services" and
Section 3.9, Water Supply Resources.
Effects on Landfills
6.16.13 What will be the effects of the Crown Jewel Project on solid waste generated in the
community and by the Proponent?
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-206
Response:
The Proponent would be responsible for recycling or off-site disposal of all controlled
or hazardous materials in compliance with applicable state and federal regulations.
Non-hazardous consumable materials would be either recycled (as area recycling
programs become available) or transported to the appropriate local landfill. More
specific estimates of the material to be landfilled as a proportion of Okanogan County
waste are provided in the final EIS, Section 4.19.3, Comparative Effects Common to
All Action Alternatives, subsection "Community and Public Services."
Sewage generated at the Crown Jewel Project would be treated on-site with an
approved septic and drainfield system or a package treatment system. The Crown
Jewel Project would not directly affect effluent in residential communities (from mine
operations). Effects would be related to added housing and population within
incorporated study area cities. These indirect effects are addressed in the final EIS with
updated information, based on local jurisdiction wastewater treatment capacities,
provided in the final EIS, Section 4.19.3, Comparative Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives, subsection "Community and Public Services."
Historic Mining
6.16.14 What was the role and importance of mining in the study area?
Response:
6.17
General
6.17.1
Response:
Mining did play an important role providing employment in the early Caucasian
settlement of Okanogan County prior to about 1920 but has not played a significant
role as a proportion of the total local economy since. However, mining has played a
more prominent continuing role in neighboring Ferry County, including Republic which
is part of the study area.
The period 1861 (the earliest gold discovery in Okanogan County) to the early 1920s
represents approximately 60 years of the last 130 + years of Caucasian settlement in
Okanogan County. In Ferry County, commercially viable mining activities have
continued to the present. WADNR indicates that there are five mining operations,
including gold mines, currently permitted in Okanogan County.
Though often reported as a single employment category, United States census data
makes it possible to separate mining from construction employment. Revised figures
with graphs are included in the final EIS as Figure 3.20.2, Employment Distribution for
Ferry County, and Figure 3.20.3, Employment Distribution for Okanogan County, and
Table 3.20.3, 1990 Labor Force and Employment Data.
ACCIDENTS AND SPILLS
Many comments simply presented an opinion or view on various aspects of the
accidents, spills, and toxics discussions in the draft EIS. In addition several comments
cited the need for minor edits/clarifications in the text.
We appreciate the input of all those individuals, organizations, and agencies who
commented on the "accidents and spills," and toxics aspects of the Crown Jewel Mine
draft EIS. We have reviewed your comments and made revisions, as appropriate, to
the final EIS.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS * L-207
Effects/Consequences of Release
6.17.2
Response:
6.17.3
Response:
6.17.4
Response:
6.17.5
Response:
The potential for cyanide and other harmful chemicals to enter the environment has
been seriously understated.
The potential impacts of cyanide and other harmful chemicals entering the environment
has been discussed in various portions of the EIS. Sections of particular note are
Section 4.22, Accident and Spills, Section 4.12.4, Toxics, Section 4.6, Ground Water,
Springs and Seeps, Section 4.7, Surface Water, and Section 2.12.4, Spill Prevention,
Hazardous Materials, Fire Prevention and First Aid.
The consequences of a catastrophic tailings impoundment failure should be discussed
in the EIS.
Section 4.22.2, Tailings Dam Failure, of the final EIS discusses the potential effects
resulting from uncontrollable events of nature. These potential effects from
catastrophic events are not expected to happen, but the consequences of such a failure
are displayed.
Will the tailings liner system perform adequately and prevent the loss of solution into
Nicholson and/or Marias Creeks?
Since the issuance of the Crown Jewel Project Mine draft EIS, the Proponent has
revised the proposed tailing facility design to incorporate downstream construction of
the tailings embankments and a double synthetic liner system, which would include a
leak detection system. See discussion in Section 2.2.14, Tailings Embankment Design
and Construction, and Section 2.2.15, Tailings Liner System Design, of the final EIS.
A seepage and attenuation study (Hydro-Geo, 1995b) conducted for the tailings facility
concluded that, even during an extreme case of liner failure, potential contaminants
would not reach any down-gradient springs, seeps, or flowing stream sections in
concentrations any higher than the levels currently measured in Marias or Nicholson
Creeks. Refer to Section 4.22.4, Other Types of Accidents, Section 4.6.3, Effects
Common to All Action Alternatives, and Section 4.6.4, Effects of Alternative B, of the
final EIS for a discussion of tailings liner leaks. Based on the leach tests conducted on
the tailings solids, there would be no toxic effects to aquatic species.
What would be the impacts of an earthquake related failure of the tailings pipeline?
Any leakage from a failure of the tailings pipeline would likely remain in the pipeline
ditch and would flow directly to the tailings impoundment.
Response and Cleanup
6.17.6
Response:
The EIS should include a "worst case" tailings pond failure scenario and the probable
consequences of such an event.
Worst case analysis are extremely difficult to define and formulate, due to individual
thoughts on what constitutes a hypothetical worst case. Throughout Chapter 4,
Environmental Consequences, and specifically Section 4.22, Accidents and Spills, of
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS * 1-205
the final EIS, different impacts and effects are presented based on the scenario and
action alternative components. In some cases, specifically Section 4.22, Accidents and
Spills, the scenarios and effects presented could be considered worst case. Section
4.22.2, Tailings Dam Failure, discusses the potential effects resulting from
uncontrollable events of nature including an earthquake induced failure and a dam
breach by overtopping.
6.17.7
Response:
Contingency plans should be developed to respond to failures from catastrophic events.
Contingency plans have been developed to respond to failures. These plans are
displayed in numerous places in the final EIS including Section 2.11, Reclamation
Measures, Section 2.12, Management and Mitigation, Section 2.13, Monitoring
Measures, Section 2.14, Performance Securities, Section 4.6, Ground Water, Springs
and Seeps, Section 4.17, Transportation, and Section 4.22, Accidents and Spills.
The Proponent will be required to have prevention and response plans on file prior to
the commencement of mining and milling operations.
Other Comments
6.17.8 A hazardous waste management plan has not been presented.
Response:
6.17.9
Response:
6.17.10
Response:
The Washington Metal Mining and Milling Operations Act (Chapter 78.56 RCW),
requires that a Pollution Prevention Plan (Voluntary Reduction Plan as defined by RCW
70.95C.200) be prepared to identify hazardous substances used and hazardous waste
generated, and that such a plan analyze opportunities for their reduction, recycling, and
treatment (refer to Section 2.12.4.1, Spill and Handling Plans.) The plan would be
required by September 1 following the first year that the Crown Jewel Project
generated hazardous wastes or that it was required to report hazardous substances
under Section 313 Title III of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA). There are no regulatory requirements to prepare a hazardous waste
management plan prior to that time.
The draft EIS does not discuss on-site fuel and hazardous materials storage, including
containment design and cleanup.
The Proponent will be required to have prevention and response plans on file prior to
the commencement of mining and milling. See Section 2.12.4, Spill Prevention,
Hazardous Materials, Fire Prevention and First Aid, and Appendix B - Agency
Responsibilities (Permit and Approvals), in the final EIS. The final details of these plans
are permit requirements and can not be determined until a selected alternative is
chosen.
"The concern that we have is if there is a cyanide spill and the word gets out - no
matter how minute the spill is, we feel that the property value of the (Okanogan)
highlands would be diminished greatly. As a property owner this is a grave concern.
We would like to know what protection as property owners we would have?"
The handling, transportation, use, and monitoring of all hazardous material is covered
in great detail in Section 2.12.3, Cyanide and Other Chemicals, Section 2.12.4, Spill
Prevention, Hazardous Materials, Fire Prevention and First Aid, and Section 4.22,
Crown Jevy'el Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-209
6.17.11
Response:
6.17.12
Response:
6.17.13
Response:
Accidents and Spills, and is common to all action alternatives. A spill of any amount
would be covered in a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan (SPPC), as
required under EPA 40 CFR Part 112. But this plan, or any document that it is
contained in, is not intended in any way to circumvent the Civil Damage Laws of the
land. Any damage to person, or property or the value of same, would be a civil matter
to be determined in the proper Civil Courts.
The draft EIS fails to give a thorough and complete risk analysis of the Crown Jewel
Project.
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, of the final EIS is dedicated to the analysis
and presentation of potential effects of the Crown Jewel Project. Risk assessments are
an integral component of the Biological Assessments and Biological Evaluations
conducted by the Forest Service for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species and
are included in Appendix H, Wildlife Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation,
Appendix I, Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat Biological Evaluation, and Appendix J,
Biological Evaluation for Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Plants. The
potential for harmful chemicals to enter the environment has been discussed in Section
4.22, Accidents and Spills, in the final EIS. Reclamation and remediation performance
securities will be held by the agencies to address potential risks from the Crown Jewel
Project, as addressed in Section 2.14, Performance Securities, of the final EIS.
The draft EIS fails to discuss the potential impact of failure of Crown Jewel Project
facilities, such as the tailings facility and waste rock disposal areas.
Potential effects of the failure of the tailings facility are discussed in responses 6.17.3
and 6.17.4 in this appendix.
Potential effects of the failure of the waste rock disposal areas are discussed in Section
4.4.3, Effects Common to All Action Alternatives, subsection "Waste Rock Disposal
Areas" of the final EIS.
Potential effects of the failure of the Starrem Reservoir are discussed in Section 4.22.1,
Water Reservoir Rupture, of the final EIS.
Potential impacts of a failure of the pit lake are not considered based on the physical
setting of the proposed lake within the confines of the excavated pit.
The EIS should elaborate on the construction of cyanide containers and the safety
statistics of cyanide transport.
Most containers containing solid cyanide in the past have been "Flo-bins,"™ which are
used to transport a solid (briquette) form of cyanide and are double-walled, stainless
steel containers designed to withstand damage, leakage, and/or water contamination
(refer to Section 4.22.3, Transportation Spill). Another recent transport
containerization method is DuPont's Excel II method of delivery which transports dry
cyanide to the site in a double-walled, stainless steel tanker also designed to withstand
damage, leakage, and/or water contamination in an accident. Water is added to the
cyanide on-site before pumping it into a holding tank.
Safety statistics on cyanide transport can be found in the final EIS in Section 4.22.3,
Transportation Spill, and response 6.14.5 in this appendix. DuPont has shipped
approximately three billion pounds of cyanide throughout the world without incident
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-210
(Whitworth, 1994). DuPont has shipped 20 million pounds of sodium cyanide to mines
in the state of Washington since 1989 without any transportation incidents.
6.17.14
Response:
6.17.15
Response:
6.18
General
6.18.1
There were several concerns about the tailings pond embankment failure which
occurred in Guyana, S.A. and any tailings pond embankment failures that might have
occurred at any of the Proponent's other mining operations.
The Proponent has no connection to the Omai gold mine operation located in Guyana,
South America. The Omai operation is an open pit mine and processes approximately
12,000 (metric) tons of gold ore per day. The Proponent has proposed to process
approximately 3,000 tons of gold ore per day. The Omai operation uses a carbon-in-
leach mill, which is larger but similar to the metallurgical process planned for the Crown
Jewel Project. In August of 1995, the Omai tailings dam failed and released an
estimated 600 million gallons of fluid containing approximately 25-30 ppm cyanide into
a nearby river system. There were no reported human fatalities as a result of the
accident, but there were aquatic and terrestrial wildlife deaths. The Omai tailings dam
was constructed on sand and laterite. (Laterite is a highly weathered red subsoil that
develops in a warm tropical climate.) The proposed Crown Jewel Project tailing(s)
embankments (in either the Marias and Nicholson Creek drainages) would be "keyed"
into bedrock material, which is of a "hardrock" nature versus the sand and/or laterite
at the Omai site. In addition, the Omai operation is located in a semi-tropical rain forest
that receives over 100 inches of annual rainfall, most of which occurs in July and
August. The region around the proposed Crown Jewel Project does not receive
torrential tropical rains. In addition, we understand that the Omai operation does not
have a cyanide destruction prior to tailings disposal, while the Proponent plans to install
an INCO S02/Air/Oxidation cyanide destruction process at the Crown Jewel Project.
The Forest Service and WADOE have discussed the potential effects of a Crown Jewel
Project tailings facility failure in Section 4.22.2, Tailings Dam Failure, of the final EIS.
Section 4.17, Transportation, and Section 4.22, Accidents and Spills, of the final EIS
also present a discussion of potential impacts from cyanide release.
To our knowledge, no tailings pond failure has occurred at any of the Proponent's
operations. The United States has the most stringent regulations in the world, and they
are enforced. The WADOE, Dam Safety Division, would not approve permits for the
tailings facility unless they meet the stringent state of Washington regulations.
The Proponent should be financially liable for any accidents and/or spills on public
transportation routes.
The transporter (carrier) of chemicals/materials would be financially responsible for
accidents or spills on public transportation routes. Transporters are required to have
insurance for accidental releases. For example, DuPont is self-insured for accidental
release costs up to one million dollars. They carry insurance for costs over one million
dollars.
MISCELLANEOUS
There were several thousand comments received as "form" letters which expressed
either support or opposition to the Crown Jewel Project. Other comments suggested
editorial changes, requested text clarifications, cited typos, or expressed opinions not
requiring a specific response.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-211
Response:
We appreciate the input of all those individuals, organizations, and agencies who
commented on "miscellaneous" aspects of the Crown Jewel Mine draft EIS. We have
reviewed your comments and made revisions, as appropriate, to the final EIS.
EIS Content and Preparation
6.18.2
Response:
6.18.3
Response:
6.18.4
Response:
Why haven't details of the monitoring and mitigation plans been presented in the EIS.
Mitigation and monitoring measures for Federal lands and permits are presented in
Chapter 2, Alternatives Including the Proposed Action, of the final EIS. A Record of
Decision will be issued for the Federal actions proposed for the Crown Jewel Project,
and additional mitigation and monitoring could be included in the Record of Decision.
The State of Washington does not issue a Record of Decision for the final EIS, but
rather issues its decisions as part of their permitting process which may result in
additional mitigation and monitoring requirements as a part of the various state permits.
Why isn't there a discussion of the various required permits, the permitting process,
and public involvement in that process?
A discussion of the required permits for the Crown Jewel Project is presented in
Section 1.8, Permits and Approvals Needed, of the final EIS. A list of the permits and
approvals is presented on Table 1.1, List of Tentative and Potential Permits and
Approvals, of the final EIS. A more detailed discussion of each permit and approval is
presented in Appendix B, Agency Responsibilities.
As discussed in the previous response, the EIS (and subsequent Records of Decision)
are not decision documents for State and local agencies. Each state and local
government permit listed in Table 1.1, List of Tentative and Potential Permits and
Approvals, of the final EIS has its own approval process, which may include public
hearings and comment periods. Details of these processes are available for public
review at the appropriate county or state offices.
Why were there so many alternatives in the draft EIS and what was the rationale for
how the components were combined? An alternative that is better than Alternative B
needs to be analyzed in order to fulfill NEPA requirements. The lead agencies are
required to give the rational behind preferred alternative selection.
Chapter 2, Alternatives Including the Proposed Action, explains the alternative selection
process and reasoning. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the State
Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) require that a number of reasonable alternatives be
considered, but provides no limit to the actual number to be considered. It is important
to remember that, by providing alternatives for comparison, the various impacts to the
environment can be either eliminated, lessened, or mitigated.
NEPA and SEPA require that alternatives to the proposed action be developed so that
a reasonable range of alternatives are displayed. Alternatives C through G develop a
reasonable range, and meet the purpose and need to greater and lesser extent. The
draft and final EIS documents acknowledge that some components of some of the
alternatives are less economic. These components were used in some of the
alternatives because of significant public interest, expressed during scoping, in
evaluating the environmental effects of these less economic components.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS 4 L-212
Reasonable alternatives under SEPA are those that attain or approximate the objectives
of the proposal, but at a lower environmental cost or with less environmental
degradation. Thus, the objective of a proposal determines whether an alternative is
available and reasonable. In this case, the objective of the proposal is determined in
large measure by the Proponent in contrast to, for example, an agency-originated
proposal for a planning or public works project. The Proponent seeks to develop a
commercially viable mine and mill facility under the Mining Law of 1872, as amended.
Some of the alternatives developed for the EIS contain elements that a prudent investor
might avoid because of the effect of those elements on the commercial viability of the
Crown Jewel Project. An alternative which would not be prudently undertaken due to
commercial non-viability would not meet the objective of the proposal.
As noted above, some alternatives were fully developed in response to public interest,
particularly in pursuit of lower environmental costs or less degradation; furthermore,
commercial feasibility is partly dependent on technology and the price of gold, so it is
prudent to consider, to a limited extent, alternatives that may not presently appear
commercially viable but might become so with changes in circumstances. In view of
these considerations, the Forest Service and WADOE believe the resulting range of
alternatives is reasonable. The analysis shows in some cases that some of these more
costly options resulted in greater environmental effects for some resources. These are
factors that the decision makers will weigh then selecting the final alternative.
NEPA does not require an infinite combination of alternatives nor the development of
"unreasonable" alternatives. Development of an alternative that would use all of the
most costly, least environmentally damaging components would have resulted in an
alternative that was clearly economically infeasible, and therefore "unreasonable" by
the NEPA definition. Each of the alternatives that were developed provides specific
tradeoffs for different resources. Alternative components that may be beneficial for
one resource may be harmful for another resource. The NEPA Selected Alternative
provides the best mix of components to minimize impacts to the environment while
meeting the purpose and need for the Project to respond to the Proponent's proposal
while protecting environmental resources. The draft EIS did evaluate several
alternatives that contained components that may be considered currently economically
infeasible in order to respond to significant public interest.
The rationale for the determination of the Selected Alternative will be included in the
Record of Decision.
6.18.5 What are the responsibilities of the lead agencies? What is the relationship between
the lead agencies, the third party contractor, and the Proponent concerning the
preparation of the EIS? The document does not disclose which preparers were paid
directly by the Proponent.
Response:
The lead agencies for the Crown Jewel Mine EIS (Forest Service and WADOE) have
overall and final responsibility for the content and preparation of the EIS.
The NEPA regulations have always provided for the option of a third party contractor
in the preparation of an EIS. The latest version of the NEPA regulations, dated 1986
(prior to the Forest Plan) states that "...any environmental impact statement prepared
pursuant to the requirements of NEPA shall be prepared directly by or by a contractor
selected by the lead agency...It is the intent of these regulations that the contractor be
chosen solely by the lead agency...to avoid any conflict of interest. Contractors shall
execute a disclosure statement prepared by the lead agency...specifying that they have
no financial or other interest in the outcome of the project...the responsible Federal
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-213
official shall independently evaluate the statement prior to its approval and take
responsibility for its scope and contents." [1506.5(c)l.
In the case of the Crown Jewel Project (as opposed to the Forest Plan), a third party
contractor was needed to provide the Forest Service with special expertise that was
unavailable on the Okanogan National Forest staff. The WADOE agreed to have the
Forest Service manage the preparation of the EIS and hire the third party contractor
while maintaining joint responsibility with the Forest Service for the content of the EIS.
TerraMatrix was selected by the lead agencies to provide the special expertise and
signed statements specifying that they have no financial or other interest in the
outcome of the Crown Jewel Project. The lead agencies have an interdisciplinary team
who reviewed all documents produced for the Crown Jewel Project for adequacy,
content and accuracy. Technical documents have also been peer reviewed by agency
personnel. Any documents prepared by the third party contractor that were considered
biased or otherwise lacking were sent back to the contractor for rewrite.
Reports prepared by the Proponent are noted as such on the title pages. All
information supplied by the Proponent or their contractors has been peer reviewed by
agency specialists or third party contractors and the reviewers are identified in
background documents.
The Proponent pays all invoices from the third party contractor.
Alternatives and Project Components
6.18.6 Other locations besides headwaters of streams should be evaluated for potential tailings
sites.
Response:
The siting study for the tailings facility was re-examined to determine if potential
sidehill or dry upland locations existed that could be suitable for the disposal of the
amount of tailings material projected. This re-examination is documented in Section
2.2.13, Tailings Disposal Locations and in the report titled Technical Memorandum
Review of Off-Site Upland and Side-Hill Tailings Disposal (TerraMatrix. 1996). The
screening criteria used to re-examine this issue is as follows:
• A ten mile radius around the proposed mine pit was established as the initial
boundary for the investigations.
• Physical restrictions within the ten mile area were identified, i.e., Canadian
border, Myers Creek, Beaver Creek, and Toroda Creek. These physical
constraints established a refined investigation area.
• Within the refined investigation area, the areas exceeding 30% slope, the area
between 10% and 30% slope, and the area of less than 10% slope were
identified.
• Areas with slopes between 10% and 30% were further reviewed to identify
potential side-hill tailings impoundment locations and a conceptual
impoundment layout adjacent to the proposed pit in the Marias Creek drainage
was superimposed onto the topography. This resulted in an extremely long
narrow impoundment snaking along the hillside, while the total disturbed area
to incorporate the back slope into the hill and to establish the embankment on
the outslope was far more than the proposed tailings area.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-214
6.18.7
Response:
6.18.8
Response:
6.18.9
• Areas with slopes less than 10% were examined for potential tailings sites.
The areas large enough to contain the required amount of tailings material were
typically located next to Beaver Canyon or Myers Creek and provide no major
environmental advantage over the proposed sites in the Crown Jewel Project
area, or were located on ridgetops and were not suitable.
Results of additional tailings siting screening are presented in Appendix K, Tailings Site
Selection Report, of the final EIS.
There were requests to analyze alternative ore processing methods.
Section 2.2.8, Ore Processing Methods, of the final EIS presents a list of potential ore
processing methods and the rationale for the methods selected for further study in the
EIS.
There were requests to consider pressure oxidation as a method of gold processing.
Pressure oxidation (autoclaving) is a process used to pre-treat refractory ores.
Refractory ores are those whose geochemical and metallurgical properties impede the
recovery of their valuable mineral constituents without some sort of pre-treatment.
With pressure oxidation, the ore is "oxidized" with heat and pressure to alter the
chemical makeup of the sulfides, thereby increasing the ability of cyanide to contact
and dissolve the gold values in the rock.
The Proponent conducted metallurgical tests and determined that the Crown Jewel
Project ores do not require this pre-treatment to recover acceptable levels of the gold.
Incorporation of flotation or other non-cyanide processes could increase yields from low
grade ores. Additional milling processes may increase the feasibility of some
alternatives.
Response:
6.18.10
Response:
6.18.11
Response:
See Section 2.2.6, Ore Processing-Crushing, Section 2.2.7, Ore Processing-Grinding,
and Section 2.2.8, Ore Processing Methods, of the final EIS for discussion of the
processes and selection rationale.
Costs were given as the reason to consider only on-site processing of tailings, yet no
economic analysis of these costs were presented.
Please refer to Section 2.2.9, Off-Site Processing, and Section 2.2.13, Tailings Disposal
Locations of the final EIS. Also, refer to report entitled Technical Memorandum,
Review of Off-Site Upland and Side-Hill Tailings Disposal (TerraMatrix, 1996).
The draft EIS offers no comparative analysis of INCO S02/Air/Oxidation process with
other processes and does not disclose potential problems or track record for the INCO
S02/Air/Oxidation process.
Please refer to Section 2.2.11, Cyanide Destruction, and Table 2.2, Summary of
Cyanide Treatment Processes, of the final EIS.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS * £-275
6.18.12 Alternative C should be considered without the quarry atop Buckhorn Mountain (that
rock could be obtained by the Proponent elsewhere). Waste rock, rather than quarry
rock, should be used to backfill the mine and seal the adits.
Response:
6.18.13
Response:
6.18.14
It would be more economical and cause less environmental impacts to use quarry rock
from the top of the mountain than to create haul roads to transport waste rock from
the underground mining adit to the top of the mountain where it would have to be
crushed and stockpiled for use.
The rock quarry location was selected based on rock availability, location relative to the
operation, and general logistics to supply the underground workings through vertical
shafts. Moving or eliminating the quarry only transfers potential impacts and adds to
the operational logistics of the alternative, such as transportation.
Note that Alternative C is the only alternative with low ratings altogether, making it an
attractive option worthy of in-depth comparative analysis and economic feasibility
studies.
Although there were questions about the feasibility of Alternative C in meeting the
Proponent's goal and objectives, it was fully developed for the EIS to respond to
significant public interest. Under SEPA, decision makers have the option of conducting
additional economic analysis to use in decision making. A pre-feasibility economic
comparison of all action alternatives was performed in 1995. Please refer to Section
4.21.3, Economic Analysis of the Alternatives, for a comparison of Alternative C
against other action alternatives. Refer also to response 6.18.4 in this appendix.
Why has there been no consideration of an underground mine with the ore shipped off
site?
Response:
6.18.15
Response:
6.18.16
Response:
There are enumerable ways to combine components to form alternatives. The ones
presented in the Crown Jewel Project EIS are believed to cover the range of the issues,
concerns, and criteria developed during scoping. Refer also to response 6.18.4 of this
appendix.
The draft EIS states that Alternative G would have the least short-term visual impacts.
This is not true. Minimizing visual impacts is just one of many advantages of
Alternative A.
The scenic impacts of Alternative G have been rewritten for the final EIS to better
clarify the impacts.
Alternative shift schedules should be researched and factored into the assessment.
The Proponent projected that approximately 144 employees would be required during
the operation phase based on a 24-hour per day operation. Varying the shift schedules
to three 8-hour shifts from two 12-hour shifts would not significantly change the
associated impacts. The largest difference would be in the number of vehicles needed
to transport employees. If a 75% participation rate in busing is assumed, then the
average daily traffic (ADT) would increase by 42 vehicles for a three shift operation.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-216
6.18.17
Response:
6.18.18
Response:
6.18.19
Response:
6.18.20
Response:
6.18.21
Response:
Alternative C would clearly have the least impacts on surface and ground water in both
the Myers Creek and Toroda Creek watersheds. There is not enough information in the
EIS to fully evaluate Alternative C.
Considerable time and effort was put in to exploring options and formulating the Action
Alternatives. This formulation process is described in Section 2.1, Formulation of
Alternatives, of the final EIS. All of the action alternatives have been adequately
presented and discussed in Chapter 2, Alternatives Including the Proposed Action, and
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, of the EIS. A more in depth evaluation for
Alternative C would be difficult because the exact location of underground adits and
drifts is not currently known. From information reasonably assumed, the impacts of
Alternative C on surface and ground water on Buckhorn Mountain would be similar to,
but slightly less than other action alternatives.
Not enough mining or non-mining alternatives were considered. State of the art mining
techniques were not used.
There were six action and one non-action alternatives presented. This is well within
the EIS scoping parameters. Refer also to responses 6.18.4, 6.18.14 and 6.18.17 in
this appendix.
A full range of current mining and milling techniques are analyzed and displayed in
Chapter 2, Alternatives Including the Proposed Action, of the final EIS. Final design
requirements of the facilities would be based upon these and other findings of the
document as well as regulatory requirements and would be established in the various
permits to be issued thereafter. Non-mining alternatives are beyond the scope of the
EIS (except the No Action Alternative) because they do not meet the purpose and need
to respond to the Proponent's proposal.
Dewatered tailings disposal should have been considered as a valid alternative.
Section 2.2.12, Tailings Disposal, of the final EIS presented both advantages and
disadvantages of this disposal method. Based on that analysis, the dewatered tailings
option was eliminated from further detailed consideration.
Open pit mining is defined as a method that uses a sequenced set of operations to
maximize recovery of ore. The preferred alternative disrupts this sequence. No where
in this section are economics discussed.
It is not believed that the preferred alternative (Alternative E Modified), as displayed in
the draft EIS, would change the amount of ore that would be recoverable. However,
it may change the economics of the recovery. It should be noted that the "Alternative
E Modified" has been dropped from consideration in the final EIS. Economics are
included in Section 4.21, Mining Economics, of the final EIS.
The Proponent plans to collect and route stormwater from the mine into the tailings,
yet tailings rely on net evaporation of thin layer deposition design.
In their NPDES/State Waste Discharge Applications (BMGC, 1996g), the Proponent
currently proposes to collect stormwater from the mine pit, mill area, waste rock
disposal areas, roads, tailings impoundment, and ancillary facilities and route it to the
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft £IS + 1-277
sediment traps for treatment and future releases to drainages. The tailings pond is
characterized as a net evaporation area. However, water is not expected to evaporate
during storm events and the tailings facility management and tailings beach design
account for possible stormwater inflows.
6.18.22 "The draft EIS Alt.B projects a similar steep-angle S.Waste Rock Pile with its base 600
ft. from the proposed tailings impoundment, and stormwater diversion channels
engineered to only ten-year/24-hour storm events (two inches precipitation in 24 hrs.);
this is insufficient engineering to ensure that the tailings impoundment would not be
flooded-and impoundment integrity compromised-by storm water runoff from waste
rock."
Response:
6.18.23
The diversion channels are designed to convey the 100-year, 24-hour storm without
over-topping.
The sediment traps have been designed to contain the run-off volume of the eight-year,
24-hour peak spring snow melt, the estimated volume of one year of accumulated
sediment, and the total volume of the ten-year, 24-hour storm. Additional capacity has
been furnished to provide a minimum of one foot of freeboard at peak discharge.
Figure 2.2, Waste Rock Disposal Area Options, of the final EIS depicts the waste rock
disposal options for the Crown Jewel Project. We realize that some of the waste rock
disposal options are limited by criteria such as slope stability etc.; however, the figure
indicates that there may be some flexibility on the boundaries of some of these disposal
areas.
Response:
6.18.24
Response:
6.18.25
Response:
6.18.26
Yes, there could be some flexibility on the boundaries of the waste rock disposal sites.
A varying arrangement of waste rock disposal sites have been provided in the EIS
action alternatives and are displayed in Section 2.2.5, Waste Rock Disposal, of the final
EIS.
Please provide a clear indication of how much of Marias Creek would be directly
displaced by the various tailings impoundment alternatives. In addition address the area
of direct and indirect impact of the proposed water collection system below each
tailings impoundment.
Please refer to Section 4.7, Surface Water, Section 4.10.11, Waters of the United
States, and Table 2.15, Summary of Impacts by Alternative for Each Issue, of the final
EIS. Table 2.15, Summary of Impacts by Alternative for Each Issue and Table 4.10.3,
Wetlands Impacted by Mining Operations, display the lineal feet of stream directly
impacted by each alternative. The impacts to Marias Creek are from the tailings
facility.
There were concerns on the possibility of nighttime blasting.
The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) rules and regulations specify that
all surface mine blasting would be conducted during daylight hours. Special permission
must be requested for nighttime blasting.
The final EIS should clarify why both the effluent from the gravel overdrain for the
dewatering tailings and the underdrain system for ground water underflow would both
discharge to the recovery solution collection pond.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-218
Response:
6.18.27
Response:
6.18.28
Response:
6.18.29
Response:
6.18.30
Response:
6.18.31
The gravel overdrain system for tailings dewatering and the ground water underdrain
system are separate systems as implied by the description. The Proponent has revised
the liner and leak detection system as described in revised Section 2.2.15, Tailings
Liner System Design, of the final EIS. Since there would now be two synthetic liners
with an intermediate leak detection system, the underdrain would be allowed to
discharge to the natural drainage. The overdrain and leak detection system drain would
discharge to the recovery solution collection pond.
Underdrains should be constructed under the waste rock piles to prevent potential
springs and seeps from contacting potentially acid-generating materials.
If springs or seeps are encountered during topsoil removal and site preparation,
underdrains would be installed to convey this water under the waste rock storage
areas. Refer to Section 2.12.6.1, Geotechnical Stability, and Section 4.6.3, Effects
Common to All Action Alternatives, subsection "Waste Rock Disposal."
Page 4-42, Column 2, Paragraph 5, of the draft EIS states that the selective placement
of potentially acid-generating waste rock would probably not be feasible.
This paragraph refers to backfilling the pit with waste rock rather than constructing
waste rock disposal areas where selective handling would be possible and is required
under the Washington Metal Mining and Milling Operations Act and Forest Service and
BLM Guidelines.
The final EIS should state what methods would be used to prevent the pit from filling
with water after mining, if that was decided to be used as a mitigation measure.
Response strategies identifying corrective actions and financial security appropriate to
accomplish the corrective actions can be found in mitigation measure 2.12.13.5, Pit
Lake.
The final EIS should clarify how partial or complete backfill of the open pit would result
in an irretrievable loss of gold resources.
The ability to remove the backfill is not based on technology but rather on economics.
The irretrievable loss of gold resource due to backfilling is based on the assumption that
future re-mining would not be conducted in a backfilled pit due to the economics of
recovering high strip ratio (ratio of tons of waste rock to tons of ore) material.
The Proponent has stated that approximately 3.5 million tons of additional ore could
be mined, if the market price of gold reached $800 per ounce. Should gold prices rise
significantly so that mining of this additional ore would become economical, that
proposal would require a separate environmental analysis since it is not proposed or
reasonably foreseeable at this time.
Most of the studies were completed for Bolster and Chesaw, and very little, if any
consideration was taken for the east side of the mine - basically Pontiac Ridge and
Toroda Creek.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-219
Response:
The EIS considered impacts to all areas potentially affected which included both Myers
and Toroda Creek drainages. Impacts discussed specific to Pontiac Ridge were mostly
related to transportation, noise, and wildlife impacts. No hydrologic impacts are
predicted for Pontiac Ridge.
Regulatory Compliance
6.18.32
Response:
6.18.32.1
Response:
6.18.33
Response:
Is the proposed Crown Jewel Project in compliance with the Washington Metal Mining
and Milling Operations Act concerning the siting of the tailings pond? What about
other provisions of the Washington Metal Mining and Milling Operations Act such as
air quality baseline and pre-construction ambient monitoring?
A Tailings Site Selection Report has been completed in compliance with the
Washington Metal Mining and Milling Operations Act, Chapter 78.56 RCW. The Site
Selection Report is presented in Appendix K, Tailings Site Selection Report. The Act
stipulates that all proposed metal mining and milling operations must comply with all
provisions of the Act prior to approved permits being granted by either the WADNR or
WADOE. Refer to response 6.1.10 in this appendix, concerning air quality.
What are the permitting requirements concerning air quality for this project? What
about the drift of fugitive dust outside the project boundaries?
The concentrations of toxic elements contained in the fugitive dust at the Crown Jewel
Project boundary are shown in the final EIS in Table 4.1.6, Alternative B Modeled
Ambient Air Quality Impacts - Criteria Pollutants. In order for WADOE to approve a
Notice of Construction air quality permit, state regulations require a demonstration that
emissions from the source are sufficiently low to protect human health and safety. One
way of satisfying this requirement is to show that concentrations of toxic air pollutants
predicted at the point of compliance are less than Acceptable Source Impact Levels
(ASIL) published in the regulation (WAC 173-460). WADOE has stated that, for the
Crown Jewel Project, the fence line is the appropriate point of compliance. In May
1996, the Proponent expanded the area within the fence line compared to the original
fence location displayed in the draft EIS. Expanding the fenced area affects other
issues in addition to air quality such as range allotments. The expanded fenced area
has been accepted by the agencies involved.
Does the proposed Crown Jewel Project have to comply with National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations? What is meant by "zero
discharge"? What is the numerical threshold for determining how much water pollution
from the waste rock disposal area(s) would cause a significant surface water quality
impact?
A NPDES permit is required for discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States.
The NPDES permit is listed in Table 1.1, List of Tentative and Potential Permits and
Approvals. It is also discussed in Appendix B, Agency Responsibilities (Permits and
Approvals).
"Zero discharge" means that no discharge would be permitted from the tailings facility.
WADOE would consider water quality degradation beyond background or state water
quality standards significant.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-220
6.18.34
Response:
6.18.35
Response:
6.18.36
Response:
Does the proposed Crown Jewel Project have to comply with Washington Storm Water
regulations?
Yes, the Crown Jewel Project would have to comply with all applicable county, state,
and federal regulations. Section 4.6.4, Effects of Alternative B, subsection "Drainage
Control," has been revised accordingly. Refer to response 6.18.22, in this appendix
for additional information about the Proponent's stormwater control facilities design and
the report Conceptual Design Report Diversion Channels and Sediment Traps, Crown
Jewel Project (Colder, 1996d).
Does the proposed Crown Jewel Project have to comply with Washington On-Site
Sewage Disposal regulations? If so, where are the plan details? Where is the impact
analysis?
Yes. This approval is listed on Table 1.1, List of Tentative and Potential Permits and
Approvals. It is also discussed in Appendix B, Agencies Responsibilities (Permits and
Approvals). Section 2.2.24, Sanitary Waste Disposal, states that either Septic Tank -
Leach Field or Package Sewage Disposal Plant would meet state and local standards
and protect water quality. Actual siting and design details are a permit issue and are
not within the scope of the EIS. The effects of installing a sewage disposal system are
displayed in Section 4.6.3, Effects Common to All Action Alternatives, of the final EIS.
If the tailings are designated as solid or dangerous waste, why are they proposed to be
placed on or near a creek? This would appear to be in violation of Washington solid
and dangerous waste regulations.
Dangerous waste information provided by the Proponent does not indicate that the
tailings would be characterized as dangerous waste under applicable state dangerous
waste rules. As a matter of caution, additional bioassays of the tailings were
conducted since the draft EIS. Refer to mitigation measure 2.12.13.3, Cyanide
Destruction, for additional assurances required of the Proponent prior to and during
operations. If the tailings had designated as dangerous waste, they would have to be
disposed of in a authorized waste management facility permitted under state dangerous
waste management laws. Disposal of dangerous waste through discharge to the
tailings facility without the necessary disposal facility permits would constitute a
potential significant adverse impact warranting further environmental review under
SEPA. However, the bioassays did not produce new information indicating that the
tailings would designate, so no additional environmental review was undertaken. A
discussion of the bioassay documentation can be reviewed in Section 3.3.3,
Geochemistry.
The mill tailings meet the definition of solid waste as described in Chapter 173-304
WAC, the Minimum Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling (MFS). However,
the MFS contains an exclusion for "liquid wastes whose discharge is regulated under
federal, state, or local water pollution permits" (Chapter 173-304-015(2)). Therefore,
the local standards referenced in the comment would not apply to the Crown Jewel
Project tailings impoundment, as it would be regulated by a NPDES/State Waste
Discharge Permit issued by the WADOE. The Washington Metal Mining and Milling
Operations Act specifies that "all known available and reasonable technology" (AKART)
be used to limit concentrations of potentially toxic materials.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-221
Waste designation characterizes the qualities of waste produced by the proposed ore
milling process. However, the character of these mill tailings is still relevant to the
environmental review process to the extent that their discharge bears on the
environmental impact of the tailings facility, which is discussed in Chapter 4,
Environmental Consequences, of the final EIS.
6.18.36.1 Concern was expressed about whether Nicholson Creek would be used as a mixing zone
and that the Proponent should be required to meet effluent limits without a mixing zone.
Also, another comment stated that Marias Creek should not be used as a tailings
impoundment underdrain to collect leaks. Another comment indicated that a NPDES permit
should be required because discharges to ground water will eventually reach surface
waters or wetlands.
Response:
The Proponent may be entitled to the use of a mixing zone in accordance with WAC 173-
201 A, Washington's Water Quality Standards for Surface Water. This determination is made
as a part of the permit application review. Before a mixing zone is granted, WADOE must find
that the discharger has applied AKART, that the mixing zone is necessary to meet the
effluent limit, and then limit the size of the mixing zone to the minimum necessary.
Using streams as locations of tailing facilities is addressed in responses 6.18.6 and 6.18.24
in this appendix.
An NPDES permit is required for all discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States
6.18.36.2 A comment expressed the opinion that the cadmium criteria in Washington's water quality
standards was not sufficiently stringent to protect aquatic life and that EPA's criteria
should be used instead.
Response:
Washington's water quality criteria for cadmium are .001 55 and .00057 mg/l per liter,
respectively, for acute and chronic toxicity based upon a water hardness of 50 mg/l as
CaCO3. The numeric criteria will be higher for water that has a higher hardness. The criteria
in Chapter 173-201 A, Water Quality Standards for Surface Waters of the State of
Washington, are EPA's criteria. WADOE is required to submit updated standards to EPA for
approval approximately every three years.
6.18.36.3 Information normally found in the NPDES permit should appear in the final EIS. The
requested information includes an effluent characterization, a description of the type and
location of outfalls, effluent volumes, treatment technologies, and receiving water
characteristics.
Response:
The information presented in the final EIS is not as specific as what will be used by WADOE
in developing a NPDES/State Waste Discharge permit for the facility. WADOE may require
specific design, operational, or monitoring controls as a part of its permit process that are
beyond what the Proponent has described in their Plan of Operations or in various mitigation
measures. The EPA encourages inclusion of a draft permit in an EIS document to ensure that
the performance limits in the permit are known to the permittee and can be met. EPA's
purpose in recommending this procedure is to prevent approval and construction of a project
that would be in violation of the Clean Water Act upon start up. WADOE does not have the
same regulatory need for inclusion of the draft permit in the final EIS because it has specific
preconstruction design review and approval authority under RCW 90.48 and WAC 173-240.
The Proponent has prepared a NPDES/State Waste Discharge Permit Application (BMGC,
1996g). This permit application is available for review in the Forest Service office in
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • 1-222
Tonasket, Washington and the WADOE office in Yakima, Washington. Public notice of the
availability was advertised from October 3, 1996 to October 10, 1996. Interested persons
were invited by the WADOE to submit written comments by November 9, 1996.
Future Project Expansion
6.18.37
Response:
6.18.38
Response:
It appears that the Proponent has an additional 9,000 acres of land claimed surrounding
the proposed Crown Jewel Project. What is their patenting status? Does this mean
they plan to expand the mining operation?
Section 4.21.2, Potential Mine Expansion, has been revised in the final EIS to clarify
the potential for mine expansion. The Proponent explained in an April 1996 letter to
the Forest Service that the 9,000 acres referred to in their stock prospectus included
all lands owned or controlled by the joint venture, which is several thousand more
acres than would be directly affected by development of the Crown Jewel Project. The
joint venture owns or controls surrounding lands for a variety of reasons such as to
ensure access, create a safety and security buffer, or avoid conflicts with third parties.
Crown Resources Corp. (joint venture partner of the Proponent) has received first half
certificates for their mill site claims. Refer to responses 6.15.13, 6.15.14 and 6.15.15
in this appendix for further discussion.
There is no proposal to expand the Crown Jewel Project by the Proponent.
If other mining projects are permitted in the area, would the Proponent be allowed to
expand their mill or tailings pond and process ore from the new mines?
There is no proposal to expand the tailings facility to include tailings material from other
ore bodies in the area.
Any future expansion of the mill or tailings facility would, at a minimum, require a
revision in approved permits and a separate NEPA and SEPA analysis.
Other Comments
6.18.39
Response:
It has been said that the synthetic liner has a projected life of only ten years. What
happens then? Will the pond contents flow out and contaminant the ground water?
A liner life of only ten years would not be acceptable for this project. Laboratory
testing conducted by both private industry and the EPA have demonstrated that the
polymers (synthetic liner material) should maintain their integrity for many decades, if
not hundreds of years (Landreth, 1990). Since there is still much to be learned about
the service life of the synthetic liners, a leak detection system would be installed and
is required under the Washington Metal Mining and Milling Operations Act along with
a second liner. The tailings pond alternatives developed for the Crown Jewel Project
would have double synthetic liners and a leak detection system. The Proponent has
revised their proposed liner system to include two synthetic liners with an intermediate
leak detection system. Refer to Section 2.2.15, Tailings Liner System Design, of the
final EIS for a discussion of the proposed liner system.
The Seepage and Attenuation Study Crown Jewel Tailings Disposal Facility (Hydro-Geo
1995b) includes seepage rates and various scenarios that result from liner failure, and
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-223
Section 4.22.4, Other Types of Accidents, of the final EIS considers environmental
consequences from liner failure. Refer also to Section 4.7, Surface Water, of the final
EIS.
6.18.40 How can the reclaimed pit be allowed to discharge water if silver and cadmium
concentrations exceed EPA allowable levels?
Response:
6.18.41
Response:
6.18.42
Response:
Refer to response 6.5.39 in this appendix.
The draft EIS states that cyanide degrades naturally from exposure to sunlight. In the
winter months, sunlight is at a premium and the days are cold. How will this affect the
degradation of cyanide? Will the Proponent transport cyanide in its liquid form? If so,
what additional precautions will be taken to prevent spills, impacts, etc?
The lack of sunlight in the winter would slow the natural degradation of cyanide in the
tailings. However, as pointed out in Section 2.2.11, Cyanide Destruction, of the final
EIS, natural degradation is not being proposed as the primary destruction treatment.
The INCO S02/Air/Oxidation process is the primary treatment. The tailings pond would
have an added benefit in continuing the natural degradation of cyanide in the tailings
below the concentration level allowed at the pipe discharging tailings into the tailings
disposal facility.
The cyanide would be transported to the site in solid (briquettes) form as stated in
Table 2.4, Materials and Supplies, and Table 2.5, Consumable Estimate - Underground
Mining in Chapter 2, Alternatives Including the Proposed Action, of the EIS.
Section 4.22, Accidents and Spills, discusses three cyanide release scenarios which
could affect water bodies. Section 4.22.2, Tailings Dam Failure, identifies loss of
aquatic life as a consequence of dam breach. Section 4.22.3, Transportation Spill,
subsection "Sodium Cyanide," discusses aquatic life losses. Section 4.22.4, Other
Types of Accidents, subsection "Leak in the Tailings Facility," discusses the
consequences to the environment from a leak in the tailings liner.
Since the waste rock is "solid waste," will the waste rock disposal areas be lined?
Shouldn't they (waste rock disposal areas) be regulated as solid waste? If not, why
not?
Waste rock does meet the definition of solid waste as stated in Chapter 173-304 WAC.
Waste rock could be regulated as solid waste landfills, most likely as Inert/Demolition
Landfills (173-304-461 WAC). Chapter 173-304-100 (40) WAC defines inert wastes
as "non-combustible, non-dangerous solid wastes that are likely to retain their physical
and chemical structure under expected conditions of disposal, including resistance to
biological attack and chemical attack from acidic rainwater." Humidity cell testing
conducted on representative samples of waste rock conclude that the potential for the
rock to generate acidic or toxic drainage is low. Refer to Section 3.3.3, Geochemistry,
of the final EIS. The WADOE would require short-and-long term monitoring of waste
rock seepage to confirm this conclusion.
The primary responsibility for regulation of solid waste lies with the local government.
While Okanogan County's Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan does not
specifically address mining wastes, the Okanogan County Health Department could
require an Inert/Demolition Landfill Permit for the waste rock disposal areas. The
requirements for design and operation of Inert/Demolition Landfills are oriented toward
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • I.-224
protecting against physical hazards, since by definition, biological or chemical hazards
are not significant. Inert/Demolition wastes do not require a liner or underdrains
(Chapter 173-304-461).
The Washington Metal Mining and Milling Operations Act, Chapter 78.56.100 RCW,
requires the development of a waste rock management plan, to be approved by
WADOE and WADNR prior to water quality permit approval. The Plan must identify the
acid-generating properties of the waste rock, contain a strategy for encapsulating
potentially toxic materials from the environment to prevent release of heavy metals and
acidic drainage, and a plan for reclaiming and closing the waste rock disposal areas.
The waste rock management plan is discussed in Section 4.7, Surface Water, of the
final EIS. In addition, all discharges from the waste rock area(s) would be regulated by
the effluent limitations contained in the NPDES permit.
The Inland Native Fish Strategy Decision (Forest Service, 1995a) under Minerals
Management Standard and Guideline MM-3 states: "Prohibit solid and sanitary waste
facilities in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas. If no alternative to locating mine
waste (waste rock, spent ore, tailings) facilities in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas
exists, and releases can be prevented and stability can be ensured, (then):
a. Analyze the waste using the best conventional sampling methods and analytic
techniques to determine the 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 Riparian Habitat
Conservation Areas.
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.
d. Reclaim and monitor waste facilities to assure chemical and physical stability
and revegetation to avoid adverse effects to inland native fish, and to attain the
Riparian Management Objectives.
e. Require reclamation bonds adequate to ensure long-term chemical and physical
stability and successful revegetation of mine waste facilities."
Given the requirements of the WADOE, the NPDES permit regulations, the Washington
Metal Mining and Milling Operations Act, Inland Native Fish Strategy Decision, and the
proposed reclamation of the waste rock areas, there is no environmental benefit
justification to require a landfill permit or a liner system.
6.18.43 Wetlands are a critical issue in the Nicholson Creek drainage. Why are waste rock
disposal areas located so as to disturb these wetlands, when they can be placed
elsewhere? How do the tailings impoundments in the different alternatives impact the
wetlands in the Nicholson Creek drainage?
Response:
Alternatives B, E, F, and G showed minor disturbance of wetlands in the Nicholson and
Marias Creek drainages from waste rock disposal areas. This disturbance from waste
rock storage to wetlands totals between 0.01 acre in Nicholson Creek and 0.02 acre
in Marias Creek. The waste rock disposal areas have been designed to minimize
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS * L-225
impacts to wetlands. Based on comments received from agencies and the public, the
Preferred Alternative has been designed to reduce impacts to these wetlands. Refer
to Chapter 2, Alternatives Including the Proposed Action, and all wetland sections of
the final EIS for revised plan details and wetland impacts.
In Alternatives F and G, placement of the tailings impoundment would directly impact
South Nicholson Creek. No tailings are proposed to be placed in the Nicholson Creek
drainage in Alternatives B, C, D, or E. Note that hydrologic impacts are predicted for
all alternatives to wetlands in the Nicholson Creek drainage basin.
6.18.44
Response:
6.18.45
Response:
6.18.46
Response:
Was the alternative of a buried power line considered?
Installing an underground high voltage power line is extremely expensive and creates
more physical disturbance than an "overhead" power line. This option is discussed in
Section 2.2.22, Power Supply, in the final EIS. This option was considered but not
carried forth for further study in the final EIS based on discussions with engineers from
Okanogan P.U.D.
Why is the Proponent proposing to use vendors outside Okanogan County to purchase
much of their supplies and materials?
Vendors within Okanogan County would be used to the extent possible. However,
there are currently no vendors within Okanogan County that can supply all of the
specialized mining equipment and supplies which would be required for the mining
operation.
Comments were received stating that the Summitville Mine (Colorado) incident caused
the deposition of tailings containing cyanide into the Alamosa River and thereby caused
contamination of the Alamosa River. Comments remarked that this incident was a
result of poor engineering design of the heap leach pad, steep waste rock disposal
areas, and underestimation of storm water flows. Some comments suggested that
these Summitville activities appear to be the same situation as the proposed Crown
Jewel Project, since the design calls for steep waste rock disposal area and diversions
designed for ten-year/24-hour storm events.
The Summitville Mine and the Crown Jewel Project are similar in that they both were
or are proposed to be open pit mines, used or plan to use cyanide in gold recovery, and
are both about the same size on a total reserve basis.
Major topographic, climatical, and geologic differences exist between the Summitville
Mine and Crown Jewel Project. The Summitville Mine was located at 11,500 feet
while the Crown Jewel Project is at about 5,500 feet. The Summitville Mine is in an
area that receives 300 to 400 inches of snowfall per year, while the Crown Jewel
Project area is projected to receive less than 100 inches of snowfall per year. The
Summitville ore was located in oxidized rock (allowing for heap leaching) while the
Crown Jewel Project has a sulphide ore (calling for conventional milling - tank
cyanidation). Much of the Summitville Mine waste rock was found to be acid-
generating, while only 5% to 15% of the Crown Jewel Project waste rock was
estimated to be acid-generating.
The major operational difference between the Summitville Mine and the Crown Jewel
Project is the ore processing methods. The Summitville Mine employed a heap leach
method of gold extraction where ore material is placed on a liner, cyanide solution is
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-226
introduced on the ore, gold is leached into solution (pregnant solution), and the
pregnant solution is piped to a gold recovery circuit. With heap leaching, there are no
tailings, and the (spent) ore is detoxified in place to cyanide levels acceptable to
regulatory standards. The Crown Jewel Project would not employ heap leach
techniques and, as such, would have no heap leach pad. Conventional milling (carbon-
in-leach extraction) would be used at the Crown Jewel Project, and the INCO
S02/Air/Oxidation system would reduce cyanide levels in the tailings material to
acceptable regulatory standards prior to discharge into the tailings facility.
A brief project history of the Summitville Mine and its problems follow (Jones, 1993).
In 1984, Galactic Resources, Limited (Galactic) submitted the first large cyanide heap
leach reclamation permit application in Colorado for the Summitville site. The permit
review process by the Colorado Mined Land Reclamation Division (MLRD) was
conducted in the summer and fall of 1984, with permit application approval in October
1984. After delays related to financing, construction commenced in the winter of
1985 and was completed during the summer of 1986. Considerable difficulty was
encountered due to the extreme winter conditions at the high mountain location.
Commercial mine operation began in 1986 and continued until 1991 when mining
ceased. The heap leach operation continued into 1992. Early in 1992, the MLRD and
the Colorado Water Quality Control Division (WQCD) of the Department of Health
informed Galactic the permit must be substantially revised and the bond increased to
adequately provide for closure. In July 1992, Galactic signed a settlement agreement
with the MLRD and WQCD. This agreement provided for Galactic to meet several
conditions, including increasing the posted bond to $7.2 million and meeting interim
water discharge quality requirements. Galactic was also required to submit a final
closure plan by November 30, 1992 on which the proper bond amount would be
determined and posted. In the late summer and fall of 1992, reclamation work was
accomplished on the site with Galactic completing contouring and seeding of 144 acres
of disturbed land, installing a Degussa water treatment plant, and continuing to treat
water from the Reynolds adit (an abandoned underground mine) and water that was
leaking from the heap leach ponds. Galactic was unsuccessful in reaching the limits
for discharge imposed by the WQCD. Because of this they did not discharge the
treated water into Wightman Fork (a tributary to the Alamosa River), instead returned
the treated water to the heap leach ponds increasing the levels of those ponds to
capacity. In late November 1992, Galactic submitted a final closure plan, with
estimated first phase closure cost to be approximately $22 million. A few days later,
Summitville Consolidated Mining Company (the mine operator) and a subsidiary to
Galactic, filed for protection under the United States bankruptcy code. At the same
time, on December 4th, the parent company, Galactic, notified the state they would
withdraw as operator on December 15, 1992. This action gave Colorado ten days to
arrange for a new entity to take over operation of the water treatment facilities and site
during the remaining winter months ahead. Colorado did not have adequate emergency
authority to adequately take over the Summitville operation, and subsequently
requested that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) take over the site operations
as of December 16, 1992. EPA has operated the treatment facilities at the Summitville
site since late 1992, although not always in conformity with the discharge limitations
imposed upon Galactic by the WQCD. The Summitville Mine "incident" can be traced
to several key problem areas (Jones, 1993):
• Design flaws related to the initial water balance (the design called for zero
discharge, but the actual situation required discharge);
• Poor installation of the heap leach pad liner and not adequately repairing early
leaks detected in the liner;
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS 4 1-227
• Failure of both Galactic and the Colorado regulatory agencies to recognize and
respond to the build-up of water and copper in the system;
• Not following the permitted mining and ore processing plans;
• Insufficient surveillance by the MLRD because of lack of staff and funding;
• Unrealistic water quality limits required by the WQCD; and,
• Inadequate financial assurances to address remedial and reclamation activity.
In a revised reclamation plan (December 15, 1995), the Proponent has committed to
overall waste rock slopes of 2.51-1:1 V. Additionally, the Proponent has committed to
sequential reclamation of the waste rock slopes. This would allow some reclamation
(grading, topsoiling and revegetation) of the lower waste rock slopes during operations,
thereby adding additional stability to the 2.5H:1 V slopes.
Refer to response 6.18.22 in this appendix, for the proposed design criteria of the
stormwater diversions and sediment traps. In addition, the tailings facility is designed
to contain 360 acre-feet of water which is twice the runoff volume from a 72-hour
storm event (WADOE regulations). Translated, the 72-hour event equals a storm which
would theoretically occur once in every 30,000 years.
6.18.47 What about other health effects from tailings or cyanide?
Response:
The potentially toxic trace metals associated with the milling process were considered.
Refer to Section 3.3.3, Geochemistry. At certain concentrations, these trace metals
could be carcinogenic.
The chemistry of cyanide solutions is complicated because the cyanide ion forms
compounds and complexes with many elements. Some cyanide species are highly
toxic whereas others are relatively inert and harmless. Molecular hydrogen cyanide
(HCN) is the most toxic form of cyanide. Under most conditions, HCN exists as a gas
which readily dissipates or reacts with the environment to form less toxic or non-toxic
forms of cyanide. Thus HCN is an ephemeral toxin, and many naturally occurring
geochemical processes reduce the HCN concentration with time.
Free cyanide includes the two species, ionic cyanide (CN~) and molecular hydrogen
cyanide. Free cyanide toxicity in man, mammals, and aquatic species is well
documented (Douforoff, 1976; and, Towill et.al., 1978). The lethal doses reported for
human adults vary with human weight and the type of exposure as follows:
• One to three mg/kg body weight if ingested;
• 100 to 300 ppm if inhaled; and,
• 100 mg/kg of body weight if absorbed.
Cyanide can form HCN at a low pH, <7.
The Crown Jewel Project milling circuit is designed to keep the pH at 10 or higher, and
the INCO S02/Air/Oxidation destruct process would be utilized. The tailings
embankment, liner system, reclaim system, and monitoring system are designed to
prevent contaminants from reaching the environment. Other, non-lethal affects of
cyanide include effects on the cardiovascular system, central nervous system, liver,
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-228
6.18.48
Response:
6.18.49
Response:
6.18.50
Response:
kidneys, and the skin (NIOSH, 1990). Refer also to Section 2.2.8, Ore Processing
Methods, Section 4.12.4, Toxics, and Section 4.22.3, Transportation Spill.
Why was the outflow from the Roosevelt adit allowed to be illegally diverted?
Forest Service records indicate outflow from the Roosevelt adit entered Nicholson
Creek in 1973, while similar records indicate that the flow entered Marias Creek in
1974. The divide between the two drainages is slight. Subsequently, the outflow may
enter either drainage at various times.
At the time the work occurred to reopen the culvert across Forest Road 3275-122, the
flow was entering Nicholson Creek and the work preserved the direction of flow. All
available Forest Service data and evidence indicate that when and if a change in stream
course came about, it was a natural occurrence. The stream course change was
possibly affected by logging activities that occurred in the area with the Bishop timber
sale (1974-1978), as the road was built and the culvert installed (between 1975 and
1977) to allow logging of the area. The date on which the culvert was plugged
sufficiently to allow the flow to divert to a different channel is unknown, but it can be
approximated to some time after the closing date of the Bishop timber sale in 1978.
An EIS should have been performed for previous cumulative impacts due to grazing.
mineral exploration, timbering, and mining.
Cumulative impacts from these past project activities are considered for all resources
in Chapter 3, Affected Environment, which evaluates the current condition of the
resources. All resource sections of Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, build on
this foundation in the direct, indirect, or cumulative effects by alternative.
Grazing allotments were established under Forest Service and BLM guidelines. An
Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared by the Proponent and approved by the
Forest Service for the exploration conducted on the site. EA's for the timber harvests
were conducted by the Forest Service and BLM. All of those documents made a
finding of no significant impact based on the information that was available to the
decision makers at the time. All of these past projects were evaluated as part of the
Crown Jewel Project cumulative effects analysis. All past and current logging,
grazing,and exploration activities have been conducted in compliance with applicable
laws and regulations.
Exploration NEPA documents do not assume development, because it is not
"reasonably foreseeable" that development would eventually take place. Very few
exploration activities eventually lead to development. Exploration is simply the
exploring for mineral deposits and, if found, determining if the potential for
development exists.
It was questioned why local issues like hiring practices and road maintenance are
discussed in the EIS.
SEPA provides for the assessment of impacts from a proposal on the natural and built
environment. The elements of the built environment are listed in WAC-197-11-444.
At least to the extent that local hiring, taxation, and road maintenance associated with
a project lead to or reflect impacts to the elements of the environment listed in the
WAC, they are legitimately addressed in the environmental review process. It is
appropriate for a county to provide the lead agencies with information regarding these
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS * L-229
issues. The Okanogan County government has been consulted and their information
has been used in presenting these issues and responding to comments.
There has been insufficient attempt to analyze the benefits of no action.
6.18.51
Response:
6.18.52
Response:
6.18.53
The impacts resulting from the "no action" Alternative A are summarized in Chapter 2,
Alternatives Including the Proposed Action, and fully displayed in Chapter 4,
Environmental Consequences, by issue and alternative. Also, Section 4.26,
Reservation of Project for Future Development, of the final EIS, discusses the
advantages and disadvantages of delaying the Crown Jewel Project.
Why isn't it possible to mine the support pillars at the very end of the project life. This
is undertaken at other underground mines.
Alternatives C and D propose to "rob" from the support pillars, as safety allows, at the
end of mining.
There were several comments concerning the economic analysis performed for the
alternatives; these include:
1) The economic analysis should be presented as a comparison of the alternatives
with all variables equally applied.
2) The draft EIS fails to consider additional reasonable alternatives that would
entail reduced earnings for the Proponent, but substantially less severe impacts
to the environment.
3) Since Alternatives F and G are uneconomic, why are they retained as
Alternatives?
4) Net returns calculated from Table S-14, Socioeconomic Assumptions for the
Action Alternatives, of the draft EIS Summary. Capital and annual expenditures
subtracted from the total value of gold produced (180,000 oz/yr x 8 yrs x
$380/oz) seem to show Alternative F as more profitable than Alternative C.
This contradicts the conclusions of Section S-60 (draft EIS) which suggests
that Alternative C may be feasible and F not.
5) The statement that the operation of the mine for only 12 hours per day could
decrease efficiency and impact the economic feasibility of the Crown Jewel
Project is unsupported.
6) Does the economic analysis take into account bonding and long term care
requirements?
7) Although the document was quite thorough in its presentation of all
alternatives, it seemed to omit addressing the fact that some of the proposed
alternatives are economically impractical.
8) Why doesn't the document state that 80% of the gold would be recovered
with a combination of underground and surface mining? What is the expected
net profit by the Proponent using this method?
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS * L-230
Response:
1) A comparison of the Net Present Values (NPV) for the alternatives is presented
on Figure 4.21.2, Comparison of NPV (15%) of Crown Jewel Project
Alternatives to Alternative B, in the EIS.
2) Several alternatives were considered that would result in reduced profits for the
Proponent. See Figure 4.21.2, Comparison of NPV (15%) of Crown Jewel
Project Alternatives to Alternative B, of the final EIS.
3) Despite the poor economic performance of Alternatives F and G, they are
retained because of significant public interest in displaying their effects and
because, broken out individually, some components of these alternatives may
still be viable. Alternative E Modified has been dropped from further analysis.
4) The net-return calculation does not assess the effect of time on the bottom
line. Alternative F would mine at only one-half the rate of Alternatives B or C
(16-year mine life instead of eight years). In addition. Alternative F includes
another 16 years to backfill the pit. Calculating the Net Present Value of the
alternative considers negative and positive cash flows resulting from the
operation and discounts (adjusts for the time value of money) net revenues
back to the present. Considering the effect of time, Alternative F results in a
net loss to the Proponent. See Section 4.21.3, Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives, of the final EIS.
5) Alternative F evaluates the effects of an alternative that considers the 12-hour
day component.
6) Yes, the cost of financial surety was analyzed and varied by alternative in the
economic analysis.
7) NEPA requires that alternatives to the proposed action be developed so that a
reasonable range of alternatives are displayed. Alternatives C through G
develop a reasonable range, and meet the purpose and need to a greater or
lesser extent. The draft EIS and final EIS acknowledge that some alternative
components rendered some alternatives less economic (refer to Section 4.21.3,
Economic Analysis of the Alternatives). These components were used in some
of the alternatives because of significant public interest during scoping in
evaluating the environmental effects of these less economic components.
Reasonable alternatives under SEPA are those that attain or approximate the
objectives of the proposal, but at a lower environmental cost or with less
environmental degradation. Thus the objective of a proposal determines
whether an alternative is available and reasonable. In this case, the objective
of the proposal is determined in large measure by the Proponent (in contrast to,
for example, an agency-originated proposal for a planning or public works
project). The Proponent seeks to develop a commercially viable mine and mill
facility under the Mining Law of 1872, as amended. Some of the alternatives
developed in the EIS contain elements that a prudent investor would avoid
because of the effect of those elements on the commercial viability of the
Crown Jewel Project. An alternative which would not be prudently undertaken
due to commercial non-viability would not meet the objective of the proposal.
As noted above, some alternatives were fully developed in response to public
interest, particularly in pursuit of lower environmental costs or lesser
degradation. Furthermore, commercial feasibility is partly dependent on
technology and the price of gold, so it is prudent to consider, to a limited
extent, alternatives that may not presently appear commercially viable but
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-231
might become so with changes in circumstances. In view of these
considerations, the Forest Service and WADOE believe the resulting range of
alternatives is reasonable. The analysis shows, in some cases, that some of
these more costly options resulted in greater environmental effects for some
resources. These are all factors the NEPA decision makers weighed and will
continue to weigh when choosing the Selected Alternative.
8) Table 2.1, Alternative Comparison Summary, in the final EIS displays gold
recovery by alternative. The net profit by the Proponent has not been figured
as it is not necessary information for decision making. All alternatives were
compared using Net Present Value (NPV) which takes into consideration the
time value of money. NPV of the alternatives is displayed in Figure 4.21.2,
Comparison of NPV (15%) of Crown Jewel Project Alternatives to Alternative
B, of the final EIS.
6.18.54 Comparison of alternatives must be presented in a way that can be easily compared.
Using qualitative terms does not suffice with the quantity of technical information
available or that could be collected. Comparisons should be quantitative.
Response:
Comparisons between alternatives should be quantitative, when such information is
available. When sufficient information to provide accurate quantitative comparisons
has been available, the Forest Service and WADOE have done so. SEPA/NEPA requires
the WADOE/Forest Service to collect sufficient information for decision making and for
comparing alternatives. It does not expect or require the Forest Service and WADOE
to collect all information so that everything is known and quantified. Specifically NEPA
states that EISs are to be informative not encyclopedic (40 CFR 1502.2). Providing
quantification in some instances may imply more accuracy than is true or result in
wrong information. WAC 197-11-700 Definitions (2)(f) refers to quantification and
adverse environmental impacts. It states, "Environmental cost refers to adverse
environmental impact and may or may not be quantified." Additionally, WAC 197-11-
440(5)(e)(v) states, "one alternative can be used as a benchmark for comparing
alternatives."
There are quantitative comparisons of the alternatives presented throughout the EIS,
where available. A few examples are as follows:
• Summary tables for each alternative in Chapter 2, Alternatives Including the
Proposed Action;
• Table 2.1, Alternative Comparison Summary;
• Table 2.6, Estimated Water Use Requirements;
• Table 2.15, Summary of Impacts by Alternative for Each Issue; and,
• Table 3.3.1, Waste Rock Percentages for the EIS Alternatives.
More is known about the Proponent's proposal than other alternatives because of the
additional studies performed by the Proponent for their own purposes. Quantitative
information in comparison form to the Proponent's proposal is used to reduce
unnecessary paperwork and costs of analysis.
6.18.55 It is incorrect to assert that Federal agencies have the authority to choose the no-action
alternative.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-232
Response:
6.18.56
Response:
6.18.57
Response:
6.18.58
Response:
6.18.59
Response:
Based upon past experience, it is likely that the mine impacts could be reasonably
mitigated, thus allowing selection of an action alternative. However, it is possible, in
rare situations, that conflicts with other laws such as the Endangered Species Act
could require the selection of the no action alternative.
NEPA requires the disclosure of mine expansion as a cumulative impact, including a
worst case analysis. Disclosure should be presented in a supplemental draft EIS.
Cumulative effects include past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions.
Mine expansion is not reasonably foreseeable as contemplated in 40 CFR 1508.7,
because no plan or proposal has been submitted by any entity. No exploration is
currently being completed in the area, nor is there any indication that any entity intends
to do any further exploration. Even if the Forest Service and WADOE assume that
further exploration or development would occur, it would be meaningless to analyze
any impacts because it would be impossible to predict effects because no specifics
about such a hypothetical proposal would be known. (See 40 CFR 1502.22) Any
potential future expansion of the mine would be analyzed in a separate environmental
analysis.
According to the EPA: "Alt. G is not an option, as proposed from a Sec. 404 permitting
standpoint due to proposed tailings impoundment in Nicholson Creek and waste rock
disposal in the Frog Pond." yet it is included in the alternatives.
The 404 (b)(1) permit is issued by the Corps of Engineers and not the EPA. EPA has
some review authority over this permit. The Corps of Engineers felt that covering the
frog pond could be permittable under the 404 (b)(1) permit although strong rationale
would need to be provided. Impacts of covering the frog pond would have to be
compensated for by development or enhancement of wetlands at other sites.
Under Alternatives A through G, has all of the land affected by each of the alternatives
been fully evaluated from an environmental perspective?
The lands that would be affected, by each of the alternatives, have been evaluated
from an environmental perspective.
As proposed by the Proponent, the ore stockpile area would be located on a small
constructed fill at the top of a natural drainage below the north portion of the open pit.
Under the preferred alternative (and all other draft EIS alternatives, except Alternative
B), the stockpile area would be moved slightly up drainage, north and west of the
primary crusher location, and would be constructed as a cut large enough to
accommodate the ore stockpile, access road, and crusher operating area. This
modification was apparently made to avoid placing fill in the top of the small drainage.
The Proponent considers this modification unacceptable because of the high cost of
construction, inadequate available area, and safety concerns, with little if any,
environmental benefit.
The proposed sidehill ore stockpile location was considered in the EIS due to the desire
to be consistent with interim direction contained in the Inland Native Fish Strategy goal
MM-2 which states: "Locate structures, support facilities, and roads outside Riparian
Habitat Conservation Areas. Where ho alternative to siting facilities in Riparian Habitat
Conservation Areas exists, locate and construct the facilities in ways that avoid
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS » L-233
impacts to Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas and streams and adverse effects on
inland native fish."
The Forest Service preference was to place the ore stockpile on the spur ridge north
of Gold Bowl drainage between the 4,900 foot waste rock haul road and the 4,820
foot crusher elevation. Responding to the draft EIS, the Proponent attempted to design
an ore stockpile according to these requirements. Because of limitations of the 4,900
foot waste rock haul road and a steep slope directly below it, the maximum stockpile
capacity attained was approximately 130,000 tons (43 days at 3,000 tons/day) and
did not account for additional area needed for mill water storage tanks. The Proponent
contends that a capacity of 250,000 tons (83 days at 3,000 tons/day) is needed to
maintain a constant supply to the crusher and mill and, therefore, that the alternative
site is infeasible.
Issues raised in this comment have been evaluated (Lentz, 1996a) and the effects
included in the final EIS for consideration by the permitting agencies.
The ore stockpile capacity is dependent upon two major factors. First is the variability
of the ore to waste by mined bench. Because some benches have less ore than others,
a minimum capacity of 150,000 tons is needed to carry mill operations through the
periods during which "barren" benches are being mined. The above minimum capacity
must in turn be enlarged to accommodate the second factor, which is the variability of
the grade and hardness of the ore. In order for the mill to run effectively (maintaining
high gold/silver recovery), ore feed grade and hardness must be as uniform as possible.
This is accomplished by segregating ore into multiple stockpiles by grade and hardness
and blending to produce a uniform mill feed (Schumacher, 1996).
Analysis of comments and data from the draft EIS suggest the following additional
considerations. Assuming that the proposed sidehill ore storage site is feasible: (a) the
impact to the Gold Bowl drainage could not be entirely avoided due to the haul road
which must cross the draw and the difficulty of keeping all excavated rock from
entering the drainage during construction; (b) the total area of disturbance of the Forest
Service alternative is greater (12 acres) than the proposed drainage fill (seven acres);
and, (c) in either case sediment from runoff during construction and operation would
be controlled by capture in a diversion and infiltration system.
6.18.60 By requiring the Proponent to make major changes in its proposal by the selection of
a different alternative that provided negligible environmental gain, the viability of the
mine would be impacted.
Response:
NEPA and SEPA require federal and state agencies to consider reasonable alternatives
to the proposed action (Proponent's Plan of Operation). United States mining laws
recognize the statutory right of mining claim holders to explore and/or develop mineral
resources and encourages such activity consistent with the Mining and Mineral Policy
Act and the Federal Land Policy Management Act which require responsible federal
agencies to review the Proponent's Plan of Operation to ensure that: 1) adequate
provisions are included to minimize, to the extent practical, adverse environmental
impacts on the public land surface; 2) measures are included to provide for reclamation;
and, 3) the proposed operation would comply with other applicable federal, state and
county laws and regulations.
For state and local decision making for the Crown Jewel Project, WAC 197-11-448
provides clarification regarding the balancing of environmental gain and alternative
selection: "SEPA contemplates that the general welfare, social, economic, and other
requirements and essential considerations of state policy will be taken into account in
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-234
weighing and balancing alternatives and in making final decisions."
additional information is not required to be contained in the EIS.
However, this
6.18.61
Response:
Economic impacts of the different alternatives are displayed in Section 4.21, Mining
Economics, of the final EIS.
The Proponent is taking a way of life from local residents without adequate
compensation, and this is theft. Wealthy companies should not be allowed to steal
from the poor, minorities, and American Indians.
The Proponent is exercising rights established under applicable state and federal laws.
This opportunity is available to all citizens of the United States The purpose of the
environmental analysis is to disclose environmental impacts and evaluate alternatives.
These impacts would be minimized to the extent authorized by law and regulation.
Policy Issues
6.18.62 Are mining claims still patentable?
Response:
6.18.63
Response:
6.18.64
Response:
6.18.65
Response:
The 1872 Mining Law as amended, while being considered for revision by the United
States Congress, is currently in effect which allows for patenting of mining claims. The
1996 Federal Appropriations Act continues a moratorium on the processing of mine
claim patent applications except for applications filed and meeting certain requirements
on or before September 30, 1994.
EPA recommends that the mine site be returned to as close to natural conditions as
possible, including complete backfilling.
Complete backfilling is evaluated in Alternative F, and the effects, both positive and
negative, are disclosed. These effects will be considered along with applicable laws
and regulations in the identification of the Selected Alternative found to be in the
Record of Decision.
What is the justification for Preferred Alternative E Modified.
presented as a stand alone alternative.
It should have been
Alternative E Modified was dropped from consideration in the final EIS after further
analysis. All of the components of Alternative E Modified were evaluated in other
alternatives. Although developing Alternative E Modified as a stand alone alternative
would certainly have been preferable, to do so would have resulted in further delays
in publication of the draft EIS.
It was asked who would set permit limits for cyanide levels and how would compliance
with these limits be judged? What would be the enforcement?
The appropriate agencies would set the permit limits depending on the permit. The
WADOE would set cyanide permit limits in the NPDES/State Waste Discharge Permit.
The WAD cyanide limit would be set at the discharge point to the tailings pond, or in
the water pool, or at both locations. Compliance with permit limits is documented
through monitoring. Sampling and analysis are performed by the Proponent. Agencies
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-235
would inspect and independently collect and analyze samples to determine the integrity
of the permittee's sampling and analysis program and determine compliance with
effluent limits at the time of the inspection. Sample analyses conducted for compliance
with limits in the NPDES/State Waste Discharge permit must be performed at
laboratories accredited by WADOE. Enforcement tools include notices of violations,
administrative orders (including possible shutdowns), and financial penalties (fines).
The public may observe water quality sample collection for monitoring under provisions
of the Washington Metal Mining and Milling Operations Act.
6.18.66
Response:
6.18.67
Response:
A comment questioned the SEPA regulations pertaining to the number of required
public hearings. Another asked why a meeting was not held in Chesaw to gather local
input?
WAC 197-11-535 provides for the conduct of public hearings in the SEPA process.
Public hearings are discretionary unless an appropriate petition for a hearing is received.
The WAC is silent on the location of public hearings. Conducting two public hearings
exceeded the minimum requirements of the WAC. The Forest Service and WADOE
believe that these additional efforts to foster public participation are consistent with the
policies underlying NEPA and SEPA.
Concerning the gathering of local input, a meeting was held in Oroville since that was
the closest population center with adequate facilities.
There were comments which suggested that the draft EIS was inadequate, that
additional alternatives needed to be studied, and that a supplemental draft was
required.
The level of detail disclosed for each alternative is sufficient for the decision makers to
make an informed decision. NEPA specifically states EISs shall be analytic and not
encyclopedic (40 CFR 1502.2). Additional details are known about Alternative B
because the Proponent developed information for their own purposes and provided this
information to the agencies. A reasonable range of alternatives was developed to
respond to the issues.
NEPA requires that supplemental drafts be prepared where the agency makes
substantial changes in the proposed action or there are significant new circumstances
or information (40 CFR 1502.9) bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.
Although additional information regarding the alternatives was developed between the
draft EIS and final EIS based on public input, it is not significantly new information nor
have substantial changes been made to the proposed action. The final EIS displays all
needed information for the decision makers to make an informed decision. The public
would also have an opportunity to review the final EIS prior to implementation because
the Forest Service has internal administrative appeal regulations which automatically
stay projects for a minimum of 50 days after decision. If the project is appealed, the
project is additionally stayed until 1 5 days after appeal resolution. The result is that
appellants can have their concerns about the project reviewed at the Regional Office
level prior to implementation.
Under SEPA, if information developed on the basis of public and agency comments
substantially changes the analysis of significant impacts and alternatives in the existing
draft EIS (by adding new significant impacts), a supplemental EIS would be appropriate.
On the other hand, if the additional information does not substantially change the
analysis of significant impacts and alternatives, it would be inappropriate to consider
a supplemental EIS. In the present case, public comment produced no information
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-236
indicating that any new significant or substantial adverse environmental impacts that
would warrant a supplemental EIS.
Technical reports developed between the draft and final EIS have been made available
for public review.
6.18.68
Response:
6.18.69
Response:
Eliminating a "reasonable" alternative solely on the basis of financial considerations
completely ignores the relative benefits to the environment and human health.
According to the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ's) 40 Most Asked Questions
(2a), "Reasonable alternatives include those that are practical or feasible from the
technical and economic standpoint" and use common sense. Therefore, alternatives
may be eliminated on the basis of economic feasibility.
In addition, Forest Service Surface Management regulations (36 CFR 228.5[a]) state
that the economics of the operation must be considered in determining the
reasonableness of surface protection requirements.
NEPA and SEPA provide somewhat different tests for the reasonableness of
alternatives. Reasonable alternatives under SEPA are those that attain or approximate
the objectives of the proposal, but at a lower environmental cost or with less
environmental degradation. Thus the objective of a proposal determines whether an
alternative is available and reasonable. In this case, the objective of the proposal is
determined in large measure by the Proponent in contrast to, for example, an agency-
originated proposal for a planning or public works project. The Proponent seeks to
develop a commercially viable mine and mill facility under the Mining Law of 1872, as
amended. Some of the alternatives developed in the EIS contain elements that a
prudent investor might avoid because of the effect of those elements on the
commercial viability of the Crown Jewel Project. An alternative which would not be
prudently undertaken due to commercial non-viability would not meet the objective of
the proposal.
Some alternatives were fully developed in response to public interest, particularly in
pursuit of lower environmental costs or lesser degradation. Furthermore, commercial
feasibility is partly dependent on technology and the price of gold. It is prudent to
consider, to a limited extent, alternatives that may not presently appear commercially
viable but might become so with changes in circumstances. In view of these
considerations, the Forest Service and WADOE believe the resulting range of
alternatives is reasonable.
In this case, all action alternatives prepared for the draft EIS were carried forward and
analyzed equally for purposes of the EIS process.
The Record of Decision must contain a completed final reclamation plan with
appropriate mitigation and reclamation.
The Records of Decision will contain all mitigation and reclamation measures required
by Federal agencies. Along with regulatory requirements, the final EIS would be the
basis for issuance of the permits by the State of Washington, which may require
additional mitigation and reclamation measures. The final reclamation plan would be
developed utilizing both the measures required by Federal agencies and those required
by the State through the permitting process. Additional public review and comment
is provided during the WADOE permit processes for Air Quality and NPDES/State Waste
Discharge.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft E/S + L-237
6.18.70
Response:
6.18.71
Response:
Does WADOE have a strategy for dealing with the human health criteria (HHC) for
arsenic when it comes to mining?
The National Toxics Rule (NTR), 40 CFR 131.36, established numeric water quality
standards for toxic pollutants to protect human health. The regulation adopted by EPA
is self implementing for those constituents that are not specifically assigned numeric
criteria in Washington's Water Quality Standards for Surface Water, WAC 173-201 A.
Based on the baseline monitoring program, the concentration of arsenic surface water
appears to exceed the human health criteria (HHC) in the NTR. Where NTR toxic
pollutants are present at natural concentrations above the HHC, effluent limits can be
set at levels equal to the mean natural background concentration of each constituent.
The NTR also allows States to utilize mixing zones that are already in place in state
standards (40 CFR 131.36(c)(2)(D). WADOE'sNPDES Permit Writer's Manual identifies
the chronic aquatic life mixing zone criteria as appropriate for setting effluent limits to
protect human health. For mixing zone calculations or modeling, the industrial or
municipal effluent flow used in the annual average and the receiving water flow used
is the mean flow.
The effluent limits afford equivalent health protection to that which would exist absent
a project requiring NPDES coverage. Significant changes in hydrology which would
result in greater mass loading of an NTR constituent, and therefore result in greater
exposure, would also be considered in setting effluent limits. The strategy is consistent
with the applicable portion of the antidegradation policy, WAC 173-201 -070(2), which
states "Whenever the natural conditions of said receiving waters are of a lower quality
than the criteria assigned, the natural conditions shall constitute the water quality
criteria."
It was stated that WADOE provided speakers for a "public interest group meeting" on
the Crown Jewel Project in June of 1994. The Proponent believes this reference is to
a meeting held by Columbia River Bioregional Education Project (CRBEP) using WADOE
grant money. Because this money was granted to CRBEP specifically to "educate the
public" on the Crown Jewel Project, this meeting should probably be considered as an
agency-sponsored meeting. Also, a discussion should be added to the final EIS
specifically identifying the source of the grant money; the group who received the
money and the group's relationship to other groups opposing the Crown Jewel Project;
and the other informational meetings help using the grant money.
CRBEP was reimbursed by WADOE through a Public Participation Grant Program for
some of its activities. The Washington Department of Ecology's (WADOE) Public
Participation Grant Program (Chapter 173-321 WAC) awards grants to non-profit
organizations and community groups to further public inquiry and education on the
topics of solid or hazardous waste management. The purpose of the grant was to
allow this organization to review various technical aspects of the environmental work
on the proposed Crown Jewel Project and to explain how to participate in the SEPA
processes during the public comment period.
Both the Forest Service and the WADOE provided speakers at meetings held by CRBEP
to discuss the NEPA and SEPA processes.
It is outside the scope of the EIS to provide any additional information about the
meetings and/or CRBEP. Additional information was provided to the public earlier in the
February/March 1993 " EIS Project Update."
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-238
6.18.72 Several commentors stated that they thought the comment period for the draft EIS was
too short.
Response:
6.18.73
Response:
6.19
The comment period was based on NEPA and SEPA guidelines. NEPA and SEPA call
for a 45 day comment period. A 60 day comment period was granted for the Crown
Jewel Project. This exceeds the requirements. It should be noted that comments were
still accepted two months after the scheduled end of the comment period.
It should also be noted that any new, substantive comments received prior to the
publication of the final EIS were considered by the Forest Service and WADOE.
Delays in completing the draft EIS were unnecessary and unwarranted. Crown Butte
New World Mine, by comparison expects completion of the draft EIS 29 months after
the end of scoping, with a draft EIS completion date of 1/96 or sooner.
The length of time required to complete the draft EIS was commensurate with the level
of complexity, the enormous amount of interagency consultation and cooperation for
the Crown Jewel Project, the high degree of public interest and involvement, and the
site specific conditions. The proposed Crown Butte New World Mine is located in
Montana, which has different laws than Washington State, so comparisons are not
equitable. The New World Mine proposal process started in 1990, and release of the
draft EIS was expected in May 1996. A tentative agreement announced by President
Clinton, between the mine owners and the United States Government, may result in
termination of the New World Project.
MONITORING
General
6.19.1
Response:
Comments were received that agreed with the discussion on monitoring or simply
expressed opinions about monitoring for the Crown Jewel Project. Other comments
cited typos or requested minor clarifications.
We appreciate the input of all those individuals, organizations, and agencies who
commented on the "monitoring" aspects for the Crown Jewel Mine draft EIS. We have
reviewed your comments and made revisions, as appropriate, to the final EIS.
Responsibility and Oversight of Monitoring
6.19.2
Response:
Will the Proponent provide funds for an independent agency to conduct pre-mining,
during mining, and after-operational monitoring?
Under the various approved federal and state permits, the Proponent would be required
to conduct monitoring before, during and after mining. Monitoring results would be
sent to the regulatory agencies as stipulated in approved permits. Sampling and
analysis by the Proponent would be at the Proponent's expense. At any time, the
regulatory agencies can request portions of any samples taken and have the split
samples analyzed for verification of results. In addition, the agencies can perform their
own sampling. Sampling by,the agencies would be at the agencies' expense. It would
be up to the discretion of the Proponent to implement and fund independent monitoring.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-239
The Washington Metal Mining and Milling Operations Act includes a citizen's
observation and verification process.
6.19.3
Response:
Information on the water quality assurance program seems ill-defined for the water-
monitoring program. Can you address what quality assurance and quality control will
be implemented for water-monitoring programs?
Monitoring plans would be developed prior to final project approval in state and federal
permits. A complete description of the quality assurance, quality control (QA/QC)
program would be an integral part of the monitoring plan. The monitoring plan along
with the QA/QC program would be reviewed by the regulatory agencies prior to
approval. Please refer to Section 2.13.1, Water Resources Monitoring, of the final EIS.
Refer to responses in Section 6.5, Hydrology, in this appendix for additional
information.
6.19.4
Response:
6.19.5
Response:
What is the length of monitoring? Who will be responsible if pollution occurs after a
reclamation bond is returned to the Proponent? What is meant by "long-term
monitoring." The effectiveness of self-monitoring was also questioned.
The length of time (long-term) that future monitoring would be conducted, the
monitoring locations, sample frequency, samplers, parameters, etc., would be stipulated
in the various approved state and federal permits. Baseline monitoring is currently
being conducted. Monitoring is discussed in Section 2.12, Management and Mitigation,
and Section 2.13, Monitoring Measures, of the final EIS.
The Proponent would still be responsible for any contamination attributed to the mining
operation, even if it occurs after the return of the reclamation and environmental
protection securities.
The term "long-term monitoring" is subjective. Monitoring as described in Section
2.13, Monitoring Measures, of the final EIS, would continue throughout the life of the
mine, through reclamation, and for "some" period of time after reclamation. The length
of time after reclamation that monitoring would continue would depend mainly on the
monitoring data collected to date. Air quality and revegetation monitoring would
probably end shortly after reclamation, whereas water quality monitoring would
probably continue for a number of years after reclamation. The duration of monitoring
would be a decision made by the regulatory agencies based on annual review of the
monitoring data.
Federal and state regulatory oversight depend primarily on effective self-monitoring by
permittees. Changes to the system of regulation are outside the scope of the
environmental review process. The Washington Metal Mining and Milling Operations
Act requires quarterly inspection by the various state agencies of metals mining and
milling facilities as a means of assuring continuous compliance with permit conditions.
BLM manual direction also requires at least quarterly monitoring. Available information
does not indicate that the proposed facility presents a risk from inadequate monitoring.
Who has the final authority for approving the water-monitoring plan? What would be
the point of compliance for water quality?
WADOE has final authority for approving water monitoring plans, although other
agencies (BLM, Forest Service) have regulations or policies requiring water monitoring
as part of reclamation. Refer also to response 6.19.3 in this appendix.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-240
According to WAC 173-200-060(a), the point of compliance with the ground water
standards".. .shall be established in the ground water as near the source as technically,
hydrogeologically, and geographically feasible." State approval of the monitoring plan
is linked to the NPDES permit issuance process. Refer also to response 6.18.33 in this
appendix. Refer to Section 2.13.1, Water Resources Monitoring, of the final EIS for
a further description of water monitoring plans.
6.19.6
Response:
6.19.7
Response:
Are there plans to put all monitoring requirements into a single manual? Will a citizens'
impact committee be formed to oversee monitoring and mitigation?
The Proponent's Environmental Manager assigned to the Crown Jewel Project may
organize monitoring requirements into one document; however, such organization
would be solely at the discretion of the Proponent's Environmental Manager. The
Forest Service, WADOE, and other agencies involved do not plan to require that all
monitoring requirements for all permits and their associated conditions be included in
one manual.
Any group of citizens can form, at their own expense, a committee to oversee the
environmental affairs of the mining operation. However, the Proponent has all the
privacy rights and privileges as any other business.
Section 10(c) of the Washington Metal Mining and Milling Operations Act allows
citizens to observe and verify water sampling activities. This can be coordinated
through the WADOE. Please review the Washington Metal Mining and Milling
Operations Act for further information concerning the rights of citizens and the rights
of the Proponent under State law.
Who will be involved in setting monitoring levels that trigger mitigation? What are
these levels?
The appropriate regulatory agencies would set these levels and specify/stipulate the
type of mitigation according to their individual regulatory authority and jurisdiction.
Much of the information used to determine these would come from the baseline data
collected as a result of this EIS. Specific "action" thresholds, not outlined in the EIS,
would be contained in specific permit approvals.
Monitoring Plan Details
6.19.8 Where are the plans for a long-term monitoring and care of the tailings impoundment?
Response:
6.19.9
Recommendations for monitoring and care of the tailings pond are discussed in Section
2.12, Management and Mitigation, and Section 2.13, Monitoring Measures, of the final
EIS and in Tailings Disposal Facility Final Design Report. (Knight Piesold, 1993a). Final
monitoring details would be stipulated in approved plans of operation and permits.
Please refer to specific Section 2.12.13.3, Cyanide Destruction, Section 2.12.13.4,
Tailings Disposal Facility, Section 2.13.3, Geotechnical Monitoring, Section 2.13.4,
Geochemical Monitoring, and Section 2.13.5, Fish and Wildlife Monitoring.
What are the long-term site monitoring plans for erosion?
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • £-247
Response:
6.19.10
Response:
6.19.11
Response:
6.19.12
Responses:
6.19.13
Response:
6.19.14
Recommended soil erosion monitoring is discussed in Section 2.13.9, Reclamation
Monitoring, of the final EIS.
What are the long-term site monitoring and care procedures for both the Starrem Creek
Reservoir embankment and the tailings embankments?
Recommendations for monitoring and care of the tailings pond and reservoir are
discussed in Section 2.13, Monitoring Measures, of the final EIS and in the Tailings
Disposal Facility Final Design Report. (Knight Piesold, 1993a), and in Design Report
Starrem Creek Dam And Reservoir. (Colder, 1993a).
What are the long-term site monitoring plans for stream flows?
Long-term monitoring is addressed in response 6.19.4 in this appendix.
What are the plans for long-term water-quality monitoring? Where will the water-
monitoring sites be located? What is the frequency of water-quality monitoring? Who
will monitor water quality? Will there be an independent oversight committee to review
water-quality analyses? Would there be bioassay monitoring of water?
Recommendations for water quality monitoring are discussed in Section 2.13.1, Water
Resources Monitoring, of the final EIS and monitoring is also discussed throughout the
water resources sections in Chapters 3 and 4 of the final EIS. Refer also to response
6.19.4 in this appendix. Monitoring details will be stipulated in approved permits.
In addition to baseline monitoring wells, permit compliance wells would be developed
in appropriate locations to detect impacts to water quality. Surface water monitoring
would also be undertaken for area streams, wetlands, springs and seeps.
Seepage from the overdrain and underdrain of the tailings facility would also be
monitored. The response to a ground or surface water contamination situation depends
on the hydrogeologic conditions at the point of detection and, as a result, remediation
is possible.
Frequency, location and responsibility for monitoring will be specified in permits issued
for the Crown Jewel Project. Most monitoring will be performed by the Proponent with
oversite by the regulatory agencies. Bioassay monitoring of water is not planned.
Will waste rock be monitored and tested during and following operations to determine
any Acid Rock Drainage (ARD) potential?
Yes, the monitoring of waste rock for ARD is discussed in Section 2.13.4, Geochemical
Monitoring, of the final EIS. Specific monitoring details would be stipulated in approved
permits. Waste rock management is also discussed in Section 2.12.5.1, Prevention of
Acid Rock Drainage.
Are there plans for any wetland monitoring during and after operations? What about
monitoring of areas undergoing wetland mitigation? Is monitoring of off-site wetlands
necessary?
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS * £-242
Response:
The monitoring of wetlands are discussed in Section 2.13.1, Water Resources
Monitoring, and Section 2.12.16, Wetlands, of the final EIS. Monitoring of wetland
mitigation areas would be included as a condition of the Corps of Engineers 404 permit.
6.19.15
Response:
6.19.16
Response:
6.19.17
Response:
6.19.18
Response:
Some monitoring of wetlands, springs, and seeps adjacent to the Crown Jewel Project
would be required but the exact amount has not been determined by the involved
agencies. The wetlands that would be monitored would be the ones most likely to be
impacted and the ones with the highest and most difficult to replace functions and
values. Section 4.6, Ground Water, Springs and Seeps, and Section 4.10, Wetlands,
of the EIS lists the wetlands, seeps, and springs that are most likely to be impacted.
Final determinations of monitoring requirements would be made during the permitting
process.
Are there any plans to do ongoing fisheries monitoring in Marias, Nicholson, or Myers
Creeks? What are the waterfowl monitoring plans?
The monitoring of wildlife and fish is discussed in Section 2.13.5, Wildlife and Fish
Monitoring and 2.12.18, Wildlife and Fish - Public Land Enhancement, of the final EIS.
Marias and Nicholson Creeks are included in the monitoring. Forest Service fisheries
Biologist(s) plan to monitor fish habitat and/or populations in Marias and Nicholson
Creeks during operations.
Are there any plans to do flow monitoring of Myers Creek downstream of the diversion
to the Starrem Reservoir?
As a condition of in-stream flow requirements to support the various life stages of the
brook and rainbow trout in Myers Creek, it would be necessary to monitor the stream
flow below the Starrem Reservoir diversion. Temperature collection would be part of
this monitoring.
Is annual monitoring of frogs in the frog pond sufficient to determine impacts to these
species?
Audio-strip transects are proposed to count calling frogs in the spring. This monitoring
approach is considered by Forest Service biologists to be an effective way not only to
inventory species composition but also to provide an approximation of relative
abundance of breeding frogs.
Will there be sediment monitoring of creeks, ponds, and seeps? What elements will be
analyzed? Will metals be monitored as part of sediment monitoring? Will any of the
contaminants be bio-available to organisms as a result of accumulation in stream
bottom sediments?
Monitoring for sediment loading is discussed in Section 2.13.1, Water Resources
Monitoring, of the final EIS. Other monitored parameters discussed are pH,
temperature, and conductivity; however, the specific metals and chemicals which may
be monitored would evolve during the permitting process. Monitoring details would be
stipulated in approved permits. A discussion of bio-available contaminants is presented
in Section 4.11.3, Effects Common to All Alternatives, of the final EIS.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-243
6.19.19
Response:
6.19.20
Response:
6.19.21
Response:
How will cyanide be monitored in the tailings facility? What happens if monitoring
shows increases in cyanide levels to the point that wildlife mortality occurs? How will
wildlife monitoring be conducted for the tailings impoundment? How will the tailings
facility liner be monitored for leaks?
Both the liquid fraction and solid fraction would be sampled and analyzed for cyanide.
The analysis results would provide the Proponent with information whether the INCO
S02/Air/Oxidation process is performing properly. If cyanide concentrations are
unacceptable, the mill may have to shut down and repairs made to the cyanide destruct
system. Because of the sampling frequency, corrections should be made long before
cyanide concentrations would attribute to wildlife mortality. Monitoring details for
cyanide levels in the tailings pond would be delineated in the NPDES permit (refer to
Section 2.12.13.3, Cyanide Destruction) to be issued after publication of the final EIS.
Wildlife monitoring is discussed in Section 2.13.5, Wildlife and Fish Monitoring, and in
Section 2.12.18.12, Wildlife Exposure to Toxic Substances, which lists some additional
mitigation measures which might be imposed if wildlife mortality occurs at the tailings
facility.
A leak detection system would be installed between the double synthetic liners during
the tailings pond construction. Sampling of flows captured by the leak detection
system, between the synthetic liners, would be analyzed for cyanide. Sampling of
flows captured by the underdrain, located beneath the second liner, would also be
analyzed for cyanide. Details of the double synthetic liner and leak detection system
are summarized in the final EIS in Section 2.2.15, Tailings Liner System Design.
Given the geology of the site, can monitoring from ground water wells be misleading?
Is there the potential that ground water monitoring wells would not be able to detect
leaks in the tailings impoundment or problems as a result of mining and waste rock
disposal?
In addition to ground water monitoring wells, water in sediment ponds, tailings
underdrain outflows, and water in Marias, Bolster, Gold, and Nicholson Creeks would
be monitored. The wells currently being monitored at the Crown Jewel Project site are
baseline wells. Although many of the baseline wells would be used for compliance
monitoring, additional wells would be developed in appropriate locations to ensure
permit compliance.
There appears to be a lack of reclamation-monitoring detail. Could you provide
additional detail on reclamation monitoring? How is it possible to achieve the 250
trees/acre at the end of the fifth reclamation year?
The discussion of reclamation monitoring found in the final EIS is consistent with SEPA
and NEPA requirements. Specific monitoring details would be stipulated in approved
permits. Reclamation monitoring is discussed in Section 2.13.9, Reclamation
Monitoring, Section 2.13.10, Revegetation Monitoring, Section 2.13.12, Soil
Replacement Monitoring, and Section 2.13.13, Soil Storage Monitoring, of the final EIS.
Concerning revegetation success, it is expected that some natural seeding and/or
regeneration, particularly from western larch would occur in many areas to be
reclaimed. It is not unusual for natural regeneration to account for 50% of the total
regeneration on disturbed sites in the Okanogan Highlands.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-244
6.19.22
Response:
6.19.23
Response:
6.19.24
Response:
6.19.25
Response:
What will be the WADOE implementation program for Total Suspended Particulates
(TSP) be based on, PM-10 or PM-2.5? Is a monitoring package required for ambient
air quality? Will air quality monitoring be conducted during reclamation?
If WADOE were the only agency involved, it probably would specify PM-10 monitoring.
If the Forest Service were the only agency involved, it probably would specify PM-2.5
monitoring. The recommendation for the use of "module A IMPROVE, [PM-2.5]" which
generated the comment has been removed from the final EIS.
It is important to remember that both PM-10 and PM-2.5 monitoring are valuable.
Since the WADOE and the Forest Service are committed to working together and seek
to avoid duplicative requirements, they have agreed to find ways that the same
monitoring stations can fulfill the ambient air quality monitoring required for the EIS and
the ambient air quality monitoring which is likely to be required by WADOE as part of
the Notice of Construction air quality permit.
The final decision on what size participate to monitor has not been made. Prior to the
installation of the monitoring stations, the Proponent would be required to submit a
monitoring plan that describes the methods to be used. The decision on which particle
size to be monitored would be made at that time. An important factor in making that
decision would be the progress toward establishing an ambient air quality standard for
particulates smaller than PM-10.
Air Quality monitoring during reclamation may be required depending on WADOE permit
requirements.
Topsoil is one of the most important aspects to reclamation. Could you detail how
topsoil will be monitored both during removal and replacement? Can a new section be
added to detail topsoil monitoring?
Soil suitability for disturbed areas has been conducted and is discussed in Section 3.5,
Soils, of the final EIS. A plan for monitoring soil stripping and storage is discussed in
Section 2.13.13, Soil Storage Monitoring, and the plan for monitoring the replacement
depths for soils is discussed in Section 2.13.12, Soil Replacement Monitoring, of the
final EIS. These sections have been expanded in the final EIS. Soil would be tested
following re-application but prior to planting to determine nutrient values. Fertilizer
would be added, if necessary.
Will sediment that accumulates in waste rock detention ponds be analyzed?
Sediment which accumulates in sediment ponds would be analyzed for Toxicity
Characteristics Leachate Procedures (TCLP). If sediment is not toxic, it would be
disposed of on-site. If toxic, sediment would be transported off-site for proper
disposal. The sediment is not expected to be toxic.
The Mclaughlin Mine in California underestimated ARD potential from their waste rock.
Will the same thing happen at the Crown Jewel Project?
Mr. Raymond Krause, Environmental Manager for the Mclaughlin Mine was asked
about the circumstances surrounding the underestimation of ARD potential in their
waste rock. The following is a paraphrased reply from the January 9, 1996 letter that
Mr. Raymond Krause sent to Mr. Alan Czarnowsky, TerraMatrix.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS 4 L-245
The original evaluation of the Mclaughlin Mine waste rock was conducted in
1981 and 1982, using then state-of-the-art techniques (used static tests only),
and predicted that only 8% of the waste material would have a net acid-
generating potential. Based on the understanding of the time, it was felt that
the waste rock could be randomly placed into the waste dumps without the
formation of acid leachate.
Monitoring of water discharging from the waste rock indicated the formation
of acid rock drainage (ARD) in the waste rock dumps. Kinetic testing was
conducted and indicated that as much as 40% of the waste material had ARD
potential. Once this determination was made, an active program of selective
placement of waste rock was implemented to prevent formation of significant
ARD leachate. Acid-generating rock is now completely surrounded with five
feet of nonacid-generating clays. The criteria for closure has been established
at 20 feet to daylight for acid-generating rock.
The sampling and testing procedures performed at the Crown Jewel Project site for
ARD potential are generally accepted industry and regulatory procedures. Please refer
to Section 3.3.3, Geochemistry, of the final EIS.
6.19.26
Response:
6.20
General
6.20.1
Response:
There needs to be a detailed monitoring plan for all aspects of mitigation (protection
and restoration). The draft EIS does not include such a plan; A logical question
presents itself: if operators cannot effectively track raw baseline data, how will they
effectively track flow-paths of introduced contaminants in air, ground and surface
water, etc.
Section 2.12, Management and Mitigation, and Section 2.13, Monitoring Measures,
have been reviewed and been updated in the final EIS. Additional information about
monitoring would be contained in the Plans of Operations for the Crown Jewel Project
which require approval by the Forest Service and the BLM before activities can
commence on land that they manage. Permits required by different federal, state and
county agencies would also include required monitoring as part of the permit
conditions.
Most monitoring would be self-monitoring with spot checking by the agencies.
Information collected and analyzed to date by the Proponent for the Crown Jewel
Project has met very high standards of quality assurance/quality control.
BONDING/PERFORMANCE SECURITIES
There were numerous comments received on the draft EIS that simply expressed
opinions about performance securities for the Crown Jewel Project or cited the need
for minor edits and clarifications to the text.
We appreciate the input of all those individuals, organizations, and agencies who
commented on the "bonding/performance securities" aspects of the Crown Jewel Mine
draft EIS. We have reviewed your comments and made revisions, as appropriate, to
the final EIS.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-246
Performance Security Details
6.20.2
Response:
6.20.3
Response:
No financial assurance estimates or costs are presented in the draft EIS to address
possible financial abandonment or post-closure long-term continued site maintenance.
The financial assurance details and costs specifically associated with environmental
protection and reclamation would be determined following selection of a Selected
Alternative and development of a refined Plan of Operations for permit acquisition. At
that time, detailed calculations would be completed. The basis for these calculations
have been discussed in Section 2.14, Performance Securities, of the final EIS.
A listing of reclamation performance bonds for other precious metals mines is provided
in Section 2.14, Performance Securities, in the final EIS. These are examples to
represent performance bonds currently in place for certain other Western United States
mines.
The Proponent has included in their revised reclamation plan (BMGC, 1996f) their
performance security cost estimate which proposes $4,259,150 in year one;
$6,119,869 in year four; and $6,111,266 in year nine; and $1,061,290 in year ten.
The Forest Service presently holds two reclamation performance securities for the past
exploration work that totals $530,000.
The draft EIS fails to explain clearly the handling requirements for posting performance
securities, the provisions for accidental release response funds, the reclamation in the
case of the Proponent's financial failure, or the ongoing responsibility to deal with long-
term care and repair.
The Forest Service, BLM, and WADNR require that an acceptable reclamation
performance security be deposited prior to issuance of an approved Plan of Operations
or permit. The amount of the security would be determined by the agencies based on
the estimated costs of completing reclamation according to the approved reclamation
plan and the associated administrative overhead. This security would provide the
agencies with sufficient funds to reclaim the site and provide environmental protection
should the Proponent fail to do so.
The regulations of the Forest Service (36 CFR, Part 228A), BLM (43 CFR, Part 3809),
and WADNR (RCW 78.44.087 and WAC 332-18-120), and WADOE (RCW 78.56)
require that the Proponent deposit a performance security (e.g., bank letter of credit,
cash deposit, negotiable security, corporate security bond, etc.) to ensure that
environmental protection, reclamation, and monitoring can be achieved during and
following mining and milling activities. In addition, the agencies may increase or
decrease the amount of the reclamation performance security at any time to
compensate for alterations in the operations. At a minimum, the agencies would
review the adequacy of the performance security every two years.
The WADOE requires an environmental protection performance security to be deposited
before approval of permits. The WADOE would determine the amount of this
performance security. In addition, the WADOE may increase or decrease the amount
of the performance security at any time to compensate for alterations in the operations.
At a minimum, WADOE would review the adequacy of the performance security every
two years.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-247
6.20.4
Response:
6.20.5
Response:
There is some overlap in agency authority and content between reclamation and
environmental performance securities. At this time, it has not been determined if the
Forest Service and BLM would require additional performance securities or if they would
enter into a written agreement with the WADNR, whereby the WADNR would hold the
reclamation security, in order to avoid multiple securities. Release of any securities
would require the consent of the WADNR, WADOE, Forest Service, and BLM.
For additional information regarding reclamation and environmental protection
performance securities, refer to Section 2.14, Performance Securities, of the final EIS.
The Proponent believes that it is most appropriate and efficient for one agency to hold
the reclamation performance security and that a multi-party Memorandum of
Understanding be developed to administer the program.
The Forest Service, BLM, WADOE, and WADNR are exploring the most efficient
method to assure performance security. Because of the Washington Metal Mining and
Milling Operations Act, there will likely be two separate instruments; one for
reclamation, which likely will be held by the WADNR, and one for environmental
protection, which will be held by the WADOE.
At this time, it has not been determined if the Forest Service and/or BLM would require
reclamation performance securities for federal lands or if they would enter into a
written agreement with the WADNR in order to avoid multiple securities.
For additional information regarding reclamation and environmental performance
securities, refer to Section 2.14, Performance Securities, of the final EIS.
How would patenting affect the federally held performance securities?
Any reclamation performance security held by the Federal agencies covering patented
lands would be transferred at the time of patenting to the WADNR. The environmental
protection performance security held by the WADOE would not be affected by
patenting.
Proponent Bankruptcy and/or Site Abandonment
6.20.6
Response:
6.20.7
Response:
The EIS should discuss the possibility of operator abandonment of the site prior to
completion of reclamation and the likelihood that the agencies would be forced to
complete the reclamation/clean up.
Both the reclamation and environmental protection performances securities must be in
place prior to issuing any permits or approvals for the Crown Jewel Project. This is
discussed in Section 2.14, Performance Securities, of the final EIS. These securities
should be adequate to reclaim the site and do any necessary environmental clean-up
should the Proponent abandon the site.
Financial solvency of " Joint Venture" and financial accountability of Crown Resources
and the Proponent in case of abandonment or inactivity needs to be demonstrated.
The performance securities will protect against the potential insolvency of the
Proponent. This is discussed in Section 2.14, Performance Securities, of the final EIS.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-248
6.20.8
Response:
If the ore plays out or the price of gold drops, what guarantees are there that the
Proponent will not abandon their tailings pond?
The reclamation and environmental protection performance securities are independent
of gold prices or the status of the Proponent's ore reserves. These securities would be
required prior to any plan or permit approval. Once under agency administration, these
securities would be available for environmental protection or reclamation should the
Proponent be unable or unwilling to fulfill permit and plan obligations. This aspect is
discussed in Section 2.14, Performance Securities, of the final EIS.
Miscellaneous
6.20.9 "We have a shallow well at our home in Chesaw, we have had the water tested by 2
(two) labs. We have pure clean hard well water. Who do we sue when our water
becomes unfit to drink? Where do we go for help when our well goes dry and we need
to redrill for a deeper well? Who pays the cost?"
Response:
6.20.10
Response:
6.20.11
Response:
There is no indication, based on the EIS investigations and analyses, that there would
be any direct effect to ground water in the vicinity of Chesaw as a result of any of the
Crown Jewel Project action alternatives. However, the Proponent would be liable for
any mine-related contamination. The ground water code only affords protection for
wells if the well fully penetrates the aquifer. Refer also to response 6.5.20 in this
appendix.
What rights do Canadian citizens and property owners have with regard to full legal and
financial protection in the event the Crown Jewel Project creates an environmental
problem in Canada?
If the Proponent creates an environmental problem in Canada, nothing in the EIS is
intended in any way to circumvent the Civil Damages Laws of the United States or
Canada. Any damage to person, or property or the value of same, would be a civil
matter to be determined in the proper Civil Courts.
The Proponent should be responsible for reclaiming the damage they have already
inflicted on Buckhom.
The Forest Service currently holds two reclamation performance securities deposited
by Battle Mountain Gold Company and Crown Resources, Inc. to cover reclamation of
the disturbance from the exploration activities conducted to date should the Proponent
be unwilling or unable to execute their obligations. If the Crown Jewel Project does not
continue, then the existing exploration disturbance would be reclaimed according to the
exploration reclamation plan approved by the Forest Service. The Proponent has
already reclaimed some exploration disturbance that is outside of the area expected to
be affected by any of the action alternatives discussed in the EIS for the proposed
Crown Jewel Project.
6.20.12 The EIS process must afford the public an opportunity to comment on the adequacy of
the financial assurances that are developed between the agencies and the Proponent.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft E/S • L-249
Response:
6.20.13
Response:
6.21
It is not planned that the general public would have an opportunity to comment on the
adequacy of the performance securities during the state and federal permitting and Plan
of Operations approval process.
In order to prevent occurrence of otherwise avoidable degradation, the final EIS must
not only accurately identify likely impacts and detail specific conditions that will prevent
or mitigate those impacts, it must also provide estimates of the costs that will be
incurred in satisfying these conditions.
Section 2.11, Reclamation Measures, Section 2.12, Management and Mitigation, and
Section 2.13, Monitoring Measures, summarize proposed mitigation and monitoring to
be required for the Crown Jewel Project and the proposed goals of the mitigation.
These sections have been revised between the draft and final EIS to include more
details on proposed monitoring and mitigation. There is no requirement under NEPA or
SEPA to display the cost of proposed mitigation. Under SEPA, the cost of proposed
mitigation may be discussed if there is concern about whether a mitigation measure is
capable of being accomplished. Reclamation costs were estimated and considered in
the economic analysis of the alternatives (see Section 4.21, Mining Economics).
MITIGATION
General
6.21.1
Response:
There were several comments which expressed opinions concerning mitigation which
did not require a specific response. Other comments cited typos or requested text
clarifications.
We appreciate the input of all those individuals, organizations, and agencies who
commented on the "mitigation" aspects of the Crown Jewel Mine draft EIS. We have
reviewed your comments and made revisions, as appropriate, to the final EIS.
Suitability and Effectiveness of Mitigation
6.21.2
Response:
6.21.3
Response:
Commentors questioned the effectiveness of fencing as a mitigation practice, and
asked why fencing was not proposed for the wetlands below the tailings pond and how
long fencing would last around underground mining subsidence areas.
Please refer to response 6.15.16 of this appendix for the discussion of fencing.
Fencing is proposed around wetland enhancement areas. Fencing would remain above
the underground mining area subsidence as long as required by the Forest Service, or
WADNR, if the land is privately owned.
There were comments which stated that the mitigation of wetlands was inadequate.
Replacing good wetlands by enhancing damaged wetlands was unacceptable.
There is little or no opportunity to enhance wetlands on site. The practice of enhancing
off-site wetlands is a practice applied by both the WADOE and the Corps of Engineers.
The goal of the final mitigation plan would be to replace lost functions and values of
wetlands with no net loss in acreage. The final plan would include enhancement or
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-250
restoration of existing wetlands or creation of new wetlands. Final details of the plan
would be included in the Corps of Engineers 404(b)(1) permit.
The wetlands mitigation section of the final EIS has been rewritten to incorporate
discussions that have been ongoing since the release of the draft EIS based on the
Proponent's proposed wetlands mitigation plan entitled Project Conceptual Wetland
Mitigation Plan. (Parametrix, 1996a).
6.21.4
Response:
6.21.5
Response:
6.21.6
Response:
The open pit can never be reclaimed so that a healthy forest will grow again.
Reclamation of the mine area would vary by alternative. Under Alternative F, the pit
would be backfilled with waste rock, topsoiled, and revegetated to a forested
environment. Under Alternatives B, D, and G, the north portion of the pit would be
reclaimed as a lake with talus slopes and benches on the rock walls above the lake.
Under Alternative E the north portion of the pit would be backfilled so no lake would
form, but the pit walls above the backfilled portion would be similar to the pit walls
above the lake in Alternative B. The difference is that the refilled material in Alternative
E would be topsoiled and the area revegetated. The south portion of the pit under
Alternatives B, E, and G would be reclaimed to similar standards. Portions of this area
would have the pit walls and benches blasted down to create talus slopes. Other
potions would be partially backfilled with waste rock and topsoiled. The south pit floor
would be partially topsoiled and revegetated. All areas topsoiled would be revegetated
with tree species including Engelmann spruce and maples (refer to Sections 2.5 through
2.11 of the final EIS).
It was suggested that stream flow mitigation was inadequate.
The effects of all action alternatives on surface and ground water hydrology, both
quality and quantity, are discussed in Section 4.6, Ground Water, Springs and Seeps,
and Section 4.7, Surface Water. Refer also to Section 2.12.13, Surface Water and
Ground Water - Quality and Quantity, for a discussion of the mitigation measures
planned, and Section 2.13.1, Water Resources Monitoring, for proposed monitoring of
the water resources.
What is the mitigation for increased levels of nitrates if it is found in water quality
analyses?
Elevated nitrate loading levels could come from inefficient ignition of the ammonium
nitrate/fuel oil (ANFO), the explosive to be used at the mine, caused by poor mixing at
the mixing station or loading non-water proof ANFO into wet drill (blast) holes. Loading
wet holes would be an operator error. If inefficient ignition or blasting of wet holes
with ANFO occurs, it would be apparent because there would be yellow/orange smoke
during the blast and/or the rock would not be broken properly. Since the explosive
mixing station is located on site, adjustments would be made to resolve the situation.
Supervisors would be trained to identify both problems. For further discussion see
response 6.5.46 in this appendix.
Another possible source of contamination may come from a large spill. However, a spill
should be cleaned up rather quickly and would not be expected to cause long term
water quality problems. See spill response mitigation in Section 2.12.4, Spill
Prevention, Hazardous Materials, Fire Prevention and First Aid.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-251
6.21.7
Response:
6.21.8
Response:
6.21.9
Response:
What mitigation will there be for acid rock drainage (ARD) "hot spots" or increased
levels of cyanide in the tailings due to lack of sunlight and cold temperatures in the
winter?
Geochemical analyses Section 3.3.3, Geochemistry, has determined that less than
15% of the waste rock would be potentially acid-forming in the open pit alternatives.
As mitigation, the Proponent has committed to a selective placement plan which would
isolate this material in the waste rock disposal areas. Details of this plan would be
submitted to the regulatory agencies for review and approval as an integral part of
permitting. In addition, all runoff from the waste rock disposal areas would be subject
to NPDES effluent limitations.
The Proponent has committed to a WAD cyanide concentration limitation of less than
ten parts per million (ppm) in the tailings pond as a running monthly average. The
cyanide level at the pipe discharging the tailings slurry into the tailings disposal facility
would be a WADOE permit condition. The lack of sunlight and cold temperatures in the
winter do not increase cyanide concentrations. Rather, they inhibit "natural
degradation" of cyanide. Natural degradation would be more prevalent in the summer
months than in the winter months.
It was suggested that the only effective way to control dust on the access road was
by paving.
Dust would be controlled on the access roads by watering and the use of chemical dust
suppressants. Refer to Section 4.14.3, Effects Common to All Action Alternatives,
subsection "BACT Assessment for Haul Road Dust." This is an accepted practice in
the mining industry. Paving of access roads was eliminated from consideration due to
safety concerns involving haul truck traffic on steep paved roads in the winter months,
the frequent need to change locations of roads to access the pit and waste rock
disposal areas, the type and amount of paving that would be necessary to withstand
use by 85 ton haul trucks, and the amount of use projected for some roads.
Regarding chemical treatment as a dust control measure, one control efficiency model
shows the dust abatement efficiency varies between 82% and 97% with weekly
application, between 67% and 94% when applied every two weeks, and between 62%
and 89% when applied monthly.
Regarding the sole use of water as a dust control measure, the control efficiency is
highly dependent on the surface moisture content achieved and maintained. One
reference shows a control efficiency of 95% when the surface moisture content is 9%
and a control efficiency of 75% when the moisture content is 3.5%. Control
efficiencies declined rapidly for moisture contents less than 3.5% at the site used in
this study.
The key factor in controlling dust is a dedication to the performance of repetitive tasks
in a timely manner.
Further evaluation of grave sites needs to be explored in order to be in compliance with
Native American rights regulations.
Cultural studies and surveys conducted for the Crown Jewel Project EIS were in
compliance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. Please
refer to Sections 3.17, Heritage Resources, and 4.16, Heritage Resources, in the final
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-252
EIS and comment responses in Section 6.13, Heritage Resources in this appendix.
Also, please refer to the Memorandum of Agreement Between the State Historic
Preservation Office and the Forest Service/BLM.
6.21.10 Several comments questioned the effectiveness of storm water controls to guarantee
surface water quality. One comment suggested that run-off from the waste rock
needed to be treated as "mine water."
Response: For a discussion of the proposed storm water controls refer to response 6.18.22 in this
appendix.
Final approved storm water design parameters are a permit issue and will be finalized
during the permitting process. Section 4.6.4, Effects of Alternative B, subsection
"Drainage Control," has been revised to reflect the proposed storm water controls.
Runoff from undisturbed areas which mixes with runoff from the waste rock becomes
"mine water" and is subject to the 40 CFR 440 effluent limits. Water draining onto the
upper limits of the waste rock facilities would be relatively small because the completed
rock facilities are very near the crest of the ridge in all of the alternatives. Discharges
from storm water facilities would be required to meet NPDES effluent limitations.
Details of Mitigation
6.21.11
Response:
6.21.12
Response:
There were requests for the corrective action plans and trigger mechanisms to be
detailed in the final EIS.
Corrective action plans would be developed by the Proponent and submitted to the
regulatory agencies for review and approval. This would be a major component of the
permitting process and is not within the scope of the EIS. Potential permits required
for the Crown Jewel Project are listed and discussed in Appendix B, Agency
Responsibilities (Permits and Approvals), and displayed in Table 1.1, List of Tentative
and Potential Permits and Approvals, in the final EIS.
Mitigation measures are applied based on the level and source of the contamination.
It is not possible to set out specific mitigation without this information. Section
2.12.13, Surface Water and Ground Water - Quality and Quantity, and Section 4.22.4,
Other Types of Accidents, of the final EIS discuss potential mitigation for releases to
ground water. The Washington Metal Mining and Milling Operations Act requires the
company to provide a performance security that includes funding for reclamation before
permits are issued. (RCW 232.11 (2)(c).
Details to the mitigation measures (including transportation, fish and wildlife, water
quality, land use, etc), were requested to be summarized in Section 2.12, Management
and Mitigation, of the final EIS.
The mitigation measures summarized in Section 2.12, Management and Mitigation, of
the final EIS are the measures proposed by the Proponent and/or recommended by the
various discipline specialists and the lead agencies responsible for oversight of the
Crown Jewel Project. These mitigation and monitoring measures have been clarified
in the final EIS. Much of the specifics of the mitigation and monitoring will be
determined for the final Plans of Operation and during permitting.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS + L-253
6.21.13
Response:
6.21.14
Response:
6.21.15
Response:
6.21.16
Response:
6.21.17
Response:
The draft EIS states that wetlands in Bear Trap Canyon would be used for mitigation;
however, no acreage is given.
Section 2.12.16, Wetlands, of the final EIS states that the acreage, including buffers,
would be approximately 10 acres.
What are the appropriate ground water quality mitigation methods that would be
implemented if quality is compromised? How effective are they? When will they be
implemented?
The various Crown Jewel Project components have been developed and refined through
the EIS process to protect ground and surface water quantity and quality. These
protection measures as well as ground and surface water monitoring are discussed
throughout the final EIS. (Refer to Section 2.12.13, Surface Water and Ground
Water- Quality and Quantity, Section 2.13.1, Water Resources Monitoring, Section
3.8, Ground Water, and Section 4.6, Ground Water, Springs and Seeps.) Detailed
mitigation plans are not required in the EIS. Emergency response plans and corrective
action plans would be developed during the permitting process to respond to spills or
other situations if monitoring indicates that water quality has been adversely impacted.
When will wetland mitigation begin, during mining or after mining?
The exact timing of mitigation would be defined by an approved Corps of Engineers
404 permit. However, mitigation usually begins concurrent with construction activities.
The draft EIS does not contain contingency plans for accidents.
Refer to Section 2.12.4, Spill Prevention, Hazardous Materials, Fire Prevention and First
Aid. The Proponent would be required to develop Spill and Handling Plans, including
a Hazardous Material Handling Plan, a Transportation Spill Response Plan, and a Spill
Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan (see Appendix B, Agencies
Responsibilities, Permits and Approvals). In addition, the Proponent would be required
to develop a Fire Protection and Suppression Plan. Emergency response plans would
be developed during the permitting process.
How will the Proponent mitigate silver and cadmium if they occur in the proposed pit
lake.
The EIS predicts exceedances of the aquatic life criteria for several metals including
silver (Ag) and cadmium (Cd) based upon the baseline data that has been collected at
the site followed by modelling. The models include assumptions that are biased
(conservative) and are expected to overestimate the concentration of constituents in
surface water after closure of the mine. Monitoring during mine operation would
provide a basis to refine the models and better understand the likelihood of predicted
exceedances. Treatment of the water in the pit lake before it discharges would be
required if the predictions are verified. Please see response 6.5.39, of this appendix
for further discussion. Please refer to Section 2.12.13.5, Pit Lake, and Section 2.13.1,
Water Resources Monitoring, of the final EIS for discussion of proposed mitigation and
monitoring.
Crown Jewel Mine 4 Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-254
6.21.18
Response:
6.21.19
Response:
The draft EIS talks about the treatments for pit lake water and storm water; what are
they?
Treatments for storm water include best management practices (BMPs) as described
in Section 2.11.4, General Reclamation Procedures, and Section 2.12.13, Surface
Water and Ground Water - Quality and Quantity, of the final EIS. In the event
monitoring identifies adverse impacts to surface water, corrective action plans would
be implemented. Please refer to responses 6.19.6 and 6.19.9 in this appendix.
A few comments asked about the mitigation of ground and surface water
contamination in case of a tailings liner or embankment failure.
The Proponent has revised their tailings pond liner system which now includes two
synthetic liners, a leak detection system, and an underdrain and overdrain. This system
is described in Section 2.2.15, Tailings Liner System Design, of the final EIS. This
section includes a discussion of how the overdrain would function to control water.
A massive liner failure scenario is discussed in Section 4.22.4, Other Types of
Accidents, of the final EIS. Runoff from the active tailings facility would be controlled.
Once the tailings facility is graded, topsoiled and revegetated, runoff would be allowed
to drain off of the facility area, via an engineered control structure that would route
runoff to Nicholson Creek. Section 2.12.13, Surface Water and Ground Water - Quality
and Quantity, of the final EIS discusses potential mitigation for releases to ground
water.
Other Comments
6.21.20
Response:
6.21.21
Response:
Who will pay for the cost of ground water monitoring and remediation?
The Proponent would be responsible for conducting and paying for ground and surface
water monitoring as required under permits and for remediation for potential
contamination. The WADOE would hold a performance security to make sure water
monitoring is continued after the completion of reclamation for as long as necessary.
In addition, they would hold a performance security in case of the need for remediation
during or after completion of the Crown Jewel Project. Refer to Section 2.14,
Performance Securities, of the final EIS.
Mitigation to replace flora will only be partially successful. There is no way to replace
the diverse genetics and species types that occur in these areas especially the forbs in
the understory.
It is stated in Section 2.11.4, General Reclamation Procedures, of the EIS: "As much
natural, local vegetation would be used as feasible." Much would depend on how
successful native species are in accomplishing the goals of reclamation, e.g., stabilizing
the soil. If they do not work, then non-native species may have to be used. An
attempt would be made to use on-site native species to the extent practical. It is not
practical to use all on-site native grasses, forbs, and shrubs since it would be nearly
impossible and prohibitively expensive to collect adequate amounts of seed and grow
enough stock in nurseries. It is expected that about 25% of the grasses, shrubs, and
forbs used to control erosion could be considered "completely" native. That is, from
on-site seed sources.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • £-255
Policy Issues
6.21.22
Response:
6.21.23
Response:
Any proposed mitigation on Nicholson Creek headwaters should not be permitted to
negatively impact sensitive plant species.
The proposed Nicholson Creek wetlands mitigation should have no negative impacts
on sensitive species. The fencing of this wetland should protect this area from cattle
grazing impacts.
Other fencing would be designed to route cattle away from known plant populations.
Seeding of the dam site may contain species that invade wetland habitats. Otherwise,
no impacts are foreseen.
Cattle would be fenced out of the mine footprint. This action may increase grazing
pressure in other riparian areas. Efforts should be taken to provide supplemental water
sources and protect riparian sites.
The frog pond would be eliminated as a source of water for livestock with the initiation
of the Crown Jewel Project because it would be fenced. In the final EIS there is the
following statement: "Two replacement water sources would be developed to
compensate for the loss of this water source for cattle grazing and would be
maintained by the Proponent for a period of not less than 16 years after the initiation
of construction activities." Refer to Section 2.12.16, Wetlands, and Section 2.12.7.2,
Livestock Water Source Developments.
In November of 1995, Forest Service personnel and the permittee on the Cedar
Allotment located two replacement water sources that could be developed. One is
located northeast of the frog pond near monitoring well #5. There are some sensitive
plant concerns near this proposed development. Monitoring and protective measures
would be required to eliminate disturbance to those plants and to provide riparian
protection. The spring source would be fenced to protect from trampling and the water
trough would be located away from the draw as far as practical.
Another opportunity to develop water for livestock to replace lost water at the frog
pond includes developing a spring along the Forest Road 3575-125 near to or in the
borrow pit. The spring source would be fenced and the water trough would be located
away from the draw as far as practical.
The Nicholson Creek Headwaters Wetland mitigation in Section 2.12.16, Wetlands,
subsection "Nicholson Creek Headwaters Wetland" of the EIS states that "a
replacement water source would be developed to compensate for the loss of this water
source for cattle grazing." In November of 1995, the permittee stated that there is
nothing nearby to compensate for this lost water source.
The permittee proposed that since the Crown Jewel Project fence would eliminate
livestock water in the SE 1A of Sec. 13 near the Magnetic Mine, livestock water be
developed as part of the water supply line. A livestock water trough could be placed
just north of the Crown Jewel Project fence. Section 2.12.7.2, Livestock Water
Source Developments, of the final EIS, states "Certain existing water source
developments used would be inside the fenced area surrounding the mining and milling
activities. Where this occurs, the Proponent would work with the Forest Service, the
BLM, and the livestock permittees to find and develop replacement water sources for
livestock."
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-256
6.21.24
Response:
6.21.25
Response:
6.21.26
Response:
The purpose of management and mitigation measures for the proposed gold mine (
Project), is to avoid adverse impacts to the environment and to reclaim disturbed areas
(draft EIS page 2-85). SEPA WAC 197-011-660 states that proposals may be denied
under SEPA if reasonable mitigation measures are insufficient to mitigate the identified
impacts. Mitigation measures and their expected effectiveness are listed in the draft
EIS on pages 2-86 through 2-96. Many of the measures are rated as low or moderate.
Shouldn't permits be denied under SEPA if excellent results cannot be achieved through
mitigation? Other comments also questioned the ratings given in the draft EIS.
Part of the confusion may be that the effectiveness level was rated for how well the
mitigation accomplished the goal of the mitigation, not the ability to implement the
mitigation. The final EIS has been modified to include a goal statement for each of the
mitigation measures and a paragraph has been added to the introduction of Section
2.12, Management and Mitigation, to clarify the effectiveness rating.
Although the rating process is somewhat subjective and often cannot be quantified, the
ratings were based on the best professional judgement of the Forest Service and
WADOE. Refer to Section 2.12, Management and Mitigation, of the final EIS for
revisions in the effectiveness ratings.
Concerning denial of permits, WAC 197-11 -660 states that the proposal must also "be
likely to result in significant adverse environmental impacts identified in a final or
supplemental environmental impact statement prepared under this chapter..."
Permits can be denied using SEPA substantive authority, if significant impacts from the
proposal would remain even after reasonable mitigation measures are applied. Under
WAC 197-11-060, the proposal cannot be denied using SEPA substantive authority if
only nonsignificant adverse environmental impacts remain.
There was a disagreement with the moderate rating for the Proponent's ability to attain
the promised 80% local hiring. It was suggested that the rating should be changed to
high.
The agencies believe the rating of effectiveness should remain moderate since it is not
obvious that the Proponent can hire 80% of their employees locally (from within
eastern Okanogan County or western Ferry County and from people who have been
residents for a period of time). This rating is an effectiveness rating and not a rating
of the ability to implement.
The draft EIS states that "reclamation plans and mitigation would eventually restore
wildlife habitat, but not the same quality or quantity that would be lost." Because the
proposed permanent and interim loss of habitat would be foregone until reclamation and
mitigation measures reach full maturity, it is requested that compensatory mitigation
be developed to offset these proposed losses.
Federal regulations require that locatable mineral operations, where feasible, minimize
adverse environmental impacts on National Forest System lands (36 CFR 228.8), and
must consider economics of the operations along with other factors to determine
reasonable surface resource protection. NEPA identifies mitigation as avoiding,
minimizing, rectifying, reducing or eliminating, or compensating for impacts.
Compensatory mitigation is only one of a variety of types of mitigation available to
decision makers. One hundred percent mitigation for wildlife habitat is not required by
federal regulation and is not considered reasonable except where required by other laws
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-257
(e.g.. Endangered Species Act). The final EIS presents required mitigation to offset
wildlife habitat losses in areas designated for wildlife habitat management under the
Okanogan National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, and on BLM land
under the Spokane Resource Area Management Plan.
Additional compensatory mitigation for impacts to wildlife are being considered as part
of the state permitting process. These mitigation measures are displayed in Section
2.12.19, Wildlife and Fish - Private Land Enhancement.
6.21.27
Response:
6.21.28
Response:
Changing current Forest Service management of Nicholson Creek wetland and riparian
areas has much potential to enhance fish and wildlife resources, but should not be
considered mitigation. The proposed enhancement of riparian and wetlands in Bear
Trap Canyon should not be considered mitigation.
Changing Forest Service management has some potential to enhance wildlife resources
associated with the Nicholson Creek headwaters and the frog pond. Forest Service
management would not likely fence these areas off from use or expend funds to plant
areas around these wetlands, particularly since the frog pond was created as a stock
watering facility in the 1920's. Mitigation proposed to be implemented by the
Proponent would control cattle use of these facilities for 15 to 20 years. The Forest
Service believes this is mitigation for some of the Crown Jewel Project impacts to
wetlands. The Forest Service views this mitigation as partly compensating for Crown
Jewel Project impacts to other wetlands on National Forest lands.
The final EIS should identify the physical and biological effects of changing flows in
Gold, Bolster, Marias, Toroda, and Myers Creeks in terms of sediment transport, stage
height of high and low flows, maintenance of habitat diversity, changes in the
abundance and diversity of aquatic biota, and changes to the associated riparian
communities.
A discussion of estimated stream depletion and its effects are presented in Section 4.7,
Surface Water, of the final EIS and response 6.5.11 in this appendix. A discussion of
sediment transport and its affects on water quality and quantity is presented in Section
4.7, Surface Water, and Section 2.13.1, Water Resources Monitoring. The effects of
stream depletion and sediment loading on aquatic biota, wetlands, and riparian areas
is discussed in Section 4.11, Aquatic Habitats and Populations, and Section 4.10,
Wetlands, respectively.
Impacts to area streams, ground water, springs and seeps are discussed in Section 4.6,
Ground Water, Springs and Seeps, and Section 4.7, Surface Water. These same
sections also discuss predicted changes to area stream flows as a result of pit
dewatering and pit filling. Information on effects to aquatic habitats is contained in
Section 4.11, Aquatic Habitats and Populations. Information on effects to wetlands
is contained in Section 4.10, Wetlands.
Impacts on riparian communities are characterized in the wildlife analysis. Section 4.12,
Wildlife. Some change of vegetation to a drier ecotype is expected in such locations
as the frog pond and the nine acre wetland if augmentation of water availability flows
is not accomplished. The final details of this augmentation would be determined in the
404(b)(1) permit, the 401 permit, or Okanogan County permits.
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-258
6.22
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
General
6.22.1
Response:
There were a number of comments, concerns, and questions received on cumulative
effects. Some expressed opinions and/or requested clarification in the final EIS.
We appreciate the input of all those individuals and organizations who commented on
the "cumulative effects" aspects of the Crown Jewel Mine draft EIS. We have
reviewed your comments and made revisions, as appropriate, to the final EIS.
We have addressed the cumulative impacts to the various appropriate resources in
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, of the final EIS. Although some commentors
suggested addressing a specific radius from the proposed site, it was decided not to
use a standard distance for this study. The very nature of cumulative effects analysis
dictates that the area of influence varies from discipline to discipline.
Effects on Hydrology
6.22.2
Response:
6.22.3
Response:
Not enough is said on the cumulative effects that the Crown Jewel Project would have
to existing water rights or future rights.
The disposition of water rights in the State of Washington has been updated and is
discussed in Section 4.8, Water Supply Resources and Water Rights, of the final EIS.
In the State of Washington, the WADOE has the statutory and regulatory responsibility
to review water right applications or changes to existing water rights and to render
decisions on these matters. Cumulative effects to water rights would depend on these
decisions and certainly is a consideration in making these decisions.
The studies fail to assess fully the potential negative impacts of the Crown Jewel
Project on downstream water users and other instream values. The source of water
supply for mining operations and the consequences of utilizing that source during low
flow periods have not been adequately considered, and for this reason a study
integrating the hydrological characteristics and the cumulative impacts to the entire
watershed should be performed.
The direct, indirect and cumulative effects on the water resources are discussed in
Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, of the final EIS, particularly in Section 4.6,
Ground Water, Springs and Seeps; Section 4.7, Surface Water; Section 4.8, Water
Supply Resources and Water Rights; Section 4.10, Wetlands; and Section 4.11,
Aquatic Habitats and Populations.
A detailed instream flow study of Myers Creek is set forth in Section 3.12.10, Instream
Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM), of the final EIS. One of the primary purposes of
an IFIM study is to model the relationship of stream flow to habitat values for fish
species of concern. The outcome of the IFIM study provides decision makers with an
estimate of minimum flows to provide aquatic habitat protection (see Section 4.11.7,
Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM), of the final EIS). Downstream water
users on Myers Creek holding senior water rights were considered in this analysis.
Water for their use during the irrigation season was included in the base flow numbers
that were set. Appropriation of water from Myers Creek under new water rights would
be curtailed when minimum flows are not met.
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-259
6.22.4
Response:
The cumulative impacts on water resources has not been adequately addressed.
The cumulative impacts to both ground and surface water resources are addressed in
Section 4.6, Ground Water, Springs and Seeps, and Section 4.7, Surface Water, of the
final EIS. These sections were revised and updated in the final EIS.
Future Mining
6.22.5
Response:
6.22.6
Response:
The draft EIS failed to recognize the possibility that, with permitting of the Crown
Jewel Project proposal, other mining ventures would be drawn to the area. Potential
cumulative regional impacts of both an environmental and socioeconomic nature
resulting from the development of a new industry in the Okanogan Highlands must be
considered.
The possibility of future mining in the area is addressed in Section 3.19.2, Crown Jewel
Project Exploration Activities, and Section 4.21.2, Potential Mine Expansion, of the final
EIS. At this point in time, no proposals for additional exploration or mining have been
filed, and other future exploration and mining activities are therefore not "reasonably
foreseeable" as required by NEPA or SEPA for cumulative effects analysis. If such a
mining and ore processing development is proposed, it would be subject to the
preparation of an environmental analysis as required by NEPA and/or SEPA and related
regulatory review. Since no specifics are known regarding hypothetical projects, any
analysis would be meaningless.
Mining has been an integral part of the history of the Okanogan Highlands as explained
in Section 3.17.3, History, of the final EIS. The last mine operated on Buckhorn
Mountain until 1951. The historic mines were smaller than the operations proposed for
the Crown Jewel Project.
The cumulative impact of mining operations has not been adequately addressed. The
final EIS for land and resource management for the Okanogan National Forest on 111-15
references 2,750 mining claims. This application would set the standard and I fear
negatively impact the total water and air quality of the region. My water comes from
a 120 foot deep well and I don't want any cyanide in it.
See response 6.22.5 in this appendix.
The control of mining (and mill site) claims in no way allows a claim holder to initiate
mining and ore processing activities without first obtaining permits or receiving
approvals from a host of regulatory authorities. Prior to any operations, the claim
holder must file a plan of operations with the Forest Service and/or BLM (depending on
which federal lands the claim is located). As mentioned above, this plan of operations
would be subject to a NEPA and SEPA analysis, and compliance with a number of other
federal, state, and local regulations including SEPA must be secured prior to any mining
and ore processing activities. A discussion of the various permits and approvals
required for mining and ore processing activities in Washington State and Okanogan
County is set forth in Section 1.8, Permits and Approvals Needed, and in Appendix B,
Agency Responsibilities (Permits and Approvals), in the final EIS.
The cumulative effects on air quality are discussed in Section 4.1.10, Cumulative
Effects, of the final EIS. The cumulative effects on ground water are discussed in
Section 4.6.3, Effects Common to All Action Alternatives, of the final EIS. The
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS • L-260
cumulative effects on surface water are discussed in Section 4.7.3, Effects Common
to All Action Alternatives, of the final EIS. Given the designs set forth by the
Proponent and regulations required by the agencies, ground water contamination from
cyanide is not expected. Monitoring would be an integral part of operations. This
monitoring would continue after mine closure in compliance with the State Waste
Discharge Permit to be required by WADOE and Federal reclamation requirements. The
WADOE would also require a performance security in compliance with the Washington
Metal Mining and Milling Operations Act. (See responses in Section 6.20,
Bonding/Performance Securities, in this appendix.)
Miscellaneous Cumulative Effects
6.22.7 Section 2.2.24, Solid Waste Disposal, of the draft EIS is incomplete. The amount of
solid waste to be generated by the proposed Crown Jewel Project, from all alternatives,
all personnel and their families, support staff, contractors, visitors, and all other
potential contributors should be calculated and stated, with justifications for the
calculations.
Response:
6.22.8
Response:
Estimates for solid waste to be generated at the Crown Jewel Project operation are as
follows:
• Construction; four to five Ibs/day/employee;
• Operations; two to three Ibs/day/employee; and,
• Reclamation; two to three Ibs/day/employee.
Approximately three to four Ibs/day/household individual would be generated by the
newcomers and their families (Czarnowsky, 1996). Section 2.2.25, Solid Waste
Disposal, of the final EIS has been revised to reflect these numbers.
An estimate of the impacts of solid waste generated as a result of the different
alternatives is set forth in Section 4.19.3, Comparative Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives, in subsection "Community and Public Services," of the final EIS.
The siting of solid waste disposal facilities off-site is extremely problematic. The
existing solid waste disposal site that the Proponent proposes to use was engineered
for a life span (47 years) suitable to the local environment without the contribution of
the Proponent's Crown Jewel Project. The Crown Jewel Project is large enough, and
enough personnel would be brought into the area such that the life of the landfill site
would be drastically reduced. The Proponent apparently feels that local government
and citizens should bear the cost of siting and planning the solid waste facility to be
used next, once the existing site is no longer able to accept additional waste. These
accelerated costs of planning the next landfill should be described, with calculations
shown. The proportion of these costs due to the Proponent's Crown Jewel Project
should be calculated and described in detail.
As discussed in Section 4.19.3, Comparative Effects Common to All Action
Alternatives, of the final EIS the projected amount of solid waste generated by the
Crown Jewel Project would be less than 2% of the total projected annual solid waste
input to the Okanogan County landfill. This includes both direct and indirect input to
the landfill. The solid waste input to the Okanogan County landfill is within the
operational design criteria of the landfill. The accelerated costs of planning and siting
Crown Jewel Mine * Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997
Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS * L-261
the next landfill would be speculative. These costs are included as part of the tipping
fee charged to every user of the landfill. Crown Jewel Projects such as the Crown
Jewel Project, and the associated population growth, were included in the planning for
the existing landfill.
6.22.9
Response:
6.22.10
Response:
6.22.11
Response:
Timber sales (Nicholson and Buckhorn) have already impacted the area. Major sales are
planned under salvage legislation. These cuts would result in cumulative impacts that
are not addressed in the draft EIS.
Section 3.19.3, Historic and Present Timber Operations, and Section 3.19.4, Proposed
Timber Operations, of the final EIS have been updated to provide current information
on timber sales. No timber sales are planned within the Buckhorn Block under the
salvage legislation.
Based on timber harvests that have been conducted since the release of the draft EIS
various EIS sections have been updated, most notably. Section 3.13, Wildlife, and
Section 4.12, Wildlife, of the final EIS.
The draft EIS raises a number of grave cumulative impact and landscape concerns for
wildlife, and is remarkably frank in doing so. It leads us to wonder how the Forest
Service, entrusted with protecting and stewarding our public lands, can choose an
alternative in full knowledge of its extreme impacts to wildlife and habitat and so
counter to the direction of your own Forest Plan?
The purpose of an EIS is to disclose the environmental effects of the alternatives.
Cumulative effects are disclosed in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, of the
final EIS. NEPA and SEPA do not mandate environmental protection, only disclosure
of effects although other laws may contain mandates. The alternatives are designed
to meet all laws, rules and regulations and respond to the Proponent's proposal. The
Forest Service recognized on page 4-21 of the Forest Plan that future mineral
development might require Plan amendments.
Substantial habitat losses have recently occurred due to logging by Omak Wood
Projects. Crown Resources (Pacific), and Golden Phoenix in the Analysis Area. The
Nicholson Timber Sale also added to habitat loss. Species from these areas have
moved to the Core Area and many would perish if the mine goes in. The cumulative
effects would be much greater than predicted and may lead to federal (threatened or
endangered) listing and loss of viability to PETS (Proposed, Endangered, Threatened,
and Sensitive) species.
The potential and expected cumulative effects of the action alternatives have been
analyzed and discussed by resource in Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, of the
final EIS. Effects on threatened, endangered and sensitive (TES) federal species have
been documented in the Biological Evaluations for wildlife, fisheries, and plants. The
BE's and the final EIS (Section 4.12.7, Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species)
document that the Project is not likely to adversely effect the viability of any TES
wildlife species.
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft EIS » L-262
7.0 COPIES OF LETTERS FROM AGENCIES, INDIAN TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS,
AND ELECTED OFFICIALS
7.1 FEDERAL AGENCIES
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Erkel, Tim
U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management
Fisher, James
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Parker, Richard
U.S.D.I. Bureau of Indian Affairs
Soeula, Maurice
U.S. Bureau of Mines
Norberg, John
U.S.D.I. Office of the Secretary
Polityka, Charles
Federal Elected Officials
US House of Representatives - Hastings, Doc
US House of Representatives - Nethercutt, George
US Senate - Gorton, Slade
7.2 WASHINGTON STATE AGENCIES
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
Friesz, Ron
Washington Department of Natural Resources
Lasmanis, Raymond
Washington Department of Community Trade and Economic Development
Griffith, Gregory
Washington State Elected Officials
State of Washington House of Representatives - Ballard, Clyde
State of Washington House of Representatives - Schoesler, Mark
State of Washington House of Representatives - McMorris, Cathy
Crown Jewel Mine • Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
January 1997 Appendix L * Public Involvement for the Draft E/S » L-263
State of Washington House of Representatives - Sheldon, Tim
State of Washington House of Representatives - Stevens, Val
State of Washington House of Representatives - Delvin, Jerome
State of Washington House of Representatives - Koster, John
State of Washington House of Representatives - Thompson, Bill
State of Washington House of Representatives - Fuhrman, Steve
State of Washington House of Representatives - Foreman, Dale
State of Washington House of Representatives - Elliot, Ian
State of Washington House of Representatives - Chandler, Gary
Washington State Senate - Strannigan, Gary
Washington State Senate - Swecker, Dan
Washington State Senate - Snyder, Sid
Washington State Senate - Seller, George L.
Washington State Senate - Haugen, Mary Margaret
7.3 LOCAL/COUNTY AGENCIES
Chelan County - Marcellus, Earl - Commissioner
Town of Tonasket - Fancher, Tom - Mayor
City of Oroville - Lane, Don - Chief of Police
Ferry County - Windsor, Ed - Board Of Commissioners
Ferry County - Hall, Jim
Ferry County Noxious Weed Control Board
Okanogan County - Thiele, Ed
Okanogan County Council For Economic Development - Nielson, Ron
Okanogan County - Higby, Spence - Commissioner
Okanogan County Department of Public Works - Nott, Joseph
Okanogan County Public Utility District - Warner, Harlan
Okanogan County Sheriff - Weed, James
Pend Orielle County - Mckenzie, Karl; Hanson, Mike - Board of Commissioners
City of Oroville - Walker) Jimmie D. - Mayor
Walawa County - Boswell, Ben - Commissioner (Oregon)
7.4 TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS
Colville Confederated Tribes - Dick, Matthew
Colville Confederated Tribes - Louie, Deb - Councilman
Colville Confederated Tribes - Passmore, Gary
7.5 CANADIAN GOVERNMENT
Corporation of the Village of Midway - Hatton, R.J.
Stenson - John - Canadian Mayor
Crown Jewel Mine + Final Environmental Impact Statement
-------
REFERENCES
All references cited in Section 6.0, Summary of Responses, in this appendix are listed in Chapter 6.0,
References, in the main body of the Crown Jewel Project final EIS
-------
EXHIBIT A
COPIES OF LETTERS FROM AGENCIES, INDIAN TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS,
AND ELECTED OFFICIALS
-------
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
SEATTLE DISTRICT. CORPS OF ENGINEERS
EASTERN WASHINGTON REGULATORY OFFICE
POST OFFICE BOX 273
CHATTAROY, WASHINGTON 99003
September 5, 1995
Regulatory Branch
Mr. Phil Christy
USDA, Forest Service
Tonasket Ranger District
1 West Winesap
Tonasket, Washington 98855
Dear Mr. Christy:
This is in response to your letter of August 24, 1995, regarding the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Crown Jewel Project. At this time,
we are still in the process of compiling our comments, and should have them to
you within the next two weeks.
We are also in the process of stetting up a pre-application meeting with
interested agencies to discuss the proposed project, specifically the portions
of the project for which a Department of the Army permit is required. The
meeting should be in early October in Spokane. Please let me know if you are
interested in attending.
I would also like to repeat my request for audio tapes of the public
meetings that were held regarding the DEIS. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Tim R. Erkel
Biologist, Eastern Washington Office
-------
DEPARTMENT OF THF ARMY
S«ATTL« OHf*iCT. C09P3 Of «N
-------
Department of the Army pormlt under the Clean Water Act, The indirect impacts
to wetlands must also be discussed in the sections of 4.10 of the EIS that
discuss the effects of each alternative. The Potential Indirect impacts to
wetlands should also be shown In a Table similar to Table 4.10.1, or added to
Table 4.10.1.
If you have any Questions on the preceding comments, please contact me at
the above address or by phone at (509) 238-4570.
Sincerely,
T1m R.
Biologist, Eastern Washington Office
-------
OUG-29-1995 16: U
P.02
In reply rmfmr tfc
United States Department of the Interior
BDRXJUJ OF LAUD MAWAGEKBWT WMP-130-88-041W
Ffanatchee Fasource Area 3ao9 (134)
915 Walla Walla
Wenatchee, Washington 98801-1521
509/665-2100
FAX: 509/665-2121
Craig Bobzien, District Ranger
USDA, United States Forest Service
Okanogan National Forest
Tonasket Ranger District
1 West winesap
Tonasket, Washington 98855
Dear Craig:
This letter is in response to your recent inquiry about comments
on the Crown Jewel Mine Project Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) . A number of our specialists have commented on
previous preliminary drafts. In discussions with our Geologist,
Brent Cunderla, who is the BLM EIS Team Leader for the project,
he indicated that only three specialists would have formal
comments on the Draft EIS. Attached you will find comments from
our Spokane District Botanist, Pam Camp, (2 pages) and our
geologist, Brent Cunderla (4 pages). The Spokane District Mining
Engineer, Kelly Courtright, will also be submitting comments, but
the comments will be sent/faxed direct from our District Office
in Spokane. Should you have any questions concerning the
comments please contact the specialists directly either in
Wenatchee at (509) 665-2100 or in Spokane at (509) 536-1200.
Sincerely,
F. Fisher
Area Manager
Enclosures as stated
-------
DUG-29-1995 lb:L2 p g-j
In xuply eater to:
United States Department of the Interior
BUPSAD OF LAND KASA3SMSST
Wenatcfaae Resource Area
915 Walla F/alla
Wenatchee, Washington 988O1-1521 3809/6840(134)
509/665-2100
FAX: 309/665-2121
MEMORANDUM
July 3, 1995
TO: Brent Cunderla, Wenatchee Area Geologist
FROM: Pamela Camp, Spokane District Botanist
SUBJECT: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
Crown Jewel Mine, June 1995
General Comments
I feel that I am neither an Author or Principal contributor to
this document, as listed in the Summary for the Draft, or a
Preparer, as listed in the Draft, 5-3. This should be changed to
reflect my true status as a Reviewer.
Affected Environment, Vegetation, 3.10
The quality or successional status of the plant communities are
not mentioned until you get to the wildlife section where old
growth is mentioned. For consistency, the same descriptions of
values should be adressed in all sections.
Environmental Consequences, Vegetation 4.9
4.9.1 Reclamation would eventually mitigate soil erosion but- some
wildlife habitat and biological diversity would likely be
"irreversible and irretrievable... due to the loss of soil
productivity and oldgrowth" and climax ecosystems (as addressed
in forest resources). The statement 4.9.3 "vegetation
communities in reclaimed areas should occur in a manner similar
to that found in clearcuts is not supported. The loss of soil
productivity is not the same in these two actions and cannot be
directly compared. The statement that timber losses in areas
covered by waste rock are not irreversible is not supported.
Please provide references.
The affects of water use from adjacent drainages such as Myers
Creek may affect rare plant populations in the drainage and those
affects should be addressed.
-------
AUG-29-1995 16:12 p
Biological Assessment
The statement that It aeems unlikely that forest or state
viability will be reduced for Liatiera bjorealis. a sensitive plant
species, is not supported with analysis. The proposed project
will destroy or affect 7-8 populations and 299-1933 plants, or
roughly up to two thirds of the known numbers of individuals on
the forest and up to half of the known numbers of individuals in
Washington state. Also, up to 16% of the Platanthera obfcusata.r a
sensitive plant species, will be affected at the forest level.
The rationale for the conclusion of no viability loss of these
species is not clear.
Another point that should be addressed in the viability analysis
is the destruction of the unusually large mega-populations of
these species which are more typical found in small populations.
Destruction of large populations may have a greater impact on
viability than loss of small populations.
Whether these populations are central or peripheral to the range
of the species may also be important in evaluating species
viability. Peripheral populations may be more critical to the
long term genetic integrity of the species.
At the species level viability analysis, where the distribution
of the species is discussed, abundance or rarity in other states
should be considered as well. Listera borealis is considered
threatened with extirpation from Oregon, List 2 (ONHP, 1993) ,
rejected for listing in Montana (1991). Platanthera obtuaata is
also List 2 in Oregon (1993) and Idaho Si (critically imperiled
because of extreme rarity or because some factor of its biology
making it especially vulnerable to extinction) (1992).
Ownership and protective status of the other known sites should
be included in the viability analysis. If all other populations
are privately owned the impacts should be viewed differently than
if all the populations were in Federal land ownership or preserve
areas.
-------
RJG-29-1995 16: 12 p 05
In rmply r«/«r to:
United States Department of the Interior
BOBSXJ OF LAND HANAGBHSNT WMP-130-88-041 W
Wenatehee Resource Area 3809 (134)
915 Walla Walla
Wenatchee, Washington 98801-1521
509/665-2100
FAX: 509/665-2121
TO: Official File WMN-130-88-041 W
FROM: Wenatch.ee Resource Area Geologist
SUBJECT: Comments on the Crown Jewel Project Draft EIS
Chapter 1
Page 1-12/ Section 1.10.7 Soils (Key Issue} "Primary Comparison
Criteria"
Reference is made to soil depths of "12-inch to 18-inch depths".
Is this loose soil as applied or after application (compaction)?
fHapter 2
Page 2-13, Section 2.2.5 Waste Rock Disposal
All references to waste rock stockpile (except Alternative F-
Complete Backfill) should be changed to disposal in this section.
Stockpile gives a false connotation that the waste rock piles are
temporary in nature and not permanent, which they are.
Page 2-14, Section 2.2.5 Figure 2.2
On page 2-13 the title of Figure 2.2, is given as "Waste Rock
Disposal Area Options," The actual title on Figure 2.2 page 2-14
is "Waste Rock Stockpile Options" Please change the title on
Figure 2.2 to reflect text.
Page 2-26, Section 2.2.11 Cyanide Destruction (1st Par.)
Where is the WAD Cyanide measurement "less than lOmg/l" location?
Tailings pond?
Page 2-40, Section 2.2.15 Tailings Liner System Design
What will be the average amount of water stored in the tailings
facility (in gallons)?
(3rd Par.) Use of cyanide and zero discharge of cyanide, metals,
and other hazardous chemicals from the "lined tailings facility"
are two key issues associated with this project, yet there is no
public input during the EIS process to address the liner
configuration (Permit Issue). Will any comments or public
participation be allowed during WA-DOE permit process of tailings
-------
AUG-29-1395 16=13 p-06
impoundment?
Page 2-43, Table 2.4, Materials and Supplies
Based on the figure given in Table 2.4 for Ammonium Nitrate use,
approximately 25,000 tons of this explosive will be utilized for
the proposed eight year mine life scenario. The EIS does not
analyze the effects of nitrate contamination in surface and/or
groundwater. Two areas of concern are in the surface runoff
waters in the proposed pit area and drainage from the waste rock
disposal area(a).
Page 2-51, Section 2.2.24 On-site Solid Waste Disposal (1st Par.)
What is going to be recycled?
Page 2-52, Section 2.2.25 Segmental Reclamation (2nd Bullet)
Is there going to be segmental reclamation of the waste rock
disposal area(s) slope(s) prior to mine closure? This section
makes reference to "The waste rock could be constructed in lifts
and selected portions then pushed and configured by
dozer...areas."
Page 2-83, Section 2.11.4 Tailings Pond Dewatering and Closure
There is no discussion concerning reclamation of the reclaim
solution collection pond. The pond that collects water from the
tailings facility underdrain. Will this pond be kept in place and
monitored and if so for how long? What if contaminants are
detected?
Page 2-96, Section 2.12.15 Vegetation (4th Par.-last line)
"Only herbicides having Forest Service approval would_be used."
Please let BLM also comment on proposed use of herbicides.
Page 2-106, Section 2.13.3 Tailings Facility (1st Par.-2nd line)
In reference to the Tailings Facility what does "significant
observations" mean?
Chapter 3
Pag* 3-S4, Figure 3.7.1 Spring and Seep Locations
A comparison with this figure (glacial sediments) with the
preferred alternative for placement of waste rock in the north
waste rock disposal area shows that a large portion of the
proposed waste rock area will be underlain by glacial sediments.
Are the glacial deposits very thick? Will they pose any danger
of slope failure (instability) in waste rock disposal pile(a).
page 3-191, Section 3.19.8 Patenting of Croron Jewel Mining Claims
What is the status on condemnation drilling for patenting of the
mill site claims?
Chapter 4
Page 4-3, Section 4.1.4 Operation (1st Par.-last line)
Blowing dust generated from the waste rock disposal area should
-------
ftUG-29-1995 16=13
also be addressed. This will be a significant open area that may
have fugitive dust generation during windy periods. Not
addressed in Table 4.1.2., but figures given in Table 4.1.3.
Page 4-30, Section 4.6.3 Waste Rock Disposal (1st Par.-laat line)
"All action alternatives include temporary or permanent waste
rock storage at the Project site." Suggest changing of wording
to temporary storage and permanent waste rock disposal areas.
All references to waste rock storage except the complete backfill
(Alternative F) should use disposal area not storage.
Page 4-31, Section 4.6.3 Waste Rock Disposal (3rd Par.-2nd line)
There is a lot of discussion about possible ARD generation and
mitigation but the response to nitrates contamination are
summarized as "Potential impacts from blasting on water quality
are difficult to predict, and would depend, to a large degree, on
the blasting efficiency." How will the possibility of nitrate
contamination of surface and/or groundwater be mitigated? How
will it be treated if it occurs?
Page 4-48, Section 4.7.3 Waste Rock Disposal (1st line)
"temporary or permanent storage" Should read temporary storage
or permanent disposal. Again section uses storage and disposal
interchangeably. Temporary storage-Permanent disposal!
Paragraph 4 states "Potential long-term surface water quality
impacts from waste rock disposal site(s) are expected to be
somewhat less than during operations." Document what the impacts
(ARD, Nitrates etc.) might be, rather than just stating its going
to be less after reclamation.
Page 4-172, Section 4.19.3 Land Ownership & Values
A point that should be addressed here is the fact that if and
when the patenting procedure is finalized approximately 925 acres
of public" land (BLM, USFS) will become private land. Development
of these private lands?
Page 4-182, Section 4.22.3 Sodium Cyanide. (1st Par.)
Should elaborate on the construction of the cyanide transport
containers, their durability and water tightness, if any.
Paragraph 2 states that "...cyanide is highly lethal to aquatic
organisms." but "...organisms usually recover quickly on removal
to clean water..." Removal to clean water hardly seems pertinent
to consider when the gas cloud from volatilization would quickly
overcome and possibly kill humans (4th Par.)1
Paragraph 3 "...level of cyanide is lethal..." Replace is with
are.
Page 4-183, Section 4.22.3 Cement/Lime (last Sentence)
The fact that it may "...be messy to clean-up..." has little to
do with the purpose of this document.
-------
flUG-29-1995 16=14
P.06
Page 4-183, Section 4.22.3 Puela (3rd Par.)
What is the "...location and availability of spill response
personnel , materials and equipment."? Please document or
reference where this information is to be found.
Page 4-184, Section 4.22.3 Increase in Nitrate Loading Due to
Explosives Handling (3rd Par.)
"The potential for this situation to occur can not be estimated;
however, some mines have elevated levels of nitrates and some do
not." "How will nitrate levels in surface/groundwater be
mitigated? If there is no mitigation then other methods of
blasting or rock breakage should be addressed in the EIS.
Chapter 5
Page 5-3, Section 5.4 Bureau of Land Management
In reference to George Brown, the title of "(Asst. Project
Manager) " makes him sound like he works for Battle Mountain Gold
Co. Please remove this title. He is the BLM Spokane District
Geologist.
Page 5-4, Section 5.4 Bureau of Land Management
In reference to Brent Cunderla, change "River Fall" to River
Palls.
TOTfiL P. 06
-------
AUG-29-1995 16=50 5PQKPNE ELM 130 P.02
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Spokint Dmr.ct Office
1 103 N. Farther
Spokane. Wuhinsain 091 J 2-1275
In Reply Refer To:
WMN-130-88-041W
3809(134)
August 29. 1995
Mr. San Gehr. Forest Supervisor
U.S.D.A. Forest Service
Okanogan National Forest
1240 South Second Ave.
Okanogan, WA 98840
Re: Reviev Comments on Crown Jewel Project Draft EIS
Deadline: August 29, 1995
Dear Mr. Gehr:
Enclosed please find my comments on the Crown Jewel Project Draft EIS.
1. Table of Contents: All page listings with the exception of Chapter 2 list
pages in the .format of 1-15, 5-6, 8-3, etc. As an oversight the Chapter
2 page number list in the Table of Contents omits the Chapter "2-"
designation. For consistency this needs to be corrected.
2. The page preceding the "Fact Sheet" states that the Forest Service and BLM
prefer a Modified Alternative E utilizing a single north waste rock
disposal area at 3H:1V slopes for reclamation that includes partial pit
backfilling. It seems appropriate and forthright to tell the public in
this section and other appropriate sections specifically how many acres
would be disturbed if this FS/BLM preferred alternative is selected since
it has not been addressed by one of the alternatives. It would also be
appropriate for the final draft to include a Preferred Alternative Site
Plan similar in detail to that shown in Figure 2.10 on page 2-55.
3. P.1-12, Section 1.10,9 Reclamation (Key Issue): The first bulleted item
"2H:V- seems to be an error.
4. P.2-6, Figure 2.1. Management Prescription 27: The last activity listed
is "Protection." Based on the language included it appears that this
should be relabelled as "Fire Protection."
5. P.2-37, Tailings Disposal Location Options Not Considered Further:
Although the text states that the North Nicholson Tailings Facility Option
will not be considered for further evaluation, it is not indicated in the
\(
-------
OJG-29-1995 16:50 SPQKPNE ELM 130 P.03
bullec summary ac che bottom of che right column on this page. This needs
to be corrected.
6. P.2-54, 2.5.1 Alternative B Mining Techniques: I was under the assumption
that during mining waste rock would also be analyzed to determine it's
potential to generate acid rock drainage so that acid generating rock can
be identified and selectively placed in the waste rock dumps to isolate it
and prevent acid rock drainage from occurring. All this section states is
that cuttings from the blast holes would be "...analyzed...for precious
metals content.* This section needs to be modified if the plan is to also
analyze for potential to produce acid rock drainage during mining so this
information can be used for selective placement to isolate acid generating
materials.
7. P.2-82, Second to last bullet: It would be better to replace the word
•grading" with "re-seeding." The commencement of the time period to begin
monitoring reclaimed slopes should be based upon the time the slopes are
re-seeded for revegetation and not simply graded. The act of re-seeding
is a more critical action that should trigger the time frame to commence
monitoring reclaimed slopes as opposed to the re-grading activity. As
statad, this would be a problem for the agencies if.tha operator re-grades
the slopes and then waits for a period of time before re-seeding.
8. P.2-83, Topsoil, Second to last Paragraph of the page: It is recommended
that the word "All" be added to the beginning of this paragraph which
addresses reclamation measures. The revised sentence would begin, "All
topsoil and cover soil suitable..."
Battle Mountain and Cedar Associates representatives repeatedly stated
during several EIS meetings I attended that they would collect all topsoil
and cover soil suitable for revegetation. The agency staff at these
meetings also confirmed, that Battle Mountain would be required to salvage
and stockpile all topsoil and cover soil suitable for revegetation and
this should be specifically stated in the EIS. It is an oversight to
leave this clarification out of the EIS. This is particularly important
to B1M that this statement, "All topsoil..." be in the EIS because the
majority of che waste dump areas related to this project will b« on BLM
land.
It is very common for operators to get in a rush to dump waste rock as
mining progresses and in their haste they commonly do not adequately
remove all of the available topsoil and growth material. Then at the end
of the operation when there is not enough topsoil to reclaim the site
everyone looks for someone to blame and it is too late to do anything
about it an that time. It is critical to avoid this common pitfall. This
is an important issue and needs to be clarified by making the recommended
wording change that "All" be added to the beginning o£ this sentence.
9f p.2-105. 2.13.2, Paragraph 4: It is recommended that air quality
monitoring also be required during reclamation when large quantities of
dry dusty material are loaded, transported by truck, dumped, and spread
out on the graded surface.
-------
flUG-29-1995 16=51 SPGKSNE ELM 130 P.84
10. Requested Insertion After Section 2.13.6 Timber Monicoring on P.2-107; It
is requested thac a new Section 2.13.7 be inserted In the EIS titled,
Topsoil and Cover Soil Salvage Monicoring. This will require re-numbering
the remaining sections.
Based on the fact that removal of all topsoil and cover soil is one of th«
most important single factors that will affect th« success or failure of
reclamation, this critical aspect of the project needs to be monitored as
a separate and distinct monitoring measure. This new section needs to
state that prior to beginning excavation or construction of any facility
at the site (i.e. mill complex, pit, roads, tailings pond, water storage
reservoirs, waste dump areas, etc.) and after topsoil has been removed,
individual inspections will be conducted jointly by the operator and
affected agencies to confirm by all parties that all topsoil and cover
soil has been removed before construction (i.e. waste rock placement) or
excavation (i.e the pit) can commence in the specified area. If topsoil
and cover soil remains the operator would be required to remove the
additional topsoil.
In addition to maps and a narrative description of the surveyed areas,
these inspections will also include detailed photographic documentation
showing th« areas where topsoil has been completely removed, and estimates
of the quantity and quality of topsoil removed from each specific area.
This requested modification to the EIS is particularly critical given the
"...limited soil resource available on-site for reselling purposes." as
stated on P.4-152 of the EIS.
11. P.2-108. 2.13.10, Soil Replacement Monitoring: What are the "design
thicknesses" referenced in this section? The previous section on
reclamation monitoring is very specific. Is the design thickness 18
inches on slopes and 12 inches on horizontal areas as stated at other
locations in this EIS? If so, thia or other specified thicknesses need to
be stated for clarification in this section. Furthermore, it needs to be
consistently stated at every similar reference in the EIS.
12. Table 2.14, Summary of Impacts by Alternative for Each Issue, P. 2-110:
The issue which addresses "Percentage of final slopes that are: Steeper
than 2H:1V, 2H:1V, etc." is misleading and could cause significant
confusion to the reader. It should be clarified that this section of the
table is referring to all project slopes vhich includes both the pit walls
and waste dumps. In other words this does not refer to reclaimed waste
dump slope angles only.
If one assumes that the table is referring to the waste rock dump slopes
only (this is not clarified) it currently states that Alternative E would
have betwean 40 and 50 percent of the slopes steeper than 3H:1V. This is
incorrect because under Alternative E all waste rock dump slopes would be
reclaimed at an angle of 3H:1V. This problem can be resolved by replacing
"Percentage of final slopes that are:" in the table with the statement
"Percentage of overall project final slopes that are:"
13. P.3-191, Section 3.19.8, Patenting of Crown Jewel Mining Claims:
Discussion on P. 3-193 should be modified to reflect recent changes
related to the patenting process revocations.
-------
PUG-29-1995 16-' 51
SPOKPNE BLM
130 P.05
If you have any questions regarding these comments please feel free to contact
m« ac (509) 536-1200.
Sincerely,
cc: Eric Hoffman
Jim Fisher
Brent Cunderla
Kelly D. Courtrlghc
District Mining Engineer
TOTfiL P.05
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
August 29, 1995
Reply To
AttnOf: WD-126
Phil Christy
US Forest Service
Tonasket Ranger District
1 West Winesap
Tonasket, Washington 98855
Dear Mr. Christy:
In accordance with our responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act and
Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency has reviewed the Crown
Jewel Mine Draft Environmental Impact Statement (draft EIS). The draft EIS analyzes 6
action alternatives to meet the objectives of the purpose and need as well as a No Action
alternative.
The proposed gold mine would be located in the Okanogan National Forest near Tonasket
in Northeastern Washington. The Proponent, Battle Mountain Gold Company, proposes to
produce about 180,000 ounces of gold per year for approximately 8 years. This would result in
nearly 34,000 tons of waste rock per day. 766 acres would be disturbed during the life of the
project.
Our review revealed a number of important concerns regarding water quality, hydrologic
alteration, NPDES permitting, reclamation and wetland and stream mitigation. We have rated
the draft EIS EO-2 (Environmental Objections—Insufficient Information). Our enclosed
comments explain the basis for this rating and make suggestions for the final EIS.
t Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
This rating and a summary of our comments will be published in the Federal Register. A
copy of our rating system is enclosed. Thank you for the opportunity to review this draft EIS.
Please contact me at (206) 553-8574, or John Bregar in our Environmental Review Section at
(206) 553-1984 if you have any questions about our comments.
Si
Richard Parkin, Acting Chief
Program Coordination Branch
Enclosures
cc: Dave Kaumheimer, U.S.F.W.S
Bob Raforth, DOE Central
Tim Erkel, COE
Collville Tribes
-------
File#-95-042-AFS
Environmental Protection Agency
Detailed Comments on the Crown Jewel Mine
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
General Comments
Rating
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) believes that there are specific impacts that should
be avoided at the site of the proposed Crown Jewel Gold Mine. For this reason, we have rated
the draft EIS "EO" (Environmental Objections). The numeric rating, "2", which accompanies
the alpha rating indicates that the draft EIS itself lacks the information necessary to determine
potential environmental impacts from this project. The document does not address significant
issues related to water use, wetland and stream mitigation, alternative selection, reclamation,
NEPA requirements.
Reclamation
Pages 2-79 to 2-85 of the draft EIS discuss reclamation measures that would be taken during
and after mine closure. On page 2-85 it states, "At this time, it has not been determined how
many performance securities would be required, or if the Forest Service, BLM, WADOE, and
WADNR would work together on determining the method or manner of a reclamation
guarantee for the Crown Jewel mining and milling activities, and who would hold that
assurance." All too often in the mining industry, reclamation guarantees have been left to the
last minute and the public is left uninformed on the details of these guarantees. We need to be
certain that adverse impacts from reclamation are avoided. A final reclamation plan, including
disclosure of financial information and bond amounts should be discussed in the final EIS.
Impacts from incomplete reclamation poses a risk to the environment that could be avoided if
proper consideration to reclamation is given before the EIS process is complete.
To reduce risks, EPA recommends that the mine site be returned as close to natural conditions
as possible. We strongly recommend pit backfill as opposed to allowing the pit to fill with
water and discharge into Nicholson Creek. We appreciate the amount of data collected and
research done to date on the characterization of future water quality conditions. However, we
also know that there is a certain level of unpredictability in these situations and the risks
outweigh the benefits on this point.
Alternatives
Chapter 2 describes the various alternatives revealed during the scoping process for this project.
-------
File »: 95-042-AFS
Alternative C does not appear to be a viable alternative; page 2-5 states, "In response to agency
and public input, it was decided to consider this alternative for comparative purposes." In the
Council of Environmental Quality Regulations at 40 CFR 1502.4 (a) it states, "Agencies shall...
(a) Rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives
which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been
eliminated." Alternative C has not been objectively evaluated in the draft EIS. If it has been
eliminated from study, the reasons for this should be clearly explained. Throughout the
document there are references to the fact that Alternative C is not financially feasible, yet there
are no clear examples of the cost/benefit ratios for each alternative so it is difficult to determine
the relative gains/losses. This is a very controversial project with potential to seriously impact
area resources. Eliminating a "reasonable" alternative solely on the basis of financial
considerations completely ignores the relative benefits to the environment and human health.
The draft EIS lacks .a cost effective alternative that is also environmentally less damaging. For
example, many of the alternatives have the potential to be less environmentally damaging
through backfill and/or underground options. However, Alternative G places waste rock
directly in the Frog Pond (not a "reasonable" option as compared with the other alternatives),
Alternatives C and G provide for no pit backfill, Alternative F operates on 1 shift (12 hours
per day, which would substantially reduce the yearly ore production), and all of the
alternatives, where there is an option to choose north or south, place the major portion of
waste rock north of the pit in the Nicholson Creek drainage instead of opting to reduce impacts
by confining the major environmental disturbance to the Marias Creek drainage. The Forest
Service and BLM preferred alternative is a variation on Alternative E. This option is not
explored or mapped in the. body of the EIS and is present only in the Summary document. It
would be helpful if the Forest Service and BLM alternative was evaluated in the final EIS.
Given the complex nature of this project and the large range of options it is critical that the Forest
Service place an emphasis on the reasoning behind alternative selection in the final EIS. EPA
suggests naming the alternatives as opposed to lettering them. This would help to clarify the
general goal of each alternative and therefore reduce its arbitrary nature. In addition, the final
EIS should propose a true environmentally less damaging alternative. In keeping with our rating
of "EO", we believe that impacts to Nicholson Creek could be limited by avoiding the placement
of waste rock in that drainage, and by placing the tailings facility entirely in the Marias creek
drainage. EPA's suggested preferred alternative is as follows:
Underground/Surface Mining with Backfill
This alternative is a variation on Alternative D. It would involve extraction of the ore
from the north portion of the ore body by surface mining and would mine the southern
portion of the ore zone by underground methods. The operation would run 24 hours per
day, employ about 225 people during operations, and produce an average of 3,000 tons of
ore per day. The life of the operation would be 8 years: 1 year for construction, 6 years
-------
FiIe#.95-042-AFS
for operation, and 1 year for the completion of most reclamation. Crushing would be
conducted below ground level. Grinding and milling would be above ground. Gold
extraction would use conventional milling with the tank cyanidation process and CIL
gold recovery. The tailings facility would be located entirely in the Marias Creek
drainage and residual cyanide in the tailings would be reduced using the INCO cyanide
destruction process. Waste rock would be placed south of the pit area in Waste Rock
Stockpile B and C (as shown in Figure 2.2 on page 2-14 of the draft EISX The
combination of Stockpile B and C would allow approximately 30 million cubic yards of
waste rock (based on the Figure 2.2X Waste rock would be used to completely backfill
the underground mine and the north pit. Backfill of the pit would begin immediately
after mining of the pit is completed. Employees would be bused to the site from locations
in or near Oroville. The supply route would access the Crown Jewel Project from the
south through Wauconda, Toroda Creek, and Beaver Canyon. This alternative would
recover about 80% of the gold reserve available to strictly surface mining. A detailed
compensatory mitigation plan would be provided in the final EIS.
EPA recommends avoiding any alternative which proposes direct losses to Nicholson Creek, or
significant hydrologic alteration to the Frog Pond. During two site visits from EPA wetlands
specialists, diverse wetland communities were observed associated with the upper reaches of
Nicholson creek. Due to the perennial nature of Nicholson Creek and the related quality of
wetlands, impacts to upper reaches of Marias Creek would in fact have less adverse impacts to
the aquatic environment than would impacts to Nicholson creek, although, more wetland acreage
might be affected.
NEPA Scope
EPA is very concerned that there have been actions taken to date on site that are not adequately
analyzed in the EIS. We realize "mine production" and "mine exploration" are considered very
separate issues in the Forest Service viewpoint. However, it is important to recognize that the
amount of site disturbance to date could potentially be viewed as "significant" under NEPA and
that the timber harvest, road building and exploration actions taken to date are directly related to,
and in fact, would not be taken if development were not a reasonably foreseeable option.
One example we can use to illustrate this point is the Minerals Management Service (MMS) EIS
process. If a lease for oil and gas is proposed for a particular area on the outer continental shelf,
MMS will first put together an exploration based EIS which, if taken on its own, may not be
considered a significant action. Since exploration may reasonably be proceeded by development,
and since exploration is a means to achieve development, a full EIS is prepared revealing the
specific environmental impacts of both exploration and the general impacts of development. If
the area is leased and development is proposed, a second more detailed EIS is prepared
-------
File *: 95-042-AFS
addressing the new source permit issues and more specific impacts from development.
Although the environmental damage has occurred on site, an analysis of the impacts of these
actions should be summarized in the final EIS. The following NEPA language applies in this
situation.
40 CFR 1508.25 (emphasis added)
Scope consists of the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered in an
environmental impact statement. The scope of an individual statement may depend on its
relationships to other statements (§§ 1502.20 and 1508.28). To determine the scope of
environmental impact statements, agencies shall consider 3 types of actions, 3 types of
alternatives, and 3 types of impacts. They include:
(a) Actions (other than unconnected single actions) which may be:
(1) Connected actions, which means that they are closely related and therefore should be
discussed in the same impact statement. Actions are connected if they:
(I) Automatically trigger other actions which may require environmental impact
statements.
(ii) Cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or simultaneously.
(iii) Are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their
justification.
(2) Cumulative actions, which when viewed with other proposed actions have cumulatively
significant impacts and should therefore be discussed in the same impact statement.
(3) Similar actions, which when viewed with other reasonably foreseeable or proposed
agency actions, have similarities that provide a basis for evaluating their environmental
consequences together, such as common timing or geography. An agency may wish to
analyze these actions in the same impact statement. It should do so when the best way to
assess adequately the combined impacts of similar actions or reasonable alternatives to such
actions is to treat them in a single impact statement.
(b) Alternatives, which include: (1) No action alternative.
(2) Other reasonable courses of actions.
(3) Mitigation measures (not in the proposed action).
© Impacts, which may be: (1) Direct; (2) indirect; (3) cumulative.
Water Quality
The surface water quality section in Chapter 4 of the draft EIS describes the potential impacts to
surface water. We are concerned about adverse effects to streams and creeks within the project
vicinity. The EIS does not present a convincing case that water quantity manipulations and
alterations caused by the mining operation will not significantly affect water quality. We are
specifically concerned about hydrologic changes that could lead to adverse ecological effects to
both headwater and isolated wetlands, Nicholson Creek and Marias Creek, as well as to water
quality standards violations (including in-stream flow requirements, temperature, turbidity, etc)
in Nicholson, Marias, Bolster, Gold, Ethel, and Torada Creeks.
-------
File* 95-042-AFS
There is very little reference to the fact that although a National Pollutant Elimination System
(NPDES) permit is needed for the proposed project, to date, there has been no characterization of
the potential for this project to comply with NPDES permit parameters. The water issues for this
project are extremely complex and there is insufficient information to address all of the water
quality and water management issues at this time. The final EIS should contain the kind of
information that would be found in an NPDES permit for this project and if at all possible attach
a draft permit as an appendix. This includes effluent characterization in terms of relevant water
quality standards, a description of the types and locations of the potential outfalls, effluent
volume, treatment technologies and the characteristics of the receiving water. This information
would provide the level of detail necessary to understand what impacts would be avoided during
this project, and show that issuance of a permit will be feasible.
The proposed Starrem reservoir will block fish passage to Starrem Creek. Resident fish species
utilizing this system could therefore be significantly restricted in terms of full range of rearing
habitat and possible access to spawning habitat. This issue has not been sufficiently addressed.
The water extraction proposed in Myers Creek is not well characterized. Impacts include surface
water extraction, ground water extraction, hydrologic alteration from project activities and flow
augmentation to the tributaries of Toroda Creek. On page 3-36 and 37, it states, "A monitoring
station on Myers creek...was operated to obtain information pertaining to flows during the
irrigation season; and, therefore, winter stream flows were not recorded." This seasonal gap in
data is significant and should be better characterized in the final EIS. Low flows in the winter
could potentially shut down the process of drawing water from Myers Creek. The impacts from
the above actions need to be better explained in the final EIS and the level of detail in this
explanation should be sufficient for permitting purposes.
EPA is concerned with how runoff and discharges from the tailings impoundment will be
managed to protect Marias and Nicholson Creeks after mining has been completed. We are
concerned about impacts from seepage from the tailings impoundment and exposure to wildlife
(page 2-101 says "The proponent is expected to design and operate facilities that minimize
wildlife exposure and hazardous substance."). The final EIS needs to more accurately portray
the potential impact from unexpected events on fish and wildlife resources.
Wetlands and 404 Issues
Pursuant to 40 CFR 230.10(a) it must be demonstrated that the chosen alternative is the least
environmentally damaging, practicable project alternative. The EIS does not comply with this
regulation.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 230.10(b) no permit should be issued if it could cause or contribute to
-------
File #: 95-042-AFS
violations of state water quality standards or toxicity effluent limitations. Without the benefit of
reviewing conditions for NPDES permits and understanding all of the water uses and
manipulations, an adequate assessment of the water quality and ecological impacts can not be
completed. In addition, 40 CFR 230.10(b) requires demonstration that projects will not lead to
unacceptable adverse impacts to federally listed threatened and endangered or candidate species.
Hydrologic changes associated with this project could significantly impact populations of
candidate amphibian species.
As proposed in the draft EIS, each of the alternatives addressed within the draft EIS appears to
pose significant adverse impacts to aquatic resources due to combined direct physical losses of
wetlands and streams, and the secondary effects caused by hydrologic and geomorphologic
alteration. Specific issues of concern include:
(a) Significant changes in hydrology to the Frog Pond wetland appear in all alternatives.
Due to the very specific water level and vegetation structure requirements for successful
amphibian reproduction, changes to hydrology can obliterate this habitat function.
Spotted frogs are candidate for listing as an Endangered species and significant numbers
can be found in this pond. Populations have significantly declined in portions of their
historic range (W. P. Leonard et al. 1993).
(b) Disturbance associated with hydrologic changes can also significantly affect wetland
communities which are relatively undisturbed. These impacts have not been adequately
assessed in the EIS.
(c) All alternatives which include open pit mining could result in adverse impacts to aquatic
life and other organisms which might feed within the project area.
(d) All alternatives propose significant direct losses of headwater and first order creek
systems. The least impacting proposal in terms of lineal foot losses of creek systems is
Alternative C, with 1350 lineal feet lost of Gold Bowl Creek (a first order headwater
creek to Nicholson and Marias creeks); 3550 lineal feet of Marias creek; and 2200 lineal
feet of Starrem creek.
There is insufficient information provided in the draft EIS to demonstrate that impacts would be
sufficiently mitigated pursuant to 40 CFR 230.10(d). The following must be accomplished to
demonstrate compliance with this regulation: First, all measures to avoid and minimize
unacceptable adverse impacts must be demonstrated by selecting the least environmentally
damaging project alternative. Second, for remaining unavoidable adverse impacts, a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan demonstrating that remaining impacts can be technically and
ecologically replaced in acreage and in function must be provided (see previous cautions
regarding ability to mitigate in our May 6,1994 letter).
-------
File »: 95-042-AFS
The draft EIS provides no detailed compensatory mitigation plan to demonstrates how all aquatic
resource impacts (wetland, seep/springs, streams and wildlife) shall be replaced and mitigated.
Chapter 2 (pp. 2-91: Surface and groundwater, 2-96 - 2-99: Wetlands, 2-100-103: Wildlife and
Fish) discusses a number of mitigation concepts associated with wetland and stream impacts,
however, until it is demonstrated that implementation of these compensatory mitigation concepts
are technically feasible and adequate to compensate for adverse ecological impacts to aquatic
resources, a §404 compliance determination can not be made. For example, installing fish
structures to provide passage through culverts and create pools in the lower reaches of Marias
and Nicholson Creek would only benefit fish provided that flows, water quality and headwater
functions are maintained. It may be counter-productive to add fish structures within streams
which experience degradation from mining operations.
Sufficient information must be provided to determine that compliance with the 404(b)(l)
guidelines has been met (40 CFR 230.12). There is, however, sufficient information to
determine that the impacts would "cause or contribute to" significant adverse impacts to aquatic
life (violation of 40 CFR 230.110(c)). Therefore, our recommendation to the corps at this time,
were there to be a public notice issued, would be not to issue a §404 permit for this project.
Direct and Secondary Losses
All direct and secondary impacts to seeps, springs, streams and wetlands are subject to §404
regulation. Total area of (1) direct, and (2) secondary impacts should be quantified for all
springs/seeps, wetlands and lineal feet of streams (and included on one table) so that proposed
compensatory mitigation actions and amounts could be compared and assessed.
Data Needs
The final EIS should present baseline seasonal water level depth data for the Frog Pond in order
to determine the appropriate hydrology to support continued amphibian breeding. The final EIS
should include modelled changes in stream hydrographs to clarify the impacts to water resources.
Direct Losses of Wetlands
Pages 4-63 - 4-64 indicate that welands losses range from 0.92 acres (alternative F) to 5.42 acres
(alternative G). While the footprint of the wetland acreage loss might be small the total impact is
larger when secondary effects are acounted for as indicated in the discussion on pp. 4-64 & 4-65.
In addition to table 4.10.1, which provides wetland impact and acreage by wetland type, an
assessment of secondary impacts should be provided.
Seeps and Springs
Seeps and springs have not been quantified or characterized clearly in terms of hydrologic
contribution to surface waters, including wetlands. We are concerned about alteration to springs
and seeps because their functions will be difficult, if not impossible, to replicate and replace.
-------
File #: 9S-042-AFS
For purposes of §404 all impacts to aquatic resources (inclusive of wetlands, seeps, springs,
perennial and intermittent streams) from direct and secondary impacts will need to be pulled
together in one place in the document along with a detailed mitigation plan. The mitigation plan
should address specific ecological goals and objectives, acreage and actions to mitigate specific
impacts to all aquatic resources within each affected watershed. The plan should include specific
performance standards to demonstrate attainment of goals and objectives, a detailed monitoring
plan, long term protection (in perpetuity) measures, and contingency plans in the event
mitigation does not replace lost functions and habitats.
Page Specific Comments
Page 2-3, Section 2.1.4: "Following the NEPA and SEPA processes, and the Preferred
Alternative is selected, the Proponent must provide final engineering design and final
reclamation and closure plans for the selected alternative to the appropriate agencies
involved." The NEPA/SEPA process is not strictly for the benefit of the involved agencies.
It is designed to provide meaningful information to the affected public so they can understand
the environmental impacts of the proposed project. The Record of Decision must contain a
completed final plan with appropriate mitigation and reclamation. The Record of Decision is a
legal document and the Forest Service and the Proponent are bound by the decision therein. In
our view, it is the only assurance to the public that the project will be done according to the
specifications in the EIS.
Page 2-14, Section 2.2.5, Figure 2.2: This figure depicts the waste rock stockpile options for the
proeject area. It appears from this picture that volume of waste rock stockpiles B, C, and D
equals a total of 54 million cubic yards of space available for waste rock on the south side of the
pit. We realize that some of the waste rock stockpile options are limited by criteria such as slope
stability etc., however, the figure indicates that there may be some flexibility on the boundaries
of some of these piles.
It is unclear in Alternatives B, C, D, F, and G why the emphasis for storage is north of the pit.
EPA has been very clear on the point that the Nicholson Creek drainage contains some very
unique and valuable wetlands (see page 5 of our letter dated May 6,1994) and impacts to
headwater wetlands in this drainage should be avoided. The final EIS should provide more
justification for the site selection of waste rock stockpiles and other options for waste rock
disposal outside of the Nicholson Creek drainage should be explored.
Page 2-46, Section 2.2.18: The second to the last paragraph in the first column regarding
cessation of operations should include more information on where water from the tailings
impoundment will ultimately be discharged.
-------
File »: 95-042-AFS
Page 2-46, Section 2.2.19: This section describes the water supply options for the site. This
section of the EIS is lacking in level of detail and should be revised to include not only the water
supply options, but also the water discharge options. There is no unified presentation of all the
hydrologic operations for this project and it is very difficult to understand all of their potential
implications. There is no solid data in the draft EIS that address the water balance on site.
Annual precipitation on site has not been measured (precipitation was measured by the
Proponent at a residence about 4 miles south of the project area as noted on page 3-5, and this
data is not acceptable as objective, scientifically accurate data), cumulative impacts of hydrologic
alteration to Myers Creek have not been evaluated, hydrologic mechanisms for surface water
recharge are not clear, and the hydrologic impacts of pit dewatering have not been adequately
addressed.
Page 4-28, Section 4.6.3, Figure 4.6.1: This figure seems to be flawed. It proposes to show the
area of influence of the operation on surface and ground water, but the influence stops at exactly
4500'. This figure needs additional information or needs to be updated to include all the
influences on surface and ground water from project operations.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
REPLY TO
wo-126 MAY 061994
Phil Christy
Tonasket Ranger District
Okanaogan National Forest
P.O. Box 466
Tonasket, WA 98855
Dear Mr. Christy:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the preliminary draft
Environmental Impact Statement (PDEIS) for the Crown Jewel Project in the
Tonasket Ranger District on the Okanogan National Forest. Our review was
conducted in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and our
responsibilities under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act.
The Crown Jewel Project preliminary draft EIS is an informative and
comprehensive document. It addresses most of the pertinent issues and potential
environmental consequences of project activities. The PDEIS has done a good job of
presenting discussions of complex issues in an understandable way for the general
reviewing public. Although the information in ihe PDEIS is good, we are providing
comments on some issues of concern.
We circulated the copies of the PDEIS that we were provided among several
EPA programs. Our comments fall into three overall categories: NPDES permit
issues, hydrogeology, and wetlands.
We appreciate the opportunity to review and provide comments on this PDEIS.
If you have any questions about our review comments please contact Sally Brough in
our Environmental Review Section at (206) 553-4012.
Sincerely.
Joan Caoreza. Chief
Environmental Rrvc\v Section
Enclosure
\Pnnted on Recycled f
-------
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Detailed Review Comments
Crown Jewel Project
Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Issues
Based on our review of the Crown Jewel PDEIS our major concern with the
discussion about the NPDES permit is that mine drainage is considered stormwater
throughout the document. The contact person for these comments is Cindi Godsey in
our Water Permits Section, she can be contacted at (206) 553-1755 if you have any
questions about our NPDES comments. Ms. Godsey develops NPDES permits for
mining projects in Idaho and Alaska and is familiar with 40 CFR 440 which are the
regulations for ore mining and dressing.
On page 2-76, the PDEIS states that mine drainage would be discharged from
sedimentation ponds under an NPDES permit or a stormwater permit. A
stormwater permit is an NPDES permit but does not apply to mine drainage as
it is defined according to 40 CFR 440 - a traditional NPDES permit would deal
with mine drainage. We have attached a copy of memo that defines the
applicability of 40 CFR 440 Effluent Limitations Guidelines to mine drainage,
process water, and storm water.
Page 4-40 talks about the ore stockpile, how diversions would be placed
around this area, and how any drainage would be diverted to a pond and
monitoring would take place according to a stormwater permit. Again, this is
not stormwater, it is mine drainage and as such should be regulated by 40 CFR
part 440.
Page 4-42 discusses the potential of acid mine drainage developing in the
waste rock piles. The drainage from these piles is mine drainage and as such
needs regulating as stated above.
Page 4-46 talks about pit water and discharging it according to the stormwater
permit. Again, this is not stormwater but mine drainage and needs a traditional
NPDES permit instead of a stormwater permit.
Page 4-38 talks about disturbances during construction activities and the
potential for degradation of surface water during this time. The PDEIS provides
no discussion about obtaining a stormwater permit for construction activities. In
this case a stormwater permit would be needed in addition to the traditional
NPDES permit.
-------
Page 3-60 discusses flows from old mine adits particularly the Roosevelt Mine.
These flows are not groundwater as indicated in the PDEIS. These are
unpermitted discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States (discharging
to wetlands) which should be regulated by an NPDES permit. The PDEIS also
mentions discharges from the Buckhorn adit. These discharges would also
require an NPDES permit.
Hydrogeology
EPA looked at selected portions of the PDEIS. Our review was geared to
checking out the potential for acid rock, drainage (ARD), leaching of metals from the
tails and how hydrology is presented. Misforecasting the pH in tailings ponds and
under estimating high flows can lead to unfortunate situations such as occurred at the
Summitville mine in Colorado. If you have any questions about these comments you
can contact Bill Riley in our Wetlands Section at (206) 553-1412. Mr. Riley is currently
working on the AJ and Kensington mines in Juneau, Alaska.
Sampling
WE are impressed by the amount of waste rock sampling done and the
analyses that were performed. ARD from waste rock shouldn't be a problem if the
tests were clone correctly. Since there were only ten ore samples analyzed, we
request that the draft EIS provide an explanation of why this is considered
representative of the entire ore body. One of the things we noticed at Kensington was
the high correlation between Au and S and the variability in both throughout the ore
body. Why are ten samples representative?
The fact that they used kinetic tests (humidity cells) (HCT) to simulate the
potential for ARD in the long-term (alternating wet and dry seasons) seems to make
sense. The results do seem to indicate little potential for ARD. The draft EIS should
expand this discussion to describe the other kinds of kinetic tests and why HCT was
used. There's a statement on p. 3-18 that says that the standard acid-base
accounting tests tend to underestimate ARD potential. The draft EIS should explain
this statement.
The As levels seem quite high (.210 - .430 mg/l) relative to the Human Health
Criteria of .00018 mg/l. This could be a concern if there's a discharge (see comments
below).
Surface Water (P. 4-40 to 4-46)
There is no discussion regarding how high flows would be handled. The
tailings pond is designed to be zero discharge but we could not find any mention of
-------
Applicability of 4O CFR Part 440 Effluent Limitations Guidelines
to Discharges from Ore (Metal) Mining and Dressing Sites
Pregnant pond (barren and surge ponds also)
PW
Polishing pond
PW
Concentration building
SW
If storm waier only, nod no
contact with piloc
Concentrate pile (product storage)
PW
Mill site
SW
Samo a concentration bldg.
Office/administrative building and housing
uc
Unlace mixed with SW from
industrial area, then SW
Chemical storage area
SW
Docking facility
SW
Excoseivo contact with watte
product could constitute MO
Explosive storage
SW
Fuel storage (oil tanks/coal piles)
SW
Vehicle/equipment maintenance area/building
SW
Parking lots
SW
UC if only employee and visitor
type parking
Power plant
SW
Truck wash area
SW
Excessive contact with waste
product could constitute MO
*r%v> '^if. "• f^^ ^ ""• > X\**i T" * t ^ **!. 'VV'" M. * V^SA>^J'V*"* *** .***f •**£&*" fff^X2$£* AWWW. ^ %y.w\w. ,y* %wvi-v\«x OC*. *•» **"• *v-i*«-'* * >^ •**&,** f Vfl, ,
f^rnation-felafeacareas^ ^T^^M'J^^^^^l.'^ C V. ™"'V fl V^"^
Any disturbed area (unreclaimed)
MD
SW if inactive area
Reclaimed areas released from reclamation
bonds after Dec. 17 1990
uc
Reclaimed areas released from reclamation
bonds prior to Dec. 17 1990
SW
Partially/inadequately reclaimed areas or
areas not released from reclamation bond
SW
KEY: UC - Unclassified; Not Subject to Storm Water Program or 40 CFR Part 440 Effluent
Limitations Guidelines (ELG)
MD - Subject to 40 CFR Part 440 ELG for mine drainage
PW - Subject to 40 CFR Part 440 ELG for mill discharge or process (including zero
discharge ELG).
SW - Subject to Storm Water Program, but not subject to 40 CFR Part 440 ELG
-------
EPA REGION 10 - May 6/ 1993
Applicability of 40 CFR Part 440 Effluent Limitations Guidelines
to Discharges from Ore (Metal) Mining and Dressing Sites
^iS^^^F
je/Sdurceiof&frs'ch'aVgie,
f&>&etefS»x:y:?xs<:tq&f>f;.-*iK.:%s+!f
V?*$^>&£?X&y%tii v". •/ :r;5.V,
•"v.y^':~-*"Jv.->-'. ••'^•f.•*•-•. ."/...:... >^.
Land application area run-off
MD
PW-if Process fluids present
Crusher area
MO
PW-if Procecc fluids present
/Piles ^?t^^ , " X'."
Pit drainage (unpumped)
MD
PW-if Process fluids present
(if off Active Area)
MO-if dust control with MO water
PW-if Process fluids present
PW-if Process fluids present
Pit drainage (removed by pumping)
MD
Mine water from underground mines
(unpumped), adit discharges
MD
Mine water from underground mines
(pumped)
MD
Seeps/French drains
MD
On-site haul roads
MD
Off-site haul/access roads
SW
On-site haul roads
SW
Off-site haul/access roads
SW
Tailings impoundment/pile
PW
Run-off/seepage from tailings dams/dikes
when constructed of waste rock/tailings
MD
Run-off/seepage from tailings dams/dikes
when not constructed of waste rock/tailings
SW
|| Heap leach pile runoff/seepage
PW
-------
the flood storage capacity/freeboard for the pond. While the NSPS effluent guidelines
allow a discharge if there's a storm event greater than the 10 yr. 24 hr. storm, what
would the WQ be? Would the discharge meet WQS? There should be a comparison
somewhere of effluent limits and WQS applicable to any discharge and some
calculation of what the likely effluent quality would be. Effluent limits during a storm
event would not have to be met but the draft EIS should compare the discharge to
WQS. Meeting WQS could be difficult with the high As levels. The draft EIS needs to
provide more discussion about the 40 mg/l of WAD CN. Is this a state standard or is
it a performance standard?.
The pit water will discharge sometime after 7 to 54 years. Why the wide range?
This would need to be permitted in an NPDES permit. Again, a comparison of the pit
WQ and effluent limits for mine drainage and WQS should be provided. Could be they
would have to treat it. How would that be done? This shouldn't be put off to the
future to figure out.
Reclamation
The reclamation plan is pretty sketchy but sounds quite conventional. We are
concerned that the plan calls for dewatering the tailings pond. A tough policy question
for EPA HQ (we have asked several times and don't get a clear answer) is how can
you dewater the pond and still comply with the zero discharge requirements for
process wastewater? Anyway, as with the pit water, how would the effluent compare
with WQS/NSPS? Would treatment be required?
Finally, there is no mention of how runoff would be handled during/after
reclamation. What's the potential for the soils cap over the tailings pond to erode,
exposing and perhaps eroding the tailings? Again, high flows and possibly perpetual
maintenance should be addressed.
Miscellaneous
From what we have seen of the layout of the project, we believe they have
done in the design about as much as possible to minimize the contact between
wastewater and surface and ground water. If the "conversion" issue comes up
(conversion of waters of the United States to a treatment system), we think one could
argue that the 404 permit for the tailings pond liner and the diversion channels would
effectively isolate the "treatment system" from any waters of the U.S.
We note also on p. 3-103 that the Buckhorn adit has pretty high As (.025 mg/l).
Is there a plan to capture this and route to the tailings pond? It's well above the
WQS/HHC. Perhaps the larger question is, does Ecology have a strategy for dealing
with the HHC for As when it comes to mining? It's a big issue elsewhere.
-------
Wetlands
EPA thoroughly reviewed the PDEIS regarding wetlands issues. If you have any
questions about these comments you can contact Linda Storm in our Wetlands
Section at (206) 553-2578. Ms. Storm reviews section 404 permits for a number of
types of projects in Washington state.
§404: Discharge of Dredge or Fill Material in Waters of the United States
The PDEIS addresses potential impacts to wetlands in terms of acreage and
function associated with the various alternatives fairly well. However, the majority of
impacts to waters of the U.S. which must be authorized under a §404 permit are to the
various creek systems and their associated riparian corridors (some of which are
comprised of wetlands). It is not clear in reading the PDEIS that the authors are clear
about the applicability of §404 to dredge and fill material disposal in all waters of the
U.S. Specifically, page 2-163 gives the impression that only a state waste discharge
permit applies to surface water discharges associated with the tailings impoundment.
§404 also applies, but specifically to any discharge of dredge or fill material (e.g.,
tailings and the associated construction of the tailings impoundment) to waters of the
U.S. inclusive of wetlands which are also surface waters. Thus all impacts to Marias
Creek, Nicholson Creek and other creeks (Gold Bowl Creek) must be addressed as
§404 discharges for which avoidance, significance of impacts to aquatic resources,
and compensatory mitigation measures must be addressed. The DEIS should be
clearly written to specify the extent of impacts in both lineal feat and acreage to all
creek systems associated with dredge and fill material disposal and resultant adverse
effects from such disposal. The extent of impacts to riparian corridors associated with
creeks should also be specified for purposes of evaluating adverse impacts.
Discharges of dredge or fill material into waters of the U.S. (including wetlands)
will result from (1) the mining operation itself (e.g., impacts to Gold Bowl Creek), (2)
the tailings impoundment (either Marias Creek or Nicholson Creek or a combination of
the two), (3) the dam and reservoir on Starrem Creek, and (4) miscellaneous road
crossings. The PDEIS does not clearly discuss the extent of impacts to Gold Bowl
Creek from mining operations, nor does it articulate the total lineal feet of creek
system that would be impacted for each of the tailings impoundment alternatives. In
order to adequately quantify the impacts for purposes of the §404 permit the lineal foot
distance of impact due to each tailings facility alternative should be provided. Also,
impacts to Marias Creek that would result from the placement of a collection system
downstream of a tailings impoundment needs to be addressed explicitly in terms of
lineal foot of stream that would be impacted.
-------
Chapter 2: ALTERNATIVES
General: Based on two field site investigations which we participated in during
FY 1993, it is our opinion that of the two creek systems which have been identified as
alternatives for the tailings impoundment, that the Marias Creek system would result in
less adverse impacts to waters of the U.S. than would the Nicholson Creek proposal.
The Nicholson Creek system has more associated wetlands, including sensitive plant
species within its headwater wetlands, and a gaining hydrologic regime. All impacts to
Nicholson Creek and its associated headwater wetlands should be completely
avoided.
Discussion of alternatives in the context of associated impacts in Chapters 3
and 4 indicate that Alternatives B, C, D, E, and F indicate that there will be some
direct fill and associated impacts to Nicholson Creek. This is inconsistent with the
discussion of alternatives in Chapter 2 which implies that alternatives B-F will only
involve placing the tailings impoundment in Marias Creek, avoiding impacts to
Nicholson Creek. This inconsistency should be resolved and impacts to Nicholson
Creek should be avoided entirely.
This is not to say, however, that impacts to Marias Creek from a tailings
impoundment and associated proposed water collection system downstream to Marias
Creek are not significant. While the system has been degraded to a certain extent by
cattle trampling, it contains a well developed riparian overstory and diverse plant
community understory in the upper reaches (observed during field investigation with
Springwood Associates representatives, October 1993).
Based on the information provided on the stream survey work {Chapter 3, )
Marias Creek is typical of 2nd order streams and may provide important spawning
habitat. The PDEIS concludes that the creek provides poor fisheries resource habitat
because it is predominantly comprised of riffles and devoid of pools and glides. This is
characteristic of steeper gradient, small first and second order creeks. Furthermore, it
is possible that emerging juveniles could migrate to lower portions of the creek or to
Toroda creek for rearing (pool) habitats. Therefore, while the ratio of pool-riffle-glide is
not good, the overall habitat potential for trout species should not be ruled out.
2.11.19: Discussion of Compensatory Mitigation for §404 Impacts
Proposed Mitigation Sites identified for impacts to wetlands are:
(1) Bear Trap Canyon (involves principally deforested patch riparian restoration)
(2) Nicholson Creek Headwaters (involves buffer provision and protection)
(3) "Frog Pond" (involves buffer establishment, preservation and some buffer planting)
(4) Pine Chee Springs (involves preservation of high quality spring fed forested
wetland and small creek relocation)
-------
EPA has been to each of these sites and through discussions with the Battle
Mountain Gold Company's wetland and §404 permit consultants (Springwood
Associates) am familiar with some of the concepts associated with each of these
areas. The following are general comments on my understanding of potential
"mitigation" measures associated with each of these locations and comments specific
to each:
(1) Bear Trap Canyon: This is a first order tributary to Marias Creek which has been
denuded from forestry practices in a patchwork network. The concept here would
involve restoration of a riparian corridor along the creek. We support this concept as
a means for replacing some of the lost functions associated with direct losses of the
Marias creek segment that would result from the tailings impoundment. However,
some kind of accounting system will be necessary to determine the credits to be
allocated for such restoration of an existing degraded creek system for the direct
losses of an intact stream and riparian corridor of a certain lineal foot length. We need
to be provided with the actual distance of creek and acreage of associated riparian
corridor that will be directly lost in order to determine what the necessary
compensatory mitigation debit will be. Providing functional replacement through
restoration of a degraded system for direct losses of a stream which is mainly in-tact
will potentially involve a significant ratio of compensation beyond the actual area of
creek system directly lost. There is not currently an accepted accounting system for
functional replacement of direct habitat losses. However, restoration of previously
degraded habitat is likely to be much more ecologically beneficial within a watershed
than attempts to create habitats as compensatory mitigation. In order to evaluate the
merits of this aspect of the compensatory mitigation proposal, more detailed technical
information on the system to be restored and the system to be impacted will need to
be provided in the context of an accounting system based on functional attributes.
Direct losses of stream habitat should be evaluated both from an acreage and
functional standpoint in order to determine the functional replacement credits that
would be necessary to compensate the losses. This is not necessarily an easy task.
(2) Nicholson Creek Headwaters: The concepts discussed here are to exclude
cattle, establish a buffer, and provide experimental manipulations to establish aspen
stands. We strongly recommend that all actions to protect and maintain the existing
headwater wetlands and hydrologic system to Nicholson Creek be taken and that no
encroachment to wetlands or proposed buffer be allowed. We are concerned about
the potential conflict between the use of portions of this system for part of the tailings
impoundment (Discussion of Alternatives B - E Chapter 4) and the goals of protection
of this system. This mitigative action as proposed would be primarily avoidance and
long term protection as opposed to "compensation" for direct wetland and stream
losses. The concept of conducting experiments to establish aspen stands and to
exclude conifer should be elaborated upon to provide enough information on whether
this will be advantageous or not. This concept could be detrimental to existing
vegetative communities that support emergent species. Further, the sensitive species
-------
within this wetland should be specified and no actions which could be detrimental to
such species should be undertaken as "mitigation" (e.g., hydrologic manipulation could
be detrimental).
(3) Frog Pond: We strongly support the protection of this system through avoidance
and establishment of buffers and cattle exclusion. In order to successfully attain goals
to protect this unique and highly productive wetland system maintaining the hydrology
will be important as well as maintaining the existing forested buffer. Establishing a
forested buffer in the currently bare portions would also be beneficial. We do not
recommend that direct manipulation to create snags via tree girdling be done.
We do strongly recommend that a minimum 150 foot buffer (up to 300 feet) be set
aside in perpetuity to ameliorate adverse impacts from future forestry and other
activities.
(4) Pine Chee Springs: This proposed mitigation site is located on a tributary to
Myers Creek. The concepts proposed are to preserve a significant existing forested
wetland and to re-locate the small stream. We support the protection of this unique
wetland and associated creek system. We understand from our site visit that the
stream re-location concept is proposed to compensate impacts associated with
Myers/Starrum Creek reservoir project. While we are not opposed to the proposed
lower portion of the creek re-location, the actual overall benefits to the system and/or
species impacted by the reservoir are not explicitly clear. With out clarification it is
difficult to evaluate the merits of this proposal in the context of compensatory
mitigation. This should -be elaborated upon in a detailed compensatory mitigation
plan.
With the exceptions specified above for the Nicholson Creek and Frog Pond
areas, the mitigative concepts are appropriate for the areas selected. However, it is
not at all clear at this point how these concepts at each of these location will directly
offset the direct and indirect impacts to Marias, Nicholson and Myers/Sterrum Creeks
and associated wetland and riparian areas, and the species they support, as well as to
other miscellaneous wetlands that will be impacted from roads, power lines, etc. A
clear accounting system based on acreage, lineal feet, and a functional attribute
assessment (using HEP, WET and/or other methodologies) will be necessary to
evaluate the adequacy of compensatory mitigation for actual losses of waters of the
U.S. The biggest concern we have at this time is the with the lack of specificity on the
extent of impacts to stream corridors that will result from the project.
2.12 Monitoring Measures
Page 2-157: There needs to be a detailed monitoring plan for all aspects of
mitigation (protection and restoration). Ideally, all monitoring requirements for all
permits and their associated conditions should be included in one manual such that
the facilities operator could ensure monitoring was conducted and that employees
-------
8
were adequately trained about avoiding impacts to sensitive areas and mitigation sites.
For the §404 permit, monitoring will be necessary at both restoration and
preservation/protection sites. Monitoring should include (but is not necessarily limited
to):
(1) Monitoring of vegetation establishment for wetlands and riparian corridors: inclusive
of plant species colonization, plant survival and vigor, and percent cover of canopy
established. Permanent vegetation transects should be established to document
baseline conditions and to monitor changes in community composition and structure
over time after restoration actions have been implemented.
(2) Monitoring of wildlife and fish use (where applicable)
(3) Monitoring of water quality and quantity in preservation/protection areas
(4) Monitoring of instream characteristics (for Bear Trap Canyon and Pine Chee
Springs) to assess attainment of increased functional attributes. Monitoring stream
habitat and stream communities should be based on comparison to baseline
conditions to assess increase in function for specified attributes over time. For
instream monitoring we recommend the protocols established in Region 10 In-stream
Biological Monitoring Handbook: For Wadable Streams in the Pacific Northwest
(Hayslip 1993) be used. This handbook provides a number of metrics which represent
a combination of structural and functional attributes that can be monitored to assess
change of in-stream condition. These methods (or equivalent) should be used to
establish baseline conditions and to monitor change over time following restoration.
2.13 RECLAMATION MEASURES
Comments specific to Chapter 2: pages 168-173, and 177-178
While the proposed revegetation and plant species proposed for reclamation
appear to be consistent with the goals to "return the disturbed areas to a stabilized
and productive condition" following mining and milling activities, the proposed species
are not consistent with the intent of NEPA to ensure protection of biodiversity. The
proposed species selected reclamation are invasive species (Dactylus glomerata,
Bromus sp.}. While they may be desired for their ability to rapidly colonize and
stabilize soils and are typical for grazing practices, they will tend to out compete native
species that remain. We strongly discourage the planting of invasive forage species
for either reclamation or mitigation work and also discourage use of straw mulch which
can additionally introduce non-native or invasive species (such as Phalaris
arundincea). Native species to the area should be used. The proposed reclamation
seeding and plantings along with other activities associated with the proposed mine
and the cumulative effects of forestry practices all contribute to cumulative impacts and
-------
loss of biodiversity. Therefore, where ever feasible it is imperative to conduct
reclamation and restoration work in such a way as to restore native systems.
Chapter 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Page 3-60: As noted above, we are concerned with the potential direct and indirect
impacts to the 9-acre high quality wetland system at the headwaters of Nicholson
Creek. We strongly recommend all measures to avoid impacts to this system be
pursued further. Impacts associated with direct impacts from various alternatives
should be clarified (again there is inconsistency between Chapters 2 and Chapters 3
and 4). Also, more detailed discussion should be provided on the potential impacts to
this system due to hydrologic alteration and operations and the mine site. The
following questions need to be clearly addressed: How close will direct mining
operation be to this wetland/headwater system? Will the tailings impoundment be
partially placed in this wetland system? How will the hydrology of this system be
altered? What are potential adverse effects to the wetland and Nicholson Creek due to
hydrologic alteration and impacts? etc.
Page 3-61:Marias Creek: Please provide (in Chapter 4) a clear indication of how
much Marias Creek (in miles or linear feet and in acreage) will be directly displaced by
the various tailings impoundment alternatives. Impacts to downstream functions as a
result of hydrologic modification, loss of habitat, and due to disturbance should also
be evaluated. In addition the area of direct and indirect impact caused by the
proposed water collection system below the tailings impoundment must be explicitly
addressed for each proposed tailings impoundment location alternative.
3.12: VEGETATION/WETLANDS
This section provides clear, useful information. However, there are some
discrepancies. We suggest that native vegetation plant communities be used to
establish reference condition for which to direct reclamation and restoration re-
vegetation work.
3.12.2 Wetland Plant Community
Page 3-115: Paragraph 3 indicates there were only 46.85 acres of wetlands
identified in the Project and adjacent areas. This is inconsistent with previous figures
given. Please verify correct acreage of total wetlands and correct this statement. In
order to provide detailed wetland plant community information for each of the
inventoried wetlands, both referenced delineation reports should be included as an
appendix of the DEIS for comment and review. It is hoped that these reports will have
plant species and soil type information per each wetland in addition to wetland size
and location
-------
10
Page 3-127: WILDLIFE
The sections which discuss riparian and wetland species is not all inclusive,
specifically with regard to amphibians and reptiles. The section on Reptiles and
Amphibians (page 3-141) is more inclusive.
When addressing impacts to various wildlife species using the Habitat
Evaluation Procedure (HEP), it is important to include the amount of Habitat Units
(HUs) within the Core and to determine both (1) the extent of impact; and (2) the
extent of mitigation that should be required. The PDEIS does not provide the number
of acres and habitat units for each species discussed. We assume the DEIS will have
this information clearly specified. Once this is done, is it the intent of the Forest
Service to identify the extent of HUs in order to determine what the necessary
mitigation should be in HUs? If so, we suggest using this approach for target species
assemblages for various wetland and riparian areas that will be impacted. This
method for habitat used by particular species, in conjunction with the assessment of
baseline conditions of stream and wetland conditions could be used to develop the
units of compensatory mitigation required to replace functions lost due to wetland and
riparian habitats losses associated with the project. Species assemblages for wetland
and riparian habitats would need to be agree upon by WDW, WDF, USFWS, Ecology,
EPA and others involved in developing the proposed compensatory mitigation for
wetland and riparian habitat impacts.
3.15: FISHERIES
Are there fish species in addition to brook and rainbow trout which utilize the
creek systems within the project area? If so, why is there no information on non-
game/non-commercial fish use? Shouldn't stream surveys be conducted to identified
all potential species use and/or community composition?
Page 3-172: Please refer to earlier comment above regarding our concern that Marias
Creek may provide some important habitat for spawning activity even though the
presence of pools is very low. Please address the possibility of use for spawning in
this 2nd order system with juvenile trout rearing occurring lower in the system (e.g.,
Toroda Creek) where there is more pool habitat.
Chapter 4: CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSAL AND THE ALTERNATIVES
Please note that many of the above comments relate to the discussion of
impacts/consequence of the project to wetland and riparian systems. These
comments should be addressed where they best fit within the text of the DEIS. It may
be more logical to discuss mitigation efforts associated with various alternatives within
Chapter 4 as opposed to Chapter 2 as well.
-------
11
Page 4-23: Alternative B: According to previous discussion and Table in Chapter 2,
this alternative should not have any tailings located in Nicholson Creek. Refer to our
above concerns and recommendations. This comment applies to Alternative E as
well.
4.8 Surface Water: It should be clarified here that the discussion on "zero discharge"
only applies to effluent discharge from the tailings facility once it is constructed. If this
is the cased, it must be clearly demonstrated how such "zero discharge" shall be
obtained. If the discussion is not restricted to effluent discharge from a constructed
tailings facility, it is not at all true to say that the facility will be "zero discharge,"
because discharge of tailings (fill material) to the creek under §404 is a pollutant
discharge. It should also be clearly demonstrated how such "zero discharge" shall
really be obtained and how instream water quality standards shall really be met.
Wetlands and Streams are surface waters. As noted above, there is no discussion of
direct impacts/losses of habitat due to §404 discharges to creeks due to the tailings
impoundment, the mining itself (Gold Bowl Creek), and the darn and reservoir
construction with associated water withdrawal impacts from Myers Creek. These
impacts need to be clearly addressed under Surface Waters (as well as other
sections).
Page 4-47, last para.: Mention of reduction of surface flow to the "frog pond" is given
in association with a proposed sediment control facility structure that is part of the
North waste rock disposal site under Alternative B. Potential impacts to amphibian
production due to hydrologic alternation should of the pond should be clearly
addressed. Measures under all alternatives to avoid impacting the hydrology of the
frog pond should be selected. More detailed baseline hydrologic information on the
frog pond should be provided if it has not already been gathered. Baseline hydrologic
data will be necessary to monitor the frog pond and any potential adverse effects
associated with mining or forestry operations.
4.10.2 EFFECTS COMMON TO ALL ACTION ALTERNATIVES
Page 4-59: Tailings Disposal
Why is a non-cyanide floatation process only considered with Alternative G??
Alternative G is not an option, as proposed, from a §404 permitting standpoint due to
proposed tailings impoundment in Nicholson Creek and waste rock disposal in the
"frog pond". However, a non-cyanide floatation process option would definitely benefit
water quality and reduce adverse ecological impacts. Therefore, a non-cyanide
floatation process should be considered with all other alternatives which pose less
environmental damage to wetland and aquatic resources.
Please provide EPA with a copy of the Tailings Disposal Facility, Final Design
Report, 19S3 by Knight Piesold.
-------
12
Page 4-60: Waste Rock Disposal. ~
Waste Rock Disposal should not be considered in wetlands or other aquatic
resource areas. Options which involve backfilling of waste rock to the mine are
preferred over permanent waste rock storage areas. More detail should be provided
on the proposed waste rock collection pond, specifically on design and location. The
disposal of effluent from this collection pond to Nicholson Creek could pose significant
adverse effects depending on the constituents of the water and the flows in Nicholson
Creek. Please address all potential water quality impacts associated with such
discharge. This would be part of and subject to a Washington State §402 mining
permit which addresses all applicable effluent limitations guidelines and toxicity
standards for mining operations.
4.12 VEGETATION/WETLANDS
Refer to previous comments regarding reclamation and restoration of native
species and native plant communities.
Page 4-91: Wetlands
This section indicates "that 61.54 acres of jurisdictional wetlands exist" in the
project area. Please correct with regard to above noted discrepancy. In other
sections a figure of 84 acres of wetland and riparian habitat is discussed. It is
important to provide accurate information throughout the text on wetland acreage
figures. It is also important to provide the information on riparian corridor impacts
(though they may not always be jurisdictional waters of the U.S.). Because riparian
systems functions very similarly to wetlands in many cases, it is EPA's policy to
address impacts to riparian areas as components of stream corridors and to try to
provide functional replacement where there are unavoidable adverse impacts. Thus,
impacts to riparian corridors is important in addressing overall impacts to streams and
creeks in addition to jurisdictional wetlands.
The statement: "Federal; policy for determining mitigation necessary to
demonstrate compliance with the Clean Water Act, Section 404(b)(1) guidelines,. . ."
does not just apply to wetlands. The §404(b)(1) guidelines requires mitigation for all
unavoidable adverse impacts to all waters of the U.S. Thus, compensatory mitigation
for this project needs to address adverse impacts to wetlands, streams, springs and
seeps, lakes, and ponds (and any associated impacts to such waters of the U.S.).
Please refer to previous comments to provide quantification and functional assessment
of impacts to all waters of the U.S. for purposes of the §404 analysis and review.
-------
0.3. Environmental Protection Agency Rating 3y*tem Cor
Draft Environmental Impact Statement*
Definition* and Follow-Up Action*
Environmental Impact of the Action
LO - - Lack of Objection*
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) review has not identified any potential environmental
impacts requiring substantive changes to the proposal. The review may have disclosed opportunities lor
application of mitigation measures that could be accomplished with no more than minor changes to the proposal.
EC - - Environmental Concern*
The EPA review has identified environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect
the environment. Corrective measures may require changes to the preferred alternative or application of
mitigation measures that can reduce these impacts.
EO - - Environmental Objection*
The EPA review has identified significant environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to
provide adequate protection for the environment. Corrective measures may require substantial changes to the
preferred alternative or consideration of some other project alternative (including the no-action alternative
or a new alternative). EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts.
ED - - Environmentally Unsatisfactory
The EPA review has identified adverse environmental impacts that are of sufficient magnitude that they
are unsatisfactory from the standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality. EPA intends to
work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. If the potential unsatisfactory impacts are not corrected
at the final EIS stage, this proposal will be recommended for referral to the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ).
Adequacy of the Impact Statement
Category 1 - - Adequate
EPA believes the draft EIS adequately sets forth the environmental impact(s) of the preferred
alternative and those of the alternatives reasonably available Co the project or action. No further analysis
of data collection is necessary, but the reviewer may suggest the addition of clarifying language or
information.
Category 2 - - Insufficient Information
The draft EIS does not contain sufficient information for EPA to fully assess environmental impacts
that should be avoided in order to fully protect the environment, or the EPA reviewer has identified new
reasonaby available alternatives that are within the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which
could reduce the environmental impacts of the action. The identified additional information, data, analyses or
discussion should be included in the final EIS.
Category 3 - - Inadequate
EPA does not believe that the draft EIS adequately assesses potentially significant environmental
impacts of the action, or the EPA reviewer has identified new, reasonably available alternatives that are
outside of the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft BIS, which should be analyzed in order to reduce
the potentially significant environmental impacts. EPA believes that the identified additional information,
data, analyses, or discussions are of such a magnitude that they should have full public review at a draft
stage. EPA does not believe that the draft EIS is adequate for the purposes of the National Environmental
Policy Act and or Section 309 review, and thus should be formally revised and made available for public comment
in a supplemental or revised draft EIS. On the basis of the potential significant impacts involved, this
proposal could be a candidate for referral to the CEQ.
* Fre"» EPA Manual 1640 Policy and Procedures for the Review of Federal Actions Impacting the Environment.
February, 1987.
-------
CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE COLVILLE RESERVATION
COMMENTS ON
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
CROWN JEWEL MINE
OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON
August 29, 1995
Joint Lead Agencies:
USDA Forest Service
Okanogan National Forest
Tonasket Ranger District
Washington State Department of Ecology
Submitted by:
Maurice Socula
Environmental Coordinator
Stephen Suagee
Reservation Attorney
P.O. Box 150
Nespelem, WA 98841
Summary: The Colville Confederated Tribes strongly supports
Alternative A, th.e No Action Alternative. These comments consist
of a general statement by the Reservation Attorney of the legal
status of the Tribes in relation to the lands and resources in
the proposed project area (which affects decisions to be made by
both the federal and state lead agencies), and of the special
management and planning duties imposed on the U.S. Forest Service
as trustee of the Tribes' federally protected rights. The
general statement is supported by comments of the following
tribal government programs and departments: Fish and Wildlife
(separate comments of Fishery and Wildlife Biologists);
Environmental Trust (separate comments of Department
Director/Water Administrator, Hydrologist, and Environmental
Health Specialist Chris Young); Cultural Resources Board.
-------
Office of the Reservation Attorney
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation.
*»• ,)-.*.. , P.O. Box 150
A,.,,,j.,...OH,.,M.,*,,, Nespelem, Washington 99155
v.,..,,,,,„,,.,„ c.*,,,^ (509) 634-8892 - 8895, 634-8581
Ai.., c su,. A,t«,,,y or 634-8834
M.C,,*, T,,,O,. AHorncy Telefax (509) 634-4116
December 16, 1994
Doug Clausing, Section Manager
Water Resources Program
Central Regional Office
Department of Ecology
3601 W. Washington
Yakima, WA 98903-1164
Attention: Phil Crane
Re: 20 Applications--filed by Battle Mountain Gold Company;
Objections to-granting the applications and" request for
extension "of-^comment "period ._ :"-- --.-
Dear Mr. Clausing-: ~~-=- _ ._ - _ .
As you know1, the .Battle Mountain Gold Company has-published
notice of twenty " (20 J-a^-ptications seeking permits -from:-the
Department of ^Ecology^fdr-various .aspects of the water^supply
plan for the'Crown-Jewel Mine on" Buckhorn Mountain^iThe-
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (the/.Tribes)
object to the .granting of.j;:any"--of these .applicationsi;un^i;l-. there
has been.an--opportunity..tolevaluate.-them in the contextSiof the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)", -.which we understand to be a
joint SEPA-NEPA undertaking of the Department and "the~-O+-S, Forest
Service. ' •••] =-:. :: - '-_.., =:I-..". _ ;
In addition, the notices provide for a .public comment period
of only 30 days i (duririg the-.winter" holiday season) /--imr.easonably
short notice for permits essential to a'-.project-of th'is
magnitude. Additional-time is necessary-to assemble=--ahd explain
the information relevant _to -thebribes' -objections, and we ask
that you .provide us": at "least"'sixty-, (60J "additional -days as a
matter-.of inter-governmental .cooperation. -.' : . -=...:„-
TheiCroyn. Jewel project area_is entirely within the North
Half of the C6lvillff-Heserya€igah.; -Under -the agreement between
the Tribes and the U.S. Congress,;.-..by,,"which the Tribes ceded
certain rights in the North HaTf'to "the United States, the Tribes
retain fishing and hunting rights throughout the North Half. The
U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that these tribal hunting and
fishing rights are protected by federal law. Antoine v.
Washington, 420 U.S. 194 (1975). Tribal members frequently hunt
and fish on the North Half (and their activities are regulated by
tribal ordinance) , and we are very concerned that no permit be
-------
approved unl.o:;:; ni-i i ntonanc-j 01 instiream Llowu and w.it
-------
COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES
CULTURAL RESOURCES BOARD
COMMENTS REGARDING THE FOLLOWING:
CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS OF THE CROWN JEWEL MINE
PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON
THE COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES ARE IN FAVOR OF ALTERNATIVE A:
NO ACTION
Listed below are cultural concerns regarding the Colville Confederated Tribes response to
the DEIS of the afore mentioned Crown Jewel Mine Project. In accordance with President
Clinton's Executive Orders (April 29, 1994) regarding "Government to Government
Relations with Native American Tribal Governments, as executive departments and
agencies undertake activities affecting Native American tribal rights or trust resources,
such activities should be implemented in a knowledgeable, sensitive manner respectful of
tribal sovereignty; and the Environmental Justice Action (12898) of February 11, 1994,
this Executive Order applies equally to Native Americans, specifically, with health and
environmental research; data collection, analysis and stakeholder access to information;
enforcement and compliance assurance; partnerships, outreach and communication with
stakeholders; Native American, indigenous, and Tribal programs; and integration of
environmental justice into all agency activities.
INTRODUCTION: (*insert. PAGE 2, LINE 2)
...""'NORTH-HALF OF THE COLVILLE INDIAN RESERVATION. OF WHICH
THE COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES HAVE RESERVED HUNTING-
FISHING AND WATER RIGHTS. ADDITIONAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND
HISTORICAL IMPACT STATEMENTS FROM THE COLVILLE CONFEDERATED
TRIBES ARCHAEOLOGIST TO BE PREPARED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE
NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION ACT. AND
THE NATIVE AMERICAN INDIAN RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ACT AND PRESIDENT
CLINTON'S EXECUTIVE ORDERS. ON A "GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT"
RELATIONSHIP. AND THE "ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ACT". COMMENTS OF
THE COLVTLLE TRIBES HISTORY/ARCHEOLOGY DEPARTMENT.
Table 1. Cultural Resources activities. Crown Jewel Mine Project. 1992-1994.
l
-------
TASK QUANTITY ESTIMATED RCENTAGE
AREA SURVEYED
Preparation of DOEs
Survey on Buckhorn Mountain
Survey of proposed water lines in
existing road rii»ht-of-wav
Survey of roads proposed for improvement
Survey of proposed Gold Creek Water line
Survey of water supply pump station
Survey of proposed storage reservoir
well field, water line, access road
Survey of Okanocan County PUD
substation and transmission line
9 sites
ca. 1,4
-------
More intensive studies must be made to determine the prehistoric and aboriginal
inhabitants cultural impacts to the immediate area of the Buckhorn Mountain from
Orovillc.
SEVEN SITES SUBMITTED TO OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC
PRESERVATION (OAHP). two sites recommended for inclusion in the NRHP (see below).
450K830 "HEE HEE STONE, A TRADITIONAL SPIRITUAL SITE OF THE
COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES; ...a grave site was not evaluated for significance
because of NRHP criteria guidelines. ALTHOUGH THIS STILL MUST BE AVOIDED.
THE COLVILLE TRIBES BURIALS MUST BE PRESERVED AND PROTECTED.
MINING PROPERTIES on Buckhorn Mountain were evaluated, and an eighth doe WAS
COMPLETED FOR RJEVIEW BY USFS. BLM AND OAHP (no mention as to the
integrity or features included as summarized in APPENDIX 1, not attached to this impact
statement
FIGURE 3. LOCATION OF EVALUATED BUCKHORN MOUNTAIN MINING
PROPERTIES.
CULTURAL RESOURCES INVESTIGATIONS MUST BE COMPILED FOR
PREHISTORIC AND THE HISTORIC HUNTING-FISHING-WATER RIGHTS OF THE
COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES.
THERE IS NOT A MAP OF ;THE COLVILLE TRIBES TRADITIONAL-CULTURAL
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CAMP SITES, BURIAL SITES, HUNTING-FISHING. WATER
RIGHTS SITES. NOR A COLVILLE TRIBES FISH AND WILDLIFE.
WATER/HYDROLOGY SURVEY.(OR MAPS) REQUIRED BY LAW.
BACKGROUND RESEARCH
Environment
This area does not adequately describe the watershed or drainage and topography of
entire project area relative to fish and wildlife habitat ground/surface water, and cultural
concerns of the affected tribes. The tribes live off the land, air and water, without, these we
are nothing. Clean land, for the food it provides; clean air for all to breathe, and survive;
the clean water of which all resources and human kind subsists upon. The MOTHER
EARTH MUST NOT BE DESTROYED.
3
-------
Human Factors
This section (iocs not include the reserved traditional culture of the Colville Confederated
Tribes prior to 1892; the Indian Allotments, and Hunting-Fishing and Water Rights of the
Tribes. Tribes buried their dead where ever they camped therefore, burial sites must be
preserved and protected in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act Religious sites for vision quests were not made known to others due to
the sacredness of each site; thus, the Native American Indian Religious Freedom Act
preserves this right.
Ethnology and Prehistory
COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES/BANDS ETHNOLOGY AND PREHISTORY
MUST BE EXPANDED UPON IN THIS SECTION:
Traditional territory of the Northern Okanogan Indians; Orovilie a former camp site, a
salmon fishery and camp site, and a religious and ceremonial-vision quest site on
Buckhorn Mountain from the highest point. Fishing was more for subsistence, than
economic reasons; as the Okanogan Band of the Colville Confederated Tribes lived off the
land, food gathering, with the seasons.
History
COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES HISTORY MUST BE INCLUDED PRIOR TO
THE WHITE SETTLEMENT. MINING LEASES. ETC. THIS AREA. COVERS
MINING HISTORY.
BACKGROUND RESEARCH
CULTURAL RESOURCE INVESTIGATIONS BY AHS IN 1990, SHOULD HAVE BEEN
IN ACCORDANCE WITH PRESIDENT CLINTON'S EXECUTIVE ORDERS "ON A
GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT BASIS" AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE EXECUTIVE ORDERS WITH THE COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES.
FIELDWORK
Field Survey work should include entire project area (100%)., 450K361 site of an open
camp and burial area, 14 shovel test holes, must be expanded to more shovel tests.
-------
SUMMARY: THE COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES AGAIN RECOMMEND
THE "NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE, TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT THE
CULTURAL AND NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE TRIBES ABORIGINAL LAND.
LAND WHERE OUR ANCESTORS ARE BURIED, CAMPED, GATHERED FOOD
(DEER-FISH-BEAR-ROOTS-BERRIES-MEDICINES, ETC.) AND WHERE THE
WATER NOURISHES ALL THE CREATURES. PLANTS AND TRIBAL MEMBERS.
-------
Colville Confederated Tribes
P.O. Box 150 - Nespolem, WA 99155
(509)634-4711
ENVIRONMENTAL TRUST PROGRAM
Memorandum
DATE: August 16, 1995
TO: Maurice Socula, Environmental Protection Coordinator
FROM: Walt Hunner, Hydrologist
RE: Review of Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
Crown Jewel Mine, Okanogan County, WA
The following comments are in response to review of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Crown Jewel Mine,
Okanogan County, WA. Specific attention was given to the sections
on surface and ground water, water supply resources, wetlands,
and aquatic resources.
A. Water Quantity
la. The DEIS estimates that stream diversions, pit dewatering,
reduced infiltration due to loss of soil and vegetation in
activity area, and interception of overland flow will reduce
surface flows by stated percentages. Water depletion for
each stream should be quantified. Also, values or uses for
which a stream resource is to be managed should be
identified and established, and the necessary flow regimes
(instream flows) should be quantified and protected.
b. The DEIS includes mean annual flow and mean annual peak flow
data for all streams in the project area using regionalized
regression equations. Hydrologic quantification should
include analyses of low flows, high flows, "normal" monthly
flows, and monthly or daily flow durations. It is often
practical to quantify normal flows in terms of average
median or mean daily flow by month; mean, minimum and
maximum monthly flows commonly are determined.
c. Minimum instream flows for fish were established by the IFIM
process for Myers Creek (which will have diversion for mine
reservoir). Minimum instream flows for fish and water
quality concerns should be determined for all potentially
impacted streams.
-------
The impact: of reduced instream baseflows of local creeks due
to pit dewatering is understated in the DEIS. Decreasing
streamflows such that fish are impacted is illegal.
Also, quantified instream flows are necessary for water
rights litigation and any additional appropriations.
2. A hydrologic study should include a water budget analysis.
This procedure was not done for the area, and the data
necessary to support a water budget, including precipitation
and evapotranspiration, was not collected.
3. Also, the following concerns were not adequately addressed:
a. the effects of blasting a 400 foot deep pit into an aquifer
that supplies five creeks in the area. Data is insufficient
to evaluate impacts, including pit dewatering, to ground and
surface water flow regimes.
b. the effects of 25 to 30 % reductions in Myers Creek flow on
aquifers and wetlands.
c. anticipated impacts to drainages east of Buckhorn Mountain
(needs expansion).
d. assessment of the impact of additional people -in area (due
to new jobs) on water quantity (availability) and quality.
B. Water Quality
1. to state that acid or toxic spills "could cause acute short-
term water degradation" is misleading; acid and heavy metals
leaching and contamination of the groundwater system and
creeks it feeds could persist for many years; an accumulation
of low level contaminants over time could adversely impact
aquatic resources and water usage.
2. the validity of surface water quality data is in question as
no QA/QC data is presented in the DEIS.
3. other water quality concerns require further investigation:
a. the effect of storm water runoff from waste rock piles on
surface water quality including sediment loading is not
completely addressed; sedimentation from site development
activities would be common to all action alternatives and
needs to be quantified (sediment yield budget).
b. commonly occurring chemical compounds (e.g. nitrates and
phosphates) that affect aquatic health and water use need to
be identified and quantified. Nutrient loading and sediment
loading are concurrent events (some parameters are delivered
to water courses by attachment to sediment particles).
c. some ambient water quality conditions were characterized,
but the impact and long-term effects of low or reduced
streamflows (baseflows) on temperature, dissolved oxygen,
bacteria, and other parameters needs to be identified and
assessed.
4. other landscape positions besides headwaters of streams
should be evaluated for potential tailing sites; the
engineering design for ponds / tailing impoundments is not
clear; the use of Nicholson Creek as a mixing zone for
dilution_of heavy metals and Marias Creek as a tailings
underdrain to collect leaks and recycle contaminated water
-------
to Che mill has negative environmental connotations.
5. the section on reclamation monitoring needs more detail;
monitoring measures for ground water and surface water are
addressed but need further development- water resource site
monitoring should continue for the long-term in order to
evaluate reclamation success following a mining operation.
C. Wetlands
1. impact assessment of wetlands is vague, and a "low" rating of
effectiveness for wetlands function mitigation is a concern.
2. replacing quality wetlands with wetlands degraded by man's
activities is an unacceptable practice.
D. Other
Land status and water related maps in the DEIS only provide
information south of the international boundary. Hence some
watersheds are not completely shown. It is assumed, for
instance, that Myers Creek flows into the Kettle River. The
entire picture needs to be clearly presented in order to
facilitate the understanding and interpretation of certain
issues, such as potential impacts of water diversions and other
activities to downstream resources.
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PROGRAM
Colville Confederated Tribes
Memorandum
DATE: 29 August 1995
TO: Gary Passmore
Director, Environmental Trust Department
FROM: Chris Young
Environmental Health Program Manager
RE: Crown Jewel Mine Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS)
This proposed project of the applicant will have significant and
irreversible environmental health impacts, except for option A
(no project). It is extremely unfortunate that there is an
extremely abbreviated period of time in which to ascertain the
nature and extent of these potential environmental health
impacts. It is preferable that time be made available to conduct
computer searches of the literature, interviews with local health
officials, review patient charts, examine roadway crash and
injury data, obtain local health jurisdiction codes and
regulations, and make sanitary surveys of the proposed site. In
fact, the proposed site (site) probably has never received a
sanitary survey by a qualified environmental health professional.
This omission could result in an incomplete evaluation.
Inadequately addressed areas within the draft EIS include:
Ambient noise evaluations (1.10.6);
Sewage- disposal (2.2.23);
Solid waste management (2.2.24);
Motor vehicle injuries and fatalities (no assigned
section number);
Hazardous material management (no assigned section
number).
Specific areas for additional investigations follow:
AMBIENT NOISE EVALUATION
The draft EIS noise evaluations remain problematic. Many
-------
references to "WADOE" "allowable limits" are mentioned without
stating what these limits are, and with no procedure described as
to how an appropriate limit was selected. WADOE "limits for
residential areas" may be appropriate rather than the lower
limits such as for rural or wilderness areas, but in any event a
method should be shown as to how the limit was selected.
The levels modeled have used the measurement of noise in decibels
(Db) on the A scale. The A scale is a scale weighted toward
speech frequencies, approximately 2000 Hz and may not be
appropriate for pure tone noise and impact noise. Pure tones
will be generated by fans, blowers, and other equipment, and
there will be a large component of impact noise at any
construction or mining site. In fact, a sound at 100 Hz such as
that produced by a rock being dumped into a truck bed will be 30
Db louder if it is measured on the relatively linear C scale
rather than the A scale. Although this 100 Hz tone may not cause
hearing damage in a test subject, using the A scale will make the
noise "quieter" than it actually is for the purpose of comparing
it with ambient noise levels. I feel the Draft EIS overall
evaluation that the ambient noise levels will be relatively
insignificant is incorrect.
The Draft EIS statement in 4.13.5 that using half of the quarry
equipment proposed under other alternatives would produce 3Db(A)
lower sound pressure levels is only correct if the sound levels
produced are very low, approximately 60Db(A) or less. Of course,
3Db(A) is a dimensionless unit which describes a doubling (or
halving) of a measured sound pressure level. In fact, if four
pieces of equipment operating together all produce lOODb(A),
eliminating two of these machines will still result in a sound
pressure level of 100Db(A).
In 4.13.1 proponent states "If noise levels are above regulatory
limits within the confines of specific work areas, protective
hearing apparel would be worn by employees in these areas. The
MSHA (Mine Safety and Health Administration) regulations related
to hearing conservation are identical to OSHA (Occupational
Safety and Health Administration) regulations in that requiring
exposed employees to wear personal protective equipment is a
"last resort" of hearing protection after engineering and
administrative controls fail to reduce a noise overexposure.
Applying these engineering and administrative controls will
result in additional equipment being on-site, a greater
maintenance load and larger industrial hygiene staff, and
possibly will have other effects. In effect, a hearing
conservation program will have to be in place with its attendant
manpower requirements. It sounds as if the proponent has not
planned for this impact.
SEWAGE DISPOSAL
-------
Preliminary engineering evaluations should be made, and
calculations shown, for the proposed on-site sewage disposal
systems. The mill facility, shop complex, and likely other sites
(anywhere humans are) will generate wastewater and the proponent
proposes using "leach fields" for this waste. It should be shown
exactly where the systems are proposed to be constructed. It may
not be possible to comply with county regulations regarding
sewage disposal at one or more of the proposed areas.
SOLID AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL MANAGEMENT
Section 2.2.24 is incomplete. The amount of solid waste to be
generated by the proposed project, from all alternatives, all
personnel and their families, support staff, contractors,
visitors, and all other potential contributors should be
calculated and stated, with justifications for the calculations.
The siting of solid waste disposal facilities off site is
extremely problematic. The existing solid waste disposal site
proponent proposes to use was engineered for a life span suitable
to the local environment without the contribution of proponent's
project. This project is large enough, and enough personnel will
be brought into the area such that the life of the landfill site
will be drastically reduced. Proponent apparently feels that
local government and citizens should bear the cost of siting and
planning the solid waste facility to be used next, once the
existing site is no longer able to accept additional waste.
These accelerated costs of planning and siting the next landfill
should be described, with calculations shown. The proportion of
these costs due to proponent's project should be calculated and
described in detail.
Hazardous wastes, as defined by WA Department of Ecology
regulations, will be generated from this project. In addition to
process chemicals such as NaCN (sodium cyanide), maintenance
operations such as vehicle repair, plant maintenance and
operations, pesticides use and management, construction, and
possibly other operations can generate hazardous waste.
No descriptions and calculations are provided describing the
proponent's hazardous waste management plan. • In fact, no plan
has been presented. The amount of hazardous waste expected to be
generated should be described in detail and a plan presented for
its management, including waste stream management, methods for
reducing the quantity generated, on-site storage, transport
methods to be used, and disposal site(s) proposed. As in the
solid waste plan (above) the expected reduction in the life of
the hazardous waste disposal sites should be described, with
calculations shown. Again, hazardous waste disposal facilities
-------
are designed with an engineered materials acceptance rate, and
the affect of proponent's increase in this rate should be
described. Even more so than with solid waste sites, hazardous
waste sites are extremely problematic in siting, and proponent's
impact on the life of these sites should be calculated, with
statements as to how local governments and communities will be
compensated for the acceleration in siting permit costs.
Transportation-related hazardous material releases occur at a
rate described in actuarial tables. The projected materials
throughputs should be calculated for each of the hazardous
materials planned to be transported, how often, where, and the
quantities historically released during transport. Engineering
evaluations should then be made as to how these materials will be
contained and cleaned up, and the medical needs of any involved
patients. Local emergency medical facilities including ambulance
services, dispatch agencies, and trauma treatment centers should
be surveyed to determine their capability to concurrently treat,
say, 12 people with acute 95% body surface area sodium hydroxide
burns. The local ambulance services in the area are staffed by
volunteers, likely without adequate training and equipment for
responding to a new class of industrial and transportation
disasters. Proponent's plan to mitigate these impacts should be
described in detail.
MOTOR VEHICLE INJURIES AND FATALITIES
The draft EIS has preliminary data on the amount of vehicular
traffic generated by this project. The traffic calculations,
however, appear to be only for supply trucks for consumable
chemicals, steel balls, and other supplies. Many other sources
of vehicular traffic are reasonably foreseeable, such as the
proposed employee busses, contractors, regulatory officials, the
media, emergency vehicles, law enforcement and security vehicles,
families and visitors, tourists, sales staff making "cold calls",
pilot vehicles, nonscheduled deliveries such as UPS (United
Parcel Service), caterers, and likely other sources of traffic.
Vehicular fatality and injury rates can be expressed in a rate
per 100,000 miles traveled. For each one of the types of traffic
generated on the types of roads to be driven, in the weather
conditions historically expected, and during the time frames and
traffic density situations reasonably foreseeable, a fatality and
injury rate should be determined. It should be determined what
the normal percentage mix of who the likely victims/patients will
be: local citizens, employees, tourists, etc. It is unfortunate
but true that humans have not yet been able to avoid all traffic
crashes, especially on the roads of the type near the area of the
project. The EIS should state the expected fatality and injury
rates and incidences and how they will be mitigated
-------
The wear and tear on existing roadways will be enormous. the EIS
does not state how these roadways will be kept at their current
level of repair. If local government agencies are to conduct
roadway repairs financed through a higher tax base no statement
is provided as to how the roadways will be kept up while the
local governments "ramp up" their maintenance fleet and staff.
This increase in infrastructure maintenance equipment and
personnel will lag behind the roadway degradation by several
years. As roadways deteriorate there are additional vehicular
fatalities and injuries. These increases should be described,
calculations given, with methods for mitigation (if one can
mitigate a crippling injury or fatality).
-------
Colville Confederated Tribes
P.O. Box 150 - Nespelem. WA WI55 (509) 634-471
ENVIRONMENTAL TRUST DEPT. MEMORANDUM
AUG.15, 1995
TO: Maurice Socula
Environmental Coordinator
FR: Gary Passmore, Director
Environmental Trust
RE: Comments on DEIS for Crown Jewel Project
WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY:
p 2-105: Text does not describe in detail the water monitoring
program. It implies that it is not developed yet. When would the
monitoring system be developed, and what would be the frequency and
time period of monitoring? Who would monitor and how would quality
assurance/quality control be provided? Will there be an
independant advisory oversight committee? Have bioassays been
considered for monitoring?
p 2-109 and 111: Table 2.14 doesn't express fish habitat or
numbers loss impacts as a result of streamflow reductions. Habitat
loss is not expressed in losses of fish or fishing opportunities.
(See later comment under Indian Reserved Rights).
General comment regarding water management: There is no water
balance analysis presented in the DEIS to assess the impact of the
alternatives on various watersheds. There is no comprehensive
presentation of water management at the mine site on a mass balance
basis taking into account probable maximum storm events. No
hydrogeology on Meyers creek, the main source of water, is
presented. No analysis of impacts of transporting water from
Meyers Creek watershed to Toroda Creek watershed is presented.
What is the impact on water rights, and what's the safe annual
yield of this aquifer? Will indian lands in the Meyers drainage be
affected?
Watershed analysis and sediment transport modeling for the sub
watersheds affected is not presented. Soil erosion rates are
mentioned on 4-19 (table on 4-20) but are not translated into
sediment generation and the impacts of that increased sediment.
p 4-27 Doesn't speak to location of monitoring wells in relation to
groundwater velocities. Just installing them "downgradient" won't
insure timely detection of contamination and head changes. They
-------
must be located to detect contamination as soon as possible, not
after it has occurred for a number of years. Who has final
approval authority on the water monitoring plan?
In more than one section reference is made to low permeablility
glacial deposits. Due to complex deposition regimes these deposits
are neither anisotrophic or homogeneous and may contain units of
high permeability. Without extensive geotechnical evaluation they
cannot be relied upon as leachate barriers.
As regards ore stockpiling, the best method is to prevent the
leachate in the first place, rather than speculate about its
impacts. Ore stockpiles should be covered with tarps and underlain
by an engineered material of limited porosity. This is common
practice in ore processing facilities.
TAILINGS FACILITY:
P2-46 mentions allowing the water to evaporate at cessation of
operations. Evaporation will need to be induced. Drying of the
saturated tailings themselves will probably need to be induced as
well.
P4-30 Describes precipitation entering the reclaimed tailings mass.
There should be a capillary break installed to minimize this
possibility.
No mention is made of tailings dam(s) design. No crossectional
diagrams are presented of proposed tailings facility construction.
No plans are presented for tailings facility closure. The DEIS
Volume I and II text descriptions of tailings management are
sketchy at best. Given the history of tailings facility failures
at a local mine (Hecla, Republic) this is a gross oversight. Based
on the sketchy information provided there is no basis for
evaluating the alternatives presented. At a minimum the facility
should be double lined with a fully engineered dam(s), i.e., no
tailings material used as dam material.
Text makes reference to design of tailings dams to meet state
criteria. Will there be opportunities for independent evaluation
and public comment on the designs as the plans are developed?
Regarding Decomposition/Weathering of Rock:
Was fracturing and exfoliation of waste rock and pit walls due to
decompression taken into account? Are there examples of similar
lithologies removed from similar depths in old mines that could be
used as examples of what to expect decades into the future?
P4-35: What will be done to mitigate the exceedence of primary and
secondary groundwater quality criteria within the pit lake. Will
the water be treated? No mention is made of this.
-------
P4-52: What will be done to mitigate the permanent exceedence of
aquatic life criteria for Cd and Ag within the pit lake? Will the
water be circulated through filters?
WATER RIGHTS AND INDIAN RESERVED RIGHTS:
General Comment Regarding Proposed Water Supply and Water Rights:
No hydrologic/hydrogeologic evaluation is included for the Meyers
Creek Basin, the primary source of mine water. As a result it is
not possible to evaluate the potential effects of the proposed mine
alternatives on water rights appurtenant to Indian owned land.
Evaluation of impacts on ground water levels in the basin are
needed. The IFIM evaluation of Meyers Creek is a good method, but
it needs to consider impacts in the U.S. portion. The study
objectives concentrate on the Canadian portion and it is not
clearly stated what the dewatering impacts will be.
P4-56: A water right is not, strictly speaking, a "private
property right." It is a usufructory right held in a common public
resource subject to a variety of limitations such as amount, time,
and place of diversion and use. Non-consumptive uses are subject
to additional limitations. Water rights are issued subject to
existing (prior or senior) rights. Another distinction from a
private property right is that a water right can be lost by non-
use.
P4-57: Water right applications are not located on a map or by
other means. Water right requests are not related to project
alternatives which vary considerably in diversion duty volumes and
periods of use. All of the water rights applications are not
included in the list. This provides an inadequate basis upon
which to evalua te the impact of the alternatives.
Indian owned land is located (the SW1/4 Sec.4, T39N, R30E W.M.) in
the Myers Creek watershed. Additionally, Indian fishing rights
exist in the area. The BLM and Forest Service have a fiduciary
(trustee) reponsibility to protect these rights. No discussion of
this issue is presented in the text. If these rights are
determined to be impacted mitigation must be insured. In order to
protect these rights they need to be quantified, particularly as
regards fish and fish habitat loss. The IFIM analysis needs to be
done for all affected streams to quantify impacts.
Other Indian land is located throughout the area. The secondary
impacts related to population growth need to be evaluated. All new
housing in the area near the mine site will of necessity require
domestic wells. These wells will impact the Kettle and Okanogan
rivers.
According to the May 95 watershed assessments of the Kettle and
Okanogan drainages performed by the Department of Ecology both
Rivers have not been adequately meeting statutory instream flow
levels for some time. The Kettle River instream flows are
-------
typically are not met 50 percent of the time during the late summer
and fall. Okanogan statutory instream flows are not met on average
of 60 to 100 days per year depending on where you are in the
system. This is damaging the Tribes' fishery. Any additional
water rights granted for the Crown Jewel Project must be
conditioned to minimum flows, i.e., shut down in favor of senior
appropriators when flows are not met. The Forest Service and BLM
as trustees have a responsibility to see that this is adhered to.
Regarding alteration of surface water flows: The State of
Washington RCW 90 has prohibitions against wasting water. Drilling
a hole and leaving an unplugged artesian well is usually considered
a prohibited act. Are flows from abandoned mine workings also
considered prohibited acts under state law, and, if so, how will
this issue be dealt with?
-------
XJLVILUE I,"OIAN AGCNCY
- WASHINGTON
E A
TO:
Maurice Socula, Environmental Specialist
August 18, 15
FROM:
Maureen Murphy, Steve Judd & Carl Hruska, Wildlife Biologists i
SUBJECT:
COMMENTS ON CROWN JEWEL MINE DEIS
I.
General Comments
The proposed Crown Jewel Mine will affect tribal members and their ability to harvest fish and wildlife
for subsistence purposes on the former Colville Reservation North Half. Mining is an activity that in
general is not considered beneficial to fish and wildlife. Just how detrimental it turns out to be usually
hinges on the size, type and duration of the mining operation and the level of reclamation carried out
upon completion. It would be the rare case where site restoration would equal or exceed pre-mining
wildlife habitat values. Restoration efforts often fall short of these values and\or require long time
periods to be realized. We do not think that the negative effects on fish and wildlife resources of this
mine proposal can be fully mitigated to off-set the losses to fish and wildlife and subsistence over the life
of the mine (10 years, possibly 20).
Secondary impacts associated with an operating mine can equal or exceed the direct impacts of the mine
itself. The area will probably experience an influx of people to build the mining facility and/or work in
the mine or participate in reclamation efforts. There could also be an increase in people to provide
services for those people (and their families) directly associated with the mine. This means increased
housing developments which can physically displace wildlife and result in a loss of habitat. Habitat
quantity and quality is also reduced through increased disturbance and harassment. More demand is
placed on water and power supplies which can in turn impact fish and wildlife habitat. The increase in
the local population will also result in increased recreational demands. This leads to more pressure on
hunting and fishing resources as well as increased disturbance from berry picking, hiking, camping and
other outdoor activities.
-------
II. Specific Comments
The proposed mine will affect 11,000+ acres of habitat for both huntable populations of game as well as
•ion-game species. All of the action alternatives will result in habitat loss, particularly mature and old
growth forest. Furthermore, certain categories of habitat losses, e.g., deer winter cover, in at least
some portions of the core area will fall below the standards and guidelines required in the Okanogan
National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Loss of habitat will result in population losses.
Reduced numbers of subsistence wildlife will affect tribal members utilizing the project area.
Reclamation measures should focus on bringing all affected lands back to as close a pre-mining condition
as possible. There will be some unavoidable losses in site productivity; nonetheless, much can be done
if enough effort is put forth. On sites that are presently supporting forests, stocking rates of seedlings
should be at levels that reasonably ensure that a stand similar to the one lost to mining will be re-
established. Forested areas that will be adequately re-stocked during reclamation vary under the
alternatives, however under Alternative B, the Proponents proposal, none of the affected acres in the
mine footprint will be reclaimed to a fully-stocked forested condition. This is unacceptable.
Current road densities in the core analysis area coupled with additional roads for the mine are estimated
to be over 6 miles per square mile, which are exceedingly high densities which in turn impact fish and
wildlife in a variety of ways. Road closures during and after project completion will bring that figure
down to 4 miles which is an improvement but still too high. Many of the post-mining roads will be
open to administrative use only so there will be a decrease in vehicular access by other users to the area.
While this is a necessary reclamation effort which will improve habitat quality and wildlife use levels,
these measures will make the core area less attractive to some tribal members for subsistence purposes,
'hereby reducing tribal hunting opportunities in the area.
The proposed mine will affect about 11,000 acres of huntable lands in the project core areas, i.e., that
area associated with the pit, facilities, roads, traffic, etc. This loss, coupled with increased "No
Trespassing" and "No Hunting" signs on private lands due to more people in the Orville-Chesaw-
Tonasket area, could also decrease tribal member opportunities to hunt and fish in the general area.
The proposed mine will result in an increase in local/regional human population. This population
increase may be good for economic benefits to some, but will increase the competition for local
harvestable wildlife and fish and affect subsistence use of tribal members. According to predictions
given under the various alternatives, hunting and fishing pressure will increase 9%-27% over existing
levels. This is on top of the 14.5% estimated increase due to anticipated population increases in the
recreation study area without the proposed mine.
The 1991 tribal deer harvest levels of 39 hunters and 28 deer on page 3-151 of the DEIS are incorrect.
We suspect these figures are misinterpretations of the hunter report card returns presented in the tribal
North Half deer harvest report for that year. At present, we do not have any deer harvest estimates for
the 11,000 acre project core area. We do know that tribal members hunt both the project analysis area
in general and the core area specifically, based on verbal accounts and hunter report card returns.
-------
We do have harvest estimates for Game Management Unit (GMU) 206 which encompasses the proposed
mine site, the core analysis area and the U.S. portion of the project analysis area. GMU 206 is
Bordered on the north by Canada, on the east by the Kettle River and Toroda Creek Road, on the south
jy State Highway 20 and on the west by the Okanogan River and Lake Osoyoos. Projected tribal deer
harvests for GMU 206 from 1977-1994 have ranged from 80-385 animals, with an 18-year average of
160 head. The projected harvest for the 1991 season is 219 head. The Tribes portion of the combined
harvest (Tribal -I- State) from 1980-1994 for GMU 206 ranges from 9% to 37% with an average of
23%. Over the past 10-years, both Tribal and State harvests have generally shown an increasing trend
with the State harvests exhibiting a greater degree of increase and a more consistent trend. The
projected 1991 tribal harvest for GMU 206 was 219 head which comprised 22% of the combined harvest
for that unit.
Increased traffic from local and regional population centers to staff and service the mine will increase
wildlife/vehicle collisions. The disturbance to wildlife populations by the operation of this mine may
result in stress to these populations, negatively affecting reproduction, reducing huntable populations of
game and affecting the subsistence use by tribal members.
The transport and storage of fuel, 189,000 gallons of diesel and 2,500 gallons of unleaded gas, by
accident or carelessness, could find its way into the groundwater or surface water and become a hazard
to aquatic life and human life. The transport and storage of chemicals, if accidently spilled, could
poison fish and wildlife and human alike.
Tailings ponds and collection ponds can attract migratory birds and result in bird and other wildlife
deaths. Destruction of cyanide in these ponds may appear to be at acceptable levels, however the pH in
\ birds digestive system can cause what was considered to be non toxic to be toxic.
Tailings ponds in the head of drainages is not a very good idea. Leaks in liners and/or structural
failures in the dam can result in the transport of toxic materials, including trace elements, into ground
and surface waters. These elements can result in fish and wildlife deaths and affect the human
population too. Upwelling of ground water in a stream system, if it contained contaminants or toxic
elements could effect fish reproduction, since upwelling of groundwater often occurs in gravels where
fish spawn.
We also have some concerns in regards to using deep wells to monitor cyanide migration into
groundwater. According to B. Albrechtsen et. al.: "While this may provide useful information to
research, if contaminated water is detected in the area, the problem will already be too advanced to
solve."
The storage reservoir for water is in the Starrem Creek drainage, west of Meyers Creek. If this
reservoir fails, sediments will be deposited in Meyers Creek and could affect fisheries in both the U.S.
and Canada. Meyers Creek, from Mary Ann Creek to the Canadian Border is a water/shoreline of the
State. How can putting structures in this creek and or across this creek be consistent with the Shoreline
Management Act?
-------
Jerry Marco also has a few additional comments although he has not had yet had the opportunity to add
them here. He would like to provide those comments early next week if possible. Please contact us is
if you have any questions about our comments.
Sources Referenced
1. B. Albrecthsen, et. al.. 1987. Intra-agency report/recommendations on mine land reclamation
efforts. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, U.S. Forest Service, Logan, Utah.
5pp.
2. Judd, S.L., and M.A. Murphy. 1977-1994. Tribal North Deer Harvest Reports, Fish and
Wildlife Dept., Colville Confederated Tribes, Nespelem, WA.
-------
tU I KlbtCS Ul- I ML! ^WL-V IL_L_U. I \l_0l_l \ V
OFFICE OF THE RESERVATION ATTORNEY
•ii.•.-.••.'. •'•ll;ni>.-y - bj'2
H.;. H ->i;,g.-e. Aitorney - 8313
:.•_•!' Taylor. Attorney - 581
BUMIIIO CarcJi.-ri, G<;cr.r.aiv - 5!;/j
"'•-•:) JV Circl'.-. Socreiar/ - 303
rjijr. £ jiistan: - C24
MEMORANDUM
To:
From:
Date:
USDA Forest Service
Okanogan National Forest
Tonasket Ranger District
Washington State Department of Ecology
Stephen H. Suagee
Reservation Attorney
August 29, 1995
Subject: Tribal Rights and Federal Trust Responsibilities in
Relation to the EIS Process for Crown Jewel Mine
The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, acting
through its federally recognized governing body the Colville
Business Council, has by the approval of Resolution No. 1995-529,
August 17, 1995, determined that the Crown Jewel Mine would cause
significant and potentially irreparable impacts to tribal rights
in the project area and adjacent lands. Accordingly, the
Colville Tribes supports Alternative A, the No Action
Alternative, as the only alternative that would prevent those
impacts. Moreover, the Draft EIS for this project does not
adequately recognize or evaluate these potential impacts, and
therefore the lead agencies may not proceed with any decision to
authorize the project in any form until the deficiencies in the
DEIS have been remedied.
As explained below, the Colville Tribes holds federal
reserved hunting and fishing rights in the entire former North
Half of the Colville Reservation, within which the project area
is located and within which many of the adverse impacts will
occur. The Tribes' fishing rights include federal reserved water
rights to instream flows sufficient to preserve fish populations
in all streams and rivers within the North Half. These water
rights have a priority date of not later than 1872, when the
Reservation was established. The DEIS fails to even mention
these tribal water rights, and does not adequately address the
instream flow requirements of creeks in the project area in
relation to the Tribes' water rights. This is of course relevant
to the Department of Ecology's role in approving water permits
and the overall water use plan for the Crown Jewel mine pursuant
to this EIS process. And it is of critical importance to the
trust responsibility of the U.S. Forest Service; as a federal
agency, the Forest Service is the trustee of the Tribes'_water
rights and other reserved rights in the North Half, and is held
to an exacting standard of care in its NEPA review of any project
-------
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation
Comments on DEIS, Crown Jewel Mine
August 29, 1995
Page 2
that may affect those tribal rights.
In addition to the potential to impair tribal water rights,
the Tribes is concerned that the DEIS discloses potential water
quality problems. Water quality adequate to preserve fish
populations is an element of the Tribes' reserved rights, which
the Forest Service must protect as a trustee.
The Tribes' hunting rights include the rights to gather
food, medicinal, and cultural plants. Again, the Forest Service
in its NEPA process is under a trust duty to identify how such
rights and natural resources may be affected by the proposed
project. There has been no inventory of plant resources that
could be affected by the project, and thus the Forest Service has
no way of knowing how the Tribes' rights in these resources may
be affected. Nor is it clear from the DEIS that impacts to
tribal hunting rights are adequately analyzed. The attached
comments of tribal wildlife biologists suggest that the DEIS has
misinterpreted tribal deer hunting data, that not enough is known
about the impacts to game species or tribal hunting
opportunities, and that consequently it is not possible to
develop an adequate mitigation strategy based on the DEIS.
A. ESTABLISHMENT OF COLVILLE RESERVATION AND RESERVED RIGHTS IN
THE NORTH HALF (Fishing, Water, Hunting, and Gathering
Rights)
The original Colville Indian Reservation was established by
Executive Order of July 2, 1872 issued by President Grant
pursuant to Congressional authorization. The original
Reservation encompassed over three million acres, all the lands
between the Columbia and Okanogan Rivers north to the Canadian
border. By Agreement of May 9, 1891, which Congress ratified,
the Colville Tribes ceded the North Half of the Reservation to
the United States, and the Reservation boundaries were reduced to
essentially- their current status. (Certain allotments were
retained by individual Indians within the North Half, some of
which are still held in trust for individuals by the United
States.) The 1891 Agreement expressly reserved hunting and
fishing rights on the North Half to the Tribes and its members
and provided that such rights "shall not be taken or in anywise
abridged."
The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the tribal rights
reserved in the 1891 Agreement as prohibiting the State of
Washington from in any way regulating tribal hunting and fishing
on the North Half. Antoine vs. Washington, 420 U.S. 194 (1975).
-------
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation
Comments on DEIS, Crown Jewel Mine
August 29, 1995
Page 3
Today the Tribes regulates hunting and fishing by tribal members
on the North Half in much the same ways as it regulates on-
Reservation hunting and fishing by tribal members, pursuant to
permanent ordinances and seasonal regulations enacted by the
Business Council and enforced by Conservation Officers and the
Tribal Court system.
The Antoine decision essentially recognizes that under
federal law the Tribes' hunting and fishing rights on the North
Half are exactly the same as the hunting and fishing rights of
the Tribes at the time when the North Half was still part of the
Reservation. The 1891 Agreement simply "reserved" some of those
rights to the Tribes at the same time that the land itself was
being ceded to the United States. These reserved rights are also
exactly the same as an of f -reservation treaty right; treaties
are simply those agreements between Tribes and the U.S. that were
entered into before 1871, when Congress stopped using treaties as
the mechanism for dealing with Indian Tribes so that both houses
of Congress (not just the Senate with its exclusive power to
ratify treaties) could be involved in the approval of the
agreements. One of Washington's unsuccessful arguments in
Antoine had been that the 1891 Agreement could not have the same
effect as a treaty to prohibit State regulation of tribal hunting
on the North Half.
The Antoine case was about regulation of hunting and
fishing, but there are other federal court decisions that clarify
the extent of the Tribes' reserved hunting and fishing rights on
the North Half. Perhaps the most significant element of the
fishing right is the associated federal reserved water right to
instream flows sufficient to preserve fish populations. United
States vs. Adair'. 723 F.2d 1394 (9th Cir. 1984). In the
case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded
that because the Klamath Tribe of Oregon had retained its treaty
hunting and fishing rights on Forest Service land (Winema
National Forest) that was no longer part of any Reservation, the
Tribe also held instream water rights sufficient to preserve fish
populations in streams within those lands. (Note that as the
title of the Adair case implies, the United States took that
position on behalf of the Klamath Tribe.)
The doctrine of federal reserved water rights (also known as
the Winters Doctrine) was first established by the U.S. Supreme
Court in a 1908 decision which determined that when Congress
created the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation in Montana, water
rights were impliedly reserved as of the date of the Reservation.
This effective date for the tribal water rights meant they had
-------
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation
Comments on DEIS, Crown Jewel Mine
August 29, 1995
Page 4
priority over non-Indian rights in the same basin that had been
recognized under state law after the creation of the Reservation.
Winters vs. U.S., 207 U.S. 564 (1908) Like many western states,
including Washington today, Montana at the time of the Winters
case followed the prior appropriation doctrine of water rights.
This principle means that the oldest, or most senior, water right
will be satisfied completely before any junior rights are even
partially satisfied. Thus the priority date of a Winters
Doctrine water right is crucial in times of shortage.
In the Ada_ir_ case, the federal appeals court determined that
the priority date of the Klamath Tribe's reserved instream water
rights was "time immemorial" because the Klamath Tribe had fished
on the Forest Service lands since aboriginal times. The Adair
decision is directly on point to the Colville Tribes' situation
on the North Half: Colville Indians have fished on what is now
the North Half since aboriginal times. The Tribes' instream
water rights for fish preservation have a priority date of time
immemorial, or in no case later than 1872, and are clearly the
senior water rights in the Crown Jewel project area.
The Tribes hunting rights are clearly recognized, although
the management implications of those rights at this point in the
EIS process are evidently not clear to the Forest Service. It
should also be noted that under well settled principles for
interpreting tribal rights, which were applied in the Antoine
decision, the Tribes' hunting rights on the north Half also
include the right to gather plants for food, medicinal, and
cultural purposes.
Based on the foregoing, it would obviously be incorrect to
conclude that simply because the project area is not located on
tribal land, no significant interests of the Tribes are
implicated by the proposed project. Newspaper accounts of the
August 17, 1995 public hearing in Oroville attribute such a
viewpoint to unnamed officials of both the Forest Service and the
Department of Ecology. And as demonstrated in the next section
on the Forest Service's trust responsibility, the Forest Service
has special obligations to understand the nature of the Tribes'
rights in the North Half and to make decisions consistent with a
proper understanding of these rights, something that it cannot do
if tribal land ownership is made the touchstone of the Tribes'
interest in the project area. The Colville Tribes desires to
work with the Forest Service and Ecology to address the need to
protect instream flows in the project area, as discussed more
specifically later in these comments.
-------
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation
Comments on DEIS, Crown Jewel Mine
August 29, 1995
Page 5
B. THE FEDERAL TRUST RESPONSIBILITY AND THE NEPA PROCESS
As basic as the law of reserved tribal rights discussed
above is the federal trust responsibility to protect and preserve
those rights and the natural resources subject to those rights.
This responsibility flows from the unique government-to-
government relationship between the United States and each
federally recognized Indian Tribe. All federal agencies, not
just the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the Interior Department, are
obliged to fulfill a trust duty to Tribes with respect to any
management activities within their authority that implicate
tribal rights. Covelo Indian Community vs. F.E.R.C., 895 F.2d
792 (9th Cir. 1990); Nance vs. EPA. 645 F.2d 701 (9th Cir.
1981).
Thus the Forest Service has a trust duty to the Colville
Tribes in the NEPA review and decisionmaking regarding the Crown
Jewel Mine. The above cited cases, as well as an extensive body
of Interior Department administrative decisions and legal
opinions, recognize that the trustee federal agency must treat
the natural resources subject to the reserved tribal right (fish,
timber, water, wildlife, etc.) as a tribal asset to be protected
under a fiduciary standard of care. The trustee agency must be
loyal to the interests of the beneficiary tribe. See for
instance, the May 8, 1991 decision of the Interior Secretary to
increase instream fish flows released into northern California's
Trinity River by a Bureau of Reclamation facility 70 miles
outside the boundaries of the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation;
the decision affirms the agency's overriding trust duty to tribes
to provide fish flows prior to any other use of project water.
In the context of environmental review pursuant to the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the trustee agency must
know what resources are at stake, and how the Tribes' unique
interests in the resource may be impacted, before any decision is
made to authorize a project. That has not occurred in this EIS
process with respect to instream flow water rights, adequate
protections for water quality, inventory of plant and
vegetational resources, and mitigation for impacts to habitat of
wildlife subject to tribal hunting rights. Such additional
review must occur before the EIS may be considered adequate. The
applicable standard of review is in part defined by the 1891
Agreement, which states that tribal rights in the North Half
shall not be abridged in any way.
-------
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation
Comments on DEIS, Crown Jewel Mine
August 29, 1995
Page 6
C. SUMMARY OF DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
This summary section is not intended to exhaust the concerns
identified in the attached comments from tribal programs, and the
lead agencies are urged to review all the program comments.
1. Water Rights. In view of the Tribes' instream water
rights, and the Forest Service's obligation to protect those
rights, IFIM and instream flow studies should be conducted of all
major streams in the project area, including Nicholson and Toroda
Creeks as well as simply Myers Creek. These creeks area all
targeted for new water withdrawals. In addition, the IFIM as
applied to Myers Creek needs to be expanded to insure that
channel maintenance flows are provided. Tribal Fishery Biologist
Jerry Marco's comments note that IFIM is not designed to
determine habitat conditions that may require peak flows for
maintenance. IFIM analysis without more may therefore make it
appear that the peak of the hydrograph (any flow in excess of the
spawning minimum) may be allocated to storage without adverse
fisheries impacts. The obstruction to fish passage on Nicholson
Creek should be analyzed from the standpoint of possible removal
and reintroduction of fish into the habitat that exists above the
obstruction.
The Tribes is very concerned that no water rights permits,
overall water management plan, or operating plan dependent on new
withdrawals of water, be approved until it can be determined that
such can be done without adverse impact to instream flows
adequate to preserve fish populations. As discussed above, the
Forest Service as trustee has an affirmative obligation to pursue
a course of action that will insure that such flows are
protected.
2. Water Quality. Both the Fishery Biologist and
Environmental Trust Director note that the DEIS predicts
permanent exceedence of toxic thresholds for Cadmium and Silver,
at least in the mine pit area. We also note that the applicable
standard for Cadmium errs on the side of increased hazard to fish
populations; given the federal trust responsibility, it would be
more appropriate to utilize an EPA rather than State standard for
Cadmium.
Note also the concerns set forth below and in the
departmental comments about the tailings facility.
3. Hunting Rights/Wildlife Habitat. As suggested in the
comments of tribal Wildlife Biologists, the DEIS does not
-------
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation
Comments on DEIS, Crown Jewel Mine
August 29, 1995
Page 7
adequately analyze the overall impact to wildlife habitat in
relation to tribal hunting rights and opportunities. Further
analysis is necessary to meet the Forest Service's trust
responsibility in the NEPA process.
4. Gathering Rights/Plant Resources. There is no
inventory of native cultural, medicinal, and food plants in or
adjacent to the project area. Thus it is not possible to know
whether there will be any impacts to such resources, whether
sufficient quantities may be available elsewhere on the North
Half, and what may be done to mitigate or eliminate any such
impacts. The Forest Service has an obligation to develop such an
inventory, and the Tribes would be happy to assist in developing
an approach to such an inventory and in commenting' on the
results.
5. Archaeological/Historical Resources. It has not been
possible to obtain the written comments of the Tribes' History
and Archaeology Department. This Department is responsible for
participating in the review process under Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act. The Department Director
advises that she has no record of any Section 106 consultation
having been initiated with the Colville Tribes.
D. CONCLUSION: MULTIPLE ACTIONS AND THE EIS PROCESS
The DEIS is not clear which agency actions and decisions
will be made pursuant to the final EIS. Evidently a Plan of
Operations for the mine itself is contemplated as one component
of any Record of Decision that may issue. There are several
major aspects of the project that are not sufficiently developed
in the DEIS to constitute a proposal for decision. For instance,
the tailings facility is proposed for a couple of alternative
locations. At the field trip on August 17, 1995, the Tribes was
advised that the Department of Ecology has proposed certain
design modifications that would eliminate underdraining of Marias
Creek, in order to develop a series of pools to facilitate
monitoring of water quality. In concept this appears to be a
sound idea, but there is no discussion of this in the DEIS and
hence the Tribe and public cannot understand or comment on how
this proposed modification may be connected to other aspects of
the tailings facility. In addition, as a result of the decision
in Washington Wilderness Coalition vs. Hecla Mining, 870 F.Supp.
983 (E.D.Wa. 1994), it would appear that an NPDES permit will be
required for the tailings facility; there should be clearer
discussion of this connected action.
-------
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation
Comments on DEIS, Crown Jewel Mine
August 29, 1995
Page 8
Another example of the lack of focus as to the action to be
authorized pursuant to the EIS is the brief statement that an
amendment to the approved Okanogan National Forest Plan may be
required. There is no discussion as to the nature and scope of
any possible amendment. The Tribes is concerned about the
potential for ad hoc modifications to Forest standards and
guidelines as needed to justify the impacts of the project. For
example, the DEIS notes that stream channel surveys have found
that stream channel embeddedness in Marias and Nicholson Creeks
already exceed current Forest Standards and Guidelines. See
attached comments of Fishery Biologist Jerry Marco.
The overall water plan for the mine has been the subject of
a separate permitting process of the Department of- Ecology. The
Tribes understands that final permitting has been deferred until
the final EIS is available, but again we are concerned that the
final plan has become something of a moving target.
In general, the final EIS should more directly identify the
agency decisions that will rely on it, so that the Tribes and
interested public can evaluate the extent to which impacts to any
legally protected interests have been properly reviewed in
advance and have not been subject to pre-determined
decisionmaking.
E. CONCLUSION
The Colville Tribes appreciates this opportunity to comment
on the DEIS. We urge the Forest Service as trustee of our
reserved rights to consider these comments carefully, and would
be pleased to further discuss our management concerns during the
coming weeks. This office would be happy to discuss legal
standards with the Regional Counsel's office, and in concert with
any consultation that you may choose to seek from the Interior
Solicitor. We urge the Department of Ecology as the water use
permitting authority to consider our reserved instream flow
rights carefully; we would also be pleased to work with Ecology
in the coming weeks to address the status of the water management
plan and its relation to the Tribes' rights.
-------
1ANDHJ
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Maurice Socula
Environmental Specialist
Jerry
Fishery Biologist
Comments on Crown Jewel Mine
August 25,
Here are some additional fishery related comments to incorporate with the Fish/Wildlife
comments you received last week.
The DEIS predicts through modeling, surface water quality conditions that will exist in the open
pit and compares the predicted heavy metal toxicity levels to Aquatic Life Criteria parameters. Model
results indicate a high probability of exceedence for cadmium chronic criteria and acute criteria for
silver. Both of these metals are highly toxic to fish at low concentrations.
Fish exposed to cadmium become hyperactive, followed by respitory distress and paralysis.
Cearly and Coleman(1974) found that the toxic effect of cadmium on the nervous system is consistent
with the metal's inhibition of the enzyme cholinestrease which results in paralysis of the respiratory
system. The greatest concentrations of cadmium in fish exposed to the metal are found in their gills,
kidney, liver and testes and apparently tissue residues reach equilibrium with cadmium concentrations in
water (Eaton, 1974). Research has shown that rainbow trout exposed to cadmium for 30 weeks and then
transferred to clean water for ten weeks lost some accumulated cadmium from gill tissues but retained
high levels in kidney and liver tissues. Wilson et. al.(1981), also found that cadmium concentrations in
livers of rainbow trout inhabiting a stream contaminated by acid mine wastes were closely correlated
with environmental concentrations. Wilson et. al.(1981) recommend that cadmium concentrations in
waters occupied by salmonids should not exceed 0,0004 mg/1.
Based on the research cited above, it appears that the Aquatic Life Criteria identified in the DEIS
will not be adequate to protect the fishery resources in the receiving streams if these standards are used
for monitoring. For example, the acute criteria for cadmium identified in the DEIS requires only
meeting concentrations of 0.0074 mg/1, much higher than research recommendations for salmonids of
0.0004mg/l. Further investitgations into water quality standards are needed as well as a specific
mitigation plan on how to mitigate for impacts to the affected fishery resources.
The expectation for instream flow needs during the rainbow trout spawning period is somewhat
-------
•for instream How needs of fish, however. IFIM derived fish Hows may play a key role in the
development of overall flow needs. The primary purpose of the predictive model used in IF1M is to
describe the relation between sireamflow and usable amounts of physical water column space. This is
particularly useful during late summer when low flow conditions exist, however, seldom will the model
restrict flows during moderate to high flow regimes, i.e. rainbow trout spawning period.
A method which examines both instream and out-of-stream flow requirements within a
streamflow management framework is needed. This method will look at flow requirements for riparian
habitat, floodplains and channel morphology, as well as those of fish. These requirements need to be
considered in any analysis of flow alteration since biotic conditions such as riparian habitat or long-term
fish community structure may depend on them.
The DEIS identifies short-term increases in sediment yield which could result in impacts to
fishery resources in Marias and Nicholson Creeks. Fishery surveys conducted in these streams have
found stream channel embededness to already exceed the current standards and guidelines of the
Okanogan National Forest. Further investigations are needed to determine what impacts will result to the
fishery resources as a result of further increasing stream channel embededness.
References :
Cearly, J. E., and R. L. Coleman. 1974. Cadmium toxicity and bioconcentration in largemouth
bass and bluegill . Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 11: 146-151.
Eaton, J. G. 1974. Chronic cadmium toxicity to the bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque).
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 103:729-735.
Wilson, D., B. Finalayson, and N. Morgan. 1981. Copper, zinc and cadmium concentrations of
resident trout related to acid-mine wastes. California Fish and Game 67: 176-186.
-------
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF MINES
Western Field Operation] Center
East 360 3rd Avenue
Spokane. Washington 99202-1413
August 16, 1995
Mr. Phil Christy
U.S.D.A. Forest Service
Tonasket Ranger District
1 West Winesap
Tonasket WA 98855
Subject: Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Crown Jewel Mine,
Okanogan County, Washington, June, 1995. (ER95/475)
Dear Mr. Christy:
We have reviewed the subject document and have made recommendations (enclosed) to the
Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon which are to be included in
the joint Department of Interior comments. We are forwarding you a complete copy of our
comments for your early consideration. If you have any questions about our
recommendations, please call us at (509) 353-2700.
Sincerely,
John R. Norberg, Chief
Branch of Engineering and Economic Analysis
Enclosures
-------
One of the primary concerns of the Bureau of Mines is the development of alternatives. The
only alternative, other than the proposed action alternative, which uses technology and
methods which would be practical from a perspective of mining efficiency or project
economics is Alternative E. Alternative C and D reduce estimated return on invested capital
by more than 25%; Alternatives F and G result in negative cash flows. Additionally, there
are no significant gains in other resource values from these four alternatives. We conclude
that only the proposed action (Alternative B) and Alternative E represent viable mining
options.
The EIS indicates the following general relationships and magnitudes of environmental
impacts on the various components of the local project environment.
Air quality no major impacts from any alternative
Geology no major impacts from any alternative
Soil no major impacts from any alternative
Ground water little impact
Surface water little impact
Vegetation no T & E species; impacts will be mostly mitigated
Wildlife habitats1
Upland grassland no substantial impacts to species
Bottomland grassland no substantial impacts to species
Shrub cover no substantial impacts to species
Early conifer no substantial impacts to species
Mixed conifer pole no substantial impacts to species
Mixed conifer mature (Alternative B 576 acres, disturb.) (Other alternatives
501 - 708 acres disturb.)
Riparian wetland (Alternative B 92 acres disturb.) (Other alternatives
82 - 127 acres disturb.)
Noise below allowable limits
Recreation temporary impacts comply with established levels
Scenic general disturbance with all alternatives
Heritage all alternatives share similar degree of disturbance
Transportation all alternatives have similar increases in traffic.
Alternatives other than B and E call for radical technical and engineering changes in the
project. There are also drastic reductions in the efficiency of the operation, which reduces
the estimated ore recovery and the return on investment by $65 million to $197 million.
From a purely cost / benefit perspective, $65 million to $197 million seems like a high price
to pay for 114 acres of deer habitat and 0.21 acres of wetland.
The concern is that the development of these alternatives has not been constrained by
feasibility and that cost/benefit relationships have not been presented clearly in the document.
1 There are few important differences in habitat impacts between alternatives with the
exception of 114 more acres of deer SI/T habitat for Alternative B than other Alternatives.
-------
The basic differences between the costs of the various alternatives and the benefits associated
with each of the alternatives are lost in the detail of the document.
Another concern is the use of financial analysis (mining economics) which presents
quantitative point estimates associated with each alternative. As stated within the document,
this type of evaluation is complex and detailed. Federal agencies rarely have the information
necessary to duplicate the range of options available to private firms with regard to sources
of funds, future partnerships, or the types of debt which may be used by the firm. In this
respect, these estimates should be presented only to represent the change in after tax cash
flows between alternatives when all variables have been consistently applied within the model
for all alternatives. In this way, the cost of the various alternatives can be established and
compared to the benefits.
While it is the purpose of the EIS to determine environmental impact of the Proponent's
alternative and determine other alternatives which may have less impact, greater attention
must be paid to the economic feasibility of each project. The revenues from this project not
only profit the companies involved, but more than 50% of the net income of the project will
go to pay various taxes - federal, state, and local. Therefore it would be wise to add a table
or paragraph showing the NPV(15%) values (and/or the current ROI from a breakeven
analysis) in comparison to the environmental trade-offs for each alternative. This would
assist in determining the optimum balance between profitability and environmental impact.
Gold recovery of each alternative, based on the amount of ore in reserves (1.56 Million)
should be considered carefully because of the future prospects of mining the ore which is left
in the ground under some of the less efficient proposed alternatives. It would be more
environmentally sound to get the maximum amount of ore out of the ground now so as to
avoid future environmental impact to the site from mining companies coming back to recover
reserves left in the area.
Section 2.2.8 should be "Ore Processing Technology", as opposed to "Ore Processing
Methods." 'Technology' describes the process used, while 'method' is the manner in which
that technology is applied. On the same note, under section 2.2.8, page 2-22, the section
should end with Thiosulfate, as this is the end of the technologies considered. A new section
should cover a description of the methods considered (heap, vat or agitation). 'Vat leaching'
and 'tank leaching' is redundant, the words 'agitation leaching' should replace 'tank leaching'
in the document.
Under section 2.2.10 Gold Recovery: CIP and CIL are methods of solution
separation/purification, electrowinning and Merril-Crowe (zinc precipitation) processes are
the actual recovery from solution. Under solution separation/ purification, CIP and CIL are
methods of carbon adsorption, two other processes are solvent exchange and ion exchange.
It should be explained why these two were not considered. In some cases no separation or
purification of solutions is needed. Electrowinning and zinc precipitation can then be
contrasted as recovery processes in a new section.
-------
Statement of the Honorable Doc Hastings
Crown Jewel Project DEIS
Oroville, Washington
August 17, 1995
I want to thank the Department of Ecology and the U.S.
Forest Service for holding this hearing today in Oroville and
providing me this opportunity to testify on the Draft EIS for
Battle Mountain Gold's Crown Jewel mining project located in
nearby Chesaw.
Many of my constituents here in Okanogan County have
expressed their strong support for this project and the positive
impact it will have on the local economy. Having reviewed Battle
Mountain Gold's proposal, I can see why local reaction has been
so positive. Not only will this project bolster a struggling
local economy, but Battle Mountain Gold, the project proponent,
has gone to great lengths to ensure that the Crown Jewel project
can be completed and operated in an environmentally sensible
manner. In short, the Crown Jewel Project should serve as a
model for the kind of balanced solution to controversial economic
and environmental conflicts that are common throughout rural
western communities.
Ladies and gentlemen, I am here today to express my strong
support for the proponent's preferred Alternative B in the Draft
EIS which allows this project to move forward. Because 71
percent of the land-in Okanogan County is publicly owned,
projects like Crown Jewel are one of the few sources of high
paying jobs that can be generated in this rural county. In
-------
recent years, Okanogan has suffered from double digit
unemployment in part because of restrictions on natural resources
related jobs such as logging, grazing, and farming. Jobs have
been lost in these communities, families have been ruined, and
yet it is highly debatable whether the quality of our environment
has been enhanced. All anyone has to do to witness the
environmental damage that can result from excessive restrictions
is tour the Okanogan National Forest which was heavily damaged
from last summer's severe wildfires caused in part by strict
limits on logging.
The Crown Jewel Project will provide a badly needed infusion
of jobs and revenue into Okanogan County. The project will
employ 170 people and generate $4.4 million in wages each year.
Battle Mountain Gold, the project proponent, is committed to
hiring 80 percent of these new employees from within the local
community. Employees hired locally are expected to earn an
average of $30,000 per year. For this struggling rural county,
these numbers represent a tremendous boost for the local economy.
In addition to the 170 new jobs that the Crown Jewel Project
will create, approximately 70 new local jobs will be created
indirectly because of Crown Jewel's substantial local payroll as
well as the goods and services purchased by Battle Mountain Gold.
Finally, Battle Mountain Gold will pay $500,000 a year in
new local taxes and $600,000 in new state taxes, once in full
operation. This new source of tax revenue is desperately needed
2
-------
due to the fact that local services in counties like Okanogan
that are dominated by public lands have deteriorated rapidly from
a lack of an adequate tax base. This new revenue will improve
the quality of our local county schools and the condition of our
roads, which are vital to ensuring access in this rural county.
It should also be pointed out that Battle Mountain Gold is
not only required by law but fully committed to complying with
the strongest regulatory oversight before, during, and after
operations go into effect. Just last year, the Washington state
legislature passed and Governor Lowry signed into law one of the
toughest state mining laws in the country. Among its provisions,
the law mandates citizen oversight, more frequent monitoring and
inspections, and financial guarantees before mining begins in
order to ensure that the environment and the local community
affected by this project are protected.
In addition to these new constraints, the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the State Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) mandate a comprehensive review of the potential
environmental impacts of every operation prior to permitting and
before construction can begin. Under these provisions, Battle
Mountain must obtain over 60 separate permits from a variety of
local, state, and federal agencies before development and
operations of the Crown Jewel Project can begin. During
construction and continuing through operations and after, the
regulatory agencies will, as required by law, monitor water
-------
quality, air quality, and other environmental issues to ensure
that Battle Mountain meets its responsibilities.
It is also important to point out that the process to permit
Crown Jewel has already been underway for over three years.
Battle Mountain Gold has been required to spend millions of
dollars to prepare or fund an ever growing list of unprecedented
agency required studies. The process has already included
comprehensive studies on wildlife; air and water quality; and
economic impact analysis.
Battle Mountain Gold's commitment to this rigorous process
has resulted in unusually strong environmental safeguards,
enhancements, and wildlife protections for the Crown Jewel
Project. For example, to ensure water quality protection, a
total of 23 surface and groundwater monitoring stations are being
sampled regularly. In addition, mining cannot begin at Crown
Jewel until a detailed reclamation plan is approved by the
appropriate regulatory agencies and the money to pay for it is
guaranteed through a bond. Finally, Battle Mountain has
purchased 29 acres exclusively for the purpose of enhancing
existing wetlands on that property as well as using a portion of
the land for the creation of new wetlands.
Most importantly, the Crown Jewel Project has the strong
backing of the local community, including the unanimous support
of the Okanogan County Commissioners. Local support is
particularly relevant in this case because technical data
-------
indicates that any environmental impact will be limited
exclusively to the local area.
In closing, it should be pointed out that it has taken the
regulators over three years to release this draft EIS since the
project was first proposed. It is very important that we move
forward with the development of this economically important,
environmentally sound project as quickly as possible.
Alternative B in the Draft EIS is the only feasible option
for accomplishing this goal. All other proposals including the
U.S. Forest Service supported Alternative E will force Battle
Mountain Gold to spend more time and money for little or no
environmental benefit.
The people of Okanogan County are desperately awaiting the
valuable injection of jobs and revenues that the Crown Jewel
Project will bring to their struggling communities. Moreover,
Battle Mountain Gold has demonstrated without question its strong
commitment to ensuring that the pristine resources of Okanogan
County are preserved forever. I urge the adoption of Alternative
B and the expeditious approval of this important project.
-------
TMI#: 4539
Representative Hastings.
Thank you. I appreciate very much the opportunity to come here and speak today. I stand here in
strong support of the Battle Mountain Project. I'm not going to go into a lot of details—I have a
prepared statement I'd like to enter for the record. The reason I don't want to go into a lot of details is
because I feel very strongly that something that impacts the community as much as this project will--
economically and other ways—is best expressed by those that will be affected. While I have the
privilege of representing the Fourth Congressional District I can tell you that my home is in the far
end of the district. And probably nobody in my part of the district even knows that this going on. But
I can tell you in the times that I have stood for election and come up here, I've heard this over and
over, and I can tell you from the people that I have talked to, that Battle Mountain Gold, going on
with that project, and through all the hoops that they have jumped through, I think that, and I've heard
from my constituents, that what they are doing is sound, and the economic benefits that this will bring
to this county I think is something, especially for a county, of which 71% is owned by the federal
government. This is a resource county. The county commissioners and the county government
frankly needs that revenue, because of eroding base because of other natural resource decisions and
the actions that have happened. I stand here, and I'm sure that the, in fact I hope, that the testimony
that will be given here tonight will go into a lot more detail. But I want to emphasize this, and
probably this is the most important reason why I believe this project ought to go forward, is because
the input that I've gotten from my constituents up here, and also because the elected government
officials here-the county commissioners—have strongly gone on record for this project. And if for no
other reason, that should be taken into consideration at a much, much higher level. And so with that
I'd like to submit for the record my statement, and I'd like to also submit for the record a statement of
my colleague from the Fifth Congressional District, Congressman George Nethercutt, who also asked
me to tell you that he also wants to go on record in support of this project. (Applause).
-------
TMI#: 4503
Thank you very much for allowing me to come speak tonight. My name is Gary Chandler. I'm a state
representative. Also serve as a chair of the House Agriculture and Ecology Committee here in the
state of Washington. First of all I want to thank you for coming to my district. And attracting such a
large crowd here, we like large crowds like this, but unfortunately I doubt very many of these are from
my district tonight. But I think it's unusual, and I don't know if the Department of Ecology and the
Forest Service is setting a new policy of holding hearings, public hearings so far away — several
hundred miles from the affected site. I would hope that if this is the new policy of both of these
agencies, that in the future public hearings will be held in Okanogan County, especially maybe up at
Orient, or lowan, or Meddling Falls on issues of importance to Seattle or the west side, such as,
whenever they want to change something down on the waterfront, or build a new ecological park. I
also understand that tonight's hearing is four hours long, but the one Oroville is only going to be three
hours long which I find also very interesting. So, I'm wondering what constituent interest of the
thirteenth district that you're in tonight, brings you here tonight. Some citizens of the thirteenth
district might wonder what is legitimately being accomplished by this unscheduled stop, and I'm one
of those. Since I'm here I would like to say a few words about Crown Jewel and its benefits. Over the
past two years the legislature has scrutinized all of the state's environmental laws to ensure that they
are adequate for any future mining that will take place in the state. The 1994 Metals Mining Act,
which gives Washington State one of the nation's strongest mining laws, was passed — the legislature,
almost unanimously with the help of the environmental committee, and in the industry, and in an
bipartisanship effort to have these regulations in place before the Crown Jewel Mine began
operations. Now what is the state going to gain by approving and letting this mine go into operation?
Ninety-five construction jobs with a payroll of 3.6 million. To someone from Seattle that's not very
many jobs. I haven't been up to Okanogan very much, but I watch the stats, and I know that it's a
county with high unemployment. Ninety-five jobs to Okanogan County are an awful lot of jobs.
Three-point six million dollars is an awful lot of money to those people up there. One-hundred and
fifty well-paying jobs during the operation with an annual payroll of 4.4 million dollars. Once again,
to standards on the west side - not many jobs. But the Okanogan, or to the east side, that's a
substantial amount of people to go to work in a county that has got a high unemployment rate. Battle
Mountain has committed to hiring 80% of those positions locally as it has in cases where it has other
mines throughout the United States. Secondary employment impacts from construction operations
will result in 365 additional jobs, with a 9.3 million at secondary labor income during the life of the
mine. There again, a large number of jobs. The economic stimulus of this activity will generate fiscal
surpluses totaling 3.7 million to the coffers of the governmental entities that are going to be affected.
I support the plan as proposed by Battle Mountain, referred to as Alternate B in the draft
environmental statement, and encourage the state and federal agencies to conclude the remaining
necessary, and unnecessary steps, so as the benefits of this operation can begin. Thank you.
(Applause.)
-------
STATEMENT OF U.S. REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE R. NETHERCTTTT, JR.
U.S. FOREST SERVICE/WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY HEARING
ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT FOR
BATTLE MOUNTAIN GOLD'S CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
OROVILLE HIGH SCHOOL, OROVILLE, WASHINGTON
AUGUST 17, 1995
I welcome this opportunity to express my views on the
subject of the proposed Crown Jewel Mine Project in Okanogan
County.
After a waiting period of more than three years and
millions of dollars spent on environmental studies, a draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) has finally been issued
regarding the Battle Mountain Gold Company's Crown Jewel
Mine project. I especially urge the Forest Service, the
Bureau of Land Management and the Washington Department of
Ecology to complete the final EIS without delay, so that the
people of Okanogan County can go forward with their plan to
generate badly-needed jobs in northern Washington.
With regard to the draft EIS, I support the
"Alternative B" proposal, which I believe is a reasonable
plan of operation that satisfies all of the requirements of
state and federal law, especially concerning water,
wildlife, reclamation and cynanide. I do not support any
alternative plans that would require significant additional
expenditures during construction and operation that would
result in no substantial supplementary safety or
environmental benefits.
The Crown Jewel Mine project will generate almost 200
jobs for the community and will operate in compliance with
60 permits to ensure protection of the environment during
operation and reclamation of the land to support livestock
grazing, timber production, wildlife habitats, recreation
and watershed after the completion of the project.
Thank you for allowing me to speak in support of the
Crown Jewel Mine project and the "Alternative B" proposal.
It is my hope that there will be no further unreasonable
delays in the approval of this very important project.
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OI:I:K:KOF rur. SI-:CKHT.\KY
lKc-il I ilvir'itnticiii.il 1'nfit.v uul ( iiiupli.nu
SIM) Nl' Mulrmiiii.ill Vrtxr. Suiic Mil)
l'tiril.iiitl. ' IK-KIIII -)'H1 .'.II U,
I-. Ill I'l i HI I I K II >
September 6, 1995
ER 95/475
Sam Gehr, Forest Supervisor
Okanogan National Forest
1240 South Second Avenue
Okanogan, Washington 98840-9273
Dear Mr. Gehr:
The Department of the Interior (Department) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS), for the proposed Crown Jewel Mine Project, Okanogan National Forest,
Tonasket Ranger District, Okanogan County, Washington. The following comments are
provided for your use and consideration when preparing the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS).
GENERAL COMMENTS
The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) reviewed the Preliminary DEIS (PDEIS), and
provided comments on June 2, 1994, in a letter to Mr. Phillip Christy, of the U.S. Forest
Service (Forest). In that letter, the Service concluded the proposed project would:
1) modify a number of watercourses, 2) divert water out of basin, 3) involve the construction
of a water storage and transfer system (this could potentially contaminate aquatic habitat),
and 4) divert several small streams to obtain sufficient water to process the ore. The Service
requested the Forest to consider fish and wildlife resources equally with project goals. The
Department is concerned that these water diversions and modifications cumulatively could
significantly impact aquatic habitat. When combined with the filling of wetlands, proposed
as part of the project and effluent discharges, these proposed water impacts would be further
exacerbated. Accordingly, the Department would recommend individual permits be required
under the auspices of the Clean Water Act (CWA). If issues raised in these comments on
the DEIS are not satisfactorily resolved, the Department may recommend permit denial.
Furthermore, an interagency team of wildlife biologists conducted a Habitat Evaluation
Procedures (HEP) study of existing wildlife habitat in the area of the proposed Crown Jewel
Project. The DEIS does not incorporate much of the information on wildlife habitat from the
HEP study, such as cover typing and potential mitigation opportunities. The Department
suggest the HEP results be utilized in the FEIS to give fish and wildlife resources equal
consideration.
-------
Sam Gehr, Forest Supervisor
Okanogan National Forest
The DEIS states that "reclamation plans and mitigation would eventually restore wildlife
habitat, but not the same quality or quantity that would be lost" (pg 4-185). Because the
proposed permanent and interim loss of habitat would be foregone until the reclamation and
mitigation measures reach full maturity, the Department requests compensatory mitigation be
developed to offset these proposed losses.
The information in the following excerpt is taken from the Service's June 2, 1994 letter on
the PDEIS and it is pertinent to the comments which follow:
"The grouping of project components into alternatives appears to be done in such a
way that the alternatives which provide greater environmental protection but involve
greater financial costs include components which have greater environmental costs.
Two alternatives which provide decreased environmental impact are Alternative F:
Complete Backfill, and Alternative G: Flotation Milling. For these alternatives, the
tailings impoundment is placed in the Nicholson drainage which would impact more
wetlands, involve stream rerouting, and generally increase the risk of dam or lining
failure because groundwater is closer to the surface compared to the Marias drainage
option. All other alternatives include the Marias drainage option. No justification is
provided which explains why the Nicholson drainage rather than the Marias drainage
is more appropriate for these two alternatives. Alternative F includes a 12-hour,
rather than 24-hour, working day during the active mining phase of the project. The
extended life of the project under this alternative would increase direct and cumulative
environmental impacts. It is not clear why a 12-hour working day during the active
mining phase is being considered for an alternative that differs from the proponent's
alternative only in activities which occur after the active mining phase is complete.
Alternative G includes a waste rock pile configuration which would impact
significantly greater acreage of wetlands than other alternatives. No information is
provided which would indicate why a change in gold recovery methods would require
that this waste rock configuration be included in this alternative. The alternatives, as
currently developed, provide an obvious misrepresentation of environmental costs.
The Service strongly suggests that the alternatives for each project component be
assessed for relative environmental costs, and that only those component alternatives
with reasonable environmental costs be included in the development of project
alternatives. If project components which would cause greater environmental impacts
are included in an alternative, the justifications for including those components should
be provided".
Components of the alternatives should be adjusted to provide the greatest environmental
protection. The DEIS does not provide justification to indicate why these more
environmentally costly components have been retained. The DEIS quotes the CWA Section
404(b)(l) guidelines to note the filling of wetlands should be avoided, and yet in Alternative
G, the waste rock pile would fill the frog pond even though more protective options are
-------
Sam Gehr, Forest Supervisor
Okanogan National Forest
clearly available. Information should be provided to explain the use of more costly
components in Alternatives F and G (which are clearly those not preferred by the
proponents). Alternately, the components should be replaced with less environmentally
costly alternatives to allow a reasonable choice among alternatives.
The DEIS uses a short-term analysis to evaluate the potential hazards of locating a cyanide
tailings impoundment at the top of a drainage. The DEIS repeatedly states the impoundment
has a very low probability for failure. However, the impoundment would fail eventually. In
the best case scenario, this remotely located impoundment will be checked for damage
following a major earthquake or flood event, and resources will be available to remove any
tailings from the draw. This action would limit the amount of contaminants entering the
aquatic system. In the worst case scenario, substantial amounts of fine-grained materials,
possibly containing toxic concentrations of metals or other chemicals, would continue to
erode and wash through the stream system for many years. The majority of aquatic life
would be eliminated in Marias and Toroda Creeks, and lesser impacts would occur as far as
the Columbia River. Because the tailings impoundment is a permanent project feature, we
recommend the FEIS provide for the long-term consequences of tailings impoundment
failure.
This DEIS contains little information on Starrem Creek, even though Starrem Creek is as
large or larger than several of the creeks for which more detailed information is included.
The reservoir to be placed on this creek has the potential to cause significant impacts to
aquatic organisms and riparian vegetation downstream of the dam. Thus, Starrem Creek
should be addressed in all appropriate sections of the FEIS. We are particularly concerned
with impacts to downstream resources while the reservoir is filling. Specific detailed
information should be provided on how water quality and quantity would be affected by the
reservoir and how the stream would be restored when the reservoir is no longer needed.
Starrem Creek should be included in surface water monitoring programs, and sampling
should begin as soon as possible so that adequate background data can be gathered. This
information was also requested in the Service's comments on the PDEIS.
The DEIS repeatedly refers to treatment of potentially contaminated water from the open
mine (after pit is filled), the waste rock detention ponds, and the reclaim solution collection
pond, yet it does not attempt to describe treatment methods, construction of a treatment
facility, and associated impacts. The FEIS should address options for treatment of
potentially contaminated water. This information was also requested in the Service's
previous comments on the PDEIS.
In several places in the DEIS, an unwritten assumption seems to exist that when tailings or
waste rock piles are reclaimed, groundwater contamination, which could impact fish and
wildlife resources, would disappear. For example, a tailings liner leak was modeled for 8
years until reclamation took place (page 4-36, column 2, paragraph 3). The DEIS suggests
-------
Sam Gehr, Forest Supervisor
Okanogan National Forest
reclamation would help prevent saturation of the tailings (page 4-30, column I, paragraph 2)
and water quality impacts from waste rock piles will decrease following reclamation (page 4-
31, column 1, paragraph 5). While evapotranspiration would reduce water infiltration,
precipitation data indicates less than 20 percent of the precipitation occurs during the plant
growing season. This estimate is based on a growing season of April through June, and on
an assumption that vegetation would be primarily grasses for many years and they would be
dormant in late summer. Thus, the assumption that reclamation would significantly reduce
water infiltration seems questionable. We suggest that either this assumption be removed, or
include results from previous reclamation projects or models in the FEIS.
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
Page S-6. Section 1.4,5. Many areas to be reclaimed possibly may not have adequate soil
depth or productivity that would enable a forested environment to re-establish. The FEIS
should address the adequacy of soil depth for restoring forest habitat.
Page ..S-1...1. Alternative. C. Paragraph 2. A location for the tailings facility should be included
in this section.
Page S-18. Alternative F. The FEIS should clarify why the only alternative that requires
complete backfill of the proposed mine pit is associated with a change in daily operation
from 24 hours/day to 12 hours/day and a shift in the tailings facility from the Marias Creek
drainage to the Nicholson Creek drainage.
Page S-23. Section 2..3. Paragraph below bullets. The DEIS states logging will "promote
successful reclamation at the end of mining". The FEIS should clarify this statement.
Page S-50. Section A.4 Geotechnical Considerations (Paragraph 4 and other places! The
basis for designating this fault inacdve and the probability of the fault reactivation should be
identified in the FEIS.
Page S-52. Section 4.7 Surface Water. Paragraph 1. In Paragraph 1 and several other
places, the DEIS asserts the probability of tailings facility liner leakage is very low. While a
study was conducted on what would happen if the liner failed, the claim of low probability of
occurrence is not substantiated. Information should be provided on the failure rate of
existing lined facilities (cyanide tailings and other types) to support this assertion, or the
assertion should be removed.
Page 1-5. Section 1.6. Okanogan Forest Plan Compliance. fParagraph 2). More definitive
Management Area 14 goals would include the desired deer population level in terms of herd
size and a definition of "moderate level" of dead tree habitat in terms of numbers of snags of
a certain size or greater per acre.
-------
Sam Gehr, Forest Supervisor
Okanogan National Forest
Page 1-12. Section 1.10.8. Primary comparison criteria should include changes in surface
water quality parameters, (e.g. water temperature), to waters remaining tn-channel
downstream of water diversions.
Page 1-13. Section 1.10.11. Primary comparison criteria should include permanent and
long-term changes in vegetative community types.
Page 1-13. Section 1.10.13. Other "areas of concern" involving wildlife habitat include: 1)
the isolation of remaining habitat, thereby decreasing the habitat's effectiveness; 2)
interruption of habitat corridors; and 3) the relative importance of the snow intercept thermal
cover to deer winter range in light of other Forest practices near and/or adjacent to the
proposed project.
When comparing total and open road densities between with or without the proposed project,
attention needs to be on the percent change within the core analysis area and not on the
whole forest.
Page 2-3. Section 2.1.5. The FEIS should clarify why Alternatives C and G would have a
different supply route. As stated previously, it also should be explained why in Alternative F
mining would be restricted to a 12 hour shift thereby prolonging the years of operation
before backfill and reclamation could occur.
Page 2-5. Column 2. The DEIS is unclear why a surface quarry would be required for back
filling the mine. The FEIS should explain why the waste rock should not be used as is
proposed in Alternatives D and F.
Page 2-7. Alternative E. (Column 11. The DEIS states that 10.5 million cubic tons of waste
rock would be moved to partially refill the north pit to prevent forming a post-mining lake.
However, on page 2-52, it is stated that "approximately 6 million cubic yards of waste rock
would be required for backfill of the north zone of the final mine pit to achieve post-mining
drainage." It should also be pointed out that even if the larger, 10.5 million cubic tons were
moved, the pit would only be backfilled by approximately 20 percent. The FEIS should
address these apparent inconsistencies.
Page 2-33. Column 2. The "standard reclamation practices" that would be used to revegetate
the surface of the tailings during operation should be identified in the FEIS.
Page 2-38. Column 1, Paragraph 1. The tailings embankment freeboard would retain rainfall
events. The volume of water from a calamitous snowmelt should be considered in the FEIS.
-------
Sam Gehr, Forest Supervisor
Okanogan National Forest
Page 2-52. Column 1. Sequenced mining should be employed to allow an area to be
backfilled with the waste rock from the area being mined. If this type of mining is employed
for Alternative F, complete backfill of the pit upon completion of mining, would require
much less time than the 16 years proposed.
Page 2-71. Section 2.9. Please refer to comments above under page S-18, Alternative F.
Page 2-79. Section 2.11. Incorporated into the DEIS by reference is the August 1993
Reclamation Plan (revised November 1993). This plan is Battle Mountain Gold Company's
proposed reclamation for the site. As the Service stated in its June 2, 1994, letter which
included comments on the August 1993 Reclamation Plan, a detailed schedule of the
proposed monitoring plan, with quantifiable goals, as well as a detailed contingency plan
with quantifiable "triggers" that would implement contingency actions, should be provided.
Page 2-81. Section 2.11.4. The amount of large woody debris that would be stockpiled for
use in reclamation needs to be quantified. The Department recommends that the appropriate
number, size, and species of debris logs that would be necessary for reclamation, be
quantified and that these resources are stockpiled during initial vegetation removal. This
recommendation was provided in our previous comments on the .reclamation plan. Removing
debris logs from nearby timber stands would be unacceptable.
Page 2-83. Column 1. Paragraph 5. Leaving a 54 million cubic yard mine pit in the
landscape does not appear to fit the definition of reclamation. The Service strongly
recommends that the proposed pit be completely backfilled and the landscape topography be
returned as close as possible to what existed prior to Crown Jewel Project exploration.
Page 2-85. Section 2.11.5. The Department strongly recommends that for the purposes of
determining compliance, all components of the reclamation plan be as quantifiable as
possible.
Page 2-85. Section 2.12. Regarding management and mitigation practices, the DEIS states
"The purpose of these practices would be to reduce or avoid adverse impacts to the
environment and to reclaim disturbed areas." Not all impacts of the project will be reduced,
avoided, or rectified through reclamation. Compensatory mitigation is required to address
the residual impacts. A comprehensive mitigation plan should be developed that includes
habitat compensation for those habitats that would be permanently impacted and for habitats
that would be impacted for the duration of mining and until full maturation of reclamation
measures would be achieved. It is incumbent upon the Forest that mitigation action plans be
fully developed (40 CFR 1502.14(f) and 1502.16(h)).
-------
Sam Gehr, Forest Supervisor
Okanogan National Forest
Page 2-87. Section 2.12.4. The following spill prevention plans should also be developed:
tailings pipeline failure, tailings dam failure, tailings lining failure plan, and Gold Creek
water supply pipeline failure. Regarding item 3 in this section, it is likely that the supplier's
spill response plan will be fairly general. Specific plans should be developed by the
proponent for all water bodies potentially impacted by a spill along the proposed
transportation routes beyond Washington State Highways 97, 20, or 21.
Page 2-94. Column 1. Paragraph 5 and elsewhere. We are concerned with mine post-closure
monitoring of the tailings facility, and request information be provided on how long and what
type of monitoring would be continued once the site is mined and reclaimed. This
information was also requested in the Service's previous comments on the PDEIS.
Page 2-96. Column 2. Paragraph 1. Seeds from locally derived native plants should be used
for revegetation. We recommend that a long-term contract be established to ensure a supply
of local seed throughout the life of the project.
Page 2-96. Section 2.12.16. Mitigation for wetland impacts should include mitigation for
riparian habitat impacts associated with water withdrawals from Myers and Starrem Creeks.
Page 2-97. Column 2. The FEIS she old note the potential Pine Chee Springs wetland
mitigation site lies adjacent to a main county road which may become a mine haul-route.
The juxtaposition of the wetland area and the roadway would reduce the site's potential
mitigation benefit.
Page 2-98. Column 1. Bear Trap Canyon. The potential mitigation that would occur in Bear
Trap Canyon would enhance a highly degraded wetland and riparian system. However,
because changes in the Forest Service's current grazing and roadbed management of the area
are goals irrespective of the proposed gold mine, the resulting enhancement of riparian and
wetland functions should not be considered compensatory mitigation.
Page 2-98. Column 2. Nicholson Creek Headwaters Wetland and Page 2-99. Column 1..
Frog Pond. As noted above, changing current Forest Service management of these wetland
and riparian areas has much potential to enhance fish and wildlife resources but should not be
considered mitigation.
Page 2-101. Column 2. Paragraph 7. Reclamation of the pit should include shorelines and
breaks in the pit walls to ensure wildlife would be able to easily escape the pit and lake.
Page 2-104. Section.2.13.1. Detailed water monitoring plans provided under the State
permits should be presented in greater detail in the FEIS to fully comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act.
-------
Sam Gehr, Forest Supervisor 8
Okanogan National Forest
Information on water quality and quantity monitoring scattered through the rest of the
document should be consolidated in one section. For example, detailed water quality
monitoring information is provided on page 4-31, column 1, paragraph 4.
Page 2-105. Column 1. Nothing is mentioned in the DEIS about estimating and monitoring
flow discharge in any of the streams. Because minimal flow requirements are needed to
protect fisheries in the existing water channels, flow discharge needs to be determined and
monitored.
Page 2-106. Section 2.13.5. All wildlife impact evaluations to date (including the Habitat
Evaluation Procedure Study for the Proposed Crown Jewel Mine Project, Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife, March 1995), have assumed that fish and wildlife impacts
would be through loss or alteration of habitat and that no direct mortality through
contamination or other means would occur. If this assumption is invalidated and direct
mortality of trust wildlife resources does occur, immediate rectification of the cause of
mortality and compensatory mitigation should be made.
Page 2-107. Section 2.12.9. We suggest that if monitoring of revegetation efforts reveals
additional shrub and tree plantings are necessary, monitoring be prolonged to assure that
compliance with revegetation standards would be met with the use of well established
saplings, rather than less than one-year-old seedlings.
Page 3-86. Section 3.11.2. It should be noted that although only 46.85 acres of jurisdictional
wetlands were identified "in the Project and adjacent areas", approximately 249 acres of
wetland and aquatic habitat was identified in the HEP analysis area.
Page 3-96. Section 3.12.9. Because of the variability in biological measurements like aquatic
invertebrate community parameters, we recommend establishing several control sites in
nearby unimpacted streams upon project initiation. In addition, because changes in flow to
each of the monitored streams would occur with any of the action alternatives, potentially
resulting in movement of the riffle/pool/run sequences, we advise having more than one
monitoring station on each stream.
Page 3-108. Column 1. A great deal of time was spent cover typing the wildlife habitats
within the core and analysis areas by the HEP Team. The FEIS should explain why these
cover types, and associated wildlife habitats which are more descriptive than those presented,
were not used in the DEIS.
Page 3-141. Column 1. The HEP indicator species were chosen because their habitat
requirements would reflect the habitat needs of a number of species within the Crown Jewel
analysis area.
-------
Sam Gehr, Forest Supervisor
Okanogan National Forest
Page 4-12. Section 4.4.3. The possibility of an earthquake causing the failure of pipelines
carrying tailings solution should be addressed.
Page 4-14. Column 2. Paragraph 2. Justification should be provided to explain why
diversion structures of Alternative B are designed for a lower flood event than the structures
of other alternatives.
Page 4-14. Column 2. Paragraph 3. The statement that "the potential for failure of diversion
structures is low" seems arbitrary. The basis for this statement should be provided.
Page 4-19. Section 4.5.3. The alternatives include several detention basins. Reclamation of
these structures should be described, as they would likely be situated in drainage areas and
have a high potential to re-erode. The erosion from new drainage created by mine pit
overflow, tailings facility discharges, detention pond releases, etc. should be considered.
The erosion associated with construction of a water delivery pipeline should be considered.
Page 4-21. Column 2. Paragraph 4. We suggest removing all but the first sentence of this
paragraph for the following reasons. Productivity is only one aspect of functioning soils.
The project would impact the soil ecosystem which includes soil layering, structure, and
biota. The integrity of the system would be lost while the soil is stockpiled, and it is not
clear that it can be replaced by adding synthetic chemicals.
Page 4-29. Tailings Disposal The FEIS should clarify why both the effluent from the gravel
overdrain system for dewatering tailings and the underdrain system for groundwater
underflow would both discharge to the reclaimed solution collection pond. We recommend
that the two discharges be separated and that the underdrain discharge be sampled for tailings
leaks. This is not an option with the combined discharges. Although groundwater sampling
should be conducted, sampling of the underdrain discharge could allow leak detection sooner
than sampling of wells. This recommendation was provided in our previous comments on
the PDEIS.
Page 4-30. Column 1. Paragraph 4. The DEIS states a waste rock pile underdrain would be
constructed if needed to channel flow from previously identified springs and seeps.
However, with any alternative, the groundwater system will change significantly due to
dewatering, and new springs and seeps may appear. We recommend an underdrain be
constructed even if no springs and seeps currently occur at the waste rock site to prevent
contact of potentially acid generating waste rock with water. This information was also
requested in the Service's previous comments on the PDEIS.
Page 4-31. Column 1. Paragraph 2. The proposed measures should be described; if they are
described elsewhere in the document, they should be referenced.
-------
Sam Gehr, Forest Supervisor 10
Okanogan National Forest
Page 4-31. Column 1. Paragraph 4. We recommend monitoring of the sediment chemistry
be included for waste rock pile detention ponds.
Page 4-32. Column 2. Paragraph 3. Reporting impacts associated with mine drainage as a
percent of the watershed does not provide very useful information. The number of existing
springs and seeps, and the acreage of the affected area should be reported. This comment
applies to other alternatives, as well.
Page 4-36. Column 2. Paragraph 3. Information should be included on whether the
modelling of the tailings liner leak worst case scenario was based on current groundwater
conditions or some other conditions. It seems that results could vary significantly depending
on whether groundwater conditions during mine dewatering are taken into account. This
should be clarified in the FEIS.
Page 4-38. Column 1. Paragraph 1. The DEIS states that the gaining character of the
groundwater would reduce impacts from the waste rock piles. As with the above comment,
potential impacts to groundwater should also consider conditions during mine dewatering.
Page 4-42. Column 2. Paragraph 5. The DEIS states that selective placement of potentially
acid generating waste rock would probably not be feasible. This statement is in contradiction
with other statements in the DEIS which indicate that selective placement could be used in a
variety of circumstances to reduce the impacts from acid generating rock. Specifically, page
4-54, column 1, paragraph 2 states that water quality conditions were predicted using the
assumption of selective handling. These contradictions should be rectified.
Page 4-43. Section 4.7.1. As with other sections of the DEIS, this section should include
discussions of the impacts to Myers and Starrem Creeks.
Page 4-46. Section 4.7.3. The FEIS should include a discussion of erosion and sediment
loading to Gold Creek as a result of construction of the water delivery pipeline. Also,
discussion should be provided on the likelihood of increased erosion and sedimentation
during the reclamation period associated with newly placed soils and newly graded areas.
Page 4-46. Column 2. Paragraph 4. The impacts of open pit dewatering to springs and seeps
should be discussed.
Page 4-47. Column 2. Paragraph 1. Further information should be provided on detention
ponds. Discussion of impacts should include the possibility that sediment and water quality
in the detention ponds will decrease over time as contaminants accumulate. The path of
discharged pond water should be identified. A reclamation plan for the detention ponds
should be provided.
-------
Sam Gehr, Forest Supervisor 11
Okanogan National Forest
Page 4-47. Tailings Disposal Section. This section limits the environmental consequences
discussion to a description of the facility. The FEIS should expand this section's discussion
to include water quality of the tailing pond, impoundment failure, tailing slurry pipeline
rupture, and possible impacts to downstream surface water and migratory birds. This
information was also requested in the Service's previous comments on the PDEIS.
Page 4-48. Column 1. Paragraph 1. Further details are required on the handling of the
tailings pond dewatering solution, including the amount of water which would be discharged
following decommissioning, monitoring frequency and constituents, length of time over
which monitoring would continue, criteria levels which would trigger treatment, and potential
effects to downstream water quality and quantity.
Page 4-51. Column 1. Paragraph 2. (last sentence). The FEIS should state what methods
would be used to prevent the pit from filling with water.
Page 4-57. Column 2. Paragraph 2. Similarly to timber harvesting (comment page 2-96), the
Department recommends seeds be collected from the areas to be cleared. Timing of seed
collection must be carefully considered, and may have to occur the summer and fall prior to
timber harvest. Seeds of appropriate species can be used for soil stabilization and
revegetation, or can be planted and harvested to produce more seed.
Page 4-58. Section 4.9.3. The DEIS should discuss the following impacts to vegetation.
The acreage of old growth forest that would be lost should be reported, as this would be an
irreversible impact. Reclamation would be unable to replace the existing biodiversity and the
intact functioning ecosystem for a long time period.
Page 4-59. Table 4.9.1. Impacts to sensitive plants could be reduced by transplanting the
plants into identified wetland mitigation areas or collecting and propagating seed for
transplant. The FEIS should state whether existing springs and seeps were surveyed for
sensitive plant species and if mine dewatering would cause indirect effects by reducing spring
or seep discharge and wetland plant habitat.
Page 4-63. Section 4.10. The Department recommends the functions and services of all
wetlands, not just jurisdictional wetlands, be assessed and impacts to these wetlands be
mitigated. The proponent should address non-jurisdictional wetlands shown in Figure 3.7.1.
Page 4-66. Section 4.11. This section should also describe the effects of the damming of
Starrem Creek on flow and aquatic habitat and the effects of discharge from the open pit on
Nicholson Creek flow and aquatic habitat.
Page 4-69. Column 2. Paragraph 4. This section on tailings impoundment failure focuses
-------
Sam Gehr, Forest Supervisor 12
Okanogan National Forest
narrowly on the effect of sediments to stream habitats, and characterizes these effects as
short-term. Impacts to water and sediment quality would occur from cyanide, metals,
salinity, and probably other chemicals. Metals would remain in the system, and have the
potential to cause long-term impacts. The DEIS should provide a realistic assessment of the
downstream impacts of impoundment failure. This information was also requested in the
Service's previous comments on the PDEIS.
Page 4-70. Column 2. Paragraph 2. This section states a tailings impoundment failure could
impact about 2.6 miles of Marias Creek. Another section in the DEIS (page 4-181, column
1, paragraph 1) states that slide flow of the tailings slurry would impact about 2.6 miles of
the creek. Impacts to aquatic life and habitat clearly would continue far beyond the area of
the slide flow. Misrepresentation of impacts should be avoided.
Page 4-88. Column 1. Paragraph 4. Potential toxicity or other impacts to wildlife from
waste rock detention ponds should be assessed.
Page 4-89. Column 2. Paragraph 1. This section describes transfer of metals from tailings to
earthworms and then to small mammals. Several years would probably be required for
earthworms to colonize the reclaimed area, particularly as a functioning soil ecosystem, upon
which the earthworms depend, would not develop for several years. Monitoring of metals in
small mammals too soon may result in a false conclusion that toxicity from metals is not a
problem.
Page 4-178. Section 4.22. A contingency plan must be developed that would be implemented
in the event of any of these listed catastrophes.
Page 4-185. Section 4.23.2. The FEIS should clarify how partial or complete backfill of the
open pit would result in an irretrievable loss of gold resources. If the technology to extract
additional gold becomes available, the technology to unearth the pit would likely become
available.
Page 4-186. Section 4.24. The following bullet statements should be added: loss of an
intact functioning ecosystem and loss of plant biodiversity.
Page 4-186. Section 4.24. The FEIS should identify the physical and biological effects of
changing flows in Gold, Bolster, Marias, Nicholson, Toroda, and Myers Creeks in terms of
sediment transport, stage height of high and low flows, maintenance of habitat diversity,
changes in the abundance and diversity of aquatic biota, and changes to the associated
riparian communities.
Page 4-187. Column 2. The FEIS should clarify how implementation of any of the mine
alternatives would increase the number of hunters, campers, or other forest users within the
-------
Sam Gehr, Forest Supervisor 13
Okanogan National Forest
mine-impact area. If the mine would eliminate some habitat and decrease the productivity of
much of the remaining habitat within the analysis area, game populations, hunting, and
wildlife viewing opportunities would likely be reduced. Hunting, camping, and wildlife
viewing outside of the analysis area, may increase due to the increased human population
associated with the mine.
If you have any questions or need information on any specific comment, please contact Ms.
Liz Block, Contaminant Specialist, of the Service's Moses Lake Field Office, Washington at
(509) 765-9043.
We have appreciated the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Charles Polityka
Regional Environmental Officer
-------
Olympia Office: Washington StatC Senate Residence:
-»<)1-B Legislative Building 3210 Mukilteo Blvd.
SKo* Senator Gary Strannigan "SSJ?.^8
786-7674 38th Legislative District I:A.X: (206) 513-1340
August 28, 1995
Mr. Phil Christy
Crown Jewel Draft EIS
U.S. Forest Service
Tonasket Ranger District
1 West Winesap
Tonasket, WA 98855
Dear Mr. Christy,
I would like to add my comments to the DEIS for the Crown Jewel. I first learned of the mining
development when I came to the legislature in 1995 and was assigned to the Natural Resources
Committee. Our current state and federal laws should result in allowing mining to continue in this
state without nearby communities having to sacrifice a clean environment and without taxpayers
having to take on any of the burden in situations that theoretically could arise when a company is
financially incapable of solving an environmental problem it may cause.
Last month the Governor of Alaska signed into law a bill offering incentives to mining companies for
exploration. The bill allows mining companies to credit many of their exploration costs against future
taxes and royalties due to the state for a total credit of up to $20 million per project. Our state has
preferred a path of making it more expensive to mine. Given the strict laws now in place, we should
at least act expeditiously to make sure the new regulations aren't misused as a tool for tieing up
mining proposals in a longer than necessary permitting process.
Battle Mountain's proposal in Okanogan County (alternative B) represents an opportunity to generate
high paying jobs without sacrificing the area's environmental quality. I appreciate the opportunity to
comment in behalf of Battle Mountain Gold.
Sincerely,
Gary Strannigan
State Senator •
Committees: Natural Resources • Ways and Means • Human Services and Corrections
-------
TMI#: 4542
Hello, my name is Kathryn O'Connell, and I'm Senator Gorton's Eastern Washington Director, and I
would just like to say that I wish Slade was here, he wishes he was here, and I would just like to read a
statement for him.
I would like you to consider the following comments in support of Battle Mountain Crown Jewel
Project, and its positive future for the citizens of north central Washington. I hope that the public
hearing in Oroville will be an interesting and informational venue for Washington State citizens to
discuss the Crown Jewel Project; however, I am disheartened that the first hearing was held in
Ellensburg. Since the community that is most dramatically impacted, and influenced by this proposal,
is not the first voice to be heard. Tape being turned over.
SIDE 2 OF 10
I'm sorry for the interruption.
Oh, no problem. Communities must be able to devise their own destiny, and I favor localized
decisions made by those who are close to the environmental impacts of this project. The draft
environmental impact statement by the Department of Ecology, and the United States Forest Service
shows a thorough study of the environmental and economic concerns regarding the Crown Jewel
Project. It is my hope that you will work jointly with the Battle Mountain Gold Company and
recognize their monetary and time commitment to this project. Please weigh and give fair and every
consideration to Battle Mountain's proposed alternative as quickly as possible to come to a final
decision. It is my strong hope that you will consider the economic and social benefits of this mine to
the citizens of Okanogan County, and that you will listen carefully to the concerns and support you
hear tonight. Thank you. (Applause).
-------
State of Washington
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
1550 Alder St. N.W., Ephrata, WA 98823-9651 Tel. (509) 754-4624
August 29, 1995
Ms. Patricia Betts
Washington Department of Ecology-
Post Office Box 47703
Olympia, WA 98504-7703
Dear Ms. Betts:
SUBJECT: REVIEW AND COMMENTS FOR THE DRAFT EIS OF THE CROWN JEWEL
MINE PROJECT, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WASHINGTON
The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) appreciates
the opportunity to review and comment on the draft Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) prepared for the Crown Jewel Mine Project.
Our comments regarding this draft EIS are referred to in the
following format: 1) general discussion issues; and 2)
identified page specific suggestions for corrections,
clarifications or recommendations within the draft EIS document.
1. General Issues
a. Proposed Reclamation and Mitigation Measures
The draft EIS states that all action alternatives would result in
both short-term and long-term impacts to wildlife. Proposed
reclamation plans and mitigation measures may eventually restore
wildlife habitat, but not to the quality and quantity that would
be lost; therefore, a net loss to wildlife would occur.
Mitigation that would be implemented after project construction,
or that required a long time to reach replacement value, would
include additional habitat values (over and above replacement
value) equal to the loss through time.
The draft EIS lists 20 practices to minimize disturbances and
adverse impacts to fish and wildlife, but are presented with such
little detail it is difficult to judge their effectiveness. Some
would be good for public relations and education (i.e. nesting
boxes, dog control), while others are contingent on changes in
water quality (i.e. pit lake, fish habitat restoration). Some are
designed to minimize impacts during construction and operation of
the mine and would be important (i.e. blasting schedules,
boundary fences), but only three suggest long-term mitigation for
lost habitat values by modifying restoration plans (i.e. plant
-------
Ms. Patricia Betts
August 29, 1995
Page 2
palatable grasses, reduce time to establish snow intercept
thermal cover, create snags). None of the mitigation activities
address the permanent loss of habitat or habitat values loss over
the time of the project and recovery period. In our opinion, the
proposed mitigation in the draft EIS does not adequately address
the significant adverse impacts to the fish and wildlife
resources.
WDFW Mitigation Policy strives for full mitigation which ensures
no net loss of habitat values or wildlife populations. Also, we
believe full mitigation for significant adverse impacts to
wildlife is the intention of the 1994 Metal Mining Law (RCW
78.56.010, 78.56.020, 78.56.050). Therefore, we recommend more
complete mitigation be developed and implemented for this
project. This would include compensatory mitigation to replace
permanent habitat values lost and habitat values loss through
time.
b. Modified Alternative E
The USDA Forest Service (Forest Service) and Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) prefer a modified Alternative E that includes
partial backfilling of the open pit, a north waste rock disposal
area with 3H:1V slopes for reclamation and a tailings facility in
the Marias Creek drainage. This plan was not available for
inclusion in the draft EIS and therefore was not available for
review by WDFW. This alternative, while having the largest
footprint size, may reduce the final impact surface area by the
partial backfilling of the open pit. The creation of one waste
rock stockpile instead of two should reduce the loss of mature
conifer stands although the amount lost would still remain
substantial. Reclamation of the waste rock piles at 3H:1V instead
of 2H:1V should improve revegetation success.
The modified Alternative E would seem better than the proposed
Alternative (B) which would convert the largest amount of habitat
capable of supporting fully stocked conifer forest and has a
reclamation plan with proposed low stocking of replacement tree
cover.
c. Impacts to mature conifer forest
Snow intercept/thermal (SI/1) cover for deer in the Wildlife Core
Area is in short supply and is likely limiting the deer
population. The US Forest Service minimum requirements in
Management Areas (MAs 14 and 26) for deer winter range (winter
snow intercept, thermal regulation and hiding cover) are not met
in some Core Area portions. Within the draft EIS, deer SI/1 cover
estimates are based on Tonasket Wildlife Habitat Inventory
Procedures (TWHIP) which only includes cover found within MAs
-------
Ms. Patricia Betts
August 29, 1995
Page 3
managed for deer winter range. However, other Management Areas
(MAs 14 and 25) which are managed for timber and range and not
for deer winter range also provide winter thermal and hiding
cover. The actual loss of deer winter range is much greater than
estimated when cover is based on the total available cover within
the entire Core Area and not just those MA's managed for deer
winter range.
Limited SI/T cover makes existing mature conifer forest
increasingly valuable around Buckhorn Mountain. Due to past
forest practices (timber harvesting) which have already reduced
deer winter habitat in the Core Area, a further decrease in SI/T
cover through mine actions would have substantial effects on
deer. These pressures, combined with the loss of animal movement
corridors, increased habitat fragmentation, increased hunting
pressures and human activities (road traffic, noise,
development), would most likely have deleterious impacts on local
deer populations.
Mature conifer stands also provide other features that, once
destroyed, are difficult to replace. Snags, which are a key
component of habitat for cavity excavators (woodpeckers), do not
meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines in some Core Area
portions. The loss of down and dead woody material and a diverse
stand structure found within mature conifer stands would also
reduce the prey base habitat for carnivores and raptors.
Contiguous mature forest stands on and near Buckhorn Mountain
serve as north-south corridors providing cover during animal
movement. Any further fragmentation of mature forest will reduce
animal use of these travel corridors. Several corridors would be
interrupted where they cross the mine footprint.
Mature forest providing cover for deer and other mature conifer
species (pileated woodpecker, fisher, etc.) would take over 100
years to grow on reclaimed sites due to the loss of soil
productivity, the proposed inadequate tree stocking levels and
the lack of snags, down logs and multi-storied canopies. Combined
with the loss of habitat permanently converted to nonforested
habitat, those species using mature conifer forests will be
negatively impacted.
In addition, during the interval in which mature conifer forest
is expected to develop, no compensation is proposed for the loss
of wildlife productivity for the 100 years.
As mature conifer stands in the Core and Analysis Areas are in
limited supply, every effort should be made to avoid direct
impact.
-------
Ms. Patricia Betts
August 29, 1995
Page 4
Based on the above discussion, we believe the action alternatives
of the project would have significant adverse impacts to the
mature conifer habitats and associated wildlife populations. We
are particularly concerned for the long-term status of mule deer.
To summarize, the draft EIS states that all Crown Jewel Project
action alternatives would result in both short-term and long-term
impacts to wildlife; accordingly, there will be a need for
mitigation. WDFW Mitigation Policy strives for full mitigation
which ensures no net loss of habitat value or wildlife
populations. Also, as stated above, we believe the intent of the
1994 Metal Mining Law is to fully mitigate significant impacts
including compensatory mitigation. The draft EIS lacks proposed
mitigation measures which will fulfill this policy and mining
law, especially concerning issues "c - Impacts to mature conifer
forests" and "d - Impacts to Stream Flow, Seeps, Springs, and
Wetlands", below.
d. Impacts to Stream Flow, Seeps, Springs and Wetlands
Mining operations are expected to have some impact on stream
flows, seeps, springs and wetlands. It appears no complete
analysis of all potentially impacted wetlands has been completed.
Hydro-Geo has examined the mine pit filling (1994) and the
impacts of mining on area stream flows (1993) for the total
drainage affected and for the headwaters directly affected. These
dewatering impacts have not been combined with impacts due to
diversion ditches, interceptor wells, pit sumps and tailing
underdrains at the mine site.
WDFW expects long term effects of mining operations on stream
flows, seeps, springs and wetlands. After mining activities cease
for those alternatives that involve pit lake formation, water
will begin to accumulate in the pit bottom. According to the 1993
study by Golder Associates (Groundwater Inflows to the Crown
Jewel Pit, Okanogan Co. WA) , the pit would fill in approximately
12-45 years after the end of mining. Another study by Hydro-Geo
Consultants, Inc. (1994) estimates the pit filling to take 7-13
years. At that time, the pit outflow will enter the Gold Bowl and
Nicholson Creeks. For mining alternatives that involve partial
back filling of the mine pit, ground water levels would
potentially reach an equilibrium in approximately 2 to 6 years.
After complete reclamation, including the tailings disposal site,
the drainage that were diverted during operations will be
reestablished to the approximate pre-mining drainage direction
(BMGC 1993). Due to the ambiguity of time necessary for ground
water recharge and location of stream flows, impacts to wetland
and riparian habitat will be long-term and not short-term.
lasting the 10 years of the'project and the additional 2-45 years
necessary for around water flow to approach ore-mining levels.
-------
Ms. Patricia Betts
August 29, 1995
Page 5
e. Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP)
For the most part, the draft EIS used a habitat analysis approach
to describe habitats and to predict impacts of the Project (as
discussed in sections 3.13 and 4.12). However, it should be noted
that Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) was also used to evaluate
the net impact of the six proposed mining alternatives. HEP is a
methodology specifically designed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to determine and measure impacts of major projects such
as the proposed Project. It is an accounting procedure that
measures changes in wildlife habitat quality and quantity over
time. It combines measures of quality and quantity of available
habitat into a single value, termed habitat unit for selected
evaluation species.
For this project, two HEP analysis were conducted: 1) Without the
Project, and 2) With Project/Without Mitigation. The Without
Project analysis included expected management of the area had the
project (including mine exploration) not occurred. The With
Project/Without Mitigation contained exploration, proposed mining
and reclamation activities. The difference between these two
analysis was the basis for determining impacts. Calculations were
made for each proposed mining alternative.
Although discussed briefly in the draft EIS, the HEP data (Table
4.12.7 -pg 4-102) should be considered as more accurately
depicting the expected impacts of the six proposed mining
alternatives. The listed habitat units were derived from
quantifiable data taken from a highly detailed cover type map and
carefully measured habitat parameters for the selected species
models. Whereas, most habitat impacts presented in the draft EIS
were developed from more general information and less
quantifiable data.
Table 4.12.7 illustrates significant adverse impacts to 10 of the
11 evaluation species that were used. We also recommend HEP be
used for measuring the effectiveness of proposed mitigation.
2. Page specific suggestions for corrections or clarifications
within the draft EIS
a. Stream Flow, Seeps, Springs and Wetlands
4-63 Besides the jurisdictional wetlands identified that
would be impacted by the action alternatives, there is a
potential for others as yet unidentified wetlands within the
Gold, Marias, Myers and Nicholson Creek watersheds to experience
a reduction in size and productivity. If development of an action
alternative occurs, these wetlands need to be identified and
-------
Ms. Patricia Betts
August 29, 1995
Page 6
compensatory mitigation in the form of enhancement, restoration
or creation of other wetlands would be required prior to impacts
occurring.
4-65 The minimum to maximum total average annual flow
reductions for all of the Buckhorn Mountain drainage due to
baseflow reduction and losses of overland flow would be 2.5 to
5.5% (Hydro-Geo, 1995). These figures appear low as they pertain
fco the entire drainage areas; however, these flow reductions will
be substantial locally, particularly during the dryer months, as
water supply and wetland/riparian habitat are scarce in the upper
drainage of Buckhorn Mountain.
2-99 The Frog Pond provides important wetland habitat as it
is one of the only open water systems on Buckhorn Mountain.
Impacts include direct impacts from mining actions as well as
indirect impacts through reduced water flow.
Page 72 (Appendix H: Draft Biological Evaluation for the Crown
Jewel Mine Project puts the acreage of the Frog Pond at 3 acres.
In the Draft EIS, the acreage is put at 1.6 acres (2-99) and 1.8
acres (3-127).
The draft Biological Evaluation for the Crown Jewel Mine Project
also states that suitable foraging and breeding habitat for the
spotted frog (Proposed, Endangered or Threatened candidate, USFWS
and Washington State) at the Frog Pond should be unaffected by
project-related activities. This seems unlikely as the wetland
will have reduced flows for at least 10 years and probably
greater than 15 - 20 years. As a consequence, the vegetational
structure and diversity of the pond will reduce the size and
value of the Frog Pond as a wetland. The alteration of the pond
will negatively impact other wildlife dependent on
wetland/riparian habitat.
2-96 Bear Trap Canyon is a proposed mitigation site to offset
unavoidable tailings facility impacts to wetlands and the Gold
Bowl drainage. No acreage is provided for the site.
Bear Trap Canyon is on US Forest Service land. Any wetlands found
there should already be protected by existing laws and
regulations. The US Forest Service is responsible for preserving
wetlands on their holdings. Enhancement of these wetlands would
not contribute significant mitigation credits.
b. Aquatic Resources
4-67, 4-70-71 An IFIM analysis was conducted to determine
habitat/flow relationship for the protection of spawning and
wintering habitat for rainbow trout and winter habitat for brook
-------
Ms. Patricia Betts
August 29, 1995
Page 7
trout. The draft EIS treats the findings very briefly; although,
it is a reasonable treatment. It proposes to maintain 9 to 12 cfs
during spawning habitat for rainbow trout (adjusted upward with
increase in temperature) and 6 cfs to maintain winter habitat for
both species. Twelve cfs are needed to insure adequate habitat
for emerging trout fry during late spring and early summer. It
should be noted that these are considered minimum flows and some
habitat value may be lost, particularly winter habitat for brook
trout as stated (4-71).
Construction of the diversion dam on Myers Creek to fill the
Starrem Creek reservoir will require an Hydraulic Project
Approval (HPA) which will specify screening of proper size and
mesh to prevent emergent trout fry from entering the pumping
station.
4-67 The draft EIS states flows in certain creeks including
Marias and Nicholson Creeks are expected to decrease 3-4 percent,
but no impacts to fish populations are expected. This seems
doubtful when considering the existing low flows particularly
during the dryer months. If fish habitat is lost in these streams
as determined by the proposed weekly monitoring (2-107), how will
it be mitigated?
Page 4 (Appendix I : Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat -
Biological Evaluation). Stream and fisheries surveys conducted
for the proposed project indicated sediment loading in channels
from road wash and skid road sources, as well as from livestock
trampling. Project related road construction and earth moving
activities will augment sedimentation. Measures should be taken
to reduce the amount of sediment entering stream channels.
Page, 7 (Appendix I : Fisheries and Aquatic Habitat - Biological
Evaluation). Although the partial backfilling of the mine pit is
to prevent a lake formation, the BE anticipates that the
hydraulics of the springs and overland flow will fill the voids
between backfill materials, and a lake partially filled with rock
will most likely result. Because of the increased surface area of
the back fill material, increased leaching of cadmium and silver
may occur. In addition, the discharge of the pit water is
anticipated to be through springs and seeps, rather than at a
defined outflow point. Testing and treatment of discharge
effluent will be more difficult resulting in a higher potential
for toxic cadmium and silver pit water discharge into the
Nicholson Creek drainage. This could lead to greater impacts on
fisheries and aquatic organisms in the Nicholson Creek drainage.
-------
Ms. Patricia Betts
August 29, 1995
Page 8
C. US Forest Service Compliance
4-73 None of the action alternatives would fully comply with
the US Forest Service standards and guidelines for wildlife
impacts prescribed in the Forest Plan. Most of the noncompliar.ee
actions would bring wildlife habitat below threshold levels. This
project would therefore require Forest Plan amendments. Until
these potential amendments are identified, WDFW is unable to
support any amendment that would further reduce habitat below
minimal levels as set forth in the Forest Plan. We are
particularly concerned how deer winter cover will be addressed.
d. Roads
4-84 The current and Project road densities are estimated at
greater than 6 mile/square mile. Road closure during and after
the Project will return road densities to lower than current
levels (4 miles/square mile), but still higher than pre-
exploration densities of 3.4 miles/square mile. This level will
be maintained until the end of monitoring. The prolonged use of
roads will have long term effects on deer which are found to
reduce habitat use adjacent to trafficked roads.
e. Recreation
4-118 Hunting pressures are expected to increase due to both
Project-related and unrelated population growth. If deer
population viability is diminished due to a reduction in winter
range and harassment from human activity, reduced hunting quality
could result.
f. Secondary Land-Use Development
The.construction of transmission lines and electrical
availability could lead to future residential development around
the Analysis Area. Increased human presence could lead to future
wildlife impacts.
g. Grazing
2-85 Cattle would be fenced out of mine footprint. This
action may increase grazing pressure in other riparian areas.
Effort should be taken to provide supplemental water sources and
protect riparian sites.
2-90 Controlled grazing within the fenced perimeter is
proposed during the 10 years after completion of reclamation as a
possible measure to reduce competition between grasses and
-------
Ms. Patricia Betts
August 29, 1995
Page 9
planted trees. Grazing on recently revegetated soils may lead to
soil compaction and/or erosion, loss of productivity and death or
damage to planted tree seedlings.
h. Reclamation - Vegetation
Reclamation goals and objectives for revegetation as proposed are
in very general terms. What are considered successful
revegetation densities for grasses, forbs, shrubs and trees and
in what time period? Criteria for success needs to be defined.
2-85 Alternative B vegetation reclamation proposes a clumped
distribution of 50 - 100 trees/acre stocking levels. Other
alternatives have 250 trees and 400 shrubs/acre. Why the
discrepancy?
2-84 Within the species selection for revegetation, no
mention of forbs is included with seeds and shrubs. Forbs are an
important forage component for many wildlife species and should
be included in reclamation activities.
I. Reclamation - Wildlife
2-101 The loss of soil productivity on reclaimed sites and
consequent slow vegetative recovery of shrubs and trees will
decrease the availability of perches and snags. Mitigation
practices will include the placement of raptor perches and
kestrel and songbird boxes within the Core Area. The use of
stand-up logs to provide perches and act as snags throughout the
reclaimed areas is suggested as a way to supplement creation of
snags in surrounding forests.
4-88 Proposed mitigation plans for the tailings pond include
a wildlife exclusion fence but not nets or chemical repellents.
Such mitigative measures would reduce bird and bat exposure to
possible toxin ingestion.
J. Monitoring
2-106 The draft EIS states agencies would meet annually with
proponent to discuss the need for supplements or modifications to
the Plan of Operation. Additional meetings should also be held as
needed to address any unanticipated problems with wildlife.
2-106 Under the section for monitoring wildlife mortality in
and around the tailings pond, no mention of monitoring levels of
cyanide or other toxins is given. On page 2-26 under Cyanide
Destruction, the draft EIS states levels of cyanide above 10
-------
Ms. Patricia Betts
August 29, 1995
Page 10
mg/liter will not be permitted and certain types of monitoring
would be required, but no details are given. How will
unanticipated increases in levels of cyanide and other harmful
elements which could lead to increased wildlife mortality be
monitored, rectified and if necessary mitigated?
2-107 Yarded deer during severe periods of winter weather
should be monitored particularly in areas near transportation
routes so preventative measures can be taken to minimize
harassment and mortality.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Crown Jewel Mine
draft EIS. We hope our comments are helpful in providing a more
complete understanding of impacts to the fish and wildlife
resource. We will be looking forward to providing additional
assistance on this project. Please call at (509) 754-4624 if you
have any questions or need additional information on any of our
comments.
Sincerely,
Rdn Friesz
Habitat Biologist
cc: Tracy Lloyd, WDFW Ephrata
Gordy Zillges, WDFW Olympia
Curt Leigh, WDFW Olympia
Elizabeth English. WDFW Olympia
Connie Iten, WDFW Olympia
Phil Christy, USFS Tonasket
David Kaumheimer, USFWS Moses Lake
-------
REFERENCES
Colder Associates. 1993. Groundwater inflow to the Crown Jewel
pit, Okanogan County, WA. Prepared for Battle Mountain
Gold Co., integrated plan of operations, Lakewood, CO.
Hydro-Geo Consultants, Inc. 1993. Impact of mining on area stream
flows, Crown Jewel Project. Prepared for TerraMatrix,
Inc., Lakewood, CO.
. 1994. Pit filling study, Crown Jewel Project. Prepared for
Battle Mountain Gold Co., Lakewood, CO.
-------
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF
Natural Resources JENNIFER M-8ELCHER
Commissioner of Public Lands
KAIEEN COTTINGHAM
Supervisor
August 29, 1995
Phil Christy
NEPA Coordinator
1 West Winesap
Tonasket, WA 98855
Subject: Comment on the Crown Jewel Mine draft EIS
Dear Mi Christy.
Alternative B (the proponents proposal) does not meet the minimum reclamation standards as set
forth in the Surface Mine Reclamation Act (RCW 78.44).
Sincerely,
Raymond Lasmanis
Manager
Division of Geology and Earth Resources
dkn
-------
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY, TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION
111 21st Avenue S.W. • P.O. Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 '
(360) 753-4011
July 6, 1995
Mr. Sam Gehr, Forest Supervisor
Okanogan National Forest
1240 South Second Avenue
Okanogan, Washington 98840
Log: 111694-39-FS-OK
Re: Battle Mountain Gold/Crown Jewell
Project, Draft EIS
Dear Mr. Gehr:
The Washington State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (OAHP) is in receipt
of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Crown Jewell Project.
From the project summary, I understand that Battle Mountain Gold Company, and Crown
Resource Corporation, propose to operate a surface mine operation and associated mill on 766
acres on Buckhorn Mountain in Okanogan County.
On behalf of OAHP, I have reviewed the DEIS in regard to discussion on project impacts to
cultural resources. In general, I concur with the findings of the DEIS. For your information,
I am enclosing a copy of our June 26, 1995 letter to Mr. Mark DeLeon addressing the status
of our evaluation of cultural resources on Buckhorn Mountain. Briefly, our opinion is that
historic mining resources on Buckhorn do not comprise a historic landscape eligible for listing
in the National Register of Historic Places. However, it is our opinion that several historic
cabins, camps, and mining related structures in the project area are National Register eligible.
-------
Mr. Gehr
July 6, 1995
Page Two
As a result of this opinion, O AHP recommends the alternative resulting in the least impact to
eligible cultural resources. For those National Register eligible resources which are to be
adversely affected by the proposal, appropriate mitigation measures need to be identified and
incorporated into a memorandum of agreement (MOA).
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the DEIS. I would like to take this
opportunity to recognize the efforts of Mark DeLeon of Okanogan National Forest, Rich
Bailey and Judy Thompson of the Bureau of Land Management, and the consultants at
Archaeological & Historical Services for their assistance in our review process. Should you
have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (360) 753-9116.
Sincerely,
A. Griffith
hensive Planning Specialist
GAGrtjt
Enclosure
cc: Rich Bailey
Mark DeLeon
Pat Spurgin
-------
STATE OF WASHINGTON
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY, TRADE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
OFFICE OF ARCHAEOLOGY AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION
111 21st Avenue 5.W. • P.O. Box 48343 • Olympia, Washington 98504-8343 • (360) 753-4011
June 26, 1995
Mr. Mark DeLeon, Forest Archaeologist
Okanogan National Forest
1240 South Second Avenue
Okanogan, Washington 98840-9723
Dear Mr/tfeLeo
Log: 111694-3 9-FS-OK
Re: Battle Mountain Gold/Crown Jewell
Project, Buckhom Mountain
Once again, thank you for hosting Lauren and myself for the tour of Buckhorn Mountain on
June 19. This on-site visit was very useful in helping us understand the nature of the
resources to be affected by the Battle Mountain Gold project, not to mention historic mining
resources in general.
As promised, I am responding in order to bring to closure some of the questions we've been
wrestling with regarding the properties on the mountain. First, in regard to the historic
landscape question, the conclusion we reach is that the properties on Buckhorn Mountain do
not comprise such a resource. The site visit was convincing in conveying the feeling that
each mining site, camp, prospect, etc. represents visually discrete resources, thereby making
National Register eligibility of the project area as a historic landscape difficult to justify.
In regard to the Gold Axe Camp, our conclusion is that it does appear to be National Register
eligible in view of the interesting juxtaposition of cabins spanning the region's period of
significance from the 1890s into the 1930s. It is our recommendation that the camp be
characterized as a "site" rather than as a historic district.
-------
State of
Washington
CLYDE BALLARD House Of STAR; REPRESENTATIVE
SPEAKtR Representatives i:th DISTR1CT
August 30, 1995
Mr. Phil Christie
Crown Jewel DEIS Comments
U.S. Forest Service
Tonasket Ranger District
1 West Winesap
Tonasket. WA 98855
Dear Mr. Christie:
I am writing to you regarding the Battle Mountain proposal. I believe it is referred to as "Alternative B."
Although I do not have all of the exact details regarding this project, I know a lot of work has gone into
the process.
Concerns have been raised regarding the use of cyanide which might pose a threat to wildlife. It has
been my understanding that the issue has been examined and determined to be a safe alternative.
Another question was whether there was sufficient water in the streams to supply the mine's needs and
maintain necessary base flows for fish. Again, it is my understanding that this also was determined to
be sufficient.
There is no question in the fact that the mine would have a major impact on the region. As I look at
proposals such as this, I look for important issues such as: Will the environment be protected? and
Will the quality of life be affected? If the answers are "yes," and it is my understanding that they will be,
then the economic impact should be very positive.
I've had a bit of a unique chance to look at proposals like this because the Cannon Mine operated in the
Wenatchee area for several years. I am pleased to announce that they were very good neighbors, and
to my knowledge, there was never any incident such as the ones raised in the Battle Mountain proposal.
They were good employers and good neighbors for the community. It is unfortunate that some people
just say an automatic "no" to any proposal of this nature.
I trust you will give this a fair, reasonable hearing. It is my hope that all concerns have been addressed
and that this will turn out to be good for all those concerned.
Thank you for your consideration of my comments. .
Sincerely,
CLYDE BALLARD
Speaker of the House
CB/tll
LEGISLATIVE OFFICE LEGISLATIVE BUILDING. PO BOX 406:3. OLYMPIA. WA ->8504-06:3 • (3601 T86-79-J9
-------
State of
s ,; m.K.s.N.xMv, Washington «"L"
Ml, III', I I'll ! °
MARK sci IOL-:SI.I-:R House of u:iuu"-"JRi:ANDnc°LOCY
Representatives FINANCE
^ ^ CORRECTIONS
August 24, 1995
Mr. Phil Christy
Crown Jewel DEIS
US Forest Service
Tonasket Ranger District
1 West Winesap
Tonasket, WA 98855
Dear Phil,
I am writing to comment on the draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the Crown Jewel mine near Chesaw. This document
shows the Crown Jewel is a well though out plan that can be
undertaken without causing any significant, permanent
environmental impacts. The mine would also be a tremendous asset
to an area hard pressed for jobs, especially family wage ones.
The necessary regulations are in place to see that Battle
Mountain delivers on its planned design, construction, operations
and reclamation of the mine. With all these facts in mind, I am
in support of the DEIS and believe Alternative B properly
balances environmental concerns with the economic realities of
operating a mine.
Sincerely,
Mark G. Schoesler
Washington State Representative
Ninth Legislative District
MGS: jed
c : \wpwin\letters\j ewlmine
t.LCISl. \II\ E OFFICL JO: LEGISLATIVE BUILDING. PO BOX 406P. OLYMPIA. 'A \ 98504-06 I" • (360) 7S6-7S44
HOTLINE Dt RING SESSION: |.KUOo<>:-<>000 • TDD I -800-o3 ?-'»'>'> 3
RESIDENCE ROUTE >l BOX I 5 I. RITZVILLE. * A o«j|V> - i 50»i "5')-l "4
-------
TMI#:4557
Good evening, I'm State Representative Kathy Morris, from the Seventh Legislative District. A
district representing approximately a hundred thousand people. It's a very rural district whose
economy depends on natural resources ~ mining, timber, and agriculture. Ninety percent of the
mining that happens in the state, happens in the seventh district. So mining is not new to this area,
but it is accepted as a way oflifc. Tonight I speak in support of the proposals outlined in Alternative
B. And encourage the state and federal agencies to cooperate to allow productive citizens to
contribute to the economy of both Okanogan County and the State of Washington through this
proposed mine. I have a number of comments about the draft environmental impact statement on the
Crown Jewel regarding economics. In this period of diminishing opportunities for natural resource
industries in eastern Washington, it will be my district's good fortune lo have the Crown Jewel
operating here. Family wage jobs are far and few between in this part of the state. With the
company's commitment to hire so many of its employees locally, the financial impact of the mine on
government units in area will be significant. As reflected in both the independent, socio-economic
analysis conducted, as required by the 1994 Metal Minings Act. Regarding the selection of a
preferred alternative, I hope you will weigh carefully the potential downside to making Battle
Mountain modify any of its plans for meager, environmental gains outlined in the DEIS by selecting
an alternative other than B.
Regarding wildlife impacts. After such delays in the EIS schedule, primarily due to the different
agencies trying to decide what wildlife study to conduct, I'm glad to see that these exhaustive studies
have resulted in identifying such minor impacts. It appears that the overall habitat acreage will be
reduced in some cases, though mostly just temporarily, but never to the risk of an endangered,
threatened, or sensitive species population. This fact is underplayed, however, and to find this
conclusion one must weigh through considerable verbage. I thank you for your attention, and I ask the
state and federal agencies to conclude the remaining necessary, and unnecessary steps, so the benefits
of this operation can begin. (Applause).
-------
State of
Tktl"cgofn
TIM SF IELDON Representatives
NA1, H
FINANCE
August 22, 1995
Phil Christy
Crown Jewel Draft Environmental Impact Statement
United States Forest Service
Tonasket Ranger District
1 West Winesap
Tonasket, WA 98855
Dear Mr. Christy,
I am writing to add my comments to the EIS process on Battle
Mountain Gold Company's proposal to develop a gold mine in Okanogan
County and to express my support for Alternative B in the draft
document. The mine obviously makes good sense economically. No
less significant, the state has in place all the necessary
regulations to adequately monitor this mine in every aspect of its
development from design through reclamation.
Your analysis makes it appear that component alternatives may
be substituted for one another interchangeably and still work. In
the world of business this is not so and that methodology
oversimplifies the highly complicated process of developing a
business proposal of this magnitude.
Many people who comment on the proposal have never visited the
site. I have spent time there as a member of the Natural Resources
Committee. We heard testimony from the local residents and I felt
that their concern for the economic viability of their area was
genuine. Mining has been a mainstay of their economy for a very
long time and this proposal fits very well with the occupations for
which the residents are well qualified.
We owe companies wishing to do business in this state a
straight forward decision making process about whether we will
allow them to operate. Having watched just the opposite transpire
in the case of Battle Mountain Gold Company, I hope the endpoint
for their approvals is now in sight.
Sincerely,
Tim Sheldon
Representative
LEGISLATIVE OFFICE: 414 LEGISLATIVE BUILDING. PO BOX 4O6OO. OLYMPIA. WA 985O4-O6OO • (36O) 786-79O2
RESIDENCE: POTLATCH. BOX 474. HOODSPORT. WA 98348 • (36O) 877-5768
-------
SI Ml HI I'I (I .SI ,N IAIIS I
I'Ml I I IIS I KM |
VAI.STKVT.NS
vvr MAiomn i I.OOH 1.1..\OI.H
Stilts of
Wiisl lii tyJK )i i
I louse of
Rcpresei itativ cs
t III! I>KI .N * I \\lll 1 SI U\l( I s
VWIi ( IIAIH
NAM MAI Id .SOI |(l I..S
111 I I-S
August 25, 1995
Crown Jewel DEIS Comments
U. S. Forest Service
Tonasket Ranger District
1 West Winesap
Tonasket WA 98855
To Whom It May Concern:
Anticipating the development of the Crown Jewel Mine, two metals mining bills have passed
the Washington State Legislature hi as many years. From this legislative scrutiny and from
having personally toured the Crown Jewel site, I have become familiar with what Battle
Mountain is proposing, as well as their 3-1/2 year ordeal to get to this point.
The State is ready for this mine as can be seen by the exhaustive analysis contained in the
draft Environmental Impact Statement on the proposal. Considering all potential
environmental impacts of the mine, and weighing the individual impacts of the six "action"
alternatives, the alternative proposed by Battle Mountain, Alternative B, appears to be the
most solid of these proposals. It accomplishes Battle Mountain's objectives in a realistic
time frame and does as much or more to minimize the impacts of the mine over the other
alternatives.
Given the results of this environmental review, Battle Mountain should be allowed to
proceed with its plan in tact with no further delays.
Sincereiy,
Val Stevens
State Representative
/om
LEGISLATIVE OFFICE: 4O4 LEGISLATIVE BUILDING. PO BOX 4O678. OLYMPIA. WA 985O*O678 • (36O) 786-78O4-
HOTLINE DURING SESSION. I-SOO362-6OOO • TDD: I-8OO635-9993
-------
State of
sr\n HI iMti si NTAIIVI Washington LAW A JUSTICE
Kill DISTRICT 6 v
JEROME DELVIN House of
Representatives
AGRICULTURE
HIGHER EDUCATION
, ./
August 17, 1995
Crown Jewel DEIS Comments
US Forest Service
Tonasket Ranger District
1 West Winesap
Tonasket, WA 98855
Attention: Phil Christy
Dear Mr. Christy:
I sit on the House Agriculture Committee so am particularly
interested in both what Battle Mountain is proposing as a water
plan for its Crown Jewel mine as well as the DEIS's evaluation of
their plan and its impacts. The water plan appears efficient,
using storage as a source of its water during periods of
interruptibility and it enhances the site's wetlands. Though
fisheries is not a key issue because of where the mine is to be
located, studies conducted do show that the resource will not be
affected by the proposed appropriations of new water the mine
will require during its ten years of operation.
The proponent should be allowed to proceed with the plan
(Alternative B) it has proposed. To require Battle Mountain to
make major alterations in its proposal by selecting a different
preferred alternative would result in negligible environmental
gain and have impact on the viability of the mine.
I hope with the draft EIS now completed, the pace of the
remaining steps will accelerate without any unwarranted delays.
Respectfully ,
JEROME DELVIN
State Representative
LEGISLATIVE OFFICE. 416 JOHN L O'BRIEN BUILDING. PO BOX 40600. OLYMPIA. WA 98504-0600 • (360)786-7986
HOTLINE DURING SESSION 1-800-562-6000 • TDD: 1-800-635-9993
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
State of
/ashingt
JOHN KOSTER House of
-. Ki-.i'ui-.shNv.Mivi. Washington AGRICULTURE
Will DISTRICT TYOOlUllglWU ,K..ntu.«.»
_. . CORRECTIONS
Representatives
TRANSPORTATION
August 21, 1995
Crown Jewel DEIS Comments
U.S. Forest Service
Tonasket Ranger District
1 West Winesap
Tonasket, WA 98855
Attention: Phil Christy
I am familiar with Battle Maintains proposal because there are some
mining interests in my district and because my predecessor in the
39th district was the prime sponsor of the legislation that became
the 1994 Metals Mining Act. I am pleased to see that in evaluating
the Crown Jewel, the Draft Environmental Impact Statement concludes
that several of the premises on which the Act was based are non-
issues as it relates to the mine. These include:
1. It is possible to safely site the mine's tailings
facility over Marias Creek with minimal environmental
impact;
2. Battle Mountain's proposed tailings facility liner system
will be adequate to prevent any contamination to the
surrounding environment;
3. The likelihood of a mishap involving cyanide at the mine
is nil;
4. There are no indications that a so-called "gold rush" is
likely to occur in Washington as a result of the Crown
Jewel project.
I am very much in support of Battle Mountain's plans as described
in Alternative B as the best of the alternatives considered. I
hope the agencies will do everything in their power to expedite
what should be an uncomplicated conclusion to this long process.
in Koster
Representative
JK/dls
LEGISLATIVE OFFICE -114 JOHN L O'BRIEN BUILDING. PO BOX 40600, OLYMPIA. WA 98504-0600 • (360)786-7816
HOTLINE DURING SESSION. 1-800-362-6000 • TDD 1-800-635-9993
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
HERE'S MY CROWN JEWEL DEIS COMMENTS:
I join with the Okanogan County Citizens Coalitioi
(OC3) in supporting the Crown Jewel project. *
^ Like OC3,1 support the responsible, multiple use of natural resources.
^ Mining can be done in a manner that protects the environment and multiple uses.
^ The Crown Jewel project will meet all relevant federal and state environmental laws and regulations.
^ I support Battle Mountain Gold Company's proposal (Alternative B) for the Crown Jewel project.
^ Please expedite the final EIS process and approval of all required permits.
Additional comments:
Name
Address ^. 4o(>C>O _ City <3A*VK^P6*J State LtfSI~Z\v Code
-
-------
TMltf: 4583
I'm Steve Fuhrman, the state representative from the seventh district. I would like to concentrate on
the social-economic portion of the EIS. I think it should be expanded as far as the historical
perspective, basically, if you cut the state in the northeast section we consider this in some terms as
being north-central, but really, on the map we are northeast. And you look at starting at Oroville,
meaning the Spanish Gold Town, and you keep going towards the east, Republic, the economic
vitality has been the mines. When you go on to Colville, the largest employer currently is the
magnesium plant there. It's an open-pit mine, it's northwest alloys, a subsidiary of Alcoa. Colville,
Chewelah, on over the hump to Ponderie, this, this portion of the state, the whole economic structure
through the century since it developed, this town in 1908 on, if you look from when non-Indians
moved in on the Indians, from that point forward the driving force for the development was
agriculture and mining. That's, what it was based on. Especially, just twelve miles on, to the east,
where you get into the major mining, and the development. Well, this is, is just one step further, and I
guess maybe we're pushing that edge, and the people in this valley doe not realize the economic
importance of what this whole corner of the state is. As Senator Morton mentioned, 90% of the
mining in this state is done in this northeast section. I guess maybe to explain Kettle Falls where I've
lived, the, the mountain right behind us is Gold Hill. This prospect in the mining that took place in
Gold Hill. Where I went swimming as a kid was at the Evans Quarries, that was the old limestone
quarrier. Northport, Orient, Colville, Metaline Falls, lone, those are all towns. Chewelah, the
magnisite plant. The brown lake quarry. There's no devastation. We still have clean water. It is part
of our socio-economic structure in the northeast section of the state. Oroville, it's a shame that we've
almost forgot that, and there's been so many people move in, in the last 20 years, that we forgot the
importance of mining. And we have to reiterate that in the socio-economic perspective as far as the
history in this area. Thank you. (Applause).
-------
STATE REPRESENTATIVE
Ulh DISTRICT
DALE FOREMAN
MAJORITY LEADER
State of
Washington
House of
Representatives
APPROPRIATIONS
August 28, 1995
Mr. Phil Christy
Crown Jewel DEIS
U.S. Forest Service
Tonasket Ranger District
1 West Winesap
Tonasket, WA 98855
Dear Mr. Christy:
I am writing to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on
the gold mine that Battle Mountain Gold Company hopes to develop in Okanogan
County. To solve the fiscal problems of a large county with a small tax base
is a challenge for the legislators representing Okanogan County in Olympia.
The family wage jobs this mine will create and the economic stimulus it will
inject into the Okanogan Highlands region will be a great help to its citizens
wishing a better livelihood.
It is heartening to see from the Draft EIS that government and its
consultants expect the environmental impacts of the proposed Crown Jewel to be
modest. The stringency of the State's environmental laws and the mitigation
proposed by Battle Mountain make Alternative B the logical choice for
approval. Their combination of components are the most economically viable
from their point of view while its overall impacts to wildlife and the number
of acres distributed is the same or less than any of the other alternatives.
Having lived in Wenatchee where the Cannon mine operated for ten years,
ard having served on the Citizens Advisory Council to monitor the mine
operations, I know what an asset a well designed and well run mine can be to a
community. The Crown Jewel mine is eagerly sought by all who are concerned
about the County's future. We look forward to your completing the remaining
steps to its approval in a timely manner.
Sincerely,
Dale Foreman
DF/r.h
LEGISLATIVE OFFICE 3rd FLOOR LEGISLATIVE BUILDING. PO BOX 40624, OLYMPIA, WA 98504-0624 • (360)786-7832
HOTLINE DURING SESSION 1-800-562-6000 • TDD' 1-800-635-9993
WENATCHEE DISTRICT OFFICE: 701 N CHELAN, SUITE B, WENATCHEE, WA 98801 • (509) 664-3157
RESIDENCE: 323 CHATHAM HILL ROAD. WENATCHEE. WA 98801 • (509) 663-7306
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
ui
Washington EDUCAT.O.
IAN ELLIOT House of — — -
Representatives
NAruRALR£SOURCES
TRANSPORTATION
August 23, 1995
Phil Christy
NEPA Coordinator
U.S. Forest Service
1 West Winesap
Tonasket, WA 98855
Dear Mr. Christy,
The 1994 Metals Mining Act contains two different performance security
provisions which are designed to prevent tax dollars from having to pay clean
up costs should any environmental problems occur (1) during the mine's
operation, from construction through post-closure, or (2) legislative session,
I prime sponsored a bill to clarify these provisions of the 1994 Act. There
are certain references to these performance security requirements in the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement on the Crown Jewel which ignore the changes
that the 1995 Act made to the 1994 Metals Mining Act. These inaccuracies are
found in the document as follows:
(1) Section 2 pg 2-85 column 1 paragraph 6: As a result of the 1995 Act, it
is not an option for WADOE to hold the performance security for a large scale
surface mine's reclamation.
(2) Section 2 pg 2-91 Permitting and Financial Assurances: The DEIS lists
remediation financial security as a mitigation measure in relation to closure
and post closure problems but makes no mention of the year of construction and
critical 10 years of the mine's operations during which the requirement will
also be in place for the Crown Jewel. Except that there is some overlap
during which both financial assurances would be in place, the remediation
performance security requirement has nothing to do with reclamation. The 1995
legislation separated these financial assurances. It would therefore be more
appropriate for the subject of remediation performance security to appear as a
separate item of mitigation.
(3) Appendix B Agency Responsibilities B-3 and B-9: The responsibilities of
WADOE, and WADNR regarding performance security have changed as a result of
the 1995 law.
These securities provisions were the subject of some concern during the 1995
legislative session, the formal language of the enacted legislation clarifies
these provisions.
LEGISLATIVE OFFICE 4:3 ;OHN L. O'BRIEN BUILDING, PO BOX 40600, OLYMPIA. WA 98504-0600 • (360)786-7928
HOTLINE DURING SESSION 1-800-562-6000 • TDD 1-800-635-9993
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
-------
Based on the slight differences in anticipated environmental inpacts between
Alternative B which embodies the company's plan and the remaining
alternatives, Battle Mountain's plan is the alternative that makes the most
sense to approve.
Sincerel,
Ian Elliot
State Representative
1st District
-------
June
c/fi/vr/v
mint.
broadcast with a cyclone-type broadcaster
where possible and. if necessary, inaccessible
slopes would be hydroseeded. Broadcast
seeding techniques would be used to create a
mo
-------
Jun* 1995
CROWN JtWtL Mint
2.12.8 Noise
The operator would comply with all state and
Okanogan County health and safety
requirement* pertaining to noise generation.
MSHA governs worker hearth and safety which
includes requiring noise protection for workers
in high noise areas.
Effectiveness: Moderate
Noise would be monitored at Chesaw. In the
event of routine exceedences of greater than 5
dBA above ambient from the mine (excluding
blasting), then mitigation would be
implemented. The haul trucks, bulldozers,
loaders and graders used for the Crown Jewel
Project would be purchased or retrofitted with a
"quiet package" consisting of lower-speed fans
and special noise barriers along the engine
compartment. Commercially available 'ambient
sensitive" backup alarms would be used on all
equipment to continuously adjust the volume of
back-up alarms so that the alarms are only as
loud as necessary based on the ambient noise in
the work area (about 5 dBA above the ambient
noise level). Exhaust fan noise from any
underground mining would be reduced by
providing a silencer, diffuse? or sound absorbing
materials which would lower the noise level
from the fan.
Effectiveness: Moderate
2.12.9 Permitting and.Financial Assurances
Federal mining laws authorize mineral
exploration and development on Federal Lands.
State and federal environmental laws are
designed and implemented to minimize adverse
impacts and to promote reclamation such that
future long-term productivity of th« surface
resources is maintained to the extent
practicable.
The Proponent must obtain any required
approvals and permits from the federal, state,
and local agencies. Approval of the Plans of
Operation by the Forest Service and BLM is
required prior to beginning any mining and
milling activities on federal lands.
The Proponent would prepare and submit
comprehensive mine site design plans prior to
approval of the Plans of Operations. These
pl»n«, at a minimum, would snow mine layout;
dimension* of the buildings and other
structures; volumes and cross sections of cuts
and fids: location and dimensions of the tailings
impoundment: water storage ponds; sediment
catchment channels and ponds; fence lines;
road ingress and egress; waste
rock stockpiles and reclamation timing; and
other details as needed.
Compliance with the approved Plans of
Operation would be conditioned upon
compliance with the terms of the other federal
and state permits which govern the proposed
actions of the Crown Jewel mining and milling.
Effectiveness: Moderate
The Proponent would bond for reclamation
before operations can begin. The regulations of
the Forest Service. BLM, WAOOE, and WAONR
require that the Proponent submit a reclamation
bond (financial surety) to ensure that adequate
reclamation and restoration of the land is
achieved following mining and milling activities.
A bond would provide the government with
sufficient funds to reclaim the site, and provide
environmental protection should the Proponent
fail to do so. The WADOE and/or WADNft
would hold the Washington State required
financial assurances. The financial assurances
would not be released without the consent of
both the WADOE and WADNR. Ether the
Forest Service and/or BLM would hold the
required Federal reclamation bonds. The bonds
would not be released without the consent of
both agencies.
RCW 78.56 requires the Proponent to provide
financial assurance that would support long-
term monitoring for water quality following mine
closure and for clean-up of potential problems
revealed during or after closure.
Effectiveness: Moderate
2.12.10 Recreation
Only authorized travel would be allowed into the
Crown Jewel operation. No unauthorized
vehicles or personnel would be permitted on the
site. Plans would be implemented to control
public access such as fencing and posting to
prohibit unauthorized entry to hazardous areas.
However, these plans would provide for
Cfown J»wW ACme * Draft £nv»raum«/Jt»/ Impact Statement
-------
June 199} Appndix 8 • Agency RnpomiiHUtin » B-J
or more feet at its deepest point, or a darn or dike that will retain ten or more acre-feet of
water. Dam special use permits require information on the use and capacity of the reservoir,
proposed construction, and a legal description of the location of the structure. Processing time
varies depending on the project complexity. Construction and yearly safety reviews are
required.
Washington Department of Ecology Responsibilities
The "lead state agency* is the agency responsible for SEPA compliance for a particular project.
For the Crown Jewel Project EIS, the WADOE is the lead state agency.
As required by WAC 197-11-938 (12), the WADOE is automatically the lead agency for the
Crown Jewel Project, because the proposal includes a new metallic mineral processing plant.
During consultations with the Proponent, the WADOE decided that an EIS would be prepared
for the Crown Jewel Project in accordance with WAC 197-11-315.
The WADOE will follow the specific procedures outlined in the Chapter 197-11, WAC, SEPA
Rules, that begin with scoping and data collection, and continues with an analysis of the data
necessary to develop and evaluate alternatives, impacts of the project and mitigation. The results
of this analysis will be documented in the EIS and will form the basis along with other
regulatory requirements for the WADOE decisions on the va/ious permits to be issued for the
project.
In February 1994, the Washington State legislature passed the 1994 Metals Mining and Milling
Act, Chapter 78.56 RCW. It gives the WADOE some additional responsibilities, some of which
will affect the preparation of the EIS. This law directs the WADOE to issue a tailings facility
site selection report for any proposal meeting the law's definition of a metals mining and milling
proposal. This report is to be developed in conjunction with the EIS (see Appendix K, Tailings
Site Selection Report). Some elements of the bill include requirements for: writing rules to
secure a performance security (financial assurance), additional inspections, waste rock plans for
new proposals, and tailings impoundment design guidelines.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Under authority delegated by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), WADOE regulates the discharge of
pollutants into Washington's surface waters through this permit system. An application for an
individual NPDES permit requires information on water supply volumes, water utilization,
wastewater flow characteristics and disposal methods, planned improvements, stormwater
treatment, plant operation, materials and chemicals used, production and other related
information. Depending upon the type of materials to be mined, EPA regulations may specify
effluent limits for inclusion in an NPDES permit(s) for the discharge of waste waters and
stormwater. Mines For which EPA has not promulgated stormwater effluent limits are required
to obtain coverage under Ecology's NPDES Baseline General Stormwater Permit. The
processing time for an individual NPDES permit ranges from about 180 days to one year but
varies upon project complexity. A public hearing on a proposed NPDES permit may be
required. The statutory authority for this permit is section 402 of the Federal Clean Water Act,
as amended. The state implementing regulations are Chapter 173-220 WAC and Chapter 173-
226 WAC.
Silvicultural Burning, Open Burning, Agricultural Burning. Silvicultural burning is
regulated by WADNR, who would be contacted regarding requirements for slash burning or
Crcnm Jewel Mine 4 Dmft E*viro*mfnul Impact Stttemtnt
-------
June /995 Appendix B * Agency Reiponutntitie) • 8-9
Washington Department of Natural Resources Responsibilities
The Washington Department of Natural Resources (WADNR) is a cooperating agency with
Foreji Service and WADOE on the Crown Jewel Project EIS. In February 1994, the
Washington State legislature passed the 1994 Metals Mining and Milling Act (Chapter 78.56
RCW) which gives the WADNR some additional responsibilities in conjunction with the
WADOE. Some elements of the bill include requirements for: 1) to hold a joint performance
security 2) to jointly develop performance security rules, and 3) requirements to conduct
additional inspections. There are a number of permits required by the WADNR for raining
operations. They are addressed below:
Surface Mine Reclamation Permit. Under Chapter 78.44 RCW and Chapter 332.18 WAC, the
WADNR requires a permit to regulate surface mining activities. The purpose of the permit is
to ensure the area is reclaimed and the natural resources are conserved on State and private land
within the State of Washington. A performance security for reclamation activities is required
before this permit is granted. Required t-ngineering 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 ro protect surface water
quality. Processing time varies depending on the project complexity, but it can take six months
or longer. The need for public hearings are assessed on a case by case basis.
Forest Practice Applications. Before any forest practice activities or site conversion activities
(harvesting, reforestation, road construction or chemical application) can begin on private or
State school lands in Washington State, the WADNR must approve such practices. The
statutory authority is under Chapter 76.09 RCW and Chapter 222 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.
The 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 its smoke management plan. A written burning permit is required year-round on land
protected by the WADNR.
Dumping Permit. As pan of its forest protection requirements under Chapter 76-04 RCW and
Chapter 332-24 WAC, the WADNR also requires a permit for the dumping of forest debris of
any kind in quantifier that the agency declares would constitute a forest fire hazard on, or
would threaten forest lands located within the state.
Bureau of Land Management Responsibilities
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) i$ a cooperating agency with the Forest Service and
the WADOE on the Crown Jewel Project EC. As such, a number of BLM resource specialists
representing various environmental and technical disciplines have and will continue to provide
input into the Crown Jewel Project EIS process.
CTOUK Jevti Mine * Drift E*vin*mt*ul Imptct Sutemau
TOTflL P.06
-------
oi>,,,,,ia office: Washington State Senate
i"l I) U"4iNl.mvi.' HiuMiu^ District Office:
,, I:' ^S^ Senator Dan Swecker ^L^
HUD-SH-MS 20th Leyi.slativc District i.i<,<» j-i-s.s'io
August 22, 1995
Phil Christy, NEPA Coordinator
Tonasket Ranger District
1 West Winesap
Tonasket, Washington 98855
Dear Mr. Christy:
I have several comments on the draft Environmental Impact
Statement for the Crown Jewel mine and some of the background on
this project.
First, let me say, I am very familiar with this project and the
Metals Mining and Milling (MM&M) legislation which governs it. I
served as a member of the MM&M Interim Task Force set up by the
1994 act. I also served on the Senate Natural Resources
Committee which adopted the 1995 MM&M Security legislation.
Both of these bills were considered solid compromises by all
parties and were adopted unanimously or with strong majorities at
every stage of the legislative process.
The 1995 bill dealt with certain sections of the 1994 Metals
Mining Act that were needlessly complex and expensive, as well as
in conflict with the 1993 Surface Mining Act. Again,
representatives of the involved regulatory agencies, industry,
the environmental community and local government worked by
consensus as a task force to devise a modification without
diluting the intent of the law. The legislature made its own
minor changes to the new language and passed it unanimously.
Without the Crown Jewel project, there never would have been a
1994 Metals Mining Act. It is, and always has been, what this
legislation is about. The process of developing the legislation
has enabled the State to deliberate years in advance of any
permitting decisions about this specific mine.
Although the 1994 Metals Mining Act is referenced throughout the
DEIS document, the fact that the legislation was developed with
this particular project in mind should be mentioned in the DEIS.
Committees: Ecology & Parks. Ranking Member • Natural Resources
-------
Page 2
DEIS - Crown Jewel
My second comment: It is important for DEIS readers to have a
perspective about the number of gold mines operating in the State
whose techniques and scale have singled them out for these
expanded regulations.
When the 1994 Act was being deliberated by the legislature, four
such mines were operating here. Since then, one has closed and
one has begun the process of closing. Since the Crown Jewel is
not yet permitted, one sole operating mine (Echo Bay Minerals
Company) is covered under this Act and must bear the cost of the
required increased inspections. The Act costs Echo Bay
approximately $20,000 per year. Once permitted, this act will
require substantial additional costs by the Crown Jewel project.
My third comment concerns the "gold rush" mentality predicted by
opponents to this project.
While the DEIS discussion of future gold mining in the State
aptly describes the minuscule likelihood of a "gold rush", those
opposed to the Crown Jewel continue to try to raise this fear in
the community. Gold mining is an expensive and lengthy
proposition, and getting from exploration to mining is a rarity.
Anyone who believes that the permitting of the Crown Jewel
portends a gold rush in the state doesn't know much about modern
mining. Mining properties in Washington State with substantial
commercial potential are almost non-existent. This subject
should therefore be discussed in more detail.
My fourth comment is about the Model Toxics Control Act public
participation grant that was awarded to the Crown Jewel's
opposition group:
Section 1 of the DEIS details the public involvement processes
that were conducted concerning this mining proposal. Noticeably
missing is mention of the $10,000 grant awarded by DOE to the
Okanogan Highlands Alliance and the Columbia River Bioregional
Education Project to assist the public in being involved in the
SEPA process. While it might be a source of embarrassment to DOE
that the organizations awarded these funds are fighting to stop
the mine, mention of this dubious grant should not be omitted.
In conclusion, the scrutiny that the Crown Jewel will be under
and the standard it must meet as a result of recent legislative
actions should put to rest the concerns of all but a very few
whose sole intent is to stop the mine by any means possible. For
them, there could be no laws stringent enough.
-------
Page 3
DEIS - Crown Jewel
Of the alternatives described in the DEIS, I support Battle
Mountain's plan (Alternative B). Any other approach would be
economically unjustified and, I believe, environmentally
questionable.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Dan Swecker
State Senator
District 20
-------
Washington State Senate
Residence: Oiympia Office:
- o BOX MI Senator Sid Snvder -su 1-cK|!>lativ«-' Building
senator MO snyaer
i.,,n» no.Kh. WA >>HM i ,, 0 Box 404H,
<.ioo> CHJ-.!T|') 19th Legislative District oiympia. WA 98=><>»-0482
Majority Caucus Chairman
August 22, 1995
Mr. Phil Christy
Crown Jewel DEIS
U. S. Forest Service
Tonasket Ranger District
1 West Winesap
Tonasket, WA 98855
Dear Mr. Christy:
I am pleased to relay my comments on the Crown Jewel mine which is undergoing the EIS
process.
I have followed the development of this mine since 1993 when the Senate Natural Resources
Committee, of which I am a member, began its review of the State's metals mining
regulations. From what I know of the company's plans for the Crown Jewel, Battle
Mountain Gold has taken into account all significant environmental issues in order to design
a mine that minimizes its impacts. It would seem to me, therefore, that the company's plan,
Alternative B, will be the most feasible alternative.
Coming from a county where unemployment is chronically high, I empathize with the
citizens of Okanogan"County who would like to see the Crown Jewel permitted without
delay.
I am confident that the laws and regulations which we have in place will assist the mine in
operating as it was designed, and that permitting it will prove to have been wise decision-
making on the part of the state and federal governments.
Sincerely,
,. I I r\ v—
A^-KM ^^
Sid Snyder I N>
State Senator 19tn District
Committees: Agriculture and Agricultural Trade & Development • Natural Resources • Rules • Ways & Means
33
-------
Washington State Senate
Senator George L. Sellar
Republican Caucus Chair
12th Legislative District
August 23, 1995
Phil Christy
Crown Jewel DEIS
U.S. Forest Service
Tonasket Ranger District
1 West Winesap
Tonasket, WA 98855
Dear Mr. Christy:
This letter is intended as a public comment regarding the Crown
Jewel gold mine. I support Battle Mountain's proposal and the
Alternative in which it is described in the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, Alternative B.
I have personally met with representatives of Crown Jewel several
times. They have repeatedly expressed to me their intention to "be
a good neighbor". Their DEIS, Alternate B reflects their
sensitivity to the environment.
The public should expect that regulatory agencies will base their
permitting decisions on sound science, whether considering a
wildlife refuge or a gold mine. It is clear from this Draft EIS
that the mine will not do irreparable harm to the environment and
should be approved. While the document spells out a number of
unlikely scenarios that could hurt wildlife and the area's
environment, the assessments ultimately show that with mitigation,
these impacts can be minimized during and/ or after the closure of
the mine.
This project is very important to Okanogan County. I urge that the
system deliver its decisions in a timely way. Many people are
counting on it.
Si
GEORGE L. SELLAR
State Senator
Otympia Office: 302 Legislative Building • P.O. Box 40412 • Olympia, Washington 98504-0412 • (360)786-7622
Home Address: 1324 Terrace Drive • East Wenatchee, Washington 98802 • (509) 884-7511
Recycled
-------
Washington State Senate
11 i Inliii A Un-Tliery Hiiikliiu; Home:
'' ° B<>>; l()l|t) Senator Marv Marearet Haucen l-(1's v OLscn Rl>ad
. \.v.,..hMv.;t.m >>nsoH>-»io senator rviary iviargarci naugen o.u.mo N.md. Washington 9*292
(20()» -so--{)i,s 10th Legislative District
August 29, 1995
Phil Christy
U.S. Forest Service
Tcnasket Ranger Dist.
1 West Winsesap
Tonasket, WA 98855
Dear Mr. Christy:
I am writing to comment on the draft document of the Environmental
Impact Statement for Battle Mountain's gold mine proposal in
Okanogan County. I have seen the site first hand and know that
while its isolated setting is pristine, the clear-cut which
presently inhabits the space where the pit will be located can
hardly be considered so. The proposal as defined by Battle
Mountain in Alternative B represents the best configuration for
extracting the resource with the minimum cumulative impacts to the
environment; so I support Alternative B.
I am a member of the Senate Natural Resources Committee, and served
in this capacity during the 1994 legislative session when the 1994
Metals Mining Act became law. I would call your attention to two
of the Act's provisions which are not mentioned in the DEIS.
Though I believe both are unnecessary and set bad precedents in
State law, they "should be described in the document to give readers
a complete picture of the scrutiny this mine will be under as well
as the penalties it will be subject to should it violate any of its
permit conditions.
The first is the citizen observation provision which allows
citizens to observe and verify DOE's taking of water samples on the
mine site. This enables individuals concerned about water quality
and about the government's veracity in monitoring the mine to see
for themselves that the samples have been taken and the results of
the tests are in compliance with permit requirements.
Committees: Governmental Operations. Chair • Natural Resources • Transportation
o
-------
The second is the citizen suit provision which allows citizens to
file against the regulatory agencies or the mining operator if a
mine is out of permit compliance and all other citizen suit
provisions in other statutes have been exhausted.
Thank you for your attention to the above comments.
Sincerely,
HAUGEN
istrict
MMH: jw
-------
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement
demonstrates that the Crown Jewel gold mine can be
operated in an environmentally responsible manner. Tins
state of die art mine will meet all applicable federal and state
regulatory requirements.
We support this project us proposed by the Battle Mountain
Gold Company (Alternative B). We urge otir public officials
to expedite the Final EIS and the remainder of the
permitting process.
NAME £arl warce 1/u.S — Chela.H
STREET ADDRESS.
CITY
STATE
ZIP CODE
-------
TOWN of TONASKET
POST OFFICE BOX 487 TONASKET. WASHINGTON 9S8SS TELEPHONE 309 /488-2132
August 25, 1995
U.S.D.A. Forest Service
Tonasket Ranger District
1 West Wlnesap
Tonasket, Washington 98855
RE: Crown Jewel Mine Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Dear Ladles and Gentlemen:
The City Council of the City of Tonasket, Washington took
action at the regularly scheduled Council meeting on August 22,
1995 to support the Crown Jewel Mine Alternative B - Proposed
Action, as stated In the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
The vote was unanimous, one councllmember absent from the
meet Ing.
Sincerely,
Thomas W. Fancher, Mayor
TWF/ada
-------
TMI#: 4584
Hello, I'm Tom Fancher, Mayor of the City of Tonaskct. Tonight I would like to comment on the
economics of the DEIS. The demand for improvement of roads, streets, sewer, water system, and
other services provided by state, county, and local government, is on the increase. Our governments
have no way to generate more money to cover these services except to increase taxes, which nobody
wants. Or, we can broaden our tax by encouraging new business in our county. The Crown Jewel
Mine will broaden this by property taxes, increased wage base, and helping solve the high
unemployment rate in the north end of the county by employing 80% local people. Also, as a tax base
broadens, the burden of property, taxes, school, and other taxes are decreased on taxpayers of
Okanogan County. With the help of the Crown Jewel Mine and spinoff business to serve the mine,
our economic structure will improve and encourage other businesses to locate in the county, and
broaden our tax base. I also support Alternative B, as the most environmentally and economically
sound plan of all the alternatives. With the new stringent mining laws in the state of Washington,
Okanogan County will have a state-of-the-art mine, which residents can be proud of. It is time to get
this project started, and no more hold-ups. Thank you. (Applause).
-------
TMI#: 4596
Thank you. My name is Don Lane. I'm the Chief of Police of Oroville, Oroville Chamber of
Commerce president, past Kiwanis president, and I also own land on Pontiac Ridge. I also have
cattle, in the Okanogan. So, I found out tonight that I'm not a local. My cattle aren't local, they'll be
devastated when I tell them. (Laughter).
I've come here tonight to talk, not about the draft EIS, which a lot of people have not talked about it.
I've come to talk about Battle Mountain Gold, and the money that they've given to the community.
They've given to up and down the valley over $ 15,000 per year in
donations which each one of us has benefltted in some way, even though some of us may not want to
admit it. On behalf of the Chamber of Commerce I want to read a statement out of a letter that we
sent out. "Creating new well-paying jobs in our local community is something chambers members
think about every day. Instead of just thinking about it today, we decided to do something about it by
speaking with you. I am here to tell you about the single biggest jobs-issue that will face the citizens
of north central Washington this year-the future of our local mining industry. Mining has been an
important part of our history for over a century. Mining industry has fed a lot of families over the
years. We know we can mine and protect the environment, especially under today's tough regulations.
Now mining has come under attack by some who want to kill the Crown Jewel Gold Mine as part of
the bigger effort to shut down the mining industry in our state. It's up to us, as citizens, to defend this
historic industry, our traditional way of life, in the proposed mine. We support Battle Mountain Gold
Alternative B." Thank you. (Applause).
-------
SPOKANE
FERRY COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
and BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
POST OFFICE BOX 498
REPUBLIC, WASHINGTON 99166-0498
TELEPHONE (509) 775-5229 • FAX (509) 775-2492
ED F. WINDSOR, Curlew-District 1 Shilah Moores, CMC
JAMES M. HALL, Republic-District 2 Clerk of the Board
GARY W. KOHLER, Inchelium-Districi 3
August 28, 1995
Phil Christy
U.S. Forest Service
Tonasket Ranger District
P.O. Box 466
Tonasket, WA 98855
RE: Crown Jewel EIS
Dear Mr. Christy:
The Ferry County Board of Commissioners supports the proposed Crown Jewel Mining Project i
Okanogan County, Washington, as outlined hi Option B of the EIS. With all of the new technology an
safeguards in place, we do not feel that this project will pose a threat to the health and welfare of the resident
in the surrounding area. The Crown Jewel project will be a strong economic benefit to both Okanogan Count
and Ferry County, as it will provide employment to residents of both counties.
After closure of this mine, we would like to see the pit left open to eventually fill in and become a laki
This lake would hold back spring runoff waters and help to maintain the year-around stream flows in tf
drainage areas. It would also provide an additional recreation area for the residents and visitors of Okanoga
and Ferry Counties.
We do not feel that any further delay of this project is warranted, and strongly encourage the U.S. Fore
Service and the Department of Ecology to proceed with issuing the necessary permits to allow these operatioi
to proceed. Thank you for your consideration of our comments.
Sincerely,
FERRY COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
JAMES M. HALL, Member
^-} "^- ^^ff-fC^- -
WTlKOHtERTMember
Department of Ecology
Okanogan County Board of Commissioners
cc:
-------
TMl#: 4562
I'm Ed Windsor, Ferry County Commissioner, but I would like to put that aside, and because I'm a
downstream person, that Nicholson Creek runs in to Toroda Creek in my property. I have no feeling,
whatsoever, that the mine will impact Nicholson Creek, or Toroda Creek where they enter into my
property. I have allowed the mine, for the Crown Jewel, for the last two years to take water samples,
water flows, in my property, so that they would have a good baseline to measure the future of this
mine. I feel that Alternate B would be the way to go. I've lived in Ferry County practically all my life,
I've been around, around all of the mines there. The Knob Hill Mine, Echo Bay's mines. They've had
cyanide leaching ponds, I have to date, to see anyone, or any thing harmed or damaged by these
ponds. I really feel that there's a lot of hate and discontent here, and people that don't like this, when
indeed, they are not knowledgeable of what an open-pit mine, or a cyanide leaching pond is all about.
Thank you.
(Applause).
-------
TMI#: 4534
Good evening. My name is Jim Hall. I'm a county commissioner from Ferry County. My wife and I
drove down here because we're very concerned about the time it's taken to permit this mine. Either it's
right or it's wrong. You can break business. We have too much socialism, too much welfare in our
country. This is not the way our country was founded. Our country was founded, people breaking
their backs, and being able to keep what they earned. Back in the late-1800s, early 1900s, the
counties were the ones that had the power. Seventy-five percent of the money went to the county, 25
went to the state. It worked out well. That way we were able to govern and do what was right for our
constituents. Obviously this is turned around, with liberalism and socialism. In 1994 we had an
election, and it was to throw the bums out, because the bums weren't doing what was right. Now, I
might have three-and-a-half years left, if I'm a bum they can throw me out, but I ran to defend the
rights of our people. We are also very dependent on resources, we're a neighbor, right adjacent, to
Okanogan County. The tributaries, a couple of them, come down into our county. We're very
concerned about the environment, that things are done right, but we also know how important it is that
we have jobs. We deal with the BLM trying to help out Echo Bay. It's very important, I could talk on
some of these other issued, but they've been beat to death tonight. But I feel it's important that these
agencies get the message. Get the job done. Either it's right or it's wrong. It doesn't take forever to
do this, and you can break companies, you can break people, but the paid environmentalists, they go
right on. It doesn't seem to hurt them. I think it's time for our government to start helping the people
that are paying the welfare bums that fight us. To me it's that simple. Thank you. (Applause).
-------
Proposed Crown Jewel
COMMENT FORM
Your comments must be submitted no later than August 29. 1995 to the Tonasket Ranger
trict. For more information see addresses at bottom of page.
Your Name
Address
GaJ
r
&)/*-
Property Township
Description ?an?e
Section
YOUR COMMENTS concerning Draft Environmental Impact Statement for proposed Crown Jewel Gold Mine.
M
Send comments about proposed Crown
Jewel Project, bv Ang 29. 7905 to:
Phil Christy, Forest Service
Tonasket Ranger District
1 West Winesap
Tonasket, WA 98855
(509)486-5137
...Continue comments on back
For more information or questions.
von mav aI$Q contact:
Patricia Belts
VfA Dept. of Ecology
FOB 47703
Olvmpia. WA 98504
(360) 407-6925
Stuart R. Gillespie
Columbiana—CRBEP
Chesaw Route, Box 83-F
Orovillc, WA ORR44
(500) 485-3544
-------
TMI#:4551
I'ht c/t-
I'm Ed Teetcy, I'm a county commissioner in Okanogan County, but I'm going to speak tonight from
my own personal perspective. The draft EIS is covered in great detail. All of the problems, and the
proposed operation of the Crown Jewel Project, as well as many other perceived problems and
solutions. After a very, very, very, VERY long process, the two lead agencies have come up with the
draft EIS. Nowhere in that document does it show that there are a serious deficiencies in Battle
Mountain's plan. This plan is not some pie-in-the-sky-type operation. There are some 30 other
operations worldwide, and within SO miles of here, we have a operating mine just like the one that's
going be here, and that's been operating now for three years, and has not caused any problems. Our
correspondence with the Federal Bureau of Mines supports Alternative B of the EIS as the best
alternative for the project. I have one concern that the future permitting of this project and the water
portion, especially, it not lost in the great black hole of the DOE. We have been three and four years
trying to get some water permits out of that thing, and I feel that the precedents should be set, and that
the DOE spend some time looking at and processing the permits for the Battle Mountain Gold.
Thank you very much. (Applause).
-------
5094227106 P.06/86
jUN-24-1996 16--5G QKSNOGOH COUNTY ufl
Battle Mountain Gold Final Orafl EIS comments - Ed Thiele. Okanogan County
Commissioner
June 24, 19S6
1. The text is too voluminous and the answers do not adequately cover many
questions, thus leaving the readers to make their own (possibly incorrect)
assumptions.
2. Too often the exception is emphasized, rather than the norm, allowing room for
challenge.
3. It is hard to grasp the concept as a whole, without the missing notes.
4. The format and consistency do not follow through, section to section. Some
sections address problems well and are readable and understandable. Others
contain too much scientific jargon. The conclusions are too technical - they need to
be written in language that the average citizen could read and understand.
5. The document is too political, and is not truly a technical document. Why are tribal
water rights addressed (pg. 344, chapter/section 3.91, Introduction to Waters,
summary section 4.8 -4.11)?
6. Does "Fish and Wildlife" refer to the Washington State Department of Fish and
Wildlife? Are they-currently working on all of the items listed as: "Defer to Fish and
Wildlife"?
7. The non-accomplishable alternatives should be omitted, as most of them need 15 -
20% more work to make a true and complete EIS.
8. The document needs a better cover letter or preamble.
9. Under "Wildlife", it was stated several times that if a spill occurs, significant impacts
would occur. However, no specifics are given. What would it affect?
10. Water fluctuation occurs more under the east side of the lookout fault than under the
west side of the lookout fault. How do they know, as no test wells are in the area,
despite the fact that it is where the main deposit is located? Is it based on scientific
data, or just a guess/wish?
-------
09/08.95 09:17 FAX S0942220U
OKANOGAN N.F. --»- TONASKET RNG DST ®001/002
OCCED
Okonogon County Council
for Economic Development
August 17, 1995
ec™* »»(7-a°1
FAX TRANSMITTAL
*o(p»gBt I
Mr. Sam Gehr, Forest Supervisor
Okanogan National Forest
1240 South Second Avenue
Okanogan, WA 98840
Mr. Pat Spurgjn, Regional Director
Central Regional Office
106 South 6th Avenue
Yakima, WA 98902
Dear Sirs:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Crown Jewel Mine Draft Environmental
Impact Statement. I want to commend you for the information contained within the Draft Environment
Impact Statement Summary. It was well written and easy to follow. We appreciate the complexities of
this project and look forward to the final record of decision after the first of the year, 1996.
Historically mining has been an important part of Okanogan County's economy. It is one of our
earliest forms of economic development, second only to fur trading in 1800's. Mining ultimately lead to
the settlement of many areas within the county. Although it has slipped as an economic force during the
20th century, we are delighted with the potential resurgence of this important industry.
With the decline of the timber industry and the loss of many family wage jobs, the timing of this
project has become extremely important. Many of the skills of those formerly employed in the wood
products industry is readily transferable to the mining industry. We have been encouraged by Battle
Mountain Gold's (BMG) commitment to hire the majority of their employees locally, thus replacing, and
in some cases adding family wage employment to this economic and timber distressed area. Okanogan
County has been designated an economically distressed and a Tier I Timber Impacted county (we have
been identified as one of Washington's 10 most timber impacted counties) and is presently participating
In President Clinton's Federal Economic Adjustment Initiative.
The OCCED's long-term economic diversification plan recognizes the importance of this
project, but also realize that there is still work that needs to be completed before we have a diverse, well
balanced economy.
RO. Box 741
Okanogan, WA 98840
(609) 826-5107
-------
09/08-93
09:
FAI 3094222014
OK.dOG.Of N.F.
--.-. TONASKET RNG DST 21002/002
Mr. Sam Gchr, Forest Supervisor
Mr. Pat Spurgin, Regional Director
August 17, 1995
Page 2
The Crown Jewel Project will create over 200 construction jobs and at a minimum over ISO
permanent jobs during the life of the project. The majority of these jobs will pay an annual salary well
above our county's annual average. In addition to these direct jobs there will be a number of spin-off
employment opportunities. We anticipate the development of no less than five new businesses as a
direct result of the Crown Jewel Project.
Local and state government will enjoy a substantial one-time windfall of new taxes. Taxes paid
by BMG during the life of the project will provide badly needed local tax revenue. Local municipalities,
school districts, and county government will all benefit with the increased tax revenue. As a future
major employer and a member of Okanogan County's business community, BMG has been exemplary in
its contributions to community affairs.
We would like to see additional emphasis placed on the above mentioned aspects. We feel
that they have been downplayed.
After a through review of the Draft Environment Impact Statement Summary, we would like to
provide the following testimony. The OCCED Board of Directors supports the implementation of
Alternative B and its plan of operation in its entirety. After careful consideration of the other
Alternatives, we find that Alternative E would also be a feasible plan, but would place an unreasonable
monetary hardship on the company with no significant environmental benefit. Alternatives C, D, F, and
G raise serious questions regarding the economic feasibility and in fact we fed that they are not
economically viable. As private industry is in business to make a profit, we recognize the importance of
BMG's purpose and objectives to recover as much of the mineral deposit as is technically and
economically possible, at a maximum rate of return for its investors. We also recognize the importance
of federal, state, and local governments responsibility to the environmental concerns, as well as public
safety and the safety and well being of those employed at the mine.
We encourage the U.S. Forest Service in its record of decision to select Alternative B. It is our
hope that with the participation and coordination of all entities involved in the permitting process that
there will be no further delays. Thank you again for the opportunity to provide this testimony.
Sincerely,
Ron D. Nielsen
Executive Dircctor/OCCED
cmd
cc: BMG
cc: 7th District Legislative Representatives
-------
TMI#: 4592
I'm Ron Nielsen. The executive director of the Okanogan County Council for Economic
Development, and Small Business Development Center. We are the associate development
organization for Okanogan County. Historically, mining has been an important part of Okanogan
County's economy. It is one of our earliest forms of economic development. Second only to trading.
Mining ultimately has lead to the settlement of many areas within the county. Although it has slipped
as an economic force in the 20th century, we are delighted with the potential resurgence of this
important industry. With the decline of the timber industry, and the loss of many family-wage jobs,
the timing of this project has become extremely important. Many of the skills of those formerly
employed in the wood-products industry is readily transferable to the mining industry. We have been
encouraged with Battle Mountain Gold's commitment to hire the majority of their employees locally,
thus replacing, and in some cases, adding family-wage employment to this distressed economically
and timber-distressed area. OSED's long-term economic diversification plan recognizes the
importance of this project. But we also realize that there still is work that needs to be completed
before we have a diverse and well-balanced economy. The Crown Jewel Project will create over 200
construction jobs. And at a minimum over a hundred-and-fifty permanent jobs. The majority of these
jobs will pay an annual salary well above our county's annual average. In addition to these direct jobs,
there will be a number of spinoff employment opportunities. We anticipate the development of no
less than five new businesses as a direct result of the Crown Jewel Project. Local and state
government will enjoy a substantial one-time windfall of new taxes. Taxes paid by Battle Mountain
Gold during the life of this project will provide badly needed local tax revenue. After a thorough
review of the draft environmental impact summary, we would like to provide the following testimony.
The OSED Board of Directors supports the implementation of Alternative B, and its plan of
operation, in its entirety. After careful consideration of other alternatives, we find that Alternative E
would also be a feasible plan, but would place unreasonable monetary hardship on the company with
no significant environmental benefits. Alternative C, D, F, and G raise serious questions regarding
their economic feasibility. And in fact, we feel that they are not economically viable options. As
private industry is in business to make a profit, we recognize the importance of Battle Mountain
Gold's purpose, and objectives to recover as much of the mineral deposits as is technically and
economically feasible at a maximum rate of return for its investors. We encourage the U.S. Forest
Service, and its record of decision, to select Alternative B. It is our hope that with the participation
and coordination of the entities involved in the permitting process, there will be no further delays.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify. (Applause).
-------
Commissioners
Spencer W. Higby
Dave Schulz
Edwin E. Thiele
Okanogan County
Commissioners' Office
237 Fourth North - Administration Building
Administrative Coordinator
Dan Powers
Clerk of the Board
Brenda J. White
August 24, 1995
Phil Christy
U.S.F.S.
1 W. Winesap
P.O. Box 466
Tonasket, WA 98855
RE: Comments on Crown Jewel Project
Dear Mr. Christy:
The enclosed are copies of both negative and positive comments received by this office
on the Crown Jewel Project. Most of the negative comments were directed to the
economic report prepared by Huckell / Weinman for Battle Mountain Gold. Negative
comments were made by 23 people.
The bulk of the positive comments (142) includes a senior citizen petition and letters of
support by the cities of Oroville and Tonasket, Chambers, Granges, resource
organizations, and Okanogan County Council for Economic Development (OCCED). It is
our assessment after these letters, phone calls, and many personal conversations with
local citizens that the Crown Jewel Project has overwhelming support in Okanogan
County.
Please review these letters in your deliberations.
Sincerely,
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Spence W. Higby, Member
Enclosures
Phone (509) 422-7100
P.O. Box 791, Okanogan, Washington 98840
FAX (509) 422-7106
-------
Coimnoiana-CRBEP M iou«-«*«43-iot»t ^ / , *: ^ 4:50 PM U 1/4
Jere Payton, Comments on Economic impact Report paget
July 7,1995
To: Okanogan County Commissioners
FOB 791, Okanogan WA 98840. RFCF!VCD
FAX50M2W106 JULOYW5
From: Geraldine Payton & Stuart Gillespie
Chesaw WA C
RE: Crown Jewel Project
ECONOMIC & FISCAL ANALYSIS
Prepared by Huckell/ Weinman Associates Inc.
for the Okanogan County Commissioners
We respectfully request that you hold a meeting in Chesaw before making a decision to accept the
Huckell/Weinman Associates Fiscal analysis for the Crown Jewel Project (CJP).
Mining development has the potential to affect the north Okanogan country Just as much as the
proposed Early Winters development had on the Methow Valley. The county has provided extensive
planning services in the Methow Valley as a result of development. Fairness dictates that good public
process be extended to the residents of the Highlands who will be affected by mining development.
The Commissioners have demonstrated In adopting the Local Control Land Use Resolution that they
consider local land use decisions to be a proper function of county government. This responsibility
calls for excellent public process to be successful.
The quality of life associated with purchasing property for a wholesome living environment in the
Highlands will be impacted by the CJP. Every effort should be made to balance minerals
development with safeguards for the properties and quality of life of existing residents. It is our
hope that the Commissioners will extend themselves to ensuring that such a oalance is diligently
sought.
Chelan County offers a good example of how a county government can offer a process whereby
resident1 s concerns are brought to the table, and balanced with the necessities of mineral
development. Chelan County Planner, Ed Lloydhammer, spoke extensively to this process in his
role of representing county government in the Legislative Task Force on Mining in Olympia, during
the winter of 1993-94. We hope that Okanogan County will follow the example of Chelan County in
this matter.
1. What is the real potential impact of mining development in the Highlands ?
The Crown Jewel Project on Buckhom Mt. is said to encompass approx. 1,000 acres.
Yet, a Battle Mountain Gold Company stock prospectus states that the Crown Jewel project covers
approx. 9,000 acres of land in northeastern Washington. (Salomon Brothers Inc., Lehman Brothers,
May 13,1993.)
Where are the other 8000 Crown Jewel Project acres located ?
Washington Geology Journal of March 1995, on pages 9-10 lists 4 other active gold claims in the
Highlands, 3 more dose to Oroville, and 3 others between Oroville and Loomis. (WA Dept. Natural
Resources [DNR], Division of Geology & Earth Resources, Olympia WA).
Once a mining/milling facility is in place, will other nearby ore bodies ("replacement reserves" in mine
-------
1 -509-485-3344 ^7'7/95 © 4:50 P.M /
Columoiana-CRSEP
o Jew Paylon, Comments on Economic impact Report page2
o
industry language) be mined and trucked to Buckhom Mt.for processing?
Patenting of Crown Jewel Mining Claims. On page 3-191 of the CJ DEIS, it Is stated that BMG has
applied to patent a total of 925 acres. 605 acres are for mill sites, located on the headwaters of both
Marias and Nicholson Creeks. We believe the number of mill site acres represents the increase in
land necessary to expand the tailings facility to Incorporate tailings from other ore bodies which will
be processed after the Buckhom Mt. ore body is exhausted.
What impact on the visual landscape, roads, air, water, services, etc. will excavating other ore bodies in the
Xorth Okanogan have on the environmental quality new residents have moved here for 1
Roads. Does the Huckell/Weinman analysis accurately portray the impacts to county roads from
potential minerals development? What if other ore bodies are excavated and trucked for processing?
Pontiac Ridge Road. Residents on this road will be severely impacted by mine traffic. This is a dirt
road. A great deal of water will be used to keep the dust down. Or chemicals, which could leach into
ground water supplies. This situation will last ten years, at least. Please consider the need to pave
Pontiac Ridge Road. Paving would take care of both dust and reduce traffic noise. The residents
deserve this. Pontiac Ridge is a beautiful place with views of the valley and superlative quiet, making
homesites here very desirable.
Chesaw to Lost Lake & Bonaparte Resort. This road is already dangerous, with several blind spots on
narrow road next to steep canyon. Increased use of this road should be examined.
The Village of Chesaw. People here expect that there will be residential development if the mine
goes in. Among the concerns are routing the main road away from the village, past the Leslie Ranch,
as was suggested by the State DOT several years ago.
Sewage treatment plant, possibly on the wetlands, similar to Conconully. As it is now, businesses and
residences on the west side of the village cannot expand because there is not enough room for
approved septic systems on the small lots.
Recreation. There are no recreation opportunities for adults or children. The tavern is the only
gathering spot. This is not healthy.
Police. The CJP DEIS stated that it will probably be necessary to have a law enforcement officer for
the Highlands if the mine goes in. Living next to the tavern, and seeing the numbers of people who
drive while drunk gives us cause for concern.
Litter, trash collection, recycling.
3. People coming to work at the Mine. Where will they live 7
Housing. Huckell/Weinman says that about half of immigrating employees will build homes. This
does not jibe with experience in other mining communities, i.e., Montana (Hard Rock Mining Impact
Board, personal communication). The ten year life of mine will not encourage people to take on a 20
year mortgage. When mine closes, a surplus of housing may occur, making it difficult to sell home.
They will most likely bring trailers onto a site, which does not provide the same employment and tax
base.
Mine construction is estimated to require approx, 250 people. In Ferry County, during construction
of the new Echo Bay mine, construction workers lived in parks, tents, trailers, and mobile homes.
Litter and garbage collection became a problem. Parks and public restrooms were impacted. Many
were single males; increases in police and substance abuse services were needed. (Results of Contacts
with Other Mine Operations; E.D. Hovee & Co., for USFS & WDOE, Crown Jewel Project; January
1993).
Operations Employees. A table on the last page of the DEIS Summary gives a range of anticipated
mine related population increase from 140 to 406 residents.
However, the Huckell / Weinman analysis (prepared for county govt.) uses only 87 new residents
for their projections. This is due to a conflict over BMG's assertions that they will hire 80% of their
JUL-07-1995 15=50 <="v
-------
U 3/4
o Jere Payton. Comments on Economic impact Report pages
O
workforce locally.
In Ferry County, the new Echo Bay mine hired only 28.6% of its workforce from Ferry County.
27.1% were from other WA counties, while 44.3% were hired from out of state.
Unemployed seeking jobs. See next section.
What other impacts to local government might occur 7
A series of interviews conducted for a legislative briefing book produced the following information
from Ferry County: "While wages for some locals have gone up, housing and taxes have gone up as
well. Local government has become more complicated and costly." "The most important negative
impact.. Js associated with a decline in the area's visual resources produced by mine development
Visual impacts from poorly planned mobile housing development have lowered property values."
"The availability of Jobs in new mining have brought increased numbers of unemployed to Ferry
County seeking those Jobs. Although more people are employed in mining, the overall numbers of
unemployed in the county has increased, and the governmental services needed to address the needs
of unemployed have likewise increased." (Cyanide-Leach Mining in Washington - Creating A New
Regulatory Structure For A New gold Rush, Washington Coalition for Responsible Mining, 1993; page
26).
Public Process - Must the Conflict Continue ?
Other mining states require that a Local Impact Committee be established. This brings affected
landowners and the mining company to the table to discuss things, and work out solutions to
everyone's concerns.
In Wenatchee the Asamera Canon Mine operated in a nice residential neighborhood. The Chelan Co.
Planning Office set up a committee of residents and company to work out the problems. Trust was
established between the stakeholders.
By contrast, in San Luis Colorado, site of another Battle Mountain Gold Mine, the company did not
work with established landowners and community interests. High levels of tension and mistrust still
occur in San Luis between the community and the mine operation.
In Okanogan County there is a high level of conflict over the proposed mine. Newer residents of the
Highlands who value the high quality of life here are left out of county level public process. This is
not good government.
3. Acknowledge that growth and vitality of Okanogan's economy is due to people moving here
because Okanogan County is a quiet, clean, and beautiful place to live.
Dr. Tom Power, Chairman of the Economics Department at the University of Montana has reviewed
the socio-economic studies done for the Crown Jewel DEIS. This review has been sent to the County
Commissioners.
Dr. Power shows that in Okanogan & Ferry Counties the extraction industries - mining, agriculture
and logging - show no growth trend in the last 25 years. Yet the economy of the two counties has
nearly doubled in that time.
a. Real income expanded by 80%.
b. employment expanded 55%.
c. population grew 45%.
What explains this substantial economic vitality despite the overall lack of growth in the natural resource
extraction base?
Dr. Power explains that in the U.S. since World War 11, people have moved to preferred living
environments, and economic growth has followed them. Since the 1970's, many western U.S.
counties have seen a constant in-migration of new residents drawn to live here because of the
JUL-07-1995 16=51 93* P. 03
-------
CciumDiana-CRBEP * 1-509-485-3844 ^]7/7/95 0 4:50 PM •/ Q
« Jere Pay/on. Comments on Economic impact Report page4
o
"quality-of-life amenities of the region. The high quality natural & social environment is attracting
new residents and businesses. Hundreds of jobs and tens of millions of dollars per year have been
added to the Okanogan and Ferry County economies as a result of amenity-based economic vitality.
Power says, "Given that the quality of the County's natural environment is an important part of its economic
base and the source of the ongoing economic vitality, anything that threatens that natural environment has to
also be seen as threatening that economic base and that economic vitality."
Power's analysis shows that the Crown Jewel Project will add only a 1.1% increase in the income of
the two county area.
If the gold mine undermines the area's reputation for a high quality living environment, it kills the
goose that has been laying the golden eggs in the region.
In Conclusion, please:
1. Don't sign off on the Huckell/Weinman Economic Analysis without further consideration. Wait at
least until the DEIS comment process is finished.
2. Represent all existing landowners. Seek out the concerns of people in the Highlands. Establish a
Local Impacts Committee, made up of people in the Highlands who will be impacted because of the
mine.
3. Keep your options open. Be aggressive about protecting the county's long term interests. This
agreement will last the life of the mine.
JUL-07-1995 IS:51
------- OCR error (C:\Conversion\JobRoot\000003VG\tiff\2000CTV2.tif): Saving image to "C:\Conversion\JobRoot\000003VG\tiff\2000CTV2.T$F.T$F" failed.
-------
June 26. 1995
To: Okanogan Board of Commissioners
From: Geraldine Payton and Stuart Gillespie. Chesaw
RE: Crown Jewel Project Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
GOAL: A SOCIETY TO MATCH THE SCENERY
The Beauty and Quality of the Okanogan Highlands has been chronicled in several
places, locally, regionally and nationally.
As Wallace Stenger, a well known historian and writer about the west has said. "What
we need in this great West facing many challenges for the future, is a Society to Match
the Scenery." Only then will the will ancf resources to preserve what is best about the
West become available.
We ask the County Commissioners to appoint a Local
impacts Committee, under the direction of the professional
guidance of the Planning Dept. or a planning contractor.
PRECEDENT:
CHELAN COUNTY: Local Impacts Committee under direction of Planning Dept.
During legislative hearings on the proposed Washington Metals Mining Act, Ed
Lloydhammer of Chelan County testified extensively to the excellent results of
having local property owners, interested citizens, company and county facilitate issues
and concerns regarding impacts to the private lands and county infrastructure
surrounding the mine operation.
MONTANA: Hard Rock Mining Impact Board
JUNEAU: Borough Planning Authority
MICHIGAN: Local Impacts Committee 1. facilitates communications between
company and itself. 2. Analyzes implications of mining on private lands and local
infrastructure. 3. Reviews and comments on reclamation plans. 4. Develops solutions
to mining-induced growth problems. 5. Formulates recommendations to Board of
Commissioners.
PLEASE EXAMINE CAREFULLY THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS
1. Washington Geology, March 1995. Shows extent of mineral development potential
in the Okanogan highlands and valley.
2. BMG Stock Prospectus: Shows project area to be 9000 acres.
3. Results of Contacts with Other Mine Operations. Prelim. Draft #1. Jan 19. 1993. ED
-------
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Grant County. Washington
A RESOLUTION OF THE GRANT COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
SUPPORTING OKANOGAN COUNTY IN IT'S REQUEST FOR
AN INQUIRY INTO THE DELAY IN PREPARATION OF THE
DRAFT EIS FOR THE CROWN JEWEL PROJECT
RESOLUTION NUMBER 95- 50 -CC
WHEREAS, officials from all counties in eastern Washington State gathered
together at Sun Mountain, Okanogan County, Washington for the purpose of
education and briefings from the Washington Association of Counties' staff; and
WHEREAS, the County Commissioners from Okanogan County presented a history
of the delays in the development of a draft Environmental Impact Statement on the
Crown Jewel gold mining project in northern Okanogan County; and
WHEREAS, the Co-lead agencies in the development of the draft EIS are the U.S.
Forest Service and the Washington State Department of Ecology; and
WHEREAS, the following has been the schedule for the development and
completion of the draft EIS on this project:
1. The first draft EIS deadline was stated in the initial publication notice
as December, 1992.
2. By the fall of 1992 the applicant was advised not to expect a draft EIS
until the spring of 1993.
3. On April 15,1993 the agencies announced publicly that the draft EIS
would be ready by June of 1993.
4. In June, 1993 the applicant was advised that the draft would be out
in the fall of 1993.
5. In August of 1993 the deadline was changed to October, 1994
6. In August 1994 the deadline was changed to March 31.1995.
7. On March 31.1995 the deadline was moved to June, 1995.
WHEREAS, a representative of the forest service, who is involved in the
preparation of the EIS. has appeared at meetings related to this project wearing
an anti-mining shirt. And in addition, a representative of the Wildlife division of the
Forest Service has made public statements that this project will never receive
approval. The record indicates that the wildlife portion of the EIS has been studied
three separate times during this process; and
-------
WHEREAS, as with any such document, a consultant was hired to prepare the draft
rjocument We understand that tno consultant hired to prepare the draft EIS, a
corrpany with considerable expertise m the preparation of such documents for
mining operations, has written several letters to the |0int lead agencies, the Forest
Service and Department of Ecology, complaining that the continual unwarranted
delays in the release of a draft document could damage said firm's reputation in
the mining industry; and
WHEREAS, this concern by the consultant is warranted by the disclosure of facts
relating to a study of mining projects from April of 1988 to late 1993. During this
period the National Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management processed
draft EIS documents for 16 mining projects in an average of 13.5 months. There
appears to be nothing involved in the current proposal which could warrant a
process three times as long as the average; and
WHEREAS, the only difference between this project and those processed during
the above referenced project time frame is the presence of the Department of
Ecology as co-lead agency; and
WHEREAS, Okanogan County has a history of mining and resource development
and has determined that this project clearly fits within its customs and culture as
defined by a recent citizen report. The Commissioners of Okanogan County
believe that the time has come to investigate why the officials that were entrusted
with this project have totally failed that trust. Based upon the facts set forth above
the County Commissioners of Grant County support such an investigation so that
what has happened in this case will not be repeated on public lands in other
counties, and
WHEREAS, County officials recognize the need to protect the environment during
these types of projects and are directly responsible to the citizens who reside in
eastern Washington, We desire to see as little disruption as possible to the natural
beauty of the region. However, the Okanogan County Commissioners have
reviewed the mitigation proposed by the applicant and believe that they have
provided sufficient safeguards to protect the environment. The draft, which sets
forth these mitigation proposals, should be published immediately so a comment
period can begin on these proposals;
NOW. THEREFORE,. THE GRANT COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TO HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. We fully support the request of the Okanogan County Commissioners
for a Congressional Inquiry into the performance of the U.S. Forest Service in the
preparation of the draft EIS for the Crown Jewel gold mining project in said
county.
SECTION 2. We fully support the request of the Okanogan County Commissioners
to the Governor for a State Inquiry into the performance of the Department of
Ecology in the preparation of the draft EIS for the Crown Jewel gold mining project
in said county.
-------
SECTION 3. That these agencies should not use these investigations as an excuse
to further delay this project, but on the contrary, they should be instructed to
devote the necessary resources to publish the draft EIS by June 1995 and
complete the permitting process by the end of January 1996.
Dated this 24th day of April. 1995
' i^V^V^-^-^r Chairman
ATTEST: (
i.
Clerk of'trie' Board UU
GRANT COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Grant County, Washington
-------
OC Okanogan County
3 1 Citizens Coalition ESS
United For JMulitplc Use Resources and Constitutional Government
December 29, 1994
DEC :; * is<#
Depanment of Ecology •
3601 W. Washington Ave. •--.::•«•. ', ^. -. - -,
Yakiraa, WA 98903
SUBJECT: Crown Jewel Project - Water Resources Plan
The Okanogan County Citizens Coalition (OC3) is made up of 13 grassroots member groups
which support multiple land and resource management OC3 fully supports the water resources
plan put forward by Battle Mountain Gold Company for the Crown Jewel Project.
Battle Mountain Gold (BMG) developed the water resources plan through extensive research
done by highly qualified hydrology and hydrogeology experts. This scientific research shows
there is adequate water to implement the plan as presented. The plan is very well designed to
protect water quality downstream and conserve water wherever possible. BMG's plan is in full
accordance with Washington State water laws. BMG has complied well with the requirements
of the permitting process. We urge you to approve this water plan without delay.
OC3 represents more than 5.000 citizens of Okanogan County. We believe Battle Mountain
Gold has designed a mine plan that addresses the very important and relevant concerns of
conservation, environmental protection and impacts on wildlife. We strongly urge you to accept
the adequacy of the extensive research and planning that went into this water resources plan.
We would hope that the Department of Ecology would not cave in to the vocal minority of
environmental extremists calling for yet another delaying round of water studies and public
meetings.
'. Andnst
Chairman
-------
Department of Ecology
December 29, 1994
Page 2
'ihe following Okanogan County Citizens Coalition member groups support these comments:
Agriculture Communities Alliance
Common Sense Resource League
Loomis-Similkameen Community Club
Methow Valley Backcountry Horsemen
Methow Valley Resource Alliance
Okanogan County Cattlemen Association
Okanogan County Farm Bureau
Okanogan County Pomona Grange
Okanogan Mining Association
Okanogan Resource Council
Okanogan Valley Backcountry Horsemen
Okanogan Wildlife Council
Washington Log-Truckers Conference
cc: Okanogan County Commissioners
Washington State 7th and 12th District Legislators
Man- Riveland. Director, Department of Ecology
Sam Cichr. Forest Supervisor. USFS
Governor Mike Lowry
U.S. Senator Slade Gorton
U.S. Senator Patty Murray
U.S. Representative Doc Hastings
-------
Congress of tfje ^Hniteb
OTaafjtngton, B<£ 20515
May 25, 1995
Mary Riveland
Director jy»< G ... ^~)
Ecology Department
P.O. Box 47600
Olympia, WA 98504-1100
Dear Director Riveland:
We write to express our concerns regarding the unusually
long time it is taking the United States Forest Service and the
Washington State Department of Ecology, as joint lead agencies,
to complete the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the
proposed Crown Jewel Mine Project.
The Crown Jewel Project is located mostly on unpatented
mining claims on federal lands in Okanogan County, Washington.
When eventually approved, the Project will provide a badly needed
infusion of jobs and money into Okanogan County, which like much
of northern Washington is suffering from an extremely high rate
of unemployment, due largely to the loss of natural resource
related jobs. Accordingly, we tnink it imperative that the lead
agencies should be conducting the environmental review and
permitting jprocess for the Project in an aggressive and timely
manner.
Quite apparently, however, this has not been the case to
date. We understand that the agencies may still be months away
from completing and releasing a draft EIS for the Crown Jewel
Project, even though the Project was proposed, and the EIS
process was begun, over 3 years aero. Yet, we are informed that
mining experts consider the Crown Jewel Project to be a well
planned and modern open-pit gold mine, which is not particularly
large or technically complex.
We further understand that Battle Mountain Gold, the Project
proponent, has been forced to spend literally millions of dollars
to prepare or fund an ever-growing list of agency required
studies, many of which are unprecedented, and some of which, in
the end/ may not even be used in the EIS. Both the Project
proponent and the people of Okanogan County have been forced to
endure a long string of broken agency promises regarding the
expected completion date for the Crown Jewel draft EIS. We
understand this has created tremendous tensions in the local
community, and has caused a planning and business nightmare for
the proponent. We both know from firsthand experience that there
is overwhelming community support for the project.
-------
This disregard for time delays and expenses on behalf of the
proponent not only discourages other potential business ventures
from locating in Washington, but also denies the State one of the
few sources of high paying jobs it can generate in a rural county
like Okanogan.
We believe that the further unreasonable delays associated
with the completion of the Crown Jewell EIS to be unacceptable.
We urge the Department of Ecology, together with the U.S. Forest
Service, therefore, from this point forward, do whatever is
reasonably possible to ensure that the remainder of the Crown
Jewel EIS and permitting process is completed in a timely
fashion. In light of the extreme length of time that has been
consumed in preparation of the still-unfinished draft EIS, we
believe the agencies should take particular care to ensure that
no time is .wasted in processing the final EIS, and completing the
permitting process.
In order to guard against further delay, and to allow us to
monitor the progress of the remaining EIS and permitting process
for the Crown Jewel Project, we ask that you keep our offices
informed of the schedule and status of the process as it proceeds
toward conclusion and to provide our offices with a copy of the
D.E.I.S.
Thank you for your consideration of this important matter.
We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest opportunity.
Sincerely,
Slade Gorton Doc Hastings
United States Senator Member of Congress
cc. Governor Mike Lowry
Jack Ward Thomas, Chief, U.S. Forest Service
Senator Bob Morton
Ed Thiele, Okanogan County Commissioner
Spence Higby, Okanogan County Commissioner
Dave Schulz, Okancgan County Commissioner
-------
MICHAHO OlJL
4TM ;».•,!» '.% . •- '. • '.
COMMUTE? ON NATIONAL ru ^-
S'tH* I MMII tv*'<
Hi >.| A 1*4 >( *».' Ill rfl ' "'«.«» •» •
JUNC-1SS3
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
SuucnMMirrcts.
Congress o( ttje Unite!)
l;ouse of
June 19, 1995
1/02' 2?i *B16
J/0 N JOHNSON. SvTl 5QO
KINNIWK-. WA 99336
16091 783-0310
302 E. CHCSTNUT
YAKIMA.WA 98901
(S09I 452-3243
MOUTH WENArcxEC AVENUI
SUITE 202
'ENATCHCE. WA 98801
IS09I 662-1294
Mr. Dave Schulz
Chairman
Okanogan County Commissioners' Office
P.O. Box 791
Okanogan, WA 98840
Dear Dave:
Thank you for expressing your concerns regarding
the unusually long time it is taking the United States
Forest Service and the Washington State Department of
Ecology to complete the environmental impact statement
(EIS) for the proposed Crown Jewel Mine Project. We
are in complete agreement on this issue
Like you, I am strong supporter of this project
and believe it will provide a badly needed infusion of
jobs and money into Okanogan County once it is finally
approved. I don't need to tell you how important this
is to northern Washington, which as you know is
suffering from an extremely high rate of unemployment,
due largely to the loss of natural resource related
jobs.
Because of the importance of this project to the
economic future our communities, I am greatly
disappointed that the agencies involved are still
months away fjeom completing and releasing a drafn EIS
for the Crown Jewel Project, even though the Project
was proposed, and the EIS process was begun, over 3
years ago. The disregard for time delays and expenses
on behalf of the Battle Mountain Gold not only
discourages other potential business ventures from
locating in Washington, but also denies the State one
of the few sources of high paying jobs it can generate
in a rural county like Okanogan.
For these reasons, you will be pleased to know
that I have joined with Senator Gorton in sending the
enclosed letters to U.S. Forest Service Chief Jack Ward
Thomas and Department of Ecology Director Mary Riveland
asking that they provide us with assurances that the
remainder of the Crown Jewel EIS and permitting process
-------
be completed in a timely fashion. You can be sure that
I will continue to monitor this issue very carefully
and put pressure on these agencies to get this job
done.
Again, I appreciate your taking the time to
express your views.
Sincerftely,
"
•
Doc* Hastings
Member of Congress
DH:CB
-------
Congre** of tije tHniteb
Wtaafjmston, BC 20515
May 25, 1995
Jack Ward Thomas
chief . JUN 0 11SC3
United States Forest Service
Auditor's Building-4th Floor C<.-'V""AiVv,.;."-""
201 14th Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20250
Dear Chief Thomas:
We write to express our concerns regarding the unusually
long time it is taking the United States Forest Service and the
Washington State Department of Ecology, as joint lead agencies,
to complete the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the
proposed Crown Jewel Mine Project.
The Crown Jewel Project is located mostly on unpatented
mining claims on federal lands in Okanogan County, Washington.
When eventually approved, the Project will provide a badly needed
infusion of jobs and money into Okanogan County, which like much
of northern Washington is suffering from an extremely high rate
of unemployment, due largely to the loss of natural resource
related jobs. Accordingly, we think it imperative that the lead
agencies should be conducting the environmental review and
permitting process for the Project in an aggressive and timely
manner.
Quite apparently, however, this has not been the case to
date. We understand that the agencies may still be months away
from completing and releasing a draft EIS for the Crown Jewel
Project, even though the Project was proposed, and the EIS
process was begun, over 3 years ago. Yet, we are informed that
mining experts consider the Crown Jewel Project to be a well
planned and modern open-pit gold mine, which is not particularly
large or technically complex.
We further understand that Battle Mountain Gold, the Project
proponent, has been forced to spend literally millions of dollars
to prepare or fund an ever-growing list of agency required
studies, many of which are unprecedented, and some of which, in
the end, may not even be used in the EIS. Both the Project
proponent and the people of Okanogan County have been forced to
endure a long string of broken agency promises regarding the
expected completion date for the Crown Jewel draft EIS. We
understand this has created tremendous tensions in the local
community, and has caused a planning and business nightmare for
the proponent. We both know from firsthand experience that there
is overwhelming community support for the project.
-------
This disregard for time delays and expenses on behalf of the
proponent not only discourages other potential business ventures
from locating in Washington, but also denies the State one of the
few sources of high paying jobs it can generate in a rural county
like Okanogan.
We believe that the further unreasonable delays associated
with the completion of the Crown .Jewell EIS to be unacceptable.
We urge the Forest Service, together with the Washington state
Department of Ecology, therefore, from this point forward, do
whatever is reasonably possible to ensure that the remainder of
the Crown Jewel EIS and permitting process is completed in a
timely fashion. In light of the extreme length of time that has
been consumed in preparation of the still-unfinished draft EIS,
we believe the agencies should take particular care to ensure
that no time is wasted in processing the final EIS, and
completing the permitting process.
In order to guard against further delay, and to allow us to
monitor the progress of the remaining EIS and permitting process
for the Crown Jewel Project, we ask that you keep our offices
informed of- the schedule and status of the process as it proceeds '
toward conclusion and to provide our offices with a copy of the
D.E.I.S.
Thank you for your consideration of this important matter.
We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest opportunity.
Sincerely,
Slade Gorton Doc Hastings
United States Senator Member of Congress
cc. Governor Mike Lowry
Mary Riveland, Director, Washington Department of Ecology
Senator Bob Morton
Ed Thiele, Okanogan County Commissioner
Spence Higby, Okanogan County Commissioner
Dave Schulz, Okanogan County Commissioner
-------
COMMON SENSE RESOURCE LEAGUE
H. C. 71, Box 78A., Oroville, WA 98844
Phone (509) 485-3531, 476-4142
April 24, 1995
The Honorable Senator Slade Gorton '
730 Hart Senate Office Building APR 9 -..
Washington, D. C. 20510 -... ^ '" '
Dear Senator Gorton: "' "''"••
Re: Proposed Crown Jewel Mine Project,
Okanogan County, Washington
The Okanogan County Commissioners have requested a Congressional Inquiry
into U. S. Forest Service practices that have led to 7 missed deadlines for
the draft EIS for the proposed Crown Jewel Mine Project, from the earliest
deadline of December 1992 to the latest deadline of sometime in June, 1995.
This request for the Inquiry is endorsed by a resolution from the Eastern
District of the Washington State Association of Counties.
Members of the Common Sense Resource League have followed the progress of
the Crown Jewel proposal from the very beginning and have thoroughly
researched the proposed plan. The conclusion is that the proposed plan meets,
and exceeds, all of the requirements of state and federal regulations.
We want you to know that we believe that the delays in the release of the
draft EIS are unreasonable, and that we are in full support of the Okanogan
County Commissioners request for a Congressional inquiry into the matter.
You will recall that the Common Sense Resource League, comprised of concerned
citizens in and around the area of the proposed Crown Jewel Project, formed
to study issues relating to natural resources. Members are all volunteers,
and CSRL is independent of any state or federal organizations, or of any
industry.
The Commissioners have requested that the Congressional Inquiry not cause
an additional delay in the EIS process. CSRL members agree that it would
be undesirable for an Inquiry to result in further delays.
We will appreciate any help you are able to afford to the Okanogan County
Commissioners in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
*CE LEAGUE
Richard Dart
President
Enclosed, for your information, is the most recent CSRL study of the Crown
Jewel Project.
-------
COMMON SENSE RESOURCE LEAGUE
H. C. 71, Box 78A., Oroville, WA 98844
April 24, 1995 Phone (509) 485-3531, 476-4142
The Honorable Senator Patty Murray
B-34 Dirksen Building
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Murray:
Re: Proposed Crown Jewel Mine Project,
Okanogan County, Washington
The Okanogan County Commissioners have requested a Congressional Inquiry
into U. S. Forest Service practices that have led to 7 missed deadlines for
the draft EIS for the proposed Crown Jewel Mine Project, from the earliest
deadline of December 1992 to the latest deadline of sometime in June, 1995.
This request for the Inquiry is endorsed by a resolution from the Eastern
District of the Washington State Association of Counties.
Members of the Common Sense Resource League have followed the progress of
the Crown Jewel proposal from the very beginning and have thoroughly
researched the proposed plan. The conclusion is that the proposed plan meets,
and exceeds, all of the requirements of state and federal regulations.
We want you to know that we believe that the delays in the release of the
draft EIS are unreasonable, and that we are in full support of the Okanogan
County Commissioners request for a Congressional inquiry into the matter.
You will recall that the Common Sense Resource League, comprised of concerned
citizens in and around the area of the proposed Crown Jewel Project, formed
to study issues relating to natural resources. Members are all volunteers,
and CSRL is independent of any state or federal organizations, or of any
industry.
The Commissioners have requested that the Congressional Inquiry not cause
an additional delay in the EIS process. CSRL members agree that it would
be undesirable for an Inquiry to result in further delays.
We will appreciate any help you are able to afford to the Okanogan County
Cccnmissioners in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
SENSE RESOURCE LEAGUE
"£«.'
Richard Dart
President
Enclosed, for your information, is the most recent CSRL study of the Crown
Jewel Project.
CC: Okanogan County Conmissioners
-------
COMMON SENSE RESOURCE LEAGUE
H. C. 71, Box 78A., Oroville, WA 98844
April 24, 1995 phone (509) 485-3531, 476-4142
The Honorable Representative Doc Hastings
U. S. House of Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Representative Hastings:
Re: Proposed Crown Jewel Mine Project,
Okanogan County, Washington
The Okanogan County Commissioners have requested a Congressional Inquiry
into U. S. Forest Service practices that have led to 7 missed deadlines for
the draft EIS for the proposed Crown Jewel Mine Project, from the earliest
deadline of December 1992 to the latest deadline of sometime in June, 1995.
This request for the Inquiry is endorsed by a resolution from the Eastern
District of the Washington State Association of Counties.
Members of the Common Sense Resource League have followed the progress of
the Crown Jewel proposal from the very beginning and have thoroughly
researched the proposed plan. The conclusion is that the proposed plan meets,
and exceeds, all of the requirements of state and federal regulations.
We want you to know that we believe that the delays in the release of the
draft EIS are unreasonable, and that we are in full support of the Okanogan
County Commissioners request for a Congressional inquiry into the matter.
You will recall that the Common Sense Resource League, comprised of concerned
citizens in and around the area of the proposed Crown Jewel Project, formed
to study issues relating to natural resources. Members are all volunteers,
and CSRL is independent of any state or federal organizations, or of any
industry.
The Commissioners have requested that the Congressional Inquiry not cause
an additional delay in the EIS process. CSRL members agree that it would
be undesirable for an Inquiry to result in further delays.
We will appreciate any help you are able to afford to the Okanogan County
Commissioners in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
.COMMON SENSE RESOURCE LEAGUE
Richard Dart
President
Enclosed, for your information, is the most recent CSRL study of the Crown
Jewel Project.
CC: Okanogan County Commissioners
-------
FDR TIIR URGFW Ari'FlNTI.ON OF SRNATOR BUB MORION
F'AX TRANSMiTTAL - 7 Payes follow
TO: The Hoi.orable Senator Bob Morton
FROM: The Coimon Sense Resource League
(new FAX ti (509) 476-4059
H. C. 71 Box 78A., Oroville, WA 90844
(Phone, Richard Dart (509) 485-3531, Bob Hirst 476-4142)
We are transmitting the results of a CSRL in-depth study of the proposed
Crown Jewel Mine Project (Pages 1-6). We hope it will prove useful to
you.
We want you Lo know that CSRL is standing firm behind the Okanogan County
Commissioners in their request for an inquiry into the Department of Ecology
participation in the draft EIS because it has taken a much longer time to
process than we feel is reasonable.
Many individuals and other groups are also in support of the stand of the
Okanogan County Commissioners.
Also transmitted (page 7) is the chronological listing of missed deadlines
for the draft EIS for the project.
If you want any other information, just let us know.
We appreciate your help 1!
-------
COMMON SENSE RESOURCE LEAGUE
H. C. 71, Box 78A., Oroville, WA 98844
Phone (509) 485-3531, 476-4142
April 24, 1995
The Honorable Representative Cathy McMorris
P. O. Box 40614
Olympia, WA 98504-0614
Dear Representative McMorris:
Re: Proposed Crown Jewel Mine Project,
Okanogan County, Washington
The Okanogan County Commissioners have requested a Congressional Inquiry
into Department of Ecology practices that have led to 7 missed deadlines
for the draft EIS for the proposed Crown Jewel Mine Project, from the earliest
deadline of December 1992 to the latest deadline of sometime in June, 1995.
This request for the Inquiry is endorsed by a resolution from the Eastern
District of the Washington State Association of Counties.
Members of the Common Sense Resource League have followed the progress of
the Crown Jewel proposal from the very beginning and have thoroughly
researched the proposed plan. The conclusion is that the proposed plan meets,
and exceeds, all of the requirements of state and federal regulations.
We want you to know that we believe that the delays in the release of the
draft EIS are unreasonable, and that we are in full support of the Okanogan
County Commissioners request for a Congressional inquiry into the matter.
You will recall that the Common Sense Resource League, comprised of concerned
citizens in and around the area of the proposed Crown Jewel Project, formed
to study issues relating to natural resources. Members are all volunteers,
and CSRL is independent of any state or federal organizations, or of any
industry.
The Commissioners have requested that the Congressional Inquiry not cause
an additional delay in the EIS process. CSRL members agree that it would
be undesirable for an Inquiry to result in further delays.
We will appreciate any help you are able to afford to the Okanogan County
Commissioners in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
COMMON SENSE^RESOURCE LEAGUE
Richard Dart
President
Enclosed, for your information, is the most recent CSRL study of the Crown
Jewel Project.
CC: Okanogan County Commissioners
-------
COMMON SENSE RESOURCE LEAGUE
H. C. 71, Box 78A., Oroviile, WA 98844
Phone (509) 485-3531, 476-4142
April 24, 1995
The Honorable Representative Steve Fuhrman
John L. O'Brien Building
Olympia, WA 98504-0433
Dear Representative Fuhrman:
Re: Proposed Crown Jewel Mine Project,
Okanogan County, Washington
The Okanogan County Commissioners have requested a Congressional Inquiry
into Department of Ecology practices that have led to 7 missed deadlines
for the draft EIS for the proposed Crown Jewel Mine Project, from the earliest
deadline of December 1992 to the latest deadline of sometime in June, 1995.
This request for the Inquiry is endorsed by a resolution from the Eastern
District of the Washington State Association of Counties.
Members of the Common Sense Resource League have followed the progress of
the Crown Jewel proposal from the very beginning and have thoroughly
researched the proposed plan. The conclusion is that the proposed plan meets,
and exceeds, all of the requirements of state and federal regulations.
We want you to know that we believe that the delays in the release of the
draft EIS are unreasonable, and that we are in full support of the Okanogan
County Commissioners request for a Congressional inquiry into the matter.
You will recall that the Common Sense Resource League, comprised of concerned
citizens in and around the area of the proposed Crown Jewel Project, formed
to study issues relating to natural resources. Members are all volunteers,
and CSRL is independent of any state or federal organizations, or of any
industry.
The Commissioners have requested that the Congressional Inquiry not cause
an additional delay in the EIS process. CSRL members agree that it would
be undesirable for an Inquiry to result in further delays.
We will appreciate any help you are able to afford to the Okanogan County
Commissioners in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
SENSE RESOURCE LEAGUE
Richard Dart
President
Enclosed, for your information, is the most recent CSRL study of the Crown
Jewel Project.
CC: Okanogan County Commissioners I/
-------
COMMON SENSE RESOURCE LEAGUE
H. C. 71, Box 78A., Oroville, WA 98844
Phone (509) 485-3531, 476-4142
April 24, 1995 N
The Honorable Representative Dale Foreman (\. n
412 John L. O'Brien Building ^=^
Olympia, WA 98504
Dear Representative Foreman:
Re: Proposed Crown Jewel Mine Project,
Okanogan County, Washington
The Okanogan County Commissioners have requested a Congressional Inquiry
into Department of Ecology practices that have led to 7 missed deadlines
for the draft EIS for the proposed Crown Jewel Mine Project, from the earliest
deadline of December 1992 to the latest deadline of sometime in June, 1995.
This request for the Inquiry is endorsed by a resolution from the Eastern
District of the Washington State Association of Counties.
Members of the Common Sense Resource League have followed the progress of
the Crown Jewel proposal from the very beginning and have thoroughly
researched the proposed plan. The conclusion is that the proposed plan meets,
and exceeds, all of the requirements of state and federal regulations.
We want you to know that we believe that the delays in the release of the
draft EIS are unreasonable, and that we are in full support of the Okanogan
County Commissioners request for a Congressional inquiry into the matter.
You will recall that the Common Sense Resource League, comprised of concerned
citizens in and around the area of the proposed Crown Jewel Project, formed
to study issues relating to natural resources. Members are all volunteers,
and CSRL is independent of any state or federal organizations, or of any
industry.
The Commissioners have requested that the Congressional Inquiry not cause
an additional delay in the EIS process. CSRL members agree that it would
be undesirable for an Inquiry to result in further delays.
We will appreciate any help you are able to afford to the Okanogan County
Commissioners in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
£Q5fCN SENSE l&SOURCE LEAGUE
li?JJ I$"J~
Richard Dart
President
Enclosed, for your information, is the most recent CSRL study of the Crown
Jewel Project.
CC: Okanogan County Commissioners I/
-------
COMMON StNSE RESOURCE LEAGUE
II. C. 71, Box 78A., Oroville, WA 98844
Phone (509) 485-3531, 476-4142
April 24, 1995
The Honorable Representative Val Stevens
414 John L. 0 Brien Building
Qlympia, WA 98504
Dear Representative Stevens:
Re: Proposed Crown Jewel Mine Project,
Okanogan County, Washington
The Okanogan County Commissioners have requested a Congressional Inquiry
into Department of Ecology practices that have led to 7 missed deadlines
for the draft EIS for the proposed Crown Jewel Mine Project, from the earliest
deadline of December 1992 to the latest deadline of sometime in June, 1995.
This request for the Inquiry is endorsed by a resolution from the Eastern
District of the Washington State Association of Counties.
Members of the Common Sense Resource League have followed the progress of
the Crown Jewel proposal from the very beginning and have thoroughly
researched the proposed plan. The conclusion is that the proposed plan meets,
and exceeds, all of the requirements of state and federal regulations.
We want you to know that we believe that the delays in the release of the
draft EIS are unreasonable, and that we are in full support of the Okanogan
County Commissioners request for a Congressional inquiry into the matter.
You will recall that the Common Sense Resource League, comprised of concerned
citizens in and around the area of the proposed Crown Jewel Project, formed
to study issues relating to natural resources. Members are all volunteers,
and CSRL is independent of any state or federal organizations, or of any
industry.
The Commissioners have requested that the Congressional Inquiry not cause
an additional delay in the EIS process. CSRL members agree that it would
be undesirable for an Inquiry to result in further delays.
We will appreciate any help you are able to afford to the Okanogan County
Commissioners in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
CCMdQN SENSE
Richard Dart
President
Enclosed, for your information, is the most recent CSRL study of the Crown
Jewel Project.
I/
CC: Okanogan County Commissioners *
-------
COMMON SENSE RESOURCE LEAGUE
H. C. 71, Box 78A., Oroville, VIA 98844
Phone (509) 485-3607, FAX (509) 485-2904
June 3, 1994
The Honorable Mary Riveland
Director
State of Washington, Department of Ecology
Mail Stop PV-11
Olympia, WA 98504-8711
, a CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Dear Ms. Riveland: • ' ~~~
Our letter to you .dated May 2nd, requesting information about the delay in
completing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) has not been
answered.
As we stated in that letter, we cannot understand the reason for the delay
in publishing the DEIS. We are concerned that the economic development of
our area is being stifled because this project has not been allowed to go
into production.
We also stated that there have been no public meetings since last October
to up-date our community as to the status of the EIS. We do get a periodic
Baseline Data Status Chart, and it appears to us that most all the baseline
studies are complete or nearly so.
As citizens interested in the responsible development of natural resources,
which we believe the Crown Jewel Project will be, we request that a public
meeting be held by July 15th, 1994; to" inform us of the status of the DEIS
and then give us a realistic and firm 'schedule for its publication.
Sincerely yours,
LEAGUE.
Richard Dart
President
CC: Okanogan County Commissioners
The Honorable Senator Bob Morton
The Honorable Representative Steve Fuhrman
The Honorable Representative Cathy McMorris
ENDORSED BY THE FOLLOWING GROUPS AND ORGANIZATIONS:
**OKANOGAN RESOURCE COUNCIL OKSriresident
John Shaver, Chairman John W. Umberger, President
^AGRICULTURE COMMUNITY ALLIANCE **OKANOGAN COUNTY CATTLEMEN'S ASS
Richard L. Forrester Daryl Asmussen, President
D . L . Taber
**HETKO* VALLEY RESOURCE ASSOC.
Don Maples, President
-------
'' JUN 1 0 1994
COMMON SENSE RESOURCE IZAGCE n
-------
COMMON SENSE RESOURCE LEAGUE
HC 71, BOX 78-A
OROVILLE, WA 98844
PHONE 509-485-3607
FAX 509-485-2904
May 2, 1994
Mr. Sam Gehr, Forest Supervisor
Okanogan National Forest
1240 South Second
Okanogan, WA 98840
SUBJECT: Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Crown Jewel Gold Mining Project
Dear Mr. Gehr:
Our community is concerned about the delay in publishing a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the subject Crown Jewel
Project.
Over two years have gone by since this project was proposed, and
April 24, 1994 marked exactly two years since the deadline for
written input to the scoping for this project.
on April 15, 1992, the Common Sense .Resource League, an
organization of local citizens dedicated to the responsible
development of natural resources, sent a list of sixteen areas of
concern to the Tonasket District of the Okanogan National Forest
and to the Washington State Department of Ecology, co-leaders for
the EIS. On July 2, 1992 DOE amd USFS published a list of
significant issues to be studied for the EIS, most of which were
identical to the list we proposed.
This study seems to be going on endlessly. For a while the DOE
and USFS ware holding monthly or bi-monthly meetings to update
the public on the status of the EIS, but no meetings have been
held since October, 1993. At every meeting we asked when the
DEIS would be issued, and everytime we were told there would be
another delay.
The last Crown Jewel Baseline Data Status Report we received
indicated that most of the baseline studies were complete or
nearly so. We have heard that the EIS contractor has been asked
to repeat studies, and that the new results verified the initial
results.
We made inquiry of the DOE about the status of the DEIS on August
3, 1993, and were answered on September 28, 1993 with a letter
signed by Patricia L. Crumley of their Environmental Review
Section. At that time she explained the .complexity of the EIS
-------
procedure and the importance of doing everything correctly, which
we fully understand and with which we agree. However, it does
seen to us that this particular EIS is taking an inordinately
great amount of timd.
As citizens interested in the well-being of our community — not
only that it is environmentally safe, but that it is economically
viable, we question whether there is a planned/ concerted effort
to delay this project or perhaps kill it altogether.
will you tell us what the reasons are for the delay in publishing
a DEIS on this project, and who is responsible for the delay?
We would appreciate having your answers at your earlist
convenience.
Sincerely yours,
COMMON SENSE PSSOURCS LEAGUE
(Ja^A
Richard Dart, President
cc: Tonasket District Ranger
-------
jaAiJt 3. y, /^>
"
i-4-
/
/ v
-------
.U'/i
v /'/y
'
s>4t^ft_j
.^•^-^U^c^ jfcC
£ls^ a^JLs
-^L ^
-------
(
Star Route 85
Orovillc, WA 98844
May 1, 1995
The Honorable Representative Cathy McMoms
P.O. Box 40614
Olvmpia. WA 98504-0614 .,AS/ ,
' MAY i
Re: Crown Jewel Mine - Draft EIS Delav
Dear Representative McMorris, " <_ V
For over three years I have been studying the Crown Jewel gold mine proposal near Chesaw in Okanogan
County. Along with many of my neighbours we have determined it to be a safe project that meets and
surpasses the requirements of a multitude of Federal and State environmental laws.
On March 31, 1995 the U.S. Forest Service and Department of Ecology announced the 7 to missed
deadline for the Crown Jewel draft EIS. The gravity of the situation has prompted the County
Commissioners to request a Congressional Inquiry into U.S. Forest Service practices. That the request for
an Inquiry is supported well beyond Okanogan County has been demonstrated by the unanimous approval
of the Crown Jewel Resolution by the Eastern District of Washington State Association of Counties.
I would like you to know that the regular parade of delays plaguing this project are unwarranted and
unreasonable.
Since the study began 3 1/4 years ago in January 1992 the project has been generously funded. This
allowed for the hiring of an experienced and reputable environmental consultant whose responsibility
included management and coordination of all technical studies. This arrangement was established so the •
Forest Service could concentrate on project supervision thereby expediting the process.
The question that arises then is how can a well funded EIS with its technical responsiblities delegated to a
third party contractor still be in progress after 40 months , when 16 similar projects undertaken by the
same agency (USFS and BLM) have taken on average only 13.5 months ? Even more puzzling is that the
proposed Crown Jewel project represents a rather routine type of mine facility that will operate with basic
and conventional technology!
Based on these facts I believe the Okanogan County Commissioners deserve your full support in their
investigation of both agencies. Caution must be taken however to insure that any investigation spare the
already burdened EIS process any additional delay.
Any effort you could make in support of the Okanogan County Commissioners would be greatly
appreciated.
Yours sincerely,
Myron Sawiuk
cc Okanogan County Commissioners
Mr. John Lowe U. S. Forest Service
Ms. Mary Riveland Wash. State Dept. of Ecology
-------
Star Route 85
Orovillc, WA 98844
May 1, 1995
The Honorable Representative Steve Fuhrman
P.O. Box 40613
Olympia. WA 98504-0613
Re: Crown Jewel Mine - Draft EIS Delay
Dear Representative Fuhrman,
For over three years I have been studying the Crown Jewel gold mine proposal near Chesaw in Okanogan
County. Along with many of my neighbours we have determined it to be a safe project that meets and
surpasses the requirements of a multitude of Federal and State environmental laws.
On March 31, 1995 the U.S. Forest Service and Department of Ecology announced the 7 th missed
deadline for the Crown Jewel draft EIS. The gravity of the situation has prompted the County
Commissioners to request a Congressional Inquiry into U.S. Forest Service practices. That the request for
an Inquiry is supported well beyond Okanogan County has been demonstrated by the unanimous approval
of the Crown Jewel Resolution by the Eastern District of Washington State Association of Counties.
I would like you to know that the regular parade of delays plaguing this project are unwarranted and
unreasonable.
Since the study began 3 1/4 years ago in January 1992 the project has been generously funded This
allowed for the hiring of an experienced and reputable environmental consultant whose responsibility
included management and coordination of all technical studies. This arrangement was established so the
Forest Service could concentrate on project supervision thereby expediting the process.
The question that arises then is bow can a well funded EIS with its technical responsiblities delegated to a
third party contractor still be in progress after 40 months, when 16 similar projects undertaken by the
same agency (USFS and BLM) have taken on average only 13.5 months ? Even more puzzling is that the
proposed Crown Jewel project represents a rather routine type of mine facility that will operate with basic
and conventional technology !
Based on these facts I believe the Okanogan County Commissioners deserve your full support in their
investigation of both agencies. Caution must be taken however to insure that any investigation spare the
already burdened EIS process any additional delay.
Any effort you could make in support of the Okanogan County Commissioners would be greatly
appreciated.
Yours sincerely,
>Ou_i^ujJ{L__.
cc Okanogan County Commissioners
Mr. John Lowe U. S. Forest Service
Ms. Mary Riveland Wash. State Dept. of Ecology
-------
Star Route 85
Orovillc, WA 98844
May 1. 1995
The Honorable Senator Patty Murray
302 Senate Han Office Building
Washington. D.C. 20515-4704
Re: Crown Jewel Mine - Draft EIS Delay
Dear Senator Murray.
For over three years I have been studying the Crown Jewel gold mine proposal near Chesaw in Okanogan
County. Along with many of my neighbours we have determined it to be a safe project that meets and
surpasses the requirements of a multitude of Federal and State environmental laws.
On March 31. 1995 the U.S. Forest Service announced the 7 th missed deadline for the Crown Jewel draft
EIS. The gravity of the situation has prompted the County Commissioners to request a Congressional
Inquiry into U.S. Forest Service practices. That the request for an Inquiry is supported well beyond
Okanogan County has been demonstrated by the unanimous approval of the Crown Jewel Resolution by
the Eastern District of Washington State Association of Counties.
I would like you to know that the regular parade of delays plaguing this project are unwarranted and
unreasonable.
Since the study began 3 1/4 years ago in January 1992 the project has been generously funded This
allowed for the hiring of an experienced and reputable environmental consultant whose responsibility
included management and coordination of all technical studies. This arrangement was established so the
Forest Service could concentrate on project supervision thereby expediting the process.
The question that arises then is how can a well funded EIS with its technical responsiblities delegated to a
third party contractor still be in progress after 40 months, when 16 similar projects undertaken by the
same agency (USFS and BLM) have taken on average only 13.5 months ? Even more puzzling is that the
proposed Crown Jewel project represents a rather routine type of mine facility that will operate with basic
and conventional technology!
Based on these facts I believe the Okanogan County Commissioners deserve your full support in their call
for a Congressional Inquiry. Caution must be taken however to insure that any investigation spare the
already burdened EIS process any additional delay.
Any effort you could make in support of the Okanogan County Commissioners would be greatly
appreciated.
Yours sincerelv.
cc Okanogan County Commissioners
Mr. John Lowe U. S. Forest Service
Ms. Mary Riveland Wash. State Dept. of Ecology
-------
Star Route 85
Oroville, WA 98844
May 1, 1995
The Honorable Congressman "Doc" Hastings
1229 Longworth House Office Building
Washington. D.C. 20515
Re: Crown Jewel Mine - Draft EIS Delay
Dear Congressman Hastings,
For over three years I have been studying the Crown Jewel gold mine proposal near Chesaw in Okanogan
County. Along with many of my neighbours we have determined it to be a safe project that meets and
surpasses the requirements of a multitude of Federal and State environmental laws.
On March 3 1, 1995 the U.S. Forest Service announced the 7 th missed deadline for the Crown Jewel draft
EIS. The gravity of the situation has prompted the County Commissioners to request a Congressional
Inquiry into U.S. Forest Service practices. That the request for an Inquiry is supported well beyond
Okanogan County has been demonstrated by the unanimous approval of the Crown Jewel Resolution by
the Eastern District of Washington State Association of Counties.
I would like you to know that the regular parade of delays plaguing this project are unwarranted and
unreasonable.
Since the study began 3 1/4 years ago in January 1992 the project has been generously funded. This
allowed for the hiring of an experienced and reputable environmental consultant whose responsibility
included management and coordination of all technical studies. This arrangement was established so the
Forest Service could concentrate on project supervision thereby expediting the process.
The question that arises then is how can a well funded EIS with its technical responsiblities delegated to a
third party contractor still be in progress after 40 months , when 16 similar projects undertaken by the
same agency (USFS and BLM) have taken on average only 13.5 months ? Even more pulling is that the
proposed Crown Jewel project represents a rather routine type of mine facility that will operate with basic
and conventional technology !
Based on these facts I believe the Okanogan County Commissioners deserve your full support in their call
for a Congressional Inquiry. Caution must be taken however to insure that any investigation spare the
already burdened EIS process any additional delay.
Any effort you could make in support of the Okanogan County Commissioners would be greatly
appreciated.
Yours sincerely,
Mvron Sawiuk
cc Okanogan County Commissioners
Mr. John Lowe U. S. Forest Service
Ms. Man- Riveland Wash. State Dept. of Ecology
-------
I
> \
rv i .'-' " "o
JUL C G 1SG3
July 3,1995
Okanogan County Commissioners
P.O. Box 791
Okanogan, WA 98840
Dear Commissioners:
I would like to thank the Board for the opportunity to give written testimony on the
Crown Jewel Project Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis. As per the Revised Code
of Washington (RCW) 78.56 Sec. 13 (2) the applicant for a large-scale metals mining
and milling operation ....must submit to the relevant county legislative authority an
impact analysis describing the economic impact of the proposed mining operation on the
local governmental units. Furthermore, Sec 13 (3) specifies the minimum requirements by
the applicant for this analysis. The Crown Jewel Project Economic and Fiscal Impact
Analysis meets and exceeds the requirements of RCW 78.56 Sec. 13.
Battle Mountain Gold has established itself as a responsible corporate citizen of Northern
Okanogan County over the past five years, and has brought an opportunity for a new and
diverse economic potential to an otherwise slow economy. Although this project has been
in the development and permitting stages since 1987, and has yet to realize any economic
benefits (approximatly $50,000,000.00 has been expended to date) and does not
anticipate any tangible revenue from the operating mine for some time to come, the
Company continues to employ a work force, pay state and county taxes, and support the
various communities of Okanogan County through participation, charitable donations,
and support funding. The following is an example for your to consideration. How many
business are you aware of that would spend $50,000,000.00 on a business venture that
will take at least nine years to develop and could still be delayed or stalled because of
increasing and changing regulations or public sentiment? Modern day mining has the
potential to generate enormous income, however, h also requires a tremendous amount of
risk ....... by the Company!
A reference was made at the June 26th public hearing about royalties and how more
dollars from minerals extracted from public lands is necessary. However, I do not believe
the general public would tolerate the use of tax payers dollars to fund typically risky grass-
roots and exploratory mineral development. No, the risk part is left for the company. Only
after the mineral resource is identified, quantified, deemed economic to extract and
permitted, is the risk taking mining company transformed in to the multinational abusers of
public resources. Modern day mining companies must be responsible corporate citizens
-------
and exhibit a level of environmental stewardship and economic impact accountability well
beyond that of their predecessors.
Another key issue discussed in the public hearing was the issue of what is "local" in
relationship to the percentage of people that could be hired by the mine . The intent of
BMG to hire local people at the mine is simple - whenever possible, attempts will be made
to strengthen economic conditions of the surrounding communities by giving the people
who live in these areas the opportunity to achieve a higher than average income, receive a
comprehensive benefits package, and provide an opportunity for job training to diversify
and enhance existing job skills. The general intent of this concept is to provide an
economic opportunity for the surrounding communities and there citizens and give
something back to the communities for the future. Any attempt to narrow and/or restrict
this concept could jeopardize the original intent of this voluntary commitment. This
commitment was made by the company as a good faith effort and should not fall victim to
public abuse.
The report was prepared by professionals with the intent to address the potental economic
and fiscal impacts of the Crown Jewel Project on the local governmental units as outlined
in law, and should not address ghost employees that may, or may not ever be a reality, or
impacts of potential future ore bodies developed by other companies in the region. This
report has successfully addressed the objectives of the law and I ask that you accept the
Crown Jewel Project Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis as presented. Thank you
for your consideration.
Jon F. Winter
P.O. Box 378
Tonasket, Washington 98855
-------
WHO'S WHO
"7
JUL 0 ; 1SS5
. /t. *s. 1.
P. 0. •SOX 1059
603
July 5, 1995
Okanogan County Commissioners
237 4TH N.
Okanogan, WA 98840
Dear Commissioners Higby, Schultz, and Thiele,
I am writing this letter to urge you to accept the
Hucke11/Weinman Associates Economic/Fiscal Impact Study on
the Crown Jewel Project in its entirety.
After graduating from college in 1993 (as a returning adult
student) I found the job market in the county to be sadly
lacking. The jobs that were available at that time and to
the present were low paying, to say the least. Minimal wage
or barely above does not pay off student loans. I finally
found a job at $6.00 an hour in Omak. At this point in time
I had to pay for gas to and from work, two teenage daughters
left at home and student loans to repay. I was grateful to
Jbe hired at Battle Mountain Gold Company as a receptionist
with no -gas bills.
I have worked for Battle Mountain Gold Company for the past
two years. I started as a receptionist and have had three
advances with pay increases to match. Battle Mountain Gold
Company has shown their appreciation and support in several
different ways. I have accomplished several things that
would not have been possible had I not had the support of
this company. The following is a few of these
accomplishments.
-------
• Notary Public
* Member National Notary Association
• Member National Association of Female Executives
• Listed - Sterling Who's Who Directory
* Executive Member
• Listed - International Biographical Institute, Inc.
* Member of Advisory Board
• Listed - American Biographical Institute, Inc. Two
Thousand Notable American Women
* Inaugural Invitation to the Board Of Governors
* Governing Board of Editors Dedication invitation
I also, fit the local hire suggestion made by Commissioner
Schultz (i.e., born in 1950 and remained a resident of
Oroville).
I would like to thank you for your time and again ask that
you accept the Hucke11/Weinman Associates Economic/Fiscal
Impact study in its entirety.
Sincerely,
Cora M. Howe
P.O. Box 1059
Oroville, WA 98844
-------
OCCED
Okanogan County Council
for Economic Development
May 4, 1995
Okanogan County Commissioners
PO Box 791
Okanogan, WA 98840
Dear Commissioners:
The OCCED Board of Directors wishes to express our support for the Crown Jewel
Project. The OCCED Board represents all areas of our vast county and has representation from
local businesses, and municipal, county, and tribal governments. We are extremely concerned
over the lack of due process on the part of the U.S. Forest Service and the Washington State
Department of Ecology. With the announcement of another delay in the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, we feel that the lead agencies should be held accountable for their actions.
This kind of breakdown in due process has not only threaten this project, but stands to threaten
other resource base economic projects in Okanogan County.
We hope that you will continue to stand fast on this Crown Jewel Project. If we can be of
any assistance please contact us.
Sincerely,
Mick Munson, President
OCCED/Board of Directors
cmd
-------
MOLSON GRANGE 1069
HC 71, BOX 128
OROVILLE, WA 98844
June 25, 1992
Okanogan County Commissioners
Okanogan County, Washington
P O Box 1009
Okanogan, WA 98840
Gentlemen:
The Molson Grange urges you to consider the traditions of mining
in Okanogan County, and requests that you take a positive stand
in regard to the Crown Jewel Gold Mining project on Buckhorn
Mountain.
It is our considered opinion that if the project meets all the
requirements of the present environmental and other laws relating
to mining, that this operation will be a positive factor in
improving the economic conditions in the county.
Not only will there be an opportunity for increased employment in
the county, but the sale of products and services will be
increased, thereby increasing revenue at all government levels.
Sincerely yours,
I ^ ' ; t __i -: /• -
/;.--^-^_l^t --'-fL/I 'S " * '? _?\*-<'<---^.-^^S :•"''-'
Richard Dart Mary Louise Loe
Master Secretary
7^-7, sJ/L'
George J. 'iiiller
Overseer
-------
/>vx4^
-------
y
-^gz-ffr)^^
^f.r**t+<-^2 •mjf^ -^""''"'' """
tfif
S3SI:
-------
XI
S-
} °^
r o,
-\
^,
\- ^
^ ^
.kf 5-
I ' JC>
f ^' ^
r ^
> I '
? X
s} c £"
^ ^ *
C.^
o.'
••?»
v. 4
S
jj £
P
---x
.
V \
^
I
rt
C
X
* t
V
r\
t
] 4
-t
M
f f
V.
f -
\
-.-• -^ vu
? H 1
^ u t
<•_
-<
71 L,,
TI rs
® o ^
-------
My name is Annette White. My husband and I and our three children moved to
this community nearly 2 years ago. My husband works for Battle Mountain Gold.
We are a mining family. I come from a mining family and have lived in mining
and ranching communities most of my life. In the scoping for this project
concerned was raised about the so-called "undesirable element" that would
come into the community as a result of opening a mine. I've come today to
dispel that myth and to share the economic contribution that my own family
makes. When we arrived here 2 years ago we went to a local real estate agent
and purchased a home with a loan from a local bank. We spend on an average
of 30,000 «ryear on goods and services here in this area, not including the cost
of our home. On top of that we pay taxes and have contributed to various local
organizations. To quote a line from Walter Mathau in a favorite old movie of
mine, "I believe money is like manure, I like to spread it around and watch young
things grow".
In reference to the impact on the local schools, I can only say, and I know that
their teachers would concur, that my children have been a positive influence to
the school. One teacher wrote in a note to us, that she wished she could have a
classroom full of students like my oldest son.
I spent my high-school years in a mining town, the same town where my parents
still live. As a community we were proud to produce the raw material for many
needed products as well as wealth for the country. It is my contention that only a
country that can produce wealth has the luxury to be truly "environmentally
responsible".
I urge you to approve the report submitted by Battle Mountain Gold.
Thank you.
-------
TO'd TOO'
-------
731 Havillah Road tf/
Tonasket, WA 93355
P
A July 1S>2>5 JUL 0 G 1S03
CaxOG^r--?.- ........
Okanogan County Board of Commissioners '"""'' ' ...... ' ""'
PO Box 7S>1
Okanogan, WA 3><3<34O
Dear Commissioners:
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the Crown Jewel Project - Economic and
Fiscal Impact /Analysis report. The economic benefits of the Crown Jewel Project are
substantial. The report clearly demonstrates this. The analysis presented in the report-
is quite conservative yet still shows exceptional economic benefit to the County. When I
gave oral testimony before you on 2£ June 1305, I emphasized some of the economic
benefits on which the report did not elaborate. I urge you to visit with County officials in
the areas where modern mining has revitalized stagnant or moribund economies and giver
people - most important many young people - the opportunities they deserve. When
communities experience the prosperity of a robust, diverse economy, opportunities for
building desirable futures abound. The very things I spoke about.
As I indicated in my testimony, most people want a healthy environment in which to live
and work. I emphasize work because I believe most people want and need to work In a
productive manner to support themselves and their families, provide for their children's
future, and contribute to their communities. Jobs - a choice of jobs - meet those needs.
The combination of an enthusiastic workforce and available resource opportunities - such
as we have here - is a very powerful component of the 'economic engine which generates
wealth. Creation of wealth - and subsequent distribution of that wealth - is the
foundation upon which our country has been built. Indeed, before our society can distribute
its great wealth among its members, that wealth must be created. The Crown Jewel
Project provides the opportunity to create wealth and benefit society while maintaining a
healthy environmen-r!
I look forward to your swift and decisive action In approving this report. This action would
be yet another step in Battle Mountain Gold's efforts to develop the hidden mineral
resource at Buckhorn Mountain and generate wealth for the area, state, and nation!
Sincerely,
Jeffrey 5. White
-------
0 ;'
V> 'v
July 5, 1995 t.W^.--.:;.';" •"
Okanogan County Commissioners
P.O. Box 791
Okanogan, WA 98840
Dear Commissioners,
I appreciate the support that you gentlemen have given to the Crown
Jewel Project !
I would only like to mention that of the eight Battle Mountain Gold
employees now present, seven of us have purchased a home and
property in the county (the eighth is now busy doing the same),
have been paying all appropriate taxes and do support the local
economy with a gross payroll (annual) in excess of $300,000.00, as
well as taking part in local activities which better the community
we live in.
Battle Mountain Gold Company, like all other mining companies,
believes very strongly in support of the community they live in and
around. We will be, as I feel we have been, a positive and
progressive part of the county.
Our commitment to try and hire 80% "Local" is real. We will look
forward to meeting with you to define "Local" in a manner that will
make you ( and us ) comfortable. I do want to follow that statement
by saying that I see no reason for us to go further than that in
"proving" ourselves to certain other parties. I think that we have
put down a good track record which shows us to be honest and
integral, both in private and business matters and that we do not
deal or believe in innuendo or audacity.
Thank you for allowing the time for written comment towards the
Crown Jewel Project Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis. I ask you
to accept the document as professionaly presented— and— thank you
for taking the time to read this letter.
Sincerely,
Frank E. Lytle
-------
11
Okanogan County Commissioners mi f\ r
P.O. Box 79 1 JUL Uv,
Okanogan, WA 98840 .,.,„,... r-. f -v .-
:* 'i|- • •
Dear Commissioners:
Thank you for the opportunity to give written testimony on the issue of the Battle Mountain Gold (BMGC)
Crown Jewel Economic Impact Analysis (EIA). As you know, the EIA has been submitted as a result of
the requirements within the 1994 Metals Mining Act and the subsequent Revised Code of Washington
(RCW) 78.56 Sec. 13 (2). Also, as you are aware, Battle Mountain Gold played a large part in developing
the 1994 Act and supported the EIA concept within the Act even though it singled out the mining industry
and imposed special considerations that was precedence setting.
I urge the approval of the EIA because it does meet or exceed the requirements of the law (RCW) 78.56
Sec. 13 (2). Also, the document, authored by Huckell/Weimann, has been developed in a professional
manner by a professional consultant that has considerable experience in developing such documents.
Battle Mountain Gold is proud of the positive economic impacts that we will bring to Okanogan County
with such an environmentally responsible proposal. We believe that this document shows that this type of
a proposal is a partnership with the communities and jurisdictions in which we operate. Not only does the
BMGC proposal offer opportunities relative to future construction, operations, and closure but we are
currently adding to the economy of Okanogan County by the current jobs that have been provided and the
existing tax assessments.
BMGC has recognized the partnership concept in many ways including the commitment to local hire. It is
the stated objective of Battle Mountain Gold to hire 80% of our operating workforce locally. Battle
Mountain Gold will do everything within our ability to accomplish this. The objective is one that has been
met by other Battle Mountain Gold projects and in particular, the San Luis Project in Southern Colorado.
The current San Luis Mine workforce is 91.5% local. These are people who commute as far away as 60
miles to their place of work or as close as just down the road. San Luis currently has a total workforce of
94 persons, eight of which have been hired from outside the local area. High level supervisory positions
are being held by those that lived within a reasonable commute distance before Battle Mountain came to
town. This is an example of how BMGC is meeting self imposed commitments. BMGC looks forward to a
long and successful relationship with the communities of Okanogan County.
I, as an employee of BMGC and as an Okanogan County resident, urge your approval of the EIA.
Si:
-------
Paul Schumacher JUL 0 G 1S95
P.O.Box 1443 ,..,-.„.,,. ..,..
Oroville, WA 98844 -^••<•>**•'••' ''
JulyS, 1995
Okanogan County Commissioners
P.O. Box 791
Okanogan, WA 98840
RE: Crown Jewel Project - Economic and Fiscal Impact Analysis
Dear County Commissioners,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide written comment on the report prepared by
Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc. I am writing as a citizen of Okanogan County as well
as an employee of Battle Mountain Gold Company in support of the report on economic
and fiscal impacts of the Crown Jewel Project. As a 2 1/2 year resident of Oroville, my
family and I enjoy living and working in North Central Washington and feel we have been
actively contributing to our community through participation in school, civic
organizations, church, and of course our local spending and taxes.
As I spoke at the June 19th public hearing, I urge you to approve the impact analysis
report which conservatively analyzes the economic and fiscal impacts of the Crown Jewel
Project. Though conservative in its estimates of economic and fiscal impacts, the report is
unbiased and comprehesive in covering the expected effects of the mine on our county.
What I heard from some opponents of the mine is that the report is flawed because certain
postulated circumstances were not presented. One example was the suggestion that
because of the mine, there will be an influx of jobless people who will move into the area
with unfulfillable hopes of obtaining employment. Another suggestion was that existing
business will not be able to survive the "competition" of outside businesses moving in. I
believe these types of comments are driven by a desire to delay the project.
A person might ask, " Should a report such as this one consider all possible scenarios
that may occur in the future ? " Of course not! This task would prove impossible. The
report as presented projects as reasonably as possible the future economic and fiscal
impacts of the mine.
Sincei
5aul Schumacher
-------
if?
JulyS, 1995 V
Okanogan County Board of Commissioners
P.O. Box 791 JUL 0 G 19G5
Okanogan, WA 98840
c^vr-G^ccjf.'Y-"1
Dear Commissioners:
Thank you for this opportunity to once again comment on the Economic and
Fiscal Impact Analysis report for the Crown Jewel Project. My family has
enjoyed being a part of this community for the last two years. I do a lot of
business with the local merchants and service people in the area. Everywhere I
go I am asked about the mine. People want to know when it will become a
reality. These are hard-working folks who recognize mining as the essential
wealth producing, raw material producing industry that it is. In the words of an
old friend, "people want things, and things are made of stuff. Stuff is what we
mine."
I feel that I and my family have made a positive impact on the local schools,
service organizations and churches. Talk of itinerant in-migration seems to be a
scare tactic designed to delay the project rather than a genuine concern.
Please accept the report as submitted.
Sincerely,
Annette White
-------
JUL U
June6>1"5
Okanogan County commissioners
P.O. Box 791 .
Okanogan, Wa 98840
Dear Commissioners:
The Crown Jewel Project proposed by Battle Mountain Gold Company will provide a
valuable economic boost for Okanogan county. Even in the conservative approach taken by
Huckett'weinman Associates the economic outlook for the project is positive. When the project is
permitted it will become among the most stable employer in the county. I encourage you to
approve the HuckeD/Weinmenn report.
In addition to the tangibles mentioned in the study there will be positive social and
economic impacts from the Crown Jewel project that include the following:
* reduced dependency on social services
* increased household income
* increased entrepreneurial incentive for resource industries and support businesses
* increased community pride due to increased financial ability to care for community
needs.
Most rural communities in America are involved in a constant search for ways to increase
and diversify their economic base. In today's competitive economy easy sure things dont exist The
two largest employers in the state, Boeing and Hartford, have recently reduced their work force by
more than Okanogan County's entire employment base. Cut backs and business closures have
become a fact of life. In contrast the Crown Jewel proposal provides a relativery stable
employment base for a defined period of time.
Battle Mountain Gold Company has already demonstrate its commitment to be supportive
and actively involved in the community. Their proposed plan of operations is also evidence of the
company commitment to environmental responsibility. They except the fact that they will be held
to higher standards than most businesses in the state. Please help move the process forward by
approving the economic and fiscal impact analysis.
Sincerely;
Mike Poulson, Molson
-------
Orov.lltf. XVA98SH
JUL 1 0 1SS5 July 6. 1005
Okanouan County rniiimissioncrs C^-"--^ COu*:
PO n ox 7v I
Okanugan, WA
988-40
Dear Commissioners,
I have reviewed the socio-economic impact analysis which has been submitted to the County for
Battle Mountain's Crown Jewel project and would like to make the following comments.
The analysis is well researched, comprehensive and clearly documents what an asset the mine project will be
to Okanogan County.
Since the projections and estimates contained in the report are a minimum case scenario :hcr. ever, better
economic rc&uks may be expected With decreasing budgets lor schools, social pmgiaiii!»
-------
POGUE FLAT GRANGE
NO. 1027
APR 1 1SS5
April 17, 1995
Okanogan County ConmLssioners
Okanogan, Washington 98840
Gentlemen;
We, of the Pogue Flat Grange #1027, are in full support of the conndssioners in
their affirmative action regarding Battle Mountain Gold.
We feel this is a well organized company and that they are trying to their
utmost to comply with ecological regulations.
Sincerely yours,
F. Tritle
Master
cc: Dept of Ecology
Forest Service
-------
**: It •:- »^ r \f t "- r*. C->' <
-------
QMAK
^Wi^^ Chamber of Comm
WAY C 1 1S£ 3
of Commerce
April 27, 1995
Okanogan County Cotmiiissioners
PO Box 791
Okanogan WA 98840
RE: Congressional Inquiry
Delayed Environmental Impact Statement
Crown Jewel Mining Project
Dear Commissioners:
On behalf of the Omak Chamber of Commerce, please accept our support of your
recent decision to request an inquiry as to why there has been such a delay in receiving
the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed Crown Jewel mining project
Although the Omak Chamber has been supportive because of the project's economic
benefits and potential of jobs, we also feel that Battle Mountain Gold has provided
sufficient safeguards to protect the environment We realize that this is a complicated
project with lots of issues and questions, but simply cannot understand why the
Impact Statement is taking so long.
Again, thank you, Commissioners, for your interest and support in the economic
growth of our area.
Sincerely,
Mike Striggow
President
-------
City of Oroville
Clerk's Office, P.O. Box M, Oroville, Washington, 98844, (509) 476-292^
OFFICERS: COUNCIL MEMBER?
Joseph E. King. Mayor Jimmie D. Walke
Kathy M. Jones. Clerk-Treasurer Linda L. SchwiBw
Rodney L. Noel. Town Superintendent John G. Shav
Ethel E. Undaue
Jack C. Hughei
October 21, 1992
Okanogan County Commissioners
Commissioners Office
Okanogan, WA 98840
Dear Commissioners,
The City Council and I wish to extend our support of the
continued development of the Battle Mountain Gold Co. mining
project east of Oroville.
Although we do have some concerns about environmental
issues, we feel that the probable benefits to our community
outweigh the negatives.
Again, our continued support.
Sincerely,
John 6. Shaw
Mayor
-------
TOWN of TONASKET
POST OFFICE BOX 487 TONASKET, WASHINGTON 98855 TELEPHONE 509/486-2132
April 27, 1995
MAY o rr:
Okanogan County Commissioners
P. 0. Box 791
Okanogan, Washington 98840
Dear County Commissioners,
The Tonasket Town Council and I support your efforts in
investigating the actions of the U. S. Forest Service
and the Department of Ecology regarding the lengthy delay
of the draft EIS, of the Crown Jewel Project, in Okanogan
County.
At one time the. main issue was whether one supported the
mine or not. Now it appears to have changed to an "appearance
of fairness". The history of the Crown Jewel Project draft
EIS is one that would make any developer hesitant to apply
for a major project in our County.
Our town and County have suffered an economic loss during
this lenghty process. There is no way of knowing the number
of jobs that have been lost as a result of the delay.
The important i-ssue now is that there is a determination
made on the Crown Jewel Project in hopes of increased
employment for our town and County.
Sincerely,
Thomas W. Fancher
Mayor
TWF/fc
-------
fSti,
0
7f/ '
RECEIVED
MAY 0 9 1995
OKANOGAN CQUN lY&M'.rTrj
u-tUJ
C D f r 5)
^(3
(L**. .*~J?
* * 0
~^-^—*"-^-tr
*WZ&
££-£-A-*>- tf-v^-^ -^tli:^ sr-teJ^x ,
TV V
-------
-------
4-
fi.
\
A.
•<
-------
A // /
" TV| 7
f j *^.
•vr'-» »,
P7/
-------
-------
Star Route 85
Oroville, WA 9X
April 2\ 1<»
Okanogan County Commissioners RCCFIVPD
PO Box 791
Okanogan, WA 98340 APR 2 ?' 19S5
Re: Crown Jewel Draft EIS Delay C-i.«ie tforton benatur Hoi' Morton Mr John Lowe USFS
ronaiessman"Doc" Hastings Keo. r.illiv Vk-Munis Ms Mar. Rivei-uul DOR
V::>n?~r Pitrv Mv.rvr. Rep V^;- !•?? •*• v
-------
MAY G : IT"
. .,. Star Route 85
'.-'•-•• ' Oroville, WA 98844
April 27, 1995
The Honorable Slade Gorton
730 Hart Senate Ofticc lUiilding
Washington, D.C. 20510-4701"
Re: Crown Jewel Mine -Drafl EIS Delay
Okanogan County, WA
Dear Senator Gorton:
For over three years I have been studying the Crour. Jewel gold mine proposal near Chcsaw in Okanogan
County. Along with many of my neighbours we have determined it to be a safe project that meets and
surpasses the requirements of a multitude of Federal and State environmental laws.
On June 30, 1995 the U. S. Forest Senice announced the 7 th missed deadline for Crown Jewel's draft EIS.
The gravity of the situation has prompted the County Commissioners to request a Congressional Inquiry' into
U.S. Forest Service practices. That the request for an Inr.uiry is supported well beyond Okanogan County
has been demonstrated by the unanimous approval of the Crown Jewel resolution by the Eastern District of
Washington State Association of Counties.
I would like you to know that the regular parade of delays plaguing this project are unwarranted and
unreasonable.
Since the study began 3 1/4 years ago in January 1992 the project has been generously funded. Tliis
allowed for the hiring of an experienced and reputable environmental consultant whose responsioility
included management and coordination of all technical studies. This arrangement was established so the
Forest Service could concentrate on project supervision thereby expediting the process.
The question that arises then is how can a well funded EIS with its technical responsibilities delegated to a
third party contractor, still be in progress after 40 months, when 16 similar projects undertaken by the
same agency (USFS and BLM)have taken on average only 13.5 months ? Even more puzzling is that the
proposed the Crown Jewel project represents a rather routine type of mine facility that will operate with
basic and conventional technology!
Based on these facts I believe the Okanosaa County Commissioners deserve your full support in their call
for a Congressional Inquiry. Caution must be taken however to insure that any investigation spare the
already burdened EIS process any additional delay.
Any effort you could make in support of the Okanogan Count}' Commissioners would be greatly
appreciated.
Yours sincerely,
Mvron SaWiuk
cc Okanogan County Commissioners
Mr. John Lowe U.S. Forest Service
Mv Mary Krvdand Wash. State Dcpt. of Ecology
-------
MAY 0 : 1I:£3 Star Route 85
Oroville, \VA 98S44
April 27. 1995
Senator Rolxrrt Morton
P.O. I)ox40107
Olympia, YVA 9S504-G407
Re: Crown Jewel Mine -Drafi EIS Delay
Okanogan County, \VA
Dear Senator Morton:
For over three years 1 have been studying the Crown Jewel gold mine proposal near Chesaw in Okanogan
County. Along with many of my neighbours we have determined it to be a safe project that meets and
surpasses the requirements of a multitude of Federal and State environmental laws.
On June 30,1995 the U. S. Forest Service announced the 7 th missed deadline for Crown Jewel's draft EIS.
The gravity of the situation has prompted the County Commissioners to request a Congressional Inquiry into
U.S. Forest Service practices. That the request for an Inquiry is supported well beyond Okanogan County
has been demonstrated by the unanimous approval of the Crown Jewel resolution by the Eastern District of
Washington State Association of Counties.
I would like you to know that the regular parade of delays plaguing this project are unwarranted and
unreasonable.
Since the study began 3 1/4 years ago in January 1992 the project has been generously funded. This
allowed for the hiring of an experienced and reputable environmental consultant whose responsibility
included management and coordination of all technical studies. Tliis arrangement was established so the
Forest Service could concentrate on project supervision thereby expediting the process.
The question that arises then is how can a well funded LIS with its technical responsibilities delegated to a
third party- contractor, still be in progress after 40 months, when 16 similar projects undertaken by the
same agency (USFS and BLM)have taken on average only 13.5 months ? Even more puzzling is that the
proposed the Crown Jewel project represents a rather routine type of mine facility that will operate with
basic and conventional technology!
Based on these facts I believe the Okanogan County Commissioners deserve your full support in their call
for a Congressional Inquiry. Caution must be taken however to insure that any investigation spare the
already burdened EIS process any additional delay.
Any effort you could make in support of the Okanogan County Commissioners would be greatly
appreciated.
Yo
\ x Vft
Mvron Sawiy
« '
cc Okanogan County Commissioners
Mr. John Lowe U.S. Forest Service
Ms Mary RiveSand Wash Slate Dept ofllco'.osy
-------
S531 C 0 AVW
/•
-------
POGUE FLAT GRANGE
NO. 1027
ppfPiy.cn
APR 2 T 19S5
April 25, 1995
Okanogan County Commissioners
Okanogan, Washington 98840
Gentlemen;
We, of the Pogue Flat Grange //1027, are in full support of the commissioners
in their affirmative action regarding Battle Mountain Gold. We would like to
recommend the permit to Battle Mountain Gold be issued as soon as possible but
not later than May 15, 1995.
We feel this is a well organized company and that they are trying their
utmost to comply with ecological regulations.
Sincerely Yours,
F. Tritle
Master
cc: Dept of Ecology
Forest Service
-------
COMMON SENSE RESOURCE LEAGUE
H. C. 71 Box 78A.
Oroville, WA 98844
Phone (509) 485-3531, FAX (509 476-4059)
April 17, 1995
Okanogan County Commissioners
P. O. Box 791
Okanogan, WA 98840
Dear Sirs:
Re: Proposed Crown Jewel Mine Project
This letter is to reaffirm our support for your efforts and planned action
in regard to the DEIS for the proposed Crown Jewel Mine Project.
Members of the Common Sense Resource League have studied all of the available
material on the proposed project since 1991. A good deal of research has
gone into state and federal mining and environmental laws.
We have noted that the proponent of the project has willingly cooperated
with the agencies in fulfilling their requirements from the very beginning.
As of this date, the cost to the proponent amounts to $4 million dollars.
A good share of this expenditure could have served to boost the sluggish
economy of Okanogan County if the DEIS, EIS and permitting processes had
been done in a reasonable amount of time.
As you are aware, the DEIS process has already taken 2 1/4 years beyond the
first self-imposed agency DEIS release date of December 1992, and the most
recent (8th) projected release date is an unspecified time in June 1995.
We have concluded that the project proponent has gone far beyond what would
normally be required; that the proposed plan is protective of the environment;
that laws in place which will monitor the project are more than adequate;
that county administrators are more than capable of overseeing the safety
of the operation.
We want you to know that the 167 members of CSRL stand solidly behind you
in your efforts to facilitate the project - whatever you decide is appropriate
action.
We have the assurance of other grass-roots groups that you also have their
support.
In addition, we have both technical and practical information on all the
aspects of mining which may be of assistance - just let us know.
Sincerely yours,
*CE LEAGUE
Richard Dart
President
-------
Wilbur G. Hallauer
Route 1, Box 35 Dairy Point
Oroville, Washington 98844
(509)476-2486
> E ,T i \
APR :: 7 1SS
April 25, 1995.
Okanogan County Commissioners Re: Crown Jewel mining project.
Court House
Ckanogan, Washington. 988UO
Sirs:
Your efforts toward speeding up the bureaucracy in its consideration
cf the Crown Jewel mining project are appreciated. One has to conclude that the
process established by law for such projects has simply failed in this cas*..
The Question arises as to the reasons this particular project has a record of
failing to meet the time deadlines of the lead agencies time after time for a
total of seven. Other projects hare managed to run the gauntlet in their sched-
uled times — and this one id behind by multiples of the originally alloted time.
It is well known that the project has attracted the opposition of the
Washington Environmental Council, the leading environmental group in the state,
De these continual delays confirm the suspicion that political leverage is at
work ?
I have been personally interested in Ddning exploration since about
1950 and admit to a selfish interest in mini«g activity being allowed here in
Okanogsn county. I know from personal contact with major mining companies that
they are sitting back and waiting to find out if the Crown Jewel project will fly
before they will do any active exploration in Okanogan county and even the state
of Washington itself.
Thank you for what you have done. Keep up the good work.
Tours trul;
'.S.I havg no persons! ownership interest in any way in the Crown Jewel project.
The mining properties that I do have here are adversely affected by the
obvious difficulty in obtaining permits to nine that confront the Crown
Jewel project. Small time explor?tionists such as myself could never afford
the kind of environmental war that engages Crown Jewel.
-------
••"•'•••.-.• -n
APR j 7 1S£5
\\fit. Marv Seaman
P n n,,v j io«
1 W 4 X W . V t f. X * -'
Omak. Washington 98841
(509) 826-3363
Okanogan County Commissioners
P O Box 79 i
Okanogan. Washington 98S40
Congratulations!
Listening to my radio today. I heard about your a\vard for
Procrastination awarded to the agencies responsible for delays to the
Battle Mountain Goid Project.
You have selected a humorous, to the point approach to a problem
that lieips the general public to "lighten up" a little bit. I know that in
your heart of hearts you are dead serious about the progress of this
mining project — at least to the point of wanting to know just what
prohibitions there could be to it.
You arc to be commended for "rattling the sabres" with a sniilc. I, of
al! people, like the "dead serious, right from the shoulder, get you
where you live" approach, even though I know that sometimes causes
more trouble and pressure than is needed at the time. My favorite
picture of Christ is not the meek servant, but the conquering fighter.
clearing the temple with a whip.
Thank you for being humorous leaders as well as men of conviction.
Okanogan County should go far — America will be improved by
citizens who follow your examples.
-------
_
N
OiWlOGAN COl'OTV CCM
._
_____ g^jgu^- ^
V
*
^^
-------
JUL-14J995-
- OWNOGAN CSm->CO"
-------
/ >/
9 -7
-------
'.*•*; /' '"M ^-,. '
?
>0ff
•*T'??'S/S^-r
L. * /X
x/^V77
/^^/6k:V
-------
•• i-^-^.. Lr?^ £ ty-^J-L^t-^ ^L^u~a^~f^- .& ^•fjL*i -^**-t>-£-../tSji" <.>'^^r
H
- X--
•/
'"-.-.^/'//•/ <•':':."
-^ .'./• f A' 'A-..'
-A ,-.-.,.-?.- /•, 't; ^./
-------
r-Vf^.-.
QJ
y
r
,,
//
C7'V7^-^T Cf^^&2™^r>~0/%t'• f^^~(rcnf^/^^r^~'l l^> T'y^
•^=^^^-TC=rr>=PnQ
" I/ * i/
-^^^^f^-^—^^^rr^^^^
-------
"
/*•• •
-------
Crown Jewel Project: Economic & Fiscal Impact Analysis
Prepared by Huckell/Weinman Associates, Inc.
Comment* by Woody Rehanek, OHA Secretary
The members of the Okanogan Highlands Alliance [OHA] thank
you for the opportunity to comment on the Economic & Fiscal
Analysis of Battle Mtn. Gold's [BMG's] proposed'open-pit, chemical
leach gold mine on Buckhorn Mtn. Reading research papers is like
Forrest Gump & his proverbial box of chocolates—"you never know
what you're gonna get.* Reading Huckell & Weinman's information is
a lot like trying to swallow chocolate-covered ants--they're sweet
on the outside, sour on the inside, and the sour part doesn't
always get along with the sweet part.
Here comes the sour part. In the opening paragraph of
Huckell/Weinman's Economic & Fiscal Impact Analysis, the authors
state:
•BMG's proposed Crown Jewel mining project would generate a .variety of
economic and fiscal impacts within Okanogan County and surrounding areas. In
response to Washington Metals Mining and Milling Act of 1994 (RCW 78.56), an
analysis was performed to estimate economic and fiscal impacts that would be
experienced by local governmental units (counties, cities, towns, school
districts, and special purpose districts) as a result of the proposed
project.*
Yet when we examine the law as written, Sections 13.4b/c
require 'the estimated number of persons coming into the impacted area as a
result of the development o-f the mining operation; and an estimate of the
increased capital and operating costs to local governmental units as a result
of development of the mining and milling operation.*
OHA respectfully suggests that this study is fatally flawed
and out of compliance with the letter and intent of state law as
written because it focuses on the 20% of BMG's projected workforce
which would be norilocal. They would migrate to this area and work
at the proposed mine. The other 80% would presumably be local
people in Okanogan & Ferry counties. However, the study has not
one word--not one—which addresses an "invisible" in-
migration of the hopeful unemployed who would come here
looking for work or attracted by the glamor of a New Gold
Rush. This hidden population will be discussed in a comparison of
the DEIS later in this review.
State law does not limit this study to the in-migration of
people who have guaranteed jobs with BMG; it requires an analysis
of all persons coming into the'impacted area as a result of the
development of the mining operation. In fact, during the writing
of this law, the potential impacts of this "hidden* or "ghost"
population were discussed in hearings and committees.
This is why it requires an analysis of the increased capital
-------
and operating costs [if any] to local government units as a result
of a total influx, not only people with guaranteed mine
employment, as a result of a mining "boom." The concept was
to evaluate potential mining boom/bust cycles in local communities
by considering all the people, not simply mine employees, who
woi'Id average the highest average incomes in the region.
It is logical to assume that more than 87-88 people [34
nonlocal workers and their families] will move into the area. Dr.
Tom Power, Economics Chair at University of Montana, and others,®
have documented that part of the boom/bust cycle of resource
extraction is a net influx of unemployed persons.
These people will need facilities and services. They will
impact housing, schools, roads, police, fire, medical services,
etc. They may not have the jobs or job skills necessary to sustain
themselves. Some of them will be unemployed miners from other
areas whose mines have played out. "It'd be nothing new for us to have
to say we're done here and move on,* said Tina Hunter of Lead, SD
tSpokeaaan-Raview, 10/18/92, p. E4]. "I don't care if he's rich or poor,*
said Kim Johnson of her son, Scott. "But I want him to get an education...so
he can get a job wherever he wants. Maybe he'll even be able to stay in one
place.'
Modern-day career miners are traditionally mobile people. The
average life of an open-pit gold mine in the West is 7 to 10
years. Unless an entire local area is opened up to metals mining,
miners must either move on or seek education or job retraining. In
fact, page 8, paragraph 2 of the Economic 6 Fiscal Impact
Analysis suggests that most of the mine employees, local and
nonlocal, will leave the area:
"As mining activities approach the end of operations and total employment at
the mining facility begins to decrease, it is likely that many workers could
either out-migrate to jobs elsewhere, find other local jobs, or collect
unemployment for some period after the mine ceased operations. Based on
similar mining operations, it is likely that out-migration will account for
the majority of former BMGC workers.'
Yet this study does not analyze the economic and fiscal
impacts of this net out-migration.
The "Mine Closure" section [p.14] emphasizes a net outflow of
both local and nonlocal persons after mine closure: "Closure of the
mine will result in the lay-off and/or transfer of mining workers. Study area
employment will likely decrease and the area will likely experience out-
migration of former project employees (both in-migrants and possibly locals)
if no local replacement jobs can be found...It is expected that unemployment
rates will rise for most of the local governmental units, as would associated
governmental payments typically associated with unemployed skilled workers. A
slowing in the rate of housing price growth could also result from mine
closure, as more houses become vacant from out-migration and demand fcr
housing decreases."
-------
The Wln-Migrants* section [p.8, par.2] states: "As mining
activities approach the end of operations and total employment at the mining
facility begins to decrease, it is likely that many workers will either out-
migrate to jobs elsewhere, find other local jobs, or collect unemployment for
some period after .the mine ceases operations. Based upon similar mining
operation*, it is likely that out-migration will account for the
majority of former BMO workers.' [Italics mine.]
A decline in business activity would parallel a downfall in
employment: "Project related income in the local economy will also decline
as a result of mine closure...These potential impacts, in turn, could result
in a general decline in business activity and/or isolated business closures.
It is also possible that new businesses could be discouraged from coming into
the area if they perceive that a critical industry in the local economy is
closing.'
The most serious flaw in this study is that all of the
numbers are crunched in relation to a totally employed workforce
of 80% local employees and 20% nonlocal. Impacts to towns and
unincorporated areas in Okanogan and Ferry counties, as well as
impacts to local government units (Okanogan County, Oroville
School District, Hospital District §4, three fire districts, and
the Oroville EMS District), are figured only in terms of in-
migrants who have full employment at the proposed gold
mine. This is a major fallacy which should be corrected.
Yet, in order to do this, all the numbers would have to be
recalculated in relation to this "ghost* population of
unemployed in-migrants. An accurate analysis of
socioeconomic impacts cannot be completed unless and until
this is done.
In addition, the Huckel1/Weinman study is based on other
seriously flawed assumptions. The Sensitivity Analysis on page 10
discusses several of these. The "80% local hiring assumption*
depends on defining a "local.* In the article "Mine Created New
Jobs, But Number of Locals Depends on Who's Talking" [Omak
:hronicle, 6/3/92], BMG claimed most its work force was composed
of local residents, according to reporter Cheryl Probst. Yet mine
opponents said that only 41 out of 110 mine employees could be
considered "local.*
Of the assumed 80% local hires, only 13 are projected from
Republic's defunct Hecla gold mine, and only one worker from
unincorporated Ferry County. A total projection of only 14 workers
from Ferry County seems inaccurate. Although BMG has stated its
preference for hiring Okanogan Valley locals, it is unlikely that
they would so lightly tap a reservoir of highly skilled miners in
Ferry County.
The Curlew area has been targeted as having the potential
facilities & services to serve an in-migration of mining families
[DEIS Summary, p.S-39]. This is likely to occur if BMG's mine goes
-------
online. Due to the proximity of the mine to Ferry County and its
potential impacts on that County, a socioeconomic impacts analysis
may also be needed there. Section 13.2 of the Metals Mining Act
states, "The relevant county is the county in which the mine and mill are to
be sited, unless the economic impact to local governmental units are projected
to substantially affect more thatn one county. In that case, the impact plan
must be submitted to the legislative authority of all affected counties.*
Charlie Jacquez, secretary-treasurer of the Costilla County
Committee for Environmental Soundness, said that he considers a
local to be anyone who has lived in the community for many years.
He stated that BMG brought in peoples from Wyoming, Utah, Nevada,
and New Mexico, "but Battle Mountain considers them local once
they're brought in.* San Luis mine manager Gary Dodson disputed
this claim, saying that 93 out of 110 employees were local.
Nowhere in either the DEIS or in the present study is a
"local" precisely defined. Therefore, the definition of a
"local* means different things to different people.
Another eminently challengeable assumption is in the report's
taxable retail sales projections. "Each year, BMGC expects to
purchase an average of $7 million worth of operating supplies and
services from vendors within Okanogan County,* the report states
[p. 17, paragraph 1]. BMG's track record in Colorado suggests that
they have a tendency to purchase locally in the early stages of
mine production, then to buy from the lowest bidder anywhere.
"Everything they buy, they try to get as low as they can, just
like anyone else," said fuel dealer Rupert Gallegos Omak
Chronicle 673/92, p.29] . He supplied BMG with its fuel and oil
during the mine's early operation, and then was out-bid by
nonlocal dealers.
The analysis continues, "Similar to assumptions used for evaluating
retail sales impacts from the construction of the mining facility, it was
assumed that 20 percent of the value of construction sales would "leak*
outside the study area.* We believe that these figures are
artificially low. In fact, total sales leakages outside the study
area were presumed to be only 10%. This kind of distorted
information is what we used to call "cooking the books."
BMG is now paying property taxes on approximately $19.6
million of assessed valuation due to mineral rights. During the
15-year time frame from 1995 to 2010, Okanogan County government
revenues are projected to exceed costs by $1,718,000. Total net
local government revenues (including schools, hospitals, towns,
etc.) are estimated at $2.75 million, and may be exaggerated. If
accurate, this would constitute an extremely minute percentage of
an overall ore body worth $550 million. In the event that the
proposed gold mine becomes operational, it would behoove our
County Commissioners to negotiate a bigger slice of the pie.
-------
If BMG successfully patents 350 acres of public land, this
acreage would be subject to County property taxes and the tax base
should be raised substantially. However, under the Clean Water
Act, potential financial liability is. incurred by the owners of
lands which contaminate surface waters. Fines of up to $25,000,
retroactive to the onset of contamination, may be levied against
the owner/operator.
OHA recommends that Okanogan County require BMG to post a
scioeconomics impact bond in case costs exceed revenues,
especially after mine closure. Another serious deficiency in
the Hucfca11/Weinman research is its artificial cutoff
point at the end of mine reclamation. This conveniently
ignores an inevitable downward economic spiral which is typical of
mining-dependent communities in the post-mining syndrome. The
shape & substance of this downtrend remains to be seen, but it
should be delineated so that affected counties can adequately plan
for the long-term future.
Furthermore, there is no apparent correlation between the
revenue/cost analysis for Okanogan County and the Commissioners'
claim that $363,000 in revenue has been lost by the County due to
delays. In fact, it is illogical to assume that County revenues
are "lost" at all, since the life of the mine remains the same,
whether the mine startup is yesterday or tomorrow. This assumes
that dollars retain their approximate 1995 value.
However, during the life of the mine, property values would
rise; along with them, taxes would also be rise. Four reasons are
given for increased property values: mine building construction;
acquisition of valuable private land through patenting of mineral
claims; the value of the mineral rights per se; and new home
construction in the area. North County residents would experience
increases in assessed valuation of property and a corresponding
increase in property taxes. In other words, if Okanogan
County government did/ in fact/ benefit from an increase
in revenues over costs/ all North County taxpayers would
pay for it in the long-term future.
However, at mine closure, the opposite might occur. Property
values could plummet due to environmental liability involved in
living in close proximity to a potential toxic waste site.
Huckell/Weinman report:
•Over the life of the project, mining activites would likely decrease
the value of the site through earth moving and similar mining activities
Okanogan County Assessor, 1995). However, this decrease in assessed valuation
would be offset to some extent by reclamation activities planned after mining
operations cease. The precise offset and timing of these two changes en
assessed valuation are unknown [p. 19].*
The mine site would have ongoing mineral potential (through
remining.etc.) but would also carry with it high financial
liability.
-------
Under the Gleam Water Act, the current owner assumes
liability for contamination of surface water due to point sources
of mine waste runoff (e.g., waste rock piles, tailings) even if
the pollution did not originate from their operation. Post-mine
taxes, however, would tend to remain high, putting landowners in a
potential double-bind of nosediving land values and escalting
taxes.
Of the 34 theoretical in-migrating families, 17 are assumed
to build new homes worth $90,000 each. Yet a significant
percentage of new homes are manufactured elsewhere with nonlocal
materials and labor, then brought in to local outlets like Hub
Homes in Riverside. A mid-level range manufactured home may cost
$45,000. The other 17 in-migrating families are assumed to buy
existing homes.
Due to a saturation in the rental market, rentals by
nonlocals are not even considered in this report, although word-
of-mouth communication among well-connected people may still be a
viable means of renting a home which is not included in the
statistical analysis.
41% of incoming nonlocal mine employees are projected to move
into the Oroville School District. This would be 14 families, each
with a multiplier of 1.19 school children. A grand total of 17 new
students are projected by Huckell/Weinman. This figure is
artificially low because it ignores a "ghost population" of
unemployed nonlocals who would move to the area in the hope of
landing a job and may not find one.
In the Roadway Operation & Maintenance section [p. 29], it is
stated that *BMG will adhere to County-imposed road closures due to frost
heaving...However, if a BMG supply truck would need to get to the site during
a road closure period and the truck would cause roadway damage, this damage
would be mitigated by BMG, as required by the County.* We suggest that BMG
reimburse the County for road improvement on Jones Hill and Beaver
Lake Road between Pontiac Ridge and Toroda Creek Road, as well as
Toroda Creek Rd. itself. These are country roads not intended for
heavy industrial use. The Beth/Beaver Lake road is extremely
perilous in the winter and abuts significant lakes and wetlands.
Lakefront portions of the road are narrow and treacherous, with
high accident potential in winter.
Okanogan Highlands Alliance respectfully submits that this
study is not adequate for the above reasons, and should be
rejected by the County Commissioners. Under the 1994 Metals Mining
Act [Sec-. 6], the County Commissioners
"must approve or disapprove the impact analysis and any associated proposals
from the applicant...If the applicant does not submit-an adequate impact
analysis to the relevant county legislative authority or if the county
legislative authority does not find the applicant's proposals to be acceptable
because of their failure to adequately mitigate adverse economic impacts, the
-------
county legislative authority shall refuse to issue any permits under its
jurisdiction necessary for the construction or operation of the mine and
associated mill.•
OHA recommends that no permits—conditional use or otherwise-
-should be issued by the County until this study is redone and
until it can be compared to socioeconomic data in the
Environmental Impact Statement by E.D. Hovee & Company.
Theoretically, the data in both studies should essentially match
up. If any blatant discrepancies exist, they should be critically
examined to determine which, if any, is based on accurate
information.
The following examples are gleaned from the DEIS which
demonstrate glaring disparities and blatant discrepancies between
the E.D. Hovee and the Huckell/Weinman socioeconomic impacts
analyses. Note: the Forest Service & BLM chose a "modified
Alternative E* rather than the BMG's Alt.B in the DEIS. This would
consist of an open-pit mine with a partial backfill & no pit pond;
operate about 10 years, using cyanide tank leaching and the INCO
process; waste rock would be piled north of the pit only; and
tailings would be impounded on Marias Creek. However, years of
operation, employment, percent of local employment, annual wages,
capital expenditures, and assessed valuation are approximately the
same for both Alts.B & E.
In the DEIS study, once again much depends on precisely
defining a "local* and consistently adhering to it:
"Many of the socioeconomic effects evaluated are directly related'to the
question of how many workers are hired locally versus from outside the area.
Experience with other comparable mine projects suggests that the proportion of
non-local hires could be greater than what has been indicated by the
Proponent, in the absence of active efforts to encourage local hiring.'[p. 4-
154.]
It also states that non-local workers "would also generate added
community and public service expense, limit the degree to which
existing local residents benefit, and could be more disruptive to
existing social values of the area.*
The construction phase would involve 60-75% non-local people.
This is due to the specialty work involved in mine and mill
construction, requiring technical skills and training.
Construction workers would tend to improvise temporary housing
situations. "Experience with other mine projects suggests that many
construction workers can be expected to use recreation vehicle campsites and
motels as well as rent homes and apartments, to the extend that space is
available.' [p. 4-167.]
Social services predictions vary widely according to the
-------
assumptions used. The authors state that "there should be no
disproportionate increase in demand for social services as a
result of mine construction and operation.* However, if the worker
population is "disproportionately comprised of young adult males,*
the situation changes. This could 'result in disproportionate effects on
social services such as alcohol and substance abuse programs, as has occurred
in other mining communities...' [pp. 4-164-5.]
In addition, major impacts to social services are
predicted if mthe Project draw* more people into the area than
would actually be employed directly or indirectly a* a remit of
the Project. Heavy demand• on social service agencies hare been
reported in other mining communities.* [p. 4-166.] Contrary to
what the County Commissioners would like to believe, these people
will not necessarily drift away: "It is also possible that the Project
will attract other people to the area hoping to find work, who may remain even
in the absence of securing employment.' [p. 4-168.]
In housing, "a range of between 53 to 183 new permanent housing units
during the years of active mining operations' would be needed...A potential
downside to this housing effect is that 40 to 164 homes may come on the real
estate market as active mining operations end.' [p. 4-169.]
If significant populations of workers chose to live in the
Chesaw/Molson area, "existing local public facilites that are
related to community water, sewage, law enforcement and fire
capabilities could be severely strained.* [p. 4-170.] Unfortunately,
this is precisely the area closest to the mine, where commuting
would be minimal. It may, therefore, be considered highly
desirable despite its low inventory of available facilities and
services.
The DEIS concludes that the proposed mine's revenue/cost
balance, limned out over construction, operation, & reclamation,
would amount to $21.5 million in net revenues for Alternatives B &
E, and presumably for modified Alt.E. These Alternatives also cost
the public the least amount for facilities and services ($4.5
million).
At this point the authors offer a word of caution. Instead of
planning for a downturn in revenues at mine closure, many local
governments—like mineworkers themselves—become addicted to
increased cash flows:
"It is important to note that revenue increases are relatively temporary
in nature. Government revenues would be high during construction and during
the 4 to 16 years of mine operation. During reclamation, the net revenue
surplus created by the Project would decrease sharply/ followed by further
reductions once reclamation activities are completed.*
"Consequently, mine related governmental revenues could appropriately be
viewed as a means to fur.d short-term programs or capital improvements rather
than long-term continuing government programs. However, experience indicates
that the impetus to increase ongoing governmental programs may be difficult to
avoid. Other mining communities, including Ferry County, reportedly have
-------
experienced public agency funding problems when mines have curtailed or ceased
operations because local governments.had come to rely on mine-related
revenues.' [p. 4-171.)
Moreover, E.D. Hovee & Co. admits that potentially
overpowering "ripple effects' may occur from any of the following
[p. 4-173]:
* A lower rate of hiring local residents than is projected for the
action alternatives considered.
* More in-migrants drawn to the area in hopes of employment than
can actually be employed as a direct and indirect result of the
Project.
* Potential notoriety of the Project which draws additional
visitors or residents (whether as supporters, opponents or
interested observers).
* Increase in mining exploration and claims as a result of an in-
place, permitted mine Project.
* Increase in other industrial development, ranging from suppliers
interested in locating closer to the mine or unrelated industries
drawn by increase awareness of Okanogan & Ferry Counties..
Any or all of the above are feasible scenarios which have not
been seriously addressed in either the E.D. Hovee [DEIS] research
or the Huckell/Weinman research [1994 Metals Mining Act]. By E.D.
Hovee's own admission, any one of these could significantly alter
socioeconomic impacts in Okanogan County.
The real question is to what extent North Okanogan & Ferry
counties would become industrialized as a result of a new gold
rush which would be initiated by this project. Dr. Tom Power and
others offer a sustainable economic model of rural communities. In
this model, the short-term value of resource extraction is
outwieghed by the long-term ability of high-quality rural
communities to attract and hold people.
OHA respectfully suggests that, rather than adhering to a
"rear-view mirror" model of resource extraction as the primary
means of economic development, the County Commissioners enter the
21st century with a creative vision of rural economics based on
sustainable timber harvest, diversified agriculture, local
entrepreneurial activities, and a burgeoning service sector based
on retiree incomes, recreational tourism [already valued at $75
million a year], and a high-quality living environment.
—Woody Rehanek, Secretary (509) 486-1003
Okanogan Highlands Alliance
PO Box 163, Tonasket WA 98855
-------
Footnotes; The Boomtown Syndrome
1. Gedicks, Al: The New Resoui-e* War*. South End Press, Boston, 1993, pp.
72-3:
"By 1985, however, the local Wisconsin Resources Protection Council
[WRPC] began to focus public attention on the potential 'boomtown' problems
resulting from the large influx of workers and their families to the Crandon
area. Forest County had the lowest population density of any county in the
state and had geared its facilities & services to that low density. Yet the
DEIS projected a low estimate of a 12% population increase in the project area
during the peak year of mine construction. This sudden influx of
population had the potential not only to disrupt traditional rural
lifestyle* but also to impose economic hardship* on the township
became public facilities ft cervices would be needed before local
revenues became available..."
"...During the spring of 1986, George Rock, president of of the local
WRPC chapter, appeared at numerous town board meetings and presented
documented case histories of energy boomtowns in the western
United States where communities were burdened with excessive costs that
were not offset by increased tax revenues...*
"In April 1986, the township adopted a socioeconomic mitigation provision
to its zoning ordinance. This provision, modeled after similar legislation in
the western United States [cf. Montana's Hardrock Mining Impacts Act], made
the issuance of a mine construction permit contingent upon Sxxon's
agreement to reimburse the township for any project-related
expenses that exceeded the tax revenues available to the
community. This action effectively shifted the economic burden of
socioeconomic impact mitigation from the community to Exxon." [Emphases mine.]
Note: Dr. Gedicks teaches Sociology at the Univ. of Wisconsin/La Crosse and
has served as director at the Center for Alternative Mining Policy and as
executive secretary of the Wisconsin Resources Protection Council. He is a
member of the Citizens' Mining Information Network.
-------
OTTHOU009 finiTjq pinofl 9UTW
'aidtrexa 10^ ,/
>3 H3XOHH UT SABT.J JOCBW J91HO S9SOdX9 6T6ATBUB
*****************************************************************
pu« TBfiaiTI 8Q ABB goimgjaid fiuriTii
X08 *re IBqi Aprils sTq 50 £T'd ao sapniouoo la&oa SBBioqj, [ "psusdo
9TTEW 9Ift JT 9J^ 9AOW 0^ ftmHTBld SBA pt^B '9I^1JB9S
oqa auosmos apniour pino&
96/92/9 9^ ^T
pcre fiarAOW-J8A9 tre
JO UOI1JTUTJ9P 9SI09Jd pCTB JB9TO B IJTIO^TA '
trt SBiq a^BTJdoiddis tie }ou ^nq aco atR ^oj wpjo^stp ijijasn IB si
poe s^Tjatoq stn ftrr^«i9fi6at9 jo ^OBdnrr 9TQ s«
SIQL -peziniuitt SIB -o^a 'saotAias rstoos 'siooqos 'ficitsncq
9ODOtIT
'paAoidoiaun ans oqa s^tcptsai ^tcuno o^ 06 0} parattssB SJB sqoC aq; ?o
na 9JT1U9 am jo A^pfi^ni 9tn no ^qnop S^CBD SBrrero
jo uoT^dope IBOT^TIOCBI jo ad£}
,/saurm jaq^o jo aouaiiadxa fiorirq
paisgfifins ST trsq^ jaqfiTq^ ST SSJTTI TBOOI jo uoT^09.Cojd
/^ii9TOiojTAU3 optoaooaotoos pa^oajjy,, 'laded S^T HT
ipie ire U3A9 jo 9ATsniocrT jo snipBi 9TT« 99 B 01 dn e
acrim aq-} Aq paiaptsaoo aq ^BK fiorrtq JQJ ,133^8 reooi. aqj,,. ' lOTT 'd]
99AOH ' [Aprils 9Aoq« '90T"d] aidosd a^s-jo-ino o^ ^U9A sqoC
sq^ jo X09 ^somtY 'Duiui* IBOOI jo Zjo^cxq fiuoi «
c^izapTcaj jitjuno^ i.jjai o^ ^naA cqof am 70 X6Z
'686T ^T ^ono^ Auaj trt aurn PT06 s^i pauado ^«g oqoj
•fiiiTsnoq fiaTAnq treq^ jaqiBi ^naj pcre
oqA nav aifiais AHSO« SB pazTia^OBiBqo 9JB sjgirni
otwouooaoToos forT^stxa^ 'aaded s,aaAOH jo 88-Z.8 '
-------
associated with environmental degradation. Yet if we examine the
total impact of BUG'S proposal as a percentage of the total
existing economy, Table 1 [p. 11), Dr. Power's study paints quite
a different picture: employment is 1.2X of the total; income,
1.1X; and effect on city & county governments, 0.8X. In other
words, the potential benefits are minor in the context of over-all
economics.
Dr. Power suggests [p. 11]: "The benefits, although calculable, are
quite snail. Each year, the ongoing expansion of the regional economy creates
many times this number of jobs & dollars of income... To the extent the
environmental consequences of the "i™* discourage this ongoing expansion of
the economy, these small gains could be more than offset by uodermining the
current sources of economic vitality—the attractiveness of the area as a
place to live, work, and do business.. .Put slightly differently, given the
very snail potential gains, what risks of substantial losses are citizens
willing to undertake? The DEIS [and the Huckell/Yeinman report]„ by
ignoring the economic risks of undermining the regions's amenity
reputation because of the open pit chemical mining, never analyzes
this crucial question." [Emphasis mine. ]
Okanogan 8. Ferry County economies have been expanding by
about 600 jobs, $35 million in income, and 500 nev residents each
year. Contrary to the bleak economic picture painted by the
Huckell/¥einman paper, Pover's Figures 1-3 graph "an unusually
dynamic 8. vital economy :
"Since 1986 jobs have been created within the two county area at a
relatively rapid rate, an average of about 600 jobs per year for a total of
3,700 jobs (EEi, EEIS).. .Clearly the problem was not lack of job creation. The
problem is that job seekers were growing faster than jobs were being created.
Since those jobs seekers were largely migrating into the area voluntarily, it
would appear that the unemployment 'problem' is not that the local economy is
failing in some sense but that the area, overall, is so attractive that
despite low wages and high unemployment rates, employment-aged immigrants
continue to arrive." [Power, p. 12.]
Dr. Power continues: "This voluntary choice is evidence that those
money income statistics are misleading indicators of local economic well-
being. They should not be reported as 'facts' that tell us something about
local economic well-being. This also applies to calculated poverty rates. To
the extent that costs of living are significantly lower in these rural areas"
and there are opportunities for subsistence activities, poverty rates may be
significantly over-estiaated." [Power, p. 13. ]
For example, housing costs are major factors in local cost-of-
living, yet median home valuation in Chesaw/Oroville is $46,300,
whereas for Washington State it is $93,400. "The difference in housing
costs reported in the DEIS suggests that major adjustments have to be mede for
cost of living before comparisons can be made between the two county area and
the state as a whole," Power states [p. 13].
Another significant assumption made by the Huckell/Veinman
paper which is not borne out by facts is that "growth pays for
-------
itself by generating tax and other revenues in excess of any
additional government expenses."[Power, p. 14.) Tet "as one moves
from Republic to Oroville to Okanogan to Omak, population
quadruples and total local government expenditures per capita
doubles."
Pover continues, "One of the reasons that the DEIS calculates such a
sizeable * fiscal bonus' associated with the project is that it apparently
projected tax and other revenues to rise in proportion to population, with
each new resident providing tax and other revenues at exactly the current
average government revenues per capita.. .The mine requires no additional
government expenditures directly and the needs of the new population are
covered by an assumed separate expansion of the local economy inplicit in the
assuption that government taxes uaassociated with the mine will rise
proportionally with population. The taxes paid by the mine then are 'pure
gravy' since the costs of the new population are covered by some mysterious
other source. Ibis approach creates a fiscal surplus simply through
the assumptions used." [Emphasis mine.]
I respectfully urge the County Commissioners to read Dr.
Power's research in its entirety and to reject the Huckell/¥einman
study as biased and based on false assumptions. Please note
Figures 1-5 & Table 1 in Power's analysis which illustrate his
main points.
OHA respectfully repeats that the Huckell/?einman study is
fatally flawed in terms of the requirements of Sec. 13 of the 1994
Hetals Tf-m-ing Act because all the numbers are crunched in relation
to an 30% local hiring assumption. A number of other false
assumptions, outlined in Power's report as well as in oral &
written input to the Commissioners at the 6/26/95 public hearing,
underscore its inadequacies. ?e therefore urge the Okanogan County
Commissioners to reject the Huckell/Veinman study.
¥oody Reha»ek, Secretary
Okanogan Highlands Alliance
PO Box 163
Tonasket, ¥A 98855
(509) 486-1003
-------
The Crown Jewel Project and the Economies of
Okanogan and Ferry Counties, Washington
[DRAFT]
An Analysis of the Socioeconomic Analysis Contained in the
Crown Jewel Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Prepared for the
Okanogan Highlands Alliance
by
THOMAS MICHAEL POWER
Professor and Chairman
Economics Department
University of Montana
Missoula, Montana 59812
406 243-4586
June, 1995
[DRAFT]
-------
The Crown J«wei Project and the Economies of Okanogan and Ferry Counties, WA
1. Introduction
Battle Mountain Gold Company has oroposed to develop a large scale open-
pit cyanide heap leach mine at Buckhorn Mountain, 3.5 miles east of Chesaw,
Washington. The project, named the Crown Jewel Project (CJP), would extract
gold and silver. Because part of the proposed mineral operation is on federal and
state lands-, the U.S. Forest Service and the Washington Department of Ecology
have prepared a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) on the project. That
DEIS contains socioeconomic analysis prepared by E.D. Hovee and Company. This
report reviews that socioeconomic analysis and finds it seriously incomplete and
inconsistent1. In its current form, it cannot provide accurate guidance to public
land use managers about the actual socioeconomic impacts associated with the
CJP.
This report is organized in seven sections. The first section reviews what
the DEIS socioeconomic analysis ignored, the important role that environmental
quality or amenities play in supporting local economic vitality. The second section
considers the impact of the proposed mine in the context of the changes that are
currently taking place in the local and regional economy. The third section
analyzes the impact that the instability and short term nature of the mining
industry has on local communities. The fourth section considers the relative size of
the CJP compared to the overall regional economy and the contribution it could
make to local economic development if it had no negative economic aspects. The
fifth section corrects the impression left by the DEIS that residents of the
Okanogan Highlands and surrounding area are economically "desperate" and badly
in need to the "benefits" that the CJP would provide. The sixth section examines
the "fiscal bonus" the DEIS suggests the mine will produce for local governments.
It shows that this "bonus" is largely the result of unsupportable assumptions.
Finally, the seventh section discusses the DEIS's failure to make use of the very
data it has collected.
'This analysis is based upon the "baseline" and "background" reports that were
done in support of the DEIS. These two reports provide the detailed background
material upon which the DEIS socioeconomic analysis was based. The page
references are to these detailed reports rather than to the DEIS summary of those
reports. The reports referred to are "Existing Socioeconomic Conditions: Baseline
Report, Crown Jewel Project," February 8, 1994, and "Affected Socioeconomic
Environment: Background Report, Crown Jewel Project," December 23, 1994.
Both reports were prepared by E.D. Hovee & Company.
DRAFT Page 1
-------
2. The Role of Environmental Quality in Supporting Local Economic Vitality
a. The Inadequacy of an "Economic Base" Approach
The DEIS makes a complete separation between the impact of the CJP will
have on the natural environment and its socioeconomic impacts. The implicit
assumption made by the DEIS is that either the CJP will have no significant
environmental impacts or that those environmental impacts have no significant
economic implications. If the former were true, there would be little or no concern
about the project and the whole environmental impact statement process would
not be necessary. This report assumes that there are significant environmental
concerns related to the project. As for the latter assumption, it is directly
contradicted by economic theory, thirty years of empirical economic research, and
most of this nation's post-WW2 economic history.
The DEIS's approach to describing the local economy involves a crude
"economic base" model. This approach assumes that people can live in a
particular area only because certain local economic activities bring income into the
local economy by exporting products such as the output of mines, farms, and
lumber mills. According to the economic base view, without this inflow of income
from export oriented activities, there would be no income available to support local
residents, locally oriented businesses, or local government services. In this view,
residence is possible in the local area primarily because of the activities of the
area's natural resource industries.
Although this view of the local economy may be popular and widely shared
by the lay public, it does not provide an accurate analysis of the Okanogan and
Ferry County economies. It is incapable of explaining the changes that "have been
taking place within those economies and, for that reason, is incapable of accurately
describing the impact of the CJP. This can be seen in Figures 1 through 3.
The economic base view of the local economy asserts that it is changes in
the "basic" or export sector income that drives the rest of the economy. Figure 1
compares changes in real (inflation adjusted) income from agriculture, mining, and
manufacturing (wood products) with changes in the rest of the economy since
1969. Even though the "basic" natural resource sectors showed not upward trend
over that period, the rest of the economy doubled in size in real terms. That is,
when inflation is subtracted out, the natural resource sectors show considerable
instability but no overall growth. If the economic base view of the local economy
were correct, one would see the same pattern in the rest of the economy. One
does not. The rest of the economy shows considerable vitality despite the lack of
the same in the natural resource sectors. Figure 2 shows the same view from an
employment perspective. Again, the vigorous expansion outside of the natural
resource sectors ( + 82 percent) cannot be explained by the flat or very modest
DRAFT Page 2
-------
FIGURE 1
Real Income: Ferry & Okanogan Counties
550
500-
£ 1/450-
CM X I
0) ,
m — I
04
O)
O)
CO
•o
c
CO
to
o
£Z
*—•
03
O
O
(0
CC
400-
'^350-
•J300-
250-
200-
150-
100-
\
50-h r
The Rest of the Economy
+$265 million +103%
( Farm) Mine, and Manufacturing
^—-Unstable but no trend over 25 yr.
\
69 71 . 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91
Year
Sources: BEA REIS CD ROM; mining income estimated.
-------
FIGURE 2
Employment: Okanogan and Ferry Counties
^J
c
-------
MUUttC
Growth in Ferry and Okanogan Counties
1.8
1.7-
1.6-
1.5-
1.4-
o 1.3-1
CD
CD
CD
X
0>
1.2-
1-
0.5
/ \
Real Income
Population
Employi lent
69 71
F i r r v
73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91
Year
Sources: BEA REIS CD ROM.
-------
expansion in the natural resource sectors2.
This can be put slightly differently Figure 1 shows the lack of growth in
real income being injected into the local economy by the natural resource
industries. Figure 3, on the other hand, shows that significant expansion took
olace in those economies nonetheless: Total real income expanded by almost 80
percent, employment expanded 55 percent, and population grew 45 percent. The
challenge to any empirical analysis of the Okanogan and Ferry County economies is
to explain this substantial economic vitality despite the instability and overall lack
of growth in the natural resource "economic base." The DEIS does not provide
that economic analysis and, because of that, the role that natural resource
industries are actually playing in the local economy is never determined. This
makes any projection of socioeconomic impacts from additional mining impossible.
b. The Economic Role of Environmental Quality
The economic base approach to the analysis of the local economy assumes
that people move to where jobs are while businesses move to where natural
resources are. Those assumptions can be restated in the following form:
i. People do not care where they live. They only care about income and
employment opportunities.
ii. Businesses do not care about the availability, quality, and cost of the
labor force and do not care about the location of markets for their
products. They only care about the location of raw materials.
Neither of these assumptions are supported by either economic theory or
empirical economic analysis. People do care about the quality of life supported by
particular residential locations and migrate in pursuit of preferred environmental
qualities. Businesses do care about where the population is located because the
cost and quality of employees is a dominant determinant of business profitability.
In addition, firms shift to follow people because that population represents the
market for their products.
Since the end of World War Two, the location of economic activity in this
nation has been heavily influenced by people moving to preferred living
environments and economic activity following them. The move from center cities
to suburbs, from the "frost belt" to the "sun belt", from metropolitan to
nonmetropolitan areas, and the most recent "resettlement" of the West are all
examples of this phenomenon. The growing population and expanding economies
in Okanogan and Ferry Counties also are partially driven by this phenomenon.
2Figures 1 through 3 provide results for the combination of Okanogan and Ferry
Counties. If the counties are looked at separately, the same patterns would be
seen.
DRAFT Page 3
-------
It has become standard practice in regional economic analysis to include this
amenity driven migration in the analysis3. For instance, the U.S. Forest Service, in
its economic analysis for the Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management
Project, which includes Okanogan and Ferry Counties, has developed a regional
economic model that has population and employment partially determined by
regional amenities4. Land management decisions that damage those amenities
deter inmigration and job growth. The DEIS completely ignores this crucial link
between the attractiveness of an area and its ability to attract both residents and
businesses and support a vital economy.
The DEIS, in its description of the various groups that make up the local
population, implicitly recognizes the role that local quality of life has been playing
in expanding the regional economy. The DEIS identifies "recent arrivals ?.nd
newcomers" as a distinct and significant population group. Among these
"newcomers" the DEIS identifies several amenity driven groups of migrants:
"educated wilderness migrants," "urban refugees," and "retired middle ciass."
(pp.83-86) The only hint of the economic importance of these inmigrants is
provided in a comment on the last subgroup, the retired middle class. "This group
has had a great impact on the region in the past 20 years and is growing at a
significant rate. In fact, this is a class of people that has been a marketing target
for many Washington communities wanting to attract them to move in."
Ono indication of the relative importance of these retirement age inmigrants
to the local economy is the income flows that accompany them when they make a
residential location decision. The "footloose" income they carry with them
includes government pensions,including social security and medicare
reimbursement, the income from private retirement investments (dividends, rent,
and interest), private pension programs associated with previous employment, and
income from the sale of past financial investments. Only the first two of these
four retirement-related income flows are reported regularly by county in federal
economic statistics. Figure 4 provides an estimate of this part of retirement-related
3See, for instance, "Migration, Regional Equilibrium, and the Estimation of
Compensating Differentials," Michael J. Greenwood et al., 1991, American
Economic Review, 81 (5):1382-1390; "The Dynamics of U.S. Internal Migration,"
George I. Treyz et al., 1993, Review of Economics and Statistics, 75(2):209-214.
Treyz who is a coauthor of both of these studies has also developed the REMI
economic and demographic forecasting and simulation model that includes quality
of life variable that influence shifts in economic activity. See George I. Treyz et
al., "The REMI Model," International Regional Science Review, 14{3):221-253,
1992.
"Amy Home, "GROWTH: A Regional Economic Model" Science Integration
Team, Interior Columbia River Basin Ecosystem Management Project, Pacific
Northwest Research Station, U.S. Forest Service, Portland, Oregon.
DRAFT Page 4
-------
FIGURE 4
Relative Importance of Retirees
Retirement v. Natural Resource Income
o
o
o_
*
S-
^ \ -^^ i
i \ / 1 ~~T~' ' !
/ * / '• \ :
\ 1 "' ' / ' ''
\ / ^ i
\ / ^ N /
V ^-^^ v-'"/
Y Estimates Retirement Income
^/
/^
Est. Retire. Inc. = .35 x, (Dividends, Rent, & Interest) -f .85 x (Transfer Pay.)
69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91
Year
-------
income flows into Okanogan and Ferry Counties5
Figure 4 shows the retirement income flowing into the local economy rising
in real terms from about $50 million to $180 million over the last twenty.-five
years. In order to put this income flow into perspective in terms of both size and
reliability, it is compared to the real income from the area's'natural resource
industries, agriculture, mining, and manufacturing (wood products). There is little
trend in the latter. That natural resource income was about $150 million in 1969,
1975, 1980, 1987, and 1992. It fluctuated widely but showed no significant
trend. While retirement income was a consistent source of economic vitality,
natural resource industries were a regular source of local economic instability6. By
1992, estimated retirement income significantly exceeded the combined incomes
earned in agriculture, mining, and manufacturing. If one is analyzing the
"economic base" of the area, one cannot, as the DEIS does, ignore this major
income flow.
It is not only retirement-aged inmigrants that have a stimulating effect on
the local economy. Empirical economic analysis indicates that for each working
age inmigrant there is an expansive impact that generates approximately one
additional job. That is, working age inmigrants tend to stimulate economic activity
that supports themselves7. This stimulating effect of working age inmigrants is
associated with the expansion of the local labor pool, the infusion of
entrepreneurial energy, the "footloose income" inmigrants bring with them, the
increased private and public investment associated with growing population, and
5These estimates are based upon including 85 percent of "transfer payments"
and 35 percent of property income (dividends, rent, and interest). The 85 percent
is tied to clearly labeled retirement-related transfers listed in the REIS data. The 85
percent is based upon a statistical analysis of the relationship between social
security payment to local areas and the flow of property income to those areas.
To the extent that some significant part of retirement income is spend outside of
the local economy, these estimates may overestimate the actual impact on the
local economy. Of course, the same could be said about mining income or any
other income source too. Finally, it should be kept in mind that two sources of
retirement income, private pensions and the sale of investments, are not included
in these estimates.
6Although the DEIS suggests that Okanogan County attracts "quality of life"
migrants but Ferry County attracts "job oriented" migrants, estimated retirement
income in Ferry County grew a third faster than in Okanogan County.
7Muth, R.F., 1971, "Migration: Chicken or Egg?" Southern Economic Journal,
37{3):295-306; Greenwood, M.J. and G.L. Hunt, 1984, "Migration and
Interregional Employment Redistribution in the United States," American Economic
Review, 74:957-969; Greenwood, M.J., 1981, Migration and Economic Growth in
the United States, New York: Academic Press.
DRAFT Page 5
-------
the expanded markets the larger population creates8. In addition, working age
inmigrants often are associated with small businesses that are relocating in-the
pursuit of the same environmental amenities that attract individuals9.
It is clear that the residential choice decisions being made by both retiree
and working age households are having a significant positive .effect on many
nonmetropolitan areas throughout the West and the nation, including Okanogan
and Ferry Counties. In the western states this has been labeled the "resettlement"
of the West. But the phenomenon is much broader than the West. During the
1990s there has been widespread population growth in nonmetropolitan areas of
the United States driven by these residential choices10 Okanogan County is one of
the rapidly growing nonmetropolitan counties that has been identified as an
"amenity" county in national economic analysis of all counties11.
This nonmetropolitan economic vitality cannot be explained by expansion in
the traditional natural resource industries. Throughout the West and across the
nation, this new economic vitality has coincided with instability and decline in
those industries. There is an altogether different source for this new economic
vitality: The high quality social and natural environments these areas offer to new
residents and businesses. The same can be said for Okanogan and Ferry Counties.
This has very important implications for the economic analysis of the impact
of the CJP. Given that the quality of the region's natural environment is an
important part of its economic base and the source of the region's ongoing
economic vitality, anything that threatens that natural environment has to also be
seen as threatening that economic base and that economic vitality. Industrial
economic activity that undermines environmental quality cannot be seen as having
only positive economic impacts, which is the DEIS's approach to the CJP. Rather,
the negative economic impacts associated with a degraded environment have to be
8See T.M. Power, "Residential Choice and Local Economic Vitality," Chapter 2
in Extraction and the Environment, Island Press, Washington, DC, forthcoming fall
1995.
9Johnson, J. and R. Rasker. 1993. "The Role of Amenities in Business
Attraction and Retention." Montana Policy Review 11-19 and Ray Rasker and
Dennis Click, 1994, "Footloose Entrepreneurs: Pioneers of the New West?"
Illahee, 10:34-43.
10Johnson, K.M. and C.L. Beale, 1994, "The Recent Revival of Widespread
Population Growth in Nonmetropolitan Areas of the United States," Rural
Sociology, 59(r):655-667.
11 "Nonmetropolitan Recreational Counties: Identification and Fiscal Concerns,"
K.M. Johnson and C.L. Beale, Working Paper No. 6, Demographic Change and
Fiscal Stress Project, Loyola University, Chicago, January, 1995.
DRAFT Page 6
-------
taken into account. An economic analysis that fails to do this is grossly
incomplete and biased and cannot be useo to guide decision making. The DE'lS in
its current form can be characterized in that way.
This is not a fine point of economic theory. Hundreds of jobs and tens of
millions of dollars per year have been added to the local economy as a result of.
amenity-based economic vitality. See Figures 1 through 4. The CJP involves a
tiny fraction of this impact. If the CJP undermines the regions reputation for a
high quality living environment, it kills the goose that has been systematically
laying the. golden eggs in the region. The negative economic impacts of the CJP
could far exceed any positive impacts it might have. This is not a matter to be
taken lightly. It has to be carefully considered as the local costs and benefits of
the CJP are weighed. Open pit chemical mining, because of its dramatic impact
the landscape and potential impact on water quality, may not be compatible with
protecting the region's amenity reputation.
3. Economic Implications of the Short Term and Unstable Impacts of Metal Mining
The CJP plans to operate for only eight years. When the construction and
reclamation activities are included, the life span of this set of economic activities
will be only a decade. In that sense, the CJP would be only a temporary part of
the economic base. This has important implications for its expected impacts on
the local economy. In addition to being short term in nature, metal mining also
tends to be an unstable anrl a declining source of employment and income. These
characteristics, too, are important in analyzing the local impacts. The DEIS does
not adequately explore or discuss either of these aspects of the CJP.
Modern gold mining operations tend to be relatively short run operations that
quickly deplete the ore deposit. The CJP is explicit about this in its projected 8
year life. The Cannon mine outside of Wenatchee and the Echo Bay Kettle Projects
remind us of the reality of these short term time spans. The Cannon mine began
production in July of 1985 and began to cutbac^^mdiictionandreduce output
because of dwindling reserves in 1992. fl|jj^|Hjj^lBlHJHI| The Kettle
Projects in Ferry County began producingin^reB^andDy1992vvereabandoned
because the ore was exhausted12. Hecla's operations in Ferry County, on the other
hand, have regularly been extended in time because of the discovery of new ore
bodies in the vicinity of the original mine. The Hecla operation was originally
projected to shut down in 1984 but has continued in operation at a relatively high
level. The risk of shut down in the mid-1980s, however, was real. This modern
instability in mining is just a more recent version of what has happened in the
region in the past. A mining industry came and went, leaving behind primarily
ghost towns. It is not clear that one can expect a significantly different
performance from the industry in the future.
12Mineral Yearbook, Vol. II, Area Reports: Domestic, Department of Interior,
Bureau of Mines, 1982-1992.
DRAFT Page 7
-------
The viability of mining operations is also determined by international
commodity prices that can be extremely unstable. See Figure 5. Fluctuating
copper, silver, and gold prices have alternately set off mining booms and sudden
mining industry collapses. Operations that are profitable when gold prices are at
$400 per ounce or copper prices are at $1.40 per pound may have to be
abandoned \* prices fall to $300 or eighty cents.
There is .one other feature of mining that affects its long run employment
and income potential. That is rising labor productivity. Mining is a mature industry
producing a relatively uniform product. Technological development has been
spectacularly successful in finding ways of reducing the labor cost of mineral
extraction. New processes and new equipment have steadily reduced the direct
labor content of an ounce of gold or a pound of copper or a ton of coal. This rising
labor productivity and the falling commodity prices are at least partially linked. As
new production techniques have been adopted worldwide, supply potential has
increased, and, in the international competition, commodity prices have been
driven downward adding to the pressure on all mining operations to reduce costs,
including labor costs, even further. The reductions in the use of labor per unit of
mine output has been impressive. While economists and policy makers have
wrung their hands over the slow growth in productivity in the overall American
economy, productivity in mining has been growing rapidly. While three-quarters of
American industries saw productivity grow by less than two percent per year, in
mining it grew at five to ten percent per year13. Mining was in the top ten percent
of American industries in terms of productivity growth.
If demand for a mineral is limited by national and international markets,
rising labor productivity is likely to translate into declining employment in that
industry. Where demand is rising, the rising labor productivity can allow the
increased demand to be satisfied without any increase in employment. The impact
on the employment potential can be impressive. Metal mining productivity growth
of 10.8 percent per year over a decade would reduced the direct labor content of
metal ores by two-thirds.
In summary, metal mining employment and income opportunities can be
characterized in the follow ways:
i. They are short term in nature.
ii. They are unstable, subject to sudden changes in international
"Productivity Measures for Selected Industries and Government Services,
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 2421, U.S. Department of Labor, April, 1993.
Evans Economics, Inc., reported metal mining productivity rising over the last
decade at 10.8 percent per year, "far more than any other basic industry."
Testimony of Michael K. Evans before the Mineral Resources Development and
Production Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources, March 16, 1993.
DRAFT Page 8
-------
Gold and Copper Prices (Real)
1100
1000-
900-
-------
conditions.
iii. They are in long term decline due to limited demand and technological
change that is constantly reducing the labor content.
These characteristics have significant economic implication for local
economies and the calculation of the expected economic impacts of mining.
Because mining income is short term and unstable, those who rely upon it have to
take defensive steps to protect themselves against that instability. One defensive
strategy is to minimize the fixed investment that is tied to mining and the location
of the mine.- Business owners in mining towns are very cautious about
investments in commercial infrastructure that might be stranded by another mine
shut-down. Miners are very cautious about setting down roots in a mining
dependent town. Given how uncertain the term of employment at the mineral
operation is, employees will live in temporary residences, retain residences
elsewhere, and commute long distances to work. Others will leave their families
behind and move temporarily to the mine site. The result is a transient work force
with personal and economic commitments elsewhere. The investment made in the
local area will be depressed.
The environmental degradation associated with most mineral operations
compounds the problem. Mining often gnaws away at the earth, producing toxio
water flows that kill streams and poison ground water supplies. The smelting or
refining of the mineral often produces air pollution on a massive scale that at best
is unpleasant to experience and at worst is toxic to both vegetation and human
health. As a result, mining towns tend to be located amidst scenes of massive
environmental disruption where air and water quality are of questionable safety.
Since people care where they live, this has a real impact on both residential and
business location decisions. Even miners do not want to live within these
degraded environments if they have a choice. They look for residential locations
far removed from the mine operation. Those not connected with the mine avoid
these areas altogether.
This has a significant impact on the economic prosperity of the mining town
itself. Both commercial and residential investment is depressed because neither
workers nor businesses that rely upon miners spending their paychecks want to
risk their savings on a short term and unstable industry. As a result, residential
industry, construction, retail trade, and services, are depressed. In addition,
because workers are not willing to relocate to the mining community, much of the
income that is earned in mineral production never flows through the community. It
immediately "leaks out" to other communities and trade centers. This is
compounded, of course, by the under-developed commercial infrastructure in the
mining town itself which is unable to capture and hold the income being generated.
Finally, the reduced level of commercial and residential investment and
continuously marginal nature of the mineral operation itself, lead to a depressed tax
base and reduced levels of public services. The result is a core industrial sacrifice
area to which workers travel daily but which receives little economic benefit from
all of the wealth and income that originates there.
DRAFT Page 9
-------
The short term, unstable nature of mining income and the depressing e/fect
it has on local investment and spending explain the contrast between the high
wages paid in mining and the depressed character of most mining towns. It is
hard to find a mining region that is prosperous despite the spectacularly high
wages paid in the industry. From Butte, Montana, to Lead'and Deadwood, South
Dakota, to the Silver Valley of Idaho's Panhandle to the Arizona and Minnesota
copper towns to the Appalachian coal fields, mining is not synonymous with
prosperity despite the high incomes associated with it. Given this history,
one would expect any economic analysis of the impact of a new mine to go
beyond praising the high wages that the mine will pay. We know that high wages
have not always or usually brought prosperity to mining towns in the past. Some
discussion and explanation of the implications of the short term, unstable character
of these incomes is central to understanding the actual impacts. The DEIS
provides none of this. This has implications for the distance from which potential
miners are willing to commute, the likelihood that new housing and businesses will
be constructed to serve them, and the .size of the actual tax base available to local
governments. There is a reason that the Stevens County mine developed 20 years
ago did not have the impact planner expected at the time. Similar examples can be
given for other new mines having little or no positive impacts on local economies
because of the mine workers' limited commitment to the local area. When the
short term, unstable character of mining is taken into account, the local economic
impacts of mining look quite different than those suggested by an emphasis on the
high wages paid.
4. The Size of the CJP in the Context of the Larger Economy
In evaluating the costs and benefits associated with the CJP, the size of its
potential impact on the local economy has to be put in the context of the overall
economy. Table 1 below summarizes the DEIS estimates of the impacts.
According to the DEIS the proposed CJP will directly create 150 production
jobs, generate payroll income of $5.5 million a year, and lead population to rise by
73. The Okanogan and Ferry County economies have been expanding by about
600 jobs, $35 million in income, and 500 new residents each year. Thus the
direct impact of the CJP would represent only a small fraction (one seventh to one
quarter) of a year of normal growth in the regional economy. As a percentage
increase in the existing economy, the direct impact would be a fraction of one
percent. In short, the impacts calculated by the DEIS will be submerged in a
much larger economy that is expanding at many times the rate associated with the
mine. The economic impact will be very minor, possibly not actually felt at all.
DRAFT Page 10
-------
Table 1
CJP Economic Impacts as Percent of Total Economy
Okanogan and Ferry Counties
Impact
Employment
Income
Population
Effect on City
& Co.
Government
Direct
. Impact
1 50 jobs
$5.5
million
73
Dir. Impact
as % of
Existing
Total Econ
0.7 %
0.8 %
0.2 %
Total
Impact
280 jobs
S7.4
million
164
$0.5
million
Total
Impact
as % of
Existing
Total Econ
1.2%
1.1%
0.4%
0.8 %
Existing
Totals
23,000
$690
million
42,900
$60.7
million
Historical
Annual
Growth in
Economy
600 jobs
$35
million
500
Source: DEIS; BEA REIS CD-ROM; City County Data Book, 1991.
The actual impacts are likely to be smaller than the DEIS calculates since the
DEIS inexplicably used CJP estimates of what part of the jobs would go to local
residents. CJP claims that 80 percent of mining jobs will go to existing residents.
The DEIS surveyed other mining projects and concluded that it was unlikely that
CJP could attain this level of local hires. If more of the jobs go to non-residents
who commute or live temporarily in the area, less of the income will stay in the
area and less investment will be made locally. As a result, the "indirect" impacts
will be smaller than projected.
This is important to keep in mind when weighing the benefits and costs
associated .with the project. The benefits, although calculable, are quite small.
Each year, the ongoing expansion of the regional economy creates many times this
number of jobs and dollars of income. As mentioned above, to the extent the
environmental consequences of the mine discourage this ongoing expansion of the
economy, these small gains could be more than offset by undermining the current
sources of economic vitality, the attractiveness of the area as a place to live, work,
and do business. In the pursuit of very small gains, the current economic
foundation of the economy could be eroded leaving residents worse off. Put
slightly differently, given the very small potential gains, what risks of substantial
losses.are citizens willing to undertake? The DEIS, by ignoring the economic risks
of undermining the region's amenity reputation because of the open pit chemical
mining, never analyzes this crucial question.
DRAFT Page 11
-------
5. Economic Weil-Being in Okanogan and Ferry Counties
The DEIS paints a somewhat grim picture of economic conditions in
Okanogan and Ferry. Counties. Per capita incomes, we are told, are low while the
incidence of poverty and unemployment are high. The 1990 labor market data
shows the two county area with an unemployment rate almost twice that of the
state of Washington as a whole (p. 11, Table 6). Median household income in the
Chesaw/Oroville area is reported to be only about half that of Washington state as
a whole, $16,000 v. $31,000 (page 14, Table 8). The incidence of poverty in the
Chesaw/Or.oville area is reported to be almost three times that of the state as a
whole, 28% v. 11 % (ibid).
These numbers suggest a seriously failing economy that has mired residents
in generalized poverty. In that setting, any set of employment opportunities, not to
mention employment opportunities paying over twice the median household income
in the area, has got to look like a godsend. Assumedly, people who live in poverty
do not have the luxury of being "picky" about the employment opportunities they
would prefer.
Recall, however, Figures 1 through 3. They do not show a failing economy.
They show an unusually dynamic and vital economy. If the regional economy is in
a state of collapse, offering no employment opportunities, and very low wages,
then why are people moving there? People, voting with their feet, are clearly
indicating that there is something very attractive, on net, about the area. That V^
judgement and the economic information in Figures 1 through 3 contradict the ff f
negative picture painted of the local economy in the DEIS. This apparent fVy if
contradiction has to be resolve before decision makers can evaluate actual of
economic conditions.
Since 1986 jobs have been created within the two country area at a
relatively rapid rate, an average of about 600 jobs per year for a total of 3,700
jobs (BEA, REIS). Total unemployment in 1991 was about 1,500 (p. 13, Table 7).
If the "natural" unemployment rate is 4 percent, there were about 570 "excess"
unemployed persons. Just one average year's annual job growth should have
been sufficient to' eliminate that excess unemployment. Clearly the problem was
not lack of job creation. The problem is that job seekers were growing faster than
jobs were being created. Since those job seekers were largely migrating into the
area voluntarily, it would appear that the unemployment "problem" is not that the
local economy is failing in some sense but that the area, overall, is so attractive
that despite low wages and high unemployment rates, employment-aged
inmigrants continue to arrive. In that setting it is not clear that any level of job
creation can solve the "problem." The problem is simply that outsiders find the
area attractive and, because of that, their voluntary residential choices cause the
unemployment rate to rise. This is not a sign of inferior economic well-being or
these people would stop coming or leave. It is not clear that unemployment is a
problem in the area at all except for those long term unemployed who have
particular problems getting and holding jobs. General expansion of employment
DRAFT Page 12
-------
opportunities are unlikely to solve these people's unemployment problems. Jt has
not in the past.
The DEIS reports the rural incomes for the Chesaw/Oroville area and
compares them with those of the state as a whole without making any adjustment
for the relative costs of living between Washington's metropolitan and rural areas.
83 percent of Washington's population lives in metropolitan areas. State averages,
therefore, are dominated by conditions in those metropolitan areas. The family
incomes reported for the state as a whole largely reflect income received in
metropolitan areas where the cost of living is significantly higher. The problem
here is clearly indicated by the reported housing costs. Median home valuation in
Chesaw/Oroville is reported as $46,300 while that for the state as a whole is
$93,400, over twice as high (p. 37, Table 22). The differences in rents are
similar. The largest determinant of local cost of living is housing costs. The
difference in housing costs reported in the DEIS suggests that major adjustments
have to be made for cost of living before comparisons can be made between the
two county area and the state as a whole. We know that something is wrong with
the income statistics since they indicate dramatically lower economic well-being for
residents of the area. Yet, rather than people moving out of the region because of
the miserable economic conditions, people are moving in. This voluntary choice is
evidence that those money income statistics are misleading indicators of local
economic well-being. They should not be reported as "facts" that tell us
something about local economic well-being. This also applies to calculated poverty
rates. To the extent that costs of living are significantly lower in these rural areas
and there are opportunities for subsistence activities, poverty rates may be
significantly over-estimated.
It is important to realize that one of the characteristics of areas that offer
significant environmental amenities is that wage levels will be depressed while
unemployment rates will be higher. These negative characteristics are necessary in
order to compensate for the value of the environmental amenities. Those negative
characteristics are not a sign of how poor the area is or a sign of the failure of the
local economy but, rather, a sign simply of how attractive the area's amenities are.
^ This is not a controversial statement. Empirical analyses are regularly published
0 S^ estimating what the value of local amenities are by estimating how much lower
£- equilibrium local wages are14. The DEIS, by ignoring this fundamental relationship
^ as well as cost of living differences, paints an inaccurate picture of existing
-£ economic conditions. This has the effect of suggesting that existing residents are
economically desperate and are not in a position to weigh the costs and benefits
a associated with the CJP simply because "beggars cannot be choosers." This is a
false characterization.
'"Blomquist, G.C. et al., 1988. "New Estimates of Quality of Life in Urban
Areas." American Economic Review 78(1 }:89-108. Greenwood, M.J. et al. 1991.
"Migration, Regional Equilibrium, and the Estimation of Compensating
Differentials." The American Economic Review 81(5):1382-1390.
DRAFT Page 13
-------
6. Growth Is Not Costless
The DEIS calculates a "fiscal bonus" of about $2 million per year from the
CJP for the city, county, and state governments taken together. This is. a familiar
claim in economic development circles: growth pays for itself by generating tax
and other revenues in excess of any additional government expenses. This
"bonus" could, in theory, allow taxes to be reduced on existing businesses and
residents. This popular assertion, in general, is contradicted by the fact that tax
rates tend to rise with size of the population, not fall. There appear to be
"diseconomies of scale" when in comes to population and government
expenditures: Those expenditures rise more than proportionately with population.
This can be seen in the Ferry and Okanogan County taxing jurisdictions. As one
moves from Republic to Oroville to Okanogan to Omak population quadruples and
total local government expenditures per capita doubles1*. In general, rising
population leads to increased government spending and taxes on a per capita
basis, not a decrease.
One of the reasons that the DEIS calculates such a sizeable "fiscal bonus"
associated with the CJP is that it apparently projected tax and other revenues to
rise in proportion to population, with each new resident providing tax and other
revenues at exactly the current average government revenues per capita. Since
current average government revenues per capita include revenues tied to economic
activity associated with the population, this approach involves the DEIS projecting
a "double" economy supporting the new residents: They bring a proportional
increase in the local economy and the new mine gets built. This allows the taxes
paid directly by the mine to be a pure "fiscal bonus." The mine requires no
additional government expenditures directly and the needs of the new population
are covered by an assumed separate expansion of the local economy implicit in the
assumption that government taxes unassociated with the mine will rise
proportionally with population. The taxes paid by the mine then are "pure gravy"
since the costs of the new population are covered by some mysterious other
source. This approach creates a fiscal surplus simply through the assumptions
used.
For local governments, knowing that there is a fiscal surplus when all taxing
jurisdictions are looked at in the aggregate may not be reassuring. As the DEIS
points out, the primary recipients of the fiscal surplus are the state government
and the Oroville school district. Okanogan county is also projected to gain16. If the
population associated with the mine settles in other taxing jurisdictions and enroll
15Table 31, p. 52, Existing Socioeconomic Conditions. One does not expect a
perfect correlation given the diversity in local government programs and funding
sources. Some small towns such as Tonasket also have relatively high local
government expenditures per capita.
1(5Pp. 28-29, Affected Socioeconomic Environment Background Report.
DRAFT Page 14
-------
their children in other school districts, they will have to carry the cosjts_gj_the
larger population without receiving tax revenues associated with the mine. Instead
of seeing a "bonus," they will see a net cost.
Given the unstable and short run nature of the mining industry, local taxing
jurisdictions should be very careful of how they "spend" any "bonus" that is
projected to be available. These revenues may be short term in nature and their
loss several years from now has the potential to disrupt government services even
more than those services are supported originally by the "bonus." Downsizing
government services and budgets is always more painful than expanding them.
7. The DEIS Ignores Its Own Analysis
In evaluating the impact of the CJP, the DEIS adopts the assumption made
by the mining company itself about the number of mining jobs that will be filled
"locally." The CJP has claimed that 80 percent of the jobs will go to local
residents. The DEIS provides considerable evidence that this will not be the case,
but, then, when it does its socioeconomic impact analysis, it abandons the results
of its own investigations and uses instead the CJP's assumption. There is no
justification for this in an objective analysis.
The E.D. Hovee & Company analysis of the qualifications for the mining jobs
and the likelihood that they will be filled locally comes to the following
conclusions:
a. Today's miners are highly trained, skilled, and experienced and very
mobile. "Today's miners tend to be better educated, specialists in
their fields and highly paid." They tend to "move frequently to follow
job opportunities" and "tend to rent rather than own housing." Also,
"they are mostly single men unfettered by family responsibilities." (p.
87-88, Existing Socioeconomic Conditions)
b. Based on actual recent experience with the opening of a new mine in
the CJP area, it is very unlikely that 80 percent of the mining jobs can
be filled by local residents. In Ferry County when the Echo Bay mine
opened in 1989, only 29 percent of the positions went to residents of
Ferry County despite the historical presence of mining activities in
Republic. Almost 50 percent of the mining jobs went to out-of-state
residents (p.105, Existing Socioeconomic Conditions). This is the
area's most recent experience with expanded mining.
c. An earlier mine opening in the area, the Alcoa Mine in Stevens
County, opened in 1975, also indicates that the economic and
employment impacts in the immediate vicinity of the mine will be
much smaller than projected. "According to a Stevens County
planner, the growth initially anticipated when the mine began
operation 20 years ago did not materialize as expected. Many mine
DRAFT Page 15
-------
workers instead.commute to and from Spokane or are dispersed,
throughout the nearby towns in Stevens County.(p. 113, Existing
Socioeconomic Conditions)
d. Jobs going to "local" residents may not be very local. "The 'local
area' for hiring may be considered by the mine operator as up to a 65
mile radius or inclusive of even an entire state." (p. 110, Existing
Socioeconomic Conditions)
e. The CJP projection of 80 percent local hires is "higher than is
suggested by the actual local hiring experience of other mines
contacted during 1993 as part of the Socioeconomic research
conducted for [the Socioeconomic] analysis (p. 5, Affected
Socioeconomic Environment).
Given these conclusions from the independent Socioeconomic analysis, it is
unclear why that analysis then adopted the unsupported CJP. claim about local
hires. This type of uncritical adoption of the CJP's optimistic claims casts doubt
on the integrity of the entire DEIS.
One way this assumption distorts the Socioeconomic analysis is the way it
leads to the assumption that most of the mining jobs (as well as the indirect
employment) will be filled by local unemployed workers (p. 6, Affected
Socioeconomic Environment). The impact of this assumption is to reduce the
demand for housing, schools, and all other potential Socioeconomic impacts17. A
total of 280 jobs are projected to be created directly and indirectly. The study area
has a ratio of 2.8 residents (under age 65) for each worker in the local labor force
(p. 6). Thus the population associated with this employment is 784. The DEIS,
however, projects that only 164 or about a fifth of this number will actually move
into the area. Thus, the claim made by the CJP and uncritically accepted by the
DEIS eliminates 80 percent of the potential Socioeconomic impacts while
dramatically reducing (on paper) the number of unemployed. The 224 jobs claimed
to go to local residents would almost entirely eliminate unemployment in the
Chesaw/Oroville area which only had 272 unemployed or reduce unemployment
levels in the whole study area from well above normal levels to about normal levels
(p. 13, Existing Socioeconomic Conditions). That is an amazing-and altogether
17ln discussions above, it was asserted that by overstating the percentage of
jots that would go to local residents, the local economic impact was exaggerated.
Here the assertion is that that overstatement of local hires leads to an
understatement of other Socioeconomic impacts. This is not a contradiction.
When most of the jobs are assumed to go to current residents who are
unemployed, the local income and employment impacts get exaggerated while the
demands on housing, schools, social services, etc. are minimized. This unrealistic
assumption has the impact of exaggerating the benefits and minimizing the costs.
That is a useful distortion for the CJP but not an appropriate bias in a DEIS.
DRAFT Page 16
-------
unlikely result from the opening of a single relatively small mine. Arbjtcajy ,
assumptions can produce almost any result one might wish!
CJP claims that it will be able to achieve these very high levels of local hires
by giving preference to local residents in the hiring process. This, combined with a
local training program, might significantly increase the level of local hiring. Before
this assumptions is accepted; however, the legality and practicality of such a local
hiring preference needs to be investigated. Such a preference would require
discriminating against applicants from outside of the study area, rejecting their
applications for the jobs even when their skill, training, and experience were
superior to those of local residents who apply. Whether CJP could legally do this
needs to be analyzed. Whether CJP would be willing to engage in such un-
businesslike behavior is also open to question. Finally, whether there are local
educational institutions that could very quickly establish the programs that would
be required to create the necessary workforce also needs to be analyzed rather
simply assuming that such programs already exist or can practically be created in
time to actually produce the needed workforce. Without this type of analysis, the
assumptions about drawing the workforce from the local population consists of
little more than wishful thinking that is inappropriate in an objective socioeconomic
analysis.
DRAFT Page 17
-------
ML 0 .J Jses
prvit c
, C
f
ica~^
T^-77, . -::. .7->*r"l£*S-
.
-------
• s^r^c'^-yo
-^?V^W^W
T-^, ->^-zr»>, rj-L^-rr*-, °-^
-------
srrL*K~ts— ^
y^—*-
*
-------
11
Star Route Box 115
Croville, wa. 93344 \\\\ 06199*
6> ws J
' " ""<
Spence Higby,
We moved here five years ago to farm because this was the
most beautiful place we had ever seen. In addition, the soil
is rich, the water pure, the air is clean and it is quiet and
peaceful. Friends and neighbors have moved to the area for the
very same reasons.
Cur very way of life would be destroyed by the proposed Open
Pit Cyanide Leach Gold Mine. The beauty, peace and quiet would
be gone. Cur water in jeopardy because of blasting destroying
our aquifer, digging the pit below the origin of our streams,
and generation of acid mine drainage in our water supply. The
air will be dirty and dusty from smokestacks and dust from the
huge trucks. We will never see the stars again because of the
night lights. We will never have quiet day or night, hearing
blasting and trucks rumbling and shifting gears.
What could possibly be in your mind coming out in favor of
such an insane proposal as blasting off the top of a mountain,
the origin of our aquifer for a 55 square mile area? Aren't
there zoning laws to protect agriculture and farming coramunitjties
in our county? What could possibly convince you that short term
"promises" of prosperity would over-ride Long-term economic
growth in our county because of the quality of life here. Prop-
erty values will plummet as trailer parks and garbage ruin a
pristine area, as the out of state workers come here from other
mines played out. The droves of "hopefuls" will need assistance
when they come and don't have the resources to leave.
Have you ever seriously considered our concerns, the people
that live here? Or are you falling for the "Quick-buck" bust
and boom economy that so may other depressed areas have fallen
for-only to find themselves in a worse condition than before.
I urge you to examine the pitfalls to the future of our county
before you get taken in by the "fast-buck" promises. I urge you
to listen to the people of the Highlands, I voted for you in the
election, because I believed you were a person of insight and
fore- sight. I know it must be difficult being in your position
of pressure from store owners for a quick-fix, but I do believe
we will destroy the potential of this county when we destroy the
Highlands, one of the few truly beautiful, pristine places left
anywhere to live. I urge you to search your soul and do the right
thing.
Yours truly,
Judy Hewlett
Highland Meadows (Organic Vegetables, Herb ft Dried Flower Farm)
-------
II
RECEIVED
rJUL 0 6 1SS5
OMNOGANCOWiTYCf"
'c~
Ou
D
^
^^
?2
v/.. / ,,„,.
-------
!PO Bat 957, Onwfc •H'* 98841
July 6, 1995
• • — ^^ RECFIVPD
Okanogan County Commissioners ^^^^v
PO Box 791 ^^ JUL0719S5
Okanogan, WA 98840 OKANOGAN COUNTY CO
Gentlemen:
With regard to the Huckell/Weinman Economic Analysis, please do not
take final action until the DEIS comment process is finished. Since the
agreement will last for the life of the mine, any hurried decision now will be a
thing to be lived with for a long time.
There also is feeling that Highlands residents are being bypassed because
they oppose the mine. Whether or not they agree with the mine, or whether or
not you agree with them, they are entitled to the same process as any other
citizen.
Let us make decisions carefully.
Very truly yours,
-------
crFlv/cn 1177 N. Pine Creek ^
" Tonasket, WA 98855 (
JUL 07 1S95 July s, 1995
. ^VIIWV,^" «--
Dear Commissioners:
Please include this letter as part of the public comment on
BMG's economic and fiscal impact analysis presented to you for
your approval. This analysis has some serious flaws and omissions.
There is potential for legal action against the County (and the
Commissioners) if these are ignored. These include:
1. Failure to analyze the economic impacts to the community of
the rest of the 9,000 acres which the BMBrprospectus claims the
project covers. Only the 1,000 acre Buckhorn site was included
in the analysis.
2. Failure to analyze the net impact on jobs in the community.
Although jobs related to the mining industry will increase, jobs
in other sectors, such as farming, real estate, tourism and re-
creation could decrease.
3. The economic effects on "quality of life" are not mentioned.
According to Dr. Tom Powers, University of Montana economist,
the high quality natural and social environment is attracting
new residents and businesses into the County, He states that
"given that the quality of the County's natural environment is
an important part of its economic base and the source of the on-
going economic vitality, anything that threatens that natural
environment has to also be seen as threatening that economic
base and that economic vitality." Given that the area will be
irrevocably changed from high quality rural/scenic to heavy duty
industrial mining and milling, it is a valid assumption that the
"quality of life" will be negatively impacted and the results of
this on in-migration and growth need to be part of this analysis.
4. Given the above (#3)} property values in the North Okanogan
area will also be adversely affected. If it is true that 10%
or more of the landowners near the mine site are absentee land-
owners, we must assume they bought their land for retirement or
investment purposes before the mine became an issue. There will
be many who will find the value of their property will be lower,
if and when they try to sell. The loss of land value is an issue
that requireidefinition. There is much potential here for class
action suits against the County by angry Seattlelites who find that
through no fault of their own their property value has been re-
duced. Under Initiative 164 this could even be considered a
"takings" issue.
Given the above, we hope you will wait until the DEIS comment
period is completed before signing off on this agreement. The
agreement will last the life of the mine, Regardless of your
obvious personal biases in favor of the mine, you have the re-
sponsibility to be careful watchdogs for all the citizens of the
County and to maintain a measured, cautious and judicious judge-
ment on their behalf. It would also be advisable to consult with
people of the Highlands area, including absentee landowners, before
signing off on this analysis.
Sincerely,
-------
Hi
IO.7
79 /
X-P
W
i i O
-fc>
w
«•"
JUL
/^\
(oe^Ji. Poj?er- is,
MQ o
^eoo'i/L-
A
MOUL-
"fo i
-------
Ow. of
OF"
L .
are
*~
q
,i ktookNA/(
\
CL,
— cfio
-------
,3
M - j u^f 1. 1
•
T
-------
\ fr
1 1 ..-3 r^j -^\-
I M_^
/ ,
-f
o
1M-+s.
.
-------
ice.
JUL °7 1995
July 5, 1995
Dear Okanogan County Commissioners,
It has come to my attention that you are about to consider adopting the Economic and
Fiscal Analysis prepared by Huckell and Weinman. As a neighbor of the proposed
mine site, I feel the full impacts of the the Crown Jewel project have not been
addressed, either in this study or by the commissioners in general. The formation of a
Local Impacts Committee, as done in other states, would allow the most directly
impacted population involvement in the development process.
Not enough time has been allowed to comment on this agreement between the county
and Battle Mountain Gold. The DEIS comment period hasn't ended yet. Public debate
is still in process. Shouldn't the county wait for all the facts before estimating the
demands the mining will place on our public services or other externalities the hoped
for benefits may produce?
I have invested my time and energy in creating a home and career in Okanogan
County. We should be looking at the changing economic trends at work in the
domestic and world markets and reevaluate our resources in light of the new
knowledge available. Okanogan County deserves a fair reward for the use of its
irreplaceable natural resources. We should look at all our options before deciding a
course for economic development. Signing this agreement now could place the
burden of support for mine services on our county.
Thank you for considering the facts of this matter.
Your constituent,
Deborah Vester
Star Route Box 74
Oroville, WA 98844
-------
RECFIVFD
JUL 0 7 19S5
—H-
i fito fax
\$P**
-------
W
&
} }& -»vr\ Mm0
P
Ql <)
-------
***
"I
ll
l
\
r
-*
-<&'
(
V
G,
•€
^
510 r^nnr^ -A^T. ' ^^^P^^ ^yvyK-t^ w>o\r<^\^ C^"C fj
-------
DavidC. Miller 'r? JUL 0 7 1SS5 July?. 1995
4-";.' '*•&.•>
Star Route. Box 75 "••££*>
-,„- .•.,-. .,.. -:
Oroville. WA 98844
Okanogan County Commissioners:
As a landowner residing about two miles from Buckhorn Mtn.. I am alarmed to see this
monolithic project steamrolling full speed ahead. I am an opponent of this mine
primarily for environmental concerns, practically residing adjacent to it. I think
that there is a desperate need for some sort of citizen's forum to address the grievances of
us that have to live next to the proposed mine. You commissioners have unaminously
tipped your hands as to how you feel about this mine, but what about us who disagree? I
think a one-sided democracy leaves a lot to be desired and I would like to see you
practicing more equanimity in judgment by providing for some avenue of opposition
instead of alienating us into submission with no rights or voice. It only
makes sense to have an operative pressure relief valve in a pressure cooker of not
all the same views.
^ ;—^^
When I bought this, place I had no intention of living next to a majol^ndustrial "party in my
backyard. Whose going to compensate me if I find my residence intolerable due to dust
and noise? If I move away I want a comparable quality of life that I've been enjoying here.
on ten acres. I hate to think what ten acres elsewhere might cost, yet I would expect to be
reimbersed through State Initiative #610.
Sincerely, David C. Miller
-------
Highlands «lI 3094833361
p. ei
RECEIVED
•JUL 0 7 1925
61
Here is some information regarding local hiring practices in
the mining industry in general, and by Battle Mountain in
particular. There are two aspects to mine's hiring practices.
First is the construction work force, the second aspect is the
hiring of the mine production workers.
t The hiring of the construction work force is a very
important socio-economic aspect from mining that is often
neglected. Several hundred workers may be required for one to
two years to construct a mine's crushers, conveyors, vat*,
liners, tanks, pipes, roads, and to prepare the site for the
onset of mining. Construction wages are relatively high compared
to production workers, so the construction payroll is frequently
a multi-million dollar budget item.
'• Construction work is measured in "man-hours." So if an
average of 100 workers will work for one year (2000) hours, it is
a 200,000 man-hour job. If the workers are making union wages
and benefits of $30/hour, that is a $6 million payroll, for
instance,
The problem is that the mining industry, and Battle Mountain
in[ particular, have a very poor record regarding hiring of local
workers to construct (and operate) their mines. By local
workers, I mean workers who currently reside within 75 miles of
the mine site. There have been studies on construction work
forces, that show that 75 miles each way ia about the peak
commuter distance for a construction worker, and that a 75 mile
radius circle is a reasonable distance to assume an "economic
community,"
That is/ a pay check given to a worker who lives within 75
miles of the mine site, for instance in Republic, Oroville, or
Okanogan, will spend 90% of their pay locally, and that money
will be re-gpent within this area, creating a benefit for this
general vicinity. But a worker from Spokane or Boiee, however,
will probably send 50% of that money back to Spokane or Boise,
and spend only about 50% locally/ near the job site. this
demonstrates how a local work force increases the economic
benefit from a project.
Also/ an imported work force means that many workers will
bring their families with them, who will need social services
such as schools, welfare, recreation, parks, and medical care.
This will cause a cost to many local social service?.
Battle Mountain has a very poor local hiring record for ita
-------
Okar»o»a« Highlands All 5G9-»85336l ». 02
construction work force. It have frequently used specialized
mining construction contractors from far outside the local area
of its mines. The following remarks will dwell on one of Battle
Mountain'a favorite contractors, called "T.I.C." (The Industrial
Company of Steamboat Springs), but these remarks would apply to
any contractor from outside the local area, who would import its
construction labor force.
There are many other specialized mining and construction
contractors, like Brown 8. Root of Texas, CDK of New Mexico,
Ledoor of Canada, Kiewit of Nebraska, that would also perform the
construction of the Crown Jewel mine with imported workers,
creating the same adverse impacts from an imported work force as
w<)uld TIC,
For instance, when Battle Mountain built its San Luis Mine
in southwestern Colorado, it hired TIC for the construction work
in 1990. AUhouh TIC is based in Colorado, its home office was
over 200 miles north of the San Luis mine site. This meant that
few local workers were hired for this construction job. Tie's
own promotional literature show it worked 195,000 man-hours for
Battle Mountain on the San Luis job.
In late 1993-early 1994* Battle Mountain instituted the
Reona expansion.at its existing Fortitude Mine in Nevada. This
was a large project, over 520 acres, and included 3 open pits, a
new leach pad, roads, crushers, conveyors, and a carbon
absorption recovery plant.
Battle Mountain initially promised the Nevada construction
worker unions that their members, who lived in the loca area,
would be hired to construct the Reona expansion. But ultimately,
Battle Mountain hired TIC for this work. TIC imported the vast
majority of its construction workers from outside the local area
and many from out-of-state. Here is a picture of Tic-The
Industrial Company building the Battle Mountain crusher.
Tie's published "reference list" shows listings for Battle
Mountain's mines in both Nevada and Colorado, indicating the
favored position of TIC at Battle Mountain. I have several
articles about the influx of out of town workers at Battle
Mountain's San Luis job that you also have, since they were in
the Omak, Washington paper.
I am sending you a lettev K«y«idiug TIC from the Wyoming
Division of Employment. In Wyoming, large industrial projects
are supposed to hire Wyoming residents first, by law. still,
less than one-half of Tie's workers on the Tsnneco Mine expansion
were local referrals. This illustrates that even when there is a
legal requirement for local hire, TIC and similiar contraotos
will hire a minority of local workers, even for unskilled
positions.
-------
Okanoian Hi»hlan«» «lI 309*833361 .03
Also, here ia a copy of an want ad. TIC, a Colorado
contractor, runs an ad in an Arizona newspaper to hire employees
for jobs in Wyoming and Nebraska. Here is an article from the
TIC newsletter about one of their veteran employees; he has
w'orked in at least four different states. Here are three
Articles about TIC at a Utah coal fired power plant, an Illinois
gas plant, and a North Dakota coal mine; in every case most of
the construction workers were from out-of-state. What chance do
local workers have, under these circumstances?
Regarding the general hiring policies of the Mining
industry, here is a portion of a study of a proposed mine in
Alaska; 10% of the construction workers, and only 5% of the
operations work force will be hired locally,
Regarding the socio-economic impacts of recruiting out of
area workers, I am sending some articles about the flood of out
of area workers into Elko, Nevada; the result is many drug
arr«sts, warnings for the State Employement Division that:
"Construction workers often come with the Contractor, leaving few
opportunities," that Mine employees must have technical training,
there are 10 unsuccessful applicant for every job, that people
are camped out in tents and in parks,
: I hope this information is helpful.
Yours/ John Williams
12770 SW Foothill Dr.
Portland, OR 97223
503-626-5736, 503-641-2093
-------
18 mining projects search for gold in Okanogan County
by Bill Stevenson
Siafl Writer ........
OKANOGAN-"" Baltic Mountain
Gold's Crown Jewel Project is only one
of eighteen mining projects ore under
development in Okanogan County
In neighboring Ferry County there
arc currently fifteen mining projects
ihoi arc under development, being ex-
plored or where mining look place.
A rcccnl isiue of Washington Gc-
ufo^'y presented a list mining projects
Uiat on: underway m northeastern Wash-
ington as ol 1 994
Out ol'chc ei^iikcn mining projects
in the county, the Crown Jewel Project
has gathered ihc mosl attention with a
long delayed l:nv ironmcn(al Impact
Statement and the potential to have the
larpeM financial impact on the county,
especially (he north county region.
Kvcry mining project listed gold and
stlvci as commodities dial arc being
searched for Other minerals such as
c-yprH.T,ironardzincarcalsobc.'ngsought
by severs! mining companies.
'•Vestment Gold Inc., a subsidiar)' of
Ramrod Gold USA. maintains property
on Manhattan Mountain,' which is in
huUi Okanogan and Ferrycounties Along
\\iili s-hcr arid cpiihcinial gold, the com-
px-u lx.-uevcs that cop[)cr, lead, and zinc
u)ll be fdund in the volcanic rocks of
Tonxto Creek grabcn
A graben is a section of depressed
ejn!; il-.ni :s has at least I wo sides which
The Silver Bell project; maintained
.by Jopcc. Resources Limited, is-dso-look-
ing for gold and silver in th: Toroda Creek
grabcn.
Croxvn Resources Corporation main-
tains property, project Ida, near Klondike
Mountain formation of the Toroda Creek
grabcn where they are looking for gold.
siJvcmnd copper. *""
The Crystal project is Keystone Gold
Incorporated^ property where they hope
to find gold, silver, zinc and copper in the
Permian Spectacle Formation.
The Crown Resources Corporation
has the Molson Gold property «s_wcll as
".Crb^^^cToh^wknornrWountain. At
Molson Gold they believe they will find
gold an silver on the maintained property.
Th« Colvillc Confederated Tribes
Continued A2
Nighthawk mining company denied
access to claims by Okanogan PUD
JIC
by Bill Stevenson
SlalT Writer
OKANOGAN- Great Expectations
Mining Inc., which owns the mineral
rights to five claims on approximately
450 acres between Nighthawk and
Oroville, has been denied access to their
property by the Okanogan County Pub-
lic Utility District (PUD).
According to documents filed in
Okanogan County Superior Court, Great
Expectations charges that the PUD took
ownership .of land surrounding an al-
leged public road. " •' ... "
Great Expectations slate that the
road in question has been used for over
ten years by the public and miners to
access (heir claims along the Sunilka-
mccn River.
The PUD .states that in the spring of\
1990 they-J-ud-purchased properly.that '
had been formerly owned by Burlington
Northern Railway Company and that (he
road on (he property is not a public road.
A "Non-exclusive License for In-
gress and Egress With Indemnification"
was given to Great Expectations on May
3, 1993.
Harlan Warner, Manager of the
PUD, states in the PUD response (hat
the PUD District staff had discussions
on whether or not to extend the license to
1994 aAer Great Expectations had made
a request
The District concluded Great Ex-
pectations Mining had not been respon-
sible, had violated the terras of License on
numerous occasions, had in fact needed
to be shut down by the District to enforce
compliance," Warner staled in court
records.
The exact violations were not de-
scribed in the court records.'
The plaintiff stales that without use
of the road that there is "no other reason-
able nor practical way to gel to and from
said mining claims*.
The PUD stated that there is more
than one way to access the claims and
that it had a made a reasonable offer to
the "plaintiff for use of the road
The argument lies with whether the
road is private property owned by the
PUD or a public road.
Testimony was entered from
Norman Cutchie, who has owned ap-
proximately 600 acres on the south side
of the Similkameen River since 1938,
and he stales that the road had been used
by the public for over fifty, years, until
(he PUD put up a gale and locked it
The lawsuit was heard by Judge Jack
Burchard on June 27,1995 and he ruled
in favor of. the PUD and denied Great
Expectations Mimog-from using the
road.
o
X
P
3
0
4
P
3
P
3
a
v>
01
o
tf
*
00
Ul
01
w
6
•V
• ,
-0
-------
Ok ano » -»
H i •» r> I a no s All
5O9«t 83336 1
P. 07
Thousands flock to booming Elko
Tbi» '« vm first o* a r-0-part
rwrw gc*d
•y JbN Mttcf>MVa«a*->J~~«
ELKO — Je/ferf W1f4«va pu*b«d hn
wwy through UM frwu dour erf- lh«-
Nmdft Employment Security 0«p*ft-
ment ofJGc* in Elko, sail W«*ry-*y*d
from an «ll-mg&t driv«.
Tm bare," Wigftm *iKvm«.ed to n»
oc* ia particular. "So when's th*
Jo**!"
I (^^ rtkMtfMJBirtjrfe rrf
b*4 puJtod up sttfce*. learuvf hia wif*
and dukurtit ia a ramstacki* rrnifld
bora* tn Fargo. N.D.. while he wmt off
(• m«JU hta fortune ia Nevada's
I
3s>vr»r-old nuta haj (r» sklUx
than a strong bsvdc aod 4 wUIiasjnm »
•work.
"I figure any place is totter tbaa
where I c«n« Jrom," l>% said. "Some
told m* then wsu work here. so
I^B **
Jtj^flj
Befor* the mominrf ww over. Wig-
;«M learned (he bard, cold trwJs about
t's mains; boom: Yes. there art
jobs, but ooiy for tb* luck? few who hasp-
pen to b»in» the nghc conbuiaaoQ ot
jtaUs aod experience.
For W;|41MH ilucigu irt Ji>: *—--..
^*Wf couldn't do "hat we do without computer*,"
said Ann Tyson, director of environmental relations.
for Ncwmonl Cold Company, now the largest Hold
producer In America. "Mist of out employees art
ni|h school graduates and probably 70 percent of
^them have some form of technical training."
miners with pickaxes In Nevada's latest
there is an Inescapable truth that hain't changed
«iiKc th« first protpcctor led • burro into ihei* laftv
bn*n
/ "The (tosiraliva level is IncrHibI*." said Dennka
( Laiten, the Elko employment office supervisor.
I "La*t year this ofllcc registered U.OOftpVoplt for
I isn mlaiag and mlna construclion joU. That mean*
1 Ihete's about 10 ovulUled workitrs who coma for
\ every good-paying job avatlthla. W« by i
V that, but nobody's listening."
•' Latt«n said moat of lh« men looking for Job* art
"plenum and down-to-earth." but telling peopla
their luck has run o»»l on produce vo|«li)« con/ronta-
lUoa. "There were a couple of Ometi wlien 1 felt
my life wu In danger," he said.
• Jcffery W(ggenarshot4den sagged •» he looked up
pad down in« job, offers posted on a lobby bulletin
board.
"1 Hldn't come here U> b« no dUh*»*h«-r,'> h« Mid.
•'Where's the mlftlog }oba7"
A more etperlenced Job **ekrr explained to Wlg-
fena that h% will hava to fill out an employment
application for s mining job — aod lho«* without
ttptrience need not apply.
"You ever dr|v« a HaulpakV hv «««eaid. ''I r1gur(4
that'* all I'd need to ice me through to my first pay-
chack. The way everybody back Knma was Ulkln*
about mbung jobi out fcwr*. I n«ver n^urtd I'd need
won.'
nuncsrvdvi siaafMncj In ttMlr c*r% ,^.
It's i story Oca W«icri, UM dlrcr.tor of s comm«- \
Mtt sarvict itoup called frlenda in Service Helping 1
(FISIO, hu haard tim« »od time >g»ia- Vfarklns] owl
M ** aid llr« tutlon. W»Un and a half del en volon- /
terra pUj host (ft » constant stream of worker* sod I
their (smilin who find Ukemaelve* il/»nded in Elka. /
. l-aai year, mort iha« t.OOO people lln«d up for what-/
rr«r «ssUtanct FISH covild otter. ' J
•-« "A kst of tna new peopla ihow un here " tb« said,
"bvctus* they're )uat not prepares at tU. They
In here wilt) s cur pacicd i)own wltt b*|nnfinp "bl
It't like the tnoi
-------
5O94953S61
.-*. ; » ;. ta * 8 E V K ^ ^. C
^§<£:2'i?R 3?fls-5-^
-iSW*?li:
»
-------
July 7, 95
lori Bialic 509-^65-20^
By the ajnount of negitive press out of Colorado and Nevada concerning
the mineing practices and the hiring of locals BUG, despite all PR experts
and state-of-the-art rhetoric, continued to do a piss poor job. Last
month, MLRB -Pound t-hem guilty again of their permits, failure to complete rccc
testing. In addition to a token fine, the MLRB doubled their "bond from 3
to 6.million dollars and made the Water Conservancy District of Costilla
County the auditor for their reports. "Tell them there in OVarosan not to
bo afraid to come here and visit and see for themselves what H-JG is talking
about" (Costilla Co. Water Conservancy District member). When" I asked him
how many locals had jobs - he said, "It doesn't really matter because in 18
monthes they're all going to be out of wrk anyhow, aad <&n only come to
Chesaw".
The Rito Secco is the only piece of public land in Costilla County, a
river'with aspens and willows in a country that is othcr-dse high desert sate
brush. It has been the only public and cherished spot for picnics, colebra
etc. The mints ILs located directly across the primitive road running alongs
the Rito Secco. At this spot there is and has been an ancient spring with
tap running into a-bowl and back into the river. Mind you this tap has
run continuously up until recently. This is the "oldest town in the state
of Colorado". Erase the water coming out of the ancient spring tap, none
comes out now. BIG is pumping to keep the water out of the pit. The oppos
to BHQ predicted it would be affected by the'mine. This was the wettest wi
in the county ever with a .500j» of the average snow and rainfall and tho
spring went dry in a year like this. High price to pay for a. few jobs.
"When Battle Mountain built its San Luis Mine in Southwestern Colorado
it hired TIC (contractor) for the construction work in 1990. Although TIC
is based in Colorado, its hone office was over 200 miles north of the Sf,n
Luis mine site. This meant that few local workers were hired for thiD consljru
job. TIC's own promotional literature show it worked 195,000 man-hours for
Battle Mountain on the San Luis job."
"Battle Mountain initially promised the Nevada construction worker
unions that their members, who lived in the local area, viould be hired
to construct the Roona expansion. But ultimately. Battle Mountain hired
io
de
ti
tc
sazjy
tion
-------
TIC for this work. TTC imported the vast majority of its construction
workers from outside the local area and many from out-of-siato. Here is
a picture of TIC - The Industrial Company tuilding the Battle Mountain
crusher. TIC's published "reference list" shows listings for Ba+tlo
Mountain's nines in toth Nevada and Colorado, indicating the favored
position of TIC at Battle fountain."
In Wyoming, large industrial projects are supposed to hire Wyoning
residents first, ly law. S«ll, less -than one-half of TIC's workers on
the Tenneco Mine expansion were local referrals. This illustrates that
oven when there is a legal requirement for local hire, £EC and similar
contractors vdll hire a minority of local workers, oven for unskilled
positions.
-------
FOB 979
Oroville, WA 98844
Okanogan County Commissioners FOB 791
Okanogan, WA 98840
Gentlemen:
I has come to my attention that the Commissioners have, in response to State law, had an analysis
made of the economic and fiscal impacts of the proposed mine on Buckhorn Mtn. Responses to this
analysis are due by July 7, 5 pm.
I have found it a bit difficult to review the two volume DEIS and read the Huckell.Weinman analysis
and formulate my comments by July 7, since the DEIS only came out June 30. Nevertheless I have
done so.
Newspaper reports state that the County is preparing to sue the Forest Service because of delays in
the issuance of the DEIS. As a person who would be vitally affected by the proposed mine, it is'
appropriate that I comment on the documents and the delay in their issuance. I am a resident on the
side of Buckhorn Mtn., roughly one mile from the proposed mine site and the person probably mos
affected were it to go forward.
There has been no effort to compensate those adversely affected and much of the opposition to the
mine is traceable to this riding rough shod over the rights of others, while giving the fast track to th<
rights of a few. The claim that there is a trickle down effect to the money spent to compensate for
these losses is specious. As an erstwhile economist that did a thesis (roughly equivalent to a Masters)
on the subject of urbanization, I will state my opinion that the claim is not to be credited. In short,
many are robbed to enrich a very few. Whose property rights are you defending?
To characterize the effort of the Forest Service (FS) and the Washington Dept. of Ecology (DOE) to b
even-handed as somehow base and improper is scurrilous slander. The threat to sue is
unconscionable. I think the hard working people of the FS and DOE are due an apology for
denigrating their efforts to bring about a just and peaceful resolution to "an irresistible force meeting
an immovable object." Mediators are never given the credit they deserve. Thank therefore the FS
and DOE for doing a difficult job of conflict resolution. For shame that you should sue them! That
these things all too often escalate into violence is all too well known and rhetoric of the Wise Use
Movement is unsettling, to say the least. Be thankful, therefore that you are dealing with people whc
eschew violence and are willing to do the hard homework of exploring the issues objectively. This is
one of the foundation stones of successful conflict resolution.
Would that the Commissioners were equally dedicated! I would have ample grounds for suing both
you and BMG, except that I have religious scruples against suing at law. Instead, I believe in conflict
resolution and the admonition to "Agree with your adversary."
The issue is of course much more than the property rights of those (both vocal and silent) who are
adversely affected. Important as it is to respect the property rights of all, there are issues of equal or
greater importance:
(1) The Huckell/ Weinman analysis naively assumes that the mine will decrease unemployment. It
will do nothing of the sort. The reports of the mine appearing in the media will cause an influx of jot
seekers. Among them will be A group of unemployables who believe that this is the solution to then
problems. Studies show that a rise in employment is accompanied also by a rise in persons seeking
-------
employment, many of whom then become a burden on local social services.
(2) There is an assumption that an increase in monetary income will result in an increase in well-
being. Not so. This is a low cost-of-living area. The mine would result in skyrocketing cost-of-living
which will erase any benefit from increased income.
'3) There is no excuse for unemployment. There is no space here to discuss it, but as a lifelong student
of local economics, I can assure you that if given the authority I could abolish unemployment in
Okanogan County. The hitch: Monetary incomes would not increase, only the things that money can
buy and some things that money can't buy. The name Chesaw should be changed to Esau. We are
making a fool's bargain. For a handful of jobs we are giving away part of our birthright forever.
Parts of Nevada are a moonscape from open-pit gold mining. With exploration and patenting
actively going on all over North Okanogan County it is safe to predict that we will become a
moonscape too unless something is done to stop it. The DEIS acknowledges that the figures for
income are a poor measure of the well-being of the Chesaw-Molson area. Exchange what we have
for a few jobs and a moonscape?
(4) As noted above, there are things money can't buy, things that are more precious that life itself. If
your child is in danger, what would it be worth to save her (him)? Again and again people have
shown that there is no limit. For me the wetland on our property is such a thing. Naturalists who
have visited it find now rare plants and animal life that is almost priceless. Repeal the endangered
species act? The endangered species is Homo sapiens. Congress, the State legislature and the local
Board of Commissioners are busily pounding nails in the coffin of Homo sapiens. What is worth
living for? The cloying surfeit of gadgets at Prince's or WalMart? The mine, as proposed, would ruin
the wetland.
"No man can serve two masters; for either he will hat the one and love the other; or he will hold to
the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and mammon." -Matthew, VI-24
Sinperely yours,
Roger
(SignecPcopy is in the mail)
-------
%
C-^77
•^M
-------
r UAM.
-------
JACK MCLEAN
Broker
Western Re'aty
V
^
^
76 North W»ath«r»ton» Road
Rout* 1, Box 1158-M
Omak, Wathlnffton 08841
TELEPHONE: (309) 828-5877
APR C ! 1S£5
April 20, 1995
Commissioners
Ed Theile
Dave Shultz
Spence Higby
Gentlemen:
Please do no interpret this letter as any disrespect.
On a whole, I believe you are all very competent administrators.
And I have enjoy ed your consideration and courtesy.
That said; I have to point out that when you place a dollar bill
over each ey e, the whole world looks green.
I find that you are letting yourself be blinded by the need for
revenue. This is not an uncommon happening in areas of government
where the pressure for money is a constant problem.
This is God's country, according to the immigrants from other
states who have despoiled there land, are and water.
The Battle Mountain Gold, will increase country revenue, but
will also increase county problems, that will exceed the revenue
produced. This is also so.
I want you to know that your efforts in trying to get the
Battle Mountain boys approved... does not represent this
Okanogan Valley Citizen
Our whole nation is being run on a short run profit for long
range destruction. It is only a mtter of time, before it
hits us full in the face. When it does, it will be too late
to correct.
We are all environmentalists. Even the most virulent anti
environmentalist, will become an environmentalist, when he
goes to the tap for a drink of water and draws a glass of
piss or toxic waste.
We have to look at long range. Undeer us all is the planet.
The MCLEAN PLAN " Enclosed is the only plan that will save
the planet.ATT else is folly. Unchec
unchecked immigration, is certain de
Kindest Personal Regards
-------
i Co . (
RECEIVED
APR 61993
w^u
OKANOGM COUNTY COMV-
l
-------
March 1993
WASHINGTON WILDFIRf
Mining and Fish Habitat
—By Charles Stearns
A new gold rush has been gripping the
Western States since the WXO's. Far
from being led by individual miners
with picks, shovels and hope, the new
gold rush is characterized by mining
consortiums, heavy machinery and a
seemingly reckless attitude towards the
environment.
.Wbjje^old production has increased
lenlbldin the last decade, our nvers
have been poiiuteu wuh ihe wastes from
mines. Modem mining techniques prom-
LNO to do terrible injury to fragile river
ecosystems. However, it is important to
note that much of the riverine damage
being felt today has been caused by
mines that haven't been in operation for
20 or more years. Both heavy metals
from conventional mines and sodium
cyanide from modem mines have dam-
aged western water ways equally.
The problem lies within the land it-
self. Most of the big veins of gold have
been mined clean. By using a process
known a.s open-pit cyanide leaching.
however, the microscopic gold thai lies
in common ores c:in be retrieved at a
profit. Unfortunately our Western riv-
ers are paying the price.
Containing as little its 0.02 ounces of
gold to the ton. the axk Is crushed into
audcum-powderconsLstency. This pow-
der is then exposed to a sodium cyanide
leachate which removes the gold par-
t ic les. The remaining wastes, called tail-
ings, are then disposed of in tailings
containment ponds.
The wastes are a ticking time bomb.
Theoretically, the tailings have been
cle:tned of most of the highly toxic cya-
nide before they reach the ponds. In
practice, however, lethal dosesof chem i-
v'.Js refuse to he exorcised from the
Killings.
That is what threatens water and w ild-
lile. Tailing containment facilities are
not leak-proof. While it is possible to
ki-ep most small anim;dsand birds away
the polluted ponds using fences.
fewminingcompaniesdosoadequately.
While the eventual! seepage of foizard-
ous wastes into the water table could he
prevented by using triple thickness of
either clay or plastic pond liners, present
mining laws do not require companies
to take responsibility for their wastes in
the long term. Thus, the tailings ponds
go unmonitored and insufficiently pro-
tected.
They will leak. AJready.severalopen-
pit cyanide leach mines have poisoned
their load water sources. Either by
seepage or by mishandling of the cya-
nide leaching agents, riverine wildlife
end up harmed. Last November, the
Summitville Mine in Colorado leaked
cyanide-laced waste-water into the
Alamosa River in such quantities that
fish were wiped out completely as far as
17 miles downstre:un. Similar episodes
have occurred in South Dakota. Nevada
and Montana.
Cyanide l«»ch mining is a two-fold
threat. In the short term, there is the ever
present risk of a cyanide accident simi-
lar to Summitville: as well as the danger
of tailing containment facilities leaking
into the water table. In the long term, the
waste rock left behind by the leaching
operation is susceptible to acid mine
di;iinage in which heavy metals and
acids form and seep into the water table.
poisoning it.
One of the most significant threats
from cyanide teich mining is from the
fact that it involves the processing of
such vast amounts of material to pro-
duce a relatively small amount of min-
eral. Cyanide process technology
produces a vastly greater
amount of waste mate-
rial than other
mining methods. This gre;uly increases
the .scope of the groundwater pollution
threat from cyanide, heavy metals, and
acid mine drainaue.
Acid mine drainage, though, is not
unique to modem mines. All mineral
mines can develop it. and in fact it is old.
abandoned mines which are now poi-
soning theBlackfootRiverin MonKina.
The last mine to operate on the
Blackpool closed during the iS^O's. but
the effects of the mining are still felt.
Waste" rock left to the elements has been
le:iking heavy metals and acids such as
cadmium, zinc, arsenic, copper and sil-
ver into the water table. The process has
taken ye;irs for the meuds to seep into
the river, hut now present, their effect is
sudden ;uid obvious. In 1 yy 1. the Unv est
population of Cutthroat and Bull trout
were recorded in the Blacklbot River.
As more meuds le;ik into the river, the
fish population will sink f»nher into
jcornirdy. In Colorado, the Brown trout
in some poisoned rivers are living trun-
cated life sp;ms as metals accumulate in
their bodies.
For rivers ;ind ground water reser-
voirs, the problem continues to worsen.
Aged, abandoned mines are slowly pol-
luting western rivers and killing aquatic
life with heavy meuds. «md cyanide-
laced tailings will be upon our rivers in
much the same way sum. Currently.
legislation requiring long term mining
waste management and monitoring has
not been passed, leaving the way cle;ir
for mine wastes to harm local water-
ways and dcL-rade fish habitats
-T-^
il^-*-**
—«arVar^^
-------
ease.
Mine disaster worsens
to tune of $33,000 a day
By Mark Obmascik
Denver Post Environment Writer
10 GRANDE COUNTY -
When the Summitvilie gold
mine killed 17 miles of
eams, polluted farm
water supplies and converted a
southern Colorado mountain into a
toxic stew of cyanide and heavy
metals, government regulators
consoled themselves with a simple
Belief.
Summitvilie, they thought,
couldn't get any worse.
It just did.
Instead of serving as a mere en-
vironmental disaster, Summitvilie
is becoming a full-blown financial
nightmare. The U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency has been
forced to hire 55 full-time workers
— and spend $33,000 a day — to
prevent the bankrupt mine from
spilling 160 million gallons of cya-
nide solution into the headwaters
of the Rio Grande River.
In less than three months, the
government's emergency response
at Summitvilie has drained $2.3
million of taxpayers' money. And
the cash hemorrhaging shows no
sign of easing.
The ultimate cleanup of Sum-
mitvilie, EPA says, is expected to
cost at least $60 million.
What's remarkable about the ex-
tent of Summitville's environmen-
tal destruction is that it took so lit-
tle time to create. The mine,
constructed near the Continental
Divide along the western rim of
the San Luis Valley, didn't even
open until 1986; it filed for Chapter
7 bankruptcy protection in Decem-
ber 1992.
During those seven years of op-
erations, Summitvilie became the
classic slow-motion accident, wit-
nessed by many but stopped by no
one. It was a scandal that resulted
from botched construction, reck-
less mining, brutal weather, failed
slate government regulation and
budget-slashing politics at the Col-
orado Legislature.
"Everything that could go
wrong at Summitvilie did go
wrong," said Mike Long, director
of the Colorado Division of Miner-
als.
The fiasco prompted Ken Sala-
zar, director of the Colorado De-
partment of Natural Resources, to
call this month for a moratorium
on state approval of all new chem-
ical mining operations. And in
Please see SUMMITVILLE on 14A
-------
I actually gels more snowuu —
an annual total of more than
35 feet — than the nearby Wolf
Creek skt area, which gets more
snow than any other Colorado re-
sort. Summitville engineers mis-
calculated the site's water balance
by 14 inches of water a year, state
officials said. To give an idea of
the magnitude of that error, that's
the same amount of total precipi-
tation that the Denver metro area
gets in an entire year.
At Summitville, the mistake was
staggering. Instead of having the
level of cyanide-contaminated flu-
id drop inside the 127-foot-deep
leach pad every year, the fluid lev-
el actually rose by 10 or so feet per
year, state regulators said.
From an economic standpoint,
the water level error was a serious
blow. To compensate for the in-
creasing water level inside the
gold ore heap, Summitville was
forced to pour in more cyanide to
achieve the same chemical reac-
tion. That requirement increased
K 'the mine s
operating
costs, re-
duced its
profitabili-
ty and
made less
m o n e y
available
for compa-
ny cleanup
projects.
But from
an environ-
mental
standpoint,
the water
level error
proved di-
sastrous. From June to October
1987, Summitville suffered nine
separate spills totaling 85,000 gal-
lons of cyanide-tainted fluid into"
Cropsy Creek, a tributary of the
Rio Grande.
The Colorado Health Depart-
ment responded in 1988 by levying
a $27,000 penalty against Summit-
ville.
In its original state mining per-
mit, Summitville was banned from
discharging any chemicals from
mine operations. But mine execu-
tives later argued that this re-
quirement was impossible to meet
because of the water-level miscal-
culation.
So the health department in May
1989 agreed to issue Summitville a
new permit allowing the mine to
discharge treated liquids into Rio
Grande tributaries.
Summitville tried to handle its
waste problem by "land applica-
tion." which called for contaminat-
ed linniH .fo-4-.- •- *"* «..~._n«i :->-
• SITE OP
SUMMITVILLE
- MINE
ground for
natural fil-
tration.
When Da-
vid Holm,
director of
the health
depart-
ment's divi-
sion of wa-
ter quality
control,
personally
inspected
Su mmi t-
ville in
1990,. he
found a
mess.
"It was apparent that the distri-
bution system was failing all the
time," Holm said. "The hoses
would clog with particles and blow
apart The liquid would rush down
into the creek. I saw it happen
when .1 was just standing there at
the site.'?
Nevertheless, the health depart-
ment didn't take immediate ac-
tion. The water quality division
just had been subject to a bruising
political fight with state Sen. Tom
Norton, now the Senate president,
over the health department's juris-
diction in water quality issues.
Norton's 1989 bill transferred
much enforcement power for min-
ing water quality from the health
department to the Mined Land
Reclamation Board, which already
was understaffed.
Holm said that political brawl in
the legislature made it unclear
whether the health department
had any remaining legal authority
'to take enforcement action ?.g?>nst
Summitville. "Politics cari'i r
be far from my mind," Holm Said.
"You have to be sensitive to \vh;
going on in the legislature."
But the state's inaction ange
others. The Sierra Club Legal
fense Fund made noises about
ing a citizen's lawsuit agai
Summitville, and the EPA in :
vember 1990 vowed to penal
Summitville if the state didn't.
The outside pressure work
From February to June 1991,
health department and Mil
Land Reclamation Division n
fied Summitville that the m
once again was violating state
vironmental standards. In Ji
Summitville agreed to ]
$100,000 of fines for repeated ei
ronmental law-breaking.
But the penalty didn't stop
problems. The next month, in
gust, Summitville suffered 1
more cyanide leaks. And in S
tember, the mine spilled anot
1,000 gallons of cyanide-tain
fluid.
By this time, all the le
and spills had exactei
heavy toll on the Alam
River. Three different
Luis Valley landowners repor
that all the trout in their fa
ponds were killed after they t
in Alamosa River water t
flowed from Summitville. A ch<
ist, Mary Mueller, blamed the
kill on Summitville's discharge
highly acidic water and exces:
levels of copper and zinc.
In June 1990, the Colorado E
sion of Wildlife stocked 15,000
gerling trout in Terrace Reserv
17 miles downstream from Si
mitvilJe. But when state biolog
took s fish census of the reser
less than a month later, they fo
no fish living anywhere in the 1;
Further tests showed that the e
tire 17-mile stretch of the Alamo
River downstream from Summ
ville was devoid of fish, officia
said.
"The flows out of Summitvil
decimated the fishery," said Jo!
Alves, a division of wildlife biol
gist in Monte Vista. "Before Sur
mitvilie, we did have a small b
viable fishery. After Summitvil]
the acidity, zinc and copper leve
got high enough to kill fish."
Meanwhile, in the San Luis V:
ley, where 45,000 acres are irriga
ed by Alamosa River flows, farr
ers began reporting water quali
problems.
-------
SUMMITVILLE from Page 1A
t
Washington, where Congress al-
ready was considering a sweeping
overhaul of the nation's mining
laws, conservation groups are cit-
ing Summitville as proof that the
•1872 Mining Act needs environ-
mental reforms.
All the political fallout
worries industry execu-
tives, who fear the Sum-
mitville horror story will
be used by mining critics to crip-
ple their business with more gov-
ernment regulation. Other mine
companies headquartered in Den-
ver are trying to make the best of
a bad situation by donating more
than 1,000 hours of engineering
work at the Summitville site.
But there's still one interested
party that hasn't been heard from
yet about the mess. That's Sum-
mitville Consolidated Mining Co.
executives themselves. Peter
Guest, director of the firm, owned
by the bankrupt Galactic Re-
sources of Vancouver, Canada,
didn't respond to repeated requests
for interviews.
-.The Summitville operation was
a'product of the gold rush that
swept through the West in the
1980s. At that time, the price of
the precious metal had soared to_
as high as $800 per ounce — more
than double the current market
rate.
Galactic Resources tried to ride_
that wave of high gold prices by
acquiring the Summitville site. A
.world-class ore body in the San
[Juan Mountains that had been fea-
tured for years in geology text-
books, Summitville was home to
Trelatively small-scale mineral op-
Aerations since the 1870s.
» To extract gold from Summit-
'yille, Galactic proposed to use a
Cyanide heap-leach technology.
'.The idea was to excavate a 127-
•jfoot-deep valley, fill it with 12 mil-
•lion tons of crushed ore and then
Isprinkle a cyanide solution over it
[to chemically remove the gold and
ipther precious metals. Cyanide
•heap-leach technology allowed
'companies to recover as little as
,0.04 ounces of gold from every
'JJ.OOO pounds of rock.
I he 1,231-acre mine site was
one of the biggest and most
complicated hard-rock min-
eral operations ever propos-
Ted in Colorado. But when Galactic
formally delivered its Summitville
Ifcl.ans to the Colorado Mined Land*
• A iy76 stale law. which regu-
lates all hard-rock mining, forces
state regulators to approve or re-
ject all proposed new mines — re-
gardless of size and complexity —
within four months.
"Under the law, if we don't give,
the mine operator a decision with-
in 120 days, they get a freebie —
automatic approval," said Jim
Pendleton of the reclamation divi-
sion. The approval process was
further complicated by the fact
that the legislature gave the board
enough money in 1984 to hire just
15 workers. They had to track the
Summitville application as well as
2,000 other mining operations
across the state.
Short staffing meant the state
had to rely largely on the integrity
and judgments of the Summitville
operator and its consulting engi-
neers during the approval and con-
struction .process. That turned out
to be a colossal mistake.
Galactic got its state permit in
the fall of 1984. Construction of the
vast cyanide heap-leach pad began
less than a year later.
The Summitville operation soon
ran into trouble. According to le-
gal documents, Galactic was under
heavy pressure from a financier,
Bank of America, to complete con-
'struction of the cyanide heap-leach
pad quickly. As a result, Summit-
ville managers decided to build the
pad, at an elevation of 11,500 feet,
in the dead of winter — despite the
staunch protests of the mine's de-
sign engineers.
In March and April 1986, a se-
ries of avalanches blasted through
.the cyanide pad's protective liner,
.which was supposed to prevent
mine chemicals from leaking and
'polluting several creeks that feed
'the Rio Grande. The avalanches,
.Galactic lawyers admitted in
court records, tore and shifted the
protective liner.
. Summitville's design engineers,
Klohn Leonoff, accused the mine
.company of a negligent rush to
build the anti-cyanide liner. In
court documents filed in Vancou-
ver, the engineers said Galactic
"improperly laid out large areas'"
of the protective liner; "did noth-
ing to correct the inadequate back-
filling and compaction" of soil in
trenches around the liner, allowed
"poor operation of construction
equipment" that ripped the protec-
tive liner; and was "ignoring prop-
er practice for seam repairs."
Despite those problems, the
Summitville operators prr-^eded
to fill the 45-acre mining i • antil
it literally overflowed with cya-
nide, the engineering firm said.
The pad and protective liner
were discovered to be leaking cya-
nide solution in June 1986.
"The leakage was aggravated
by the incorrect decision by (Ga-
lactic) to rush the commencement
of leaching operations in disregard
for the causes or consequences of
the leakage," the Klohn Leonoff
engineers said in court documents.
"In their haste to complete the lin-
er, the (Summitville managers)
disregarded the quality of its con-
struction."
The Summitville contractor that
was hired to install the protective
liner, Gundle Lining Systems,
agreed with criticisms of Galactic
in 1986 court documents. "Sum-
mrtville has conspired with its par-
ent companies, Galactic and Ga-
lactic Ltd., to terminate the
contract and agreement with
Gundle in order to conceal its own
violation of the applicable laws
governing environmental safety,"
the records said.
In another legal memo, the law-
yer for the lining pad company
wrote, "Numerous actions have
taken place at the Summitville
mine which may create an envi-
ronmental hazard, and which may
pndanger the safety of the public."
The problem was, no state regu-
lator even knew about these accu-
sations. In 1986, the year that
^Summitville began operations, the
Colorado Legislature cut the state
hard-rock mining inspection bud-
get from $561,000 to $250,000. The
number of government mine in-
spectors, who had to monitor Sum-
mitville and 2,000 other state mine
operations, was slashed from 15 to
Those stiff budget cuts prevent-
ed state regulators from conduct-
ing regular inspections of the Sum-
mitville site during construction,
officials said. -fi.H ,c.A v^pt^ V
In the spring of 1986, a surge of
snowmelt caused clay and sand
around the protective liner to be
"severely eroded" by water, Ga-
lactic attorneys said.
State mine regulators responded
by slapping Summitville with a
$3,600 fine — the first in a long
series of government penalties.
Another major design flaw be-
came apparent in the mine's first
year of operations. Although exec-
utives originally estimated that
more water would evaporate from
the mine than would seep in from
rainfall and snowmelt, the oppo-
site ornvoH to HP *rii*»
-------
to iasl 20 years, now are covered
with rust nfler just (our years of
exposure to the newly acidic water
in the Alamosa River. And cattle
rancher Jim Braiden said one of
his steel irrigation pipes, which
usually lasts at least 20 years,
sprouted a 2-inch rust hole after
being exposed to just seven years
of acidic Alamosa River flows.
Braiden also suspects the mine's
acid discharges may be responsi-
ble for killing a 12-acre alfalfa
field.
By March 1992, after extracting
280,000 ounces of gold from Sum-
mitville, Galactic stopped mining.
Company executives assured state
regulators that they planned to
clean up the site.
The problem was that state reg-
ulators only had required Galactic
to deposit a $4.7 million reclama-
tion bond for cleanup. If they
forced Galactic to put more money
into a higher bond, state mine offi-
cials said, the extra requirement
might bankrupt the company and
leave state government with the
whole mess.
However, regulators did man-
age to force Galactic to conduct a
new study detailing needed clean-
up projects and required cleanup
costs.
On Nov. 30, 1992, Galactic gave
the state a report saying that the
Summitville mine site would take
at least $20 million to clean up.
Three days later, Galactic an--
nounced it was filing for bankrupt-
cy.
"*- Regulators were stunned. A $15
million gap existed between what
Galactic had posted for bond and.
what was needed for cleanup.
Meanwhile, the level of
cyanide-contaminated
liquid in Summitville's
127-foot-deep heap-
leach pond stood at 122 feet — 5
feet from overflow.
EPA dispatched an emergency
response team to Summitville on
Dec. 8. The crew found a disaster
in the making.
Summitville was discharging
3,000 gallons per minute of con-
taminated fluid from at least six
different places. Many of the dis-
charges were a foul color, one liq-
uid stream was called "red zinger"
because it looked like tea.
With winter winds blasting
away at Summitville, EPA faced a
tough decision. If the agency didn't
do anything, the 160 million gal-
ons of cyanide waste in the he-»p-
leach pile, laden with toxic levels
of copper and zinc, could spill into
greeks that feed the Alamosa Riv-
"er, which in turn feeds the Rio
• •
"If we left everything aione, it
could go over any time. The whole
pond would overflow." said Hays
Griswold, who is directing EPA's
effort. "The pipes would freeze.
The pumps would fail. All the
equipment would have to be re-
placed at very high expense in the
spring. We didn't want to let that
happen. So we took over the site."
The EPA had to hire 55 people
to prevent Summitville from spill-
ing." The site, 17 miles up a dirt
road, requires a 24-hour-a-day
snow removal crew. Wind-exposed
walls of some mine buildings are
buried under 40-foot snow drifts.
Hundreds of gallons of chemicals
must be transported weekly to the
mine, through blizzards and white-
outs, to reduce the toxic effect of
the liquids being released from
Summitville.
The agency's work is being
made more difficult by heavy
snowfalls. The snowpack at Sum-
mitville stands at 138 percent of
normal, with 16 feet of snow al-
ready on the ground. EPA workers
are trying to remove and treat as
much cyanide-contaminated fluid
as possible from Summitville's
heap-leach pile before an expected
270 million gallons of snowmelt
come rushing through the pile dur-
ing the May, June and July snow-
melt
"They keep asking me at head-
quarters: When are you going to
get Summitville turned off and
shut down?" said EPA's Griswold,
who estimates the cleanup cost to
be at least S60 million. "I tell
them: You need tp come out here
an pk at what we're up against.
It's ..Jt pretty."
-------
Founded IT.) M e t h O W Valley (509) 9«)7-255f3
Citizens Council
PCJSI Office Box 774
Tw.sp. VVash.nuton «WH5»i April 23, 1992
Okanogan County Commissioners
P.O. Box 791
Okanogan, WA 98840
Dear Commissioners,
For your information/ here is a copy of our comment for the
scoping process now underway for the Buckhorn Mountain Mine.
Although the proposed site is not in the Methow Valley, the MVCC
is vary concerned for several reasons:
1) Proliferation of open pit heap leach mines and the off-site
support developments will have a county wide effect. The
potential for adverse environmental and social effects is
extremely great.
2) The mine proposal is similar to the Early Winters project, in
that the Forest Service is pre-disposed to permit activity on
public lands with little thought of off-site consequences.
3) The Methow Valley could face any day the threat of a very
similar proposal up at Flagg Mountain next to Mazama. We would
like to see the county, the state, and the Forest Service face
the environmental, social/ and economic issues of short term
extractive industries sooner than later.
The county should be very concerned about who will pay for the
new roads/ schools, hospitals/ libraries and all of the other
necessary infrastructure. We feel that the developer should be
required to pay. The long term picture is also of interest.
Will the mine be allowed to export most of the proceeds from the
activity and then leave behind depleted ground and a distressed
economy? How can the long term economic health of eastern
Okanogan County be assured? How will the certain adverse
environmental consequences be mitigated should the project be
allowed to proceed?
It would be wise to confront the problems posed by the proposed
mine head on and not low ball the adverse ef-fects in hopes of
allowing a quick go ahead. The Early Winters experience has
shown that not dealing with the real issues in a straight forward
manner just causes years of delay. The mine opponents are
digging in for the long haul.
The county should use this opportunity to clearly define the
issue and legislate comprehensive guidelines for all such
activity. Given the present situation the proposal should not be
allowed. Open pit heap leach mines are most likely not worth it
given any conceivable mitigation package.
Sincerely, AWx^fv^ J^h^T^f
Jason Smith, MVCC Staff for the MVCC Co-Chairs
-------
Founded 1 975 Methow Valley iiof))
Citizens Council
.PoM Otnio Uox 774
April 21, 1992
Elaine Zieroth, District Ranger
Tonasket Ranger District
P.O. Box 466
Tonasket, WA 98355
Dear District Ranger Zieroth,
We appreciate the opportunity to submit scoping comments for the
Buckhorn Mountain mine proposal.
The Methow Valley Citizens' Council is very concerned about the
prospect of large scale heap leach gold mining operations in
Okanogan County. The Buckhorn Mine is no doubt just the first of
many such proposals, each one of which could have the potential
to irreversably and irretrievably affect the loc'al environment.
The scenic degradation to the Okanogan Highlands with several
hundred acres of open pit and tailings dumps is only one of many
concerns. Patterns of use and migration for wildlife will be
altered. Great quantities of water will be used and possibly
polluted, affecting birds, fish, riparian habitat, and drinking
water. The present quality of life enjoyed by local residents
will be changed. Governmental agencies will struggle to provide
the necessary public infrastructure and if history is a guide
will shoulder the clean-up and welfare costs after the mine has
played out.
The Forest Service must thoroughly consider the long-term versus
short-term gains of mining Buckhorn Mountain. We think a truly
valid evaluation would show beyond a doubt that Buckhorn Mountain
should remain as it is.
We feel that reponsible stewardship requires the Forest Service
to assume responsibility for the off-site effects created by the
project. Most of the potential adverse effects would occur
outside the Forest Service boundary. Polluted aquifers, damaged
fisheries, de-watered rivers, and the detriments of short term
extractive economies should not become someone elses problems.
Thank you again for this opportunity to comment.
Sincerely yours,
David Sabold Isabelle Spohn fl Vicky Welch
1
MVCC Co-Chairs
-------
SPECIFIC COMMENTS
The EIS should fully evaluate:
WATER
1) The hydro/geology of the mine site drainage basin. In the
event of toxic run-off from the leach pond where will it go?
Where will "day to day" waste water go?
2) The effect of removing water from the surface or groundwater
source to supply the mine on senior water rights, instream flows,
fish habitat, and other instream and out of stream resources.
How will water rights be distributed in times of drought? What
effect will adding water (in the mines drainage basin) have
downstream from the mine?
3) The potential for radio-active material to be produced at the
mine and carried away in waste water. What materials will be in
the waste water? How will waste water be treated?
4) The effects on surface and ground water quantity and quality.
How much water will be evaporated in processing? List all
wetlands which will be effected regardless of size. Will a
Section 404 permit be required for any areas?
5) Tribal fishing rights established by treaty.
6) The effect on drinking water supplies down drainage.
7) The containment strategy for mine wastes in the event of
unusually heavy precipitation. Will such safeguards work and to
what point?
8) Treatment of sewage from the facility.
9) What will be the effect on any local wells?
10) Will toxic substances in holding ponds affect wildlife in
contact with the ponds?
11) Will a NPDES permit be required?
12) Will Hydraulic permits be required?
13) What mitigations have proven most successful for similar
problems in other areas?
14) What mitigations are most advisable in this case?
15) What is the likelihood of implementation of those measures?
16) What is percent of effectiveness that can be expected from
1
-------
31) V/hat mitigations are most advisable in this case?
32) What is the likelihood of implementation of those measures?
33) What is percent of effectiveness that can be expected from
these mitigations?
34) What is the likelihood of enforcement of these mitigation
measures?
35) What will be the cost of enforcement of these mitigation
measures? Who will pay?
WILDLIFE
36) An inventory of all resident plants and animals and all
migratory animals. What species are of concern-or are
threatened, endangered, or sensitive species? Where are they and
how will the mine affect them? Are there any critical habitats?
37) A study of the migration routes and behaviors for all
migratory animals. How will the" mine affect migratory species
including the Mule Deer? What large scale corridors exist? How
does the area interact biologically with the portion of the
ecosystem in Canada? Will there be violations of the Federal
Migratory Bird Treaty?
38) The effects of increased human activity (traffic, noise,
dirt bike riding, dogs, cats etc.) in the area on resident
species incuding humans.
39) Any change in the bio-diversity of the area. Will the mine
result in an increase or decrease in bio-diversity. How does
this relate to the official Forest Service goal of maintaining
and improving bio-diversity?
40) The economic losses to be expected given the decline of any
resident or migratory species. Will there be any impacts to
traditional hunting areas?
41) The effect on the Jackson Creek, Granite Mt., and Bodie
Roadless Areas?
42) The safeguards planned to prevent birds and land animals
from being poisoned by the leach ponds. How will any potential
problems be mitigated?
43) The effects of increased fire wood cutting in nearby forests
on cavity nesting species.
-------
effects upon wildlife and humans?
60) The role of land use planning by Okanogan County. Does the
county have in place a plan to provide for the orderly secondary
growth engendered by the mine? How will mine workers be housed
and where? Will public services be provided and how will they be
paid for?
61) The social and economic needs when the mine has been
exhausted. What will the needs be and who picks up the tab?
62) During what hours will bright lights be visible,?
63) How will lights effect night-time visibility of stars and
aurora borealis for local residents and tourists?
64) What effects will mine noise have on wildlife and human
populations? Will hours of operation interfere with normal
activities, such as sleeping of humans in the area?
65) Will noise berms be required? Where will materials for
noise berms be obtained?
66) What mitigations have proven most successful for similar
problems in other areas?
67) What mitigations are most advisable in this case?
68) What is the likelihood of implementation of those measures?
69) What is percent of effectiveness that can be expected from
these mitigations?
70) What is the likelihood of enforcement of these mitigation
measures?
71) What will be the cost of enforcement of these mitigation
measures? Who will pay?
INFRASTRUCTURE
72) Potential new roads. Where and how will they be financed
and maintained?
73) Electrical power supply needs. What are the needs, what are
the impacts of power line construction, and how will it be
financed?
74) What will be the public service needs, who will pay, and
will the services be in place when needed? Included would be
-------
90) What is percent of effectiveness that can be expected from
these mitigations?
91) What is the likelihood of enforcement of these mitigation
measures?
92) What will be the cost of enforcement of these mitigation
measures? Who will pay?
SOILS
93) Are there any fine blue clays or other materials which can
result in deposition of colloids into the watershed?
What will be the stability of holding ponds? What
likelihood of damage in the case of leaching or holding ponds
caving in?
95) Will excavations release natural elements such as arsenic
into local wells or water supplies?
96) What will be the combined effect of exposes soils and
precipitation upon any bodies of water?
97) What mitigations have proven most successful for similar
problems in other areas?
98) What mitigations are most advisable in this case?
99) What is the likelihood of implementation of those measures?
100) What is percent of effectiveness that can be expected from
these mitigations?
101) What is the likelihood of enforcement of these mitigation
measures?
102) What will be the cost of enforcement of these mitigation
measures? Who will pay?
END
Comments compiled and typed by Jason Smith, MVCC Staffperson.
-------
Rebecca Huuser
PO Pox 25
Omak, WA 98841
Dear Commissioner,
I am writing to you of my concerns about the
proposed Battle Mountain Gold Mine.
Last year I moved to this area and purchased some land
near Molson. I was enchanted by the pristine nature
of the Okanogan Highlands and decided to settle here.
Now, however, I am questioning that decision as we face
what could be an enviromental catastrophe and a detrimate
to the health of our community.
As a Registered Nurse in this community, I am very concerned
about the cyanide tailings pond which would threaten our
water table for generations to come. I am also concerned
about the safety of our roads as the Molson grade is in
no way prepared to handle semi trucks, heavy equipment
or the increased traffic that the mine will bring.
I am also concerned about the impact of virtually destroying
a mountain. Our wildlife and vegetation are sure to suffer.
All of this for the greed of gold?!!! Have we learned
nothing from the past devastating mining ventures that
have left hazardous wastelands throughout our country?
I really feel that the law which enables this type of
project must be changed. However, our immediate concern
must be to stop this from happening in our community.
The few short-term jobs it will bring to our area will
in no way compensate for the negative effects of the mine.
As a registered voter in this community, I will be very
interested in your stand on this issue. Please don't
let this proposed mine become a tragic reality!
Sincerely,
Rebecca C. Hauser
-------
RECEIVED
APR 2 01993
Cormissioner Ron Weeks OICANOGANCOUNTYCCV.
<»9 Third North
Okanogan, WA 988W)
Our county still has a chance to oppose handing over control to large
industrial gold mining firms without environmental ethics. Okanogan County
cherishes its rural character which will rapidly end with a population of hard
rock miners and truck drivers entering it ail of a sudden. In a county the size
of Conneticut with only one stoplight, such a population influx will represent
about a 10% population increase, this in an area with hardly enough rainfall to
support the current agricultural base.
The current guidelines for this company are the 1872 mining law which
was designed to open up the west at little cost to mining interests, and it is a
blatant rip-off in today's world of capitalism.
Please support bills such as Senator Dale Bumpers' S. 257 or West
Virginia's Representative Nick Rahall's H. 322 that would curb many of the major
faults in the 1872 mining law.
In Washington state please support bills such as the "Metals Mining
Act", S-5662 and HB-1706. This bill will not affect existing mines, it will not
affect existing jobs, it will not affect gravel, sand or coal mines.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely yours,
>eo*-r£,
George Wooten
-------
u ( 1993
O^tlQGAN COUNTY r/»" • ----- —
\"S-
? £ <5
o ^ ^
Ui
n
/; -^
a^ K&^
/
M
-------
RECEIVED
JUL 07,993
OKANOGAN COUNTY COMV«!flw p$
-------
C ^^vc^/. ^
-------
J
Cyanide Is one of the deadliest
poisons known. Just add arsenic and
a stew of heavy metals. Stir it all up with
sulphuric acid. What have you got? The same
kind of open pit, cyanide-leach gold mines that
have blighted so many other Western states.
Now they're headed our way! Can -we stop them?
Those who priie Washington
State's spectacular vistas, crystalline
waters and undisturbed wildlife call
it Buckhom Mountain, a peak in
northeast Washington's Olcanogan
National Forest.
But unless you act now, it's going
ro become the Crown Jewel gold
mine — an open pit as deep as the
*ipace Needle is tall amid hundreds
nt .11 res nt'*aste roclc leaking acid,
jnd a like-oiraJS wSte?Rr**r''''"
Pushed by out-of-state mining
interests headquartered in Houston
ami Denver, Crown Jewel will be the
firs: large-scale open pit mine in
Washington State. And if two dozen
other mining companies swarming
over eastern Washington get their
way, it will be just one of many.
cvANiM Mwirra FON oou> is
LIKE DYNAMITHM FOR FISH.
Right now, there are no
regulations in Washington State
strong enough to stop hit-and-run
mine operators from ripping off
thousands of acres of public land and
dumping thousands of tons
nt" c.amde over low-grade
•ire, leaving i devastated,
itmuminated moonscape
Schmd when they pull up
•tjkcs a few years later.
1 hunted by newspaper
hij>!lines in states already
vicofnized by their gold-
plated rip-off (see box),
mining companies hope to
bushwhack Washington
before we have rime to
protect ourselves.
"When you fly over [Nevada] you
see huge pics," says a spokesman for
that state's governor. "In thirty years,
this finite resource...will be gone.
What will be left behind are cyanide
pools and stripped-down mountains
and holes in the ground.*
According to Montana's Water
Quality Bureau, "The use of cyanide
in ore processing probably poses the
single greatest threat to the jquanc
environment that we're dealing with
leach mines in Montana have let
cyanide loose in the environment.
Just last year, one of the partners in
Crown Jewel was fined S 168,000 for
letting cyanide reach dangerously high
levels at its new mine in Colorado —
a mine which was supposed to be a
model of environmental sensitivity.
What about federal law5 Dating
hack to the days when mining was a
matter of piesaml inujeMrams,
'the ISTrMming Caw is nothing
more than a giveaway. The corporate
partners in the Crown Jewel pit will
get hold of Buclchorn Mountain for
SI, 500 — and plan to leach out more
than half a billion dollars in gold.
Federal law doesn't even require
mining companies to restore the land
or clean up future toxic leaks. From
Nevada to South Dakota, state and
federal taxpayers are left holding the
What kind of reviews
are cyanide-leach mines
getting in other states?
ACID, MtTALS FOUND IN HIM DNCHAME
COLORADO OFFICIALS «MT
MORATORIUM ON CHEMICAL MINES;
-fapl £?>«•* 1/1*1
CWUDE LEAK HUM COLORADO MINE
ANMWLATU LIFE IN ItlYCT
— San F« .Vr» .Mom, I VOtfl
TAXPAYERS «n $15 MILLION SHAFT
IN SUMMITVUif MINE FIASCO
bag when things go wrong.
"The 1872 Mining Law permits
more damage to our environment.
ever enacted," said former Secretary
of the Interior Stewart Udall-
It's "America j biggest ongoing
scam, rotten to the core," declares
U.S. Senator Dale Bumpers.
/^COLOSSAL ENVMONMINTAL RISKS,
WITH NO ECONOMIC MMCTITS.
Is a pick-up truck full of gold
worth ruining a public landscape,
risking Washington State's wildlife,
jeopardizing our water supply, and \ \
burdening future generations with ''
tons of toxic waste? :
The mine will create a few jobs, '
sure. But reports from other states j
show that most jobs go to out-of-state •'
technicians, not the local unemployed, i
The mining companies pay no
royalties on the wealth of gold they
k extract. And when the gold pUy».out} I
; in an average of seven years, we'll
still face decades of toxic danger.
And what will the gold be used
for? Over 80% of the gold mined • I
today goes into jewelry — most of itt '
manufactured abroad by cheap labor.'
There's really nothing in all this ,
for the people of Washington. /
IRM'T'tCT'CYMIlMrMlNCRS-lJfTO/
WASHINGTON BEFOM Wi HAVE
LAWS TO SAFEGUARD OUR STMK.
Corporate front groups like "People
for the West," backed by a partner in
the Crown Jewel mine, are blocking ,
any reform of the 1872 Mining Law. :
Without federal reform, it's up to
each state to defend itself.
As the mining companies
well know, Washington
State simply isn't prepared.
The problem is under
urgent study in Olympia,
but legislation won't be
ready in time to limit the
harm from Crown Jewel.
That's why we're asking
you to mail these coupons
immediately. We must
declare a moratorium on
new cyanide-leach mines until strict
controls are on the books.
South Dakota, Nevada, Colorado
and Montana have already learned
how much environmental damage
these mines can do.
It's up to you to save Washington
State before it's too late.
— Thank you.
WASHINGTON
ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL
WASHINGTON WILDERNESS
COALITION
-------
TMI#: 4497
Thank you, Winnie. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. I'm Spcncc Higby, Okanogan County
Commissioner, and I represent the district in the north end of Okanogan County that this mine is to be
cited in. I guess for the record, I want to start out by saying that according to the state's SEPA laws,
and the procedures outlined in the laws, this hearing that we arc having today is not needed, not
necessary. I want to point out to you few that the lead agency in this case, the Washington
Department of Ecology, has a choice to schedule a hearing, or not to schedule a hearing. They did
choose, and advertise a hearing well in advanced, that hearing being in Tonaskct, which was moved to
Orovillc. That hearing satisfies the intent of the law. The petition issue that has been brought up, of
50 or more signatures, only applies if the lead agency did not schedule a public hearing. This hearing
has been decided upon for other reasons other than the interpretation of the SEPA regulations.
My second issue. Any comments that may come forth this evening, or Thursday evening, that are
concerning the Memorandum of Understanding between Okanogan County Commissioners, and
Battle Mountain Gold, the issue of local hire, the issue of taxes within the county, or the issue of
maintenance of roads, should properly be addressed to the county commissioners. Those issues have
already been dealt with, are in the process of continuing to be dealt with, with Battle Mountain
directly, and we feel that they have been handled satisfactorily at that level, and do not have an effect
upon the DEIS.
The last one that, no, the third one out of four, the third one that I want to mention is either items that
have floated around in the press, floated around in memos, even come out of a memo directed to
Governor Lowry from his staff people of Mr. Jack DeYoung, indicated that the environmentalist had
a fear of coming to Okanogan County. I have a letter that I quote parts from. The entirety is
available to interested parties or the press if they need to. This letter is from Okanogan County
Sheriff, Jim Reid.
For the past eight years there has not been to this date one scratch or one fist-fight recorded. Several
people have indicated that they felt intimidated by others, yet we have ardently investigated every
indication of trouble, and have found no proof of any crime. After all the talk and publicity, when you
bear it open to provable facts, there is little to no reason for either side to feel intimidated by any one.
I suspect that this report is fear, is not based on reason, but in the imagination of the press, and a few
people for their own purposes. I hope this clears up the question of intimidation and fear of being in
Okanogan County.
Again, that is taking excerpts of a letter that Jim Reed wrote to me at my request. Time. Thank you, I
have to admit I was reading, didn't see it, Phil, I appreciate this opportunity. I'll be there Thursday,
(Applause).
-------
TMIK: 4577
Spcncc Higby.
Before I get into the story- I'm going to tell you, I would caution the press, unfortunately I think Mr.
Louie is left. Before you jump too far and write your story, contact the entire tribal council. It is my
understanding, only by second-hand source, that there arc cither thirteen or fourteen members of the
council; the meeting that was held today, there were eight members there, and the vote was five-to-
thrcc. I could be wrong because I did say it was second-hand. I only ask that you be accountable, and
check before you print.
Reluctantly I'm going to tell you a story, briefly. John, I'm going to do probably what I shouldn't do,
and I will go slightly political. This morning, only this morning, there was a contact directed from
Mr. Teclcy and myself, with the U.S. Forest Service and the Department of Ecology, informing them
ahead of time that we felt that it would be very appropriate for us as commissioners, to set in this
public hearing with them as a show of cooperation, communication, working together towards coming
up with a final impact statement, a selection of alternatives, and a direction to go on the permit. When
I talked with Mr. Gchr, he was very supportive of that idea. When I talked to Mr. Spurgin, and I want
to not be negative to Pat, because we have had recently very good communication, very open
discussion, and I believe a very good relationship, but somewhere someone higher than Mr. Spurgin
put a mix on that type of arrangement. When we arrived, we were told that the second table to the
side was for all the elected representatives. I'm probably going to ignore that half-minute for a few
minutes and finish my story. Sorry about that. You can boo, too, if you want. The other elected
officials chose to sit in the audience because they were going to speak. Ed and I had both agreed not
to speak at all, but we chose to be set on the side. Symbolic, of where we are placed with some higher
officials somewhere. Again, I want to strongly let you know that the Forest Service and DOE, as
represented by Mr. Gehr, and Mr. Spurgin, have been very cooperative with us, but all political levels
have not. Thank you. (Applause).
-------
^Department of Public (works
P. O. BOX 232 * 237 4th AVENUE NORTH
OKANOGAN, WASHINGTON 98840
(509) 422-7300
(FAX) 422-7301
August 21, 1995
Tonasket Ranger District
1 West Winesap
Tonasket, WA 98855
RE: Comments to the Crown Jewel Mine draft EIS.
Dear Sir:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Environment Impact Statement
for the Crown Jewel Mine Project. Our comments are as follows:
Page 2-86 under "Air Quality" regarding Dust Control.
All County roads considered routes to the proposed mine are paved except
Pontiac Ridge Road. BMG has agreed to upgrade a portion of Pontiac Ridge
Road to Okanogan County's minimum standards regarding gravel roads.
The County excepts this with the understanding that BMG will control dust
on Pontiac Ridge Road when necessary, with water or other palliative
treatment approved by the County Engineer.
Page 2-107 under "Transportation Monitoring".
Okanogan County should be involved in any meetings that involve review of
transportation as well as any other safety issues.
Page 3-180 under "Project Access Routes".
There are five County Roads that are listed as "All Weather Roads". Under
the Okanogan County criteria these roads are not considered "All Weather".
The only two routes that are "All Weather" are State Route 97, and State
Route 20.
-------
All County Roads are subject to restrictions during the Spring thaw.
Page 4-145 under "Road Maintenance".
A written agreement between Okanogan County and BMG will be necessary
for maintenance of any Okanogan County Road that would require
increased maintenance such as snow plowing or removal, that is directly
attributable to the mining activity.
If there are any questions pertaining to theses comments please contact this office at (509)
422 - 7300.
Sincerely^
Joseph H. Nott, P.E.
County Engineer
U
BY: TomHinger
Transportation Development Coordinator
-------
GENERAL OFFICES
OKANOGAN WASHINGTON 98840
POST orrTCc. _jx 912
13O9I 422-3310
422-4020
PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 OF OKANOGAN COUNTY
August 24, 1995
Editor
Oroville Gazette-Tribune
Post Office Box 250
Oroville, WA 98844
The District has been provided with a copy of an article from a local publication by
the Columbia RiverBioregionalEducation Project, which implies the cost to receive
electric service in the "Highlands" will increase when the Crown Jewel Project comes
on line. This claim is false. Unfortunately, the author did not contact the District
for any information on the capacity charge or service to the Crown Jewel Project.
The capacity charge implemented by the District was to reduce the rate increases
needed to generate adequate capital funds to rebuild lines serving developments.
These developments are mainly residential and commercial accounts.
Battle Mountain Gold will be paying the District for the cost of building a
transmission line from Oroville to Buckhorn Mountain. They have already paid for
all engineering costs and made a substantial contribution to rebuilding the Oroville
Substation in 1993. Battle Mountain Gold has been the most responsible developer
the District has worked with.
The facilities installed by Battle Mountain Gold will save PUD ratepayers millions
of dollars and may also substantially reduce the capacity charge for new services in
the Highlands. These facilities will provide the needed capacity to serve District
customers in the Molson, Chesaw and Havillah areas for decades after the mine has
closed.
Sincerely,
HAKLAN WARNER
Manager
-------
be: Phil Christy - Forest Service
Patricia Betts - WDOE
Brant Hinze - Battle Mountain Gold
Rod Leavell - Oroville PUD
-------
Okanogan County Sheriffs Office
James K. Weed Telephone (509)422-7200
Sheriff F« (*09) 422-7236
Port Office Box 32
149 N. Fourth
Olunogui Washington 98840 Date: 8/4/95
Spence Higby, Commissioner
Okanogan County Courthouse
Okanogan, Washington
Re: Threats / Danger to Environmentalists
For the past eight years there have been many people on both sides of the environmental issues who had hot
tempers, more than assertive styles and were very vocal in their viewpoints. There has not to this date been even
one scratch or one fist fight recorded. There has been one person who has related a phone call received on their
answering machine which was left when they were out back in 1993. This could not be independently verified as
it was reported days later and the recording was not kept.
Several people have indicated that they felt intimidated by others yet we have ardently investigated every
indication of trouble and have found no proof of any crime. We work these issues even when no complaint is
made to stop any of this before it gets started. Both sides are equally liable for arrest, yet no valid case has been
found.
There have been several pieces of logging equipment burned or otherwise vandalized in the woods and one
incident about six years ago where a logging equipment guard reported that he was fired upon from the woods.
This could not be independently verified either.
After all the talk and publicity, when you bare it open to provable facts, there is little to no reason for either side
to feel intimidated by anyone. I suspect that this reported fear is not based in reason, but in the imagination of the
press and a few people for their own purposes. I am somewhat surprised that there has not been more physical
conflict, as neither side has been bashful about their verbalization in any meeting where I have been in attendance,
and that is a lot of meetings. A physical assault would serve either side well to prove their point, but so far it has
not occurred. Rest assured that if it does occur we will investigate it vigorously and push hard for as heavy a
penalty as we can get, so this does not become a pattern. So far we have settled our differences as adults in
public meetings and that must continue.
I hope this clears up the question of intimidation and fear of being in Okanogan County. These are the facts. I am
sorry I can't help what the westside press wishes to print. Facts and reality are not the stuff newspeople are much
interested in these days, their industry has fallen victim to chasing the dollar instead of the truth. When
competition replaced quality, facts were lost in the need to sensationalize and sell print/airtime. It is as
irresponsible for them to characterize us as backwoods hicks who only want to rape the world as it is for us to
categorize them as people who have made a sewer out of their backyard and now wish to tell us what to do.
There are a lot of good well meaning and responsible people on both sides who have done well in a tough process
to this point.
Sincerely yours,
CL^/j
//James K/Weed
// Sheriff
-------
Pend Oreille County
Board of Commissioners
Hanson
District #1
Chris Mytar
Clerk of the Board
Jodjacobsen
District #2
(509)447-4119
FAX: (509) 447-5890
District #3
Post Office Box 5025
Newport, WA 99156-5025
August 28, 1995
U. S. Forest Service
P.O. Box 466
Tonasket, WA 98855
RE: Proposed Crown Jewel Mine Project
We are in support of the Crown Jewel Mine Project.
We have read the draft environmental impact statement dated August,
1995, and support Alternative B as it is stated to avoid or minimize
impact to wildlife and sensitive habitats and additionally, because of
the high impact expected on the job market and economy.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
PEND OREILLE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
r 1 D. MeKenz ie&ia i rman
Mike Hanson, Member
BOCC/cm
recycle*
-------
City of Oroville
Clerk's Office. P.O. Box M. Oroville. Washington. 98844. (509) 476-2926 FAX (509) 476-2943
OFFICERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS
John G. Shaw. Mayor Jimmle D. Walker
Kathy M. Jones. Clerk-Treasurer Nancy Young
Rodney L. Noel. City Superintendent Forrest D. Boyer
M.W. 'Mick' Munson
C.F. 'Chuck' Spieth
U.S. Forest Service
P.O. Box 466
Tonasket, WA 98855
Subject: Proposed Crown Jewel Mine Project
Dear Sirs;
As Mayor of the City of Oroville, I have been asked to
convey the Oroville City Council's and my support of the Crown
Jewel Mine Project and urge that the final EIS be completed
without delay. I will briefly outline our support that is based
upon the following facts:
1. Battle Mountain Gold Co.'s proposal (Alternative B)
meets and exceeds all federal, state and local
regulations and adequately addresses safety and
environmental issues and benefits.
2. Water use issues have been positively addressed. The
stated annual usage is 675 acre feet. This amount is
not overly significant, as it is quite comparable to the
irrigations needs of a 160 acre pasture. The Water
Conservation plan includes recycling of water from
mill operations, conversion of existing agricultural use
water_rights to an industrial use during the normal
irrigation season, and storage of spring runoff surplus
water. Nine water quality and quantity monitoring
wells have already been installed and are monitored on a
monthly basis. Monitoring will continue long after the
mine closure.
3. The proposals design for cyanide destruction,
(the INCO cyanide leach process), in addition to the
strict laws already in existence, sufficiently and
safely responds to our concerns about cyanide use and
that the proposed destruction levels are significantly
lower than other permitted mines in this state.
-------
Opponents of the project negatively stress the re-
training needed after the mine closes.
I TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY DISAGREE! This project will
actually provide training, (at no cost to the employee),
that will actually BETTER prepare them for future jobs.
Computer and accounting skills, general and specific
types of construction, and administration, are just some
of the fields in which on-the-job training will be
provided. Local unemployment rates can be reduced with
this golden opportunity to "EARN WHILE YOU LEARN".
Each of us believe that adequate research and studies
have been conducted, meetings held and reports have
been issued regarding all aspects of the seriousness and
depth of this proposal. Wildlife, reclamation, the
soils, air quality, noise, vegetation, economic and
social impacts are just a few of the other issues that
have been included in these meetings and studies. The
draft EIS Alternative B meets all the desired
objectives and minimizes all identified environmental
impacts.
Okanogan County and area communities are suffering
depressed economies and high unemployment rates.
No other project proposed within the county would yield
such a variety of benefits with such minimal
environmental impact.
In closing, we strongly agree that the Crown Jewel Mine
Project proposal is a "model" project, designed with
complete safety and environmental answers. If this
project is turned down, essentially all mining in the
state is then turned down! And we must not forget that
mining is not constrained to just extracting mineral
ores from the ground.... it includes ALL resources
extracted from the ground. Therefore, the approval and
permitting of this project most definitely will effect
the future of all netural resource-based uses and
developments.
Again, the City of Oroville supports Alternative B and
strongly urges the completion of the final EIS without further
delay.
Thank you for allowing this opportunity for comments.
Sincerely,
'Jimmie Dale Walker,
Mayor
-------
tt We join the Molson Grange in supporting the Crown Jewel project. "
The Crown Jewel mine will meet all relevant federal and state envir9/i^^^^^^p4-«^u|ations, including:
• National Environmental Policy Act
• State Environmental Policy Act
• Clean Air Act
• Clean Water Act
• Washington Metals Mining Act
Because of this, we support Battle Mountain Gold Company's proposed plan for the Crown Jewel mine.
Please expedite your final review and approval of all required permits.
Additional comments:
V /Vi Hie
r- H
ie
Name
wt
. A/'c< I/O U/C,
- -r -------
c t
Address
9f ,
City
State
Zip Code
-------
1995-529
R E SOL II T 1 O N
WHEREAS, the Colville Confederated Tribes have" determined that due to the inherent
rights retained by the Tribe and its membership in the former North-Half of the Colville
Reservation, and because trust allotments are located within the boundaries of the former north-
half, the Colville Confederated tribes have an obligation to protect and preserve the rights,
resources, and tribal membership and lands locuk-u within the proposed area of the Crown Jewel
Mine from unknown potential negative effects and impacts; therefore, the Colville Confederated
Tribes are hereby opposed to any precious ir.euils mining activity within the boundaries, or
adjacent to the boundaries, of the former North-Half of the Colville Indian Reservation.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that we, the Colville Business Council, meeting in
SPECIAL Session, this 17th day of AUGUST, 1995, at the Colville Agency, acting for and in
behalf of the Colville Confederated Tribes, do hereby approve the recommendation of the
Resource Management Committee of the Busi-.v.--., Council.
The foregoing was duly enacted by the Colville Business Council by a vote of 7 FOR 0
AGAINST, 3 ABSTAINED under authority contained in Article V, Section l(a) of the
Constitution of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, ratified by the Colville
Indians on February 26, 1938, and approved by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs on April
19, 1938.
ATTEST:
Nhuiu'w Dick, Jr., Chairman ^
CoKilic Business Council
cc:Deb Louie, Chairman, Resource Management Committee
Dean Pilkington, Geology Dept.
Kathy Desautel,_Financial Officer
-------
Colville Confederated Tribes
P.O. Box 150 - Ncspclcin, Washington 99155 (509) 634-4711
MME! AKDU) WSMMM^
August 14, 1995
CROWN JEWEL MINE - DEIS
Okanogan County
CCT FISH & WILDLIFE
The proposed Crown Jewel Mine will affect tribal members and their ability to harvest fish and
wildlife for subsistence purposes in usual and accustomed areas.
The proposed mine could affect 1,920 acres or more of huntable lands associated with the pit,
facilities , roads and road traffic. This loss, coupled with increased NO TRESPASSING/NO
HUNTING on private lands, will affect tribal members rights to subsistence hunting.
The proposed mine could affect 1,900 acres or more of habitat of huntable populations of game
as well as non-game species. Loss of habitat will result in population losses. Reduced numbers
of subsistence wildlife will affect tribal members.
The proposed mine will result in an increase in local / regional human population. This
population increase may be good for economic benefits to some, but will increase the
competition for local harvestable wildlife and fish and affect subsistence use of tribal members.
Increased traffic from local and regional population centers to staff and service the mine will
increase wildlife / vehicle collisions. Reducing huntable populations of game and affecting the
subsistence use by tribal members.
There is potential for the increased subdivision of lands, in the surrounding valleys, that can
affect winter range use by game and result in population losses due to reduced habitat and human
disturbance. Again, affecting subsistence use by tribal members.
The disturbance to wildlife populations by the operation of this mine may result in stress to these
populations, negatively affecting reproduction, resulting in a loss of subsistence use by tribal
members.
The transport and storage of fuel. 189,000 gallons of diesel and 2,500 gallons of unleaded gas,
by accident or carelessness, could find its way into the groundwater or surface water and become
a hazard to aquatic lire and human life.
-------
The transport and storage of chemicals, if accidently spilled, could poison fish and wildlife and
human alike.
Tailings ponds and collection ponds can attract migratory birds and result in bird and other
wildlife deaths. Destruction of cyanide in these ponds may appear to be at acceptable levels,
however the pH in a birds digestive system can cause what was considerrd to be non toxic to
be toxic.
Tailings ponds in the head of drainages is not a very good idea. Leaks in liners and / or
structural failures in the dam can result in the transport of toxic materials, including trace
elements, into ground and surface waters. These elements can result in fish and wildlife deaths
and affect the human population too. Upwelling of ground water in a stream system, if it
contained contaminants or toxic elements could effect fish reproduction, since upwelling of
groundwater often occurs in gravels where fish spawn.
Ben AJbrechtsen, MAM, R-4, USFS: Regarding deep wells to monitor cyanide migration into
groundwater. "While this may provide useful information to research, if contaminated water
is detected in the area, the problem will already be too advanced to solve."
The storage reservoir for water is in the Starrem Creek" drainage, west of Meyers Creek. If this
reservoir fails, sediments will be deposited in Meyers Creek and could affect fisheries in both
the U.S. and Canada. Meyers Creek, from Mary Ann Creek to the Canadian boarder is a
water/shoreline of the State. How can putting structures in this creek and or across this creek
be consistent with the Shoreline Management Act?
We do not think that the negative effects on fish and wildlife resources of this mine proposal can
be fully mitigated to off-set the losses to fish and wildlife and subsistence over the life of the
mine (10 years, possibly 20).
Deb Louie, Colville Business Council
Colville Confederated Tribes
-------
TMI#: 4572
Thank you ladies and gentlemen. I'm honored to be here tonight. My name is Deb Louie, I'm a
councilman from the Colvillc Confederated Tribes. And I'm elected in the Ncspclum District. I want
to read a few things to you, and today the council from the Colvillc Tribe was in special session, and
we passed Resolution 1995-529. And it says, "To the Colvillc Business Council From the Natural
Resource Committee. Subject North-Half Mining. The Colvillc Confederated Tribes have determined
due to the inherent rights retained by the tribe and its membership in the former north-half of the
Colvillc Reservation, and because trust allotments arc located within the boundaries of the former
north-half, the Colvillc Confederated Tribes have an obligation to protect and preserve the right,
resources, and tribal members, and lands located within the proposed area of the Crown Jewel Mine
from unknown, potential negative effects it impacts. Therefore, the Colville Confederated Tribes are
hereby opposed to any precious metals mining activity within the boundaries, or adjacent to the
boundaries of the former north-half of the Colville Indian Reservation." This is passed today by the
Colvillc Confederated Council. Also, the Colville tribes, we retain hunting and fishing rights, certain
water rights, and land in trust of the area of the proposed Crown Jewel Mine at Buckhorn Mountain.
The Colville Confederated Tribes have not had the opportunity to participate nor comment on the
proposed mine. It is the duty of the Colville Business Council of the Colville Confederated Tribes to
protect and preserve any and all rights and resources on behalf of the membership of the tribe. The
area in question is significant in that it is a usual and accustom hunting and fishing area. It is an area
where traditional foods and medicines have been gathered by trial members for years. The Colville
Confederated Tribes have not been able to assess any of the impacts the proposed mine would have
on the land, water, habitat, and environment. The Colville Confederated Tribes have not been
officially included or notified in any of the studies or actions taken thus far on the proposed mine.
The Colville Business Council is also very disappointed that the Bureau of Indian Affairs has not
taken any steps to ensure the protection of the land held in trust in the area. They are. are by law,
entrusted with this responsibility. We, the Colville Business Council, therefore request that the
Colville Confederated Tribes be consulted and given the opportunity to conduct our own studies, if
necessary to assess the impact of the proposed development on our resources, and further for the
protection of the health and welfare of our people. We've only got this EIS, maybe two weeks ago,
and I have reports here from the people in our offices that have done some work already which I will
leave here at the desk. I want to say before I leave that you people are, are a good group tonight,
you've listened to both sides, and you've been very, very good people. So, again, I'm honored to be
here, and I represent our people below you. Thank you.
Thank you. (Applause).
-------
LJKMsri
CROWN JLWI-JL DRAFT i-:i:; CUMMKNT.'J
C. PASGMORI-; M-l^-'J'j
WATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY:
p 2-105: Text does not describe in detail the water monitoring
program. It implies that it is not developed yet. When would the
monitoring system be developed, and what would be the frequency and
time period of monitoring? Who would monitor and how would quality
assurance/quality control be provided? Will there be an
independent advisory oversight committee? Have bioassays been
considered for monitoring?
p 2-109 and 111: Table 2.14 doesn't express fish habitat or
numbers loss impacts as a result of streamflow reductions. Habitat
loss is not expressed in losses of fish or fishing opportunities.
(See later comment under Indian Reserved Rights) .
General comment regarding water management: There is no water
balance analysis presented in the DEIS to assess the impact of the
alternatives on various watersheds. There is no comprehensive
presentation of water management at the mine site on a mass balance
basis taking into account probable maximum storm events. No
hydrogeology on Meyers creek, the main source of water, is
presented. No analysis of impacts of transporting water from
Meyers Creek watershed to Toroda Creek watershed is presented.
What is the impact on water rights, and what's the safe annual
yield of this aquifer? Will indian lands in the Meyers drainage be
affected?
Watershed analysis and sediment transport modeling for the sub
watersheds affected is not presented. Soil erosion rates are
mentioned en 4-19 (table on 4-20) but are not translated into
sediment generation and the impacts of that increased sediment.
p 4-27 Doesn't speak to location of monitoring wells in relation to
groundwater velocities. Just installing them "downgradient" won't
insure timely detection of contamination and head changes. They
must be located to detect contamination as soon as possible, not
after it has occurred for a number of years. Who has- final
approval authority on the water monitoring plan?
In more than one section reference is made to low permeablility
glacial deposits. Due to complex deposition regimes these deposits
are neither anisotrophic or homogeneous and may contain units of
high permeability. Without extensive geotechnical evaluation they
cannot be relied upon as leachate barriers.
As regards ore stockpiling, the best method is to prevent the
leachate in the first place, rather than speculate about its
impacts. Ore stockpiles should be covered with tarps and underlain
by an er.aineered material of limited porosity. This is common
facilities.
-------
UK Mr 8
TAILING:; FACI HTY :
P2-46 mentions allowing the wator to evapor.\ti_- at cassation of
operations. Evaporation will need to be induced. Drying of the
saturated tailings themselves will probably need to be induced as
well.
P4-30 Describes precipitation entering the reclaimed tailings mass.
There should be a capillary break installed to minimize this
possibility.
No mention is made of tailings dam(s) design. No crossectional
diagrams are presented of proposed tailings facility construction.
No plans are presented for tailings facility closure. The DEIS
Volume I and II text descriptions of tailings management are
sketchy at best. Given the history of tailings facility failures
at a local mine (Hecla, Republic) this is a gross oversight. Based
on the sketchy information provided there is no basis for
evaluating the alternatives presented. At a minimum the facility
should be double lined with a fully engineered dam(s), i.e., no
tailings material used as dam material.
Text makes reference to design of tailings dams to meet state
criteria. Will there be opportunities for independent evaluation
and public comment on the designs as the plans are developed?
Regarding Decomposition/Weathering of Rock:
Was fracturing and exfoliation of waste rock and pit walls due to
decompression taken into account? Are there examples of similar
lithologies removed from similar depths in old mines that could be
used as examples of what to expect decades into the future?
P4-35: What will be done to mitigate the exceedence of primary and
secondary groundwater quality criteria within the pit lake. Will
the water be treated? No mention is made of this.
P4-52: What will be done to mitigate the permanent exceedence of
aquatic life criteria for Cd and Ag within the pit lake? Will the
water be circulated through filters?
WATER RIGHTS AND INDIAN RESERVED RIGHTS:
General Comment Regarding Proposed Water Supply and Water Rights:
No hydrologic/hydrogeologic evaluation is included for the Meyers
Creek Basin, the primary source of mine water. As a result it is
not possible to evaluate the potential effects of the proposed mine
alternatives on water rights appurtenant to Indian owned land.
Evaluation of impacts on ground wacer levels in the basin are
needed. The IFIM evaluation of Meyers Creek is a good method, but
it needs to consider impacts in the U.S. portion. The study
objectives concentrate on the Canadian portion and it is not
clearly stated what the dewatering impacts will be.
-------
P-l-SG: A water right L:^ not, strictly speaking, a "private
property right." It is a usufructory right hold in a common public
resource subject to a variety of limitations such as amount, time,
and place of diversion and use. Non-consumptive uses are subject
to additional limitations. Water rights are issued subject to
existing (prior or senior) rights. Another distinction from a
private property right is that a water right can be lost by non-
use.
P4-57: Water right applications are not located on a map or by
other means. Water right requests are not related to project
alternatives which vary considerably in diversion duty volumes and
periods of use. All of the water rights applications are not
included in the list. This provides an inadequate basis upon
which to evalua te the impact of the alternatives.
Indian owned land is located (the SW1/4 Sec.4, T39N, R30E W.M.) in
the Myers Creek watershed. Additionally, Indian fishing rights
exist in the area. The BLM and Forest Service have a fiduciary
(trustee) reponsibility to protect these rights. No discussion of
this issue is presented in the text. If these rights are
determined to be impacted mitigation must be insured. In order to
protect these rights they need to be quantified, particularly as
regards fish and fish habitat loss. The IFIM analysis needs to be
done for all affected streams to quantify impacts.
Other Indian land is located throughout the area. The secondary
impacts related to population growth need to be evaluated. All new
housing in the area near the mine site will of necessity require
domestic wells. These wells will impact the Kettle and Okanogan
rivers.
According to the May 95 watershed assessments of the Kettle and
Okanogan drainages performed by the Department of Ecology both
Rivers have not been adequately meeting s^^'ito'-" instream flow
levels for some time. The Kettle River j.,isuream flows a^e
typically are not met 50 percent of the time during the late summer
and fall. Okanogan statutory instream flows are not met on average
of 60 to 100 days per year depending on where you are -in the
system. This is damaging the Tribes7 fishery. Any additional
water rights granted for the Crown Jewel Project must be
conditioned to minimum flows, i.e., shut down in favor of senior
appropriators when flows are not met. The Forest Service and BLM
as trustees have a responsibility to see that this is adhered to.
Regarding alteration of surface water flows: The State of
Washington RCW 90 has prohibitions against wasting water. Drilling
a hole and leaving an unplugged artesian well is usually considered
a prohibited act. Are flows from abandoned mine workings also
considered prohibited acts under state law, and, if so, how will
this issue be dealt with?
-------
REVIEW OF DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT VI.
FOR CROWN JEWEL MINE, OKANOGAN COUNTY, WA 8-LG-95
The following comments are in response to review of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Crown Jewel Mine,
Okanogan County, WA. Specific attention was given to the sections
on surface and ground water, water supply resources, wetlands,
and aquatic resources.
A. Water Quantity
la. The DEIS estimates that stream diversions, pit dewatering,
reduced infiltration due to loss of soil and vegetation in
activity area, and interception of overland flow will reduce
surface flows by stated percentages. Water depletion for
each stream should be quantified. Also, values or uses for
which a stream resource is to be managed should be
identified and established, and the necessary flow regimes
(instream flows) should be quantified and protected.
b. The DEIS includes mean annual flow and mean annual peak flow
data for all streams in the project area using regionalized
regression equations. Hydrologic quantification should
include analyses of low flows, high flows, "normal" monthly
flows, and monthly or daily flow durations. It is often
practical to quantify normal flows in terms of average
median or mean daily flow by month; mean, minimum and
maximum monthly flows commonly are determined.
c. Minimum instream flows for fish were es-tablished by the IFIM
process for Myers Creek (which will have diversion for mine
reservoir). Minimum instream flows for fish and water
quality concerns should be determined for all potentially
impacted streams.
The impact of reduced instream baseflows of local creeks due
to pit dewatering is understated in the DEIS. Decreasing
streamflows such that fish are impacted is illegal.
Also, quantified instream flows are necessary for water
rights litigation and any additional appropriations.
2. A hydrologic.jtudy should include a water budget analys-is.
This procedure was not done for the area, and the data"^"
necessary to support a water budget, including precipitation
and evapotranspiration, was not collected.
3. Also, the following concerns were not adequately addressed:
a. the effects of blasting a 400 foot deep pit into an aquifer
that supplies five creeks in the area. Data is insufficient
to evaluate impacts, including pit dewatering, to ground and
surface water flow regimes.
b. the effects of 25 to 30 % reductions in Myers Creek flow on
aquifers and wetlands.
c. anticipated impacts to drainages ease of Suckhorn iMountain
lneeds expansion) .
d. assessment of the impact -of additional people in area (due
-------
_ __ . _..__ _
I i.o :;L-Tto thai. .i-.-pJ o:: I:OXLC :jpi 1 L.-; "<;<-;ul'i '-au-3'-j ac'.t;.•'-• shorL-
tiorm water degradation" is in LS lead Lug; .KJI.J and heavy metals
Leaching and contamination of the groundwater system and
creeks it feeds could persist for many years; an accumulation
of low level contaminants over time could adversely impact
aquatic resources and water usage.
2. the validity of surface water quality data is in question as
no QA/QC data is presented in the DEIS.
3. other water quality concerns require further investigation:
a. the effect of storm water runoff from waste rock piles on
surface water quality including sediment loading is not
completely addressed; sedimentation from site development
activities would be common to all action alternatives and
needs to be quantified (sediment yield budget).
b. commonly occurring chemical compounds (e.g. nitrates and
phosphates) that affect aquatic health and water use need to
be identified and quantified. Nutrient loading and sediment
loading are concurrent events (some parameters are delivered
to water courses by attachment to sediment particles).
c. some ambient water quality conditions were characterized,
but the impact and long-term effects of low or reduced
streamflows (baseflows) on temperature, dissolved oxygen,
bacteria, and other parameters needs to be identified and
assessed.
4. other landscape positions besides headwaters of streams
should be evaluated for potential tailing sites; the
engineering design for ponds / tailing impoundments is not
clear; the use of Nicholson Creek as a mixing zone for
dilution of heavy metals and Marias Creek as a tailings
underdrain to collect leaks and recycle contaminated water
to the mill has negative environmental connotations.
5. the section on reclamation monitoring needs more detail;
monitoring measures for ground water and surface water are
addressed but need further development- water resource site
monitoring should continue for the long-term in order to
evaluate reclamation success following a mining operation.
C. Wetlands _ "H..
1. impact assessment of wetlands is vague, and a "low" rating of
effectiveness for wetlands function mitigation is a concern.
2. replacing quality wetlands with wetlands degraded by man's
activities is an unacceptable practice.
D. Other
Land status and water related maps in the DEIS only provide
•information south of the international boundary. Hence some
watersheds are not completely shown. It is assumed, fox-
instance, that Myers Creek flows into the Kettle River. The
entire oicture needs to be clearly presented in order to
facilitate the understanding and interpretation of certain
issues, such as potential impacts of water diversions and other
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PROGRAM
Colville Confederated Tribes
Memorandum
DATE: 14 August 1995
TO: Gary Passmore
Director, Environmental Trust Department
FROM: Chris Young
Environmental Health Program Manager
RE: Crown Jewel Mine Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS)
This proposed project of the applicant will have significant and
irreversible environmental health impacts, except for option A
(no project). It is extremely unfortunate that there is an
extremely abbreviated period of time in which to ascertain the
nature and extent of these potential environmental health
impacts. It is preferable that time be made available to conduct
computer searches of the literature, interviews with local health
officials, review patient charts, examine roadway crash and
injury data, obtain local health jurisdiction codes and
regulations, and make sanitary surveys of the proposed site. In
fact, the proposed site (site) probably has never received a
sanitary survey by a qualified environmental health professional.
This omission could result in an incomplete evaluation.
Inadequately addressed areas within the draft EIS include:
Ambient.jioise evaluations (1.10.6);
Sewage disposal (2.2.23);
Solid waste management (2.2.24);
Motor vehicle injuries and fatalities (no assigned
section number);
Hazardous material management (no assigned section
number).
Specifi-c areas for additional investigations follow:
AMBIENT NOISE EVALUATION
The draft EIS noise evaluations remain problematic. Many
references to "WADOE" "allowable lir.ius" are mentioned without
stacing what these limits are, and with no procedure described as
-------
to how an appropriate limit was selected. WADOE "limits Cor
residential areas" may be appropriate rather than the lower
limits such as for rural or wilderness areas, but in any event a
method should be shown as to how the limit was selected.
The levels modeled have used the measurement of noise in decibels
(Db) on the A scale. The A scale is a scale weighted toward
speech frequencies, .approximately 2000 Hz and may not be
appropriate for pure tone noise and impact noise. Pure tones
will be generated by fans, blowers, and other equipment, and
there will be a large component of impact noise at any
construction or mining site. In fact, a sound at 100 Hz such as
that produced by a rock being dumped into a truck bed will be 30
Db louder if it is measured on the relatively linear C scale
rather than the A scale. Although this 100 Hz tone may not cause
hearing damage in a test subject, using the A scale will make the
noise "quieter" than it actually is for the purpose of comparing
it with ambient noise levels. I feel the Draft EIS overall
evaluation that the ambient noise levels will be relatively
insignificant is incorrect.
The Draft EIS statement in 4.13.5 that using half of the quarry
equipment proposed under other alternatives would produce 3Db(A)
lower sound pressure levels is only correct if the sound levels
produced are very low, approximately 60Db(A) or less. Of course,
3Db(A) is a dimensionless unit which describes a doubling (or
halving) of a measured sound pressure level. In fact, if four
pieces of equipment operating together all produce 100Db(A),
eliminating two of these machines will still result in a sound
pressure level of 100Db(A).
In 4.13.1 proponent states "If noise levels are above regulatory
limits within the confines of specific work areas, protective
hearing apparel would be worn by employees in these areas. The
MSHA (Mine Safety and Health Administration) regulations related
to hearing conservation are identical to OSHA (Occupational
Safety and Health Administration) regulations in that requiring
exposed employees to wear personal protective equipment is-a
"last resort" of "Rearing protection after engineering and
administrative controls fail to reduce a noise overexposure.
Applying these engineering and administrative controls will
result in additional equipment being on-site, a greater
maintenance load and larger industrial hygiene staff, and
possibly will have other effects. In effect, a hearing
conservation program will have to be in place with its attendant
manpower requirements. It sounds as if the proponent has not
planned for this impact.
SEWAGE DISPOSAL
Preliminary engineering evaluations should be made, and
calculations shewn, ror vr.a proposed on-site sewage disposal
svsto:-:-. ~:-.e ;:ij I i : 3 j : 1 i v-. .." r.hcp complex, and likoiy other si-tos
-------
(anywhere humans are) will generate wastewater and the proponent
proposes using "leach fields" for this waste. It should be shown
exactly where the systems are proposed to be constructed. It may
not be possible to comply with county regulations regarding
sewage disposal at one or more of the proposed areas.
SOLID AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAL MANAGEMENT
Section 2.2.24 is incomplete. The amount of solid waste to be
generated by the proposed project, from all alternatives, all
personnel and their families, support staff, contractors,
visitors, and all other potential contributors should be
calculated and stated, with justifications for the calculations.
The siting of solid waste disposal facilities off site is
extremely problematic. The existing solid waste disposal site
proponent proposes to use was engineered for a life span suitable
to the local environment without the contribution of proponent's
project. This project is large enough, and enough personnel will
be brought into the area such that the life of the landfill site
will be drastically reduced. Proponent apparently feels that
local government and citizens should bear the cost of siting and
planning the solid waste facility to be used next, once the
existing site is no longer able to accept additional waste.
These accelerated costs of planning and siting the next landfill
should be described, with calculations shown. The proportion of
these costs due to proponent's project should be calculated and
described in detail.
Hazardous wastes, as defined by WA Department of Ecology
regulations, will be generated from this project. In addition to
process chemicals such as NaCN (sodium cyanide), maintenance
operations such as vehicle repair, plant maintenance and
operations, pesticides use and management, construction, and
possibly other operations can generate hazardous waste.
No descriptions and calculations are provided describing the
proponent's hazardous waste management plan. In fact, no plan
has been presented. The amount of hazardous waste expected to be
generated should be described in detail and a plan presented for
its management, including waste stream management, methods for
reducing the quantity generated, on-site storage, transport
methods to be used, and disposal site(s) proposed. As in the
solid .waste plan (above) the expected reduction in the life of
the hazardous waste disposal sites should be described, with
calculations shown. Again, hazardous waste disposal facilities
are designed with an engineered materials acceptance rate, and
the affect of proponent's increase in this rate should be
described. Even more so than with solid waste sites, hazardous
waste sites are extremely problematic in siting, and proponent's
impact on the life of these sites should be calculated, with
-------
DRAR
!i!T
statement:;-; an to how Local governments and communities will bo
compensated for the acceleration in siting permit costs.
Transportation-related hazardous material releases occur at a
rate described in actuarial tables. The projected materials
throughputs should be calculated for each of the hazardous
materials planned to be transported, how often, where, and the
quantities historically released during transport. Engineering
evaluations should then be made as to how these materials will be
contained and cleaned up, and the medical needs of any involved
patients. Local emergency medical facilities including ambulance
services, dispatch agencies, and trauma treatment centers should
be surveyed to determine their capability to concurrently treat,
say, 12 people with acute 95% body surface area sodium hydroxide
burns. The local ambulance services in the area are staffed by
volunteers, likely without adequate training and equipment for
responding to a new class of industrial and transportation
disasters. Proponent's plan to mitigate these impacts should be
described in detail.
MOTOR VEHICLE INJURIES AND FATALITIES
The draft EIS has preliminary data on the amount of vehicular
traffic generated by this project. The traffic calculations,
however, appear to be only for supply trucks for consumable
chemicals, steel balls, and other supplies. Many other sources
of vehicular traffic are reasonably foreseeable, such as the
proposed employee busses, contractors, regulatory officials, the
media, emergency vehicles, law enforcement and security vehicles,
families and visitors, tourists, sales staff making "cold calls",
pilot vehicles, nonscheduled deliveries such as UPS (United
Parcel Service), caterers, and likely other sources of traffic.
Vehicular fatality and injury rates can be expressed in a rate
per 100,000 miles traveled. For each one of the types of traffic
generated on the types of roads to be driven, in the weather
conditions histgrically expected, and during the time frames and
traffic density "situations reasonably foreseeable, a fatality and
injury rate should be determined. It should be determined what
the normal percentage mix of who the likely victims/patients will
be: local citizens, employees, tourists, etc. It is unfortunate
but true that humans have not yet been able to avoid all traffic
crashes, especially on the roads of the type near the area of the
project. The EIS should state the expected fatality and injury
rates and incidences and how they v/ill be mitigated
The wear and tear on existing roadways will be enormous. the EIS
does not state how these roadways will be kept at their current
level of repair. If local government agencies are to conduct
roadway repairs financed through a higher tax base no statement
is prevised as to hoi-/ the roadways will bo kept up v.-hile the
local ccvern~ents "rar.p up" their maintenance fleet and sta:"-.
7'i is ir. ^rea-^i in ir.f ra;~~r-.""urc ma ir.ton••',:•. ~e ec.ui'or:.c-::~ ;\::?.
-------
UK Ah 8
personnel will lag behind the roadway degradation by several
years. As roadways deteriorate there are additional vehicular
fatalities and injuries. These increases should be described,
calculations given, with methods for mitigation (if one can
mitigate a crippling injury or fatality).
-------
14 AUG 95
NOTE TO DEB LOUIE
FROM GARY PASSMORE
RE CROWN JEWEL MINE
Deb:
I spoke with Steve Suagee last week about the public hearings. He
and I agree that it doesn't make much sense for the tribal
government to submit anything in writing at these hearings in
advance of the final comment deadline. Our comments on the DEIS
should be specific and consolidated. As far as advancing a
personal or political statement at the meetings, that is a seperate
matter.
In the absence of our complete review of the DEIS, I have prepared
the following general statement:
The Environmental Trust Department of the Colville Confederated
Tribes is reviewing the Crown Jewel Mine DEIS. All tribal
technical comments will be consolidated by Environmental
Coordinator Maurice Socula. Areas of deficiency thus far noted by
Environmental Trust staff include insufficient information to
evaluate the options in the DEIS regarding water management at the
mine site, precipitation/water supply, water rights in general and
Indian reserved water rights in particular, water monitoring,
hydrogeology, surface water, tailings disposal, mitigation for
wetlands and stream habitat loss, mitigation for water quality
standards violations, sewage disposal, solid and hazardous waste,
noise, and motor vehicle injuries and fatalities. Environmental
Trust staff have not yet completed their review of the documents.
A field trip to the mine site for CCT personnel is to be arranged.
cc: Steve Suagee
Maurice Socula
-------
The Colville Confederated Tribes retain hunting and fishing
rights, certain water rights, and land in trust in the area of
the proposed Crown Jewel mine at Buckhorn Mountain. The Colville
Confederated Tribes have not had the opportunity to participate
nor comment on the proposed mine.
It is the duty of the Colville Business Council of the Colville
Confederated Tribes to protect and preserve any and all rights
and resources on behalf of the membership of the Tribe.
The area in question is significant in that it is a usual and
accustomed hunting and fishing area. It is an area where
traditional foods and medicines have been gathered by tribal
members for years. The Colville Confederated Tribes have not
been able to assess any of the impacts the proposed mine would
have on the land, water, habitat, and environment.
The Colville Confederated Tribes have not been officially
included or notified of any of the studies or actions taken thus
far on the proposed mine.
The Colville Business Council is disappointed that the Bureau of
Indian Affairs has not taken any steps to insure the protection
of the land held in trust in the area. They are, by law,
entrusted with this responsibility.
We, the Colville Business Council, therefore request that the
Colville Confederated Tribes be consulted and given the
opportunity to conduct our own studies, if necessary, to assess
the impact of the proposed development on our resources, and
further, for the protection of the health and welfare of our
people.
-------
COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES
Ncspelera, Washington
.lEMORANDUM: DATE:_
TO:Colville Business Council
FROM:
SUBJECT:
- /9k//"
Committee Recommendations:
77k.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS
^/)^/s C^t
VOTE CAST COMMITTEE MEMBERS
(YES) (NO)
VOTE CAST
(YES)(NO)
Seconded by : i^
Business Council Actions:
FOR / AGAINST
o
ABSTAINED ") ^
FOR:
AGAINST:
2>/e -
To
S IGNED :
Committee Chairman
SIGNED :
Date Enacted:
Shi's/ "J
-------
CORPORATION OF THE VILLAGE OF MIDWAY
(INCORPORATED 1967) - "CENTENNIAL VIL-4GE"
30< 150
MIDWAY, B.C.
file: batmtn0o.95 VOH 1,'IG
23 Aug-JSt 1995 TELEPHONE 449-2222
FAX 449-2253
Crown Jewel DEIS Comments
USDA, Forest Service
Tcrasket Ranger District
1 '//est V/l nesap
Tona3ket. VIA 93355
Re: Battle Mountain Gold
T:--5 Counoi: of the Village cf f.'-dv/ay would !:\e to cci"r,:e?t :^ t.".s following
list of concerns and suggestions regarding the above, generatec as a result of
the recent public meeting in F.li-jway.
1. Bonding should be set to ensure the reservoir is not ailowed to remain
at the site. Should the company be forced to a'car.der the oroject the
dam might be 'eft in place v/'th no responsibility for maintenance. All
bond;ig intended tc protect Canadian jurisdictions rn-st be Canadian
bond i"g.
2. Fu'l legal and finarcia! protection must be acccrde- to Canadian
citizens and property owners. People north cf the border nee- the
security of access to any aven-jes of redress J::~ damages thry :say
suffer. !p no case should Canadia-s have !esse~ ritj-i; or opportunities
than U.S. citizens *cr rec'-fss, T'r.; s i-; ^des \/atr: '". g.-.ts issues.
2. Ss-:t.":ty :•" isolated : nf ra;:' --;t^re (reser.: •-. p^iping stations.
••/a!-/r_. etc.) -3 3. . ncern.
4. Cone.; • •• about the er /' ronmenta ! impact of removing 30%
0" t^e spring "reshet f lov/ from Myers Creek upor. sub-Irrigat ;on.
riparian zones, and wetlands.
5. Water ccu'd be diverted during the winter months when v/ate/ licences are
not being used. However, this option must be balar.:ed with the need to
maintain minimum water levels during perods cf freezirg which may
adversely affect fish stocks.
Yours truly.
r!JK:pb
-------
TMI#: 4566
Good evening. Can everybody hear me alright? My name is John Slcnson, I'm mayor in a community
just to the north here, in another country - Canada. I'd like to say thank you to allow me the
opportunity to come down to your great country and maybe share a few views that we have north of
the border. In our community we have a major mine, right on the river, and that river comes right
down into your country. It's a Similkamccr. We also have a major logging employer, Warchouscr,
Canada, who logs in our area. And we have found that by proper environmental standards, they're
done properly, we can be part-and-parccl to industry. We can make industry welcome. At one time
that was not always possible. In the seventies we had elected a government that chased everybody out
because they one particular view. We found that if you listen to basically one side and not the other,
you lose everything. So, what I'm saying is that pure water and pure gold are both possible. The
thing that we have to really keep in mind between our two countries is that we all work together, and
we don't just take one option or the other. If we lose industry, and if we lose the ability to be
competitive in the open world markets, we won't have a country anymore. We will become working
for other people. And the one thing I would really like to stress is the total cooperation between the
two countries in regards to water facilities. These water facilities have to remain pure. And, we do
have that technology to do that, but let's not stop industry. Industry feeds our families, it keeps
everything happening, and gives us the life we've got possible. Once again, I would like to say thank
you very much to this great country for allowing me to come down and speak to you. Thanks again.
(Applause).
------- |